32 réponses à ce sujet

[Above Good and Evil]

I mean of course the focus. In Origins each of the antagonists are dangerous and compelling...but at second glance it's also made clear they have NOTHING to do with the Blight or Archdemon at all. I mean the Blight is the thing we're trying to stop, so these enemies kind of come out of nowhere from a narrative perspective - Uldred, Connor, Branka and Zathrian; Blight or no Blight these characters would already have been doing whatever it was they were doing and looking back it's rather odd that a Gray Warden of all things is the one to solve these problems. They begin to feel less like antagonists and more like unrelated roadbumps.

I honestly prefer Inquisition's way of going about it - While there are many antagonists and side-arcs all of them are connected to Corypheus and his armies: Samson, Calpernia, Florianne, Alexius, Denam etc etc. They stand in clear opposition to you because it was planned that way, not because you stumbled into them by accident trying to fight the actual threat. The DLC's avert this since they're pretty cut-off but since they're DLC's I let that slide. 

 

 

[straykat]

They're there because you need to build alliances.

 

But also because I think the game has a lot of subtext (and not so subtle either) about themes of death and redemption (sort of like DA2 deals with identity and home, and DAI deals with faith). All of your companions go on and on about death (except Morrigan, who champions survival), and the leaders of these various hubs are at possible turning points on the subject too. Thematically they all sort of fit.

 

I think it's better, if only because it's all the more poignant. DAI aspired to discuss faith, but it fails imo (and it's a rather simplistic treatment of people of faith. It makes them look stupid, like something out of Life of Brian).

[Hazegurl]

I prefer Origins because it felt more realistic.  There was no all powerful cackling being behind the Blight...well if you don't count the Magister who tried to cure his people.  But even he caused the Blight unintentionally.   What made characters like Loghain so great was the fact that except for Howe, he actually had good reasons for his actions, his choices were irrational but it wasn't over something as silly as wanting the blight to spread because he was secretly working for the Archdemon who promised him power.  Loghain's redemption (if you let him live) is more hopeful than someone like Samson, who willingly worked for someone who killed a lot of people. I never hand Samson over to Cullen. And I think BW's attempt at a  redemption story with him by forcing the player to keep him alive (if captured) is too over the top for my tastes.  Like Dagna can't study his corpse.

 

The only reason I let Calpernia live is because there is enough there for a redemption story.  She didn't do it for selfish reasons and she never betrayed her own people and turned them over to Cory for enslavement, and she obviously never trusted him all that much. Plus I don't expect her to have some sort of loyalty to the people of the South. Just like I don't expect it of the Qunari.

 

What origins did better was showcasing the problems happening in Thedas at the time the Blight began.  Even if there were no Blight, these problems would have still existed because that's life.The Blight was merely an unfortunate event taking place at the same time as these problems.  In DAI, nearly every problem existed because of Cory and it started to feel a bit shoehorned in. Suddenly Cory has connections to the Winter palace and Florianne works for him for...reasons. It was the only disappointing part of Wicked Hearts.

[Wulfram]

Somewhere between the two, probably. DA:O could feel a bit too much like the blight was forgotten, but being tied to Corypheus limited peoples ability to be really interesting, because he himself was such an obvious and blatant villain.

Though they could maybe have done more with the notion of people being motivated by Tevinter patriotism. And maybe they could have given Corypheus a few sympathetic aspects. Make him more than a summary of the evils of ancient Tevinter. So that you could see how people might wish to follow him.

[CuriousArtemis]

I prefer Inquisition as it does manage to knit the story together somewhat, even if the massive environments utterly killed the pacing. The other big problem DAI has is that Corypheus is such a poor villain; his sub-villains (Samson et al) outshine him.

[vbibbi]

I like DAO because as Hazegurl says, there are problems going on in the world regardless of the Blight. Everything going wrong isn't a result of the Blight, though Wulfram makes a good point that at times the Blight was put to the side. In DAI, nearly everything we have to fix is a result of Corypheus' influence. Even events such as the Orlesian Civil War and the Mage-Templar war which began before Corypheus came into the picture, he is manipulating events behind the scenes to exacerbate the conflicts.

 

That's all well and good if Cory can competently come off as a shadowy mastermind behind the scenes, but that's ruined once his plots begin unraveling through the game. How was someone-- who has worked for many years in the shadows to play the long game and infiltrate Southern Thedas with his agents-- so easily defeated once he reveals himself? How did he put incompetent Erimond and Florianne in strategic positions, when they are obviously mustache twirling villains with no depth?

 

I would have rather he have remained in disguise as a Warden, whether Larius or Janeka, or a new Warden to save on voice acting and animation, and lead his followers through guile. I don't find it realistic that anyone would willingly want to make a monstrous darkspawn into a god, even patriotic Tevinters. What if he had orchestrated a darkspawn attack on a magister, like Alexius' family, and body hopped into the magister?

[Gervaise]

With Origins each of the sub-plots was there because you needed people to honour the Warden treaties and give you the basis of an army but in each case you had to resolve the problem that was preventing them from doing this.    Finally you needed to get the main population of Ferelden behind you.      It wasn't as though the Blight had been forgotten, you kept running into pockets of darkspawn and blighted beasts on your way round.       I do think that the plot of DAO was a lot more coherent and for the most part people's motivations made sense.   (Duncan committing his entire forces, bar two, to the frontline at the beginning did not).   For the most part, when we were asked to make choices, they made sense and were believable whichever way you decided. 

 

I agree that I would have found people following Corypheus a lot more believable if he hadn't revealed himself as a blighted monstrosity.   Did they really think he was going to share power with them if he achieved his goal of godhood?  Did the Venatori really think that red lyrium was a great new source of power and they should aid its spread by giving people to the Red Templars to grow it?     In fact the amount of time it took to travel around all the areas made you feel as if there was no sense of urgency in dealing with the problem, particularly those areas like the Hissing Wastes that had absolutely no bearing on the main plot.    We were told that the Venatori are looking for magical artefacts and we need to deal with them but we really didn't.    I suppose that is the difference between having a mostly linear plot and an open world setting.    Also I found some of the choices we were given really flew in the face of the lore up to now.    Would the Chantry really have considered putting a mage on the sunburst throne, no matter how well connected she was?     Would it really be possible to effectively have an elf running Orlais simply by blackmailing Gaspard for doing things that seemed all part of the game?    

[Ashagar]

I don't think it should be a either or neither game is really unrealistic in how it treated its antagonists and their motivations though it would have been better if the understanding into Corpyheus's motives showing he wasn't just a some two dimensional cackling villain wasn't only available if you went with the templars.

[straykat]

The other thing worth adding is that Cory was always a villain even before becoming a freak. Loghain was the previous hero of the setting. He's the Human Commoner origin you never played. And his motives for causing trouble in DAO are the very things that made him a hero before: His love for Ferelden, his belief in hard work and self-sufficiency (either in himself or in promoting people like Cauthrien), and not being a big believer in legends and magic. "Let us attend to reality." He's not a monster. He's just a normal dude. Meta-wise, I find the writers themselves strange for manipulating normal things that cascade into such treacherous behavior. While propping up fantasies as the truest things to believe in. Not to mention propping up nobility and divine right of kings (like Eamon and Alistair) instead of more democratic ideals. The twist here is..interesting at least.

 

Some of the other antagonists aren't quite as sympathetic to me, but they essentially start with good intent. Branka lost her mind trying to save her people and showed the dark side of "whatever it takes to fight the darkspawn". Zathrian watched his kids get raped and murdered and wreaked undying vengeance over it. Connor just wanted to save his old man. Uldred just wanted to chill and be left alone. lol

[Dabrikishaw]

I don't have a preference.

[vbibbi]

With Origins each of the sub-plots was there because you needed people to honour the Warden treaties and give you the basis of an army but in each case you had to resolve the problem that was preventing them from doing this.    Finally you needed to get the main population of Ferelden behind you.      It wasn't as though the Blight had been forgotten, you kept running into pockets of darkspawn and blighted beasts on your way round.       I do think that the plot of DAO was a lot more coherent and for the most part people's motivations made sense.   (Duncan committing his entire forces, bar two, to the frontline at the beginning did not).   For the most part, when we were asked to make choices, they made sense and were believable whichever way you decided. 

 

I agree that I would have found people following Corypheus a lot more believable if he hadn't revealed himself as a blighted monstrosity.   Did they really think he was going to share power with them if he achieved his goal of godhood?  Did the Venatori really think that red lyrium was a great new source of power and they should aid its spread by giving people to the Red Templars to grow it?     In fact the amount of time it took to travel around all the areas made you feel as if there was no sense of urgency in dealing with the problem, particularly those areas like the Hissing Wastes that had absolutely no bearing on the main plot.    We were told that the Venatori are looking for magical artefacts and we need to deal with them but we really didn't.    I suppose that is the difference between having a mostly linear plot and an open world setting.    Also I found some of the choices we were given really flew in the face of the lore up to now.    Would the Chantry really have considered putting a mage on the sunburst throne, no matter how well connected she was?     Would it really be possible to effectively have an elf running Orlais simply by blackmailing Gaspard for doing things that seemed all part of the game?    

A lot of our choices appear to have little consequence during the actual game, and then yield exponentially influential consequences in the epilogue. Companions disapprove of allying with the mages, and the advisors say this has hurt the Inquisition's public image, while allying with Templars has strengthened our image. Yet Vivienne is able to ascend to the throne. (Note, I actually like the idea of her on the throne, but more as a testament to her political acumen rather than because the IQ did anything. It's the one time in the game when I felt Viv's prowess was demonstrated)

 

It's false adversity when it turns out extreme changes are not only possible but inevitable in the long run. Even though Viv is the "conservative" Divine option in policy, she's the most radical candidate, being a mage. At least Cass and Leli were the Right and Left Hands of the Divine, and non-mages.

 

The other thing worth adding is that Cory was always a villain even before becoming a freak. Loghain was the previous hero of the setting. He's the Human Commoner origin you never played. And his motives for causing trouble in DAO are the very things that made him a hero before: His love for Ferelden, his belief in hard work and self-sufficiency (either in himself or in promoting people like Cauthrien), and not being a big believer in legends and magic. "Let us attend to reality." He's not a monster. He's just a normal dude. Meta-wise, I find the writers themselves strange for manipulating normal things that cascade into such treacherous behavior. While propping up fantasies as the truest things to believe in. Not to mention propping up nobility and divine right of kings (like Eamon and Alistair) instead of more democratic ideals. The twist here is..interesting at least.

 

Some of the other antagonists aren't quite as sympathetic to me, but they essentially start with good intent. Branka lost her mind trying to save her people and showed the dark side of "whatever it takes to fight the darkspawn". Zathrian watched his kids get raped and murdered and wreaked undying vengeance over it. Connor just wanted to save his old man. Uldred just wanted to chill and be left alone. lol

As people mention, the only real humanizing aspect to Cory are the memory crystals in Calpernia's side quest, and IMO at the end when he calls out to Dumat, "if [he] ever existed" for help. Those are not enough examples that he was once a person and that his goals are actually for a reason other than megalomania.

 

I've posted before, but wouldn't it have been cool if the Dark Future we see in IHW wasn't post apocalyptic but actually good from a Tevinter perspective, or at least a dystopia? It would have given a bit more nuance to the Elder One, as his plans were still harmful for the majority of the world, but it's understandable why the Venatori, at least, would follow him. And he would be more competent, as he fulfills his promise of a better world to those who worship him.

 

And it would be interesting to have him show good reason for his actions; have him be the Dark Inquisitor determined to bring order to a chaotic world through his "benevolent" dictatorship via "divine" authority. The Orlesian Civil War and Mage-Templar War were already in effect before he came to power. Instead of him just making things worse and recruit everyone into his slave army, why not have him "fix" the situation by leaving the institutions intact but under his control. So, red lyirum wouldn't turn templars into abominations so quickly but just enhance their strength and powers and let him control them via indoctrination. The Orlesian court instead of being thrown into chaos, have Florianne find some non-idiotic way of getting rid of both Celene and Gaspard and have her ascend the throne, then act as a puppet leader to Cory. The Grey Wardens, instead of eliminating their own organization by killing one Warden for every demon summoned, maybe make the (still questionable) sacrifice of a Warden allow control of twenty demons (or some other number) and the Warden mages aren't complete zombies but indoctrinated like the Templars. This would make slightly more sense why they're willing to kill their own, if it's not a 1:1 ratio to get a demon army. And have Cory actually plan on using the demon army to fight the darkspawn. He wants to fix the world, and the darkspawn are the biggest symbol of his failure when assaulting the Black City.

 

So...basically have Cory actively working to improve the world, but on his terms and under his rule. In the game, he really seems just he just wants to become a god, and the reasons are swept under the rug and never built upon. And the reasoning of the Venatori for following him seem more like they're lunatics than because they actually believe his scheme will benefit anyone.

[Ghost Gal]

Not really. Origins' antagonists all have strong, memorable personalities, character arcs (if it comes to that), and goals. Zathrien is the Dalish Keeper who started the werewolf curse out of grief and rage for his family, Branka is the dwarven madwoman who sacrificed her whole house to find the Anvil to restore Orzammar to its former glory, Uldred was the proud mage who rebelled against the Templars and became an abomination, etc.

Corypheus' henchmen might be tied to the "main story," but since its a simplistic story, they are symplistic and forgettable. When I first saw this thread, I couldn't even remember any Inquisition antagonists besides Corypheus and nameless Red Templar mooks and nameless Venatori mooks. Even after reading your list, they all seem simplistic, one-note, and only show up for 30 seconds. I keep forgetting Alexius is supposed to be an antagonist because of how hard they hit him with the "sympathetic" hammer. Erimond, I think, "Who was that? Oh yeah, that greasy guy I talked to for thirty seconds total in the whole 'demon army' quest chain." Samson is just a red templar lyrium addict with powerful armor and a BRIEF sympathetic moment with his kindness to a Tranquil. Calpernia is the former slave mage, etc.

None of them really have a chance to say or do anything memorable or meaningful because they're just mooks to that one batshit-insane blatant villain. After the fifth hammy speach by Named Mook #6 about how "The Elder One/My Master will cleanse this world and/or restore Tevinter to its former glory!" I thought, "Oh, yawn. Tell me something I haven't heard already."

I prefer interesting and memorable antagonists that happen to be outside the "main conflict" than boring and forgettable antagonists that blend right in and get lost in the shuffle to the "main story." (That's the problem with trying to make EVERYTHING relevant to the "main story." After a while it just gets repetitive and everything looks the same.)

[vbibbi]

Not really. Origins' antagonists all have strong, memorable personalities, character arcs (if it comes to that), and goals. Zathrien is the Dalish Keeper who started the werewolf curse out of grief and rage for his family, Branka is the dwarven madwoman who sacrificed her whole house to find the Anvil to restore Orzammar to its former glory, Uldred was the proud mage who rebelled against the Templars and became an abomination, etc.

Corypheus' henchmen might be tied to the "main story," but since its a simplistic story, they are symplistic and forgettable. When I first saw this thread, I couldn't even remember any Inquisition antagonists besides Corypheus and nameless Red Templar mooks and nameless Venatori mooks. Even after reading your list, they all seem simplistic, one-note, and only show up for 30 seconds. I keep forgetting Alexius is supposed to be an antagonist because of how hard they hit him with the "sympathetic" hammer. Erimond, I think, "Who was that? Oh yeah, that greasy guy I talked to for thirty seconds total in the whole 'demon army' quest chain." Samson is just a red templar lyrium addict with powerful armor and a BRIEF sympathetic moment with his kindness to a Tranquil. Calpernia is the former slave mage, etc.

None of them really have a chance to say or do anything memorable or meaningful because they're just mooks to that one batshit-insane blatant villain. After the fifth hammy speach by Named Mook #6 about how "The Elder One/My Master will cleanse this world and/or restore Tevinter to its former glory!" I thought, "Oh, yawn. Tell me something I haven't heard already."

I prefer interesting and memorable antagonists that happen to be outside the "main conflict" than boring and forgettable antagonists that blend right in and get lost in the shuffle to the "main story." (That's the problem with trying to make EVERYTHING relevant to the "main story." After a while it just gets repetitive and everything looks the same.)

And it's hamfisted to have everything going wrong in the world a direct cause from one villain. That's one of the things I enjoyed about the DLCs, they didn't have any mention of Cory, Venatori, or Red Templars. They were relevant to the Inquisition and the Breach, but they did so in a way that didn't mandate Cory had a hand in it.

 

I mean, if they wanted to have zones that didn't tie directly into the plot, okay, but be more like Fallow Mire, where it's Inquisition soldiers captured by a third party, not the Oasis and Hissing Wastes, where we go there...because the Venatori are also there looking through ruins. And then the ruins turn out to have crap in them. Why couldn't these just be self contained stories with appropriate pay off? I didn't feel that eliminating the Venatori excavators in the Wastes had any impact whatsoever.

[Ghost Gal]

And it's hamfisted to have everything going wrong in the world a direct cause from one villain. That's one of the things I enjoyed about the DLCs, they didn't have any mention of Cory, Venatori, or Red Templars. They were relevant to the Inquisition and the Breach, but they did so in a way that didn't mandate Cory had a hand in it.

 

I mean, if they wanted to have zones that didn't tie directly into the plot, okay, but be more like Fallow Mire, where it's Inquisition soldiers captured by a third party, not the Oasis and Hissing Wastes, where we go there...because the Venatori are also there looking through ruins. And then the ruins turn out to have crap in them. Why couldn't these just be self contained stories with appropriate pay off? I didn't feel that eliminating the Venatori excavators in the Wastes had any impact whatsoever.

 

Oh, that's true! I'd forgotten about that. After a while it becomes silly and contrived, the lengths the writers will go to make it so EVERY conflict in Thedas is caused by or secretly stoked by Corypheus.

[Hazegurl]

That's why I'm not looking forward to the whole "Solas is the villain gathering elves to his cause" crap for the next game. Hearing that he has spies in the Inquisition et al was just .  I'm willing to bet anything he'll have spies all over the place, and every problem will be something Solas has a hand in, which means the next game will have lots of mooks to kill....again. And we'll hear lots of whining about why they want to tear the world apart and die so he can bring back their former slaver owners. So we'll get yet another super baddy we need to save the world from.

[congokong]

While villains like Corypheus are less complex than those like Loghain, at least it prevents people from endlessly defending the antagonist. ...Although it could be argued that Solas is a complex antagonist, especially by the end of Trespasser, yet I've seen far fewer people defend him than Loghain so far; even though I sympathize with Solas' intentions more.

[Abyss108]

I prefer the way Inquisition handled it. In Origins, it felt like the main plot was split into parts between other unrelated plots. 

[Ghost Gal]

That's why I'm not looking forward to the whole "Solas is the villain gathering elves to his cause" crap for the next game. Hearing that he has spies in the Inquisition et al was just .  I'm willing to bet anything he'll have spies all over the place, and every problem will be something Solas has a hand in, which means the next game will have lots of mooks to kill....again. And we'll hear lots of whining about why they want to tear the world apart and die so he can bring back their former slaver owners. So we'll get yet another super baddy we need to save the world from.

 

I don't think they would have gone to so much trouble to try to make Solas sympathetic this game (though how well they succeeded depends on who you ask) just to reduce him to a flat villain next game.

 

Also, since next game will almost certainly take place in Tevinter, which is the motherland of corrupt and abusive magisters, blood mages, demon-summoners, slavers, slave owners, etc (and just next door to the Qunari, who are rearing for a renewed invasion) there should be plenty of opportunities for antagonists who aren't Solas or his agents.

 

That said, I personally sympathize with the elves' cause, but I'm afraid that BioWare's tendency to try to portray "both sides at fault" will make it hard for some players to care about anyone (like with the Mage/Templar conflict in DA2 or the Orlesian Ball in DAI) while their tendency to try to retcon the elves' oppression so as not to offend human gamers (God forbid we take a good hard look at ourselves and how we treat minorities) will just lead people to think the elves are whiners and/or lying about their oppression, and thus paint their attempts at forging a better life as senseless villainy.

 

I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope they remember that there are actual bad guys they can use in Tevinter, and not botch the Fen'Harel/protagonist conflict portrayal.

 

While villains like Corypheus are less complex than those like Loghain, at least it prevents people from endlessly defending the antagonist. ...Although it could be argued that Solas is a complex antagonist, especially by the end of Trespasser, yet I've seen far fewer people defend him than Loghain so far; even though I sympathize with Solas' intentions more.

 

Me too, although on paper "destroying this world and most races in it just to help one race" is kind of hard to defend without sounding pretty bad yourself. Then again, I personally find it very annoying how the same legions of apologists who defend Loghain's many atrocities with "but he meant well" turn around and say about Solas "it doesn't matter if he means well, it's the actions that count."

 

I'm sure it has nothing to do with how Loghain is a human who set out to prevent (possible) subjugation of Ferelden humans (even with the enslavement of Ferelden elves ), while the latter is an elf who seeks to help oppressed elves (even at the expense of humans). Rounds of excuses for the former, loads of condemnation and demonization for the latter.

 

(I personally think that if the Thedas oppression narrative was reversed and elves were the dominant race with most of the land and power that kept humans as slaves, second-class citizens, and homeless wanderers, the overwhelming depiction and reaction would be of course elves suck and humans should kill/overthrow them by any means necessary. *cough*ElderScrolls*cough*. Since the oppressors are humans and the oppressed are elves though, elves need to just shut up and take it. If the Solas character was a human trying to restore oppressed and dying humans' lost empire and glory, I'd bet money he'd be a hero. Since he's an elf trying to help elves though, of course he's a villain.   )

 

Ah well. I agree that I think Solas is a complex antagonist and I also sympathize with his intentions, but I think most people find it easier to just demonize him and his followers rather than try to see from their point of view. (Because admitting they might have a point means admitting humans might not be 100% right or blameless in this, and we can't have that.)

[Hazegurl]

I don't think they would have gone to so much trouble to try to make Solas sympathetic this game (though how well they succeeded depends on who you ask) just to reduce him to a flat villain next game.

 

Also, since next game will almost certainly take place in Tevinter, which is the motherland of corrupt and abusive magisters, blood mages, demon-summoners, slavers, slave owners, etc (and just next door to the Qunari, who are rearing for a renewed invasion) there should be plenty of opportunities for antagonists who aren't Solas or his agents.

 

That said, I personally sympathize with the elves' cause, but I'm afraid that BioWare's tendency to try to portray "both sides at fault" will make it hard for some players to care about anyone (like with the Mage/Templar conflict in DA2 or the Orlesian Ball in DAI) while their tendency to try to retcon the elves' oppression so as not to offend human gamers (God forbid we take a good hard look at ourselves and how we treat minorities) will just lead people to think the elves are whiners and/or lying about their oppression, and thus paint their attempts at forging a better life as senseless villainy.

 

I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope they remember that there are actual bad guys they can use in Tevinter, and not botch the Fen'Harel/protagonist conflict portrayal.

The only thing I can hope for is that they've learned something from Trepasser but I can also see how easy it would be for them to slip into Solas as Cory 2.0 but kinda smarter. idk.  Or maybe he'll slip into the background like Flemeth until they kill him off cause they don't know what else to do with him.

 

I think portraying both sides with flaws is the only good thing they've done because otherwise the story feels one sided.  There are always two sides to the story even if one side comes out looking worse than the other.  BW's fault is that they make both sides as crazy as possible to the point where you don't want anything to do with either group.   But as a human player, I totally accept being racist toward elves and oppressing them and I wish we had more options like it.  DAO was awesome in giving the Cousland player different ways to role play.  Mine always chose nobles and humans over elves.  I even freed that rapist butt hole so he can lend his voice at the landsmeet.  I can understand Hawke not placing any emphasizes on race.  But my Noble IQ should have been given some racist dialogue.  Having Solas accuse my IQ of being racist while not giving me any dialogue to actually be racist toward him was just plain stupid and made Solas sound irrational. IMO, I think BW seeks to erase the racism simply due to irl social sensibilities rather than anything related to anything ingame.  They try way too hard not to offend anyone.

 

Edit: The same was done to the elves. I tried playing an elf IQ. I got all the way to Skyhold without getting the chance to call anyone a dirty Shem.

[congokong]

Me too, although on paper "destroying this world and most races in it just to help one race" is kind of hard to defend without sounding pretty bad yourself. Then again, I personally find it very annoying how the same legions of apologists who defend Loghain's many atrocities with "but he meant well" turn around and say about Solas "it doesn't matter if he means well, it's the actions that count."

 

I'm sure it has nothing to do with how Loghain is a human who set out to prevent (possible) subjugation of Ferelden humans (even with the enslavement of Ferelden elves ), while the latter is an elf who seeks to help oppressed elves (even at the expense of humans). Rounds of excuses for the former, loads of condemnation and demonization for the latter.

 

(I personally think that if the Thedas oppression narrative was reversed and elves were the dominant race with most of the land and power that kept humans as slaves, second-class citizens, and homeless wanderers, the overwhelming depiction and reaction would be of course elves suck and humans should kill/overthrow them by any means necessary. *cough*ElderScrolls*cough*. Since the oppressors are humans and the oppressed are elves though, elves need to just shut up and take it. If the Solas character was a human trying to restore oppressed and dying humans' lost empire and glory, I'd bet money he'd be a hero. Since he's an elf trying to help elves though, of course he's a villain.   )

 

Ah well. I agree that I think Solas is a complex antagonist and I also sympathize with his intentions, but I think most people find it easier to just demonize him and his followers rather than try to see from their point of view. (Because admitting they might have a point means admitting humans might not be 100% right or blameless in this, and we can't have that.)

Pretty much this. I hear no end of the Loghain apologists, and yet some of those very same people are likely the ones purely hating on Solas. Eh, I've seen much cherry-picking morality/logic on these boards. Ex: People being against the dwarves using the Anvil of the Void in desperation against the darkspawn yet being ok with the Grey Wardens own practicalities. And as you've pointed out, in the case of Loghain/Solas it's likely motivated partially by feelings of "kinship" for fellow humans over fictional elves.

[thruaglassdarkly]

There were antagonist stories I liked and disliked in both games. If we are talking about principle "vanilla game" antagonists, I don't find either Archie or Cori particularly compelling.  I do think Cori could have been; there are hints at an interesting story arc in the Calpernia sub-quest, but that side of his personality was never really developed. As for minor antagonists, Logain remains one of my favorite from any Bioware games.  His story is tied pretty closely to the blight story, even if he is not actively working on behalf of Archie.  I liked Calpernia and Samson's stories. Whatever qualms I had with their arcs had nothing to do with the approach (being tied to the principal conflict).  I'm just not certain we saw enough of them.

 

TRESSPASSER SPOILERS to follow (if anyone here needs that at this point)

 

The Solas turn in Trespasser might be my favorite antagonist in either game.  Given the nature of how Bioware writes, and what I think they write well, I'm surprised they haven't used this plot device more often. We know they guy pretty well by that point (or think we do), his cause is both horrifying and sympathy-inducing, his motivations are unselfish, and the door is left open for some kind of peaceful resolution (which is something I like as an option). Like Logain, he's tied pretty closely to the conflict, but not working at the behest of the main villain.

 

So to the principal question, I don't think a successful antagonist has as much to do with the approach as good character development. It can work either way we get a well-rounded character. 

[Hazegurl]

Pretty much this. I hear no end of the Loghain apologists, and yet some of those very same people are likely the ones purely hating on Solas. Eh, I've seen much cherry-picking morality/logic on these boards. Ex: People being against the dwarves using the Anvil of the Void in desperation against the darkspawn yet being ok with the Grey Wardens own practicalities. And as you've pointed out, in the case of Loghain/Solas it's likely motivated partially by feelings of "kinship" for fellow humans over fictional elves.

People are forgiving toward the Grey Wardens because we played one.  And remember that the Grey Wardens are not a human only organization.  As for Loghain and Solas. Solas wants to kill everyone to bring back the old days which didn't seem to be any better than it is presently, not even for most elves who were pretty much slaves to the 1%ers.   Loghain simply believed he could get rid of the Blight using Ferelden only soldiers. Mainly due to not knowing Grey Warden secrets and probably suffering from ptsd from his battles with Orlais.  Solas views everyone as Tranquils he's giving a mercy kill to. Loghain desired to save Fereldan from the possible horrors of an Orleasn occupation.  One that actually could have happened during the Blight. Apples and Oranges.

[nightscrawl]

Or maybe he'll slip into the background like Flemeth until they kill him off cause they don't know what else to do with him.

I really hope this doesn't happen, and that the whole Solas thing is resolved in the next game. Having Trespasser end as it did only to not have it resolved for another whole game would be quite annoying. But I will offer some hope in that I don't think they would have come up with something this big without some end goal already in mind. Whether that end goal is feasible, or changes during development, is another matter entirely.
 

Having Solas accuse my IQ of being racist while not giving me any dialogue to actually be racist toward him was just plain stupid and made Solas sound irrational.

He does? Is this for a particular dialogue option, or do you have to be non-friends with him to get this?
 

But my Noble IQ should have been given some racist dialogue.

...

Edit: The same was done to the elves. I tried playing an elf IQ. I got all the way to Skyhold without getting the chance to call anyone a dirty Shem.

I agree with both of these. I mean, if you don't want to have a non-human Inquisitor have racist remarks made toward them, and the reasoning is that being the Herald of Andraste trumps all in the eyes of many, then that's fine. But I think they should provide the player with more RP opportunities of this nature. Some people are racist, it's just an unfortunate fact. As wonderful as I think the Star Trek universe is for having eliminated racism (or reduced it to the degree that it's a non-issue), I don't think it's realistic for any setting. But in general, they don't seem too interested in allowing us to make a truly "evil" or nasty character.
 
Now, similar things have been suggested in the past, particularly with regard to players wanting the option to express their disgust over homosexuality -- I saw some who desired this option during Dorian's quest -- and the devs appeared to think that allowing the player to express this kind of vitriol was not necessary. You might then say that allowing the PC to make racist remarks over a fictional race of people is not the same as expressing disgust over homosexuality, a real thing, and you would be right, on the surface. But it does go along with a particular mindset, and I think that Bioware just doesn't want to "go there" in allowing these things.
 
Of course, that might change in the next game, and succeeding games, now that Patrick Weekes is head writer. We shall see.
 

IMO, I think BW seeks to erase the racism simply due to irl social sensibilities rather than anything related to anything ingame.  They try way too hard not to offend anyone.

I don't think this is the case. Rather I think it's more about the atmosphere they want projected in their games, not that they aren't trying offend people. I'm perfectly fine with that, really. Then again, I'm not the type to want to make a nasty character in the first place. Every time I've tried to play "evil," I end up cringing on hearing the resultant dialogue and want to reload.

[congokong]

People are forgiving toward the Grey Wardens because we played one.  And remember that the Grey Wardens are not a human only organization.  As for Loghain and Solas. Solas wants to kill everyone to bring back the old days which didn't seem to be any better than it is presently, not even for most elves who were pretty much slaves to the 1%ers.   Loghain simply believed he could get rid of the Blight using Ferelden only soldiers. Mainly due to not knowing Grey Warden secrets and probably suffering from ptsd from his battles with Orlais.  Solas views everyone as Tranquils he's giving a mercy kill to. Loghain desired to save Fereldan from the possible horrors of an Orleasn occupation.  One that actually could have happened during the Blight. Apples and Oranges.

It's not really apples and oranges, but I'm not going to get sucked into another pointless debate with a Loghain apologist.

[Ashagar]

Corypheus and Solas would likely make a better contrast as they are both trying to bring back worlds they once knew that no longer exists by their own actions.