153429 réponses à ce sujet

[BoscoBread]

Yes he left you but I think the romance hasn't really ended because he clearly loves Lavellan. I think it would bequite lame if they would create a romance and the story would be that he just leaves you. Besides ME3 was their last game were 2 romances with male straight LIs ended badly so creating a romance with a straight male LI that ends badly again is not a good idea.

 

I believe that they can handle his character and the romance so that the outcomes don't cheapen the character or the romance. If they want to do that. Even those who romanced Anders had a change to be with him after the end so why not give that change to those who romanced Solas.

 

I believe that they had plans for Solas before the game was published so I don't really believe that it matters how many people played the romance at this point. I also believe that they knew that not so many people will complete it because it was so restricted. Anyway I believe that they can give people who romanced Solas a happier ending and it has nothing to do with how many people played the game. Of course if they don't want to do that then they don't want to do that or if it doesn't work then they don't do it but it just feels so pointless to create a romance that ends so that you can't do anything about to a game where you have choices.

Well, to be fair, you actually don't have many in this game.  A lot of the keep involved choosing to not complete quests.   The big choices that remain open-ended - recruiting/exiling the wardens, Orlais, and the Well. That's it.  The mage/templar thing was resolved in this game.  The war is over. No matter who you pick, the circles are essentially worthless or totally disbanded because most refuse to go back.  The story is heading in one direction. There may be somethings that sort of impact the world, but I don't think it's going to be much.  This is me thinking from a resource perspective - imagine the permuations of the game with all those choices.  It's a lot of work and money - especially when you have 2 other games to consider. The OGB while not rendered totally worthless, was relegated to the background.  Laidlaw/Gaider have said in an interview that they regret making that an option as it backed them into a corner storywise and it's such a huge deal.  They can't just not address it. 

 

Regarding Solas - since Weekes et all have made such pointed comments regarding the crit path - what Cee said, I would prepare for not much. I DO think they will address the romance. The fanbase is vocal and why put in,  to later not address it at all.  The extent of the content is unknown - likely the choice will be like, "No SOlas.  You left me, we can still be friends, but we're done.", "No. We're done. I hate you.", "Ok. I still love you and let's be together.". Some scenes. And that's it.    I think what you get AT THE END is what EVERYBODY will get regarding Solas.  So whether he lives, he lives for everybody - his relationship with the INqusitor would vary.  Whether he dies, he dies for everybody. He's too major for it to be different for everyone and the series is continuing in 4 so it has to be consistent.

 

Why ME3 had some choices - it was the end of the series and the developers are leaving that entire story and galaxy behind.  They could have had Shepard resurrect everybody a la end of Felicity(LIKE HALF THE CAST DIED IN CAR WRECKS AND THEY WERE ALIVE AT THE END OF THE SHOW)  and it would have been like 'IT WAS FUN! THIS MAKES NO SENSE!' Or Shepard could have just killed everybody - which you technically could have - and said **** it.

 

The choices in these games are an illusion.  The stories aren't MUCH different depending on what you do.  They are pretty much the same...so far. And that may be because, the writing team is trying to reconcile the two very different games of Origins and DA2 and move forward with somewhat of a clean slate. At least that's how it's played out to me.

[Janic99]

I think there can be various reasons why elven gods got sealed away. Maybe Solas did that to save either them or the people. Maybe they got sealed away willingly or Solas tricked them or used force to seal them. Anyway I think he did something or at least he had a big role in that. Because of that I think it's unlikely that we are going to see elven gods without Solas and like you said he is going to do something and I think it would be odd if we wouldn't see the outcome of that.

 

I hope that Solas comes back to Lavellan But I'm fine if my Lavallan have to find him. On the other hand this scares me because I'm afraid that the relationship will end badly and I can't do anything about it and I don't want that to happen but on the other hand I want to know what happens. And I want him back

Exactly. Everything you said is what I would personally assume! And I have the exact same feels but somehow I have a bad sense that since Solas's story will not be mainly about the romance that something very tragic ( is that a correct word ? ) would happen.. and honestly otherwise I do not mind whatever will happen as long that it has been done really well! But you said well! You are correct!!

[Abelas Forever!]

Well, to be fair, you actually don't have many in this game.  A lot of the keep involved choosing to not complete quests.   The big choices that remain open-ended - recruiting/exiling the wardens, Orlais, and the Well. That's it.  The mage/templar thing was resolved in this game.  The war is over. No matter who you pick, the circles are essentially worthless or totally disbanded because most refuse to go back.  The story is heading in one direction. There may be somethings that sort of impact the world, but I don't think it's going to be much.  This is me thinking from a resource perspective - imagine the permuations of the game with all those choices.  It's a lot of work and money - especially when you have 2 other games to consider. The OGB while not rendered totally worthless, was relegated to the background.  Laidlaw/Gaider have said in an interview that they regret making that an option as it backed them into a corner storywise and it's such a huge deal.  They can't just not address it. 

 

Regarding Solas - since Weekes et all have made such pointed comments regarding the crit path - what Cee said, I would prepare for not much. I DO think they will address the romance. The fanbase is vocal and why put in,  to later not address it at all.  The extent of the content is unknown - likely the choice will be like, "No SOlas.  You left me, we can still be friends, but we're done.", "No. We're done. I hate you.", "Ok. I still love you and let's be together.". Some scenes. And that's it.    I think what you get AT THE END is what EVERYBODY will get regarding Solas.  So whether he lives, he lives for everybody - his relationship with the INqusitor would vary.  Whether he dies, he dies for everybody. He's too major for it to be different for everyone and the series is continuing in 4 so it has to be consistent.

 

Why ME3 had some choices - it was the end of the series and the developers are leaving that entire story and galaxy behind.  They could have had Shepard resurrect everybody a la end of Felicity(LIKE HALF THE CAST DIED IN CAR WRECKS AND THEY WERE ALIVE AT THE END OF THE SHOW)  and it would have been like 'IT WAS FUN! THIS MAKES NO SENSE!' Or Shepard could have just killed everybody - which you technically could have - and said **** it.

 

The choices in these games are an illusion.  The stories aren't MUCH different depending on what you do.  They are pretty much the same...so far. And that may be because, the writing team is trying to reconcile the two very different games of Origins and DA2 and move forward with somewhat of a clean slate. At least that's how it's played out to me.

The main story will move on and there isn't much consequences of your big decicions because no matter what you choose you end up in the same situation like with the circles like you said. However there are still smaller choices that you can make like do you want to romance somebody and who that person is. It matters to you like making all those bigger decisions even though the result is the same.

 

I'm happy if there is a possibility to get Solas back like one scene.

 

I think there is a possibility that romanced Lavellan will get an extra option what comes to dealing with Solas if there is options at all. It's quite unlikely but I think it could be possible. I mean there could be a choice whether to save the inquisition and kill Solas or destroy inquisition and save Solas and if you have romanced him then you can die with him and save the inquisition for example.

[Abelas Forever!]

Exactly. Everything you said is what I would personally assume! And I have the exact same feels but somehow I have a bad sense that since Solas's story will not be mainly about the romance that something very tragic ( is that a correct word ? ) would happen.. and honestly otherwise I do not mind whatever will happen as long that it has been done really well! But you said well! You are correct!!

English is not my native language but I believe that tragic is the right word. I'm afraid that his romance is tragic too because of the reasons you said. But I'll keep hoping that it isn't too tragic and by that I mean that there is a possibility to be with him even though the option to do that is difficult.

[Gervaise]

I think it should be remembered that Solas' story and the role he plays in the world was established first and the romance added later.    That is why in a way it had to end because as the writer explained, Solas had a plan and if he had abandoned it, he would not be true to himself.    In a way he would no longer be the person you loved.   I found it very hard, considering it was my first play through, what happened with Solas and my female Lavellan but I'm not expecting the romance to feature that significantly in what is to come.   If the Inquisitor encounters Solas again, then I would expect him to acknowledge the relationship but I can't see them riding off into the sunset together.    When my girl went to her quarters post party and stood on the balcony alone, I had the feeling that was how she would be spending her future, starring wistfully off into the horizon, wondering where Solas has gone.   So just getting closure for her will be something because of course she doesn't know what I do.

 

Still looking on the bright side, before the game was released I had the horrible feeling that Solas might have to sacrifice himself to ultimately close the tear in the Fade and defeat Cory, so from that point of view, we're good because at least he's still alive.     What he said to Cole post epilogue was pretty sad though.

[MayriyaNoori]

The main story will move on and there isn't much consequences of your big decicions because no matter what you choose you end up in the same situation like with the circles like you said. However there are still smaller choices that you can make like do you want to romance somebody and who that person is. It matters to you like making all those bigger decisions even though the result is the same.

 

I'm happy if there is a possibility to get Solas back like one scene.

 

I think there is a possibility that romanced Lavellan will get an extra option what comes to dealing with Solas if there is options at all. It's quite unlikely but I think it could be possible. I mean there could be a choice whether to save the inquisition and kill Solas or destroy inquisition and save Solas and if you have romanced him then you can die with him and save the inquisition for example.

I will cry so hard if this happens. Like, no shame kind of crying.

[Gwyvian]

My alleigiance lies totally with June! If he asked me to drown the world in blood, I'd be like "WOO HOO, LET'S GO!!!"  But I am on a sexy, un-dead magical lords kick right now.

Wild Hunt? - YES PLEASE!!( I just played through the Kaer Mohen battle and that priest guy that fights Eskel...*fans self*)

 

The White Walkers? - YES PLEASE!!

 

But  yes, I agree.  I think they will be complicated and I think it will be difficult to totally hate all of them. 

 

Eskel is... impressive.  Avallac'h seriously frustrates me, though.

 

As to the last 3 pages worth of Solas discussions... I'm a little mystified by the assumptions about his intentions. I mean, firstly, it is very tempting for us, who like him and feel close to him, to assume that his intentions were either good or for the greater good. Personally I like to think that he acted out of necessity, but this whole clearing his name thing makes him sound like some white knight sort of paragon who is valiantly battling on despite the injustice of the accusations leveled at him, yet... even in the stories where he is portrayed in a more positive light, he is always ambiguous, someone whose primary tools include trickery among other things. A lot of his behavior suggests someone who is somberly repentant for things he now regrets - that does not suggest to me a valiant hero.

 

Granted, I don't buy the "Solas is a villain" thing either - that's too black-and-white. Yet I know for a fact that good people can do incredibly stupid, hurtful, sometimes even cruel and dangerous things out of some misguided feeling of necessity, duty or whatever, good intentions are never excuse enough and I certainly do not consider such people as evil, yet whatever they intended, one cannot merely look past such actions and allow them the convenient excuse of "they meant well" - perhaps that's unforgiving on my part, but I refuse to cut Solas so much slack just because I adore him. So to me it is far from a foregone conclusion that he was truly the misunderstood good guy struggling with a roguish streak, that seems far more mild considering the things that we know for a fact he will let slide, for instance. He is unfettered by guilt and remorse for a lot of things, including unpleasant things the Inquisitor can do, which tells me that his moral compass likely is very different from a stereotypical good or evil. I do also believe that because of his different context as a "god" or as an "ancient elf" it simply cannot be fully translated into modern Thedas (which roughly has an equivalent compass to our reality, as it mirrors that). Is he a villain or a tragic hero, then? I'd say neither and a little bit of both, but I'm trying very hard not to let my feelings about him cloud my judgement about his actions and intent, and most importantly, whether or not those two things correlate.

 

Also, I do not find it hard to believe that he would wish to free the pantheon. Why not? We don't know why they were sealed away, but what sounds most likely to me is the fact that they were corrupted - but circumstances do change. He could have realized, for instance, that this way they will all die and that was (probably) never his intention to begin with. It could be that it's too late, the corruption has spread from them so much that it no longer matters. Or he might have discovered that he exacerbated the problem by doing whatever it is he did and the only way to reverse what was done to them is to free them first. At this juncture it's definitely not outside the realm of possibilities, so why exclude it based on the logic of "he locked them up in the first place?" With sheer lack of evidence we have, I'm certainly still prodding at this question from all angles and not taking anything for granted.

[RynJ]

*snip*

 

We feel like his intentions were good or for the greater good because he suggests they were and so does Cole. Solas likes helping people and he hates oppression. I don't think it's that people just assume he did the right thing no exceptions. What you intend and what is the truth of the  matter is often at odds with each other. If I say what he did was "right", I'm more reacting to the fact that I've gleaned the main belief among the fans to be that what he did was wrong. Who says it was? Call it playing "Devil's" advocate, I suppose. I don't really assume much of anything completely. Most of the doubt about him planning on unlocking the door keeping the Pantheon away like "how ya doin, come on out" is based on how he still talks about them even now despite all his guilt. He still speaks as if they were not good people and did horrible things. He never wavers on that.

[BoscoBread]

 

<snip>

Yes to all of this.  I personally don't MIND his lack of moral hang-ups on certain things. At least in video games, it makes for an interesting character and a lot of fun to romance.  For me.

 

As for your first paragraph - I think that's fandom interpretation.  In the game he seems a bit more gray. He's clearly a compassionate guy but he is also very emotional and has moments when he flips out - i.e. the mages.  So he's a person.  He's ruled more by logic than not, but also has a heart and emotions just like the rest of us. And like you say, him being cast as a villain in all these Dalish myths painted him poorly.  And yes, he is deeply regretful and hung up about something, and for someone that can kill 3 IGNORANT mages without mercy or cause for concern afterwards...he must have done something big.  Big enough to feel awful.    And he may have been doing something that he FELT was for "the greater good" but that's HIS greater good. I mean, hell, the Nazis used the same rhetoric.  Every terrorist says something like this.  Anders said this.  It's a way people justify to themselves or to others the absolute horror they may be inflicting on hundreds if not thousands of people.

 

You have that whole conversation with Cassandra where she says sort of sarcastically "And everyone can agree on what 'good' is'.  That's the whole point of this game. You as an Inquisitor have to make these sweeping decisions for YOUR greater good. You are shaping the world in your image.   Whoever you put on the throne of Orlais may start more wars. Or internal choas.  A lot of people may die because you hitched your cart to a bloodthirsty horse. 

 

So yeah, I hope he was horrible. I really do. I hope there is a deep darkness with his past. Jesus. The game has been so light and toothless. Give Solas some bite.  I want him to confront a terrible past and I want the Inquisitor to face that with him.  And I STILL want him to be sympathetic.  I still want to care about the character despite all of this because he's a complicated mess of a person and I love that.

 

Regarding the Pantheon: I agree. I don't see why not.  They are the only beings possibly left in existance that may still be able to help Solas do whatever he needs to do.  Why not release them? 

[Janic99]

English is not my native language but I believe that tragic is the right word. I'm afraid that his romance is tragic too because of the reasons you said. But I'll keep hoping that it isn't too tragic and by that I mean that there is a possibility to be with him even though the option to do that is difficult.

I am from Finland myself so I do know what you mean but your English is really good. So do not worry about your English. I am also afraid of that but yet I believe highly that it might be.... that's why I just only hope that IF it will be.. I hope it will be done REALLY WELL.. if they will screw up like on me3 the ending and Thane's death..I will get so mad... SO FREAKING MAD.... But obiviously I hope for ending where you COULD be with him... I do not think that it would happen but we can always hope for happy ending with lavellan and the dread wolf

[Gwyvian]

 

Yes to all of this.  I personally don't MIND his lack of moral hang-ups on certain things. At least in video games, it makes for an interesting character and a lot of fun to romance.  For me.

 

As for your first paragraph - I think that's fandom interpretation.  In the game he seems a bit more gray. He's clearly a compassionate guy but he is also very emotional and has moments when he flips out - i.e. the mages.  So he's a person.  He's ruled more by logic than not, but also has a heart and emotions just like the rest of us. And like you say, him being cast as a villain in all these Dalish myths painted him poorly.  And yes, he is deeply regretful and hung up about something, and for someone that can kill 3 IGNORANT mages without mercy or cause for concern afterwards...he must have done something big.  Big enough to feel awful.    And he may have been doing something that he FELT was for "the greater good" but that's HIS greater good. I mean, hell, the Nazis used the same rhetoric.  Every terrorist says something like this.  Anders said this.  It's a way people justify to themselves or to others the absolute horror they may be inflicting on hundreds if not thousands of people.

 

You have that whole conversation with Cassandra where she says sort of sarcastically "And everyone can agree on what 'good' is'.  That's the whole point of this game. You as an Inquisitor have to make these sweeping decisions for YOUR greater good. You are shaping the world in your image.   Whoever you put on the throne of Orlais may start more wars. Or internal choas.  A lot of people may die because you hitched your cart to a bloodthirsty horse. 

 

So yeah, I hope he was horrible. I really do. I hope there is a deep darkness with his past. Jesus. The game has been so light and toothless. Give Solas some bite.  I want him to confront a terrible past and I want the Inquisitor to face that with him.  And I STILL want him to be sympathetic.  I still want to care about the character despite all of this because he's a complicated mess of a person and I love that.

 

Regarding the Pantheon: I agree. I don't see why not.  They are the only beings possibly left in existance that may still be able to help Solas do whatever he needs to do.  Why not release them? 

 

My point exactly. "Good" is an incredibly subjective thing and what may be good from one perspective can be horrible from another. Plus we have little to no idea about what, exactly, Solas feels such remorse over, we assume it's the sealing away of the pantheon... but what if it's something entirely different? Related, certainly, but it could be that he's guilty because he might've had a hand in corrupting them in the first place, or he might have prevented their restoration from corruption for some greater good purpose; in fact, being a god of rebellion, he might have created/caused the "infection" to begin with. Poisoning an unjust and crazy ruler does not make the act one bit less a regicide. True, what we have from legends (which is a decidedly unreliable source, as has been proven time and again) and what we piece together from the lore tidbits we learn here and there, it seems more likely that the Solas' actions were a reaction to a preexisting corruption, yet nothing of what he hints at suggests that the elven-dominated world was full of sunshine and bunnies only before this infection made the gods go crazy; he idolizes that time and yet he also seems to imply that some nasty things were always normal.

 

All in all, oh, yes - dark characters with lots of substance are preferable by far.

 

We feel like his intentions were good or for the greater good because he suggests they were and so does Cole. Solas likes helping people and he hates oppression. I don't think it's that people just assume he did the right thing no exceptions. What you intend and what is the truth of the  matter is often at odds with each other. If I say what he did was "right", I'm more reacting to the fact that I've gleaned the main belief among the fans to be that what he did was wrong. Who says it was? Call it playing "Devil's" advocate, I suppose. I don't really assume much of anything completely. Most of the doubt about him planning on unlocking the door keeping the Pantheon away like "how ya doin, come on out" is based on how he still talks about them even now despite all his guilt. He still speaks as if they were not good people and did horrible things. He never wavers on that.

 

Who, exactly, is the "greater good" meant for? Is that the good of the common folk, the good of his "company" of so-called gods, or good for the world which the elves or the gods corrupt? Good for the innocent (unlikely, given his character) or good for those who possess certain qualities? Yes, intentions of the greater good tend to be in a positive vein, they want to do something that will make things right or better, yet there is no such thing as an action for the greater good that does not require a sacrifice of something else. And I do not consider Cole's thoughts on the matter as valid - his moral compass is one-dimensional, he is literally capable of acting out of compassion using violence and soft words with equal weight. However much I love Cole and consider him innocent in his own way, he is emphatically not qualified to determine ultimate good or evil in a person. On this note, one can feel the right feelings for the wrong reasons or the other way around and to a being like Cole, what matters is that Solas feels pain and remorse - yet the judgement of the complexity of the context never enters into the question.

 

Of course, from Solas' point of view, he always had good justification, otherwise he would never have done it, so that's no good basis, either.

 

I'm not about to decide whether or not what he did was either good or evil, regardless of my hopes. All I'm saying is that all the supposed evidence about his goodness all comes down to what we want to believe about him.

[RynJ]

 

I'm not about to decide whether or not what he did was either good or evil, regardless of my hopes. All I'm saying is that all the supposed evidence about his goodness all comes down to what we want to believe about him.

 

 

Yes. Everything we say on here is speculation and I don't think anyone thinks otherwise. I just happen to think canon evidence doesn't paint him as a bad person who did something unspeakably evil in the past. Some people do. I guess I don't understand why you said you were mystified by the discussion. What is so baffling about people thinking Solas didn't do something evil? There's nothing mystifying about people thinking he was evil in ways too, even if I think that side of the argument does more reaching. All we can do is take some canon things and try to form an opinion out of it that might be changed later when the truth comes out. I don't think anyone out there seeming to assume the truth actually believes it is. We all know that we don't know the full story yet. I also don't think it's always about what we "want" to think about him. I don't want to think Solas is an antagonist, and yet I still believe he will be some form of one based on how I perceive canon details. It's all just interpretation and theorizing right now.

 

Maybe I'm just not quite getting what you're trying to say here?

[Niamaduir]

Solas is a study in grey, and I think there is definitely room for him to span the spectrum from very dark grey almost black to the opposite end where things are more white than anything else. I think that is a lot of what we see in the game in regards to his character. Yes, he approves of actions that can be read as compassionate, but they can also be read as a way to build and stabilise you power base as Inquisitor/Herald. He does say that "posturing is necessary." I think that it is why he such a polarising character, you can't really pigeonhole him or reduce his character down to a one-line note. How ever they decide to conclude his story will hopefully maintain that dynamic. 

 

In regards to the romance, yes we are a minority and yes the romance was added at the tail end of development, but I still find it interesting that without ever giving you the dialogue wheel to confirm it, you are locked into his romance. He is not the only DA LI to end a romance, Fenris does and I think Zevran has a similar dynamic, but I am not totally sure about that because I never finished that run through of Origins. As the PC, you can choose to accept that the relationship has ended with these two characters and move onto another LI, or you can choose to pursue the romance. Solas is the first LI to take that choice out of your hands, yet you are still locked in. The developers could have acknowledged this as a bug, they could have said something about not having enough time to add more content but I have seen nothing that describes it as such. We could have gotten some sort of end the romance option with the confrontation options in the rotunda after Crestwood for pities sake.

 

We have four LI cut scenes two of which the LI bits are tagged onto the end of scenes that most players get without romancing him (Haven, Balcony). The dance at the end of Wicked Hearts, Wicked Eyes is a universal for all LIs as I understand it. And then you get Crestwood, which ends it all, without really ending it. So in truth, we only get one scene that is unique to our experience with Solas. Yes, he had to end it to remain committed to himself and his ideals, but I swear to Mythal I will feel cheated and cheapened if the developers do not address those of us who did romance him at all, or do it in a way that is not emotionally satisfying in some way, good, bad or morally ambiguous. 

 

It also seems to me that locking us in like that is a critical design choice that should have some kind of repercussions for our Lavellan's down the line. I mean why do that to us? Why lock us in like that if it has no bearing on our future interactions with Solas? I mean you don't get leave or be left hanging in this unromancable limbo in any other game. You can exploit a bug in DA2 which allows for Fenris to run around wearing the Amell crest while you romance Anders, but that's a confirmed bug.

 

The locked-in state of the Solas romance really bugs me, and it will bug me even more if it has no bearing on what happens in a Solas based DLC. I want something that is more satisfying than having my Warden swept off to the west to find a cure for the calling.(Edit: It bugs me because it is an odd thing to do to the select few of us that may romance him out of all the other LI options in DA, not because I think his romance is lacking in any way. I think it is great and one of Bioware's best given there is so little actual content.)

 

And now I am taking a deep breath and getting off the soap box, sorry if this is a bit ranty, but omg the feels I have after finally putting myself through Crestwood...

[Meer]

It seems to me some participants in the current discussion are bogged down in the possible connotations of certain words and phrases, rather than fully analyzing the arguments which contain them. "Wrong," "questionable," these words do not automatically equate to "evil." Furthermore, even if a character performs an action questionable enough it might be considered "evil," that does not make automatically make the character an "evil" one, either. Characters can easily be an antagonist ("a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary,") without being a villain ("a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; a scoundrel.") The distinction between the two is often garbled. There is nothing wrong with being an antagonist; these are often the most fascinating characters.

 

Whatever Solas did, it's obvious he did it for reasons he believed righteous. Whether or not others will agree, including the Inquisitor, remains to be seen. You can bet it'll be a subject for debate in the future.

[Sah291]

I guess I'm going to be optimistic and say I think we have a pretty good chance of being able to help, spare, and/or side with Solas if/when we finally get the chance to confront him again. Not just as an LI, but for all Inquisitors. Mostly just because (assuming they are still set on a new protagonist each game) they need a convenient way to "get rid" of the Inquisitor somehow. With the anchor, the Inquisitor is perhaps the most powerful DA protagonist yet...maybe even a bit too overpowered to leave hanging around as a loose end.

 

Having the Inquisitor get mixed up in Solas' fate, as an ally or rival, is one plausible way to do it, short of having him/her die....which is another possibility. Maybe we lose the anchor. Or maybe the Inquisitor gets captured by enemy forces, or imprisoned somehow (in an eluvian?), or trapped in the fade. 

 

At any rate, I don't see the Inquisitor remaining with the Inquisition forever. So something has to happen to him/her so the next hero can save Thedas again. 

[Gwyvian]

Yes. Everything we say on here is speculation and I don't think anyone thinks otherwise. I just happen to think canon evidence doesn't paint him as a bad person who did something unspeakably evil in the past. Some people do. I guess I don't understand why you said you were mystified by the discussion. What is so baffling about people thinking Solas didn't do something evil? There's nothing mystifying about people thinking he was evil in ways too, even if I think that side of the argument does more reaching. All we can do is take some canon things and try to form an opinion out of it that might be changed later when the truth comes out. I don't think anyone out there seeming to assume the truth actually believes it is. We all know that we don't know the full story yet. I also don't think it's always about what we "want" to think about him. I don't want to think Solas is an antagonist, and yet I still believe he will be some form of one based on how I perceive canon details. It's all just interpretation and theorizing right now.

 

Maybe I'm just not quite getting what you're trying to say here?

 

Perhaps not. What I'm saying is that "canon evidence" as you put it is not solid enough for me in either direction. What he says, what Cole says, what lore says and what we've crafted together really don't tell us a copper's worth in terms of what Solas' intentions were or whether or not we can consider them good or evil. Plus, while we can make an educated guess as to his intentions, there is nothing to say about the execution of his plan. There are definite indicators in his personality that suggest that he is willing to sacrifice more than a little - even people - to achieve his goal, so now would that make him an antagonistic character or not? It's legitimate for everyone to have their conclusion and their wish to see a certain outcome, but what caught my eye in the discussion was that it was expressed through the presentation of supposed facts for either side added to confusion regarding how anyone can think of it the other way. I'm trying to point out that at this stage, both arguments are perfectly valid and possibly perfectly refutable. In short, I'm mystified by how anyone else is mystified by the opposing argument when neither side has irrefutable evidence.

[RynJ]

 

It seems to me some participants in the current discussion are bogged down in the possible connotations of certain words and phrases, rather than fully analyzing the arguments which contain them. "Wrong," "questionable," these words do not automatically equate to "evil." Furthermore, even if a character performs an action questionable enough it might be considered "evil," that does not make automatically make the character an "evil" one, either. Characters can easily be an antagonist ("a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary,") without being a villain ("a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; a scoundrel.") The distinction between the two is often garbled. There is nothing wrong with being an antagonist; these are often the most fascinating characters.

 

Whatever Solas did, it's obvious he did it for reasons he believed righteous. Whether or not others will agree, including the Inquisitor, remains to be seen. You can bet it'll be a subject for debate in the future.

 

 

Eh, I've thrown around this word but with less weight than it probably deserves? I more mean very horrible when I say that, which is what some people understandably interpret Solas' past decision as being. Which is how I came into this discussion originally, I think and that was reacting to people outside of the forums and nobody in here, really.  Whether he did something very horrible and more importantly, very horrible AND unnecessary in the past remains to be seen. I'm just not sure what's questionable about people believing either of them.

 

 

 

In short, I'm mystified by how anyone else is mystified by the opposing argument when neither side has irrefutable evidence.

 

 

Ah, okay. I just felt like that came out of nowhere because I don't remember anyone being confused about any argument. My initial post on the matter was more responding to things I've seen around (not here) that gave me the idea that people think it's fact that Solas did something stupid in the past. I was wondering why that's the assumption when it could very well have not been all that stupid at all. I think we're on the same page, but I'm tired as heck so I can't be sure. I might not be making sense at all. 

[Gwyvian]

 

It seems to me some participants in the current discussion are bogged down in the possible connotations of certain words and phrases, rather than fully analyzing the arguments which contain them. "Wrong," "questionable," these words do not automatically equate to "evil." Furthermore, even if a character performs an action questionable enough it might be considered "evil," that does not make automatically make the character an "evil" one, either. Characters can easily be an antagonist ("a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary,") without being a villain ("a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; a scoundrel.") The distinction between the two is often garbled. There is nothing wrong with being an antagonist; these are often the most fascinating characters.

 

Whatever Solas did, it's obvious he did it for reasons he believed righteous. Whether or not others will agree, including the Inquisitor, remains to be seen. You can bet it'll be a subject for debate in the future.

 

 

Haha, yes, I can agree to getting bogged down in terminology, to a degree. I agree about how such characters are the most fascinating and I agree about the distinctions between an antagonist and a villain, yet the point I was trying to make is that what we consider as antagonistic or even evil do not necessarily have to correlate with what Solas would consider as such, which overall leaves us with the continuing impression that he is an ambiguous character - and as I said previously, I don't necessarily disagree with any of the arguments presented, I have my own opinion, too, about what Solas did and where it stands on the morality scale, what bothers me is when one side is presented as self-evident when arguably the thing we love the most about this character is exactly this ambiguity, among other things.

[Gwyvian]

Eh, I've thrown around this word but with less weight than it probably deserves? I more mean very horrible when I say that, which is what some people understandably interpret Solas' past decision as being. Which is how I came into this discussion originally, I think and that was reacting to people outside of the forums and nobody in here, really.  Whether he did something very horrible and more importantly, very horrible AND unnecessary in the past remains to be seen. I'm just not sure what's questionable about people believing either of them.

 

 

 

 

Ah, okay. I just felt like that came out of nowhere because I don't remember anyone being confused about any argument. My initial post on the matter was more responding to things I've seen around (not here) that gave me the idea that people think it's fact that Solas did something stupid in the past. I was wondering why that's the assumption when it could very well have not been all that stupid at all. I think we're on the same page, but I'm tired as heck so I can't be sure. I might not be making sense at all. 

 

No, no, it makes perfect sense.  I don't know what the general consensus is on this subject, but I would like to hear the arguments about each of the variations, including this one. At this moment my own opinion is that Solas doing "something stupid in the past" is kind of... shaky. He might have been reckless, but he never struck me as being stupid in that sense of the word, I rather think he's deliberate even if he was misguided at the time. Maybe. I can also imagine that he really didn't understand the repercussions of his little rebellion and only now realized what he did, that would also make sense to me, though I'd not call it stupid.

[Ulv Elskeren]

Sometimes I wonder whether Falon'din's "revolution" is actually a reference to the introduction of mortality to Thedas.   The description of its spread to Mythal's lands is at least a little suspicious in light of elvhen Quickening- and the fade was Falon'Din's domain, making him essentially the God of the Dead.  Also nothing like a good civil war to ensure the death business is booming, particularly since his adherents otherwise would've been limited to a handful of dreamers in uthenera or the few elvhen accidentally mortally injured.  

 

And though it's a bit Reaper-esque, from a certain perspective mortality actually serves a beneficial social purpose: it ensures that a single individual, no matter how effective or charismatic he/she may be, is limited in the amount of personal power they can accumulate.  Instead of immortal rulers who could consolidate power over time until they were -for all intents and purposes- gods to their subjects, death forced rulers to pass on the mantle, often to less effective offspring, which helped to keep the sprawl of kingdoms and empires in check in an eternal cycle of expansion and fragmentation.  So half social revolution, half... genetic, I suppose?

 

*shrug*   I don't know.  Just a random thought.  Maybe Falon'Din isn't so much eeeevil as he is misunderstood?

[dawnstone]

Sometimes I wonder whether Falon'din's "revolution" is actually a reference to the introduction of mortality to Thedas.   The description of its spread to Mythal's lands is at least a little suspicious in light of elvhen Quickening- and the fade was Falon'Din's domain, making him essentially the God of the Dead.  Also nothing like a good civil war to ensure the death business is booming, particularly since his adherents otherwise would've been limited to a handful of dreamers in uthenera or the few elvhen accidentally mortally injured.  

 

And though it's a bit Reaper-esque, from a certain perspective mortality actually serves a beneficial social purpose: it ensures that a single individual, no matter how effective or charismatic he/she may be, is limited in the amount of personal power they can accumulate.  Instead of immortal rulers who could consolidate power over time until they were -for all intents and purposes- gods to their subjects, death forced rulers to pass on the mantle, often to less effective offspring, which helped to keep the sprawl of kingdoms and empires in check in an eternal cycle of expansion and fragmentation.  So half social revolution, half... genetic, I suppose?

 

*shrug*   I don't know.  Just a random thought.  Maybe Falon'Din isn't so much eeeevil as he is misunderstood?

If that's the case, if Falon'Din had a hand in the Quickening, perhaps he was the architect of the creation of the Veil - but with the full support of the other gods (except Fen'Harel and the Forgotten Ones) as a means to solidify their power. I mean maybe there's a connection to all this blood magic, the Veil, and the vallaslin. Maybe after he and the gods colluded, if an elf wanted to keep their immortality they had to swear themself to one of the gods, get a special rune on their face and they'd have access to eternity (but at the cost of their freedom) - maybe that's what it meant in that one codex entry where the elves lament their "marks failing" after the gods were locked away.

[Caddius]

If that's the case, if Falon'Din had a hand in the Quickening, perhaps he was the architect of the creation of the Veil - but with the full support of the other gods (except Fen'Harel and the Forgotten Ones) as a means to solidify their power. I mean maybe there's a connection to all this blood magic, the Veil, and the vallaslin. Maybe after he and the gods colluded, if an elf wanted to keep their immortality they had to swear themself to one of the gods, get a special rune on their face and they'd have access to eternity (but at the cost of their freedom) - maybe that's what it meant in that one codex entry where the elves lament their "marks failing" after the gods were locked away.

Woah, what's that about markings failing?   

[OhDaniGirl28]

Woah, what's that about markings failing?   

 

 

Indeed.  I don't recall seeing this.

[Ulv Elskeren]

If that's the case, if Falon'Din had a hand in the Quickening, perhaps he was the architect of the creation of the Veil - but with the full support of the other gods (except Fen'Harel and the Forgotten Ones) as a means to solidify their power. I mean maybe there's a connection to all this blood magic, the Veil, and the vallaslin. Maybe after he and the gods colluded, if an elf wanted to keep their immortality they had to swear themself to one of the gods, get a special rune on their face and they'd have access to eternity (but at the cost of their freedom) - maybe that's what it meant in that one codex entry where the elves lament their "marks failing" after the gods were locked away.

 

That's definitely an interesting thought... though a theoretical dependency between vallaslin and immortality would seem to conflict with Solas' assertion that it was an innate part of what the ancient Elvhen inherently were.   If memory serves, he claims immortality "was simply part of being elvhen.  The subtle beauty of their magic was the effect, and not the cause, of their nature."

 

Can't deny that it feels compelling, though.  Maybe the 'failing marks' have more to do with the weakening of elvhen magic in general?  In ancient times most, if not all, of the elvhen population seems to have been able to wield magic, while in modern times, I think the incidence of Dalish mages is somewhere near par with human- and Dreamers are almost unheard of.      

[MayriyaNoori]

Woah, what's that about markings failing?   

Isn't that from the elvish poem in the new World of Thedas book?