993 réponses à ce sujet

[Silcron]

My point seems to be over your head? 
 
Simply put just because player A kills Leliana is no guarantee player B does so,she's not a ghost nor spirit nor anything else player A can dream up because he/she killed her in their games. Same applies for Loghain and the DR.

...Ok, I'll state the obvious.

To player A she IS dead, or at least should be but the writers just ignored that possibility. Is it really that hard to understand? In Origins they created a possible situation in which the player would kill Leliana, then decided to ignore it making her a compulsory npc in Inquisition. Just because it wasn't a compulsory choice doesn't mean that people should not be pissed that their decision is being ignored.

What if it wasn't Leliana? What if in DA4 they decide Bethany Hawke needs to be an integral part of the story and you know, she just survived even if your Hawke was a mage. Or what if they went even further and brought back the Warden, and screw everyone who chose to sacrifice themselves.

It's not that he doesn't get your point, it's just that it doesn't make any sense.

[Xilizhra]

Peace (and accomplishments) have to actually endure for some time to be judged as successful. Unhardened Leliana's slides are caveated in such short-term points that claiming they succeeded without issue is like claiming to have vanquished Winter in mid-spring.

 

Given that both realism, versimilitude, and the meta are setting up the Chantry for all three divines to be shakey and under enough stress and dissent to keep the Divine and Chantry safely on the side-lines for the next Dragon Age game or three, claiming success on all fronts is rather premature.

 

About the only things we can be comfortably certain of in the next games is that (a) there will be an institution called the Chantry and ( it will be led by the selected divine. Schisms and effectiveness and popular support and the success of the Colleges are all up in the air.

This is true, but by extension, I also don't think that the Andrastian Chantry will be covered in any substantial way at all in the fourth game, and that the writers won't bother meddling with the ending slides.

 

 

Not really. It wasn't even a giant war, really- it was a breakdown of the international order.

 

Aside from localized demon rampages near tears, the only major war was a civil war that was static and had been for some time before the Breach, and the dwindling brush-war of the mage rebellion that was contained to the Ferelden frontier and even then the mages were effectively neutralized as a field force.

 

But as far as major culture-shaping conflicts that remake society? No, Inquisition wasn't nearly enough. The social institutions were changed- the Circle system changes to a Circle-College system- but the societies that underly them remain intact. The Mage Rebellion was not the Mage Civil Right's movement to dramatically change popular perception at every level. The Orlesian civil war was not a cultural reformation or revolution. The elites changed far, far, far more than the people.

So, assuming for the sake of argument that the Chantry does not collapse or whatnot later on, either Thedosian culture is different depending on the ending slides, or it was ripe for Leliana's reforms through all of canon. I do wish the ending slides were less vague, though, so we could know exactly what happened.

I kind of suspect that the common people, though, wouldn't care all that much as long as it doesn't disrupt their daily lives, and as long as mages aren't burning down villages regularly--something that hasn't happened in two years, at least--it won't be too much of an issue.

[Dean_the_Young]

This is true, but by extension, I also don't think that the Andrastian Chantry will be covered in any substantial way at all in the fourth game, and that the writers won't bother meddling with the ending slides.

 

Because they've shown such consistent devotion to the ending slides of their other games, especially the more ambiguous and open-ended ones. Right.

 

 

 

So, assuming for the sake of argument that the Chantry does not collapse or whatnot later on, either Thedosian culture is different depending on the ending slides, or it was ripe for Leliana's reforms through all of canon. I do wish the ending slides were less vague, though, so we could know exactly what happened.

 

 

There's the third option as well- that Thedosian culture is diverse and not uniform, and that Leliana will bring up the contrasts rather than maintain unity and her changes will be met with counter-changes.

 

The Chantry doesn't need to collapse to be diminished or rendered irrelevant. It's already turning over a great deal of power to the not-faith-driven kingdoms in giving up control of Mage Security to the locals. Think the Catholic church- it exists, but if Inquisition was the reformation... think on that a bit.

 

 

I kind of suspect that the common people, though, wouldn't care all that much as long as it doesn't disrupt their daily lives, and as long as mages aren't burning down villages regularly--something that hasn't happened in two years, at least--it won't be too much of an issue.

 

This is a top-down view of societies- that societies are driven by the policies of the elite, rather than the viewpoints of the masses. It's a viewpoint that marginalizes or ignores the role of the cultural values- but in this case misses what the impact of 'not caring who rules has'. If the changing of the elites doesn't change popular opinion, popular opinion will continue on unless disrupted.

 

If the masses are significantly anti-mage before Lelliana, then Divine Lelliana alone won't change that viewpoint. Mages don't need to be burning down villages regularly- they just need to do so occasionally, which already happens with some regularity, and the issue remains.

[Xilizhra]

Because they've shown such consistent devotion to the ending slides of their other games, especially the more ambiguous and open-ended ones. Right.

I should point out that the reason DAO's ending slides weren't considered canon is because they were written without the expectation of a sequel. Additionally, given that we'll be shifting regions for the fourth game, it would take actual effort for Bioware to contradict Inquisition's ending slides, and I don't see what it would gain them.

 

 

There's the third option as well- that Thedosian culture is diverse and not uniform, and that Leliana will bring up the contrasts rather than maintain unity and her changes will be met with counter-changes.

 

The Chantry doesn't need to collapse to be diminished or rendered irrelevant. It's already turning over a great deal of power to the not-faith-driven kingdoms in giving up control of Mage Security to the locals. Think the Catholic church- it exists, but if Inquisition was the reformation... think on that a bit.

That's an option, but is Bioware sufficiently concerned with worldbuilding outside the main game, in continuities that may not even exist for a given player, to implement it? It feels like this will be akin to Andromeda, where the new setting gives the writers an excuse to not have to deal with knotty canon problems outside the broadest strokes possible.

 

 

This is a top-down view of societies- that societies are driven by the policies of the elite, rather than the viewpoints of the masses. It's a viewpoint that marginalizes or ignores the role of the cultural values- but in this case misses what the impact of 'not caring who rules has'. If the changing of the elites doesn't change popular opinion, popular opinion will continue on unless disrupted.

 

If the masses are significantly anti-mage before Lelliana, then Divine Lelliana alone won't change that viewpoint. Mages don't need to be burning down villages regularly- they just need to do so occasionally, which already happens with some regularity, and the issue remains.

They're evidently not sufficiently anti-mage to cause major problems for Leliana or the College in two years.

[thesuperdarkone2]

They're evidently not sufficiently anti-mage to cause major problems for Leliana or the College in two years.

Not to mention that people think the inquisitor speaks for the maker and thus if they are pro Mage, people think the maker is pro Mage. Vivienne pretty much tells you as much in her divine choice conversation

[Boost32]

The funny thing about the College is, if they think the power balance between it and the Circle is more or less equal, they attack the Circle, are almost destroyed and only survive because Vivienne soares them.
Good example to set for the future mage generations.

[Dean_the_Young]

I should point out that the reason DAO's ending slides weren't considered canon is because they were written without the expectation of a sequel. Additionally, given that we'll be shifting regions for the fourth game, it would take actual effort for Bioware to contradict Inquisition's ending slides, and I don't see what it would gain them.

 

Bioware's freely disregarded or subverted foreshadowing expectations even when they were expecting a sequel.

 

 

 

 

That's an option, but is Bioware sufficiently concerned with worldbuilding outside the main game, in continuities that may not even exist for a given player, to implement it? It feels like this will be akin to Andromeda, where the new setting gives the writers an excuse to not have to deal with knotty canon problems outside the broadest strokes possible.

 

 

Outside of what games? The fragmentation of the Chantry and the devolution of its power are two of the unifying themes and commonalities of all the endings. Even Nice Lelliana's appeals, short-term as they are, are papering over well-established divisions.

 

 

They're evidently not sufficiently anti-mage to cause major problems for Leliana or the College in two years.

 

Try not to trip over your shoelaces while you're setting the bar so low, Xil.

[Xilizhra]

Outside of what games? The fragmentation of the Chantry and the devolution of its power are two of the unifying themes and commonalities of all the endings. Even Nice Lelliana's appeals, short-term as they are, are papering over well-established divisions.

Let me put it like this: what would Bioware gain by making any given Divine worse than the other two?

 

 

Try not to trip over your shoelaces while you're setting the bar so low, Xil.

Joke's on you, I stopped wearing shoes with laces years ago.

[sniper_arrow]

Let me put it like this: what would Bioware gain by making any given Divine worse than the other two?

 

A possible better storyline perspective? 

[sniper_arrow]

The funny thing about the College is, if they think the power balance between it and the Circle is more or less equal, they attack the Circle, are almost destroyed and only survive because Vivienne soares them.
Good example to set for the future mage generations.

 

Not to mention that the Circle has nobility support, thanks to Vivienne.

[thesuperdarkone2]

A possible better storyline perspective? 

Bhelen vs Harrowmont.

 

Tell me Bioware doesn't favor certain choices

[sniper_arrow]

Bhelen vs Harrowmont.

 

Tell me Bioware doesn't favor certain choices

 

Another example would be mages vs templars.

 

Yeah, Bioware favor certain choices.

[Dean_the_Young]

Let me put it like this: what would Bioware gain by making any given Divine worse than the other two?

 

All the Divines suffer potential schisms and political detractors- Vivienne puts down open revolts, and Cassandra is attacked from both sides for both going too far and not far enough. Leliana the Peacenik doesn't become worse than the others if short-term idealistic success fails to unify after the short term- it just puts her on par with the others.

 

 

Joke's on you, I stopped wearing shoes with laces years ago.

 

 

Try not to trip on the velcro, then.

[Steelcan]

Bhelen vs Harrowmont.

 

Tell me Bioware doesn't favor certain choices

yeah that one has been really important to the plot, critical even

[Xilizhra]

All the Divines suffer potential schisms and political detractors- Vivienne puts down open revolts, and Cassandra is attacked from both sides for both going too far and not far enough. Leliana the Peacenik doesn't become worse than the others if short-term idealistic success fails to unify after the short term- it just puts her on par with the others.

I didn't say she would be. But what I expect is for none of the Divine possibilities to get more than a passing mention, with their real names only being mentioned in codex entries.

 

 

Try not to trip on the velcro, then.

None of that, either.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Fiona was manipulated by time magic, something no one thought was possible. Even Egghead didn't think it was actually possible to time travel. Which means the enslavement of mages by Tevinter is not her fault because the Fiona we meet in Val Royeaux is not the same Fiona we meet in Redcliffe. How do I know this ? Well in the Dark Future, we meet Leliana and Fiona again yet they are not the same people because it is a different timeline.

[Steelcan]

Fiona was manipulated by time magic, something no one thought was possible. Even Egghead didn't think it was actually possible to time travel. Which means the enslavement of mages by Tevinter is not her fault because the Fiona we meet in Val Royeaux is not the same Fiona we meet in Redcliffe. How do I know this ? Well in the Dark Future, we meet Leliana and Fiona again yet they are not the same people because it is a different timeline.

.......wut

 

time magic didn't mean Fiona couldn't negotiate anymore, all it did was provide Alexius with a better time frame to approach the mages, that she accepted the deal is not due to time travel influence on her mind

[Dean_the_Young]

I didn't say she would be. But what I expect is for none of the Divine possibilities to get more than a passing mention, with their real names only being mentioned in codex entries.

 

What does this have to do with Divine Leliana somehow getting worse results than the rest?

 

You're changing goalposts again. Kindly refrain from that, unless you intend to bore me.

 

 

 

None of that, either.

 

 

Meh.

[Dean_the_Young]

Fiona was manipulated by time magic, something no one thought was possible. Even Egghead didn't think it was actually possible to time travel. Which means the enslavement of mages by Tevinter is not her fault because the Fiona we meet in Val Royeaux is not the same Fiona we meet in Redcliffe. How do I know this ? Well in the Dark Future, we meet Leliana and Fiona again yet they are not the same people because it is a different timeline.

 

That's... the opposite of the point of time travel. The people of different timelines aren't different people because they do things the 'real' person would never do- they're the same person who makes different decisions because of different contexts. The difference is in the divergence, not the decider.

 

The Fiona who ends up red lyrium fodder is the same Fiona who sold her people to Tevinter is the same Fiona who would join the Venatori to attack the Inquistion is the same Fiona who would approach the Inquisition to strike an alliance is the same Fiona who would say '**** the Divine.' They're just different outcomes of having been posed different opportunities at different points. The person making those choices is still Fiona.

[In Exile]

That's... the opposite of the point of time travel. The people of different timelines aren't different people because they do things the 'real' person would never do- they're the same person who makes different decisions because of different contexts. The difference is in the divergence, not the decider.

 

The Fiona who ends up red lyrium fodder is the same Fiona who sold her people to Tevinter is the same Fiona who would join the Venatori to attack the Inquistion is the same Fiona who would approach the Inquisition to strike an alliance is the same Fiona who would say '**** the Divine.' They're just different outcomes of having been posed different opportunities at different points. The person making those choices is still Fiona.

 

I don't think that's a complete description, because we do react differently based on situations. Sure, the Fiona who joins the Venatori to attack the Inquisition is the "same" Fiona as the one who becomes red lyrium fodder, but these two Fionas face very different circumstances, which quite clearly impact their choices and their decisions. 

[Bayonet Hipshot]

That's... the opposite of the point of time travel. The people of different timelines aren't different people because they do things the 'real' person would never do- they're the same person who makes different decisions because of different contexts. The difference is in the divergence, not the decider.

 

The Fiona who ends up red lyrium fodder is the same Fiona who sold her people to Tevinter is the same Fiona who would join the Venatori to attack the Inquistion is the same Fiona who would approach the Inquisition to strike an alliance is the same Fiona who would say '**** the Divine.' They're just different outcomes of having been posed different opportunities at different points. The person making those choices is still Fiona.

 

The Fiona that ends up as Red Lyrium, the Fiona that joins the Venatori and the Fiona we meet in Val Royeaux are different people. Genetically similar but different in every other way. Its like the the Star Trek reboot and the Flash.

 

We have 2 Spock in the Abrams Star Trek reboot and they might be genetically identical, they are different people with different life experiences. Yes the Spocks are from different universe but alternate timeline is a lot like that too. The easiest example is the Flash. The Pied Piper in season 1 is not the Pied Piper in season 2 because Flash messed with the timeline. Same people genetically different in every other way.

 

This is true of the other characters as well. Leliana we meet in the Dark Future is not the Leliana we know in the Inquisition. The Cassandra we meet in the Dark Future is not the Cassandra we know in the Inquisition. Alternate timelines cause genetically similar people to have very divergent experiences that essentially make them different people or to use Cisco's term (who is a character from the Flash) - A Doppleganger.

 

The only reason we did not see an alternate Dorian or an alternate Inquisitor in the Dark Future is because both of them were presumed dead. By dead I mean they time traveled.

[Dean_the_Young]

I don't think that's a complete description, because we do react differently based on situations. Sure, the Fiona who joins the Venatori to attack the Inquisition is the "same" Fiona as the one who becomes red lyrium fodder, but these two Fionas face very different circumstances, which quite clearly impact their choices and their decisions. 

 

That's what I said. The difference is in the context presented, not the person making it.

 

It still leaves the person responsible for the choice at that particular context the person making the choice, however. It's still Fiona who's making the choice, not the context making it for her.

 

If you absolve people of responsibility because of context- 'it's not Fiona's fault'- you're really denying them responsibility of anything, because you're effectively claiming it's impossible for them to take responsibility. It's all context's fault. At which, moral worth and blame is meaningless, because it's all deterministic.

 

I believe in free will,  so I consider that bunk. Alexius's time travel doesn't make Fiona not responsible for selling her people into slavery just because she would have done something different had he not been there. There's plenty of blame to give some to Alexius as well, but nothing about tricking Fiona actually compelled her to be tricked, or to make the choice she did.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Fiona that ends up as Red Lyrium, the Fiona that joins the Venatori and the Fiona we meet in Val Royeaux are different people. Genetically similar but different in every other way. Its like the the Star Trek reboot and the Flash.

 

We have 2 Spock in the Abrams Star Trek reboot and they might be genetically identical, they are different people with different life experiences. Yes the Spocks are from different universe but alternate timeline is a lot like that too. The easiest example is the Flash. The Pied Piper in season 1 is not the Pied Piper in season 2 because Flash messed with the timeline. Same people genetically different in every other way.

 

This is true of the other characters as well. Leliana we meet in the Dark Future is not the Leliana we know in the Inquisition. The Cassandra we meet in the Dark Future is not the Cassandra we know in the Inquisition. Alternate timelines cause genetically similar people to have very divergent experiences that essentially make them different people or to use Cisco's term (who is a character from the Flash) - A Doppleganger.

 

The only reason we did not see an alternate Dorian or an alternate Inquisitor in the Dark Future is because both of them were presumed dead. By dead I mean they time traveled.

 

The Fiona's you list are different outputs, but of the same input- the same person faced with the choice. That person- 'Fiona'- can be judged for the decisions she'd make for the outputs so long as it's her who's making them.

 

Character is measured as much by opportunity as actual action. If you never have the opportunity to fail, being right means little. With time travel providing the multiple outputs of the same person when posed with different outputs, we can judge Fiona when she does have the opportunity to fail- in when given the opportunity to sell her people into slavery in a shady offer for security, she jumps on it even though she had the ability- again, known from time travel- to go to the Inquistion instead.

[Steelcan]

The Fiona that ends up as Red Lyrium, the Fiona that joins the Venatori and the Fiona we meet in Val Royeaux are different people. Genetically similar but different in every other way. Its like the the Star Trek reboot and the Flash.

 

We have 2 Spock in the Abrams Star Trek reboot and they might be genetically identical, they are different people with different life experiences. Yes the Spocks are from different universe but alternate timeline is a lot like that too. The easiest example is the Flash. The Pied Piper in season 1 is not the Pied Piper in season 2 because Flash messed with the timeline. Same people genetically different in every other way.

 

This is true of the other characters as well. Leliana we meet in the Dark Future is not the Leliana we know in the Inquisition. The Cassandra we meet in the Dark Future is not the Cassandra we know in the Inquisition. Alternate timelines cause genetically similar people to have very divergent experiences that essentially make them different people or to use Cisco's term (who is a character from the Flash) - A Doppleganger.

 

The only reason we did not see an alternate Dorian or an alternate Inquisitor in the Dark Future is because both of them were presumed dead. By dead I mean they time traveled.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

The Fiona's you list are different outputs, but of the same input- the same person faced with the choice. That person- 'Fiona'- can be judged for the decisions she'd make for the outputs so long as it's her who's making them.

 

Character is measured as much by opportunity as actual action. If you never have the opportunity to fail, being right means little. With time travel providing the multiple outputs of the same person when posed with different outputs, we can judge Fiona when she does have the opportunity to fail- in when given the opportunity to sell her people into slavery in a shady offer for security, she jumps on it even though she had the ability- again, known from time travel- to go to the Inquistion instead.

 

You do realize that because of the alteration to the timeline, those choices come was done in a different environment ? Actually, she didn't have the option of going to the Inquisition in the alternate timeline. In the alternate timeline, Alexius manipulated the situation so that he reaches Fiona first, immediately after the explosion, to offer aid, with templars hot on the rebel mages' heels. Fyi, Inquisition has not been formed yet because it took a few days for Inquisitor to wake up, to close the Breach, to wake up again, and for Cassandra to start the Inquisition.

 

In the timeline where Fiona meets us in Val Royeaux, Alexius never approached her and the Templars were either not hot on the heels of the rebel mages or the rebel mages had managed to securely escape. Its how Fiona could come to Val Royeaux in the first place while leaving the rebel mages in Redcliffe in the original timeline.