395 réponses à ce sujet

[caradoc2000]

How could Leliana, the spymaster, not see the treachery in advance? I mean it should be pretty obvious that the Butler did it.

[Get Magna Carter]

You're misunderstanding. If you get the "right" answer on the first conversation but get the "wrong" answer on any subsequent important conversation you can't soften her.

 

People make a big deal about missing the first option, but IMO that's missing the point of the way the score works. Every option counts. You have to stand up each time. And it makes sense: at the war table she's constantly being asked to think of murder and assassination as solutions. When she has a crisis, and turns to you for advice, that's the time you can try to nudge her away. Don't nudge enough, and she doesn't change.

 

It makes her an actual person as opposed to someone who gets pushed around. I understand the frustration by the choice being really early - there's no time to look it up and understand the mechanics, you as the player on your first PT might get locked into a choice that you don't want for a worlstate - but that's all purely metagame criticism about how you can't metagame the outcome.

 

Note that I'm using you in the last paragraph in the pluraral sense - not you the poster but "people". I'm quoting your post though because I think it really sets out a good issue: the idea that the decision should have been some cummulative score that required less than 100% "softening" answers. 

Firatly I started by quoting "but people went "mwahahahaha, I get to let her kill someone"" to indicate that I was responding to that and saying I did no such thing.

I do not believe I misunderstood that quote.

 

Part of the problem is that the player has no hints at the first conversation that Leiliana is troubled and not psychologically suited for her role and so no reason to push her into a pacifist role contrasting that of the inquisition UNLESS the player is metagaming - the act of softening Leiliana seems to be designed to be reached through metagaming rather than natural playing.

That Leiliana is not really suited to the spymaster role and the player has no option to fire her (and suggest she becomes a nun instead) even after she disobeys an order and murders a spy in cold blood is another problem.

 

I think my problem was in the first decision.  I noticed the comment that the evidence of Buttler's guilt was surprisingly easy to find and wondered if he was framed and so try to pick dialogue choices calling for further investigation or a proper hearing.  Unfortunately, no such option exists and the precise meaning of the available options was not entirely clear from the abbreviated text.  The one I ended up picking turned out to be for interrogating the traitor which I let stand as, at least, it was trying to get some information as to what happened and the option I really wanted was not available.  Unfortunately, I am of the belief that this decision makes it impossible to soften Leiliana as it is about practicality rather than saying that killing is morally wrong.

I was leaning towards practicality in my choice as the "Herald" had no authority over Leiliana at that point (and was lucky not to have been executed) and had more chance of persuading Leiliana by using a practical argument.

 

One thing that occurred to me about the second decision is that in the theme of "Is it okay to use violence and death to protect the inquisition from enemies?" it is about using Leiliana's scouts in raids to slow down the enemy advance to protect the main base at Haven BUT Haven is not only the Inquisition's base but also a village where innocent civilians live.  so, you have the alternative question as to whether the Inquisition's forces should be put at risk to protect civilians? - which is a very different question. 

[robertthebard]

Firatly I started by quoting "but people went "mwahahahaha, I get to let her kill someone""
to indicate that I was responding to that and saying I did no such thing.
I do not believe I misunderstood that quote.
 
Part of the problem is that the player has no hints at the first conversation that Leiliana is troubled and not psychologically suited for her role and so no reason to push her into a pacifist role contrasting that of the inquisition UNLESS the player is metagaming - the act of softening Leiliana seems to be designed to be reached through metagaming rather than natural playing.
That Leiliana is not really suited to the spymaster role and the player has no option to fire her (and suggest she becomes a nun instead) even after she disobeys an order and murders a spy in cold blood is another problem.

Color me confused. Just before this exchange, we have a nice little talk with her where she's questioning her faith. There is no metagaming required to understand that this is an issue for her, she is, as we know, the Left Hand of the Divine. We don't have to rely on what we know from Origins, there is a whole little info dump that ends with us in a second cutscene where we "overhear" her orders regarding the spy.
 

 

I think my problem was in the first decision.  I noticed the comment that the evidence of Buttler's guilt was surprisingly easy to find and wondered if he was framed and so try to pick dialogue choices calling for further investigation or a proper hearing.  Unfortunately, no such option exists and the precise meaning of the available options was not entirely clear from the abbreviated text.  The one I ended up picking turned out to be for interrogating the traitor which I let stand as, at least, it was trying to get some information as to what happened and the option I really wanted was not available.  Unfortunately, I am of the belief that this decision makes it impossible to soften Leiliana as it is about practicality rather than saying that killing is morally wrong.

Again, color me confused, how is bringing the man in for interrogation not trying to figure out what's going on? Especially given the rest of the conversation, where we can point out that now is precisely the time for holding onto our morals. I'm hitting a block on the actual wording, however. Metagame, no matter what we do, we never hear anything else about it.
 

I was leaning towards practicality in my choice as the "Herald" had no authority over Leiliana at that point (and was lucky not to have been executed) and had more chance of persuading Leiliana by using a practical argument.
 
One thing that occurred to me about the second decision is that in the theme of "Is it okay to use violence and death to protect the inquisition from enemies?" it is about using Leiliana's scouts in raids to slow down the enemy advance to protect the main base at Haven BUT Haven is not only the Inquisition's base but also a village where innocent civilians live.  so, you have the alternative question as to whether the Inquisition's forces should be put at risk to protect civilians? - which is a very different question. 

What you have to ask yourself is how much time are single scouts going to buy? She didn't have platoons running patrols, she had single scouts watching the surrounding area. Since all they would do is die needlessly, it was the better call to bring them in, that many more people in a situation where they aren't 1 person vs an invading army. Recalling them increases their odds of survival, and gives us time to set up defenses, in theory, even though, ultimately, we never see these scouts, one way or the other.

[Get Magna Carter]

Color me confused. Just before this exchange, we have a nice little talk with her where she's questioning her faith. There is no metagaming required to understand that this is an issue for her, she is, as we know, the Left Hand of the Divine. We don't have to rely on what we know from Origins, there is a whole little info dump that ends with us in a second cutscene where we "overhear" her orders regarding the spy.
 

 
Again, color me confused, how is bringing the man in for interrogation not trying to figure out what's going on? Especially given the rest of the conversation, where we can point out that now is precisely the time for holding onto our morals. I'm hitting a block on the actual wording, however. Metagame, no matter what we do, we never hear anything else about it.
 

What you have to ask yourself is how much time are single scouts going to buy? She didn't have platoons running patrols, she had single scouts watching the surrounding area. Since all they would do is die needlessly, it was the better call to bring them in, that many more people in a situation where they aren't 1 person vs an invading army. Recalling them increases their odds of survival, and gives us time to set up defenses, in theory, even though, ultimately, we never see these scouts, one way or the other.

on the first, "just before" can be hours of game time and maybe days of real time. The question is does it indicate she is so mixed up psychologically that she needs to kept from killing violent enemies while the rest of the Inquisition is fighting and killing?

 

on the interrogation option - it still follows the presumption of guilt and get details of enemy from him rather than trying to determine what actually happened.  It is the best option to try to determine the truth about Butler but it seems to leave Leiliana hardened regardless of the other decisions made.  If anyone picked that option ("Killing him would be a waste" - or something like that) and managed to get a softened Leiliana I have not heard of it.

 

While I have not tried it, I understand that if you do not complete Leiliana's quest she ends up indecisive rather than hardened - which does not seem consistent with the notion that she is already hardened.

[robertthebard]

on the first, "just before" can be hours of game time and maybe days of real time. The question is does it indicate she is so mixed up psychologically that she needs to kept from killing violent enemies while the rest of the Inquisition is fighting and killing?

No, it won't. When you try to walk away from the first dialog, the game inserts you into the second one, even makes you lean against a tent pole so that you "overhear" what's going on. If, and only if all the mooks in the game would buy you tea and talk about sports instead of trying to kill you, you're second point would be valid. They won't. If you just walk up to them, they will attack you, and some of them won't even let you get close before they do. In order for your logic to hold, we'd have to be murdering people in their sleep, or at least going through Val Royeaux killing everyone we see. This isn't the case.
 

on the interrogation option - it still follows the presumption of guilt and get details of enemy from him rather than trying to determine what actually happened.  It is the best option to try to determine the truth about Butler but it seems to leave Leiliana hardened regardless of the other decisions made.  If anyone picked that option ("Killing him would be a waste" - or something like that) and managed to get a softened Leiliana I have not heard of it.

If the police bring you in for questioning concerning certain events, they don't have to have a presumption of guilt. They can believe that you're a witness to said events, and want to get what information you have. In this scenario, however, you're mostly right, it is a presumption of guilt based on the evidence she has, the idea here isn't "innocent or guilty" but "presumed guilty and killed" with the Herald's approval, whether supporting it, or tacitly agreeing by remaining silent. The other option at least allows us the opportunity to assume we'll learn the truth, instead of "he's guilty, kill him".
 

While I have not tried it, I understand that if you do not complete Leiliana's quest she ends up indecisive rather than hardened - which does not seem consistent with the notion that she is already hardened.

This is information that the Inquisitor/Herald won't be privy to anyway. You don't want to metagame the decision, but you use metagaming to determine that you don't? If I'm going to metagame this scenario out, then I know that she's hardened, because I always harden her, I know that she's a devout Andrastian, and that the dialog prior to dealing with the spy in Haven is way out of character for her, and thus know that she needs guidance from me on which way to go. We can't say "I don't want to metagame" and then throw out metagame reasons for it such as "if you don't do her quest, she's 'indecisive' and so it shouldn't matter anyway". We're either role playing our decisions, or we're metagaming them, but we can't use metagaming to justify role play. Well, technically we can do just that, but doing so and then complaining about it is a self made dilemma, not a flaw with the game.

Now, here's the kicker to the "I don't have the authority" argument: You indeed do have the authority, at the time this dialog is presented. That's going to blow some people's minds, but the trick here is that you, as the Herald, are the figurehead around which the current incarnation of the Inquisition is built. W/out you, as the Herald, they literally have nothing to base any claim to any kind of authority. The figurehead may not be observed as the leader by the members of the organization, but as we can see from Cassandra's dialog once we reach Skyhold, we've already been the defacto leader, and so, since they are looking to us as the defacto leader, we have that authority, from the moment the Inquisition is officially founded. So, we very definitely do have the authority, and we can, in fact, exercise that authority if we so choose. No metagaming required.

[In Exile]

As to the authority point, Leliana just asked you what the Maker and Andraste think. Whether or not you have a major role in the Inquisition hierarchy at that point - and frankly there isn't really one in place yet - is a bit besides the point from how Leliana views your authority. 

[beccatoria]

One of the issues that keeps coming up here is a question of writing quality vs game-mechanics. 

 

It seems that a lot of the criticism of the first choice is about how it's not clear it's an important decision with people on the other side of the issue arguing that it's realistic and immersive that you can't know the results of your actions and that there's something interesting about having such a critical decision right off the bat. 

 

Theoretically I agree.  And I also genuinely don't mind that it's not flagged as AH MAJOR CHOICE HERE! or that it's so early in the game. 

 

The problem really does just come down to the writing. 

 

I've seen it stated that if you don't actively interfere to save Butler, you're allowing your fear of consequence stand in the way of doing what's right.  That might work for certain Inquisitors, but here's the issue. 

 

Not only are there valid roleplay reasons to keep quiet, the very notion that you CAN convince her is - to me - unspeakably "gamey".  Like I think the presentation of this as a "do you want to roleplay or do you want highlighted game mechanics?" is false because...

 

Well because Leliana has no in-game reason to listen to me at this point.  It's like when Shepard strolls over and inserts herself into random strangers' conversations about gene therapy for their kids.  It's purely a roleplay game conceit - everyone will care about your opinion because you're The Protagonist, whether it makes sense or not.  It was a really clunky example of that.  You're not being asked your opinion, it's a classic "I just HAPPENED to over hear you talking and thought you my want some of my BRILLIANT thoughts on that!" moment. 

 

So like...the writing here is just bad and clunky.  If it was a situation where it made sense that we'd be talking to her about what to do with Butler, then I wouldn't have so much of a problem with "remaining silent" being taken as tacit consent. 

 

But if you're going to write a situation where interfering is really kind of awkward, and not your place to be doing, then again - it's fine if that means you can't soften Leliana - that you didn't know it, but this was the shatterpoint moment where she needed something and it didn't happen.  But it then shouldn't be assumed to be tacit consent. 

 

Then her speech shouldn't be about how you encouraged her to be this way but maybe more...she's sorry you disagree but she thinks you're wrong and don't know what needs to be done to keep the Inquisition safe. 

 

Like, sure, people would still be debating if the issue should be potentially locked out that early, or if it should've been a points-system or if it should have been tied to whether she was hardened in DA:O.  But I think it would have gotten WAY less anger from people if: 

 

1) the ability to interfere in the opening scene hadn't been so "gamey" it was difficult to justify on roleplaying terms for many of us, and

 

2) she hadn't accused us of encouraging her behaviour when many of us legitimately did not.  Remaining silent is not active encouragement, especially not when you're not in a position of authority and therefore your silence can't be construed as passive permission. 

 

The problem is that she reacts as if you told her to kill Butler even if you didn't, and a lot of people chose to say nothing in that situation because it was weirdly written in the first place. 

[nikkylee]

No, it won't. When you try to walk away from the first dialog, the game inserts you into the second one, even makes you lean against a tent pole so that you "overhear" what's going on.

 

Other points aside, it doesn't automatically trigger this point. I just played through this yesterday... you can absolutely walk away and come back later. I spread out my conversations so I have something when I get sick of side quests. The scout didn't show up until I'd left the area and come back.

[caradoc2000]

She also knew longer than we thought about Blackwall's true identity. I caught her in the lie on my last PT. She pauses as she says "he's not... what I expected"

But the Butler....

[In Exile]

One of the issues that keeps coming up here is a question of writing quality vs game-mechanics.

It seems that a lot of the criticism of the first choice is about how it's not clear it's an important decision with people on the other side of the issue arguing that it's realistic and immersive that you can't know the results of your actions and that there's something interesting about having such a critical decision right off the bat.

Theoretically I agree. And I also genuinely don't mind that it's not flagged as AH MAJOR CHOICE HERE! or that it's so early in the game.

The problem really does just come down to the writing.

I've seen it stated that if you don't actively interfere to save Butler, you're allowing your fear of consequence stand in the way of doing what's right. That might work for certain Inquisitors, but here's the issue.

Not only are there valid roleplay reasons to keep quiet, the very notion that you CAN convince her is - to me - unspeakably "gamey". Like I think the presentation of this as a "do you want to roleplay or do you want highlighted game mechanics?" is false because...

Well because Leliana has no in-game reason to listen to me at this point. It's like when Shepard strolls over and inserts herself into random strangers' conversations about gene therapy for their kids. It's purely a roleplay game conceit - everyone will care about your opinion because you're The Protagonist, whether it makes sense or not. It was a really clunky example of that. You're not being asked your opinion, it's a classic "I just HAPPENED to over hear you talking and thought you my want some of my BRILLIANT thoughts on that!" moment.

So like...the writing here is just bad and clunky. If it was a situation where it made sense that we'd be talking to her about what to do with Butler, then I wouldn't have so much of a problem with "remaining silent" being taken as tacit consent.

But if you're going to write a situation where interfering is really kind of awkward, and not your place to be doing, then again - it's fine if that means you can't soften Leliana - that you didn't know it, but this was the shatterpoint moment where she needed something and it didn't happen. But it then shouldn't be assumed to be tacit consent.

Then her speech shouldn't be about how you encouraged her to be this way but maybe more...she's sorry you disagree but she thinks you're wrong and don't know what needs to be done to keep the Inquisition safe.

Like, sure, people would still be debating if the issue should be potentially locked out that early, or if it should've been a points-system or if it should have been tied to whether she was hardened in DA:O. But I think it would have gotten WAY less anger from people if:

1) the ability to interfere in the opening scene hadn't been so "gamey" it was difficult to justify on roleplaying terms for many of us, and

2) she hadn't accused us of encouraging her behaviour when many of us legitimately did not. Remaining silent is not active encouragement, especially not when you're not in a position of authority and therefore your silence can't be construed as passive permission.

The problem is that she reacts as if you told her to kill Butler even if you didn't, and a lot of people chose to say nothing in that situation because it was weirdly written in the first place.

She never accuses you of permitting her to kill her agent. She accuses you of supporting her engaging in a great deal of shady dealings and assassination. Which you do, using the war table.

More importantly it doesn't matter what your reasons are - if you participated in that scene you get to either condone her acts or not. She calls you out for condoning them.

[caradoc2000]

It's more or less a setup for the player to decide if she should be hardened or not, but if she knew of other things, this should not have slipped past her. Either she knew and tried to catch him, or she was blinded by their friendship. That's how I see it.

The Butler really did it.

 

Spoiler

I am sorry if you weren't aware of the trope.

[caradoc2000]

I'm aware but I am logical and also annoyed at her personal quest and how she's portrayed in DAI, so I am blindly focused on facts. I know it's been 10 years, but I softened her in DAO. To become to ruthless after that is just not like her, or like who she was in my game at least.

Logical plus RPG is an oxymoron.

[caradoc2000]

being a writer

My condolences
 
My wife is one as well

[nikkylee]

One of the issues that keeps coming up here is a question of writing quality vs game-mechanics. 

 

It seems that a lot of the criticism of the first choice is about how it's not clear it's an important decision with people on the other side of the issue arguing that it's realistic and immersive that you can't know the results of your actions and that there's something interesting about having such a critical decision right off the bat. 

 

Theoretically I agree.  And I also genuinely don't mind that it's not flagged as AH MAJOR CHOICE HERE! or that it's so early in the game. 

 

The problem really does just come down to the writing. 

 

I've seen it stated that if you don't actively interfere to save Butler, you're allowing your fear of consequence stand in the way of doing what's right.  That might work for certain Inquisitors, but here's the issue. 

 

Not only are there valid roleplay reasons to keep quiet, the very notion that you CAN convince her is - to me - unspeakably "gamey".  Like I think the presentation of this as a "do you want to roleplay or do you want highlighted game mechanics?" is false because...

 

Well because Leliana has no in-game reason to listen to me at this point.  It's like when Shepard strolls over and inserts herself into random strangers' conversations about gene therapy for their kids.  It's purely a roleplay game conceit - everyone will care about your opinion because you're The Protagonist, whether it makes sense or not.  It was a really clunky example of that.  You're not being asked your opinion, it's a classic "I just HAPPENED to over hear you talking and thought you my want some of my BRILLIANT thoughts on that!" moment. 

 

So like...the writing here is just bad and clunky.  If it was a situation where it made sense that we'd be talking to her about what to do with Butler, then I wouldn't have so much of a problem with "remaining silent" being taken as tacit consent. 

 

But if you're going to write a situation where interfering is really kind of awkward, and not your place to be doing, then again - it's fine if that means you can't soften Leliana - that you didn't know it, but this was the shatterpoint moment where she needed something and it didn't happen.  But it then shouldn't be assumed to be tacit consent. 

 

Then her speech shouldn't be about how you encouraged her to be this way but maybe more...she's sorry you disagree but she thinks you're wrong and don't know what needs to be done to keep the Inquisition safe. 

 

Like, sure, people would still be debating if the issue should be potentially locked out that early, or if it should've been a points-system or if it should have been tied to whether she was hardened in DA:O.  But I think it would have gotten WAY less anger from people if: 

 

1) the ability to interfere in the opening scene hadn't been so "gamey" it was difficult to justify on roleplaying terms for many of us, and

 

2) she hadn't accused us of encouraging her behaviour when many of us legitimately did not.  Remaining silent is not active encouragement, especially not when you're not in a position of authority and therefore your silence can't be construed as passive permission. 

 

The problem is that she reacts as if you told her to kill Butler even if you didn't, and a lot of people chose to say nothing in that situation because it was weirdly written in the first place. 

 

I agree. It's not that it wasn't an obvious choice... I'd have no issue if this happened after we got to Skyhold and I was in charge. At the point it is though, I'm just a member of the Inquisition. An important member for sure... but Leliana and everyone were the ones still calling the shots. I just suck it up meta game it now, but the first time through I stayed silent because I thought it was a little awkward and presumptuous for someone freshly off the chopping block to start questioning the supposed professionals.

 

If I remember Mass Effect correctly, Garrus can be swayed one way or another over several conversations. Something like that would have been awesome... instead of that one conversation totally negating every other conversation you have with her. 

[BubbleDncr]

I think the problem with the Butler choice being at the beginning of the game is that it's during the time period when people are still getting accustomed to the game and figuring out who they want their character to be - especially for players who may not have known played the first game and have no idea who Leliana really is or what her struggles are. 

 

To me, it is a completely normal reaction for someone to sit back, watch, and see how the spymaster handles situations. Then decide, if they don't think it's right, to try and help Leliana change for the better. 

 

But the game doesn't let you do that. If you choose to see what she's like, you doom her to being a killer the rest of her life. You can't help her overcome that. Which doesn't seem realistic to me. 

[robertthebard]

I agree. It's not that it wasn't an obvious choice... I'd have no issue if this happened after we got to Skyhold and I was in charge. At the point it is though, I'm just a member of the Inquisition. An important member for sure... but Leliana and everyone were the ones still calling the shots. I just suck it up meta game it now, but the first time through I stayed silent because I thought it was a little awkward and presumptuous for someone freshly off the chopping block to start questioning the supposed professionals.
 
If I remember Mass Effect correctly, Garrus can be swayed one way or another over several conversations. Something like that would have been awesome... instead of that one conversation totally negating every other conversation you have with her.

At this point, the core members of the Inquisition are Cullen, Josie, Leliana, Cass and you. That's what the handshake scene in the war room is all about, you're now an equal to them. At this point in the game, had she wished it, Cass could have become the Inquisitor, with no resistance from the rest of the then inner circle. As an equal, however, your voice has the same weight as everyone else on this list.
 
 

I think the problem with the Butler choice being at the beginning of the game is that it's during the time period when people are still getting accustomed to the game and figuring out who they want their character to be - especially for players who may not have known played the first game and have no idea who Leliana really is or what her struggles are. 
 
To me, it is a completely normal reaction for someone to sit back, watch, and see how the spymaster handles situations. Then decide, if they don't think it's right, to try and help Leliana change for the better. 
 
But the game doesn't let you do that. If you choose to see what she's like, you doom her to being a killer the rest of her life. You can't help her overcome that. Which doesn't seem realistic to me.

The whole Butler scenario totally gives you a look at what she's like. She's willing to shoot first and ask questions later, and that's made plain by her decision. You have, at this point, an opportunity to decide if that's how you want to handle things or not, and as I noted above, as much right as anyone else to express your opinion. At the end of the day, that's what you're doing, expressing your opinion. If she chose to go against that then, despite stating that you adamantly don't want that to be the norm, then some of these arguments would have some weight. As it stands, you get an opportunity to see what she's willing to do, and an opportunity to decide if you want to be partner to that or not. If my friends are planning to do something that I'm against, I'm going to speak up; not because I think I'm their leader, but because I'm against it, and my voice should be heard, no matter what they decide to do. That's all the level of authority one needs at this point, the ability to decide if one is for or against shoot first and ask questions later.

[beccatoria]

In Exile - I apologise for not quoting - for some reason the quote function's not working for me right now.  o.O

 

I'm not suggesting that Leliana responds to you by saying "Hey you totally told me to kill Butler that one time!" I'm saying that the game checks for the three major instances where a player will remember being offered an active choice to influence Leliana one way or the other and interprets your silence as affirmatively encouraging her brutality. 

 

This is inaccurate.  Staying silent is not actively encouraging her.  Some Inquisitors might feel that as one of the few core members of the Inquisition, they have every right to intervene.  Some may be deeply uncomfortable with their role in the Inquisition, convinced they're about to be put back in jail for Justinia's murder, or just plain unwilling to appear arrogant or intrusive in questioning the judgement of a superior.  These are also valid, character-based choices.  If it means that you then can't "save" Leliana, so be it, but it is not the same as having encouraged her.   

 

I understand your point about the war table, but even that would be better addressed by some kind of statement about how the Inquisitor was happy to accept the results and benefits of her methods, and has no right to complain now that s/he has to see them close up, rather than straight up implying the Inquisitor was actively encouraging her. 

 

This is because - while I believe the goal in an RPG should be to create as immersive and smooth an experience as possible - it's important to be aware of the player's experience.  We aren't given a choice in the War Table scenario to moderate or adjust Leliana's proposals.  So quite aside from the fact that I - and probably many others - did refuse to assign Leliana when her suggestions were overly brutal - this isn't going to stick in a player's mind as a moment of choice. 

 

Things like the discussion about the scouts will. 

 

Things like Butler would if it were written better. 

 

But the sheer fact that so many players were confused by what happened and only later realised that they'd stayed silent during this conversation - and not because they were trying to encourage her - shows that this was poorly pitched. 

 

Many people, in this situation, literally had no idea what Leliana was talking about, and that's a problem.  That's a basic problem with the writing. 

 

The player's motivations may not matter to Leliana, but they should matter to the writers.  Phrasing Leliana's response differently, or allowing the player to question it, would have been ways the writers could have addressed this while retaining the integrity of Leliana's interpretation of the Inquisitor's actions. 

 

ETA: I feel it might be pertinent to add, I don't actually hate Leliana's storyline.  I ended up with a first play through where this happened to me and I was confused, but ultimately okay with where Leliana ended up, even if it broke my heart.  I certainly feel having her as a Divine who has to institute change through bloody reform is in some ways more realistic than the hippy utopia she apparently ushers in if she's nicer.  So like, I dunno.  Just to explain where I'm coming from, I'm really NOT sat here furious that I "broke" Leliana.  I just think that as an arc, the writing displays a lack of judgement.  I wouldn't necessarily change the plot points, just the writing around how the fallout is dealt with, or the writing around the scene with Butler, depending on what the writers were going for.  (i.e. did they want you to know you were influencing her, or did they want you to be heartbroken later when you realised how much that one tiny thing mattered.)

[robertthebard]

I'm still confused about how people can be confused about this. You have three choices; actively approve of her decision, tacitly approve of her decision by remaining silent, since silence is consent, or object to her decision. Confusion hasn't been what I've been reading, what I've been reading is people thinking they don't have "the authority" to object. I refuted this previously. Briefly, however, as the figurehead of the Inquisition, you have the authority to speak out. By choosing not to, you condone the action because you didn't object to it.

Speaking of the War Table, I wonder how many actually read the text included with each advisor, and didn't just look at how long it would take, and chose the shortest one, no matter who it was.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I saw this as my Inquisitor using Leliana for his own ends. The personal cost to Leliana didn't matter.

Stopping Leliana at the beginning works because there are reasons to do it beyond what is stated. The reasons the Inquisitor gives aren't necessarily the Inquisitor's reasons; they're just the tools he uses to persuade Leliana. It was an excellent signal from the game, I thought, that we were free to roleplay the Inquisitor as we saw fit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Speaking of the War Table, I wonder how many actually read the text included with each advisor, and didn't just look at how long it would take, and chose the shortest one, no matter who it was.

Why would anyone not do this? The advisors are often advocating wildly different approaches. On at least two occasions, Cullen simply refuses to participate, leaving you not having done the mission at all. That's awfully quick, but unproductive.

[robertthebard]

Why would anyone not do this? The advisors are often advocating wildly different approaches. On at least two occasions, Cullen simply refuses to participate, leaving you not having done the mission at all. That's awfully quick, but unproductive.

...and in context with the conversation, can have Leliana doing a whole lot of unsavory things. No, it's not an "all of her missions on the war table mirror the Butler situation" thing, but enough of them do that "after all the things you made me do", very rough paraphrase, makes a lot of sense.