142 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

True Templar is like this

[Dave of Canada]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I think it was rushed, because it comes out of nowhere, and I don't think it makes much sense. Hawke hasn't surrendered, he has been killing templars, but Cullen thinks that it's crossing the line to kill him when he hasn't even surrendered?

Hawke totally stood a chance against the armies of Templars surrounding him/her, Cullen should've known Hawke was capable of killing them all!

[Eternal Phoenix]

cindercatz wrote...

First of all, I DO NOT want the game to revolve around the Mage/Templar war. Start things off that way, fine, but don't stick me with another entire game stuck on the same issue the entire last game beat me over the head with. Second, I don't want any kind of real Templar companion because I don't want to have to split my party up early or halfway into the game again over the damn Mage/Templar war. And since we've already had two not entirely committed Templars as party members in the last two games, I don't really want one at all.

If Cullen shows up, which is fine, I at least want it acknowledged that he can be a freaking serial killer, that he's not a nice guy in everybody's playthroughs. And, seeing that, I want the option to kill him if he's not a nice guy. In fact, make it a necessary quest, opposite to the mage lover version for those that played a female mage and ended up with a good guy Cullen. Do not make him a party member, because I don't want to lose a potential party member just because I didn't play a female mage, nor do I want to brush under the rug what a monster this guy can be.

edit: You know what? Maybe one of the origin stories could start your character out as a templar in the field, and then things go along the arc you choose within your story. That way, the rest of us don't lose out in the game. And I'd play all origins, including that one, up to six. That's a lot more interesting to me.

It won't revolve around the Mage/Templar war. It will revolve around order being restored though and there will probably be some plot involving Flemeth or something fantastic. However to expect that the Mage/Templar premise won't be part of the plot is asking for a lot. Dragon Age 2 was just the prequel to the event in Dragon Age 3 which should be a full scale war.

You say you don't want a Templar companion because it could split your party up but what happened to choices and consequences? In Baldur's Gate you could end up with your party members fighting each other if one was good and the other evil. Dragon Age games are supposed to be mature RPG's where decisions matter and that includes whom you take with you in your party. I didn't want demon Merill in my party but she was forced into it. Killing the Templar companion (whom ever he could be) could be an option but I also want the option to kill aposatates or make them tranquil.

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...



True Templar is like this

 

Aye and he goes through Hell battling demons - single handedly - and emerges as the winner.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 20 avril 2012 - 10:19 .

[llandwynwyn]

I really want a Templar companion but not Cullen, we know him for 2 games already. I'd rather have someone new.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Elton John is dead wrote...
If Cullen shows up, which is fine, I at least want it acknowledged that he can be a freaking serial killer, that he's not a nice guy in everybody's playthroughs. And, seeing that, I want the option to kill him if he's not a nice guy. In fact, make it a necessary quest, opposite to the mage lover version for those that played a female mage and ended up with a good guy Cullen. Do not make him a party member, because I don't want to lose a potential party member just because I didn't play a female mage, nor do I want to brush under the rug what a monster this guy can be.

Uuuh..horrible..horrible.

You want NPC's to change heir behavior to suit your preferences and preconceptions.
No..that's jsut horrible. NPC's should have a stable nad consistent personalitites.

I don't want Cullen or any other NPC in one playtrough to be a normal guy and a butcher in antoher, just because you want to kill him. No. Just no.

Characters should be consistent.
What your PC thinks of them or their actions can certanly be very mellable.

[VampOrchid]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
If Cullen shows up, which is fine, I at least want it acknowledged that he can be a freaking serial killer, that he's not a nice guy in everybody's playthroughs. And, seeing that, I want the option to kill him if he's not a nice guy. In fact, make it a necessary quest, opposite to the mage lover version for those that played a female mage and ended up with a good guy Cullen. Do not make him a party member, because I don't want to lose a potential party member just because I didn't play a female mage, nor do I want to brush under the rug what a monster this guy can be.

Uuuh..horrible..horrible.

You want NPC's to change heir behavior to suit your preferences and preconceptions.
No..that's jsut horrible. NPC's should have a stable nad consistent personalitites.

I don't want Cullen or any other NPC in one playtrough to be a normal guy and a butcher in antoher, just because you want to kill him. No. Just no.

Characters should be consistent.
What your PC thinks of them or their actions can certanly be very mellable.

Lotion I must say I like you  We have the same way of thinking.

I want a templar companion. More so I want it to be Cullen.

I have no problem with other ppl not liking him. But he's a solid character and has always been an NPC. So I think it would be grate to have him in party. Why? Because the story we can get with him in party and the quests with him on board could be limitless and perrrrty darn awesum! In DA2 he's very reasonable. If you're a mage, he kind of looks the other way. If that's not being reasonable I don't really know what is. I don't get the Cullen hate, but I don't condem it.

Oh well to each their own.

[CrabbyCrackers]

im all for him coming back, and i hope we learn more about sandal. i cant wait for this game. i played dao and da2 for a month straight now, and im right now playing again. i need mental help.

[VampOrchid]

CrabbyCrackers wrote...

im all for him coming back, and i hope we learn more about sandal. i cant wait for this game. i played dao and da2 for a month straight now, and im right now playing again. i need mental help.

We all need that lol

[cindercatz]

lol, maybe

Elton John is dead wrote...
It won't revolve around the Mage/Templar war. It will revolve around order being restored though and there will probably be some plot involving Flemeth or something fantastic. However to expect that the Mage/Templar premise won't be part of the plot is asking for a lot. Dragon Age 2 was just the prequel to the event in Dragon Age 3 which should be a full scale war.

You say you don't want a Templar companion because it could split your party up but what happened to choices and consequences? In Baldur's Gate you could end up with your party members fighting each other if one was good and the other evil. Dragon Age games are supposed to be mature RPG's where decisions matter and that includes whom you take with you in your party. I didn't want demon Merill in my party but she was forced into it. Killing the Templar companion (whom ever he could be) could be an option but I also want the option to kill aposatates or make them tranquil.

I'm a little misunderstood here, so clarifying:

I'm not at all saying you don't include the mage/templar war, but get it over quick so we can move on to other things. Let it be the brushfire that sets off other conflicts. That's what I expect. I'm far more interested in seeing how Orlais butts heads with Ferelden, how the Qunari play in, what happens if the Free Marches get caught up in civil war in the middle of all of this. I've honestly gotten sick of the mage/templar thing, primarily because of how DA2 handled it, and how it was the relentless driving force of the game, to the detriment of player choice and agency. So let it set fire to the world, and then let the world burn over other issues and other conflicts that result.

Choice and consequence is a HUGE deal for me. Let me explain a little where I'm coming from. I don't want the same scenario to repeat from DA2, or KoTOR 2 for that matter (hated it there too), where my basic starting position excludes a primary character from my game, one or the other, and consequently lessens my enjoyment of one of the main elements of any BioWare game, that being characters and interaction with those characters. I want choices that effect the world around me and effect my characters' arcs, that have major ramifications for the nations of the game and individual companions', as well as my pc's, place in the world and that open and close story paths and specific scenarios that are unique to the path chosen. I don't want simple binary exclusions. For instance, I suggested the ability to play a Templar yourself, as one of the available choices. If and only if you do so, then perhaps along the way, mages both along your path and potentially in your party might do some things that might cause your templar to consider making a character tranquil, like you're asking for, then you have the choice to do that or not, and it effects the rest of your game. But don't waste resources giving me a simple binary that excludes one party member or the other and therefore subsequently locks me out of a whole set of major character interactive potential arcs I could be playing. I don't want a Bethany/Carver situation. I want real choices that have complex ramifications and require complex consideration.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Uuuh..horrible..horrible.

You want NPC's to change heir behavior to suit your preferences and preconceptions.
No..that's jsut horrible. NPC's should have a stable nad consistent personalitites.

I don't want Cullen or any other NPC in one playtrough to be a normal guy and a butcher in antoher, just because you want to kill him. No. Just no.

Characters should be consistent.
What your PC thinks of them or their actions can certanly be very mellable.

No, I want NPCs to be consistent to the choices of previous games. Cullen *is* a serial killer in some of my DA:O saves, and in DA2, he's basically made his way north and gotten a new job. I do not want those outcomes, that personal canon, that's right there in the game, to be brushed over just because Cullen's got a few fangirls from the female mage origin story. I have a male mage origin story playthrough (played each origin, four males and two females), and he's not that great a guy there either. He's the guy that has Lily shipped off to be tortured and locked up just because her boyfriend turned out to be a blood mage, and who supported routinely tranquilling mages just because they weren't showing enough progress in their studies. Just because he shows up in DA2 and looks the other way (horrible flaw in DA2, btw), that doesn't change who he is and who he was up until and after that point. He can be a monster, depending on your playthrough of Origins and DA2. I want that reflected if he shows up in DA3, not ignored because some people think he's cute.

It's not what I think. It's what's stated plainly in text on the screen, in addition to actually playing the game.

VampOrchid wrote...

Lotion I must say I like you We have the same way of thinking.

I want a templar companion. More so I want it to be Cullen.

I have no problem with other ppl not liking him. But he's a solid character and has always been an NPC. So I think it would be grate to have him in party. Why? Because the story we can get with him in party and the quests with him on board could be limitless and perrrrty darn awesum! In DA2 he's very reasonable. If you're a mage, he kind of looks the other way. If that's not being reasonable I don't really know what is. I don't get the Cullen hate, but I don't condem it.

Oh well to each their own.

If you only played through one time, or if you always made the same set of decisions regarding Cullen that don't show you his dark sides, then I can understand why you'd see him that way. For everyone else, what happened in their playthroughs regarding Cullen ought to be respected and reflected if he shows up in DA3. Those things can make him so antithetical to mages that having him as a party member in a party that includes mages makes no sense. I'd expect him to slit my mage's thoat in my sleep, honestly. If he turns out a mage lover in your imports, then that should be reflected if he shows up. If he's a full on monster, like he can be, that should also be reflected. His history in Dragon Age so far does not lend him to being a long term party member in DA3. Making him a companion would require ignoring a large number of playthroughs' end states. I don't want my stories to be disregarded just to get him in. And if I run into a serial killer Cullen in my playthrough, I want an oppurtunity to end his string of murders, to kill him off, or not, depending on your playthrough.

Modifié par cindercatz, 20 avril 2012 - 10:43 .

[Silfren]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Uuuh..horrible..horrible.

You want NPC's to change heir behavior to suit your preferences and preconceptions.
No..that's jsut horrible. NPC's should have a stable nad consistent personalitites.

I don't want Cullen or any other NPC in one playtrough to be a normal guy and a butcher in antoher, just because you want to kill him. No. Just no.

Characters should be consistent.
What your PC thinks of them or their actions can certanly be very mellable.

Yes, they should be consistent.  I find this comment extremely hilarious given that the post it responds to is specifically complaining about the fact that the DA writers are the ones who have not been consistent with Cullen's character.

As I've written elsewhere, Cullen's sudden attack of moderation at the end of DA2 is completely inconsistent with both his portrayal in Origins AND the way he was portrayed early on in DA2.  I maintain that it is actually possible for a character to go from being the mage sympathist he began his career as in the earliest stages of Origins, undergo a dramatic and extreme change in personality due to the trauma he was subjected to, and yet still find a way to transform all over again into a person more akin to who he was before his trauma.  Yes, that process of doing a complete 180 in one's personality, and then later going back around again to the original starting point...it IS possible, and people do undergo it.

However, DA2 didn't do anything to show us a progression of Cullen's character away from the anti-mage he became as a result of Uldred's torture, to a moderate templar, if not a complete mage sympathizer as he originally was.  They merely told us at the end that Cullen decided, suddenly, not to be the same person at the end of DA2 that he was in the beginning of the game.  And as Lobsel already pointed out, they even have him up and decide to let a pro-mage Hawke, who just got through slaughtering scores of templars, loose from the city.  Under no circumstance does that action make any sense at all.

Personally I think that the fact that Cullen reacts in precisely the same way regardless of the DA2 ending is proof positive that Cullen WILL be in DA3.  After all, if he had been acting either in-character, or simply like a moderate but nonetheless law-abiding templar, he would have been obligated to arrest pro-mage Hawke and her companions, and that would have necessitated a fight to the death between them.  The fact that that didn't happen just screams that Bioware intended all along for Cullen to appear in the next installment.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Cindercatz wrote...
If Cullen shows up, which is fine, I at least want it acknowledged that he can be a freaking serial killer, that he's not a nice guy in everybody's playthroughs. And, seeing that, I want the option to kill him if he's not a nice guy. In fact, make it a necessary quest, opposite to the mage lover version for those that played a female mage and ended up with a good guy Cullen. Do not make him a party member, because I don't want to lose a potential party member just because I didn't play a female mage, nor do I want to brush under the rug what a monster this guy can be.

Uuuh..horrible..horrible.

You want NPC's to change heir behavior to suit your preferences and preconceptions.
No..that's jsut horrible. NPC's should have a stable nad consistent personalitites.

I don't want Cullen or any other NPC in one playtrough to be a normal guy and a butcher in antoher, just because you want to kill him. No. Just no.

Characters should be consistent.
What your PC thinks of them or their actions can certanly be very mellable.

Corrected...

I'm a Cullen supporter...

cindercatz wrote...

I'm a little misunderstood here, so clarifying:

I'm not at all saying you don't include the mage/templar war, but get it over quick so we can move on to other things. Let it be the brushfire that sets off other conflicts.

Isn't that what DA2 did with the Qunari? It's one of the reasons the plot failed. It needs to be kept consistent otherwise it just loses plain focus.

cindercatz wrote... 

That's what I expect. I'm far more interested in seeing how Orlais butts heads with Ferelden, how the Qunari play in, what happens if the Free Marches get caught up in civil war in the middle of all of this. I've honestly gotten sick of the mage/templar thing, primarily because of how DA2 handled it, and how it was the relentless driving force of the game, to the detriment of player choice and agency. So let it set fire to the world, and then let the world burn over other issues and other conflicts that result.

Well the expansion was going to be called the Exalted March and Bioware have stated the ideas for the expansion will probably be used in Dragon Age 3 and thus we can expect a conflict with The Chantry (which has fallen), the seekers, the Templars and the mages. Suddenly throwing Qunari, demons, Darkspawn and other forces into the mix would just make the plot lose focus. It's like having The Grey Warden fighting against the Devil of the Thedas universe (if there is one) while fighting against the Darkspawn at the same time.

I'm pretty sure Orlais relationship with Ferelden will be part of Dragon Age 3 along with the Qunari but there needs to be a major threat from the start that the protagonist is out to stop. The ending of DA2 makes it clear that it involves The Chantry, The Seekers and perhaps the mages. Ignoring this fact and making it end in Chapter 2 of DA3 and then moving onto something new just wouldn't make sense especially when DA2 was building up to this all along. 

I don't think anyone wants a protagonist who feels like Hawke who was just there. We need another protagonist like The Grey Warden.

cindercatz wrote... 

Choice and consequence is a HUGE deal for me. Let me explain a little where I'm coming from. I don't want the same scenario to repeat from DA2, or KoTOR 2 for that matter (hated it there too), where my basic starting position excludes a primary character from my game, one or the other, and consequently lessens my enjoyment of one of the main elements of any BioWare game, that being characters and interaction with those characters. I want choices that effect the world around me and effect my characters' arcs, that have major ramifications for the nations of the game and individual companions', as well as my pc's, place in the world and that open and close story paths and specific scenarios that are unique to the path chosen. I don't want simple binary exclusions. For instance, I suggested the ability to play a Templar yourself, as one of the available choices. If and only if you do so, then perhaps along the way, mages both along your path and potentially in your party might do some things that might cause your templar to consider making a character tranquil, like you're asking for, then you have the choice to do that or not, and it effects the rest of your game. But don't waste resources giving me a simple binary that excludes one party member or the other and therefore subsequently locks me out of a whole set of major character interactive potential arcs I could be playing. I don't want a Bethany/Carver situation. I want real choices that have complex ramifications and require complex consideration.

 

But there aren't any Origins in Dragon Age 3 and so your suggestion is just a suggestion that won't be implemented. Having a Templar companion would add choices and consequences to the game. For example, apostate mages wouldn't be able to enter the party, only circle mages would be able to. This adds to the role playing and also means those extra paths, quests, dialogue and areas cannot be reached in one playthrough.

[5trangeCase]

Elton John is dead wrote...

But there aren't any Origins in Dragon Age 3 and so your suggestion is just a suggestion that won't be implemented. Having a Templar companion would add choices and consequences to the game. For example, apostate mages wouldn't be able to enter the party, only circle mages would be able to. This adds to the role playing and also means those extra paths, quests, dialogue and areas cannot be reached in one playthrough.

There doesn't need to be different origins for you to play as entirely different races, backgrounds and classes.

We have been shown very clearly that your party members will live with people they detest in the same party, just because you have a Templar, does not mean you cannot have an apostate. Look at Aveline dealing perpetually with criminals and performing criminal acts. In DA3 all mages will be "apostates", so doubtlessly, they will have nothing to do with having a Templar in the party or not. In all likelihood, we will have a Templar, and in turn, he will tolerate blood mages in the party. Why? Because there are things far more important than that.

[Zkyire]

5trangeCase wrote...

....why do people love Cullen? I only vaguely know who he is, and has a shade of a character.

Because when Meredith is going crazy, Cullen tells her to go **** herself and basically takes command of the Templars in Kirkwall.

[The Elder King]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...




We talking about the same Cullen?
He's prolly the most reasonable templar in the series. You can actually debate with him and convince him to take it easier or spare some mages.

Compared to Anders, he's a paragon of civility and reason.

Compared to Anders, nearly everyone is a paragon of civility and reason.
I'm fine  with Cullen, but I don't know if he's the most reasonable templar in the series. Gregoir seems more reasonable.

cindercatz wrote...

First of all, I DO NOT want
the game to revolve around the Mage/Templar war. Start things off that
way, fine, but don't stick me with another entire game stuck on the same
issue the entire last game beat me over the head with.

Well, I'd prefer the mages-templar war to be the main plot, because if we're really going to Orlais, and the M/T war isn't the main plot, there are good chances that the main plot would be around SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER









The Orlesian Civil War, Which, in my opinion, would be boring

[Silfren]

I hope that people who are saying they don't want the mage-templar conflict to be the focus of DA3 aren't saying this with any hope that that will actually be the case, because it's rather akin to saying you don't want the sky to be blue.

DA3 WILL be about the mage-templar conflict, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. I certainly hope other elements are introduced, though I agree that I don't want so many ball plots to be in the air that the game drops every single one of them, but nevertheless, both DA2 and the novel, Asunder, make it clear that this conflict is going to be the entire point of DA3, such that wishing or hoping otherwise is a complete waste of time. Even more so when you consider that Bioware has strongly hinted that the next game will be at least primarily set in Orlais, where the very heart of the mage-templar conflict is set, what with it being the seat of the Grand Cathedral and all.

[cindercatz]

Orlais is the heart of the southern Chantry. The Chantry has far more to do with the world than controlling mages, as would any Exalted March (the last one being the uprising against the Tevinter empire, not just mages per se, but political occupation. The Chantry itself is basically an arm of Orlesian imperialism the same way the Catholic Church was an arm of the otherwise collapsing Roman Empire.

I have no idea what Asunder is about or what happens in it (I know the name exists, and that's the extent of it..), but the mage uprising could easily snowball into bigger and better things.

For one, it makes an excellent excuse for Orlais to attempt to reclaim it's former empire, including Ferelden. It makes a perfect excuse for the city-states of the Free Marches to enter into a unification war, where one City attempts to dominate the others, which then coalesce under another city, and Kirkwall is probably in that second group, Sebastian potentially leading the first. The Chantry would likely attempt to enforce its laws on the Dalish, which would inevitably lead to a Dalish resurgeance and coalescence. Where do the Dwarves fit in? Orzammar, noting Origins, would certainly, no matter their King, refuse to accept the Chantry, which would mean they could very well oppose Orlais directly. If you founded a Chantry there in DA:O, Orlais might even have an excuse to go to war there, given what happens to their priest and his followers. Then you've got Morrigan and Flemeth, whose concerns are far beyond any of the other main players' conflicts. And what happens when the Qunari invade? Do the warring nations then come together, or do they attempt to fight off invasion piecemeal? What about Antiva and Rivain? They'd likely be active in assassination and piracy, taking sides. Tevinter. I can imagine Tevinter seeing all this chaos and building up forces potentially for DA4. That would easily segue into the next game.

Every bit of that is far more interesting than yet another game focussed stubbornly on the mage question. So yes, the mage war can be the brushfire, but let's see the consequences of the last two games and the established backstory play out. There is far more to focus on than any single issue. I could see our party basically starting with that and traipsing all over southern Thedas, having to take sides in the larger conflicts along the way, probably as an arm of Orlais, what with a Seeker likely in party (and I very much like having a Seeker this time out, hopefully a returning Leliana). The wider conflict creates scale and scope, and broadens the focus of the game again, like Origins, rather than a narrow single issue thing like DA2. It's a much better way to go, whatever the original plan was.



edit: inserted an interjection wrong ;-) ..and additions to post

Modifié par cindercatz, 21 avril 2012 - 06:52 .

[cindercatz]

Elton John is dead wrote...


Isn't that what DA2 did with the Qunari? It's one of the reasons the plot failed. It needs to be kept consistent otherwise it just loses plain focus.

Well the expansion was going to be called the Exalted March 
/snip/
Ignoring this fact and making it end in Chapter 2 of DA3 and then moving onto something new just wouldn't make sense especially when DA2 was building up to this all along. 

I don't think anyone wants a protagonist who feels like Hawke who was just there. We need another protagonist like The Grey Warden.

But there aren't any Origins in Dragon Age 3 and so your suggestion is just a suggestion that won't be implemented. .

The Qunari are the best part of DA2. Where it falls down is in giving you the same outcomes, over and over, no matter your choices, in focussing solely on one perspective and one issue (I still maintain you have to force yourself to be pro-templar, as I can't see any reason someone with Hawke's background would be), and in forcing you to fight all sides at the end as if that made any sense, despite supposedly choosing a side and mostly winning right up until then. It's focus was too tight, and you as the player too limited and incosequential.

I hope they do roll an Exalted March into DA3. Makes a great jumping off point. I don't want to ignore anything, and that's my point. There's a lot going on, so let the @#%^ hit the fan and play off of that. Basically, we could have World War Southern Thedas, focussing on Orlais, the heart of the conflict, and that's a cool scenario.

The Warden dealt with as wide a set of issues as he (or she, my favorite's a she) could, and visited all sorts of places in and around Ferelden and Orzammar, dealing with all the major issues of the Dragon Age franchise. That's exactly what I want. The Archdemon of this game, if there's anything like that, could be the standoff between Morrigan and her godchild vs. Flemeth, potentially involving the Warden and Hawke on either side.

It's still early on, so we don't really know if there are origins or not, but there should be. I still maintain the origins, race selection, and the wide world, colored by both of those things, are what make Dragon Age special. Those are the things that BioWare should focus on making staples of the franchise, along with real choice/consequence and heavy customization. That's Dragon Age.

So, my origins if I was designing the game, Orlesian accent and one voice actor required, something like this:
Elf:
Slums Elf, persecuted by chevalier, but otherwise upward mobile, seeks advancement
Noble Indentured Servant, captured at a young age, raised to serve Orlesian nobility
Dwarf:
Orzammar Party: member of an ambassador group, thinks Orzammar first
Merchant Caste: basically like Varric, been Orlesian for generations
Human:
Templar: Directly serves the Chantry, makes for an interesting relationship with your Seeker, mages
Chevalier: Promising Orlesian knight, promoted to agent of the empire

Notice they all have reasons for initial involvement in however the Orlais story gets going. And it goes from there. And obviously, some could be apostate mages (Slums Elf would make a good mage), or the Chevalier could even be a Circle Mage, potentially.

Modifié par cindercatz, 21 avril 2012 - 07:31 .

[rapscallioness]

Jasmine96 wrote...

yes we should get a templar and it should be Cullen

yes, please....

[Eternal Phoenix]

5trangeCase wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

But there aren't any Origins in Dragon Age 3 and so your suggestion is just a suggestion that won't be implemented. Having a Templar companion would add choices and consequences to the game. For example, apostate mages wouldn't be able to enter the party, only circle mages would be able to. This adds to the role playing and also means those extra paths, quests, dialogue and areas cannot be reached in one playthrough.

There doesn't need to be different origins for you to play as entirely different races, backgrounds and classes.

We have been shown very clearly that your party members will live with people they detest in the same party, just because you have a Templar, does not mean you cannot have an apostate. Look at Aveline dealing perpetually with criminals and performing criminal acts. In DA3 all mages will be "apostates", so doubtlessly, they will have nothing to do with having a Templar in the party or not. In all likelihood, we will have a Templar, and in turn, he will tolerate blood mages in the party. Why? Because there are things far more important than that.

Backgrounds are origins and I believe it's pretty much confirmed that there's no race selection. The Templar isn't a class either and having a Templar tolerable to blood magic is a major plot hole. I should expect him to at least attempt to slay that companion at one point.

[Silfren]

Elton John is dead wrote...

5trangeCase wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

But there aren't any Origins in Dragon Age 3 and so your suggestion is just a suggestion that won't be implemented. Having a Templar companion would add choices and consequences to the game. For example, apostate mages wouldn't be able to enter the party, only circle mages would be able to. This adds to the role playing and also means those extra paths, quests, dialogue and areas cannot be reached in one playthrough.

There doesn't need to be different origins for you to play as entirely different races, backgrounds and classes.

We have been shown very clearly that your party members will live with people they detest in the same party, just because you have a Templar, does not mean you cannot have an apostate. Look at Aveline dealing perpetually with criminals and performing criminal acts. In DA3 all mages will be "apostates", so doubtlessly, they will have nothing to do with having a Templar in the party or not. In all likelihood, we will have a Templar, and in turn, he will tolerate blood mages in the party. Why? Because there are things far more important than that.

Backgrounds are origins and I believe it's pretty much confirmed that there's no race selection. The Templar isn't a class either and having a Templar tolerable to blood magic is a major plot hole. I should expect him to at least attempt to slay that companion at one point.

People are individuals.  It is entirely possible to have a templar who would tolerate blood magic.  An explanation would need to be provided for this tolerance, but it is absolutely possible.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Since Templars are dedicated to stopping blood magic, it wouldn't make sense. The whole point of a Templar is to battle blood magic and thus prevent mages from turning into abominations. Also the whole point of a Templar companion is to have a Templar who has the values of one. Otherwise we end up with another Alistair character who simply has the Templar abilities.

[wsandista]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Since Templars are dedicated to stopping blood magic, it wouldn't make sense. The whole point of a Templar is to battle blood magic and thus prevent mages from turning into abominations. Also the whole point of a Templar companion is to have a Templar who has the values of one. Otherwise we end up with another Alistair character who simply has the Templar abilities.

Templars just don't leave the duties required of them by the order to go adventuring though, so an actual Templar would be out of consideration unless the whole game revolves around the Mage-Templar war and that comapnion is Templar side exclusive. To make a more intresting character the Templar companion should be a deserter or atleast someone who didn't quite fit in with the order, IMO. Also there needs to be an apologist mage who hates having magical abilities to provide a different prespective on magic from a mage. DA3 needs to have more unique options for companions not characters who are practically sterotypes.

[Silfren]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Since Templars are dedicated to stopping blood magic, it wouldn't make sense. The whole point of a Templar is to battle blood magic and thus prevent mages from turning into abominations. Also the whole point of a Templar companion is to have a Templar who has the values of one. Otherwise we end up with another Alistair character who simply has the Templar abilities.

Again, people are individuals, and it could make sense if the story behind it was written well.  What's to stop a templar from considering the context of a situation instead of blindly viewing everything according to the Chantry's extremely black and white perspective? 

Before he was tortured by Uldred, we saw that Cullen was especially sympathetic to mages.  I find it completely believable that we could have templars who would not be quite so zealous in following Chantry law blindly.  We already have seen examples of this.  There's a templar fellow in Origins who works with the Mages' Collective, after all, and that is no less antithetical to Chantry doctrine than blood magic.

It is as much a part of Chantry law that templars exist to protect mages as much as they exist to root out and destroy blood magic.  There could be templars who joined for that reason.  Could be templars who have mage loved ones who were killed by ignorant bigots and joined in order to protect other mages from the same fate.  Could be templars who have seen the corruption of other templars and joined the Order in order to guard against that kind of corruption.

Take the case of Connor in Origins.  Obviously one of the options to save him involves illegal methods.  But I could see a templar of a more moderate, rational bent agreeing that under the circumstances, it is acceptable.  Especially if the Circle is not an available alternative.

[Eternal Phoenix]

wsandista wrote...

Templars just don't leave the duties required of them by the order to go adventuring though, so an actual Templar would be out of consideration unless the whole game revolves around the Mage-Templar war and that comapnion is Templar side exclusive. To make a more intresting character the Templar companion should be a deserter or atleast someone who didn't quite fit in with the order, IMO. Also there needs to be an apologist mage who hates having magical abilities to provide a different prespective on magic from a mage. DA3 needs to have more unique options for companions not characters who are practically sterotypes.

Ser Otto would like a word with you...

Ser Otto was a Templar and yet he freely entered the Alienage and started his own personal quest there. We could easily get another Templar like him who joins the protagonist of Dragon Age 3. I'm pretty sure the next game will involve mages to a great extent again and so I do think having a Templar companion could be pretty logical. Optionally he may have been kicked out of the order for some reason but he still takes his Templar duties seriously and while outside of the Templar order he has been hunting down mages and at the same time trying to find lyrium to quench his addiction.

Yes maybe the character could be sterotypical but maybe not. Merrill was a blood mage and yet she wasn't like the other blood mages who were down-right evil or power-hungry. She was just foolish and naive. Her story involved her and her blood magic. This Templar's story could involve him and his lyrium addiction among other things and thus I think it would present a rather fresh story for the companion.

Silfren wrote...
Again, people are individuals, and it could make sense if the story behind it was written well.  What's to stop a templar from considering the context of a situation instead of blindly viewing everything according to the Chantry's extremely black and white perspective?  

It's not about The Chantry. The Templar order existed before The Chantry was even established and they were hunting abominations back then. A Templar who tolerates blood magic really isn't a Templar because he's pretty much sworn to prevent that stuff.

Silfren wrote... 
Before he was tortured by Uldred, we saw that Cullen was especially sympathetic to mages.  I find it completely believable that we could have templars who would not be quite so zealous in following Chantry law blindly.  We already have seen examples of this.  There's a templar fellow in Origins who works with the Mages' Collective, after all, and that is no less antithetical to Chantry doctrine than blood magic.

Cullen and that other Templar are sympatheic to mages as are many other Templars. Cullen clearly isn't sympathetic to a blood mage though and the Mages Collective group was run by some mage who stated that the mages are against blood magic. This didn't stop some blood mages from operating in the group but it's expressed by the Mages Collective themselves that they are against blood magic.

I'm not asking for the Templar companion to be like "Kill all mages! lolololol!" I'm simply asking for a Templar who is serious to his duties and thus hates blood magic.

Silfren wrote... 

It is as much a part of Chantry law that templars exist to protect mages as much as they exist to root out and destroy blood magic.  There could be templars who joined for that reason.  Could be templars who have mage loved ones who were killed by ignorant bigots and joined in order to protect other mages from the same fate.  Could be templars who have seen the corruption of other templars and joined the Order in order to guard against that kind of corruption.

Take the case of Connor in Origins.  Obviously one of the options to save him involves illegal methods.  But I could see a templar of a more moderate, rational bent agreeing that under the circumstances, it is acceptable. Especially if the Circle is not an available alternative.

 

That Templar would probably also want the blood mage to be killed afterwards.

I mean just because this Templar companion hates blood mages doesn't mean that he'll have to hate mages. He could be unique in that he hates what The Chantry has done. He could be unique in wanting that the Templars seperate from The Chantry and become as they were during the times of old. Hell, I swear it's hinted that the Templars already HAVE seperated from The Chantry.

To be honest, I for one am quiet sick and tired of not having blood magic recognized from within your party. Gaider said this is to be addressed in Dragon Age 3 so even if we don't end up with any Templar companion we'll still probably end up with a companion who is against blood magic and thus won't want any accociation with you if you've learned blood magic.

I think it's possible to make a Templar overlook a blood mage in the party if there are bigger problems out there but it should take incredible persuasion and there should still be conflicts between the two.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 22 avril 2012 - 06:20 .