20 réponses à ce sujet

[thats1evildude]

So, here's the thing. I started up a new playthrough not long ago and recently completed The Lone Warden (Blackwall's recruitment quest). One thing I noticed is that the bandits seemed greatly angered by the peasants' resistance. When Blackwall urges them to leave, one screams "Too late for that! You're dead, bastard! DEAD!"

 

One of the bandits drops a letter that has been charred by fire and is nearly unintelligible:

 

"You can die pretending you'll earn back your soldier's honour, or you can do something with the skills that son of a ****** taught you. Spend some time with my boys. No one will know who you are in Ferelden. And it's not so bad. A little bit of smuggling, a little bit of extortion. You'll get used to it."

 

Now, the note could be addressed to one of the bandits  but it got me thinking: what if the letter is actually addressed to Thom Rainier, and the bandits simply recovered the scraps after Thom tried to destroy it?

 

What if, at some point after the real Blackwall died, some acquaintance of Thom contacted him about coming to Ferelden to work with his bandit group? He accepts the offer, probably because he needs coin and no one in Ferelden knows who he is.

 

Before he actually does anything heinously criminal, the Breach happens, and "Blackwall" leaps into action to defend the farmers from demons. But then the bandits rob the farmers, which he finds unacceptable, so he rallies them to fight off the bandits. He tosses the letter in some campfire, which the bandits eventually find, and then they go to track down the traitor.

 

What do you think?

[Taki17]

This actually quite plausible, though one thing bugs me: the real Blackwall died in 9:36 and the events of Inquisition happen in 9:41. Blackwall says that he's been doing his thing (namely, recuriting and training peasants to fight for themselves) for years now. If this is true, he probably won't be in need of money as the peasants would most likely pay him or give him food as thanks.

 

It would've been better to have some more options with that letter, like show it to Blackwall as some kind of evidence found on the attackers and he had to mumble and lie his way out of this as he doesn't want to be implicated. It would have raised some small suspicion about his true identity, and if the player also focused on other small bits of information like this (like he never senses darkspawn, has a vague knowledge about the wardens, etc), they could reveal his deception before he leaves for Val Royeaux; thus leading to an alternate companion quest.

[thats1evildude]

It would've been better to have some more options with that letter, like show it to Blackwall as some kind of evidence found on the attackers and he had to mumble and lie his way out of this as he doesn't want to be implicated. It would have raised some small suspicion about his true identity, and if the player also focused on other small bits of information like this (like he never senses darkspawn, has a vague knowledge about the wardens, etc), they could reveal his deception before he leaves for Val Royeaux; thus leading to an alternate companion quest.

 

I'm going to disagree on that point, Taki, since I can only recognize the possible significance of the letter due to hindsight. The first time I did a playthrough, I thought nothing of it, and only began to suspect Blackwall was a bit shady when he talked about his role in the Blight (a conversation that took place later).

[Gervaise]

Even when he talks about his role in the Blight it only seems odd because of our player knowledge.    There is no particular reason why the Inquisitor should know the exact circumstances of the 5th Blight.   It is odd in the light of the codex you find in Skyhold concerning Blackwall but the ridiculous part is that even after reading this you can't bring it up with him.   Of course the person who should really have known his story was nonsense was Leliana.   She was with the Hero of Ferelden and would have known that there were only 3 Wardens (4 if you count Loghain) in all Ferelden during the Blight.    For a spy master she really did miss things that she ought to have questioned but then again, perhaps she always knew but chose not to tell you.   When her messenger tells you about the circumstances of Blackwall's departure, you can actually say something to the effect that you suspect it didn't entirely come as a surprise to her.

[Krypplingz]

I figured one of the bandits knew him from back when he was Thom Rainier. Before the incident he sounded like a bit of a bad guy, willing to avert his eyes for coin and preferring to look away rather than deal with troubles he noticed. So the bandit sees him being all noble-like and chuckles, thinking it's a ruse. Like if you saw Isabela trying to pass as a chaste sister in the Chantry. So he sends Thom a letter, knowing that he's still on the run and probably looking for coin. Figures Thom would appreciate starting a new life in Ferelden and returning to his old ways.  

But Thom has gone through his personality change and returns the letter, probably telling the bandit to leave the farmers alone or the bandits have to face him. Maybe says a line that they too can change their ways. Bandit takes it badly and gathers his buddies to kill the lot of them. 

And then the fight thingy with Quizzy. 

 

Or that an old acquaintance sent the letter, but I don't think that Thom accepted it.

 

And how are you getting that the letter is charred?

"A letter, found on the body of a bandit who stole from the refugees in the Hinterlands. The ink is smudged, and only a few sentences can be made out:"

[nightscrawl]

I've never understood the wording of the letter, nor been able to figure out who it's supposed to be addressed to, neither on the first play or in subsequent plays.

 

However, if we go by your theory, it may only be an indication of blackmail, and not that he was "working with the bandits" as per your thread title. Him actually having taken up with the bandits, even if he changed his mind later on, seems contrary to the redemption arc that his character is going through. One of the reasons he took on Warden Blackwall's mantle was to redeem himself (yes, in addition to hiding) through his deeds.

[Arlee]

I tend to go with one of the bandit leaders probably recognized him and was wanting to get him to join with them, instead of teaching the peasants to stand up against them. There isn't really anything in that letter which would indicate to me Blackwall had agreed and joined with them only to turn on them. Plus having made the choice to do something awful for coin before, and at that point he would have already been living as Blackwall for awhile, and how he regretted that I don't think it's likely he was working with them.

[Sifr]

Based on the opening line in the letter;

 

"You can die pretending you'll earn back your soldier's honour, or you can do something with the skills that son of a b---- taught you."

 

The reason the bandit is said to have lost his honour is because he was one of the soldiers who participated in the Callier massacre. Which would make Thom Rainier the individual being negatively referred to, as he lead them and taught them their skills while they served in the Orlesian Army.

 

It would also explain why the bandits were so determined to go after Blackwall. Imagine after five years, you suddenly came face to face with the man who ruined your life, leaving you take the fall for his crimes while he disappeared... you'd naturally be a little ticked off.

 

In Trespasser, a non-Warden Blackwall mentions that before they calm down, people trying to kill him tends to be a running theme when he tracks down the surviving members of his old squad to apologise for what he did.

[thats1evildude]

And how are you getting that the letter is charred?

"A letter, found on the body of a bandit who stole from the refugees in the Hinterlands. The ink is smudged, and only a few sentences can be made out:"

 

Look above that line; the document is titled "Charred Paper." I took a picture of it with my phone.

[In Exile]

I thought it was pretty clear that the bandits were his former men - maybe not all of them but several. I thought that was the point of the letter.

Even when he talks about his role in the Blight it only seems odd because of our player knowledge. There is no particular reason why the Inquisitor should know the exact circumstances of the 5th Blight. It is odd in the light of the codex you find in Skyhold concerning Blackwall but the ridiculous part is that even after reading this you can't bring it up with him. Of course the person who should really have known his story was nonsense was Leliana. She was with the Hero of Ferelden and would have known that there were only 3 Wardens (4 if you count Loghain) in all Ferelden during the Blight. For a spy master she really did miss things that she ought to have questioned but then again, perhaps she always knew but chose not to tell you. When her messenger tells you about the circumstances of Blackwall's departure, you can actually say something to the effect that you suspect it didn't entirely come as a surprise to her.

It's heavily implied she did know and didn't care. I don't think codex entries reflect character knowledge - the perks do.

[Sifr]

Leliana probably suspected he wasn't a Warden, as her line "Even if he's... not what I expected" suggests she had doubts from the off.

 

By the time we get to Skyhold, her notes in the rookery imply she's been gathering information on the real Blackwall. Either she couldn't prove the connection between Blackwall and Thom Rainier, or didn't feel it was important to reveal his secret, figuring that as long as he remained dedicated to the Inquisition, there was no reason to out him as a fraud?

[Arlee]

Based on the opening line in the letter;

 

"You can die pretending you'll earn back your soldier's honour, or you can do something with the skills that son of a b---- taught you."

 

The reason the bandit is said to have lost his honour is because he was one of the soldiers who participated in the Callier massacre. Which would make Thom Rainier the individual being negatively referred to, as he lead them and taught them their skills while they served in the Orlesian Army.

 

It would also explain why the bandits were so determined to go after Blackwall. Imagine after five years, you suddenly came face to face with the man who ruined your life, leaving you take the fall for his crimes while he disappeared... you'd naturally be a little ticked off.

 

In Trespasser, a non-Warden Blackwall mentions that before they calm down, people trying to kill him tends to be a running theme when he tracks down the surviving members of his old squad to apologise for what he did.

 

That is possible. It's also entirely possible only one of the bandit people knew who he was and thus knew about his lost honor. The possibility they wanted him to work with him and not only refused but also helped others stand up against them as well would be more than enough reason for the bandits to got after Thom/Blackwall in particular.

[nightscrawl]

Based on the opening line in the letter;
 
"You can die pretending you'll earn back your soldier's honour, or you can do something with the skills that son of a b---- taught you."
 
The reason the bandit is said to have lost his honour is because he was one of the soldiers who participated in the Callier massacre. Which would make Thom Rainier the individual being negatively referred to, as he lead them and taught them their skills while they served in the Orlesian Army.
 
It would also explain why the bandits were so determined to go after Blackwall. Imagine after five years, you suddenly came face to face with the man who ruined your life, leaving you take the fall for his crimes while he disappeared... you'd naturally be a little ticked off.
 
In Trespasser, a non-Warden Blackwall mentions that before they calm down, people trying to kill him tends to be a running theme when he tracks down the surviving members of his old squad to apologise for what he did.

I thought it was pretty clear that the bandits were his former men - maybe not all of them but several. I thought that was the point of the letter.


It's heavily implied she did know and didn't care. I don't think codex entries reflect character knowledge - the perks do.

That is possible. It's also entirely possible only one of the bandit people knew who he was and thus knew about his lost honor. The possibility they wanted him to work with him and not only refused but also helped others stand up against them as well would be more than enough reason for the bandits to got after Thom/Blackwall in particular.

 
All right, let me see if I have this down.
 
At least one of the bandits -- we'll call him Bob -- in the Hinterlands sees Thom Ranier and recognizes him for who he is, having been one of Ranier's soldiers who participated in the Callier massacre. He then goes back and tells his buddy bandits about it: "OMFG I just saw the a-hole who made me resort to banditry. I want to cut his balls off!"
 
That's all fine and dandy. What I don't understand is that the tone of the letter sounds like the bandit leader is trying to convince Bob to continue on with banditry, hence the "or you can do something with the skills that SOB taught you" line in the letter. The letter seems to be addressed to someone, possibly Bob, other than Ranier since it is a statement ABOUT him, and not TO him.
 
Part of the reason I have always thought the letter odd is because "Blackwall" has been teaching the farmers and peasants some limited skills, so on a first pass, it almost sounds like the bandits are trying to recruit these folks. That is, until you take the "earn back your soldier's honor" remark, which makes that implausible.

 

 

Regarding Leliana, it has always seemed to me that she suspected that he wasn't who he said he was, but waited and watched to see how he behaved while conducting her own research. She never said anything since Blackwall behaved admirably as a member of the Inquisition, and that is all that mattered to her. IMO this is in-keeping with Leliana's attitude and philosophy during most of the game, until you resolve some things during her personal quest.

 

It's rather like the letter the Inquisitor gets for Dorian's romance quest. Dorian was seen arguing with a merchant. Leliana find this odd and conducts her own research to make sure that there is no suspicious activity, perhaps Dorian consulting with a Venatori spy, or something, and brings it to the attention of the Inquisitor only after her suspicions are allayed as a personal favor to him, since she has observed the closeness between the two.

 

Then again, considering her handling of both Solas's infiltration and Qunari infiltration (even worse if Bull remains with the Qun), perhaps she is just incompetent.

[In Exile]

Leliana probably suspected he wasn't a Warden, as her line "Even if he's... not what I expected" suggests she had doubts from the off.

By the time we get to Skyhold, her notes in the rookery imply she's been gathering information on the real Blackwall. Either she couldn't prove the connection between Blackwall and Thom Rainier, or didn't feel it was important to reveal his secret, figuring that as long as he remained dedicated to the Inquisition, there was no reason to out him as a fraud?

Or option C: she knew, and intended to leverage it if the time came. While Bioware is not good at writing this type of character and unfortunately made Leliana look like she had no idea how to do her job half the time, they did try to portray her as somewhat cutthroat.

That she could potentially blackmail Blackwall, who is ultimately a deadly fighter, with the threat of his secret is of value, and if she figured it out there'd no need to keep a record of it or inform her underlings as that just creates the risk of a leak. Which also by way of aside made her whole rookery pretty confusing as it was a comically unsecured location.

[In Exile]

The letter is addressed to the bandits, who are formerly his men. I only scanned the thread and don't recall the letter so my last post didn't account for this, but now I read the text in this thread as follows:

A bandit, who we should infer from the context is a leader, is addressing the other bandits. This is an excerpt from a speech, or potentially a letter one of Blackwall's former men wrote to another. The letter is saying that you could live in the fantasy that you'll be redeemed somehow for having massacred those children for coin, or you could do something with what the bastard - Blackwall - taught you (i.e., your martial skill), with the something being murder and pillaging villagers. We're to assume the bandits recognized Blackwall while he was living out his own guilt, training the townspeople to fight against the demons. That's part of why the letter presumably talks about the training the men got from Blackwall - because he is introduced to us as a trainer. We don't have to assume all the bandits knew Blackwall - just this one.

[vbibbi]

 

 
All right, let me see if I have this down.
 
At least one of the bandits -- we'll call him Bob -- in the Hinterlands sees Thom Ranier and recognizes him for who he is, having been one of Ranier's soldiers who participated in the Callier massacre. He then goes back and tells his buddy bandits about it: "OMFG I just saw the a-hole who made me resort to banditry. I want to cut his balls off!"
 
That's all fine and dandy. What I don't understand is that the tone of the letter sounds like the bandit leader is trying to convince Bob to continue on with banditry, hence the "or you can do something with the skills that SOB taught you" line in the letter. The letter seems to be addressed to someone, possibly Bob, other than Ranier since it is a statement ABOUT him, and not TO him.
 
Part of the reason I have always thought the letter odd is because "Blackwall" has been teaching the farmers and peasants some limited skills, so on a first pass, it almost sounds like the bandits are trying to recruit these folks. That is, until you take the "earn back your soldier's honor" remark, which makes that implausible.

 

 

Regarding Leliana, it has always seemed to me that she suspected that he wasn't who he said he was, but waited and watched to see how he behaved while conducting her own research. She never said anything since Blackwall behaved admirably as a member of the Inquisition, and that is all that mattered to her. IMO this is in-keeping with Leliana's attitude and philosophy during most of the game, until you resolve some things during her personal quest.

 

It's rather like the letter the Inquisitor gets for Dorian's romance quest. Dorian was seen arguing with a merchant. Leliana find this odd and conducts her own research to make sure that there is no suspicious activity, perhaps Dorian consulting with a Venatori spy, or something, and brings it to the attention of the Inquisitor only after her suspicions are allayed as a personal favor to him, since she has observed the closeness between the two.

 

Then again, considering her handling of both Solas's infiltration and Qunari infiltration (even worse if Bull remains with the Qun), perhaps she is just incompetent.

 

 

I agree, the letter indicates several contradictory ideas. It seems to be one of those Bioware writings which almost make sense in hindsight, but they might have changed something in the game which invalidates part of the writing by the time the game is finished. Perhaps this was language left in from an earlier draft of Blackwall who was working with bandits or was asked to join but declined, and they didn't catch the inconsistency in the writing before the game shipped.

 

To be fair to Leliana, Bull was actually a reliable member of the Inquisition throughout the base game, even if he remains Qunari. Closing the Breach is more important to the Qun than destabilizing Southern Thedas. It's only in Trespasser that Qun!Bull is no longer reliable, and that's after 2 years where he has presumably not been with the Inquisition for some time. (I've only played Trespasser where the Chargers survive so don't know if Bull returned to the Qun after Cory died)

 

Or option C: she knew, and intended to leverage it if the time came. While Bioware is not good at writing this type of character and unfortunately made Leliana look like she had no idea how to do her job half the time, they did try to portray her as somewhat cutthroat.

That she could potentially blackmail Blackwall, who is ultimately a deadly fighter, with the threat of his secret is of value, and if she figured it out there'd no need to keep a record of it or inform her underlings as that just creates the risk of a leak. Which also by way of aside made her whole rookery pretty confusing as it was a comically unsecured location.

I think this is the "best" explanation but not an intentional one from Bioware. I think if Leliana had actually mentioned anything to the Inquisitor, it would have spoiled the reveal in Blackwall's own quest. And since his quest isn't unlocked until both HLtA and WEWH are completed, that's a significant chunk of the game before the reveal is available. Her knowing too much would have taken away a huge part of his character arc in the game.

 

Because would she really allow Blackwall to go into the wilderness with the Inquisitor and only two other people if she knew he was using a false identity and she wasn't completely sure of his motives? She's taking a huge risk in allowing an unknown element close to the Herald of Andraste. She could have agents tracking the Inquisitor everywhere, but the game never indicates this, since we are never provided support throughout the zones when the entire party is going to be wiped out.

 

Leliana's style, IMO, seems that she is willing to sacrifice pawns if she thinks it will yield a greater good, but would rather sacrifice herself than people she considers major players (Justinia, the Warden, the Inquisitor).

[thats1evildude]

To be fair to Leliana, when you're dealing with an organization with a broad goal of stopping chaos and no restrictions on joining beyond "Must not work for Corypheus," it must be difficult to ensure new recruits don't have some hidden agenda or shady past. She did keep Venatori spies out of the Inquisition, at least.

[nightscrawl]

(I've only played Trespasser where the Chargers survive so don't know if Bull returned to the Qun after Cory died)

I've seen some people suggest that he did go back for a visit and was reeducated. However, I don't know if there is any indication of this in the game, or just some players' wishful thinking regarding the eventual betrayal, particularly if there is a romance with either the Inquisitor or Dorian. I can understand the desire, particularly as, if not reeducated, he carried on acting like he was in love for a further two years before this happens. Granted, that behavior is still bad either way, but I think reeducation makes it more... palatable.

 

I haven't done this path either, and according to the DAwiki, "Cole will even note that his heart held no regrets over the decision." So... in the end, whether he was in fact reeducated doesn't amount for much; a good portion of the relationship was a lie, and then he goes through the betrayal.

 

And no, I'm not one of those that will just assume things. I'll want evidence in the game itself. I suppose that a remark from Weekes would do as well, but... ugh... I hate relying on dev quotes for stuff. Show us in the game if it was that important.

[thats1evildude]

Cole does say Hissrad "felt no pain" upon betraying a romanced Inquisitor. I think it's accurate to say that Hissrad never felt anything for them and their relationship was just part of the role he was playing. You can't say he wasn't an excellent spy.

Iron Bull is a different story, of course.

[Gervaise]

On the Iron Bull thing, I don't think he could have been re-educated because I doubt he would have been allowed back if he had but if they did let him return it would have been hard for him to pull off the deception in the way he did.    In any case, the quest in the main game was essentially the test by the Qun to see if he was still loyal.   If you sacrifice the Chargers, he is confirmed a loyal member of the Qun, re-education unnecessary.   And yes, thereafter he was simply playing a part as a really good spy. I always think it amusing they put the words into the Inquisitor's mouth: "How could he after all this time?"   He had spent 10 years with the Chargers and yet sacrificed them on orders from his boss, so why would the Inquisitor be any different?   

 

On the Blackwall letter thing, I think the explanation that it was a letter from the bandit chief to someone who had formerly been one of his soldiers does seem to fit the best.  Blackwall is the "son of a ***** who taught you" and the recipient lost his soldier's honour when Thom led them into killing that family.    Of course that doesn't make sense until you complete Blackwall's story arc.

[Dai Grepher]

On Thom, it doesn't make sense that the letter was meant for him. Once Blackwall died, Thom took his name so that Blackwall's spirit could live on. So he would have had no dealings with the bandits at that point. Nor do I see any bandit knowing who Thom was, since he was impersonating Blackwall by then. But I can't see it being meant for any of his conscripts either. So maybe it was meant for Thom.

On Hissrad, it wasn't that it was all an act. He genuinely liked working with the Inquisitor and pals. He truly believed in the alliance. He honestly hoped that the Qunari would not go to war with the South. But when he was given his order to stand with real Qunari against the Inquisitor, he buried all emotion (and intelligence) and blindly obeyed. That's why Cole said he felt nothing from him. Hissrad had already mentally prepared for the possibility of turning on the Inquisitor, and pals.