357 réponses à ce sujet

[Rune-Chan]

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.

One thing I know a lot of us would very much appreciate is the ability to outright disagree with people on certain matters. In a lot of previous Bioware games (ME2 with Cerberus is probably the best example) there hasn't really been an unambigous option to say "I do not like what you believe in and will not support you".

Although in relation to what you said in the first line of the last paragraph. Please can you try to avoid auto-dialogue that gives characters opinions or emotions? I found it incredibly frustrating in DA2 and ME3 to have my character say things that completely went against the idea I had for my character. Dialogue ideally would be completely up to us wherever humanly possible.

I understand that this can be a lot trickier with a voiced protagonist, but it is really quite important when you give players the choice to make their own character as opposed to making them play as one with a personality already set, like Adam Jensen in Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

Modifié par Machines Are Us, 22 octobre 2012 - 08:02 .

[TEWR]

David Gaider 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.

My heart, it fills with joy!

Though a quick question: Why can we not express options that could be taken to be atheistic in nature, at the cost of possibly alienating ourselves from society and being reviled by people?

I mean, I do know. More options = more resources = less other stuff. But really, wouldn't that be an interesting avenue to explore?

Otherwise though, I am extremely happy at what you've said.

[billy the squid]

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

Did all members of the inquisition devoutly believe in God and the church or did they use it to further their own political machinations and status, or to maintain their power within the status quo? No difference here. 

Food for thought.

[Karlone123]

Emzamination wrote...

I'm glad I won't be forced to play a heretic. Maker be praised :innocent:

Ironic

[Eternal Phoenix]

What's an antheist?

[Eternal Phoenix]

Intriguing.

[upsettingshorts]

IIDovahChiiefII wrote...

personalty i find antheisim like the cool nerd's table.and while a nerd/geek myself i rather sit with a bunch of "believers" that stick to there conclusions.rather then flip flop and hit switchs to fit in cool nerds.

what im saying is antheisim is the new Hipster trend, and people are too dumb to realize it

[esper]

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.

Hearing this from the head writer calms me down considerably. Thank you. As long as I am not being forced to serve the Divine or the Chantry, I am happy.

Modifié par esper, 22 octobre 2012 - 08:42 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

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.

Yeah, the problem is our options essentially come down to "She's in a better place" or "get out of here, Merrill." There isn't a "Thank you for coming" option for Hawkes who are glad to see Merrill but don't acknowledge an afterlife.

Mikael_Sebastia wrote...

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?
 

No, just someone who doesn't belive in any particular gods, or at least doesn't belive they have any influence over the lives of mortals. And no, that's not ludicrous. Atheism isn't something that was invented in the 18th century. It's something that always existed in greater or lesser measure.

So I'd appreciate it if "cultural religiousness" was kept in its own selectable box, and not made part of the main conversation options.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
They could have walked away. They chose to try to kill me when I had no quarrel with them. I was stronger.

Couldn't your elf have walked away? Why are they under a greater obligation than him(she-elf couldn't have walked away, no)?

I'm responding to aggression to protect the helpless. I move only in defense, either of myself or of them.

[LobselVith8]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

I don't particularly like it. I don't mind you not liking it. But I'm having trouble understanding why you do not see the two beliefs (1. The Grey Wardens are a questionable organization that I do not want to associate myself with, 2. The Cnatry is a questionable organization that I do not want to assosiate myself with) as equivalent.

I'm not prohibiting anyone from disliking the Grey Wardens, but I'm simply providing my opinion on the hypothetical prospect of working for the Chantry. I think it's an abhorrent organization, and I have no interest in ever playing as a member of their organization. That's simply how I feel about the Chantry.

This is why I dislike the idea of Hawke being a religious Andrastian, because I think the Chantry is a horrible religious organization. There is no choice for me to have the protagonist voice that he doesn't believe in the Maker, like The Warden had in Origin and Awakening. Instead, I get Hawke telling Feynriel that he hopes the Maker guides him, and telling Merrill that Leandra is with the Maker.

[Emzamination]

Karlone123 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

I'm glad I won't be forced to play a heretic. Maker be praised :innocent:

Ironic

I don't get it... what's the irony?

[Zoe]

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 responding to this thread! For me my main concern was that an Inquisitor sounds like it should go with the Chantry (it is still a bit confusing to me, tbh). I like to play a mage. As I view it, the Chantry was responsible for imprisoning the mages for life, so I wouldn't want my mage supporting it.

It is also good to be able to pick the personality and feelings of your character, including religion or lack of religion if it is applicable to a situation.

[Doctoglethorpe]

I'm still convinced the Maker is actually the dread wolf.  He defeated the old gods (turned them into the arch demons) and took over the spirit world.  Now he's coming for the mortal world by creating a massive rift brought on by mages naturally rebellion against the oppresion brought upon them by his false religion.  Its all part of the plan. 

I could be completely ****in wrong, but I've held this idea since before DA2 was even announced and it seems to have only been made stronger since then.   

Anyways if I'm the Inquisitor I'd approach it more like trying to fight demons, not mages, and bring peace before the fade overtakes the mortal world.  Using the chantrys army not to instigate their rule, but as a tool to fight a greater evil.  Basically, I would use the dread wolfs on weapons against him. 

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 23 octobre 2012 - 03:47 .

[Sharn01]

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.

I am going to have to disagree a little bit, there where several lines where Hawke displayed an Andrastian belief even if the player did not want her to.

If I am talking to a, lets say Buddhist, and I say "Oh God" as a responce to something they say, that is in no way a reflection of religious belief, on this we agree. 

If I told the same buddhist, "Go with God", that would be a reflection of my religious belief in god, though the same line would be less of a reflection of my belief if I said it to someone I know has a strong belief in god, as that could just be me reassuring them and giving them support.  

A couple examples

Hawke telling Merril, who does not believe in the maker about her hope that the dead go with the maker is very much an admission of religious belief, and the only other conversation options available where to tell Merril to get lost or insult her.  The same conversation with Aveline or the Sebastion would have made more sense, not something I would pick to say if given the option but something I could live with.

The non stop maker references for the diplomatic Hawke in the auto dialogue, which I thankfully never heard, are said by many to be too much.

[Kerilus]

Because the nature of chantry is more political than religious.

[Iron_JG]

As another poster observed early in this thread, modern Thedas, unlike other fantasy settings, is very conducive to atheism because of absent gods. While this takes away "cosmic politicking" story lines that are fun in other settings (D&D's Faerun being a good example), it offers richer ground for story lines involving crises of faith and doubt.

Gaider's reassuring remarks notwithstanding, I think even fans who want to play atheists in-game could enjoy being stuck as a servant of the Chantry -- for the beginning of the game, anyway.

In any rpg, especially crpgs, you can't fully decide where your character starts. A great part of the experience comes from forcing your way down difficult, contrarian paths. To whit, who is better suited to question the Chantry itself than an Inquisitor?

A great part of Inquisition, potentially, is seeing the Andrastrian world order cracked apart, with its abuses and contradictions exposed. Serving the Chantry could put you up close and personal with decisions, sacrifices and cruelties the Warden and Hawke couldn't witness or fully understand. A key dimension of the mage-templar split is a crisis of faith and doctrine. Being an Inquisitor, and forced deeper into the Chantry, would give insight better informing actions that seek to destroy, reform or merely reassemble the Chantry.

For people who say they don't want to work for the Chantry because they hate it, I ask: isn't that an even better reason to work for it? You can fully condemn it and get close enough to backstab it for the sake of Old Gods or the Creators or whatever you want in its place. An atheist working for the Chantry makes for great tension and challenging questions.

Building on that, I'd ask Gaider, and Bioware, to make faith or doubt a dynamic part of our character. Starting the game as an Andrastrian is only bad if you have to end the game that way.

[Xilizhra]

Building on that, I'd ask Gaider, and Bioware, to make faith or doubt a dynamic part of our character. Starting the game as an Andrastrian is only bad if you have to end the game that way.

I... don't know. It'd be survivable, but I'd far rather not need to worry about forced belief at all for the game as a whole. The rest of your post is basically agreeable, but not this bit.

[Dave of Canada]

Iron_JG wrote...

Gaider's reassuring remarks notwithstanding, I think even fans who want to play atheists in-game could enjoy being stuck as a servant of the Chantry -- for the beginning of the game, anyway.

Most of them play self-inserts, they'd hate the idea of having to support religion no matter how brief it is.

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Iron_JG wrote...

Gaider's reassuring remarks notwithstanding, I think even fans who want to play atheists in-game could enjoy being stuck as a servant of the Chantry -- for the beginning of the game, anyway.

Most of them play self-inserts, they'd hate the idea of having to support religion no matter how brief it is.

It's suitable for some characters, unsuitable for others. Options are good.

[Iron_JG]

Xilizhra,

I understand your trepidation -- my idea is something that would be challenging to do well, given we already have a good sense of the Chantry's failings. For this to engage rather than alienate people will hinge on well executed storytelling. It could certainly all go horribly wrong.

For Dave, I think squaring the circle of self-inserts could be a great job for backgrounds; the PC is doing it for a paycheck, or out of extortion, or because there's some hot priest they wanna rock. I get some people won't find that adequate. Again, good storytelling is the trick.

As I learn about more about what isn't in DA3 (in this case, I assume, the ability to choose elven or dwarven religions, or to create great distance from Andrastrianism), I reserve judgment until I hear what is in the game. I don't feel DA2 was a bad game, but it could have been much more. I think Bioware gets that, so I find unfair when disgruntled forumites /ragequit prematurely (not referring to you guys, obviously).

[Xilizhra]

Iron_JG wrote...

Xilizhra,

I understand your trepidation -- my idea is something that would be challenging to do well, given we already have a good sense of the Chantry's failings. For this to engage rather than alienate people will hinge on well executed storytelling. It could certainly all go horribly wrong.

For Dave, I think squaring the circle of self-inserts could be a great job for backgrounds; the PC is doing it for a paycheck, or out of extortion, or because there's some hot priest they wanna rock. I get some people won't find that adequate. Again, good storytelling is the trick.

As I learn about more about what isn't in DA3 (in this case, I assume, the ability to choose elven or dwarven religions, or to create great distance from Andrastrianism), I reserve judgment until I hear what is in the game. I don't feel DA2 was a bad game, but it could have been much more. I think Bioware gets that, so I find unfair when disgruntled forumites /ragequit prematurely (not referring to you guys, obviously).

It seems like a lot to entrust to good storytelling alone, especially with the current restrictions and how they probably won't make a story primarily about faith itself (though I wouldn't actually oppose that).