2340 réponses à ce sujet

[Kavatica]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Kavatica wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'll fight the Qunari when they attack. I'll kill the Arishok. But I'll always maintain that the Arishok was justified in his assault of the city.

I don't know if I agree with you that he was justified, but I certainly don't blame him. Kirkwall is a hole. I mean, I thought Fereldan had a lot of loonies running around, but Kirkwall just takes the cake on that one.

He was. Think about all the things that have happened to him during his forced sojourn -- under Qunari doctrine anyway -- in Kirkwall:

1) Ketojan's kerataam was killed and their bodies led to the spot where Arvaarad was found. Petrice's hope was that a group of kind souls escorting a mage to freedom would be killed by the Qunari that were led there and that would provide her with sufficient means of starting a war (and in retrospect, some of her dialogue does in fact point to this being her goal prior to the actual escorting of Ketojan). The Arishok lost two groups of men because of blind fanatical hatred of who the Qunari are, rather then what they've done. Which at that point was nothing.

2) Ashaad is killed by a mercenary company -- no obvious ties to Petrice but he does still lose a man -- while he's scouting for the Arishok, seeking an answer. I can only surmise that the question was related to the crash of Isabela's ship, its whereabouts, the book's whereabouts, and mapping the area of the Wounded Coast.

3) Some of the citizens of Kirkwall -- working in alliance with Petrice's group -- unknowingly steal the Qunari plans for saar qamek. Their intent was based on the belief that it was the gaatlok -- blackpowder -- and that they could set off explosions throughout the city. This would not only raise fear in the Qunari amongst the populus, but give the Chantry the needed spur to kill them all. Again, he's being feared and hated for what he is rather then what he does. And again, it's still nothing. All that he's done was accept willing converts to his compound. I feel for the Elven woman. I do. But it wasn't her call.

4) The stamp of the Grand Cleric was used to authorize the kidnapping of Qunari delegates -- who had willingly agreed to keep their weapons tied to their sheaths -- and torture them. This is meant to sow disunity amongst the peace that the Viscount is desperately trying to keep. The Arishok has now lost those men that he tasked with conversing with the Viscount diplomatically, insofar as the antaam are able to since they're the military hand of Qunari society.

5) Saemus is tricked into returning to the Chantry where he is subsequently strangled from behind -- or his neck was broken. Those are the two causes of death I figured were what happened -- after he had willingly converted to the Qunari. This was done by Petrice because she was afraid that Saemus' actions would serve as an example for other people to join. And there was nothing wrong with that. Saemus wanted to foster relations between the two societies, maybe hoping that each could live in peace with one another. She only cared about preserving Chantry influence rather then serving the people beneficially and Elthina was right to chastise her for it. Even if the Chantry is a corrupt institution, Petrice's goals had nothing noble about them.

I think that's all of the quests dealing with the Qunari. The Tal-Vashoth one and Javaris doesn't count into this because that wasn't detrimental to the Qunari in any way aside from "Aww... we wanted to kill Tal-Vashoth!"
 
It basically boils down to "You fear, revile, and murder us because of who we are as opposed to what we do?! Then I will give you something to fear!"

He is justified, because there was no winning with the people of Kirkwall. All of the actions taken against him led to the loss of his men and most -- the mercenary one being the only one that might not be tied to Petrice -- stemmed from religious zealotry. The Dragon was bullied, and he was pissed off. So he fought back.

I don't disagree with you. I certainly believe that the Arishok had more than enough motives behind his actions. I'm just not entirely sure that destroying the whole city was justified. I'm sure he believed that it was (especially since he is Qunari and they do not think or act in shades of grey). And again, I don't blame him for doing it - because Kirkwall is a hole. But, I'm not sure I believe his actions were justified. Or that Hawke does, really. Based on that really frustrated look Hawke gives the Arishok when he/she is hauled out of the compound by Aveline. Which is kind of the same face I gave him through my computer.

Modifié par Kavatica, 14 mars 2012 - 11:11 .

[TEWR]

Kavatica wrote...

I don't disagree with you. I certainly believe that the Arishok had more than enough motives behind his actions. I'm just not entirely sure that destroying the whole city was justified. I'm sure he believed that it was (especially since he is Qunari and they do not think or act in shades of grey). And again, I don't blame him for doing it - because Kirkwall is a hole. But, I'm not sure I believe his actions were justified. Or that Hawke does, really. Based on that really frustrated look Hawke gives the Arishok when he/she is hauled out of the compound by Aveline. Which is kind of the same face I gave him through my computer.

His intent was never to destroy the city. Merely to bring the city under the Qunari way of life because it's incredibly flawed under the Chantry way of life. Instead of helping the poor, impoverished, and destitute souls that dwell in Kirkwall's grisly and unhealthy lower reaches, Chantry priests were intent on expelling people that didn't pose any immediate threat whatsoever.

That is a major flaw in the system and the Arishok's motives were that the city be converted entirely.

The city would've been heavily damaged in the process -- battles are bound to do that after all -- but his motives were never that it be destroyed and razed to the ground.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 mars 2012 - 11:23 .

[caradoc2000]

While this Qunari debate is off-topic, I'll say this. I can understand most of the Qunari grievances. What really pisses me off is that the Arishok demands that you hand over a criminal (Isabela) while he himself had just done the same (with the elves).

[Kavatica]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Kavatica wrote...

I don't disagree with you. I certainly believe that the Arishok had more than enough motives behind his actions. I'm just not entirely sure that destroying the whole city was justified. I'm sure he believed that it was (especially since he is Qunari and they do not think or act in shades of grey). And again, I don't blame him for doing it - because Kirkwall is a hole. But, I'm not sure I believe his actions were justified. Or that Hawke does, really. Based on that really frustrated look Hawke gives the Arishok when he/she is hauled out of the compound by Aveline. Which is kind of the same face I gave him through my computer.

His intent was never to destroy the city. Merely to bring the city under the Qunari way of life because it's incredibly flawed under the Chantry way of life. Instead of helping the poor, impoverished, and destitute souls that dwell in Kirkwall's grisly and unhealthy lower reaches, Chantry priests were intent on expelling people that didn't pose any immediate threat whatsoever.

That is a major flaw in the system and the Arishok's motives were that the city be converted entirely.

The city would've been heavily damaged in the process -- battles are bound to do that after all -- but his motives were never that it be destroyed and razed to the ground.

That is a good point. Fenris: "The Qunari waste nothing."

[Kavatica]

caradoc2000 wrote...

While this Qunari debate is off-topic, I'll say this. I can understand most of the Qunari grievances. What really pisses me off is that the Arishok demands that you hand over a criminal (Isabela) while he himself had just done the same (with the elves).

YES. This. And this is one of the things that frustrates me most about the Qunari. They are completely incapable of seeing anything from a viewpoint that is not their own. Much like the Borg. Or, well, most organized religions. But that is a whole other can of worms.

Modifié par Kavatica, 14 mars 2012 - 11:31 .

[Lazy Jer]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

His intent was never to destroy the city. Merely to bring the city under the Qunari way of life because it's incredibly flawed under the Chantry way of life. Instead of helping the poor and destitute that dwell in Kirkwall's grisly unhealthy underside, Chantry priests were intent on expelling people that didn't pose any immediate threat whatsoever.

That is a major flaw in the system and the Arishok's motives were that the city be converted entirely.

The city would've been heavily damaged in the process -- battles are bound to do that after all -- but his motives were never that it be destroyed and razed to the ground.

He may not have intended to destroy the city, but he certainly kept it as an option.  In talking to the Arishok he does make it plain that he keeps the option of a full scale invasion open.  I believe mentioning once that it would be easier to find the book by "sifting through the ashes".  That more or less implies destruction on a massive scale.

Regarding the Qunari not posing any immediate threat...I'm not sure I buy that 100%.  They were after all an army.  The only issue there is that it wasn't their place to do anything about it.  Technically the Qunari problem was up to Viscount Dumar to solve...which he didn't (but that's neither here nor there)

Also let's make sure we separate the actions of Petrice (I'm sick of calling that woman "mother"), from the chantry as a whole.  The Grand Cleric wasn't overly fond of the Qunari, clearly, but it was Petrice's actions, by and large, that caused the Arishok to say "screw this" and fire up the building barbeque and her actions weren't officially sanctioned by the Chantry.

Now in regards to whether the Arishok's invasion was "justified".  Trickier question then Anders (remember him?).  The Arishok was the leader of an army.  Therefore he is in an official military capacity and therefore isn't technically bound by the laws of Kirkwall so the justification is entirely a personal one rather (i.e.  you either feel it was justified or you don't).

One thing is for sure.  He wasn't the best person to send looking for that book.  Tallis would have been done in a week and still have had time to go sight-seeing at the Bone Pit.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Actually most, if not all, structural damage the Qunari caused, happened in Hightown, home of the rich and corrupt. Little damage was done, by the Qunari anyway, to Lowtown and poorer areas.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Lazy Jer wrote...
One thing is for sure.  He wasn't the best person to send looking for that book.  Tallis would have been done in a week and still have had time to go sight-seeing at the Bone Pit.

The Arishok was never send to look for the book.... he was sent to retrieve it during a diplomatic summit with Orlais. Isabela intercepted the orlesians enroute to the meeting point, and escaped with the Tome. By Qunari honor, this bound the Arishok to pursue Isabela, since his mission was to retrieve the book, and remained so, even after it changed hands.

[Kavatica]

Lazy Jer wrote...

One thing is for sure.  He wasn't the best person to send looking for that book.  Tallis would have been done in a week and still have had time to go sight-seeing at the Bone Pit.

Hahaha, this is very true.

[TEWR]

caradoc2000 wrote...

While this Qunari debate is off-topic, I'll say this. I can understand most of the Qunari grievances. What really pisses me off is that the Arishok demands that you hand over a criminal (Isabela) while he himself had just done the same (with the elves).

I would've liked to call him out on it myself. I would've also liked a 300 moment where it's basically the earth and water scene.

Lazy Jer wrote...


He may not have intended to destroy the city, but he certainly kept it as an option.  In talking to the Arishok he does make it plain that he keeps the option of a full scale invasion open.  I believe mentioning once that it would be easier to find the book by "sifting through the ashes".  That more or less implies destruction on a massive scale.

True.

Regarding the Qunari not posing any immediate threat...I'm not sure I buy that 100%.  They were after all an army.  The only issue there is that it wasn't their place to do anything about it.  Technically the Qunari problem was up to Viscount Dumar to solve...which he didn't (but that's neither here nor there)

They were only a few hundred men that were all a part of the army. But they weren't an army themselves. They were sent to diplomatically deal with Orlais and retrieve their book.

Also let's make sure we separate the actions of Petrice (I'm sick of calling that woman "mother"), from the chantry as a whole.  The Grand Cleric wasn't overly fond of the Qunari, clearly, but it was Petrice's actions, by and large, that caused the Arishok to say "screw this" and fire up the building barbeque and her actions weren't officially sanctioned by the Chantry.

Petrice however had other supporters within the Chantry's ranks by Act 2. Grand Cleric Elthina may not have approved of it, but the Chantry was very much involved in it, even if the head priest wasn't.

Now in regards to whether the Arishok's invasion was "justified".  Trickier question then Anders (remember him?). 

Who? Oh right, that crazy mage.  

One thing is for sure.  He wasn't the best person to send looking for that book.  Tallis would have been done in a week and still have had time to go sight-seeing at the Bone Pit.

Well, he was sent to deal with Orlais and be returned the book. He wasn't really looking for it until Isabela's ship came in and created a triangle scenario, where she took the book from Orlesian forces. Then as she's retreating, the Qunari manage to find her and promptly rain hellfire upon her in the midst of a torrential storm that destroyed both ships.

Afterwards, despite the book having changed hands his mission was still the same: Get the book back. Only now there was an added caveat -- bring the thief back as well.

What I can't quite recall -- and I'm unsure if it was even mentioned -- is just how Isabela lost the book. The shipwreck would explain it certainly, but I'm just wondering if it was ever really explained how she lost it. All I do recall is this bit of dialogue:

Hayder: Where's the relic?
Isabela: I lost it.
Hayder: Lost it? Just like you lost a ship full of valuable cargo?

That just tells us she lost it, but not how.

Also, I would've thought that the Ben-Hassrath would've been tasked for the retrieval of the book given how it's key to the Qunari faith. Indeed, Tallis would've been best because she's Ben-Hassrath. If not solely the Ben-Hassrath, then a joint operation of the Antaam and the Ben-Hassrath.

But alas, the Arishok took only part of the Antaam.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 mars 2012 - 12:48 .

[Silfren]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Ah.  And therein lies the million dollar question, doesn't it?  This is what makes DA games so great, because it is here that people find the shades of grey: do you meta-game your own morals, or those within the game's context?  Is it even possible to divorce your (general you) 21st century first-world morals from that of the characters within the context of the game's politico-cultural setting?  

People have always counted some measure of innocent lives cheap.  The term we use for it today is "collateral damage" and there are endless debates to be had as to its inevitability, its standing as a lesser evil, etc. 

The only stance that has ever been completely, and utterly, free of believing that any measure of human life is cheap, and therefore expendable for whichever greater cause is being championed, is to be a total anti-violence pacifist.  Some people are capable of living that ideology.  Most of us don't, however, or can't, and unfortunately the various ills of the world usually demand that blood of some sort, from SOME group of people, be shed.  

Given the various all-or-nothing positions of various groups within Thedas, the only possible outcome is that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, is going to die, for SOMEBODY'S cause. 

The phrase, "can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" may be trite, but its true. 

All true, I suppose.  It's which eggs are broken that stirs up these little debates.

Exactly.  I mean, in RL, a lot of people believe there are situations in which capital punishment is justified.  Those people's lives are considered cheap.  The reasons are beside the point--their lives are considered expendable.  Same with terrorists, or, in a war, the soldiers belonging to the side you (again general you) are opposing.  

To bring this back to the game and avoid getting too deeply involved in real world discussion, templars consider the lives of mages cheap.  Some do so simply as the lesser evil.  Greagoir, for instance, doesn't enjoy the thought of killing mages, but when he has to weigh the lives of mages against the lives of non-mages, it's clear which side he'll come down on.  For him, that's the choice:  a few innocent mages risk being slaughtered along with a number of rogue mages and abominations, or an unknown number of innocent non-mages are at risk of slaughter.  A group of people is going to die either way; the unpleasant choice falls to someone else to decide WHICH group it will be.  So the lives of mages here are considered cheap against the lives of non-mages. 

For templars akin to Meredith or the Lord Seeker, the inherent danger of mages leads to the mindset that mages simple are not and cannot be considered as people.  You can't view life much more cheaply than this. 

And so on it goes.  When the situation means that someone is going to die, whether you play the lesser evil/necessary evil game, believe you're acting in self-defense, or simply value the needs of your own group's needs over and above that of the other, at that point people DO start making decisions about which human lives have value and which don't.  This is why I have sympathy for Anders' position.  

[Kavatica]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

What I can't quite recall -- and I'm unsure if it was even mentioned -- is just how Isabela lost the book. The shipwreck would explain it certainly, but I'm just wondering if it was ever really explained how she lost it. All I do recall is this bit of dialogue:

Hayder: Where's the relic?
Isabela: I lost it.
Hayder: Lost it? Just like you lost a ship full of valuable cargo?

That just tells us she lost it, but not how.

I thought Wall-Eyed Sam stole it from Isabela? Or does he just stumble across it?

[TEWR]

Kavatica wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

What I can't quite recall -- and I'm unsure if it was even mentioned -- is just how Isabela lost the book. The shipwreck would explain it certainly, but I'm just wondering if it was ever really explained how she lost it. All I do recall is this bit of dialogue:

Hayder: Where's the relic?
Isabela: I lost it.
Hayder: Lost it? Just like you lost a ship full of valuable cargo?

That just tells us she lost it, but not how.

I thought Wall-Eyed Sam stole it from Isabela? Or does he just stumble across it?

She called him a magpie, stumbling across things that aren't his and taking them.

[Silfren]

caradoc2000 wrote...

While this Qunari debate is off-topic, I'll say this. I can understand most of the Qunari grievances. What really pisses me off is that the Arishok demands that you hand over a criminal (Isabela) while he himself had just done the same (with the elves).

See, I see a powerful moral difference between the two.  The elves were being sheltered because the justice system of Kirkwall failed them.  As elves, they weren't seen as having any rights worth respecting, and when one of their own was raped, their attempts at justice were thwarted.  So they took matters into their own hands, and suddenly found themselves afoul of the same law that in theory should have protected them in the first place.

I suppose if you look at the situation from a purely legalistic point of view, there's hypocrisy at play.  But that requires a person to blind themselves to the context. 

Sheltering the elves was one of the few genuinely noble--genuinely JUST--things that the Arishok could be credited for.

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

caradoc2000 wrote...

While this Qunari debate is off-topic, I'll say this. I can understand most of the Qunari grievances. What really pisses me off is that the Arishok demands that you hand over a criminal (Isabela) while he himself had just done the same (with the elves).

See, I see a powerful moral difference between the two.  The elves were being sheltered because the justice system of Kirkwall failed them.  As elves, they weren't seen as having any rights worth respecting, and when one of their own was raped, their attempts at justice were thwarted.  So they took matters into their own hands, and suddenly found themselves afoul of the same law that in theory should have protected them in the first place.

I suppose if you look at the situation from a purely legalistic point of view, there's hypocrisy at play.  But that requires a person to blind themselves to the context. 

Sheltering the elves was one of the few genuinely noble--genuinely JUST--things that the Arishok could be credited for.

That's a good point. Without understanding the context and focusing solely on the law, it becomes a case of moral absolutism.

So the Arishok might just win points on that for me and I may change my stance on the matter.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 mars 2012 - 01:28 .

[Kavatica]

Silfren wrote...

Sheltering the elves was one of the few genuinely noble--genuinely JUST--things that the Arishok could be credited for.

I always back the Arishok up on that decision in front of Aveline. It's the Tabris in me. I can't not.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Silfren wrote...

caradoc2000 wrote...

While this Qunari debate is off-topic, I'll say this. I can understand most of the Qunari grievances. What really pisses me off is that the Arishok demands that you hand over a criminal (Isabela) while he himself had just done the same (with the elves).

See, I see a powerful moral difference between the two.  The elves were being sheltered because the justice system of Kirkwall failed them.  As elves, they weren't seen as having any rights worth respecting, and when one of their own was raped, their attempts at justice were thwarted.  So they took matters into their own hands, and suddenly found themselves afoul of the same law that in theory should have protected them in the first place.

I suppose if you look at the situation from a purely legalistic point of view, there's hypocrisy at play.  But that requires a person to blind themselves to the context. 

Sheltering the elves was one of the few genuinely noble--genuinely JUST--things that the Arishok could be credited for.

That's a good point. Without understanding the context and focusing on the law, it becomes a case of moral absolutism.

So the Arishok might just win points on that for me and I may change my stance on the matter. Isabela stole for profit. The Elves murdered for justice. There's a clear difference between the two because of what motivated them to do what they did.

Isabela didn't steal for profit, though.  She stole to save her own life, after going out of her way to free people who were on their way to becoming slaves.  I'm not arguing to support what she did, because obviously even as she was willing to save people from slavery on one hand, she subjected others to death as a result of her actions as far the book goes.  But it does need to be remembered that she was pushed into the need to steal the book to save her own skin because she went out of her way to save desperate refugees from a life of bondage.

Is it just me, EWR, or are you not as pro-qunari as you used to be?

[Silfren]

Kavatica wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Sheltering the elves was one of the few genuinely noble--genuinely JUST--things that the Arishok could be credited for.

I always back the Arishok up on that decision in front of Aveline. It's the Tabris in me. I can't not.

Same here, although not because of my previous incarnation as a Warden.  =)  I'll never be able to hold it against someone for taking justice into their own hands when the legal system has failed them.  I just can't do it.  

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

Isabela didn't steal for profit, though. She stole to save her own life, after going out of her way to free people who were on their way to becoming slaves. I'm not arguing to support what she did, because obviously even as she was willing to save people from slavery on one hand, she subjected others to death as a result of her actions as far the book goes. But it does need to be remembered that she was pushed into the need to steal the book to save her own skin because she went out of her way to save desperate refugees from a life of bondage.

Ah true. I misremembered, due to not having played DAII for a while.

Is it just me, EWR, or are you not as pro-qunari as you used to be?

I wouldn't even call me pro-Qunari. I haven't really changed my views on the matter though. It's largely the same as it's ever been. I just try to look at it from the Qunari perspective most of the time instead of calling them evil. But I wouldn't actually say I'm all for them enlightening the bas. If they invade, I'll fight them.

And they will certainly, but I'll judge them for what they do then. It's actually my hope that when they invade we can at least see how Qunari cities -- both recently conquered and long established as Qunari -- function.

I can say that Tobias Hawke would've joined the Qunari had 3 things that it deals with been different: Mages, the hunting of Tal-Vashoth, and how they enlighten people.

So maybe to a degree I guess I'm pro-Qunari, but not in their current form. Things would have to change in the Qunari system for me to say "You know what? Let's go Qunari!"

Random side note: I support Sten returning in DA3 with a goatee, a box of kittens under one arm and a box of cookies under the other. And he shall look to the screen and say....

...

"No."

Hell that'd be the perfect way to end DA3 for me.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 mars 2012 - 01:30 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Isabela didn't steal for profit, though. She stole to save her own life, after going out of her way to free people who were on their way to becoming slaves. I'm not arguing to support what she did, because obviously even as she was willing to save people from slavery on one hand, she subjected others to death as a result of her actions as far the book goes. But it does need to be remembered that she was pushed into the need to steal the book to save her own skin because she went out of her way to save desperate refugees from a life of bondage.

Ah true. I misremembered, due to not having played DAII for a while.

Is it just me, EWR, or are you not as pro-qunari as you used to be?

I wouldn't even call me pro-Qunari. I haven't really changed my views on the matter though. It's largely the same as it's ever been. I just try to look at it from the Qunari perspective most of the time instead of calling them evil. But I wouldn't actually say I'm all for them enlightening the bas. If they invade, I'll fight them.

And they will.

I can say that Tobias Hawke would've joined the Qunari had 3 things that it deals with been different: Mages, the hunting of Tal-Vashoth, and how they enlighten people.

So maybe to a degree I guess I'm pro-Qunari, but not in their current form. Things would have to change in the Qunari system for me to say "You know what? Let's go Qunari!"

Random side note: I support Sten returning in DA3 with a goatee, a box of kittens under one arm and a box of cookies under the other. And he shall look to the screen and say....

...

"No."

Hell that'd be the perfect way to end DA3 for me.

If Sten comes back with a goatee, I quit.  Har.

I wonder how much the qunari conflict will feature in DA3.  There's actually a very strong case to be made that a looming conflict with the qunari could be THE major choice point in the mage/templar war.  (assuming we'll have choices, but lets not get into that argument, ha).  After all, mages are the equalizing factor against the qunari's gunpowder.  Or will the conclusion to DA3 lead into DA4, where teh qunari conflict will be featured in earnest? 

[Koire]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Silfren wrote...
See, I see a powerful moral difference between the two.  The elves were being sheltered because the justice system of Kirkwall failed them.  As elves, they weren't seen as having any rights worth respecting, and when one of their own was raped, their attempts at justice were thwarted.  So they took matters into their own hands, and suddenly found themselves afoul of the same law that in theory should have protected them in the first place.

I suppose if you look at the situation from a purely legalistic point of view, there's hypocrisy at play.  But that requires a person to blind themselves to the context. 

Sheltering the elves was one of the few genuinely noble--genuinely JUST--things that the Arishok could be credited for.

That's a good point. Without understanding the context and focusing solely on the law, it becomes a case of moral absolutism. 
So the Arishok might just win points on that for me and I may change my stance on the matter.

I agree with both of you.

Modifié par Koire, 15 mars 2012 - 01:45 .

[Kavatica]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Random side note: I support Sten returning in DA3 with a goatee, a box of kittens under one arm and a box of cookies under the other. And he shall look to the screen and say....

...

"No."

Hell that'd be the perfect way to end DA3 for me.

This post is so full of win.

[Kavatica]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Random side note: I support Sten returning in DA3 with a goatee, a box of kittens under one arm and a box of cookies under the other. And he shall look to the screen and say....

...

"No."

Hell that'd be the perfect way to end DA3 for me.

This post is so full of win.

[Lazy Jer]

I'm going to continue the off-topicness just long enough to say that first of all the clearly Sten is going to come back as the host of a children's show, and also to say that what annoys me about the Arishok asking for Isabella to be turned over to him is that he doesn't need her. He has the book and he could have avoided further bloodshed if he'd just walked away with the darn thing. But he had to push his luck and cause one more death (and a lot of frustration for yours truely the first time I fought him since I was a rogue facing him in melee.)

It's the strict adherence to the Qun, the my way or the highway attitude that continually causes bloodshed in DA. Just as it did with Anders.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Lazy Jer wrote...

I'm going to continue the off-topicness just long enough to say that first of all the clearly Sten is going to come back as the host of a children's show, and also to say that what annoys me about the Arishok asking for Isabella to be turned over to him is that he doesn't need her. He has the book and he could have avoided further bloodshed if he'd just walked away with the darn thing. But he had to push his luck and cause one more death (and a lot of frustration for yours truely the first time I fought him since I was a rogue facing him in melee.)

It's the strict adherence to the Qun, the my way or the highway attitude that continually causes bloodshed in DA. Just as it did with Anders.

If someone had stolen the Statue of Liberty, but turned it back, you can bet your ass that the Americans wouldn't just let the person go... Despite the fact that the artifact is returned, a crime was still commited, and crimes call for punishment. Or in the case of the Qunari, reeducation.