527 réponses à ce sujet

[Bhryaen]

Why bother having Luke's hand cut off when he gets a fully functional prosthetic within ten minutes? Because it adds to the story. It marks the protagonist and the antagonist in a way that wouldn't exist if the antagonist never removed the arm.

You do know that the scene with Luke's hand coming off was during a sword (saber) fight- one which Luke would've otherwise continued indefinitely in his attempt to best Vader. Vader didn't remove Luke's (saber-holding) hand to help Luke out. It ended the fight at that moment and allowed for the "I'm your father" reveal, also placing Luke in a very precarious position in which Vader clearly was calculating Luke would feel desperate and come over to "the Dark Side" with him. It was entirely plot-driven, not just an "add" to the story. That Luke later gets a new hand works just fine, now that the reveal scene already happened: the hand removal served a particular purpose in the story development.

 

The Inq, on the other hand, didn't seem to need to lose it at all. There was no combat with Solas where Solas blasted off the arm. There was no reveal after the arm came off (which we don't even see on-screen in DAI), given that it was the last thing that happens while Solas walks off into the sunset. The arm loss was just... inevitable. Like the fact that all journeys have an end. Clearly Solas could do an eye-flash thingy to control how strongly the Mark affected the Inq (so arguably the writers could have had Solas merely neutralize the Mark, keeping the Inq's arm intact), but apparently removing the arm was the only solution... so the removal was supposed to work narratively... for something. What did the something involve? The Inq was taken out of the position of potential protagonist. Luke's hand removal was for one thing. The Inq's was for another. The thing is, if it doesn't take the Inq out of the protag shoes- i.e., the arm can be restored to perfect "effectiveness"- what point was there in the writers "adding" that subtraction? Oh, how quaint, a new arm now? If the loss of the arm is going to mean anything for the Inq's story, it should be gone for good... with all the emotion that such a loss entails... the sacrifice that our DAI character made in order to save the world... Then the arm loss means something.

[Ieldra]

@Bhryaen:

So....there isn't a real contradiction? The Inquisitor tells Solas she'll stop him because that's what she would do - for most of our Inquisitors, at least - but at the same time, she loses a hand to indicate that she won't be at the forefront of events (read: not the protagonist) any more. Hmm...that way it all makes sense, and even the Inquisitor's optional comment that her adventuring days are over fits in. Nice.

 

Now if I could only have some trust in Bioware's perception of what makes sense after ME3. DAI did some repairs in that regard but still...

 

On the other hand....you know....if Bioware had the balls to give us a non-combatant protagonist I'd almost consider it worth getting the Inquisitor back. Almost.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You do know that the scene with Luke's hand coming off was during a sword (saber) fight- one which Luke would've otherwise continued indefinitely in his attempt to best Vader. Vader didn't remove Luke's (saber-holding) hand to help Luke out. It ended the fight at that moment and allowed for the "I'm your father" reveal, also placing Luke in a very precarious position in which Vader clearly was calculating Luke would feel desperate and come over to "the Dark Side" with him. It was entirely plot-driven, not just an "add" to the story. That Luke later gets a new hand works just fine, now that the reveal scene already happened: the hand removal served a particular purpose in the story development.

 

The Inq, on the other hand, didn't seem to need to lose it at all. There was no combat with Solas where Solas blasted off the arm. There was no reveal after the arm came off (which we don't even see on-screen in DAI), given that it was the last thing that happens while Solas walks off into the sunset. The arm loss was just... inevitable. Like the fact that all journeys have an end. Clearly Solas could do an eye-flash thingy to control how strongly the Mark affected the Inq (so arguably the writers could have had Solas merely neutralize the Mark, keeping the Inq's arm intact), but apparently removing the arm was the only solution... so the removal was supposed to work narratively... for something. What did the something involve? The Inq was taken out of the position of potential protagonist. Luke's hand removal was for one thing. The Inq's was for another. The thing is, if it doesn't take the Inq out of the protag shoes- i.e., the arm can be restored to perfect "effectiveness"- what point was there in the writers "adding" that subtraction? Oh, how quaint, a new arm now? If the loss of the arm is going to mean anything for the Inq's story, it should be gone for good... with all the emotion that such a loss entails... the sacrifice that our DAI character made in order to save the world... Then the arm loss means something.

First, Luke having his right hand cut off was for a lot more than just to end that fight by having Vader literally disarm him. It was also to create a connection to Vader since Vader also lost his right hand, thus showing a parallel between Vader and Luke, a "the sins of the father pass to his son" thing. This revelation is clarified when Vader has his right hand cut off by Luke in Return of the Jedi when Luke momentarily went to the Dark Side fighting Vader, and seeing how he was becoming Vader snapped him out of it. 

 

Second, so what you're saying is that for the loss of a limb to mean anything the person who lost the limb has to be an invalid for the rest of their life? And if they get a prosthetic arm that allows them to do what they could before then the loss of their arm means nothing to them? You clearly don't know anything about the loss of a limb and the effect it can have on people. 

[Bhryaen]

@Bhryaen:

So....there isn't a real contradiction? The Inquisitor tells Solas she'll stop him because that's what she would do - for most of our Inquisitors, at least - but at the same time, she loses a hand to indicate that she won't be at the forefront of events (read: not the protagonist) any more. Hmm...that way it all makes sense, and even the Inquisitor's optional comment that her adventuring days are over fits in. Nice.

 

Now if I could only have some trust in Bioware's perception of what makes sense after ME3. DAI did some repairs in that regard but still...

 

On the other hand....you know....if Bioware had the balls to give us a non-combatant protagonist I'd almost consider it worth getting the Inquisitor back. Almost.

Non-combatant?! No way! I love combat! I'll take only 4 quickslots before I go total no-fighting! (haha)

 

I'm just surprised that players seem surprised that the Inq could declare something that won't happen the way she intends, especially with a game like DA where a disparity between what people say and what people do- or between what people say and what actually happens- is par for the course. They did an excellent job in DAO of having Loghain make persuasive arguments in the Landsmeet against the Warden despite that, you know, we'd played the Warden and knew every bit of it was false... and yet Landsmeet folks actually were persuaded to one degree or another. If there seems a contradiction between the Inq declaring she'll stop Solas- even doing so while reaaaaalllly meaning it- and her actual ability to do anything, it isn't a game narrative contradiction: it's just the way the world works. I mean, the guy can petrify you with a literal blink of an eye (or not even a blink). What chance does one have against him in combat even without losing an arm? If there's a way to neutralize his medusa-esque power that arises in DA4, however, a new protag with the ability to handle DA's entirely two-armed combat will be needed to implement it.

 

Mind you, I could see them adding a scene at or near the end where the Solas "final confrontation" happens during which the Inq (as cameo) shows up- maybe only if you'd played the "respect" scene and swore to "redeem" him- and tries to carry out with that "redeem" mission, but the new protag would be there to exert their own involvement as the decisive one. In fact, the Inq might only show up if the player has their new protag inform the Inq that they'll be meeting with Solas in a vulnerable moment or some such, having the option to keep the Inq out of it.

[Bhryaen]

First, Luke having his right hand cut off was for a lot more than just to end that fight by having Vader literally disarm him. It was also to create a connection to Vader since Vader also lost his right hand, thus showing a parallel between Vader and Luke, a "the sins of the father pass to his son" thing. This revelation is clarified when Vader has his right hand cut off by Luke in Return of the Jedi when Luke momentarily went to the Dark Side fighting Vader, and seeing how he was becoming Vader snapped him out of it. 

 

Second, so what you're saying is that for the loss of a limb to mean anything the person who lost the limb has to be an invalid for the rest of their life? And if they get a prosthetic arm that allows them to do what they could before then the loss of their arm means nothing to them? You clearly don't know anything about the loss of a limb and the affect it can have on people. 

Maybe I'm getting my "Star Wars" wrong, but didn't Vader lose his hand to Luke only in the next movie? (If it happened also in the prequel Jar-Jar-Binks "Star Wars" trilogy I wouldn't likely recall it.) And wasn't that hand loss pretty much the same situation, only now with the tables turned- Vader taken out of the fight and forced to accept Luke's offer to come to the... erm... "Light Side of the Force?" Which he ultimately did. We don't know at the Luke hand-loss point that Vader will also lose his. But regardless, you see my point: it wasn't just to "add" a li'l story to Luke, now the Guy with the Neat Mechanical Hand. It served a specific narrative purpose.

 

And, no, obviously I'm not saying that anyone who loses a limb must be an invalid forever (though apart from artificial limbs IRL it will be a permanent loss) for it to have impacted their lives. I'm saying that the writers didn't have the Inq lose her/his arm with the same level of impact as the cosmetic fashion scars we can add to our Inq's faces at the CC. If Luke's (or Vader's for that matter) hand loss served only to show father-son continuity- or only served to take either one out of the fight- or only served to show thematically whether the Dark or Light side of the Force was winning at one point or another... the main thing is that it served a purpose. The removal of the Inq's arm served zero purpose if in DA4 we're up and running again because it didn't affect the Inq's story in any other way if it's not permanent. The most it did was make for an armless couple cutscenes at the end of Trespasser- i.e., completely superficial.

 

As to some emotional impact of having once lost a limb- i.e., but now not at all since everything's back to normal and hunky dory- I'm sure there would be some- more or less. But what would that entail? A scene at the beginning of DA4 where the Inq says, "Gosh, that temporary arm loss was awful"? Practically the arm loss would've had zero impact. It would be fully restored, carry on as per usual. I'm pretty sure I can say unequivocally that those who've actually lost limbs would love the opportunity to have their limbs fully restored and be able to take them for granted again, would, if they had the means, go to any kind of lengths to have the limb restored. But part of what makes their story compelling is that they can't. It's not a quaint story of "ain't that special." It's a gripping story with, yes, emotional impact. I work in industry, so believe me, I know these stories. Safety videos don't let us forget them, and there was one series by a guy completely disfigured by an accident (of his own doing) at a petroleum plant who nevertheless made his living afterward by making safety videos and giving related safety lectures to employees. But, no, I haven't experienced it myself (thank good fortune and my own sense of personal safety), and, like anyone who still has their limbs, I thus don't know exactly what it's like. I don't mind.

 

In the Inq's case, however- you know, in a fantasy realm where magic happens- if he/she can restore the limb, it sorta brushes aside/ side-steps/ ignores/ glosses over the real sense of loss that people who've lost limbs endure. It takes the easy road. Or do you think that the Inq with a fully restored limb would really know what it means to permanently lose a limb or be forced to use prosthetics? They wouldn't either... cuz magic. Which is the actual point I was making: that the Inq's arm loss meant something because it had an actual, practical, miserable, but meaningful impact. Now imagine the opening scene of DA4 in which the Inq as cameo demonstrates what it means to them that they've permanently lost a limb. Even, "I don't want to talk about it," would be meaningful.

 

And this brings it back to the central question: if the arm loss meant anything to the Inq's story, what did it mean? Are the writers to sorta say, "Oops, no, our bad, it's all better now" for DA4? Or are we to learn to accept our handicapped Inq as they now are who- whether they wanted to or not- lost a limb in order to save the world? Do we merely pity them for it and curse those nasty DA writers or feel a profound sense of our DAI character's role in the unfolding events of Thedas that continue to call for new heroes to make yet new sacrifices? Mind you, the Warden could've made the "ultimate sacrifice" and in any case was (so we figured) permanently plagued by the taint, unable to have children and living a drastically foreshortened life. Thanks for the heads-up, Duncan!

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maybe I'm getting my "Star Wars" wrong, but didn't Vader lose his hand to Luke only in the next movie? (If it happened also in the prequel Jar-Jar-Binks "Star Wars" trilogy I wouldn't likely recall it.) And wasn't that hand loss pretty much the same situation, only now with the tables turned- Vader taken out of the fight and forced to accept Luke's offer to come to the... erm... "Light Side of the Force?" Which he ultimately did. We don't know at the Luke hand-loss point that Vader will also lose his. But regardless, you see my point: it wasn't just to "add" a li'l story to Luke, now the Guy with the Neat Mechanical Hand. It served a specific narrative purpose.

Vader lost his organic hand in Attack of the Clones when he fought Count Dooku. Luke did cut off Vader's hand in Return of the Jedi, but that was a prosthetic hand. That's when Luke saw the parallel and immediately stopped fighting. And no, for a while Vader just stood by while Palpatine used Force lightning on Luke for not embracing the Dark Side. It was only when Luke pleaded for help from Vader that he stepped in and threw Palpatine down the tower shaft to his death. It wasn't because the tables turned that Vader gave up the Dark Side, but a father's love for his son that redeemed him. 

 

As for your point about the Inquisitor losing their hand having no purpose, by that logic neither did Luke losing his at that point in time other than Vader removing Luke's weapon, which the scene with Solas can be seen as him removing a weapon that can be used against him and his plans. And like how the more narrative purpose wasn't revealed until the next movie, the Inquisitor losing a hand can have a narrative purpose in the next game that we don't know of yet. Likewise with how much it is effecting the Inquisitor having one arm gone and replaced by one of wood or metal. You just assume everything will be okay like nothing ever happened from the start. 

[vbibbi]

That's true- it's not just the ability tree but also the stat adjustments that are now incorporated automatically with the abilities. How would a missing/renewed limb destroy all one's DEX, STR, MAG, WILL, etc. back to Lvl1 either? There isn't going to be a sufficient explanation.

 

I was pretty tired of the "debate" myself- was just going to let it go, but I saw this thread and was kinda happy someone had started it given how many of the contrary threads were there, so I thought I'd just let out my parting thoughts on the matter. And it really isn't much of a "debate" since "I just feel like the Inq should return as protag" isn't an argument: it's just an expression of emotional disposition- a wish. And like you say, that's pretty much all there is to that position other than quips and head-canon. The position itself doesn't withstand much scrutiny. And the technical issues involved (for the devs, mind you) can't get worked through- even if they were willing to discuss it- when there's not even any debating of sacred "emotional commitment." I get it: they played an elf girl who says of Solas, "But I can change him!" So it could feel personal. It's just that I played one too and didn't have the same reaction despite being pretty enthralled with Solas as a character the whole way. The end choice is inevitable because of Solas, not because of our relationship with him: either we think we can persuade him not to torch the world or we're bound to thwart him regardless- a choice which even a snarky character who's just in it for themselves would face.

 

Yes, there's great deal of potential in a more canonical relationship with Solas. I was thinking more along the lines that the cameo Inq is urging the new protag at various game intervals either to "redeem" or "stop" Solas (according to the Keep setting), but experiences with Solas as a new protag give the character (and player) a different reference to make decisions in that regard. Despite the Inq urging the protag to "redeem" Solas, we may encounter something like the scene where he brutally obliterated the mages for daring to try to get a Wisdom Spirit to defend them. Would our character still want to redeem him? Or despite the Inq urging the protag to "stop" Solas, we get some scene where he saves the protag's life- or the life of someone dear to the protag- or the protag's Dalish clan- or the protag's dwarven House, and Solas confides in the protag in an endearing way in the midst of some struggle. So does our new protag really now feel Solas is a bad guy to be stopped at all costs? Does our new protag even believe the Inq's warnings? These are all- to me anyway- much more interesting experiences and questions for the player to roleplay than mere drama between Queen Inq and King Solly, adding a new dimension to the entire rollout of the story.

 

I had another idea that at the end Solas may confess that he knew all along that our protag had been sent by the Inq, and he was now of a mind- all on his own- that he can't be the one to bring back the unVeiled Fade (he's obviously heavy-hearted about the decision in Trespasser, even with a hostile Inq), and that he now leaves it up to your character to decide the fate of the world because he doesn't feel it should be up to him who is kinda not of this world to begin with... and if you decide to break the Veil, it's actually Solas who stops you from tearing it down. Anyway- lots more to explore narratively that way than the "But I wanna have Inky back!" proponents seem to appreciate.

 

I just don't want an Inq cameo like Hawke's where they behave in a way my Hawke wouldn't have. There's no way my Hawke would ever get so violent against all Wardens the way DAI has him/her do in the Fade. So long as the devs just stick to the role of Inq and the various Keep settings, it'll be a great interplay for players, particularly given the expectations of DAI players going into it and the metagame knowledge players have.

 

Yeah, it's just frustrating when people seem to be primarily using an emotional argument of "but this is the way I think it should happen!" and ignore objective reasoning. I'm not saying the way they think it should happen is wrong, it's just unrealistic and unsupported by anything Bioware has said, what the game has said (in my opinion) or anything else other than their unresolved feelings in the matter and their interpretation of the ending. I get the attachment, I would have loved Hawke as the Inquisitor, but I accepted that it didn't happen, even if I thought it would have been narratively better.

 

It's also good to remember that these discussions are in the heat of the moment of Trespasser, so it's fresh in our mind and the emotional pain is the strongest. When DA4 comes out in however many years, none of this is going to be recent for us. Bioware shouldn't count on the fans having that same level of heightened emotion if they're playing DA4 as the Inquisitor and the conflict between the Inquisitor and Solas is still based in the previous game. That's expecting the player to meta game this conflict, which is disadvantageous to new players. So, they would need to restate the conflict between Solas and the PC regardless in the next game. So...it wouldn't matter if it's rehashing the old conflict or establishing a new one. The conflict still needs to be developed within DA4, not dusted off from DAI.

 

I like your idea of Solas actually knowing the PC's role the entire time and still letting us get as far as we do. That seems very much in line with his attitude in Trespasser, where he still sees most of the world as Tranquil/harmless nuisances. He would be curious to see our actions and why we are fighting so hard to save this world, and want to see if we can convince him just like the Inquisitor vows to. I've said before, if the only source of good in this world comes to him through the Inquisitor, then he's going to see this as significant bias. Hopefully he's analytical enough to see that he needs information from more than one source to make a good judgment (not that he has a history of good decisions, but still...)

 

 

Second, so what you're saying is that for the loss of a limb to mean anything the person who lost the limb has to be an invalid for the rest of their life? And if they get a prosthetic arm that allows them to do what they could before then the loss of their arm means nothing to them? You clearly don't know anything about the loss of a limb and the effect it can have on people. 

There is a big difference between saying "people with a disability in real life can still do most things non disabled people can" and "there would be no impact on a disabled protagonist of a fantasy world RPG who is fighting for 80% of their time on screen, or else climbing things, riding a horse, or [insert any number of severe physical activities most of us don't do on a normal basis, let alone multiple times in one day.]" This argument is a knee jerk assumption that not having a disabled PC is discrimination against disabled people in real life.

[Ieldra]

We can sit here all day and debate about the narrative meaning of things, it won't change a thing: if the Inquisitor has only one hand, technical considerations mean she won't be able to fight as a member of a playable party, thus not be the protagonist. Which means that if she was going to be the protagonist nonetheless, she'd need a new hand. Which would render the loss of the hand narratively meaningless unless the *new* hand is something special with a narrative meaning of its own.

 

Now of course we don't know what they're planning, but Occam's Razor suggests that the conclusion that doesn't need any additional assumptions has to be considered the most likely one for now: The Inquisitor won't be the protagonist of the next DA game. The DA team wouldn't be the DA team if they didn't hedge their bets and left a loophole in case should they change their mind, but that's how it looks at the moment.   

[Iakus]

 

The Inq, on the other hand, didn't seem to need to lose it at all. There was no combat with Solas where Solas blasted off the arm. There was no reveal after the arm came off (which we don't even see on-screen in DAI), given that it was the last thing that happens while Solas walks off into the sunset. The arm loss was just... inevitable. Like the fact that all journeys have an end. Clearly Solas could do an eye-flash thingy to control how strongly the Mark affected the Inq (so arguably the writers could have had Solas merely neutralize the Mark, keeping the Inq's arm intact), but apparently removing the arm was the only solution... so the removal was supposed to work narratively... for something. What did the something involve? The Inq was taken out of the position of potential protagonist. Luke's hand removal was for one thing. The Inq's was for another. The thing is, if it doesn't take the Inq out of the protag shoes- i.e., the arm can be restored to perfect "effectiveness"- what point was there in the writers "adding" that subtraction? Oh, how quaint, a new arm now? If the loss of the arm is going to mean anything for the Inq's story, it should be gone for good... with all the emotion that such a loss entails... the sacrifice that our DAI character made in order to save the world... Then the arm loss means something.

At the point where the Inquisitor loses the arm, he/she is dying.  Is, perhaps, moments from death.  And Solas chooses at that point to show mercy.  Perhaps out of friendship, or love, or simple respect.  But I think it's supposed to say more about him than the Inquisitor.  

 

After all, the Mark is useless to Solas as it was to Corypheus.  And the Inquisitor stands at odds to Solas's plans.  He has nothing to gain in letting the Inquisitor live.  But he's not cruel.  He does what he can to help with the minimum amount of collateral damage.  Solas could not save the arm, but he could save the Inquisitor.

 

Which kinda says just how...massive...his plane to remove the Fade is.  If the minimum amount of disruption (the parallel to removing the Inquisitor's arm) it would cause is the likely extinction of everyone on Thedas...

[Bhryaen]

Vader lost his organic hand in Attack of the Clones when he fought Count Dooku. Luke did cut off Vader's hand in Return of the Jedi, but that was a prosthetic hand. That's when Luke saw the parallel and immediately stopped fighting. And no, for a while Vader just stood by while Palpatine used Force lightning on Luke for not embracing the Dark Side. It was only when Luke pleaded for help from Vader that he stepped in and threw Palpatine down the tower shaft to his death. It wasn't because the tables turned that Vader gave up the Dark Side, but a father's love for his son that redeemed him. 

 

As for your point about the Inquisitor losing their hand having no purpose, by that logic neither did Luke losing his at that point in time other than Vader removing Luke's weapon, which the scene with Solas can be seen as him removing a weapon that can be used against him and his plans. And like how the more narrative purpose wasn't revealed until the next movie, the Inquisitor losing a hand can have a narrative purpose in the next game that we don't know of yet. Likewise with how much it is effecting the Inquisitor having one arm gone and replaced by one of wood or metal. You just assume everything will be okay like nothing ever happened from the start. 

"Star Wars..." is "Star Wars." DAI is DAI. Luke could have used his saber against Vader- was doing his utmost to do so- outmatched as he was. The Inq... was about to die, not going to use her whatever power against Solas ever. At some point analogies just fail. Both lost a hand/arm, but that doesn't require parity in all aspects. Just as DAI isn't obligated to restore the Inq's hand with a robotic equivalent while Leia and Solo flirt in the background.

 

My point concerned the narrative purpose of the Inq losing a hand. I don't assume that all is hunky dory if the arm is restored. It is a fact that all is hunky dory if it is restored. Either it's restored or it's not (which also includes something partial, like suboptimal use- i.e., inefficient). If the player resumes regular combat and such with two fully-functioning arms, the arm has been restored (and the loss was narratively superficial). If not, then not (and the loss was narratively substantive). Very simple, very incontrovertible logic. The impact of a fully-restored arm on gameplay is zilch.

 

And my experience of DAI gave me the impression that the loss of the Inq's hand did have narrative meaning: it "marked" the end of them 'venturin' days for Inky.

[Nonoru]

This game's title should tell you everything you should know on the matter. 

 

Chances are low for another run with the Inquisitor as the playable character. 

 

Whether or not you dissolve the organization shouldn't matter since the Inquisitor without it is just a burned down individual pursuing a personal quest against a force significant enough to shake the world. 

[Almostfaceman]

We can sit here all day and debate about the narrative meaning of things, it won't change a thing: if the Inquisitor has only one hand, technical considerations mean she won't be able to fight as a member of a playable party,  

 

[Bhryaen]

... It's also good to remember that these discussions are in the heat of the moment of Trespasser, so it's fresh in our mind and the emotional pain is the strongest. When DA4 comes out in however many years, none of this is going to be recent for us...

Gotta love sagacity... I've noticed that while DAO prompted raging debates on the forums about the characters and storylines in the game, DAI tends to prompt raging debates about the gameplay and narrative decisions, much more metagame considerations. Not sure why exactly yet...

 

... So...it wouldn't matter if it's rehashing the old conflict or establishing a new one. The conflict still needs to be developed within DA4, not dusted off from DAI.

 

I like your idea of Solas actually knowing the PC's role the entire time and still letting us get as far as we do. That seems very much in line with his attitude in Trespasser, where he still sees most of the world as Tranquil/harmless nuisances. He would be curious to see our actions and why we are fighting so hard to save this world, and want to see if we can convince him just like the Inquisitor vows to. I've said before, if the only source of good in this world comes to him through the Inquisitor, then he's going to see this as significant bias. Hopefully he's analytical enough to see that he needs information from more than one source to make a good judgment (not that he has a history of good decisions, but still...)

I keep forgetting how not "of this world" Solas is. I just noticed another aspect of that too- that Solas would be using the Inq's "use" of the new protag to make his decision about preserving the "real" world. I'm not sure how pivotal the Inq's role is in Solas' decisions- particularly if the Inq ignored him for most of DAI- could be inspired by other things in the "real" world as well or moreso. But the thing I think will be a part of it though will be that Solas will have already decided by the conclusion of DA4 not to nix the Veil, perhaps seeing a new role for himself in "this" world. Or maybe also he'll have discovered a way to funnel magic to "his people" without removing the Veil entirely- some localized breach in the Veil effective for that. I just can't see a way the Veil could be removed outright without wreaking havoc well beyond a Blight or qunari invasion- at least not without effecting an end to the franchise the way ME3 ended. It wouldn't be a war between races or with demons or darkspawn monsters: it'd be a war with physics. Solas continues to believe himself well-meaning, but he knows a nixed Veil would, as he put it, "most likely" destroy the world, so it doesn't seem "wrong" narratively that, just like the incapacitated Inq declaring she'll stop Solas when she can't really do it and has no idea how she would, Solas might be declaring he'll restore Elvhenan at any cost but not really be able to do it, personally or practically.

 

And there's also the fact that we don't even know what Solas actually intends to do at this point. If he were set on doing it, he certainly hadn't yet by the end of Trespasser- powers fully regained and all. He's bothering with tuning eluvians to himself and organizing agents and undermining the qunari and such rather than being dead-set on going ballistic on "reality." So who knows what's standing in his way. Conscience? Something "technical" he has to get working? Creating a new orb? Dunno. Or maybe whatever it is requires more planning regarding how he's supposed to re-enable his Evanuris buddies in some less pernicious form. Yeah... dunno. Probably a topic for another thread- though with all that it does show how the Inq's relationship with Solas isn't necessarily the most conclusive consideration for him. A new protag might have a more decisive role.

 

... Now of course we don't know what they're planning, but Occam's Razor suggests that the conclusion that doesn't need any additional assumptions has to be considered the most likely one for now: The Inquisitor won't be the protagonist of the next DA game...

Gotta love that Razor of Occam...

[Ariella]

Bhryaen,

I'm on mobile or I'd try to respond to specifics, but in general: well said.

I especially agree on the point you make about the loss of and potential recovery of the IQ's arm. It would cheapen the loss to just hand wave and restore it with a fully functional replacement. And it's possible that the upper arm might have been affected in some way as well, it's possible that such a thing might even reject a magical/enchanted solution.

If the IQ returned I would want to see a replacement that wasn't fully functional. Something completely non-magical.

But I truly believe the loss is the end of the IQ's story, the last personal sacrifice. It'd be cheap to bring her back, I think.

Solas is an interesting case. Right now I'm classifying him as antagonist and not villian. Not yet. A part of me would like to see him get played by his fellows and realize his solution is no solution at all. Thus turning to the new protagonist.

I do expect the new PC to find some connection to the IQ, most likely through Dorian, I'd think.

Well, we've got a couple years. Someone make sure we have plenty of popcorn...

[vbibbi]

Gotta love sagacity... I've noticed that while DAO prompted raging debates on the forums about the characters and storylines in the game, DAI tends to prompt raging debates about the gameplay and narrative decisions, much more metagame considerations. Not sure why exactly yet...

 

I keep forgetting how not "of this world" Solas is. I just noticed another aspect of that too- that Solas would be using the Inq's "use" of the new protag to make his decision about preserving the "real" world. I'm not sure how pivotal the Inq's role is in Solas' decisions- particularly if the Inq ignored him for most of DAI- could be inspired by other things in the "real" world as well or moreso. But the thing I think will be a part of it though will be that Solas will have already decided by the conclusion of DA4 not to nix the Veil, perhaps seeing a new role for himself in "this" world. Or maybe also he'll have discovered a way to funnel magic to "his people" without removing the Veil entirely- some localized breach in the Veil effective for that. I just can't see a way the Veil could be removed outright without wreaking havoc well beyond a Blight or qunari invasion- at least not without effecting an end to the franchise the way ME3 ended. It wouldn't be a war between races or with demons or darkspawn monsters: it'd be a war with physics. Solas continues to believe himself well-meaning, but he knows a nixed Veil would, as he put it, "most likely" destroy the world, so it doesn't seem "wrong" narratively that, just like the incapacitated Inq declaring she'll stop Solas when she can't really do it and has no idea how she would, Solas might be declaring he'll restore Elvhenan at any cost but not really be able to do it, personally or practically.

 

And there's also the fact that we don't even know what Solas actually intends to do at this point. If he were set on doing it, he certainly hadn't yet by the end of Trespasser- powers fully regained and all. He's bothering with tuning eluvians to himself and organizing agents and undermining the qunari and such rather than being dead-set on going ballistic on "reality." So who knows what's standing in his way. Conscience? Something "technical" he has to get working? Creating a new orb? Dunno. Or maybe whatever it is that requires more planning regarding how he's supposed to re-enable his Evanuris buddies in some less pernicious form. Yeah... dunno. Probably a topic for another thread- though with all that it does show how the Inq's relationship with Solas isn't necessarily the most conclusive consideration for him. A new protag might have a more decisive role.

 

Gotta love that Razor of Occam...

Yes yes and yes.

 

Also, two points.

 

1) From the devs perspective, I think they have the broad idea of what Solas intends to do and the overarching plot for DA4, but obviously it's way too early for them to have pinned down details. So Trespasser is a way to hook players, provide some speculation (apparently effectively) on what Solas' next moves are, but in a vague enough way that if the plot shifts between now and when DA4 is further in development, Trespasser doesn't conflict with these changes. If Bioware has learned anything in the DA series it's to cover their a$$e$ from writing themselves into corners. I'm ignoring the inevitable difference in interpretations fans have on game content, as seen so heatedly on these forums.

 

2) From the first point, some of Solas' revelation doesn't make much sense to me; this is due, IMO, to the fact that the writers haven't fleshed out the plot yet so they don't want to commit to a half developed plot when it will change twenty times before final draft. So when he says he "has a plan" for dealing with the Enuvaris when they're freed, it doesn't give me confidence because I would think he has fewer resources now than when he erected the Veil centuries ago. Then, he had other superpowered ancient elves to help, and more raw Fade to draw power from. Now he has fleeing servants and Dalish who have no knowledge of their true history and several rival nations to contend with. Also, how will only "his" people be safe from the armageddon to follow the Veil falling? There are pockets of elves left like the Temple of Mythal guardians, as Leliana mentions those in the Tirashan, but realistically there can't be a significant population to...repopulate the elvhen empire after everyone else is dead. And if many of these ancient elves are in suspended sleep like he was, wouldn't they be defenseless or disoriented when the Veil fell? So his plan seems to put everyone in danger, "his" people included.

 

What these logical anomalies lead to me to believe is this: Solas is the Trickster. Yes he was originally the "god" of rebellion, but perhaps even then trickery was part of his strategy, as seen in his trapping the Enuvaris behind the Veil. So we can't take his explanation at face value in Trespasser. He tells the Inquisitor what he thinks they need to know, in order to put them on the path he wants them to take. As was pointed out, he could have easily killed the Inquisitor or just left after killing Viddasala and closing off the eluvian network. But he decided to give an explanation to Inky, even the ones who were not friendly to him. So I think he is not actually telling the whole truth with his plan. Perhaps bringing down the Veil won't destroy everything as is speculated, or else he has some method of shielding Thedas from the worst effects. Or maybe his plans to deal with the Enuvaris are to set the Inquisition on the path to tracking him down. It would be great if DA4 ended with the PC finding some way to kill the Enuvaris in their prisons, or right after they're released. Then Solas steps out and thanks us for taking care of that little problem of his for him. He wants the Inquisitor and the new PC to follow his trail and do his work for him, just as he set us up in Trespasser.

 

So...those are some rambling thoughts as to Solas' involvement in the next game, which has no relevance until we actually see the game in a few years time...

[ComedicSociopathy]

I'll be perfectly honest here and say that the main reason why I'm against the Inquisitor coming back as PC (a more extended cameo like Hawke's would be fine) is because I'm far more excited about the possibility of playing a Tevinter noble with an actual origin story than having another heart to heart/final dance with Solas. 

 

I've already told the guy that this whole doomsday was really, really stupid and he decided to ignore that and keep on going anyways. Whatever, that pretty much puts him on the needs to die/be put on trial for crimes against Thedas list to me, and it really doesn't matter to me who does it. Same way I didn't care that the Inquisitor was the one who defeated Corypheus. Plus, chances are were only going to encounter Solas two or three times before the final boss anyway, if previous Bioware games are any indication.Anyways, the Inquisitor should be around more then Hawke was, sure, but I don't see why we have to lose out on having a PC actually tied to Tevinter.

 

Besides, having a new PC get into a possibly lethal conflict with an Inquisitor who wants to either redeem or kill Solas would be interesting. 

[CardButton]

 

There is a big difference between saying "people with a disability in real life can still do most things non disabled people can" and "there would be no impact on a disabled protagonist of a fantasy world RPG who is fighting for 80% of their time on screen, or else climbing things, riding a horse, or [insert any number of severe physical activities most of us don't do on a normal basis, let alone multiple times in one day.]" This argument is a knee jerk assumption that not having a disabled PC is discrimination against disabled people in real life.

I hate to bring this up, because I know I'll get slammed for it ... but the assumption of discrimination isn't entirely invalid if Bioware actually did remove the limb to get the Inquisitor out of the way.

 

This would be a very different thing if the player had been actually allowed to experience some of the frustration and pain resulting from the injury (and a subsequent realization of the Inquisitor that they may no longer be cut out for pursuing Solas themselves), but we weren't.  Rendering any implied "meaning" behind the sacrifice primarily mute because it then only exists in the realm of head-cannon.  We experienced one thing, the removal of the arm and if that remains enough justification to remove the Inquisitor, then I hate to say it but it does imply that it was made on assumptions that a crippled Inquisitor (even in a world of magic and technology like "Lyrium-Infused Power Armor") was incapable of continuing the fight.

 

Also, I should remind you that this idea that the Inquisitor in not functionally capable is further frustrated by the Epilogue slide you get if you become a Red-Jenny, where in which the Inquisitor is running across rooftops with Sera sporting what appears to be a prosthetic grappling gun arm.

[CardButton]

Though gotta admit there are some darn good Pro-New PC arguments going on here, even if they are a bit dry on content.  

[Heimdall]

I hate to bring this up, because I know I'll get slammed for it ... but the assumption of discrimination isn't entirely invalid if Bioware actually did remove the limb to get the Inquisitor out of the way.

 

This would be a very different thing if the player had been actually allowed to experience some of the frustration and pain resulting from the injury (and a subsequent realization of the Inquisitor that they may no longer be cut out for pursuing Solas themselves), but we weren't.  Rendering any implied "meaning" behind the sacrifice primarily mute because it then only exists in the realm of head-cannon.  We experienced one thing, the removal of the arm and if that remains enough justification to remove the Inquisitor, then I hate to say it but it does imply that it was made on assumption that a crippled Inquisitor (even in a world of magic and technology like "Lyrium-Infused Power Armor") was incapable of continuing the fight.

 

Also, I should remind you that this idea that the Inquisitor in not functionally capable is further frustrated by the Epilogue slide you get if you become a Red-Jenny, where in which the Inquisitor is running across rooftops with Sera sporting what appears to be a prosthetic grappling gun arm.

There's a difference between "functionally capable" and "just as capable in a fight as they were with a fully functional arm"

 

And I'm very tired of people bringing up the idea of a lyrium-based prosthetic as if its a well established norm of the setting.  The only examples of anything remotely applicable are the Shal-Brytol and Golems. neither of which is well understood by anyone, let alone established as adaptable to replace a missing limb.  Sorry, its just aggravating to see people throw around what would be a HUGE advent to the lore in terms of understanding lyrium and ancient dwarven techniques as if it were nothing.

[CardButton]

There's a difference between "functionally capable" and "just as capable in a fight as they were with a fully functional arm"

 

And I'm very tired of people bringing up the idea of a lyrium-based prosthetic as if its a well established norm of the setting.  The only examples of anything remotely applicable are the Shal-Brytol and Golems. neither of which is well understood by anyone, let alone established as adaptable to replace a missing limb.  Sorry, its just aggravating to see people throw around what would be a HUGE advent to the lore in terms of understanding lyrium and ancient dwarven techniques as if it were nothing.

I said nothing about a lyrium-based prosthetic, though I did imply it wasn't out of the realms of possibility.  I simply mentioned the absurdity that a character would be considered incapable in a setting where Magic and Mechanical Prosthetics exist.

 

Also, Samson was sporting some pretty impressive Lyrium-Based Power Armor last I checked and if you did Cullen's Quest "Before the Dawn" prior to facing him you learn how it was built. Dagna uses this knowledge make a ruin to destroy the armor.  As for mechanical prosthetics, they apparently do exist (as with the example of the Red-Jenny ending). These things are a now part of the DA setting and the Inquisitor is aware of their existence, don't just ignore them because they may be inconvenient. 

[Heimdall]

I said nothing about a lyrium-based prosthetic, though I did imply it wasn't out of the realms of possibility.  I simply mentioned the absurdity that a character would be considered incapable in a setting where Magic and Mechanical Prosthetics exist.

 

Also, Samson was sporting some pretty impressive Lyrium-Based Power Armor last I checked and if you did Cullen's Quest "Before the Dawn" prior to facing him you learn how it was built. Dagna uses this knowledge make a ruin to destroy the armor.  As for mechanical prosthetics, they apparently do exist (as with the example of the Red-Jenny ending). These things are a now part of the DA setting and the Inquisitor is aware of their existence, don't just ignore them because they are inconvenient for your argument. 

Lyrium based technology is the only magical thing even remotely close to what you're talking about.  Samson's armor enhances strength, it doesn't move according to his thoughts, he's still moving his own arm.  There's no connection between what it does and something that could replace a functional limb.

 

The red Jenny ending displayed a grappling hook launcher, one that must be fired by the Inquisitor's remaining hand and manually reloaded with one hand.  It's a crossbow lashed to a stump, don't oversell it.  Unless Varric has managed to miniaturize Bianca's automatic loading mechanism, it's hardly an equal replacement for an archer's bow.  This would actually seem to prove the point that the Inquisitor is rendered considerably less capable by the loss of their arm.

[leaguer of one]

I said nothing about a lyrium-based prosthetic, though I did imply it wasn't out of the realms of possibility.  I simply mentioned the absurdity that a character would be considered incapable in a setting where Magic and Mechanical Prosthetics exist.

 

Also, Samson was sporting some pretty impressive Lyrium-Based Power Armor last I checked and if you did Cullen's Quest "Before the Dawn" prior to facing him you learn how it was built. Dagna uses this knowledge make a ruin to destroy the armor.  As for mechanical prosthetics, they apparently do exist (as with the example of the Red-Jenny ending). These things are a now part of the DA setting and the Inquisitor is aware of their existence, don't just ignore them because they may be inconvenient. 

Unless you're a dwarf. Anything lyrium based as a prosthetic is a no go.

[CardButton]

Unless you're a dwarf. Anything lyrium based as a prosthetic is a no go.

Not that I disagree entirely, but processed lyrium works for every race.  Enchantment and magical artifacts are assuredly powered by Lyrium, whats to say that a prosthetic couldn't be build more on this prospect, rather than injecting lyrium directly into your very veins?    I'm not suggesting Iron Man, or even FMA Automail ... I'm just thinking with what has been presented you "might" be able to achieve "Furiosa" if you combined current Thedas Magic with Mechanics.

[Nefla]

There's a difference between "functionally capable" and "just as capable in a fight as they were with a fully functional arm"

There's also a world of difference between "just as capable in a fight as they were with a fully functional arm" and "capable enough to beat most enemies." The inquisitor with two arms and the special mark was ridiculously overpowered and we were cutting down scores of mutated enemies, demons, etc...that most people would have zero chance against easily. You take someone who smacks dragons aside like it's nothing and then weaken them and they're still much stronger and more capable than most people. Stick a freaking dagger or buckler or even a hook on that stump and let us go at it. It would be an excuse to give the battles more weight and impact and scale us down from demi-god to a person who's good at fighting. It would also be nice if they implemented non combat ways to solve problems like stealth (which they experimented with in MotA), persuasion (which let you avoid combat sometimes in DA:O or DA2) and even puzzle solving (like in the temple of Mythal how you could either fight or puzzle your way through the ruins).

[CardButton]

Lyrium based technology is the only magical thing even remotely close to what you're talking about.  Samson's armor enhances strength, it doesn't move according to his thoughts, he's still moving his own arm.  There's no connection between what it does and something that could replace a functional limb.

 

The red Jenny ending displayed a grappling hook launcher, one that must be fired by the Inquisitor's remaining hand and manually reloaded with one hand.  It's a crossbow lashed to a stump, don't oversell it.  Unless Varric has managed to miniaturize Bianca's automatic loading mechanism, it's hardly an equal replacement for an archer's bow.  This would actually seem to prove the point that the Inquisitor is rendered considerably less capable by the loss of their arm.

Of course they won't be able fight the same way they did, but do you really think it's all that difficult to set up a prosthetic that can hold a bow; or help grip and support some of the weight of a two handed sword? Heck, you don't even need magical or mechanical components to pull those two functions off.  The Inquisitor would simply need to relearn how to fight using them and to be honest they were due for a bit of a nerf.

 

But, the prospect of a Prosthetic was not the point of my original post.  It was the idea that even in a setting like DA (where magic and fantastical mechanics exist) the idea that perhaps the Inquisitor lost their limb only to remove them from being proactive in future events is absurd; and if this actually is the core reason the character was crippled then it is (at least a little) discriminatory on Bioware's part.

 

So in essence what I'm saying is that the removal of the arm is NOT a good narrative or game-play reason to support having a new PC and I'm sick of seeing that argument (there are plenty of other valid ones that could and should be used instead).