392 réponses à ce sujet

[Muspade]

 Essentially, if a player doesn't have a problem hand-waiving the story in this regard - neither do we."

I sense a glitch In the matrix.

O'well.

[Nerevar-as]

The irritating thing with Awakening was that you couldn´t import a dead warden´s world state, the orlesian got a default one and that´s it.

 

The irritating (for me) thing now is that Hawke will be in Inquisition in despite of having been a mostly useless tool, while the Warden won´t despite of Warden business and Morrigan being around.

[Revan Reborn]

The irritating thing with Awakening was that you couldn´t import a dead warden´s world state, the orlesian got a default one and that´s it.

 

The irritating (for me) thing now is that Hawke will be in Inquisition in despite of having been a mostly useless tool, while the Warden won´t despite of Warden business and Morrigan being around.

Yeah, there are a lot of loose ends and connections with the Warden that just won't be addressed more than likely. I still believe Hawke's role is crucial, but the Warden should really be in this mix as well. For those who killed their Warden, the Orlesian Warden can be written in as the backup.

[MissOuJ]

Similarly, there's a journal written by a member of the Tranquil which suggest that - at least in his case - he's far more "happier" in his current state where he's got a sense of purpose and responsibilities, than he ever was a struggling and fearful mage who was unable to master the most basic of spellwork.

 

We also know that the two mages that have had their Tranquility reversed (Pharamond and Karl) both begged for death before returning to / after being told they were going to return to the state of Tranquility.

 

Not something I'd call an enthusiastic enforcement.

 

Anyway, on topic:

 

I'm so glad to see my Hawke again. Purple Hawke for the Win!

 

But the Warden... she never really had a voice of her own, and I don't know how I'd feel about seeing her again in the DA universe when she's not controlled by me. I mean I know how she is and what she'd think about all of this, but in terms of game mechanics and story, she's a blank slate, because that's the kind of RPG Origins is. She doesn't have an archetype or voice of her own, because I was in control of those in a way that is all but impossible to replicate without my direct imput.

 

Hawke, on the other hand, has a set personality and tone. That's pretty easy to replicate for a cameo. But, for all my faith in the DA writing team, I feel like they'd fail if they did try and make a HoF cameo. Not because they'd do it poorly, but because it would be all but impossible to pull off. I was her voice and she was my character - and they have no means to replicate that. Honestly, if they did a HoF cameo I think they'd make more people angry than happy because of that - I just can't see how it could be done feasibly.

 

I'm content in the knowledge that she went forth to be her awesome self and save the world in a thousand smaller ways. Maybe I'll find her staff on the Deep Roads one day, along with a codex entry of her Calling and her final days. It'll be bittersweet and sad, and for me, that's enough.

[Samahl]

There's a direct quote from a developer, not a fan statement. You'll note the "nor are they more susceptible to suggestion that they were previously."

 

[snip]

 

You'll note the "If the Tranquil saw a reason not to follow an order, they would do so."

 

Again, I didn't say they didn't have free will, I said that they cannot consent. They default to "yes" unless there is a logical reason not to, because they don't possess the desire to object. Therefore, a Tranquil's "no" has meaning, but their "yes" does not.

 

Also, if you read the link, you would notice that its claims are cited, and are, in fact, supported by posts by David Gaider. Specifically, here:

 

Tranquil neither have their memory altered nor are they more susceptible to suggestion than they were previously. They're more agreeable, but that's because Tranquil don't tend to argue-- why would one oppose an authority figure unless there were a logical reason to do so?

 

If you're trying to make this about some meaningless social concept like "emotional consent," however, there's no argument. "Emotional consent" is a manufactured creation, and further its state as the defining line of consent in general is purely arbitrary.

 

Acknowledging that a social construct is a construct does not negate its existence. Law is similarly manufactured, but that doesn't mean you won't face any consequences if you break it. Emotions are real as well, and they are the driving force behind the concept of consent, particularly enthusiastic consent.

[Heimdall]

The irritating thing with Awakening was that you couldn´t import a dead warden´s world state, the orlesian got a default one and that´s it.
 
The irritating (for me) thing now is that Hawke will be in Inquisition in despite of having been a mostly useless tool, while the Warden won´t despite of Warden business and Morrigan being around.

I'd contest the idea that Hawke is useless (But I don't want to get into that argument just now) but you have to admit, Hawke's story is much more unfinished. Hawke's role is likely related to the canceled DA2 DLC they say they've folded parts of into DAI.

[Sororitas]

Juhu i love Fem Hawke 

 

[leaguer of one]

We also know that the two mages that have had their Tranquility reversed (Pharamond and Karl) both begged for death before returning to / after being told they were going to return to the state of Tranquility.

 

Not something I'd call an enthusiastic enforcement.

 

 

Said mages had Tranquility forced on them. It's a much different case.

[Amara]

I'm willing to bet for a segment of the game, the Inquisitor will be incapacitated or something, and the player will gain control of Hawke. It hasn't been done with a past protagonist before, but I mean, it's not like it would be a unpredictable or unprecedented... I don't think it really happened in DA2, but I know in Origins, there was a few times were you played as someone other than the Warden (with dialogue choices) - Morrigan/Irving/Jowan in the fade with a non-Mage warden (or Mage, though IMO the Warden is always the best choice) and the jailbreak scenario are the first two I can think of, anyways.

...Not to mention, unlike the Warden, Hawke is always alive so... there is that. (along with having predetermined personalities and designated voice actor, as well)

[MissOuJ]

Said mages had Tranquility forced on them. It's a much different case.

 

Actually, we only know for certain that Karl was made Tranquil against his will - I can't recall the reason Pharamond was made Tranquil (if he chose it or not).

 

And let's not forget: when we're talking about people choosing Tranquility, the choices they're given are

• Harrowing: get thrown into the Fade where a demon wanting to possess you awaits. Your mission is to best/kill the demon(s). If you fail, you die.
• Tranquility: get your emotions and your magic (which is the reason you're imprisoned) stripped away. Live.
• (arguably a possibility) Refuse both of the above / become an apostate. Templars try to catch and/or kill you for it.

Tranquility is the only possibility where your continued existence is guaranteed. Particularly for a mage of limited talent (ie. probably not strong enough to beat the demon or make it on his/her own as an apostate) it's a pretty decent option. And, once you've gone through with it, it's not like you're going to have any complaints, since you've got no feelings any longer!

 

EDIT: Also, what Eudaemonium said below.

[Eudaemonium]

Said mages had Tranquility forced on them. It's a much different case.

 

I think it has far more to do with the fact that mages while tranquil essentially don't know what they're missing. They still have memories of having emotions, but the emotions are no longer something they can feel. I would think being taken out of that state—actually feeling emotions again—would probably elicit the reactions displayed by Karl et al, because you would be able to frame your tranquil experience as a profound loss, even a fate worse than death—something they would be unable to do while tranquil.

[xkg]

On a side note, Tranquils would make the best Jedis in the entire universe. 

 

There is no emotion, there is peace.

...

There is no passion, there is serenity.

 

No emotions, no passions - no danger of going dark side 

[leaguer of one]

Actually, we only know for certain that Karl was made Tranquil against his will - I can't recall the reason Pharamond was made Tranquil (if he chose it or not).

 

And let's not forget: when we're talking about people choosing Tranquility, the choices they're given are

• Harrowing: get thrown into the Fade where a demon wanting to possess you awaits. Your mission is to best/kill the demon(s). If you fail, you die.
• Tranquility: get your emotions and your magic (which is the reason you're imprisoned) stripped away. Live.
• (arguably a possibility) Refuse both of the above / become an apostate. Templars try to catch and/or kill you for it.

Tranquility is the only possibility where your continued existence is guaranteed. Particularly for a mage of limited talent (ie. probably not strong enough to beat the demon or make it on his/her own as an apostate) it's a pretty decent option. And, once you've gone through with it, it's not like you're going to have any complaints, since you've got no feelings any longer!

 

EDIT: Also, what Eudaemonium said below.

Pharamond  was forced. Remember their 2 reasons why tranquility is noramlly used: A)Because a mage requested it. because they are seen as to weak to pass their Harrowing. 

 

They would never apply it again if  it's A so it can only be B.

[Samahl]

You're trying to argue that the fact that Tranquil don't have emotions means they are barred from certain things because of the aforementioned construct.

 

Laws have nothing to do with this. They aren't an inherent part of "you."

 

You argued that consent wasn't real because it was "a manufactured creation". You're introducing a new argument. Please don't act as if you've been saying this the entire time, and I'm just bringing up random non-sequiturs.

 

There was another part of your post that I missed, so I'll respond to it now:

 

and further its state as the defining line of consent in general is purely arbitrary.

 

Social constructs are arbitrary, by their very nature. As far as we know, only humans have any conception of consent or why it's important. People have to be the ones to draw the lines.

 

Using one's feet is not a necessity for driving, just like emotion is not a necessity for consent.

 

It's only a good example if legs necessarily form the basis of any of those actions. They don't, as there are various substitutes for legs in those situations. The only possible substitute I can think of for emotion in this case is the memory of emotion, but Tranquil people don't take that into account. Their actions are not based on what they remember feeling, but on pure "logic", and as someone stated earlier in the thread, their brand of logic dictates that they take the path of least resistance unless there's a good reason not to.

 

Simply put, I'm arguing from a place of "enthusiastic consent is necessary", while you are not. Therefore, I believe Tranquil cannot consent. Our opinions differ on a base level, so, while I usually hate to say this, it might be best to agree to disagree, since this is certainly not the right place for this discussion.

[leaguer of one]

I think it has far more to do with the fact that mages while tranquil essentially don't know what they're missing. They still have memories of having emotions, but the emotions are no longer something they can feel. I would think being taken out of that state—actually feeling emotions again—would probably elicit the reactions displayed by Karl et al, because you would be able to frame your tranquil experience as a profound loss, even a fate worse than death—something they would be unable to do while tranquil.

But that is a subjective perspective on it. You not looking in the case where one would want or need to be tranquil. Remember their people who fear being a mage and/or have so much trauma from demon affecting their mind that they have become tranquil to escape it.

[leaguer of one]

On a side note, Tranquils would make the best Jedis in the entire universe. 

 

There is no emotion, there is peace.

...

There is no passion, there is serenity.

 

No emotions, no passions - no danger of going dark side 

Please, everyone knows Jedi suck and are equally as wrong as the sith.

[MissOuJ]

Pharamond  was forced. Remember their 2 reasons why tranquility is noramlly used: A)Because a mage requested it. because they are seen as to weak to pass their Harrowing. 

 

They would never apply it again if  it's A so it can only be B.

 

If the memory serves, Pharomond was made Tranquil again because the reversal made him too emotional and he was deemed to be a possession risk because of that, and I can't remember anything about how/why he became Tranquil, so he could still be either.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I agree I like the fact that Hawke is not perfect and was trying to make the best of bad situations. 

 

There is a vast chasm between not being perfect and not achieving much, however.

 

I mean, I liked my Hawke. But apart from driving off the Qunari, he didn't do much that didn't bite him in the ass in some way or another, and was a helpless witness to many tragedies with the player not being able to do anything about it. As were pretty much any other possible Hawkes thanks to how linear and devoid of meaningful choices DA2 was.

[leaguer of one]

If the memory serves, Pharomond was made Tranquil again because the reversal made him too emotional and he was deemed to be a possession risk because of that, and I can't remember anything about how/why he became Tranquil, so he could still be either.

No. page 310 of the book states it was because the reason he was made tranquil is still valid.

[leaguer of one]

There is a vast chasm between not being perfect and not achieving much, however.

 

I mean, I liked my Hawke. But apart from driving off the Qunari, he didn't do much that didn't bite him in the ass in some way or another, and was a helpless witness to many tragedies with the player not being able to do anything about it. As were pretty much any other possible Hawkes thanks to how linear and devoid of meaningful choices DA2 was.

One has nothing to do with the other. It was a situation Hawke could not control. If no one wants peace how can you ever get it to happen?

[Sparketh]

I really hope the character creator for Hawke is right after the Inquisitor's. It'll be so jarring if it pops up in the middle of the game. 

I'd get no small amount of joy in creating my Warden and Hawke (but mostly my Warden) in the new character creator within minutes of ripping the game out of the plastic.

[Giantdeathrobot]

One has nothing to do with the other. It was a situation Hawke could not control. If no one wants peace how can you ever get it to happen?

 

The fault lies in the writers for creating a situation the player cannot influence then. And then robbing you of what little influence you still have by making supporting the Templars or Mages virtually meaningless.

 

I don't think DA2 is a crap game. But when it comes to letting the player influence the narrative, it fails pretty badly. Now, one might say it was by design, but the thing is, RPGs thrive on choices. Robbing the player of said choices only to make a point about how things are out of their control might serve as a ''ah, gotcha!'' moment for the writers, but as a game design decision it's questionable at best, and undermines the game's value as a RPG at worst.

 

Now, this ain't about Hawke's character so I'll stop there. But his inability to influence the story is definitely a direct product of how that story was written.

[leaguer of one]

The fault lies in the writers for creating a situation the player cannot influence then. And then robbing you of what little influence you still have by making supporting the Templars or Mages virtually meaningless.

 

I don't think DA2 is a crap game. But when it comes to letting the player influence the narrative, it fails pretty badly. Now, one might say it was by design, but the thing is, RPGs thrive on choices. Robbing the player of said choices only to make a point about how things are out of their control might serve as a ''ah, gotcha!'' moment for the writers, but as a game design decision it's questionable at best, and undermines the game's value as a RPG at worst.

 

Now, this ain't about Hawke's character so I'll stop there. But his inability to influence the story is definitely a direct product of how that story was written.

That's not a fault. Not everything need to be something the play has to or can influence everything about. If they allowed the player to then the point of the hypothetical question they are asking with it would be lost. The issue with the ending of da2 was not that things went out of the players control but they devs had vastly limited ways to respond to it. Forcing the player to only pick one side out of 2 was a bad idea.