I love the BSN.
Serial killing demon- OMG I just want to HUG him!!!!! He's so adorable!
Chevalier- Ughhhh mo, he probably did something bad in the past. I'd kill him or not recruit him.
My point exactly. Dorian is slave trader and magister but noooo we love him already! All Chevaliers are bad people because they slay elves at initiation. Double standarts are annoying.
I would love a Chevalier companion. I would also love a permanent Templar companion (I mean a fully fledged one, not like Alistair, and not one you only get for a brief portion, like Carver). I also want a typical Tevinter magister, not a reformist like Dorian (I have no complaints on Dorian though, I'm sure he'll be a fine companion).
I sadly see none of these things happening any time soon.
My point exactly. Dorian is slave trader and magister but noooo we love him already! All Chevaliers are bad people because they slay elves at initiation. Double standarts are annoying.
Hm i heard guy was/is tev magister but where slave trader comes from as far i know guy is rebel toward tevinter not typical magister "mahah im evil"
Hm i heard guy was/is tev magister but where slave trader comes from as far i know guy is rebel toward tevinter not typical magister "mahah im evil"
I agree. To be a slave trader you have to trade with slaves, in fact, not just belong to a society or house that uses slave labour, and we do know that Dorian resents his country's values. If slavery is included or not, we shall see, so there's room for fans to have hope.
Nevertheless, a chevalier companion could have been accepted if he or she was a reformist, wanting to embody the ideals of the order, not just the nasty privileges. Also, they should have been a warrior without master, because chevaliers are supposed to be completely loyal to their masters. A "ronin" figure would have been appropriate for that role. And yes, that sounds a lot like Michel. Alas, he'll probably be a NPC in a quest to kill Imshael.
As I've stressed elsewhere, when the Inquisitor encounters any character they know nothing about them. If you meet Michel then you have no knowledge of his background. He may admit as much to you or he may not because he no longer part of the Chevalier order. So to kill him on sight because of what went on in ME would make your Inquisitor a clairvoyant. Now that Michel is not trying to maintain a pretence of something he is not, he may have had a chance to reflect on certain aspects of the Chevalier training and the attitude of the nobility generally to commoners and elves in particular. He would still be an awesome fighter because of his Chevalier training but he may no longer agree with other aspects of their culture. So I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
As for Dorian, we must wait and see which aspects of Tevinter culture he does not approve of. We do not yet know if he would have come to question it anyway or whether his enlightenment has come of being himself as victim of it, because he is gay. It could be just corrupt magic practices he condemns, plus the whole getting married and having kids pressure, or he may regard slavery as bad as well. We just don't know and shouldn't assume he is either a total saint or a hypocrite because he condemns some aspects and not others that do not affect him personally. Unfortunately people seem to be giving people motivations and qualities that just may not be there when you get to know them. I sense disappointment ahead for some.
As I've stressed elsewhere, when the Inquisitor encounters any character they know nothing about them. If you meet Michel then you have no knowledge of his background. He may admit as much to you or he may not because he no longer part of the Chevalier order. So to kill him on sight because of what went on in ME would make your Inquisitor a clairvoyant. Now that Michel is not trying to maintain a pretence of something he is not, he may have had a chance to reflect on certain aspects of the Chevalier training and the attitude of the nobility generally to commoners and elves in particular. He would still be an awesome fighter because of his Chevalier training but he may no longer agree with other aspects of their culture. So I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
That is true. The same is happening with Cole: how can the Inquisitor condemn him if he or she doesn't know what he did? However, there are other ways it can play out.
For example, killing Michel on sight for the events of TME can be more than acceptable, depending on what events we are talking about. The chevaliers' initiation is a thing only chevaliers know, so it's very difficult to justify a decision based on knowledge your Inquisitor can't possibly know. However, a Dalish Inquisitor may feel the need to behead him because of him freeing Imshael. Mihris was alive to tell the tale, after all, and Michel himself could spill the beans.
Exactly, so then you are basing your decision on what you could legitimately know from before the game or information you have been given within it. It is why I really want to know how the race backgrounds play out. I usually play an elf or a mage, or both, first time round. I'd assumed I'd be an apostate, either always living outside the Circle or escaping from it. Then I understand that elves can only be Dalish. So now I may have to come up with a completely different outlook for my character. They could still be an apostate who has fled to the Dalish but at present I just don't know if that is going to be possible based on what we are given. I understand we are unlikely to be given a complete character, like with Origins backgrounds, which is fine but I would like to know if there is going to be more than just, you are a Dalish, since that could make a difference to what the character might know and what their motivations are.
"All men are the work of the Maker's Hands
From the lowest slaves
To the highest kings
Those who bring harm
Without provocation to the least of His children
Are hated and accursed by the Maker."
So if you tried to argue that "All men were created equal" it does not go against the belief in the Maker. Not equal in status but equal under the law of the Maker.
True- and I've always argued how interesting it is that this, from the Chantry, is the only widely accepted cultural basis of equality politics in Thedas. Anti-Chantry advocates and factions are arguing against the one standing political equality foundation of the setting... and without that illogical religion, arguments that people with magic resistance are equal in creation to people without it are equal to people who can make fireballs with their minds are a bit less convincing.
The fall of Andrastianism would probably lead to the loss of what progressive values Thedas has, not promote their rise.
No wonder the nobles don't want any commoners, human or elf, to get an education. The consequences for them would be terrifying.
Eh, if there's one thing the 20th century demonstrated it was that even an educated populace can be led to terrible things. And it's definitely not clear that education would promote peaceful conflict resolution.
Take Dalish-Human coexistence, for example. If, say, education taught a systematic review of dalish infractions and crimes against humans that would otherwise be forgotten to history, as well as the darker aspects of ancient elven culture (from the mageocracy to implied serfdom to the possible blood magic rituals for immortality), Human tolerance for the Dalish could drop dramatically.
Of you could get radical reformers who do believe elves and humans should integrate... but then look at the math of what it means in terms of breeding, view the inevitable breeding out of the elven race an inevitable consequence of the progressive future, and decide to helpfully accelerate that to get to that better future faster.
Or consider what an well-educated security state aparatus would view and do with mages. Anyone who thinks the Templars are horrible would find them quaint and old fashioned compared to what a professional and competent security state analogous to, say, the Russians would do.
In this respect, I suspect Chevaliers are the DA team's 'take that!' to the ME teams heroic take on the Spectre/Cerberus membership card, which likewise served as a 'I'm above the law card' for the player. Of course the difference was that it was for the player, and the player never challenges things that work in their favor.
Spectres appear to be vetted a lot more carefully, and plenty of people did criticize Cerberus.
I love the BSN.
Serial killing demon- OMG I just want to HUG him!!!!! He's so adorable!
Chevalier- Ughhhh no, he probably did something bad in the past. I'd kill him or not recruit him.
Well, one always had the capacity to understand morality, while the other only developed that recently, and then stopped serial killing once they got it.
Spectres appear to be vetted a lot more carefully, and plenty of people did criticize Cerberus.
Not particularly, considering the potential Shepard states and the Spectres we see, and missing the point subsequently.
Cole didn't stop killing. He stopped killing those who where somewhat important to Rhys.
Exactly, so then you are basing your decision on what you could legitimately know from before the game or information you have been given within it. It is why I really want to know how the race backgrounds play out. I usually play an elf or a mage, or both, first time round. I'd assumed I'd be an apostate, either always living outside the Circle or escaping from it. Then I understand that elves can only be Dalish. So now I may have to come up with a completely different outlook for my character. They could still be an apostate who has fled to the Dalish but at present I just don't know if that is going to be possible based on what we are given. I understand we are unlikely to be given a complete character, like with Origins backgrounds, which is fine but I would like to know if there is going to be more than just, you are a Dalish, since that could make a difference to what the character might know and what their motivations are.
Yeah, I also want to know more about the backgrounds. Because there will be backgrounds. Contrary to The Elder Scrolls, Bioware seems to like more definition for the player characters, something I welcome. Blank slates are much harder to role play. Even apparently blank slates such as the main characters of KOTOR and Jade Empire were revealed to be not as blank as initially thought.
However, taking that into account, I'm not sure your idea could work. I think the best example would be Shepard in Mass Effect. Background + service story (in DA:I, maybe race + class). Even if it wasn't much, you could know some things:
-Earthborn: orphan, never met their parents, always living in Earth until 18. Member of a street gang when they were young.
-Colonist: with friends and family, but all of them died when Mindoir was attacked. Saved by the Alliance.
-Spacer: always living in spaceships and space stations. Parents in the military of the Alliance. Mother is alive and you can call her.
True- and I've always argued how interesting it is that this, from the Chantry, is the only widely accepted cultural basis of equality politics in Thedas. Anti-Chantry advocates and factions are arguing against the one standing political equality foundation of the setting... and without that illogical religion, arguments that people with magic resistance are equal in creation to people without it are equal to people who can make fireballs with their minds are a bit less convincing.
The fall of Andrastianism would probably lead to the loss of what progressive values Thedas has, not promote their rise.
The difficulty with the Chantry is that it's either blatantly hypocritical or its values system is distorted. The Andrastian religion could be used as a base for further progressive values, but the Chantry as an institution (assuming it has the power to do anything about it, it seems to be in tatters) would probably not like the result, given that some of the necessary components would be tolerance of other religions and the loss of nonrepresentative control over the Circle of Magi.
Eh, if there's one thing the 20th century demonstrated it was that even an educated populace can be led to terrible things. And it's definitely not clear that education would promote peaceful conflict resolution.
Take Dalish-Human coexistence, for example. If, say, education taught a systematic review of dalish infractions and crimes against humans that would otherwise be forgotten to history, as well as the darker aspects of ancient elven culture (from the mageocracy to implied serfdom to the possible blood magic rituals for immortality), Human tolerance for the Dalish could drop dramatically.
Of you could get radical reformers who do believe elves and humans should integrate... but then look at the math of what it means in terms of breeding, view the inevitable breeding out of the elven race an inevitable consequence of the progressive future, and decide to helpfully accelerate that to get to that better future faster.
Or consider what an well-educated security state aparatus would view and do with mages. Anyone who thinks the Templars are horrible would find them quaint and old fashioned compared to what a professional and competent security state analogous to, say, the Russians would do.
An educated populace that was, for the most part, being systematically lied to and otherwise trapped within the security state apparatus that you mentioned. And a biased education could obviously be used to inculcate hatred of the Dalish; if you want results of tolerance, you'll need to be more even-handed.
I disagree. You can't say that the forum as a whole is being hypocritical. We all have different opinions and is possible that the people who think a Chevalier is bad also think the same about Cole.I love the BSN.
Serial killing demon- OMG I just want to HUG him!!!!! He's so adorable!
Chevalier- Ughhhh no, he probably did something bad in the past. I'd kill him or not recruit him.
The difficulty with the Chantry is that it's either blatantly hypocritical or its values system is distorted. The Andrastian religion could be used as a base for further progressive values, but the Chantry as an institution (assuming it has the power to do anything about it, it seems to be in tatters) would probably not like the result, given that some of the necessary components would be tolerance of other religions and the loss of nonrepresentative control over the Circle of Magi.
Western liberalism and its various institutions have a long and storied history of hypocrisy and distorted values. As a cultural movement it still would not have progressed and prospered had those institutions been destroyed on those charges.
As for what is necessary, your prescriptions qualify as necessity by any standard but your own approval. Which rather moots any credible argument of necessity.
An educated populace that was, for the most part, being systematically lied to and otherwise trapped within the security state apparatus that you mentioned. And a biased education could obviously be used to inculcate hatred of the Dalish; if you want results of tolerance, you'll need to be more even-handed.
All education is biased, especially the ones that strive to be even-handed (which can often include systematically lying to and trapping people within an enforcement state aparatus as marginalizing of dissidents as any other). You may feel it is more benign and benevolent, but that is a matter of preference and bias itself.
I disagree. You can't say that the forum as a whole is being hypocritical. We all have different opinions and is possible that the people who think a Chevalier is bad also think the same about Cole.
I didn't. It was a light-hearted statement based on elements of truth that you're reading too much into.
Western liberalism and its various institutions have a long and storied history of hypocrisy and distorted values. As a cultural movement it still would not have progressed and prospered had those institutions been destroyed on those charges.
As for what is necessary, your prescriptions qualify as necessity by any standard but your own approval. Which rather moots any credible argument of necessity.
I didn't propose to destroy the Chantry, I merely said that the Chantry wouldn't approve.
All education is biased, especially the ones that strive to be even-handed (which can often include systematically lying to and trapping people within an enforcement state aparatus as marginalizing of dissidents as any other). You may feel it is more benign and benevolent, but that is a matter of preference and bias itself.
Undoubtedly, but any attempt to decide anything at all that isn't related to basic survival (and sometimes even then) will be predicated upon preference and bias.
I didn't propose to destroy the Chantry, I merely said that the Chantry wouldn't approve.
I don't believe I said you did, though you have often promoted the destruction of various institutions on similar grounds in the past.
Undoubtedly, but any attempt to decide anything at all that isn't related to basic survival (and sometimes even then) will be predicated upon preference and bias.
Indeed. So claiming biased education would heighten tensions as opposed to an even-handed education, as if they were intrinsically two opposing things, is both wrong and itself a reflection of bias.
This isn't even touching on what 'even-handed' means in this case, of course. Does an even-handed educate equate Dalish crimes in the present with the fall of the Dales nearly a millenia ago? That's an equivalence that favors the Dalish, but I wouldn't call it particularly even-handed. Should it be of the last year? Last five? Ten? Hundred?
chantry promotes equality? lol
They don't it is saying that tevinter promotes prohibiting blood magic because they have written such rule.
Only faction that promote equality are qunari (if we exclude mages).
Indeed. So claiming biased education would heighten tensions as opposed to an even-handed education, as if they were intrinsically two opposing things, is both wrong and itself a reflection of bias.
This isn't even touching on what 'even-handed' means in this case, of course. Does an even-handed educate equate Dalish crimes in the present with the fall of the Dales nearly a millenia ago? That's an equivalence that favors the Dalish, but I wouldn't call it particularly even-handed. Should it be of the last year? Last five? Ten? Hundred?
Well, I hardly see why it would need to when each has crimes against the other it could claim in the present, but the answer to such a question (or even the viability or necessity of this education), like so many others, requires that we actually see Thedas beyond DA2, as the war is going to seriously shake up the status quo.
My point exactly. Dorian is slave trader and magister but noooo we love him already! All Chevaliers are bad people because they slay elves at initiation. Double standards are annoying.
Wait Chevaliers kill elves during their initiation? I mean I don't know the context but that does sound rather um...extreme. One might perceive that as kind of horrific.
Surely they don't specifically target elves in some kind of "most dangerous game" scenario? Right?!
I dunno. I'm all for companions having their own agenda and ambition but a character like "the hound" I know I'd eventually have to put him down. Those kind of characters would back stab you in a heart beat.
So I'm assuming you killed Zevran when you first met him, during every single play-through of DA:O? After all, he was literally hired to stab you in the heart...
No, all the Chevaliers have committed murder. The initiation ritual is to go out and murder a serf or elf, ala the old Spartan ritual. You have to pass that to be a Chevalier- even if you do nothing else wrong, you're still a murderer.
*snip*
If there's one thing Bioware writers have been quite clear on, being a murderer doesn't make you a bad person. Or at least an unsympathetic character without strong morals that don't have to be tied to a redemption arc.
I haven't finished The Masked Empire yet, so I wasn't entirely sure about their initiation ritual... I thought killing elves was just something some of the chevaliers do to "train". Thanks for clearing that up, though! But you're right: most of our other companions (be it in the Dragon Age universe or in Mass Effect) are guilty of murder at some point during their lives.
As for not having an Orlesian... well, I'm not disappointed per see. I do think it would be interesting and something to be gained from such a character base, whether it was a true and current Chevalier or a wash-out or disgraced one.
But at the same time, DA has never been a case of 'let's represent the local region in the companion cast.' Unlike ME, which very much went for 'I am the proxy character for this human/quarian/turian/krogan/asari/drell/geth faction', DA has never really tried that.
*snip*
So if DAI doesn't really embrace the local nation in the companion cast... well, that doesn't really surprise me. Some of the companions we are getting are pretty cool as is. We're getting a freaking magister, after all. I wouldn't rule out getting a Chevalier in some future game either.
Well Blackwall has a good chance of being Orlesian... but you make a good point. Although I feel like DA:I is going to be a LOT different from DA:O and DA:II... if anything, I think it will be more like the Mass Effect series. I have a feeling DA:I is the first part in a trilogy (with DA:I 2 being about the Dalish trying to reclaim their homeworld and DA:I 3 being about the Quanri finally invading... just my prediction!) I mean, the Inquisition is all about creating a team of the best of the best who can fight against a new, terrifying threat that has the potential to destroy the world (a la Mass Effect).
I love the BSN.
Serial killing demon- OMG I just want to HUG him!!!!! He's so adorable!
Chevalier- Ughhhh no, he probably did something bad in the past. I'd kill him or not recruit him.
HAHAHAHA that is a great point! And do you remember the ridiculously long thread that was begging for a desire demon as a companion??
I would love a Chevalier companion. I would also love a permanent Templar companion (I mean a fully fledged one, not like Alistair, and not one you only get for a brief portion, like Carver). I also want a typical Tevinter magister, not a reformist like Dorian (I have no complaints on Dorian though, I'm sure he'll be a fine companion).
I sadly see none of these things happening any time soon.
See, I'm kind of sick of the Templars after DA:2... we know so little about the chevaliers in comparison, I feel like there's a lot more Bioware could do with them than re-visit Templars (which seem to have a big role in DA:I, too, what with the red lyrium infection).
But you're right: no chevalier companion in DA:I. Maybe in the sequel, though... I'm wondering if they're introducing Michel in DA:I with the intention of adding him as a companion in the next game (supposedly they already cast his voice actor).
I'm wondering if they're introducing Michel in DA:I with the intention of adding him as a companion in the next game (supposedly they already cast his voice actor).
I hope so.
But you're right: no chevalier companion in DA:I. Maybe in the sequel, though... I'm wondering if they're introducing Michel in DA:I with the intention of adding him as a companion in the next game (supposedly they already cast his voice actor).
Mm, don't know. One of my Inquisitors, the Dalish one, will probably want to execute him. Not that death has stopped characters from appearing again in a DA game, mind you, so yours is not a far-fetched guess.
Retour en haut