Valmy wrote...
and there is the fact that if you were evil in BG you still had to defeat Sarevok, if you were evil in BG2 you still had to defeat Irenicus, if you were evil in KOTOR you still had to defeat Malak, if you were evil in Mass Effect you still had to defeat Saren...
In the BG games you defeat Sarevok and Irenicus on a way to becoming an evil deity. In KOTOR you defeat Malak to take his place as the Dark Lord of the galaxy. In DA you defeat the blight on your way to becoming a beloved hero, which is what happens anyway. There's no difference in consequences. There's nothing of note that an evil character can do or obtain that a good one can't.
Darkemorrow wrote...
I can think of several instances in which a character can gain actual power (as in terms of gameplay) through evil choices. Two of the specializations require evil actions in order to unlock. You can get money or an extra spell (if you are a mage) by making a deal with a demon - at someone elses expense. You can get a bonus to constitution by sacrificing the lives of several innocent people. And there ARE consequences for these types of actions; your companions will approve or disapprove, other NPC's will react to you if they find out, plots will be resolved differently, and pieces of your ending will change.
The constitution bonus is trivial, and the blood mage a reaver specializations are wonderful opportunities lost. Lore wise people don't become blood mages to cast 4 spells that they otherwise couldn't. They become blood mages for ultimate power, to bend demons and kings to their will. You don't get to do any of those things. Nor do you pay a particulary heavy price. The consequences are very shallow.
DA:O does, however, offer you plenty of chances to play as the kind of pragmatic, calculating, self-interested bastard who does evil insofar as it benefits him.
And gets practically NO benefit from it.
Or, perhaps more interestingly, the kind of person who wants to be good, but believes that stopping the Blight justifies them taking actions that are undoubtedly evil - the Anvil quest being the perfect example.
Preserving the Anvil is not the evil option, it's the SANE option. The way that the golems are presented as the Dwarves' only salvation against the darkspawn, you gotta be out of your mind to destroy the Anvil. But yes, that was an interesting decision. Too bad it's a rare exception rather than the rule. And even so, the consequences were still minor! You get 4 golems in the end. Big deal. If Orzammar got swamped by darkspawn without the golems -- THAT would've been something.
Valmy wrote...
There are some ways to play politics to get yourself as much power as possible. I disagree there is no such path you can screw over people pretty well if you are creative. It however is far more subtle than some people would like it seems and the ending doesn't look that much different than the good ending.
You can play politics while being perfectly noble and still get the same results. Screwing over inconsequential people along the way just for kicks does not qualify as a satisfying evil option.
But really I fail to see how it could be otherwise in the context of the story. If the Blight is not defeated what difference does the rest make?
That's exactly the point. The way that this story is written only one type of playthrough makes any kind of sense for it -- noble, sacrificing hero. The alternatives are so shallow and tacked on I wonder why they even wasted time putting them in. Might as well have dispensed with the pretenses. A strictly heroic story is not necessarily a bad thing.
Retour en haut
. Bioware you dissapoint me
certainly not replaying to see different possible endings. Because it may not have been possible on their first (finished or unfinished) playthrough, they assume it's not possible at all.
