710 replies to this topic

[Beerfish]

This is like an argument between Tolstoy and Victor Hugo.

[DDJ]

Hm.   OK.  Don't really see how I can dislike Teagan.  He's right.  The Inquisition is a threat.  Shutting it down is indeed the best thing for Ferelden.  

 

The Inquisition is the visible forceful threat, but the real threat remains the Inquisitor.  At this point the Inquisitor is a nearly mythic, even religious, symbol whom the common folk follow.  No matter who rules the Chantry, Orlais or Ferelden, many will not tolerate a rival to Andraste, even her herald, nor a military force that soundly thrashed the Wardens and the Templars, ended the Mage Rebellion, exposed treason in Orlais ad infinitum.  The real danger comes from the Herald of Andraste's charismatic legend.  Putting them under the nominal control of anyone or disbanding them is only an attempt to isolate the Herald and, very likely, have him or her put out of the way.

[Dai Grepher]

If that were true, then why is the "Herald" still allowed to roam free at the end of Trespasser?

[TheKomandorShepard]

*Chop*

 

1.That is a hardly a good argument, how do you know Inquistion would return it?Considering that Inquistion was totally ready to seize control over Halamshiral because it suited them it isn't out of realm possibility that Inquistion kept it with reasoning that they are restoring order. 

 

2.It isn't plothole, as i said Corypheus army was destroyed in Arbor Wilds (therfore Corypheus went against Inquistion alone), even if there were remnants it isn't nothing that Orlais/Fereldn couldn't handle.Plus, Rifts required Inquistor not Inquistion.

 

3.That is terrible justification, you had no permission from monarch nor you are even a Ferelden noble and that is not even going into that kill the bandits request would require massive jump in logic to change it into seize the keep.That is nice that common folks liked Inquistion but i somehow doubt that Ferelden would be fine with foreign force seizing their lands just because folks liked it.Sure, seizing keep was forced from gameplay perspective in order to proceed with quest, in-universe however there is no reason that would prevent Inquistor from stopping undead without seizing keep.

 

4.I pretty much explained this one and beaten this horse to death.Ferelden didn't just want to reduce Inquistion numbers but also Inquistion gone, reduction of troops was just better alternative to maintaining it as whole as in both cases it would most likely be used to benefit Orlais.Total disbanding Inquistion is best outcome Ferelden could hope in that situation as that didn't put them in danger of Inquistion being used against Ferelden (even with troops reduced)

 

As for Teagan being aggressive it was valid strategy considering he was pushing for Inquistion being disbaned and Inquistion showed tendency to disregard Ferelden authority.So it wasn't about gaining Inquistor sympathy but rather than pushing for a certain outcome.

 

5.There would be some defectors but not sufficient enough to make a difference, aside from that Inquistion raised on Inquistor being holy figure he is percived as savior by his people.Somehow i doubt that many Ferelden would change Inquistor on Alistair/Anora that lost much of their popularity due whole mage thing.

 

6.Not rly, simply he could be informed by Ferelden, Orlesian and any other authorities when rift is discovered and go to close them and potentially send him/her with some troops to close a rift.Even without a help , from who or Inquistior would need a protection from, all he would need is some companions, the warden stopped blight while traveling with a few companions.

 

Some agents are hardly a problem, as i said Corypheus forces were demolished in Arbor Wilds.Some remanants are hardly a problem that a country wouldn't be able to handle.

 

 

7.What i meant is that chantry is an organisation that deals with charity in the setting , no point of Inquistion doing it.

 

8.Only marginally, those threats were nothing that couldn't be solved by country authorities or small groups of mercenaries.When it comes to agents Inquistion didn't gave better preformance than Ferelden or Orlais they were infested with Qunari and Solas agents.

 

*Chop

 

1.They did let Solas escape not deliberately but because of their incompetence, also it is very revelant here because it only provides more evidence that Inquiston isn't better suited to solve world (or at least Orlais/Ferelden) problems than Orlais/Ferelden.

 

2.You are making things up, we don't know exact numbers to call it a small from what i recall but almost whole Ferelden branch turned on Ferelden.Teagan had no reason to be "mad" on Ferelden nobles from the past because Ferelden nobles weren't under control of Inquistion, unlike wardens.He once again used it as a proper example.

 

3.<Facepalm> Seizing Ferelden Land? Delaying Ferelden attempts to call Exalted Council? Seizing palace, leaving during trial and not informing Ferelden authorities about the problem? By your insane troll logic Ferelden should be fine with Inquistion seizing Ferelden land just because divine says so.

 

4.Eee, what? Only way to make sure Orlais wouldn't use Inquistion for own purposes was to disban Inquistion. Dear god, you are painfully naive if you think Orlais or even Celene would care about being trustworthy, do you even know how Orlais functions?It would be seen as corrupted by Ferelden, that would be conquered Orlais wouldn't even blink if you backstabbed Ferelden.

 

5.Im astounded by your reasoning, "you are mistaken because i say so".I mistaken on what exactly Orlais not being trustworthy because i can point to historical examples and way Orlesian politics works and what kind of attitude it promotes.Or maybe that Inquistion didn't prove they are perfectly fine with disregarding Ferelden authorities for own purposes, i pointed them already.

 

 

6.You are completely ignoring reality and ramifications of inquistion remaning "independent" to fuel own narrative.In first place Inquistion remaning independent would be horrible deal for Ferelden because it wouldn't stop Inquistion from either allying with Orlais or being used by Orlais.Even if Inquistor had no such intentions and Inquistor already had no problem with sezing Ferelden land , there is no way to guarantee that his successor wouldn't ally with Orlais.

 

Inquiston greatly reduced in numbers and severing the chantry reduces the risks as it serves the divine and can't be pressured by Orlais.And in the end chantry rarely used it's own forces to benefit Orlais. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Well... the argument between deposing Anora and instituting Alistair is a separate issue. The issue at hand is stopping Loghain. The nobles were perplexed by Eamon trying to elect a young and untested bastard to the throne when the real concern was stopping Loghain. The thing is, Eamon saw (or at least claimed that) instituting Alistair to be the only way to stop Loghain.

So the nobles had no problem with the idea of stopping Loghain (Alfstanna was under the mistaken impression that Anora would lead and Loghain would advise her), they just questioned Eamon's plan. Beyond that, the nobles would have to make a choice eventually. If the Warden and Eamon are unable to stop Loghain by exposing his crimes, then their only option is to join him and hope for the best. The alternative is to let the blight claim all of Ferelden.

My argument (or one of my arguments) is that Teagan rebelled against Loghain before he knew he had any way of stopping Loghain by exposing his crimes. Which means that it's either join him and hope for the best, or let the Blight claim all of Ferelden. Unless I'm missing something you just made that portion of my point for me.

 

 

There were more than enough dissenters to reject Loghain and prevent him from being recognized. Zevran's intro scene confirms it, as Rendon tells Loghain it will be civil war after all.

The civil war is only halted because of the Landsmeet being called. The Landsmeet is a way of resolving the conflict.

We don't see how many people are on each side of the Civil War, though. The only hints of that we see are that

A: Howe offhandedly mentions that Loghain has allies in Zevran's intro scene

B: most of the attendees of the Landsmeet has to be won over from being Loghain's allies

C: the gossiper dialogues towards the end of the game imply that Loghain is well on his way to taking the Bannorn by force, which shouldn't be possible in the span of a year unless good swathes of it don't need persuasion.

 

 

No I think In Exile was claiming that Teagan had no reasons at all. The complaint was that he had no logical reasons or arguments in Trespasser, then In Exile argued that it was the same case when he opposed Loghain in Origins.

He explicitly admits that Teagan had reasons to be suspicious. His argument wasn't that Teagan had no reason to be suspicious, merely that Teagan angrily and sarcastically accused Loghain of regicide with only enough to justify suspicion. He further argues that jumping down Loghain's throat without any real proof that he deliberately killed Cailan sets a precedent for Teagan jumping to conclusions and then reacting angrily to those conclusions.

 

 

Well the banns do have legal right to refuse to follow a teyrn, for any reason or no reason. This isn't actually an act of rebellion. It's simply being uncooperative. The onus is on the teyrn to unite the banns to war with force, diplomacy, and grace in equal measure. So that's a separate issue.

The Codex doesn't say that he has to use force, diplomacy, and duplicity (grace is not in that Codex entry, btw) in equal measure, as opposed to Loghain's preferred method of using force, force and more force. It only says that that's how you do it successfully. And it also says that Ferelden lieges are owed military support, and that the force, duplicity and diplomacy are necessary because Ferelden nobles are notorious for not wanting to give military support to their liege despite demanding protection when they need it. Since Loghain was speaking with Anora's authority, and a large porportion of the nobility seems to have acknowledged this authority, there's a better case to be made than you want to admit that Teagan was committing treason.

 

 

I disagree, and I think Teagan reasoned that virtually anyone would have been better than Loghain at that point. Even if Anora handled the situation while Loghain resigned his commission, he probably would have gone along with that.

The main problem here is that Loghain is making unreasonable demands. Teagan is simply rejecting those demands. And like I wrote before, suspicion is a good reason. If Loghain did get Cailan killed on purpose, it means Loghain would be detrimental to Ferelden if he were to lead it. This would also mean rewarding corruption, treason, and regicide. Loghain's moral character was in doubt. It would have been foolish to elevate him under those circumstances.

Teagan wasn't favoring "virtually anyone." He was favoring no one. The country needed unity, and Loghain was the only one Teagan knew of that was providing any. It'd be one thing if Teagan already knew who he wanted to have lead instead of Loghain, because Eamon was well or because Teagan knew The Warden was an option. But instead he was rebelling against the only leader figure in sight, essentially arguing that having no leader is preferable to Loghain. Whether or not the law is on your side, that is a stupid thing to do. Even Eamon is willing to go along with Loghain if he has to, and he has more to use not going along with him than Teagan does. And there's a reason Eamon is willing to consider that.

 

 

He did have a basis. Loghain was in charge of the battle. He lost the battle, and he lost Ferelden's king.

These are the same reasons Anora questioned her father after a while. The conversation between Erlina, Eamon, and the Warden shows her saying this... "The queen, she is in a difficult position. She loved her husband, no? And trusted her father to protect him. When he returns with no king and only dark rumors, what is she to think? She worries, no? But when she tries to speak with him, he does not answer. He tells her 'not to trouble herself.' So she goes to Howe. A visit from the queen to the new arl of Denerim is only a matter of courtesy. And she demands answers."

She questioned her father and he told her not to trouble herself, so then she went to Howe, and that's when he locked her up. So the lost battle and the rumors were reasons enough for Teagan and other banns to deny Loghain's unreasonable demands for more power.

So Anora feels that asking Loghain some tough questions is justified on the same basis that Teagan feels that refusing to help Loghain with the darkspawn (and helping stir up the coming Civil War) is justified based on. I'll even concede that Anora was justified, but what does that have to do with whether or not Teagan was? You'll recall he did a bit more than ask questions.

 

 

I agree, because Loghain threw it before it began. Ishal was selected as his signal because he knew it would get overrun quickly, thus preventing the signal from being lit and giving him an excuse as to why he didn't charge.

Not having this argument again.

 

 

I think the rumors and the fact that Loghain did nothing to help Cailan were reasons enough, but even without that, Loghain lost the battle and the king. That is enough to deem him too incompetent to rule.

A: Rumors are not sufficient reason for anything except for asking questions.

B: I could get into whether or not Loghain could have saved Cailan, but that gets into that debate I don't want to have, so I'll content myself with saying that Teagan wasn't there and doesn't know whether or not Cailan could have been saved.

C: Being a competent general doesn't mean that you never fail. Holy boop, plans fail sometimes.

 

 

Even if we assume that Teagan jumped to conclusions for no reason in Origins, it should still be different in Trespasser because the situation in Trespasser is completely different from Origins. Arl Teagan is going before a group that he has no authority over to present concerns and make requests. This is entirely different from Bann Teagan using his authority to refuse to support Loghain in his selfish demands.

Teagan wouldn't necessarily see it as different. He saw himself standing up to a titan that was trying to take over the country and probably had the power to crush him in Origins. Judging by the fact that Varric says in the middle of the game that you can probably conquer Ferelden by looking east, he'll see the same situation here.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I highly doubt there are troops still stationed on that hill after two years. I mean, there's just no reason for it. As for Caer Bronach, that is much more likely to remain occupied since it served multiple functions. However, Ferelden's crown could have simply asked that it be returned to Crestwood, in which case I see no reason why the Inquisition would deny the request, or at least negotiate some kind of trade off. Then again, I can't see Ferelden requesting it back either, especially if Leliana is in charge of it and she was a veteran of the Fifth Blight. So I don't know, maybe Weekes made our Inquisitions bent on conquest when we weren't looking.

If you go back a few pages, you might find the part of this thread where I argued that he made them diplomatically disinclined jerks while we weren't looking.

 

That part of the argument is actually relevant here, because one of the bits of support I used was that we learn thirty seconds in that the new Divine was deflecting diplomats who wanted to meet with the Inquisition. Orlesian politicians, true, but Josephine views the Ferelden ones as a bigger threat. So if she's not negotiating with Orlais, why would she negotiate with Ferelden? And if she's not negotiating with them, how can they ask for Caer Bronach back?

[DDJ]

If that were true, then why is the "Herald" still allowed to roam free at the end of Trespasser?

 

They are permitted to roam free only to keep the Herald alive for future DA games.  What I am saying is that the real threat is the Inquisitor, and we do not really know what is planned for the future.  Of course, losing one arm might set them at ease, but the problem of the Herald still exists whether BW acknowledges it or not.

[Mlady]

I flirted with that guy! I'm disappointed but not surprised. Sadly it's been a lot of years though and war doesn't help. Also he's not exactly that nice when you meet him. You try and talk to him and he gets a bit rude until you break past his barrier but it really did not impress me. I also disliked his treatment of Jowan but I thought at least with Alistair as King he might have a chance to loosen up a bit. I think Alistair might have driven him a bit insane though lol at least in my game.

 

As for his attack on the Wardens, I think he was more or less unsure how to react to what they did and they weren't Ferelden Wardens. Orlais is still a sore spot to the people of Ferelden, and if we also think about Sophia and what she did, Wardens aren't that great even though the HOF just happened to be "perfect" if played correctly.

[thesuperdarkone2]

I flirted with that guy! I'm disappointed but not surprised. Sadly it's been a lot of years though and war doesn't help. Also he's not exactly that nice when you meet him. You try and talk to him and he gets a bit rude until you break past his barrier but it really did not impress me. I also disliked his treatment of Jowan but I thought at least with Alistair as King he might have a chance to loosen up a bit. I think Alistair might have driven him a bit insane though lol at least in my game.

As for his attack on the Wardens, I think he was more or less unsure how to react to what they did and they weren't Ferelden Wardens. Orlais is still a sore spot to the people of Ferelden, and if we also think about Sophia and what she did, Wardens aren't that great even though the HOF just happened to be "perfect" if played correctly.

The Ferelden wardens are with the Orlesian wardens. So he is also hating on the Ferelden wardens

[Mlady]

The Ferelden wardens are with the Orlesian wardens. So he is also hating on the Ferelden wardens

 

Yeah that's why I mentioned Sophia. She was the Ferelden Warden-Commander and by turning to blood magic everyone was massacred. And we can't forget Clarel.

[Illegitimus]

The Inquisition is the visible forceful threat, but the real threat remains the Inquisitor.  At this point the Inquisitor is a nearly mythic, even religious, symbol whom the common folk follow.  No matter who rules the Chantry, Orlais or Ferelden, many will not tolerate a rival to Andraste, even her herald, nor a military force that soundly thrashed the Wardens and the Templars, ended the Mage Rebellion, exposed treason in Orlais ad infinitum.  The real danger comes from the Herald of Andraste's charismatic legend.  Putting them under the nominal control of anyone or disbanding them is only an attempt to isolate the Herald and, very likely, have him or her put out of the way.

 

The threat the Inquisitor poses is ultimately a transient thing.  They could stir up a lot of problem with their status as a world savior but unless they decide that megalomania is truly the most fun of all the mental illnesses they probably won't.  But the Inquisition could last for centuries and end up dominating Ferelden the way the Wardens dominate the Anderfels if it isn't nipped in the bud right now.