191 réponses à ce sujet

[lil yonce]

The Divine and the clergymen, templars, seekers, and mages loyal to her.

[Melca36]

xnode wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

xnode wrote...

In my world the mages will burn! muahah!

Indeed, they will burn.....the templars, courtesy of our magic.

lol i knew this would happen, so many mage lovers in these forums, I honestly get the whole mage plight, but in the end in my world I realize the mages are just to dangerous period. Sure a world where everyone could live togather in peace would be awsome however that NEVER happens. A world where I can fight back without being worried about insta pile of dust and give everyone an equal footing? That's my kind of world



My inquisition posters....

"Eliminate the demon threat! Burn a mage today!"

Its naive too automatically assume all mages are evil and you seem to forget this one thing.............

How many physicians are in Thedas? Who will help people when they get hurt or fall ill?

[brushyourteeth]

Mark Darrah via yesterday's video (at about 1:57)

"This is very important to me. We're not... forcing you to any sort of stance in terms of what you think about mages, what you think about Templars, what you think about the role of magic in Dragon Age. That's going to be left to the player to decide."

This is the same video where M-Law said again that we'd be forming the Inquisition "in opposition to the Chantry will" but not the same video where Mark Darrah said we would "stand... in opposition to [the Chantry]."



My guess is that there's a lot to this situation, and that the reason that none of the devs have commented in this thread (even though they've surely seen it as they've been commenting to plenty others around it) is that we'll get more information on this front tomorrow or next week. Hopefully.

Or maybe we'll get zero clarity till we play the game. C'est la Bioware.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 08 août 2013 - 11:33 .

[xnode]

Sorry, but one mage left standing = one demon that can come threw, all will perish to the inquisition!

To be a healer with herbs and potions does not make one a mage. To be a mage and heal with thought is damnation! 

Modifié par xnode, 08 août 2013 - 11:34 .

[brushyourteeth]

Another friendly reminder:


*ahem*

PLEASE KEEP YOUR CHANTRY/NON CHANTRY AND MAGIC/NON-MAGIC ARGUMENTS OUT OF MY THREAD.

If you'd like to start yet another snoozefest argument thread somewhere else I will be happy to help get it rolling, but this is not that thread.

Thank you.

[xnode]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Mark Darrah via yesterday's video (at about 1:57)

"This is very important to me. We're not... forcing you to any sort of stance in terms of what you think about mages, what you think about Templars, what you think about the role of magic in Dragon Age. That's going to be left to the player to decide."

This is the same video where M-Law said again that we'd be forming the Inquisition "in opposition to the Chantry will" but not the same video where Mark Darrah said we would "stand... in opposition to [the Chantry]."



My guess is that there's a lot to this situation, and that the reason that none of the devs have commented in this thread (even though they've surely seen it as they've been commenting to plenty others around it) is that we'll get more information on this front tomorrow or next week. Hopefully.

Or maybe we'll get zero clarity till we play the game. C'est la Bioware.

No you found the exact thing, I thought on that too at first, I think we come in as opposed to the idea for what the chantry is CURRENTLY standing for and have a choice to change that stance threw influance or conquest. OR.... insert your option here.

My option of course is BURN ALL THE MAGES! but that's just me it seems

Modifié par xnode, 08 août 2013 - 11:39 .

[Sylvianus]

I think Youth4ever said the words : " railroad potential ", while it might not be the case at all in the game like it sounds from the post of Darrah.

[brushyourteeth]

MasterScribe wrote...

Youth4Ever wrote...

The Divine and the clergymen, templars, seekers, and mages loyal to her.

That's just ONE faction - the Chantry, operating under the will of the Divine. It makes sense that she opposes this new Inquisition. It is trying to do what the Chantry should be doing. This undermines its authority, but  the Divine knows that the Chantry is far too weak to accomplish the task. Stubbornly, she's probably sending whoever can fight to hinder the Inquisition's efforts. She'll have to accept it one way or another. Otherwise, everyone will fall to whatever is passing through the Veil.

I can agree with everything I've underlined. But then there's Cassandra. Her being part of the Inquisition with us can only be explained if

1.) Cassandra is not loyal to Divine Justinia
2.) There is a new Divine and Cassandra is not loyal to her
3.) Cassandra is a spy sent by Justinia
4.) Justinia and/or Cassandra support the Inquisition or at least see the need for it

I'm sure there are more scenarios. Those are the ones off the top of my head. Regardless, if you're correct, Cassandra's got some 'splainin' to do.

[brushyourteeth]

Filament wrote...

What about Darrah's "absolutely not forcing you to take a side in mage/templar, etc." Doesn't that also imply not forcing you to be pro or anti Chantry?

And would corrupt leaders technically inhibit your ability to be pro Chantry as an idea? Does a bad Pope make Catholics' faith less tenable?

Good points.  What he said was that you wouldn't be forced to take a "stance" which doesn't necessarily, I would think, mean that you'd never have to take a side. Splitting hairs, I know, but we have to prepare ourselves for whatever.

And I would argue that yes, when an organization ceases to represent the truth of what it's always represented, the people will naturally be inclined to tear it down and build it back up again, and that's their right.


Really, my impression from reading the full online GI article was that there are going to be so many optional quests and optional allies and optional enemies that you'll be able to bypass making any kind of choice or alliance if you want to and still do what the Inquisition needs to do.

But that does seem to kind of fly in the face of the devs' comments about "opposition," so I'm still stuck scratching my head. 

[meanieweenie]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Filament wrote...

What about Darrah's "absolutely not forcing you to take a side in mage/templar, etc." Doesn't that also imply not forcing you to be pro or anti Chantry?

And would corrupt leaders technically inhibit your ability to be pro Chantry as an idea? Does a bad Pope make Catholics' faith less tenable?

Good points.  What he said was that you wouldn't be forced to take a "stance" which doesn't necessarily, I would think, mean that you'd never have to take a side. Splitting hairs, I know, but we have to prepare ourselves for whatever.

And I would argue that yes, when an organization ceases to represent the truth of what it's always represented, the people will naturally be inclined to tear it down and build it back up again, and that's their right.


Really, my impression from reading the full online GI article was that there are going to be so many optional quests and optional allies and optional enemies that you'll be able to bypass making any kind of choice or alliance if you want to and still do what the Inquisition needs to do.

But that does seem to kind of fly in the face of the devs' comments about "opposition," so I'm still stuck scratching my head. 

This idea kind of sounds like this other game I played once (The Game Who Shall Not Be Named) where the main plot ran parallel with an ongoing war. You could either choose a side and fight or go about your own business. Eventually you'd have to deal with the warring factions but it wasn't necessary to buddy up with one or the other.

Not saying it'll be anything like that, but I'm fine if it's similar... or not.

[Melca36]

xnode wrote...

Sorry, but one mage left standing = one demon that can come threw, all will perish to the inquisition!

To be a healer with herbs and potions does not make one a mage. To be a mage and heal with thought is damnation! 

The fact you want to commit genocide on people you dont like is truly sad. And thats all I will say on the subject.

[lil yonce]

@MasterScribe; The groups I mentioned may not agree with the Divine or her recent actions so much as they disagree with those who left the Chantry. They could each have their own ideas about what needs to be done to improve the Chantry and its arms. And I doubt Justinia would sabotage the Inquisitions important work-- stopping a demonic invasion-- over a, by comparison,  petty issue. She didn't come across as petty in Asunder, she was altruistic, practical, and ambitious. I could certainly see others in the clergy hating the idea of the Inquisition, but I don't think Justinia would, and she could use it as a tool since the Inquisitor will involve themselves in the business of every important organization in the country. I assume that's why Cassandra-- her right hand-- is coming along. I want to furthur an agenda more in line with Justinia's supporters than anyone else.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 09 août 2013 - 01:01 .

[Frozenkex]

Maybe since inquisition is something people would normally associate with Holy inquisition, devs wanted to emphasize that inquisition is independent of the Chantry or other factions. But doesn't mean Chantry is the enemy of inquisition, unless you make it so.

Modifié par Frozenkex, 09 août 2013 - 12:11 .

[MisterJB]

Filament wrote...

What about Darrah's "absolutely not forcing you to take a side in mage/templar, etc." Doesn't that also imply not forcing you to be pro or anti Chantry?

And would corrupt leaders technically inhibit your ability to be pro Chantry as an idea? Does a bad Pope make Catholics' faith less tenable?

The thing is, Shepard could defend the idea of Cerberus some times in ME3 but that didn't change the fact we fought them for much of the game for no real reason. And this is exactly what we're trying to avoid.
The writers might let the Inquisitor adopt Pro-Chantry/Pro-Templar and Anti-Magic beliefs while still having the Chantry fight us and they could just say "Well, we didn't force a belief on your character. He likes the Chantry but the Chantry simply doesn't like him" which would be true but I'm quite certain Pro-Mages wouldn't be satisfied by a few "Magic is awesome hurrah" if the plot demanded they sistematically destroy the mage rebellion.

Modifié par MisterJB, 09 août 2013 - 12:49 .

[Todd23]

He didn't say we had to oppose the chantry. He said we are the new rag-tag group, and if anything the chantry doesn't respect us.

[draken-heart]

Todd23 wrote...

He didn't say we had to oppose the chantry. He said we are the new rag-tag group, and if anything the chantry doesn't respect us.

*nods in agreement* I think this is what the devs mean.

[brushyourteeth]

Filament wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

And I would argue that yes, when an organization ceases to represent the truth of what it's always represented, the people will naturally be inclined to tear it down and build it back up again, and that's their right.

What I mean is that even if you were, hypothetically, forced to be the person who tears it down, and be in opposition, that doesn't mean you're necessarily forced to be "anti-Chantry" by the same token. Indeed, someone who desires to build the Chantry back up again, and do it right, would seem to be someone who is awfully pro-Chantry IMO.

Though I imagine the issue is that some people don't want to be forced to see it as corruption, and want to be pro-the Chantry that is. And for them, if that's not a remotely justifiable position, then it's bad writing. I'm not sure that's necessarily the case all the time, but I can see why people would think that.

These points are all brilliant.

[brushyourteeth]

Todd23 wrote...

He didn't say we had to oppose the chantry. He said we are the new rag-tag group, and if anything the chantry doesn't respect us.

He said we were "in opposition" to it.

So, yeah, I get what  you're saying, but you'll have to forgive me for being curious what he meant by that if not exactly what it sounds like. 


Don't get me wrong, I don't think we'll be forced to have a pro-or-anti stance on the Chantry or magic. But just because we don't feel a certain way about them doesn't mean that we won't be forced to work against them because... necessity. Or misunderstanding. Or strange plot devices.

That's what I'd like to be more clear on.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 09 août 2013 - 01:04 .

[lil yonce]

The whole Chantry does not need to be destroyed or opposed IMO. Reformation sounds very likely under Justinia V and I agree with her idea of mage-templar compromise. I want to help that segment of the Chantry and not oppose it. A blanket, "You stand in opposition to the Chantry," is not promising.

[brushyourteeth]

Youth4Ever wrote...

The whole Chantry does not need to be destroyed or opposed IMO. Reformation sounds very likely under Justinia V and I agree with her idea of mage-templar compromise. I want to help that segment of the Chantry and not oppose it. A blanket, "You stand in opposition to the Chantry," is not promising.

Agree completely.

Though I trust Bioware that if they think this is the right place in Thedas' timeline to make this kind of reform begin to happen, the choice will be given to us.

If not... I'll pine for it.