223 réponses à ce sujet

[Majestic Jazz]

It seems like in many situations, Bioware games have had the tendency to "penalize" players who play as the bad/evil/renegade player. This is mainly in the perspective of the companions, which normally are majority good intentions type characters. My opinion, Bioware is bad for this. They will give us the token one or two "renegade" type companions while ALL the rest are good or neutral but leans towards the good many times. Take KOTOR for example:

 

Good:

 

Carth

Bastilla

T3

Mission

Zalbaar

Juhani

 

Bad/Evil/Renegade:

 

HK47

Canderous

 

Neutral:

 

Jolee Bindu

 

An argument can be made for Bastilla about being neutral, but for the most part, she is a lightside character. 

 

 

Now flash forward to DAI. I plan on playing a pure Renegade Inquisitor with my male Dwarf rogue. Maybe it is just me, but it is seeming like most of the companions will have a goody-goody type vibe about them, making it annoyingly difficult to have a Renegade playthrough with 3 other renegade followers. In KOTOR it was perfect to play as a DS Jedi and have HK/Canderous in your party. However, in DAI that might be impossible. Iron Bull seems to have a dark past, but he may have the cliche "I did bad before, but now I want to be good and put the past behind me....". Sera appears to be edgy, but will end up being goody goody. Blackwall seems too honorable and so on. Only characters that might jive with a renegade Inquisitor seems to be Cassandra and Viviene, leaving room for the 3rd companion to be the annoying one who always questions your actions. 

 

 

Once again it appears that DAI would punish those players who want to play Renegade by closing off content due to decisions and having characters leave due to decisions. How come choices cant be closed off for making "good" choices or have companions leave because you are too soft? Also the romances. It appears that the only non-advisor romance that will put up with renegade decisions is Cassandra. 

 

 

Not all heros have to be all clean and goody 2 shoe. A hero can also be that person who is willing to kill anyone who gets in his way or opposes him, in order establish order.....which would help in his cause to save the world/land. A Hero is a person who is willing to let the village burn, in order too keep forces alive and well to fight a much greater battle. 

[Spectre Impersonator]

Shocking that Bioware would put more good guys on your team in a game about saving the world!

[Majestic Jazz]

Shocking that Bioware would put more good guys on your team in a game about saving the world!

 

Again, saving the world isnt always about being goody goody mr. clean. Sometimes in order to save the world, you must make a string of "bad" decisions in the short term in order to  yield a much greater result.

 

Sometimes a Hero can lead by ruling with an Iron fist, even with fear. Would he be loved? Maybe not, but at least he would have the support and power to save the world or land. 

 

Niccolò Machiavelli

[Revelat0]

Again, saving the world isnt always about being goody goody mr. clean. Sometimes in order to save the world, you must make a string of "bad" decisions in the short term in order to  yield a much greater result.

 

Sometimes a Hero can lead by ruling with an Iron fist, even with fear. Would he be loved? Maybe not, but at least he would have the support and power to save the world or land. 

 

Niccolò Machiavelli

The ends justify the means is more of the exception than the rule, sure sometimes it yields results sooner rather than later, generally the long term consequences are unfortunately worst.

[Xilizhra]

People who are both likeable and consistent tend to be good or goodish people. That's just how it works.

[wolfhowwl]

How were "renegade" players penalized in Origins or II?

[Revelat0]

People who are both likeable and consistent tend to be good or goodish people. That's just how it works.

Yes, sometimes the misconception of "likeable and consistent = good" has led to the worst possible crimes of humanity, Germany circa 1940s.

[Majestic Jazz]

The ends justify the means is more of the exception than the rule, sure sometimes it yields results sooner rather than later, generally the long term consequences are unfortunately worst.

 

Okay, so I have a fighting force of 1000. I need this force to fight a greater battle in the coming months. However, in the current, there is a town that is being ravaged and many good and innocent people need your help. If I ignore their plea and march on, how is it bad for me in the long term if I still have my 1000 strong fighting force to fight the big battle later on? How is it better that I lose men helping out this village, which will make me weaker as a force when I try to fight the big battle at the end?

 

Sometimes being too good can lean to unfortunate results. 

[Majestic Jazz]

Who needs an arbitrary karma meter? I want real characters with shades of grey. Virtues, vices, qualities, and flaws.

 

Paragons of altruism and pariahs of the maligned are ******* boring.

 

It is a problem with 80% of your companions are part of the paragons of altruism group.

[Fidite Nemini]

I never felt penalized for playing "renegade" and I made sure I had a couple playthroughs that were as bad as the game allowed me to be.

[Revelat0]

Okay, so I have a fighting force of 1000. I need this force to fight a greater battle in the coming months. However, in the current, there is a town that is being ravaged and many good and innocent people need your help. If I ignore their plea and march on, how is it bad for me in the long term if I still have my 1000 strong fighting force to fight the big battle later on? How is it better that I lose men helping out this village, which will make me weaker as a force when I try to fight the big battle at the end?

 

Sometimes being too good can lean to unfortunate results. 

That callous calculation could have unforeseeable consequences as well, hypothetically the small force attacking the village could be utilized against you later on, and the villagers might have been able to provide you with valuable aid, such as arms, and armor.

[The Baconer]

Change your avatar.

 

Ser Jory's face is just too punchable.

[Revelat0]

Not true. For example, take Leliana. A Chantry sister, but also a stone cold murderer who has no qualms about using manipulation to get close to a target. Hardly what I'd call a 'paragon of altruism'.

DA:O does a really good job at grey, the only paragon of altruism I can really think of is Alistair and Wynne but even they from a players perspective can be bad, Wynne's society comes first attitude in particular made me angry.

[Gtdef]

Good people are those who are quick to lend their aid without strings. That's why it's easier to involve them. A bad guy needs a reason to join. Take a look at DA2 that has mostly neutral and selfish characters. They don't have a reason to follow you, they just ask you a favor and that's it. Ander's logic is that he isn't inconspicuous enough running that clinic, he needs to run around Kirkwall streets throwing meteors to his enemies. And he hates the deep roads but he comes along because you asked him nicely.

 

Not even going to go in ME2. These people you bring along are completely irrelevant to the mission. In ME1 at least you ended up with these because of reasons. In ME2 it was part of a plan. Genius. Bring 2 snipers, one guy with a shotgun and some martial artist to deal with an elusive threat that possesses technology beyond anything the world has seen till now. Smart choice. Good thing we get to kill that stupid ****** that put the team together in ME3. Most satisfying kill in the whole trilogy.

[mikeymoonshine]

I am not really concerned with who is good or bad I just want a good mix of opinions. I am slightly worried that all the rogues seem incredibly concerned with helping people. That might be a problem for one or two of my Inquisitors. 

[DameGrace]

First. KoToR is a bad example. "Renegade" in case of that game was "Dark-Sided Sith". You were "penalized" for choosing not only to oppose the Republic, but also to take the power for yourself and reinstate the Sith. 

 

Second. Why only KoToR? Why did you make no mention of ME series? Of DA series? In ME being Renegade actually allowed you to not be "evil mwuhaha!", but rational "end jusitfies means" character. You can convince Wrex to stand down with Paragon and Renegade - without any penalty. You can argue that making some "renegade" choices in ME3 lead to your "penalization" - but hey, if you kill your allies because you can't talk them down, guess what? You are left without allies! It is only logical that you are penalized. 

[Majestic Jazz]

That callous calculation could have unforeseeable consequences as well, hypothetically the small force attacking the village could be utilized against you later on, and the villagers might have been able to provide you with valuable aid, such as arms, and armor.

 

True, but my point is that by allowing the village to burn, you  still have your forces in tact. Sometimes being a jerk is the best means of survival.

 

The Native Americans were good, virtuous, and open to the settlers, yet look how that turned out for them? 

[Xilizhra]

Yes, sometimes the misconception of "likeable and consistent = good" has led to the worst possible crimes of humanity, Germany circa 1940s.

Keep in mind that I was referring to RPG companions.

 

 

True, but my point is that by allowing the village to burn, you  still have your forces in tact. Sometimes being a jerk is the best means of survival.

 

The Native Americans were good, virtuous, and open to the settlers, yet look how that turned out for them? 

Actually, very large numbers of them were dead of smallpox before formal contact could really be established.

[Enigmatick]

Even then, Alistair and Wynne have their share of character flaws. Alistair is immature and throws a tantrum if the Landsmeet doesn't go exactly his way. Wynne is hypocritical. She'll reprimand the Warden for helping Master Ignacio complete 'contracts', but on the flip side will demand that the Warden murder Avernus because he's a 'malifecar'.

There's also that one creepy bit in DA2 where all of your "good" companions encourage you to murder a defenseless mentally ill man.

[veeia]

In DA:O, I think you have more Neutral/Mixed/Renegade companions than classically Good...and in 2, it's more about which faction you support, not any innate morality or approach. So I'm not sure why in the Dragon Age series this is a concern at the moment. 

[Giantdeathrobot]

In the Dragon Age series alone;

 

Alistair: yes, goody two shoes. Only time he gets really angry is about Loghain and Isolde.

Morrigan: hardly a paragon of virtue, and can get downright petty and evil sometimes.

Leliana: Cold blooded murderer. Her Chantry stance is also very much grey. Not a goodie two shoes.

Sten: Murdered an entire family, and has a generally very pragmatic and utilitarian approach. Neutral at best.

Shale: only really wants to squish things. Neutral.

Zevran: another murderer, and a very unapologic one at that. Again, neutral at best.

Wynne: Kinda like Alistair, kinda goody two shoes.

Oghren: brags about killing people, doesn,t care about much other than getting drunk and killing Darkspawn.

Loghain: straight up villain for most of the game.

Dog: he's a dog.

 

So that's two companions that are goody two shoes. All the rest are neutral, and some (Morrigan, Zevran, Loghain, Sten) could be considered outright evil by some. So that's not an argument.

 

For DAII:

 

Carver: Bit of a jerk, not many people like him. Willing to join the Templars, which does not indicate a goody two shoes personality.

Bethany: definitely sweet and nice.

Aveline: protect and serve, and all that. Definitely the most moral character.

Varric: Hawke's BFF, but he's no angel, he's a criminal who has killed more than his fair share of people. He's more white than dark, but definitely lots of grey.

Isabela: Self-centered pirate. She's not evil, but she's not a good person and unless Hawke convinces her she's perfectly OK with letting the Qunari burn Kirkwall if it means getting away with her skin intact.

Fenris: Vengeful and doesn't hesitate to kill people if he feels he has to. He has a sympathetic backstory but he's definitely in the grey area at best.

Merril: Yes, yes, sweet antics and all, she's still a blood mage who makes deals with demons to get what she wants.

Anders: Arguably one of the game's main villains, who kills innocent people to get what he wants.

Sebastian: Bit of a goody two shoes, but he can easily set his morals aside if it fits him (like if you let Anders live).

 

So that's two companion that's really moral, two lighter shades of grey, and all the rest are darker shades who could be seen as evil depending on point of view.

 

So with all that taken into account, I'm really not afraid. Most of the serie's companions are in the grey area, often quite dark. I don't see why Inquisition should be different.