The Hero of Ferelden (and maybe Alistair) maybe saved Redcliffe. He doesn't talk smack about them. He talks smack about an order they had to straight up abandon to rule Ferelden. I'm not sure what's so difficult about this idea to get. Liking the HOF =/= loving the Grey Warden order.
He's absolutely convinced you're trying to undermine and usurp the Ferelden throne. That's literally his entire argument: the paramilitary organisation on his border that set up to end the Breach is continuing to operate with impunity in absence of a breach, having conquered sovereign Fereldan territory and having set up military bases (e.g. Caer Bronach).
He's making a political show of it because he's grandstanding for an audience: Orlais and the Divine. His job is to say that Ferelden wants the Inquisitor and Inquisition out.
I still don't think it's a fair comparison. I understand his concerns, the danger that the Inquisition as an organization poses, especially considering how easily it's role can be reinterpreted to suit the whims of the current Inquisitor, or how easily it could become a puppet power to Orlais. I agree with his position, but I still say that it doesn't make sense to equate his reaction to Loghain, who is in his eyes a power mad traitor and regicide, with his reaction to a flourishing organization spreading military and diplomatic influence throughout southern Thedas. Trying to yell the latter into submission sounds more stupid than politically calculating.
He's grandstanding badly, is my point.
Alright, let's say that I'm wrong and that this is the true Teagan while my previous perception was a fantasy I conjured in my head under the influence of nostalgia and rose colored glasses. He looks nothing like him. He sounds nothing like him. I see no trace of DAO Teagan in this cynical curmudgeon.
My whole argument here isn't just about one aspect of his presentation, and it's not about him bruising my tender feelings by not being nice enough to my protagonist. My argument is that they're using a popular character to fill the roll of stock obstructive bureaucrat and hoping that the audience's history with that character will get us to take the things he's saying seriously. They might be right, but I still think it's unnecessary, and maybe a bit manipulative as a method of storytelling.
You haven't played Soliders Keep. They were exiled because a mad man ruled Ferelden and they got involved in politics (with the Couslands support, i may add).
But we don't know if Teagan knows this. He only uses it as an example that an order like The Grey Wardens and now the Inquisition who are above the law or make their own laws shouldn't exist any longer when their purpose is fullfilled. Though in my canon, Alistair and Nelisja Cousland would definitely have told Teagan about what really happened at Soldiers Peak. Unfornately my headcanon is not the same as Bioware's and their vision for characters i have my own stories for, like Teagan. They should have chosen another noble for the Ferelden representative, but i don't know who could have filled the role.
But we don't know if Teagan knows this. He only uses it as an example that an order like The Grey Wardens and now the Inquisition who are above the law or make their own laws shouldn't exist any longer when their purpose is fullfilled. Though in my canon, Alistair and Nelisja Cousland would definitely have told Teagan about what really happened at Soldiers Peak. Unfornately my headcanon is not the same as Bioware's and their vision for characters i have my own stories for, like Teagan. They should have chosen another noble for the Ferelden representative, but i don't know who could have filled the role.
You haven't played Soliders Keep. They were exiled because a mad man ruled Ferelden and they got involved in politics (with the Couslands support, i may add).
Sure I have; and since I played it, I remember that part were there's absolutely no evidence to ever really redeem the Wardens, even if the entire event comes to light. Sophia Dryden, because of her moral compass, abandons the Wardens neutrality and decides to make a play for the Crown. The whole point of the neutrality is so that rulers - even tyrants - will allow the Wardens to be armed and operate within their borders knowing their immune.
If the extent of that neutrality extends only so far as a Warden approves of your rule, well, that's not any kind of neutrality. It's the same thing with the Inquisition. Having it be "neutral" only insofar as the Inquisitor approves™ of your politics isn't much of a guarantee of neutrality - it's a constant threat.
I still don't think it's a fair comparison. I understand his concerns, the danger that the Inquisition as an organization poses, especially considering how easily it's role can be reinterpreted to suit the whims of the current Inquisitor, or how easily it could become a puppet power to Orlais. I agree with his position, but I still say that it doesn't make sense to equate his reaction to Loghain, who is in his eyes a power mad traitor and regicide, with his reaction to a flourishing organization spreading military and diplomatic influence throughout southern Thedas. Trying to yell the latter into submission sounds more stupid than politically calculating.
He's grandstanding badly, is my point.
Alright, let's say that I'm wrong and that this is the true Teagan while my previous perception was a fantasy I conjured in my head under the influence of nostalgia and rose colored glasses. He looks nothing like him. He sounds nothing like him. I see no trace of DAO Teagan in this cynical curmudgeon.
My whole argument here isn't just about one aspect of his presentation, and it's not about him bruising my tender feelings by not being nice enough to my protagonist. My argument is that they're using a popular character to fill the roll of stock obstructive bureaucrat and hoping that the audience's history with that character will get us to take the things he's saying seriously. They might be right, but I still think it's unnecessary, and maybe a bit manipulative as a method of storytelling.
Well, no. Apart from the somewhat suspicious circumstances in which Loghain retreated and the fact his brother is sick, Teagan has exactly no evidence that Loghain did anything untoward. The fact that he deems - in fact, publically declares! - Loghain to be a power mad traitor who betrayed Cailain, in open court and without any evidence apart fro his unsubstantiated suspicions, is totally consistent with his playing Jump To Conclusion with the Inquisition's motivation in Trespasser. The only difference between these two scenarios is that, firstly, we know whether he's right or wrong and, secondly, we're not on the receiving end of his ire in DA:O. But Teagan is the same unstable hot-head in both games.
The Inquisition isn't " a flourishing organization spreading military and diplomatic influence throughout southern Thedas". It's an extra-national organization that's amassed a number of noble allies, a (relatively) huge military force, and a network of species. One of these aspects of the organization dominates, and it operates with complete impunity and total disregard of the Ferelden Crown within its territority. It's annexed at least one major strategic Keep, and has turned the local population into, essentially, an annexed fiefdom.
Loghain could just say he's claiming the Regency on a temporary basis, because of the betrayal of his liege-lord by the Grey Wardens, a traitorous organization that once again has made a play for the Crown, but that's just worldplay.
The Teagan you think you know from DA:O is the charming side of the same hot-head Loghain had to deal with at the Landsmeet. Loghain could sputter all sorts of justifications for what he did - we hear him offer them at the Landsmeet, after all. Teagan isn't impressed, to say the least.
Your argument is predicated on an impression of the character from DA:O that isn't supported by the evidence, and is largely driven by your subjective experience of the nicer qualities of the character, which he simply happens not to show to you in Trespasser.
I refuse to believe that that was really Teagan. My head canon is that was the DAI version of TW3's "Dudu" until the writers gives me a chewable explanation of why Teagan is acting that way. Specially towards the Grey Wardens, and specially if Alistair and Cousland are the reigning monarchs.
^ This. I really want an explanation from Bioware. Teagan is one of my favorite characters in the Dragon Age franchise. It's very unusual for Bioware to change a character this much without an explanation. Sure, I can kinda understand him being hostile towards the Inquisition, but the Wardens? That just came out of left field. My jaw dropped when he insulted them. I'm in denial until Bioware gives us a satisfying explanation.
So everybody in the end of inquisition act crazy...
Wardens went crazy
Mages went crazy
Templars went crazy
Now even Teagan went crazy....
I am really confused.
^ This. I really want an explanation from Bioware. Teagan is one of my favorite characters in the Dragon Age franchise. It's very unusual for Bioware to change a character this much without an explanation. Sure, I can kinda understand him being hostile towards the Inquisition, but the Wardens? That just came out of left field. My jaw dropped when he insulted them. I'm in denial until Bioware gives us a satisfying explanation.
The satisfying conclusion is that Teagan has absolutely no reason to even remotely care about the Grey Wardens as an order, even if Alistair is his bestie and married to one, and he's always been a partisan hack. He just happened to be on our side the last time we saw him being one. Remember, this is the guy who suckers you into saving Redcliffe (or at least tries to) when you first show up.
Well, no. Apart from the somewhat suspicious circumstances in which Loghain retreated and the fact his brother is sick, Teagan has exactly no evidence that Loghain did anything untoward. The fact that he deems - in fact, publically declares! - Loghain to be a power mad traitor who betrayed Cailain, in open court and without any evidence apart fro his unsubstantiated suspicions, is totally consistent with his playing Jump To Conclusion with the Inquisition's motivation in Trespasser. The only difference between these two scenarios is that, firstly, we know whether he's right or wrong and, secondly, we're not on the receiving end of his ire in DA:O. But Teagan is the same unstable hot-head in both games.
The Inquisition isn't " a flourishing organization spreading military and diplomatic influence throughout southern Thedas". It's an extra-national organization that's amassed a number of noble allies, a (relatively) huge military force, and a network of species. One of these aspects of the organization dominates, and it operates with complete impunity and total disregard of the Ferelden Crown within its territority. It's annexed at least one major strategic Keep, and has turned the local population into, essentially, an annexed fiefdom.
Loghain could just say he's claiming the Regency on a temporary basis, because of the betrayal of his liege-lord by the Grey Wardens, a traitorous organization that once again has made a play for the Crown, but that's just worldplay.
The Teagan you think you know from DA:O is the charming side of the same hot-head Loghain had to deal with at the Landsmeet. Loghain could sputter all sorts of justifications for what he did - we hear him offer them at the Landsmeet, after all. Teagan isn't impressed, to say the least.
Your argument is predicated on an impression of the character from DA:O that isn't supported by the evidence, and is largely driven by your subjective experience of the nicer qualities of the character, which he simply happens not to show to you in Trespasser.
Whether his assumptions are correct or well founded is not an essential part of my argument, because I'm talking about what he believes a lot more than why he believes it. His reaction to Loghain's betrayal is personal as well as political. Whatever he thinks of the Inquisition, there’s no canonical evidence that he believes it did any personal or malicious harm to any of his family.
I still say it's a different case.
And again, it's not my most important point. The character is ten years older than the last time we saw him, and he's unrecognizable. I'm questioning the writer's decision to take a character that was very popular with the fan base, as using him to make a point in universe without taking pains to make him familiar to that fan base. The bottom line, I don't think it was a wise decision.
The fact that he deems - in fact, publically declares! - Loghain to be a power mad traitor who betrayed Cailain, in open court
Whether his assumptions are correct or well founded is not an essential part of my argument, because I'm talking about what he believes a lot more than why he believes it. His reaction to Loghain's betrayal is personal as well as political. Whatever he thinks of the Inquisition, there’s no canonical evidence that he believes it did any personal or malicious harm to any of his family.
I still say it's a different case.
And again, it's not my most important point. The character is ten years older than the last time we saw him, and he's unrecognizable. I'm questioning the writer's decision to take a character that was very popular with the fan base, as using him to make a point in universe without taking pains to make him familiar to that fan base. The bottom line, I don't think it was a wise decision.
It's not a different case. He's not yelling at Loghain because he believes Loghain poisoned Arl Eamon. He's yelling at Loghain because he thinks he's a traitor who abandoned Cailan to die. It's not about family, but about his perception of Loghain as a threat. He sees the Inquisition as the same kind of threat. It's not even hard to see why he sees the Inquisition as a threat.
The writers didn't change Teagan's personality, or his reaction. To say that they took a popular character as some kind of "gotcha" is absurd, as there's no evidence for it.
To me - and I do apologize if this comes across as abrupt - it sounds as if the basis of your complaint is simply that you wanted Teagan to like your protagonist, and you're upset he doesn't.
No public declaration of the kind. I thought Teagan was the only wolf among all the sheep in front of Loghain. He questioned and rightly so. That's a lot lot different from what he's doing in trespasser.
No, it isn't. He's calling the Inquisitor out for running a para-military organization with absolutely no oversight, no regard for Ferelden's sovereignity (an organization that that was formed in direct opposition and in borderline rebellion from the Chantry, that continues to operate after its stated purpose ended (definitively, which is actually unlike the Wardens)), and that has literally conquered and annexed part of Ferelden.
The Inquisition only comes across as nobly and heroic because we are - but from any reasonable external perspective the Inquisition is a huge threat.
It's not a different case. He's not yelling at Loghain because he believes Loghain poisoned Arl Eamon. He's yelling at Loghain because he thinks he's a traitor who abandoned Cailan to die. It's not about family, but about his perception of Loghain as a threat. He sees the Inquisition as the same kind of threat. It's not even hard to see why he sees the Inquisition as a threat.
I know that he's yelling about Cailan. Cailan, his nephew, i.e. family I'm referring to. I'm probably not going to change my mind in the belief that a character's reaction to someone betraying and murdering his king and nephew along with a whole big bunch of other people, whether he's indisputably correct in that assumption or not, should be a bit different from his reaction to someone or something that hasn't murdered his king and nephew and a whole bunch of other people. I'm going to insist that it's not a completely unreasonable opinion to have. I'm willing, even suggesting, for us to agree to disagree on this.
I don't know how I can possibly convince you that I also see why he perceives the Inquisition as a threat. I agree with him that the Inquisition is a threat. It's an unstable, mutable organization with a vague mandate. That's friggin' scary. Were I in Thedas, I'd be all about disbanding that International League of Evil waiting to happen. In fact, until the diverging options at the end of Trespasser proved me wrong, I was convinced that the Inquisition was completely set to be a powerful, antagonistic force in a future game. I don't have a problem with his opinion, because it was my opinion before I even knew that it was also his.
The writers didn't change Teagan's personality, or his reaction. To say that they took a popular character as some kind of "gotcha" is absurd, as there's no evidence for it.
I didn't say it was a "gotcha" at all. I speculated that the writers are using Teagan to represent a perspective on the Inquisition that the player may not automatically be inclined to entertain. The same thing that they did with Merrill, and Anders, and and Fenris, and Dorian. Bioware has used characters to represent varying stances on Thedasian controversies from the start. I think they're even on record acknowledging that strategy. When discussing Vivienne before the release of DAI, a dev mentioned that the players may not care about the restoration of the circle, but they might care about Vivienne enough to consider it more important.
It was theoretically a smart move to pick Teagan as an anti-Inquisition mouthpiece. He's popular enough to make a few players consider his point just because it is his point. This thread exists only because it's my opinion that they fumbled on the execution.
To me - and I do apologize if this comes across as abrupt - it sounds as if the basis of your complaint is simply that you wanted Teagan to like your protagonist, and you're upset he doesn't.
It doesn't come across as abrupt, but maybe a bit presumptuous considering how thoroughly I've denounced that basis. I've always respected your opinion, and I usually agree with it. You are, in fact, one of the last posters on the BSN that I like to find myself in contention with. I can't understand why you won't give me the benefit of the doubt when I tell you that my reaction to this is at least marginally more self aware and mature than a temper tantrum over a favorite character being mean to my protagonist.
Would I personally have enjoyed an encounter with the charming, pleasant Teagan I remember more than the encounter I got? Yes certainly, but that's not why I made this thread. I made this thread because I think that the entirety of his portrayal could have been better. If he had done everything the same, but looked and sounded--voice wise--even a bit more like the Teagan I remember, I would have probably just grumbled about it a little, and maybe mentioned that I didn't personally enjoy his role as yet another bombastic bureaucrat.
I made this thread because I think there's something more here than just my personal, emotion driven reaction to the character. I think that the devs miscalculated. If I can't convince you of that, I'm just going to have to accept that, and again, agree to disagree.
I know that he's yelling about Cailan. Cailan, his nephew, i.e. family I'm referring to. I'm probably not going to change my mind in the belief that a character's reaction to someone betraying and murdering his king and nephew along with a whole big bunch of other people, whether he's indisputably correct in that assumption or not, should be a bit different from his reaction to someone or something that hasn't murdered his king and nephew and a whole bunch of other people. I'm going to insist that it's not a completely unreasonable opinion to have. I'm willing, even suggesting, for us to agree to disagree on this.
I don't know how I can possibly convince you that I also see why he perceives the Inquisition as a threat. I agree with him that the Inquisition is a threat. It's an unstable, mutable organization with a vague mandate. That's friggin' scary. Were I in Thedas, I'd be all about disbanding that International League of Evil waiting to happen. In fact, until the diverging options at the end of Trespasser proved me wrong, I was convinced that the Inquisition was completely set to be a powerful, antagonistic force in a future game. I don't have a problem with his opinion, because it was my opinion before I even knew that it was also his.
I didn't say it was a "gotcha" at all. I speculated that the writers are using Teagan to represent a perspective on the Inquisition that the player may not automatically be inclined to entertain. The same thing that they did with Merrill, and Anders, and and Fenris, and Dorian. Bioware has used characters to represent varying stances on Thedasian controversies from the start. I think they're even on record acknowledging that strategy. When discussing Vivienne before the release of DAI, a dev mentioned that the players may not care about the restoration of the circle, but they might care about Vivienne enough to consider it more important.
It was theoretically a smart move to pick Teagan as an anti-Inquisition mouthpiece. He's popular enough to make a few players consider his point just because it is his point. This thread exists only because it's my opinion that they fumbled on the execution.
It doesn't come across as abrupt, but maybe a bit presumptuous considering how thoroughly I've denounced that basis. I've always respected your opinion, and I usually agree with it. You are, in fact, one of the last posters on the BSN that I like to find myself in contention with. I can't understand why you won't give me the benefit of the doubt when I tell you that my reaction to this is at least marginally more self aware and mature than a temper tantrum over a favorite character being mean to my protagonist.
Would I personally have enjoyed an encounter with the charming, pleasant Teagan I remember more than the encounter I got? Yes certainly, but that's not why I made this thread. I made this thread because I think that the entirety of his portrayal could have been better. If he had done everything the same, but looked and sounded--voice wise--even a bit more like the Teagan I remember, I would have probably just grumbled about it a little, and maybe mentioned that I didn't personally enjoy his role as yet another bombastic bureaucrat.
I made this thread because I think there's something more here than just my personal, emotion driven reaction to the character. I think that the devs miscalculated. If I can't convince you of that, I'm just going to have to accept that, and again, agree to disagree.
Let me try to illustrate my difficulty. You describe Teagan as follows:
Arl Teagan Guerrin of Dragon Age: Origins is a patient, kind, deliberative person with the most courtly manners of any Ferelden the series ever shows. He was thoughtful and diplomatic
That is absolutely nothing like the Teagan I saw in DA:O. The Teagan I saw as a manipulative liar - when he saw the HOF waltz into Redcliffe, he immediately plotted to trick you into saving Redcliffe, by lying that there was no way for you to reach the Castle without first saving the village. That's the opposite of integrity. The Teagan I saw as a hot-head - he publically denouced Loghain, who at that point was still one of the greatest heroes in Ferelden, with absolutely no evidence besides "Isn't it convenient that...", in what amounted to a public rant and a outright accusation of treason. His hot-headed denunciation seems to have started an outright civil war. That's the opposite of thoughtful or diplomatic.
So what I struggle with, ultimately, is why you see Teagan as being patient, kind, deliberative, or thoughtful/diplomatic. That's - to me- nothing like his character. He just happens to be generally polite and pleasant to the HOF if you happen to save Redcliffe. Well, apart from when he outright dismisses you to run to save Connor, which is also the opposite of thoughtful.
He was heroic - he wanted to save Redcliffe. And he stood up to Loghain, which looks heroic from our perspective (because we knew what happened). But apart from his charming manner, I don't see those traits.
So this is why - and again, I really do apologize, because I do value and appreciate you as a poster, and I really am dissapointed in myself for giving any offence - I think that your views are partly influenced just by liking Teagan. Not just in how he's portrayed in DA:I, but in terms of who he is in DA:O.
Let me try to put it this way: I think that the Teagan you liked as a character doesn't exist. Which is why I think your frustration comes from Teagan not being kind - because the only thing that makes Teagan seem anything like the character you describe is that he happens to align with the HOF in goals (stop Loghain, save Redcliffe) and he's polite (and charming) rather than rude (and aburpt).
This is why the original analogy I went with was that, in DA:I, we're the Loghain character in his story. He treats us like Loghain.
As for it being Cailan, that's not really a justification. Losing a family member doesn't equate with just accusing anyone who happened to come back alive to being a power-mad traitor, especially without evidence. That's not something a diplomatic, thoughtful person does - it's what a hot-head does.
First, forgive my wall of text. Some ideas I thought I'd put to print while they're fresh.
Read Teagan's toolset notes, In Exile. Your assessment of his character (while I can see your perspective) is way off base. Teagan isn't a 'lying, manipulative hothead'. He has flaws, but those aren't among them. First among them is Teagan often defers to the expertise of others because he lacks confidence. He's the one in the best situation to deal with the undead menace in Redcliffe, but he defers to the warden. And really, if he had been more confident, nothing would have been going on except Eamon's poisoning when the player arrives. It gives the player something more to do than just 'go look in on old guy sleeping'. It showcases Connor's situation and that of young, untrained mages in general. Beyond that, yes, he didn't say anything about the tunnel leading in, but the village was in dire straits and he knew it. It was the only way to get you to help. Had he said, I have a way to get inside the keep, most players (except the most completionist) would have skipped the battle altogether and gone into the keep. Especially after doing it 10-12 runs. In this, he is an effective story/quest hook.
How awful, "he plotted to trick" your warden into saving all those lives.
Why must Teagan's reasons for calling out Loghain be only because it's a reaction to his king being dead? I read it as a reaction to both his king and his family--not just Cailan but Alistair as well--being dead. Teagan is the only Guerrin who displays genuine pleasure at Alistair's surviving Ostagar. If you don't have him in your party, he asks after news of Alistair (Did he die? Is he alive?) Teagan's second toolset notes state he will call out someone when he sees injustice being shown. Loghain doesn't just return and bully the bannorn into accepting his regency, he also doesn't give up any explanations for Ostagar, and slanders the wardens laying the blame on them for what happened. The Bannorn are still waiting a year later at the second Landsmeet for answers that never came. And no, I don't want to turn this into a discussion/debate about Loghain's behavior.
Even his stance during this confrontation is defensive, with arms folded across his armored chest, his feet shuffling from side to side and looking askance. He's not comfortable there. You can see it in his body language. I expect he fully expected Loghain's supporters to cut him down on the spot for speaking up at all. He isn't calling him a power mad traitor, he's just demanding answers to questions Loghain is side-stepping.
Family is very important to Teagan. He puts up with Isolde, loves his brother and nephew--and Alistair as a 'sort of' nephew. In a letter you find in Trespasser, Alistair even calls him "Uncle Teagan".
On topic, in the parameters of this situation, I went into Trespasser with an open mind. Okay the unfortunate combination of Loghain/Howe traits in his face made me wish for a bag to cover him up with, but Teagan is still Teagan, albeit an irascible Teagan. He's not there to be friendly with the PC. He's there to make the point across that the Inquisition needs to disband--and the events that transpire demonstrated that to my particular inquisitor in spades. The thing he said about the wardens is a reference to old history (anyone know what he says in the instance of wardens being exiled after Adamant?) And during Corypheus they were a threat. If it is common knowledge that they were controlled and part of Justinia's assassination, it is even easier to see his point of view. He isn't referring to the HoF and Alistair, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people took umbrage at his words because "warden" was used in a less than complimentary tone.
The wardens were corrupted by their very desire to protect mankind. Blackwall even says that was a crappy thing to do, to turn that desire to do good and use it for his (Corypheus') own ends. Right now, the wardens are under a PR crisis, and their secretiveness has come back to bite them on the ass. And it would hardly have done his case any good to say "Well, this happened 200 years ago, but the last couple of wardens were alright guys, so I was all cool till this happened. But of course, the Hero and Alistair resisted this problem." If you did Warden's Peak, you finish it learning that Sophia was no angel, and the wardens were used then by her as well. Something Teagan is afraid will happen again.
The other delegate, the Orlesian is all 'stumble all over himself to prove how accommodating Orlais will be' obsequiousness that frankly, I found so saccharine I thought I was going to develop diabetes if I had to listen to him much longer. Teagan hates politics (or did during Origins, there wasn't any new information in Inquisition to disavow this personality trait), his trips to Denerim involved more hunting trips with his nephew than Landsmeet concerns. His holdings in Rainesfere are small, and he deferred to Eamon on all matters of governance (he won't even assume more than managerial duties in the hopes you can revive his brother). Again, this plays into his lack of confidence.
Orlais is champing at the bit to re-annex Ferelden, and here's this mook trying to get the Inquisition into his pocket to use it's influence/martial troops to give it that much more power to grab more real estate for the Empire. I am unsure how different the situation is if you have Celene ruling. So far, with the "Gaspard rules from the grave" bug, I didn't get to see what, if anything changes.
Add to that, the Inquisition owes it's loyalty to no one. Two years of having them sitting on your doorstep, hovering like a vulture and uncertain of their motives would ruin anyone's day. There is a reason the only option to keep the Inquisition leaves it as Divine Victoria's personal force.
So, I'm going to go on the assumption that this was Teagan, having the mother of all bad days, even worse than when Redcliffe was under assault by undead. So much so, he's lost all patience dealing with it all. Not a good quality for an ambassador to have, but we all have bad days eh?
So, this is Teagan. On a really bad day. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Bioware certainly isn't going to change it, and I can see it within the parameters of his characterization.
Just get me an Orlesian mask. It worked for the Phantom. I wonder how well Teagan can sing? 
Remember, this is the guy who suckers you into saving Redcliffe (or at least tries to) when you first show up.
Apologies for being late into this discussion, but just wanted to throw in my input - played through this recently and immediately knew this was going to come up.
In Exile is completely right here. Here's the thing, we get an incredibly slanted projection of characters in Origins based entirely on circumstance. It's actually one of the great reasons the game is as fondly remembered as it is.
For instance, Bhelen and Harrowmont. From a glance most origins will find Harrowmont to be the good side because he's the less violent of the two. But then you happen to choose dwarf commoner and suddenly you get a character to speak for him, or you just take a step back and look at some of the things he actually wants to do with the society and compare it to the traditionalist that is Harrowmont...then at the traditions in Orzammar.
The most forthright example is Loghain, and while I could stir up another long argument over that here, I'd like to focus instead on one of the more forgotten aspects that occasionally sprouts up in discussions about our favorite secondary antagonist; Eamon and Teagan were not very great people. See, Origins did this thing were it painted Loghain as unnaturally malevolent through a lot of storytelling tricks when he in fact often had little or no involvement, or misrepresented involvement, in many situations, but what doesn't sprout up as much is that the exact opposite actually happens with Eamon and Teagan. Basically they're treated well because they're on your side and never really oppose you, seeming reasonable when speaking with you because they state everything you might want to hear...but they're also kinda dumb and, dare I say, hot-headed, inexperienced and unreasonable?
Teagan calls out Loghain at the council. We (can) see this as justified because we were there and the cinematics put Loghain in a negative light (justified our no). Yet let's actually look at what's going on here. Teagan wasn't there. He has absolutely no evidence Loghain did anything questionable and no real reason to put a person of Loghain's character to question - a person who has canonically served Ferelden with great sacrifice and devotion - other than because of the mildly implied bias of the nobility (read: Eamon and Teagan who are the only ones to actually bring it up) against an upjumped commoner. A commoner whose rise to prominence largely came about during a war they were too young to participate in and in a different country for, and stayed that way during a rein in which many of his heroic contributions came through events that wouldn't wind up widely talked about (see: The Calling). So basically he's calling out Loghain with no backing based completely on a personal bias. And to what end, exactly? We know Alistair ended up coming to the fold so they could tout him as heir, but Alistair wasn't in the picture at that point. There was nobody for him to back, aside from which Loghain isn't even technically in power, Anora was still held as queen at that point in time with Loghain assuming regency as a wartime general, which is fairly reasonable. So he's basically igniting this civil war (yes, him, not Loghain) during the blight...with no actual goal in sight, and it kinda just works out because Alistair happens to walk in awhile later. Alistair, who has no training as king and would essentially serve as a puppet to those backing him because to hell if he's not going to heavily rely on advisers. These are not the actions of a smart and reasonable man. More like a profoundly untrusting and biased man who has little ability to predict the future or determine threat.
Now we jump to Inquisition, and what do you know? He doesn't trust this organization which has grabbed hold of power in Ferelden with outwardly stated noble intentions. An organization which happens to not be lead by a Ferelden noble. That in mind, in this case he's kind of right. An organization with the power to just march into any territory and essentially take over a stronghold for what it views as right or wrong, without the permission or guidance of the country in question, is ripe for major power abuse, if not now then in the future. That's blatantly easy to see, even if we don't like it, being on the wrong end of the debate.
It occured to me the other day that Teagan's attitude has likely soured as a result of being Ferelden's ambassador to Orlais.
I know I'm the odd one out here, but I don't mind Teagan's apparent personality change. I've seen real life people change entirely in far less than ten years, and as others have pointed out, Teagan could easily behave one way to the Warden and put on a different face to deal with the Inquisitor.
What does bother me is that he's a terrible ambassador. He's aggressive and disrespectful. What were the Fereldan nobility thinking when they appointed him?
So everybody in the end of inquisition act crazy...
Wardens went crazy
Mages went crazy
Templars went crazy
Now even Teagan went crazy....
I am really confused.
Of course all these characters went crazy! You see, writing effective conflicts based upon reasonable competiting motivations and effective characterizations is really hard! The writers can't be expected to actually work on making a compelling story, not when they need to pat themselves on the back for having LGBT characters, so simply making individuals and organizations either become crazy or sudden turn into assholes is the ideal solution. I mean, Blizzard does it all the time, and no one's complained about it, right?
In all seriousness, though, it's incredibly frustrating how the only way Bioware can seem to create conflicts in their stories is to have someone act completely out of character. Teagan's lambasting of the Wardens in Trespasser is no different than the Wardens losing their brains, or the Dalish suddenly having a hard three-mage limit, or Fiona meekly submitting to Tevinter's leash: it's characterization (and lousy ones at that) being defined by the plot, not the other way around. And this brings to mind a bigger issue: why bother sympathizing with anyone if they're just going to become antagonists when the plot demands it? Why care what happens to the setting's characters if who they are changes on a whim any time the writers feel lazy?
They could have done some good things with Teagan in Trespasser, and there's plenty wrong with the Inquisition for him to criticize without turning into a Strawman Political. So why didn't they?
Not by making him oppose the Inquisition and distrust the Inquisitor, that's entirely fine. They ruined him by making him so bombastic and aggressive about it. Arl Teagan Guerrin of Dragon Age: Origins is a patient, kind, deliberative person with the most courtly manners of any Ferelden the series ever shows. He was thoughtful and diplomatic. Whoever this person is supposed to be, he seems more like Chancellor Roderick 2.0, and if that's what they felt they needed for this DLC they could have created a new character instead of ruining one of the most enduring likable established characters.
...end rant.
I've been formulating theories ever since finishing Trespasser to try and figure out why Teagan became so irascible and bitter.
The only one I could come up with is that that's how the character turns out if you don't let Jowan sacrifice Isolde to save Connor.
By the time Inquisition starts, Eamon is weak and frail - or worse, dead - and Isolde replaces him with Teagan. Hence all the bitterness. That's what happens when you ask a man to put up with a woman like that for ten years.
He lost all his hair, he no longer flirts with the ladies and is now wearing dreadful fashion. Teagan's a hero, a true survivor.
I didn't actually even recognize him at first. I heard the name but I just somehow... failed to connect this guy to the Teagan I really, really liked in DA:O. (My city Elf lady, who was used to hearing all sorts of slurs, was especially smitten by this polite and patient individual.)
Yes, I understand that it's been a while, circumstances are different, people change and he might have been under great stress but... it just didn't sound (and look) like the same guy, causing the whole character to feel inconsistent. If they needed to have such a confrontational and even disrespectful ambassador, I think they should have used someone else instead of giving this role to Teagan.
I've been formulating theories ever since finishing Trespasser to try and figure out why Teagan became so irascible and bitter.
The only one I could come up with is that that's how the character turns out if you don't let Jowan sacrifice Isolde to save Connor.
By the time Inquisition starts, Eamon is weak and frail - or worse, dead - and Isolde replaces him with Teagan. Hence all the bitterness. That's what happens when you ask a man to put up with a woman like that for ten years.
He lost all his hair, he no longer flirts with the ladies and is now wearing dreadful fashion. Teagan's a hero, a true survivor.
Hey, that's a solid theory. After all, last time I saw Teagan was with Hawke when Isolde interrupted their conversation by nagging about something trivial. Teagan seemed a little... stressed.
Hey, that's a solid theory. After all, last time I saw Teagan was with Hawke when Isolde interrupted their conversation by nagging about something trivial. Teagan seemed a little... stressed.
Now that you mention it, I remember this scene. The way she bossed him around...Maker's breath...
Man, this is one of those times when I hate to be right.
Retour en haut
