96 réponses à ce sujet

[IPerrin]

I agree Recidiva. As soon as a character is forced by Alistair and Flemeth and limiting dialogue choices to agree to fight the blight and defeat the archdemon, no matter what lesser evils they commit along the way, the character is serving the greater good.

[Erasculio]

I agree with those that have mentioned how killing everyone who would join your party and making the others leave isn't being evil; it's being stupid. You would just be cuting away your own resources. Manipulating them into doing what you want them to do would be a lot more satisfying. In my "evil" playthrough, I rescued Zevran, because that meant two more hands to kill for me; and in fact, I love sending him as my scout and then kill him (together with all enemies on the map) when I cast Storm of the Century on the elf.

I wish we had more ways to be evil, though. Some of the "evil" things don't make sense to me (why not save Redcliff? If you have to stop the Blight and kill those darkspawn anyway, it would be wiser to do so while using all those stupid villagers as body shields than to let your enemies destroy the village and make you fight them later), and there are ways in which I would have liked to be evil, but didn't have the option (a mage in the Mage origin complains how she doesn't want people to find out she allowed spiders to take over the deposit; I would have loved to blackmail her after learning that). Even Redcliff had a better "evil" resolution; I wish we could have set a trap so the darkspawn would attack, and we could just explode the entire village from afar. All the peasants would die, of course, but then would that part of the darkspawn army, so our work as Grey Warderns would have been done.

I have to say, though, after hearing all the Dalish Elves claiming how they didn't like me and wouldn't trade with me, killing the entire village was a rather big joy.

[Herr Uhl]

IPerrin wrote...

I agree Recidiva. As soon as a character is forced by Alistair and Flemeth and limiting dialogue choices to agree to fight the blight and defeat the archdemon, no matter what lesser evils they commit along the way, the character is serving the greater good.

How is not wanting to die killed by darkspawn in any way good. See it as a hurdle to use to your own advantage (kind of like Howe). Being evil has nothing to do with being suicidal. But that is just my two cents.

[TcheQ]

A strongpoint of Dragon Age is that "Evil" is not a black and white decision.  I must admit, Leliana is very persistent, and seems so hurt when you reject her.  If you are having a conflict that you can't tell Leliana to leave, it means you don't truly believe your characters' background.  But, you are allowed to change it.  Maybe you saw an opportunity for lust.  Maybe Leliana reminds you of your mother.

One thing I do wonder though.

You went inside the tavern where Leiliana was. Why?  If you hated humans, why would you spend one minute longer in Lothering?  How do you even justify talking to anyone in game if you, as you put it, hate humans?  There is a conflict there...you seem to tolerate their presence, yet you hate them? 

My own story I played a human noble with an "evil" bent. I destroyed the ashes, then killed leliana even though we'd been knocking boots, then lied to Genitivi about what I did.  I left Sten to rot in his cage.  My hatred for Howe had somehow extended to an inability to see reason, but through my upbringing I felt entitled to whatever it was I desired.  I stole from every person I met. I allowed the anvil to be continued in use.  I wilfully killed the young boy Connor.  And I convinced Anora to take me as her King. I had alistair killed, gladly.

Even so, once I had everything, once I had my revenged....the urge to destroy subsided.  But I still stole. And murdered.  Pity that Cauthrien wasn't up for some action.

[Recidiva]

IPerrin wrote...

I agree Recidiva. As soon as a character is forced by Alistair and Flemeth and limiting dialogue choices to agree to fight the blight and defeat the archdemon, no matter what lesser evils they commit along the way, the character is serving the greater good.

If there was a way to inspire stat gains through intimidation, I'd do it. 

You can play the game as greedy and canny, but that's just basically taking the "good" options insincerely and using people.  While having moments like knifing Genitivi in the back of the head.  It's good for amusement, but it's not big on attachment.  And I think the game shines in the intimacy department more than the alienation department.  You're having exactly the same conversations.  But it makes no sense for me to Jolly Alistair along if I think he's being an idiot.  And call him an idiot once in character and you lose any gains you might have made otherwise.  I managed a -72 once.  *proud*

It's not as much fun for me to have everyone **** at me on my way up to the tower and just that one guy screaming "Kill those godless bastards!" on my side, wondering why I had to drag along that moron Loghain who was stupid enough to leave evidence and get caught.

You're stuck with Alistair's plot through the whole thing.  You can leave him in camp, but essentially kicking damaged puppies isn't my idea of fun...or evil even.

Modifié par Recidiva, 29 novembre 2009 - 02:44 .

[Eliende]

Good, evil... I don't really feel there is that much choice at all.

[Recidiva]

How is not wanting to die killed by darkspawn in any way good. See it as a hurdle to use to your own advantage (kind of like Howe). Being evil has nothing to do with being suicidal. But that is just my two cents.

Because that's just being afraid of dying.  Not being "evil."  It's not about being suicidal.  It's about not really giving a damn what day you're going to die and not being afraid of that day.

So many choices in this game are fear based.  I can play it as a "good" character because I can still not fear for my own death, but I can protect others.

If I don't fear my own death (and personally, I don't, and I don't see why I'd want to roleplay it) and I'm evil, then....no problem.  **** it.  Hell, I'd probably move to Orlais, what the hell do I care.

If you're evil, you go through all that trouble...risk your life, compromise, listen to everyone's whining...and then you trash Ferelden anyway?  What's the point?  Money?  ****, I could make money or get power anywhere.  What do I want a crown for?  For the big shiny gold bullseye?  No, moving to Orlais or Antiva and joining the crows or setting up some protection racket sounds good to me right about now.

You want revenge?  Well, darkspawn are coming.  If you don't stop them, everyone who pissed you off is dead, right?  Bye.

Modifié par Recidiva, 29 novembre 2009 - 02:44 .

[Recidiva]

TcheQ wrote...

A strongpoint of Dragon Age is that "Evil" is not a black and white decision.  I must admit, Leliana is very persistent, and seems so hurt when you reject her.  If you are having a conflict that you can't tell Leliana to leave, it means you don't truly believe your characters' background.  But, you are allowed to change it.  Maybe you saw an opportunity for lust.  Maybe Leliana reminds you of your mother.

One thing I do wonder though.

You went inside the tavern where Leiliana was. Why?  If you hated humans, why would you spend one minute longer in Lothering?  How do you even justify talking to anyone in game if you, as you put it, hate humans?  There is a conflict there...you seem to tolerate their presence, yet you hate them? 

My own story I played a human noble with an "evil" bent. I destroyed the ashes, then killed leliana even though we'd been knocking boots, then lied to Genitivi about what I did.  I left Sten to rot in his cage.  My hatred for Howe had somehow extended to an inability to see reason, but through my upbringing I felt entitled to whatever it was I desired.  I stole from every person I met. I allowed the anvil to be continued in use.  I wilfully killed the young boy Connor.  And I convinced Anora to take me as her King. I had alistair killed, gladly.

Even so, once I had everything, once I had my revenged....the urge to destroy subsided.  But I still stole. And murdered.  Pity that Cauthrien wasn't up for some action.

Yup.  I just think that any "caring" content is best experienced as a good character.  I went through boxes of tissues.

It's fun to play for curiosity and humor and "I wonder what happens if..." as a chaotic or self-centered manipulative character.

But my favorite experience in the game and the "best" ending for me that is the least irksome, is to go as a good player, do all the hard stuff, and make the sacrifice at the end.

I find it funny that Bhelen is reprehensible yet gets a good ending for the dwarves.  Tell the truth, this still makes no sense to me in a long-term sense. 

Why JUST make people miserable for personal gain?  Why really give a damn about them if you don't give a damn about them?  There's too much adolescent "I'll show them!" motivation if you're evil and I don't have the patience for caring.  If I'm gonna care, I'm gonna care, and grab the tissues.

Even sadism is entirely attached to other people's responses to you.  That just seems so...emo.

[Axterix]

Recidiva wrote...

I find it funny that Bhelen is reprehensible yet gets a good ending for the dwarves.  Tell the truth, this still makes no sense to me in a long-term sense.

Why not?  We really don't know too much about Bhelen's intentions once he becomes King.  All we know is what he's willing to do to become King.  And maybe what he sees about Dwarven society leads him to believe it cannot go on the way it has, that is the reason he feels he must do what he's done, only way to save the Dwarves.

You've got a society that has been pushed back to just 2 cities and needs every warrior it can get and even with them, has not expanded outwards.  They're just one smart archdemon away from extinction.  Just one to stay underground and wipe the dwarves out before heading topside.  Yet they won't let capable castless fight, because they are not warrior cast.  Something needs to change, because what they've got isn't working.

That's the wonderful grey of the dwarves.  The "good" guy supports something we'd be inclined to think of as bad, while the slimy guy, well, he's more open to thinking closer to our own.

Though that is one of my bigger gripes about the dwarven areas.  I really couldn't get enough feel for where the two dwarves stood on the issues.  That would have guided more than what they did, with my character being pragmatic about the greatest good, long term.

[Herr Uhl]

Recidiva wrote...
Because that's just being afraid of dying.  Not being "evil."  It's not about being suicidal.  It's about not really giving a damn what day you're going to die and not being afraid of that day.

So many choices in this game are fear based.  I can play it as a "good" character because I can still not fear for my own death, but I can protect others.

If I don't fear my own death (and personally, I don't, and I don't see why I'd want to roleplay it) and I'm evil, then....no problem.  **** it.  Hell, I'd probably move to Orlais, what the hell do I care.

If you're evil, you go through all that trouble...risk your life, compromise, listen to everyone's whining...and then you trash Ferelden anyway?  What's the point?  Money?  ****, I could make money or get power anywhere.  What do I want a crown for?  For the big shiny gold bullseye?  No, moving to Orlais or Antiva and joining the crows or setting up some protection racket sounds good to me right about now.

You want revenge?  Well, darkspawn are coming.  If you don't stop them, everyone who pissed you off is dead, right?  Bye.

There is a difference between being evil and nihilist. Someone evil would not sit by and saying "meh" if they had a way to stop the comet hurtling towards earth.

Being evil is not going around kicking puppies and saying F*** off to people or even being angry at them. And enabling the complete annihilation of all life is just stupid (Yes, I'm looking at you Saren).

The fact that you can't go to Orlais is kind of limiting yes, but it wouldn't be much of a game otherwise.

[Palesblade]

Recidiva wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Alistair would throw your mission to the wolves in order to get his revenge on Loghain. He really is a shallow and emotionally stunted young man.

It's true, you basically end up not with a lover or a partner in any case, but a short bus full of stunted and damanged people and creatures who all want to navigate and most of them would end up driving you straight off a cliff if allowed the wheel for two seconds.

But ultimately on replay they seem more like my kids than my peers, and I like them, even though I have to yell at them to pipe down or I'm pulling over, I have more fun with them all on the bus and occasionally singing a round of "Wheels on the bus go round and round!" with Oghren making up verses about how "wheels" are really "boobies."

Wow....best explaination I've ever read about the characters in game. Bravo!

[Recidiva]

Why not?  We really don't know too much about Bhelen's intentions once he becomes King.  All we know is what he's willing to do to become King.  And maybe what he sees about Dwarven society leads him to believe it cannot go on the way it has, that is the reason he feels he must do what he's done, only way to save the Dwarves.

You've got a society that has been pushed back to just 2 cities and needs every warrior it can get and even with them, has not expanded outwards.  They're just one smart archdemon away from extinction.  Just one to stay underground and wipe the dwarves out before heading topside.  Yet they won't let capable castless fight, because they are not warrior cast.  Something needs to change, because what they've got isn't working.

That's the wonderful grey of the dwarves.  The "good" guy supports something we'd be inclined to think of as bad, while the slimy guy, well, he's more open to thinking closer to our own.

Though that is one of my bigger gripes about the dwarven areas.  I really couldn't get enough feel for where the two dwarves stood on the issues.  That would have guided more than what they did, with my character being pragmatic about the greatest good, long term.

My dwarf noble knows what Bhelen does.  Thumbs down on a personal and a gameplay and a historical sense.  It's like winning the Olympics by poisoning every other player and taking enhancement drugs.  Not exactly fair play or determining who is the best ruler.  Just suppressing all competition by any means.

[Recidiva]

There is a difference between being evil and nihilist. Someone evil would not sit by and saying "meh" if they had a way to stop the comet hurtling towards earth.

Being evil is not going around kicking puppies and saying F*** off to people or even being angry at them. And enabling the complete annihilation of all life is just stupid (Yes, I'm looking at you Saren).

The fact that you can't go to Orlais is kind of limiting yes, but it wouldn't be much of a game otherwise.

My version of "evil" can't navigate the story without taking a stand and dying or taking a hike.  Or by being pulled into the story and just wanting to be good.  It's not a weakness of the game, it's a strength.  I have no trouble constructing evil characters with different motivations, and I've probably tried three separate times.  I WAS determined to go in and just kill Dog to set the tone.  Couldn't do it.  

For me that mostly means that what I learned in my play through as a good character makes me not want to miss that content on subsequent replays, despite my curiosity.  That's a good thing.  Being evil, for me, doesn't have the same payoff, which is considerable, as a good character that saves the world and is genuinely adored instead of a prologue where everyone dies and there's a general sense of "HEY!"

I PREFER to see Connor become a successful mage rather than have his name absent.

[Recidiva]

Wow....best explaination I've ever read about the characters in game. Bravo!

Yay!  Thank you.  That song is permanently ruined for me with Oghren's lyrics.  But I like it that way.

[Kuravid]

Going evil in this game is difficult and almost impossible. I'd say, at most, you can be about 75% evil and I think that's pushing it. You can, however, become a passive aggressive, immature jerk with relative ease.



For my first playthrough, I always try to go through the game selecting dialogue options that I believe I would do irl (if "irl" were a magic fantasy land or a post-apocalyptic nightmare or space, etc). Because I'm not a psychopath, I typically end up doing the most good that I possibly can, with the exception of sidequests that I think of as complete bull**** (Cammen's quest is one of these---I felt uncomfortable hooking him up with Gheyna because he was unwilling to take a stand for himself and become a hunter). During my second playthrough, however, I try to go all out evil just to see the alternative and get some good laughs (like seducing Gheyna, instead).



In Dragon Age, that simply isn't possible. You can't be hideously evil so much as you can just screw yourself over and be a jerk. I think this is a weakness in the game. I don't mind the fact that, no matter what, the character has to fight against the blight because that's inevitable (the darkspawn don't give a damn about your outstanding morality or lack of it). What I do mind is that I can't recruit alternative evil allies in place of, say, Alistair, Wynn and Leliana and I can't open up any sidequests or main quests that will satisfy my evil playthrough. All I can pretty much do is insult people (and not gain any of their skill bonuses or access their sidequests), sell an elf to some noble rapists, seduce a naive dalish elf, abandon Redcliffe, defile some holy ashes (that my characters wouldn't even consider holy in the first place), kill a boy or his annoying mother, wipe out some mages in a tower (which hurts the end game because having an army of all melee dps sucks) and kill some Dalish elves in order to gain assistance from some misunderstood werewolves (which isn't all that evil, IMO). Maybe I missed a few things, I can't remember it all at once.

[Recidiva]

Kuravid wrote...

Going evil in this game is difficult and almost impossible. I'd say, at most, you can be about 75% evil and I think that's pushing it. You can, however, become a passive aggressive, immature jerk with relative ease.

For my first playthrough, I always try to go through the game selecting dialogue options that I believe I would do irl (if "irl" were a magic fantasy land or a post-apocalyptic nightmare or space, etc). Because I'm not a psychopath, I typically end up doing the most good that I possibly can, with the exception of sidequests that I think of as complete bull**** (Cammen's quest is one of these---I felt uncomfortable hooking him up with Gheyna because he was unwilling to take a stand for himself and become a hunter). During my second playthrough, however, I try to go all out evil just to see the alternative and get some good laughs (like seducing Gheyna, instead).

In Dragon Age, that simply isn't possible. You can't be hideously evil so much as you can just screw yourself over and be a jerk. I think this is a weakness in the game. I don't mind the fact that, no matter what, the character has to fight against the blight because that's inevitable (the darkspawn don't give a damn about your outstanding morality or lack of it). What I do mind is that I can't recruit alternative evil allies in place of, say, Alistair, Wynn and Leliana and I can't open up any sidequests or main quests that will satisfy my evil playthrough. All I can pretty much do is insult people (and not gain any of their skill bonuses or access their sidequests), sell an elf to some noble rapists, seduce a naive dalish elf, abandon Redcliffe, defile some holy ashes (that my characters wouldn't even consider holy in the first place), kill a boy or his annoying mother, wipe out some mages in a tower (which hurts the end game because having an army of all melee dps sucks) and kill some Dalish elves in order to gain assistance from some misunderstood werewolves (which isn't all that evil, IMO). Maybe I missed a few things, I can't remember it all at once.

It's also for me that some of the evil acts are ultimately so....very...evil...with relatively little gain and a lot of flak and attitude, which I actually consider are justified.

Poisoning Andraste's ashes?  Aligning with Branka?  Getting a con boost by sucking the life out of slaves?  In front of witnesses?  Aren't witnesses what got Loghain entirely screwed...by me?

I can see to some extent aligning with the wolves and the mages.  That's a bit gray-er.  But BRANKA?  Isn't your entire point to be wiping out darkspawn and you're supposed to cooperate with the one person who has gone ahead and made more of them?

KOTOR had the ability to do many things secretly and get away with them.  But getting caught or being witnessed doing this stuff isn't evil.  It's stupid.  Even evil people need to be trustworthy in order to make deals with people so then you can LATER screw them over.  Hopefully by using a middleman or a scapegoat and looking innocent yourself.

The only real plot point that can be done in total secret is the deal in the fade with the demon.  More opportunities like that with more secret payoffs make evil justifiable.  But otherwise you're just trashing your own image and honor and trustworthiness in front of people who then smirk and judge.  My image of evil is one of "not getting caught" as superlative importance.

Blows away all my sense of "do dark things in secret."  To have no choice but to have morally set characters all giving feedback on what you do, and the things you're doing being so very, very nonsensical if you're actually going to be fighting darkspawn.
 

Modifié par Recidiva, 29 novembre 2009 - 10:35 .

[Kuravid]

In addition to that the game choices can be too ambiguous. I'm not saying like "there's a hint somewhere that doing this or doing that might be good or evil" I mean it's more like "this is the only good option, this is the only bad option." I had this problem with Jowan in the mage origin story and later on with Bhelen and Harowmount. Admittedly, I didn't research the whole Bhelen thing as thoroughly as I could have for my inherent dislike of dwarves, gnomes or any other deformed short person fantasy race, but still, everything seemed to point in the direction of Bhelen being an ass. Then comes epilogue and it turns out Bhelen would have been the better choice.



That, to me, is too damn ambiguous.

[Shanra]

Well, I created a mage in the whole attempt to try the evil play through. My first was the goodie goodie char, who did what was necessary when needed, but ultimately tried to please everyone, and get a better rep for the City Elves.



My second is more on a neutral stance, more duty (Human Noble), more straight to the point, but not evil either. I want her to become queen.



I think my 3rd playthrough shall be my mage. I intend for him to be a blood mage. He'll use people if it goes along for his own purposes. IE, he treated Jowan like crap, until he had a chance to get out of the Magi tower through Jowan. He's in Ostagar now. I wanted to try a mage party with maybe Sten as my forth. (Me, Morrigan, Wynne, and Sten), but I just remembered that if you desecrate the ashes, you lose Wynne. Argh.



I plan to have this guy do what I couldn't bring myself to do on any other playthrough. Not help Redcliffe, kill Connor, side with the werewolves, NOT destroy the Anvil...side with Bhelen (because even though it turns out good, the guy appears evil at the start.) Etc. He'll of course accept Liliana into the party merely for getting in bed with her. And Morrigan of course. Oh, I'll let Sophia live probably, or kill both it and Avernus. And such. That's my plan anyway. Must make myself pick the evil options!



I intend to try and play the 'smart' evil as much as I can.

[Cursek]

I also cannot play evil, as I have always loved being a good aligned player.

So what I do now is tell myself in each playthrough that I'll approach it in a different way...

"This guy will be stern about his task as a Gray Warden to slay the Archedemon"

"This one likes to know EVERYONE'S problems"

"And this one likes to support his party on whatever decision they make and totally lives for them"


Being bad is so....Tasteless and tacky to me, like the color black, lol.

[Drunkencelt]

Kailieann wrote...

I won't be taking a stab at evil until my next character, but I eventually abandoned my Renegade/Closed Fist runs on Mass Effect and Jade Empire.

Renegade was the best and easiest evil playthrough ever. You rarely even did anything that evil. Sure I shot a terrorist in the head instead of talking him down, but whats one corporate fat cat.

[Heldenbrand]

I don't like the term being 'evil' used anymore. I recently decided to harden both Allistar and Leliana, thinking it might make them more 'evil', but what I found is that it actually made them better people. They both grew up a little, abandoned that child like innocence that really made them unrelatable people in the end.



Allistar grows up and learns to take personal responsibility, no longer acting like a child and shirking his duty like he had from the very beginning.



Leliana accepts the fact that she can't just run away from who she was. Turn the other cheek isn't an applicable philosophy in this world, shedding some of that same 'girlish' behavior.



It didn't make them 'evil' but rather more mature adults that were capable of making harder choices. I think that's what it boils down to in this game. Sure, you could play completely sociopathic evil, but it's mostly senseless, illogical choices. Most 'bad guys' we know of, have a motive or a goal in mind. For instance, Napoleon. From a variety of perspectives he was either a military genius, broke down the centuries old oligarchies, evil dictator, tyrant or hero. In a great many places, he is all of these and more, or simply pieces of them. What he did could be considered horrific, but the end results literally shaped our world and arguably for the better. The debate rages today.



I find it much more entertaining to play -that- sort of bad guy. Killing the archaeologist to protect the location of Andraste's ashes wasn't a 'good' thing, but it protected the sanctity of a place my character considered holy. I chose to kill Marjoline not to deliberately harden Leliana but to protect her from a woman who had left her to be brutally tortured and nearly executed. I chose to tell Allistar that people are out for themselves, because everywhere we'd been going trying to rally defenders against the Blight, people had been requesting help for themselves rather than looking to help me. Wynne was the only person that had actually tried to help my character out. I chose to side with Prince Bhelen because my character felt that Bhelen was willing to do what was necessary to survive in the Deep Roads.



But at the same time, I chose to save Connor because it seemed more sensible that I would gain the support of the Arl if I saved his family, not because it was the 'right' thing to do. I chose to smash the Anvil because I knew it would only be a crutch and the dwarves needed to learn another method to battle against the darkspawn.



I have seen a lot of stuff in this game that points out what we've come to expect in fantasy RPG's. We expect black and white, good/evil choices as well as a 'best path' mentality towards optimizing our choices. Such as Harrowmont or Bhelen, how to convince Morrigan to stay, or how to get away with keeping Allistar if I don't execute Loghain. We want to metagame the right choices rather than the choices that seem natural. I'll admit, I like playing the good guy, but Bioware and the community in general is trending us towards more complex choices. It doesn't always work out that the good guys win in the end, or win without mucking themselves up in a few questionable choices.

[Endurium]

This game's 'evil' isn't as wince-inducing for me as Jade Empire's 'low path'. There are too many contrivances and being a Grey Warden only allows so much leeway.



Thus I play the masked-evil character who is friendly in conversation (quite a few of the 'good' lines could be read with an evil nuance as well) but ruthless and merciless in action, when allowed.



I was initially put off by the fact that I couldn't kill or dismiss my companions right at the start or I'd jeopardize my chance at getting by the bridge puzzle. However, the reward of taking the goody types up there and then desecrating the ashes makes it worth while. Now if there were more evil options...



Lothering for example:

- Give tainted health poultices to the healer.

- Drag Allison into the 'back alley' to get better acquainted.

- Kill the doomsayer in front of everyone.

- Tell the boy his mother is out in the field (after taking the quest); he goes looking and gets killed by the wolves.

- Stab Sten in the heart while he's caged and harmless.

- Leave the highwaymen alive then lie to the robbed family about the men being run off; family suffers even more.



I'm sure I could think of more, but it would have Duncan rolling in his grave.

[LynxAQ]

I started again as evil elf warrior. I kept the dog this time, and have kept Lelianna as well. Pretending my character has fallen in love with her dispite his cold hearted attitude. I have also kept Alistair and Morrigan obviously as well as Shail so far. I left Sten to die, killed Zevran and Wynne.



But playing evil seems to make alot of parts of the game mak no sense and its really disappointing and makes the writers of this game look really amateur and BAD. (I hate to say that but its true.) It feels like the "evil" route was just a rushed attachment to the game.



Mage Tower - I agree with templar to slay everything... yet I can't kill the children with Wynne? They just magically disappear when the fight starts... (This is an 18 rated game!). But that brings up another question, if they could just "disappear when you attack Wynne, why the hell didnt they just do that in the beginning? Its stupid and bad writing. Also the mage in the closet in the mage tower... wy can't I kill him? I thought I agreed with the templar I would cleanse and kill everyone in the tower. Stupid again and then I don't have the option to slit Irvings throat at the end, again rather dumb that I am in the tower to cleanse it - yet I HELP Irving down the stairs and to the lobby... bull**** tbh.



Redcliffe - I leave the town to burn cause my character ddn't help them and the guy incharge gets angry about it for about 5 seconds and then suddenly outside the windmill hes telling me how I have PROVEN MYSELF TO BE CAPABLE PERSON... lol??? Seriously at this stage was really unimpressed with the flow of this game with the options I had taken. Anyway I killed Connor and then back at camp Alistair starts having a go at me furiously and I was like - "Oh yeah - we gonna have a brawl now" and thought this would be interesting yet, 2 seconds later hes acting all normal again... (Alistair is at like -96 atm with me... I persming hes made never to leave you no matter what.) His comments at this rep level are pretty funny.



Anyway I am in the temple atm going for the Urn. Will see what else happens and how much more the story falls apart because of bad writing.

[ShadowKhan]

I don't think good/evil play is as black/white as good/evil is in the KotOR or NWN sense. Gray wardens are supposed to unite people to fight the darkspawn and not join the darkspawn, which btw, I'm waiting for someone to mod that.

[TcheQ]

Mage Tower - I agree with templar to slay everything... yet I can't kill the children with Wynne? They just magically disappear when the fight starts... (This is an 18 rated game!). But that brings up another question, if they could just "disappear when you attack Wynne, why the hell didnt they just do that in the beginning? Its stupid and bad writing. Also the mage in the closet in the mage tower... wy can't I kill him? I thought I agreed with the templar I would cleanse and kill everyone in the tower. Stupid again and then I don't have the option to slit Irvings throat at the end, again rather dumb that I am in the tower to cleanse it - yet I HELP Irving down the stairs and to the lobby... bull**** tbh.

Redcliffe - I leave the town to burn cause my character ddn't help them and the guy incharge gets angry about it for about 5 seconds and then suddenly outside the windmill hes telling me how I have PROVEN MYSELF TO BE CAPABLE PERSON... lol??? Seriously at this stage was really unimpressed with the flow of this game with the options I had taken. Anyway I killed Connor and then back at camp Alistair starts having a go at me furiously and I was like - "Oh yeah - we gonna have a brawl now" and thought this would be interesting yet, 2 seconds later hes acting all normal again... (Alistair is at like -96 atm with me... I persming hes made never to leave you no matter what.) His comments at this rep level are pretty funny.

Anyway I am in the temple atm going for the Urn. Will see what else happens and how much more the story falls apart because of bad writing.

Roflz @ negative 96 for AListair

The urn is great cos if you've been lugging that bag of bones Wynne and that lezzo Leliana around, you get to fight them both in the nude (please pardon my choice of grossly inappropriate generalisms towards age and sexual preference)

AS for killing kids, I'm a bit bummed about it too.  Couldn't kill nonhostile people in NWN2, The Witcher or Fallout 3 either

In fact last time I got to kill children was in BG I think :/

Maybe it has something to do with actually allowing the game to be played >.>
But you do get to kill connor C:.  The human nobles beginning is one storyline that highlights the tragedy of innocent death, i think, and how BG treated it so blaze (oh you naughty person! pay some alms and we'll forget it happened! (meanwhile I have 200k))