Discover Top Posts Tagged with #da posting

on Rook as a protagonist

I'm genuinely surprised that some people say that Rook is the best protagonist to them out of all in Dragon Age games—obviously, to each their own, and if you genuinely think that and love your Rook, then hey, that's great, I definitely do have some positive feelings towards my own Rook too despite not being able to genuinely roleplay their personality and having to change it to fit the restrictions given by the game.

Like, your personality is basically fixed in place, it's not a protagonist you can roleplay but rather a predetermined one with your skin on. You have some variety of lines but they're within, well, the same personality: friendly/empathetic sarcastic, Clown, stoic sarcastic (sure, it's a generalization, maybe an unfair one, but listen it's how I'd describe it), which sometimes don't even work like they're supposed to: e.g. you'll have a friendly/empathetic Rook sounding more stoic than the actual stoic one in the same dialogue tree.

I would say though that DAtV makes it easier to connect to Rook as a character because again, they're basically a pre-made with a distinct personality, so you can grasp that personality pretty quickly and if it works for you, it works. Inquisitor by comparison can come off bland, especially if you don't construct their personality beforehand and due to the lack of proper origins and an initial other character to bounce off of (Varric to Rook). Generally, the roleplaying aspect is not an issue exclusive to DAtV: I'd say the further we go, the worse it gets. DAO honestly handles it best because: 1. HoF is a "silent" protagonist, which allows more tone/voice speculation + what you say, you say phrasing-wise 2. you have origins which help you connect to your character throughout their events and via characters you're related to while still giving you the liberty and space to react to the events with accordance to your character's personality/vibe. 3. generally the amount of dialogue and behavior options: you're a leader, but you're not immediately put into these shoes, and you can go about your party as you want. Like yeah, you have to save the world, you're not given any other choice, but if you don't want to be a good guy, you don't have to. Defile Sacred Ashes and side with the cultists, murder the werewolves, turn dwarves into golems, annihilate the Circle with innocent mages, make a deal with the demon (doom the boy and potentially sacrifice his mother), kill your companions, be stupid.

Now Hawke is a more limited character for obvious reasons, but even they have more variety than Rook: Hawke's relationship with Malcolm will literally be determined by your personality—which is a bit silly tbh, but it's something. Hawke's personality options are distinct enough too, and most of all, you have the option to be a bad person and make bad, outright evil decisions. You can side with slavers in Darktown, you can give Fenris to Danarius (which is a pretty dumb option with a dumber reaction from companions, but it's a choice), you can just be mean in general, have beef with your companions, which will influence their personal quests. Now, is Hawke the best character for roleplaying? I don't think so, but it's still more variety than whatever DAtV gives us.

As Rook, you just can't be an asshole, can't ever argue with companions, disagree on things (which has been said by many others atp), and generally you can't do truly bad, evil decisions. I'm gonna be real, DAI doesn't always give you this choice either. DAI also doesn't allow you to be like, stupid stupid for example cause you have to be a leader of currently one of the most if not the most powerful organization in Thedas, aside from the Chantry itself, but you can say dumb shit here and there, and you can do bad things too: you can be a cruel and ruthless leader, you can be an asshole and execute people for your amusement, like hell, order Cullen to take lyrium (obviously a bad choice, imo this quest should have some immediate repercussions, like some actual penalty for the Inquisition if Cullen is in withdrawal), give Vivienne the wrong vivern's heart, force Blackwall to keep lying about his identity, generally influence your companions to make questionable decisions. And no matter what you do, your choices won't be approved by all your companions: sometimes they will argue with you, question you on them, mention how they think you fucked up on low approval.

Rook though? No, Rook is always a good guy, Rook can't be bad, Rook is a hero. Rook has to be a hero. In the narrative and in companions' eyes. Whatever happens it's fine eventually. Oh, you're a crow? You're still a hero, you did a good job, you made the right choice, and those bad bad higher-ups condemned you for doing so. I get that some factions would limit you to being basically a good guy, like Shadow Dragons, because it requires your character to have a strong moral compass to be in an oppositional organization with the goal to abolish slavery and defeat corruption in Tevinter, and it's totally fine, but when ALL factions make you out to be a hero.. it just. Well it sucks? It feels like one backstory reskinned basically.

And even if all faction options in their nature were a predisposition for you to be someone with a strong moral compass (say, every faction would be like Shadow Dragons in nature), it doesn't mean you wouldn't have the capacity to be wrong, have biases, and make bad decisions. You can fight for good causes (or believe you do) but still be an asshole and commit heinous things. You can simply be someone rude and angry or just a terrible friend, independent of your moral/political stances. Even if you're a Hero.

And even if we argue that being a good guy specifically is what the story requires of Rook, why make a story—an RPG—that limits you so badly? And how good and impactful can a story about regrets be where you can be no wrong and nothing is essentially your fault, nor framed as such?