357 réponses à ce sujet

[berelinde]

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.

Cool! Glad to see that spelled out.

Where do I send my money?

[Palipride47]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...
Yeah, let's just say, after you play, you'll probably feel differently about a few of them. 

Alright. I would still maintain however that SOME of those soldiers were innocents.

I said a few. Just a few. Maybe not all, but some. 

[robertthebard]

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.

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.

Not where I live, accessory to is the same as.  The guards that killed the girl, or the fiance of femWarden in this quest are no more innocent than the noble who ordered it, carried it out.  The only reason we don't see them getting the leftovers is because they are dead.  I, for one, based entirely on dialog when it's available, believe they would have had their "fun" after the fact.  I'm not going to buy "Just following orders" either, seems I've heard that somewhere before.

So many other points, where to begin:

Merrill's "She's with the Creators now" would not offend me.  As a non-Christian, living in the Bible Belt, I get a lot of "God bless you" from well meaning Christians, I just smile and nod.  They are not attacking me with their beliefs, although I have had to deal with my fair share of that.  Intent is everything, and they meant me no ill will.

Joining the GW's:  was forced.  You had no option, you join, or you quit playing.  Some of my Wardens were glad to be in, others, not so much.  The thing is, with the "not so much" Wardens, I could express that, including in some conversations with Wynne.  Yes, it led to disapproval from her, but, I wasn't in it to kiss ass.  I was forced to deal with everyone's problems, instead of telling them to sort their crap out, and send a messenger when they were ready to honor their treaty.  I was forced to get into the political crapstorm left by Loghain when he betrayed Cailin to his death.  Getting involved in politics is what led to the Wardens being banished from Ferelden, why would I want to wrap myself up in that, especially if I'm not running HN?

Atheism:  there are plenty of oppurtunities in Origins to play as at least agnostic, if not outright atheist.  The prayer after the defence of Redcliffe, for example.  It also comes up when talking to Revered Mothers throughout the land, when you actually have to talk to them, and in conversations with party members, Leliana mostly, as far as I remember.  However, I shouldn't have to be forced to acknowledge faith in a religion, if I feel that that particular Protag doesn't have it.  I don't recall my Hawke's being forced to acknowledge faith in the Maker, or to following the teachings of Andraste.  There were certainly options to do so, which is fine, the option should be there for characters that are Andrastian.  I sincerely hope this issue is covered in the backgrounds.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...




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.

I already said that I don't remember the dialogue, but from what you said about the toleration, it seems she was talking about the Chantry's opinion, not her own, and anyway the fact that she said that the mages who wants emancipation are "tolerated" seems more a pro-chantry stance than anti-mage stance to me, and neutral towards mages. An anti-mage stance, to me, it that mages that want emancipation aren't tolerated. Though I think is open to interpretation, depending on the people's opinion on the matter.

Modifié par hhh89, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:29 .

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

I already said that I don't remember the dialogue, but from what you said about the toleration, it seems she was talking about the Chantry's opinion, not her own, and anyway the fact that she said that the mages who wants emancipation are "tolerated" seems more a pro-chantry stance than anti-mage stance to me, and neutral towards mages. An anti-mage stance, to me, it that mages that want emancipation aren't tolerated. Though I think is open to interpretation, depending on the people's opinion on the matter. 

Not everyone had the same interpretation of Leliana; it's simply how Leliana came across to some of us who played through "Faith." I know Ethereal has stated that he feels Leliana's words were "poorly written" in "Faith."

[CS420]

Melca36 wrote...

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.

Dasher doesn't sound like a pro Templar zealot at all.  If he was pro Templar, he'd admit that the Chantry has been too soft on mages, and that the Templar were right to leave the Chantry, as they were stopping them from doing their jobs. Hopefully this game will give the option to subjugate every single mage.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...



Not everyone had the same interpretation of Leliana; it's simply how Leliana came across to some of us who played through "Faith." I know Ethereal has stated that he feels Leliana's words were "poorly written" in "Faith."

I said that it's open to interpretation in my post. I heard the dialogue now. She thinks that the mage revolution is a great threat to Thedas, but I don't know if it's for an anti-mage stance or fear of the danger the Thedas nations will be exposed with a war regarding mages. Keep in mind that I believe that this war will seriously weaken the Andrastian nations, and invasion from the Qunari after the end of the war is very likely. Yet I'm not anti-mage.
In my opinion, the dialogue offered differed interpretations, and it could've written in a different way.
Did Gaider respond to the thread? If he said that they didn't mean the dialogue as an anti-mage stance, I'll have no problems believing it, considering that both interpretations could be possible (though I'm more inclined to the "Leliana have concerns for the problems a mage revolution will cause to Thedas" than a strictly anti-mage stance).

Modifié par hhh89, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:47 .

[brushyourteeth]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

I said a few. Just a few. Maybe not all, but some. 

Which makes the elf a murderer, no? Which makes Duncan's push to recruit you very...sleazy.

But I don't think we'll get anywhere with this.

It's how Duncan was recruited... 

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Not everyone had the same interpretation of Leliana; it's simply how Leliana came across to some of us who played through "Faith." I know Ethereal has stated that he feels Leliana's words were "poorly written" in "Faith."

And that is in no way, form, or function, just a reflection of how you usually see anti-mage "tones" in every sentence, of any not blatantly pro-mage character in the game?

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:48 .

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

I said that it's open to interpretation in my post.

I realize that; I simply agreed with you.

hhh89 wrote...

I heard the dialogue now. She thinks that the mage revolution is a great threat to Thedas, but I don't know if it's for an anti-mage stance or fear of the danger the Thedas nations will be exposed with a war regarding mages. Keep in mind that I believe that this war will seriously weaken the Andrastian nations, and invasion from the Qunari after the end of the war is very likely. Yet I'm not anti-mage.

"Faith" is a bit odd in many ways. Leliana mentions the Resolutionists, a group Hawke has never heard about before (and never hears about again), but her explanation to the Champion leaves out the Knight-Commander turned de facto Viscount of Kirkwall as a possible source of the unrest in Kirkwall. It seemed like a clumsy quest, in my humble opinion.

hhh89 wrote...

In my opinion, the dialogue offered differed interpretations, and it could've written in a different way.
Did Gaider respond to the thread? If he said that they didn't mean the dialogue as an anti-mage stance, I'll have no problems believing it, considering that both interpretations could be possible (though I'm more inclined to the "Leliana have concerns for the problems a mage revolution will cause to Thedas" than a strictly anti-mage stance). 

People voiced their opinion that Leliana came across as anti-mage prior to me asking Gaider about it nearly a year ago, which is why I asked Gaider about it in the first place. There were people addressing how they felt she came across as anti-mage in different threads prior to Gaider addressing the issue, so I don't see why I'm being singled out for feeling her dialogue came across that way. I think my dissatisfaction with the rectons around the Magi Boon and the current direction of the Dragon Age franchise seems to get me noticed.

[Wulfram]

Leliana's dialogue certainly came across to me as if her attitude to mages had hardened, though I wasn't as prepared to toss out her previous characterisation in Origins on the basis of it as some people seemed to be.

[brushyourteeth]

Wulfram wrote...

Leliana's dialogue certainly came across to me as if her attitude to mages had hardened, though I wasn't as prepared to toss out her previous characterisation in Origins on the basis of it as some people seemed to be.

I didn't notice that at the time. However, I did notice that she seemed markedly pro-mage in the "Asunder" novel, which takes place after DAII.

[Iakus]

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.

Great now my curiosity of the protagonist is really piqued...

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Not everyone had the same interpretation of Leliana; it's simply how Leliana came across to some of us who played through "Faith." I know Ethereal has stated that he feels Leliana's words were "poorly written" in "Faith." 

And that is in no way, form, or function, just a reflection of how you usually see anti-mage "tones" in every sentence, of any not blatantly pro-mage character in the game?

You seem to have misinterpreted what I previously said, so I'm try to clarify my previous statement for you. Multiple people addressed the same interpretation of Leliana as "anti-mage" in "Faith." It culminated with me asking Gaider about it, roughly a year ago, because she came across that way to me as well.

Since we're getting off-topic with this discussion, I'll leave it at that. If you have any further inquiries you'd like me to clarify, you're welcome to PM me and I'll answer to the best of my abilities.

[saintjimmy43]

lol, Gaider:
"Look, stupid people are on our jock no matter what. You all should get different haircuts so we know who's bein f'real and who's just passing the time till Black Ops 2 comes out."

[Palipride47]

brushyourteeth wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

I said a few. Just a few. Maybe not all, but some. 

Which makes the elf a murderer, no? Which makes Duncan's push to recruit you very...sleazy.

But I don't think we'll get anywhere with this.

It's how Duncan was recruited... 

Haha, yeah, that true...(Read the Calling, for those who dont know). Learn by example. You can even do it in DAA (recruiting Anders, Velanna and Nathanial - otherwise they get executed, most likely) 

All of the recruitment options were "sleazy." They only happened after you got in serious trouble. 

[Palipride47]

Mikael_Sebastia wrote...

nerdage wrote...
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?

I am not David Gaider, but since this is an open forum, so why not.

Well that could be a forced sporadic creed or a socially accepted expression of sympathy for someone’s loss. The good news is that as a RPG player you can pretty much choose as how you want to interpret it into your own personal narrative of your PC.

In that sense religiousness is most likely going to be “inherited” to a PC, regardless of PC’s epistemology, which we can probably “choose” (or at least avoid expressing / choosing to follow some particular one). All that I’ve seen in Dragon Age points out that a religion is profoundly coded to the culture, institutions and languages of Thedas, and by that to characters as well. As it has been in most human societies through the history, even in the ones which didn’t have a strong centralized religion like the Christianity / Islam, such as Korea or China (in the history I don’t see it being challenged anywhere anytime until the Enlightenment in the West, so it’s kind of a rare occurrence).

This sort of “cultural religiousness” (in lack of a better term for now) doesn’t necessary dictate a person’s epistemology anyway. A demand for any other sort of atheism for PC is unbelievable and ludicrous in my opinion given what kind of world Thedas is, and where it mainly draws its influences.

My God, are people seriously demanding a choice to play some 21th militant organized atheist in Dragon Age game?

P.S. Damn, this was already covered by the time it took me to write this and smoke a cigar. This forum is way too fast for me, but when it’s written I’ll post it anyway, even if it’s late entry.

Said it with more clarity than I could, I'm bumping.

[brushyourteeth]

Palipride47 wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Which makes the elf a murderer, no? Which makes Duncan's push to recruit you very...sleazy.

But I don't think we'll get anywhere with this.

It's how Duncan was recruited... 

Haha, yeah, that true...(Read the Calling, for those who dont know). Learn by example. You can even do it in DAA (recruiting Anders, Velanna and Nathanial - otherwise they get executed, most likely) 

All of the recruitment options were "sleazy." They only happened after you got in serious trouble. 

I don't know -- some of the Origins allowed you the chance to show an interest in being a Grey Warden before disaster struck (dwarven noble, human noble... also mage and city elf, if I remember right). You just ended up having that final decision basically made for you.

I actually kinda enjoyed playing an angry Dalish who hated that she was a Warden. After a few goody-goody playthroughs it was a breath of fresh air. 

[LobselVith8]

Mikael_Sebastia wrote...

I am not David Gaider, but since this is an open forum, so why not.

Well that could be a forced sporadic creed or a socially accepted expression of sympathy for someone’s loss. The good news is that as a RPG player you can pretty much choose as how you want to interpret it into your own personal narrative of your PC.

In that sense religiousness is most likely going to be “inherited” to a PC, regardless of PC’s epistemology, which we can probably “choose” (or at least avoid expressing / choosing to follow some particular one). All that I’ve seen in Dragon Age points out that a religion is profoundly coded to the culture, institutions and languages of Thedas, and by that to characters as well. As it has been in most human societies through the history, even in the ones which didn’t have a strong centralized religion like the Christianity / Islam, such as Korea or China (in the history I don’t see it being challenged anywhere anytime until the Enlightenment in the West, so it’s kind of a rare occurrence).

This sort of “cultural religiousness” (in lack of a better term for now) doesn’t necessary dictate a person’s epistemology anyway. A demand for any other sort of atheism for PC is unbelievable and ludicrous in my opinion given what kind of world Thedas is, and where it mainly draws its influences.

Aside from pointing out that the Cousland protagonist and the Surana protagonist can dispute the existance of the Maker, why is it "unbelievable" and "ludicrious" when atheism has existed for centuries in the real world? I don't think it's unrealistic for people to doubt that the Maker exists, or for people to think there is no higher power. We have the codex entries from scholars in Dragon Age, where the scholars the explanations from dispute religious doctrine and provide alternative explanations.

Some people seem to think this should be impossible for a fantasy setting, but Morrigan provides a reasonable explanation to counter this type of thinking. When Leliana says, "But this can't all be an accident. Spirits, magic, all these wondrous things around us both dark and light. You know these things exist." Morrigan retorts, "The fact of their existence does not presuppose an intelligent design by some absentee father-figure." Why can't someone think the Chantry is wrong?

I'm certain an elven mage could come up with a plethora of reasons why the Chantry is wrong (since I chose those reasons when I was playing Origins with my Surana Warden). I can imagine an apostate could disagree with Chantry doctrine for a number of reasons.

Mikael_Sebastia wrote...

My God, are people seriously demanding a choice to play some 21th militant organized atheist in Dragon Age game?

What's "militant" about not wanting the protagonist to be a religious Andrastian?

Mikael_Sebastia wrote...

P.S. Damn, this was already covered by the time it took me to write this and smoke a cigar. This forum is way too fast for me, but when it’s written I’ll post it anyway, even if it’s late entry.

It comes down to the simple fact that I don't see why the agency should be removed from the player to determine who their protagonist is, or what their protagonist believes in, when the choices were avaliable for The Warden.

[Zobo]

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.

This fills my heart with joy. Thank you for the answer!

[LobselVith8]

 

EntropicAngel wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

And there's the "problem." Because they have similarities.

The reasons I addressed are specifically why I favor one organization, and dislike the other. I'm not certain why this is an issue for you. 

You're more than welcome to like the Chantry of Andraste. I don't have a problem with people having different opinions than me about the Chantry of Andraste or the Order of Templars, even when I debate people over the merits of the organization in respective threads where the Chantry is the topic of discussion. Everyone has a different opinion, including me. I simply don't like or condone the Chantry of Andraste.