327 réponses à ce sujet

[General User]

The Chantry never wanted to "hunt down" the rebel mages. The Divine supports compromise and reform. That's why the Templars left the Chantry in the first place.

And since their leaving was an act of willful defiance, the Templars are just as much in abeyance of Chantry law as the rebel mages. An "inquisition" could be aimed at the defiant Templars as well as radical mages.

I'm surprised how many people seem to miss those points.  They aren't exactly hidden or complicated.

Modifié par General User, 20 septembre 2012 - 04:15 .

[FDrage]

ElitePinecone wrote...
I agree that the "unseen force manipulating everything" bit needs to be handled well, it'd be... odd if this were just another Big Bad-type person/creature of whom we'd previously heard nothing. I assume we'll find out who is behind it all, and for what purpose, at some point in DA3. Hopefully?
 

Probably will be Flemeth, ... so if we'd solve "that issue" in DA3 or just the Templa/Mage/Cantry/ Orleasain Civil war issue ... is something else.

[AngryFrozenWater]

ElitePinecone wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

snip

If I'm reading this right, your concerns are based on the idea that a mage PC is probably incompatible with an Inquisition backed by the Chantry, which generally frowns upon any mages in positions of power or leadership.

This is true, but DA3's inquisition (based on the leaked marketing survey) is, almost certainly, not Chantry-based. It's explicitly a new organisation, for reasons that become pretty clear in the plot summary of the game.

You are correct. Let's hope that handles the mage as PC and templar/warrior as PC problem.

I'm really interested by this as well, we don't know anything much about the PC yet and seeing how class differences work will be nice.

I have a (speculative) hunch that based on what seem to be the circumstances of the start of the game, we might have more choice of backgrounds for our character in DA3. The role (as in, the actual position they occupy) of the player character is pretty important, so I think they'll have a part in what occurs in the formation of the Inquisition, perhaps to the extent that being a mage is less relevant than what they've accomplished just prior to the Inquisition starting.

Confronting a crisis like the plot outline for DA3 represents sorta renders the Templar/Mage issue less significant, even if the Chantry were up to hunting down mages (and after the Seeker/Templar secessions, it doesn't look like it even before DA3 starts).

The mages and the way they are treated (from tranquil to apostates) really makes Thedas a time bomb. In DA:O there were already mage factions that oppose the system. In DA2 we see that as well and there are also mages from abroad trying to interfere with Kirkwall. The problem is that the apostates in most of Thedas don't seem to be organized. The PC as a mage being not interested in the conflict seems odd. It is as if the PC has no brain. The game treating a mage as any other class seems odd as well, because the games show there is friction.

How do see those backgrounds materialize in practice? I am still concerned that BW doesn't want to go into that much. When they can have the matter done with a single dialogue line change they will do so.

Demons from the fade invading the world requires mages and templars to fight it. Avoiding the mage/templar issue, because there is an entirely new conflict doesn't make the class recognition problem go away, unless the chantry and templars all of a sudden welcome mages to fight the demons.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 20 septembre 2012 - 04:02 .

[Olmerto]

ElitePinecone wrote...

We don't know when Bioware will formally announce more information about the game, but it's safe to say that even reading a very broad plot outline is enough to realise it's not going to be about a zealot organisation hunting mages, unless the player explicitly wants it to be that - and, I suppose, depending on the level of narrative freedom.

Mages/Templars seem to be part of the story, but that conflict isn't necessarily the main focus of the Inquisition. 

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
snip

If I'm reading this right, your concerns are based on the idea that a mage PC is probably incompatible with an Inquisition backed by the Chantry, which generally frowns upon any mages in positions of power or leadership. 

This is true, but DA3's inquisition (based on the leaked marketing survey) is, almost certainly, not Chantry-based. It's explicitly a new organisation, for reasons that become pretty clear in the plot summary of the game.  

I think what I've bolded is simply wishful thinking on your part.  There is no evidence from the survey materials that the Chantry is not involved.  There is lore evidence that the previous "inquisition" was Chantry-based, and it follows that the very name "inquisition" implies Chantry oversight, otherwise why name?

You might also ask yourself what organization, besides the Chantry, has the international capacity to organise a body to conduct an inquisition?  Besides the Grey Wardens, the Chantry is the only entity that transcends national borders.  I'd even say that the very term "Inquisition" is meaningless unless it IS an arm of the Chantry.

That said, people are just insane if they believe Bioware would actually construct a plot where the player must hunt harmless mages to bring them back for execution.  Absolutely insane.  One only has to read "Asunder" to know that's not where the writers are coming from.  But that doesn't mean that any given player's headcanon will be pandered to.  DG's comments on atheism in Thedas were instructive.  The Chantry/Andrasteism is the belief system in most nations of Thedas, and playing a role in that system is well within the parameters of the setting; for ALL classes.

The arguments against the Chantry's involvement in Inquisition are weak and foolishly emotional.  This is a medieval setting, not Obama's America.  If Bioware maintains the internal consistency of their setting, I wouldn't count on having an "inquisition" divorced from the Chantry.  I would count on it.

[IanPolaris]

The problem is the Warden in DAO is EXPLICITLY allowed to be an atheist at least if you do the human noble background and talk to the Chantry Priestess...and that is a canon AFAIK. DG may regard it as a ;mistake' but that doesn't make the convo go away.

-Polaris

[brushyourteeth]

General User wrote...

The Chantry never wanted to "hunt down" the rebel mages. The Divine supports compromise and reform. That's why the Templars left the Chantry in the first place.

And since their leaving was an act of willful defiance, the Templars are just as much in abeyance of Chantry law as the rebel mages. An "inquisition" could be aimed at the defiant Templars as well as radical mages.

I'm surprised how many people seem to miss those points.  They aren't exactly hidden or complicated.

Well said. Most forumites seem to have not read Asunder, however. Or willfully misunderstood it. Or accidentally misunderstood Justinia due to their natural anti-Chantry bias. Which is understandable, but brings us no closer to understanding the truth of the matter or the direction that this conflict will be taking us.

And then there are fans who insist that what happens in the books shouldn't matter in-game. Which... at this point, is kind of a silly request. "Asunder" is essentially a very long codex entry.

[IanPolaris]

I think the title is a very unfortunate one because the Inquistors WERE (explicitly so) antimage (and antiheretic) and would become the Templars (and Seekers) when they merged with the Chantry. We also know that the Lord INQUISITOR has broken away from the Chantry and decided to hunt mages (along with most of the Seekers) per Asunder.

Given that, and given the title, the conclusion that the protagonist will be forced to play a Chantry and/or Templar-Inquisitor stooge is a natural one...and a conclusion that is repellent to a lot of us...even IF DA2 weren't the disaster it was and if IF ME3 didn't burn away what little goodwill Bioware had left with it's old fanbase. All IMHO of course.

-Polaris

[R2s Muse]

brushyourteeth wrote...

General User wrote...

The Chantry never wanted to "hunt down" the rebel mages. The Divine supports compromise and reform. That's why the Templars left the Chantry in the first place.

And since their leaving was an act of willful defiance, the Templars are just as much in abeyance of Chantry law as the rebel mages. An "inquisition" could be aimed at the defiant Templars as well as radical mages.

I'm surprised how many people seem to miss those points.  They aren't exactly hidden or complicated.

Well said. Most forumites seem to have not read Asunder, however. Or willfully misunderstood it. Or accidentally misunderstood Justinia due to their natural anti-Chantry bias. Which is understandable, but brings us no closer to understanding the truth of the matter or the direction that this conflict will be taking us.

And then there are fans who insist that what happens in the books shouldn't matter in-game. Which... at this point, is kind of a silly request. "Asunder" is essentially a very long codex entry.

You know, I kinda wonder about this now, brush, given how there are things in Asunder that don't match up with how some folks played the game... like for example the deadness of Wynne or the DLCness of Shale. I am intensely curious to see how they will address those events. Are they truly canon? We've seen lots of fanfare pointing to how the comics, for example, are not canon. 

[Xilizhra]

brushyourteeth wrote...

General User wrote...

The Chantry never wanted to "hunt down" the rebel mages. The Divine supports compromise and reform. That's why the Templars left the Chantry in the first place.

And since their leaving was an act of willful defiance, the Templars are just as much in abeyance of Chantry law as the rebel mages. An "inquisition" could be aimed at the defiant Templars as well as radical mages.

I'm surprised how many people seem to miss those points.  They aren't exactly hidden or complicated.

Well said. Most forumites seem to have not read Asunder, however. Or willfully misunderstood it. Or accidentally misunderstood Justinia due to their natural anti-Chantry bias. Which is understandable, but brings us no closer to understanding the truth of the matter or the direction that this conflict will be taking us.

And then there are fans who insist that what happens in the books shouldn't matter in-game. Which... at this point, is kind of a silly request. "Asunder" is essentially a very long codex entry.

**** the Divine. That's all I need to remember.
Well, not really. However, Justinia wasn't doing nearly enough to help, and I'm not taking the Inquisition against the mage rebellion at all, if possible.

[R2s Muse]

Olmert wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

We don't know when Bioware will formally announce more information about the game, but it's safe to say that even reading a very broad plot outline is enough to realise it's not going to be about a zealot organisation hunting mages, unless the player explicitly wants it to be that - and, I suppose, depending on the level of narrative freedom.

Mages/Templars seem to be part of the story, but that conflict isn't necessarily the main focus of the Inquisition. 

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
snip

If I'm reading this right, your concerns are based on the idea that a mage PC is probably incompatible with an Inquisition backed by the Chantry, which generally frowns upon any mages in positions of power or leadership. 

This is true, but DA3's inquisition (based on the leaked marketing survey) is, almost certainly, not Chantry-based. It's explicitly a new organisation, for reasons that become pretty clear in the plot summary of the game.  

I think what I've bolded is simply wishful thinking on your part.  There is no evidence from the survey materials that the Chantry is not involved.  There is lore evidence that the previous "inquisition" was Chantry-based, and it follows that the very name "inquisition" implies Chantry oversight, otherwise why name?

As long as we're bandying about the lore, the underlined is actually technically not true. The Inquisition was independent from the Chantry, until they decided to join forces and sign the Nevarran Accord. At that point then the Inquisition was no more, becoming the templars and the Seekers.  

Nevertheless, we still have no idea what kind of connection a new Inquisition may or may not have with the historical Inquisition. 

[IanPolaris]

Still as I just said, the title almost invites us to make that comparison given how "Inquisition" has been used in both Real Life and in Thedas, and that's not good for a lot of us.

-Polaris

[Olmerto]

IanPolaris wrote...

I think the title is a very unfortunate one because the Inquistors WERE (explicitly so) antimage (and antiheretic) and would become the Templars (and Seekers) when they merged with the Chantry. We also know that the Lord INQUISITOR has broken away from the Chantry and decided to hunt mages (along with most of the Seekers) per Asunder.

Given that, and given the title, the conclusion that the protagonist will be forced to play a Chantry and/or Templar-Inquisitor stooge is a natural one...and a conclusion that is repellent to a lot of us...even IF DA2 weren't the disaster it was and if IF ME3 didn't burn away what little goodwill Bioware had left with it's old fanbase. All IMHO of course.

-Polaris

No.  It was Lord SEEKER Lambert who broke from the Chantry.  Not "Inquisitor".  There was no Inquisition in Asunder.  However, it is likely that the Chantry creates a new Inquisition to take the place of its rebelling Templars and Seekers.  The Chantry needs a military arm, and I suspect that without Templars and Seekers, it will organize an new "Inquisition".  That's my surmise.

But yes, I agree that all characters will be forced to play as an agent of the Chantry.  If it repels you, I don't think you understand the world of Dragon Age very well.  Or you have just flown off on your own nihilistic bent and decided to be irrational about the entire setting.  I would suggest you just resign yourself to working for the Divine in this matter because that's the only approach that's suggested by the information we currently have.  I realize that you personally wouldn't write the story this way, but then no one's paying you to do it, and with good reason.

[Calians]

[/quote]
**** the Divine. That's all I need to remember.
Well, not really. However, Justinia wasn't doing nearly enough to help, and I'm not taking the Inquisition against the mage rebellion at all, if possible.
[/quote]
I hope I do...rebellious Templars and Mages will get an ironfist of Divine Justice from moi. 
But seriously, people need to step back from their PC and cool off. 

Modifié par Calians, 20 septembre 2012 - 05:06 .

[The Elder King]

Olmert wrote...



No.  It was Lord SEEKER Lambert who broke from the Chantry.  Not "Inquisitor".  There was no Inquisition in Asunder.  However, it is likely that the Chantry creates a new Inquisition to take the place of its rebelling Templars and Seekers.  The Chantry needs a military arm, and I suspect that without Templars and Seekers, it will organize an new "Inquisition".  That's my surmise.

Even the Chantry couldn't build up an army in little time, and if the time that passed between Asunder and Inquisition is not much, they'll not have a new military arm. And you shouldn't forget that not all the templars, the seekers left the Chantry.

Olmert wrote...
But yes, I agree that all characters will be forced to play as an agent of the Chantry.  If it repels you, I don't think you understand the world of Dragon Age very well.  Or you have just flown off on your own nihilistic bent and decided to be irrational about the entire setting.  I would suggest you just resign yourself to working for the Divine in this matter because that's the only approach that's suggested by the information we currently have.  I realize that you personally wouldn't write the story this way, but then no one's paying you to do it, and with good reason.

If someone enjoys playing DAO and DA2 as mage who is pro-mage and anti-templars and anti-Chantry, I think they have all the reason to be disappointed in this choice and/or decide to not buy the game.
And from the info we currenly have (SPOILER)








The Chantry is nearly destroyed at the start of DA3, and the Inquisition is a "new" organization.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'd encourage people to not jump to too many conclusions about who or what the PC's affiliations will be or were prior to the game.

I would hope that who or what the PC's affiliations were prior to the game are left to the player to determine, rather than being mapped out for us.

[brushyourteeth]

R2s Muse wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

General User wrote...

The Chantry never wanted to "hunt down" the rebel mages. The Divine supports compromise and reform. That's why the Templars left the Chantry in the first place.

And since their leaving was an act of willful defiance, the Templars are just as much in abeyance of Chantry law as the rebel mages. An "inquisition" could be aimed at the defiant Templars as well as radical mages.

I'm surprised how many people seem to miss those points.  They aren't exactly hidden or complicated.

Well said. Most forumites seem to have not read Asunder, however. Or willfully misunderstood it. Or accidentally misunderstood Justinia due to their natural anti-Chantry bias. Which is understandable, but brings us no closer to understanding the truth of the matter or the direction that this conflict will be taking us.

And then there are fans who insist that what happens in the books shouldn't matter in-game. Which... at this point, is kind of a silly request. "Asunder" is essentially a very long codex entry.

You know, I kinda wonder about this now, brush, given how there are things in Asunder that don't match up with how some folks played the game... like for example the deadness of Wynne or the DLCness of Shale. I am intensely curious to see how they will address those events. Are they truly canon? We've seen lots of fanfare pointing to how the comics, for example, are not canon. 

Yeah, they handwaved Leliana's possible death though, and if anything, Wynne has a special circumstance that would make it more feasible for her to survive if the Warden killed her. Plus, Sebastian seems to be canon and he was also a DLC character.

The comics seem to be a different beast. More like DG having fun with a "what if" scenario that expands our knowledge about dragons/Flemeth's kids, but doesn't necessarily make Alistair king or Isabela estranged from Hawke. Normal comics do this all the time - Spiderman reuniting with a somehow revived Gwen Stacy for a special series that isn't canon, but the fans eat them up anyway.

Xilizhra wrote...
**** the Divine. That's all I need to remember.
Well, not really. However, Justinia wasn't doing nearly enough to help, and I'm not taking the Inquisition against the mage rebellion at all, if possible.

LOL! That was just about the most memorable line of the book, wasn't it?

The thing is, none of us really know how much Justinia was or wasn't doing to help. Not you, and not me. So at this point, I think it would be a mistake for me to assume she did everything she could or for you to assume she didn't do enough. She may have something up her sleeve that will blow us away and turn the tide distinctly in the mages' favor.

I'll also most likely be siding with the mages on my canon playthrough. I'm not for setting up a new Tevinter Imperium where mages can do whatever they want without any repercussions, but I'm also not going to throw them into the power of monsters like Lambert/Meredith/Alrik/Kerras/Varnell. They're people, for goodness' sake, and they deserve to be treated not only humanely, but as equals, and have as much liberty as their situation can possibly allow.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hhh89 wrote...

If someone enjoys playing DAO and DA2 as mage who is pro-mage and anti-templars and anti-Chantry, I think they have all the reason to be disappointed in this choice and/or decide to not buy the game.

You're presupposing that subverting the Inquisition from within, or betraying it outright, wouldn't be available options.

Why are you doing that?  Why jump to the worst possible conclusion?

Moreover, why are you assuming that the PC is part of the Inqusition?  The PC could be fleeing from it.  We don't know.  Stop jumping to conclusions.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 20 septembre 2012 - 05:06 .

[ElitePinecone]

Olmert wrote...
snip

You're totally correct, but... I'd question whether the Chantry even formally exists as an institution or organisation after the events at the start of the game, according to the marketing materials. It has no militay arm, no investigative arm, is riven with internal conflicts and factionalism, and little to no higher leadership. 

The Inquisition emerges, literally and figuratively, from the destruction of the Chantry's leadership. 

What's to say the Inquisition isn't formed by a certain (ex-Chantry?) Seeker, or another certain Orlesian bard? Without a patron they have very few ties to the institutional Chantry, and the Templars/Seekers that even still recognise the authority of the Divine would be thrown into chaos if what's suggested happens does actually happen.

The Chantry can hardly organise an Inquisition if it barely exists, with most of its leadership incapacitated at best, and dead at worst. 

Why wouldn't it be a rag-tag group of rogue Templars (Cullen), a rogue Seeker, the former right hand of the Divine and other misfits from across Thedas? I mean, I hardly think the formal Chantry would sanction a magister and a qunari mercenary, of *all people* to come along for the ride. 

[The Elder King]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

If someone enjoys playing DAO and DA2 as mage who is pro-mage and anti-templars and anti-Chantry, I think they have all the reason to be disappointed in this choice and/or decide to not buy the game.

You're presupposing that subverting the Inquisition from within, or betraying it outright, wouldn't be available options.

Why are you doing that?  Why jump to the worst possible conclusion?

Moreover, why are you assuming that the PC is part of the Inqusition?  The PC could be fleeing from it.  We don't know.  Stop jumping to conclusions.

Just to clarify, I don't think that the Inquisition will be a Chantry-controlled organization , and even in this case this will not be a deal-breaker reason for me. I think Bioware will make the choice to side against it available.
From what I heard here and in other threads, there are people who'll not going to buy the game if the PC will be a member of a Chantry-controlled Inquisition, even if they'll have the choice to subvert or betray it. I was just saying that in the Inquisition will be under the Chantry, those people have all the rights to be disappointed and not buy the game.

Modifié par hhh89, 20 septembre 2012 - 05:15 .

[Calians]

I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only one that doesn't have a problem o with the title
Here's alllllll the definitions..one can't help but think people take titles to seriously. I RUV the dictionary
in·qui·si·tion   [in-kwuh-zish-uhn, ing-] Show IPA
noun
1.
an official investigation, especially one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners, and recklessly cruel punishments.
2.
any harsh, difficult, or prolonged questioning.
3.
the act of inquiring; inquiry; research.
4.
an investigation, or process of inquiry.
5.
a judicial or official inquiry.

[Olmerto]

@ElitePinecone: What you say could be possible, but it's still speculation. And I think you mistake "the events at the start of the game" as the elimination of the Chantry, and that is just not so. There are Chantries all over Thedas, and all of the common people are Andrastian. Just because some unknown collection of the leadership of the Chantry may be killed doesn't destroy the institution. Surely you do not believe that all the Chantry leaders in Thedas would simply cease to function any more than the mage Circles -- who were in bondage -- wouldn't respond to the events in the Orlais circle in Asunder.

Plus, I doubt Justinia V is killed. That's just my impression from reading Asunder. She seems like a character the writers want to continue with, especially given Leliana's connection with her. But that's just from the facts we have now. I'm just saying that there's no good "evidence" that the Chantry isn't involved. I think, even with "the events", that the Chantry must be involved. Thedas lore makes no sense to me otherwise.

[Xilizhra]

So, Olmert: why would it be negative if the Chantry wasn't involved with the Inquisition?

[Olmerto]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You're presupposing that subverting the Inquisition from within, or betraying it outright, wouldn't be available options.

Why are you doing that?  Why jump to the worst possible conclusion?

Moreover, why are you assuming that the PC is part of the Inqusition?  The PC could be fleeing from it.  We don't know.  Stop jumping to conclusions.

We do know that one of the possible subtitles for the game was "Inquisitor".  That was a possibility.  I can't imagine possibly naming the game "Inquisitor" without the PC himself being that inquisitor.

So, yes, I'd say it is very justified to believe that the player will be a member the leader of the Inquisition.

[Olmerto]

Xilizhra wrote...

So, Olmert: why would it be negative if the Chantry wasn't involved with the Inquisition?

Because I personally believe that an "Inquisition", historically (both Earth and Thedas) and in other lore like WH40K, has been organized as an arm of a religion.  It's implicit in the baggage that most here agree attaches to the name.  I think it would be cowardly of BW to run from the implications of this term after they chose it knowing, and counting upon, what those implications are.

[Calians]

Olmert wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You're presupposing that subverting the Inquisition from within, or betraying it outright, wouldn't be available options.

Why are you doing that?  Why jump to the worst possible conclusion?

Moreover, why are you assuming that the PC is part of the Inqusition?  The PC could be fleeing from it.  We don't know.  Stop jumping to conclusions.

We do know that one of the possible subtitles for the game was "Inquisitor".  That was a possibility.  I can't imagine possibly naming the game "Inquisitor" without the PC himself being that inquisitor.

So, yes, I'd say it is very justified to believe that the player will be a member the leader of the Inquisition.

He/she doesn't have to nessecary be the leader, he/she could be a member of it then chosen to do some type of investigation or inquiry about a matter.