That's great. Let mine stay in retirement.
*smh* I find it kind of funny that this game is just over a year old and folks are already talking about the next iteration (that hasn't even been hinted at). I mean, even the hate for DA2 went on longer than that.
This does leave the question open for the mage though. My K-E Quizzy could probably still fry a legion of rampaging qunari with a lightning storm with one arm tied behind her back.
Following up on nightscrawl's post above, it seems like a lot of the arguments pro-Inquisitor as PC rely on functioning in a specific case rather than universally. For the sake of argument, if players were evenly distributed amongst the nine specializations, one-ninth of players would have no problems fighting with one hand.
Following up on nightscrawl's post above, it seems like a lot of the arguments pro-Inquisitor as PC rely on functioning in a specific case rather than universally. For the sake of argument, if players were evenly distributed amongst the nine specializations, one-ninth of players would have no problems fighting with one hand.
Sorry for the long post! Catching up.
I think that Bioware left a pretty large clue that they ARE going to carry over the Inquisitor for the next game because they capture a very specific "end-state" for the Inquisition and how they will approach Solas in the future.
I agree that the phrasing of these options is telling, even if it's not proof. They specify that the Inquisition will be acting against Solas, and no matter what, you are still leading it at the end. So yeah, sure, they could have the Inquisitor have a cameo or something like that, but I don't have much confidence that that would work in a satisfying way, whether we're talking about the Inquisitor acting in-character or getting proper closure with Solas.
Like others have said, Bioware is leaving it open to go both ways, but I still think the Inquisitor's return would be the better option, specifically because of what they set up in Trespasser - a set up they didn't need to construct in the first place. They could have ended Trespasser without Solas telling you his plans. He could have just been his usual vague self, saved your life and said he was on an important mission and he must go alone. Most Inquisitors wouldn't think he's off to start a world-ending campaign, so we would be free to have a new protagonist in the next game.
But they did the exact opposite. You have to vow to stop him. It's not a choice. They didn't need to have the Inquisitor do that, but they did. I guess I just want that to mean something.
Not all of the arguments regarding the arm thing revolve around the Inquisitor suddenly being "worthless." Everyone has a different roleplay response to the arm issue, and they are ALL valid. If someone wants to have their Inquisitor retire because they feel their job is done, that the entire world is filled with ungrateful a-holes, they're majorly depressed because a boyfriend betrayed (Solas, Bull) them or just isn't going to be around (Dorian), or they lost an arm and may have lingering physical and psychological issues, and they don't want their Inquisitor forced into the next game, then that is their prerogative.
Your Inquisitor is kicking ass and that's great. Not everyone wants that for their Inquisitor.
I wouldn't mind seeing mine return, but I can certainly understand those who don't, for whatever reason they state.
I get what you're trying to say about roleplaying, and I agree - most of the time. But there are sometimes instances where you don't have a choice in something (because all of our characters have some pre-defined traits, and that's okay to a point). A comparable choice to retiring would be the opposite: Whether to become Inquisitor or not. That wasn't a choice though, since the story wouldn't flow if it were. Sure, it might be amusing if we had a choice to refuse, followed by a short cutscene and game-over screen, but it's not really worth it.
But it all depends what they want to do with their story, of course. Odds are the next game features the Inquisitor working against Solas in some form (even through text), so retiring wouldn't make much sense.
My Inquisitor is retired.
If anyone approaches him about being the lead in the next game, he is going to use his remaining hand in a very explicit gesture directed at the person asking.
Sorry but... he's not retired. No Inquisitor is. Because of the below:
I honestly think some players' desires to have their Inquisitor retire are going to fall on deaf ears. Regardless of the Inquisitor being the next protag or not, they're not retired. They might have SAID they were retiring, if you played it that way, but they're still plotting in the basement at the end like the rest of us. They still know about the threat Solas presents.
You're not going to get a choice about whether your Inquisitor is involved in the upcoming events. They already are, and they will continue to be b/c they're gonna save the world. That's what they do. That's a defined trait that the player has no way to oppose. (And I am fine with that.) The only thing in question is whether we will get to control them or not next game, not whether they'll be involved.
(It's great when other people write things so I don't have to 
)
Spoilered one of Nightscrawl's long posts
First, it depends how they go about the arm. Let's assume they have a prosthetic, at least in combat. This would be pretty easy, even with a lot of outfits. If we're going for simplicity, and knowing how Bioware has handled things like this in the past - we are - just have whatever armour the Inquisitor is wearing lack a glove on the left hand so you can see the prosthetic. Or leave the glove. Hell, make it an option! There, roleplay value. They did that exact thing in the prologue of DA:I. The Herald's left hand was bare so you could see the mark, but the right hand had a glove.
As for out of combat (and most likely armour too), one would hope you would have the option to wear a prosthetic or not. To do that they would need 2 variations of each casual outfit. Of course, that would take effort, so I don't know how likely that would be... Yes, you've probably gathered that I think Bioware could be better at problem solving. Much better. Because it seems like they don't try at all. They just nuke something that didn't work instead of finding a real solution. Playing other games recently, and seeing them instantly solve some of the problems Bioware has deemed "too difficult" or "not worth the effort", well... It's made me even more annoyed about those things.
Ahem, I'm rambling, sorry. Anyway, I think they could do a lot with this. They could.
Following up on nightscrawl's post above, it seems like a lot of the arguments pro-Inquisitor as PC rely on functioning in a specific case rather than universally. For the sake of argument, if players were evenly distributed amongst the nine specializations, one-ninth of players would have no problems fighting with one hand.
I think your math is wrong. 3/9 specs would have no problems; all the mages.
Sorry for the long post! Catching up.
I agree that the phrasing of these options is telling, even if it's not proof. They specify that the Inquisition will be acting against Solas, and no matter what, you are still leading it at the end. So yeah, sure, they could have the Inquisitor have a cameo or something like that, but I don't have much confidence that that would work in a satisfying way, whether we're talking about the Inquisitor acting in-character or getting proper closure with Solas.
Like others have said, Bioware is leaving it open to go both ways, but I still think the Inquisitor's return would be the better option, specifically because of what they set up in Trespasser - a set up they didn't need to construct in the first place. They could have ended Trespasser without Solas telling you his plans. He could have just been his usual vague self, saved your life and said he was on an important mission and he must go alone. Most Inquisitors wouldn't think he's off to start a world-ending campaign, so we would be free to have a new protagonist in the next game.
But they did the exact opposite. You have to vow to stop him. It's not a choice. They didn't need to have the Inquisitor do that, but they did. I guess I just want that to mean something.
I get what you're trying to say about roleplaying, and I agree - most of the time. But there are sometimes instances where you don't have a choice in something (because all of our characters have some pre-defined traits, and that's okay to a point). A comparable choice to retiring would be the opposite: Whether to become Inquisitor or not. That wasn't a choice though, since the story wouldn't flow if it were. Sure, it might be amusing if we had a choice to refuse, followed by a short cutscene and game-over screen, but it's not really worth it.
But it all depends what they want to do with their story, of course. Odds are the next game features the Inquisitor working against Solas in some form (even through text), so retiring wouldn't make much sense.
Sorry but... he's not retired. No Inquisitor is. Because of the below:
(It's great when other people write things so I don't have to
Spoilered one of Nightscrawl's long postsSpoiler
I agree with almost all of that post. I want the Inquisitor to have plenty of ways and opportunities to express how they feel about their arm. This was sorely lacking in Trespasser. However, I disagree about how hard it would be to implement this aspect in armour and clothing. And I know I'm repeating some of what others have said.
First, it depends how they go about the arm. Let's assume they have a prosthetic, at least in combat. This would be pretty easy, even with a lot of outfits. If we're going for simplicity, and knowing how Bioware has handled things like this in the past - we are - just have whatever armour the Inquisitor is wearing lack a glove on the left hand so you can see the prosthetic. Or leave the glove. Hell, make it an option! There, roleplay value. They did that exact thing in the prologue of DA:I. The Herald's left hand was bare so you could see the mark, but the right hand had a glove.
As for out of combat (and most likely armour too), one would hope you would have the option to wear a prosthetic or not. To do that they would need 2 variations of each casual outfit. Of course, that would take effort, so I don't know how likely that would be... Yes, you've probably gathered that I think Bioware could be better at problem solving. Much better. Because it seems like they don't try at all. They just nuke something that didn't work instead of finding a real solution. Playing other games recently, and seeing them instantly solve some of the problems Bioware has deemed "too difficult" or "not worth the effort", well... It's made me even more annoyed about those things.
Ahem, I'm rambling, sorry. Anyway, I think they could do a lot with this. They could.
I think your math is wrong. 3/9 specs would have no problems; all the mages.
I think you all know where I stand on this issue.
Spoiler
Sorry for the long post! Catching up.
I agree that the phrasing of these options is telling, even if it's not proof. They specify that the Inquisition will be acting against Solas, and no matter what, you are still leading it at the end. So yeah, sure, they could have the Inquisitor have a cameo or something like that, but I don't have much confidence that that would work in a satisfying way, whether we're talking about the Inquisitor acting in-character or getting proper closure with Solas.
I think your math is wrong. 3/9 specs would have no problems; all the mages.
If we're going by semantics, then the game specifically says the Inquisition, not the Inquisitor will stop Solas. Of course the Inquisitor would have a role in that, but it's not evidence that the Inquisitor will directly be responsible for stopping Solas.
I get the emotional response people feel about their Inquisitor after Trespasser and I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's emotions or connections to their characters or the story. I just feel that most of the arguments pro-Inquisitor are based more on attachment to them as PC rather than what rationally makes the most sense from a game designer's perspective when creating a new game. Yes, there are many ways around losing an arm and still being in combat. But is it really worth all of the extra resources spent implementing this, when it will only apply to the PC, not to all character models involved in game combat? And if we have multiple races as PC, it will be four or eight times the amount of resources in modeling the characters to use new game mechanics. I use the horrible PJs as evidence that this isn't great; the outfit was clearly designed for a human male and modified for female bodies and other races.
The amount of resources needed to move around all of the obstacles Bioware has set in place through Trespasser does not seem worth the payout.
I think you all know where I stand on this issue.
[spoiler]
[/spoile
Haha, niiiiice.
If we're going by semantics, then the game specifically says the Inquisition, not the Inquisitor will stop Solas. Of course the Inquisitor would have a role in that, but it's not evidence that the Inquisitor will directly be responsible for stopping Solas.
LOUIS XIV OF FRANCE DISSAPROVES
L'Etat c'est moi! - I am the state!
Inquisitor is the Inquisition.
If we're going by semantics, then the game specifically says the Inquisition, not the Inquisitor will stop Solas. Of course the Inquisitor would have a role in that, but it's not evidence that the Inquisitor will directly be responsible for stopping Solas.
I get the emotional response people feel about their Inquisitor after Trespasser and I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's emotions or connections to their characters or the story. I just feel that most of the arguments pro-Inquisitor are based more on attachment to them as PC rather than what rationally makes the most sense from a game designer's perspective when creating a new game. Yes, there are many ways around losing an arm and still being in combat. But is it really worth all of the extra resources spent implementing this, when it will only apply to the PC, not to all character models involved in game combat? And if we have multiple races as PC, it will be four or eight times the amount of resources in modeling the characters to use new game mechanics. I use the horrible PJs as evidence that this isn't great; the outfit was clearly designed for a human male and modified for female bodies and other races.
The amount of resources needed to move around all of the obstacles Bioware has set in place through Trespasser does not seem worth the payout.
Personally I wasn't really connected to the inquisitor during the base game. I didn't even really like the base game. What Trespasser showed me however was the potential of something interesting. A personal grudge, working from the shadows, going undercover, dealing with the physical and emotional loss of a limb. This really sparked my imagination! To me, if they pulled off the kind of story I'd want out of those elements then it would be worth any extra resources for a special character model/animations. They've set up an interesting scenario with Trespasser and for what? To throw it away like they did the mage/templar war? Will Solas be defeated offscreen between games with only a few passing mentions in DA4? Will the inquisitor become the OOC desk-bound invalid quest giver? If there's a new protagonist and Solas is the antagonist, the two have no connection. Could the writer's build up a connection? Yes but it will take a long time (and I don't think they'd bother) and why re-develop something they already developed? I predict any connection between the NP and Solas will be flimsy and tacked on such as Solas randomly destroys the NP's village at the beginning of the game. To a new protagonist Solas is just a generic evil wizard that has to be stopped because he's trying to destroy the world. You can't get much more boring than that. I don't see BioWare as willing to take any risks in their storytelling. "Evil guy trying to destroy the world" is safe. "Someone needs to stop him so I guess it will be me" is safe. "Gather forces/an army to defeat the big bad" is safe. Writing a good story about someone who has been personally betrayed and manipulated and now has to live with the loss of a limb...that's not safe, it's difficult but if they did it right it could be amazing.
I know I'm in the minority, but I would rather resources be used to make a story with real emotional impact that flows from one event to the next than things like huge empty maps or flashy combat animations. A story where everything is connected and relevant rather than tacked on and given a flimsy excuse why it's related (ex: we have to save the Empress because...um the world will end if she dies! Unless I'm the one who lets her die that is...). Each event should be there to strengthen the narrative and not just there to be something to do. BioWare bringing the inquisitor back and finishing their story would show me that they just might care about having a story with substance. Throwing away what they've set up and bringing in a generic new PC to finish that story would indicate to me that they're just going to go the same old generic route again. A skilled writer might be able to take a new and unconnected character and make a compelling story between that person and Solas but based on what BioWare has shown me the last few years I don't have that kind of faith in them.
You know, I have to thank you for this very long post, as it has changed my perspective, just a bit. To explain:
I think they should totally have the Inquisitor as the protagonist in the prologue, selfishly pursuing their love/hate relationship to stop Solas, and just before they go to character creation, BAM, statue.
I like how you think.
Sorry for the long post! Catching up.
I agree that the phrasing of these options is telling, even if it's not proof. They specify that the Inquisition will be acting against Solas, and no matter what, you are still leading it at the end. So yeah, sure, they could have the Inquisitor have a cameo or something like that, but I don't have much confidence that that would work in a satisfying way, whether we're talking about the Inquisitor acting in-character or getting proper closure with Solas.
Like others have said, Bioware is leaving it open to go both ways, but I still think the Inquisitor's return would be the better option, specifically because of what they set up in Trespasser - a set up they didn't need to construct in the first place. They could have ended Trespasser without Solas telling you his plans. He could have just been his usual vague self, saved your life and said he was on an important mission and he must go alone. Most Inquisitors wouldn't think he's off to start a world-ending campaign, so we would be free to have a new protagonist in the next game.
But they did the exact opposite. You have to vow to stop him. It's not a choice. They didn't need to have the Inquisitor do that, but they did. I guess I just want that to mean something.
*snip*
I think your math is wrong. 3/9 specs would have no problems; all the mages.
Totally agree.
Why go trough the effort and resources needed to do this part if they didn't want it to mean anything?
They could have just made Solas tell you his plan and then go like "Live well, while time remains" and leave the scene - without asking you to commit to a specific choice or anything. That way it would have been quite clear that it was a "farewell". You could have still decided later in the new game what to do with him.
But no, they make you choose right there. The choice needs to mean something. Cause you are the one who made it. So you have to fulfill it. It can't be another one doing it on your behalf imho.. even if you recruit someone else, the new person might not see Solas the way you see it and not agree with what you have pledged to do with him...
Also, I would count rogue archers too, since they can use a crossbow as shown in the ending sliders - another thing they had to create art for, when it was not needed and they could have skipped or drawn it in a different way..
LOUIS XIV OF FRANCE DISSAPROVES
L'Etat c'est moi! - I am the state!
Inquisitor is the Inquisition.
I'm fine with the Inquisitor coming back in DA4.
That said, whenever I think of that happening I realize that doing so because I think the Inquisitor is an engaging character is a pretty low for reason for bringing them around again in my opinion. I only want them back so I can possibly have a higher chance to talk with Blackwall at Weisshaupt, Iron Bull and the Chargers on some random battlefield in Tevinter, Sera on some rooftop in Minrathous, Dorian in the Magisterium and of course for confronting Solas at the end. Basically, I only want the Inquisitor back because I just want to hang out with companion characters that I did actually care about.
And this may be somewhat assumptive on my part, but I got a feeling that more people care about Solas then the Inquisitor, and since were probably only going to directly interact with Solas a handful of times before the conclusion I think that DA4 will likely have the same issues that Inquisition did in that we'll have a somewhat generic PC whose only interesting narrative point is that their friend/lover turned into a supervillain. People may argue that not having the Inquisitor would mean that we'd just have a new PC with no personal connection to the main villain, and while that be true having a new PC could also allow us to have characters that have somewhat minor stakes against Solas along with their own personal issues that they want to resolve that is only tentatively connected to him, sort like how the Warden obviously wanted to stop the Blight but depending own their Origin they had other personal character stuff going on as well.
Plus, female dwarves and qunari will have to use their crappy VA again for their characters which would just be awful. 
If we're going by semantics, then the game specifically says the Inquisition, not the Inquisitor will stop Solas. Of course the Inquisitor would have a role in that, but it's not evidence that the Inquisitor will directly be responsible for stopping Solas.
The amount of resources needed to move around all of the obstacles Bioware has set in place through Trespasser does not seem worth the payout.
And who exactly if not the Inquisitor? Leliana/Cassandra (who might be Divines) and Harding? ....
The Inquisitor is still the leader and/or the figure that carries the Inquisition. How can the organization make a decision if the leader is not primarily involved?
I think what Nefla said explains perfectly why instead it would be totally worth it to invest all their resources in continuing the story this way, instead of making a generic "new guy who out of nowhere (again..zzz) raises to fame and becomes the savior of the world without being connected to the main enemy or previous events in any way at all.
Except that they really aren't. They are part of, and a figurehead for, but they are not the Inquisition. There is absolutely nothing that was accomplished from the prologue to the end of Tresspasser that the Inquisitor did on their own. In fact, it's been postulated on these very forums that the Inquisitor should have spent the majority of their time on the throne, sending people out to do all these things, except closing rifts, which requires the anchor. The fact of the matter is, Justinia had already intended to form the Inquisition, that's what that book Cass slams down for Roderick is, a writ from her authorizing the formation of the Inquisition. Guess what: There was no set Inquisitor then. In fact, there was no set Inquisitor at all in Haven, and yet, the Inquisition was formed.
Yeah...
It's not like I hate the Inquisitor or anything, but because of how the narrative works in Inquisition I have the feeling that anyone could of been the Inquisitor as long as they got the Mark.
Seriously, Sera could of been Inquisitor.
...
Damn, we could had a canon Drinkquisition. ******!
And who exactly if not the Inquisitor? Leliana/Cassandra (who might be Divines) and Harding? ....
The Inquisitor is still the leader and/or the figure that carries the Inquisition. How can the organization make a decision if the leader is not primarily involved?
I think what Nefla said explains perfectly why instead it would be totally worth it to invest all their resources in continuing the story this way, instead of making a generic "new guy who out of nowhere (again..zzz) raises to fame and becomes the savior of the world without being connected to the main enemy or previous events in any way at all.
Except that they really aren't. They are part of, and a figurehead for, but they are not the Inquisition. There is absolutely nothing that was accomplished from the prologue to the end of Tresspasser that the Inquisitor did on their own. In fact, it's been postulated on these very forums that the Inquisitor should have spent the majority of their time on the throne, sending people out to do all these things, except closing rifts, which requires the anchor. The fact of the matter is, Justinia had already intended to form the Inquisition, that's what that book Cass slams down for Roderick is, a writ from her authorizing the formation of the Inquisition. Guess what: There was no set Inquisitor then. In fact, there was no set Inquisitor at all in Haven, and yet, the Inquisition was formed.
And who exactly if not the Inquisitor? Leliana/Cassandra (who might be Divines) and Harding? ....
The Inquisitor is still the leader and/or the figure that carries the Inquisition. How can the organization make a decision if the leader is not primarily involved?
I think what Nefla said explains perfectly why instead it would be totally worth it to invest all their resources in continuing the story this way, instead of making a generic "new guy who out of nowhere (again..zzz) raises to fame and becomes the savior of the world without being connected to the main enemy or previous events in any way at all.
As robertthebard says above. If we said that the Chantry is going to call an Exalted March, do you expect to see the Divine leading the charge? (Okay maybe Divine Victoria in battle armor)
The leader of an organization is not the entirety of the organization. In non-Bioware scenarios, top leaders would not be in the middle of the fighting, risking a power struggle back home if they die. They would be commanding their organization and directing the troops from safety. The Inquisitor specifically says they have to find new people whom Solas doesn't know. So...presumably the PC for DA4 will be one of these people, whether they know they're being directed by the Inquisition or not.
I was going to either be a pro bowler or take up the piano after my quzzy retired, thanks a lot BioWare!
Another problem I have with the introduction of a new protagonist is that there are already too many legendary, god-like heroes running around at the same time. Why would a random slave/goatherder/whatever need to rise up to that legendary status when you already have the inquisitor still alive, informed of the situation, personally connected, an with previous experience saving the world from crazy ancient wizards? New protagonists work better when separated by time or when the story is smaller scale and important to that specific character. Ex: previous protagonists would have little reason to get involved with a slave uprising in Tevinter but a new protagonist who starts as a Tevinter slave fits that story much better.
That's why these discussions will go in circles until we learn more about DA4 We can predict all we want, but Bio is going to write the main plot for DA4 that they want, and it's up to them to decide what type of PC best fits into the role required by that story.
I personally would like to have a few years to have passed by the time DA4 rolls around. We'll need some time to pass for Dorian's faction to have gained some support, the Inquisition (in whatever form) to gather enough resources to infiltrate Tevinter or gather allies, and for Solas to develop whatever plans he has. Plus, if we're dealing with the Tevinter-Qunari conflict, it would be best to have that build up rather than start as soon as we stop their plans in Trespasser.
And this may be somewhat assumptive on my part, but I got a feeling that more people care about Solas then the Inquisitor, and since were probably only going to directly interact with Solas a handful of times before the conclusion I think that DA4 will likely have the same issues that Inquisition did in that we'll have a somewhat generic PC whose only interesting narrative point is that their friend/lover turned into a supervillain. People may argue that not having the Inquisitor would mean that we'd just have a new PC with no personal connection to the main villain, and while that be true having a new PC could also allow us to have characters that have somewhat minor stakes against Solas along with their own personal issues that they want to resolve that is only tentatively connected to him, sort like how the Warden obviously wanted to stop the Blight but depending own their Origin they had other personal character stuff going on as well.
That's what I think is all about too, and it's why I wish the Inquisitor never learned about Solas' plans.
Why would a random slave/goatherder/whatever need to rise up to that legendary status when you already have the inquisitor still alive, informed of the situation, personally connected, an with previous experience saving the world from crazy ancient wizards? New protagonists work better when separated by time
Yeah exactly
Origins was the first so the fact that the Warden raises to fame doesn't bother me.
Hawke made a mess ( ) so it doesn't bother me.
Plus it was ok to have a new character for DAI because it's been 10 years. That's a really long time for the Warden to be still active and kicking ass around like the old days - plus her (in my case) story was finished so I didn't mind her not returning. The Warden ended the Blight and there were 10 years of peace (let's call it that...).
But the Inquisitor's story is not finished.. There is still a threat to be faced - why would someone else have to solve a problem when you have a hero who already knows what is going on and is already experienced and has already become important for Thedas? It's not like he/she is dead..
The Warden didn't have anything to do cause the Blight was over, so he/she left to find a cure to the Taint just because it was the right thing to do in his/her eyes. But in the Inquisitor's case it's different.
And yes @robertthebard, my Lavellan also disbanded the Inquision - that doesn't mean she wants to retire in the shadow :/
That's why I wouldn't mind at all to have dual protagonists.
One protagonist in Tevinter, through whose eyes you will see new things, explore Minrathous, get acquainted to whoever the PC will be (ex-slave, crazy magister, etc), take care of the trouble with the Qunari, build up a network/resources/knowledge whatever is needed that the Inquisition (or what is left of it) can use to prevent the threat.
I don't have anything against that and actually would enjoy it.
But I would like the Inquisitor to be the one to conclude what he/she started and to fulfill the promise made to Solas - to kill him or redeem him, and not some other guy who is completely unrelated to the whole thing and probably just learned about it from either the Inquisitor or external sources.
I don't care how long the Inquisitor would be there - I'd be ok even if it was only for one battle and a final scene. Even for 20 minutes.
But I feel like he/she should be there, and not be degraded to just a cripple who sits back and lets others do his/her job.
But to me the fact that there is an option to redeem Solas implies that the Inquisitor will be present. Why would the new character want to redeem him if he doesn't even know him? Based on what? :s Otherwise they could have just left the option out and decided that Solas was going to be killed regardless, since in this case it doesn't matter and it can be done by anyone.
Dunno, maybe it's just me to think this way
But anyway yeah, we can speculate all we want - we have years ahead of knowing even a little about the next installment 
Except that they really aren't. They are part of, and a figurehead for, but they are not the Inquisition. There is absolutely nothing that was accomplished from the prologue to the end of Tresspasser that the Inquisitor did on their own. In fact, it's been postulated on these very forums that the Inquisitor should have spent the majority of their time on the throne, sending people out to do all these things, except closing rifts, which requires the anchor. The fact of the matter is, Justinia had already intended to form the Inquisition, that's what that book Cass slams down for Roderick is, a writ from her authorizing the formation of the Inquisition. Guess what: There was no set Inquisitor then. In fact, there was no set Inquisitor at all in Haven, and yet, the Inquisition was formed.
At the start yes. You begin as the Herald of Andraste, not the Inquisitor.
But every single decision and outcome is based on what the Inquisitor, not the Inquisition does. Rightly or wrongly, the power of the Inquisitor is absolute. You can decide whether Cullen stays on lyrium or not, whether Dorian reconciles with his family or not, whether Celene lives or dies vs Gaspard and Briala, sit on your throne and judge, etc etc and all the rest of it. You can be a benevolent Inquisitor or you can be a nightmare. You certainly aren't a figurehead - that implies you don't have any involvement at all.
The influence of the Inquisitor is demonstrated throughout the game - ultimate authority rests with him/her. By the time you're losing your arm to your former companion's magic, the Inquisitor is, very much, the Inquisition and much more than the Mark. It's not unreasonable for people to come to that conclusion - that's what Cassandra tells you before you wave your sword in the air in Skyhold, after all. It's because of what you've done that makes the Inquisition what it is. So if there is an Inquisition with minimal involvement in DA4 from our esteemed DA:I protagonists people would be, quite rightly, annoyed.
And yes, random speculation gets us nowhere - fun though 
I also keep seeing this thing that Hawke was meant to be the Inquisitor but was dropped for being too unpopular? Is that actually confirmed as true or urban myth?
Retour en haut
