#but also if the writers wanted Harding to be the one providing the Andrastian perspective

[turbo-virgins]

Okay I know we give BioWare crap for handling their fantasy Catholicism faction with kid gloves compared to other in-game religions, but I do have to say the whole “crisis of faith” Harding has during one of the regret discussions really frustrated me because it’s just so… shallow and hand waved away with a few lines of dialogue?

Putting the rest below a readmore because this rant got kind of long oops

To recount the scene:

Harding (with Neve’s input) points out Solas imprisoned the Evanuris in the building and makes the connection with the Golden City/Black City visible from everywhere in the Fade.

She then quotes the Chant of Light (a record of Andraste’s visions from the Maker) and goes “oh well if the Golden City was actually an Elven thing then… :(“

To which Lucanis jumps in and says “yeah it sounds like we just disproved the entire Andrastian faith.”

Harding goes “did we???” And then there’s a moment for Rook to respond with several options (I still believe, this doesn’t matter, I’m sorry this hurts, don’t let it shake you, etc.)

I’ve seen criticisms of Rook’s responses all being positive to varying degrees and I think that criticism is valid. I was also frustrated by these options because, as someone who was raised religious and later deconstructed, a crisis of faith is like… a big deal? I’m talking like ‘standing at the precipice of an unending abyss’ levels of existential dread. And I think what I found difficult to swallow with Harding’s reaction was her complete lack of attempting any apologetics or platitudes that would have been taught to her by the Chantry or people who shared her faith.

Like, this can’t have been the first historical or logical inconsistency that Andrastians have encountered and tried to smooth over somehow. We see it happen multiple times in Inquisition. Characters like Leliana and Cassandra question themselves, their faith, and the Maker, and they always have a way to smooth it over with reasoning ingrained into them by the church. For example when it’s discovered it wasn’t Andraste that saved the Inquisitor from the Fade- that it was a pure coincidence the Inquisitor happened upon Corypheus’s ritual- I believe it’s Cassandra who says something along the lines of “well I still believe the Maker’s hand is in this even if it doesn’t appear as directly involved as we first thought” which seems to be a Thedas equivalent to “god works in mysterious ways.”

So as soon as Lucanis and Harding insinuated the Golden City not being hand crafted by the Maker = the whole Andrastian faith getting tossed out the window, alarm bells started going off in the religion-wired parts of my brain. Because no, it can’t be that simple can it? Or rather, why would Harding let it be that simple?

Granted there’s no real world equivalent to a giant city floating in a magical realm we can look to as evidence of the Bible, so the closest analogy I can come up with is the book of Revelation which, similar to the Chant of Light, is an account of visions sent from god. Some believers see it as a literal guide for signs and advice on how to survive an impending apocalypse and do incredible amounts of mental gymnastics to ignore any historical evidence to the contrary. That’s a more extreme example, but I would argue that most religious folks are primed to do some form of mental gymnastics at all times (no disrespect to religions btw, I also maintain my faith in some capacity even after deconstructing). Even Christians who don’t believe in a literal interpretation of Revelation still have their faith in it as part of the word of god.

Idk I just found it really weird that in that moment Harding would look to Rook (who is possibly a non-believer which makes it feel even more weird) for help with regaining and/or realigning her religious convictions. It feels like something a child or a teenager would do, not a grown woman immersed in a religion since she was a child. I didn’t have an issue with Rook’s response of “well, the chant of light could have been altered for political reasons or the original text was modified over time” - it just felt weird to me that Rook had to be the source of that perspective. And regardless of what you tell her, the topic of her crisis of faith never even comes up again as far as I’m aware. When, you know, during an actual impending apocalypse it feels like being able to lean on something like faith would be really important for maintaining your sanity. But who knows, maybe that’s what the little camping retreat into blighted Ferelden was for.

[simpforsolas]

So I've seen a some discussion of people both criticizing and defending the DATV companions for being nice to each other. And I think the arguments from both sides are being a little bit misconstrued, which is honestly understandable. I think that often when something bothers us in fiction, it's hard to put into words exactly what it is. So as we try our best to express ourselves, it may not end up getting to the point of what the issue actually is (this is also why it can be tough for writers to properly address criticism - the readers providing the criticism might not be accurately diagnosing the root of the problem, so their attempts to fix it are shallow and don't actually address the issue).

Now I obviously don't speak for everyone, but I do think that a good amount of the people saying they want the DATV crew to be meaner don't actually mean they literally just want people to be rude and insulting each other for no reason. I think it boils down to three things that the new crew was missing:

Inability to really feel how the companion's backstories form their unique worldview

Lack of conflict between companions

Limited relationship dynamics between Rook and the companions

Inability to feel how companion's backstories form their worldview

In previous Dragon Age games, the characters frequently discussed and argued topics of philosophy, faith, politics, and beliefs. They came from all different backgrounds. You had Morrigan, a hedge mage raised to believe in self-preservation, teaming up with an Andrastian circle mage and former templar. Their beliefs and worldviews are, at their core, at odds with each other. The game doesn't necessarily try to make you believe one way or another, it simply drops you into the world and allows you to interact with these character, see their interactions with each other, and draw your own conclusions. In Dragon Age Inquistion, you have Cole, a spirit of compassion, teaming up with Vivienne, who believes the circle teachings that spirits are demons and want to possess people, and Sera, who represents the perspective of the common people that are afraid of all things magical or fade-related. You have Solas, a staunch individualist who believes in freedom for all, Cassandra, a faithful Andrastian who follows her own inner compass even when at odds with the institution of the Chantry, and Iron Bull, a Ben-Hassrath agent who believes in the Qun not because he's a philosopher and has decided that's what works best, but because that's how he was raised and so far, the Qun has worked for him. So in previous Dragon Age titles, you have people whose worldviews and beliefs are fundamentally at odds with each other, and whose actions and dialogues are a direct result of those beliefs. Veilguard really downplayed the importance of religion in Thedas, which isn't necessarily a problem in and of itself. In DA2, the only companion with strong religious beliefs is Sebastian. However, you had Anders who believed strongly in mage liberation, Fenris, who believed strongly in the dangers of magic, and Isabela, whose lack of belief and lack of respect for religion/beliefs led to one of the game's biggest conflicts. Discussion of religion and philosophy was always a huge part of the Dragon Age games, so when they almost entirely removed that element and didn't replace it with other types of belief that could lead to meaningful differences of opinion, we were just left with nothing of substance to really talk about. This isn't saying that the companions don't have things they believe in, but it's just not the same as characters from previous games. In general, their backgrounds don't form a unique worldview that results in differences of opinions and interesting conflict. Which brings my to my next point:

Lack of conflict between companions

There's a huge spectrum between "everyone is friends and always gets along" and "everyone hates each other and is happy when their ally is sold into slavery." In fact, fans often get really into fictional relationships that have quite a bit of conflict. Speaking for myself, I love relationships where two people may fight or disagree, but they truly care for one another and would willingly put themselves in harm's way to protect one another. So I think when a lot of people say the companions get along too well, they don't necessarily mean that they want them to all hate each other (maybe some do). They mean that they just want there to be interesting interpersonal conflicts. (I personally would love for a companion pair to argue a lot, but when it comes down to it, they actually really care about each other) Why do we want this? Well first, conflict just makes things more interesting. But I think that it also ties into point 1. In this game, the companions simply don't seem passionate enough about what they believe to argue for it, or, if they are, there's not anyone who challenges their beliefs and forces them to defend their position. I would say that Emmrich is very passionate about his love for spirits and necromancy, two things which are seen as weird and dangerous by most people in Thedas. However, there's almost no chance for him to passionately argue for his worldview because no one challenges it. There is that one scene with Taash finding his passion for working with the dead creepy, but as soon as the issue comes up, it's resolved. Compare that to Solas, where a big part of his characterization is love for spirits and frustration with fear and ignorance leading people to discriminate against what they don't understand. Having to face opposition to his beliefs, both in the world and within the inquisitor's inner circle (and sometimes the inquisitor themself), gives the writers the opportunities to emphasize core parts of his characterization.

On a final note for this section, it's just more interesting when different pairs of companions have unique relationships with each other. Solas and Cole's wholesome, mostly conflict-free friendship is made sweeter because you can compare it to Solas and Sera's relationship. It makes the relationships more meaningful when you can contrast it to how those same people click or don't click with other companions.

Limited relationship dynamics with Rook

The final issue I want to talk about is how all this ties into Rook. In previous games, you could learn a lot about a character's beliefs by seeing what they approved and didn't approve of. Anders approves of supporting mages, Fenris doesn't. Leliana approves of compassion for strangers, Morrigan doesn't because why should she help people who can't help themselves, and also it's a waste of time. Cole greatly approves of helping people, Solas slightly approves of you asking questions, Cassandra approves of expressing belief in the Maker, and so forth and so on. Then depending on the choices you make, your approval actually makes a difference in how these companions view you as their leader. But in Veilguard... well either the companions don't have strong feelings about things, or Rook isn't allowed to make decisions that oppose the beliefs they do have. Because of this, there's basically no conflict between Rook and the team. From my understanding, worst relationship you can get with the team is "distant boss whose employees don't invite them to their work parties," but that's not the same as Cassandra hating you so much she gets drunk or getting specific rival scenes like in DA2 where companions react entirely differently because Hawke consistently acted in opposition to their beliefs.

Final thoughts

So when people criticize the companions not getting along, I think it's less to do with the fact that people want them to hate each other, and more to do with the fact that we want companions who have a strong worldview shaped by their backstory, and for that worldview being challenged to lead to interesting conflict. Whether that challenge comes from other companions, the world, or Rook themself, I don't care - I just want interesting and meaningful conflict that is arises because the companions are strong characters who believe in something.