Stella-Arc wrote...
DAO Dalish = neutral
DAII Dalish = A******s (granted, it's one clan but it's the clan my warden came from). It was as if they are all suffering from bipolar disorder. The entire dalish presence could have been taken out and the story wouldn't have changed, even Merrill's existence.
DAO Dalish weren't neutral at all. Listen to Zathrian, Zathrian's clan storyteller or even Tamlen. See how Cousland is welcomed when they reach Zathrian's clan. They're very clearly as anti-shemlen as the ones in DA2.
As for "story wouldn't have changed", same argument can be made for DAO (except for being the Warden's origin). It's not as though the Dalish or Werewolf army made that much of a difference in the final battle. In both game, it's 1. a side story and a quest topic, 2. something that contributes to the general setting and lore.
DAO City Elves: Neutral
DAII City Elves: They had no purpose whatsoever and a good portion of them attack you during the qunari takeover. That pissed me off. It's like they were just there just for the sake of being there.
DAO CE aren't neutral either, unless you consider rioting a neutral action (not mentioning the attitude towards Duncan in the CE origin).
As for their presence (again in both games), see Dalish. The "Qunari" elves are there to make a couple of points: desperate people take desperate measures (which is a running theme in DA2, btw), and the Qunari's threat doesn't only reside in their attacking, but also "subverting" the population. It makes them much more dangerous; no-one wants to deal with a Fifth Column.
DAO Mages: Neutral
DAII Mages: BLOOD MAGIC HERP DERP! x100
Uldred and co beg to differ. Taking over the circle and letting themselves be possessed by demons through blood magic isn't neutral. Especially when you listen to one particular blood mage during the Circle quest, who clearly explains she's done that for freedom and to get rid of the Templars' grip. The Mages' Collective is also an example of DAO mages non-neutrality, esp. the "Blood of Warning" quest.
Agreed on DA2 mages, though. There was the herbalist, but there still should have been more sane mages examples around (if only for contrast).
DAO Templars: Neutral
DAII Templars: F**K THE MAGES HERP DERP! x50
Again, listen carefully to what the various anonymous Templars say during and after the Circle quest. And then, there's DAO Cullen's "Kill them all, the Maker will recognize his own" stance. Ser Rylock and her cronies in Awakening, too. The major difference between DAO and DA2 is the personality and guidance of the Knight-Commander: Graegoir and Meredith are two very different persons. Still, Graegoir needs solid convincing not to go for the Annulment.
Most DA2's Templars aren't that "f*ck the Mages" either. Cullen is very reasonable. Thrask sides with mages. The background crowd mostly follow the motion but aren't foaming at the mouth.
Pretending DAO factions were neutral sounds to me that either we didn't play the same game, or you missed half of what people said and did. Same with DA2 with the opposite. The main difference between the two games is that the focus was on the Mage / Templars conflict in DA2, and so the attitudes and positions were exacerbated (Granted, sometimes too much).
All this said, I'm very much in favor of a (more or less) neutral stance and third options, even if the Mages / Templars conflict is only a background thing. I'll probably have PCs who will side with either faction, depending on background and personality, but my "canon" ones are generally very pragmatic, so a neutral, "reasoned" possibility would be nice. Something tells me that things won't be as clear-cut as in DA2, though.
Retour en haut
