109 réponses à ce sujet

[Ub3r_]

the way im playing my evil character is one who see's any means as acceptable in getting some juicy vengeance on Howl and Loghain, if that means i become a usurping tyrant, so be it

[Count Viceroy]

Orogun01 wrote...
Seems like a long time to wait to be evil.  I want to be evil now 
But I'm hoping that like it is supposed to be in Mass Effect 2 the choices on future games will become more clear cut. At least some of them.

Inspired by all this, I just left red cliffe village to die. Just for the sake of. Then I came back afterwards and Teagan asked me why I left everyone to die and I replied, I'm a grey warden, I don't care about the little people. And then with a glee on my face I laughed to myself.

[Saurel]

LtlMac wrote...

b.  Sten --- Remains locked in a cage and dies to the Darkspawn horde

I'm not sure if this is really the evil choice. Its a cruel death, but considering what Sten did. I would have considered giving him a merciful death had I not had the meta knowledge he was an important npc.

[JamesX]

When you first meet him in the cage, if you asked Sten about why he is caged you will realize he is not proud of what he did and knows what he did is wrong. He however is silent about the subject. That is enough for me to doubt the severity of the villager's judgement.

Modifié par JamesX, 19 novembre 2009 - 11:35 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

An essential part of why I LOVE the game (and Bioware) is that the ridiculous "good" and "evil" divide is absent.
There is the blight. You are a Grey Warden. Defeat the blight in whatever way you choose. Regardless of your decisions, you will still defeat the blight. So no matter what you do is justified. So there is no "evil" here. As such, there is no "good".
Of course you are always entitled to think about "good" and "evil". But that will always be your opinion. The game itself does not force a viewpoint on you and that's perfect.

So from my point of view. I don't even know what you mean by "100% evil". Or just "evil" by that matter.

[newcomplex]

Ending up alone when you act like a douchebag to anyone in a fifty feet radius is realistic no?

[Niten Ryu]

I agree that it's really hard to be evil in this game. Then again playing good is really easy. My first run was idealistic utilitarian Dwarven Commoner Rogue and it was really easy to roleplay and always choose right. My disfigured elven maiden mage is complite opposite. Because that character hated the Circle, she ended up helping Templars, who she hates even more



That do create interesting situations (especially since I have to figure out justification for such action) but I'd rather chosen purge whole tower out of everything, ancent treaties or no. Our good templar tank don't leave, but he don't want to chat with you in the camp anymore. Cutscenes still work fine so maybe I can get his reaction down to -100 untill the end.

[Duck and Cover]

just started my evil run thru (second run in the game). It's been interesting so far. I'm doing mage origin (elf). A difficult spot comes when the blood mage asks you to help him. I had no good reason to help him, although he did mention being able to loot the storage where the phylacteries were.

And telling off the King is interesting. Though I would think his response would be much more harsh. You'd think you would be thrown in prison for that. But I guess if you are a Warden you can do what you want LOL.

I do want the "evil" companions, so I will find a way to save them. The others will die by my hand. The assassin rogue I plan on using (Lellianna will leave me, so no sense taking her). And I'll go with 2 warriors I guess. I could use Morrigan, but the game is too easy with 2 mages. I used her my first run thru, and she can't be a love interest (playing female this time).

So what are two "bad" type warriors I should use? I was thinking Sten and Shale. Although the dwarf seems like he'd be funnier.

Modifié par Duck and Cover, 20 novembre 2009 - 12:26 .

[Rogue500000]

Well I think that this game doesn't really allow you to be pure evil, just sort of mischievously evil. To be honest I was actually surprised how much the game lets you do. I really liked the fact that you can execute that horribly annoying Jowan character. That was the most awesome thing ever. I execute you for your crimes. BAM!

Also I quite liked the fact that Leliana attacked me when I defiled that scared urn with unholy dragon blood. I totally didn't see it coming. I was battling enemies for hours and when my group went into battle mode I was looking all around me for enemies to blast, but none were to be seen. But then I noticed that Leliana actually wants to kill me. "That is so sweet", was my first though. "Dieeeee!" was my second as I blasted her with lightning. Muahaha

The best thing ever in this game so far for me was when I masacred those Elves with the help of werewolves. After the battle I took a good look around the camp and everything looked so awesome (dead elves and my personal werewolf army) that I just had to let out this evil laugh

It's these little things that make the game great. You can't really be evil, but you can be just evil enough to love it to death

Modifié par Rogue500000, 20 novembre 2009 - 12:55 .

[Eliende]

Flamin Jesus wrote...

Are you wondering why you end up without companions if you slaughter everyone on sight? Well yes, yes that's what happens if you kill everyone. Do you expect the people you kill to come back as ghosts in your service or something?

Yeah, necromancy for teh win!!! 

Still how good can your undead allies be if they got killed in the first place? 

[Eliende]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

An essential part of why I LOVE the game (and Bioware) is that the ridiculous "good" and "evil" divide is absent.
There is the blight. You are a Grey Warden. Defeat the blight in whatever way you choose. Regardless of your decisions, you will still defeat the blight. So no matter what you do is justified. So there is no "evil" here. As such, there is no "good".
Of course you are always entitled to think about "good" and "evil". But that will always be your opinion. The game itself does not force a viewpoint on you and that's perfect.

So from my point of view. I don't even know what you mean by "100% evil". Or just "evil" by that matter.

As I see it, the game lacks consequences. Since there is no actual "rumor" or "karma" or whatever you wish to call it, and very few deeds actually come back to haunt you, it feels rather bland. I can be a complete bastard (well, short of being the above-mentioned psychopath) and still everyone and his uncle will look up to me. Or am I mistaken?

[Eliende]

Evainelithe wrote...

I fail to see the advantage in killing off a possible ally/party member. Why does evil imply doing something that has no benefit whatsoever aside from cackling in glee and not washing your unmentionables for a year? Seriously why limit yourself by alienating anyone, you're better off using them as canonfodder in the final battle or finding some use for them other than as a dissicated corpse complementing the scenery. In the game you're practically forced to be good because it's the only sensible thing to be. Considering this is supposed to be a 'dark' rpg there should be far more opportunities to be manipulative and sneaky and less of the obvious kill-some-good-guys-because-i'm-supposed-to-be-evil-thing.

Indeed. There should have been more "short cuts" (á la "is the dark side stronger, no, faster, easier"). For example to agree to assasinate one of the dwarven would-be kings for the other party. Less work, less pain and definitely a really bastardly thing to do. Or deal with the werewolves to stay low for a while so that the elves feel confidant before attacking, and thus lie about having killed Whitefang.

[Orogun01]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

An essential part of why I LOVE the game (and Bioware) is that the ridiculous "good" and "evil" divide is absent.
There is the blight. You are a Grey Warden. Defeat the blight in whatever way you choose. Regardless of your decisions, you will still defeat the blight. So no matter what you do is justified. So there is no "evil" here. As such, there is no "good".
Of course you are always entitled to think about "good" and "evil". But that will always be your opinion. The game itself does not force a viewpoint on you and that's perfect.

So from my point of view. I don't even know what you mean by "100% evil". Or just "evil" by that matter.

Well, that's your perspective but for those who wish to roleplay  an evil character the choices and consequences where too ambigous. You say that there is no evil or good because all you do is justified in service of stopping the Blight, well that's just it. There are no consequences and the evil choices can be be interpreted as a necessary evil and not a deliberate act of evil.
You say that the game doesn't force you a viewpoint but it fails to represent one.

[Eliende]

Orogun01 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

An essential part of why I LOVE the game (and Bioware) is that the ridiculous "good" and "evil" divide is absent.
There is the blight. You are a Grey Warden. Defeat the blight in whatever way you choose. Regardless of your decisions, you will still defeat the blight. So no matter what you do is justified. So there is no "evil" here. As such, there is no "good".
Of course you are always entitled to think about "good" and "evil". But that will always be your opinion. The game itself does not force a viewpoint on you and that's perfect.

So from my point of view. I don't even know what you mean by "100% evil". Or just "evil" by that matter.

Well, that's your perspective but for those who wish to roleplay  an evil character the choices and consequences where too ambigous. You say that there is no evil or good because all you do is justified in service of stopping the Blight, well that's just it. There are no consequences and the evil choices can be be interpreted as a necessary evil and not a deliberate act of evil.
You say that the game doesn't force you a viewpoint but it fails to represent one.

Agreed.

If there is one point where I felt that the game failed miserably (as to what was presented that it would be) it is just that. As I mentioned somewhere else, even quests that should have been nasty and morally wrong (some assassination qusts) felt like, well, bland.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Orogun01 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

An essential part of why I LOVE the game (and Bioware) is that the ridiculous "good" and "evil" divide is absent.
There is the blight. You are a Grey Warden. Defeat the blight in whatever way you choose. Regardless of your decisions, you will still defeat the blight. So no matter what you do is justified. So there is no "evil" here. As such, there is no "good".
Of course you are always entitled to think about "good" and "evil". But that will always be your opinion. The game itself does not force a viewpoint on you and that's perfect.

So from my point of view. I don't even know what you mean by "100% evil". Or just "evil" by that matter.

Well, that's your perspective but for those who wish to roleplay  an evil character the choices and consequences where too ambigous. You say that there is no evil or good because all you do is justified in service of stopping the Blight, well that's just it. There are no consequences and the evil choices can be be interpreted as a necessary evil and not a deliberate act of evil.
You say that the game doesn't force you a viewpoint but it fails to represent one.

The game offers you choices and you choose. I do not need the game to tell me "Well done you are a good guy", or "Omg you are so evil", for me to make sense of the game. Your own character is the one who judges what is "good" and what is "evil". The game doesn't do that for you and that's why it's superioir to other games.
And there are consequences. Some of them you feel immediately (your party members). Some others you read about in the epilogue. If you were truly attached to the game, then you would care about the consequences as presented in the epilogue. I nfact it presented the consequences of decision that I thought were trivial.
Becoming deformed or having pale skin is hardly a serious consequence.


 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 20 novembre 2009 - 01:57 .

[LtlMac]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Orogun01 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

An essential part of why I LOVE the game (and Bioware) is that the ridiculous "good" and "evil" divide is absent.
There is the blight. You are a Grey Warden. Defeat the blight in whatever way you choose. Regardless of your decisions, you will still defeat the blight. So no matter what you do is justified. So there is no "evil" here. As such, there is no "good".
Of course you are always entitled to think about "good" and "evil". But that will always be your opinion. The game itself does not force a viewpoint on you and that's perfect.

So from my point of view. I don't even know what you mean by "100% evil". Or just "evil" by that matter.

Well, that's your perspective but for those who wish to roleplay  an evil character the choices and consequences where too ambigous. You say that there is no evil or good because all you do is justified in service of stopping the Blight, well that's just it. There are no consequences and the evil choices can be be interpreted as a necessary evil and not a deliberate act of evil.
You say that the game doesn't force you a viewpoint but it fails to represent one.

The game offers you choices and you choose. I do not need the game to tell me "Well done you are a good guy", or "Omg you are so evil", for me to make sense of the game. Your own character is the one who judges what is "good" and what is "evil". The game doesn't do that for you and that's why it's superioir to other games.
And there are consequences. Some of them you feel immediately. Some others you read about in the epilogue. If you were truly attached to the game, then you would care about the consequences as presented in the epilogue. I nfact it presented the consequences of decision that I thought were trivial.

 

I agree that there are consequences.....however, I would argue that there are not enough.  Don't get me wrong...some of the ones present are pretty big.....having Golems in the End Battle made life a LOT easier in some parts....butt the vast majority of what you do has no real consequence one way or the other.  I mean, even if you wipe out the mages you get templars....which imo are better cause they don't fire ball friendlys and can be used to greatly ease the fight against the General in the Alienage during the final battle.

I would have liked to have seen more moments like the one with the war veteran begging.  The consequences don't have to be game changing.....being on my third play through I have to say it feelslike most of the decisions I make do nothing but grant me or lose me approval with my party (and maybe grant some xp or gold). 

[VSanders]

Yeah. I think the game was trying to capture some of what was dynamic about The Witcher, but didn't want to go all out for fear of alienating players. Personally, I didn't think The Witcher went far enough, but that is just a preference.



As for Knightofphoenix's comments: I don't think anyone here is complaining that their options were lacking clear moral definition, most of us are bemoaning the lack of options. You can't believably play someone out for their own personal power, except in the context of their desire to stop the Blight for benevolent reasons. I think your reaction to this discussion is roughly as shallow as the people who initially complained that there wasn't a clear evil path.

[KnightofPhoenix]

VSanders wrote...
As for Knightofphoenix's comments: I don't think anyone here is complaining that their options were lacking clear moral definition, most of us are bemoaning the lack of options. You can't believably play someone out for their own personal power, except in the context of their desire to stop the Blight for benevolent reasons. I think your reaction to this discussion is roughly as shallow as the people who initially complained that there wasn't a clear evil path.

My comment was directed at the op and not the ongoing discussion, as I did not participate in it from the start. 

And I don't think there is a lack of options. There could have been more, like allying with Uldred and screwing both the Templars and the Mages. But such as it is, there are many different options, that sometimes interconnect, thus having a variety of possible situations. It's not a lack in my opinion. But it's not an abundance either.

[Eliende]

VSanders wrote...

Yeah. I think the game was trying to capture some of what was dynamic about The Witcher, but didn't want to go all out for fear of alienating players. Personally, I didn't think The Witcher went far enough, but that is just a preference.

As for Knightofphoenix's comments: I don't think anyone here is complaining that their options were lacking clear moral definition, most of us are bemoaning the lack of options. You can't believably play someone out for their own personal power, except in the context of their desire to stop the Blight for benevolent reasons. I think your reaction to this discussion is roughly as shallow as the people who initially complained that there wasn't a clear evil path.

I agree fully! But the witcher really did go a long way to be an ADULT game! The sex-scenes with the smut little cards of the ladies you bedded were, if somewhat machistic, rather sweet (as in cute). And the story was darn dark indeed. In the end, you killed the one person you swore to protect and defeating the main bad guy aside pretty much all else went to crap. It could certainly be better, but it is still a far, far darker game than DA is. As dark-mooded games go, DA is below avarage.

[Rahkoi]

Personally, I find the case of Zevran bit of a problem for "evil" (or at least ruthlessly driven and obsessed, like my mage) character. Basically he seems to be the "rogue of choice" if you wish to pursue that path, but I quite frankly see absolutely no reason whatsoever why a character such as that would not just kill him off right away. Now someone may say "Evil doesn't mean mindless killing". That's very much true, but in the eyes of the character, there's no flashing "Hey, this guy is important" sign above the elf's head. For our Grey Warden, he's just another assassin/bandit who came to kill you and failed. No big deal, we kill dozens of those each day. We already know who sent him, there's very little reason to interrogate him. Better to just kill him off while he's unconscious and move on, we got a Blight to end after all, yes?

That's the one case where I find playing that type of character somewhat inconvenient. Personally, I just went with the metagaming option and woke him up, interrogated him and took him along. It's no "problem" after he offers his aid, it's just getting to that part that streches imagination. That is, assuming the "Kill him" option given at the very start actually works. I have to admit I never tested it, as I hate backtracking my decisions with load games, and I knew I'd probably end up needing him along the way.

Other than that, I find playing "evil" character doable, even if somewhat harder than usual, but that only fits. Personally I went with the route where my mage is completely obsessed about both Loghain and the Blight to the point that he will stop at nothing to reach conclusion. He will take the quickest and most effective path given, without searching for options. He does not purposedly go about making an ass out of himself, but he is stressed and driven and therefore has very little patience for what he considers as foolishness and not enough social skills to be graceful about it. The way he sees it, *he* is the one helping his companions and the entire Ferelden, not the other way around, and therefore may end up rather arrogant. That kind of "evil that isn't really evil" I've actually found rather fun to play.  Will see how the end plays out for him. Might even end up going for the heroic sacrifice since after all, the Blight WILL end, even if he and everyone else has to die to ensure it. Something my dwarven rogue who was much much nicer a persona and even somewhat of a good guy simply found himself unable to do.

I admit though that the game doesn't exactly lend itself for playing more traditional forms of evil, unless you are content with the explanation "Blight first, Power later", in which case the actual rise to power would happen after the game ends.

Modifié par Rahkoi, 20 novembre 2009 - 02:34 .

[Orogun01]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Orogun01 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

An essential part of why I LOVE the game (and Bioware) is that the ridiculous "good" and "evil" divide is absent.
There is the blight. You are a Grey Warden. Defeat the blight in whatever way you choose. Regardless of your decisions, you will still defeat the blight. So no matter what you do is justified. So there is no "evil" here. As such, there is no "good".
Of course you are always entitled to think about "good" and "evil". But that will always be your opinion. The game itself does not force a viewpoint on you and that's perfect.

So from my point of view. I don't even know what you mean by "100% evil". Or just "evil" by that matter.

Well, that's your perspective but for those who wish to roleplay  an evil character the choices and consequences where too ambigous. You say that there is no evil or good because all you do is justified in service of stopping the Blight, well that's just it. There are no consequences and the evil choices can be be interpreted as a necessary evil and not a deliberate act of evil.
You say that the game doesn't force you a viewpoint but it fails to represent one.

The game offers you choices and you choose. I do not need the game to tell me "Well done you are a good guy", or "Omg you are so evil", for me to make sense of the game. Your own character is the one who judges what is "good" and what is "evil". The game doesn't do that for you and that's why it's superioir to other games.
And there are consequences. Some of them you feel immediately (your party members). Some others you read about in the epilogue. If you were truly attached to the game, then you would care about the consequences as presented in the epilogue. I nfact it presented the consequences of decision that I thought were trivial.
Becoming deformed or having pale skin is hardly a serious consequence.
 

Okay, no need to fly off the handle here and start quoting Fable.
I don't need the game patronizing me because of my choices, but that doesn't mean I don't want a proper reaction.  For anyone who picks the "evil" choices throughout the game trying to actually be evil and not end up as the "Hero of Ferelden". There are many conversation choices where you can express your dislike of your current situation as a Grey Warden, why shouldn't I be able to roleplay a character that wants to cause harm or get rich. This is true specially for the Alienage and Dwarf commoner origins.
The epilogue does nothing for me, since I was expecting in game consequences; specially from the ones I wronged. I was hoping that (again I say, how it was promised) the choices on your origin would come back to haunt you. You can basically wrong and destroy the lives of many people through your playthrough and yet have the same reaction. The only ones that seem to have a backbone are your companions and they get pissed at some of the more ridiculous things.
On the macro scale you can also end up with a pretty broken up image of your PC, you can be a hero at some places or you can be a monster without forming a general reputation. You have expressed your like for these ambiguous consequences that makes it look like "grey" morality, but for those who want clear cut absolutism the game does little to provide. E.G. I tried to roleplay an Alienage elf that would take his anger out on the world because he is going to die young as a Warden. But alas I found my options limited at times, and I couldn't take my anger out on the humans who put elves on Alienages.

[LtlMac]

Orogun01 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Orogun01 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

An essential part of why I LOVE the game (and Bioware) is that the ridiculous "good" and "evil" divide is absent.
There is the blight. You are a Grey Warden. Defeat the blight in whatever way you choose. Regardless of your decisions, you will still defeat the blight. So no matter what you do is justified. So there is no "evil" here. As such, there is no "good".
Of course you are always entitled to think about "good" and "evil". But that will always be your opinion. The game itself does not force a viewpoint on you and that's perfect.

So from my point of view. I don't even know what you mean by "100% evil". Or just "evil" by that matter.

Well, that's your perspective but for those who wish to roleplay  an evil character the choices and consequences where too ambigous. You say that there is no evil or good because all you do is justified in service of stopping the Blight, well that's just it. There are no consequences and the evil choices can be be interpreted as a necessary evil and not a deliberate act of evil.
You say that the game doesn't force you a viewpoint but it fails to represent one.

The game offers you choices and you choose. I do not need the game to tell me "Well done you are a good guy", or "Omg you are so evil", for me to make sense of the game. Your own character is the one who judges what is "good" and what is "evil". The game doesn't do that for you and that's why it's superioir to other games.
And there are consequences. Some of them you feel immediately (your party members). Some others you read about in the epilogue. If you were truly attached to the game, then you would care about the consequences as presented in the epilogue. I nfact it presented the consequences of decision that I thought were trivial.
Becoming deformed or having pale skin is hardly a serious consequence.
 

Okay, no need to fly off the handle here and start quoting Fable.
I don't need the game patronizing me because of my choices, but that doesn't mean I don't want a proper reaction.  For anyone who picks the "evil" choices throughout the game trying to actually be evil and not end up as the "Hero of Ferelden". There are many conversation choices where you can express your dislike of your current situation as a Grey Warden, why shouldn't I be able to roleplay a character that wants to cause harm or get rich. This is true specially for the Alienage and Dwarf commoner origins.
The epilogue does nothing for me, since I was expecting in game consequences; specially from the ones I wronged. I was hoping that (again I say, how it was promised) the choices on your origin would come back to haunt you. You can basically wrong and destroy the lives of many people through your playthrough and yet have the same reaction. The only ones that seem to have a backbone are your companions and they get pissed at some of the more ridiculous things.
On the macro scale you can also end up with a pretty broken up image of your PC, you can be a hero at some places or you can be a monster without forming a general reputation. You have expressed your like for these ambiguous consequences that makes it look like "grey" morality, but for those who want clear cut absolutism the game does little to provide. E.G. I tried to roleplay an Alienage elf that would take his anger out on the world because he is going to die young as a Warden. But alas I found my options limited at times, and I couldn't take my anger out on the humans who put elves on Alienages.

I think you just hit the nail on the head on my only one, true honest to goodness complaint about this game.  They did such an amazing job with each (well, most...i didn't really live the Dalish elf one) of the Origin stories, and I was hoping that choices made THEN would effect the outcome LATER.  In reality, it doesn't matter at all how you play the Origin....all winds up the same.

This is especially true of the Dwarf noble Origin....my word, there are so many ways different choices could have/should have affected things differently once you returned to Orzimmar.  The Origins give you different points of view.....it was interesting realizing jowans significane playing a mage (My first game as a human noble he was just another dude in a dungeon to me), And the Addition of the Cartel quest in Orzimmar no longer seems so random once you've played through the Dwarf Commoner Origin.

That said, it provides a different perspective....but once again, no real consequences for choices.

[Saurel]

JamesX wrote...

When you first meet him in the cage, if you asked Sten about why he is caged you will realize he is not proud of what he did and knows what he did is wrong. He however is silent about the subject. That is enough for me to doubt the severity of the villager's judgement.

So killing someone who slaughtered and entire family is evil though? I really don't think that falls into the evil category.

[CJohnJones]

Sten had no good reason to kill that family, and seems to regret the loss of control only, so I do think he's evillish. I don't think that leaving him in the cage is more evil than taking him, though. Freeing a murderer from justice so that he may become your minion does not seem very noble.

Modifié par CJohnJones, 20 novembre 2009 - 05:29 .