89 réponses à ce sujet

[myahele]

since we never see Calpernia die + she even had a short story written about her then I am pretty certain she'll be in DA4

[Mlady]

since we never see Calpernia die + she even had a short story written about her then I am pretty certain she'll be in DA4

 

I noticed that if you side with the Mages, you see the closure of DAO/DA2 characters. You see Connor if he survived, you see King Alistair (if made King) and Queen Anora, you find out what happened to Samson and of course we ally with Fiona.

 

If you side with the Templars, everything leans more to Tevinter, introduces a main character from Asunder. You get Calpernia, more views on Tevinter and what secrets it might hold, plus you get a hint that you might see her again one day, meaning we most likely will go to Tevinter if the map stabbing seeing wasn't proof enough.

[GoldenGail3]

CALPERNIA! Is DEE BEST! I love her. 100% better than Samson is.

[Derrame]

samson as an enemy, calpernia as a companion

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Leaning more towards Calpernia as she helps give Corypheus some badly needed depth.

[BloodKaiden]

I like both but I wish Calpernia could have been a result of choosing the Mages. I got Samson on my first play through and had no idea about Calpernia, I prefer her background.

[Lavellan-San]

I like both but I wish Calpernia could have been a result of choosing the Mages. I got Samson on my first play through and had no idea about Calpernia, I prefer her background.

Same with me, yeah. I chose to help the mages in both my playthroughs, but I never knew about Calpernia until recently. I'll definitely try to help the Templars in my next playthrough to see her.

[Heimdall]

I liked both, I came to see them as representing different aspects of Corypheus' character.

 

Calpernia-> The nationalist, knowledgeable, talented, proud of the homeland and determined to restore the greatness it deserves,

 

Samson-> The spurned worshiper, disillusioned, bitter and hateful, willing to do terrible things out of spite and sheer nihilism

[Former_Fiend]

I liked both, I came to see them as representing different aspects of Corypheus' character.

 

Calpernia-> The nationalist, knowledgeable, talented, proud of the homeland and determined to restore the greatness it deserves,

 

Samson-> The spurned worshiper, disillusioned, bitter and hateful, willing to do terrible things out of spite and sheer nihilism

 

So I suppose Florianne represents is pure, ruthless ambition?

[Heimdall]

So I suppose Florianne represents is pure, ruthless ambition?

Well, I made her a jester, so she definitely represents what Cory became by the end of the game 

[AresKeith]

I liked both, I came to see them as representing different aspects of Corypheus' character.

 

Calpernia-> The nationalist, knowledgeable, talented, proud of the homeland and determined to restore the greatness it deserves,

 

Samson-> The spurned worshiper, disillusioned, bitter and hateful, willing to do terrible things out of spite and sheer nihilism

 

It kinda does fit with them saying Leliana is similar to Corypheus too

[Bleachrude]

I liked both, I came to see them as representing different aspects of Corypheus' character.

 

Calpernia-> The nationalist, knowledgeable, talented, proud of the homeland and determined to restore the greatness it deserves,

 

Samson-> The spurned worshiper, disillusioned, bitter and hateful, willing to do terrible things out of spite and sheer nihilism

 

The problem with the Samson argument is that it only works if you ignore BOTH the previous game and the lore. In Origins, when you reach Denerim, there's an older templar suffering from lyrium exposure and a younger templar. The younger templar explicitly tells you that the older templar will soon be sen t to Val Royeaux to be taken care of by the mothers there.

 

Yet in Inquisition, it seems like the Chantry doesn't do anything for these older templars so I have no idea why Bioware just ignored its lore.

 

Similarly, in DA2, you could get Samson back on the path with you and indeed, at the end of the game, he's EXPLICITLY right next to Cullen ighting against Meredith. Yet again, there's no explanation as to how THAT Samson became bitter and delusioned and is now a lackey of Cory. Worse, it makes no sense that Samson who in this game mentions he hates the fact that the Chantry controls the templars via lyrium would actually trick other templars into becoming mindless slaves (note, the game goes out its way to mention that Samson is unique among the red templars in having free will and his own mind)

[Heimdall]

The problem with the Samson argument is that it only works if you ignore BOTH the previous game and the lore. In Origins, when you reach Denerim, there's an older templar suffering from lyrium exposure and a younger templar. The younger templar explicitly tells you that the older templar will soon be sen t to Val Royeaux to be taken care of by the mothers there.

 

Yet in Inquisition, it seems like the Chantry doesn't do anything for these older templars so I have no idea why Bioware just ignored its lore.

 

Similarly, in DA2, you could get Samson back on the path with you and indeed, at the end of the game, he's EXPLICITLY right next to Cullen ighting against Meredith. Yet again, there's no explanation as to how THAT Samson became bitter and delusioned and is now a lackey of Cory. Worse, it makes no sense that Samson who in this game mentions he hates the fact that the Chantry controls the templars via lyrium would actually trick other templars into becoming mindless slaves (note, the game goes out its way to mention that Samson is unique among the red templars in having free will and his own mind)

1) I don't remember that part of Origins at all, though I don't see how it changes things.

 

2) The short story starring him establishes that Samson is unusually resistant to the effects of lyrium, red and normal.

 

3) Samson was always bitter and disillusioned about the lyrium leash.  It was only during Act three that he started to consider that maybe Meredith had a point about the blood mages and possibly rejoined the order.  And then she turned into a monster.  Which lead him down a spiral of further disillusionment as the order lost access to the Chantry's lyrium supply.  As for giving them red lyrium, that's his way of giving them purpose again, a real purpose, with a hefty dose of nihilism.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I like Samson a lot more than Calpernia. 

[trevelyan_shep]

Calpernia is way better. I hope we get to see more of her in the next game.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Calpernia is way better. I hope we get to see more of her in the next game.

Only if we get to arrest her and bring her to justice for the atrocities she has committed. 

[congokong]

Only if we get to arrest her and bring her to justice for the atrocities she has committed. 

I'd like that. Runner-up would be Bianca for catastrophic negligence.

[congokong]

The problem with the Samson argument is that it only works if you ignore BOTH the previous game and the lore. In Origins, when you reach Denerim, there's an older templar suffering from lyrium exposure and a younger templar. The younger templar explicitly tells you that the older templar will soon be sen t to Val Royeaux to be taken care of by the mothers there.

 

Yet in Inquisition, it seems like the Chantry doesn't do anything for these older templars so I have no idea why Bioware just ignored its lore.

 

Similarly, in DA2, you could get Samson back on the path with you and indeed, at the end of the game, he's EXPLICITLY right next to Cullen ighting against Meredith. Yet again, there's no explanation as to how THAT Samson became bitter and delusioned and is now a lackey of Cory. Worse, it makes no sense that Samson who in this game mentions he hates the fact that the Chantry controls the templars via lyrium would actually trick other templars into becoming mindless slaves (note, the game goes out its way to mention that Samson is unique among the red templars in having free will and his own mind)

DA is full of contradictions. Brother Genetivi surviving Haven even if you killed him, Isabela having a ship it seems even if Castillon was killed, Sten presumably becoming Arishok even if you left him to die, Samson somehow being so influential even if you had Cullen arrest him, Hawke being anti-blood magic even if they were a blood mage, blood magic involving demons or just simply using blood as an alternative energy source, Anders being in DA2 even if not recruited, that guy in the Hanged Man constantly mentioning the drop in the pigeon population even if Shale's dead, etc. These just off the top of my head.

 

And yes, Calpernia's motivations are at least understandable even if still evil. Samson's "logic" makes no sense. He's clearly nuts. Cullen points out his hypocrisy clearly after his judgment.

[congokong]

I also have a sight biased reason for choosing the Templars too that I forgot to add earlier, besides my already biasedly preferring Calpernia for her amazing character. I absolutely love Ser Barris (and would romance him over Cullen any day!) and promoting him later in the game is just wonderful! Fiona does nothing. She's not even in the final battle, but Ser Barris is and I felt truly united with my allies.

I ike Barris too. I can't promote him though as I always conscript the Templars and I hear there's a bug that stops war table operations from showing up that lead to his promotion within the Inquisition.

[Melbella]

I ike Barris too. I can't promote him though as I always conscript the Templars and I hear there's a bug that stops war table operations from showing up that lead to his promotion within the Inquisition.

I don't know if it's a bug or intentional, but I got no War Table ops for Barris when I conscripted the Templars. It would make a sort of sense if it's intentional because the ops have the Templars working as their own authority with Inquisition support, whereas if conscripted they are just another part of the Inquisition.

 

The best thing about Calpernia is the armor we get in Trespasser.

[TobiTobsen]

I don't know if it's a bug or intentional, but I got no War Table ops for Barris when I conscripted the Templars. It would make a sort of sense if it's intentional because the ops have the Templars working as their own authority with Inquisition support, whereas if conscripted they are just another part of the Inquisition.
 
The best thing about Calpernia is the armor we get in Trespasser.

It's a bug. There are special lines for a conscripted promotion and everything. It just seems like nobody cares since it hasn't been fixed in forever.

[vbibbi]

Regardless of what you consider respectable, you can't deny that some did chose to follow Samson, and take red lyrium out of free will. They are not thralls, you are projecting that being a red templar is the same as being a servile slave but many red templars retain their minds for a period of time through self discipline, just like Samson. He teaches them to master the red lyrium, not let it master them. It's true, in time they could completely lose themselves and become behemoths, but they are templars, you have accept you lose yourself to lyrium whether it be red lyrium or blue lyrium eventually.

Some red templars retaining their minds while on red lyrium doesn't mean that they started taking red lyrium of their own free will. If someone slipped me an addictive drug without my knowing or told me it was medicine, I could still have my own mind when I became addicted and sought out the drug.

 

Samson.

 

In another thread, someone offered a critique that Bioware likes to spam old characters and, in the poster's opinion, ruins the story by carrying characters throughout the series.  Honestly, I was gobsmacked by the concept.  Whether Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, or any series of books, movies, games, the recurring characters tie the story together.  And when a character is developed over two or three, or four books, we come to know them more and more intimately.

 

DA:I isn't the first time I've encountered Samson.  I saw him on the streets of Kirkwall.  I learned his desperation.  I also learned that he'd been wronged by an overzealous, paranoid personality.  And when I saw him again leading the Red Templars, I understood how his injustice and desperation could be something that might be taken advantage of by a villain with a skewed moral compass.

 

When he is on trial, he says why he did what he did - and it turns out that the only use Samson had to Corypheus was an immunity to red lyrium's detrimental effects.  He says that he offered hope, thereby betraying that Corypheus offered hope where all other hope was gone.  

 

That's what happens to people when their meaning for existence and the authority that guides their life abuses and betrays them.  They become tolerant of abuse and betrayal, and they, themselves, become abusers and betrayers.  It's all they know.

 

And while Calpernia was a wonderful introductory character - and I really look forward to seeing her again in DA4- I don't know her from before.  I'm told she was a slave and, therefore, has her own tale of woe and injustice, but it's not quite the same as having seen it for myself.

LOTR and ASOIAF are interdependent stories that occur at roughly the same time. We don't read the Fellowship of the Ring and think the story is over, we know there are two more books which complete the story. Each DA game is meant to be self contained and complete at the end (how successfully this happens is a matter of debate). I don't mind returning characters between games, but I think the argument against always having NPCs return when we're in different parts of the continent and with years between games, it does feel more forced.

 

Also logically, how did a former templar addict get to lead the red templars? It started out with corrupt templar and Seeker leadership administering red lyrium to the main templar order, and then branched out into capturing civilians and turning them into red templars. So why would templar leadership listen to some ex templar from one of the most notorious Circles in recent history? It's like if that one drug addict you know through a friend of a friend came up to you and was like "I know I have a bad rep, but I've seriously found this amazing new drug that will change your life! And it's sponsored through [insert hostile nation name here]!"

 

Templars don't have to have some religious devotion to the Chantry or "the Maker". To them, they hold as much weight as fairytales, religious indoctrination meant to sculpt a person's values. I've seen red templars feel regret such as those in Suldein Keep so it stands to reason that they they aren't indoctrinated. One cannot have doubt if one is indoctrinated. It's true, a side effect of red lyrium is you become violent, paranoid, even crazy but that can be rectified if you have the self discipline. In Samon's short story, he was able to smack sense into a red templar subordinate who lost himself to the red lyrium and retained his sanity. It's not brainwashing and Samson is not the exception, since they have free will your assertion of "it's in the game" is false. They do it out of personal devotion, whether to Samson if not Cory. 

Um, yes they do. Templars are the military branch of the Chantry, their entire organization is based off of the principle that magic must serve man and never rule, which is from the Chant of Light. Sure, there will be some younger children of noble families who join the order because they don't have better prospects, but most likely they will still be fairly devout Andrasteans. Morrigan seems to be one of the few people in DA who is openly athiestic.

 

I think that most of them were corrupted and twisted to Corypheus's cause, but there are certainly some who willingly joined him and corrupted their fellows: Samson certainly wasn't alone in this. Lucius and Denam spring to mind as do some of the Kirkwall templars who must have known how dangerous the stuff was after the Meredith fiasco but consumed the lyrium anyway in their desire for power.

 

While the Templar order certainly attracts noble souls, it is also a magnet for those who lust for power (as we all too often saw in Dragon Age 2). For many peasants in Thedas, joining the Templar order is perhaps the only way that they'll ever achieve a position of power. They're able to control other individuals, are capable of doing things they were never able to do previously and have the option of rising up the ranks of the order if they perform well with the chance of attaining positions of leadership in the upper echelons.

 

It thus makes sense why some of the Templars would willingly take the red lyrium even knowing all the side-effects - those individuals who lusted after power and influence would have been enthralled by the idea of gaining near unlimited power in the form of new abilities and the favour granted by a new (and more tangible) god that would achieve apotheosis.

 

On top of such individuals would be those ailing Templars and ex-Templars whose faith was shattered (just as Samson's was) after they learned how little the Chantry valued them as individuals - lyrium junkies and has-beens suffering from the unpleasant psychological side-effects of lyrium overdose, lyrium addiction and/or lyrium withdrawal who were lured in by the promise of a new purpose and a revitalisation.

From what I can recall, all of the templars who knowingly took red lyrium were senior officers; most of the order was given red lyrium as a command, and they did not know the consequences of taking it until they had already been altered. Also, Lucius didn't take red lyrium, as Seekers are immune to it, so he was just making his underlings go through this painful transformation on his behalf.

 

This seems deeply ironic for Samson, who hates the Chantry for abusing templars, yet he is doing worse by keeping the choice to use red lyrium to the senior leadership. At least Chantry templars know what normal lyrium will end up doing to them, and agree to its use because they believe in what the templars stand for.

[QueenCrow]

~limited to the comments following quote under my name~

 

LOTR and ASOIAF are interdependent stories that occur at roughly the same time. We don't read the Fellowship of the Ring and think the story is over, we know there are two more books which complete the story. Each DA game is meant to be self contained and complete at the end (how successfully this happens is a matter of debate). I don't mind returning characters between games, but I think the argument against always having NPCs return when we're in different parts of the continent and with years between games, it does feel more forced.

 

Also logically, how did a former templar addict get to lead the red templars? It started out with corrupt templar and Seeker leadership administering red lyrium to the main templar order, and then branched out into capturing civilians and turning them into red templars. So why would templar leadership listen to some ex templar from one of the most notorious Circles in recent history? It's like if that one drug addict you know through a friend of a friend came up to you and was like "I know I have a bad rep, but I've seriously found this amazing new drug that will change your life! And it's sponsored through [insert hostile nation name here]!"

 

 

While I can understand some necessity of making each Dragon Age game semi-self-contained, hence giving people who have never before played a Dragon Age game the opportunity to play and understand a bit of what's going on, if it were entirely true that each game was a singular entity, then there would be no need for lore that applies to a Dragon Age World as a whole.  If the games were not connected and dependent upon each other for enrichment, there would be no need to care about the fifth blight, no need to relate the mage/templar war to anything that happened in Kirkwall.  I don't think that's the case at all and will venture to guess that fandom is strengthened by established lore carried through to each new glimpse of Thedas.  As it stands, I believe that the ending of Inquisition/Trespasser leads the way to the next game with characters, events, a plot line, a lore already established to create and enrich a Dragon Age world.

 

As regards how a former templar addict came to act as general for corrupt templars serving a darkspawn Tevinter magister, I can only conjecture that only a corrupt and desperate man would do.  It had to be someone with some sense of the desperation that could inspire and drive other desperate people to follow.  I don't think it's unlike the millions who followed Hitler, an art school reject and lowly enlisted veteran of a defeated army and nation, and a drug addict.  But people followed him because he understood their defeat and their desperation and he offered them false hope and intangible glorification.  Samson isn't much different, in my opinion, only his obvious anger with the Chantry allowed him to serve as general for someone that a more clear-headed and stable templar, someone with something left to lose, wouldn't have served.

 

That's my take on it, anyway.

[vbibbi]

While I can understand some necessity of making each Dragon Age game semi-self-contained, hence giving people who have never before played a Dragon Age game the opportunity to play and understand a bit of what's going on, if it were entirely true that each game was a singular entity, then there would be no need for lore that applies to a Dragon Age World as a whole.  If the games were not connected and dependent upon each other for enrichment, there would be no need to care about the fifth blight, no need to relate the mage/templar war to anything that happened in Kirkwall.  I don't think that's the case at all and will venture to guess that fandom is strengthened by established lore carried through to each new glimpse of Thedas.  As it stands, I believe that the ending of Inquisition/Trespasser leads the way to the next game with characters, events, a plot line, a lore already established to create and enrich a Dragon Age world.

 

As regards how a former templar addict came to act as general for corrupt templars serving a darkspawn Tevinter magister, I can only conjecture that only a corrupt and desperate man would do.  It had to be someone with some sense of the desperation that could inspire and drive other desperate people to follow.  I don't think it's unlike the millions who followed Hitler, an art school reject and lowly enlisted veteran of a defeated army and nation, and a drug addict.  But people followed him because he understood their defeat and their desperation and he offered them false hope and intangible glorification.  Samson isn't much different, in my opinion, only his obvious anger with the Chantry allowed him to serve as general for someone that a more clear-headed and stable templar, someone with something left to lose, wouldn't have served.

 

That's my take on it, anyway.

True, events and world building increase based on each previous game. And I'm all for returning characters, I'm not against it. I just see a difference in a book trilogy with much the same cast, for example, and a video game series with separate protagonist and companions, locations and time periods. I didn't mind Samson, he was interesting in DA2 and if I ignore what to me seems like logic handwaving, can appreciate his presence in DAI. I don't think he was fleshed out enough in DAI, though, and his reasoning for working with Corypheus was lackluster.

 

For me, if I had not played DA2 I would have found Samson to be a very weak character; so much of his characterization in DAI relies on our knowledge of him from DA2. And that's not good characterization, if the player is required to know the character from the previous game in order to understand them in the current game.

[QueenCrow]

True, events and world building increase based on each previous game. And I'm all for returning characters, I'm not against it. I just see a difference in a book trilogy with much the same cast, for example, and a video game series with separate protagonist and companions, locations and time periods. I didn't mind Samson, he was interesting in DA2 and if I ignore what to me seems like logic handwaving, can appreciate his presence in DAI. I don't think he was fleshed out enough in DAI, though, and his reasoning for working with Corypheus was lackluster.

 

For me, if I had not played DA2 I would have found Samson to be a very weak character; so much of his characterization in DAI relies on our knowledge of him from DA2. And that's not good characterization, if the player is required to know the character from the previous game in order to understand them in the current game.

Well, that's a fair point.  Though I think you and I are looking at the Dragon Age World a little differently, I can see the reason in your point and your opinion.

 

And I can understand your view of weak characterization too, though I'm looking at Thedas as I looked at Middle Earth.  I thought Bilbo in Lord of the Rings was an extremely compelling character, even though he wasn't continued as one of the main characters in the LotR trio, but perhaps I only felt that way because I'd read The Hobbit and knew his history with the one ring.

 

It's probably the same with Samson.  I know his history and feel some understanding with his position.  Perhaps I'll feel that way about Calpernia in the next game.