83 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Lord Aesir wrote...

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.

**** the Divine. In any case, it was too little too late.

[BlueMagitek]

I'm sure you won't need to support the Chantry, but going out of the way to bring down a religious organization in the midst of a rather game changing war, while a potential war with the Qunari brews and ancient, corrupted Magisters have escaped into the Deep Roads is unlikely.

[Heimdall]

Xilizhra wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

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.

**** the Divine. In any case, it was too little too late.

Certainly too late, though as the book points out such a change can't be
rushed without considerable backlash amongst both Templars and common
folk.  As for too little, if it were any less the Templars wouldn't have
reacted the way they did.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 21 octobre 2012 - 02:42 .

[GloriousDame]

Absolutely. someone posted this link and part of it basically says that in DA3 we learn someone is pulling the Chantry's strings (if you, by chance, played Mark of the Assassin, then you know that even great leaders of the Qun fall to corruption), and I'm guessing since the Chantry's leadership may at some point have fallen/will fall to corruption, it's up to the inquisitor to take a stance against the Chantry (or at least this part of it).

It makes sense that the inquisitor try to stay neutral during his/her investigation, or is at least expected to.

[Zoe]

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.

If it turned out to be like Cerberus, it wouldn't be my top choice of scenarios because I think it could be ooc for some pcs and backgrounds to work for them at the start. However, it would not be my worst-case scenario.

What I think would be worse is if it was somewhat like DA2 but to a greater degree, where the pc could support the mages in some dialog and quests but then a number of plot points (in DA2 boss fight, mage character reactions, etc.) don't make much sense. Basically, I am not sure if the game will include enough branching, choices, and reactivity for a game in which factions play a major role. I hope it will, but the unconfirmed leak that says that the pc will be a member of the Inquisition (which at least in the past in DA was hunting mages) + how DA2 handled factions, makes me unsure.

[brushyourteeth]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

I'm ok with playing a devout Andrastian. I'd be even happier to have the choice to replay someone who really couldn't care less about the Maker. I really enjoy playing both sides, and I think Bioware will respect that most of their fans want that. I also think that David Gaider really loves telling both sides of the story (Loghain, Meredith, Orsino - just look at all the conflicting points of view our DAII companions had!), so I'd expect us to be able to favor one side (even if we don't ultimately determine the outcome of the mage/templar struggle - if there's a Bigger Bad or whatever).

And even though I don't mind playing a devout Andrastian, it would really bother me to know that there were players for whom that would be practically insufferable, and they weren't allowed to fight off some templars and work for mage freedom. If I thought there was even a chance of that happening, I'd be raising a stink about it -- but I don't think it's something we need to be worried about. 

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

.... and this is why you're awesome.  

Honestly, (though I'm technically pro-Chantry) I usually choose the pro-mage route. I think there's hope for the Chantry, but that doesn't mean I agree with the systematic abuse of innocents who happen to be powerful by an accident of birth.

[Xilizhra]

I'm ok with playing a devout Andrastian. I'd be even happier to have the choice to replay someone who really couldn't care less about the Maker. I really enjoy playing both sides, and I think Bioware will respect that most of their fans want that. I also think that David Gaider really loves telling both sides of the story (Loghain, Meredith, Orsino - just look at all the conflicting points of view our DAII companions had!), so I'd expect us to be able to favor one side (even if we don't ultimately determine the outcome of the mage/templar struggle - if there's a Bigger Bad or whatever).

The thing is that this explicitly was not done in DA2; Hawke was always Andrastian in some form.

[Plaintiff]

We have seen nothing at all to indicate that the Inquisition is in any way related to the Chantry, so I see no reason why the Inquisitor would not be able to oppose it.

Gaider may have said that there won't be an anti-Chantry crusade, but that doesn't mean that people are going to be forced to like the Chantry. Simply that marching against it won't be a valid option in this game.

Which is fine. It seems to me that the main focus of the plot is going to be something else entirely.

[Plaintiff]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't recall Hawke having the option to voice anti-Chantry dialogue

I seem to recall Hawke being able to criticize Elthina quite directly to her face.

Personally, since, at the time of DA2, the Templars are a part of the Chantry, I would consider any criticism of the Templars to be criticism of the Chantry as well, even if it is indirect.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm ok with playing a devout Andrastian. I'd be even happier to have the choice to replay someone who really couldn't care less about the Maker. I really enjoy playing both sides, and I think Bioware will respect that most of their fans want that. I also think that David Gaider really loves telling both sides of the story (Loghain, Meredith, Orsino - just look at all the conflicting points of view our DAII companions had!), so I'd expect us to be able to favor one side (even if we don't ultimately determine the outcome of the mage/templar struggle - if there's a Bigger Bad or whatever).

The thing is that this explicitly was not done in DA2; Hawke was always Andrastian in some form.

Hawke may accept the Maker as a given, but doesn't have to be a devout Andrastrian.

[Xilizhra]

Hawke may accept the Maker as a given, but doesn't have to be a devout Andrastrian.

I don't want to accept or worship the Maker at all.

[brushyourteeth]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm ok with playing a devout Andrastian. I'd be even happier to have the choice to replay someone who really couldn't care less about the Maker. I really enjoy playing both sides, and I think Bioware will respect that most of their fans want that. I also think that David Gaider really loves telling both sides of the story (Loghain, Meredith, Orsino - just look at all the conflicting points of view our DAII companions had!), so I'd expect us to be able to favor one side (even if we don't ultimately determine the outcome of the mage/templar struggle - if there's a Bigger Bad or whatever).

The thing is that this explicitly was not done in DA2; Hawke was always Andrastian in some form.

True, but s/he didn't have to be devoutly Andrastian.

In the world David Gaider has written, people are religious in one form or another. It may not dictate everything they do, but they have belief. And the Chant is the default religion for most people in Thedas. They might disagree with the Chantry - they might be mad at the Maker or critical of the institution that claims to serve him, but they will most likely believe.

With all the respect in my heart, the only thing I can tell you is to deal with it.

[Xilizhra]

True, but s/he didn't have to be devoutly Andrastian.

That's not the point. I don't want to be Andrastian in the slightest, in any way, shape, or form.

In the world David Gaider has written, people are religious in one form or another. It may not dictate everything they do, but they have belief. And the Chant is the default religion for most people in Thedas. They might disagree with the Chantry - they might be mad at the Maker or critical of the institution that claims to serve him, but they will most likely believe.

Then give me another religion. The Creators, for that half-elf idea. Chasind gods. Old Gods. Whatever. If I have to be religious, there are other options.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Hawke may accept the Maker as a given, but doesn't have to be a devout Andrastrian.

I don't want to accept or worship the Maker at all.

Even the ancient Tevinters believed in the Maker, even if they didn't worship him. 

[brushyourteeth]

Xilizhra wrote...

True, but s/he didn't have to be devoutly Andrastian.

That's not the point. I don't want to be Andrastian in the slightest, in any way, shape, or form.

In the world David Gaider has written, people are religious in one form or another. It may not dictate everything they do, but they have belief. And the Chant is the default religion for most people in Thedas. They might disagree with the Chantry - they might be mad at the Maker or critical of the institution that claims to serve him, but they will most likely believe.

Then give me another religion. The Creators, for that half-elf idea. Chasind gods. Old Gods. Whatever. If I have to be religious, there are other options.

That's a good point!  A topic worth discussing, if you ask me.

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Hawke may accept the Maker as a given, but doesn't have to be a devout Andrastrian.

I don't want to accept or worship the Maker at all.

Even the ancient Tevinters believed in the Maker, even if they didn't worship him. 

The Chantry claims they did; I have my doubts. But if I saw the Maker as an ultimate force of evil to be opposed at all costs, that'd be an acceptable second prize.

That's a good point!  A topic worth discussing, if you ask me.

Would have been if Gaider hadn't closed my last thread on that.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 21 octobre 2012 - 04:21 .

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

Hawke may accept the Maker as a given, but doesn't have to be a devout Andrastrian.

I don't want to accept or worship the Maker at all.

The Cousland Warden could express that he didn't believe in the Maker. The Surana Warden could express that he didn't worship the Maker, he can condemn the Chantry for marching on the Dales because the elves didn't worship the Maker, he can tell Leliana that Andraste wasn't divine, and he can address that he sees belief in the Maker as a "foolish superstition." My Surana Warden was an atheist.

Hawke, on the other hand, is a mostly pre-designed character who is religiously Andrastian, even saying that Leandra is with the Maker after her death, and telling Feynriel (who believes in the Creators) that he hopes the Maker guides him. Certain personality traits were simply outside my control, such as his inability to criticize the Chantry. Hawke can question Elthina doing nothing about the erupting Qunari and Petrice, or the situation between mages and templars in Act III, but it's limited to that.

[brushyourteeth]

Keriana wrote...

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.

If it turned out to be like Cerberus, it wouldn't be my top choice of scenarios because I think it could be ooc for some pcs and backgrounds to work for them at the start. However, it would not be my worst-case scenario.

What I think would be worse is if it was somewhat like DA2 but to a greater degree, where the pc could support the mages in some dialog and quests but then a number of plot points (in DA2 boss fight, mage character reactions, etc.) don't make much sense. Basically, I am not sure if the game will include enough branching, choices, and reactivity for a game in which factions play a major role. I hope it will, but the unconfirmed leak that says that the pc will be a member of the Inquisition (which at least in the past in DA was hunting mages) + how DA2 handled factions, makes me unsure.

I totally agree with you on the underlined.

As far as the Inquisition hunting mages, though, Word of God says it wasn't really like that -- the Inquisition started at a time when mages were free, and the common folk were being mistreated by mages (specificially blood mages) who either had impure motives or poor control over their magic. The Inquisition, at its roots, started as a way to find those responsible and remove them.

source

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

iakus wrote...
Even the ancient Tevinters believed in the Maker, even if they didn't worship him. 

The Chantry claims they did; I have my doubts. But if I saw the Maker as an ultimate force of evil to be opposed at all costs, that'd be an acceptable second prize.

Corypheus confirmed it.  They intended to storme the Golden City to claim the Maker's power at Dumat's bidding. Probably with the intention of freeing the Old Gods

Modifié par iakus, 21 octobre 2012 - 04:41 .

[Xilizhra]

So, very well. Different religions. How best to implement those?

[brushyourteeth]

Xilizhra wrote...

So, very well. Different religions. How best to implement those?

I'd honestly try out every religion just to learn more about them. I feel like we know so little about the Creators, and the Old Gods (besides "evil, boo! Hiss!") though I honestly don't even know if anyone worships them anymore (besides the darkspawn?).

The Avvars and the Chasind have religions we know almost nothing about, but the Avvars are still kind of around because one of the Wardens that first served with Duncan was one of them.

One of the things I liked best about the dialogue on DA:O was how we the player learned a lot of lore from our own character. Instead of asking person A. about religion, we'd read that one of the dialogue options said something like "Of course I'd never do that. The Maker forbids it." And if we didn't want our character to say that, we'd choose something else -- but the learning experience had already happened.

Tougher with the paraphrase system, but I still think that's the coolest way to RP a religion.

[LobselVith8]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The Chantry claims they did; I have my doubts. But if I saw the Maker as an ultimate force of evil to be opposed at all costs, that'd be an acceptable second prize.

Corypheus confirmed it.  They intended to storme the Golden City to claim the Maker's power at Dumat's bidding. Probably with the intention of freeing the Old Gods

Corypheus mentions Dumat and seeking the Light, but that the City was already Black; he doesn't mention the Maker.

[Xilizhra]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So, very well. Different religions. How best to implement those?

I'd honestly try out every religion just to learn more about them. I feel like we know so little about the Creators, and the Old Gods (besides "evil, boo! Hiss!") though I honestly don't even know if anyone worships them anymore (besides the darkspawn?).

The Avvars and the Chasind have religions we know almost nothing about, but the Avvars are still kind of around because one of the Wardens that first served with Duncan was one of them.

One of the things I liked best about the dialogue on DA:O was how we the player learned a lot of lore from our own character. Instead of asking person A. about religion, we'd read that one of the dialogue options said something like "Of course I'd never do that. The Maker forbids it." And if we didn't want our character to say that, we'd choose something else -- but the learning experience had already happened.

Tougher with the paraphrase system, but I still think that's the coolest way to RP a religion.

I... will agree, if it can be done in the current system. And if it allows it, somehow.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Xilizhra wrote...

So, very well. Different religions. How best to implement those?

Not that difficult. Just put in the appropriate dialogue option and don't have the character mention religion unless the player specifically chooses to mention religion.

[Direwolf0294]

I think you'll be able to disagree with some of their methods and attitudes and that will be it. For example, you'll be ordered to kill a mage, you'll have the option to say "no, let's just lock them up or something", the Chantry NPC will rage at you a bit and then everything will go on like normal, with you tracking down evil mages and the like. It won't be to the very end of the game that I can see them giving you an option to abandon the Chantry and join with the mages.