More power to you if you want him there.
I do not like Michel, not one bit. Unfortunately my elf had no idea of the horrors that Michel di Chevin was responsible for, or she'd never have made him an agent despite her overall kindness. Not knowing his history would make it hard for me to have any given character not recruit him or any chevalier (because I try to roleplay rather than metagame), but I really, truly would not want him in my party.
Is he an interesting character? Yes. Does he keep his word? Yes--even to an elf, amazingly enough.
I still find him despicable. At least Solas has the good grace to feel guilty over his horrific actions--something that you don't see from Michel. Michel wants to feel he is better than elves (even though he is half elf), and he's "proven" it by killing a bunch of unarmed, helpless alienage elves who had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And why? Because Michel wanted to be "better," and he wanted to achieve rank and "honor." But there's no honor in harming the helpless.
So I suppose it's more fair to say that as far as characters go, I like him, but I still dislike his personality and would not want him as a party member. I wasn't too thrilled with having him as an agent.
Edited to add: I suppose what I'm saying is that I appreciate Michel as a character, but not as a person. It's mostly because of his lack of remorse. I guess if he started to crack and show that he was sorry for what he'd done, and if I could push him to do something to work toward redemption, I'd feel more magnanimous toward him.
Aside from that though, we seem to be going to Tevinter. Why would Michel be there? And also, the devs have stated that they are trying to be less inclined to bring back characters who could be dead. Doesn't mean they can't or won't, but it does mean it's less likely.
While you're free to have your opinions on Michel I don't think they take into account the entire picture, nor do I think we get to see Michel's depths enough to assume what he was trying to do was gain rank and be better than elves. Did he want honor? Yes. Was his ultimate intention to gain rank and prove that he was better than the elves, I didn't get that from the book to be honest with you. If Michel thought he was above the unwashed masses, elves included, he would not have protected his friend (we don't know if his friend was human, elf-blooded, or elf) from getting beaten up in the slums. Given that his mother was an elf we can possibly assume his friend was either an elf or at least elf-blooded. Additionally I don't recall his memories of his mother being ones of resentment or feeling that he was better than her, I wish the writers would have gone more into his emotions, but when he thinks about his mother's cooking I get a sense that he loved her, but he was very young when she died. The problem is that Michel is trying to find a niche in a world that doesn't really want either part of him. He generally wants to do good and based on some subtle reactions from the book he wants more for the city elves, believe it or not. His reaction to Halamshiral burning was not that he was better, and they deserved it, it wasn't the reaction of someone who believed themselves superior. "Though he hadn’t fought this evening, he looked tired, and as he looked past her at the burning slums, his face gave away some of the sorrow he had tried so hard to deny back in the coach." Clearly what happened in Halamshiral and to the people was painful for him and it's possible he even grew up up there.
Additionally whether or not Michel feels remorse, feels guilt and shame over what he did we cannot tell, again the book does not dig into him deep enough to get a sense of those particular feelings and I wish it did, so it's not explicitly stated. A little imagination and inferring is needed. What we do know is that he acknowledges his actions, when someone acknowledges that they have done something wrong, they acknowledge that they are responsible, and that shows emotional competency. Acknowledgement in it's own way means recognizing one's wrongs and knowing those wrongs which can be seen as guilt, as only guilty people acknowledge what they do. The fact that we get the memory from his point of view and not from a third party perspective of some kind gives some insight in his acknowledgement. Michel is famous for this. He acknowledged that he was wrong in letting Imshael free and he felt responsible and tried to correct it. Guilt. It's difficult to bring the dead back to life, but what we do know is that it is never mentioned that he took part in any further raids and if Briala is anything to go by he never showed any disrespect or prejudice toward any elf up until his identity was discovered then he started using knife-ear as a defense mechanism.
So, while yes, I do agree that the Chevalier induction practice of getting new recruits drunk on wine, putting weapons in their hands, and throwing them out into the streets to kill is wrong and corrupt...you would have to say the same for many of the organizations throughout Thedas that are corrupt and many of the much beloved characters who are corrupt or are part of the big machine that perpetuates the corruptness making their hands dirty by proxy, just as bloody. Good people who do nothing are just as corrupt and guilty, particularly those who live in ignorance, bury their heads in the sand, and refuse to acknowledge.
I can think of examples like Dorian Pavus, who is a character I absolutely adore, but never would he have lifted a finger to free the elves or other slaves of Tevinter, never would the thought have crossed his mind and I'm still not so certain that it does, unless he had been part of the Inquisition. Perhaps his family treats their slaves well, but owning slaves means you have to view people as inferior. Does he develop during his time with the Inquisition? Yes. And we get to see that development, we do not know how Michel has developed in his travels and in his trials, though he did make protecting that village a priority even over slaying Imshael which had been his purpose (it's important to note that Michel does not walk away from his purpose so easily, but he did it to protect those people, that shows growth) so perhaps he has grown as a character. If Dorian can grow then why not Michel, is it just because we do not see it? It's easier to judge a character when we see that character as a creature that does not possess the ability to grow, but I believe Michel grows.
And what about the noble character that is Cullen Rutherford, let's discuss some of the noble things he's done as part of his duty as a Templar...such as what happens to magi who fail their Harrowing. He kills them. Yup. Cullen Rutherford murderer of innocents who fail their Harrowing. The alternative is being made tranquil. So the mages within the circle are made to undergo this test, they do not know when they will be given this test, and this test is designed to determine if one has will, common sense, and a prowess for resisting temptation, it has nothing to do with magical competency, they are measuring things that are subjective here. If you don't want to do this you can elect to be an emotional zombie. Either way you are forced to do something you do not want to do and if you fail at the Harrowing you are killed and Cullen was part of that. I suspect he acknowledges it and as I said acknowledgement means knowing you did wrong, and knowing you did wrong implies guilt. Still, he was part of this slaughter fest as was part of being a Templar, except instead of elves it was mages and Templars are infamous for mistreatment of mages. That doesn't make them all bad...but by your reasoning Cullen must think he's better than mages then (and that includes elves btw)? But I do not believe that is the sum of who he is and I do believe people change, Cullen changes (but depending on your route, he could be a jerk too). I do not believe Michel's induction is the sum of who he is either and it shouldn't be everything that colors the perspective of his character.
I could keep giving examples of perfectly good characters who have done awful things or how they are part of this machine of awful things as bystanders, like Zevran who has probably killed plenty of innocent people without remorse as a Crow in his time (possibly more innocent people than Michel himself I dare say) as a member of the Crows. One could argue that he had very little choice and that he shows remorse...for some things, but only for some things. He also saw the advantage of being a Crow and the benefits as well and looked at what he did as a job, killing is a way to put coin in his pocket. Again a perfectly good character, but not a noble one by any stretch of the imagination. Give me a character and there's a good chance they have done something despicable for a cause they believed in, for something they wanted, for "the greater good" etc.
I think it's unfair to be that harsh with Michel while forgetting to take into account the entire context of Thedas, the way it is structured, his place in it as an elf-blooded who is neither recognized by humans or elves. You will not find a single order that is not corrupt in its methods on some level.
Retour en haut
Oh well, too late for that.
I can't stand the teased hair, though. Too poofy at the top.
) and none of the nuance that made the character interesting in the book. Why have him there to begin with? Just to nod and wink at players who read the book? So sad...
