824 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

So for me, Leliana is the worst Divine.  I think she's all idealism and she will single-handedly cause the death of thousands of people, both mages and commoners alike, by failing to institute an appropriate checks and balances system.  The mages can't govern themselves, in my opinion, because absolute power corrupts absolutely; her reign will lead to the rise of a new Imperium.

Well, it won't be, because that'd lead to a lot more plot divergence based on the Divine choice, and that won't happen. Not to mention that it'd simply be spiteful to anyone who didn't like the Circle, and would raise the question of why Leliana was even a candidate if all she could do was screw up. As such, you are factually incorrect in this assessment; Leliana will do just fine, at least enough that it won't make the story of southern Thedas diverge noticeably from the other two.

 

I do like this, though, because it's a clear demonstration of how the pro-Circle side cannot simply sustain its own system to be proven right; they have to prove our system wrong, to say that there isn't a better way. And this simply won't happen, for gameplay reasons if nothing else. As such, Leliana has, in fact, proven the pro-Circle side wrong. The debate is ours, the mages are free, we have won.

[daveliam]

Well, it won't be, because that'd lead to a lot more plot divergence based on the Divine choice, and that won't happen. Not to mention that it'd simply be spiteful to anyone who didn't like the Circle, and would raise the question of why Leliana was even a candidate if all she could do was screw up. As such, you are factually incorrect in this assessment; Leliana will do just fine, at least enough that it won't make the story of southern Thedas diverge noticeably from the other two.

 

I do like this, though, because it's a clear demonstration of how the pro-Circle side cannot simply sustain its own system to be proven right; they have to prove our system wrong, to say that there isn't a better way. And this simply won't happen, for gameplay reasons if nothing else. As such, Leliana has, in fact, proven the pro-Circle side wrong. The debate is ours, the mages are free, we have won.

 

Not in all Leliana epilogues, though.  That's the part that you seem to be missing (or ignoring).  I'm not sure what else to tell you.  A "softened" Leliana seems like a good solution.  I'd be comfortable with that one to a degree.  I'd still have reservations, but, on paper, it sounds pretty good.  A hardened Leliana is the other side of the Divine Vivienne coin; it's not sustainable and, if anything, there's actually more death in that one than in Vivienne's.  A "neutral" Leliana is a complete and total failure and it says so in the slides. 

[thesuperdarkone2]

Not in all Leliana epilogues, though.  That's the part that you seem to be missing (or ignoring).  I'm not sure what else to tell you.  A "softened" Leliana seems like a good solution.  I'd be comfortable with that one to a degree.  I'd still have reservations, but, on paper, it sounds pretty good.  A hardened Leliana is the other side of the Divine Vivienne coin; it's not sustainable and, if anything, there's actually more death in that one than in Vivienne's.  A "neutral" Leliana is a complete and total failure and it says so in the slides. 

And low approval Vivienne winds up causing riots that pretty much destroy the chantry and destroys the chantry and low approval Cass winds up causing a chantry civil war.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Well, it won't be, because that'd lead to a lot more plot divergence based on the Divine choice, and that won't happen. Not to mention that it'd simply be spiteful to anyone who didn't like the Circle, and would raise the question of why Leliana was even a candidate if all she could do was screw up. As such, you are factually incorrect in this assessment; Leliana will do just fine, at least enough that it won't make the story of southern Thedas diverge noticeably from the other two.

 

I do like this, though, because it's a clear demonstration of how the pro-Circle side cannot simply sustain its own system to be proven right; they have to prove our system wrong, to say that there isn't a better way. And this simply won't happen, for gameplay reasons if nothing else. As such, Leliana has, in fact, proven the pro-Circle side wrong. The debate is ours, the mages are free, we have won.

This. If Leliana's mage endings don't backfire, it will completely destroy the pro-circle/pro-templar arguments. I eagerly await that day.

[daveliam]

And low approval Vivienne winds up causing riots that pretty much destroy the chantry and destroys the chantry and low approval Cass winds up causing a chantry civil war.

 

No, that's not correct:

 

Here's the negative approval Cassandra slides:

 

One month after the defeat of Corypheus, the Chantry names Cassandra as successor to the Sunburst Throne.

Given the name Divine Victoria, she immediately enacts reform: a new Templar Order, and a new Circle of Magi.

The Chantry's relationship with the Inquisition continues to be strained, and worsens as the months pass.

Despite her popularity, the new Divine's reforms are seen by some as going too far.

A new sect arises, demanding a return to the status quo on threat of war. 

The new Seekers prove their mettle by being instrumental in defeating this sect and restoring the peace.

 

There's nothing in there to state that Cassandra's reign will lead to a civil war.

 

I've already stated that I don't think Vivienne makes a good Divine.

 

Also, it's pretty clear that all three of the Divines can have good and bad endings and it's completely subjective which one seems best to each player.  There is no "right" answer here; no "winner" and no "loser". 

[daveliam]

For me, the Divine outcomes go like this:

 

High Approval Cassandra

Softened Leliana

High Approval Vivienne

Low Approval Cassandra

Low Approval Vivienne

Hardened Leliana

Neutral Leliana

 

So, this is why I see Cassandra as the best option all around. 

[Addai]

This. If Leliana's mage endings don't backfire, it will completely destroy the pro-circle/pro-templar arguments. I eagerly await that day.

I think it's far more likely that all of them will backfire in one way or another. Else there won't be a story to tell.

[ThreeF]

I don't think there is any more story to tell, at least not in these parts of Thedas.

[daveliam]

I think it's far more likely that all of them will backfire in one way or another. Else there won't be a story to tell.

 

Agreed.  This is almost certainly what's going to happen.  There's just no way that they are going to be able to move forward with three completely different world states that have such huge differences.  Who Hawke supported in DA2 makes no large scale difference.  Who's ruling Ferelden, a largely inconsequential country, makes no large scale difference.  But if there is, in some playthroughs, a completely separate governing body of mages and, in other playthroughs, mages back in a Chantry, I feel like this is just too different for them to attend to effectively.  I think it changes too much, so I suspect that they are going to do some plot that merges it all back together, more or less.

 

I don't think there is any more story to tell, at least not in these parts of Thedas.

 

While I agree that we'll likely leave southern thedas, the only places that aren't Andrastrian are the Imperium, Rivain, the Dwarven Kingdoms, and Par Vollen.   In the Andrastrian world, we still have Nevarra, Antiva, the Anderfels, and half of the Free Marches to explore and what happens to the Circle will play a huge role in all of those places. 

[Lulupab]

That's a nice moment but it really doesn't affect how much of a bltch she can be.

[ThreeF]

While I agree that we'll likely leave southern thedas, the only places that aren't Andrastrian are the Imperium, Rivain, and Par Vollen.   In the Andrastrian world, we still have Nevarra, Antiva, the Anderfels, and half of the Free Marches to explore and what happens to the Circle will play a huge role in all of those places. 

I just got the impression that for the most part things were tidy wrapped up in epilogue with no immediate intention to built more on it  with only the warden part left hanging. Chantry existed in DAO too, but wasn't all that heavily involved in anything.

[Sarielle]

I haven't seen all the divine epilogues and at this point I'd rather not spoiler them totally for myself, so I'm gonna have to bow out of any discussions comparing her reign to others. Not ignoring out of spite or whatever.

 

Also, out of likes

 

I have to disagree here. It's only a good thing when it's well done.

 

As it is it comes across as forced and drags both characters (her and the Inquisitor) down because of it. Badly written confrontation while it's not fair it does reflect badly on the character simply because other than the devs they're the easiest one to "blame" for the scene.

 

What confrontation are you referring to specifically? What retort do you think your character should have been able to make?

 

 

The problem with Vivienne as I see it, and this has probably been addressed before in this thread; Is that she's supposed to be some sort of super proficient schemer, and a master of The Game. But she never comes across as such. I never believe that she is what she says she is. And that makes the rest of her character fall flat as well. 

 

It has been addressed, yes. Short version: There IS evidence. Getting to court in the first place, tricking that poor sod to confront the Inquisitor at her salon, her using magic on a noble in public with no repercussions, keeping the affections of the duke (you know other women tried what she accomplished), making First Enchanter, and in some cases, making Divine.

 

The ball felt like she should have had a bigger role.

 

What did you not get to see what you feel like you should have to make you believe?

 

 

Well, it won't be, because that'd lead to a lot more plot divergence based on the Divine choice, and that won't happen. Not to mention that it'd simply be spiteful to anyone who didn't like the Circle, and would raise the question of why Leliana was even a candidate if all she could do was screw up.

 

 

Again, haven't seen all the epilogues so not commenting too much but ... why does an ending have to not crash and burn to be a valid option in an RPG? o_O The fact that you can get unhappy/imperfect/etc. endings is what I love about Bioware games.

 

And we don't know where the next Dragon Age will take place, or what the story will be. It's entirely possible whatever it is pushes the mage situation to the backburner, so divergence wouldn't even really be an issue. It could only needed to be referenced in a couple of convos for all we know.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Well, it won't be, because that'd lead to a lot more plot divergence based on the Divine choice, and that won't happen. Not to mention that it'd simply be spiteful to anyone who didn't like the Circle, and would raise the question of why Leliana was even a candidate if all she could do was screw up. As such, you are factually incorrect in this assessment; Leliana will do just fine, at least enough that it won't make the story of southern Thedas diverge noticeably from the other two.

 

I do like this, though, because it's a clear demonstration of how the pro-Circle side cannot simply sustain its own system to be proven right; they have to prove our system wrong, to say that there isn't a better way. And this simply won't happen, for gameplay reasons if nothing else. As such, Leliana has, in fact, proven the pro-Circle side wrong. The debate is ours, the mages are free, we have won.

 

I have no idea why people are so camped in their positions that the situation must have a ''winner'' and a ''loser''. People are turning a grey situation into a black and white ''mages rule templars drool'' (or the other way around) and expect the story to bend to suit their bias. I'm pretty sure this won't happen. Leliana won't usher in a new golden age of freedom, tolerance and free cookies for all, Vivienne won't cause a catastrophic Chantry meltdown due to being a nightmarish dictator. I'm certain Bioware are better writers than that.

[Archdemon_Urthemiel]

No, that's not correct:
 
Here's the negative approval Cassandra slides:
 
One month after the defeat of Corypheus, the Chantry names Cassandra as successor to the Sunburst Throne.
Given the name Divine Victoria, she immediately enacts reform: a new Templar Order, and a new Circle of Magi.
The Chantry's relationship with the Inquisition continues to be strained, and worsens as the months pass.
Despite her popularity, the new Divine's reforms are seen by some as going too far.
A new sect arises, demanding a return to the status quo on threat of war. 
The new Seekers prove their mettle by being instrumental in defeating this sect and restoring the peace.
 
There's nothing in there to state that Cassandra's reign will lead to a civil war.
 
I've already stated that I don't think Vivienne makes a good Divine.
 
Also, it's pretty clear that all three of the Divines can have good and bad endings and it's completely subjective which one seems best to each player.  There is no "right" answer here; no "winner" and no "loser".

Actually, I can confirm that Casscan cause a CW, ladyinsanity did an endin where this occurs

http://m.youtube.com...h?v=JSWK-C-w5SY

[Heidirs]

Honestly, I don't see how Vivienne's choices as Divine make a compelling argument toward her character - regardless of what comes of it. What she does at the end of game seems of small consequence compared to the whole time she's one of your companions. 

[MrSnoozer]

Vivienne is fine my dear , not all characters have to be 'Nice and friendly' my dear. The problem is my dear , is that she is probably one of the first real attempts at making an extremely attractive non white companion yet she is beyond your reach my dear. Note not all companions have to be LI but she is attractive so yeah.

 

Oh and the 'my dear' is annoying.

[Jaquio]

Vivienne is unlikeable, but that's fine.  Not everyone has to play nice with others.

 

The problem with Vivienne is that the writers were so protective of her, and made her into such a pet, that you can't speak back to her.  Vivienne isn't the only example of this (I'm looking at you, Bianca), but it's still a far cry from DAO or DA2.

 

A lot of people have mentioned Morrigan, but the difference is that in DAO, you could argue with Morrigan.  You could argue with her about everything if you wanted.

 

With Vivienne though, all you can do is nod and smile while she throws all of her passive aggressive crap on you.  The difference isn't that Vivienne is somehow worse, but that the writers took away player agency.  I would have gladly accepted Vivienne's character if I were able to tell her to "shove it" when she was acting like an awful human being.

 

Vivienne's problem is bad writing for the Inquisitor.

[Urzon]

The mages can't govern themselves, in my opinion, because absolute power corrupts absolutely; her reign will lead to the rise of a new Imperium.

I personally never understood this viewpoint. I understand that power corrupts, but to think that all the southern mages are somehow going to automatically emulate Tevinter if they suddenly gain freedom doesn't make sense at all because southern mages and the Tevinter mages are raised in completely different cultures each respecting different values.

Tevinter has hundreds to thousands of years of slavery, a dog eat dog culture, and the mages right to rule shadowing their politics, and they never really gave up that culture when they were apart of the Andrastian Chantry since they joined on their own terms. So after Tevinter split from the Chantry and formed their own, and the magisters started ruling again, it wasn't because, "Well... Mages got to rule again, and they got corrupted by their own power and brought back blood magic, slavery, sacrifices, and general douchebaggery". It was because that entire culture and way of thinking never left in the first place, and the Imperium simply returned to their status quo after their always strained relationship with the Andrastian Chantry finally brought apart.

Judging by the different proportions of the Fraternities of Enchanters, most southern magics hold the view that mages sound always use their powers responsibly, and the southern mages are also largely Andrastian since the where raised in the Circle. That means they probably have a general distaste for Tevinter, its politics, and its use of blood magic. They were also raised with the belief that "magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him". This is a stark contrast to how mages are raised in Tevinter.

If the southern mages suddenly gained freedom, they wouldn't automatically turn to Tevinter on how things should be done. They would most in likely try and find their own way to do things. That means making their own checks and balances and starting to police themselves. Another thing people seem to forgot, is if mages get their freedom that means they aren't wards of the Chantry anymore, and they are under the jurisdiction of their native country again. On top of the whatever policing that mages might do for themselves, it would also mean that the country has to start regulating and policing their own mages as well since they can't rely on the Chantry and Templars to do so.

 

Will there be power hungry southern mages, blood mages or otherwise, that balk at the "mages can't rule" rule and try to work their way up to top seats of power? Yes, but that's already possibly now. Morrigan was able to become the arcane advisor to the Empress herself, and as much as Vivienne is for the rule, she's a HUGE example of a power hungry social climbing mage. In a supposed system set up to make sure that mages don't rule or abuse their power, she was able to make herself a candidate for the Divine, the leader of the largest religion in the land that is more influential that most/all Kings, Queens, and Empresses, by using her gift of magic and her political mindedness to ingratiated herself with key figures and work her way to the top. 

[Archdemon_Urthemiel]

I personally never understood this viewpoint. I understand that power corrupts, but to think that all the southern mages are somehow going to automatically emulate Tevinter if they suddenly gain freedom doesn't make sense at all because southern mages and the Tevinter mages are raised in completely different cultures each respecting different values.
Tevinter has hundreds to thousands of years of slavery, a dog eat dog culture, and the mages right to rule shadowing their politics, and they never really gave up that culture when they were apart of the Andrastian Chantry since they joined on their own terms. So after Tevinter split from the Chantry and formed their own, and the magisters started ruling again, it wasn't because, "Well... Mages got to rule again, and they got corrupted by their own power and brought back blood magic, slavery, sacrifices, and general douchebaggery". It was because that entire culture and way of thinking never left in the first place, and the Imperium simply returned to their status quo after their always strained relationship with the Andrastian Chantry finally brought apart.
Judging by the different proportions of the Fraternities of Enchanters, most southern magics hold the view that mages sound always use their powers responsibly, and the southern mages are also largely Andrastian since the where raised in the Circle. That means they probably have a general distaste for Tevinter, its politics, and its use of blood magic. They were also raised with the belief that "magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him". This is a stark contrast to how mages are raised in Tevinter.
If the southern mages suddenly gained freedom, they wouldn't automatically turn to Tevinter on how things should be done. They would most in likely try and find their own way to do things. That means making their own checks and balances and starting to police themselves. Another thing people seem to forgot, is if mages get their freedom that means they aren't wards of the Chantry anymore, and they are under the jurisdiction of their native country again. On top of the whatever policing that mages might do for themselves, it would also mean that the country has to start regulating and policing their own mages as well since they can't rely on the Chantry and Templars to do so.
 
Will there be power hungry southern mages, blood mages or otherwise, that balk at the "mages can't rule" rule and try to work their way up to top seats of power? Yes, but that's already possibly now. Morrigan was able to become the arcane advisor to the Empress herself, and as much as Vivienne is for the rule, she's a HUGE example of a power hungry social climbing mage. In a supposed system set up to make sure that mages don't rule or abuse their power, she was able to make herself a candidate for the Divine, the leader of the largest religion in the land that is more influential that most/all Kings, Queens, and Empresses, by using her gift of magic and her political mindedness to ingratiated with key figures and work her way to the top.

This. I've noticed the pro-circle arguments are largely based on assumptions. I can't honestly condemn people simply for assuming they might be dangerous. I wouldn't want to be locked up by people who think I might go on power mad

[lil yonce]

The mages can't govern themselves, in my opinion, because absolute power corrupts absolutely; her reign will lead to the rise of a new Imperium.

I disagree that mages running their own circles will lead to a mage imperium if for no other reason than that mages will always be subject to public accountability and to the powers of the nations they live in. And you assume that mages would want another imperium and that they can't believe or hold to the convictions when confronted that, for example, slavery is wrong, that the Tevinter masses should run themselves as they wish to run their own circles etc. And if this is the case, Vivienne will be absolutely corrupted by the absolute power she holds as Divine. All versions of Cassandra and Leliana too. Every inquisitor will be absolutely corrupted by the absolute power they hold. No exceptions and these individuals hold many more powers and possess power that will affect many more people than groups of mages just running their own towers ever will.

[Heidirs]

Vivienne is unlikeable, but that's fine.  Not everyone has to play nice with others.

 

The problem with Vivienne is that the writers were so protective of her, and made her into such a pet, that you can't speak back to her.  Vivienne isn't the only example of this (I'm looking at you, Bianca), but it's still a far cry from DAO or DA2.

 

A lot of people have mentioned Morrigan, but the difference is that in DAO, you could argue with Morrigan.  You could argue with her about everything if you wanted.

 

With Vivienne though, all you can do is nod and smile while she throws all of her passive aggressive crap on you.  The difference isn't that Vivienne is somehow worse, but that the writers took away player agency.  I would have gladly accepted Vivienne's character if I were able to tell her to "shove it" when she was acting like an awful human being.

 

Vivienne's problem is bad writing for the Inquisitor.

 

Thing is, even if you confronted Vivienne or told her to "shove it," she'd just do her "well, dear" thing and act like the Inquisitor's words were of no consequence. That's who she is. So, I don't see how being able to confront her would have made much of a difference. 

[Ieldra]

Again, haven't seen all the epilogues so not commenting too much but ... why does an ending have to not crash and burn to be a valid option in an RPG? o_O The fact that you can get unhappy/imperfect/etc. endings is what I love about Bioware games.

The problem exists with choices that echo real-world ideologies and themes, and with player characters who are infused with the values of their players to some degree - which is almost unavoidable unless you make a conscious effort to play against what comes naturally to you. If one option of two ideologically opposed options has a good outcome and the other one a bad outcome, the story acquires an ideological voice of its own, telling, by implication, those players who made the "wrong" decision that the fundament of their decision-making is wrong. Everyone hates that. It doesn't even matter if I roleplay a character who isn't like me. The mere fact that I can't get a good result with a character who has a similar value hierarchy as I have, while those opposing it can get a good outcome, will mean that I feel the story, the writers are against me.

As opposed to that, decisions that simply make you unhappy - such as a character death as a consequence of a wrong strategic or tactical decision - are unproblematic.

In essence, this means that the the story should avoid having its own voice and making one side the right one, exactly in the most passionately debated issues of the fictional world, unless the writers are really, really sure they want their story to take a side in the debate, in which case they'll have to live with the consequences.

[AshenEndymion]

Vivienne is unlikeable, but that's fine.  Not everyone has to play nice with others.

 

The problem with Vivienne is that the writers were so protective of her, and made her into such a pet, that you can't speak back to her.  Vivienne isn't the only example of this (I'm looking at you, Bianca), but it's still a far cry from DAO or DA2.

 

A lot of people have mentioned Morrigan, but the difference is that in DAO, you could argue with Morrigan.  You could argue with her about everything if you wanted.

 

With Vivienne though, all you can do is nod and smile while she throws all of her passive aggressive crap on you.  The difference isn't that Vivienne is somehow worse, but that the writers took away player agency.  I would have gladly accepted Vivienne's character if I were able to tell her to "shove it" when she was acting like an awful human being.

 

Vivienne's problem is bad writing for the Inquisitor.

 

Yes.  You can argue with Morrigan.  But you don't get the last word.

 

Last I checked, you could tell Morrigan to shove it, and after doing so, she gives a speech, that you can't interrupt or respond to, about how you are really the one who is at fault...  And since it seems like the whole "can't respond, can't interrupt" is the complaint, I fail to see how Morrigan(or, for that matter, Sten, Alistair, Leliana, Wynne, Sten, Zevran, Oghren, Anders, Fenris, Isabella, etc) can't be used as an applicable example of someone you "can't speak back to".

 

All the characters in DAO to DA2 did this.  The two biggest difference between DAI and those games are: 1 - the characters don't leave after giving said speeches(Morrigan doesn't leave unless you specifically tell her to, though).  And 2 - The personalities of the companions in DAI aren't really "changeable", to the same extent that the companions in DAO and 2 were...

 

As much as you might claim otherwise, I don't really think you want to be able to tell Vivienne off, or argue with her, or anything of that nature...  You just want Vivienne to say that "you've convinced her of the error of her ways", or otherwise shift her from her position to the one you prefer, like you could with most every other companion, save Justice(and Wynne).

[Heidirs]

As much as you might claim otherwise, I don't really think you want to be able to tell Vivienne off, or argue with her, or anything of that nature...  You just want Vivienne to say that "you've convinced her of the error of her ways", or otherwise shift her from her position to the one you prefer, like you could with most every other companion, save Justice(and Wynne).

 

Or punch her in the face, maybe? I know some people found that really gratifying with Solas. Or maybe people just wish they had the ability to tell her to leave.

[Ryzaki]

I haven't seen all the divine epilogues and at this point I'd rather not spoiler them totally for myself, so I'm gonna have to bow out of any discussions comparing her reign to others. Not ignoring out of spite or whatever.

 

Also, out of likes

 

 

What confrontation are you referring to specifically? What retort do you think your character should have been able to make?

 

 

This.

 

And something other than standing there like a petulant child. Whether asking her to leave or remarking on her own childishness. Being told to run along adn then having my character meekly do that like he/she's been outplayed is absurd.