I'm sure many people choose the qunari over that zealot and I do too.
However I've been playing again and as I mage I realized that zealot mother is much better than Qunari. The Arvaraad turns on you immediately when he finds out you are a mage regardless of everything. We know for a fact that they bind and abuse their mages. I very much rather a chantry zealot over that kind of doctrine.
but I don't know... I always picked the Qunari side and I think now I'm starting to change my mind.
Qunari. Even if that happens, he is just doing what he's appointed to do. Remember, even if you're a mage the Arishok still considers you a Basalit-An. That, on my book, feels good.
Petrice.
Better the devil you know.
There's also the fact that I don't like the expansionistic fascists on principle; being a mage is simply the cherry on top.
I've done both, but I wind up siding with the qunari because the end goal of getting them out of Kirkwall isn't actually helped by Petrice's schemes.
This is an interesting topic. Though I haven't played DA2 in almost 2 years, I remember the Petrice variants to the storyline very well. Being able to side with her without her being killed was hard to achieve. I cannot remember the name of a specific quest, but an option came up in the Petrice/Qunari conflict where Ser Varnel (sp?) was about to kill some Qunari diplomats and I was offered a dialogue option with him that I never experienced in the few previous play-throughs I did. In any case, I was able to side with Varnel and help him kill the Qunari. In the subsequent "Following The Qun" quest, I then had the option in the Chantry to either side with Petrice, or the Qunari, of which I chose Petrice (also got more XP since the Qunari are harder to kill then weakling Chantry zealots).
After all was said and done, Petrice was ejected from the Chantry order and in the following conversation I had with her outside the Chantry, I got the impression that she'll be available in the future for aid. Don't know if this will play out in DA:I.
It's not hard, you just have to be Agressive Hawke to have this option.
I've done both, but I wind up siding with the qunari because the end goal of getting them out of Kirkwall isn't actually helped by Petrice's schemes.
Sure it is- Petrice's provocations are a significant part of what push the Arishok past his patience and tolerance with Kirkwall, which leads to his uprising and subsequent crushing and expulsion.
Petrice is a successful agitator and catalyst for a conflict that succeeds in her goals.
This is an interesting topic. Though I haven't played DA2 in almost 2 years, I remember the Petrice variants to the storyline very well. Being able to side with her without her being killed was hard to achieve. I cannot remember the name of a specific quest, but an option came up in the Petrice/Qunari conflict where Ser Varnel (sp?) was about to kill some Qunari diplomats and I was offered a dialogue option with him that I never experienced in the few previous play-throughs I did. In any case, I was able to side with Varnel and help him kill the Qunari. In the subsequent "Following The Qun" quest, I then had the option in the Chantry to either side with Petrice, or the Qunari, of which I chose Petrice (also got more XP since the Qunari are harder to kill then weakling Chantry zealots).
After all was said and done, Petrice was ejected from the Chantry order and in the following conversation I had with her outside the Chantry, I got the impression that she'll be available in the future for aid. Don't know if this will play out in DA:I.
It requires angry-Hawke to get the option to side with her by killing the Qunari in front of Ser Varnel, IIRC.
I like to of had that option to kill the Qunari when playing diplomatic/sarcastic Hawke.
Lets take a tally
Patrice:
Zealot, check
anti-mage, check
liar, check
Qunari:
Zealots, check
anti-mage, check
liar, uh no.
I'll take the honest zealot any day of the week
both are proselytizing, anti-freedom zealots
at least the qunari are honest about it. That is something that as a player I can respect.
Patrice is scum
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Siding with Petrice requires an Aggressive personality.
Take that as you will.
I think if you were to play something similar to Hawke from the trailers... a sort of bloodthirsty mage who beats the crap out of the Arishok... then I can see them siding with Petrice easily. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". And whoever said she's anti-mage isn't paying attention to her dialogue. She thinks the way they treat mages is barbaric. She's more interested in the Qunari disrupting everyone's way of life though. Not just mages.
If you're more of a diplomatic type, trying to be the nice guy all of time -- even to the Qunari -- then you'd never side with Petrice. You'll be some weenie who earns the Arishok's approval... even though they would cut your tongue out, if they could.
qunari. At least I can fight them to death instead of becoming a tranquil
I never really saw it as actually siding with the qunari myself, even if I got the Arishok's respect. Petrice was pretty much doomed the moment that trap with Arvaarad was set. I always considered the qunari a hostile that I'd probably have to deal with later, but Petrice became one much sooner. Of course, that's neither here or there since I greatly favor humorous Hawke over the others. They're just a bit too serious for my taste.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I never really saw it as actually siding with the qunari myself, even if I got the Arishok's respect. Petrice was pretty much doomed the moment that trap with Arvaarad was set. I always considered the qunari a hostile that I'd probably have to deal with later, but Petrice became one much sooner. Of course, that's neither here or there since I greatly favor humorous Hawke over the others. They're just a bit too serious for my taste.
She's only trapped by Avvarad if you let it. It's up to you. It's not her predetermined fate or anything.
Petrice isn't hostile unless you're an overt friend of the Qunari. All of her aggressive posturing in Act 2 is if you seem to be buddies with the Qunari. And by buddies, that pretty much means respecting them in any way. She's your friend if you truly hate them. And by hate, I mean suppress their right to even exist. lol. Anything short of that, and you're viewed as no different than Seamus.
Humorous Hawke is great, but I only like it in Act 1 really. All I care about at that point is avoiding politics and getting paid.
She's only trapped by Avvarad if you let it. It's up to you. It's not her predetermined fate or anything.
Petrice isn't hostile unless you're an overt friend of the Qunari. All of her aggressive posturing in Act 2 is if you seem to be buddies with the Qunari. And by buddies, that pretty much means respecting them in any way. She's your friend if you truly hate them. And by hate, I mean suppress their right to even exist. lol. Anything short of that, and you're viewed as no different than Seamus.
Humorous Hawke is great, but I only like it in Act 1 really. All I care about at that point is avoiding politics and getting paid.
Actually, it's only up to Hawke to choose to escort the Seraabas, but Petrice or Varnell made the lure so Hawke would be sure to cross paths with the Arvaarad. Had Hawke died in the confrontation, that would have been Petrice's fault.
Yep even my aggressive Hawke who couldn't stand the Qunari pretty much put Petrice on his **** list from that scenario. He's only mad ninja Qunari got the kill before he did.
I sided with Petrice in my main playthrough (I had to cheat to get the aggressive personality). My Hawke didn't agree with Petrice's methods, but she was right that the qunari needed to be...taken care of. Her plan failed, but if she was successful probably some lives would have been saved.
Main Hawke sided with the Qunari, Petrice got entwined in a mess that she shouldn't have. All Hawke is to her is a tool. She view Qunari as savage when her own actions was that of a backstabbing hypocrite. She got what was coming to her, imo.
Petrice is a racist, backstabbing, lying zealot who should have died much earlier.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Actually, it's only up to Hawke to choose to escort the Seraabas, but Petrice or Varnell made the lure so Hawke would be sure to cross paths with the Arvaarad. Had Hawke died in the confrontation, that would have been Petrice's fault.
I was confused what you meant. I thought you meant the trap at the Chantry, if you sided against her.
In any case, to each their own. I hate Qunari myself. It'll take some great writing (and some new revelation) to make me change my mind about them. I wonder if DAI would pull it off.
I don't particularly care about who's backstabbing or "honorable". I do all kinds of scandolous things in games myself. I care about "eternity" as Petrice and Arishok would put it. They both point to the big picture struggle going on here. And someone has to win it, by any means.
I'd prefer honorable actions, but that is merely situational ethics. What's more terrifying is the Qunari ideology in the longrun (or anything like it in the real world). That level of societal control angers me just thinking about it. I'm libertarian to the bone. I don't side with authoritarians, simply because they might have polite methods.
I don't like the qunari either, but from my own perspective, they, the likes of Petrice and her fanatics are two sides of the same crappy coin, and given the ability, I would sooner opt to dismantle the institutions of both than side with either. At the very least, going against Petrice allows for her death now, and the Arishok's later. The fact that both die in this path makes it the one and only path for me.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I don't really know if she's the same side of that coin.
She used a mage to illustrate her cause. That already sets her apart from Qunari and many in the Chantry. Even if he was a tool, she cared about his level of freedom to some extent. She's not very personable, but she doesn't like that kind of control and restriction on others. That's a good sign to me.
If you side with her, she also hints at a coming schism in the Chantry. She isn't simply representing the Chantry as it is... but something to come. Which side I wonder? Something more traditional or radical and Tevinter like?
The saarebas was nothing more than a convenient tool for her plot. The only difference between her and the qunari is the use of subterfuge to get what she wants. Frankly, I don't buy her concern for his freedom for a single second, especially since the plan was to get him and his "rescuers" killed to bolster Kirkwall to rise up against the qunari. I do have to put some blame on the Viscount for this, however, because he's a spineless fool that permits this nonsense to continue for years.
As for this schism, I kind of hope the Chantry tears apart and becomes something more radical, because it sounds a great deal more interesting for the story than something traditional.
Retour en haut