228 réponses à ce sujet

[wcholcombe]

I am usually a big supporter of death and tragedy in stories to make them be more personal and to make more of an emotional roller coaster out of the experience.  DA2 I got mad as heck at Quentin for what he did to my mother. I literally hated that piece of garbage. While part of me disagreed with the decision by BW to make it unavoidable(hated having that control taken away form me in an RPG) I also understood the emotional element of it to the story as well as lets be honest they were right, most players wouldn't accept that they failed and would have reloaded.  Most.... not all.  In addition there were the RP considerations, there needed to be believable reasons for Hawke to view mages as dangerous and possibly corrupt at the end of the game. Quentin and his actions along with Orsino's knowledge/involvement provide that.

 

So that open the question of if you do it is it avoidable. Suikoden II had a really good mechanic where if you responded fast enough you could save your sister who was in your party from dying. I knew about it before hand so was ready, I doubt I would have succeeded the first time I played if I hadn't.  So there is a history of avoidable death, but it also raises the question of if most players just reload and try again rather then playing on is it worth the trouble.

 

The other question is, is it a random death or is it scripted death.  If you build your party around Viviene, Inquisitor, Iron Bull, and say Varric and that is the group you work really well with, what happens if in a scripted event IB and Varric both die. I am afraid it may open BW up to more criticism then they wish.

 

I would give them loads of credit if they did something like that. As a plot device if well done it can be absolutely awesome.

 

If it happens, it will be similar to if you left companions to defend the keep in DAA.  They will die nobley at the end of the game. I don't see them killing party members at the 85% mark of the game.

[Revan Reborn]

I am usually a big supporter of death and tragedy in stories to make them be more personal and to make more of an emotional roller coaster out of the experience.  DA2 I got mad as heck at Quentin for what he did to my mother. I literally hated that piece of garbage. While part of me disagreed with the decision by BW to make it unavoidable(hated having that control taken away form me in an RPG) I also understood the emotional element of it to the story as well as lets be honest they were right, most players wouldn't accept that they failed and would have reloaded.  Most.... not all.  In addition there were the RP considerations, there needed to be believable reasons for Hawke to view mages as dangerous and possibly corrupt at the end of the game. Quentin and his actions along with Orsino's knowledge/involvement provide that.

 

So that open the question of if you do it is it avoidable. Suikoden II had a really good mechanic where if you responded fast enough you could save your sister who was in your party from dying. I knew about it before hand so was ready, I doubt I would have succeeded the first time I played if I hadn't.  So there is a history of avoidable death, but it also raises the question of if most players just reload and try again rather then playing on is it worth the trouble.

 

The other question is, is it a random death or is it scripted death.  If you build your party around Viviene, Inquisitor, Iron Bull, and say Varric and that is the group you work really well with, what happens if in a scripted event IB and Varric both die. I am afraid it may open BW up to more criticism then they wish.

 

I would give them loads of credit if they did something like that. As a plot device if well done it can be absolutely awesome.

 

If it happens, it will be similar to if you left companions to defend the keep in DAA.  They will die nobley at the end of the game. I don't see them killing party members at the 85% mark of the game.

Exactly. Just because you don't like something that happens does not mean it's "bad." Nobody wants to see their friends or family die. That's the point. If BioWare is eliciting those kinds of reactions out of the audience, they are creating compelling stories. There should just be some scenarios where you can't wave your magical wand and fix everything, much like Leandra, Anders and the Chantry, and Virmire. We can argue all day whether you thought it was incredible or horrible, but it still had emotional impact regardless of how you received it.

 

Avoidable death is nothing more than a tool that cheapens the story and makes the audience/gamer miss the point of what is happening. Not to mention it fails to make people truly appreciate the characters, as people only realize how much they care for something after it's gone. It is the decisions that one makes and the consequences of those actions that defines a person. There is no "perfect" hero or a "perfect" scenario where everybody wins. This is why I felt ME2's suicide mission was so illusory because it provided a lie in an attempt to add choice of life or death. There was no value to any of the deaths in ME2 as you merely did not complete their loyalty mission or did not fully equip the Normandy.

 

Such deaths do not even compare to the level of impact Thane or Mordin had. Their deaths were largely unavoidable, and there was no way to correct this path no matter how much you wanted to reset and restart. Sometimes, the player shouldn't have all the answers or be able to make all the choices. This isn't a fairy tale. Thedas is a living place with people that have varying aspirations and motivations for who they are and what they do. I don't have to necessarily agree if a companion dies, but that doesn't mean I should protest it and stop playing the game as a result.

 

I believe the best method is for BioWare to produce a scenario where the possibility of any of your close allies could be at risk of death. Every choice you make. Every alliance your forge or enemy you create. These should all have reverberating impacts that could place any and all of your companions/advisors/etc. in possible harm's way. The characters themselves should also have some level of autonomy to make choices for themselves, with or without the consent of the player. Having choice in a video game can be incredibly gratifying, and BioWare has proven that for two decades.

 

However, as with anything, there needs to be a moderation of what choices one can make. If the player has all the tools and all the answers, then there is no conflict. If BioWare were to truly cheapen their storytelling at the risk of upsetting a portion of the community, then inevitably they harm everybody else as a result. Not everybody should be able to die, and certainly that was never stated in the OP. However, not everybody should be able to live either. There is a balance to be struck and hopefully BioWare will have considered this.

[Vindicare175]

Hmm.. How do I put this...

 

 

No.

[cronshaw]

Exactly. It's these kinds of consequences that make you more appreciative of those around you. Nobody wants their friends to die, but at the same time the story isn't very compelling if no one has a chance of dying. Tragedy is oftentimes a part of the hero epic. Especially when the stakes are as high as they are in Inquisition, I'll be a little disappointed if everybody gets through this with only a few scratches.

 

I disagree completely with this statement. 

Henry V is just as compelling as Hamlet

There is this unfortunate conception that tragedy is the only "real" storytelling when a real life is filled with both triumph and tragedy. The story you tell just depends on which slice of which life you decide to choose from.

The best option would be for people to be able to experience both, through trial and error and multiple playthroughs.

Much like most of BioWare's games

[Diefenbaker]

Aw man, maybe one or two not making it would make sense from a statistical point of view but anything more would just be DA: Les Mis. No thanks!

[sylvanaerie]

Exactly. Just because you don't like something that happens does not mean it's "bad." Nobody wants to see their friends or family die. That's the point. If BioWare is eliciting those kinds of reactions out of the audience, they are creating compelling stories. There should just be some scenarios where you can't wave your magical wand and fix everything, much like Leandra, Anders and the Chantry, and Virmire. We can argue all day whether you thought it was incredible or horrible, but it still had emotional impact regardless of how you received it.

 

Avoidable death is nothing more than a tool that cheapens the story and makes the audience/gamer miss the point of what is happening. Not to mention it fails to make people truly appreciate the characters, as people only realize how much they care for something after it's gone. It is the decisions that one makes and the consequences of those actions that defines a person. There is no "perfect" hero or a "perfect" scenario where everybody wins. This is why I felt ME2's suicide mission was so illusory because it provided a lie in an attempt to add choice of life or death. There was no value to any of the deaths in ME2 as you merely did not complete their loyalty mission or did not fully equip the Normandy.

 

Such deaths do not even compare to the level of impact Thane or Mordin had. Their deaths were largely unavoidable, and there was no way to correct this path no matter how much you wanted to reset and restart. Sometimes, the player shouldn't have all the answers or be able to make all the choices. This isn't a fair tale. Thedas is a living place with people that have varying aspirations and motivations for who they are and what they do. I don't have to necessarily agree if a companion dies, but that doesn't mean I should protest it and stop playing the game as a result.

 

I believe the best method is for BioWare to prevent a scenario where the possibility of any of your close allies could be at risk of death. Every choice you make. Every alliance your forge or enemy you create. These should all have reverberating impacts that could place any and all of your companions/advisors/etc. in possible harm's way. The characters themselves should also have some level of autonomy to make choices for themselves, with or without the consent of the player. Having choice in a video game can be incredibly gratifying, and BioWare has proven that for two decades.

 

However, as with anything, there needs to be a moderation of what choices one can make. If the player has all the tools and all the answers, then there is no conflict. If BioWare were to truly cheapen their storytelling at the risk of upsetting a portion of the community, then inevitably harm everybody else as a result. Not everybody should be able to die, and certainly that was never stated in the OP. However, not everybody should be able to live either. There is a balance to be struck and hopefully BioWare will have considered this.

 

ummm no

As I said, forced death (no matter what you do, X companion dies every single time) is just as cheap a storytelling as no one dies.  If it was 'do X, Y, Z' in every game, but sometimes someone still dies...not sure how they would implement that.  It seems to me that's just as cheap as X companion dies every single time.  Then it becomes "GOD I have to reload the last 8 hours of work because I forgot to grab those rose petals off Aeris the flower girl in step 6 of the quest line, so Iron Bull died when we encountered the Orlesian assassin".

 

I don't want some contrived, never ending angsty plot lines just because I want to keep all my companions alive.  Then it loses it's agency of 'x companion might die if you fail'.  

So are you saying you're a proponent of the 'no matter what you do, X dies'? or are you advocating 'sometimes X dies if you forgot to do....etc'...because from my perspective both are just as cheap a plot device as 'no one dies' except the aggravation factor is exponentially less in "no one dies".

[Revan Reborn]

I disagree completely with this statement. 

Henry V is just as compelling as Hamlet

There is this unfortunate conception that tragedy is the only "real" storytelling when a real life is filled with both triumph and tragedy. The story you tell just depends on which slice of which life you decide to choose from.

The best option would be for people to be able to experience both, through trial and error and multiple playthroughs.

Much like most of BioWare's games

I am speaking with respect to Dragon Age and not other sources of material. All of BioWare's games always deal with themes of conflict, war, tragedy, redemption, and hope. Death, in particular, can be an incredibly effective tool of engaging the player, and certainly BIoWare has had astounding success using it in the past.

 

I'm not suggesting that "triumph" should be eliminated, but rather "tragedy" should not be eliminated. Any great story will be able to appeal to a range of emotions. Not just to one. As long as your "trial and error" method is not analogous with ME2's Suicide Mission, I might agree.

[wcholcombe]

ummm no

As I said, forced death (no matter what you do, X companion dies every single time) is just as cheap a storytelling as no one dies.  If it was 'do X, Y, Z' in every game, but sometimes someone still dies...not sure how they would implement that.  It seems to me that's just as cheap as X companion dies every single time.  Then it becomes "GOD I have to reload the last 8 hours of work because I forgot to grab those rose petals off Aeris the flower girl in step 6 of the quest line, so Iron Bull died when we encountered the Orlesian assassin".

 

I don't want some contrived, never ending angsty plot lines just because I want to keep all my companions alive.  Then it loses it's agency of 'x companion might die if you fail'.  

So are you saying you're a proponent of the 'no matter what you do, X dies'? or are you advocating 'sometimes X dies if you forgot to do....etc'...because from my perspective both are just as cheap a plot device as 'no one dies' except the aggravation factor is exponentially less in "no one dies".

But was it just cheap storytelling when your mother dies in DA2 or when your entire family gets wiped out as the HN origin, or when Duncan dies at Ostagar?(no one really cares about Cailen).  No, those were some of the strongest points of the game.  Also, his whole point is that the deaths wouldn't be avoidable.  The Inquisitor isn't a Mr. Fixit. Death and loss add depth to a story.  The

Spoiler

Death of Justinia

adds a lot of depth to DAI whether I am thrilled about it happening or not.

[Revan Reborn]

ummm no

As I said, forced death (no matter what you do, X companion dies every single time) is just as cheap a storytelling as no one dies.  If it was 'do X, Y, Z' in every game, but sometimes someone still dies...not sure how they would implement that.  It seems to me that's just as cheap as X companion dies every single time.  Then it becomes "GOD I have to reload the last 8 hours of work because I forgot to grab those rose petals off Aeris the flower girl in step 6 of the quest line, so Iron Bull died when we encountered the Orlesian assassin".

 

I don't want some contrived, never ending angsty plot lines just because I want to keep all my companions alive.  Then it loses it's agency of 'x companion might die if you fail'.  

So are you saying you're a proponent of the 'no matter what you do, X dies'? or are you advocating 'sometimes X dies if you forgot to do....etc'...because from my perspective both are just as cheap a plot device as 'no one dies' except the aggravation factor is exponentially less in "no one dies".

I might be more sympathetic to your argument if you wouldn't pose the most unreasonable and ridiculous scenarios. Do you really believe BioWare would ever make such a convoluted and deceptive quest line as to "pick a flower" from a random girl 30+ hours in the past so that Iron Bull doesn't randomly get a dagger in the back?

 

I understand you are absolutely against any kind of death and believe it is all "cheap storytelling." You are more than entitled to your opinion. However, most of the greatest games I have personally ever played dealt with tragedy or death in some way, shape or form. I can understand your frustration with characters dying beyond your control, but I cannot agree that death cannot be used as a way of enhancing and progressing the story in a meaningful way.

 

I am a proponent of your decisions having consequences. However, I do not believe we should be able to play God and save everybody. Some things should just be out of our control, as that's what makes being a hero meaningful to begin with. You can't control what the villain does and who knows what suffering and turmoil he/she may cause amongst you and your friends. That doesn't mean you should give up if a friend dies, or that you should be able to save everyone just because you want to.

 

I feel at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree, as you clearly have your views and I have mine. I would find it tragic to storytelling, and art in general, if we always have full control over the fate of everyone. That leads to a rather mundane, uninteresting, and boring experience where there are no risks and there are no consequences. Why even play the game to start if you already know how it ends before you even begin?

[DarkKnightHolmes]

If we make terrible decisions then yes. However, forcing death in an RPG is a bad idea.

[Revan Reborn]

If we make terrible decisions then yes. However, forcing death in an RPG is a bad idea.

I believe this term "forced death" is deceptive and is ultimately poor as it has a negative connotation that any death is then construed as "bad."

 

This isn't a matter of forcing death, but rather creating an emotionally-impactful and grand story that the player will remember for many years to come. Death is an extremely effective tool that can make players reflective, appreciative, and fully engaged in what they are pursuing and striving for.

 

The entire point of this thread is all for the purpose of creating and promoting better storytelling. To place silly restrictions for risk of upsetting or offending those who'd rather play God merely dilutes and ruins the experience for everyone else.

[BubbleDncr]

I like companion death as it has been in all previous Bioware games I've played. So:

 

If I have to choose between which companions live or die, bring it! I love those choices.

If my companions can die as a result of me being a terrible leader, bring it! This generally hasn't happened to me tho.

 

That said, if there is one companion that always dies no matter what, I will not like it.

 

And if my love interest is up for dying, I will abandon all my principles and let the world burn if it means they get to live. Cos that's how my Warden, Hawke, and Shepard all did it.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

I believe this term "forced death" is deceptive and is ultimately poor as it has a negative connotation that any death is then construed as "bad."

 

This isn't a matter of forcing death, but rather creating an emotionally-impactful and grand story that the player will remember for many years to come. Death is an extremely effective tool that can make players reflective, appreciative, and fully engaged in what they are pursuing and striving for.

 

The entire point of this thread is all for the purpose of creating and promoting better storytelling. To place silly restrictions for risk of upsetting or offending those who'd rather play God merely dilutes and ruins the experience for everyone else.

It's only emotional if the player cares about the character. When Carver died, I felt nothing. When Leandra died, I felt nothing. When the kid in ME3 died, I felt nothing. When Thessia fell in ME3, I felt nothing.

 

Duncan was a good death though, I actually found a reason to hate the Darkspawn then.

 

But to force the Inquistion to have heavy casualty would be like ME3 all over again with our "war assets" meaning nothing. We are building the Inquisition, it would be nice if our choice actually have some good impact instead of it being a big FU like ME3 made it.

[Gileadan]

The problem with the death of video game characters is that, apparently, it's so hard to get right. I was touched when Mordin and Legion died, or Mommy and Daddy Cousland. Those scenes worked well for me.

 

But the sibling's death in the prologue of DA2 or Leandra's death just made me go "what the hell did I just watch?"  Rarely has a supposedly dramatic scene failed harder than the sibling's death in the prologue. I was literally wondering whether I had missed all those hints about suicidal tendencies in the previous dialogue when Bethany, of all people, ran off without any rational reason only to go splat because ogre. And by the time I got to the zombie mum quest, I had already figured out that DA2 didn't care much for my choices and that the ending would most likely be railroaded like almost everything else.

 

The deaths of Mordin, Legion and the Cousland parents worked for me because 1.) I never felt my agency was taken away, and 2.) those characters were likeable and went out with a moving scene.

 

And yet, ME3 also got it completely wrong with anything related to Kai Leng. When he killed Thane, I was furious about being made a dumb gawker in the cutscene when nothing would have been easier than to hit "Adrenaline" and put a few rounds into his head in slo-mo had Shepard still been under my control. When his health stopped going down after the second headshot on Thessia, I just knew where that scene was going. Taking away character control and/or making an NPC unstoppable in such an obvious way just annoys the living bejeezus out of me, and the scene in question does not make me sad, but angry.

 

A character dies because I sent them on a risky mission all alone with just an old two-by-four as a weapon? Fine!

There's a big battle and a character dies because I didn't get my sh*t sorted in time? All good!

I'm kicking the enemy's ass from here to Lake Calenhad and some stooge with an invulnerable flag drops by to kill my favorite drinking buddy? Do not want.

 

TL;DR: if you're gonna kill off characters, do it right.

[sylvanaerie]

I might be more sympathetic to your argument if you wouldn't pose the most unreasonable and ridiculous scenarios. Do you really believe BioWare would ever make such a convoluted and deceptive quest line as to "pick a flower" from a random girl 30+ hours in the past so that Iron Bull doesn't randomly get a dagger in the back?

 

I understand you are absolutely against any kind of death and believe it is all "cheap storytelling." You are more than entitled to your opinion. However, most of the greatest games I have personally ever played dealt with tragedy or death in some way, shape or form. I can understand your frustration with characters dying beyond your control, but I cannot agree that death cannot be used as a way of enhancing and progressing the story in a meaningful way.

 

I am a proponent of your decisions having consequences. However, I do not believe we should be able to play God and save everybody. Some things should just be out of our control, as that's what makes being a hero meaningful to begin with. You can't control what the villain does and who knows what suffering and turmoil he/she may cause amongst you and your friends. That doesn't mean you should give up if a friend dies, or that you should be able to save everyone just because you want to.

 

I feel at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree, as you clearly have your views and I have mine. I would find it tragic to storytelling, and art in general, if we always have full control over the fate of everyone. That leads to a rather mundane, uninteresting, and boring experience where there are no risks and there are no consequences. Why even play the game to start if you already know how it ends before you even begin?

 

Okay can you please give me an example of what you're talking about with this. I am not trying to pick a fight, I am genuinely trying to determine what your meaning is, but it's difficult for me to glean what your purpose in the debate is if I'm not at least perceiving a common ground here.  I think our viewpoints are a matter of differing perceptions of what the other means.  

 

First of all, let me start with "I am not opposed to death in a story".  But by the same token, just throwing death out there 'just because' isn't good storytelling, either.

You say you're not a proponent of the ME2 suicide mission--which means zilch to me.  I haven't played ME2.  I can only assume you are referring to "No matter what you do X" dies.  Are you referring to a "Leandra situation" where a death--preferably to an NPC not a companion who would be...you know actually useful--is a part of the overall story and completely out of our hands?  Or to borrow my example of 'you failed to do X in this mission so Iron Bull dies'--poor Iron Bull, I shouldn't pick on him, but he seems a tough guy, he can take it.   

 

In the first two of these scenarios, agency of the death is removed from the player entirely.  You aren't playing God.  But then the death it causes is 'cheapened' knowing it's going to happen every single time.  There is no 'fear' of it happening.  It's part of the story, and thus it's impact is lost in a video game touted as 'decisions having consequences' and player agency is considered important.  The Leandra thing, became a joke after 12 runs because it loses it's impact knowing 'it's always going to be there'.  All it did for me was make me averse to doing it, and groan with the frustration of knowing I had to do it in order to progress the story.  I hardly think "frustration and aggravation" was the emotion they were going for when they designed the quest.

 

And in the third instance, because something was missed by my Inquisitor, Iron Bull died.  Making me go back to my previous save and repeating my steps to accomplish the thing(s) I failed to do.  Again, this is 'contrived' because it's an element of the plot.  You know it's there, there isn't any surprise to it.  And in this instance, you can go back and retrace your steps (as annoying as that may be) to do it differently and attempt a different outcome.  "Playing God" as it were.

 

If there is another type of death you are referring to as "out of player hands" and not contrived as a 'happens every time' part of plot, please enlighten me and I will attempt to understand what you're trying to get across.

 

Because those deaths happen in the game already, and more often than not, they haven't been implemented well.  *Points to Hawke Sibling vs Ogre, Leandra's death, the WC/Redeemer ending Post Coronation bash.*

 

If the the death is a "Wesley situation" I felt it was better implemented and more impactful than random death as part of the plot 'just because'.

[Catche Jagger]

I would be more shocked if no major characters had a scripted death, and not in a good way. The situation set forth in DAI is quite dire, world-threatening in fact. Any sort of conflict resulting from such a set up would inevitably have a massive number of deaths. The best way to illustrate such a cost to the player (as well as vilifying the perpetrator) is to have a character which the player cares about die. Yes, death can be written as a cheap emotional punch, but in this scenario, I think that such deaths would be necessary to set the stakes.

Also, death and the fear of death are essential parts of the human experience. If such themes were just brushed aside, I would once again be very disappointed. Doing so would be like cutting out romance subplots or all the revelry at taverns that we may encounter (In my high and mighty opinion)

[rapscallioness]

No.

But thank you for asking.

[frylock23]

There is a fine line between killing a character off to force "feels" and doing it because it is entirely right and proper in the story. I am also not adverse to having a companion die because I made stupid decisions either in the current game -or- previous installments.

[Giantdeathrobot]

What's weird is Mordin's death is done so well.

 

But Thane's is so ridiculous. They could've had Thane's lungs give out while fighting Leng and have the man land a fatal blow because Thane was vulnerable or something. Thane didn't need to jump on Leng's freaking sword.

 

Yeah, I cringed at that scene. My Shepard was a Soldier, with a shotgun equipped. I don't care how fast Leng is, that ****** doesn't move faster than my gun and I could easily have saved Thane in gameplay. But cutscenes demanded he die.

 

That's the kind of stuff Bioware should avoid at all costs. If a death is inevitable (which should be rare), make the player truly, completely powerless to stop it. Bound and gagged while being forced to watch or whatever. Don't half-ass it and force a death on a character that has the will and the means to stop it, but stands by because tragedy.

 

Otherwise, if you make certain choices, few members of the cast should be 100% safe. Deaths are good if they result from player choice of some sort, like for example Virmire or Mordin's death. That has weight because it's the consequence of a choice. 

[sylvanaerie]

There is also the "consequences for making a choice".  A classic example of this is the choice "Do I save Vigil's Keep or Amaranthine in Awakenings".  Clear cut consequences.  You built Vigils up as best you can, hoping it will withstand an assault.  But it still becomes impossible to access once your choice to save the city is made.  I can accept something like that.  It's clear cut, no matter what you do, you will have to sacrifice something.

 

There is a choice in ToR similar to this, where you must make a decision to save the life of one woman, a friend, vs the lives of several innocent people.

 

These are clear examples of 'player agency is engaged', even if it's a 'no win' scenario.  Someone will die, potentially a lot of someones and even people you may care for, regardless of your choice, but you make the best choice you can for the situation.  I don't mind this kind of death, even knowing it's part of the plot line and 'inevitable'.

 

These are examples of 'death having meaning' in a game I don't mind implementation of.  More often than not, though, I have seen death in video games poorly implemented.  

[The DM of Thedas]

Good examples of Death in party based RPGs are Crono's death in Chrono Trigger and Mordin's death in ME3. These both serve vastly different purposes in games, and we are talking about games. Killing characters should be done only if it has to serve the story, player choice aside, otherwise why kill a character?

[Lennard Testarossa]

Good examples of Death in party based RPGs are Crono's death in Chrono Trigger and Mordin's death in ME3. These both serve vastly different purposes in games, and we are talking about games. Killing characters should be done only if it has to serve the story, player choice aside, otherwise why kill a character?

 

Pretty much all deaths serve the story. People dying indiscriminately for no specific reason or purpose is just a fact of war and combat.

[Revan Reborn]

Pretty much all deaths serve the story. People dying indiscriminately for no specific reason or purpose is just a fact of war and combat.

I do agree, although for the purposes of BioWare they would have to justify that death scene as to not make it seen underwhelming and unnecessary. Especially if you are killing off a major character, it should be because of the enemy he/she is facing or the overwhelming numbers. Something that would bring clarity and compliment the experience as to not give the effect that BioWare is just killing characters for the sake of killing them. The death would really have to push the narrative forward in a compelling way.

[Sylentmana]

Only if its emotionally moving and contributes to the story.  It should also depend on how well you built and prepared the Inquisition.

[KaiserShep]

Pretty much all deaths serve the story. People dying indiscriminately for no specific reason or purpose is just a fact of war and combat.

 

But not all deaths serve all stories well. That something is a fact of life doesn't necessarily make it a compelling or beneficial addition to the narrative if applied too widely, especially for a make-your-own-adventure fantasy epic that has a great deal of focus on companion interaction.