#is this datv critical? idk

[lunian]

Maevaris is literally judging Dorian that he learned the ways of politics from Cullen and Leliana and Josephine and its the most teasing reference I witnessed so far lmao

but it's blatant weird to hear since Tevinter politics are DEFINITELY no better or no more fair than Orlesian ones

additionally, those "devious means" specifically supported Maevaris 10 years ago when Dorian asked Inquisitor's help so :/

[amourningcrow]

My artbook just arrived and what do you mean they could have looked like this?? Who looked at these designs and thought: No wait, I have a better idea :)

WHO WAS IT?? COME HERE I JUST WANNA TALK

[fangatic]

we need to talk about The Silence and The Song

[PLEASE READ] edit to add: i realise that this post has been reblogged far and wide and that there is not a lot i can do about it now, but this is me trying anyway.

posting examples from the fic about my issues with its repetitive structure was careless of me, and i apologise to those of you who read it and became insecure about your own writing style. as someone who has worked with ai in academic settings, it's incredibly difficult for me to explain to you how the tone and structure of ai-generated fiction works and how, after reading enough of it, you can simply just tell. i do also realise that this is an incredibly weak argument, which is why i didn't include it when i originally wrote this post.

all that to say: there is an enormous difference between "beginner's writing" and ai writing. being repetitive as a new writer (or a seasoned one who just likes using repetition) is so normal. as is flowery/purple language. i've read hundreds of books and fics and the difference between these traits in ai-text and actual works is starkly clear. please don't feel anxious over the examples i've used in this post.

again, i apologise for any distress i have caused.

as per my last post, i have received a lot of encouragement to go public with this, and the more disappointed people i have in my dms, the angrier i get. so i will.

the silence and the song is an ancient arlathan au DA fic on ao3 by luxannaslut, and it is partly, if not entirely, written by an ai. i have no wish to be involved in any kind of fandom drama or witch hunting or bullying, but as a writer myself there are few things that piss me off more than watching people steal the work of others because they can't be fucked to write. it's disrespectful to your fellow writers, it's disrespectful to your readers, and it's disrespectful to the authors of the works the ai is stealing from.

ai is a plague that has no business being in creative spaces and you must do better.

the writing pattern

there was something very odd and monotone about the sentence structure of tsats that i couldn't quite place, so i fed chatgpt a prompt along the lines of "two people in a fantasy novel hate each other, but they secretly desire one another, and they kiss", and the screenshots above are the results. the third one is an excerpt from chapter 40 of tsats. the writing pattern is identical and it doesn't seem like the "writer" has even bothered to pretend they wrote it. if you're going to use ai, at least be sneaky about it. you know, paraphrase a little.

nonsense descriptions

"her nimble fingers worked with quiet precision" (ct. 1), "his grip firm but tender" (ct. 33), "her gown pooling around her like embers" (ct. 1).

fingers don't make sound, so what does quiet precision mean? as opposed to what? her joints cracking with every movement? how is a grip firm but tender? what does that mean? since when do embers pool?

the entire fic is littered with these adjectives that contradict each other or just straight up do not make sense, because all an ai does is generate descriptive language with no understanding of what the words it's spitting out actually mean. i could spend hours picking out examples from the seven billion pages worth of text, but i quite frankly have better things to do and would simply challenge you to try getting through a chapter or two without noticing the pattern.

repetition at structure-level

all the scenes in this fic are described in pretty much the same way. they open with purple prose vomit of the surroundings; solas is standing somewhere looking "unreadable as ever"; ellana's fiery golden molten fire copper ember ginger red hair is flowing this and that way; there's some dialogue with whoever is present and it leaves ellana feeling different variations of "something she couldn't name". this is, once again, a blatantly obvious sign of ai. below is the result of me feeding chatgpt the line "write me a scene from a fantasy novel where a woman with red hair is sitting on the ground in a magical garden at night", and side by side with that is the opening scene of the fic. make your own judgement.

repetition at word-level

this one speaks for itself. we fucking get it. her dress is orange, her hair is red, mythal's presence is heavy in the room, solas looks unreadable, compassion is sitting on her head like a crown, solas' ears are betraying him and ellana's move with every thought she thinks. we get it. the issue here is that an ai remembers the info you feed it, but not necessarily the info it shits out. if it's being told to write scene after scene of an elven woman with a gown that looks like fire doing xyz, it's going to do so with no regard for how many times the reader has already been informed of these details.

lastly: the breakneck speed

359,6k words in four weeks by a person who allegedly is employed and married and hasn't pre-written anything? no. any writer will tell you that this simply isn't possible. it absolutely infuriates me to see how much praise this "writer" gets for posting up to three full chapters in a day without anyone calling bullshit. i am pulling out my hair, you guys.

why i'm not going to live and let live this one

perhaps i would be less angry if the fic was some silly bullshit court intrigue Y/A stuff, but this is a text that handles very heavy and triggering topics such as SA, coercion, domestic abuse, and other things of the same vein. to sit back and put your feet up while having a robot write these extremely sensitive and very real human experiences with words it has stolen from texts written by actual persons is fucking heinous. the "writer" should be deeply ashamed of themselves and i'm sick and tired of watching people eat up their bs.

and on that note: the amount of people in my dm's telling me that they feel stupid and naive for not clocking this has infuriated me more than anything else. you're not foolish for this. being fed ai-generated bullshit is not what is supposed to happen on any creative platform and much less a fandom-centred one, so of course no one approaches a fic through that lens. fandom and fic writing is supposed to be about passion and the only person in this situation who needs to do better and change their behaviour is luxannaslut. polluting our creative spaces, wasting the time of your readers, and minimising the effort of actual writers who are working hard to provide content for us all to share and enjoy is vile and so, so lazy. i beg of you: do better.

[turbo-virgins]

Low key very tired of people responding to veilguard criticism with something along the lines of “lol these people have no media literacy, didn’t you understand what the game was telling you??” Yes, yes I understand what the game was trying to tell me. That doesn’t mean I have to like it or the way the writers went about it.

Also the whole argument of “well, the dragon age fandom proved they couldn’t handle xyz controversial character/element of the story so that’s why veilguard had very little references to those things” kinda grinds my gears a bit. I don’t think it can be proven with 100% certainty what writing decisions were made based on past fandom reactions to the other games, but I do think it would be an incredibly shitty move to simplify or remove complexity from a story just because there might be a portion of the audience who doesn’t get it. “The fandom couldn’t even handle Vivienne” Yeah a good amount of people dismissed her as a selfish snooty bitch, but I didn’t and a lot of other people didn’t and to remove complex and interesting characters like her on the basis that enough people “won’t get it” just feels like a disservice to all of us.

[bingsoo-jung]

I said this in the comments of someone else’s post, but I’m going to say this here. Taash identifying as non-binary is good actually, and in fact better than the dev’s making up some new term for them. Let’s get into it.

So for a bit of background, I’m non-binary and Thai. If you don’t know, Thai has specific terms for different gender-sexual identities, they’re quite old, they date back a few hundred years. However, the thing about culturally specific terms is just that, they’re culturally specific. The reason you use them is because you are tied to the culture in such a way that you gender-sexual identity cannot be disassociated from it. Because, to be clear, these terms are never just about your gender or sexual identity. They encompass a role you play within society itself.

For instance, in Thai culture we have tom/tomboys. These are AFAB folks who occupy a masculine societal role and date women. If you’re AMAB you cannot be tom. If you’re transmasc and feminine? You cannot be tom. If you’re transmasc and not attracted to women? You cannot be tom. If you’re transmasc and mostly date men? You cannot be tom. If you’re transmasc but don’t particularly feel like taking care of the girl you date, taking her out, being the ‘man’ in the relationship? You can’t really be tom.

Because the thing about culturally specific genders is that they come with a lot of rules. Being tom isn’t being non-binary. There are cis women who are tom, and there are non-binary people who are toms. You do not get eschew gender roles in these cases. You are quite literally taking one on. You have a role and place in society that has been made for you, and you are expected to carry it out.

Because of this, none of these terms are a one-to-one for other identities, and nor should they be. Being kathoey or hijra is not the same as being a trans woman or non-binary, and visa versa. You can be kathoey and not be trans. You can be trans and not be kathoey. Being aqun-athlok or any other specific term shouldn’t be either. The idea that it is, is more ahistorical and inaccurate than the word non-binary itself. Giving Taash some new, culturally specific term, would inherently tie them to a culture, and one perhaps that they didn’t feel apart of. Especially since Taash’s entire story is about struggling to figure out where they belong. Arguably the biggest issue with their story is that you have to make them decide, and fundamentally tying them to a term would’ve compounded that problem.

The reason I identify as non-binary and not a tom, is because I am not occupying some specific role in Thai culture. Despite living in LA, I rarely interact with other Thai people who aren’t my family. I do not live in a cultural context that would allow me to identify as a tom.

The thing about terms like non-binary, or trans, or agender, is that they’re meant to be acultural terms encapsulating the concept of truth to oneself and ones identity. Whereas culturally specific terms aren’t, they’re about the role you hold in society and where you fit in. It’s about your identity within a status quo. Taash is a character who is eschewing societal roles, and breaking the status quo, giving them those terms just wouldn’t work.

And finally? Using non-binary itself allows the writers to very specifically say where they stand. There is no space given to transphobes. You either accept that DA is queer-friendly or bust. And that’s a very important stance to make in an era where trans and non-binary folks are being actively targeted. There’s no ‘well Taash isn’t actually trans or non-binary they’re [insert term here]!’ Because people would’ve done that, we know they would’ve. This means people can’t do that. They have to just say that they have an issue with the term, and thus we can call them for what they are. Transphobes. Plain and simple.

So yeah, Taash’s identity does have nuance, it has a lot of it. And to be honest with you, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trick Weekes, a non-binary person whose wife is First Nations and thus from a group with culturally specific gender identities, knows about the difference between something like two-spirit and trans. And to be honest with you, using something like non-binary has nuance I doubt was actually afforded to Krem, considering they cast a cis woman to play Krem.

So yeah.

[sha-brytols]

and the thing is i've said so many wildly conflicting things about how flawed solas' character portrayal was in veilguard but like. i unironically do believe they're All True and like i think i can kind of(?) articulate why

like solas in veilguard to me was a pretty perfect example on how clear it is that dragon age has suddenly and drastically regressed from being an exploration into moral ambiguity and that fine smudged line between "hero" and "villain" to a sudden inexplicable refusal to allow any sort of grey area in character motivations in favor of forcing them into a binary box like its a dnd alignment. and i think this specifically because there is literally No Way to write solas in a morally uncomplicated manner while still maintaining anything that makes him an interesting character.

people who hate solas hate veilguard because it removed literally any nuance to his character and repeatedly paints him as a poor mistreated victim whose only crime is that he was Forced to do things He Didnt Want to by a significantly underwritten and highly anticipated female character, and his regrets are all varying degrees of "it's my fault because i was right and they didn't listen to me :(" and no actual agency in his own decision making. his romance with a lavellan is literally front and center in the game and the only one that even gets more than a passing letter or (in dorian's case) like. two full lines of dialogue. the narrative does everything to silently paint him as the misunderstood tragic hero that no one truly appreciates and even rewrites the inquisitor so they always want to redeem him regardless of their previous disposition

people who love solas hate veilguard because it somehow managed to simultaneously do the same thing in reverse. solas has no genuine regrets or sense of guilt or actual reflection about his past behavior in the entire game. he kills his best friend and the game makes sure to zoom in on his face as varric is falling down just so you can see the sneer of contempt. the war table finebros react segments where its literally just the writers unapologetically utilizing the companions as mouthpieces for their personal opinions makes sure to tell the player that solas is unforgivable and a hypocrite and a coward for his actions. they even like. rewrote an entire part of his character specifically to remove that layer of complexity and dumb it down to the Lying Liar Who Lies. where the narrative silently wants you to sympathize with him, the characters LOUDLY want you to condemn him. your most sympathetic dialogue choices are lukewarm "well... i GUESS i understand why..." delivered in a consistent tone of disapproving resignment.

people who are neutral to solas? you're not ALLOWED to be. here you go. Dragon Age: Solas. everything is about solas. you have to make all your choices based around solas. we've written an entire game to revolve around solas. we rewrote like 4 characters to make sure that you are forced into one of the two extremes.

and it's all because you have a game that physically cannot help itself but to make you make the Good Decision and so they can't decide which decision is good and which is bad so they wrote two completely conflicting stories about him at the same time. he is the best boy. he is the worst. it genuinely feels like the writing team was actively wrestling with each other behind the scenes over whether or not solas is a Bad Guy and thus their only means of compromise was writing him as though he was dr jekyll and mr hyde without any transition or consistency. he is a villain. he is a hero. you are a bad person for not seeing his point of view. you are a good person for peacefully redeeming him. and i know there's people who think this is some sort of ingenius character study but none of this is intentional. he isn't like loghain who commits bad acts in service to a greater good. he's the prideful god who lied to the inquisitor about wanting to free the elves and instead his goal has been about his own personal ego all along. he isn't like flemeth, who does good by people and manipulates the story in your favor all for the sake of her own mysterious ends. he isn't even like the architect who lies and murders and manipulates the warden all in the service of his own deluded vision. he's the guy who wants to destroy the world because his abusive ex is forcing him to. but also he's the guy who wants to destroy the world because he thinks mortal life is insignificant and he should be in control because hes The Best.

all complexity of what was previously a deeply nuanced character has been removed, and it's because he used to be so complex that it's so disjointed and bad because they refuse to actually commit to any one direction because in that case they'd might as well make another character. but they can't. they have to make it solas. because solas is their cash cow and their baby.

they want to make a perfect solavellan happy ending because they want to please the people who love their baby but they're so fundamentally divorced from what their audience wants for solas that they ended up writing a caricaturized ai-generated romance novel for teenagers.

they want to make a cathartic fight scene where you beat the bad man because they want to please the people that hate their villain but they have such blatant contempt for criticism of their precious little baby that they make sure to infantilize and misrepresent his flaws as much as they can so he can be the sad little elf boy that you need to hug.

and despite all of this they ALSO wanted so desperately to avoid making you sympathize too much with the antagonist they were building up to that they had to make sure he acted in the most unforgivably evil ways that they could think of just so players knew this is the Bad Guy and you're the Good Guy and don't you forget it.

it's just constant self contradictory writing. it is so blatant that it's genuinely hard for me to even see veilguard's solas as being the same character. i find myself nodding my head in agreement to his most ardent haters because yeah you're right. they did spend an insane amount of time forcing you to see just how innocent and well-intentioned and pure this egotistical mass-murderer was. and i also find myself nodding in agreement with his biggest fans because yeah. you're right. they did randomly turn this character into a moustache-twirling villain who does everything short of tying rook to railroad tracks and cackling as he runs away to tear down the veil. and all this because they couldn't stand to not have him be in the game in the biggest and most impactful way. they literally could not have a story without solas.

[crimsonphantasmagoria]

I've been thinking, and I've come to the conclusion that one of the reasons why Veilguard feels so hollow is because it makes an attempt to reckon with Solas’s fatal flaw, but completely fails at actually doing so.

This may be a controversial opinion, but I don't think pride is Solas’s fatal flaw. It's a symptom, not the origin point. Solas’s fatal flaw is his inability to trust others. It's a threadline all the way through Inquisition, from the things he says to you (I know that mistake well enough to carve the angles of her face from memory) to the very structure of his personal quest (which does not trigger if you're on low approval with him). He's tragic (in the literary sense) because even in the case of a high approval Inquisitor, the person most likely to listen to him and capable of acting upon it, he doesn't ask them for help. Hell, we know he was planning to tell a romancing Inquisitor, but chickened out at literally the last possible second, that's how deep it runs. That's why it's Tragic.

And I think Veilguard tries to contrast this with the Team™. Which is fine, I guess, until you realise that Solas’s original Team was the Evanuris. None of Rook’s Team™ can betray them. If they don't do the companions personal quests they die, rather than become disloyal in some way. They're all 100% in accord about their politics and what is Right, without real argument. Which is nice, but if your advice to someone with severe trust issues is 'skill issue' that's...unhelpful.

And yeah, Solas did have his rebellion, but he had the rebellion in the sense that the Inquisitor had the Inquisition, not in the sense that Rook has the Team™. And as he says, any powerful organisation inevitably falls to betrayal and corruption.

And he had Felassan, but Felassan also betrayed him (with good reason, but he did actively undermine an operation he was on on behalf of Solas. That is a betrayal), which can only have cemented the inherent trust issues.

But, thinking about it, there is actually a paralell with some of the companions having experienced some kind of betrayal. Lucanis and Illario, Bellara and Cyrion, Davrin and Isseya/the Wardens, Taash and Shathann. And pretty much all of these experience a last minute change of heart, or otherwise come to the companion's POV if allowed to. Is this what they were going for with Mythal in the Atonement ending? I can kind of see the logic.

The problem is, I don't really see why this suddenly turns Solas around. He doesn't overcome his fatal flaw in order to avoid his tragedy. It always comes down to the fact that Solas’s actual reasons for bringing down the Veil are never truly addressed, and likely changed at some point in production between Trespasser and Veilguard. The political and systemic issues of the setting are pushed aside by Veilguard's narrative for individual and personal issues, even well established issues like systemic racism and slavery. It's incoherent to say 'Solas was destroying the Veil because he couldn't trust people, so fixing the trust means he doesn't want the veil to come down', when the issue was 'Solas can't trust anyone else to help solve the harm caused by the Veil because of the betrayal'. The harm doesn't go away because the betrayal did, you know what I mean? And Rook, and by extention the entire narrative, never displays willingness to even acknowledge those issues as existing in the first place, let alone needing addressing in some way. Rook interrupts Solas when he tries to talk about the suffering of the Spirits. So why does he suddenly hand over the dagger, symbolically handing the matter over to Rook?

[oopsallmabari]

like. if someone is capable of convincing me that having the viper be the black divine is a good idea, by all means. but i struggle to understand it beyond a weird first draft idea that should be treated as just that, a weird first draft idea that isn't canon.

overall i think the game is missing out on really involving the elves in a thoughtful way, and that includes the shadow dragons. so unless your rook is a shadow dragon and an elf, all of the major shadow dragons(i include dorian in this, even though he's technically an ally, i guess) are humans save for lorelei, the merchant? and save for tarquin, they're all mages, folks who have at least some standing in tevinter society. i haven't read the supporting novels/comics so i don't know all of the details surrounding mae and neve's backstories--but even though mae's been stripped of her magisterium seat and presumably faces discrimination in tevinter as a trans woman, she has had some level of privilege as an altus (she was a magister with a magister parent, so i'm assuming that's the accurate social class to put her in). dorian has been harmed by societal homophobia, but he is still an altus with a seat in the magisterium. the viper is, at minimum, an altus. elves are rescued from slavery, aided and supported by the shadow dragons, which is great, but they lack agency. they aren't the leaders of their own movement, they aren't even a strong consideration. a group of people, mostly human mages, can attempt to change tevinter by installing a new archon, theoretically for the benefit of elves (the primary victims of tevinter slavery), without including a single elf in the conversation, or even considering if their opinion should matter.

it is, imo, shortsighted at best to have the group of fantasy freedom fighters/abolitionists to mostly be controlled by the privileged, especially without making any commentary on that and the potential issues with it, especially if the writers' intent (even if not officially confirmed) is to make one of their advisors the leader of the imperial church, which seems to still be relevant and powerful in tevinter society, even with the magisterium. putting aside the logistics of the viper not getting caught, is tevinter just so corrupt that there's no real difference for him to make within his own station? is he unwilling to use whatever political power he has as divine because it'll expose him to personal danger? would it compromise the shadow dragons? why would that not be a problem in itself given the goal is to end slavery in tevinter, if the dragons' ability to take decisive action is stymied by their own leadership? why not keep the viper as an ally, a patron, a sympathizer with means to support with no decisionmaking power (even that has its issues, if you think about corporate capture of regulatory bodies/nonprofits)?

like, to my knowledge this is information people have gotten through datamining, so i don't take it as canon, but like...if we're gonna treat this as canon, i would like to think about the implications of it beyond how surface-level cool it is for fantasy abolitionist batman to secretly be the fantasy imperial pope. consider that yes, these are people with good intentions, but they do not exist absent the power structures they grew up in.

[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.

[abyssal-ilk]

im still a little heartbroken that caretaker wasn't much of a character in datv. they had such a cool role as being the caretaker of the crossroads + the lighthouse, but aside from aiding in a few missions and being an upgrade merchant, we didn't really get to learn much about them? which is :/ a little disappointing for a character with such a cool concept. they're part of the veilguard! i just wish they felt a bit more tied-in to the family, ig

[virginiathegray]

I've seen people upset about the way some things/characters are handled/explained in DATV and I just want to remind everyone that characters are unreliable sometimes, they lie sometimes, and other times information is withheld from them intentionally. "Why does Morrigan not talk about Kieran?" Ignoring the fact that not every worldstate even HAS a Kieran, Morrigan does not know you like that and canonically the Orlesian court didn't even know she had a son despite living there for some time. Not to mention I doubt Morrigan wants to mention her kid who previously had a "god's soul" lest Rook and co. try involving him in their shenanigans somehow.

"Why doesn't Solas gush more over a romanced Lavellan when Rook brings her up? He hardly seems to care." He does not trust Rook whatsoever and knows that Rook is likely looking for leverage on him in exactly the same way he's looking for leverage on them. The fact that he can't bring himself to lie explicitly and say that she doesn't matter to him at all is, in my eyes, a testament to how much he DOES love a romanced Lavellan. (It could also be him feigning vulnerability to Rook for brownie points if you're a "Solas doesn't care about Lavellan" truther which is not my reading but to each their own)

"Why do the companions interpret Solas's regrets/Mythal/the lore the way they do? They're wrong!" They're people bringing their own baggage to what they've witnessed and have come to their own conclusions about who Solas is and what he's done. Those regrets, and Solas overall, are up for interpretation not just by us as the players but by the in-universe characters as well. And yes, this is something Dragon Age has done in every single game thus far.

I understand the fanservice potential in changing the writing around any of the above (+ all the other "writing bad" discourse I've seen) but if we take a second to immerse ourselves in Rook's reality here as opposed to ours, the player who has an intimate knowledge of the prior games and endless theories about the lore, a lot of things start making more sense. Sometimes characters are wrong! Sometimes they are guessing. Sometimes they're just straight up lying to you or concealing the truth. COULD it be poor writing? Yeah I mean sure. But I actually prefer not being spoon fed canon-accurate information by every character as though everyone's on the same page.

It's a little frustrating to see this take spread so widely while folks complain in the same breath that the writing was bad because we're told too much or all the NPCs are too much in agreement on things. Stories don't actually have to explain everything all the time! Theorizing to fill the gaps is not inherently a failure of the writing, sometimes it is, in fact, a feature. Especially in Dragon Age, where this has BEEN a theme across the series as a whole!

[maythedreadwolftakeyou]

idk man been sifting through my feelings on all this. and i think what it comes down to is i don't really care/mind that there are non-canonical (BY DEFINITION, if it is not IN the media, it is not in the 'canon', and this info was in tweets) statements about Lucanis' sexuality being demi/ace/him being a virgin. and i'm glad for people who like to incorporate that into their headcanons about the game/interpretation of his character and expand on that more than the game itself does, like, this is our space now baby do what makes you happy!

but personallyyyyyyy i just do not think these new labels are some magic bandaid that solves the flaws in the pacing and writing of his romance. Lucanis never talking to Rook about his feelings as they get to know each other (but sure is willing to talk to Rook about his feelings for Neve if you don't romance him) is not solved, for me, by saying "well he wouldn't be attracted until he got to know you and also has no experience with sex". the same way calling it a "slow burn" did not solve this for me. especially because right up until release he was being advertised as a "bisexual mess". but now was secretly a "panromantic demisexual" the whole time. it just... idk. you can say anything you want online, you know? but if you don't Show Me... well. i also don't like that people who are saying 'well this was Not part of his story in the game so i don't see it' are getting labeled as anti-ace when like, many of the criticisms i am seeing are coming from people who are themselves demi/ace lol. it's not asexual representation bc it is not in the game itself. (though honestly. i AM glad that that was not jammed into his story arc, and that his quests were about his agonizing over his family and the fact that he's now bodysharing with a demon. because his writing was never going to get MORE lines, and to take away any of the ones he had to put in a sexuality arc beyond an offhand mention would have really crashed that because the existing writing barely holds together as is. like there just was not room to have more so personally i am not criticizing Mary Kirby for her decision not to add it. but you can't not add something and then also claim it's a definitive part of his character. plus i dont think a character needs to know/understand/use modern labels anyway).

and personally i DO prefer an awkward/fumbling Lucanis, to be clear. Before Veilguard came out I was never expecting the sexy antivan lover angle. we already have Zevran (who ALSO isn't actually that sterotype either, he has SO much depth), I didn't want poor-imitation Zevran, and bioware would not write Lucanis like that to make sure he is a more distinct character anyway. BUT i do think it's reasonable in a bioware game to expect that a romance is going to have romantic content--and the number of times after his cutscenes i literally said aloud "go girl give us nothing" after he failed to react to a flirt was pretty sad. If he's awkward and nervous give him a line where he stutters and doesn't know how to react, not just a blank stare and back to business, or whatever. Or a scene where you can literally ask "you never respond to my flirting do you want me to stop" and for him to say say he likes it but doesn't know how to reciprocate or. ANYTHING. Idk. I have seen 10 different posts/takes on how the Wall Lean Scene fits in, be it that he was imitating a romance novel or it was crow seduction training or he was just pretending because that's how he's seen Illario do it but at the end of the day. It is all just speculation because nothing in the game EVER addresses how wildly different the tone of that scene is from every other one of his romance scenes. And as much as i love the Sexy Wall Lean, given the rest of his characterization in EVERY other romance scene, i think I'm at a point where i think the romance would have been better served by cutting it out and having a different scene where you actually get to talk to him instead.

but! that is not the game we were given. we only have what we have, which is the Veilguard content by Mary Kirby, and The Wigmaker Job written by Courtney Woods (where for reference, he mentions stumbling into an orgy on a previous job, and having an "interesting" time getting out of that, so i already think we have 2 different interpretations of his character between them anyway). but yeah idk man to me "well he's ace" is not an excuse for either gaps in the writing or cut content or whatever was going on. because 1. HE IS NOT AN ACTUAL PERSON he is a storytelling vessel that i felt failed to satisfyingly communicate the entire romance story and 2. even if he was a person saying 'well in ace relationships communication sucks' would also be, not great, you know. everything beyond the text itself is just interpretation and headcanons

[mythals-whore]

Here is why i find it strange that there are some people who seem to think Minrathous specifically is too sanitized:

*a specific gripe that doesn’t have that much to do with the overall post but frustrated me all the same

To be so clear with anyone reading this, i am telling you why I personally do not take issue with there not being *sigh* more slavery in this game.

You don’t see more slaves (other than the ones you explicitly free) because you’re in the poorest part of Minrathous and the slaves, presumably owned by all the altus families, would be living in slave quarters with the altus families in the nicer parts. (Read up on the depiction of slavery debt vs. chattel HERE if you care)

Now that’s the easiest answer. But for anyone making this complaint, that isn’t good enough because we want to see the horror or it Doesn’t Exist. So allow me to continue.

What we learn form Dorian in DAI is that he doesn’t think slavery is wrong because his family ‘always treated their slaves well’. To treat slaves poorly in Minrathous is seen as Bad. It’s a moral responsibility to treat slaves well. Obviously, not everyone abides by this (I’m looking at you, corpses outside if Zara’s bloodbath chamber) but it’s the party line, if you will.

So, no. There aren’t slaves being whipped in the streets. Or…whatever else you might want to see. Because everything that happens in Tevinter, happens behind closed doors. Even blood magic is ‘officially’ frowned upon. Tevinter prides itself on a public stance that often isn’t reflected in actual moral practice. And I could tell you that it feels more indicative of politics as they are in real world now to have the outward stance be very different than the actual beliefs and values/morals held. But this post is about the apparent lack of slavery/racism in Veilguard, so I digress.

I have seen a lot of people bring up up alienages, or the lack-there-of in Minrathous. Which is, in the south, an area where the elves live similiar to ghettos/slums. Alienages were set up by Divine Renata I after the Exalted March against the Dales. They are a direct result of elves being forced into one walled-off part of town and creating a subculture based in-part on Dalish influence/heritage (the tree of the people being an example).

Stay with me.

Tevinter doesn’t have alienages. But Minrathous has Dock Town, which we are told explicitly is the poorest part of Minrathous. And we see that it is the poorest part because there are beggars everywhere and literally shanty towns along the streets where people are living. We are told explicitly by Neve that no one cares about Docktown except her (and the Shadow Dragons). There are demons running rampant, murders, thievery and no one cares because it’s Dock Town. Presumably because the Templars/any other sort of police they may have are a) corrupt and b) who cares about the poors??? They don’t contribute anything to society anyway and we don’t care about them.

In Dock Town most of what we’re seeing are not slaves, you’re right. They’re likely Liberati, freed slave class. Who are graciously allowed to begin a trade or join a Circle. They are not, however, allowed to serve in the military, the government, hold any rank in the imperial chantry. Also in Dock Town: the poorest of the Soperati, who can own property and serve in the military but otherwise have no representation in government or any real rank in the imperial chantry, or in general the ability do any social climbing. So they can never move up, they always stay stagnant, always poor and weak and never ever able to do anything about it.

This is your alienage equivalent, if it’s not clear. You’re in it. No, it isn’t walled off. But it doesn’t need to be walled off or called an alienage to be that part of town.

And before you ask about the tree of life, Tevinter slaves (and therefore the liberati class) are not just elves. They’re humans, dwarves and Qunari also (this is from World of Thedas Vol. I). All of which have different backgrounds, traditions and would not come together to form such a cohesive culture based on their Dalish heritage for reasons i’m sure i don’t have to spell out.

On a final and a bit of a personal note: i live in the southeast US. Bible belt. I grew up in a majority white suburb, and yes, I’m white. So as I said, if you have a different take, you’re entitled to it and maybe my opinion means nothing. But I grew up constantly hearing about the part of town that we don’t go to. Don’t go to that shopping center, its too close to [part of town where the minorities live]. And i tell you this to say that i never heard any of the adults in my life use a slur, but it doesn’t mean they weren’t being racist. And in fact, a lot of then pride themselves on not being racist and fail to see their implicit biases and the systemic racism.

So yeah, i guess to me, the minorities and the poor people being relegated to the part of town no one cares about, where crime and corruption are rampant is racism/classism as i have witnessed it most commonly in real life. It seems odd to me that people missed it or that it seems to not be ‘enough’ for people when it’s the kind of racism that is the most rampant in the present times (at least where i am) even if it’s not as explicit.

Again, i could get into the 40 acres and a mule, post-civil war reconstruction failures that kept black people down (share cropping) and is still keeping them down now and all the ways that minorities having the ‘same rights’ somehow tricks some people into thinking that racism and bigotry doesn’t exist anymore (just because Dock Town isn’t walled off doesn’t mean the people who live there are reasonably free to live elsewhere). But maybe that’s for another post where we talk about how freeing slaves is good, but not nearly enough to actually help marginalized people. (Government reform, which you know…you get to choose the new archon but that is irrelevant and doesn’t mean anything)

*I’d also like to say that i saw a post which referenced Chantry teachings that say kissing elves is like kissing a dog. I don’t know about this. What I do know is that in The Masked Empire There is a scholar out of the university in Orlais who comes out (on the authority and encouragement of Gaspard) and says that to lie with an elf is to lie with an animal because they’re more like rabbits and follow their baser instincts. I can only assume this is to what that post is referring. You may correct me if i am wrong.

So #1 it didn’t come from the chantry, as i remember. And #2 the schism between the Northern and Southern chantries is widely known, so what applies to one may not apply to the other. Very big rift. So it’s not surprising to me that this doesn’t come up, is all I’m saying.

[zoya-nazyalenskys]

drives me crazy when i remember how busche or epler said that the devs fought hard to keep the hall of valour like i don't know a single da fan (even those that enjoyed datv) that gave a single shit about the hall of valour lmao

[bingsoo-jung]

To help folks out with this whole convo about Harrowings and circles.

So canonically it’s been around 12 years since all circles were abolished in game. This was after Rivain’s circle was annulled and the mages decided to rebel. After they were abolished it took at least 2 years for any new circles to be put up. During which, almost harrowings took place.

Now, in DAI, no matter what, circles are then put back up, HOWEVER mage colleges are then created across all of Thedas. Canonically this is where most mages post-rebellion would’ve finished their education as most mages decided to rebel. Furthermore, while circles are put back up, no matter what those circles are being led by Vivienne, who states time and time again, in game, that most circles were not as bad as that of Kirkwall or Kinloch hold, and that that’s how she wants her circles to be. She believes in mages being able to come and go from circles with ease. Vivienne is actually incredibly reasonable when talking about her vision for the circles. She thinks that mages need to be educated, and that they need to be kept apart from the general population because of how dangerous magic can be, but she also fundamentally believes that they should be allowed to come and go at ease. She doesn’t believe that people should be killed willy-nilly or lack basic human rights.

There is no reason to think that 12 years after DAI that people would be constantly put through incredibly traumatic harrowings when literally every option on the table as stated in DAI, is against that as an option. The idea that all the circles would still be like Kirkwall and Kinloch were 20 years later, despite there having been, once more, a giant ass mage rebellion, is wild. Kirkwall and Kinloch were like that not because of the mages, but because of Templar and Chantry abuses of power. However, all instances of the circles and colleges that can exist, are being led either by people who are mages, and believe that mages are people who shouldn’t be killed for being mages. No one, from Vivienne, to Cassandra, to Leliana, to Fiona, approves of that idea.

There’s also the fact that pre-mage rebellion circle’s are also specifically talked about in game. At length. There’s a whole long ass side mission about the annulment of rivain’s circle. It’s

But long story short, there is no reason for anyone under the age of 32-37, to have experienced a harrowing. Harrowings even pre-mage rebellion, often were conducted when the mage was 20-25, any younger than that was considered early. 20 is about the minimum age they harrow someone, so if your Took was a teenager during DAI? Yeah, they probably weren’t harrowed. If they were in their early 20s? Also probably not harrowed. And while yes, your mage’s life would’ve changed quite a lot their continuing education as a mage would’ve been in a world where they were allowed to choose to not be harrowed. Because most mages post-DA2 would’ve not been harrowed.

This is not some insane abandonment of lore, that’s a normal conclusion that requires a handful of minutes of thinking about everything we were told about the consequences of the mage rebellion in DA2. I’m begging people to just like… calm down for a few seconds and like… think? Please?

[galadrieljones]

I agree with the Solrook shippers that an unromanced Solas should have had the option for sexual/romantic tension with Rook. It would have been funny and also would have inspired me (a ride or die solavellan) to actually finish another playthrough for the alternative dynamic. It might have done something truly interesting for Solas’s characterization that I could not have foreseen. Because as solavellan shippers we are often focused on Solas as the man from Inquisition, totally estranged from Fen’harel, and Fen’harel as a mask. But I could see how it might be interesting to look at Solas as consciously embracing the trickster god identity, and what that might entail, and how it could resurrect some neat old tensions rooted in his ancient rebellion. Idk just a thought