53 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

I think why the end results were so limited is because it would be easier to account for either choice in future games. Regardless of the choices themselves, the Inquisition is a very powerful organization that (presumably) holds sway in virtually every corner of the known world. They can't treat it like the warden or the city of Kirkwall which are comparatively insular cases, confined to only affecting a small tiny portion of the world.

 

The choices available are both narratively plausible and while likely to change details in certain games, is likely not prone to changing them all that much. Thus, it is more cost effective and resource savvy to have the available choices only amount to so much.

 

Radical options like the one described, will likely change too much in terms of story. Everything from the reigning monarchs, to how their policies would likely be changed to affect citizens all over Thedas and the over-prevalence of the Inquisition itself (presumably expanding, maybe getting a few more outposts and forts) will make it so that that that choice alone will render an entire new world completely differently than that of its former counterparts. If they try to make that choice make even matters a modicum of what it implies, they basically have to create an entirely new game.

Exactly.

 

You can have radically diverging choices.  Or you can have game imports.  You can't have both.

[IntoTheDarkness]

People want silly things in the name of wish fulfillment. If you're offended that I think that this plan is dumb, then I'm sorry, but I still think it's dumb, and bleating about ad homs and whatnot doesn't actually make me think it's less dumb. Quite the opposite.

 

You can think the plan is dumb, but you should do without latent insults. It tends to help conversations flow. And you didn't call the plan dumb, which would have been completely fine with me; you made an analogy of a particularly dim writer on me. I definitely have a thin skin but I wrote the thread to hear others' opinions on the subject without an intention to persuade them, and I have no reason to continue an unpleasant conversation with your distorted interpretation of my words and gloating. When I said the inquisition won't need to move a finger it meant what appears to the public. When the inquisition is the most powerful organization left standing on Orlais it is entirely reasonable to promote an opinion within minor nobles to support the inquisition by making secret deals with a few of them. You are bringing in the worst case scenario possible in your interpretation to fit into a already laid out conclusion you had.

 

Oh well. I shouldn't have commented to a post with insults in the first place so I will just make final remark:

 

What makes you absolutely certain that I want to be the sneering surveillance? Your presumption is ridiculous. I strongly despise the power fantasy in RPGs. All I've ever written on ME3 forum was criticizing how the reapers were made dumb and how numerous plot shields were used to make the humanity 'win'. I made assertions that the reapers should have blown earth to pieces in the first place, turn off all the relay network the moment they grabbed the citadel so that the allied fleet can't join efforts, remove teleport beams conveniently set on London, and many more in contradiction of the power fantasy. My favourite RPG is Age of Decadence because in this RPG you are just a common person who will most likely die against two or three thugs. I applauded the developer on the official forum for one of the endings where the protagonist ended up being crucified losing everything because I thought it was very realistic.

 

But somehow you are absolutely certain that I wrote the thread for a wish fulfillment of the power fantasy that I certainly don't wish for. This is a tiresome attack to defend and this is why I don't want to discuss further with you. I wrote the idea because I believed it plausible with some luck. I would have been fine with a bad ending too were it seemed reasonable. I probably shouldn't have written this comment either given the history. I don't wish for a power fantasy but I wish you a good day.

 

/butthurt response.

[Dean_the_Young]

Oh well. I shouldn't have commented to a post with insults in the first place so I will just make final remark:

 

/butthurt response.

 

Simplified it for you.

[vbibbi]

I like the ideas but think they diverge too strongly from the narrative Bioware wants to tell to be realistic. After DAO's diverging endings, Bio realized that when creating a franchise with games occurring in a narrow timeframe, strongly divergent paths harm their intended plots. I think this could only occur if it were a non-canon alternate ending.

[ModernAcademic]

People want silly things in the name of wish fulfillment. If you're offended that I think that this plan is dumb, then I'm sorry, but I still think it's dumb, and bleating about ad homs and whatnot doesn't actually make me think it's less dumb. Quite the opposite.

And as far as a historical analogy for the actual coup d'état goes: I can't think of anything like this that ever actually succeeded long-term for exactly the sorts of reasons I brought up, but I only have a master's in history. Please, undergraduate, enlighten me.

Is it so unreasonable to just call this whole thread what it is - wish fulfillment for somebody who wants to be the sneering supervillain? I don't see the point of cloaking it in faulty logic when the selling point of roleplaying Lord Blackwood is more than enough for plenty of people on the forum.

 

If you have a masters in History - with a capital H because it's a field of study, like the other sciences: Mathematics, Physics, Criminal Law, etc -, then the first thing you should avoid is to shove it in people's faces.

 

A scientist doesn't use knowledge as a means to assert his authority over others. Much less does he ridicule other people in public because of their lack of knowledge in his field or imply someone is ignorant about something. On the contrary, he's taught in University to participate in discussions in order to disseminate knowledge and enrich  people's arguments by sharing what he learned (as well as enriching his own universe by listening to what others have to share).

 

A scientist is, more than anyone else, painfully aware of the limitation imposed by common sense. Because he himself was only lifted from his limited self thanks to years of study. And as his masters did for him, encouraging him to free his mind and learn new theories that help him better understand the world, so does he also rescue others from the mediocrity of common sense with an encouraging posture, promoting further debate based on clever argumentation, rather than intimidating those that don't agree with him. In other words, he's the antonym of an elitist because discrimination goes against the principle of sharing knowledge.

 

This philosophy is one of the first things you learn when you step in a University. Intimidation doeesn't belong in the house of learning. It belongs to dictators, priests, the military and other institutions that demand blind obedience. As a matter of fact, that philosophy has been behind every major sociopolitical revolution in Western society ever since Liberalism was implemented. Its proposal was to end social privileges and the inheritance of power through bloodlines.

 

Liberalism paved the way for a society based on merit and equality, our society. And to see someone who, despite knowing all this, behaves like a pedantic priest, trying to demoralize and ridicule other people about a trivial subject - their personal opinion about a video game -, even trying to force them to shut up is, to say the least, regrettable.

 

In spite of all your formidable academic knowledge and privileged view of the world, you missed an opportunity to do what any scientist in your position would do and "pulled rank". It's an attitude associated with the ignorant.

 

This is a forum. Coming to a thread that's not yours and insinuating other people are ridiculous using pedantic words, as well as how they personally feel about something they like is wrong. It's subverting your knowledge of argumentation to satisfy your need to feed your ego. And the fact that another postgraduate has to point that out to you is deplorable. 

[ShadowLordXII]

I'm all for an evil option.

 

If this is how Ferelden and Orlais will treat you after you just saved them no less than three times, sometimes from their own problems, then I see no reason why the Inquisition shouldn't respond in a manner similar to the OP's idea.

 

In fact, it would be better if the plan could fail and then all of the Exalted Council's arguments are now validated in the face of an attempted assassination and coup. Or if the plan succeeds and you go full Dark Side Ending Revan on Southern Thedas and anyone in your organization who stands against you.

 

But BW is scared of letting PC's be evil now, so I'll just put the gist of this idea on the "Lost Opportunities for DA: Inquisition" List that I've been working on since launch.

[Helmetto]

I think your idea does go a tad too far in terms of evil, corrupt bastard-dom (and I doubt any of the companions would stand for it, much less your advisors). It's also very derailing and ignoring (or proving) the points Solas made about organizations, and would have eclipsed the entire plot of Trespasser. I mean, that is a lot of stuff to do, on top of all the other stuff.

 

But I do agree that we should have probably had some more evil options, especially in Trespasser. It's kind of odd to be told you have a massive army, a well trained network of spies, and long list of alliances and support, only for none of that to come into play two years later and you are forced to play by everyone else's rules because reasons.

[AnimalBoy]

If it's power you seek OP then the surest way to get it, legitimately, is to marry Celene, right after Corypheus has been defeated.  At that point the Inquisitor is at the apex of his popularity, worshiped like a warrior prophet.  It's then he should approach the Empress and offers her a deal: you closest relatives (and rivals) are dead but you cannot fully trust your own nobles and military, which is why we've been helping from the sidelines and keeping watch on your capital, but the threat remains.  Marry me and you gain an army that, through me, will be devoted to you without question. 

 

 

Being the consummate player of the Game she is, Celene would immediately pick up what he's after: give his inquisition the legitimacy it lacks to operate on its own and place it beyond scrutiny; who would dare question the right to rule of the new Consort?  Meanwhile she'd gain the military leader she lost when Gaspard was executed, she'd gain reliable troops *and* agents for the changes she'd been working to establish, she'd also gain the means to counterweight the Chantry's power, especially if Vivienne is Divine.  Such an alliance would secure her throne far more than letting the Council of Heralds - thus the great nobles of the Empire - put a leash on the Inquisition - or let it disband. 

 

Imagine, Grand Inquisitor *and* Emperor or Prince Consort or Lord Regent...  No one could stand against him.  Ferelden would bark, that's what dogs do, but they'd be in no position to go to war.  Oh I definitely think she would take such a deal.

 

 

Not to mention the possible heir that a male Inquisitor could possibly have with Celene to ensure Celene that her bloodline would continue to rule on the throne.

[Midnight Bliss]

I think I'd prefer the OP's Inquis persona over the forced messiah mary sue role from vanilla DAI.

 

Maybe.

[vbibbi]

But BW is scared of letting PC's be evil now, so I'll just put the gist of this idea on the "Lost Opportunities for DA: Inquisition" List that I've been working on since launch.

I'd be interested in that list! Care to post?

[TheKomandorShepard]

That is crazy. You were made a leader by those advisers, and much of the inquisition's power is delegated to them. Most likely you will be assassinated by the advisers and declared missing to the public. Assassinating the divine and making her a lifeless puppet is even more far-fetched.

 

I spoke of purging Leliana in the OP not in a sense that I forcefully remove her from the position, but rather giving her a different, seemingly equally important task(for example mediating Orlaisian nobles and representing inquisition in the Orlaisian court) to occupy her so that I can manage the spy network myself. Going against any of your advisers is a suicidal move since you are, in large parts, a mere symbol and an inspiration. You can use your popularity to the public and your mark to make councils defer to you on few matters they disagree with, but openly planning mass murders and a coup, or antagonizing one of them are implausible.

 

I only mentioned the scenario in the OP because bombs were planted by Qunari and the inquisition, unbeknownst to the public and everyone but you and the spymaster, can "fail" to remove all the bombs, seizing the chance to grab power with legitimacy and just reasons without tarnishing your reputation and position.

 

Not rly, pretty much you are biggest reason why Inquistion grew and it grew with idea that you are inquistion champion, hope and later leader, even before you were given title of inquistor you were leader in all but name. Pretty much envy demon managed to transform Inquiston into brutal force that was hunting down heretics and probably get rid of advisors as i doubt they would be fine with it. Pretty much you could easliy get rid off Leliana given she is dumb and unstable enough that she disobeys orders (in contrast to other 2 advisors), threatens inquisitor and screwed up good deal of times with rather obvious stuff (what costed inquiston greatly) but sadly of course due she is writers pet and mary sue nothing can't be done about it.

 

 

As for such choices , no pretty much bioware made it clear in Trespasser and pretty much other games after first game that they want to railroad player to pretty much almost the same world states due to import save. So don't expect meaningful choices in dragon age as even if they may seem meaningful at first they will pretty much turn the same or be ignored in next game. 

[midnight tea]

I think I'd prefer the OP's Inquis persona over the forced messiah mary sue role from vanilla DAI.

 

Maybe.

 

Huh.. if you want to play your Inquisitor as Mary Sue, then you're more than welcome to play a Mary Sue.

 

We can't play "evil Mary Sues" (because that's basically what OPs Inky is - Inquisitor getting away with impossible and silly evil plan), but we can, by all means, play Inquisitors that are self-serving, short-sighted and/or incompetent. Companions and nobles can hate us, going as far as only tolerating our presence due to ability to do something with rifts/Corypheus and we can even inadvertently cause death, pain and betrayal by making wrong decisions - and even if we play as competent and friendly leaders who we still manage to get Inquisition infiltrated not by ONE, but TWO potentially hostile forces.

 

Also "forced Messiah" is actually fully intentional and embraced by the story, lol. The protagonist is literally struggling with the perceived greatness thrusted upon them by circumstances and faith of the masses - the whole of Inquisition is about answering a question of whether they can actually be great... which, as I touched upon above, isn't a given.

 

 

I think your idea does go a tad too far in terms of evil, corrupt bastard-dom (and I doubt any of the companions would stand for it, much less your advisors). It's also very derailing and ignoring (or proving) the points Solas made about organizations, and would have eclipsed the entire plot of Trespasser. I mean, that is a lot of stuff to do, on top of all the other stuff.

 

But I do agree that we should have probably had some more evil options, especially in Trespasser. It's kind of odd to be told you have a massive army, a well trained network of spies, and long list of alliances and support, only for none of that to come into play two years later and you are forced to play by everyone else's rules because reasons.

 

No, it's not odd - that was the point. Thedas keeps dragging their heroes to the ground, no matter how powerful or influential they can be at a time. Think about it - Solas has led a successful rebellion against immortal mage-kings and was eventually forced to make decisions that ruined him and changed the world, not necessarily for the better. Andraste led a successful rebellion against Tevinter and was burned at the stake after her own husband's betrayal. Wardens saved the world more than a couple times and they've fallen victims of their own secrecy, among other things. Same way, despite all of the accumulated power, Inquisitor eventually faces natural resistance from parties and nations that began fearing its influence (also - no it's not "reasons", Orlais and Ferelden actually have legitimate concerns and it's only Inquisition's credit that they want to play in civilized fashion... same way we do in real world, after we figured out that constant warring and show of force never really worked for us in the centuries/millenia it was in fashion).

 

Basically, it's a vicious circle of struggle against the tide - the question that we'd likely answer either at the end of DA4 or end of series is whether perseverance against any ordeals thrown our way would be worth it in the end.

[mgagne]

Not to mention the possible heir that a male Inquisitor could possibly have with Celene to ensure Celene that her bloodline would continue to rule on the throne.

 

 

Needless to say, my scenario could only be possible with a human male noble.

[CardButton]

LOL well a coup ending would be interesting, but man it would certainly prove the concept that "As a organization grows in power they become less concerned with the ideals that created them and more concerned with their own self preservation" theme Inquisition had going for it.  The Wardens, the Rebel Mages, the Templars, the Seekers ... all of them ended up sacrificing principles in order to preserve and justify their continued existence.  They gave up a little bit of themselves, here and there (not all at once, so subtle few would have noticed) in the name of necessity and by the end became thoroughly unrecognizable, it would be rather poetic to have the Inquisition do the same.

 

"You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" that holds true to organizations as well ... which is why I personally decided to end it.  A tool as powerful as the Inquisition that strays from its intended purpose is dangerous and is no longer of any use.     

[Aimi]

If you have a masters in History - with a capital H because it's a field of study, like the other sciences: Mathematics, Physics, Criminal Law, etc -, then the first thing you should avoid is to shove it in people's faces.
 
A scientist doesn't use knowledge as a means to assert his authority over others. Much less does he ridicule other people in public because of their lack of knowledge in his field or imply someone is ignorant about something. On the contrary, he's taught in University to participate in discussions in order to disseminate knowledge and enrich  people's arguments by sharing what he learned (as well as enriching his own universe by listening to what others have to share).
 
A scientist is, more than anyone else, painfully aware of the limitation imposed by common sense. Because he himself was only lifted from his limited self thanks to years of study. And as his masters did for him, encouraging him to free his mind and learn new theories that help him better understand the world, so does he also rescue others from the mediocrity of common sense with an encouraging posture, promoting further debate based on clever argumentation, rather than intimidating those that don't agree with him. In other words, he's the antonym of an elitist because discrimination goes against the principle of sharing knowledge.
 
This philosophy is one of the first things you learn when you step in a University. Intimidation doeesn't belong in the house of learning. It belongs to dictators, priests, the military and other institutions that demand blind obedience. As a matter of fact, that philosophy has been behind every major sociopolitical revolution in Western society ever since Liberalism was implemented. Its proposal was to end social privileges and the inheritance of power through bloodlines.
 
Liberalism paved the way for a society based on merit and equality, our society. And to see someone who, despite knowing all this, behaves like a pedantic priest, trying to demoralize and ridicule other people about a trivial subject - their personal opinion about a video game -, even trying to force them to shut up is, to say the least, regrettable.
 
In spite of all your formidable academic knowledge and privileged view of the world, you missed an opportunity to do what any scientist in your position would do and "pulled rank". It's an attitude associated with the ignorant.
 
This is a forum. Coming to a thread that's not yours and insinuating other people are ridiculous using pedantic words, as well as how they personally feel about something they like is wrong. It's subverting your knowledge of argumentation to satisfy your need to feed your ego. And the fact that another postgraduate has to point that out to you is deplorable.

That'd be a really great argument if it hadn't been said explicitly in response to somebody who touted his own credentials as a "history major". And it'd be an even better argument if your own username didn't include the word "academic". Get your prolix hypocrisy out of my face.

I don't pull out my credentials very often on the Internet. In this particular case, it seemed appropriate for the discussion. In most cases, it isn't, and I don't bring it up - I just post warrants and claims.

It's well and good to spout high-flown drivel about how the mission of academia is to teach people, not make them feel like crap. It's high-flown drivel I agree with, in a setting where academic discussion is possible. (Except conferences. Everybody is out to get you at conferences. Like the old joke: "if you can't say anything nice, say it in the form of a question".) But I also think that it's often (not always! not even "most of the time"!) a pointless endeavor on social media, where people have little interest in listening to reasoned argument. And it's especially pointless on topics where reasoned argument is almost definitionally impossible.

Look at the OP. The discussion did not start as one involving historical academia. The OP put up a series of reasons (s)he believed made the narrative of a video game flawed, because it didn't offer a choice that (s)he wanted, and that (s)he thought should have been able to have been made. And my initial response was basically in the same format, taking the fictional setting on its own terms and comparing it to other fictional settings. Then the OP claimed he had good reasons, and brought in his historical credentials, and there we go. Whatever you think is going on here, it isn't intellectual bullying.

[midnight tea]

LOL well a coup ending would be interesting, but man it would certainly prove the concept that "As a organization grows in power they become less concerned with the ideals that created them and more concerned with their own self preservation" theme Inquisition had going for it.  The Wardens, the Rebel Mages, the Templars, the Seekers ... all of them ended up sacrificing principles in order to preserve and justify their continued existence.  They gave up a little bit of themselves, here and there (not all at once, so subtle few would have noticed) in the name of necessity and by the end became thoroughly unrecognizable, it would be rather poetic to have the Inquisition do the same.

 

"You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" that holds true to organizations as well ... which is why personally decided to end it.  A tool as powerful as the Inquisition that strays from its intended purpose is dangerous and is no longer of any use.     

 

I think it's sort of the point - it was a major theme in DAI, after all, to show how weakened and corrupted the system is, due to many parts not working properly and organizations that were supposed to keep order or help people began working for their own benefit. It's one of the major reasons why a terror like Corypheus managed to rise to power and almost conquer the South with its own heroes (Templars, Wardens...) in his invading army.

 

So Inquisition going there, but barely dodging that fate is, I think, why the organization is subtly built up to be Thedas' possible last saving grace - as symbol of new generation coming to play, but perhaps managing to avoid most of mistakes of its forefathers. It's "the coming of the new" (with Inquisitor as... well "harbinger of a new age", as they were called by Flemeth), which - if you think about it - was pretty much always a major theme across DA titles.

[Helmetto]

No, it's not odd - that was the point. Thedas keeps dragging their heroes to the ground, no matter how powerful or influential they can be at a time. Think about it - Solas has led a successful rebellion against immortal mage-kings and was eventually forced to make decisions that ruined him and changed the world, not necessarily for the better. Andraste led a successful rebellion against Tevinter and was burned at the stake after her own husband's betrayal. Wardens saved the world more than a couple times and they've fallen victims of their own secrecy, among other things. Same way, despite all of the accumulated power, Inquisitor eventually faces natural resistance from parties and nations that began fearing its influence (also - no it's not "reasons", Orlais and Ferelden actually have legitimate concerns and it's only Inquisition's credit that they want to play in civilized fashion... same way we do in real world, after we figured out that constant warring and show of force never really worked for us in the centuries/millenia it was in fashion).

 

Basically, it's a vicious circle of struggle against the tide - the question that we'd likely answer either at the end of DA4 or end of series is whether perseverance against any ordeals thrown our way would be worth it in the end.

 

On the other hand, Hero Warden is revered as a hero even now, and is the first person everybody looked to. Hawke was the second. And yes, even if Hawke was torn down eventually, he was still recognized as a hero and important figure throughout Thedas.

 

Also, Solas wasn't forced to make any decisions. He made mistakes, but he wasn't forced into doing what he did. That's what makes him a tragic figure.

 

It wasn't the Warden's secrecy that got them chased out of Ferelden or half their forces terminated, but the fact that they stuck their nose in where it didn't belong despite their neutral stance on politics, and just not expecting an all-evil old tevinter magister to be able to use them as sacks of meat to possess. Their secrecy may cause problems within their ranks, but not with anything else.

 

Andraste was betrayed. Hardly anything to do with the 'world bringing them down' so much as 'my husband wanted me to stay in the kitchen.'

 

Compare this with the Inquisition, who saved the world, put people on their thrones, and rescued entire organizations. And the problem that Orlais and Ferelden have is.... They exist. Without acknowledging all the aid given to them to resolve their struggles, they tell the Inquisition that they either put on a leash or get some broken bones.

 

Their concerns were unjustified paranoia, and they knew that. They were basically fumbling around and shuffling papers until Solas/the Qunari gave them something to justify their actions and concerns, and the excuse was so ham-fisted that I couldn't help but roll my eyes and think, 'Really?'

[jds1bio]

I'm not sure the OP is thinking in terms of "evil".  Do you want to help Solas with his objective, stick to the Inquisition-style objectives, or just mess with the world in the remaining time left before Solas takes it to the house.  All of these can involve blowing things up, or not.

 

I think people should be much more concerned about whether they get used in the next game, and how much they are used, without realizing it.  Playing "the game", as it were, would make for a very interesting role-playing game.  Could you outplay someone like Solas, or could he convince you that he's been guiding you all along?

[Shechinah]

Andraste was betrayed. Hardly anything to do with the 'world bringing them down' so much as 'my husband wanted me to stay in the kitchen.'

 

This was not quite the reason behind his betrayal, I think, especially since it was common practice for Alamarri men to take concubines which Maferath did because Andraste seemed unable to bear children successfully because of a sickness. He'd have no reason to, as far as I can, to betray her for reasons pertaining to domestic duties.

 

According to the Maferath that resided in the Temple of the Sacred Ashes, his betrayal was seemingly caused by jealousy of the Maker: "Yes, jealousy drove me to betrayal. I was the greatest general of the Alamarri, but beside Her I was nothing. Hundreds fell before Her on bended knee. They loved Her, as did the Maker. I loved her too, but what man can compare with a god?"  

 

According to the Chantry teachings as far as I can tell, Maferath believed the Alamarri or barbarians had overextended themselves which was why he made the deal with the Imperium to betray Andraste in exchange for being able to keep the south. 
 

[midnight tea]

On the other hand, Hero Warden is revered as a hero even now, and is the first person everybody looked to. Hawke was the second. And yes, even if Hawke was torn down eventually, he was still recognized as a hero and important figure throughout Thedas.

 

a.) HoF and Hawke have NEVER accumulated as much power and influence as Inquisitor. Have they both rode towards the sunset with a big private army behind them? Or had active diplomatic relations or spies among the elite of Thedas?

 

b.) neither HoF nor Hawke were ever leaders of a big, influential organization. The fact that they're not occupied with that was exactly the reason Cass and Leliana were actually searching for them first, to take the mantle of Inquisitor. The Warden was made Warden-Commander at the end of DAO (if they've survived) and not only they've began with pretty much nothing as such, but haven't really built anything of note under them - in fact, they seem to be entirely preoccupied with private matters, as well as possibly going against directives of Weisshaupt (searching for cure for the Calling? Yeah, I don't think anyone in Anderfels is excited about that).

c.) you're talking about an individual - in fact, you're talking about an individual that had almost nothing to do with old Wardens and their power structure or politics: they and Alistair were an entirely new blood, they barely knew anything about Wardens and what they did was accomplished only due to 'awesomeness' of their little team as well as help from Flemeth, who saved them and preserved important old Warden treaties... after the procuring of which they've made a desperate effort to save a backwater country nobody else really cared that much about. It was never a matter of entire Warden army under command of HoF swooping into Ferelden and cutting Archdemon and its minions.

 

If they did, and Warden was still around and commanding significant force, I'm pretty sure there would be questions and concerns about them, or people's knowledge or appreciation of their effort would be waning. In fact, if you ask Alistair about events in DAO he'd have this weary response that doesn't convey much enthusiasm about people remembering his and HoF's good deeds from ten years ago.

 

 

Also, Solas wasn't forced to make any decisions. He made mistakes, but he wasn't forced into doing what he did. That's what makes him a tragic figure.

 

If what he said was indeed true and the Evanuris would destroy the world if he didn't create the Veil, then yes, his hand was forced.

 

The fact that he makes bad decisions along the way only adds to the tragedy that is already there - the saddest thing of it all is that he sacrifices everything he has or loves in order to help people and he still ends up hurting them or ending with nothing or being dragged down. That's the tragedy of most Thedas' heroes, as I've already pointed out.

 

 

It wasn't the Warden's secrecy that got them chased out of Ferelden or half their forces terminated, but the fact that they stuck their nose in where it didn't belong despite their neutral stance on politics, and just not expecting an all-evil old tevinter magister to be able to use them as sacks of meat to possess. Their secrecy may cause problems within their ranks, but not with anything else.

 

... Not expecting an all-evil Tevinter Magister to be able to use them as sacks of meat to posses them was caused by their secrecy - because nobody, even of higher rank, knew anything of the danger. In fact, many Wardens don't seem to know or regard matters of safety or dangers of magic they dont' seem to entirely understand, which is EXACTLY the reason why Sophia Dryden's rebellion ended the way it did and why Orlesian Wardens have created a demon army for Corypheus.

 

How can anyone say something as naive as "secrecy may have caused problems within their ranks" is beyond me - and that's aside from the fact that I've pointed that it was one among many of their problems.

 

Andraste was betrayed. Hardly anything to do with the 'world bringing them down' so much as 'my husband wanted me to stay in the kitchen.'

 

Shechinah has already explained just how wrong it is to interpret Andraste's betrayal as merely "my husband wanted me to stay in the kitchen".

 

 

Compare this with the Inquisition, who saved the world, put people on their thrones, and rescued entire organizations. And the problem that Orlais and Ferelden have is.... They exist. Without acknowledging all the aid given to them to resolve their struggles, they tell the Inquisition that they either put on a leash or get some broken bones.

 

Yes, thy exist... while the cause of their existence has ceased existing. Don't you see a problem here?

 

Orlais and Ferelden are now afraid that Inquisition - being the one force left standing and in fact growing in power - will now turn on them... even if not in terms of conquest, then in trying to change either the status quo or the already established power landscape in the South (after all, as you yourself pointed out, they've managed to put people on thrones and rescued entire organizations - what stops them from going further with things?).

 

What's more, they know that Inquisition CAN do that, since all the other structures have been weakened, which would mean that they could make a power grab even WITHOUT a ridiculous scheme to blow everyone up.

 

Even more so, the leader of Inquisition is - by general population - viewed as a divinely-appointed savior, which means that even if they don't have country leaders on their side, they'd still have a lot of people's support behind them.

 

Taking that into consideration your asking of "what's Orlais and Ferelden's problem?" strikes me as naive.

 

 

Their concerns were unjustified paranoia, and they knew that. They were basically fumbling around and shuffling papers until Solas/the Qunari gave them something to justify their actions and concerns, and the excuse was so ham-fisted that I couldn't help but roll my eyes and think, 'Really?'

 

The fact they they're indeed paranoid and fumbling about doesn't change the fact that the question of "what is going to happen with Inquisition next" was completely legit: you don't leave a powerful organization with a private army and spy network rivaling that of many countries at your doorstep without wondering what they're up to, nor anybody expects that they'd just be sitting in Skyhold and twiddling their thumbs.

 

However the summit went or would go without the Qunari scheme and reveal of Fen'Harel, some things had to be resolved.

[KaiserShep]

The fact they they're indeed paranoid and fumbling about doesn't change the fact that the question of "what is going to happen with Inquisition next" was completely legit: you don't leave a powerful organization with a private army and spy network rivaling that of many countries at your doorstep without wondering what they're up to, nor anybody expects that they'd just be sitting in Skyhold and twiddling their thumbs.

 

However the summit went or would go without the Qunari scheme and reveal of Fen'Harel, some things had to be resolved.

 

This is why I greatly favor the option to disband. It was clear the organization was seriously compromised and needed to be dissolved. It was like Hydra infecting SHIELD. Gotta tear the whole thing down and create a leaner team for the new task at hand. 

 

I wish Sera threw a pie at Teagan and Cyril though. 

[Helmetto]

A, B, And C

 

The HoF decides who to put on the Ferelden throne after overthrowing a regent in a duel, and leaves a multi-racial army against the Blight, afterwhich they lead another army on behalf of the Grey Wardens. In some cases, they may become Prince/Princess Consort of Ferelden - and stay that way. 

 

Hawke reclaims their estate, and has connections pretty much everywhere as a result of doing everybody's dirty work. Hawke even has connections to the Warden. Hawke may serve as Vicount of Kirkwall for a number of years, but are eventually squeezed out. So no potential army with them, but they do have connects and they do have reputations.

 

These are the two people Cassandra was looking for before the Inquisition got saddled with the Inquisitor. She was looking for them for a reason.

 

 

If what he said was indeed true and the Evanuris would destroy the world if he didn't create the Veil, then yes, his hand was forced.

 

The fact that he makes bad decisions along the way only adds to the tragedy that is already there - the saddest thing of it all is that he sacrifices everything he has or loves in order to help people and he still ends up hurting them or ending with nothing or being dragged down. That's the tragedy of most Thedas' heroes, as I've already pointed out.

 

He also says he needs to tear down the Veil and destroy how the world works, ending Humanity, to restore his people to their former glory.

 

He still chooses this path despite acknowledging that there are bright spots in the world they currently reside in.

 

Excuse me if I don't exactly believe that "his hand was forced."

 

Not expecting an all-evil Tevinter Magister to be able to use them as sacks of meat to posses them was caused by their secrecy - because nobody, even of higher rank, knew anything of the danger. In fact, many Wardens don't seem to know or regard matters of safety or dangers of magic they dont' seem to entirely understand, which is EXACTLY the reason why Sophia Dryden's rebellion ended the way it ended and why they've almost created Corypheus a demon army.

 

 

 

Okay. So in revealing their secrets about swallowing darkspawn blood in a blood magic ritual, they receive scorn from the Chantry for using Blood Magic, Templar attention that would make it harder for them to do what they need to do to get things done… all for maybe one day discovering a piece of information that in not only unknown to everybody, but completely contradicts world knowledge up until that point. 

 

They were the first to find out about Corypheus anyway, long before the Fifth Blight. By then they already had a lot of wardens swarming around. They didn't exactly receive any warnings long ago around about a potential old Tevinter mage  popping up, and why would they? As far as the world knew, all the Tevinter mages were cast down as darkspawn. It was more reasonable to think them dead, cut down by the first Grey Wardens.

 

Also, considering how Ferelden’s Circle of Magi’s Rebellion ended exactly the same way as Sophia Dryden’s rebellion (except maybe with more demons), I can hardly chalk up anything to ‘them not knowing what they’re doing.' Sure, maybe the underlings didn't. But the leaders totally knew what they were doing, took the gamble, and got screwed.

 

Shechinah has already explained just how wrong it is to interpret Andraste's betrayal as merely "my husband wanted me to stay in the kitchen".

 

 

 

I was joking. 

 

Why would anybody say something like that seriously?

 

 

Yes, thy exist... while the cause of their existence has ceased existing. Don't you see a problem here?

 

Orlais and Ferelden are now afraid that Inquisition - being the one force left standing and in fact growing in power - will now turn on them... even if not in terms of conquest, then in trying to change either the status quo or the already established power landscape in the South (after all, as you yourself pointed out, they've managed to put people on thrones and rescued entire organizations - what stops them from going further with things?).

 

What's more, they know that Inquisition CAN do that, since all the other structures have been weakened, which would mean that they could make a power grab even WITHOUT a ridiculous scheme to blow everyone up.

 

Even more so, the leader of Inquisition is - by general population - viewed as a divinely-appointed savior, which means that even if they don't have country leaders on their side, they'd still have a lot of people's support behind them.

 

Taking that into consideration your asking of "what's Orlais and Ferelden's problem?" strikes me as naive.

 

The alternatives are to entrust the Inquisition to a genocidal organization that has already destroyed an entire nation in the past over a disagreement about religion, or to disband it's forces, forcing everybody that ever worked for them to find new places of employment and causing a fairly massive migration that may result in new bands of mercenaries, thieves, etc. that will plague the countryside, not because people are assholes, but because people are hungry and want to live.

 

The Inquisition served as a hub for displaced people who lost homes, villages, etc. due to the ongoing conflict. That's part of why it grew bigger than expected. I didn't see Ferelden or Orlais much caring about those people at all, despite them being from Ferelden or Orlais. 

 

And if Ferelden and Orlais are terrified of a military presence on their borders, why are they so eager to give that military force to an organization that has outposts throughout their entire respective countries?

 

Frankly, I'm very inclined to ask what their problem is, because their provided solutions don't make much sense in the context of what they're saying.

 

The fact they they're indeed paranoid and fumbling about doesn't change the fact that the question "what is going to happen with Inquisition next" was completely legit: you don't leave a powerful organization with a private army and spy network rivaling that of many countries at your doorstep without wondering what they're up to, nor anybody expects that they'd just be sitting in Skyhold and twiddling their thumbs. However the summit went or would go without the Qunari scheme and reveal of Fen'Harel, some things had to be resolved.

 

But they didn’t even ask what the Inquisition was going to do next. Nor did they care, for that matter. You were given two options, and they weren’t going to compromise on any “third” option. Nor was the PC prompted to establish what they meant by “we’re not going anywhere.”

 

It didn’t really matter what plans or goals we had. I had thought of actual reasons for why I wanted the Inquisition to stay in place, but never got a chance to voice them. We were going to be cut down one way or the other.

 

They didn't care about the Inquisition or what it did for them. They didn't care about the quality of the Inquisition's character or their intentions moving forward. They didn't care that there was another threat looming over the horizon. They didn't even care what happened to the Inquisition itself, it just needed to be dead or put on a leash. 

 

You know what I did when I had to make a decision regarding a particular faction? Like whether to seek the Templars or ally/conscript them? Or who to support when it came down to ruling Orlais? Or who to support as the next Divine?

 

I talked to people. Didn't put forward my agenda or shove **** down their throat, and let them speak out their thoughts. Sought advice. Met with the candidates, listened to what they had to say. Made a cohesive decision after deliberating for a while. Dealt with the fallout. At the end of the day, I could sit anyone down and explain to them why I thought the way I did, and why I didn't choose them. They could disagree. That was the end of it.

 

The Exalted Council was nothing but paranoid assholes casting shade where it didn't belong, one side grabbing at me trying to make me their slave while the other wished I was never born. I had to listen to them ****** without any opportunity for input. They ran a kangaroo court, casted major disrespect for the men and women who risked their lives saving them time and time again, and tried to say that I was capable of doing **** I'd never done before, all while other **** was going down that I didn't have time to explain.

 

So excuse me if I don't take any of their concerns all that seriously and treat it as 'out of left field' bullshit. They can bark all they want about what I'm capable of, but that alone isn't a good excuse to treat the organization that saved their lives as a threat to their countries. That's not even reasonable. And I can understand their concerns, but they don't allow for any conversations on the matter. It's open and shut, 'do as I say' bullshit.

 

And the kicker here is that you can't even be evil and justify any of their concerns. You literally can't be the worst news, 'do not trust this *******' guy that everybody wants to slam down. The worst you can do is be morally grey. Like, what, making a personal deal with a demon and letting them go free is probably the worst you can do? So not only would the Inquisitor not do any of those things that they're being paranoid about, but they are mechanically incapable of doing so anyway.

 

Like... No. Sorry. There's literally nothing to warrant any of the hostility. The Exalted Council can bite me.

[IntoTheDarkness]

That'd be a really great argument if it hadn't been said explicitly in response to somebody who touted his own credentials as a "history major". And it'd be an even better argument if your own username didn't include the word "academic". Get your prolix hypocrisy out of my face.

I don't pull out my credentials very often on the Internet. In this particular case, it seemed appropriate for the discussion. In most cases, it isn't, and I don't bring it up - I just post warrants and claims.

It's well and good to spout high-flown drivel about how the mission of academia is to teach people, not make them feel like crap. It's high-flown drivel I agree with, in a setting where academic discussion is possible. (Except conferences. Everybody is out to get you at conferences. Like the old joke: "if you can't say anything nice, say it in the form of a question".) But I also think that it's often (not always! not even "most of the time"!) a pointless endeavor on social media, where people have little interest in listening to reasoned argument. And it's especially pointless on topics where reasoned argument is almost definitionally impossible.

Look at the OP. The discussion did not start as one involving historical academia. The OP put up a series of reasons (s)he believed made the narrative of a video game flawed, because it didn't offer a choice that (s)he wanted, and that (s)he thought should have been able to have been made. And my initial response was basically in the same format, taking the fictional setting on its own terms and comparing it to other fictional settings. Then the OP claimed he had good reasons, and brought in his historical credentials, and there we go. Whatever you think is going on here, it isn't intellectual bullying.

 

I see no need to be polite with your kind, so let me say this straight.

 

I did not tout my credentials, 'thin'head. I said I majored in history to make a statement that I've read some historical events with similar circumstances to back up my point, not to say I know better. On the other hand, you touted yours for ad hominem mockery which you had been persisting upto that point twice in a row despite my continued polite request to be civil which just shows what kind of an egomaniac you are. You should also know, in spite of your short memory, that you started throwing insults long before I bought that up.

 

I had not fully finished the game when I posted this so I did not post further to avoid spoilers at that time. Now I've finished the game and I want to say my piece. I will say what I should have said earlier.

 

You must find the events in the Dragon Age series very plausible to make you feel strongly disdainful of people with different ideas about the plot, unless of course ridiculing others is your favourite kill-time hobby. You must believe these are all logical and flawless: A mage elected as the Divine. The warden commander trusts a suspicious tavinter mage's words and decide to sacrifice all of her fellow wardens without suspecting the simultaneous callings. Duchess Florianne stabbing the empress right in front of everyone is supposed to frame Gaspard for a regicide because everyone is so stupid. Gaspard should be able to clear all those charges on him all of sudden if the Inquisitor backs him up. A high dragon can't breathe fire to roast the inquisitor before flying off with Corypheous. Corypheous moves a massive army around Ferelden and his attack on Haven is unnoticed. A stronghold such as Skyhold had been abandoned and forgotten. The inquisition can't warn the empress of assassins because messages keep getting intercepted, and a lot more.

 

Somehow these are all plausible while intentionally missing Qunari bomb terror plan should make the public loose all faith in the Inquisition, when they wouldn't even mind following the Inquisitor possessed by a demon. What a dumb double standard and dichotomous thinking you have there.

 

No, smart guy. A lot of events in the game are not logical or realistic. If you are hellbent on feeding your ego and assuming a haughty attitude in front of others, criticize those events equally instead of using my thread for your touting. I would have gladly backed up my idea with points had this conversation been civil from the start, but you have a talent for being a wet blanket in a discussion; seriously, nobody wants to discuss with your kind if it means being insulted at every turn.

 

And lastly I did not put up a series of reasons I believed that made the narrative of the game 'flawed', oh bright one. If you have dyslexia you should at least have a decency to not jump onto conclusions and attack others with your flawed reasoning. I simply felt the lack of evil options, and I wished there were more of such. You had to distort that into my criticism of the game narrative 'flaws' which allows you to retaliate in kind. As I've pointed earlier you make absurd amount of presumptions and use it to insult others. Get your delusions cleared up before commenting, please.

 

Here, technically I did not call you names. I'm done talking to you. Help yourself to your inflated ego.

[Nefla]

One other reason I can think of for not having multiple endings for Trespasser is that it's a middle point, not an end point with DA:I being part 1 and DA4 being part 2.

[midnight tea]

One other reason I can think of for not having multiple endings for Trespasser is that it's a middle point, not an end point with DA:I being part 1 and DA4 being part 2.

 

This has pretty much been explicitly stated in this interview (specific part in: 4:46-5:20):

 

Spoiler