350 réponses à ce sujet

[Paraxial]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

May I also say...

Thank goodness for characters like Anders...

Just think... without him, we'd have nothing to talk about!

Anders is arguably one of the most well written video game characters I have ever come across. I may not like him as a character, but it is hard to not be enthralled by what kind of emotions he evokes.

[ShrinkingFish]

Ingu wrote...

True, I could complain about Merrill all day and eye-roll anyone who dislikes Isabela.  I love DA2 because it developed its characters so much more than Origins. You could see how they change and grow with you, they're more like real friends instead of tag-along party members, who had to be funny/interesting enough for you to actually care to know more...

Agreed. The writing and characterization in this game were fantastic.

[PlumPaul93]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

PlumPaul82393 wrote...


I could agree to this also, but I won't agree that I think it's justified. All Anders did was be a coward instead of attacking the big boys he attacked priests. Although you could say he wasn't a coward because he did it, I however will not.

I take issue with this. Specifically your labeling Anders as a coward. After all, it isn't like there were a bunch of robed people standing around who were completely uninvolved and unrealted while Anders was standing in front of the armed scary Templars and said "I'm so angry at you I'm going to... uhh... kill those guys!"

The Chantry represented the institution which allowed the abuse of the Templars to take place. By blowing up the Chantry Anders opposed the institution itself, not just the abusers within their ranks. He made it clear that this fight was all or nothing. That either the mages or the Chantry were going to fall. That there would be no more abuse and no more compromise. That the petty squabbles between Mages and Templars were over and that the final confrontation to decide the matter once and for all was about to begin.

It wasn't the act of a coward. It was the act of a revolutionary.

well I don't know much about DA lore but from what I've seen what can the preists do to stop the templars from abusing or mistreating mages?

[ShrinkingFish]

Bible Doctor wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

May I also say...

Thank goodness for characters like Anders...

Just think... without him, we'd have nothing to talk about!

Anders is arguably one of the most well written video game characters I have ever come across. I may not like him as a character, but it is hard to not be enthralled by what kind of emotions he evokes.

Seriously. So compelling it almost hurts. But in a good way.

[ShrinkingFish]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

well I don't know much about DA lore but from what I've seen what can the preists do to stop the templars from abusing or mistreating mages?

The Chantry own the Templars. The Templars are the military arm of the Chantry.

Or, at least, they were at the time.

Furthermore, the Chantry has all Templars addicted to lyrium. And the Chantry controls the lyrium trade. If the Templars try to leave or disobey the Chantry can deny them their fix and they'll go mad from the withdrawals.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 26 mars 2011 - 11:10 .

[Ingu]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

PlumPaul82393 wrote...


I could agree to this also, but I won't agree that I think it's justified. All Anders did was be a coward instead of attacking the big boys he attacked priests. Although you could say he wasn't a coward because he did it, I however will not.

I take issue with this. Specifically your labeling Anders as a coward. After all, it isn't like there were a bunch of robed people standing around who were completely uninvolved and unrealted while Anders was standing in front of the armed scary Templars and said "I'm so angry at you I'm going to... uhh... kill those guys!"

The Chantry represented the institution which allowed the abuse of the Templars to take place. By blowing up the Chantry Anders opposed the institution itself, not just the abusers within their ranks. He made it clear that this fight was all or nothing. That either the mages or the Chantry were going to fall. That there would be no more abuse and no more compromise. That the petty squabbles between Mages and Templars were over and that the final confrontation to decide the matter once and for all was about to begin.

It wasn't the act of a coward. It was the act of a revolutionary.

I'd like to add to this in that this way the mages aren't highlighted as the problem-makers in need of a put-down. Anders may be a mage, acting for the sake of all mages (which he believes), but this way the battle wasn't started by one brutal act of 'templars being murdered' or 'mages being persecuted', but as a sort of natural reaction or development. Meredith used the event as an excuse to murder all mages, the mages defended themselves (because they weren't even guilty)... pent up hatred erupts and war ensues. Anders may be guilty, but mages aren't.

The templars (Meredith) never HAD to evoke the 'Right of Annulment' just as the mages never HAD to turn to blood magic. The templars could just has easily have arrested Anders and killed him, and the mages could easily have supported this if the Chantry was really the 'innocent' as we like to see it as. As it is, this was a war started by mutal consent that it's time to start fighting more than anything else. They wanted a excuse to fight that was above their own 'quibbling', Anders gave it to them.

Modifié par Ingu, 26 mars 2011 - 11:13 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Ingu wrote...


I'd like to add to this in that this way the mages aren't highlighted as the problem-makers in need of a put-down. Anders may be a mage, acting for the sake of all mages (which he believes), this way the battle wasn't started by one brutal act of 'templars being murdered' or 'mages being persecuted', but as a sort of natural reaction.

The templars (Meredith) never HAD to evoke the 'Right of Annulment' just as the mages never HAD to turn to blood magic. The templars could just has easily have arrested Anders and killed him, and the mages could easily have supported this if the Chantry was really the 'innocent' as we like to see it as. As it is, this was a war started by mutal consent that it's time to start fighting more than anything. They wanted a excuse to fight that was above their own 'quibbling', Anders gave it to them.

Exactly!

Or, at least close enough.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 26 mars 2011 - 11:11 .

[Ingu]

...I edited that post for grammar issues and to add:

Meredith used the event as an excuse to murder all mages, the mages defended themselves (because they weren't even guilty)... pent up hatred erupts and war ensues. Anders may be guilty, but mages aren't.

Hope it clarifies the point I was trying to make.

[Lord Gremlin]

Ingu wrote...

Mm, though that's where many people would argue otherwise - you never 'need' to kill innocents! D=

Wrong. If you kill douchebags nobody cares, but slaughter a innocent or two - and you've just grabbed everyone's attention.
Also, I hated the revered mother and felt like Anders stole my frag (if you know what I mean), but cuddled him anyway.

[Lianaar]

Anders was a character full of fears (just like Fenris was a character full of hatred).
Even in the romance he mostly focused on the fear, he feared the templars, he feared the peace, he feared the deep roads, he feared himself, he feared the Fade, he feared change, he feared the lack of support, he feared you wouldn't understand him, or that you wouldn't agree, just like he feared you would agree with his decision. He feared to keep you or to lose you. I am not saying his fears were unfounded, but he devoted a lot of time for fear.

edit: one of his most valid fears: he fears losing himself.

Modifié par Lianaar, 26 mars 2011 - 11:28 .

[Arppis]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

He doesn't need to be justified. His actions were necessary. Horrible. But necessary.

Naw, there was no need to do that.

He just got nervous and jumped the gun.

Modifié par Arppis, 26 mars 2011 - 01:26 .

[brushyourteeth]

Anders is a tragic hero, no doubt about it.

This thread almost needs to be split in two: I mean, there's defending Anders' actions based on his relationship with Justice/Vengeance, and then there's defending his actions by his actions alone.

If we look at his actions, I would hope we could all agree that it's never okay to kill an innocent, never right to punish one person for the actions of another (i.e. "I saw a Templar beat up a mage for no reason and now all Templars must die")

This part pisses me off each time I play through the game, because Anders' hypocrisy on this point is thick and sickening.  "Not all mages are the same! Kill all Templars!"

I know, I know, someone will say "well those Chantry priests weren't innocent, they stood by and let this happen." but maybe they had no idea how terribly mages were being treated -- or maybe we ought to have slaughtered everyone in Kirkwall for turning a blind eye.

Throughout the game we watch Anders become less Anders-like (if you remember Anders in DA:A, he was an Andrastian for goodness' sake and drew inspiration from Andraste's struggle), less Justice-like and by the end I'm convinced it was all about Vengeance -- and it was ugly.


The really annoying part is that everything Anders needed to accomplish to upset the balance for mages he was already doing just by sticking with Hawke.  In fact, he was already too late to start a revolution -- it had started without him! He blew up the Chantry when the battle was about to begin anyway --- he could have stuck around to lead a more effective and logical revolution (or at least not stopped Orsino and Meredith from going to Elthina before the exposion -- he could have saved you two boss battles and a lot of effort)

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 26 mars 2011 - 01:40 .

[DarkSpiral]

Ingu wrote...

0o-Constance-o0 wrote...
I was wondering through the whole game too, Anders still has SOME control over himself so technically he's not a complete abomination, though through the game it seems to be veering towards that fact.

If you can travel to the Fade in DA:O to help Connor (Arl Eammon's son) by destroying the Desire Demon, surely you can go to the Fade and convince Justice to let go of Anders. Anders is still a living host after all so hopefully it won't kill him, and he's pretty much achieved what he wanted to do by inspiring mages to stand up against their opressors. Just how much more does Justice need before Anders is gone completely? Hopefully in the next DA or in some delicious dowloadable content we can see more.

Oooh, that is interesting. But I'm thinking that for Connor the reason it worked was because they were connected for a relatively short time. (A few months at most?) But for Anders it's been ten years at least. D= I don't know what level of... incorporation would have happened in that time...

And as for his self-control... I think towards the end it was a self-preservation tactic to actually follow Justice's demands. If he resisted he might have truly become a full-blown abomination (or whatever the spirit equivilant is)? (Not sure on the technicalities there...). He seemed more like a brain-washed soldier than a true believer... Or maybe it was just his desperation... I really don't know. It's part of what makes his character so interesting!

This is a good thread.  It made me think more about Ander's possible reasons.

Anyway, It is my undertanding that one very big difference between Anders and Justice is that the Desire Demon was in the Fade.  Justice wasn't.  It was here, in the physical world.  Granted I have no idea, and certainly no proof, that that has anything to do with it.  But it might.

Also, I frankly see a lot of evidence that Justice and Anders are NOT one and the same entity.  I don't care how stridently Anders claims that it is so.  Evidence?  Have Anders in your party when you enter the Fade to help Fenryel.  That isn't Anders speaking to you.  More evidence!  Ander's openly admits that he has blackouts.  These are when Justice takes over.  Admitedly, the latter example is less definitive.  But seriously.  Have Anders in your party when you free Fenryel from the demons preying on him.  It becomes so much harder to accept that Justice and Anders are now a completly composite being.

[brushyourteeth]

we were able to kick the demon out of Connor because Irving said it wasn't actually completely manifested in Connor and hadn't actually left the Fade -- it just had a hold on his mind IN the Fade. Not true of Justice -- he's been completely cut off from the Fade since the whole Kristoff incident.

With enough lyrium you could go into the Fade to kill him -- but he wouldn't be around when you got there.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 26 mars 2011 - 02:25 .

[Camenae]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Anders is a tragic hero, no doubt about it.

This thread almost needs to be split in two: I mean, there's defending Anders' actions based on his relationship with Justice/Vengeance, and then there's defending his actions by his actions alone.

If we look at his actions, I would hope we could all agree that it's never okay to kill an innocent, never right to punish one person for the actions of another (i.e. "I saw a Templar beat up a mage for no reason and now all Templars must die")

This part pisses me off each time I play through the game, because Anders' hypocrisy on this point is thick and sickening.  "Not all mages are the same! Kill all Templars!"

I know, I know, someone will say "well those Chantry priests weren't innocent, they stood by and let this happen." but maybe they had no idea how terribly mages were being treated -- or maybe we ought to have slaughtered everyone in Kirkwall for turning a blind eye.

Throughout the game we watch Anders become less Anders-like (if you remember Anders in DA:A, he was an Andrastian for goodness' sake and drew inspiration from Andraste's struggle), less Justice-like and by the end I'm convinced it was all about Vengeance -- and it was ugly.


The really annoying part is that everything Anders needed to accomplish to upset the balance for mages he was already doing just by sticking with Hawke.  In fact, he was already too late to start a revolution -- it had started without him! He blew up the Chantry when the battle was about to begin anyway --- he could have stuck around to lead a more effective and logical revolution (or at least not stopped Orsino and Meredith from going to Elthina before the exposion -- he could have saved you two boss battles and a lot of effort)

This.  Oh my God, this! 

Anders lost most of his humor, his earring, his cat, and his VA, but the thing he lost that I was most sad about is his "If we let even ONE innocent die, then we are no better than the darkspawn" mentality.  Now he seems to be all "the end justifies the means," (me blowing up a church with innocents inside is justified because it *may* lead to mage freedom) which is precisely the kind of mentality he says he's trying to prevent.

There was undoubtedly innocent people inside that church.  Unless people just think that everyone with sympathy to a church/organized religion is evil and needs to die...

[Lord Gremlin]

Camenae wrote...
There was undoubtedly innocent people inside that church.  Unless people just think that everyone with sympathy to a church/organized religion is evil and needs to die...

Well, when you put it this way... At first I didn't realize why I was so excited to see the Chantry blown to pieces. Now I understand.

Gosh, I'm an awful person.

[Jean]

Ingu wrote...

Meredith used the event as an excuse to murder all mages, the mages defended themselves (because they weren't even guilty)... pent up hatred erupts and war ensues. Anders may be guilty, but mages aren't.

Hope it clarifies the point I was trying to make.

If you speak to a templar in the gallows in Act III (the one that Thrask was telling you about when you first run into Grace and those other mages. The templar that wanted to kill them all.), he says that she sent for the Rite before he even blew the chantry. 

Just something to add in, I thought.

[1Nosphorus1]

Camenae wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Anders is a tragic hero, no doubt about it.

This thread almost needs to be split in two: I mean, there's defending Anders' actions based on his relationship with Justice/Vengeance, and then there's defending his actions by his actions alone.

If we look at his actions, I would hope we could all agree that it's never okay to kill an innocent, never right to punish one person for the actions of another (i.e. "I saw a Templar beat up a mage for no reason and now all Templars must die")

This part pisses me off each time I play through the game, because Anders' hypocrisy on this point is thick and sickening.  "Not all mages are the same! Kill all Templars!"

I know, I know, someone will say "well those Chantry priests weren't innocent, they stood by and let this happen." but maybe they had no idea how terribly mages were being treated -- or maybe we ought to have slaughtered everyone in Kirkwall for turning a blind eye.

Throughout the game we watch Anders become less Anders-like (if you remember Anders in DA:A, he was an Andrastian for goodness' sake and drew inspiration from Andraste's struggle), less Justice-like and by the end I'm convinced it was all about Vengeance -- and it was ugly.


The really annoying part is that everything Anders needed to accomplish to upset the balance for mages he was already doing just by sticking with Hawke.  In fact, he was already too late to start a revolution -- it had started without him! He blew up the Chantry when the battle was about to begin anyway --- he could have stuck around to lead a more effective and logical revolution (or at least not stopped Orsino and Meredith from going to Elthina before the exposion -- he could have saved you two boss battles and a lot of effort)

This.  Oh my God, this! 

Anders lost most of his humor, his earring, his cat, and his VA, but the thing he lost that I was most sad about is his "If we let even ONE innocent die, then we are no better than the darkspawn" mentality.  Now he seems to be all "the end justifies the means," (me blowing up a church with innocents inside is justified because it *may* lead to mage freedom) which is precisely the kind of mentality he says he's trying to prevent.

There was undoubtedly innocent people inside that church.  Unless people just think that everyone with sympathy to a church/organized religion is evil and needs to die...

"The mages can't pull away from the chantry entirely...this is a recipe for disaster!"

+ many more but can't be bothered to pull them from memory.

They say they're the actions of a desperate man/possessed man but if it weren't for his name I'd never of recognised him.

Modifié par 1Nosphorus1, 26 mars 2011 - 02:58 .

[sansaserif]

I have to admit, I miss the old Anders. Poor Ser-Pounce-a-lot. It seems Anders' joviality died with his cat.

[brushyourteeth]

Camenae wrote...
Anders lost most of his humor, his earring, his cat, and his VA, but the thing he lost that I was most sad about is his "If we let even ONE innocent die, then we are no better than the darkspawn" mentality.  Now he seems to be all "the end justifies the means," (me blowing up a church with innocents inside is justified because it *may* lead to mage freedom) which is precisely the kind of mentality he says he's trying to prevent.

There was undoubtedly innocent people inside that church.  Unless people just think that everyone with sympathy to a church/organized religion is evil and needs to die...

I agree completely!

Honestly, reading a lot of people's responses has been kind of disturbing for me.  It's easy for us to look at this little world of fiction and say things like "I agree with Anders' actions completely -- he did what needed to be done", but you're crazy if you think all the writers got together and wrote him with that intention.  In fact a lot of the writing that went into his character was written (in my opinion) to highlight all the crazy that goes with his absolutist point of view.  Someone else said it earlier (I wish I had checked who, but good job anyway) that by the end Anders sees everyone who doesn't agree with him and act in a way he agrees with as the enemy, and an enemy that needs to be re-educated or destroyed.  It seems to me that he was written in a way that intenionally showed how sick and twisted his thinking was and how (*gasp*) WRONG it was. 

That Anders was possessed by his passion for a just cause and a misguided sense of  how to right the wrongs done to others -- and that that obsession turned him into the monster he always hated -- that's Anders' story.  I'm convinced Ser Gaider meant it as a cautionary tale if he meant anything by it at all.

I don't admire Anders.  I pity him.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 26 mars 2011 - 02:58 .

[Ymladdych]

I only scanned all the posts for general ideas, so forgive me if I touch on things already covered, but here's my perspective...

Anders, himself, will say that he's done a horrible thing, so he doesn't even make excuses for himself; he just says that he thought it was necessary.  He also recognizes that "justice must be served" for the loved ones of victims, and he assumes that death will be their retribution against him.  Frankly, it seems that he really wants to die, too, and not just for martyrdom; it's pretty obvious (to me, at least) that he's suffering after the Chantry goes boom.

Now, whether you agree with the necessity of his act will depend on what you believe and your personal value system...things that can't be quantified as right or wrong or "proven" within the context of this game.  Stuff like:

1. the position of your sympathies in the mage vs templar debate; which side you personally identify with most
     1a. if your PC is a mage or cares about another mage character (including Anders), then he/she will probably be more inclined to empathize with the mage's POV
2. whether you see the Chantry explosion as *more* morally reprehensible than the slow but consistent genocide and abuse of mages over almost 1,000 years
     2a. your character may not care about the mages' suffering (dehumanize the victims because they have the potential to be dangerous), or he/she may think that the system is flawed but necessary to keep everyone as safe as possible
     2b. you may or may not agree that the Chantry was a "civilian" target
3. whether you think the war was necessary and/or inevitable in the first place
     3a. whether you agree that it was always a war...Anders just woke the mages up to that fact by forcing the Chantry's hand (make no mistake, he was *banking* on a Rite of Annulment against the Circle for his, an apostate's, actions)
     3b. whether you believe Elthina would have finally taken a stand or continued to sit on her ass and pray
          3bb. whether you agree with Anders that Elthina's lack of intervention made her just as much an enemy as any overtly hostile character (to quote Pink Floyd, "where the speechless unite in a silent accord")

If I thought about it long enough, I could probably come up with more sub-factors, but it's too early in the day and I need more coffee.  But on a parting note, I'd like to point out that there seems to be a rivalry ending for Anders, where you can get him to admit he was wrong in his approach to the problem, and he'll side with Hawke to cull the Circle. 

This seems to be a controversial thing, because some feel that it would go against Anders' nature (a whole other debate that I don't want to touch), but what I found interesting about that ending was a hint that Vengeance was more behind the Chantry explosion than Anders himself; he also admits that Vengeance is constantly clawing to get out and he's afraid that he'll "lose himself again." 

A big part of me is sad that his inner struggle and potential desire for redemption weren't more readily available/evident to all players during the course of the game, because I think it would have changed their reception to him DRASTICALLY.  Many would still execute him, I'm sure, but they probably wouldn't have done it with as much glee as they do it now, just because they see him as fanatical, one-sided, and irredeemable.  (I'm not saying they're right, but I can see why they classify him that way.)

Modifié par Ymladdych, 26 mars 2011 - 03:17 .

[Zan Mura]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

He doesn't need to be justified. His actions were necessary. Horrible. But necessary.

This sums it up well. And as he himself said, he knows exactly how horrible his actions were.

The DA franchise prides itself on being in the gray moral spectrum as opposed to the usual black & white. And one real life feature that's definitely gray, is the fact that much of the time what is "right" really is only a matter of perspective. It's completely possible that you may have three parties, the terrorists, the innocents, and the actual oppressors pressing down on the terrorists... each truly justified to their actions, each not deserving of the attacks of the others... but that's just how it is.

I think the best example of how this is in use even in our lives is the law. There are multiple cases that point out how the purpose of the law is to secure the society, and there are a lot of times when the rights of an individual are crushed because of this. If you want a media-sexy example, self defense and the excessive use of force is a poor but a rather clear one. From law's point of view, the stability of the society is more important, so it cannot allow excessive self defense or people would abuse that and use it as a weapon to goad their enemies so they could commit lawful abuse and murder instead. From an individual's point of view, no use of force can ever be excessive when attacked by someone else, completely undeserved, and when there's even a CHANCE that one's own life is in danger.

Both sides are right, from their point of view. And both must do what is necessary to protect what they value most. Sometimes these priorities just clash, and neither is more evil because of it.

[DarkSpiral]

Camenae wrote...

This.  Oh my God, this! 

Anders lost most of his humor, his earring, his cat, and his VA, but the thing he lost that I was most sad about is his "If we let even ONE innocent die, then we are no better than the darkspawn" mentality.  Now he seems to be all "the end justifies the means," (me blowing up a church with innocents inside is justified because it *may* lead to mage freedom) which is precisely the kind of mentality he says he's trying to prevent.

There was undoubtedly innocent people inside that church.  Unless people just think that everyone with sympathy to a church/organized religion is evil and needs to die...

I...uh...don't really recall Anders ever having that mindset in the first place.  He was the one that thought siding with Justice agianst the Baroness was a bad idea.  I'm not saying he didn't say that, of course.  I don't recall every line.  But that kind of self-sacrifice isn't how I would define his character, especially not before he bonds with Justice.  Maybe not even before the end of Act II in DA2.

[DarkSpiral]

Batteries wrote...

Ingu wrote...

Meredith used the event as an excuse to murder all mages, the mages defended themselves (because they weren't even guilty)... pent up hatred erupts and war ensues. Anders may be guilty, but mages aren't.

Hope it clarifies the point I was trying to make.

If you speak to a templar in the gallows in Act III (the one that Thrask was telling you about when you first run into Grace and those other mages. The templar that wanted to kill them all.), he says that she sent for the Rite before he even blew the chantry. 

Just something to add in, I thought.

That's very true.  Elthina was the prson that had to authroity to grant the Rite.  Once she was dead, that authority defaulted to Meredith.  The result was predictable.

[brushyourteeth]

Ymladdych wrote...
2. whether you see the Chantry explosion as *more* morally reprehensible than the slow but consistent genocide and abuse of mages over almost 1,000 years
    

I don't think anything is more morally reprehensible

my problem is that the Vengeance taken upon the Chantry wasn't the solution.  Anders never had one two choices: 1) suffer in silence 2) blow some people up.

It's like if a bunch of kids were being abused in an orphanage.  Some angry citizen bombs the orphanage's parent hospital, we wouldn't all go "well it was either that or let the kids keep being hurt!"

It wasn't a good moral solution.  It wasn't even a good strategic solution.  I'm still convinced that non-abomination Anders could have seen that clearly.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 26 mars 2011 - 03:24 .