Brandy

I really dislike how Bioware has changed the “Hardened” status of certain companions in this game. Before, hardening a player (or not) could affect in-game situations, but never the relationship with the player character. This feels heavy-handed as heck, and it gives Neve/Lucanis ZERO credit for being smart enough to see that Rook was in an impossible situation.

Frankly, Rook DID help. They sent half the team to one city, half to the other; the only difference is where Rook *themselves* chose to go (which shouldn't matter unless there’s a romance with one of them, because Rook is otherwise just another member of the team).

If a player is romancing one of the two, then *obviously* Rook has an intense personal interest in physically defending that person. I think this whole scenario would make a LOT more sense if there were an exception to the “Hardening” consequence if Rook chooses to personally defend the person they’re romancing.

Choosing NOT to help your romance partner ought to be grounds for an immediate, unreconcilable breakup!

Punishing a player for making the only choice that makes ANY sense within a given scenario is ridiculous. If Rook’s with Neve, then the sensible ethical choice is to go to Minrathous, and vice-versa for Lucanis and Treviso.

Plus, it’s really unfair to expect players (MOST of whom are long-term fans of the series, and are familiar with the lore) to “save” ANY city in Tevinter over a city in Antiva.

For the whole series, lore has beaten it into our heads that the Blights, the darkspawn, and the archdemons are at Tevinter’s own FAULT; and the magisters who rule the nation are corrupt, cruel, and sadistic.

Minrathous is *already* Blighted in every moral and ethical sense. Adding physical Blight just makes the outside match the inside. If people could only ever choose ONE outcome—who, other than maybe some gaming blogger looking for deets, who would EVER choose to let an Antivan city fall, over the people who killed Andraste?! 🙄