935 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

Herr Uhl wrote...

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.

I don't think that dalish hate dwarves. They don't like outsiders in general, due to their isolationistic nature. Though Orzammar dwarves aren't that different.
 And I'd say that the magisters are close to templars in the dalish's hate list. 

[Vilegrim]

hhh89 wrote...

@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?

I would be fone with you gutting him as soon as you met him, as long as the same applies to all companions

[LobselVith8]

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. 

Templars hunt down the Dalish, who have free mages among them, as Merrill notes to Hawke. There's also the schism between the Chantry and the Dalish because of the war in the Dales centuries ago.

[In Exile]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

The templars hunt Keepers, who are apostates in their eyes. And then there's the actual religious tension. 

[The Elder King]

Vilegrim wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@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?

I would be fone with you gutting him as soon as you met him, as long as the same applies to all companions

I don't want to kill either a magister or a templar companion as a dalish when I meet them (though I want to express my opinion about them from a dalish POV), though I don't care if Bioware will let us kill companions right after meeting them.
I was trying to understand Lobsel's POV towards magister when playing as a dalish, since in my opinion a dalish should be wary of both templars and magisters, given the elven history.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'd simply refer to have the choice to say no, like I did in Origins, rather than having to accept it.

Can you rebuke Alistair and deny him joining your party?

I seriously hope that companions it makes sense to kill on sight can be

In most cases I'd postulate if the number of companions that fit this element is more often than not, zero.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Just saying - never noticed any dalish character or NPC showing any special hatered for a templar. Even Merril seems OK with them, and she was a mage.
Nor have we ever seen templars hunting dalish.
If anything it seems more like "if we happen to run into a dalish mage, bring him in if you can", rather than "24/7 survailance of the Dalish. Follow them. Hunt them!"

Merrils clan was camped outside of Kirkwall for YEARS an the tempalrs haven't touched them.

The war in the Dales was ages ago, and the Dalish blame all humans.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 20 septembre 2013 - 03:23 .

[In Exile]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I seriously hope that companions it makes sense to kill on sight can be

In most cases I'd postulate if the number of companions that fit this element is more often than not, zero.

Zevran was an example... but we could kill him on sight. 

[In Exile]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Just saying - never noticed any dalish character or NPC showing any special hatered for a templar. Even Merril seems OK with them, and she was a mage.
Nor have we ever seen templars hunting dalish.  

If you give Feinryel to the Dalish, a contingent of templars shows up and demands him turned over. They tortured a hunter over it, and were ready to kill another contingent. 

The words that the Dalish exchange with the templars there are pretty clearly hate, and not the "because you did x in this situation" type of hate. 

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'd simply refer to have the choice to say no, like I did in Origins, rather than having to accept it.

Can you rebuke Alistair and deny him joining your party?

I seriously hope that companions it makes sense to kill on sight can be

In most cases I'd postulate if the number of companions that fit this element is more often than not, zero.

Sso no maker cultists and no templars companions?

[ElitePinecone]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In most cases I'd postulate if the number of companions that fit this element is more often than not, zero.

Yeah, the idea that a leader (for argument's sake, the Inquisitor) would - for no real reason - actively kill someone who was trying to help them strikes me as bizarre and implausible. 

If circumstances are dire and the state of the world desperate, why would the Inquisitor turn away a reasonable ofer of help - or worse, kill the person who made the offer? If we came across a random templar killing demons, what on earth is there to be gained from randomly slaughtering them instead of - if the player didn't like them - rejecting their offer of help and leaving them to do whatever they can?

People wanting to instantly kill potential companions on sight make me pretty uncomfortable, and in my opinion a psychopathic Inquisitor who runs around murdering people who offer to help them - based purely on their occupation or belief system - is way more jarring than, god forbid, having a party member who might actually disagree with the player.

The constant calls for the ability to slaughter companions at will (or the Mass Effect equivalent. "push them out of their airlock") is a pretty strange and mystifying aspect of Bioware's fanbase, to be honest.

[In Exile]

ElitePinecone wrote...

The constant calls for the ability to slaughter companions at will (or the Mass Effect equivalent. "push them out of their airlock") is a pretty strange and mystifying aspect of Bioware's fanbase, to be honest.

Welcome to the internet. 

[Vilegrim]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In most cases I'd postulate if the number of companions that fit this element is more often than not, zero.

Yeah, the idea that a leader (for argument's sake, the Inquisitor) would - for no real reason - actively kill someone who was trying to help them strikes me as bizarre and implausible. 

If circumstances are dire and the state of the world desperate, why would the Inquisitor turn away a reasonable ofer of help - or worse, kill the person who made the offer? If we came across a random templar killing demons, what on earth is there to be gained from randomly slaughtering them instead of - if the player didn't like them - rejecting their offer of help and leaving them to do whatever they can?

People wanting to instantly kill potential companions on sight make me pretty uncomfortable, and in my opinion a psychopathic Inquisitor who runs around murdering people who offer to help them - based purely on their occupation or belief system - is way more jarring than, god forbid, having a party member who might actually disagree with the player.

The constant calls for the ability to slaughter companions at will (or the Mass Effect equivalent. "push them out of their airlock") is a pretty strange and mystifying aspect of Bioware's fanbase, to be honest.

Because playing a fanatic has it's own appeal.  Anyone who takes the self given title inquisitor has to be at least mildly unbalanced, and taking that aspect to the extreme appeals the same way the total opposite does. So in the templars example you gave not seeing the difference between demons and templars is justifiable, especially for an apostate or someone who has spent his life protecting a loved one who is, the trauma of the veil tear and a brutal civil war dehumanising those involved. Juast look at what happens in real wars especially ones in medieval societies.  

[Xilizhra]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In most cases I'd postulate if the number of companions that fit this element is more often than not, zero.

Yeah, the idea that a leader (for argument's sake, the Inquisitor) would - for no real reason - actively kill someone who was trying to help them strikes me as bizarre and implausible. 

If circumstances are dire and the state of the world desperate, why would the Inquisitor turn away a reasonable ofer of help - or worse, kill the person who made the offer? If we came across a random templar killing demons, what on earth is there to be gained from randomly slaughtering them instead of - if the player didn't like them - rejecting their offer of help and leaving them to do whatever they can?

People wanting to instantly kill potential companions on sight make me pretty uncomfortable, and in my opinion a psychopathic Inquisitor who runs around murdering people who offer to help them - based purely on their occupation or belief system - is way more jarring than, god forbid, having a party member who might actually disagree with the player.

The constant calls for the ability to slaughter companions at will (or the Mass Effect equivalent. "push them out of their airlock") is a pretty strange and mystifying aspect of Bioware's fanbase, to be honest.

While I don't subscribe to this fully, a member of the enemy army offering to join forces could very easily be a spy. I'm not sufficiently paranoid to kill all potential spies, but I can see where the thought process comes from.

[Vilegrim]

Xilizhra wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In most cases I'd postulate if the number of companions that fit this element is more often than not, zero.

Yeah, the idea that a leader (for argument's sake, the Inquisitor) would - for no real reason - actively kill someone who was trying to help them strikes me as bizarre and implausible. 

If circumstances are dire and the state of the world desperate, why would the Inquisitor turn away a reasonable ofer of help - or worse, kill the person who made the offer? If we came across a random templar killing demons, what on earth is there to be gained from randomly slaughtering them instead of - if the player didn't like them - rejecting their offer of help and leaving them to do whatever they can?

People wanting to instantly kill potential companions on sight make me pretty uncomfortable, and in my opinion a psychopathic Inquisitor who runs around murdering people who offer to help them - based purely on their occupation or belief system - is way more jarring than, god forbid, having a party member who might actually disagree with the player.

The constant calls for the ability to slaughter companions at will (or the Mass Effect equivalent. "push them out of their airlock") is a pretty strange and mystifying aspect of Bioware's fanbase, to be honest.

While I don't subscribe to this fully, a member of the enemy army offering to join forces could very easily be a spy. I'm not sufficiently paranoid to kill all potential spies, but I can see where the thought process comes from.

Also this especially if you are on a pwer grab and want everyone else to damaged and weakened to oppose you.

[The Elder King]

@Vilegrim: that's only your opinion that to be the Inquisitor you have to be at least mildly unbalanced. I'd wait until the game is released and we see how we'll become the Inquisitor to say anything about this.
Though I agree with Xilzhra about the spy thing. It's a reasonable possibility.

Modifié par hhh89, 20 septembre 2013 - 04:10 .

[Wulfram]

I think that a player has to try to meet the writers half-way and try to create a character that has a reasonable chance of fitting in with the narrative. And even be willing to make adjustments during at least the initial part of the game to fit better with the story - either that or be prepared to start over again if things aren't working out.

Which would likely imply that at least a decent amount of pragmatism would need to be worked in along with anti-chantry and anti-human sentiments if you're playing a Dalish. And similarly that your human or city elf is probably going to have to be willing to act without the Chantry's blessing for at least a bit. And that your Dwarf isn't going to spend all his time refusing to go out into the sunlight, despite the risk of falling into the sky.

[Vilegrim]

Wulfram wrote...

I think that a player has to try to meet the writers half-way and try to create a character that has a reasonable chance of fitting in with the narrative. And even be willing to make adjustments during at least the initial part of the game to fit better with the story - either that or be prepared to start over again if things aren't working out.

Which would likely imply that at least a decent amount of pragmatism would need to be worked in along with anti-chantry and anti-human sentiments if you're playing a Dalish. And similarly that your human or city elf is probably going to have to be willing to act without the Chantry's blessing for at least a bit. And that your Dwarf isn't going to spend all his time refusing to go out into the sunlight, despite the risk of falling into the sky.

Oh the fanatic playthrough will end badly, thats part of the fun. I would hope the goody two shoes version ends up betrayed and dead after his usefulness ends
  Extremists fail doesn't make playing as one any less fun.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I like to think of the game developers as the grand dm of the adventure. We can play and do what we want in the game, but there is a limit and the dm can always reserve the right to say no.

[Clockwork_Wings]

I've never seen the sense in denying a companion a spot in my little army. I have a smaller army and fewer quests. If we got different quests, like Finding Nathanial vs Fool's Gold, maybe.

A full-blown templar as a companion sounds like a brilliant idea. A game like this need's an opposing viewpoint once in awhile, and we are guaranteed to have at least one circle mage.

[Mr.House]

We better have a templar companion, we will have two mages, and most likely one of them will support the mage pov, not having a templar companion would be poor writing, unbalanced and show bias.

[Xilizhra]

Mr.House wrote...

We better have a templar companion, we will have two mages, and most likely one of them will support the mage pov, not having a templar companion would be poor writing, unbalanced and show bias.

We had a reasonably balanced perspective in DA2. Merrill and Anders for, Aveline and Fenris against, Varric and Isabela neutral, and Sebastian twisting in the wind. All without any templars.

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

We better have a templar companion, we will have two mages, and most likely one of them will support the mage pov, not having a templar companion would be poor writing, unbalanced and show bias.

We had a reasonably balanced perspective in DA2. Merrill and Anders for, Aveline and Fenris against, Varric and Isabela neutral, and Sebastian twisting in the wind. All without any templars.

Aveline was about law and order, she was not pro templar at all. Fenris was though. Anders was a nutty dog and Merrill didn't even care for the mage plight until lthe end of the game because reasons.

Modifié par Mr.House, 20 septembre 2013 - 04:25 .