96 réponses à ce sujet

[Rathalin]

I have been playing "evil" this time around and find it very enjoyable. I take the selfish options whenever possible, and my character lies to his companions all the time. Leliana thinks the urn is safe and plans to visit it after the archdemon is dealt with, meanwhile it is defiled. I drank the blood, then killed the cultists and the dragon.



I got the book from connor's demon and he will be hers somewhere down the road. I killed the prisoner in Ostagar, killed all the elves, killed Caradin, played both sides of the dwarves right up until decision time, killed the noble locked up in the dungeon in Harrowmont's estate.



So far being evil has been very refreshing. As long as you are good at persuading, you can convince your companions to go along with you and make them feel like total **** afterwards lol.

[I ReVaNChisT I]

First playthrough i made decisions as i would have in real life, turned out im a fairly decent sort wihtout being pious, though i tell all the chantry nutcases to shove their blessings and then get called a heathen. Liliana had to convince me to let her come, i think she ended up getting like 1 kill the whole game. Second playthough i made, like the op, a char with intention of it being absolute evil, so far i only really felt guilty about putting ruck out of his misery and killing Connor, on the other had i enjoyed slaughtering the elves with the warewoves at my back, they really annoyed me.

[sarahbau]

First playthrough I played as I myself would have interacted, generally being nice to everyone and doing "what was right." I decided to make my second character a greedy, power-hungry person, or I guess "evil" as most would call it. Some people seem to be trying to be evil for the sake of being evil, but I think that's more sadistic than evil. My character would agree with Loghain's assessment that King Cailan was obsessed with the Grey Wardens and glory, but unfortunately, I can't side with Loghain until the end. I have to drag Alistair along (whom I like, buy my character hates), trying to gather allies for the landsmeet. I wish I could follow Morrigan's idea of going straight for Loghain. It would be useful to have Loghain on my side...as least until the blight was quelled. Then I could get rid of him if I saw him as a threat.

Modifié par sarahbau, 12 décembre 2009 - 05:52 .

[Andkatus]

Erm, you do realize that "evil", as defined by a generalization of the prevailing morals of Western society, can take a wide range of incarnations? There is no one set defined "evil path" in Dragon Age, and, indeed, in many similar RPGs. There is a "deranged psychopathic dick" path, certainly, but that hardly embodies all the possibilities of "evil" (especially as it generally indicates deranged pathological antisociality rather than geniune malicious intent and ambition). For instance, the entire Mage-Templar decision is dependent not on "Good-Evil", but rather on the particular convictions of one's character with respect to what migth constitute the greatest long-term benefit according to his or her moral compass. A pious individual wary of Mages might take the debacle in the Tower as a sufficiently strong indication of the enormous dangers posed by Mages, even supposedly controlled ones, to society as to merit their destruction (especially when the entire Circle is already potentially compromised). While this might entail human suffering locally, it could in the long term prevent significant human suffering. On the other hand, a character, "good" or "evil", might perhaps opt for the Mages because they simply seem to pose greater potential contribution to Warden's budding army. Alternately, an "evil" (or, at least, "pragmatic") character might simply perceive the Mages as sufficiently unstable (or detestable) as to be unreliable and undesirable. The Templars are capable against the foul magics of the Darkspawn, are potent warriors, and might therefore seem to make a better alternative force.

The only truly "evil" ending to the Circle would be to side with Uldred, butcher the Templars and Mages, and employ a horde of horrifying Abominations and monstrous daemonic entities instead of either as part of your army. However, this is, for whatever, reason, not an option in this game (a shame because the ruthless Blood Mage I was playing would have been quite content with that solution to the problem; the Abominations were clearly more competent than either the laughably craven Templars or the worryingly frail and vulnerable Magi).

It seems that you have a very ill-defined concept of what forms "Evil" can take if you find yourself running into brick walls in your game because you're killing, dismissing, abusing, etc. everyone you conceivably can. "Evil" is much more than deranged sociopathy (Palpatine is a fairly solid reference in this regard). I don't see why every single does action does not have to be bent towards the short term (or utterly irrelevant long-term) attainment of cartoonish "ill deeds", to be accompanied by maniacal laughter. I never had any issues effectively roleplaying a completely callous, avaricious, and ambitious "evil" character myself. While I skipped a few egregiously altruistic quests, the vast majority of actions in the game can be rationalized and completed in a wide range of contexts with respect to a wide range of goals.

[fantasypisces]

My only real concern about being an 'evil' character, is how do you level up? I wouldn't see an evil character helping to defend redcliff because it is a waste of time, well there is lost experience there. Plus all the other sidequests that you wouldn't do because they are a waste of time, ala, sending the Dwarf girl to the tower, helping Brother Burkle, finding the missing son in the Deep Roads, doing any of the chanter board quests, any of the Blackstone irregulars, the mages collective, etc etc.

Why would an evil character do those aside from he wants to make money?
However, I do kind of want to play an evil male warrior. To become king, keep Loghain alive (but be able to order him around because, well, you are king, but keeping Zevran as your lover, because he is probably one companion you might actually like). I think that could be an interesting ending, I just don't have any ambition to do anything leading up to that.

Modifié par fantasypisces, 12 décembre 2009 - 05:48 .

[circa89]

I find it difficult to be evil because only two characters hardly ever get on your case for being evil. There need to be more evil-oriented characters!

-e-

I was pretty much forced to neutrality with my first playthrough when I realized if I didn't make good decisions I'd lose my tank. I killed Wynne just so I could be evil though, but then found out later that I would've lost her anyway due to unlocking Reaver. Point is... you won't get much support with evil. Using the dog is a great option for evil because he will never lose approval.

Modifié par circa89, 12 décembre 2009 - 05:58 .

[sarahbau]

fantasypisces wrote...

My only real concern about being an 'evil' character, is how do you level up? I wouldn't see an evil character helping to defend redcliff because it is a waste of time, well there is lost experience there. Plus all the other sidequests that you wouldn't do because they are a waste of time, ala, sending the Dwarf girl to the tower, helping Brother Burkle, finding the missing son in the Deep Roads, doing any of the chanter board quests, any of the Blackstone irregulars, the mages collective, etc etc.

Why would an evil character do those aside from he wants to make money?
However, I do kind of want to play an evil male warrior. To become king, keep Loghain alive (but be able to order him around because, well, you are king, but keeping Zevran as your lover, because he is probably one companion you might actually like). I think that could be an interesting ending, I just don't have any ambition to do anything leading up to that.

Evil does not mean aloof and lazy. An evil person can easily do most of those in order to curry favor with a certain group, or to further their own agenda. As someone else pointed out, you might want to save Redcliffe in order to gain use of their army, even if you are "evil." 

[Andkatus]

Indeed. Virtually all of the quests you mentioned provide appreciable material gain, all of which can be used to fund the growth of one's power and one's quest against the Darkspawn, which, Good or Evil, is rather vital to getting any personal goals accomplished. "Evil" can encompass indolent hedonism, but, again, it can take more forms than just that of the absurd caricature.

Modifié par Andkatus, 12 décembre 2009 - 06:03 .

[fantasypisces]

Yes, I understand saving redcliff to get use of the army, however if you poison andraste's ashes, which my character would, and Eamon dies, you don't get the army. I guess my character wouldn't know that though. Anyway, so I was just thinking, why help them if I won't save Eamon, I won't get the army.

[Roxlimn]

You can't really play evil in this game. Regardless of what you do, you save Ferelden, and you tend to help people along the way. At best, you can be a randomly murderous lunatic, but that's about it. It's unsatisfying because Bioware's idea of "evil" is pop-culture hot-button pushing, but it's not nearly so effective when you're trying to shock yourself and expect it.

[AtreiyaN7]

I don't do evil very well. Every time there's a moral decision, I tend to land on the side of good - unless you want to count being selfish & agreeing to Morrigan's ritual (but it was only to save Alistair! ).

[circa89]

Roxlimn wrote...

You can't really play evil in this game. Regardless of what you do, you save Ferelden, and you tend to help people along the way. At best, you can be a randomly murderous lunatic, but that's about it. It's unsatisfying because Bioware's idea of "evil" is pop-culture hot-button pushing, but it's not nearly so effective when you're trying to shock yourself and expect it.

Quite. I was upset with the "evil" implementation, because it really isn't evil, it's just like being selfish. You can see the difference in black and white games like (yes I am mentioning them, please don't go off the handle about it) Fallout 3, Oblivion, or even Fable. However, those games are purposefully black and white, at least with DA:O you get a more "grey" area. Suppose that is to maintain the title "Grey Warden" but still irks me. I thought this game could be based on older D&D dispositions, the fact that unlawful evil or chaotic evil are not choices here upsets me. (I'm not even a D&D nerd, but I did look these dispositions up and I can't find anything resembling them in DA:O)

[Riot Inducer]

Drunkencelt wrote...

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.

Indeed, the morality system in Mass Effect was simply how far your character was willing to use (or abuse depending on how you look at it)  the SPECTRE "being above the law" bit. I think the choice at the end of "bring down the sky" sums up Mass Effects morality the best, save the civilians but let the terrorist escape or sacrifice the civilians to ensure the terrorist is brought to justice? 

In fact I preferred Mass Effect's morality system more than most other games, simply because there was no "chaotic stupid" choices it felt like. Every decision that earned you renegade points did feel like it had very sound and good reasoning behind it, it made *sense*. 

I personally couldn't stand doing a lot of the evil choices in both Kotor games because so many of the evil choices felt pointlessly stupid and spiteful. There are so many situations where you could cause pain and suffering for nothing more than your own sadistic pleasure, no profit for you other than the dark-side points. I mean at least Vader had some reason when he choked those pathetic star destroyer captains.

As far as DA I'm in the process of an "evil" playthrough and I'm finding it annoying honestly. I last played Redcliffe and the obvious "evil" choice was to abandon the village but maybe it was my meta-gaming player mind influcing the character but I couldn't do that because we need to get this Eamon guy on our side. It is a bit annoying  that plot wise Eamon is necessary and yet when arriving in Redcliffe everything seems to make it sound like he's a lost cause and Morrigan is right and our time could be far better spent elsewhere gathering other allies. And yet no matter what you have to come back and beat the undead out of the damn castle just to get sent across Ferelden on a wild nug chase to wake the fool up. Personally I thought it should have been possible to "pull the plug" on Eamon as it were and just name Teagan the new Arl, Ser Perth suggests that if Eamon doesn't improve they'd name Teagan the new Arl. All in all it feels like the sacred ashes quest is a waste of time when thinking in this mindset, there's a suitable leader right there and you wouldn't have to backpack across Ferelden several times while the Blight grows unchecked.

heh, guess I don't play "evil" but "ruthless". 

[Malsumis]

You can't be evil in this game. Hero or antihero are your choices.

[ReubenLiew]

The evil in this is better than the evil in Kotor, at least.

In Kotor my evil choices came down to being schoolyard bully. This at least you can strive to be a magnificent bastard although with limited amount of people you can murder.

[EricHVela]

I'm so evil that Alistair is afraid to get injured near me.

[JabberJaww]

There is no incentive to play evil in the game, except unlocking a couple specializations and getting different story options.



Plus, some of the evil choices are just so off the wall.

[Herr Uhl]

ReubenLiew wrote...

The evil in this is better than the evil in Kotor, at least.
In Kotor my evil choices came down to being schoolyard bully. This at least you can strive to be a magnificent bastard although with limited amount of people you can murder.

Ah yes, the magnificent bastard. My first playthrough in any RPG. Being a scheming sod is simply awesome.

[Recidiva]

It would be easier for me to play evil if there were more alternatives.



But siding with the templars loses Wynne. If the player is not a mage, you're stuck with Morrigan and if you don't take Morrigan's deal you have zero ability to scrape anyone off the ground.



Siding with the Werewolves loses you any access to elfroot, which singlehandedly removes any chance of easy leveling by delivering stacks and stacks of elfroot to the alliance crates, and makes it hard to get cheap, easy poultices.



As a player, it's very hard to work around that in a roleplay sense. And again, many of the "evil" choices make no sense in a strategic sense, as you tend to be dealing with completely crazy people who don't have the benefit of being charming or persuasive. You can get around the elfroot by doing the Brecilian forest last, and stock up a ton of elfroot, but that, to my mind, is not roleplaying, it's the dreaded meta gaming.



Hell, my attitudes toward the Mage Circle and Cullen's argument make me want to side with the Templars, but do without Wynne? Hell no. Only on an "easiest setting" game where party members don't matter. And if party members don't matter...what's the fun in that?



Once I am capable of making informed choices, it's really rough to have a full-party wipeout and think "If only I'd sided with Wynne...this sucks."

[ReubenLiew]

Evil people don't side with evil people! They kill each other, so they won't be threatened once they take over the world.

Haven't any of you ever watche a Bond movie?

[Recidiva]

ReubenLiew wrote...

Evil people don't side with evil people! They kill each other, so they won't be threatened once they take over the world.
Haven't any of you ever watche a Bond movie?

Bond villains are some of the stupidest people in the world.  "I'm going to work out a ridiculously overcomplicated trap, monologue about my awesomeness, and then leave you here to die while I slip out the back door, not to ever see my revenge!  I'm a sadist, I do that.  Walk out before someone's dead.  Inexplicably."

I'm afraid the evil options in this game give little actual payoff for me.  And my type of evil likes payoff.  Not - losing one of the best tanks in the game - Shale.  Losing the best healer in the game - Wynne.  Losing access to all healing materials and a ridiculously easy leveling scheme - elfroot.

Yeah, I can stand there monologuing about how insane I am at the end.  But it's not...satisfying.

[ReubenLiew]

Doesn't matter, they're still evil!
And as we all know, evil people are always stupid.
Because if you were smart, you wouldn't let anyone catch you being evil. And therefore you'd be good!

And each instance of evil that you mention makes you a bond villain!
If in doubt, LIE! You'll keep most of your companions that way. I don't see why it's so evil to side with the werewolves. I'd rather side with Zathrian and murder the werewolves. I sided with petty revenge, that's pretty evil, plus I get to keep my elfroots. Why side with the templars, that's not particularly evil. It's most likely the most pragmatic solution to the problem. Side with the mages and let them free, making them owe you so you can call in favors anytime you want.

There really is no reason to do things that aren't beneficial and call it the 'evil route'. More like the maniac route.

Modifié par ReubenLiew, 12 décembre 2009 - 03:09 .

[Bhatair]

At first.

But after a while it became funny.

I'm a bad person.

[Recidiva]

ReubenLiew wrote...

Doesn't matter, they're still evil!
And as we all know, evil people are always stupid.
Because if you were smart, you wouldn't let anyone catch you being evil. And therefore you'd be good!

And each instance of evil that you mention makes you a bond villain!
If in doubt, LIE! You'll keep most of your companions that way. I don't see why it's so evil to side with the werewolves. I'd rather side with Zathrian and murder the werewolves. I sided with petty revenge, that's pretty evil, plus I get to keep my elfroots. Why side with the templars, that's not particularly evil. It's most likely the most pragmatic solution to the problem. Side with the mages and let them free, making them owe you so you can call in favors anytime you want.

There really is no reason to do things that aren't beneficial and call it the 'evil route'. More like the maniac route.

And that's my thing too.  Way too much exposure.  Always three witnesses watching me.  And then I'd immediately have to kill them, as I leave no witnesses. 

I don't WANT to lie, I want to do what I choose to do and then not HAVE to lie because I'm a badass.  I want to intimidate and threaten my way to stat bonuses..  Not an option.  If I'm my level of evil, I end up having to kill everyone for being stupid and have them hate me for being honest.  Evil doesn't have to lie.  Evil just goes on being evil because the truth is so much worse than lies and that can work to evil's advantage if evil doesn't realize the value of say...healing.

[ReubenLiew]

Yeah this game there really isn't a 'good' or 'evil route.



More like normal and psychopathic route.