I've been scouring the forums here and have been seeing some discussions about Iron Bull's betrayal, in my observations it seems like overall a lot of people are "positively" defending Bull, by that I mean using language such as, "the inquisitor deserved it," "the inquisitor should have seen it coming," "what do you expect, you killed the chargers, you killed the only people he loved," (make note of that "you"). And personally I don't really understand how such a betrayal can be defended in such a way, or really defended at all, particularly from a moral standpoint. So I just want to see whether I'm just crazy thinking that Bull overall is not a very good person, and whether you can even call him a person in the first place, I'll explain more of that later on (and yes you might be able to see my disdain for the Qun showing 
), in other words just my thoughts on the whole debacle. Also I want to examine how this all effects the perception of the Qun, to me, to the player, and to the world of Thedas.
1. So first, when I found out Bull would betray any character that didn't save the chargers, it certainly changed my entire view on him as a person. Now I only found out about it reading online, though I was currently doing a playthrough where I was romancing him and I let the chargers die, and the thought he was going to betray me was quite saddening. I also was reading a bit more and heard that if you romanced Bull and the chargers were dead, Bull wont have much to say to you at the winter palace, in other words no romance scenes, I don't know if this is true and I will soon find out when I get there, but this is the first problem I have with the whole Bull betrayal, particularly in regards to game design.
The problem is that it feels like that choice is just all around the "wrong" choice. By that I mean the player gets really nothing substantial in return for making it, at least comparatively to making the choice to save the chargers. Now we can all guess what effect it will have in the future games, but for now we can only work with what we got, and from the looks of it, it isn't much, also especially true if you romanced Bull as I mentioned above. Now I'm not saying all choices need to have positive effects, at least in regards to the in-game character, but they should have positive effects for the real human being playing the game. For example, sure choices can result in betrayals but that then should at least result in more dialogue/cutscenes/quests for the player, which the player wouldn't get if they didn't make that "bad" choice, but as mentioned, it seems if you romanced Bull and the chargers are dead you don't get any substantial unique scenes, which when looking at what you get when romancing other characters like Cullen or Sera, is very disappointing. Not only that but the scene when he betrays you, at least from what I gleam, doesn't amount to much dialogue or interaction with Bull, which I think is a problem because there isn't anything given to the player (in this case what is given is lacking greatly) that balances the bad thing that is happening to the in-game character they are playing as, which overall for me, makes that choice seem like a punishment for the player, i.e. a wrong choice.
2. Now what does Bull's betrayal say about Bull himself? Well, I think nothing good. Originally before trespasser Bull was one of my favorite characters, I enjoyed interactions with him and his lines of dialogue. But now every time he speaks its just dead whispers, it's all lies and deceit, and I find it hard to like such a person. For example, I was recently with him while adventuring in the dales, and I think he remarks being disgusted how the Freeman of the Dales are treating innocent people badly. And it's moments like that where I just can't take him seriously anymore, where he comes off as being a despicable person, considering he goes along with a plan to blow up major areas in Thedas with the "dragon's breath" where I'm sure tons of "innocent" people will die. Right Iron Bull, you care about the innocent Bas. Of course I say innocent because according to the Qun there are no innocent people, no? Except those who are part of the Qun? Point is, as a characteristic of a person, this seems quite terrible.
Now of course I'm talking about Qunari Bull, not Tal Vashoth Bull, but let's not forget they are actually the same person, Iron Bull chooses to either be a Qunari or Tal Vashoth of his own volition. In the end it's his choice, and he's responsible for them, not the inquisitor. Whether the chargers die or not, the choice to go along with a plan to kill thousands is his choice, likewise it is his choice if he chose to be "re-educated." If one moment of loss of life makes someone become genocidal, well I don't see how that person is good. And yes, the inquisitor didn't kill the chargers, the venatori did. Sure, the choice that led to the charges dying was made by the inquisitor(personally I didn't really like that whole scene and the choices available, every time I play it I want to ask Bull "What do you think? It's your men, what do you want to do? In other words, a choice to go along with whatever Bull wants to do, sure it shows him not wanting the chargers to die, but then he turns to you as if the choice is up to me. What are you looking at me for? What do you want to do, save them? not save them? Then there should be an option like "go along with Bull"), but in war, in a battle the person in charge is bound to have to make choices that lead to people dying. I don't see how that equates to them being the one who killed them, at least not in the manner for which such a statement is used to defend Iron Bull's betrayal.
Regardless, for the sake of argument, let's just say the inquisitor was guilty some how, sure I understand Iron Bull would be angry, and a betrayal might be justified, assuming for the sake of argument that what the inquisitor did would be equivalent to "betrayal." The problem is, is that a simple betrayal of the inquisitor may be justified, not going along with a plan to blow up major cities in Thedas and kill thousands, maybe even millions, which is what Iron Bull did. So I just want to note, that what Iron Bull does isn't just a simple betrayal of the Inquisitor, it's much worse.
So in the end, is the Inquisitor to blame? No, as I don't think it's the responsibility of the inquisitor, or anyone for that matter, to make sure other people are good, doesn't mean we don't help, but ultimately it's the individuals them selves who are responsible. And if Bull can't think for himself, that's on him, and frankly I don't find that a good character trait. Likewise as mentioned above, he turns to you, the inquisitor (in the scene where the chargers either live or die), I'm assuming to go along with whatever choice the inquisitor makes, so yes to then blame the inquisitor for their choice, when you turned to them to go along with their choice, just isn't right.
3. What does this all mean for the Qunari? Well, I kind of liked the concept of the Qunari, a group that follows a rigid code of conduct without question, though I would have liked it if the code was a little less, well, evil. It seems as if the code pretty much just says, everyone else must becomes us, or die. Just to give an example, it would have been interesting if a part of their code involved a certain concept of loyalty/honesty where they must be honest and loyal to whomever they swear it to, and this can of course change over time, and would probably mean things like spies or the ben hassrath couldn't exist, but the point is it would have been interesting if the belief system was structured in such a way that would have made it so Iron Bull wouldn't be allowed to betray the inquisitor, or that it would be morally wrong according to their belief structure to do so, but it still would have been morally right for the viddasala to try to kill the inquisitor (it's just that iron bull wouldn't be allowed to), if that makes sense. I just think it would make it less black and white and more interesting. Which brings me to what I want to discuss, and that is Tevinter vs Qunari.
As the next game will most likely be in Tevinter, and will probably involve the battle between Tevinter and the Qunari, the player will probably also be able to side with one of them, or at least that might be what Bioware will try to do. It would be kind of similar to the whole mage vs templar conflict. The problem is I don't see it as very similar, before trespasser I honestly thought bioware did a fairly decent job of not making the Qunari appear as completely evil, but with trespasser, specifically with the whole Iron Bull thing, and how if he is still qunari he betrays you no matter what, regardless of romance or approval, and Cole also mentions in that scene that Iron Bull felt nothing, meaning it was as if he had no emotions or feelings at all, which as I mentioned in the very beginning, it brings up the question of the definition of a person (from Cole's statement it seems that not only did Iron Bull not have any emotions or feelings, it's as if he didn't even have a will of his own, meaning he was nothing more than a mindless drone of the Qun) I just don't see how it would make any sense to ever side with the Qunari. Of course this is me speaking as the player, an in game character I'm playing as may side with the Qunari still because they wouldn't have the same information as the player, but even so I would probably have a hard time ever playing as such a character. So to be clear, knowing what the player knows it would never make sense to side with the Qunari.
So why is that the case? Well from the looks of it, you can never truly be an ally of them, it seems there mission is always to assimilate you into a mindless drone, or kill you. So that kind of makes it impossible to ally with them, even if you wanted to or even thought you did ally with them, you actually never are. Likewise morally speaking, when comparing Tevinter to the Qunari, both are pretty bad but I do think the Qunari are worse. As bad as slavery is, and as bad as slavery seems to be in Tevinter (though from speaking to Dorian, not all slaves are actually being actively abused, as he said the slaves his family owned weren't), I think being a mindless drone is worse, i.e. whatever qamek does to you, is worse than just being a slave. As at least as a slave you still have your memories and a mind of your own. In other words, the qunari have slaves, they just wipe their memories and make them mindless by using the qamek. Likewise I would take a place that creates people like Dorian over people? like Iron Bull. What's that saying? You will know them by their fruits, and the Qunari just seems to always create bad apples. I'd take some good apples over all bad apples any day.
Retour en haut
And yeah you're right about the banter bug. I just don't get it. Every single other romance got a special scene (well save Josie I think) but we don't even get that much. 
