208 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

I'd feel a little bad if our omnipresent req officer died.

[ToJKa1]

Seriously, you want me to conjure things in my head to make the story better?

 
Stay far away from Bethesda's forums then, for that's all that happens there

That's actually not bad, considering that power points are the only things that matter in this game.

Maybe they would matter if they weren't as common as suicidal trash mobs. I've always had a couple of hundred to spare by the time i'm finished with the game.

Maybe i should donate them to Cornyphails and see if he can put up a fight with them

[schall_und_rauch]

lucky i had to choose between the Great Mustache and Hawke, Easy choice.

I thought so as well. Only Varric wasn't too happy when I told him that Hawke is dead.

[KaiserShep]

Cassandra didn't receive enough character development for them to give her a meaningful death in "In Your Heart Shall Burn", which was my favorite quest in the game because after that everything gets rather disappointing and goes downhill. IYHSB has its flaws as well, but it's by far the best in my opinion out of all the scenes in the game.

 

She isn't the Inquisitor because she knows that she wouldn't be a good Inquisitor. Perhaps a major character death would've made it more interesting but it did not need to be Cassandra. A less important character would've sufficed. Scout Harding, maybe, or even Krem (would've given the Iron Bull a big reason to stay with the Inquisition, and given him more character development that he desperately needs).

 

But the Inquisition did lose a lot at Haven, including many lives depending on how many people you were able to save. So it was a good quest all in all, didn't feel like the Inquisition was invulnerable like the rest of the game after that point. I'd give IHYSB a 9/10.

The character I'm think of would have to be a not-Duncan. Some NPC that isn't really a companion, but is seemingly important to the Inquisition. Heck I'd even have a number of dialogue sequences and even a flirt option or two like we have with Harding to lead players on, and suddenly this character takes one for the team, somewhere in the midway point of the battle. Whatever happens, it would have to be sometime well before the final stretch, because the fact that the Inquisitor ends up all alone is very important to the progression of the story. Handling this sort of thing is tricky, because it's easy for this sort of thing to be the cart before the horse. When Duncan died, it felt organic to the story, but here, it could easily feel like the death was written first and some contrived scenario was haphazardly written around it to cement it.

[In Exile]

Because Cory is not the only problem with this quest. I felt rewarded when I finished "In Your Hearts" because I did not lose any resources and only gained more power.

That's not a reply to anything I raised in response to your point. You say that the current scene is contrived because it does not covney loss. How does the forced loss of a companion change that situation? It does not make Corypheus more threatening if the game arbitrarily decides you're not entitled to a boss fight.

[In Exile]

The character I'm think of would have to be a not-Duncan. Some NPC that isn't really a companion, but is seemingly important to the Inquisition. Heck I'd even have a number of dialogue sequences and even a flirt option or two like we have with Harding to lead players on, and suddenly this character takes one for the team, somewhere in the midway point of the battle. Whatever happens, it would have to be sometime well before the final stretch, because the fact that the Inquisitor ends up all alone is very important to the progression of the story. Handling this sort of thing is tricky, because it's easy for this sort of thing to be the cart before the horse. When Duncan died, it felt organic to the story, but here, it could easily feel like the death was written first and some contrived scenario was haphazardly written around it to cement it.

I disagree completely. Duncan's death was the comical product of his incompetence combined with the incompetence of King Cailan. Even once you discount what an ammoral opportunist he was in each origin, effectively giving you a choice between death and joining the Wardens, it still remains that the loss at Ostagar only occurs because of his insistence at keeping everything about the GWs a secret and agreeing to the one strategy most likely to lead to the downfall of Ferelden.

[VanguardCharge]

That's not a reply to anything I raised in response to your point. You say that the current scene is contrived because it does not covney loss. How does the forced loss of a companion change that situation? It does not make Corypheus more threatening if the game arbitrarily decides you're not entitled to a boss fight.

I said multiple times throughout this thread that the loss of a companion is not the only way to portray a loss. 

 

However, a forced loss of a strong companion who you care about one way or another, makes Cory more threatening. A boss fight in the current plot makes no sense - its you against "Satan" and Toothless. You lack the power to kill them both, its obvious from the cut scenes. Toothless not killing you and letting you bury his master makes little sense too.

 

You know what makes sense? Cassandra (or anyone else) distracting Toothless and Satan while you bury them under the snow. 

[In Exile]

I said multiple times throughout this thread that the loss of a companion is not the only way to portray a loss.

However, a forced loss of a strong companion who you care about one way or another, makes Cory more threatening. A boss fight in the current plot makes no sense - its you against "Satan" and Toothless. You lack the power to kill them both, its obvious from the cut scenes. Toothless not killing you and letting you bury his master makes little sense too.

You know what makes sense? Cassandra (or anyone else) distracting Toothless and Satan while you bury them under the snow.

No, it doesn't. Because there's no justification for why I can't kill Corypheus right the and there, just like how there's no justification for why Kai Leng is immune to bullets. Cutscenes magic isn't a justification for the scene, as you so adamantly repeat in this threat when people point out how all of the cutscenes establish that Corypheus crushed the Inquisition. You're clearly unwilling to play them straight. So, as I've said, it's entirely hypocritical to rely on logic that you rejected to support an outcome you prefer.

[VanguardCharge]

No, it doesn't. Because there's no justification for why I can't kill Corypheus right the and there, just like how there's no justification for why Kai Leng is immune to bullets. Cutscenes magic isn't a justification for the scene, as you so adamantly repeat in this threat when people point out how all of the cutscenes establish that Corypheus crushed the Inquisition. You're clearly unwilling to play them straight. So, as I've said, it's entirely hypocritical to rely on logic that you rejected to support an outcome you prefer.

 

Do tell me how it's logically possible for you to take on Satan and Toothless, all alone in a boss fight at Haven, with his troops behind him. 

[In Exile]

Do tell me how it's logically possible for you to take on Satan and Toothless, all alone in a boss fight at Haven, with his troops behind him.

The same way you can massacre every single troop he sends at you on nightmare without exhausting your potions: being really good at the game.

It's the same reason you can kill the Hinterlands dragon at lv. 11 on nightmare.

If you're going to appeal to the cutscene as setting out a "realistic" power curve, then you need to drop all the arguments about being "unsatisfied" with the quest because you got all these other supposed rewards. Either you meta-game the scene in which case everything about it is contrived or you play it straight. It's simple.

[VanguardCharge]

The same way you can massacre every single troop he sends at you on nightmare without exhausting your potions: being really good at the game.

It's the same reason you can kill the Hinterlands dragon at lv. 11 on nightmare.

If you're going to appeal to the cutscene as setting out a "realistic" power curve, then you need to drop all the arguments about being "unsatisfied" with the quest because you got all these other supposed rewards. Either you meta-game the scene in which case everything about it is contrived or you play it straight. It's simple.

 

Then that's game breaking mechanics.  Hey, I destroyed a reaper with a Cain in ME3. Why didnt we just arm every soldier on earth with a Cain? These things have little to do with story. In BioWare games, the cut scenes are where we get the plot and your sense in it. You are a rag doll in that cut scene with Cory. 

[Lannes1789]

I disagree completely. Duncan's death was the comical product of his incompetence combined with the incompetence of King Cailan. Even once you discount what an ammoral opportunist he was in each origin, effectively giving you a choice between death and joining the Wardens, it still remains that the loss at Ostagar only occurs because of his insistence at keeping everything about the GWs a secret and agreeing to the one strategy most likely to lead to the downfall of Ferelden.

 

You make two points.  One, that disaster would have been avoided had he divulged grey warden secrets, two, that he acted immorally regarding induction.  I disagree on both counts 

 

To the first, how would a fulsome explanation of the nature of grey wardens have led to any other outcome then what transpired?  Cailan clearly already prized the wardens legendary status against the darkspawn and despite the urging of ferelden's premier strategist was quite happy to take the field at that moment.  He'd already made the cognitive leap to understanding their necessity in the abstract.

 

In terms of acting immorally, that was not only the expedient option, it had the virtue of being the *only" option.  We know this because despite the prestige of being a grey warden it was still the case that he was reduced to seeking out those otherwise doomed.  As only they would join, except for outliers. Is it immoral to give someone a purpose which serves the greater good if the gallows is the alternative?

[Lewie]

OP

 

In your heart shall burn.

 

The point of these narratives is to set a tone. You have talked so much rubbish about the tone not making you feel what you want. 

 

Frankly it is bordering on being childish.

 

Don't ever say that something is broken or the writers messed up simply because you don't agree with it.

[Marshal Moriarty]

Its a forum - why shouldn't he say it? Or is this forum not for the sharing of opinions and ideas?

 

His reasoning is perfectly sound on this, and the Ostagar storyline from Origins, proves that people would (and did) accept the loss of a character and be moved/inspired to act by it, despite knowing little about them, so long as it was done well. You may not have known Cassandra for long by this point, but you know enough - you can have most of the conversations about her history before you leave Haven. Its only the new Divine stuff, Promisers and the comedy scene with her liking Varric's books after that. Varric's realization that he has to decide whether he really wants to be in the Inquisition and is going to apply himself mentally, instead of simply being there and making snide comments, would have been much more effective if Cassandra had died. Using one character's death to develop another is a sensitive topic, but again its how you execute it that matters.

 

As a final point, I will simply argue that there are too many people who will go to any lengths to agree with what Bioware write, and just dismiss any other suggestions. If Bioware *had* killed Cassandra in Haven, I'm willing to bet at least half of the people on here decrying it as a foolish idea, would be praising it as an inspired decision. The OP amongst others is simply making some suggestions for how this mission and the game's storyline (which frankly has not been received well, even by critics who praised the game), could have been better.

 

You may disagree, but that's the beauty of a forum - you're allowed to. But so are we.

[Lewie]

Its a forum - why shouldn't he say it? Or is this forum not for the sharing of opinions and ideas?

 

His reasoning is perfectly sound on this, and the Ostagar storyline from Origins, proves that people would (and did) accept the loss of a character and be moved/inspired to act by it, despite knowing little about them, so long as it was done well. You may not have known Cassandra for long by this point, but you know enough - you can have most of the conversations about her history before you leave Haven. Its only the new Divine stuff, Promisers and the comedy scene with her liking Varric's books after that. Varric's realization that he has to decide whether he really wants to be in the Inquisition and is going to apply himself mentally, instead of simply being there and making snide comments, would have been much more effective if Cassandra had died. Using one character's death to develop another is a sensitive topic, but again its how you execute it that matters.

 

As a final point, I will simply argue that there are too many people who will go to any lengths to agree with what Bioware write, and just dismiss any other suggestions. If Bioware *had* killed Cassandra in Haven, I'm willing to bet at least half of the people on here decrying it as a foolish idea, would be praising it as an inspired decision. The OP amongst others is simply making some suggestions for how this mission and the game's storyline (which frankly has not been received well, even by critics who praised the game), could have been better.

 

You may disagree, but that's the beauty of a forum - you're allowed to. But so are we.

All he had to do was make his title better.

 

Him saying it needs fixed is implying it is wrong. That in turn means that anyone who likes that mission is somehow deluded. Don't do that.

 

Cue him not liking the writing, to defend his 'point'. So people that actually like that scene feel like they have to defend it.

 

Utter troll.

 

If the Haven mission didn't hit you then say so without insulting everyone else. 

[KaiserShep]

Its a forum - why shouldn't he say it? Or is this forum not for the sharing of opinions and ideas?

 

His reasoning is perfectly sound on this, and the Ostagar storyline from Origins, proves that people would (and did) accept the loss of a character and be moved/inspired to act by it, despite knowing little about them, so long as it was done well. You may not have known Cassandra for long by this point, but you know enough - you can have most of the conversations about her history before you leave Haven. Its only the new Divine stuff, Promisers and the comedy scene with her liking Varric's books after that. Varric's realization that he has to decide whether he really wants to be in the Inquisition and is going to apply himself mentally, instead of simply being there and making snide comments, would have been much more effective if Cassandra had died. Using one character's death to develop another is a sensitive topic, but again its how you execute it that matters.

 

As a final point, I will simply argue that there are too many people who will go to any lengths to agree with what Bioware write, and just dismiss any other suggestions. If Bioware *had* killed Cassandra in Haven, I'm willing to bet at least half of the people on here decrying it as a foolish idea, would be praising it as an inspired decision. The OP amongst others is simply making some suggestions for how this mission and the game's storyline (which frankly has not been received well, even by critics who praised the game), could have been better.

 

You may disagree, but that's the beauty of a forum - you're allowed to. But so are we.

 

It's a nice thought, but if Varric's motivation is so deeply affected by Cassandra's death, the first question that would come to mind is:

 

What about the thousands of people he mentioned that died on the mountain, that he was almost part of, and the people who died defending Haven? Do they not matter?

 

Cassandra isn't really his friend while at Haven, and doesn't really develop more of a rapport with him until much later, so while her death could conceivably be a catalyst for his development, I would be totally unconvinced that THIS would be how he comes to his turning point. If I had to choose between Varric's feeble character shift over this one character's death and the friendship that develops between the two of them AND potentially between her and the Inquisitor, I'd choose the latter every time.

 

Anyway, my real issue is with the faulty logic that Cassandra's death serves as the perfect vehicle to elevate the PC, despite the fact that the PC has been building influence and a reputation, and characters of various import are asking specifically for THIS character by name. No one ever seeks out Cassandra for anything after the breach is stabilized, because her role as Right Hand is now essentially defunct while the Chantry remains leaderless and both the Templars and Seekers have gone off the deep end. She's now a rebel heretic separated from the Chantry, taking point alongside the Herald.

 

Edit: I just want to note also that I think the best deaths are ones that the PC can be an active participant in feeling something about it. Cassandra is no such character that we can have our character convincingly mourn over the loss or swear vengeance. This is why I love the human noble origin so much. I get to play a character that has a loving family, and with most of them slaughtered, I am now part of a revenge tale, and I can howl for Howe's blood, AND get it. Companions feeling something is fine and all, like Alistair with Duncan, but I don't care about Duncan, because f*** that guy.

[TK514]

Heh. Maybe Cory should've attacked all of our camps in the Hinterlands and reset us back a few power points. That'll teach us.

 

Having Cory attack anything at all related to the Inquisition after Haven, or show himself to even be a minor inconvenience, would have been an improvement.

[Rekkampum]

Indeed, but I felt absolutely no urgency, no challenge. It can also lead to some stupid situations. I had a big WTF moment while helping the smith. Since I didn't understand that I was supposed to hit the crates (I'm an archer, so I had to break the crates with arrows...), I managed to enter the building by the other side only to discover that I couldn't open the door from the inside.
 

On my end it felt as "for the par" with some tedious wave fights.
 

Again, felt "for the par" to me, his character handling is far from original.
 

You won't be surprised to hear I didn't like this part either :-)
 

I cringed all the way through.

After what feels to me as the worst beginning in a Bioware game (I haven't played the BG series as I can't stand the AD&D ruleset), I felt very much reassured by In Hushed Whispers (to me a very good quest). I had seen that In Your Heart Shall Burn was the pivoting point for many players and expected it to be even better than In Hushed Whisper. I was very disappointed by what was, to me, a series of mishandled clichés.

As you said, it registers to us differently. Considering how many people were moved by this quest, they must have done something right. Unfortunately nothing they've done in that quest spoke to me.

As far as I'm concerned killing a key character wouldn't "fix it" as the whole rythm of the sequence feels off to me.

 

I've played quite a few BW games. I think the buildup to the Haven mission was painfully slow, but right when the tables turned it hit a sweet spot for me.

 

I think killing off somebody important would be the most banal if not painfully obvious attempt at sentimentality. That's just terrible writing.

 

It actually took me a couple tries to figure out how to save the folks - I just switched to a warrior since I'd recruited Iron Bull - and bashed the stuff that way.

 

I liked In Hushed Whispers, but Champions of the Just really sticks with me, because it's brilliantly written. Here Lies the Abyss is probably my favorite mission out of the primary ones though.

[Rekkampum]

This is why organic products are vastly superior to the GMO foods of my local Walmart. 

 

That's a fallacy. Not all "organic" foods are healthy for you.

[KaiserShep]

I don't know why this didn't occur to me sooner, but if Cassandra died no matter what, straight male Inquisitors basically have zero options among the follower group. It would strictly be Josephine, and that would suck. Sure you can write in another option that joins for some reason, but it would not be possible to get the same interpersonal development, since Cassandra starts off thinking that you're the enemy. This is one of the things I considered to be so good about her character's relationship with the Inquisitor, regardless of romance. No other character in the game has this, and none would be nearly as good at it.

[VanguardCharge]

All he had to do was make his title better.

 

Him saying it needs fixed is implying it is wrong. That in turn means that anyone who likes that mission is somehow deluded. Don't do that.

 

Cue him not liking the writing, to defend his 'point'. So people that actually like that scene feel like they have to defend it.

 

Utter troll.

 

If the Haven mission didn't hit you then say so without insulting everyone else. 

 

So...I'm at utter troll for defending my point? How am I insulting anyone, besides the pseudo english major PhD who assumes that ME:3 soured my taste for DA:I and that I should conjure events for myself to make the plot better? By calling the writing of "In Your Heart" stupid (not sure if I did it. It's not stupid, just has poor pacing. Though the writing of Cory is stupid. Very stupid) I'm severely insulting you? Uh oh. 

 

But there are ways BioWare could've made the player feel more lose than kill a character (which I've said in every page thus far). Take away resources, disable the anchor for a time, etc. It does none of that. You get a new cool power, a new companion, a new base, a throne, and a promotion for the price of 3 or so NPCs with whom you can have a conversation each? 

 

 

I don't know why this didn't occur to me sooner, but if Cassandra died no matter what, straight male Inquisitors basically have zero options among the follower group. It would strictly be Josephine, and that would suck. Sure you can write in another option that joins for some reason, but it would not be possible to get the same interpersonal development, since Cassandra starts off thinking that you're the enemy. This is one of the things I considered to be so good about her character's relationship with the Inquisitor, regardless of romance. No other character in the game has this, and none would be nearly as good at it.

 

If romance matters that  much, I guess Vivienne could've been romance-able. Or Sera could've been bi. Really has no impact on the story. 

[Marshal Moriarty]

Varric has many strains of banter in DA2 that imply that he doesn't lose much sleep over the kinds of tragedies that really affect most people. Its not because he's an evil man or totally heartless. But he's a practical man who knows that bad things happen to good, bad and indifferent people. If he spent all hours of the day worrying about their fates, he'd never get anything done and never be happy ever again. He cares about his people, his family and his friends. Everyone else will just have to fend for themselves. He doesn't particularly *mind* helping out, if Hawke insists and occasionally will mildly approve if the person truly is in need and is innocent. But he rarely approves a whole lot about things like this. He prefers to be doing something fun and/or profitable that isn't too heavy. So long as Hawke (or the others) don't do anything that is blatantly uncalled for in a truly sadistic and evil way (and even only against nice people), then he's fine with whatever. When Anders is tearing himself apart with grief over nearly killing Elle in 'Dissent', Varric tries to cheer him up by pointing out that the pain will lessen if he just stops dwelling on it. They've all killed people before, and life went on - just treat it like that. Besides, Elle didn't die etc etc.

 

Getting involved on this kind of emotional level to the suffering of people in general is something new to Varric. Even at the end of DA2, with Kirkwall going up in flames, he and Isabella are of the opinion that they'd probably rather skip town than get involved in these kinds of weighty goings on. He's just annoyed that these people are causing so much trouble for all the (somewhat) honest folks who just want to live their lives as normal. They are a pest, rather than something he cares about supporting one side or the other. So usually, no the people who died in the valley wouldn't matter to him, particularly. He wouldn't be *happy* to see all those people dead, but it wouldn't get to him either. He's more worried about what's happening in Kirkwall, and pining for the good old days of being with his old gang etc. He can't stand Cassandra (and despite what you say, I didn't say any evidence of that changing - their banter is still extremely acrimonious, mostly from Varric. Assuming they become friends after the book giving, is premature IMO, as there is no evidence of that). They basically just bury the hatchet and agree to stay out of each other's way.Cassandra may be able to see things from Varric's point of view now and again, but Varric still considers her a tiresomely overbearing grouch, who threatened him and the people close to him (and possibly leading to Hawke's death).

 

Yet the evidence mounts up to the point where even Varric realizes he has to knuckle down. The Red Lyrium, and Corypheus returning, drive it home that this is something he can't ignore (even though he is still tempted to). He still has plenty of excuses at the ready (he couldn't have known what the Red lyrium would do, it was Bartrand who brought it to the surface, they thought Corypheus was dead and checked properly etc). But despite what he claims, Varric does have a sense of Dwarven honor, although he doesn't like to talk about it much. If he really is responsible, as it seems he is, and there is death and destruction on this kind of scale, then he feels obligated to stick around and help, despite not really wanting to. Even late into the game, he still doesn't really like being in the Inquisition or getting involved in the weighty things they do (going to the Arbor wilds, the well etc) is all just weird and off putting to him - the kind of thing that crazy zealots who don't have anything better to do with their time than screw the world up for everyone else, get up to.

 

Basically, when he was with Hawke, strange stuff happened now and then, but it was fun and they weren't trying to do anything other than have a few laughs and make some money. Here the Inquisition and Corypheus are actively *trying* to stir up big time trouble, and that's not his scene at all. He prefers to fly under the radar, do a day or night's (dis)honest adventuring and back to the Hanged Man to get blasted afterwards.

 

Having Cassandra die (preferably to save the Inquisitor and Varric), would annoy him and challenge him in ways that are good for character development. Because he usually can't be doing with all that sacrifice nonsense - its what people like Sebastian would do, and his version of good stories are ones where the good guys win and do it in a roguish kind of way. Not this 'I lay down my life for mine enemy, because I love them as I love all people' kind of thing. But if his life was saved by her, and he learned that Corypheus' involvement etc was his fault, then he would have to get more involved, for the sake of someone he didn't even particularly like when they were alive. It would be a great storyline to pursue and see how he handled that, because its exactly the kind of weighty emotional baggage he usually avoids at all costs. And frankly, he isn't doing anything else in this game, so he could use the content...

 

 

As to the Inquisitor's authority... well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think you're wrong. I never denied that the people would see you as some kind of savior, and that the Inquisition would be wise to make a show of putting you in a leadership role. But behind the scenes is a different matter - it doesn't alter the fact that you have no experience doing any of this, and for veterans to simply hand over executive power would be a dangerous gamble to make. Your character might not even really know anything about the countries, their politics, and can be an outspoken boor who doesn't care at all for how their words and actions affect others. This at a time when the Inquisition is fending off accusations that it is a heretical organization, and may even be complicit in the breach etc. Its exactly the same kind of nonsense as the potential in ME1 for the Council to approve an outspokenly xenophobic and 'Humanity Only' version of SHepard to be a Spectre, even if he/she is blatantly not the kind of person they are looking for - because the story demands it be so.

 

Nobody ever bothers to question you on your potentially extreme views and actions. They're all just 'Yeah, you're our best hope - do your thing'. Its crazy that after caring so much as to create the organization in the first place, Cassandra, Leliana etc seem to show no actual interest in how its being run, and what kind of message you are sending out to the world at large. They're just fine with whatever, letting you get up to whatever insanity you feel like, because 'you known best', when there is no evidence for that whatsoever - you can close the breaches, so that means you are fit to handle all the matters of diplomacy, religion, foreign affairs etc?!

 

And again, I insist that this scenario just makes no sense. If you are the only person who can close the rifts, then you could not be free to roam about as you please. That's just an insane scenario, and completely destroys any credibility the game's story has. If you suddenly developed the psyhic power to identify terrorists and know their plans (over huge distances let's say), and told the government, then do you think you'd be allowed out on your own ever again?! You'd be in lockdown, psychically scanning for trouble forever more. If they had any humanity about them, they'd make you comfortable and make sure you wanted for nothing, but the world would need your power to such a degree that you would forfeit any personal freedom. Its the same basic deal here. The world cannot afford for you to die or be captured. So the idea of you being left to your own devices and heading into assaults on fortified enemy positions etc, until they have been thoroughly pacified, is just nonsense. There is no way that would happen, because you be taking the most outrageous gamble with the world's existence *for no reason*.

 

Lastly, on the subject of the title of the thread - I think you need to grow a thicker skin, because this isn't a trolling title. This mission is far from universally accepted to be brilliant. The singing scene alone is considered Narm by many (myself included, in case it wasn't obvious). A trolling title would be something like 'Everyone who doesn't think In your Heart shall Burn is ****, is a complete retard and knows **** all about gaming, the wankers'. or something equally silly. Or 'Dragon Age is **** and everyone who isn't a complete dick knows it' etc etc etc. That kind of thing *is* trolling, but voicing a reasonable opinion about a contentious sequence isn't.

 

Its all just opinions. If we stopped to put IMO, (or even worse IMHO) after everything we said, it'd take years just for a single thread. If you don't agree with Vanguard (or me or whoever), then tell us why. Don't tell us we can't have that opinion, or aren't allowed to express that opinion. Otherwise what is the forum even for? We could write 'Bioware rule and everything they do is the best - always - without exception',, pin it up and not have any other threads in that case, if we're not allowed to say anything against them.

[Shahadem]

I disagree completely. Duncan's death was the comical product of his incompetence combined with the incompetence of King Cailan. Even once you discount what an ammoral opportunist he was in each origin, effectively giving you a choice between death and joining the Wardens, it still remains that the loss at Ostagar only occurs because of his insistence at keeping everything about the GWs a secret and agreeing to the one strategy most likely to lead to the downfall of Ferelden.

 

That strategy would have worked if Cailan wasn't betrayed by the very man he should have been able to trust most. Yes Duncan should have told everyone this was a true Blight, but that doesn't change the fact that the only reason why Cailan died was because he was betrayed.

[Marshal Moriarty]

Duncan was constrained by the need to not appear like he was forcing his opinions on Cailan and the Ferelden nobility. As far as he was concerned, he and his wardens would do everything they could to stop the Blight, but if it couldn't be halted there, the Wardens would need to retain their rights and privileges, because they cannot risk being exiled again. He attempts to curb Cailan's fascination with the Wardens, because it obviously makes people like Loghain uncomfortable, and that is the sort of scrutiny that the Wardens don't need.

 

But Duncan still has the Blight to consider, and what must be done to stop it. If that requires Orlesian reinforcements, then he's willing to consider that. He (and Cailan, and pretty much everyone else) have simply underestimated exactly how deep Loghain's animosity towards Orlais runs. Even if Loghain was told it was a true Blight, he likely wouldn't believe it until he actually saw the Archdemon. Its the same with the truth of how Archdemons are slain (i.e that it requires a Warden to do the killing). Revealing that would require an explanation of exactly *why* that was the case. That would mean he'd also have to reveal the joining, the fact that Wardens drinks darkspawn blood, and become tainted. As we see with Ser Jory, that is something that is considered utterly obscene, dangerous and disgusting - not something that a honorable and sane person would do. It speak of sinister old blood magic rituals, and would just as likely lead to the Wardens being exiled (if not outright hunted and executed), as having their words listened to.

 

The only time when people will hear such things without having this kind of reaction is when there is time left, no other option. By the time of the Landsmeet, Ferelden has its back to the wall. Gallagher Wulff has brought news of the collapse of Ferelden forces in the south, and unless they do something quickly, the country will be overrun. In these dire circumstances, Riordan is willing to disclose some of what the Wardens do, for the sake of trying to unify the people in the Landsmeet hall. If they can take their greatest detractor Loghain, and show him a degree of mercy (as it will appear to the people gathered), then that may soften the blow of what they are actually doing to combat the Blight, inbibing darkspawn blood etc etc.

 

Matters were not yet that far along at Ostagar, so Duncan had to weigh what was needed to defeat the Blight on one hand, and how the Wardens and their motives would be perceived by the great and the good of Ferelden on the other. If they weren't willing to listen and Ferelden fell as a result, that is something Duncan was willing to abide by. He was willing to give his life under those circumstances, but the important thing was preserving the image of the Wardens, so the other Wardens outside Ferelden would not be tarred with any kind of scandal, and would be free to continue the fight. The Warden's duty is to stop the Blight, *not* to defend Ferelden. If that can be done as well, then great. But if not, then so be it.