I'll listen through the dialogue again and post a few. That said I disagree about everything he does to Cassandra as being justified. Him being a dick when she try to comfort him about Kirkwall comes to mind. When someone is trying to be nice, you don't respond like Varric did even if you don't like them.
Well, Cassandra is a physically abusive kidnapper.
Well, Cassandra is a physically abusive kidnapper.
A kidnapper in the sense that a cop is a kidnapper when they arrest someone. Varric is guilty of the crimes he was apprehended for.
She was only physically abusive once, and that was after he was being a smartass and a dick.
A kidnapper in the sense that a cop is a kidnapper when they arrest someone. Varric is guilty of the crimes he was apprehended for.
She was only physically abusive once, and that was after he was being a smartass and a dick.
Those crimes being what, exactly? Having associated with the one who blew up the Chantry, which I'm reasonably sure isn't a crime in and of itself? Not to mention that I don't consider religious law enforcement to be legitimate anyway. And I definitely know that being unhelpful to your kidnapper isn't a crime, not that it warrants attacking someone in your custody either way.
^That post is so painful to read.
Those crimes being what, exactly? Having associated with the one who blew up the Chantry, which I'm reasonably sure isn't a crime in and of itself? Not to mention that I don't consider religious law enforcement to be legitimate anyway. And I definitely know that being unhelpful to your kidnapper isn't a crime, not that it warrants attacking someone in your custody either way.
Since you brought up Anders, Varric is guilty of aiding and abetting a wanted fugitive. Anders was wanted by both the Templars and the Wardens, but Varric helps throw them off Anders' trail whenever they get close.
But what am I thinking, I'm arguing against someone who thinks Anders is a saint other than the warmongering terrorist he was.
Since you brought up Anders, Varric is guilty of aiding and abetting a wanted fugitive. Anders was wanted by both the Templars and the Wardens, but Varric helps throw them off Anders' trail whenever they get close.
But what am I thinking, I'm arguing against someone who thinks Anders is a saint other than the warmongering terrorist he was.
"He's not just a monster, or a hero. Or maybe he's both."
But Anders is a tangent. Where was Varric a dick again?
"He's not just a monster, or a hero. Or maybe he's both."
But Anders is a tangent. Where was Varric a dick again?
No, Anders is just a monster. When the people you try to be a hero for sees you as a monster, you are a monster.
In DA2 or DAI? I gave you DAI examples.
No, Anders is just a monster. When the people you try to be a hero for sees you as a monster, you are a monster.
Those people were more angry at Anders for a perceived strategic misstep.
In DA2 or DAI? I gave you DAI examples.
Well, we're not going to agree on Cassandra, so is there anything else?
Those people were more angry at Anders for a perceived strategic misstep.
No they weren't. Well, they were but not only because of that. Even Pro-Freedom mages like Fiona saw Anders as a madman.
Well, we're not going to agree on Cassandra, so is there anything else?
Yes, among other companions and NPCS. As I said, I need to listen through the audio to find specific enough examples for you.
The dwarf; not the crossbow. You learn in "Well, ****" that she's responsible for every red templar at Corypheus' command. And what are her parting words moments later?
"Get him killed (referring to Varric), and I'll feed you your own eyeballs Inquisitor."
It was times like these where I really missed the murder knife. A reoccurring problem with DA:I is its limited RPG element; especially prevalent with the massive amount of "fetch" side-quests with topics bordering on absurdity (scattering ashes, leaving flowers on graves, etc.). Including lack of choices, the game gives almost no instances of doing anything debatably "evil." Sure, Varric would greatly disapprove if you killed her, but that would have been a great twist to the quest.
Another example would be if your character was allowed to bargain, or try to, with Seeker Lucius during Cassandra's companion quest. I tried doing this yet the game allowed no real choices; always being forced to want him dead.
I miss the diverse options of DA:O and even DA2 to an extent.
Those two side quests you mentioned are ones I liked. If anything, the weird one involving "grandpa" was absurd. You also have that deal with Imshael and also the noble in Sera's sidequest, which lead to rather screwed up consequences; the former can be arguably considered evil.
I think it's important to remember that as your character is the Inquisitor, with an inner circle and advisors, doing "evil" things necessarily wouldn't make sense from a narrative perspective, as they clearly wouldn't allow you to - especially Leliana. This isn't a personal narrative like the story of the Warden and Hawke are; thus, certain aspects are limited. What Inquisition does allow, however, are more morally grey decisions, some of which can be interpreted as "evil" or at the very least, unethical; forcing Blackwall into servitude, rendering mages tranquil, and a few others, likely from the judgment decisions you have.
I also think it's safe to say that there's no way in the Black City that Lucius would've left that place alive with Cassandra in your party, even if the option to bargain was possible. You are able to bargain with Calpernia at least if you did her related quest, which I tend to do now.
I chuckled at that threat, but not in a funny "ha ha" kind of way. It was more of a "Try it and I'll gladly remove your heart." I wanted a chance to respond to that little remark, even if I got a Greatly Disapproves (-20 affection according to my save editor values) from Varric out of it. I could make up the approval loss easily via quests and judgments, but this lady had the stupid bravery of threatening the Inquisitor after helping unleash Red Lyrium throughout Thedas. It wasn't a little bit, or an accident like with what Hawke and Varric went through. That area in the Hinterlands was pretty much the original main source for the Red Templars. Nice job breaking it, jerkass.
I don't play evil characters, and I usually tend to be on the good spectrum, but for the second time in the series, I wanted the murderknife/sentence to death option.
You are my hero, Nat!
It'd be pretty funny that if you were able to pass judgment and decide Bianca's fate, you got to make a snarky comment to Varric.
Inquisitor: Maybe we can think of a new name for your crossbow. How about Miranda?
VARRIC GREATLY DISAPPROVES
Why hello there Assquisitor. 
Well, he is responsible for everything Bianca is being blamed for and more, he lies about Hawke's disappearance, and he acts like a dick to various characters when it's not called for, and his whole way of dealing with things seems slimy and shady.
Why hello there Assquisitor.
I don't really see why Varric keeping Anders from the Templars is a bad thing in and of itself. When we meet the guy, he's helping poor refugees in his clinic when they would have otherwise just died in the undercity. Before Anders decided to go all revolutionist, what good would it have done to help the Templars? It also helps that the Templars were corrupt as hell, which is why I was thrilled to kill Alrik and his men.Since you brought up Anders, Varric is guilty of aiding and abetting a wanted fugitive. Anders was wanted by both the Templars and the Wardens, but Varric helps throw them off Anders' trail whenever they get close.
But what am I thinking, I'm arguing against someone who thinks Anders is a saint other than the warmongering terrorist he was.
I'll listen through the dialogue again and post a few. That said I disagree about everything he does to Cassandra as being justified. Him being a dick when she try to comfort him about Kirkwall comes to mind. When someone is trying to be nice, you don't respond like Varric did even if you don't like them.
You do know she kidnapped,interrogated and threatened psychical violence against him and was generally a huge ****** to him for the majority of DA2 right?
Yeah I wouldn't be inclined to be kind to her either.
You do know she kidnapped,interrogated and threatened psychical violence against him and was generally a huge ****** to him for the majority of DA2 right?
Yeah I wouldn't be inclined to be kind to her either.
To be fair, she was trying to find the Champion to gain their assistance in light of all that had happened. They'd failed to find the Warden already and were clearly counting on Hawke to help save the day. Hawke would most likely have been made Inquisitor also.
To be fair, she was trying to find the Champion to gain their assistance in light of all that had happened. They'd failed to find the Warden already and were clearly counting on Hawke to help save the day. Hawke would most likely have been made Inquisitor also.
That's the thing neither are entirely in the wrong...or the right.
Except Varric didn't know that he thought she wanted to harm him/her because of what Anders did she even admits she screwed up by treating him like she did.
To be fair, she was trying to find the Champion to gain their assistance in light of all that had happened. They'd failed to find the Warden already and were clearly counting on Hawke to help save the day. Hawke would most likely have been made Inquisitor also.
Thedas dodged a bullet on that one
I would have totally lied about Hawke's whereabouts as well, really, because I wouldn't trust the Seekers/Inquisition as far as I could throw them.
You mean the same Inquisition he trusts to help him with personal matters immediately after it is formed?
I don't really see why Varric keeping Anders from the Templars is a bad thing in and of itself. When we meet the guy, he's helping poor refugees in his clinic when they would have otherwise just died in the undercity. Before Anders decided to go all revolutionist, what good would it have done to help the Templars? It also helps that the Templars were corrupt as hell, which is why I was thrilled to kill Alrik and his men.
Because he is a fugitive. Varric knows he is a fugitive, yet aids and abets him. He had good cause to do that, but he still broke the law and was guilty of the crimes he was apprehended for.
Your opinions on the Templars don't matter. That's like saying it is okay to break the law because you think cops are corrupt. Even if they are, it doesn't make what you did any less wrong.
Are the Ferelden refugees also wrong to protect a man that was helping them?
Depends if they knew he if he was a fugitive or not. If they did, then yes.
Was Templar Carver wrong for keeping the order off of his apostate sibling's case?
Yes. He broke the law of the order he willingly joined.
I took a peek at this. Interesting. Didn't search the archives for any threads on Bianca.
I never gave it much thought before, but after reading some of it I wonder, what is Varric and Bianca's story? I never really cared, but are they having some long-term affair in DA:I? I figured they had romantic history once but in "Well, ****" they bickered like an old married couple. I didn't sense any passion there. If Varric is staying single for the occasional booty-call with Bianca every few years then, well, I can see some issues with that.
no clue myself I never read book...seems our Lady WhineQuisiton(owner of that thread) is one that has read book so she knows what relationship is between them though from what I could gather of these few pages I read in there was that actually Varric kinda left Bianca in book and that he hasn't heard from her again...in game it goes opposite.
Looks like BW made their own version of Bianca from what I see.
Those crimes being what, exactly? Having associated with the one who blew up the Chantry, which I'm reasonably sure isn't a crime in and of itself? Not to mention that I don't consider religious law enforcement to be legitimate anyway. And I definitely know that being unhelpful to your kidnapper isn't a crime, not that it warrants attacking someone in your custody either way.
Yes because religious authority in a medievalesque setting is clearly going to be ignored in favor of representative government democratically elected by the populace who all enjoy full 21st century standards of life and rights
Yes because religious authority in a medievalesque setting is clearly going to be ignored in favor of representative government democratically elected by the populace who all enjoy full 21st century standards of life and rights
What's your point? Just because an authority has power doesn't mean that it's wrong to flout it.
What's your point? Just because an authority has power doesn't mean that it's wrong to flout it.
my point is that in this setting there is nothing wrong with an organization exercising power that derives from religious authority.
What's your point? Just because an authority has power doesn't mean that it's wrong to flout it.
Actually, that's exactly what it means. The Chantry is seen as the law on these matters, so to flout them is wrong. It may be for the right reasons, but it is still against the law thus seen as wrong.
Retour en haut