#i can accept the both institutions exist bc hey that shows some change some little push forward that's realistic!

[requiemforthestars]

I have so little faith in Bioware that in that paragraph when Epler was talking about the treatment of mages in southern Thedas, my first happy takeaway was being like "oh wow he acknowledged that mages are oppressed!?" That is how dire the situation is.

Anyway, I'm not surprised that Bioware considers that the Circles still exist because I'm 100% sure that Cassandra is the Divine for their canon worldstate, so that tracks (they made it their canon that Alistair was king and then made a whole comic with him in it, not surprising). What I want to know is if there'll be at least mention of her making any of the reforms she talked about provided the players chose her.

In choice-based games with sequels the devs always have to play with the illusion of choice, i.e, making it seem like the player has a choice to do something but then going back to a specific status quo to build from for the next game because not doing that would be too complicated to consider all the potential ramifications. Hence why our choices in the previous games most often show up in the form of ambient dialogue and Codex entries instead of real tangible change in the state of the world.

So, for the mage-templar war, based on the DA:I epilogue slides, if you make Cassandra and Vivienne divines there is always a mention of the mages starting a new College of Enchanters (aka the self-ruled organization for free mages that shows up if you choose Leliana as your Divine), so I always thought they did that so that, in future games, both organizations could exist, a traditional Circle an a free mage-run College of Enchanters, how aligned each are aligned with the Chantry depends on who is the Divine.

I am curious about how this would work if Leliana is the Divine because she (girlboss that she is) disbands the Templar Order and gives the mages autonomy, so how would a 'rebel' traditional Circle and Templars spring from that? No idea, maybe they're traditionalists that band together like that and she has to allow it because she's all for freedom of expression.

Of course, there is also the possibility that Epler's comment was based on Bioware's canon world state, and it's not the first time they've used that for reference without taking other worldstates into account. It's bad marketing because it is breaking the illusion of choice they provide their players with, but they've done it in the past.

I don't know, all I know is that I either want them NOT to comment on that situation in DA:V so I can close my eyes and pretend my worldstate is true, or that they go with the other scenario described in a Codex entry (both institutions exists, that way we, the player, are left with the impression that that whole revolution plot did lead to at least some change). I do not want them to show us the situation in game at all, or to act as if none of it mattered and the old Circles still exist because ultimately everything failed. That would be the worst-case scenario for me in terms of investment.

I know that there are very bare mentions to the mage rebellion in non-game media. But I can ignore those and what they mean because that follows Bioware’s canon, I'm interested in what the game with my choices has to say.

I still think letting go of the Keep was a horrible horrible idea, and I can't see a reason why, unless they couldn't figure out a way to make it compatible? But I hope of the limited choices given to us in game, there can at least be one for "who was Divine/who did the Inquisition side with" that, an acting consequential with that, not in any big way but in having some characters and Codex entries comment on it, seems like the bare minimum.