62 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

How much outrage do you think would happen if the fans got DA3 and were told that everything they just played didn't happen?

[LobselVith8]

dragonflight288 wrote...

How much outrage do you think would happen if the fans got DA3 and were told that everything they just played didn't happen?

Considering how some disliked Dragon Age II...

...that said, I would love it if the 'real' Hawke was proactive. He seemed way too... passive.

[TEWR]

Passive is an understatement Lob. A good portion of the time, he was literally handed the idiot ball for no reason.

Petrice being one notable example.

And for other people that read this, it's not that I wanted to kill Petrice. But the game gives me no reason why that isn't a viable course of action.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 25 juin 2012 - 03:16 .

[thats1evildude]

There's three problems with this theory:

1) There are certain parts of Hawke's story that could not be false. If Hawke killed the Arishok in a duel, then that MUST have happened because it occured in front of dozens of witnesses. Same with Meredith, who left behind a statue-shaped corpse as evidence of her defeat.

2) Cassandra has a very strong bull**** detector, likely due to her training as a Seeker. (It might even be one of their abilities.) Every time he tries to get away with outright lies or exaggerations, she catches him. Plus, she's fairly well-informed about the stuff that Varric leaves out of the official accounts of Hawke's story.

3) As you said, Varric is under pressure from Cassandra during that interrogation. But if he was going to slant his account in any particular way, it would be to frame Hawke as the secret mastermind of the Mage-Templar war. Because that's clearly what Cassandra wants to hear. Pleasing Cassandra (not that way, pervs) is in Varric's best interests during that interrogation.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 25 juin 2012 - 05:56 .

[thats1evildude]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Unless you bring Varric everywhere, every time and anywhere Hawke go, he is not an eyewitness on every events, how he know every details of every events if he not witness it himself?

He gets told about it. And, in case you never click on Hawke's journal upstairs, he also sneaks peeks at Hawke's journal.

Also, it's ogre. O-G-R-E. You're one letter away from "orgy", which is entirely different from an ogre. Isabela likes the former and not the latter.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 25 juin 2012 - 06:10 .

[thats1evildude]

Whatever. DA2 doesn't even deal with the minute aspects of Hawke's life; you don't know what his favourite food is or what possessed him to get that ugly statue over his fireplace. Varric just hits the highlights.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 25 juin 2012 - 06:16 .

[EricHVela]

Varric is one step away from a Politician or Lawyer.

However, I get the feeling that the truth as he knows it was necessary to further some goal of his (beyond keeping his head -- or other important bits -- that blade lands uncomfortably close in the book, but I think his motives were only further reinforced).

He's the kind the enjoys being in control. I think he was toying with someone who had no choice but to rely on him, just basking in the whole power game. She wouldn't kill him because she needed what he knew. He was well aware of that. Yet, I think he was always going to give her the true story once he made sure that she knew he held all of the cards.

Still, it's Varric's view of the story. He wasn't present for all of it.

[dragonflight288]

Varic: You're looking at this all wrong Junior. We have the King, where everyone's eyes are drawn. But when things go wrong, that's where all the fingers point. Then we have those in the shadows where the real work is done.

[LobselVith8]

thats1evildude wrote...

2) Cassandra has a very strong bull**** detector, likely due to her training as a Seeker. (It might even be one of their abilities.) Every time he tries to get away with outright lies or exaggerations, she catches him. Plus, she's fairly well-informed about the stuff that Varric leaves out of the official accounts of Hawke's story.

Is that why she thinks Hawke spread subversion against the Chantry?

The fact that she thinks one man can stop a continental revolution makes me wonder about how effective Cassandra really is. The fact is, Cassandra isn't infallible. She can make mistakes. And Varric exaggerates the fights, and could be mistaken or wrong about facts outside of his knowledge. And I don't even know how Varric supposedly knows what Hawke talked about with his love interest after sex...

[thats1evildude]

LobselVith8 wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

2) Cassandra has a very strong bull**** detector, likely due to her training as a Seeker. (It might even be one of their abilities.) Every time he tries to get away with outright lies or exaggerations, she catches him. Plus, she's fairly well-informed about the stuff that Varric leaves out of the official accounts of Hawke's story.

Is that why she thinks Hawke spread subversion against the Chantry?

That remark belies the fact that Cassandra is basically right in her assumptions — there IS more to Hawke's story than what has been told in the official accounts. She's simply wrong that Hawke was somehow behind it all.

But consider it from her perspective: Seekers are trained to sniff out corruption within the ranks of the templars and likely the Chantry itself. She believes that Hawke must have somehow masterminded the Mage-Templar war because her training tells her is the most likely scenario.

I mean, some poor Ferelden refugee comes to Kirkwall and just happens to be swept up in world-changing events? If I hadn't personally witnessed it, I'd have a hard time believing it myself, and I'm not a member of some fantastical Internal Affairs organization.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 26 juin 2012 - 06:35 .

[Iron_JG]

I have no problem assuming Varric knows basically everything of importance (and many things not important) regarding Hawke. I remind everyone, Varric has swarms of informants all over Kirkwall, and he is often implied to be more informed and in control than Hawke knows. He kept the coterie off Anders' back and kept Merrill safe when her naivete endangered her. Admittedly, that information stems from Varric's narration. However, if Varric did not keep them and others safe, then who did? I assume Cassandra would have called out Varric if he had misrepresented Anders' and Merrill's activities over 10 years. So I think Varric knew as much as anyone other than Hawke him/herself could have known about his/her motivations and actions.

Did Varric successfully lie to Cassandra? I think we have to assume he did in some areas. Keep in mind he is a very good liar, and he had time to work her. If Hawke duels the Arishok to the death for Isabela, she comments on how romantic it seems. He wears down her defenses by starting with the sympathetic, rags-to-riches aspects of Hawke's story. Hawke's motives and even secret agenda, which Varric hinted at late in his interrogation, would have been very easy to lie about once Cassandra got swept up in the story. If Hawke did seek and mastermind rebellion, no one would have been better able to lie about it than Varric. Besides, Kirkwall was on a trajectory for rebellion for years, thanks to the vacuum of power the Arishok created by killing the viscount, coupled with Orsino's corrupt leadership and Meredith's tyranny.

Why would Varric lie about Hawke having a more active role? There are explanations covering both friendship and rivalry, running from loyalty to fear of reprisal. He also had to figure he, being so close to Hawke, could not cast himself as a victim of circumstance unless Hawke was also such a victim. If Varric admitted not intervening when/if he learned Hawke planned revolution, could he expect Cassandra to let him go?

I'm curious as to how DA3 deals with the Varric-as-narrator issue. Contradicting him could be very interesting, but also ****** people off. It may not need to contradict him -- as best we know, Varric knows nothing more about Flemeth or Morrigan than Hawke does, and they both may matter far more in DA3.

[labargegrrrl]

i think that varic had reasons to at least mostly tell the truth. with a few minor differences (for pacing, you understand) but there were clear points in the interrogation where you could tell he only hesitated to be honest because he didn't think he'd be believed (if what i tell you isn't what you want to hear...). he seemed to genuinely want the truth to finally be out in the open.

plus, since bianca didn't appear in the interrogation sequences, i'm pretty sure they were holding her hostage. he had to tell the truth in order to rescue her! lol

[Sylvius the Mad]

In my personal head canon, almost nothing Varric said was true. I have Varric lying about whether Hawke was a mage (Varric says no), lying about the identity of the serial killer (it was Hawke), lying about Leandra's fate (she died, but not for his stated reason), completely fabricating Javaris and his blackpowder, lying about Anders even being in Kirkwall, and thus lying about who destroyed the Chantry (it was Hawke).

[Knight of Dane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In my personal head canon, almost nothing Varric said was true. I have Varric lying about whether Hawke was a mage (Varric says no), lying about the identity of the serial killer (it was Hawke), lying about Leandra's fate (she died, but not for his stated reason), completely fabricating Javaris and his blackpowder, lying about Anders even being in Kirkwall, and thus lying about who destroyed the Chantry (it was Hawke).

So relevant!

[EricHVela]

labargegrrrl wrote...

i think that varic had reasons to at least mostly tell the truth. with a few minor differences (for pacing, you understand) but there were clear points in the interrogation where you could tell he only hesitated to be honest because he didn't think he'd be believed (if what i tell you isn't what you want to hear...). he seemed to genuinely want the truth to finally be out in the open.

plus, since bianca didn't appear in the interrogation sequences, i'm pretty sure they were holding her hostage. he had to tell the truth in order to rescue her! lol

Well... For all we know, Bianca could be destroyed. We don't know the events that led to the interrogation. We don't know how much time has passed since the end of Dragon Age: Kirkwall.

As for Varric telling the truth, I agree that he wanted to give what he knew of the truth. I also agree that he had reasons to do so (beyond his own personal safety).

Why is a different matter.

He was playing around with the Seeker to show her that he was in charge, but I think he came clean as best as he could (while taking the odd moment to re-assert that he held all the cards [and they were all full houses, Ace of Fours -- lol]). He wasn't actually there for many parts of the story so there's a good bit of hear-say.

EDIT: What if the final Dragon Age (not the next one) imports only the events where Hawke brought Varric along and the rest is either missing, always different or some specific BWE canon. That would be "neat" IMHO but possibly annoying, too.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 26 juin 2012 - 11:07 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In my personal head canon, almost nothing Varric said was true. I have Varric lying about whether Hawke was a mage (Varric says no), lying about the identity of the serial killer (it was Hawke), lying about Leandra's fate (she died, but not for his stated reason), completely fabricating Javaris and his blackpowder, lying about Anders even being in Kirkwall, and thus lying about who destroyed the Chantry (it was Hawke).

So relevant!

The point here is that there's no reason for any player to view Varric's story as true.

The OP's question, "Varric Story = The Truth?", is a meaningless one.

[LobselVith8]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The point here is that there's no reason for any player to view Varric's story as true.

It's a good line of thought for those of us who hated how passive and inept Hawke was in Varric's story.

[Fallstar]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Passive is an understatement Lob. A good portion of the time, he was literally handed the idiot ball for no reason.

Petrice being one notable example.

And for other people that read this, it's not that I wanted to kill Petrice. But the game gives me no reason why that isn't a viable course of action.

I would have paid good money for a dlc that lets me kill Petrice. Nothing major, just the ability to murder knife her on sight.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The point here is that there's no reason for any player to view Varric's story as true.

It's a good line of thought for those of us who hated how passive and inept Hawke was in Varric's story.

That's the main reason I started rewriting it.