"Was Anders Right?" or "Here There Be Dragon Age Spoilers"

[Seil]

Let's get this off the table - this thread is going to be full of spoilers for the Dragon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5St9phiHHE) Age (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlACgYHtWCI) series.

Now, if you'll remember, Dragon Age the First took place in Fereldan, where we get our first good look at the Circle of Mages. It's running rampant with abominations and demons because one mage fraternities (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Fraternities_of_Enchanters) violently rebelled against Templar rule. Why?

Well, the bias against mages is simple: they have a strong connection to the spirit world, called the Fade (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Fade). This is the place where demons and spirits reside. Because of this connection, mages are more susceptible to possession than anyone else, turning into abominations (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Abomination). While that's horrific, mages can also use blood magic (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Blood_magic). So the prejudice against mages makes sense - they have the potential to be dangerous, evil, possessed monstrosities. That's why Templars (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Templar_Order) monitor them, that's why they're sent to a big tower (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Circle_Tower) upon realization of their powers. They're dangerous. They've even got a ritual to turn them into mindless servants - the rite of Tranquility. (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Tranquil) ...But then again, they're people. Mages are men and women. They're sent away from their families as children and forfeit any royal or noble titles or tithes when they leave for the Circle.

When Uldred attacks the circle in DA:O, he tried to incite a rebellion. One of his blood mage subordinates makes a good point:

"You don't really believe that do you, Wynne? Change rarely comes peacefully. Andraste waged war on the Imperium; she didn't write them a strongly worded letter. She reshaped civilization, freed the slaves, and gave us the Chantry. But people died for it... We thought... someone always has to take the first step... force a change, no matter the cost."

She makes a good argument. Think of the civil rights movement in the 1960's - protestors were sprayed with fire hoses, set on by attack dogs and beaten with clubs. Still they fought for their rights. For a life that... well, even today racism is still around. Would a strongly worded letter have done the trick? Probably not. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JuF9rvLGfQ) In the games, it seems that most Templars are willing to kill apostates (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Apostate) (mages outside of the Circle) just for the suspicion that they might be blood mages. Life's got to be rough when you're on the run from religious zealots - and life inside the Circle doesn't sound too great either:

Anders: No, it's not about Uldred. It's not about being beaten or raped by a Templar— that does happen, but I've been fortunate.

There was talks of the Tevinter Imperium (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Tevinter_Imperium), which is a country(?) ruled over by mages, where the stronger mages rule. It is the only place where slavery is legal. Blood magic and deals with demons are common place. In DAII, Fenris - an escaped slave who was tortured there - details their crimes and punctuates his sentences with a general hatred for all magisters. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izzmb5jSl3c)

WOi_Vxwv0Ig

I liked Anders. After hearing a lot about the Circle, and hearing about the Fraternities of the mages, I respected his point of view that mages should be free, and his repeated escape attempts. He could cite the Dalish (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Elves#Dalish_elves) Keepers (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Keeper) as proof that mages could exist outside the circle without turning to demons. I even liked Justice in Awakening because he was a cool character who got caught up in a bad situation and tried to make the best of it.

What I didn't like was Anders in DA:II, what with all the rants and the hatred and the whatsits. I put that down to good characterization. Anders had taken Justice, a spirit of the Fade, into himself, and changed into a mixture of both. Justice became angered at the prosecution of the mages, while Anders became imbued with a strong sense of activistic righteousness. When you first meet him and he finds his lover turned tranquil, I fought with him. But as the game went on, I thought his claims had no merit. (At least until Meredith literally went mad.) But here's the thing - I recently did a replay of the DA series, and I overheard this conversation in the Gallows (http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/gallows-dialogue):

2ScMfKfwODY

Ser Alrik (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Ser_Otto_Alrik) is a templar who has been secretly turning mages Tranquil because of both prejudice and lust. It's suggested (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTbtTtA7T2Q) he sleeps with the newly tranquil mages. I realized something about Anders' character. He was born a mage, and forced into the tower. He grew dissatisfied with life in the tower and the abuse of the Templars and escaped, his best chance at leaving entirely to join the Gray Wardens (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Grey_Wardens). Leaving the Gray Wardens after... fusing with Justice, his newly developed personality drove him to fight against his perceived Templar injustices. He fell in with a mage named Karl in the Kirkwall Circle, and Karl was made Tranquil for that involvement.

Okay, so rich characterization. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's get to the bit where Anders blows up the Chantry.

FC5TlGPGfQ8

Anders does exactly what he says. He starts a war between mages and... well, everyone else. In DA:O, the blood mage in the Circle tower defend the assault as a rebellion against Templar rule, which, as detailed, is kind of... rape-y and murderous. However, the Chantry (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Chantry) is a religious order, the largest in Thedas. It becomes well known that it was attacked and destroyed by a mage. This will incite not only Templars, but the whole of the world to rise up against them. This is not a solution. It's a means to an end.

Was Anders right in what he did?

[PyrosNine]

Well, a war between the Mages and the Chantry is something that is the only thing that could possibly bring about change, but the problem is that it might not actually make change for the BETTER.

In the past, and in the present, Humans outnumber Mages, and outnumbered and cornered mages tend to get nommed by Demons and quickly become a threat to both humans AND Mages.

And furthermore, the Mages themselves are mankind's big hitters in the fights against the Darkspawn.

The mages might become all wiped out and forced to live in seclusion, and the world will be crippled by the next time the mean beasties come out to play.

If Anders is proven right and the Mages win, then mankind is also very quickly going to move towards the same sort of society that lead to the creation of the DarkSpawn- if you have a ruling body of superpowered individuals, bad shit is going to go down no matter what you believe. And mages winning a war against anything is a snowball's chance in my oven.

The underlying idea of Dragon Age is that the world is brutal, and full of unpleasant truths. The unpleasant truth is that the world as it was in Dragon Age:O was a world at it's most stable- for better or for worse, and it's slowly but surely going downhill. The ratio of normals to mages/grey wardens is what prevented the rise of a ruling class of super demon mages, and the Chantry's crackdown on unregistered mages is also what keeps Human/Mage relations possible at this point: It's better to be tolerated rather than Exterminated. If you don't have something to keep them in check, there's nothing to stop the mages from deciding they don't have to obey any law.

It's a common fact in cynical works that the only thing that prevents one group's moral myopia is another group's moral myopia, and peace is merely the result of two groups being locked in a stalemate. Morality itself for us may not come from compassion or altruism, but from a hypocritical condemnation of the same things we would do in a heartbeat. The only thing keeping the Mages from abusing their power over people are the Chantry, who themselves are just as likely to abuse their power as well.

Ander's only driving goal is for a violent reprisal against the Chantry for what they've done, not create any sort of better standard of life for mages. He is guided by Vengeance, not Justice, and is no longer capable of caring about the ENDS of his actions, rather the MEANS. Even Anders will likely recognize that he has no endgame in his plans, but rather "Blow up Chantry, Enjoy their Deaths, ?" Anders will likely be defeated in a future installment by pointing out to him that his own actions have directly lead to the deaths of hundreds of mages just like himself, and will either snap or commit suicide.

[Kim]

Yes. Next question.

[Bells]

What makes the setting in Dragon Age (specially Origins) actually interesting to read about and explore is that you have all these colorful characters living in large grey areas.

There is no clear cut way of calling any larger group right or wrong if you start looking into specific and individual people in that group... i mean, you can totally disagree with them and define them as evil or bad or wrong, but i really can't recall a character that is "I'm eeeeeeeevil muahaha" , Like Morrigan in origins... she is a bitch, but at least i know why she is a bitch.

As for Anders, i haven't played enough DA2 to know, but the world of DAO supports that he would certainly feel justified for his actions.

[Seil]

If Anders is proven right and the Mages win, then mankind is also very quickly going to move towards the same sort of society that lead to the creation of the DarkSpawn- if you have a ruling body of superpowered individuals, bad shit is going to go down no matter what you believe. And mages winning a war against anything is a snowball's chance in my oven.

I like how in DA there's extremes. You can show Tevinter and say "This is what happens when mages rule." or you can show Kirkwall and say "This is what happens when the Templars go bat-crap crazy."

It's better to be tolerated rather than Exterminated. If you don't have something to keep them in check, there's nothing to stop the mages from deciding they don't have to obey any law.

That's actually.... a sad truth, come to think of it.

The only thing keeping the Mages from abusing their power over people are the Chantry, who themselves are just as likely to abuse their power as well.

Like I say above, sad truth, but also something totally unfair. At what point does a rebellion turn into a terrorist attack? ...I guess it depends on the perspective. History is written by the winners.

Ander's only driving goal is for a violent reprisal against the Chantry for what they've done, not create any sort of better standard of life for mages. He is guided by Vengeance, not Justice, and is no longer capable of caring about the ENDS of his actions, rather the MEANS. Even Anders will likely recognize that he has no endgame in his plans, but rather "Blow up Chantry, Enjoy their Deaths, ?"

Well, the lands of Thedas are ruled by a hierarchy of royals and nobles. The Chantry plays a big part in day-to-day life; many are devout. It has definite parallels to medieval England. So we can imagine that setting historically.

However, over the years, our sense of right and wrong has changed socially. We're more protective of life, more disturbed by slavery. Our royalty has turned into our government... and people rebel against their governments. Not to say that that people didn't do so years ago, but at the same time we've got Libya, Egypt and Somalia recently rebelling against a corrupt ruling class. Is what they did in those fights wrong? Maybe. Necessary? ...Maybe.

Then again, look at Cuba (http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u59/Poetisch/Fidel-Castro-9241487-1-402.jpg).

[PyrosNine]

Another way of seeing it is that yes, mages should rebel against the chantry for a better standard of living, but the rebellion should have happened at a better time and be started by someone OTHER than Anders, who is too compromised to effectively lead. Anders, despite all his words on blood mages not being walking time bombs of demonic possession has kind of... Well, y'know.

[Seil]

One could say he was forced to act because of the effect of Hawke's actions in Kirkwall. Without Hawke, there would be no lyrium idol to drive Meredith insane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa-PEmODAMg). Maybe it was less to do with the plight of mages in general and just that particular Kirkwall Circle.

Meredith's insanity was prompting overtly tortuous methods of constraint on the mage populous, while allowing her to overlook Templars breaking Chantry law by forcing Tranquility on mages for minor misdeeds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ScMfKfwODY). It's shown that Meredith was unforgiving even before she was affected by the idol - the character Samson (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Samson) was discharged from the Templar order by delivering love letters from one mage to another. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N9yD86p2o&t=1m36s)

It's also worth noting that the Chantry has a monopoly on the lyrium market above Orzammar, and knowing that it's an addictive substance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAhpUdKdNIw) that causes mental deterioration over time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACk7_tsXoic&t=5m41s), distributes it to their soldiers. That's another level of control there, both over all of Thedas and the Templars specifically. If you were the only place in the world with an addictive drug, and you had several able, armed persons relying on it, what could you do?

[Bells]

I think this begs the question of what comes next... after all, the next Dragon Age is called Inquisition. Think it will be more of the same? Or maybe a more pivotal to polarize one said as oppressor and the other as oppressed?

[Seil]

Only for the first third of the game. In the second third, we'll go have tea and cookies in Seheron with Sten. In the third third, we'll have a proper intro for Dragon Age 4: Gryphon Mounts.

[Seil]

Quick thought, Pyros; if not Anders, than who? Who should start the mage rebellion?

[Solid Snake]

It just occurred to me. The perfect way for my first DA2 playthrough to encapsulate my state of utter self-loathing.

I'm going to do my first playthrough as Mage class.
And I am going to side with the Chantry and the Templars.

EDIT: I wonder if Bioware like even considered that possibility when programming the game's choices.
I wonder if at one point a Chantry dude will comment to the effect of: "You do know we're going to put you in chains as soon as you help us win the war, right?"

[Krylo]

If you don't have something to keep them in check, there's nothing to stop the mages from deciding they don't have to obey any law.

I've never bought this as being anything other than Chantry propaganda. The gameplay in either game certainly doesn't support it. The lore doesn't support it. The spell load outs of mages that you get who aren't going full out kill everything battle mages CERTAINLY don't support it.

A single mage might be able to kill like 5-10 non-mage soldiers, sure. When protected by actual soldiers, or a good fortress, many more--but the same holds true of archers. The mage is just more efficient--but also much more limited in numbers.

And we never, ever, ever, hear about mages doing any huge world changing effects without murdering slaves for blood, or having access to huge quantities of lyrium. Or selling their souls to demons.

In short: Soldiers get swords. Mages have swords grafted onto their souls. If you're going to get all 'oh but the mages are so dangerous' you should be taking swords, bows, and crossbows away from everyone in Thedas, and locking up anyone who knows martial arts right next to them.

And on selling their souls to demons: Almost every single time we see this happen, it is when they are cornered by the chantry, by the templars. They fear for their lives. They're desperate. They think they're going to die, or WORSE, be turned tranquil, so they turn to the only thing they know of that MIGHT save them.

They take those Faustian deals not because they are evil, but because they are left no choice by the very people who seek to contain their 'threat'.

Uldred and his followers turned to the demons not because they wanted to rule Thedas, or slaughter the templars, or any such goal. They turned to the blood magic and the demons because they wanted freedom. They wanted freedom to love. They wanted freedom to go outside. They wanted freedom to see their families--to even HAVE families.

And for this, they turned to the only place they could gather the power necessary to throw off the templars--the templars who, to a man, are more powerful than the average mage with their lyrium addiction and their secret arts that draw on the power of the lyrium they drink.

Wynne did not become an abomination out of a need for power to control either. She became one as her life was ending, and was lifted up and protected by the spirit she took within herself.

The apostates, blood mages, and abominations we meet in DA2, as well, turned to the demons as they were being sold into slavery in an attempt to escape the chantry, or when cornered by templars knowing they'd be made tranquil for relatively minor offenses. And then their corruption spread from there, a combination of constant fear and paranoia with hatred of their oppressors and the whisperings of demons in their ears.

Every single abomination we see across the games can be blamed directly upon the chantry.

I don't particularly think Anders chose the right TARGET for his attack, as that the mother in charge of that chantry actually seemed a pretty alright lady, just much too slow to move.

However, the war he started needed to happen.

The Templars needed to be thrown off. Meredith had to die. And the chantry needs to lose its position of power over Thedas. Just like the Tevinter magisters did.

[Seil]

Emphasizing Krylo's WoT. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Yefu9VNrQ&t=9m7s)

Emphasizing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_7sbpz-dEM&t=6m10s)

Empha-wait. Shit. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al_LvrGtibE&t=5m43s)

[Krylo]

Empha-wait. Shit. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al_LvrGtibE&t=5m43s)

Nah, no shit.

Decimus is basically Uldred-lite. He attacks Hawke out of a mixture of paranoia that you're working for the Templars, and hatred of the templars. He turned to blood magic to escape, turned to the demons to escape, turned to raising the undead to find safety.

He was driven mad by the chantry. Whether he would have still done something horrible outside the tower or not we'll never know.

[Kim]

Also the actions of like one dude aren't justification to oppress an entire part of society.

[PyrosNine]

Quick thought, Pyros; if not Anders, than who? Who should start the mage rebellion?

Hawke, probably, if you run mage- presumably someone who has a mastery of magic and one of the few people to dip into the deeper waters of magic without getting corrupted by it- unless you played that way.

The ideal leader would be someone who was calm and balanced enough to lead while also someone capable of tapping into the greater magical powers without becoming an abomination, because such a person would need the greater powers to protect those on their side and defeat aggressors. Otherwise, a leader who did not have that level of control or power in a time of need might feel driven to dig deeper than they were capable of and...become the very opposite of what they mean to show what what mages are.

A problem with the idea of mages being helpless is that the mages we see getting victimized are by and large always the weaker ones, and the ones pressed into military service are usually weaker but more theoretically stable fare, not the prodigies and superhumanly magical, whom the Templars can't, and sometimes won't victimize. Furthermore, most mages are forced to follow Chantry approved magics, not explore certain likely more powerful roots. It's likely that aside from a certain swamp witch, we have yet to see the full strength of mages in force, such as the like that the Tevinter Imperium wielded. Anders himself is crazy strong in magic to warrant a full army, and most of the powerful mages you fight in game are too strong for anyone but your team of superpowered badasses. The Chantry's forces win most fights with mages by sheer numbers, and even then they need Lyrium and people like Hawke/Grey Wardens/Bounty Hunters to bring in the bigger fish. With a full on Templar/Mage war starting, we're likely going to see more mages strong enough to resist corruption and wield the stronger magics thanks to the freedom their war efforts have brought them, and even a recovery of lost arts. That's ignoring the fact that in the books 30 non blood-mages can completely empty a keep full of hundreds of Templars.

Probably DA3 will feature in a full on Mage/Templar war some epic spellcasting then, eh? eh? :dance:

I'm not saying that the mages don't deserve freedom or respite, especially if they are the ones unlucky to have powers they themselves have no interest in using or abusing, but what I am saying that this war will not end well for mages. The Chantry definitely has far too much power and spends far too much of that power on things unrelated to fending off the Darkspawn and hell even dealing with REAL mage threats and probably needs to get kicked down an entire ladder, but the whole war is definitely going to kick the entire world back an age. The Dragon Age games as a whole are less about the DarkSpawn and more about an era of stability crumbling to pieces, and it started crumbling long before DA1.

By the time of the war starting, The Templars no longer answer to the Chantry Pope, the Mages have unanimously voted for war after betraying and killing all the people who would have still brokered for peace, and all the people who aren't in the army and don't have magical powers/lyrium are standing in between them.

In war, everyone becomes desperate.

[Krylo]

A problem with the idea of mages being helpless is that the mages we see getting victimized are by and large always the weaker ones, and the ones pressed into military service are usually weaker but more theoretically stable fare, not the prodigies and superhumanly magical, whom the Templars can't, and sometimes won't victimize.Give me 5 named mages who fit this category. Other than from the books, which I haven't read and may, I guess, contain a few.

Note: Being rich (Hawke) or a Grey Warden (The Warden/Anders) doesn't really count.

It's likely that aside from a certain swamp witch, we have yet to see the full strength of mages in forceShe's not a mage. She's something different, something similar to, but perhaps not, an abomination. It's been said as much, and theorized she's actually one of the old gods.

such as the like that the Tevinter Imperium wielded.It's directly stated that the only reason the Imperium Magisters are so powerful is because they did shit like murdering a hundred slaves to power spells.

Anders himself is crazy strong in magic to warrant a full armyFirstly: No he isn't. The only time he does anything that might suggest he's that strong was when he blowed up the chantry, and that was a mixture of alchemy and magic, not just him waving his hand and going boom. He built a bomb.

Secondly: He's an abomination, drawing on the power of an extremely powerful spirit, and he's STILL not more powerful than a well organized group of Templars.

and most of the powerful mages you fight in game are too strong for anyone but your team of superpowered badasses.When is this stated? The mages you battle in the game are either on the run from the chantry, too weak to even kill a couple common criminals, or attacking from stealth and avoiding gaining the attention of the templars: Something they wouldn't bother doing if Templars weren't a risk for them.

Unless you mean the ABOMINATIONS, in which case, yes. On the other hand, see above about the Chantry causing the vast vast vast majority of abominations themselves.

The Chantry's forces win most fights with mages by sheer numbersIf you consider 3 to 1 as 'sheer numbers' I guess? Especially when you consider that the number of templars is potentially unlimited as, literally, anyone can be a templar, but Mages are an inborn trait and exceedingly rare.

Morrigan + Mage Tower = Every Mage in Ferelden. Compared to how many Templars?


and even then they need Lyrium and people like Hawke/Grey Wardens/Bounty Hunters to bring in the bigger fish.Nope. This is never shown.

Hawke/the Warden deals with some because they happen to get in the way/they need money/whatever, but even the most powerful mages, even the ones who are capable of craziness like putting demons inside people who are NOT mages, still hide from the Templars. Still know that the Templars could kill them.


And the Chantry isn't ONLY terrible to the mages, either. Should we talk about the Dalish history?

[CABAL49]

Yeah, the problem with mages being this big bad that need to be controlled is that they are still people. Some mages become abominations and use blood magic despite the chantry. But many more don't. And the ones we see using blood magic generally do so out of fear rather than malice.

So this entire society would be better if people where less of dicks.

[Seil]

Aren't we all forgetting something about the templars (http://images.wikia.com/dragonage/images/3/32/Templar_tree_DA2.png) and the mages?

Nah, no shit.

Decimus is basically Uldred-lite. He attacks Hawke out of a mixture of paranoia that you're working for the Templars, and hatred of the templars. He turned to blood magic to escape, turned to the demons to escape, turned to raising the undead to find safety.

He was driven mad by the chantry. Whether he would have still done something horrible outside the tower or not we'll never know.

Shit. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HktQ_-ohWs)

Hawke, probably, if you run mage- presumably someone who has a mastery of magic and one of the few people to dip into the deeper waters of magic without getting corrupted by it- unless you played that way.

Even if you don't play-through as a mage, it's probably going to turn out that Hawke gets the credit for the destruction of the Chantry. It's less "one rogue mage" and more "Friend of the Champion of Kirkwall who led the charge against Meredith."

The ideal leader would be someone who was calm and balanced enough to lead while also someone capable of tapping into the greater magical powers without becoming an abomination, because such a person would need the greater powers to protect those on their side and defeat aggressors. Otherwise, a leader who did not have that level of control or power in a time of need might feel driven to dig deeper than they were capable of and...become the very opposite of what they mean to show what what mages are.

I'm not sure I completely understand this.

spends far too much of that power on things unrelated to fending off the Darkspawn

...The Chantry doesn't fight the darkspawn. The Chantry has always been about spreading the word of the Maker, holding mass, guarding the Circles of mages.

The Dragon Age games as a whole are less about the DarkSpawn and more about an era of stability crumbling to pieces, and it started crumbling long before DA1.

Since when do these games always need to be about fighting the darkspawn? Yeah, that's what the first game was about, but it also established the Qunari, the Tevinter Emperium, the Elves, the social and royal hierarchy, the mages, the templars, the Chantry, Orlais, the Crows... Does the new game have to have those, too?

By the time of the war starting, The Templars no longer answer to the Chantry Pope, the Mages have unanimously voted for war after betraying and killing all the people who would have still brokered for peace, and all the people who aren't in the army and don't have magical powers/lyrium are standing in between them.

XP27PWqFgRM

The mages haven't voted on nothing. They didn't even know there was a vote. All they knew was that someone destroyed the chantry, a strong symbol in Kirkwall, and defied the Knight Commander. They're being blamed for something they didn't do, and will probably deal with a lot more prejudice because of that.

Some mages might decide to fight their new aggressors, some might choose to run - but this was all about Anders forcing everyone into a conflict. It was never the decision of anyone else.

In war, everyone becomes desperate.

GSq5aCZO5n8

Firstly: No he isn't. The only time he does anything that might suggest he's that strong was when he blowed up the chantry, and that was a mixture of alchemy and magic, not just him waving his hand and going boom. He built a bomb.

Secondly: He's an abomination, drawing on the power of an extremely powerful spirit, and he's STILL not more powerful than a well organized group of Templars.

Let's take a look at Anders for a second. He's not stable, because of the whole Justice thing, he's not fully in control of the Justice thing, but he's strong in his convictions and did what he thought was best where he could do it. That is, he saw the treatment of the mages, and wanted to change it and he blew up the Chantry to force everyone into a conflict to bring about a global change.

Why did he choose the Chantry? Because it was a symbol. It was a symbol of the Maker and it was a symbol of the Chantry. It was a specially chosen target. The trouble with that is that the nature of the target would bring more ire on the mages, and more enemies than just the templars.

I mean, they could make a case to the elves (the elves know about injustice) in the cities and rebel with them, but who knows how that will turn out?

Hawke/the Warden deals with some because they happen to get in the way/they need money/whatever, but even the most powerful mages, even the ones who are capable of craziness like putting demons inside people who are NOT mages, still hide from the Templars. Still know that the Templars could kill them.


And the Chantry isn't ONLY terrible to the mages, either. Should we talk about the Dalish history?

Well, Morrigan helped out for the purposes of the ritual, Flemeth helped out because she was going to get killed, Wynne helped out for the sake of Thedas, Velanna helped out because the Warden could help her find her sister, Bethany because she's Hawkes sister, and Anders because he can accomplish more with Hawke.

Let's see... nope. Almost every one of those people is a companion, and everyone fell at least once in my party to raiders, bandits, zealots, dwarves, and mercenaries.

So this entire society would be better if people where less of dicks.

To what society is this statement not applicable?

[Krylo]

Shit. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HktQ_-ohWs)

But Idunna was working with the people who were jamming demons inside of templars.

I mean, that's a pretty specific target. I don't think they picked templars because they were all 'muahahaha gonna be SUPER EVIL'. At least not initially.

It's true we never really see the background of this cult in its entirety, and they're pretty much crazy demon food by the time you find them--but the fact that they're targeting who they are, with the specific goal of ending the templar control over the mages, says a lot about how they started.

[Krylo]

Also, for the record, I said you can blame nearly all of them on the Chantry. Off the top of my head I can only think of one you can't: The Serial Killer, but I'm sure there's a couple more.

However, finding a few who weren't driven to pacts with demons out of desperation or hatred of the way templars treat them doesn't really disprove the point I was trying to make, which isn't that mages are always great people, but that mages do, measurably, more damage BECAUSE of the Chantry.

[Seil]

Nah, I'm only trying to make a point that you've already made; the same point that they make in the X-Men universe.

Yeah, mutants have the power to do some pretty crazy things. Does that mean that they'll do those things to you and yours? No, it just means they have the potential to. For some people, that's enough to lock them up.

But it depends on the person; I've always thought they go about it in the wrong way. You lock kids up, protest and slander them, hate them, yeah - they're gonna turn out pretty damaged, and maybe want to use their powers on the people who hate them. But you make a world of tolerance and peace, most of those kids are going to want tolerance and peace.

[Aerozord]

If it wasn't a moral grey area Dragon Age wouldn't be known for its good writing. However try using the closest real world analog as a comparison. You want us to keep an eye on and regulate people with firearms because of their capacity to do harm to others. By that same logic shouldn't we monitor and restrict those with the ability to kill you using super human powers obtained from a dark and terrible nether-dimension?

Thats just devil's advocate though. Personally I dont believe in punishing people for things they MIGHT do, only for things they did or if (and only if) you can prove intent to do harm.

[Bells]

i actually wanna to bring up the Justice League scenarion, or, as i like to call it, The "Batman Clause".

That is the fact that there are many super beings in the universe. Does that mean they will go rogue and turn evil? No, certainly not... however, if they DO... mankind as a whole is so terrible outmatched that there would be no real fight, only slaughter.

So... Batman has backup plans to neutralize (and potentially kill) every single one of his Allies. Cause 1% chance is too much when the odds are stacked so unevenly .

However, on the other hand, you have all this power and all this weight and authority collected under one single person and everything balancing off from his moral compass. What if HE were to turn rogue? And you can Moebius Strip this till' yer blue in the face...

The thing with Dragon Age is that it's a very twisted and dark Batman vs Superman cold war...

[Aerozord]

why isn't there a comic of batman going nuts and turning evil? That sounds like an interesting "what if"

[Seil]

So... Batman has backup plans to neutralize (and potentially kill) every single one of his Allies. Cause 1% chance is too much when the odds are stacked so unevenly .

That didn't turn out so good for Batman, though. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JLA:_Tower_of_Babel)

[PyrosNine]

Pyros is back from a sinus infection and Finals to mention this book:
http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon_Age:_Asunder

Which covers what we talked about.

[EVILNess]

I kind of gave up on Dragon Age Origins in disgust after there was this amazing sounding quest from a guy in the camp and when I hit accept it took me out of the game on my PS3 and then to a store to buy DLC.

Did I miss out by stopping there?

[Krylo]

Yes.

Also, don't actually buy that. Just ignore that guy.

Don't buy any of the DLC. And not just because their method of advertising it is fuck awful.

[Roland]

Yes.

Also, don't actually buy that. Just ignore that guy.

Don't buy any of the DLC. And not just because their method of advertising it is fuck awful.

This, entirely.

The only DLC I would recommend under any circumstances is the one that comes with Shale, and only if you really like HK-47 and want to know what he'd be like if he were a golem, a her, and a dwarf.

Beyond that the DLC is a waste of money.

[Solid Snake]

The Shale DLC was great and Awakening's not a bad expansion, but yeah, everything else for Origins sucks.

Good to hear that the DA2 expansions are worthwhile, because if I remember correctly I got them all, even the silly Felicia Day one.

I need to thank you guys for inspiring me to tackle DA2 on for the first time next. Now that I've finished P4G it'll be next on the docket. I've done several Origins playthroughs but never felt compelled to try DA2 despite it being a day one purchase -- ran into RL troubles that delayed my first playthrough until the critical bashing was full-force and that deterred me.

Anyway, I'll be continuing my Ace Attorney inspired Origins Franziska von Karma character (who kicked ass and took names as a thief Warden) with Adrian Andrews Hawke, a blonde mage who totally hates mages and who will piss Anders the fuck off.

I figure the self-loathing mage option has to be one of the least played through choices in Bioware history, so if the option exists, Adrian's gonna bond with some Chantries.

I'm almost tempted to do what I did for KOTOR way back in the day and write periodic updates (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=22386&highlight=KOTOR) of Adrian's self-loathing spoils. But really, what better way to spoil a traditional rise-to-power hero story than having them turn on their own people due to sheer misguided principle? It's like Adrian's every conservative woman I've ever known, eagerly looking for opportunities to blast every other woman mage into oblivion.

[Krylo]

even the silly Felicia Day one.

That one is so amazing if for no other reason than the SnarkHawke response at the end.

[Kim]

I don't see why you'd put off DA2 when both Krylo and I said it was good.

We're clearly the only ones who matter.

[Solid Snake]

That one is so amazing if for no other reason than the SnarkHawke response at the end.

...Shit, I wasn't planning on doing a snark-Hawke playthrough.
Eh, maybe I can see the response on Youtube after I get there.

Also, Kim: The problem is that nearly everyone else on the planet who isn't named "Kim" or "Krylo" seems to disagree with your assessment.
But yeah, gonna play it anyway because fuck, everyone not named Kim was dead wrong about NieR

[Krylo]

There's no incentive, in game, to utilize just one response at all times. It's not like ME where you have to PARAGON or RENEGADE at all times.

So you can just snark when you like.

I, personally, am incapable of being anything other than SnarkHawke, though.

And yeah, it is ALL OVER the youtubes.

[Solid Snake]

...Are we sure I've received the same copy of DA2 that everyone else has? Maybe my copy is a Super Secret Premium Edition or something.

I think I can sum up my feelings about DA2 (so far) with this statement: If DA2 had been released after ME3, I'd have taken it as a positive sign that Bioware had learned its lessons about 'what went wrong' with ME3 and decided to write strong narratives again.

I can understand the criticism of the gameplay -- it definitely dumbs down Origins in a way similar to how ME2 and ME3's 'revamped' combat oversimplified the ME formula.
In terms of narrative, though, I already feel like I'm being given considerable freedom to write my own story with Hawke. I really prefer the way your companions are handled in this game, too -- treating them less as spineless lackeys and actually giving them a degree of agency and independent thought.

Maybe it's just because I'm comparing it directly with P4G, which I've just played, but P4 was all like "your friends will adore you regardless of how much a douche you are." So it's nice for a game to actually say, "No, if you're an asshole, there will be real repercussions for that."

Other things I like so far about DA2: The 'story-within-a-story' interaction between Varric and that Templar lady; the fact that the game isn't content to merely be a Tolkien clone and actually delves deeper and more intimately into mage / Templar / chantry / Sten's race stuff established in Origins; the aesthetic look and feel of Kirkwall, amplified by those cool medieval style intro videos; Fenris; the emphasis on family in a genre that tends to prefer avoiding the subject entirely with orphan backstories; the way the friendship / rivalry system and some ambiguities in the narrative has led me to think a lot more about individual decisions I have Hawke make during sidequests.

Things I don't like about DA2: Carver being a jerk (and the fact that my pro-Templar mage has to keep sucking up to his point of view); the game feels much easier on default difficulty settings than Origins; there should be more places to explore outside Kirkwall; the snark answers can be a bit too enticing, to the point where I've broken character a couple times just to witness them; the names 'Hightown', 'Lowtown' and 'Darktown' are stupid.

[Kim]

I'm very glad you're enjoying it, Snake.

[Krylo]

The combat being simplified and whatnot is pretty much fixed in the DLC. Like the DLC keeps up the narrative tone of the game while fixing most/all of the most commonly mentioned gameplay issues (copied maps, poor combat pacing, etc).

They're fantastic.

Also, yeah Carver's a jerk. He grew on me a lot, though, on my mage play through. Bethany is still the superior sibling, however, and I fully recommend doing a rogue or warrior playthrough after you're done with mage.


Edit: And Varric's story telling is fantastic. It comes up during a sidequest again later and it's amazing.

[Seil]

I kind of liked most of the DA:O add-on stuff. I mean, Awakening was pretty good, and I liked the Shale thing. One of the other ones I'll recommend is the Warden's Keep one, if for no other reason than the new armor and the party storage chest. Plus it's also pretty neat.

Haven't looked into the Marjolaine one, Darkspawn one or the Golems of blibbitybleebloop.

In terms of DA2, I picked up the market one, and that's pretty great.

Carver is terrible.

Varric is fantastic.

Xyx1F0mqA6U

[Solid Snake]

After meeting the Arishok I'm having increasing difficulty understanding peoples' complaints about this game.

...And I'm becoming increasingly disappointed in gamers for telling Bioware that these kind of narratives are to be avoided in the future.

[CABAL49]

Everyone I know who played it enjoyed it. But if DMing has taught me anything is that if you give people too much freedom, they complain. If you give them too little, they complain.

[Seil]

I think it's what Yahtzee (I probably spelt his name wrong. But I, like God, do not play with dice.) says; it's in thirds. Really.

1/3 = Getting money/notoriety.
2/3 = Qunari
3/3 = Mage/Templar conflict

I like all three segments, but it just feels like they could have been big games in their own right, or at least DLC. Not that I didn't like the second game... I mean, not that I liked the second game, it was trashy fun. But at the same time there wasn't the great over-arcing narrative that DA:O had, rather the "We've got a bunch of ideas" over-arcing narrative.

[Osterbaum]

I was hugely dissapointed in DAII. For all the normal reasons; the dumbing down, the stupid spawning system for enemies, the dumb camera, the worse graphics, the copy pasting of areas, the fact that the story just seemed like a place holder for DAIII etc.

[Krylo]

But at the same time there wasn't the great over-arcing narrative that DA:O had, rather the "We've got a bunch of ideas" over-arcing narrative.

I honestly feel that was one of its strengths. Not every RPG has to be an epic save the world quest line.

Sometimes it can just be about a person thrown into a difficult situation and dealing with the world falling apart around them.

The latter tend to be more character focused and character driven, and that's the kind of story I appreciate more.

[Kim]

I honestly feel that was one of its strengths. Not every RPG has to be an epic save the world quest line.

Sometimes it can just be about a person thrown into a difficult situation and dealing with the world falling apart around them.

The latter tend to be more character focused and character driven, and that's the kind of story I appreciate more.

They also make sense for Bioware's character writing, which prides itself on the character focus.

Also, all this Dragon Age 2 talk got me playing it again last night and I still really love it. Haters to the left, cuz this is just really good.

Varric is still amaze.

[EVILNess]

The most vocal complaint I have heard about DA2 is that it is essentially a fantasy Mass Effect.

A complaint that left me stunned, because how is that a bad thing?

Disclaimer: I have never played DA2.

[Solid Snake]

I honestly feel that was one of its strengths. Not every RPG has to be an epic save the world quest line.

Sometimes it can just be about a person thrown into a difficult situation and dealing with the world falling apart around them.

The latter tend to be more character focused and character driven, and that's the kind of story I appreciate more.

Agreed.

A smaller-scale conflict often helps to flesh out all the complex, foreign concepts introduced, too. I feel as if DA2 expanded the Mages and Dwarves and Chantry and Qunari beyond some of the stereotypes they embodied in Origins, because you spend a lot more time seeing how they interacted in comparatively mundane circumstances, as opposed to just screaming "DARKSPAWN!" at them and shoving ancient treaties in their faces.

But so far, my favorite DA2 accomplishment is still the independent agency given to secondary cast members. I love even the little touches, like the fact that they have different bases throughout your city (at least in Act 1) as opposed to just chilling at Hawke's place. Their constant objections, intrusions and interactions reinforce the notion that they're 'real' people, as opposed to one-dimensional teammates who just adore Hawke regardless.

[Kim]

The Qunari are AMAZING

[Osterbaum]

I honestly feel that was one of its strengths. Not every RPG has to be an epic save the world quest line.

Sometimes it can just be about a person thrown into a difficult situation and dealing with the world falling apart around them.

The latter tend to be more character focused and character driven, and that's the kind of story I appreciate more.
Yeah ok, but it's not like you can't concentrate on this guy and the situation he was thrown in and also keep a coherent narrative and plot running through the whole game instead of "ok your main goal here is to survive I mean stop a Qunari uprising NO WAIT I mean fuck around for a while and then EXPLOSION, now decide who's side you're on wait oops that's the end!"

[Kim]

Your offense at a game exploring its characters without cramming them into a cliche'd fantasy story arc masturbating Tolkien's rotted dick is hilarious.

Also, there is an overarching story. It's "What events led up to this bullshit going down?"

[Solid Snake]

Yeah ok, but it's not like you can't concentrate on this guy and the situation he was thrown in and also keep a coherent narrative and plot running through the whole game instead of "ok your main goal here is to survive I mean stop a Qunari uprising NO WAIT I mean fuck around for a while and then EXPLOSION, now decide who's side you're on wait oops that's the end!"

C'mon now.

I'm in Act 1. I've never played Act 2 or Act 3 before.
Both the upcoming Mage / Templar conflict and the Qunari conflict have been frequently and vividly foreshadowed.

You meet with the Arishok for the first time and he indicates that he's deliberating whether or not the Qunari should attempt a more aggressive stance, institute a military occupation and forcibly spread the Qun religion.
Isabella refuses to meet the Arishok with you. Gee I wonder why.

Anders, Merrill, Carver, Bethany and Fenris are characters deliberately designed to introduce you to the Mage / Templar conflict that drives the narrative. They're more than half the goddamn cast on your team. In your initial mission with Anders, you help him put down a Tranquil and Anders talks boldly about how repressive the Chantry is and that drastic action needs to be taken. Fenris and Carver present the opposing view, and Merrill is a constant reminder of the existence of blood magic. Anders is an abomination. Hawke, and/or her sister, is an apostate mage who spends much of their time desperately avoiding losing their freedom and being locked into the Circle.

How the hell isn't this is a coherent narrative? It took me all of a few hours to realize, "Oh, this is the story about Hawke's rise to power and how she resolves Kirkwall's two main sociopolitical issues that threaten to unravel and destabilize the surrounding region, with the Circle of Mages and the stranded Qunari."

Just because the narrative doesn't interest you personally, doesn't mean the ingredients aren't plainly visible and objectively effective.

[Kim]

My response to Oster was probably a little meaner than I should have been. I'm sorry.

Mostly I'm just amused that a game does something truly different for (big budget) video games: It places the characters and their interaction above all else to tell a queer stage play about about oppressed minorities who eventually lash out at their oppressors, and the response from nerd culture is a resounding, "No! We want the exact same bullshit everyone else feeds us!"

[Seil]

I was hugely dissapointed in DAII. For all the normal reasons; the dumbing down, the stupid spawning system for enemies, the dumb camera, the worse graphics, the copy pasting of areas, the fact that the story just seemed like a place holder for DAIII etc.

There's also this.

[Solid Snake]

There's also this.

The graphics are a substantial improvement over Origins, and it's silly for RPG enthusiasts who usually criticize the gaming industry for caring too much about graphics to suddenly reverse course when a game they dislike has subpar graphics. We're generally nostalgists who don't mind replaying PS1-era RPGs, but we'll complain about DA2?

I'll add that I actually really liked the way my Hawke turned out -- Adrian's actually one of the more 'attractive' Protagonists I've created, and the character creation system was very easy to use compared to others I've tinkered with.
(I'm using the word attractive here not to denote physical appearance -- though she is pretty, I confess -- but rather in regards to more basic anatomical proportions and other considerations. My Hawke successfully looks human while avoiding the uncanny valley.)

I haven't had major issues with the camera angles.

The other criticisms I do agree with, to varying extents. It's unfortunate that the caves and warehouses reuse the same aesthetics. It's unfortunate that the combat is a bit more simplistic than in Origins. Neither's a game-breaking issue for me, though, and I generally believe a great story can make up for minor gameplay issues, though I know I can be in the minority there.

I don't mean to suggest that DA2 is perfect. But the degree of vitriol DA2 has earned in the gaming community has been so antagonistic that I deliberately avoided playing the title despite owning it for nearly two years. So it's a huge surprise for me that I'm actually really enjoying it.

I understand it isn't for everyone, but this game does not deserve the reputation it has. In fact, it should be lauded for a quite a few of its things in regards to its narrative that it's been criticized for.

...It's really unfortunate that Bioware's been told not to repeat DA2's so-called 'mistakes' again in DA3. In terms of narrative, this feels like progression that the angry gaming hordes have demonized because, y'know, fuck games with sociopolitically progressive themes and concepts. Games should be about defeating world-devouring demons, not about a group of underprivileged, 'different' bisexual personalities from challenging socioeconomic circumstances interacting with each other and challenging a single city-state's repressive institutions!!!

(And, see how they treated poor Jennifer Hepler, who's actually written great scenes with Anders and other characters in this game. I almost feel like writing Hepler an apology on behalf of gamers everywhere.)

[Ramary]

My response to Oster was probably a little meaner than I should have been. I'm sorry.

Mostly I'm just amused that a game does something truly different for (big budget) video games: It places the characters and their interaction above all else to tell a queer stage play about about oppressed minorities who eventually lash out at their oppressors, and the response from nerd culture is a resounding, "No! We want the exact same bullshit everyone else feeds us!"

Actually I did not like it because the combat was terrible and had way too fucking much of said combat.


In addition, I could not be a dwarf.

[Kim]

the combat was terrible

You are certainly welcome to that opinion.

[Osterbaum]

Man, you guys are reading way too much into my comments on the game. I guess this is where I should point out that overall my personal experience with DAII is on the side of positive, and I'll probably the whole game again at some point. But I was very much dissapointed with a lot of stuff in the game. You guys have also made some fair points about the story that have actually made me see it in more favorable light (the fact how quick that was should show that I don't exactly have deeply held emotional opinions on DAII). I was just dissapointed and not least of all in the dumbing down and copy pasting of areas. The entire time I felt like the game was lacking something and I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was. I guess it just didn't feel like coherent whole.

Mostly I'm just amused that a game does something truly different for (big budget) video games: It places the characters and their interaction above all else to tell a queer stage play about about oppressed minorities who eventually lash out at their oppressors, and the response from nerd culture is a resounding, "No! We want the exact same bullshit everyone else feeds us!"
But like again, one could perfectly well write that sort of game without all the problems DAII and it's story have!

e: Yeah and obviously the character interactions and dialogue are awesome and well written. That's one of the things I enjoyed the most.

And I mean, I want games (RPG's) that tell a different story than the usual 'hero saves the world' storyline. But I didn't feel like DAII really did that. It was still basically trying to do a whole epic hero's journey thing, it's just that instead of doing that in vastly different and interesting areas, we're stuck in one boring city where everything looks the same, all the people are the same and a bit of coastline and I guess a mountain, also with quite boring aesthetics. I just wanted something more interesting, doesn't have to be epic, just more interesting. And maybe a more coherent plot? Like they could've just focused entirely on the Mage/Templar brewing conflict (almost) from the start...

[Solid Snake]

And maybe a more coherent plot? Like they could've just focused entirely on the Mage/Templar brewing conflict (almost) from the start...

...That's the one part of your perspective I can't quite understand. Because they did pave the way for the Mage/Templar conflict, as early as when you and Bethany run into Aveline and her Templar lover in the Prologue.

[Kim]

Gonna second Snake.

Aveline's husband was a good first introduction. Then if you're playing a mage your brother is always complaining about how the someone could turn you into the Templars any day now. There's all the stuff about Gamlen complaining about your mother having run off with a mage. Your first mission with Anders is about a friend of his that's been turned tranquil. Fenris is a party member with an obvious bias against mages. Merrill is a party member who uses blood magic, something that's supposed to be one of the reasons mages are dangerous.

This is all just in the first act!

Almost everything about the game is about setting up a build-up to this conflict.

[Kim]

Gonna take a moment to complain a little about DA2 myself, specifically its ableist as fuck mission.

Murder a mentally ill person or let him run free to commit more murders! Whichever you choose, you're still participating in a shitty scenario that furthers the demonization of those with mental health problems in the media!

Fuuuuuuuck this mission.

[Ramary]

There is something EXACTLY like that in TOR too.

Except they slap light side and dark side to it (fun fact: killing the poor creature is lightside!)

[Kim]

That one was less "this creature will kill people because it's mentally ill" and more "this creature will kill people because it will become possessed by the dark side and THIS STUPID SITH FUCK was feeding it people, and it's at least clear from the beginning that it's that stupid sith fuck's fault.

Doesn't excuse it, but I felt it was an important point to clarify.

I'm nearing the end of Act One in Dragon Age 2. It continues to still be great. The party banter is amazing, the conversations are fun and interesting, and there are no-win scenarios it puts you in sometimes. If you don't want to romance Anders, for example, he gets really pissed off about it in a way that makes him look really shitty. I like that as a character flaw to him.

[Solid Snake]

If you don't want to romance Anders, for example, he gets really pissed off about it in a way that makes him look really shitty. I like that as a character flaw to him.

He has a similar temper as a character flaw if you consistently choose the Templars over the Mages and attempt a rivalry with him. Instead of getting angry with you if he's rejected, he's just angry period. You don't even have the opportunity to romance him. At one point at the beginning of Act 2 you get side missions to visit all your friends and 'check in' on them, and when I visited Anders he basically told me to fuck off in two lines. "Quest complete!"

I wonder if that's something he does with all pro-Templar Hawkes or if it's something exclusive to pro-Templar Mages, because that degree of betrayal seems to have particularly irked him.

Another thing I like about DA2 is how the other characters interact with each other even when Hawke's not present. Last night I saw Isabella visiting Fenris' manor, and Merrill visited Isabella at her bar scene. Furthermore, unlike in the utterly unrealistic P4G, when you flirt with other companions after entering a romance they call you out on it and don't reciprocate. I started a romance with Fenris (because that voice, yummy) and then flirted with Isabella, and Isabella hastily reminded me that she knew I was already committed. She still toyed with the notion though, but that's consistent with her personality.

[Kim]

He has a similar temper as a character flaw

I wouldn't really call that a character flaw you've been being really bigoted towards mages, dude.

[Krylo]

Hey now, if they didn't want to be racism'd at, maybe they should have had the good graces to be born in the Imperium. There's just no excuse for them to be bothering the good Maker fearing people of Kirkwall.

[Solid Snake]

I wouldn't really call that a character flaw you've been being really bigoted towards mages, dude.

I don't really prefer the Templars, I'm just playin' the game that way, amigo.

[Kim]

Anders doesn't know you're being fake bigoted.

[Solid Snake]

Anders doesn't know you're being fake bigoted.

True. But his anger against oppression and his anger at being rejected romantically seem to stem from the same character trait. It's just a trait that's justified in one reaction and unjustified in another.

Your earlier comment just didn't distinguish between me and the character, and I feel that's worth highlighting lest I feel a terribad oppressor for merely roleplaying.

[Revising Ocelot]

I punched a journalist in the face on my way home today.

[Kim]

Dragon Age 2 is a transphobic piece of shit and I hope someone smashes David Gaider's fucking face in.

[POS Industries]

Dragon Age 2 is a transphobic piece of shit and I hope someone smashes David Gaider's fucking face in.
I take it that DLC campaign spiraled even further into hell after I went to bed?

[Ramary]

Dragon Age 2 is a transphobic piece of shit and I hope someone smashes David Gaider's fucking face in.

While I am happy more people are realizing how shitty current Bioware is, I actually do not know which crappy piece of writing you are referencing since I did not make it too far into Dragon Age 2. Would you mind explaining?

[Kim]

I take it that DLC campaign spiraled even further into hell after I went to bed?

You run into Seneschal Bran, servant of the Viscount, at the party and he's with a trans woman named Serendipity who has a very masculine voice. The first line after she says ANYTHING is Felicia Day going, "AWKWARD."

EDIT: I'm currently trying to find out who voiced Serendipity. If anyone could help with this, it would be appreciated. Basically, if she was not voiced by a trans woman, then you've got a cis person trying to sound like a masculine voiced trans woman, which is another layer of holy fucks offensive. I have zero faith in Bioware to have actually gone to the effort to hire a trans woman, but I will wait to confirm this before getting as outraged as it warrants.

EDIT2: Also worth acknowledging that the only trans woman in the game is a sex worker.

[Arcanum]

Relevant to your interests (the replies from the writers). (http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/8468244&lf=8)

[Kim]

A person just "forgot" to have a response other than "AWKWARD" to a trans person. Right.

We love Serendipity. If we didn't love her, we wouldn't bring her back for any reason. While I understand someone might want us to have characters that they can personally identify with other than ones that are played for laughs, having a character that we adore and who we think is hilarious is no small feat. I'd hope that she would be taken in the spirit which she was meant.

Fuck you, David Gaider. I hope someone smashes your face in.

EDIT: Apparently, in DA:O there are quotes around the word female for trans sex workers. Fuck Bioware.

http://i47.tinypic.com/287km09.jpg

[Ramary]

Are we gonna boycott Bioware next? If so I am way ahead of you.

[Kim]

I'm not going to try and start a campaign to boycott them when the only thing that accomplishes is bigoted fucks defending bigotry, outright insulting me, and trying to decide from their position of privilege what's "sufficient" to warrant boycott.

I'm not buying anything from BioWare again. Everyone else can go ahead and fund bigotry if they want. I don't fucking care anymore.

[Solid Snake]

...Wow. This went somewhere I wasn't anticipating very, very quickly.

I'm guessing I shouldn't have bought the Tallis DLC, then?

EDIT: It's too bad Gaider went ahead and completely fucked up and invalidated Mary Kirby's otherwise-appropriate response to the fucked-up writing in that scene.
After reading Kirby's response in that thread I was just about to like say, "Okay, honest mistake," and then Gaider shows up and is like "We just don't have any way to reasonably depict transgendered individuals except as stereotypical prostitutes, what a hard sell, a-hyuck a-hyuck" and, yeah, someone should kick his ass.

[POS Industries]

I kinda hope Kirby kicked his ass because goddamn son.

[Kim]

I'm guessing I shouldn't have bought the Tallis DLC, then?

Even without the transphobia, the DLC is terrible, especially after how good the Legacy DLC was.

[Solid Snake]

Even without the transphobia, the DLC is terrible, especially after how good the Legacy DLC was.

Really doesn't surprise me. An attempt to capitalize on Felicia Day's popularity among the predominantly-heterosexual-male nerd culture that worships her seems almost, albeit not quite, as disastrous as their attempts with Jessica Chobot in ME3.

If the premise of certain content in a game is "blatant fanservice for heterosexual men", it's not a stretch at all for said content to quickly delve into potshots against all the minorities privileged heterosexual men love to stereotype. See also: Persona 4 Golden.

[Kim]

A lot of the problem is that they're trying SO HARD for Tallis to just be Elf Felicia Day that she feels horribly out of place in the Dragon Age 2 world in everything from her appearance to the way she talks. I don't have anything against Felicia Day, but when you make a character who exists solely to be This Actor/Actress Awkwardly Inserted Into The Game it just doesn't mesh well at all, and this is worsened by the fact that you don't get to choose whether or not she's in your party for the DLC. She has to be. Which meant, for me to have my typical 2 mages, one warrior, one rogue party, I couldn't bring Varric along. :(

[Solid Snake]

A lot of the problem is that they're trying SO HARD for Tallis to just be Elf Felicia Day that she feels horribly out of place in the Dragon Age 2 world in everything from her appearance to the way she talks. I don't have anything against Felicia Day, but when you make a character who exists solely to be This Actor/Actress Awkwardly Inserted Into The Game it just doesn't mesh well at all, and this is worsened by the fact that you don't get to choose whether or not she's in your party for the DLC. She has to be. Which meant, for me to have my typical 2 mages, one warrior, one rogue party, I couldn't bring Varric along. :(

That seems to be a major issue with Bioware's representation of male vs. female celebrities in their games. When Martin Sheen joins the fray, he gets to take on a completely new and unique persona in the Illusive Man, and is actually a three-dimensional character who adds a lot to the story, and he can't be romanced because the idea of including him as mere romantic fodder for masturbatory fantasies isn't considered.

When Felicia Day and Jessica Chobot voice characters, though, it's just so gamers can pretend they're having sexaytimes with (Elf) Felicia Day and Jessica Chobot. There isn't even a thin layer of an attempt to give those characters three-dimensional personalities or a sense of identity outside the actresses portraying them. Chobot literally plays a journalist because that's who she already is in the 'real world.'

...Which is disappointing. Wouldn't it be awesome if Bioware hired an actress like Helen Mirren to play an 'Illusive Lady?' Why is it only too easy to intuit that it's not something Bioware would ever consider, because why pay that kind of money on a talented actress that their target audience wouldn't want to romance?

[Osterbaum]

Well Miranda in ME2 had her own personality and was a major character despite being played by Yvonne Strahovski. Of course she was still a romantic interest and they did make Miranda look like Strahovski herself looks so yeah...

[Kim]

In fairness, I have no idea who Yvonne Strahovski is.

[Krylo]

She played the female lead in Chuck.

And was Miranda.

[Kim]

She played the female lead in Chuck.

Ah, that explains why I hadn't heard of her.

[Solid Snake]

And was Miranda.

Also known as 'the worst romanceable option not played by Jessica Chobot in the Mass Effect series', thereby reinforcing my point.

I mean her entire characterization is based on the notion that she's a bio-engineered 'perfect woman,' and apparently a 'perfect woman' is just seductive eye candy with a really large ass. How sexist can you get?

[Ramary]

I thought she was pretty Michael Jackson looking, so they kinda screwed up on that point too if we are speaking from a purely eye-candy point.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Surely a genetically engineered superwoman is one that has the most offspring and thus would be some kind of insect lady or something.