All the killing is self-defense, pretty much, and I don't really recall many instances of stealing legitimate property. As for blood magic, that's out of Aveline's jurisdiction.
I can't say for certain, but I'd be very surprised if Blood Magic wasn't a secular crime in addition to one that fell under the jurisdiction of the templars. At the very least, it would be Aveline's responsibility to report it to the relevant authorities.
Well, personally, playing a "renegade" type has consequences. I see this more of a problem of "having your cake and eating it too". I generally feel that most people in life are 'good' people. Sure there are shades of grey in there, but overall most people, especially those who join up to 'save the world' are going to be decent people.
If you want to play the Renegade than play the renegade. Just don't expect that you will be surrounded by people that applaud your heartless actions. Deal with the fallout of your decisions... that is what playing a Renegade character is all about after all. If you truly want to be the renegade type then don't expect most people to just accept your decisions. You can't just go in with a "I don't care what people think" attitude of a Renegade characters, and then complain that everyone around you doesn't like you.
*snip* including:
Thirdly, this aphorism-chucking is about as useful as a marzipan marital aid. Typing out names or quotes without context proves nothing. Even if the comment is relevant, the philosophical underpinning of it isn't there. It's like when angry white teenagers start mumbling about Friedrich Nietzsche and the Overman. They don't really understand what they're talking about, or why anyone else should care.
You have this well covered @Eirene. On to another thread...
Guest_Juromaro_*
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.
Any military tactician knows if you ignore your people's plea for help you'll eventually lose because of a few reasons
1: Allow the city to be captured while you march on you leave your rear flank unguarded allowing for an attack from behind while your focus is forward
2: Abandon the people and they abandon you. Many rulers have learned this the hard way.
3: Ignore a plea for help allows the opposing army to swoop in and gain favor over you, which can lead to revolts and attacks from behind and as we all know....Swooping is bad.
Helping people is not considered a weakness, and yes what you would lose in soldiers you'd gain in secure rear flanks, supplies, reinforcements and possible intel.
Being a "renegade" never ends well. Burn your allies and you'll soon find yourself without.
Being a jerk to people has its consequences, whodathunkit?
Some renegade options in ME were just a little bit ridiculous though, such as punching that news reporter. It was fun, sure, but all you received was a slap on the wrist. I remember laughing and then thinking "wait, what? Is that it?"
So I'd probably say playing a renegade-type character is not penalized enough, but then again, I never play evil characters anyway for this exact reason. It's too easy being a jerk. >.>
Some choices might matter. If you know a companion or adviser is going to react badly to something and do it anyway, and you do that type of thing often enough, that's where the companion reactivity comes in. It's a lot more realistic than having a companion that will either fight you to the death since you didn't aggravate them enough, or on your side no matter what if you exert your dominance one more time. I doubt one or two ruthless choices are going to drive away companions, except maybe in an obvious, isolated way (desecrating the ashes, etc.), but a continuous pattern of behavior isn't going to be smoothed over with gifts and the correct dialogue choices. I don't think it's a penalty, any more than choosing a difficulty level is. Some players seem to have had a lot of fun seeing how few companions they could end the game with in DAO and DA2.
Believe it or not I think there's more 'grey' in Inquisition than you might think.
Vivienne certainly doesn't come off as a 'goody-two shoes'. She definitely seems willing to pull strings and find loopholes and would have no problem with the 'end justifying the means', especially if it elevates her own status.
Iron Bull likes to spend his days getting drunk and bedding anyone that won't break. He's loyal to the Qun, and the Qun, in our RL views, really isn't the most moral as it is militant and dark even. He comes off as admiring violence and even encouraging it if that means he gets to be a participant.
Sera's little phrase of 'maybe if we find someone who isn't so bad, he won't end up so dead' says a lot. She definitely seems willing to show no mercy and kill those she believes are wrong.
Cole is a spirit-assassin and a demon at that. That's all that needs to be said regarding him.
Varric's had his time in the underworld. Definitely more good than evil but isn't afraid to get Bianca dirty.
Dorian might be a renegade from his homeland but given his affinity for necromancy and status in Tevinter, he doesn't seem opposed to the darker side of magic. Plus personality wise he comes off as a bit narcissistic and vain.
Leliana's had her time as an Orlesian bard. She admits in Origins, if you harden her, that she enjoys killing. In fact she probably is involved in her line of work because she enjoys the subterfuge and death involved (maybe its just me but Leliana is a bit of a sociopath in my honest opinion, someone willing to be just about anyone). She's a covert assassin-agent in Inquisition.
Cullen can certainly be ruthless. He vouched for the Annulment in Origins and spent quite a bit of time on Meredith's side in DA2 (and Kirkwall's Circle was not the nicest to its inhabitants).
If anyone is straight-laced and 'paragon', I'm assuming it will be Cass, Blackwall, Josephine and Solas. And what we've seen of Cass she isn't afraid to break down doors, stab books and make threats. She's practically a renegade (paragade?) hero. Blackwall comes off as that protector/hero type (and I can be wrong on that too!). I do think Solas will be the nice guy though (probably the one that gets fed up with everyone else's antics). Josephine also comes off as a genuinely nice person. But she is also a noble and probably knows her way around the Grand Game (and likely has been a player in it herself).
And previous companions? The vast majority of ME's companions are certainly not straight-laced or goody-two shoes. Miranda is a stone-cold ice queen and teacher's pet of a human-supremacist black-ops organization. Jack is a psychopath. Garrus and Wrex are certainly the 'ends justify the means' type. Ashley and Zaeed are pretty brutal. Heck even Liara the 'nice girl/Betty/Aerie' type gets involved with the Shadow Broker. Sagacious Zu was morally neutral at best, Sky has had his time doing both good and bad, Silk Fox is certainly not opposed to using her status and position... : )
Guess I shouldn't be suprised to see so many assumptions about what "works" and what doesn't. That aside, the point is Choice.
In the Dragon Age franchise and Mass Effect you are able to make some "greater good" or self interested decisions. I'm hoping for an abundance of harder decision, less cut and dry.
In terms of companions, most of them are fairly "good" but relative "good" can be shockingly desensitized and amoral in the Dragon Age world.
I would hope if there is a secret companion it is one with a fairly different perspective and moral compass if for nothing else, simply to provide greater choice and less pinballing off moral concensus.
I really want the Pragmatic Argument option.
Morrigan, we're rescuing the mages because they are the perfect group to fight a horde from a distance. If you can tell me where to find another bunch of mages I'll totally leave them to their fate.
We're saving Redcliffe because I'm trying to ask Arl Eamon for help, losing Redcliffe is not likely to endear him to me.
Sten, we're searching for the ashes of a deadwoman because nobody will got off their ass until I do.
Yeah, there always was a good reason for most of Origin's good actions beyond ''being nice''.
Not helping Redcliffe is just, well, bafflingly stupid. You know you need the Arl for your army. You know a horde of undead are ready to attack the village. Said horde of undead, without your help, will probably overwhelm the village. This means 1) you now have more undead to contend with, 2) said undead were people who could have helped you and 3) maybe the Arl is going to be a bit ticked off that you let the village surrounding his castle to die because you couldn't be bothered/were lazy/wanted sleep with Morrigan? I'm really not sure what is rational here.
Same for Morrigan's ''oh, well the mages were imprisoned in the Circle, so in principle we shouldn't help them''. Just, what? We need mages. There are mages, right here. End of discussion. I'm not leaving them be because Flemeth bad mouthed them to you a few times. Besides, didn't she said we shouldn't leave Sten in a cage? Why the double standard here?
At least Sten could be reasoned with, or, well, persuaded the hard way. But Morrigan's particular brand of ''pragmatism'' was laughably inept and short-sighted.
maybe its just me but Leliana is a bit of a sociopath in my honest opinion, someone willing to be just about anyone)
It's just you. Sociopath don't feel guilt or remorse of any kind . All the pain they inflict they can justify in a way . The only pain that matter to them is their owns . Morinth daughter of Samara is your perfect Sociopath .
And previous companions? The vast majority of ME's companions are certainly not straight-laced or goody-two shoes. Miranda is a stone-cold ice queen and teacher's pet of a human-supremacist black-ops organization. Jack is a psychopath. Garrus and Wrex are certainly the 'ends justify the means' type. Ashley and Zaeed are pretty brutal. Heck even Liara the 'nice girl/Betty/Aerie' type gets involved with the Shadow Broker. Sagacious Zu was morally neutral at best, Sky has had his time doing both good and bad, Silk Fox is certainly not opposed to using her status and position... : )
You played Renegade didn't you ? . Miranda wasn't a pet . she saw the Illusive Man as a father figure . Jack isn't a Psycopath or Sanders wouldn't have let her near outcast Biotic kids no matter how much Biotic she could get out of her ass . As for Garrus , I guess you are referencing to his personal mission with Sidonis ?
If he was really about the end justify the mean , Shep wouldn't be able to sway him . Did you just compare Liara to Aerie ? (shoot daggers 
).....she kicked the Shadow Broker and took his place , nothing wrong there considering he was selling your corpse to save his own hide . Say Thanx plz ! 
Yeah, there always was a good reason for most of Origin's good actions beyond ''being nice''.
Not helping Redcliffe is just, well, bafflingly stupid. You know you need the Arl for your army. You know a horde of undead are ready to attack the village. Said horde of undead, without your help, will probably overwhelm the village. This means 1) you now have more undead to contend with, 2) said undead were people who could have helped you and 3) maybe the Arl is going to be a bit ticked off that you let the village surrounding his castle to die because you couldn't be bothered/were lazy/wanted sleep with Morrigan? I'm really not sure what is rational here.
Same for Morrigan's ''oh, well the mages were imprisoned in the Circle, so in principle we shouldn't help them''. Just, what? We need mages. There are mages, right here. End of discussion. I'm not leaving them be because Flemeth bad mouthed them to you a few times. Besides, didn't she said we shouldn't leave Sten in a cage? Why the double standard here?
At least Sten could be reasoned with, or, well, persuaded the hard way. But Morrigan's particular brand of ''pragmatism'' was laughably inept and short-sighted.
To be fair, you could make Morrigan empathize(sp?) a bit with the tower mages, but that pointed out to Wynne she was an apostate and she grabbed the idiot ball with both hands and attacked. Still, Morrigan seemed to have the most severe case of Multiple Writers Personality Disorder I´ve seen, depending on the quest she would approve of things she rejected on others.
Yeah, there always was a good reason for most of Origin's good actions beyond ''being nice''.
Not helping Redcliffe is just, well, bafflingly stupid. You know you need the Arl for your army. You know a horde of undead are ready to attack the village. Said horde of undead, without your help, will probably overwhelm the village. This means 1) you now have more undead to contend with, 2) said undead were people who could have helped you and 3) maybe the Arl is going to be a bit ticked off that you let the village surrounding his castle to die because you couldn't be bothered/were lazy/wanted sleep with Morrigan? I'm really not sure what is rational here.
You're only in Redcliffe because Alistair is convinced that Loghain murdered everyone at Ostagar, and Eamon may be able to help... You don't need to Arl for his army. You need the Arl to raise enough discontent in Ferelden to oust Loghain and take Ferelden's army. Sure, killing off the village might make the Arl less inclined to help you, but by the same token, it might make Loghain more receptive to your wishes.
Same for Morrigan's ''oh, well the mages were imprisoned in the Circle, so in principle we shouldn't help them''. Just, what? We need mages. There are mages, right here. End of discussion. I'm not leaving them be because Flemeth bad mouthed them to you a few times. Besides, didn't she said we shouldn't leave Sten in a cage? Why the double standard here?
At least Sten could be reasoned with, or, well, persuaded the hard way. But Morrigan's particular brand of ''pragmatism'' was laughably inept and short-sighted.
Morrigan says you should leave the Circle mages to die because they refuse to remove their shackles on their own. She advocates leaving Sten in the cage because he refuses to leave it... I fail to see the double standard.
Edit: It should also be pointed out that, at this point, you're already trapped inside the Circle until you deal with the situation. And, even if you haven't already made a deal with Gregior to receive aid from the Templars, you don't really need the mages standing in front of you. You only need Irving. And the mages in front of you are preventing you from getting to Irving.
Modifié par AshenEndymion, 23 septembre 2014 - 03:49 .
That's more of a Mass Effect problem. I think Dragon Age is much more greyer and fair when it comes to making choices.
I mean look at DAO companions, apart from Leliana, Alistair and Wynne most companions have no problem going around killing people left and right if you choose.
'Renegade' players have never really been penalised in DA games.
It's just you. Sociopath don't feel guilt or remorse of any kind . All the pain they inflict they can justify in a way . The only pain that matter to them is their owns . Morinth daughter of Samara is your perfect Sociopath .
You played Renegade didn't you ? . Miranda wasn't a pet . she saw the Illusive Man as a father figure . Jack isn't a Psycopath or Sanders wouldn't have let her near outcast Biotic kids no matter how much Biotic she could get out of her ass . As for Garrus , I guess you are referencing to his personal mission with Sidonis ?
If he was really about the end justify the mean , Shep wouldn't be able to sway him . Did you just compare Liara to Aerie ? (shoot daggers
About Garrus...You clearly did not kill Mordin.
It's just you. Sociopath don't feel guilt or remorse of any kind . All the pain they inflict they can justify in a way . The only pain that matter to them is their owns . Morinth daughter of Samara is your perfect Sociopath .
You played Renegade didn't you ? . Miranda wasn't a pet . she saw the Illusive Man as a father figure . Jack isn't a Psycopath or Sanders wouldn't have let her near outcast Biotic kids no matter how much Biotic she could get out of her ass . As for Garrus , I guess you are referencing to his personal mission with Sidonis ?
If he was really about the end justify the mean , Shep wouldn't be able to sway him . Did you just compare Liara to Aerie ? (shoot daggers
01. Maybe its just the way I inferred some of Leliana's dialogue (particularly about becoming any person that the target wants. The Bardic Order in general is perfect for those of sociopathic-or at least mercenary-tendencies given the manipulation and false pretenses involved). But a hardened Leliana does highly suggest there's a part of her that enjoys many of her actions and that there is indeed a dark side to her. In fact some of her dialogue with the Warden could be interpreted as her looking for reinforcement to not seem like such a bad person for her past (a.k.a almost looking for an excuse or some justification for her actions). Then again it could also be that disconnect she feels after being around Marjolaine for so long.
-I do agree about Morinth being a sociopath however. She fits the term to a 'T'. Morinth comes off as a low functioning (more impulsive) but highly manipulative/intelligent sociopath where as Marjolaine knows how to play her cards. Leliana strikes me as having some tendencies that were probably higher during her time as a Bard but could have lessened during her time as a lay sister. Could also be her faith that is suppressing her (fear of the Maker and the Void, so to say). I don't mean Leliana as necessarily 'evil' or a full-blown sociopath, but she does seem to have tendencies towards magical thinking and a lot of suppression. My thoughts anyways.
02. Played Renegade plenty of times actually. Miranda is subjective. She does have issues with her own father and the Illusive Man is somewhat of a cold stand-in, but she does believe in Cerberus' ideals, which are not necessarily 'paragon' if you catch my drift. She also believes in withholding information from Jack, taking Veetor from the Quarians for interrogation, and so forth.
Jack is certainly unstable at the very least. She has a history of piracy and engaging in plenty of antisocial acts. Some of it is from her upbringing (as a number of people with psychopathic/antisocial tendencies DO experience abusive childhoods, Jack is no different with the biotic compound). It is also suggestible that some of these traits die down as someone gets older, and Jack mellowed out (also due to story constraints, she had to have that drastic change). She also just might feel an affinity for those kids given her own experience. She might be the good guy in ME3 but she was a vastly different person in ME2. It's tough due to the time constraints and the fact that she's more ambiguous in ME2. Perhaps she went and got help in-between the events? Not in the ME Universe and not one of the writers so its anyone's guess really.
And yes, I am referring to the Garrus mission with Sidonis (and Harkin...). I'm also referring to his dialogue and side mission with Dr. Heart in ME1. He hates being bound by red tape and converses with Shepard on how the ends justify the means.
And Liara to Aerie was kind of an oversight on my part, but mainly because Liara fit in as the 'nice girl' in ME1 (I admit I could have used better comparisons but I didn't). She does transition into more of a renegade type if you see the way she threatens for information on Illium (when you first see her), channeling her mother even. And no complaints on my end for saving my hide. Keep in mind I'm not criticizing her actions.
Keep in mind Renegade =/= Evil, so in fact I'm not criticizing most of them. Liara and Garrus clearly have good intentions but aren't opposed to intimidating or injuring someone to get the information they need. Miranda believes Cerberus' ideals because she believes they benefit humanity (and as a sort of 'right hand woman' to the Illusive Man in ME2, she does get to enjoy that bit of privilege and power). It doesn't mean she's completely heartless (Oriana, Shepard) but it does mean she isn't exactly the most moral of people either.
02. Played Renegade plenty of times actually. Miranda is subjective. She does have issues with her own father and the Illusive Man is somewhat of a cold stand-in, but she does believe in Cerberus' ideals, which are not necessarily 'paragon' if you catch my drift. She also believes in withholding information from Jack, taking Veetor from the Quarians for interrogation, and so forth.
About Miranda and cerberus. She joins to to help advance and protect humanity, she was far from anti-alien but when it can to the "hows" to get to that end, Cerberus and her are vastly different.
You're only in Redcliffe because Alistair is convinced that Loghain murdered everyone at Ostagar, and Eamon may be able to help... You don't need to Arl for his army. You need the Arl to raise enough discontent in Ferelden to oust Loghain and take Ferelden's army. Sure, killing off the village might make the Arl less inclined to help you, but by the same token, it might make Loghain more receptive to your wishes.
Morrigan says you should leave the Circle mages to die because they refuse to remove their shackles on their own. She advocates leaving Sten in the cage because he refuses to leave it... I fail to see the double standard.
Edit: It should also be pointed out that, at this point, you're already trapped inside the Circle until you deal with the situation. And, even if you haven't already made a deal with Gregior to receive aid from the Templars, you don't really need the mages standing in front of you. You only need Irving. And the mages in front of you are preventing you from getting to Irving.
It's not just Alistair. Flemeth also says that Loghain fled the field when he was supposed to help, and he is stopping Grey Wardens from entering Ferelden during a Blight. He is an enemy as far as you are concerned, and you need the Arl to turn the tide. Leaving Redcliffe to die only makes it harder to get to Eamon, and thus is stupid. Also, how does the village being wiped out helo Loghain in any way? He only wants Eamon out of sight, and you displease him anyway because you always wake the Arl up.
Uh, Morrigan advocates freeing Sten because she doesn't like to see him in his cage. The Warden can actually act surprised at that. And then when confronted with the mages, who are captives for all intents and purposes, she falls back on her ''survival of the fittest'' rhetoric. That's double standards.
My beef is that the Warden couldn't say that they wanted mages more than Templars against the Darkspawn, regardless of the morality of letting Irving/Wynne live or not. She doesn't seem to grasp that concept and there's no way to tell her as far as I recall.
Uh, Morrigan advocates freeing Sten because she doesn't like to see him in his cage. The Warden can actually act surprised at that. And then when confronted with the mages, who are captives for all intents and purposes, she falls back on her ''survival of the fittest'' rhetoric. That's double standards.
Yes she is being a hypocrite but it's out pride. She sees the circle mages as people who gave up their freedom and getting what they deserve for doing so. To her being under control of anyone give the controller full freed to do anything to the controlled and that it's the fault of the controlled it happen for allowing it to happen.
You get the chance to remind her it not always the case state she could of been like them it she was captured as a child.
.You clearly did not kill Mordin.
Well...of course lol he sacrified himself....never gave me tha chanceeeeeeeee to be baddd 
Well...of course lol he sacrified himself....never gave me tha chanceeeeeeeee to be baddd
If you did, you do learn the Garrus does have "means to an end" tendencies.
After you meet Marjolaine , I seriously consider putting the whole Dark side Leliana on her . I mean , she was obsessed and parano that Leliana will get back at her . So it would be easy to assume , she fed Leliana alot of crap and turned the whole bardic thing into a games and those they assassinate into 'not so innocent' . And you know , when you are blind by love or want the someone you respect to notice your worth...you can do anything for them . Anything .
I wouldn't compare Morith to Marjolaine . Cose of the whole 'Ardat-Yakshi' thing . We don't know , if Morinth already had a sociopathic tendancie that got enhanced by the defect or it grow once she started killing . Or she has it more prnounced then her sister (notice the 2 others weren't sociopath , was it abstinance that do that?) . Marjolaine was sociopathic , nut case , narcissique , parano...controle freak and a liar..and alot of other stuff .
As for the rest , the same as above apply . Miranda had a screw up crazy dad , Jack got tortured , Garrus was young and rash , Liara lost her mother and was forced to stand there and watch her get killed ,
I think anyone who is put in certain circumstance can turn dark side with the right poking and probing . The real thing is : They aren't really your....evil evil . You know . Unless you throw the word evil at the smallest infraction..
But in my book , haven't seen (in game that is) the real evil evil dude Satan like that wanna eat your soul and bring doom upon the world without ulterior motives beside that its fun . In games , I saw it elsewhere in mangas and maybe books...but have yet to see it in games .
Funny you didn't mention : irenicus , Bodhie , Anomen ....and lot of others peeps . Like that dwarf that join you..completely crazy . Or Edwin Oddeiserron .
If you did, you do learn the Garrus does have "means to an end" tendencies.
couldn't bring myself to , always cure the Genophage...now if I could get my Hand on Blasto cure the Genophage....it be twice more epic .
I'm not really seeing this for DA. Most choices in DAO, good or bad, have possible repercussions, but I don't really see that as penalizing the player, I see it as, well, choices having consequences. It can work against 'Paragon' as easily as against 'Renegade'.
By contrast, in DA2, with a very few exceptions (ie Sebastian), you wind up at the same place no matter what path you take to get there, which I believe is one of the major complaints regarding that game, no? You can go around being all bad and making Aveline hate you, even get in a bit of a tussle with her, but she'll stand by you at the end if you have 100 rivalry (which you probably would by that point).
If anything, I would say the choices typically 'penalized' in Bioware games are the Neutral choices. This is especially true in Mass Effect series (not filling up one meter or the other gimps you in certain areas), and I suppose SWTOR (not filling up one side or the other lets you miss out on certain equipment). There are echos of this in DA as well, particularly DA2, where if you're not filling each companion on either Friend or Rival, you're most likely going to have to fight one or two at the end.
Retour en haut