357 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerdage]

David Gaider wrote...

Okay, so. Without going into specifics on the plot of DA3, because I can't do that, I will say the following:

You aren't going to be forced to serve the Chantry or even think it's a good thing. You aren't forced to express belief in the Maker. I said previously we would try to allow options to actively express doubt, if that's your thing, so long as it works in context. You of course will also have the option to do the opposite.

Ultimately, the ability to determine the personality and/or feelings on your own character is one of the fundamental strengths of an RPG, and one that DA is sticking with. Yes, it must also work within the context of the setting and the plot-- you can't do anything-- but that's always been the case with any game, and in the case of DA3 it is not required that you be forced into a certain set of beliefs in order to make it work.

As a matter of interest, would you consider having lines like "she's with the maker" behind paraphrases that don't explicitly state andrastian intent to be forcing belief? Since it kind of suggests that the belief is an inherent part of the character given that it's not part of the choice you're presented.

I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm just looking for some more context. Basically, do you mean the andrastian lines will be marked as such so we can choose to avoid / take them more reliably for a given character?

[Wulfram]

EntropicAngel wrote...

We don't even know WHAT our PC will be doing. You can't make the assumption that they'd "need" to be working for the Chantry.

And, even if, working for =/=serving.

As I said, I'm waiting for more info and confirmation before getting to actual complaining, but:

If we're "The Inquisitor", then there's a limit to the number of people who could credibly use that name, given the established history of the term in the setting.  They certainly need to be Andrastean and not pro-mage

If the PC is to be exercising the sort of authority and commanding the sort of resources that seems to have been implied, that needs to come from some where.  Since it was at one point implied that the scope of the game would be international, the most obvious source for that authority would be the Chantry.  Maybe we could be working for the Orlesian government, but I don't think that would be any less problematic than the Chantry really.

The sort of power and discretion that PCs traditionally exercise in Bioware games does not make sense as something to hand out to someone who doesn't have clearly established loyalties to a powerful backer.

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

And the Grey Wardens are not an organization with values and morals you can strongly disagree with?

I'm addressing my opinion, not the universal opinion of every single person who has ever heard of Dragon Age. I can't speak for them, I can only speak for myself.

The Grey Wardens aren't an organization I have issue with. I don't personally disagree with the Grey Wardens, although I'm aware other people do have issue with the organization. Not everyone has the same view and perception of the people, groups, and societies of Thedas; everyone has their own viewpoint (which is obvious for anyone who has engaged in a discussion about the dichotomy between the mages and the templars). All of us have differing opinions about certain aspects of Dragon Age. All I'm doing is expressing that I have no inclination to work for the Chantry of Andraste in any way, shape, or form.

MisterJB wrote...

Sure, I don't think anyone would disagree with stopping the Blight but, similarly, would you disagree with the goal of protecting the world from mages who would abuse their powers?

My Warden stopped mages who crossed the line and were hurting innocent people - like the Tevinter mages in the Denerim Alienage. He also dealt with people without magical ability who hurt innocent people, like the bandits outside of Lothering. Protecting people from mages who cross the line doesn't mean my Surana Warden condoned the Chantry controlled Circles; he disagreed with what the Chantry was doing to his people. At the conclusion of the Fifth Blight, my Surana Warden asked for the Magi Boon.

My view on the Chantry's conduct towards mages is one of the reasons I have no interest in working for them in any Dragon Age game. You're welcome to have your opinion on the matter, and I'm certain you have an entirely different view on the Chantry controlled Circles. However, that isn't going to change my opinion on the matter, any more than my opinion will change yours.

MisterJB wrote...

Probrably not. So, the problem you have is with their method, yes? But the Grey Wardens also defend a "By any means necessary" approach. They will kill an soon to be father if he learns too much about the Joining, throw a man into a river of lava because they suspect he is tainted, keep an instrument that runs on the souls of the deceased.

I have a number of issues with the Chantry of Andraste, from what happened to the elves to their treatment of the mages in the Circles of Magi. I don't have issue with the Grey Wardens, or their goal in protecting the world from the darkspawn.

MisterJB wrote...

You can say that your Warden would never have done those things. I'm sure your Inquisitor won't be forced to take mage children from their families.

My Warden didn't have a choice about Jory, but he spared the Anvil of the Void because the golems afforded the dwarves a hundred years of peace from the darkspawn, and beat back the first Archdemon (Dumat). He could be pragmatic when it came to dealing with the threat that the darkspawn pose; he didn't kill Steafan, although he did kill the Messenger and the Architect.

Tried to play Hawke differently than my Surana Warden, but it's difficult when the paraphrasing and the auto-lines leave me with little control (and much ensuing confusion) over the character.

MisterJB wrote...

Wait, how do we decide who has to die? There were four kidnapped elven women.
You hear two or three guards approving of Vaughan's actions and wishing to participate. What if the rest were simple men who wanted to work to survive? What if they had families?

The elven protagonist was trying to rescue women from getting raped; if the guards were attempting to murder her for trying to rescue the women, I don't see what their families have to do with this. The women have families, too.

MisterJB wrote...

Why are the lives of those four female elves more important than the lives of these guards and their families? I'm not saying the elves should had let them to their fate or that they had many mre options but these questions must be asked. 

The elven protagonist was trying to rescue women who were going to be raped - including her friend Shianni, who was already raped by Vaughan. And this is getting off-topic.

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...
If we're "The Inquisitor", then there's a limit to the number of people who could credibly use that name, given the established history of the term in the setting.  They certainly need to be Andrastean and not pro-mage

If the PC is to be exercising the sort of authority and commanding the sort of resources that seems to have been implied, that needs to come from some where.  Since it was at one point implied that the scope of the game would be international, the most obvious source for that authority would be the Chantry.  Maybe we could be working for the Orlesian government, but I don't think that would be any less problematic than the Chantry really.

The sort of power and discretion that PCs traditionally exercise in Bioware games does not make sense as something to hand out to someone who doesn't have clearly established loyalties to a powerful backer.

You could have a mage dissenter group that is with the Chantry, and then have the rebelling makes sneak someone in to the Inquisition, who eventually rises to be its leader.

[Dragoonlordz]

What I know is I do not wish to serve the chantry, if I am forced to serve them then there needs to be a plot reason like blackmail or something held over my character of which hope is the option of killing the character or NPCs in game who held me to ransom. If 'served' in the past during the game then I need to be able to not only question but belittle and cut off ties to them during the game.

I have been pro-mage, pro-freedom in this franchise so far so hand cuffing my character to be some chantry supporter, maker believer, sheep of the devine would annoy me greatly if forced me to play the role of someone I would not like from the offset based on beliefs I have developed through the series so far. I am not sure at this stage just expressing "doubt" is good enough for me but I will wait and see if that really is the limitation of roleplaying allowed in DA3.

I want to be anti-chantry not just with words yet hands tied to serve for plot, but anti-chantry in actions too. One of the major flaws in DA2 was Hawke might have said the right things sometimes but he was a reactionist, his or her words had little to no impact and she or he was a just a NPC with big mouth who just went along with the flow most of the time despite saying he or she wanted to do otherwise.

Anyways I will wait and see just how this turns out because I have my "doubts" that the player will be given enough freedom to roleplay anti-chantry due to plot restrictions. This at the moment goes is neither pros or cons section on whether I buy the game because is not enough information at this stage unlike the human only protaganist which went in the cons section from the offset.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:21 .

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
All I'm doing is expressing that I have no inclination to work for the Chantry of Andraste in any way, shape, or form.

Which is fair. I am simply questioning whether this is a valid reason for not making the Inquisition an organization with ties to the Chantry when players also didn't have an option in joining the Grey Wardens, an organization that many can disagree with.

Protecting people from mages who cross the line doesn't mean my Surana Warden condoned the Chantry controlled Circles;

Exactly my point. The goal of the Chantry is to protect mundanes from mages and mages from mundanes. But just like the overral goal of the Grey Wardens, defeat the Blight, could be achieved without selling slaves to Tevinter; altough it is an option; so the goals of the Inquisition, if they are part of the Chantry, can be achieved without the Circles if the player wishes.

My view on the Chantry's conduct towards mages is one of the reasons I have no interest in working for them in any Dragon Age game. You're welcome to have your opinion on the matter, and I'm certain you have an entirely different view on the Chantry controlled Circles. However, that isn't going to change my opinion on the matter, any more than my opinion will change yours.

Of course.

I have a number of issues with the Chantry of Andraste, from what happened to the elves to their treatment of the mages in the Circles of Magi. I don't have issue with the Grey Wardens, or their goal in protecting the world from the darkspawn.

You would disagree that the main goal of the Chantry is to protect people?
I think you are confusing their methods, the Circles, for their goals, safety.

The elven protagonist was trying to rescue women from getting raped; if the guards were attempting to murder her for trying to rescue the women, I don't see what their families have to do with this. The women have families, too.

The elven protagonist was trying to rescue women who were going to be raped - including her friend Shianni, who was already raped by Vaughan. And this is getting off-topic.

Most guards didn't give us any reason to believe they approved of Vaughan's actions. They were probrably common men trying to make ends meet to provide for themselves and their families. Ultimately, they were as innocent as the elven women.
I posed the question if it is right to kill dozens of innocents to save four. A pragmatist would say no.

However, I don't condemn the elven protagonist for being willing to commit evil to protect the people he considers his own. Similarly, I am willing to commit acts I fid abhorrent to protect those I consider to be my people, mundanes.

[Palipride47]

In Exile wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
If we're "The Inquisitor", then there's a limit to the number of people who could credibly use that name, given the established history of the term in the setting.  They certainly need to be Andrastean and not pro-mage

If the PC is to be exercising the sort of authority and commanding the sort of resources that seems to have been implied, that needs to come from some where.  Since it was at one point implied that the scope of the game would be international, the most obvious source for that authority would be the Chantry.  Maybe we could be working for the Orlesian government, but I don't think that would be any less problematic than the Chantry really.

The sort of power and discretion that PCs traditionally exercise in Bioware games does not make sense as something to hand out to someone who doesn't have clearly established loyalties to a powerful backer.

You could have a mage dissenter group that is with the Chantry, and then have the rebelling makes sneak someone in to the Inquisition, who eventually rises to be its leader.

Get creative guys! 


One example of a background (just making this up as I go, not very good, but you get the point):

Circle Mage Inquisitor, Blood Mage Specialization:

You were in the Circle in Kirkwall, and survived the annullment of the Circle, barely. You were very young, too young to have your world crashing and burning around you. Maybe you agreed, but what Anders did wasn't the way to start it. Too terrified to enter another Circle and be struck down, you became an apostate. 

You weren't a very good apostate, because you were found by the templars 6 months later. Backed into a corner, you succumbed to blood magic, and proved the Chantry right (and you note the irony). But there are people who don't care for religion and politics, and found a practical use for mage powers, so you became a mercenary, ready to run when the templars found out. Someone will always pay handsomely for a mage, it just depends why they want one. 

Once the templars broke away, it became too risky to even go to the seedy underbellies for work, since you being a mage prize for the templars (a lump sum of bounty cash) was worth more than you working for them (they have to pay you or feed you or something).

But someone very unlikely made you an offer, they heard about your last assignment in Tevinter, and they needed someone, of limited notoriety, and forbidden power. The world is plummeting into the abyss, and now even the adamently blood magic-averse are willing to pay the heaviest price to stop it. 

Ta daa! 

Modifié par Palipride47, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:26 .

[DarkKnightHolmes]

If we serve the chantry, I'm going to be unhappy. I don't mind believing in the Maker since it's pretty much like believing in God or something but to serve the Chantry? Hell no, I'm pro-mage and no way as hell going to work for those people.

[LobselVith8]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

EntropicAngel,

If you are confused about something I said, you're welcome to inquire for clarification. Please don't presume to read things in my posts that I haven't said. Simply because I have an opinion on the Grey Wardens doesn't mean I expect my view to be imposed on everyone else. I'm simply giving my explanation for why I have no inclination to play as a member of a religious politico-military that I find morally reprehensible.

And I find it odd that you vilify an elf for killing rapists.

The problem with what you said is that you want to disagree with a religious organization, but refuse to accept that religious organization as equivalent to another organization, that, just like that religious organization, employs very questionable, and some might say wrong tactics to acheive their goals.

I can assure you, I already disagree with the Chantry of Andraste.

The Grey Wardens =/= the Chantry of Andraste. People are welcome to have their own opinions about the two organizations. I don't see why having a positive opinion on the Grey Wardens means I'm not permitted to have a negative one about the Chantry of Andraste. I agree with the Wardens focus on stopping the darkspawn and ending the Blight. I disagree with a specific religious organization over the heinous conduct, values, and morals it promotes, especially against "heathens" who don't share their views, and what the organization preaches to the Andrastian people about mages and magic.

EntropicAngel wrote...

That elf didn't just kill rapists. That elf killed two dozen soldiers who were trying to get by by joining the military, doing their duty protecting the nobility, and subsequently got slaughtered by someone on a penchant for revenge.

Don't worry, I did it. But they were (somewhat) innocent. 

Two dozen soldiers who instinctively tried to murder her when she (and a plethora of other innocent women) were brought into the manor in broad daylight to be gang raped by Vaughan and his reprehensible associates. I don't feel sorry for the demise of people who protected rapists.

[Palipride47]

EntropicAngel wrote...

That elf didn't just kill rapists. That elf killed two dozen soldiers who were trying to get by by joining the military, doing their duty protecting the nobility, and subsequently got slaughtered by someone on a penchant for revenge.

Don't worry, I did it. But they were (somewhat) innocent. 

LobselVith8 wrote:
Two dozen soldiers who instinctively tried to murder her when she (and a plethora of other innocent women) were brought into the manor in broad daylight to be gang raped by Vaughan and his reprehensible associates. I don't feel sorry for the demise of people who protected rapists.

He might have not played lady City Elf. I keep forgetting you get two perspectives based on gender. 

EDIT: format

Modifié par Palipride47, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:02 .

[David Gaider]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Read up (or on the previous page), dragon. Gaider said we would not have to.

What I said should also come with a caveat, of course: some people (like Lobselvith) make a habit out of seeing connections that aren't made explicit. A perceived tone in the way Leliana said something in DA2 meant she was "rabidly anti-mage", or their character merely using the word "Maker" in the same way one of us might say "Oh God!" meant they were being forced to become religious zealots.

As much as we intend to provide choice and give the player freedom to determine their personality/beliefs, I have no doubt that such people will continue to see such connections and rage about them-- and we're not going to go to the heroic lengths it would require to make sure those connections can't be perceived as such. So expect this to happen, regardless of what we say or write.

[Maclimes]

Palipride47 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Okay, so. Without going into specifics on the plot of DA3, because I can't do that, I will say the following:

You aren't going to be forced to serve the Chantry or even think it's a good thing. You aren't forced to express belief in the Maker. I said previously we would try to allow options to actively express doubt, if that's your thing, so long as it works in context. You of course will also have the option to do the opposite.

Ultimately, the ability to determine the personality and/or feelings on your own character is one of the fundamental strengths of an RPG, and one that DA is sticking with. Yes, it must also work within the context of the setting and the plot-- you can't do anything-- but that's always been the case with any game, and in the case of DA3 it is not required that you be forced into a certain set of beliefs in order to make it work.

Can we, like, post this everywhere, and sticky it so that people who want to play "non Chantry lover" won't freak out and think they are being forced to be religious (which you never were, but yeah....jumping to conclusions is what we do best on the BSN, I'm pretty good at it myself )

You can try to convince them to sticky this thread: http://social.biowar.../index/14334357

Maybe if that's right up top, people will be able to see it and not complain about speculation that has already been proven true or false?

Modifié par Maclimes, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:01 .

[Palipride47]

Maclimes wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Okay, so. Without going into specifics on the plot of DA3, because I can't do that, I will say the following:

You aren't going to be forced to serve the Chantry or even think it's a good thing. You aren't forced to express belief in the Maker. I said previously we would try to allow options to actively express doubt, if that's your thing, so long as it works in context. You of course will also have the option to do the opposite.

Ultimately, the ability to determine the personality and/or feelings on your own character is one of the fundamental strengths of an RPG, and one that DA is sticking with. Yes, it must also work within the context of the setting and the plot-- you can't do anything-- but that's always been the case with any game, and in the case of DA3 it is not required that you be forced into a certain set of beliefs in order to make it work.

Can we, like, post this everywhere, and sticky it so that people who want to play "non Chantry lover" won't freak out and think they are being forced to be religious (which you never were, but yeah....jumping to conclusions is what we do best on the BSN, I'm pretty good at it myself )

You can try to convince them to sticky this thread: http://social.biowar.../index/14334357

Maybe if that's right up top, people will be able to see it and not complain about speculation that has already been proven true or false?

No, they wil complain, but it will be nice to have link that is easy to access and say SEE!!!

[Melca36]

Dasher1010 wrote...

Like if you're the inquisitor it's pretty obvious that your job is to bring the Circle adn Templars back under Chantry control. I think that kind of means that the PC worships Andraste

Not everybody wants to play a pro Templar zealot you know.

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Read up (or on the previous page), dragon. Gaider said we would not have to.

What I said should also come with a caveat, of course: some people (like Lobselvith) make a habit out of seeing connections that aren't made explicit. A perceived tone in the way Leliana said something in DA2 meant she was "rabidly anti-mage", or their character merely using the word "Maker" in the same way one of us might say "Oh God!" meant they were being forced to become religious zealots.

A myriad of other people had the same complaint about Leliana in Faith.

And I respectfully disagree that when Hawke says that Leandra is with the Maker, or told Feynriel that he hopes the Maker guides him, it's no different than if someone said "Oh God!"

[Palipride47]

David Gaider wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
Read up (or on the previous page), dragon. Gaider said we would not have to.

What I said should also come with a caveat, of course: some people (like Lobselvith) make a habit out of seeing connections that aren't made explicit. A perceived tone in the way Leliana said something in DA2 meant she was "rabidly anti-mage", or their character merely using the word "Maker" in the same way one of us might say "Oh God!" meant they were being forced to become religious zealots.

As much as we intend to provide choice and give the player freedom to determine their personality/beliefs, I have no doubt that such people will continue to see such connections and rage about them-- and we're not going to go to the heroic lengths it would require to make sure those connections can't be perceived as such. So expect this to happen, regardless of what we say or write.

Why are you still here, do you have a masochist streak? 

In all seriousness, thanks for clarifying. Again, and again, and again. 

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...



A myriad of other people had the same complaint about Leliana in Faith.

And I respectfully disagree that when Hawke says that Leandra is with the Maker, or told Feynriel that he hopes the Maker guides him, it's no different than if someone said "Oh God!"

I don't remember what Leliana said against mages in Faith. What did she say?

[Dragoonlordz]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

What I know is I do not wish to serve the chantry, if I am forced to serve them then there needs to be a plot reason like blackmail or something held over my character of which hope is the option of killing the character or NPCs in game who held me to ransom. If 'served' in the past during the game then I need to be able to not only question but belittle and cut off ties to them during the game.

I have been pro-mage, pro-freedom in this franchise so far so hand cuffing my character to be some chantry supporter, maker believer, sheep of the devine would annoy me greatly if forced me to play the role of someone I would not like from the offset based on beliefs I have developed through the series so far. I am not sure at this stage just expressing "doubt" is good enough for me but I will wait and see if that really is the limitation of roleplaying allowed in DA3.

I want to be anti-chantry not just with words yet hands tied to serve for plot, but anti-chantry in actions too. One of the major flaws in DA2 was Hawke might have said the right things sometimes but he was a reactionist, his or her words had little to no impact and she or he was a just a NPC with big mouth who just went along with the flow most of the time despite saying he or she wanted to do otherwise.

Anyways I will wait and see just how this turns out because I have my "doubts" that the player will be given enough freedom to roleplay anti-chantry due to plot restrictions. This at the moment goes is neither pros or cons section on whether I buy the game because is not enough information at this stage unlike the human only protaganist which went in the cons section from the offset.

Read up (or on the previous page), dragon. Gaider said we would not have to.

Like I said, I have a wait and see approach. It is one thing to believe everything or be in denial about everything thats said, but I have not 'seen' what will actually come to pass, merely what they would like or want to do. Same reason why I did not whine and moan about ME3 because I managed my expectations by appying a certain logic to what might be created, I do not believe everything that is said but I also do not disregard it either. I simply define all pre-release comments as 'would like', 'would hope' or 'want to do' prior to release are not 'will do" status.

Not everything they want, like or hope to do becomes reality so I take all with pinch of salt and consider it just their intentions of which can change. So my expecations are kept in check by applying such frame of mind towards such comments prior to release and which is why I did not refer to anyones comments in this thread in my post because I stated my desire as a stand alone post despite anyones intentions that may be contradictory. It is what I hope to see or have happen regardless of any plans they currently hope to achieve and may or may not achieve. 
 

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:16 .

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

A myriad of other people had the same complaint about Leliana in Faith.

And I respectfully disagree that when Hawke says that Leandra is with the Maker, or told Feynriel that he hopes the Maker guides him, it's no different than if someone said "Oh God!" 

I don't remember what Leliana said against mages in Faith. What did she say? 

Some people felt Leliana, as Sister Nightingale, came across as "anti-mage" in Act III's "Faith." She talked about how mages who sought to be emancipated from the Chantry were "tolerated," and her tone in discussing magic made a few people interpret her as someone who was now anti-mage. A few people had brought this up in different threads, and I specifically asked David Gaider about it over a year ago given how unhappy some people were. Her dialogue simply came across that way for some people, including me.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:18 .

[CrazyRah]

David Gaider wrote...

Okay, so. Without going into specifics on the plot of DA3, because I can't do that, I will say the following:

You aren't going to be forced to serve the Chantry or even think it's a good thing. You aren't forced to express belief in the Maker. I said previously we would try to allow options to actively express doubt, if that's your thing, so long as it works in context. You of course will also have the option to do the opposite.

Ultimately, the ability to determine the personality and/or feelings on your own character is one of the fundamental strengths of an RPG, and one that DA is sticking with. Yes, it must also work within the context of the setting and the plot-- you can't do anything-- but that's always been the case with any game, and in the case of DA3 it is not required that you be forced into a certain set of beliefs in order to make it work.

Thanks for telling us this. It's great to hear

[Palipride47]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

That elf didn't just kill rapists. That elf killed two dozen soldiers who were trying to get by by joining the military, doing their duty protecting the nobility, and subsequently got slaughtered by someone on a penchant for revenge.

Don't worry, I did it. But they were (somewhat) innocent. 

LobselVith8 wrote:
Two dozen soldiers who instinctively tried to murder her when she (and a plethora of other innocent women) were brought into the manor in broad daylight to be gang raped by Vaughan and his reprehensible associates. I don't feel sorry for the demise of people who protected rapists.

He might have not played lady City Elf. I keep forgetting you get two perspectives based on gender. 

EDIT: format

I played male. I guess i'll have to see female eventually. Thanks.

Yeah, let's just say, after you play, you'll probably feel differently about a few of them.