149 réponses à ce sujet

[raging_monkey]

What about tevinter templars?

they arent temps anymore... they should get a name change cause its confusing

[ShadowLordXII]

1. Fair, but if the description is canon it's canon.

 

2. Again: the rule of thumb as far as the events of any comic or book is that if your own decisions cannot logically be said to effect it, it's canon. The Warden being dead is not canon, despite being the state of things in the comics, because the Warden can survive. Alistair being alive during the comics is not canon, because he can die. Maric being alive at the start of the comics is canon, because none of your decisions can effect that. Flemeth appearing in Sundermount is canon, because while killing her should stop that from happening, it doesn't. And there is no decision you can make that changes the fundamental rules of the setting. Therefore, the rules as set forth in the comics are meant to reflect the way magic works in this setting.

 

1. Guess so and it's a very unclear canon. (not a good kind of canon)

 

2. How is the story canon if 3 of it's main characters can be dead or in completely different positions/places by this point?

 

This is why side-stories should not be considered as canon as the main installment. Needless confusion ensues. Also, this is a story that not everyone has read or would even want to read. It's great that the David Gaider wrote it, but its inherently on a lower tier of canon than the games. If the events of the comic rely on factors that may not even have been fulfilled in several play-throughs then how would it have happened at all?

 

How can the comic happen if Alistair is dead, constrained by being Warden or is a useless drunk? That's three out of four possible fates for Alistair, whose the main character of this story and is the main driving force behind searching for Maric. And he might not have been been around.

 

It's the same as having Episode 7 of Star Wars relying on a tie-in novel to explain an inconsistency between that movie and earlier installments. The novel is probably great, but what should matter is what is told and shown in the movies. The novel should be a supplement, not a requirement.

 

My point? Having a comic on the same level of canon as the video games doesn't make any sense.

[raging_monkey]

Gaider said the novels were tangentlly related. Events happen just sometimes not like that(been a few years since i heard it).

I see the novels/comix as either AU or just stories following bioware's(possible gaiders) canon and should taken with a grain of salt. Sides who beyond OG fans pick up the book/comix

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

1. Guess so and it's a very unclear canon. (not a good kind of canon)

 

2. How is the story canon if 3 of it's main characters can be dead or in completely different positions/places by this point?

 

This is why side-stories should not be considered as canon as the main installment. Needless confusion ensues. Also, this is a story that not everyone has read or would even want to read. It's great that the David Gaider wrote it, but its inherently on a lower tier of canon than the games. If the events of the comic rely on factors that may not even have been fulfilled in several play-throughs then how would it have happened at all?

 

How can the comic happen if Alistair is dead, constrained by being Warden or is a useless drunk? That's three out of four possible fates for Alistair, whose the main character of this story and is the main driving force behind searching for Maric. And he might not have been been around.

 

It's the same as having Episode 7 of Star Wars relying on a tie-in novel to explain an inconsistency between that movie and earlier installments. The novel is probably great, but what should matter is what is told and shown in the movies. The novel should be a supplement, not a requirement.

 

My point? Having a comic on the same level of canon as the video games doesn't make any sense.

The actual plot of the comic is not canon. The only canonical events and elements in Dragon Age, regardless of the medium involved, are the ones that aren't effected by your decisions. Like, for example, the actual rules of the setting.

[draken-heart]

What about tevinter templars?

 

Templars in name only, I feel. There is nothing on them outside of what Dorian says, and I believe they do not take Lyrium at all.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Templars in name only, I feel. There is nothing on them outside of what Dorian says, and I believe they do not take Lyrium at all.

Apparently Gaider has stated that they don't. Their strategy to handle abominations is to zergling them to death.

[draken-heart]

Apparently Gaider has stated that they don't. Their strategy to handle abominations is to zergling them to death.

 

Which does not make them Templars. Alistair was not a Templar in Origins unless it is canon that he took Lyrium while training. That means he is not a "templar in training" but a Templar.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Which does not make them Templars. Alistair was not a Templar in Origins unless it is canon that he took Lyrium while training. That means he is not a "templar in training" but a Templar.

They're part of an organization called "the Templars." That makes them Templars.

[draken-heart]

They're part of an organization called "the Templars." That makes them Templars.

 

Not in my book. Templars can deny magic, Even Dorian says they are simply soldiers. They just have a different name.

[ShadowLordXII]

The actual plot of the comic is not canon. The only canonical events and elements in Dragon Age, regardless of the medium involved, are the ones that aren't effected by your decisions. Like, for example, the actual rules of the setting.

 

But if the plot is not canon then how can it's depiction of Alistair be considered consistent with what Alistair said in Origins?

 

In light of new info from Cullen in Inquisition, even Gaider's WOG can't clear up a clear inconsistency from Origins to the comic (which isn't canon and is supplementary at best) to Inquisition with templars taking lyrium after they take their vows.

 

When your setting has rules about how things work, they need to be kept consistent or else you have problems like this. You can't just say one thing and show something else, or decide something and then later show something else that contradicts your decision. 

 

My big problem with the lyrium retcon for instance, is that it isn't consistent with what is shown in gameplay regarding templars and it basically puts Alistair out of character by making him into a liar, giving him templar powers despite having never taking lyrium since he was taken before his vows and potentially tricking "The Warden" into becoming a lyrium addict.

 

Again, leaving the lyrium question ambiguous would have been the best approach. But Bioware thought otherwise and they're not doing a great job with their choice. Once more, relying on a supplementary comic to clear things up in light of what's shown in higher tier canon games is not a great way of handling matters. Just ask Soul Calibur V how well that worked out.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

But if the plot is not canon then how can it's depiction of Alistair be considered consistent with what Alistair said in Origins?

Because the plot is possible. Consider the comics to be the things that happen if you decide to make all of the decisions the comics imply, or ones similar enough to that set that no critical inconsistencies exist. Which means that the rules the comic follows are the rules that the rest of the setting does. (Barring the frequent retcons, which I agree are a nuisance.)

[Jaron Oberyn]

I'm playing through Origins right now, and can confirm he says that. I haven't read any of the books or comics, though. Would make sense for lyrium to be only a means of control for the Chantry.

 

This was stated in DAI, that the Chantry uses it to control them. 

[Ryzaki]

Apparently Gaider has stated that they don't. Their strategy to handle abominations is to zergling them to death.

 

They can't. There's a war table mission to send some actual templars undercover to Tevinter to fight some Magisters and they win. Mostly because the Magisters aren't used to having their spells disrupted

[dragonflight288]

Because mages already have lyrium in their body.

 

Also, lyrium potions aren't necessary and mages don't need lyrium. They can however pull power from large quantities of it in a similar fashion to blood magic. 

 

Where is the source that mages already have lyrim in their body? They simply have a stronger connection to the Fade than everyone else that allows them to enter it awake and aware, and have the ability to tap into its power to cast spells. 

 

Templars apparently need the lyrium to boost  their connection to the Fade in order to use their talents. And mages use it to amplify what's already there, and use it in rituals. 

[Br3admax]

Where is the source that mages already have lyrim in their body? They simply have a stronger connection to the Fade than everyone else that allows them to enter it awake and aware, and have the ability to tap into its power to cast spells. 

DA:I epilogue implications, Seeker powers working on them. It's not like mages need lyrium to function.

Templars apparently need the lyrium to boost  their connection to the Fade in order to use their talents. And mages use it to amplify what's already there, and use it in rituals. 

That is not how lyrium works in Templars. Someone didn't talk to Cole enough. Lyrium works by allowings Templars to reject magic by pushing it away and connecting to something beyond magic, as Cole says, more like dwarves. Mages can unnaturally augment their mana reserves by drinking lyrium, they don't gain a deeper connection to the Fade. 

[Cerulione]

Templars in name only, I feel. There is nothing on them outside of what Dorian says, and I believe they do not take Lyrium at all.

 

I'm sure I've heard Dorian mentionned that Templar in Tevinter don't even get Lyrium since Lyrium is preferred by the mages. I'll see whether I can recover a screenshot or two if possible. Not promising anything though.

[nightscrawl]

I'm just trying to get clarification on where, exactly the lore on lyrium being required for templars stands.

I consider everything in DAI to be the current word on the subject**. So, as I understand it from everything Cullen said, lyrium use is basically part of the rites of being a templar, the unfortunate side effect for them being lyrium addiction by which the Chantry controls them. The templar trainer for the warrior spec also seems to consider it as just part of being a templar, and not necessarily connected to their abilities.

 

Really, Alistair was exactly right about the whole thing. He didn't know for sure, but his cynicism regarding the Chantry led him to believe that the lyrium was basically a tool for control, and he was correct.

 

Regarding the post on Alistair in the comics: when you talk to him in DAO regarding his templar training he says that Duncan thought it might be useful against darkspawn magic so he "kept it up," meaning the training and skill usage. Likewise in the comics (Those Who Speak Vol. 1, p. 13) he says, "After the Tellari Swamps, I thought I'd get back in practice," which seems to indicate he is only referring to the training, as before.

 

 

** I don't tend to consider some things to be "retcons," more like refinements. Some things had to be done in DAO or DA2 because of development limitations, like templar lyrium usage or Qunari horns.

[Sifr]

Actually, the Seeker powers makes me wonder, what happens if they try this on a mage who's never taken lyrium?

 

From Cassandra's comments about how Seeker powers work, it's because they are able to manipulate the lyrium in the bloodstream to nullify powers, paralyse or in some rare cases, even kill? One can presume that this is because that lyrium usage leaves trace amounts in the body long after the effects wear off, which seems consistent with what we've been told and how older Templars (and presumably mages) need to take more of the stuff because they've built up a tolerance?

 

Since most Circle Mages use lyrium in rituals such as the Harrowing, so they're always going to have some lyrium present within their system, but if you've never taken lyrium at all, does nothing happen whatsoever? I could imagine that the Seekers and Templars would still be draw on their own abilities to negate magic, but as for the more fancier tricks the Seekers are able to do by manipulating the lyrium in others, wouldn't that render them completely useless?

[Br3admax]

Actually, the Seeker powers makes me wonder, what happens if they try this on a mage who's never taken lyrium?

 

From Cassandra's comments about how Seeker powers work, it's because it manipulated the lyrium in the bloodstream to nullify powers, paralyse or in some rare cases, even kill those it affects? One can presume that this is because that lyrium usage leaves trace amounts in the body long after the effects wear off, which seems consistent with what we've been told and how older Templars (and presumably mages) need to take more of the stuff because they've built up a tolerance?

 

Since most Circle Mages use lyrium in rituals such as the Harrowing, so they're always going to have some lyrium present within their system, but if you've never taken lyrium at all, does nothing happen whatsoever? I could imagine that the Seekers and Templars would still be draw on their own abilities to negate magic, but as for the more fancier tricks the Seekers are able to do by manipulating the lyrium in others, wouldn't that render them completely useless?

 

Or, we can all expect that mages naturally have lyrium in their bodies, finally after 5 years. That works too. 

 

And no, Alistair was not right. A quote from Gaider, straight from the horses mouth. 

Even if Templar magic was recognized as spellcasting, it's not innate to the Templars, if they just stopped taking lyrium eventually they would lose the ability. Although as Alistair proves, they can use the ability for a long time afterwards. I think part of that was just the requirements of gameplay, for us to have a specialization as well, so some of that story doesn't quite match up with the gameplay, and I think eventually we'd like to work the lyrium requirement back into the gameplay as well.

 

 

That's what happens in this game. 

[Sifr]

Or, we can all expect that mages naturally have lyrium in their bodies, finally after 5 years. That works too.

 

Which would make magic have less to do with bloodlines and genetics (which I think one of the writers implied somewhere) and be more akin to how in Mass Effect, accidental eezo exposure on pregnant women is one of the key factors whether or not someone develops biotics?

 

I suppose it'd be amusing to learn that the scandals about Leandra bringing "more" magic into the Amells when she married Malcolm, as well as the Tevinter eugenics program to create the perfect mage, turns out to be complete nonsense and the real reason for kids being born with magic is actually due to all the magical rocks people keep lying around.

 

Or in the case of Kirkwall, supposedly because of all the lyrium that's gotten into their drinking water? Actually, that would probably explain why so many people are exposed to lyrium, if you have a lot of lyrium veins running near the water table?

[Br3admax]

Which would make magic have less to do with bloodlines and genetics (which I think one of the writers implied somewhere) and be more akin to how in Mass Effect, accidental eezo exposure on pregnant women is one of the key factors whether or not someone develops biotics?

 

No it wouldn't. If Calehand can drink magical blood and change his entire bloodline forever, a few people can ingest lyrium and do the same. Besides, lyrium itself is alive. It's quickly becoming DA midichlorians.  

[Sifr]

No it wouldn't. If Calehand can drink magical blood and change his entire bloodline forever, a few people can ingest lyrium and do the same. Besides, lyrium itself is alive. It's quickly becoming DA midichlorians.  

 

Yeah, but that was because of Dragon's blood, which has a whole bunch of weirdness related to it.

 

Spoiler

I like Bull's theory on the Qunari and Dragons, but I don't know if I like the crossbreeding part. I more prefer the idea that they might all be latent Reavers, than some kind of funky hybrid? Although I could see both things being the unexplained reason behind the Kossith kicking them out and it would explain why some Qunari don't have horns, as genetic throwbacks to how they used to look?

 

But I hope that lyrium doesn't go the midichlorian route. I'm cool with it being alive, but it'd be better if we never find out if it's sentient or not, as that'd ruin the more mystical parts of the lore that deal with it. It'd be like if they gave us a definitive explanation for how the "Stone" somehow gives a sixth-sense to dwarves with how to navigate underground?

[draken-heart]

Or, we can all expect that mages naturally have lyrium in their bodies, finally after 5 years. That works too. 

 

And no, Alistair was not right. A quote from Gaider, straight from the horses mouth. 

That's what happens in this game. 

 

I really doubt that. We still have no scene of the Inquisitor taking Lyrium at all, just making a box with stuff in it. Looks just like formality than anything else.

[Iakus]

Actually, the Seeker powers makes me wonder, what happens if they try this on a mage who's never taken lyrium?

 

From Cassandra's comments about how Seeker powers work, it's because they are able to manipulate the lyrium in the bloodstream to nullify powers, paralyse or in some rare cases, even kill? One can presume that this is because that lyrium usage leaves trace amounts in the body long after the effects wear off, which seems consistent with what we've been told and how older Templars (and presumably mages) need to take more of the stuff because they've built up a tolerance?

 

Since most Circle Mages use lyrium in rituals such as the Harrowing, so they're always going to have some lyrium present within their system, but if you've never taken lyrium at all, does nothing happen whatsoever? I could imagine that the Seekers and Templars would still be draw on their own abilities to negate magic, but as for the more fancier tricks the Seekers are able to do by manipulating the lyrium in others, wouldn't that render them completely useless?

 

Seekers are also immune to blood magic, and cannot be possessed.  Potentially useful tricks when going up against an apostate.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I really doubt that. We still have no scene of the Inquisitor taking Lyrium at all, just making a box with stuff in it. Looks just like formality than anything else.

The Inquisitor could have credibly had the power to draw upon the Templar arts without lyrium or the Seeker ritual, since they have an item designed to basically flip off one of the major laws of that game's magic system stuck to them and granting them power. Though I don't think that's stated.