34 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkAmaranth1966]

There are definitely three sets of faith related line scattered here and there, definite Atheist, Definite Andrastian, Agnostic/other god(s)/undecided. Exatly when a set will lock in depends on how you respond to earlier opportunities to comment based on faith or lack thereof.

[frogkisser]

 

So I asked Patrick about it on Twitter (since he wrote the quest) and he was kind enough to respond.

 

Patrick Weekes ‏@PatrickWeekes 14m14 minutes ago

Okay, IF I remember right, "Maker shut up" is only available if you HAVE NOT specifically said you're an atheist.
Patrick Weekes ‏@PatrickWeekes 13m13 minutes ago

 Some lines are "Only if you have said you believe," some lines are "Only if you HAVE NOT said you don't," if that makes sense.

 

Which seems to cover my characters and most of yours, except for the one who was faithful. But perhaps there was one specific dialogue choice you took with that character that flagged you there, even though your character got the faithful status later on? I imagine tracking those kinds of things gets complicated, especially because you can change your mind as you go. So maybe one atheistic answer was enough to knock that option off for your character, while later religious ones were enough to flag the faithful status?

 

 

 

That's so awesome that you got a reply Feels good to narrow this down - at least it's less likely there's any hidden meter thing going on. Should we maybe edit the relevant wiki pages for anyone wondering about it in the future?

 

I'm not sure what's up with my faithful character though. She's clearly faithful later on, but from what I recall, I had chosen the 'Fanatical belief is to blame" option. Maybe this flags me as an atheist and the faithful status later is a bug? Or maybe you can be....both?

 

Oh well. I'm starting a different character to see this through, but so good to know we've narrowed this down. Thanks so much for your help!

[Havyn25]

I was just in the Crossroads with Morrigan yesterday, and this was the first time I'd played as  Rift Mage, and I got the conversation about the Crossroads being old and decaying. Never got that before either as a Necromancer or as Knight-Enchanter, so I think that one is tied to your specialisation.

 

When I've played human, it's mostly as a faitful inquisitor so I'm not sure if I've missed or not missed some conversations because of that one. I know I got some different conversation choices as a Dalish.

[veeia]

That's so awesome that you got a reply Feels good to narrow this down - at least it's less likely there's any hidden meter thing going on. Should we maybe edit the relevant wiki pages for anyone wondering about it in the future?

 

I'm not sure what's up with my faithful character though. She's clearly faithful later on, but from what I recall, I had chosen the 'Fanatical belief is to blame" option. Maybe this flags me as an atheist and the faithful status later is a bug? Or maybe you can be....both?

 

Oh well. I'm starting a different character to see this through, but so good to know we've narrowed this down. Thanks so much for your help!

 

I'm not sure exactly sure how the conditions are set, but I think it's possible for it to be coded so that in that particular instance, your character is effectively seen as both. Seems to me like your Inquisitor's faithfulness is a variable dependent on a lot of different choices and thus is a reactive/adaptable setting, so simply choosing one option that is regarded as agnostic/atheistic wouldn't preclude you from getting that status. But if the conditions for this particular dialogue option are "check to see if the inquisitor has ever expressed atheistic viewpoints" instead of "are they currently faithful", then you might not fulfill that.

 

Personally, it doesn't make much sense to me to set that kind of condition for that dialogue. You don't have to be Christian to say "Jesus Christ, shut up!" lmao. In that context it's less of a faith based proclamation and more of a cultural thing. Plus if it is coded the way I suspect here, it does lead to confusing situations like your faithful character. I imagine that's a very easy thing to have slip through though, so I can see why it wouldn't be something they'd notice happening for cases like yours. It's not the most elegant way of determining things, but it probably functions just fine most of the time, and isn't that noticeable if it's not optimized. And as mentioned before, they probably did it because they wanted to present special options for people who expressed faith and not have jarring options for an atheistic Inquisitor.

 

It couldn't hurt to update the wiki! That way if people wonder about it later, the info is there. Go for it!   I wasn't even aware of it at all, so thanks for bringing it to my attention! And no problem, it was fun to try to puzzle out. Hopefully this is enough info to be able to predict what will happen with any given character.

[frogkisser]

I'm not sure exactly sure how the conditions are set, but I think it's possible for it to be coded so that in that particular instance, your character is effectively seen as both. Seems to me like your Inquisitor's faithfulness is a variable dependent on a lot of different choices and thus is a reactive/adaptable setting, so simply choosing one option that is regarded as agnostic/atheistic wouldn't preclude you from getting that status. But if the conditions for this particular dialogue option are "check to see if the inquisitor has ever expressed atheistic viewpoints" instead of "are they currently faithful", then you might not fulfill that.

 

 

It does seem pretty complex, doesn't it? I mean, the conversation with Cassandra establishes faith, atheist, or agnosticism, but I'm not even sure what all the dialogue options with Giselle suggest. To me it seems they're easily misconstrued - like the "Fanatical belief is to blame" line coming from a faithful character doesn't make it sound like they're suddenly agnostic, just that they're venting or something. Similarly, another answer, something about "I believed but it didn't help" can really seem as both someone reaffirming their faith, or losing it.

 

Argh. You're right, it is annoying that something so small (and tricky!) can have an affect on a line that's really just expressing emotion and is not really tied to faith at all. Like you mentioned, 'Jesus Christ' or 'oh my god' is pronounced by like, everyone, no matter the religion (or maybe very religious people use those less?) Point is, when in the game there's anything ranging from the rather innocent "Sweet Maker" to "Andraste's ass" and "Maker's balls" (I think I've heard that one? Or was it Maferath), then removing such a line that really just expresses anger (or an aggressive attitude) is kind of silly and illogical. 

 

Also seems that by having numerous variables affecting faith, it's pretty easy to get something to mess up, as I'm guessing it did in my case.... I truly wonder how many people have either always seen this line, or never seen it in the first place, and whether that's because they made a mistake (or got a bug, like me?) somewhere or just play similar characters or favorite responses. 

 

Well, either way, we probably could rule out any other hidden personality meters or something. The game is already complex enough without adding another counter to account for the Inquisitor's personality. To be honest, I actually liked being able to vary between responses and not be afraid that they would 'add up' somewhere in the background and change my personality for the next arc. 

[veeia]

Blackwall says "Makers balls" when you enter the Well of Sorrows with him. Ever the eloquent one, Blackwall.

 

Yeah, I agree, I like it without the personality system. I mean, Hawke was fun but too defined for me, I like the system in Inquisition better. What I hope they iterate on and broaden is how they handled characters remembering certain dialogue options you took and referencing them later. That allows you to define your character by having people react to the way they conduct themselves, not by gating off options based on what you've replied. External, not internal, so it doesn't define you character's motivations for you. It would be interesting to see if they could push that further, like if your character says they believe one thing, then does an action that contradicts it, perhaps the companion you stated that to might ask you about it.

 

For example, with Solas, the only way to really talk to him past Haven is to agree with him or treat him as an unquestioned authority, not really debate him, so most topics are dropped after you agree or disagree. It functions well enough, but could be even more interesting if there was something like....hrm, let's say you choose to tell Solas that spirits are not like people at all and that he was flat out wrong, but after the instance in the Fade, if you chose dialogue options indicating that you didn't think it mattered whether or not Justinia was a spirit (or that it was her), he brought it up to you to see if your beliefs had changed at all?

[frogkisser]

Blackwall says "Makers balls" when you enter the Well of Sorrows with him. Ever the eloquent one, Blackwall.

 

Yeah, I agree, I like it without the personality system. I mean, Hawke was fun but too defined for me, I like the system in Inquisition better. What I hope they iterate on and broaden is how they handled characters remembering certain dialogue options you took and referencing them later. That allows you to define your character by having people react to the way they conduct themselves, not by gating off options based on what you've replied. External, not internal, so it doesn't define you character's motivations for you. It would be interesting to see if they could push that further, like if your character says they believe one thing, then does an action that contradicts it, perhaps the companion you stated that to might ask you about it.

 

For example, with Solas, the only way to really talk to him past Haven is to agree with him or treat him as an unquestioned authority, not really debate him, so most topics are dropped after you agree or disagree. It functions well enough, but could be even more interesting if there was something like....hrm, let's say you choose to tell Solas that spirits are not like people at all and that he was flat out wrong, but after the instance in the Fade, if you chose dialogue options indicating that you didn't think it mattered whether or not Justinia was a spirit (or that it was her), he brought it up to you to see if your beliefs had changed at all?

 

A character calling you out on your bullshit? That would be awesome, since that suggests there's a real way to play as a hypocrite or a not-so-nice character. I mean, just compared to previous protagonists, the Inquisitor really is a pretty nice person in a lot of responses - like for the faith, it'd be interesting if you could tell everyone you are faithful, then like, commit sacrilege 

 

Surprisingly, I don't mind the thing with Solas that much - I mean, yes, I'd like him to call me out on something, but I understand that its his personality to, well, be superior and like being looked up to, at least where it concerns his knowledge of the Fade. I've never not befriended him, but as I understand, you can punch him, too, so I guess it can swing both ways. But yes, more opportunity to change your opinions would be kind of nice. I suppose we do get a lot of approval and stuff based on how we resolve quests (what you do, not what you say, etc.) but having quest affect the protagonists personality, and not just approval changes, would be amazing. 

 

As for the original topic, I've just looked at the results of the Giselle conversation from the wiki, and never been more confused as to where I might have gone wrong with the character that didn't get the convo. From the reply you got from Patrick, it definitely seems I should (anyone who hasn't adamantly proclaimed themselves atheist should?). Looking at it, I don't think I've ever played an atheist character at *all*, so I'm just about ready to attribute my problem as a isolated bug. This wiki text actually makes it seem like only the conversation with Cassandra matters in determining whether you're faithful or not...which sounds a bit weird, too, since some of the responses are clearly like "I've lost faith~".

 

I never expected this to be so frustrating. I'll be trying this playthrough with a faithful (at least initially) noble, and will have to see how that turns out come the Fade. 

[veeia]

Huh, that is confusing. I don't know what happened either. It definitely could be a bug, but since we don't have a firm answer on how belief/non-belief is established, who knows. It's possible that there is some weird thing messing it up too that we wouldn't be able to figure out.  I remember back after the game came out, we discovered that Blackwall has additional dialogue about his past after Revelations that's only available for certain people. We tested it in a lot of different ways and collected a lot of data from people and still couldn't pinpoint what triggered it and thought it must be a bug or something subtle until I asked Sheryl on twitter. She looked at it and realized that she'd accidentally made that part of a Investigative chain that could be exhausted early on in the game and would disappear if it was used up  because it would read that chain as complete since those options weren't available until later. So if you'd asked Blackwall all the questions about his past and that had disappeared, you wouldn't get it. If you'd left one open, you would.

 

I would love it if you could get called out by your companions! It seems like a good way to deal with the player agency vs character agency problem, where you want your character to be able to make the decisions that are best for them while having your companions not blindly follow it. Some of my favorite moments in the series come off of that: Alistair leaving if you spare Loghain, or Lavellan's relationship with Sera falling apart over faith. But those are both extreme breaking point situations, it'd be cool to have more with less finality to them.

 

I don't mind it with Solas either. I mean there are times when I think you should have the option to challenge him more, but I do think it overall makes sense. I was just trying to think of a character besides Cassandra with faith where you could have opportunities to dialogue about something thematically important to the game that you've disagreed on based on your actions. It would be a particularly interesting dialogue for a believer Quizzie to have, because if the way you see the world is slowly paralleling with his, how much do you want to acknowledge that it could be a difference in terminology, and not how the world actually functions? You could just shut him down, but you could also use it as a springing board towards slowing gaining an understanding of what he represents. The ability to do stuff like this could allow for a more natural evolution of the relationship between the two characters.

 

If you don't want to try his low disapproval path, I would suggest to watch the dialogue on YT! It's very interesting. I think it brings out his flaws a lot more.  Probably my favorite PT with Solas was when I had a female Lavellan who angered him so much that she got that low disapproval scene and punched him, then slowly gained enough approval to romance him. I wanted to be able to have meaningful conflict with him while still ending up with him, and that's the only way I could think to do it. So later when Solas talks about her being special and making him question how people in this age are,  it felt like he was saying it less because she reinforced everything he said, but because their complex relationship had forced both of them to examine their assumptions. I had to metagame that though, and it wasn't supported through explicit dialogue but through the evolution of the arc that I created. I think a dialogue system that pushed that "reactive" system of companions remembering and continuing to engage based on previous options could create those kind of arcs organically, which would be fun.

[frogkisser]

 

 

If you don't want to try his low disapproval path, I would suggest to watch the dialogue on YT! It's very interesting. I think it brings out his flaws a lot more.  Probably my favorite PT with Solas was when I had a female Lavellan who angered him so much that she got that low disapproval scene and punched him, then slowly gained enough approval to romance him. I wanted to be able to have meaningful conflict with him while still ending up with him, and that's the only way I could think to do it. So later when Solas talks about her being special and making him question how people in this age are,  it felt like he was saying it less because she reinforced everything he said, but because their complex relationship had forced both of them to examine their assumptions. I had to metagame that though, and it wasn't supported through explicit dialogue but through the evolution of the arc that I created. I think a dialogue system that pushed that "reactive" system of companions remembering and continuing to engage based on previous options could create those kind of arcs organically, which would be fun.

 

 

Oooh, that does seem fun. I actually did metagame with him later on (sob if only his romance has more scenes) and got the multiple romance mod from nexus and romanced him as a human. It did take a bunch of metagaming, but damn, I loved it. Here was this human girl getting the Dread Wolf to fall in love with her and see that his views of the world were pretty darn wrong. Not an elf, a human, the race he didn't even consider people.  Really does go against his personality, probably, I acknowledge that, but still was good fun. Had to ignore all the dalish-specific lines, but at least being utterly clueless about the elven gods and language in the Temple of Mythal makes sense now 

 

As for player and character agency... I just remembered that some of the main points where your character is called out on hypocrisy or whatnot is when you do the hardening quests for Leliana and Alistair. I really hated that both took away character agency there (too much influence on them there, IMO) but I liked how they were all "Are you sure?? You want me to be a bit tougher now??". A similar example is probably with Cullen's lyrium arc, and especially the romance, where he'll break up with you if you encourage him to keep taking the lyrium. Or, ultimately, Bull's actions in Trespasser.

 

Anyways. Yes, being called out on backtracking or changing opinions would be nice, though it suppose it might be hard for it to make sense. A lot of dialogue is devoted to help the *player* understand the world, not just to develop the character. Then again, like with a Lavellan in the Temple of Mythal, this is taken to an extreme sometimes and kind of makes your character seem like a dolt. I recall reading somewhere recently that it would be a very simple change to *not* make your character seem so out of it - like instead of asking Morrigan "Who's Mythal??!?!?!" it could just be rephrased into "You know about Mythal?". 

 

Well. Veering off on a tangent here, but I guess it ultimately ties back into me wishing that the faith system had been a bit more flexible...and visible. 

[BigBrolly]

Just want to point out a couple dialogues I found....

If you are champion, you get a special dialogue with gaspard at the winter palace

If you are artificer, you get a special dialogue with Bianca in Varric's quest "Oh, ****"