954 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

 

Perfectly normal Templars, no Red Lyrium in sight.

Yeah, those I believe are just the remnants of Lambert's forces. The Red Templars are a wholly different entity (I believe).

[MisterJB]

 

"I find your use of magic for violent purposes to be wholly repugnant. Why aren't you more peaceful like us non-mages?

This is why you have to be in the Circles."

(see I'm not above making some fun of my own position)

[The Elder King]

 
Perfectly normal Templars, no Red Lyrium in sight.

Yup. Their names were 'Templar Knight/defender' too.

[Hellion Rex]

I'm wondering specifically why the Hinterlands is the site of the conflict. What drew the Mages and Templars there of all places? Are they the remnants of Kinloch Hold or Jainen fleeing south? Or have the Templars been chasing the mages all the way from Orlais into Ferelden?

[lil yonce]

Is there a video of the hinterlands demo anywhere online? I'd like to see it.

[Grieving Natashina]

Is there a video of the hinterlands demo anywhere online? I'd like to see it.

Check your PMs.  

[MisterJB]

I'm wondering specifically why the Hinterlands is the site of the conflict. What drew the Mages and Templars there of all places? Are they the remnants of Kinloch Hold or Jainen fleeing south? Or have the Templars been chasing the mages all the way from Orlais into Ferelden?

They could have been to Ferelden for the peace summit and, after the blast, the fight just spilled South.

[lil yonce]

Check your PMs.  

Thanks!

[Hellion Rex]

They could have been to Ferelden for the peace summit and, after the blast, the fight just spilled South.

Ah, good point. I wonder if the Templars were also at the peace summit.

[Grieving Natashina]

Ah, good point. I wonder if the Templars were also at the peace summit.

I wouldn't see why not.  

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Would it be possible for someone to provide a link or a source to the "This Inquisitor sided with the mages" thing? Because the battle to Redcliffe castle definitely seemed to involve both mages and templars, at least in one demo.

[The Elder King]

Would it be possible for someone to provide a link or a source to the "This Inquisitor sided with the mages" thing? Because the battle to Redcliffe castle definitely seemed to involve both mages and templars, at least in one demo.

The first part of the demo was pre-choice. The second part (the one is Dorian) skipped ahead multiple hours and is after the choice of supporting mages
Mark stated this himself during some of the demo shown.

[Dean_the_Young]

I hope this compromise isn't stuffed down the player's throat. Some people will want absolute freedom and not support slavery under any circumstances, and I daresay some will not tolerate anything but imprisonment for mages. Forcing a compromise that doesn't allow players to choose anything other than 'reformed circles' would be massive rail-roading and very annoying, but it's quite likely to happen given that the most common complaint about the last game was 'cannot reach a compromise', and the most likely knee-jerk to this will be 'have to reach a compromise'.

Actually, they already have a handy theme: saving the world, from itself. When applied to factions that have been busier fighting each other than addressing the problem at hand, that's a good thematic position of forcing groups to come together without necessarily engaging in compromise. If applied to the player, which it could well be, it could be in the form of the Inquisitor never induling in the all-or-nothing extremism of DA2's various dilemmas.

 

Of course, all the Dragon Age games have had massive railroading in their own way, so I'm not seeing a compelling reason why this should be any different. It's worth noting that BSN player positions are often far more extreme than anything offered in the games, from the premise of 'I will destroy all Templars!' to, well, just about anything else.

 

Then again, what you consider compromise and what the game presents as a compromise are also likely to be two different things. I know some people on BSN would consider anything less than the total destruction/impotence of the Templars and/or Orlais at the end to be a massive compromise. If the game never even offers the possibility for that sort of outcome, though, it wouldn't be a compromise in the first place. Things more extreme than the game's possibilities were never viable positions to be compromised in the first place.

[Dean_the_Young]

A position that I consider nothing short of morally deranged. Hopefully it can be refuted in-game.

 

Xil, you are the last person who should make any insinuations of moral derangement. Knock it off.

[LobselVith8]

Of course, all the Dragon Age games have had massive railroading in their own way, so I'm not seeing a compelling reason why this should be any different. It's worth noting that BSN player positions are often far more extreme than anything offered in the games, from the premise of 'I will destroy all Templars!' to, well, just about anything else.

 

Sure, like the players who want to destroy all the mages, or perhaps the players who have advocated genocide against all elves. I agree that there are people who advocate extreme positions.

 

Then again, what you consider compromise and what the game presents as a compromise are also likely to be two different things. I know some people on BSN would consider anything less than the total destruction/impotence of the Templars and/or Orlais at the end to be a massive compromise. If the game never even offers the possibility for that sort of outcome, though, it wouldn't be a compromise in the first place. Things more extreme than the game's possibilities were never viable positions to be compromised in the first place.

 

Some people, on both sides, simply don't want compromise when they view the opposing side as morally wrong. I really don't view it in the same light you seem to; I think being able to have the freedom to side with either the mages or templars, or align with either the elven rebellion or one of the warring parties in the Orlesian Empire, is simply an example of players wanting agency over the direction that their character takes. Some players felt railroaded into accepting apostates as a pro-templar Hawke, while a few pro-mage players felt they were forced to work for Sister Petrice and Knight-Commander Meredith despite saying "no". Wanting a victory for your favored side is something more than a few pro-templar and pro-mage players have in common.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

A position that I consider nothing short of morally deranged. Hopefully it can be refuted in-game.

 

If you think that, it's your prerogative, but Bioware is not trying to tell a story of good and evil with the mages and templars.

[Ap0state]

Actually, they already have a handy theme: saving the world, from itself. When applied to factions that have been busier fighting each other than addressing the problem at hand, that's a good thematic position of forcing groups to come together without necessarily engaging in compromise. If applied to the player, which it could well be, it could be in the form of the Inquisitor never induling in the all-or-nothing extremism of DA2's various dilemmas.

 

Of course, all the Dragon Age games have had massive railroading in their own way, so I'm not seeing a compelling reason why this should be any different. It's worth noting that BSN player positions are often far more extreme than anything offered in the games, from the premise of 'I will destroy all Templars!' to, well, just about anything else.

 

Then again, what you consider compromise and what the game presents as a compromise are also likely to be two different things. I know some people on BSN would consider anything less than the total destruction/impotence of the Templars and/or Orlais at the end to be a massive compromise. If the game never even offers the possibility for that sort of outcome, though, it wouldn't be a compromise in the first place. Things more extreme than the game's possibilities were never viable positions to be compromised in the first place.

Why? I am slightly puzzled by a couple of things. 

1) The idea that a possibility more 'extreme' than what the devs imagined was never viable. Why is this the case? The developers are constrained by number of game development and resource constraint issues that don't allow them to make everything we could think of an option, but how does that make it not viable? Destroying the templars and/or mages seems entirely viable given that far more challenging enemies will be faced and conquered. For instance, why is saving the world an 'extreme' ambition in ME3? Is it just because the developers didn't present it as an option? Why is hunting and down destroying all the darkspawn after the Blight 'extreme'? It's also an entirely logical possibility the game doesn't offer because of constraints and/or sequels.

2) Why is 'saving the world from itself' (even if we assume that's the central theme of the game), incompatible with choosing one of the sides to various conflicts (and by choose, I mean agree that they are entirely justified in their ambitions)? Just because two groups disagree doesn't mean the truth is somewhere in between. If Orlesians want to subjugate elves and elves don't want to be subjugated, the fair option isn't somewhere in between these two.

[nightcobra]

Honestly, i'm gonna side with the templars just so I can hunt down Adrian on the battlefield, and make sure that the Inquisitor is the last thing she ever sees upon Thedas.

 

easier to spot her if you're in league with the mages, besides...she wasn't fit to lead them anyway. too reckless and hateful which in turn clouds her judgement.

[Lucijenifer]

2) Why is 'saving the world from itself' (even if we assume that's the central theme of the game), incompatible with choosing one of the sides to various conflicts (and by choose, I mean agree that they are entirely justified in their ambitions)? Just because two groups disagree doesn't mean the truth is somewhere in between. If Orlesians want to subjugate elves and elves don't want to be subjugated, the fair option isn't somewhere in between these two.

 

The problem with games where your choices matter is that you aren't going to be able to make any significant changes to the world that aren't a part of everyone's story. Rail-roading is kinda required because of Bioware's resources. Allowing a player to utterly destroy the Templars or the Mage rebellion would cause the sequel to diverge into two very, very different stories. It'd be like having two games in one and I don't think Bioware has the manpower to write that sort of thing properly, as lovely as that would be.

 

DA2 always ends with the Chantry being destroyed and all-out war being created between the two factions and DA:I will always end with... something. There will be an event that occurs largely driven by your character but ultimately, you have no control over what happens in the big picture. You will get to make a few minor choices that change nothing significantly and that's all. Just look at the endings to each of the Mass Effect games and expect that amount of control in DA:I. At the end of Mass Effect 2, you don't get the choice to dismantle Cerberus entirely, only to hinder their operations and temporarily thwart the Illusive Man's plans by destroying the Collector Base rather than neutralising it for him.

 

Expect something similar here. As nice as it'd be, the total destruction of the Templars as an organisation isn't possible due to the storytelling constraints.

[Ap0state]

The problem with games where your choices matter is that you aren't going to be able to make any significant changes to the world that aren't a part of everyone's story. Rail-roading is kinda required because of Bioware's resources. Allowing a player to utterly destroy the Templars or the Mage rebellion would cause the sequel to diverge into two very, very different stories. It'd be like having two games in one and I don't think Bioware has the manpower to write that sort of thing properly, as lovely as that would be.

 

DA2 always ends with the Chantry being destroyed and all-out war being created between the two factions and DA:I will always end with... something. There will be an event that occurs largely driven by your character but ultimately, you have no control over what happens in the big picture. You will get to make a few minor choices that change nothing significantly and that's all. Just look at the endings to each of the Mass Effect games and expect that amount of control in DA:I. At the end of Mass Effect 2, you don't get the choice to dismantle Cerberus entirely, only to hinder their operations and temporarily thwart the Illusive Man's plans by destroying the Collector Base rather than neutralising it for him.

 

Expect something similar here. As nice as it'd be, the total destruction of the Templars as an organisation isn't possible due to the storytelling constraints.

Yes, you're entirely right about this, but I feel that at some point they will decide to take the franchise to some different point in the Dragon Age universe, because reconciling all the different game-states is something they've already found impossible, and the inconsistencies and difficulties can only increase from this point. After all the flak they've received for rail-roading, they may go out of their way to provide choices. It seems much wiser to have a grand supervening event to arrive at the desired end-state preferably after the conclusion of DA:I (if they want to continue in a linear fashion). Rail-roading isn't a problem in itself either, it's just that the way it's executed matters a great deal. In DA2, players are forced to fight with characters they would have allied with, and have been nothing but supportive of, which leaves a very bad taste. I'm not blaming the devs because they were obviously under constraints, but it's pretty obvious that even if they wanted exactly this end-state, they could have accomplished it in ways that didn't force the player to battle those they would rather have allied with, or do quests for opposing factions.

Edit: I mean to say that rail-roading a story by having supervening events negate the effect of the player's choice is fine, and doesn't really induce frustration. By contrast, game design that forces people to make choices they disagree with or would never make is very annoying indeed. It doesn't even have to be major things- I was highly annoyed that in MoTA my character is forced to surrender to Prosper and his guards. I would never allow myself to give up my arms (it's just always stupid since Prosper can still kill me if he wishes, but now I can't fight back).

[Lucijenifer]

If the players do get to make a grand, world-changing choice that might include the Templars being dissolved or something similarly huge, then the next game would have to barely feature Templars at all, no matter the choice that you make. So long as there's going to be another game following this one, Bioware has to be careful about the choices they make available. As much as everyone adores the prospect of what their Inquisitor would do and how the game doesn't allow them to play their Inquisitor properly, in the end it's a character that was designed by Bioware. All you get to do are define a few features of their personality but their over-arching goal and motivation will always remain the same.

 

It's sad but it's true and in the end, I think we're just going to get another small choice to make in the finale that doesn't change the grand scheme of things. Perhaps we give an advantage to the Mages or to the Templars but in the end, the game remains the same and no matter what choice we make, the Mage-Templar conflict is going to go down a pre-determined path that the player can't change except in the most minute and insignificant of ways.

 

I might be wrong though! I hope I'm wrong, to tell the truth. It'd be nice if we did get that degree of control over the events that unfold but I worry that we won't because well, it's a Bioware game and they need to be able to reconcile all of the choices made at the end of the game without tearing their hair out.

[Ap0state]

If the players do get to make a grand, world-changing choice that might include the Templars being dissolved or something similarly huge, then the next game would have to barely feature Templars at all, no matter the choice that you make. So long as there's going to be another game following this one, Bioware has to be careful about the choices they make available. As much as everyone adores the prospect of what their Inquisitor would do and how the game doesn't allow them to play their Inquisitor properly, in the end it's a character that was designed by Bioware. All you get to do are define a few features of their personality but their over-arching goal and motivation will always remain the same.

 

It's sad but it's true and in the end, I think we're just going to get another small choice to make in the finale that doesn't change the grand scheme of things. Perhaps we give an advantage to the Mages or to the Templars but in the end, the game remains the same and no matter what choice we make, the Mage-Templar conflict is going to go down a pre-determined path that the player can't change except in the most minute and insignificant of ways.

 

I might be wrong though! I hope I'm wrong, to tell the truth. It'd be nice if we did get that degree of control over the events that unfold but I worry that we won't because well, it's a Bioware game and they need to be able to reconcile all of the choices made at the end of the game without tearing their hair out.

Templars are just people, even if every single Templar was slaughtered, others could choose to recreate the Templar order and start it up again. Similarly, mages are continuously born so even if every one of them was killed, a little bit down the line, we could always have more mages; at least in this instance, I think you're slightly over-estimating the difficulty this choice would cause to the story.

[Lucijenifer]

If things happen the way you suggest, there's two ways that could go down.

 

The first, the Templars as an organisation no longer exist and although others are trying to rebuild the order, it will take so much time and effort that they won't have any presence in the next game. If this is the case, that's a fairly large change for Bioware to consider and it does provide them with a lot of difficulty.

The second, the Templars quickly recover from their destruction as a new order is made to replace the old in short order. By the time the next game comes around, a new iteration of the Templars has already risen and is ready to combat the mage threat. This cheapens the choice of destroying the Templars to such a degree that most players would just ask themselves: "Well, what's the point then?"

 

It's a horrible balance to try and maintain. Players need to feel like their choices made an impact but at the same time, the story needs to remain moderately linear for the purpose of not making story design a cluttered mess. Or, more of a cluttered mess that it already is. I don't envy Bioware at all and I am certain that we won't have a deciding impact on the Mage-Templar conflict. A significant one, maybe but only a significant as the Collector Base example I gave above.

[Dean_the_Young]

Why? I am slightly puzzled by a couple of things. 

1) The idea that a possibility more 'extreme' than what the devs imagined was never viable. Why is this the case? The developers are constrained by number of game development and resource constraint issues that don't allow them to make everything we could think of an option, but how does that make it not viable? Destroying the templars and/or mages seems entirely viable given that far more challenging enemies will be faced and conquered. For instance, why is saving the world an 'extreme' ambition in ME3? Is it just because the developers didn't present it as an option? Why is hunting and down destroying all the darkspawn after the Blight 'extreme'? It's also an entirely logical possibility the game doesn't offer because of constraints and/or sequels.
 

 

In the simplest form, things more extreme than what the game allows are never viable because they aren't in the game in the first place.

 

What the player wants to do, and what the game allows them to do, are two significantly different things. No matter what your stance on the Mage-Templar conflict in DA2, for example, not even the most radically anti-Templar Hawke has the option or route to undertake systemic guerilla warfare against the Templars, to kill any given Templar, to join the mage underground, and so on. Anyone who looked forward towards playing DA2, heard that Kirkwall was a Templar stronghold, and thought 'I'm going to change that and destroy their grip on the city by supporting other factions' was, well, never going to have a viable scenario. Even the most radically anti-Templar Hawke leaves Kirkwall a Templar bastion and stronghold. The reasons in-universe are many and varied, starting with that gameplay vs lore segregation aside the Templars are too strong, but on the meta level it's simply because the decision was made not to make such a route. As to why, Luc covers it well.

 

I don't really believe this is the best place for discussing ME3, except to point out that ME3 does end with the world saved. People just took issue with how the Reaper threat was ended.
 

 

 

2) Why is 'saving the world from itself' (even if we assume that's the central theme of the game), incompatible with choosing one of the sides to various conflicts (and by choose, I mean agree that they are entirely justified in their ambitions)? Just because two groups disagree doesn't mean the truth is somewhere in between. If Orlesians want to subjugate elves and elves don't want to be subjugated, the fair option isn't somewhere in between these two.

 

 

 

Fairness doesn't even enter the equation. The issue isn't choosing sides, but following through with the divergences from those choices. Choices that are too large and divergent to be followed up, aren't followed up with. They're either absent, avoided, or outright retconned to a point that they can be followed up with. This was a reoccuring issue in the ME trilogy, but also shows up in DAO, both inside the game itself and in the sequel. The moment any person, group, of faction could be ended, they stopped mattering to the plot and were never revisted as a future plot development. Whether they lived or died, they never drove the plot again.

 

This is fine with small things, like a Dalish clan in some corner of Ferelden or a Dwarven King in Orzammar. We can quite easily keep telling Dragon Age stories for decades and never go back to those geographically limited areas... but the inverse is also true. Those decisions are never going to be anything but set dressing for any future stories, because the stories must be able to progress whether Faction A prospered or died.

 

That's significantly harder with something as widespread in the system as the international order of mages and templars and the Chantry. There are some places that the Chantry system could explode and it wouldn't make a difference, but not many. More to the point, having a dual state of the Chantry system being exploded or not really takes away from the sort of stories you could use the Chantry, the Templars, and even the Mages for in the future: if you like your idea of a mage struggling for freedom/independence/domination over mundanes, you are less likely to ever see it again if DAI ends with a dual state of there being a Circle System or not. Don't expect many resources to be devoted into a story of a free mage trying to integrate into society if there's a route in which Templars still prevent that. For the same reason, it'd be hard for any post-Inquisition mage story to dwell on, say, the consequences of a failed rebellion if there's an outcome in which the rebellion succeeded. The only stories you would see developed are the ones that could exist regardless of your Inquisition choice.

 

And considering that no matter how Inquisition ends there will still be mages, still be people afraid of mages, and still be Andrastianism, throwing away a well established narrative force with much more potential conflict and plot fodder would be a waste.

 

 

If you like stories about mages, it would be much more plausible (and simpler for the writers) to work of a relatively unified end-state. That could mean the Mage Rebellion fails regardless and returns to the status quo ante. That could mean the Mage Rebellion wins regardless and future games are written off of that basis. Or it could mean the situation takes a different direction entirely regardless, neither mage liberation or the status quo.

 

The problem with games where your choices matter is that you aren't going to be able to make any significant changes to the world that aren't a part of everyone's story. Rail-roading is kinda required because of Bioware's resources. Allowing a player to utterly destroy the Templars or the Mage rebellion would cause the sequel to diverge into two very, very different stories. It'd be like having two games in one and I don't think Bioware has the manpower to write that sort of thing properly, as lovely as that would be.

 

DA2 always ends with the Chantry being destroyed and all-out war being created between the two factions and DA:I will always end with... something. There will be an event that occurs largely driven by your character but ultimately, you have no control over what happens in the big picture. You will get to make a few minor choices that change nothing significantly and that's all. Just look at the endings to each of the Mass Effect games and expect that amount of control in DA:I. At the end of Mass Effect 2, you don't get the choice to dismantle Cerberus entirely, only to hinder their operations and temporarily thwart the Illusive Man's plans by destroying the Collector Base rather than neutralising it for him.

 

Expect something similar here. As nice as it'd be, the total destruction of the Templars as an organisation isn't possible due to the storytelling constraints.

 

This is well written. Big Choices and Consequences are something that apply not only within stories, but between stories and sequels. One of the big problems that the ME ran into, and apparently by accident, was running into the reality of the implications of the ME2 finale. In a Suicide Mission in which any companion can die, not companion can be a critical narrative force thereafter. Anyone who complained about why their favorite character became either plot irrelevant or had a replacement on standby to do the same things should blame ME2.

 

ME3 was a big learning point for Bioware, and handling consequences of previous games was definitely a learning experience for them that they've mentioned in the past. One of the biggest things, and one that I think DA2 started to show an acknowledgement of, is that sometimes it's better to avoid Big Divergent Decisions when you're making your Big Decisions. You don't need Big Divergence to role play- but you can't role play Big Divergences that are to big to carry forward. There's a reason why Big Divergent Decisions are at the end of the story, and not the middle. (And when it came to DAO, ever notice how the sub-arc stories stopped mattering one that Big Decision was made?)

 

If you look at it structurally, DA2 was basically a trilogy in and of itself. Each timeskip created a narrative effect comparable to a sequel. The writers were experimenting with a lot of things of how to reflect events over the times. Some were good, some were bad, and some weren't even noticed. (Aveline's character arc if you don't do her missions, for example.)

 

I expect DAI to grow more from DA2, in which carryover was a deliberate consideration from the start, than DAO, in which carryover was barely considered.

 

Yes, you're entirely right about this, but I feel that at some point they will decide to take the franchise to some different point in the Dragon Age universe, because reconciling all the different game-states is something they've already found impossible, and the inconsistencies and difficulties can only increase from this point. After all the flak they've received for rail-roading, they may go out of their way to provide choices. It seems much wiser to have a grand supervening event to arrive at the desired end-state preferably after the conclusion of DA:I (if they want to continue in a linear fashion). Rail-roading isn't a problem in itself either, it's just that the way it's executed matters a great deal. In DA2, players are forced to fight with characters they would have allied with, and have been nothing but supportive of, which leaves a very bad taste. I'm not blaming the devs because they were obviously under constraints, but it's pretty obvious that even if they wanted exactly this end-state, they could have accomplished it in ways that didn't force the player to battle those they would rather have allied with, or do quests for opposing factions.

Edit: I mean to say that rail-roading a story by having supervening events negate the effect of the player's choice is fine, and doesn't really induce frustration. By contrast, game design that forces people to make choices they disagree with or would never make is very annoying indeed. It doesn't even have to be major things- I was highly annoyed that in MoTA my character is forced to surrender to Prosper and his guards. I would never allow myself to give up my arms (it's just always stupid since Prosper can still kill me if he wishes, but now I can't fight back).

 

Railroading occurs regardless, I think we agree: Bioware games especially, since they are heavily story driven. Unlike, say, the Fallout series, in which you can often break sequence at almost any time, story-heavy games require sequence to progress in a comprehensible manner. There's a reason why DAO was functionally a series of linear stories, including linear corridors and such.

 

The thing to take away from this, though, is that you don't need to railroad a player's choice to have a relatively unitary narrative. And you don't need huge world-changing divergent decisions to have a meaningful role play and meaningful decisions. Hawke could be roleplayed a number of ways, and the narrative would make sense for the contradictory viewpoints. The end-game decisions is, for all the other flaws of the endgame, an excellent roleplaying exercise with a lot of personal interaction even if it doesn't change the world.

 

I expect the Inquisitor can favor mages or Templars. I expect there will be differences in the outcomes and tone of the factions as a result. But the differences, while real, may not be as ambitious as people hope for... which I am also fine with. Unlike ME's uber power fantasy in which one special forces soldier resolves the galactic equivalent to Middle East peace and the Korean peninsula in a single campaign, Dragon Age has always tempered the player's impact on societies and change.

 

If the players do get to make a grand, world-changing choice that might include the Templars being dissolved or something similarly huge, then the next game would have to barely feature Templars at all, no matter the choice that you make. So long as there's going to be another game following this one, Bioware has to be careful about the choices they make available. As much as everyone adores the prospect of what their Inquisitor would do and how the game doesn't allow them to play their Inquisitor properly, in the end it's a character that was designed by Bioware. All you get to do are define a few features of their personality but their over-arching goal and motivation will always remain the same.

 

It's sad but it's true and in the end, I think we're just going to get another small choice to make in the finale that doesn't change the grand scheme of things. Perhaps we give an advantage to the Mages or to the Templars but in the end, the game remains the same and no matter what choice we make, the Mage-Templar conflict is going to go down a pre-determined path that the player can't change except in the most minute and insignificant of ways.

 

I might be wrong though! I hope I'm wrong, to tell the truth. It'd be nice if we did get that degree of control over the events that unfold but I worry that we won't because well, it's a Bioware game and they need to be able to reconcile all of the choices made at the end of the game without tearing their hair out.

I don't think it's necessarily that unitary, but your points are sound.

 

I don't put much faith on it, but one way DAI could approach the Mage-Templar conflict is by effectively having the Inquisition replace the Templars in having oversight of the Mages, while mitigating, limiting, or outright removing the Inquisitor's ability to dominate the institution after the game. Whether that's because the Inquisitor dies, or just loses political power once the emergency passes and other allies/patrons/forces assert influence to prevent any player megalomania of dictatorial control of the Inquisition... well, it doesn't matter. Once the game ends and the player puts down the control, the character (if alive) is Bioware's. They can give the Inquisitor influence without dominance.

 

 

Here's how it could work in terms of reflecting the player's influence and roleplaying, while keeping a relatively united post-game.

 

Player heads inquisition. During period of great crisis and emergency, Inquisitor has virtually no restrictions, but also no allies or patrons.

 

Inquisitor goes out looking for support. Patrons (such as Orlais factions) and allies to beef up forces (some companions, the Mages and Templars). As the Inquisition grows, tradeoffs are made. Getting Celene's support means supporting Celene. Recruiting Iron Bull and his mercs means providing intelligence to the Qunari. Etc. At this time, the Chantry is still disorganized and passive.

 

Inquisitor needs to end Mage/Templar conflict. The narrative does this by means of recruiting the mages or the Templars, possibly for an alliance vis-a-vis the other. Faction joins as ally, other is diminished.

 

With change to Mage-Templar conflict, Chantry stabilizes and helps by supporting the Inquisition and allied faction as sanctioned parties. Inquisitor still in charge of Inquisition, but under nominal Chantry umbrella.

 

Chantry/Patron/world consolidation and stability as Inquisition heads towards endgame. Mage/Templar allies are institutionalized in Chantry umbrella, enemy is brought to heel and submits. Mages and Templars are both nominally under the Chantry's umbrella, albeit one is tied to the autonomous Inquisition.

 

Inquisitor end game. World is saved. Allies reap fame, fortune, reputation gain. Emergency period passes, Inquisition either disbands or is formalized as part of the new Chantry system.

 

Post-emergency period. Without world crisis justifying carte blanch, the Inquisition and Inquisitor's autonomy and power are restricted. The player's involvement is leaving the game.

 

Epilogue. The Inquisition is folded into the Chantry, possibly as the new Seekers as oversight of Mages-Templars. The Circle system is nominally restored, but with the ally of the Inquisition holding a clearly favored position with the oversight Inquisition.

 

Post-game. Rollback. The Inquisition is still autonomous but significantly weaker than the Chantry. The Inquisition's freedom of policy is restrained. Experimental reforms occur, radical or not, but frictions remain. Inquisition is caught between forces that favor the defeated, and radical factions of the allies that want to push their victory further than would be tolerated.

 

Next game. Uneasy status quo. Mages, Templars still exist, but power relationship is changed. Period of uncertainty and new emerging norms.