21 réponses à ce sujet

[themonty72]

 When Bethany or Carver are made into Grey Wardens( if that the path you choose for them) they come back and fight with you, but according to Stroud the Grey warden said Grey Wardens couldnt get involved in politics. Will this have some impact in DA3 and have Bethany or Carver set the stage for Grey wardens to get involved in poliltcal fashions.

Modifié par themonty72, 24 mai 2011 - 09:21 .

[Sanarion]

From what I've seen, the "Not get involved in Politics" is very, very fluid. We have the Wardens of the Anderfells basically running the Country, The Warden acting as a double-Kingmaker, and in at least three out of four choices, a Warden King of Ferelden, a Warden Arl of Ameranthine no matter what happens, and no doubt many other cases on one hand.

On the other, we have Sophia Dryden's failed coup, which got the Wardens removed from Ferelden, and the doctrine of being a neutral force. Adding to the confusion for me was Stroud's refusal to fight the Qunari, which seems odd, considering as far as I know, the Qunari do not actually recognize the Warden's sovereignty.

To me, it seems the official doctrine of non-interference is more of something to keep monarchs from attacking them. How closely it's actually followed depend on the Ruler at the time, and Warden itself. I don't think a Warden would get yelled at by their superiors...unless they failed. I'd love to have Dev commentary on this, and I suspect it's going to be a plotline that will be explored in future games.

[Pasquale1234]

In Alistair's Grey Warden cameo, he does seem to suggest that the Hero of Fereldan's political involvement did not go over well. That Warden was very heavily involved in politics, having selected the new leadership in Orzammar, defeating Loghain, and putting a new King/Queen on the throne.... all as part of overcoming the Blight.

[themonty72]

Yeah I forgot about that Allistar being king, but why would Stroud say Grey warden couldn't get involved in politics that threw me off.

Modifié par themonty72, 24 mai 2011 - 09:22 .

[LobselVith8]

themonty72 wrote...

Yeah I forgot about that Allistar being king, but why would Shroud say Grey warden couldn't get involved in politics that threw me off.

Technically, they aren't supposed to. Riordian talks with distain about the Wardens in the Anderfels who basically rule there because the King is weak, and Gaider has said Duncan would have left Ferelden instead of using the treaties (and he also said Duncan wouldn't have made Alistair King, likely because Wardens aren't supposed to get involved in politics, but the protagonist has little choice given that The Warden is trying to stop the Fifth Blight from destroying Ferelden). It's clear from Mistress Woolsey that the First Warden wants the Warden-Commander to succeed in Amaranthine, but it's likely the other Wardens (like Stroud) want to maintain the neural policy since neutrality allows them to gain allies during a Blight without any reservations.

[Sanarion]

I still don't see why they couldn't attack the Qunari. I'm pretty sure the Qunari have no treaties with the Wardens, nor do they accept the right of Recruitment.

[Silfren]

Sanarion wrote...

From what I've seen, the "Not get involved in Politics" is very, very fluid. We have the Wardens of the Anderfells basically running the Country, The Warden acting as a double-Kingmaker, and in at least three out of four choices, a Warden King of Ferelden, a Warden Arl of Ameranthine no matter what happens, and no doubt many other cases on one hand.

On the other, we have Sophia Dryden's failed coup, which got the Wardens removed from Ferelden, and the doctrine of being a neutral force. Adding to the confusion for me was Stroud's refusal to fight the Qunari, which seems odd, considering as far as I know, the Qunari do not actually recognize the Warden's sovereignty.

To me, it seems the official doctrine of non-interference is more of something to keep monarchs from attacking them. How closely it's actually followed depend on the Ruler at the time, and Warden itself. I don't think a Warden would get yelled at by their superiors...unless they failed. I'd love to have Dev commentary on this, and I suspect it's going to be a plotline that will be explored in future games.

The Warden doctrine of neutrality was in place prior to Dryden's coup, not a result of it.  Just FYI.  I don't find anything odd about Stroud's refusal to fight the Qunari, though.  I think in that scene, they're fighting because they've been forced into it while on their way somewhere else.  But they don't generally involve themselves with any kind of fighting that doesn't directly involve a Blight.  It has nothing to do with the qunari recognizing their sovereignty or not.

I think the neutrality thing is so that Wardens don't ever get sidetracked from their sole purpose for existing.  Neutrality is crucial when you're facing a world-destroying threat and need to not have to worry about other nations considering the political ramifications.  Enforcing total, absolute neutrality eliminates that problem.  Or it does when the Wardens abide by it, lol.  And I do actually think the Qunari respect Warden neutrality.  At least insofar as what the qunari know of the Blight.  They understand the necessity of the Wardens, at least, so it stands to reason the qunari would respect their purpose.  Purpose being all-important to their philosophy, and all.

[Sanarion]

True. Sten makes some comments about how in the Qun, the Warden's role wouldn't be so different, and one of the dialogue options that nets approval with him is telling him you fight the Blight because "I'm a Grey Warden. It's my job." Also, the Qunari are relatively new to Thedas, the Fifth Blight being the only one they were around for. Perhaps after Sten's quest, we're either going to see Qunari Wardens, or a sect of Qunari that serve the purpose of Wardens.

[hoorayforicecream]

Silfren wrote...

Sanarion wrote...

From what I've seen, the "Not get involved in Politics" is very, very fluid. We have the Wardens of the Anderfells basically running the Country, The Warden acting as a double-Kingmaker, and in at least three out of four choices, a Warden King of Ferelden, a Warden Arl of Ameranthine no matter what happens, and no doubt many other cases on one hand.

On the other, we have Sophia Dryden's failed coup, which got the Wardens removed from Ferelden, and the doctrine of being a neutral force. Adding to the confusion for me was Stroud's refusal to fight the Qunari, which seems odd, considering as far as I know, the Qunari do not actually recognize the Warden's sovereignty.

To me, it seems the official doctrine of non-interference is more of something to keep monarchs from attacking them. How closely it's actually followed depend on the Ruler at the time, and Warden itself. I don't think a Warden would get yelled at by their superiors...unless they failed. I'd love to have Dev commentary on this, and I suspect it's going to be a plotline that will be explored in future games.

The Warden doctrine of neutrality was in place prior to Dryden's coup, not a result of it.  Just FYI.  I don't find anything odd about Stroud's refusal to fight the Qunari, though.  I think in that scene, they're fighting because they've been forced into it while on their way somewhere else.  But they don't generally involve themselves with any kind of fighting that doesn't directly involve a Blight.  It has nothing to do with the qunari recognizing their sovereignty or not.

I think the neutrality thing is so that Wardens don't ever get sidetracked from their sole purpose for existing.  Neutrality is crucial when you're facing a world-destroying threat and need to not have to worry about other nations considering the political ramifications.  Enforcing total, absolute neutrality eliminates that problem.  Or it does when the Wardens abide by it, lol.  And I do actually think the Qunari respect Warden neutrality.  At least insofar as what the qunari know of the Blight.  They understand the necessity of the Wardens, at least, so it stands to reason the qunari would respect their purpose.  Purpose being all-important to their philosophy, and all.

Exactly. Maintaining neutrality is the optimal choice for the Wardens, because it's their neutrality that elicits begrudging acceptance of the Right of Conscription. As long as the nations have no reason to think that the Wardens have any ulterior motive aside from killing darkspawn for taking their best soldiers/mages/elves/whatever, they have no reason to deny the Wardens the Right of Conscription. The moment a nation starts thinking that the Wardens are potentially political enemies (e.g. the templars think the Wardens are mage sympathizers), then they start refusing the Wardens their recruits.

To further illustrate the point, the whole reason that Ostagar happened was because of perceived political affiliation (Orlesian wardens and Loghain).

[Fast Jimmy]

Sanarion wrote...

Also, the Qunari are relatively new to Thedas, the Fifth Blight being the only one they were around for.

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. While I know the Arishok sent Sten to find the answer to the question "What is the Blight?" indicating a less-than-familiar attitude towards the Blights, the fact that codexes refer to Ogre's in previous Blights seem to indicate that Qunari(or, at least, the Kossith) have been involved with Darkspawn for a number of centuries.

[Sanarion]

Yeah, that's one of those Plot Holes (If you're mean) and unsolved mysteries (If you like to give Bioware the benefit of the doubt.) As far as we know from the Codex, the Qunari landed after the Forth Blight.

[Fast Jimmy]

Yeah, I've heard a number of theories, from the fact that the Deep Roads goes underground across the ocean, to the fact that Ogres were originally proposed (and perhaps still may) turn out to not ACTUALLY be darkspawn, but allies of darkspawn.

I'd be totally fine to close my eyes and yell "la-la-la, I can't hear you" about the whole thing, but I understand some people REALLY get hung up on the timeline.

[SkittlesKat96]

 The Warden's aren't meant to get involved with politics but it does happen sometimes, especially if the situation is dire and new recruits/Wardens are involved (like in Ferelden.)

[TEWR]

I believe Bethany/Carver temporarily renounced ties to the Order in order to save you, their brother/sister. They do say they aren't acting as a Warden but as your sibling.

Whether they return to the Order (and I can only assume they do since all companions part ways) is unknown.


As for the neutrality itself, absolute neutrality probably is the best unless the situation in a Blight is extremely dire and calls for a Warden's involvement. The Warden could act as an impartial third party to the political issues at hand couldn't he? Well, within reason considering there is a Blight going on.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Warden could act as an impartial third party to the political issues at hand couldn't he?

Yes, they brokered a peace treaty and alliance between Orlais and Tevinter in the 3rd blight.

I theorize that their premise of political neutrality started from there in fact, as after the 2nd blight, they helped the Chantry spread its influence (and by implication, Orlesian imperial influence). They were likely Emperor Drakon's allies (or stooges).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 mai 2011 - 01:13 .

[Amagoi]

I think the only reason the Hero of Ferelden got away with so much politicing and being so involved is because everything politicial situation they were involved in was merely to fight the Blight quickly and effectively. The Blight is an emergency situation where the Wardens seem to be trusted to do whatever they feel is needed, included get involved in the nation's politics.

If they were to try to be that involved any other time, I don't think it would end well considering how spread out they are.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Warden could act as an impartial third party to the political issues at hand couldn't he?

Yes, they brokered a peace treaty and alliance between Orlais and Tevinter in the 3rd blight.

I
theorize that their premise of political neutrality started from there
in fact, as after the 2nd blight, they helped the Chantry spread its
influence (and by implication, Orlesian imperial influence). They were
likely Emperor Drakon's allies (or stooges).

That's a pretty interesting theory! We actually don't know when their neutrality started, do we? I always assumed it was from the beginning, but it wouldn't be surprising if they weren't for a long time. For a time supporting the Chantry was very much supporting Orlais. At least it was in the beginning.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Amagoi wrote...
That's a pretty interesting theory! We actually don't know when their neutrality started, do we? I always assumed it was from the beginning, but it wouldn't be surprising if they weren't for a long time. For a time supporting the Chantry was very much supporting Orlais. At least it was in the beginning.

When the Wardens first started off, they were Tevinter soldiers who broke off from the chain of command and became independent, their sole purpose being to fight the Blight. So I'd guess the roots are there.

But during and after the 2nd Blight, they most certainly were not neutral (and for good reason). They were led by Emperor Drakon of Orlais, the military genius behind the victory over the 2nd Blight and the same guy who created the Chantry. For a long time, the Wardens acted as missionaries for the Chantry, which really by extension is serving Orlesian Imperial interests. The empire at the time streched through much of Central Thedas and willingly collaborates with Wardens, so it makes sense. 

Si I personally believe that the strict emphasis on neutrality, while it may have its roots in the conception of the Warden order, really started in the 3rd Blight as the Wardens had to broker a peace between Tevinter and Orlais (and emphasizing neutrality helps).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 mai 2011 - 03:24 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I believe Bethany/Carver temporarily renounced ties to the Order in order to save you, their brother/sister. They do say they aren't acting as a Warden but as your sibling.

Whether they return to the Order (and I can only assume they do since all companions part ways) is unknown.


As for the neutrality itself, absolute neutrality probably is the best unless the situation in a Blight is extremely dire and calls for a Warden's involvement. The Warden could act as an impartial third party to the political issues at hand couldn't he? Well, within reason considering there is a Blight going on.

I don't think there was any kind of formal renouncement, especially since technically you can't leave the Wardens.  Rather I think Bethany/Carver just heard about what was happening and ran off to help without much consideration of anything except standing with the only family they have left.  Saying they're not there as a Warden just means exactly that, not a renouncement, temporary or otherwise.  I'd guess they probably went straight back to the Wardens afterward.  I just don't think any thought went into it other than "OMG GOTTA GO FIND MY SIBLING!" after which they hit the ground running.

[Silfren]

Amagoi wrote...

I think the only reason the Hero of Ferelden got away with so much politicing and being so involved is because everything politicial situation they were involved in was merely to fight the Blight quickly and effectively. The Blight is an emergency situation where the Wardens seem to be trusted to do whatever they feel is needed, included get involved in the nation's politics.

If they were to try to be that involved any other time, I don't think it would end well considering how spread out they are.

I don't think they're trusted to get involved in politics when a Blight is underway, not at all.  They're trusted because of their neutrality and their single-minded purpose for existing, as much as being the only group actually equipped to deal with the Blight in the first place.  In Ferelden we see that two Wardens got involved in politics out of necessity, not because they were trusted to do so, so I don't think it follows that they're trusted to meddle in politics "just" because of a Blight--they're expected to stay out of politics altogether, Blight or no.  We don't see, in Ferelden, the Wardens being "permitted" to deal in politics out of a sense of trust, but being expected to in order to secure treaty assistance, despite the fact that the treaties technically obligate various groups to help with the Blight without a "sure but only if you help us first" clause.  Also, most of the political meddling is internal, and all within Ferelden's borders.  I think there'd be a decidedly different potential for political fallout if the Ferelden Wardens had found themselves dealing with Orlesian politics, for instance.

If Alistair is a Warden, he even points out that the Wardens--I'm assuming he's likely referring to the First Warden most of all--were not at all impressed by the political meddling in Ferelden.  Given that said meddling was necessary to deal with the civil war, it speaks to just how seriously the Order takes neutrality.

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Amagoi wrote...
That's a pretty interesting theory! We actually don't know when their neutrality started, do we? I always assumed it was from the beginning, but it wouldn't be surprising if they weren't for a long time. For a time supporting the Chantry was very much supporting Orlais. At least it was in the beginning.

When the Wardens first started off, they were Tevinter soldiers who broke off from the chain of command and became independent, their sole purpose being to fight the Blight. So I'd guess the roots are there.

But during and after the 2nd Blight, they most certainly were not neutral (and for good reason). They were led by Emperor Drakon of Orlais, the military genius behind the victory over the 2nd Blight and the same guy who created the Chantry. For a long time, the Wardens acted as missionaries for the Chantry, which really by extension is serving Orlesian Imperial interests. The empire at the time streched through much of Central Thedas and willingly collaborates with Wardens, so it makes sense. 

Si I personally believe that the strict emphasis on neutrality, while it may have its roots in the conception of the Warden order, really started in the 3rd Blight as the Wardens had to broker a peace between Tevinter and Orlais (and emphasizing neutrality helps).

What's your source for this?  I had no idea the Wardens ever acted on behalf of the Chantry.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
What's your source for this?  I had no idea the Wardens ever acted on behalf of the Chantry.

The timeline: http://www.gameinfor...PostPageIndex=2

"1:01 Divine Age: The Chantry named its first Divine, Justinia I, giving the first age of the new calendar its name. This age saw the expansion of the Chantry’s influence throughout Thedas, aided by the eager conversion of the Grey Wardens. The order championed the Chantry’s growth, spreading Andraste’s teachings across Thedas."

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 mai 2011 - 08:44 .

[Chuvvy]

themonty72 wrote...

Yeah I forgot about that Allistar being king, but why would Stroud say Grey warden couldn't get involved in politics that threw me off.

He meant fighting and helping people. Grey Wardens can't do that, at least in Stroud's mind, big no no.

Modifié par Slidell505, 25 mai 2011 - 09:46 .