118 réponses à ce sujet

[dutch_gamer]

I seem to still not be getting this across properly. To me, Varric, Vivienne, Iron Bull, heck even Dorian, etc, ARE Kefka. They are just sort of blandly violently characters, basically one dimensional uninteresting, they're "depth" doesn't strike me as depth. I realize that seems like a jump but it's just how I feel, that's all there is to it. Obviously I'm assessing all the details people are citing in their defense differently.

You are clearly assessing the details differently because none of the characters you named even come across as violent to me. I have seen none of them show anything which could be seen as them being being into killing for the sake of killing. It is no wonder you think the characters are boring because you seem to see details which aren't even there.

Did you happen to see a cinematic featuring Varric being all emotional because innocent lives were lost while defending an Inquisition keep? If he were just a one dimensional character he wouldn't have even cared.

[tmp7704]

I seem to still not be getting this across properly. To me, Varric, Vivienne, Iron Bull, heck even Dorian, etc, ARE Kefka. They are just sort of blandly violently characters, basically one dimensional uninteresting, they're "depth" doesn't strike me as depth.

Leaving aside we know very little about Vivienne, Iron Bull and Dorian, to say that Varric of all people is somehow like Kefka is ridiculous -- it requires to ignore pretty much all his traits character that are, if anything, opposite to Kefka, and only focus on the fact that he, sometimes, kills people. Except killing people is something done by pretty much every character in an RPG, so by that logic all RPG characters are Kefka.

[Andraste_Reborn]

Almost the only way to get rivalry points with Varric is to be aggressive at every turn and and pursue violence for the sake of violence. He fights when he has to - which is often, because this is a CRPG where you spend more than half your time killing things - but he prefers battles of wits and loves a Hawke who can talk their way out of a fight (or one who lets Varric do it for them.)

 

I don't really understand how having him be gleefully violent would make him a deeper and more interesting character.

[Zatche]

I don't know what else to say, he's a psycho by the end, not anyone I would recognize, and I'm not sure "Duncan" qualifies as "everyone." Between that point and the end of the game, I would of thought he would of gotten over it, but alas. I don't really buy that he would of been just so attached to Duncan in the first place.

 

I don't think wanting revenge is psychopathic. And I don't see how you can write off all of his other characteristics because of it. If he was truly a psychopath, he probably would have enjoyed abusing mages more as a templar.

 

Do any of the DA:I characters seem like they hate any other character? From Cullen to Leliana and Iron Bull and everyone in between, everyone (again, save Sera, maybe Cassandra/Solas) seems to be very faintly "liberal but with nuance and flair to their otherwise traditional viewpoints." It goes back to all the other D&D games like Mask of the Betrayer where the choices are like "do you want to murder the helpless village," or "do you want to save everyone and get the A ending and heal everyone and have all your friends together." It's like... hmmmmm,, I gotta think about that. 

 

Yes, certain characters will most likely hate each other. And the choices presented so far aren't "Do you want want to murder everyone?" or "Do you want to save everyone?" They seem so far to presented as "Do you want to protect the people thus losing your resources and lessening your ability to fight monsters and protect other people?" or "Do you want to protect your Keep thus losing a village?"

 

 

So, for one, I'm like why don't you just throw away the mask and emphasize that they're frequently blithely violent characters and be done with it? They're justifications and explanations for why they're not "selfish" are just so thin and unfounded to me, that I don't see them as very different. I'm also saying, that's ok, but if that's the way of things, might as well dress like a clown and openly relish what they clearly seem to relish. I feel like Varric needs to go "You know what the best part is? When I know they've lost money and they're screwed, that's the moment I live for," or whatever.

 

I think the idea that "what pleasure is there in destruction, if no precious lives are lost," is a creed that a lot of DA characters seem to live by, at least implicitly. I don't know, maybe I'm just hypersensitive to what I perceive as "violence." Some people think a person that kills in the street is violent, I agree, but I also find someone who is so exclusively vested in their own interests to the extent of a Varric or whoever to be almost similarly violent and extreme. 

 

You're assigning characteristics that don't exist. It comes off as paranoid:

• Blackwall joined the Grey Wardens and the Inquisition to protect people. I don't believe it. There's no reason to participate in violence unless you enjoy it. The only explanation is that he's a psycho.
• This character says he drinks beer. No way he's just like the millions of people who drink beer. He must be trying to manipulate me.

If Blackwall was truly selfish as you say he is, he wouldn't join the Wardens. He would have joined any other violent organization that had better perks. Read the writer interview/character profile and then say he's a psychopath: http://www.dragonage...ofile-blackwall

[Elite Midget]

Cassandra is apparently very romantic or into romance stuff.

 

Will be funny to find out that she has zero experience with romance and a usually "Lead, you follow" type of person like Cassandra is instead "You Lead, I'll follow" when it comes to romancing the Inquisitor.

[Seraphim24]

I don't think wanting revenge is psychopathic. And I don't see how you can write off all of his other characteristics because of it. If he was truly a psychopath, he probably would have enjoyed abusing mages more as a templar.

 

 

Yes, certain characters will most likely hate each other. And the choices presented so far aren't "Do you want want to murder everyone?" or "Do you want to save everyone?" They seem so far to presented as "Do you want to protect the people thus losing your resources and lessening your ability to fight monsters and protect other people?" or "Do you want to protect your Keep thus losing a village?"

 

 

 

 

• Blackwall joined the Grey Wardens and the Inquisition to protect people. I don't believe it. There's no reason to participate in violence unless you enjoy it. The only explanation is that he's a psycho.
• This character says he drinks beer. No way he's just like the millions of people who drink beer. He must be trying to manipulate me.

If Blackwall was truly selfish as you say he is, he wouldn't join the Wardens. He would have joined any other violent organization that had better perks. Read the writer interview/character profile and then say he's a psychopath: http://www.dragonage...ofile-blackwall

 

It says right there "And if that's a Grey Warden, then it's his moral imperative to act, even when there's no Blight." and "But Blackwall isn't interested in just watching.  He is absolutely invested in the idea of the Grey Wardens of legend."  and even "after all the talk about good and protecting people, he's going to want to have a round of drinks with the rest of the troops and share stories."

 

Obviously, I'm reading things into his personality based on these things. Ok, so even if there so no real present threat, just the notion of anything going "wrong" (he defines that standard I assume) causes him to be fascinated to act (i.e. get up and punch the bad guys). He's also not merely interested in the Grey Warden past, he ascribes particularly to the Grey Wardens "of legend" that are presumably endowed with super mythological powers and awe-inspiring politically correct acts of heroism.

 

The man is a child who collects transformers figurines, his name is Blackwall for goodness sake, why not call him Stonefaced Justice Man for the Good?

 

And I'm so honored that even after all the talk about "good and protecting people," that his other side is he likes to get extremely drunk (but I'm apparently bringing up drinking too much so there). Maybe he can get inebriated enough to punch another patron unconscious who teases another person about their clothes or something, for the Grey Wardens and all. 

 

Thankfully, the DA universe is so wonderfully black and white ("Hm, what's bad here, oh I don't know the evil black ogre thing that's snarling and eats people and bashes peoples heads in for no apparent reason), that characters like Blackwall aren't revealed to be the semi-crazy characters they basically are, so I would say perhaps labeling him a psychopath is a bit of stretch. Nonetheless, I wouldn't want to see him in the 21st century with e-mail, clean water, and electricity. I suspect rather than reveal his "other dimension" in a peaceful situation he would have to find another cause like fixing the property law system to allow him to sue his neighbor for having a tree branch extend .9 feet over his boundary lines. 

 

The ways people use loaded terms and phrases like "for this person's protection" or "for the good" to commit real harms and injustices is an extremely interesting topic to me, but there doesn't appear to be anyone in DA;I adamantly playing the foil to these character's assertions about good (or again, because arguably any potential disagreement was sucked out with the darkspawn gimmick).

 

Honestly though, I'm glad you are all excited for it, I hope everyone enjoys the game. Heck, I wouldn't even mind being wrong and really enjoying this game, I wouldn't mind being surprised that there is this big mega twister in the middle of DA:I where Blackwall's infantile notions of right and wrong come to head with orders to kill a a female darkspawn mage who appears to have overcome her darkspawn nature and become much more human and "good," but I'm still not really seeing it. The world was arguably too "safe" and boring IMO when it was created in the beginning for that to happen, but I guess it is possible. 

[SurelyForth]

Do you have, like, an advanced copy of the script or something? Because you're acting like you know know some of these characters when we've only been provided the barest sketch of what they're actually like. Although, I guess leaning on throwaway comments like "enjoys talking" and "likes to unwind with a beer" has given you incredible insight, despite both describing, like, 60% of the adult population. We have no idea whether or not Blackwall's notions of wrong and right are "infantile" (what does that even mean, anyway? aren't infants pretty much amoral clay waiting to be shaped by the world?), so how can anyone really know how he's going to behave in any given situation? 

[OptionFour]

So . . . I never post anything here - literally, ever. But Kefka112, your interpretation of Blackwall's bio is so strange that I have to comment.

 

Yes, it says that wrongdoing causes him to want to act. 'Act' does not mean running up and punching someone. Investigation, analyses, mediation, these are all forms of acting on a problem. You are completely, one-hundred percent projecting this idea that he is immediately spurred to violence. It makes me question why the notion of acting on something immediately means violence to you. What's up with that?

 

Also, its well-established what the Grey Wardens 'of legend' were. They did not have super powers. They were quite politically controversial. They happen to fit into his personal ethos though, so he looks up to them. Just as everyone, everywhere in the world looks up to people who exemplify qualities they aspire to. I'm still not seeing psychosis in that.

 

His bio says that he can kick back and have a beer with the common soldiers, and share stories, and bond; he doesn't fancy himself being above them. Not 'he gets stinking drunk and punches things'. Seriously, why are you projecting violence onto 'he can have a beer with his mates'. I can go out and have one beer with a friend and - believe it or not - get neither drunk, nor violent. In fact, in all the times I've been to the pub, I've never once seen a fight there. So I'm lead to believe that lots of people can have a drink and not get violent. Soooo . . . where does your association that he's a raging alcoholic sadist come from?

 

 

 

 

Additionally, I love to have characters with extremely varied personalities in my games too. And I admittedly prefer the older BioWare writing to the more recent stuff. However, do try to keep in mind that this is a game wherein you lead an army that is fighting a war against demons. If there is a 'nice' character who was up all night "deciding what flower to surprise me with", and who could never harm anyone, I'd suggest that their place would be well away from the battlefields that this game is likely to take place on.

Just a thought.

[Seraphim24]

I already said calling him a "psychopath" would be a bit of a stretch because it is indeed a fairly limited portrait. However, I also noted that the fact that this DA universe was created (intentionally or not, at least from my POV) with very simple black/white themes such as DARKSPAWN BAD, PEOPLE GOOD, which allows people who I strongly suspect to be highly socially incompetent (Blackwall) to masquerade their shortcomings by enabling them to declare necessity for their brutality. I have no way of knowing who Blackwall truly is, but I seriously doubt that the fairly bland DA universe is going to be teasing that out one way or the other. 

 

As far as there being no nice characters. Well, this justification is ironically what I see as similar to what I see Blackwall doing, "oh we can't have any nicer characters, this is a harsh world," could easily be translated to "we didn't want nor necessarily LIKE nice characters, so we made an imminently destructive/apocalyptic world so we can't have them." That is fine, it's their game, and I don't know this for a fact, but it could easily be ex post justification for a decision IMO, it's like, the world could of been different, where it's not this super heated ticking time bomb situation, which is where people like Blackwall thrive. I'd actually argue that "the world is falilng apart" is a significantly more powerful projection, along with the notion that people who are fanatical about flowers couldn't also be capable fighters. Consequently, I expect him to go, yes, we got the darkspawn, we won the day, done and done.

 

Also in his case, he is a soldier, so acting on something does generally mean killing or maiming or something like that. 

 

Now the drinking thing is silly, I'm not even the one bringing it up anymore, other people are. So, I never said everyone who drinks is a violent or psychopathic person. However, I am worried when someone tells me that the sole thing they do for fun and that defines them as someone who solely does  "drink." It's like, what about, you know, building clocks? Refining your crepe recipe? Studying ancient elven history in the Library? Doing training duels at the Grey Warden academy and acting as a mock instructor? It's come up like at least 3 times now, Iron Bull, Varric, Blackwall, these are really small snippets on the characters, and yet Bioware (not me, Bioware) has inserted points about how all of them like drinking at the end, as if (in my view) they've been written to say yes these are such superheroes and noble leaders that get their hands dirty, but oh my god the man drinks he DRINKS for the love of god, how could you not like him now?

 

I get that everyone's taking issue with how I read and interpret things not for face value, but isn't that the entire point of a video game or entertainment? To explore the underlying phenomenon? It's just like "he doesn't fancy himself above others." In my experience, people who make a point that "they don't fancy themself above others," absolutely "fancy themselves above others." 

 

I'm not just throwing this out willly nilly, in the trailer when Cassandra says "You are the only threat I see here," I can believe her. She's not going, oh so and so I'm really just a humble servant of my lord, and I'd do anything for good because good is so good. She's pissed, hostile, but she seems to have a reason, it seems to fit her character. 

 

.... you know I'm a little surprised that no one is seeing the same thing here. Guys like Blackwall don't scream I"M GOOD DERP. LETS GET BAD GUYS. HULK SMASH. to anyone else?... erm, maybe don't answer that, after 4 pages, you guys have made your points clear I suppose. . 

[OptionFour]

You've a strange way of reading whatever you like into something.

I could go on here, but I think its clear that you've decided how you see things, and that's that. You can try to backtrack this all you like, and try to say 'well the world is only that way because that's how it was created', and to some degree you're correct even while you continually shift your goal posts. I think you'll find however that every story - and in particular every story in video games - has conflict. Often (because the player has to enact agency upon the game world for, ya know . . . fun) this conflict is resolved violently, or at least with some manner of spectacle and action.

 

Despite your assertions, simplistic moralities, violent resolutions, etc., are not limited to western games. Bad characterization is certainly not limited to any one geographical region either. I've been killing and maiming things with little to no explanation in Japanese games for over twenty-five years now, too.

 

The notion of Blackwall thinking that he's good and that Darkspawn are bad is almost certainly true - I'm sure he does think that, or he wouldn't be a Grey Warden. The disconnect is that the game isn't telling you to think that - it allows you to make whatever moral judgement you like. And if you find him violent and absurd in his simplicity and dedication, you're welcome to just send him on his way.

Because games are about fun, you're right.

 

Which is why its so terribly odd that you're doing your best to hold this one upside down and spank it until all the fun falls out. I'm gonna leave this there though. I hope you try the game and enjoy it. And if not then I hope you find one that you will enjoy somewhere else.

 

Cheers.

(And thus ends my glorious BSN posting career.)

[Feybrad]

I already said calling him a "psychopath" would be a bit of a stretch because it is indeed a fairly limited portrait. However, I also noted that the fact that this DA universe was created (intentionally or not, at least from my POV) with very simple black/white themes such as DARKSPAWN BAD, PEOPLE GOOD, which allows people who I strongly suspect to be highly socially incompetent (Blackwall) to masquerade their shortcomings by enabling them to declare necessity for their brutality. I have no way of knowing who Blackwall truly is, but I seriously doubt that the fairly bland DA universe is going to be teasing that out one way or the other. 

 

As far as there being no nice characters. Well, this justification is ironically what I see as similar to what I see Blackwall doing, "oh we can't have any nicer characters, this is a harsh world," could easily be translated to "we didn't want nor necessarily LIKE nice characters, so we made an imminently destructive/apocalyptic world so we can't have them." That is fine, it's their game, and I don't know this for a fact, but it could easily be ex post justification for a decision IMO, it's like, the world could of been different, where it's not this super heated ticking time bomb situation, which is where people like Blackwall thrive. I'd actually argue that "the world is falilng apart" is a significantly more powerful projection, along with the notion that people who are fanatical about flowers couldn't also be capable fighters. Consequently, I expect him to go, yes, we got the darkspawn, we won the day, done and done.

 

(Things that can't be argued with.)

 

Now the drinking thing is silly, I'm not even the one bringing it up anymore, other people are. So, I never said everyone who drinks is a violent or psychopathic person. However, I am worried when someone tells me that the sole thing they do for fun and that defines them as someone who solely does  "drink." It's like, what about, you know, building clocks? Refining your crepe recipe? Studying ancient elven history in the Library? Doing training duels at the Grey Warden academy and acting as a mock instructor? It's come up like at least 3 times now, Iron Bull, Varric, Blackwall, these are really small snippets on the characters, and yet Bioware (not me, Bioware) has inserted points about how all of them like drinking at the end, as if (in my view) they've been written to say yes these are such superheroes and noble leaders that get their hands dirty, but oh my god the man drinks he DRINKS for the love of god, how could you not like him now?

 

I get that everyone's taking issue with how I read and interpret things not for face value, but isn't that the entire point of a video game or entertainment? To explore the underlying phenomenon? It's just like "he doesn't fancy himself above others." In my experience, people who make a point that "they don't fancy themself above others," absolutely "fancy themselves above others." 

 

(Things that I agree with.)

 

.... you know I'm a little surprised that no one is seeing the same thing here. Guys like Blackwall don't scream I"M GOOD DERP. LETS GET BAD GUYS. HULK SMASH. to anyone else?... erm, maybe don't answer that, after 4 pages, you guys have made your points clear I suppose. . 

 

- It is funny that you picked the ONE Issue in Thedas that is Black and White as your Example. Yes, the Darkspawn are evil, but they are literally the only Instance of Things in Thedas that are completely Black or White. Everyone and Everything else is more of a Shade of Grey. Thedas is as far of a Black and White Setting as you can get. You could literally tell me anyone or anything in the Universe and I could tell you why it is grey.

Also, you suspect Blackwall to be socially incompetent, yet he is stated to go to the Tavern and go drink with his Friends. That's a very simple Form of socializing, as is fighting together with your Friends.

 

- There are nice Characters. Blackwall is from all we know, one of them. They want nice Characters and they have them.

Blackwall is a nice Person, because his main Motivation is to HELP People with his Skills. He is, as shown by the Line "going to the Tavern and drink something with his Soldiers", a personable Man who likes to have Fun with his Friends and socialize. Varric is another as you would know, if you had played DA2. Leliana is another, if you would know if you had played DA:O. Josephine has been described as "nice" and "adorable". Sera is someone, who would randomly make you a Hat - if that's not nice, I don't know what is.

If you deny that they have nice Characters, then you have a Perception of "being nice" that differs from most People.

 

- The Problem with the "Drinking" Issue is, that you seem to think it was the only Thing the Characters would ever do (besides being monstrous kill-happy psychopaths of course!), while it is really meant to be an Example and one that many People can get behind. It was never said it was the SOLE Thing he does. That is what you read into it, because more specific Hobbies were not mentioned (because they would not have Place in promotional Material).

Also, for example, Varric is a Writer. You can be assured, he spends at least as much Time writing as drinking. So your Statement does ignore actual Facts.

 

- No. The Part that they take Issue with is, that you complain about the Things that you took "not for Face Value". Because Face Value is all we have and can work with right now and we do not have the full Picture that we need to start interpreting Things. You complain about your own Interpretation of the Characters that you made before you know all the Facts. And that you value your Interpretation over the Things the Developers said, even though are FACTS until we know better.

 

- Blackwall HIMSELF doesn't make a Point of that, the Person talking about him makes a Point of that. Which is a totally different Thing, as it removes the Arogance from the Character that you seem to read into him based on this Statement.

 

- Guys like Blackwall don't scream "I'M GOOD DERP: LET'S GET BAD GUSY. HULK SMASH", they scream "Captain America throws his mighty Shield..." - that is, if you are willing to let Superhero Analogues pass.He is NOT about killing the bad Guys, he is about helping People. By killing Things, but that is not the Part that matters to him. If there were no People who would be helped by killing Things, he would help them in other Ways.

[JadePrince]

 

Opposing them, I'd want to see characters that are in fact, not hateful or spiteful or vengeful in this way. So, a character that really likes rivers and valleys, water and plants. Someone who stays up all night thinking about what kind of flower they are going to give someone as a surprise. 

 

 

 

I think it's totally possible that this will be a good descriptor for Solas! He seems like a pretty chill, nature-loving, nap-taking, sensitive guy. I'd be surprised if hateful/spiteful/vengeful describes him at all. Maybe you'll like him!

[BronzTrooper]

Guys, this whole thread is flame war bait.  Just walk away...

[MattH]

Hoooow about waiting to actually get to know the characters first before passing judgement on them? They might surprise you

 

I couldn't be bothered with most companions in DA:O and DA2 before I actually got to know them, and now there isn't a single one I don't at least appreciate. 

[Seraphim24]

 

.He is NOT about killing the bad Guys, he is about helping People. By killing Things, but that is not the Part that matters to him. If there were no People who would be helped by killing Things, he would help them in other Ways.

 

The Christian crusades? Every other global war or military strike or conflict? These were killing people under the guise of "helping people." 'Helping people' and 'killing bad guys' are conflated all the time to serve fairly selfish or wayward goals. 

 

I think it's totally possible that this will be a good descriptor for Solas! He seems like a pretty chill, nature-loving, nap-taking, sensitive guy. 

 

Maybe, I just feel like the balance is skewed still though. Anyway, it's been interesting but I think I've basically said what I've been trying to say for awhile now. Maybe the next Bioware game will be somewhat different, or not, whatever. 

[dekarserverbot]

I know nothing about the new characters (never played DA2), but let's use history as a guide. Sten, Big tough Qunari warrior - Leililiana calls him a softie and he likes cookies. Shale, unfeeling construct but is really an over sensitive femdwarf. Zevran, cold ruthless assassin that wants to commit suicide because he killed the wrong person. I think we're going to be OK.

good for you, DA2 is regretable at it's best... not an experience i want to relive (or remind much, but cannot been unseen).

[tmp7704]

'Helping people' and 'killing bad guys' are conflated all the time to serve fairly selfish or wayward goals.

Note this does not exclude cases where individuals genuinely believe they're doing it to help people, and not for the selfish or wayward goals. When we know very little about the characters deciding one way or another what drives them is jumping to conclusions, and using that as springboard to condemn them is, welp.

[Feybrad]

The Christian crusades? Every other global war or military strike or conflict? These were killing people under the guise of "helping people." 'Helping people' and 'killing bad guys' are conflated all the time to serve fairly selfish or wayward goals.

 

The Christian Crusades were about helping People? What?! They were about conquering a religious Symbol. No one was helped and no one had the Intention of helping People in the Crusades. That's total BS right there.

 

Also, you drag that off topic. What I mean is helping People by killing bad Guys in the Sense: "Oh look, these Bandits are about to rob this Farmer and kill his Family. Better help the Farmer." That is not something evil and the Motivation is not "yay, I'm gonna kill" but "whoa, I have to help the Innocent". Get it? He does not necessarily inted to kill, but he knows he is a good Soldier and his Talents are best used when he helps People that are in need of someone who kills their Enemies. And because Blackwall has a Brain he will notice most of the Time which one is the Party that should be helped.

[naddaya]

- It is funny that you picked the ONE Issue in Thedas that is Black and White as your Example. Yes, the Darkspawn are evil, but they are literally the only Instance of Things in Thedas that are completely Black or White. Everyone and Everything else is more of a Shade of Grey. Thedas is as far of a Black and White Setting as you can get. You could literally tell me anyone or anything in the Universe and I could tell you why it is grey.

 

Not entirely. Some of the awakened darkspawn in awakening were non-violent or conflicted. The darkspawn messenger in Amaranthine becomes a wandering do-gooder in the epilogue, if spared. The song drives them mad, they're parasitic and they need to be eradicated, but I wouldn't call them evil per se.

[Feybrad]

Not entirely. Some of the awakened darkspawn in awakening were non-violent or conflicted. The darkspawn messenger in Amaranthine becomes a wandering do-gooder in the epilogue, if spared. The song drives them mad, they're parasitic and they need to be eradicated, but I wouldn't call them evil per se.

 

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. So even they are NOT entirely black. Thank you.

[tmp7704]

Not entirely. Some of the awakened darkspawn in awakening were non-violent or conflicted. The darkspawn messenger in Amaranthine becomes a wandering do-gooder in the epilogue, if spared. The song drives them mad, they're parasitic and they need to be eradicated, but I wouldn't call them evil per se.

The messenger is pretty much the only such example we run into, though. The other awakened Darkspawn act at best malicious (triggering and fueling the conflict between Velanna and humans just for the heck of it, e.g.)

[KainD]

So... you have a problem with self-righteous, heroic characters who have strong values and tell you what to do... and you want them replaced by violent, anti-social characters who are strictly self-involved but are otherwise pleasant and agreeable...
.

I want this. Except I don't consider them heroic, just self rigchious hypocrites. And about pleasant and agreeable I don't care, I will judge that myself.

[Zatche]

The Christian crusades? Every other global war or military strike or conflict? These were killing people under the guise of "helping people." 'Helping people' and 'killing bad guys' are conflated all the time to serve fairly selfish or wayward goals.

 

Shaky anecdotes of war leaders using "helping people" as a guise to kill people for nefarious reasons prove that anyone who is trying to protect people by killing monsters is actually doing so for nefarious reasons. That is some ironclad logic right there.

 

Note this does not exclude cases where individuals genuinely believe they're doing it to help people, and not for the selfish or wayward goals. When we know very little about the characters deciding one way or another what drives them is jumping to conclusions, and using that as springboard to condemn them is, welp.

 

According to Kefka112, these individuals don't actually exist. And they cannot exist in a fictional world either, even if that's how the writer specifically wrote the character. And that is backed up by...um...reasons.

[Seraphim24]

 

Awakening was ok, for that reason. However, I distinctly recall slaughtering endless waves of "dark" minions and creatures in DA:O from the first place towards near the end. DA:I has an apocalyptic scenario with hordes of darkspawn coming through, all grisly and ghastly. 

 

Shaky anecdotes of war leaders using "helping people" as a guise to kill people for nefarious reasons prove that anyone who is trying to protect people by killing monsters is actually doing so for nefarious reasons. That is some ironclad logic right there.

 

According to Kefka112, these individuals don't actually exist. And they cannot exist in a fictional world either, even if that's how the writer specifically wrote the character. And that is backed up by...um...reasons.

 

I'd argue that "selfish" reasons are good reasons; someone who becomes a knight first to protect his home and incidentally protects the village is the only real hero. The one who protects a village sheerly to aspire to some concept of "good" (and who has no real stake in the game) is therefore doing it to feed some "other" cause like a love of violence. Not to mention, they would be playing god, arbitrarily deciding that "this" village needs help and not some other village, or that his own needs (a wife, hobby, whatever) are second fiddle to hulk smashing dark ones. 

 

The DA:I characters seem obsessed or significantly more like the latter than the former, that's why I've put them in that category. First of all, most of these characters seem to unquestioningly take their orders from elsewhere, they've let someone else decide, whether it's the Chantry, the Qun, the Grey Wardens, the Mages. Unsurprisingly, the characters exempt from this paradigm (Sera, possibly Solas) I decided to exempt from criticism. The biggest #2 reason is that the darkspawn were made so blandly and mercenarily evil that it removes any difficulty for most characters to decide on right or wrong themselves. I suspect their shortcomings would be made more apparent, if the world had been challenging to them. 

 

Frankly it's also built into the gameplay, from Mask of the Betrayer and other "choice" games, there seems to be a lot of characters raising things without taking a stand. I want to know what Bioware characters feel and think. The last shot in the trailer of them all lingering around the table, looking up to the "inquisitor" (or me) was disturbing, it was like the entire cast was seeking answers and guidance from me, when the only real answer would be to express their own interests and desires honestly. I'm not interested in conversation with them if they aren't going to take interesting or hard stances on, something. Of course Kefka was deranged, but he was upfront about it, Iron Bull or whoever seems to kind of hide behind the Qun or the Inquisition or some other thing and so I just go, meh.

 

If they want to be that submissive, and are intended as such, and everyone wants to play them that way, fine, but I personally struggle to find them interesting enough to want to play the game.

 

Anyway, of course individuals of both kinds actually exist, and in the game. Those who use reasons like "justice" or "to help others" when it appears to be substituting for their own pecuniary social ineptness and weaknesses, and those who have their own stake in the matter.

[Zatche]

Frankly it's also built into the gameplay, from Mask of the Betrayer and other "choice" games, there seems to be a lot of characters raising things without taking a stand. I want to know what Bioware characters feel and think. The last shot in the trailer of them all lingering around the table, looking up to the "inquisitor" (or me) was disturbing, it was like the entire cast was seeking answers and guidance from me, when the only real answer would be to express their own interests and desires honestly. I'm not interested in conversation with them if they aren't going to take interesting or hard stances on, something.

 

You're presuming a lot from a shot of characters standing around a war table. Everything else we've seen from the developers indicates that the characters will take hard stances and may even leave the Inquisition if they don't like the direction you're taking.

 

Anyway, of course individuals of both kinds actually exist, and in the game. Those who use reasons like "justice" or "to help others" when it appears to be substituting for their own pecuniary social ineptness and weaknesses, and those who have their own stake in the matter.

 

Oh, I understand what you're saying. I just don't see any logic in the idea that absolutely no one who uses reasons like "justice" or "to help others" is being genuine.