I don't know why I'm still surprised (though I shouldn't be) that people both one-dimensionalize Mythal herself, and Mythal's relationship to Solas to such a degree. When like, IN THE CANON we are constantly reminded that this relationship both defies our ability to strictly define it, and all we have is a collection of second-hand memories which are immediately challenged.
Like in all Solas's memories, he both regrets being convinced of things by Mythal, but also regrets betraying her. But the Mythal we meet in the Crossroads immediately calls into question Solas's regret memories in general, basically implying his memories have morphed over time into a story he's told himself from his own perspective, which are largely filtered through a sentimental lens. But then, the Mythal herself who tells us this is, according to Morrigan, the part of Mythal that is harshest, most resentful, and cold. Which would color her own perspectives.
That's not to get into the overwhelming other evidence about their relationship, and who they both are/have been as people across countless millennia. Every piece of which is fascinating in its own right... and incredibly contradictory.
Solas is sworn to Mythal's service, but his statues exist alongside Mythal's in her temple - he was a fellow god, not a servant. And Solas's memories rarely show him being ORDERED to do anything, but instead convinced by a friend or colleague. But "releasing" him from her service is what breaks him of his burning need to tear down the Veil. But it's not as if he has never defied her or put his quest above her - he quite literally kills her and abandoned the part of her that is left at the end of Inquisition, in order to complete said quest. He speaks of "always following her wherever she would go" as a kind of foregone conclusion from the very first, before they even had BODIES, back when they were spirits. Which speaks of a relationship that likely predates even the concept of servitude or conscription. And he is protective of Mythal and her legacy. Enough to constantly be defensive or wax poetic about her whenever he speaks of her. And also he is extremely bothered if the Inquisitor drinks from the Well, which supposedly binds them to Mythal's will. He's called Mythal's lapdog by Elgar'nan, but it's also probably likely that Elgar'nan (as implied to be Mythal's husband at some point in history) resented Solas's relationship to Mythal. Solas hated the gods enslaving the people, but as per my last, Mythal's followers saw her as someone who firmly rejected obeisance. Seeming to correlate with Solas's own proclamation that "Mythal was the best of [the Evanuris]." Not an easy feat, since apparently there were once many more Evanuris than we currently know about. And yet, Mythal was implied to be married to Elgar'nan, who headed up their whole corrupted pantheon, and who Solas at least seems to have a particular disdain, when it comes to Elgar'nan's lust of power. And yet, Solas also might have some personal reasons to dislike Elgar'nan, beyond whatever he might stand for. Which include murdering Mythal. Which Solas is... not happy about or celebrating, to put it lightly. And there's the fact that Solas still trusts Mythal and meets up with her even during his rebellion. And the fact that, apparently, his trust is at least somewhat earned, as Mythal DOES go challenge them about their use of the blight in their fighting... enough so that it gets them killed.
Like, literally, there's so much. I could just keep going, remembering evidence and contradictions in the way their relationship (and their individual states/roles in their own time) is hinted at.
But always contradictorily. Defying any easy conclusions or categorization.
Which leads into how the conversation between the Veilguard, after seeing some of Solas's memories. With the team disagreeing over whether or not Solas and Mythal were lovers or just very close friends. How that is obviously based on modern conversations about historical figures or relationship depictions: In that boundaries and norms and even relationship types are different across cultures, and oftentimes harder to define through modern lenses. But also there can be an element of intentional obfuscation, when something about a relationship is uncomfortable or politically inconvenient to modern sensibilities, and gets pushed down by readers in a given period.
The effect is the same either way though: An intentional implication that it is extremely hard to completely understand relationships that have a different context and come from a different era. At least without a lot of other information to illuminate that context.
Context which, in the case of Solas and Mythal, we don't really have.
Which makes coming to oversimplistic conclusions about what did or didn't happen between them... around them... what their relationship was at a baseline... whether or not it changed or the lens through which it was viewed would have changed as they moved through the eras... moved from effectively being whole entirely different types of entities...
Just. Impossible to do. In good faith.
(And that's not even getting to how this is likely portrayed this way on purpose; a major theme of the Dragon Age series as a whole has been that history is almost impossible to understand in its reality. Because every person who experiences a historical moment experienced it differently, so even a straightforward historical account lacks details, embellishes, carries bias. Because only certain lenses are preserved enough through history to be passed down to far-flung, future generations - which wildly influences what is known and believed. And because modern political factions have their own agendas and recontextualize/boost/obfuscate historical information whenever its convenient. Like this is all one of the most major themes of the whole franchise - that power and perspective shape knowledge and beliefs.
Trying to assign Solas and Mythal's relationships easy categories/pathologies when the only people who were there and talking about it at all have wildly contradictory opinions, when both of their perspectives are intentionally called into question by the narrative itself, and when we the audience never truly get either one of them to sit down and focus on autopsying this relationship directly...? Like, yeah.
We shouldn't expect that we understand more than a smidge of what is/was going on between them. Because we're clearly being intentionally kept in the dark by the narrative, and given only broken tidbits of biased implications otherwise)
