37 réponses à ce sujet

[kann.nix9mm]

Taegan's point of the G.W. being exiled is a rather moot point.

 

It is established canon that nobody knows why exactly the G.W. had been exiled back than. Don't forget tha Taegan was making a point, he is still a politician and will use everything in his favor. G.W. generally being innocent of what they did because of Cory is irrelevant. The public doesn't care for details. They did it and have to pay for it.

 

BTT. I see it like the Op. It would have been easy for Orlais and Fereldan to press on the Inquisition. Using propaganda and economic pressure to cripple it ... no need for the decision which in fact isn't one.

[wright1978]

The real problem is that the Inquisition's existence is dependent on alliances.  The Inquisition becomes ineffective if it makes enemies of it's most important supporters: Fereldan and Orlais.  That's why it's only realistic choices are to either downsize to appease them or disband altogether.

 

The issue with the spies isn't that there are a few, the issue is that the Inquisition is so badly compromised that the Qunari were able to use them to smuggle explosives into the Exalted Council and Fen'Harel was able to play them like a fiddle.  Some kind of restructuring is necessary.

 

If you want to make the argument that Orlais and Ferelden will destroy the inquisition rather than let it continue then that should be an option. At such a key moment there should be a chance for the player to express real variation in characterisation. For example on one side of the choice let the option be there to disband or to refuse to disband, whereby the organisation is forcibly disbanded against their will. On the other side choose between reducing to an honour guard or an independent mercenary force.

 

 

The gaatlok was being smuggled in by an orlesian elven servant, not the inquistion as far as i could tell. Does that mean Orlais should be restructured.

[Heimdall]

If you want to make the argument that Orlais and Ferelden will destroy the inquisition rather than let it continue then that should be an option. At such a key moment there should be a chance for the player to express real variation in characterisation. For example on one side of the choice let the option be there to disband or to refuse to disband, whereby the organisation is forcibly disbanded against their will. On the other side choose between reducing to an honour guard or an independent mercenary force.

 

 

The gaatlok was being smuggled in by an orlesian elven servant, not the inquistion as far as i could tell. Does that mean Orlais should be restructured.

That would have been a nice option, I won't argue with that.  I'm just saying that the devs set it up so that downsizing or disbanding are the only viable futures for the Inquisition.

 

No, I believe Josephine or Leliana says the gaatlok was actually smuggled in with the Inquisition's supplies.

[wright1978]

That would have been a nice option, I won't argue with that.  I'm just saying that the devs set it up so that downsizing or disbanding are the only viable futures for the Inquisition.

 

No, I believe Josephine or Leliana says the gaatlok was actually smuggled in with the Inquisition's supplies.

 

Yeah i don't have a particular issue if devs want to move the pieces round the board to setup destruction of the inquisition as the only outcome. They still need to give the player a wider range of agencyimo , that includes resisting such destruction  even if such resistance fails, rather than resorting to player characterisation railroading. Equally especially non andrastian inquisitors need another choice other than disbandment imo.

 

I'd forgotten that. It doesn't get round the fact that it was orlesian servants distributing it, not inquisition ones. All the incident proves is that everyone has to beef up their security and procedures.

[Dr. rotinaj]

Orlesians were abused by Corypheus and Orlesian leader of Grey wardens was a mage so you can't accuse them for doing something  without their free will

 

No, you can totally blame the Grey Wardens. The Order has no accountability and almost total secrecy, it has no screening process other than "can you fight darkspawn?", its members are told repeatedly to do "whatever it takes to save the world", and due to their secrecy they are the only faction that can end a Blight. Do you not see how dangerous this combination is? The Wardens  are literally the only ones who can save the world and they do so without any counsel or supervision. It's up to them how they save the world, especially during Blights where they have significant political leverage. There's no way that Warden leadership can function in that environment without suffering corruption and when a powerful organization like the Wardens suffers corruption it's very dangerous. 

 

The manipulation of the Wardens at Adamant isn't some random one-off catastrophe. It's a direct result of the Wardens poor structure and lack of oversight. Clarel knew sacrificing recruits for an army was extreme but she "must do whatever it takes" and she had nobody to consult because she was the Warden Commander of Orlais. 

 

The Wardens really need to be brought to an Exalted Council. They, even more so than the Inquisition, need to be made into an accountable organization.

[kann.nix9mm]

You also could bring all Kings and Queens of Thedas before the Council (extreme case). Problem is that the Wardens are a) an acknowledged organization, rectified by all nations, aside from the Qunari and that b.)Orails and Fereldan have only jurisdiction about something within their borders, making the Council as it is useless ...

 

And secrets? What about the Seekers? Templars? The bloody Chantry? The Council is a bloody bomb waiting to go.

 

And for such an old organization they are surprisingly simple minded and free of visible corruption.

[ComedicSociopathy]

Let's face it, in Thedas the ideal organization structure to deal with potentially world destroying catastrophes is the adventuring party. Every time someone tries to create a massive institution to do it things go wrong. Like always. We've see it happen with the Grey Wardens, the Templar Order, the Circle of Magi and the Seekers of Truth.  

 

Sort of ridiculous really. 

[leaguer of one]

What nonsense. The inquisition may indeed have some potential spies. If having potential for spies is reason for disbandment, then every nation and organisation in Thedas needs to disband as they have potential for having spies of one particular type or another.

1. Countries are self sufficient and can restructure when needed. The inquisition is not. All land it has is own by other countries. All resource and food is given by other countries. It can't drastically reorder it self the was a country can in a time like this when others want to do away with them.

 

2.The issue is not just the spies, it's the size. the inquisition only has the power to stay independent because it has the man power to bully major powers. Any major restructuring is going to drastically weaken that power for a time which can allow the country who want to take them down by force to do so.

 

The only way the inquisiton can say the way it is to actually becoming a country of it own and doing is just going to cause more war the organization is trying to avoid.

[leaguer of one]

If you want to make the argument that Orlais and Ferelden will destroy the inquisition rather than let it continue then that should be an option. At such a key moment there should be a chance for the player to express real variation in characterisation. For example on one side of the choice let the option be there to disband or to refuse to disband, whereby the organisation is forcibly disbanded against their will. On the other side choose between reducing to an honour guard or an independent mercenary force.

 

 

The gaatlok was being smuggled in by an orlesian elven servant, not the inquistion as far as i could tell. Does that mean Orlais should be restructured.

It not that they would destroy the inquisition. That's not the issue. It's that we can't divide the inquisitions focus at this time with Solas' plan.

Staying independent would mean conflict with the countries of southern thedus with inquisition. We can have that if the organization needs to focus northward on the Qunari and on Solas.

 

It would just bring too many fronts to the fight. Add the inquisition works at it's best work with countries not ageist.

[wright1978]

It not that they would destroy the inquisition. That's not the issue. It's that we can't divide the inquisitions focus at this time with Solas' plan.

Staying independent would mean conflict with the countries of southern thedus with inquisition. We can have that if the organization needs to focus northward on the Qunari and on Solas.

 

It would just bring too many fronts to the fight. Add the inquisition works at it's best work with countries not ageist.

 

Deciding whether to divide the focus of the inquisition is something that should lie with the inquisitor/player.

Bad consequences for said choice i could handle, utter railroading of the player character into something unrecognisable not so much

[Dr. rotinaj]

And secrets? What about the Seekers? Templars? The bloody Chantry? The Council is a bloody bomb waiting to go.

 

And for such an old organization they are surprisingly simple minded and free of visible corruption.

 

It's funny that you mentioned those groups because they suffered ridiculous levels of corruption and other problems.

 

Cass literally says "You begin to think that you are the only one who can solve problems" when talking about the Seekers power over the Circles. The Templars and the Chantry were both extremely flawed organizations before DAI. Much of DAI is about reforming the Circle and Chantry system because it didn't work.

 

You're gonna have to explain how the Wardens are free of visible corruption.

- They claim to be forbidden from interfering with politics, but they do. A lot. Djikstra from Witcher says it best "That's just an excuse you pull when the temperature gets to hot" (paraphrasing)

- There is no group outside of the Wardens that knows how to kill archdemons and the Wardens are content to keep it that way

- The only reason the First Warden cared about the Ferelden wardens is because they got legal ownership of an arling

- Dryden rebelled against the king of Ferelden

- Clarel was making a demon army with Erimond

etc.

 

The Wardens are basically DA's version of Cerberus. The HoF being part of the Order doesn't make a single difference.

[leaguer of one]

Deciding whether to divide the focus of the inquisition is something that should lie with the inquisitor/player.

Bad consequences for said choice i could handle, utter railroading of the player character into something unrecognisable not so much

Sorry but they can't give a fail option because this is a dlc meant to transition out of this character to another. Any plan of any fail or counter productive choice is for the next character we make.

 

If the argument is about being allowed to make bad choice just to make bad choice then it best just stick our head in the ground to the end of the earth.

[wright1978]

Sorry but they can't give a fail option because this is a dlc meant to transition out of this character to another. Any plan of any fail or counter productive choice is for the next character we make.
 
If the argument is about being allowed to make bad choice just to make bad choice then it best just stick our head in the ground to the end of the earth.

To me this dlc was meant to neuter the inquisition and the inquisitor before moving on to the next protagonist.
There's plenty of scope for other paths of neutering.

roleplaying should have choices that end up with being bad or not at the place hoped.