The Crazy Theory Center

But... why would the redemption option NOT be a redemption option just because it doesn't specifically mention redemption? Thematic importance for both DAI and DA4 aside, we know that the other choice suggests we may have to kill him (or do something pretty drastic) yet nobody mentions that as well - be it there or during post-epilogue scene. It's only apparent through contextual clues (and mentioned outside of the game in DA Keep, where btw. 'redemption' is also present).
True, but given that the relationship between Solas has been built over the course of the entire game under very specific circumstances that are unlikely to be (literally or thematically) repeated, whatever relationship they could build over the course of DA4 (even if we assume that Solas's story conclusion will actually happen in DA5)... this is just not going to be the same thing. While there are ways to connect Solas and new PC, it's hard to think of ways it could attain similar depth or emotional resonance - even in case of new players this would be something unique to experience compared to the alternative.

Ultimately the DA devs will do whatever they think will work and however they think they have to shape and re-shape the story during long years of development, but I don't think all that narrative build-up we saw so lovingly emphasized and expanded in Trespasser was written into the story to result with little to no payoff.

Technically maybe - but that's only if one looks on the surface. Redemption can be done in different ways and, in case of Solas, it's proving to him that he doesn't need to destroy modern Thedas (something he literally declares he hopes he'd be proven wrong about). It's not hard to see why. The themes for those choices are already there - if anything, DA4 is likely going to either expand or conclude them, or both.

Also, however the Inquisitor has put it in actual words, they have also declared that they are the ones who are going to do the stopping/redeeming ("If I live... I'm coming to stop you." and "You don't need to destroy this world. I'll prove it to you.")
We also know people who hate the fact that HoF ain't the protagonist anymore or don't feel any sort of connection to Morrigan or Leliana or Flemeth or whatever character the plot sets up relationship or conflict with. There will always be people unhappy or indifferent to things, which doesn't mean that a given plotline has to be changed or lay unresolved, especially if they've spent all this time setting things up.

Naturally, quite a bit of time has passed since Trespasser made overt declarations about the direction they want to keep pushing things. Quite a bit could've changed. But both the latest comic books and the teaser (to which gamers overall appear to have reacted to in an overwhelmingly positive fashion despite it being 'coded' for hardcore fans) do little to suggest a change of that direction. Unlike HoF, we have also never heard BW devs saying that Inquisitor is never going to show up again.

I'm also not sure I see how the new protag might be "better equipped to answer that thematic question"  ? 

Given that we have an inkling where things are going, it's fairly apparent that DAI played out the way it did specifically to equip Inquisitor to deal with Solas. All that experience they got, position they attained, hardships they've went through, or parallels and themes we can see between them... they are made to be evident counterparts (with some hints that Inquisitor may even be Solas's successor in one way or another) on two sides of this conflict.

I can see (and even described it at times) how a new protag may play into all of this, however - given all of the above - at this moment I can't see how it's anyone but Inquisitor that deals with Solas in the end, even if from position of secondary PC (which I'm personally rooting for) or NPC.

But characters in fiction aren't limited to having just one character arc or not starting another after the first one ends. And Trespasser appears to have happened specifically to give Inky/Inquisition a new opening, aside from creating even more of a connection between Inky and Solas. And the fact that they're an established character would be, IMO, pretty much the point of re-using them. 

This is why I said that Inquisition has equipped Inquisitor to fight Solas. Instead of new, fairly unclued and untested hero - an experienced veteran, wounded and worn by life a little already, with most their baggage and connections taking and entire game, and not maybe half an hour?, to establish. 
Hmmm... I really don't see how the only way to mirror Solas is to give us a new character that is similarly in need of redemption. Primarily because I'm not even sure how could anyone's actions effectively resemble what Solas did, or what he's going through because of what he's done - and how could it be set up (in a fairly brief way!) to carry any meaningful comparison or emotional resonance between the two?

Even incomplete parts of history we uncover about Solas's actions paint a very complex picture that a question like "is this player character worthy of salvation?" doesn't really do much in terms of mirroring, IMHO. And given how little we know yet about so many details of Solas's (and world's) past, connecting PC and Solas in this regard seems kinda futile.

More importantly - why should a character that mirrors Solas on a micro-level in maybe one way replace a character that already mirrors him in multiple ways, basically on macro-scale?

At this point in time the Inquisitor is literally set up to be his equal on the other side of the conflict. They're his counterparts, because (aside from being a in relatively similar position in terms of scope of operations and at least rudimentary knowledge of one another or their modus operandi) they have similar experiences of being an important leader in dark, uncertain times; made to act by circumstances they have found themselves in.

They have been seen as basically gods/demigods and had expectations and responsibilities hoisted on their backs. They have been through relatively similar hurdles and challenges stemming from leading and inspiring the masses, making big and small political moves, having eyes on a larger picture and being aware of sacrifices that may come with all their decisions, or with making discoveries that shake them and then the world. Most of their actions, big or small, carried big consequences - and their position both brought people's loyalty as well as created a distance. And, to quote Solas, both know a burden of a title that all but replaces their name.

And post-Trespasser? The two are now well-established, experienced heroes not necessarily everyone is grateful to. Both are now at least somewhat worn out and literally/emotionally injured, yet forced to carry on: the world is in trouble again, so both are stuck in a thankless fight for the shape of the future - both not necessarily certain how this will end, but both in a position that compels them to act.

I really don't see how a new PC can mirror even a portion of that, especially that it took the entirety of one chapter to get Inky to a place he/she is now. 

So really, the way I see it, all that parallelism is for Inquisitor - and us - to understand Solas better, even if that understanding doesn't necessarily results in sympathy. It's also why he was a companion in DAI (and it's not just Inky that has similarities with Solas; a lot of major characters in DAI had some points of comparison).

All that to maybe ask one, pointed question - whether the character on the 'wrong' side will ultimately pull the one on the 'right' one, or vice versa?

Because that's often what mirroring is used for. The same things and experiences that make us understand Solas better may cause us to fall to the same pitfalls. We saw some of it in Trespasser already.

So, just like Solas is on his way of potentially becoming what he hates (Evanuris), we may be on our way of potentially being in a place exactly where Solas once stood. For better or worse.

This is exactly why I really don't see why we even need to mirror Solas in his need of redemption - because this isn't the only or most effective way Solas can be mirrored. "Is the player character worthy of salvation?" is not as potent of a question as "if we put you in similar situation will you take similar steps?" Or what if we will agree with him? What if, to stop Solas, we'd have to make some ultimate sacrifices?

This is also why I postulate that playing a spy infiltrating the organization we work in could also be fun - because it would put us in shoes of people like Solas, thus leading us to even more understanding as to why he may have acted the way he did, or what he went through (emotionally or intellectually) by doing so. Similar result can be achieved by either playing or observing the character that is basically already stepping very much on the same road as him, even if they are ultimately supposed to oppose him.
We shall see indeed The most pressing question now is WHEN we're going to see more than a teaser :/

I have to say I am tickled this has turned into another Inquisitor vs Not Inquisitor debate, at least for now. Not that I mind now, your posts are quite well written Tea and get me kinda hyped.

It's still crazy or not so crazy speculation.

Actually if you think about it there are various permutations of Inquisitor to carry forward.

+There are the ones who always hated Solas and may even have gone as far as punching him in the main game. The feeling was reciprocated by Solas and he made it clear he was only saving their skin to prevent unnecessary chaos in the south.

+There are the ones who liked Solas and the feeling was reciprocated but they now feel betrayed by him and simply want to stop him "by any means necessary".

+There are the ones who still respect their friend and want to "save him from himself" by "proving him wrong" with respect to the necessity of his plan.

+There are the ones who romanced Solas, made it clear to him they won't give up on him and still have enough of an emotional pull on him that he enters their dreams.

All these choices are respected in the Keep so it seems they will be reflected in some way going forward. That is the difference really between developing the plot in the game compared with how it would be presented in a novel. In the written character arc, unless you had decided to do something very experimental or the person had multiple personality disorder, only one of the scenarios given above would apply. The relationship between the Inquisitor and Solas would have been built up along one particular line. What Midnight says about their shared experiences would apply to all but how they had reacted to those experiences both individually and with each other, would be very different depending on which Inquisitor character you had chosen.

I mention this because my Inquisitors had always been on good terms with Solas, even if only one of them romanced him. So if I was writing the novel that would be the character arc I would choose. However, I was amazed when I went on You Tube just how different Solas is with an Inquisitor where there is mutual loathing. Throughout DAI the dialogue is completely different in response to main plot points, particularly if the PC had embraced the role of Herald of Andraste but also where they took actions where Solas specifically disapproved. Now I would assume that going forward that would have a profound influence on how Solas reacts to the future PC and that is really the challenge the writers have given themselves.



This is exactly how I felt about it (and the majority of people who have played the game I have spoken to outside of these boards feel about it) but then PW and that other guy gave a talk where they maintained the point of Trespasser was to resolve the Inquisitor's story, so either they were being a bit ambiguous because the PCs story as Lord of Inquisitor of Thedas has ended but their story still goes on, or they are going to have to work the narrative going forward around 4 different scenarios for the Inquisitor/Solas relationship, or they are largely going to ignore it and only make references to it via codices and dialogue by other characters with whom the new PC interacts.

Bring this over from the twitter discussion thread because I like it so much.

I love the idea of Dorian/Merrill/insert npc coalition building their own eluvian - which of course can't connect to the main network now Solas has control of it, but in attempting too you do manage to connect it to a location severed from the network (whether in the fade, the crossroads, or on Thedas) from which the pc could base their operations. It could have other eluvians there that you could unlock over the course of the game gaining speedy access to other parts of thedas and other mysterious elven locations.

Oh! Perhaps it could be one of the other Evanuris's temples, long abandoned like Dirthamen's, maybe June's? We know the least about him, that could be a way to find out more and maybe also through old papers and spirits learn a bit more about the Evanuri's's perspective on what happened, as right now we only have Solas' story.

In other dragon age games I'd consider eluvian travel overpowered but when facing up against Solas with his own network of instant travel it seems appropriately scaled.

Jeez if there are any air tight underwater elven cities and we get to visit them then we better get to see some of those sea monsters Ghilain'nain was so proud of.

Though I suppose you could show them on a ship journey too, if they go that close to the surface.

At least it would make sense to upgrade your base if you could potentially be attacked by sea monsters. They were meant to be in deep ocean, so more likely the Amaranthine, which is why ships don't have a good record of returning from there, but there could be deeper trenches in the Nocen Sea or in the open ocean in the (Bermuda?)triangle between the Venefication Sea, Par Vollen and the Boeric Ocean. The potential is definitely there for a few sea monsters or at least the Cetus.

Another alternative would be flying mounts, like Gryphons, allegedly another thing that Ghilan'nain was responsible for as she gifted them to Andruil to save them from slaughter and gryphons are definitely a hybrid creature that wouldn't occur naturally. Interestingly enough, gryphons hate the blighted creatures with a passion.

In regards to the Eluvians: I wonder if it would be a neat idea if Dorian is able to start building his own if he is still building them by the time DA 4 rolls around. Then if Tea is right and Minrathous is under siege it might be a neat gameplay twist to have to, initially, either smuggle yourselves out or scouts in order to open up any new areas you want to explore. Hell this could be interesting if they go full open world (not that I recommend it) and you literally have to sneak across the lines to establish these strategic points of interest for the Eluvians...and then we can further make camps like in Inquisition.

In regards to the Inquisitor: As people may have guessed one of my theories/ ideas about the Inquisitor NOT being too involved with the plot of DA 4 was the loss of the arm coupled with the line 'my adventuring days are done'. That the loss of the arm was a clear indicator at the passing of the torch, from a literary perspective. But thinking about it some more I realize that there could be another literary/ 'meta' significance to the whole thing...namely that it could represent a significant 'depowering' the Inquisitor to make the Inquisitor less of a threat against Solas in the beginning in order to heighten tension since the Anchor was probably the only thing (that we know of) that could stand up to Solas in an even fight. Especially if they hope to go all philosophical in any resolution with the Dread Wolf.

Also if the original plan was to make Hawke the Inquisitor for all three games, as I believe/ theorise then it would also make some sense in the backlash of not getting more then one race at the start to just have the Inquisitor subsume her role for the next two games and the rest of this particular arc....which does tend to beg the question that IF they were intending to make the Inquisitor the protag for two games...how much longer will they be there? Also will we get a significantly improved dialogue system?

Yes, it is. It did seem a bit daft that people were saying it was the loss of the hand/arm that prevented the PC from continuing when both certain dialogue options in disbanding the Inquisition and the epilogue slide for Sera, that actually shows the PC continuing to operate with a crossbow attachment, made it clear that the character did not see it as a problem.

The reason the PC implies they are retiring from active service in dialogue options for a reduced size Inquisition is clearly to emphasise that they will not be running the Divine's private army for her. That will now be her job. Whereas if you officially disband the organisation then there is nothing left for you to lead. Except that regardless of what you do, the final scene confirms that in fact confirm you and your core team are going to continue to work against Solas.

If you think about it, if they wanted to rule out the Inquisitor entirely going forward, just have them die from the effects of the anchor. Having them survive and then specifically because of action by Solas does mean they can still be part of the story going forward and have a very personal connection with it.

I am curious as well, although it is possible that the original second half will have been altered from how it was originally envisioned by the old team. A lot does depend on whether they continue with the Inquisitor PC as protagonist or reduce them to a subordinate role. If they go with a dual-protagonist then we could have both the original plotline for the 2nd half alongside the new plotline for the new PC protagonist.



This is a misunderstanding of words by Cassandra. Originally the idea was to have a DLC the Exalted March, which would have had Hawke involved in resolving the mage rebellion. DG has stated publically that he was very upset when this was cancelled and it did require a lot of adjustments to the plotline going forward. Without knowing how the DLC would have ended it is not possible to say if Hawke would even have been alive to carry forward into the next game. However, I believe there was also a rumour that the Temple of Mythal was originally going to feature in the DLC as well.

At the outset of DAO it was stated that there would be a new PC each game, unlike Mass Effect which preceded it. It seems odd that they would have backtracked on this so soon after this. The plan did seem to be that the story of Hawke should have been resolved in the Exalted March. The reason for the controversy over the Inquisitor now is that it does look like they may have changed their mind on this but this is understandable considering the story was cut in half.