329 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

esper wrote...

The whole problem is that you are forced to be agrressive to join with Petrice. That for me screams pro-qunari agenda.

It is a very aggressive thing to do though. Not only do you directly go against what you were brought in to do, but you also have to mingle with a crowd led by a man that's convinced you're his opponent. You need to have the reputation and air of a radical, which is exactly what aggressive Hawke has. It's really no more odd that paragon shep being trustworthy or a warden that has points in coercion being convincing.

[esper]

KJandrew wrote...

esper wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

@Wereparrot - While the quest is required for act 2, you could always pick the aggressive options for Hawke, or not return to the Arishok with information (to gain his respect, etc). So you're not so much being forced to be a diplomat as you are forced to simply interact. But to me, that doesn't imply any agenda of garnering sympathy.

I think how the Qunari are presented in DA2 is just one way we're going to get information on them. That info is going to come in dribs and drabs, as the story allows or requires. In DA:O, we learned about the Circle of Magi, for example, either by playing a mage or by handling the main quest re the Circle. In DA2, we have a broader understanding (albeit still limited) on how mages are treated, regarded, approached etc in areas outside of Fereldan. So with each game, we get a new piece of the puzzle, as it were.

It's piecemeal, sure, but it's just a chapter in a much larger story. So through DLC, the web series and maybe even DA3, I think we'll find out more about the Qunari. And for all we know, any new details may not be favorable.

The whole problem is that you are forced to be agrressive to join with Petrice. That for me screams pro-qunari agenda.

Well i don't really see how diplomatic Hawke would approve of Unarmed delagtes being tied up and tortured to death

How do you now my diplomatic Hawke's personality other than the fact that she is nice in some occassion?
A diplomatic Hawke could easily consider the Qunari a treath and Petrice a necessary evil and diplomatic Hawke could also say that there is far more citizien on the mob side and killing them is worse than killing what she could perceive as trained warriors. To be honest my diplomatic Hawke would never join with Petrice but that was because she hated the chantry and actually did try to take her diplomat role seriously, my snarky Hawke was very devout though and would never have killed believers before Qunaries if she had had a choice - Try to imagine that you could only join the templars if you were agrressive at the end game because only the agressive personality would be rutless enough.


The problem is that by making the choice about who to join in the situation dependent on personality bioware is making the statement: To side against the qunari you have to be rutless/agressive/brutal (depending on how you see the agrressive personality). That quest is the moment where you are no longer just interacting, but taking a side (which you then confimr in the Seamus quest) and it is a big flaw which can easily be interprented as a statement from biowares side.

[esper]

Sir JK wrote...

esper wrote...

The whole problem is that you are forced to be agrressive to join with Petrice. That for me screams pro-qunari agenda.

It is a very aggressive thing to do though. Not only do you directly go against what you were brought in to do, but you also have to mingle with a crowd led by a man that's convinced you're his opponent. You need to have the reputation and air of a radical, which is exactly what aggressive Hawke has. It's really no more odd that paragon shep being trustworthy or a warden that has points in coercion being convincing.

I hate the paragon and renegade system. 
But it is not about being conving.  Everyone can kill someone. You don't have to be agressive to take a knife and kill someone with it and that is all it takes to convince Varnell. It is not about appearing treathning as all the other intimidation. You are not intimidating Varnell you are proving that you are not pro-qunari.

Intimidation requires that your victim needs some kind of sense of you being dangerous in some way which is fair enough that you need a speciel personality to roll. Notice that in all the intimidation test you just say: I can kill you.

In the qunari situation you actually do kill the Qunari and all the Hawkes are killers. They know how to kill and they are suffiently trained at fighting to go up and kill that delegate if they wanted to. Notice that no matter what any Hawke can kill Javeris (when he turns his back to you) whose only crime is being annoying.That does not require a personality roll because it is a decision not a influenc roll.

[Sir JK]

esper wrote...
I hate the paragon and renegade system. 
But it is not about being conving.  Everyone can kill someone. You don't have to be agressive to take a knife and kill someone with it and that is all it takes to convince Varnell. It is not about appearing treathning as all the other intimidation. You are not intimidating Varnell you are proving that you are not pro-qunari.

Intimidation requires that your victim needs some kind of sense of you being dangerous in some way which is fair enough that you need a speciel personality to roll. Notice that in all the intimidation test you just say: I can kill you.

In the qunari situation you actually do kill the Qunari and all the Hawkes are killers. They know how to kill and they are suffiently trained at fighting to go up and kill that delegate if they wanted to. Notice that no matter what any Hawke can kill Javeris (when he turns his back to you) whose only crime is being annoying.That does not require a personality roll because it is a decision not a influenc roll.

Not quite. Varnell is quite convinced you're his enemy. Yes, all it really takes to prove that to Varnell is to kill the qunari. But you're also not the one holding the knife. He is. And he thinks you're coming to save them. A single step in that direction and he'll cut their throats and send everyone against you.

It's not a matter of intimidation or killing the tied up emisarries, anyone can kill those emissaries. It's a matter of making Varnell realise you and he are the same. He needs to hear your hate and bile for those things. Varnell is deep in his own conviction, real deep. Even Petrice is afraid of him. He needs to understand that Hawke is just as devoted to his cause and methods as he is. And -that- is why only aggressive Hawke can. Aggressive Hawke is the only Hawke that can convey that over a few simple sentences. The only one with the booming autority in his voice that Varnell will listen to. Noble Hawke is too soft spoken and Sarcastic Hawke too unserious for Varnell to even listen.

Essentially... it's a personality check because Varnell at that point only listens to a very narrow group of people: Rabid furious fanatics.

[esper]

Sir JK wrote...

esper wrote...
I hate the paragon and renegade system. 
But it is not about being conving.  Everyone can kill someone. You don't have to be agressive to take a knife and kill someone with it and that is all it takes to convince Varnell. It is not about appearing treathning as all the other intimidation. You are not intimidating Varnell you are proving that you are not pro-qunari.

Intimidation requires that your victim needs some kind of sense of you being dangerous in some way which is fair enough that you need a speciel personality to roll. Notice that in all the intimidation test you just say: I can kill you.

In the qunari situation you actually do kill the Qunari and all the Hawkes are killers. They know how to kill and they are suffiently trained at fighting to go up and kill that delegate if they wanted to. Notice that no matter what any Hawke can kill Javeris (when he turns his back to you) whose only crime is being annoying.That does not require a personality roll because it is a decision not a influenc roll.

Not quite. Varnell is quite convinced you're his enemy. Yes, all it really takes to prove that to Varnell is to kill the qunari. But you're also not the one holding the knife. He is. And he thinks you're coming to save them. A single step in that direction and he'll cut their throats and send everyone against you.

It's not a matter of intimidation or killing the tied up emisarries, anyone can kill those emissaries. It's a matter of making Varnell realise you and he are the same. He needs to hear your hate and bile for those things. Varnell is deep in his own conviction, real deep. Even Petrice is afraid of him. He needs to understand that Hawke is just as devoted to his cause and methods as he is. And -that- is why only aggressive Hawke can. Aggressive Hawke is the only Hawke that can convey that over a few simple sentences. The only one with the booming autority in his voice that Varnell will listen to. Noble Hawke is too soft spoken and Sarcastic Hawke too unserious for Varnell to even listen.

Essentially... it's a personality check because Varnell at that point only listens to a very narrow group of people: Rabid furious fanatics.

Which you can prove to be by killing someone. It is a simple act which you can do reglardless of personalities.  or are you saying that killing Jarvaris is not aggressive, yet all Hawke has accces to it.
Deciding between Petrice and the Arishok is such an important choice that it shouldn't be left to personality.

[Sir JK]

No, I am saying that a Varnell that doesn't listen to you won't give you the chance to kill them. He's the one with the knife. Nothing you can do except verbally convincing him will have any remote chance of showing which side you're on before he has killed them himself, at which point your chance is gone.

It's a rather fundamental thing in how human works. Not everyone listens to all others, especially not angry men. But they might hear that you're worth listening to, just by the sound of your voice. That you have to actually sound convincing is a great thing. And no, not everyone can make anything sound convincing. I for instance, could never ever pull off a physical threat. I don't speak in a way that would allow that to be convincing. I could threaten in other ways I'm sure (unless I just plain sound too nice, certainly possible), but not a "rough you up"-kind of threat.

So yes, it's definantely a choice that should be left to personality. Because it's not your choice to make. It's Varnell's. And the choice is wether to accept your word or not. You can still choose to hate the qunari all you want, regardless of wether he believes you or not. He's just not letting you join him.... because he doesn't believe you.

[DPSSOC]

Quething wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Now if they do choose to send only people like the Arishok to me it speaks of fear.  They know none of their people except their soldiers have any skill at fighting so they only send their soldiers to deal with people outside the Qun because anyone not of the Qun could pull a knife on them.  Imagine a Kossuth seamstress (and laugh) being attacked by a group of bandits even as poorly organized and equipped as those we meet outside Lothering in DA:O.  They wouldn't stand any real chance of defending themselves they'd be unarmed and untrained.

Well, nothing's stopping them from sending a couple of Stens as the seamstress' bodyguards. (I mean, okay. Obviously something's stopping them, but it's a cultural limitation, not an actual law of physics or anything.)

Well if completing a task requires the combination of diverse roles it might encourage diversity within individuals.  You could have a seamstress who knows how to fight or, heaven forbid, a soldier who understands diplomacy.  Can't have that in the Qun, you've got a single role and that's all you're good for, don't need people getting crazy ideas about improving themselves by broadening their horizons.

Quething wrote...
Heh. Funny to think Isabela probably saved the Orlesian diplomatic group's lives.

I dunno I get the feeling the Arishok killed them anyway.

[Quething]

RosaAquafire wrote...

I have to admit, the fanatical love of the Qunari always puzzles me a bit. People always get all up on the Chantry and how awful they are for being religious zealots who oppress minorities and enslave people. And then they turn around and say the Qunari are basically the coolest thing ever.

There's a giant disconnect there ...

Never underestimate the power of making the player feel special.

Qunari don't like anything. That's their whole thing. They hate mages and templars, they hate women and men, they hate elves and humans, they hate the city you live in and the food you eat and the air you breathe. They hate Wardens and darkspawn, pirates and viscounts, and anything they don't hate they hold in seething contempt. They all make this abundantly clear every time they talk to you and so does the rest of the world when they talk about them.

But they like you, dear player. Just you. Sten hates everything in Ferelden but cookies and the Warden. Arishok hates everything in the Free Marches but Hawke. That's an incredibly powerful thing to do as a game designer. Makes the player feel seriously badass. Of course you're going to get players who appreciate the characters who make them feel that way, regardless of anything else about them.

Modifié par Quething, 27 octobre 2011 - 01:07 .

[Heimdall]

Quething wrote...

RosaAquafire wrote...

I have to admit, the fanatical love of the Qunari always puzzles me a bit. People always get all up on the Chantry and how awful they are for being religious zealots who oppress minorities and enslave people. And then they turn around and say the Qunari are basically the coolest thing ever.

There's a giant disconnect there ...

Never underestimate the power of making the player feel special.

Qunari don't like anything. That's their whole thing. They hate mages and templars, they hate women and men, they hate elves and humans, they hate the city you live in and the food you eat and the air you breathe. They hate Wardens and darkspawn, pirates and viscounts, and anything they don't hate they hold in seething contempt. They all make this abundantly clear every time they talk to you and so does the rest of the world when they talk about them.

But they like you, dear player. Just you. Sten hates everything in Ferelden but cookies and the Warden. Arishok hates everything in the Free Marches but Hawke. That's an incredibly powerful thing to do as a game designer. Makes the player feel seriously badass. Of course you're going to get players who appreciate the characters who make them feel that way, regardless of anything else about them.

Hey, that's not true!...  The Arishok liked Fenris too!

[jamesp81]

RosaAquafire wrote...

I have to admit, the fanatical love of the Qunari always puzzles me a bit. People always get all up on the Chantry and how awful they are for being religious zealots who oppress minorities and enslave people. And then they turn around and say the Qunari are basically the coolest thing ever.

There's a giant disconnect there ...

I ran a poll on that recently.  Not scientific, I know, but the Qunari are, I don't think, nearly so popular as you believe them to be.

[KJandrew]

jamesp81 wrote...

RosaAquafire wrote...

I have to admit, the fanatical love of the Qunari always puzzles me a bit. People always get all up on the Chantry and how awful they are for being religious zealots who oppress minorities and enslave people. And then they turn around and say the Qunari are basically the coolest thing ever.

There's a giant disconnect there ...

I ran a poll on that recently.  Not scientific, I know, but the Qunari are, I don't think, nearly so popular as you believe them to be.

Your poll wasn't really on wheather or not people liked the Qunari or not. It was on who would you support if push came to shove. I for example like the Qunari yet voted for Thedas on your poll 

[jamesp81]

KJandrew wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

RosaAquafire wrote...

I have to admit, the fanatical love of the Qunari always puzzles me a bit. People always get all up on the Chantry and how awful they are for being religious zealots who oppress minorities and enslave people. And then they turn around and say the Qunari are basically the coolest thing ever.

There's a giant disconnect there ...

I ran a poll on that recently.  Not scientific, I know, but the Qunari are, I don't think, nearly so popular as you believe them to be.

Your poll wasn't really on wheather or not people liked the Qunari or not. It was on who would you support if push came to shove. I for example like the Qunari yet voted for Thedas on your poll 

How are we defining "like" here?  I like them inasmuch as they're good antagonists.  Key on antagonist there.  My Hawkes can't stand qunari and fight them at almost every opportunity.

But they're well written badguys, no doubt about that.

[GodWood]

Xilizhra wrote...
Is Bioware pushing Qunari sympathy?

I wouldn't say sympathy but they're definitely presenting them in a reasonably positive light.

Bioware knows that the audience they're dealing with is one that will pick death and destruction (aka siding with the mages) over something that is even remotely authoritarian.
So naturally they're is going to portray their society in a slightly more favourable light as from the get go they're likely to be viewed as just "evil opressors".

[Herr Uhl]

jamesp81 wrote...

How are we defining "like" here?  I like them inasmuch as they're good antagonists. 

I think much of the liking comes from that they are new, and thus more fun to explore.

[Big I]

RosaAquafire wrote...

I have to admit, the fanatical love of the Qunari always puzzles me a bit. People always get all up on the Chantry and how awful they are for being religious zealots who oppress minorities and enslave people. And then they turn around and say the Qunari are basically the coolest thing ever.

There's a giant disconnect there ...

I like the dwarves of Orzammar despite the fact that they treat the castless like dirt. I like the Dalish despite their arrogancce and the fact that the chip on their shoulder extends even to other elves. And I like the Qunari because they value egalitarianism and knowledge, and despite their views on mages and conquest.


"Like" does not necessarily mean "always agree with" or "support".

[Wereparrot]

esper wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

@Wereparrot - While the quest is required for act 2, you could always pick the aggressive options for Hawke, or not return to the Arishok with information (to gain his respect, etc). So you're not so much being forced to be a diplomat as you are forced to simply interact. But to me, that doesn't imply any agenda of garnering sympathy.

I think how the Qunari are presented in DA2 is just one way we're going to get information on them. That info is going to come in dribs and drabs, as the story allows or requires. In DA:O, we learned about the Circle of Magi, for example, either by playing a mage or by handling the main quest re the Circle. In DA2, we have a broader understanding (albeit still limited) on how mages are treated, regarded, approached etc in areas outside of Fereldan. So with each game, we get a new piece of the puzzle, as it were.

It's piecemeal, sure, but it's just a chapter in a much larger story. So through DLC, the web series and maybe even DA3, I think we'll find out more about the Qunari. And for all we know, any new details may not be favorable.

The whole problem is that you are forced to be agrressive to join with Petrice. That for me screams pro-qunari agenda.

Exactly my point. It's either appeasing the qunari or siding with an extremist, and given these two extremes with no middle ground it's obvious which path Bioware thinks you should choose. 

An agressive policy towards the qunari shouldn't mean having to side with Petrice and extremism. I hope all countries in the real world would employ an aggresive policy towards uninvited and unwelcome foreigners, and this should've been an option when dealing with the qunari. If Hawke is able to carve a path through qunari-occupied Kirkwall to the keep, I'm sure he would have no trouble driving them from the docks should he need to.

[Foolsfolly]

naledgeborn wrote...

Pushing Qunari sympathy, right... The only true unique thing in this fantasy setting which was barely introduced and spoken of in the IP's foundation. The writers at BioWare must be insane for trying to expose the fans to something completely fresh and new in their sword and sorcery.

Quoted for truth.

The Qunari are the most interesting race in Thedas (followed very closely by the self-destructing and stiffling dwarves of Orzammar, IMO).

I love the qunari. And they are a threat to all the other nations in Thedas. And frankly, I wouldn't have it any other way. When they march to war we will fight a dedicated, smart, and unflinching army. Their whole society is geared to help the whole, every member from the youngest to the oldest fuel the war effort.

They're a million times more interesting than the darkspawn. And they're a much larger threat than the Templars or Mages could wish to be.

And the coolest thing about them? They're so cool. I could totally see (and would love to) role-play a Qunari supporter. They've made a credible threat, an interesting unique race, and one that players can actually role-play being supportive of.

Keep the Qunari in the forefront. They're much more interesting than any of the standard human nations (Tevinter is the sole exception, although they're constantly protrayed as mustache twirling villains).

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The Qunari aren't in Kirkwall to fight. If the player wants to restart the war with them prematurely then that's an aggressive thing to do.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:39 .

[Wereparrot]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The Qunari aren't in Kirkwall to fight. If the player wants to restart the war with them prematurely then that's an aggressive thing to do.

Still, the qunari are encroaching illegaly on Kirkwall territory. While this may be forgiven them in light of the manner of their arrival, they have arrogantly outstayed their welcome. If this is not a just cause for war, then nothing is.

[The dead fish]

No, it's a big choice first, that what counts, because only one way : to kill Petrice and her faction, then we are railroaded, there are no other words. To Introduce the concept of personality in the choice so much important is absolutely ridiculous, and I hope not to see that again, in light of the little relevance it brings. This limits the possibilities of rp  as desired by the player and it is not the purpose of an rpg. It's like saying, that to be with the templars requires " to be agresssive " and forced to save the mage, because the mage don't want to fight and appear to be the victims at the moment. Nonsense.

Because it's a choice, and Hawk must choose a side, and what he considers as a threat, according to what he thinks, him the player.

I repeat, when it's about to choose a side which can play a role further in the next game of the franchise, only the player itself can choose.

That's not because my Hawk is not agressive sometimes, that he can't choose the side of Petrice, since it is what he considers the better for Kirkwall, or his race that count, necessary. It was a political choice, and  someone does not need to kill all the time to be able to make the tough decisions, at a specific time. Remember the context, even a kind person can become tough when the situation requires it.

For example to kill the Qunari prisoners to prove to Ser Varnell that he is in its camps and thus to control fanatics and later, to be able to use them if necessary.. Political ! So much moooore interesting, that to segment choices by category, leading all the time to make people completely blocked in only one possible route and story for their character. ( gooooood character, eviiiiiiil character. And what about grey characters, subtle ?

Sooo, a diplomatic Hawk YEAAAAAH, I AM FORCED TO BE FOR THE PEACE WITH QUNARI, TO CHOOSE THEIR SIDE BECAUSE I AM A KIND PERSON ! What is the relevance of that ?

Bioware has imposed its agenda, pro-qunari on the player, it's never good. Voluntarily or involuntarily.

And I am glad some people have not deposited their brains to see it, to say it, even if they don't like Petrice and chose to kill her. We can decide ourself what is a threat and what is not, what faction could be important for our interest, what couldn't. We can use ourself our brains, thank you.

Or then, if Petrice, is eviiiiiiiiiiil, and the Qunari are kind according to them, don't let some player choose to be with her, to the detriment of others who can't because of this nonsense.

Now, I am forced to play all the time an agressive Hawk because of that, while I often prefer a diplomatic character in my games. What is really annoying, bioware has imposed its agenda about it.

I like to play characters in gray, and being diplomatic does not mean being weak or naive, or kind. Diplomatic doesn't mean not be able to take tough decisions.

DAO was perfect for the decisions, better than mass effect, ( even in mass effect I can choose my side without to be forced to be renegade or parangon )  I hope they won't take this road, or then with improvements.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 29 octobre 2011 - 11:32 .

[esper]

I never thought I would say this: But I agree with Sylvianus. If Hawke can decide to kill Javeris despite of personality (A completely unnecessary agressive thing to do.). Then any Hawke can be agressive enough to join forces with Petrice if they find her the lesser of two evils. My 'diplomatic' persona Hawke is actually quite ruthless in act three and I find that her diplomatic persona is more because she is a calm person who likes to do good and just belief that yelling doesn work. (And she is quite good a boosting other people's morale).
She would never have joined with Pertrice because Petrice was chantry, but I feel it irritating that I am forced to play agressive on all other playthroughs if I have a Hawke who find Petrice the lesser of two evils. It was a mistake to make that specfic choice agressive.

[Wulfram]

Sister Petrice herself pretty clearly has a diplomatic personality.

[The dead fish]

esper wrote...

I never thought I would say this: But I agree with Sylvianus.

Incredible !

Wulfram wrote...

Sister Petrice herself pretty clearly has a diplomatic personality.

Well said sir. Absolutely.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 29 octobre 2011 - 12:18 .

[esper]

@Syvianus. To be honest I am not sure that I aren't confusing you with somebody else. People in here sometimes have indrecible equal names. In that case I am sorry.
And we definetly agree on the Petrice matter.