396 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

The alternative is put that aside to gather a gaggle of rich people, then wait outside the Templars door and see if they respond at all. Considering they've shown they enjoy Renegade Interrupts to punch out priests, said that the Breach wasn't as important as fighting mages and told us to do one earlier... there's not really any compelling reasons why they are the better option to seek aid from?

Hah I love all of this phrasing.

This is the reason why I find it so difficult to roleplay the templar selection. For me, it's not about mages versus templars, or any of those arguments, but that the presentation of the two is so vastly different, and as you say the templars offer no compelling reason to choose them by themselves unless you use your own headcanon -- "The mages are dangerous/insane," etc.

 

I've seen some players suggest that the behavior of Lucius gets their Spidey senses tingling, in addition to Cassandra's remarks on him, and so want to investigate the templars based on that alone. But that just isn't enough for me to disregard all of the content presented in Redcliffe.

 

In the end, I don't think one choice is superior and it's really up to the player to decide what is the best for their own game and character.

[vbibbi]

Well, the mages are closer, offered us an alliance and have the power to help us plug the giant sky hole. Knowing that the Venatori have taken over their ranks and have been creating more rifts with timey-wimey properties, means they are something we need to stop now.

 

The alternative is put that aside to gather a gaggle of rich people, then wait outside the Templars door and see if they respond at all. Considering they've shown they enjoy Renegade Interrupts to punch out priests, said that the Breach wasn't as important as fighting mages and told us to do one earlier... there's not really any compelling reasons why they are the better option to seek aid from?

 

The mages might be a risky move to ally with, but at least they've tried to offer help, rather than actively refuse to do anything. The only reason we even got the Templar invite was because Barris went behind his superiors back to send us a letter, because the rank and file might help if they weren't being ordered not to by their insane leaders.

 

The game makes it fairly clear that it intends the mage path to be the "correct" one, for many of the points you raise. But a lot of these issues are only apparent in hindsight, IMO, so if we're only considering a PC's options as they see them, I think there's reasonable evidence to choose either side. The game forces us to take the idiot ball for the entire sequence, so part of the issue is that we're given sub-optimal choices regardless of preference. Why couldn't we try to stop Alexius from leaving the tavern for further investigation (we are an inquisition aren't we?) after he straight up admits that he has no intention of honoring his deal with the rebel mages and Fiona acquiesces? Why allow him to retreat to this defensible castle and give him the tactical advantage, allowing him time to prepare a trap?

 

At least in Val Royeux it's presented that Lucius is commanding a large troop of templars and there's no way our party of four could take them on at that time. I would also headcanon that the diplomatic delegation to Therinfall includes house guards for the nobles; they wouldn't realistically go into a castle unescorted, so technically we would have more allies with us in Therinfall than our stealth mission infiltrating Redcliffe.

 

Also, while the mages invited us to Redcliffe to discuss an alliance, that offer is basically void when we show up, Fiona doesn't remember us, and she proves that even if she doesn't remember us she will still defer to the Tevinter magister rather than seek an alliance with us. Yes, it's time magic causing this, but we have to realistically evaluate the current situation, not go by previous information. We no longer have an ally in Redcliffe other than Felix (assuming Dorian is at Haven with us) and we believe Felix is an invalid who isn't able to stand up to his father directly. Meanwhile we have a potential ally in Barris, who has contacted us for assistance.

 

So by the time we have to make a choice, we see Redcliffe as a party of four trying to infiltrate and trigger an obvious trap, with no anticipation of support from allies but knowingly facing a Tevinter magister, one of the most powerful groups of people in Thedas, who has been tampering with this unknown magic.

 

And then we have our party joining a large delegation to parley with the templars. Theoretically this should be much safer; we know Lucius is acting strange and left the Chantry but don't know that he's coocoo for cocoa puffs and working with the envy demon. We can't assume that because he's left the Chantry he would also be willing to slaughter a party of noble diplomats, that's a leap of logic based on our current information. The worst that we could expect given the information at the time is that the templars would turn us away and it would be a waste of time, while the best is that we ally with them and gain resources to then deal with the Tevinter magister.

 

Remember, we're also trying to build up the Inquisition as a reputable organization for stability in the world. Allying with the templars does much more for our reputation with the common folk than with the rebel mages. Granted, there is no in-game result of this, but that's a flaw with the power/reputation system and realistically having the Inquisition grow as a result of our actions rather than along a single narrative trajectory. But multiple people mention that we've gained popularity if we've sided with the templars after that mission.

 

So I can roleplay that siding with mages means taking a stealth approach and using the Inquisition as a research organization that is dedicated more toward ferreting out subversive elements rather than bringing social order to the land. And siding with templars is the more diplomatic/military decision, as we are potentially gaining public favor and troops who are already trained in war (Fiona mentions that a portion of the mages are noncombatants, so how reliably can we assume the mages will add to our military power?). Neither decision is right or wrong, they are just two directions the Herald could try to steer the Inquisition toward.

 

 

For me, these discussions highlight the difference between a gamer's perspective and a character's perspective. As a gamer, I know that no quest I willingly accept is going to end in certain defeat. I know that going to meet with a Tevinter magister manipulating time will still have some way of me winning. As a character, my Herald is not necessarily going to risk her life for this when there is another option. It's like how as a player I can have my party take on a dragon fight for no reason other than for the loot and experience, and if three of the four characters are knocked out during the fight, that's fine. But as a character, my Inquisitor wouldn't risk the lives of herself and three companions to fight the Sandy Howler if she could sneak by it instead. And she doesn't know that none of the companions would die, just be knocked out and revived after the fight. As players we're willing to take risks that our role played characters might not.

[nightscrawl]

So I can roleplay that siding with mages means taking a stealth approach and using the Inquisition as a research organization that is dedicated more toward ferreting out subversive elements rather than bringing social order to the land. And siding with templars is the more diplomatic/military decision, as we are potentially gaining public favor and troops who are already trained in war (Fiona mentions that a portion of the mages are noncombatants, so how reliably can we assume the mages will add to our military power?). Neither decision is right or wrong, they are just two directions the Herald could try to steer the Inquisition toward.

This is a good point, especially considering that one aspect of the game is deciding what type of Inquisition you're running. Indeed there is even a Keep tile and an epilogue slide to reflect this.

[vbibbi]

This is a good point, especially considering that one aspect of the game is deciding what type of Inquisition you're running. Indeed there is even a Keep tile and an epilogue slide to reflect this.

 

I really wish they had implemented the design where we could customize what kind of Inquisition we have. The three advisors were a good idea, but they really only played out on the war table and there was no discernible difference in game. Even the Skyhold customization didn't actually have any effect.

 

I realize this would have required more resources than might be realistic, but rather than just one basic Inquisition pathway with flavor options, I think we should have been able to have substantially different Inquisitions based on our choices. Not just customize the captured keeps but also design the overall Inquisition.

[Dai Grepher]

In Hushed Whispers is a terribly written story arc.

[Xilizhra]

In Hushed Whispers is a terribly written story arc.

This is true, but Champions of the Just makes the game's overall writing quality worse.

[Dai Grepher]

You mean because it's so much greater by comparison?

[Xilizhra]

You mean because it's so much greater by comparison?

No. It actually sucks, because it leaves the red templars as dead, necrotizing plot flesh. While Samson's story isn't amazing, the red templars have no plot or point without him, whereas the Venatori are handled perfectly well through other Inquisitor's Path quests. Additionally, In Your Heart Shall Burn is far better when fighting the red templars and having them be revealed as Corypheus' army, with the Venatori being revealed earlier as sneaky, subversive types. Champions of the Just has the red templars first appear as mindless mooks who aren't even given focus in their introductory quest (said focus instead falling on the envy demon), with the Venatori appearing outside their specialization as an army.

[Steelcan]

No. It actually sucks, because it leaves the red templars as dead, necrotizing plot flesh. While Samson's story isn't amazing, the red templars have no plot or point without him, whereas the Venatori are handled perfectly well through other Inquisitor's Path quests. Additionally, In Your Heart Shall Burn is far better when fighting the red templars and having them be revealed as Corypheus' army, with the Venatori being revealed earlier as sneaky, subversive types. Champions of the Just has the red templars first appear as mindless mooks who aren't even given focus in their introductory quest (said focus instead falling on the envy demon), with the Venatori appearing outside their specialization as an army.

unsurprisingly I'm going to disagree with you.

 

The Red Templars as a whole are pretty redundant and unnecessary to Corypheus's plans.  They cannot function as an army in their own right as they clearly do not have the numbers or strength to take to the field in large campaigns which is why he needs the demon army from the wardens.  They only function so at Haven and nowhere else.  And given that the assault on Haven was a pinpoint strike that would have needed careful planning to execute, the venatori function just as well for it as the templars.

 

The venatori work much better as the "main" antagonist to the Inquisition overall because they are much more involved with the same things that the Inquisition is, ie infiltration, exploring for ruins and lost secrets and weapons, whereas the Red Templars are just more of a cudgel, and even then they get sufficient backstory through the Emprise and Emerald Graves story lines.  Samson is also clearly inferior to Calpernia and her storyline, and forces the player to miss out on some vital lore reveals that are not present in the Samson version of the Dumat temple.  Through in the fact that he's not really a very interesting character to begin with and the total result of his subplot is to wave a rune around compared to turning Calpernia against Corypheus.

[Xilizhra]

The Red Templars as a whole are pretty redundant and unnecessary to Corypheus's plans.  They cannot function as an army in their own right as they clearly do not have the numbers or strength to take to the field in large campaigns which is why he needs the demon army from the wardens.  They only function so at Haven and nowhere else.  And given that the assault on Haven was a pinpoint strike that would have needed careful planning to execute, the venatori function just as well for it as the templars.

They're practically the entire Order if you play In Hushed Whispers. The army is plenty big, it's just not big enough to take on the entirety of southern Thedas at once, which is what the demons are for.

 

 

The venatori work much better as the "main" antagonist to the Inquisition overall because they are much more involved with the same things that the Inquisition is, ie infiltration, exploring for ruins and lost secrets and weapons, whereas the Red Templars are just more of a cudgel, and even then they get sufficient backstory through the Emprise and Emerald Graves story lines.  Samson is also clearly inferior to Calpernia and her storyline, and forces the player to miss out on some vital lore reveals that are not present in the Samson version of the Dumat temple.  Through in the fact that he's not really a very interesting character to begin with and the total result of his subplot is to wave a rune around compared to turning Calpernia against Corypheus.

The Venatori lose no capability of doing any of that with In Hushed Whispers. Also, the Emerald Graves plot is mostly devoted to Freemen backstory and gives nothing to the red templars, and Emprise du Lion is still practically worthless without Samson. Finally, Calpernia and her plot are badly underutilized in this game, and Calpernia will almost certainly be in the next one, so there's no need to pounce on it right now.

[Steelcan]

They're practically the entire Order if you play In Hushed Whispers. The army is plenty big, it's just not big enough to take on the entirety of southern Thedas at once, which is what the demons are for.

 

 

The Venatori lose no capability of doing any of that with In Hushed Whispers. Also, the Emerald Graves plot is mostly devoted to Freemen backstory and gives nothing to the red templars, and Emprise du Lion is still practically worthless without Samson. Finally, Calpernia and her plot are badly underutilized in this game, and Calpernia will almost certainly be in the next one, so there's no need to pounce on it right now.

The army is big, but not big enough to really be an army that leaves Southern Thedas trembling.  Both forces, the templars and the demons, are essentially similar, ie demons can't do what the venatori do but they can do what the Red Templars do.  Even if you go the mage route, the Red Templars are not a large enough force to really be throwing their weight around leaving them with little to do besides get up to mischief in the Dales.  The Venatori by contrast are encountered in many more areas and actually feel like they have a presence across Thedas.

 

The Red Templars are an integral part of the Freemen story though, and the Emprise works just fine without him (having only played the mage path once, but I still can't remember any significant differences in the Sahrnia bits between the two).  Sure Calpernia is underused, but that's infinitely better than uninteresting.

[Xilizhra]

The army is big, but not big enough to really be an army that leaves Southern Thedas trembling.  Both forces, the templars and the demons, are essentially similar, ie demons can't do what the venatori do but they can do what the Red Templars do.  Even if you go the mage route, the Red Templars are not a large enough force to really be throwing their weight around leaving them with little to do besides get up to mischief in the Dales.  The Venatori by contrast are encountered in many more areas and actually feel like they have a presence across Thedas.

Demons and red templars can also both do what the Venatori can't. And the red templars don't need to be a force that's everywhere, but they're a much more effective force for frontal assaults, as are made on Haven and the Temple of Mythal.

 

 

The Red Templars are an integral part of the Freemen story though, and the Emprise works just fine without him (having only played the mage path once, but I still can't remember any significant differences in the Sahrnia bits between the two).  Sure Calpernia is underused, but that's infinitely better than uninteresting.

The red templars are more of an add-on at the very end of the Freemen plot. And there are a lot of differences in codex entries through the Emprise. Finally, Samson isn't uninteresting; he's more interesting than Cullen, at any rate, and he gives the red templars some reason for existing.

[Steelcan]

Demons and red templars can also both do what the Venatori can't. And the red templars don't need to be a force that's everywhere, but they're a much more effective force for frontal assaults, as are made on Haven and the Temple of Mythal.

 

 

The red templars are more of an add-on at the very end of the Freemen plot. And there are a lot of differences in codex entries through the Emprise. Finally, Samson isn't uninteresting; he's more interesting than Cullen, at any rate, and he gives the red templars some reason for existing.

The attack on haven isn't a frontal assault in the traditional sense though, sure once they got there they marched in waves and tried to take the village by storm, but its not like they could have strolled across Ferelden, avoiding alerting Leliana (unless she pulled her scouts back from a lot further away than implied), and so on.  To me the Venatori are better suited to that kind of attack than the templars.   And at the temple of Mythal, in both lines the Red Templars do form the frontal attack supplemented by the remaining wardens so its not really an issue.

 

They are around throughout it though, capturing giants and workers for the venatori excavations in the Western Approach (and presumably Sahrnia) as well as for their fortress in the Emprise.  And I would say Samson is uninteresting, he doesn't add really a new perspective on the mage/templar issue that Cullen doesn't already hint at (ie upset over how the Chantry has taken the order for granted) and his other appearances don't really hint at anything else going on with him that we didn't see in DA2 or with other templar characters.

[Xilizhra]

The attack on haven isn't a frontal assault in the traditional sense though, sure once they got there they marched in waves and tried to take the village by storm, but its not like they could have strolled across Ferelden, avoiding alerting Leliana (unless she pulled her scouts back from a lot further away than implied), and so on.  To me the Venatori are better suited to that kind of attack than the templars.   And at the temple of Mythal, in both lines the Red Templars do form the frontal attack supplemented by the remaining wardens so its not really an issue.

What, marching over mountains? Aside from the fact that an army of that size is going to be conspicuous no matter what, that environment is much better suited to the enhanced strength and stamina of the red templars.

 

 

They are around throughout it though, capturing giants and workers for the venatori excavations in the Western Approach (and presumably Sahrnia) as well as for their fortress in the Emprise.  And I would say Samson is uninteresting, he doesn't add really a new perspective on the mage/templar issue that Cullen doesn't already hint at (ie upset over how the Chantry has taken the order for granted) and his other appearances don't really hint at anything else going on with him that we didn't see in DA2 or with other templar characters.

Calpernia's perspective can't be treated with any kind of adequate depth, though. As such, it winds up being ill-fitting within the story. Additionally, having Samson be mentioned as important and then just never show up at all feels rather worse.

[Steelcan]

What, marching over mountains? Aside from the fact that an army of that size is going to be conspicuous no matter what, that environment is much better suited to the enhanced strength and stamina of the red templars.

 

 

Calpernia's perspective can't be treated with any kind of adequate depth, though. As such, it winds up being ill-fitting within the story. Additionally, having Samson be mentioned as important and then just never show up at all feels rather worse.

It wasn't a problem for the mundane mages to traverse over, or the mundane troops that are stationed there. 

 

I'd still say it works better than Samson's, namely because as I said, his stuff to say has already been said and is said by other characters.  Calpernia might not quite have the screentime to get everything out, but once again I'd prefer too little of an interesting character as opposed to the repitition I got with Samson.

[Xilizhra]

It wasn't a problem for the mundane mages to traverse over, or the mundane troops that are stationed there.

Maybe not, but the red templars will still be better.

 

 

I'd still say it works better than Samson's, namely because as I said, his stuff to say has already been said and is said by other characters.  Calpernia might not quite have the screentime to get everything out, but once again I'd prefer too little of an interesting character as opposed to the repitition I got with Samson.

At least with In Hushed Whispers, you don't have two characters whose plots are abruptly cut short.

[Steelcan]

Maybe not, but the red templars will still be better.

 

 

At least with In Hushed Whispers, you don't have two characters whose plots are abruptly cut short.

Yes I suppose they will be better at this one thing (something that the demons do better than them anyways)

 

No you just have crappy time travel magic, an incredibly weak conclusion to the villain, and you have to put up with Fiona even more.

[Xilizhra]

Yes I suppose they will be better at this one thing (something that the demons do better than them anyways)

The demons that Corypheus didn't have at the time?

 

 

No you just have crappy time travel magic, an incredibly weak conclusion to the villain, and you have to put up with Fiona even more.

All confined to one quest that's over quickly.

[Steelcan]

The demons that Corypheus didn't have at the time?

 

 

All confined to one quest that's over quickly.

So are you saying that the templars are better because they can march over mountains better than mages until he gets his demon army?  Because that's a pretty slim reason to pick them over the venatori.

 

Yeah, then you have to live with the underwhelming Samson arc, seriously his big weakness is etched rocks, miss out on a much better character, and lose out on some big lore reveals.  (also I'd say that the continuing lines of Ser Barris also help out the Templar path)

[Xilizhra]

So are you saying that the templars are better because they can march over mountains better than mages until he gets his demon army?  Because that's a pretty slim reason to pick them over the venatori.

Well, which army is picked for that quest has nothing to do with any of this. But it's a better introduction for the templars than it is for the Venatori, whose main specialization is being sneaky and subversive.

 

 

Yeah, then you have to live with the underwhelming Samson arc, seriously his big weakness is etched rocks, miss out on a much better character, and lose out on some big lore reveals.  (also I'd say that the continuing lines of Ser Barris also help out the Templar path)

Samson's arc is less underwhelming than Calpernia, and we won't miss Calpernia entirely. And I find Barris to be narratively worthless.

[Steelcan]

Well, which army is picked for that quest has nothing to do with any of this. But it's a better introduction for the templars than it is for the Venatori, whose main specialization is being sneaky and subversive.

 

 

Samson's arc is less underwhelming than Calpernia, and we won't miss Calpernia entirely. And I find Barris to be narratively worthless.

Sneaking up on the Inquisition without any warning doesn't help that? 

 

I don't know how you can justify "needed more screen time because the character was pretty good" < "thoroughly meh"

[Xilizhra]

Sneaking up on the Inquisition without any warning doesn't help that?

No, because then they come with a huge army.

 

 

I don't know how you can justify "needed more screen time because the character was pretty good" < "thoroughly meh"

It's simple math. Let's say that Calpernia has a plot value of 5 and Samson has a plot rating of 2. However, while Samson's arc is actually finished over the course of the two games he's in, Calpernia's arc ultimately amounts to nothing interesting in the game itself, having maybe a quarter of the space it needs. So Calpernia's expressed plot value is cut down to 1.25.

[Steelcan]

No, because then they come with a huge army.

 

 

It's simple math. Let's say that Calpernia has a plot value of 5 and Samson has a plot rating of 2. However, while Samson's arc is actually finished over the course of the two games he's in, Calpernia's arc ultimately amounts to nothing interesting in the game itself, having maybe a quarter of the space it needs. So Calpernia's expressed plot value is cut down to 1.25.

A huge army of mages and tevinters, that's a pretty sizable and threatening force.

 

Those are some remarkable mental gymnastics to try and justify why bad is good and good is bad.  Is 2+2=5 by any chance?

[Dai Grepher]

No. It actually sucks, because it leaves the red templars as dead, necrotizing plot flesh.

Huh? The red templars show up all over the place. In fact, I would claim that CotJ makes their later appearance more logical. If Therinfal's templars were corrupted, and then wasted at Haven, why would anyone want to join them? On the other hand, if they're stopped at Therinfal, then the world doesn't really learn of their true horror. It's all overshadowed by the Inquisition recruiting the templars. So none of them really know what red lyrium does in that case, and more templars are willing to try it.

While Samson's story isn't amazing, the red templars have no plot or point without him, whereas the Venatori are handled perfectly well through other Inquisitor's Path quests.

They have plot and point. They would still exist as vicious marauders who spread Corypheus' precious red lyrium everywhere they go. They grow the red lyrium, they protect it, they help transport it.

If you think red templars are lacking in plot or point without Samson, then just how do they have purpose with Samson still alive? They still do all the same stuff. Only I guess they do more searching for artifacts and spread more red lyrium with Samson.

Additionally, In Your Heart Shall Burn is far better when fighting the red templars and having them be revealed as Corypheus' army, with the Venatori being revealed earlier as sneaky, subversive types.

Better how? More horrifying? I guess. But CotJ gives us a horror-filled battle against red templars as well. The only real sticking point I saw with the red templars attacking Haven was when Behemoth Denam showed up. That was the only "well, sh!t" moment. However, you don't even meet Denam in that path, so he's just some nobody to you. In the CotJ line, you have already met Fiona, and that is the better "well, sh!t" moment because you actually have met her at least, spoken to her and learned about her in Redcliffe at most. And yet there she is trying to kill you.

It could also be argued that the Venatori are "better" because they are people, still in control of their minds. They fight willingly. The red templars are just mindless monsters.

The Venatori are better adversaries all around. They are better equipped to search for artifacts, plan attacks and infiltration efforts, and command the red templars to defend points of interest. Samson isn't needed for anything.

Killing the Venatori at Haven is also the more painful blow against Corypheus. If you wipe out all those Venatori, then logically his forces will be weaker after that. However, if you wipe out a bunch of red templars, the Venatori army should still exist elsewhere, and logically Calpernia should still be leading them, but she's not.

Champions of the Just has the red templars first appear as mindless mooks who aren't even given focus in their introductory quest (said focus instead falling on the envy demon), with the Venatori appearing outside their specialization as an army.

The Venatori are an army as well since they have soporotti. It could also be argued that from a strategic standpoint, the Herald would rather have an army of normal men as enemies rather than corrupted monsters.

I liked having CotJ split between red templars and Envy. It kept the whole thing fresh and dynamic. IHW just centered around getting back to the present, basically.

We learn more about red lyrium by going for the templars. This is info that is relevant to the rest of the game. If you miss CotJ you miss out on that storyline. What do you miss out on by rejecting IHW?

Also, the Emerald Graves plot is mostly devoted to Freemen backstory and gives nothing to the red templars, and Emprise du Lion is still practically worthless without Samson. Finally, Calpernia and her plot are badly underutilized in this game, and Calpernia will almost certainly be in the next one, so there's no need to pounce on it right now.

The Freemen were nothing more than bandits with different skins. Their story arc was meaningless. Still, their main role was selling slaves to the red templars, so the reds still had the dominant storyline.

I don't see how Emprise du Lion is worthless without Samson. Seemed pretty straightforward. Enslave people to mine red lyrium by the order of Captain Who-gives-a-crap. Anyone can replace Samson as a commander, even Carrol.

But if Calpernia is in the next game, and she probably will be, doesn't it make sense to learn about her now AND be involved in a choice that will likely affect her attitude in the next game (that is the choice to turn her against Corypheus or defeat her in combat)? Samson's just a complete... nuthin'.

What, marching over mountains? Aside from the fact that an army of that size is going to be conspicuous no matter what, that environment is much better suited to the enhanced strength and stamina of the red templars.

From a strategic standpoint, you would want your enemy to have those less suited to the environment. Also keep in mind that losing those red templars at Haven just means Corypheus only lost those he gained at Therinfal, while the Venatori remain strong as ever (just with a few less mages than they would have had).

Calpernia's perspective can't be treated with any kind of adequate depth, though. As such, it winds up being ill-fitting within the story. Additionally, having Samson be mentioned as important and then just never show up at all feels rather worse.

But he's not important in CotJ. He's just "S" which could stand for "sh!t" for all we know, and in reality does. He basically entrusted a demon of ENVY to stick to someone else's plan and not form its own plan, all while he went off somewhere and snorted lyrium dust.

And like I wrote above, Samson being Cory's chosen automatically pushes Calpernia off to the sidelines, in which case she isn't utilized at all. By your own logic, Calpernia should be as utilized as possible, yes? So doing IHW negates her depth completely, while a loser character gets a little more undeserved exposure.

Maybe not, but the red templars will still be better.

Look, even if red templars were more fun to fight, CotJ gives us that opportunity as well, and it takes place in an actual castle, not that jumbled mess Redcliffe Castle was turned into. Even Connor couldn't stand the level design.

At least with In Hushed Whispers, you don't have two characters whose plots are abruptly cut short.

Well, Calpernia's is cut. Ser Barris' is cut. And we never get to meet Lord Abernache, a true crime. Nor can we team him up with Movran in this case.

Well, which army is picked for that quest has nothing to do with any of this. But it's a better introduction for the templars than it is for the Venatori, whose main specialization is being sneaky and subversive.

The Venatori can do it all though. And I think the better intro for the red templars is the place in which they became red templars. Not only do we see how it happened, but we save many templars' lives in the process.

[Dai Grepher]

Samson's arc is less underwhelming than Calpernia, and we won't miss Calpernia entirely.

I think your expectation is subjective though. You think Calpernia should have been featured more, or had stronger roles, but the same points could be made for any part of DA:I or any character. I think Calpernia's part was awesome, and I think the main reason you think there should have been more is because you liked it so much. So of course you'll want more of an awesome story.

I think Calpernia was used well enough. We saw her handiwork at Vicinius' house, got some glimpses of her through the memory crystal, we got to learn about her backstory, we got to meet her former master and decide his fate, and we could choose to either reason with her or fight her.

And I find Barris to be narratively worthless.

Lord Abernache Greatly Approves

It's simple math. Let's say that Calpernia has a plot value of 5 and Samson has a plot rating of 2.

He doesn't have a plot rating of 2, he is 2. As in #2. So his plot rating is 0.

However, while Samson's arc is actually finished over the course of the two games he's in, Calpernia's arc ultimately amounts to nothing interesting in the game itself, having maybe a quarter of the space it needs. So Calpernia's expressed plot value is cut down to 1.25.

Still greater than 0, but I think Calpernia's plot rating was a good 8 out of 10. In fact, she was more interesting that Corypheus.