367 réponses à ce sujet

[BansheeOwnage]

Then the day has cometh that I agreed with Elhanan

Same here, someone call the newspapers!

Not the first time I've agreed with Elhanan, but one of the first times. it is a nice change of pace

[Bhryaen]

I know the OP makes a different sort of point, but regarding the title thread I just want to say, "And...?" The Green Hand of Fate makes otherwise anti-heroes into the savior of Thedas. I adore stories like the Sarah Connor one in "Terminator" where circumstances make those who otherwise just "got along" ineffectually become a hero... or perish... if done well, of course. DAI did this, more or less, but it's true that you lose that sense qualitatively by becoming the renowned, celebrated Herald right at the start. There's not enough time to reel or even recoil at the weight of the situation. DA2 made you the Champ by mid-game, but the main story wasn't even clear until after mid-game for DA2 (to the degree there even was one), so... I preferred DAO where you not only could start as "just another of those" but were even made "special" without much foreseeable chance, without an army of any sort until the end game, and with no one but Alistair at first to really count on- his later preference for becoming a drunken barfly notwithstanding. (And Barkspawn but that thing doesn't count. Very annoying side-kick. Like the way bringing in a pet or baby into a sitcom tends to signal the point at which a sitcom declines.) Actually each origin had a fun temporary side-kick that doesn't prove ultimately sufficient to the challenges you face.

 

It is pretty funny though that the protagonist in DAI is named the Inquisitor. I mean, I know: "the people" all felt my character was a holy Herald. But being the Herald in no way requires that I have leadership capabilities. A titular leader at best. There's no reason Cassandra or Leliana couldn't have taken the post of Inquisitor and its responsibilities- having been Justinia's whichever hand (albeit not green or glowing) and veterans from the thick of it from way back. Then our Inq's could've been her champion, doing whatever she deemed needed. Why would an unwitting hero be explicitly and demonstratively entrusted with the fate of the world? Way different from the DAO Warden's predicament. I can see how pressure from the masses might have sort of made the awarding of the position inevitable, but I don't see why everyone would subsequently be deferring to my carta girl for answers on how to guide the world against potential doom. Cassandra, Leliana, and Cullen- and the rest of the world in tow- all look for her to decide everything- for ex., who rules Orlais:

 

Inquisitor: "Um... let's go with Gaspar... because he's most likely to help pressure nobles into allowing lyrium trade with the carta in their territory?"

Cullen: "Excellent idea!"

Cassandra: "I'm not in favor of extending the trade, but I completely submit to your decision. Very wise."

Leliana: "Whatever!"

 

Apparently they just needed a random extra vote as a tie-breaker.

[Xcorpyo]

I disagree. The Anchor was just a tool. A very important tool, but still just a tool. It was not the Anchor that saved the Mages or the Templars. It was not the Anchor that stopped the false Calling the Wardens were experiencing. It was not the Anchor that ended the Orlesian Civil War. It was not the Anchor that stopped Hakkon. And it was not the Anchor that stopped the Dragon's Breath. It was the Inquisitor. Thoughout our journey, the Inquisitor became one of the most important and special people in Thedas, having done things nobody has done before and having shaped the entire continent. 

 

 

Well, you could say it was the Anchor that saved his life at the Temple of the Sacred Ashes, thus not be just another burnt corpse, which in turn allowed him/her to do everything else. And the Anchor is the sole reason he/she was chosen as an Inquisitor in the first place. 

The chances of a random elf/qunari/dwarf becoming the leader of the Inquisition without the Anchors are slim to none.

Hell, the chances of the Inquisition being created without them having the only way to close rifts/save the world are even lower.

After all, Cass and Leliana needed someone like the Warden or the Hawke on their side to have any chance od success. 

[Lhawke]

I would have preferred losing the arm to have been a choice.

 

The thing I destested about it was watching my Inquisitors pitiful begging.

[Ash Wind]

So just like... Hawke?

If the Blight would not have driven him/her out of Ferelden, we might never had heard of him/her.

 

And HoF?

Without Ostagar might have been the same. Just a Warden.

LMAO

 

Hawke and HOF were thrown into cicumstances beyond their control without being annointed with the all-powerful McGuffin that only made them special because they had, with absolutely zero talent or moral intent, won the be-the-hero lotto which had nothing to do with their character. The Loser Chosen One scenario.

 

You're special.... you know... just because. Yes, the HOF had the taint, but it wasn't exclusive to him/her, there was Alistair not to mention possiblity of Loghain becoming a GW. How many other characters had the Anchor? 3 different characters could have defeated the Archdemon, how many characters could defeat Wile E. Cory?

 

He/She wasn't all that impressive WITH the anchor, with their main adversaries being empty fetch quests, large empty landscapes and a main antagonist who finishes second to Wile E Coyote on the effective villain scale. HOF>>Hawke>>Road-Runner>>ACME Products>>Dark Helmet>>Idle Dwarf>>Scooby Doo Villain>>Inquisitor.

[SentinelMacDeath]

my Inquisitor without the Anchor would be an exceptionally gifted mage WITH superhuman people skills. She would have gone places.

[d1ta]

*remembering what Cassandra told my Lavellan prior being made Inquisitor*

... I'll go with her judgement instead ^^v peace


Ps: Yes, I miss that nifty Anchor. But she wasn't made Inquisitor because of her glowy hand. The Anchor was just a tool to close rifts and sealed the Breach.
The Herald gained the reight to become Inquisitor because of her/his actions and on that fateful quest during IYHSB where you let everybody escape Haven while you allow yourself to face Corypheus.
And being on the seat of a powerful organization, I'd like to think that my protag has 'evolve' from this bada** warior/archmage that's not afraid to get her hands dirty, to a role of a chessmaster (which I think it's quite elegant and and have a feeling of baddassery on it's own)

Inquisition disband : I picture the Herald is like a snake lurking in shadows, plotting, manuevering events to her favour with subtle means and saving her sharp fangs and venom for that decissive blow.

Inquisiton as Honor Guards: Things stay more or less the same, but let Cullen do the dirty job this time =P I'd just get to sit and boss around

Just my opinion, of course (and headcanon too)

[Aren]

 

And HoF?

Without Ostagar might have been the same. Just a Warden.

Without Ostagar defeat, Ferelden would have spared a lot of pain.

[Aren]

Potentially a casteless dwarf; an elf from the slums, or a Dalish dying of an incurable illness could become the Hero of Ferelden.  NOT because they had gone through the Joining...they were picked because they excelled in SPITE of their station in life.  THAT'S why Duncan chose them.  No magic, just doing the best with what they had.  Heroes can be anyone...they don't have to be noble, or gifted with magic..

Nah i stick more with the classic,the HoF is of Ferelden a noble who is also a king for the nation,not an unknowing adventurer discovered by Duncan by circumstances.

Or alternatively is a badass hardass Aeducan who was a monster long before to become a Warden.

[Ieldra]

This is what I resent highly about this setup:

 

The Inquisitor's role, if not they themselves as a person, was defined by the Mark. By virtue of Trespasser, it came across as a tool given for a task, and then taken away again, and the Inquisitor was never allowed to take ownership of it.

 

Without the Mark, my main inquisitor would've been a mage of above average competence and ambition, might've played a role in the mage rebellion and could quite possibly have ended up high in the newly-formed College of Enchanters. She would've been highly competent but basically a normal human, apart from being mageborn. That would've been ok.

 

If she had been allowed to take ownership of the Mark, and keep it, she would've been the first human with the innate ability to walk into the Fade at will. I would've loved that, wherever it took her. Maybe the writers would've had to take her out of the story because otherwise she would've unbalanced future plots. Maybe she would've left for an unknown fate by fiat of the writers, but that, too, would've been ok.

 

However, to get that ability and then lose it, that's an insult. It says "Do your task and then give your toy back." It feels as if the Inquisitor is nothing more than a tool. For the writers, if not for anyone in-world. In-world, for an Andrastian, it would feel like "used by the Maker and then discarded". It also says "only normal is good", and I couldn't disagree more with a message like that. I really hated to lose the Mark.

 

Quote my Inquisitor after everything: "If the Maker exists, he's an assh*le".

[Aren]

 

 

However, to get that ability and then lose it, that's an insult. It says "Do your task and then give your toy back." It feels as if the Inquisitor is nothing more than a tool. 

 

Quote my Inquisitor after everything: "If the Maker exists, he's an assh*le".

I believe that this way of thinking is just to overly ambitious without relying on in "appropriate membership".

The anchor belongs to Fen'harel,it is his creation,his legacy ,Corypheus and the Inquisitor weren't meant to be its owners just  tools .

Being ambitious is valuable,being overly and disproportionately ambitious it is not (kinda like Morrigan who trapped herself into the well or in the case of your inquisitor being too fascinated of the anchor).

Magical and physical power must be obtained through training and efforts not through shortcuts,Solas developed the anchor in a thousand of years of waiting for the Orb to grow in terms of power,if you wish the same power again you will have to sacrifice for it.

Power without training isn't imho valuable because you didn't earned it and it means also that you cannot replicated it.

[Ieldra]

 

I believe that this way of thinking is just to overly ambitious without relying on in "appropriate membership".

The anchor belongs to Fen'harel,it is his creation,his legacy ,Corypheus and the Inquisitor weren't meant to be its owners just  tools .

Being ambitious is valuable,being overly and disproportionately ambitious it is not (kinda like Morrigan who trapped herself into the well or in the case of your inquisitor being too fascinated of the anchor).

Magical and physical power must be obtained through training and efforts not through shortcuts,Solas developed the anchor in a thousand of years of waiting for the Orb to grow in terms of power,if you wish the same power again you will have to sacrifice for it.

Power without training isn't imho valuable because you didn't earned it and it means also that you cannot replicated it.

That is - pardon me - complete and utter bullsh*t.

 

There is no necessary connection between any ability and the methods which are used to acquire it. Power acquired as a gift is not less valuable than one acquired any other way. One power may require training, another may not. There is no necessary connection between any power and having to pay for it. That's just a conceit of people who think that power *should* come with a price, of people who think *they* have the right to determine if another has "earned" some power or not. Who says whether I have "earned" something or not? You? It's the same BS in ME with technology. Technology exchange has been part of human civilization since it exists, and nobody ever cares about whether they have "earned" something. Some powers are developed, some are traded, some are taken, some are gifted. They are not more or less valuable for that, even though having developed one is an achievement for itself. The need for understanding comes independently from that, and the potential of it also comes independently.

 

So my Inquisitor is ambitious and wants the power of the Mark. So what? Who are *you* to say she shouldn't? What business is it of anyone else, as long as I don't go about and do things to people with it? I mean, it's not like blood magic where there's a built-in temptation to kill for it. And, while we're at it, I do not condemn the ancient magisters one bit for attempting to reach the Black City. I do condemn them for using blood sacrifice for it, and I condemn them for taking its darkness into themselves so that it spread over the world. But to attempt to reach the Black City as such, that I rather admire, just as I admire the people who were first into space, or to the poles, or those who crossed oceans for the first time. I will always admire their like, no matter how reactionaries try to impose limits on what a human should be able to achieve and where she should reach. And if the likes of the Chantry calls that "the sin of pride", then I'll reply "***** yourself with your backwards-looking ideology, but leave me alone"

 

End of Rant.

 

This is, btw,. why I knew I'd hate the Chantry 15 seconds into DAO's intro.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Chop

This is why Thedas have to deal with blights and darkspawn now. 

[Ieldra]

This is why Thedas have to deal with blights and darkspawn now. 

I think there is a difference between being ambitious and being blinded by ambition and not knowing your limits. I say there should be no limit to the power we may aspire to, but that doesn't mean I'd be reckless or careless on the way. Someone who advises to be careful, I'll always respect, it's only those who think we shouldn't aspire to it in the first place that raise my ire. I'm opposed, basically, to the idea that there are things we aren't meant to know, or to have.

 

Regarding the magisters: how would those magisters have been regarded if they hadn't sacrificed thousands of slaves? If they hadn't taken the darkness into themselves? If they just had been explorers who stumbled on something unexpected? Any exploration of the unknown can result in an accident. I am opposed to the idea that this means we shouldn't do it.

[TheKomandorShepard]

I think there is a difference between being ambitious and being blinded by ambition and not knowing your limits. I say there should be no limit to the power we may aspire to, but that doesn't mean I'd be reckless with it.

If you lack understanding how your power works and what are possible consequences of using them, you can't be anything else but reckless while using them.

 

 

 

Regarding the magisters: how would those magisters have been regarded if they hadn't sacrificed thousands of slaves? If they hadn't taken the darkness into themselves? If they just had been explorers who stumbled on something unexpected? Any exploration of the unknown can result in an accident. I am opposed to the idea that this means we shouldn't do it.

 

As fools that decided to play with things they didn't understood?

[Ieldra]

If you lack understanding how your power works and what are possible consequences of using them, you can't be anything else but reckless while using them.

At some point, everything is unknown. You have, I agree, an obligation to understand what you're doing, but there will always be risks on the way there. 

 

This is not an argument about prudence. I am in full support of that. This is about setting limits on the powers we may aspire to, not on the grounds of prudence but on the grounds of some idea of them being outside our domain. This is not about "the magisters were reckless and should've been more prudent". Yes, they should have. However, I'll alway oppose the kind of thinking that results in "The magisters intruded on the Makers domain and were rightly punished for it".

[TheKomandorShepard]

At some point, everything is unknown. You have, I agree, an obligation to understand what you're doing, but there will always be risks on the way there. 

 

This is not an argument about prudence. I am in full support of that. This is about setting limits on the powers we may aspire to, not on the grounds of prudence but on the grounds of some idea of them being outside our domain. This is not about "the magisters were reckless and should've been more prudent". Yes, they should have. However, I'll alway oppose the kind of thinking that results in "The magisters intruded on the Makers domain and were rightly punished for it".

Not necessarily , if you do large steps then there is risk ,if you do small steps there is no risk.

 

From what i recall , Aren made argument about learning how thing work and obtaining power by understanding it ,instead just reciving them (ie shortcut) what tends lead to tragedy. Chantry is right in fact, if they pissed omnipotent being they had it coming. 

[Ieldra]

From what i recall , Aren made argument about learning how thing work and obtaining power by understanding it ,instead just reciving them (ie shortcut) what tends lead to tragedy.

And I say how you obtain a power makes no difference. Being gifted with it does not prevent understanding and responsible use, having worked to gain it does not prevent recklessless and abuse.

Chantry is right in fact, if they pissed omnipotent being they had it coming.

Except that isn't what happened. There was - unsurprisingly - no Maker at the Black City, and as far as we can tell, the magisters weren't punished so much as that they took the Blight willingly into themselves.

[TheKomandorShepard]

And I say how you obtain a power makes no difference. Being gifted with it does not prevent understanding and responsible use, having worked to gain it does not prevent recklessless and abuse.

Except that isn't what happened. There was - unsurprisingly - no Maker at the Black City, and as far as we can tell, the magisters weren't punished so much as that they took the Blight willingly into themselves.

 

It does make difference, before you start running learn how to walk or it may end poorly for you.It does prevent recklessness, if you understand how something works you can't be reckless with it though you can make conscious decision to abuse it. 

 

You don't know what overall happened, because you are given prespective of Corypheus that in first place had no idea what he was getting himself into nor he fully understood what happened to him, so he only described what he saw. I can compare this to medieval peasant seeing nuclear bomb explosion all he will see and be able to describe is big fire that destroyed things but won't know full situation ie how it worked ,what and who caused it. Of course , im not claming that maker exists but if he does chantry is right in that claim.

[robertthebard]

At some point, everything is unknown. You have, I agree, an obligation to understand what you're doing, but there will always be risks on the way there. 
 
This is not an argument about prudence. I am in full support of that. This is about setting limits on the powers we may aspire to, not on the grounds of prudence but on the grounds of some idea of them being outside our domain. This is not about "the magisters were reckless and should've been more prudent". Yes, they should have. However, I'll alway oppose the kind of thinking that results in "The magisters intruded on the Makers domain and were rightly punished for it".

All things the Fade are outside of our domanin, quite literally, it's a separate domain unto itself. If desiring the ability to enter the Fade at will is bad, then it's bad, it does not matter if it's ancient magister darkspawn or some random human mage that was in the wrong place at the right time. Do you understand the consequences of being able to do that at will? Do you understand that by continued use you could rip a hole in Veil? It is, after all, the intended use of the Anchor. You feel that, even though getting the mark was an accident, that you're better equipped to deal with it and the consequences than the one who designed it?

That is exactly what Ferelden is afraid of, and they're right to be afraid. Using it to use it, because you have it, can do more harm than good.

Also, I'd like to touch on Cassandra's explanation a bit here: W/out the Anchor, you wouldn't be in the position to do any of those things. In fact, if not for the Anchor, you'd be just another charred corpse at the Temple of Sacred Ashes. The Anchor is what saved you. If not for the Anchor, Cory doesn't come after the Inquisition. You pull off some pretty cool stuff after the fact, but w/out it, you wouldn't be in the position to do so. W/out it, even if you survived the Temple and didn't fall out of a rift, focusing the Inner Circle's attention on you, you'd be a soldier in the Inquisition, maybe. Nothing that you do could have been accomplished by you w/out that one thing that made you stand out amongst your peers, the Anchor.

You have been the defacto leader of the Inquisition from the start because you can seal rifts, and affect the Breach. That's it. W/out that, and some luck at Haven falling into a mine shaft that, for some reason, didn't fill in with the avalanche, I'll call that plot armor, you can't die in the cutscene there, or it's game over, you're nobody in the grand scheme of things. W/out sealing the Breach the first time, nobody has any reason to pay any attention to you, and the only reason you can do that is the Anchor.

[Ieldra]

All things the Fade are outside of our domanin, quite literally, it's a separate domain unto itself. If desiring the ability to enter the Fade at will is bad, then it's bad, it does not matter if it's ancient magister darkspawn or some random human mage that was in the wrong place at the right time. Do you understand the consequences of being able to do that at will? Do you understand that by continued use you could rip a hole in Veil? It is, after all, the intended use of the Anchor. You feel that, even though getting the mark was an accident, that you're better equipped to deal with it and the consequences than the one who designed it?

It's exactly the idea that even desiring this is bad what I'm adamantly opposed to. You might as well say the desire to explore outer space is bad, because that's as much not our domain, using a similar measuring stick, as you can imagine. Human beings are explorers by nature, and I find it fundamentally wrong to deny that nature.

Do I understand the Anchor? Quite clearly, not enough, because then I'd know why it started to act the way it did, and maybe I'd know how to contain it. The thing is: I want the chance to learn and to understand, I don't want to have it taken away because someone whose authority I do not accept tells me "It isn't for you". I may accept an "You aren't up to it (yet)", but I'd never, ever accept any "It isn't for you." It's not even about *my* character alone, even. I'd say the same if this happened to some NPC, and in-world, I would support their ambition to learn and understand this awesome power instead of having it taken away as readily as I'd speak for myself.

[robertthebard]

It's exactly the idea that even desiring this is bad what I'm adamantly opposed to. You might as well say the desire to explore outer space is bad, because that's as much not our domain, using a similar measuring stick, as you can imagine. Human beings are explorers by nature, and I find it fundamentally wrong to deny that nature.

Do I understand the Anchor? Quite clearly, not enough, because then I'd know why it started to act the way it did, and maybe I'd know how to contain it. The thing is: I want the chance to learn and to understand, I don't want to have it taken away because someone whose authority I do not accept tells me "It isn't for you". I may accept an "You aren't up to it (yet)", but I'd never, ever accept any "It isn't for you." It's not even about *my* character alone, even. I'd say the same if this happened to some NPC, and in-world, I would support their ambition to learn and understand this awesome power instead of having it taken away as readily as I'd speak for myself.

Being unable to accept it doesn't mean it's not valid. It wasn't for you. You got your neighbor's SS check in the mail, and chose to cash it. They then came and took it back.

The difference between "exploring space" and "exploring the Fade" is that we're not literally ripping the fabric that seperates the two. If, using your example, we could literally strip the atmosphere from the planet by going to the moon, you'd have a point. We're not doing that. However, which time using the anchor to go the Fade is the one that does irreparable damage to the Veil? The 3rd? The 300th? The thousandth? We have no idea, and so, should refrain from doing so. It is evident, however, that some would lack the willpower to do so, hence they think they should be allowed to keep it, this despite what we learn during Tresspasser gameplay. However, I think there should have been an option. This would be the most effective way ever to kill off a protagonist: You fight Solas off, somehow, and keep it. You return to Skyhold and get a cutscene of you and your LI hitting the sack, and BOOM, the Anchor implodes, taking everyone at Skyhold with you. This is, after all, the logical progression, and if you think you can figure out in a couple of years what it took Solas a thousand years to figure out, you're deluding yourself.

[Ieldra]

Being unable to accept it doesn't mean it's not valid.

It is not valid because no one has the legitimate authority to decide this. Your example fails because that's a case of ownership. If Solas said "this is my anchor and I want it back" I wouldn't like it but he'd have a legitimate case. If Solas said "I know this thing and you can't handle it", I would like it even less but again, he'd have a legitimate point, though I'd always speculate if he just wanted a reasonable excuse to deny it to me. On the other hand, if the Chantry says "you may not go to the Black City because it's the Maker's domain", that's a case of illegitimately assuming the authority to judge and control my actions.
 

The difference between "exploring space" and "exploring the Fade" is that we're not literally ripping the fabric that seperates the two.

You're using a metaphor of which you do not know if it applies. Also, tears in the veil happen all the time - see DAA - and the world hasn't been destroyed. It's pretty clear, after all we came to know in Trespasser, that the Fade is just another aspect of the one reality.

[Iakus]

It's exactly the idea that even desiring this is bad what I'm adamantly opposed to. You might as well say the desire to explore outer space is bad, because that's as much not our domain, using a similar measuring stick, as you can imagine. Human beings are explorers by nature, and I find it fundamentally wrong to deny that nature.

Do I understand the Anchor? Quite clearly, not enough, because then I'd know why it started to act the way it did, and maybe I'd know how to contain it. The thing is: I want the chance to learn and to understand, I don't want to have it taken away because someone whose authority I do not accept tells me "It isn't for you". I may accept an "You aren't up to it (yet)", but I'd never, ever accept any "It isn't for you." It's not even about *my* character alone, even. I'd say the same if this happened to some NPC, and in-world, I would support their ambition to learn and understand this awesome power instead of having it taken away as readily as I'd speak for myself.

 

I would say that by the end of Trespasser, "You aren't up to it (yet) is pretty clear in context.  The Anchor is out of control and is rapidly killing the Inquisitor.  Even Solas can't seem to give yo more than a brief respite from it.  And in the end has to take the whole arm to remove it.  For all of Solas's faults, he is not wantonly cruel.  And I do not think he'd have taken such drastic action if he could have done something less traumatic.

 

Heck it may very well be the Anchor isn't for the Inquisitor.  Not based on Solas's authority, but by the simple nature of the Mark.  The Inquisitor did, after all, interfere with the ceremony.  And Corypheus did make a comment on how it was spoiled for him.  The Anchor may itself have been damaged, and is now critically unstable.

[Ieldra]

I would say that by the end of Trespasser, "You aren't up to it (yet) is pretty clear in context.  The Anchor is out of control and is rapidly killing the Inquisitor.  Even Solas can't seem to give yo more than a brief respite from it.  And in the end has to take the whole arm to remove it.  For all of Solas's faults, he is not wantonly cruel.  And I do not think he'd have taken such drastic action if he could have done something less traumatic.

Sure. That's why I accept the ending after all. I don't like that it was written that way, but in-world, I accept it as valid. My dislike is on the thematic level.

Again, my objection is against the idea "you may not aspire to this power".