125 réponses à ce sujet

[TheKomandorShepard]

Okay, so what if the Inquisitor dies on the battlefield before saving the world?  Everybody just sits around waiting to be killed by demons?  Don't you think that every nation would have scholars or mages trying to figure out a backup plan?  You don't think anyone would even try to come up with an alternative just in case the PC dies?

 

I mean, If the Inquisitor is that precious, maybe they shouldn't be on the front lines in the first place... maybe they could keep him inside a big metal box that they wheel up to the rift tears after clearing the area of hostiles.  They slide a little hatch open, Inquisitor sticks their hand out for a few seconds, and poof!  Problem solved.

Then they are screwd for now they don't have any other and as long they don't im top dog as they need me. 

 

Well they could try but i have power not they so they are on my mercy not i on their.

[The Hierophant]

More like selling people to demons for personal gain, commiting unnecessary acts of murder and ocasionally slaughtering Dalish clans. DA has always had some outright despicable choices you could take. Why are you expecting any less from Inquisition?

Not washing your hands after using the bathroom is pretty damn evil to me.

[Master Warder Z_]

Not washing your hands after using the bathroom is pretty damn evil to me.

 

Indeed, but that said slaughtering the dalish should count as a good deed.

 

._. in DA 2's case at the very least given that well, they sort of attack YOU if the wrong dialogue is selected. And hey you moved a bunch of reclusive isolationist  elves out of Kirkwall's pretty mountain range.

 

Should get a medal for that.

[The Hierophant]

Indeed, but that said slaughtering the dalish should count as a good deed.
 
._. in DA 2's case at the very least given that well, they sort of attack YOU if the wrong dialogue is selected. And hey you moved a bunch of reclusive isolationist  elves out of Kirkwall's pretty mountain range.
 
Should get a medal for that.

Long time no see Z.

But you know the Union of Elvanity isn't going to like any of this? Though Thelhen and his ass backwards clan in TME have no one but themselves to blame for their slaughter. Still feel bad for all the kids.

[Master Warder Z_]

Long time no see Z.

But you know the Union of Elvanity isn't going to like any of this? Though Thelhen and his ass backwards clan in TME have no one but themselves to blame for their slaughter. Still feel bad for all the kids.

 

Yeah, i decided to take a break from Forums.

 

And true, but there really isn't much defense for them literally attacking the PC character, if you select a dialogue option during a quest.

 

And Yeah the TME clan should have gone up in smoke, But myself? I feel no pity for them, its just yet another reminder of why the Alienages exist, why the Templar Order exists. because if they don't, anarchy and slaughter run unopposed.

[fhs33721]

Indeed, but that said slaughtering the dalish should count as a good deed.

 

._. in DA 2's case at the very least given that well, they sort of attack YOU if the wrong dialogue is selected. And hey you moved a bunch of reclusive isolationist  elves out of Kirkwall's pretty mountain range.

 

Should get a medal for that.

IN DA2 case it is pretty much an act of self/Merrill- defense yes.

I was more talking about DAO Dalish though.

[powerXmad]

What I find even stranger is that they expect large numbers of soldiers to simply stand by while they do it.  I don't care if people want to do things like this or not, but it makes no sense to ignore all logic and realism in favor of a sadistic power fantasy.  At least some of the companions would revolt, all of the advisors would revolt, you'd lose all official support from both the Chantry and secular governments, and no less than half your soldiers would outright refuse to follow your commands... so how does any of this seem like a good idea?
 
This kind of stuff is really only suited to games where you are an individual or part of a very small group of dedicated, like-minded people... to expect the world to just sit back and watch, or for soldiers to even follow commands that wind up causing more damage than the demons is unreasonable.
 
This isn't a question of morality to me.  I don't mind unethical behavior in a game, so long as the game responds realistically.  We've had a lot of good, small-scale opportunities to commit evil acts in the past...  anything beyond that is asking for way too much.

. Your forget in the fact that you are the only one with the power to close the tear in the veil they have no choice to to help and follow your commands plus it is your party's job to get others to follow you

[KainD]

I would argue

 

I wish I had companions like that, we'd be buds. Instead I get a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites. 

[Spicen]

My evil inquisitor would establish the rre emergance of a cruel chantry. Anyone who doesnt believe the Maker would face the righteous sword of mine.

I wud also ****** on anymore sacred ashes.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Yeah, i decided to take a break from Forums.

 

And true, but there really isn't much defense for them literally attacking the PC character, if you select a dialogue option during a quest.

 

And Yeah the TME clan should have gone up in smoke, But myself? I feel no pity for them, its just yet another reminder of why the Alienages exist, why the Templar Order exists. because if they don't, anarchy and slaughter run unopposed.

 

I have no pity for the Dalish. In most of their appearances their problems have either been of their own making or made excessively worse by their Too Dumb to Live choices.

 

Wipe out the Dailish and then give the City Elves a civil rights movement, best solution.

[BloodKaiden]

Not sure how 'evil' we can be but I will do my typical grey area playthrough. In DA: O and II my character was a blood mage that took most of the options that best suited himself and not the benefit of complete strangers. Sometimes my companions didn't agree but I don't feel I need to be 100% in agreement with them. I don't see that as me being evil.

[Dayze]

In DAO there were some choices that sided pretty close to evil regardless of how you argued it.....using elves as blood sacrifice for more power.

 

Pretty close to evil; it could be argued that the more powerful you are the greater chance of destroying the archdemon and saving the world.

 

But that is starting to get close to the line.

 

Side with the werewolves; in many ways they are the victims of the curse and by this point how many of them were actually born as werewolves?  Being human or otherwise isn't something they could truly understand.

 

That and are extremely useful as a fighting force.

 

Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the greater good and thankfully most of the time; those sacrifices happen to involve the elves.

 

Dump the blood into the ashes.....eh, the potential for a base/army as a final hiding place in case things go bad.

 

Basically long term the cultists have more use alive than dead and their is ultimately only so much ash and either way you don't get to keep it.

 

Well....that and if you convert than you are simply committing one of the greatest acts for your new people that you can do.  I guess then its an act of "love" or whatever.

 

In DA2 its all about pragmatism and survival. 

[Tevinter Rose]

My inquisitor is going to be self centered, ambitious, and ruthless. So I hope there are a variety of chaotic paths to choose from. 

[LobselVith8]

Long time no see Z.

But you know the Union of Elvanity isn't going to like any of this? Though Thelhen and his ass backwards clan in TME have no one but themselves to blame for their slaughter. Still feel bad for all the kids.

 

I'm pretty sure an argument could be made that Michel intentionally releasing the spirit should bare blame for... you know, freeing the spirit that slaughtered all but one member of the clan.

[EmperorSahlertz]

I'm pretty sure an argument could be made that Michel intentionally releasing the spirit should bare blame for... you know, freeing the spirit that slaughtered all but one member of the clan.

That's odd... Because whenever mages rebel you are more than willingly to point the finger back at the Chantry. So is it arbitrary when we should blame the source of the problems or the perpetrator?

[LobselVith8]

That's odd... Because whenever mages rebel you are more than willingly to point the finger back at the Chantry. So is it arbitrary when we should blame the source of the problems or the perpetrator?

 

That doesn't actually make any sense. You're bringing up issues of mages fighting for their autonomy from an inhumane system, which some of us agree with as we find the Chantry controlled Circles to be a toxic environment for the members of the Circle, and comparing them to a chevalier (who murdered at least one innocent elf as part of his initiation rite) intentionally releasing a spirit that killed all the men, women, and children in a clan, with the exception of one single woman.

[Lieutenant Kurin]

I dunno how much benefit an 'evil' choice is to be honest. I feel there should always be a reason beyond just being evil, to do something. For instance my Hawke chose the Templars out of pragmatism. She felt it was morally repugnant, but it was a stepping stone. Even my male Hawke who killed his own sister did it for reasons (in this case, he was slowly going mad). I feel like there should be choices with negative connotations, but there should be a reason to pick em besides being evil.

[EmperorSahlertz]

That doesn't actually make any sense. You're bringing up issues of mages fighting for their autonomy from an inhumane system, which some of us agree with as we find the Chantry controlled Circles to be a toxic environment for the members of the Circle, and comparing them to a chevalier (who murdered at least one innocent elf as part of his initiation rite) intentionally releasing a spirit that killed all the men, women, and children in a clan, with the exception of one single woman.

No. I am bringing up your habit of blaming the ones you find suits you to blame. If the amges revolt it is the Chantry's fault. If Michel set free a demon the Dalish summoned, it is th fault of Michel. There is a clear pattern here.

[LobselVith8]

No. I am bringing up your habit of blaming the ones you find suits you to blame. If the amges revolt it is the Chantry's fault. If Michel set free a demon the Dalish summoned, it is th fault of Michel. There is a clear pattern here.

 

You seem to be confused, so let me try to clarify this for you. Some of us agree with the mages taking a democratic vote to separate from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars, and some of us also agree that the mages are well within their rights to defend themselves against Lambert's forces. It's that people like myself take an opposing view about magic and mages than the one shared by people by you. I hope this clears up the matter for you.

 

It's also chevalier Michel's fault for releasing a spirit. You can blame Thelhen as well, of course, but Michel is the one who acted recklessly and got the spirit of choice released.

[EmperorSahlertz]

You seem to be confused, so let me try to clarify this for you. Some of us agree with the mages taking a democratic vote to separate from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars, and some of us also agree that the mages are well within their rights to defend themselves against Lambert's forces. It's that people like myself take an opposing view about magic and mages than the one shared by people by you. I hope this clears up the matter for you.

 

It's also chevalier Michel's fault for releasing a spirit. You can blame Thelhen as well, of course, but Michel is the one who acted recklessly and got the spirit of choice released.

Wasn't even referring to the White Spire. I was more referring to your willingness to arbitrarily absolve mages and Dalish from any wrong. Or failing that makignsure that it isn't representative of your IDEA of how most mage and Dalish are.

[LobselVith8]

Wasn't even referring to the White Spire. I was more referring to your willingness to arbitrarily absolve mages and Dalish from any wrong. Or failing that makignsure that it isn't representative of your IDEA of how most mage and Dalish are.

I've addressed numerous times when mages and Dalish have been in the wrong, including Zathrian's refusal to resolve the situation with the Lady of the Forest immediately once his people were cursed, or Velanna taking out her vengeance on random humans because she thought a group of humans murdered her group and kidnapped her sister. What you're claiming has no merit in reality.

As for pointing out that all Dalish aren't the same, and that most clans try to avoid violent confrontations with humans, I addressed what the developers have said on the matter, even including quotes. I can't help you if simple facts bother you.

[Chewin]

Let's just say I'll play my character as ruthless and intimidating as possible when I see a need for it to achieve my specific goals, but never for personal satisfaction.

[Hazegurl]

I dunno how much benefit an 'evil' choice is to be honest. I feel there should always be a reason beyond just being evil, to do something. For instance my Hawke chose the Templars out of pragmatism. She felt it was morally repugnant, but it was a stepping stone. Even my male Hawke who killed his own sister did it for reasons (in this case, he was slowly going mad). I feel like there should be choices with negative connotations, but there should be a reason to pick em besides being evil.

I agree. I always have a reason for my "evil" choices but sometimes my character is just being a d*ck, especially with certain dialogue options that don't really affect anything. However, I do believe that "good" choices should also have reasons behind them other than "this is the path to winning the game" Both sides should have reasons within the story for their choices and both sides should have positive and negative affects to those choices. It sort of irks me when every "good" choice leads to everything working out with zero problems or regrets down the line. Which is why I love the Orzamaar quest.

[BubbleDncr]

I would like them to allow us to be as evil as they did in Origins. DA2, they didn't let you be evil enough. My evil rogue Hawke hated Bethany for being a mage and making her life difficult, and was happy to leave her to die in the deep roads...but had a very "i love you and will miss you so much" goodbye scene with her. Bleh. 

 

The way I see it, evil Wardens still need to defend the world from the blight, as they live in the world that the darkspawn would destroy. Basically the same thing in DA:I, just replace darkspawn with demons. 

[Hipster-Brigadier]

Last time I tried to be "evil" in a fantasy game was in Dragon Age 2 and I was pretty much just playing Azula from Avatar: The Last Airbender

 

In other words I was selfish, snobby and power hungry. I was harsh but I also wasn't stupid I just did stuff that benefited me.

 

So I didn't just go evil for the sake of evil. I don't see the point in that so if I'm evil in this game it's gotta be evil with a motive.