267 réponses à ce sujet

[BlueMagitek]

You actually don't save the world in DA:2.

Still, ya'll have issues.

If you really want to play an evil or morally lacking but driven character, might I suggest some Arcanum? Or Neverwinter Nights 2, or the Saints Row games, or better yet, Dungeon Keeper.

Or heck, join a P&P game, talk to the GM about running an evil campaign.

[Vilegrim]

Angrywolves wrote...

Another genocidal player.
It would fun to see how many " you failed, the world was destroyed, game over " he manages to get before he "wises up".
Maybe he doesn't ever wise up and trades in the game out of sheer frustration.
That would be worth a few laughs, lol.

better a dead world than one where the Maker Cult rules.

BlueMagitek wrote...

You actually don't save the world in DA:2.

Still, ya'll have issues.

If
you really want to play an evil or morally lacking but driven
character, might I suggest some Arcanum? Or Neverwinter Nights 2, or the
Saints Row games, or better yet, Dungeon Keeper.

Or heck, join a P&P game, talk to the GM about running an evil campaign.

annihlating the chantry is as morally right as defeating a blight.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Not
enough of an impact. Sometimes change is what they need. Change sets
them free. And nothing says change like blowing up a church. 

I
think some players see the Chantry of Andraste as an institution of
oppression and slavery, given the plight of the elves and the
subjugation of the mages. It's why some people have strong opinions
about what Anders did, given what the Andrastian Chantry has done in the
past, and what it does in present day Thedas. Of course, not everyone
has the same views about the issue.

Exactly, the destruction of the chantry is a moral duty.

Modifié par Vilegrim, 28 septembre 2013 - 05:14 .

[MisterJB]

The fate of the Mage Rebellion.

[RogueWriter3201]

Right. BioWare is effectively going to let you play a psychotic Jihadist like zealot and or Terrorist against the Chantry in a game where you are atypically supposed to be the Hero/Anti-Hero. (*Sigh*) I smell Troll, but I'll indulge you. I'm sure you'll be able to voice the equivilant of "I hate the Chantry" (you pretty much could in Dragon Age 2) but going down the Anders road? No.
<_< 

[BlueMagitek]

Glen, this is no place for reason, this is a place for various blood fetishes against fictional things you don't agree with for one reason or another.

[Br3admax]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Not enough of an impact. Sometimes change is what they need. Change sets them free. And nothing says change like blowing up a church. 

I think some players see the Chantry of Andraste as an institution of oppression and slavery, given the plight of the elves and the subjugation of the mages. It's why some people have strong opinions about what Anders did, given what the Andrastian Chantry has done in the past, and what it does in present day Thedas. Of course, not everyone has the same views about the issue.

I was joking.

Anyway, you guys have some very strange definitions of the word slave. I don't get you at all. And blowing up any building is not the way to show that the other side is bad. If anything, you just show that you are worse. 

[Beerfish]

I have no problem with what the op wants as long as I can purge all mages from the land and also get rid of all quanari.

[Vit246]

PLEASE no more of "those" real-world parallels. You know what I'm talking about.

Modifié par Vit246, 28 septembre 2013 - 05:29 .

[LobselVith8]

Br3ad wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I think some players see the Chantry of Andraste as an institution of oppression and slavery, given the plight of the elves and the subjugation of the mages. It's why some people have strong opinions about what Anders did, given what the Andrastian Chantry has done in the past, and what it does in present day Thedas. Of course, not everyone has the same views about the issue. 

I was joking.

The internet makes it hard to tell sometimes.

Br3ad wrote...

Anyway, you guys have some very strange definitions of the word slave.

Apparently, so do in-game characters like Aldenon the Wise, Anders, and pro-mage Hawke, as they all condemn the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery. The moderate First Enchanter Irving also uses dialogue that suggests that he sees it the same way when he profusely thanks the Hero of Ferelden for freeing the local Circle of Magi from it's shackles if the protagonist asks the ruler of Ferelden to emancipate the Circle of Ferelden from the Chantry and the templars. Not to mention the authors who talk about mages leaving the Chantry controlled Circles because they didn't want to remain servants of the Chantry.

Br3ad wrote...

I don't get you at all. And blowing up any building is not the way to show that the other side is bad. If anything, you just show that you are worse. 

I don't think they are trying to show that the other side is bad. Anders wanted a war that would lead the mages to have autonomy from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars; that's why he killed Grand Cleric Elthina. Some people want to take down the Chantry for a plethora of reasons, mostly having to do with either the mages or the elves. The Chantry of Andraste engages in behavior that some posters condemn as horrific, monstrous, and even evil, so killing members of the Andrastian Chantry or the Templar Order isn't going to be seen in the same light by everyone.

[aries1001]

Searching for info for something else or following a link re: DA: Inq. I've found this on David's Gaiders tumblr page: http://dgaider.tumblr.com/ It deals with the mage-templar war in DA2 and beýond and let me just quote the beginning of D. Gaider's latest update:

"Unlike in Asunder, I think the games make it too easy for fans to brush aside how dangerous magic is, how much society fears mages, and how mages require special training because they really aren’t like other people. I hope Inquisition does better at showing how difficult this situation is so half-cocked plans about revolution aren’t automatically assumed as the correct answer, even though the circles are broken. The complexity here is far more interesting than simplistic ideas of mage freedom. I don’t think we’ve ever presented the idea of a mage revolution as being the best answer with an obviously good resolution. There are, however, a couple of things which complicate this."

Asunder being a book, written by David Gaider, on this very topic, link here: http://dragonage.wik...on_Age:_Asunder

Another quote from Gaider's tumblr post:
"One could say there are historical (and current) precedents in Thedas as to why mages being free would just lead to all sorts of badness… but not everyone pays heed to history. It could always be different this time. Or could it? That’s the nature of the debate, both in-world and out."

Isnt't this the ethical and philosophical debate here? Can a society protect itself from threats like say mages by having an elite type of soldier (templars) keeping a watchful eye on the mages, just because they might be possesed one day, or they might use blood magic or they might become angry and turn people into toads or frogs or accidentally shoot a fireball into a group of people (remember Isolde's son, Connor?, in DA: Origins)

[Ryzaki]

I really hope those who try to try to be an extreme on either side have it blow up in their face spectacularly.

[The Elder King]

Ryzaki wrote...

I really hope those who try to try to be an extreme on either side have it blow up in their face spectacularly.

I rather hope that I'll be able to play as a moderate/neutral and not be forced to support extremistic behaviours.

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

I really hope those who try to try to be an extreme on either side have it blow up in their face spectacularly.

Why? Some people agree with mage autonomy, while others support the Chantry controlled Circles and the ideals of the Templar Order. I don't see why either side should have their support for their respective faction and the goals of their side 'blow up' in their face.

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I really hope those who try to try to be an extreme on either side have it blow up in their face spectacularly.

Why? Some people agree with mage autonomy, while others support the Chantry controlled Circles and the ideals of the Templar Order. I don't see why either side should have their support for their respective faction and the goals of their side 'blow up' in their face.

Why because attempting to destroy/labotomize an entire race or overhual a insitution completely should have heavy consequences.

And no Chantry controlled circles wasn't extreme. Tranquil solution is extreme.

But yeah I want someone pushing for tranquilization of all mages to have that blow up in his/her face just like someone pushing for mages to be completely free with no restrictions to blow up in his/her face too.

hhh89 wrote...

I rather hope that I'll be able to play as a moderate/neutral and not be forced to support extremistic behaviours.

Agreed.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 septembre 2013 - 07:22 .

[Steelcan]

Me too, but not out of some deep seated love for the mages or hatred of the Chantry.

I want to rule a resurgent Tevinter.

[Barquiel]

The templars are in the kill-on-sight category for me. But blowing up chantries is probably not the best idea. That will only sway public opinion towards the templars.

[MisterJB]

It's good to see that Mr.Gaider...gets it. That's probrably the best word I can use right now.
The stark difference between ME3's marketing campaing "Players should have trusted Cerberus" and David Gaider's "I have to wrap my head around both sides because I need to write arguments that rational people would make" does make me hopeful somewhat despite the Red Templars.
So, thanks for that.

Modifié par MisterJB, 28 septembre 2013 - 07:45 .

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Why? Some people agree with mage autonomy, while others support the Chantry controlled Circles and the ideals of the Templar Order. I don't see why either side should have their support for their respective faction and the goals of their side 'blow up' in their face.

Why because attempting to destroy/labotomize an entire race or overhual a insitution completely should have heavy consequences.

I'm sure there will be good and bad consequences with the Inquisitior supporting the templars or the mages, or any of the other factions across Thedas; perhaps in the same way that there are with the Courier supporting one of the various factions in the Mojave (or pushing for an independent Vegas), with all the endings having flaws for each choice made.

Ryzaki wrote...

And no Chantry controlled circles wasn't extreme. Tranquil solution is extreme.

The Mage-Templar War mostly between Seekers and templars who believe in the Chantry controlled Circles, and mages who want autonomy from the Andrastian Chantry and the Templar Order.

Ryzaki wrote...

But yeah I want someone pushing for tranquilization of all mages to have that blow up in his/her face just like someone pushing for mages to be completely free with no restrictions to blow up in his/her face too.

Mage autonomy from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars doesn't mean that mages are pushing to be above the law, or live without restructions.

[Boycott Bioware]

glenboy24
Right. BioWare is effectively going to let you play a psychotic Jihadist like zealot and or Terrorist against the Chantry in a game where you are atypically supposed to be the Hero/Anti-Hero. (*Sigh*) I smell Troll, but I'll indulge you. I'm sure you'll be able to voice the equivilant of "I hate the Chantry" (you pretty much could in Dragon Age 2) but going down the Anders road? No.

Actually, if the game can give us the liberty.....you see, Hawke don't know Anders plan, that is what the game dictate, what if Anders told Hawke his plan and Hawke give a full support and help him blowing up the Chantry?

We don't get that liberty...and because of that the game force us to take side in the end, we cannot take side from the beginning.

[The Six Path of Pain]

Br3ad wrote...

Blowing up the Chantry isn't anti-hero, fun, or different. It's done to death. It's full blown psychopath. If there an option, I'd do it, maybe once or fifteen times. But only for the lulz, not because I think there is any point to it. I'd revert the save for something that outrageous, no matter my gaming style.

It be fun for me. On the flip side having an option to play as a zealot and enslave all the Mages for defying the chantry would be just as fun >

Modifié par The Six Path of Pain, 28 septembre 2013 - 07:41 .

[Lord Raijin]

dragonflight288 wrote...

My Mage Inquisitor will probably do whatever Morrigan tells him. lol

I would probably follow in your foot steps. 

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Maybe we will able recruit Anders as agent and his work will be blew up enemy buildings as well chantry buildings and even get time bonus when it comes about chantry because guy have
experience.

That would be great

Nefla wrote...

Why does everyone want to be an evil psycho? I can't bring myself to be that evil no matter how many times I play.

Fighting for your freedom is not evil nor is it being a psycho. It is a revolution and war is part of the recovery.

MisterJB wrote...

Can I do this to the mages? It would warm my heart, it really would.

You wouldn't get close to doing such a thing without being turned into a toad, and stomped to death in the process.

[The Elder King]

MisterJB wrote...

It's good to see that Mr.Gaider...gets it. That's probrably the best word I can use right now.
The stark different between ME3's marketing campaing "Players should have trusted Cerberus" and David Gaider's "I have to wrap my head around both sides because I need to write arguments that rational people would make" does make me hopeful somewhat despite the Red Templars.
So, thanks for that.

'shouldn't have trusted Cerberus'.
I agree. Gaider's post is great for those who want two sides rapresented without a 'good vs evil' approach, but as two sides that can be supported depending on people's beliefs. Though to be fair, Laidlaw said in a GI video something similar, and in all the interviews so far, when they talked about this topic, they said that there isn't a right or wrong side.

[Steelcan]

Honestly I don't see the point to blowing up Chantries.

Its a powerful message I suppose, but blowing up Templars would be a little more practical...