95 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

I've noticed that there's a trend in Dragon Age II and it's DLC expansions for Hawke to screw things up and for letting the villain go - it's a trend that started with Hawke letting Sister Petrice go after she revealed her plans to start a religious war in Kirkwall, and has continued in Legacy and Mark of the Assassin, where Hawke unleashed a dangerous, talking darkspawn on Thedas after letting the possessed Warden go, and later when Hawke let Tallis go when she fulfilled her objective to protect Qunari secrets and the names of Qunari agents throughout Thedas. 

Is this an inevitable trend that will continue with future Dragon Age II DLC storylines?

[TEWR]

Probably, since Bioware really doesn't want to do anything along the lines of a proactive protagonist that still fails to prevent something bad from happening.

They'd rather just do stuff that spits in the face of the players.

"You're anti-Qunari? Sorry, we don't want your Hawke to even attempt to get the scroll and fail! We'll just make him do nothing!"

Sad too, given Mike Laidlaw's comment about choice and consequence being important.

[whykikyouwhy]

I don't feel that Hawke "screwed things up." Much of what was presented to Hawke as choices or options made sense with what (s)he may have known, or how the situation presented itself. There's a delicate balance to tread with meta-gaming based on what we know as players from DA:O. The paths that Hawke can take and the decisions that are made lead to both positive and negative things in the game, but screwing up implies some sort of awareness of all of the negative connotations. I don't think the PC has that, though the player may (in that meta sense). Hawke isn't really in a position to anticipate what the idol will turn out to be, for example. No one really is.

The "escape" of the villian or the perceived foe isn't something unique to DA2 - plenty of stories have the nemesis making a departure only to appear later (just look at comic books for this sort of narrative). DA2 is about Hawke's role in the events that lead to act 3...and act 3 is really the crux of the story for the larger plot of the DA-verse.

I don't think Bioware is spitting in the faces of players and their choices. I've played rpgs (pc and pnp) where I wasn't allowed to strong arm every thug, and at no point did I feel that choice was denied. My opinion, of course.

[Augustei]

I guess bioware didn't forsee any Anti-Qunari Hawkes being in Mota.. I mean what possible reason could Hawke have apart from having them invade and starting an essential war on his home and wiping out a bunch of people he probably knew and was friends with.. Plus if he's a mage he wouldn't like the concept of being a Saarebas i'd think. Mota was the worst of them all despite the being at a point in time after it was said they would address the problem of choice and consequences

Another problem Hawke faces is a lack of motivation. Sometimes he just does things even though theres no real reason as to why he would be doing it. since Hawke seems to want to follow the trend of reacting instead of being proactive I hope he can react to my DA3 protagonist sticking a sword through his face by dying.. twould be a sweet reaction indeed =P

Since Hawke simply seems to react and choices don't really seem to matter even after it was said the problem would be addressed I think the problem will occur again in future and will probably continue through DLC and Xpacs and maybe things will change in DA3

If Hawke is incapable of perceiving that allowing the Qunari to continue spying on thedas and obtaining intel and locating weaknesses they can use to the advantage of their immensely powerful millitary is a bad thing.. If hawke cannot identify that as bad, Hawke took to many hits to the head during his escape from lothering.

If Hawke doesn't perceive the woman who kidnapped a Saarebas and set up a trap for you where you end up in Qunari hands in a self confessed attempt to deteriorate Relations with the Qunari and try to force them out.. If hawke cant see this woman as a threat Hawke be bad.

theres numerous examples but I'm to tired and plan to go to bed =P

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 09 janvier 2012 - 06:37 .

[TEWR]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I don't feel that Hawke "screwed things up." Much of what was presented to Hawke as choices or options made sense with what (s)he may have known, or how the situation presented itself. There's a delicate balance to tread with meta-gaming based on what we know as players from DA:O. The paths that Hawke can take and the decisions that are made lead to both positive and negative things in the game, but screwing up implies some sort of awareness of all of the negative connotations. I don't think the PC has that, though the player may (in that meta sense). Hawke isn't really in a position to anticipate what the idol will turn out to be, for example. No one really is.

He is in a position however to anticipate that Meredith -- or alternatively the rogue mages -- will be a clear threat to Kirkwall in the long run.

He can not only find out more about her but is told by some of her own Templars that her measures have become far less mage-friendly in previous years.

Add into that the fact that some of her higher-up Templars are clear abusers of their power -- Alrik and Kerras to name two -- and he has no reason to not get involved in the Mage-Templar conflict. Especially if Bethany is in the Circle or Carver is in the Templars.

There's sufficient evidence in-game for one to assume that certain factions can indeed be a threat not only to Kirkwall, but to Hawke as well.

And I have to agree with Lob about Petrice. While I understand her plot importance, she isn't given a good enough reason for the player to be unable to kill her other than "You can't! I'm plot protected!"

The "escape" of the villian or the perceived foe isn't something unique to DA2 - plenty of stories have the nemesis making a departure only to appear later (just look at comic books for this sort of narrative). DA2 is about Hawke's role in the events that lead to act 3...and act 3 is really the crux of the story for the larger plot of the DA-verse.

Yes but many other instances of a perceived threat escaping happen in believable ways.
What happened in MotA where one can play an anti-Qunari Hawke and can't even attempt to take the scroll in a meaningful way -- and still fail so that Tallis still has the scroll -- is not believable.

What happened was Hawke says "I want that scroll". And when Tallis says "No" he just goes "Welp I tried".

He didn't try. It's like an anti-Qunari Hawke doesn't even care that Qunari spies might be present all across Thedas or that the people he just kicked out of Kirkwall said "one day we shall return" (which coupled with Tallis' scroll should set off a dozen warning bells for an anti-Qunari Hawke).

I've said numerous times that DAII should've been the opposite of DAO.

Dragon Age Origins -- a game that had a primarily reactive protagonist with intermittent moments of proactivity that ultimately saves the day.

Dragon Age II -- a game that should've had a primarily proactive protagonist with intermittent moments of reactivity that failed to save the day.

What we got was not in fact what DAII should've been.

And what it should've been is IMO of course.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 09 janvier 2012 - 06:51 .

[TEWR]

Filament wrote...

@TEWR Attempting to get the scroll and failing would just be weak and annoying, I'd rather not have Hawke be let to try if the devs are so set on the scroll returning to qunari hands for the sake of the setting that it's just going to lead to that.

But then this would frustrate the anti-Qunari Hawke players who are forced to not even attempt to get the scroll.

And then it becomes a question of "Why would Bioware make a DLC centered around Qunari if an anti-Qunari Hawke can't even do anything that stays in line with his character beyond chastising the Qunari?"

There would be a clear lack of something that anti-Qunari Hawkes should attempt to do, which would frustrate players.

Alternatively, Hawke could in fact succeed only to return home one day and find a note left by Tallis where she stole the scroll back from his estate.

[Augustei]

I like to pretend the Tevinter Imperium located and killed Tallis on her way home and took the scroll and eliminated all the spies =D

Hawke's choice of words to Sister Nightingfail are also pretty poor, I mean we have a knight commander who cannot maintain control of her own Templars, many involved in a plot to overthrow her, many disagreeing with her and speaking against her, others abusing their power, mages complaining and responding that their reasons are due to the extreme conditions Meredith forces upon them and their general mistreatment because of her insistance on an iron grip on them. Why Hawke cant just say "Meredith is the problem" is beyond me

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I've said numerous times that DAII should've been the opposite of DAO.

Blasphemy! DAO was the best, the closer DA2 was to it the better it would have been

Im suddenly curious of whether the Anti-Qunari Hawkes are in the minority or majority.. I would have thought majority but well cant be sure since people probably went pro-qunari for Tallis for some reason...

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 09 janvier 2012 - 06:58 .

[alex90c]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Filament wrote...

@TEWR Attempting to get the scroll and failing would just be weak and annoying, I'd rather not have Hawke be let to try if the devs are so set on the scroll returning to qunari hands for the sake of the setting that it's just going to lead to that.

Alternatively, Hawke could in fact succeed only to return home one day and find a note left by Tallis where she stole the scroll back from his estate.

As if that wouldn't be an enormous kick in the bollocks.

It would just make her look like more of a Mary Sue than people think she is already.

[Dave of Canada]

 Only time it ever bothered me was Tallis.

"Give me that scroll. Now."
"No, here's a gem instead."
"Oh okay."

[Augustei]

Dave of Canada wrote...

 Only time it ever bothered me was Tallis.

"Give me that scroll. Now."
"No, here's a gem instead."
*Stab Tallis, check pulse to find none, then retreive list*

Edited for Perfect Scenario.

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 09 janvier 2012 - 07:02 .

[Atakuma]

It's definitely annoying and I certainly hope they don't continue in this direction.

[TEWR]

Filament wrote...

@TEWR again- That could work I guess. Or she could have just, you know, abandoned you immediately after Duke Prosper and sent you a note. Among countless other coulda, woulda, shouldas.

I don't really see how DAO is primarily reactive either. You could say it's reactive to the blight, but how far are we supposed to draw things back until everything is a "reaction" to something? Beyond that, he actually goes and plans out how to defeat the blight and then accomplished that plan. That seems proactive to me, and if it's not proactive, then I see little value in this supposedly sacred 'proactive' label. Because if it's not proactive then god, to be proactive you need to be freakin' Xanatos. Which isn't necessarily bad, but that's not the only 'satisfying' way to have a hero in a video game.

Not really. He didn't plan how to defeat the Blight. Either Alistair or Flemeth came up with the idea, in which the Warden simply followed up upon. Even how to kill the Archdemon isn't the Warden's idea.

I would define proactivity as anticipating a problem and working to prevent said problem from ever arising. Reacting to something only goes so far, and once that reacting ends if one still sees a threat looming on the horizon and works to prevent said threat, then they're being proactive.

Take for example Petrice. Petrice needs to lay low after Shepherding Wolves. The reacting ends once one returns to her, but the player -- who is effectively Hawke -- could see that she will still be a problem. They don't know when, but they could work to prevent her from being a problem.

Maybe by doing some digging on her and trying to find out stuff about her to weaken whatever influence she may hold in the Chantry.

I'm just using this as an illustrative example.

alex90c wrote...

As if that wouldn't be an enormous kick in the bollocks.

It would just make her look like more of a Mary Sue than people think she is already.

Alternatively to my alternatively, she could eat the scroll.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 09 janvier 2012 - 07:18 .

[Atakuma]

I agree with TEWR. It would have been much better to give Hawke the option to take action, even if it ultimately ended in failure. If this were an option in some of the most egregious bits of railroading in the game, then at least no one would be accusing Hawke of being a hepless bystander.

Modifié par Atakuma, 09 janvier 2012 - 07:27 .

[LinksOcarina]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I've said numerous times that DAII should've been the opposite of DAO.

Dragon Age Origins -- a game that had a primarily reactive protagonist with intermittent moments of proactivity that ultimately saves the day.

Dragon Age II -- a game that should've had a primarily proactive protagonist with intermittent moments of reactivity that failed to save the day.

What we got was not in fact what DAII should've been.

And what it should've been is IMO of course.

They are, you just have it backwards. Origins had the proactive protagonist because, lets face it, there was never an option to flee Ferelden in the end. Plus the fact that you have to go through the Grey Warden Process, Ostagar, and have to find allies to defeat the blight made the Warden an unlikely protagonist because of the humbler origins,but a protagonist none the less that was active in their role due to obligation. He may not have planned it, but he pursued it and did the dirty work in finding allies, leading the charge with the landsmeet winner, and pretty much going on top of the tower to deal with the archdemon.

Hawke was a reactive protagonist after Act I. The first part is all about getting paid, and he was proactive in that sense, but why should Hawke care about the Qunari when he is getting coin to get his stuff done. Selfish yes, but in reality what would killing or bringing Petrice to justice accomplish? They will say he is nothing but a street rat who tried to rob her or something. She even makes that comment that Hawke is nothing and stopping her would accomplish nothing. Plus the fact that a templar is involved only exacerbates things...

In fact, Act I is the setup for Act II and III anyway. We see the origins of the various conflicts, but Hawke is not involved in them because he is neutral to the conflicts at this time. When he has status he then reacts to them. He is reactive to the Arishok and the Vicounts problems, reactive to what Meredith and Orsino do, and so forth. 

Hawke is less of a noble hero and more of a reactive one. He was at the right place basically, and because of this he subsequently became the most famous person in Kirkwall, and one of the most sought after people by the Seekers for the role he did play. Got to remember the first thought was the Hawke was the one who instigated everything, when in reality he tried to stop it. Once again, reactive to the events that occur. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 09 janvier 2012 - 07:39 .

[TEWR]

LinksOcarina wrote...

They are, you just have it backwards. Origins had the proactive protagonist because, lets face it, there was never an option to flee Ferelden in the end. Plus the fact that you have to go through the Grey Warden Process, Ostagar, and have to find allies to defeat the blight made the Warden an unlikely protagonist because of the humbler origins,but a protagonist none the less that was active in their role due to obligation. He may not have planned it, but he pursued it and did the dirty work in finding allies, leading the charge with the landsmeet winner, and pretty much going on top of the tower to deal with the archdemon.

that's not the definition of proactive though. Just because he followed through with the plan that stemmed from reacting to the Blight doesn't make him proactive.

Duncan was proactive. The Warden wasn't.

Hawke was a reactive protagonist after Act I. The first part is all about getting paid, and he was proactive in that sense,

Indeed, and afterwards that's where his proactivity ends. 

but why should Hawke care about the Qunari when he is getting coin to get his stuff done.

Because a war with the Qunari means all that work put into reclaiming the estate was all for naught. 

Selfish yes, but in reality what would killing or bringing Petrice to justice accomplish? They will say he is nothing but a street rat who tried to rob her or something. She even makes that comment that Hawke is nothing and stopping her would accomplish nothing. Plus the fact that a templar is involved only exacerbates things...

My point wasn't that Hawke should kill Petrice, but that the player -- who is effectively Hawke -- should be given a good reason why killing Petrice isn't an option.

She was performing her ideas outside of the knowledge of the Chantry, which means that if she and her Templar associate were killed the Chantry wouldn't know that Hawke did it.

I proposed many months back that she should've said that agents of the Faithful -- her group of mad zealots -- were scattered throughout Lowtown and would report to the Chantry about Hawke should anything untowards happen to her.

And that while Hawke was out helping Saarebas, some of the Faithful came in to tell her that Hawke/Bethany is a mage, which would add another sense of why she can't be killed.

In fact, Act I is the setup for Act II and III anyway. We see the origins of the various conflicts, but Hawke is not involved in them because he is neutral to the conflicts at this time. When he has status he then reacts to them. He is reactive to the Arishok and the Vicounts problems, reactive to what Meredith and Orsino do, and so forth. 

Some people don't want to play a character like that. Some people wanted to actually get involved before they were forced to.

I mean, as it stands DAII is just more of a movie than a video game because I don't have much freedom to do what I want. Which isn't to say that there should've been an abundance of freedom, but what could've happened was Hawke could be on one of three sides:

1) Chantry and Templar supporter -- opens up a quest chain of 15 quests at the Chanter's Board where Hawke crushes the Mage Underground. Templar authority would weaken because the Chantry is relying on outside forces to do their job, but Hawke would earn a commendation for his service.

2) Mage Supporter -- opens up a quest chain of 15 quests at Mistress Selby's Board where Hawke aids the Mage Underground in various ways, not all of which would involve killing Templars. Templar authority would weaken because the Templars can't do their job, and Hawke would be named Saviour of the Mages, eventually becoming their leader.

Neither option would mean that Hawke was instigating anything, as one could side with the Templars as an upstanding citizen of the law or side with the mages in the hopes that Meredith would be removed from power by the recent events the Mage Underground performed. With her removal -- in the mind of Hawke, but she wouldn't actually be removed from power -- Kirkwall could be at peace again.

Hawke wouldn't have instigated anything as the war had already been going on through the efforts of the Mage Underground, which existed prior to Hawke's arrival in Kirkwall I believe.

It was a secret war that Hawke never started, but a war nevertheless.

3) Neutral -- basically what DAII gave us.

Hawke is less of a noble hero and more of a reactive one. He was at the right place basically, and because of this he subsequently became the most famous person in Kirkwall, and one of the most sought after people by the Seekers for the role he did play. Got to remember the first thought was the Hawke was the one who instigated everything, when in reality he tried to stop it. Once again, reactive to the events that occur. 

In reality, the war was ongoing prior to Hawke ever arriving. He never instigated anything, and thus was free to pick a side without being blamed for the war going full scale.

And in reality, Anders and Meredith were the ones that started the war. Not Hawke.

[esper]

The problem with Tallis is that the game assume that a Hawke that sided with her in the cave would still side with her when they know what the scroll is.
The problem with the Hawke that left Tallis in the cave is that they are willing to let her go again, my Hawke made it very clear in the cave that Tallis was getting lucky. Idealy she could have snuck away after the fight when Hawke is pushing the duke of the cliff (or during the fight, I didn't particuallt want her back on the team when I had already kicked her off once and there was chaos enough that a rouge should be able to sneak away)

I have no problem with Corypheus since the body swap is meta knowlegde and Hawke can't know that the Old Gods can do and perhaps is something Corypheus has learned.

[TEWR]

Filament wrote...

He's a party to the plan, as I recall he can suggest the treaties himself.

He can't, unless one takes the line of "Surely there are other people we can rely on" to mean the treaties. And indeed, it leads to Alistair commenting on them.

Which is fair I guess, but it isn't necessarily a pure statement of it being his original plan.

More importantly than that, I don't think it really matters whether it's strictly his plan or not. He adopts it and has a plan beyond that point, then goes and accomplishes it. I found that satisfying, whether it's strictly 'proactive' or 'reactive.'

Of course. My point wasn't that the Warden wasn't satisfying, but that he was a reactive protagonist.

Admittedly, In Exile is better at arguing the point of the reactive Warden than I am.

I think, with Hawke not having any particular plan beyond "money" in Act I, it made the devs' jobs more difficult in the sense that it's harder to anticipate the players' varying motivations in the choices they'd be presented with, without a more significant overarching motivation for context, so they were bound to omit choices players wanted to make.

See what I said to LinksOcarina above. There were only three needed groups, and the players' motivations could be introduced through headcanon.

"My Hawke sided with the mages because they're being oppressed"

"My Hawke sided with the mages because he wants Meredith removed from power, and sees the mages as the best way to do that"

One can draw enough information in the prior Act to see for themselves who the problem is.

And -- as an in general "what should've happened" statement and not one directly related to this snippet post -- Anders' comment about Hawke not being able to be involved with the Mage Underground in substantial ways due to his connections with Aveline makes no sense, especially for a pro-mage Hawke.

If Hawke is politically involved, then this can be a good thing. He has a certain amount of influence with Aveline, who purposely lets Anders run loose (something she lets him know in banter).

A pro-Templar Hawke could see that after Justice's (almost) murdered Ella, Anders is now a threat and needs to be brought in to the Templars.

To which Anders could run away and appear later on near the endgame

There's a lot bouncing through my head right now so I don't think I'm saying everything as clearly as I want. I'm gonna need to take a break for a while to collect my thoughts.

Or it could be that both of those are symptoms of their storytelling. They want you to listen to their story but not be party to it. Hawke having a goal would mean he'd actually have to do things that would affect what they already had planned for the Chantry and the qunari, so they made it so his only goal was survival, but many people weren't satisfied with that. So, rather than a lack of goal causing the lack of choice, it would be a preservation of the devs' vision for the setting causing the lack of choice... causing the lack of goal.

Hawke didn't need to do anything that would change the general idea of the Chantry or the Qunari. Hawke can see Petrice as a threat and say he wants to kill her, but if given a good reason why he can't he is thus unable to do anything about it.

Thus the Qunari war would still trigger.

Regarding the Chantry, all these quests I'm talking about in my post to LinksOcarina would be best served by taking place in Act II, where the player could then know where their Hawke's allegiances lie.

This would strengthen Act III imo, though Act III would still have been a major mess the way it was.

They wouldn't actually change anything.

I think it's probably a bit of both, the devs being a little too attached to their setting moving in a certain direction with all the right actors in place, and thinking a protagonist without a defined goal is genuinely a step toward more player freedom. Which it arguably is, but that would necessitate that the setting be more malleable for that freedom to be satisfying rather than disillusioning, I think.

I'm tempted to agree, though I'm not quite sure.

Honestly, if the factions I had talked about were present in the game, the game would've been significantly better in my eyes because a Hawke without a clear goal could still side with one faction at first and make that his goal.

[LinksOcarina]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

They are, you just have it backwards. Origins had the proactive protagonist because, lets face it, there was never an option to flee Ferelden in the end. Plus the fact that you have to go through the Grey Warden Process, Ostagar, and have to find allies to defeat the blight made the Warden an unlikely protagonist because of the humbler origins,but a protagonist none the less that was active in their role due to obligation. He may not have planned it, but he pursued it and did the dirty work in finding allies, leading the charge with the landsmeet winner, and pretty much going on top of the tower to deal with the archdemon.

that's not the definition of proactive though. Just because he followed through with the plan that stemmed from reacting to the Blight doesn't make him proactive.

Duncan was proactive. The Warden wasn't.

Hawke was a reactive protagonist after Act I. The first part is all about getting paid, and he was proactive in that sense,

Indeed, and afterwards that's where his proactivity ends. 

but why should Hawke care about the Qunari when he is getting coin to get his stuff done.

Because a war with the Qunari means all that work put into reclaiming the estate was all for naught. 

Selfish yes, but in reality what would killing or bringing Petrice to justice accomplish? They will say he is nothing but a street rat who tried to rob her or something. She even makes that comment that Hawke is nothing and stopping her would accomplish nothing. Plus the fact that a templar is involved only exacerbates things...

My point wasn't that Hawke should kill Petrice, but that the player -- who is effectively Hawke -- should be given a good reason why killing Petrice isn't an option.

She was performing her ideas outside of the knowledge of the Chantry, which means that if she and her Templar associate were killed the Chantry wouldn't know that Hawke did it.

I proposed many months back that she should've said that agents of the Faithful -- her group of mad zealots -- were scattered throughout Lowtown and would report to the Chantry about Hawke should anything untowards happen to her.

And that while Hawke was out helping Saarebas, some of the Faithful came in to tell her that Hawke/Bethany is a mage, which would add another sense of why she can't be killed.

In fact, Act I is the setup for Act II and III anyway. We see the origins of the various conflicts, but Hawke is not involved in them because he is neutral to the conflicts at this time. When he has status he then reacts to them. He is reactive to the Arishok and the Vicounts problems, reactive to what Meredith and Orsino do, and so forth. 

Some people don't want to play a character like that. Some people wanted to actually get involved before they were forced to.

I mean, as it stands DAII is just more of a movie than a video game because I don't have much freedom to do what I want. Which isn't to say that there should've been an abundance of freedom, but what could've happened was Hawke could be on one of three sides:

1) Chantry and Templar supporter -- opens up a quest chain of 15 quests at the Chanter's Board where Hawke crushes the Mage Underground. Templar authority would weaken because the Chantry is relying on outside forces to do their job, but Hawke would earn a commendation for his service.

2) Mage Supporter -- opens up a quest chain of 15 quests at Mistress Selby's Board where Hawke aids the Mage Underground in various ways, not all of which would involve killing Templars. Templar authority would weaken because the Templars can't do their job, and Hawke would be named Saviour of the Mages, eventually becoming their leader.

Neither option would mean that Hawke was instigating anything, as one could side with the Templars as an upstanding citizen of the law or side with the mages in the hopes that Meredith would be removed from power by the recent events the Mage Underground performed. With her removal -- in the mind of Hawke, but she wouldn't actually be removed from power -- Kirkwall could be at peace again.

Hawke wouldn't have instigated anything as the war had already been going on through the efforts of the Mage Underground, which existed prior to Hawke's arrival in Kirkwall I believe.

It was a secret war that Hawke never started, but a war nevertheless.

3) Neutral -- basically what DAII gave us.

Hawke is less of a noble hero and more of a reactive one. He was at the right place basically, and because of this he subsequently became the most famous person in Kirkwall, and one of the most sought after people by the Seekers for the role he did play. Got to remember the first thought was the Hawke was the one who instigated everything, when in reality he tried to stop it. Once again, reactive to the events that occur. 

In reality, the war was ongoing prior to Hawke ever arriving. He never instigated anything, and thus was free to pick a side without being blamed for the war going full scale.

And in reality, Anders and Meredith were the ones that started the war. Not Hawke.

I know. Thats what we were finding out. Thats what Cassandra was finding out.

Once again you are trying to put retroactive thinking into the storyline. It is easy for us to say that we should stop Petrice in Lowtown when we first meet her. The reasons for not killing her are simple; shes a ****ING SISTER. 

She may be working outside the Chantry, but finding her body in a dirty hovel is not exactly good public relations. People will start investigating, pointing fingers, and Hawke might be implemented. He might lose his estate or be detained from the deep roads expediton. Why would Hawke do that? It would be out of character for one because you have no way of knowing how she will react later on.

You also have no guarentee the Qunari will even be in Kirkwall three years down the line, when the official word was that they were shipwrecked and waiting for a ship to come for them...that could be a year at most considering the Geography of Thedas and how far Par Vollen is from Kirkwall.  It is less of a question of them not doing it, and more of a question of motive. There is also no real war with the Qunari (bad word usage from me, sorry), and since they werent planning to do anything until the breaking point occurs in Act II you have no knowledge of them aking over the city.

As for the quest-lines; why would the mage underground contact people on a chanters board? We only hear from it by the rebel mage Anders, and after getting involved it is disbanded quickly because, well, its clear the Templars knew about it already. The Templars also do things exclusively for themselves; they were reluctant to ask for outside help, even Thrask and the templar involved in Quentins invesigation were working outside of the Templar code there.  So even if Hawke did work for them, getting involved is not his M.O. His friends got involved and by extension, he did. Once again reactive, which was the point.

As for Origins...Duncan was proactive, but the Warden was as well after the fact. And by the logic you are putting forth then, very few, if any protagonists in an RPG, are proactive to a conflict. I can think of only Planescape Torment as a good example of what your seeking. 

[TEWR]

I know. Thats what we were finding out. Thats what Cassandra was finding out.

Once again you are trying to put retroactive thinking into the storyline. It is easy for us to say that we should stop Petrice in Lowtown when we first meet her. The reasons for not killing her are simple; shes a ****ING SISTER.

She tells Hawke that she can't involve the Chantry if Hawke asks why she doesn't just use Chantry resources to escort Saarebas, and then when Hawke returns she says that Saarebas' death coupled with Hawke's at the hands of the Qunari would've lit the fires.

Which makes the reasoning why she couldn't use Chantry resources even more clear.

That's where the player needs a good reason not to kill her. After she just spills the beans and everything. There isn't a good reason why Hawke can't kill her at that point. That she's a sister of the Chantry means nothing as to why she can't be killed, as rumors were floating around Lowtown that she was offering coin to anyone that would offer to help her in exchange.

So no, it's not retroactive thinking. When she tells Hawke of her plans, Hawke needs a good solid reason why killing her isn't an option.

She may be working outside the Chantry, but finding her body in a dirty hovel is not exactly good public relations. People will start investigating, pointing fingers, and Hawke might be implemented. He might lose his estate or be detained from the deep roads expediton. Why would Hawke do that? It would be out of character for one because you have no way of knowing how she will react later on.

Which would've been fine had it been mentioned in game that this would be the likely result of such a course of action, or my idea coupled alongside this.

But there's no indication that Hawke could be implicated in any way, especially when Hawke has clout with the City Guard. Added to that is the fact that the hovel was stripped clean of anything involving Petrice and her hovel led to Darktown's shady districts, which IIRC was often used as a means of disposing bodies.

So were Petrice to be killed, one could've just tossed her body and Varnell's down there.

I want to make it very clear though that I'm an advocate of giving a good solid reason in game why a person cannot be killed.

You also have no guarentee the Qunari will even be in Kirkwall three years down the line, when the official word was that they were shipwrecked and waiting for a ship to come for them...that could be a year at most considering the Geography of Thedas and how far Par Vollen is from Kirkwall.

 

A point I've often argued before when it came to the first 3 year time skip, and the time for one to arrive could take even longer if you take into account storms and pirates and time needed to rebuild a ship.

 It is less of a question of them not doing it, and more of a question of motive. There is also no real war with the Qunari (bad word usage from me, sorry), and since they werent planning to do anything until the breaking point occurs in Act II you have no knowledge of them aking over the city.

Of course. But Petrice is trying to fuel the fires. At that time, the Qunari are as Seneschal Bran said neutral hostiles. The Qunari as a whole are a clear threat to Thedas, but these particular Qunari have shown no inclination to indoctrinate or conquer Kirkwall.

But Petrice is purposely trying to make them do so in an effort to wage war against the people that nearly conquered all of Thedas.

So one needs a good reason why killing her isn't an option at that point in time, which would still allow for the Qunari escalation.

As for the quest-lines; why would the mage underground contact people on a chanters board?

You misunderstood. Mistress Selby's Board isn't the Chanter's Board. Mistress Selby operates off of the Kirkwall Docks, while the Chanter's Board is near the Chantry.
 

We only hear from it by the rebel mage Anders, and after getting involved it is disbanded quickly because, well, its clear the Templars knew about it already. The Templars also do things exclusively for themselves; they were reluctant to ask for outside help, even Thrask and the templar involved in Quentins invesigation were working outside of the Templar code there.  So even if Hawke did work for them, getting involved is not his M.O. His friends got involved and by extension, he did. Once again reactive, which was the point.

Mistress Selby is involved with the Mage Underground.

And what I'm getting at is that by changing certain aspects of the game, the game would be required to change itself accordingly.

And no, Hawke could find out about the Mage Underground -- notes, papers, overhearing people talking about it -- and think that this is a perfect avenue for getting rid of Meredith.

As I said, proactive. Reactivity only goes so far, but if someone anticipates a problem that may well exist after the fact and works to prevent it, he would be proactive.

And even if Hawke wasn't made to seek out the Underground in proactive methods, he could come up with proactive ways to accomplish certain Mage Underground quests.

Like say, Hawke could say he doesn't want to draw the attention of the Templars in breaking out a few mages, so he advocates sneaking in -- and were MotA's stealth incorporated into the main game this could be possible -- which would make him proactive in that instance.

Anticipating the problem of the Templars finding them during their attempt or worse being too much for them to handle, so they opt to try another method to accomplish the same task.

As for Origins...Duncan was proactive, but the Warden was as well after the fact. And by the logic you are putting forth then, very few, if any protagonists in an RPG, are proactive to a conflict. I can think of only Planescape Torment as a good example of what your seeking. 

never played it. I've heard good things about it though.

[LinksOcarina]

Ok you got me on a few points, but once again, you misunderstand a few things.

1, even if you had the choice of killing her, it makes no sense to do so even after she spills the beans. It accomplishes nothing and would throw a widget into yours plans as Hawke because then you will be going nowhere but a jail cell if you are caught. Even if it's an IF, why would Hawke risk that. Plus I am sure half of your companions would not appreciate such an act.

And they mention several times the Qunari are waiting for a ship. Act I and Act II is all about that, the original reasons for them being there that they gave.

But everything you talk about is retroactive thinking, looking at the game after the fact once you have all the information to make a decision like that is the problem. Basically, Hawke has no reason to go after Meredith or Orsino, or get involved in the mage/templar conflict until the very end. Working for one side over another, even if he supports their point of view or not, is not fundamental to the choices you are making. Hawke wishes to stay neutral and does so until he can't no longer.

I get you want a proactive character, but the game is designed for a reactive one. If it was proactive, then Cassandra would have been right and there would have been no need to interrogate Varric.

[Huntress]

My hawke wouldn't kill her per say, she would hand back the piece of paper to her with a big: NO as answer, or just let the wind take care of it.. hehe.
Worst is act 3 Hawke being ask to help ( meeting with leliana) well all the answers of hawke are anti mage's.. lol ...figures.. my hawke call her useless in act1 and then said in act 3: mages revelion need to be put down/ or agree that the divine send an army to kirkwall... lol!

I go.. oh brother here we go again! I don't like act 3 is such a mess..

Modifié par Huntress, 09 janvier 2012 - 10:24 .

[TEWR]

LinksOcarina wrote...

1, even if you had the choice of killing her, it makes no sense to do so even after she spills the beans. It accomplishes nothing and would throw a widget into yours plans as Hawke because then you will be going nowhere but a jail cell if you are caught. Even if it's an IF, why would Hawke risk that. Plus I am sure half of your companions would not appreciate such an act.

Actually, all of the companions really dislike Petrice for her act. Recently I loaded up numerous saves and every one of them say things with scorn in their voice towards Petrice.

Granted, Varric wouldn't like killing her because he's generally against resorting to violence. However, he's the only one who would disapprove of such an act. Aveline would be able to manipulate the City Guard to stay off of Hawke's trail if her quest is done prior to Shepherding Wolves -- where she's named Captain -- and I'm assuming that Jeven hasn't really done much honest Guard work.

But as I said, I never wanted to kill Petrice. I just wanted a good in game reason why that wasn't an option.

And they mention several times the Qunari are waiting for a ship. Act I and Act II is all about that, the original reasons for them being there that they gave.

I know that's the reason given, but even then that's fairly flimsy if you think about it.

Because on that ship, more Qunari would be present. And one could assume that they would send more than one ship to pick up the others. So more Qunari on the way could equal in a Thedosian's mind Qunari reinforcements to assault Kirkwall.

Anyway, over the ensuing months that reason grows less believable for the Thedosian population in Kirkwall.

The player doesn't know how long Petrice will in fact lay low. She could lay low for a couple months, then resume her actions.

Even though the Qunari aren't a threat at that time, Petrice is.

I get you want a proactive character, but the game is designed for a reactive one. If it was proactive, then Cassandra would have been right and there would have been no need to interrogate Varric.

Technically she would've been wrong.

Cassandra believes Hawke started the war. He didn't. The war was secretly going on before the Champion ever would've gotten involved and was officially started by Anders and Meredith.

Cassandra believes that he spread subversion against the Chantry. He wouldn't have. He would've either helped the Chantry, done nothing, or spread subversion against Meredith's measures.
 
At least as far as Varric would've told Cassandra.

Headcanon could make one person's Hawke make Cassandra's assumptions right, but Varric might not know these things that Hawke was thinking.

In which case Cassandra's assumptions are still wrong, since headcanon varies.

And something tells me that was some really horrid grammar I just typed out