57 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

hhh89 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
He was a bit of a hypocrite. I found his diatribe against Merrill rather hilarious.

Well, I laughed at the fact that he expressed the same opinion of the side he hated and was fighting, showing his Chantry background (but Anders is against the Chantry as an organization, not the religion, so it seems reasonable that he expresses Andrastianism views). He's an hypocrite in criticizing her because he's technically, an abomination, and he's practically in the same (if not worse. Merill can control herself) of Merrill. He has no ground to criticize her. 
That's coming from someone who is wary of both blood magic and spirit bonding. 

I was referring to the blood mage vs. abomination thing. Merrill might have been a tad naive towards blood magic, but at least she wasn't dumb enough to actually allow a spirit into her body.

[The Elder King]

@eluvianix: yes, I agree completely. How he thought  it was a good idea without having knowledge of spirit possession/merging bothers me. He could've at least research a bit about the Rivaini seers.
Furthermore, even if spirit merging could work for some people (I don't have a good opinion about this, but without knowing more about the seers I have to hold my judgement), he wasn't fit to begin with. While they seem to not care about the deaths caused by the merging going wrong, the seers probably not allow anybody to merge with a spirit. A person with deep negative feelings would automatically fail, and Anders fits the description well.

Modifié par hhh89, 15 décembre 2013 - 10:38 .

[Laughing_Man]

eluvianix wrote...

I was referring to the blood mage vs. abomination thing. Merrill might have been a tad naive towards blood magic, but at least she wasn't dumb enough to actually allow a spirit into her body.

Indeed.
On the other hand, everything Anders said in DA2 is suspect, you don't know if "he" was indeed himself.

In any case, Merril's naivety is a testement to the fact that blood magic is far less mind-warping and demon inviting than the Chantry says it is, if she used it for so long continously and was only faced with demonic danger as part of her misguided quest to fix the eluvian, it means that someone level headed who uses blood-magic only when he has no other viable option, and only its more benign aspects (no slaughter of innocents, etc.), has very little to fear from demonic influence.

[Hellion Rex]

TheRedVipress wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

I was referring to the blood mage vs. abomination thing. Merrill might have been a tad naive towards blood magic, but at least she wasn't dumb enough to actually allow a spirit into her body.

Indeed.
On the other hand, everything Anders said in DA2 is suspect, you don't know if "he" was indeed himself.

In any case, Merril's naivety is a testement to the fact that blood magic is far less mind-warping and demon inviting than the Chantry says it is, if she used it for so long continously and was only faced with demonic danger as part of her misguided quest to fix the eluvian, it means that someone level headed who uses blood-magic only when he has no other viable option, and only its more benign aspects (no slaughter of innocents, etc.), has very little to fear from demonic influence.

Oh totally agreed. She really used blood magic just as a replacement for lyrium to augment her purification spell. And she turned out just fine.

Modifié par eluvianix, 15 décembre 2013 - 10:52 .

[The Elder King]

@RedVipress: while I want to wait and see what happens in the game, WoT established the fact that using blood magic makes the mage mage more vulnerable to demon threats, as the Chantry said. That's without considering the introduction/clarification of the fact that blood magic is stronger the more you hurt yourself or others.


I never interpreted what the Chantry said about blood magic as the latter having some mind-warping effect, but as the fact that power can corrupt people. And DA2 isn't a prime example of good use of blood magic, since except for Merrill we have all the other blood mages in-game to be insane and prone to possession.
The Chantry have a negative opinion of blood magic, but I don't recall if they stated that blood magic has some magical effect on people's mind, or simply that a mage can be corrupted if they used because of its power.


Merrill is a perfect example of a mage that don't let power corrupt her, but that doesn't mean that she's the norm of blood mages, since the vast majority we met aren't like her.

Modifié par hhh89, 15 décembre 2013 - 11:20 .

[Vilegrim]

leaguer of one wrote...

It's raining demon...So clearly they will be more.

Not necessarily so, yes the setting may be darker, but that doesn't mean we will be able to have a Inquisitor who is.

[Dominus]

Do you think there will be less dark options in DA:I?

Well, I believe they mentioned Planescape: Torment as one of the major influences for DA:I, and that has all sorts of dark and unpleasant options in terms of choice. I take that as a minor indicator of where they're going, though it's not exactly concrete.

I'm not really interested in "dark for the sake of dark" options. I am interested in doing something morally questionable for what I perceive to be the greater good.

I'll agree, and it's virtually guaranteed they're aware of this. While I'm hardly an expert on the franchise, DA shines best when combining the fantastical medieval fantasy setting with a more contemporary, realistic narrative and complex characters. So in terms of options, I'd expect something on par with that.

[Laughing_Man]

hhh89 wrote...

@RedVipress: while I want to wait and see what happens in the game, WoT established the fact that using blood magic makes the mage mage more vulnerable to demon threats, as the Chantry said. That's without considering the introduction/clarification of the fact that blood magic is stronger the more you hurt yourself or others.


I never interpreted what the Chantry said about blood magic as the latter having some mind-warping effect, but as the fact that power can corrupt people. And DA2 isn't a prime example of good use of blood magic, since except for Merrill we have all the other blood mages in-game to be insane and prone to possession.
The Chantry have a negative opinion of blood magic, but I don't recall if they stated that blood magic has some magical effect on people's mind, or simply that a mage can be corrupted if they used because of its power.


Merrill is a perfect example of a mage that don't let power corrupt her, but that doesn't mean that she's the norm of blood mages, since the vast majority we met aren't like her.

I didn't read WoT, and in any case in-game examples are more powerful.
I also did not claim that blood-magic is risk-free entirely, or that it has only benign applications and potential.

What I am saying is that it's easy for me to believe that the Chantry villifies blood-magic less because it can't be controled properly, and more because it's easier for Templars to kill Mages who are afraid to use it.

Most Blood-Mages you meet in DA2 are either psychopatic maniacs in their own right, or people who were pushed by their oppressors until they lost sight of things like caution, logic, and compassion.

Merril is simply another example of a (relatively) cool-headed blood-magic user that used blood magic without "falling" into the evil half of its domain, or becoming an abomination. (again, the eluvian thing was seperate from the blood-magic itself)

[Laughing_Man]

eluvianix wrote...

Oh totally agreed. She really used blood magic just as a replacement for lyrium to augment her purification spell. And she turned out just fine.

I'm more refering to the fact that her specialization is a mix of Keeper and Blood-Magic, and that she used Blood-magic in defense (and for other uses) since before you met her.

The purification spell was just one more time she used blood-magic.

[The Elder King]

@RedVipress: I agree on Merrill. 
As for the Chantry, I honestly think that the reason are both (though I wouldn't use the term lill. Templars didn't have complete freedom to kill mages, and the laws in general were more about keeping them in circles than killing them), plus the fact that blood magic is expecially powerful. Considering the feats of the magisters, it's reasonable that the Chantry or non-mages could be scared about the majority of mages using blood magic.
About the blood magic properties, WoT doesn't actually change much. The games aren't clear about the fact that blood magic makes mages more vulnerable to demons, other than the Chantry stating this; the same goes for the pain property. A bit of pain is required to use blood magic (since cutting yourself generates pain), and certain spells/rituals, like the one in Redcliffe, requires the death of a person.

Modifié par hhh89, 15 décembre 2013 - 11:51 .

[Vilegrim]

leaguer of one wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

well some players just want to experience evil for evil's sake.
I don't, it's against who I am, but others can if they want to.

Who said it was going to be evil for the sake of evil?

who said it wasn't ?
People get bored playing the good guy ? You can understand that can';t you ?
shrugs.

Look at DAO, not much evil for evil sake there. Also, ME is like that. The only truely evil choices are in BG1,2 ,Kotor and Swtor.

Bg1,2, and KOTOR being better games than any of the DA or ME games.

Angrywolves wrote...

well some players just want to experience evil for evil's sake.
I don't, it's against who I am, but others can if they want to.

I don't want evil for evils sake, which is why the Chantry needs to burn, no longer will this blight survive, no longer will it's cultural and physical genocides be tolerated, no more will it's enslavement of mages, it's oppression of the poor and helpless be tolerated, no more of it's damn chaters will live when I am done, they must all be Curcified, and any congregation that backs them burned in  the temples.  Only then will the evil be cleansed and the Maker torn down.  Any other option is to remain enslaved to their insane god and his servants the dark spawn, who hunt the true gods for him.

Modifié par Vilegrim, 15 décembre 2013 - 12:10 .

[Laughing_Man]

hhh89 wrote...

@RedVipress: I agree on Merrill. 
As for the Chantry, I honestly think that the reason are both (though I wouldn't use the term lill. Templars didn't have complete freedom to kill mages, and the laws in general were more about keeping them in circles than killing them), plus the fact that blood magic is expecially powerful. Considering the feats of the magisters, it's reasonable that the Chantry or non-mages could be scared about the majority of mages using blood magic.
About the blood magic properties, WoT doesn't actually change much. The games aren't clear about the fact that blood magic makes mages more vulnerable to demons, other than the Chantry stating this; the same goes for the pain property. A bit of pain is required to use blood magic (since cutting yourself generates pain), and certain spells/rituals, like the one in Redcliffe, requires the death of a person.

Templars killing Mages: When you are the judge jury and executioner, you decide what a sin is, who the sinner is, and what is the appropriate punishment.

For me that translates into freedom to do to mages anything you want. (at worst the templar can claim that he saw said mage use blood-magic, and that's the end of any IA investigation - ignoring the fact that templars don't have an IA department as far as we know.)

Again, I don't claim that blood-magic is risk free.
I simply support the use of the neutral aspects of blood-magic in self defense against Templars bent on "cleansing" "annulment" and veriaty of other cleaning related words.

[Hellion Rex]

TheRedVipress wrote...
For me that translates into freedom to do to mages anything you want. (at worst the templar can claim that he saw said mage use blood-magic, and that's the end of any IA investigation - ignoring the fact that templars don't have an IA department as far as we know.)

Again, I don't claim that blood-magic is risk free.
I simply support the use of the neutral aspects of blood-magic in self defense against Templars bent on "cleansing" "annulment" and veriaty of other cleaning related words.

Well, the Seekers are supposedly the Templar investigators, but they kind of dropped the ball. When you speak of self defense, are you referring to simply empowering normal spells with blood magic for an extra boost? 

[Laughing_Man]

eluvianix wrote...

Well, the Seekers are supposedly the Templar investigators, but they kind of dropped the ball. When you speak of self defense, are you referring to simply empowering normal spells with blood magic for an extra boost? 

I think that the seekers are more like the Dagger of the Chantry, whose job is to complement the Chantry's sword and shield - the Templar order. (spooks, CIA, spectres, whatever you want to call them)
I don't think that their main job is to look out for the well-being and non-existant rights of circle-mages.

Blood-Magic: I'm speaking of kiiling or disabling in self-defense.
Does it matter if you roast someone with a blood-enhanced fireball and let him burn, or use his blood to stop the flow to his brain or simply explode him?
The first option is probably crueler and more painful than the other two.

Modifié par TheRedVipress, 15 décembre 2013 - 12:19 .

[Gervaise]

One of the main benefits of more recent Bioware games not being tied to a D&D setting is that you are not restricted to a particular action because it is viewed as good or evil. Now some people seem to get their kicks from playing a character as outright evil and if they do, then they can regard certain actions in that way, but actually they are written so your character does not have to be evil to choose them.
Take the Ashes of Andraste for example. Destroying them is regarded as evil by followers of Andraste/the Chantry but if your Warden is, say, a Dalish elf, why would it seem evil to them? The people of Haven have been living their lives quite happily separate from the outside world, just like the Dalish were ,until someone from the Chantry showed up and poked their nose in. So there is a legitimate way of viewing this as no worse than morally neutral or even feeling as a character that you are the good guy, preserving their independence whilst receiving a positive benefit to yourself and thus the overall chances for success of your own endeavours. Simply pasting a good or evil label on it, regardless of the motivations and background of the character, is saddling with our own morality rather than that of the character within the story.
Quite a few posters were asking which actions seemed the most "evil" in DA2, purely because they wanted to play it that way. I suggested that if Bethany was still alive, possibly the most evil was siding with the Templars at the end since you know for certain that at least one mage within is not a lunatic blood mage. However, if you had been playing your Hawke as anti-mage, who was glad when Bethany was no longer their responsibility, then possibly you could even justify such an action to yourself. Likewise, handing Fenris back to Denarius, if your character had no objections to slavery and felt there would be benefits to getting in with a powerful Magister from Tevinter. Standing outside the game such a person can be viewed as evil, but within it simply a character with strong psychopathic tendencies (and psychopaths are not inherently evil).

I think that given the title of the protagonist, the setting in which the story is placed and Bioware's track record, there will be plenty of dark choices in DA:I and from what we have been told, those choices will have much greater impact on your fate down the line than has been the case hitherto.

[Rebel Wolf]

SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...

 I dont like to use the word "evil", hence dark. This thread is about discussing dark player options in dragon age, and the freedom for us players to roleplay more complex and villanous characters.

In the course of DA:O/DA:2 we could do all sorts of stuff. From lying, betraying and killing to sleeping with the woman another guy loved and pretty much ruining his life - we also had huge sacriligious  options to defile the ashes of  Andraste.

So these things are pretty dark right? And having these options makes Dragon Age feel great for what it is - a dark fantasy setting.

So why am I concerned? I came to think of how much darker DA:O was. DA:O had some pretty great villanous stuff you could do, but these options were fewer in DA:2, not to mention that they had less emotional impact and were less creative.

Why is it important? Because Dragon Age Origins scored high in its moral gray areas and realism, the same ingredient that makes Game Of Thrones so good. Here are some points:

1) For us roleplayers, it really adds the power of seduction to the table. It allows us to roleplay more complex characters. 

2) It increases the value of playing a good guy aswell. By having darker outcomes possible, doing something actual good can feel more rewarding. 

3) Realism.  Kill a guy and grab quest item or do 3 chores for him instead? What if time is of the essence and killing this one guy will save ten others? Being a good guy isnt always easy. This is an example of actual hard choices.Moral dilemmas like this represents real life well, where sometimes you are forced to take the lesser evil.

4)Wider roleplaying options. What if my inquisitor is a fanatic? What if my Inquisitor is a powerhungry bloodmage? More open doors and less closed doors.

5) I cant think of a single game where the protagonist is the villain. This is why RPGs are great as they allow those who want that roleplaying experience -  possible, to a lesser degree. Hell, in DA:O I'd evem say a medium degree - now THAT is a compliment!

Im scared, that Bioware might be too scared, to implement dark enough choices in the game.Seeing that they decreased drasticly from DA:O to DA2.

Some types:

Fanatical 



Mad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAeXSwE1HGI 

There are selfish people, cruel people, mad people, fanatical people or even flawed heroes ( I believe the term in literature is byronic hero?). 

Anyway Im derailing abit. Do you guys think Bioware will allow gruesome, heinous and inhuman acts in DA:I? Or will they maintain the low-dark/evil of DA:2 and force our character into a hero role? Im not exactly expecting to be able to crucify mages alive along the main road of Ferelden to Orlais. But Im certainly hoping personally, that some of the good stuff from DA:O will resurface. 

I often play "anything to achieve my goal" characters they don't see themselves as dark or evil just pragmatic.
I love playing these types so I hope there are more options to do so.

Modifié par Rebel Wolf, 15 décembre 2013 - 06:00 .

[Karach_Blade]

I would love to see morally grey options that are less "here, eat this puppy for the EVUL" and more "if you take the time to save so and so, X number of people in your units will die".

[Vilegrim]

Karach_Blade wrote...

I would love to see morally grey options that are less "here, eat this puppy for the EVUL" and more "if you take the time to save so and so, X number of people in your units will die".

I'd like more pragmatic villiany.  Bend the knee and surrender totally to the Dominion of the Inquisition or we let the demons have you.  Then we kill them and take what we want from your despoiled corpses.  Life lies in total abject submission.  Defiance is death.  Lack of fervour is death.  Sedition is death.  Subire
  pacem inquisitionem.  (Yes I know the latin is awful, sue me) 


Basically how the settlers acted in south america when they where handing out small pox infected blankets etc to spread the disease further, and offered 'cures'.

Modifié par Vilegrim, 15 décembre 2013 - 06:54 .

[Rebel Wolf]

PUPPIES ARE NOT NOMS!

[Angrywolves]

su lu pi wrote...

Always annoyed me that the side quests in ME 1, 2 & 3 like save the space port or the resedential aria. never had any consequences to them. i'd love to see that being an evil jerk bites you on the arse.

There will be consequences in DAI, so you'll get your wish this time.

Evil=dark imo.

Modifié par Angrywolves, 15 décembre 2013 - 06:56 .

[Vilegrim]

Angrywolves wrote...

su lu pi wrote...

Always annoyed me that the side quests in ME 1, 2 & 3 like save the space port or the resedential aria. never had any consequences to them. i'd love to see that being an evil jerk bites you on the arse.

There will be consequences in DAI, so you'll get your wish this time.

Evil=dark imo.

not necessarily, Frankenstein is very dark, but the creature isn't evil.  Or more modern, Batman is dark ( a brutal super rich vigilante exactic vicarious vengeance for the death of his parents? Yea, not exactly a beacon of light) But not evil, by any stretch.

Is V From V for Vendetta evil?  How you answer that says less about him than about you.  His actions remain the same, the results remain the same, but interpretation is everything. (The graphic novel not the film, the film white washes his actions and makes the ending solidly hopeful, which the comic does not)_

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Angrywolves wrote...

su lu pi wrote...

Always annoyed me that the side quests in ME 1, 2 & 3 like save the space port or the resedential aria. never had any consequences to them. i'd love to see that being an evil jerk bites you on the arse.

There will be consequences in DAI, so you'll get your wish this time.

Evil=dark imo.

It is hard to enter the evil vs good debate because the modern society and culture we live in today may affect our views on morals in societies and cultures in the fictional dragon universe.  The inhabitants in the latter may look at it entirely different.

Take real life culture. In Iran there is a death penalty for drinking alcohol. I consider that evil, while their inhabitants may themselves consider it good and morally virtuous to have such punnishment.

Thinking about it, Im glad that bioware is more occupied with cause and effect - as evil and good are subjective values based on culture. 

I found "Darker" a more fitting term. As you can do more extreme, realistic and brutal actions. For example, my warden was a pragmatic that wanted the world to be a better place. So he considered the chantry evil for spreading ignorance by religion. Therefore my warden defiled Andrastes ashes for the greater good, to attack superstition directly. And killing Leliana wasnt morally evil for my character, he only killed someone he considered brainwashed by the chantry's teachings. 

So since evil and good is subjective, I prefer Dark. As it allows dramatic, brutal and realistic actions in a cause-effect - kinda way. English isnt my native so I may not be getting my intentional meaning out properly 

[Angrywolves]

Of course the darkness video games aren't a good comparison...

[TheKomandorShepard]

I want demon path for dragon age

[Karach_Blade]

My anti-circle mage warden was a good but pragmatic person who sacrificed Isolde. If she wanted to atone, she paid the price for her foolishness. He also put Anora on the throne with Alistair and had Loghain do the Ultimate Sacrifice, both acts that might be counted as more "grey". He had Oghren along during the Urn quest and was convinced the ashes were a forgery after Oghren's comments, therefore defiling them was in his mind an act of mercy.