301 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

So why did you say my character sounds like a douche ishamel? 

He's not.  

And...goddamnit. Now I actually want to play him. D: 

But I have to tweak his background a little so it makes sense with Hawke. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 06:06 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

So why did you call my character a douche ishamel?

Mostly, I was being glib. Also, I don't like his disrespect for what I view as the foundation of any functioning society.

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

So why did you call my character a douche ishamel?

Mostly, I was being glib. Also, I don't like his disrespect for what I view as the foundation of any functioning society.

His disrespect  for your"fundation" is his culture. And his society functions just fine. Have been functioning for thousands of years just fine. 

Though following the "can be justified" line of reasoning Anders isn't a douche at all. He's just reasonably harsh. <3

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 06:10 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

His disrespect is his culture. And his society functions just fine.

Okay, fine. You think he's not a douche. I think he is. But, and here's the thing, I'm not applying the term absolutely.

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

His disrespect is his culture. And his society functions just fine.

Okay, fine. You think he's not a douche. I think he is. But, and here's the thing, I'm not applying the term absolutely.

And? He's still not a douche. No matter what you say. There was no malice in his actions, it was expected of him. 

And your character is still a douche until you give me reasoning to why s/he handed over Fenris to Danarius. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 06:15 .

[MorningBird]

Ryzaki wrote...

A. Kirkwall and Tevinter aren't likely to get along by default.

And killing a Magister could make things worse, from a particular brand of HAWKE'S perspective.

Ryzaki wrote...
B. A tevinter magister that came to get his escaped slave? How is someone coming into slavery free country and being killed by the Champion of Kirkwall (in self defense) going to cause further political strife?

Because Tevinter is full of crazies?

Someone's Hawke character could easily see them as an unpredictable force, especially considering the situation in Kirkwall.

Mages > Want freedom.

Tevinter > Could promise freedom (perhaps insincerely) in exchange for their support.

I'm not saying it would happen so much as I'm saying someone's Hawke could SEE it happening and furthering Kirkwall's political (and civil) strife.

Ryzaki wrote...
C. With said Crazy Knight Commander any mage coming into Kirkwall would be out of their minds (and if they say anything about their Magister being in her cityshe'll blow a gasket. They don't want the whole Chantry on them again. They're not invicible by any means.

And a crazy Knight-Commander could also see crazy Tevinter using anger/indignation (for the death of a Magister) as motivation in corrupting the circle that she already has under high suspicion.

Once again, I'm not saying it WOULD happen so much as it's something Hawke COULD predict (wrongly) as happening.

Ryzaki wrote...
Kirkwall wasn't at it's best sure. But it certainly wasn't going to bow to the Imperium. They aren't just one lone city state if the Imperium attacked. The Chantry in all of the Free Marches and most likely everywere but Tevinter would back them up. You underestimate people's fear of mages.

I agree.  However, they wouldn't have to bow to the Imperium to fall to it.  They'd just have to be weakened enough to lose the fight... whatever that 'fight' is (I'm not exactly talking all out war here, but dirty pool that could hurt Kirkwall in the long-run.)

Ryzaki wrote...
That said I'm fine with not helping Fenris fight Danarius. But handing the guy over when he begs you for help? Sorry that's just douchey.

As a player (and speaking for all my characters) I agree, but I think the thing here is, I don't see Hawke as a magical 8 ball that can predict the outcome of every confrontation.

I mean, as a player, it's pretty easy to guess that Killing Danarius is the 'happy' outcome and that it won't have long-lasting consequences on Kirkwall.

However, Hawke is separate from that player knowledge, and I could easily see him/her making terrible decisions for what they THINK are the right reasons.

Though really, I kind of feel like this 'debate' was started in good fun, and that it's spiraled wildly out of control.

[Sabariel]

I could never hand Fenris over to Danarius because.. the puppy eyes!

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

And? He's still not a douche. No matter what you say. There was no malice in his actions, it was expected of him.

Then you're right. He's not a douche.

And your character is still a douche until you give me reasoning to why s/he handed over Fenris to Danarius.

Which I did, ages ago. Justice demanded it.

[Ryzaki]

MorningBird wrote...
And killing a Magister could make things worse, from a particular brand of HAWKE'S perspective.

How exactly? What do we even know about Danarius other than him having some influence?

And how exactly did this Hawke go through killing Hadriana before reaching this brilliant conclusion? <_<  Yeah you know Hadriana and the other Tevinter Magisters that you run around killing willy nilly? Those Magisters? The ones you kill (if you do Izzy's quest) that were going to get the Relic? 

They're from Tevinter too! 

Because Tevinter is full of crazies? 

Someone's Hawke character could easily see them as an unpredictable force, especially considering the situation in Kirkwall.

Mages > Want freedom.

Tevinter > Could promise freedom (perhaps insincerely) in exchange for their support.

I'm not saying it would happen so much as I'm saying someone's Hawke could SEE it happening and furthering Kirkwall's political (and civil) strife.

And this Hawke wouldn't have chased after Hadriana to begin with and never would've met Danarius. Everything you're arguing is voided by you killing Hardiana and several other Magisters. Which you have to do to even get to this point. 

As for the curent situation. The only thing Tevinter would is cause the Chantry to get more irritated than they already are. They were already considering an exalted March. Tevinter would just focus that ire on themselves. 

If your character has been listening you already know the mages being wiped out is inevitable. Between Meredith sending out for the Rite of Annullment, the Grand Cleric being told to leave, The murmurs of rebel mages stirring up trouble, bloodmages running around eveyrwhere, the exalted march being considered. 

It's already going to hell in a handbasket. 

The war isn't slowy bubbling at this point. It's steaming and stinking up the room and you either need to rip the top off or let it blow off. 

And a crazy Knight-Commander could also see crazy Tevinter using anger/indignation (for the death of a Magister) as motivation in corrupting the circle that she already has under high suspicion.

Once again, I'm not saying it WOULD happen so much as it's something Hawke COULD predict (wrongly) as happening.

And this Hawke would be a hypocrite (it's okay to kill one Magister but not another?) or very odd. (There was no reaction to the murder of the other magisters but they'll be a reaction to this one.) 

And before I even hear the "Oh but no one lived around the others!" Danarius knows you killed Hardriana. So there's little reason the rest of Tevinter wouldn't know. Especially seeing as everyone is so happy to backstab each other and point out the others flaws. 

I agree.  However, they wouldn't have to bow to the Imperium to fall to it.  They'd just have to be weakened enough to lose the fight... whatever that 'fight' is (I'm not exactly talking all out war here, but dirty pool that could hurt Kirkwall in the long-run.)

The Imperium is aleady fighting the Qunari over that island. You really think they're going to risk a war on two fronts over some magister who let their property get away from him? Fenris even tells you Danarius won't stop chasing him because of pride and because he looks weak to the other Magisters. 

Tevinter doesn't seem to care if their Magisters get themselves killed. If they died it was because they were too weak. That's what it looks like to me. 

As a player (and speaking for all my characters) I agree, but I think the thing here is, I don't see Hawke as a magical 8 ball that can predict the outcome of every confrontation.

I mean, as a player, it's pretty easy to guess that Killing Danarius is the 'happy' outcome and that it won't have long-lasting consequences on Kirkwall.

However, Hawke is separate from that player knowledge, and I could easily see him/her making terrible decisions for what they THINK are the right reasons.

Though really, I kind of feel like this 'debate' was started in good fun, and that it's spiraled wildly out of control.

Again all this is voided by killing Hardiana 3 years before. So your Hawke kills one Magister has absolutely no consequences but all of a sudden the next one must have dire consequences! 

sorry but: 

If your Hawke actually was worried about Tevinter he/she shouldn't have done a bitter pill. (And Fenris should've left the party to do it on his own) That's what a TRUE neutral party would've done. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 06:38 .

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Which I did, ages ago. Justice demanded it.

And what is this "justice"? 

Because I doubt Anders said anythig before you did.  

[MorningBird]

Ryzaki wrote...

How exactly? What do we even knowabout Danarius other than hi having some influence?

And how exactly did this Hawke go through killing Hadriana before reaching this brilliant conclusion? <_<

Hawke knows he's a Magister and that Magisters rule the Imperium.  That's enough knowledge to pause before giving someone the axe.  Killing him in a tavern in front of MANY witnesses could have been unwise.

That being said, in Act 2 (when you kill Hadriana) Hawke is just some shmuck in the eyes of the Imperium.  In Act 3, he/she's the Champion.  A public figure.  It's not just his neck on the line any more.  He/she has become someone who represents Kirkwall.

That being said:

Hadriana - killed with no witnesses.

Danarius - Would have been killed in a VERY public place with numerous witnesses.

Both situations can be handled differently by Hawke.

Ryzaki wrote...
And this Hawke wouldn't have chased after Hadriana to begin with and never would've met Danarius. Everything you're arguing is voided by you killing Hardiana.

*points above*

Ryzaki wrote...
And this Hawke would be a hypocrite (it's okay to kill one Magister but not another?) or very odd. (There was no reaction to the murder of the other magister but they'll be a reaction to this one.)

As stated previously, Hadriana dies with no witnesses when Hawke is just him/herself (not the Champion.)  By act 3, Hawke is a very different person, a public figure with more responsibility and less freedom who encounters Danarius in a very public tavern.

Hawke CAN give one situation more thought than the other based on this shift.

Does he/she have to?  No, but they certainly can.

Ryzaki wrote...
The Imperium is aleady fighting the QUnari over that island. You really think they're going to risk a ar on two fronts over some magister who let their property get away from him? Fenris even tells you Danarius won't stop chasing him because of pride.

I... specifically stated that I wasn't saying 'there will be all out war.'  I was saying that it could give Tevinter cause to meddle in Kirkwall affairs whereas previously they would have had no interest, and that this could be bad for Kirkwall down the line.

Ryzaki wrote...

Again all this is voided by killing Hardiana 3 years before.

*points up*

Opinions do not equal fact. xD  That's all I'm saying (and this includes my opinion.)

I have nothing wrong with you thinking my theoretical Hawke is a douche, Ryzaki. I just disagree on the premise that I can understand their theoretical reasoning.

Modifié par MorningBird, 05 avril 2011 - 06:37 .

[Ryzaki]

MorningBird wrote..

Hawke knows he's a Magister and that Magisters rule the Imperium.  That's enough knowledge to pause before giving someone the axe.  Killing him in a tavern in front of MANY witnesses could have been unwise.

In self defense? 

You're not killing the guy you're protecting yourself. You can even say "wait...we can come to an arrangement!" which is what all my good guy Hawkes try to do. Danarius and Fenris just decide to force your hand. 

Saying "Take him" and "You're on your own." when you helped him take out another Magister is douchebaggy. 
It would be more in character for people who want to avoid to issue to pick the "we can come to an arrangement." option. 

That being said, in Act 2 (when you kill Hadriana) Hawke is just some shmuck in the eyes of the Imperium.  In Act 3, he/she's the Champion.  A public figure.  It's not just his neck on the line any more.  He/she has become someone who represents Kirkwall.

That being said:

Hadriana - killed with no witnesses.

Danarius - Would have been killed in a VERY public place with numerous witnesses.

Both situations can be handled differently by Hawke.

Hawke is not just some "shmuck" in Act 2. He is one of the highly regarded people (easily equal to Danarius' status!) at this point. You are incredibly wealthy and have influence. So no Hawke's not just some "shmuck" that would've been act 1.  

Danarius is killed in self defense. With said numerous witness. 
(though I have to wonder just how many lived or would've cared. Danarius was summoning demons. That is considered illegal to do in Kirkwall is it not? He was also a bloodmage.) Those that didn't end up being collateral damage I have to wonder would've cared. (And also wonder why no one called the templars in the middle of the battle). 

In Act 3 yes Hawke is someone who represents Kirkwall but by no means is Danarius a mouthpiece for the Tevinter Imperium.  

And while this may cause an issue with Tevinter there's also a far more pressing issue. Hello Meredith. Why I just let a bloodmage walk right past me. It's okay though because he's a Tevinter Magister! 

*points above*

Not justified. Hawke is not a shmuck. He/she is highly regarded enough to be called on by the Vicount and is known by nearly everyone (important) in Kirkwall. 

Ryzaki wrote...
As stated previously, Hadriana dies with no witnesses when Hawke is just him/herself (not the Champion.)  By act 3, Hawke is a very different person, a public figure with more responsibility and less freedom who encounters Danarius in a very public tavern.

Danarius in a very public tavern in which he is lead into a trap and can choose to defend himself. 
You don't go there to meet Danarius. You go there to meet Fen' bimbo sister. Danarius is the one who comes at you surronded by soldiers. 

Hawke CAN give one situation more thought than the other based on this shift.

Does he/she have to?  No, but they certainly can.

And again I don't see this as being a major shift. You're in a tavern that you've killed people before. (I'm looking at you the Long Road, Qunari quest) and that you go into on a weekly basis. People know who you are in there. People have seen you kill in self defense in there before. 

Ryzaki wrote...
I... specifically stated that I wasn't saying 'there will be all out war.'  I was saying that it could give Tevinter cause to meddle in Kirkwall affairs whereas previously they would have had no interest, and that this could be bad for Kirkwall down the line.

And Kirkwall is already going ito hell in a handbasket. Tevinter's cause would be stupid for them seeing as the Chantry's eyes are already considering an exalted march. 

And again. How is Danarius enough cause for them to meddle? Especially when he's killed in self defense? 

*points up*

Opinions do not equal fact. xD  That's all I'm saying (and this includes my opinion.)

I have nothing wrong with you thinking my theoretical Hawke is a douche, Ryzaki. I just disagree on the premise that I can understand their theoretical reasoning.

I know they don't equal fact. But their theoretical reasoning to me is very weak. It's too "oh they might attack even though they have no real reasoning too!" 

...And it's a huh? 

I doubt Danarius even had any right to be in Kirkwall. 

Edit: That said I know when I'm not gonna agree. I'm not going to see that handing over of Fenris to be anything other than douchey (or at best spineless). So the Hawkes that do that will always be spinless or douchebags to me. With that said. I'm bowing out. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 07:09 .

[sassperella]

 I have to say the one about hoping to find more than just bones in the All that remains quest was certainly inappropriate  

However, I think the one he made about Merril and Marathari, while hypocritical was partly justified. Marathari warned Merril over and over what she was doing was wrong, she tried to save her and Merril ignored her and turned to blood magic and did a deal with a demon, just for a bit of history which she never ended up obtaining. Marathari then sacrificed herself to save Merril from the demon who was tricking her all along. 

[MorningBird]

Ryzaki wrote...
In self defense? 

You're not killing the guy you're protecting yourself. You can even say "wait...we can come to an arrangement!" which is what all my good guy Hawkes try to do. Danarius and Fenris just decide to force your hand.

And some Hawke's may think ahead and believe that any arrangement that ends in everyone walking away free and alive is impossible.

As previously stated: will Tevinter care who struck first?  Maybe, maybe not, but as Hawke does not know, there's good reason for him/her to believe that offing Danarius may backlash terribly, and that Kirkwall will suffer the price.

Ryzaki wrote...
Saying "Take him" and "You're on your own." when you helped him take out another Magister is douchebaggy.

In your opinion, which, once again, you're more than welcome to.

As I've already mentioned, the shift in Hawke's role in society could influence his/her decision in a way that I would not consider douchebaggy.

Tragic and angsty, probably, but I wouldn't consider it douchebaggy.

Ryzaki wrote...
Hawke is not just some "shmuck" in Act 2. He is one of the highly regarded people (easily equal to Danarius' status!) at this point. You are incredibly wealthy and have influence. So no Hawke's not just some "shmuck" that would've been act 1. 

Hawke isn't really any different from any other noble loitering around High Town in Act 2 (imo.)  Highly regarded?  Yes, but you can be highly regarded and still not represent the face of Kirkwall.

Ryzaki wrote...
Danarius is killed in self defense. With said numerous witness.

Once again, would the Tevinter Imperium care who struck first?

Ryzaki wrote...
Not justified. Hawke is not a shmuck. He/she is highly regarded enough to be called on by the Vicount and is known by nearly everyone in Kirkwall.

Hawke still doesn't represent the face of Kirkwall at this point in time.  The Vicount?  Yes.  Elthina?  Yes.  Hawke? No.

If he/she was already the Champion of Kirkwall in act 2, he/she would have been referred to as such during act 2.

He/she's a highly regarded noble who doesn't represent Kirkwall (imo.)  When he/she becomes the CHAMPION of Kirkwall, then they represent Kirkwall.

Ryzaki wrote...
And again I don't see this as being a major shift. You're in a tavern that you've killed people before. (I'm looking at you the Long Road, Qunari quest) and that you go into on a weekly basis. People know who you are in there. People have seen you kill in self defense in there before.

You don't have to think it's a major shift.

That doesn't mean Hawke can't believe that their place in the world has changed drastically since they first came to Kirkwall, and that they can't just act willy-nilly anymore.

As I've said, it's not a matter of who strikes first.  It's whether or not the Tevinter Imperium cares who struck first.

In the event that they don't care and just want revenge, then yes, fighting in a room full of witnesses could be considered a bad move by Hawke.

Ryzaki wrote...
And Kirkwall is already going ito hell in a handbasket. Tevinter's cause would be stupid for them seeing as the Chantry's eyes are already considering an exalted march.

Or they could just want to see Kirkwall go up in flames sooner.  I'm sure they'd get some sort of gleeful enjoyment out of it.

And regardless as to what the outside world may think, Hawke is always allowed to believe that their is hope for Kirkwall, and if that's their belief, they may with to avoid any meddling on behalf of Tevinter.

Ryzaki wrote...
I know they don't equal fact. But their theoretical reasoning to me is very weak.

And I think that's all Ish was trying to say.  That Hawke isn't a douchebag for turning Fenris in.  Motivation makes him/her a douchebag, but one could just as easily find motivation for him/her NOT to be a douchebag.

AND THAT BEING SAID, I think we should really let this topic die, since 1) I've already said that I and my Hawke's would consider it pretty douchebaggy to turn Fenris in and 2) I'm getting really tired of defending a position I wouldn't actually ever play out with any of my characters.

PEACE LOVE AND CAKES FOR EVERYONE.

Modifié par MorningBird, 05 avril 2011 - 07:17 .

[Ryzaki]

I'm sorry but the whole "The Tevinter Imperium would help the circle mages." thing is laughable to me.  The Imperium appears to be very survival of the fittest. Danarius' death would simply prove his weakness. Nothing more nothing less. 

The Imperium has enough problems without provoking the Chantry. Especially not for what they would see to be weak and inferior mages. 

That said I said I was bowing out. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 07:21 .

[MorningBird]

Ryzaki wrote...

I'm sorry but the whole "The Tevinter Imperium would help the circle mages." thing is laughable to me.  The Imperium appears to be very survival of the fittest. Danarius' death would simply prove his weakness. Nothing more nothing less. 

The Imperium has enough problems without provoking the Chantry. Especially not for what they would see to be weak and inferior mages. 

That said I said I was bowing out. 

Sorry, I missed the edit! <3

[Esoj16]

A Hawke that worries about creating a war between Tevinter and the Free marches is politically inept at best. Tevinter is not about to go to war with a chantry backed country when they're still at war with the Qunari, specially since tevinter magisters are constantly being killed in inner conflict and there are many mages lining up to replace them, one magister is no big deal and both Hawke and the warden killed their fair share of magisters.

[Addai]

MorningBird wrote...
Is Tevinter going to care who struck first?  Maybe, maybe not.

Why would the magisters care about one of their own who can't even hold on to his slaves and gets beaten by some rabble from Kirkwall?  He obviously can't hold his own in their ranks, and has probably squandered whatever wealth he had in creating and pursuing Fenris- to the point that he can't even rent his own mansion.  Good riddance.

This isn't an argument I made?  And either way, it's a grey area at best.  What Hawke does is about the equivilent of turning a blind eye to the situation.  It's like saying, "I'm not going to help you fight them, Fenris.  Hey Magister, take him if you want, I 'm not getting myself involved."

Except by that point you would have gotten yourself involved.  You would have agreed to go get Danarius in the mansion, you would have helped kill Hadriana, and suddenly Hawke develops scruples?  Curious.

Unless you were dropping some eaves, there'd be no indication that he was returning to a life of slavery.

Er, what?  You know who Danarius is and what he is there for. 

Heck, Ish's only real point was that Hawke doesn't necessarily have to be a douche to turn in Fenris depending on motivation.

I suppose slavish devotion to Tevinter custom would be a mitigating circumstance, but then I'd think you would recognize Danarius' failings and not want to help him get ahead.

I realize most game decisions have various perspectives you can take, but this one is pretty unconvincing.

Isn't this thread supposed to be about Anders?

Modifié par Addai67, 05 avril 2011 - 02:46 .

[Potato Cat]

His line in that Fenris quest where he finally kills Danarius and he finds out Varania is a mage and Anders calls his a hypocrite and jealous of her magic.

I miss nice, funny, Alistair doppelganger Anders.

I also miss Alistair before he put on weight.

[RVonE]

Anders hasn't survived any of my playthroughs. I doubt he ever will.

[MorningBird]

Addai67 wrote...
Isn't this thread supposed to be about Anders?

And if you read the above posts, you'll discover that this topic has already been abandoned in favor of returning the thread to it's original point so let's stop rehashing it now.

Modifié par MorningBird, 05 avril 2011 - 06:46 .

[errant_knight]

I don't think Anders is the same man at all. I see him as being influenced by Vengence, even when he thinks he has control. The choice of a different actor may have been intended to emphasise that, I don't know. In any case, while he always had a tendencey toward inappropriate and caustic humor (ie. dying templar gurgling joke) that was quite different than Alistair's sarcasm, for all people thought they were similar in a way I never did, he's more callous here.

Anders in Awakening worries about the mages who want to leave the circle making things worse. Anders in DA2 makes things as bad as possible on purpose. In my playthrough, I killed him because I thought he deserved no mercy for what he did, but I also think that what he says about his tranquil friend is telling--that he'd want someone to kill him in a similar circumstance, and I think this is similar. Anders is not the person he was and will never be that person again. He's an abomination, and I don't see letting him live under the control and influence of a demon as being any kindness.

Modifié par errant_knight, 05 avril 2011 - 06:52 .

[Quasar7]

Link3521 wrote...

The line that bugged me the most from Anders was when you got to the foundry where Quentin hides while looking for your mother, he says "I wonder if we'll find more than a bag of bones this time" or something like that, I mean what an insensitive a******!!! I'm over there desperately looking for my mother and hoping that she's still alive and he goes on to say a stupid and insensitive joke? Really???? I wish there was an option to kill him in a more satisfying way, such as slicing his throat or something, the stab in the back just doesn't do it for me >.>

I agree!  That was HORRIBLE!  And I didn't think it fit with his character; he's usually more sensitive.
Also, I think that the battle cries should have been different or eliminated in that quest.  Hawke yelling "There's nothing like the smell of fresh blood!" as he fights off demons to save his mother just did not feel right.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Yeah, Anders can be a dick sometimes.