501 réponses à ce sujet

[General TSAR]

[quote]Rassler wrote...

Your avatar does you credit.[/quote]
Thanks Sweetie. 

[quote]You won't even understand this but whatever.[/quote]

http://dgaider.tumbl...tions-on-anders

[/quote]
Thanks lass, you've finally delivered instead of pulling nonsense from Maker-knows-where. 

[The Flying Grey Warden]

Rassler wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

In a post you can't even find.

Your avatar does you credit. You won't even understand this but whatever.

http://dgaider.tumbl...tions-on-anders

So he's a grey/gray character despite gaider not using the words grey or gray to describe him? lolwat?

[The Flying Grey Warden]

HiroVoid wrote...

Rassler wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Rassler wrote...



Yep confirmed by David Gaider himself. 

The words of a writer have zero meaning in how the character is perceived.  If 998 people out of 1000 people after playing the game say he is not a grey character and two including gaider says he is then gaider loses.

 He can make the sky of Thedas green if he wanted.

You're wrong.

That would be the visual design departments territory.

[Lulupab]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

So he's a grey/gray character despite gaider not using the words grey or gray to describe him? lolwat?

You expected him to go "yo people, this character is gray kthxbye"? The message can easily be understood.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

Rassler wrote...

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

So he's a grey/gray character despite gaider not using the words grey or gray to describe him? lolwat?

You expected him to go "yo people, this character is gray kthxbye"? The message can easily be understood.

Well yes actually, that is preciesly what I expect when people declare "The lead writer said he was a grey character so he's grey". When people say that, I expect to find the author saying he is a grey character.

Not describing anders from his own perspective, after he said everyone could and has interpreted him in their own ways, and never flat out saying he was a grey character. The cloest thing I found to that was describing him as divisive, and that's not a character trait, that's just stating an empirical fact based on cause and effect.

It's like someone saying the author of the book said that the main character was burned in a fire, and yet the author never mentions fire, burns, flames, or anything close in his article, and the person claiming the character was burnt goes "Well it was implied he was burned in a fire".

Modifié par The Flying Grey Warden, 04 février 2014 - 07:15 .

[Lulupab]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

Rassler wrote...

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

So he's a grey/gray character despite gaider not using the words grey or gray to describe him? lolwat?

You expected him to go "yo people, this character is gray kthxbye"? The message can easily be understood.

Well yes actually, that is preciesly what I expect when people declare "The lead writer said he was a grey character so he's grey". When people say that, I expect to find the author saying he is a grey character.

Not describing anders from his own perspective, after he said everyone could and has interpreted him in their own ways, and never flat out saying he was a grey character. The cloest thing I found to that was describing him as divisive, and that's not a character trait, that's just stating an empirical fact based on cause and effect.

It's like someone saying the author of the book said that the main character was burned in a fire, and yet the author never mentions fire, burns, flames, or anything close in his article, and the person claiming the character was burnt goes "Well it was implied he was burned in a fire".

This is almost same as Loghain scenario which has done much worse things if not in same level yet considered morally gray. Why? Because he was intended to be by the writers, he had no free will it was how the writers portrayed him. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Uh... and?

That's not FGW's point. FGW's point is that appealing to the author's viewpoint falls flat when the author doesn't express a viewpoint. In this case, that Anders is morally grey.

All Gaider says about his intent with Anders is that he was put in to make people react to him.

[Lulupab]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Uh... and?

That's not FGW's point. FGW's point is that appealing to the author's viewpoint falls flat when the author doesn't express a viewpoint. In this case, that Anders is morally grey.

All Gaider says about his intent with Anders is that he was put in to make people react to him.

And pointing out that none of those reactions is the right one.

[Dean_the_Young]

Rassler wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Uh... and?

That's not FGW's point. FGW's point is that appealing to the author's viewpoint falls flat when the author doesn't express a viewpoint. In this case, that Anders is morally grey.

All Gaider says about his intent with Anders is that he was put in to make people react to him.

And pointing out that none of those reactions is the right one.

Right. Because there is no intended reaction to his stimulus. It doesn't mean Anders is intended to be morally grey- it just means that you (the player) aren't intended to react in any particular way. Anders is the catalyst to your reaction of the impending Rite of Annullment, a moment of sudden decision and rection, not a contemplative lull to go 'what he did was neither good or bad.' The morality of Anders in the moment only extends as far as killing him or not. The rest is the decision for the finale.

The diversity of reaction isn't an indication of the writer's viewpoint of the intended morality of the character. A character can be morally unambiguous (ie, not grey) while still presenting a diverse reaction.

Which brings back to supporting a claim about the author's intent towards the morality of Anders action. And the need to justify such a claim.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 04 février 2014 - 07:35 .

[Mr.House]

Rassler wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Uh... and?

That's not FGW's point. FGW's point is that appealing to the author's viewpoint falls flat when the author doesn't express a viewpoint. In this case, that Anders is morally grey.

All Gaider says about his intent with Anders is that he was put in to make people react to him.

And pointing out that none of those reactions is the right one.

When a character blows up a building filled with innocent people and tries to kill innocent people, people get pissy. WHAT A SURPRISE.

[LobselVith8]

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. 

It depends on the situation. I'm not inclined to think that Anders will try to deceive the Inquisitor like he deceived Hawke about the ingredients, although I suppose anything is possible; it's likely that if Anders is encountered again, the new protagonist will know who Anders is (perhaps in the same way Hawke learns the identity of Leliana, Zevran, Nathaniel, or King Alistair).

Personally, I think Anders would be better served trying to gain a better understanding of who he's become, now that he's merged with Justice, rather than involving himself in the Mage-Templar War, since opinion on him (and his actions) is likely divded on both sides of the war.

[Lulupab]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Rassler wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Uh... and?

That's not FGW's point. FGW's point is that appealing to the author's viewpoint falls flat when the author doesn't express a viewpoint. In this case, that Anders is morally grey.

All Gaider says about his intent with Anders is that he was put in to make people react to him.

And pointing out that none of those reactions is the right one.

Right. Because there is no intended reaction to his stimulus. It doesn't mean Anders is intended to be morally grey- it just means that you (the player) aren't intended to react in any particular way. Anders is the catalyst to your reaction of the impending Rite of Annullment, a moment of sudden decision and rection, not a contemplative lull to go 'what he did was neither good or bad.' The morality of Anders in the moment only extends as far as killing him or not. The rest is the decision for the finale.

The diversity of reaction isn't an indication of the writer's viewpoint of the intended morality of the character. A character can be morally unambiguous (ie, not grey) while still presenting a diverse reaction.

Which brings back to supporting a claim about the author's intent towards the morality of Anders action. And the need to justify such a claim.

Morally unambiguous? Fair enough I suppose but he is not a Villain like one the members mentioned and this whole thing was to prove this to him. But in all honesty there a character is either white, black or gray. White and black are kinda absolute but there many versions and aspects to each gray. Morally unambiguous doesn't really work.

[Mr.House]

Anders is a villain.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Rassler wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

In a post you can't even find.

Your avatar does you credit. You won't even understand this but whatever.

http://dgaider.tumbl...tions-on-anders

>Insults person while showing "Proof"
>"Proof" Doesn't actually help his case

[Lulupab]

Mr.House wrote...

Rassler wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Uh... and?

That's not FGW's point. FGW's point is that appealing to the author's viewpoint falls flat when the author doesn't express a viewpoint. In this case, that Anders is morally grey.

All Gaider says about his intent with Anders is that he was put in to make people react to him.

And pointing out that none of those reactions is the right one.

When a character blows up a building filled with innocent people and tries to kill innocent people, people get pissy. WHAT A SURPRISE.

It pissed me off too but I realized backstabbing him is not the way to go. People can have different opinions you know. I like to prevent death whenever possible, I spared Loghain, Bartrand etc... too.

[LobselVith8]

Karlone123 wrote...

He was manipulative towards Hawke, and hypocritical enough to try and use Chantry law to protect mages even though he opposed the Chantry. He's something of a flawed hero, which is why I consider him one of my favourite characters.

I don't disagree about the fact that Anders manipulated Hawke, but Anders' opposition to the Chantry seems to be limited to the issue of mages. Anders is spouting Andrastian dogma when he's talking about Spirits and Demons being the First Children of the Maker during his religious arguments with Merrill; his disagreement with the Chantry seems to be focused only on the treatment of mages, rather than anything else - such as their religious teachings (which impact the points of view).

Given Anders' inclination to genuinely believe in their religious teachings (to the point of continually trying to change the mind of a Dalish elf and convert her to the Andrastian view), I don't see Anders being that opposed to the Chantry.

[Br3admax]

Rassler wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Rassler wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Uh... and?

That's not FGW's point. FGW's point is that appealing to the author's viewpoint falls flat when the author doesn't express a viewpoint. In this case, that Anders is morally grey.

All Gaider says about his intent with Anders is that he was put in to make people react to him.

And pointing out that none of those reactions is the right one.

When a character blows up a building filled with innocent people and tries to kill innocent people, people get pissy. WHAT A SURPRISE.

It pissed me off too but I realized backstabbing him is not the way to go. People can have different opinions you know. I like to prevent death whenever possible, I spared Loghain, Bartrand etc... too.

That is not what grey means. People having differing view points on something hardly makes something grey. 

[Lulupab]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Rassler wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

In a post you can't even find.

Your avatar does you credit. You won't even understand this but whatever.

http://dgaider.tumbl...tions-on-anders

>Insults person while showing "Proof"
>"Proof" Doesn't actually help his case

That was not insult. Since when James is an insult? That was to show his (positive)stubbornness. Also that pretty much proves Anders is not a Villain but people can have their opinions of course.

[Aesir26]

I would definitely consider him manipulative in the sense of pulling the "If you're my friend, you'll do this with no questions asked" card.

[Mr.House]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...

He was manipulative towards Hawke, and hypocritical enough to try and use Chantry law to protect mages even though he opposed the Chantry. He's something of a flawed hero, which is why I consider him one of my favourite characters.

I don't disagree about the fact that Anders manipulated Hawke, but Anders' opposition to the Chantry seems to be limited to the issue of mages. Anders is spouting Andrastian dogma when he's talking about Spirits and Demons being the First Children of the Maker during his religious arguments with Merrill; his disagreement with the Chantry seems to be focused only on the treatment of mages, rather than anything else - such as their religious teachings (which impact the points of view).

Given Anders' inclination to genuinely believe in their religious teachings (to the point of continually trying to change the mind of a Dalish elf and convert her to the Andrastian view), I don't see Anders being that opposed to the Chantry.

But in Legacy he says he does not believe Cory is one of the magisters who went to the Golden city until he sees the amulet.

[Lulupab]

Br3ad wrote...

Rassler wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Rassler wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Uh... and?

That's not FGW's point. FGW's point is that appealing to the author's viewpoint falls flat when the author doesn't express a viewpoint. In this case, that Anders is morally grey.

All Gaider says about his intent with Anders is that he was put in to make people react to him.

And pointing out that none of those reactions is the right one.

When a character blows up a building filled with innocent people and tries to kill innocent people, people get pissy. WHAT A SURPRISE.

It pissed me off too but I realized backstabbing him is not the way to go. People can have different opinions you know. I like to prevent death whenever possible, I spared Loghain, Bartrand etc... too.

That is not what grey means. People having differing view points on something hardly makes something grey. 

Then what? He is not white, obviously. Not really black(Villian). Then what is he? How is he less grey than Zevran who murders for pleasure and money? How is he less grey than Isabela that created all that Qunari mess for just greed? You can decide to punish them too. At least Anders had a noble goal in mind and used wrong and extreme methods to achieve that.

[Br3admax]

Rassler wrote...

Then what? He is not white, obviously. Not really black(Villian). Then what is he? How is he less grey than Zevran who murders for pleasure and money?

When did anyone say that Zevran was grey?

How is he less grey than Isabela that created all that Qunari mess for just greed?

When did anybody say that Isabela was grey?

You can decide to punish them too. At least Anders had a noble goal in mind and used wrong and extreme methods to achieve that.

Completely your opinion, and the ability to punish someone does not determine their character.  And ends justify the means, yep that's completely gray. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Rassler wrote...

Morally unambiguous? Fair enough I suppose but he is not a Villain like one the members mentioned and this whole thing was to prove this to him. But in all honesty there a character is either white, black or gray. White and black are kinda absolute but there many versions and aspects to each gray. Morally unambiguous doesn't really work.

Possibly true, but irrelevant to the point- whether Gaider claimed Anders was intended to be seen as morally gray.

Gaider may indeed have. I suspect he'd couch it in terms of 'we wanted there to be something people would agree with and understand as legitimate', same as with Templars. You can easily claim he succeeded at it.

But claiming Anders being morally ambiguous was his intent kind of needs something to support that was his intent. Something that goes 'Anders was intended to be morally gray' rather than an alternative, such as 'I viewed Anders as becoming a bad person with an unreasonable pursuit of a reasonable goal.'

[Dean_the_Young]

Aesir26 wrote...

I would definitely consider him manipulative in the sense of pulling the "If you're my friend, you'll do this with no questions asked" card.

Friends help you move. 
Good friends help you move bodies.
Fated Companions help you make many more bodies to move.

[Lulupab]

Br3ad wrote...

Rassler wrote...

Then what? He is not white, obviously. Not really black(Villian). Then what is he? How is he less grey than Zevran who murders for pleasure and money?

When did anyone say that Zevran was grey?

How is he less grey than Isabela that created all that Qunari mess for just greed?

When did anybody say that Isabela was grey?

You can decide to punish them too. At least Anders had a noble goal in mind and used wrong and extreme methods to achieve that.

Completely your opinion, and the ability to punish someone does not determine their character.  And ends justify the means, yep that's completely gray. 

Well then whatever Zevran and Isabela are, Anders sits in the same position with them since their morals are not so different. We should keep both the white and black aspects of each of this characters in mind. Since they are neither and somewhere in between excuse me for calling them grey.

Izzy and Zev fans would drink you under the table for what you just said though.