613 réponses à ce sujet

[berelinde]

Knight of Dane wrote...

berelinde wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

berelinde wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...
The only time a demon ever gets through to her is when Hawke is careless and brings her to the fade.

Hey, we're all a little blind when it comes to our favorites, but let's not get carried away. Hawke is not responsible for Merrill's behavior. Merrill is a grown woman and perfectly capable of making her own decisions. She didn't eat the candy because Hawke was foolish enough to bring her into a candy shop. She ate the candy because she has a sweet tooth.

Of course, but Hawke knows she's naive.

Yeah, but Hawke has never been to the Fade before, either.
they say "Oops, my bad!" or do they say "It's your fault for taking me there in the first place!"?.

Depends on the Hawke

And: You're right, but they all seem very regretfull for ever going there too.

Actually, regarding the regret thing, not all of them are as good about owning their failures as Merrill is. Isabela, Aveline, and rival Fenris shift the blame sqarely onto Hawke. Isabela, I can forgive for it. After all, she is what she is and expecting her to apologize for it is kind of unrealistic. I have a harder time forgiving Aveline or Fenris, though. Well, Anders blames Hawke, too, but in this case, it is for something Hawke himself has done - trading Feynriel for personal gain. If you really did trick Torpor, you can tell him that and he'll apologize for overreacting. Aveline and Fenris say "You shouldn't have brought me there in the first place." I wonder what rival Varric does. But who rivals Varric?

But that reminds me of something I wish they had done differently. I wish Hawke had the opportunity to lie to Anders about tricking Torpor. It would have been awesome to have the truth come out later and let Anders be all "B-but... I trusted you!"

Ah, well, opportunities missed, etc.

[Gervaise]

Thinking back to Awakening actually one thing about Anders that definitely didn't change was his tendancy to manipulate and in some ways there is a foreshadowing that he might not stick around, even without the Templar plant:
1) I was never entirely convinced that all those Templars were killed by darkspawn.
2) When my Warden tries to be honest about the downside of being a Warden, he got negative points but when my warden just ignores those aspects and talks about something light hearted, Anders loves him. So he obviously doesn't like people being truthful with him, which generaly hints as the person being not entirely truthful themselves.
3) When Anders discusses about what we are going to do in the future, if I said continue being a warden, again I got negative points, but if I string him along about doing something less noble, then again I earn friendship points.
4) He persuades me to help him break into the Templar vault in order to get rid of his phylactery. Now to be honest, I always thought this would be a trap, particularly if I am playing a mage because I remember what happened with Jowan. However, if he was at all serious about staying in the wardens, why bother with the phylactery? My mage warden hadn't got rid of hers and had had no problem with Templars constantly following her around. The whole point of the wardens is that the laws that normally apply can't touch you once you're recruited,

So it would seem that even at that stage Anders was looking for a way out and given that, it would explain why the Templars did want to assign someone to the wardens to keep a watch on him. If they did a deal with the warden headquarters in the Anderfels, then the player warden would have been ordered to comply. So Anders leaving the wardens is not a total surprise, even without the short story and to be fair the short story is more to explain to people who played Awakening what happened to Anders because really Hawke has no need to know this unless Anders wishes to spill the beans and I don't think that fitted with his agenda. However, he does mention it if you listen to his conversation to Merrill about the dangers of trusting demons, when he talks about looking down and seeing your hands covered in blood and realising it is not your own.

[Carmen_Willow]

berelinde wrote...

Carmen_Willow wrote...
 I just argue that he's  a selfish man.  And that wouldn't even bother me, because fighting for your own values is a good thing.  I just hate the fact that he uses me and manipulates me into doing what he wants.  He's a player!

You mean, like getting Hawke to confess love to him, spending the night, and then abandoning Hawke in the morning with "I just wanted to be happy for a while" on his lips? That's what players do, isn't it?

Yeah, I know, personal issues. Everbody's got 'em. It comes down to whether you like the character enough to forgive their sins. You don't like a character? Fine. Everybody has his or her own preferences. Just don't claim the kettle is black but the pot isn't.

I know, the elf's an a** too, but he doesn't lie to me! He doesn't manipulate me into helping him blow up the Chantry.

And if you've never gone to bed with someone and then said to yourself "Crap, that was a mistake!" Then congratulations because you know yourself a lot better than most people. 

 As far as I know from the story, the angry elf doesn't immediately go out and pull the same number on someone else. Yeah I know Isabela, but that's only if I give up on him. And he doesn't lie to me.

You are right, though about the stuff you're willing to accept and the stuff that's a deal-breaker. The lying and manipulation are deal breakers for me. Simple as that.

(Edited to add additional content)

Modifié par Carmen_Willow, 30 septembre 2011 - 10:26 .

[berelinde]

Carmen_Willow wrote...

berelinde wrote...

Carmen_Willow wrote...
 I just argue that he's  a selfish man.  And that wouldn't even bother me, because fighting for your own values is a good thing.  I just hate the fact that he uses me and manipulates me into doing what he wants.  He's a player!

You mean, like getting Hawke to confess love to him, spending the night, and then abandoning Hawke in the morning with "I just wanted to be happy for a while" on his lips? That's what players do, isn't it?

Yeah, I know, personal issues. Everbody's got 'em. It comes down to whether you like the character enough to forgive their sins. You don't like a character? Fine. Everybody has his or her own preferences. Just don't claim the kettle is black but the pot isn't.

I know, the elf's an a** too, but he doesn't lie to me! He doesn't manipulate me into helping him blow up the Chantry.

Nope, he just leads you on and kicks you to the curb. He gets his act together eventually, but it takes him three years to get around to it, assuming that your Hawke waits for him. Meanwhile, he manipulates Hawke into confronting Danarius, which places Hawke in personal danger. So yeah, everybody wants something.

Edit: And if your Hawke does move on, Fenris does hook up with Isabela. Rejected Anders remains faithful.

To be fair to Anders, you can call him on the lie. He's pretty obvious about it. And if you don't help him, he'll do it anyway. Not sure if you still get the romance ending if you refuse to help, but by that point, I suspect it won't matter, since you've written him off anyway.

But that's why there's four different brands of crazy. One of them is bound not to rub you the wrong way.

Modifié par berelinde, 30 septembre 2011 - 10:35 .

[Carmen_Willow]

[quote]berelinde wrote...

[quote]Carmen_Willow wrote...

[quote]berelinde wrote...

[quote]
I know, the elf's an a** too, but he doesn't lie to me! He doesn't manipulate me into helping him blow up the Chantry.
[/quote]Nope, he just leads you on and kicks you to the curb.

I didn't feel led on. We were flirting! I know the rules. We weren't committed at that point, just getting to know one another.

I didn't feel kicked to the curb. It was clear to me that his head wasn't on straight.  Kicked to the curb is Alistair (unhardened) ending the affiar when I make him King.  Now that was kicked to the curb. But then, we'd been in a relationship for awhile--just like my relationship with Anders. 

At the point in the game that Fenris bugs we are at one night stand status.  No committment, no promises.

He gets his act together eventually, but it takes him three years to get around to it, assuming that your Hawke waits for him. Meanwhile, he manipulates Hawke into confronting Danarius, which places Hawke in personal danger. So yeah, everybody wants something.

Fenris didn't make me do anything I didn't want to do!  I wanted to kill that dude as much as he did by then. 

Edit: And if your Hawke does move on, Fenris does hook up with Isabela. Rejected Anders remains faithful.

I thought when you "moved on" the other party was free to move on as well. 

To be fair to Anders, you can call him on the lie. He's pretty obvious about it. And if you don't help him, he'll do it anyway. Not sure if you still get the romance ending if you refuse to help, but by that point, I suspect it won't matter, since you've written him off anyway.

The reason Anders leaves a bitter taste for me is because he and I are supposed to be in a long-term serious, "he's living with me" relationship.  And then he lies to me! I don't care if I can wangle the truth out of him. He should have told me the truth anyway.


But that's why there's four different brands of crazy. One of them is bound not to rub you the wrong way.

I agree with you whole-heartedly on this.  Anders brand of crazy leaves me cold and heartbroken.  Fenris just leaves me confused.  Obviously they don't affect you in the same way. C'est la vie!


[/quote]

[Knight of Dane]

Ooh, catfight, I'm used to being the one getting sword'ed. *trollface*

[berelinde]

Nah, all good on my end. If I liked Fenris, I probably would have written something similar.

My big problem with Fenris is that his words and actions all seem to point firmly toward "I just don't care about you." Yeah, as a player, I understand that he has a lot going on in his life and isn't capable of being in a meaningful relationship with Hawke at that point, but as a role-player, I just can't make my Hawke buy it. There's no sense of sharing or caring. My Hawke was leukwarm on him to begin with. His passion made Hawke think that maybe there was something more there, but then when he walked, Hawke was forced to accept the words of the sage, "He's just not that into you." So, he moved on. Fenris's ability to form a lasting relationship with Isabela (there are hints that it's emotional as well as physical) when he couldn't form one with Hawke reinforce his belief that Fenris was just not the guy for him.

My point with Danarius was to underline that player (or Hawke) attitude toward the character's agenda is vital to whether the player can accept the LI as a match for that Hawke. Carmen-Willow's Hawke was ready to kill Danarius herself. Iain Hawke (my guy) would have handed Anders the matches if only Anders had told him what he was up to. For better or worse, the LIs are tied to their quests. I'm not sure this was the best decision since it seems to detract from players' ability to appreciate the LIs as characters rather than quest-givers, but that's a game design issue.

The second reason I mentioned Danarius was that I hoped Carmen-Willow would pick up on the fact that Fenris requires Hawke to go after Danarius whether Hawke has a romantic past with him or not. Just as Anders involves Hawke in his own plans. In each case, the character has an agenda that operates indepedently of the romance. Fenris always needs Hawke's help with Danarius and Anders always tinkers with explosives. Fenris doesn't lie to Hawke (romanced or not) because he has no reason to do so. Anders lies to Hawke (romanced or not) to give him plausible deniability in the events that will follow. Also, he does not want Hawke to suffer the moral repercussions of his actions. He is telling Hawke that he loves him enough to lie to him... despite the fact that he is hideously bad at lying to anyone.

Anyway, that's my wall of text for the day.

And for the record: I do like Fenris as a character. Just not as a romance option. If there was more honesty about his reasons for leaving (does anybody really believe it was the memory thing?), if there was more obvious affection for Hawke, and more regret involved, I might be able to come up with a Hawke that could romance him. Ultimately, though, I really only do the Fenris romance at all because I get a kick out of the jealousy banters later on. Yes, I'm an evil person.

[TheGunslinger]

I like all the companions to be honest, but Fenris pisses me sometimes when he insults Merrill and Anders. XD

[Cobra's_back]

The characters I like are Aveline, Bethany, Varric and Sebastian. Varric is my favorite. He has some good lines. Fenris I like to a point. His romance doesn’t make sense. At first he seems like such a tough guy and after the first night he is crying I just wanted to be happy. Overall, he does seem to develop and changes his view for Hawke.
Merrill just doesn’t make sense to me. She is too naïve and willing to deal with demons.
Isabela sleeps with anyone and she is not even funny.
Ander is my least favorite character. You can tell he has mental issues in Act1. Romance is totally out because I can’t stomach the flirt lines they want you to say. As a friend, you know he needs help but the lines aren’t there to help him. Even when he talking to the other members there are problem:
■Anders: So you married a templar, huh?
■Aveline: What of it?
■Anders: Are they all as dirty as they seem?
■Aveline: What?
■Anders: Did he ever ask you to play “the naughty mage and the helpless recruit?” Maybe the “secret desire demon and the upstanding knight?”
■Aveline: That's disgusting!
■Anders: I hear it's quite popular.
■Fenris: Bethany, for instance, was not weak.
■Anders: You specifically don't mention me.
■Fenris: That's also true.
■Anders: I'll prove to you that I'm not weak
■Fenris: Prove it to yourself. You're convincing no one else.
■Anders: Did you ever think about killing yourself?
■Fenris: I could ask you the same thing.
■Anders: I'm serious. To get out of slavery, to escape Danarius... don't tell me you never thought about it.
■Fenris: I did not. To kill oneself is a sin in the eyes of the Maker.
■Anders: You... believe that?
■Fenris: I try to. Some things must be worse than slavery.
■Anders: Some things are worse than death.
Jennifer Hepler ( writer for Ander in Dragon Age 2) describes the choice of keeping Anders alive as "poetic justice", as he would have to face and suffer the knowledge of the lives he took. She also states her belief that he wishes death so the people that he inevitably kills receives proper justice as well.
Anders is angry and depressed. He is like the Canary the miners take to the coal mine. He is going down first and there is nothing you can do to help his mental state. I loved DAO because your hero helps everyone. He is so depressing, because I can’t help him or change his mind. Jennifer wrote him like that.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I've realized something lately: whether or not someone likes Anders has a lot to do with their ability to empathize with others, and put themselves in others' shoes.  People who dislike him tend to think "It wouldn't happen to me,"  "I'm not one of them," "I'm special," or "only the uncooperative ones have bad experiences."

I read history, so I know it could happen to anyone. It could have happened to me, if I were born a century ago. I'm a woman, and I have ADD (which is technically a mental disorder)... barely a century ago, that was enough to get me shut up for my entire life, with nothing I could do about it, if anyone cared to shut me up for any reason. They'd say it was in a "hospital" for my "own good," but come on, anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows what mental institutions were like in the early twentieth century: not a picnic. And they were trying to do what was "best" for those women... but that doesn't mean they weren't being utterly monstrous at the same time.

In debates about how stupid or whiny or selfish Anders is, I'll often ask this question: would you agree to it? If someone told you you were born wrong and because of that, you would be shut away, never allowed to leave, probably not allowed to see your family (unless you were rich and privileged to start with), probably not allowed to marry or have any long term relationships, and subjected to the whim of jailors selected specifically for their willingness to follow orders, even if those orders are to kill you and everyone you know... would you just say "meh, greater good!" and follow along without a fight?

Nobody has ever answered that question, because people who hate Anders don't want to think about it. They're unwilling to imagine a world where such things could happen to them, they'd always happen to other people... worse people... people who "deserve" it.

I'd like to think that if people were being dragged off to prisons for being "born wrong" in my country, that I'd stand up against it. That I wouldn't call people who are calling attention to the issue "whiners." I'd like to think that I would fight against those who would imprison others for how they were born.

Anders complains. He rants. He says things that are profoundly unhelpful to his cause. I even find myself getting annoyed at him and facepalming at the things he says, because he's being so much less rhetorically convincing than he could be. One lesson that has been clearly demonstrated here is that people would rather listen to a selfish, philandering charmer who lacks compassion for others but has a sense of humor than to someone who is sincere and honest about their pain. I wanted to shake Anders by his furry pauldrons and say "Tell them the story of how you saved the world! Tell them about your silly little dreams of a good meal and a pretty girl! Your shallow hedonism will gain a thousand more friends than your sincere outrage." But hey, nobody's perfect, and Anders had lost the ability to coat his actions in guile... he'd been stripped to the bones of real sincerity, and if there is one thing a modern audience will object to, it is sincere honesty about emotional pain. It just don't play in Peoria, Anders. And my Warden coulda told you all of that.

And because he lost his sense of humor, people will keep on saying "man, when that one guy keeps talking about how we should put an end to that international system of false internment, he is such a whiner." It makes me weep for the future of humanity.

I understand the arguments about the inadvisability of starting a war, or the fact that ultimately, he couldn't trust Hawke to make their own decisions and instead felt the need to protect Hawke from reality... both of those arguments are ones I can grok. I can understand disagreeing fundamentally with the way he made his choices, regardless of what side of the debate you are on. Disagreeing, I get. Disliking his methods, I get. But hating the man, especially hating him becuase he dared to speak honestly about how much pain he was in over the oppression of his people? It makes me sad.

I cannot fathom the complete lack of empathy I see for a man who has spent most of his life subject to oppression, and who wants only to prevent others from suffering in the same way. I see it, and I just can't process it. Every time I encounter it, it staggers me, just a little.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 01 octobre 2011 - 08:53 .

[Knight of Dane]

Everyone is biased CulturalGeekGirl, but i have changed my stance from really disliking Anders to just disliking his choise of blowing up the chantry, i have really come around to like him.

Just watched Daredevil last night, and that movie is practically about Anders, i could perfectly see him in Matt Murduck's shoes (or leather suit if you prefer that)

[Cobra's_back]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I've realized something lately: whether or not someone likes Anders has a lot to do with their ability to empathize with others, and put themselves in others' shoes.  People who dislike him tend to think "It wouldn't happen to me,"  "I'm not one of them," "I'm special," or "only the uncooperative ones have bad experiences."

I read history, so I know it could happen to anyone. It could have happened to me, if I were born a century ago. I'm a woman, and I have ADD (which is technically a mental disorder)... barely a century ago, that was enough to get me shut up for my entire life, with nothing I could do about it, if anyone cared to shut me up for any reason. They'd say it was in a "hospital" for my "own good," but come on, anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows what mental institutions were like in the early twentieth century: not a picnic. And they were trying to do what was "best" for those women... but that doesn't mean they weren't being utterly monstrous at the same time.

In debates about how stupid or whiny or selfish Anders is, I'll often ask this question: would you agree to it? If someone told you you were born wrong and because of that, you would be shut away, never allowed to leave, probably not allowed to see your family (unless you were rich and privileged to start with), probably not allowed to marry or have any long term relationships, and subjected to the whim of jailors selected specifically for their willingness to follow orders, even if those orders are to kill you and everyone you know... would you just say "meh, greater good!" and follow along without a fight?

Nobody has ever answered that question, because people who hate Anders don't want to think about it. They're unwilling to imagine a world where such things could happen to them, they'd always happen to other people... worse people... people who "deserve" it.

I'd like to think that if people were being dragged off to prisons for being "born wrong" in my country, that I'd stand up against it. That I wouldn't call people who are calling attention to the issue "whiners." I'd like to think that I would fight against those who would imprison others for how they were born.

Anders complains. He rants. He says things that are profoundly unhelpful to his cause. I even find myself getting annoyed at him and facepalming at the things he says, because he's being so much less rhetorically convincing than he could be. One lesson that has been clearly demonstrated here is that people would rather listen to a selfish, philandering charmer who lacks compassion for others but has a sense of humor than to someone who is sincere and honest about their pain. I wanted to shake Anders by his furry pauldrons and say "Tell them the story of how you saved the world! Tell them about your silly little dreams of a good meal and a pretty girl! Your shallow hedonism will gain a thousand more friends than your sincere outrage." But hey, nobody's perfect, and Anders had lost the ability to coat his actions in guile... he'd been stripped to the bones of real sincerity, and if there is one thing a modern audience will object to, it is sincere honesty about emotional pain. It just don't play in Peoria, Anders. And my Warden coulda told you all of that.

And because he lost his sense of humor, people will keep on saying "man, when that one guy keeps talking about how we should put an end to that international system of false internment, he is such a whiner." It makes me weep for the future of humanity.

I understand the arguments about the inadvisability of starting a war, or the fact that ultimately, he couldn't trust Hawke to make their own decisions and instead felt the need to protect Hawke from reality... both of those arguments are ones I can grok. I can understand disagreeing fundamentally with the way he made his choices, regardless of what side of the debate you are on. Disagreeing, I get. Disliking his methods, I get. But hating the man, especially hating him becuase he dared to speak honestly about how much pain he was in over the oppression of his people? It makes me sad.

I cannot fathom the complete lack of empathy I see for a man who has spent most of his life subject to oppression, and who wants only to prevent others from suffering in the same way. I see it, and I just can't process it. Every time I encounter it, it staggers me, just a little.

I’m sorry you feel this way. Not all dislike his character for the same reason. He was my least favorite because I could not help him. My empathy sees a character that is depressed, angry and won’t open to help. Helping him bomb that tower isn’t helping him. If you read what his writer states about him, she states that at the end he wanted to die (Dragon Age Wiki).
Hawke isn’t very heroic in this game. Hawke is around this guy for close to a decade and can’t release him from his pain. My empathy also tells me that this person doesn’t need a lover. That would just be another burden to someone on the edge. He really needed a doctor or a distant place. If Hawke was really a friend, Hawke would have put him on boat to a faraway place or found him a nice tribe in the Rivain.
The revolt in my mine needs a person of sound mind and body. DAO had the Landsmeet. The Warden can get rid of a tyrant and place a good king on the throne. The Warden gets rid of the Werewolf curse. It is all about the player wanting the chance to play hero. Remember everyone has a choice to like and dislike a RPG. Before judging, think that many players are reacting to their inability to do what they think is the right thing to do. The game doesn’t let them be heroic in their view and that should be respected. I'm saying that many who do not like Anders really don't like not having the choice to stop what he does. This is really why many don't like him. I hope this puts your mind at ease.

[GreenClover]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Inteligence is understanding, and you learn understanding by being taught something or experiencing it. Merrill has never worked with Guards, Arishok and thieves. And tricking someone to get into a warehouse is something she has never experienced the need for before.

Hawke also never dealt with Arishok before we meet the qunari in person, but our PC somehow manages to avoid silly and facepalm-making statements. Hawke has never been to Fade, but he doesn't go all "Oh, cookies-rainbows-butterflies!", etc. And I'm quite sure the dalish do know about thievery, they are so good at blaming humans for stealing their culture, after all Or you can remember Lanaya's reaction when you try to take an elven book in DAO. So I really doubt any other dalish would act like Merrill after meeting a tief. I don't think it's only about being taught something, it is also about what kind of person you are. Some people can adapt to new situation easily, some can not. Merrill probably belongs to the second group. Even after leaving in human society for 7 years she someties speaks in unbelievable manner. It doesn't mean she is actually stupid. But it still can be very annoying. So annoying that you may call her dumb on emotions.
As for that Hawke-blaming part of your post... well, I see it has already been discussed)

Modifié par GreenClover, 01 octobre 2011 - 06:48 .

[ForgeDark]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I cannot fathom the complete lack of empathy I see for a man who has spent most of his life subject to oppression, and who wants only to prevent others from suffering in the same way. I see it, and I just can't process it. Every time I encounter it, it staggers me, just a little.

OK - first off, I'll say, I really do like Anders (which, from the amount I post in the Anders thread is probably obvious ) However, I can definitely see why others don't like him. You can agree withhis cause, agree that he has been oppressed, had a terrible life etc. but why does that mean you automatically have to like his personality? I mean, Anders does say some pretty terrible things about Fenris. There are certainly things to dislike there. You may understand why he says these things, but do you have to like them? Do you have to like his personality just because you admire what he does? In fact, I think the reason I like him IS because he is a bit unlikable. I shouldn't find it funny when he says what he says when you turn over Fenris, but I kinda do. Not because I think it is funny to turn over Fenris, but just that the delivery of that line is amusing. I can't stand people who are 'nice' all the time.

Modifié par eyeofhorus87, 01 octobre 2011 - 08:47 .

[ForgeDark]

I quickly edited the above post, saying that I think Anders having a go at Merrill in Act III is amusing but once posted I realised that it needed more explanation. It's not that I find it amusing that he has a go at her. I find it amusing because of all the things you could shout at Merrill about Anders picks the one thing that makes him look crazy instead. But, again - that's another example of why I can see a reason for disliking Anders...

[esper]

eyeofhorus87 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I cannot fathom the complete lack of empathy I see for a man who has spent most of his life subject to oppression, and who wants only to prevent others from suffering in the same way. I see it, and I just can't process it. Every time I encounter it, it staggers me, just a little.

OK - first off, I'll say, I really do like Anders (which, from the amount I post in the Anders thread is probably obvious ) However, I can definitely see why others don't like him. You can agree withhis cause, agree that he has been oppressed, had a terrible life etc. but why does that mean you automatically have to like his personality? I mean, Anders does say some pretty terrible things about Fenris. There are certainly things to dislike there. You may understand why he says these things, but do you have to like them? Do you have to like his personality just because you admire what he does? In fact, I think the reason I like him IS because he is a bit unlikable. I shouldn't find it funny when he says what he says when you turn over Fenris, but I kinda do. Not because I think it is funny to turn over Fenris, but just that the delivery of that line is amusing. I can't stand people who are 'nice' all the time.

And it is good enough if that is the reason why people dislike Anders. All the companions thankfully have character flaws, it makes them real, but also make so that you can't always like them. (I am looking at you Aveline)
But there are a disturbing number of people that goes: He is just an emo whiner.
I don't know if it is my understanding of english that is lacking, but in my langue whiner translate into a word that means complaining an enourmus amount about something insignificant or complaining about a non-real problem. Anders problems are not insignigicant and there are reals.

[mcsupersport]

As far as not liking Merrill for killing her tribe, I can't agree with that assessment. Simply because she left her tribe as the Keeper demanded and then the Keeper listened to the Pride Demon that she(the Keeper) and only the Keeper could protect Merrill from the demon. WHAT?? You ask, why did she listen to the Pride Demon....well, think about it, she did everything she could to turn the tribe against Merrill, but wouldn't leave the area, she set up the entire thing of causing problems with Merrill even being able to come back thus HAVING no other choice but to continue on her path. Too many of the other Elves wouldn't have accepted Merrill back, and that was made plain by them to Merrill, so leaving the mirror wasn't an option, because she didn't have any way to return home. Plus when the option came to "protect" Merrill, the Keeper didn't turn to the person who helped her for the last 3-6 years or even sit down and explain to Merrill, she instead took a radical course that came close to freeing the demon in the form of an abomination who would have the ability to play with a tribe of Dalish. At no point did the Keeper look to the health of her tribe, instead she always put Merrill path above the safety of everyone above...why, because it is what the Demon wanted and needed. If the Dalish left the tribe would have been safe, Merrill would maybe have become a demon, but that was in a city with hundreds of Templars and Mages who could have taken care of it. At no time did the Keeper ever think to tell Hawk, even though they traveled together(Merrill and Hawk) about the demon and it's plans thus stopping any chance of Hawk stepping in and stopping it.

To me the entire body of actions by the Keeper is tied to being manipulated by the Pride Demon to get the results it wanted. All the choices she made should have been changed to something else, but for the Pride of the Keeper not thinking anyone else was good enough to make a difference.

I personally don't like much of Merrill's childish character, too much innocence for what she was, and she should have been much less like a babe in arms on most subjects.

The only real character that really turns me off using is Anders, for two reasons. 1) You can't stop him from killing innocent people, and he often tricks you into helping him do so. 2) The fact he would even do so in the first place as radical idiocy is unacceptable to me. There are so many ways to help or change the dynamics of Mage/Templars but to start a war in such a way to cause the average citizen to HATE mages is foolish in the extreme. To kill innocents simply to make a point is wrong on so many levels, that I just don't want to get into them all, but it is WRONG.

Personally the only real thing I don't like about Aveline, is you can't Romance her, because to me she is the most normal and comfortable to be around character, other than maybe Varric, who you also can't romance.

[ForgeDark]

mcsupersport wrote...


The only real character that really turns me off using is Anders, for two reasons. 1) You can't stop him from killing innocent people, and he often tricks you into helping him do so. 2) The fact he would even do so in the first place as radical idiocy is unacceptable to me. There are so many ways to help or change the dynamics of Mage/Templars but to start a war in such a way to cause the average citizen to HATE mages is foolish in the extreme. To kill innocents simply to make a point is wrong on so many levels, that I just don't want to get into them all, but it is WRONG.

Personally the only real thing I don't like about Aveline, is you can't Romance her, because to me she is the most normal and comfortable to be around character, other than maybe Varric, who you also can't romance.

Ok so for both points 1 & 2, you have already played probably 90% of the game. My question is - did you dislike Anders BEFORE you knew he blew up the Chantry?  I mean, surely you can like Anders but hate what he did? 

(also I do'nt understand how you can not like Anders because 'you can't stop him from killing innocent people'. So if you could you'd like him? It's fine that he WANTED to blow up the Chantry, you can be best mates with that guy, but because you can't stop him now suddenly he's horrible?)

[berelinde]

esper wrote...
But there are a disturbing number of people that goes: He is just an emo whiner.

I don't know if it is my understanding of english that is lacking, but in my langue whiner translate into a word that means complaining an enourmus amount about something insignificant or complaining about a non-real problem. Anders problems are not insignigicant and there are reals.

The first sentence I quoted is one that makes me chuckle. Not because of the content of the statement, but because it underlines something I've been mulling over for a while. Personal opinions cannot possibly be invalid. To say that would imply that the stated belief of the player is not actually the stated belief of the player, and that way lies madness. That said, not all opinions are equally valuable.

Example: I spend a fair amount of time researching recipes. User reviews range from helpful ("Not bad, but room for improvement. By adding the cilantro that early in the cooking process, most of the volatile flavor components evaporate, making it taste dull and rather flat. Try adding it at the very end, after the sauce is off the heat.") to the remarkably unhelpful ("Not good.") The first opinion is valuable to others, the second, while equally valid - it is an opinion, after all, is not valuable at all. Player opinions are no different. "Emo whiner," while a valid opinion, is pretty much worthless when it comes to the value of the critique.

Your translation of "whiner" is not far off the mark at all, but the connotations of the word are subtle. Kind of. There is childish petulance involved. It's petty, it's childish, and everybody does it at one point or another.

[mcsupersport]

I thought he was ok, maybe a bit too fixated but ok. Then I got hit with him blowing up the chantry in my first game, and hated it. I had pretty high friendship with him, and he used me to help him bomb the Chantry, without giving me any choice or option to propose something different. Heck, there are better targets in the Templars who could be seen as warriors and not so much victims by the populace. He knew he was starting a massacre and wanted both Chantry and Mages to die in an effort to start a war, one that I might add no one wins.

As far as stopping him goes, I wanted the ability to talk him out of blowing the Chantry, and either choose something else to do or pick another target. To me he is too radical, to fixated on starting something, he doesn't understand what he starts or what will truly happen, or just doesn't care. He didn't go much with me in the first game, played a mage so didn't need two, but after that and the railroad job at the end, now he only is around when required to advance the story or to get a bit more xp, some of what he does helps people, but most just hurts innocents.

[Carmen_Willow]

berelinde wrote...

Nah, all good on my end. If I liked Fenris, I probably would have written something similar. <snipped for space>

.

I'm  good too!  I just love a brisk discussion.  No hard feelings at all on this end.

[mcsupersport]

berelinde wrote...

esper wrote...
But there are a disturbing number of people that goes: He is just an emo whiner.

I don't know if it is my understanding of english that is lacking, but in my langue whiner translate into a word that means complaining an enourmus amount about something insignificant or complaining about a non-real problem. Anders problems are not insignigicant and there are reals.

The first sentence I quoted is one that makes me chuckle. Not because of the content of the statement, but because it underlines something I've been mulling over for a while. Personal opinions cannot possibly be invalid. To say that would imply that the stated belief of the player is not actually the stated belief of the player, and that way lies madness. That said, not all opinions are equally valuable.

Example: I spend a fair amount of time researching recipes. User reviews range from helpful ("Not bad, but room for improvement. By adding the cilantro that early in the cooking process, most of the volatile flavor components evaporate, making it taste dull and rather flat. Try adding it at the very end, after the sauce is off the heat.") to the remarkably unhelpful ("Not good.") The first opinion is valuable to others, the second, while equally valid - it is an opinion, after all, is not valuable at all. Player opinions are no different. "Emo whiner," while a valid opinion, is pretty much worthless when it comes to the value of the critique.

Your translation of "whiner" is not far off the mark at all, but the connotations of the word are subtle. Kind of. There is childish petulance involved. It's petty, it's childish, and everybody does it at one point or another.

All opinions are personal opinions and all are equally valid, you just have to remember they are all personal and individualistic.  By valuable you have to list what you want out of the opinion...do you want help to try and change something or are you looking at whether someone likes something.  The first opinion may be helpful, if they truly know how to cook, and the second can be equally helpful in whether you try the item for yourself.    So when looking and asking for opinions you have to really understand and express what you are actually seeking as much as anything else.

So his opinion that Fenris is an emo whiner, is helpful in knowing he doesn't like the character because of a style of whining.  It is only worthless if you are a programer or writer looking to improve on the character and are looking for imput on how to change the character.

[esper]

berelinde wrote...

esper wrote...
But there are a disturbing number of people that goes: He is just an emo whiner.

I don't know if it is my understanding of english that is lacking, but in my langue whiner translate into a word that means complaining an enourmus amount about something insignificant or complaining about a non-real problem. Anders problems are not insignigicant and there are reals.

The first sentence I quoted is one that makes me chuckle. Not because of the content of the statement, but because it underlines something I've been mulling over for a while. Personal opinions cannot possibly be invalid. To say that would imply that the stated belief of the player is not actually the stated belief of the player, and that way lies madness. That said, not all opinions are equally valuable.

Example: I spend a fair amount of time researching recipes. User reviews range from helpful ("Not bad, but room for improvement. By adding the cilantro that early in the cooking process, most of the volatile flavor components evaporate, making it taste dull and rather flat. Try adding it at the very end, after the sauce is off the heat.") to the remarkably unhelpful ("Not good.") The first opinion is valuable to others, the second, while equally valid - it is an opinion, after all, is not valuable at all. Player opinions are no different. "Emo whiner," while a valid opinion, is pretty much worthless when it comes to the value of the critique.

Your translation of "whiner" is not far off the mark at all, but the connotations of the word are subtle. Kind of. There is childish petulance involved. It's petty, it's childish, and everybody does it at one point or another.

If people explained what precisely in his 'emo whininess' that was so wrong I would be able to stomach (the same for when it is applied to Fenris). I don't think that peoples opionion are invalid, but I really think that people coming with such statements are just complaining (or whining actually as there is something childrish in it) or perhaps looking for a fight or... I don't really know. And don't even get me started on emo. I am simply too old to really understand that word, but it seems to be used so much as it has lost some meaning as I have seen it applied to character who are nothing alike personality or look-wise. 
The problem with translation is that it is the subtle differences that are lost. (I am taking a course in translation theory this year. It is interesting, but also showed how difficult - next to impossible, precise and accurate translation is.)

[Arquen]

Why is it that when I read these threads they always turn to Anders bashing or Fenris bashing? It's funny to me, but I pretty much gave up running to the defense of characters. I actually don't agree at all about the empathy thing and Anders. Every human (unless your a sociopath or antisocial personality) has empathy and is capable of it. That being said, people use and express empathy in varying degrees. Personally, I am not very empathetic at all. I see things very logically and objectively. In fact, I make critical decisions by taking away the human element at times because it allows for a broader perception. I still support and live Anders, not because of his emotional investments or his passionate and albeit *facepalm at times* rhetoric, but because of the struggle, sacrifice, and sheer willpower to be that first person. To realize, truly, that there can be no compromise. His empathy for others like him who he has never met is endearing. His actions are a reflection of a larger picture. Arguably it is people who have too much empathy ( in that they feel Anders's actions were not justified because of the people he kills) are the ones who hate him most.

[phaonica]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I've realized something lately: whether or not someone likes Anders has a lot to do with their ability to empathize with others, and put themselves in others' shoes.  People who dislike him tend to think "It wouldn't happen to me,"  "I'm not one of them," "I'm special," or "only the uncooperative ones have bad experiences." ...

I think someone can empathize with Anders and still dislike him. I can imagine what it would be liked to be treated the way mages are in DA and see how the anger, the meanness, and the fear would influence one's actions and words. I recognize Justice's influence, and can empathize with why Anders would be driven to agree to that merge in the first place. While I think that DAO Anders could be discribed as selfish, I think that DA2 is selfless. I do  believe that he does care about all mages, not just his own freedom (as opposed to his personality in DAO). I don't feel put off when he makes very clear that his cause is more important than his personal relationships. I think he's an interesting character and deserving of his place in the DA2 story.

But for all that, I don't like his personality. He can be tactless and preemptively accusatory. His DAO humor is almost gone. I understand why he's angry and mean, and I think his focus is admirable, but to me, it doesn't make him likeable. Maybe someday I'll be able to pinpoint exactly why I can't get past that, but not today.

One lesson that has been clearly demonstrated here is that people would
rather listen to a selfish, philandering charmer who lacks compassion
for others but has a sense of humor than to someone who is sincere and
honest about their pain. ... And because he lost his sense of humor, people will keep on saying "man,
when that one guy keeps talking about how we should put an end to that
international system of false internment, he is such a whiner." It makes
me weep for the future of humanity.

Players are entertained in a variety of ways. Some people will find the selfish charmer to be more entertaining because they are likeable, and some people will find the sincere guy more entertaining because they have a more compelling story. I don't think that because some people find the charmer more entertaining is indicative of the future failing of humanity.

Modifié par phaonica, 02 octobre 2011 - 04:46 .