377 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth Krytie]

Merrill irritates me because her whole spiel about blood magic -- I can control it--sounds an awful lot like an alcoholic who claims they can stop anytime they want. She's doing dangerous things, won't listen to anyone, even those who have loads more wisdom than she does, and does things she knows are dangerous because she's too stubborn to accept that maybe she's wrong.

And her clan's response? Was after years of Merrill going down this path, against the advice of basically everyone. She disregarded their safety and their opinions first. And even up until the end, she would have been welcomed back if she gave up the blood magic and the destructive path she was on. And even if Marethari made the choice to take the Pride Demon in her, she wouldn't have had to if Merrill was willing to listen to reason.

[Foolsfolly]

Reidbynature wrote...

If there's anything I've learned from previous Merrill threads is that she was 'smart' for killing killing her clan, trying to summon demons and using blood magic etc and that in no way did any of Merrill's action lead to anyone's death, but a whole bunch of people died in unlrelated accidents (by the way, I've seen that film. It's called 'The Omen'  ) At least that's what many Merrill defenders will claim.

I wonder. Was Orsino smart or just fortunate that Hawke was there to kill him if the player chose the mages? 

You appeared in that thread too then? I argued in that thread for like 3-4 pages before walking away. Just walk away, man.

Forget it, Reid, it's Internet.

[Zan Mura]

embert1ger wrote...

Does anyone else find it messed up that Merril would rather see her whole clan slaughtered than admit she was wrong and leave peacefully?

Seriously, killing her entire clan gives +10 friendship while leaving them peacefully gives +15 rivalry.  At this point, I'm done trying to appease her stubborn delusions to gain her friendship.  I'm begging to supsect she's been possessed this whole time.

Friendship / rivalry gains depend on your past flags. Besides what happens after reveals well enough her feelings concerning the death of her clan. The only messed up thing with it was that Merrill didn't have much to say during the confrontation, which might well be because of her shock with the Keeper's death.

Regardless, that whole thing was odd. I don't really ever say something is bad writing, since it can almost always be just a matter of a point of view. And I won't say that here either. But there's little alternative between either that or that clan really being completely screwed up. Since in-game there is no such thing as "writing", the only option is to go with what applies in the world.

Point being, the Dalish are a bunch of warmongering, zealous, unintelligent animals. Were it just for that one fight right outside the cave, I might understand their reaction. But considering how they've treated Merrill since day one, how they've spat on Hawke, only *ever* treated others with disdain, disrespect, and random threats of violence... when you add the fact that the WHOLE VILLAGE is willing to rush in and die just to get her, with a mindless rage and a complete disregard for personal safety and survival, that really doesn't leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. I honestly have no idea how such an extremely misanthropist community could ever produce such individuals as the Keeper, Merrill herself, or the potential Dalish Warden in DAO.

But I felt that was rather therapeutic. I always dreamed of a mod for BG2 that would allow you to slaughter the self-righteous, pompous elves after exiting the Underdark. Their social graces were of a similar sort as the Dalish in DA, so in a way I could live my past dreams and do the things I never could back in BG2.

There's nothing I hate more than abusive idiots in real life. In games I just love the idea of being able to do something about them, permanently.

Modifié par Zan Mura, 01 avril 2011 - 09:08 .

[Ravvenor]

The Angry One wrote...

Erm, no. People did not die because of Merril. They died because their responses to Merril were idiotic.
It's not Merril's fault she grew up with morons.

But, it is her fault that she resorted to blood magic (And was possesed by a demon at one point) as a way to follow her own demented path of restoring a deadly artifact.

[TobiTobsen]

Darth Krytie wrote...

Merrill irritates me because her whole spiel about blood magic -- I can control it--sounds an awful lot like an alcoholic who claims they can stop anytime they want. She's doing dangerous things, won't listen to anyone, even those who have loads more wisdom than she does, and does things she knows are dangerous because she's too stubborn to accept that maybe she's wrong.

And her clan's response? Was after years of Merrill going down this path, against the advice of basically everyone. She disregarded their safety and their opinions first. And even up until the end, she would have been welcomed back if she gave up the blood magic and the destructive path she was on. And even if Marethari made the choice to take the Pride Demon in her, she wouldn't have had to if Merrill was willing to listen to reason.

Merrils reactions to blood magic and demons are always hilarious.

Don't kill her clan for ****ing at her that the Keeper is dead because she used blood magic? Rivalry points
Don't let the sloth demon take over Feynriel? Rivalry points
Don't talk to the sloth demon in the Deep Roads? Rivalry points
Don't talk to the desire demon in Sebastians DLC? Rivalry points
Don't give her the tool to fix the mirror like a pride demon told her? Rivalry points AND you're a "shem" now.

I really like Merrill but I can't stand her naive approach at demons.

[The Angry One]

TobiTobsen wrote...

I really like Merrill but I can't stand her naive approach at demons.

Naive?
You get rivalry if you don't talk to the demons. That's it.
If you talk to them and then kill them, you get no rivalry. In fact you can ask Merril to blast the hunger demon in the Deep Roads in the face and she'll happily do so.
Merril only gets upset if you don't hear them out.

[TobiTobsen]

The Angry One wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

I really like Merrill but I can't stand her naive approach at demons.

Naive?
You get rivalry if you don't talk to the demons. That's it.
If you talk to them and then kill them, you get no rivalry. In fact you can ask Merril to blast the hunger demon in the Deep Roads in the face and she'll happily do so.
Merril only gets upset if you don't hear them out.

Yup, in my PoV it's naive. I won't listen to demons. Why should I? In the best case the demon is just trying to backstab me, in the worst he is trying to possess me. But hey... since I'm a little bit pro templar, maybe that is clouding my judgement on Merrills behaviour.

[The Angry One]

TobiTobsen wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

I really like Merrill but I can't stand her naive approach at demons.

Naive?
You get rivalry if you don't talk to the demons. That's it.
If you talk to them and then kill them, you get no rivalry. In fact you can ask Merril to blast the hunger demon in the Deep Roads in the face and she'll happily do so.
Merril only gets upset if you don't hear them out.

Yup, in my PoV it's naive. I won't listen to demons. Why should I? In the best case the demon is just trying to backstab me, in the worst he is trying to possess me. But hey... since I'm a little bit pro templar, maybe that is clouding my judgement on Merrills behaviour.

Well that's the point, you're killing demons just for being demons, that's racist and Merril doesn't like that.
If you listen to the demons and then kill them for being full of ****, Merril's fine with that.

[Torax]

TobiTobsen wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

I really like Merrill but I can't stand her naive approach at demons.

Naive?
You get rivalry if you don't talk to the demons. That's it.
If you talk to them and then kill them, you get no rivalry. In fact you can ask Merril to blast the hunger demon in the Deep Roads in the face and she'll happily do so.
Merril only gets upset if you don't hear them out.

Yup, in my PoV it's naive. I won't listen to demons. Why should I? In the best case the demon is just trying to backstab me, in the worst he is trying to possess me. But hey... since I'm a little bit pro templar, maybe that is clouding my judgement on Merrills behaviour.

Here is how Merrill sees them. Spirits like Justice and Valor are just Spirits. Demons are also Spirits. They differ greatly as individuals. That is why she just wants to hear their side. They can die after what it's obvious they are sinister. After all would kil all demons and just let Justice/Vengeance get a pass cause he's a spirit?

[Kartikeya]

The Angry One wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

I really like Merrill but I can't stand her naive approach at demons.

Naive?
You get rivalry if you don't talk to the demons. That's it.
If you talk to them and then kill them, you get no rivalry. In fact you can ask Merril to blast the hunger demon in the Deep Roads in the face and she'll happily do so.
Merril only gets upset if you don't hear them out.

While this is true in regards to Merrill, is there really any point in the games where listening to what a demon has to say is really ever a good idea? Ever? I mean, people blast Marethari for listening to the demon Merrill herself was listening to. For seven years. Because the thing was either hoping to possess her or walk right through the Eluvian so it could cause havoc or whatever its actual plans actually were, they were not healthy for anyone else involved. Doesn't she say that her failsafe way of dealing with them is just to assume that they're all lying?

Hearing demons out is generally just a great way to let them tempt you. 'Oh hey, have some shiny stat points, all you have to do is let me go possess this super ultra powerful mage over here.' 'Oh hey, have some shiny stat points, all you have to do is agree to a bargain where you can't destroy this book so someone else can come along and get jumped by demons. Did I mention being jumped by demons? Have some demons!' 'Oh hey, have a boat or the salvation of your entire race. Psyche! I love it when they fall for that one'. 'Oh awesome, you just totally defeated the demon, totally, really, let's go home because you're the most awesomest awesome ever and I am totally not about to gut stab you the moment you give me the opportunity.' 'Hey, funny story, I just helped this woman kill your whole family and it only cost her her own, want a shiny?'

Damn demons.

[Zan Mura]

TobiTobsen wrote...

Merrils reactions to blood magic and demons are always hilarious.

Don't kill her clan for ****ing at her that the Keeper is dead because she used blood magic? Rivalry points
Don't let the sloth demon take over Feynriel? Rivalry points

I'm pretty sure I never got rivalry points for accepting the blame and leaving the Dalish alive. Could be because I was romancing her, but the point remains. As said before, the flags affect how your companions will react to your actions.

As for the sloth demon... well you admitted yourself that you're biased towards templars. No arguments from me there, considering that's a pretty big assumption that Merrill would want for you to let the demon possess Feynriel simply based on her dislike of you not even being willing to talk with it. That's her motivation, she expects an open mind.

While your comment about the dangers of letting demons poison your mind with their talk has merit, so does Merrill.

To me, this whole idea of shooting before talking just sounds wrong. I realise sometimes it's necessary, but the whole setting and background of DA shares quite a few things with our own history. I realise this isn't real history, just movie stuff, but the one thing I've always found extremely annoying in all the movies, series and books concerning the dark ages and witchcraft is exactly that attitude. That people are burned and judged without even giving them the chance to say what it is they want to say, simply based on fear and prejudice, and being brainwashed since early childhood to believe in BS.

It's difficult for me to get behind the idea that even allowing someone to explain their side of the story would somehow be wrong. People do a lot of that in real life too, I see a lot of narrowsightedness everywhere, and do my best to avoid it myself. Basically, I don't care if I'm 99.999% sure what the demon has to say. Being confident in my group and abilities in the game, it doesn't hurt to listen. As in the game, even refusing the demon's deal, he still reveals vital information about what's really going on and what you're actually up against.

[Foolsfolly]

I'm pretty sure I never got rivalry points for accepting the blame and leaving the Dalish alive.

I have. I remembered it exactly because I thought it was hilarious that she prefers to kill her clan than accept any kind of blame. It didn't matter too much I still went pro-templar and had enough Friendship points to convince her to side with me.

[Kartikeya]

There's someone using questionable magics (Blood Magic) for possibly beneficial or at least not actively harmful reasons. And then there are entities that by their very nature embody a certain ideal and act accordingly. Justice can't seem to ignore injustices any more than a Rage demon can seem to resist the temptation to burn you to crispy Champion bits. There's a suggestion that spirits can fluctuate between these ideals, sometimes...maybe. Justice became Vengeance, after all (a perverted, emotional version of the idea of justice). But then they wholly embody the new ideal and again, act accordingly.

[Zan Mura]

Kartikeya wrote...
... is there really any point in the games where listening to what a demon has to say is really ever a good idea? Ever?

This is a general problem with DA2, where some of the points that worked far better in DAO have been streamlined and generalized. In DAO, there were multiple cases where you could talk with demons with little to no ill effects. Since this isn't a DAO section, I can't spoil. But you could learn valuable information, gain skills and other benefits for no price at all. From a RP-perspective, you could even avoid pointless bloodshed and combat, and there was even a scene where the point was raised that in some rare cases a possessed individual might be far happier than he ever could have been alone - with no risk to anyone else besides. And more. It was always dangerous, but there was definitely no *rule* that consorting with demons would always result in evil and death.

[sphinxess]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Reidbynature wrote...

If there's anything I've learned from previous Merrill threads is that she was 'smart' for killing killing her clan, trying to summon demons and using blood magic etc and that in no way did any of Merrill's action lead to anyone's death, but a whole bunch of people died in unlrelated accidents (by the way, I've seen that film. It's called 'The Omen'  ) At least that's what many Merrill defenders will claim.

I wonder. Was Orsino smart or just fortunate that Hawke was there to kill him if the player chose the mages? 

You appeared in that thread too then? I argued in that thread for like 3-4 pages before walking away. Just walk away, man.

Forget it, Reid, it's Internet.
I moved to the corner and Orsino killed 4 Templars that were left  he never came after me - too bad the game would not move forwards from that point until I attacked him...thats just bad game mechanics

Modifié par sphinxess, 01 avril 2011 - 10:07 .

[TobiTobsen]

The Angry One wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

I really like Merrill but I can't stand her naive approach at demons.

Naive?
You get rivalry if you don't talk to the demons. That's it.
If you talk to them and then kill them, you get no rivalry. In fact you can ask Merril to blast the hunger demon in the Deep Roads in the face and she'll happily do so.
Merril only gets upset if you don't hear them out.

Yup, in my PoV it's naive. I won't listen to demons. Why should I? In the best case the demon is just trying to backstab me, in the worst he is trying to possess me. But hey... since I'm a little bit pro templar, maybe that is clouding my judgement on Merrills behaviour.

Well that's the point, you're killing demons just for being demons, that's racist and Merril doesn't like that.
If you listen to the demons and then kill them for being full of ****, Merril's fine with that.

Ha! Im defending the exalted march on the dales in another thread. Seems like i'm really a racist. I don't like elves and demons. What will come next? These forums are one big self-awareness course for me

[Kartikeya]

Zan Mura wrote...

Kartikeya wrote...
... is there really any point in the games where listening to what a demon has to say is really ever a good idea? Ever?

This is a general problem with DA2, where some of the points that worked far better in DAO have been streamlined and generalized. In DAO, there were multiple cases where you could talk with demons with little to no ill effects. Since this isn't a DAO section, I can't spoil. But you could learn valuable information, gain skills and other benefits for no price at all. From a RP-perspective, you could even avoid pointless bloodshed and combat, and there was even a scene where the point was raised that in some rare cases a possessed individual might be far happier than he ever could have been alone - with no risk to anyone else besides. And more. It was always dangerous, but there was definitely no *rule* that consorting with demons would always result in evil and death.

It's true that DAO had more varied interaction with them, but even then I would be a bit dubious at saying that it was really ever that great of an idea. I can think of exactly one instance off the top of my head where it probably wouldn't result in bad consquences for the PC or anyone else (and that's IF you had a high coercion and if you presume that gipping the demon wouldn't somehow come back to bite you later). I'm still not sure it's a good idea. It was said rather repeatedly in DAO that demons always get the better end of the bargain, somehow. The example I'm referring to might be a rare exception, but how many people can browbeat a demon into backing down from receiving their bargained share? ...And how do we know said demon won't come back to try again, later?

Of course, if you're okay with dooming other people, then talking to demons becomes more profitable. But whatever criticism can be leveled at Merrill, she is quite clear that she does NOT want to endanger anyone other than herself, so I can't imagine she'd approve of that.

[Darth Krytie]

Zan Mura wrote...

Kartikeya wrote...
... is there really any point in the games where listening to what a demon has to say is really ever a good idea? Ever?

This is a general problem with DA2, where some of the points that worked far better in DAO have been streamlined and generalized. In DAO, there were multiple cases where you could talk with demons with little to no ill effects. Since this isn't a DAO section, I can't spoil. But you could learn valuable information, gain skills and other benefits for no price at all. From a RP-perspective, you could even avoid pointless bloodshed and combat, and there was even a scene where the point was raised that in some rare cases a possessed individual might be far happier than he ever could have been alone - with no risk to anyone else besides. And more. It was always dangerous, but there was definitely no *rule* that consorting with demons would always result in evil and death.

irt DA:O, it's only true if you don't read the codex. Sure, you could avoid death to your character, but not to the population at large.

[TobiTobsen]

Kartikeya wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

I really like Merrill but I can't stand her naive approach at demons.

Naive?
You get rivalry if you don't talk to the demons. That's it.
If you talk to them and then kill them, you get no rivalry. In fact you can ask Merril to blast the hunger demon in the Deep Roads in the face and she'll happily do so.
Merril only gets upset if you don't hear them out.

While this is true in regards to Merrill, is there really any point in the games where listening to what a demon has to say is really ever a good idea? Ever? I mean, people blast Marethari for listening to the demon Merrill herself was listening to. For seven years. Because the thing was either hoping to possess her or walk right through the Eluvian so it could cause havoc or whatever its actual plans actually were, they were not healthy for anyone else involved. Doesn't she say that her failsafe way of dealing with them is just to assume that they're all lying?

Hearing demons out is generally just a great way to let them tempt you. 'Oh hey, have some shiny stat points, all you have to do is let me go possess this super ultra powerful mage over here.' 'Oh hey, have some shiny stat points, all you have to do is agree to a bargain where you can't destroy this book so someone else can come along and get jumped by demons. Did I mention being jumped by demons? Have some demons!' 'Oh hey, have a boat or the salvation of your entire race. Psyche! I love it when they fall for that one'. 'Oh awesome, you just totally defeated the demon, totally, really, let's go home because you're the most awesomest awesome ever and I am totally not about to gut stab you the moment you give me the opportunity.' 'Hey, funny story, I just helped this woman kill your whole family and it only cost her her own, want a shiny?'

Damn demons.

/sign

Damn demons indeed.

[Torax]

Zan Mura wrote...

Kartikeya wrote...
... is there really any point in the games where listening to what a demon has to say is really ever a good idea? Ever?

This is a general problem with DA2, where some of the points that worked far better in DAO have been streamlined and generalized. In DAO, there were multiple cases where you could talk with demons with little to no ill effects. Since this isn't a DAO section, I can't spoil. But you could learn valuable information, gain skills and other benefits for no price at all. From a RP-perspective, you could even avoid pointless bloodshed and combat, and there was even a scene where the point was raised that in some rare cases a possessed individual might be far happier than he ever could have been alone - with no risk to anyone else besides. And more. It was always dangerous, but there was definitely no *rule* that consorting with demons would always result in evil and death.

I will spoil one for them from Origins. An interesting question given to the player. The player comes upon a Desire Demon talking to a Templar. She is talking to him about their happy little family. When you question her she says how he wasn't happy in life as a Templar. Resentful of his vows and so on.

The desire demon gives him the life he wanted and couldn't have. In return she gets to feel what is like to be mortal. If you let them go they maybe caught by the Templars later or they may get free. She wants nothing of you or anyone else. If you let them go they will disapear. If you instead want to kill her? You have to kill him to. So what is the right answer?

Point being not all demons are completely corrupt beasts of burden. Where there was Connor there was also this Templar in the tower. Should you trust all demons? Of course not. But if you learn anything from DA2? You can't trust all spirits either.

Modifié par Torax, 01 avril 2011 - 10:17 .

[Bayz]

embert1ger wrote...

Does anyone else find it messed up that Merril would rather see her whole clan slaughtered than admit she was wrong and leave peacefully?

Seriously, killing her entire clan gives +10 friendship while leaving them peacefully gives +15 rivalry.  At this point, I'm done trying to appease her stubborn delusions to gain her friendship.  I'm begging to supsect she's been possessed this whole time.

If Merril has a demon inside I bet is something like this!

[TobiTobsen]

Torax wrote...

Zan Mura wrote...

Kartikeya wrote...
... is there really any point in the games where listening to what a demon has to say is really ever a good idea? Ever?

This is a general problem with DA2, where some of the points that worked far better in DAO have been streamlined and generalized. In DAO, there were multiple cases where you could talk with demons with little to no ill effects. Since this isn't a DAO section, I can't spoil. But you could learn valuable information, gain skills and other benefits for no price at all. From a RP-perspective, you could even avoid pointless bloodshed and combat, and there was even a scene where the point was raised that in some rare cases a possessed individual might be far happier than he ever could have been alone - with no risk to anyone else besides. And more. It was always dangerous, but there was definitely no *rule* that consorting with demons would always result in evil and death.

I will spoil one for them from Origins. An interesting question given to the player. The player comes upon a Desire Demon talking to a Templar. She is talking to him about their happy little family. When you question her she says how he wasn't happy in life as a Templar. Resentful of his vows and so on.

The desire demon gives him the life he wanted and couldn't have. In return she gets to feel what is like to be mortal. If you let them go they maybe caught by the Templars later or they may get free. She wants nothing of you or anyone else. If you let them go they will disapear. If you instead want to kill her? You have to kill him to. So what is the right answer?

Point being not all demons are completely corrupt beasts of burden. Where there was Connor there was also this Templar in the tower. Should you trust all demons? Of course not. But if you learn anything from DA2? You can't trust all spirits either.

That demon is feasting on his desire, nothing more, nothing less, while bewitching him. If you attack her, he will attack you because he is still her thrall and she shows him things that aren't true. He isn't seeing our hero attacking a demon that corrupts him. He is seeing some bandits attacking his wife. He is living a lie, while she drains him, like the sloth demon in the camp near the dalish tried to drain you, just with another emotion. The demon in the camp used sloth, the demon in the tower love. Demons don't do things out of altruism.

[Kartikeya]

Torax wrote...

Zan Mura wrote...

Kartikeya wrote...
... is there really any point in the games where listening to what a demon has to say is really ever a good idea? Ever?

This is a general problem with DA2, where some of the points that worked far better in DAO have been streamlined and generalized. In DAO, there were multiple cases where you could talk with demons with little to no ill effects. Since this isn't a DAO section, I can't spoil. But you could learn valuable information, gain skills and other benefits for no price at all. From a RP-perspective, you could even avoid pointless bloodshed and combat, and there was even a scene where the point was raised that in some rare cases a possessed individual might be far happier than he ever could have been alone - with no risk to anyone else besides. And more. It was always dangerous, but there was definitely no *rule* that consorting with demons would always result in evil and death.

I will spoil one for them from Origins. An interesting question given to the player. The player comes upon a Desire Demon talking to a Templar. She is talking to him about their happy little family. When you question her she says how he wasn't happy in life as a Templar. Resentful of his vows and so on.

The desire demon gives him the life he wanted and couldn't have. In return she gets to feel what is like to be mortal. If you let them go they maybe caught by the Templars later or they may get free. She wants nothing of you or anyone else. If you let them go they will disapear. If you instead want to kill her? You have to kill him to. So what is the right answer?

Point being not all demons are completely corrupt beasts of burden. Where there was Connor there was also this Templar in the tower. Should you trust all demons? Of course not. But if you learn anything from DA2? You can't trust all spirits either.

She says she doesn't want to hurt anyone and just wants to experience mortal stuff. But listen to her dialogue. Said happy Templar is being fed off of. He is not going to live very long like that. She says this. She argues that a short happy life is better than a long and miserable one. Debate that as you like, but this begs the obvious question:

Even if she doesn't intend to do anything but hang around her Templar thrall...what happens when he's dead? You've got a demon running around the mortal realm, who was feeding off of that Templar. Of course she's going to go find someone else. Maybe she'll give that person a happy short life too. And the next. And the next...

Note that there's an interesting dialogue with the demon in Soldier's Peak. That one (she/he/it?) outright says it intends to go 'feed' if you let it go.

Are demons all corrupt? From evidence in both games, yes, yes they are. Even the ones that don't seem to reeeally be hurting anyone are still, you know, trapping someone in his personal fantasies while sucking the life out of him. The lesson that spirits are also dangerous does not lessen the danger of demons.

[Torax]

TobiTobsen wrote...

Torax wrote...

Zan Mura wrote...

Kartikeya wrote...
... is there really any point in the games where listening to what a demon has to say is really ever a good idea? Ever?

This is a general problem with DA2, where some of the points that worked far better in DAO have been streamlined and generalized. In DAO, there were multiple cases where you could talk with demons with little to no ill effects. Since this isn't a DAO section, I can't spoil. But you could learn valuable information, gain skills and other benefits for no price at all. From a RP-perspective, you could even avoid pointless bloodshed and combat, and there was even a scene where the point was raised that in some rare cases a possessed individual might be far happier than he ever could have been alone - with no risk to anyone else besides. And more. It was always dangerous, but there was definitely no *rule* that consorting with demons would always result in evil and death.

I will spoil one for them from Origins. An interesting question given to the player. The player comes upon a Desire Demon talking to a Templar. She is talking to him about their happy little family. When you question her she says how he wasn't happy in life as a Templar. Resentful of his vows and so on.

The desire demon gives him the life he wanted and couldn't have. In return she gets to feel what is like to be mortal. If you let them go they maybe caught by the Templars later or they may get free. She wants nothing of you or anyone else. If you let them go they will disapear. If you instead want to kill her? You have to kill him to. So what is the right answer?

Point being not all demons are completely corrupt beasts of burden. Where there was Connor there was also this Templar in the tower. Should you trust all demons? Of course not. But if you learn anything from DA2? You can't trust all spirits either.

That demon is feasting on his desire, nothing more, nothing less, while bewitching him. If you attack her, he will attack you because he is still her thrall and she shows him things that aren't true. He isn't seeing our hero attacking a demon that corrupts him. He is seeing some bandits attacking his wife. He is living a lie, while she drains him, like the sloth demon in the camp near the dalish tried to drain you, just with another emotion. The demon in the camp used sloth, the demon in the tower love. Demons don't do things out of altruism.

Meanwhile both Leliana and Wynne started to think he is happy. Was it right?

I wasn't telling the tale in some great defense of a demon. Was just pointing out an interaction with one. Should also point out even all the desire demons we've come across have not all acted the same. Just like not all the Sloth demons have been fully hostile. The one in the Magi Origin is only hostile if you provoke it to fight. Otherwise ti's perfectly happy just giving you riddles for amusement.

Modifié par Torax, 01 avril 2011 - 10:47 .

[Torax]

The desire demon in the tower never says she is feeding off him in a way that he would die. Don't forget demons can wield all many powers. A Desire demon kept the Arl from death. It just took the ashes to cure him. You assume a lot from it. I've played it repeatedly. The only death she talks about for them is if the Templar finds him. The symbiotic relationship they have is just her giving him a fake happiness and feeling what is like to mortal though him. A demon could probably keep a single human alive even with out food. Until the demon is killed of course.