#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

[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.

[tshortik]

Mild rant from me about Hans Zimmer's involvement in Dragon Age:

I just think it's such sellout behavior to hire expensive movie composers (Zimmer is also known to be a transphobic asshole lol) known for their blockbuster soundtracks for your game when you already had the most iconic soundtrack ever for the previous installment, except the composer was lesser known.

Most people hear the swell of violins and immediately think it must be the best soundtrack ever, but if I am really honest, the DATV soundtrack so far sounds like the most generic slopfest with the laziest leitmotif I had the misfortune to hear in a long while.

Hiring people for their name alone is something I find incredibly shameful. Like I cannot even put into words how nasty it is in my eyes, because it actively takes away from lesser known creatives in the industry who could have made a name for themselves. And it doesn't matter to me if Zimmer only did the Main Theme or whatever, because in that case, it shouldn't be his name that is plastered everywhere but Balfe's! But everyone is talking about Zimmer anyway for exactly the reasons I already mentioned.

Even just the thought of how expensive this endeavor must have been... That money could have gone to other, more important places, easily. It makes the layoffs also that much more bitter in my eyes. Idk. I adore Dragon Age and I am still a huge fan and I will play it, but stuff like that make me angry. I don't need some Zimmer who has been sitting his ass on his laurels from 10 years ago in my franchise. I'd rather have a no name person, or Trevor Morris, to get a chance again.

[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 because we got that once already: Zevran. 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

[beaulesbian]

how it feels playing da4 tbh

[lavellaned]

I looked up the different romance paths in veilguard on youtube because I saw a lot of people saying that one was lackluster then saying another one was and… they’re all like 18 minutes of content. In a 60+ hour rpg. I totally understand where people are coming from saying lucanis’s romance is short and lackluster but I’m starting to suspect that all of them are

[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?

[impmansloot]

on Rook as a protagonist

I'm genuinely surprised that some people say that Rook is the best protagonist to them out of all in Dragon Age games—obviously, to each their own, and if you genuinely think that and love your Rook, then hey, that's great, I definitely do have some positive feelings towards my own Rook too despite not being able to genuinely roleplay their personality and having to change it to fit the restrictions given by the game.

Like, your personality is basically fixed in place, it's not a protagonist you can roleplay but rather a predetermined one with your skin on. You have some variety of lines but they're within, well, the same personality: friendly/empathetic sarcastic, Clown, stoic sarcastic (sure, it's a generalization, maybe an unfair one, but listen it's how I'd describe it), which sometimes don't even work like they're supposed to: e.g. you'll have a friendly/empathetic Rook sounding more stoic than the actual stoic one in the same dialogue tree.

I would say though that DAtV makes it easier to connect to Rook as a character because again, they're basically a pre-made with a distinct personality, so you can grasp that personality pretty quickly and if it works for you, it works. Inquisitor by comparison can come off bland, especially if you don't construct their personality beforehand and due to the lack of proper origins and an initial other character to bounce off of (Varric to Rook). Generally, the roleplaying aspect is not an issue exclusive to DAtV: I'd say the further we go, the worse it gets. DAO honestly handles it best because: 1. HoF is a "silent" protagonist, which allows more tone/voice speculation + what you say, you say phrasing-wise 2. you have origins which help you connect to your character throughout their events and via characters you're related to while still giving you the liberty and space to react to the events with accordance to your character's personality/vibe. 3. generally the amount of dialogue and behavior options: you're a leader, but you're not immediately put into these shoes, and you can go about your party as you want. Like yeah, you have to save the world, you're not given any other choice, but if you don't want to be a good guy, you don't have to. Defile Sacred Ashes and side with the cultists, murder the werewolves, turn dwarves into golems, annihilate the Circle with innocent mages, make a deal with the demon (doom the boy and potentially sacrifice his mother), kill your companions, be stupid.

Now Hawke is a more limited character for obvious reasons, but even they have more variety than Rook: Hawke's relationship with Malcolm will literally be determined by your personality—which is a bit silly tbh, but it's something. Hawke's personality options are distinct enough too, and most of all, you have the option to be a bad person and make bad, outright evil decisions. You can side with slavers in Darktown, you can give Fenris to Danarius (which is a pretty dumb option with a dumber reaction from companions, but it's a choice), you can just be mean in general, have beef with your companions, which will influence their personal quests. Now, is Hawke the best character for roleplaying? I don't think so, but it's still more variety than whatever DAtV gives us.

As Rook, you just can't be an asshole, can't ever argue with companions, disagree on things (which has been said by many others atp), and generally you can't do truly bad, evil decisions. I'm gonna be real, DAI doesn't always give you this choice either. DAI also doesn't allow you to be like, stupid stupid for example cause you have to be a leader of currently one of the most if not the most powerful organization in Thedas, aside from the Chantry itself, but you can say dumb shit here and there, and you can do bad things too: you can be a cruel and ruthless leader, you can be an asshole and execute people for your amusement, like hell, order Cullen to take lyrium (obviously a bad choice, imo this quest should have some immediate repercussions, like some actual penalty for the Inquisition if Cullen is in withdrawal), give Vivienne the wrong vivern's heart, force Blackwall to keep lying about his identity, generally influence your companions to make questionable decisions. And no matter what you do, your choices won't be approved by all your companions: sometimes they will argue with you, question you on them, mention how they think you fucked up on low approval.

Rook though? No, Rook is always a good guy, Rook can't be bad, Rook is a hero. Rook has to be a hero. In the narrative and in companions' eyes. Whatever happens it's fine eventually. Oh, you're a crow? You're still a hero, you did a good job, you made the right choice, and those bad bad higher-ups condemned you for doing so. I get that some factions would limit you to being basically a good guy, like Shadow Dragons, because it requires your character to have a strong moral compass to be in an oppositional organization with the goal to abolish slavery and defeat corruption in Tevinter, and it's totally fine, but when ALL factions make you out to be a hero.. it just. Well it sucks? It feels like one backstory reskinned basically.

And even if all faction options in their nature were a predisposition for you to be someone with a strong moral compass (say, every faction would be like Shadow Dragons in nature), it doesn't mean you wouldn't have the capacity to be wrong, have biases, and make bad decisions. You can fight for good causes (or believe you do) but still be an asshole and commit heinous things. You can simply be someone rude and angry or just a terrible friend, independent of your moral/political stances. Even if you're a Hero.

And even if we argue that being a good guy specifically is what the story requires of Rook, why make a story—an RPG—that limits you so badly? And how good and impactful can a story about regrets be where you can be no wrong and nothing is essentially your fault, nor framed as such?

[athenasdragon]

I think the one moment that stands out to me as indicative of Veilguard's writing problems is late in Harding's personal quest when you're about to reach the heart of the titan.

You've been seeing more and more red lyrium mixed into the blue, and I was thinking oh boy, with how the blight is changing I wonder if that will have any effect on red lyrium! Now that we know the blight is the disconnected and angry dreams of the titans (lol), what does it actually mean for lyrium to become infected with it? Is the blight infecting this lyrium the same thing causing that ghostly figure to appear?

And then as you're running Harding says something like "red lyrium is usually lyrium that has been infected by the blight, but this lyrium is just... really angry." Oh, ok! So forget everything about what this would have meant previously, we're throwing that all out for some visually appealing color symbolism.

[otherpigeon-moved]

wait wait now that i'm thinking about it...

so I finished my 'canon' veilguard run. I've now completed the game with an inquisitor who vowed to stop Solas, and an inquisitor who vowed to save him.

There was...literally no difference. Aside from a couple notes in the codex. So why was that even included in the choices we imported