Well, we can argue now (in the game) whether it was unwardenly or not - although what do you (your character) know about the Wardens? - but the Wardens aren't what you think of them or what other people think of them. What the Wardens are is determined by their deeds, which are, unfortunately, less noble and honorable than some characters lead you to believe. There was nothing noble or good about Duncan agreeing to take a dying man's son to safety only in exchange for the son's life (and Duncan knew very well what drinking the blood means and does).
"Good words need no defense - they are the walls to their own keep." Your defense of the inconsistensies in the Wardens are solely your views on the matter, your perspective of the logic in the story. The game gives none itself. A short summary of the warden's morality, as given by the game:
A lot of people say they're cool. The first thing that throws a monkey wrench into this is Duncan being a dick. As mentioned before, this is inconsistent; nothing at all besides that moment and only that, reveals this trait in him. That's not good characterization, unless it's backed up by at least one other part of the writing. The second time we are presented with this, is the demonic summoning. An elite group defending what they believe is right take to evil to win. It's in the great book of clichés, and DA:O doesn't even have an original spin, like The Witcher had. It's just the cliché, straight out.
Now, rebuke the above if you will - but use the game's own writing to defend it. Using your logic to fill the wholes in Gaider's writing does not good writing make.
That makes the Wardens a rip off?
Never said it did. I used other arguments for that. You provided those characteristics as a defense of them being original. But they're not.
Martin is definitely an inspiration, but his themes are hardly unique. Open any history book and you'll find nothing but backstabbing, betrayals, and political intrigues.
As for Martin, it is not by any means originality that makes him so good, it is the sheer quality of his writing. The same cannot be said by Gaider. Where Martin's characters are multifacetted, deep, and surprising,* Gaider's character's are as flat as piece of paper. There are exceptions of course. But even the prime example, Loghain, sits on a very loose stool. His motivation is hardly justified in the writing - doing what he did was either the insanity of a lunatic, or the ambition of a usurper. He is characterized as neither, and heavily characterised as genuinely believing in Ferelden.
The lack of roleplaying makes this worse: From the first times the wolves in the Brecillian Outskirts opened their mouthes, I knew the dalish were messing with me. Going back to confront them yielded no new dialogue. Apparently, I'm roleplaying the typical retard.
*As I quick note, I've only read A Game of Thrones so far, so I do not know if this changes later in his career.
As for the Witcher, Dragon Age was announced 2 years before the Witcher's release.
As I have mentioned before, this is a fallacy. Believe it or not, I have followed Dragon Age from the very beginning. Back then, before The Witcher, it had almost no direction story-wise. They were busy developing engine, rulesystem, and the general setting. One question in the FAQ said: "Why is it called 'Dragon Age'?" to which the reply was: "It is set in an age heavily influenced by the presence of many dragons - some benevolent, others malevolent." The exact opposite of what it ultimately became. Adding to this that the game had a total change in story-direction when it went from being called Dragon Age to being called Dragon Age: Origins, there's hardly any support for saying it didn't rip off the Witcher on that account.
I'll elaborate on it tomorrow morning then.
I was just messing with ya. Save it for the review - then you'll only have to say once, and it'll probably be better written. Looking forward to reading it, by the way.
I apologise for my walls of text. I'm extremely tired
