That's a psychopath. I'm not entirely sure Bioware would have the skill to write that.
Why not? Not that I find it very rewarding to play one, but it doesn't seem to be that hard. You only have to write a self centered person without any empathy, finding joy and fulfillment in hurting others. In short, you would just be a second antagonist.
I'm OK with how it is now. You can play it for your own reasons without being overly caring.
Oh, she is very much the Inquisitor I'm most invested in. I just play only one of her type per game.
Also, the phrase is "losing almost everything I've gained for myself in the course of of the story in the epilogue", and then some, actually, since I also lose my arm. And my cool magical extra. And my castle. And my political power. Or my independence. Well, all that may not have stung so much (except for the anchor) had it not required that I lose *to* someone as well.
You mean, Solas gets his cool magical power back. Because certainly the Inquisitor didn't earn it by walking in on Corypheus at an awkward time in any meaningful sense. I don't disagree with the abstract idea - we end the game on a low note, having to give up two substantial things, and feeling as if the antagonist (or rather the foreshadowed future antagonist) won - but the Inquisitor ultimately is quite well off.
Apart from being actually worshiped as a divine figure by the sole and dominant religion in Southern Thedas, the Inquisitor has the choice to retain all his or her political power. The whole point of the Exalted Council - the very premise - is that you don't have that much political power. And there was never any reason to believe the Inquisition had it. Your options are simply to retain it rather than continuously over-reach, or to tell the entire power structure of Southern Thedas to go **** themselves and walk off with no consequence.
I don't want to serve the Chantry. It may have been necessary to stabilize it in order to maintain some order, but I still don't like it.
Welcome to all of your political power. And your military and economic power, actually. Because it all comes from the fervent belief of the adherents of the southern Chantry in your divinely ordained mission. Just what do you expect to happen when the social chaos dissipates? Your choice is to continue to be a heretical figure and break away from the dominant power structure, or to become part of it.
Welcome to all of your political power. And your military and economic power, actually. Because it all comes from the fervent belief of the adherents of the southern Chantry in your divinely ordained mission. Just what do you expect to happen when the social chaos dissipates? Your choice is to continue to be a heretical figure and break away from the dominant power structure, or to become part of it.
I think OP just doesn't want to be associated with not!Catholicism
Apart from being actually worshiped as a divine figure by the sole and dominant religion in Southern Thedas, the Inquisitor has the choice to retain all his or her political power. The whole point of the Exalted Council - the very premise - is that you don't have that much political power. And there was never any reason to believe the Inquisition had it. Your options are simply to retain it rather than continuously over-reach, or to tell the entire power structure of Southern Thedas to go **** themselves and walk off with no consequence.
I take your point, but then the main game shouldn't have ended as if the Inquisition was there to stay (as an independent power). First that, then Trespasser, it feels like a broken promise.
Better is subjective,i truly despise the DR ending in fact i never once did it( i dislike Morrigan as well)because is using a child for a sort of experiment while put at risk the fate of the world with Flemeth for one single GW.
Trade the world security for one GW...
I take your point, but then the main game shouldn't have ended as if the Inquisition was there to stay (as an independent power). First that, then Trespasser, it feels like a broken promise.
Again, I agree with you. I think Trespasser has a lot of issues (kind of endemic to Bioware now where they just assume a state of the world plot wise without setting it up), partly because in the end of DA:I they place the Inquisition on an unreasonable pedestal. I think the expectation of that kind of standing is, as I say, unreasonable, but I don't object at all to the criticism that Bioware ended the game for the Inquisitor on a very low note.
Again, I agree with you. I think Trespasser has a lot of issues (kind of endemic to Bioware now where they just assume a state of the world plot wise without setting it up), partly because in the end of DA:I they place the Inquisition on an unreasonable pedestal. I think the expectation of that kind of standing is, as I say, unreasonable, but I don't object at all to the criticism that Bioware ended the game for the Inquisitor on a very low note.
I just think they shoot themselves in the foot by trying to make the Inquisition 100% independant from the Chantry to please players.
It doesn't make much sense in game anyway when Leliana and Cassandra go "yeah the chantry disavows us , we're heretics."
What Chantry exactly?
From the start you had Chantry folks pro Inquisition and Chantry folks anti inquisition , the last order of the Divine was to create an Inquisition and without a new one to cancel the edit , the Inquisition was Chantry approved.
For some weird reason Leliana and Cassandra are the only one mentioning the writ when it's conveniant , but at other time when you'd need it (The guy who wants to retake Haven and claims there's no papers saying Justinia approved...) , everybody has a brain fart.And the chantry sisters never bring up the subject at all nor the Inquisition for that matter.
And then at the very end , the Inquisitor has the writ in hand like it's some kind of official thing now , when the game ignored it the whole time.
I just think they shoot themselves in the foot by trying to make the Inquisition 100% independant from the Chantry to please players.
It doesn't make much sense in game anyway when Leliana and Cassandra go "yeah the chantry disavows us , we're heretics."
What Chantry exactly?
From the start you had Chantry folks pro Inquisition and Chantry folks anti inquisition , the last order of the Divine was to create an Inquisition and without a new one to cancel the edit , the Inquisition was Chantry approved.
For some weird reason Leliana and Cassandra are the only one mentioning the writ when it's conveniant , but at other time when you'd need it (The guy who wants to retake Haven and claims there's no papers saying Justinia approved...) , everybody has a brain fart.And the chantry sisters never bring up the subject at all nor the Inquisition for that matter.
And then at the very end , the Inquisitor has the writ in hand like it's some kind of official thing now , when the game ignored it the whole time.
I'll see if I can answer this and set some sources to it later;
The Inquisition treated the writ of Divine Justinia as official because it is official to them and it is the grounds on which they form the Inquisition. To them, it's legitimacy is uncontested but to opponents of the Inquisition it's legitimacy can be challenged especially since Justinia is not alive to confirm or deny it whether or not she dictated it to be written and the authorization of a dead woman can be called into question.
Basically, to the Inquisition, the writ is official and evidence of the Divine Justinia's approval of their organization but to others, Divine Justinia's death amongst other things calls the validity of the writ into question therefore it stops being used outside of certain situations since it can be contested and the Inquisition has a better means of securing support through the protagonist's ability to seal the rifts.
The Inquisitor brings the writ with them before the Council of Heralds because the writ is where the Inquisition claims their validity and purpose from;
"You all know what this is; A writ from Divine Justinia authorizing the formation of the Inquisition. We pledged to close the Breach, find those responsible and restore order. With or without anyone's approval." - the Inquisitor
The Chantry lost a good deal of their upper leadership at the Conclave but not the entirety of the Chantry and it is the remaining Chantry that disavows the Inquisition and their figurehead as heretical. That the Inquisition is disavowed by the leadership of the organized faith, does not mean members of the faith disavow them as some do believe the Inquisition and believe in their figurehead and so they support the Inquisition.
Why does everyone think that just because you're self-centered, you want to be a tyrant? Ruling is strenuous business. I'd rather initiate a real estate scam in Minrathous and build myself a palace from the profits. Or steal the gold reserves of the Orlesian army. Or raid the Chantry's secret library for suppressed magical knowledge I'll sharewith noone. Being self-centered doesn't mean you're a complete monster.Looks like Obsidian might be looking to give the OP what they want: http://www.tyrannygame.com/
Why does everyone think that just because you're self-centered, you want to be a tyrant? Ruling is strenuous business. I'd rather initiate a real estate scam in Minrathous and build myself a palace from the profits. Or steal the gold reserves of the Orlesian army. Or raid the Chantry's secret library for suppressed magical knowledge I'll sharewith noone.Looks like Obsidian might be looking to give the OP what they want: http://www.tyrannygame.com/
So the Inquisitor is losing the illusion of power rather than the substance of it.Apart from being actually worshiped as a divine figure by the sole and dominant religion in Southern Thedas, the Inquisitor has the choice to retain all his or her political power. The whole point of the Exalted Council - the very premise - is that you don't have that much political power. And there was never any reason to believe the Inquisition had it. Your options are simply to retain it rather than continuously over-reach, or to tell the entire power structure of Southern Thedas to go **** themselves and walk off with no consequence.
I take your point, but then the main game shouldn't have ended as if the Inquisition was there to stay (as an independent power). First that, then Trespasser, it feels like a broken promise.
I actually never thought the Inquisition was going to stick around forever. I mean, the original Inquisition didn't.
In fact, when you ask Mother Giselle about the Inquisition's history, she mentions that the thing she admired most about it was that, once their job was done, the Inquisition lay down their banners and disbanded.
Why does everyone think that just because you're self-centered, you want to be a tyrant? Ruling is strenuous business. I'd rather initiate a real estate scam in Minrathous and build myself a palace from the profits. Or steal the gold reserves of the Orlesian army. Or raid the Chantry's secret library for suppressed magical knowledge I'll sharewith noone.
Also, being self-centered doesn't mean you're a complete monster.
Well, first - I believe being self-centered to the point you're discussing means you're actually just a very common human (monster).
What's your interest in these things though? What kind of story is that telling?
Let's look at something like Shadowrun. For those that don't know - Shadowrun is set in the near future where magic has returned to a cyberpunk Earth. It's a dystopia of mega-corporations that rule everything and the characters you play are criminals to society.
In a world like that... I'd understand the character you're looking for.
I don't feel like Dragon Age is at all a dystopia - and if it is trying to be, it is among the worst I've ever seen.
To me - DA is heroic fantasy... and that type of storytelling does not lend itself to the characters you seem to want to play.
NOTE: Even the thieves... like Robin Hood... often have hearts of gold and give back as much as they take.
Ultimately though - what's the story of the selfish person trying to say? What value does it have for a 60+ hour game? Do we think a majority of people want to play an Enron executive screwing over old people?
Looks like Obsidian might be looking to give the OP what they want: http://www.tyrannygame.com/
Tyranny actually looks rather interesting especially since the developers apparently want to avoid the stupidly evil trope and provide more nuances than the expected. I may buy it if it continues to look interesting such as if the method of solving matters through talking holds up.
Why does everyone think that just because you're self-centered, you want to be a tyrant? Ruling is strenuous business. I'd rather initiate a real estate scam in Minrathous and build myself a palace from the profits. Or steal the gold reserves of the Orlesian army. Or raid the Chantry's secret library for suppressed magical knowledge I'll sharewith noone. Being self-centered doesn't mean you're a complete monster.
Doesn't look like you have to be in this game either, but it is built around a character concept and world well given to the idea of a rationally self interested individual looking to advance his/her own position.
Here are a few items:
(1) I actually didn't mind losing the arm as such. I'd happily have Maelyn live one-armed for the rest of her life. Losing the anchor along with it was what made it a really bad hit.
(2) If in the epilogue, most of the Inquisition's army would've left for their homes, leaving me only with a core guard and Skyhold, that would've been perfectly ok. I would've lost political power, but I wouldn't have lost it *to* someone.
(3) And lastly, I didn't really mind losing to Solas. He is a mage with god-like powers after all, and an antagonist I respect.
(4) It would've been less unpleasant had I lost an arm - or even an eye - against Corypheus in Haven
On the other hand, just to indicate how invested Maelyn was in the anchor, if keeping it had meant she could only relax - and sleep - in the Fade, and having to deal with the same stuff as in the final stretch of Trespasser at any time she left it, I'd have accepted that in preference to losing it. It would've been an interesting outcome as well, one into which I could put some imagination.
1) The Anchor was killing the Inquisitor right from the start. Solas only managed to hold it at bay for a while. In fact, the Anchor is the reason you lose the arm. Though if it makes you feel any better, there are almost certainly other Orbs out there to find.
2) Keep in mind that while The Inquisitor has lost some political power, some yet remains, just in a different form. You are a Marcher noble, thanks to Varric. And as long as you keep a recent affection level with your companions the Inquisitor has contacts in positions of influence and power all over Thedas: Tevinter, Kirkwall, the Chantry, the Grey Wardens, Antiva, Orlais, and so on. ANd that doesn't even account for favors owed for things done while the Inquisition was active. You don't have the military power of the Inquisition, but the Inquisitor is not without influence
3) More than that, Solas has been manipulating Inquisitor since the moment the two met
4) An interesting idea.
I don't feel like Dragon Age is at all a dystopia - and if it is trying to be, it is among the worst I've ever seen.
To me - DA is heroic fantasy... and that type of storytelling does not lend itself to the characters you seem to want to play.
Dragon Age is heroic fantasy, with some tinges of dark fantasy. But it's certainly not "dark" Not like Shadowrun or The Witcher.
Dragon Age is heroic fantasy, with some tinges of dark fantasy. But it's certainly not "dark" Not like Shadowrun or The Witcher.
I actually never thought the Inquisition was going to stick around forever. I mean, the original Inquisition didn't.
In fact, when you ask Mother Giselle about the Inquisition's history, she mentions that the thing she admired most about it was that, once their job was done, the Inquisition lay down their banners and disbanded.
I really hope should the Inquisitor appear in DA4 that they are not introduced as nobility in Kirkwall. Sure, there are Inquisitors that works for, like the noble who likes collecting noble titles, or the qunari/elf/dwarf who likes to thumb their nose at humans however they can, but it would be a blunder on the level of Hawke always complaining about blood magic in DAI. That title needs to be forgotten in everything but headcanon.
So the Inquisitor is losing the illusion of power rather than the substance of it.
I agree that this is something of a problem with the ending of DAI proper. It's funny, because surely it was a deliberate theme of the game that being "the Inquisitor" always had very little to do with who the Inquisitor is and what she believes. I wasn't too sensitive to this since of my three Inquisitors so far, one was an outright cynic who never took the whole thing seriously, one was a social conservative who didn't want power in the first place, and the qunari was in a partnership with Divine Leliana to tear everything down and start over.
Tyranny actually looks rather interesting especially since the developers apparently want to avoid the stupidly evil trope and provide more nuances than the expected. I may buy it if it continues to look interesting such as if the method of solving matters through talking holds up.
Retour en haut