968 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

A lot of posters, including the OP, complain that they feel  that DA2 Leli is anti-mage.  They believe that this is a change from her attitude as it was in DAO.

Other posters don't see this.  Some posters believe that she is not anti-mage.  Some believe that her character and attitude has not changed.

DG declined to endorse one side or the other.  He simply said the belief of forum members is not necessarily fact.  He indicated that all information needed to make that decision had not yet been provided to players.

How dare he!!!??!?!?!?!

Seriously, can we all just take a step back, and stop trying to make conjecture fact?

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Perhaps.  I never said it was universal, but a large number of posters including the OP complained that the new Lels was anti-mage LONG before I joined this discussion, so it's not true it's just me and my imaginary cohorts.

-Polaris

Yes, I am aware of that.

While I believe the concern is legitimate seeing how mages were badly potrayed, something that devs more or less admitted, maybe the concern is getting a bit excessive considering the lack of info we have. Leliana's comment is certainly not "political correct" if they would understand such a concept,  but I would not say that she is genuinely anti-mage a la Meredith based on that.

But that's my own interpretation and well, I do not possess the authority to tell you that yours is wrong. Not unless we recieve further info.

Fair enough, but I have two thoughts:

1.  Since it's apparent that a LOT of us thought that Lelianna was anti-mage in DA2 as opposed to DAO, then there seems to be a bad failure in the writing if it wasn't the intent to protray her that way.  I am getting really sick and tired of BW Devs/Writers blaming their audience for their failings.  It gets really old really fast (and not just on this particular issue).

2.  If DG really felt we were leaping to unwarrented conclusions but isn't willing to give us the information to make better (more informed) ones, then he really needs to remain silent.  It seems to me that DG is trying to have it both ways here.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
Seriously, can we all just take a step back, and stop trying to make conjecture fact?

Honestly, it would have been much better if they just made a new character and left Leliana out of it. imo.


@ Ian Polaris
Harsh...but I agree to some extent.
Not sure I agree that David Gaider is trying to do that, but I may have to re-read his posts.

[Herr Uhl]

IanPolaris wrote...

2.  If DG really felt we were leaping to unwarrented conclusions but isn't willing to give us the information to make better (more informed) ones, then he really needs to remain silent.  It seems to me that DG is trying to have it both ways here.

-Polaris

Why is this a problem?

[IanPolaris]

Herr Uhl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

2.  If DG really felt we were leaping to unwarrented conclusions but isn't willing to give us the information to make better (more informed) ones, then he really needs to remain silent.  It seems to me that DG is trying to have it both ways here.

-Polaris

Why is this a problem?

This really needs an answer?  If the Devs come across as mealy mouthed, then no one will trust what they say.  Trying to have it both ways is a characteristic of being mealy mouthed.

-Polaris

[phaonica]

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.

He's not "entitled"? Are you saying that he has no right to point out that he thinks you are jumping to conclusions unless he's willing to tell you if you're right or not?

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

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.

He's not "entitled"? Are you saying that he has no right to point out that he thinks you are jumping to conclusions unless he's willing to tell you if you're right or not?

Basically yes.  Put up or shut up.

-Polaris

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Seriously, can we all just take a step back, and stop trying to make conjecture fact?

Honestly, it would have been much better if they just made a new character and left Leliana out of it. imo.


@ Ian Polaris
Harsh...but I agree to some extent.
Not sure I agree that David Gaider is trying to do that, but I may have to re-read his posts.

They really SHOULD have left her out of it, given the fact that she can, you know, die in Origins.  Yes yes, they have some explanation planned, I know.  They wouldn't need one if they didn't decide to bring her back.  But anyway:

As to DG - to a large degree I agree he should keep quiet about certain things.  I completely understand that they don't won't to provide certain information.  I also complete understand that some things get cut from the game in the final edit.  But when he - or any other dev/writer, for that matter - wades into a conversation by providing information that got cut, or wades in with "you don't have all the facts yet", sometimes it does more harm then good.

But then, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.  If they respond to these issues, we jump on them for not being completely open.  If they don't respond, we jump on them for not answering our questions.

[Herr Uhl]

IanPolaris wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

2.  If DG really felt we were leaping to unwarrented conclusions but isn't willing to give us the information to make better (more informed) ones, then he really needs to remain silent.  It seems to me that DG is trying to have it both ways here.

-Polaris

Why is this a problem?

This really needs an answer?  If the Devs come across as mealy mouthed, then no one will trust what they say.  Trying to have it both ways is a characteristic of being mealy mouthed.

-Polaris

He just said that there is more to come, and that anti-mage wasn't what they were aiming for. He doesn't want to spoil what will probably be future storylines.

How is this bad?

[Morroian]

IanPolaris wrote...

This really needs an answer?  If the Devs come across as mealy mouthed, then no one will trust what they say.  Trying to have it both ways is a characteristic of being mealy mouthed.

He's not being mealy mouthed, what he said was perfectly understandable.

[LobselVith8]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Arlathan isn't living memory, the others are reclusive.

What will most think about when "society run by mages" is brought up in Thedas? What is she most likely to allude to?

You're correct, Arlathan isn't part of living memory (I was thinking of the Tolkien elves for a minute and their longevity), but those other societies are indeed part of contemporary history, and stand as examples of societies with free mages that dispute the idea that free mages are only synonymous with the Imperium.

What could she be alluding to? Considering that Leliana can be at the royal ceremony when both the Hero of Ferelden and the new ruler of Ferelden can agree that the Circle of Ferelden deserves its independence, I'd imagine Leliana wouldn't be so narrow-minded about the idea of mages wanting their autonomy from the Chantry and its templars, especially when we see and hear (as Hawke) about mages getting beaten simply for speaking to civilians, the rapes, the torture, and the tranquility committed against the law under Meredith's administration. However, all I hear from Leliana is blame on the mages for the unrest - her opinion on the situation contradicts the entire storyline, given that the templars and the mages are uniting against Meredith as dictator.

[IanPolaris]

Herr Uhl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

2.  If DG really felt we were leaping to unwarrented conclusions but isn't willing to give us the information to make better (more informed) ones, then he really needs to remain silent.  It seems to me that DG is trying to have it both ways here.

-Polaris

Why is this a problem?

This really needs an answer?  If the Devs come across as mealy mouthed, then no one will trust what they say.  Trying to have it both ways is a characteristic of being mealy mouthed.

-Polaris

He just said that there is more to come, and that anti-mage wasn't what they were aiming for. He doesn't want to spoil what will probably be future storylines.

How is this bad?

No, that wasn't quite what he said, and if the Lead Writer plays it this close to the vest, then he shouldn't be suprised when his audience will read in the least little thing based on the clues given, and certainly shouldn't criticise his audience for it.  In short, if we are wrong, then we should be told in a forthright way.  If not, he should basically (no rudeness intended) keep quiet.  Otherwise rumors can do far more damage than you'd imagine...and that's what teasers will do.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Morroian wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

This really needs an answer?  If the Devs come across as mealy mouthed, then no one will trust what they say.  Trying to have it both ways is a characteristic of being mealy mouthed.

He's not being mealy mouthed, what he said was perfectly understandable.

He's trying to say "your wrong" without actually saying "you're wrong".  That's almost being mealy mouthed by definition.

-Polaris

[RagingCyclone]

TJPags and KoP, I agree, they should have just developed another character instead of bringing Leliana in. They have already done a lot of retconning/handwaving as is, so we should not be surprised, I guess. As to what DG stated, it's his prerogative to give or withhold information as he wants as a lead writer. Would it have been smarter if he had stayed out...perhaps. But now that the fire has been stoked...I could not start with where to begin putting it out. Needless to say, I am in the camp, and was trying to say this before, Leliana had too many facets/options to simply place her in this role. A completely new character would have suited this more.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...
However, all I hear from Leliana is blame on the mages for the unrest - her opinion on the situation contradicts the entire storyline, given that the templars and the mages are uniting against Meredith as dictator.

Honestly, I think the problem is in the story in general and not Leliana specifically. The Chantry was being remarkably blind, and the reason was not shown (say, if inter-Chantry divisions were shown via microcosms, then the idea of Chantry paralysis would have made sense). The Chantry as a whole was just contradicting the entire storyline. 

[Morroian]

IanPolaris wrote...

Morroian wrote...

He's not being mealy mouthed, what he said was perfectly understandable.

He's trying to say "your wrong" without actually saying "you're wrong".  That's almost being mealy mouthed by definition.

Like others have said I'd say he's saying you're wrong, with no tiptoing around it. You said DA2 portrayed her as being anti mage. He said they didn't portray her as being anti mage in DA2, ergo you're wrong.

Given the fact that large numbers of people disagree that she was portrayed as being anti mage you really should acknowledge that its clearly ambiguous.

Modifié par Morroian, 15 août 2011 - 02:28 .

[Reznore57]

Maybe they don't want their character to be paint in black or white .
I mean she doesn't seem to be on a holy crusade to burn the witch when i met her during DA2.
She surely wants to protect her faith and the Chantry .
I play mage , i'm not anti mage ,but i can understand why the Chantry created the templars and the circles..Doesn't mean i don't condone the abuses or see the flaws in the system.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Morroian wrote...
Like others have said I'd say he's saying you're wrong, with no tiptoing around it. You said DA2 portrayed her as being anti mage. He said they didn't portray her as being anti mage in DA2, ergo you're wrong.

Given the fact that large numbers of people disagree that she was portrayed as being anti mage you really should acknowledge that its clearly ambiguous.

If they are saying that she is not meant to be seen as anti-mage (or that they didn't portray her that way), isn't that denying its ambiguity?

[IanPolaris]

Morroian wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Morroian wrote...

He's not being mealy mouthed, what he said was perfectly understandable.

He's trying to say "your wrong" without actually saying "you're wrong".  That's almost being mealy mouthed by definition.

Like others have said I'd say he's saying you're wrong, with no tiptoing around it. You said DA2 portrayed her as being anti mage. He said they didn't portray her as being anti mage in DA2, ergo you're wrong.

Actually what DG said was that they didn't intend to protray her as anti-mage.  That doesn't mean they didn't because they clearly did for a large number of their custumers (not just me....this charge long predates my participation in this thread).

Given the fact that large numbers of people disagree that she was portrayed as being anti mage you really should acknowledge that its clearly ambiguous.

Except it shouldn't be.  If the Devs did not intend to protray her as anti-mage then NO ONE should be viewing her as anti-mage.  Elthina has many negative traits but even as the Grand Cleric you don't see people seriously accusing her of being anti-mage, do you?  This is a clear failure of writing, but DG seems to be blaming his audience rather than his writing and that's not right.

Even then it was DG (not me) that opened up the floodgates further by not denying she was in fact anti-mage and alluding to other motivations and then saying it was under double-top-secret classification (double-top secret being my term not his).

-Polaris

[Herr Uhl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Like others have said I'd say he's saying you're wrong, with no tiptoing around it. You said DA2 portrayed her as being anti mage. He said they didn't portray her as being anti mage in DA2, ergo you're wrong.

Given the fact that large numbers of people disagree that she was portrayed as being anti mage you really should acknowledge that its clearly ambiguous.

If they are saying that she is not meant to be seen as anti-mage (or that they didn't portray her that way), isn't that denying its ambiguity?

The point argued in the latter point is whether they succeeded in their aim. That'd be the ambiguous part.

[IanPolaris]

Reznore57 wrote...

Maybe they don't want their character to be paint in black or white .
I mean she doesn't seem to be on a holy crusade to burn the witch when i met her during DA2.

She seems sanguine enough about an Exalted March and the hideous casualies it would cause Kirkwall "lest it fall to magic" to me.  That sounds like the "new" Lelianna is down with the whole blood-and-salvation holy crusades to me.

She surely wants to protect her faith and the Chantry .
I play mage , i'm not anti mage ,but i can understand why the Chantry created the templars and the circles..Doesn't mean i don't condone the abuses or see the flaws in the system.

Yes, but Lelianna said "lest Kirkwall fall to 'magic'" with no qualifications, no specifications, and in response to that being the logical outcome of mage freedom.  Seems pretty intently anti-mage to me.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Herr Uhl wrote...

The point argued in the latter point is whether they succeeded in their aim. That'd be the ambiguous part.

Indeed.  If we take DG at his work, then they didn't intend for Lelianna to be protrayed as anti-mage.  The fact that this is even ambigous is surely a failure of writing of BW's part.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

Xilizhra wrote...

Avernus was trying to summon a whole bunch of demons in an extremely stressful situation. Merrill's had years of prep time and only wants to talk with one; the situations are nowhere near comparable. Not only that, she does have PC support.

She wants to talk to it, but it surely wants something in return for the knowledge she wants. Even she knows she risks becoming an abomination, which is her biggest redeeming point actually. As for Avernus, I'd say a handful of rage demons, the lowest tier, is far less dangerous than a single pride demon, the highest tier.

Erani wrote...

Well I'm not Polaris' partner in anything and Leliana is my favorite DA character, and I did perceive her to be "anti-mage" in DA2. Yes, we don't have all the facts and of course I will wait until more information is revealed, but that was just the way she appeared to me. If she indeed were to be "anti-mage" in the future, I'd be hugely disappointed because she did not act that way in DAO at all. Perhaps it was a mask she showed to the Warden, but Leliana seemed to be a very compassionate person and agreeing with the way mages were treated in Kirkwall is just in no way in character for her.

But again, we need more info to make an objective conclusion on this. A romanced hardened Leliana for example might have different motives in working for the Divine and/or position on the Chantry/Mages conflict.

This. The biggest issue isn't what was said, but who said it. Leliana was awesome in DAO. She was understanding and forgiving almost to a fault. For her to go from "magic is a gift from the Maker and anyone who says otherwise is just jealous" to "Kirkwall must not fall to magic!" is a pretty stark contrast.

But of course, that's just my view on it, no need for the templar supporters to make another 75 posts explaining that you need a 5-page, notarized document from a character before drawing any conclusion whatsoever about them.

IanPolaris wrote...

I am getting really sick and tired of BW Devs/Writers blaming their audience for their failings. It gets really old really fast (and not just on this particular issue).

AMEN. So you one of the gray choices you made turned out not to be so gray. Fine. Get over it. Don't tell us we just "don't understand" because we live "comfortable Western lives" without "a kitten that CAN EXPLODE IN YOUR FACE AND TAKE OUT AN ENTIRE CITY BLOCK IF YOU TOUCH IT" (yes, David Gaider actually said that!).

[TEWR]

Rifneno, Avernus summoned much more than just a bunch of rage demons. There were also hunger and sloth demons (not sure which, but the one that talked to Avernus was clearly not a Rage demon) and a Pride Demon that ended up possessing Sophia. Along with a Desire Demon that came through the fade, a Pride Demon that possessed a corpse and became an Arcane Horror, and who knows what other types of demons that possessed the corpses of Arland's men, nobility, and the Wardens that fell.

He did more than summon a bunch of rage demons. Even his tower is filled with possessed corpses of the Wardens.


EDIT: and I don't like that quote of David Gaider's. Mages aren't going to explode if you touch them. They're not going to turn into abominations if you say hi. Mages aren't that big a threat. They're dangerous yes, but so is everyone else.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 août 2011 - 02:50 .

[IanPolaris]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Rifneno, Avernus summoned much more than just a bunch of rage demons. There were also hunger and sloth demons (not sure which, but the one that talked to Avernus was clearly not a Rage demon) and a Pride Demon that ended up possessing Sophia. Along with a Desire Demon that came through the fade, a Pride Demon that possessed a corpse and became an Arcane Horror, and who knows what other types of demons that possessed the corpses of Arland's men, nobility, and the Wardens that fell.

He did more than summon a bunch of rage demons. Even his tower is filled with possessed corpses of the Wardens.

Although to be totally fair, it's not clear how many of the walking dead were caused by Avernus' demonology and how many were au natural due to the torn veil.  I personally think that most of the walking dead we find in Warden's keep were natural results of a torn veil myself.

-Polaris