42 réponses à ce sujet

[naddaya]

As other posters said, I'd like to be allowed to choose a moderate position. I support the circle, but it needs to be reformed. Mages need to be taught to control their powers, recognize demons and learn about the structure of the fade. If circles were overseen by senior mages instead of templars and apprentices were allowed to leave the tower if deemed ready, I bet it would work better for everybody.

[Sully13]

Awwwwwwe but i don wanna get involved.

[EmissaryofLies]

Go home and be a family man.

[Sully13]

Awwe do i have to?

[Tevinter Soldier]

Awwe do i have to?

 

No, you could always become a pathetic drunk like Alastair.

[TheChris92]

You always have to pick a side in a war, especially a large scale war. The Mage-Templar War spans throughout the nations with Circles of Magi in them. 
 
I recall very few, almost no instance of a large scale war that does not end by picking one particular side. 
 
It is the reality of war. It is a harsh reality but it is a reality nonetheless.

I don't have to do anything. The conveyed restrictions of the game, however, forces me to pick either one ****** or the other, when I'd rather move on from the shallow pretense of Mages and Templars, that is about as morally engaging as a saturday morning cartoon.
Alas, it is not meant to be.

[Han Shot First]

Unless forced to choose between them I'm going to play an Inquisitor who has little tolerance for either of them. The Mages need to return to the Towers and the Templars need to return to their duties. Those duties include protecting their charges. Those no longer obeying Chantry law, be they Templar or Mage, will either bend the knee or be destroyed.

 

I'm planning on playing a hardcore Lawful Neutral Inquisitor with little tolerance for any faction sowing chaos.

[Sully13]

No, you could always become a pathetic drunk like Alastair.

now THAT is my jam.

[Sifr]

Could we instead choose for our evil Sinquisitor to instead keep the war in a stalemate, while secretly selling Lyrium under the table to both sides?

[Medhia_Nox]

I'm more worried about what I'm going to get to do with the side I picked.

 

- If I pick the mages, is the game going to force me to be all Pro-Mage Violent Radical?  Because... no.  Just no.

 

- If I pick the Templars do I usher in an age of witch hunts and terror for mages?   SO tempting... but no.  

 

I hope - after I pick whichever side I do that I'll be able to shape it further.  

 

- If I pick mages, I want to inform them that I didn't pick them to continue the fight.... I picked them to put them back in the Circles with reforms.

 

- If I choose the Templars, it'll be because I didn't find the mages in Inquisition to be within reason... and in direct opposition to my efforts to close the Breach - but I don't want them being fanatical tyrants. 

[Aurok]

Don't forget the world still has to work for DA4, so even if you are forced to 'pick a side', the eventual outcome is still likely to be some slight variation of a middle path for everyone. They can't have some players at one extreme end of the spectrum and others at the other, it'd be a nightmare going forward (unless of course they really don't intend to do anything involving the southern nations at all any time soon).

Tbh the Mage Templar War probably would have been put on hold the second the breach opened up anyway. It makes no sense for Templars to be more concerned about potential demons than about the actual demons pouring out of the sky, or for Mages to be more concerned about being re-Circled (which lots of them weren't even opposed to in the first place, and in fact only went along with the rebellion because they bizarrely decided to let some random guy decide for them).

The immediate concern for everyone would surely be the breach, which is presumably ultimately what enables us to bring both parties to the table. I'd absolutely expect there to be a 'we need to work together and worry about your squabble later' option because it makes sense for there to be one. It would feel pretty forced if you are actually expected to just straight up choose between them.

[Keroko]

If as was hinted, the story will move to the north in DA4, the impact can be pretty huge... but limited to Ferelden and Orlais. That way, we can have the usual "NPC's talk about the change to remind you what you did" and the game can go all the ways in extremity.

[Sylentmana]

I would like to take a separate stance that kills both sides of the war. That way everyone gets an end to the war and I get more explosion fodder. That's a win-win if ever I saw one.

[DeathByIcecream]

"You are already  'involved', Champion!"

[His Name was HYR!!]

 I am sure others do not want to get involved either, OP.

 

I do, though ... lest some nutjobs of the Anders and Meredith variety comes out on top.

 

Power is funny like that. You're taught to fear it, yet after you surrender it, you end up wanting it back when it's not used in your favor.

[DuskWanderer]

I kinda just want them all to get their act together

[JasonPogo]

I will just kill Templars on principal. 

[Jouni S]

This is the equivalent of someone living during 1939-1945 asking :- "Does anyone else not want to get involved in this World War ?"

 

To which the best answer I can give is:- "I don't think any of us has any choice whatsoever when it comes to involvement. It is a big war and it will affect everyone, including our characters. We can try to ignore reality but we can never ignore the consequences of ignoring reality."

 

Several European countries managed to remain neutral in WW2, even though everyone else was fighting around them. Successful neutrality depends on many factors, including location, politics, luck, and the interests of the relevant parties.