833 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

It doesn't he's a mage hater that thinks forced tranquillity is not an abuse of Templar powers, after all.

No you are incorrect, a possible trend in your posts.

 

I like most mages, I can sympathize with the plight of some mages who feel they are being restricted too much.  I hate Templars that are abusive or take advantage fo their positions.  I play mage classes often as a player character in these games.

 

However these are some major things gleaned from this game series and these discussions.

 

Mages are very dangerous, putting aside the bad, or crazy or power hungry mages even the most benevolent mage is dangerous.  Young Connor, trying to do the right things to dave his dad gets tempted, corrupted and kills almost a whole town and castle.

 

The vast majority of the population of Thedas are scared to death of mages and in many cases for good reasons.  (Including the 'logical' and stoic Qunari).

 

I have still yet to see even one really credible alternative to the policing of mages by rampant pro freedom for mages forces.

 

I can see far worse treatment of a lot of mages or anyone that displays magic from the general population than before.

 

In most cases the argument on this issue devolves into Templars and mean chantry vs oppressed mages.  The largest and most influential part of the equation is almost never considered.  The vast majority of the population that doesn't care about either of these factions but jut wants to live in peace.

 

I forsee the plight of mages in general to be much worse in the future than it is now due to the actions of some hard core pro mage independence individuals like Anders, Rhys, and the red haired mage in that same book.

[Wulfsten]

No you are incorrect, a possible trend in your posts.

 

I like most mages, I can sympathize with the plight of some mages who feel they are being restricted too much.  I hate Templars that are abusive or take advantage fo their positions.  I play mage classes often as a player character in these games.

 

However these are some major things gleaned from this game series and these discussions.

 

Mages are very dangerous, putting aside the bad, or crazy or power hungry mages even the most benevolent mage is dangerous.  Young Connor, trying to do the right things to dave his dad gets tempted, corrupted and kills almost a whole town and castle.

 

The vast majority of the population of Thedas are scared to death of mages and in many cases for good reasons.  (Including the 'logical' and stoic Qunari).

 

I have still yet to see even one really credible alternative to the policing of mages by rampant pro freedom for mages forces.

 

I can see far worse treatment of a lot of mages or anyone that displays magic from the general population than before.

 

In most cases the argument on this issue devolves into Templars and mean chantry vs oppressed mages.  The largest and most influential part of the equation is almost never considered.  The vast majority of the population that doesn't care about either of these factions but jut wants to live in peace.

 

I forsee the plight of mages in general to be much worse in the future than it is now due to the actions of some hard core pro mage independence individuals like Anders, Rhys, and the red haired mage in that same book.

 

Yes, I think the Dragon Age world presents the problem of mages as wonderfully complex and nuanced. They intentionally don't let players come away with a nonsense-good-guy approach of "just let the mages be free" message, because they make it clear that the Templars aren't just being paranoid, magic and mages MUST be controlled to an extent. The question is one of how to do it while retaining respect for the basic humanity of mages. 

 

So the abuses that happen in the Kirkwall Circle, including rape and Tranquil branding, are clearly excessive, as are Qunari practices towards their Sareebas. But Anders's approach is just as misguided. It's inchoate and motivated by resentment.

 

I think it's clear that by the end of DA2 Anders is for all intents and purposes an Abomination. This was one of the triumphs of DA2's storytelling. Throughout DA:O and DA2 we're taught that Abominations are obviously visually hideous. And we understand that rage, hunger, pride and sloth can twist human behaviour to abominable ends. But DA2 introduces a wrinkle by showing that even a positive impulse like Justice can twist a mage enough that he becomes an abomination, even if he still looks human. 

 

I love Anders as a character. He's complex, sympathetic, and reprehensible by shades. He's a nice guy with a sense of humour and the capacity to love, but he's also constrained by his traumatic past, and ends up doing unforgivable things. It's as great a character as we've gotten in games, frankly.

 

DA2 was full of incredible antagonists. Anders stands alongside the Arishok, and Meredith to make some of the best villains we've ever seen. 

[whanzephruseke]

Yes, I think the Dragon Age world presents the problem of mages as wonderfully complex and nuanced. They intentionally don't let players come away with a nonsense-good-guy approach of "just let the mages be free" message, because they make it clear that the Templars aren't just being paranoid, magic and mages MUST be controlled to an extent. The question is one of how to do it while retaining respect for the basic humanity of mages. 

 

So the abuses that happen in the Kirkwall Circle, including rape and Tranquil branding, are clearly excessive, as are Qunari practices towards their Sareebas. But Anders's approach is just as misguided. It's inchoate and motivated by resentment.

 

I think it's clear that by the end of DA2 Anders is for all intents and purposes an Abomination. This was one of the triumphs of DA2's storytelling. Throughout DA:O and DA2 we're taught that Abominations are obviously visually hideous. And we understand that rage, hunger, pride and sloth can twist human behaviour to abominable ends. But DA2 introduces a wrinkle by showing that even a positive impulse like Justice can twist a mage enough that he becomes an abomination, even if he still looks human. 

 

I love Anders as a character. He's complex, sympathetic, and reprehensible by shades. He's a nice guy with a sense of humour and the capacity to love, but he's also constrained by his traumatic past, and ends up doing unforgivable things. It's as great a character as we've gotten in games, frankly.

 

DA2 was full of incredible antagonists. Anders stands alongside the Arishok, and Meredith to make some of the best villains we've ever seen. 

 

I agree with everything in this post except for the final sentence.  Anders is not a villain--he is a quintessential Byronic hero, for at least the reasons you enumerate earlier: "He's complex, sympathetic, and reprehensible by shades. He's a nice guy with a sense of humour and the capacity to love, but he's also constrained by his traumatic past, and ends up doing unforgivable things."

[Hazegurl]

Does anyone like Anders?

 

When he was alive in Awakening he was alright but that demon wearing Anders as a meat suit is an *******.

[-TC1989-]

Did I like him? Going into DA 2 from Awakening, I was open to it definitely. But uh... no... no I did not like him.

[Hair Serious Business]

My sister pulls her hair like mad whenever Anders or Fenris are around...since Anders is like "kill templars blah blah" and Fenris is like "kill mages blah blah" all the time.Can't say I don't agree with her...I don't recall any conversation with either of them that didn't started with mage or templar...it's really annoying.

Still the one that drives me nuts to insanity is neither Anders nor Fenris(unlike my sister I have learnt to live with them just fine)...the reward for most annoying one goes to Sebastian ._. I mean seriously not even Grand Cleric herself didn't preached much like Sebastian it was so damn annoying...Sebastian is only and main reason why I let Anders live in end each time.

[Obsidianite]

I like Anders, and I liked Justice in Awakening, and them joining together was awesome. He's one of my favorite characters.

[Wulfsten]

I agree with everything in this post except for the final sentence.  Anders is not a villain--he is a quintessential Byronic hero, for at least the reasons you enumerate earlier: "He's complex, sympathetic, and reprehensible by shades. He's a nice guy with a sense of humour and the capacity to love, but he's also constrained by his traumatic past, and ends up doing unforgivable things."

 

As I understand it, a villain can embody archetypes like the Byronic hero. You're right to call him that a Byronic hero because he displays those character traits normally associated with the term. But I think it's also right to call him a villain because that's the role he occupies in the narrative of Dragon Age 2. 

[Jerkules17]

I like Anders yet his change in DA:2 makes it hard to. I miss his charming deadpan snarker personality...wish I could romance him in Awakening along with my favorite female dwarf.    

[whanzephruseke]

As I understand it, a villain can embody archetypes like the Byronic hero. You're right to call him that a Byronic hero because he displays those character traits normally associated with the term. But I think it's also right to call him a villain because that's the role he occupies in the narrative of Dragon Age 2. 

 

I think that whether a character is classified as a "hero" or "villain" in a particular narrative has to do with whether the main character (and thus the reader/watcher/player) is expected to symathize with them on some level.  If the story of DA2 were told through the eyes of Cullen, for instance, then I would probably classify Anders as a villain, but even a rivaled Anders is friends with Hawke; if the writers intended for Anders to be interpreted as a villain, then he would have been a much more logical choice for a final boss than Orsino.

[Jerkules17]

I think that whether a character is classified as a "hero" or "villain" in a particular narrative has to do with whether the main character (and thus the reader/watcher/player) is expected to symathize with them on some level.  If the story of DA2 were told through the eyes of Cullen, for instance, then I would probably classify Anders as a villain, but even a rivaled Anders is friends with Hawke; if the writers intended for Anders to be interpreted as a villain, then he would have been a much more logical choice for a final boss than Orsino.

Is he a villain yes,but he's clearly damaged like Origins' human villain to kill him wont help. He must make amends. Reminds me of the Arrival dlc of Mass Effect 2 to a certain degree. Still while things aren't black,and white/good vs bad he is still a villain. Yet like Origins it's up to you? Player's personality to kill him or let him live with the knowledge that he's a villain. At least he didn't enjoy it. 

[Lulupab]

Anders went from "the good guy" to anti-hero in the climax of DA2. He was never a villain.

[Jerkules17]

The guy killed a lot of people not involve with the mage templar struggle. He's still a villain,especially if you killed him. For him to be a anti hero of sorts he must atone. Still like I said player's choice/personality wise. Would love to see if this was about Kain from the Legacy of Kain series. A villain who is called a anti hero by other.   

[sylvanaerie]

I don't know if I'd cast him in either role to be honest.  Whether he is viewed as an 'anti-hero' or a villain is all a matter of perspective.  

I view him as an incredibly flawed, human friend to my warden and an incredibly flawed, human antagonist to my Hawke.

 

[Antergaton]

I've made sure he dies in every DA2 I've played since my first game, take your answer from there. Stab stab stab.

[Lulupab]

The guy killed a lot of people not involve with the mage templar struggle. He's still a villain,especially if you killed him. For him to be a anti hero of sorts he must atone. Still like I said player's choice/personality wise. Would love to see if this was about Kain from the Legacy of Kain series. A villain who is called a anti hero by other.   

 

I'm not sure you know what anti-hero mean or how it is decided. If I was in Thedas myself templars would consider me a villain but that's irrelevant. Consideration or being called something or opinion is not important. You have to have a neutral view point first, an absolute neutral viewpoint. Then based on character's motivation and goals etc... we can come to a conclusion.

 

An antihero is often driven by impure, but sympathetic, motives. Vengeance is a big one. Who among us hasn’t wanted revenge even slightly? We might not agree with it, but we sympathize. A villain is driven by impure, but unsympathetic, motives—power for the sake of power, for example.

 

An antihero is often the underdog. Even when we don’t agree with the antihero, we find ourselves cheering for underdogs. It’s hard to cheer for a villain who has wealth and power and all he needs to defeat the hero/antihero. I'm not saying cheer for Anders, but he is an anti-hero by very definition.

[Jerkules17]

I don't know if I'd cast him in either role to be honest.  Whether he is viewed as an 'anti-hero' or a villain is all a matter of perspective.  

I view him as an incredibly flawed, human friend to my warden and an incredibly flawed, human antagonist to my Hawke.

Like I said it depends on the player's personality/point of view.

[Jerkules17]

I'm not sure you know what anti-hero mean or how it is decided. If I was in Thedas myself templars would consider me a villain but that's irrelevant. Consideration or being called something or opinion is not important. You have to have a neutral view point first, an absolute neutral viewpoint. Then based on character's motivation and goals etc... we can come to a conclusion.

 

An antihero is often driven by impure, but sympathetic, motives. Vengeance is a big one. Who among us hasn’t wanted revenge even slightly? We might not agree with it, but we sympathize. A villain is driven by impure, but unsympathetic, motives—power for the sake of power, for example.

 

An antihero is often the underdog. Even when we don’t agree with the antihero, we find ourselves cheering for underdogs. It’s hard to cheer for a villain who has wealth and power and all he needs to defeat the hero/antihero. I'm not saying cheer for Anders, but he is an anti-hero by very definition.

I know what an anti hero is. I look at things in a gray to grey morality or a black to black morality aka a pragmatic view aka true neutral or lawful evil. Still it depends on the player's point of view. I prefer anti villains since they're so very understood.  Live with your mistakes it shapes you.    

[Lulupab]

I know what an anti hero is. I look at things in a gray to grey morality or a black to black morality aka a pragmatic view aka true neutral or lawful evil. Still it depends on the player's point of view. I prefer anti villains since they're so very understood.    

 

It can depend on player's viewpoint but sometimes like Anders' case who has clear anti-hero motives and characteristics it becomes an anti-hero considered a villain which doesn't change what he is in root, an anti-hero. Apecially because Anders is better than most until the chantry incident. A person who used to be a good guy who is now out for vengeance is the most common form of anti-hero character used in almost everywhere.

[Jerkules17]

It can depend on player's viewpoint but sometimes like Anders' case who has clear anti-hero motives and characteristics it becomes an anti-hero considered a villain which doesn't change what he is in root, an anti-hero. Apecially because Anders is better than most until the chantry incident. A person who used to be a good guy who is now out for vengeance is the most common form of anti-hero character used in almost everywhere.

Depends last time I heard that it involve Kratos of the God of War series who was by far a villain causing more damage than his so called enemies.

While Anders is a saint compare to Kratos he is still a villain of sorts.

Antiheroes now in days tend to mean the main protagonist of the story like Achilles in the Iliad who was a villain compare to Hector the so called villain or bad guy.

 

I digress since I let Anders live to atone for his crime like you know who from origins.

[Xilizhra]

I will say this.  My first few times running through I tried to befriend him, I really did, but I didn't enjoy having him in my groups.  All the constant sniping and whining wore me down.  

 

Then I decided to just go ahead and Rival him.  Anders became 10000 times more interesting than 'friended'.  I gained new insights into his struggle to maintain his humanity.  And for the first time (on my aggressive mage, William Hawke) I was able to actually say it was a 'mercy killing'.

 

Even better, there is a line for rivaled Anders you don't get for befriended that really resolved the relationship for me, and added closure. 

 

Hawke can tell Anders right before stabbing him, "I forgive you."

 

There is a peace between Hawke and him at that moment.  Anders accepts what you are doing, and tells you, "You should have done this a long time ago."

 

This was the subject of the only DA2 fanfic I wrote.

I find rivalry horribly icky and rather abusive, in addition to requiring rather a lot of evil choices to achieve.

 

 

I don't know if I'd cast him in either role to be honest.  Whether he is viewed as an 'anti-hero' or a villain is all a matter of perspective.  

I view him as an incredibly flawed, human friend to my warden and an incredibly flawed, human antagonist to my Hawke.

I see him as a flawed but valuable friend and ally, as well as a fascinating case study on the interaction between spirits and the darkspawn taint... but I really would like to see them separated.

[Jerkules17]

I find rivalry horribly icky and rather abusive, in addition to requiring rather a lot of evil choices to achieve.

 

 

I see him as a flawed but valuable friend and ally, as well as a fascinating case study on the interaction between spirits and the darkspawn taint... but I really would like to see them separated.

Anders made a mistake he didn't enjoy killing those people so he doesn't deserve to die at least from my pov. He's not a monster like that SOB backstabber of Origins for the noble human origin. Same can be said about you know who despite Alistair's opinion is no monster. 

[sylvanaerie]

I find rivalry horribly icky and rather abusive, in addition to requiring rather a lot of evil choices to achieve.

 

*snip*

 
Well, that's the beauty about these single player games.  We can do as we like, feel what we want and not worry about what other people think.  You can think what you want, but I got him on complete rivalry doing an entirely mage sympathetic run, and not 'doing a lot of evil choices'.  Fenris didn't like me much, but since I was trying out rivalry on him as well, it worked for me.

[Jerkules17]

 
Well, that's the beauty about these single player games.  We can do as we like, feel what we want and not worry about what other people think.  You can think what you want, but I got him on complete rivalry doing an entirely mage sympathetic run, and not 'doing a lot of evil choices'.  Fenris didn't like me much, but since I was trying out rivalry on him as well, it worked for me.

RPGs man/madame they let you roleplay. Unlike those nano-machines.   

[Jaison1986]

 
Well, that's the beauty about these single player games.  We can do as we like, feel what we want and not worry about what other people think.  You can think what you want, but I got him on complete rivalry doing an entirely mage sympathetic run, and not 'doing a lot of evil choices'.  Fenris didn't like me much, but since I was trying out rivalry on him as well, it worked for me.

 

Man, it was hard to rival Anders. My Hawke was sarcastic and pro mage, so him being rivals with Anders required OOC moments for Hawke. That annoyed me to no end. It was so much easier to rival other companions with questionable views like Fenris, Merrill or Isabela. I wish that Anders rivalry was more dynamic then it originally was.