1260 réponses à ce sujet

[Eudaemonium]

The person I was replying to in the post you quoted was talking about Anders blowing up the Chantry and starting a war, not about killing Ella.

 

This isn't about who you were replying to specifically, it was about the general argument used in the thread. You stated earlier that Ella's death was not Hawke's fault because Anders' did the deed, despite Hawke's potential to intervene (which makes sense, given the requirement for metagaming). My point was that you can't use different logic for Isabela returning the tome, which also requires player action.

 

You may have been responding to the Chantry-explosion (which obviously happens regardless), but my basic point is that you cannot generally exonerate some characters and not others for actions that are entirely player-dependent.

[Lulupab]

Not to mention whatever the case, you are talking about giving the character a chance after doing the wrong thing and killing Anders is the opposite.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

This isn't about who you were replying to specifically, it was about the general argument used in the thread. You stated earlier that Ella's death was not Hawke's fault because Anders' did the deed, despite Hawke's potential to intervene (which makes sense, given the requirement for metagaming). My point was that you can't use different logic for Isabela returning the tome, which also requires player action.

 

You may have been responding to the Chantry-explosion (which obviously happens regardless), but my basic point is that you cannot generally exonerate some characters and not others for actions that are entirely player-dependent.

I never used different logic for Isabela. Isabela is one of the ones responsible for what happened with the Qunari. I've never said otherwise. All I was saying is that at least she tries to stop the fighting with the Qunari if friendly enough so I give credit where credit is due.

 

Meanwhile no matter how friendly we are with Anders, he intentionally kills hundreds of innocent people and starts a conflict. That's the difference. 

 

Not to mention whatever the case, you are talking about giving the character a chance after doing the wrong thing and killing Anders is the opposite.

No, letting the vengeance abomination formerly known as Anders go is the wrong thing. 

[Lulupab]

No, letting the vengeance abomination formerly known as Anders go is the wrong thing.

I don't think I'm gonna argue further after 29 pages if you aren't convinced that is not the case with a friend Anders. Calling him an abomination is utter oversimplifying. Its only true in a technical sense and if the delusion of him being a mindless abomination makes him easier for you to kill then so be it. Anders is as human as the next person on friendship path. Humans make mistakes too, no matter how big.

[Eudaemonium]

I never used different logic for Isabela. Isabela is one of the ones responsible for what happened with the Qunari. I've never said otherwise. All I was saying is that at least she tries to stop the fighting with the Qunari if friendly enough so I give credit where credit is due.

 

Meanwhile no matter how friendly we are with Anders, he intentionally kills hundreds of innocent people and starts a conflict. That's the difference. 

 

 

This isn't a question of the actual deed, though, this is a question of mechanical culpability. If you exonerate Isabela for stirring up the Qunari conflict by returning the tome (and thus attempting to diffuse the conflict somewhat), you have to exonerate every character for actions which can be prevented by the player. Even through metagaming. Anders is responsible for the Chantry explosion and begin the powder keg that initiated the war, but you cannot hold him accountable for other actions which the player can step in or otherwise affect through things like increasing/decreasing approval.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I don't think I'm gonna argue further after 29 pages if you aren't convinced that is not the case with a friend Anders. Calling him an abomination is utter oversimplifying. Its only true in a technical sense and if the delusion of him being a mindless abomination makes him easier for you to kill then so be it. Anders is as human as the next person on friendship path. Humans make mistakes too, no matter how big.

Not all abominations are mindless. Just look at Uldred. 

[Nharia1]

Not all abominations are mindless. Just look at Uldred. 

I'm not so sure Uldred was an abomination... I mean yes he was possessed. but the creature said it was no longer Uldred... perhaps it was just using his form?

[Gothfather]

Anders is perhaps the best companion Bioware has ever made.

 

He so polarizes the community because he is more than the sum of his climatic actions in act 3. You can't have this much support and hatred without having a really good character. Take Fenris he's the other side of the coin as Anders in attitude (if not action) blinded by hate like Anders but he doesn't drum up nearly as much support of hatred simply because his story isn't all that great in comparision.

 

In my DA2 games Anders always dies and in the vast majority of my games I was pro mage. I kill him because I knew his actions would lead to the deaths of thousands on both sides. Just because Anders supports a just cause doesn't make his actions just. I spared many people in Da2 but Anders must die just as Merideth must die and Orsino must die. The actions of these three people brought death and destruction to the world. Mereideth was corrupted by red lyrium and became more and more extreme, Orsino WAS a blood mage, is it little wonder we ran into so many Blood mages over the years in Kirkwall? Anders well we all know what anders did.

 

The great thing that Bioware did in the writing was they presented a problem where no leader of the factions involved was good. It is in this backdrop that Anders shins as a character because he is more than just blowing up the Chantry.

[Lulupab]

Not all abominations are mindless. Just look at Uldred.

He was driven by malice and hunger for power not personality. Did he felt guilt? Can he fall in love? Does he care about anything? Uldred as a person was gone, it was the demon we were talking with.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

This isn't a question of the actual deed, though, this is a question of mechanical culpability. If you exonerate Isabela for stirring up the Qunari conflict by returning the tome (and thus attempting to diffuse the conflict somewhat), you have to exonerate every character for actions which can be prevented by the player. Even through metagaming. Anders is responsible for the Chantry explosion and begin the powder keg that initiated the war, but you cannot hold him accountable for other actions which the player can step in or otherwise affect through things like increasing/decreasing approval.

Again, I don't exonerate her for stirring up the conflict. I just give her some points back for trying to stop it. One can acknowledge that someone tried to fix a mess while still blaming them for the mess. They are not mutually exclusive. 

 

But fine, regardless of friendship Anders still kills Ella. The only way to stop him is the special dialogue. Thus the two are different since one relies on friendship and the other relies on dialogue. Happy now? 

[Eudaemonium]

Again, I don't exonerate her for stirring up the conflict. I just give her some points back for trying to stop it. One can say someone tried to fix a mess while still blaming them for the mess. They are not mutually exclusive. 

 

But fine, regardless of friendship Anders still kills Ella. The only way to stop him is the special dialogue. Thus the two are different since one relies on friendship and the other relies on dialogue. 

 

But you also have to trigger the 50% Friendship/Rivalry scene with Isabela to get her to return the tome. It doesn't just occur. In this way it's similar to Anders telling you that the potion was a lie.

 

Similarly, post-Chantry Anders asks you to kill him in order to give justice to the people he killed. You can code it as a cowardly wish to hide from the repercussions of his actions if you want, but on the face of it he is giving you the option of enacting justice for his crime. Whether that actually exonerates Anders himself, however (I don't think it does), probably depends on a lot of factors, one of which being how inevitable you believe the Mage-Templar conflict to have been, and whether you believe Elthina was actually innocent. We can extrapolate to the 'killing hundreds' thing, but in the game all we're shown is Elthina and some Templars.

[Lulupab]

Again, I don't exonerate her for stirring up the conflict. I just give her some points back for trying to stop it. One can say someone tried to fix a mess while still blaming them for the mess. They are not mutually exclusive. 
 
But fine, regardless of friendship Anders still kills Ella. The only way to stop him is the special dialogue. Thus the two are different since one relies on friendship and the other relies on dialogue. Happy now?

I think we can answer this by referring to the codex. Anders never had any real friend or someone who could rely on. If made a friend the codex specially mentions that his friendship (or romance) with Hawke is significantly helping him control himself to the point that he ONLY loses himself when fighting Templars. Evidently he can hear Hawke at the peak of his rage and not kill Ella if Hawkes chooses to help him. The grimmest psychological problems have been cured thanks to support of loved ones and Anders' case is not that different.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 

I'm not so sure Uldred was an abomination... I mean yes he was possessed. but the creature said it was no longer Uldred... perhaps it was just using his form?

The definition of an abomination is a mage possessed by a demon. So even if the pride demon is just wearing an Uldred Suit, it is still possessing a mage's body and thus by definition an abomination. 

 

But you also have to trigger the 50% Friendship/Rivalry scene with Isabela to get her to return the tome. It doesn't just occur. In this way it's similar to Anders telling you that the potion was a lie.

 

Similarly, post-Chantry Anders asks you to kill him in order to give justice to the people he killed. You can code it as a cowardly wish to hide from the repercussions of his actions if you want, but on the face of it he is giving you the option of enacting justice for his crime. Whether that actually exonerates Anders himself, however (I don't think it does), probably depends on a lot of factors, one of which being how inevitable you believe the Mage-Templar conflict to have been, and whether you believe Elthina was actually innocent. We can extrapolate to the 'killing hundreds' thing, but in the game all we're shown is Elthina and some Templars.

It's not similar. Anders doesn't offer a way to stop the fighting. He doesn't try to redeem himself or his actions. He wants to die so he can be a martyr and inspire others, not because he feels guilty. It's a selfish offer. What Isabela did meanwhile was a selfless offer when she returns the book, since she gets nothing out of it. That is why I gave Isabela some credit, since she tries to make a situation better by ending the conflict. Anders can't say the same, either with Ella, the bomb, or anything. 

 

And yeah, I'm sure that debris that flies across the city and sets it ablaze killed absolutely nobody. 

In the Keep Bioware says he killed hundreds, so he killed hundreds. 

 

 

I think we can answer this by referring to the codex. Anders never had any real friend or someone who could rely on. If made a friend the codex specially mentions that his friendship (or romance) with Hawke is significantly helping him control himself to the point that he ONLY loses himself when fighting Templars. Evidently he can hear Hawke at the peak of his rage and not kill Ella if Hawkes chooses to help him. The grimmest psychological problems have been cured thanks to support of loved ones and Anders' case is not that different.

Some friend/lover. He lies, guilts, or even blackmails you to help him. 

And clearly he has not been cured of his psychological problems, since he has a problem of not caring if hundreds or even thousands die to send a message whereas a sane person would. 

[Gothfather]

This isn't about who you were replying to specifically, it was about the general argument used in the thread. You stated earlier that Ella's death was not Hawke's fault because Anders' did the deed, despite Hawke's potential to intervene (which makes sense, given the requirement for metagaming). My point was that you can't use different logic for Isabela returning the tome, which also requires player action.

 

You may have been responding to the Chantry-explosion (which obviously happens regardless), but my basic point is that you cannot generally exonerate some characters and not others for actions that are entirely player-dependent.

 

Isabella Stole something but the Qunari are masters of their own actions. Isabella doesn't cause the Qunari to act as they do. Anders doesn't steal a book which cause other people to kill Ella in search of a book.

 

I think there is a vast differenace between isabela's actions and Anders actions. And isabela either helps or doesn't help based on her own motivations. Does she like you enough to try and resolve the issue? This shows that in the writing her character can grow, Anders doesn't grow as a character he devolves. Even with high friendship/romance all you can do give Anders comfort as he devolves which is required for the plot.

 

So while I take actions that have ripple effects on the world because of the mechanics of the game that still doesn't mean storywise all the actions anders takes make him inculpable. This allows me with consistancy to agree with the poster who says "At least Isabela.." because storywise Isabela did try to mediate a crisis. Anders idea of trying to resolve a crisis of his actions is to Blame it on the templars.

 

Just because events unfold based on a series of choices you made doesn't mean the characters doing said actions/events are not responsible for their actions storywise. For example...

 

Lets say In Inquisiton (Talking hypotheticals here not actual real game events) i have a choice to help save a carravan from bandits or a village and i pick the village because of X. The reason is not important. And lets say a young mage surivives and hears i saved a village over the carravan and he decides to Kill a  camp of Inquisition soldiers in vengence. Yes mechanically I caused the camp to be destroyed because of the choice I made BUT storywise it is perfectly acceptable for me to blame the mage because the mage made the choice.  If you don't view the events in the game from a story perspective than most of the game loses impact because everything that happens is your fault so you are better off turning the game off that way nothing bad happens because you set the mechanics in motion. I much rather view a story based RPG on the actions the characters make then view them through the lens of well me the player did x which means y character did Z. So i caused Z.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Isabella Stole something but the Qunari are masters of their own actions. Isabella doesn't cause the Qunari to act as they do. Anders doesn't steal a book which cause other people to kill Ella in search of a book.

 

I think there is a vast differenace between isabela's actions and Anders actions. And isabela either helps or doesn't help based on her own motivations. Does she like you enough to try and resolve the issue. This shows that in teh writing her character can grow, Anders doesn't grow as a character he devolves.

 

So while I take actions that have ripple effects on the world because of the mechanics of the game that still doesn't mean storywise all the actions anders takes make him inculpable. This allows me with consistancy to agree with the poster who says "At least Isabela.." because storywise Isabela did try to mediate a crisis. Anders idea of trying to resolve a crisis of his actions is to Blame it on the templars.

 

Just because events unfold based on a series of choices you made doesn't mean the characters doings said actions/events are not responsible for their actions storywise. For example...

 

Lets say In Inquisiton (Talking hypotheticals here not actual real game events) i have a choice to help save a carravan from bandits or a village and i pick the village because of X. The reason is not important. And lets say a young mage surivives and hears i saved a village over the carravan and he decides to Kill a  camp of Inquisition soldiers in vengence. Yes mechanically I caused the camp to be destroyed because of the choice I made BUT storywise it is perfectly acceptable for me to blame the mage because the mage made the choice.  If you don't view the events in the game from a story perspective than most of the game loses impact because everything that happens is your fault so you are better off turning the game off that way nothing bad happens because you set the mechanics in motion.

Exactly. Very well said. 

[Lulupab]

Some friend/lover. He lies, guilts, or even blackmails you to help him.
And clearly he has not been cured of his psychological problems, since he has a problem of not caring if hundreds or even thousands die to send a message whereas a sane person would.

Yes he is not blindly in love with you like the other three fake romances. For example you can offer to sell Fenris to Danarius and then change your mind and he is like no problem /french kiss. Some things are more important that love. Things such as making deals with demons or siding with Templars immediately ends Anders' romance and its more real and the way it should be. Unless you only like how he looks like because with said things you are crushing his personality and ideals and that's what real love is about. The person himself.

Also he absolutely cares for the lives he took, he openly claims Justice is required of him for what he did. How is this not caring again?

[LOLandStuff]

Not blindly in love? Guy makes a move on you after mercy-killing his best friend. Who does that?

Lashes out at the other romances each time he gets the chance because they're not good enough for you, but he is. And then goes on complaining how he'll hurt you and then he wants you and never leave you and...it makes my head spin just thinking about it.

And don't get me started on the tasteless way he moved into your house.

 

I like Anders, but dude is just insane, and I repeat myself, in complete denial. He's manipulative so every word that comes out of his mouth is calculated.

[Lulupab]

Not blindly in love? Guy makes a move on you after mercy-killing his best friend. Who does that?
Lashes out at the other romances each time he gets the chance because they're not good enough for you, but he is. And then goes on complaining how he'll hurt you and then he wants you and never leave you and...it makes my head spin just thinking about it.
And don't get me started on the tasteless way he moved into your house.
 
I like Anders, but dude is just insane, and I repeat myself, in complete denial. He's manipulative so every word that comes out of his mouth is calculated.

Don't you think that makes him a hopeless romantic? Always in search of "the one". They tend to move in faster, always nervous about love etc... I have always said that Anders' romance is soap opera. But that's doesn't make it any less realistic.

[LOLandStuff]

He comes out as obsessed rather than hopeless, which is creepy.

I think I'd prefer the silent type that shies away in a corner than a loud one who picks on those you happen to fancy.

[Lulupab]

He comes out as obsessed rather than hopeless, which is creepy.
I think I'd prefer the silent type that shies away in a corner than a loud one who picks on those you happen to fancy.

Lmao, someone once asked me what kind of hopeless romantic asks to move it after the first sex? Its creepy. I said the kind that lives in sewers perhaps. It might seem like creepy but I don't blame the guy. I wouldn't want to live there.

[LOLandStuff]

Lmao, someone once asked me what kind of hopeless romantic asks to move it after the first sex? Its creepy. I said the kind that lives in sewers perhaps. It might seem like creepy but I don't blame the guy. I wouldn't want to live there.

 

That place needed some cats, at least two.

[Eudaemonium]

DA2 needed more ambience in general. Kirkwall was so abysmally lifeless it really killed the mood.

 

Regardless, I think that with a few exceptions, most of us can agree Anders was more than a little unhinged. Even if you agreed with his cause, he was not a mentally stable person. I guess being bonded to the spiritual embodiment of the concept of blind Justice will do that to someone. 

[Xilizhra]

DA2 needed more ambience in general. Kirkwall was so abysmally lifeless it really killed the mood.

 

Regardless, I think that with a few exceptions, most of us can agree Anders was more than a little unhinged. Even if you agreed with his cause, he was not a mentally stable person. I guess being bonded to the spiritual embodiment of the concept of blind Justice will do that to someone. 

He wasn't the world's most stable person, no. I just don't translate that to "instant death."

[Eudaemonium]

He wasn't the world's most stable person, no. I just don't translate that to "instant death."

 

Well neither do I. He stays alive in all my games.

[viperidae]

He wasn't the world's most stable person, no. I just don't translate that to "instant death."

 

i know right. it's all well and good talking about how is mentally insane and deserves to die because of that, but by extension, does that mean you would execute every psychopath/socialpath/etc. who ever acted on his mentally sick urges? i wouldn't exactly go that far, so i never killed anders.