Provided you can remember who you sold them to.
I don't do pickpocketing. I prefer to kill people before taking their stuff.
But in DAO, IIRC, you can pickpocket them, then kill them and take their stuff, and you get twice as much stuff, which has to be twice as good.
Side quest in general could be handled better in todays heavily story driven rpgs. I always feel the urgency of the main quest line has me asking why am I stopping to do this. Almost feels like they need to be written in as optional parts of the main quest line to make sense for doing them at all. Let's face it if the world going to end and you're the only hope to save it. Stopping to go find little Jimmy's cow dosen't seem right.
Side quest in general could be handled better in todays heavily story driven rpgs. I always feel the urgency of the main quest line has me asking why am I stopping to do this. Almost feels like they need to be written in as optional parts of the main quest line to make sense for doing them at all. Let's face it if the world going to end and you're the only hope to save it. Stopping to go find little Jimmy's cow dosen't seem right.
It's an issue I often struggle with as well.
Hopefully we can make it work a bit better with DAI 
I kinda feel like all quests are "fetch" quests when you get right down to it.
I kinda feel like all quests are "fetch" quests when you get right down to it.
I've been a part of post-graduate research projects (as an undergraduate myself) that literally explored stuff like this (and it was very close to possible. The other fundamental type I believe was kill quest - but that was because fetch was defined as retrieving an item for some reason).
When you have a save the world sort of plot, the idea that you spend time rescuing cat's from trees in a bit much. You could just imagine Seal Team 6 off on their mission stopping to help a local find their cow
ME3 had a stab at it, although the implementation was off. Everything added to the overall grand plan, although to say some stretched credibility would be an understatement.
I don't mind 'em, per se. All I'd say is that they should be unobtrusive, completely and totally optional, and give a reward that is useful, but not a must-have.
Story-wise, these sorts of quests can be the result of something the inquisitor takes note of but doesn't actually do anything about until such time as the player decides to act. Overhearing a conversation, etc. There would be no dialogue and nothing else to actually prompt the inquisitor to act. This way, if the player chooses to pass these quests by they'll be nothing more than something heard or witnessed in passing, but if the player decides to complete the objective there will be a reward.
Simple and out of the way, yet still present.
But . . . but . . . Jimmy's cow needs saving. What if it gets eaten by a dragon? Tainted by darkspawn? Captured by Howe-lite? Stuck in a tree? If I don't save Jimmy's cow then later in the game my sweetie-pie may die because we have no life-saving milk! Oh, the horror, the tragedy, the epic sadness . . . .
Side quest in general could be handled better in todays heavily story driven rpgs. I always feel the urgency of the main quest line has me asking why am I stopping to do this. Almost feels like they need to be written in as optional parts of the main quest line to make sense for doing them at all. Let's face it if the world going to end and you're the only hope to save it. Stopping to go find little Jimmy's cow dosen't seem right.
I've had problems with that, too, but can usually invent some reason to interrupt the main quest to do them. For example, the Warden needed to supply and equip 4 armies plus her own group of followers, and needed the coin. Hawke really didn't have an urgent main quest line, so she was content to do whatever chores came before her. The Inquisitor can benefit from political power and support, so collecting favors owed can help with those goals.
Retour en haut