76 réponses à ce sujet

[Malsumis]

Well what happened?

I can understand why it was dropped for the ME series(didn'tmake sense), but in the DA universe it's does make sense. Blood Magic, Tevinter, Blight/corruption and lust for power are all themes of the DA universe and all make logical paths for a DA PC. Yet what we get, is anti-hero PC.

The best thing about TOR was being able to be the evil again, I forgot how much fun that was. Same again with companions, I enjoyed getting reactions from them, be they evil or even better good. It also gives a game more replayability for me, because I roll a good/hero PC straight after.

Now I'm not asking for two different stories(SW/JK), what I'm asking for is a Kotor/JE style path. Where the choice however illusionary it is, is there(where at the end, they real choice is made). I accept the fact that more people prefer to be the hero, but that shouldn't mean that we lose the choice all together.

So any chance in DA3?

Modifié par Malsumis, 12 avril 2012 - 12:25 .

[Cultist]

Evil always finds a way. Anyway, it's good to see another player, who approves of evil protagonists.

In Origins, we got plenty of "Evil" options, DA2 seemed to be lacking in this aspect. Still Origins was way behind BG2 and NWN. But I wouldlike to see Blood Magic used by protagonist without excuses like "I'm doing it for the greater good" or "the end justifies the means" - I want to use it to gain power and in various corrupt ways. Consorting with demons, unoly pacts, sacrilege etc. should be present as well as heroic deeds, piety and other valiant options.
For example people seem to like idea of evil companions, why not improve evil, selfish and ruthless ways in DA3 as well&

[Takamori The Templar]

It will depend how much development time they will have available.
Because to have a decent Evil Protagonist they need to apply characteristics for example: Lawful evil personality, Chaotic or Neutral evil.
With a decent plot to justify how the main character shaped himself in the twisted path.
I think with that PAX Q&A Gaider saying that he want specializations to make a real impact in the character being, that would be an excellent opportunity for it.
Besides everything that I said,it would be ideal to have companions that are easily influenced by the Main character to go down the path with him (Not all companions because that would make no sense) and adding exclusive evil members, new members that actually seek that other ideal.

Example:

Good path: Takamori the Templar have X,Y,Z , M and N companions because they have the feel their goals cross.He is a Templar that understand mages are living beings too, so he tries to not be so harsh and treating them the best he can, but still maintaining his guard against blood mages.(A side that rarely Dragon Ages shows sadly )

Neutral: Takamori the Templar , still have the same the companions, but though he is more law oriented, if the law said so he will follow, won't see the bounds of good and evil.It's need to be done because the high order knows more about balance and social control then him, so he is just the sacred tool to keep the order in the Chantry.(Though M and N might complain time from time for being so dutiful , but will understand his personality and won't see him as a bad person)

Evil path: Takamori the Templar tyrannical Templar, despise every mage in existance, takes pleasure in torturing and killing then , because he understand they are a major threat to society.Understand that he is a superior individual compared to the others since he is the tool of banishing the unclean mages, that only bring blood magic to this world.
Due to that nature, X,Y,Z , still follow him, because the Main Character made convincing arguments of how his point of view is the right one.He is right to take no chances with mages, don't matter if they living beings with feelings.Order in all cost(Lawful evil).
Though M and N, having their vision pretty much solid of the situation, understands that Takamori is wrong , leaving the party , since they see him as a monster.Introducing new companions that actually follow that path.

Just personal thoughts.

Modifié par Takamori The Templar, 12 avril 2012 - 02:07 .

[GodWood]

I imagine the game is going to centre around the mage/templar conflict so you're probably going to have the evil option of siding with the mages.

[Takamori The Templar]

Why would be evil to side with the mages?
It can be mages that don't walk the blood magic path and they are being unfairly accused of it.
As the few Templars with emotional sense of the situation you stand as their shield.

Though if they are blood mages, you could add a spec switch to.... Demon Knight, Abyss Knight or something that bioware find fitting.

But need to be explained.

Modifié par Takamori The Templar, 12 avril 2012 - 02:03 .

[GodWood]

Because you're unleashing a race of things that can blow people up with their minds onto to the innocent people of Thedas.

Unless of course you're suggesting that perhaps YOU think it is a good thing, meaning that if I think it's evil and you think it's good, maybe, just maybe, whether it is in fact good or evil is thing SUBJECTIVE.

Which leads me to the conclusion that perhaps labeling 'choices' as good or evil is a foolish thing to do.

Modifié par GodWood, 12 avril 2012 - 02:11 .

[Takamori The Templar]

See my examples upside

You are taking a Lawful Neutral approach.
Law said so, will do my duty.
Neither because they are evil or good, but they are a threat to society since the order decided that.

Lawful Good you would look into the situation to see what actually is happening.You are still bound to the laws of the Chantry, though you believe that laws are to benefit society, not to live by the laws.

Lawful Evil if you go like, well just because they are mages, I don't like them, the order saying to terminate then is just a plus to do my job.

[Malsumis]

Cultist wrote...
But I wouldlike to see Blood Magic used by protagonist without excuses
like "I'm doing it for the greater good" or "the end justifies the
means" - I want to use it to gain power and in various corrupt ways.
Consorting with demons, unoly pacts, sacrilege etc. should be present as
well as heroic deeds, piety and other valiant options.

Exactly this. Roleplay is increased when there is a choice given. Roleplaying a mage that falls to the allure of blood magic or one that resists temptation.

Cultist wrote...
For example people seem to like idea of evil companions, why not improve evil, selfish and ruthless ways in DA3 as well&

Yep, that topic is what caused me to start this one.

I think with that PAX Q&A Gaider saying that he want specializations
to make a real impact in the character being, that would be an
excellent opportunity for it

Missed that, but surely that screams blood mage. It always annoyed me that no one was ever concerned that the Warden/Hawke was a blood mage. And the only time it was, it was cut.

I imagine the game is going to centre around the mage/templar conflict
so you're probably going to have the evil option of siding with the
mages.

Pretty sure this is trolling but;

Evil is not just a mage thing, nor would that necessarly be the 'evil' path. An example of the evil path would be, tearing a whole in the fade in the middle of Orlais in order to beat the templars, or to gain some sort of power from demons.

Which leads me to the conclusion that perhaps labeling 'choices' as good or evil is a foolish thing to do.

But that is wrong. Sure siding with either mages or templars isn't evil, but actions required to do so could easily be.  Again choice. The choice to be 'evil', 'good' or 'grey'.

[GodWood]

Malsumis wrote...
But that is wrong. Sure siding with either mages or templars isn't evil, but actions required to do so could easily be.

You missed the point.

Choices shouldn't be labled as 'good' and 'evil'. These concepts are subjective.

[cJohnOne]

GodWood wrote...

Malsumis wrote...
But that is wrong. Sure siding with either mages or templars isn't evil, but actions required to do so could easily be.

You missed the point.

Choices shouldn't be labled as 'good' and 'evil'. These concepts are subjective.

But if you're allowed to switch between good and evil you're just adding choices available to you.

Modifié par cJohnOne, 12 avril 2012 - 04:58 .

[cJohnOne]

What about the Neutrals? I guess Druid would be true neutral. The balance of things must be maintained which is a little boring. Treasure Hunter is I think Chaotic Neutral? and I never understood lawful neutral.

Modifié par cJohnOne, 12 avril 2012 - 04:59 .

[Takamori The Templar]

Yes John that's a major concern, because like we saw on DA2 that the player was limited to Chaotic Good, Neutral Good and Lawful good behaviors.
With VA on the main character, I assume they can't expand the alignment of the MC due to budget and time that would take.
So that's why people are supporting the silent protagonist, because it allows the player to have more control over his personality.
So he can be a huge array from good to evil , with all possible variants.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think it depends on the circumstances. One thing I found interesting about DAO's setting is that whether or not you perceive something as evil depends on your ethical perception of the situation. The fact that some people consider the mages evil, and others consider the templars evil, is what I think is so fascinating. Making a deal with a demon to unlock blood magic definitely strikes me as evil though!

A game like KOTOR has more clearly defined good and evil, so I think it's easier to work that in.

I like the idea of being able to choose good and evil, there's also times where it just doesn't make sense (especially considering the limitations of plot divergence). I don't think there's really a way to do a more pure "evil" type of playthrough in DAO given that the Darkspawn nemesis was not something that can really be bargained with or sided with.

In what sort of ways could evil have been more interesting beyond a "MUahahaha I am evil so I choose to kill you all!" (I don't find that very interesting ) when looking at the DA games?

[Dutchess]

I definitely prefer more moral grey than evil for the sake of being evil. I think the Tevinter Magisters, for instance, could be good for that. For now we have a real negative image of them, mostly because of what you hear from Fenris. And the things Fenris has seen and experienced in Tevinter are absolutely awful. Therefore it would be interesting to see another side of the magisters. Are they really all just powerhungry bastards who use and abuse slaves? Or are there less evil motives hidden underneath all that?

[Takamori The Templar]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think it depends on the circumstances. One thing I found interesting about DAO's setting is that whether or not you perceive something as evil depends on your ethical perception of the situation. The fact that some people consider the mages evil, and others consider the templars evil, is what I think is so fascinating. Making a deal with a demon to unlock blood magic definitely strikes me as evil though!

A game like KOTOR has more clearly defined good and evil, so I think it's easier to work that in.

I like the idea of being able to choose good and evil, there's also times where it just doesn't make sense (especially considering the limitations of plot divergence). I don't think there's really a way to do a more pure "evil" type of playthrough in DAO given that the Darkspawn nemesis was not something that can really be bargained with or sided with.

In what sort of ways could evil have been more interesting beyond a "MUahahaha I am evil so I choose to kill you all!" (I don't find that very interesting ) when looking at the DA games?

Indeed we would end up being a cheesy villain that he does evil for the sake of muahahahahaha I will steal all cake and make children cry.
Instead of a well crafted villain and I thinks thats what OP have in mind.
So yeah need to check with the writers of how much freedom will the plot have to allow this circunstance to happen.

I could spend the day breaking down the possible mage and templar views, but will do when I have more free time >_>.
In DAO the mages proved they were innocent, though had a corrupted one trying to flip the table, so thats why even with the templar title(spec of course), went to help then.
This Templar vs Mage can have a really good outcome for the game if focused really well.

Modifié par Takamori The Templar, 12 avril 2012 - 08:43 .

[Case]

I liked DA:O because the choices felt much less black/white to me and therefore more complicated in nature. I didn't care for the ME style choices wheel but I guess that was needed when they took out exact dialogue choices (which I much preferred). In DA:O you might not be able to do a 'pure' evil playthrough but you can do some pretty darn evil things. I remember being able to kill all those innocent people in dialogue, like orzammar noble, stabbing the guy in the cage in ostagar, and countless other hilariously evil things, that really added to the replay of the game.

Depending on the plot setup of DA3 you might not be able to do a pure evil scenario but how you react innocents, and treat/ignore companions wishes could make you pretty evil. If the plot is defending the kingdom maybe the evil person is doing to take control for him/herself etc. But either way having choices that change the game is what really made Origins stick out for me, while DA2 mainly seemed cosmetic, and not even so much cosmetic, but something like lip service. If you go back and choose a different option in another playthrough the same outcome/event happens but there might be a different reaction dialogue, that to me isn't a real choice and doesn't really effect the story.

[Dave of Canada]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In what sort of ways could evil have been more interesting beyond a "MUahahaha I am evil so I choose to kill you all!" (I don't find that very interesting ) when looking at the DA games?

Allow us to be a manipulative bastard.

Allowing players to become the Loghains, the Arl Howes and such would be awesome. I don't say those characters are "evil" but allowing us to manipulate the scenes, letting us be the chess player rather than the pawn, would be fascinating.

You'd need to commit things which most people would say is "evil", though.

[Cultist]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think it depends on the circumstances. One thing I found interesting about DAO's setting is that whether or not you perceive something as evil depends on your ethical perception of the situation. The fact that some people consider the mages evil, and others consider the templars evil, is what I think is so fascinating. Making a deal with a demon to unlock blood magic definitely strikes me as evil though!

A game like KOTOR has more clearly defined good and evil, so I think it's easier to work that in.

I like the idea of being able to choose good and evil, there's also times where it just doesn't make sense (especially considering the limitations of plot divergence). I don't think there's really a way to do a more pure "evil" type of playthrough in DAO given that the Darkspawn nemesis was not something that can really be bargained with or sided with.

In what sort of ways could evil have been more interesting beyond a "MUahahaha I am evil so I choose to kill you all!" (I don't find that very interesting ) when looking at the DA games?

Templars and Mages mostly politics and "grey" options.
 But there are clearlly evil deeds. Killing halla just because you can, ruining lover's dreams because you want his expensive book. Trading people's souls to demons. Dragon Age 2 reduced such options in favor of Templar-Mage conflict, when we had to choose one side or another but both sides could be coinsidered evil, depending of perspective and one's beliefs.
Evil is pretty defined. There's almost no examples of "evil for the sake of evilness". Variants I, personally , would prefer? Here they are:
1. Power and Wealth. Bread and butter of Evil. Options to perform repulsive, nefarious, illegal and anticosial deeds to gain power and wealth is always welcome as alternative for honorable and heroic ways. Stealing, consorting with demons, sealing unholy pacts - every little thing goes here.
2. Revenge\\Dislike. Sometimes there are NPC's and characters that you simply can't stand. And if game present you opportunity to assist their downfall and add to their misery - that is "wonderful" and reasonable evil option.
3. Love - thousands of years of experience in evil here - no rules, victory at all costs. That lovely and pious girl should not know that I framed or brutally killed that ****, who fancied her.
4. Freedom fighters. Freedom fighters for ones, terrorists and murderers for others. Mages that turn to Blood Magic out of desperation hardly could be considered evil, but those, who turn to the extremes and want to kill every templar\\mage, their children and families certainly is. The closest example is that Iorveth elf from The Witcher 2.

Modifié par Cultist, 12 avril 2012 - 09:05 .

[the_one_54321]

Malsumis wrote...
What happened to the evil choice/path?

It hasn't be their goal to really provide this for years now...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The fact that some people consider the mages evil, and others consider the templars evil,

Some of us just view it as picking a side...

Modifié par the_one_54321, 12 avril 2012 - 09:04 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In what sort of ways could evil have been more interesting beyond a "MUahahaha I am evil so I choose to kill you all!" (I don't find that very interesting ) when looking at the DA games?

Allow us to be a manipulative bastard.

Allowing players to become the Loghains, the Arl Howes and such would be awesome. I don't say those characters are "evil" but allowing us to manipulate the scenes, letting us be the chess player rather than the pawn, would be fascinating.

You'd need to commit things which most people would say is "evil", though.

Hmmm.  Interesting.  I like it!

I agree that the subtle, more nuanced type of evil is more interesting for sure.

I've also been the type of person that feels evil should sometimes be the one that just gets the better loot.  I dislike it when games seemingly provide the option to be evil in order to be self serving, but in the end make it so that the reward for being good is equivalent (or better).

It's a tricky grey area though, because people will feel it's unfair, and some will conclude that we're even sending the wrong message in terms of morality and stuff like that haha.  Those designers have a tricky job

[Maria Caliban]

Evil doesn't interest me as the various types of good one could have. Rational self-interest vs Selflessness. The Greater Good vs Individual Liberties. Pragmatism vs Idealism. Motivation vs Action vs Consequence.

And so on.

[Mike_Neel]

I'm more of a fan of morally gray paths. As in you're given two or three choices and you have to stop and pause the game and think about the choice because each side has its own pros and cons.

Like in Origins each major alliance had a morally gray choice path. With the Circle I could anull the circle at the cost of killing some more than likely innocent mages, or I could save them at the cost of more than likely saving a secret blood mage or two. In the Anvil of the Void, which is probably my favorite one, I could keep the anvil which very well may be the only hope at salvation for the dwindling dwarf numbers, but at what cost? Would it be worth it? I wasn't sure. Sure Carridan wanted it gone, and understandably so, but he couldn't possibly see how hard the dwarves have been hit, being restricted to a small city with numbers shrinking every year, and new golems could change that.

That was lacking in DAII to a degree, and I'd love to see it come back more. But I'm not a fan of black and white, or in Biowares case, red and blue choices that are set.

[brushyourteeth]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think it depends on the circumstances. One thing I found interesting about DAO's setting is that whether or not you perceive something as evil depends on your ethical perception of the situation. The fact that some people consider the mages evil, and others consider the templars evil, is what I think is so fascinating. Making a deal with a demon to unlock blood magic definitely strikes me as evil though!

*snip*

Aw, you are so right! One of my favorite playthroughs (I think it was like the 5th one) was being a City Elf and telling Soris "No, seriously. I hate all humans and would kill them all." or something very similar, to which he replied "Sometimes you scare me." And I did hate all humans for the rest of the game. Oghren? Fine. Sten? Great. Zevran? Definitely. Did I care about the blight? Sure - but mostly I cared about sticking it to the round ears when it was all over that I was more important than them. Was that evil? Probably -- there wasn't an excuse for me being that way but there was a good reason (just like there was with Loghain and with Meredith... Howe was the kind of flat evil character I think you're talking about). So yeah, give us more opportunties to hate the world for what was done to us (easier to do when we have origin stories to choose from... *hint* *hint*) and those of us who love villainy will find all kinds of reasons to punish those we blame for our sob stories.

[BubbleDncr]

The thing about Origins was being evil was more or less, you are a horrible person, but you still have to fight the blight because if the darkspawn kill everyone, you're dead too and won't have anyone to be horrible to.

My second playthrough of Origins was evil. The only point in the whole game where I thought I got robbed of an evil choice was in the mage tower. The most "evil" thing I could do was to save the mages, but then tell the templars that they could all be blood mages so don't trust them. Ideally, I would have liked to side with Uldred and gotten him to help me out fighting darkspawn.

But in DA2, I didn't feel like I could be as much of an ****. My big thing was I wanted to base my evil-ness off of hating mages - but no matter how much of an ass I was, I still ended up at max friendship with Bethany.

As much as I like subtle evil, I really just want me evil playthrough to be a selfish jerk who treats everyone like dirt. My favorite evil moment from Origins was joking about that elf whose wife turned into a werewolf and died, to his face. That's the kind of evil I want. The the kind that I have to force myself to click and then go "OMG I can't believe they let me do that"

[Brockololly]

I don't necessarily want "evil" or "good." I want "choice" and more importantly, "consequence."

Sure, something like the Blight comes across as "evil" only in the way a hurricane or earthquake is evil, since it comes across as a force of nature type thing.

Loghain was good, albeit woefully underdeveloped within Origins (the books helped a great deal in understanding his motivations). I want characters that believe that what they're doing is the right thing for plausible reasons. Loghain believed that what he was doing was the right thing and was trying to save Ferelden, but it was colored by his hate for Orlais and he got in over his head. He's an antagonist towards the Warden, but its debatable whether he's necessarily "evil." He's just a guy doing what he thinks is right for his country.

Some of the better morally gray characters are in The Witcher, 1 and 2. King Henselt and the situation the game can put you in regarding him is brilliant I think. There are so many levels to that character and your PC. On one side, he seems a competent ruler, maybe even a decent ruler and with the instability in the north, thats whats needed. But, he can be an **** personally, potentially doing some horrible things to characters close to the PC. So if you oppose his rule, you might feel good for standing up for your friends that he's wronged but thats potentially placing your PC on the side of your greater adversary and weakening the North against another faction. And thats only one way to interpret that situation.


As for the player character having "evil" choices available...I think it comes down more to just having more choices available at all times with how you approach a situation or interact with a character. Whether its "evil" or not will just be something that the world and NPCs can react and put a label on.

Modifié par Brockololly, 12 avril 2012 - 11:38 .