1089 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

If Wynne hadn't survived Ostagar, then no one would have found out what a duplicitous piece of **** Logain was, meaning Irving would not have confronted Uldred and he wouldn't have summoned demons, and the crisis would never have happened. He just wanted autonomy for the circle, and hoped helping Logain against the blight would achieve just that. 

 

And he would've had the support of the Circle. Whether it would work or not is another matter, but my only point was that it didn't start out as a rebellion led by a blood-mage libertarian turned abomination, but as a decision made by the Circle until Wynne came in and told Irving what Loghain did at Ostagar, and when it looked like the Circle wasn't going along with Uldred's plan, then he tried to force the issue and got possessed. 

 

Nothing more, nothing less. 

[LobselVith8]

If Wynne hadn't survived Ostagar, then no one would have found out what a duplicitous piece of **** Logain was, meaning Irving would not have confronted Uldred and he wouldn't have summoned demons, and the crisis would never have happened. He just wanted autonomy for the circle, and hoped helping Logain against the blight would achieve just that.

Loghain promised more freedoms for the Circle in exchange for Uldred securing the support of the Circle, which is why the Circle was ready to support Loghain until Wynne revealed what happened at Ostagar.

As for Loghain, I think Ostagar was a gray area; Cailan's antics, the horde, the legions of Orlesian troops incoming. It was quite a complicated mess. I wonder if post-Asunder Thedas will have a situation that forces the Inquisitor to make a similarly difficult decision.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

It's possible that the main focus of DA:I will be so far off the mage/templar conflict that the battle will still have no resolution at the end of the game. Remember that Gaider has even said the mage/templar issue is NOT the main focus of Inquisition. The "middle ground" resolution may literally be that there is no resolution. 

[Xilizhra]

It's possible that the main focus of DA:I will be so far off the mage/templar conflict that the battle will still have no resolution at the end of the game. Remember that Gaider has even said the mage/templar issue is NOT the main focus of Inquisition. The "middle ground" resolution may literally be that there is no resolution. 

Also quite possible, and another partial victory for us.

[Master Warder Z_]

It's possible that the main focus of DA:I will be so far off the mage/templar conflict that the battle will still have no resolution at the end of the game. Remember that Gaider has even said the mage/templar issue is NOT the main focus of Inquisition. The "middle ground" resolution may literally be that there is no resolution. 

 

That's my secondary theory.

 

I addressed in a differing thread where if it wasn't resolved within DAI, then it likely would be within the immediate sequel or dlc.

[Master Warder Z_]

Also quite possible, and another partial victory for us.

 

*Snorts*

 

If you think the conflict lingering for another game is a victory even a partial one anyway.

[Xilizhra]

*Snorts*

 

If you think the conflict lingering for another game is a victory even a partial one anyway.

Well, it's not a defeat. I'm an eternal optimist.

[Mistic]

After all, Fiona's rebellion is a big part of the reason for the world going to pot anyway,  if the that and the veil tear crisis resolved, the dalish idiocy stopped and the Civil war halted...well there are a few lingering issues elsewhere but they can hold for another day.

 

Don't forget the heads of the Templar leaders on Orlesian pikes!

 

My point is this, things have lined up to make this age chaotic, but there is nothing to indicate it will linger for its entirety.

 

I think it's meta-knowledge. Even if in-universe there's no reason to believe it will go on, we as real life people know that the series is called "Dragon Age" and that we are still at 9:40. There are many more years for the world to experience hell as no one has seen before (the idea of a double Blight sounds actually intriguing).

 

It's possible that the main focus of DA:I will be so far off the mage/templar conflict that the battle will still have no resolution at the end of the game. Remember that Gaider has even said the mage/templar issue is NOT the main focus of Inquisition. The "middle ground" resolution may literally be that there is no resolution. 

 

It could also be interpreted that the game will address and end the war, but it would be as a secondary plot point. Like the Dwarven Succession Crisis wasn't the main focus of DA:O or the Quarian-Geth War wasn't the main focus of ME3.

[LobselVith8]

I don't think anyone taking a hardline stance on the mage/templar issue is going to be happy with the end of DA:I. It's only (meta) logical that they'll try to find a middle ground. They're probably not going to let one side "win". Even if they do have separate good endings for your position, let's be honest, they'll probably have some event between Inquisition and the next game that puts the issue back in the middle ground.

You mean a return to the status quo? That's not the impression I have. The developers have said the Inquisitor will be the "deciding factor" in the war between the mages and the templars, they said the player will chose their opinion on magic and mages, and how the player will chose their allies and shape the Inquisition.

I'm a bit more hopeful that the player isn't going to be railroaded into enacting a "middle ground" between the mages and the templars that forces a return of the status quo.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

That's not the impression I have. The developers have said the Inquisitor will be the "deciding factor" in the war between the mages and the templars, they said the player will chose their opinion on magic and mages, and how the player will chose their allies and shape the Inquisition.

I'm a bit more hopeful that the player isn't going to be railroaded into enacting a "middle ground" between the mages and the templars.

The problem I see with it is that they have to work these solutions into more games. How are they going to make multiple, drastically different outcomes transfer over to the next game? All arguments on the moral issues in game aside, that's what I see as the major deciding factor on how they handle the conflict. It's already become so polarized, there's no way they can heavily favor one faction and not make a large portion of their fan base very, very angry. 

[Master Warder Z_]

Well, it's not a defeat. I'm an eternal optimist.

 

Oh believe me, I'd love to fight that campaign through to its bloody inevitable conclusion but i doubt we will in DAI or its sequel if it isn't resolved within DAI or its aftermath.

 

But it will conclude one way or another someday, i know that.

 

I wish the Mage's had some one more compelling then Fiona within them that was already know, i despise it when one faction is clearly better then the other, its a serious imbalance in the terms of story. The Mage's need their Robert E Lee, Their MacArthur, their Hackett. I get that the Supersue is supposed to fill in that role, its just she fails utterly at it.

 

They don't have one, needs to be rectified.

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

*Snorts*

 

If you think the conflict lingering for another game is a victory even a partial one anyway.

 

I don't consider that a victory at all, in fact I think it is the opposite of victory ...uh.... un-victory?

 

As long as the Mages are rebelling the whole continent would be in a state of complete chaos.. 

 

The Mages must be put down .. either by sword or by promises of better future . 

 

I do hope we get to nip this in the bud within DA:I itself, because I think one thing is clear, the fade tear business will be resolved by the end of DA:I, and once that is over, Do you really think the Inquisitor will have the same power that he/she had during the crisis, because the nobility and the royalty of Thedas will have no reason to listen to the Inquisitor anymore.

[Xilizhra]

The problem I see with it is that they have to work these solutions into more games. How are they going to make multiple, drastically different outcomes transfer over to the next game? All arguments on the moral issues in game aside, that's what I see as the major deciding factor on how they handle the conflict. It's already become so polarized, there's no way they can heavily favor one faction and not make a large portion of their fan base very, very angry. 

The actual hardline pro-templar side isn't that big, or at least is smaller than the mage one. Just food for thought.

 

In any case, as I've mentioned before, set the next game in Tevinter.

[Master Warder Z_]

It could also be interpreted that the game will address and end the war, but it would be as a secondary plot point. Like the Dwarven Succession Crisis wasn't the main focus of DA:O or the Quarian-Geth War wasn't the main focus of ME3.

 

I am aware, but tend go for plausible scenario that a dev and storyboard team would use, i am generally at least somewhere in the ball park in that regard.

 

Don't forget the heads of the Templar leaders on Orlesian pikes!

 

No real issue with this.

 

 (the idea of a double Blight sounds actually intriguing).

 

No it doesn't.

[LobselVith8]

The problem I see with it is that they have to work these solutions into more games. How are they going to make multiple, drastically different outcomes transfer over to the next game? All arguments on the moral issues in game aside, that's what I see as the major deciding factor on how they handle the conflict. It's already become so polarized, there's no way they can heavily favor one faction and not make a large portion of their fan base very, very angry.

They explore areas in regions we haven't gone to yet, from the Anderfels to Tevinter. Five game plan they mentioned might be able to accommodate this. Otherwise, there isn't much point to giving us choices if those choices don't matter, especially when those choices are imported.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Oh believe me, I'd love to fight that campaign through to its bloody inevitable conclusion but i doubt we will in DAI or its sequel if it isn't resolved within DAI or its aftermath.

 

But it will conclude one way or another someday, i know that.

 

I wish the Mage's had some one more compelling then Fiona within them that was already know, i despise it when one faction is clearly better then the other, its a serious imbalance in the terms of story. The Mage's need their Robert E Lee, Their MacArthur, their Hackett. I get that the Supersue is supposed to fill in that role, its just she fails utterly at it.

 

They don't have one, needs to be rectified.

Do the templars/seekers even HAVE a known leader now that Lambert is MIA? Not a mocking question, I'm serious. Who is actually leading them at this point? Do we even know? 

[LobselVith8]

Do the templars/seekers even HAVE a known leader now that Lambert is MIA? Not a mocking question, I'm serious. Who is actually leading them at this point? Do we even know?

WoT mentioned Lambert is MIA, so it isn't known who is leading them.

[EmissaryofLies]

*Insert crazed bigoted maniac Templar commander here*

[Master Warder Z_]

They explore areas in regions we haven't gone to yet, from the Anderfels to Tevinter. Five game plan they mentioned might be able to accommodate this. Otherwise, there isn't much point to giving us choices if those choices don't matter, especially when those choices are imported.

 

The Anderfels still have a circle.

 

Or had one rather i guess, or it could be active again depending upon choices, but the point being that when you discuss the mage issue you are discussing a continental issue, not a national issue. Anywhere short of The Qunari lands or Tevinter would still be subject to the choices made regarding the mage issue, therefore it does actually become a legitimate concern when you decide on how to implement completely diverging paths for the system.

 

Just pointing that out.

 

You can claim it to be a lack of choice and it is somewhat, but it also is a reasonable concern given that unless if you want the storyline cut out entirely, or the wait cycle for the next game to be even longer, ultimately there has be give somewhere. Resource issues and all as gaider says

[Master Warder Z_]

Do the templars/seekers even HAVE a known leader now that Lambert is MIA? Not a mocking question, I'm serious. Who is actually leading them at this point? Do we even know? 

 

Nope, But they had one!

 

And a good one <_<'' Better then what the mages had, they just never got one.

 

Poor mages.

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

WoT mentioned Lambert is MIA, so it isn't known who is leading them.

 

Good I really hated that self-righteous son of a ******.

[Xilizhra]

Question: do we even know, precisely, how much of a "war" is even happening? Given the templar schism, it might be nothing like how we'd imagine any sort of conventional warfare, just bands of rebels sniping at each other in the woods or something.

 

You can claim it to be a lack of choice and it is somewhat, but it also is a reasonable concern given that unless if you want the storyline cut out entirely, or the wait cycle for the next game to be even longer, ultimately there has be give somewhere. Resource issues and all as gaider says

Or the mages can win.

[LobselVith8]

*Insert crazed bigoted maniac Templar commander here*

Versus a veteran Grey Warden leading the mages?

[EmissaryofLies]

In a duel to settle the score once and for all.. Brought to you by HBO. 

[EmissaryofLies]

I do wonder if this new Templar leader will try to have Justinia assassinated...