207 réponses à ce sujet

[Aimi]

I plan to play as a character that will kill hundreds, even thousands of people personally over the course of the game. I undoubtedly will also make game decisions that will result in even more deaths indirectly, either by allowing others to kill people I might have saved or by ordering others to kill people that may otherwise have lived. My character's actions will result in further emotional, psychological, agricultural, social, and economic trauma far in excess of the individuals she is directly responsible for killing.

 

But, y'know, so long as I go all Orson Scott Card on everything - it's all okay so long as your heart is good - then I imagine my Inquisitor will be slotted into the goody two-shoes role. She will still be an angel of death, just like the Warden and the Champion, but she will be nice about it. That, apparently, is the difference between being Husrō Aparvez and being Herakleios.

[CybAnt1]

You know, like I said, it's like that great exchange in True Lies, when Jamie Lee asks Ahhhhnold about his "Agency" past ....

 

"Did you kill people?"

"Yes, but they were all bad." 

 

Even the most "good" character in any Dragon Age game will have killed hundreds of people (let alone various forms of nonhuman non people, ranging from animal beasts to pure monsters to spirits) by the time it's over. He may have turned down all other kinds of horrific acts, but the game requires one thing for sure, and that's a  lack of pacifism. The mechanics force it. 

 

Because ... combat. And XP. Right? 

 

At least you could take solace in Freedom Force that as you were fighting super villain mooks, all you were doing was "KO'ing" them. They were being knocked unconscious, and at least they would live, even if they were probably facing jail time in a Metropolis or Gotham City prison. 

 

Of course, as was just clearly stated above, it's not like Hercules didn't kill legions of people, in fact some of the Greek "heroes" committed slaughters and atrocities that would make Genghis Khan blush. Most of the "great men" of medieval history did too, if we at least count what they ordered their knights and soldiers to do, as opposed to how many they killed personally. 

[Han Shot First]

I've never really liked the D&D alignment system. It's far too dependant on outside circumstances instead of inherent character traits. The exact same character would be Lawful in one universe and Chaotic in another.

 

Nor am I particularly fond of the connatations of a pretty word like 'Lawful' and a sinister word like 'Chaotic.'

 

The DoD alignment system does have its flaws. If you tell someone though that you are going to roleplay a character as "Lawful Neutral" or "Chaotic Good" or "Lawful Evil", ect., ect...if they have any familiarity with Dungeons and Dragons they'll know what you mean.

 

In my 'Lawful Neutral' Inquisitor's case it means that anyone looking to upset the applecart is going to be dealt with mercilessly. He might sympathize with the plight of the alienage Elves for example, but if they take part in armed rebellion he wouldn't hesitate to crush that rebellion. His ultimate loyalties are going to lie with the security of the realm. Likewise unless the game forces you to choose, he will take no sides in the Mage-Templar conflict. His loyalty lies with the realm, not the factions inhabiting it. As far as he sees it, mages belong in their towers being protected from both their own worst inclinations and from others. Both rebellious Mages and Templars who seek to persecute their charges will be dealt with harshly. He will also take no pleasure in violence and will see it as only a means to an end, and that end will be restoring order to the realm.

[mrpoultry]

I'll be neutral as Switzerland's mum.

[EmissaryofLies]

I'm Mr. Happy, baby. Just tug on my leg...

[Aremce]

I want to play a saint who tries to save as many as possible, a witty and clever character who still has rather good intentions, a pragmatic "for the greater good" type of character, and ultimately an Inquisitor who just enjoys their power and the fact that they don't have to answer to anyone, and will be disrespectful and inappropriate as often as possible. This one I will play after I got annoyed by certain storylines and/or characters during the other playthroughs ... xD

[luna1124]

Start out angelic, then maybe be a little bad on my second play through.

[Iron Fist]

With each playthrough, I'm going to try to one-up myself in the killing department. Because why not.

[esper]

My character is going to do what she feels is right, which means she is going to be good on her own standards, if she is good according to society's standard depends on how society's moral code mesh up with hers.

 

As for myself. Mostly I often finds cartoonishly evil options in games... cartoonish, and the so called pragmatic ruthless options are often underminded by there being a 'nobody get hurts and PC win' option so it is hard for me to justifiy not taken the option the video game paints as good. Dragon age is a little better than this than most, but not always perfect.

 

As for da:I. If I am going to play I have two defaults I have not decided between. (Depends on the game).

I want to start out as the Vashot. I don't know her background yet so it depends on two things... Either she is going to be a violent and destructive sell sword, because the Qun says that Tal-Vashot is sell swords, hopefully she will move in the direction Meeran from da2. Or she will be a intimidating Vashot born outside the qun who enjoys the fear she brings to her surrounding. She won't know how to deal with leadership.

 

I also have the dalish elf, I couldn't play in da:o, who wants to bring glory to the dalish, despise the shem and 'resuce' the so called flat ears from their poverty.

[Emerald Rift]

My usual play style of a character's morale is similar to Han Solo so a hidden heart of gold/shoots or attacks first/doesn't give a damn about the rules. So I'm thinking neutral at first but then will start to arc in a few directions depending on how the game goes.

[J-Reyno]

I'm likely going to play "Renegon" style.  He's good when he can be, but not afraid to be a jerk or make the hard calls.  In fact he often makes the hard calls.  If he has to do "bad" things to achieve his goal, then bad things will be done.  But whenever a good outcome can be achieved without severely compromising the mission he'll do his best to make that happen.  

 

I tend to play pragmatic characters with a good heart but a practical mind.  

[ElvaliaRavenHart]

It will depend on each situation at the time and who I'm dealing with.  Most of the time I try to play the game neutral the first time.  Then next plays good or evil.

[Lorien19]

Good with those In need,Neutral to everyone else,Evil with the bad guys...So yeah,I would say that my Inquisitor's attitude will change according to the situation she finds her self in.This applies for my canon playthrough always...

[SilkieBantam]

Don't know yet. The game hasn't come out and I don't feel I've gotten a good enough grasp on the characters or story to start making that kind of decision. 

[DooomCookie]

Neutral haha what is this.

[ManOfSteel]

I usually play a pretty good natured, heroic character on my first playthrough. I may still do this when I choose to play as a Human, but my Qunari will hold an "ends justify the means" viewpoint. I'm not 100% sure, though. Will make a decision when the game is closer to release/when I actually play it.

[siphernin]

I usually try for a decent natured smart-behind.  It might change based on content but he'll probably be "nice" about helping the people and cold towards the individual.  Like Garrus said in ME, "Humans want to save everyone.  In this war, its just not going to happen."  That's why I go elf.

[HiddenInWar]

Probably neutral. Most likely among the title of "paragade"

[KainD]

Chaotic evil, always. Freedom and cookies.

btw to those that say that good/evil and chaotic/lawful are limiting, and that in rl things are more complex - no, you can put every single person under one of the 9 classic archetypes. Each archetype is very broad and contains very different people.

[elyu]

My characters are rarely good or evil, they all act according to their beliefs and loyalties. I wouldnt classify them as neutral, either, because they can be reeaaally evil when it comes to those opposing them (usually templars lol).

But I'll probably do one playthrough where I'm an ass to everyone, including my companions. It was quite amusing in DA2 and Mass Effect.

[ShadowLordXII]

I'll probably be all over the place in my playthroughs.

 

One will be the traditional Lawful/Neutral Good Character that always strives to do the right thing and do so in the right way when possible;

Another will be a Chaotic Good Grey Character who wants to do the right thing, but walks the line and gets their hands dirty often;

A Completely Neutral Character whose completely out for themselves and acts accordingly with equal parts fairness and ruthlessness;

Then there's the Neutral/Lawful Evil Character who punts puppies across the desert and then heals the puppies so that he can kick them again.

[esper]

Chaotic evil, always. Freedom and cookies.

btw to those that say that good/evil and chaotic/lawful are limiting, and that in rl things are more complex - no, you can put every single person under one of the 9 classic archetypes. Each archetype is very broad and contains very different people.

 

I haven't met a single person I could fit into any of those stereo types, mostly because the majority of the people I meet don't do that many morality loaded actions and even when they do the chances of them faliing into the same of the 9 category majority of times is slim and when it comes to the good-evil axis entirely depenent on the eyes that see.

[Augustei]

Grey, I will be an ambitious bastard taking every oppotunity possible to increase my own power and that of The Inquisition..If I need to step on a few toes or kill a few thousand people to achive that then so be it.
I will still try and do good by people and help them out, so long as it doesn't weaken me and conflict with my goals

[Exaltation]

There is no universal definition for "good" or "bad",there is only decisions and their consequences,whether they're "good" or "bad" is for each individual to decide depends on his/her definition of "good"/"bad".

 

My Inquisitor will be unstoppable!,stop the Mages/Templars by any means necessary,"good"/"bad" has no meaning.