Some of the tags on this post are suggesting that this is a flaw in Varric's writing stemming from the fact that it doesn't account for the branching possibilities of Hawke's personality, and while I respect that people may read it that way, I just don't think that's true. For one thing, while there are a lot of choices in DA2, the ending choice is extremely binary. Hawke either supported the annulment or defended the mages. As world state quantums go, that's not a difficult one to write around.

For another, if the writers wanted Varric to have a strong opinion on the mage issue, he would have had one in DA2, which he very pointedly does not. He deflects the question when asked, and is dubious about the prospect of supporting the mages at the end, but when it comes down to it, he supports Hawke no matter what. In terms of game decisions, Varric feels strongly about two things: Kirkwall itself, and Hawke.

Like I wasn't just being glib in that last paragraph up there: Varric is so loyal to Hawke no matter what because Hawke saved his city. Twice. In that regard he sees Hawke's interests as aligned with his own regardless of whether Hawke did so by supporting the annulment or the rebellion. There was a crisis, the city Varric loves was on fire, and Hawke fixed it. For this Varric is not only deeply loyal to Hawke, he supports decisions that are like Hawke's decisions from then on, with his approval for the Inquisitor depending on how much the Inquisitor acts like Hawke. His absolute loyalty to Hawke, however unsettling it may be in certain circumstances, is a feature, not a bug.

Yeah. Certainly video game mechanics played a role, they want to make sure that companions can stay with the player regardless of what choices we make. But usually they still express their opinion and you need high approval or pass persuasion checks. That is what shows us their real personality, their real values and what they stand for. For example Zevran speaking up against killing the mages is his “true position” so to speak. We lose some approval but then we can give gifts and companions forget, the story moves on and they still love the warden. We understand that this is just the video game mechanics.

Varric however is a different matter. He is written in a way where all of this makes sense for his character as OP explained. However I would like to add that not only is Varric just as starry-eyed about an evil Hawke, he is actually more starry-eyed! Just like the other companions, Varric expresses an opinion. His position is simply less set in stone, he doesn’t need to be persuaded. But in the end Varric does speak up! and he mildly objects if we support the mages! Meanwhile he expresses his approval if we kill the mages.

He says this to an apostate Hawke who has maxed out friendship with him:

He says to his friend “I’m not sure, maybe you should commit genocide against your own people. Eh. But I’m with you bestie.”

Meanwhile he is very supportive of killing all the mages:

“Defending innocent people, preserving our way of life? This is worth doing.”

“Preserving our way of life” is a line straight up from every conservative politician’s mouth.

Basically Varric’s “true (or original) position” is pro-templar, anti mage revolution, anti mage freedom. His approval in Inquisition suggests that a mage supportive Hawke has shifted his view, still that is a less comfortable world state for Varric.

I think Varric is a very realistic portrayal of the type of guy who has friends who are minorities or friends who have been mistreated in some way in society. However he doesn’t understand their struggles.Those individuals might be his friends, but... well, he is callous to their experiences. And when it comes down to it, he may or may not throw his friends under the bus because their pesky rights are an inconvenience. He doesn’t understand why everyone can’t just get along. That’s what he wants. And he sees this conflict as equal squabbling on both sides. Because he grew up in a world where the status quo has been comfortable for him and therefore “preserving our way of life” is good. To the point where even horrible inhuman acts are not only justified but it’s the right thing to do. As long as that is the “normal thing”, the way it has always been done. Anything else is the strange unknown and causes conflict which he doesn’t want.

(“Defending innocents” (cough cough protecting the children) is a worthy cause because otherwise it’s “helping dangerous people run amok”. Notice that these innocents who need defending from the circle mages during The Last Straw do not exist... the templars are the ones attacking the mages and therefore the mages try to run for their lives, away from the circle. In Varric’s view the innocents who need defending are not the people who are under attack, but future imaginary potential victims who might be harmed if the mages are simply allowed to be free.)  Varric just wants everyone to know their place and play card games together. He doesn’t want anything to change. He goes along with a revolution only out of loyalty towards a good Hawke. That loyalty overrides everything, however he did have an opinion to begin with and that was actually anti-mage freedom. (Contrast that with Isabela who also goes along with whatever Hawke decides out of loyalty because Hawke didn’t hand her over to the arishok. But actually she expresses disgust when attacking the mages “crushing the rebels? how dare they wish for freedom” Her “true position” is pro-mage freedom.)

This was such a strong addition I couldn't not reblog it. Yes, you're absolutely right. Those responses to Hawke's endgame decision are very important pieces of characterization for Varric, revealing that at the core, when push comes to shove, he does have an opinion. That opinion is and has always been trumped by loyalty to his friends--not just siding with Hawke at the end, but also paying off street gangs and city guards and probably templars to keep his mage friends safe. (And he absolutely did consider Anders a friend no matter how grumpy he sounds about him in Inquisition, and others have pointed out that even though he claims not to know or care where Anders is, he does suddenly mysteriously know how to get a letter to him if a Hawke who romanced him is left in the Fade--but I digress.)

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that Varric doesn't want anything to change. I think he avoids taking a stance on the mage situation for so long because he doesn't want to have to take a position. As long as the mages are over there and someone else's problem, I think Varric would really rather just not think about it. He doesn't know those mages. It's not his problem.

Varric suddenly has an opinion real quick when his city is on fire. And you're absolutely right that functionally, being pro-status-quo was being pro-templar whether he thought of it that way himself or not. Personally, I think he thought about it as little as possible until it was right in his face and impossible to ignore. His "It's a lot of humans in skirts" comment comes in Act III (whereas Isabela actually admits that she has an opinion in Act II.) Varric really, really wants this not to be his problem. Him expressing any kind of opinion at all at the end of the game is basically him heaving a big sigh and going, "Now it's my problem."

And I think that's a real turning point for Varric as a character despite the fact that he's just going along with Hawke! Varric's arc in Inquisition is all about deciding to actually take a stand for something on his own--but that's probably a whole other post. 😉

Varric is a lot like many of the guys I've known over the years who didn't care for politics and ignored it entirely until suddenly everything became a crisis point and they had to start caring about where they stand.