4630 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

 and it's certainly not as bad as a person who intends in the first instance to carry out murder/genocide.

That's still a subjective claim though, as there are those that think it is just as bad.

[midnight tea]

He's full of it, it's simple.

 

The only thing I can see is full is unreasonable hatred towards the character, to a point of going against his characterization and putting things in his mouth he never said or implied, or in fact claimed the opposite. You may not like him, but it isn't really helping your case if you downright lie about character or his motivations when you try to discuss him.

[Seraphim24]

The only thing I can see is full is unreasonable hatred towards the character, to a point of going against his characterization and putting things in his mouth he never said or implied, or in fact claimed the opposite. You may not like him, but it isn't really helping your case if you downright lie about character or his motivations when you try to discuss him.

 

As I said, "This world must die" taken directly from him.

 

Like, he's claiming to protect who from what? The people from.. the Evanuris? He is the Evanuris.

 

Who benefits from the Veil? He presumably did this to stop the Evanuris, and now he's blowing up the whole world to bring them back?

 

Why is his solution to the problem bringing back the problem, the expense of who, the very same people terrorized by the Evanuris?

 

It's like someone saying the solution to the death of all X people is to kill all X people.

[midnight tea]

He says "This world must die" I didn't make that up, he's the one who says it.

 

He's also the one who said that he 'destroyed the world of elves' - yet the world still exists; in fact he saved it from something worse. Context! It matters.

 

 

Also he's full of it. I mean really why couldn't he have just casted this super weak spirit mage spell at one of the other Evanuris? Why the Veil why all the dizzy/magic?

 

What the heck are you talking about? What is this kindergarten logic? What makes you think that "super weak spirit mage spell" could do anything to Evanuris, when more than once Solas underlines that it's not easy to kill 'the first of his people"? Heck, Mythal was killed probably by combined force of 6 Evanuris or some machiavellan scheme of theirs, yet she's still alive and scheming.

 

 

Because he's part of the Evanuris, the Evanuris which basically destroyed half the world already, and he wants to find a way to destroy the other half.

 

the "Veil" is basically just a giant bomb he planted.

 

... What the hell are you smoking  ? Like... this is so out of left field it's hard to think of it as anything other than trolling at this point...

[Seraphim24]

He's also the one who said that he 'destroyed the world of elves' - yet the world still exists; in fact he saved it from something worse. Context! It matters.

 

 

What the heck are you talking about? What is this kindergarten logic? What makes you think that "super weak spirit mage spell" could do anything to Evanuris, when more than once Solas underlines that it's not easy to kill 'the first of his people"? Heck, Mythal was killed probably by combined force of 6 Evanuris or some machiavellan scheme of theirs, yet she's still alive and scheming!

 

 

... What the hell are you smoking  ?

 

Why do we care about Evanuris period? Seriously, who cares about them in the first place. Let alone Solas.

 

I'm using the same logic you espoused early on to impugne the entire foundations of Solas support, Evanuris was complicit in all these terrible things supposedly including Mythal, so why should we even care about them if their part of the problem?

[midnight tea]

Why do we care about Evanuris period? Seriously, who cares about them in the first place. Let alone Solas.

 

... Wat?

[Seraphim24]

... Wat?

 

Why do we care about the Evanuris period? You yourself were highlighting their problems from the very beginning.

[midnight tea]

Why do we care about the Evanuris period? You yourself were highlighting their problems from the very beginning.

 

Hang on - you were the one who began all the talk about Evanuris: "I mean really why couldn't he have just casted this super weak spirit mage spell at one of the other Evanuris? Why the Veil why all the dizzy/magic?"

 

And why shouldn't we be caring about the Evanuris period? It's their plans to rule or unravel the world was what prompted Solas to create the Veil and both created and now possibly threatens the modern Thedas we know.

 

It's bizarre to even suggest that we shouldn't care about them, in the context of both current conflict *and* Thedas as a whole...

[Hanako Ikezawa]

He's also the one who said that he 'destroyed the world of elves' - yet the world still exists; in fact he saved it from something worse. Context! It matters.

Since you mentioned context mattering, world and planet are two different things depending on the context. For example let's use the Great Flood that is mentioned in several different cultures here on Earth. They say that the flood covered the world, which is true in their case because at that time the world was just the area they lived in. They didn't mean the entire planet because most of the planet they didn't even know existed. Or how Europe called the Americas the New World, despite the Americas being around as long as Eurasia and existing on the same planet. Or how nowadays parts of Earth are referred to as the Western world, the Eastern world, etc. They aren't different planets. 

 

Bringing this back to Dragon Age, yes what Solas did did destroy the world of the elves because it destroyed their civilization and who they were.

[roselavellan]

That's still a subjective claim though, as there are those that think it is just as bad.

 

So according to these people, a person who kills to defend another (or him/herself) is just as culpable as one who kills out of malice? This is a slightly extreme example, but this is where we are going if you refuse to acknowledge degrees of culpability.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

And why shouldn't we be caring about the Evanuris period? It's their plans to rule or unravel the world was what prompted Solas to create the Veil and both created and now possibly threatens the modern Thedas we know.

 

It's bizarre to even suggest that we shouldn't care about them, in the context of both current conflict *and* Thedas as a whole...

To be fair, that is according to Solas who is a pathological liar and/or twister of truth to fit his needs. I'm not saying he is lying about that, but his word alone doesn't carry much weight. 

[midnight tea]

Since you mentioned context mattering, world and planet are two different things depending on the context. For example let's use the Great Flood that is mentioned in several different cultures here on Earth. They say that the flood covered the world, which is true in their case because at that time the world was just the area they lived in. They didn't mean the entire planet because most of the planet they didn't even know existed. Or how Europe called the Americas the New World, despite the Americas being around as long as Eurasia and existing on the same planet. Or how nowadays parts of Earth are referred to as the Western world, the Eastern world, etc. They aren't different planets. 

 

Bringing this back to Dragon Age, yes what Solas did did destroy the world of the elves because it destroyed their civilization and who they were.

 

Yet we were talking about the context of everything dying, which was neither the case for the world, or elves. 

 

Also - why do you over-focus on the fact that Solas destroyed Elvenhan, yet at the same time possibly saved the world from a far bigger threat?

 

Like you said - context matters.

[midnight tea]

To be fair, that is according to Solas who is a pathological liar and/or twister of truth to fit his needs. I'm not saying he is lying about that, but his word alone doesn't carry much weight. 

 

So he's a pathological liar (which is a lie, since we know he's not), but he's not lying about the whole destruction thing? Double-edged sword, that,

[Lezio]

We are already dealing with a man who intends on destroying the world. That he will, has or already done so won't really change my thoughts of him, assuming we still had Trespasser (or events like it) prior to its actual execution.

 

He's a man that will do (or has done) horrible things because of what he thought were good reasons. It just-so-happens that those reasons are something I can sympathise with, even though none will forgive him for it.

 

When really trying to understand why people like a character, it is less about the actions and more about how those actions were presented.

 

Look at Blackwall. He's a murder of both adults and little girls--and he did this all for mere coin. He's a murderer basically. But he was presented as a follower first, and in that time when he was acknowledged as such, time was given to the player to determine how they felt about his actions. Many saw a man who was good at heart, and when his crimes were revealed, then decided to view him as man who has a (very) troubled and disturbing past but has developed into person who has demonstrate that he has a good heart.

 

The reception would be very different if he was introduced as Thom Rainier the man and child murderer first. That the game allowed us to see "Blackwall" first, and 'Thom Rainier" later is part of why many people like Blackwall. Similarly, most of the player base has met "Solas" the apostate hobo before we ever met the world-destroying "Fen'Harel".

 

I agree with the Blackwall bit, and i also agree with the bolded part, in fact that's what i was talking about. If they showed in a brutal way what destroying the world actually means and entails, in a way that a human being can actually udnerstand would anyone even care about his (supposed) good reasons?

 

Quoting Mordin: "Hard to imagine galaxy. Too many people. Faceless. Statistics. Easy to depersonalize. Can’t anthropomorphize galaxy, but can think of favorite nephew. Fighting for him."

 

Personally, thinking about all the good people we've met through the games, thinking of his behavior since he woke up and his actions, couldn't care less about the motivations of a self-forcing, self-appointed, failure of a "god". The Warden, and Morrigan, and Kieran, and Hawke, and Fenris you want to kill, so screw you (Solas, not you )

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Yet we were talking about the context of everything dying, which was neither the case for the world, or elves. 

 

Also - why do you over-focus on the fact that Solas destroyed Elvenhan, yet at the same time possibly saved the world from possibly a far bigger threat?

 

Like you said - context matters.

I haven't. I don't blame him for what happened at Elvenhan since the consequences of his actions then were apparently accidental. This time however he knows what will happen, but disregards it as an acceptable loss and that I will not tolerate. 

 

So he's a pathological liar (which is a lie, since we know he's not), but he's not lying about the whole destruction thing? Double-edged sword, that,

I've stated multiple times that in my opinion the only reason he tells us anything in Trespasser is for the player's benefit, not the Inquisitor's. It's so the player knows where Bioware is going with this story. Solas has no reason to tell the Inquisitor any of this, and it goes against his character of keeping things close to the chest. He even mentions in that conversation how he doesn't want to give the Inquisitor too much, and yet then tells us his whole plan.

[Shechinah]

 He even mentions in that conversation how he doesn't want to give the Inquisitor too much, and yet then tells us his whole plan.

 

As far as I can remember, Solas does not give away his whole plan: he specifically leaves out how he intends to carry his plan out and part of why the world might be thrown into chaos because he considers it to be enough information for the Inquisitor to work with. 
 

[Hellion Rex]

So according to these people, a person who kills to defend another (or him/herself) is just as culpable as one who kills out of malice? This is a slightly extreme example, but this is where we are going if you refuse to acknowledge degrees of culpability.

The difference lies in the scale though. For some, myself included, I would hold someone just as culpable for genocide for defense as one who commits genocide in malice. In terms of a small number of people, I would agree, but genocide is a different matter.

[midnight tea]

I haven't. I don't blame him for what happened at Elvenhan since the consequences of his actions then were apparently accidental. This time however he knows what can happen, but disregards it as an acceptable loss and that I will not tolerate. 

 

Yet you do so without even knowing full details of his plans, or what may happen if he doesn't act...

 

 

 

I've stated multiple times that in my opinion the only reason he tells us anything in Trespasser is for the player's benefit, not the Inquisitor's. It's so the player knows where Bioware is going with this story. Solas has no reason to tell the Inquisitor any of this, and it goes against his character of keeping things close to the chest. 

 

So it's the problem with Bioware's writing instead of your own assessment of the character? Even though many of your assumptions about Solas have been downright denied not just in source material, but the writer himself ?

 

Yeah, sorry, but no. It only goes "against his character" if your own assessment of his character actually goes against his characterization. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

As far as I can remember, Solas does not give away his whole plan: he specifically leaves out how he intends to carry his plan out and part of why the world might be thrown into chaos because he considers it to be enough information for the Inquisitor to work with. 
 

Why would he want to give the Inquisitor enough information to work with? 

[midnight tea]

Why would he want to give the Inquisitor enough information to work with? 

 

Because he wants to give the world a fighting chance? Because "he will treasure the chance to be wrong again"?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Yet you do so without even knowing full details of his plans, or what may happen if he doesn't act...

Yes, because with the data available his holocaust is not justifiable. If he wanted me to not hate him for it, he should have given information about how this is for the best of everyone. But he doesn't, instead just how it is best for him. If there is later information added my view will change accordingly, but destroying the world is not something a logical person would assume is for the best. 

 

So it's the problem with Bioware's writing instead of your own assessment of the character? Even though many of your assumptions about Solas have been downright denied not just in source material, but the writer himself ?

 

Yeah, sorry, but no. It only goes "against his character" if your own assessment of his character actually goes against his characterization. 

What assumptions of mine have been denied by the source material and Patrick Weekes. So far I haven't seen any. 

 

Because he wants to give the world a fighting chance? Because "he will treasure the chance to be wrong again"?

He doesn't want the world to fight. He wants them to "die in comfort". 

He also doesn't always say he will treasure the chance to be proven wrong.

[Medhia_Nox]

It's much easier to see victims of drastic event than systemic victims of things that are not easy to see or are disperses into millions of less noticeable tragedies - war, hunger, disease, persecution, demonic possessions or deaths caused by misunderstandings of world's very nature. This is why people shake their fists at the sky when the airplane falls from it instead of mourning thousands of those dying in car accidents yearly; and that's even though statistically airplanes are the safest form of transport we have.

 

But, like I said - it's easy to just focus on one thing instead of looking at bigger picture, for some at least. What if it turns out that the decision to sacrifice those few lives would ultimately save many more from other kinds of horrible death? And that's not even counting of other terrors that may lurk on the horizon after current threat is dealt with?

 

Then I would hope that Solas wouldn't be coy in not telling the Inquisitor. 

 

IF the man's cause is just, then there is no reason that "heroes" would not align with it.

 

I have had no indication that he has even so much as tried to question whether or not the Veil could - for example - be let down slowly, with all the world in agreement to the purpose.  Is it a foolish thing to consider?  Perhaps - perhaps not. 

 

After all - does not Solas claim that the world without the Veil is superior?  Would not - with some irrefutable examples - the leaders of the world not agree to this superior world? 

[midnight tea]

Yes, because with the data available his holocaust is not justifiable. If he wanted me to not hate him for it, he should have given information about how this is for the best of everyone. But he doesn't, instead just how it is best for him. If there is later information added my view will change accordingly, but destroying the world is not something a logical person would assume is for the best. 

 

So you make a big issue out of "Solas (apparently) giving information to Inquisitor for benefit of player and therefore acting OOC". but completely ignore the fact that writers couldn't really put light on his entire motivation or plans for the sake of not spoiling the meatiest parts of the future games, or ask us to look for hints ourselves, instead of handing us information on a silver platter? Which, you know, Bioware kind of tends to do, at least in DA.

 

What assumptions of mine have been denied by the source material and Patrick Weekes. So far I haven't seen any. 

 

I've had an entire posts written about that, so I'm not going to repeat myself. Only thing I'm going to say here that the whole "pathological liar" has most definitely been denied by Weekes, and many things Solas tells us are in the base games are most definitely true and supporting his characterization as someone who uses a lot of obfuscation, but hardly ever straightforwardly lies, and in fact seems to avoid it whenever he can.

[Medhia_Nox]

@midnight tea:  I am sure you are aware that the best liars use the truth a lot. 

 

That he obfuscates the truth from the beginning of the game truly doesn't bother you?

Do you see your Inquisitors as not worthy or capable of handling truth at that moment? 

 

 

[Shechinah]

Why would he want to give the Inquisitor enough information to work with? 

 

What does he say that you consider enough information to work with? What he tells them has little to do with how he'll carry out his plan; Solas informs the Inquisitor of his identity and of the past including how the Evanuris came to be seen as gods and why he raised the Veil to banish them.

 

That he reveals he had spies in the Inquisition seems a bit at odds with it but that some elven members of the Inquisition leaves following the events at the Winter Palace after Trespasser can suggest that their part as spies were played to finish.