390 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Based on the same amount of information, I wager another potential theme of the game is Dragonheart.

As smart as your trying to come across it is not working. There is enough evidence presented so far to assume a likely religious theme from the name of the game, the way DA2 ended, seekers playing a big role, templars mentioned too both of which are linked to the Chantry. The Qun played a big role in the previous game aswell, their latest animated film was about the Chantry, divine and seekers, the previous web series was about the Qun.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 septembre 2012 - 01:02 .

[Lithuasil]

Dragoonlordz wrote...


 I do not really care about the bickering between right and wrong going on here. All I care about is the fact I do not want to play a character that supports the Chantry or the Qun as a persona. It goes against every single protaganist I have played in the DA universe to date, it goes against what I believe my stance would be in that world setting based on everything I have seen, done in the previous games. Thats what matters to me, I do not care to debate it as it is not something I will change my mind on. 

A character that is forced to go against all that I have seen and played in this franchise is quite simply not a character I want to play. Simple as that really. Bioware have allowed the character to be anti-Chantry in previous games and anti-Qun. This next one I hope is no different. I do not want a character that I cannot control or with beliefs I cannot accept. It is better to allow for players to decide for themselves in the game whether they want to follow the Chantry, the Qun or neither.

Your avatar makes posts like this... entertaining to read                                                                                                    
Seriously though - no one talks about forcing you to support the chantry, let alone the qun. We're just arguing that a fully formed position of atheism is highly unrealistic in world like Thedas, especially right off the bat, before the character has had any  sort of world-view-challenging experience.
What I find interesting is "why?" What's so unbearable about accepting that a character of yours might take some world-viewsfor face value until he or she has any reason to challenge them? The only reason I've heard so far is "I always did it" - but that only says something about the kind of roleplaying you did before, and it's hardly a valid reason to repeat mistakes of the past.
And, if you'd indulge me - would you cling to a similar position of religious denial in a different setting (Like say, the Elder Scrolls), where Atheism is quite literally wrong?

[upsettingshorts]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Based on the same amount of information, I wager another potential theme of the game is Dragonheart.

As smart as your trying to come across it is not working

Crap. I'm trying so hard too.  Maybe I should make more assumptions?  

[General User]

In both Dragon Age games so far the player has had ample opportunity to take both pro and anti positions with regards to the Chantry, the Qun, the Stone, the Creators, and 1001 other things.  You have had the opportunbity to express belief and disbelief and to support or deride other characters that do either.

Thinking that would change based on the announced title of DA3 is ridiculous.

Modifié par General User, 30 septembre 2012 - 01:08 .

[Icinix]

I would definitely fork out for a game similar to Dragonheart....that was the movie when I realised I had a bit of a mancrush on Dennis Quaid.

[Xilizhra]

What I find interesting is "why?" What's so unbearable about accepting that a character of yours might take some world-viewsfor face value until he or she has any reason to challenge them? The only reason I've heard so far is "I always did it" - but that only says something about the kind of roleplaying you did before, and it's hardly a valid reason to repeat mistakes of the past.

It's subjectively immersion-breaking, and I find the Chantry sufficiently repellent to want nothing to do with it. Also, I far prefer playing characters who don't necessarily take certain things like that at face value.

And, if you'd indulge me - would you cling to a similar position of religious denial in a different setting (Like say, the Elder Scrolls), where Atheism is quite literally wrong?

In Skyrim, you can disregard the Eight and follow the Daedra or, if you're a Nord, the ancient Nord gods. I would be fine with an equivalent of this in DA3.

In both Dragon Age games so far the player has had ample opportunity to
take both pro and anti positions with regards to the Chantry, the Qun,
the Stone, the Creators, and 1001 other things.  You have had the
opportunbity to express belief and disbeilf and to support or deride
other characters that do either.

Thinking that would change based on the announced title of DA3 is ridiculous.

I'm not too worried about being unable to oppose the Chantry; my current issue is being able to not believe in its doctrine.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 30 septembre 2012 - 01:08 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Lithuasil wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...


 I do not really care about the bickering between right and wrong going on here. All I care about is the fact I do not want to play a character that supports the Chantry or the Qun as a persona. It goes against every single protaganist I have played in the DA universe to date, it goes against what I believe my stance would be in that world setting based on everything I have seen, done in the previous games. Thats what matters to me, I do not care to debate it as it is not something I will change my mind on. 

A character that is forced to go against all that I have seen and played in this franchise is quite simply not a character I want to play. Simple as that really. Bioware have allowed the character to be anti-Chantry in previous games and anti-Qun. This next one I hope is no different. I do not want a character that I cannot control or with beliefs I cannot accept. It is better to allow for players to decide for themselves in the game whether they want to follow the Chantry, the Qun or neither.

Your avatar makes posts like this... entertaining to read                                                                                                    
Seriously though - no one talks about forcing you to support the chantry, let alone the qun. We're just arguing that a fully formed position of atheism is highly unrealistic in world like Thedas, especially right off the bat, before the character has had any  sort of world-view-challenging experience.
What I find interesting is "why?" What's so unbearable about accepting that a character of yours might take some world-viewsfor face value until he or she has any reason to challenge them? The only reason I've heard so far is "I always did it" - but that only says something about the kind of roleplaying you did before, and it's hardly a valid reason to repeat mistakes of the past.
And, if you'd indulge me - would you cling to a similar position of religious denial in a different setting (Like say, the Elder Scrolls), where Atheism is quite literally wrong?

Firslty why do you assume it was a mistake in the past? Secondly in Skyrim my character never believed in a god, the Dragons were not gods to my character. They were cannon fodder. Skyrim was not about religion it was about civil war and dragons and racial differences to me (I killed and mocked the Daedra at every opportunity in the game). From all the evidence I just presented above, this next game does appear to have a very large religous theme implied. I have no idea why people are being so offended by the idea that someone has a concern that would like eased regarding whether based on that evidence, I will still get to freedom to roleplay as I would like to do so.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 septembre 2012 - 01:16 .

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm not too worried about being unable to oppose the Chantry; my current issue is being able to not believe in its doctrine.

And you feel you've been forced to believe thoses doctrines in DAO and/or DA2?

[Dragoonlordz]

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm not too worried about being unable to oppose the Chantry; my current issue is being able to not believe in its doctrine.

And you feel you've been forced to believe thoses doctrines in DAO and/or DA2?

And you assume that nothing changes between games? Between my assumption and his assumption vs yours, you are no different. Saying nothing when have a concern is far worse than speaking up beforehand. Between what your doing and what I am doing, I would pick what I am doing everytime. If I have a concern I have every right and reason to mention it in order to gain some peace of mind. Staying silent when have a concern achieves nothing.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 septembre 2012 - 01:21 .

[Xilizhra]

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm not too worried about being unable to oppose the Chantry; my current issue is being able to not believe in its doctrine.

And you feel you've been forced to believe thoses doctrines in DAO and/or DA2?

In DA2, yes. I twisted it by claiming my Hawke followed the Imperial Chantry, but even that was suboptimal.

[Chipaway111]

Wulfram wrote...

The chantry should be shown as an organisation made up of people of diverse outlook and morality.

+ 1 

Anything that's always shown as "pure evil" and "saintly" I find hard to believe. 

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm not too worried about being unable to oppose the Chantry; my current issue is being able to not believe in its doctrine.

And you feel you've been forced to believe thoses doctrines in DAO and/or DA2?

In DA2, yes. I twisted it by claiming my Hawke followed the Imperial Chantry, but even that was suboptimal.

What made you feel that you were forced to believe?  The only thing I can think of would be Hawke's shouting "Maker take you!" or other such during combat.  But that's hardly either embracing or deriding any particular point of doctrine or dogma.

[Xilizhra]

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm not too worried about being unable to oppose the Chantry; my current issue is being able to not believe in its doctrine.

And you feel you've been forced to believe thoses doctrines in DAO and/or DA2?

In DA2, yes. I twisted it by claiming my Hawke followed the Imperial Chantry, but even that was suboptimal.

What made you feel that you were forced to believe?  The only thing I can think of would be Hawke's shouting "Maker take you!" or other such during combat.  But that's hardly either embracing or deriding any particular point of doctrine or dogma.

In my case, it was "May Andraste guide you." Also that bit about "she's with the Maker now."

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm not too worried about being unable to oppose the Chantry; my current issue is being able to not believe in its doctrine.

And you feel you've been forced to believe thoses doctrines in DAO and/or DA2?

In DA2, yes. I twisted it by claiming my Hawke followed the Imperial Chantry, but even that was suboptimal.

What made you feel that you were forced to believe?  The only thing I can think of would be Hawke's shouting "Maker take you!" or other such during combat.  But that's hardly either embracing or deriding any particular point of doctrine or dogma.

In my case, it was "May Andraste guide you."

Try thinking of it this way: is anyone who's ever said "Jesus Christ" a Christian?

Also that bit about "she's with the Maker now."

Was that when Bethany died?

Modifié par General User, 30 septembre 2012 - 01:33 .

[Xilizhra]

Try thinking of it this way: as anyone who's ever said "Jesus Christ" a Christian?

The phrase I'm referring to wasn't an epithet, it was a rather quiet and genuine-sounding sendoff.

Was that when Bethany died?

That was when Leandra died, to Merrill, who doesn't even believe in the Maker.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

Try thinking of it this way: as anyone who's ever said "Jesus Christ" a Christian?

The phrase I'm referring to wasn't an epithet, it was a rather quiet and genuine-sounding sendoff.

Was that when Bethany died?

That was when Leandra died, to Merrill, who doesn't even believe in the Maker.

Since avowed atheism as a social/philosophical/political movement really doesn't (and shouldn't) exist in Thedas, I wouldn't read too much into the PC putting forth the occasional line or two that references Andraste or The Maker.  Especially when said during times of combat or great stress.

In other words, I really don't see Hawke's shouting the Kirkwall equivalent of "The Devil take you!" or uttering a platitude (most likely learned from Leandra) as being necessarily indicative of any serious belief.

[Xilizhra]

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Try thinking of it this way: as anyone who's ever said "Jesus Christ" a Christian?

The phrase I'm referring to wasn't an epithet, it was a rather quiet and genuine-sounding sendoff.

Was that when Bethany died?

That was when Leandra died, to Merrill, who doesn't even believe in the Maker.

Since avowed atheism as a social/philosophical/political movement really doesn't (and shouldn't) exist in Thedas, I wouldn't read too much into the PC putting forth the occasional line or two that references Andraste or The Maker.  Especially when said during times of combat or great stress.

In other words, I really don't see Hawke's shouting the Kirkwall equivalent of "The Devil take you!" or uttering a platitude (most likely learned from Leandra) as being necessarily indicative of any serious belief.

No, the equivalent of that would be "Give the Maker my regards!" on aggressive. The diplomatic version is barely even a battle cry, it's more of a heartfelt battle statement. And again, while atheism seemed the most logical choice for the PC, I don't need to be that, just to follow a different religion if need be.

[Gervaise]

I would prefer the religious issues to be dealt with as they were in DAO, where you could see both the good and the bad in the system. There were the templars standing by the citizens of Lothering when their temporal lords had abandoned them, the Chantries were providing a place of sanctuary and safety to citizens both there and in Redcliffe, but also the Chantry priestess just standing by impotently when Vaughan dragged the elf girls off to be raped. I could sympathise with the mages and in fact the templars bearing in mind their addiction to lyrium and what happens when it is withdrawn, but could also see why some form of control of mages was needed - but not necessarily the way it was handled in the Circles. I picked up on the fact that the teaching of the Chantry didn't actually reflect what was stated in the Chant of Light, not only concerning mages but also the way power is used generally to abuse and oppress. Also the fact that some parts of the Chant had been changed/removed. If a character was allowed to enter into a sensible debate with others on these points, I would welcome it.

In DA2 everything was taken to extremes and there was little opportunity to challenge viewpoints and possibly encourage change. You were told people like Elthina were well loved but little shown to demonstrate this, apart from Sebastians assertions and the codex. You were given an insight into why Meredith behaved as she did but only if you supported her, when surely the information would have been more useful in persuading a pro-mager to revise their opinion. The whole business of mages being made illegally tranquil should have been something that could have been taken right up the line to Justina herself even before you catch Alric in the act. Also being able to question why the relatives of nobles are still able to keep in contact with their families but the relatives of peasants are denied even a simple goodbye before being dragged off.

In short, if the subject of religious organisations and the abuse of power is going to be a part of DA3, then at least let the PC do something about it and change things, rather than just blow them up. Please do not let it just become a load of religion bashing - some of us are religious in real life and like their character to be able to have beliefs too. My Warden and Hawke both believed in the teachings of Andraste - just not the way they had been used by the Orlesian Chantry to maintain the status quo in society.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Try thinking of it this way: as anyone who's ever said "Jesus Christ" a Christian?

The phrase I'm referring to wasn't an epithet, it was a rather quiet and genuine-sounding sendoff.

Was that when Bethany died?

That was when Leandra died, to Merrill, who doesn't even believe in the Maker.

Since avowed atheism as a social/philosophical/political movement really doesn't (and shouldn't) exist in Thedas, I wouldn't read too much into the PC putting forth the occasional line or two that references Andraste or The Maker.  Especially when said during times of combat or great stress.

In other words, I really don't see Hawke's shouting the Kirkwall equivalent of "The Devil take you!" or uttering a platitude (most likely learned from Leandra) as being necessarily indicative of any serious belief.

No, the equivalent of that would be "Give the Maker my regards!" on aggressive. The diplomatic version is barely even a battle cry, it's more of a heartfelt battle statement.

In fairness, the diplomatic battlecry of "Everyone be careful!"
is hardly one to instill terror in the hearts of enemies and steel in
the spines of allies.

And again, while atheism seemed the most logical choice for the PC, I don't need to be that, just to follow a different religion if need be.

I'd argue that you can.  You can quesition their doctrines and dogmas and even ridicule the various religions of Thedas.  If your character makes statements supportive of one faith but critical of another can they not be said to be followers of that faith?

Now, try this on for size: maybe Hawke said "she with the Maker now" not because it's what Merrill believed, or what Hawke believed, but because it is what Leandra would have wanted to hear.

[ElitePinecone]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Based on the same amount of information, I wager another potential theme of the game is Dragonheart.

As smart as your trying to come across it is not working. There is enough evidence presented so far to assume a likely religious theme from the name of the game, the way DA2 ended, seekers playing a big role, templars mentioned too both of which are linked to the Chantry. The Qun played a big role in the previous game aswell, their latest animated film was about the Chantry, divine and seekers, the previous web series was about the Qun.

(spoilers, I guess?)

The leaked plot information strongly suggests the Inquisition of the title has little to do with the formal Chantry, and it is certainly not targeted directly towards mages or religious heretics. The reason it is established is not religious in nature. It seems the player - as the Inquisitor - is not doing things with an explicit religious motive. 

The Seekers broke with the formal Chantry in Asunder, and some Templars are in open rebellion. The potential Templar companion - Cullen - is not a religious zealot, and fought against Merideth with Hawke in DA2. Other potential companions seem to be a moderate Seeker with ties to the Divine, a qunari Tal-Vashoth and a Tevinter magister, of all people. Hardly an Inquisition staffed by Chantry fundamentalists.

Besides, after what seems to happen in the prelude to DA3 I'd question whether the Chantry even still exists as an organisation. 

[Dragoonlordz]

General User wrote...

Now, try this on for size: maybe Hawke said "she with the Maker now" not because it's what Merrill believed, or what Hawke believed, but because it is what Leandra would have wanted to hear.

Your telling him how he should roleplay his character, your free to headcanon why your character does something but if goes against what another persons would do then your line of questioning serves little to no purpose outside of listing your own preference.

Again I come back to the point, your stance is nothing changes between games because you assume what you could do in past will be able to do in future. This is not true. Games do change, the method and manner of storytelling between them can and does change. It is better to voice a concern about something prior to it's release and get peace of mind rather than forced to deal with it after once money has been spent.

My stance is I would rather voice my concern, let them know what it is I would like as that is the only way they will know. I do not assume that the game will be the same as another, I let them know what it is I want even if was present in the other games more so with DAO than DA2 just incase they planned to change the narrative format and method between the previous titles and the next one.

Point being it harms noone to voice a concern regardless of whether someone thinks it is a valid one or not.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 septembre 2012 - 02:29 .

[Dragoonlordz]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Based on the same amount of information, I wager another potential theme of the game is Dragonheart.

As smart as your trying to come across it is not working. There is enough evidence presented so far to assume a likely religious theme from the name of the game, the way DA2 ended, seekers playing a big role, templars mentioned too both of which are linked to the Chantry. The Qun played a big role in the previous game aswell, their latest animated film was about the Chantry, divine and seekers, the previous web series was about the Qun.

(spoilers, I guess?)

The leaked plot information strongly suggests the Inquisition of the title has little to do with the formal Chantry, and it is certainly not targeted directly towards mages or religious heretics. The reason it is established is not religious in nature. It seems the player - as the Inquisitor - is not doing things with an explicit religious motive. 

The Seekers broke with the formal Chantry in Asunder, and some Templars are in open rebellion. The potential Templar companion - Cullen - is not a religious zealot, and fought against Merideth with Hawke in DA2. Other potential companions seem to be a moderate Seeker with ties to the Divine, a qunari Tal-Vashoth and a Tevinter magister, of all people. Hardly an Inquisition staffed by Chantry fundamentalists.

Besides, after what seems to happen in the prelude to DA3 I'd question whether the Chantry even still exists as an organisation. 

I simply do not want to take for granted what they might do, I would rather mention what I hope they do and do not do even if they ignore it atleast I know I have done what I can to try to help them make a game that I will enjoy more. Maybe my concern is not the same as other peoples, maybe they do not share my concern but it is one I have.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 septembre 2012 - 02:36 .

[Lithuasil]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Firslty why do you assume it was a mistake in the past?

As evidenced by my presence in this forum, I am an avid videogamer in real life. That's a real world belief, like say atheism is. Now, if I was to arbitrarily impose that every character I play needs to be a gamer as well, regardless of whether videogames are even invented in the setting, that'd be tremendously stupid and most definitely not an improvement of my roleplaying.

  Secondly in Skyrim my character never believed in a god

And this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. The existence of a Dovahkin *requires* divine meddling. The great Daedra are all over the damn place, talking to mortals and making their presence known. The Tribunal is literally walking the face of Cyrodil. Under these circumstances the position you demand to hold ("no gods exists") is not only bad roleplaying, it's literally wrong on the level of people who believe Obama is an Alien from Alpha Centauri and the son of Great Cthullu.

[HK-90210]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I remember back around Awakening when someone, appalled at my less-than-liberal role playing choices and bitter about the limitions of social reforms you could enact, proceeded to outline their head-canon.

'First,' she began, 'My Warden would establish a Bill of Rights...'

Well, it just proves that the culture in which she was born and raised did a pretty good job of giving her the set of values it felt it was best she have, eh? I wonder what being born and raised in Thedas would have led her to believe about these so-called 'Rights'.

Modifié par CastonFolarus, 30 septembre 2012 - 02:40 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Lithuasil wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Firslty why do you assume it was a mistake in the past?

As evidenced by my presence in this forum, I am an avid videogamer in real life. That's a real world belief, like say atheism is. Now, if I was to arbitrarily impose that every character I play needs to be a gamer as well, regardless of whether videogames are even invented in the setting, that'd be tremendously stupid and most definitely not an improvement of my roleplaying.

  Secondly in Skyrim my character never believed in a god

And this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. The existence of a Dovahkin *requires* divine meddling. The great Daedra are all over the damn place, talking to mortals and making their presence known. The Tribunal is literally walking the face of Cyrodil. Under these circumstances the position you demand to hold ("no gods exists") is not only bad roleplaying, it's literally wrong on the level of people who believe Obama is an Alien from Alpha Centauri and the son of Great Cthullu.

No it does not... You believe the daedra are gods, I think they are meddling demons. A god to me is not something more powerful than another, I am not a god to an ant, I am just bigger. Now if you in real life or in games want to believe that something potentially stronger, bigger, faster or more powerfull than you is a "god" then by all means do so. However I just think they are merely faster, stronger or more powerfull and that it does not make them a god or worthy of worship and I also killed many of those daedra in that game so I guess they were not all powerfull after all in essense killing what you called 'gods' and what I call demons. No different to demons in the fade in DA franchise.

What I am suggesting in my preference is quite simple despite your attempts to distract from it. Give the player the freedom to be who he want's to be in the game, if he or she wishes to support or believe in the Chantry let them, put in gameplay and narrative to allow that. If he or she wants to support the Qun again let them and put gameplay and narrative to support that. The same applies to those who wish to neither support or follow the idiologies of either Chantry or Qun. I want to provide more player freedom, you I believe going by how much you are against my stance wish to restrict it.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 septembre 2012 - 03:09 .