Huh, I never actually believed we would get a prosthetic but one of Sera's slides confirms that the Inquisitor can get a badass crossbow arm whenever they want to cause trouble with her. I can definitely see a potential rogue inquisitor, with the help of Varric and Bianca, maintaining some combat relevance thanks to this.
Speaking of, how the hell do you join the friends of Red Jenny? That sounds awesome!
i know i expected some one to die or for the inquisitor to give his/her life for the greater good and who cuts of your arm you or solas and know one seems to notice you have no arm i mean you walk right in with one arm start waving a book around i mean the last time they saw you had both arms lol
i know i expected some one to die or for the inquisitor to give his/her life for the greater good and who cuts of your arm you or solas and know one seems to notice you have no arm i mean you walk right in with one arm start waving a book around i mean the last time they saw you had both arms lol
They said Solas removes the mark, but the arm was "too far gone", so i assume it was removed some point afterwards, and people knew about it. That's why i think there was no "blimey, where's her arm" event
The loss of a hand may be considered minor for a mage (though never for a warrior or rogue), the loss of the Mark is not.
Yeah it is. The Mark wasn't good for very much except dealing with a problem that no longer exists.
Basically, I dislike the idea - sometimes it almost appears a dogma - that the hero *must* lose something personal as the world gains from their actions. I'm seeing this pattern again....and again and again, and every time I want to see something different JUST ONCE, and every time I end up disappointed, to the point where I get more annoyed at every story that doesn't break this pattern.
Swing and a miss.
Let's try a different approach.
What reasoning do you have as to why BioWare - or for what matter any writer - should give this to you?
Why should they do it?
I admit the phrasing was intentionally provoking, but the point still stands that the hero loses...something personal and everything they gained for themselves. A net gain for Thedas, a net loss for the hero.
"Everything"? It's just an arm. A lump of flesh and bone. Not all that important to who the Inquisitor is and what they want.
The Inquisitor still has an astounding level of influence over the world and accomplishes what most players consider their characters goals. What were your Inquisitors goals?
Yet it is almost a neccessary element of story telling. Because, its something we all go through, have you gone through your life only making nothing but gains?
I disagree. There's no reason for it to be necessary at all. Just because we went through losses , there's no reason the inquisitor should go through losses as well.
I disagree. There's no reason for it to be necessary at all. Just because we went through losses , there's no reason the inquisitor should go through losses as well.
Do you want an empty power fantasy, or an actual character?
I disagree. There's no reason for it to be necessary at all. Just because we went through losses , there's no reason the inquisitor should go through losses as well.
If a character has no or little flaws or losing hardly nothing they are a Mary Sue. The origin and the ending of DAO is a big reason why the warden stops being a overpowered Mary sue despite everything else almost cementing them to be one. It is the same case here, alot of people complained that the Inquisitor suffered no loses and was too overpowered and perfect, so Bioware gave logical loses and made the Inquisitor likable to alot of people.
A character who is perfect is simply power fantasy, nothing more.
What reasoning do you have as to why BioWare - or for what matter any writer - should give this to you?
Why should they do it?
Hi, I'd like to take a swing at answering this.
A writer in a book setting has little responsibility to consider the reader's reaction to what befalls characters the writer creates himself.
But in a role playing situation, one in which Bioware invites us to create a character and insert the character into a story, the writing should be more interactive and the writers have more of a responsibility to include players in the interactive process. That's why they give us choices. That's what makes DAI a role playing game. And they should expect ruffled feathers when they deprive players of interactive input. It's doubly risky, in my opinion, to leave a game with the notion that the player's interactive input (the role they've carved for themselves in the story) is unimportant enough to be dismissed.
To finally answer the topic proper, I think the Inquisitor got off pretty well for themselves all things considered.
The Warden could potentially die a soulless husk, or live with the taint without a cure in sight.
Hawke can potentially die in the Fade.
Shepard could potentially die activating the crucible, and only has a shot at being alive in one ending.
We all know how Revan got bodied by the Expanded Universe material.
Compared to that, the inquisitor is more like The Bhaalspawn and The Spirit Monk as far as endings go.
And yes, It is weird that they can't regrow their arm with magic. If it's a matter of the stump being too messed up, just cut that part off and regrow it from there.
Generally speaking, I don't think there's anything wrong with power fantasies, in games. A great number of games is just a series of goals towards an end and then victory with the final enemy's head in your hands. And that's fine. They can still be great games. No losses, unless you count game-over screens.
That being said, I agree that in story-driven games, it's nice to have a character with flaws. Personality flaws, that is. Allow us to play a horrible, flawed person. Sure, that's more interesting than a morally shining champion. But there's a difference between a character that has flaws -or can have flaws, given that in rpgs it's nice to leave the character's personality to the players- and dropping the plot hammer on the hero. The flaws must come from the player and their choices, not by anvil-dropping narrative. Having a bad/sad/bittersweet/etc ending without giving the players any way to work around it, in games where story and player choices are a focus, is meaningless.
Storytelling must be done through the players, not in spite of them.
I prefer bittersweet over saccharine/power trippy stuff so I'm fine with it. The mark was never a good thing, useful under a set of [now non-existent] circumstances but otherwise existed only to make whoever had it Special. The Inquisitor was done being special, that's not a bad thing it's just a thing. Besides, if it stayed it would've been a constant glaring question mark.
Counterquestion: why shouldn't they? It is a preference, one they have no more reason to cater to than anyone else's, yes, but also no *less* reason. Yet we always see a similar pattern.Swing and a miss.
Let's try a different approach.
What reasoning do you have as to why BioWare - or for what matter any writer - should give this to you?
Why should they do it?
If there is no magic to restore the arm, there should be the option to die during the (successful) attempt to kill Solas. Maybe the Inquisitor could blow him up with a mark overload. A life as invalid is much more worse than death for a warrior, who knows nothing else than adventures.
To finally answer the topic proper, I think the Inquisitor got off pretty well for themselves all things considered.
The Warden could potentially die a soulless husk, or live with the taint without a cure in sight.
Hawke can potentially die in the Fade.
Shepard could potentially die activating the crucible, and only has a shot at being alive in one ending.
We all know how Revan got bodied by the Expanded Universe material.
Compared to that, the inquisitor is more like The Bhaalspawn and The Spirit Monk as far as endings go.
And yes, It is weird that they can't regrow their arm with magic. If it's a matter of the stump being too messed up, just cut that part off and regrow it from there.
Personally I think it's weird that regrowing arms exists in the setting, if only in a comic book I've never read and know nothing about. It is after all, a setting where they have nothing effective for contagious disease.
Speaking of, how the hell do you join the friends of Red Jenny? That sounds awesome!
Sera offered it to me in Trespasser. I don't know if she offered because I was best friends with her, or if it was some combination of being friends and not having other plans.
If it's just based on approval... most of my inquisitors end up friends with her, so grappling hook crossbow arms for everyone!
Sera offered it to me in Trespasser. I don't know if she offered because I was best friends with her, or if it was some combination of being friends and not having other plans.
If it's just based on approval... most of my inquisitors end up friends with her, so grappling hook crossbow arms for everyone!
I doubt mine would take up the offer even if it was offered...lol. I love Sera to bits but sometimes she can be a bit dramatic and Kara has no desire to join the Red Jennies.
I wanted the Mark and the continuance of the Inquisition as an inpedendent organization
I wanted that option too tbh. Maybe if you had like REALLY high power or something you could just say 'er... how 'bout no?' and I think the primary reason behind defanging the Inquisition is so that it's shadow isn't cast over the entirety of the following games. Meta-reasons then. The way they left it at the end of DAI it really did sound like the Inquisition was everywhere and disproportionately powerful, I think they just needed to curtail it so that people weren't constantly asking where the Inquisition presence was in Tevinter or whatever.
And to be fair it was created with a purpose and that purpose was fulfilled so it's not completely out of the left field.
I wanted that option too tbh. Maybe if you had like REALLY high power or something you could just say 'er... how 'bout no?' and I think the primary reason behind defanging the Inquisition is so that it's shadow isn't cast over the entirety of the following games. Meta-reasons then. The way they left it at the end of DAI it really did sound like the Inquisition was everywhere and disproportionately powerful, I think they just needed to curtail it so that people weren't constantly asking where the Inquisition presence was in Tevinter or whatever.
And to be fair it was created with a purpose and that purpose was fulfilled so it's not completely out of the left field.
That and the possibility exists of corruption from an organization that is married to the Chantry, imagine the corruption that could result from it being by itself AND uber powerful?
If a character has no or little flaws or losing hardly nothing they are a Mary Sue. The origin and the ending of DAO is a big reason why the warden stops being a overpowered Mary sue despite everything else almost cementing them to be one. It is the same case here, alot of people complained that the Inquisitor suffered no loses and was too overpowered and perfect, so Bioware gave logical loses and made the Inquisitor likable to alot of people.
A character who is perfect is simply power fantasy, nothing more.
Trespasse made the Inquisitor my favorite character of the series, so yes they made us connect with s(he). For the first time I saw the Inquistor as human being, and I'm not just ok with it, I LOVED IT, it saved the game. I just hate losing the arm, there is absolutely nothing more precious in life than the body, not even life itself, so losing a limb is a pretty big deal for me (and I'm guessing for a lot of people, ask Dr. Gregory House how does he feel about losing his leg). I wouldn't mind losing power, love, intelligence and other useless things, but my body is way too sacred, holy and wonderful for accepting losing a limb.
Trespasse made the Inquisitor my favorite character of the series, so yes they made us connect with s(he). For the first time I saw the Inquistor as human being, and I'm not just ok with it, I LOVED IT, it saved the game. I just hate losing the arm, there is absolutely nothing more precious in life than the body, not even life itself, so losing a limb is a pretty big deal for me (and I'm guessing for a lot of people, ask Dr. Gregory House how does he feel about losing his leg). I wouldn't mind losing power, love, intelligence and other useless things, but my body is way too sacred, holy and wonderful for accepting losing a limb.
They are my second favorite but it went from a distant second to neck and neck with Hawke because of Tresspasser.
Well, great? I don't want closure or variety, I want happiness and all my limbs.
Warden is happy and whole with Leliana (possibly with Morrigan too, at least I know time was spent in happiness)
Hawke is happy in kirkwall and lesbisabeling
Inquisitor is armless
1 happy ending > 300 crappy endings
In DAO you could choose between death or living, this is choice
In DA2 you didn't choose anything, but it doesn't matter, Hawke is fine if you want to and... THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS \o/
DAI is the worst plain and simple.
Your obsession over the sacredness of the body over even life itself is concerning.
The body is nothing but a shell without life.
Everyone keeps talking about an option keeping the mark despite the fact that the writers made it pretty clear that this magic is unknown, volatile, and dangerous.
I think the removal of the arm is a needed symbolism of the change brought forth by the mark.
It began one chapter. Now it ends the chapter.
Retour en haut
