444 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

Did someone really just advocate that we should only have been allowed one class?

 

sigh. I feel this thread will be locked any page now.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Maybe someone who's read the book can clarify, but I had kinda thought Adrian was more extreme than Fiona. I certainly don't consider Fenris more extreme than Meredith. It's not even close actually.

[Xilizhra]

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

No, it's too much of a source of lore to cut off. Actually, DA2 could have been made to work a lot better if they'd just made it clearer that the nobility of Kirkwall was willing to close ranks to defend one of their own even if they were a mage, because of the templar political situation.

 

 

Did someone really just advocate that we should only have been allowed one class?

 

sigh. I feel this thread will be locked any page now.

I didn't say it'd only have one playstyle.

[Cainhurst Crow]

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. 

 

You keep going back to the "ruler" analogy when it doesn't have a place in this discussion, imo, outside of asking for a character in power to be moderate, which I am not asking for and have told you I am not asking for. Additionally, Moderates don't always mean neutral, you can have a moderate mage and a moderate templar both sharing the same or very similar views,  and neither of them being "neutral". Maybe it's my own fault for not having made this clear in the OP, or some point of the thread, or maybe it just took me this long to come to this conclusion, but you don't need to be true neutral to be a moderate, you can be chaotic or lawful neutral as well. It's not a simple 3 choice dilemma, where you either want the extreme on the left, the extreme on the right, or not to make any choice at all. There is a spectrum for these types of question and a lot of room to maneuver.

 

There's no widespread countries view on this, nor is there this grand moral implementation of this characters viewpoint that I am advocating. I'm just asking for someone to voice the opinion and be more pro-active about it. Someone to try and ground the other more extreme members of the party. I know it's not going to happen. I know I'm pretty much shouting into the wind since the characters personality and traits for our companions and npc's have been set in stone at this point. But if bioware knows there is enough people who don't like the dichotomy extremes they've set up maybe something can happen in the next dragon age game, or not, who knows?

 

Also it's hard to take Machiavelli's work seriously sometimes, given the theories that his work was purposely meant to sabotage the new regime, or a parody of their ruling style, or both, or meant to be taken seriously. I have never encountered any other philosopher have their work challenged in such a way and it kinda colors his thoughts a bit hard to swallow.

 

 

I didn't say it'd only have one playstyle.

 

That doesn't make it better. Like, not even close to being any better.

[The Elder King]

Maybe someone who's read the book can clarify, but I had kinda thought Adrian was more extreme than Fiona. I certainly don't consider Fenris more extreme than Meredith. It's not even close actually.

From what it counts, I don't think she's on the same level as Adrian. Though it depends on her ignorance of Adrian's plot.

No, it's too much of a source of lore to cut off. Actually, DA2 could have been made to work a lot better if they'd just made it clearer that the nobility of Kirkwall was willing to close ranks to defend one of their own even if they were a mage, because of the templar political situation.

Understood.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maybe someone who's read the book can clarify, but I had kinda thought Adrian was more extreme than Fiona. I certainly don't consider Fenris more extreme than Meredith. It's not even close actually.

Adrian was much more extreme than Fiona. Fiona while wanting mages to have their freedom at least stayed above the law to try to reach that outcome, while Adrian had no qualms killing to help it along.

[Mihura]

You keep going back to the "ruler" analogy when it doesn't have a place in this discussion, imo, outside of asking for a character in power to be moderate, which I am not asking for and have told you I am not asking for. Additionally, Moderates don't always mean neutral, you can have a moderate mage and a moderate templar both sharing the same or very similar views,  and neither of them being "neutral". Maybe it's my own fault for not having made this clear in the OP, or some point of the thread, or maybe it just took me this long to come to this conclusion, but you don't need to be true neutral to be a moderate, you can be chaotic or lawful neutral as well. It's not a simple 3 choice dilemma, where you either want the extreme on the left, the extreme on the right, or not to make any choice at all. There is a spectrum for these types of question and a lot of room to maneuver.

 

There's no widespread countries view on this, nor is there this grand moral implementation of this characters viewpoint that I am advocating. I'm just asking for someone to voice the opinion and be more pro-active about it. Someone to try and ground the other more extreme members of the party. I know it's not going to happen. I know I'm pretty much shouting into the wind since the characters personality and traits for our companions and npc's have been set in stone at this point. But if bioware knows there is enough people who don't like the dichotomy extremes they've set up maybe something can happen in the next dragon age game, or not, who knows?

 

Also it's hard to take Machiavelli's work seriously sometimes, given the theories that his work was purposely meant to sabotage the new regime, or a parody of their ruling style, or both, or meant to be taken seriously. I have never encountered any other philosopher have their work challenged in such a way and it kinda colors his thoughts a bit hard to swallow.

 

 

 

That doesn't make it better. Like, not even close to being any better.

 

But wasn't that done in DA 2 too? Nor Varric or Isabela had extreme stances on the conflict of the chantry and circle.  

 

Basically what are you saying, is that you want a character that wants to change some things about the circle and chantry but not destroyed it, only rebuke some extremist views. Even then it would still clashes with the extreme stances.

 

After the end of the last book I really do not think you can have a moderated character without being accuse of wanting to forgive the mages crimes or preserving the status quo. In a way he is seeing as neutral and wanting to please all people because he takes no sides. If there was no conflict, maybe that would work, but I am not seeing that now.

 

About the neutrality part of Machiavelli work, I find his work highly amusing and honest to a point. I dislike the guy so I do get what you are saying. I talked about him because DA is not a modern setting, so some more old works could reflect that better. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

I don't care about clashing ideologies nor characters accusing each other of bad things. We got that in DA2, and DAO, and the game didn't implode because of it. Having companions have different ideologies and work together is kinda a staple of biowares recent games. Mass effect also had this in ME2, and the game is hailed as having some of the best companions of the whole series and being the best of the trilogy.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Apology accepted

Thanks.

[Mihura]

I don't care about clashing ideologies nor characters accusing each other of bad things. We got that in DA2, and DAO, and the game didn't implode because of it. Having companions have different ideologies and work together is kinda a staple of biowares recent games. Mass effect also had this in ME2, and the game is hailed as having some of the best companions of the whole series and being the best of the trilogy.

 

But like you said all games had that even DA 2, you just saw an extreme there because the system was about to fall. It is normal to see characters takes side on conflicts, if they don't others force them to take them. 

 

In that type of situations like the chantry being destroyed, unless you or your companions leaves, there is a high risk of being attacked by both sides. That is why I find more difficult surviving that scenario, unless you have the strength to do it alone. Of course I would not call it incompetence, only if you are a ruler but that is more like a death wish.   

 

Aveline for example, is more inclined to support the templars right? Even if she has a more moderated view, it is not possible for her to ignore what Anders did, so in the end she will have to choose to be extreme, even if she is not.

 

In the end with extremes situations and conflicts, in my opinion it is almost impossible to be moderate or neutral, without running way or defending yourself of both extremes. You will be killing everyone, not agaist that choice it could be fun LOL

[Cainhurst Crow]

Aveline is a moderate, like I have been saying this whole time, you don't need to be neutral to be a moderate. What is this so hard to actually grasp? I just want a companion who can voice the moderate position and not be a doormat for the other extremer points of view.

 

You know what? Forget it. Forget all of this. It's been three days. I'm tired of explaining. Tired of discussing. Just plain tired.

 

I give up.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Aveline does strike me as the closest thing the game had to a moderate (as opposed to Varic and Isabella who are mostly not invested in the issue). She believes the Knight Commander and templars do important work, but still tolerates working with mages and opposes the Templars' power grab.

[Master Warder Z_]

Aveline does strike me as the closest thing the game had to a moderate (as opposed to Varic and Isabella who are mostly not invested in the issue). She believes the Knight Commander and templars do important work, but still tolerates working with mages and opposes the Templars' power grab.

 

She was a "Loyal" to a location type of person rather then loyal to a faction type of person.

 

She was ultimately concerned with the good of Kirkwall over the good of any particular group of people.

 

Hence why she backs Meredith during the end game.

 

The Templars represent not only the best force to combat the rogue mages, but also the strongest martial body in the city.

 

Very Practical and very Moderate in personal belief but not uncompromising either.

 

Still if i was her i would stabbed Ander's a few accusations ago Honestly their entire conversation log in Act 3 was (are you selling me out to the Templars? I know it was you who sold me out to the Templars! Nag, Nag...)

[Thresh the Qunari]

i mostly do that as the mc. kinda don't want so other character taking my role

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

 

 

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.

 

I'd say that your "feel" of the world stems from your expectations and view.

 

The dangers of magic are not "overblown" - rather the PC is a special snowflake (by design, and to some extent by necessity) who never actually has to deal with the real dangers of magic. Games don't really handle posession and temptation well.

 

By DG's admission, this creates the dissonance between the lore's portrayl of mages and abominations, and how you slaughter them in-game like cattle.

 

In other words, it was unwise to have a *MAGE* PC to begin with, given that the game is unlikely to ever be able to do it justice.
 

[Lotion Soronarr]

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

 

 

I know.

[Xilizhra]

I'd say that your "feel" of the world stems from your expectations and view.

 

The dangers of magic are not "overblown" - rather the PC is a special snowflake (by design, and to some extent by necessity) who never actually has to deal with the real dangers of magic. Games don't really handle posession and temptation well.

 

By DG's admission, this creates the dissonance between the lore's portrayl of mages and abominations, and how you slaughter them in-game like cattle.

 

In other words, it was unwise to have a *MAGE* PC to begin with, given that the game is unlikely to ever be able to do it justice.
 

Then they shouldn't have created so many abomination enemies if they couldn't implement them properly. And more importantly, assuming this is true, Bioware shouldn't have created a magic system that's impossible to play properly.

[Dean_the_Young]

If they didn't create abomination enemies, you would then claim that a lack of abomination enemies as proof that they didn't exist in any significant number, the same as you invented a claim that abominations can't happen in areas with a normal veil because we don't see them personally.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Indeed. If Bioware had actually enver included a mage as a playable PC option, then they could ahve done the entire issue jsutice much more easily. Companions could still be mages, but the player not being able to play a mage, would certainly make the job easier.

[Grieving Natashina]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.  They aren't taking the mage option back, so why dwell on it?  It might have made things easier, or made more sense, sure.  However, this is the way it is.  We need to think about what we're working with, rather than roads not taken.

 

@Jen FWIW, I agree about Aveline.

[Xilizhra]

If they didn't create abomination enemies, you would then claim that a lack of abomination enemies as proof that they didn't exist in any significant number, the same as you invented a claim that abominations can't happen in areas with a normal veil because we don't see them personally.

Well, either they cannot exist in significant number and the number of them in-game is significantly higher than the number they were in canon, or abominations are generally not all that powerful to begin with... or all PCs and companions are superpowered beyond any hope of reasonable explanation (except when fighting ordinary people, at which point they downgrade again).

[EmperorSahlertz]

 

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.  They aren't taking the mage option back, so why dwell on it?  It might have made things easier, or made more sense, sure.  However, this is the way it is.  We need to think about what we're working with, rather than roads not taken.

You need to be able to learn from past mistakes.

[Hellion Rex]

Indeed. If Bioware had actually enver included a mage as a playable PC option, then they could ahve done the entire issue jsutice much more easily. Companions could still be mages, but the player not being able to play a mage, would certainly make the job easier.

Locking out an entire class? I highly disagree with that sentiment.

[LarryDavid]

 

As for the Ash of Sacred Ashes...leaving an option to do evil, clearly evil with no reason is a bad message. no justification to defile the ash of religious figure, and the player have no major penalty in doing so other than some optional party members leaving. It make it look like it is okay to do such thing just because want to do it. No evil person doing things just because they want to do it, there must be reason to do what they do, or they just simply have mental problem in certain level. By the way the Reaver specialization is only for Warrior class only, but the option is open to all class making there is no point at all. Truly i unlock it as a Mage.There's even an option to kill Kolgrim after defile the Ash. So doing evil just for the sake of evil? Even Mr Satan have his own philosophy and his standard

 

 

I think you should realize that other people (most hopefully) may have a different concept of what is evil than you. Last year my wife and I went to Turkey with some muslim colleagues of her and as such most places we visited were religion related. Once we went to a place where there was the hair of the beard of one of their (and I assume also one of your) prophets on display, and they were completely in awe. If one can be so obsessed with a hair I can see how one can consider destroying the ashes of a religious figure as something utterly evil.

 

The thing is that for other people (like me) the religious characteristic of an object is, in most cases, completely irrelevant. I don’t consider my bible or my quran to be more special than any other book I own. For me these ashes are not more special than the ashes and bones and skulls encountered in other places, so I can’t see what’s inherently evil in destroying them. Besides, there are reasons enough to destroy something that is valuable to other people.

[Grieving Natashina]

 

 

 

You need to be able to learn from past mistakes.

 

Cool, when the Chantry starts with that as well as the mages, you got a deal.   Both sides have a lot to learn, not just one group or the other.  

 

 

Besides, I was only pointing out that it's silly to dwell too much about the inclusion of mage PCs.  They aren't going to take the option out, so it makes no difference if the story would have worked better/made more sense without them.   It is what it is.  We have mage PCs and they are going to stay.  We have to frame this discussion within that context, otherwise it's pointless.