715 réponses à ce sujet

[VivainaDX]

As I've repeatedly stated, I can't actually say that I think Bioware did a good job here. But on the other hand I don't think there's any "fix" for this plot that won't make things less credible.

 

And yes, you'd made your position clear. You just hadn't actually stated that you weren't willing to abandon it if I gave you actual reason to. (Although I was starting to suspect.)

 

(I've also repeatedly stated that this is just my impressions from Youtube, by the way. I don't think I'll actually get this DLC, partially because of these plot issues and partially because playing the Inquisitior as they're losing control of the Anchor doesn't look fun.)

Ok, we'll agree to disagree then and call a truce? The artwork was beautiful, the battles were good, there were some cute scenes, but the Teagan thing rankled me and some of the plot was weak. I'm not going to completely bash it, it did have it's good points, but it was also kind of discouraging.  

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Ok, we'll agree to disagree then and call a truce? The artwork was beautiful, the battles were good, there were some cute scenes, but the Teagan thing rankled me and some of the plot was weak. I'm not going to completely bash it, it did have it's good points, but it was also kind of discouraging.  

A truce works for me.

[Ghost Gal]

That was not Teagan. That was some other character who happened to have the same name.

[Asha'bellanar]

That was not Teagan. That was some other character who happened to have the same name.

It was Mayor Dedrick of Crestwood in a strange hat (I'm actually convinced they used the exact same model). Apparently, what happened was my Inquisitor exiled him, and then Teagan, who was weary of the job of being arl and just wanted to hang out with pretty women and flirt with them (and whatever else he could persuade them to do), brought him secretly back to Ferelden and they did a "trading places" thing. So the real Teagan is enjoying a delightful retirement in Antiva, sipping fine wine and eating delicious food and impressing all the ladies with his Bannhammer, while cranky old Gregory Dedrick is busy yelling at my Inquisitor, and the reason he's so cranky is my Inquisitor banished him for drowning a bunch of people and lying about it.

 

Yup. Pretty sure that's what happened.

[DDJ]

It was Mayor Dedrick of Crestwood in a strange hat (I'm actually convinced they used the exact same model.)

 

And this convinces me that an exalted march on Bioware is called for!  I am still trying to tie up loose ends from DAO, but DAI has even more.  I agree with his appearance.  Any similarity between Teagan of DAO and DA2 and that of DAI is purely coincidental.

[TheJediSaint]

I don't. Teagan was representing the interests of his country. Sovereign counties are generally not well disposed to large private armies camped out on their borders, no matter how nice the player character who leads them is.

[DDJ]

I don't. Teagan was representing the interests of his country. Sovereign counties are generally not well disposed to largeprivate armies camped out on their borders, no matter how nice the player character who leads them is.

 

I can't fault you on this, but he appears to have liked the Inquisitor well enough when Redcliff was liberated and returned to them.  Nor did Fereldan royalty object to having their lives saved in one of the table missions.  Be that as it may, the Inquisition as such was not their main problem.  The problem is the Inquisitor.  It is not so far fetched to consider that they will always view the Inquisitor as a threat much as Rome did Hannibal even when he was an old man.  Rome wanted Hannibal dead and succeeded at it.  I suspect that many in F and Orlais might feel the same.

[SmilesJA]

Teagan had some good points, the Inquisition did its job so it should disband.

[Asha'bellanar]

The problem is the Inquisitor.  It is not so far fetched to consider that they will always view the Inquisitor as a threat much as Rome did Hannibal even when he was an old man.  Rome wanted Hannibal dead and succeeded at it.  I suspect that many in F and Orlais might feel the same.

Interesting parallel. Napoleon, too, was a horrendous threat. They couldn't kill him or it would make him a martyr, so they exiled him and he managed to charm the locals and start up trouble again, so he had to be exiled even more rigorously, and even then he was considered a problem.

 

Ha. I never thought of the Inquisitor as Napoleon, but the comparisons aren't actually that far off... I can think of other parallels with Napoleon, too. Well, let's say Napoleon crossed with, oh, Joan of Arc (for the religious aspect). Interesting.

 

Oh! Oh, I just realised! Tiny cakes! There's a pastry called a Napoleon. Tiny cakes!

[DDJ]

Interesting parallel. Napoleon, too, was a horrendous threat. They couldn't kill him or it would make him a martyr, so they exiled him and he managed to charm the locals and start up trouble again, so he had to be exiled even more rigorously, and even then he was considered a problem.

 

Ha. I never thought of the Inquisitor as Napoleon, but the comparisons aren't actually that far off... I can think of other parallels with Napoleon, too. Well, let's say Napoleon crossed with, oh, Joan of Arc (for the religious aspect). Interesting.

 

Oh! Oh, I just realised! Tiny cakes! There's a pastry called a Napoleon. Tiny cakes!

 

Precisely, and since the Inquisitor is acclaimed as the Herald of Andraste, it is likely that members of the chantry will view him / her as a threat as well.  After all, one cannot have a Herald of Andraste running about without proper "supervision."  

[Phoe77]

I don't have a problem with Teagan's stance or his reasoning.  He just struck me as being uncharacteristically rude and aggressive  in this DLC.  I don't think he's ever been one to sugar coat things, but I imagined that he would at least acknowledge that the Inquisitor isn't such a bad guy, especially after they help him secure his lands (by doing it for him).

[ModernAcademic]

I don't have a problem with Teagan's stance or his reasoning.  He just struck me as being uncharacteristically rude and aggressive  in this DLC.  I don't think he's ever been one to sugar coat things, but I imagined that he would at least acknowledge that the Inquisitor isn't such a bad guy, especially after they help him secure his lands (by doing it for him).

 

That's because he's worried Orlais will have political influence over the Inquisition, with its military contingent still occupying a large part of Ferelden, two years after Corypheus' defeat.

 

Any former province would feel hostile toward the extended and unexplained occupation.

[In Exile]

I don't. Teagan was representing the interests of his country. Sovereign counties are generally not well disposed to large private armies camped out on their borders, no matter how nice the player character who leads them is.

 

Correction: large private armies in their borders, because the Inquisition annexed Ferelden territory, apparently corrects tax revenue from it, and otherwise operates with impunity within its borders. 

 

If we had a large paramilitary Christian cult - and the Inquisition is absolutely a cult, declaring their leader to be an anointed religious figure - there'd be a crisis. People are generally and in fact unreasonably accepting of the Inquisitor and Inquisition. 

 

I don't have a problem with Teagan's stance or his reasoning.  He just struck me as being uncharacteristically rude and aggressive  in this DLC.  I don't think he's ever been one to sugar coat things, but I imagined that he would at least acknowledge that the Inquisitor isn't such a bad guy, especially after they help him secure his lands (by doing it for him).

Tegan is a belligerent *******. The only reason people like him is because he was nice to the Warden - who, by the way, he desperately needed help from in DA:O. And he still lies and manipulates you. But we see exactly the kind of person Teagan is to people he thinks are threats: he's belligerent and combative with Loghain, and contributes a great deal to the fact that there is a civil war by publicly accusing Loghain of treason and storming out of the Landsmeet. 

 

As above, the Inquisitor just annexed part of Ferelden. 

[Asha'bellanar]

Correction: large private armies in their borders, because the Inquisition annexed Ferelden territory, apparently corrects tax revenue from it, and otherwise operates with impunity within its borders. 

I'm not arguing with you, but where is it brought out that the Inquisition was collecting taxes? I've played through the gave several times and done Trespasser (only once at this point), and while I remember Teagan complaining about the Inquisition occupying Caer Bronach near Crestwood (and he did have a point), but I don't recall anything about the Inquisition collecting taxes of any sort. The game implies that money comes from donations and trade and possibly selling the services of Inquisition soldiers. Did I miss something?

[Xilizhra]

An idea I had during Trespasser that I wish I could have brought up: why not sign a formal treaty with Ferelden and give back any territory of theirs that we took? That way, we can be a new bulwark against Orlais, and it would be in Ferelden's interest to keep us around.

[In Exile]

I'm not arguing with you, but where is it brought out that the Inquisition was collecting taxes? I've played through the gave several times and done Trespasser (only once at this point), and while I remember Teagan complaining about the Inquisition occupying Caer Bronach near Crestwood (and he did have a point), but I don't recall anything about the Inquisition collecting taxes of any sort. The game implies that money comes from donations and trade and possibly selling the services of Inquisition soldiers. Did I miss something?

 

My recollection was that Caer Bronach got a tithe from merchants and the outlying era for protecting it - that's basically what "taxes" were back in the day. It's been a while, but my general recollection was that the whole thing was pitched as Ferelden being unable to protect the common folk in the area, and the Inquisition stepping in, getting the attendant benefits of feudal lordship over the land. 

 

An idea I had during Trespasser that I wish I could have brought up: why not sign a formal treaty with Ferelden and give back any territory of theirs that we took? That way, we can be a new bulwark against Orlais, and it would be in Ferelden's interest to keep us around.

 

What reason would Ferelden have to believe the Inquisition would oppose Orlais at all? In the game, the Inquisition has much closer ties to Orlais and the Orlesian throne. Even if you did give the land back. It's part of why Ferelden is on the disband side. 

 

And then you have a bigger issue: what possible reason would Orlais have to not wipe you out - because then you've not only annexed their territory in e.g. Emprise du Lion, but now you've entering into treaties actively hostile to their interests. Exchanging a dog for a lion as a foe, so to speak. 

[Xilizhra]

What reason would Ferelden have to believe the Inquisition would oppose Orlais at all? In the game, the Inquisition has much closer ties to Orlais and the Orlesian throne. Even if you did give the land back. It's part of why Ferelden is on the disband side. 

 

And then you have a bigger issue: what possible reason would Orlais have to not wipe you out - because then you've not only annexed their territory in e.g. Emprise du Lion, but now you've entering into treaties actively hostile to their interests. Exchanging a dog for a lion as a foe, so to speak. 

Well, I'm not positive that the idea wouldn't be dumb, but Orlais was thrown out of Ferelden before, and I don't think it'd win against both Ferelden and the Inquisition, especially not with the Divine backing the Inquisition as well. Nevarra might get involved too.

[Steelcan]

Well, I'm not positive that the idea wouldn't be dumb, but Orlais was thrown out of Ferelden before, and I don't think it'd win against both Ferelden and the Inquisition, especially not with the Divine backing the Inquisition as well. Nevarra might get involved too.

that still doesn't provide the Inquisition a motive to oppose Orlais in the first place

[Gervaise]

I've mentioned on another post that if you read the Dragon Age Core rulebook 2015 that was issued on line for people who wanted to play D&D style, there is a section on Ferelden to say that unlike other countries where the nobility seem to be sacrosanct, in Ferelden their role in society is to protect the freeholders.   That is specifically seen as their job and if they fail in that role, then the freeholders feel perfectly entitled to give their allegiance and their tithes elsewhere.   

 

In DAI the nobility of Ferelden were invisible.   To my mind it was a fault of the writing to make them so but the fact is that apart from one or two individuals we encounter and some war table missions, the Ferelden nobility play no part in the events in the Ferelden side of the map.   The Inquisition has to protect the ordinary people from mages, Templars, starvation, bandits, wolves, demons, Venatori and Red Templars.   If we had not, they would have perished.    So when a banner at the crossroads or in a village proclaims "under the protection of the Inquisition" it is hardly surprising that people are going to choose to pay their taxes to us as apparently Ferelden custom allows.

 

Caer Bronach was under control of bandits.   That wasn't something that only a person with the mark could deal with, yet nothing had been done to shift them by the local nobility.   In fact it would seem they took up occupation because that keep had been abandoned by whosoever was responsible for it.   So, again, by Ferelden custom the Inquisition had simply assumed the role of the absent nobility.    If Caer Bronach belonged to Teagan, why hadn't he done something about it?    By the time we get to Crestwood, Redcliffe had already been restored to his family.   If Caer Bronach belonged to some other noble, why hadn't they taken action?   Unlike Haven, where we are confronted by an Orlesian noble who claimed title that had apparently been granted his wife by the monarch of Ferelden, no one ever turned up to take issue over our occupation of Caer Bronach until it was raised in Trespasser.   

 

If any of these things had occurred, then Teagan's objections would have had more validity.   If the monarch was happy giving title over Haven to an Orlesian, why couldn't they do the same for the Inquisition?     As I say, I feel it was a shortcoming of the writing to have no one raising the slightest objection to our activities before the events of Trespasser.    At the very least we should have had someone raising the matter before the council, perhaps Josephine drawing our attention to letters requesting the return of Caer Bronach to the crown and how did we want to respond?    As it was, when Teagan says we should hand it back, according to the Core Rule book we were quite entitled to say, "By the laws of Ferelden, why should we?   Let's put it to a vote of the freeholders."

[Milan92]

My recollection was that Caer Bronach got a tithe from merchants and the outlying era for protecting it - that's basically what "taxes" were back in the day. It's been a while, but my general recollection was that the whole thing was pitched as Ferelden being unable to protect the common folk in the area, and the Inquisition stepping in, getting the attendant benefits of feudal lordship over the land. 

 

Dammit! I just realize the Inquisitor could have invoked Prima Nocta.

[DDJ]

I've mentioned on another post that if you read the Dragon Age Core rulebook 2015 that was issued on line for people who wanted to play D&D style, there is a section on Ferelden to say that unlike other countries where the nobility seem to be sacrosanct, in Ferelden their role in society is to protect the freeholders.   That is specifically seen as their job and if they fail in that role, then the freeholders feel perfectly entitled to give their allegiance and their tithes elsewhere.   

 

In DAI the nobility of Ferelden were invisible.   To my mind it was a fault of the writing to make them so but the fact is that apart from one or two individuals we encounter and some war table missions, the Ferelden nobility play no part in the events in the Ferelden side of the map.   The Inquisition has to protect the ordinary people from mages, Templars, starvation, bandits, wolves, demons, Venatori and Red Templars.   If we had not, they would have perished.    So when a banner at the crossroads or in a village proclaims "under the protection of the Inquisition" it is hardly surprising that people are going to choose to pay their taxes to us as apparently Ferelden custom allows.

 

Caer Bronach was under control of bandits.   That wasn't something that only a person with the mark could deal with, yet nothing had been done to shift them by the local nobility.   In fact it would seem they took up occupation because that keep had been abandoned by whosoever was responsible for it.   So, again, by Ferelden custom the Inquisition had simply assumed the role of the absent nobility.    If Caer Bronach belonged to Teagan, why hadn't he done something about it?    By the time we get to Crestwood, Redcliffe had already been restored to his family.   If Caer Bronach belonged to some other noble, why hadn't they taken action?   Unlike Haven, where we are confronted by an Orlesian noble who claimed title that had apparently been granted his wife by the monarch of Ferelden, no one ever turned up to take issue over our occupation of Caer Bronach until it was raised in Trespasser.   

 

If any of these things had occurred, then Teagan's objections would have had more validity.   If the monarch was happy giving title over Haven to an Orlesian, why couldn't they do the same for the Inquisition?     As I say, I feel it was a shortcoming of the writing to have no one raising the slightest objection to our activities before the events of Trespasser.    At the very least we should have had someone raising the matter before the council, perhaps Josephine drawing our attention to letters requesting the return of Caer Bronach to the crown and how did we want to respond?    As it was, when Teagan says we should hand it back, according to the Core Rule book we were quite entitled to say, "By the laws of Ferelden, why should we?   Let's put it to a vote of the freeholders."

 

This is an exceptionally well thought out point with which I agree.  In the end, except for the cameo appearance at R, the king was grateful and totally useless in attempting to deal with the problem where as Orlais did dedicate their armies to crushing the Red Templars.  Well put.  Perhaps Bioware should seriously consider putting you on the payroll to write the next game to help avoid the internal inconsistencies.  Now that I think on it I am back to why the h*** doesn't the Inquisition just conquer F and rule it justly and fairly rather than with the crappy rulers they have.  Perhaps they should have considered banners that said poorly ruled and protected by no one prior to the Inquisition's arrival.

[miss6gemini6]

I refuse to believe it's Teagan. Antivan Crows kidnapped the real Teagan, gotten him drunk and replaced him with Arl Howe's nephew. Oh, and they stole Solas' hat.

Except Howe has some great family members like Nathaniel Howe. I would prefer to believe Rendon Howe was a single dbag in a family full of people like Nathaniel.

I was completely shocked when I got the quest to speak to Teagan, but found a tool instead of who I believed I was meeting.

[DDJ]

Except Howe has some great family members like Nathaniel Howe. I would prefer to believe Rendon Howe was a single dbag in a family full of people like Nathaniel.

I was completely shocked when I got the quest to speak to Teagan, but found a tool instead of who I believed I was meeting.

 

Perhaps this was another Rendon Howe.  He may be the other bad guy in an otherwise good family.

[In Exile]

Except Howe has some great family members like Nathaniel Howe. I would prefer to believe Rendon Howe was a single dbag in a family full of people like Nathaniel.

I was completely shocked when I got the quest to speak to Teagan, but found a tool instead of who I believed I was meeting.

But Teagan is a tool. Again, he (tries to) trick you into murdering his enemies when you meet him, and starts a civil war in part by accusing Loghain of treason. I mean, Loghain was an idiot and all but invited it, but Teagan was a total tool at that meeting (unless he has mind reading powers). 

[DDJ]

But Teagan is a tool. Again, he (tries to) trick you into murdering his enemies when you meet him, and starts a civil war in part by accusing Loghain of treason. I mean, Loghain was an idiot and all but invited it, but Teagan was a total tool at that meeting (unless he has mind reading powers). 

 

I can't disagree with you.  I am not overly fond of Teagan's cameo in this DLC.  Surely Bioware could have come up with someone other than him since he does seem totally out of character.