I've planned out three potential elven Inquisitors: Samahl (means "laugh" in the elven language), Mana (means "long time" or "distant past" in the elven language), and Tathas (meaning unknown, possible name for a fictional elven hero created by a CE Warden).

I'll probably do at least one of them... I mean, Solas only being available to women kind of threw a wrench in my plans. Same thing with Cass being straight. And though I was originally going to play Mana pining over Vivienne, the more I see of her pro-establishment views, the less I like her, which saddens me.

Whatever characters I don't use for DAI, I'll probably be able to recycle for DA4, though, so it's not a total waste.

Leliana and Josephine and/or Dorian and Iron Bull.

EDIT: I also hope that Vivienne has some sort of relationship herself.

Patrick Weekes ‏@PatrickWeekes

So I got Arl Eamon's father's name wrong in a codex. Old name already existed. We've decided Arl Eamon had two dads.

 

Patrick Weekes ‏@PatrickWeekeso

In case you were wondering, am now impersonating Arl Eamon as JFK from Clone High.

 

Patrick Weekes ‏@PatrickWeekes

Guys, we COULD patch it... OR we could just give Arl Eamon gay dads. I know which one I'M going with.

yes

Yeah, that seemed really redundant to me. If you choose not to kill the mages, you obviously didn't take Cullen's deal. I don't know why they had that on there personally.

Can't you lie about it? I'm not sure why that would be important to anything, but it's still possible, isn't it?

That aside, I strongly agree with this post:

I mean this with full respect for fans of Cullen, who are lovely people, but I find it baffling that what essentially boils down to "headcanon that only matters to people who really care about Cullen" was included in the Keep before major characters like Velanna or Sigrun or major plot points like the events in the Alienage of DA:O, or if you rivalled/friended certain DA2 characters.

 

I assumed it had to be because it would be in Inquisition...like Cullen would reference that when he sees/hears about Hawke, but knowing that it's not going to be an import....just a strange priority, I guess.

You're trying to argue that the fact that Tranquil don't have emotions means they are barred from certain things because of the aforementioned construct.

 

Laws have nothing to do with this. They aren't an inherent part of "you."

You argued that consent wasn't real because it was "a manufactured creation". You're introducing a new argument. Please don't act as if you've been saying this the entire time, and I'm just bringing up random non-sequiturs.

There was another part of your post that I missed, so I'll respond to it now:

Social constructs are arbitrary, by their very nature. As far as we know, only humans have any conception of consent or why it's important. People have to be the ones to draw the lines.

Using one's feet is not a necessity for driving, just like emotion is not a necessity for consent.

It's only a good example if legs necessarily form the basis of any of those actions. They don't, as there are various substitutes for legs in those situations. The only possible substitute I can think of for emotion in this case is the memory of emotion, but Tranquil people don't take that into account. Their actions are not based on what they remember feeling, but on pure "logic", and as someone stated earlier in the thread, their brand of logic dictates that they take the path of least resistance unless there's a good reason not to.

Simply put, I'm arguing from a place of "enthusiastic consent is necessary", while you are not. Therefore, I believe Tranquil cannot consent. Our opinions differ on a base level, so, while I usually hate to say this, it might be best to agree to disagree, since this is certainly not the right place for this discussion.

Tathas, derived from one of the possible heroes a city elf Warden can make up for the Alienage children.

By the way, speaking of the bolded, I'd love it if somebody named one of their Inquisitors "Blargha".

There's a direct quote from a developer, not a fan statement. You'll note the "nor are they more susceptible to suggestion that they were previously."

 

[snip]

 

You'll note the "If the Tranquil saw a reason not to follow an order, they would do so."

Again, I didn't say they didn't have free will, I said that they cannot consent. They default to "yes" unless there is a logical reason not to, because they don't possess the desire to object. Therefore, a Tranquil's "no" has meaning, but their "yes" does not.

Also, if you read the link, you would notice that its claims are cited, and are, in fact, supported by posts by David Gaider. Specifically, here:

If you're trying to make this about some meaningless social concept like "emotional consent," however, there's no argument. "Emotional consent" is a manufactured creation, and further its state as the defining line of consent in general is purely arbitrary.

Acknowledging that a social construct is a construct does not negate its existence. Law is similarly manufactured, but that doesn't mean you won't face any consequences if you break it. Emotions are real as well, and they are the driving force behind the concept of consent, particularly enthusiastic consent.

First of all  enthusiastic consent is subjective.

Not entirely. The fact of the matter is, a Tranquil person's "yes" lacks the meaning that a non-Tranquil person's (generally) does.

That's nonsense. Emotion is utterly unnecessary for free will. Tell that to Owen.

 

Where did you read that they cannot desire anything?

I never said Tranquil lacked free will. They don't desire anything, however, therefore, enthusiastic consent is impossible.

"The Tranquil are stripped of their capacity to form anything other than a logical opinion...They are more agreeable and would not normally oppose an authority figure, because they do not possess the desire to object, but if the Tranquil see a logical reason not to follow an order, they do so."

Source: http://dragonage.wik..._of_Tranquility

Says who? Are you implying that tranquil don't have the ability to make decisions? That they don't have free will? Because that's factually incorrect-- their only difference is that they lack an "emotional core."

Tranquil have the ability to say "no", but they can't give enthusiastic consent because they don't desire anything. At best, they will allow things to happen to them.

Also, please don't use ableist slurs.

I've come up with several new Inquisitors, though I might not actually play them.

The ones I'll definitely be playing are:

Issala, meaning "dust" in Qunlat. Female qunari rogue (tempest).

Hayden, meaning "hay valley" or "hay hill". Male human rogue (assassin).

Asta, a diminutive of Ástríðr. Female dwarf rogue (artificer).

Meraad, meaning "tide" in Qunlat. Male qunari warrior (templar?).

Some I've created, but may not be playing:

Revas, meaning "freedom" in the elven language. Originally planned to be a female elf rogue (tempest).

Samahl, meaning "laugh" in the elven language. Male elf rogue (assassin).

Mana, meaning "distant past" in the elven language. Female elf mage (necromancer).

Aylin, meaning "moon halo" in Turkish. Female qunari mage (rift mage).

Merryn, a Cornish name with an unknown meaning. Female human warrior (champion?).

Tristan, the Old French spelling of Drustan, which was originally a diminutive of the Celtic name, Drust, meaning "riot" (knight enchanter).

Tathas, derived from one of the possible heroes a city elf Warden can make up for the Alienage children. Female elf warrior (reaver?).

Reiner, the German form of the name Rayner, originally derived from Germanic Raganhar. Male dwarf warrior (reaver?).

But anyway, can't tranquiled people in thedas have children ?

Not consensually.

However, if Hawke actually does appear in the game, then it is a very, very big deal if he/she does not match your previous hero in appearance.

There will be a CC in-game for Hawke.

No, "Project Redacted" is The Last Court.

That's what I assumed, but Blackout62 seems to have a different opinion.

I pre-ordered it as soon as I was able to.

My father, on the other hand, was a vocal hater of Dragon Age 2, and claimed that BioWare had completely broken his trust and that they would basically have to deliver a perfect experience with Inquisition to make up for it. He said he would wait for reviews before sinking money into it.

...He's pre-ordering as well.

Before anyone asks: since this seems to just be something made within the StoryNexus engine I doubt it's the limit of Failbetter's previously announced collaboration with Bioware.

Do you agree with the speculation that they're working on Shadow Realms, then?

(Here's the post in question for anyone who's curious, by the way.)

cheese wheel.

I pictured a dialogue wheel made of cheese.

https://m.youtube.co...h?v=RQBW0aDOaxM

I got an Inquisition ad when I clicked on this.

Maevaris Tilani.

Templar powers are derived from lyrium. Alistair's reference to using templar abilities without lyrium has been retconned as him talking out of his ass.

So... templar Wardens have secretly been lyrium addicts this entire time? As well as templar Hawkes?

BioWare: Seattle, even. Seattle's all about the games industry.

wait im no expert maybe they are similar, i can't tell anymore, or maybe it just doesn't bother me either way.

The robe is masking it somewhat. It's far more noticeable in the Skyhold video.

Should the title be  people of Color Hair ?  White people do have black hair my hair is raven black

No, because "POC" is not synonymous with black people. OP is specifically asking for kinky/afro-textured hair.

I'll try to use myself as an example. I'm a historian by education. Currently, I feel an extremely strong urge to read fiction based in late 15th century Italy. In this I represent an immensely smaller minority audience than gay audience. I recognize that and I don't feel angry over it. I don't demand from anyone to make a game or a film, or a book that fits my interests. That's the analogy I make.

We don't want LGBTQ+ characters because we feel like it, we want them because we want representation. Representation matters, because it helps affirm people's identities, and spreads awareness that we actually do exist, and our stories are as worthy of being told as straight cis people's.

I agree with you, but I already saw an example of a person who said that the presence of a gay character is reason enough for him to consider the game better.

It's a multifaceted issue. A game could have a good story, good characterization, and good gameplay, but bad representation/diversity, for instance - it need not excel on all fronts to be considered "good". The presence of positive LGBTQ+ characters would increase the quality of the game in regards to representation/diversity, but it's independent of the other aspects of the game, like story and gameplay.