400 réponses à ce sujet

[TobiTobsen]

Conduit0 wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

Koyasha wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Speculation on the plot is one thing, but you're saying we can't rely on information because they might change it later.
As it is now with the information we have, Templars need Lyrium. End of story.

As far as I know, there's no such information given.  There's no time when we're told 'all templars need lyrium and Alistair was lying'.  We have an absolute example of a templar who does not need lyrium in Alistair, and nothing in the story that clearly changes his explanation.  At best, lyrium makes a templar's talents more effective.  Maybe.

Alistair is a main character... main characters have the tendency to be special and/or ignoring the rules of the setting.
If the informations about the Templar class in DA2 says that you need to snort specially prepared lyrium to use your talents, then that's the way it is. Alistair is just a special snowflake because he is supposed to be the wardens best buddy and potentialy the next king of Ferelden. And who would make a drug addict the next king?

Well, there is the argument of Alistair's special heritage, but its also possible that what Alistair was actually refering to is that maybe you don't need as much lyrium as the chantry gives them. In other words, maybe only small amount of lyrium is needed to make the templar powers work, but the Chantry intentionally gives them much larger doses to get them addicted.

It always sounded to me as if Lyrium works like Crack. Take it once and you're addicted

[IanPolaris]

TobiTobsen wrote...

Koyasha wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Speculation on the plot is one thing, but you're saying we can't rely on information because they might change it later.
As it is now with the information we have, Templars need Lyrium. End of story.

As far as I know, there's no such information given.  There's no time when we're told 'all templars need lyrium and Alistair was lying'.  We have an absolute example of a templar who does not need lyrium in Alistair, and nothing in the story that clearly changes his explanation.  At best, lyrium makes a templar's talents more effective.  Maybe.

Alistair is a main character... main characters have the tendency to be special and/or ignoring the rules of the setting.
If the informations about the Templar class in DA2 says that you need to snort specially prepared lyrium to use your talents, then that's the way it is. Alistair is just a special snowflake because nobody could use the specializstion otherwise, he is supposed to be the wardens best buddy and potentialy the next king of Ferelden. And who would make a drug addict the next king?

The problem is that no one that you could give the Templar Speciality to in DAO or DAA needed lyrium. That included throwaway NPC Mhari.  Frankly this smells like yet another retcon.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Its not a retcon. Some Templars have been able to learn the talents without the use of lyrium, others have never. An example of this is the Templars of Tevinter. Most of the Tevinter Templars are just soldiers, but some of them have learned the Templar talents even though Tevinter got no supply of Lyrium. So it might be possible to teach the talents to people where "magic runs in their blood" like the Hawke family, without giving them Lyrium.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Its not a retcon. Some Templars have been able to learn the talents without the use of lyrium, others have never. An example of this is the Templars of Tevinter. Most of the Tevinter Templars are just soldiers, but some of them have learned the Templar talents even though Tevinter got no supply of Lyrium. So it might be possible to teach the talents to people where "magic runs in their blood" like the Hawke family, without giving them Lyrium.

In DAO/DAA you clearly (over many possible warriors) don't need lyrium to use Templar Talents (and have the game recognize you as a Templar).  In DA2 you explicitly do....and we've already covered that Tevinter Templars aren't really Templars as the game recognizes that term.  They've kept the name but are mere warriors under the command of the magisters.

Thus, it's a very clear retcon.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Except they aren't just warriors. Some of them got the same talents as the Templars of Andrastian nations, thus proving Lyrium isn't needed for all to learn the talents.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except they aren't just warriors. Some of them got the same talents as the Templars of Andrastian nations, thus proving Lyrium isn't needed for all to learn the talents.

DA2 explicitly states that all Templar Talents require lyrium so I'd like to see your source.  Even IF some Tevinter Templars had Templar abilities (and where is your source on that?), like Fenris (who clearly had Templar-like duties when he was a Tevinter slave) they are probaby based on lyrium.  (Fenris' templar-like abilities are clearly lyrium based).

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Its in one of the DAO entries, about Tevinter I believe. Either that or it was DG on this forum, during a discussion about what the Tevinter Templars was like.

[Rifneno]

Re: templars and lyrium.

It's a retcon guys.  Accept it.  Thermal clips said hi.

nedpepper wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Fair enough and she (apparently) wasn't lying about her name.  I'm quickly running out of things she doesn' lie about.  Really starting to dislike the 'new" Lelianna.

-Polaris

Agreed.  They need to stop completely changing pre-existing characters when a new character serves the same purpose just as well.  First Anders and Justice declare jihad, now Leliana was lying the whole time?

And for the growing "maybe Leliana is a title" crowd (which I honestly thought was just a joke at first): if this wasn't the same one from DAO, there wouldn't be a scene where Isabela recognizes her and cracks a joke if the Warden threesomed them in DAO.

 
I don't think you have to hate Leliana if she lied to the Warden.  She's a bard.  It's what she does.  It just makes her more complex.  And it's just a theory, so let's not start a "Kill Leliana (Again)" thread.  It just poses an interesting  question.  I LIKE that the next game may have our former companions taking different sides.  It's what makes DA interesting.  You may have killed an Archdemon together, but times are a-changing.

Yes, it does mean I have to hate her.  I don't accept "so what she's a bard, she lies and uses people" anymore than I accept "so what if he killed mommy so he could use her face for a zombiewife, he's a blood mage, they do that."  It doesn't make her complex, it makes her a ****.  I'm okay with characters growing and progressing.  I'm not okay with having 3 characters COMPLETELY changed in one fell swoop.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Rifneno wrote...

Re: templars and lyrium.

It's a retcon guys.  Accept it.  Thermal clips said hi.

Thermal clips weren't a retcon though, since it was explained within the lore. And if Templars can learn the talents without the use of lyrium, as some of them do, this isn't a retcon either.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Its in one of the DAO entries, about Tevinter I believe. Either that or it was DG on this forum, during a discussion about what the Tevinter Templars was like.

The Templar desciption of DA2 came after this, however, and thus supercede it.  Apparently per DA2, you can NOT learn templar abilities without useing at least some lyrium which directly contradicts the lore in DAO.  Ergo, it's a retcon....and yes he thermal clips in ME2 were a retcon.  I don't care what sort of fluff they came up with to explain it, it' a ret-con.  Otherwise you should still be able to fire your weapon (or have weapons) ME-1 style (no thermal clips) and you don't.  Also weapon advancement that's widely adopted generally DOESN'T make the weapon worse but thermal clips do just that.  Ergo, it's a retcon.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

[IanPolaris]

Rifneno wrote...

Yes, it does mean I have to hate her.  I don't accept "so what she's a bard, she lies and uses people" anymore than I accept "so what if he killed mommy so he could use her face for a zombiewife, he's a blood mage, they do that."  It doesn't make her complex, it makes her a ****.  I'm okay with characters growing and progressing.  I'm not okay with having 3 characters COMPLETELY changed in one fell swoop.

Indeed.  You do know of course what happened?  Too many people sympathized with the mages and (correctly IMHO) identified the Templars/Chantry as evil (even if there were good people within them).  So the Devs needed yet another well beloved character undergo a retcon just ot show how evil and dangerous all mages are (and thus how misunderstood and heroic the templars are).  Makes me hate the new Lelianna all the more actually.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Its in one of the DAO entries, about Tevinter I believe. Either that or it was DG on this forum, during a discussion about what the Tevinter Templars was like.

The Templar desciption of DA2 came after this, however, and thus supercede it.  Apparently per DA2, you can NOT learn templar abilities without useing at least some lyrium which directly contradicts the lore in DAO.  Ergo, it's a retcon....and yes he thermal clips in ME2 were a retcon.  I don't care what sort of fluff they came up with to explain it, it' a ret-con.  Otherwise you should still be able to fire your weapon (or have weapons) ME-1 style (no thermal clips) and you don't.  Also weapon advancement that's widely adopted generally DOESN'T make the weapon worse but thermal clips do just that.  Ergo, it's a retcon.

-Polaris

I'm not gonna elaborate on this, but you obviously got no clue at what a retcon actually is.

For the Templars described in DA2, we got no reason to believe it talks about all Templars universally, only what is normally done. After all, even in DA:O it said that all Templars recieved lyrium to learn their talents, while also stated it wasn't needed. So even back then it contradicted itself. Just because DA2 does aswell, does not overrule DA:O.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Its in one of the DAO entries, about Tevinter I believe. Either that or it was DG on this forum, during a discussion about what the Tevinter Templars was like.

The Templar desciption of DA2 came after this, however, and thus supercede it.  Apparently per DA2, you can NOT learn templar abilities without useing at least some lyrium which directly contradicts the lore in DAO.  Ergo, it's a retcon....and yes he thermal clips in ME2 were a retcon.  I don't care what sort of fluff they came up with to explain it, it' a ret-con.  Otherwise you should still be able to fire your weapon (or have weapons) ME-1 style (no thermal clips) and you don't.  Also weapon advancement that's widely adopted generally DOESN'T make the weapon worse but thermal clips do just that.  Ergo, it's a retcon.

-Polaris

I'm not gonna elaborate on this, but you obviously got no clue at what a retcon actually is.

For the Templars described in DA2, we got no reason to believe it talks about all Templars universally, only what is normally done. After all, even in DA:O it said that all Templars recieved lyrium to learn their talents, while also stated it wasn't needed. So even back then it contradicted itself. Just because DA2 does aswell, does not overrule DA:O.

Actually, I know exactly what a retcon is.  You clearly do not.  In DAO it was stated that Templars used lryium to ENHANCE their Talents, but Alister speaking in official game-lore mode told you (as a Templar himself) that you don't need lyrium to actually learn and use them....Lyrium just made them work better....or so the Chantry led everyone to believe.

Now in DA2, we are told explicitly that lyrium is required to use and learn Templar abilities and a Hawke that picks up the Templar speciality does so by getting small amounts of illicit Lyrium to fuel them.

This is a clear retcon.

-Polaris

[Avissel]

When did we get told that?

[IanPolaris]

Avissel wrote...

When did we get told that?

Play a Warrior Hawke and look up the Templar Specialization rules.  It tells you that lyrium is definately required and that you fuel it with illicit lyrium from your connections.

-Polaris

[Nashiktal]

IanPolaris wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

Koyasha wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Speculation on the plot is one thing, but you're saying we can't rely on information because they might change it later.
As it is now with the information we have, Templars need Lyrium. End of story.

As far as I know, there's no such information given.  There's no time when we're told 'all templars need lyrium and Alistair was lying'.  We have an absolute example of a templar who does not need lyrium in Alistair, and nothing in the story that clearly changes his explanation.  At best, lyrium makes a templar's talents more effective.  Maybe.

Alistair is a main character... main characters have the tendency to be special and/or ignoring the rules of the setting.
If the informations about the Templar class in DA2 says that you need to snort specially prepared lyrium to use your talents, then that's the way it is. Alistair is just a special snowflake because nobody could use the specializstion otherwise, he is supposed to be the wardens best buddy and potentialy the next king of Ferelden. And who would make a drug addict the next king?

The problem is that no one that you could give the Templar Speciality to in DAO or DAA needed lyrium. That included throwaway NPC Mhari.  Frankly this smells like yet another retcon.

-Polaris

What? Ian I thought you knew that it has been hinted at constanly that templars don't actually need the lyrium to do their "magic." Alistair speculates this, and it has been mentioned somewhere else (it escapes me at the moment, i'll have to replay DA:O to find it.)

The lyrium is the control device the chantry uses to keep a leash on the templars. 

Edit: Really the templar specialization says that? Well that is indeed an annoying retcon if true.

Modifié par Nashiktal, 07 avril 2011 - 02:34 .

[IanPolaris]

Nashiktal wrote...

Edit: Really the templar specialization says that? Well that is indeed an annoying retcon if true.

Indeed.  I am currently playing a Templar Hawke (pro-mage but Templar abilities) and it does indeed say that.

-Polaris

[Avissel]

"Through ingestion of carefully prepared lyrium, templars gain resistance to magic, including the ability to interrupt spells. Though the Chantry controls the lyrium trade, those with the right connections can acquire enough to emulate the abilities of these vigilant warriors."

That be what it say.

Modifié par Avissel, 07 avril 2011 - 02:39 .

[Rifneno]

IanPolaris wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Yes, it does mean I have to hate her.  I don't accept "so what she's a bard, she lies and uses people" anymore than I accept "so what if he killed mommy so he could use her face for a zombiewife, he's a blood mage, they do that."  It doesn't make her complex, it makes her a ****.  I'm okay with characters growing and progressing.  I'm not okay with having 3 characters COMPLETELY changed in one fell swoop.

Indeed.  You do know of course what happened?  Too many people sympathized with the mages and (correctly IMHO) identified the Templars/Chantry as evil (even if there were good people within them).  So the Devs needed yet another well beloved character undergo a retcon just ot show how evil and dangerous all mages are (and thus how misunderstood and heroic the templars are).  Makes me hate the new Lelianna all the more actually.

-Polaris

Ugh.  I hope that isn't the case.  That'd be just awful writing.  They could easily accomplish the same goal by just not making the templars out to be such power-abusing extremists.  Changing a character's alignment is more likely to change the player's opinion on that specific character than on their views.  People liked Leliana because of her personality, not her infallibility.  Some hardcore fans may change sides because of her, but the average fan isn't going to think "Woah, Leliana thinks that?  Maybe I was wrong."

[Nashiktal]

Perhaps lyrium just enhances the abilities, instead of purely powering them?

[Avissel]

That what Alister says he was told, It makes them more effective. Still it is at odds with the description from DA2, but honestly the DA2 version makes a bit more sense. Many of the Templar abilities don't make sense as something a person can just do with natural ability.

[Raiil]

It could also be that Leliana's hints point towards her future occupation, not so much what she was doing in Ferelden at the time. There's a part of me that thinks Leliana has been funneling information to Dorethea for ages- that she was doing it in Lothering, and perhaps acting on Dorethea's feelings on Loghain, maybe, or the Blight, she took a chance and tried to join the Warden on their journey. So she may have not been Seeker Leliana at the time.



I will still, however, be really pissed if she passes private information about my Warden to the Chantry, and will still refuse her entrance to the castle if she is.

[Urazz]

Avissel wrote...

That what Alister says he was told, It makes them more effective. Still it is at odds with the description from DA2, but honestly the DA2 version makes a bit more sense. Many of the Templar abilities don't make sense as something a person can just do with natural ability.

It could be a combination of both.  The abilities themselves might not really be useable without lyrium but maybe some stuff like the templar's magic resistance is a result of training and the Lyrium just enhances that even further.

[Mnemnosyne]

IanPolaris wrote...

Play a Warrior Hawke and look up the Templar Specialization rules.  It tells you that lyrium is definately required and that you fuel it with illicit lyrium from your connections.

-Polaris

And yet there's no in-game reference to that whatsoever, just a tooltip/description that says that.  It's never referenced, there's no banters about it, etc.  Unless it's actually acknowledged by even a single character in the game I find it hard to count as even having happened at all, and even if it did, nothing in those descriptions directly contradicts Alistair.  It doesn't say 'and there are no exceptions!'

If something is going to be changed like that, I think there would be at least the same 'level' of exposition involved in changing the story.  The story from Alistair is exposed in a meaningful conversation (which I might add even has an approval boost/penalty depending on your responses).  It's a much more significant exposition level than a tooltip description.  I have no question that the Alistair conversation received more attention and scrutiny than the tooltip, so it takes more than a couple lines in a tooltip to revert that clear and specific exposition.