211 réponses à ce sujet

[ziloe]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

I would also like an option to just walk away, especially if the game is not willing to provide me with a means to negotiate peace, even when I try my hardest to achieve it. It will atleast be a lot less irritating and very much fulfilling than siding with one faction only to be met with withdrawal and outright stupidity, as was the case with Orsino and Meredith respectfully.

I believe this is how OP feels? Don't worry OP, I played the game in the same manner you did, sided with Mages when that is what was needed to save the innocent. Trusted Orsino after having seen his conviction to end Meredith's tyranny and the torture inflicted upon his kind, only to be betrayed once again.

Moreover, the game poorly emulates realism by denying us any control of our characters. In the end , the message I got was "Sorry, but this is the story we want to tell, you just happen to be in it.".

Yup, you got it. I like the idea of trying to find a peaceful route for both sides, but sometimes even in real life, it's impossible to help your own friends who are infighting and you just need to let them duke it out and get it over with, because in reality, there's really nothing you can do. They just need to settle their differences.

Even more prominent to Hawke's story was the fact that he was thrown into all of this by happenstance, so the option to just walk away from it all and take Bethany when he left, would have been the perfect ending.

Obviously I don't expect us to start the game, have the rip in the veil open and my character allowed to be like, "Welp, I'm going home."  But just like how we can walk away from conversations now, we should also be able to say no to those sections that force us to pick sides.

Modifié par ziloe, 28 octobre 2013 - 03:12 .

[Xilizhra]

ziloe wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Br3ad wrote...
Mages are conduits of almost limitless power , that can destroy on a whim and can cause terror on the scale of a small army alone. It's not the same as saying that the grandfather clause is wrong. 

I've yet to see any mage in the Dragon Age franchise exhibit such power.

And even if I had, imprisoning people for merely possessing the capacity to do violence is wrong, period.

Punishment comes after the crime, not before.

Uhh... Flemeth, who could turn into a dragon on a whim and see/manipulate the fates of those she deemed worthy. Corypheus, who most believe could merely transfer bodies before death. ...That guy who killed your mother amongst several other innocent women and raised the dead? Orsino becoming a hulking monster from the freshly dead bodies of his students beside him. Yeah... mages have never shown such raw power... 

Flemeth isn't a mage in the same way humans are, Corypheus is an incredibly rare breed being an ur-darkspawn, and Quentin didn't display any unusual power; his kills were singular and fairly mundane, and his reanimation process didn't seem to produce much in the way of useful results. Orsino I might give you, although hulking monsters aren't all that rare.

[ziloe]

Xilizhra wrote...

ziloe wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Br3ad wrote...
Mages are conduits of almost limitless power , that can destroy on a whim and can cause terror on the scale of a small army alone. It's not the same as saying that the grandfather clause is wrong. 

I've yet to see any mage in the Dragon Age franchise exhibit such power.

And even if I had, imprisoning people for merely possessing the capacity to do violence is wrong, period.

Punishment comes after the crime, not before.

Uhh... Flemeth, who could turn into a dragon on a whim and see/manipulate the fates of those she deemed worthy. Corypheus, who most believe could merely transfer bodies before death. ...That guy who killed your mother amongst several other innocent women and raised the dead? Orsino becoming a hulking monster from the freshly dead bodies of his students beside him. Yeah... mages have never shown such raw power... 

Flemeth isn't a mage in the same way humans are, Corypheus is an incredibly rare breed being an ur-darkspawn, and Quentin didn't display any unusual power; his kills were singular and fairly mundane, and his reanimation process didn't seem to produce much in the way of useful results. Orsino I might give you, although hulking monsters aren't all that rare.

And yet we know so very little about Flemeth and for all we know, she was once a perfectly normal human mage woman who found a way to exploit her abilities for her own gain.

Corypheus is also a part of a larger group of mages who murdered hundreds of slaves and used blood magic, to tear open the veil and walk through the black city causing the release of the darkspawn.  

Quentin wasn't so much unusual. But the fact remains that he brought the dead back to life, from something that died long ago. A spell that was very much unlike a resurrection spell because such spells wouldn't work on someone who had died months before. Just think what could have been, had Hawke not stopped him at all.

And no, hulking monsters aren't that rare, but after all we'd fought for, Orsino caused me to lose faith in our cause. And it's at that point that I just wanted to say, "**** it, you're on your own." 

[Medhia Nox]

The only way to disarm a mage, is to make their powers criminal without permission.

The real question is - why a "slavery, oppressive, prison, horribad, evil, Tranquilizing, genociding" group like the Chantry... ever allowed mages to learn violent talents in the first place.

[Boycott Bioware]

Medhia Nox wrote...
The real question is - why a "slavery, oppressive, prison, horribad, evil, Tranquilizing, genociding" group like the Chantry... ever allowed mages to learn violent talents in the first place.

Because they want to use these Mages in their interests, like slaves are allowed to carry pitchforks and sharp farming tools to work in the field...

Edit : And Gladiators are trained to fight and using weapons in Roman time

Modifié par Qistina, 28 octobre 2013 - 03:37 .

[Xilizhra]

And yet we know so very little about Flemeth and for all we know, she was once a perfectly normal human mage woman who found a way to exploit her abilities for her own gain.

Witch Hunt makes it reasonably clear that she isn't.

Corypheus is also a part of a larger group of mages who murdered hundreds of slaves and used blood magic, to tear open the veil and walk through the black city causing the release of the darkspawn.

The bodyhopping you mentioned is a taint power; the archdemon can do the same thing, and it has nothing directly to do with mages.

Quentin wasn't so much unusual. But the fact remains that he brought the dead back to life, from something that died long ago. A spell that was very much unlike a resurrection spell because such spells wouldn't work on someone who had died months before. Just think what could have been, had Hawke not stopped him at all.

He had to use a living head to make it work, and the body just fell over after he died. Of course, had he actually been able to bring back the dead, it would have been utterly amazing.

And no, hulking monsters aren't that rare, but after all we'd fought for, Orsino caused me to lose faith in our cause. And it's at that point that I just wanted to say, "**** it, you're on your own."

He's just one guy. There's a whole Gallows left of people to defend.

The real question is - why a "slavery, oppressive, prison, horribad, evil, Tranquilizing, genociding" group like the Chantry... ever allowed mages to learn violent talents in the first place.

They're useful weapons. See the qunari and Blights.

[nightscrawl]

dragonflight288 wrote...

This is an article I recommend people read with an open mind and at least take it for what its worth, and then look at the similarities the author uses in providing her own back story growing up in such a fashion.

I don't ask that anyone take it as gospel truth in the Dragon Age universe, but simply take it into consideration as it does make a great deal of sense. 

thelostgirl21.deviantart.com/art/Chantry-Circles-as-narcissistic-family-Anders-274235987

PS: Can anyone explain how I can create a link to the site without the website, say "Go here" is the link itself.

I read the whole thing. While it is interesting how she was able to relate to Anders specifically because of her own personal history, I don't think that this is a valid response for the thread. That is, the thread is about the issue in a general sense, not about how a single mage feels.

I am a mage supporter and I primarily play a mage, but Anders in no way represents my feelings about the issue. Anders sees it as black and white, while I do not. Many of his comments are deliberately obtuse in failing to recognize that there are mages who desire power, just as there are mundanes who desire power.

The system needs to change, but not be abolished. There needs to be something in place to ensure the education, training, and enforcement of law regarding the use of magic. A lord can afford to send his child to get training from the best mages. The average peasant cannot. Even so, the peasant's child still needs training and education. This is not equal with being able to read, this is about life and death: magic is dangerous and needs to be controlled and mastered by the user. Child Wynne was upset and set a boy's hair on fire. Can you imagine that same level of volatility with an older child, or a teenager?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the single biggest problem with the current system is that the templars are the military arm of the Chantry, instead of a secular organization. A secular organization, while still open to abuses of power, will not have the same zealous enforcement that there is currently. It should be, "Obey the law," and not, "You are inherently evil and are bound to break the law."

In the Gallows, Fenris doesn't seem to think this is possible: "Once upon a time it was as it is here. The Chantry watched the magisters closely for any signs of corruption or weakness. Then it changed. The magisters were permitted to watch over their own, and templars kept only to enforce the law. What happened next was inevitable. The magisters rule again, as powerful as they ever were."

However, I don't agree that the same thing could happen in the rest of Thedas, specifically because of the next point that he makes: "You must remember the the attitude towards magic is different in Tevinter. Magisters came from wealthy families, bloodlines that had nurtured magical talent for countless generations. The Chantry was not trying to control poor peasants, but the scions of the greatest houses in the Imperium."

Those kinds of attitudes are not present outside the Imperium, and I doubt that they are likely to take hold as long as the Chantry continues to perpetuate the current prejudices against magic and mages.

I DO believe that a modification of the current system CAN work, as long as it is free from abuse and the religious zeal that currently has a hold of it. I don't see why it couldn't become similar to the Harry Potter style of mage education and law enforcement if the religious component were removed. I believe that is a huge roadblock to any kind of progress for this issue.

[Xilizhra]

The system needs to change, but not be abolished. There needs to be something in place to ensure the education, training, and enforcement of law regarding the use of magic. A lord can afford to send his child to get training from the best mages. The average peasant cannot. Even so, the peasant's child still needs training and education. This is not equal with being able to read, this is about life and death: magic is dangerous and needs to be controlled and mastered by the user. Child Wynne was upset and set a boy's hair on fire. Can you imagine that same level of volatility with an older child, or a teenager?

The problem is that the system cannot be controlled by its current overlords; they've proven that their bias and hatred is far too strong to run anything close to a fair system.

I DO believe that a modification of the current system CAN work, as long as it is free from abuse and the religious zeal that currently has a hold of it. I don't see why it couldn't become similar to the Harry Potter style of mage education and law enforcement if the religious component were removed. I believe that is a huge roadblock to any kind of progress for this issue.

Either way, the Chantry has to be removed, which is what the point of all this was to begin with.

[TurretSyndrome]

ziloe wrote...
Yup, you got it. I like the idea of trying to find a peaceful route for both sides, but sometimes even in real life, it's impossible to help your own friends who are infighting and you just need to let them duke it out and get it over with, because in reality, there's really nothing you can do. They just need to settle their differences.

Even more prominent to Hawke's story was the fact that he was thrown into all of this by happenstance, so the option to just walk away from it all and take Bethany when he left, would have been the perfect ending.

Obviously I don't expect us to start the game, have the rip in the veil open and my character allowed to be like, "Welp, I'm going home."  But just like how we can walk away from conversations now, we should also be able to say no to those sections that force us to pick sides.

What I found most annoying in DA 2 is that the game denies us any way to offer resolution to the problem, on purpose. It does so solely to create a plot line for future games or books, or solidify an already existing one. The game also, very poorly, tries to maintain the illusion that the situation is out of hands, when it really isn't. 

Take the war with the Qunari for instance(Act 2 was the best part and only sensible part of the game, barring Hawke's mother's death). That happened due to constant oppression of the Qunari by the Chantry zealots, primarily Petrice. While I was against the Arishok waging a war on Kirkwall, I understood why he had to do so, and what circumstances led him to it. 

That was never the case with Anders, or Meredith, or any of the other Templars. What appalled me there, was the fact that Cullen and the rest of the order did not turn against Meredith when she invoked the Right of Annulment "because Grand Cleric Elthina was slain by Magic"(the most stupidest thing I've heard throughout the entire game), but did so when Meredith ordered Hawke's execution.

Even if the narrative demanded for the war to happen, there should've been multiple weighted causes for it, where invoking the Right of Annulment would've been justtified. Instead of focusing on what the Circle Mages did or did not do, to earn the Right that was invoked on them, all the game did was to pointlessly prove to us that Blood Magic is bad, and how dangerous Mages can get. If the game had done that, then I would've been fine to be left with only the option to pick sides.

I think the ending was where time contraints forced Bioware to hurrily "wrap things up", kind like what happened with ME3. Sebastian had it perfectly when he said "Why are we debating the Right of Annulment when the culprit is right here?!". Anyway, I hope Bioware will not repeat the mistake in Inquisition. 

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 28 octobre 2013 - 04:22 .

[nightscrawl]

Xilizhra wrote...

The problem is that the system cannot be controlled by its current overlords; they've proven that their bias and hatred is far too strong to run anything close to a fair system.

...

Either way, the Chantry has to be removed, which is what the point of all this was to begin with.

The "separation of Chantry and Circle" is the foundation of my argument. The Real-world Catholic church no longer has the kind of immense power and influence that it once had. I don't see why Thedas can't progress in a similar way. The Chantry is not going to be removed. Hoping for that is futile. Certainly hoping for it in DAI is absurd.

In any case, a good chunk of the current templars and "overlords" will likely be killed in the ensuing war, not only against mages, but during the veil tearing that happens in DAI. So the current people won't be running things anyway. Having the existing framework reduced to rubble is a good time to rebuild in a different shape, but there needs to be a structure of some sort.

[dragonflight288]

nightscrawl wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

This is an article I recommend people read with an open mind and at least take it for what its worth, and then look at the similarities the author uses in providing her own back story growing up in such a fashion.

I don't ask that anyone take it as gospel truth in the Dragon Age universe, but simply take it into consideration as it does make a great deal of sense. 

thelostgirl21.deviantart.com/art/Chantry-Circles-as-narcissistic-family-Anders-274235987

PS: Can anyone explain how I can create a link to the site without the website, say "Go here" is the link itself.

I read the whole thing. While it is interesting how she was able to relate to Anders specifically because of her own personal history, I don't think that this is a valid response for the thread. That is, the thread is about the issue in a general sense, not about how a single mage feels.

I am a mage supporter and I primarily play a mage, but Anders in no way represents my feelings about the issue. Anders sees it as black and white, while I do not. Many of his comments are deliberately obtuse in failing to recognize that there are mages who desire power, just as there are mundanes who desire power.

The system needs to change, but not be abolished. There needs to be something in place to ensure the education, training, and enforcement of law regarding the use of magic. A lord can afford to send his child to get training from the best mages. The average peasant cannot. Even so, the peasant's child still needs training and education. This is not equal with being able to read, this is about life and death: magic is dangerous and needs to be controlled and mastered by the user. Child Wynne was upset and set a boy's hair on fire. Can you imagine that same level of volatility with an older child, or a teenager?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the single biggest problem with the current system is that the templars are the military arm of the Chantry, instead of a secular organization. A secular organization, while still open to abuses of power, will not have the same zealous enforcement that there is currently. It should be, "Obey the law," and not, "You are inherently evil and are bound to break the law."

In the Gallows, Fenris doesn't seem to think this is possible: "Once upon a time it was as it is here. The Chantry watched the magisters closely for any signs of corruption or weakness. Then it changed. The magisters were permitted to watch over their own, and templars kept only to enforce the law. What happened next was inevitable. The magisters rule again, as powerful as they ever were."

However, I don't agree that the same thing could happen in the rest of Thedas, specifically because of the next point that he makes: "You must remember the the attitude towards magic is different in Tevinter. Magisters came from wealthy families, bloodlines that had nurtured magical talent for countless generations. The Chantry was not trying to control poor peasants, but the scions of the greatest houses in the Imperium."

Those kinds of attitudes are not present outside the Imperium, and I doubt that they are likely to take hold as long as the Chantry continues to perpetuate the current prejudices against magic and mages.

I DO believe that a modification of the current system CAN work, as long as it is free from abuse and the religious zeal that currently has a hold of it. I don't see why it couldn't become similar to the Harry Potter style of mage education and law enforcement if the religious component were removed. I believe that is a huge roadblock to any kind of progress for this issue.

Thank you for being open minded and giving good reasons as to why you think that article doesn't work in this thread.

[nightscrawl]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

What I found most annoying in DA 2 is that the game denies us any way to offer resolution to the problem, on purpose. It does so solely to create a plot line for future games or books, or solidify an already existing one.

I think you have hit the nail on the head as to why many players were left feeling unsatisfied with DA2's ending. As for me, I was left crazed and wanting more. And in fact I started a new game immediately afterward.

David Gaider has said that it is not correct to call DA2's ending a "cliffhanger," but I disagree, and exactly for the reasons you write. If the definition of a cliffhanger is that it "ends in suspense in order to interest the reader or viewer in the next installment," then the final scene with Cassandra and Leliana certainly meets that criteria. I've always felt that DA2 was a "bridge" game, even after I played it for the first time.

I would suggest however that the DA2 cliffhanger was resolved in the Asunder novel. Although Asunder takes place between Hawke walking away and that final scene, it resolves a key question, which is why Cassandra is there interrogating Varric in the first place. The fact that Hawke (and the Warden) are supposedly "gone" (vanished, dead, on vacation, mummified by Bioware?) is incidental.

[cjones91]

nightscrawl wrote...

TurretSyndrome wrote...

What I found most annoying in DA 2 is that the game denies us any way to offer resolution to the problem, on purpose. It does so solely to create a plot line for future games or books, or solidify an already existing one.

I think you have hit the nail on the head as to why many players were left feeling unsatisfied with DA2's ending. As for me, I was left crazed and wanting more. And in fact I started a new game immediately afterward.

David Gaider has said that it is not correct to call DA2's ending a "cliffhanger," but I disagree, and exactly for the reasons you write. If the definition of a cliffhanger is that it "ends in suspense in order to interest the reader or viewer in the next installment," then the final scene with Cassandra and Leliana certainly meets that criteria. I've always felt that DA2 was a "bridge" game, even after I played it for the first time.

I would suggest however that the DA2 cliffhanger was resolved in the Asunder novel. Although Asunder takes place between Hawke walking away and that final scene, it resolves a key question, which is why Cassandra is there interrogating Varric in the first place. The fact that Hawke (and the Warden) are supposedly "gone" (vanished, dead, on vacation, mummified by Bioware?) is incidental.

Actually Asunder takes place a year after the events of DA2.

[dragonflight288]

cjones91 wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

TurretSyndrome wrote...

What I found most annoying in DA 2 is that the game denies us any way to offer resolution to the problem, on purpose. It does so solely to create a plot line for future games or books, or solidify an already existing one.

I think you have hit the nail on the head as to why many players were left feeling unsatisfied with DA2's ending. As for me, I was left crazed and wanting more. And in fact I started a new game immediately afterward.

David Gaider has said that it is not correct to call DA2's ending a "cliffhanger," but I disagree, and exactly for the reasons you write. If the definition of a cliffhanger is that it "ends in suspense in order to interest the reader or viewer in the next installment," then the final scene with Cassandra and Leliana certainly meets that criteria. I've always felt that DA2 was a "bridge" game, even after I played it for the first time.

I would suggest however that the DA2 cliffhanger was resolved in the Asunder novel. Although Asunder takes place between Hawke walking away and that final scene, it resolves a key question, which is why Cassandra is there interrogating Varric in the first place. The fact that Hawke (and the Warden) are supposedly "gone" (vanished, dead, on vacation, mummified by Bioware?) is incidental.

Actually Asunder takes place a year after the events of DA2.

And Cassandra interrogating Varric takes place 3 years after the end of Varric's tale.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Which is why DA2 was made totally worthless by Asunder.

[HiroVoid]

But what about finding the one person who can put the world back together again!?

[dragonflight288]

HiroVoid wrote...

But what about finding the one person who can put the world back together again!?

Probably has to do with Hawke being a symbol for either mages or templars, and is a symbol of freedom or oppression, with the power/skill, not to mention political influence as Champion (whether that's a deserved title or not,) Hawke may simply be the one person capable of uniting one of the two factions and negotiating a peace.

[mopotter]

ziloe wrote...

 I hear a lot of talk about siding with either the templars or the mages, and though I don't expect either to be a major factor in the game as a whole, I for one hope that we can potentially remain neutral (leave them to destroy each other) or at the very least, find equal footing like we did in ME3 for the Geth and Quarians. 

((Discuss))

I do too.  I like picking neutral options sometimes. but I'd enjoy being able to get some of them to work together and fight whoever is left.   Of course I also hope to be on the mage side and the templar side in some games.

I loved being able to get the Geth & Quarians to co-operate, until the end.  

[ziloe]

mopotter wrote...

ziloe wrote...

 I hear a lot of talk about siding with either the templars or the mages, and though I don't expect either to be a major factor in the game as a whole, I for one hope that we can potentially remain neutral (leave them to destroy each other) or at the very least, find equal footing like we did in ME3 for the Geth and Quarians. 

((Discuss))

I do too.  I like picking neutral options sometimes. but I'd enjoy being able to get some of them to work together and fight whoever is left.   Of course I also hope to be on the mage side and the templar side in some games.

I loved being able to get the Geth & Quarians to co-operate, until the end.  

Exactly. I don't expect a neutral option to be the only option. It's just a path that would be nice to take every so often, and I think it adds to the replay value should I choose to play my character differently the next time around.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

ziloe wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Br3ad wrote...
Mages are conduits of almost limitless power , that can destroy on a whim and can cause terror on the scale of a small army alone. It's not the same as saying that the grandfather clause is wrong. 

I've yet to see any mage in the Dragon Age franchise exhibit such power.

And even if I had, imprisoning people for merely possessing the capacity to do violence is wrong, period.

Punishment comes after the crime, not before.

Uhh... Flemeth, who could turn into a dragon on a whim and see/manipulate the fates of those she deemed worthy. Corypheus, who most believe could merely transfer bodies before death. ...That guy who killed your mother amongst several other innocent women and raised the dead? Orsino becoming a hulking monster from the freshly dead bodies of his students beside him. Yeah... mages have never shown such raw power... 

Flemeth isn't a mage in the same way humans are, Corypheus is an incredibly rare breed being an ur-darkspawn, and Quentin didn't display any unusual power; his kills were singular and fairly mundane, and his reanimation process didn't seem to produce much in the way of useful results. Orsino I might give you, although hulking monsters aren't all that rare.

What the **** are you talking about? Quintin is the ONLY mage we know of, who has achieved necromancy. And not that peseudo necromancy of Blood Mages, but actual literal necromancy. He had bound the spirit of dead HUMANS within a corpse and bound this corpse to his own will. That is unprecedented in Thedas. And that is scary powerful for a mage to be ablet o do that.
And the Harvester is extremely rare. It was a complete unknown until before Amgarrak, and those released from there, probably havn't reached the surface yet. So the fact that Orsino can turn into one on his own, shows how powerful a mage he was.

[TurretSyndrome]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Probably has to do with Hawke being a symbol for either mages or templars, and is a symbol of freedom or oppression, with the power/skill, not to mention political influence as Champion (whether that's a deserved title or not,) Hawke may simply be the one person capable of uniting one of the two factions and negotiating a peace.

I don't expect such a thing to happen on the side of Mages due to extreme elements like Adrian present among the Mages. Man, I ought to kill people like her on the side on Mages as I killed people like Alrik and Karras, on the side of Templars.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
We don't live in a world where the concept of "freedom for all" coincides with the reality of "death for more."

Neither do the people of Thedas. Conflating mage freedom with mass destruction is such an incredible leap of il-logic that it boggles the mind. It's the sort of assumption that would only make sense to an armchair nihilist projecting his own sociopathy onto others.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 28 octobre 2013 - 11:31 .

[nightscrawl]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Which is why DA2 was made totally worthless by Asunder.

I didn't realize you disliked DA2 that much. I still have fun playing it and can just appreciate it for what it is.

Actually, the thing that makes DA2 "worthless" for me is Varric as the unreliable narrator. I really do not like it. I also really don't like the fact that people happily throw it out to refute various arguments about the game by just claiming that Varric lied about this, that, and the other thing. So basically, our whole perception about the game can be totally false because it's being told by Varric. The only real actions that we see are him interacting with Cassandra and the final scene between Cassandra and Leliana. And that greatly irritates me.

[TurretSyndrome]

nightscrawl wrote...
I didn't realize you disliked DA2 that much. I still have fun playing it and can just appreciate it for what it is.

Actually, the thing that makes DA2 "worthless" for me is Varric as the unreliable narrator. I really do not like it. I also really don't like the fact that people happily throw it out to refute various arguments about the game by just claiming that Varric lied about this, that, and the other thing. So basically, our whole perception about the game can be totally false because it's being told by Varric. The only real actions that we see are him interacting with Cassandra and the final scene between Cassandra and Leliana. And that greatly irritates me.

I'm glad to see someone else feeling the same way about the narration style of the game, as I do. It feels like they reserved it just for the sake of using it as a cheap excuse whenever they do a retcon related to DA 2 story. Kind of like how the Red Lyrium Idol is used to explain Meredith's actions and to make the first Act even remotely relevent.

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 29 octobre 2013 - 12:08 .

[Plaintiff]

Bioware doesn't use Varric's narration as an excuse to negate aspects of the plot, though. Only other posters do that, and in fact, they're wrong to do so.

Varric's story involves encounters with other well-known figures, including, for those who played Sebastian's DLC, Leliana, who Cassandra speaks to immediately after interviewing Varric. If Varric was outright lying, it would be easy enough to deduce.