WTF gives the Inquisition the authority to judge these people?
And this is the question that haunts me until today.
Evidence that the Inquisitor's authority was not well-established in the game.
There's literally no difference between the Inquisitor and other PCs we played in past games: the Warden and Hawke.
And this is the question that haunts me until today.
Evidence that the Inquisitor's authority was not well-established in the game.
There's literally no difference between the Inquisitor and other PCs we played in past games: the Warden and Hawke.
I would preferred a much richer context for the protag, and maybe climbing through ranks. And no Corypheus or Mark. But whatever. It's done now. I just try my best to humanize my protag. Maybe that actually makes him/her an authority, ironically. The ability to enforce normalcy and sanity in a world gone mad. The other option is just fall prey to hubris and be an authority that way. But I'd rather not.
If my character is an Inquisitor, then he's only that by virtue of trying to be a normal Andrastian. Y'know, basic things. Anti-slavery, "blessed are the peacemakers", stuff like that. And insist that the Maker is AWOL. Even the Guardian in the Ashes temple in DAO said true believers don't require signs. This way you're enforcing tradition, but without being bombastic about it.
It's hard to say what is actually Andrastrian when it comes to mages though. What we're dealing with is the results of the first Inquisition. Not Andraste. I'd say we should feel free to dispute some of this. Especially stuff dealing with spirits and lyrium.. and trying to pretend it's some holy endeavor. It's nonsense.
Actually that was retconned out. He's from Orlais and was an envoy to Tevinter
Yay retcons 
Still doesn't change what he witnessed. Unless that was retconned out too?
And this is the question that haunts me until today.
Evidence that the Inquisitor's authority was not well-established in the game.
There's literally no difference between the Inquisitor and other PCs we played in past games: the Warden and Hawke.
The Inquisitor's authority derives from the fact that you have a lot of people with a lot of sharp, pointy pieces of metal quite willing to use them against people who disagree. The difference between the Inquisitor and the other PCs is the large group of people that believe in the divine legitimacy of your authority.
But, I mean, this is the whole point of the Exalted Council (badly done though it may be): the Inquisitor and Inquisition basically carve out a fiefdom out of Orlais and Fereden, effectively annex land (and attendant tax benefits), and conscript the people into a personal army. They enforce their own law based on the whims of their rulership...
All of the judgements are figuratively a kangaroo court.
The Seekers (by attracting a Spirit of Faith) get things like an ability to manipulate lyrium and resistance to possession and mind control. While Pharamond proved that reversing tranquility does not guarantee that it can remove the threat of possession, it is unknown if it is possible to gain other yet unheard of abilities depending on the type of spirit summoned.
We don't know if Pharamond was actually still vulnerable to possession, we only know that the habitually-lying Seekers insisted he was.
We don't actually know if Pharamond was actually still vulnerable to possession, we only know that the habitually-lying Seekers insisted he was.
In fact, to the extent we assume that the process was akin to the Seeker's own initiation, Pharamond may well have been immune.
For the first one, since the rebellion started, a lot of people lost their lives due to the mage-templar war. Some were even caught in the middle of the crossfire. Fiona wanted to rebel against the Chantry, but as far as the domino effect goes, it led directly to the templars against them. Fiona may not have thought of the actual consequences of her actions and believed the rebellion will be as easy as 1-2-3.
For the second one, despite the medieval settings, there were some modern aspects on the series that affected the story and the characters. Think about it, would Maevaris, for example, would walk around freely in Tevinter if Bioware really wanted to capture what it's really like to live in the medieval ages? Would Cassandra even be allowed to join the Seekers? Heck, would Fiona even be allowed to become Grand Enchanter due to her being an elf and a woman?
Lastly, the Inquisition is seen as an authority in helping out stopping the war, protect the innocent, and close the breach. Sure it was seen as a rebel/independent group after breaking away from the Chantry, but its influence due to the actions of the Herald have increased to the point that the Orlesian nobles were willing to travel to Ferelden to demand the templars for help.
Crimes against humanity are certain acts that are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population or an identifiable part of a population. Casualties of war has nothing to do with the concept.
I Didn't understood what you intended to convey with the second point?
The Inquisitor's authority derives from the fact that you have a lot of people with a lot of sharp, pointy pieces of metal quite willing to use them against people who disagree. The difference between the Inquisitor and the other PCs is the large group of people that believe in the divine legitimacy of your authority.
But, I mean, this is the whole point of the Exalted Council (badly done though it may be): the Inquisitor and Inquisition basically carve out a fiefdom out of Orlais and Fereden, effectively annex land (and attendant tax benefits), and conscript the people into a personal army. They enforce their own law based on the whims of their rulership...
All of the judgements are figuratively a kangaroo court.
Since we start to see Josie questioning our legitimacy in Trespasser, it would have been nice if she or someone else voiced a bit of this line of self-questioning in the base game. I know the priority is stopping Cory, but it would have been nice if there were some one liners about "are you sure it's okay we've claimed Caer Bronach as our own? Won't Ferelden want it back?" "Nah, they're too busy dealing with Venatori agents and rebuilding after the Blight to worry about us." Just to show that during the crisis our actions are overlooked but some people realize it might not last forever.
Mother Giselle was good in mentioning the former Inquisition disbanding, and I liked that we had the dialogue option in Trespasser to reference that.
That's one of the many failures of the main game. And why I think, ultimately, Trespasser is not anywhere near as good as people here feel. It does introduce a lot of logical consequences of the Inquisition, but Inquisition handwaves them, so suddenly it's all a weird rush job.
If you want a good example of how out-of-control the Inquisitor can get, we can take a look at the Thom Rainier/Blackwall debacle. After Thom turns himself in, and is sentenced to hang as per Orlesian law, we have the option to forcefully take him from Orlesian custody, spilling blood in the process, so that the Inquisition may hold a real trial.
If you want a good example of how out-of-control the Inquisitor can get, we can take a look at the Thom Rainier/Blackwall debacle. After Thom turns himself in, and is sentenced to hang as per Orlesian law, we have the option to forcefully take him from Orlesian custody, spilling blood in the process, so that the Inquisition may hold a real trial.
At least Blackwall rightfully calls you out on it. Though I think Josephine's route of calling in a favour to, basically, recruit a criminal mass-murder because you really like the dude is the best it gets.
At least Blackwall rightfully calls you out on it. Though I think Josephine's route of calling in a favour to, basically, recruit a criminal mass-murder because you really like the dude is the best it gets.
Much as I didn't like the war assets in ME3, at least there was some representation of our actions having an effect on the plot, even though the effect was not shown in the game as much as a threshold for the endings.
As the game stands, it could have been interesting to have influence increase or decrease based on decisions we make, not just for completing quests. Have influence decrease if we fully ally with mages rather than conscript them, or conscript the Wardens rather than exile them, or bust Blackwall out of jail. It wouldn't be a perfect solution as not much would change in the game, but at least there would be some measure of the public's opinion of the Inquisition. Right now, we start at zero authority and can only go up, there's no chance for anyone to decrease their opinion or approval of the Inquisition until it happens all at once in Trespasser.
In fairness though, there are a lot of people more or less directly telling you to keep the Inquisition to a minimum and to make sure it finds an end.
That said, it's not accidental that it's an institution with a religious name. I pointed it out before; it alludes to the medieval conflict between church and state about worldly and divine justice. Which is also why the Inquisition can happily declare people subject to its authority when it sees the cause of their indictment in the divine sphere. (Not saying this is a great idea, just saying why people never kick up a big fuss about it.)
I felt that there were enough people offering many opinions on the fate of the Inquisition. Although we didn't have much chance to roleplay how we wanted the Inquisition to continue past Corypheus' defeat, I thought the game was presenting disbanding as one of several options. Trespasser made it all come back to the same outcome, of course, but not much was made in the base game, it was left fairly open ended.
I think it's more that a cure for tranquility pretty much neutered one of the Templars main ways of surpressing mages
Considering most tranquil are selected by their fellow mages...
Crimes against humanity are certain acts that are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population or an identifiable part of a population. Casualties of war has nothing to do with the concept.
Actually, it does. Crimes against humanity are whatever you want to call them, so long as you have the ability to enforce your verdict. There's no legal authority on 'humanity'- it's winner's justice.
I Didn't understood what you intended to convey with the second point?
Thedas isn't medieval Europe ok,but it is not the contemporary world either which has others types of legal systems.
Which doesn't mean the Inquisition has the authority to pretend to accuse Fiona on the behalf of the people of Thedas since Tevinter,the Anderfels,Antiva and Rivain never gave to the Inquisition such authority
Tevinter, the Anderfels, Antiva, and Rivaini never kept the Inquistion from claiming such authority either.
I have found a kindred spirit.
I can understand the anger towards Fiona but I cannot stand the high-horse hind-sighted indignation and the throwing of ridiculous phrases like "Crimes against the People of Thedas".
This is a projection of a Western Modernist mentality onto a medieval setting. It does not belong there.
What about fore-sighted indignation and patient vindication? Can you stand 'I told you so'?
Cause a lot of Fiona's failings got called in advance after Masked Empire. Lack of planning, preparation, political marginalization, and the predicted lead-ins of civilian casualties, failure, and resorts to desperation were all bandied about before Inquisition.
Actually, it does. Crimes against humanity are whatever you want to call them, so long as you have the ability to enforce your verdict. There's no legal authority on 'humanity'- it's winner's justice.
The phrase "crimes against humanity" has a common meaning in modern parlance - the one used by the ICC. People tend not to be aware of the actual definition, but that general concept has bled into common discourse. And without getting Hobbesian, that's pretty vacuous. Sure, practically whatever legal system gets applied is the coincidental outcome of whomever is in charge, but that is not the same thing as saying that - by some general principle - we can't gauge whether we would deem that system of justice legitimate (or just).
Moreover, what in Thedas prevents the Inquisition from claiming whatever legal authority it cares to claim? Why do we get away with our court judgements even when the host nation doesn't defer to us?
I think it's more that a cure for tranquility pretty much neutered one of the Templars main ways of surpressing mages
Not really. The existence of a 'cure' doesn't make it readily available or easily administered.
If the Templars were really as overwhelmingly oppressive as you continue to claim, they could simply deny access to the rites and materials necessary. Or they could replace Tranquility with execution, and the Circles would just have to do with fewer luxuries as one of their income streams dried up. Either way, it doesn't do much in the long run to prevent the Templars from properly managing mages who are incapable or unwilling to control their powers.
Not really. The existence of a 'cure' doesn't make it readily available or easily administered.
If the Templars were really as overwhelmingly oppressive as you continue to claim, they could simply deny access to the rites and materials necessary. Or they could replace Tranquility with execution, and the Circles would just have to do with fewer luxuries as one of their income streams dried up. Either way, it doesn't do much in the long run to prevent the Templars from properly managing mages who are incapable or unwilling to control their powers.
Retour en haut