444 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Evangeline?

 

She's assisting abominations and demons. She tried to protect Cole even after his nature was revealed.

Now THAT'S lunacy.

 

At least Anders knows abominations and demons are dangerous (even himself).

[TheLittleBird]

That is why i argue, what actually the message the writer want to tell? That is religion is bad? Religion reach peoples to become bad? That is the issue

 

In DA2, the writer wanted to tell the two sides to the magic-conflict. I don't think there was a real message about religion at all. (Though I do know that the Chantry plays a big role in the conflict that started in Kirkwall, but that had to do with the fact that the Chantry came up with the Circle-system to begin with)

[EmperorSahlertz]

Anders is however not a messiah figure.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Okay, so in the interest of playing along, exactly which qualities in Anders' character is it that makes him a messiah figure?

[EmperorSahlertz]

I know you did. I am asking you to right here and now, give me the characteristics that qualifies Anders as a messiah figure. Becuase so far you have faield to do so.

[The Elder King]

Denial is a bad habit...you will end up live in denial...

He's not in denial. Many people don't see Anders as a messiah figure.

[The Elder King]

I never say Anders is messiah figure

Why do you say that Emperor is in denial then?
So, what do you think Anders is?

[The Elder King]

Because he is
 
Anders is terrorist

About what. He stated that Anders isn't a messiah figure. If you don't think he's one, why do you think Emperor is in denial? It doesn't make any sense.

[EmperorSahlertz]

 Why do I even bother?

[The Elder King]

 Why do I even bother?

My thought exactly .

[Ieldra]

Evangeline?

 

She's assisting abominations and demons. She tried to protect Cole even after his nature was revealed.

Now THAT'S lunacy.

 

At least Anders knows abominations and demons are dangerous (even himself).

As I said - only the extremists are likely to dislike her.

[Arcanis]

As I said - only the extremists are likely to dislike her.

While I liked her during the book and would view her as a more middle-ground person, I have to admit that

I severely dislike her actions at the end. Cole WAS a being of the fade that killed, thus she shouldn't have defended it..

Well, in my humble opinion she should leave the mages (and Lamberts marry band of traitors =P) to work for a

middle-ground, but I have to admit that I can understand it if she wants to stay with her boyfriend ^^

 

Another thing, I believe that a moderate person is not a person of the middle-ground, it is a person who

exercises moderation. The stronger you are interested in anything, the less moderate you are.

It doesn't matter if it is politics, religion or even eating. The "true" moderate person is a person of

the silent mass, because once you actually do something for any topic, you are no longer fully moderate.

Of course extremism vs being moderate is not black and white but more a scale.. I'll stop rambling about that sorry =P

 

@Qistina

The only portrayal of religion that can be found in Dragon Age to date is that the andrastian religion is

loaded with dark history and politics, but most of the revered mothers we met are rather nice and worrying

people, if somewhat lacking in action. You can see this as negative or not, but there isn't more.

Just because a criminal believes in faith, the faith is not evil/criminal, nor is a faith good because

a saint believes in it.

 

Last but not least, my personal opinion who is actually pretty similar =P

Fiona & Lambert - No brainer, both try to work for what they believe is the right thing and are willing

                              to go out of there way to ensure that this will happen.

Elthina & Dumar - Both want peace, but are powerless and only their name keeps people in order.

Adrian & Fenris - ..Rather extreme views, willing to work to ensure that their opinion prevails.

Anders & Meredith - same as Adrian and Fenris, just with going crazy

Irving + Wynne & Evangelyne + Gregoir - They want a compromise, see the necessaries and the problems

[EmperorSahlertz]

I have a hard time picturing Adrain siding with the Templars at the end of DA2, however Fenris did(can) side with the mages.

[Arcanis]

I have a hard time picturing Adrain siding with the Templars at the end of DA2, however Fenris did(can) side with the mages.

I have a hard time seeing Fenris do that.. and had a hard time convincing him to do it,

Rhys (I think that was his name) is no Hawke, so we can not know if hawk could convince her ^^

 

And on top of that, Fenris likes the status quo, Adrian wants to change it many of their differences come from that

[Hanako Ikezawa]

So...Qistina's trolling at this point, right? I shouldn't even try to respond anymore?

[EmperorSahlertz]

So...Qistina's trolling at this point, right? I shouldn't even try to respond anymore?

You shouldn't ever. You'll end up with a weretiger infestation.

[Xilizhra]

Site rule 3.Accusing Others of Trolling: Calling someone a troll or accusing them of trolling can also be a form of trolling.

 

I NEVER accuse anyone trolling as i remember since BSN....

For what it's worth, I believe you.

[Arcanis]

Site rule 3.Accusing Others of Trolling: Calling someone a troll or accusing them of trolling can also be a form of trolling.

 

I NEVER accuse anyone trolling as i remember since BSN....

..It CAN be a form of trolling. It is neither neccessary to do so yourself nor is calling someone a troll per se trolling.

This Quotation is thus pointless, because it proves nothing.

[Mihura]

i'm not talking about a ruler, I'm talking about a companion or a character stationed at our keep, sort of like the senischal in awakening. Just some character who doesn't just keep quiet when the pro-mage, or pro-templar, or pro-dalish, or pro-elf, or pro-human, or pro-dwarf, or pro-qunari, or any of the anti-'insert faction here' characters get to have their long winded monologue and is willing to pretty much say "that's biased crap and you know it, and here's why". They can be right and they can be wrong on some points, fine. But having someone be willing to call out both sides as being wrong would be welcome. At this point I'd be willing to even just have a character who didn't care about any side like zaeed from mass effect and have them just rain on everyone's parade.

 

 

 

So tell me, why exactly do you equate moderate positions with incompetence? Maybe a character feels that the circle system could be improved, but that breaking from the chantry and declaring war isn't the way to do it. Is that really an incompetent mindset to have?

 

You already had that with Isabela and Varric and yes I am not saying that could not happen, I am in totally favor of that. Having a more neutral side in a argument about oppressed groups happen a lot, of course I doubt you would gain friends on the oppressed group. They would see that character as part of the problem, because they do not care or since they do not do anything against the system in place, they are just as bad as them.

 

In times of peace like I said is actually a proffered option. If you are living for yourself and do not have people under your command that works too. If you are a ruler that type of stances always ends badly.  

 

Image that you are the ruler of a nation, and in that nation the rules of the Chantry are more moderated and that works for you and your nation. That is fine but other nations would not be like that, that is just the reality of things.

 

So since the chantries are being destroyed and nation changing the two border nations ask your help. One is a pro-chantry nation, the other a anti-chantry.

You choose to stay neutral. If the pro-chantry nation wins and conquers the other nation, what is stopping them for doing the same to you, you have no alliances since you decide to stay neutral in the conflict and now you cannot get aid from the conquered one because you did not risk your neck for them. If they are both pro or against, even worse. You are force to choose to oppose them of force a alliance with them.

 

It is always a loose/loose situation in this cases, staying neutral works if your thinking about yourself only. And even them you will get enemies because you are seeing as a part of the system still.

Also reading some Machiavelli on the subject of neutrality could help too. Although I do not like the guy, there are just too many things that still work even now. 

[Allan Schumacher]

then invent artificial and frankly somewhat uninspired reasons

 

Care to elaborate, because in a fictional world I find many people apply terms like "artificial" when they really just mean "I don't like it."  How does one apply the term artificial within the context of a fantasy, fictional world?

 

 

As gamist, immersion-breaking and frankly stupid as this trope is, I could accept it were it not made specifically different for mage Hawke.

 

Well, if you'd prefer we could just have it go "you lose" in some situations that are unique to Mage Hawke.  Or make it an extensive and elaborate ordeal that's unique to Mage Hawke.  Except that both of those have heavy risks associated with them (one for player experience, the other for content divergence and cost).  I suppose we could simply abstain from anything like that happening at all.  There's a much greater chance that it will be made specifically different for the protagonist, as simply killing the protagonist at the drop of a hat is a much more contentious act than killing an NPC.

 

 

Much the same way people deriding the "plausibility" of all the companions being bisexual is irrelevant because they too (as Wulfram stated) have a degree of special snowflake to them.  Or do you agree with the people who find that aspect gamist, immersion breaking, and frankly stupid, as well?

[Allan Schumacher]

Which "this" religion is evil/grey in Thedas?

 

As far i see, the portrayal about religion is mostly bad. Elven religion is neutral so far and we don't involve much in Elven religion.

 

So there are two evil/grey religion here, not one. In DA2 these two major religion play the most part to ruin everything we see in the game. The people of these religion suck so bad as if the religion teaching them to become so bad and crazy.

 

Still, DA2 is about religious extremism...i can sense that it is because of the current hype in real world at that time, isn't it? You can say i just only make an assumption, but as you can see i am not western, i am the people of the other part of the world, the way i think is not the same as your target audience in the west. The way i see it Bioware making a game attacking on religion.

 

There is no good side of religion being portrayed, so what is the other value we want to make comparison and as an option to choose? Players are still living in real world and using real world morality in their judgment. Bioware leave no room to the player to make a proper judgment. So either you choose an extremist type A or extremist type B in DA2

 

In DA:O, evil options are actually clear, players only use justifications to make evil look good, that is a matter of debate...that is where it become grey. Such as sacrificing peple making golems, that is evil, it only become grey because of player justifications when choosing it.

 

And you didn't answer why here is an option to defile religious figure remain in DA:O while that option don't actually give any impact in the game....

 

It's fair that it's a fault of the game if the player finds that acceptable choices along particular alignments are missing.  To state that we're sending a real world message, as opposed to trying to craft a story, however I think is maybe giving us a bit too much credit.  Granted, no act is completely apolitical, so I can understand your concern if you think it's irresponsible, even if it's a position that I do not agree with.

 

 

As for the option to defile, on some level simply to allow the player to do so?  Admittedly I wasn't working for BioWare when that quest was made available, but IIRC it is required to get the Reaver ability, and it's not entirely uncommon for BioWare games to have evil choices that exist simply for the sake of being evil.

[Xilizhra]

Care to elaborate, because in a fictional world I find many people apply terms like "artificial" when they really just mean "I don't like it."  How does one apply the term artificial within the context of a fantasy, fictional world?

It does not feel like a world where moral dilemmas naturally arose in the populace due to fantastic circumstances; it feels like a world where those fantastic circumstances were deliberately crafted to create moral dilemmas, especially due to the series' great focus on them.

 

Well, if you'd prefer we could just have it go "you lose" in some situations that are unique to Mage Hawke.  Or make it an extensive and elaborate ordeal that's unique to Mage Hawke.  Except that both of those have heavy risks associated with them (one for player experience, the other for content divergence and cost).  I suppose we could simply abstain from anything like that happening at all.  There's a much greater chance that it will be made specifically different for the protagonist, as simply killing the protagonist at the drop of a hat is a much more contentious act than killing an NPC.

I personally feel it was unwise to allow for nonmage PCs to begin with, but that's done now. But the solution that would work best to me by far is to say that, with the PC as an example, many of the supposed dangers of magic are just overblown and tend to happen in limited circumstances.

 

Much the same way people deriding the "plausibility" of all the companions being bisexual is irrelevant because they too (as Wulfram stated) have a degree of special snowflake to them.  Or do you agree with the people who find that aspect gamist, immersion breaking, and frankly stupid, as well?

I don't see that explanation as ideal, I admit; I'd have no problems with just saying that Thedosian humans have higher rates of bisexuality than Earthly humans, if that's even necessary to explain it statistically (and I do feel that that's true for elves in particular). However, that's also a somewhat different circumstance; instead of handwaving the abilities of the protagonist, it's handwaving how companions get together; it's about circumstances, not character, and thus is directed at a less personal aspect of the game.

[Allan Schumacher]

Site rule 3.Accusing Others of Trolling: Calling someone a troll or accusing them of trolling can also be a form of trolling.

 

I NEVER accuse anyone trolling as i remember since BSN....

 

Indeed.

 

If someone thinks a poster is intentionally trolling, please just report the post.  If that poster continues to aggravate you (whether trolling or not), the new forum software can block the posts of said poster.

 

Simply coming out and accusing someone of trolling, while it may or may not be accurate, is typically an express lane to thread derailment.  Those types of posts don't need to be made.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Site rule 3.Accusing Others of Trolling: Calling someone a troll or accusing them of trolling can also be a form of trolling.

 

I NEVER accuse anyone trolling as i remember since BSN....

Sorry.

 

Though I wasn't really accusing you, but rather asking others whether you were or not to see if I should continue the conversation. Still though, I apologize.

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra, do you think it was unwise to allow mage PC in DA2, or DA in general?