1260 réponses à ce sujet

[Eudaemonium]

The issue with characters being martyred in service of great noble causes is that it allows them to essentially die living the dream. If Anders dies in Kirkwall (unless you rival him, which is another story) then he is able to die under the belief that he did a terrible thing in service of a good cause. He never faces the suffering that results from his action. He can die believing in the brave new world of mage freedom that he helped create. If you let him live, then he actually has to face the consequences of his actions. He needs to re-justify it to himself constantly: Would this suffering have happened without me? Was this worth it? Is the suffering of all-out war more or less desirable than the more insidious, invisible violence that I started this war to stop? Letting Anders live forces him to confront the consequences of his ideals.

 

If you're repulsed by him, send him on his way. It's easy enough to do. Then go defend the mages because they had nothing to do with his actions anyway.

[Mimilette]

I remember Awakening Anders during the assault on Amaranthine. That Anders who would get angry at my Warden for just entertaining the idea of having the Amaranthine citizens (priests and templars included) left to die just to help the Keep that could be in danger. There is no way that man would even have thought of killing hundreds of people for "the greater good".

 

So I don't believe that he was sane, friendship or not. Justice and Vengeance are both subjective, and what one sees as vengeance, another sees as justice. I remember one of my first thought after Justice joined the Wardens was "wow that spirit of justice sure talks a lot about vengeance". I think he was already partly corrupted when he entered Kristoff's body. It would make sense too, we are told either in the game or books (if I remember correctly) that inhabitants of the fade do not understand the world of mortals and become mad when possessing corpses/trees/whatever.

 

Maybe it's because I come from a background where death penalty is not seen as an acceptable form of "justice", but I never bought the idea that killing people for justice was acceptable, so even in Awakening I was seriously wary of the spirit. I know it was against darkspawn, but he was just so... eager.

 

I don't condone what Anders has done, but I don't hate him either because I just see him as a tragic figure, a good man reduced to a completely paranoid schizophrenic who would go as far as killing innocents to accomplish his goal, because of a very poor life choice.

I don't really understand the hate to be honest, all I felt was pity at the end of the game. He is just so pathetic. It feels as pointless to hate on him as to hate on a mentally ill person for being sick.

 

Hate him or love him, at least he was an interesting character. I thought he was poorly written in DA2, or at least badly implemented, but the idea in itself was good. He lives or dies depending on my Hawke.

 

I really would like to see him in DAI, miserable, striving, lost to Vengeance or cured, I don't care as long as I have closure for the Hawkes that let him live.

 

PS: It is amusing to see how people interprets seemingly identical things differently. The part where Anders talks about going to Ella's funeral, when I got it in my game, I totally heard it as "hopefully her parents will think it was Templars" and not at all as "I'm going to talk to them to make them believe it was Templars". Mind you, when he said it I thought it was aweful to voice that hope (displaying once again a complete lack of basic social interaction understanding that awakening Anders never even hinted) but even now to be honest, I really don't see the "I'm gonna talk to them" in that sentence.

[Eudaemonium]

<snip of awesome analysis>

 

Completely agreed.

[MisterJB]

Nope.

Did you just say "nope" to Stannis Motherfucing Baratheon while posting a gif of Daenerys? Daenerys?

Shame on you.
 

[MisterJB]

 Tell me can you think of a peaceful way to remove Chantry's political power? I seriously doubt it.

I can think of many ways, most involve the lucrosians and end up with complete control of the infrastructure and economy in the hands of mages.

 

Thankfully, these mages seem unable to plan anything beyond "kill enough people, maybe they'll listen to us" which means a large enough army is all it takes to restore things to the way they are supposed to be.

Given their willingness to kill anyone who look at them sideways, recruits itching to kill some mages shouldn't be hard to find.

[Marlena_8]

Mimilette, I completely agree with your analysis.

 

When people suffer from conditions like depression or in the extreme, insantiy, they don't see the world as everyone else, so dire actions can seem like a normal response or solutions to them.  Anders said so himself, "I don't know where I begin and he ends" or something to that effect.  Justice has corrupted his way of thinking and perhaps has warped Anders thinking to an extremity.  Justice may  have latched on to Anders feelings about the whole plight of Mages and has used that to be able to act through Anders to his own liking.

 

When I first played DA2, I was so shocked by what he did that I became angry by the betrayal that I actually had Hawke side with Meredith (which none of my Hawke's would ever do again, so I was glad I had that opportunity to see how that played out). I mean, I knew he was up to something with that search for the ingredients to "get rid of Justice," but I had no idea he would go to such lengths! I was upset that when Hawke then killed Anders in battle that he just disappered - there was no cut scene, no final words between the two former friends.  It just left me with a bereft feeling, and a sadness.

 

So my next playthrough, my Hawke romanced Anders and I must admit, I prefer the romance with Anders thus far in DA2.  There's a sweet desperation in him that I can't possibly hate him.  The way I play my Hawkes, thus far, is to have them friend all of his companions as much as possible, so that he/she tends to form really tight relationships, so whether he romances Anders  or not, he's still very good friends with him.  And what friend would abandon their friend who is suffering from such mental anguish?

[herkles]

snip

 

good analysis. I actually like from a narrative PoV Anders, and for drama he is cool. However I think he could have been improved if they had more time by showing justice change him over time. By his I mean, baring that one incident with Karl he should remain the same anders as in awakening. Act two should have had him be more like the anders we know, and with act 3 being much more justice ruled. This would have shown his transformation much better IMO.

 

Since I roleplay my characters. there are reasons why my hawke killed anders.

 

the big one being that she sort of never really forgave him for nearly killing Ella whom was my sister's apperentince and anders almost made Bethany's life even more miserable. to my hawke, this factor would have been much more important to her then if anders lied to the templar if he actually did kill Ella(he didn't though). As my hawke loves her baby sister bethany and spent most of her life making her both happy and safe, so anders taking one of the few happy things she had in the kirkwall circle and destroying it did not sit well with her.  so the blowing up the chantry got rid of any second chances.  

 

The fact that Sebastian asked if hawke would be questioning killing anders if it was sebastian who was in the chantry also added to her decision, my hawke fell in love with sebastian and romanced him. 

 

 

All that said, my hawke still sided with the mages because Meredith called for an annulment. Simply because her baby sister was in the circle, she wouldn't care one toss about the rest of the mages in that circle, but she would never let meredith just walk into the circle and kill Bethany without going through her first. 

[Aren]

Hawke: "Anders what have you done?"

Anders: "We  need to change things in Theedas for all the mages, magic is a gift not a curse!

Hawke:"have  you  forgotten the cat?"

Anders: "Ser Pounce-a-lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Lulupab]

Did you just say "nope" to Stannis Motherfucing Baratheon while posting a gif of Daenerys? Daenerys?
Shame on you.

I think you missed Margaery, you know a Tyrell. You know the Tyrell force was the only one in great war who utterly destroyed the Baratheon force and was about to conquer their capital but the war was ended by then and there was no point no point in going on, The Tyrells only fight when provoked and have always preferred peace. Still growing strong.

I can think of many ways, most involve the lucrosians and end up with complete control of the infrastructure and economy in the hands of mages.
 
Thankfully, these mages seem unable to plan anything beyond "kill enough people, maybe they'll listen to us" which means a large enough army is all it takes to restore things to the way they are supposed to be.
Given their willingness to kill anyone who look at them sideways, recruits itching to kill some mages shouldn't be hard to find.

No after removing Templars from chantry control and making them answer to the state like they should always have things will start to change in favor of all Thedas. I will slowly watch Chantry lose power inch by inch like the catholic church. Without its zealots the Chantry will crumble and becomes a place of worship, nothing more, nothing less.

[Br3admax]

And then the townspeople rise up and kill all the mages now that no one is stopping them. I'm kind of liking this plan, Lulu; let's go with it. 

[Lulupab]

And then the townspeople rise up and kill all the mages now that no one is stopping them. I'm kind of liking this plan, Lulu; let's go with it.

The townspeople are literally property of the king and he controls the Templars now. No sane mind would come to your conclusion. Their lands, their wives, their children, EVERYTHING is controlled by the feudal lords of Thedas and rising against mages is now treason to the throne.

[Br3admax]

Kings don't own people. That's actually not how a feudal state works, and even if it were, Thedas has not shown a true feudal state anywhere. What the hell are you talking about?

[Lulupab]

Kings don't own people. That's actually not how a feudal state works, and even if it were, Thedas has not shown a true feudal state anywhere. What the hell are you talking about?

Thedas is clearly a feudal society and not a particularly enlightened one politically. The common people have no electoral power and very minor purchasing power. Their lands are granted to them by the highest ruler and can be taken away anytime. In this society being a traitor to the throne is the worse fate for anyone. Ferelden is perhaps further advanced because its different but that only makes it best of the worst.

At any event the point is, if rising against mages is a treason 99% of common people will avoid it.

[herkles]

warning long post coming!

 

The townspeople are literally property of the king and he controls the Templars now. No sane mind would come to your conclusion. Their lands, their wives, their children, EVERYTHING is controlled by the feudal lords of Thedas and rising against mages is now treason to the throne.

 

That is not how a feudal society works. as someone who is a medieval scholar, this is what my minor was in after all. There are a few things wrong with this. lets start shall we.

 

The townspeople are literally property of the king

 

no. Serf is not a slave they are NOT property. A serf is tied to the land, but is not a slave. Not to mention their are degrees of serfdom. usually between freemen and villians. The main difference is that a freeman was more of a farmer that paid rent then anything else to make things simple. 

 

A serf often was required by law to tend to the land of his lord, but that doesn't make him a slave, it makes him an employee. Most serfs had their own plot of land that they could farm as well, which they often did if they had the time because it meant more money for the family. 

 

You also have the fact that in a feudal society, while power comes from the king and then from the pope or god. The whole system of vassalage means that the people owe their alliagence to their lord then to his lord and up to the king.

 

Finally you state townspeople almost always by their very nature, townspoeple were not serfs. They were freemen. The men and women of the towns of Europe in the middle ages, had rights and freedoms. and they enjoyed them. 

 

 No sane mind would come to your conclusion.

I can think of a number of reasons why people might riot against the mages. Keep in mind that throughout the middle ages nobles often fought against each other or against the king, such as the baron's war in england. if the King had mages at his side, then it might be in my best interest as a noble to use the peasents to go after the king.  Nobles annoyed that the mages are loyal only to the king, would try and go after that. 

 

Their lands, their wives, their children, EVERYTHING is controlled by the feudal lords of Thedas

 

Leaving aside the wives and children part which is flat out wrong for a feudal society. The land is not always owned by the fuedal lords, whom else could own land? the church. They are by their own nature both part of the fuedal system and not part of it. 

 

 

Thedas is clearly a feudal society and not a particularly enlightened one politically. 

 

Again wrong. While Ferelden is the clearest feudal society, the other nations are not all that feudal. 

 

The free marches are city states like the cities of medieval italy. Thus they have rights, they are townspeople and not serfs. 

Tevinter is an empire; sure it has slavery and the non mages life suck. But it is not a feudal society. 

Orlais is an empire more remainiscent of the days of the sun king louis. It is semi-feudal. They have a feudal system but the emperor has much more power than is in a feudal system. 

Nevarra doesn't seem to be that feudal rising out of the free marches to form their own military kingdom.

Anderfels doesn't seem to be a feudal society due to the constant war with the darkspawn.

while not enough information on Rivain exists at the moment it certainly doesn't feel like a feudal society from what i gathered.

 

Moving on. 

 

 

The common people have no electoral power and very minor purchasing power. Their lands are granted to them by the highest ruler and can be taken away anytime.

 

Not entirely true. For serfs yes, for others losing land was much more important. As mentioned before in a feudal system land is broken up from king to lord and to other lord and so on. It was much more serious to take away a noble's land, and even freemen wanted to keep their land however small.

 

This brings me to the next statment.

 

 

In this society being a traitor to the throne is the worse fate for anyone. Ferelden is perhaps further advanced because its different but that only makes it best of the worst.

At any event the point is, if rising against mages is a treason 99% of common people will avoid it.

 

This is wrong. History has shown otherwise. People have rioted over loss of land and other factors. There are numerous conflicts throughout the middle age that just prove that is false. From the numerous paesent revolts, riots and rebellions, to the baron's war to the Gulph and Ghellbialin conflict in italy. History has shown that people in the middle ages were willing to rebel against a king or a lord if they had sufficent anger and reason. 

[Br3admax]

I wouldn't even say Ferelden is a true feudal state, myself. The Landsmeet holds way too much power. I agree with everything else you said, however. 

[Sports72Xtrm]

And then the townspeople rise up and kill all the mages now that no one is stopping them. I'm kind of liking this plan, Lulu; let's go with it. 

How exactly are they going to rise up and kill all the mages when the phylacteries are gone? Mundanes can't tell the difference between a farmer with a pitch fork and a mage. sure they can orchestrate witch hunts, but  they'll be inaccurate and innocent people who don't have magic will be persecuted along with those who do as how can you prove one is a mage and not just a baseless accusation? Pretty soon, someone will tire of the ignorant volatile hysteria and fight back. Prejudice mundanes forming their own KKK will just self destruct themselves.

[LOLandStuff]

Guess you know who to thank for that constant paranoia.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Guess you know who to thank for that constant paranoia.

Yeah the stupidity of ignorant bigots.

[raging_monkey]

Guys lets play nice. We are just getting started lol

[Lulupab]

snipped the long post

You make too much comparison to the real world and it simply doesn't work. Only one rebellion by common people has ever worked in Thedas and that was Andraste, the common people are always at the mercy of nobles and royalty, this has always been the case in Thedas. If you steal grain from a person you will probably get lashed or something but stealing from royalty is punished by death by hanging.

The people have their rights as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of nobility. Mind you the king of Ferelden almost ordered the burning of all chantries and abandoning the belief when the divine openly approved of Orlais' conquest. Just reminding you that the king has such power and the people or at least the majority will follow the king in such matters. Its better for Templars to serve the state rather than the Chantry.

[raging_monkey]

I thought justifying anders deeds was fun... this is getting toasty

[Lulupab]

I thought justifying anders deeds was fun... this is getting toasty

First of all what is that plural S. Its should be deed.

Also I don't think anyone tried to justify the chantry incident per say, its simply arguing that its already done and while Anders is not the most stable person (still quite good by Kirkwall standards) instant death is not always the answer. On the other hand sparing him is perfectly justified.

[Br3admax]

Damn you caught me.

Hmm, perhaps I should go on these witch hunts. Like if I see a farmer with a book, we burn him at the stake. 

[raging_monkey]

First of all what is that plural S. Its should be deed.Also I don't think anyone tried to justify the chantry incident per say, its simply arguing that its already done and while Anders is not the most stable person (still quite good by Kirkwall standards) instant death is not always the answer. On the other hand sparing him is perfectly justified.

minor grammer error. Its saturday so im lax on my grammer on the weekends

[TheTurtle]

Hmm, perhaps I should go on these witch hunts. Like if I see a farmer with a book, we burn him at the stake.

If I have to die for bejng a witch I wanna go out like Giles Corey that man was a boss.