Guest_StreetMagic_*
Well there's the Kossith(can't remember if they're a literal race or ethnicity though) and a couple others mentioned in lore we haven't seen before.
I think what can scare some people most is that they're so formidable and yet also pretty mysterious.
I thought the Kossith were just Qunari, pre-Koslun/Qun.
Logic? I don't even know if it's needed. The conflict between Qunari and others is existential. Roleplaying wise, one could want them gone simply out of fear. And basic survival instincts. It's an emotional choice.. I don't know if it could be defended strictly by logic.
That said, if I truly hate them (which I do), I don't even bother with recruiting Bull to begin with. I only did it once.
If the decision was purely considered through emotion this thread probably wouldn't exist because there would be no debate. Who'd argue with "my character chose the chargers because they hate qunari." That's role-playing. Ok, some would argue, but you know what I mean. The debate occurs when seeing it through logic; as in what's most militarily sound.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
If the decision was purely considered through emotion this thread probably wouldn't exist because there would be no debate. Who'd argue with "my character chose the chargers because they hate qunari." That's role-playing. Ok, some would argue, but you know what I mean. The debate occurs when seeing it through logic; as in what's most militarily sound.
Are you serious? Heh. Most of the debates here are emotionally charged or motivated, and threads can reach into the high page numbers despite it. That's why they go in circles and little progress is made. It's like a hockey slugfest. No matter how civilized or dressed up it gets from time to time.
The qun says they will one day invade. Not all qunari. And how do you know Iron Bull is "atypical?" Have you met them all? I've seen several who lack that certainty of Sten and the Arishok. Ex: Tallis, Iron Bull, Gatt.
I don't think the bakers much care for what the military does but I also don't expect them to do anything if the Arishok orders an invasion. Did the soldiers balk at attacking Kirkwall despite spending years there?
And of course IB is atypical. It is the very essence of his character, that he is crossing the line into tal-vashoth, he was sent South because he was cracking under the pressure, remember?
Certainly, we have seen qunari who have doubts but only one actually abandoned the Qun and even Tallis was once sent to the kitchens precisely because she had failed to achieve certainty.
The tone of the qun has always been that the ben-hassraths mantain a very strict control and this is an extremely disciplined society united in a common goal.
I'm not saying we should kill them all but we should definitively defang them and we most certainly should not waste our tears if our enemy loses some soldiers.
If the decision was purely considered through emotion this thread probably wouldn't exist because there would be no debate. Who'd argue with "my character chose the chargers because they hate qunari." That's role-playing. Ok, some would argue, but you know what I mean. The debate occurs when seeing it through logic; as in what's most militarily sound.
That's only one interpretation, as there are countless positions one can take from a military standpoint.
Are you serious? Heh. Most of the debates here are emotionally charged or motivated, and threads can reach into the high page numbers despite it. That's why they go in circles and little progress is made. It's like a hockey slugfest. No matter how civilized or dressed up it gets from time to time.
I certainly see how emotion influences people's opinions on these boards constantly, but they often don't, nor do they want that to be the case. I said "purely" emotional. It's difficult for people to see things purely from a logical standpoint and remove all biases. Ex: People will defend saving the Chargers because of the biases they've formed from liking them and Iron Bull while disliking the qun, but will actually try arguing that saving the Chargers is actually logical. Real life example: People will vehemently defend a religion they believe ignoring the bias of them being affiliated with that religion largely from circumstance of birth.
Not when the person you cite literally contradicts you. You cite Cassandra but she clearly would not be a good leader under your claim because she wouldn't do what you think a good leader would; in this case, sacrifice the Chargers.
The argument I was trying to make was that I couldn't find a justification for the Inquisitor pulling back the Chargers. If Cassandra would also crack under the pressure than perhaps she wasn't the best example, but it doesn't change my basic point that pulling back the Chargers is a bad decision from a military point of view.
I certainly see how emotion influences people's opinions on these boards constantly, but they often don't, nor do they want that to be the case. It's difficult for people to see things purely from a logical standpoint and remove all biases. Ex: People will defend saving the Chargers because of the biases they've formed from liking them and Iron Bull while disliking the qun, but will actually try arguing that saving the Chargers is actually logical. Real life example: People will vehemently defend a religion they believe ignoring the bias of them being affiliated with that religion largely from circumstance of birth.
You must've not been here long. We've had entire subsections of forums closed from arguments before.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I certainly see how emotion influences people's opinions on these boards constantly, but they often don't, nor do they want that to be the case. It's difficult for people to see things purely from a logical standpoint and remove all biases. Ex: People will defend saving the Chargers because of the biases they've formed from liking them and Iron Bull while disliking the qun, but will actually try arguing that saving the Chargers is actually logical. Real life example: People will vehemently defend a religion they believe ignoring the bias of them being affiliated with that religion largely from circumstance of birth.
Well, if I had to take some kind of logical perspective, it's simply not recruiting Bull in the first place. I play mages and Chantry characters. I don't see the logic in recruiting him just on that alone. The mage for obvious reasons. And the Trevelyan.. Well, his own city has a history of fighting Qunari and holding them off from invasion. I also don't see the logic, in say, my Cousland recruiting Sten. He just watched his entire family get slaughtered. It makes no sense that he suddenly buddies up with some giant who just slaughtered someone else's family.
That said, I still can't get away from an undercurrent of emotions and survival instincts in these choices. The underlying motivations are about fear.
Well, if I had to take some kind of logical perspective, it's simply not recruiting Bull in the first place. I play mages and Chantry characters. I don't see the logic in recruiting him just on that alone. The mage for obvious reasons. And the Trevelyan.. Well, his own city has a history of fighting Qunari and holding them off from invasion. I also don't see the logic, in say, my Cousland recruiting Sten. He just watched his entire family get slaughtered. It makes no sense that he suddenly buddies up with some giant who just slaughtered someone else's family.
That said, I still can't get away from an undercurrent of emotions and survival instincts in these choices. The underlying motivations are about fear.
Right. In DA:O my canon didn't recruit Zevran or Sten. I actually remember us discussing like a year ago the absurdity of recruiting those two, and being in agreement.
In DA:I, I recruited Iron Bull and Sera with admittedly some meta-gaming bias. Sera comes across as a loony who lured you into a trap against soldiers not wearing pants. Would I want her near me? ...Probably not... At least she wasn't someone who massacred a family though or who tried to kill me, nor would she be presumably sleeping near me while camping. That's why I could stomach recruiting her through meta-gaming but not Zevran or Sten. Even with that foresight I don't want my character to look like a complete idiot.
So you'd let hundreds die (on that ship alone) to save five people who don't even care about good causes because they're qunari? Qunari lives aren't important because they may one day "do as they were bred to do?" You shouldn't care about Iron Bull either then because he's one of them until he lets that ship go down.
If Corypheus was threatening the world I would take that alliance in a heartbeat. I wouldn't have the luxury of thinking "one day down the road they might be a problem so I can't let them here at all." And in the real world that's how it works. A familiar example: In WWII the U.S. didn't hesitate to align with Stalin's Soviet Union despite hating and fearing the spread of communism once Hitler broke the peace pact by invading Russia. They didn't shun the alliance because "one day they may be trouble.
Yep, because those hundreds are soldiers may one day run through the streets of my cities yelling "For the Qun!" as they massacre my people.
Had I not have been put in a "my known and trusted allies vs. the unknown and scary allies" situation, I would have let it ride. But the game forced me to choose. I chose the people I trusted, the people who had shown they could effectively help me. And IRL Roosevelt wasn't put in the position of choosing to save France OR the Soviet Union was he? I wonder what he would have done then.
You must've not been here long. We've had entire subsections of forums closed from arguments before.
lol I've been on the boards off-and-on a long time actually. My post was referring to an argument being made, and acknowledged, as being driven purely by emotion. If that was so there wouldn't, or shouldn't, be much real debate over it.
Something no one has mentioned is how it will look to mainstream Tevinter if the Inquisition is "allied" with qunari.
Something no one has mentioned is how it will look to mainstream Tevinter if the Inquisition is "allied" with qunari.
They are at war with each other, come to think of it.
@Streetmagic
Oh, and recruiting Cole of course! Heavy meta-gaming there. At least on the templar path you have some reason to give him a chance, although the way he raves makes him sound like he might go on a killing spree any second. On the mage path I'd be terrified to let him out of my sight with those daggers on his back.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
@Streetmagic
Oh, and recruiting Cole of course! Heavy meta-gaming there. At least on the templar path you have some reason to give him a chance, although the way he raves makes him sound like he might go on a killing spree any second. On the mage path I'd be terrified to let him out of my sight with those daggers on his back.
Interesting. I haven't done the mage path. So yeah, it made enough sense the other way. He's still questionable, but i would still say he piques my characters' curiosity. I had to investigate Cole further.. it seems mostly harmless.
@Streetmagic
Oh, and recruiting Cole of course! Heavy meta-gaming there. At least on the templar path you have some reason to give him a chance, although the way he raves makes him sound like he might go on a killing spree any second. On the mage path I'd be terrified to let him out of my sight with those daggers on his back.
I definitely liked the Templar angle much better than the Mage one. He was introduced flawlessly. What really freaked me out though is
I definitely liked the Templar angle much better than the Mage one. He was introduced flawlessly. What really freaked me out though is
Spoiler
That's interesting. I've always made him more a spirit so I was unaware of the contrast. Have I created a monster?
Interesting. I haven't done the mage path. So yeah, it made enough sense the other way. He's still questionable, but i would still say he piques my characters' curiosity. I had to investigate Cole further.. it seems mostly harmless.
On the templar path against my better judgment I'd probably give him a chance because he saved my life. The "he's too dangerous, kill him" option is brutal. On the mage path though he's a complete unknown who shows up at your doorstep.
That's interesting. I've always made him more a spirit so I was unaware of the contrast. Have I created a monster?
On the templar path against my better judgment I'd probably give him a chance because he saved my life. The "he's too dangerous, kill him" option is brutal. On the mage path though he's a complete unknown who shows up at your doorstep.
I think either path is interesting plot-wise. I definitely think he's got the best sense of character development out of the possible companions. EDIT: Also, the dialogue I mentioned mainly occurs in conversations with him at Skyhold after the quest.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
From a metagaming perspective, it would be great to pick the one with a better outcome in the DLC/DA4. If it doesn't extend past the choice so far, it is just personal preferences with no real outcome outside of emotional feelings for what we head canon.
That goes for every Qunari choice it seems. I wonder if any of it will have consequences.
Like not recruiting Sten could eventually have the "Wreav" version of Arishok? Or letting Isabela run away with the tome of Koslun could spiritually demoralize the Qunari leadership? Who knows...
Asala wasn't just a sword. In the Qun, it represented an extension of who he was.
A sword is a sword. You'd think the apparently "waste nothing", pragmatic Qunari would realize this.
I'll never let an opportunity to **** over the Qun pass me by.
Wait, I missed an opportunity to **** all over the Qun? Ah crap. Wait - no problem. I'll have my new best bud Alexius whip up another of those time travel doohickeys, go back in time, **** all over it and then come back to the present.
I knew that Arcane Knowledge perk would pay off someday!
Retour en haut
