1605 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

That's correct. In A Look Inside Dragon Age, Laidlaw said we would be standing in "opposition to the Chantry will", while Mark Darrah said, "In the chaos surrounding the beginning of the game, you're reforming the Inquisition, not as part of the Church, not a part of the Chantry, you actually stand apart from it, in fact, based on these events, actually in opposition to it."

 

The apparent neutrality of the Inquisition likely means that the player will determine whether or not Divine Justinia V and the Chantry of Andraste are allies, rather than having it dictated to the player. 

I wonder if Cass joins us of her own accord, considering people have said she might be having a crisis of faith.

[wcholcombe]

That's correct. In A Look Inside Dragon Age, Laidlaw said we would be standing in "opposition to the Chantry will", while Mark Darrah said, "In the chaos surrounding the beginning of the game, you're reforming the Inquisition, not as part of the Church, not a part of the Chantry, you actually stand apart from it, in fact, based on these events, actually in opposition to it."

 

The apparent neutrality of the Inquisition likely means that the player will determine whether or not Divine Justinia V and the Chantry of Andraste are allies, rather than having it dictated to the player. 

Standing in opposition to the chantry and opposition to chantry will are two entirely different things.  The first means that you are literally opposing them. The second could simply mean that you are running around doing your own thing without the Chantry signing off or supporting you.

 

I agree whole heartidly with your statement about the inquisition being neutral and the player picking your course, but in order for that neutrality to exist, you can't start off directly opposing or attacking the chantry.  In other words, the neutral part cuts both ways not pro chantry or anti chantry at the beginning.

[Hellion Rex]

Standing in opposition to the chantry and opposition to chantry will are two entirely different things.  The first means that you are literally opposing them. The second could simply mean that you are running around doing your own thing without the Chantry signing off or supporting you.

 

I agree whole heartidly with your statement about the inquisition being neutral and the player picking your course, but in order for that neutrality to exist, you can't start off directly opposing or attacking the chantry.  In other words, the neutral part cuts both ways not pro chantry or anti chantry at the beginning.

I'd say you can stand to gain some major support if the Chantry is on your side.

[wcholcombe]

I wonder if Cass joins us of her own accord, considering people have said she might be having a crisis of faith.

I don't think its a crisis of faith.  I think it will be worked out where she is charged with finding out who was behind the events in kirkwall-ie the same person behind the fade tears and some of the events in asunder and TME-and she feels the need to join the inquisition to fulfill this mission.  Whether it is because Justinia is dead or because she is acting on the divines clandestine orders who knows at this point.

[LeicsFox]

I think she dies of a 'stroke' and I think this will probably come to light in DAI causing some problems for the player.

[Mistic]

That's correct. In A Look Inside Dragon Age, Laidlaw said we would be standing in "opposition to the Chantry will", while Mark Darrah said, "In the chaos surrounding the beginning of the game, you're reforming the Inquisition, not as part of the Church, not a part of the Chantry, you actually stand apart from it, in fact, based on these events, actually in opposition to it."

 

The apparent neutrality of the Inquisition likely means that the player will determine whether or not Divine Justinia V and the Chantry of Andraste are allies, rather than having it dictated to the player. 

 

I wouldn't put too much faith in those statements. Or at least, in that interpretation of those statements. As far as we know, that "opposition to the Chantry" may be akin to "opposition to Ferelden" in DA:O. After all, after Ostagar our poor Wardens were the last of the order in the country, Loghain outlawed and persecuted them, and they had to take part in the civil war. Yet, in the end, the Wardens saved the kingdom, no matter their origin or disposition. The same could be applied to the Chantry.

[LeicsFox]

I don't think its a crisis of faith.  I think it will be worked out where she is charged with finding out who was behind the events in kirkwall-ie the same person behind the fade tears and some of the events in asunder and TME-and she feels the need to join the inquisition to fulfill this mission.  Whether it is because Justinia is dead or because she is acting on the divines clandestine orders who knows at this point.

 

Respectfully, i disagree, i think its possible Cass may have discovered something to do with the 'stroke' that killed the previous divine meaning she lost faith in the establishment around the church.

[Master Warder Z_]

I wonder if dev comments from a year ago are even accurate sometimes.

 

I mean i tend to view them with at least a tiny bit of supision, You know what with Dragon Age 2, Mass effect 3 and all.

 

Listening to them go on about choices, impact and what have you tends to just make me roll my eyes, the age of those statements also doesn't help, you figure if that was actually something important they would keep driving it on, like "rise to power" in DA 2. Every time a dev mentioned the storyline, it was all about Hawke and their rise to nobility and authority.

 

You get one mention of possibly standing against the Chantry and take it as lore, that's your business if you buy into, me personally? I don't think they will toss aside a useful plot device merely because of how some fans feel about it. I mean look at Cerberus, Despite their reception among the fans being relatively mixed, they were still used for canon fodder in 3.

[LobselVith8]

I wonder if Cass joins us of her own accord, considering people have said she might be having a crisis of faith.

 

That might help in keeping things neutral at the beginning. I don't doubt it may be possible to side with the Chantry at some point in the storyline, but I can see it as an optional avenue to pursue for the protagonist, rather than one that's dictated to the player.

[wcholcombe]

Respectfully, i disagree, i think its possible Cass may have discovered something to do with the 'stroke' that killed the previous divine meaning she lost faith in the establishment around the church.

I don't think so.  We know that Justinia sent seekers to Kirkwall to find out what was going on and who was behind it. Cass is just a continuation of that.  The fact that she is a companion doesn't create the need for her to have a crisis of faith any more then say needing Merril to have suddenly abandon Dalish beliefs because she is running around with Hawke.

 

Beatrix was old and senile and afraid of her own shadow in the end. I fully believe her stroke was legitimate.  Plus, who would kill her, she was putty in the hands of the grand clerics and easily manipulated. Thats what they don't like about Justinia, she thinks for herself and isn't tied down to Chantry tradition.

[LobselVith8]

Standing in opposition to the chantry and opposition to chantry will are two entirely different things.  The first means that you are literally opposing them. The second could simply mean that you are running around doing your own thing without the Chantry signing off or supporting you.

 

I agree whole heartidly with your statement about the inquisition being neutral and the player picking your course, but in order for that neutrality to exist, you can't start off directly opposing or attacking the chantry.  In other words, the neutral part cuts both ways not pro chantry or anti chantry at the beginning.

 

I wasn't trying to say that the Inquisition would be forced into attacking the Andrastian Chantry. I interpreted the multiple comments from the developers to mean that the fledgling Inquisition is neutral, and not working under the auspices of Divine Justinia V or the Chantry of Andraste, which seems to be supported by WoT rewriting the historical Inquisition as one that wasn't beholden to anyone.

[wcholcombe]

I wasn't trying to say that the Inquisition would be forced into attacking the Andrastian Chantry. I interpreted the multiple comments from the developers to mean that the fledgling Inquisition is neutral, and not working under the auspices of Divine Justinia V or the Chantry of Andraste, which seems to be supported by WoT rewriting the historical Inquisition as one that wasn't beholden to anyone.

Sorry, going off of Dragon's post you were replying to I thought you were arguing something else.

[LobselVith8]

I wouldn't put too much faith in those statements. Or at least, in that interpretation of those statements. As far as we know, that "opposition to the Chantry" may be akin to "opposition to Ferelden" in DA:O. After all, after Ostagar our poor Wardens were the last of the order in the country, Loghain outlawed and persecuted them, and they had to take part in the civil war. Yet, in the end, the Wardens saved the kingdom, no matter their origin or disposition. The same could be applied to the Chantry.

 

I think it's an emphasis that the Inquisition will be neutral, and that the player will be the one who determines the allies and the future of the Inquisition. I'm not saying that I think the Chantry will be default enemies, but rather that I think options to work with Divine Justinia V or the Andrastian Chantry will be optional, rather than mandatory. The recent news that the Highlands would be optional, and that the quest with the Red Templars wasn't mandatory, gives me the impression that the developers aren't looking to pigeonhole the player into a linear path.

 

Sorry, going off of Dragon's post you were replying to I thought you were arguing something else.

 

Don't worry about it. I'm hoping there are options to make everybody happy in Inquisition.

[wcholcombe]

 

I think it's an emphasis that the Inquisition will be neutral, and that the player will be the one who determines the allies and the future of the Inquisition. I'm not saying that I think the Chantry will be default enemies, but rather that I think options to work with Divine Justinia V or the Andrastian Chantry will be optional, rather than mandatory. The recent news that the Highlands would be optional, and that the quest with the Red Templars wasn't mandatory, gives me the impression that the developers aren't looking to pigeonhole the player into a linear path.

 

 

 

 

Must have missed the highlands and red templar info with work last week/weekend can ya throw me a link. 

[azarhal]

Must have missed the highlands and red templar info with work last week/weekend can ya throw me a link. 

 

LadyInsanity's write up about Sunday's panel is all we have until someone release a potential video. Scroll down to the Highlands section.

[LeicsFox]

I don't think so.  We know that Justinia sent seekers to Kirkwall to find out what was going on and who was behind it. Cass is just a continuation of that.  The fact that she is a companion doesn't create the need for her to have a crisis of faith any more then say needing Merril to have suddenly abandon Dalish beliefs because she is running around with Hawke.

 

Beatrix was old and senile and afraid of her own shadow in the end. I fully believe her stroke was legitimate.  Plus, who would kill her, she was putty in the hands of the grand clerics and easily manipulated. Thats what they don't like about Justinia, she thinks for herself and isn't tied down to Chantry tradition.

fair points

I will just point out Beatrix being putty in the hands of the Grand Clerics just makes her more of a target for other factions.Overall i just think its odd that someone so fanatically loyal to the Divine could answer to anyone else, sending out seekers is one thing, putting them under another's command is different imho

[Mistic]

I think it's an emphasis that the Inquisition will be neutral, and that the player will be the one who determines the allies and the future of the Inquisition. I'm not saying that I think the Chantry will be default enemies, but rather that I think options to work with Divine Justinia V or the Andrastian Chantry will be optional, rather than mandatory. The recent news that the Highlands would be optional, and that the quest with the Red Templars wasn't mandatory, gives me the impression that the developers aren't looking to pigeonhole the player into a linear path.

 

The Fereldan example still applies. Ferelden was mandatory, despite starting "in opposition" to the kingdom. The choice was between ways to solve the Fereldan Civil War and which ruler do you prefer. The same could happen in Inquisition. Maybe supporting Divine Justinia V is optional, but at the same time maybe supporting the Chantry in one way or another is not in the end.

 

I'm not saying that your scenario can't happen. In fact, the more freedom of choice we have, the better. But I'd seriously advise anyone aginst taking those statements at face value and against interpreting things in them that aren't literally there. Assumptions and hype can do a lot of harm. We know what happened with DA2 and ME3.

 

LadyInsanity's write up about Sunday's panel is all we have until someone release a potential video. Scroll down to the Highlands section.

 

Thank you!

[Sir JK]

 

I think it's an emphasis that the Inquisition will be neutral, and that the player will be the one who determines the allies and the future of the Inquisition. I'm not saying that I think the Chantry will be default enemies, but rather that I think options to work with Divine Justinia V or the Andrastian Chantry will be optional, rather than mandatory. The recent news that the Highlands would be optional, and that the quest with the Red Templars wasn't mandatory, gives me the impression that the developers aren't looking to pigeonhole the player into a linear path.

 

 

Don't worry about it. I'm hoping there are options to make everybody happy in Inquisition.

 

 

Quasi-optional anyways. I doubt you can easily dismiss allies as powerful as Justinia V or one of the Orlesian throne claimants. Possibly one or two of them. But probably not all of them.

 

But other than that I agree completely.
 

[Rinshikai10]

I don't think so.  We know that Justinia sent seekers to Kirkwall to find out what was going on and who was behind it. Cass is just a continuation of that.  The fact that she is a companion doesn't create the need for her to have a crisis of faith any more then say needing Merril to have suddenly abandon Dalish beliefs because she is running around with Hawke.

 

Beatrix was old and senile and afraid of her own shadow in the end. I fully believe her stroke was legitimate.  Plus, who would kill her, she was putty in the hands of the grand clerics and easily manipulated. Thats what they don't like about Justinia, she thinks for herself and isn't tied down to Chantry tradition.

 

I'd say that the only one that would gain anything from Beatrix dying would be Justinia herself.

 

I'm wondering if Beatrix was living a painful life after living so long. Could it be possible that at that time Justinia offered to end her suffering only if she put her name forward? Then made it look like she died of a stroke to not draw attention?

[dragonflight288]

I'd say that the only one that would gain anything from Beatrix dying would be Justinia herself.

 

I'm wondering if Beatrix was living a painful life after living so long. Could it be possible that at that time Justinia offered to end her suffering only if she put her name forward? Then made it look like she died of a stroke to not draw attention?

 

Even though Justinia was the named successor, like the assembly in Orzammar, she still had to get voted in by the other Grand Clerics. I'm sure that had something to do with her being named Divine, but she had enough support to secure the nomination to begin with, or at least enough support to have her name considered even if she didn't have the support to secure the appointment.

[Sir JK]

I'd say that the only one that would gain anything from Beatrix dying would be Justinia herself.

 

I'm wondering if Beatrix was living a painful life after living so long. Could it be possible that at that time Justinia offered to end her suffering only if she put her name forward? Then made it look like she died of a stroke to not draw attention?

 

 

Even though Justinia was the named successor, like the assembly in Orzammar, she still had to get voted in by the other Grand Clerics. I'm sure that had something to do with her being named Divine, but she had enough support to secure the nomination to begin with, or at least enough support to have her name considered even if she didn't have the support to secure the appointment.

 

I don't see it. Beatrix III was old enough that you could wait her out. If Justinia V had enough clout to ensure she was named her successor and win the election, then Beatrix III would only have made that even more secure. Killing her would just have been a stupid risk, especially since she was not making her own decisions anymore.

[dragonflight288]

I don't see it. Beatrix III was old enough that you could wait her out. If Justinia V had enough clout to ensure she was named her successor and win the election, then Beatrix III would only have made that even more secure. Killing her would just have been a stupid risk, especially since she was not making her own decisions anymore.

 

True. Just listing the possibility and we know that Dorethea, later Justinia, has connections to the bards of Orlais through Leliana. It's not outside the realm of possibility, even if it isn't completely probable. 

[Rinshikai10]

From what I saw in Asunder and TME I have a hard time believing that Justinia has that much influence. 

[wcholcombe]

True. Just listing the possibility and we know that Dorethea, later Justinia, has connections to the bards of Orlais through Leliana. It's not outside the realm of possibility, even if it isn't completely probable. 

Justinia was a Bard. It is why some of the grand clerics were against raising someone who had lived such a lifestyle previously to Divine.  She did have Beatrix's support from naming her as successor and while it was a contentious vote, in the end it was unanimous.

 

I don't see anyone killing Beatrix to get the position.  She was in her 70s or 80s-infrered as she was divine for 50 years.  Also, according to the Wiki she survived the stroke but died afterwards. IE the stroke itself didn't kill her. She named Dorothea her successor after the stroke occurred.

 

I could possibly see Justinia doing it if she thought that Beatrix in her current condition and feebleness was a danger to the Chantry itself, but I just don't see it.

[Sir JK]

From what I saw in Asunder and TME I have a hard time believing that Justinia has that much influence. 

 

She clearly did have enough influence to be named and elected to the Divine herself. That is nothing trivial in itself because the position itself is very valuable (though you have to maintain it to get anything out of it). That suggests allies among the Grand Clerics (I'd guess that Elthina was one of them), though it's unlikely she had the complete support of all of them. After all, if she did why was her being named questioned at all.

 

Moreover, we now know she has the ear of empress Celene. So we're not talking about someone non-influential here.

 

But... there's no such thing as absolute power. Justinia V has been elected on equally much negotiation as influence and blackmail. She has expectations on her to fulfill certain things, not do certain others and uphold this or that value. If her supporters come to the conclusion that she will no longer do what they expect of her, she'll lose their support. Without their support, she'll lose the ability to do what she wants and needs and without the abiltiy to do what she needs she'll lose more support.

So she has to balance the expectations on her with her own ambitions.

 

This is why she couldn't say... get rid of Lambert. Because the loyalty of assets and allies hinged on her not starting to removing people in position of power because they displeased her.

Similarily, she may have wanted to deal with the mage-templar conflict on her own and at her own pace, but the threat it presented against Orlesian interests made it a matter the imperial court needed resolved sooner than she would have liked. But in both cases you simply have to adapt or accept the loss of power.

 

But all people in power faces considerations like these. You don't even come close to power without having a deal of competence in dealing with matters like these. That you're not always in complete control does not mean you're not influential or powerful. Your ability to seize back the initiative is a far more important trait.

There'll always be one crisis or another that will destabilize your position and you will not always chose the correct cause of action either. That is life. Seeing such things happen is in no way indicative that someone is a poor leader or does not have influence.