935 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

lady_v23 wrote...

I really find templars boring. Ignoring Alistair, I can't really remember a Templar that I did not find annoying. Besides, why would a Templar join up with a mage inquisitor or a inquisitor that has mages as companions?

Why wouldn't one?   Yes, many templars are anti-mage fanatics, but that's not actually part of the job description, and there are those templars who don't believe that merely being a mage automatically makes a person evil incarnate, and do believe that being a templar means working with mages.

Note that Origins and DA2 did have their reasonable templars:  Greagoir, Bryant, Cullen (prior to being twisted by Uldred, of course), Thrask, and more.  And of course there's Evangeline from Asunder.  

A reasonable templar who sees the world going to hell in a handbasket could well be perfectly willing to work with a mage Inquisitor, particularly one who makes decisions that don't, y'know, fly in the face of templar beliefs.  It's hardly lore-breaking if that's what you were thinking.  It's quite likely that many templars didn't break with the Chantry and follow Lambert, and even so, what with the Fade tear and other problems plaguing the world, a templar might well make the wise decision that setting aside their prejudices might be called for.


ETA: Completely unrelated, I doubt it would ever happen, but I would be thrilled to see Ser Bryant again.  For all that we get exactly one scene with him, I thought he best represented the noble ideal that templars are meant to strive for.

Modifié par Silfren, 19 septembre 2013 - 09:01 .

[Zombie_Alexis]

Xilizhra wrote...

I didn't like any of DAO's warriors all that much, and enjoyed having Leliana, Morrigan and Wynne around more. Alistair wasn't bad, but  Sten and Oghren were, well, less agreeable.

Did you like Dog? He's probably the best kept secret of the game. Fantastic as a tank!

[Xilizhra]

Note that Origins and DA2 did have their reasonable templars: Greagoir, Bryant, Cullen (prior to being twisted by Uldred, of course), Thrask, and more. And of course there's Evangeline from Asunder.

Greagoir was not reasonable. He was a tyrannical bastard whose only redeeming quality was favoritism. And Bryant was okayish from the glimpse we got of him, but keep in mind he did bugger off before all the refugees had. Thrask and Evangeline, of course, left the templars, which should say something.

Did you like Dog? He's probably the best kept secret of the game. Fantastic as a tank!

I used the dog whistle mod.

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

Note that Origins and DA2 did have their reasonable templars: Greagoir, Bryant, Cullen (prior to being twisted by Uldred, of course), Thrask, and more. And of course there's Evangeline from Asunder.

Greagoir was not reasonable. He was a tyrannical bastard whose only redeeming quality was favoritism. And Bryant was okayish from the glimpse we got of him, but keep in mind he did bugger off before all the refugees had. Thrask and Evangeline, of course, left the templars, which should say something.

No. Greagoir was not any of these things, and he was actually very reasonable to not anul the Circle. This just sounds like anti-Templar propaganda.

Did you like Dog? He's probably the best kept secret of the game. Fantastic as a tank!

I used the dog whistle mod.

Evil. Being cruel to Dog is pure evil. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

Greagoir was not reasonable. He was a tyrannical bastard whose only redeeming quality was favoritism. And Bryant was okayish from the glimpse we got of him, but keep in mind he did bugger off before all the refugees had. Thrask and Evangeline, of course, left the templars, which should say something.

First i played da as magi origin my first impression that templars are paladins like order sadly after prolog my opinon was little less about them and more in game opinion was worse but still somehow wasn't terrible just bad.In da 2 it goes worse.And here we have greagoir at first i liked guy paladin harsh but good ok in end Mo i rly don't liked guy he was pr*** and want put our character down (even if we help him) as well our friend just because he used once blood magic as well don't let irving give us advice about fade , nest we have kill them all in tower main quest. 

Br3ad wrote...

No. Greagoir was not any of these things,
and he was actually very reasonable to not anul the Circle. This just
sounds like anti-Templar propaganda.

No he want you know why because mages could be saved they wanted go there anyway and slain them all .And well doesn't he save circle if irving is alive only mage he respects.

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 19 septembre 2013 - 09:21 .

[Xilizhra]

No. Greagoir was not any of these things, and he was actually very reasonable to not anul the Circle. This just sounds like anti-Templar propaganda.

Because his treacherous shill gave the word... I don't know how impressed I am with that.

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

No. Greagoir was not any of these things, and he was actually very reasonable to not anul the Circle. This just sounds like anti-Templar propaganda.

Because his treacherous shill gave the word... I don't know how impressed I am with that.

What does this even mean? If you ask Gregoir what he thinks, nine times out of ten, he will not anul the Circle. Only Cullen asks for everyone to be killed. 

[The Elder King]

Xilzhra doesn't have a good opinion of Irving, to put it mildly.

[Br3admax]

hhh89 wrote...

Xilzhra doesn't have a good opinion of Irving, to put it mildly.

She doesn't really have a good opinion of anything. Except for like five people. 

[Xilizhra]

Br3ad wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Xilzhra doesn't have a good opinion of Irving, to put it mildly.

She doesn't really have a good opinion of anything. Except for like five people. 

I have a good opinion of plenty of people, but in general, they're people others have a good opinion of as well, so they don't come up so much. I have at least a decent opinion of all of my companions, for instance, except maybe Sten.

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Xilzhra doesn't have a good opinion of Irving, to put it mildly.

She doesn't really have a good opinion of anything. Except for like five people. 

I have a good opinion of plenty of people, but in general, they're people others have a good opinion of as well, so they don't come up so much. I have at least a decent opinion of all of my companions, for instance, except maybe Sten.

Do you have a good opinion of Fenris and Sebastian? 

[lady_v23]

@silfren

The circle and the mages are at war. I'm assuming being a Templar is about "guarding" and preventing the mages from losing control. And when i mean guarding, I mean placing the mages in the circle. Ser Bryant was a good Templar, just like the dude with red hair in DA2 he helped the mages but he did not smuggled mages out of the circle. And the mages do not want to be in the circle.

And I'm saying this if the inquisitor is pro mage or a mage. Otherwise what I said doesn't apply for a pro Templar inquisitor

[Silfren]

Xilizhra wrote...

Note that Origins and DA2 did have their reasonable templars: Greagoir, Bryant, Cullen (prior to being twisted by Uldred, of course), Thrask, and more. And of course there's Evangeline from Asunder.

Greagoir was not reasonable. He was a tyrannical bastard whose only redeeming quality was favoritism. And Bryant was okayish from the glimpse we got of him, but keep in mind he did bugger off before all the refugees had. Thrask and Evangeline, of course, left the templars, which should say something.

Well, that's your opinion.  I don't agree.  Granted there were things about him I didn't like, but I maintain that he was for the most part a reasonable templar.  I certainly don't see ANYTHING about his behavior that could be called tyrannical.  

I am aware of a very unfavorable scene with him in the comics.  Haven't read it, so I can't speak to how it characterizes him.  I understand that it took place in the past?  Assuming that's accurate, it could be that the Greagoir from Origins is an older, wiser man with regrets.  Again, don't know.  

What's this about Bryant leaving before the refugees did?  I don't remember that at all, but I DO remember his dialogue stating that he intended to stay and defend the refugees specifically because he and his templars were all the protection they had.

[Vapaa]

Amirit wrote...

And do not forget that we will get a couple of DLC companions. They can be anything, even Warden and IB.

IB is already confirmed to be in the game and GW is seen in game footage

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

For people who are complaining that having a templar would create two many warriors, what if the templar in question was a hunter? Or a ranged character?

It's more like "Cullen would create too many warriors"

I don't look forward to any templar in my party actually, we already have enough Chantry representation with Cassandra

[Silfren]

Xilizhra wrote...

No. Greagoir was not any of these things, and he was actually very reasonable to not anul the Circle. This just sounds like anti-Templar propaganda.

Because his treacherous shill gave the word... I don't know how impressed I am with that.

What do you mean his treacherous shill gave the word?  You referring to Cullen?

[Xilizhra]

Do you have a good opinion of Fenris and Sebastian?

Fenris is more wounded than anything else. He's amenable to reason if treated with care, and doesn't do anything too horrible on his own.
Sebastian's addled by a single emotional twist, primarily.

Well, that's your opinion. I don't agree. Granted there were things about him I didn't like, but I maintain that he was for the most part a reasonable templar. I certainly don't see ANYTHING about his behavior that could be called tyrannical.

Upholding Tranquility and summary executions, for instance.

What's this about Bryant leaving before the refugees did? I don't remember that at all, but I DO remember his dialogue stating that he intended to stay and defend the refugees specifically because he and his templars were all the protection they had.

Hawke in the prologue mentions that the templars left with the priests, which was before they did.

What do you mean his treacherous shill gave the word?  You referring to Cullen?

Irving.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 19 septembre 2013 - 09:39 .

[Eveangaline]

Now that I think about it, since the order itself has fractured and split apart, is an "in service" templar really possible? In service to what, the red templars? Other factions? Or just someone in service to what they think the templars should be, and trying to re-start them as the order they remember?

[Silfren]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, that's your opinion. I don't agree. Granted there were things about him I didn't like, but I maintain that he was for the most part a reasonable templar. I certainly don't see ANYTHING about his behavior that could be called tyrannical.

Upholding Tranquility and summary executions, for instance.

Well.  I don't like Tranquility either, but Irving isn't Alrik, he was NOT presented as being the sort of Templar who renders mages Tranquil for no reason.  Context is everything, and in context, Greagoir is NOT the horrible bastard tyrant you're insisting he is.  He IS a reasonable templar.  He handled Jowan within the law, and we're even told that he acquiesced to Irving's wishes in how to proceed.  

What's this about Bryant leaving before the refugees did? I don't remember that at all, but I DO remember his dialogue stating that he intended to stay and defend the refugees specifically because he and his templars were all the protection they had.

Hawke in the prologue mentions that the templars left with the priests, which was before they did.

Ah.  I'd forgotten that from the DA2 prologue.  Sorry, but it sounds a LOT more like an oversight by the writers.  Nothing about Bryant's character in Origins even vaguely hints that he and the priests planned to abandon Lothering, and I seriously doubt the writers would have deliberately retconned such a detail.

What do you mean his treacherous shill gave the word?  You referring to Cullen?

Irving.

Wow.  That's actually kind of...did you play the same game I did?  The scenes between Irving and Greagoir make it abundantly clear that Irving is nobody's shill.  He has a difficult job to do, and yes, he makes decisions that are rather sh*tty toward individual mages, but it's well established that he does this because of the hard position he's forced into, not because he happily dances to Greagoir's tune.  

[Silfren]

Br3ad wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Note that Origins and DA2 did have their reasonable templars: Greagoir, Bryant, Cullen (prior to being twisted by Uldred, of course), Thrask, and more. And of course there's Evangeline from Asunder.

Greagoir was not reasonable. He was a tyrannical bastard whose only redeeming quality was favoritism. And Bryant was okayish from the glimpse we got of him, but keep in mind he did bugger off before all the refugees had. Thrask and Evangeline, of course, left the templars, which should say something.

No. Greagoir was not any of these things, and he was actually very reasonable to not anul the Circle. This just sounds like anti-Templar propaganda.

Did you like Dog? He's probably the best kept secret of the game. Fantastic as a tank!

I used the dog whistle mod.

Evil. Being cruel to Dog is pure evil. 

......I use the dog whistle mod, too.  How, praytell, am I being cruel to Dog?  Okay, so shoving Dog at darkspawn is kind of mean, but still. 

[Xilizhra]

Well. I don't like Tranquility either, but Irving isn't Alrik, he was NOT presented as being the sort of Templar who renders mages Tranquil for no reason. Context is everything, and in context, Greagoir is NOT the horrible bastard tyrant you're insisting he is. He IS a reasonable templar. He handled Jowan within the law, and we're even told that he acquiesced to Irving's wishes in how to proceed.

Yes, he handled Jowan within the law... and the law sucks, and enforcing it perfectly says bad things about the enforcer. If you're a templar, you're pretty much either a tyrant or a traitor.

Ah. I'd forgotten that from the DA2 prologue. Sorry, but it sounds a LOT more like an oversight by the writers. Nothing about Bryant's character in Origins even vaguely hints that he and the priests planned to abandon Lothering, and I seriously doubt the writers would have deliberately retconned such a detail.

He would leave, presumably, because he answers to the revered mother and the revered mother would have said so. The templars' duty is ultimately to the Chantry, after all. And there are several mentions of the Chantry packing up and fleeing in DAO.

Wow. That's actually kind of...did you play the same game I did? The scenes between Irving and Greagoir make it abundantly clear that Irving is nobody's shill. He has a difficult job to do, and yes, he makes decisions that are rather sh*tty toward individual mages, but it's well established that he does this because of the hard position he's forced into, not because he happily dances to Greagoir's tune.

It's one of those situations where I much prefer Orsino.

[Silfren]

Eveangaline wrote...

Now that I think about it, since the order itself has fractured and split apart, is an "in service" templar really possible? In service to what, the red templars? Other factions? Or just someone in service to what they think the templars should be, and trying to re-start them as the order they remember?

I'm convinced that at least one faction of templars will refuse to abandon the Chantry and follow Lambert.  But yes, an "in service" templar is very possible.  Templars loyal to Lambert could well believe themselves to be in service to the Maker as his "loyal" servants, for instance, given Lambert's own belief that the Divine is corrupt.