1069 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

You can't see the future.

Once wheels are set in motion you can generally predict with accuracy though. The breakdown between mages and Templars was at such a stage that the complete breakdown of the relationship due to accumulation of grievances and shift in the doctrinal stance within Templar order was inevitable. Radical reform to satisfy mages grievances would never be offered and any minor reform would be seen as inadequate and have been resisted by a Templar who were only a step away from mutiny. Only viable alternatives to war would be extreme culls to purge rebel sentiment of either organisation

[The Elder King]

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.

Not ending the war =/= choices don't matter. I'm not saying that siding with mages or templars shouldn't have effects in the game or lead to the same content like DA2 did. That doesn't mean that the war has to end to have effects.

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.

Depends on what are the outcomes. Having the Circle as one outcome and no Circle in another is fairly different and difficult to merge in a similar situation.

[LobselVith8]

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?

What if, instead of vilifying the characters who sought mage autonomy, they present them as three-dimensional characters?

[The Elder King]

What if, instead of vilifying the characters who sought mage autonomy, they present them as three-dimensional characters?

I agree with this. I hope both sides will have those type of characters.

[Lulupab]

Not ending the war =/= choices don't matter. I'm not saying that siding with mages or templars shouldn't have effects in the game or lead to the same content like DA2 did. That doesn't mean that the war has to end to have effects.
Depends on what are the outcomes. Having the Circle as one outcome and no Circle in another is fairly different and difficult to merge in a similar situation.

 

To be honest sparing or killing Anders should have greater consequence. Why? Because the tension between mages and templars rises because of what happened in Kirkwall regardless of side chosen by Hawke. However sparing or killing Anders should have a greater effect especially in a global scale. Its like "Oh maker, its Anders, the person who blow up the chantry". Some would try to kill him and some would hug him depending on their alignment.

 

The outcome also affects him. Was he a murderer or a visionary? It all depends on how things go. The side Hawke chooses doesn't really matter as much as choosing to kill or spare Anders. In my opinion anyway.

[LobselVith8]

Not ending the war =/= choices don't matter. I'm not saying that siding with mages or templars shouldn't have effects in the game or lead to the same content like DA2 did. That doesn't mean that the war has to end to have effects.

I doubt the war across Andrastian Thedas would end simply because the protagonist aided mages in the regions covered by Inquisition. It's not like the player is venturing to the Anderfels or Rivain, after all.

[MisterJB]

Once wheels are set in motion you can generally predict with accuracy though. The breakdown between mages and Templars was at such a stage that the complete breakdown of the relationship due to accumulation of grievances and shift in the doctrinal stance within Templar order was inevitable. Radical reform to satisfy mages grievances would never be offered and any minor reform would be seen as inadequate and have been resisted by a Templar who were only a step away from mutiny. Only viable alternatives to war would be extreme culls to purge rebel sentiment of either organisation

The political tension was nothing new. There are many codexes that mention conflict between mages and templars; at one point, one group of apostates even extablished a village in the Frostback mountains and all starved when winter came; so groups like the Resolutionists are nothing new. Annulments had happened 17 times by the beginning of the Fifth Blight and they did not lead to a breaking of the system. We even know of one call by the Grand Enchanter to secession which was shot down and the system survived.

Where is the evidence for this "shift in the doctrinal stance"? For this supposed mutiny that was a step away? There is no evidence the current crysis was so world-shattering there were no solutions but war or purges.

[The Elder King]

To be honest sparing or killing Anders should have greater consequence. Why? Because the tension between mages and templars rises because of what happened in Kirkwall regardless of side chosen by Hawke. However sparing or killing Anders should have a greater effect especially in a global scale. Its like "Oh maker, its Anders, the person who blow up the chantry". Some would try to kill him and some would hug him depending on their alignment.
 
The outcome also affects him. Was he a murderer or a visionary? It all depends on how things go. The side Hawke chooses doesn't really matter as much as choosing to kill or spare Anders. In my opinion anyway.

That depends on what Anders would do. If he went hiding his possible death has no relevance to the world.

[The Elder King]

I doubt the war across Andrastian Thedas would end simply because the protagonist aided mages in the regions covered by Inquisition. It's not like the player is venturing to the Anderfels or Rivain, after all.

So you agree that mage-templar war might not end in DAI?
Though to be honest, we are covering pretty much most and the most important Andrastians nations. We lack only Antiva in the powerful ones.

[Xilizhra]

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?

I think we the PC will be able to summon demons (you might not even have to be a mage) and mind control seems highly possible as an option for blood mage PCs, so neither one would necessarily make much sense as something to force opposition to. The latter I would chalk up to "betraying the principles of the rebellion," so yes (not that the first two aren't, but I don't think the Inquisitor will be forced to be better anyway).

 

Not ending the war =/= choices don't matter. I'm not saying that siding with mages or templars shouldn't have effects in the game or lead to the same content like DA2 did. That doesn't mean that the war has to end to have effects.

But I honestly think it's time for the war to end, and for us to wrap up most of the issues in Andrastian Thedas; they've been going on for years IRL, and Dragon Age has a lot of potential to look at other things.

 

Depends on what are the outcomes. Having the Circle as one outcome and no Circle in another is fairly different and difficult to merge in a similar situation.

I am almost positive that the Chantry-controlled Circles will not make a comeback. I think the choice will be how the Inquisition chooses to conduct the new system, as I suspect it will, but given how often protagonists vanish, the Inquisitor may well not be in control of it for long.

[MisterJB]

What if, instead of vilifying the characters who sought mage autonomy, they present them as three-dimensional characters?

And three-dimensional characters can't do any of the things TK514 mentioned?

Isn't the mage rebellion allowed to get their hands dirty or what? Adrian has already killed a fellow mage to stir up a rebellion you support and now, if she does it a second time, you claim that is villification?

[The Elder King]

I am almost positive that the Chantry-controlled Circles will not make a comeback. I think the choice will be how the Inquisition chooses to conduct the new system, as I suspect it will, but given how often protagonists vanish, the Inquisitor may well not be in control of it for long.

What do you think the outcome would be if you side with the Chantry/templars? Or do you think there'll be single different outcome?
Regardless, I woudn't bet on this, otherwise there are chances you'll be disappointed.

[LobselVith8]

So you agree that mage-templar war might not end in DAI?
Though to be honest, we are covering pretty much most and the most important Andrastians nations. We lack only Antiva in the powerful ones.

Helping regional factions doesn't mean the war would end all across Thedas. The Anderfels, Antiva, Rivain - there's quite a few Andrastian places where future games could cover their own stories without being inhibited by the regional victories in Inquisition.

[TK514]

What if, instead of vilifying the characters who sought mage autonomy, they present them as three-dimensional characters?

Nothing I wrote precludes a robust characterization, nor does it reflect on the entire group. Yet there are clearly individuals in the DA world who have an 'achieve my goals at any cost' mindset. At what point does that mindset become unacceptable, and you, as a player, feel that this individual must be dealt with, in spite of them performing these acts in support of your chosen cause? I used Mages, because I was replying to Xil, but it could be equally applied to Templars, Orlesians, Dalish, or any other faction in conflict during the game.

[The Elder King]

Helping regional factions doesn't mean the war would end all across Thedas. The Anderfels, Antiva, Rivain - there's quite a few Andrastian places where future games could cover their own stories without being inhibited by the regional victories in Inquisition.

Fair enough.

[Xilizhra]

And three-dimensional characters can't do any of the things TK514 mentioned?

Isn't the mage rebellion allowed to get their hands dirty or what? Adrian has already killed a fellow mage to stir up a rebellion you support and now, if she does it a second time, you claim that is villification?

The problem is being forced to oppose them.

 

 

What do you think the outcome would be if you side with the Chantry/templars? Or do you think there'll be single different outcome?
Regardless, I woudn't bet on this, otherwise there are chances you'll be disappointed.

I think the outcome won't diverge too much, but it will not be the status quo; the entire narrative of the series is practically beating you over the head with the knowledge that enormous change is in the offing.

[Lulupab]

That depends on what Anders would do. If he went hiding his possible death has no relevance to the world.

 
Well if he dies without a real reason then its redundant to even have him on Inquisition and its simply bad writing. Yo dawg I hear you like choices so we made choices in DA2 but guess what? if you don't choose to kill someone we will make the choice to kill them for you.
 
And I doubt he would hide. I mean its Anders we are talking about. And Justice, you think they would hide? Honestly? The only way it makes sense is if they would go to Rivain to figure out their situation with the help of seers and its not "hiding" per se.
 

[TTTX]

I wouldn't exactly say that.

While that quote is true for anyone with great powers, mage powers come with some pretty hefty downsides, which is why its' called a blessing and a curse.

After all, Spierman doesn't have to worry about becoming possessed.
 

Of course not but since he is Spider-man means he has to be careful on who knows his identity or else he love ones will get hurt and mages have to have a great responsibility with their powers or else people will get hurt possessed or not.

[TK514]

I think we the PC will be able to summon demons (you might not even have to be a mage) and mind control seems highly possible as an option for blood mage PCs, so neither one would necessarily make much sense as something to force opposition to. The latter I would chalk up to "betraying the principles of the rebellion," so yes (not that the first two aren't, but I don't think the Inquisitor will be forced to be better.

So you are of the opinion that anything goes, every atrocity is sanctioned in your mind as long as your chosen faction wins?

[wright1978]

The political tension was nothing new. There are many codexes that mention conflict between mages and templars; at one point, one group of apostates even extablished a village in the Frostback mountains and all starved when winter came; so groups like the Resolutionists are nothing new. Annulments had happened 17 times by the beginning of the Fifth Blight and they did not lead to a breaking of the system. We even know of one call by the Grand Enchanter to secession which was shot down and the system survived.
Where is the evidence for this "shift in the doctrinal stance"? For this supposed mutiny that was a step away? There is no evidence the current crysis was so world-shattering there were no solutions but war or purges.

Think there's definite implied shift of internal power of Templars towards those like Lambert/Meredith. The fact that the Templars instantly broke from divine shows how little actual power she had to enact any true reform. Equally asunder clearly to me points that the middle ground of mages were on the deeply unhappy which is very different from the libertarian fringe which had always clamoured for freedom.Like in real life people are generally conservative but eventually if the grievances aren't dealt with you'll get groundswell rebellions that topple system of government.

[The Elder King]

The problem is being forced to oppose them.
 
 

I think the outcome won't diverge too much, but it will not be the status quo; the entire narrative of the series is practically beating you over the head with the knowledge that enormous change is in the offing.

I understand your point, but I don't share it. I think it's better to have an open mind of what would happen. It's better to be surprised than disappointed, in my opinion.  

Well if he dies without a real reason then its redundant to even have him on Inquisition and its simply bad writing. Yo dawg I hear you like choices so we made choices in DA2 but guess what? if you don't choose to kill someone we will make the choice to kill them for you.
 
And I doubt he would hide. I mean its Anders we are talking about. And Justice, you think they would hide? Honestly? The only way it makes sense is if they would go to Rivain to figure out their situation with the help of seers and its not "hiding" per se.

I never said they should kill him off.
As for the second part, we'll see.

[LobselVith8]

And three-dimensional characters can't do any of the things TK514 mentioned?
Isn't the mage rebellion allowed to get their hands dirty or what? Adrian has already killed a fellow mage to stir up a rebellion you support and now, if she does it a second time, you claim that is villification?

Adrian killed Pharamond, a man who preferred death to a return to tranquility. It's not remotely the same. I think slanting Adrian, and Libertarians who want autonomy, into villainous foes the player has to fight would be a mistake. I think now is the time to get into the nuances of the divergent fraternities, not to vilify certain groups of mages because they want autonomy.

[Xilizhra]

So you are of the opinion that anything goes, every atrocity is sanctioned in your mind as long as your chosen faction wins?

While such is a very Grey Warden-like attitude, no; I've done things like stop Zathrian even though he was the leader of my chosen faction, as I do ultimately want to help as many people as possible. What I've been talking about is the problem of being forced into opposing Adrian and the like.

[TK514]

While such is a very Grey Warden-like attitude, no; I've done things like stop Zathrian even though he was the leader of my chosen faction, as I do ultimately want to help as many people as possible. What I've been talking about is the problem of being forced into opposing Adrian and the like.

Fair enough, perhaps I misunderstood. Personally, I would expect the encounter, if such occurred, to play out similar to Avernus.

Well, unless we find out she's opening Veil Tears or something. Or she could force the issue by initiating violence for some reason.

[MisterJB]

Adrian killed Pharamond, a man who preferred death to a return to tranquility. It's not remotely the same. I think slanting Adrian, and Libertarians who want autonomy, into villainous foes the player has to fight would be a mistake. I think now is the time to get into the nuances of the divergent fraternities, not to vilify certain groups of mages because they want autonomy.

1-I have no wishes for players to be forced to fight anyone.

 

2-On the other hand, I do wish for a realistic presentation of factions in the game. And reality is that many mages would be willing to commit certain actions in order to ensure them victory or simply because they can. Adrian being one of those yes; since she killed a fellow mage to achieve her ends and when she justified this action she did not mention mercy, she claims she did it for mages in general.

I leave it to the player to decide whether these actions are villainous or not.