260 réponses à ce sujet

[Porenferser]

Apology accepted.
What I meant was

• Anders: Why do spirits seek out mages? I've always wondered.
• Justice: You speak of demons. I am not a demon.
• Anders: Aren't demons simply spirits with unique and sparkling personalities?
• Justice: They have been perverted by their desires.
• Anders: But what do they want from mages?
• Justice: Perhaps they wish the same as I: silence.

Here, he obviously already knew that the borderline between demon and spirit is very thin.

• Anders: Are you saying that you could become a demon, Justice?
• Justice: I said no such thing.
• Anders: You said that demons were spirits perverted by their desires.
• Justice: I have no such desires.
• Anders: You must have some desires...
• Justice: I have none! Desist your questions!

And here he clearly had suspisions against him.
I mean, Anders was (!) a very caring and helpful person, but he was never stupid.
He knew that justice wasn't that clean as he acted, he knew that even he could become corrupted.
And yet still he helped him by handing him over his body.

Spirits like justice think two-dimensional.
They only know good and evil.
But the human way of thinking isn't that simple.
Anders must have known that such a merging of two completely different individuals would cause heavy trouble, both with him as with the spirit.
But still he fullfilled it.
I can call this nothing but shortsighted.

[RagingCyclone]

@Porensferser--I would have to disagree about Anders' intelligence. Seven escape attempts when you meet him in Awakening? Seems if he actually stuck around in the Circle and tried to learn something maybe he would have avoided a joining with Justice. I never got the impression in Awakening that Anders was the brightest bulb in the box.

[Punahedan]

Well... firstly, I don't put all the blame on Anders in the first place. His anger is definitely an influencing factor on Justice, but Justice definitely played more of a role (in my playthroughs) than Anders did. Anders blacks out half the time.

But there is definitely influence in knowing the person. If Anders were a stranger - we hadn't met him in Awakening and didn't meet him later - and I didn't know about his circumstances, I would have a much harder time buying his explanation. Given that he was part of the game, however, the entire time so far, we see how he changes.

Note that understanding where the act came from does NOT constitute "justifying" it. What he did and his failure to restrain himself and Justice, his reluctance to sacrifice his goals when he knew Justice was ruining him, is wrong and although his judgement is skewed (thus making it hard to put all the blame on him), there is a lot he could have done to prevent this. This is what makes him a tragic figure, as opposed to a disgusting one like the Lily Killer. Understanding does not forgiveness make.

Of course, changing the whodunnit removes the complexity. Even if you hated Anders, he does present a side of the argument that is more complex than "blood mage bad" and "killing blood mage good." If you merge with a spirit and don't turn to blood magic, but instead continue to be extremely mortal - wishing to make things better, but going to the very extreme means to do it - then what does that make you? Evil? I don't think so.

Edit: I would also argue that the spirit/demon distinction is a Chantry thing, one he, interestingly enough, adheres to. He debates the class of demon/spirit with Merrill, who shoots him down and says spirits are like people - all different. He learned his stuff, he just didn't like the dogma behind it.

Modifié par Hawkeyed Cai Li, 29 septembre 2011 - 04:28 .

[Gervaise]

I must admit that I think the problem with Anders is that there is his history in Awakening, his history in that short story and his history in DA2. None of them really match up. And since Hawke knows nothing of his history, in a way you have to forget all you know about them previously. My first play through I was still thinking too much of the Anders I had got to know in Awakening but nevertheless when we got to the point where he nearly killed Ella, I thought hold on a minute, this is a really bad relationship he has got into, and realised that when he said that romancing him would be dangerous, he wasn't just referring to Templars knocking on the door.

After that I concentrated on being a good friend. Funnily enough, when he said I wouldn't like the last bit of separating him from Justice I thought the deal would be that Justice would only come out of him if he had another host to go into and the person Justice had his eye on was Hawke. That would actually have made for an interesting dilemma in that Anders has admitted he has warped Justice but would Hawke be naive or vain enough to think they might be able to control him and save Anders in the process. What I found disappointing about subsequent events is that there didn't seem anything honest in his dealings with me - which considering I was his friend made me feel very let down, particularly considering I was a mage who had been very supportive and working hard to free mages.

Having played through a few times more as a warrior and and rogue, I returned to try a mage again but this time played her more judgemental of Anders' merging with Justice from the beginning of the time I knew him and harsher in her dealings with him - result I finally got to rival him, got those interactions and actually preferred him that way, as it seemed he was being more honest with me because he wasn't trying to keep in my good books as I had already made it clear he never had been.

Only problem with that is that it did seem as though Justice was the one in control, what with the black outs and Justice telling me to leave, so he left me thinking that if only I could separate them, Anders would be okay. Then at the end Anders says that they were always a joint act and the decision to bomb was his own as much as Justice and I wondered if the blackouts and everything had been an act too, just to throw Hawke off or if he wanted to end the relationship and knew the only way would be if I killed him. But if you spare him he seems happy enough, well mind you I didn't spare him as a rival but that was the way it played out as a friend. My rival Hawke felt that the only course was to execute him not just because of the bomb but also because he was totally unstable, untrustworthy and dangerous. He was just another in the long line of unstable mages we had encountered in the game and as it turned out, not the last.

Now it is okay if friendship or rivalry alters how he reacts to Hawke personally but surely Anders himself should be consistent about his feelings for his relationship with Justice? If you do read the short story, the sentiments that Anders/Justice combination express at the end is extremely violent and also indicative of someone who is not just going to lay down and die, tamely letting someone else execute him, until his work is done. The bomb certainly isn't that. It is his means to an end but it is not the end, except for the Kirkwall Circle. The other odd thing is that during the initial battle after Meredith leaves, other NPC mages are helping fight the Templars but Anders is just standing off in a corner doing nothing. It is almost as if he wants us to get killed but I suppose that is just lazy programming.

So far as the demon/spirit thing is concerned, I feel that if nothing else the Anders experience shows us that when it comes to possession it is never a good idea to let a creature of the Fade join with you, whatever label you care to put on it.

[ReallyRue]

The whole Chantry bomb thing changed my opinion of Anders completely (to the negative). So the only view that would change is that I'd still mostly like him. I'd still think the bomb was wrong.

[schalafi]

Okay Porenferser, I see what you were alluding to, and after playing DA2, I see that maybe, in Awakening, Anders was exploring the relationship between spirits and demons, but the only suspicious thing about their conversation, in my opinion, was that Justice wouldn't admit or acknowledge that he had "no such desires". I just didn't catch any hint of evil in Justice in Awakening, and Ithink Anders didn't see any either.

In Awakening, I found Anders to be rebellious, and sort of lighthearted about it, but I didn't see any evil in him. That's why I find it hard to believe that he knew in advance that he might be asking for trouble if he allowed Justice to possess him. I think he wasn't stupid, just naive. I felt that in DA2 Anders regretted taking Justice into himself, and was unable to control him, especially since  he also couldn't control  his own anger at the treatment of mages.

I have to say that Bioware created one of the most interesting, although conflicted characters, I've seen in any of their games, and I've played them all.

Modifié par schalafi, 30 septembre 2011 - 12:58 .

[Shadow Fox]

Melca36 wrote...

Porenferser wrote...

Mages should never be allowed to have full freedom.
I don't want a second Tevinter.

Its ignorant assumed that all mages want that.

No but a good number of them do.

[Melca36]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Porenferser wrote...

Mages should never be allowed to have full freedom.
I don't want a second Tevinter.

Its ignorant assumed that all mages want that.

No but a good number of them do.

Sadly the game conditioned the majority of players to think that way. Even Gaider said not all mages want them and they did not put enough neutral/normal mages in the game.

[phaonica]

Melca36 wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Porenferser wrote...

Mages should never be allowed to have full freedom.
I don't want a second Tevinter.

Its ignorant assumed that all mages want that.

No but a good number of them do.

Sadly the game conditioned the majority of players to think that way. Even Gaider said not all mages want them and they did not put enough neutral/normal mages in the game. 

Or maybe the game showed us that a good number of mages would choose Tevinter-like conditions because that's truely what a good number of them would do.

Modifié par phaonica, 30 septembre 2011 - 02:56 .

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Porenferser wrote...

Mages should never be allowed to have full freedom.
I don't want a second Tevinter.

Its ignorant assumed that all mages want that.

No but a good number of them do.

Sadly the game conditioned the majority of players to think that way. Even Gaider said not all mages want them and they did not put enough neutral/normal mages in the game. 

Or maybe the game showed us that a good number of mages would choose Tevinter-like conditions because that's truely what a good number of them would do.

Nope.  DG has gone on record publically and recently that one of his biggest regrets was not putting enough reasonable and same mages in DA2.  The Devs have admitted that they essentially badly skewed what mages you did see to the insane, powerhungry Tevinter Demon-mage....possibly because they wanted to make mages the bad guys.  Why?  Too many people sided with mages in DAO.

-Polaris

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I was in a bit of a pickle.

I am very pro-mage.
But I was utterly disgusted by what Anders did.
So I killed him and helped the mages.

Everybody wins I guess....The mages get their martyr, the dead get avenged, yadda yadda and all that stuff.

[IanPolaris]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

I was in a bit of a pickle.

I am very pro-mage.
But I was utterly disgusted by what Anders did.
So I killed him and helped the mages.

Everybody wins I guess....The mages get their martyr, the dead get avenged, yadda yadda and all that stuff.

I don't see that it's a difficult decision really.  If my Maleficars (both my Blood Warrior in DAO or Blood Mage Hawke) had even the slightest opportunity, they would have killed Anders immediately upon learning of his possession by a fade spirit.  Such things are abominations and never, ever end well and give all honest mages (including honest maleficar...and there are a few) bad names.  If the maleficar/mages aren't willing to police their own, then no one else will give the mages the time of day especially in light of what a bad mage can do.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't see that it's a difficult decision really.

Do you think Anders will become a martyr in that case, or do you think he'll be forgotten in the shadow of Hawke's legend among the mages? I would imagine Sebastian might be much more sympathetic towards the mages than he would be if Anders had lived, if he regains control of his city-state.

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't see that it's a difficult decision really.

Do you think Anders will become a martyr in that case, or do you think he'll be forgotten in the shadow of Hawke's legend among the mages? I would imagine Sebastian might be much more sympathetic towards the mages than he would be if Anders had lived, if he regains control of his city-state.

Lob, does it really matter?  Anders was executed for his crimes for which he very publically and forthrightly admitted his guilt.  I honestly don't think he'd be much of a martyr especially if the Hero that saved much of the Kirkwall Circle is the one that executed high justice.  In this I think Anders is engaging in wishful thinking.

OTOH, I do think it's essential that a mage Hawke in fact execute Anders for his crime if only to show that yes, mages are willing and able to execute one of their own for crimes against others.  Right now, not too many people believe that which is why the Templars have the support they do.

-Polaris

[dragonflight288]

OTOH, I do think it's essential that a mage Hawke in fact execute Anders for his crime if only to show that yes, mages are willing and able to execute one of their own for crimes against others. Right now, not too many people believe that which is why the Templars have the support they do.

Also want to add that many people feel that mages are seeking the rise of another Imperium and are power hungry morons...or just plainly fear anyone with that much power in their fingertips. I do agree with you however. What you said was just one facet of why templars have so much support among common people.

[Zulmoka531]

I know DA2 was supposed to be relatively dark, but the entire time I felt like I was witnessing the worst of everything Kirkwall had to offer. And it skewed my outlook and decision making in many key points in the game.

On my first playthrough of nearly every Bioware type game, I'll play the good guy. But that line was really blurry in DA2. I'd see mages going bat**** insane with power, or templars cutting underhanded deeds to wipe them out and it made it very difficult to agree to help any side.

Normally, Id say that such a morally grey line would be a good road to walk in a game, refreshing almost, but DA2 lacked direction and trying to create compromise between to the two "factions" always seemed to backfire for absurd reasons. Anders was the nail in the coffin.

After everything I had done, he went and blew up the one thing that could have kept bloodshed to a minimum. He had to die in my game (not to mention that I had high hopes seeing him again, only to find a completely new character in place of the rascal I knew in Awakenings. he was depressing at nearly every friggin turn)

[Big I]

Porenferser wrote...
Mages should never be allowed to have full freedom.
I don't want a second Tevinter.

The only Thedas nation that we know of that allows it's citizens any real freedom is Ferelden, where freeholders are allowed to choose which bann, arl or teryn they hold fealty to. With that being the case, why is Tevinter any worse than somewhere like Orzammar with it's rigid castes and abuse of the casteless, or Orlais with it's oppression of the elves and human commoners? To my mind a magocracy is no more inherently worse than a monarchy.

[IanPolaris]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Porenferser wrote...
Mages should never be allowed to have full freedom.
I don't want a second Tevinter.

The only Thedas nation that we know of that allows it's citizens any real freedom is Ferelden, where freeholders are allowed to choose which bann, arl or teryn they hold fealty to. With that being the case, why is Tevinter any worse than somewhere like Orzammar with it's rigid castes and abuse of the casteless, or Orlais with it's oppression of the elves and human commoners? To my mind a magocracy is no more inherently worse than a monarchy.

Indeed, and why do people (including the Chantry) make the illogical leap from saying that mages are free to saying that mages will rule everything?  Seems to me that mages are like anyone else.  Some will seek power but others won't.  Mages can do things others can not and that makes them a valuable resource and given the dangers of magic, one that must be regulated.  That doesn't automatically mean that all mages will rule.  That's chantry fear mongering.

-Polaris

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

Nope.  DG has gone on record publically and recently that one of his biggest regrets was not putting enough reasonable and same mages in DA2.  The Devs have admitted that they essentially badly skewed what mages you did see to the insane, powerhungry Tevinter Demon-mage....possibly because they wanted to make mages the bad guys.  Why?  Too many people sided with mages in DAO.

And why would they think that was a problem? Maybe because a good number of mages *are* too dangerous to be in the public and many mages *would* be happy to rule, and DAO didn't seem to do a good enough job of portraying that.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Nope.  DG has gone on record publically and recently that one of his biggest regrets was not putting enough reasonable and same mages in DA2.  The Devs have admitted that they essentially badly skewed what mages you did see to the insane, powerhungry Tevinter Demon-mage....possibly because they wanted to make mages the bad guys.  Why?  Too many people sided with mages in DAO.

And why would they think that was a problem? Maybe because a good number of mages *are* too dangerous to be in the public and many mages *would* be happy to rule, and DAO didn't seem to do a good enough job of portraying that.

Actually I don't have to guess on this point.  The Devs have said why it's a problem.  It's a problem because they didn't feel they made the choice "sufficiently grey".  It pretty pathetic justification if you must know but that's what we've been told. 

-Polaris

[Melca36]

dragonflight288 wrote...

OTOH, I do think it's essential that a mage Hawke in fact execute Anders for his crime if only to show that yes, mages are willing and able to execute one of their own for crimes against others. Right now, not too many people believe that which is why the Templars have the support they do.

Also want to add that many people feel that mages are seeking the rise of another Imperium and are power hungry morons...or just plainly fear anyone with that much power in their fingertips. I do agree with you however. What you said was just one facet of why templars have so much support among common people.

Excuse me but not every common person supports the templars.

Anders was protected by Ferelden refugees. Lirene TRUSTED a mage rather than a regular physician.

The war is NOT just going to be mage VS Templar and Common Pople

There will be citiziens who side with the mages.

The Templars are breaking from the chantry too and I would not expect all of them to side against the mages. LOL

And believe it or not there will likely be mages fighting blood mages.

[Melca36]

*Double post*

Sorry

Modifié par Melca36, 30 septembre 2011 - 07:56 .

[Melca36]

phaonica wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Porenferser wrote...

Mages should never be allowed to have full freedom.
I don't want a second Tevinter.

Its ignorant assumed that all mages want that.

No but a good number of them do.

Sadly the game conditioned the majority of players to think that way. Even Gaider said not all mages want them and they did not put enough neutral/normal mages in the game. 

Or maybe the game showed us that a good number of mages would choose Tevinter-like conditions because that's truely what a good number of them would do.

Go look up the quotes from Mr Gaider.  He admitted to the mistake.

I am sorry if that offends you since you are mage hater but the man said it. Its on the forum.

Lets just agree to disagree.  Not every mage is evil.

And if you hate them so much...why not advocate killing them all? Why even bother with the Circles?

I look forward to Dragon Age 3 when the secrets of the Chantry are revealed and people find out they've been lied too. It will be fascinating to see the characters question their faith

Modifié par Melca36, 30 septembre 2011 - 07:58 .

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...
 The Devs have said why it's a problem.  It's a problem because they didn't feel they made the choice "sufficiently grey". 
-Polaris

I don't remember the devs saying that. I remember you saying that.

[phaonica]

Melca36 wrote...

Go look up the quotes from Mr Gaider.  He admitted to the mistake.

I am sorry if that offends you since you are mage hater but the man said it. Its on the forum.

He said that he would have liked to have had more moderate mages. Perhaps because too many people were convinced that *no* mage can be moderate. And that, admittedly, is probably not the conclusion they intended.  I don't believe that the game was written to condition us to hate mages. There is no anti mage agenda, there is only a pro division agenda.

Lets just agree to disagree.  Not every mage is evil.

I agree. Not every mage is evil. But it doesn't take every mage to stage a takeover. It only takes "a good number" of them.

And if you hate them so much...why not advocate killing them all? Why even bother with the Circles?

Because I don't hate them.

I look forward to Dragon Age 3 when the secrets of the Chantry are revealed and people find out they've been lied too. It will be fascinating to see the characters question their faith

That's awesome how you can see into the future like that.