5 Antworten in diesem Thema

[LobselVith8]

More than a few people have seen Leliana's cameo as a sign that she's now anti-mage, given her comments about "tolerating" mages who want independence from the Chantry and the general comments she made, as well as her attitude about an Exalted March against Kirkwall and its inhabitiants if mages gain autonomy from the Chantry. Given how Leliana seemed to be anti-mage in "Faith," despite her portrayal in Origins (especially in her conversations with Wynne), do you think she going to continue to be portrayed as an anti-mage Chantry member, or will she be be depicted as she was in her first appearance?

[David Gaider]

LobselVith8 wrote...
More than a few people have seen Leliana's cameo as a sign that she's now anti-mage, given her comments about "tolerating" mages who want independence from the Chantry and the general comments she made, as well as her attitude about an Exalted March against Kirkwall and its inhabitiants if mages gain autonomy from the Chantry. Given how Leliana seemed to be anti-mage in "Faith," despite her portrayal in Origins (especially in her conversations with Wynne), do you think she going to continue to be portrayed as an anti-mage Chantry member, or will she be be depicted as she was in her first appearance?

We haven't "portrayed" her as anti-mage. Some people (particularly those who are prone to exaggeration on the topic) do seem to interpret her as such, however, based on relatively little information.

[David Gaider]

esper wrote...
If she hints at a blood mage group being the reason why Kirkwall is out of control and comes with vauge threats about exalthed marches against Kirkwall for that reason how are we suppossed to not she her as anti-mage?
And no matter what she is pro-chantry and now claims to be working for the Divine... Unless the Chantry suddenly chance its stance on mages she is not exaclty on the same side as a Hawke who is pro mage freedom. 

For one, I don't think a suggestion that a group of mages seeking their freedom through violence and blood magic is a problem for everyone equates to her being anti-mage. Nor does a support of the Chantry also automatically equate to being anti-mage-- unless one's opinion is that anyone who supports the Chantry and its ideals is automatically guilty by association (such as characters like Wynne). Considering the bias against anything vaguely religious expressed by some people on the forums, that attitude wouldn't particularly surprise me.

All I've suggested is that some folks are seeing some ice on the water and calling it an iceberg-- you haven't been given a lot of information on Leliana or her purpose at this point, and while that's intentional I'd at least advise those making interpretations to realize that's what they're doing. Anyone getting upset because they've filled in the blanks themselves and don't like the picture they've drawn seems a little over the top.

Speculation, of course, is expected. So carry on.

Bearbeitet von David Gaider, 13 August 2011 - 10:20 .

[David Gaider]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Mr. Gaider, I think the dialogue wasn't really good for her. It seems to convey that anti-mage stance. Add into that she doesn't even bother to research why the resolutionists have done what they did, and Leliana just seems like an incredibly different person. An incompetent person even.

Meredith usurps the throne of the Viscount for 3 years and becomes a tyrant to the mages, and Leliana didn't even bother to look into it? That's not okay.

Leliana was sent to find out what was causing the unrest, and as soon as the resolutionists attack her because she baited them, she blames them.

Hell Anders even says that it doesn't take a resolutionist to want freedom.

And if she was pro-chantry regarding mages, why doesn't she take issue with a Mage Warden who requested the boon for mage independence?

It would be difficult to answer your questions without first addressing the assumptions you're making-- and to do that, I'd need to go into more detail regarding what she was actually doing. Which I won't. Considering that she didn't go into it either, it would be a mistake to assume what she "bothered" to do on any front.

I'll say this much: Leliana stated that the mages seeking to abolish the Circle -- particularly in the manner the Resolutionists were going after it -- would cause problems for everyone, and very likely bring the Chantry down on them in force. She did not say she supported the Chantry doing so, nor that she thought that mages didn't have problems that required addressing. She said nothing of Meredith, nor did she suggest the Resolutionists acted without cause.

Some people are applying a great deal of weight to the way she said "tolerated"-- as if mages wanting freedom were terrible people deserving of nothing, as opposed to people who were causing terrible problems.

Would you feel better if she'd gone into depth to assure you (the player) how she really felt, and what she was going to do with the results of her investigation? Perhaps-- but that wasn't the point. You'll have to wait for those answers. In the meantime, simply realize that you're filling in the blanks... if you stick to the things that Leliana actually said, you'll be fine.

Or you can assume Leliana's a completely different person and interpret her words to mean she was sent to stop the rebellion instead of investigate it, and thinks that all mages wanting freedom are just trouble-makers and ingrates. It's up to you-- but suggesting that the dialogue conveyed things it didn't even touch on and saying things like "Leliana has changed! She hates mages now!" is a bit of a stretch even for speculation.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
DG, you are suggesting that Lelianna is not anti-mage now? After the quotes and reasoning that Rif ande Lob have provided? After the clear "shift" in personality after DAO? I don't wish to be too insulting but this is sort of like the best friend caught in bed with the wife who says, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

I'm not saying Leliana is anything. You guys are. It's like you had a whole other conversation with her that wasn't even in the game, an "extreme shift in personality" that she didn't even display... despite simultaneously saying you wished she had. Her motivations have somehow been discerned, her actions outside of the plot divined, and comparisons between these things and her character in DAO made and found wanting.

This kind of self-referencing speculation is headache-inducing. What enjoyment you get out of it, I'll never know. I'll leave you to it, however, and trust that when the answers finally do come you'll find it just as aggravating.

Bearbeitet von David Gaider, 14 August 2011 - 10:24 .

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
DG is indeed no obligated to tell us if our interpretation of Lelianna as "anti-mage" is correct or not, but if he's not willing to spill the beans, then he's really not entitled to tell us that we're wrong either.  DG seems to me to be trying to have it both ways.  He's trying to tell a whole lot of us (it's not just me that's reading the new Lelianna as anti-mage and an unwelcome change from DAO by a long chalk) that we're "wrong" without actually having to say whether she is or isn't anti-mage.

That doesn't fly.  If DG isn't willing to clarify this, then with all due respect he should butt out.

Ha.

Try to caution some people who are leaping to conclusions and treating their conclusions as facts (and big surprise to see IanPolaris at the middle of that) and you get people calling you "mealy-mouthed" or various other insults. Apparently I should either explain everything in detail (because that couldn't possibly be further misinterpreted) or just shut up and get the hell out of the forums? Charming.

As interesting as all this is, I think some folks here need to tone down the rhetoric or they'll face some bans-- permanent this time, for those who have been banned before. If you can't discuss the topic without working yourself up into a frenzy, I suggest avoiding it.