1069 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

No, because of the templars and the seekers.

 

It doesn't matter one whit what Adrian or any other mage did. Her actions don't justify the brutality of the seekers and the templars in the face of what would otherwise have been a peaceful secession.

 

Lambert was the one who declared war on the mages. He is responsible.

Lambert bears a degree of responsability but there wouldn't even have been a secession if not for Adrian. She is the one who decided to turn what could have been peaceful talks and agreements into a war.

[AresKeith]

If I see Adrian she's dead, that POS

[Xilizhra]

If I see Adrian she's dead, that POS

What will you do if you can't kill her?

[MisterJB]

She manipulated the situation sure but then equally say that the current system had been placed the dominos in such a place where one untruth caused the rest of the dominos to fall in a cascade effect. If the system had have been in any way healthy that one little push would have been a ripple that would have disappeared rather than causing an immediate collapse.

 

The fact that there were problems within the system doesn't change the also fact that Adrian is largely responsible for the current war.

These problems are why wiser heads were attempting to work them through dialogue and compromise; which she saboted.

[wright1978]

Probably something related to obtaining support from the mages.
 
Although, honestly, I can't see her being involved a great deal. She's not really "in charge". If anything, I imagine we'd be dealing with Rhys or perhaps Fiona directly.

I'd prefer to deal with her or Fiona over that idiot Rhys. However you are probably correct that we will have to deal with him.

[LobselVith8]

I want to adress one of Lobsel's posts (forgot to quote it), about having Adrian as a forced antagonist, that would be (if I understand well) in contrast with what Bioware said about portrayals of mages and templars in DAI.

They said we would get insight into the philosophies of the different groups. Adrian is a Libertarian; love her or hate her, she's a leader of a group that represents a goal that quite a few players would like to see happen - autonomy from Chantry control, including their militant, religious arm.

I've had my fill of insane, stupid, nonsensical mages in Dragon Age II, from Decimus to Grace, and unfortunately, Orsino at the very end. I don't need to be railroaded against the leader of the Libertarians.

Starting on the premise that I don't think Adrian will be a forced antagonist, why would that contrast with what Bioware said? They never stated that there won't be antagonist mages or that siding with them means you don't have to fight them. There'll be mages (and not necessarily from Tevinter) that you'll be forced to face. It's normal that we'll face extremist mages.

It's really sad that emancipation from the Chantry controlled Circle is viewed as an "extremist" position.

What Bioware meant to say (i think) is that we'll see mages with different stances and opinion. Some of them we'll be forced to face. Same goes for the templars. We can discuss if Adrian should be one of the forces mages antagonists, but that's another matter.

I think that making Adrian, and mages like her, into antagonists would be a mistake. Plenty of people didn't like the railroading in Dragon Age II, the lack of choice, or the plethora of lunatics on both sides of the mage and templar schism. I don't want to be railroaded into fighting Adrian simply because she wants her people to be free of a system that I think is morally reprehensible.

Another point I want to adress is Adrian granting a continental boon to the mages. If I remember well, in a thread of some years ago where Gaider addressed various point (Tranquility, Meredith's right in declaring the Annulment), Gaider addressed Lobsel's point of a 'mage's continental revolution' as getting ahead of himself (or something similar).

It was prior to Asunder, and now the Circles have voted for autonomy.

Things might've changed since then, but i think that people should consider the possibility that things might be different from what we expect. Because I've seen many people on all sides assuming on what the current situation is and how we'll deal with, and I think many of them are going to feel disappointed/betrayed after playing the game.

If we're railroaded into siding against mages who don't want to under subjugation, then you're absolutely right. It would be a betrayal of the developers saying that the player will define how the protagonist views magic, and the Inquisitor's role as the "deciding factor" in the war between the mages and the templars. I have absolutely no interest in the restoration of the status quo.

[LobselVith8]

The Dales didn't have slaves at according to DA lore and it was ruled by mages.

True, as Lanaya points out that some of the Keepers are descended from the nobility who governed the Dales.

[wright1978]

The fact that there were problems within the system doesn't change the also fact that Adrian is largely responsible for the current war.
These problems are why wiser heads were attempting to work them through dialogue and compromise; which she saboted.

She's responsible for the timing of the war but the talks were to postpone the inevitable and weren't going to save a circle system that in its current was in its death throes. When failed systems collapse things get messy, she just chose to expedite that collapse.

[Ianamus]

I wouldn't have a problem with Adrian if she had simply separated herself and her followers from the circle of Magi and made her new faction be a mage rebellion. It's that she dragged the entire circle along with her. Leading people with a joint cause is fine, but trying to force people who don't want to be involved to fight for it is selfish. 

 

It would be interesting to see her in Inquisition, and hopefully we have the option of calling her out on her actions if we don't agree with them. 

[AresKeith]

What will you do if you can't kill her?

Pick the next best option, or shrug it off and move on

But I don't see why there wouldn't be, given what we know and how unimportant she really is

[The Elder King]

They said we would get insight into the philosophies of the different groups. Adrian is a Libertarian; love her or hate her, she's a leader of a group that represents a goal that quite a few players would like to see happen - autonomy from Chantry control, including their militant, religious arm.
I've had my fill of insane, stupid, nonsensical mages in Dragon Age II, from Decimus to Grace, and unfortunately, Orsino at the very end. I don't need to be railroaded against the leader of the Libertarians.

It's really sad that emancipation from the Chantry controlled Circle is viewed as an "extremist" position.

I think that making Adrian, and mages like her, into antagonists would be a mistake. Plenty of people didn't like the railroading in Dragon Age II, the lack of choice, or the plethora of lunatics on both sides of the mage and templar schism. I don't want to be railroaded into fighting Adrian simply because she wants her people to be free of a system that I think is morally reprehensible.

It was prior to Asunder, and now the Circles have voted for autonomy.

If we're railroaded into siding against mages who don't want to under subjugation, then you're absolutely right. It would be a betrayal of the developers saying that the player will define how the protagonist views magic, and the Inquisitor's role as the "deciding factor" in the war between the mages and the templars. I have absolutely no interest in the restoration of the status quo.

1)Being an antagonist=/=being insane. Howe and Loghain were antagonists and either weren't insane.
Plus, Fiona is Libertarian too, and we don't know if Adrian would still be the leader of the Libertarians or that there won't be another Libertarian leader

2)No, emancipation from the Circle isn't, in my opinion, an extremist position. Trying to succeed it with framing an innocent people (which is your best friend too), that could've very well died, and triggering a conflict in a situation were mages could've died is.
I'm bot saying that Bioware should make every Libertarians forced antagonists (nor do I believe they should make Adrian like that). I'm saying that making ONE Libertarian mage an antagonist doesn't mean that we are railroaded as in DA2, or that mages antagonists will be insane.

3)It doesn't matter that it was prior to Asunder. We already knew since DA2 that templars and mages left the Chantry. I's say we don't have enough info to judge the situation. Gaider's point still stands, so it'd better to lower the expectations of what will happen in DAI.

4)I'm not talking About being forced on siding with some side. I'm talking that people are expecting certain type of endgame solutions, or even that the war will finish in this game. We don't know how the various sides would want to proceed, or of the war will end i this game. We don't know what the situations currently is.

[LobselVith8]

...........
So what context do you think we'll see Adrian in, if she is in DA:I?

I was late to the party.

On my first run, I'm hoping to see Adrian as the leader of the Libertarians, and to have the option to help the mages maintain their autonomy from the templars through an alliance with the Inquisition. I'd also like to meet Fiona.

[Xilizhra]

2)No, emancipation from the Circle isn't, in my opinion, an extremist position. Trying to succeed it with framing an innocent people (which is your best friend too), that could've very well died, and triggering a conflict in a situation were mages could've died is.
I'm bot saying that Bioware should make every Libertarians forced antagonists (nor do I believe they should make Adrian like that). I'm saying that making ONE Libertarian mage an antagonist doesn't mean that we are railroaded as in DA2, or that mages antagonists will be insane.

A Libertarian mage could be an antagonist if they were betraying the principles of the rebellion itself, but having them be one simply for aiming for mage emancipation would be the sort of damaging forcing that we're talking about. Especially if it's based on past actions like this.

 

4)I'm not talking About being forced on siding with some side. I'm talking that people are expecting certain type of endgame solutions, or even that the war will finish in this game. We don't know how the various sides would want to proceed, or of the war will end i this game. We don't know what the situations currently is.

But given the Inquisition's apparent power, it should logically be able to shape the world to a certain extent, and if we're forced to put it back together in a way that lends itself to the status quo, that would also be railroading.

[MisterJB]

She's responsible for the timing of the war but the talks were to postpone the inevitable and weren't going to save a circle system that in its current was in its death throes. When failed systems collapse things get messy, she just chose to expedite that collapse.

 

You can't see the future.
 

[Mr.House]

Dear lord I hope we don't meet her. Anders was already enough, having a female Anders would just make my head hurt.

[The Elder King]

A Libertarian mage could be an antagonist if they were betraying the principles of the rebellion itself, but having them be one simply for aiming for mage emancipation would be the sort of damaging forcing that we're talking about. Especially if it's based on past actions like this.


But given the Inquisition's apparent power, it should logically be able to shape the world to a certain extent, and if we're forced to put it back together in a way that lends itself to the status quo, that would also be railroading.

1)I agree on this, but as I said already, I don't think Adrian will be a forced antagonist (though I don't believe she'll be in either).

2)I wasn't saying that the inquisiton would restore the status quo though. While it would have power in shaping the world, I don't think it'd necessarily solve all problem .
I'm sure we can side with mages or templars, but it could be that we can just put them in advantage position in exchange for their alliance. Or we might be able to make them firm a temporary armistice untile the Fadetears issue is over.
All this solutions won't railroad the players, but it won't solve the war.

[Xilizhra]

1)I agree on this, but as I said already, I don't think Adrian will be a forced antagonist (though I don't believe she'll be in either).

2)I wasn't saying that the inquisiton would restore the status quo though. While it would have power in shaping the world, I don't think it'd necessarily solve all problem .
I'm sure we can side with mages or templars, but it could be that we can just put them in advantage position in exchange for their alliance. Or we might be able to make them firm a temporary armistice untile the Fadetears issue is over.
All this solutions won't railroad the players, but it won't solve the war.

What I personally wonder is why they wouldn't solve the war now? That'd be like not solving the issues of Ferelden's succession and Loghain's regency in DAO, at least; the war is a huge factor in the "chaos" that people are worried about, and ending it one way or another would seem to be well within the Inquisition's remit.

[The Elder King]

What I personally wonder is why they wouldn't solve the war now? That'd be like not solving the issues of Ferelden's succession and Loghain's regency in DAO, at least; the war is a huge factor in the "chaos" that people are worried about, and ending it one way or another would seem to be well within the Inquisition's remit.

I guess it might be because the outcomes could be very different from each others and it could create problems for the next games.
I'd like if they'll do it with various and different outcomes. I'm just pessimistic about it.

[Xilizhra]

I guess it might be because the outcomes could be very different from each others and it could create problems for the next games.
I'd like if they'll do it with various and different outcomes. I'm just pessimistic about it.

I don't think it'd create many, if any, problems for the next game, if it's set in Tevinter. The entire issue in Andrastian Thedas could be waved off as interesting background noise and we could see a genuinely new society and culture.

[Master Warder Z_]

I don't think it'd create many, if any, problems for the next game, if it's set in Tevinter. The entire issue in Andrastian Thedas could be waved off as interesting background noise and we could see a genuinely new society and culture.

 

And hopefully burn it to the ground, Qunari as well.

[The Elder King]

I don't think it'd create many, if any, problems for the next game, if it's set in Tevinter. The entire issue in Andrastian Thedas could be waved off as interesting background noise and we could see a genuinely new society and culture.

I talked about 'games', though. It might work for DA4, but not for the fifth one.

[LobselVith8]

I don't think it'd create many, if any, problems for the next game, if it's set in Tevinter. The entire issue in Andrastian Thedas could be waved off as interesting background noise and we could see a genuinely new society and culture.

True, there are still places we haven't explored yet. Also, if choice doesn't matter, then I think Inquisition is going to face the same criticisms that Dragon Age II did.

[Xilizhra]

I talked about 'games', though. It might work for DA4, but not for the fifth one.

Not necessarily. We might leave Thedas altogether in the fifth one; who knows? And by that point, less bloody social events will probably have moved the situation in Thedas on enough that the divergences won't be quite so significant, or at least not enough to worry about too much.

[TK514]

A Libertarian mage could be an antagonist if they were betraying the principles of the rebellion itself, but having them be one simply for aiming for mage emancipation would be the sort of damaging forcing that we're talking about. Especially if it's based on past actions like this.

What if 'aiming for Mage emancipation' entailed acts of horror that would not be condoned by either side? Summoning demons? Mind controlling civilians into supporting the cause? Murdering fellow Mages to stil up additional resentment and/or prolong the conflict?

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Most of the Circles hadn't fallen and the Templars weren't rebelling prior to Adrian's crimes.

The wiki says this;

 

"While Templar reinforcements arrived at Kirkwall to suppress further resistance, news from escaping mages of what had occurred spread to other Circles. Outraged that the templars of Kirkwall would invoke the Right of Annulment to justify the extermination of an entire Circle for the crimes of one apostate, some Circles revolted, while others were close to doing so. In response, the Templar Order cracked down, further restricting mage freedoms in an attempt to quell further disturbance.

 

Despite this, the College of Enchanters, meeting for the last time in Cumberland before being disbanded in 9:38 Dragon, voted against secession from the Chantry at the urging of the Senior Enchanter, Wynne, in opposition to the motion tendered by its newly elected Grand Enchanter Fiona. Nonetheless, many of the Libertarian faction, who wished for independence, continued to encourage mages to rebel."

 

So, you're right that the templar hadn't rebelled. That was my mistake. However, there was still a very large amount of tension. I'm still not entirely convinced that we can estimate the end vote if we really took one. My estimate is that the margin would be very small for mages that wanted to go to war vs mages that wanted to submit. I'm not saying I know the majority wanted to fight. I'm just saying I don't really believe we can guess who would have won the vote.