395 réponses à ce sujet

[thewatcheruatu]

Further clarification: It isn't even entirely about the amount of time you've spent playing the game at the point it asks you to make this decision, but more about how it is written both at this stage and then later, when Leliana goes all scary and basically blames your Inquisitor for making her like that. 

 

At this stage in the story and the path of the Inquisitor, it's almost impossible for me to understand how anybody would think it was her place to butt in on that conversation one way or the other. You barely know anything about it. You barely know the people involved. It's mere chance that your character happened to hear anything about it at all. You're still reeling from this whole Herald of Andraste thing and being unconscious and possibly near death for days. It's just friggin' rude to show up and start telling people how to do their jobs. What the hell do you know about it? Nobody asked you.

[In Exile]

Further clarification: It isn't even entirely about the amount of time you've spent playing the game at the point it asks you to make this decision, but more about how it is written both at this stage and then later, when Leliana goes all scary and basically blames your Inquisitor for making her like that.

At this stage in the story and the path of the Inquisitor, it's almost impossible for me to understand how anybody would think it was her place to butt in on that conversation one way or the other. You barely know anything about it. You barely know the people involved. It's mere chance that your character happened to hear anything about it at all. You're still reeling from this whole Herald of Andraste thing and being unconscious and possibly near death for days. It's just friggin' rude to show up and start telling people how to do their jobs. What the hell do you know about it? Nobody asked you.

It's pretty simple: you're against the idea of someone being executed so callously (for moral or pragmatic reasons). When you DO but in to the conversation, you NEVER tell her how to do her job. You just ask her - forcefully - why she's ordering this person's death.

If you think people shouldn't be executed on a whim, then you speak up. There needs to be no more justification than that fact.

The whole scene - if you speak up - is about you *asserting* your beliefs. You do this each time with Leliana. It's completely divorced from your role as a member (or leader) of the Inquisition.

It's not any different when you get made Inquisitor. You didn't have a say OR command over Leliana when she called her scouts back. She's wrestling more visibly with the moral weight of her choice. And you - as the Inquisitor - start to opine on the moral value of her choice (whether it was right or wrong).

[robertthebard]

Further clarification: It isn't even entirely about the amount of time you've spent playing the game at the point it asks you to make this decision, but more about how it is written both at this stage and then later, when Leliana goes all scary and basically blames your Inquisitor for making her like that. 
 
At this stage in the story and the path of the Inquisitor, it's almost impossible for me to understand how anybody would think it was her place to butt in on that conversation one way or the other. You barely know anything about it. You barely know the people involved. It's mere chance that your character happened to hear anything about it at all. You're still reeling from this whole Herald of Andraste thing and being unconscious and possibly near death for days. It's just friggin' rude to show up and start telling people how to do their jobs. What the hell do you know about it? Nobody asked you.

None of us posting here have any authority here, and yet we still express our opinions. The situation with Leliana is no different. For all we know, she disregards what we say and kills Butler anyway. As far as we know, she doesn't, but the point is, it never hurts to voice your opinion, when you're given the chance to do so. If you disagree with something, and you're given the chance, speak up. It's what we all do here. From that point, we have the choice to agree, disagree, or agree to disagree, as you put it a post up from this one, but in the end, we're all just voicing our opinions because we disagree.

At this point in the game, the Inquisition has been formed, and Cassandra has asked you to join them, and going by the handshake that's offered, it's not joining as a subordinate, but an equal. As an equal, you have every right to express your opinion.

[BabyPuncher]

I heavily disliked the entire arc. The very last thing clowns like Leliana need is some sycophant whimpering to them to pretty please open your heart and believe in the goodness of people. But that's what BioWare wrote, so that's the dialogue the protagonist gets.

 

It's an apt example of how effeminate the morals and themes of DA often are, to the series' significant detriment.

[correctamundo]

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.

 

Yes, I had a character ready for it so I just checked. Still you know her spirits after the first converstion and are duly warned when the butler thing comes up.

[robertthebard]

I heavily disliked the entire arc. The very last thing clowns like Leliana need is some sycophant whimpering to them to pretty please open your heart and believe in the goodness of people. But that's what BioWare wrote, so that's the dialogue the protagonist gets.
 
It's an apt example of how effeminate the morals and themes of DA often are, to the series' significant detriment.

Funny, I've played this scenario out all three ways it can play out, and my Inquisitor to be never whimpered once. Maybe it's just something your Inquisitor ate? In fact, I'd argue that standing up to Leliana at that point indicates quite the opposite of whimpering. It takes real balls to stand up to someone that you just overheard casually giving an order to kill someone as if she was ordering wine with her dinner.

[diaspora2k5]

I heavily disliked the entire arc. The very last thing clowns like Leliana need is some sycophant whimpering to them to pretty please open your heart and believe in the goodness of people. But that's what BioWare wrote, so that's the dialogue the protagonist gets.

 

It's an apt example of how effeminate the morals and themes of DA often are, to the series' significant detriment.

When you tell her not to kill Butler your Inquisitor can goad her into capturing him alive for information and arguing that to do otherwise meant she isn't good enough to be spymaster- it doesn't have to be about simpering ideals.

 

Funny, I've played this scenario out all three ways it can play out, and my Inquisitor to be never whimpered once. Maybe it's just something your Inquisitor ate? In fact, I'd argue that standing up to Leliana at that point indicates quite the opposite of whimpering. It takes real balls to stand up to someone that you just overheard casually giving an order to kill someone as if she was ordering wine with her dinner.

Exactly what this guy said. Your conversation with her can boil down to you telling her that Butler has info and if she can't get him alive then she's not a good spymaster.

[thewatcheruatu]

It's pretty simple: you're against the idea of someone being executed so callously (for moral or pragmatic reasons). When you DO but in to the conversation, you NEVER tell her how to do her job. You just ask her - forcefully - why she's ordering this person's death.

If you think people shouldn't be executed on a whim, then you speak up. There needs to be no more justification than that fact.

The whole scene - if you speak up - is about you *asserting* your beliefs. You do this each time with Leliana. It's completely divorced from your role as a member (or leader) of the Inquisition.

It's not any different when you get made Inquisitor. You didn't have a say OR command over Leliana when she called her scouts back. She's wrestling more visibly with the moral weight of her choice. And you - as the Inquisitor - start to opine on the moral value of her choice (whether it was right or wrong).

 

I just can't agree. We're talking about this scene as if it were taking place in a modern context. And even if we were, executing somebody for treason wouldn't be outrageous except in very recent history.

 

Regardless of what my Inquisitor might or might not do in the same situation or if asked for an opinion after being provided the whole story, the point remains that in the context of a world setting like Ferelden and given the protagonist's position relative to the Inquisition's leadership, there is no way any character except the most obnoxious and extreme goody two-shoes would be speaking up there. Anybody playing a character who is accustomed to life in Thedas and is still trying to make sense of his/her place within this organization should remain quiet.

 

We're not talking about silenting standing idle while Leliana orders the execution of an entire village of innocents, including women and children. This is one person who is a real security risk, has already caused major damage, and should by almost all reasoning be stopped by whatever means the leader of the spy network sees fit.

 

Anyway, we disagree. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. So I'll just stop there.

[thewatcheruatu]

When you tell her not to kill Butler your Inquisitor can goad her into capturing him alive for information and arguing that to do otherwise meant she isn't good enough to be spymaster- it doesn't have to be about simpering ideals.

 

Exactly what this guy said. Your conversation with her can boil down to you telling her that Butler has info and if she can't get him alive then she's not a good spymaster.

 

You don't know this as the player, though. The dialogue choice is "Do you have to kill him?" The only way you know for sure is to select it and then reload the game if you don't like the way it comes out of your Inquisitor's mouth.

 

I mean, the whole thing is just a mess to me. Roleplaying aside (which is actually the most important consideration for me), anybody who is familiar with RPGs, and BioWare RPGs in general, would probably assume at this point that the game is just familiarizing you with the choice system, and not that it would lead to something virtually irreversible. Because it seems harmless. Either let Leliana do the sort of thing you'd naturally expect a spymaster to do, or don't. It isn't presented remotely like something that is going to have a long-term effect.

[robertthebard]

You don't know this as the player, though. The dialogue choice is "Do you have to kill him?" The only way you know for sure is to select it and then reload the game if you don't like the way it comes out of your Inquisitor's mouth.
 
I mean, the whole thing is just a mess to me. Roleplaying aside (which is actually the most important consideration for me), anybody who is familiar with RPGs, and BioWare RPGs in general, would probably assume at this point that the game is just familiarizing you with the choice system, and not that it would lead to something virtually irreversible.

Odd. I'm totally familiar with BioWare's RPGs, been playing since BG was new and shiney, and if you had a 1gig HDD, you were king, and I didn't come off feeling like "they'll never put an important choice at the beginning of the game".

[BabyPuncher]

Funny, I've played this scenario out all three ways it can play out, and my Inquisitor to be never whimpered once. Maybe it's just something your Inquisitor ate? In fact, I'd argue that standing up to Leliana at that point indicates quite the opposite of whimpering. It takes real balls to stand up to someone that you just overheard casually giving an order to kill someone as if she was ordering wine with her dinner.

 

I'm fairly sure the exact line I heard was "Now is precisely the time for ideals."

 

Which is still basically appealing to Leliana to believe in ideals because of how moral and good they are.

 

When you tell her not to kill Butler your Inquisitor can goad her into capturing him alive for information and arguing that to do otherwise meant she isn't good enough to be spymaster- it doesn't have to be about simpering ideals.

 

Mmm. That sounds marginally better I suppose.

 

In any case, there are other occasions in the game where Leliana mouths off and the Inquisitor really isn't given the proper dialogue to respond.

[thewatcheruatu]

Odd. I'm totally familiar with BioWare's RPGs, been playing since BG was new and shiney, and if you had a 1gig HDD, you were king, and I didn't come off feeling like "they'll never put an important choice at the beginning of the game".

 

heh. Okay. I'm likely just as old and seasoned as you are. We'll just disagree. I apologize for phrasing my statement as though it applied universally to a certain type of gamer.

 

To me, the very nature of the decision (i.e., that there wasn't really a clear moral position on it) and the fact that it shows up early in the game with little to no fanfare led me to believe otherwise.

[Wulfram]

It's pretty simple: you're against the idea of someone being executed so callously (for moral or pragmatic reasons). When you DO but in to the conversation, you NEVER tell her how to do her job. You just ask her - forcefully - why she's ordering this person's death.

But the options you, as the player, are presented with are to either stop the death of the murderous traitor or to allow it. The choice comes before the investigates.

If you think people shouldn't be executed on a whim, then you speak up. There needs to be no more justification than that fact.

Whim? He's a traitor who has caused the death of one of your allies and is a threat to others. His execution may not meet modern standards, but it's definitely one of the more justifiable deaths out there.

I mean, you just came back from slaughtering a whole bunch of mages for no particular crime beyond hanging about in the hinterlands. You're soon going to go out to kill a whole bunch of people later. You'll likely soon recruit Sera after she orchestrates your slaughter of a whole bunch of other people who have committed no apparent crime except defending themselves from the assault of your heavily armed cronies. But no, it's this traitor guy who is special and need saving, apparently.

The whole scene - if you speak up - is about you *asserting* your beliefs. You do this each time with Leliana. It's completely divorced from your role as a member (or leader) of the Inquisition.

But there's no particular reason why this occasion should require you to speak up, unless your beliefs are frankly incompatible with playing the role of Inquisitor throughout the game.

It's not any different when you get made Inquisitor. You didn't have a say OR command over Leliana when she called her scouts back. She's wrestling more visibly with the moral weight of her choice. And you - as the Inquisitor - start to opine on the moral value of her choice (whether it was right or wrong).

But that time, Leliana is asking for your opinion which is quite different.

Though that choice is stupid too. Either you're a callous bastard, or you have no idea how military strategy works.

[thats1evildude]

Having kept Leliana "softened" in DAO, my Inquisitor strived to maintain that status in DAI. Thus, I steered Leliana away from morally dubious decisions, including the execution of that traitorous spy. When I told her to back down from killing Natalie, she obeyed me!

 

I did this without having to "cheat" by looking up hints on the Wiki.

[thewatcheruatu]

Having kept Leliana "softened" in DAO, my Inquisitor strived to maintain that status in DAI. Thus, I steered Leliana away from morally dubious decisions, including the execution of that traitorous spy. When I told her to back down from killing Natalie, she obeyed me!

 

I did this without having to "cheat" by looking up hints on the Wiki.

 

Isn't that metagaming, though? Your Inquisitor didn't play Dragon Age: Origins. Your Inquisitor doesn't know about Marjolaine, or how Leliana tried to escape her life as a bard and reinvent herself. I'm not implying you did something wrong by taking those things into account when you played Inquisition, but this decision reads a lot differently if you do.

[thewatcheruatu]

But there's no particular reason why this occasion should require you to speak up, unless your beliefs are frankly incompatible with playing the role of Inquisitor throughout the game.

 

Thanks. I wish I had multiple forum accounts so that I could "Like" your post more than once. If you put yourself in the position of any real-world historical equivalent society, the punishment for treason is almost certainly going to be death. Unless a person had some sort of personal stake in the affair, he probably wouldn't bat an eye at hearing that a traitor was going to be executed.

 

I think part of the issue is the way it's presented, as well (as you implied when you said that the choice comes before the investigation). The dialogue option isn't, "Do you think executing him is wise?" or "Perhaps he'd be more useful alive." It's "Do you have to kill him?" That reads very differently. I didn't even think to pick it, because it sounds so lame and reads like imposing modern morality on the setting.

[correctamundo]

Having kept Leliana "softened" in DAO, my Inquisitor strived to maintain that status in DAI. Thus, I steered Leliana away from morally dubious decisions, including the execution of that traitorous spy. When I told her to back down from killing Natalie, she obeyed me!

 

I did this without having to "cheat" by looking up hints on the Wiki.

 

As I recall my first IQ remained silent and when I told her to not kill Natalie she obeyed as well. It doesn't all hinge on that Butler thing.

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

Thanks. I wish I had multiple forum accounts so that I could "Like" your post more than once. If you put yourself in the position of any real-world historical equivalent society, the punishment for treason is almost certainly going to be death. Unless a person had some sort of personal stake in the affair, he probably wouldn't bat an eye at hearing that a traitor was going to be executed.

 

I think part of the issue is the way it's presented, as well (as you implied when you said that the choice comes before the investigation). The dialogue option isn't, "Do you think executing him is wise?" or "Perhaps he'd be more useful alive." It's "Do you have to kill him?" That reads very differently. I didn't even think to pick it, because it sounds so lame and reads like imposing modern morality on the setting.

 

Sun-Tzu and Sun-Pin would disagree with you and I wouldn't exactly call them modern, given their writings are over two thousand years old. 

 

Stressing the importance of spies and deception in warfare, both advise that if you capture a spy it is of the utmost importance to compromise that spy, knowingly or unknowingly, and feed false information back through to their masters.  It's not exactly new thought, and the brute force mentality of simply killing such an asset speaks volumes about the level of complexity involved in strategic thought on a given side.  After all, Sun-Pin reminds us, you can (and should) always execute the spy AFTER the they have outlived their usefulness and the campaign is over.

[thewatcheruatu]

Sun-Tzu and Sun-Pin would disagree with you and I wouldn't exactly call them modern, given their writings are over two thousand years old. 

 

Stressing the importance of spies and deception in warfare, both advise that if you capture a spy it is of the utmost importance to compromise that spy, knowingly or unknowingly, and feed false information back through to their masters.  It's not exactly new thought, and the brute force mentality of simply killing such an asset speaks volumes about the level of complexity involved in strategic thought on a given side.  After all, Sun-Pin reminds us, you can (and should) always execute the spy AFTER the they have outlived their usefulness and the campaign is over.

 

Wikipedia:

 

"Pang Juan framed Sun Bin for treason and reported him to King Hui of Wei, who ordered Sun Bin to be executed. Pang pretended to plead for mercy on Sun's behalf, and the king instead condemned Sun to face-tattooing and removal of the kneecaps, effectively branding Sun as a criminal and crippling him for life."

 

Ironic example. The point is that historically, treason has often been considered one of the worst crimes you can commit against your state or organization, especially when it gets citizens or your comrades compromised/killed. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

You completely missed my point, which was about how a Spymaster should react to a captured spy.  The anecdote about Sun-Bin doesn't detract from the fact your assertion that using a live spy instead of killing him is a modern concept.

[Illegitimus]

It's pretty simple: you're against the idea of someone being executed so callously (for moral or pragmatic reasons). When you DO but in to the conversation, you NEVER tell her how to do her job. You just ask her - forcefully - why she's ordering this person's death.
 

 

Actually...executed isn't the right word.  What Leliana is ordering is an assassination.  An execution (when not simply referring to how an action is carried out in general) is an official proceeding, not a covert operation.  Someone has been legally sentenced to death and when you carry out that sentence, that's an execution.  The truth is the traitor probably is executed by the Inquisition even after your intervention.  The difference is, now they'll sentence him to death for his murder all official-like instead of just ordering his death out of hand.  

[thewatcheruatu]

You completely missed my point, which was about how a Spymaster should react to a captured spy.  The anecdote about Sun-Bin doesn't detract from the fact your assertion that using a live spy instead of killing him is a modern concept.

 

I didn't miss the point. The Inquisitor is not a spymaster or, as far as you know, some sort of martial philosopher. At least mine wasn't. She was a Dalish mage.

 

Look, people have had all sorts of ideas about all kinds of things since the dawn of civilization, but that doesn't mean that those ideas were universally accepted, let alone practiced. Showing mercy to traitors is a modern concept in that throughout most of history, that wouldn't have been espoused by most societies.

 

Again, it comes down to telling Leliana how to do her job. If she thinks that the proper course of action is to assassinate this person, then one would assume she knows best. The decision to do so isn't morally reprehensible. That's a modern sensibility.

[thats1evildude]

Isn't that metagaming, though? Your Inquisitor didn't play Dragon Age: Origins. Your Inquisitor doesn't know about Marjolaine, or how Leliana tried to escape her life as a bard and reinvent herself. I'm not implying you did something wrong by taking those things into account when you played Inquisition, but this decision reads a lot differently if you do.

 

It's not metagaming if my Inquisitor was generally a merciful sort anyways.

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

I didn't miss the point. The Inquisitor is not a spymaster or, as far as you know, some sort of martial philosopher. At least mine wasn't. She was a Dalish mage.

 

Look, people have had all sorts of ideas about all kinds of things since the dawn of civilization, but that doesn't mean that those ideas were universally accepted, let alone practiced. Showing mercy to traitors is a modern concept in that throughout most of history, that wouldn't have been espoused by most societies.

The Quizzy may not be a Spymaster, but Leilianne IS. 

 

I don't think I'll agree with your assertion regarding the spy or how ancient or modern moralities would have treated that situation.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[correctamundo]

If she thinks that the proper course of action is to assassinate this person, then one would assume she knows best.

 

Actually, a sensible person would not assume such a thing if there is an alternative course of action that has a better outcome.