274 réponses à ce sujet

[Always Alice]

berelinde wrote...
 There are so many better ideas for a protagonist, I'm confident they'll come up with something far better.

I think this is the "origin" with the most story potential, truthfully. Especially considering we will (presumably) be dealing with political factions (and Orlais!)

I can get my daily dose of religious intolerance a lot closer to home.

I doubt they will make you play as a zealot. Believing in a religion does not automatically make a person "intolerant." I would assume they would give us different ways to express faith (and possibly lack of).

[Always Alice]

BrotherWarth wrote...

If the choice could be made to be a spy for Tevinter or something I would be alright with being forced to play a Seeker.

Ooh, I like that idea. Maybe in the character creation screen we can choose the background for our Seeker. Didn't one of the developers say they could do something like Mass Effect where we pick our background?

[Always Alice]

GavrielKay wrote...

I think it would be fun to have the Origins model come back and allow players to choose between Seeker and whatever else.  More choices are better than fewer, assuming they can coordinate the rest of the game play.

Multiple choices sound fun, but I'm not sure if they would be able to implement them properly in DA3. The reason why the origins worked so well in the first game is because all the characters belonged to the same organization, so your background had little, if any, effect on the world around you. If two of the origins in DA3 were Seeker and Tevinter Mage,for example, the game (I assume) would be drastically different.

[Maria Caliban]

BrotherWarth wrote...

If the choice could be made to be a spy for Tevinter or something I would be alright with being forced to play a Seeker. I would rather not be forced to a Seeker or human, but I'm betting a human protagonist is what we'll get...

That would also be interesting.

[LobselVith8]

GavrielKay wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

They potentially alienate part of their player base with every decision they make.

Are people who refuse to play a character with fantasy religious faith a significant minority or a majority in your mind? Because we already know that BioWare's fans are fine with being part of an organization.

Everyone knows that religion and politics are extremely divisive.  Sure, there are decisions they could make that would make certain folks unhappy, even if 99% were ecstatic.  However, religion is just one of those things that people are more likely to have strong feelings about.

I don't think it would be a good business decision to set the PC as a devoted follower of the game's dominant religion.  It invites strong feelings.  Many people won't care, but those who do care will tend to care a lot.

I think another aspect is that some people simply don't like the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars, and the Seekers of Truth are part of the Chantry and its military division. Some people don't agree with what the organization does, whether it pertains to the Dalish claims about the Exalted March of the Dales, the treatment of the elves, outlawing opposing religions, the Chantry controlled Circles, and their involvement in supporting the Orlesian occupations of other nations (like they did with the occupation of Ferelden). I think there are quite a few people who wouldn't be interested in playing a game where they would be forced to be a member of an organization they hated.

GavrielKay wrote...

Personally, I didn't need a fully voiced protagonist.  I think it ended up limiting a lot of things that I would have enjoyed more.  But I wouldn't refuse to buy DA3 just because the PC remained fully voiced.  I would refuse to buy DA3 if I was going to play a Seeker.  It just isn't worth it to me to have that much of my character's background set before I take over.

I feel the same way; I prefer the silent protagonist that we get with the Fallout series, including the excellent New Vegas, and the Elder Scrolls series, as we had with the successful addition of Skyrim. While I purchased Dragon Age II despite it having a voiced protagonist, I was generally unhappy with it, and it seems like Dragon Age III is going to continue in the same direction; there is a lot I'm hearing that makes me inclined against purchasing Dragon Age III, including the fact that the paraphrasing and the auto-lines will continue. Having to go through the narrative as a member of an organization that I dislike isn't going to persuade me to purchase Dragon Age III, and I don't think it'll convince anyone else who doesn't like the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars. I'm also not interesting in playing as a protagonist who is restoring the status quo, either, which seems to be the focus of Dragon Age III.

GavrielKay wrote...

Others feel differently, but there are options here that would annoy fewer people and I think BioWare would be smarter to take one of those.

I would imagine there are better options than alienating all the fans who have absolutely no interest in being forced to support the Chantry.

[TEWR]

berelinde wrote...

Yes, I do understand that this is something that you want very much. Please accept that I do not want it with equal passion.

Never said I wanted it. I'm neutral to the idea -- and I've even offered ways it could work -- as I haven't seen anything to support them being solely an Andrastian-believing group other then that they serve the Divine.

Which has had extrapolations that consist of serving a woman that embodies the faith she preaches being equal to believing in the faith itself.

Which doesn't make sense for me, but meh.

Short dialogue:

Seeker: Do you swear to uphold the Chant of Light and serve the Chantry through the grace of the Divine?
PC: I swear to oppose the Chantry with every fiber of my being.
Seeker: Welcome, brother/sister, here's your sun-emblazoned armor. Guards!

Obviously the game wouldn't have you say that, but even if it did it could go a route where you have no affiliation to the Seekers.

Actually, perhaps this could be determined by a set of dialogue options in game. If you profess to hate the Chantry and want to see it burn, some Seekers that agree with that mindset -- neither helping Lambert's group or the Divine's come to recruit you. Similarly, if you profess to believe in the Maker and agree with the Divine -- surely news of what's happening is spreading across the land -- Cassandra's group comes for you. And finally, if you profess to believe in the Maker but don't agree with the Divine, Lambert's group comes for you.

And even if you did profess to believe in the Maker and were recruited, role-playing wise you could easily chalk that up to being a lie. Voiced protagonist or no, so long as for the former it was said in a neutral-ish tone.

Or just have what I stated with the 3 options and a "lie" option that allows you to say you believe, even if you don't.

Additionally, Gaider has made the suggestion that the Seekers don't have a uniform armor set. Whether that's true or him just being himself I have no clue.

Also, I've posed a question asking for clarity on the religious requirements -- if any -- to be a Seeker in the PAX question thread hoping to -- but highly doubting I will -- get an answer.  

If I do get an answer and it says that the Seekers are a group consisting solely of people that believe in the faith, then I'll concede that a Seeker cannot be an atheist if they blatantly say as much to the group. However, I would also see that as a pretty poor move on Bioware's part, as it drastically limits the effectiveness of their intended story methinks, from what we've been presented with.

There are always going to be limitations on the story. Even if you could profess to want the Chantry to be utterly destroyed, I highly doubt you could make it happen in DA3.

Gaider has however said that the possibility of playing as a Seeker or having one as a companion exists, so now it's all a matter of "Are they solely people that believe in the Maker? Can an atheist join them at all, even through deceit?" and the like.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 11 avril 2012 - 08:12 .

[AkiKishi]

I've got no particular objection to being a Seeker. Many games start you off as something and you then stumble across some "truth" that alters your perceptions of how the world works. Yuna in FFX springs to mind.

[Shared]

Tbh i wouldnt mind. But what i do think they should do the next time around is make your experience as a mage radically different then if your a rouge or warrior. In DA 2 the whole you beeing a mage thing was so underplayed it was painfull. In fact i agree you should problably be forced to be a mage in DA2, and then made the game around that. You simply cannot make a game that plays the same if you are an apostate, or just a warr/rouge. In DA:O it made some sort of sence, because your a grey warden, and thereby above the rules of the chantry/the rest of the world in some sence.

In DA2 the whole you beeing a mage was just weird. i used magic in broad daylight in the middle of the city, and still i was free to roam around. Was never hunted etc, which if this game had done it right you would have an entierly different experience as a mage compared to the other two classes. Beeing hunted, staying out of sight etc etc.

[Risax]

I personally kind of like this idea, and I think it might work.
I don't know how Seekers are ussually made Seekers, do they need to be a part of the Templar order to join? Or are they chosen for they're fighting skills and all that as well? (I haven't read Asunder yet, or the Silent Grove or seen Dawn of the Seeker, so if it is answered in any of those, try to keep it spoiler free.)

Otherwise I could see you getting recruited, and if the Seekers don't have mages of their own to keep a close eye on the Circle mages, then perhaps your character will be the first and has the same freedom as a Grey Warden. And I think it was rumored that Cassandra would play a bigger part in future DA games, maybe she could be a mentor like Alistair. (If you could call him a mentor.)

But yeah, helping the Chantry or fighting it from within. And learning more about the Chantry and the Seekers in the process sounds interesting. (as does trying to stop the Mage and Templar war)

[berelinde]

@EtherealWriterRedux: I'm not going to quote that post lest it turn into another neverending quote tree, but there is no amount of sugar coating that would ever make that go down.

No matter how much of a spin you put on it, you would be forcing players to side with an organization many hate. We aren't talking about the Wardens where membership does not imply any religious or political affiliation. Lambert split from the Chantry. He did not denounce the Maker in the process, so the Seekers are still an Andrastian order.

Forcing the protagonist to join the Seekers forces any that oppose the Chantry, don't believe in the Maker, worship their ancestors, are Dalish, or hold any other opposing view to become hypocrites. They would be forsworn by default. Think of the opposition people had to playing Hawke, a human of no fixed personality, values, or beliefs who came from Lothering. It was criticized as being far too restrictive. Now, not only would players be forced to play a character with a fixed race and background, and one that many players object strongly to, you're imposing ethics, too. What impact would that have on sales?

If DA3 allows players to choose their background, it would be OK. If they had the choice between playing a Seeker OR playing a freedom fighter, that would be fine. It's only when the ONLY choice is unacceptable to a not-insignificant percentage of the player base that it becomes a deal breaker.

Despite the criticism DA2 received, it at least offered the choice whether to support the templars or the mages. I cannot imagine that DA3, which is purported to have "less railroading" as a goal would be designed around a protagonist that was even more rigidly defined than Hawke.

[Vincent Laww]

This an uninformed decision, based on the premise of me not paying attention to the extensive posts listed thus far. I don't like the idea of having set options when it comes to the defined protagonist in the Dragon Age Series. I prefer having the option to have multiple depictions of said protagonist, ranging vastly from Paragon, to Renegade mindsets. The term "Seeker" in the Dragon Age World implies political affiliations to the Chantry, which may, or may not be liked by the general consumer. 

Modifié par Vincent Laww, 11 avril 2012 - 12:54 .

[berelinde]

Vincent Laww wrote...

This an uninformed decision, based on the premise of me not paying attention to the extensive posts listed thus far. I don't like the idea of having set options when it comes to the defined protagonist in the Dragon Age Series. I prefer having the option to have multiple depictions of said protagonist, ranging vastly from Paragon, to Renegade mindsets. The term "Seeker" in the Dragon Age World implies political affiliations to the Chantry, which may, or may not be liked by the general consumer. 

Who are you talking to? If it's me, I've been following the thread the whole time.

I'm in favor of player choice, which is why a Seeker, as an Andrastian and a former/current member of the Chantry (see the discussion in earlier pages) won't work. Too many important decisions are made for the player.

For what it's worth, I would be just as opposed to forcing the player to role-play a member of a violently anti-Chantry group as well. If there were any.

When you impose too many restrictions, you take away player agency. That makes the game un-fun. Let's not do that.

Edit: Ah, sorry! Your edit clarified your position on the issue.

Modifié par berelinde, 11 avril 2012 - 01:02 .

[TEWR]

Forcing the protagonist to join the Seekers forces any that oppose the Chantry, don't believe in the Maker, worship their ancestors, are Dalish, or hold any other opposing view to become hypocrites. They would be forsworn by default. Think of the opposition people had to playing Hawke, a human of no fixed personality, values, or beliefs who came from Lothering. It was criticized as being far too restrictive. Now, not only would players be forced to play a character with a fixed race and background, and one that many players object strongly to, you're imposing ethics, too. What impact would that have on sales?

Have you actually read my posts on the issue? Page 2 I believe is where I gave credible origin stories that don't restrict race through a link.

I said above that you could profess different viewpoints which would affect who you aligned with. You want to raze the Chantry to the ground? Similar Seekers -- technically ex-Seekers -- recruit you and don't give a damn about your beliefs because you share a mindset they have! Of course, you probably wouldn't be able to fulfill such a goal due to story purposes in the end, but you could try to make it happen.

I mean, I get you don't want to play as a Seeker. That's fine. But my posts aren't just stating "Play as a religous human, get over it".

Despite the criticism DA2 received, it at least offered the choice whether to support the templars or the mages. I cannot imagine that DA3, which is purported to have "less railroading" as a goal would be designed around a protagonist that was even more rigidly defined than Hawke.

I mean, stuff like this is fairly indicative of how it seems you aren't reading my posts. I'm not trying to be antagonistic here -- though I imagine I'm coming off as such, to which I'll preemptively apologize -- but I've said above in my previous post that you could support the Mages and join the like-minded faction, support the New Inquisition and join their faction, or support neither and want the Chantry to burn and join that faction.

All of them would have Seekers leading them, but Seekers of a different viewpoint. Seekers that may or may not give a damn about your religious views. One group is pro-mage and pro-chantry, the other is anti-mage and by their actions anti-Chantry, and the last is anti-Chantry and pro-mage.

That gives you 3 options. More then DAII gave and if done right would give you better choices then DAII and maybe better endings -- or ending-like scenarios -- then the much loathed ME3 endings.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 11 avril 2012 - 01:20 .

[berelinde]

I am reading your posts. Every word. It's just that your arguments are not convincing. They are based on assumptions that are contrary to published canon (atheist Seekers).

Edit: And I'm not sure you're reading my posts. I'm saying that it would be okay as one possible background choice. Just not as the only one. I have also said that it would be okay to be forced into working - as a mercenary or slave - for the Seekers. Just not as a sworn and card-carrying member at the outset, without having the opportunity to say "I would sooner see you all dead."

Edit2: It's pretty clear that neither of us is going to change our stance on this issue. I do not think it's a workable, universally acceptable starting point for a game that professes to support reasonable player agency. You do. I think it's unnecessarily divisive toward the fan base. You don't. These are opinions. Everybody has one.

Modifié par berelinde, 11 avril 2012 - 01:43 .

[Taleroth]

Always Alice wrote...

I think this is the "origin" with the most story potential, truthfully. Especially considering we will (presumably) be dealing with political factions (and Orlais!)

I have to disagree. There's more than one way to any end. There's more potential in being connected to a group than to being automatically a member.

A guy can get into politics by merely having the right connections. And they don't need to the baggage that being a "member of ____" has.

Modifié par Taleroth, 11 avril 2012 - 02:43 .

[Cultist]

The Ethereal Writer Redux, to summarize some objections. Imagine that you are forced to start as a Tevinter Blood Mage that, at the beginning of the game, sacrifices some children in his\\her ritual and then mutilated their corpses and sends them to commit a genocide of soem remaining elves...and then goes to Orlais under cover. You propose the very same thing.

Modifié par Cultist, 11 avril 2012 - 03:00 .

[Huntress]

CENIC wrote...

"The Seekers of Truth and the Templar Order were once known as the
Inquisition, a group of people who were fighting against dark magic
after the First Blight. When the Chantry arose, the Andrastian organization convinced the Inquisition to unite under the banner of their common faith.
In the twentieth year of the Divine Age, the Seekers of Truth and the Chantry came to an agreement known as the Nevarran Accord: the Seekers acknowledge the Chantry's authority and agree to serve as their agents. The two organizations created the Circle of Magi."

The Seekers were non-religious before they allied with the Chantry. And the alliance doesn't mean they all had to become Andrastians. Considering Lambert antagonized the Divine in Asunder and had no compunctions about splitting off from the Chantry, I think it's more than possible for Seekers to be non-religiously motivated.

Because so much about Seekers is still unknown, that means there is a lot of wiggle room in situations like this.

Wake UP call.
The term "Inquisition" can apply to any one of several institutions which fought against heretics (or other offenders against canon law) within the justice-system of the Roman Catholic Church. The term "Inquisition" is usually applied to that of the Catholic Church. It may also refer to:[2]

• an ecclesiastical tribunal
• the institution of the Catholic Church for combating heresy
• a number of historical expurgation movements against heresy (orchestrated by some groups/individuals within the Catholic Church or within a Catholic state)
• the trial of an individual accused of heresy.

Generally, the Inquisition movement was concerned only with the heretical behaviour of Catholic adherents or converts, and did not concern itself with those outside its jurisdiction, such as Jews or Muslims.

the Inquisition had jurisdiction only over baptised members of the Church (which, however, encompassed the vast majority of the population in Catholic countries). Secular courts could still try non-Christians for blasphemy; most witch trials went through secular courts.

Different areas faced different situations with regard to heresies and suspicion of heresies.

The Inquisition was a Roman Catholic tribunal fordiscovery and punishment of heresy, which was marked by the severityof questioning and punishment and lack of rights afforded to the accused.

If you are going to tell me that a seeker do not believe in the maker or andraste you are lying/fooling yourself

Eddit: Im trying to say that the seeker+inquisition were made to punish anyone under them means: humans, city elves if they show signs of Heresy*/using dark magic or what ever other reason they think their maker would take in a wrong way. They inforce the chantry laws and the chantry believe it has DIVINE right to RULE over thedas, so please don't make a main character a Seeker a companion seeker is just fine.

*Heresy (from Greek αἵρεσις, which originally meant "choice") is an accusation levied against members of another group which has beliefs which conflict with those of the accusers. It is usually used to discuss violations of religious or traditional laws or codes, although it is used by some political extremists to refer to their opponents.

Modifié par Huntress, 11 avril 2012 - 03:37 .

[AkiKishi]

Cultist wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux, to summarize some objections. Imagine that you are forced to start as a Tevinter Blood Mage that, at the beginning of the game, sacrifices some children in hisher ritual and then mutilated their corpses and sends them to commit a genocide of soem remaining elves...and then goes to Orlais under cover. You propose the very same thing.

Or you could just play an apprentice/novice who has had all the theory drilled into them, but has not been tested by the real world. That makes a lot more sense from a gameplay perspective too starting at level 1.

It's not that different from forcing you to be Hawke and run away.

[Huntress]

Taleroth wrote...

Always Alice wrote...

I think this is the "origin" with the most story potential, truthfully. Especially considering we will (presumably) be dealing with political factions (and Orlais!)

I have to disagree. There's more than one way to any end. There's more potential in being connected to a group than to being automatically a member.

A guy can get into politics by merely having the right connections. And they don't need to the baggage that being a "member of ____" has.

Right first what politics is and the general characteristics of people who have politics as their vocation or calling.

Oxford dictionary defines politician as “person engaged or interested inpolitics” and politics as “ science and art of government

Moreover, a fake politician, will after taken the oath office with the Holy book and lousy thanksgiving services,usetheir power as an end it itself, rather than for public good, making them indifferent to the progress of their citizens.

Modifié par Huntress, 11 avril 2012 - 03:25 .

[CENIC]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

...I haven't seen anything to support them being solely an Andrastian-believing group other then that they serve the Divine.

Which has had extrapolations that consist of serving a woman that embodies the faith she preaches being equal to believing in the faith itself.

Which doesn't make sense for me, but meh.

This is my biggest problem with that argument as well.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

If I do get an answer and it says that the Seekers are a group consisting solely of people that believe in the faith, then I'll concede that a Seeker cannot be an atheist

Me too. Player agency IS important.

Shared wrote...

Tbh i wouldnt mind. But what i do think they should do the next time around is make your experience as a mage radically different then if your a rouge or warrior.

I agree with this.

But consider if the game had multiple background histories or origin stories to choose from.
Each of those, could involve a warrior, a rogue, or a mage.

That is a LOT of divergent paths to add to one game, and I'm not holding my breath on Bioware having enough time and resources to make that sort of thing work.

If there was only one background, like Hawke's in DA2, it would be much more feasible to give every class, and by
extension, every specialization, its own unique story. Is that going to make everyone happy? No, but someone is going to be unhappy with DA3, you can't get around that. We all want to make sure we're not in that position, which is why we're here!

Risax wrote...

I don't know how Seekers are ussually made Seekers, do they need to be a part of the Templar order to join? Or are they chosen for they're fighting skills and all that as well? (I haven't read Asunder yet, or the Silent Grove or seen Dawn of the Seeker, so if it is answered in any of those, try to keep it spoiler free.)

The only one out of those that might possibly contain information about how the Seekers obtain new recruits is probably Dawn of the Seeker, and the only people who have seen that in English were at PAX East over the weekend (it goes direct to DVD next month). So right now we're all in the dark about this, and I understand I'm speculating heavily on what being a Seeker involves.

I've seen some people concede that if you were an outsider somehow forced by circumstance to work with the Seekers (possibly with the option to join them later) that would be more acceptable than having to be a part of the organization from the outset. I'd be fine with that sort of background as well, especially since it opens up the possibility of playing as a different race.

Modifié par CENIC, 11 avril 2012 - 04:15 .

[ChaosAgentLoki]

Okay, I like the idea of being able to be a Seeker, however, at the same time my mind's been running with how to work this in without forcing players who don't want any part of this. From there I remembered that Bioware has stated that they are going to be looking at things that Bethesda's done in Skyrim. And this information brought me to my conclusion. As much as I would like the protagonist to be a Seeker (after being forced to be a Grey Warden...only my Dalish appreciates being one...overall I'm not the biggest fan of the order), the best thing that Bioware could do is essentially add it in a way similar to the guilds in Skyrim. This way, they could keep the Mage/Templar war waging strong and yet let the player decide what they want to do.

All this discussion of how the Seekers are split, as well as the fact that there has to be Templars who don't agree with their order and Mages who are still willing to support the Templars makes this the most viable option. This isn't my favorite option, but it seems the only way that can appease the majority of people without forcing those of us with an interest in the Seekers to be unable to become one due to those that do not wish to be one. That's just my input on this topic.

[berelinde]

CENIC wrote...

If there was only one background, like Hawke's in DA2, it would be much more feasible to give every class, and by
extension, every specialization, its own unique story. Is that going to make everyone happy? No, but someone is going to be unhappy with DA3, you can't get around that. We all want to make sure we're not in that position, which is why we're here!

Absolutely. And that is why I firmly believe that giving the protagonist  a single politically divisive background is not going to work. For some, being forced to work with the Seekers at some later point in the game will be as deplorable as forcing Mage!Hawke to work for Meredith, but with delicate handling and enough opportunities to express displeasure, or even better, betray the Seekers, it could work.

That's another thing that bothers me about the "Everybody's a Seeker" starting point. Suppose you wanted to play a violently anti-Chantry character. Telling that character "It's okay. We Seekers don't like the Divine anymore, either" would not really help. They still smell like templars. I'm afraid that anti-Chantry characters would not have adequate opportunities to act in a believable manner. I'd be looking for opportunities to say "Why haven't I killed you yet?" to every Seeker the character met, and I just don't see that happening. DA2 received (justifiable) criticism because the mage ending made no sense. It played out as if you were a chantry sympathizer regardless. I'm afraid that forcing everyone to start as a Seeker would ensure that the whole game felt like that. Easy answer: don't make the starting point of the game one that relies on participation in *anything* connected to the Chantry, even in the past tense.

Don't forget that Thedas has no internet. It has no telephone. Lambert's split with the Chantry may have been too recent to have made the headlines, and war does nothing to speed communication. 

Again, I'm not saying that I oppose Seeker involvment in the story line. I'm not saying that the PC shouldn't be forced to work with the Seekers, willing or otherwise. I just want an origin that takes my character's atheism/agnosticism *and* opposition to ALL things Chantry into account in a way that does not involve hand-waving, implausible workarounds, bending/breaking canon, or active suspension of disbelief. 

[ChaosAgentLoki]

I have to ask this question, but what about all of us players who don't want to be kept from being a Seeker? I'm sorry, but to me it's coming across that many fans believe Bioware needs to think only of those who don't wish to support the chantry, etc. I know that's not the case, but that's a lot of what I'm seeing in these discussions (primarily tonaly). As I stated in my earlier post, there are ways to allow players access to being a Seeker without forcing it, but it still feels like those that want it are less important than those that don't (this is not about the minority/majority thing, it's about the way these opinions seem to be treated). So back to my original question...What about us who don't wish to have no involvement with the Chantry? Those of us who want to be Seekers?

I'm looking for an honest answer here, since I'd like to know the view from the perspective of someone who is against being a Seeker as to how to make your views appeal to those of us who want to be Seekers. I'm truly curious. 

Modifié par ChaosAgentLoki, 11 avril 2012 - 05:31 .