83 réponses à ce sujet

[ElitePinecone]

Given the circumstances of DA3 I do not think the Inquisition is a part of the Chantry, and it will be possible to work against its interests.

[The Elder King]

unbentbuzzkill wrote...

no source just my personal opinion, But imo playing a game where you can't question your higher ups is just silly and pointless. (not saying that is the case i'm just speculating )

We don't even know if the Inquisition we'll be under the Chantry.

Modifié par hhh89, 20 octobre 2012 - 10:46 .

[wright1978]

I definitely hope the protaganist has option to take an anti-chantry stance in characterisation.

[unbentbuzzkill]

@hhh89

true but who else could He/she work for?

[Vandicus]

unbentbuzzkill wrote...

@hhh89

true but who else could He/she work for?

Himself? As head of the Inquisition, they could be the founder or one of the founding members.

Moreover, blood mage specialization is confirmed, and we've been told that specializations will matter more in DA3. So, blood mage leader of an organization that is forced to be Chantry-subordinate? Don't think so.

[InfinitePaths]

With Justina around,I'm with the chantry

[InfinitePaths]

I don't really like the catholic chruch or other mainstream manipulative religions in RL,but i somehow like the chantry,it gives me hope.

[The Elder King]

Vandicus wrote...

unbentbuzzkill wrote...

@hhh89

true but who else could He/she work for?

Himself? As head of the Inquisition, they could be the founder or one of the founding members.

Moreover, blood mage specialization is confirmed, and we've been told that specializations will matter more in DA3. So, blood mage leader of an organization that is forced to be Chantry-subordinate? Don't think so.

I really hope that the Inquistion will have a neutral stance towards mages, templars and the Chantry, and that it's up to us to decide how to lead the organization.

Modifié par hhh89, 20 octobre 2012 - 11:08 .

[LobselVith8]

King Cousland wrote...

Is there a source for Gaider's comment? I'll be pretty happy about it if it's true.

I think they misunderstood the comment he made. Gaider said he didn't want the protagonist to be able to be atheist because it meant people would want to attack organized religion.

[SeptimusMagistos]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

David Gaider said we won't be going on any anti-chantry crusade any time soon.

Yeah, but that just means we won't be able to mount an organized campaign against it for pretty much the same reasons we can't sail off to fight Tevinter or the Qunari or to try to overthrow the monarchy. Doesn't mean we won't be able to take 'the chantry needs to keep out of this issue' stances.

[Vandicus]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

David Gaider said we won't be going on any anti-chantry crusade any time soon.

Yeah, but that just means we won't be able to mount an organized campaign against it for pretty much the same reasons we can't sail off to fight Tevinter or the Qunari or to try to overthrow the monarchy. Doesn't mean we won't be able to take 'the chantry needs to keep out of this issue' stances.

I suspect that people are responding with no, because they what they see the OP's question as is "Will we be able to go to war with and destroy the Chantry", which given his past posts about the Chantry, is unsurprising. It remains to be seen whether he is simply asking whether anti-Chantry stances are possible(which would seem highly likely and not needing asking), or he is again trying to push the option of a protagonist who goes to war with the Chantry.

[Terrorize69]

Vandicus wrote...

unbentbuzzkill wrote...

@hhh89

true but who else could He/she work for?

Himself? As head of the Inquisition, they could be the founder or one of the founding members.

Moreover, blood mage specialization is confirmed, and we've been told that specializations will matter more in DA3. So, blood mage leader of an organization that is forced to be Chantry-subordinate? Don't think so.

99% of Inquisitions are religious movements made by a head of church, in this case would be the divine. Cassandra is a party member and memeber of the Chantry and inquisition.

[Vandicus]

Terrorize69 wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

unbentbuzzkill wrote...

@hhh89

true but who else could He/she work for?

Himself? As head of the Inquisition, they could be the founder or one of the founding members.

Moreover, blood mage specialization is confirmed, and we've been told that specializations will matter more in DA3. So, blood mage leader of an organization that is forced to be Chantry-subordinate? Don't think so.

99% of Inquisitions are religious movements made by a head of church, in this case would be the divine. Cassandra is a party member and memeber of the Chantry and inquisition.

Number pulled out of ass followed by irrelevant companion associations. We also have a Kossith companion according to the survey leak, therefore the Inquisition is a mage-hating Qunari controlled organization.

Also this Inquisition, as was the first Inquisition in DA, has an explicitly non-religious goal. The first Inquisition existed before the Chantry and its goal was to protect mankind from mages. This Inquisition, according to the survey leak, is about investigating the mastermind behind the war who caused the bombing of the peace conference.

[brushyourteeth]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Given the debates about the Chantry's role in the fall of the Dales and over the lives of mages in Andrastian society, I was wondering if it might be possible to oppose the Chantry of Andraste in Inquisition. Some view the Chantry with disdain over their actions, and believe the organization should be opposed. Not everyone thinks Divine Justina V is altruistic as the leader of the Chantry. I think it would be preferable to have a choice in the matter, rather than being forced to be pro-Chantry.

Mere speculation at the moment, but I think opposing the Chantry should be a valid option.

Can I just be blunt?

I lose 20 respect points for every forumite who clings to the idea that Bioware would even consider forcing us to play a pro-Chantry character. Not because it's religious, but because it's a faction. DA has always (with the exception of the Wardens) let us choose whether or not to be affiliated with a faction. We may be forced to accept a quest from a Chantry quest-giver (like Petrice), but the end result is almost always that they look bad and the Chantry isn't aided in any way by our quest completion.

Even in DA:O, you'd think that if any quest would force your character to acknowledge the Chant, it'd be the Urn of Sacred Ashes questline. But even then, you can choose to defile them and give a big effyouuuu to the Maker, or collect them and just say "I don't know. But let's get this to Eamon."

We've also had the choice to kill or just never recruit every notably pro-Chant companion we've ever had. You're not even forced to put up with them - why would Bioware alienate one of the loudest parts of their fanbase by forcing you to be one of them? What could the payoff possibly be in taking away all player choice on this matter, and suddenly turning a world of grays into black-and-white?

The worst-case scenario for you guys is that you accept resources and leads from them for a time, a la Cerberus, and then get the chance to screw the Chantry over later. Or that someone like Justinia turns out to not be a complete jerk just because she believes in something, which is what I realize is part of the problem for some players. I've heard some "all religious characters should be evil, and if they're not, I disapprove." - which just makes me shake my head sadly, but whatever.

You'll get a choice. I'll send you a picture of me eating a big ol' slice of humble pie if you don't.

[The Elder King]

Terrorize69 wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

unbentbuzzkill wrote...

@hhh89

true but who else could He/she work for?

Himself? As head of the Inquisition, they could be the founder or one of the founding members.

Moreover, blood mage specialization is confirmed, and we've been told that specializations will matter more in DA3. So, blood mage leader of an organization that is forced to be Chantry-subordinate? Don't think so.

99% of Inquisitions are religious movements made by a head of church, in this case would be the divine. Cassandra is a party member and memeber of the Chantry and inquisition.

As far as I know Cassandra wasn't a companion suggested in the leak. It was suggested to be a companion because she had a concept art like other character will will "probably" be companions. In the leak we have a Kossith and a magister as a companion. The fact that Cassandraa could be a companion means nothing. The Divine could've ordered her to work with the Inquisitor to aid him/her.
Plus, the Inquisition, while it surely had the goal of hunting mages, wasn't a religious organization at its birth. We don't know nothing about the Inquisition in DA3. All we can do is making suggestions.

[LobselVith8]

Vandicus wrote...

I suspect that people are responding with no, because they what they see the OP's question as is "Will we be able to go to war with and destroy the Chantry", which given his past posts about the Chantry, is unsurprising. It remains to be seen whether he is simply asking whether anti-Chantry stances are possible(which would seem highly likely and not needing asking), or he is again trying to push the option of a protagonist who goes to war with the Chantry.

I don't recall Hawke having the option to voice anti-Chantry dialogue, so I disagree that it "seems highly likely." He could voice that he wanted to kill the templars and overthrow them, but he didn't seem to be able to criticize the Chantry like my Surana Warden could over what happened to the Dales.

To address your inquiry, I noticed some people assumed the Inquisitor will be pro-Chantry because they believe the Inquisition will be an institution of the Chantry. I thought it merited discussion, since people have different opinions about what the Inquisition could mean for the new protagonist.

[Vandicus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

I suspect that people are responding with no, because they what they see the OP's question as is "Will we be able to go to war with and destroy the Chantry", which given his past posts about the Chantry, is unsurprising. It remains to be seen whether he is simply asking whether anti-Chantry stances are possible(which would seem highly likely and not needing asking), or he is again trying to push the option of a protagonist who goes to war with the Chantry.

I don't recall Hawke having the option to voice anti-Chantry dialogue, so I disagree that it "seems highly likely." He could voice that he wanted to kill the templars and overthrow them, but he didn't seem to be able to criticize the Chantry like my Surana Warden could over what happened to the Dales.

To address your inquiry, I noticed some people assumed the Inquisitor will be pro-Chantry because they believe the Inquisition will be an institution of the Chantry. I thought it merited discussion, since people have different opinions about what the Inquisition could mean for the new protagonist.

Funny, I thought you played DA2 as pro-mage.

[LobselVith8]

Vandicus wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't recall Hawke having the option to voice anti-Chantry dialogue, so I disagree that it "seems highly likely." He could voice that he wanted to kill the templars and overthrow them, but he didn't seem to be able to criticize the Chantry like my Surana Warden could over what happened to the Dales.

To address your inquiry, I noticed some people assumed the Inquisitor will be pro-Chantry because they believe the Inquisition will be an institution of the Chantry. I thought it merited discussion, since people have different opinions about what the Inquisition could mean for the new protagonist.

Funny, I thought you played DA2 as pro-mage.

Which fostered dialogue about opposing the templars from Hawke, as I previously said.

[Vandicus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't recall Hawke having the option to voice anti-Chantry dialogue, so I disagree that it "seems highly likely." He could voice that he wanted to kill the templars and overthrow them, but he didn't seem to be able to criticize the Chantry like my Surana Warden could over what happened to the Dales.

To address your inquiry, I noticed some people assumed the Inquisitor will be pro-Chantry because they believe the Inquisition will be an institution of the Chantry. I thought it merited discussion, since people have different opinions about what the Inquisition could mean for the new protagonist.

Funny, I thought you played DA2 as pro-mage.

Which fostered dialogue about opposing the templars from Hawke, as I previously said.

So you want an option to criticize the Chantry on a social-political basis. In that case, I view it as highly unlikely. We weren't allowed to take Eamon to task for utilizing serfdom, or criticize the nobility of Denerim for non-democratic values. Something as tangential as debate of the merits of Chantry action that are unrelated to the war is unlikely to come up.

[CELL55]

Think about it: opposing the Chantry in any meaningful way would then necessarily involve a long quest line to do it properly. And that would cost a lot of time, money, and effort on Bioware's part to do something that would both irrevocably change the game world while not even being seen by people who either like the Chantry or just don't feel strongly enough to go on a crusade against them.

Does this seem even remotely likely? I don't think so. It's a pipe dream, in more ways than one.

[LobselVith8]

brushyourteeth wrote...

The worst-case scenario for you guys is that you accept resources and leads from them for a time, a la Cerberus, and then get the chance to screw the Chantry over later. Or that someone like Justinia turns out to not be a complete jerk just because she believes in something, which is what I realize is part of the problem for some players. I've heard some "all religious characters should be evil, and if they're not, I disapprove." - which just makes me shake my head sadly, but whatever.

You'll get a choice. I'll send you a picture of me eating a big ol' slice of humble pie if you don't.

Really? I can't imagine why anyone would argue for that. I don't think all religious characters should be evil. Merrill was religious, and I thought she was an intelligent and proactive character. There are good characters who are religious Andrastians, like Alistair and Leliana in Origins. I'll admit I have no interest in being forced into playing as a religious Andrastian, but that has to do with the fact that I'm not a fan of the Chantry or its teachings. I'd be more interested in playing as a Dalish mage who believed in the Creators.

And you're always welcome to be honest with me, even though we often disagree.

[AppealToReason]

Probably. The way they talked about the game made it seem as if you're out to discover old ass stuffs. I think it was Laidlaw who said something like how rich the universe it from now to it being a magical Roman Empire sort of thing (Tevinter), to the Elves ruling the world and who knows beyond that.

[Xilizhra]

So you want an option to criticize the Chantry on a social-political basis. In that case, I view it as highly unlikely. We weren't allowed to take Eamon to task for utilizing serfdom, or criticize the nobility of Denerim for non-democratic values. Something as tangential as debate of the merits of Chantry action that are unrelated to the war is unlikely to come up.

This is highly irritating and a removal of something that could be an interesting option. Especially since the Chantry's crimes were instrumental in starting this war to begin with.

[unbentbuzzkill]

if you can't criticize the chanty it indeed makes them all powerful, And you know what they absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Heimdall]

Xilizhra wrote...

So you want an option to criticize the Chantry on a social-political basis. In that case, I view it as highly unlikely. We weren't allowed to take Eamon to task for utilizing serfdom, or criticize the nobility of Denerim for non-democratic values. Something as tangential as debate of the merits of Chantry action that are unrelated to the war is unlikely to come up.

This is highly irritating and a removal of something that could be an interesting option. Especially since the Chantry's crimes were instrumental in starting this war to begin with.

Well, ironically, the Divine's push for reform on the treatment of Mages by Templars was a large factor in pushing the Templars over the edge and starting the war.