405 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

drahelvete wrote...

What about  Baldur's Gate? That was a trilogy (of sorts). Sure, you couldn't become the new "big bad" until the very end of the third installment, but I personally think that was a good thing.

That's kind of the point--people are asking to be allowed to make the Throne of Bhall decision at the end of Baldur's Gate, basically.  You could make decisions like that at the end of KotOR and Jade Empire, sure--and that's why no sequel.

[PsychoBlonde]

soteria wrote...

lawl. I've always thought blaming circumstances or chance for a life's course seemed like making excuses. I didn't think the effect on literature was that bad though.

It's not total, certainly, but you can see a dramatic difference between what passes for a plot nowadays versus what you could get a century ago.  What's really interesting is that the novel qua art form has matured significantly, so some of these fantastic old plot stories (Victor Hugo in particular) are RIDDLED with tedious essays and asides that almost no one would put in a book nowadays.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Stanley Woo wrote...

A lot of people just want more and more freedom to play characters that we haven't written, because, as you certainly must know, every decision, every character trait, needs to be written into the game in order for it to be possible for you, the player, to find it.

BioWare games are, above all, heroic tales of triumph over some great force or obstacle or issue. Yes, some of our characters walk the fine line between righteous and self-serving, but they all still have to want to overcome that force/issue/obstacle. Giving an "evil" character the ability to do some very bad things along the way kind of mucks up our story just a bit. There's a huge difference between a jerky hero having different motivations or attitudes about getting tot he end of the game, but it's another thing entirely for an evil character to start laying waste about him with sword and spell, then toddling off to run a used camel dealership in South Jersey.

You can't be "the bad guy." "The bad guy" is the guy you're usually trying to beat at the end of the game. At worst, you can be a really disagreeable hero or a good guy with questionable tastes or that jerk who saved the world. But playing "the bad guy" is not what you're going to find in a BioWare game. Sorry.

Also, in Dragon Age II, you don't save the world.

Hey! You there, stop messing around in forums and get back here. We're not done hailing yet.

ALL HAIL DARTH REVAN!   ALL HAIL DARTH REVAN!

[RussianSpy27]

Stanley Woo wrote...

There's a huge difference between a jerky hero having different motivations or attitudes about getting tot he end of the game, but it's another thing entirely for an evil character to start laying waste about him with sword and spell, then toddling off to run a used camel dealership in South Jersey.

You can't be "the bad guy." "The bad guy" is the guy you're usually trying to beat at the end of the game. At worst, you can be a really disagreeable hero or a good guy with questionable tastes or that jerk who saved the world. But playing "the bad guy" is not what you're going to find in a BioWare game. Sorry.

In my eyes, the Renegade Shepard jerk and a Warden who chooses evil acts are two different people. The Renegade Shepard is exactly what you're describing as that Jerk who saved the world. He makes controversial decisions and kills off some bad guys whom you could spare or punches people and all, but ultimately remains a hero.

The Warden's evil actions are much more cut and dry evil. Yes, you still fight the Darkspawn threat, but you could:

1) Let an entire village full of innocents be anhielated (!!)
2) Cause an innocent child or his mother to be sacrifised
3) Destroy a holly recil, 2 companions' lives with it to side with a group of dragon-worshipping gangsters
4) Cause a group of mages to perish and their tower to be raised while knowing that they're not even blood mages
5) Put a backstabbing traitor on the throne whose betrayal led to deaths of multitudes (including Duncan and The King), and sacking of the entire Ostagar (!!)
... and so on.

That, in my view, clearly differentiated actions of a "Jerk Renegade Shepard" and the evil Warden who also happens to save Ferelden from the threat- more akin to the "well, monsters would kill everyone including myself anyway, so can't allow it." 

So much for a disagreeable hero, Stan

Modifié par RussianSpy27, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:55 .

[AlexXIV]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

drahelvete wrote...

What about  Baldur's Gate? That was a trilogy (of sorts). Sure, you couldn't become the new "big bad" until the very end of the third installment, but I personally think that was a good thing.

That's kind of the point--people are asking to be allowed to make the Throne of Bhall decision at the end of Baldur's Gate, basically.  You could make decisions like that at the end of KotOR and Jade Empire, sure--and that's why no sequel.

They could split a story on three games though. That's what I was hoping to happen to Origins. That the game is the start to a trilogy. In the first part you wouldn't make big decisions. just get used to the game and world basically. Find your first companions. Then in the next game the plot thickens until you reveal some sort of threat, and then in the last part comes the big showdown and the decissions that 'change the world forever'. Sadly such things don't happen anymore because the big bang needs to happen in the first game already. I can't help to feel it is just about impatience. Bioware probably fears a bad start with the first game if there isn't 'something awesome' happening.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:50 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

AlexXIV wrote...

You can see in the Warden Keep DLC why it is a bad idea. You can't control abominations, abominations control you. Also, why should they have interest to stop a Blight? At least before the Blight at least caused chaos in all of Thedas and not only in some small country at the lower edge of the map. Also what do you do witht he abominations after the fight? Ask them to go away? Not going to argue because it is off-topic, but an abomination is probably the last thing you want to ally with.

Not entirely true. Demons would have a vested interest in stopping the Blight, since it is stated in a few parts of the game that the taint/Black City are alien and repulsive to them. Hell, that was part of the basis of Avernus' experiments, as he discovered that the demons were vulerable to the taint, and were even afraid of it. So demons dislike darkspawn, naturally. And stopping the Blight...kinda hard to look for people to posses, or mayhem to sow, if everything is dead.

And why would a Warden want the demons/abominations running amok? because maybe they like the idea of creating a demonic nation of abominations? We are discussing the option to role play "the dark side" in full force. In otherwords, someone who wants the opposite of saving the world, but maybe creating a new version of hell on earth. So one could roleplay a number of reasons.

The point being that one can have the option to really end up, in the end, a complete mortal fiend, if that's what they want.

[Stanley Woo]

Any way we can bring this back and tie it in to Dragon Age II? It's a good discussion, I think, but we're going everywhere.

[In Exile]

You can't just introduce the player to the world without a conflict. You could introduce political intrigue and have it development into a world changing conflict. But you need some enemy for the player to overcome.

[RussianSpy27]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Any way we can bring this back and tie it in to Dragon Age II? It's a good discussion, I think, but we're going everywhere.

Good point and you have the power to lock the thread if needed, but you gotta admit you were incorrect in the analysis of evil playing characters in BioWare games, as demonstrated by my post and the one about Darth Revan

[iEthanol]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Any way we can bring this back and tie it in to Dragon Age II? It's a good discussion, I think, but we're going everywhere.

Well, in all respect Mr. Woo, we're discussing villainy and the ways it can be brought better into Dragon Age II. Considering how little we know about the game, it is only logical that ideas we give will be pulled from  previous titles from Bioware.

Something along the lines of:
Guys, I liked how villainy was done in X and Y (by Bioware), and I see no reason why it can't also be done the same way in DAII.

RussianSpy27 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Any
way we can bring this back and tie it in to Dragon Age II? It's a good
discussion, I think, but we're going everywhere.

Good
point and you have the power to lock the thread if needed, but you gotta
admit you were incorrect in the analysis of evil playing characters in
BioWare games, as demonstrated by my post and the one about Darth Revan

Please refrain from trying to purposely aggrivate the guy with the lock (and probably) ban hammer. A really good discussion is happening here.

With any hope, if this thread keeps growing, a Bioware employee that works in the creative department might notice it and actually consider it. Hey, a man can dream, can't he? 

2013 : Dragon Age 3 - Play as Morrigan's son in a world that hates and fears you to the point were they have driven you mad. You set out on a quest to find your father and (surprise) if you kept your Origins file the actually Warden you used is in the game! 

Modifié par iEthanol, 02 janvier 2011 - 07:05 .

[AlexXIV]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

You can see in the Warden Keep DLC why it is a bad idea. You can't control abominations, abominations control you. Also, why should they have interest to stop a Blight? At least before the Blight at least caused chaos in all of Thedas and not only in some small country at the lower edge of the map. Also what do you do witht he abominations after the fight? Ask them to go away? Not going to argue because it is off-topic, but an abomination is probably the last thing you want to ally with.

Not entirely true. Demons would have a vested interest in stopping the Blight, since it is stated in a few parts of the game that the taint/Black City are alien and repulsive to them. Hell, that was part of the basis of Avernus' experiments, as he discovered that the demons were vulerable to the taint, and were even afraid of it. So demons dislike darkspawn, naturally. And stopping the Blight...kinda hard to look for people to posses, or mayhem to sow, if everything is dead.

And why would a Warden want the demons/abominations running amok? because maybe they like the idea of creating a demonic nation of abominations? We are discussing the option to role play "the dark side" in full force. In otherwords, someone who wants the opposite of saving the world, but maybe creating a new version of hell on earth. So one could roleplay a number of reasons.

The point being that one can have the option to really end up, in the end, a complete mortal fiend, if that's what they want.

Well but my point wasn't that abominations are evil, but that they cannot be controlled. They will turn on you sooner or later. And even if abominations see the blight as a ... well blight ... they may still prefer if they caused more chaos as in DA:O. I mean if it wasn't for the Archdemon appearance it wasn't even a real blight. Compared to the previous blights which lasted decades and threw all of Thedas into chaos and not only one country. The Blight could have weakened the Chantry considerably, and thus allowed more mages to go rogue. Which is a good thing for abominations looking for mages to take over.

Some maleficar make deals with abominations, but I see them more like ... um ... drug dealers. It's illegal but let's say we don't care for this example sake. So you'd buy drugs from them, but you wouldn't want them to get near your home.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 02 janvier 2011 - 07:03 .

[-flashblade-]

This is an interesting topic so I'd like to chime in. Although I think it is actually a general topic and not that much about DA2 but whatever.

The japanese excel in telling storys that are grey in morality, where things are simply not clear cut. I'd like to give the summary of such a story. I will keep things very general that means I will not name the story or the characters or anything else for this matter, simply because if somebody here should come across it, I do not totally want to spoil the experience for them. I'd like to ask ppl who recognise the elements of this story not to name things either for the reason given above.

On an alternate earth a regime gains a gigantic military advantage that enables them to conquer the whole world. Everybody who is not a born citizen of said regime is from now on a second class citizen with their national identity pretty much stripped away. At the time the conquering takes place the protagonist lives with his best friend in one of the countries that will be conquered. He is a born citizen of the regime but he is so absolutely enraged by what happened that he swears to bring the regime down by any means necessary. The protagonist and his friend are still kids at the time. A few years pass and the protagonist is now a young adult. He makes his move and becomes part of a rebel organisation. He creates a masked alter ego for himself and disguised as that person he becomes the leader and figurehead of the rebels. At the same time his best friend, not born in the regime, manages to rise through the ranks of the military of the regime. He fights the rebel organisation of course because he believes the regime maybe opressive, but it brings stability and the rebels are making things worse for the second class citizens. That is true of course.

After a bloody and long struggle the protagonist manages to topple the regime. At this point his best friend who has survived the conflict as well, joins him and he creates a regime that is even more oppresive than the one he just destroyed. There is no preferential treatment for anyone and everybody suffers equally under his regime. The protagonist rules through an iron fist and with superior military might that nobody can oppose. The typical power corrupts scenario. His friend pretty much only protects the protagonist and his hands remain clean, while the protagonists commands terrible attrocities to be committed. After the protagonist judges that enough time under his tiranny has passed and pretty much everybody is allied against him, he plans his own public assassination. He is than killed publicly by his best friend who has embraced the mantle of the protagonists masked alter ego for this deed.

That is what he had planned to happen from the beginning when he took power. He wanted to focus all the evils and all the hatred of the people on earth on him and to take it away with his death. Without him his regime instantly crumbles and everybody on earth lives together in peaceful co-operation for a time, united by their hatred for the protagonist and by the wish to not ever see that happen again.

There you have it. Evil with a purpose and the most powerful sacrifice scenario I have EVER heard about. Just think about it. To the world he will forever be known as the worst tyrant who has ever been on earth, a monster in human guise. Even his loved ones, friends and former comerades in the rebellion think him a monster. Some of them may not really hate him but are just sad that when he gained power, he was so absolutely corrupted. So he will never be known for the dark hero he is. He is definately not a hero because of what he did, but he isn't an anti-hero either. After all he was not unwilling in all this. No I think the label dark hero fits him quite well. He will NEVER be forgiven. The only one who knows his true motivation and what really was going on is his best friend and he swore under tears that he would never tell anyone what really happened.

I was so stunned by the conclusion of this story it is hard to describe in words.

If I could do something along those lines with a game character I would be psyched beyond believe.

[Anathemic]

Stanley Woo wrote...

A lot of people just want more and more freedom to play characters that we haven't written, because, as you certainly must know, every decision, every character trait, needs to be written into the game in order for it to be possible for you, the player, to find it.

BioWare games are, above all, heroic tales of triumph over some great force or obstacle or issue. Yes, some of our characters walk the fine line between righteous and self-serving, but they all still have to want to overcome that force/issue/obstacle. Giving an "evil" character the ability to do some very bad things along the way kind of mucks up our story just a bit. There's a huge difference between a jerky hero having different motivations or attitudes about getting tot he end of the game, but it's another thing entirely for an evil character to start laying waste about him with sword and spell, then toddling off to run a used camel dealership in South Jersey.

You can't be "the bad guy." "The bad guy" is the guy you're usually trying to beat at the end of the game. At worst, you can be a really disagreeable hero or a good guy with questionable tastes or that jerk who saved the world. But playing "the bad guy" is not what you're going to find in a BioWare game. Sorry.

Also, in Dragon Age II, you don't save the world.

So the Dalish part in DA:O where you killed the elves was basically, "Hurr hurr I'm gonna kill the Dalish elves 'cause werewoves are better"

[Alexia89]

It can get a little tedious saving the world, but someones got to do it eh?

[soteria]

RussianSpy wrote...

1) Let an entire village full of innocents be anhielated (!!)

2) Cause an innocent child or his mother to be sacrifised

3) Destroy a holly recil, 2 companions' lives with it to side with a group of dragon-worshipping gangsters

4) Cause a group of mages to perish and their tower to be raised while knowing that they're not even blood mages

5) Put a backstabbing traitor on the throne whose betrayal led to deaths of multitudes (including Duncan and The King), and sacking of the entire Ostagar (!!)

I disagree that most of those are evil. Point by point:

1. Only appears evil if you meta-game. From an in-character perspective, people you don't know are asking you to risk your life and by extension Ferelden for them for no tangible benefit. As far as you know, the Arl is dead and Redcliffe won't be able to provide any aid toward ending the Blight in the foreseeable future. Sure, the player knows he's immortal and that offering to save the village from monsters always turns out well, but from the character's perspective staying to help is arguably reckless.

2. Again, only appears evil if you metagame. For all your character knows, returning to the circle tower could end in everyone getting killed.

3. I'll give you this one.

4. You're metagaming again. You don't know they're blood mages; you don't know they aren't. If you save the High Enchanter but condemn the mages, he even admits that some of them could be secretly blood mages.

5. I guess.

The best example of an actual evil choice is convincing the werewolves to kill the elves. The funny thing is, it doesn't help anyone, including yourself, making it the "Evil Stupid" option of the game.

[Mecha Tengu]

Anathemic wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

A lot of people just want more and more freedom to play characters that we haven't written, because, as you certainly must know, every decision, every character trait, needs to be written into the game in order for it to be possible for you, the player, to find it.

BioWare games are, above all, heroic tales of triumph over some great force or obstacle or issue. Yes, some of our characters walk the fine line between righteous and self-serving, but they all still have to want to overcome that force/issue/obstacle. Giving an "evil" character the ability to do some very bad things along the way kind of mucks up our story just a bit. There's a huge difference between a jerky hero having different motivations or attitudes about getting tot he end of the game, but it's another thing entirely for an evil character to start laying waste about him with sword and spell, then toddling off to run a used camel dealership in South Jersey.

You can't be "the bad guy." "The bad guy" is the guy you're usually trying to beat at the end of the game. At worst, you can be a really disagreeable hero or a good guy with questionable tastes or that jerk who saved the world. But playing "the bad guy" is not what you're going to find in a BioWare game. Sorry.

Also, in Dragon Age II, you don't save the world.

So the Dalish part in DA:O where you killed the elves was basically, "Hurr hurr I'm gonna kill the Dalish elves 'cause werewoves are better"

you can argue that is not evil. I'd rather have vicious werewolves to better fight the darkspawn so Ferelden can be saved.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

AlexXIV wrote...


Well but my point wasn't that abominations are evil, but that they cannot be controlled. They will turn on you sooner or later. And even if abominations see the blight as a ... well blight ... they may still prefer if they caused more chaos as in DA:O. I mean if it wasn't for the Archdemon appearance it wasn't even a real blight. Compared to the previous blights which lasted decades and threw all of Thedas into chaos and not only one country. The Blight could have weakened the Chantry considerably, and thus allowed more mages to go rogue. Which is a good thing for abominations looking for mages to take over.

Some maleficar make deals with abominations, but I see them more like ... um ... drug dealers. It's illegal but let's say we don't care for this example sake. So you'd buy drugs from them, but you wouldn't want them to get near your home.

Alot of drug users would, in fact, want their drug dealers in their homes. We are talking about a possible hero/anti-hero/would-be-villan who isn't concerned or doesn't care about abominations being controlled or not. Maybe they want demons and abominations running amok. Maybe they want absolute chaos themselves.

To bring this to the topic, it is the idea of being able to play a character who, in some way, might share the goals and methods of the primary villian for the game. However, the prime villan may not realize the fact that the person they are antagonizing really wants to join them and assist whatever nefarious goal they have, and thus, throught the game, continues to attack and fight the main character because they are under the belief the character wishes to foil their plans. Or, the main villian could see potential use/worth in the main character, and continues to antagonize them/give them grief to test them, to find out if they are worthy to join "the dark side".

Since we don't know the exact nature of the prime antagonist in DA2, I'll give an example in DA:O on possibilities of why a character might wish to assist the darkspawn and Arch Demon in spreading the Blight:

remember Kolgrim, the nut-job dragon cultist in the Sacred Ashes quest? if you defile the ashes and Kolgrim becaomes your new pal, you can ask him to help fight the Blight, at which he scoffs, saying he welcomes the Blight, as it will clear the land of unbelievers and make way for the new risen Andraste to take power.

One can role=play a Warden with similar attitudes: perhaps the Warden, who could have likely been recruited unwillingly, believes the Blight to be the punishment of the Maker, and to stop the Blight would be to defy His will. Thus, this warped Warden decides that they wish to assist in "the Maker's work". Obviously, such a warden would be quite warped and twisted in their thinking, but there is a basis for justifying this possibile motive for wanting to help the arch enemy of the game.

But in DAO, no matter how warped a character you wanted to play, you had only one playable goal: end the Blight, though you had many possible ways of going about it. But you couldn't truly play a reasonably, completely evil character, because even as you commit twisted, dishonorable or petty acts, you're still saving the world, whether you want to or not.

[Anathemic]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

A lot of people just want more and more freedom to play characters that we haven't written, because, as you certainly must know, every decision, every character trait, needs to be written into the game in order for it to be possible for you, the player, to find it.

BioWare games are, above all, heroic tales of triumph over some great force or obstacle or issue. Yes, some of our characters walk the fine line between righteous and self-serving, but they all still have to want to overcome that force/issue/obstacle. Giving an "evil" character the ability to do some very bad things along the way kind of mucks up our story just a bit. There's a huge difference between a jerky hero having different motivations or attitudes about getting tot he end of the game, but it's another thing entirely for an evil character to start laying waste about him with sword and spell, then toddling off to run a used camel dealership in South Jersey.

You can't be "the bad guy." "The bad guy" is the guy you're usually trying to beat at the end of the game. At worst, you can be a really disagreeable hero or a good guy with questionable tastes or that jerk who saved the world. But playing "the bad guy" is not what you're going to find in a BioWare game. Sorry.

Also, in Dragon Age II, you don't save the world.

So the Dalish part in DA:O where you killed the elves was basically, "Hurr hurr I'm gonna kill the Dalish elves 'cause werewoves are better"

you can argue that is not evil. I'd rather have vicious werewolves to better fight the darkspawn so Ferelden can be saved.

Okay but where's the motivation on gaining said werewolves? Basically when you meet the LAdy of the Forest in the Temple you know that the dialogue option is?

"I've got a better idea, kill all the elves"

Before that there was no indication of anything leading the Warden to even consider using werewolves for their army, it was just based on what i see a random whim.

[In Exile]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Alot of drug users would, in fact, want their drug dealers in their homes. We are talking about a possible hero/anti-hero/would-be-villan who isn't concerned or doesn't care about abominations being controlled or not. Maybe they want demons and abominations running amok. Maybe they want absolute chaos themselves.

That would make them insane. It's very difficult to create a scenario for insane characters.

To bring this to the topic, it is the idea of being able to play a character who, in some way, might share the goals and methods of the primary villian for the game. However, the prime villan may not realize the fact that the person they are antagonizing really wants to join them and assist whatever nefarious goal they have, and thus, throught the game, continues to attack and fight the main character because they are under the belief the character wishes to foil their plans. Or, the main villian could see potential use/worth in the main character, and continues to antagonize them/give them grief to test them, to find out if they are worthy to join "the dark side". 

This requires a plot conducive to this. You need a human villain with a relatively stable and coherent goal like in KoTOR or JE.

Since we don't know the exact nature of the prime antagonist in DA2, I'll give an example in DA:O on possibilities of why a character might wish to assist the darkspawn and Arch Demon in spreading the Blight: 

Suicide? Since the darkspawn will kill the protagonist on sight. Though you could argue for a more long-term for of sucide, since if the blight spreads the progatonist will merely starve to death.

One can role=play a Warden with similar attitudes: perhaps the Warden, who could have likely been recruited unwillingly, believes the Blight to be the punishment of the Maker, and to stop the Blight would be to defy His will. Thus, this warped Warden decides that they wish to assist in "the Maker's work". Obviously, such a warden would be quite warped and twisted in their thinking, but there is a basis for justifying this possibile motive for wanting to help the arch enemy of the game. 

This goes right back to the game being designed to accompany characters who are insane. Your companions would immediately try to murder you when you do this. I mean, how would this even work in-game? You try to kill every political leader to spread the blight?

But in DAO, no matter how warped a character you wanted to play, you had only one playable goal: end the Blight, though you had many possible ways of going about it. But you couldn't truly play a reasonably, completely evil character, because even as you commit twisted, dishonorable or petty acts, you're still saving the world, whether you want to or not.

Reasonable and completely evil are constantly at odds in threads asking for evil, because people seem to want unstable and self-destructive evil.

Modifié par In Exile, 02 janvier 2011 - 07:51 .

[Mecha Tengu]

Anathemic wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

A lot of people just want more and more freedom to play characters that we haven't written, because, as you certainly must know, every decision, every character trait, needs to be written into the game in order for it to be possible for you, the player, to find it.

BioWare games are, above all, heroic tales of triumph over some great force or obstacle or issue. Yes, some of our characters walk the fine line between righteous and self-serving, but they all still have to want to overcome that force/issue/obstacle. Giving an "evil" character the ability to do some very bad things along the way kind of mucks up our story just a bit. There's a huge difference between a jerky hero having different motivations or attitudes about getting tot he end of the game, but it's another thing entirely for an evil character to start laying waste about him with sword and spell, then toddling off to run a used camel dealership in South Jersey.

You can't be "the bad guy." "The bad guy" is the guy you're usually trying to beat at the end of the game. At worst, you can be a really disagreeable hero or a good guy with questionable tastes or that jerk who saved the world. But playing "the bad guy" is not what you're going to find in a BioWare game. Sorry.

Also, in Dragon Age II, you don't save the world.

So the Dalish part in DA:O where you killed the elves was basically, "Hurr hurr I'm gonna kill the Dalish elves 'cause werewoves are better"

you can argue that is not evil. I'd rather have vicious werewolves to better fight the darkspawn so Ferelden can be saved.

Okay but where's the motivation on gaining said werewolves? Basically when you meet the LAdy of the Forest in the Temple you know that the dialogue option is?

"I've got a better idea, kill all the elves"

Before that there was no indication of anything leading the Warden to even consider using werewolves for their army, it was just based on what i see a random whim.

I wanted to appeal to the werewolves and do anything in my power to gain their trust. Thus I said something they had wanted to hear. Maybe I was trying to stop the conflict by lying to the werewolves so we could bring them to confront Zenethren. Without metagaming I would not know Zenethren had actually been right outside

No there was no indication, but gaining the trust of dangerous creatures who live in the forest may be a valuable asset.

[Anathemic]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

I wanted to appeal to the werewolves and do anything in my power to gain their trust. Thus I said something they had wanted to hear. Maybe I was trying to stop the conflict by lying to the werewolves so we could bring them to confront Zenethren. Without metagaming I would not know Zenethren had actually been right outside

No there was no indication, but gaining the trust of dangerous creatures who live in the forest may be a valuable asset.

But said appeal you speak of wasn't indicated at all before the confrontation at the Temple. Sure they might be a valuable asset but again the appeal wasn't indicated or formed at all during the questline.

And for the lying/manipulation aspect. This is false because obviously in the cutscene afterward said Warden has a steely look upon his/her face assuming that said lie wasn't actually a lie but done willingly.

[Dave of Canada]

I'll write it all down from my Mage's point of view.

RussianSpy27 wrote...

1) Let an entire village full of innocents be anhielated (!!)

Redcliffe is doomed, it's in ruins and the civilians that remain can barely defend themselves. Nobody has heard from the castle in weeks and for all you know, there's not a single life left in that castle. You're expected to drop everything, including the Blight, to help a village that is asking for the help of one man.

My Mage, fearing for what might happen if he stayed, left and abandoned Redcliffe to it's fate because:
A) Being a Grey Warden was needed elsewhere.
I didn't want to risk putting my life on the line, or that of my companions.
C) There's nothing I need from Redcliffe.

That's not evil. If you walked into a town and you were expected to stick your neck out to fight an undead army that has all but already destroyed everything with no hope of success, chances are you wouldn't stay there to fight.

2) Cause an innocent child or his mother to be sacrifised

And what is the alternative? Leaving the demon posessed child alone, hoping he doesn't reactivate and kill everybody while you're away? That's far too reckless, it's better to deal with the child immediately and try to minimize the risk of any further damage.

3) Destroy a holly recil, 2 companions' lives with it to side with a group of dragon-worshipping gangsters

I couldn't see the Chantry gain more power, they enslaved my people and judge me because I'm a mage by locking me up in a tower. Leaving the urn will only make them grow more in number, influence more the faith of the people and justify their actions of enslaving my mages further.

Desecration was the only way to make sure the urn would never be used against me, then when the cultists praised me for being their hero I wiped them and their "Andraste" off the face of Thedas.

4) Cause a group of mages to perish and their tower to be raised

Uldred managed to cause the entire Circle to collapse amongst itself, how many people lie dead in the tower because of a lone mage that caused the entire mess? Is it bad to send them to be studied and make sure they aren't Blood Mages to minimalize the risks? I think not, for even the First Enchanter approves of this decision.

while knowing that they're not even blood mages

You don't know that.

5) Put a backstabbing traitor on the throne whose betrayal led to deaths of multitudes (including Duncan and The King), and sacking of the entire Ostagar (!!

Also the greatest hero of Ferelden, known for saving it and serving the King faithfully through the Orlesian rebellion, the general of Ferelden's armies and the Teryn of Gwaren. Killing him won't bring back the dead, sparing him gives you a powerful and influential ally.

In addition to this, Ferelden is fractured after the civil war and even though you might not like Loghain the whole "betrayal" (I believe that if he did charge in, he would've died with everybody else so his "betrayal" is actually a good tactical decision) is not common knowledge amongst the citizenry. What they do know is that Loghain lost (or won) the Landsmeet and you killed him in the end.

And you don't place him on the throne, you just let him live to serve your purposes.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 janvier 2011 - 08:09 .

[Viola Faye]

Amfortas wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Or you could be an evil protagonist (Darth Revan) beating the evil antagonist (Darth Malak). I know canon is a light side Revan, but in the game it is still possible to become Dark Lord of the Sith again, kill most of your friends, etc.. And it is a Bioware game.

this.
I don't mind defeating the evil guy, but I'd like to be able to be as evil as him. Kotor did it, Jade Empire did it, you can keep the power for yourself and not save the world from anything.

Thisx1000000!
Darth Revan FTW:devil:

[Dasher1010]

I want to play a game where you destroy the entire world and cleanse it of all life. Why save the world when you can blow it up?

[AlexXIV]

Dasher1010 wrote...

I want to play a game where you destroy the entire world and cleanse it of all life. Why save the world when you can blow it up?

You know it would be possible. Just give the protagonist a possible fail ending. So in the end he fails to save the world.