501 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

If telling a lie i one sitation to achieve something makes you consistently manipulative, then we all are so.

He was manipulative in bomb situation and emotional blackmail is always nasty to get on the sticky end off, but considering why he did it I understand. Still it is never comfortable to experience.

Modifié par esper, 04 février 2014 - 12:45 .

[Captain Crash]

MisterJB wrote...

Well, let's see:

Killed a mage girl and tried to convince her parents the Templars did it.

Lied to Hawke in order to make a bomb.

Tried to convince Hawke to help him destroy the Chantry and, if s/he doesn't agree, tries to emotionally blackmail him/her with phrases such as "If you don't help me, you've never loved me."

Forced the mages into a fight-or-die situation.

And those are just the ones I can recall right now. I'm fairly certain there's more evidence if I bothered to look. So, yes, he is very manipulative.

Very manipulative is just the start...  I would say he borders on being a psychopath in DA2 (Raises flame shield). I know there is a lot of love for Anders by some, I personally can't see it and just thing he's nuts.  Fighting for a cause you believe in is one thing,  this is just beyond the rational behaviour of someone who is sound of mind.  Then again there are two "people" inside that mind.

[Br3admax]

Jaison1986 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Anders lived in Ferelden's Circle. He didn't do those things because of abuses. He did those things because he's a radical.

And the templars aren't?

What does this have to do with my point? And in Ferelden, no they aren't. In fact, in most places they aren't. Kirkwall had Templars in high positions, but in most places, they were kept in check. Broad generalizations, are bad, generally. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 04 février 2014 - 12:51 .

[Lulupab]

Captain Crash wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Well, let's see:

Killed a mage girl and tried to convince her parents the Templars did it.

Lied to Hawke in order to make a bomb.

Tried to convince Hawke to help him destroy the Chantry and, if s/he doesn't agree, tries to emotionally blackmail him/her with phrases such as "If you don't help me, you've never loved me."

Forced the mages into a fight-or-die situation.

And those are just the ones I can recall right now. I'm fairly certain there's more evidence if I bothered to look. So, yes, he is very manipulative.

Very manipulative is just the start...  I would say he borders on being a psychopath in DA2 (Raises flame shield). I know there is a lot of love for Anders by some, I personally can't see it and just thing he's nuts.  Fighting for a cause you believe in is one thing,  this is just beyond the rational behaviour of someone who is sound of mind.  Then again there are two "people" inside that mind.

Reading my two comments in previous page will definitely make you understand why people like him, but it won't make you like him though.

[Lulupab]

esper wrote...

If telling a lie i one sitation to achieve something makes you consistently manipulative, then we all are so.

He was manipulative in bomb situation and emotional blackmail is always nasty to get on the sticky end off, but considering why he did it I understand. Still it is never comfortable to experience.

I could never kill Anders for what he did. Yes, his actions were horrible but they were also necessary. As much as I hate to say this, war happens. Death happens. Murder happens. But sometimes, these actions are necessary to accelerate change. People are scared of change. Sometimes (again I hate to say this) people have to be shocked into taking the first step. 

[Billy-the-Squid]

rasloveszev wrote...

 If he lives, do you think he'll be as manipulative in DAI?

Personally, I never considered Anders to be manipulative, but that's because my Hawke was also a revolutionary and a pro-mage warriror.

No, he's not. He's a massive ****. 

The plot on the other hand, has "railroad" written in crayon all over it.

[Navasha]

Of course he was manipulative. He lied about what he was doing to get Hawke's aid secretly involving his 'friend' in a terrorist act that killed a bunch of innocent people.

I liked Anders a lot in Awakening. The change to his personality in DA2 made him pretty unlikeable.

[Billy-the-Squid]

Rassler wrote...

esper wrote...

If telling a lie i one sitation to achieve something makes you consistently manipulative, then we all are so.

He was manipulative in bomb situation and emotional blackmail is always nasty to get on the sticky end off, but considering why he did it I understand. Still it is never comfortable to experience.

I could never kill Anders for what he did. Yes, his actions were horrible but they were also necessary. As much as I hate to say this, war happens. Death happens. Murder happens. But sometimes, these actions are necessary to accelerate change. People are scared of change. Sometimes (again I hate to say this) people have to be shocked into taking the first step. 

I'm sure the IRA tried to rationalise bombing civilian targets in Britain in the same way. 

[MisterJB]

Jaison1986 wrote...
The Circle failed the mages because it allowed mages to suffer horrific abuses without punishment. That's what he meant.

Anders never once proposes any alternative to the current system. His ideas don't go beyond the general "mages should rule themselves" and he fails to properly explain how that would actually work in the real world.

He is adamant that the Circle mustn't be but he simply has no idea on how to actually address the fact magic creates many problems that must be dealt with. And thus, Anders decides to set the world on fire and then die, hoping that someone will actually build something from the ashes.
 

[Lulupab]

Tequila Cat wrote...

Rassler wrote...

esper wrote...

If telling a lie i one sitation to achieve something makes you consistently manipulative, then we all are so.

He was manipulative in bomb situation and emotional blackmail is always nasty to get on the sticky end off, but considering why he did it I understand. Still it is never comfortable to experience.

I could never kill Anders for what he did. Yes, his actions were horrible but they were also necessary. As much as I hate to say this, war happens. Death happens. Murder happens. But sometimes, these actions are necessary to accelerate change. People are scared of change. Sometimes (again I hate to say this) people have to be shocked into taking the first step. 

I'm sure the IRA tried to rationalise bombing civilian targets in Britain in the same way. 

The Britian incident had nothing to do with changing the whole world so at least find a valid example. 

[Jaison1986]

Br3ad wrote...

Jaison1986 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Anders lived in Ferelden's Circle. He didn't do those things because of abuses. He did those things because he's a radical.

And the templars aren't?

What does this have to do with my point? And in Ferelden, no they aren't. In fact, in most places they aren't. Kirkwall had Templars in high positions, but in most places, they were kept in check. Broad generalizations, are bad, generally. 

My point is that radical groups can't be reasoned with, and then people opposing them are forced to become radical themselves in order to have an chance to fight back. Anders became an radical because the templars would never leave the mages alone no matter how many times people asked them. What's left for him to do?

And I don't quite agree. I find the templars radical everywere. If you don't follow their rules blindly you die or you get lobotomized. Mages lived in circles in Rivain but took an different life style, that was enough to call for their execution. The templars declared war against the mages when they vouched for their freedom. They didn't wanted to dominate any one, or go on a rampage. They wanted a life free of templars and that was enough to call for war. These kind of examples make the templars look pretty radical if you ask me.

[Dean_the_Young]

So it's a matter of scale, not principle. Gotcha.

Well, the point about rationalizing it seems to have been proven, so your disagreement might have been counterproductive there...

[Billy-the-Squid]

Rassler wrote...

Tequila Cat wrote...

Rassler wrote...

esper wrote...

If telling a lie i one sitation to achieve something makes you consistently manipulative, then we all are so.

He was manipulative in bomb situation and emotional blackmail is always nasty to get on the sticky end off, but considering why he did it I understand. Still it is never comfortable to experience.

I could never kill Anders for what he did. Yes, his actions were horrible but they were also necessary. As much as I hate to say this, war happens. Death happens. Murder happens. But sometimes, these actions are necessary to accelerate change. People are scared of change. Sometimes (again I hate to say this) people have to be shocked into taking the first step. 

I'm sure the IRA tried to rationalise bombing civilian targets in Britain in the same way. 

The Britian incident had nothing to do with changing the whole world so at least find a valid example. 

Who's changing the whole world? Its the perfect parallel of the conflict between Britain, the Ulster Loyalists and the IRA, as well as the Irish Republic on whether to remain part of the UK or join the Republic of Ireland. 

The IRA used exactly the same reasoning to try and force global politics into capitulation by bombing civilian targets, learn some history you Philistine.

Modifié par Tequila Cat, 04 février 2014 - 01:06 .

[esper]

Tequila Cat wrote...

Rassler wrote...

esper wrote...

If telling a lie i one sitation to achieve something makes you consistently manipulative, then we all are so.

He was manipulative in bomb situation and emotional blackmail is always nasty to get on the sticky end off, but considering why he did it I understand. Still it is never comfortable to experience.

I could never kill Anders for what he did. Yes, his actions were horrible but they were also necessary. As much as I hate to say this, war happens. Death happens. Murder happens. But sometimes, these actions are necessary to accelerate change. People are scared of change. Sometimes (again I hate to say this) people have to be shocked into taking the first step. 

I'm sure the IRA tried to rationalise bombing civilian targets in Britain in the same way. 

And I am pretty sure the french monarchs considered the rebels law abiding citizien, just as rest of the world considered Napoleon a saint for stopping the cabinet of terror that followed (is that the english expression of it?). Once we gets to these sort of wars it is never pretty or clear cut and someone will always get hurt.

And then we are not even getting into the fact that Elthina and the chantry wasn't a civilian target. The chantry is a military organisation, which was in charge of the circle, they are not our modern non-military church.

[MisterJB]

Rassler wrote...
The Britian incident had nothing to do with changing the whole world so at least find a valid example. 

Wait, so terrorism is acceptable on a large enough scale?

[Lulupab]

TipsLeFedora wrote...

I am pretty sure most terrorists think they are doing what is "necessary." Anders is not a symbol he is a radical deluded paranoid terrorist. Is that how you want the mages to be known? Known by some madman?

Andraste did the same thing, she razed the world to the ground and millions died. After her death she left ashes for others to continue what she started. Though Anders is not a holy figure, just a figure.

What Anders did might have happened sooner or later. It was apparent of the tensions between mages and templars were building and close to burst. if Anders didn't do what he did, then nothing would've changed and the same cycles of hatred, fear and use of the Right of Annulment would continue and new mages would have come and start over again. Change rarely comes peacefully. Andraste didn't send the Tevinter Imperium a written letter. So I say, the sooner, the better to enter a new world with balance between magic and control. Do you honestly think innocents didn't die in Andraste's war? That zealots did not serve under Andraste and murdered children just because they were Tevinter? Its a matter of two sides and most people have taken one here. 

[berelinde]

This has absolutely no bearing on Inquisition. If you killed him, he's dead. End of story. If you did not kill him, then you either supported/forgave him (and didn't mind the manipulation) or you want him to pay for his crimes by living with the destruction (which might also be considered manipulation). End of story.

As long as game mechanics require that the protagonist do things for the companions to gain favor with them, they will all be manipulative.

"But [my favorite] wasn't manipulative!" you say. Yes, they were. You just liked them enough to forgive them for it.

[Br3admax]

Jaison1986 wrote...

My point is that radical groups can't be reasoned with, and then people opposing them are forced to become radical themselves in order to have an chance to fight back.

No you really don't. You don't have to blow up people to fight back against anything. Otherwise, you are hypocritical, and thus not worthy of the freedom you crave, and are worthy of the standards that were put on you. "Mages won't do that." "Yes they will." *Blows up building*"You should have believed me."

Anders became an radical because the templars would never leave the mages alone no matter how many times people asked them. What's left for him to do?

Not be an idiot? Not murder innocents? Not manipulate his friends into helping him kill others? There are plenty of things he could have done besides trying to prove the Templars right.

And I don't quite agree. I find the templars radical everywere. If you don't follow their rules blindly you die or you get lobotomized. Mages lived in circles in Rivain but took an different life style, that was enough to call for their execution.

Because they were allowing themselves to be possessed. They were inviting spirits into their bodies knowing full well the consequences. Let's not act like the Templars went in and just started killing because they had a chip on their shoulder that day.

The templars declared war against the mages when they vouched for their freedom. They didn't wanted to dominate any one, or go on a rampage. They wanted a life free of templars and that was enough to call for war. These kind of examples make the templars look pretty radical if you ask me.

Mages wanting to blow up people so they can live without supervision, dominate as they have before, and the cycle repeats for all time time, makes the Templars seem radical? What? Wanting reformation is not radical. Wanting change is not radical. Saying that we need this now and then killing everyone who is an obstacle is very much radical. The Templars opposing this does not make them radical. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 04 février 2014 - 01:15 .

[Billy-the-Squid]

esper wrote...

Tequila Cat wrote...

Rassler wrote...

esper wrote...

If telling a lie i one sitation to achieve something makes you consistently manipulative, then we all are so.

He was manipulative in bomb situation and emotional blackmail is always nasty to get on the sticky end off, but considering why he did it I understand. Still it is never comfortable to experience.

I could never kill Anders for what he did. Yes, his actions were horrible but they were also necessary. As much as I hate to say this, war happens. Death happens. Murder happens. But sometimes, these actions are necessary to accelerate change. People are scared of change. Sometimes (again I hate to say this) people have to be shocked into taking the first step. 

I'm sure the IRA tried to rationalise bombing civilian targets in Britain in the same way. 

And I am pretty sure the french monarchs considered the rebels law abiding citizien, just as rest of the world considered Napoleon a saint for stopping the cabinet of terror that followed (is that the english expression of it?). Once we gets to these sort of wars it is never pretty or clear cut and someone will always get hurt.

And then we are not even getting into the fact that Elthina and the chantry wasn't a civilian target. The chantry is a military organisation, which was in charge of the circle, they are not our modern non-military church.

So the medieval church was a military target, riiiight so why was it that Church ground was considered off limits and safe ground through out medieval history?

From the 6th century AD under the Merovingians up until the Tudor period and the Reformation? Spilling blood on church ground was a huge sin. Or didn't the subsequent murder of Archbishop of Canterbury, lead to the widescale revulsion of the current monarchy and the mortal sin of the men who carried out the act after the condemnation of the Pope. Or didn't the families of those who lost conflicts in the 50 years of civil war in the War of the Roses, didn't repeatedly seek shelter on church grounds?

Modifié par Tequila Cat, 04 février 2014 - 01:18 .

[Reaverwind]

Captain Crash wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Well, let's see:

Killed a mage girl and tried to convince her parents the Templars did it.

Lied to Hawke in order to make a bomb.

Tried to convince Hawke to help him destroy the Chantry and, if s/he doesn't agree, tries to emotionally blackmail him/her with phrases such as "If you don't help me, you've never loved me."

Forced the mages into a fight-or-die situation.

And those are just the ones I can recall right now. I'm fairly certain there's more evidence if I bothered to look. So, yes, he is very manipulative.

Very manipulative is just the start...  I would say he borders on being a psychopath in DA2 (Raises flame shield). I know there is a lot of love for Anders by some, I personally can't see it and just thing he's nuts.  Fighting for a cause you believe in is one thing,  this is just beyond the rational behaviour of someone who is sound of mind.  Then again there are two "people" inside that mind.

I never understood his appeal, and never liked him in Awakening. I didn't like Justice either - and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that joining a fanatic with a sociopath wouldn't turn out well.

Modifié par Reaverwind, 04 février 2014 - 01:19 .

[Lulupab]

MisterJB wrote...

Rassler wrote...
The Britian incident had nothing to do with changing the whole world so at least find a valid example. 

Wait, so terrorism is acceptable on a large enough scale?

If you read my posts in previoys page you would have understand, its not about acceptable but its about neccesity. For every Martin Luther King or Anne Frank or Rosa Parks or Gandhi you see in the world, there are people with blood on their hands who give the rest of the world the opportunity to take the moral high road. Their actions ARE despicable, but that doesn't make them any less necessary. This is the point that the rest of us are missing, from our very comfortable positions in life: being able to take the high road and condemn the actions of murderous freedom fighters is, sometimes, not recognized for what it is: a luxury that we would NOT HAVE if not for those murderers giving the rest of the world something to rally around.

"Terrorism" has always happened in large scale changes, and people responsible for them are long forgotten but leaders who rose up and used these incidents to rally people are remembered. The person who will lead the mages in rebellion will be hero to all of them, but its because of despicable actions of figures like Adrain and Anders that there will be such a hero. Also this is a matter of two sides who are both right therefore the hero of mages will be a murderer to Templars and vice versa.

[Veruin]

Br3ad wrote...

What does this have to do with my point? And in Ferelden, no they aren't. In fact, in most places they aren't. Kirkwall had Templars in high positions, but in most places, they were kept in check. Broad generalizations, are bad, generally. 

You know broad generalizations can be successfully applied to Templars because they all share a hive mind.  While mages are all unique individuals who just need some love and caring to be successful in life.

Rassler wrote...
*snip*

Exactly who decides what's neccesary?  The idiotic radicals? You?

Modifié par Veruin, 04 février 2014 - 01:21 .

[Billy-the-Squid]

Rassler wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Rassler wrote...
The Britian incident had nothing to do with changing the whole world so at least find a valid example. 

Wait, so terrorism is acceptable on a large enough scale?

If you read my posts in previoys page you would have understand, its not about acceptable but its about neccesity. For every Martin Luther King or Anne Frank or Rosa Parks or Gandhi you see in the world, there are people with blood on their hands who give the rest of the world the opportunity to take the moral high road. Their actions ARE despicable, but that doesn't make them any less necessary. This is the point that the rest of us are missing, from our very comfortable positions in life: being able to take the high road and condemn the actions of murderous freedom fighters is, sometimes, not recognized for what it is: a luxury that we would NOT HAVE if not for those murderers giving the rest of the world something to rally around.

"Terrorism" has always happened in large scale changes, and people responsible for them are long forgotten but leaders who rose up and used these incidents to rally people are remembered. The person who will lead the mages in rebellion will be hero to all of them, but its because of despicable actions of figures like Adrain and Anders that there will be such a hero. Also this is a matter of two sides who are both right therefore the hero of mages will be a murderer to Templars and vice versa.

Northern Ireland is still part of Britain by the way, so nothing changed by attacking civilian targets, the IRA just became hated by everyone. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Jaison1986 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Jaison1986 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Anders lived in Ferelden's Circle. He didn't do those things because of abuses. He did those things because he's a radical.

And the templars aren't?

What does this have to do with my point? And in Ferelden, no they aren't. In fact, in most places they aren't. Kirkwall had Templars in high positions, but in most places, they were kept in check. Broad generalizations, are bad, generally. 

My point is that radical groups can't be reasoned with, and then people opposing them are forced to become radical themselves in order to have an chance to fight back. Anders became an radical because the templars would never leave the mages alone no matter how many times people asked them. What's left for him to do?

Not become a radical and blowing up third-party civilian targets. It's amazing, but you don't have to be a fanatic to fight fanatics, and there's nothing necessary about his choice of targets or rational for doing so. Personal responsibility doesn't go away just because your opponents don't compromise to you, and Anders path to radicalism is one he is far more responsible for as an individual than the Templars are.

By the end, Anders isn't even interested in getting the mages left alone: having them wiped out entirely is an acceptable resolution to his fixation.

And I don't quite agree. I find the templars radical everywere. If you don't follow their rules blindly you die or you get lobotomized. Mages lived in circles in Rivain but took an different life style, that was enough to call for their execution. The templars declared war against the mages when they vouched for their freedom. They didn't wanted to dominate any one, or go on a rampage. They wanted a life free of templars and that was enough to call for war. These kind of examples make the templars look pretty radical if you ask me.

Look? Sure. But within the context of the Templar's concerns and goals? 

The Templars aren't an organization the only cares about the now, their perspective also includes the future. Mages wanting to free from Templars and having no desire to dominate anyone else or go on a rampage today is irrelevant to what they may do tomorrow (or next week, or next year, or anytime forward), when their views and perspectives shift. We already have plenty of mages in DA2, from Anders to the very local head of the Circle on down, who committed or were content to enable just that sort of behavior, and somehow the mages will (successfully, somehow) change that afterwards?

As the Templar mandate is to prevent such abuses from occuring in the first place, the Mage demand to live a life free of templars is also a demand to be in a position from which they can dominate others or go on a rampage. They may not want to, now, but they are actively seeking the ability to. By, and the irony is thick, a revolt that is rampage and an attempt to dominate their preferences on others, which if successful will put them into a position from which they can rampage and attempt to dominate others... but to you it looks like the people opposing this are radicals.

So, sure. Look.

Of course, it also doesn't help the mages case that what they intend to do can easily be completely irrelevant to what they will do, willingly (from stress) or not (possession victims).