#of course the inquisitor can also be a tyrant who does not ask questions

[shift-shaping]

idk man i've met deer and it's not hard to see why 'wisdom' is not usually associated with them

you see wolf & Deer symbolism and go predator & prey, I see pride & wisdom parallels, we are not the same

[camelliagwerm]

for the wotr ask game, 17, 21, 26 for Vali?

thank you. Vali doing Lawful Evil things in these answers.

17. Which non-companion NPC do they really like?

I would like to think he got along quite well with Septimus, the vampire advisor on the Lich mythic path. He's a Blood Lord from Geb, and as such Valerius was eager to forge a potential alliance with him. But it is also a sense of fascination and kinship for him, learning about a place where undeath is revered and respected. They manage to build a bit more of relationship in the events leading up to Savour Its Sweet, Bloody Taste more than the game 's events, though.

21. Did they actually like something about being the KC?

I mean, the power and the influence is pretty damned nice - for a Tyrant, it's a very good place to build a foundation of power that he can exercise over the population - and he succeeds, effectively turning Drezen into this city run by a cult of personality with him as their divinely appointed ruler (okay, calm down, sir.) He does not care much for the crusaders themselves, but he cares about the outcome of the crusade. Not because of Mendev - Deskari take the country for all he cares - but because it directly affects Ustalav as well, who border the Worldwound as well.

26. Did they separate from any companions? Why? (Consider killing a companion too for this question)

Surprisingly, Valerius did not have many companions leave or die (excluding the Graveguard) — but Daeran was the only one out of the main companions (who weren't mutually exclusive*) to not survive the crusade. He died at the Trap for the Other, after Daeran refused to obey Valerius' order to submit to Liotr and his inquisitors. So Valerius executed him for insubordination (it wouldn't be the first time he has done this), killing the inquisitors and to make an example of what happens when someone goes against his orders. He is in Full Tyrant Mode at this point. Of course, combined with Galfrey's death, it also looks... extremely premeditated given the trajectory of his rise to power and how he benefited from Mendev not having a true ruler after the crusade - but at the time Valerius wasn't even considering that.

He also handed Finnean over to the Bladesmith for the incredibly petty reason of "he found him annoying" (and truth be told, I always forgot he was there...)

(*I haven't yet decided who out of Lann or Wenduag is Vali's canon pick, but I'm leaning more towards Wenduag and idk whether Lann would end up dead or not. I'd have to do another run)

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous asked: I love your blog it’s definitely one of the most smartest and cultured ones around. Since you are a super chilled out military vet (flying combat helicopters, how cool is that?!) and also a very thoughtful and devout Christian (I think you talked about being an Anglican) I know this is a cheeky question but I’ll ask it anyway. Would you rather live in a military dictatorship or a theocratic dictatorship?

Now this is an interesting question you play at 2am and the wine is dangerously low.

I have to correct you on a couple of things. Yes, it was ‘cool’ to fly combat helicopters especially in a battlefield setting but it was just a job, like any other. And it’s never about the pilot it’s about the rest of the team behind you, especially your ground crew who make sure you go up and come back in one piece. As for being super chilled you clearly have never seen how sweaty one gets flying in high stress situations. Oh and the stink! A skunk wouldn’t last 5 minutes in my cockpit.

As for my Christian beliefs, I’ll settle for being a believing one. My faith, such as it is, is about living - and failing - by grace day by day than being fervently devout. Faith is a struggle to not rely upon one’s own strength but on divine mercy and grace.

Anyway....

Would I rather live in a military dictatorship or a theocratic dictatorship?

History has shown there's not a lot of difference between the two...

No, wait. On second thoughts maybe I would rather live in a military dictatorship as the lesser evil.

As an ex-officer in her HM armed forces, I know things will be run pretty efficiently with no dilly-dallying. So there’s that.

I suppose even if one does say it’s preferable to live under military rule rather than a theocratic one there is still the question of what kind of military rule? Every nation that has been under military rule came to power and sustained their hold under different dynamics. And of course it also depends on how mature civil society and the rule of law as well as the democratic culture really was in the first place. A lot is tied up with the brutal nature of the personality of the regime leader too. There are simply too many variables.

So one is forced to generalise. So l can’t get too serious in answering this question.

Rather than focus on the negative side let’s look on the bright side.

Just off the top of my head I can think of these reasons why I would choose to ‘live’ under military rule than a theocratic one. There are in no real order:

Beds will be made properly subject to inspection.

Families will be run like military units with the man at the head of the table.

Family meals will be taken at set times.

Public civility will make a return (e.g. no public spitting, drunken, or loutish behaviour).

Freedom of speech will more likely be censored than abolished (better than nothing I suppose)

Elections would be rigged rather than banned (but who really votes anyway these days?)


They will most likely make the trains run on time (unless you’re British or Italian).

Military leaders often enjoy genuine popularity - albeit after eliminating plausible rivals - that is based on “performance legitimacy,” a perceived competence at securing prosperity and defending the nation against external or internal threats. The new autocrats of today are more surgical: they aim only to convince citizens of their competence to govern.

Maintaining power, for military dictators and their court, is less a matter of terrorising and persecuting victims than of manipulating beliefs about the world. But of course they can do both if backed into a corner to survive.

State propaganda aims not to re-engineer human souls but to boost the military regime leader’s ratings.

The military tend to stay out of personal lives. They have a political police but not necessarily a moral police.

Economic growth is more likely to be stable than under a theocratic state.

Military dictatorships are more likely to build vast bureaucracies to run the state - more jobs for everyone

The military put on great events. Their parades are more colourful and spectacular.

Having a sense of humour is more likely to get you imprisoned than executed for telling an anti-regime joke. It’s no joke to say that people develop a more refinery subversive sense of humour when oppressed. Take for example a famous comedian in Myanmar, Zarganar, for whom comedy is a shield and a weapon. During the time of the military dictatorship (1962-2010) he would make jokes like, “The American says, 'We have a one-legged guy who climbed Mount Everest.' The Brit says, 'We recently had a guy with no arms who swam the Atlantic Ocean. But the Burmese guy says, 'That's nothing! We had a leader who ruled for 18 years without a brain!" It was for jokes like this that Zarganar received a prison sentence in 2008 - for up to 59 years.

Military dictatorships don’t last long. They are more unstable. They tend to fall from the weight of their own contradictions.

One of the problems of living in a theocracy is how absolutist it would be in looking at life in terms of clear cut black and white according to those who rule over you. I strongly suspect in a theocratic state the morality secret police will be all over you looking for any social or moral infraction. In a Christian Theocracy, you'll never be Christian enough - the same would be for states that were Islamic, Judaic or Hindu etc. There's always going to be some pious asshole there with another version of Christianity that is more Christian than you and you're going to lose the freedom to make your own choices.

Under theocracies, unlike other authoritarian regimes, the rulers are the moral authorities that legitimises and fuels their political legitimacy to govern. It assumes its own moral correctness married to its political destiny to rule over others. As C.S Lewis memorably puts it, “Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.��

Finally, I’ll go with the military dictatorship with the hope that there might be some way of bringing the system down with a bit of logic and rationality. Hell knows that wouldn't be possible in a theocratic system!

I agree with Margaret Atwood when she said, “If you disagree with your government, that's political. If you disagree with your government that is approaching theocracy, then you're evil.” There’s more wriggle room with fighting against a military dictatorship because it’s usually against an asshole tyrant - or a ruling oligarchy of a military junta - and not a pernicious idea soaked in theological bullshit or an entire ideology divinely santificated by God himself.

A more interesting question is not to ask is why many people are so readily drawn to be ruled under a military rule or a theocratic one and especially a benevolent dictatorship (like Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore or Paul Kagame in Rwanda) but why increasingly more people in the Western world look to authoritarian figures to rule and shape their lives?

Why do Silicon Valley titans like Peter Thiel and others like him think fondly of ditching democracy in the name of some utopian hyper-capitalist vision of ‘freedom’?

I hear murmurs of the same talk when I interact with corporate colleagues and high net worth individuals I hear it around dinner tables about how democracy is bad for business and profit. Often it’s accompanied by praise for China's ability to "get things done." I just roll my eyes and smile politely. 

I think - outside of the legitimate concern of the decay of civil discourse, the corruption of politicians, and corrosiveness of crony capitalism - it’s because democratic politics is hard. Damn hard.

Moreover democratic politics does not have a "right" answer. There never is.

In our Western societies it is the playing field (or market place?) where our values compete. Surely, you say, there is a right way to get the job done: to fill in the potholes, build the roads, keep our streets safe, get our kids to learn reading and math. Ah, but look how quickly those issues get contentious.

Whose potholes should get filled first? Do we try to keep our streets safe through community policing or long prison sentences? Should teachers be given merit pay, are small classrooms better, or should we lengthen the school day? These issues engender deep political fights, all - even in the few debates where research provides clear, technocratic answers. That is because the area of politics is an area for values disputes, not technical solutions.

One person's "right" is not another's because people prioritise different values: equity versus excellence, efficiency versus voice and participation, security versus social justice, short-term versus long-term gains.

Democratic politics allows many ideas of "right" to flourish. It is less efficient than dictatorship. It also makes fewer tremendous mistakes.

The longing for a leader who knows what is in her people's best interests, who rules with care and guides the nation on a wise path, was Plato's idea of a philosopher-king. It's a tempting picture, but it's asking the wrong question.

In political history, philosophers moved from a preference for such benevolent dictators to the ugly realities of democracy when they switched the question from "who could best rule?" to "what system prevents the worst rule?"

But clearly democracy is buckling under pressure in our torrid times. Populism - the logical end consequence of a purer democracy - is chipping away at the edifice of democratic norms and conventions. Increasingly inward looking nativism and nationalism fuel passions beyond the control of reason.

Perhaps it is time we went back to the tried and tested example of a monarchy, a constitutional one that is. 

A revitalised monarchy in Britain needs a Head of State that can provide a personal identity to an impersonal State, and a collective sense of itself. A Head of State who does not owe his or her position to either patronage or a vote can more properly represent all the people. Consider that a President who has been elected, often by a minority of a minority of the electorate, cannot adequately speak for the people who did not vote for him or her. It is even worse if the President has been appointed, because then he owes his position to a small clique.So, the accident of birth is the best means of appointing a Head of State. Someone who has no party political axe to grind, or special favours to repay to a vested interest. Someone whose allegiance is to the people. Not just allegiance to the people who voted for him or his political party, but allegiance to all the people of the country equally. Far from being "incompatible" with democracy, a Monarchy can thereby enhance the government of the land.

The Monarch is a national icon. An icon which cannot be replaced adequately by any other politician or personality. This is because the British Monarchy embodies British history and identity in all its aspects, both good and bad.

When you see the Queen you not only see history since 1952, when she took the throne, but you see a person who provides a living sense of historical continuity with the past. Someone who embodies in her person a history which extends back through time, back through the Victorian era, back into the Stuart era and beyond. You see the national history of all parts of our islands, together, going right back in time.

As Edmund Burke, Roger Scruton and Michael Oakeshott would say, the monarchy is a living continuity between the past, the present and the future.

With its traditions, its history, its ceremonial, and with its standing and respect throughout the world, the British Monarchy represents a unique national treasure, without which the United Kingdom would be sorely impoverished.

If you value national distinctiveness, you should be a Monarchist.

If you are anti-globalist you should be a Monarchist because Monarchies represent the different national traditions and distinctions among the nations.

The desire to secure, strengthen and promote your own distinct national icons, whether your Monarch, or your own unique national identity, should be your concern, whether you live here in St Andrews, or whether you live in St Petersburg, or whether you live in St Paulo.

As the global financial system rushes us all towards a world intended to eradicate all local and national distinctions, the Monarchy stands out as different, distinct and valuable. Constitutionally, practically, spiritually and symbolically the Monarchy is a national treasure, the continued erosion of which would change the character of Britain, and not in a good way!

I’m speaking as a High Tory now, sorry.  And so of course I only see it working for the United Kingdom....and the Commonwealth (slip that discreetly in there for you India, Australia, Canada, and Africa).

Still, if you want egalitarianism then look at Norway and the Netherlands - both highly "egalitarian" societies, and both monarchies.

Everyone else will just have to jolly well do without or ask us politely to come back (I’m looking at you my dear American colonial cousins, all will be forgiven).

The best of all worlds? Time will tell.

At your service, Ma’am....

Thanks for your question.

[dragon-tooth-collection]

any/all of these for the inquisitor as companion questions? 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 and 19?

I’ve answered some of these already it looks like, good thing I have two Inquisitors hahaha am I right, the ones I’ve already answered for Adam will be answered with Shaelyn.

[Inquisitor as a Companion Questions]

1. If not for the Conclave, what would drive your character to join the Inquisition?

Adam is plagued with a valiant sense of duty, this unshakable feeling that he should do something to help while he's doing nothing else with himself and his uneventful noble life. He's strong and capable, and not cut out for politics or trade at all, so according to him, either he ends up with the Templars even though it's what his family wants and not what he wants, or he runs off to join the Inquisition.

He also wants to see more of the world beyond the narrow scope of spending his entire life in Ostwick, and he'd be full of wide-eyed wonder about getting to cross the Waking Sea on his way to Ferelden.

2. How would they meet the Inquisitor?

Answered for Adam here

Shaelyn just shows up at Haven one day, her hart in tow carrying her supplies, and wastes no time seeking out the Herald. Any stares she gets are ignored, since that's to be expected when a Dalish elf strides into the village with her big deer-thing like she lives there or something.

"The Breach is a threat to all of us. My Keeper sent me as an envoy and an offer of aid, should you accept it."

Of course she leaves out the 'and I'd like the chance to electrocute some demons' part, opting to be more formal with someone she's just met. Like most companions, there's the option to accept, to accept but be kind of an ass about it, and to say 'no, we don't need you' and send her back to her clan.

4. What would their romance route look like? Would they be romancable?

Answered for Adam here, word of warning though he'll probably try to take anyone who romances him out horseback riding and he likes to go fast and jump over things

Shaelyn is able to be flirted with immediately, but at first it'll seem like she's just brushing it off and won't react strongly to it either way. She'll open up more easily to a Dalish Inquisitor, since the familiarity is comforting, but like Adam, she goes more for personalities as opposed to what someone is or how they're equipped.

The Inquisitor would have to make the first move, because she would not be focused on that sort of thing at all, but high enough approval and an "I think we should spend more time together" is met with "Well, I don't see why not."

She starts to worry about their well-being on more dangerous missions, mentally and physically. The Inquisitor's desire to spend time with her becomes mutual, and her romance is locked in during a cutscene in which she leads them away at night to go stargazing, pointing out Dalish constellations if the Inquisitor isn't, and discussing the stories about each one if they are.

8. What kind of Inquisitor would drive them to leave the Inquisition/confront them about their actions (what gets their approval low? what does that scene look like)?

A tyrannical one; someone who accepts the role of Inquisitor for their own gain, conscripts other factions instead of allying with them, and is in general a jerk. Crossing the line from playful jokes at his expense to outright insulting him will result in approval loss as well.

If his approval drops too low, which very well might have to be done on purpose since he's so easy to please, he enters a crisis condition in which he confronts the Inquisitor, enraged, and calls them out in front of everyone for being a tyrant who's only in it for themself.

And he will totally fight them about it. He will fight an asshole Inquisitor with the intention of either taking over as leader, or handing the role to Cassandra. Of course, he's not the PC in this scenario, so naturally he loses, and he can either be exiled and told to never come back, or allowed to stay.

An Inquisitor he doesn't like is greeted with a neutral "Yeah?" or a grunty little snort.

10. If Inquisition operated like DA:O, what would their gift items be? What would their approval and disapproval Feast Day items be?

Answered for Adam here

Shaelyn likes fancy herbal teas, equally fancy pastries, jewelry with magical enchantments, and books about Thedas history. Her high approval gift is a very ornate ancient elven amulet, with an enchantment that enhances the magical abilities of the wearer.

I can't stop thinking about books so her disapproval gift is a book written by a Chantry "scholar" about how the elven pantheon is wrong and the Dalish are savage heathens.

19. Once Corypheus is beaten, what do they do during the party?

Adam parks his ass by one of the tables, partaking in all the food and drink and merriment to his heart's content. He's very... excited, let's put it that way.

"I can't believe you pulled this off! ... Not that I ever doubted you, or anything. But hey, we're alive, and for tonight at least, that's pretty great."

When asked what he's going to do now, he tells the Inquisitor he might go visit his parents in Ostwick, but that he's happy to return to Skyhold and do all he can to help the Inquisitor with whatever they're going to do next. Even as a companion, he's dedicated to the Inquisition and its goals.

[wearemage]

Hello! I'd like to ask a role playing question: have you played multiple characters with similar goals and the same alignment ? For example, I have a lawful evil sorcerer who wants to rule the world and I will be playing a lawful evil cleric who wants to convert people to her religion. I'm wondering if you have ideas on how I can play the characters differently; instead of two equally stereotyped evil people

Hello Anon!

I have. In fact I played both the power-mad mage and the fanatical cleric… more than once. I even had to play an Alternate-Third-Reich Ambassador to Arcadia and bring the industrial age to people fighting the Fair Folk… Yeah the DM was a funny guy.

But to answer your question : of course, some points will be similar (the alignment identical) but it’s up to you to make everything else different.

A different class will be a good (and obvious) start. Then the race/brithplace. Where does your character come from? Where did they grow up? Which traditions are important to them? Do they celebrate a particular holiday? Depending on the game you’re playing the possibilities are numerous to endless.

The main point of a lawful character are their values. You have to keep that part in mind. What does really matter? What are they fighting for? Where do they draw the line? Even very similar goals (conquest through violence and magical power or religious war/conversion/propaganda) can be accomplished via very different means and offer a totally new experience. The character’s social class will play an important role here. An evil nobleman will respect rules the fanatical inquisitor will find ridiculous and pointless. 

Merchant, thief, warlord, mage, healer,… everyone can be lawful evil and have a totally different view on the world depending on what they believe in.Add to this some character traits and you end up with totally new ways to play a Lawful Evil.

You can totally let the dice (or random generators) decide for you or just compare the two characters you’re playing and change whatever seems too much similar in them.

To take your exemples (mage and cleric) for the characters I played : my mage was a drow fleeing his people, no gold, no so much power to start with and wanted mostly to stay alive and find a place where he could live, study and practice his Art. Of course, he would not hesitate to kill if threatened but his philosophy was more of “live and let others live”.

The cleric was human (no other races availble in that homebrew game) but in a position of power as he was the Regent of an Empire and already powerful spellcaster. His main goal was to protect the young (and last alive) heir to the Throne for his death would also bring some sort of apocalypse to the world. And my cleric was the only one to know it. So he became an security-mad tyrant to hold the Empire under control and be sure the Prince would survive and find a wife for the Dynasty to continue.

Both lawful evil, both different. Both fun to play.

I hope it does help… It’s pretty late now, I should go to bed… So if you need me, you can always contact me directly. If I have more information about your characters, I could help further.

Of course, everybody is welcome to add more ideas to my answer.