309 réponses à ce sujet

[Jeeriggs]

I like Leandra dying, personally - it made things very personal. It put me in Hawke's shoes, and made me wonder how I'd react after seeing this happen to my mother. I thought more of Hawke/my feelings on it rather than focusing on the gruesome act itself.

[AlexXIV]

David Gaider wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Yes if I understood it right they had a version of the quest where Leandra could be saved, but everyone picked to save her in the tests. So actually they should have the material somewhere which should make it even easier to implement it again.

The problem wasn't that "everyone picked to save her". It was that everyone thought they had to save her, and would reload/re-do the quest until the got the outcome that was perceived as the most optimum-- even if the result when Leandra dies is more dramatic and has more of an impact on the larger story.

The quest isn't about saving her, after all, it's about putting a more personal face on the darker side of magic and the repercussions it can have on innocents.

If someone doesn't like it, that's fine. Up to you. But DLC is created to add content, not to skip it-- and, no, there is no material anywhere to make this easy to implement. Dialogue after Act 2 assumes that your mother is dead. Period. Sorry, but that's simply the way it is.

Well getting an additional option is more content in my eyes, not less. It is not like you'd take out the bad ending, just give us a good one. I understand this 'getting personal' thing, but it's not about magic. It's a random event that could happen anywhere anytime, just luckly doesn't to most people. You have written it, so you probably know what Hawke says to his/her uncle when he asks her why it happened. She looked like someone. Only thing is that Orsino knows of the killer and keeps quiet. But you only learn that after you have made all choices, And he turns into an abomination anyway, so it is to late to have influence on your choices. Unless you want people to metagame and not side with the mages because of what their character could not know. See why I think it is unneccessary and sort of ... off?

Yeah I don't like it and it might as well be just me.  Well since you're not going to change it I have my answer and can only hope someone writes a mod. Because this little thing really makes it hard for me to enjoy the game through this part. I just don't like it. At all.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 15 mars 2011 - 02:55 .

[TyDurden13]

The problem I have with this is that when it comes to your family, you're railroaded down certain paths. Now DA2 does railroad you quite a bit when it comes to the plot, but with the companions you actually can affect quite a bit and take/send them in a lot of different directions - except when it comes to your family. You always lose sibling #1 in the prologue, you always lose sibling #2 in Act 1, and you always lose your mother in Act 2.

I thought the the addition of the PC's family was a great choice in DA2 - it added some nice flavor to the game and helped make Hawke something other than generic Hiro Protagonist. It would have been nice to have the ability to do more for them.

[Balrogen4]

After I spared Dupuise I went back to the Hawke's Estate and talked to Hawke's mother and she said that she might want to remarry and wanted to start seeing men, I'm no genius but I saw immediately that there would be a connection between this murderer and Hawke's mother, I even prioritized the quest to go after my mother instead of Isabellas even though she was my "love" interest.

When I realized that there was no possible way to save her it felt like a big let down, DA 2 story in general was pretty interesting but there was no way to influence the outcome of events only the path to the event.

Everyone saying that this game is like a book and it was needed for character development may be right but then the whole game may aswell have been an entire cutscene.

Modifié par Balrogen4, 15 mars 2011 - 03:12 .

[Layn]

TyDurden13 wrote...

You always lose sibling #1 in the prologue, you always lose sibling #2 in Act 1, and you always lose your mother in Act 2.

Sibling 2 wasn't quite lost. at least carver showed up a couple of times as a warden and at the end joined forces with Hawke. i don't mind that he went to the wardens, since i didn't really use him and he was talking all the time about going his own path.
and really, there are 3 options, you left carver at home, he becomes a templar, you took carver with you he dies, you take Carver and Anders he becomes a grey warden

[AlexXIV]

Balrogen4 wrote...

After I spared Dupuise I went back to the Hawke's Estate and talked to Hawke's mother and she said that she might want to remarry and wanted to start seeing men, I'm no genius but I saw immediately that there would be a connection between this murderer and Hawke's mother, I even prioritized the quest to go after my mother instead of Isabellas even though she was my "love" interest.

When I realized that there was no possible way to save her I felt it was big let down, DA 2 story in general was pretty interesting but there was no way to influence the outcome of events only the path to the event.

Everyone saying that this game is like a book and it was needed for character development may be right but then the whole game may aswell have been an entire cutscene.

Well to be fair, the fact that there are sequels and import save games they are sort of forced to make the story linear. It's not like you have alot of choices in the main story of Mass Effect either. Fallout New Vegas had many different outcomes, but no sequel, at least not one that continues where the prequel left off.

But. And the big but.is that it is not a main plot relevant quest. Saving Hawke's mother isn't a decission that goes into a save game or something. She could be dead or just irrelevant in DA3. I just wish she could get to see Hawke at the end of the game and be proud of him/her. Especially after getting back Bethany. Even if she died at the end of act 3 it would be better than end of act 2. She doesn't even live to see her child becoming the Champion.

[AlexXIV]

Crrash wrote...

TyDurden13 wrote...

You always lose sibling #1 in the prologue, you always lose sibling #2 in Act 1, and you always lose your mother in Act 2.

Sibling 2 wasn't quite lost. at least carver showed up a couple of times as a warden and at the end joined forces with Hawke. i don't mind that he went to the wardens, since i didn't really use him and he was talking all the time about going his own path.
and really, there are 3 options, you left carver at home, he becomes a templar, you took carver with you he dies, you take Carver and Anders he becomes a grey warden

Same with Bethany. You don't have to lose them but you can several times. In my playthrough she doesn't go with me in the deep roads but gets taken to the gallows. But I get her back in the end of the game.

[Nordic Warlord]

David Gaider wrote...

The problem wasn't that "everyone picked to save her". It was that everyone thought they had to save her, and would reload/re-do the quest until the got the outcome that was perceived as the most optimum-- even if the result when Leandra dies is more dramatic and has more of an impact on the larger story.

The quest isn't about saving her, after all, it's about putting a more personal face on the darker side of magic and the repercussions it can have on innocents.

If someone doesn't like it, that's fine. Up to you. But DLC is created to add content, not to skip it-- and, no, there is no material anywhere to make this easy to implement. Dialogue after Act 2 assumes that your mother is dead. Period. Sorry, but that's simply the way it is.

Was it possible to put a more personal face on the darker side of magic through a quest offering us a morally difficult choice instead of showing another scripted death? I guess it was. For example, GTA4 gives us two options during the final part of the game and both of those options lead to equally tragic outcome for the main character. And GTA4 is a shooter, after all, not an RPG... Honestly, when I started "All That Remains" for the first time I looked forward to some kind of a dilemma forcing Hawke to make a bargain with his conscience or something like that. And it was really disappointing to find out the quest has no alternative ending at all.

By the way, in my opinion, an additional option in a role-playing game actually makes it deeper and directly affects replayability. So it is not about skipping content.

With regard to dialogue after Act 2 assuming that Leandra is dead, it's not a real problem. There's always a possibility to explain it. For example, in order to protect his mother Hawke could set a rumor afloat that she didn't make it.

Modifié par Nordic Warlord, 15 mars 2011 - 08:02 .

[Sanguinerin]

Nordic Warlord wrote...

Was it possible to put a more personal face on the darker side of magic through a quest offering us a morally difficult choice instead of showing another scripted death? I guess it was. For example, GTA4 gives us two options during the final part of the game and both of those options lead to equally tragic outcome for the main character. And GTA4 is a shooter, after all, not an RPG... Honestly, when I started "All That Remains" for the first time I looked forward to some kind of a dilemma forcing Hawke to make a bargain with his conscience or something like that. And it was really disappointing to find out the quest has no alternative ending at all.

By the way, in my opinion, an additional option in a role-playing game actually makes it deeper and directly affects replayability. So it is not about skipping content.

With regard to dialogue after Act 2 assuming that Leandra is dead, it's not a real problem. There's always a possibility to explain it. For example, in order to protect his mother Hawke could set a rumor afloat that she didn't make.

I particularly love the part you wrote that I bolded. With Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect, and Mass Effect 2, I made enough characters to see how every choice plays out. I planned on doing the same with Dragon Age II, but there's not much difference a second character will be able to make except for...perhaps...when someone will die rather than preventing it.

I love that we've had a choice. I killed Loghain in my first run of DAO. When I found out that he makes a brief cameo in Awakening, I made sure to make a character where Loghain lived so that I could see his cameo. I love going out of my way to make different characters to make different decisions so that I can see different outcomes. My biggest problem here is just...why bother?

I hate that I feel like that, but I can't help that. I just feel like we need more opportunities to make a difference, even small ones. A few added examples of saving a life... A few added examples of mages that don't resort to blood magic... etc, etc.

[highcastle]

All That Remains is hands down my favorite quest in the game. It would cheapen the impact if you could've prevented things. Hawke is not psychic (even if we might be meta), he's not all-powerful, and he can't fix everything. This game is a tragedy in many ways. Leandra's death is a pivotal step on the way to even grimmer matters. And it's the only moment in a video game that even brought me close to tears.

Choice matters when it comes to events the protagonist can directly affect. But what else can Hawke do? Even if you do the quest the moment you hear about Leandra's disappearance, it's still too late. There's nothing you can do except choose how to respond. And that's a choice in itself, deep and emotional as any other you'll make in a game.

[Ghurshog]

David Gaider wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Yes if I understood it right they had a version of the quest where Leandra could be saved, but everyone picked to save her in the tests. So actually they should have the material somewhere which should make it even easier to implement it again.

The problem wasn't that "everyone picked to save her". It was that everyone thought they had to save her, and would reload/re-do the quest until the got the outcome that was perceived as the most optimum-- even if the result when Leandra dies is more dramatic and has more of an impact on the larger story.

The quest isn't about saving her, after all, it's about putting a more personal face on the darker side of magic and the repercussions it can have on innocents.

If someone doesn't like it, that's fine. Up to you. But DLC is created to add content, not to skip it-- and, no, there is no material anywhere to make this easy to implement. Dialogue after Act 2 assumes that your mother is dead. Period. Sorry, but that's simply the way it is.

I dont think optimum is really the point. No one 'likes' having their family members murdered. I think the problem is that most customers want their families in tact (meaning not dead) and at the point where the Champions mother gets killed the player has had a chance to be emotionally connected to the character (as I was). And not having an option to save her was heart wretching because both of my siblings had died also (I didn't have the prescribed party config to save my sister in the deep roads). 

I believe people would choose to save her because of human nature. 

[Sanguinerin]

highcastle wrote...

All That Remains is hands down my favorite quest in the game. It would cheapen the impact if you could've prevented things. Hawke is not psychic (even if we might be meta), he's not all-powerful, and he can't fix everything. This game is a tragedy in many ways. Leandra's death is a pivotal step on the way to even grimmer matters. And it's the only moment in a video game that even brought me close to tears.

Choice matters when it comes to events the protagonist can directly affect. But what else can Hawke do? Even if you do the quest the moment you hear about Leandra's disappearance, it's still too late. There's nothing you can do except choose how to respond. And that's a choice in itself, deep and emotional as any other you'll make in a game.

One doesn't have to be psychic, all-powerful, or have the ability to fix everything to have the option to save someone, anyone, including their own mother. It's only too late because the option to save her was cut. There is no alternative of any form (even getting there when she's too far gone but still not quite so bride of Frankenstein), and that's why it's too late. I certainly would have liked the opportunity to save her or some kind of diversity with the plotline. If you had a living sibling, I also would have liked more of an emotional response (a bond or break in family) to the event.

Her death as it was just wasn't enough to be satisfying on any account. It didn't lead to a real bond or real tension with family (Gamlen a bit, but not with much depth afterward, and not with the siblings). It didn't lead me to believe that magic is ultimately dangerous or evil, just the practitioner, but that's something I already believed. It didn't lead to me anything but having a monstrously dead mother. I can perhaps understand the intended impact but...I don't believe it carried those intentions well.

[Geiyu]

The only problem I have with DA2 is the linear setup. I don't mind linear games, and linear choices, mind you. I've been a gamer since I was 5, playing on my NES. But what I don't like about the linear setup in DA2 is, they give you all these extra options...different choices to make, and different ways to do things...all so the quests can end up ending the exact same way.

Free the mages that escaped? They get caught anyway. And hate you as if you turned them in. Try to appease the Qunari? The arishok still incites war. Choose to have Dupuis help? Mother still dies. Don't help Anders? He still blows up the Chantry. The choices aren't choices at all.

So that's something that frustrates me. I never liked choices that aren't choices. They make no difference on the game play. So, I feel that most of the choices shouldn't have been put in, and they should have just left you with a linear path to follow. Would have made more sense, and been less frustrating in the overall picture.

DA:O didn't suffer from that problem. Sure, some things were unavoidable(like having to fight the Werewolves because they were being too thick-headed to let you talk until you get deep inside their lair), but the choices you were given actually made a difference based on what you decided to do. You only get to make a few choices that actually change anything in DA2. It's just the illusion of choice, not an actual choice.

[Sanguinerin]

Geiyu wrote...

Free the mages that escaped? They get caught anyway. And hate you as if you turned them in. Try to appease the Qunari? The arishok still incites war. Choose to have Dupuis help? Mother still dies. Don't help Anders? He still blows up the Chantry. The choices aren't choices at all.

While I pretty much agree with you fully, this sums up my feelings nicely!

[Heather Cline]

I found the quest to try and save your mother in the game was quite poignant. I've read plenty of fantasy based fiction books growing up. One particular series comes to mind, Dragonlance. One of the main characters in that series Stern gets killed I think in the second book. It made sense, it made me sad but it was there for a plot purpose. Also the things that happened to Raistlin Majere another character in the books, happened for a reason and his return in Dragonlance Legends and one other book expounded upon him as a character.

The death of one of your siblings, be it brother or sister and your mother is to drive Hawke further and farther than ever before. It's not just there because they wanted to shock you, it's there as a way to make Hawke want to go forward in life. Look at real life, if your mother died like Hawke's mother died, do you get a do-over or a DLC fix? No you don't. Yes it's a video game, and yes you can do lots of things. But asking for a do-over or a fix to the death of a loved one shouldn't ever be possible because it's not. Not unless you have some awesome super powerful abilities that defy life and death.

I do agree that some decisions in the game pretty much seem like the illusion of choice. I'd like that fixed, because in DA:O your decisions actually had weight and actually affected the outcome of the story. In DA2 not so much unfortunately.

Modifié par Heather Cline, 15 mars 2011 - 08:59 .

[jxd73]

This quest is almost as bad, in a hand of God sort of way, as Bethany getting the plague.

Also, the ending of the quest is completely unsatisfying, the guy just fell over, dead. I know that I, and probably 99% of the men would be so enraged in that situation I'd keep him alive for some "experimentation" of my own.

[David Gaider]

Ghurshog wrote...
I dont think optimum is really the point. No one 'likes' having their family members murdered. I think the problem is that most customers want their families in tact (meaning not dead) and at the point where the Champions mother gets killed the player has had a chance to be emotionally connected to the character (as I was). And not having an option to save her was heart wretching because both of my siblings had died also (I didn't have the prescribed party config to save my sister in the deep roads). 

I believe people would choose to save her because of human nature. 

Correct. It's not, however, about what the player wants to do.

In this case, it's not the story that needs to be told.

If you're of the opinion that every story should have an outcome that the player can directly control-- I'm not going to argue with you. Not everyone is going to like that sort of tale, and certainly I think there's a limited amount of that you can really do inside a game. But this is the sort of thinking that led to the "Save Everyone" option in the Redcliffe Quest, which ultimately became the quest option that everyone thought was the only "real" solution even though it was the least dramatic. I don't really intend to do that again, and I'm not about to re-write it simply because some people feel uncomfortable about it.

[Sanguinerin]

David Gaider wrote...

If you're of the opinion that every story should have an outcome that the player can directly control-- I'm not going to argue with you.

It's not that I believe that the player should get to control every situation directly. However, I feel like Dragon Age II failed in allowing the player to control just about any situation directly. As Geiyu stated above, none of our decisions seemed to matter, and as I've said, the only choices seemed to be whether you wanted to allow someone to die or kill them now, or let it happen later. Every death just felt so incredibly inevitable, that when you feel like you can't save anything, it just gets to you. (Although I suppose I should replace all of those "you's" with "me's".)

Edit: That helpless feeling I get where I can't save anything is less compelling and more defeating.

Modifié par HallowedWarden, 15 mars 2011 - 09:07 .

[stephen1493]

New motto

Bioware- someone has to die...

[upsettingshorts]

David Gaider wrote...
...this is the sort of thinking that led to the "Save Everyone" option in the Redcliffe Quest, which ultimately became the quest option that everyone thought was the only "real" solution even though it was the least dramatic. I don't really intend to do that again, and I'm not about to re-write it simply because some people feel uncomfortable about it.

Let me say this emphatically:  Good!

Bad things happen, people die, the protagonist can't always save the day.  I mentioned it before but the fact my Hawke - from his point of view - failed the game is such a welcome change to what I've come to expect from cRPGs that it was refreshing.  The Leandra sidequest is another example.

HallowedWarden wrote...

Edit: That helpless feeling I get where I can't save anything is more defeating than compelling.

You can save some things.  But Hawke is caught up in and influences the motives behind and context of events that were inevitable.  In the same way that the Warden always stopped the Blight, and some combination of Alistair/Anora and Bhelen/Harrowmont were always monarchs of their respective lands - some people, and even some ideas, don't make it out of Kirkwall alive. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 mars 2011 - 09:07 .

[Cajeb]

David Gaider wrote...

Ghurshog wrote...
I dont think optimum is really the point. No one 'likes' having their family members murdered. I think the problem is that most customers want their families in tact (meaning not dead) and at the point where the Champions mother gets killed the player has had a chance to be emotionally connected to the character (as I was). And not having an option to save her was heart wretching because both of my siblings had died also (I didn't have the prescribed party config to save my sister in the deep roads). 

I believe people would choose to save her because of human nature. 

Correct. It's not, however, about what the player wants to do.

In this case, it's not the story that needs to be told.

If you're of the opinion that every story should have an outcome that the player can directly control-- I'm not going to argue with you. Not everyone is going to like that sort of tale, and certainly I think there's a limited amount of that you can really do inside a game. But this is the sort of thinking that led to the "Save Everyone" option in the Redcliffe Quest, which ultimately became the quest option that everyone thought was the only "real" solution even though it was the least dramatic. I don't really intend to do that again, and I'm not about to re-write it simply because some people feel uncomfortable about it.

There are those of us who actually RP and won't immediately reload. There were instances in Dragon Age where lots of people ended up dying that could have been avoided. All of the party members in Mass Effect 2 can die or be saved. Do you want to remove that option because most people will try to save all of their party members? People reloading and exploring choices is a staple of RPG's.

Even if the mother had to die, did Orsino have to be involved? It makes the ending choice completely a slap in the face if you pick mage. Knowing what I now know I can never pick mage again. There is nothing redeeming about picking it as 95% of the mages are blood mages/abominations, Orsino wilds out and attacks his allies, you don't seem to save any mages, and worst of all you find out that the FIRST ENCHANTER was complicit in your mother's death.

It just felt cheap and took away from the shades of grey I think you were going for

[Sanguinerin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You can save some things.  But Hawke is caught up in and influences the motives behind and context of events that were inevitable.  In the same way that the Warden always stopped the Blight, and some combination of Alistair/Anora and Bhelen/Harrowmont were always monarchs of their respective lands - some people, and even some ideas, don't make it out of Kirkwall alive.

I'm not going to say that every single event leads to death. However, there was such a stark emphasis on the negative. I got a letter from Feynriel, for example. He was telling me that he was working on his studies. Good, I thought. He seems to be doing alright. It was one of the few examples of accomplishment. Then his letter also states more negatives about free mages in Tevinter.

When everyone and everything feels so utterly damned... I mean, it's a change in the normal dynamic of games... But a little more balance would be nice. Showing us rather than letting us read in letters some good that happens would be wonderful.

My favorite moment in the game was having Cullen agree with me to spare those three mages in the endgame battle, yet I received no such satisfaction siding with the mages. I had to break character and side with the templars just to see something like that.

Edit: Also, ...

Cajeb wrote...

Even if the mother had to die, did Orsino have to be involved? It makes the ending choice completely a slap in the face if you pick mage. Knowing what I now know I can never pick mage again. There is nothing redeeming about picking it as 95% of the mages are blood mages/abominations, Orsino wilds out and attacks his allies, you don't seem to save any mages, and worst of all you find out that the FIRST ENCHANTER was complicit in your mother's death. 

It just felt cheap and took away from the shades of grey I think you were going for

Indeed, this! "Save" Grace? She slaps you in the face. "Save" the Circle and the mages? Just about every mage in the game including the First Enchanter slap you in the face. I don't think my satisfaction of saving mages should have come from choosing to side with the templars!

Modifié par HallowedWarden, 15 mars 2011 - 09:17 .

[Piecake]

David Gaider wrote...

Correct. It's not, however, about what the player wants to do.

In this case, it's not the story that needs to be told.

If you're of the opinion that every story should have an outcome that the player can directly control-- I'm not going to argue with you. Not everyone is going to like that sort of tale, and certainly I think there's a limited amount of that you can really do inside a game. But this is the sort of thinking that led to the "Save Everyone" option in the Redcliffe Quest, which ultimately became the quest option that everyone thought was the only "real" solution even though it was the least dramatic. I don't really intend to do that again, and I'm not about to re-write it simply because some people feel uncomfortable about it.

I do agree with you about the redcliffe situation, but I don't think redcliffe and Leandra is strictly a 1:1 comparrison.  What I mean by this, is that you still have a choice of who to sacrfice if you take out the "I win" button.  With Leandra, you really don't. 

I really like Brockholly's suggestion of saving her at the expense of him escaping and then him taking his revenge on you somehow in act 3.  To be a compelling option, I don't think it can be just some more murders of people you dont know though.  To be impactful, I think if you saved your mother, you could have a scene with Aveline later on explaining that the Templar was right, and there really is a pyschotic serail killer blood mage on the loose.  Later, Aveline, with her guards, confronts him, and he kils her.  You hear about this from her husband or something and then hunt down the mage for revenge. 

I realize that there are time constraints and resource allocation and what-not involved, but I think the bigger problem that people have is that there wasn't an "I win" button, the problem is that there was no choice at all, even it was two really bad ones. 

Still, I really really liked the quest.

[Danjaru]

David Gaider wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Yes if I understood it right they had a version of the quest where Leandra could be saved, but everyone picked to save her in the tests. So actually they should have the material somewhere which should make it even easier to implement it again.

The problem wasn't that "everyone picked to save her". It was that everyone thought they had to save her, and would reload/re-do the quest until the got the outcome that was perceived as the most optimum-- even if the result when Leandra dies is more dramatic and has more of an impact on the larger story.

The quest isn't about saving her, after all, it's about putting a more personal face on the darker side of magic and the repercussions it can have on innocents.

If someone doesn't like it, that's fine. Up to you. But DLC is created to add content, not to skip it-- and, no, there is no material anywhere to make this easy to implement. Dialogue after Act 2 assumes that your mother is dead. Period. Sorry, but that's simply the way it is.

Really? after making just about every mage you encounter a blood mage or abomination, you felt that it was necessary to show the bad side of magic when there was no good side? one of the nicest mages even started a war by blowing up priests, fun times.

That said her death was when I started paying attention to the story and it was a cool twist when you realized she had gotten the white flowers. And it was the right choice to not be able to save her imo.

[WhiteKnyght]

David Gaider wrote...

Ghurshog wrote...
I dont think optimum is really the point. No one 'likes' having their family members murdered. I think the problem is that most customers want their families in tact (meaning not dead) and at the point where the Champions mother gets killed the player has had a chance to be emotionally connected to the character (as I was). And not having an option to save her was heart wretching because both of my siblings had died also (I didn't have the prescribed party config to save my sister in the deep roads). 

I believe people would choose to save her because of human nature. 

Correct. It's not, however, about what the player wants to do.

In this case, it's not the story that needs to be told.

If you're of the opinion that every story should have an outcome that the player can directly control-- I'm not going to argue with you. Not everyone is going to like that sort of tale, and certainly I think there's a limited amount of that you can really do inside a game. But this is the sort of thinking that led to the "Save Everyone" option in the Redcliffe Quest, which ultimately became the quest option that everyone thought was the only "real" solution even though it was the least dramatic. I don't really intend to do that again, and I'm not about to re-write it simply because some people feel uncomfortable about it.

Frankly I don't really mind sacrificing Isolde(hateful b!tch ). I'm just not cold enough to kill Connor.

But the option of being able to save everyone in that quest does contribute to the fact that the Templars can be too extreme. Connor was an abomination but he was able to be cured. Which means mages who fail their harrowing could be saved rather than killed, but the Templars overlook that.

But not all quests need to have a perfect ending. Leandra's death was certainly something surprising.