756 réponses à ce sujet

[J-Reyno]

Except it is a valid stance to not believe they are loyal...you are forced to keep them anyway, hell it is perfectly logical to not trust Morrigan, or Ironbull...but you are stuck with them to.

 

What leadership do you actually exercise if you cannot tell people that their services are not wanted?

 

You can't use the example of Shepard here, s/he was never in overall command, always someone out ranked /him/her and gave you mandatory crew, if the inquisitor is in this position the advertising shouldn't be claiming that the inquisition is yours.

It is not valid. If you think that every person you work with has to agree with you on everything ever, then you're gonna have a bad time.  The Inquisition aligns for a specific goal.  For the purpose of attaining that goal, it does not matter if the other characters agree with you on other subjects.  

 

From the looks of it your Inquisitor will actually be the biggest obstruction to accomplishing the Inquisition's goal.  If you can't talk to a party member about something and say "well, we will respectfully disagree" and move on with your work, then you will be the factor that causes unrest and dissent.  

[Vilegrim]

It is not valid. If you think that every person you work with has to agree with you on everything ever, then you're gonna have a bad time.  The Inquisition aligns for a specific goal.  For the purpose of attaining that goal, it does not matter if the other characters agree with you on other subjects.  

 

From the looks of it your Inquisitor will actually be the biggest obstruction to accomplishing the Inquisition's goal.  If you can't talk to a party member about something and say "well, we will respectfully disagree" and move on with your work, then you will be the factor that causes unrest and dissent.

 

 

If the goals are wildly clashing however, then nothing can be accomplished.  Yes, I could possibly work wit ha group I do not agree with...in a separate AoO with a separate command structure, this kind of clash 'inside the bunker' however is a recipe for disaster.

[mordy_was_here]

If the goals are wildly clashing however, then nothing can be accomplished.  

 

Guess you just shouldn't buy the game, then.

[Mr.House]

no, the price, and responsibilities of freedom apply to all, the chantry however cannot abide freedom, either of mages or of faith (just look at how the avvars and dalish are treated) neither can the qun, THAT is what is wrong with it at heart.

The very aspect that everyone should have freedom, even the people that will cause  harm on purpose is naive at best, and the dalish are treated like crap because they are by nature very racist. Don't believe me? Play a dwarf or CE then go to the dalish in DAO, you show no hostility and you are still treated like garbage(worse as a city elf)

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Just pointing this out, but the Chantry treats City Elves better than the nations of Thedas and even the Dalish do. Elves are allowed to become priests/priestesses and even Templars. 

[Zatche]

(I honestly believe Bioware has done a bad job with the conflict between the mages and templars with so many players being firmly pro-mage. The choice should have been far more grey but right now choosing mages is easily the "better" choice.)

 

I actually started out pro-mage and then drifted towards the middle, but many people think that supporting the templars is the obvious choice.The amount of debate on this thread alone (not to mention the BSN overall) indicates that the subject is as decisive as it was meant to be.

[Vilegrim]

The very aspect that everyone should have freedom, even the people that will cause  harm on purpose is naive at best, and the dalish are treated like crap because they are by nature very racist. Don't beleive me? Play a dwarf or CE then go to the dalish in DAO, you show no hostility and you are still treated like garbage(worse as a city elf)

 

 

Not causing harm is part of the responsibility of freedom..the freedom the templars deny on suspicion, from childhood.  Punish the guilty, those who choose to cause harm, or choose to join an organisation devoted to doing so, not everyone by accident of birth.

 

Dalish being really racist does have a fairly logical cause, oppressed and persecuted groups can become so, and I'll leave it at that.

[In Exile]

 

Dalish being really racist does have a fairly logical cause, oppressed and persecuted groups can become so, and I'll leave it at that.

 

 

If being a racist is justified because of oppression, then certainly the mundanes of Thedas have to be justified in their repression of mages given their suffering at the hands of Tevinter. 

[Mr.House]

 

Not causing harm is part of the responsibility of freedom..the freedom the templars deny on suspicion, from childhood.  Punish the guilty, those who choose to cause harm, or choose to join an organisation devoted to doing so, not everyone by accident of birth.

 

Dalish being really racist does have a fairly logical cause, oppressed and persecuted groups can become so, and I'll leave it at that.

 

Yes because being racist to dwarves and city elves is logical.

[J-Reyno]

If the goals are wildly clashing however, then nothing can be accomplished.  Yes, I could possibly work wit ha group I do not agree with...in a separate AoO with a separate command structure, this kind of clash 'inside the bunker' however is a recipe for disaster.

No, there are no "goals".  There is one goal.  Everyone is here to accomplish that one goal.  That one goal is not to solve the Mage-templar-chantry conflict.  

 

Now if your opinion on your own personal goal clashes with another, and you allow that to interfere with the goal of the Inquisition, that is on you.  Other characters are not required to pursue your personal endeavors, or even agree with them.  Because that is not why they joined the Inquisition.  

[Mr.House]

No, there are no "goals".  There is one goal.  Everyone is here to accomplish that one goal.  That one goal is not to solve the Mage-templar-chantry conflict.  

 

Now if your opinion on your own personal goal clashes with another, and you allow that to interfere with the goal of the Inquisition, that is on you.  Other characters are not required to pursue your personal endeavors, or even agree with them.  Because that is not why they joined the Inquisition.  

Well said.

[Vilegrim]

Yes because being racist to dwarves and city elves is logical.

 

 

I said justified as groups have reacted like that, not logical, in that it does them no good. 

 

Look, I feel like I am on thin ice here, so ducking out of this bit of the conversation, just saying it makes in story sense.

[Nimlowyn]

No, there are no "goals".  There is one goal.  Everyone is here to accomplish that one goal.  That one goal is not to solve the Mage-templar-chantry conflict.  

 

Now if your opinion on your own personal goal clashes with another, and you allow that to interfere with the goal of the Inquisition, that is on you.  Other characters are not required to pursue your personal endeavors, or even agree with them.  Because that is not why they joined the Inquisition.  

Well said. Being fanatically anti-Chantry is just as bad as being fanatically pro-Chantry. We've got a breach to take care of here, we need to focus. 

[Mr.House]

I said justified as groups have reacted like that, not logical, in that it does them no good. 

 

Look, I feel like I am on thin ice here, so ducking out of this bit of the conversation, just saying it makes in story sense.

Just like it makes sense for non-magical people to oppress mages. You can't have it both ways.

[Vilegrim]

No, there are no "goals".  There is one goal.  Everyone is here to accomplish that one goal.  That one goal is not to solve the Mage-templar-chantry conflict.  

 

Now if your opinion on your own personal goal clashes with another, and you allow that to interfere with the goal of the Inquisition, that is on you.  Other characters are not required to pursue your personal endeavors, or even agree with them.  Because that is not why they joined the Inquisition.  

 

 

Their are multiple goals the trailers have made that clear, disagreeing about how to do these things (end mage templar conflict, end orleasian civil war, end the threat of the rifts) and indeed what doing so actually means, well that is a massive issue.

 

Just like it makes sense for non-magical people to oppress mages. You can't have it both ways.

 

 

making in story sense does not make it the right thing to do.  The dalish are racist, given their history, this makes sense, but racism is wrong, however stopping beign racist would not improve their lot one iota, where as stopping imprsioning all mages would improve peoples lives, as magical healing stopped being at the discretion of the chantry and started beign at the discretion of the people who actually can do it, as having a guy who can glass those bandits, or dark spawn, becomes a realistic prospect for small towns, and above all, people are not imprisoned in a guilded cage by accident of birth, a moral good in it's own right. 

 

Yes you would get rogue mages, but you get renegade archer build rogues who can cause at least as much devastation, or renegade warriors who do good impressions of one man army groups.

[Mr.House]

Their are multiple goals the trailers have made that clear, disagreeing about how to do these things (end mage templar conflict, end orleasian civil war, end the threat of the rifts) and indeed what doing so actually means, well that is a massive issue.

The goal of the Inquisition is to close the breach, not to help your personal goals. Going after your personal goals will have people oppose you and that is your doing.

[Vilegrim]

The goal of the Inquisition is to close the breach, not to help your personal goals. Going after your personal goals will have people oppose you and that is your doing.

 

Except that is not what the trailers SAY.  IF the inquisiton goals where just that, why does 'fires above' mention 'ending these wars' as a goal?

[J-Reyno]

Their are multiple goals the trailers have made that clear, disagreeing about how to do these things (end mage templar conflict, end orleasian civil war, end the threat of the rifts) and indeed what doing so actually means, well that is a massive issue.

No.  There are multiple conflicts.  There is one goal, which is to stop the demonic chaos in Thedas.

 

As a leader, if you choose to interject within these conflicts in a certain way then you are making the choice to potentially alienate party members who disagree with your actions.  And if they leave or do anything to cause unrest, that is their choice.  You recognize that you are taking that risk by taking action.  You can choose what kind of leader you want to be.  Whether you want to prioritize maintaining your assets by searching for satisfactory compromises until the Inquisition's goal is accomplished, or if you want to be heavy-handed and assert your power for your own purposes while potentially endangering the stability of your faction.

[mordy_was_here]

Except that is not what the trailers SAY.  IF the inquisiton goals where just that, why does 'fires above' mention 'ending these wars' as a goal?

 

It says no such thing. The only mention of war in that trailer is Morrigan's opening line of "I've seen more of this war than you can imagine." She could be referring to what's happening with the breach and the red templars, or the civil war in Orlais, et cetera et cetera. You're projecting what you want to hear onto the trailer.

 

Edit: We're also, like, wildly off-topic at this point.

 

[Mr.House]

Except that is not what the trailers SAY.  IF the inquisiton goals where just that, why does 'fires above' mention 'ending these wars' as a goal?

You mean that is not what one trailer says, not trailers. Fires above was one trailer, a very old trailer at that(the first one for DAI I believe) The newer trailers however focused entirely on the breach. Again expecting everyone to agree with you is silly, you will have people that don't agree, if you wanted a legion of drones, this is the wrong game for you.

[aaarcher86]

Except that is not what the trailers SAY. IF the inquisiton goals where just that, why does 'fires above' mention 'ending these wars' as a goal?

Because it is a stepping stone to get to the final goal. I don't actually think it says that, though. However, it's something you'll have to deal with on the way to the final goal.

[Nimlowyn]

Everyone agreeing with you would also be an extremely boring game. 

[Vilegrim]

You mean that is not what one trailer says, not trailers. Fires above was one trailer, a very old trailer at that(the first one for DAI I believe) The newer trailers however focused entirely on the breach. Again expecting everyone to agree with you is silly, you will have people that don't agree, if you wanted a legion of drones, this is the wrong game for you.

 

 

I wanted some agency.  That is being taken away by forcing me to give military command to Cullen and espionage command to Leliana, with no other options  I do not trust that their goals are not to expand the power of the chantry and templars, so want no part of them, I cannot trust them to not sabotage the closing of the tears, or any military campaign, as I cannot trust them what use are they to me?  But I cannot replace them with someone I can trust, or at least not distrust.  Nope stuck with them, sucks to be you, the divine is the puppet master.

 

Everyone agreeing with you would also be an extremely boring game.

 

 

Everyone in the Normandy agreed with Shephard, that worked fine for two and a half games.

[mordy_was_here]

Oh my god.

 

[Chibi Elemental]

I think it is more of the case of people wanting to make the best "utopia" type ending they can get while still maintaining their view the chantry is evil. But that is not what dragon age has ever been about, it has always been about making hard choices. Some are more black and white then others to be sure.

 

this time I sort of view the Inquisition as an origination more like the knights templar in our own history, sure they were founded and many of the members of the Templar were members of the church but as time went on from its founding it gained power and other goals outside of the church. Heck even the Templar order in the dragon age universe is separate from the church itself and at the current moment in the world is actively opposing the chantry, read asunder and you will know what I am talking about. 

 

The inquisition is more pragmatic then that and Cullen has changed from the kill all mage scared kid from DA:O, and even from his time under Meredith.

 

He has seen the worst in both sides, I think that makes him uniquely qualified as a leader, he knows that mages can turn into abominations and can kill hundreds of people, he knows Templars can be just as bad from what happened with Meredith and the other Templars who were deranged in Kirkwall. 

 

We have yet to see everything and assuming that the inquisition is pro pro no holds bar chantry is yet to be seen heck even liliana has been a vary flexible chantry fallower, especially if you harden her in Dragon age origins.