935 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't see why a Dalish protagonist would accept the aid of a templar or a Seeker companion, given the history of the People with the Andrastian Chantry and the Templar Order

Does your belief that you don't see why mean that it would be impossible for it to actually make sense, or are there ways that it could and you just don't happen to see them at the moment?

I don't necessarily share that belief, but I'd say that it'd definitely require more work put into it to justify such an alliance.

[wcholcombe]

The only people the templars left behind in lothering were those who refused to evacuate.

You can make strange alliances out of desperation. It just has to be nuanced.

[Spectre slayer]

I've seen a few people say if Cullen is in the game as a companion then we'll have to many warriors which is funny because DAO had 5 warriors Alistair or Logahin, Sten, Oghren, Dog, Shale, 2 rogues Leliana and Zeveran, 2 Mages Morrigan and Wynne so 5:2:2, DA2 was balanced because they kill one of your sibling not including DLC.

Having Cullen as a companion would make it warrior heavy but that's kinda the norm the ratio i'm expecting for DA:I is 4 warriors 3 rogues and 2 mages also it would be interesting to get a Templar and he fits the criteria for being a companion which is having a high rank.

One more thing in one of the podcasts they mention an NPC who was on orgins is going to get the Isabella treatment meaning they are going to expand someone further their backgroun, history story, and most likely make them a companion he seems to fit what they said also they've been slowly expanding his role and this would flush out his story.

He's was in the survey,he's in some concept arts, his voice actor confirmed he has a role, he was mentioned in game informer multiple times, he seems to be very popular and like a number of the rumored companions we just need someone to confirm them

[LobselVith8]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't see why a Dalish protagonist would accept the aid of a templar or a Seeker companion, given the history of the People with the Andrastian Chantry and the Templar Order

Does your belief that you don't see why mean that it would be impossible for it to actually make sense, or are there ways that it could and you just don't happen to see them at the moment?

I meant for specific types of protagonists we might want to create; I don't think it's impossible on a universal level. I understand that it could work for certain characters, but much like a pro-templar Hawke having no choice in refusing apostate companions, it's something that happens with the player having no choice in the matter. I'd simply refer to have the choice to say no, like I did in Origins, rather than having to accept it.

[Silfren]

Ausstig wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...


Like I said before, I'm not disputing that some protagonists can have reasons for doing precisely that; I simply think it would be preferable if it wasn't an issue of forcing every protagonist to accept certain companions who didn't follow that mindset.

What mind set? 

edit: this is why having multi-race pc's is dumb, as it gives more fodder for people (like you) to say 'My charcter wouldn't do that'/ 'railroading'.

Did you have forced issue with the compaions in DA:O/A/2?  

To be fair, you had many companions in all those games you could reject.  In Origins you were not required to have ANY companions beyond Alistair.  Wynne and Oghren are only forced on you for their respective quests, after which you can ditch them.  You can even tell Morrigan to go her merry way.  In Awakening, you could do the same and reject all potential companions.  In DA2, you could reject Anders (eventually), and avoid both Isabela and Fenris altogether. 

This is NOT why havng multiple race options is a problem.  It's a problem because it can make the lore a bit awkward.  (Which isn't my saying I don't want multiple races, just that I acknowledge the issues they can come with).

It makes perfect sense to write the story so that the Inquisitor can accept or reject companions based on their personality/ideology/background.  I'm all for it.  Frankly, I'm all for the idea of your choice in companions having a significant impact on the game...such as, if you don't choose the templar companion, you have to go through different channels to get to a certain quest that would be handled differently otherwise.  Or, if you reject the templar, any quests concerning templars or the Chantry have to be handled a totally different way--or even pro-templar companions reacting to your choice, etc.

It's NOT a bad thing.  In fact, it adds a lot more depth and re-playability to the story.

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't see why a Dalish protagonist would accept the aid of a templar or a Seeker companion, given the history of the People with the Andrastian Chantry and the Templar Order

Does your belief that you don't see why mean that it would be impossible for it to actually make sense, or are there ways that it could and you just don't happen to see them at the moment?

I meant for specific types of protagonists we might want to create; I don't think it's impossible on a universal level. I understand that it could work for certain characters, but much like a pro-templar Hawke having no choice in refusing apostate companions, it's something that happens with the player having no choice in the matter. I'd simply refer to have the choice to say no, like I did in Origins, rather than having to accept it.

Just for curiosity's sake, Lob, what would you think of a situation where you were forced into accepting certain companions regardless of how you roleplayed your character, but the game still allowed you to respond to that character in a way consistent with your personality---and the game actually acknowledged your responses in a way that made sense?  (As opposed to Anders accusing you of being anti-mage if he's rivaled, even though NONE of your rivalry points were earned through being anti-mage, and all your choices were actually pro-mage).  Similar to, I guess, the way Alistair refused to leave a Warden (prior to the Landsmeet, of course) no matter how much he hated you, but having the game react to this antagonistic relationship a lot more.

[kinderschlager]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't see why a Dalish protagonist would accept the aid of a templar or a Seeker companion, given the history of the People with the Andrastian Chantry and the Templar Order

Does your belief that you don't see why mean that it would be impossible for it to actually make sense, or are there ways that it could and you just don't happen to see them at the moment?

well, seeing as throughout both games, y'all have made it ABUNdANTLY clear the the dalish hate outsiders....yeah, kinda seems like that would be the case

[In Exile]

kinderschlager wrote...
well, seeing as throughout both games, y'all have made it ABUNdANTLY clear the the dalish hate outsiders....yeah, kinda seems like that would be the case

A DAI Dalish protagonist has to de-facto be different, since the Inquisition is an international and interspecies movement. Whether or not a Dalish PC can be a bigot, he or she has to be more open-minded than what you're presenting. 

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't necessarily share that belief, but I'd say that it'd definitely require more work put into it to justify such an alliance.

To be honest, the justification is needed anyways. Otherwise the companions will just be caricatures of their respective groups.

I mean... DAO presented us with a Qunari having accepted death joining bas, even saarebas. An Antivan Crow joining his target. A warrior caste dwarf abandoning his people and becoming a surfacer. A golem not bound to obey for the first time in eternity.
DAA gave us a Legionnary of the dead going to the surface to live and a dalish that hates humanity joining a primarily human organisation.

At first glance none of these characters sounds like companion materials. Not a single one of them should, if we only look at group belonging, have cause ot join us. Yet all of them works, because of their individual reasons. And the same would really apply to a templar. What the order itself preach is not as important as what he (or she) himself thinks. Like all the character's above, he'd be an individual. It's his reasons and his relationship with his group that's the interesting bit, not what their group stand for.

Modifié par Sir JK, 20 septembre 2013 - 07:47 .

[The Elder King]

@Lobsel: if a dalish Inquisitor could have problems with Cassandra and the hypothetical templar, it could have the same type of problem with the magister that might join the Inquisition. Are you fine with that?

[Mahumia]

I think each companion could have his or her personal reasons to join the inquisitor, so I do not see how this would be different from a templar (seeing the aforementioned range of various 'illogical' companions).

Regarding the templars 'abondoning' Lothering: I understood as much from DA;O and DA:2 that they have done their best to evacuate everyone. However, that does not equal 'drag everyone out of their houses and force them to leave'. I assume they have made some 'last calls' before actually leaving. Those who were still there, including Hawkes family, simply did not want to evacuate (yet). I'd imagine there were more families there waiting for survivors of Ostagar, for example. I think the templars have really done their best, so they are not to blame that people died or got trapped at Lothering.

[LobselVith8]

Silfren wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I meant for specific types of protagonists we might want to create; I don't think it's impossible on a universal level. I understand that it could work for certain characters, but much like a pro-templar Hawke having no choice in refusing apostate companions, it's something that happens with the player having no choice in the matter. I'd simply prefer to have the choice to say no, like I did in Origins, rather than having to accept it.

Just for curiosity's sake, Lob, what would you think of a situation where you were forced into accepting certain companions regardless of how you roleplayed your character, but the game still allowed you to respond to that character in a way consistent with your personality---and the game actually acknowledged your responses in a way that made sense?  (As opposed to Anders accusing you of being anti-mage if he's rivaled, even though NONE of your rivalry points were earned through being anti-mage, and all your choices were actually pro-mage).  Similar to, I guess, the way Alistair refused to leave a Warden (prior to the Landsmeet, of course) no matter how much he hated you, but having the game react to this antagonistic relationship a lot more. 

At the very least, since mandatory companions will be an element of Inquisition, then I'm hoping it can work out like your hypothetical scenario. Being able to voice dislike and contempt for the person and their ideals, having the companion react to who you actually are instead of 'misreading it' (via your Anders example). Apostates and templars have bad history; so do Dalish and templars. I'm hoping this is, at the very least, addressed instead of ignored. I don't want to see it brushed aside simply because the Plot Dictates.

That said, I simply don't take to the need for mandatory companions, honestly. In certain situations, it might feel a bit like Anders leading a group and accepting Meredith as a companion because the Plot Dictates. It might leave me in the same place where I was wondering why Fenris was hanging out with a pro-slavery Hawke, or why Anders was helping a pro-templar Hawke. As in your example, Alistair didn't want Ferelden to perish and there was a ticking clock to impending armageddon, while the Inquisitor seems to be making a trek across Thedas to empower his organization and deal with the veil tear. I wonder if the mandatory companions will remain, no matter what, or if they will leave after a certain breaking point.

[TheKomandorShepard]

I m against forced companion why because why i should keep guy who is against my every action it is clear that such person will betrey me so i have to suffer half or more game and in the end be backstabed because my char was forced to be idiot. I liked bg 2 team because i could gather my team for good character and good guys team and well no clashes.

[RobRam10]

To be united by hatred is a fragile alliance at best.

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't see why a Dalish protagonist would accept the aid of a templar or a Seeker companion, given the history of the People with the Andrastian Chantry and the Templar Order

Does your belief that you don't see why mean that it would be impossible for it to actually make sense, or are there ways that it could and you just don't happen to see them at the moment?

To me I wouldn't want any of the companion shown so far except varric. I seriously hope that companions it makes sense to kill on sight can be. So cassandra and the first enchanter get half way through saying hi then get murder knifed? Perfect. Kinda 'Hi I worship the ma...grrrkkkk'

[Br3admax]

Blasphemy! Utter nonsense and blasphemy!

[Vilegrim]

Br3ad wrote...

Blasphemy! Utter nonsense and blasphemy!

Burn andrasrian filth! *has at*

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Apostates and templars have bad history; so do Dalish and templars.

I never really got that "massive hate between templars and Dalish" vibe.

[Herr Uhl]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Apostates and templars have bad history; so do Dalish and templars.

I never really got that "massive hate between templars and Dalish" vibe.

There is massive hate from the Dalish towards everyone (except the GW). I'm sure the templars are held in a higher regard of hatred than most though.

[Vilegrim]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Apostates and templars have bad history; so do Dalish and templars.

I never really got that "massive hate between templars and Dalish" vibe.

They blame the chantry and especially the templrs for starting the war that nearly got them wiped out.  Dalish went 'get off our land' missionaries got the templars involved to force their way into dalish territory, then the dalish grabbed the idiot ball and launched an invasion in retaliation for continued templar attempts to force them to convert and surrender the keepers to the chantry, a policy the templars still pursue.  So yes the daliah have plenty of reasons to hate templars and the chantry

[Naughty Bear]

TommyServo wrote...

I would put ten bucks on you getting your wish with Cullen.

Bucks. Always sounds weird and funny to me.

Buck buck buck buck.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yo, so Iheard people want Cullen? Fine:

[Lotion Soronarr]

I was kidding. I apologize to the fangirls with the REAL Cullen:

[Mahumia]

*slaps Lotion before falling of her chair laughing*

[Karlone123]

A templar companion would be interesting, or a companion holding the same interests of a Templar.