Why does it seem like there are so many psychopaths and sociopaths on these forums? Like, I get that it's an RPG and we should have the option to be evil and whatnot, but... holy ****!
So everyone who played gta is psychopath?
I rly don't see problem here guy want create own character with certain mindset.
So everyone who played gta is psychopath?
You know, you can play the game without killing civilians.
Most missions have you killing bad guys.
On topic, not TOO evil.
This is still the Inquisition and you're tagging along with the 2 hands of the Divine. You shouldn't be allowed to go all trigger happy like in DAO or DA2 and put that murder knife to use.
You know, you can play the game without killing civilians.
Most missions have you killing bad guys.
On topic, not TOO evil.
This is still the Inquisition and you're tagging along with the 2 hands of the Divine. You shouldn't be allowed to go all trigger happy like in DAO or DA2 and put that murder knife to use.
Good luck with that. 
If by bad guys you mean everyone who stands on your way yep then you fight bad guys.
You could be at best anti-hero/renegade type in da 2 so well... and i rly hope it isn't in case in dai i prefer dao level of rp than da 2.Besides i rly don't care what Cassandra or Leliana want me to be same as i don't care what wynne or alistair/wardens wanted me to be in dao after all they need me not i them.
My femquisitor will resort to murder, kidnapping, killing companions(if need to be), seduction, torture, blackmail and any other act to achieve her goal. She cares about no one or the consequences, nor should she, in achieving that goal.
If you are questioning whether you can be the epitome of evil (curb stomping puppies and the like), then the answer is no. BioWare has stated that the ultimate purpose of the Inquisition is to stop the tear and close the breach. There obviously is a lot of flexibility in regards to how the Inquisitor can achieve this. The basic example BioWare gave was that you can either try and go about it in a virtuous and honorable manner, or one in which the ends justify the means, perhaps refusing to help a village under attack in order to more directly attack and cripple an enemy encampment with your troops.
You can definitely be rude, unlikable and apathetic towards others. However, you cannot be downright evil. In my opinion, the black and white nature of renegade/paragon in Mass Effect, while funny on occasion, ultimately cheapened the story somewhat and took away from the believability and credibility of the story. What I would personally appreciate is a more ambiguous moral compass where there really isn't a good or a bad, and just difficult choices. Something similar to what one experiences in The Witcher franchise.
Chernaya, on 28 Jul 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:Well, you're still playing the Inquisitor, who is a member of a group of people trying to save the world. I can see us being able to make the character an *******, but not completely evil. It's not as simple as in games like, say, Fallout, where you aren't really playing a character whose role is already fleshed out as being someone heroic.
I'd point out that even evil people wouldn't want the world to end because that means they die as well, saving the world does not necessitate heroism.
<snip>
Sounds more like a cliche stupid blond with crush on Cullen, rather than evil character. But again, I aways was of opinion that stupidity is worse in terms of inflicted damage.
Sounds more like a cliche stupid blond with crush on Cullen, rather than evil character. But again, I aways was of opinion that stupidity is worse in terms of inflicted damage.
Not really stupid, she simply doesn't like others screwing with her or trying to usurp her command thus to show her strength she kills them and she doesn't value weaklings or those that have nothing to offer her. She also kills off Rivals before they can challenge her.
Though she does have a huge obsession with clueless Cullen.
That's a fine opinion, you can keep it.
Why does it seem like there are so many psychopaths and sociopaths on these forums? Like, I get that it's an RPG and we should have the option to be evil and whatnot, but... holy ****!
BioWare stats is that 80% of players always pick the "good guy" choices.
I like playing evil characters but there has to be reasons for it and I don't really like black and white either. An evil character still might be nice to his/her LI or to a group he/she is part of ect.
I don't really do evil "just because" there has to be some benefit to my character or something. I do have a playthrough in both games where I purposefully picked the absolute worst decisions but that was just to see what would actually happen, I didn't really connect well with those characters despite the fact that my first playthrough is always someone who is a pretty bad guy.
I feel like allot of the choices in DA could be seen as evil or pragmatic depending on the perspective of the player and how the character makes those choice. Letting Crestwood burn might be an understandable choice if it better to keep the Inquisition strong in the long run but what if your pc just doesn't give a crap about Crestwood?
I wouldn't say my characters were evil, they just had a very different mindset on the nature of right and wrong 
So yet again "Be anyone you want to be"...
Yeah, BioWare does not make 'be anyone you want to be' games. I have no idea where you got that expectation, especially as you'd have to bash your head against the hard wall of Origins and DA II to believe it.
Yep they do or should i said they did?
Sure you always have to follow plot (as in every video game that have plot) but you decided as who and why you did it.
For example in baldur's gate 2 you always had to go after big bad but why well you could want save your friend , because you wanted revenge or just because you wanted power.
Same for dao all you had to do is follow main goal of the game stop blight as who you will do that was up to you.
My PCs tend to fall into the "Great friend, terrible enemy" camp. They don't go out of their way to harm or cause trouble, but if you threaten one of their friends or close allies it's very likely you won't be walking away from that. The only times I tend not to come down hard on people who seriously cross me or my crew is when the person who was insulted/attacked/whatever explicitly tells me not to worry about it. Then my PC just grits their teeth and walks away.
So yeah. Basically, I adhere to the "Don't start anything if you can't handle the consequences" philosophy of RP'ing.
BioWare stats is that 80% of players always pick the "good guy" choices.
Maybe they should stop trying so hard to make them the objectively best choices.
Guest_Morrigan_*
On topic, not TOO evil.
This is still the Inquisition and you're tagging along with the 2 hands of the Divine. You shouldn't be allowed to go all trigger happy like in DAO or DA2 and put that murder knife to use.
Because we all know that the Chantry has never committed an act of violence in its history. 
Hmm... let's see.
Well, there was the first Inquisition, which World of Thedas refers to as "a reign of Terror."
Oh, and the Exalted March of the Dales, where the Chantry forced the elves to convert at the point of a sword and give up their homes to live in slums.
And the innumerable apostates which the Church has executed over the years because they might become Maleficarum.
I think it's important to keep in mind that the second Inquisition, of which you are the leader, is not a religious organization, despite the presence of Leliana and Cassandra. Bioware has repeatedly stated that this time, the Inquisition is formed in opposition to the wishes of the Chantry, and that you are more similar to a "plucky upstart."
Maybe they should stop trying so hard to make them the objectively best choices.
How rewarding do you think "being evil" is in real life? Why should Bioware make it so in their games? I don't think Mass Effect would be a better series if, for example, the player were rewarded for facilitating genocide, but your mileage may vary. I also don't think people pick morally "good" choices because they're the "objectively best choices" either - there were times in the first two Dragon Age games where the player could sacrifice one or a few dozen people to demons to benefit themselves and I (think) more than 80 percent of people still chose not to do this. Those choices will probably exist here, too.
Why be evil when you can be just?
A truly just man would send the nobility of every court flying into a panic
"There is no creature on earth half so terrifying as a truly just man."
How rewarding do you think "being evil" is in real life? Why should Bioware make it so in their games? I don't think Mass Effect would be a better series if, for example, the player were rewarded for facilitating genocide, but your mileage may vary. I also don't think people pick morally "good" choices because they're the "objectively best choices" either - there were times in the first two Dragon Age games where the player could sacrifice one or a few dozen people to demons to benefit themselves and I (think) more than 80 percent of people still chose not to do this. Those choices will probably exist here, too.
I was speaking purely of Mass Effect, I don't think the Rengade/Paragon system should've existed at all really. There were few situations were Renegade options weren't braindead "kick the puppy" options and when they were the Paragon option was objectively better.
Why even have renegade options if their only purpose was to make a playthrough were eveything goes wrong? Why weren't the choices ever treated as something more interesting than "good or bad"
If you are questioning whether you can be the epitome of evil (curb stomping puppies and the like), then the answer is no. BioWare has stated that the ultimate purpose of the Inquisition is to stop the tear and close the breach. There obviously is a lot of flexibility in regards to how the Inquisitor can achieve this. The basic example BioWare gave was that you can either try and go about it in a virtuous and honorable manner, or one in which the ends justify the means, perhaps refusing to help a village under attack in order to more directly attack and cripple an enemy encampment with your troops.
You can definitely be rude, unlikable and apathetic towards others. However, you cannot be downright evil. In my opinion, the black and white nature of renegade/paragon in Mass Effect, while funny on occasion, ultimately cheapened the story somewhat and took away from the believability and credibility of the story. What I would personally appreciate is a more ambiguous moral compass where there really isn't a good or a bad, and just difficult choices. Something similar to what one experiences in The Witcher franchise.
Well back in the day...there was this came where you could actually stomp on puppies for a health power up...It was made by Bioware too.
Yeah, the only "Renegade" options in ME 2/3 that were objectively beneficial to your goal were the pragmatic Renegade Interrupts, like the ones that result in you killing off some bad guys in a cutscene and just getting on with the mission.
Apart from those, there were very few moments where going full renegade didn't feel like you were hamstringing yourself in the long term at the same time.
Back to DA though, I do like the balance that DAI has apparently struck-- being a hardcore pragmatist doesn't necessarily mean being bloodthirstily evil, it just means making very hard choices and the attached sacrifices. Some people in your party would understand that, and others won't. I recall Varric being particularly upset in one demo at the Inquisitor's decision to burn a village to save a keep, as an example.
I'd like to think that there is a difference between Pragmatism, Lawful evil and generally being a psychosis driven sociopath but that's me.
Retour en haut
