238 réponses à ce sujet

[Thiefy]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

No one is getting angry at you for anything

I said "mad at the game".

Not "mad at me".

lol well i misread
either way i don't see how it really matters. people get upset at all the companions; i dont see why isabella should be spared

[TEWR]

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

No one is getting angry at you for anything

I said "mad at the game".

Not "mad at me".

lol well i misread
either way i don't see how it really matters. people get upset at all the companions; i dont see why isabella should be spared

I just hate the idea of killing companions to get rid of them itself. It applies just as much to Isabela as it does to Merrill and Fenris and the rest.

The companions are undoubtedly going to have importance in the future of the story and Bioware will be painting themselves into a corner when they go "****.... Fenris would've been perfect here. But people may have killed him".

Just look at Zevran. While his appearance is a bug if you killed him, the sheer chaos within the Antivan Crows is going to have some significance in the future. But what if he's dead? The Crows seemed more interested in Zevran and not anyone he was associating with, so what's Bioware going to do? Make another character that's doing what Zevran's doing?

That would make the most sense, but Bioware has trouble handling imports and eventually things will get muddled. What if the new guy is a companion and he can be killed, but the Antivan Crow storyline is still going on? Are they going to create another character?

Eventually, things will get out of hand. It's best to focus on other avenues of getting companions to leave the party. Betrayal, leaving in a fit of anger, etc.

These are things DAO and DAII had, but I think they should be applied to all of the companions so that Bioware will be able to use the companions in the future, should they become important later on.

[Thiefy]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

No one is getting angry at you for anything

I said "mad at the game".

Not "mad at me".

lol well i misread
either way i don't see how it really matters. people get upset at all the companions; i dont see why isabella should be spared

I just hate the idea of killing companions to get rid of them itself. It applies just as much to Isabela as it does to Merrill and Fenris and the rest.

The companions are undoubtedly going to have importance in the future of the story and Bioware will be painting themselves into a corner when they go "****.... Fenris would've been perfect here. But people may have killed him".

Just look at Zevran. While his appearance is a bug if you killed him, the sheer chaos within the Antivan Crows is going to have some significance in the future. But what if he's dead? The Crows seemed more interested in Zevran and not anyone he was associating with, so what's Bioware going to do? Make another character that's doing what Zevran's doing?

That would make the most sense, but Bioware has trouble handling imports and eventually things will get muddled. What if the new guy is a companion and he can be killed, but the Antivan Crow storyline is still going on? Are they going to create another character?

Eventually, things will get out of hand. It's best to focus on other avenues of getting companions to leave the party. Betrayal, leaving in a fit of anger, etc.

These are things DAO and DAII had, but I think they should be applied to all of the companions so that Bioware will be able to use the companions in the future, should they become important later on.

i'm not arguing that with you; i just think if all the other companions have a chance to die, isabella shouldn't be spared either, that's all. I'm just playing fair. Every other characters DOES have the chance to permanantly die. The only npc with a legitamate excuse is Varric, for obvious reasons. I just don't think Isabella should get special treatment.

[lobi]

I agree with merinTB if you have Is in your party, Avy is a must.

[TEWR]

i'm not arguing that with you; i just think if all the other companions have a chance to die, isabella shouldn't be spared either, that's all. I'm just playing fair. Every other characters DOES have the chance to permanantly die. The only npc with a legitamate excuse is Varric, for obvious reasons. I just don't think Isabella should get special treatment.

And Aveline. She chooses not to fight Hawke. And Sebastian. He walks off.

That said, I can see where you're coming from, but also Bioware probably wants to use her in the future.

Though why a person can kill Merrill when the game hints that the Warden's disappearance and Hawke's disappearance are linked and the two things they have in common deal with ancient Elven mirrors is beyond me.

[lobi]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Though why a person can kill Merrill when the game hints that the Warden's disappearance and Hawke's disappearance are linked and the two things they have in common deal with ancient Elven mirrors is beyond me.

A constant theme throughout Dragon Age is betrayal. Perhaps Gaider will write them into a corner and then jump to VALVe.

[TEWR]

He does seem like the sort of nefarious person who would plan something as dastardly as that.

[lobi]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

He does seem like the sort of nefarious person who would plan something as dastardly as that.

Maybe he can save COD for Activision. A rebooting that see's the Vet and Noob sally-forth in an adventure romance.

Modifié par lobi, 16 décembre 2011 - 09:41 .

[Bayz]

Retcons are unavoidable, I will stick with the franchise so long as I could bear them.

As soon as it gets as bad as WoW I will stop, after all the only actual thing that holds me to the series is the opportunity of creating your own continuity, on the rest of departments Dragon Age doesn't offer anything special to me that any other RPG doesn't, it is even too limited for me to consider even taking a look at it having to make my character's archetype fit in the 3 races/3 classes bit.

I would care about the NPC's and stuff, but if any interaction I will make will be retconned then npc interactions just loses weight, and to be honest most of the time the conflics that go with the dialog are either the main character being a dick on purpose or you can get them to a grey area so...

That said, I barely cared too much about Isabella...or any other NPC outside of Varric for that matter, she was fun to ahve around and was my first Hawke's love interest but, she had a bit over the top moments that made me just ignore most of the character in itself.

[Eternal Phoenix]

To be honest, yes, I did hate her. She seemed like some generic loose female character who had a dark past. Nothing new there as that character has been done in several games before.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 16 décembre 2011 - 01:36 .

[Bayz]

Well, which character didn't felt generic? I give it that Fenris had quite the backstory but still most of them seemed quite bland to me...

[Thiefy]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

i'm not arguing that with you; i just think if all the other companions have a chance to die, isabella shouldn't be spared either, that's all. I'm just playing fair. Every other characters DOES have the chance to permanantly die. The only npc with a legitamate excuse is Varric, for obvious reasons. I just don't think Isabella should get special treatment.

And Aveline. She chooses not to fight Hawke. And Sebastian. He walks off.

That said, I can see where you're coming from, but also Bioware probably wants to use her in the future.

Though why a person can kill Merrill when the game hints that the Warden's disappearance and Hawke's disappearance are linked and the two things they have in common deal with ancient Elven mirrors is beyond me.

Sebastien is a DLC, he isn't exactly on the same playing field. =/ He's just like Shale in DA:O; every character in DA:O can be killed except for Morrigan.....and Shale (the DLC). Didn't you also get to kill Aveline if you have low enough influence with her at the end and pick the wrong side?

Bioware probably wants to use all, if not most of their characters in the future, but how is killing them off any different from just never recruiting them, storyline wise? Either way you "miss out", according to what I think you are saying. I don't really think we should be forced into having party members just so we don't "miss out", so, given this, why shouldn't we be allowed to kill them?

Let me say it this way then, if Isabella gets the "get out of misery free" pass by being subjected to what she fears the most and still coming out unscathed, then why don't any of the other companions get this as well? Why can't Anders live no matter what after blowing up the Chantry? Why can't Fenris fight back and kill Danarius after being betrayed? Why can't Merril have the mirror work and her clan welcome her with open arms and praise her as a hero? Why is it only Isabella can play with fire yet not get burned? Her character is really the only one that doesn't really get "punished" and you know, it's not even about the sex or anything - it's like she lacks the empathy needed to understand the consequences of her actions. I personally think she needed the most maturing out of all the companions and just think it sucks we can't really stick it to her like any of the other squad mates.

[TEWR]

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...

Sebastien is a DLC, he isn't exactly on the same playing field. =/ He's just like Shale in DA:O; every character in DA:O can be killed except for Morrigan.....and Shale (the DLC). Didn't you also get to kill Aveline if you have low enough influence with her at the end and pick the wrong side?

Shale can be killed.

And Aveline will side with the Templars, but she refuses to fight Hawke.

Bioware probably wants to use all, if not most of their characters in the future, but how is killing them off any different from just never recruiting them, storyline wise? Either way you "miss out", according to what I think you are saying. I don't really think we should be forced into having party members just so we don't "miss out", so, given this, why shouldn't we be allowed to kill them?

Killing them off means they're dead and if Bioware wants to use them again, they may be brought back to life. For Wynne -- were her Awakening appearance made canon in all imports -- and Leliana this was excusable. For the former the Spirit of Faith brought her back to life once before, so it could do it again. For Leliana it's the nature of the area that makes her appearance tolerable. Though Bioware should've at least thrown in a cutscene in the room with the Ashes that showed her still visibly alive, but bleeding profusely.

But for other characters, they do not have the luxury of being tolerable if they're brought back after they were killed. Were Fenris to be brought back in an import that had him killed, people would cry foul. Bioware would probably retort that they have an explanation in the works.

That's not going to be something I -- or other people -- will be able to tolerate from this point on. For DAO, it was a new IP and they didn't know what they wanted to do. But DAII is the sequel to DAO, so they need to start planning. If a character is going to be fought, there should be a cutscene or at the very least a codex that leaves the player with some doubt on whether or not the companion will in fact die.

If Bioware decides not to use said companion in the future, then the player knows that they killed him/her. If Bioware decides to use the companion again, then the player can at least be content with the fact that they saw him/her still alive or received a codex line that cast some doubt.

I am not saying the player should be forced into having the companions in their party throughout the game. I am saying that Bioware should dispense with this notion of thinking killing off the companions is a good way to get rid of them. There are other avenues that would allow them to be taken out of the party, which you addressed in the segmented quote below here.

Sebastian and Alistair leave in fits of anger after a person they hate is spared, but are still alive.

Fenris and Isabela can be betrayed and given to their enemies, but are still alive.

These are acceptable ways to remove a companion from the party because Bioware still retains the option of using them in the future. Betrayal and anger. Other avenues should be explored. Cowardice, greed, etc. But not death.

Killing them requires Bioware to possibly retcon their deaths and give us an explanation after the retcon has been seen.

It's an issue of the player's choices being overrided and for me, how I abhor the notion of killing companions as a method of removing them from the party. 

If the companions haven't been recruited, then they are still alive and can appear in subsequent titles. That's the difference between a dead companion and a non-recruited companion.

Let me say it this way then, if Isabella gets the "get out of misery free" pass by being subjected to what she fears the most and still coming out unscathed, then why don't any of the other companions get this as well? Why can't Anders live no matter what after blowing up the Chantry? Why can't Fenris fight back and kill Danarius after being betrayed? Why can't Merril have the mirror work and her clan welcome her with open arms and praise her as a hero? Why is it only Isabella can play with fire yet not get burned? Her character is really the only one that doesn't really get "punished" and you know, it's not even about the sex or anything - it's like she lacks the empathy needed to understand the consequences of her actions. I personally think she needed the most maturing out of all the companions and just think it sucks we can't really stick it to her like any of the other squad mates.

you misunderstand. I am not saying that the option to have Fenris be betrayed shouldn't be in the game, or Isabela being given to the Qunari.
 
See what I said above.

I do not mind removing the companions from the party through other methods that don't involve the death of said companions. Those are fine with me because the companion is still alive.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 décembre 2011 - 04:46 .

[Thiefy]

I missed the Shale death then but I was pretty sure you could kill Aveline. For the sake of clarity though I will be more specific - out of the fully romanceable companions, only Isabella is spared from the fate of death.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Killing them off means they're dead and if Bioware wants to use them again, they may be brought back to life. For Wynne -- were her Awakening appearance made canon in all imports -- and Leliana this was excusable. For the former the Spirit of Faith brought her back to life once before, so it could do it again. For Leliana it's the nature of the area that makes her appearance tolerable. Though Bioware should've at least thrown in a cutscene in the room with the Ashes that showed her still visibly alive, but bleeding profusely.

That's actually not true about Wynne, you can kill her in the Ashes quest and she stays dead. Leliana was a retacon, as was Anders, which just goes to show that even if we had the option to kill someone, they may still be forcibly brought back and made important - so killing someone doesn't necessarily make their story disappear.

But for other characters, they do not have the luxury of being tolerable if they're brought back after they were killed. Were Fenris to be brought back in an import that had him killed, people would cry foul. Bioware would probably retort that they have an explanation in the works.

I don't see why not. Why is it only tolerable for some characters and not others? What's intolerable is constant retaconning - who it's 'acceptable' to do it to is debateable.

That's not going to be something I -- or other people -- will be able to tolerate from this point on. For DAO, it was a new IP and they didn't know what they wanted to do. But DAII is the sequel to DAO, so they need to start planning. If a character is going to be fought, there should be a cutscene or at the very least a codex that leaves the player with some doubt on whether or not the companion will in fact die.

if you make an excuse for them the first time, it'll probably happen a second time. basically it sounds like you want everything to be open ended without closure so later on in the series they have an extra trick to do instead of coming up with something new? because really, if everyone always survives, it's not really a "dark" story and it becomes predictable and boring. to make it so companions never die, no matter what, is not the theme of franchise. as much as i love a handful of characters, what makes it more dramatic for me is the knowledge that I CAN lose them permanantly - as in death. it makes me more invested as a player in them as a character and in my own pc actions.

If Bioware decides not to use said companion in the future, then the player knows that they killed him/her. If Bioware decides to use the companion again, then the player can at least be content with the fact that they saw him/her still alive or received a codex line that cast some doubt.

i really do not know where you are coming from with this. Bioware can choose not to use a person and not have to kill them, also I don't understand why they would have to be explicitly shown as dead or alive. if it doesn't add to the story being told, i don't see why they should use resources to include it unless they had a little extra left over and wanted to add it in for "flavor".

I am not saying the player should be forced into having the companions in their party throughout the game. I am saying that Bioware should dispense with this notion of thinking killing off the companions is a good way to get rid of them. There are other avenues that would allow them to be taken out of the party, which you addressed in the segmented quote below here.

killing of companions isn't about "getting rid of them", at least from a Dev pov - if the character, to them, was so terrible that they needed to get rid of it, they wouldn't add it in in the first place. They have character deathes to add to the story. "Getting rid of them" is purely a player perspective. One player perspective. On the one hand, for people like me turning in Isabella would be a moment of sweetness to find she finally had justice served to her; on the other hand, maybe people who love Isabella but wanted to do "the right thing" and hand her over will feel more of an emotional pull when they find out she was beheaded or some equally gruesome - you know the same thing Fenris fans felt when they turned him into Danarius 'just to see what would happen'.

This is all from an RP perspective which you do not seem to grasp. From an RP perspective, Isabella got off easy compared to other companions.

Then again you said it yourself, your main thing is you dislike death in a video game - which is weird considering how much of it happens at your PC's hands.

Instead of thinking "how much of this story will I miss if I don't have this character" you should think "how will they approach this situation without this character" - and you will find the answer you are looking for.

Actually it kind of leads us right back to what I said before - how is killing off a character any different from just not recruiting a character? either way you miss out on the story. you can say that if I don't recruit someone, they have a chance to show up later - but isn't that the point of me not recruiting them? I don't want them to show up so them showing up later is kind of forcing them into my party. The main point here is the RP perspect; maybe you want there to be options for the characters to show up later - well you are in luck because they are there! However, there are those of us that just do not like companions that much and want some of them permenantly removed from our part of the multiverse, and by that I mean death. Why shouldn't I be allowed that option for Isabella when someone else can have it for Fenris? It's not really about what you prefer for you game at this point in time, because you already have it, and I think it's a legitamate question - why is Isabella spared? I am actually curious for this.

Is it because Thedas doesn't have any refridgerators?


edit - sorry for the wall of text. didnt mean to make it that long.

Modifié par Thief-of-Hearts, 18 décembre 2011 - 05:20 .

[TEWR]

[quote]Thief-of-Hearts wrote...

That's actually not true about Wynne, you can kill her in the Ashes quest and she stays dead.[/quote]
 
hence why I said "were it made canon in all imports". I understand that she stays dead. My point was that were her livelihood made officially canon in Awakening, then it would've been understandable given the nature of her character. As well as Leliana's death regarding the area she "died" in, though the player is unable to verify that Leliana did in fact die.


[quote]Leliana was a retacon, as was Anders, which just goes to show that even if we had the option to kill someone, they may still be forcibly brought back and made important - so killing someone doesn't necessarily make their story disappear.[/quote]

I am not saying their story would disappear. I am saying that Bioware would give us the option to kill them, say they're dead, and then go "****.... we need this guy. Bring him back!".

This is what I'm opposed to. The companions will definitely be important in the future of Thedas. To give the player the option to kill them, call them dead, and then bring them back without having given anything in the game they died in that cast some doubt on their status is one of the reasons why I'm opposed to killing off companions.



[quote]
I don't see why not. Why is it only tolerable for some characters and not others? What's intolerable is constant retaconning - who it's 'acceptable' to do it to is debateable. [/quote]

Merrill and Fenris do not have the luxury of being near magical healing Ashes or being possessed by a Spirit of the Fade.

They died in a completely normal area. Why should they magically be brought back to life when other people -- Mages, Templars, citizens, etc -- stay dead?


[quote]if you make an excuse for them the first time, it'll probably happen a second time. basically it sounds like you want everything to be open ended without closure so later on in the series they have an extra trick to do instead of coming up with something new? because really, if everyone always survives, it's not really a "dark" story and it becomes predictable and boring.[/quote]

Not everyone needs to survive. Bioware just needs to leave the companions open. NPCs can die. But the companions are different. The companions -- if fought -- should have a codex or a cutscene that shows them seriously injured but still alive. Should Bioware not use that companion in the future at all, then the player died. But by leaving it open, they give themselves the opportunity to use the companion again should the need arise.

It might even make the game more mature to find out that a person who was left alive ended up dying from their wounds.

And making a dark story isn't just about killing off everyone and their families. Dragon Age II tried to do that in an attempt to make it more "mature" and "dark" and "morally grey" and failed miserably.

That ended up becoming predictable.


[quote]
to make it so companions never die, no matter what, is not the theme of franchise. as much as i love a handful of characters, what makes it more dramatic for me is the knowledge that I CAN lose them permanantly - as in death. it makes me more invested as a player in them as a character and in my own pc actions.[/quote]

And when they're retconned into being alive, how does that make you feel?

How would it make you feel if you killed Loghain and he turned out to be alive because the devs wanted that?



[quote]i really do not know where you are coming from with this. Bioware can choose not to use a person and not have to kill them, also I don't understand why they would have to be explicitly shown as dead or alive. if it doesn't add to the story being told, i don't see why they should use resources to include it unless they had a little extra left over and wanted to add it in for "flavor".[/quote]

For the sake of the players' sanity, if nothing else.

Negating player choices is a bad idea.



[quote]
killing of companions isn't about "getting rid of them", at least from a Dev pov - if the character, to them, was so terrible that they needed to get rid of it, they wouldn't add it in in the first place. They have character deathes to add to the story. "Getting rid of them" is purely a player perspective. One player perspective. On the one hand, for people like me turning in Isabella would be a moment of sweetness to find she finally had justice served to her; on the other hand, maybe people who love Isabella but wanted to do "the right thing" and hand her over will feel more of an emotional pull when they find out she was beheaded or some equally gruesome - you know the same thing Fenris fans felt when they turned him into Danarius 'just to see what would happen'.

This is all from an RP perspective which you do not seem to grasp. From an RP perspective, Isabella got off easy compared to other companions.[/quote]

Which I've acknowledged. I can RP just fine. Just look at how I've RP'd Xanthos Aeducan -- my avatar -- in the "What are your characters thoughts and motivations?" thread.

I understand how to RP. I do RP. Please don't say I don't know how to.

And I see no justice in handing over Isabela to the Qunari. They demanded a criminal be handed over to them, yet they didn't hand over the criminals that had "converted" to their ideology. However justified the Elves may have been, they were still -- unfortunately -- criminals.


[quote]
Then again you said it yourself, your main thing is you dislike death in a video game - which is weird considering how much of it happens at your PC's hands.[/quote]

Pretty sure I said "I abhor killing off companions as a way to get rid of them". I never said "I abhor death".


[quote]
Instead of thinking "how much of this story will I miss if I don't have this character" you should think "how will they approach this situation without this character" - and you will find the answer you are looking for.[/quote]

And what if they decide that a killable character is the only character appropriate for the situation? I am curious to see if they'll even deign to make Leliana have a different persona based on whether she was killed or not.


[quote]
Actually it kind of leads us right back to what I said before - how is killing off a character any different from just not recruiting a character? either way you miss out on the story. you can say that if I don't recruit someone, they have a chance to show up later - but isn't that the point of me not recruiting them? I don't want them to show up so them showing up later is kind of forcing them into my party.[/quote]
 
No it isn't. Fenris appearing in DA3 if you didn't recruit him doesn't mean that the game "made you recruit him". Not if Bioware decides to make that have an importance. Bioware could just as easily say that Fenris took down Danarius and Hadriana without Hawke's help.



[quote]
The main point here is the RP perspect; maybe you want there to be options for the characters to show up later - well you are in luck because they are there! However, there are those of us that just do not like companions that much and want some of them permenantly removed from our part of the multiverse, and by that I mean death. Why shouldn't I be allowed that option for Isabella when someone else can have it for Fenris? It's not really about what you prefer for you game at this point in time, because you already have it, and I think it's a legitamate question - why is Isabella spared? I am actually curious for this.[/quote]
 
The Arishok seems to have become less of a military savant in his dotage, and that's why Isabela escaped.

[TEWR]

to phrase it another way: Say when you do hand Isabela over, Varric says she was killed by the Qunari (ignoring that they don't waste anything and wouldn't kill her, but would probably submit her to the Qamek).

So you killed her. That's what you wanted right?

Well how would you feel if Bioware decided to put Isabela in DA3 in an import where you handed her to the Qunari and it wasn't a bug?

[lobi]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

to phrase it another way: Say when you do hand Isabela over, Varric says she was killed by the Qunari (ignoring that they don't waste anything and wouldn't kill her, but would probably submit her to the Qamek).

So you killed her. That's what you wanted right?

Well how would you feel if Bioware decided to put Isabela in DA3 in an import where you handed her to the Qunari and it wasn't a bug?

If you hand her over, you never really know what happened to her. "Varric say's" is hardly proof of anything.

[TEWR]

If you hand her over, you never really know what happened to her. "Varric say's" is hardly proof of anything.

Knowing Bioware, that's all the proof that's needed. I doubt that rumor would've spread if there wasn't something to it. The Qunari wouldn't go around spreading rumors.

Would they?

That's it, all Qunari are gossips and make and spread rumors. This is now canon.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 décembre 2011 - 06:17 .

[lobi]

Qunari could supply a letter from Is, three affidavits from merchants, a treatease from brother Genitivi and an eyewitness and Varrick will still say whatever he thinks is a better story on the day.

I will say this, of all the creatures and people My Warden and Hawk slew, I never once saw them check for a pulse.

[TEWR]

I will say this, of all the creatures and people My Warden and Hawk slew, I never once saw them check for a pulse

that's exactly the same argument I've made regarding Leliana and Wynne on threads prior to this one. The Warden doesn't kneel down to say "Welp, she's dead." so it's not really known if the Warden killed them.

EDIT: I realize Wynne is dead if killed. I'm just saying the Warden never confirmed it.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 décembre 2011 - 06:42 .

[lobi]

Wynne is dead, I recall her being very animated when telling me that. But yes, death is not the end in fantasy land.
(No Mr Woo, I am not doing it again)

Modifié par lobi, 18 décembre 2011 - 06:37 .

[TEWR]

lobi wrote...

Wynne is dead, I recall her being very animated when telling me that. But yes, death is not the end in fantasy land.
(No Mr Woo, I am not doing it again)

Well, Wynne's scenario is somewhat akin to people who have been "dead" for a few minutes and are then brought back through medical means. So despite what she may think, she's not really dead. She was dead, and then she was brought back.

Difference being though the medical means were that a Spirit of the Fade merged with her. Though her life is tied to that of the spirit, but that doesn't mean that she's dead. Just that their life forces are intertwined. And that's something I can accept, especially since she's a Spirit Healer.

I can accept that Wynne was brought back through a very unique method. But if that method were to be used haphazardly to bring back other companions then I wouldn't be okay with it.

[lobi]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I can accept that Wynne was brought back through a very unique method. But if that method were to be used haphazardly to bring back other companions then I wouldn't be okay with it.

 Ah but thats the thing, would it be haphazard in Is's case? Varric refers to Is as 'Revaini'.
Perhaps there is more to Isabela's back story. Here is an excerpt from the codex. It would explain quite a lot.

Modifié par lobi, 18 décembre 2011 - 07:44 .

[TEWR]

lobi wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I can accept that Wynne was brought back through a very unique method. But if that method were to be used haphazardly to bring back other companions then I wouldn't be okay with it.

 Ah but thats the thing, would it be haphazard in Is's case? Varric refers to Is as 'Revaini'.
Perhaps there is more to Isabela's back story. Here is an excerpt from the codex. It would explain quite a lot.

While Isabela is Rivaini, neither her mother nor her are Seers. She says that her mother knew enough of the old tribal practices to put on a convincing show for people.

So it would be. Because it goes against what we know of Isabela for her to have found a spirit in the Fade -- or for one to have found her -- and become possessed by one.