1162 réponses à ce sujet

[ZuuL]

^No trolling but I just don't see what's so great about a sorta boring character.

[Ranadiel Marius]

^No trolling but I just don't see what's so great about a sorta boring character.

He represents in many regards what templars are supposed to be. For people who see Templars as something that are necessary in Thedas, he is a breath of fresh air since he is what Templars are supposed to be rather than the charicture that anti-templar folk so often paint them as.

He dedicates his life to protecting all people from the evils that can come of magic. He is not boring, he is a good man who has dedicated his life to a worthy cause. He may be somewhat straightlaced, but that hardly makes him boring.

[ZuuL]

^Eh...Great? It Just makes his a goody 2 shoes boy scout Templar that follows the rules, That doesn't make him a badass or great character as many have stated. I'd take almost any other neutral lawful Templars over him, minus the sadistic ones.

 

But That's not why I find him boring....

I find him boring because he's a generic looking and blandly written and voice acted character. For a character to be interesting, in my eyes, they need imperfections/flaws. Something that they work on to better themselves to further their character development. Something of which they neglected to give him. 

Hell, I find knight-captain Rylen a more interesting character and he's in it far less than barris.

[riverbanks]

(...) For him to be a badass in my eyes, he had to have stood up to the man who punched that woman in his introduction scene. But instead he chickened out and just went with it. Which is just sad thus not earning either title.

Funny enough, I can already hear people saying, "he only did that because his superior told him it was alright" argument. The problem, to me, is if barris had such a knight in shining armor moral compass he would not simply allow such an act to be waved over. (...)

 

I love how this argument always pops up about characters in military orders. It never fails.

 

Here's how the miitary works: you don't "stand up" to your superiors. You don't argue, you don't make a scene. You could be the kindest person in the world, you could be a saint, you could be a veritable angel from heaven above. You do not just "stand up" to your superior. Armies are not high school, you don't just backtalk your C.O., get a laugh from the class, and take home a concerned note for mom to sign. Hierarchy is serious, and a soldier who doesn't understand that doesn't last very much.

 

That Barris doesn't stand up to Lucius in that scene says nothing about his morality compass - that he is visibly uncomfortable and upset with the whole ordeal does. All his silence says is that he's a military man who understands rank, and knows not to backtalk. It could kill him inside (and it does, the scene clearly shows this), and it's still not his place to get mouthy about it right there, demoralizing his commander in front of a delighted audience. He's a soldier and he acts like one, but he's also a person and he feels like one, and that scene is absolutely clear that, at that moment, he is doing both: obeying as a soldier must, and feeling revolted with himself as a person would.

[ZuuL]

^I love how people try to bring real life logic into a fictional game when its supposed to be escapist fiction.

But I'll play along.If this was real and NOT a video game, I would agree. But when Bioware already have had Templars standing up to a superior in DA2 it just doesn't really apply as much. SO if the writers really wanted to, they could have written him standing up to a Lucius but they didn't.

[Barquiel]

I love how this argument always pops up about characters in military orders. It never fails.
 
Here's how the miitary works: you don't "stand up" to your superiors. You don't argue, you don't make a scene. You could be the kindest person in the world, you could be a saint, you could be a veritable angel from heaven above. You do not just "stand up" to your superior. Armies are not high school, you don't just backtalk your C.O., get a laugh from the class, and take home a concerned note for mom to sign. Hierarchy is serious, and a soldier who doesn't understand that doesn't last very much.
 
That Barris doesn't stand up to Lucius in that scene says nothing about his morality compass - that he is visibly uncomfortable and upset with the whole ordeal does. All his silence says is that he's a military man who understands rank, and knows not to backtalk. It could kill him inside (and it does, the scene clearly shows this), and it's still not his place to get mouthy about it right there, demoralizing his commander in front of a delighted audience. He's a soldier and he acts like one, but he's also a person and he feels like one, and that scene is absolutely clear that, at that moment, he is doing both: obeying as a soldier must, and feeling revolted with himself as a person would.

We know that the Inquisition had templars in its ranks from the beginning and if you talk to that cleric in Val Royeaux she'll tell you that there are templars who chose to stay with the chantry/didn't follow Lucius. They had a choice. There are templars who did "stand up", while others have decided not to.

[riverbanks]

We know that the Inquisition had templars in its ranks from the beginning and if you talk to that cleric in Val Royeaux she'll tell you that there are templars who chose to stay with the chantry/didn't follow Lucius. They had a choice. There are templars who did "stand up", while others have decided not to.

 

Yes, they literally left the Order's chain of command in order to stand up. That is exactly what happens when you talk back - you're out. That does no invalidate the point of morality compasses not being explicited by the act of standing up or not.

[AresKeith]

^I love how people try to bring real life logic into a fictional game when its supposed to be escapist fiction.

But I'll play along.If this was real and NOT a video game, I would agree. But when Bioware already have had Templars standing up to a superior in DA2 it just doesn't really apply as much. SO if the writers really wanted to, they could have written him standing up to a Lucius but they didn't.

 

That doesn't stop military factions from acting like a military 

[riverbanks]

^I love how people try to bring real life logic into a fictional game when its supposed to be escapist fiction.

But I'll play along.If this was real and NOT a video game, I would agree. But when Bioware already have had Templars standing up to a superior in DA2 it just doesn't really apply as much. SO if the writers really wanted to, they could have written him standing up to a Lucius but they didn't.

 

Of course, real life logic is perfectly sound when it applies to arguments we agree with, it's only ridiculous when it applies to an argument we don't support. The "it's fiction so it doesn't count" argument is also mandatory, so good on us that we're getting it all out of the way.

 

And yes, obviously the writers did not want to write Barris standing up to Lucius in that one scene because they wanted to tell his character arc in a different way. Does that not make sense? That different characters can tell different stories? Barris is already a lot like Cullen used to be - to make him stand up for Lucius in that scene would be a verbatin repeat of Cullen's scene standing against Meredith at the end of DA2, and then you would criticize him for just being a template copy and bringing no new or unique perspective with his character. The "standing up" angle has been played with Templars in this universe, not even just once, but twice with Evangeline too. In the interest of not all characters telling exactly the same story, we have the story of one guy who faltered and did not have the defiance to stand up to his superior at that moment, but whose exponentially increasing indignation with the path they were all being taken down lead him to rally the knights and recruits against the officers, and even take on a role of leadership within them later. It's a different story, as no doubt the writers meant it to be. How is variety in storytelling not a good thing?

 

Unless your criteria for a badass person is one who never makes mistakes to rise above them, in which case... well, there are no badass characters in the Dragon Age universe, because not a single character in these games has been a perfectly righteous individual who never had a moment of weakness or made a questionable decision (even if that decision was to take no action at all).

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

^Eh...Great? It Just makes his a goody 2 shoes boy scout Templar that follows the rules, That doesn't make him a badass or great character as many have stated. I'd take almost any other neutral lawful Templars over him, minus the sadistic ones.

 

But That's not why I find him boring....

I find him boring because he's a generic looking and blandly written and voice acted character. For a character to be interesting, in my eyes, they need imperfections/flaws. Something that they work on to better themselves to further their character development. Something of which they neglected to give him. 

 

Wait.

 

So you think he is not interesting because he does not have imperfections or flaws, yet you do not think he is a badass because he did not stand up against Lord Seeker Envy in Val Royeaux ie. he was flawed enough to not rebel then and there.

 

 

We know that the Inquisition had templars in its ranks from the beginning and if you talk to that cleric in Val Royeaux she'll tell you that there are templars who chose to stay with the chantry/didn't follow Lucius. They had a choice. There are templars who did "stand up", while others have decided not to.

 

It was quite visible that the chantry was seriously crippled and almost helpless by the time the meeting in Val Royeaux takes place, and the inquisition was more or less a bunch of upjumped heretical rebels. Not only that, if you pick certain dialog options with Lord Seeker Envy during the meeting, he denounces the inquisitor as unable to close the breach. Who knows what other misinformation and lies Envy spread among the templars in order to tarnish the inquisition's reputation and discourage templars from joining or pressuring the officers to make an alliance.

 

I'm willing to forgive Barris for not leaving right then and there.

[ZuuL]

^ I see you don't read my posts after the one you quoted. I find badass and well written characters when they have flaws. Barris, in the small amount that he was in the game, was written basically as a perfect character. With little to no problems. He follows his orders to the letter, He gets his jobs done with no problems, and gets promoted for doing limited amount of missions completed.

Also Moral Compass by definition: Anything which serves to guide a persons decisions on morals or virtues.

Basically if he was such a good moral guy, in your eyes and many others, he would not have willingly stopped himself from speaking up against that woman getting hit when he's a "Model Templar".

Tyrannosaurus Rex isn't not standing up to his superior supposed be part of his "Model Templar" you people keep saying. So no that is not a characteristic flaw.

[riverbanks]

Basically if he was such a good moral guy, in your eyes and many others, he would not have willingly stopped himself from speaking up against that woman getting hit when he's a "Model Templar".

 

Your definition of a good person seems to be very narrow here. It applies to taking only a single specific path of action through one's life, allowing no leeway for personal development. Can one not make mistakes in life, then approach our problems in a different way and thus become a better person, even to the point that we become role models for others who are now in the same difficult position we once were? Is that not what a role model is? Someone who inspires, even if that inspiration comes from wising up and becoming a better person than you used to be. If a good person is only one who never falters, only one who never gets it wrong, only one who does every single thing in their lives "right" with no room for mistakes or growth, then we have no good people in the world, because there is no such a perfect person. We could have, we should have - well, we didn't, but now we know better, and that's how we become better.

 

You're not necessarily wrong that Barris "should have" done this or that, but the fact that he didn't is not accidental, and it's actually an interesting positive element of his story, not a detriment to his character. I don't think Barris is perfect by any means, but I do think he's pretty inspiring to the young Templars under his leadership who have watched their previous leadership crash and burn in such a disastrous way, and that's why he's a "model" Templar. Not because he's a 500% morally righteous person who only takes the path of the shouldda wouldda, but because throughout the course of the story he goes from the little wallflower too scared to speak up to a strong leader and a good role model that those confused young Templars under his command can finally look up to. That growth is the whole point of his story, and it's exactly why it starts on such a questionable note - because you're not supposed to be impressed by this guy from the first time you see him, but to watch him grow and change from a scared subservient soldier starting to question his beliefs until he becomes someone your Inquisitor finds worthy of taking the reins of the Order and steer it down a better path.

[thetinyevil]

I did on playthrough where I went with the templars, though after finishing it I reloaded to before I made the choice and went with the mages for the game. But anyway I was not impressed with Ser Barris. He was no different to me then the templar who killed his own brother for being a mage or the templars who killed that farmer because the "thought" he was mage. 

[AresKeith]

*sigh*

[ZuuL]

^true. Maybe how I described why I didn't care much for his character came off as confusing or nonsensical. I do apologize that's the case.

But anywho, I should let fans of his character go back to their discussions instead of me taking up space.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

*sigh*

 

It's a user with a romanced Anders avatar, what did you expect?

[Xilizhra]

I love how this argument always pops up about characters in military orders. It never fails.

 

Here's how the miitary works: you don't "stand up" to your superiors. You don't argue, you don't make a scene. You could be the kindest person in the world, you could be a saint, you could be a veritable angel from heaven above. You do not just "stand up" to your superior. Armies are not high school, you don't just backtalk your C.O., get a laugh from the class, and take home a concerned note for mom to sign. Hierarchy is serious, and a soldier who doesn't understand that doesn't last very much.

And the ones who understand it too well get tried for war crimes with no excuse. Unless you're Cullen, who received enough plot grease to slide out of that somehow.

 

 

Your definition of a good person seems to be very narrow here. It applies to taking only a single specific path of action through one's life, allowing no leeway for personal development. Can one not make mistakes in life, then approach our problems in a different way and thus become a better person, even to the point that we become role models for others who are now in the same difficult position we once were? Is that not what a role model is? Someone who inspires, even if that inspiration comes from wising up and becoming a better person than you used to be. If a good person is only one who never falters, only one who never gets it wrong, only one who does every single thing in their lives "right" with no room for mistakes or growth, then we have no good people in the world, because there is no such a perfect person. We could have, we should have - well, we didn't, but now we know better, and that's how we become better.

There's plenty of room for personal development, but such development is necessary to become a good person, and I don't think Barris is there yet. He has the potential, but I don't consider it to be the same thing.

[Lumix19]

He just reminds me that there's a conspicuous lack of death scenes in this game. When he fell over after breaking the barrier I was like "oh dear, is he dead?".

[Ranadiel Marius]

I did on playthrough where I went with the templars, though after finishing it I reloaded to before I made the choice and went with the mages for the game. But anyway I was not impressed with Ser Barris. He was no different to me then the templar who killed his own brother for being a mage or the templars who killed that farmer because the "thought" he was mage. 

Well you clearly missed his war table missions where he does things such as stepping between an angry mob an a mage that they claim is an abomination to save the falsely accused mage's life when he had no knowledge o whether the man was an abomination or not.

[thetinyevil]

Well you clearly missed his war table missions where he does things such as stepping between an angry mob an a mage that they claim is an abomination to save the falsely accused mage's life when he had no knowledge o whether the man was an abomination or not.

I wouldn't have gotten them anyway. He died.

[Steelcan]

And the ones who understand it too well get tried for war crimes with no excuse. Unless you're Cullen, who received enough plot grease to slide out of that somehow.

War crimes....

 

 

really....

 

you're still on that?

[Ranadiel Marius]

I wouldn't have gotten them anyway. He died.

Then you also missed the part where after killing Envy he fully acknowledges that he and the other templars messed up in letting the situation get to that point despite there being plenty of scapegoats lieing around that he could have pinned the blame on.

[ctd757]

I hope we could use him on future games. Or that he has an impact.

[Catche Jagger]

I did on playthrough where I went with the templars, though after finishing it I reloaded to before I made the choice and went with the mages for the game. But anyway I was not impressed with Ser Barris. He was no different to me then the templar who killed his own brother for being a mage or the templars who killed that farmer because the "thought" he was mage.

Because... they're both templars?

Are Wynne and Vivienne both the same character? I mean, they're both pro-Circle mages. They must be, right?

[thetinyevil]

Because... they're both templars?

Are Wynne and Vivienne both the same character? I mean, they're both pro-Circle mages. They must be, right?

Funny you should use to of the mages I can't stand.