110 réponses à ce sujet

[ZCaitan]

So far Sebastian leaves because I just cant kill Anders. The Grand Cleric wasnt really responsible for the Templars oppression, but I my eyes she should have done something about it and so I dont really blame him for blowing the Chantry up. Even in DAO I got an itch with those Chantry zealots.
And Fenris died by my hand twice now, for not having the courage to do what is right. Instead he does the same mistake the Tevinter slavers did with him. But I dont really count that as a betrayal either. Besides, I didnt like him the moment he threatened Bethany. I can forgive a lot, but never that.

[Knight of Dane]

Xalen wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

Anders bombing another chantry in say Denerim really a productive plan? I don't think so.

Why would Anders blow up a chantry in Denerim?

Well, it was mostly an example, but the situation in Ferelden is either that they had their king/queen-given autonomy removed by the chantry or the circle was annulled, thus opressing the mages further.
Both scenarios should be more than enough reason for Justice to go crazy boomboom again.

[Knight of Dane]

FieryDove wrote...

berelinde wrote...

Only Sebastian, if you want to call it that. I find that I do. Threatening to pack up one's toys and go home if someone doesn't agree to murder their friend and lover is not exactly loyal behavior. Besides, my Hawkes tend to have rather adversarial relationships with the Chantry.

Seb is actually worse than pack up toys, go home.

He hated the idea of the divine doing an exalted march which would kill many/most of Kirkwall's innocents along with the rebels. Then he turns around and says he's going to do the same thing just to show Anders what true justice is.

He was much better when he was focused even if revenge isn't that good as the only motivation in ruling starkhaven.

He is blind to/for the chantry and the grand cleric (yes his surrogate mother).

Imho

Seb is the only one that ever left me...I imagine we were not allowed to MK him after his threat because he has a *futrure* in the da series.

You are putting words into Sebastians parting sentence that is not there.
Sebastian never said that he would kill innocents to get revenge on Anders, he said he would go get his army back home in Starkhaven and (assuming he succseeds) he would make sure there was no Kirkwall for the mages to rule.

I cannot say if this will involve death of innocents, but it is not Sebastians motive.

[River5]

The question asked is which companion betrayed you, and it once again turns into an Anders v.s. Sebastian debate!    Awesome!



(I love this gif!  Thanks to ipgd, I have a feeling that I'm going to start using it everywhere!  Lol!)

Oh!  And the only one that betrayed me was Sebastian, of course!  

[Xalen]

Knight of Dane wrote...
Well, it was mostly an example, but the situation in Ferelden is either that they had their king/queen-given autonomy removed by the chantry or the circle was annulled, thus opressing the mages further.
Both scenarios should be more than enough reason for Justice to go crazy boomboom again.

well, if the circle was annuled, there aren't many mages to opress , but whatever, not the point.

What purpose would attack on the chantry in Ferelden serve? Anders's actions had a very clear goal. The "bombing the chantry" part was not only caused by situation in Kirkwall, but also heavily relied on it. This woudn't wouldn't work in Ferelden.

But on topic: I don't think anything counts a betrayal for me. Sebastian goes to Starkhaven - sure, dude, I understand, see you in the next game. On my first playthrough I had to kill Fenris, and that was interesting. While I had no problem to max his rivalry on subsequent PTs, I choose not to do it and prefer the scenario where Hawke kills him.

Modifié par Xalen, 04 juillet 2011 - 05:31 .

[Wereparrot]

Masako52 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

There's a difference between killing in batle/to defend yourself and murder. And I personally regard the killing of Anders as justice, so no murder there for me.

Killing is only justice if you agree with it, frankly. I don't agree that cutting down a man who has already done all he's meant to do and expects to be killed for it, who is not inherently such an awful guy, who did it with idealistic intentions, and will fight by your side "justice." Seems more like vengeance. :innocent: Oh yeah, he probably ought to be slapped up a bit for that act of terrorism, but execution? Nah.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi
 

Retributive justice seems good to me; a murderer forfits his right to live.

I don't agree with Gandhi's quote, because that would imply that the executioner is himself guilty of murder, so requiring that the executioner himself be executed and creating a cascade of murderers; and I don't believe that; since if the murderer forfits his right to live, then it cannot be a crime to execute him.

[Masako52]

Wereparrot wrote...

Masako52 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

There's a difference between killing in batle/to defend yourself and murder. And I personally regard the killing of Anders as justice, so no murder there for me.

Killing is only justice if you agree with it, frankly. I don't agree that cutting down a man who has already done all he's meant to do and expects to be killed for it, who is not inherently such an awful guy, who did it with idealistic intentions, and will fight by your side "justice." Seems more like vengeance. :innocent: Oh yeah, he probably ought to be slapped up a bit for that act of terrorism, but execution? Nah.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi
 

Retributive justice seems good to me; a murderer forfits his right to live.

I don't agree with Gandhi's quote, because that would imply that the executioner is himself guilty of murder, so requiring that the executioner himself be executed and creating a cascade of murderers; and I don't believe that; since if the murderer forfits his right to live, then it cannot be a crime to execute him.

I don't believe a murderer forfeits his right to live? "Murder" is also a term used when it suits personal opinion. In a war, bombing a building that happens to have innocent people in it is often not called murder by the army or whoever dropped the bomb... it's called casualties. If you care about the people killed, you call it murder. Either way, I'm against the death penalty personally, and very strongly so - I don't believe that killing to prove killing is wrong is right.

That being said, I think we also have to look at intentions. Anders, you could say, had good intentions - he strongly wants to free the mages from oppression, and he has good reason to be concerned about their status in life. We know they're oppressed and treated like animals, stripped of their privileges and locked away. Anders felt these things personally. He tried to escape it several times, but was beaten, possibly tortured, and locked up in solitary confinement.

His intent, therefore, is to free an oppressed people. Sure, you can argue that the mages have good reason to be oppressed, what with most of them in Kirkwall becoming blood mages, but that's beside the point in this case. We're talking about how Anders is interpreting things, and therefore he feels that mages are wrongly oppressed. Distorted by Justive/Vengeance, Anders not only wants to free mages, he wants to take revenge on those who have oppressed them for so long.

What I'm getting at, here, is that Anders believed he did the right thing. He didn't kill in cold-blood because he thought it would be funny or whatever. Furthermore, Anders is disturbed by his own actions. He knows that he did a terrible thing, even if he felt like it had to be done, and waits retribution from you - expecting to be killed. He's not a sociopath, he's aware at least partially of the severity of his actions, but he believes they were justified.

To me, that's different than, say, killing that one crazy noble's son who was torturing and murdering children, or whatever.

Anyway, Anders is not a bad guy. He's a dick at times, yeah, but his intentions are good. That's why I think killing him at the end is wrong.

[Wereparrot]

Masako52 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

Masako52 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

There's a difference between killing in batle/to defend yourself and murder. And I personally regard the killing of Anders as justice, so no murder there for me.

Killing is only justice if you agree with it, frankly. I don't agree that cutting down a man who has already done all he's meant to do and expects to be killed for it, who is not inherently such an awful guy, who did it with idealistic intentions, and will fight by your side "justice." Seems more like vengeance. :innocent: Oh yeah, he probably ought to be slapped up a bit for that act of terrorism, but execution? Nah.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi
 

Retributive justice seems good to me; a murderer forfits his right to live.

I don't agree with Gandhi's quote, because that would imply that the executioner is himself guilty of murder, so requiring that the executioner himself be executed and creating a cascade of murderers; and I don't believe that; since if the murderer forfits his right to live, then it cannot be a crime to execute him.

I don't believe a murderer forfeits his right to live? "Murder" is also a term used when it suits personal opinion. In a war, bombing a building that happens to have innocent people in it is often not called murder by the army or whoever dropped the bomb... it's called casualties. If you care about the people killed, you call it murder. Either way, I'm against the death penalty personally, and very strongly so - I don't believe that killing to prove killing is wrong is right.

That being said, I think we also have to look at intentions. Anders, you could say, had good intentions - he strongly wants to free the mages from oppression, and he has good reason to be concerned about their status in life. We know they're oppressed and treated like animals, stripped of their privileges and locked away. Anders felt these things personally. He tried to escape it several times, but was beaten, possibly tortured, and locked up in solitary confinement.

His intent, therefore, is to free an oppressed people. Sure, you can argue that the mages have good reason to be oppressed, what with most of them in Kirkwall becoming blood mages, but that's beside the point in this case. We're talking about how Anders is interpreting things, and therefore he feels that mages are wrongly oppressed. Distorted by Justive/Vengeance, Anders not only wants to free mages, he wants to take revenge on those who have oppressed them for so long.

What I'm getting at, here, is that Anders believed he did the right thing. He didn't kill in cold-blood because he thought it would be funny or whatever. Furthermore, Anders is disturbed by his own actions. He knows that he did a terrible thing, even if he felt like it had to be done, and waits retribution from you - expecting to be killed. He's not a sociopath, he's aware at least partially of the severity of his actions, but he believes they were justified.

To me, that's different than, say, killing that one crazy noble's son who was torturing and murdering children, or whatever.

Anyway, Anders is not a bad guy. He's a dick at times, yeah, but his intentions are good. That's why I think killing him at the end is wrong.

Well, what I'm referring to is cold-blooded/premiditated murder. If what Anders did wasn't in cold blood, it was certainly premeditated; whether it was in cold blood or not (which may be seen as in cold blood anyway as a result of premeditation since he hardened himself to do it) it was an act of terrorism (and very probably an unneccesary one at that, since war was pretty much inevitable anyway), and certainly it was a betrayal of Hawke, even if you would otherwise have agreed with it. In fact, since he happened to be in Kirkwall and was recieving safe harbour of the state at the time of the offence, it can also be classed as treason. My strong belief is that acts of murder, terrorism and treason are punishable by death. I could even forgive Anders' crimes and accept that he had idealistic reasons; however, this does not mean the price should not be paid. It may sound harsh and uncompromising to you, but it's just my opinion.

If there was a way of extracting Justice, then I could possibly be swayed into sparing Anders and executing Justice (if he could even be executed, that is). Although the state of a post-possessed Anders is open to debate, even if he were to survive the separation, and he himself would probably merit life imprisonment.

[Knight of Dane]

Xalen wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...
Well, it was mostly an example, but the situation in Ferelden is either that they had their king/queen-given autonomy removed by the chantry or the circle was annulled, thus opressing the mages further.
Both scenarios should be more than enough reason for Justice to go crazy boomboom again.

well, if the circle was annuled, there aren't many mages to opress , but whatever, not the point.

What purpose would attack on the chantry in Ferelden serve? Anders's actions had a very clear goal. The "bombing the chantry" part was not only caused by situation in Kirkwall, but also heavily relied on it. This woudn't wouldn't work in Ferelden.

You might be right, i can't say. Again it was mostly a example off the top of my head, "destroy one chantry, destroy another."

[bleetman]

Knight of Dane wrote...

You are putting words into Sebastians parting sentence that is not there.
Sebastian never said that he would kill innocents to get revenge on Anders, he said he would go get his army back home in Starkhaven and (assuming he succseeds) he would make sure there was no Kirkwall for the mages to rule.

I cannot say if this will involve death of innocents, but it is not Sebastians motive.

"And I will bring such an army with me upon my return that there'll be nothing left of Kirkwall for these maleficarum to rule"

Seems pretty clear to me. He can't exactly raze Kirkwall to the ground around the population without hurting anyone, short of carefully dismantling each building, brick by brick.

Armies are broadswords, not scalpels. You can't expect to storm a city with one without incurring destruction and civilian casualites.

Modifié par bleetman, 04 juillet 2011 - 08:34 .

[DaiyoukaiGeisha]

Anders. I had gone the friendship path with him, sided with templars, then spared his life (I wanted to kill Justice more than him at that point and this was pre-The Exiled Prince DLC). I was really hoping he'd escape Kirkwall or at least help shepard mages out via secret tunnels or something. Instead he fights me to the death on the steps of the Gallows. Stupid man, had to run a sword through him. That was the only playthrough where a companion turned on me, everybody seems to stick by me no matter what my path/decisions are.

[Knight of Dane]

bleetman wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

You are putting words into Sebastians parting sentence that is not there.
Sebastian never said that he would kill innocents to get revenge on Anders, he said he would go get his army back home in Starkhaven and (assuming he succseeds) he would make sure there was no Kirkwall for the mages to rule.

I cannot say if this will involve death of innocents, but it is not Sebastians motive.

"And I will bring such an army with me upon my return that there'll be nothing left of Kirkwall for these maleficarum to rule"

Seems pretty clear to me. He can't exactly raze Kirkwall to the ground around the population without hurting anyone, short of carefully dismantling each building, brick by brick.

Armies are broadswords, not scalpels. You can't expect to storm a city with one without incurring destruction and civilian casualites.

Perhaps not, but that does not change the fact that he is after the mages and not innocents, he doesn't mention if he will leave enough of Kirkwall for the innocents to rebuild.

[bleetman]

He should be after Anders and nothing else. If he starts chasing down mages in general, he's no better than Meredith. They had nothing to do with it.

[Knight of Dane]

bleetman wrote...

He should be after Anders and nothing else. If he starts chasing down mages in general, he's no better than Meredith. They had nothing to do with it.

This is true. To begin with he is after Anders only though, he will even side with the mages in case A dies too.
I would understand his rage when Hawke sides with Mages, it's still taking it too far.
Doesn't he also say the same thing when you let Anders live and side with the templars?
(I will return so there is nothing left of Kirkwall for these mages to rule)

I haven't tried that myself, but i think i remember him saying the same thing in a youtube vid even when going anti mage.

Modifié par Knight of Dane, 04 juillet 2011 - 10:56 .

[metalgirl-1]

None of the companions have betrayed me. Ever.

[Knight of Dane]

^
Nah.

Anders is the solid form of betrayal.

[ademska]

Knight of Dane wrote...

^
Nah.

Anders is the solid form of betrayal.

oh, please. in your opinion.

my hawkes are crazy and agree with him. i never felt betrayed.

[Knight of Dane]

ademska wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

^
Nah.

Anders is the solid form of betrayal.

oh, please. in your opinion.

my hawkes are crazy and agree with him. i never felt betrayed.

What?
Anders lies to Hawke and makes him/her gather junk for a bomb without his/her knowledge.
That's pretty betraying no matter how much the Hawke agrees on his actions.

It's not just my opinion, it's a cold hard fact as our dear Meredith would say.
/Cheers.

[ademska]

Knight of Dane wrote...
Anders lies to Hawke and makes him/her gather junk for a bomb without his/her knowledge.
That's pretty betraying no matter how much the Hawke agrees on his actions.

It's not just my opinion, it's a cold hard fact as our dear Meredith would say.
/Cheers.

i must have missed the memo in every relationship i've ever had where a lie = betrayal

and since we've already covered that my hawkes don't tend to have a problem with the bomb in question, it's really not a huge issue in the long run. just because you and presumably the way you roleplay have significant personal issues with anders' actions doesn't mean all of us do.

[Masako52]

Anders' actions aren't betrayal... betrayal implies some direct action against a friend, doesn't it? Anders' actions are kind of isolated from Hawke's well-being. It's not like Anders was trying to harm Hawke or anything. I guess at best you could say Anders "betrayed Hawke's trust" by making him/her an unknowing accomplice, but to me that's not the same as a full out betrayal. Anders didn't touch Hawke or try to fight against him/her. I mean, maybe some Hawkes might feel betrayed but I wouldn't consider it a full-blown betrayal.

[Ryzaki]

Anders betrayed my Hawkes. He knew how they felt and he used them anyway using the one thing they were sure to agree too.

That was downright sleazy.

Other than that my Hawkes have not been betrayed without metagaming for it.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 juillet 2011 - 05:47 .

[ademska]

Ryzaki wrote...
Anders betrayed my Hawkes. He knew how they felt and he used them anyway using the one thing they were sure to agree too.

That was downright sleazy.

Other than that my Hawkes have not been betrayed without metagaming for it.

and see, that's fair, because your hawkes based on what you've talked about before are generally pro-templar or at least pro-hey-anders-maybe-let's-not-be-possessed, and i agree, in that case it was definitely emotional blackmail.

my primary hawke was a bit nutso himself and loved anders' battiness even through the hard times - hell, he spent three years living with the man, so when anders very transparently lied about separating justice, he knew something was up and didn't ask questions enough to have his trust violated.

anders' actions and their effects on hawke and the player are not absolute, dane.

[sonoko]

Fenris betrayed me to Meredith after I spared Emile de Launcet and lied to protect the boy. Fenris couldn't know that Meredith wouldn't command to execute Hawke, so for me that was the most hurtful betrayal in game. I lost all my love and respect for Fenris after that.

(As for Anders - on my first playthrough I didn't feel betrayed, it was more like a surprise birthday party.)

[Wereparrot]

Masako52 wrote...

Anders' actions aren't betrayal... betrayal implies some direct action against a friend, doesn't it? Anders' actions are kind of isolated from Hawke's well-being. It's not like Anders was trying to harm Hawke or anything. I guess at best you could say Anders "betrayed Hawke's trust" by making him/her an unknowing accomplice, but to me that's not the same as a full out betrayal. Anders didn't touch Hawke or try to fight against him/her. I mean, maybe some Hawkes might feel betrayed but I wouldn't consider it a full-blown betrayal.

Anders betrayed Hawke's trust, not neccessarily by implicating Hawke as an unwitting accomplice since Hawke doesn't actually have to give Anders any help, but more by breaking ranks and harming unit cohesiveness, and this in itself is enough to warrant Hawke's displeasure; but more than this, if you are opposed to what he ultimately does, Anders' actions constitute mutiny since he acted outside of, and rebelled against, Hawke's authority as his captain.

[Knight of Dane]

Masako52 wrote...

Anders' actions aren't betrayal... betrayal implies some direct action against a friend, doesn't it? Anders' actions are kind of isolated from Hawke's well-being. It's not like Anders was trying to harm Hawke or anything. I guess at best you could say Anders "betrayed Hawke's trust" by making him/her an unknowing accomplice, but to me that's not the same as a full out betrayal. Anders didn't touch Hawke or try to fight against him/her. I mean, maybe some Hawkes might feel betrayed but I wouldn't consider it a full-blown betrayal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayal 

No matter what Hawke thinks of Templars or Mages, Anders ultimately betrays Hawke's trust when he can't ask him/her directly to "let's make a bomb!"
Afterwards he even tries to use the "you are a traitor if you don't agree with me" himself.