1260 réponses à ce sujet

[Br3admax]

But that would mean Anders would actually prove how useful mages are and would serve a point; we can't have that. 

[Lulupab]

Well, for starters I never called him anything. More so, he is alive and well in half of my playthroughs. 

Second, Anders says a lot of things, but it doesn't mean he is saying the truth. It might be just my impression, but I always thought he is lying to Hawke about Justice on Friendship - so he/she will not worry. On Rivalry he doesn't care and tells the truth.

Good to know.

 

But why do you think he lied? I mean he was quite honest, actually in 100% friend route he admits he has been planning something and is going to do it but he doesn't want to involve Hawje to incriminate him and its the only way Anders hints to what he is going to do in act 3.

[Sable Rhapsody]

But that would mean Anders would actually prove how useful mages are and would serve a point; we can't have that. 

 

The usefulness of mages has been proven in each Blight and the Exalted Marches against the qunari.  Doesn't mean the lesson sticks 

 

Still, he would've saved me personally a lot of trouble blowing up the Arishok.  That stupid one-on-one duel...grr.

[R0vena]

Good to know.

 

But why do you think he lied? I mean he was quite honest, actually in 100% friend route he admits he has been planning something and is going to do it but he doesn't want to involve Hawje to incriminate him and its the only way Anders hints to what he is going to do in act 3.

Again, just impression.

My chain of thoughts were like that: if Friends Hawke encourages Anders, agrees with his merging with Justice. Thus if Anders blew up Chantry due to Justice influence Hawke can blame herself/himself. Anders doesn't want it and thus he lies. Kind of sweet, actually.

Hinting is very nice and all, but blowing up Chantry is something you probably want to warn your best friend about. You know, just in case he/she will decide to take a walk in that direction in that moment. Especially considering Hawke lives nearby. I personally see Justice influence in fact that Anders didn't do it. But again, may be it is just me.)

[LOLandStuff]

Anders is in denial, can't accept he screwed up joining with Justice. He's completely lost it by act3 and barely holds it together just so he could bomb the Chantry. The only reasons he seems ok if you spare him and let him help is because Justice did his job and is taking a break.

"My job here is done. But I'll be watching."

I romanced Anders on friendship and still wasn't convinced he was stable. I'm not gonna defend him and find lame excuses just because he's my main romance. He was wrong and did something terrible. Agreeing with him because you love him is a sign of a not so very healthy relationship.

[viperidae]

Again, just impression.

My chain of thoughts were like that: if Friends Hawke encourages Anders, agrees with his merging with Justice. Thus if Anders blew up Chantry due to Justice influence Hawke can blame herself/himself. Anders doesn't want it and thus he lies. Kind of sweet, actually.

Hinting is very nice and all, but blowing up Chantry is something you probably want to warn your best friend about. You know, just in case he/she will decide to take a walk in that direction in that moment. Especially considering Hawke lives nearby. I personally see Justice influence in fact that Anders didn't do it. But again, may be it is just me.)

 

I don't see why you're so biased in thinking the friendship path is just lies. They are both valid as they are different venues of character development, in my eyes it seems friend!Anders doesn't try to fight justice and they more-or-less peacfully coeexist, hell maybe they even peacefully merged, who knows, and then it seems that rival!Anders tried to fight but lost, and basically got taken over. The point being that even if the end result is the same (blowing up the chantry) it can still mean it was a concious decision by F!Anders and for R!Anders more Justice/Veangance's decision.

[gr8dane]

Half of us choose to kill Anders, either out of pity or punishment.

i've killed Anders ever play through

[R0vena]

I don't see why you're so biased in thinking the friendship path is just lies. They are both valid as they are different venues of character development, in my eyes it seems friend!Anders doesn't try to fight justice and they more-or-less peacfully coeexist, hell maybe they even peacefully merged, who knows, and then it seems that rival!Anders tried to fight but lost, and basically got taken over. The point being that even if the end result is the same (blowing up the chantry) it can still mean it was a concious decision by F!Anders and for R!Anders more Justice/Veangance's decision.

Well, we have to agree to disagree on that.

 

Justice overtakes Anders on several occasions regardless of Friendship or Rivalry against Anders will. Anders doesn't warn rival or friend Hawke to stay away from Chantry (at least).  That alone tells me the degree of possession maybe is a bit less on Friendship, but the difference is not that big.

That's how I see it. If somebody sees it differently - I am not about to argue. Everybody sees what they want to see, after all.

[Lulupab]

Well, we have to agree to disagree on that.

 

Justice overtakes Anders on several occasions regardless of Friendship or Rivalry against Anders will. Anders doesn't warn rival or friend Hawke to stay away from Chantry (at least).  That alone tells me the degree of possession maybe is a bit less on Friendship, but the difference is not that big.

That's how I see it. If somebody sees it differently - I am not about to argue. Everybody sees what they want to see, after all.

 

Well its not really against's Anders' will per say, because Vengeance is not an entity that exists on its own. He only exists when Anders is furious and have lost control over himself like any angry person. Spirits and emotions are directly related, even Wynne slips a bit when she gets really angry. So usually its the Justice we know from Awakening, able to express himself through Anders and there really is nothing wrong. But when Anders is angered which usually happens when Templars are involved Justice is affected by this anger as well and tenfold I wager, then  "He" comes out and he is no longer Anders's friend Justice until the rage soothes. When Questioned about if Anders is in immediate danger of losing control he Answers:

 

 

 

In rivalry you kick Anders into losing himself.

[R0vena]

And just to clarify - I am not an Anders hater, but neither I am his fan. I pity him, mostly. In some moments I really like him (like when we first see him in clinic). Sometimes I really dislike him (mostly in the dialogs with Aveline, he is such an ass to her). I definitely don't wish him ill and feel sorry we really can't help him.

 

But I don't play self-inserts and my Hawkes do as it is proper for their characters to do. Hate him, like him, romance him, kill him or not - I've done it all.

And after all my many playthroughs that it the impression I got. That it all it is to it.

[R0vena]

Well its not really against's Anders' will per say, because Vengeance is not an entity that exists on its own. He only exists when Anders is furious and have lost control over himself like any angry person. Spirits and emotions are directly related, even Wynne slips a bit when she gets really angry. So usually its the Justice we know from Awakening, able to express himself through Anders and there really is nothing wrong. But when Anders is angered which usually happens when Templars are involved Justice is affected by this anger as well and tenfold I wager, then  "He" comes out and he is no longer Anders's friend Justice until the rage soothes. When Questioned about if Anders is in immediate danger of losing control he Answers:

 

 

 

In rivalry you kick Anders into losing himself.

Well, it all comes to the same thing - do you trust Anders to tell the truth or not. You clearly do. I don't. I really mostly don't trust what my companions are saying  just because they are saying it. They can lie, they can honestly be mistaken or circumstances can change and their point of view is no longer valid. Too much of reading mystery novels, I guess.))

[Catche Jagger]

Yeah, Anders was kind of an a** in my experience (though I know that this can vary depending on friendship/rivalry paths) so I killed him. Throughout the Mage/Templar thing in DA2, I generally agreed with the mage side of things so when the conflict was coming to a head and it was obvious that I'd have to choose sides, it seemed like a no-bainer. Meredeth was insane and abused her powers, so she had to be stopped. Then Anders comes around and pulls the whole "No more half measures" sh** and manages to almost make me completely flip my position. He constantly complains about how mages are oppressed by templars, and then goes on to show exactly why such oppression exists.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Then Anders comes around and pulls the whole "No more half measures" sh** and manages to almost make me completely flip my position. He constantly complains about how mages are oppressed by templars, and then goes on to show exactly why such oppression exists.

 

This is why even my Resolutionist blood mage Hawke was furious with Anders for blowing up the Chantry.  Hearts and minds are important when you're trying to change the system, and Anders basically goes "LOL NOPE!"  He even has the gall to say the following line of dialogue:

 

Hawke: You may have turned everyone against the mages now!

Anders: Was anyone ever with us?

 

Yes, jerkface, people were with you   People like Hawke's non-mage family members.  Varric, who stuck his neck out for yours.  The Ferelden refugees who covered for you.  The Codex even says that Kirkwall has a higher incidence of mage sympathizers than most cities.  There were even sympathetic templars like Thrask, Samson, and the original Ser Carver.  Good luck with that after you kill hundreds of people and a Grand Cleric.  

[R0vena]

Indeed, the fact that even our even-tempered good old Varric seems to favor Templar side (not bad way to die.. defending people, preserving our way of life) more than Mages (don't know if it is a good idea to help crazy people run loose) definitely says something.

[LOLandStuff]

@Sable Rhapsody

 

Anders was paranoid and beyond reason.

[ACD101]

If only Ser Pounce-a-lot could make a cameo.. I wonder how Anders would feel about that

[Sports72Xtrm]

This is why even my Resolutionist blood mage Hawke was furious with Anders for blowing up the Chantry.  Hearts and minds are important when you're trying to change the system, and Anders basically goes "LOL NOPE!"  He even has the gall to say the following line of dialogue:

 

Hawke: You may have turned everyone against the mages now!

Anders: Was anyone ever with us?

 

Yes, jerkface, people were with you   People like Hawke's non-mage family members.  Varric, who stuck his neck out for yours.  The Ferelden refugees who covered for you.  The Codex even says that Kirkwall has a higher incidence of mage sympathizers than most cities.  There were even sympathetic templars like Thrask, Samson, and the original Ser Carver.  Good luck with that after you kill hundreds of people and a Grand Cleric.  

Mages are dangerous and if you're a resolutionist you're also technically a terrorist organization. If it wasn't Anders, it'd be a blood mage, or a tevinter magister, or another terrorist mage. To say that no mage is dangerous is a lie trying to placate the mundanes but to be a part of the mage cause is to judge each mage on his or her own merits and not generalize like that. People who automatically turn on the mages everytime a bad apple pops up are fair weather friends. That's what Anders is implying when he says "was anyone ever with us".

[Adaar the Unbound]

I am very torn on Anders. I do not agree with what he did. He killed many innocent people. However, I do think that a battle had to be forced at that moment. I just feel like it should have been done another way. I could not get myself to kill him. I just couldnt..

[laudable11]

If Anders returns I expect to see Sabastian as well.

[Lady Mutare]

And after what Anders did, i just couldn't let him live.

[R0vena]

Mages are dangerous and if you're a resolutionist you're also technically a terrorist organization. If it wasn't Anders, it'd be a blood mage, or a tevinter magister, or another terrorist mage. To say that no mage is dangerous is a lie trying to placate the mundanes but to be a part of the mage cause is to judge each mage on his or her own merits and not generalize like that. People who automatically turn on the mages everytime a bad apple pops up are fair weather friends. That's what Anders is implying when he says "was anyone ever with us".

But a lot of people tend to generalize if they don't have first hand experience to the contrary. If all they hear is "group X" is bad and than the representative of said group goes and slays the religious lieder a lot of them love and respect, not many will immediately think "Oh well,, may be not all of them are bad."

And if you try to change the system you need the mass support outside your group. Doing it Anders way clearly doesn't gain it.

[Sports72Xtrm]

But a lot of people tend to generalize if they don't have first hand experience to the contrary. If all they hear is "group X" is bad and than the representative of said group goes and slays the religious lieder a lot of them love and respect, not many will immediately think "Oh well,, may be not all of them are bad."

And if you try to change the system you need the mass support outside your group. Doing it Anders way clearly doesn't gain it.

People generalize because they are content in their ignorance. Even if you try to show that not all mages are bad by being the example, as soon as a mage does something horrifying, you go back to being the leaper that must be distrusted because you are "one of them". That's the fundamental flaw of generalizing everyone. It's the core to every racism and bigotry. You cannot gather true trust when your kind is factually dangerous and mistrusted.

[R0vena]

People generalize because they are content in their ignorance. Even if you try to show that not all mages are bad by being the example, as soon as a mage does something horrifying, you go back to being the leaper that must be distrusted because you are "one of them". That's the fundamental flaw of generalizing everyone. It's the core to every racism and bigotry. You cannot gather true trust when your kind is factually dangerous and mistrusted.

If all people were like that racism and bigotry would never give up any room. But they do.

The road has to start somewhere. Showing that you personally are different than the others think  is a first step, but it is a step.

[Sports72Xtrm]

If all people were like that racism and bigotry would never give up any room. But they do.

The road has to start somewhere. Showing that you personally are different than the others think  is a first step, but it is a step.

Didn't work for the Circle in Kirkwall. Ideals are peaceful, but history is violent. In a quote from an anime I particaularly like...

"What does it take to end a war?

Well, if both sides wish for peace and set aside their hatred…
No. Warfare is nothing but a means of negotiation between states.
Wars break out even when there is no hatred.
Territory, resources, or interests that you are determined to own.
Ideology, religion, pride.
Wars are fought over those objectives all the time.
Meaning that when those objectives are met, the war will end.
That, or the war will end when the human cost outweighs the gains.
Anger and hatred are only tools to tilt a war in your favor."

The reason why racism and things change is that. Humanity is a stubborn, greedy, cruel, and petty creature. And I suspect the mage-templar war will only end when one side decides they've had enough.

[R0vena]

Didn't work for the Circle in Kirkwall. Ideals are peaceful, but history is violent. In a quote from an anime I particaularly like...

"What does it take to end a war?

Well, if both sides wish for peace and set aside their hatred…
No. Warfare is nothing but a means of negotiation between states.
Wars break out even when there is no hatred.
Territory, resources, or interests that you are determined to own.
Ideology, religion, pride.
Wars are fought over those objectives all the time.
Meaning that when those objectives are met, the war will end.
That, or the war will end when the human cost outweighs the gains.
Anger and hatred are only tools to tilt a war in your favor."

The reason why racism and things change is that. Humanity is a stubborn, greedy, cruel, and petty creature. And I suspect the mage-templar war will only end when one side decides they've had enough.

This is a painful truth for most of our history, I agree.

That's why I play games - to be able to have a chance do such things differently.)