274 réponses à ce sujet

[whykikyouwhy]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You'll have to excuse me for addressing what Hawke explicitly stated, and not pretending that it was code for something else entirely. The Warden could be an atheist, while Hawke is an Andrastian. Pretending that Hawke saying that someone is "with the Maker" is really super-secret code for something else entirely really makes little sense to me, especially given his other dialogue, along with his Andrastian battle cries where he continually brings up the Maker.

"Go to hell" and "I'm sending you to God" are two entirely different things. You seem to be arguing against what the narrative explicitly tells us about Hawke, and I see no reason to. I suppose the issue is that I'm addressing that I would prefer having the choice in regards to what my protagonist believes in, rather than having that choice removed entirely, as it is with Hawke. I'm not interested in coming up with fan explanations for what Hawke explicitly says, I'm interested in having a real choice in determining what my protagonist believes in, as I had with The Warden. The Warden can be an atheist, and the player has a choice in expressing this. Hawke can't be an atheist, because the writers didn't permit the player such agency over the protagonist of Dragon Age II.

It is a lot of hoops when you're addressing that what Hawke says has some double-meaning. I simply don't see the point to it. My issue is: Why can't Hawke be an atheist? Why is that choice out of my hands, when I had such a choice with The Warden?

The Warden could express that he or she was an atheist, so I don't see the issue here. The developers did it once, I don't see why they couldn't do it again with Hawke, rather than taking the choice out of my hands. Especially when they determine that Hawke is an Andrastian, regardless of what I want.

*shrug*

It's been my experience that plenty of people who don't follow any particular faith, or hold any particular religious belief, will use references to and of "God" in their day to day. From curses, to exasperated mutterings, to even just entreaties (because in times of need, some people reach out to something). Some of it comes from being raised in a religious household, but not following in the faith themselves. Some of it comes from familiarity with a deity. 

Sure, you could have the Warden state that (s)he did not believe - that was certainly a choice. But does that mean that in selecting that line of dialogue, you or any other player meant that exactly as it sounded? If, for instance, I was playing a less than honest Warden and I wanted to woo Leliana, but had no interest in matters of religion and felt that the Maker was a load of fluff, I could select dialogue options that either stated that my Warden held some belief and faith, or implied that I did. But at the heart of it, that isn't who I made my character to be - my character could have just been playing along for the sake of achieving friendship points. It's really all in how a person role-plays with the tools are given to him/her.

It's been abundantly clear that you don't care for Hawke and did not feel that you could role-play that character. Fine. That's going to be your take on things. But the ambiguity is there. For Hawke, for the Warden. Players are going to put what they want into their characters and take what they will from the game. I feel that Hawke could be an atheist, or someone who doesn't necessarily believe in the Maker but might believe in old hags who turn into dragons. 

LobselVith8 wrote...

If the protagonist is going to be a Seeker, then most likely we will see a repeat of the issue I had with Andrastian Hawke.

We don't know that the PC is going to be a Seeker. The Seeker shown at PAX could be a companion. And even if we have a Seeker PC, we may have a backstory that allows for flexibility. I don't know that there is a litmus test of devout faith for that Order. As far as I know, little has been written about the inner workings of the Order, so while its members may work in conjunction with the Chantry, that does not mean that every Seeker recites the Chant of Light, or believes in the Maker in their very heart of hearts.

[LobselVith8]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You'll have to excuse me for addressing what Hawke explicitly stated, and not pretending that it was code for something else entirely. The Warden could be an atheist, while Hawke is an Andrastian. Pretending that Hawke saying that someone is "with the Maker" is really super-secret code for something else entirely really makes little sense to me, especially given his other dialogue, along with his Andrastian battle cries where he continually brings up the Maker.

...

"Go to hell" and "I'm sending you to God" are two entirely different things. You seem to be arguing against what the narrative explicitly tells us about Hawke, and I see no reason to. I suppose the issue is that I'm addressing that I would prefer having the choice in regards to what my protagonist believes in, rather than having that choice removed entirely, as it is with Hawke. I'm not interested in coming up with fan explanations for what Hawke explicitly says, I'm interested in having a real choice in determining what my protagonist believes in, as I had with The Warden. The Warden can be an atheist, and the player has a choice in expressing this. Hawke can't be an atheist, because the writers didn't permit the player such agency over the protagonist of Dragon Age II.

...

It is a lot of hoops when you're addressing that what Hawke says has some double-meaning. I simply don't see the point to it. My issue is: Why can't Hawke be an atheist? Why is that choice out of my hands, when I had such a choice with The Warden?

...

The Warden could express that he or she was an atheist, so I don't see the issue here. The developers did it once, I don't see why they couldn't do it again with Hawke, rather than taking the choice out of my hands. Especially when they determine that Hawke is an Andrastian, regardless of what I want.

*shrug*

It's been my experience that plenty of people who don't follow any particular faith, or hold any particular religious belief, will use references to and of "God" in their day to day. From curses, to exasperated mutterings, to even just entreaties (because in times of need, some people reach out to something). Some of it comes from being raised in a religious household, but not following in the faith themselves. Some of it comes from familiarity with a deity.

Sure, you could have the Warden state that (s)he did not believe - that was certainly a choice. But does that mean that in selecting that line of dialogue, you or any other player meant that exactly as it sounded? If, for instance, I was playing a less than honest Warden and I wanted to woo Leliana, but had no interest in matters of religion and felt that the Maker was a load of fluff, I could select dialogue options that either stated that my Warden held some belief and faith, or implied that I did. But at the heart of it, that isn't who I made my character to be - my character could have just been playing along for the sake of achieving friendship points. It's really all in how a person role-plays with the tools are given to him/her.

Players have freedom in certain games to interpret how things could have gone - for example, the backstory with the Courier in New Vegas, or the history of the Dragonborn prior to arriving in Skyrim. There are choices open to interpretation. That is not avaliable when Hawke is saying that someone who has died is with the Maker, especially if he is saying this line to a person who isn't Andrastian. Selecting that line of dialogue had Hawke say something explicitly about someone who had died, and I would have to ignore what the protagonist verbally expressed in order to justify the idea that Hawke could be an atheist. The crux of the issue is that The Warden had a choice on the matter, while Hawke doesn't have a choice. I don't see why that had to be the case; I don't see why that freedom was removed from our control when it came down to shaping our protagonist.

whykikyouwhy wrote...

It's been abundantly clear that you don't care for Hawke and did not feel that you could role-play that character. Fine. That's going to be your take on things. But the ambiguity is there. For Hawke, for the Warden. Players are going to put what they want into their characters and take what they will from the game. I feel that Hawke could be an atheist, or someone who doesn't necessarily believe in the Maker but might believe in old hags who turn into dragons. 

You can't claim there's ambiguity with a line that is specifically stated by the protagonist to express that a deceased person is with the Maker. You seem to be arguing against what the narrative has the protagonist explicitly express. Hawke, to a degree, is predetermined by Bioware, and the bad paraphrasing does make it difficult to properly RP him in addition to the auto-lines of dialogue (in my opinion). However, there's no ambiguity with Hawke expressing that a "particular person" is with the Maker. It's not intended for there to be any ambiguity. Hawke is an Andrastian, and the player isn't allowed to make Hawke be an atheist. The same opportunity we had with The Warden isn't avaliable for Hawke, because the developers didn't give us that opportunity.

whykikyouwhy wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If the protagonist is going to be a Seeker, then most likely we will see a repeat of the issue I had with Andrastian Hawke.

We don't know that the PC is going to be a Seeker. The Seeker shown at PAX could be a companion. And even if we have a Seeker PC, we may have a backstory that allows for flexibility. I don't know that there is a litmus test of devout faith for that Order. As far as I know, little has been written about the inner workings of the Order, so while its members may work in conjunction with the Chantry, that does not mean that every Seeker recites the Chant of Light, or believes in the Maker in their very heart of hearts.

I don't see why an atheist would join a religious order.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 16 avril 2012 - 06:12 .

[LadyJaneGrey]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see why an atheist would join a religious order.

Possibly for the  power?  The prestige?  The nifty armor? 

[slashthedragon]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see why an atheist would join a religious order.

Possibly for the  power?  The prestige?  The nifty armor? 

I'm pretty sure that even today men become priests because of the benefits.
I would be a nun for the same reason, but they makes nun live in poverity, so....
Damn gender restrictions via religion!

Modifié par slashthedragon, 16 avril 2012 - 06:19 .

[HiroVoid]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see why an atheist would join a religious order.

Possibly for the  power?  The prestige?  The nifty armor? 

Not wanting to be a farmer?

[Dogaum]

Seeker?? I want my Warden!! Give him back!

[ChaosAgentLoki]

berelinde wrote...

^^ Well said.

It is reasonable to expect that personal stance on the mage/templar issue is going to play a large part in DA3. Imposing even a token alliance favoring one side over the other isn't what this series is about.

As nice as that sounds, I have a strong feeling we're going to be given a Pro-mage outlook in an attempt to appease many of the fans. I myself would like to be able to ally with whoever I want (and to be a Seeker, if I so chose to be one). Hopefully I'm wrong (about the Pro-Mage outlook) as I really want DA3 to be great. 

[tankdogg937]

berelinde wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I don't get this part. According to wiki, The Seeker is an Andrastian. How can they be an Andrastian if they don't believe in the Maker?

The wiki is wrong sometimes and in this case I'm hesitant to believe that the Seekers are all Andrastians considering no in-game source states that the Seekers are comprised only of Andrastians.

The wiki states the Order is Andrastian in nature. It doesn't state that all of its members are Andrastians as well. That it exists as a piece of the Chantry automatically makes the idea of the Order Andrastian in nature.

Doesn't make the members themselves Andrastian.

We have met two Seekers in-game. Both were Andrastian. I find it difficult to believe that no one would have noticed that the entire wiki entry for the Seekers was in error. The article states over and over that the Seekers are an Andrastian order. They do not say that they are Andrastian in nature. There is no ambiguity about it. What Order admits members who do not meet the defining requirements?

The Wardens were once a part of the Chantry and spread the belief around. That doesn't mean that all of its members believed in the Maker. Merely most, as the Wardens agreed to accept anyone without prejudice towards their background. Be they Human, Elf, Dwarf, Mage, peasant, king, murderer, thief, atheist, or fanatic.

The Grey Wardens predate the Chantry. While it is mentioned in passing in one sentence in the wiki article (which you claim to be an unreliable source), there is absolutely nothing in game to suggest that the Wardens have any religious affiliation at all. There are numerous in-game references to the Wardens' policy of recruiting members without regard toward background, race, or politics.

The Wardens have one purpose: they stop the Blight. They do not exist to spread the Chant or to "spread the belief around". 

To be fair, The Seekers and Templars also predate the Chantry. Who is to say there aren't pockets of those who cling to the honor of being a member of each group rather than religious reasons.

Modifié par tankdogg937, 16 avril 2012 - 07:02 .

[LobselVith8]

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

As nice as that sounds, I have a strong feeling we're going to be given a Pro-mage outlook in an attempt to appease many of the fans. I myself would like to be able to ally with whoever I want (and to be a Seeker, if I so chose to be one). Hopefully I'm wrong (about the Pro-Mage outlook) as I really want DA3 to be great. 

Why would you think that the narrative for Dragon Age III would be pro-mage?

[ChaosAgentLoki]

LobselVith8 wrote...

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

As nice as that sounds, I have a strong feeling we're going to be given a Pro-mage outlook in an attempt to appease many of the fans. I myself would like to be able to ally with whoever I want (and to be a Seeker, if I so chose to be one). Hopefully I'm wrong (about the Pro-Mage outlook) as I really want DA3 to be great. 

Why would you think that the narrative for Dragon Age III would be pro-mage?

Oh, I think that due to the way they have been developing the world. Outisde of the stuff going on in The Silent Grove, it seems like Bioware is pushing the support of the mages. Templars and the Chantry seem to be in the midst of being villified right now and the Mages are being placed at the forefront of the entire DA universe. Hopefully in the next year or so we get some shift to that dynamic so it is more balanced. Until I see that though, I stand by my statement that I think the narrative of DA3 will be leaning towards pro-mage.

[The Elder King]

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

As nice as that sounds, I have a strong feeling we're going to be given a Pro-mage outlook in an attempt to appease many of the fans. I myself would like to be able to ally with whoever I want (and to be a Seeker, if I so chose to be one). Hopefully I'm wrong (about the Pro-Mage outlook) as I really want DA3 to be great. 

Why would you think that the narrative for Dragon Age III would be pro-mage?

Oh, I think that due to the way they have been developing the world. Outisde of the stuff going on in The Silent Grove, it seems like Bioware is pushing the support of the mages. Templars and the Chantry seem to be in the midst of being villified right now and the Mages are being placed at the forefront of the entire DA universe. Hopefully in the next year or so we get some shift to that dynamic so it is more balanced. Until I see that though, I stand by my statement that I think the narrative of DA3 will be leaning towards pro-mage.

From the endings of DA2, and from another souce on the conflict, it seems that the Templars left the Chantry to fight mages, while the Chantry is trying to resolve the mages rebellion peacefully. The Chantry isn't supporting the templars in fighting the mages. Whatever the reason is (which we don't know yet) the Divine didn't declare war to the mages, or an Exalted Marches.
Of course, in DA3 they could make the Chantry as an antagonist, and the mages as the good guys. But there's no hint of that so far. Bioware could very well do the opposite.

[esper]

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

As nice as that sounds, I have a strong feeling we're going to be given a Pro-mage outlook in an attempt to appease many of the fans. I myself would like to be able to ally with whoever I want (and to be a Seeker, if I so chose to be one). Hopefully I'm wrong (about the Pro-Mage outlook) as I really want DA3 to be great. 

Why would you think that the narrative for Dragon Age III would be pro-mage?

Oh, I think that due to the way they have been developing the world. Outisde of the stuff going on in The Silent Grove, it seems like Bioware is pushing the support of the mages. Templars and the Chantry seem to be in the midst of being villified right now and the Mages are being placed at the forefront of the entire DA universe. Hopefully in the next year or so we get some shift to that dynamic so it is more balanced. Until I see that though, I stand by my statement that I think the narrative of DA3 will be leaning towards pro-mage.

Are you sure that your not just feeling that because of your personal bias in game, because I feel that the Chantry is unnecessary glorifed in the two games with characthers like Leliana, the Divine, Cassandra (the movie) and more... Of course I know I feel that way because of my anti-chantry feelings so I don't complain about it, unless I will be forced to play a pro-chantry characther like a Seeker (I am rather doubting that we will be allowed to play as one of the Seekers who joined the Templars).

[SteveGarbage]

I think that a Seeker is an excellent idea for the main character. Whether you want to be pro-Chantry or not, it can still work. The world is in turmoil, the mages and templars have rebelled. You could be that Seeker who is totally disillusioned with the whole thing and goes rogue.

But if you're not a Seeker as the main, I definitely think they should join you as a companion. They're interesting and BioWare has been building them - DA2, Asunder, Dawn of the Seeker. Seems logical to deliver.

[esper]

SteveGarbage wrote...

I think that a Seeker is an excellent idea for the main character. Whether you want to be pro-Chantry or not, it can still work. The world is in turmoil, the mages and templars have rebelled. You could be that Seeker who is totally disillusioned with the whole thing and goes rogue.

But if you're not a Seeker as the main, I definitely think they should join you as a companion. They're interesting and BioWare has been building them - DA2, Asunder, Dawn of the Seeker. Seems logical to deliver.

I cannot work, because you would still roleplay a characther who at one point were pro-chantry and that would drain all the fun out nof the characther for me and I likely wouldn't care about that characther.

At least you could be dragged kicking and screaming into the Wardens and continue to say screw you to Alistar (Your <3 Fereldan which was difficult to avoid was a different matter). If we had started with a characther who was a warden, I would not have liked it. 

I don't really see the Seekers in time of turmoil and with people defecting recruiting a person who hates the chantry and the Andrastian religion. That would just be... beyond stupid.

[The Elder King]

esper wrote...

Are you sure that your not just feeling that because of your personal bias in game, because I feel that the Chantry is unnecessary glorifed in the two games with characthers like Leliana, the Divine, Cassandra (the movie) and more... Of course I know I feel that way because of my anti-chantry feelings so I don't complain about it, unless I will be forced to play a pro-chantry characther like a Seeker (I am rather doubting that we will be allowed to play as one of the Seekers who joined the Templars).

Leliana'case should be divided. In DAO, she didn't glorify the Chantry. She even stated that some of her opinions are different from what Chantry folk thinks. Of course, she didn't think that the Chantry is bad organization, but that doesn't mean she glorified it.
In DA2, well, putting Leliana as the right hand of the Divine (though it could be more a matter of personal loyalty) and as a Seeker (though we don't know if the joined them or they asked her to work with them to find the Warden) was bad, in my opinion, and not only because in some playthrough she could have her head separated from the body. But Leliana, as far as I remember, didn't ever glorify the Chantry. She alway glorified Andraste, which is, in my opinion, a slight different thing. Even Anders believes in Andraste.
Anyaway, I don't get why having important characters related to the Chantry means that they're glorifying the Chantry. The Divine was considering the option of declaring and Exalted March on Kirkwall. Sister Petrice plotted an killed innocent people to encourage a war with the qunari. A lot of Chantry folks are described as racist in regards of the mages, and in some case of the case. I dont' get how Bioware are describing the Chantry as a good, perfect organization.
It might be, as you say, that you're view is influenced by your hate for the Chantry, while I'm more neutral on both the mages and the Andrastians organization (templars, Seekers, Chantry).
On your last phrase, I'd say that it's impossible to play a Templar-supporter Seeker at the start of the game, unless we could play as a mage supporting the rebellion.

Modifié par hhh89, 16 avril 2012 - 08:38 .

[berelinde]

The problem is not that playing a Seeker would be uninteresting. The problem is that it denies what many players consider to be an essential freedom: The ability to choose religious and political affiliations for each character.

The Seekers are an Andrastian order. Prior to the events of Asunder, which many people have not read, they reported directly to the Divine. The idea that they would welcome atheists into their order with open arms requires more hand-waving than I can accept. And what role would would be lowly enough for first-level characters to fill?

There are pages and pages of logical, well-written arguments about why imposing religion on the protagonist might not be the best idea. BioWare employs a lot of very clever people. I'm confident that they will invent an equally interesting background for the protagonist that does not force the player character to a subscribe to a religion that many people find abhorrent.

[esper]

hhh89 wrote...

esper wrote...

Are you sure that your not just feeling that because of your personal bias in game, because I feel that the Chantry is unnecessary glorifed in the two games with characthers like Leliana, the Divine, Cassandra (the movie) and more... Of course I know I feel that way because of my anti-chantry feelings so I don't complain about it, unless I will be forced to play a pro-chantry characther like a Seeker (I am rather doubting that we will be allowed to play as one of the Seekers who joined the Templars).

Leliana'case should be divided. In DAO, she didn't glorify the Chantry. She even stated that some of her opinions are different from what Chantry folk thinks. Of course, she didn't think that the Chantry is bad organization, but that doesn't mean she glorified it.
In DA2, well, putting Leliana as the right hand of the Divine (though it could be more a matter of personal loyalty) and as a Seeker (though we don't know if the joined them or they asked her to work with them to find the Warden) was bad, in my opinion, and not only because in some playthrough she could have her head separated from the body. But Leliana, as far as I remember, didn't ever glorify the Chantry. She alway glorified Andraste, which is, in my opinion, a slight different thing. Even Anders believes in Andraste.
Anyaway, I don't get why having important characters related to the Chantry means that they're glorifying the Chantry. The Divine was considering the option of declaring and Exalted March on Kirkwall. Sister Petrice plotted an killed innocent people to encourage a war with the qunari. A lot of Chantry folks are described as racist in regards of the mages, and in some case of the case. I dont' get how Bioware are describing the Chantry as a good, perfect organization.
It might be, as you say, that you're view is influenced by your hate for the Chantry, while I'm more neutral on both the mages and the Andrastians organization (templars, Seekers, Chantry).
On your last phrase, I'd say that it's impossible to play a Templar-supporter Seeker at the start of the game, unless we could play as a mage supporting the rebellion.

Spolier warning.

They are 'gloryfing' the Chantry because Leliana as stated in Da:o have a different and much more empathathic understanding off the Andrastian faith which leaves out the ugliest part (The Maker have abandonded us). In da:o she is, as she should be, enstranged from the rest of the clergy because of this radical different understanding off Andraste, yet in da2 she is has miracoulesly become the Divine's (I believe it was left) hand, even if being different. Showing that the Divine is not oppossed to Lelianas softer understanding. A glorification that suddenly makes the Chantry tolerant (as oppossed to before)
The Divine in da2 never do call for an exalted march and with the expansion cancel she never will. In Asunder, however, she is suddenly pro-mage and moderate enought to ****** off the templars (and part of the Seekers) to rebel against the Chantry. Also there is the matter with the rite of Trabnquility. Let's just say that the Asunder Divine is no where near the Divine who considered an exalted march on Kirkwall for all the wrong reasons = thus and glorification. Cassandra the movie seems to be about Cassandra definding the Chantry against something, which means that the Chantry will be on the 'hero' side in the movie.

All in all it seems that the Chantry is being set in place to be the moderater of the mage/templars conflict once the 'minor zealot' part (which does not have the leading role and is so obvious in the wrong, see how hard it is to spare Mother Petrice) have been removed. Which I feel is a glorification since I am percieve the Chantry as being the source of the conflict in the first place and this is glossed over. 

This, however, is all I will say on the glorification part. My original point was that glorification or villification are words which is hard/ to impossible to use objectively and when we come to the mage/templar/chantry conflict those of us who are invested in it will always have a tendency to feel that 'our side' is villificated and the 'other side' glorificatited. I simply think that we should avoid using the words or at least admit that we have a bias when using them (as I did, and do).

As for the Seekers part I did not mean that it will be impossible to play a pro-templars Seeker. But the Seekers have split into a group which joined the rebelling Templars and a group which stayed with the Chantry. If we, Maker forbid, is forced to join the Seekers, we'll largely not be forced into joining the Templar-siding group, but the Chantry-siding and then get to decide wherever we are pro-templar/pro-mage down the road.

[catabuca]

berelinde wrote...

The problem is not that playing a Seeker would be uninteresting. The problem is that it denies what many players consider to be an essential freedom: The ability to choose religious and political affiliations for each character.

The Seekers are an Andrastian order. Prior to the events of Asunder, which many people have not read, they reported directly to the Divine. The idea that they would welcome atheists into their order with open arms requires more hand-waving than I can accept. And what role would would be lowly enough for first-level characters to fill?

There are pages and pages of logical, well-written arguments about why imposing religion on the protagonist might not be the best idea. BioWare employs a lot of very clever people. I'm confident that they will invent an equally interesting background for the protagonist that does not force the player character to a subscribe to a religion that many people find abhorrent.

Precisely. Well argued.

It really is very simple. It's better to provide the player with a character who is free from the outset to be able to take a view of the world that is unhindered by pre-determined bias, and to allow the player to create their own motivation for being on one side of the argument or another, than it is to start with a character who is, by the very nature of their political office, already implied to hold specific views and beliefs.

Most Dragon Age players would, I believe, say that it is important to them to be able to have more, not less, control over how they develop their own character, and that includes being able to imagine and build the sort of person they are up to the point at which the narrative of the game begins. Many people were upset that with Hawke we were given a set family, a set history, a defined point in time from which we couldn't deviate to build a character before we started playing. And in that instance, that was just a static family, a static racial background. Imagine if that starting point was refined further, made more restrictive, by also putting in place an overtly-defined political affiliation, and with it a heavily-implied religious stance.

The way to give us an investment in our own character isn't by prescribing something like their membership of a group like the Seekers (or by making them a Chantry sister, or a Templar lieutenant, or the right hand of an enchanter in one of the Circles, etc.). It's by giving us a unique but relatively neutral starting point from which we can slowly learn more about these organisations, about the politics and problems beseiging Thedas, through interaction with our companions, the people we meet during quests, cut scenes, and so on. That way the player has as much agency as game design can allow, to feel free to shape their character as they play.

Again, having a protagonist who is a Seeker (or a member of the Chantry hierarchy, or an up-and-coming Templar, or whatever) might make for a very interesting game. But ultimately, that kind of game would be at odds with what we've traditionally been given--and expressed a desire for--in Dragon Age.

[The Elder King]

esper wrote...



Spolier warning.

They are 'gloryfing' the Chantry because Leliana as stated in Da:o have a different and much more empathathic understanding off the Andrastian faith which leaves out the ugliest part (The Maker have abandonded us). In da:o she is, as she should be, enstranged from the rest of the clergy because of this radical different understanding off Andraste, yet in da2 she is has miracoulesly become the Divine's (I believe it was left) hand, even if being different. Showing that the Divine is not oppossed to Lelianas softer understanding. A glorification that suddenly makes the Chantry tolerant (as oppossed to before)
The Divine in da2 never do call for an exalted march and with the expansion cancel she never will. In Asunder, however, she is suddenly pro-mage and moderate enought to ****** off the templars (and part of the Seekers) to rebel against the Chantry. Also there is the matter with the rite of Trabnquility. Let's just say that the Asunder Divine is no where near the Divine who considered an exalted march on Kirkwall for all the wrong reasons = thus and glorification. Cassandra the movie seems to be about Cassandra definding the Chantry against something, which means that the Chantry will be on the 'hero' side in the movie.

All in all it seems that the Chantry is being set in place to be the moderater of the mage/templars conflict once the 'minor zealot' part (which does not have the leading role and is so obvious in the wrong, see how hard it is to spare Mother Petrice) have been removed. Which I feel is a glorification since I am percieve the Chantry as being the source of the conflict in the first place and this is glossed over. 

This, however, is all I will say on the glorification part. My original point was that glorification or villification are words which is hard/ to impossible to use objectively and when we come to the mage/templar/chantry conflict those of us who are invested in it will always have a tendency to feel that 'our side' is villificated and the 'other side' glorificatited. I simply think that we should avoid using the words or at least admit that we have a bias when using them (as I did, and do).

As for the Seekers part I did not mean that it will be impossible to play a pro-templars Seeker. But the Seekers have split into a group which joined the rebelling Templars and a group which stayed with the Chantry. If we, Maker forbid, is forced to join the Seekers, we'll largely not be forced into joining the Templar-siding group, but the Chantry-siding and then get to decide wherever we are pro-templar/pro-mage down the road.

Spoiler warning
The fact that the Divine made Leliana her most trusted agent doesn't necessarily that she shared her view. She's the one who helped Leliana escape (she was the one who was seduces by Marjolaine and gave her the informations  about Orlais, by the way), so she knows how skilled Leliana is.
Though considering that Leliana was inspired by her faith to go to the Chantry, it might be that her view is "softer" than the previous Divines. In that case, we should consider that now everyone who is in the Chantry share the same point of view.
About the mages, I'd admit that her action are a bit confused. Though you should consider that she might have wanted to declare an Exalted March (on Kirkwall, not only on the Circle) to prevent the rebellion of the other Circles. After the events of DA2, even if she'd declare an Exalted March on Kirkwall, it wouldn't be against the mages, but after the city. It's normal the after the events of DA2 she would be more diplomatic. I didn't read Asunder (only the plot) so I don't know how much pro-mage she is, but she would've fear that every Circle would've have rebelled if she was hard on mages. Even after the rebellion it'd be better for the Chantry to try to find a peaceful solution. From a politic and military's point of view, the Circles are one of the major reason the Andrastians nations could survive against a possible Qunari invasion. So we don't know how much the Divine is influenced by this and is she's really pro-mage (unless in Asunder she said that the Circles are bad and that mage should have freedom. If she said that the mages should've been treated better in Kirkwall, that's more of a logical reason that a pro-mage statement).
About the Seekers PC, of course it'd be better to play as a Chantry-follower Seeker than a Templar-follower Seeker.  It's obvious that in the case we're going to play a Seeker, if would be a Chantry-follower, which is rather neutral.
My post is more referring to the possibility of playing with a PC that starts in one of the two factions in war. In this case it'd be possible to play a Templar-follower Seeker from the start, but I wouldn't like that. It's better in my opinion to not start in one of the Seekers organizations or the revolutionary mages.

[esper]

hhh89 wrote...

esper wrote...



Spolier warning.

They are 'gloryfing' the Chantry because Leliana as stated in Da:o have a different and much more empathathic understanding off the Andrastian faith which leaves out the ugliest part (The Maker have abandonded us). In da:o she is, as she should be, enstranged from the rest of the clergy because of this radical different understanding off Andraste, yet in da2 she is has miracoulesly become the Divine's (I believe it was left) hand, even if being different. Showing that the Divine is not oppossed to Lelianas softer understanding. A glorification that suddenly makes the Chantry tolerant (as oppossed to before)
The Divine in da2 never do call for an exalted march and with the expansion cancel she never will. In Asunder, however, she is suddenly pro-mage and moderate enought to ****** off the templars (and part of the Seekers) to rebel against the Chantry. Also there is the matter with the rite of Trabnquility. Let's just say that the Asunder Divine is no where near the Divine who considered an exalted march on Kirkwall for all the wrong reasons = thus and glorification. Cassandra the movie seems to be about Cassandra definding the Chantry against something, which means that the Chantry will be on the 'hero' side in the movie.

All in all it seems that the Chantry is being set in place to be the moderater of the mage/templars conflict once the 'minor zealot' part (which does not have the leading role and is so obvious in the wrong, see how hard it is to spare Mother Petrice) have been removed. Which I feel is a glorification since I am percieve the Chantry as being the source of the conflict in the first place and this is glossed over. 

This, however, is all I will say on the glorification part. My original point was that glorification or villification are words which is hard/ to impossible to use objectively and when we come to the mage/templar/chantry conflict those of us who are invested in it will always have a tendency to feel that 'our side' is villificated and the 'other side' glorificatited. I simply think that we should avoid using the words or at least admit that we have a bias when using them (as I did, and do).

As for the Seekers part I did not mean that it will be impossible to play a pro-templars Seeker. But the Seekers have split into a group which joined the rebelling Templars and a group which stayed with the Chantry. If we, Maker forbid, is forced to join the Seekers, we'll largely not be forced into joining the Templar-siding group, but the Chantry-siding and then get to decide wherever we are pro-templar/pro-mage down the road.

Spoiler warning
The fact that the Divine made Leliana her most trusted agent doesn't necessarily that she shared her view. She's the one who helped Leliana escape (she was the one who was seduces by Marjolaine and gave her the informations  about Orlais, by the way), so she knows how skilled Leliana is.
Though considering that Leliana was inspired by her faith to go to the Chantry, it might be that her view is "softer" than the previous Divines. In that case, we should consider that now everyone who is in the Chantry share the same point of view.
About the mages, I'd admit that her action are a bit confused. Though you should consider that she might have wanted to declare an Exalted March (on Kirkwall, not only on the Circle) to prevent the rebellion of the other Circles. After the events of DA2, even if she'd declare an Exalted March on Kirkwall, it wouldn't be against the mages, but after the city. It's normal the after the events of DA2 she would be more diplomatic. I didn't read Asunder (only the plot) so I don't know how much pro-mage she is, but she would've fear that every Circle would've have rebelled if she was hard on mages. Even after the rebellion it'd be better for the Chantry to try to find a peaceful solution. From a politic and military's point of view, the Circles are one of the major reason the Andrastians nations could survive against a possible Qunari invasion. So we don't know how much the Divine is influenced by this and is she's really pro-mage (unless in Asunder she said that the Circles are bad and that mage should have freedom. If she said that the mages should've been treated better in Kirkwall, that's more of a logical reason that a pro-mage statement).
About the Seekers PC, of course it'd be better to play as a Chantry-follower Seeker than a Templar-follower Seeker.  It's obvious that in the case we're going to play a Seeker, if would be a Chantry-follower, which is rather neutral.
My post is more referring to the possibility of playing with a PC that starts in one of the two factions in war. In this case it'd be possible to play a Templar-follower Seeker from the start, but I wouldn't like that. It's better in my opinion to not start in one of the Seekers organizations or the revolutionary mages.

I really don't think that we should continue to discuss glorification or not in a non-spoiler thread. Espically since my point being that glorification/villification are words which are emotionally loaded and something that I am not interested in discussion since it is about how the story is presented and not the story. I would much rather discuss why I think the chantry is evil, but that too must be in a spoilor thread.

As for the last part. I do not consider the chantry neutral in anyway. I think that I have made it clear in previous post that I do not want to play a seeker.

[The Elder King]

esper wrote...



I really don't think that we should continue to discuss glorification or not in a non-spoiler thread. Espically since my point being that glorification/villification are words which are emotionally loaded and something that I am not interested in discussion since it is about how the story is presented and not the story. I would much rather discuss why I think the chantry is evil, but that too must be in a spoilor thread.

As for the last part. I do not consider the chantry neutral in anyway. I think that I have made it clear in previous post that I do not want to play a seeker.

I don't want to play as Seekers either. Though the "neutral" part in my post is more about their part in the war, since they're not partecipating.

[esper]

hhh89 wrote...

esper wrote...



I really don't think that we should continue to discuss glorification or not in a non-spoiler thread. Espically since my point being that glorification/villification are words which are emotionally loaded and something that I am not interested in discussion since it is about how the story is presented and not the story. I would much rather discuss why I think the chantry is evil, but that too must be in a spoilor thread.

As for the last part. I do not consider the chantry neutral in anyway. I think that I have made it clear in previous post that I do not want to play a seeker.

I don't want to play as Seekers either. Though the "neutral" part in my post is more about their part in the war, since they're not partecipating.

They are not neutral in the war. They have lost two/third (rougly) of their army with the Mages and the Templars/Seekers rebelling. Thus they have a direct interest in making them come back to their control. Making them not neutral.They are the third army in the war.

[Melca36]

Just so you know...they likely want the game to SELL...

I wouldn't mind having a seeker companion but if I am forced to play one...I won't be buying.

[The Elder King]

esper wrote...

They are not neutral in the war. They have lost two/third (rougly) of their army with the Mages and the Templars/Seekers rebelling. Thus they have a direct interest in making them come back to their control. Making them not neutral.They are the third army in the war.

spoiler warning






I agree that they're not "neutral", in the sense that they will stay aside from the war, without interfering. I probably used the wrong word.
What I meant with "neutral", though, is the fact that in my opinion they'll not fight in the war against the templars, mages, or both. They'll try to find a peaceful solution to bring them back (how, I don't know, since the mages will not accept a return of the status quo and the templars want to destroy the mages and they surely are against more freedom for them.)
You said that they have an army. I don't think so. They lost more than two third of their military power. (nearly?) every mage left the Chantry, as well as the majority of the Templars and most of the Seekers. The Seekers under the Chantry are the minority of the order before the war (though they might have start a recruitment, but the same could go for the templars and the other Seeker's faction). Other than the Seekers, the Chantry has a little number of templars. They don't have the military power to fight against one of the two factions. 
They might ask help to Orlais, but the country is propably in civil war (considering that we'll play in Orlais, I'm quite sure it'll be one the major plot in the game), so the Orlesians could be divided and unwilling to help the Chantry.

spoiler end

Modifié par hhh89, 17 avril 2012 - 03:12 .

[LobselVith8]

SteveGarbage wrote...

I think that a Seeker is an excellent idea for the main character. Whether you want to be pro-Chantry or not, it can still work. The world is in turmoil, the mages and templars have rebelled. You could be that Seeker who is totally disillusioned with the whole thing and goes rogue.

It would imply that, at one point, my protagonist was pro-Chantry, and I simply have no inclination to purchase a game where my character would be a Seeker of Truth. I already have issues with how little control I had over Hawke, as well as over his religious views (since he was Andrastian, whether I liked it or not), and I would prefer to purchase a game where I had more control over my character rather than less control over who my protagonist is.

SteveGarbage wrote...

But if you're not a Seeker as the main, I definitely think they should join you as a companion. They're interesting and BioWare has been building them - DA2, Asunder, Dawn of the Seeker. Seems logical to deliver.

I would prefer having the choice to conscript companions, as we had in Origins (for the most part), rather than having companions forced on me, like in Dragon Age II.