43 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

silver-crescent wrote...

Oh that's right. You can capture or execute him, but that basically just comes down to doing what the girl's father wants, or what the city guard/the magistrate wants.

The magistrate is corrupt (why you can't expose this boggles me). 

And I'd say it's pretty equal to Anders' execution seeing as you can choose to side with Orsino who has no relevance on Anders' execution. 

The only one who would be in charge of that would be the court. So it's a similar case. 

You aren't given offical sanction to kill him so you if you insist that the M.S isn't an execution neither is Anders. 

That said I see why you feel that way but it really isn't the case. THe Magistrate's son life is in your hands as well, the slaver you can release life is in your hands, Javaris' life was in Hawke's hands and so on. 

The only difference I see is Anders committed a far more massive crime and sits on a box. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 avril 2011 - 05:50 .

[silver-crescent]

But Anders is the only one who pretty much says, "my fate is in your hands" and accepts whatever you choose, be it that he should die, leave or stay. Javaris and the slaver don't want to die. The MS wants you to kill him. The Arishok doesn't give you much choice either way.

So yeah the MS definitely is the most similar case, but even then you have a party that says kill him, another party that says don't kill him, and the "victim" himself also has a very clear opinion on the issue.

[silver-crescent]

edit: nvm

Modifié par silver-crescent, 22 avril 2011 - 06:01 .

[Ryzaki]

silver-crescent wrote...

But Anders is the only one who pretty much says, "my fate is in your hands" and accepts whatever you choose, be it that he should die, leave or stay. Javaris and the slaver don't want to die. The MS wants you to kill him. The Arishok doesn't give you much choice either way.

So yeah the MS definitely is the most similar case, but even then you have a party that says kill him, another party that says don't kill him, and the "victim" himself also has a very clear opinion on the issue.

He also says he deserves to die in some cases does he not? (Anders I mean). Heck he even begs you to kill him in the rivalry ending. 

I mean I understnad why you feel its different. (Hawke knows Anders for years and may be in a romance with him) But it really isn't. 

It's a execution just the same. Hawke just knows the victim a lot better. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 avril 2011 - 06:07 .

[silver-crescent]

Well if he does say he wants/deserves to die, then it's more like the MS case, but still for the reasons I mentioned before I don't think the situations are similar. Yes you can decide if you want to kill someone or not, but the circumstances are quite different.

[Nimrodell]

@ Addai67: No, I read many forums here and threads, so no need for making assumptions that have no real base. Ofc, there is a lot more threads on how BW epically failed, but when it comes to characters, Anders is winning by far.

@Ryzaki: Your examples are not good ones, 'cause all of 'em can be killed by Hawke's hand and in the same time they don't have to finish dead - depending on your own Hawke personality and choices... so is your Hawke self-righteous arse or just person that wants to get by, tis all up to you. Arishok example is not the good one especially if Hawke is a worthy rival and good friend with Isabela - Hawke doesn't call on the fight, Hawke answers the call to defend a friend... ofc, Hawke again can be anti-qunari and yet again, even in that case he/she's not judging - tis legitimate answer on defending the city or own life. No one has put Arishok's life in Hawkes hands and told Hawke - now, decide, what will you do - kill him or spare him. Simply, those cases should not be put in the same basket.

[Ryzaki]

NVM

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 avril 2011 - 07:09 .

[Caja]

Ryzaki wrote...

You're joking right? Hello Magistrate's son, hello Javaris, hello Arishok (you certainly don't just arrest him), and I'm pretty sure I can find far more examples if I could be bothered. 

Hawke kills plenty of people in game who don't necessarily have to atack him/her. (Javaris had already surrendered and killing him was petty considering he wasn't trying to attack Hawke in the first place, Magistrates son is an execution and you were to take him in), I'm sure you can use the murder knife on that slaver (when he's begging to be released and hasn't attacked you at all). 

So yeah. Hawke kills plenty of people in execution style. That's why the murder knife is there in the first place. 

But it totally depends on you, the player . Hawke doesn't necessarily kill all those people. I hope I don't mix things up now, because I'm currently playing Mass Effect, so Dragon Age kind of slumbers on my hard drive. But if I remember it correctly, I didn't kill anybody except the Arishok, whom I defeated in an honarable duel. So, I don't think it's the same because most of these encounters were quests where other people told Hawke what to do, especially with the Magistrate's son. Hawke is a mercenary after all, at least in my opinion. And as I said, my Hawke didn't execute anybody. (I'm not counting the random blood mages and thugs here - they had it coming ).

I think it's different with Anders, because Hawke is alone in this.

The reason Anders is left for you to deal with is because A. You're the Champion and B. Orsino/Meredith have more important things to worry about

That part of the story just didn't feel right. I had definitely a "WTF moment". My Hawke was surrounded by Aveline, Captain of the guards, and Meredith and really no one thought it was a good idea to do something, while the villain, who just blew up the chantry, was standing right in front of them? I get it that Meredith was possessed, but still, she seemed to have a clear understanding of what was going on. It felt like a lazy excuse not to get their hands dirty and leave it all to Hawke, because it was convenient. Maybe that was the writers intention, but I didn't buy it. And being a champion should not not entitle Hawke to judge about Anders fate. Being a companion even less.

Modifié par Caja, 22 avril 2011 - 07:05 .

[Ryzaki]

Yeah but Hawke can *choose* to be an executioner far before that is my point.

Yes you can choose not to kill any of those people *including* Anders.  (You can give the Arishok the book and Isabela and have him leave peacefully as well). 

My whole point is you're given plenty of choices to play executioner or not. Anders isn't anything new. 

His situation is different as he's done damage on a far greater scale but otherwise...you choosing to let someone live/die is pretty standard up to that point. 

I don't see why he gets a special "You have no right to kill him." but no one else does. Either Hawke has no right to kill anyone in anything other than self-defense, or Hawke has a right to kill anyone who committed a dangerous crime and proven themselves a dangerous person (as Anders has). Let's not forget that Anders isn't technically "human" anymore either. He's an abomination. I have no qualms about killing an abomination. Especially not one that just killed a group of innocent people. 

That said I'm bowing out. 

I do agree Hawke doesn't have the *right* to kill him. But Hawke doesn't have a right to do 99.99999% of the crap he/she does in game. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 avril 2011 - 07:19 .

[TheAwesomologist]

I think the OP and others are giving BioWare a little too much credit... All of the characters are pretty good, in fact it's probably the game's saving grace.

Personally Anders annoyed me from Act 1 all the way through Act 2. As a Mage I was fortunate enough to never have to use him except on his mandatory quests. My Rogue and Warriors have had less luck through Act 2 and most of Act 3.

Praise him all you want, but for me Anders was just plain annoying. From his story, changes to his personality,and the fact that we simply cannot affect him in any way beyond a superficial costume change and some empty, meaningless statements.

Sadly DA2 is more about him than Hawke.

[Caja]

@ Ryzaki:
 Fair enough.


Well, I killed Anders, but I wish I had another option. I thought the perfect punishment would be to make him tranquil or to turn him over to the templars.

Modifié par Caja, 22 avril 2011 - 07:23 .

[Nimrodell]

TheAwesomologist wrote...

I think the OP and others are giving BioWare a little too much credit... All of the characters are pretty good, in fact it's probably the game's saving grace.

Personally Anders annoyed me from Act 1 all the way through Act 2. As a Mage I was fortunate enough to never have to use him except on his mandatory quests. My Rogue and Warriors have had less luck through Act 2 and most of Act 3.

Praise him all you want, but for me Anders was just plain annoying. From his story, changes to his personality,and the fact that we simply cannot affect him in any way beyond a superficial costume change and some empty, meaningless statements.

Sadly DA2 is more about him than Hawke.

And that's your right , but also my point, even you posted here about him even though he annoyed you - there's no praise for Anders here as a person, it's just that he provoked some kind of emotion in players - be it hate or love. So no, there's no praise for him as a person (I mean virtual person), tis just that many are not indifferent to him and have and keep defending strong convictions about his acting, deed and punishment, and that's all I was saying. Sure, there are 'funclub' topics about each of the characters, but Anders provokes people to make more of 'em and posts are filled with fire in many cases. I hope I'm clear on that.

[Nimrodell]

Ryzaki wrote...

Yeah but Hawke can *choose* to be an executioner far before that is my point.

Yes you can choose not to kill any of those people *including* Anders.  (You can give the Arishok the book and Isabela and have him leave peacefully as well). 

My whole point is you're given plenty of choices to play executioner or not. Anders isn't anything new. 

His situation is different as he's done damage on a far greater scale but otherwise...you choosing to let someone live/die is pretty standard up to that point. 

I don't see why he gets a special "You have no right to kill him." but no one else does. Either Hawke has no right to kill anyone in anything other than self-defense, or Hawke has a right to kill anyone who committed a dangerous crime and proven themselves a dangerous person (as Anders has). Let's not forget that Anders isn't technically "human" anymore either. He's an abomination. I have no qualms about killing an abomination. Especially not one that just killed a group of innocent people. 

That said I'm bowing out. 

I do agree Hawke doesn't have the *right* to kill him. But Hawke doesn't have a right to do 99.99999% of the crap he/she does in game. 

And you are right on this point but also not that right - depending on the role and relation you've chosen with him. If you are not friend with him, if you condemn his convictions and deeds from the start, have firm beliefs that are not in accordance with him, you hate him, I don't see any issue with your choosing to be his judge and executioner, 'cause that's your history of 10 years and the only thing that makes me wonder is, why didn't you (not specifically you, a player that has such point of view) spurn him, chased him away in the second act if we talk about RP (tho his utility if you're not a spirit healer is something that is worth considering, pure pragmatism). And that's how Anders is different from other 'kills' - there's bigger history behind - for better or for worse.

[Addai]

Nimrodell wrote...

And that's your right , but also my point, even you posted here about him even though he annoyed you - there's no praise for Anders here as a person, it's just that he provoked some kind of emotion in players - be it hate or love. So no, there's no praise for him as a person (I mean virtual person), tis just that many are not indifferent to him and have and keep defending strong convictions about his acting, deed and punishment, and that's all I was saying. Sure, there are 'funclub' topics about each of the characters, but Anders provokes people to make more of 'em and posts are filled with fire in many cases. I hope I'm clear on that.

This idea that if people discuss a character it makes them a "successful" character is getting a bit tired.  The only reason I posted on this thread was to challenge this notion, because in fact I find Anders' characterization in DA2 flat and that it gives me no reason to get involved with his trainwreck.

[Nimrodell]

Then challenge it, simple as that . So far I didn't find any challenging notions in your posts apart from the fact that at the end you might even ask from me to count Anders topics for you - which is not going to happen. It's not the matter of 'I like his character or not' and I was clear about it, tis just phenomena of people perception and reaction to certain acts... let me be more clear, have patience more even tho it's getting tiresome for you.

For instance, people are not discussing decisions like letting Castillon go even though in a bit longer term that very decision may be greater crime than blowing up the chantry. Just think about it, Castillon got his papers back, no proof against him, City Guard didn't see it and how many people will get snatched, forced into slavery and die either bled out like Oriana's father or just plainly die 'cause of hard work and starvation... and what abut their children, death count can rise up to be really huge... but there was no big explosion, it is a silent deed and by default many accept it as such. Many condone it 'cause of very personal reason - but Isabela means more to me than some random joes out there. There are no topics that actually discuss that problem, that choice and why? No extreme fireworks were up and we're kinda used to Isabela's philosophy of living - tis life gray, glorious and full of diversity.

Tis same issue as Leo Tolstoy pointed out 130 years ago in his novel Anna Karenina - countess Tverska (sorry if I spelled it wrong, never read English translation of it) is accepted in society, even made a guardian for little Sergei Karenin even tho she has many lovers and her husband has mistresses, but for the world they live together and they keep quiet about their marriage. Anna Karenina is condemned for the same reason, spurned from society - she has only one lover but she dared to say it out loud, to show it - nevermind that her intentions are honest, tis about love, she has dared to do something that was unimaginable in that society - she declared it publicly in times when it was considered a mortal sin.

So, that's why I say that Anders is very successful character - all of 'em have bigger lot of deaths on their souls but that didn't hit the nerve 'cause it's done 'along the way'. But blowing up the chantry is something that is open admission and a reminder to recent decades and that hits the nerve. BW with him hit the nerve and even tested us as players. If you don't trust me, trust Varric when he says those famous words to Anders after Dissent:
* Varric: Oh, cheer up, Blondie. You're making me cry just looking at you.
* Anders: Don't.
* Varric: You made a mistake. It happens.
* Anders: I almost killed a girl.
* Varric: You've killed two-hundred and fifty-four by my last count. Plus about five hundred men, a few dozen giant spiders, and at least two demons.
* Anders: It's not the same.
* Varric: Why? Because this one you feel bad about? Maybe that's the problem.

[Addai]

The point is that it's subjective. For you, apparently he's a triumph of characterization. I do think the idea of melding Justice with Anders is great, but any drama involved with that has already happened by the time you meet him. He's set up to bomb the Chantry. There can't be any character development because Anders is already gone. He's a prop.

[Aeowyn]

Addai67 wrote...

The point is that it's subjective. For you, apparently he's a triumph of characterization. I do think the idea of melding Justice with Anders is great, but any drama involved with that has already happened by the time you meet him. He's set up to bomb the Chantry. There can't be any character development because Anders is already gone. He's a prop.

Except that there can be character development. Just because he always blows up the Chantry it doesn't mean that he doesn't change. Rival Anders, although that path is extremely bugged, shows a very different character than friendship Anders.

Just saying.

[Nimrodell]

Addai67 wrote...

The point is that it's subjective. For you, apparently he's a triumph of characterization. I do think the idea of melding Justice with Anders is great, but any drama involved with that has already happened by the time you meet him. He's set up to bomb the Chantry. There can't be any character development because Anders is already gone. He's a prop.

Ah you already made your decision and it's your right to do so... and I respect that, boring I know, Mahatma Ghandi approach is not fun at all, especially on forums. I wasn't even pointng out his characterization as the reason for his success but I guess that the fact that English is not my mother tongue is responsible for our misunderstanding. It's not about characterization and I'll leave it at that.

[Zandilar]

Nimrodell wrote...

And you are right on this point but also not that right - depending on the role and relation you've chosen with him. If you are not friend with him, if you condemn his convictions and deeds from the start, have firm beliefs that are not in accordance with him, you hate him, I don't see any issue with your choosing to be his judge and executioner, 'cause that's your history of 10 years and the only thing that makes me wonder is, why didn't you (not specifically you, a player that has such point of view) spurn him, chased him away in the second act if we talk about RP (tho his utility if you're not a spirit healer is something that is worth considering, pure pragmatism). And that's how Anders is different from other 'kills' - there's bigger history behind - for better or for worse.

(bolding is mine)

One of the things that annoyed me most about Anders is that, unless Hawke is a Mage and a Healer, he's practically manditory in the later stages of the game (just as Wynne was in DA:O, though you could get by if you had Morrigan dip into the healing tree... Not the case in DA2 since Merrill can't heal).

I had to break up my all girl team and take him, which really annoyed me. <_<

And I feel I must reitterate, I neither liked nor hated him.