Nope. Not going to. She's too awesome for that.
Then I don't want her anywhere in the game. She should only show up if she gets to have justice brought down on her. You can support that...woman if you want, but players shouldn't have to embrace characters like her.
Then I don't want her anywhere in the game. She should only show up if she gets to have justice brought down on her. You can support that...woman if you want, but players shouldn't have to embrace characters like her.
As I recall you're never forced to like a character who's a companion
As I recall you're never forced to like a character who's a companion
You are however sometimes forced to tolerate them or have only certain options when dealing with them. For example you can't get rid of Cassandra, Cullen, Josephine, Leliana, Solas, or Varric.
You are however sometimes forced to tolerate them or have only certain options when dealing with them. For example you can't get rid of Cassandra, Cullen, Josephine, Leliana, Solas, or Varric.
And I personally doubt Calpernia would be a plot important character like them, even still that shouldn't stop the developers from using her just because some don't want her or wouldn't be to do "justice" to her with a character who isn't even relevant to that issue
And I personally doubt Calpernia would be a plot important character like them, even still that shouldn't stop the developers from using her just because some don't want her or wouldn't be to do "justice" to her with a character who isn't even relevant to that issue
I never said they shouldn't use her. I said I think they shouldn't use her if we can only be accepting or indifferent to her crimes rather than see to it she is rightfully punished for the atrocities she committed.
She was one of Corypheus' top people, leader of the entire Venatori. The same Corypheus and Venatori who were an enemy of all of Thedas. Everyone is relevant to the issue that she was part of.
I never said they shouldn't use her. I said they shouldn't use her if we can only be accepting or indifferent to her crimes rather than see to it she is rightfully punished for the atrocities she committed.
She was one of Corypheus' top people, leader of the entire Venatori. The same Corypheus and Venatori who were an enemy of all of Thedas. Everyone is relevant to the issue that she was part of.
Only people who knew about Calpernia was the Inquisiton, the rest of Thedas was concerned about Corypheus. Along the fact that she is assumed dead by them if you fought her
So punishing her with a character who isn't even involved with those events makes no sense whatsoever
Only people who knew about Calpernia was the Inquisiton, the rest of Thedas was concerned about Corypheus. Along the fact that she is assumed dead by them if you fought her
So punishing her with a character who isn't even involved with those events makes no sense whatsoever
We don't know that. We don't hve any idea who the next protagonist is or what they know.
Even if the character doesn't know, the players do, so having no option but to grin and bear it is a middle finger to any member of the playerbase who doesn't like her.
We don't know that. We don't hve any idea who the next protagonist is or what they know.
It's pretty safe to assume that the next protag is someone who has no connection to the Inquisition
Even if the character doesn't know, the players do, so having no option but to grin and bear it is a middle finger to any member of the playerbase who doesn't like her.
Umm no it's not, and so what if the player knows more than the protag that's always gonna happen. Player knowledge=/= Protag knowledge
It's pretty safe to assume that the next protag is someone who has no connection to the Inquisition
Umm no it's not, and so what if the player knows more than the protag that's always gonna happen. Player knowledge=/= Protag knowledge
Just because they aren't part of the Inquisition doesn't mean word doesn't get around.
Yes it is. "Aw, you don't like her and think she should be punished? Well, too bad. You will play as someone who only agrees or is indifferent to her."
Just because they aren't part of the Inquisition doesn't mean word doesn't get around.
Word about defeating Cory will get around, word about the Calpernia and Samson? Not so much
Yes it is. "Aw, you don't like her and think she should be punished? Well, too bad. You will play as someone who only agrees or is indifferent to her."
So because the player has all the knowledge means the new protag should?
Word about defeating Cory will get around, word about the Calpernia and Samson? Not so much
So because the player has all the knowledge means the new protag should?
I disagree. To use an example, after Mass Effect 1 both Sovereign and Saren were talked about, despite Saren just being a high pawn of Sovereign. Samson is also talked about after his defeat, so there is nothing to suggest Calpernia, leader of the Venatori, wouldn't be. Especially in Tevinter.
No, but the player should be able to have the protagonist find out and act how they desire rather than forcing them to deal with a controversial character in a matter they don't like. It'd be like if Anders was brought back and you couldn't do anything to him but grin and bear his presence.
I disagree. To use an example, after Mass Effect 1 both Sovereign and Saren were talked about, despite Saren just being a high pawn of Sovereign. Samson is also talked about after his defeat, so there is nothing to suggest Calpernia, leader of the Venatori, wouldn't be. Especially in Tevinter.
That's not really a strong example because not only did nobody know about Sovereign until the end, everyone else outside of Shepard and Friends still refused to believe Sovereign was a Reaper so it was just Saren
That's not really a strong example because not only did nobody know about Sovereign until the end, everyone else outside of Shepard and Friends still refused to believe Sovereign was a Reaper so it was just Saren
Well, if the Ark Theorists are correct(please don't be) a lot more people believed.
Only if we get to make sure she pays for every single crime she committed.
You know there aren't a lot of Companions in this series who haven't committed grievous crimes. Of course a fair number of them can be killed or abandoned to their deaths eventually.
You know there aren't a lot of Companions in this series who haven't committed grievous crimes. Of course a fair number of them can be killed or abandoned to their deaths eventually.
As you can see from the responses, some people are entirely too obsessed with punishment. Having said that, it is generally desirable that we aren't forced into specific attitudes towards a character. So if she's to be a plot-important NPC and people want to kill her in the end, that should be an option as well as supporting her - if the decision comes at the end, she can play her role in the plot regardless. I'm reasonable sure the writers would prefer to give players a choice in that, too, but it would create divergence which is always problematic.Nope. Not going to. She's too awesome for that.
The DA games have been much better in counteracting that effect than the ME games, but it's still noticeable enough that most romanceable characters don't feel quite like the PC's equal. So, yeah, I would rather like to see what a relationship with someone like Calpernia is like, but she should never become a companion. Whether rival or ally, she should be equal in stature to the player character. Undoubtedly that would make the majority of players hate her, but then there have always been romances that appealed only to a minority. I would also hate it if a romance compromised her character, for instance by making her change her goals to something more acceptable from the viewpoint of the feel-good morality Bioware so often employs in their stories (again, less in DA games than in ME, but still prevalent).
In the end, all I know is that I would like to see Calpernia again in a future game. As herself, i.e. not changed more by implied character development than Morrigan was between DAO and DAI.
I think the Dragon Age games have had a good balance actually. DA:O's highest ranking player character is a Cousland, who can act as Teyrn/Teyrna of Highever. The female can pair with Alistair, who is a half-prince, but still an heir to the throne. Even the male Cousland can marry Anora. In both cases there is joint rule. So that's equal. The lesser ranking characters have their equals as well. A mage has Morrigan or Leliana. A city elf has Zevran. Then in DA2 there were of course the lesser ranked romances, and a high ranking female Hawke had Sebastian. In DA:I it's not as equal, true, but my male human mage had Cassandra, who I believe is on equal terms with the Inquisitor. She may not run things, but she can be the leader of the Seekers, and her declaring the Inquisition made it all possible. My mage saw her as an equal and treated her as such.
Calpernia should be the leader of the Venatori who abandoned Corypheus and his cause, or continue it in their own way (if she never learned the truth). So I don't see how you make a character equal to a woman who leads a revolutionary cause.
More than likely, Calpernia won't be romancible. She will either be too involved with her cause, or she won't trust anyone enough to get close to them. And she might still not be over Marius.
As you can see from the responses, some people are entirely too obsessed with punishment. Having said that, it is generally desirable that we aren't forced into specific attitudes towards a character. So if she's to be a plot-important NPC and people want to kill her in the end, that should be an option as well as supporting her - if the decision comes at the end, she can play her role in the plot regardless. I'm reasonable sure the writers would prefer to give players a choice in that, too, but it would create divergence which is always problematic.
I prefer mercy to justice. I am not someone who has a vengeance fetish. The worst I might do to someone like Calpernia is have her assets taken away and given to the mages in the South or sentence her to do some form of research work like Alexius.
But then again that's just me.
I prefer mercy to justice. I am not someone who has a vengeance fetish. The worst I might do to someone like Calpernia is have her assets taken away and given to the mages in the South or sentence her to do some form of research work like Alexius.
But then again that's just me.
For me the fact that you can talk her down and turn on Cory makes me more merciful towards her
Indeed so. Also, I like her vision of Tevinter, and I'm willing forgive a lot for a good cause.For me the fact that you can talk her down and turn on Cory makes me more merciful towards her
Indeed so. Also, I like her vision of Tevinter, and I'm willing forgive a lot for a good cause.
Ich mag wie du denkst 
For me the fact that you can talk her down and turn on Cory makes me more merciful towards her
She's loyal to Tevinter, but she only turned against him for basically selfish reasons.
It would be interesting to have a party member who was a former antagonist again. Calpernia is interesting because she doesn't regret leading the Venatori, only that she trusted Coryphaeus and was betrayed by him. She was the top lieutenant of a madman who nearly destroyed the world and committed atrocities in his name, but she's not cartoonishly evil.
After Solas and Blackwall it would be refreshing to have someone who's forthright with their past.
Why would players want to recruit someone unrepentant about helping a monster conquer the world? She only turned on him becaus she realized it would be bad for her, and her nation.
It would almost be like recruiting an awakened darkspawn who doesn't regret trying to kill every living thing in Ferelden but turned on the horde because the Archdemon tried to eat him one time.
Retour en haut