134 réponses à ce sujet

[Fardreamer]

On my first (blind) play-through, I think I'll rely mostly on secrecy.

 

On my official "good" play-through, I'll go with diplomacy.

 

On my official "twisted" play-through I'll go with force.

[Killdren88]

Secrecy

[xelander]

I'll use intelligence.

[Kieran G.]

Why not a combination of all three? a good leader never just uses one tactic to win.

 

Secrecy to acquire me the needed information to use diplomacy to get aid from nobles to supply my army which i use to force the land into peace.

[Fardreamer]

To all you who are saying "I'm going to use all 3, bla bla bla." That's fine, but I think the point of the post is more along the lines of, which way will you outfit your fortress?  Is it going to be commerce, espionage, or military?  As far as I know you can only pick 1.  Whichever one you choose is going to give a bonus to diplomacy, secrecy, or force respectively. 

[Rhagavar]

I'll use diplomacy whenever possible, secrecy when necessary and force when there is no other option.

I will strongly lean towards diplomacy.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

That's a very nice ideal and one worth fighting for. Or is it? In politics, the defense of a hegemonic view, of absolute consensus is considered another form of tyranny.

 

"Being allies" and "maintaining world peace" are sometimes forms of speech used by politicians to convince a population to accept a cohercitive agenda, such as bringing down foreign governments and placing their own agents in power, exploration of other countries's resources without authorization, exploitation of ethnic groups or unprotected minorities, asf.

 

Weren't the Chinese considered a sick people, weak and deformed, and thus suffered invasion from Britain? What about the Vietnamese, considered terrorists who could threaten the West and so had half their country invaded and millions killed during the war of occupation? All was done in the name of making allies, converting communists to democrats and ensuring world peace.

 

Turns out the Chinese were not sick, the Vietnamese were no threat at all... and now, we kill Palestinians because corporations want their land and so they must die. Let's just label them terrorists, the whole lot of them and shoot them "before they shoot us". And why? Because the UN voted in favour of the occupation of Palestine. There is world peace enforced. Except that this isn't peace, but oppression in its worst form. 

 

 

For there to be peace, there must be freedom to disagree. Lack of said freedom is only façade for hidden tyranny. That's what democracy is about. My interests will sometimes trample the interests of others. In order for there to be peace, both sides must discuss and reach a compromise. None can have the power to just shut the other up or force him to accept or agree the other side's point of view "in the name of peace". That's dictatorship.

What you're saying has very little to do with diplomacy, diplomacy is in it's essence reaching a compromise between two or more parties to achieve peace and become allies. Diplomacy didn't cause the brits to invade China, diplomacy didn't consider all Vietnamese to be terrorists and thus fire at them. And it sure as hell isn't enforcing occupation of Palestine. It's about understanding each party's point of view, then trying to reach a middle ground unless one party suffers more than the other (for example Palestine's land) then they should be catered to while trying to convince by different means the other party to stand down to achieve peace. Fighting for peace can be done in a few ways, some are extreme and shouldn't even be considered, some are necessary and some seem like the best option, that's left for the experts to study and people to decide.

Also democracy is a fancy ideal, but not everyone should have a word to say in all issues, because some people are stupid, or simply inexperienced in the field. I could go on about that but it's gonna get this thread derailed real fast. 

[Uccio]

Blood magic mind spells.

[Paragon-King]

Diplomacy first. If that doesn't work, intrigue next. If that does not work.... that's a paddlin'

 

...

 

In all honesty, I probably work creating a military-heavy order, a fighting force to be reckoned with. And a disciplined one at that. Resort to shady dealings if force is not a viable option. Diplomacy, when it benefits the order.

 

Crushing bandits, demanding obedience... that sort of thing. Very stern, iron fisty, yuh huh.

[Solaria]

A mix of all three, I tend to go with whatever suits the situation best.

[DarthLaxian]

I'll use a combination of the three.  Wherever it makes the most sense.

 

Indeed  - why gimp yourself by not using everything you can? (I mean really - It's like von Clausewitz says: War is just the continuation of politics by other means (meaning: you might try other things first - diplomacy, espionage - but if nothing works: then going to war is "ok" (if it's your only option left and if doing nothing is not an option either, because it weakens you, makes you vulnerable etc.))

 

greetings LAX

[FromMyths]

I'll be using a mix of the three; it hardly seems like a sound strategy to be highly reliant on just one method, especially when there are other people's lives to consider. The tricky part will be which one to choose when interacting with Orlais...

[Paragon-King]

I'll be using a mix of the three; it hardly seems like a sound strategy to be highly reliant on just one method, especially when there are other people's lives to consider. The tricky part will be which one to choose when interacting with Orlais...

 

Mix of all three would seem like a sound strategy, if you only knew the absolute outcome and longterm effects for each choice you make. Without hindsight and metagaming, it wouldn't mean your mixed approach would produce the best or even desired effect. And what would influence you to pick one choice over another?

 

Take Bhelen vs Harrowmont for case example. As a complete stranger to Orzammar and without metagaming to help me, I couldn't possibly know what the ultimate effect would be if I chose to support Bhelen. And if I were a Dwarven Noble, I'd knew of Bhelens previous misdeeds and his disregard towards tradition. There are some rumors and hints, but nothing concrete to his benefit. And even his first assigned is of criminal kind or at the very least morally objectionable. For moral and trust reasons I would be forced to choose Harrowmont because I could not possibly trust Bhelen to honor the ancient treaties. Little did I know that Harrowmonts reign would prove somewhat disastrous for the dwarves.

 

 

Personally, I would establish a goal to which I aim to form Inquistion to. Which in my first playthrough is, probably, a military focused inquisition. Doesn't mean I wouldn't consider alternate options when making choices.

[Pierce Miller]

Ain't that more like secretive violence though ?

Secretive violence should definitely be an option

[ShaunrunDMC]

I'll use a combination of all three though it will depend on the circumstances, I will always try to lean on the peaceful, diplomatic solution.  If that doesn't work, rather than risk a costly open conflict (even though I may confident in victory) I'll use my spy network to blackmail or even assassinate the specific targets that are causing the strife.  Full Military force will usually be the last resort.

[Fardreamer]

Actually, I want to change my answer.  I'll use whatever one needs to be used to get the best possible ending for the type of character I'm playing...

[Time Lord 117]

I am going with secrecy with some force, because just knowing secrets is never enough.

[FromMyths]

Mix of all three would seem like a sound strategy, if you only knew the absolute outcome and longterm effects for each choice you make. Without hindsight and metagaming, it wouldn't mean your mixed approach would produce the best or even desired effect. And what would influence you to pick one choice over another?
 
Take Bhelen vs Harrowmont for case example. As a complete stranger to Orzammar and without metagaming to help me, I couldn't possibly know what the ultimate effect would be if I chose to support Bhelen. And if I were a Dwarven Noble, I'd knew of Bhelens previous misdeeds and his disregard towards tradition. There are some rumors and hints, but nothing concrete to his benefit. And even his first assigned is of criminal kind or at the very least morally objectionable. For moral and trust reasons I would be forced to choose Harrowmont because I could not possibly trust Bhelen to honor the ancient treaties. Little did I know that Harrowmonts reign would prove somewhat disastrous for the dwarves.
 
 
Personally, I would establish a goal to which I aim to form Inquistion to. Which in my first playthrough is, probably, a military focused inquisition. Doesn't mean I wouldn't consider alternate options when making choices.

Those are good points to bring up; mixing between the three does run its own risk since it can lead running into a wall if you can't find a approach you prefer. There's even an fable that supports that view (it's about a cat who manage to escape the dogs faster than a fox because it used its common trick to avoid danger while the fox couldn't make up his mind of which one of his tricks to use).

My mindset however, is that if I rely too heavily on one type of method, it would make it easier for an enemy to predict my next move, weaken my experience with the other methods due to lack of use, or (at worse) make it hard to become become allies with another group.

Picture this; say your preferred method of approach is military oriented. From previous interaction with other groups, that's what your Inquisition's reputation is considered as, even when there are those rare times you use another method. Fractions that stress importance over their soldiers and armies may well become easier to convince, but groups that value diplomacy (who may see the constant reliance on force as dangerous) or those that rely on spies (who may view your actions as an inability to adapt to changes of situations), may be drawn away by those actions.

War is never predictable; we can have the best intentions when we make choices but I doesn't always mean it will be the best outcome (I started as a Dwarf Noble and chose Harrowmont myself, hoping it would for the best). But chess isn't won by one piece alone; it takes all the different types to increase your chances of winning the game, even if you can't always predict the end results.

That's just my view on the matter though; I prefer adapting to the changes of situations as I see fit. I myself lean to ending conflicts diplomactically, but I feel it's too risky to always rely on that (and being a Qunari Inquisitor may effect how willing people are to hear me out).

[TsaiMeLemoni]

A mix of three, but in descending order from go-to to last considered (depending on circumstance, of course):

Secrets
Connections
Forces

[daveliam]

I suspect that I will choose all three of them.  My "gut" (as a person, not a PC) is to lean heavily on Diplomacy.  But it depends on the character that I'm RPing.

 

For my qunari warrior, I want to make him erudite, but still up for force if he needs it.  I suspect it will be Diplomacy > Force > Secrecy

For my dwarf rogue, I want to make him a reluctant Carta member, who sees the Inquisition as his way out.  He'll likely be Diplomacy > Secrecy > Force

For my dwarf warrior, I want her to be a badass Carta enforcer who takes a "ends justify the means" approach.  She'll probably be  Force > Secrecy > Diplomacy

For my qunari mage, I want him to be a little underhanded and ruthless, but still mostly "good".  I see him as Secrecy > Diplomacy > Force

For my qunari rogue, I want her to be skilled in espionage and not afraid of being a little cutthroat.  I see her as Secrecy > Force > Diplomacy

 

In general, I'm going to rely much more heavily on Josie and Leliana than I will Cullen, it seems.

[Umbar]

Secrecy, because my Inquisitor is a former Carta member. Diplomacy when I think things can go my way. Force when all else fails.

[Paragon-King]

Those are good points to bring up; mixing between the three does run its own risk since it can lead running into a wall if you can't find a approach you prefer. There's even an fable that supports that view (it's about a cat who manage to escape the dogs faster than a fox because it used its common trick to avoid danger while the fox couldn't make up his mind of which one of his tricks to use).

My mindset however, is that if I rely too heavily on one type of method, it would make it easier for an enemy to predict my next move, weaken my experience with the other methods due to lack of use, or (at worse) make it hard to become become allies with another group.

Picture this; say your preferred method of approach is military oriented. From previous interaction with other groups, that's what your Inquisition's reputation is considered as, even when there are those rare times you use another method. Fractions that stress importance over their soldiers and armies may well become easier to convince, but groups that value diplomacy (who may see the constant reliance on force as dangerous) or those that rely on spies (who may view your actions as an inability to adapt to changes of situations), may be drawn away by those actions.

War is never predictable; we can have the best intentions when we make choices but I doesn't always mean it will be the best outcome (I started as a Dwarf Noble and chose Harrowmont myself, hoping it would for the best). But chess isn't won by one piece alone; it takes all the different types to increase your chances of winning the game, even if you can't always predict the end results.

That's just my view on the matter though; I prefer adapting to the changes of situations as I see fit. I myself lean to ending conflicts diplomactically, but I feel it's too risky to always rely on that (and being a Qunari Inquisitor may effect how willing people are to hear me out).

 

Fine points. I'm sure there are benefits to wichever approach one may prefer as there is merits for choosing to rely mostly on one approach. Give them a pattern, then break it and send assassins instead!

 

Now, I must return to kill time with Civ: BE. This time I will try to keep my peoples humanity intact!

[EmissaryofLies]

Force. 

 

I usually play elves or mages. Otherwise known as the unprivileged members of society.

 

I like to flip to script and bully the bullies(Andrastians).

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Knowledge is power.

[Pierce Miller]

I find the idea of using force only to be incredibly hilarious