359 réponses à ce sujet

[D_Schattenjager]

Unless you're just completely unattached to your Inquisitor the latter is actually worse, the Inquisitor loses the Mark, the arm and for all intents purposes the Inquisition with nary a meaningful say in the matter. Compare that to the Warden who can easily avoid death, like really easily, with no blow back even if you do the dark ritual. While DA2 handled the family aspect so laughably it hardly matters, you barely had them to begin, I'd feel worse accidentally killing Lord Woolsley . 

I agree on HoF, but he/she can die also ... so the sense of loss is there ... plus you can potentially lose HoF in Origins & Aliaster in DAI ... depending upon your choices.

And I completely disagree on DA2 family, they don't play much role in the game as it is from Varric's PoV not Hawke's ... doesn't mean they were less important to Hawke him/herself

The point was that degree of loss to PC is gradually going down in DA series (if you assume the PC to be a real person) ... I think any heroic character would gladly trade their arm if life or family were the other choices. There is literally no end game situation where you can die in DA2 or DAI (main games)

[ZombiePopper]

Thanks *HUG*
)

Welcome * hugs back*
,

[Reznore57]

The warden has the Blight , in less than 10 years , she will go mad and start rotting and will have to go to the Deep Roads.David Gaider said the 30 years for wardens was a mistake , and it should be seen as the really best case scenario, wardens who lived during a Blight also tend to get their Calling sooner.

 

So I'd rather loose a hand than go through this .

[Iakus]

Let me be clear about this: I am not talking about being given the option to react differently to the situation we face at the end of Trespasser.

 

What I object to is that the writers contrived circumstances where the only option for the Inquisitor is to lose, regardless of how plausible that becomes once the contrived circumstances have come to pass. *They* made it so that the Mark goes out of control. Of course I wouldn't want to keep an out-of-control Mark, that would be suicidal. *They* made it so that the Inquisition is riddled by spies and that the only plausible alternatives are to serve the Chantry or disband. Of course, disliking the Chantry, I would rather disband.

 

Once you accept the situation, the choices we get are plausible. That's why I said it's a good ending. The choices I made as my Inquisitor are in-character, given how things are. But that's not the point. I don't just want different choices. I want a different setup for the ending, one where the only plausible options aren't ones that make me feel I lost.

Honestly, I think that once all the rifts are closed, I see little purpose to keeping the Mark.  I mean, okay you can also open rifts with it, but the Inquisitor's few brief excursions into the Fade were pretty well fraught with danger and terror (sometimes literally) and who knows what kind of long-term effect opening and closing rifts can have on the Veil.

 

Losing the arm is, yeah, a bummer.  But not, to me, an altogether downer event.

 

I too would prefer an option to have the inquisition hitch its wagon to an organization other than the Chantry.  My good Chantry-boy Trevelyan had no problem with it, but my more agnostic qunari merc might.  ANd I'm sure the Dalish Inquisitor I'm pondering making would as well.  That said, though, the same dangers would apply to any other group the Inquisition would ally with:  the risk of infiltration by hostile outsiders.  Solas, the Qunari, hostile foreign governments.  They were all tripping over each other in Halamshiral.  

 

That said, disbanding the Inquisition is only officially disbanding it.  The stinger of Trespasser makes it quite clear that even if disbanded, it continues to exist.  It's no longer a public organization, but has gone underground and become something more akin to s secret society.  

 

The Inquisitor has enacted Alpha Protocol 

[robertthebard]

That is already part of the retconned premise. When we hear that the Mark is killing us at the start of the story, we are led to believe it's the Breach that causes this, and it's never even hinted that Solas controls it on a continuing basis. Given the situation at the end, it's plausible that he could control it, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he did. Thus, the setup at the ending is not an unavoidable implication of anything that occurred earlier. You wouldn't need any extra contrivance to set things up differently for the end.

We were led to believe that closing the Breach fixed it by Solas. We were also led to believe that he didn't know what it was. There is no retcon here. We didn't have all the information, and now we do. No contrivance necessary, and frankly, I'd tend to believe that this was the intended path from the start. Giving us clues to Solas manipulating the Mark after Haven would be a spoiler to the rest of the story.
 

I did not contest that. It is plausible. However, I contest that anything that happens necessarily causes our alternatives to be restricted to "serve the Chantry or disband". For instance, if not complete independence, we could've chosen to ally with one of the other present powers.
 
No, they wouldn't have to. See above.

How is Ferelden going to react to you banding with Orlais, especially since you control a couple of keeps in Ferelden. Given the history of the region, do you think they're going to be happy with that? They want you disbanded, for a reason: You are a power unto yourself, but you are established as such within their borders. Do you honestly believe BW could sell "...and the Inquisition allies itself with Orlais, and we all live happily ever after"? First they have to rewrite the war between Orlais and Ferelden, to remove any concerns of Orlais planning a coup to take back what Ferelden just took back. Then they have to rewrite Ferelden's reaction to a major power taking control of keeps in their territory, which can be tied directly to what just happened with Orlais in the timeline, where they have just, more or less recently, been kicked out of Ferelden, and now there's another major player establishing itself within their borders. They want it disbanded, tying it to the Chantry is of benefit to Ferelden too, since the Chantry serves, or rules them as well.

That's a lot of changes just so they can leave the Inquisition alone, but then it's even more messed up, because Orlais wants you leashed to them. All that stuff I wrote about Ferelden above? Apply it here as well, only we only control one keep in Orlais, along a major trading route. You see, if we were on some island some where, with no influence other than through political ties, it would be ok, but we're not, and trying to establish us as being so now, with Skyhold being said island, means they have to change a lot of stuff that actually happened in the game.

As the world is now, at the end of Inquisition, not the end of Trespasser, allying with Orlais or Ferelden would be bad, but thumbing your nose at all three, including the Chantry here, could be much worse. It should lead to yet another war against a despot trying to be a God, the Inquisitor. If Orlais and Ferelden bring enough pressure to bear on the new Divine, she will eventually have to cave, or face a war against both of them. The absolute best outcomes for the Inquisition are written into Trespasser. Those that want to keep it can ally it with the Chantry, which will quell a lot of the objections from both sides. Disbanding it can be the ultimate nose thumbing at everyone, except Ferelden, who gets what they want, because all the ties that you've made over the course of the game become yours, and yours alone.

[Ieldra]

We were led to believe that closing the Breach fixed it by Solas. We were also led to believe that he didn't know what it was. There is no retcon here. We didn't have all the information, and now we do. No contrivance necessary, and frankly, I'd tend to believe that this was the intended path from the start. Giving us clues to Solas manipulating the Mark after Haven would be a spoiler to the rest of the story.

Actually, we do *not* know that he had been manipulating the Mark on a continuing basis, even in Trespasser. It's a plausible supposition, but we don't have any direct evidence or confirmation. The only way we know that he's even capable of that is through the events in the last five minutes of Trespasser.

As for having been the intended path from the start, that's quite possible, but that doesn't change that this comes across as a wilful depowering which, for me, is highly disappointing. And in this case, yes, I do question the design of this intended path. I hate it - really - if the hero gets their magical extra just for their task and they're brought down to normal after it's done, as if the hero never was anything but the device to solve a problem. I hate it if the world's gain is the hero's loss, no matter how big the writers of countless stories make their sledgehammer to drive the trope home.
 

How is Ferelden going to react to you banding with Orlais, especially since you control a couple of keeps in Ferelden. Given the history of the region, do you think they're going to be happy with that? They want you disbanded, for a reason: You are a power unto yourself, but you are established as such within their borders. Do you honestly believe BW could sell "...and the Inquisition allies itself with Orlais, and we all live happily ever after"?

Of course not. I'm not complaining about not having a *happy* ending. I am complaining about being forced to lose something I value at the end, *especially* since those who like the Chantry don't lose nearly as much. As long as it didn't mean open war, I have at least one Inquisitor who would've chosen an alliance with Orlais or Ferelden regardless of the consequences, although I would still have complained about the Chantry always coming out on top.

Well, it's all in the past. I just hope the damned Chantry doesn't have a big role in the next game. It wasn't 15 seconds into DAO's intro and I knew I'd dislike the Chantry and its main ideological premise, and dealing with it in two games in sequence was a pain. I wish I could embrace a secular ideology and have that actually count for something for a change.
 

Disbanding it can be the ultimate nose thumbing at everyone, except Ferelden, who gets what they want, because all the ties that you've made over the course of the game become yours, and yours alone.

Well - I'll concede this point. Perhaps it should have occurred to me on its own. I guess the fact that we couldn't use an angry, condescending or contemptuous tone when disbanding the Inquisition was the reason it didn't occur to me. I think it would've helped. All right, I'll stop complaining about this part, though I maintain my opinion about the Chantry always coming out on top. This part wouldn't have been nearly as painful of the only other option except disbanding wasn't serving a faction I dislike.

[robertthebard]

Actually, we do *not* know that he had been manipulating the Mark on a continuing basis, even in Trespasser. It's a plausible supposition, but we don't have any direct evidence or confirmation. The only way we know that he's even capable of that is through the events in the last five minutes of Trespasser.

As for having been the intended path from the start, that's quite possible, but that doesn't change that this comes across as a wilful depowering which, for me, is highly disappointing. And in this case, yes, I do question the design of this intended path. I hate it - really - if the hero gets their magical extra just for their task and they're brought down to normal after it's done, as if the hero never was anything but the device to solve a problem. I hate it if the world's gain is the hero's loss, no matter how big the writers of countless stories make their sledgehammer to drive the trope home.

I think I mentioned earlier, as an addendum, that it's his supposed manipulating of the Mark that keeps it stable, however, they can't really show us that it's true, even if we can look back now and guess that it was, w/out spilling the whole plot. We have to be in the dark about this for the impact to be there, and the impact is there.
 

Of course not. I'm not complaining about not having a *happy* ending. I am complaining about being forced to lose something I value at the end, *especially* since those who like the Chantry don't lose nearly as much. As long as it didn't mean open war, I have at least one Inquisitor who would've chosen an alliance with Orlais or Ferelden regardless of the consequences, although I would still have complained about the Chantry always coming out on top.

Well, it's all in the past. I just hope the damned Chantry doesn't have a big role in the next game. It wasn't 15 seconds into DAO's intro and I knew I'd dislike the Chantry and its main ideological premise, and dealing with it in two games in sequence was a pain. I wish I could embrace a secular ideology and have that actually count for something for a change.

It can, if you allow it to, but you'll have to give something to get something and disband the Inquisition. My reasoning wasn't tied to that at all, even though I wasn't a big Chantry supporter, like ever. I did it because we'd done what we set out to do. Just as I was happy to lose the Mark, something I never wanted, and made sure everyone that asked knew it, I didn't want to be the primary target for people trying to shut down the Inquisition, even when it was important. If I'd had the option at the beginning of the DLC to shut it down, I'd have done it then, solved the Qunari problem, and ran away with Sera before anyone knew what was happening.

The other thing here is that you don't even have to like the Chantry overmuch to think it's a good idea if you want to keep it, for all the reasons I outlined in my previous post. It gets the monkey off your back, and puts the onus on whomever the divine is to deal with, leaving you to do what you've always done.
 

Well - I'll concede this point. Perhaps it should have occurred to me on its own. I guess the fact that we couldn't use an angry, condescending or contemptuous tone when disbanding the Inquisition was the reason it didn't occur to me. I think it would've helped. All right, I'll stop complaining about this part, though I maintain my opinion about the Chantry always coming out on top. This part wouldn't have been nearly as painful of the only other option except disbanding wasn't serving a faction I dislike.

I'm not a huge fan of the Chantry either. But, if you're dead set on keeping the Inquisition, it's the best way to go about it. Sure they gain from it, but you have to ask yourself if you're not coming out further ahead than they are, since you do get a cool castle in the middle of nowhere.

[Ieldra]

...since you do get a cool castle in the middle of nowhere.

*chuckles*
That sounds just as two-edged as I've experienced it in-game. Cool castle, very nice, in the middle of nowhere, not quite as nice. I love Skyhold, really. It's beautiful and fits the story in several ways, but for the next game I'd like something different. Like say, a stylish and elegant Imperial atrium house with a formal garden and fountains, as much the opposite of Skyhold's austerity as the game artists can make.

As for the other things, I think everything's been said.

[robertthebard]

*chuckles*
That sounds just as two-edged as I've experienced it in-game. Cool castle, very nice, in the middle of nowhere, not quite as nice. I love Skyhold, really. It's beautiful and fits the story in several ways, but for the next game I'd like something different. Like say, a stylish and elegant Imperial atrium house with a formal garden and fountains, as much the opposite of Skyhold's austerity as the game artists can make.

As for the other things, I think everything's been said.

I think for the next game, I'd prefer a return to something like the Hanged Man, with the whole party based there. I don't want to own it, I want it to be "disposable" in that once we're done with the game, it won't matter if we never see it again. I'd almost rather be that ragtag band of adventurers that does their thing and moves on than to be the central focus of the world.

[Almostfaceman]

 I'd like something different. Like say, a stylish and elegant Imperial atrium house with a formal garden and fountains, as much the opposite of Skyhold's austerity as the game artists can make.
 

 

That would be cool, if in addition to the Bat Cave. Well, something like the Bat Cave.