The Warden's (and Hawke's) opinions are worthless when it comes to determining or judging other aspects of the narrative. Largely because they change from person to person and game to game.LobselVith8 wrote...
General User wrote...
Think of it this way: virtually every time a 'mage protagonist' has an opportunity to rant and rail about the Circles, that same protagonist also has an opportunity to say something positive about the Circles. Any given charatcers opinions are only evidence of what that characters opinions are, nothing less and nothing more.
The divide between the Libertarians and the Loyalists addresses this as well; essentially, the entire Fraternity of the Enchanters expresses that not all mages are the same in their views.General User wrote...
Consider also that the player character in the games, has motivations, viewpoints, and perspectives that are uniquely divorced from the narrative and setting itself because they come from the actual player sitting on the other side of the screen. Making much of the player character's expressed opinions, to no small degree, worthless.
If The Warden saying that the Circle is "an oppressive place" is supposed to be worthless, why does Wynne retort that The Warden can change that it's an oppressive place if he returns to the Circle as a leader? If the dialogue options reflect actual attitudes about the society, the people, and the institutions, it makes no sense to say the dialogue from The Warden is worthless.
In other words, if in one playthru of Origins, the player character says that "the Circle is good" and in another play thru the player character says "the Circle is bad" those opinions have exactly the same bearing on the nature of the Circle itself, which is to say, virtually nil.
Modifié par General User, 29 septembre 2012 - 08:52 .




Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut





