119 réponses à ce sujet

[Atriusi]

I played a typical neutral evil rogue. Taking the selfish route. There always has to be something in it for me. This works most of the time, there are dialog options for it.



The problem comes down to missing a large number of side quests. There are many people from Lothering, to Denerim, to Redcliffe, won't give you a quest because you ask about a reward and they get upset. You can't correct it because they just say "Don't talk to me"



This boils down to an implementation issue that you can't complete a quest that you haven't started. Despite the fact that a person should not have to tell you to go look for something, that you should be able to find anyway.



As a selfish bastard a person should be able to tell a small child that their mother is dead, and for them to suck it up. When the kid runs off and cries and you don't get a quest, you should be able to go find her body, drag it back to her and say "See. I told you so." with the smuggest look on your face.



The issue is that you can't, because if you hadn't started the quest. Dialog options lock you out of sidequest rewards despite the fact they aren't required for the outcome of the quest. It's the old dated linear quest line.



When I dig around in the Toolkit I'm sure this is something I'll look at. It's probably an implementation issue and something that is simply too difficult to do without duplicating quests.

[Nissa_Red]

To be honest and to the point, I can't recall a game designed by Bioware that ever offered a satisfying "evil" path for me. Maybe Planescape Torment, and even then, it was... a very particular "evil".

I've recently read on a mainstream gamer blog about how in 100 players, 95 would pick the "good" path, 3 would pick the "evil" path but not stick to it, and only 2 would truely play out the "evil" path to the end. That should tell us something.

Also, there is the recurring question of "evil, yes, but by whose standards ?", but let's not go down this path, shall we ?

Finally, I thought that "The Witcher" did a much better job at offering... alternative paths in a video game.

Modifié par Nissa_Red, 14 novembre 2009 - 08:55 .

[marshalleck]

I thought Mass Effect did it pretty well, though there were a few facepalm moments.

[EpicTragedy]

You have to look at it as good and evil being relative.



When "evil" characters do "evil" things, I'm pretty sure they don't view them as being "evil". They justify their actions as self-righteous or necessary.

[menasure]

imho Sten can be described in three words: to the point. he's not evil in a strict sense, more like a pure soldier without a real capability for moral ethics or moral judgment (hence the gore background) but he does have a profound sense of duty (not in a chivalrous way, in the strict sense), he expects nothing else from others than to do the same and will respond best to the most 'practical' solutions.

if you're thinking in a good or bad sort of way constantly for your decisions then the relation will just get worse and worse with him. he's a stubborn rational oriented guy who does not care about good or wrong, equality or helping and socializing with the locals. those are just interfering with your main mission according to him.

[Stronghold II]

I think I may need to finish my good playthrough first, then maybe I won't feel like I am missing out on so much by making Sten happy.

[reddragon567]

I went through as a evil character drinking as much blood as I could, killing everything. Even having Leliana in my party as my conscience (gifts are glorious).



I think that's the whole point of the game though, it's supposed to be about grey areas, not just Good or Bad.

[mp84]

Drasill wrote...

Playing the evil guy in this game seems to gimp you. I tried getting the reaver specialization and Lelianna left my party. I retried it using other people and when I went back to camp Wynne left my party. I decided not to get the specialization because of this (and cause it kind of sucks) and went with Champion instead which also happened to be a better choice.

I'm probably sure that has been mentioned many times already, but there's a way to keep your Reaver spec and have no one leave your party.

Just save before accepting the questline that goes towards that spec then once you get the spec, reload back to that save point you made, and you'll still have the spec and no one will leave.

As the Specilization are tied to your Player Profile and not your characters. So for example, the Ranger spec you learn in one playthrough, will still be there for the next one. (So you won't need to dish out the 12 gold again)

The beauty of single player games sometimes ehh?

[marshalleck]

menasure wrote...

imho Sten can be described in three words: to the point. he's not evil in a strict sense, more like a pure soldier without a real capability for moral ethics or moral judgment (hence the gore background)

Umm, he fully regrets his crime which is why he allowed himself to be imprisoned in the first place. He has a sense of right and wrong. This isn't really a spoiler either since he says as much in his first conversation with you.

[Rikaze]

Atriusi wrote...

I played a typical neutral evil rogue. Taking the selfish route. There always has to be something in it for me. This works most of the time, there are dialog options for it.

The problem comes down to missing a large number of side quests. There are many people from Lothering, to Denerim, to Redcliffe, won't give you a quest because you ask about a reward and they get upset. You can't correct it because they just say "Don't talk to me"

This boils down to an implementation issue that you can't complete a quest that you haven't started. Despite the fact that a person should not have to tell you to go look for something, that you should be able to find anyway.

It's true for the most part, I agree, though I do find the "What's in it for me?" route tends to produce pretty good results for that type of a character.

As a selfish bastard a person should be able to tell a small child that their mother is dead, and for them to suck it up. When the kid runs off and cries and you don't get a quest, you should be able to go find her body, drag it back to her and say "See. I told you so." with the smuggest look on your face.

The kid NEVER gives you the quest.  It's a Chanter's Board quest, which you can still get, no matter what you say to him.  I know this for a fact...  Because I did it yesterday...  Twice.  Actually, you don't even ever have to talk to the kid to get the quest, you just have to not leave Lothering...  I dunno how many people figured this out, but there are two sets of Chanter's Board quests there.  One for the Bandits, which you then turn in, and then two more quests show up, one of which is the "Child's Keepsake" quest or something like that, which is regarding that kids Mom, which you wouldn't know if you hadn't talked to him.

The issue is that you can't, because if you hadn't started the quest. Dialog options lock you out of sidequest rewards despite the fact they aren't required for the outcome of the quest. It's the old dated linear quest line.

When I dig around in the Toolkit I'm sure this is something I'll look at. It's probably an implementation issue and something that is simply too difficult to do without duplicating quests.

If you're completing a quest without getting any sort of tangible reward beyond that quest entering the Completed section of your Journal, yet on your Benevolent, All-Loving playthrough, you -did- get some kind of reward, then you would be wrong, that's actually very NON-linear, seeing as how you're having different consequences for roughly the same set of actions.

I know on my first two playthroughs I did every side-quest I could find or get access to.  I know that with certain quests, I would sometimes say or do something that would just finish the quest up for me, without having received a reward or anything from the person I got it from, even though I'd been promised one, simply because I'd done something that would cause them to retract their offer.  That is, indeed, what I'd call, non-linear.

[Big Mabels Diet-Plan]

I never used to play evil in RPGs until I followed an evil run through of KOTOR 2 and realised how much fun it is. Then again I dont like romances in games and never care one iota about other NPCs so It's easy for me to be an amoral ****. But it is much more fun. I laughed my ass off after leaving Lothering to rot and reading the codex entry that Sten was dead after I'd promised to free him.

[lordhugorune]

Atriusi wrote...

I played a typical neutral evil rogue. Taking the selfish route. There always has to be something in it for me. This works most of the time, there are dialog options for it.

The problem comes down to missing a large number of side quests. There are many people from Lothering, to Denerim, to Redcliffe, won't give you a quest because you ask about a reward and they get upset. You can't correct it because they just say "Don't talk to me"

I think this is where you need to be a little bit cunning. If you're evil, and it's in your advantage to help people - or be seen as a hero - that's what you should be doing. Extorting 10 silver from a peasant isn't always worth doing if it's going to damage your deceitful cover.

The point is that when there's an opportunity to steal something major, unnoticed by anyone else - or make a treacherous deal with an evil being on the sly - that's when your evil side takes over.

[Gilead26]

Right now I'm doing a female city elf who (for good reason) loathes humans and nobles especially. I feel totally justified treating Alistair like crap.

[menasure]

marshalleck wrote...

menasure wrote...

imho Sten can be described in three words: to the point. he's not evil in a strict sense, more like a pure soldier without a real capability for moral ethics or moral judgment (hence the gore background)

Umm, he fully regrets his crime which is why he allowed himself to be imprisoned in the first place. He has a sense of right and wrong. This isn't really a spoiler either since he says as much in his first conversation with you.

he had a sense of wright and wrong once but after all the stuff he has done and seen he has a troubled mind which often makes him cling on to the basics principles of his past rather than to "live" in the present. he has some sort of fleeing reality - dead wish really but the main thing keeping him alive is the "getting the job done" principle.
i know it is a simplification i made but it is one which helps to get some result in your choices in game.

[Netrin]

I agree with most what has been said. It boils down to that generally most players will play the good path, thus making the "evil" path not as developed as the good path. Only in those games where it is specifically made for you to be evil, or in games where the dilema is choice good or bad like kotor.



Look at baldurs gate, being chaotic evil was never really rewarding in sense of XP, gold or quests. Only advantage in that game that could give you joy is when you get strong enough to wipe out cities without anybody being able to touch you. That you cannot do in DAO. It is really annoying that you cannot just attack who you want at will and then having to face the consequences.

[Dnarris]

Yeah, morally I have a hard time just ignoring people or ordering someone to be killed.



Worst yet, in game terms, is being evil you end up missing out on a lot of quests that you can only get by being willing to listen to problems various NPCs are having.

[menasure]

Dnarris wrote...

Yeah, morally I have a hard time just ignoring people or ordering someone to be killed.

Worst yet, in game terms, is being evil you end up missing out on a lot of quests that you can only get by being willing to listen to problems various NPCs are having.

agreed but i have found out that acting as the "good" guy can result in nightmare evil scenarios nevertheless

[Michlo]

Hmm, I'm not enjoying reading this. I've always found it difficult but not impossible to be "evil' in other games but I've also found it is better to go through as "good" first else it gets boring trying to be good after being bad.... wow that was a long sentence... yikes, it still isn't over, need a period immediately.

[middlemagic]

Evil is easy for me. Though I cannot say that I've ever played evil the fight run through. It just isn't me. Chaotic evil moronic choices are nearly impossible for me and if that is the separation between good and evil in the game I really don't consider it to be evil. It is simply animalistic.

Choices that would result in an uprising to put down character just boggle my mind. Especially when the character has just their party (likely with shaky loyalty) and others in the world have armies of fighters, mages, rogues, etc.

As to DAO, I certainly see a lot of "fun" and "evil" potential options for my second play through.

Modifié par middlemagic, 14 novembre 2009 - 10:03 .

[The Demonologist]

My city elf didn't like humans, but was just a very nice person. The kind who CAN kick your ass. Only thing is, said character was just exposed to so many humans it was hard to keep hating them. Especially the ones that treated her differently.



The folks that made knife-ear comments and the like? Oh, you better believe they got the good whuppin.

[The Demonologist]

I digress though, evil just is hard to play in this game. There's no smart evil. There's just ****ed toolish "HAHAW, YOU'RE A TURD FOR MISSING YOUR MOTHER" evil.



But then again, its not the kind of story that lends itself to being actually evil. Your choices are being a paragon of how to live the heroes life, or being the biggest tool possible while still saving the day, as well as everything inbetween.

[Kalcalan]

Interesting thread. I think one of DA:O's strengths compared to Baldur's Gate is that it doesnt have the old alignment system. I don't think you should limit yourself to think in the old boxes. Your character is an individual so characterizing him or her as such might help. Being evil doesn't mean your character has to be rude or obnoxious. One could make a convincing case for a "good" character who would be incredibly rude and obnoxious.



Let's start with (bad) attitude (acting according to one's whims and not caring for the moral issues) and selfishness (which doesn't preclude pretending to be altruistic). Add some (bad) temper (hidden or revealed) and possibly a long time grudge. That wouldn't be a bad way to start. Keeping all these elements in mind when making choices in game may actually be liberating.



Last but not least, it's important to remember that a truly evil character will never think of himself or herself as being evil.

[macayle]

This system to me reminiscent of Roman after it converted to Crhistanity up till the reformation. You have one God if you do not belive in him you are a heritic. Couple that with how there is no seperate Heven and Hell but one place the Fade which is more akin to the Greeco Roman religon. Makes for an interesting combination

[Gackto]

I'm playing with/as the role of master strategist, I took the honour/duty role as my characters own viewpoint. Me and Sten get on like a house on fire. With Sten you just have to remember that the most important thing in the world right now is stopping the blight, and that his answers to any questions you ask him, no matter how vague they seem are actually full of meaning, and if you don't understand him or press him, he see's you as either stupid or deliberately trying to annoy him.

He basically teaches you how to deal with him when you first meet him.

[Viz79]

Im playing the dwarven noble origin but my character is definitely selfish, cutthroat and looks after No.1. BUT that doesnt mean being stupid - its means being deceitful, manipulative and knowing when to say what. Going for the rude thugish option is not usually the 'evil' option, its simply the 'thug' option. And there are plenty of options to allow for you to maintain a very dark road. The difference as I said is being an intelligent baddie. Because if you are just going to say and behave in the most violent way, you're just going to be a walking thug and will be treated as such (i.e. not very well, no friends etc).