Considering I originally addressed the player aiding the Crown via the Inquisition in helping make this happen (given Queen Anora and King Alistair supporting this in the Magi Boon ending), it's completely relevant to my initial point.
But not my own.
Fair enough.
I just don't view it relevant to the comment you made here, given i was going strictly by NPC possible reaction and action, Not possible PC intervention.
But not my own.
Fair enough.
I just don't view it relevant to the comment you made here, given i was going strictly by NPC possible reaction and action, Not possible PC intervention.
My initial comment wasn't even directed at you.
Like i said fair enough.
So when says he won't let Orlais swoop down on them he is not serious? It is a sarcastic remark but it means they will not let Orlais invade. Its not a joke, its witty truth.
Also
"I dont feel the same way about the mages as the chantry does" followed by "We as are in disagreement with the chantry and they tend to be nasty." And after that
"We'll see what become of it as Ferelden is not at its strongest"
Right now there is a quarrel between Ferelden and chantry as Alistair speaks. Also he says "We" as in all people?
Given their potential importance, I would also like for the Magi Boon to play a role when the Inquisitor is in Ferelden
So would I, but don't expect some drastic changes for a decision less than 15% of players made. And even if you had a Magi origin Warden, you could just choose for a different boon, I did that in my playthrough, I choose title and riches, because screw the oppressed people, I am in it for me.
So would I, but don't expect some drastic changes for a decision less than 15% of players made. And even if you had a Magi origin Warden, you could just choose for a different boon, I did that in my playthrough, I choose title and riches, because screw the oppressed people, I am in it for me.
*Cough*
The mages in that circle weren't oppressed.
So would I, but don't expect some drastic changes for a decision less than 15% of players made. And even if you had a Magi origin Warden, you could just choose for a different boon, I did that in my playthrough, I choose title and riches, because screw the oppressed people, I am in it for me.
*Cough*
The mages in that circle weren't oppressed.
They weren't before One of the most senior member of the said circle got possessed by a demon organized a coup and killed tens and hundreds of people including Templars .
What do you think will be the position of the 'New' Circle of Ferelden .
Even if Alistair/Anora grants them Some level of Independence , The Templars would still be policing them, They might not watch the females take a bath anymore but they will still watch them sleep, getting all hot and bothered *clears throat*. Anyway the situation of the Circle in Fereldan is more likely to get worse than better.
It could be something like this:
During the Annual Monarch visit of the Circle, Irving and Gregoir are all buddy-like, with Gregoir saying 'I am telling you Your Majesty Irving here is a MAD dog, no one picks up chicks like Irving. Hey Irving you are THE MAN , bro, THE MAN. And when the Monarch visit is over. Gregoir goes to Irving picks him up by the collar (or robe equivalent) and says
Gregoir: Say 'Magic is a curse' or I will punch you
Irving: Magic is a curse (Gregoir gut punches Irving)
Gregoir: That's for selling out your beliefs.
Guest_Craig Golightly_*
I don't think this is a war being fought among nations. They MIGHT aid financially, but they have no obligation as far as I see.
Except the potential for domestic skirmishes caused by the war. To secure one's territory and protect the population, of course.
I don't think this is a war being fought among nations. They MIGHT aid financially, but they have no obligation as far as I see.
Except the potential for domestic skirmishes caused by the war. To secure one's territory and protect the population, of course.
Agreed so far as Inquisition is concerned.
This issue won't likely involve nations until after the events of Inquisition, that's of course assuming that David and coming don't strong arm a conflict with the Qunari or Tevinter or both.
Unholy alliance between Tevinter and qunari to conquer the rest of Thedas. Semi-confirmed rumour (For DA4)Agreed so far as Inquisition is concerned.
This issue won't likely involve nations until after the events of Inquisition, that's of course assuming that David and coming don't strong arm a conflict with the Qunari or Tevinter or both.
!
I don't think this is a war being fought among nations. They MIGHT aid financially, but they have no obligation as far as I see.
Except the potential for domestic skirmishes caused by the war. To secure one's territory and protect the population, of course.
Exactly. I don't know why people think normal Andrastian countries will choose any of the rogue super powered factions instead of, you know, siding with their Chantry and crackin on them both. And the only reason they may not be doing that right now is because of narrative convenience.
Ferelden is weak after the Blight, Orlais is in the middle of a civil war, Nevarra is one step away from a succession crisis (after playing Crusader Kings II, that is my least favourite expression after "The infidels have declared a holy war against you"), Rivain elites have their hands full with their powderkeg, in the Anderfels there are always darkspawn roaming around, Antiva is just a city and the Free Marches... Well, they're the Free Marches.
But once the Inquisitor solves problems in Orlais and probably in Nevarra too, the clock will start running against the rogue factions.
Exactly. I don't know why people think normal Andrastian countries will choose any of the rogue super powered factions instead of, you know, siding with their Chantry and crackin on them both. And the only reason they may not be doing that right now is because of narrative convenience.
Ferelden is weak after the Blight, Orlais is in the middle of a civil war, Nevarra is one step away from a succession crisis (after playing Crusader Kings II, that is my least favourite expression after "The infidels have declared a holy war against you"), Rivain elites have their hands full with their powderkeg, in the Anderfels there are always darkspawn roaming around, Antiva is just a city and the Free Marches... Well, they're the Free Marches.
But once the Inquisitor solves problems in Orlais and probably in Nevarra too, the clock will start running against the rogue factions.
Because the developers said the player can choose to side with the mages or the templars, and stressed the Inquisition is building alliances and being shaped by the actions of the protagonist. It's why they said the Inquisition will earn respect, or demand it. It would also be odd for one of the the kingdoms to attack an ally of the Inquisition.
Where exactly have the devs said you can choose to side with either templars or mages?
Where exactly have the devs said you can choose to side with either templars or mages?
Yeah i don't recall that bit.
They said Templars and Mages would be a faction in game.
I'd assume you would be able to assist either or somewhat, but overall the Inquisition isn't about giving the elves a homeland, freeing mages or restoring the circle.
Its brought into existence to end the threat to Thedas from the fade.
Also i'd be amazed if a third party mercenary army like the Inquisition could match a Nation either in terms of troops it could field or in the amount of coin it could spend in waging campaigns.
Because the developers said the player can choose to side with the mages or the templars, and stressed the Inquisition is building alliances and being shaped by the actions of the protagonist. It's why they said the Inquisition will earn respect, or demand it. It would also be odd for one of the the kingdoms to attack an ally of the Inquisition.
Even if that's the case, it's still the countries making an alliance with the Inquisition, not the mages or the templars. Their national preferences would mean nothing in that scenario (for example, if the Inquisitor chooses Templars, Ferelden would do the same, DA:O boon or not; if the Inquisitor chooses mages, Orlais would do the same).
I'd assume you would be able to assist either or somewhat, but overall the Inquisition isn't about giving the elves a homeland, freeing mages or restoring the circle.
Its brought into existence to end the threat to Thedas from the fade.
Exactly. Like the Wardens aren't there to solve everybody's problems. Their only duty is to stop the darkspawn. Everything else is an extra.
Also i'd be amazed if a third party mercenary army like the Inquisition could match a Nation either in terms of troops it could field or in the amount of coin it could spend in waging campaigns.
Well, according to the videos, we at least will have more power than the city-state of Kirkwall, but that's not saying much, really
Even if that's the case, it's still the countries making an alliance with the Inquisition, not the mages or the templars. Their national preferences would mean nothing in that scenario (for example, if the Inquisitor chooses Templars, Ferelden would do the same, DA:O boon or not; if the Inquisitor chooses mages, Orlais would do the same).
Except that would call into question the Andrastian kingdoms turning on the group that the Inquisition has allied with, which was my point. I think the preferences of the ruler could be a factor as well (such as Sebastian's view on mages being free from the Chantry if Starkhaven is a location visited by the Inquisitor, where the player might have to choose between two or more factions to side with), but the player is the one who is deciding who to side with, and what kind of organization the Inquisition will become. The comparison that was made by Laidlaw (in addressing the player founding and leading the Inquisition): “We’ve always wanted to ask the question, ‘what if you could found the Jedi Order instead of becoming a Jedi?’”
Given what the developers have said, it's an organization that is going to grow in power, that's initially in opposition to the will of the Chantry (with Laidlaw stressing that the protagonist isn't a puppet of the church or anything like that), and it's established by a protagonist who is the lone survivor of some cataclysmic event. I think the player will decide alliances, and the relationships with rulers will factor into that, but I think it would be incredibly strange for the kingdoms to turn on groups that are working with an organization that's likely gained a tremendous amount of power and influence, when all is said and done.
As for the Magi Boon, I've said it was tied to the protagonist showing support for the mages in Ferelden. If the Inquisitor sides with the mages in establishing a base of operations and power in Ferelden, and the current ruler of the nation has already publicly agreed that mages have earned the right to govern themselves, I don't see why the Magi Boon couldn't be addressed. Maybe one of the characters could mention that mages are heading to Ferelden as a sanctuary, in the wake of the Mage-Templar War? It's just a thought.
Arl Emmon, who holds a lot of power in the Bannorn of Ferelden is likely to support mage freedom because of either Conner or his daughter. Alister and Anora seem to be on Mages should be free to are very useful in battle. If you didn't slaughter the remaining mages in DA:O then it is very likely that the Nobility remembered that mages helped.
But Irvin and Gregor both seem to have at least some kind of understanding so I think the Mage/Templar confict will be far removed from Ferelden.
Except that would call into question the Andrastian kingdoms turning on the group that the Inquisition has allied with, which was my point. I think the preferences of the ruler could be a factor as well (such as Sebastian's view on mages being free from the Chantry if Starkhaven is a location visited by the Inquisitor, where the player might have to choose between two or more factions to side with), but the player is the one who is deciding who to side with, and what kind of organization the Inquisition will become. The comparison that was made by Laidlaw (in addressing the player founding and leading the Inquisition): “We’ve always wanted to ask the question, ‘what if you could found the Jedi Order instead of becoming a Jedi?’”
Given what the developers have said, it's an organization that is going to grow in power, that's initially in opposition to the will of the Chantry (with Laidlaw stressing that the protagonist isn't a puppet of the church or anything like that), and it's established by a protagonist who is the lone survivor of some cataclysmic event. I think the player will decide alliances, and the relationships with rulers will factor into that, but I think it would be incredibly strange for the kingdoms to turn on groups that are working with an organization that's likely gained a tremendous amount of power and influence, when all is said and done.
But that's just a matter of the player and the alliances they choose. In DA:O the Warden wasn't asking "Hey, dwarves, would you mind if I invite the Dalish? Hey, Dalish, you don't mind I killed every mage in the Tower and brought Templars to the war effort, do you? Arl Eamon, if I put Anora on the throne you will still give me your soldiers, won't you?". Once you earned their loyalty, the factions would aid you without caring if they liked your other friends. I think the same will happen in Inquisition.
Another thing is what will happen in the epilogues, but that's outside our control.
But that's just a matter of the player and the alliances they choose. In DA:O the Warden wasn't asking "Hey, dwarves, would you mind if I invite the Dalish? Hey, Dalish, you don't mind I killed every mage in the Tower and brought Templars to the war effort, do you? Arl Eamon, if I put Anora on the throne you will still give me your soldiers, won't you?". Once you earned their loyalty, the factions would aid you without caring if they liked your other friends. I think the same will happen in Inquisition.
Another thing is what will happen in the epilogues, but that's outside our control.
I wouldn't consider Arl Eamon to be a fair example, because he concedes he would abdicate to Loghain in order to end the civil war. The Arl is well aware of the threat posed by the darkspawn.
The Inquisition is different from the Grey Wardens in that it's not a neutral organization petitioning for alliances to stop the Blight; it's said to be a player shaped organization where the Inquisitor is going use this fledgling Inquisition to earn respect, or command it. Having kingdoms attack members of a specific group that's involved with the Inquisition - which, at this hypothetical time, would be powerful in it's own right - seems odd to me, especially when the Inquisitor himself can be a member of the group in question.
I wouldn't consider Arl Eamon to be a fair example, because he concedes he would abdicate to Loghain in order to end the civil war. The Arl is well aware of the threat posed by the darkspawn.
But the example about Dalish and Templars marching together rings more true, doesn't it? Still, what prevents other rulers for doing the same? "We recognize the threat of the Veil Tears, we'll gladly work with those assh... I mean, our beloved allies if it helps to save the world".
The Inquisition is different from the Grey Wardens in that it's not a neutral organization petitioning for alliances to stop the Blight; it's said to be a player shaped organization where the Inquisitor is going use this fledgling Inquisition to earn respect, or command it. Having kingdoms attack members of a specific group that's involved with the Inquisition - which, at this hypothetical time, would be powerful in it's own right - seems odd to me, especially when the Inquisitor himself can be a member of the group in question.
The Wardens aren't neutral at all in a war (as in: "if it helps us stop the Blight, it's fair game"), so the point is still valid. Also, by the time the Inquisition earns that global respect (and fear), the conflicts that are making people kill each other will be solved (by ourselves), so there's no danger of our allies killing each other.
But I think we're getting a bit sidetracked here. I understood that the OP and other people were claiming that in a conflict like the Mage-Templar War the nations would pick sides, and people were starting making lists. My own opinion (that may be wrong) is that I don't see countries apart from Tevinter interested in picking sides, since they have their own share of problems and they may see both groups as dangerous rogue factions that should go back to the Chantry asap. Because "Chantry" is still a faction and all White Andrastian nations are already members of it, in crude RPG terms.
But the example about Dalish and Templars marching together rings more true, doesn't it? Still, what prevents other rulers for doing the same? "We recognize the threat of the Veil Tears, we'll gladly work with those assh... I mean, our beloved allies if it helps to save the world".
Since this is a hypothetical scenario, I imagine the difference is that the Inquisition isn't neutral, and isn't prohibited from getting involved on one side of the conflict or the other.
The Wardens aren't neutral at all in a war (as in: "if it helps us stop the Blight, it's fair game"), so the point is still valid. Also, by the time the Inquisition earns that global respect (and fear), the conflicts that are making people kill each other will be solved (by ourselves), so there's no danger of our allies killing each other.
The Wardens are neutral; what the Hero of Ferelden did was atypical of Warden behavior.
Sophia Dryden's actions in getting involved in a fight for the throne of Ferelden were problematic, since it caused the expulsion of the order from the nation when she lost, an act that was only undone recently by King Maric. The Wardens being politically neutral is addressed when Gaider explained why Duncan would have likely returned to Orlais if he had lived (instead of getting involved in the civil war in Ferelden like Alistair and The Warden did), why Riordian expressed disdain for the Anderfel Wardens getting involved in politics, and Warden Alistair's cameo in Dragon Age II addressing how some Wardens disliked the Hero of Ferelden and him getting involved in politics to end the Fifth Blight.
But I think we're getting a bit sidetracked here. I understood that the OP and other people were claiming that in a conflict like the Mage-Templar War the nations would pick sides, and people were starting making lists. My own opinion (that may be wrong) is that I don't see countries apart from Tevinter interested in picking sides, since they have their own share of problems and they may see both groups as dangerous rogue factions that should go back to the Chantry asap. Because "Chantry" is still a faction and all White Andrastian nations are already members of it, in crude RPG terms.
Fair enough. It was a nice conversation, in the meantime. 
I'm curious to see how Inquisition will ultimately handle this.
Since this is a hypothetical scenario, I imagine the difference is that the Inquisition isn't neutral, and isn't prohibited from getting involved on one side of the conflict or the other.
True. After all, who is going to stop us?
The Wardens are neutral; what the Hero of Ferelden did was atypical of Warden behavior.
Sophia Dryden's actions in getting involved in a fight for the throne of Ferelden were problematic, since it caused the expulsion of the order from the nation when she lost, an act that was only undone recently by King Maric. The Wardens being politically neutral is addressed when Gaider explained why Duncan would have likely returned to Orlais if he had lived (instead of getting involved in the civil war in Ferelden like Alistair and The Warden did), why Riordian expressed disdain for the Anderfel Wardens getting involved in politics, and Warden Alistair's cameo in Dragon Age II addressing how some Wardens disliked the Hero of Ferelden and him getting involved in politics to end the Fifth Blight.
Mm, that's true. It seems only the First Warden was ecstatic about what the Hero of Ferelden did (not, not ending the Blight, but getting lands for the Wardens).
However, I think that after so many years of peace the Wardens are being a bit naive. The Fourth Blight was defeated thanks to Garahel uniting the different factions in the Free Marches, not unlike the Hero of Ferelden, and during the Third Blight the Wardens actually pressed both Orlais and Tevinter to take part in the fight. So maybe the usual Wardens are neutral, but the Wardens who defeated the Blights were not.
Fair enough. It was a nice conversation, in the meantime.
Sigh, Inquisition's release date can't come soon enough.
Retour en haut