68 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarah1281]

Merilsell wrote...

Indeed.

[Xandurpein]

So I guess the Op wonders if there was a Ferelden version of Uncle Sam, what would she/He be like?



You can start by what empress Celene says according to the odex:



"The Fereldans are a puzzle. As a people, they are one bad day away from reverting to barbarism. They repelled invasions from Tevinter during the height of the Imperium with nothing but dogs and their own obstinate disposition. They are the coarse, willful, dirty, disorganized people who somehow gave rise to our prophet, ushered in an era of enlightenment, and toppled the greatest empire in history."



"One can assume a few things in dealing with these people: First, they value loyalty above all things, beyond wealth, power, and reason. Second, although few things in their country are remarkable to outsiders, they are extremely proud of their accomplishments. Third, if one insults their dogs, they are likely to declare war. And finally, one has underestimated Fereldans when he thinks he has come to understand them."



So Fereldan would be intensely loyal, a bit parochial and surly maybe, but possess a hidden reserve of strength and love his/her dog.

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...

Why is this, do you think? Is it all Warden influence? Is Ferelden presented as an unlikeable character? Or do the character romances overshadow any relationship one might have with Ferelden? Are there too many game design decisions that bias a character against caring, or to say it another way, do you feel like your characters are more 'in character' when they don't care as much about Ferelden? Or do you have one character that was super-responsible and then other, more fun characters, who do whatever they like? Do you think the game would be better or worse if the game had given more incentive to care about Ferelden as a sovereign nation?

I have two reasons not to like Ferelden, one in-character and one from my real life attitude.

First: I´m anarchist and the concept of sovereign states seems stupid to me. It´s all one world, we´re all humans (well in Thedas we´re all humans, elven or dwarfen, but still...) and I don´t see why we should have borders where are none.

Second: Except for one human noble I´ve only played Elves and elven mage so far, and why should my PC care for a country that subjugates his people, imprisons mages in the Circle and has destroyed the elven culture?

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...

From a player perspective, if the game is about saving the world, and the world is presented as boring or hateful, then I wonder why I am bothering to save it (in other words, why play the game at all). For me, a main character with a survivalist attitude is not enough. Just because that character has no choice that their world is unlikable, I as a player can turn the game off and find another one.

Your PC doesn´t need to like Ferelden; it is still his home. You might hate your homecountry, but you still wouldn´t want it to be overrun by monsters who kill everything and waste the land more than a nuclear rocket, right?


Also, you can well care about the people though you don´t care for the country. After all it´s not their fault they are born Fereldans and not as something else.

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...

It seems that the only reason Ferelden seems more significant to the story is because it's under the most immediate threat, and Loghain refused to allow it to be potentially sacrificed for the sake of the other portions. One could argue that Loghain had no right to do this, however because I find it hard to believe that the Fereldens/Humans had anyone but their own interests in mind, given all that we've said before in this thread, and I sincerely doubt that the Fereldens were perfectly willing to sacrifice their portions for the others, it seems that it is either by contradiction or cowardice or stupidity that the Fereldens seem to so easily trust Orlais to help them.

This made me lol a bit. I have yet to see Fereldans other than Cailan who are willing to let Orlais help them; Loghain even got his king killed and outlawed the wardens to avoid Orlaisian influence in Ferelden!!

[Murphys_Law]

phaonica wrote...

It seems that the only reason Ferelden seems more significant to the story is because it's under the most immediate threat, and Loghain refused to allow it to be potentially sacrificed for the sake of the other portions. One could argue that Loghain had no right to do this, however because I find it hard to believe that the Fereldens/Humans had anyone but their own interests in mind, given all that we've said before in this thread, and I sincerely doubt that the Fereldens were perfectly willing to sacrifice their portions for the others, it seems that it is either by contradiction or cowardice or stupidity that the Fereldens seem to so easily trust Orlais to help them.

It would be foolish for Orlais not to help.  Simply because stopping the blight in the beginning is easier than waiting for it to go stronger.  If Ferelden falls, think of how many bodies they would have to eat, how many tainted creatures/people and of course more broodmothers.  I got the impression that, as the Blight grows, it becomes much harder to defeat.  The only question of trust with Orlais is what happens when the Blight is defeated and Orlais happens to have all it's armies sitting right there in Ferelden.  If Orlais doesn't help it would be for purely irrational reasons and/or a misguided view of what is best for their self-interest.

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

phaonica wrote...

It seems that the only reason Ferelden seems more significant to the story is because it's under the most immediate threat, and Loghain refused to allow it to be potentially sacrificed for the sake of the other portions. One could argue that Loghain had no right to do this, however because I find it hard to believe that the Fereldens/Humans had anyone but their own interests in mind, given all that we've said before in this thread, and I sincerely doubt that the Fereldens were perfectly willing to sacrifice their portions for the others, it seems that it is either by contradiction or cowardice or stupidity that the Fereldens seem to so easily trust Orlais to help them.

This made me lol a bit. I have yet to see Fereldans other than Cailan who are willing to let Orlais help them; Loghain even got his king killed and outlawed the wardens to avoid Orlaisian influence in Ferelden!!

I was basing that on the fact that Anora supported bringing in the Orlesians, and Loghain's arguments against bringing in the Orlesians are completely ignored by the nobility.

[Sarah1281]

phaonica wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

phaonica wrote...

It seems that the only reason Ferelden seems more significant to the story is because it's under the most immediate threat, and Loghain refused to allow it to be potentially sacrificed for the sake of the other portions. One could argue that Loghain had no right to do this, however because I find it hard to believe that the Fereldens/Humans had anyone but their own interests in mind, given all that we've said before in this thread, and I sincerely doubt that the Fereldens were perfectly willing to sacrifice their portions for the others, it seems that it is either by contradiction or cowardice or stupidity that the Fereldens seem to so easily trust Orlais to help them.

This made me lol a bit. I have yet to see Fereldans other than Cailan who are willing to let Orlais help them; Loghain even got his king killed and outlawed the wardens to avoid Orlaisian influence in Ferelden!!

I was basing that on the fact that Anora supported bringing in the Orlesians, and Loghain's arguments against bringing in the Orlesians are completely ignored by the nobility.

Yes, but by the time the Landsmeet comes along and they're all 'Okay, we get it. You don't like Orlais' half the country has fallen. They don't have to like Orlais or be particularly eager about it but they really do think that's the best chance for survival.

[phaonica]

Murphys_Law wrote...

It would be foolish for Orlais not to help.  Simply because stopping the blight in the beginning is easier than waiting for it to go stronger.  If Ferelden falls, think of how many bodies they would have to eat, how many tainted creatures/people and of course more broodmothers.  I got the impression that, as the Blight grows, it becomes much harder to defeat. 

The only question of trust with Orlais is what happens when the Blight is defeated and Orlais happens to have all it's armies sitting right there in Ferelden.  If Orlais doesn't help it would be for purely irrational reasons and/or a misguided view of what is best for their self-interest.

Of course it is in Orlais' best interest to help stop the Blight; it is in every country's interest to stop the Blight. The problem isn't that Orlais wouldnt' help. The problem is that there is a risk that they would stay. They have a history of imperialism, and the Blight weakened Ferelden. I think it is irresponsible for a king to not consider how his actions are going to affect the country after the Blight. But in this case, it wasn't just one stupid man who happened to be King that was doing this. The queen also supported the idea, and the Ferelden nobility seemed to not be concerned by it either.

[Sarah1281]

phaonica wrote...

Murphys_Law wrote...

It would be foolish for Orlais not to help.  Simply because stopping the blight in the beginning is easier than waiting for it to go stronger.  If Ferelden falls, think of how many bodies they would have to eat, how many tainted creatures/people and of course more broodmothers.  I got the impression that, as the Blight grows, it becomes much harder to defeat. 

The only question of trust with Orlais is what happens when the Blight is defeated and Orlais happens to have all it's armies sitting right there in Ferelden.  If Orlais doesn't help it would be for purely irrational reasons and/or a misguided view of what is best for their self-interest.

Of course it is in Orlais' best interest to help stop the Blight; it is in every country's interest to stop the Blight. The problem isn't that Orlais wouldnt' help. The problem is that there is a risk that they would stay. They have a history of imperialism, and the Blight weakened Ferelden. I think it is irresponsible for a king to not consider how his actions are going to affect the country after the Blight. But in this case, it wasn't just one stupid man who happened to be King that was doing this. The queen also supported the idea, and the Ferelden nobility seemed to not be concerned by it either.

That's because most of them would consider being eaten by darkspawn to be worse than being re-occupied by Orlais for a few years although neither option is really a good outcome. Note that Loghain is not one of those people.  

[phaonica]

Sarah1281 wrote...

 Yes, but by the time the Landsmeet comes along and they're all 'Okay, we get it. You don't like Orlais' half the country has fallen. They don't have to like Orlais or be particularly eager about it but they really do think that's the best chance for survival.

If they'd been mistrustful of Orlais in the first place, the civil war might not have started at all. If Loghain had been going on and on about Orlais that whole time, if the people had thought to themselves... well he kind of has a good point ... then they wouldn't have fought with each other to a point where they had almost no choice but to risk it.

And it would have changed the Landsmeet in that, when accusing Loghain of killing Cailan, the threat of Orlesian invasion should have been a significant argument against Cailan. If Cailan had been alive, there would have been no Landsmeet to challenge his decision.

Either they don't perceive the threat from Orlais, or they are willing to potentially give up the kingdom to stop the Blight.

[Sarah1281]

phaonica wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

 Yes, but by the time the Landsmeet comes along and they're all 'Okay, we get it. You don't like Orlais' half the country has fallen. They don't have to like Orlais or be particularly eager about it but they really do think that's the best chance for survival.

If they'd been mistrustful of Orlais in the first place, the civil war might not have started at all. If Loghain had been going on and on about Orlais that whole time, if the people had thought to themselves... well he kind of has a good point ... then they wouldn't have fought with each other to a point where they had almost no choice but to risk it.

And it would have changed the Landsmeet in that, when accusing Loghain of killing Cailan, the threat of Orlesian invasion should have been a significant argument against Cailan. If Cailan had been alive, there would have been no Landsmeet to challenge his decision.

Either they don't perceive the threat from Orlais, or they are willing to potentially give up the kingdom to stop the Blight.

I don't really see Orlais as having anything to do with the civil war. They're fighting because Loghain took control of the thone without calling a Landsmeet so, in essence, he had a coup and the nobles are pissed. Th only way Orlais is even remotely involved in that is Loghain's paranoia about Orlais being his primary reason for taking the regency (well, that and his fear of his daughter being deposed). 

[phaonica]

Sarah1281 wrote...

That's because most of them would consider being eaten by darkspawn to be worse than being re-occupied by Orlais for a few years although neither option is really a good outcome. Note that Loghain is not one of those people.  

But they didn't even try a third option, they didn't even consider it. Orlais might have had the strongest armies, but they carried with them the potential for invasion. If Ferelden had appealed to the Elves/Dwarves/Mages and failed... at least they would have tried. Ferelden fought for all those years to prove it's right to rule itself, but their first reaction when threatened was to appeal to Orlais, which all but proves their inability to take care of themselves.

(Note: I'm not lumping Loghain in with "the Fereldens" when I mention them, because they seem to starkly disagree with each other.)

[DaneWolf]

Well.... Without Ferelden = No Dragon Age... But I wanted a world I could exsplore other countries in to... I've had this dream about going to Orlais in the game but thats not possible!!! The world is beautyfull (even if it DOES smell like wet dog) but not big enough... I hope we get to see a LOT more places in Dragon Age 2!!! So if Ferelden WAS a romanceble charakter I don't think I would go for him/her... I would be sick of hearing the same lines over and over and even so there would be no romance reward in the end!

[phaonica]

 I don't really see Orlais as having anything to do with the civil war. They're fighting because Loghain took control of the thone without calling a Landsmeet so, in essence, he had a coup and the nobles are pissed. Th only way Orlais is even remotely involved in that is Loghain's paranoia about Orlais being his primary reason for taking the regency (well, that and his fear of his daughter being deposed). 

Hm, okay, I'm considering this. Well, who has the authority to call a Landsmeet? If Loghain didn't call for one, and they are fighting because he didn't call for one... why doesn't someone else do it? 

If I was considering that  Loghain is preventing a Landsmeet from occuring, the only reason he'd have to prevent the Landsmeet was if he was assuming that the people would disagree with him about Cailan being a threat, and considering that Anora supported the Orlesian plan, I can see why he might have made this assumption. If he had reason to believe that the Fereldens would have supported him, he would have allowed the Landsmeet, had the opportunity to explain himself, and then, again, the potential for no civil war.

[phaonica]

DaneWolf wrote...

Well.... Without Ferelden = No Dragon Age...

Haha. That is true. If the game were about influential people making good decisions, there would be nothing for the PC to do.

But I wanted a world I could exsplore other countries in to... I've had this dream about going to Orlais in the game but thats not possible!!! The world is beautyfull (even if it DOES smell like wet dog) but not big enough... I hope we get to see a LOT more places in Dragon Age 2!!!

I adore Ferelden, from one border to the other, from the surface to the Deep Roads. And as much as I would hate to leave that kingdom behind, I have all faith that DA2 will take us to another rich and interesting locale (unless they pull an Elder Scrolls:Oblivion, which I thought was kind of a step back in terms of fantastic locations (until they made up for it in Shivering Isles)).

So if Ferelden WAS a romanceble charakter I don't think I would go for him/her... I would be sick of hearing the same lines over and over and even so there would be no romance reward in the end!

No setting-monogamy for you?

[Lisa_H]

It depends very much on the character.



My HN certainly cared a great deal about Ferelden. She wanted three things during the course of the game; to get revenge for her family, her rights restored and to save her country. Even though she never really wanted to be a grey warden she wanted to save Ferelden from the Blight. So during this playthrough Ferelden played an improtant part, and this help me as a player to emotionally invest in the well being of this country.



My DN and DC never really cared that much about Ferelden. They wanted to save it, but only to keep Ozammar safe in my DN's case, and Rica with family safe in my DC's case. But at times the thing they seemed to care about most was who sat on the throne of Ozammar. So her Ferelden never really felt like an important player.



My mage was probably the best grey warden. The one that most tried to embody what being a meant. She cared about Ferelden but she would probably have cared equally no matter what country needed to be saved from the Blight. So here it was more about generally about stopping the Blight, not saving Ferelden.

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...

Either they don't perceive the threat from Orlais, or they are willing to potentially give up the kingdom to stop the Blight.

If they REALLY love Ferelden and not only their wealth they will recognize that it may be necessary to sacrifice their sovereignity rather than to allow the Blight to destroy Ferelden.

[Murphys_Law]

phaonica wrote...

Murphys_Law wrote...

It would be foolish for Orlais not to help.  Simply because stopping the blight in the beginning is easier than waiting for it to go stronger.  If Ferelden falls, think of how many bodies they would have to eat, how many tainted creatures/people and of course more broodmothers.  I got the impression that, as the Blight grows, it becomes much harder to defeat. 

The only question of trust with Orlais is what happens when the Blight is defeated and Orlais happens to have all it's armies sitting right there in Ferelden.  If Orlais doesn't help it would be for purely irrational reasons and/or a misguided view of what is best for their self-interest.

Of course it is in Orlais' best interest to help stop the Blight; it is in every country's interest to stop the Blight. The problem isn't that Orlais wouldnt' help. The problem is that there is a risk that they would stay. They have a history of imperialism, and the Blight weakened Ferelden. I think it is irresponsible for a king to not consider how his actions are going to affect the country after the Blight. But in this case, it wasn't just one stupid man who happened to be King that was doing this. The queen also supported the idea, and the Ferelden nobility seemed to not be concerned by it either.

I don't understand that logic.  You think complete destruction of Ferelden is favorable to just the chance of occupation?  I don't know about you, but I would be far more concerned about saving my own ass now than some future what-if situation.  Most of the information we get about the Blights is that it took several nations to ally together to stop them.  So that basically means the story of DA:O is even super duper heroic in that fantasy setting, as in Ferelden is lucky it even survived.  You are starting to sound like Loghain, with your irrational parnoia of Orlais despite the doomsday situation right on your doorstep.

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

If they REALLY love Ferelden and not only their wealth they will recognize that it may be necessary to sacrifice their sovereignity rather than to allow the Blight to destroy Ferelden.

If you are a nation that perceives that it cannot militarily defend itself from an invader, and if you have any interest in keeping your nation independent, you don't ask for help from another nation that has a history of invasion as a first resort. You ask for help from other nations that you can trust. There is a difference between recognizing that it may be necessary, and practically asking for it.

[Sarah1281]

And at the Landsmeet they've reached the point where the entire South has fallen and they don't just feel it MIGHT be necessary but acknowledge that without the PC gathering the armies (and how much do the nobles know about that at the Landsmeet anyway?) they they DO need Orlais.

[2papercuts]

a reason that i didn't really feel attached to ferelden is because we could only go to small parts of it. even as large a city denerim was supposed to be, we couldn't see the whole place. i enjoyed the fallout 3 setting because you could go anywhere anyway, but in DA youre reduced to small sections of a bigger place.

[phaonica]

Murphys_Law wrote...


I don't understand that logic.  You think complete destruction of Ferelden is favorable to just the chance of occupation? 

No, I don't. I think it would be acceptable to risk Orlesian occupation, just not as the *first* resort. There were other armies in Ferelden for them to gather, the Dwarves and Mages at the very least (this might not have worked, but they could have at least tried). It is true that not siding with Orlais as a first resort is risking more Ferelden deaths, yet, I personally do think that is preferable to potentially trading your freedom for safety.

[Sarah1281]

phaonica wrote...

Murphys_Law wrote...


I don't understand that logic.  You think complete destruction of Ferelden is favorable to just the chance of occupation? 

No, I don't. I think it would be acceptable to risk Orlesian occupation, just not as the *first* resort. There were other armies in Ferelden for them to gather, the Dwarves and Mages at the very least (this might not have worked, but they could have at least tried). It is true that not siding with Orlais as a first resort is risking more Ferelden deaths, yet, I personally do think that is preferable to potentially trading your freedom for safety.

Without the treaty, the Chantry won't offer up enough mages. Hell, they only sent seven to Ostagar. The Dalish wouldn't support them without a treaty (or solving a werewolf crisis but they wouldn't have asked the shems for aid) and not everyone is convinced they exist. The dwarves probably should help since they face darkspawn all the time but again, they ONLY help because of that treaty. Otherwise, they think it's a Surface problem. Loghain tried sending his idiot 'King Loghain' henchman but he couldn't even get in and had he waited around until he could that doesn't mean he would have been able to get the support.

It was far easier to just ask the fellow human nations for assistance.

[phaonica]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Without the treaty, the Chantry won't offer up enough mages. Hell, they only sent seven to Ostagar.
The Dalish wouldn't support them without a treaty (or solving a werewolf crisis but they wouldn't have asked the shems for aid) and not everyone is convinced they exist.
The dwarves probably should help since they face darkspawn all the time but again, they ONLY help because of that treaty. Otherwise, they think it's a Surface problem. Loghain tried sending his idiot 'King Loghain' henchman but he couldn't even get in and had he waited around until he could that doesn't mean he would have been able to get the support.

It was far easier to just ask the fellow human nations for assistance.

I don't argue that they probably would have failed, given the problems that the various factions were having. But they didn't even try. Loghain tried, but he didn't exactly have Ferelden's support, either. Certainly getting help from Orlais was the easiest choice, but Ferelden should have tried to fight its own fight, or sought out more trustworthy allies, before running to Orlais for help.

Modifié par phaonica, 31 mai 2010 - 11:18 .