Waiting to See

it has a profound lack of empathy or interiority for the "antagonist" who opposes the protagonists. they immediately get flattened into a strawman who's unable to make any good arguments or get any sympathy - even if what they're doing is not particularly morally bad, and is actually just self preservation (elf preservation haha) on their part.

it also changes the antagonist's capabilities from scene to scene. they're so strong that they're culpable for huge issues that no one else could solve, but very weak when it comes to being defeated by the protagonist. it also has a really interesting narrative point where the only reason the protagonist achieves anything at all is bc the antagonist is intentionally showing mercy despite being able to kill them - but this is not mercy that the protagonist shows them in turn, later. this is never presented as a morally grey or harsh choice, it's just uncritically accepted and framed as heroic.

and so therefore if you look at just the events of the plot, without the sort of rose tinted Protagonist Goggles, the narrative of the masked empire is like:

Thank the Maker what happened last year was just a collective bad dream the fandom had.

The core dilemma should have been on how the ancient world before the Veil is gone, and how the new one is a real world with actual people that you'll have to genocide to go back to your magic empire dystopia.

You know.

It’s why discussions about him so often devolve into abject bullying and hostility. Because literally no one is on the same page, and that’s as much a feature of his design as it is a massive inconsistency issue.

Depending on who you speak to, it can feel like people are playing vastly different games from one another, and that’s because they essentially are. Solas is unique as an NPC for a few reasons, but primarily because everything from his history to his motives changes based on who’s speaking to or about him. Moreover, his personality itself changes based on how your Inquositor has treated him and others.

Then, making matters even worse, you have the fact that the character essentially went through constant rewrites that would completely change major aspects of him, his story, and his motives. Add to that the amount of insane leaps of logic that have been made by bad faith interpreters which would then be mistaken for canon, because people who don’t like Solas don’t spend enough time with him in game to realize they have false information.

The two that drive me the most insane though are the following:

1–Solas wants to revive the Elven Empire

No. Emphatically no. He has never once said he wanted this, said anything to imply he wanted this, and actively hates the idea of romanticizing Elvhenan.

2-Solas is planning genocide

Also no. It’s genuinely upsetting to see how many people throw around the word genocide to shutdown the conversation with moral grandstanding…all to justify their hatred of a fictional character.

Stop doing it. It’s not just a gross misuse of the word, it’s obscenely disrespectful considering there are actual genocides happening in the world.

Genocide is the deliberate and coordinated effort by a regime to enact mass murder against a certain group or population, usually an oppressed out group, with the intention of wiping them out entirely.

Solas is not doing any of that. He is not planning mass murder, he is planning to take action against an existential threat and anticipates heavy casualties as a consequence. He considers this a price acceptable in order to avoid far worse outcome for everyone. As far as he’s concerned, he was trying to prevent the end of the world by taking pre-emptive action against an inevitable ecological disaster. The Veil is not permanent, it was coming down already, and letting it fall naturally would be far worse for everyone than a controlled takedown where he can mitigate the damage.

As for those casualties, he considers them acceptable but only because total extinction is the alternative. Just like when the Veil went up originally, it’s a matter of choosing between bad and worse. He trying to choose the bad to prevent the worse. And it’s already been made clear, over and over, that The Veil falling won’t just automatically kill everyone.

If Solas, who canonically does not lie, is to be believed—and I tend to beleive the experts—then the casualty count was estimated to be in the thousands, which is pretty bad but not nearly as bad as the millions Rook killed. Rook also left Thedas in a poisoned, dying, and borderline inhospitable state, which doesn’t seem like much of a win when Solas’ plan was badicslly to purify and restore the natural world. You know Project Zero Dawn from Horizon: Zero Down? His plan was basically that, but with fewer casualties up front.

Even without the ticking clock element, it’s been made abundantly cheat that the Veil does more harm to the world than good. Demons primarily exist in Thedas because Spirits get unwittingly pulled through the Veil, a heavily traumatic experience, and they are left broken and warped. The Veil is also responsible for the phenomena of Tranquility.

Im not sure how Weekes and Epler think Trabquility works, but Tranquility is when a person is cut off from the Fade. If the Titans are Tranquil, then it means they were connected to the Fade. So taking the Veil dorm would theoretically reconnect them to their dreams and possibly even end the Blight permanently.

The Veil also makes it harder for Mages to control their magic, which is why magic in Thedas is so temperamental and dangerous, and therefore why mages are hated and oppressed.

He leaves them behind and they start on a campaign to not only track him down but also to figure out what he's doing and support him on the sidelines, going full rogue from the Inquisition.

At some point his agents have to approach them and tell them to stop and they keep refusing.

And eventually, they get so involved that Solas has to come in personally (either in a dream or irl) to be like "My love.....please stop"

[The text I am referring too says - What I eventually settled on was a setting grounded in realism: "What if our own history had magic and elves and dwarves?" It's not really our own world, obviously, but I wondered how people would realistically cope with neighbours who could cast spells and summon demons. How would they react to people who are inhuman?... I wanted to invert some of the common fantasy tropes while keeping the conventions recognisable... elves who had been brought low rather than remaining aloof and immortal; dwarves who were conniving political schemers rather than stout-hearted Scotsmen, mages who were feared for good reason}. From The World of Thedas Vol. 1.

Compared with this excerpt from Weekes (paraphrased) responses during the panel:

I personally like the feeling of being embedded in a different place... just someplace that is really different from the world I experience.... new and different problems that have nothing to do with the world I live in (screenshot below the cut).

The difference between those two quotes really says everything, doesn’t it?

Gaider’s vision was rooted in reflection. Thedas is not a fairytale world, not a safe one, but one flawed like ours. Magic isn't a wonder, it is dangerous and people are scared of it. Faith isn’t comfort like you see in a lot of fantasy, it has real world conflict and issues. Thedas was never meant to be a fantasy we escaped into - it was a mirror held up to us, asking how people like us would live, love, and fail when faced with power beyond control. What if all the same fears, politics, and prejudices still existed - just with magic and fantasy races thrown in?

It is messy, complicated, and painfully familiar. That’s what made Thedas feel alive - it was us, just seen through a darker, stranger lens.

The new vision - the idea of wanting to be “someplace really different from the world I experience” - that’s a completely different world. It’s escapism. It’s saying let’s forget the world we live in, instead of let’s understand it through another lens. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it isn’t Dragon Age. It trades reflection for distance; truth for comfort.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting something fun or light - but Dragon Age was never meant to be that. It wasn’t about running away from reality; it was about facing it, exploring it, questioning it. That’s what made it special.

Dragon Age was never supposed to make us feel safe. It was meant to make us think. To show us the ugliness and grace of humanity through a world of blood, faith, and consequence. It was never about leaving our world behind. It was always about the messiness of being human (forgive me I cannot think of a better word) and the consequences that our decisions have.

I am sure that this is not news to anyone - but it is my first time seeing that quote.

i want my angry elven woman dammit

no filters under the cut

I think he should be allowed more freckles across his body, as a treat

Coloured shots under the read more, since I couldn't decide which ones I preferred

Apoptosis 

haha yea. it's just very.... like on paper, sure! i can appreciate that Concept of: "you start as an everyman sort of protagonist (to avoid having to account for the inquisitor's previous companions/romances/choices/etc at every turn). and you have a more antagonistic relationship to solas, and get to see his more scheming and ruthless aspects, since he's not emotionally attached to them like he is with a friendly inquisitor."

sure! enemies to friends, enemies to lovers, maybe enemies who stay enemies. it can be interesting. solas needs the enrichment of fully arguing with people without having to lie by omission, and having a mortal rival would puncture his ego a bit.

but then rook as shown is a bit.... uhhh. it's like the greek philosophers arguing painting, vs a child knocking stuff off a table? hydrogen bomb vs coughing baby? fjhsjfdjf like i genuinely just disliked rook at almost every turn. none of what they did felt appropriate to the setting or tone of the game, or "earned" in any way, and it all feels like complete author fiat of "we're suspending every pre-established rule of the setting to Give Rook A Win".

and despite not wanting the veil down, for the shallow but heartfelt reason of "i like low fantasy vibes and thedas doesn't need more immortals", by the end i was like "ok solas!! do whatever!! i think drowning the world in demons might be fine actually if rook is the only other option ;-;"

solas, if you look at all the previous setup, is doing galaxy brain, miserable trolley problem calculations of how to stop the blight before it inevitably ends All Life On Thedas. like i cannot stress enough. the nostalgia thing is a problem, his pride is a problem, the elf racism is a problem, but also: if the situation is left unchanged, it's established that everyone in thedas, regardless of whether they're elven or ancient elven or not, dies horribly whenever 2 blights finish. no one else knows about this, let alone has the capacity to fix it, as far as solas knew! this is an actually interesting moral quandary. he's gotten attached to the world, all the while knowing it's doomed, and Has to be dismantled and reset before it ends entirely, and all of it is his fault to begin with (in his opinion).

Go back in time, shank Rook.

Inky takes over, does it right.

Helps Solas tear down the Veil and now Sandal isn’t a liar.

Solas & Reva, his partner in an earlier draft of Veilguard The following concept arts come from The Art of Dragon Age: The Veilguard.

You can leave the hometown of one of your companions to die and they'll just pout for a while but then they'll be chill with you. You can't influence their last character choice, but it's not like the choice you're stuck with is inherently bad either. In fact there is no companion ending that is inherently bad, so whatever you pick for them (despite the fact it makes no sense that Rook, out of anyone, gets to pick for them) doesn't show good or bad leadership.

There's no conflict that aren't solved by a quick conversation about it. Even when Davrin and Lucanis are at each other's throats after Weisshaupt you just need to talk to them once and even before Rook can say something they're the ones going "I was unwell and i took it out on him, i'll apologize" like. That's not your leadership doing that, that's just because they're self conscious people who are extremely polite and willing to work with one another.

and i'm sorry but there's no merit with managing to lead a team that inherently will make it easy and tensionless.

I'm sure it means a lot when you're a team leader in real life, but this is an apocalyptic setting. Previous games promised a rebellion we did not get. You don't get to manage anything except damage control.

What's the merit in making two polite people who don't have extreme opposite worldview get along?

What is good leadership when two people in your team have drastically different views on the core politics you want to influence? DAI is constantly putting you into this position of a leader who has to take decisions and you will never get the full approval of everyone out of them. Solas and Vivienne will debate about the Circles for hours on end. You'll end up making a choice that will get approval from one and disapproval from the others. Managing to work your way into gaining approval with someone who hated some of your policies is itself an hard work that actually makes you stand up for what you believe while also actually managing people with different views.

What is good leadership when no one disagrees with you? If someone on the team had betrayed Rook, like the artbook tells us was originally the case when Imshael was a possible companion? What would Rook do if they were in the same situation Solas was in with Felassan, of a companion changing their mind last second and trying to sabotage your whole plan last minute?

Good leadership should be about being able to handle conflicts, your own conflicts with your companions and with the politics, and the ones they can have with one another. Making a cohesive group of people who have no reason to team up with each other.

in DA2 Hawke wins either their companions' loyalty or their rivalry, but as long as you do the work to involve yourself with them, you can then have them support the rebellion or support genocide whether or not that alligns with their core beliefs. You spend the game trying to navigate said core beliefs and seeing their inter-relationships grow thanks to your influence, and by the end as long as you commited yourself on developping the relationship, they will follow your call in the end.

"Good Leadership" without proper internal conflicts is just some childish way to act that "with the power of friendship everything is possible <3", it's tensionless and uninteresting.

And particularly insulting in DAVG when there is a conscious parallel done with Solas, that is constantly painted as a bad leader, while never putting Rook in his shoes. How WOULD Rook react to being betrayed like with Felassan? How WOULD Rook manage a rebellion against their former ally/slaver?

How would Rook handle an actual blighted companion, and not this deus ex machina were actually Neve/Bellara can be chill after being Blighted once you just manage to, out of nowhere, cut their compulsion to the Blight, something no one was able to do before? We get Rook judging Solas for not taking care of his Blighted companions, something we knew Solas couldn't do (Hawke can lose their sibling to the Blight for fuck's sake. We have to decide of Aveline's husband's death because the Blight will catch up to him.) and then we invent new rules so Rook can have the best of both worlds and be better in the end.

This is laughable. This isn't a showcase of good leadership when the plot bends over backward to make it easy for Rook. No proper companion conflict, no politics, no rebellion, the rules of the Blight don't apply to them, and then we get to contrast them with Solas like see? we're so much better than him!

This is why it's bewildering that it was admitted that Leadership was a big theme that the devs really wanted to pass a message on about. If it was just a byproduct of the plot making it easy for Rook, this would just be badly written. But here the intention itself shows a massive misunderstanding of how to work in a theme.

It's like the regret theme all over again! It's easy to get over regrets when you decide you have nothing to regret! It's easy for Rook to move on from their companions dying when they say the companions made their own choices and it's not on Them. It's easy when Rook never has a reflection about how the Blight is their fault. It's easy when you can easily blame Solas for the things he has done, but you have done nothing.

It makes me think about this option with Bellara when she asks you what kind of hero you are, and if you pick the option "i think i want to atone for something", it has the GALLS to have Rook say "oh i've done some things in my past... nothing bad, but you know," like??? YOU UNLEASHED THE DOUBLE BLIGHT? YOU LEFT A CITY TO DIE? if i say i want to atone why don't you let me feel guilty about it??? Why does it have to be "nothing bad"?!

It's easy to be a good leader when everything goes smoothly for you, it's easy to move on from regrets when you have nothing to regret, nothing to feel guilty about.

Just because those are indeed the themes of the game-- that you can be a good leader with different approaches, that you have to move on from your regrets -- doesn't mean the themes are well done, doesn't mean it's treating the story with the levity it deserves.

Just make it easy! because that's how you follow up a game about the inherent corruption of power and organizations. By going "not us, though, because we're the good guys!"