With two new additions to the DA series, Redemption and Mark of the Assassin, it occurred to me that Bioware are almost trying to steer opinion to favour (or denounce) certain groups. While I'm sure many people would say that groups like the Chantry don't really need vilification, does anyone else think that the writers seem to be overdoing the "bad guy" persona? Other groups however, (I'm looking at you Qunari!), seem to be increasingly portrayed as more...civil and "humane" than our first impressions may have indicated? What do you guys think? 
King Cousland | Talk 21:50, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
This was one of the issues I took with Mark of the Assassin. It felt really biased towards the Qunari, and my canon playthrough is with a Mage!Hawke, who is very anti-Qunari (mostly because of the whole, If-I-Converted-To-The-Qun, They'd-Sew-My-Mouth-Shut thing). I think it could have been more balanced, but I really wished there was an option to argue with Tallis on that point, rather than just have her make Hawke look narrowminded for not accepting Qunari beliefs. RedAces (talk) 22:03, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
OP: That is exactly what they're doing. Other Posters: I have no short way of elaborating, so please don't ask me to. --Isolationistmagi (talk) 22:04, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
The Chantry and templars are as seedy as they seem, though they were given some credibility in lieu of Corypheus being a magister and breaking into the "already tainted" golden city, and the whole evil mages are dangerous and should be locked up for being the ones with all that power stuff. Obviously it is not the whole story, so I would accuse the writers of being interested in keeping tension and not revealing all the truths that we'd like, opposed to denouncing or building them up. Considering DA3 is most likely (imo) going to circle around the intrigue of the divine and the seekers, that will be when we learn more "truths" about the Chantry.
As far as the Qunari go, we have mostly seen their military envoys, powerful large horned men...are scary. I would accuse the writers of trying to break the bias of them only being militant creatures with that being the fan definition and interpretation based on the little we've seen, with that it is partly wrong and entirely to simplistic for a race of people.
What we know of DA's lore is mostly from the perspective of missives and letters and excerpts written from the perspective of normal people. We have never been given the defined omniscient truth of Dragon Age. What we know is what in-game people have said, and we should question some of that that like we would if someone came to your door to introduce you to the new lord and world truths. It was Laidlaw that said
- "You'll notice most of the lore in Dragon Age is deliberately presented with a "well as far as we know..." or based on the point of view of the common knowledge of the world. So everyone believes griffons are dead and that's absolutely true for most people." [1]
That's part of what makes Dragon Age worth talking about. At least from my perspective. Though you could make the argument that it allows them to do what they want when they want. Tommyspa (talk) 22:27, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that the Andrastrians don't have their bad side, but things like prisons where mages are tortured just seems to the make the Chantry to be completely evil, with no focus on the good works it carries out. While I generally agree that the Qunari needed fleshing out, I also agree with those who have said that we need more of a chance to actively criticize the Qun if our characters are against it's ideologies. King Cousland | Talk 22:41, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
- I was just covering my small thoughts about the Chantry rather than engaging, I heartily believe the Chantry's mage thing is wrong beyond necessity, my desire to play as a mage and not being oppressed by any means makes me feel like Anders. :) I consider the mage issue as being justified from the massive fear of being potentially controlled without knowledge as quite frightful and couple that with not knowing when or where it could happen may make the circles completely necessary to them. Because well, that scenario is quite scary. It's extreme, but very complicated. I'm not sure how easy it would be for the writers to do it right, or turn it around now. Tommyspa (talk) 22:55, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the content with this talis character seems biased because they are all massive fanboys of the women for whatever reason, and assume we must be too...so they did not bother giving the option to discount her sacred character, or they may even of not wanted her character tarnished by giving such options and admitting the character is flawed.174.45.9.40 (talk) 00:09, November 6, 2011 (UTC)