2008 réponses à ce sujet

[Koire]

@The Ethereal Writer Redux
I've edited my post before you replied. Silly forum is slow to react though)

Modifié par Koire, 05 mars 2012 - 04:55 .

[TEWR]

Yep, this one will do) Thank you for the link. But how do you know that a Pride demon can't use it while trapped then?

Common sense.

If Audacity could've done so, he would've. He would've controlled either Marethari or Merrill when he first met them -- in the short story -- and made one of them free him.

Since he didn't do this for 7 years, Audacity couldn't do so. He wanted to be free. That was his goal. Mind control -- if he could've done so -- would've served that purpose.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 mars 2012 - 05:05 .

[Koire]

But Merrill saw him only twice before, first time with Marethari, second time - herself. If I recall correctly. How could he do anything if she did not come to him?

[TEWR]

But Merrill saw him only twice before, first time with Marethari, second time - herself. If I recall correctly. How could he do anything if she did not come to him?

Met, yes. Conversed, no. He was able to just barely talk to them when they were at the base of Sundermount.

And he could've mind controlled one or the other when they were there.

Again, common sense. They were there. He could've mind controlled them when they were there if he could've. But since he didn't, it's evidence that he couldn't.

[Koire]

.. or it's evidence that he is weak, but mind control would work if the victim is vulnerable enough. Or, he would persuade Merrill without any mind control, promising her that he won't harm anybody just like Torpor. Yes, I've read what you wrote about him (she wanted to trick him), but I think that my explanation (she believed he would do no harm) is also plausible, and there is no proof to either but our subjective perceptions of the character. And we don't know exactly was it only mind control that made Merrill turn on Hawke in the Fade - she is still the first in the list meaning she is more susceptible to it than the rest.

Modifié par Koire, 05 mars 2012 - 05:23 .

[TEWR]

Yes, I've read what you wrote about him (she wanted to trick him), but I think that my explanation (she believed he would do no harm) is also plausible, and there is no proof to either but our subjective perceptions of the character

Actually, there's proof to mine. She tells Hawke in the Deep Roads that you can play a demon before they play you.

. And we don't know exactly was it only mind control that made Merrill turn on Hawke in the Fade - she is still the first in the list meaning she is more susceptible to it than the rest.

Merrill, Fenris, and Varric all say it was mind control. How many times do I have to say this?

If they say it was mind control and we know that Pride Demons in the Fade can control minds, then it's as simple as 2+2 = 4. There is no other answer because this is what is the actual fact of the situation they were placed in.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 mars 2012 - 05:34 .

[Koire]

Actually, there's proof to mine. She tells Hawke in the Deep Roads that you can play a demon before they play you.

Right, and if you take Anders with you, he says that demons will trick you all the time in the same scene
The point I am making is not that we should trust Anders, but rather that we shouldn't trust anybody by default.
PS And yes, I understood what you meant - you presumed that she is consistent.

And we don't know exactly was it only mind control that made Merrill turn on Hawke in the Fade - she is still the first in the list meaning she is more susceptible to it than the rest.

Merrill, Fenris, and Varric all say it was mind control. How many times do I have to say this?

She is still the first in the list meaning she is more susceptible to it than the rest. :innocent:
Please, don't hate me)

Modifié par Koire, 05 mars 2012 - 05:47 .

[TEWR]

Right, and if you take Anders with you, he says that demons will trick you all the time in the same scene

He never said that for me. I took both him and Merrill with me at the same time and he just stayed silent.

Unless you meant it was an option to address Anders specifically and not in response to Merrill, in which case then just because he says "You'll get tricked" doesn't make it so. The fact that the PC can in fact play the demon before he/she gets played is proof that Merrill is right.

Hawke can do it a few times and the Warden can do it a few times.

She is still the first in the list meaning she is more susceptible to it than the rest.

More susceptible just means "easier to be mind controlled".

Please, don't hate me)

It takes a lot for me to hate someone. Even more so a poster on a forum.

you're not anywhere near there =)

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 mars 2012 - 05:57 .

[General User]

Koire wrote...

General User wrote...
All right.  5-7 is acceptable.  What about 10-12?  Could I talk you up to 20?  Why not make it a nice 50?  As they say, in for a penny, in for a pound, what about 100?  1000?  50,000?  1,000,000? 

There is no need to resort to slippery slope arguments, really Unless you can prove that Anders is going to kill 50,000 innocents in future, of course. I'd add pregnant women and puppies to the list - just to make an impression)

Isn't there?  You've accepted 5-7 innocent bystander murders as an acceptable cost of doing business, but where's the upper limit?  Is it just open ended?  Do you have a philosophy in which such people's lives are expendable?  If so, how do you know whether a given innocent bystander's life is expendable or not?

Koire wrote...

Even if every single mage in Thedas was being "abused", Anders' actions would still be unacceptable, morally wrong, and deserving of death.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality. © Dante
Go on, lean back and watch the system at work, and don't you dare oppose it 

Who's neutral?  Certainly not me.  There are more than two sides you know.

Koire wrote...

Anders was no freedom fighter, just a madman with a bomb and an axe to grind.

I am curious: how do you understand his actions? I mean, why do you think he did it? Because the Chantry is a nice big building and he thought the blast would be visible from afar? Or because he hated the priests and wanted to "kill them all"? Because my understanding of the situation is obviously very different.

Anders' bombed the Chantry in order to force the Mage-Templar Conflict to come to a head.

Modifié par General User, 05 mars 2012 - 06:59 .

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...
No one, ever, deserves death. The only kind of deaths are murder and unfortunate necessity. Never "just."

Everyone, always, deserves death.  Because, for human beings, the universe in it's natural state offers us no other ultimate choice.

[Koire]

General User wrote...

Isn't there?  You've accepted 5-7 innocent bystander murders as an acceptable cost of doing business, but where's the upper limit?  Is it just open ended?  Do you have a philosophy in which such people's lives are expendable?  If so, how do you know whether a given innocent bystander's life is expendable or not?

I am not saying lives are expendable. I've already written it in this topic, so allow me to cite myself:

Personally I view Anders' actions as a necessary evil, and being necessary does not preclude them from being evil. And he realizes it himself. But I really do think they were necessary in that situation, terrible as they are.

 and

Justice and mercy are tricky virtues - they contradict each other. Due to this there are no universal rules which would allow us to pass judgement without careful consideration.

Or, if that would be clearer, I believe that it is a matter of judgement on a case by case basis. Thousands of people die in wars, yet the vast majority of people wish there were no unnatural deaths at all, me included.

If you believe in simple rules, try to deduct those that would allow to solve all versions of the trolley problem.

Who's neutral?  Certainly not me. There are more than two sides you know.

Are you claiming then that Anders' actions are unacceptable but ROA is acceptable? If you are taking sides and don't want to stay neutral, like i.e. Elthina tried to.

Modifié par Koire, 05 mars 2012 - 10:15 .

[Koire]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Unless you meant it was an option to address Anders specifically and not in response to Merrill, in which case then just because he says "You'll get tricked" doesn't make it so. The fact that the PC can in fact play the demon before he/she gets played is proof that Merrill is right.

Hawke can do it a few times and the Warden can do it a few times.

Yep, you need to be without Merrill for that line to trigger. Her response overwrites it. I actually believe both of them are right to a degree, because you can trick a demon sometimes, but a demon will trick you most of the times. In the end I err on the side of caution)

More susceptible just means "easier to be mind controlled".

Yes, that is what I meant.

[Koire]

General User wrote...
Everyone, always, deserves death.  Because, for human beings, the universe in it's natural state offers us no other ultimate choice.

You know, I've suddenly recalled this line "There is no such thing as a natural death: nothing that happens to a man is ever natural, since his presence calls the world into question. All men must die: but for every man his death is an accident and, even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation." (Simone de Beauvoir)

Oh, sorry, it is the second time I'm citing somebody today, I promise I won't always do it) 

[General User]

Koire wrote...

Who's neutral?  Certainly not me. There are more than two sides you know.

Are you claiming then that Anders' actions are unacceptable but ROA is acceptable? If you are taking sides and don't want to stay neutral, like i.e. Elthina tried to.

No.  I'm not claiming that at all.  I'm not sure how you'd think I was.

Modifié par General User, 05 mars 2012 - 10:30 .

[dragonflight288]

Wrong. Merrill says that no one could just free him unless they used a powerful spell.

Could you tell me when exactly does she say that, please?

This person was nice enough to add in the whole quest in two parts. Within the first two minutes, Merrill is stating that in order to release the demon, someone must've done something terrible.

It's right there, in the first two minutes of the video.

[Plaintiff]

General User wrote...
How many more people (mages and non-mages) have, in Anders' increasingly delusional mind, been "tainted" by those beliefs do you think?  How many more will Anders kill if no one stops him?

Anders is not "increasingly delusional". He has a separate being living inside of him. Anders does not have full control over Justice and can not be fairly blamed for actions that Justice performs without Anders' consent.

And further, Justice is a being from a different plane, and has no concept of humanity's nuances. We have no idea how he perceives the world in a sensory way, but have received hints that his perception is extremely different from that of a human. You are assuming that he should be able to recognize Ella (or anyone else) as "innocent", based on visual evidence, but if anything, the opposite is what is implied.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 06 mars 2012 - 02:54 .

[General User]

Plaintiff wrote...
Anders is not "increasingly delusional". He has a separate being living inside of him. Anders does not have full control over Justice and can not be fairly blamed for actions that Justice performs without Anders' consent.

Not quite.  Anders and Justice have fused into a single being.  It's not a possession where the spirit gradually or quickly dominates the living person.  The Vengeance persona is more identifiable as the spirit, just as the Anders person is more identifiable as the man, but the lines between the two were never distinct and are only getting blurrier, soon to vanish entirely.

Plaintiff wrote...
And further, Justice is a being from a different plane, and has no concept of humanity's nuances. We have no idea how he perceives the world in a sensory way, but have received hints that his perception is extremely different from that of a human. You are assuming that he should be able to recognize Ella (or anyone else) as "innocent", based on visual evidence, but if anything, the opposite is what is implied.

Ella was an innocent victim.  Anders should have been able to recognize that and act accordingly.  He wasn't.  If it was the Justice spirit that wasn't able to recognize Ella for who and what she really was, than the girl was right; Justice is a demon and Anders is an abomination.

Modifié par General User, 06 mars 2012 - 04:02 .

[Cody]

General User wrote...
than the girl was right; Justice is a demon and Anders is an abomination.

Noo s.hit. Your just figuring that out now? Lol I am pretty sure Anders states this somewhere. Not sure. Justice becomes vengeance. He takes over multiple times, making Anders feel a prisoner. Look at how Ander reacted toward Justice wanting to off Ella. He was simply mortified. The spirit can take over now. And because of the process of them fusing it has become more of a demon than spirit. It is probably somewhere in between, but spirits and demons are rarely that much different.

[FieryDove]

CodyMelch wrote...


Noo s.hit. Your just figuring that out now? Lol I am pretty sure Anders states this somewhere. Not sure. Justice becomes vengeance. He takes over multiple times, making Anders feel a prisoner. Look at how Ander reacted toward Justice wanting to off Ella. He was simply mortified. The spirit can take over now. And because of the process of them fusing it has become more of a demon than spirit. It is probably somewhere in between, but spirits and demons are rarely that much different.

I don't believe that for a second.

Proof? See Wynne.

[Koire]

General User wrote...
Not quite.  Anders and Justice have fused into a single being.  It's not a possession where the spirit gradually or quickly dominates the living person.  The Vengeance persona is more identifiable as the spirit, just as the Anders person is more identifiable as the man, but the lines between the two were never distinct and are only getting blurrier, soon to vanish entirely.

This is not quite how I understand it. Anders has a lot of anger, probably a result of the solitary (this is one of its most common effects). However he suppresses it instead of accepting it. Then he merges with Justice, and no part of him can now be hidden from the spirit. Thus we get the split personality with Vengeance being Anders' own anger + Justice. We don't get a similar result in case of Wynne not only due to the nature of the spirit (Faith) but also because she has no such alienated part of herself to prey upon. Although he seems to acknowledge his new state as early as Act 1, he does not realize the severity until Act 2 (Ella). And this is when Hawke comes into play. 
If you have hidden anger deep inside you, you can't just pretend that it's not there - it wouldn't work: you can't control something you deny. And his anger is legitimate, it is caused by harm inflicted on him in the past, not by some unrealistic expectations. On rivalry path Hawke insists that Anders is not entitled to his anger (templars are justified in their treatment of mages), moreover he himself is cursed (Vengeance is a demon). This results in further split until the secondary personality takes complete control (blank spots in memory, the scene in Act 3 when Vengeance asks Hawke to go away and the final scene when Anders tells that Vengeance took him over and begs to kill him). On friendship path Hawke supports Anders (~~"it is true that you were wronged") and tells him that he must learn how to control Vengeance (and his anger that drives Vengeance). This results in Anders' accepting his anger and using it as a "resource" and fully merging with the spirit (in the final scene Anders claims that the decision was his own and speaks about Justice in the past tense).
Simply put, I think all the "crazy" part is about controlling the anger, not about the spirit/demon (or whatever) itself.

I also liked what River5 wrote here, I do not share her belief that psychological theories (narcissistic family) can be so easily applied to the society as a whole - it is an oversimplification, but the five stages of grief were the first thing that came to my mind when I thought about Anders. Since both of us recalled it, I think the idea could have some merits)

Modifié par Koire, 06 mars 2012 - 10:41 .

[Koire]

General User wrote...

Koire wrote...
re are more than two sides you know.Are you claiming then that Anders' actions are unacceptable but ROA is acceptable? If you are taking sides and don't want to stay neutral, like i.e. Elthina tried to.

No.  I'm not claiming that at all.  I'm not sure how you'd think I was.

Err.. I don't get it then. You are not neutral, so you woudn't stand by and watch. You do not support ROA, so you woudn't help Meredith enforce it. You believe Anders' actions are unacceptable, i.e. the Chantry shouldn't have been blown up and Meredith should've been given the opportunity to prove herself that ROA must be invoked.
What would you do then? Try to kill Meredith before she does anything? Do you think Lambert who would certainly pay a friendly visit would be much better? Or try to defend the maleficarum, because I bet this is how Meredith would've branded them in the end?
Am I missing something?

Modifié par Koire, 06 mars 2012 - 11:39 .

[dragonflight288]

The difference between Anders and Wynne are pretty big. For one, Anders agreed to be possessed, and Wynne kind of accepts that she is because the Spirit of Faith wanted to save her life rather than let her die. The second is the spirit in question. We have Justice, who always wants to act swiftly and get things done now, whereas Faith is more than content to let Wynne handle things unless called upon to help. Justice forces himself to come out, Faith is let out by Wynne.

Wynne doesn't lose control, and hasn't done anything she regrets because of the spirit. The same cannot be said of Anders.

[GavrielKay]

General User wrote...
Ella was an innocent victim.  Anders should have been able to recognize that and act accordingly.  He wasn't.  If it was the Justice spirit that wasn't able to recognize Ella for who and what she really was, than the girl was right; Justice is a demon and Anders is an abomination.

It would hardly be the first time someone got so angry that they lashed out at an innocent before getting themselves under control.  It isn't a good thing, but on its own, it is insufficient to damn Anders.

Anders never denies that he is an Abmonination.

I think Anders knows that he should have realized that Justice untempered by mercy or pragmatism would be an overwhelming influence on his mind.  He says he corrupted Justice into Vengeance, but I rather think it's the opposite and Anders just feels too ashamed to see it properly.  All through Awakenings, it is Justice prodding Anders to do something for all mages, not just hide himself away.

As the situation in Kirkwall gets worse and worse, Justice gets stronger and more fierce.  Anders and his "just happy to see the outdoors again" attitude didn't stand a chance.

[dragonflight288]

Anders can kill Ella when he lashes out. Justice doesn't care. She's just part of the templars because she called him a demon.

[DPSSOC]

GavrielKay wrote...

General User wrote...
Ella was an innocent victim.  Anders should have been able to recognize that and act accordingly.  He wasn't.  If it was the Justice spirit that wasn't able to recognize Ella for who and what she really was, than the girl was right; Justice is a demon and Anders is an abomination.

It would hardly be the first time someone got so angry that they lashed out at an innocent before getting themselves under control.  It isn't a good thing, but on its own, it is insufficient to damn Anders.

Let's take a step back for a moment and distance ourselves from the specific characters.  What would be your opinion if you heard about a man who was so enraged by witnessing two people attempting to mug a young woman in an alley that he intervened and killed them.  Then when the woman, legitimately frightened, pleaded with him not to hurt her too he became so angry that she'd associate him with her attackers that he killed her too.  Or, if you'd prefer to look at it this way, was riding high on adrenaline from the first two kills that when the woman reached out to thank him he lashed out and killed her.

Would you not consider this man to be at least unbalanced?  What if it could be shown that, while this is the first time an innocent was harmed, he had a history of this kind of behaviour?  Would you not agree, well meaning or not, that his man is dangerous?  Cause I know I'd be calling for a straight jacket and some therapy.