Forums » General Gaming

A thing that might affect DA 4 story(?)

    • 165 posts
    December 11, 2018 10:11 AM EST

    Before I go into this topic I 'd like to say something: I am not from the US, I don't care about whatever politics or cultural breakdowns going on anywhere on the globe (I have my opinions and of course my popcorn to watch the drama sometimes :D) unless they might affect me on buiseness level which is unlikely to ever happen. I 'm just a nerd playing games. :D

    Also this post is made only to inform, if people would like to get into any discussions about politics and all that it's better if you could keep it into private messages because these types of conversations are easy to get out of hand and I wouldn't want such a situation to occur from this post, thanks.

    So, at the Game Awards we had the announcement about a Dragon Age 4 game being in development. A few days after that people saw that the narrator for the game is open about his beliefs and leans heavily (I think) towards a certain political side and were afraid that he will bring some of this into the game and that this will affect the game's story. Also looking at EA's recent behavior with Battlefield V and how that went down (-50% sales in the UK and the game was discounted 50%!! after 1 week from its release lol) their worries had some base.

    Then I saw this chain of tweets from this narrator and as someone who looks at it from a third person perspective and isn't into any of these things what he said seemed a little "fishy", I mean is Dragon Age really just that? Yeah you have the "power of friendship" and all that but I 'm pretty sure there is a lot of dark shit going on in there as well, anyways here is the tweet chain not sure what to make of it so I thought to share it: Click Here  

    If they pull a Battlefield V on Dragon Age it will be such a sad moment in gaming history. :( This will be at the very least top 10 anime deaths meme level. :P

    Again this is not about politics since I do not care on a level to discuss or even make any comment on them this is purely from a gaming perspective and how this will affect the product I 'd like to buy as a consumer.


    This post was edited by Duvain at December 11, 2018 10:15 AM EST
    • 702 posts
    December 11, 2018 11:57 AM EST

    Yeah, given the... behaviour of other EA studios, it's something to watch out. But Dragon Age was always a "diverse" setting, so to speak, but it never felt shoehorned or obnoxious at all - Origins did it best, in my opinion, but I quite enjoyed Inquisition too. We should wait and see.

    However, I'd like to remember that it is possible to put a lot of politics onto games and not have it feel one-sided or have it be a "good vs evil" thing. It is possible to do that even when the project director heavily leans to one side.  Fallout: New Vegas under Josh Sawyer (and a bunch of amazing writers, like John Gonzales who wrote Mr. House, and Chris Avellone) did it best, showing both positives and negatives of each side: we had an Old World Democratic Republic (NCR), an authocratic regime (Caesar's Legion) and lots of kinds of anarchism based on your character: you could have a more progressive, leftist kind of anarchism under Yes Man; and you could have a Hoppean-esque or Rothbardian-esque libertarian anarchism under Mr. House. All of this was also dependent on your character's karma: good karma, and everything works out; bad karma, and what sounds perfect may be terrible. In the end, it was up to you to decide what you or your character would want and it was also up to you to decide what was evil to you.

    Gosh, I love New Vegas. And my Lucky 38 Suite.


    This post was edited by Mr. Edd at December 11, 2018 11:59 AM EST
    • 1390 posts
    December 11, 2018 12:12 PM EST

    Mr. Edd said:

    Yeah, given the... behaviour of other EA studios, it's something to watch out. But Dragon Age was always a "diverse" setting, so to speak, but it never felt shoehorned or obnoxious at all - Origins did it best, in my opinion, but I quite enjoyed Inquisition too. We should wait and see.

    However, I'd like to remember that it is possible to put a lot of politics onto games and not have it feel one-sided or have it be a "good vs evil" thing. It is possible to do that even when the project director heavily leans to one side.  Fallout: New Vegas under Josh Sawyer (and a bunch of amazing writers, like John Gonzales who wrote Mr. House, and Chris Avellone) did it best, showing both positives and negatives of each side: we had an Old World Democratic Republic (NCR), an authocratic regime (Caesar's Legion) and lots of kinds of anarchism based on your character: you could have a more progressive, leftist kind of anarchism under Yes Man; and you could have a Hoppean-esque or Rothbardian-esque libertarian anarchism under Mr. House. All of this was also dependent on your character's karma: good karma, and everything works out; bad karma, and what sounds perfect may be terrible. In the end, it was up to you to decide what you or your character would want and it was also up to you to decide what was evil to you.

    Gosh, I love New Vegas. And my Lucky 38 Suite.

    Excellently said Mr. Edd. Yeah, I do like how they paint shades of greys. For instance, the NCR, while it does plan to bring order and a sense of te Old World to the Wastes, they are not only stretching themselves, but can be just as corrupt as any other government, and while Edward Swallows has a mishmash of Roman idealogy, he does bring, albeit brutal, order.

    • 393 posts
    December 11, 2018 2:54 PM EST

    I actually like political themes as they add more ethical dilemmas and thus emotional involvement. The more diversity, the more conflicts and dilemmas, the better. And all in shades of grey, yay)) But there are two things that I cannot stand. One is when a developer gives us this kind of a world, with many perspectives and worldviews, and then forces us to side with a particular party (I dislike how TES seems to be leaning towards that now and I would hate if it happens in DA too). And the second thing is when instead of characters with complex and well-rounded personalities a developer gives is characters that are basically nothing but stickers that say "poor mistreated slave", "gay", "lesbian", "rich asshole" and so on. A character is more than just a member of some group, and it's really annoying to see such dumbness happening.

    Why should politics come at the expence of good storytelling instead of adding to it? That is completely beyond me.

    • 165 posts
    December 11, 2018 5:05 PM EST

    Yeah I agree with what you people said. Politics and all that are always a good thing to exist since they can give depth to the game's rpg element like Edd said in FO New Vegas. The main worry is that there could be cases this grey area might be overstepped. For example some things that maybe should have been there from an rpg perspective might be censored, removed and all that stuff happening and the story might take a turn at certain points that limits the player's choises or guides them towards certain decisions more than it has to. That is actually my main worry with these types of situations. We 'll see in the future I guess.

    • 121 posts
    December 11, 2018 8:40 PM EST

    I’m kind of on the fence when it comes to this topic. On one hand, I like being able to choose factions in games provided the factions are interesting. On the other, I occasionally worry that cloaking various behaviors as “morally grey” rather than “outright evil”, it implies a tacit tolerance of objectively evil acts in a piece of what can arguably be called art.

    At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law while trying to bring out a discussion point, what would happen if anyone ever took a WWII game and put the player on the side of the Axis, or made some of the actions of the Axis which we define as evil and portray them in a morally grey light? This may be an unfair comparison to make given the politically charged nature of the actions performed during that era, but you can replace it with whatever objectively evil thing you can think of, like training a child to be a suicide bomber for your cause or the genocide in East Timor perpetrated because they voted for independence from Indonesia in 1999 .

    That kind of stuff? It’s sort of dark to say, but I don’t think it should be necessarily censored or blocked from being placed inside of a video game. I would just want it to be clearly marked for what it is: Evil.


    This post was edited by Mercurias at December 11, 2018 8:42 PM EST
    • 1390 posts
    December 11, 2018 11:04 PM EST
    True Thorien. I like how games like The Witcher or even AC try to add depth to characters, their motivations, their lifestyles, et
    • 165 posts
    December 11, 2018 11:38 PM EST

    @Mercurias - Yeah I agree that there should be distinction between good, evil and maybe neutral if it is included in the game. What I take as grey area in games is the implementation of options which means I like to have in games the good option, the bad/evil option and maybe an option that is more to the neutral side not to make all these types of option look grey/neutral. In this situation from the "make the world better" things said at the tweets it gave me the impression this will be the focus and I won't get the option of the bad/evil things to the same extent as the good guy things which is not good from an rpg perspective because it is rpg and it is more realistic and immersive (yeah the world and human nature are not always good big surprise :P) to include all aspects good and bad.That for me is grey area in a game. For example take Skyrim or Oblivion and imagine they didn't put an Assassin questline because assassins are bad and kill innocent people or something like that, that would be where rpg elements are destroyed due to ideas shoved into fiction.

    Also what people think good or evil could be subjective, for example something one might think evil another one might think of it as neutral. Example, you see a person in your game attacked by bandits one person might charge in to help but another one stays back leaving the person to die in the hands of the bandits because there is a high chance of him dying as well. The first guy might think of the second as evil because he let someone die but the second guy might think that what he did wasn't good but it wasn't evil either since he just did what needed to be done in order not to die as well and minded his own buiseness. But if the game were to force you to go in and help that would be where you limit the rpg element. 

    All in all I think it is good for the rpg element in a game to have everything good, evil, neutral (this one is often not included) and of course to exist a distinction between the three that is after all the aim of roleplaying sometimes you might want to have a character that is the good guy, other times an evil character or other times a neutral character. That is why we call it fantasy, fiction, roleplay etc.

    • 393 posts
    December 12, 2018 4:07 AM EST

    Mercurias said:

    I’m kind of on the fence when it comes to this topic. On one hand, I like being able to choose factions in games provided the factions are interesting. On the other, I occasionally worry that cloaking various behaviors as “morally grey” rather than “outright evil”, it implies a tacit tolerance of objectively evil acts in a piece of what can arguably be called art.

    At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law while trying to bring out a discussion point, what would happen if anyone ever took a WWII game and put the player on the side of the Axis, or made some of the actions of the Axis which we define as evil and portray them in a morally grey light? This may be an unfair comparison to make given the politically charged nature of the actions performed during that era, but you can replace it with whatever objectively evil thing you can think of, like training a child to be a suicide bomber for your cause or the genocide in East Timor perpetrated because they voted for independence from Indonesia in 1999 .

    That kind of stuff? It’s sort of dark to say, but I don’t think it should be necessarily censored or blocked from being placed inside of a video game. I would just want it to be clearly marked for what it is: Evil.

    Ok, what if I actually want to play as a Nazi or any other evil fellow? Why the fuck not??? It's a game, I'm not hurting absolutely anyone by being a Nazi in a game. Or are you saying that I am such an imbecile that I cannot understand that it's evil? Or that playing a game as a Nazi will make me want to be one IRL? Eh?

    Another thing is, in the case a WWII game, it would be wrong to put it like the Nazi ideology was an integral part of the German culture and thus Germany as a nation is evil. After all, that ideology was created by a particular bunch of people and it could have worked just the same with any other nation, because humans are really all the same. So that is the difference. An ideology can be evil. Certain individuals can be evil. Nations, races, factions, etc. are always grey, because in the majority of times you cannot really label every member of a group as evil, just because they are a part of that group. Otherwise, your position is just as evil, which is quite ironical.

    Also, a game is not the same thing as a book or a movie. In a game, a player would want to be able to choose. Overwise, it's not really a game but an interactive movie or something like that. By removing the choice, you take away the whole reason why a player plays the game. Well, unless the player only wants to kill monsters, and while such players certainly exist, I, for instance, am not such a one. Players like me play games for the story you can create in the game world. Personal experience, you know. If I wanted to be just a passive spectator, I would watch a movie. 

    • 702 posts
    December 12, 2018 1:29 PM EST

    if anyone ever took a WWII game and put the player on the side of the Axis, or made some of the actions of the Axis which we define as evil and portray them in a morally grey light?

     

    I currently play as the Wehrmacht in Company of Heroes 2. You can also play as the USSR in this game, and in Hearts of Iron IV, you can play as the USSR, nazis, the Empire of Japan, fascist Italy, and I think you can actually lead China to the Cultural Revolution under Mao, though I'm not sure. I agree with Justiciar that it's just a game, and although neither of these games paints evil as neutral or anything, I like to have the option to play as something or someone evil. To this day my favorite playthrough in Fallout 3 was as a psycho raider who sold people to slavery and blew up towns in his sparetime.

    It's up to the player to decide if they want to "play evil" or not. I don't think the choice of playing as an evil entity or character should be removed from strategy games, much less roleplaying games. I also think it's possible to create a good, even sympathetic storyline about someone "born" into an evil society. As Chris said, in New Vegas we mostly see the bad side of Caesar's Legion, but it is mentioned how in Caesar's lands, there is almost no crime at all. In fact, the developers of New Vegas originally intended to include a portion of Arizona to show just that - the "good" side of Caesar's policies. They also wanted to include a Legion companion (Ulysses, who ended up in Lonesome Roads) to show the player a more personal, inside point of view from the Legion. Unfortunately they ran out of time.

    • 1390 posts
    December 12, 2018 2:03 PM EST

    • 1390 posts
    December 12, 2018 2:04 PM EST

    Mr. Edd said:

    if anyone ever took a WWII game and put the player on the side of the Axis, or made some of the actions of the Axis which we define as evil and portray them in a morally grey light?

     

    I currently play as the Wehrmacht in Company of Heroes 2. You can also play as the USSR in this game, and in Hearts of Iron IV, you can play as the USSR, nazis, the Empire of Japan, fascist Italy, and I think you can actually lead China to the Cultural Revolution under Mao, though I'm not sure. I agree with Justiciar that it's just a game, and although neither of these games paints evil as neutral or anything, I like to have the option to play as something or someone evil. To this day my favorite playthrough in Fallout 3 was as a psycho raider who sold people to slavery and blew up towns in his sparetime.

    It's up to the player to decide if they want to "play evil" or not. I don't think the choice of playing as an evil entity or character should be removed from strategy games, much less roleplaying games. I also think it's possible to create a good, even sympathetic storyline about someone "born" into an evil society. As Chris said, in New Vegas we mostly see the bad side of Caesar's Legion, but it is mentioned how in Caesar's lands, there is almost no crime at all. In fact, the developers of New Vegas originally intended to include a portion of Arizona to show just that - the "good" side of Caesar's policies. They also wanted to include a Legion companion (Ulysses, who ended up in Lonesome Roads) to show the player a more personal, inside point of view from the Legion. Unfortunately they ran out of time.

    I would have loved to see that. Granted, said no crime would probably be due to a brutal leadership, but still, the same could be said of the Imperium of Man

    • 1296 posts
    February 10, 2019 9:09 AM EST

    Thanks for linking this one Duvain, I hadn't commented on it originally but...yeah interesting thoughts. So, after reading the thread I have to say that I agree with half of what he's saying but the other half is almost complete nonsense. Pretty sure Dragon Age has always been about having sex with your party members and something about saving the world? But, maybe I'm remebering wrong :P

    To be honest, I think I can understand where both sides are coming from (other than the far sides and trolls). Origins is obviously a game with some pretty dark themes in it, you have the Redcliffe quest line which actually makes you debate whether killing a child is the best plan, the endless debate between Harrowmont and...Bhelen, probably wrong on the spelling but 99% sure I'm right on the name. Anyway, then you have the entire clusterfuck that is Loghain, the Dalish Elves and Werewolves, and about 6000 other debates. Dragon Age 2 pretty much just boils it down to 'Mages vs. Templars' which isn't bad, but it's not as interesting and diverse in regards to the polticial/social/cultural side to things. Inquisition kind of follows that path for the most part, though I understand that one of the DLC (at least) adds more to the end-game that enhances the political aspect of the game. 

    My point is, that for me Dragon Age has been a sort of...free political/social construct that can think about making decisions that shouldn't be easy. I think we've all had that moment in Origins where we've troubled over a decision we've made or seen the end slides and regretted an outcome, or just spent hours thinking about whether we'll help A or B. I think that comes from having multiple people think about the politics of the world in a more abstract manner than we view real politics (typically), so I can understand that some people might be taking this as John implementing his own personal beliefs or politics as the only or major thrust of the game. That, I would probably have an issue with if it came across as trying to force me down a side in any of those arguments, and to be honest I feel like they do that a bit in Inquisition with the Emperess. I personally felt like they tried pretty hard to get you to side with her rather than either of the other two sides because one of them was barely a side and the other guy was kind of framed as a dick the entire time. 

    Dunno, it's food for thought I guess. I think it's idiotic to suggest that Dragon Age has never been political, but I've never really felt like real-world politics had any impact on the games (unless you count the 'subtle' hints that Orlais and Fereldan are based off of France and Britain/the UK respectively and all that entails...real subtle that was, though even that wasn't based on modern politics) which is something that might kinda suck if it were handled poorly. 

    • 393 posts
    February 10, 2019 9:30 AM EST

    The only thing I've been regretting about DAO is that there was no way to heal Arl Eamon without that stupid Urn. And the Harrowmont vs. Bhelen part, there is no way for us to make a really informed choice in that situation, unless we are a Dwarf. And even then it ends up as a personal choice rather than a right vs. wrong one.

    Btw, Ferelden seems more like Ireland than Britain, but maybe it's just to my Russian eye.

    • 1296 posts
    February 10, 2019 9:42 AM EST

    The only thing I've been regretting about DAO is that there was no way to heal Arl Eamon without that stupid Urn. And the Harrowmont vs. Bhelen part, there is no way for us to make a really informed choice in that situation, unless we are a Dwarf. And even then it ends up as a personal choice rather than a right vs. wrong one.

    Yeah, I never really understood that. I always kind of felt like Wynn (is there an e in her name...) should have been able to do something and it probably wouldn't have felt all that forced in. Spirit Healing, boom, healed, but I don't entirely remember the timeline right now so maybe that would've taken all the tension out of it (Basically I don't remember if Eamon was poisoned before Wynn would have been locked in the tower...). But yeah, the Harrowmont and Bhelen thing is fairly realistic in that way I think, you only learn about the possible benefits and downsides to each leader after seeing the actual impacts of their rule, not before. Both are politicians to the core, and the game does a pretty good job of balancing them, and honestly making it hard to debate that either is far better than the other in my opinion. 

     

    Btw, Ferelden seems more like Ireland than Britain, but maybe it's just to my Russian eye.

    Eh, not sure to be honest. Probably better to just point at the general area, make a small circle and say "Yeah that area" and leaving it there because it's probably impossivle to argue with that incredible logic :P

    • 393 posts
    February 10, 2019 10:02 AM EST

    Ummm... How is Wynne (yes, there is an e) tied into this? It's not like she is the only healer in all of Ferelden. That is not even the point. In all the other situations the game doesn't force us to accept the Chantry religion as real, and we even see in Inquisition that it's most likely a lie. Yet, in that one quest, we are forced to accept that aome ashes of some dead woman can heal the Arl.

    I got the Ireland impression because Ferelden seems to have that somewhat wild yet traditional spirit. Every time I read a historical book with Britain and Ireland in it, it was the latter that displays that spirit, while the former is more about centralization and civilization. Though I guess it depends on the historical period, so you are right.

    • 277 posts
    February 10, 2019 12:52 PM EST

    I'm so glad I don't give a shit about politics so much that I'm not even sure who the mayor of the city I live in is. I'll get to enjoy the game for what it will be.

    • 265 posts
    February 10, 2019 3:02 PM EST

    Seeing the disaster MEA turned out to be I don't plan on treading anywhere near DA4... at least not within legal boundaries. If the game looks interesting I'll pirate it because EA.

    • 1296 posts
    February 10, 2019 6:43 PM EST

    Ummm... How is Wynne (yes, there is an e) tied into this? It's not like she is the only healer in all of Ferelden. That is not even the point. In all the other situations the game doesn't force us to accept the Chantry religion as real, and we even see in Inquisition that it's most likely a lie. Yet, in that one quest, we are forced to accept that aome ashes of some dead woman can heal the Arl.

     

    No but she is the most...unique? Not sure how to phrase it all but I'm thinking of it more in terms of writing than the logic of the game. If you were writing it as a lot point you have to use some form of logic to deny easy healing (there can't be a cure just down the road, normal healers can't help, he won't get better on his own and he will eventually die), but Wynne is arguably a way around that. Her form of healing is has an extra factor to it beyond most normal healers, and it's an easier way to still tie the questline in Redcliffe to another place, but keep some dramatic tension. I also wouldn't complain if the Dalish Keeper had a method of healing the issue, or really anything more mundane (or less mythical) than the Urn, but still a level above just collecting 3 elf root or something.

    I got the Ireland impression because Ferelden seems to have that somewhat wild yet traditional spirit. Every time I read a historical book with Britain and Ireland in it, it was the latter that displays that spirit, while the former is more about centralization and civilization. Though I guess it depends on the historical period, so you are right.

    Eh, yeah I think it just depends on where you look at. You go back to earlier days just after Roman rule of Britain and it's a bit more similar to Fereldan IMO. Not sure about anything further back then that to be honest, never really researched it..huh, now I'm kind of interested. 

    • 1390 posts
    February 10, 2019 7:54 PM EST

    Justiciar Thorien said:

    Ummm... How is Wynne (yes, there is an e) tied into this? It's not like she is the only healer in all of Ferelden. That is not even the point. In all the other situations the game doesn't force us to accept the Chantry religion as real, and we even see in Inquisition that it's most likely a lie. Yet, in that one quest, we are forced to accept that aome ashes of some dead woman can heal the Arl.

    I got the Ireland impression because Ferelden seems to have that somewhat wild yet traditional spirit. Every time I read a historical book with Britain and Ireland in it, it was the latter that displays that spirit, while the former is more about centralization and civilization. Though I guess it depends on the historical period, so you are right.


    To be fair, the Archtiect states the City was already corrupted. So either Maker was either dead, or corrupted. We know the Elven faith is real

    • 165 posts
    February 11, 2019 12:25 AM EST

    @Dragonborn - Yeah the issue with most people and what they are afraid and don't want is that forced narrative you mention in your last part of the comment. Also because I know to a certain extent how things work in the background for production and corporations who have moved in certain directions the last few years I am pessimistic about this and I believe there will be some filtering and forced narratives to a certain extent but I hope I 'll be wrong.

    Edit: In this opinion also comes the BF5 situation which blew my head...


    This post was edited by Duvain at February 11, 2019 12:30 AM EST
    • 393 posts
    February 11, 2019 11:45 AM EST

    Ebonslayer said:

    Seeing the disaster MEA turned out to be I don't plan on treading anywhere near DA4... at least not within legal boundaries. If the game looks interesting I'll pirate it because EA.

    Funny thing, I actually used to have pirated versions of all three DA games, but then decided to buy the legal versions because I liked them. I'll probably buy DA4 anyway, just so I have the full series (I haven't bought MEA because it's not really a part of the original series), but that will probably be the last EA game I ever buy, if they don't change their ways.

    Dragonborn2021 said:

    No but she is the most...unique? Not sure how to phrase it all but I'm thinking of it more in terms of writing than the logic of the game. If you were writing it as a lot point you have to use some form of logic to deny easy healing (there can't be a cure just down the road, normal healers can't help, he won't get better on his own and he will eventually die), but Wynne is arguably a way around that. Her form of healing is has an extra factor to it beyond most normal healers, and it's an easier way to still tie the questline in Redcliffe to another place, but keep some dramatic tension. I also wouldn't complain if the Dalish Keeper had a method of healing the issue, or really anything more mundane (or less mythical) than the Urn, but still a level above just collecting 3 elf root or something.

    As far as I know (from the game and the book), Wynne's uniqueness doesn't make her some extraordinary healer. Not to any sort of mythical level. Well, unless she decides to sacrifice her own life like she did in the book. However, I would prefer if the way to save Eamon involved some actual magical thing, maybe some spirits from the Fade or something, instead of that Chantry bullshit that my character has no reason to believe. The way it is, it kinda breaks immersion.

    Dragonborn2021 said:

    Eh, yeah I think it just depends on where you look at. You go back to earlier days just after Roman rule of Britain and it's a bit more similar to Fereldan IMO. Not sure about anything further back then that to be honest, never really researched it..huh, now I'm kind of interested.

    Well, the image I got in my mind was about the XV-XVII centuries. But if you think of something related to King Arthur, then that's indeed Ferelden too.

    Chris said:

    To be fair, the Archtiect states the City was already corrupted. So either Maker was either dead, or corrupted. We know the Elven faith is real

    Yes, the elven stuff is (partially) real. Also, it doesn't involve anything you are supposed to just believe. All their practices that you get to do (at least if you aren't an elf) seem to involve actual magic. And the fact that the elven faith is real kind of proves that the human faith is a lie. Solas is totally nuts anyway though.

     

    • 265 posts
    February 11, 2019 3:40 PM EST

    Justiciar Thorien said:

    Ummm... How is Wynne (yes, there is an e) tied into this? It's not like she is the only healer in all of Ferelden. That is not even the point. In all the other situations the game doesn't force us to accept the Chantry religion as real, and we even see in Inquisition that it's most likely a lie. Yet, in that one quest, we are forced to accept that aome ashes of some dead woman can heal the Arl.

    I play predominantly Dalish characters and this quest really pains me because my character likely has no clue what an "Andraste" is besides some Shemlen, and generally the Ashes is the last thing I do (besides the Deep Roads, fuck that place). If there was an alternate way to heal him, then I'd do it in a heartbeat. It's especially weird since 99% of my characters are also rogues who dabble in poison, so if anyone knows a cure it would be them, and if not them then Zevran.

    • 393 posts
    February 11, 2019 3:48 PM EST

    Ebonslayer said:

    I play predominantly Dalish characters and this quest really pains me because my character likely has no clue what an "Andraste" is besides some Shemlen, and generally the Ashes is the last thing I do (besides the Deep Roads, fuck that place). If there was an alternate way to heal him, then I'd do it in a heartbeat. It's especially weird since 99% of my characters are also rogues who dabble in poison, so if anyone knows a cure it would be them, and if not them then Zevran.

    Exactly what I mean. My character is a casteless Dwarf who lived all her life in the slums of Orzammar stealing and being a thug. How in the world is she supposed to know who is Andraste (and my Qunari in Inquisition also doesn't know)? And even if she'd heard about her somewhere, why would she care about some human fayritales? This quest makes me cringe endlessly.


    This post was edited by Justiciar Thorien at February 11, 2019 3:50 PM EST