90 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

Wrex kills Fist if you take him along.

 

Perhaps the most significant example is Alistair killing Loghain if you have him do the duel.

[Nefla]

Being able to kick them out of the party and not recruit them in future playthroughs is ideal for me. It's when a character you hate is forced down your throat (Merrill for me) that I start to long for the murder knife. If I never have to have th forced on me then my annoyance never gets to that level.

[JadePrince]

I think certain companions should have plot armor. Specifically, the bisexual/gay men. If Dorian, for example, is killable, am DREADING having to wade through stories of straight guys laughing about how they gleefully killed the gay guy, any time I want to look something up about playing his storyline. I had to do this with Zevran if I needed something answered about him or his quests. I saw this behavior with people who were happy to be able to kill Anders because he hit on them. It is gross gross gross to be confronted with homophobic jerks bragging about how they killed the queer men in these games and I really really hope, for that reason, that Dorian and Iron Bull are unkillable (at the very least, I hope that the only way for them to die is if you make certain in-game plot-related choices, but not that you can murder-knife them).

[Ryzaki]

Then they shouldn't do anything to threaten the PC or make themselves enough of a threat to the PC's goals. (which really I hope that's not the case anyway it's annoying). If the PC has no reason to kill them outside of OOCness or "ick" I have no problems with said choice not being there. (Reasonable goals like keeping said organization safe/minimizing a Qunari threat not hurr durr like kill all mages/Qunari).

 

So no IB is now walking away with information about your organization's secrets, defenses and structure and taking it to his Qunari masters and there's nothing you can do about it but pout nonsense.

 

Also Zevran tried to kill the PC when he first appeared. Him not being killable would've been dumb as hell. And Anders had just blown up a church and was clearly unstable. By comparison Morrigan hadn't done anything other than be unlikable, talk **** and cagey (The DR is a choice after all questionable circumstances and herding aside) and Isabela while she did steal the tome the Qunari and Petrice are more at fault for Kirkwall's damages. So the PC not killing them to me made sense. (That said you can still try to stab Morrigan in the stomach and attempt to have Isabela dragged off to a fate worse than death so...)

[Milan92]

I think certain companions should have plot armor. Specifically, the bisexual/gay men. If Dorian, for example, is killable, am DREADING having to wade through stories of straight guys laughing about how they gleefully killed the gay guy, any time I want to look something up about playing his storyline. I had to do this with Zevran if I needed something answered about him or his quests. I saw this behavior with people who were happy to be able to kill Anders because he hit on them. It is gross gross gross to be confronted with homophobic jerks bragging about how they killed the queer men in these games and I really really hope, for that reason, that Dorian and Iron Bull are unkillable (at the very least, I hope that the only way for them to die is if you make certain in-game plot-related choices, but not that you can murder-knife them).

 

Do you know how many guys out there think Cass is ugly? I wouldn't be surprised if they would glee at the fact that they killed the ugly warrior.

 

Might as well give everyone plot armour.

[themikefest]

If I can kill them all, I will. If the only way to get rid of them is to be a jerk, then I will be a jerk. I wouldn't have a problem with a companion killing another companion. That would be cool. My favorite is having Ashley kill Wrex. That was excellent.

 

As I've posted before, if I can do whatever within the limits of the game, I will do it no matter how bad it is. The more that I can do in the game, the more I will replay the game.

[JadePrince]

Then they shouldn't do anything to threaten the PC or make themselves enough of a threat to the PC's goals. (which really I hope that's not the case anyway it's annoying). If the PC has no reason to kill them outside of OOCness or "ick" I have no problems with said choice not being there. (Reasonable goals like keeping said organization safe/minimizing a Qunari threat not hurr durr like kill all mages/Qunari).

 

So no IB is now walking away with information about your organization's secrets, defenses and structure and taking it to his Qunari masters and there's nothing you can do about it but pout nonsense.

 

Also Zevran tried to kill the PC when he first appeared. Him not being killable would've been dumb as hell. And Anders had just blown up a church and was clearly unstable. By comparison Morrigan hadn't done anything other than be unlikable, talk **** and cagey (The DR is a choice after all questionable circumstances and herding aside) and Isabela while she did steal the tome the Qunari and Petrice are more at fault for Kirkwall's damages. So the PC not killing them to me made sense. (That said you can still try to stab Morrigan in the stomach and attempt to have Isabela dragged off to a fate worse than death so...)

 

Then the real problem here is Bioware giving the player plot reasons to kill the queer characters, so that those who just want to "kill the gays" can disguise their real motives behind "WELL IT FIT THE PLOT." So... I guess I agree. I hope the devs this time, write Dorian like they wrote Morrigan in DAO: No plot-related reason to kill him, thus no ability to do so. Does that sound cool?

[Ryzaki]

Then the real problem here is Bioware giving the player plot reasons to kill the queer characters, so that those who just want to "kill the gays" can disguise their real motives behind "WELL IT FIT THE PLOT." So... I guess I agree. I hope the devs this time, write Dorian like they wrote Morrigan in DAO: No plot-related reason to kill him, thus no ability to do so. Does that sound cool?

 

Sounds perfect

[JadePrince]

Do you know how many guys out there think Cass is ugly? I wouldn't be surprised if they would glee at the fact that they killed the ugly warrior.

 

Might as well give everyone plot armour.

 

That would gross me out too, if dudes started bragging about killing the 'ugly' woman. But I have a feeling that Cass is too important a character to the plot to be easily killed off, so I don't think we have to worry about that. 

 

Honestly, I think companions SHOULD have a certain amount of plot armor. I don't think they should do what they did with Zevran, and give the player the opportunity to kill companions outright, before even recruiting them. At the VERY least, I'm going to cross my fingers that if any companions are killable before recruitment, it's not the gay ones.

 

(And before anyone accuses me of having a double-standard, queer people have been historically killed for being queer, while straight people have never been killed for their straightness, and that's why it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when people brag about killing Zevran, and why I don't have that same feeling of discomfort when people talk about killing Loghain, for example.)

[Milan92]

That would gross me out too, if dudes started bragging about killing the 'ugly' woman. But I have a feeling that Cass is too important a character to the plot to be easily killed off, so I don't think we have to worry about that. 

 

Honestly, I think companions SHOULD have a certain amount of plot armor. I don't think they should do what they did with Zevran, and give the player the opportunity to kill companions outright, before even recruiting them. At the VERY least, I'm going to cross my fingers that if any companions are killable before recruitment, it's not the gay ones.

 

(And before you accuse me of having a double-standard, queer people have been historically killed for being queer, while straight people have never been killed for their straightness, and that's why it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when people brag about killing Zevran, and why I don't have that same feeling of discomfort when people talk about killing Loghain, for example.)

 

For the record, I do agree with plot armour. I personally never understand the desire to kill off companions either.

 

And yes, I have no fear for Cassandra beign able to get killed off for no reason.

[Star fury]

It's a pity we can't kill Carver, even if he's a brother of a main protagonist and can't romance Bethany. Always annoyed me that the mage Hawke had to put up with him. More ASOIAF moments would've been awesome, to follow the Kingslayer's footsteps!

[Feybrad]

It's a pity we can't kill Carver, even if he's a brother of a main protagonist and can't romance Bethany. Always annoyed me that the mage Hawke had to put up with him. More ASOIAF moments would've been awesome, to follow the Kingslayer's footsteps!

 

That Part about "following the Kingslayer's Footsteps made crossing out that certain Part completely unnecessary.

[Ryzaki]

As long as plot armor doesn't equal forced friendship I'm fine. (Ideally said plot armored companions wouldn't be forced recruits either save maybe 1 person if there must be a companion with the PC no matter what).

 

But really how Fenris was handled was fine to me. You can tell him to GTFO no less than twice before recruiting him. And 2 more times after that before endgame. With all those GTFO buttons a kill him option was unnecessary. (Well unless you side with the mages then he falls under the goals thing).

 

As for killing Carver technically Hawke doesn't kill Bethany either you merely let Meredith do it. And if she's a warden you can't kill her period. There probably should've been a templar Carver alternate where you let a mage kill him/spare him would've made sense but I can easily see it as justified that Hawke wasn't the type of character to kill his/her siblings. (And honestly *vomits everywhere* at Meredith killing Bethany. I probably would've killed her myself after that if I was Hawke. Kicking her off her blade. >:| )

 

But no they really shouldn't do a Zevran again. Having a companion introduce themselves by trying to kill the PC is just...no on so many levels. (The smarmy sounding sex goddess line (IMO anyway) and insults really doesn't do him any favors either).

[JadePrince]

I think it'd be rad if killing companions has actual, demonstrable effects on your game (aside from just not being able to complete their personal quests). It'd be pretty interesting if, for example, killing Sera means you can't bring the Friends of Red Jenny into the Inquisition. Or, maybe even more seriously, if you kill Solas (or even Cole!), you lose valuable information about the Fade and thus your ultimate solution to closing the rift is one that's less effective, or kills more people, or requires a bigger sacrifice. Or if you kill Cass, then the Chantry turns their backs on the Inquisition. Or if you kill Blackwall, any Grey Wardens you encounter are aggro instead of willing to cooperate. As much as I don't want Dorian to be killable at all, if he has to be, it'd be pretty sweet if a consequence of killing him is that there's no way to survive the scene we saw in the demo, since it seems like he's the one that makes the escape 'wormhole' thing. I mean, these are all just theories, but you get the idea. 

 

Lots of people like being able to kill companions without consequences, but I think if you want to kill them, there SHOULD be in-game consequences. If you want to cripple the Inquisition, then let that have ACTUAL RAMIFICATIONS (aside from just having a smaller party of companions). I guess that's all I can REALLY hope for. 

[BloodKaiden]

Lots of people like being able to kill companions without consequences, but I think if you want to kill them, there SHOULD be in-game consequences. If you want to cripple the Inquisition, then let that have ACTUAL RAMIFICATIONS (aside from just having a smaller party of companions). I guess that's all I can REALLY hope for.

I agree with this so much. I get not liking a particular character for one reason or another (looking at you Wynne) but your companions should actually matter enough to a point where without them you have consequences of some sort.

[Ryzaki]

I think it'd be rad if killing companions has actual, demonstrable effects on your game (aside from just not being able to complete their personal quests). It'd be pretty interesting if, for example, killing Sera means you can't bring the Friends of Red Jenny into the Inquisition. Or, maybe even more seriously, if you kill Solas (or even Cole!), you lose valuable information about the Fade and thus your ultimate solution to closing the rift is one that's less effective, or kills more people, or requires a bigger sacrifice. Or if you kill Cass, then the Chantry turns their backs on the Inquisition. Or if you kill Blackwall, any Grey Wardens you encounter are aggro instead of willing to cooperate. As much as I don't want Dorian to be killable at all, if he has to be, it'd be pretty sweet if a consequence of killing him is that there's no way to survive the scene we saw in the demo, since it seems like he's the one that makes the escape 'wormhole' thing. I mean, these are all just theories, but you get the idea. 

 

Lots of people like being able to kill companions without consequences, but I think if you want to kill them, there SHOULD be in-game consequences. If you want to cripple the Inquisition, then let that have ACTUAL RAMIFICATIONS (aside from just having a smaller party of companions). I guess that's all I can REALLY hope for. 

 

Oh I have no issue with things like this.

 

But the Chantry turning their backs hurts them more than it hurts the Inquisitor. The rifts still need to be closed. For a story like say Hawke's not recruiting Aveline means you have much more difficulties with the law makes sense. The Chantry not working with the only person who can seal veil tears though because they killed Cassandra is cutting off nose to spite face territory (especially since I'm assuming Cass was killed for a reason that isn't just for the evilulz). The Dorian scenario though yep. If the ritual to do...whatever they were doing is Tevinter specific then not being able to do it without his help is legit (of course this means you get the same consequence if you merely leave him at the camp and encourages one "true" companion to bring on quests which I really am not fond of but it is a consequence). I could understand if the Chantry gave you fewer resources but Leliana is still alive and there in the case of the chantry.

 

But yeah stuff like that I can deal with. As long as the game's still beatable by all means. But my thing is the consequences being major falls into a simple trap. If the companions are optional to begin with I don't want to feel punished for not dragging around X. (And yeah I feel there's a difference in encouraging someone and punishing them). Say if Dorian's dead/not recruited the wormhole can't be sealed and you will lose a companion there. However if you play the game different (he's still dead/not recruited) you don't end up with the wormhole scenario anyway would be my preference. Companions help if you end up in a tricky spot but there is a way to play the game without needing their help to get decent results or replacing it with the help of another companion in another scenario to get good results either way (maybe not as desirable as having both but it's perfectly usable).

 

Now yeah if you drive off all companions you did pretty much paint yourself in a corner. But rejecting one or two shouldn't screw you over in a domino effect. (You rejected/killed Dorian so you lost Sera, losing Sera lost you red Jenny which ends up with you losing resources so another companion ended up dead cause the defenses or whatever didn't hold and so on that'd be really annoying really quick).