139 réponses à ce sujet

[EdwinLi]

No Solas is not a psychopath.

 

He even says if you choose to Save Solas option in friendship/love version that he would be very happy if the Inquisitor proves him wrong, saves him, and finds another way. 

[Boost32]

No Solas is not a psychopath.
 
He even says if you choose to Save Solas option in friendship/love version that he would be very happy if the Inquisitor proves him wrong, saves him, and finds another way.

I agree, he is not a psychopath. But the whole "I will be happy if you show I'm wrong, but if you don't I will kill you and everything you love" is not only BS, but it is beyond insane too.

[TobiTobsen]

I agree, he is not a psychopath. But the whole "I will be happy if you show I'm wrong, but if you don't I will kill you and everything you love" is not only BS, but it is beyond insane too.

 

Victim blaming is always nice.

 

"Ugh... I wouldn't have to kill you all, if you would've just given me another idea than omnicide! I guarantee you that this hurts me way more than you!"

[Uirebhiril]

I still hold with the idea that he wants to be stopped. He can't stop himself, either because he's so driven by his plan or is being otherwise compelled, but he also really doesn't want to go through with it. Sort of. Not entirely really. It's probably a pretty complex tangle of emotions and thoughts going on in that head of his.

 

I do feel for him either way. He has no good option, because even if we can sit here and say he doesn't have to destroy the world but can live within it and find new things to love and live for, he still saw the end of everything he ever knew, and has to carry the burden of knowing it was his fault. Even if indirectly. He started out with good intentions, but we all know how that goes, and that amount of suffering is going to knock a few screws loose in anyone.

 

I'm not sure who initially came up with the character, but the whole team put together one hell of an antagonist in Solas. And no, he's still not a psychopath.

[Cobra's_back]

Leader, Commander, General, head honcho. Point is he had a mission, Felassan signed up for it and then later betrayed the cause. That is treason. Given he was ultimately answerable to Solas on the matter, I see no problem with Solas adjudicating the matter. Solas was the appropriate judiciary, that you happen not like him or his goals and sympathised with the defendant is irrelevant. 

 

 

 

You can have free will and choose to make bindings commitments which you would then be expected to follow through on. (Desertion is still a crime in volunteer armies.) How is this even hard to understand? 

 

I like Solas. He is a lovely dictator. I even gave him his own tragic elf lover.

 

Do I think he should kill the guy? NO. Remember Felassan didn't try to kill Solas. If he was a real general with a real army Felassan would get a trial. Felassan disagreed with his leader but wasn't trying to harm his people. He didn't commit treason.

 

 

Treason - the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. 

 

Felassan had a change of heart far from being traitorous. One can argue that he was helping their people. Since modern Elves are descendants of the ancient elves. 

 

your comment:"Desertion is still a crime in volunteer armies."

 

Okay, we don't execute them. They go to court, and get legal counsel. Have you heard of Bowe Bergdahl. Even in DAI people did worst and got a trial. 

 

 

Now here is what he thinks if you execute Florianne who tried to kill you, but is caught alive:

 

This will lead to another choice...

I will execute her myself. (Kill the duchess.) - DAIApproval Cassandra Slightly Approves, DAIApproval Sera Slightly Approves, DAIApproval Blackwall Disapproves, DAIApproval Cole Disapproves, DAIApproval Solas Disapproves

 

No double standards there.

[berelinde]

It's different when it's elves, ghostbusters101.

 

Seriously, though, I think Solas's experience in the Inquisition inspired a change of heart on a lot of matters. Not the biggest ones, mind you, but his outlook changes a lot between the purge of Halamshiral's alienage and Florianne's ball. It's possible that post-Conclave Solas would have let Felessan live.

[Cobra's_back]

It's different when it's elves, ghostbusters101.

 

Seriously, though, I think Solas's experience in the Inquisition inspired a change of heart on a lot of matters. Not the biggest ones, mind you, but his outlook changes a lot between the purge of Halamshiral's alienage and Florianne's ball. It's possible that post-Conclave Solas would have let Felessan live.

 

Good point. I really like Solars as the villain or the guy that repents. He is an interesting character. To be honest either path could play out nicely. 

[berelinde]

Good point. I really like Solars as the villain or the guy that repents. He is an interesting character. To be honest either path could play out nicely. 

Yeah, I'm liking how that whole thing developed. I could see several different endings to that character arc, and all are interesting. Just... if he returns as the antagonist in some later game, I'm really hoping that they continue to show the complex, "human" side. (Sorry, I know that word isn't at all appropriate, but I can't think of a better one. I mean "opposite of mustache-twirling, cat-stroking villain".) I love agonizing over decisions.

[Drasanil]

Okay, we don't execute them. They go to court, and get legal counsel. Have you heard of Bowe Bergdahl. Even in DAI people did worst and got a trial. 

 

We used to, and I have heard of Bergdahl, shame we stopped practice. As for those who we get to put on trial, some we're offered the option to kill out of hand like Servis before that point, and others we more often than not get the option to kill them, or worse, and it is at the Inquisitor's sole discretion. How is that different from Solas killing Felassan at his own discretion?  

 

Now here is what he thinks if you execute Florianne who tried to kill you, but is caught alive:

 

This will lead to another choice...

I will execute her myself. (Kill the duchess.) - DAIApproval Cassandra Slightly Approves, DAIApproval Sera Slightly Approves, DAIApproval Blackwall Disapproves, DAIApproval Cole Disapproves, DAIApproval Solas Disapproves

 

No double standards there.

 

Not a double standard there are key differences. By the time you expose Florianne she's broken and powerless and no longer a real threat. Felassan was still a real threat, not to Solas personally in the sense of physical harm, but to his agenda and goals. Killing him served a greater purpose where as Florianne was just a personal ganking. You'll also note that baring tranquility Solas tends to approve of some of the crueler [and almost certainly fatal eventually] options like exiling Denam to the wastes or humiliating the repentant Ser Ruth in a public spectacle before sending her off to do hard labour in the mines, which is almost a defacto death sentence. Provided they serve a purpose, namely setting an example for others. 

 

This is hardly a setting where 21st century moral values and legal rights hold sway. I hardly see why Solas not bothering to offer Felassan a lawyer before killing him is something that's worth getting our panties in a bunch over. Felassan betrayed Solas, put his plans in jeopardy and gave the Eluvian network to someone else,  PC's have killed for less. So I hardly fault Solas.

[QueenCrow]

 

This is hardly a setting where 21st century moral values and legal rights hold sway. I hardly see why Solas not bothering to offer Felassan a lawyer before killing him is something that's worth getting our panties in a bunch over. Felassan betrayed Solas, put his plans in jeopardy and gave the Eluvian network to someone else,  PC's have killed for less. So I hardly fault Solas.

 

I agree with you that for some it's standard practice to put one's own people to death for disobedience, failure to commit one's objective, or betrayal.  An Inquisitor might go the execution route.  Again, you're absolutely right, Drasanil, about execution being standard practice for some.  Though those of the Qun might resort to reeducation in such an instance, perhaps they might likewise go the execution route.  

 

The reason this situation with Felassan and Solas (if Solas did indeed kill Felassan for not taking control of the Eluvians from Briala) is different is this:

 

 I can't possibly relate all of the instances in which I had Solas and Iron Bull in my group and listened to Solas bit*h about how the Qun would annihilate individuality, deny people's choices, rob them of their freedom.  Those ideals of freedom, choice, and individuality that Solas banged on about in his bohemian way are exactly what he denied Felassan, if he did indeed kill Felassan.  That he doesn't seem to practice what he preaches is a big red flag that something is off.  It could be something as mild as usual, everyday hypocrisy.  Or it could be that in his overestimation (grandiose) sense of self, his cognitive break, he doesn't realize that he is doing exactly what he locked the Evanuris away for doing, after he encouraged their slaves to be free, make their own choices, and claim their individual free will.

 

In basic form, however, if the writers imbue Solas' personality with certain attributes (freedom, choice, individuality), then write actions that seem to oppose what he professes (killing one of his agents for making an individual choice of free will), what are we readers/gamers to think?  That the writer lost his/her way in the character?  Or that a character has been written who in the best case is dishonest and manipulative and in the worst case a potentially genocidal psychopath? 

 

To the original question, my answer is that I'm not sure.  I believe Solas has some psychopathic tendencies in the worst case.  But really, his psychological diagnosis isn't all that important to me.  What I've learned is that whatever the case, he's the reason my Inquisitor has trust issues.

[Drasanil]

I agree with you that for some it's standard practice to put one's own people to death for disobedience, failure to commit one's objective, or betrayal.  An Inquisitor might go the execution route.  Again, you're absolutely right, Drasanil, about execution being standard practice for some.  Though those of the Qun might resort to reeducation in such an instance, perhaps they might likewise go the execution route.  

 

The reason this situation with Felassan and Solas (if Solas did indeed kill Felassan for not taking control of the Eluvians from Briala) is different is this:

 

 I can't possibly relate all of the instances in which I had Solas and Iron Bull in my group and listened to Solas bit*h about how the Qun would annihilate individuality, deny people's choices, rob them of their freedom.  Those ideals of freedom, choice, and individuality that Solas banged on about in his bohemian way are exactly what he denied Felassan, if he did indeed kill Felassan.  That he doesn't seem to practice what he preaches is a big red flag that something is off.  It could be something as mild as usual, everyday hypocrisy.  Or it could be that in his overestimation (grandiose) sense of self, his cognitive break, he doesn't realize that he is doing exactly what he locked the Evanuris away for doing, after he encouraged their slaves to be free, make their own choices, and claim their individual free will.

 

In basic form, however, if the writers imbue Solas' personality with certain attributes (freedom, choice, individuality), then write actions that seem to oppose what he professes (killing one of his agents for making an individual choice of free will), what are we readers/gamers to think?  That the writer lost his/her way in the character?  Or that a character has been written who in the best case is dishonest and manipulative and in the worst case a potentially genocidal psychopath? 

 

But that's what you don't seem to understand. He didn't kill his agent for having free will. He killed his agent for betraying him, those are not the same thing. Felassan made a commitment knowing what it entailed of his own free will, then subsequently broke that commitment fully understanding the potential consequences of those actions.

 

Had say Felassan just told Solas from the start before commiting to anything "I want nothing to do with you leave me alone" and Solas had killed him for not stepping up your argument would make much more sense. As it stands though Felassan betrayed the cause, and in Solas' eyes his own people, for the benefit of others. If someone from Country A chooses to exercise their free will to sell state secrets to Country B should they not be held to account fr their actions because  it was all just "free will"?

[QueenCrow]

But that's what you don't seem to understand. He didn't kill his agent for having free will. He killed his agent for betraying him, those are not the same thing. Felassan made a commitment knowing what it entailed of his own free will, then subsequently broke that commitment fully understanding the potential consequences of those actions.

 

Had say Felassan just told Solas from the start before commiting to anything "I want nothing to do with you leave me alone" and Solas had killed him for not stepping up your argument would make much more sense. As it stands though Felassan betrayed the cause, and in Solas' eyes his own people, for the benefit of others. If someone from Country A chooses to exercise their free will to sell state secrets to Country B should they not be held to account fr their actions because  it was all just "free will"?

 

Well, here's the essence of our disagreement.  It's true that Felassan, of his own free will, chose not to follow an order he believed to be unethical - (this is my supposition based upon the context of Masked Empire).  It's true that he knew the consequences might be dire and after considering hiding, staying awake, he chose to toss the herbs into the fire and face the music.

 

In my mind, a reasonable Solas, especially one who advocates freedom, choice, and individuality in public sermons, would entertain why Felassan's view seemed to have changed with is experience.  An unreasonable tyrant Solas, in my thinking, would only be concerned with a subordinate refusing to serve his purpose.  And only a Solas with some kind of cognitive break would kill one of his own people in a quest to try and bestow the freedom and individual choice on his people that he claims the Evanuris were unfairly denying them.

 

I understand your perception of this singular situation, but have a differing opinion and reasoning for that opinion.

[Cobra's_back]

We used to, and I have heard of Bergdahl, shame we stopped practice. As for those who we get to put on trial, some we're offered the option to kill out of hand like Servis before that point, and others we more often than not get the option to kill them, or worse, and it is at the Inquisitor's sole discretion. How is that different from Solas killing Felassan at his own discretion?  

 

 

Not a double standard there are key differences. By the time you expose Florianne she's broken and powerless and no longer a real threat. Felassan was still a real threat, not to Solas personally in the sense of physical harm, but to his agenda and goals. Killing him served a greater purpose where as Florianne was just a personal ganking. You'll also note that baring tranquility Solas tends to approve of some of the crueler [and almost certainly fatal eventually] options like exiling Denam to the wastes or humiliating the repentant Ser Ruth in a public spectacle before sending her off to do hard labour in the mines, which is almost a defacto death sentence. Provided they serve a purpose, namely setting an example for others. 

 

This is hardly a setting where 21st century moral values and legal rights hold sway. I hardly see why Solas not bothering to offer Felassan a lawyer before killing him is something that's worth getting our panties in a bunch over. Felassan betrayed Solas, put his plans in jeopardy and gave the Eluvian network to someone else,  PC's have killed for less. So I hardly fault Solas.

 

I don't kill Servis. I turn him into an agent.  

 

I just don't see Felassan as a threat at all. He had an opportunity to warn Briala but never did.  His boss was a powerful dreamer. He could have easily tracked Felassan whenever he wanted. At least that is what we learned in the book and in DA2. Remember the dreamer that wiped out a gang for his future girlfriend. So the danger didn't seem real at all.

 

There are plenty of examples in DA where you can spare a life. I usually always do. 

 

I think Berelinde stated it best. Elves are different.

 

Remember, a reasonable Warden didn't kill the deserter in Awakening. If you do the other soldiers are pretty upset. 

 

Solas gave us the wrong impression. I took him everywhere, and he lectured all other members of the team about giving people choices, and how organizations are corrupt. 

 

 

A conversation with Iron Bull about free choice:

 

Iron Bull: Tell me something, Solas. Do you think the servants here are happier then the people living under the Qun in Par Vollen?

Solas: It doesn't matter if they are happy, it matters that they may choose!

Iron Bull: Choose? Choose what? Whether to do their work or get tossed onto the street to starve?

Solas: Yes! If a Ferelden servant decides that his life goal is to... become a poet, he can follow that dream!

Solas: It may be difficult, and he might fail. But the whole of society is not aligned to oppose him!

Iron Bull: Sure, and good for him. How many servants actually go do that, though?

Solas: Almost none! What does that matter?

Solas: Your Qun would crush the brilliant few for the mediocre many!

Iron Bull: And then people feel like crap for failing.

Iron Bull: When the truth is, the deck was stacked against them anyway.

 

Elves do see things differently.

 

As stated above, the writer can go either way with Solas dangerous villain or repentance. 

 

He is an interesting character, but he did needlessly murdered Felassan. Felassan already proved he wasn't going to alert the city elves because he left them.

 

[fizzypop]

A hall marker for psychopathy is no remorse or guilt. No empathy. He doesn't have that unless he's a REALLY good actor. Though they are suppose to be really good actors too. I would say he's more delusional. He has never really had the chance to fully integrate into society now. Massive culture shock.

[Jaison1986]

A hall marker for psychopathy is no remorse or guilt. No empathy. He doesn't have that unless he's a REALLY good actor. Though they are suppose to be really good actors too. I would say he's more delusional. He has never really had the chance to fully integrate into society now. Massive culture shock.

 

Technically speaking, isn't Qun-Bull an psychopath then?

[fizzypop]

Technically speaking, isn't Qun-Bull an psychopath then?

He would probably qualify yeah. I have always thought Qunari were psychopaths.

[Drasanil]

I don't kill Servis. I turn him into an agent.  

 

I never do either, guy's too awesome.

 

I just don't see Felassan as a threat at all. He had an opportunity to warn Briala but never did.  His boss was a powerful dreamer. He could have easily tracked Felassan whenever he wanted. At least that is what we learned in the book and in DA2. Remember the dreamer that wiped out a gang for his future girlfriend. So the danger didn't seem real at all.

 

That Felassan never did while still in his moment of doubt or immediately after making his choice, doesn't preclude the fact he would be far more inclined to act afterwords if allowed to continue on his chosen path. Similarly, Solas has other agents who signed up presumably for a similar deal, allowing Felassan to go unpunished would undermine his leadership and invite further potential betrayals, it was practical and sensible from Solas' position. 

 

I think Berelinde stated it best. Elves are different.

 

Cop-out. As seen below in your quote.

 

A conversation with Iron Bull about free choice:

 

Iron Bull: Tell me something, Solas. Do you think the servants here are happier then the people living under the Qun in Par Vollen?

Solas: It doesn't matter if they are happy, it matters that they may choose!

Iron Bull: Choose? Choose what? Whether to do their work or get tossed onto the street to starve?

Solas: Yes! If a Ferelden servant decides that his life goal is to... become a poet, he can follow that dream!

Solas: It may be difficult, and he might fail. But the whole of society is not aligned to oppose him!

Iron Bull: Sure, and good for him. How many servants actually go do that, though?

Solas: Almost none! What does that matter?

Solas: Your Qun would crush the brilliant few for the mediocre many!

Iron Bull: And then people feel like crap for failing.

Iron Bull: When the truth is, the deck was stacked against them anyway.

 

Elves do see things differently.

 

No. That's not a question of elves seeing things differently. That's a classic libertarian/individualist argument and has absolutely nothing to do with a specific racial view point.

  

Solas gave us the wrong impression. I took him everywhere, and he lectured all other members of the team about giving people choices, and how organizations are corrupt. 

 

Giving people choice and saying that organisations tend to breed a certain amount of corruption does not equate to everyone should have pure freedom in everything and dismantling any group that constitutes more than two people is a necessity. For instance:

 

-People having the ability to choose means they inherently have the ability to make the wrong choice. In the case of Felassan whilst his choice might be morally favourable to us, it also meant he more likely than not (and ultimately did) choose to die at Solas' hand. That Solas believes in choice doesn't mean he must believe in absolving people of all the potential negative consequences of their choices.

 

-Yes, Solas talks about how organizations inevitably become corrupt in some fashion or another, its a fact of life. It means you have to guard against it as best you can, and start over when you no longer can. Yet did you see Solas protesting the formation of the Inquisition? No, of course not. Just because they inevitably breed some form of corruption, it does not mean organizations are with out value. 

 

Remember, a reasonable Warden didn't kill the deserter in Awakening. If you do the other soldiers are pretty upset. 

 

Mostly out of curiosity since it's been a while since I played but pretty sure at least some of the soldiers are upset regardless of which choice you make. IIRC I normally chose to kill the deserter and the worse I got was an extra line of dialogue in the peasant protest, which never amounted to anything.

[Darkstarr11]

Psychopath?  No.  A psychopath wouldn't have friends, or interpersonal relationships.  They wouldn't have saved the Inquisitor.  Corypheus was a psychopath.  Solas is many things, but not that.  He IS dangerous.  He is a fanatic.  A well intentioned extremist.  He regrets what he has to do (psychopaths LACK empathy) but WILL do it anyway.  There is a righteousness to his cause, as he sees it.  This falls in line with fanaticism.  Just as dangerous, but from a different angle...AND easier to deal with.

 

Well...if your idea of easier is trying to talk down the Reapers from wiping out civilization instead of trying to win by punching them.  

[Aren]

 

20. Promiscuous sexual behavior

Promiscuous sexual behaviour, Solas?

Are you serious?The guy is probably still a virgin after a thousand of years.

[Reznore57]

Psychopath?  No.  A psychopath wouldn't have friends, or interpersonal relationships.  They wouldn't have saved the Inquisitor.  Corypheus was a psychopath.  Solas is many things, but not that.  He IS dangerous.  He is a fanatic.  A well intentioned extremist.  He regrets what he has to do (psychopaths LACK empathy) but WILL do it anyway.  There is a righteousness to his cause, as he sees it.  This falls in line with fanaticism.  Just as dangerous, but from a different angle...AND easier to deal with.

 

Well...if your idea of easier is trying to talk down the Reapers from wiping out civilization instead of trying to win by punching them.  

 

Except he doesn't really have friends or loved ones.

Maybe I have a twisted sense of love and friendship but it doesn't involve killing them and destroying their world because I have a bad case of the guilt going on.

He's not the Dread Wolf for nothing , he is a lone wolf , Solas has no pack , never has one and doesn't want one.

I mean perish the thought , he can't stand people who don't listen to him or don't think everything he says is the truth.

 

In DAI if you say you respect Sera , or believes Dorian about the time travel , or you'll ask Varric and Cassandra opinions and not just his , or if you'll say you'll rely on your friends after the Well : dude disapproves.

[Donk]

 

Promiscuous sexual behaviour, Solas?

Are you serious?The guy is probably still a virgin after a thousand of years.

 

 

This killed me.

[Wulfram]

Technically speaking, isn't Qun-Bull an psychopath then?

He's trained to be one, certainly. Though he became Iron Bull in part because he's not one "naturally".

[GGGenesis]

I like to think that Solas is the antithesis to Corypheus. They're both villain, but Cory is a raging psychopathic megalomaniac and Solas is a reluctant villain. 

[Boost32]

Solas is megalomaniac too.

[berelinde]

Regarding the lack of empathy... that's a tough call. His belief that modern elves and humans aren't even people is telling. His comparison between them and the Tranquil suggests that he believed that they didn't even have emotions, and therefore empathy was impossible. The discovery that they are people causes him to reconsider that stance, and that capacity for reevaluation leads me to the conclusion that he is not a psychopath.

 

There's a point in people's lives when they start to realize their parents are people, not just authority figures, and that they're capable of all the same motives and faults as anyone else. It doesn't mean that all young people are psychopaths. It just means that people reach emotional maturity later than they reach physical maturity. I think of Solas's character development like that. He may the thousands of years old, but he isn't done growing up yet. The next few years/centuries may be a time of discovery for him, and he may arrive at the conclusion that people are worth saving on his own, as part of his own psychological growth. Assuming he hasn't actually carried out his plan in the meanwhile.

 

At this point, he seems to be clinging to his plan out of stubbornness. It is his duty, and therefore, it must be done, no matter how painful. In time, he may realize that he is chasing a butterfly off a cliff himself. Or, if he steels himself against emotion and commits himself utterly to the action he feels is required, he will destroy himself along with the rest of the world. After all, he sends the Inquisitor away because he doesn't want him or her to see the monster he plans to become.