2497 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

In Exile wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
I may be pro-mage, but I major in English Writing and Literature at College, and for me, it has next to nothing to do with how right or wrong the Chantry is, but it's more an issue of story consistency. Were it never contradicted and lyrium never needed, then huzzah and all, and if Alistair never said it, then again there wouldn't have been an inconsistency and there wouldn't be a point theorizing having warriors trained in templar talents without the lyrium, as has been done in many fanfics, theories, and predictions of future games.

I don't see why unreliable narrator can't be in effect here. Even if we say that a templar does need to use some form of magic to use templar talents, it remains that Alistair and the Warden (and in DA2, Carver) were all GWs and infected with the taint. We have WOG that the taint allows for its own form of magic. 

So for all we know Warden templars use a different powersource. All of this coming back to unreliable narration from Alistair. 

Alistair is an unreliable narrator? I've never really known him to outright lie in any case. Be mistaken, certainly. But never tell a direct falsehood knowingly.

[Senya]

I would say that Alistair could be explained away as being mistaken. Considering where canon is headed, I'm sure this is the direction it'd take.

[dragonflight288]

almostinsane99 wrote...

I would say that Alistair could be explained away as being mistaken. Considering where canon is headed, I'm sure this is the direction it'd take.

And if it does, I'll be satisfied, as it'll explain the inconsistency. We'll find out in the next game.

[Senya]

True enough.

[Wulfram]

I don't think Alistair being mistaken makes much sense. He learnt how to be a Templar before he was a Warden, and he wasn't taking Lyrium then. And of course you can teach people who aren't Wardens the Templar spec.

It's a retcon, best just to accept it and move on.

[Vit246]

Retconning this is for the best. Lyrium should be required. Lyrium only as a method of addiction is not good enough.

Modifié par Vit246, 17 octobre 2013 - 11:17 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

I would say that Alistair could be explained away as being mistaken. Considering where canon is headed, I'm sure this is the direction it'd take.

And if it does, I'll be satisfied, as it'll explain the inconsistency. We'll find out in the next game.

So you'd want the next game to sacrifice a part of it, to explain in intricate detail exactly how a companion of previous game, was either mistaken, or simply lying, to you? What would be the point? We already know that he was either, so why reherese it?

[In Exile]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Alistair is an unreliable narrator? I've never really known him to outright lie in any case. Be mistaken, certainly. But never tell a direct falsehood knowingly.

I was thinking he's more of an idiot than a liar. Being wrong because you don't get it isn't substantively different from being wrong because you're lying from our POV.

But I didn't know about the comics having Alistiar use lyrium outright, so that leaves us either 1) too many cooks in the kitchen or 2) retcon.

[Medhia Nox]

Well - Alistair is an alcoholic in my playthrough - so him also being a lying lyrium junkie wouldn't be a retcon at all.

In fact... I love it - make it happen Bioware!

[Xilizhra]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Well - Alistair is an alcoholic in my playthrough - so him also being a lying lyrium junkie wouldn't be a retcon at all.

In fact... I love it - make it happen Bioware!

I keep meaning to ask: did you get your name from E Nomine's Mitternacht?

[dragonflight288]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

I would say that Alistair could be explained away as being mistaken. Considering where canon is headed, I'm sure this is the direction it'd take.

And if it does, I'll be satisfied, as it'll explain the inconsistency. We'll find out in the next game.

So you'd want the next game to sacrifice a part of it, to explain in intricate detail exactly how a companion of previous game, was either mistaken, or simply lying, to you? What would be the point? We already know that he was either, so why reherese it?

If they give a believable reason why Alistair would be mistaken, then there would no longer be a lore inconsistency, and that is the whole of my complaints. Remove the consistency, and I'll be happy.

As for Alistair himself, are you saying he's lying? I've never known him, in the games or comics, to deliberately speak a falsehood knowingly, so it's highly unlikely he was lying. He also says specifically that he never took lyrium.

But if the Chantry fed him lyrium laced in his meals, he wouldn't know, or maybe he admits he did lie or something as a way to cover for the Chantry since he swore an oath not to reveal Chantry/templar secrets.

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra: No, I made my name up about 18 years ago while roleplaying this character and deciding I didn't like the English version (which I had used from 24 years ago or so - it was to prove I was SO grown up and mature - plus, that wench from the Forgotten Realms stole it).. so I stole the Latin - then, I decided to add the "H" when I played the character in a slightly more exotic Non-Western style campaign.

Now - let's talk more about Alistair being a coke ... err... lyrium snorting, face in his own puke drunk. Cause - that topic is near and dear to me.

Please Bioware - I yearn for further defamation of Alistair's already dubious character.

If we can also turn Anders and Merrill into some derivation of prostitute/lyrium junkie/alcoholic... then I would declare DA 2 a success in hindsight.

Ahem... sorry, get this train back on track!

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

dragonflight288 wrote...

If they give a believable reason why Alistair would be mistaken, then there would no longer be a lore inconsistency, and that is the whole of my complaints. Remove the consistency, and I'll be happy.

As for Alistair himself, are you saying he's lying? I've never known him, in the games or comics, to deliberately speak a falsehood knowingly, so it's highly unlikely he was lying. He also says specifically that he never took lyrium.

But if the Chantry fed him lyrium laced in his meals, he wouldn't know, or maybe he admits he did lie or something as a way to cover for the Chantry since he swore an oath not to reveal Chantry/templar secrets.

The problem is that Alistair can teach any other warrior in the party how to do it, potentially including the Warden. So they'll need to explain that too.

[Medhia Nox]

@Riverdaleswhiteflash: Same way they let you be a Spirit Healer without dealing with a "spirit"... or a Reaver... or a Blood Mage... or learning the Arcane Warrior discipline from a bottle.

Let's not split hairs when so much "could" be nitpicked to death.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Riverdaleswhiteflash: Same way they let you be a Spirit Healer without dealing with a "spirit"... or a Reaver... or a Blood Mage... or learning the Arcane Warrior discipline from a bottle.

Let's not split hairs when so much "could" be nitpicked to death.

Hey now, the first one could be explained as making a deal off-screen, and there's no real proof you need to personally deal with a demon for blood magic. And the last one makes sense, if you take it in context.

[dragonflight288]

The problem is that Alistair can teach any other warrior in the party how to do it, potentially including the Warden. So they'll need to explain that too.

True. Hmm. Bioware has dug itself into a hole with the lore here.

[Medhia Nox]

I don't personally have problems with any of them - but I think they're ALL stretching credulity for gameplay, and I'm cool with that.

I do believe there's a codex entry about the blood magic thing - but then they refute it several times, again, I don't care how it's learned... I'm fine with clicking on a book to "Earn" it.

I just think stating that: "NOW Templars always had to use lyrium." isn't the end of the world.

Plus - I'm hopeful to see a junkie Alistair coked out on Red Lyrium... I wouldn't kill him. I'd lock him in a cage and watch him go through withdraw - and then, I'd give him more Red Lyrium.

[dragonflight288]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I don't personally have problems with any of them - but I think they're ALL stretching credulity for gameplay, and I'm cool with that.

I do believe there's a codex entry about the blood magic thing - but then they refute it several times, again, I don't care how it's learned... I'm fine with clicking on a book to "Earn" it.

I just think stating that: "NOW Templars always had to use lyrium." isn't the end of the world.

Plus - I'm hopeful to see a junkie Alistair coked out on Red Lyrium... I wouldn't kill him. I'd lock him in a cage and watch him go through withdraw - and then, I'd give him more Red Lyrium.

It isn't the end of the world, but the inconsistency in lore is annoying...

I'm a little OCD about those type of things, but that's just me. I'll deal.

[Medhia Nox]

@dragonflight288: Well - Alistair could have been lying... and as for the PC, you HAVE to be lenient there as the PC cannot be held accountable for any sort of story consistency... and, you get to choose other party members... so that's also out of storyline.

PCs are not part of the game lore... nor are choices made by PCs. They're all part of headcanon.

Doubt that helps at all - but I think it's very reasonable.

[dragonflight288]

It seems quite reasonable, and I'll deal. I'm sure I'll like the next game no matter how this issue is dealt with.

I'll just remind myself that life is neither fair nor perfect, so why on earth should I expect my video games to be.

[TheKomandorShepard]

We have from the devs that even a relatively weak abomination is
dangerous, which is backed up by this quote. And even if there were no
Pride demons or Senior Enchanters among the group of abominations,
numbers will pay for a good deal. Since my original assertion was that a
horde of abominations big enough that there's one cooresponding to
every street was a no-win proposition, I think the problem of numbers is
relevant.

Dangerous yes but his power depends on that which demon is that for example i don't think rage demon can destroy entire city unless city don't have any warriors.Pride demon maybe i think he could do that but they aren't common like other demons.So taking into account we have hawke , templars who kills one abomnation at time and guards help them situation was under control.

I have no idea what you're saying or how it answers my argument. I
get your argument that not everyone in the Chantry hates mages, and
you're correct there. Beyond that it just seems to me to be gibberish,
though you seem to be trying to point to the fact that the Chantry
adknowledged the roles powerful mages played in the games. If you had
evidence that the Chantry lies to make mages look better than they
really are, that would help that case. That is, after all, what you're
claiming. Showing that the mages are given a fair shake in terms of
history doesn't really help your point, since I'm arguing that they were
given one in this case.

*sigh* chantry doesn't control what one of theirs peoples think and say, example leliana and chantry can't always do what they like as example i doubt that they like mage hawke , mage warden and wynne as hero after the war mages were veterans and no matter how much villain you play in first game peoples always think of you as a hero after war. It doesn't have to be chantry who lie it may be lie or just exaggeration not from organization but that could be person and even folks who so think about it in that way ,and as example still we have meredith and you can see how she liked hawke as champion but she have to say that he is hero.

Among the current Wardens? They're relatively rare, but then
mages are already a slim minority and we can assume not all mages
survive the Joining. (A Mage PC describes it as "worse than the
Harrowing," and not all mages survive that. Still, none of the people we
know to have failed the Joining were mages, so there's that.) And for
that matter the ratio of mage to mundane is a lot higher in the Wardens
than in the general population.

Rare yep so we have not many mages as whole that group and even fewer stronger one is that worth all that mess ,no. We don't have mages in rl world and i think that da can live without them as well or with only few mages plot and lore cleary shows that mages cause only catastrophic events with what gain small very small.   

I have absolutely no idea why a paucity of powerful mages seems to you like a valid argument for not using the ones that exist.

They stil can be possesed by demons and mages even without them caused enough (anders, zathrian...) problems and still many is after mages so i all i will get is dozen unstable ticking bombs and i will ****** off army and get bad reputation.  

Well - Alistair could have been lying...

what for?it wasn't personal and that was serious conversation and he can tell you that he can teach you what is dialogue part of the story selecting specialization is part of gameplay but before that nope. 

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 18 octobre 2013 - 04:40 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

So DA:O had Alistairs lines changed in the last second becoase of gameplay? So what?

Cry retcon all you want, lyrium is canonicly needed.
There is no lore contradiction - it exists if two official pieces of lore  contradict. Alistairs line is no longer valid (as stated by the devs),  hence no contradiction. A change for the better.

The people who hate this the most are pro-mages, because it destroys their "evil  chantry uses lyrium just to control tempalrs" theory.

What you are talking about dude if devs said that we was allowed play only as human and then we will able to play as other races that mean elf inq doesn't exist? They chagned that and released as final product in what they stated that lyrium isn't needed and not because of gameplay because addiction is still there then they changed they mind and decided that lyrium is needed what is retcon. 

Eh? I do not understand you example as it doesnt' make any sense.

Wether is a retcon or not is irreelvant.
Only one person ever said that lyrium wasn't needed - Alistair. Who wasn't even a full templar yet. So he could have easily been wrong. Or he might have lied.
The addiction mechanic was never put in the final product.

And a retcon isn't a contradiction. A contradiction is when a retcon doesn't make sense or where explanations given are poor, or where contradicting pieces exist without the develoers/creators clarifying which is correct.

[Lotion Soronarr]

almostinsane99 wrote...
That is very true. I've noticed a couple temlar extremists myself, though I won't name names. :innocent:

I'm personally looking for a way to fix the Circle in Inquisition.

There are two kinds of extremists - real ones and joking ones.

I have - on multiple occasions - said "kill all mages".
But those were all tounge-in-cheek, not really meant for anything other than laughs (and irritating a few extremist pro-mages).
I like mages. I play mages. I feel sorry for mages and their plight.
But my rational part is telling me to keep them segragated for everyones good.

For a time I though some of my debate opponets were also joking and I went along with it.
Turns out some of them were not.

[The Hierophant]

dragonflight288 wrote...

It seems quite reasonable, and I'll deal. I'm sure I'll like the next game no matter how this issue is dealt with.

I'll just remind myself that life is neither fair nor perfect, so why on earth should I expect my video games to be.

I'll pretend that Alistair was under the influence of >insertnamehere< during that convo.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

So DA:O had Alistairs lines changed in the last second becoase of gameplay? So what?

Cry retcon all you want, lyrium is canonicly needed.
There is no lore contradiction - it exists if two official pieces of lore  contradict. Alistairs line is no longer valid (as stated by the devs),  hence no contradiction. A change for the better.

The people who hate this the most are pro-mages, because it destroys their "evil  chantry uses lyrium just to control tempalrs" theory.

What you are talking about dude if devs said that we was allowed play only as human and then we will able to play as other races that mean elf inq doesn't exist? They chagned that and released as final product in what they stated that lyrium isn't needed and not because of gameplay because addiction is still there then they changed they mind and decided that lyrium is needed what is retcon. 

Eh? I do not understand you example as it doesnt' make any sense.

Wether is a retcon or not is irreelvant.
Only one person ever said that lyrium wasn't needed - Alistair. Who wasn't even a full templar yet. So he could have easily been wrong. Or he might have lied.
The addiction mechanic was never put in the final product.

And a retcon isn't a contradiction. A contradiction is when a retcon doesn't make sense or where explanations given are poor, or where contradicting pieces exist without the develoers/creators clarifying which is correct.

Well example based on your so that was point
First alistair was almost templar and know their training and could teach us that so it is hardly he didn't know that mechanic and lying in that case is not only without a purpose but also stupid especially considering that he can train you yes but in universe (story) lyrium was addictive it just wasn't in gameplay like taint.  

And yes here it is contradiction because in first game lyrium isn't required to have templars abilities then after that they have to use that and there we don't have even explanation.

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 18 octobre 2013 - 12:45 .