178 réponses à ce sujet

[ComfortablyNumb]

esper wrote...

mrufka_z wrote...

esper wrote...

If the templars and chantry are willing to join completely on my character's conditions, they are welcome, but I am with Lobsel and will rather take a gamble with a smaller army than I am willing to risk the future. If I had to fight to save the world it needs be a world somewhat worth securing and I can't currently see a templar/chantry/mage compromise that is worth it and thus will rather risk fighting with a smaller army.

Usually I'm pro-mage, but if ,say, mages agree to join me only if I supply them with infinite people needed for blood magic rituals, I would probably have hard time doing so.

I'd rather not definitely say that I want or don't want any factions, until I see how things look in game. 
In war, sometimes you have to compromise. 

Oh... I am not saying that they need to do blood magic and sacrifices and the like. I am would be satisified with one of two thing:

1. They join the cause for mages freedom.
2. They don't hinder it.

And by hinder it, I mean that they understand that when the battles end my character are not their friend, my character is not going to support their factions in anyway or let them get any amount of control over the mages afterwas.

I know. That was just an example.
All I'm suggesting - don't assume anythnig, untill you know what's your PC's (and world in general) situation in the game. Because I very much doubt it will be so clear cut. 

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...



An armistice seems unlikely with Lambert's forces. As for the Divine's agents, I wouldn't capitulate to them, either. I can't envision playing as a mage who would surrender his people's newfound freedom. I am wondering, if Cassandra and Cullen are mandatory, why they would follow orders from a protagonist like my hypothetical one.

Lambert might not be the leader anymore. A relatively moderate one could be in charge.
Regardless, why are you talking about capitulating and surrendering? I'm not saying that for joining forces mages have to give up their freedom. I'm talking about an armistice with the templars that would postpone the war (regardless, they'd insane to wage war to templars and fighting the demons at the same time.); the situation is even less complicated with the seekers/chantry, since mages aren't in war with them. They'd simply join forces until the demons are dealed with.
About Cullen and Cassandra, it's easy to see why they'd join a pro-mage protagonist. You're the leader the Inquisition, with the taks of stopping the Fade breach. They  might believe join forces with a pro-mage Inquisitor is better than dying at the hand of demons.
You're assuming that our protagonist will influence the mage-templar war. For all we know, the factions decided to postpone the war themselves until the demons are dealed with. Bioware said that the player will not be forced to express religious beliefs and joining templars/chantry, not that in-game we'll be able to deal with the war.
Regardless, no one said that you will not have the choice of refusing them, or kill them in the case there'll be a plot where you have to take side between mages and templars. Having them as companions doesn't mean that they'll be forced on us.

Modifié par hhh89, 13 juin 2013 - 01:54 .

[Kallimachus]

I personally would be very disappointed if it turned out that every Apostate (or non-circle mage) turned out to be a blood mage. So I hope there is no such group. On the other hand, in one possible ending of DAO Mages received some kind of independence (although the Powers That Be later clarified that it did not apply to mages already in the Circle, it would still curtail any future growth of the circle population), I do not know if the Mages' Collective is a basis for association of such mages, but they still could be fertile ground for the growth of an alternative mage faction.

As for alliance with the Templars, while I am and always have been pro-mage, I certainly do not see the Templars as one single minded group. While the Kirkwall Templars were absolutely insane, in Ferelden, headed by Gregoir, the Templar order was considerably more moderate, and one can even speculate that they tried to purge themselves of the crazier elements within their ranks based on the fact that we know Gregoir sent Cullen to Kirkwall, as he was too extreme for the Ferelden order.
I don't know how much we can infer from the Kirkwall order (or even from the corruption of the Templars in Dawn of the Seeker [is that even canon?]) on the whole of the Templar Order.

[The Elder King]

I doubt that the mages will be all blood mages in DAI: in truth, we don't even know if they'll condone it. Anders was an pro-mage as a person can be, and he was vehemenly against blood magic.
I guess we'll have to wait and see, and hope they'll handle blood magic better than in DAI.

[esper]

mrufka_z wrote...

esper wrote...

mrufka_z wrote...

esper wrote...

If the templars and chantry are willing to join completely on my character's conditions, they are welcome, but I am with Lobsel and will rather take a gamble with a smaller army than I am willing to risk the future. If I had to fight to save the world it needs be a world somewhat worth securing and I can't currently see a templar/chantry/mage compromise that is worth it and thus will rather risk fighting with a smaller army.

Usually I'm pro-mage, but if ,say, mages agree to join me only if I supply them with infinite people needed for blood magic rituals, I would probably have hard time doing so.

I'd rather not definitely say that I want or don't want any factions, until I see how things look in game. 
In war, sometimes you have to compromise. 

Oh... I am not saying that they need to do blood magic and sacrifices and the like. I am would be satisified with one of two thing:

1. They join the cause for mages freedom.
2. They don't hinder it.

And by hinder it, I mean that they understand that when the battles end my character are not their friend, my character is not going to support their factions in anyway or let them get any amount of control over the mages afterwas.

I know. That was just an example.
All I'm suggesting - don't assume anythnig, untill you know what's your PC's (and world in general) situation in the game. Because I very much doubt it will be so clear cut. 

It doesn't matter if it is clear cut or not. I do not particulary want to unite the current warring factions (where it is where this pyramid qoute started) because I think that a compromise between these factions actually is a bad thing.

I don't mind if there is a temporary cease fire, but I do not want to find a compromise here, because any compromise between these three factionsa are a step back and thus I would much rather take a chance with a smaller army. (Unless of course the chantry and the templars are willing to let the mages live their own life, but that would mean that there were no conflict and thus no reason to unite them in them first place).

[The Elder King]

Esper, a cease fire/armistice is exactly what I'd expect. I mean, it's a logical solution for all sides. Fighting each other and at the same time trying to deal with the demon threat seems a bad choice.

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

An armistice seems unlikely with Lambert's forces. As for the Divine's agents, I wouldn't capitulate to them, either. I can't envision playing as a mage who would surrender his people's newfound freedom. I am wondering, if Cassandra and Cullen are mandatory, why they would follow orders from a protagonist like my hypothetical one.

Lambert might not be the leader anymore. A relatively moderate one could be in charge.

Perhaps, but I doubt it.

hhh89 wrote...

Regardless, why are you talking about capitulating and surrendering? I'm not saying that for joining forces mages have to give up their freedom. I'm talking about an armistice with the templars that would postpone the war (regardless, they'd insane to wage war to templars and fighting the demons at the same time.); the situation is even less complicated with the seekers/chantry, since mages aren't in war with them. They'd simply join forces until the demons are dealed with.

Frankly, I'm not interested in an armistice.

hhh89 wrote...

About Cullen and Cassandra, it's easy to see why they'd join a pro-mage protagonist. You're the leader the Inquisition, with the taks of stopping the Fade breach. They  might believe join forces with a pro-mage Inquisitor is better than dying at the hand of demons.
You're assuming that our protagonist will influence the mage-templar war. For all we know, the factions decided to postpone the war themselves until the demons are dealed with. Bioware said that the player will not be forced to express religious beliefs and joining templars/chantry, not that in-game we'll be able to deal with the war.

I hope the developers' claims via not being mandated to be religiously Andrastian are true.

As for the war, I'm not interested in uniting the templars (in their current incarnation) and the mages, even to deal with the Big Bad. That's not the game for me.

hhh89 wrote...

Regardless, no one said that you will not have the choice of refusing them, or kill them in the case there'll be a plot where you have to take side between mages and templars. Having them as companions doesn't mean that they'll be forced on us. 

It would be nice if none of the companions were mandatory, but that won't happen via the recent developer comments.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...



Frankly, I'm not interested in an armistice.

That's fine. My problem was you seemed to imply that with an armistice and cease-fire with the templars, the mages would surrender their freedom.

I hope the developers' claims via not being mandated to be religiously Andrastian are true.

As for the war, I'm not interested in uniting the templars (in their current incarnation) and the mages, even to deal with the Big Bad. That's not the game for me.

Making an armistice and fighting (not together) against the same enemy (that from what we know is threatening to destroy Thedas) is hardly "uniting". Though you have every right to not want to play this game if it'll not resolve the mage-templar war (though Bioware, as far as I know, never said that we'd resolve this war).

It would be nice if none of the companions were mandatory, but that won't happen via the recent developer comments.

Even if some companions are mandatory, that doesn't mean that Cullen and Cassandra are. Or did Bioware say that every companions would be mandatory?

Modifié par hhh89, 13 juin 2013 - 08:30 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

hhh89 wrote...
Making an armistice and fighting (not together) against the same enemy (that from what we know is threatening to destroy Thedas) is hardly "uniting". 

Agreed.  You can bully the Stormcloaks and Imperials to an armistice in Skyrim, and the minute Alduin's dead, they take up the sword again.  I think all but the most fanatical mages and templars would realize that the potential destruction of the world is a wee bit more important than murdering one another.  They can't murder each other if Sandal's weird prophecy thing has killed everyone 

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 13 juin 2013 - 09:44 .

[The Elder King]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

hhh89 wrote...
Making an armistice and fighting (not together) against the same enemy (that from what we know is threatening to destroy Thedas) is hardly "uniting". 

Agreed.  You can bully the Stormcloaks and Imperials to an armistice in Skyrim, and the minute Alduin's dead, they take up the sword again.  I think all but the most fanatical mages and templars would realize that the potential destruction of the world is a wee bit more important than murdering one another.  They can't murder each other if Sandal's weird prophecy thing has killed everyone 

While I wouldn't define people who don't want an armistice between mages and templars fanatical, I agree that an armistice would be the most logical choice. My canon Inquisitor would probably try to do that, if I'll be able to express that opinion in-game (which is what I really want. I don't have problems with how Bioware will handle the possible recruitment of the various factions, if the plots will be well-written, but I want the option to state that an armistice would be the best choice).

[Sable Rhapsody]

hhh89 wrote...
While I wouldn't define people who don't want an armistice between mages and templars fanatical, I agree that an armistice would be the most logical choice. My canon Inquisitor would probably try to do that, if I'll be able to express that opinion in-game (which is what I really want. I don't have problems with how Bioware will handle the possible recruitment of the various factions, if the plots will be well-written, but I want the option to state that an armistice would be the best choice).

I don't think mages and templars who want to duke it out once and for all are necessarily fanatical.  I think the ones who would do it in the face of Thedas-ian cataclysm are the fanatics, as they clearly don't care who lives or dies as long as they get to kill the people they hate.  

One way or another, I'd like the Inquisitor's path forward to be difficult regardless of which faction you pick (if we're even allowed to pick factions).  Pro-mage Inquisitors get a smaller but more effective fighting force.  Pro-templars get a larger but more traditional army.  If you choose a faction, you have to deal with their goals conflicting with yours. Inquisitors trying to talk both sides into an armistice get the benefits of both, but now have to deal with the major headache of their allies loathing each other.

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Frankly, I'm not interested in an armistice.

That's fine. My problem was you seemed to imply that with an armistice and cease-fire with the templars, the mages would surrender their freedom.

That is the impression some people seem to have about a potential armistice between the autonomous mages and the rebel templars. It's the conclusion I'm used to reading about at this point, but I do understand your point that it wouldn't be an absolute.

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I hope the developers' claims via not being mandated to be religiously Andrastian are true.

As for the war, I'm not interested in uniting the templars (in their current incarnation) and the mages, even to deal with the Big Bad. That's not the game for me.

Making an armistice and fighting (not together) against the same enemy (that from what we know is threatening to destroy Thedas) is hardly "uniting". Though you have every right to not want to play this game if it'll not resolve the mage-templar war (though Bioware, as far as I know, never said that we'd resolve this war).

It isn't about not resolving the Mage-Templar War, but my inclination to not be forced to work for or with the Chantry or the templars in the way the protagonist was in Dragon Age II. Don't want to work for Petrice? You can tell her 'no', but you're still forced to work for her. Don't want to hunt down mages for Meredith? You can also tell her 'no', but you also don't have a choice in the matter. The rails in the storyline were a little too obvious for my taste, and I'm not looking to earn an alliance with the Andrastian Chantry or the Templar Order.

It's fine if there's content for pro-Chantry and pro-templar players; everyone deserves to have content that entertains them and makes them happy. I'm simply hoping there's content that appeals for those of us who dislike the Chantry and the templars.

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It would be nice if none of the companions were mandatory, but that won't happen via the recent developer comments.

Even if some companions are mandatory, that doesn't mean that Cullen and Cassandra are. Or did Bioware say that every companions would be mandatory?

No, Gaider said some companions were mandatory. He didn't specify who would be mandatory, though. And given the long list of mandatory characters in Dragon Age II (which made little sense for pro-templar Hawke when it came to two apostates who weren't immediate family members), I get the feeling that Cullen and Cassandra might be two of those characters.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...

[
That is the impression some people seem to have about a potential armistice between the autonomous mages and the rebel templars. It's the conclusion I'm used to reading about at this point, but I do understand your point that it wouldn't be an absolute.

I understand why you said that, then. Though I assure you that it wasn't what I was talking about.

It isn't about not resolving the Mage-Templar War, but my inclination to not be forced to work for or with the Chantry or the templars in the way the protagonist was in Dragon Age II. Don't want to work for Petrice? You can tell her 'no', but you're still forced to work for her. Don't want to hunt down mages for Meredith? You can also tell her 'no', but you also don't have a choice in the matter. The rails in the storyline were a little too obvious for my taste, and I'm not looking to earn an alliance with the Andrastian Chantry or the Templar Order.


It's fine if there's content for pro-Chantry and pro-templar players; everyone deserves to have content that entertains them and makes them happy. I'm simply hoping there's content that appeals for those of us who dislike the Chantry and the templars.

I understand your point. I want to point out that I'm not asking for forcing the player to make alliance with both mages and templars: I'll be fine with either way Bioware decides to handle this, as long as it'll be well-written. I'm just saying that in my opinion, considering the situation, an armistice would be the most logical choice. I'm not trying to convince others, just state my opinion.

Modifié par hhh89, 13 juin 2013 - 11:05 .

[esper]

hhh89 wrote...

Esper, a cease fire/armistice is exactly what I'd expect. I mean, it's a logical solution for all sides. Fighting each other and at the same time trying to deal with the demon threat seems a bad choice.

In that case we are no longer talking about uniting people which means it is not a solution, but a postponing of the problem.

After all as soon as the conflict was over templars/mages and the chantry would go right back to fighting.

[Xilizhra]

It's fine if there's content for pro-Chantry and pro-templar players; everyone deserves to have content that entertains them and makes them happy. I'm simply hoping there's content that appeals for those of us who dislike the Chantry and the templars.

To an extent. But if there's only one path possible, it should be the mages vs. peace; the templars don't have to be an option.

I understand your point. I want to point out that I'm not asking for forcing the player to make alliance with both mages and templars: I'll be fine with either way Bioware decides to handle this, as long as it'll be well-written. I'm just saying that in my opinion, considering the situation, an armistice would be the most logical choice. I'm not trying to convince others, just state my opinion.

I believe it's too potentially damaging for the future. The Order has to be utterly wiped out to secure the safety (even more than the freedom) of the mages in the future.

[The Elder King]

esper wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Esper, a cease fire/armistice is exactly what I'd expect. I mean, it's a logical solution for all sides. Fighting each other and at the same time trying to deal with the demon threat seems a bad choice.

In that case we are no longer talking about uniting people which means it is not a solution, but a postponing of the problem.

After all as soon as the conflict was over templars/mages and the chantry would go right back to fighting.

I probably used the wrong word, but I didn't mean a solution for the mage-templar war, but the best/logical solution to fight demons. I should've used "choice" instead of solution.
Besides, as far as we know the chantry isn't fighting against mages.

Xilizhra wrote...


I believe it's too potentially
damaging for the future. The Order has to be utterly wiped out to secure
the safety (even more than the freedom) of the mages in the
future.

Considering how much dangerous the demon/dragons threat will be, I'd say the major concern should be defeating them/fix the breachs in the Fade. Though again, I'm not advocating for a full-blown peace between mages and templars, or an alliance. I'm suggesting a cease fire for the two factions to fight (separately, probably) the demons and the dragon. The two factions would continue fighting with each other after the other war is over.
We don't know if Bioware wants to end the mage-templar war in this game. My suggestion is based on the theory that the war will not end in this game, thus it'd be more logical, for the factions, to stop fighting and fight against demons. Freedom and safety means nothing if for achieve it you might become too weak to save yourself from demons and dragons.

[Xilizhra]

Considering how much dangerous the demon/dragons threat will be, I'd say the major concern should be defeating them/fix the breachs in the Fade. Though again, I'm not advocating for a full-blown peace between mages and templars, or an alliance. I'm suggesting a cease fire for the two factions to fight (separately, probably) the demons and the dragon. The two factions would continue fighting with each other after the other war is over.
We don't know if Bioware wants to end the mage-templar war in this game. My suggestion is based on the theory that the war will not end in this game, thus it'd be more logical, for the factions, to stop fighting and fight against demons. Freedom and safety means nothing if for achieve it you might become too weak to save yourself from demons and dragons.

As of now, I consider the templars to be almost equal threats to the demons (dragons, I have no idea where they'll come in). If they can be taken out simultaneously, fine; if we have to ally with one to defeat the other... whichever one has a harder time entrenching itself will fall. If the demons can be stopped just by closing the Fade, it's entirely possible that it might be safer, under certain circumstances, to ally with the demons over the templars.

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...


As of now, I consider the templars to be almost equal threats to the demons (dragons, I have no idea where they'll come in). If they can be taken out simultaneously, fine; if we have to ally with one to defeat the other... whichever one has a harder time entrenching itself will fall. If the demons can be stopped just by closing the Fade, it's entirely possible that it might be safer, under certain circumstances, to ally with the demons over the templars.

I don't know how dragons would came out and how big a threat they'll be, but they'll be surely present, considering what is stated in the site.
About demons and templars, is your consideration of being an almost equal threat based on the fact that the templars want to wipe out mages (though we don't know if they'll still have this goal in DAI) or for their militart power? I could understand your point in the first case, not in the second. Considering that the demons (and dragons) will almost surely be the major enemies, they'll be the most dangerous in terms of power.
About closing the Fade, I doubt it'll be done in a way that it wouldn't involve deploying armies against demons, and you're thinking that the demons would be willing to ally themselves to mages. The only way I see this possible is by possessing mages, and I doubt that after that they'll be willing to let go their bodies.
Besides, I doubt that the demons will be a possible ally in DAI. It'd be DA2's level of idiocy, in my opinion.

[Xilizhra]

hhh89 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...


As of now, I consider the templars to be almost equal threats to the demons (dragons, I have no idea where they'll come in). If they can be taken out simultaneously, fine; if we have to ally with one to defeat the other... whichever one has a harder time entrenching itself will fall. If the demons can be stopped just by closing the Fade, it's entirely possible that it might be safer, under certain circumstances, to ally with the demons over the templars.

I don't know how dragons would came out and how big a threat they'll be, but they'll be surely present, considering what is stated in the site.
About demons and templars, is your consideration of being an almost equal threat based on the fact that the templars want to wipe out mages (though we don't know if they'll still have this goal in DAI) or for their militart power? I could understand your point in the first case, not in the second. Considering that the demons (and dragons) will almost surely be the major enemies, they'll be the most dangerous in terms of power.
About closing the Fade, I doubt it'll be done in a way that it wouldn't involve deploying armies against demons, and you're thinking that the demons would be willing to ally themselves to mages. The only way I see this possible is by possessing mages, and I doubt that after that they'll be willing to let go their bodies.
Besides, I doubt that the demons will be a possible ally in DAI. It'd be DA2's level of idiocy, in my opinion.

I doubt the demons would be a possible ally too, but I'm not considering the templars one unless it's the most absolutely dire of circumstances.

[eyesheild21]

No the red ring is the one morrigan gave the warden so she could find him no matter where he was.

[Xilizhra]

eyesheild21 wrote...

No the red ring is the one morrigan gave the warden so she could find him no matter where he was.

So... the Inquisitor looted it?

[eyesheild21]

That little thief!

[Xilizhra]

eyesheild21 wrote...

That little thief!

Alas, my Warden was female and never got the ring.

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

I doubt the demons would be a possible ally too, but I'm not considering the templars one unless it's the most absolutely dire of circumstances. 

I doubt it, too. The demons might be as hostile as the darkspawn. Perhaps the developers might surprise us.

And I'm surprised you would accept the templars as allies - I wouldn't accept such a proposal under any circumstances.

[drberg75]

eyesheild21 wrote...

That little thief!

So morrigans back for the ring and that's all.