90 réponses à ce sujet

[TheBlackBaron]

Caak7i wrote...
In my opinion, I do not like any of the options for this quest. Each one has their flaws and risks. It is one of the reasons why I dislike the Redcliffe questline the most in this game.

That's...kind of the point. In fact, it would be damn near perfect if leaving Redcliffe vulnerable by going to the Circle Tower had actual reprecussions.

[tool_bot]

Sarah1281 wrote...

And we're not talking a couple hour walk -- it's a couple of days. So you will be gone for at the very least 4 days. That gives that demon a LOT of time to recover.

I thought it was just two days round trip?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Teagan (or someone says) it's a day's trip across the Lake. Of course the map doesn't show you taking the Lake but still.

Modifié par tool_bot, 11 octobre 2010 - 04:20 .

[tool_bot]

ejoslin wrote...

 Hell, she was responsible for Alistair being sent to the chantry; no, she has a completely different set of rules for herself than she does for everyone else.

But we don't see her sending other children to be taken away by Templars or ordering the execution of suspected abominations, do we? What we see is a young and desperate woman running from something she can't control and trying to hold her family together in a situation no one could be expected to handle brilliantly. I respect that even if I'd like to feed her to the darkspawn.

And I really really wanted to when I walked in on Teagan doing that ridiculous jester routine.

[RavenousBear]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Caak7i wrote...
In my opinion, I do not like any of the options for this quest. Each one has their flaws and risks. It is one of the reasons why I dislike the Redcliffe questline the most in this game.

That's...kind of the point. In fact, it would be damn near perfect if leaving Redcliffe vulnerable by going to the Circle Tower had actual reprecussions.

Yep, I have a tendency to state the obvious at times. It just happens.

Modifié par Caak7i, 11 octobre 2010 - 04:34 .

[Zjarcal]

ejoslin wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

As for Isolde, I have some sympathy for her in the sense that she did everything to try and save her son and husband. She obviously did a lot of stupid decisions, but I don't hate her (or enjoy killing her) in the same way other people do.

See, I don't have any sympathy for Isolde.  She knew the price of saving her son's life was the lives of many other people -- she also knows the laws of Ferelden and of the Chantry, and as a pious woman, supposedly agrees with them.  Do you think she would have hesitated to kill anyone else's son who was an abomination?  Do you think she would hesitate to send any other child to the mage circle?  Hell, she was responsible for Alistair being sent to the chantry; no, she has a completely different set of rules for herself than she does for everyone else.

A stupid decision is hiring a mage to hide your son's magic abilities from everyone.  An evil one is not reaching out to the templars, no matter how painful, after possessed son orders the ears cut off the elves in the castle.  An evil decision is to continue to plea for the life of your son even after seeing the demon within him kill countless people whom you are sworn to protect.  

You see the demon mind control Bann Teagan.  Even without its army, isn't this enough of a threat?  Presumably, it didn't start out with an army -- it had to kill a lot of people to create it.  What would stop it from killing a few more villagers to start it again.

And we're not talking a couple hour walk -- it's a couple of days.  So you will be gone for at the very least 4 days.  That gives that demon a LOT of time to recover.

I do hate the happy joy option

Ehhhh, I pretty much agree with everything you said. I'm not sure if I gave you the impression that I defended Isolde's actions. I simply meant that I had some sympathy for her (not a lot by the way).

And yes, I also hate the happy joy option.

[grillz]

for some reason Leliana approved of me kiling connor, I think Wynee too. I forget.

[Commander Mad Cat]

Wow, I had no idea this quest was a such a lightning rod. I'm glad others take issue with there being a happy joy option.

I'm hoping that the devs at BioWare read this thread and next time make it so that there is no happy joy option. One of the great things about games like this is it gives the player a real choice in how things turn out. Offering one option that is superior to all others defeats the point of offering any choice.

Modifié par Commander Mad Cat, 11 octobre 2010 - 05:12 .

[tool_bot]

Commander Mad Cat wrote...

Wow, I had no idea this quest was a such a lightning rod. I'm glad others take issue with there being a happy joy option.

I'm hoping that the devs at BioWare read this thread and next time make it so that there is no happy joy option. One of the great things about games like this is it gives the player a real choice in how things turn out. Offering one option that is superior to all others defeats the point of offering any choice.

Yes, from now on every quest must have some life or death decision with no possible way to solve it that doesn't involve a somewhat forgivable evil (by modern standards) act and a lot of melodramatic crying.

[Commander Mad Cat]

tool_bot wrote...

Yes, from now on every quest must have some life or death decision with no possible way to solve it that doesn't involve a somewhat forgivable evil (by modern standards) act and a lot of melodramatic crying.

It doesn't have to involve life or death, but it should involve choice.  Suppose I had three weapons and offered one, and only ONE, of them to you:

The first is a Tier 2 longsword
The second is a Tier 3 longsword
The third is a Tier 3 longsword with bonus +6 to attack

Assuming your current class can use the weapon and your current weapon is a Tier 1 longsword, which one would you choose of the three?  Can you even call it a choice?  I know I wouldn't.

Similarly, if there was a way to save both Connor and Isolde and everyone lives happily ever after, why WOULDN'T someone choose that option?  It's a no brainer and thus not much of a choice.

Modifié par Commander Mad Cat, 11 octobre 2010 - 05:33 .

[Monica21]

I kind of wish that there was a chance that leaving means you either came back to peaceful village or a wiped out one. You wouldn't be able to predict what would happen in every playthrough, and the player is left in the same situation as the Warden. You know that if you leave for the Tower you're risking the villagers. I wonder how many people would sacrifice Isolde if there was a 50% chance that every time you leave Redcliffe could be destroyed on your return.

[Raiil]

Commander Mad Cat wrote...

tool_bot wrote...

Yes, from now on every quest must have some life or death decision with no possible way to solve it that doesn't involve a somewhat forgivable evil (by modern standards) act and a lot of melodramatic crying.

It doesn't have to involve life or death, but it should involve choice.  Suppose I had three weapons and offered one, and only ONE, of them to you:

The first is a Tier 2 longsword
The second is a Tier 3 longsword
The third is a Tier 3 longsword with bonus +6 to attack

Assuming your current class can use the weapon and your current weapon is a Tier 1 longsword, which one would you choose of the three?  Can you even call it a choice?  I know I wouldn't.

Similarly, if there was a way to save both Connor and Isolde and everyone lives happily ever after, why WOULDN'T someone choose that option?  It's a no brainer and thus not much of a choice.

Because creating a game that always had a crap outcome in one form or another would just be as realistic as a game where everyone's spewing out sunshine and daisies every time you speak. Sometimes there is something of a happy ending; Redcliffe happens to be one of those options. The Elvish quest is another example; you can save the elves, help the werewolves gain vengeance, or save the werewolves and end the curse and and cure the Dalish clan. On the other hand, whether you pick Bhelen or Harrowmount, there is no perfect ever after; Bhelen's a reformist and an unrepentant murderer who happens to be a better king, whereas Harrowmount isn't and is a really bad king. Sometimes you just can't win, and sometimes, you can win.

The point being, your character has a choice. As I noted above, my mage PC has the strategy skills of a dying turnip and decided to go get the mages, although I personally understand that it's a huge risk to take. She made a choice and luckily at this juncture, it worked out well. On the other hand, she picked Harrowmount, and that was bad choice on her part. You have choice, and you take risks. Sometimes it pays off, and sometimes it doesn't. No one is forcing your toon to save everyone.

[Daryn Mercio]

Commander Mad Cat wrote...

Hi all,

I'm on my first playthrough of DAO and I'm doing the Arl of Redcliffe as my very first quest out of Lothering.  I get to the part where I have to decide what happens to Connor.  Thankfully, since I let Jowan go, he shows up and offers to perform the blood ritual, so I have three choices:
a) kill the kid
sacrifice the mother to perform the ritual and defeat the demon
c) drop everything to do the Broken Circle quest and get the Circle's help

I ended up choosing ( since it seemed to be the lesser of all the evils.  Obviously (a) is bad and I figured that © would cause the village below to be destroyed by the undead hordes that keep coming every night.

But looking it up on the wiki, it appears that if I leave everyone at Redcliffe as is and do the Broken Circle quest (which, BTW, I have no idea what happens, so please, no spoilers) to get the Circle's help, I can resolve the entire situation with everyone alive.

Um, WTF?  Why?  The village was nearly overrun with undead just prior to me entering the castle.  The undead that is, I might add, being called up by the demon in Connor.  How exactly is leaving Redcliffe to fend for themselves for several days, if not weeks, while I do the Broken Circle quest not have any negative consequences?

I agree so for the sake of realism I always do Broken Circle before everything.

[Elhanan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
 I just think that the thought that most people would pick an adult over a child is horrible.

EDIT: wait. Do you mean pick as in kill an adult over a child?

No, I mean if you could only save one, saving the adult over the child.

As I understand our current cultural norm, as a rule Women tend towards saving their children, while Men would save their spouses. I am uncertain if this has always been thus, and of course there are usually exceptions.

One change that should occur in Redcliffe is that Owen's daughter was either found, or is still missing. While this is not a major quest, it still has some bearing on this moral puzzle and some minor game issues.

[Jon Jern_]

The reason I take the circle mage option every time is because one of your companions will get a HUGE approval drop with any other option. I was not amused.

[Commander Mad Cat]

Because creating a game that always had a crap outcome in one form or another would just be as realistic as a game where everyone's spewing out sunshine and daisies every time you speak. Sometimes there is something of a happy ending; Redcliffe happens to be one of those options.

But it's not done in a believable way.  Why should I assume that the demon won't find other ways to torment and kill the villagers and castle staff?  If we can leave them alone at Redcliffe for several days without incident, why cannot we leave them indefinitely?  What's so special about those few days I'm at the Circle Tower where nothing happens in Redcliffe that I cannot leave them there indefinitely?  There's no reason given to me in the story to believe that everything will be fine if I leave Redcliffe for several days or even weeks, but apparently, it "magically" happens like that.

As for realism, I'm not going to get into that since DAO is just a game.  However, I will say it makes for a far more interesting story and more compelling gameplay if the player actually has to make a REAL choice rather than simply being presented with an illusion of a choice.  If there's no real choice, then why bother putting it in the game?

The point being, your character has a choice.

Not a real one, just a fake one.  Once again, it does not make for compelling gameplay or interesting story if there is always one option that is clearly superior to all other options in every possible way.

[Raiil]

Commander Mad Cat wrote...

Because creating a game that always had a crap outcome in one form or another would just be as realistic as a game where everyone's spewing out sunshine and daisies every time you speak. Sometimes there is something of a happy ending; Redcliffe happens to be one of those options.

But it's not done in a believable way.  Why should I assume that the demon won't find other ways to torment and kill the villagers and castle staff?  If we can leave them alone at Redcliffe for several days without incident, why cannot we leave them indefinitely?  What's so special about those few days I'm at the Circle Tower where nothing happens in Redcliffe that I cannot leave them there indefinitely?  There's no reason given to me in the story to believe that everything will be fine if I leave Redcliffe for several days or even weeks, but apparently, it "magically" happens like that.

As for realism, I'm not going to get into that since DAO is just a game.  However, I will say it makes for a far more interesting story and more compelling gameplay if the player actually has to make a REAL choice rather than simply being presented with an illusion of a choice.  If there's no real choice, then why bother putting it in the game?

The point being, your character has a choice.

Not a real one, just a fake one.  Once again, it does not make for compelling gameplay or interesting story if there is always one option that is clearly superior to all other options in every possible way.

You think it's not being done in a believable way. And like I said, it's not like every single choice you make in this game has the outcome that's ideal. In Awakenings, if you pacify the crowd, you get uprisings later. You can make the demon walk away from Connor, only to come back. You can put a kin-slayer or a wavering old coot on the throne of Orzammar. You can aid the hermit or the oak tree. Redcliffe is one example of a multitude of them. Sometimes the outcome is predictable, and sometimes it isn't.


The game doesn't just offer choices; it offers chances at rationalisation for the different origins. A dwarf whose entire knowledge of magic at this point is demons = bad may choose to kill Connor because it seems like the reasonable option. A Cousland may choose to sacrifice Isolde because they can't bear the thought of another child dying after seeing Oren dead, but they don't want to risk losing Redcliffe. And a mage who has no ties to the non-magical world may opt to go to Kinloch Hold because slaying a child is horrific, but blood magic attracts demons and with the veil already torn, they don't want to risk an situation more terrible than it already is. Maybe it's an elf who just can't fathom killing Connor or Isolde, and maybe the mag's tower is the best option, or maybe it's an elf that hates all humans and gladly punches Isolde out and kills Connor themselves.

Not every origin sees the world in the same way. And like I said, sometimes risks pay off, and Redcliffe happens to be one of them. If you saved Redcliffe, then you've already disposed of most, if not all, of the demon's standing army, and it would take some time for that army to be rebuilt. You can choose whether you have that time or not. Maybe it's too tidy for you, but it's not a completely unreasonable outcome. 

[Elhanan]

Commander Mad Cat wrote...

But it's not done in a believable way.  Why should I assume that the demon won't find other ways to torment and kill the villagers and castle staff?  If we can leave them alone at Redcliffe for several days without incident, why cannot we leave them indefinitely?  What's so special about those few days I'm at the Circle Tower where nothing happens in Redcliffe that I cannot leave them there indefinitely?  There's no reason given to me in the story to believe that everything will be fine if I leave Redcliffe for several days or even weeks, but apparently, it "magically" happens like that.

As for realism, I'm not going to get into that since DAO is just a game.  However, I will say it makes for a far more interesting story and more compelling gameplay if the player actually has to make a REAL choice rather than simply being presented with an illusion of a choice.  If there's no real choice, then why bother putting it in the game?

Not a real one, just a fake one.  Once again, it does not make for compelling gameplay or interesting story if there is always one option that is clearly superior to all other options in every possible way.

One way to play this for those that favor RP is to go on to the Circle, find it currently unavailable to help, then return to take an alternative choice, or return later than planned. Thus you tried for the best outcome, but time and matters outside your control forced the Warden to make a difficult choice.

For those into meta-gaming, take the choice you prefer.

[Commander Mad Cat]

Valentia X wrote...
You think it's not being done in a believable way. And like I said, it's not like every single choice you make in this game has the outcome that's ideal. I

As I pointed out in the OP, please don't reveal spoilers past this part of the story, as I have not gotten around to them yet.

Valentia X wrote...

The game doesn't just offer choices; it offers chances at rationalisation for the different origins. A dwarf whose entire knowledge of magic at this point is demons = bad may choose to kill Connor because it seems like the reasonable option. A Cousland may choose to sacrifice Isolde because they can't bear the thought of another child dying after seeing Oren dead, but they don't want to risk losing Redcliffe.

But that's precisely my point: there is NO risk of losing Redcliffe.  If you choose the Circle of Magi option, apparently, everything turns out hunky dory.

Valentia X wrote...

maybe it's an elf that hates all humans and gladly punches Isolde out and kills Connor themselves.

But this elf apparently has little problem working with and for a bunch of humans.  I see...

Valentia X wrote...

Not every origin sees the world in the same way. And like I said, sometimes risks pay off, and Redcliffe happens to be one of them. If you saved Redcliffe, then you've already disposed of most, if not all, of the demon's standing army, and it would take some time for that army to be rebuilt. You can choose whether you have that time or not. Maybe it's too tidy for you, but it's not a completely unreasonable outcome.

The demon doesn't necessarily need a horde of undead to wreak havoc on the villagers and castle staff.  Remember that it had to built it up in the first place, what's to stop it from doing it again?

And as I said, there is no risk of losing Redcliffe since the outcome is always going to be everyone lives if you go to the Circle Tower.

[Sarah1281]

Assuming your current class can use the weapon and your current weapon is a Tier 1 longsword, which one would you choose of the three? Can you even call it a choice? I know I wouldn't.



Similarly, if there was a way to save both Connor and Isolde and everyone lives happily ever after, why WOULDN'T someone choose that option? It's a no brainer and thus not much of a choice.

That is absolutely not true. Your analogy would work better if you were given three swords and had to pick one but couldn't tell anything about the stats until afterwards. If your Warden was psychic then they would have a 'no-brainer' choice to go to the Circle but then they would always be able to make the best choice. The Warden only has the information available to them which does make going to the Circle seem risky. Just because it ultimately works out for the best doesn't mean that it has to be a risk you're going to be okay with taking.



Meta-gaming-wise, yes that's the choice with the best outcome. Meta-gaming-wise you don't have to fear that Connor will get possessed again as the epilogue tells you so and if you kill Connor then you know that Isolde soon dies in childbirth anyway so it's not like her life goes on for much longer. It's really unfair to say that, because you're blatantly meta-gaming, there is no real choice.



You know what kinds of things are the illusions of choice? Becoming a Warden. Stopping the Blight. Saving Eamon. Deciding whether to kill Eamon's wife, his son, or to hope that you can save them both without it backfiring horribly? Definitely a choice.

If we can leave them alone at Redcliffe for several days without incident, why cannot we leave them indefinitely? What's so special about those few days I'm at the Circle Tower where nothing happens in Redcliffe that I cannot leave them there indefinitely?

It is unlikely but not unbelievable that a demon who ran up to his room sulking might continue to sulk for the two days it takes to grab the Circle (though this may be longer if you have to do that quest at the time). It is completely unreasonable to expect it to do nothing 'indefinitely.' Say you go to Redcliffe first but don't head back with the mages until right before the Landsmeet is to start. It will have been about a year or so and how in the world can expecting a demon to do nothing for a year be at all comparable to expecting it to do nothing for two freaking days?

[ejoslin]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

 She knew the price of saving her son's life was the lives of many other people

Did she? She assigned him a tutor precisely to try and avoid him getting out of control and to learn how to hide and control his power. Yes, it wasn't the smartest decision and yes, it's hypocritical and tragically ironic considering how pious she is. But to say she knew all this would have happened? I think that's stretching it.

And yes, she is desperate for saving her son even after everything, but that's because, I think, she knows it's not his fault at all this happened but hers. She gladly and without any hesitation offers her life to fix the mistake. Isn't that enough of a penance? It is for me.

Many people died by the time you reached her -- and when you get there, Bann Teagan is under its thrall.  

Edit: And she refuses to tell anyone on the outside what is going on.  She had a chance, instead she chose to bring Bann Teagan with her, without telling you what is going on.  At that point, right there, she has decided her son's life is worth more than the lives of all of her subjects even though, by the laws she lives by and in the faith she embraces, her son should die.

I don't blame her for wanting her son to live.  But she is not so blind that she doesn't see the damage that is being caused by the demon.  She has chosen a horrible horrible path that has lead to the deaths of many.  Was it Connor's fault?  In a way, yes, but gah, listening to the children in the chantry wondering if their parents will come back.  Ugh.  And Isolde would have it continue.

Whether it's two days or four days away (I still think it's four days, but I won't quibble over it) is irrelevant.  Look how short a time it took to mind control Bann Teagan.  All it would have to do is kill a few of Ser Perth's knights, mind control Ser Perth, and you're right back where it started.  That could happen in a few hours.  It needs to be dealt with, IMO, and dealt with immediately.

Modifié par ejoslin, 11 octobre 2010 - 02:06 .

[Aeowyn]

ejoslin wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

 She knew the price of saving her son's life was the lives of many other people

Did she? She assigned him a tutor precisely to try and avoid him getting out of control and to learn how to hide and control his power. Yes, it wasn't the smartest decision and yes, it's hypocritical and tragically ironic considering how pious she is. But to say she knew all this would have happened? I think that's stretching it.

And yes, she is desperate for saving her son even after everything, but that's because, I think, she knows it's not his fault at all this happened but hers. She gladly and without any hesitation offers her life to fix the mistake. Isn't that enough of a penance? It is for me.

Many people died by the time you reached her -- and when you get there, Bann Teagan is under its thrall.  

Edit: And she refuses to tell anyone on the outside what is going on.  She had a chance, instead she chose to bring Bann Teagan with her, without telling you what is going on.  At that point, right there, she has decided her son's life is worth more than the lives of all of her subjects even though, by the laws she lives by and in the faith she embraces, her son should die.

I don't blame her for wanting her son to live.  But she is not so blind that she doesn't see the damage that is being caused by the demon.  She has chosen a horrible horrible path that has lead to the deaths of many.  Was it Connor's fault?  In a way, yes, but gah, listening to the children in the chantry wondering if their parents will come back.  Ugh.  And Isolde would have it continue.

Whether it's two days or four days away (I still think it's four days, but I won't quibble over it) is irrelevant.  Look how short a time it took to mind control Bann Teagan.  All it would have to do is kill a few of Ser Perth's knights, mind control Ser Perth, and you're right back where it started.  That could happen in a few hours.  It needs to be dealt with, IMO, and dealt with immediately.

This.
She doesn't even acknowledge that a lot of villagers have died defending it. Even when a decision has been made she tries to stop you.

And despite you doing the Circle Tower first it still takes a minimum of 2 days to get back and forth. There should be consequences.

Modifié par Aeowyn, 11 octobre 2010 - 02:20 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ejoslin wrote...
Many people died by the time you reached her -- and when you get there, Bann Teagan is under its thrall.  

Edit: And she refuses to tell anyone on the outside what is going on.  She had a chance, instead she chose to bring Bann Teagan with her, without telling you what is going on.  At that point, right there, she has decided her son's life is worth more than the lives of all of her subjects even though, by the laws she lives by and in the faith she embraces, her son should die.

Yes I know, how could have Isolde have known that this would be the consequence for her actions?

Because the Demon told her not to? If the Demon wanted Teagan alone and warned her that telling anyone would make him / it angry, can she be blamed for doing what she was told? Who knows what the demon threatened her with.  So she didn't choose, she was ordered to bring Teagan and not tell anyone.

ejoslin wrote...
I don't blame her for wanting her son to live.  But she is not so blind that she doesn't see the damage that is being caused by the demon.  She has chosen a horrible horrible path that has lead to the deaths of many.  Was it Connor's fault?  In a way, yes, but gah, listening to the children in the chantry wondering if their parents will come back.  Ugh.  And Isolde would have it continue.

No, she isn't blind, but it's not in any way, shape or form, Connor's fault and she would never forgive herself if he dies because of her mistake.
And why is the path she chose so horrible? For all you know, if Jowan didn't poison Eamon, this whole thing could have worked or at least be drastically different. Eamon getting sick was an unknown variable and that's what primarily made Connor make a deal with the demon. It turned out to be a horrible path, but there is no way Isolde could have known that this would happen.

And who told you she would have it continue? She is willing to give her life to end all this. All she wants is for her son to be spared because he didn't do anything.

[tool_bot]

Commander Mad Cat wrote...

But it's not done in a believable way.  Why should I assume that the demon won't find other ways to torment and kill the villagers and castle staff?  If we can leave them alone at Redcliffe for several days without incident, why cannot we leave them indefinitely?  What's so special about those few days I'm at the Circle Tower where nothing happens in Redcliffe that I cannot leave them there indefinitely?  There's no reason given to me in the story to believe that everything will be fine if I leave Redcliffe for several days or even weeks, but apparently, it "magically" happens like that.

You're right, there is nothing given to you in the story that Redcliffe will work out that way. In fact you have everyone telling you it's a bad idea and the constant reminder of what the abomination child might do. You can risk it and go with the risky option or you can play it safe and kill Connor. 

You act as if everything you know your character knows. You wouldn't have the option of the blood magic ritual if you told Jowan to get lost either. 

Not a real one, just a fake one.  Once again, it does not make for compelling gameplay or interesting story if there is always one option that is clearly superior to all other options in every possible way.

Which your character wouldn't know and shouldn't be factored into his decision making process.

[tool_bot]

Aeowyn wrote...

And despite you doing the Circle Tower first it still takes a minimum of 2 days to get back and forth. There should be consequences.

And the state of the village should have changed depending on when you first came to it.

[tool_bot]

ejoslin wrote...
Whether it's two days or four days away (I still think it's four days, but I won't quibble over it) is irrelevant.  Look how short a time it took to mind control Bann Teagan.  All it would have to do is kill a few of Ser Perth's knights, mind control Ser Perth, and you're right back where it started.  That could happen in a few hours.  It needs to be dealt with, IMO, and dealt with immediately.

Doesnt this all depend on your PC and how you roleplay these events?

By this point Daylen has already recruited Wynne and the mages are on their way to Redcliffe as the Mages you encounter battling darkspawn inform you. Sten is also there and along with Morrigan we cleared the Circle of all abominations, so I know they're very resistant to possession and have a good track record with demons/abominations. Those 3 (Wynne, Sten and Morrigan) are accompanied by Alistair who is a Templar and has some understanding of what possession does and signs of it. The blood mage Jowan is there also (who Daylen, foolishly or not, has faith in) adding his powers to the group.

Daylen doesn't need a war band to cross the lake. All he needs is a boat.

Mind you this isn't the way I always do it but it's one way my characters justify their actions.