53 réponses à ce sujet

[Ninotchka]

errant_knight wrote...

Ninotchka wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

He's not a mage, you know. He didn't know there was another option until a mage brings it up. Then of course he wants to go to the circle. It's an infinitely better option to blood magic for him or killing a child for him. Isolde is no Loghain. He doesn't hold her responsible for the spread of the blight, the deaths of the wardens, or regicide. She's just a stupid woman who made a stupid choice, and he doesn't hate her at all. He tells you right out that he's forgiven her and Eamon, and understands why she fells that way. It makes perfect sense for his character and isn't hypocritical at all, although your warden can certainly feel differently. But yes, being told off by Alistair is extremely...effective.

Why I think Alistair is a hypocrite (in this situation) is because he suggested killing Connor first. And then later back at camp, he acts as if the thought/idea/solution (killing Connor) never crossed his mind.

No, see this is the point I was trying to make. Back at camp, he knows there was another option that he didn't know previously. It's not hypocritical to change your mind based on new information, and it's neither hypocritical nor out of character for him to be pissed if you decided to ignore that new information. It's a game, and choosing what to do it supposed to be your choice, not Alistair's so he's not going to actually tell you what to do, but it's not unreasonable for him to be pissed given his beliefs about right and wrong.

Maybe I haven't played the game often enough to have memorised each and every situation but as I recall, the Warden can pretty much go with the "killing Connor" option without having to discuss the going to the Circle Of Magi option. So how would/could Alistair know about that option?

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I remember it.

[errant_knight]

Ninotchka wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Ninotchka wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

He's not a mage, you know. He didn't know there was another option until a mage brings it up. Then of course he wants to go to the circle. It's an infinitely better option to blood magic for him or killing a child for him. Isolde is no Loghain. He doesn't hold her responsible for the spread of the blight, the deaths of the wardens, or regicide. She's just a stupid woman who made a stupid choice, and he doesn't hate her at all. He tells you right out that he's forgiven her and Eamon, and understands why she fells that way. It makes perfect sense for his character and isn't hypocritical at all, although your warden can certainly feel differently. But yes, being told off by Alistair is extremely...effective.

Why I think Alistair is a hypocrite (in this situation) is because he suggested killing Connor first. And then later back at camp, he acts as if the thought/idea/solution (killing Connor) never crossed his mind.

No, see this is the point I was trying to make. Back at camp, he knows there was another option that he didn't know previously. It's not hypocritical to change your mind based on new information, and it's neither hypocritical nor out of character for him to be pissed if you decided to ignore that new information. It's a game, and choosing what to do it supposed to be your choice, not Alistair's so he's not going to actually tell you what to do, but it's not unreasonable for him to be pissed given his beliefs about right and wrong.

Maybe I haven't played the game often enough to have memorised each and every situation but as I recall, the Warden can pretty much go with the "killing Connor" option without having to discuss the going to the Circle Of Magi option. So how would/could Alistair know about that option?

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I remember it.

If you ask any questions of any mage it comes up. It's actually pretty hard to miss it, so the game is written as though you've had some discussion. That's clear from Alistair's reaction back at camp. They can't cover every possible way you might go, so they make some assumptions, namely that you talk to people rather than ignoring all those opportunities to ask questions. I mean they could have a flag set if you had a warriors only party, or if you spoke to no mages about it, but the game assumes that you've done some talking. It does in almost every situation in the game. The companions know things about each other that they can only have heard from you or eavesdropped in, even if you skip those conversations. It's just a fact of game mechanics.

Anyway, I'm done hijacking this thread. I just wanted to point out that it's not hypocritical in terms of Alistair's character and what he knows at the time and after.

Modifié par errant_knight, 15 février 2011 - 12:13 .

[Zjarcal]

My (non)favorite unintended consequence of my first playthrough was inadvertently starting a romance with both Alistair and Zevran while I was only interested in Leliana. I had no idea how the romances were handled, and I never would've thought that any approval you got would push you higher in the romance once it was started (I would've thought the romance path would be handled separately).

Twas not pleasant having to "break up" with them both.

EDIT: Oh, and I will restrain myself from commenting on Alistair's rant after killing Connor. Most everyone here knows how I feel on that. Suffice to say, I hated his reaction and it was the moment where I stopped liking him and I'll leave it at that.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 15 février 2011 - 12:17 .

[errant_knight]

LOL, Zjarcal, couldn't resist adding the second part of the addendum, huh?

[Zjarcal]

errant_knight wrote...

LOL, Zjarcal, couldn't resist adding the second part of the addendum, huh?

Nope. 

You know that issue is one of my berserker buttons. 

But hey, I ain't adding anything else. :innocent:

Modifié par Zjarcal, 15 février 2011 - 01:34 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I will refrain from talking abut Alistair and the immaturity and childishness that he displays (and admits) after Redcliff.

A consequence I like is Cullen going paranoid as Knight Commander. I find it weirdly fascinating that the Chantry would put someone who is mentally unstable as Knight-Commander but hey. The Burkel consequence was a bit too bombastic for the lack of a better word. A bit over the top. A consequence that was in the original epilogue slides but got deleted is apparently Shianni or whoever Alistair appoints as an elven bann getting assassinated and elven riots put down by force right after. They should have never removed that.

[Axekix]

My favorite would have to be Anora turning on you at the Landsmeet if you tell her you intend to kill Loghain. It totally blindsided me in my first noob-playthrough. In retrospect though, it makes her feel a lot more real and the entire situation more complex.



I think that moment was the turning point that made her one of my favorite NPCs.

[Ninotchka]

errant_knight wrote...

If you ask any questions of any mage it comes up. It's actually pretty hard to miss it, so the game is written as though you've had some discussion. That's clear from Alistair's reaction back at camp. They can't cover every possible way you might go, so they make some assumptions, namely that you talk to people rather than ignoring all those opportunities to ask questions. I mean they could have a flag set if you had a warriors only party, or if you spoke to no mages about it, but the game assumes that you've done some talking. It does in almost every situation in the game. The companions know things about each other that they can only have heard from you or eavesdropped in, even if you skip those conversations. It's just a fact of game mechanics.

Anyway, I'm done hijacking this thread. I just wanted to point out that it's not hypocritical in terms of Alistair's character and what he knows at the time and after.

Game mechanics doesn't really seem a sufficient explanation for the hypocrisy. If your Warden no longer has the Circle of Magi as an option (and thus has no "good" option left), Alistair will still have the tanty from hell, again despite the fact that he suggests killing Connor first. 

His early suggestion to kill Connor can come across to the Warden as if he is "on board" with the idea -  that this solution is a good/quick one.

FWIW this isn't going to make me lose sleep or anything, I'm just trying to understand why the Warden cops that angry rant and loss of approval from Alistair over something he suggested we do in the first place...Really he shouldn't have said anything during that "finding a solution to the Connor problem" scene. It would have justified his camp tirade.

Also, I don't think we're hijacking the thread, just clarifying/debating an "unintended" consequence.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

A consequence I like is Cullen going paranoid as Knight Commander. I find it weirdly fascinating that the Chantry would put someone who is mentally unstable as Knight-Commander but hey. The Burkel consequence was a bit too bombastic for the lack of a better word. A bit over the top. A consequence that was in the original epilogue slides but got deleted is apparently Shianni or whoever Alistair appoints as an elven bann getting assassinated and elven riots put down by force right after. They should have never removed that.

It doesn't surprise me in the least the Chantry putting a whacko like Cullen in charge. Their whole army is basically a bunch of dope-addled fanatics, and though most seem pretty stable for the time being, the Chantry seems to like them on edge with a serious mage hate. The templars are the Chantry's hold on the mages, and someone like Cullen with serious mage issues would be perfect in crushing what seem to be growing Libertarian tendancies and sympathizers. Cowed, fearful mages seem to be what the Chantry in general would like to see.

Agreed on the last part, because it seems a likely outcome, given the attitudes of humans towards elves. Coupled with Shianni's outspokeness, which would enrage just about anyone who thinks elves should be kept out of sight and out of mind. Which appears to be much of Ferelden.

[TheBlackBaron]

Axekix wrote...

My favorite would have to be Anora turning on you at the Landsmeet if you tell her you intend to kill Loghain. It totally blindsided me in my first noob-playthrough. In retrospect though, it makes her feel a lot more real and the entire situation more complex.

I think that moment was the turning point that made her one of my favorite NPCs.

Forgot about that one - in retrospect I shouldn't have been surprised, but the first time through it really blindsided me. I thought that it would happen if you said the wrong things to her and didn't form an alliance or anything, but I really did think that the deal I had brokered would be acceptable and I would have her support. 

It did make me shout "You ****." at the computer at two in the morning, though, so hey. It wasn't all bad. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 15 février 2011 - 02:07 .

[maxernst]

With respect to Alistair and Redcliffe, I think Alistair could have been a bit more carefully written there. He should have said something to indicate how strongly he felt as soon as an alternative possibility was mentioned. And if you've managed to arrive at Redcliffe without any mages with you and have left Jowan locked up (or killed him) so it doesn't come up--or if you've been to the Circle Tower and sided with the Templars so you can't go there--he shouldn't go ballistic.

I'm not sure I buy Cullen as Knight Commander because I can't think of any Templars we meet in positions of authority who are loony mage-haters. Certainly not Gregoir. The one in charge in Lothering seems quite reasonable. The one in Redcliffe is dealing with the Mage Collective on the side. I haven't had much interaction with the one in Denerim, but at least none of the other three show any signs of being posessed by an irrational hatred of mages.

My guess is the chantry likes the rank and file to be fanatics, but I bet the higher you go in the organization, the less zealous. 

Modifié par maxernst, 15 février 2011 - 02:16 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
It doesn't surprise me in the least the Chantry putting a whacko like Cullen in charge. Their whole army is basically a bunch of dope-addled fanatics, and though most seem pretty stable for the time being, the Chantry seems to like them on edge with a serious mage hate. The templars are the Chantry's hold on the mages, and someone like Cullen with serious mage issues would be perfect in crushing what seem to be growing Libertarian tendancies and sympathizers. Cowed, fearful mages seem to be what the Chantry in general would like to see.

And that's usually the logic employed in self-destructive policies. You'd think they'd want to get closer to "moderates" like Wynne and Irving who for all intents and purposes are satisfied with chantry dominion, instead of arouse even more Libertarian sentiments by being more oppressive.

Sometimes I really don't understand why people forget that there is no one way of doing things. That there is something called punishments, but also rewards. And that both can and should be used simultaneously. But no, let's put a maniac as Knight Commander and make the mages even more scared and desperate. The most terrifying enemy is one who is desperate. 

"Confront them with annihilation, and they will then survive; plunge them into a deadly situation, and they will then live. When people fall into danger, they are then able to strive for victory."
-Sun Tzu

But hey, hatred always clouds judgement. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 février 2011 - 02:16 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And that's usually the logic employed in self-destructive policies. You'd think they'd want to get closer to "moderates" like Wynne and Irving who for all intents and purposes are satisfied with chantry dominion, instead of arouse even more Libertarian sentiments by being more oppressive.

Sometimes I really don't understand why people forget that there is no one way of doing things. That there is something called punishments, but also rewards. And that both can and should be used simultaneously. But no, let's put a maniac as Knight Commander and make the mages even more scared and desperate. The most terrifying enemy is one who is desperate. 

"Confront them with annihilation, and they will then survive; plunge them into a deadly situation, and they will then live. When people fall into danger, they are then able to strive for victory."
-Sun Tzu

But hey, hatred always clouds judgement. 

Yes, and with an institution like the Chantry, emotions such as fear and hatred will dominate in their dealings with the mages. I think it's because magophobia is deeply ingrained into the religon, to the point it really is difficult to remove without radically changing the religous teaching and organizational structure itself. This inability to be flexible and pragmatic on this issue is going to spell the doom of their monopoly on religous belief in most of Thedas. It is those institutions that learn to be flexible and adapt to the needs of the time survive.

The willow/oak solution. But the Chantry as is seems destined to go the oak route.

[Dark Specie]

The whole Dagna/Burkel thing was a bit of a surpise as far as unintended consequences go.
So was choosing Harrowmont on my first playthrough and finding out that he did his job so poorly that it in essence ended up setting things back to where they started (the whole civil war in Orzammar business).

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Yes, and with an institution like the Chantry, emotions such as fear and hatred will dominate in their dealings with the mages. I think it's because magophobia is deeply ingrained into the religon, to the point it really is difficult to remove without radically changing the religous teaching and organizational structure itself.

Well, yeah. The Chantry has always put emphrasis on how dangerous mages are - blackened the Golden City, created the Blight, rules th epeople with an iron fist during the time of the empire... Not to mention the risk of thme using forbidden magic and becoming abominations! So that the Chantry views mages with fear and suspicion is not so strange, as you say. Unfortunately, their stance on  things creates problems.

That said, not all int he chantry are as anti-age as, say, Mother Bronach. Nor are all mages as bad as the other side of the coin, such as Remílle...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
This inability to be flexible and pragmatic on this issue is going to spell the doom of their monopoly on religous belief in most of Thedas. It is those institutions that learn to be flexible and adapt to the needs of the time survive.
The willow/oak solution. But the Chantry as is seems destined to go the oak route.

Well now, Thedas hasn't quite been through an event like The Reformation yet, but as long as they refuse to change, such an event is likely unavoidable...

Modifié par Dark Specie, 15 février 2011 - 04:19 .

[errant_knight]

Ninotchka wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

If you ask any questions of any mage it comes up. It's actually pretty hard to miss it, so the game is written as though you've had some discussion. That's clear from Alistair's reaction back at camp. They can't cover every possible way you might go, so they make some assumptions, namely that you talk to people rather than ignoring all those opportunities to ask questions. I mean they could have a flag set if you had a warriors only party, or if you spoke to no mages about it, but the game assumes that you've done some talking. It does in almost every situation in the game. The companions know things about each other that they can only have heard from you or eavesdropped in, even if you skip those conversations. It's just a fact of game mechanics.

Anyway, I'm done hijacking this thread. I just wanted to point out that it's not hypocritical in terms of Alistair's character and what he knows at the time and after.

Game mechanics doesn't really seem a sufficient explanation for the hypocrisy. If your Warden no longer has the Circle of Magi as an option (and thus has no "good" option left), Alistair will still have the tanty from hell, again despite the fact that he suggests killing Connor first. 

His early suggestion to kill Connor can come across to the Warden as if he is "on board" with the idea -  that this solution is a good/quick one.

FWIW this isn't going to make me lose sleep or anything, I'm just trying to understand why the Warden cops that angry rant and loss of approval from Alistair over something he suggested we do in the first place...Really he shouldn't have said anything during that "finding a solution to the Connor problem" scene. It would have justified his camp tirade.

Also, I don't think we're hijacking the thread, just clarifying/debating an "unintended" consequence.

Well, the thread is intended to be people's favorite unintended consequences, not why you think Alistair is a hypocrite and I disagree entirely. Besides, your repeated use of words and phrases like 'tirade', 'hipocracy', 'rant' and 'tanty form hell' shows that you aren't interested in finding common ground and your opinion is apparently unchangable, so what's the point? If you just want to rant about it, you sure don't need me.

[HolyAvenger]

Yes the Cullen as Knight-Commander once is good too- I haven't done a playthrough yet where I choose to side with the Templars all the way to the end, but I'm looking forward to it when I do get around to it.



Some of the unintended consequences are a little too blindside-y if you ask me- the Dagna/Burkel ones are examples. You can't reasonably predict those a player as opposed to say the consequences of invoking the Rite of Annulment, threating to kill Loghain or choose Bhelen or Harrowmont.

[Ninotchka]

errant_knight wrote...

Well, the thread is intended to be people's favorite unintended consequences, not why you think Alistair is a hypocrite and I disagree entirely. Besides, your repeated use of words and phrases like 'tirade', 'hipocracy', 'rant' and 'tanty form hell' shows that you aren't interested in finding common ground and your opinion is apparently unchangable, so what's the point? If you just want to rant about it, you sure don't need me.

I found Alistair's (hypocritical) reaction and related loss of approval an undesired "unintended consequence". I find it strange that you think I am intending to turn this into a "why I think Alistair is hypocrite" thread when it was you who initially decided to debate the point.

[errant_knight]

Ninotchka wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Well, the thread is intended to be people's favorite unintended consequences, not why you think Alistair is a hypocrite and I disagree entirely. Besides, your repeated use of words and phrases like 'tirade', 'hipocracy', 'rant' and 'tanty form hell' shows that you aren't interested in finding common ground and your opinion is apparently unchangable, so what's the point? If you just want to rant about it, you sure don't need me.

I found Alistair's (hypocritical) reaction and related loss of approval an undesired "unintended consequence". I find it strange that you think I am intending to turn this into a "why I think Alistair is hypocrite" thread when it was you who initially decided to debate the point.

No. I mentioned that I thought the description of the event as 'hypocritical' ignored his character and the events at Redcliffe. I didn't expect you to take the ball and run with it, nor do I actually care how you choose to characterize it. In any case, I'm done with this. Continue by yourself if you must.

Modifié par errant_knight, 15 février 2011 - 05:08 .

[BigBad]

I really don't get the whole big thing over Alistair's reaction. Dude's venting. Now that the situation is over, and everyone's back at camp, he's now free to give voice to the doubts that have plagued him the whole time. If Isolde or Connor die, then even if he agreed with the decision, he still hates that it happened and since you were in charge, he gets to take it out on you. Not because he really holds it against you (he never really brings it up again, and you can go on being BFF with him afterwards), but because he holds it against himself for agreeing with/suggesting it. But you're in charge, which means you get the crap parts of that job (everyone yelling at you when things go wrong) with the good (more or less always getting your way).



It's a classic, human reaction to traumatic events, and since people are not always (or even often) logical, especially in matters of family and such, it serves only to further cement Alistair as an actual person with his own opinions and reactions and not an NPC Yes-Man Who Agrees With The Awesome Smart PC All The Time. Once he's vented, he moves on.



So . . what's the big deal?



Back to the original topic of the thread, the only real unintended consequence I can remember from my first, non-spoilered game was choosing to spare Loghain and having Alistair walk out. Really didn't see that coming, since I had never had a party member leave or turn on me so far. I actually liked it, since it furthered the illusion that the NPCs are individuals.

[Elsariel]

My first WTF moment was when I was back in Denerim and the Zevran/Crows thing came up. I didn't spend much time on Zev because I was romancing Alistair but he was at least several points up from neutral so I thought he liked me. Boy was I wrong! Having him turn against me and having to kill him was my big WTF moment of the game.

[Tigress M]

My first was having Alistair dump my DE after the LM. I was seriously expecting a proposal (which is why I didn't suggest becoming his queen during the LM, thankfully) and instead he breaks up. I was so pissed off I almost stopped playing.

Then, I snooped around the forums trying to see if there was a way to keep him from doing that and discovered that only HN's could marry him. So, I stopped playing my DE and rerolled a human.

And so, that lined me right up for my second gut-punch when, instead of having a romantic one last night in Redcliffe before heading off to Denerim, I'm faced with the DR. But, I REALLY wanted to be queen (enough to sacrifice my first character) so I went through with it, waiting anxiously for the wedding.

Which brought me to my third surprise... walking through the doors and getting epilogue slides vs said wedding! (Thanks to Dahlia for finally giving us a Royal Wedding! LOL)

[antigravitycat]

HolyAvenger wrote...
[...]
Trying to help Danyla in the Brecilian Forest gets her attacking you so you're forced to kill her. I re-loaded several times to see if there was any way I could help her but...

That was horrible! When I first met her I answered I could not kill her, I thought it was possible just to deny and leave. But she was like "Rawr kill me!" and I was like "Oh hell no what is she doing?" ...so I paralyzed her and ran into the mist. That made me get out of combat and able to avoid killing her. 

[Ninotchka]

errant_knight wrote...

No. I mentioned that I thought the description of the event as 'hypocritical' ignored his character and the events at Redcliffe. I didn't expect you to take the ball and run with it, nor do I actually care how you choose to characterize it. In any case, I'm done with this. Continue by yourself if you must.

You're quite right. I apologise to you and the OP of this thread for taking the difference of opinion too far.

----

I read some of the earlier posts and have to agree, that unknowingly sending Alistair to his death (if you don't convince him to do the dark ritual and had no prior spoiler/info) when he elects to kill the archdemon was a powerfully emotional, unintended consequence...... probably the most unintended consequence of them all

[errant_knight]

*Tips hat to Ninotchka*