198 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Anders died in Amaranthine, in my playthrough. About the same time he was also heading into the deep roads with Hawke. The guy has plot armour.

Apparently, the timeline in The World of Thedas clears some of this up.

Yes. I heard there was some sort of edit in that one. But for people who just play the games, the timeline issue will still be there. I wouldn`t want to have to buy a book just to find out "this is what we really meant".

[Zeldrik1389]

Rawgrim wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Anders died in Amaranthine, in my playthrough. About the same time he was also heading into the deep roads with Hawke. The guy has plot armour.

Apparently, the timeline in The World of Thedas clears some of this up.

Yes. I heard there was some sort of edit in that one. But for people who just play the games, the timeline issue will still be there. I wouldn`t want to have to buy a book just to find out "this is what we really meant".

it will be updated on DA wiki or sth soon enough once the book is out I think

[The Elder King]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Anders died in Amaranthine, in my playthrough. About the same time he was also heading into the deep roads with Hawke. The guy has plot armour.

Apparently, the timeline in The World of Thedas clears some of this up.

I hope so. With DA2 they practically screwed up the timeline.

[Rawgrim]

Well it will still be utterly screwed up in the games. unless they release a patch for both DA games and fix it. Now we will just have a book that contradicts a game that contradicts another game.

[Fast Jimmy]

Rawgrim wrote...

Well it will still be utterly screwed up in the games. unless they release a patch for both DA games and fix it. Now we will just have a book that contradicts a game that contradicts another game.

Well, I think it was just a little skewed and ambiguous. The only frame of reference we have for how much time had passed in DA:O was Wynne's comment about it nearly being a year. I think the World of Thedas confrims that all of the events in DA:O and DA:A happened in the same year (9:31), which was the same year Hawke left his time with the mercernaries.

It basically, from what I can tell, compresses the events in the original game into a much more tight schedule than some offhand comments would indicate. That's not really lying or changing things (since concrete time frames were never given in the games), but it just makes them a lot less "natural" than dialogue would have indicated.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 avril 2013 - 11:22 .

[In Exile]

mosesarose wrote...
The cirlcle is all Finn knows. He accept his role as a cirlcle mage (This is what Anders dislike, mages accepting their place in the circle when they know nothing else of the outside word).  

And that's what's so offensive about what Anders believes. It's one thing to talk about preventing abuse. It's another to hold on to some normative ideal that others just don't believe in, and demand that they die for your cause. 

Finn is one of those mages whom are lucky enough not to have been abuse, or harrased by the templars. You asked me what about Finn or other mages who accept their place in the circle.  

The idea that Finn somehow deserves to suffer/die because of what his life has been life, or that it's somehow justifiedf for Anders (or anyone) to decree that Finn should die is what's so very offensive (as I said above).

Again - it's one thing to organize the mages and to break away. The system is abusive. Mages like Finn are lucky. I don't think they have a right to complaint re: whether abused mages take action to free themselves, even if it makes their lot worse.

But there's an incredible gulf between a (large) group of mages breaking away from the Chantry, and having that effectively force Finn (and other lucky mages) to choose between two bad ends (e.g. imprisonment with the templars, or rebellion) and decreeing that mages like Finn should die painfully because of what you believe in in.

But what about those mages who are abused by the templars? What about those mages who want to have a family one day but can't? What about those mages who are forced into tranquilty with no say in the matter?

Those mages have a right not to be beaten, run through with a sword, and very likely sexually abused before being murdered because Anders decreed that them dying in that way will lead to a moral and just world.

What makes Meredith (and her ilk) so very offensive is that they think that some potential injustice - i.e., the things mages could do - justifies them effectively restraining mage freedom and propagating a system that is (at its core) something incredibly prone to abuse.

But Anders is no different. He willingly and intentionally wants to inflict the same kind of suffering on mages. The only difference is that he wants to forcer mages to rebell, instead of doing it to psychologically break them so that they don't.

Mages can't do anything without Chantry or Templar permission and that's what really makes Anders unhappy, mages have no say over their own lives.

And his answer to that is to make a decision for every mage in Kirkwall. He's offended because Meredith hols power of life and death over the mages, and so his response to that is to decide whether they live or die. 

I never said Anders had the right to do what he's done. I said he do what he's done to get what HE WANTS, and that is to stop mages from accepting the circle as their entire life. 

Then I hope you should clarify this:

Anders uses this stunt to give the mages no other choices but to fight, and as I said he relies on Meredith for this also. And sure some mages may have died, some may have turned into abomination, and innocents my have been caught in all this mess. But sacrifices must be made in any conflict, and Kirkwall is that sacrifice

Because the underlined sounds very much like a moral justifcation, and everything else sounds like general a statement of support for Anders and his methods. 

He dislike mages conforming to the Chantry and Templars demands and he uses Kirkwall as a tool to achieve this. And to answer your question on what Anders changed. He change the mages, he caused them to not accept the lives they are given within the circle. He causes them to rebel and fight for their freedom, what is Ultimately what he wanted in the first place.    

He didn't change anything. What did Orsino do right after? He begged Meredith not to annull the circle, and was willing to submit to any kind of abuse she was willing to inflict short of death. If Hawke sides with the templars, then mages surrender to the Order to be made Tranquil rather than die. 

The mages in Kirkwall didn't "rise up". What Anders did made Meredith decide that it was time for wholesale slaughter. The fact that not every mage (although some did!) want to willingly submit to that kind of abuse doesn't mean Anders "made them rise up". It means some people fight back when they're about to be run through with a sword. 

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Well, I think it was just a little skewed and ambiguous. The only frame of reference we have for how much time had passed in DA:O was Wynne's comment about it nearly being a year. I think the World of Thedas confrims that all of the events in DA:O and DA:A happened in the same year (9:31), which was the same year Hawke left his time with the mercernaries.

It basically, from what I can tell, compresses the events in the original game into a much more tight schedule than some offhand comments would indicate. That's not really lying or changing things (since concrete time frames were never given in the games), but it just makes them a lot less "natural" than dialogue would have indicated.

Wynne's comment always confused me, because there was 0 indicationt that any significant amount of time passed. I mean, we do every single event in DA:O in (give or take) about a day. There's no indication that (e.g.) the Warden spent 7 months in the deep roads. So it (IMO) was really, really clunky to say that DA:O took any amount of time at all. 

[Zyree]

 The mage/templar conflict has always bugged me because I've never been certain what my opinion of it is. I've sided with both the mages and templars multiple times through multiple playthroughs. Often the decisions I make during quests are based on who I want my Hawke to be and the final decision is made at the very end rather than planned out. I also never side with Meredith, nor do I view siding with the Templars as siding with her. That lady is completely crazy and I always let mages turn themselves in if I side with the Templars and defend them against her when she threatens them. I really like that siding with the Templars gives you this option. On the other hand, siding with the mages also makes you feel like you're fighting for the right thing.

On the topic of Anders however, I do agree that he was a terrorist and I can't forgive his actions, no matter my stance on the mage/templar conflict or how much I like him. I don't think it's right to force people into fighting for their lives for your cause. I do almost always leave him alive however because I think it's the most fitting revenge, making him live with his choices and the murders he's committed. The circle needs to change, that much is clear, but not this way.

Of couse, then the question of how it's supposed to change comes in and I don't have an answer to that.

In DA3 I imagine Anders will be significant whether you kill him or not, however I doubt he'll be alive if Vengance isn't possesing him. Questioning him does reveal sometimes that he is considering taking his own life when the fighting is over because he can't live with what he's done. I don't discount Vengance showing up on his own.

[EdwinLi]

Soptraparu27 wrote...

 The mage/templar conflict has always bugged me because I've never been certain what my opinion of it is. I've sided with both the mages and templars multiple times through multiple playthroughs. Often the decisions I make during quests are based on who I want my Hawke to be and the final decision is made at the very end rather than planned out. I also never side with Meredith, nor do I view siding with the Templars as siding with her. That lady is completely crazy and I always let mages turn themselves in if I side with the Templars and defend them against her when she threatens them. I really like that siding with the Templars gives you this option. On the other hand, siding with the mages also makes you feel like you're fighting for the right thing.

On the topic of Anders however, I do agree that he was a terrorist and I can't forgive his actions, no matter my stance on the mage/templar conflict or how much I like him. I don't think it's right to force people into fighting for their lives for your cause. I do almost always leave him alive however because I think it's the most fitting revenge, making him live with his choices and the murders he's committed. The circle needs to change, that much is clear, but not this way.

Of couse, then the question of how it's supposed to change comes in and I don't have an answer to that.

In DA3 I imagine Anders will be significant whether you kill him or not, however I doubt he'll be alive if Vengance isn't possesing him. Questioning him does reveal sometimes that he is considering taking his own life when the fighting is over because he can't live with what he's done. I don't discount Vengance showing up on his own.

Ya in DA2 there are a lot of hints that one way or the other Anders will die but when it happens is just in our hands. Most likey if they stick with there promise of Anders is gone for good in DA3 it could hint that they have plans for Justice to take Anders place no matter the outcome in DA2. 

Anders may have said killing him will free Justice but consider how worped Justice has become Anders' death may not be enough to send him back into the fade.

Modifié par EdwinLi, 18 avril 2013 - 12:53 .

[10K]

 

In Exile wrote...
Then I hope you should clarify this:

Anders uses this stunt to give the mages no other choices but to fight, and as I said he relies on Meredith for this also. And sure some mages may have died, some may have turned into abomination, and innocents my have been caught in all this mess. But sacrifices must be made in any conflict, and Kirkwall is that sacrifice

Because the underlined sounds very much like a moral justifcation, and everything else sounds like general a statement of support for Anders and his methods.

I will not try to counter everything you said because it will just turn into a long back and forth between us, we interprated Anders actions differently and I can't see us agreeing on it.

But here you say that this underlined statement is me saying he had the right to do what he did. This statement only express that in any conflict there will be a sacrifices,which Kirkwall is, it does not say anything about me thinking Anders have the right to commit his act of violence.     

[In Exile]

mosesarose wrote...
But here you say that this underlined statement is me saying he had the right to do what he did. This statement only express that in any conflict there will be a sacrifices,which Kirkwall is, it does not say anything about me thinking Anders have the right to commit his act of violence.     

There's something being lost in the translation here. You're saying, on the one hand, that he had the right to do what he did, but on the other hand, you don't think he had the right to do what he did? It reads like you're saying it's objectively true Anders had the moral justification to do what he did (this is where we get the phrase of 'rights' from - it's a big moral theory thing about entitles and reason/rationality etc. et.c). 

[DeathScepter]

it would be interesting if they re introduce Velenna and have her do something similar to The Warden did for Connor in Redcliffe in DAO. It would be an interesting boss battle with Anders and Velenna fighting Justice as vengenace.

Personally that Vengenace was in control of Anders when they decide to blow up the Chantry.

[10K]

In Exile wrote...

mosesarose wrote...
But here you say that this underlined statement is me saying he had the right to do what he did. This statement only express that in any conflict there will be a sacrifices,which Kirkwall is, it does not say anything about me thinking Anders have the right to commit his act of violence.     

There's something being lost in the translation here. You're saying, on the one hand, that he had the right to do what he did, but on the other hand, you don't think he had the right to do what he did? It reads like you're saying it's objectively true Anders had the moral justification to do what he did (this is where we get the phrase of 'rights' from - it's a big moral theory thing about entitles and reason/rationality etc. et.c). 

I never said that Anders have the right to do what he's done. I don't believe Anders have ANY justification to what he's done, be that morally or whatever. You seem to think that I believe Anders had a justification for what he's done, but I don't. I agree with it, but I don't think he had the right to do it.

Modifié par mosesarose, 18 avril 2013 - 01:25 .

[Mellonuial]

 Hmmm....utterly fascinating discussion. I hardly know where to begin!

First my "history" with Anders: I've never killed him in any playthrough. That does not mean I condone his actions. I personally don't. Some of my Hawkes do, others don't, but they never take his life. I have also romanced him as both a woman and a man, and Vengence does not approve of the relationship, yet Anders's love for Hawke allows him to overcome Vengence's disapproval. In the final "goodbye" scene, when one of my female Hawkes chooses to have a life with Anders, Anders talks glowingly about securing a world where their children will be free. Rivalry is all well and good, but I think that Hawke's love for Anders can be just as powerful. The only character I cannot stand is Sebastian. All of my Hawkes would kill him if given the option.

Now as to Anders's actions, do I approve? Of course not. But this is an RPG game, so I base my in-game choices on how my Hawke would react. Most of my Hawkes are lukewarm Andrastrians at best, and the same is true of my Wardens (mainly because they are mostly Dwarves or Dalish Elves). My Hawkes look at the golden statues in the Kirkwall Chantry and then at the squalid conditions of Dark Town and are disgusted, as they believe Andraste would be as well. Stepping out of character, I see the Chantry as so disconnected from the world around it that I believe there would have been a Reformation with or without the Mage rebellion.

As for Elthina being an "innocent" victim, she had the power to remove Meredith from power, just as Cullen attempted to at the end (if you side with the mages). Her opinion on the Mage question was clear, if not stated: Mages are right where they should be. She could have stepped in right at the beginning of Act 3 but didn't, and that inaction speaks volumes. Does that mean she deserves what she got? Absolutely not.

And as for the brutality of the explosion and its immediate aftermath, that is what war IS. War is violent. Innocents get killed. To paraphrase the Union Civil War General Sherman: If anyone complains about my methods, I tell them war is hell and not a square dance. War between Chantry and Mages was inevitable. Anders just struck the first blow.

As for Anders's ultimate fate, I think Anders/Vengence will be around in some way, shape or form in DA3. If Hawke killed Anders in DA2, then Hawke handed Vengence a new vessal in which to continue his bloody crusade. If Hawke allows Anders to live, then the union will continue unless a way can be found to separate them. In either case I can't wait to see what happens.

Again great discussion. It's nice to get an anti-Anders perspective. You haven't changed my mind, but you have made me think.

Modifié par Mellonuial, 18 avril 2013 - 02:14 .

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

Wynne's comment always confused me, because there was 0 indicationt that any significant amount of time passed. I mean, we do every single event in DA:O in (give or take) about a day. There's no indication that (e.g.) the Warden spent 7 months in the deep roads. So it (IMO) was really, really clunky to say that DA:O took any amount of time at all. 

Why would you assume the mechanics of the game are the same as the narrative?

Anders presence in Kirkwall was odd, given how Act I took place a year after the prologue; the developers said a few months passed between the death of the Archdemon and the royal ceremony, six months passed between Origins and Awakening, and there's the issue of the events of Awakening. I wonder how the book reconciled these issues; it would make sense that the developers might revise the dates of certain events.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Why would you assume the mechanics of the game are the same as the narrative?

Because the passage of serious time - i.e., a year (or more) requires things like the seasons changing. 

[In Exile]

mosesarose wrote...
I never said that Anders have the right to do what he's done. I don't believe Anders have ANY justification to what he's done, be that morally or whatever. You seem to think that I believe Anders had a justification for what he's done, but I don't. I agree with it, but I don't think he had the right to do it.

Wait, you're actually admiting you support people commiting immoral acts in favour of causes they like? Because, I mean, I totally admire you for the honesty of your belief and apologize for misinterpreting you, but it's just that I haven't ever someone someone on this forum come out and say:

1. What Anders did was immoral.
2. I totally agree with it. 

[10K]

In Exile wrote...

mosesarose wrote...
I never said that Anders have the right to do what he's done. I don't believe Anders have ANY justification to what he's done, be that morally or whatever. You seem to think that I believe Anders had a justification for what he's done, but I don't. I agree with it, but I don't think he had the right to do it.

Wait, you're actually admiting you support people commiting immoral acts in favour of causes they like? Because, I mean, I totally admire you for the honesty of your belief and apologize for misinterpreting you, but it's just that I haven't ever someone someone on this forum come out and say:

1. What Anders did was immoral.
2. I totally agree with it. 

Yes, I support  what he did. But by no means do I think he had the right to do it.

[In Exile]

Mellonuial wrote...
As for Elthina being an "innocent" victim, she had the power to remove Meredith from power, just as Cullen attempted to at the end (if you side with the mages). Her opinion on the Mage question was clear, if not stated: Mages are right where they should be. She could have stepped in right at the beginning of Act 3 but didn't, and that inaction speaks volumes. Does that mean she deserves what she got? Absolutely not.

Politics doesn't work that way. In theory, the Viscount could exile Meredith and the entire templar order if he wanted to as traitors to Kirkwall. In practice, the second he said that his head would be decorating a pike on the gallows. If Elthina moves against Meredith and the templars support don't support her over Meredith, then Meredith can just say that a blood mage is controlling Ethina and have her imprisoned. 

That's the beauty of mind control - it lets you spin whatever narrative you want. I don't think Elthina had the political power to do anything. She also didn't have the spine to take any kind of action. But even if she did, I find it hard to see what she could do short of trying to conspire with either the Viscount to have Meredith removed, or to have her replaced with a more malleable KN by the Divine.

And as for the brutality of the explosion and its immediate aftermath, that is what war IS. War is violent. Innocents get killed. To paraphrase the Union Civil War General Sherman: If anyone complains about my methods, I tell them war is hell and not a square dance. War between Chantry and Mages was inevitable. Anders just struck the first blow.

Anders didn't strike any kind of blow. He didn't hurt the templars at all. No matter what he does, the majority of mages in Kirkwall die. Hell, if Hawke sides against him, every single mage in Kirkwall dies. Not only that, but he doesn't even strike against military targets. 

There's a big, big difference between a war and arranging a massacre to force people to fight. 

Modifié par In Exile, 18 avril 2013 - 03:20 .

[Malanek]

In Exile wrote...
Anders didn't strike any kind of blow. He didn't hurt the templars at all. No matter what he does, the majority of mages in Kirkwall die. Hell, if Hawke sides against him, every single mage in Kirkwall dies. Not only that, but he doesn't even strike against military targets. 

There's a big, big difference between a war and arranging a massacre to force people to fight. 

At the end of DA2 we know from the epilogue that mages started rebelling accross the Thedas. They would not have been doing this without what Anders did. It was never meant to be a millitary blow. It was symbolism, a spark to start a rebellion.

[In Exile]

Malanek999 wrote...
At the end of DA2 we know from the epilogue that mages started rebelling accross the Thedas. They would not have been doing this without what Anders did. It was never meant to be a millitary blow. It was symbolism, a spark to start a rebellion.

Except for the part where Leliana is in Kirkwall because, oh noes, the Libertarians are thinking of rebelling and she wants Elthina to abandon the city. 

And as Asunder proves, the mages ended up rebelling because of a wide combination of factors, having very little to do with Anders. 

[Malanek]

In Exile wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
At the end of DA2 we know from the epilogue that mages started rebelling accross the Thedas. They would not have been doing this without what Anders did. It was never meant to be a millitary blow. It was symbolism, a spark to start a rebellion.

Except for the part where Leliana is in Kirkwall because, oh noes, the Libertarians are thinking of rebelling and she wants Elthina to abandon the city. 

And as Asunder proves, the mages ended up rebelling because of a wide combination of factors, having very little to do with Anders. 

Ultimately they are rebelling because of decades of persecution which predates Anders and Asunder. But I think most people would agree Anders actions started the ball rolling in terms of encouraging a rebellion. It was talked about by mages and templars alike in Asunder.

[Renmiri1]

Malanek999 wrote...

Ultimately they are rebelling because of decades of persecution which predates Anders and Asunder. But I think most people would agree Anders actions started the ball rolling in terms of encouraging a rebellion. It was talked about by mages and templars alike in Asunder.

I disagree.

I think all Anders did was to say "Enough, We aren't going to take this **** lying down anymore". On Asunder you see another mage taking matters into her own hands. What caused the mage rebelion was the near genocidal conditions mages were being treated in Kirkwall and some Circles.

By acting first he saved some mages' lives. All other anulled circles had no mages left alive to tell their side of the story. Anders didn't give Meredith the opportunity to do that in Kirkwal. And that is how all Thedas heard about Meredith's madness and abuse.

[In Exile]

Malanek999 wrote...
Ultimately they are rebelling because of decades of persecution which predates Anders and Asunder. But I think most people would agree Anders actions started the ball rolling in terms of encouraging a rebellion. It was talked about by mages and templars alike in Asunder.

I disagree. Anders was a looney bin, but look at what Leliana was saying - the Libertarians are pushing for freedom. Wynne: the Circles are meeting to discuss that now's the time to be free. 

There's a movement there. 

Renmiri1 wrote...
I think all Anders did was to say "Enough, We aren't going to take this **** lying down anymore". On Asunder you see another mage taking matters into her own hands. What caused the mage rebelion was the near genocidal conditions mages were being treated in Kirkwall and some Circles.

Exactly. What caused the rebellion was the abuse the templars were propagating, not Anders using a magic nuke on a chantry.

By acting first he saved some mages' lives. 

No, he didn't. Almost all the mages died! Literally, all the mages are dead in Kirkwall. And the mages didn't rebell after that anyway! It took all of Asunder to get them to that point, and Knight whatever whatshisface played a big part in that. 

All other anulled circles had no mages left alive to tell their side of the story.

Neither did Kirkwall, unless Hawk chooses their side. 

Anders didn't give Meredith the opportunity to do that in Kirkwal.

What!? Anders' whole plot was to give Meredith the opportunity to do that! Literally, the Rite of Annulment happens because Meredith is a frothing at the mouth lunatic who just got a golden opportunity for some genocide thanks to Anders. 

And that is how all Thedas heard about Meredith's madness and abuse.

Well, no. What people are talking about - even in Asunder - is the Rite of Annulment. Which the templars probably publicize each time to threaten mages. 

Modifié par In Exile, 18 avril 2013 - 04:45 .

[Renmiri1]

No not all the mages are dead. MageHawke / Anders might survive and Bethany survives if Hawke isnt a mage. Granted Bethany might have died on the Deep Roads but the only reason the mages story get told is because at least ONE survived.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 18 avril 2013 - 04:50 .