60 réponses à ce sujet

[Lulupab]

I was thinking and I think I will play a very extreme inquisitor in my first playthrough not because I want to but because generally in 1st playthrough where there is no information about the game online we tend to miss things or make messed up decisions. On my 1st DAO playthrough I missed leliana as I never went into tavern, then I finished a major quest and killed Zevran, lothering was also destroyed so I had no rouge in my party for whole game (I was mage) it was a disaster! But with a messed up character I don't mind messing everything up 

So I will play an extreme inquisitor, kill everyone possible, get familiar with aspects and the game etc.. by the time I finish there will be some information on the internet and on my second playthrough I will make the "perfect" play. Or I could wait for a while then start playing but that would be spoiling the game as I can never resist to read wiki 24/7. Besides I'd miss the fun to play as mage that makes Anders and Fiona appear like Angels.

I also did the same for Hawke in DA2. On my first playthrough I played an agressive mage Hawke who was even more extreme than Anders but the game did not gave me much chance to act upon it like Anders did, I hope DA:I will give us that chance. 

So who is going to play an extreme/fanatic Inquisitor? I think I'll follow after my Hawke lines:

"We'll kill them all. I promise" In answer to Justice saying he will have every Templar for the abuses
"I'm not expecting this to end with anything less than overthrowing the Templars" Hawke supporting Anders in his quest "Justice".

[superdeathdealer14]

I'll play an extreme psycho fanatic cause all three is better than one.

[Major Crackhead]

That's actually kind of my plan, should Bioware see fit to give me the options.

Kinda had my fill of playing either heroic characters, antiheroes or morally grey antiheroes. The protagonist has the title of "Inquisitor", and I hope the game will let me live up to that title.

[Navasha]

I guess it depends on your style of playing the first time. My first playthroughs are very slow and methodical. I peek into every nook and cranny, fully explore each and every map. Not sure that long slow process style fits any of those archetypes.

[Lulupab]

 Anyone familiar with Inquisitor Adrastia from warhammer series? I think I will play a female bald human mage and act exactly like her. (for those who don't know she is bald, which is why wear a hat 24/7).

[Yendor_Trawz]

Navasha wrote...

I guess it depends on your style of playing the first time. My first playthroughs are very slow and methodical. I peek into every nook and cranny, fully explore each and every map. Not sure that long slow process style fits any of those archetypes.

Pretty much this. My first PT is where I like to suck up all that new game goodness and feel like I am discovering a world, which I am of course.

Doesn't really suit the fervent single minded type, who, if they were true to character, probably wouldn't be making FedEx runs to that pretty little village out of the way.

[Han Shot First]

A bit of a fanatic, though a pragmatic one. He won't be a sadist or a psychopath, just someone who is willing to use brutality if he thinks it serves some greater good. To him violence and the fear it inspires is a tool to maintain order in the realm, rather than something he enjoys. Stannis Baratheon without the humorlessness and Tywin Lannister without the lust for power.


Copied from a similar thread:

A Male Human Warrior that is a stereotypical Inquisitor.

I plan to have him be completely ruthless in pursuit of his two main goals: closing the tear in the Fade, and restoring order to the realm. Anyone perceived to be an obstacle to either goal, can expect to be dealt with brutally. Both rebelling mages and Templars who go beyond their mandate will have reason to fear him, and he will be utterly without mercy in dealing with anyone who threatens the security of the realm. Likewise he'll have no tolerance for either rebelling City Elves or Dalish raiders, or humans who commit unprovoked acts of violence against the Elves.

Given his complete devotion to order and lack of tolerance for any faction contributing to the chaos engulfing Orlais, I suppose that *might* make him fanatically loyal to Empress Celene, depending on how she's presented.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 14 janvier 2014 - 01:34 .

[Yendor_Trawz]

Han Shot First wrote...


Given his complete devotion to order and lack of tolerance for any faction contributing to the chaos engulfing Orlais, I suppose that *might* make him fanatically loyal to Empress Celene, depending on how she's presented.

You might still be given some grey choices, or even choices that you dont realize impact your cause/fanaticism until later in the game.

Example - you might kill the mage who later in the game would have given you the name or names of even more dangerous traitors to your cause.

You wouldnt know how truly loyal/fanatical you were until the conclusion.

[Lulupab]

Yendor_Trawz wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...


Given his complete devotion to order and lack of tolerance for any faction contributing to the chaos engulfing Orlais, I suppose that *might* make him fanatically loyal to Empress Celene, depending on how she's presented.

You might still be given some grey choices, or even choices that you dont realize impact your cause/fanaticism until later in the game.

Example - you might kill the mage who later in the game would have given you the name or names of even more dangerous traitors to your cause.

You wouldnt know how truly loyal/fanatical you were until the conclusion.

This. Which is exactly why I'm going to act extreme in my 1st playthrough.

[WonderNubs23]

I'd like to say that I'd do this, but almost every single time I'm faced with the "be a d*ck" moment, I back out, and am either sarcastic or diplomatic. That's not to say that I don't ever choose the aggressive option, it's usually just during conversation and almost never for a big decision. Even when I do go evil for an achievement or to see the different ending(s), I usually save before and reload after. I had one "evil-ish" play through where I recruited Loghain and betrayed Harrowmont, but I still couldn't bring myself to save the Anvil or sack the Dalish. And I've never been a blood mage. ...I'm actually pretty sure I'll lose sleep at night if I can't save everyone.

Although my first play through is always fresh, I metagame in my later play throughs for various reasons. At some point I'll see what all the choices are, but I don't anticipate ever going full- A-hole. Besides having problems with my moral convictions in fantastical situations, I often find that the in-game rewards for such actions aren't worth it.

[themikefest]

Yes this is what I posted on a another thread

I will play a human female mage who is a sadistic/demented/viscious b*t*h who will resort to murder/torture/kidnapping/blackmail/brainwashing to achieve her goal

[Han Shot First]

Yendor_Trawz wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...


Given his complete devotion to order and lack of tolerance for any faction contributing to the chaos engulfing Orlais, I suppose that *might* make him fanatically loyal to Empress Celene, depending on how she's presented.

You might still be given some grey choices, or even choices that you dont realize impact your cause/fanaticism until later in the game.

Example - you might kill the mage who later in the game would have given you the name or names of even more dangerous traitors to your cause.

You wouldnt know how truly loyal/fanatical you were until the conclusion.

I'll give you an example of what I mean by fanatical.

Say the Inquisitor is called upon by Empress Celene to deal with an insurrection in an Elven alienage in one of the Orlesian cities. Upon arrival the Inquisitor is informed that the city guard has managed to quell the rioting and apprehend the ringleaders, but as the Empress' representive you are asked to sit in judgement. The Inquisitor hears the accusations made by the town's mayor and the captain of the city guard, and then gives the accused a moment to say a few words in their defense.

The Elves claim that the war and disorder brought upon the realm by the Fade tear and the conflict between mages and Templars, have resulted in food shortages. To alleviate this problem the town's fathers were distributing bread and cheese from the city's stores, but the distribution was not being carried out equally. A priority was being given to human citizens, with many of the Elves forced to buy food on the black market at exorbitant prices from a few corrupt guards, or starve. Out of desperation to feed their malnourished families some of the poorest Elves rioted and looted stores, and in the process some guards were assaulted or killed. The Elves claim of inequality and corruption is backed by some human residents.

Does the Inquisitor free the ringleaders of the riot or have them executed?

My Inquisitor would sympathize with the plight of the Elves. In fact if asked for his opinion by the Empress, he'd be the type suggest breaking up the alienages and granting equal rights for Elves. He'd recognize in this case that the insurrection was provoked by the mismanagement and corruption of the city's fathers, and the climate of oppression they had helped to foster. He'd say as much to all present. Nevertheless no matter the reason, disorder and rebellion could not be tolerated. Despite sympathizing with the Elves he'd order them hung, drawn, and quartered for their treason with their body parts strung up at the four corners of the alienage as a warning against future insurrection.

He'd then order that all future food distributions be carried out equally, irrespective of race. As for any corrupt guards who could be identified, he'd order their hands lopped off and hung around their necks for stealing from the crown.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 14 janvier 2014 - 02:46 .

[Yendor_Trawz]

Han Shot First wrote...


Does the Inquisitor free the elves or have them executed?

My Inquisitor would sympathize with the plight of the Elves. In fact if asked for his opinion by the Empress, he'd be the type suggest breaking up the alienages and granting equal rights for Elves. He'd recognize in this case that the insurrection was provoked by the mismanagement and corruption of the city's fathers, and the climate of oppression they had helped to foster. He'd say as much to all present. Nevertheless no matter the reason, disorder and rebellion could not be tolerated. Despite sympathizing with the Elves he'd order them hung, drawn, and quartered for their treason with their body parts strung up at the four corners of the alienage as a warning against future insurrection.

He'd then order that all future food distributions be carried out equally, irrespective of race. As for any corrupt guards who could be identified, he'd order their hands lopped off and hung around their necks for stealing from the crown.

Well my counterpoint to that is - what if it is revealed later in the game that the insurrection was sponsored by an enemy of Orlais to distract resources away from some unknown event, or even just to disrupt Orlesian society and plant discontent. And you get an extra quest that involves taking out some of the guilty party. However this is only known if you imprison the elves instead of executing them. One of them talks to a guard and it becomes known to you etc etc..

My point is that you can PLAY what you feel to be a completely pragmatic or fanatic role, but you may not actually BE as pragmatic or fanatical as you think you are being, dependent on events out of your control. You can be ruthless in your decision making, but I can just about guarantee (knowing Bioware) that there will be grey choices that even a pragmatist struggles with, or at least choices made with an expectant but not certain outcome. You might not know until you've tried several playthroughs what all the outcomes are, and what most 'fit' what you expected from the 'personality' of your protagonist to achieve.

[Yendor_Trawz]

themikefest wrote...

Yes this is what I posted on a another thread

I will play a human female mage who is a sadistic/demented/viscious b*t*h who will resort to murder/torture/kidnapping/blackmail/brainwashing to achieve her goal

Hey, this isn't supposed to be real life. 

Modifié par Yendor_Trawz, 14 janvier 2014 - 03:05 .

[Han Shot First]

Sure, some decisions might backfire. That doesn't necessarily make a character either less fanatical or pragmatic however. It just makes him (or her) wrong in that particular instance. By pragmatic I mean that decisions he makes are based on practical considerations, and any applied ruthlessness won't be a case of "Oooh...its going to so much fun to torture and/or murder these people!" All of his actions are going to carried out with the security of the realm in mind. Violence is simply a means to an end.

In any case I wouldn't backtrack. I'm going to roll with whatever decisions that character makes regardless of whether or not the consequences are good or bad for him.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 14 janvier 2014 - 03:09 .

[Yendor_Trawz]

Han Shot First wrote...


In any case I wouldn't backtrack. I'm going to roll with whatever decisions that character makes regardless of whether or not the consequences are good or bad for him.

Cool, sounds fun.

I tend to play my own personality first, so I dont think too much about impact of choices while discovering the setting the first time. i usually roll with - that's what I would say. Chaotic/Good/Sarcastic.

Then I explore personalities/motivations..

Modifié par Yendor_Trawz, 14 janvier 2014 - 03:46 .

[Vilegrim]

As loony anti-chantry as can be managed, then as loony pro-chantry as poss

[sylvanaerie]

My first time through DA2, I went blind. I missed picking up Fenris (who I planned to romance) because I missed finding his quest giver, lost Isabela in Act 2 when she fled with the book, killed Merrill's tribe, basically had a completely messed up game. It was enjoyable though, because I didn't reroll or backtrack, I just went through with it as it played.

I'm not comfortable with psychos or fanatics in RL, (one reason i dislike Loghain and Anders so much). My characters are usually heroic types. I don't like playing anti-heroes or unconscionable jackasses. I have to be able to relate to the character or I can't stand playing him/her.

So I go through carefully, trying to explore everything I can, but my first play won't be a 'backtrack' if I mess up. I'll roll with the punches, play it and then when i get to the end, make another Inquisitor and try again with different choices.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Not the first time.

Second time I will go the extreme route (if there is one).

Third time it will be all out psycho (if possible).

[MarchWaltz]

My first play-through of games like these I role-play myself.

So in general good, but will be logical and strict in a military matter.

[Icy Magebane]

No, because I enjoy the randomness and unpredictability of the first playthrough. I don't really have a problem with missing anything or winding up with a "bad" outcome since I'll probably play the game several times... of course, if the game sucks and I only play it once, alternative outcomes wouldn't have mattered anyway.

[Medhia Nox]

My only interest in extremists, psychopaths and fanatics is changing them, imprisoning them or killing in them.. in that order.

[AtreiyaN7]

Not really - I deal with enough fanatics/nuts on the job as it is. I want to be the sane, rational Inquisitor.

[The Spirit of Dance]

A fanatic that will kill all mages.