395 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

...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.

Only if you do them. Which you can easily choose not to.

Of course you can tell Leliana to murder Grand Clerics and have Bard's tongue's torn out, and that'll do absolutely nothing to stop her from "softening".

[beccatoria]

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.

 

Yay, the quote function is working again!

 

But I disagree.  Even if you work from the position that silence is consent (though for the record I disagree), silence is not approval.  In fact it's often social code for "I strongly disagree but feel it's not my place to say anything."

 

That might be perceived as a failing either on moral terms or simply in terms of saving Leliana's compassion, and that's fine, but what it's not, is encouragement.  It's not actively saying, "Yeah, Leliana, I'm with you on your whole approach!" and that's what the game interprets it as.  

 

If Leliana made a speech about hypocrisy - being willing to accept her results but not being able to handle her methods, that I wouldn't mind so much.  

[In Exile]

Yay, the quote function is working again!

 

But I disagree.  Even if you work from the position that silence is consent (though for the record I disagree), silence is not approval.  In fact it's often social code for "I strongly disagree but feel it's not my place to say anything."

 

That might be perceived as a failing either on moral terms or simply in terms of saving Leliana's compassion, and that's fine, but what it's not, is encouragement.  It's not actively saying, "Yeah, Leliana, I'm with you on your whole approach!" and that's what the game interprets it as.  

 

If Leliana made a speech about hypocrisy - being willing to accept her results but not being able to handle her methods, that I wouldn't mind so much.  

 

No, it's not. Now we're just having a conversation about social convention, but oftentimes being in the room with someone who commits an offence and being silent about it is taken as indicative of guilt. Silence is the opposite of "strong disagreement". Strong disagreement is the social code for strong disagreement. Silence is the social code for aversion and avoidance - but we take that to mean approval, because the onus is on people to disapprove. We don't assume disapproval as the default. 

 

If someone is punching someone else in the face and I stand and watch, my non-participation is not taken as clear disapproval - it's taken as fear and/or approval. 

[beccatoria]

No, it's not. Now we're just having a conversation about social convention, but oftentimes being in the room with someone who commits an offence and being silent about it is taken as indicative of guilt. Silence is the opposite of "strong disagreement". Strong disagreement is the social code for strong disagreement. Silence is the social code for aversion and avoidance - but we take that to mean approval, because the onus is on people to disapprove. We don't assume disapproval as the default. 

 

If someone is punching someone else in the face and I stand and watch, my non-participation is not taken as clear disapproval - it's taken as fear and/or approval. 

 

But we're also - in this case - talking about a military organisation and Leliana is your superior at this point.  That also complicates the issue.  

 

You're absolutely right that this is a conversation about social convention.  But actually considering your responses, your motivations, what your character would do - interpreting situations via social convention - is one of the best parts of a well-written RPG.  

 

Do you interpret the moment with Butler as a point at which you have to stand up for a moral cause?  Or are you confused about whether it's appropriate for you to be a part of the conversation?  Are you staying quiet because you are deeply uncomfortable but fear you'll make the situation worse by intervening?  Or because you are genuinely in agreement?  

 

Bioware will never be able to accommodate all possible interpretations of all moments, nor should it try to.  

 

But the sheer numbers of people who were not just annoyed but actively confused by this shows that, in this instance, as a writing issue, it was misjudged.  

 

Bioware wrote it as if it was clear, in that moment, that silence was going to be taken as quiet approval.  Clearly a large part of the fan base interpreted it via a different social convention, which led to dissonance later on.  

 

You interpreted it in line with the original intent - that's great.  A lot of people didn't.  Though, as I said, I think it could have been addressed simply by modifying Leliana's words to the Inquisitor, rather than the entire mechanic and plotline.

[In Exile]

But we're also - in this case - talking about a military organisation and Leliana is your superior at this point.  That also complicates the issue.  

 

You're absolutely right that this is a conversation about social convention.  But actually considering your responses, your motivations, what your character would do - interpreting situations via social convention - is one of the best parts of a well-written RPG.  

 

Do you interpret the moment with Butler as a point at which you have to stand up for a moral cause?  Or are you confused about whether it's appropriate for you to be a part of the conversation?  Are you staying quiet because you are deeply uncomfortable but fear you'll make the situation worse by intervening?  Or because you are genuinely in agreement?  

 

Bioware will never be able to accommodate all possible interpretations of all moments, nor should it try to.  

 

But the sheer numbers of people who were not just annoyed but actively confused by this shows that, in this instance, as a writing issue, it was misjudged.  

 

Bioware wrote it as if it was clear, in that moment, that silence was going to be taken as quiet approval.  Clearly a large part of the fan base interpreted it via a different social convention, which led to dissonance later on.  

 

You interpreted it in line with the original intent - that's great.  A lot of people didn't.  Though, as I said, I think it could have been addressed simply by modifying Leliana's words to the Inquisitor, rather than the entire mechanic and plotline.

 

But Leliana isn't your superior. The power dynamics of the Inquisition make it clear that (1) you're not part of the power structure - this is why Leliana and Cassandra ask you to stay, and why you have the handshake; and (2) that you are considered a semi-divine figure, which - and this is important - Leliana defers to in the previous conversation (you speak for the Maker - tell me what to do). I just don't see how you can interpret anything leading up to that situation to imply in any way that the Inquisitor is an inferior in the power relationship. You are either outside of it, attempting to assert yourself as top dog, or impliedly superior because of your perceived divinity. This is why they defer to you even at the start of the game (and ask for you to go along with them). 

 

I don't disagree that Bioware did something wrong with the scene - clearly the frustration is there - but I don't think it's an issue with the in-game content. It's a meta-game issue, because Bioware's never done this type of cummulative decision making before (cf. the Divine choice). Leliana creates anger not because of how it's executed, but because it comes early enough in people's PTs that they're not thinking about this as anything but meaningless flavour choice and are then frustrated that they can't get the world state they want.

If you note you see the same debate over people's innocuous comments being used to elect the divine (I say Circles aren't so bad to suck up to Vivene, and suddenly I'm stuck with her as Divine?). The difference with the Divine election is that you don't have to have a perfect run to get who you want. 

[beccatoria]

But Leliana isn't your superior. The power dynamics of the Inquisition make it clear that (1) you're not part of the power structure - this is why Leliana and Cassandra ask you to stay, and why you have the handshake; and (2) that you are considered a semi-divine figure, which - and this is important - Leliana defers to in the previous conversation (you speak for the Maker - tell me what to do). I just don't see how you can interpret anything leading up to that situation to imply in any way that the Inquisitor is an inferior in the power relationship. You are either outside of it, attempting to assert yourself as top dog, or impliedly superior because of your perceived divinity. This is why they defer to you even at the start of the game (and ask for you to go along with them). 

 

I don't disagree that Bioware did something wrong with the scene - clearly the frustration is there - but I don't think it's an issue with the in-game content. It's a meta-game issue, because Bioware's never done this type of cummulative decision making before (cf. the Divine choice). Leliana creates anger not because of how it's executed, but because it comes early enough in people's PTs that they're not thinking about this as anything but meaningless flavour choice and are then frustrated that they can't get the world state they want.

If you note you see the same debate over people's innocuous comments being used to elect the divine (I say Circles aren't so bad to suck up to Vivene, and suddenly I'm stuck with her as Divine?). The difference with the Divine election is that you don't have to have a perfect run to get who you want. 

 

But how you feel about your position as the Inquisitor, as a holy figure, etc., is one of the key parts of the game you're encouraged to roleplay through.  You can have conversations with Solas as an Elf about how you're just waiting to be blamed again.  Yes, they've made it clear that they want your help but at that point you're not in charge and Leliana and Cassandra are the ones with official, formal titles and roles.  Within the sphere of military decisions involving intelligence assets at that point I think it's completely rational to view Leliana as a superior.  I also think that a different player might make a different choice and that's fine.  

 

I agree that a lot of players are struggling with the fact that the decision was made early, and with the cumulative decision making, but that's not the issue I have.  

 

My issue is purely narrative.  At least with situations like Vivienne's you can look back and be like, well, I did say that to her.  Who knows how that affected her resolve.  With Leliana it's...well what you actually did is debatable and even if Leliana took it as support, the writers of the game should have realised it might not be and given you some room to react.  

 

It's just...the culmination of a really emotionally powerful arc that hinges on a moment a lot of people didn't understand.  Which is a shame.  

 

But hey, I don't think we disagree there's some missteps here, just...on how exactly one would fix them.

[robertthebard]

But how you feel about your position as the Inquisitor, as a holy figure, etc., is one of the key parts of the game you're encouraged to roleplay through.  You can have conversations with Solas as an Elf about how you're just waiting to be blamed again.  Yes, they've made it clear that they want your help but at that point you're not in charge and Leliana and Cassandra are the ones with official, formal titles and roles.  Within the sphere of military decisions involving intelligence assets at that point I think it's completely rational to view Leliana as a superior.  I also think that a different player might make a different choice and that's fine.  
 
I agree that a lot of players are struggling with the fact that the decision was made early, and with the cumulative decision making, but that's not the issue I have.  
 
My issue is purely narrative.  At least with situations like Vivienne's you can look back and be like, well, I did say that to her.  Who knows how that affected her resolve.  With Leliana it's...well what you actually did is debatable and even if Leliana took it as support, the writers of the game should have realised it might not be and given you some room to react.  
 
It's just...the culmination of a really emotionally powerful arc that hinges on a moment a lot of people didn't understand.  Which is a shame.  
 
But hey, I don't think we disagree there's some missteps here, just...on how exactly one would fix them.

Then if you feel like you don't have a right to say, you don't. The problem is, if you don't, you don't the rest of the game. But you're looking at the silence approach the wrong way; You don't disapprove of it, because you didn't object to it when you had a clear opportunity to. In In Exile's example, I'd break up the fight. I spent years as a professional bouncer, and don't have a problem stepping into the middle of a fight to break it up. Not everyone is me. However, not everyone being me also means that they may feel the guy had it coming, and even if they're not afraid to step in, they won't. If we presume Leliana and Butler are the fighters, what is Leliana supposed to think when you don't say anything at all, despite the fact that she has already looked to you as at least an equal?

The argument's slipping further and further towards "we should only get important decisions at (insert specific timeframe where an individual poster may feel comfortable with making decisions that shape the way people view not only the Inquisition, but their character). For me, that point is immediately after I gain actual control of my character. I don't want to have another ME 2, where I get two lines of dialog and watch a movie. I want to get my foot in the door, and start defining who my protagonist is, right from the start.

[Hurbster]

It was a silly design choice that happened way too early in the game.

[Fearsome1]

I'm to the point where I believe that a softened Leliana is impossible. No matter what dialogue choices I've chosen, she slits that girls throat every single time?

[Get Magna Carter]

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.
 

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".
 

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.

1) Butler is not inviting people to tea (or if he is the tea is poisoned) - he has murdered Leiliana's top agents and will murder more unless stopped.

Leiliana's 2 options are to kill him or imprison him (note these options make no distinction between murder and killing in combat).  If the "Herald" objects to the killing Leiliana will complain about the "Herald" butting in uninvited and saying she does not know how to do her job but will agree to try to find a way of imprisonment (and mention that she had rejected the idea because Butler is skilled at escapology, etc so will probably find a way of escaping and continue to murder Leiliana's agents)

 

2) Proper police procedure is not really relevant. (Nor is the improper practise of beating confessions out of suspects, etc). Leiliana has decided that Butler is guilty and the "Herald" can suggest questioning him about his contacts, etc.

 

3) I think you completely missed my point.  My point is some people are claiming that Leiliana starts the game hardened and the decisions are to soften her.  But if that is true then wouldn't she end up hardened if the player didn't complete the quest?

 

4) a "figurehead" is a term for someone presented as being in power but having no authority.  You are not told you are the "defacto leader" until you reach Skyhold -so to base decisions at Haven on your being the defacto leader IS metagaming.  

 

It is odd that Leiliana goes along with not killing Butler when you have no official leadership status BUT disregards orders to not kill when the leadership is official

[Donovan Du Bois]

I think I did all those and she still became ruthless. I know for fact I did last two plus almost certain if recall correctly also did first one too.

 

Its actually a little more than that, there are 4 points that make a big impact on softening her, and smaller dialog will move points around too. This is a woman who believes that her faith is worthless and that the results are all that matter anymore.

 

Use this guide: http://dragonage.wik...m/wiki/Softened

[AshenSugar]

It could be because I hardened her in DAO though but I am unsure.

 

 

Don't think so, or at least my Warden hardened her in DA:O, but my Inquisitor was still able to soften her.

[beccatoria]

Then if you feel like you don't have a right to say, you don't. The problem is, if you don't, you don't the rest of the game. But you're looking at the silence approach the wrong way; You don't disapprove of it, because you didn't object to it when you had a clear opportunity to. In In Exile's example, I'd break up the fight. I spent years as a professional bouncer, and don't have a problem stepping into the middle of a fight to break it up. Not everyone is me. However, not everyone being me also means that they may feel the guy had it coming, and even if they're not afraid to step in, they won't. If we presume Leliana and Butler are the fighters, what is Leliana supposed to think when you don't say anything at all, despite the fact that she has already looked to you as at least an equal?

The argument's slipping further and further towards "we should only get important decisions at (insert specific timeframe where an individual poster may feel comfortable with making decisions that shape the way people view not only the Inquisition, but their character). For me, that point is immediately after I gain actual control of my character. I don't want to have another ME 2, where I get two lines of dialog and watch a movie. I want to get my foot in the door, and start defining who my protagonist is, right from the start.

 

I disagree with your characterisation of my attitude. 

 

I've said numerous times that I am at peace with my decision that early in the game meaning that - ultimately - I cannot soften Leliana.  That things don't always work out the way you think they will, and your actions can have unanticipated consequences.  I am okay with that. 

 

What I think is a misstep is the writing around that type of choice.  Writers cannot anticipate all possible reactions to scenarios but I feel this is one instance where it should have been reasonably obvious that this outcome could be emotionally shocking to the player and they should therefore be given a cathartic opportunity to express that within the context of the game. 

 

My only issue is that I feel the aftermath of Natalie's murder is written to allow players to react only as if they did actively encourage her, not as if they accidentally did so, had no idea, and are now heartbroken. 

 

 

I also object to the notion that being cautious in this instance isn't potentially based in defining your character and a roleplay-based perspective.  Similarly, I disagree with your conflation of how people view the Inquisition and your character as two things that should be given the same level of personal attention - it can be a lot of fun to play an reluctant Inquisitor who is highly uncomfortable with the Inquisition as a concept. 

 

And again - because I'm not sure how I can be clearer about this - if doing those things means that you can't soften Leliana - that's honestly okay since it's the writing of the aftermath I take issue with.  But I think your final paragraph veers towards No True Scotsman. 

[robertthebard]

1) Butler is not inviting people to tea (or if he is the tea is poisoned) - he has murdered Leiliana's top agents and will murder more unless stopped.
Leiliana's 2 options are to kill him or imprison him (note these options make no distinction between murder and killing in combat).  If the "Herald" objects to the killing Leiliana will complain about the "Herald" butting in uninvited and saying she does not know how to do her job but will agree to try to find a way of imprisonment (and mention that she had rejected the idea because Butler is skilled at escapology, etc so will probably find a way of escaping and continue to murder Leiliana's agents)
 
2) Proper police procedure is not really relevant. (Nor is the improper practise of beating confessions out of suspects, etc). Leiliana has decided that Butler is guilty and the "Herald" can suggest questioning him about his contacts, etc.
 
3) I think you completely missed my point.  My point is some people are claiming that Leiliana starts the game hardened and the decisions are to soften her.  But if that is true then wouldn't she end up hardened if the player didn't complete the quest?
 
4) a "figurehead" is a term for someone presented as being in power but having no authority.  You are not told you are the "defacto leader" until you reach Skyhold -so to base decisions at Haven on your being the defacto leader IS metagaming.  
 
It is odd that Leiliana goes along with not killing Butler when you have no official leadership status BUT disregards orders to not kill when the leadership is official

So the inner circle gives you orders on a routine basis until you reach Skyhold? Because from where I'm sitting, we are very literally doing what Cassandra says in that very discussion in Skyhold, on the way to becoming the Inquisitor: ...the one that has been leading it already. Now, this is a gameplay mechanic issue. We ultimately have meta control of the Inquisitor, and can do whatever, whenever. However, they went out of their way to acknowledge this as more than a gameplay mechanic, in line I listed above. So, in their eyes, we do have the authority to speak up, and it's up to us to do so.
 
I'm going to need to see some dialog about Butler's "escapology", as I seriously have no recollection of that ever coming up.
 

I disagree with your characterisation of my attitude. 
 
I've said numerous times that I am at peace with my decision that early in the game meaning that - ultimately - I cannot soften Leliana.  That things don't always work out the way you think they will, and your actions can have unanticipated consequences.  I am okay with that. 
 
What I think is a misstep is the writing around that type of choice.  Writers cannot anticipate all possible reactions to scenarios but I feel this is one instance where it should have been reasonably obvious that this outcome could be emotionally shocking to the player and they should therefore be given a cathartic opportunity to express that within the context of the game. 
 
My only issue is that I feel the aftermath of Natalie's murder is written to allow players to react only as if they did actively encourage her, not as if they accidentally did so, had no idea, and are now heartbroken. 
 
 
I also object to the notion that being cautious in this instance isn't potentially based in defining your character and a roleplay-based perspective.  Similarly, I disagree with your conflation of how people view the Inquisition and your character as two things that should be given the same level of personal attention - it can be a lot of fun to play an reluctant Inquisitor who is highly uncomfortable with the Inquisition as a concept. 
 
And again - because I'm not sure how I can be clearer about this - if doing those things means that you can't soften Leliana - that's honestly okay since it's the writing of the aftermath I take issue with.  But I think your final paragraph veers towards No True Scotsman.

Note that while I did indeed say "you", that should be taken generically, not literally, sorry for not clarifying that. The fact is, we see people in this thread saying they had no authority, and so the decision shouldn't be "forced". Out of curiosity, however, how is "yeah, kill him", either by saying he should die, or saying nothing, being cautious? Wouldn't being cautious be more like "bring him in and make sure".

I'd agree about my final paragraph, if the post immediately following mine didn't say, roughly paraphrasing, "the decision was forced on us too early in the game". I'm all for fairness here, but to be fair, immediately after I posted that, well, not time wise, but the very next post, agrees with my summation in the final paragraph. That makes it kind of hard for me to be "troping" the dialog, when someone actually has that opinion.

Source

[nikkylee]

So the inner circle gives you orders on a routine basis until you reach Skyhold? Because from where I'm sitting, we are very literally doing what Cassandra says in that very discussion in Skyhold, on the way to becoming the Inquisitor: ...the one that has been leading it already. Now, this is a gameplay mechanic issue. We ultimately have meta control of the Inquisitor, and can do whatever, whenever. However, they went out of their way to acknowledge this as more than a gameplay mechanic, in line I listed above. So, in their eyes, we do have the authority to speak up, and it's up to us to do so.
 

 

This can be read a few ways though, honestly. The way I see the major plots in Haven are the advisers (and Cassandra) giving you a mission as more or less superiors, even if they do take your opinions with equal weight because of what you can go, they have the "official" titles.... and then in the course of the mission when you-know-what hits the fan you have to make some choices and these choices wind up being what usually save your butts.

 

So when she says "already leading" I hear it less as "already in charge" and more "the one making all the right decisions when it counts and this is why we've come so far"  but I wasn't the one arranging the missions and actually running the show.

[robertthebard]

This can be read a few ways though, honestly. The way I see the major plots in Haven are the advisers (and Cassandra) giving you a mission as more or less superiors, even if they do take your opinions with equal weight because of what you can go, they have the "official" titles.... and then in the course of the mission when you-know-what hits the fan you have to make some choices and these choices wind up being what usually save your butts.
 
So when she says "already leading" I hear it less as "already in charge" and more "the one making all the right decisions when it counts and this is why we've come so far"  but I wasn't the one arranging the missions and actually running the show.

I don't disagree with this assessment. However, in context with this assessment, it would be logical to believe that the advisors would acknowledge what we think from the time the Inquisition is actually formed until we're the Inquisitor. This being logical, it's logical to believe that we should speak up if we object to Leliana's decision regarding Butler. The worst thing that could possibly happen is Leliana telling us to mind our own business. Despite a claim made up thread, she's not going to kill you for objecting, you're an important part of the team, even if they see you more as an asset than a member of the inner circle.

[jareklajkosz]

Its actually a little more than that, there are 4 points that make a big impact on softening her, and smaller dialog will move points around too. This is a woman who believes that her faith is worthless and that the results are all that matter anymore.

 

Use this guide: http://dragonage.wik...m/wiki/Softened

 

The first scene with the butler is actually absolutely critical to softening Leliana. This bummed me out greatly as I really wanted a compassionate Leliana at the end. I made EVERY other choice "correctly", but, for various reasons, I kept silent at the beginning with the butler.

 

1) I didn't feel my character was in any position to comment on the matter. I basically just got to Haven, perhaps hours removed from being thought of as a dangerous felon (essentially), and now I have the gall to butt in on something I clearly have no real say in?

 

2) There didn't seem to be any mitigating circumstances for the butler that would have hinted that showing him mercy was in any way justifiable.

 

That this single decision hours into the game affected this character so drastically despite everything else I did in the game is what bothers me quite a bit. I wish that it worked on a points system instead of this, so that I would have multiple chances to soften her.

[TheKomandorShepard]

I don't see problem here if you want her to become less ruthless you should encourage her to be less ruthless ,if you ignore or encourage events where she shows no mercy you can't exactly expect she will show it lol. Of course it still sucks cus i can't take proper action for her ignoring order and well that even if you stayed silent she will yeall at you that you made her that way (lol).

 

Btw nice archaeological find.

[jareklajkosz]

I don't see problem here if you want her to become less ruthless you should encourage her to be less ruthless ,if you ignore or encourage events where she shows no mercy you can't exactly expect she will show it lol. Of course it still sucks cus i can't take proper action for her ignoring order and well that even if you stayed silent she will yeall at you that you made her that way (lol).

 

Btw nice archaeological find.

 

The previous post wasn't even 2 months ago.. haha!

 

I mean, I get the concept. I wish it was more "OK, as long as you've done 2/3 correctly, we'll give it to you". Having to make ALL THREE choices correctly, especially one near the start of the game that asks you to act TOTALLY unreasonably given the circumstances (maybe that's the point? I watched a video and her reaction to your objection is quite shocked) just seems like much.. especially since I pretty much HATE her with the way she acts now and want to kill her myself.

 

Also, the writing was horrible. "This? Now? After all you've done?" What the **** are you talking about!? Every single time something's come up, except for one stupid guy you probably don't even remember at the start of the game, I've asked you to show restraint. In fact, I have done so in just about every situation (even war table missions!!!!). Yet suddenly I'm some hypocrite because.. reasons. Bleh.

[thewatcheruatu]

I know this is an old thread, but I just stumbled upon it, and thought I would add my two cents.

 

After the part of the story in which Leliana goes insane (from the perspectic of my Inquisitor, anyway), I went to the wiki and read about how that might have gotten played out differently, and I was utterly flabbergasted to discover that half of it hinges on a decision you make at virtually the start of the game, which doesn't even really come across as much of a decision at the time.

 

Seriously, I just arrived at Haven more or less. Ten minutes ago in the story, my character was in chains. She hardly knows anybody, she certainly isn't about to start telling people who barely trust her how to do their jobs. Not to mention that Leliana is a spy master, so let's not labor under any delusions about what she does. And of course there's the fact, as well, that my Inquisitor kills a ton of people throughout the game even to the extent that I feel kind of bad about the way we all just indiscriminately kill every mage and templar we find in the Hinterlands.

 

Anyway, I kept silent during that part. Maybe it was more realistic to think that something you hardly note can come back to have significant repercussions later, but I didn't like it.

 

I'm just glad I supported Cassandra for Divine. The thought of Leliana being in charge friggin' terrified me by the end of the game. It's funny, because she's one of my favorite companions from Dragon Age: Origins. But I didn't like her at all by the end if Inquisition.

[Illegitimus]

The Leliana arc was the only one that made me feel like I'd been jerked around by the game--her behavior at the end seemed to come out of left field, and I did not understand how choices I'd made could have led her to the conclusions she reached. 

 

Other posters have pointed out how that early flag is particularly nasty--staying silent for whatever reason (at the beginning of the game, I did not feel confident telling my advisor what to do) does not equal approval. 

 

True.  What it actually equals is "A failure to assert yourself".   If you didn't assert yourself early on, then Leliana has been quietly assassinating people on the grounds that they are potential threats all through the game and the only reason she'd refrain from killing this former friend who betrayed her trust and is working for an enemy is because you can think of a pragmatic reason why sparing her would be a benefit to the Inquisition.  No such reason exists.  To Leliana, an Inquisitor who didn't take advantage of her early crisis of faith to change her course is no more her boss than Cassandra is.  They're her peer with a different sphere of authority at most,  and the disposal of of a failed spy is entirely her decision to make as she's been making such decisions all along.  

[robertthebard]

I know this is an old thread, but I just stumbled upon it, and thought I would add my two cents.
 
After the part of the story in which Leliana goes insane (from the perspectic of my Inquisitor, anyway), I went to the wiki and read about how that might have gotten played out differently, and I was utterly flabbergasted to discover that half of it hinges on a decision you make at virtually the start of the game, which doesn't even really come across as much of a decision at the time.
 
Seriously, I just arrived at Haven more or less. Ten minutes ago in the story, my character was in chains. She hardly knows anybody, she certainly isn't about to start telling people who barely trust her how to do their jobs. Not to mention that Leliana is a spy master, so let's not labor under any delusions about what she does. And of course there's the fact, as well, that my Inquisitor kills a ton of people throughout the game even to the extent that I feel kind of bad about the way we all just indiscriminately kill every mage and templar we find in the Hinterlands.
 
Anyway, I kept silent during that part. Maybe it was more realistic to think that something you hardly note can come back to have significant repercussions later, but I didn't like it.
 
I'm just glad I supported Cassandra for Divine. The thought of Leliana being in charge friggin' terrified me by the end of the game. It's funny, because she's one of my favorite companions from Dragon Age: Origins. But I didn't like her at all by the end if Inquisition.

Um, it was more than 10 minutes. It took you more than that to actually get to the Temple to close the first rift, and the notes around Haven indicate that you were out for 3 days. In fact, I believe that the elf in your room when you first wake up indicates the same. As this thread has gone on to show, either choices matter, or they don't, and when they come up isn't important. The game gave you an opportunity to speak up, one way or the other, and even explains what happens if you choose one of the options. You chose to be inadequate to the task of choosing, and the game left her on the hardened path she was on.

[correctamundo]

Can you get the Butler thing before you go to see mother Giselle?

[Beren Von Ostwick]

Yes.  Go talk to her  the first time and you'll see her praying and she asks you about the Maker's plans blah blah blah.  Finish that conversation and turn around and you'll see her spy running up to her to talk about Butler.  Go do something, talk to quartermaster or whatever, then come right back and you can have the Butler conversation.

[thewatcheruatu]

Um, it was more than 10 minutes. It took you more than that to actually get to the Temple to close the first rift, and the notes around Haven indicate that you were out for 3 days. In fact, I believe that the elf in your room when you first wake up indicates the same. As this thread has gone on to show, either choices matter, or they don't, and when they come up isn't important. The game gave you an opportunity to speak up, one way or the other, and even explains what happens if you choose one of the options. You chose to be inadequate to the task of choosing, and the game left her on the hardened path she was on.

 

Clarification: When I said "Ten minutes ago in the story", I wasn't referring to literal, in-world time, but rather when you, as the player, saw it. But even accepting your point, to what extent does your protagonist have any opportunity to get to know her colleagues during the time preceding this event? You said yourself that your character is unconscious for most of it. You don't know Leliana much at this point. You're still in the "figuring out what everybody's role is" stage of the game.

 

I think it absolutely matters when this decision is presented in the course of the game. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this.