You are right, which makes me think that "evil" isn't the right term to use for this thread title.
Shepard, even full Renegade Shepard, was not necessarily evil. Violent, tactless, vicious and cruel? At times, yes. But not evil. Shepard was still trying to save the galaxy.
I don't think it ever really makes sense to be evil when the plot line is fixed, makes your character seem schizophrenic. Making a satisfying motivation for the antagonist is hard enough (think reapers), the saviour of the world doing something nasty for no gain at all will take some serious convincing.
The only character's who's gotten away with "doing it for the lulz" is the joker from the dark knight, because... well I don't know why. But at least he was doing the opposite of saving the world
Self-destructive chaotic stupid is not an option in Bioware games. Shameless cruelty makes no sense in the world, because your party members should straight up murder you at the first sign of something like that.
but I do wonder how he has any henchmen at all
You are right, which makes me think that "evil" isn't the right term to use for this thread title.
Shepard, even full Renegade Shepard, was not necessarily evil. Violent, tactless, vicious and cruel? At times, yes. But not evil. Shepard was still trying to save the galaxy.
There's no reason the Inquisitor can't be a completely, unrepentant ******* while rescuing Thedas from destruction.
Except the part where you can get Mouse killed for no apparent reason, and possibly others..
I hate BioWare's concept of "evil characters".
They're usually just sociopaths dicks, who're evil because they get off on it rather than because they're pragmatic or ruthless.
It's a probably in a lot of games too, not just BioWare.
There's also the fact that "evil" paths are never rewards, like in Mass Effect, it's pretty pointless to be renegade other than to listen to the ridiculous lines renegade Shepard says because the outcome is often worst than the outcome for paragon.
Going just by ME1's major Renegade decisions, one actually has very good reasons to not go the hopelessly naive Paragon-path, when meta-knowledge is blended out. After all, why trust the queen bee of a bunch of creatures that, up to that point, have been out for one's blood? Why restrain the squad when faced with a bunch of zombies upon returning to Zhu's Hope?
I point to MotB as evil done right. The PC murders everyone, but for a reason, it makes them stronger and satisfies their hunger. It also had one of the best endings too.
However I don't expect an evil path in DA:I, bioware haven't made one in a SP game since Jade Empire. Unfortunately.
Loved that, and would greatly appreciate it if DA:I had a similar end-game to offer.
S/he can still save the world "fight fire with fire" style (if there is a "join bad side" option, I guess it would have to be a kind of failed ending because the Dragon Age series as not reached an end yet and if there'll be games set after Inquisition, the world has to be intact ... I guess).
I've wondered about that.
Better to reign in the Fade, than serve in Thedas.
Doesn't need to mean the entirety of the Fade, mind you. A slice of it left to the Inquisitor's whims for eternity, in exchange for leaving the mortal realm may be tempting enough.
I've wondered about that.
Better to reign in the Fade, than serve in Thedas.
Doesn't need to mean the entirety of the Fade, mind you. A slice of it left to the Inquisitor's whims for eternity, in exchange for leaving the mortal realm may be tempting enough.
That's an interesting idea ... It would prevent you from continuing after finishing the main quest line, but it could work story-wise and would not cancel out future games set after Inquisition. Sounds like a possibility, and an interesting one!
Yes, you could pointlessly murder NPCs in DA:O but the main thing was that it was NPCs that didn't have relevance to the plot at that point. For example, when you killed Brother Genitivi, he was no longer needed for the plot and thus was expendable.
I think the problem is that we're still stuck on games where saving everyone and everything nets a much better outcome over any other choice and is, therefore, the 'optimal' playthrough. Playing in a way opposite of that (whether or not you want to call it 'evil') is usually just for lols or a noticeable loss in advantages/resources, making it feel more like punishment rather than a valid course of play.
In other words, when you do those 'bad' things, you usually just do so to say: "Eheheh I wonder wat happen wit gaem."
@MUPP3TZ: How could it be any other way?
People who walk around thinking those who abuse the free will of others (evil) just get away with it without ever facing consequences - have not lived enough life.
Dear Bioware: Can I beat my wife in DA:I please? Or.. maybe molest my neighbor's kid? Or... hmm.. rob the elderly of their life savings? Moral ambiguity is SO in these days - and I don't want to miss the boat!
I think the problem is that we're still stuck on games where saving everyone and everything nets a much better outcome over any other choice and is, therefore, the 'optimal' playthrough. Playing in a way opposite of that (whether or not you want to call it 'evil') is usually just for lols or a noticeable loss in advantages/resources, making it feel more like punishment rather than a valid course of play.
No. It has to do with including conduct that's so morally offensive to your companions that they should be up in arms against you, but they are instead pretty chill about it. Kind of like:
Fenris: I will murder you, disgusting slavers! No one should own a human life.
Hawke: I am going to enslave this elf right in front of you. Suck it.
Fenris: Meh, we can totally still be friends if you give me a Tevinter sword.
Anders: All mages must be free! It is my righteous mission!
Hawke: I'm going to turn all these mages over to a templar who swears to abuse all of them.
Anders: Man, I'm so unhappy with you. Also, we still on for the deep roads? Legit.
@MUPP3TZ: How could it be any other way?
People who walk around thinking those who abuse the free will of others (evil) just get away with it without ever facing consequences - have not lived enough life.
Dear Bioware: Can I beat my wife in DA:I please? Or.. maybe molest my neighbor's kid? Or... hmm.. rob the elderly of their life savings? Moral ambiguity is SO in these days - and I don't want to miss the boat!
Of the three, only the third isn't stupid evil. The Art of War says to forage on the enemy. Well thing is, people did that to neutral and allied parties as well during wartime(on the enemy would most commonly refer to "enemy" villages of peasants who'd probably much rather not have a war at all). There are situations where being dishonorable or evil can be beneficial, but for the most part being an ass towards people is a sure way to ensure that you're outnumbered.
Yes, you could pointlessly murder NPCs in DA:O but the main thing was that it was NPCs that didn't have relevance to the plot at that point. For example, when you killed Brother Genitivi, he was no longer needed for the plot and thus was expendable.
Not to mention him being awfully weak-willed if the urn is desecrated, as the epilogue goes on that.
@MUPP3TZ: How could it be any other way?
People who walk around thinking those who abuse the free will of others (evil) just get away with it without ever facing consequences - have not lived enough life.
Likewise, not every moral, benign action automatically leads to success.
Guess that will be the challenge for DA:I's writers: provide scenarios where there is no clean way out readily apparent.
Granted, if this is so just blending out meta-knowledge, I would personally be fine with that, as I do not have a problem per se with a "golden option" being available (Mr Gaider views that differently, from what I gather).
@MUPP3TZ: How could it be any other way?
People who walk around thinking those who abuse the free will of others (evil) just get away with it without ever facing consequences - have not lived enough life.
Dear Bioware: Can I beat my wife in DA:I please? Or.. maybe molest my neighbor's kid? Or... hmm.. rob the elderly of their life savings? Moral ambiguity is SO in these days - and I don't want to miss the boat!
games are form of entertainment, are they not? and RP games are made for RPing, not for being the same person over and over again. i don't want to be a goody two-shoes everytime in a game, that's just boring, projecting real life in the RP game is strange and limits replayability. i know there are technical constraints and i wouldn't even dream of a RP game in which you can play ONLY as a bad guy (Maker, imagine media response; well written game with evil protagonist? glorious!), but come on - there has to be a decent dose of insane/evil lauging involved.
being punished by the narrative for my PC's evil deeds? THAT'S THE MAIN REASON I LOVE RPing A PSYCHOPATH. sadly, the game just looks at me (with risen brow, if i'm lucky) and shrugs
I was expecting a rehash of that thread where people were basically hoping for torture porn and getting the Inquisitor to commit rape, or to at least be able to order soldiers to do the raping.
The option's there in Origins, for some m!Wardens. (Ghenya, in the Dalish camp, if you use Intimidate on her.) I can only wince and assume that wasn't "rapey" enough for some?
The option's there in Origins, for some m!Wardens. (Ghenya, in the Dalish camp, if you use Intimidate on her.) I can only wince and assume that wasn't "rapey" enough for some?
I'd call that allegation overdramatisation for effect.
To me, the fact that DA:I's PC and the group they lead takes the name of one of the more infamous judicial organizations suggests that yes, unsavoury means to achieve goals should hardly be out of the question.
I have a feeling that the final scene would be the Inquisitor in the fade, facing the antagonist so that then he could close the veil but the antagonist tries to persuade him to see it from their point of view in his final moments and then you could have the option of killing them and closing the veil or trusting them and opening it completely. I have no idea what the outcome would be in DA:4 though.
@MUPP3TZ: How could it be any other way?
People who walk around thinking those who abuse the free will of others (evil) just get away with it without ever facing consequences - have not lived enough life.
Dear Bioware: Can I beat my wife in DA:I please? Or.. maybe molest my neighbor's kid? Or... hmm.. rob the elderly of their life savings? Moral ambiguity is SO in these days - and I don't want to miss the boat!
The third option is called capitalism..and is going very well these days. The real world does not punish evil as much as you seem to think, just look at how successful the brutal empires of the age of exploration where, of Ivan the Terrible, or Ghengis Khan. I will not give any more modern examples as that would start a flame war.
There are plenty of 'evil' deeds in pretty much every game with moral choice that the player can choose that don't really lead to any kind of consequences. That really should have everyone calling for the player character's head, refusing to help to work with him, abandoning or betraying him.
The simple reality is, however, that making a fun and functional game comes first. And spending twenty years in a prison cell because you murdered an innocent is not fun or functional.
So it's the best option. It's natural that 'evil' playthroughs should only glide along on contrivance.
There are plenty of 'evil' deeds in pretty much every game with moral choice that the player can choose that don't really lead to any kind of consequences. That really should have everyone calling for the player character's head, refusing to help to work with him, abandoning or betraying him.
The simple reality is, however, that making a fun and functional game comes first. And spending twenty years in a prison cell because you murdered an innocent is not fun or functional.
So it's the best option. It's natural that 'evil' playthroughs should only glide along on contrivance.
Tell that to the Conquistadors, you can get away with genocide if you have enough might. Evil isn't punished as much as people talking here seem to think. Weak evil is, but strong evil? No, no where near every time, not even most of the time.
That's not only very debatable, but entirely irrelevant.
That's not only very debatable, but entirely irrelevant.
It's entirely relevant, 'brutal tyrant' is a pretty standard fantasy trope, and a perfectly valid approach to a fractured, disunited world in crisis.
You claimed that an 'evil campaign' needed a greater suspension of disbelief to work, my contention is precisely the opposite, more often than not it is the most brutal faction that gets results, and wins the wars, especially in a medieval setting.
Murdering peasants for lols is a pointless waste, razing the entire village for collaboration as an object lesson, now we have a campaign.
No. It isn't relevant. And you need to stop confusing A Song of Ice and Fire with actual history.
If you look at history, the defining characteristic of supposed 'brutal' rulers is not cold, calculating results. It's the opposite. It's incompetence. It's stupidity.
No. It isn't relevant. And you need to stop confusing A Song of Ice and Fire with actual history.
If you look at history, the defining characteristic of supposed 'brutal' rulers is not cold, calculating results. It's the opposite. It's incompetence. It's stupidity.
The defining characteristic of supposed "brutal" rulers is normally, generally speaking, their brutality. The results are all over the place, though I will grant you that when it ends, it tends not to end well.
No. It isn't relevant. And you need to stop confusing A Song of Ice and Fire with actual history.
If you look at history, the defining characteristic of supposed 'brutal' rulers is not cold, calculating results. It's the opposite. It's incompetence. It's stupidity.
Ghengis Khan, Lucius Cronellius Sulla, Oliver Cromwell, William the Conqueror, Vlad the Impaler, Alexander the Great, and I risk getting to modern, but that is a list of counter examples, brutal tyrants who won. Their is a reason Machiavelli had 'fear' as a tactic for a ruler, it can work, it isn't nice, I wouldn't like to live in a nation doing it, or be the one, IRL doing it, but it can and does work.
i have to say i never understood the whole being evil in video games thing, maybe i'm too emotional or too nice a person, maybe i just take things too literally, but i can't play a game where i shoot a dozen Police Officers dead, like GTA (i used to play GTA upto GTA london then as i got older a actually realised what it was the character was doing in the game, and it kind of upset me) and i don't find amusement in the torture or belitlement of others, even if it's not real , i still think it reflects poorly on me and my morals. Other people can look past that and just enjoy the idea of being evil and step out of their own morals and do something they wouldn't normally just because they can and it's a virtual world. Wish i could lol.
For some reason I am the same way you are until I start playing a Star Wars game, I don't know why but I can be evil in Star Wars but feel wrong to be too bad in Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Of course I think in DA and ME that goes to being punished for making the bad guy choice to the point where you lose more than what its worth to keep the game fun.
I do think it should be possible to be "evil person" and still keep the game really fun. Games are meant to have fun not to be taken serious.
Retour en haut