1 réponse à ce sujet

[Estel Lavellan]

In light of the plot twist in Trespasser, I hear many people complaining about how it's entirely wrong to sacrifice the chargers, that we 'should have made him Tal-Vashoth'. But both endings are equally valid and in-character for Bull, so why is anyone complaining? You force him to make a choice between personal loyalties and committing to his philosophy, and he sticks to the logical end of either choice. Both stories are well written.

 

In my playthrough I chose the Qun over the Chargers, and although I consider both paths equally valid, even after Trespasser this would still be my choice regarding Bull's personal quest, because it's in line with who the Inquisitor is, or rather, who he/she should be. The Inquisitor controls the fate of nations and leads a faction at war - if there's an unprecedented opportunity of an alliance with the Qunari, the Inquisitor should take it. True, it may lead to better understanding, it may lead to reconciliation, or it may collapse in short order like it does here - Things could have turned out better or worse. The inquisitor knows the Qunari by reputation, and should understand this unpredictability. And yet, if there is an opportunity for diplomacy and the fostering of relations, with a normally unrelentingly hostile power no less, then the Inquisitor is under a moral obligation to pursue it. Who are you to represent the interests of all Thedas but give it up for your personal attachments?

 

And who is it that you're sacrificing? The Chargers. A mercenary band. They are your good friends, yes, but bottom line they are soldiers as well. They go onto the battlefield, take lives and put their own on the line for a living. To potentially give their lives for the success of a mission is practically a job description of a soldier. What happened to them in the personal quest is but a logical conclusion of their career as soldiers. And on top of that, as Inquisitor you sacrifice soldiers every day. At the siege of adamant, in the fallow mire, in the storm coast - inquisition soldiers die for the cause on a regular basis. Just because they're faceless red shirts do not mean their lives are not equally valuable, and yet it is the Inquisitor's job to impartially place the chess pieces on the board. hundreds of men might die for no other purpose than to push a battering ram up to the adamant gate, yet you sacrifice a handful of men to gain a Qunari alliance, a handful of men who you have no more cause to grieve over than all others under your command. I don't see what's so hard to figure out about this, any more than I can understand why the Inquisitor giving himself/herself over to sentiment would in any way be a good thing.

 

It's not wise to measure Iron Bull and the Qun in terms of 'humanity'. If you complete his personal quest in favour of the Qun, Bull mentions that the whole thing is like a wake-up call for him - he believes in the Qun, but he also enjoys life and freedom too much to be a good believer. But to be in the Qun is to submit yourself to it - and he'd be kidding himself if he thinks there is no personal cost and sacrifice. That is the reminder to him in the quest. Think about it - you only think it's an arse move because the Qunari happened to be your enemies in this context. But think from the perspective of the Qun, and you see a lost son who returns to the fold at great personal sacrifice; think from the perspective of Bull, and you see a person who sacrificed virtually all his happiness just to serve the right cause. First for the inquisition, then for the Qun - I think the reason why Cole sees no pain and regret in him, is because he knows he's doing the right thing in his own way, and he's willing to pay all personal costs to do just that. I think the inquisitor's decision inspires him as well - when you sacrifice the chargers for the unprecedented alliance, you're also putting the greater good over your personal loyalties, to strengthen the collective at the expense of the personal. And this is what he did here, isn't it? I think a player'd be a hypocrite if he can work for the greater good when it comes to his own organization, but berate Bull as heartless when he does the same, possibly inspired by your example no less.

 

 

"My people don't pick leaders from the strongest, or the smartest, or even the most talented. We pick the ones willing to make the hard decisions... and live with the consequences." - Bull

[Al Foley]

In light of the plot twist in Trespasser, I hear many people complaining about how it's entirely wrong to sacrifice the chargers, that we 'should have made him Tal-Vashoth'. But both endings are equally valid and in-character for Bull, so why is anyone complaining? You force him to make a choice between personal loyalties and committing to his philosophy, and he sticks to the logical end of either choice. Both stories are well written.

 

In my playthrough I chose the Qun over the Chargers, and although I consider both paths equally valid, even after Trespasser this would still be my choice regarding Bull's personal quest, because it's in line with who the Inquisitor is, or rather, who he/she should be. The Inquisitor controls the fate of nations and leads a faction at war - if there's an unprecedented opportunity of an alliance with the Qunari, the Inquisitor should take it. True, it may lead to better understanding, it may lead to reconciliation, or it may collapse in short order like it does here - Things could have turned out better or worse. The inquisitor knows the Qunari by reputation, and should understand this unpredictability. And yet, if there is an opportunity for diplomacy and the fostering of relations, with a normally unrelentingly hostile power no less, then the Inquisitor is under a moral obligation to pursue it. Who are you to represent the interests of all Thedas but give it up for your personal attachments?

 

And who is it that you're sacrificing? The Chargers. A mercenary band. They are your good friends, yes, but bottom line they are soldiers as well. They go onto the battlefield, take lives and put their own on the line for a living. To potentially give their lives for the success of a mission is practically a job description of a soldier. What happened to them in the personal quest is but a logical conclusion of their career as soldiers. And on top of that, as Inquisitor you sacrifice soldiers every day. At the siege of adamant, in the fallow mire, in the storm coast - inquisition soldiers die for the cause on a regular basis. Just because they're faceless red shirts do not mean their lives are not equally valuable, and yet it is the Inquisitor's job to impartially place the chess pieces on the board. hundreds of men might die for no other purpose than to push a battering ram up to the adamant gate, yet you sacrifice a handful of men to gain a Qunari alliance, a handful of men who you have no more cause to grieve over than all others under your command. I don't see what's so hard to figure out about this, any more than I can understand why the Inquisitor giving himself/herself over to sentiment would in any way be a good thing.

 

It's not wise to measure Iron Bull and the Qun in terms of 'humanity'. If you complete his personal quest in favour of the Qun, Bull mentions that the whole thing is like a wake-up call for him - he believes in the Qun, but he also enjoys life and freedom too much to be a good believer. But to be in the Qun is to submit yourself to it - and he'd be kidding himself if he thinks there is no personal cost and sacrifice. That is the reminder to him in the quest. Think about it - you only think it's an arse move because the Qunari happened to be your enemies in this context. But think from the perspective of the Qun, and you see a lost son who returns to the fold at great personal sacrifice; think from the perspective of Bull, and you see a person who sacrificed virtually all his friends just to serve the right cause. First for the inquisition, then for the Qun - I think the reason why Cole sees no pain and regret in him, is because he knows he's doing the right thing in his own way, and he's willing to pay all personal costs to serve the Qun. I think the inquisitor's decision inspires him as well - when you sacrifice the chargers for the unprecedented alliance, you're also putting the greater good over your personal loyalties, to strengthen the collective at the expense of the personal. And this is what he did here, isn't it? I think a player'd be a hypocrite if he can work for the greater good when it comes to his own organization, but berate Bull as heartless when he does the same, possibly inspired by your example no less.

In the beginning I did think it was poor writing considering it is unknown exactly what Vidasaala's loyalties are.  But in thinking about it, and the Qun as a whole, it still makes sense considering how rigid the Qun is in total, how deep their programming runs, that she was a superior officer in all intents and purposes it makes perfect sense that she snaps, he barks.