629 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

Can I still beat both sides into submission?

 

Because they deserve it

Beat the hell out of both, and grab whichever side gets their act together first? I like that plan.

[Icy Magebane]

If forced to pick a side that's fine as long as we are allowed to do so reluctantly and without supporting the side full heartedly.  If I'm forced to side with either side, fine, if I'm forced to be pro either side I have a serious problem with it.

I'm sure there will be dialogue options to express neutrality or reluctance to take sides, even if we are ultimately forced to do so.  A person could want no part of this argument for any number of reasons, so I doubt the script will be written so that the Inquisitor is a hardliner one way or the other with nothing in between.

[The Baconer]

F***.

 

We better be able to sufficiently abuse, denigrate, and impose our will on the "lucky" winners.

[Angloassassin]

"All I want is a pretty girl, a decent meal, and the right to shoot lightning at fools."

[Wissenschaft]

You shouldn't be betting against 90% of the population, it won't end well.

 

The Imperium had armies, and powerful mages, demons, golems and who knows what else.

 

It still fell to a bunch of people with pointy metal sticks covered in steel.

 

Actually, it didn't technically fall, it just lost a lot of territory. The Imperium still lives! Help regain the Imperium's former glory. Spread its power from coast to coast. Put chains on those Orlesian nobles and keep them as your personal pet "servants". Crush those uppity rebel city elves. The Imperium will bring peace, order, and civility to the barbarians of the rest of the world! Young mages of the world, fight for your proper place in the world! The top, naturally.

[Dabrikishaw]

I'm a little taken a back at the idea that anyone thinks they have to agree with mages or templars.

[Puppy Love]

I'm sure there will be dialogue options to express neutrality or reluctance to take sides, even if we are ultimately forced to do so.  A person could want no part of this argument for any number of reasons, so I doubt the script will be written so that the Inquisitor is a hardliner one way or the other with nothing in between.

I so hope you are right...

[Puppy Love]

I'm a little taken a back at the idea that anyone thinks they have to agree with mages or templars.

Well we're clearly forced to take a side.

[TheJediSaint]

Well we're clearly forced to take a side.

My Hawke sided with the mages, but not because he agreed with them.  He just didn't want his sister to die for Ander's cause.

[KaiserShep]

I can't really make any kind of decision until the story gives me the details. I sided with the mages in DA2 because the Templars were clearly abusing their authority and I RP'd that Hawke was fed up with the whole Templars running the city nonsense. If I had the ability, I would have destroyed them for that reason alone, 'cause f*ck the magic police.

 

In any case, a system like the Circle seemed like something that would eventually collapse anyhow. I mean, they're basically prisons for magical people. Threat or not, they are largely innocent people just the same, so I feel it's inevitable that resentment will grow and conflict will develop until it comes to all out violence. It'll be interesting to see what the game allows us to do.

[Angloassassin]

I believe that (If you fastforwarded me like 10-15 years so I'd be Senior Enchanter worthy) I'd be an Aequitarian. Because they believe in the moral high ground. Whether they were governed by the Chantry or Not, Aequitarian's believe that they should use their magic to aid people.

 

Resolutionists are the ones you got to watch out for. (Enchanters like Uldred).

 

The Chantry/Circle is a cycle of self-perpetuating conflict. Mages feel opressed, so they rebel/run away, Templars/Chantry tighten their grip, Mages feel opressed. The cycle continues.

 

I'm sure the Chantry has some really, stand-up Templars; Cullen Pre-Circle Bum-F*ckery. And even in Kirkwall, he was willing to work with mages a bit.

[Willowhugger]

For putting up that picture you get my applause *applause*

I claim credit for coining the name, "Mageneto."

Sadly, I don't think we'll get the option to play him as they've indicated Templars and Mages aren't really the focus.

[Wissenschaft]

I claim credit for coining the name, "Mageneto."

Sadly, I don't think we'll get the option to play him as they've indicated Templars and Mages aren't really the focus.

 

But as a Human Mage Inquisitor, you are a former circle rebel mage. You can side with mages and crush the red Templar forces. I'm sure that much will be allowed.

[sunnydxmen]

Can I still beat both sides into submission?

 

Because they deserve it

 

looks like you have to pick a side meaning if you dont pick a side its a 3 sided war how sweet.

[The Baconer]

I'm a little taken a back at the idea that anyone thinks they have to agree with mages or templars.

 

It's not about agreeing with them, it's ensuring both sides face appropriate consequences for their actions.

[Icy Magebane]

It's not about agreeing with them, it's ensuring both sides face appropriate consequences for their actions.

What are you talking about, exactly?

[Ryzaki]

"They have made my kingdom bleed, I'll not forget that"

 

There needs to be a reckoning for these morons

 

lol

 

Hopefully we can screw both of them over right after we're done using them. Freaking idiots.

 

Sounds about right. I'll take whichever side is acting less idiotic.

 

Same.
 

[Dabrikishaw]

Well we're clearly forced to take a side.

That doesn't mean you have to agree with either side, which is what I was getting at. I get people bemoaning the lack of a peace option and a kill/ignore both sides option. 

[Willowhugger]

I'm going to do a rather LENGTHY post on this subject in a bit.

 

But before I do, I'd like to point out the Quarian-Geth thing is kind of an absurdist example. The problem with the Quarian and Geth conflict is the Geth were portrayed as completely without reason to continue the conflict while the Quarians were the total aggressors. The Geth were clearly willing to make peace with the Quarians without any desire to keep their territories or continue any form of war of aggression. In other words, the idea there was a peace with them makes great sense because the Geth were INCREDIBLY UNREALISTIC.

 

I still enjoyed the option but the usual "generational hatred" problems over things like land weren't really there. Even if there WERE, though, the option of ending the war "genocide versus genocide." Which is not how war tends to go in real-life. The issue with the mages and templars is more difficult because I think it's been stated that whichever sides are defeated will have their ranks incorporated into the Inquisition. In other words, neither the Mages or Templars are going away.

 

Which means "peace" will occur no matter what.

 

The question is what will the TERMS of peace be.

 

I'm not sure I trust Bioware to do such a complicated plotline as all of the peaces in previous games have been rather simplistic. If it's not a choice of genocide vs. mage terrorism, what is the choice? Are they actually valid options or will we get "one is objectively better than all the other options"? I.e. "You get more Templar and Mage War Assets if you save both"?

[Puppy Love]

Which means "peace" will occur no matter what.

 

The question is what will the TERMS of peace be.

 

I'm not sure I trust Bioware to do such a complicated plotline as all of the peaces in previous games have been rather simplistic. If it's not a choice of genocide vs. mage terrorism, what is the choice? Are they actually valid options or will we get "one is objectively better than all the other options"? I.e. "You get more Templar and Mage War Assets if you save both"?

Yeah is why I'm worried... >.>

[Willowhugger]

Yeah is why I'm worried... >.>

It could be very interesting or very troubling, to be honest. If the terms of peace for Mage Victory are, "The Circle system continues as is, only Templars don't have any authority to kill mages in the Circle but do outside of it" That's kind of weak-tea to justify a continent-spanning war.

[dekarserverbot]

what about if the inquisitor makes a hunger protest?

[Willowhugger]

what about if the inquisitor makes a hunger protest?

RITE OF ANNULMENT!

 

I do hope they get into the history of Mage vs. Templars, though.

The history is really fascinating and I liked how mages were originally forbidden from doing magic at all by the Chantry except Church Rituals but won the right to do magic by peaceful protest.

[Puppy Love]

RITE OF ANNULMENT!

 

I do hope they get into the history of Mage vs. Templars, though.

The history is really fascinating and I liked how mages were originally forbidden from doing magic at all by the Chantry except Church Rituals but won the right to do magic by peaceful protest.

If only this was that situation.  Alas is too muddy now.  Those mages I could get behind.

[Angloassassin]

If I don't get to shout at people as a Previously Free, Dalish Elf (Never been to the Circle, Never dealt with Templars) Mage - Lecturing them like Holier-than-thou Sebastian. I will be miffed, It'd be so funny