715 réponses à ce sujet

[DDJ]

Whether or not he had reason to view Loghain's actions as a power grab isn't central to my point. That he did view Loghain's actions as a power grab, and now views yours the same way, is central to my point. My actual point is that your initial point (that this is out of character for Teagan) doesn't seem entirely accurate.

 

And you know, it's not like he doesn't have reasons to be worried that you are going for a power grab. You probably took Caer Bronach, and if you did you are apparently continuing to hold it, and you don't really have royal permission. You have standing armies that don't answer to him, or to those he answers to, or to the Divine (yet) or to anyone but yourself. Leiliana apparently has spies everywhere, and is able to contact the Crows for you. You've used all of that to avert a potential apocalypse, but what are you going to do with those alarming resources now that it's done?

 

Actually, to get off of what you might do in the future do for a second, what might you have already done? I'm going to concede that I've taken some really questionable choices in my playthroughs, because I thought it made more sense or was what my character would do or just made the game more fun. But I'm not sure Teagan should be willing to accept all of those excuses when he reads reports that I <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://dragonage.wik...i/Thom_Rainier"href="http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Thom_Rainier" s_fate"="">snuck Thom Rainer out of prison or sent a bunch of animated corpses after the Venatori or put Cullen back on lyrium or killed a man so that his widow could keep his money and marry the soldier she truly loves. If your Inquisitor has done any or especially most of that (two of those quests are mutually exclusive, so you can't have done it all,) then maybe Teagan is right to be afraid of what your Inquisitor will do next.

 

 

You're sure there's no similar circumstances? You mentioned land-grabbing as one of Loghain's crimes. He's arguably not wrong to accuse the Inquisition of that with Caer Bronach. Yes, wiping out the bandits was necessary, but did you actually need to move soldiers in? Or keep them there two years later rather than try to hand the Keep back to Ferelden?

 

I'm not necessarily arguing that there were no other ways Ferelden could have gone about settling their concerns. Merely that those concerns aren't entirely unjustified.

 

He also says "go ahead and sacrifice me to protect my brother" before he heads off alone into what he is entirely sure is a trap. So if you're accusing him of cowardice, I'd have to say you probably don't have a leg to stand on.

 

 

 

It's a price he's paying himself without much complaint. And as for your accusation that he lets you Warden it up for most of a year before telling you what the Joining does I usually get that dialogue early. I think my first playthrough Lothering was still standing when I learned my character was dying less slowly than average.

 

It may be on your playthroughs.  The question of what changes about you physically always comes up later in the game on mine.  As to dying young - without the ghouldom and such, that is something that all soldiers are aware of.  So from my perspective, with respect, Alastair dodges the truth until he has what he needs.  As to the rest, I am not accusing Teagan of anything, only thinking on where he is based during the attack on the village.

 

Still, I think you have some valid points.  I never actually made any of those questionable decisions, but it could raise cause for alarm.  Keep in mind however that the Inquisition also reclaimed Redcliff from Alexius and returned it to the people while he was seeking aid in Denerim.  With respect, I believe that while the occupation force should be of concern, Teagan and Alastair are far more concerned with a rising power that has achieved something worthwhile.  And, as I write this, considering their positioning, it also makes another reason to exile the Wardens.  They come across in my mind to being equally as trustworthy as Alastair.

[DDJ]

LOL...I think Morrigan and Alister should get together, Morrigan would make a great queen and then there would already be an heir to the throne...if you went that way.    She would keep Alister in line anyway.  

 

I actually like Morrigan far more than to wish that on her.

[Xilizhra]

I contend, by the way, that there's nothing at all wrong with animating a bunch of corpses and using them to fight for you. It protects the living, after all.

[DDJ]

I contend, by the way, that there's nothing at all wrong with animating a bunch of corpses and using them to fight for you. It protects the living, after all.

 

Now this is a very interesting thought.  As long as you can keep them firmly under control of someone with a good sense of right and wrong.  It is a double edged weapon that can strike at anyone.

[VivainaDX]

Whether or not he had reason to view Loghain's actions as a power grab isn't central to my point. That he did view Loghain's actions as a power grab, and now views yours the same way, is central to my point. My actual point is that your initial point (that this is out of character for Teagan) doesn't seem entirely accurate.

 

And you know, it's not like he doesn't have reasons to be worried that you are going for a power grab. You probably took Caer Bronach, and if you did you are apparently continuing to hold it, and you don't really have royal permission. You have standing armies that don't answer to him, or to those he answers to, or to the Divine (yet) or to anyone but yourself. Leiliana apparently has spies everywhere, and is able to contact the Crows for you. You've used all of that to avert a potential apocalypse, but what are you going to do with those alarming resources now that it's done?

 

 

 

Up until Trespasser Teagan was always polite and friendly, even when confronting Loghain he did so with some decorum, in Trespasser he was rather snotty and obnoxious, so yeah, THAT was out of character for Teagan. He should of been less accusing and abrasive, his attitude and the way he carried himself made me question his motivations, he should have been more civil. That he had concerns is understandable, but he didn't have to be a dick about it.

[VivainaDX]

 

Actually, to get off of what you might do in the future do for a second, what might you have already done? I'm going to concede that I've taken some really questionable choices in my playthroughs, because I thought it made more sense or was what my character would do or just made the game more fun. But I'm not sure Teagan should be willing to accept all of those excuses when he reads reports that I <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://dragonage.wik...i/Thom_Rainier"href="http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Thom_Rainier" s_fate"="">snuck Thom Rainer out of prison or sent a bunch of animated corpses after the Venatori or put Cullen back on lyrium or killed a man so that his widow could keep his money and marry the soldier she truly loves. If your Inquisitor has done any or especially most of that (two of those quests are mutually exclusive, so you can't have done it all,) then maybe Teagan is right to be afraid of what your Inquisitor will do next.

 

 

You're sure there's no similar circumstances? You mentioned land-grabbing as one of Loghain's crimes. He's arguably not wrong to accuse the Inquisition of that with Caer Bronach. Yes, wiping out the bandits was necessary, but did you actually need to move soldiers in? Or keep them there two years later rather than try to hand the Keep back to Ferelden?

 

I'm not necessarily arguing that there were no other ways Ferelden could have gone about settling their concerns. Merely that those concerns aren't entirely unjustified.

 

 

 

Yes, I took Caer Bronach away from bandits and then my soldiers were training up the locals to defend it and the surrounding area. My troops were a stabilizing force intent on weeding out Venatori and other baddies, you'd think that it would be appreciated considering Ferelden was in chaos and I'd be willing to bet any money coming through there would have been split between the Inquisition and the crown. There should have been an alliance there, Teagan was acting like he had something to hide or that he was paranoid about something. He turned into a pss poor leader in Trespasser.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I contend, by the way, that there's nothing at all wrong with animating a bunch of corpses and using them to fight for you. It protects the living, after all.

Well, that's the decision I had in mind when I said I made a questionable decision because I thought it made more sense than the alternative. But still, I can understand if Teagan has some misgivings. I'm not sure there's any reasoned moral objection one can give, but a lot of people apparently think it's creepy. Even Leiliana doesn't like this, and she's the advisor who tells you you should do it.

 

And really, why did the necromancers have to use corpses? Anything can be possessed by a spirit in this setting. Anything. I get the psychological warfare aspect of it, but that still means the whole point of this is that it's creepy. So naturally Teagan's going to be creeped out.

 

I'm not even necessarily saying that the Inquisitor shouldn't do it, only that if Teagan knows and is disturbed it's understandable.

 

 

It may be on your playthroughs.  The question of what changes about you physically always comes up later in the game on mine.  As to dying young - without the ghouldom and such, that is something that all soldiers are aware of.  So from my perspective, with respect, Alastair dodges the truth until he has what he needs. 

 

I still don't think I get this argument. The fact is that the difference between our two playthroughs is when we ask, which isn't controlled by Alistair's motivation.

 

 

Up until Trespasser Teagan was always polite and friendly, even when confronting Loghain he did so with some decorum, in Trespasser he was rather snotty and obnoxious, so yeah, THAT was out of character for Teagan. He should of been less accusing and abrasive, his attitude and the way he carried himself made me question his motivations, he should have been more civil. That he had concerns is understandable, but he didn't have to be a dick about it.

He was pretty accusing in the scene with Loghain. And while I've heard accusations that Teagan was being pretty abrasive (and agree that that would be somewhat out of character) I haven't really seen anything in the various Youtube videos of Trespasser I've seen to back that up. In fact I remember one where you interrupt his conversation with the Divine and he takes it with relative grace.

 

Yes, I took Caer Bronach away from bandits and then my soldiers were training up the locals to defend it and the surrounding area. My troops were a stabilizing force intent on weeding out Venatori and other baddies, you'd think that it would be appreciated considering Ferelden was in chaos and I'd be willing to bet any money coming through there would have been split between the Inquisition and the crown.

The thing is that Loghain was, as far as Teagan knew, the man best placed to handle the darkspawn. If whether or not someone was a stabilizing force was Teagan's biggest priority, Teagan would have gone with Loghain.

 

 

There should have been an alliance there, Teagan was acting like he had something to hide or that he was paranoid about something. He turned into a pss poor leader in Trespasser.

You are an armed NGO that has popped up in the middle of his country, and doesn't answer to him, his superiors, or the Church, or the international community, or anyone. You're also in command of a large spy network. Varric even jokes you could conquer Ferelden by looking east. I don't think most national leaders would see that and think "allies." Orlais does, but my understanding is that they're hoping to control you. Probably part of why they want that is that they fear that if they don't, you'll wind up controlling them.

[Gervaise]

If the Inquisitor had done some questionable stuff then Teagan's attitude would be more understandable.   One of the weaknesses of Trespasser is that he says exactly the same things whether you are a paragon of virtue or a ruthless tyrant, who incidentally didn't bother taking the fortress or saving the villagers of Crestwood but totally ignored their plight whilst on your way to meet with Hawke's contact.    

 

There was a conversation with Josephine where you had to indicate whether you were doing something on behalf of Tevinter or Nevarra, since both were claiming sovereignty of the area you were to take action in.   What they should have done was have a similar sort of conversation if you did occupy Caer Bronach, where she reports that Teagan, as overlord for the area, has requested his fort back and how do you want to respond?    Then a response in the negative would give some justification for his attitude.

 

Some actions at the War Table are done on the sly without revealing the Inquisitions involvement but there are plenty of others where you are actually asked to intervene.   One of these was Denerim itself (I can't remember if this is only if Alistair is king), where you are specifically asked by the monarch to help and having eliminated the Venatori agents, receive a letter of thanks from them.    I don't recall doing anything in Ferelden that either wasn't requested (the villagers of Crestwood were asking for help) or at least helped restore order.     

 

The only really dodgy thing was if you did Champions of the Just, where for some reason it required a delegation of Orlesian nobles deep within Ferelden territory.   May be this was done to balance out the fact that in Hushed Whispers you take unilateral action to retake Redcliffe Castle from the Venatori.    However, neither of these are given as a reason why Teagan might be upset with you.   Instead he focuses on Caer Bronach which, as you point out, had been occupied by bandits that were severely impacting on trade in the area even before the undead turned up.

[Xilizhra]

Well, that's the decision I had in mind when I said I made a questionable decision because I thought it made more sense than the alternative. But still, I can understand if Teagan has some misgivings. I'm not sure there's any reasoned moral objection one can give, but a lot of people apparently think it's creepy. Even Leiliana doesn't like this, and she's the advisor who tells you you should do it.

 

And really, why did the necromancers have to use corpses? Anything can be possessed by a spirit in this setting. Anything. I get the psychological warfare aspect of it, but that still means the whole point of this is that it's creepy. So naturally Teagan's going to be creeped out.

 

I'm not even necessarily saying that the Inquisitor shouldn't do it, only that if Teagan knows and is disturbed it's understandable.

I think it's much, much easier for spirits to possess corpses than most other things, as it happens so often. The only thing we've really seen them possess otherwise is trees, and that's in a place where the Veil is extremely weak. They also tend to go crazy there, in ways that corpse-possessing spirits don't.

[VivainaDX]

 

He was pretty accusing in the scene with Loghain. And while I've heard accusations that Teagan was being pretty abrasive (and agree that that would be somewhat out of character) I haven't really seen anything in the various Youtube videos of Trespasser I've seen to back that up. In fact I remember one where you interrupt his conversation with the Divine and he takes it with relative grace.

 

 

 

Cool thing about opinions, everyone has them. Teagan's attitude came across to me as rude, abrasive and out of line, you can consider it legit all you want it's not going to change my opinion. I would find it poor writing if they don't go back and expand on what happened because what they did with it was crappy, but if what I saw from the interview talking about Trespasser, the guy being questioned gave some pretty unsettling descriptions of how Trespasser came to be. They were more interested in getting the Quanari into the Deep Roads, (cause the players like Quanari and the Deep Roads) and just threw in the lyrium as a reason for the Quanari to be there. Sure, it looked good and it was okay to play, but the story and some characters were poorly written. IMO

[VivainaDX]

 

 

The thing is that Loghain was, as far as Teagan knew, the man best placed to handle the darkspawn. If whether or not someone was a stabilizing force was Teagan's biggest priority, Teagan would have gone with Loghain.

 

 

 

?? Are you referring to DAO here? Teagan and Eamon both seemed to see Alister and the Grey Wardens best suited to fight darkspawn, not Loghain. If you're talking about DA-I, Loghain wasn't an option in my play throughs. I don't understand were you're going with this one. Sorry. 

[VivainaDX]

 

You are an armed NGO that has popped up in the middle of his country, and doesn't answer to him, his superiors, or the Church, or the international community, or anyone. You're also in command of a large spy network. Varric even jokes you could conquer Ferelden by looking east. I don't think most national leaders would see that and think "allies." Orlais does, but my understanding is that they're hoping to control you. Probably part of why they want that is that they fear that if they don't, you'll wind up controlling them.

 

Considering up to that point the crown was failing the people, the Chantry was failing the people and all the international leaders were at a standstill, the formation of the Inqusisition was necessary. What made these leaders who were more concerned about maintaining their power than they were about the welfare of their people, worthy of being in control? It wasn't the Inquisitions fault if Teagan couldn't keep RedCliff so he had to go pouting to the king about it. I don't know how you do your playthroughs, but in mine, I pretty well stayed straight and narrow and for what my IQ went through to keep Ferelden safe, I'd say Teagan's attitude was rather brutal. He's travelling the path of secrecy and paranoia and it's suspicious. 

[DDJ]

Considering up to that point the crown was failing the people, the Chantry was failing the people and all the international leaders were at a standstill, the formation of the Inqusisition was necessary. What made these leaders who were more concerned about maintaining their power than they were about the welfare of their people, worthy of being in control? It wasn't the Inquisitions fault if Teagan couldn't keep RedCliff so he had to go pouting to the king about it. I don't know how you do your playthroughs, but in mine, I pretty well stayed straight and narrow and for what my IQ went through to keep Ferelden safe, I'd say Teagan's attitude was rather brutal. He's travelling the path of secrecy and paranoia and it's suspicious. 

 

It is a case of let someone else do all the heavy lifting as long as we benefit from it.  Note:  Ferelden did not offer troops during the pushes the Inquisitor made.  Instead we had Orlais.  Perhaps King Alastair should have gotten off his throne and helped a tad.  Then again, he did offer the rebel mages sanctuary in his uncle's home helping to perpetuate the Mage Rebellion in Ferelden and all the attendant violence that the Inquisition put down.

 

Perhaps we should have conquered Ferelden. 

[VivainaDX]

It is a case of let someone else do all the heavy lifting as long as we benefit from it.  Note:  Ferelden did not offer troops during the pushes the Inquisitor made.  Instead we had Orlais.  Perhaps King Alastair should have gotten off his throne and helped a tad.  Then again, he did offer the rebel mages sanctuary in his uncle's home helping to perpetuate the Mage Rebellion in Ferelden and all the attendant violence that the Inquisition put down.

 

Perhaps we should have conquered Ferelden. 

Ok...I draw the line at attacking Ferelden....I'm actually a great fan of the land of the Dog Lords.    I'm Ferelden 4 Life, man. That's probably part of the reason why Teagan's attitude offended me so badly. The guy didn't even give me a chance!    *sniff*  Now I'm stuck with Orlais as an ally...so sad...  

[DDJ]

Ok...I draw the line at attacking Ferelden....I'm actually a great fan of the land of the Dog Lords.    I'm Ferelden 4 Life, man. That's probably part of the reason why Teagan's attitude offended me so badly. The guy didn't even give me a chance!    *sniff*  Now I'm stuck with Orlais as an ally...so sad...  

 

UGH.  I hadn't thought of that.  I withdraw my plan to conquer Ferelden and instead put forth the proposition that an Exalted March on Bioware may be necessary if they do not announce another Dragon Age soon.

[VivainaDX]

UGH.  I hadn't thought of that.  I withdraw my plan to conquer Ferelden and instead put forth the proposition that an Exalted March on Bioware may be necessary if they do not announce another Dragon Age soon.

YES!!! I demand retribution!!! There better be a more satisfying conclusion to this Teagan issue too! Dammit Teagan! All my IQ needed was a mabari puppy and a hobbit hole in the Hinterlands and my Inquisition would've been at your disposal! Ya blew it, idiot!  :/

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Cool thing about opinions, everyone has them. Teagan's attitude came across to me as rude, abrasive and out of line, you can consider it legit all you want it's not going to change my opinion. 

Okay, but can you actually back your opinion up? For example by pointing to a specific bit where Teagan was ruder or more accusing in Trespasser than he was in that one cutscene in Origins that he was actually facing Loghain in?

 

 

?? Are you referring to DAO here? Teagan and Eamon both seemed to see Alister and the Grey Wardens best suited to fight darkspawn, not Loghain. If you're talking about DA-I, Loghain wasn't an option in my play throughs. I don't understand were you're going with this one. Sorry. 

Well, to start off with, yes I'm talking about Origins. I thought that was obvious given that I presented Loghain as an alternative to the Wardens rather than as a Warden.

 

Two things about Teagan and Eamon preferring the Wardens to Loghain as allies against the darkspawn: one, Teagan refuses to follow Loghain at a point when he isn't aware that there are any Wardens left to prefer to Loghain, since he knows the basics of what happened at Ostagar but not that Alistair and the PC are alive. Two: I don't know if Teagan or Eamon ever found out the real reasons you should have Wardens in an incursion and need them during a Blight. And unless you know that they're able to take the Taint without dying of it and that you can't kill an Archdemon without one you'd probably conclude that you can handle a Blight without one if you have a large enough army. Which means that short of inviting Orlais in (which is something best avoided if possible, though it is a legitimate move if it can't be avoided) Loghain would rationally look like the best bet for handling the Blight.

 

 

Considering up to that point the crown was failing the people, the Chantry was failing the people and all the international leaders were at a standstill, the formation of the Inqusisition was necessary. 

The problem with this argument is that to the best of my knowledge nobody is disputing that the Inquisition was necessary. Teagan is merely asking whether it still is. I don't think there's much of a case that it is, and as I understand it his case that it's a danger to the rest of Thedas starts looking really good by the end of the DLC.

 

 

What made these leaders who were more concerned about maintaining their power than they were about the welfare of their people, worthy of being in control? It wasn't the Inquisitions fault if Teagan couldn't keep RedCliff so he had to go pouting to the king about it.

The thing is, the king/queen/ruling couple does show up when Teagan "goes pouting to them" and throws the mages out of Redcliffe rather than try to force them into submission. Their objection is less "you rebelled against me" than "you threw my people out of their homes." When Teagan sends you a letter saying that he wants money to repay the damage to Redcliffe none of the things he cites are things that directly inconvenience him; rather, he cites a whole lot of damage to his peasants' property. "More concerned about maintaining their power than... about the welfare of their people" doesn't seem to work here.

 

 

I don't know how you do your playthroughs, but in mine, I pretty well stayed straight and narrow and for what my IQ went through to keep Ferelden safe, I'd say Teagan's attitude was rather brutal. He's travelling the path of secrecy and paranoia and it's suspicious. 

Well, even if you don't occupy Caer Bronach or do anything else directly against Ferelden's interests, you're still an armed NGO with a large castle on his border that doesn't answer to anyone, and my understanding is that the country that previously conquered his own country is trying to take control of you. I don't see how you think being concerned about a large, armed NGO in your country ruled by one person is paranoid, especially if Orlais actually is trying to take control of them.

 

And if you do occupy Caer Bronach, you're occupying a fortress in Ferelden territory without actually asking anyone for permission. Sure, you had to take the fortress, but I find it bewildering that you don't understand why Teagan is upset that you still have soldiers in it two years later. Heck, if he argued you never should have moved soldiers into it at all he'd have a leg to stand on.

 

In short, I really don't get why you find any of this suspicious. It's business as usual for rulers to think along these lines.

 

As for your assertion that you played the straight and narrow: did you get a high enough Approval from Blackwall to get his personal quest? Any decision you can make apart from letting Blackwall die is arguably something that rulers should find distressing. (Note that even if you did let him die, or didn't get the quest, the rest of that still stands.)

[Asha'bellanar]

I contend, by the way, that there's nothing at all wrong with animating a bunch of corpses and using them to fight for you. It protects the living, after all.

Well, that's certainly the position of the Nevarran Mortalitasi. According to the specialist trainer in Inquisition (for a mage Inquisitor), it's seen as a way of honouring the dead, at least in Nevarran culture.

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, that's the decision I had in mind when I said I made a questionable decision because I thought it made more sense than the alternative. But still, I can understand if Teagan has some misgivings. I'm not sure there's any reasoned moral objection one can give, but a lot of people apparently think it's creepy. Even Leiliana doesn't like this, and she's the advisor who tells you you should do it.

 

How about 'I am afraid you will use your undead soldiers to massacre my people so that you can raise more undead soldiers to massacre my people'?

 

When war has a cost, deterrence by casualty count has value. If nothing else, someone is weaker afterwards then before, and so more vulnerable to someone else even if they win. When war is profitable, and gets more so with every battle, it has less so. If you use necromancy, I would have every reason to believe you are more likely to engage in war because it's cheaper and more profitable for you to do so. The more you fight- and especially the more you win- the stronger you become.

 

The threat of undead armies against the living is that it's a double-win mechanic. Not only are you more likely to win, but you're more likely to gain power to keep winning more by raising the corpses of your enemies. That seems like a great advantage... but really just benefits the most powerful already, and favors their conquest of weaker neighbors under numbers of corpses generated. Much easier to abuse than you'd think.

 

If you think certain weapons should be forbidden in warfare for moral reasons, necromancy can certainly apply as well.

[Xilizhra]

How about 'I am afraid you will use your undead soldiers to massacre my people so that you can raise more undead soldiers to massacre my people'?

 

When war has a cost, deterrence by casualty count has value. If nothing else, someone is weaker afterwards then before, and so more vulnerable to someone else even if they win. When war is profitable, and gets more so with every battle, it has less so. If you use necromancy, I would have every reason to believe you are more likely to engage in war because it's cheaper and more profitable for you to do so. The more you fight- and especially the more you win- the stronger you become.

 

The threat of undead armies against the living is that it's a double-win mechanic. Not only are you more likely to win, but you're more likely to gain power to keep winning more by raising the corpses of your enemies. That seems like a great advantage... but really just benefits the most powerful already, and favors their conquest of weaker neighbors under numbers of corpses generated. Much easier to abuse than you'd think.

 

If you think certain weapons should be forbidden in warfare for moral reasons, necromancy can certainly apply as well.

While it's worth considering, the idea of "don't make warfare too easy by preserving all of your people" strikes me as placing an abstraction over people's lives. It just needs to be leashed with the proper philosophy, which is, I assume, why Nevarra hasn't already conquered everything in sight with armies of the dead.

[Sifr]

If we exclude some characters, I could say that: "Betraying is the Fereldan national pastime"

 

With all the historical examples in Fereldan lore, would be rather apt to have the (unofficial) motto of Ferelden be;

 

"Curse your sudden, but inevitable, betrayal..."

[DDJ]

With all the historical examples in Fereldan lore, would be rather apt to have the (unofficial) motto of Ferelden be;

 

"Curse your sudden, but inevitable, betrayal..."

 

Amen to that.  Their nobles seem as a whole to be an ungrateful bunch.  One thing that everyone is missing here is that the Inquisitor is the threat, not the Inquisition itself.  Even if you disband the Inquisition the Inquisitor remains a threat to the establishment which, with the exception of Orlais, did little to aid their people.  Heck, it can be argued reasonably that Alastair contributed to hurting his people.  Ultimately they will not be content with the Inquisitor on the loose, and the chantry zealots, regardless of who is divine, will not want a Herald of Andraste running about possibly undermining their authority.  As much as I hate to say it, I would not be surprised if both tried to assassinate the Inquisitor.  Nor frankly if your Warden survived DAO would it surprise me if the Wardens did not try to have them put out of the way to avoid having Warden secrets revealed of which HoF knows a ton.

[VivainaDX]

Okay, but can you actually back your opinion up? For example by pointing to a specific bit where Teagan was ruder or more accusing in Trespasser than he was in that one cutscene in Origins that he was actually facing Loghain in?

 

 

Well, to start off with, yes I'm talking about Origins. I thought that was obvious given that I presented Loghain as an alternative to the Wardens rather than as a Warden.

 

Two things about Teagan and Eamon preferring the Wardens to Loghain as allies against the darkspawn: one, Teagan refuses to follow Loghain at a point when he isn't aware that there are any Wardens left to prefer to Loghain, since he knows the basics of what happened at Ostagar but not that Alistair and the PC are alive. Two: I don't know if Teagan or Eamon ever found out the real reasons you should have Wardens in an incursion and need them during a Blight. And unless you know that they're able to take the Taint without dying of it and that you can't kill an Archdemon without one you'd probably conclude that you can handle a Blight without one if you have a large enough army. Which means that short of inviting Orlais in (which is something best avoided if possible, though it is a legitimate move if it can't be avoided) Loghain would rationally look like the best bet for handling the Blight.

 

 

The problem with this argument is that to the best of my knowledge nobody is disputing that the Inquisition was necessary. Teagan is merely asking whether it still is. I don't think there's much of a case that it is, and as I understand it his case that it's a danger to the rest of Thedas starts looking really good by the end of the DLC.

 

 

The thing is, the king/queen/ruling couple does show up when Teagan "goes pouting to them" and throws the mages out of Redcliffe rather than try to force them into submission. Their objection is less "you rebelled against me" than "you threw my people out of their homes." When Teagan sends you a letter saying that he wants money to repay the damage to Redcliffe none of the things he cites are things that directly inconvenience him; rather, he cites a whole lot of damage to his peasants' property. "More concerned about maintaining their power than... about the welfare of their people" doesn't seem to work here.

 

 

Well, even if you don't occupy Caer Bronach or do anything else directly against Ferelden's interests, you're still an armed NGO with a large castle on his border that doesn't answer to anyone, and my understanding is that the country that previously conquered his own country is trying to take control of you. I don't see how you think being concerned about a large, armed NGO in your country ruled by one person is paranoid, especially if Orlais actually is trying to take control of them.

 

And if you do occupy Caer Bronach, you're occupying a fortress in Ferelden territory without actually asking anyone for permission. Sure, you had to take the fortress, but I find it bewildering that you don't understand why Teagan is upset that you still have soldiers in it two years later. Heck, if he argued you never should have moved soldiers into it at all he'd have a leg to stand on.

 

In short, I really don't get why you find any of this suspicious. It's business as usual for rulers to think along these lines.

 

As for your assertion that you played the straight and narrow: did you get a high enough Approval from Blackwall to get his personal quest? Any decision you can make apart from letting Blackwall die is arguably something that rulers should find distressing. (Note that even if you did let him die, or didn't get the quest, the rest of that still stands.)

 

#1- The tone of his voice came across as snotty and condescending, he sounded more like a snooty noble than he did a diplomat. There was no one point, it was how his character was played. Every other scene he was in in the series he was always soft spoken, patient and proper. In Trespasser he sounded more like Loghain or Howe than Teagan and that made him appear untrustworthy. 

 

#2- To hell with Blackwall, I don't follow his storyline the guy creeps me out. I'm always relieved when he disappears from the stables. I know his story, the Orlesians can have him.

 

#3- I find it bewildering that Teagan never approached the Inquision about taking Caer Bronach back! What happened to his diplomacy skills?? It's not the Inquisitions fault that the option was never granted at the war table, I'd have gladly tossed him the keys to the place. You're also ignoring the fact that most of the Inquisition troops in Ferelden ARE FERELDENS. They joined to protect there country not over take it and IF there were any orders they felt were harmful to the nation there would've been many soldiers leaving the Inquisiton not joining it. I find it difficult to believe that a skilled diplomat would not know which way the leader of the Inquisitions leans when it comes to Ferelden vs Orlais, I know my Inquisitor would've been working more on the Ferelden side because up to that point all my decisions and actions supported the Ferelden objectives and key people on my team viewed the Orlais lifestyle with disdain. HELL even my commander felt it necessary to rescue a Ferelden mabari from the Orlesian capitol. Any misunderstandings would be Teagan's fault and that's why I find it suspicious.

 

#4- A good diplomat KNOWING it's rival was trying to take over an armed NGO on it's border would have MORE of a reason to ally with the NGO and not antagonize it. He SHOULD know everything there is to know about the people running it and take advantage of their common goals, not doing so gives the appearance that their goals are not aligned and makes one wonder then, what ARE Teagans goals? Why is he not getting better acquainted with the Inqusition and using them as a buffer against a possible threat? I know my side is more than willing to workout agreements and deals, why not his? Why is so secretive all of a sudden? What happened to the ever patient always diplomatic man Fereldens have grown to love and trust? You're only looking at it from the dark side, I'm looking at it from the POV that my team would've been working hard to cement freindlt ties with Ferelden(a country they are fond of) and was rejected by Teagan.

[DDJ]

#1- The tone of his voice came across as snotty and condescending, he sounded more like a snooty noble than he did a diplomat. There was no one point, it was how his character was played. Every other scene he was in in the series he was always soft spoken, patient and proper. In Trespasser he sounded more like Loghain or Howe than Teagan and that made him appear untrustworthy. 

 

#2- To hell with Blackwall, I don't follow his storyline the guy creeps me out. I'm always relieved when he disappears from the stables. I know his story, the Orlesians can have him.

 

#3- I find it bewildering that Teagan never approached the Inquision about taking Caer Bronach back! What happened to his diplomacy skills?? It's not the Inquisitions fault that the option was never granted at the war table, I'd have gladly tossed him the keys to the place. You're also ignoring the fact that most of the Inquisition troops in Ferelden ARE FERELDENS. They joined to protect there country not over take it and IF there were any orders they felt were harmful to the nation there would've been many soldiers leaving the Inquisiton not joining it. I find it difficult to believe that a skilled diplomat would not know which way the leader of the Inquisitions leans when it comes to Ferelden vs Orlais, I know my Inquisitor would've been working more on the Ferelden side because up to that point all my decisions and actions supported the Ferelden objectives and key people on my team viewed the Orlais lifestyle with disdain. HELL even my commander felt it necessary to rescue a Ferelden mabari from the Orlesian capitol. Any misunderstandings would be Teagan's fault and that's why I find it suspicious.

 

#4- A good diplomat KNOWING it's rival was trying to take over an armed NGO on it's border would have MORE of a reason to ally with the NGO and not antagonize it. He SHOULD know everything there is to know about the people running it and take advantage of their common goals, not doing so gives the appearance that their goals are not aligned and makes one wonder then, what ARE Teagans goals? Why is he not getting better acquainted with the Inqusition and using them as a buffer against a possible threat? I know my side is more than willing to workout agreements and deals, why not his? Why is so secretive all of a sudden? What happened to the ever patient always diplomatic man Fereldens have grown to love and trust? You're only looking at it from the dark side, I'm looking at it from the POV that my team would've been working hard to cement freindlt ties with Ferelden(a country they are fond of) and was rejected by Teagan.

 

Well put.  Teagan does come off snooty and out of character, and if I had to guess, the actor was not familiar with DAO, or the writer, possibly both.  It wouldn't be a topic if they used someone new - Bann Thinbottom for example.  

 

It is not precisely true that the Inquisition answers to no one.  It answers to the Inquisitor who is outside the control of the establishment.  That is what Alastair ./ Teagan fear and Orlais wants to control.  The chantry wants to control them, and as I always play as an elf (but the same could be said of dwarves and qunari) having an influential Herald of Andraste who is so well known is a major problem.  The Herald's influence will not wane with the disbanding of the Inquisition.   My suspicion is that an attempt will be made to put them out of the way.

[VivainaDX]

Well put.  Teagan does come off snooty and out of character, and if I had to guess, the actor was not familiar with DAO, or the writer, possibly both.  It wouldn't be a topic if they used someone new - Bann Thinbottom for example.  

 

It is not precisely true that the Inquisition answers to no one.  It answers to the Inquisitor who is outside the control of the establishment.  That is what Alastair ./ Teagan fear and Orlais wants to control.  The chantry wants to control them, and as I always play as an elf (but the same could be said of dwarves and qunari) having an influential Herald of Andraste who is so well known is a major problem.  The Herald's influence will not wane with the disbanding of the Inquisition.   My suspicion is that an attempt will be made to put them out of the way.

Exactly!!! Teagan should've been trying to support the IQ, had all the bad feelings come from a Nevarran or a Kirkwaller, none of what was said to disband the Inquisition would've bothered me, but it came from Teagan! WTF??!!! That is a serious flaw right there!