395 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

It's one thing to have a choice that matters. it's another to have a choice that matters, without telling you it does. Most other choices tell you why they are important. This one does not. The choice with Cole for instance lets you know exactly what the consequences of each will be. The thing with Leliana dealing with Butler does not. It's extra weird for me because I stayed out of that decision and then she tells me I've been telling her to be ruthless for the entire game when that's actually completely untrue. I told her to be less ruthless and stayed out of her way.

Leliana: You encouraged this! Every step of the way I washed my blade with the blood of our enemies with your approval, and now you decide it's too much?

 

Inquisitor: I only stood by and watched...

 

Leliana: Same difference.

[LPPrince]

A game shouldn't have to spell out which decisions are important and which ones aren't.

[Eonetic]

Classic, BioWare gives you choices that makes a difference in a game where it's seriously lacking............only tradeoff is that they dont make any sense -.-

[Wulfram]

Leliana: You encouraged this! Every step of the way I washed my blade with the blood of our enemies with your approval, and now you decide it's too much?

Inquisitor: You mean apart from all the times I did the opposite?

A game shouldn't have to spell out which decisions are important and which ones aren't.

A game should have which decisions are important make sense. It shouldn't toss out 2 full games of more relevant and important decisions so it can go "Ha! Gotcha!"

[robertthebard]

Inquisitor: You mean apart from all the times I did the opposite?

Sure, but let's not forget the time/times that you didn't.

A game should have which decisions are important make sense. It shouldn't toss out 2 full games of more relevant and important decisions so it can go "Ha! Gotcha!"

What decisions did we make about Leliana's character in DA 2? In fact, just how is it that we're introduced to her again? Isn't she "bathing her blades in blood" in the name of the Divine? Did you miss that cutscene? So let's look at her character development: She's a Bard/Assassin for Marjolaine, she can be hardened in DA O to embrace that, in DA 2, we see that she has indeed embraced that, and now, all of a sudden, she should be that scared girl we find in the Chantry in DA O, instead of what she has been turned into by Marjolaine prior to her betrayal, potentially the Warden and then Justinia? So in context with her actual story, the choice makes perfect sense. I know, they tied it all together, put a nice little bow on it, but people went "mwahahahaha, I get to let her kill someone" and then freak out because she kills someone?

[Wulfram]

Sure, but let's not forget the time/times that you didn't.

There are no such occasions.

What decisions did we make about Leliana's character in DA 2?

None. That's why I said 2 games - DAI and DA:O.

In fact, just how is it that we're introduced to her again? Isn't she "bathing her blades in blood" in the name of the Divine? Did you miss that cutscene?

She attacked some blood mages who were actively trying to kill people. Hardly the same.

So let's look at her character development: She's a Bard/Assassin for Marjolaine, she can be hardened in DA O to embrace that, in DA 2, we see that she has indeed embraced that, and now, all of a sudden, she should be that scared girl we find in the Chantry in DA O, instead of what she has been turned into by Marjolaine prior to her betrayal, potentially the Warden and then Justinia?

She should be a mature, competent, spymaster who uses violence when necessary, and listens to her compassion when possible as both her long-time lover and her superior have encouraged her to. Or, if the player chose differently she should be a ruthless spymaster who uses violence when it's useful.

She shouldn't be a dull brute who murders people because she's in a bad mood and then rants deludedly when someone objects.

(Note that paragon Leliana who reforms the Chantry through hugs is also stupid. Particularly since the Inquisitor could have sent her to murder inconvenient grand clerics and tear out tongues before this)

So in context with her actual story, the choice makes perfect sense. I know, they tied it all together, put a nice little bow on it, but people went "mwahahahaha, I get to let her kill someone" and then freak out because she kills someone?

People "freak out" because they spent 2 games persuading her to be compassionate and then she suddenly turns into an insane murderer. And then you can't even do anything about it.

[Get Magna Carter]

...but people went "mwahahahaha, I get to let her kill someone" and then freak out because she kills someone?

I objected to her going around killing people

I told her not to kill the murdering traitor

I told her she was right not to endanger the lives of her agents delaying the enemy from attacking Haven

I told her not to kill the Chantry sister/spy

..and freaked out because she disobeyed my orders and murdered the Sister anyway.

 

at no point did I ever encourage the killing of anyone who was neither responsible for nor participating in acts of violence 

[In Exile]

I objected to her going around killing people

I told her not to kill the murdering traitor

I told her she was right not to endanger the lives of her agents delaying the enemy from attacking Haven

I told her not to kill the Chantry sister/spy

..and freaked out because she disobeyed my orders and murdered the Sister anyway.

 

at no point did I ever encourage the killing of anyone who was neither responsible for nor participating in acts of violence 

 

You're misunderstanding. If you get the "right" answer on the first conversation but get the "wrong" answer on any subsequent important conversation you can't soften her.

 

People make a big deal about missing the first option, but IMO that's missing the point of the way the score works. Every option counts. You have to stand up each time. And it makes sense: at the war table she's constantly being asked to think of murder and assassination as solutions. When she has a crisis, and turns to you for advice, that's the time you can try to nudge her away. Don't nudge enough, and she doesn't change.

 

It makes her an actual person as opposed to someone who gets pushed around. I understand the frustration by the choice being really early - there's no time to look it up and understand the mechanics, you as the player on your first PT might get locked into a choice that you don't want for a worlstate - but that's all purely metagame criticism about how you can't metagame the outcome.

 

Note that I'm using you in the last paragraph in the pluraral sense - not you the poster but "people". I'm quoting your post though because I think it really sets out a good issue: the idea that the decision should have been some cummulative score that required less than 100% "softening" answers. 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Leliana: You encouraged this! Every step of the way I washed my blade with the blood of our enemies with your approval, and now you decide it's too much?

 

Inquisitor: I only stood by and watched...

 

Leliana: Same difference.

 

It was more like one step of the way I said nothing and on the rest I encouraged the opposite. 

[robertthebard]

There are no such occasions.

So you stopped her from killing the guy in Haven then?

None. That's why I said 2 games - DAI and DA:O.


She attacked some blood mages who were actively trying to kill people. Hardly the same.


She should be a mature, competent, spymaster who uses violence when necessary, and listens to her compassion when possible as both her long-time lover and her superior have encouraged her to. Or, if the player chose differently she should be a ruthless spymaster who uses violence when it's useful.

She shouldn't be a dull brute who murders people because she's in a bad mood and then rants deludedly when someone objects.

(Note that paragon Leliana who reforms the Chantry through hugs is also stupid. Particularly since the Inquisitor could have sent her to murder inconvenient grand clerics and tear out tongues before this)


People "freak out" because they spent 2 games persuading her to be compassionate and then she suddenly turns into an insane murderer. And then you can't even do anything about it.

What two games? In Origins you have the option to harden her or not, but you don't have the option to make her "more compassionate". Then, in Inquisition, when they have a chance to actually allow her to be "more compassionate", they allow her to kill someone w/out the benefit of a trial, or at least some questioning, and then claim they're "making her more compassionate"? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

In the 10 or so years between the end of Origins, and DA I, how many people, at a guess, would you say that she's killed in the name of the Divine? This is part of her job description as Left Hand of the Divine. If you wanted that to stop, why didn't you stop it? Because you didn't feel like you had the authority? Sorry, unless I intended for her to continue on being the unashamed ruthless killer I turned her into in Origins, I stop her from killing the guy in Haven. What gives me the authority? Player agency. The game puts me in a position to be able to do so, if I so choose, and I do.

It doesn't matter to me if that were the only choice to make to make her "more compassionate" or not, what matters is if I don't want the Inquisition just randomly killing people, I need to speak up then, so that my outlook on it is clear. The game presents me with the opportunity to do so, and makes it really clear that something important is about to happen, by putting you right into a cutscene for the dialog.

[Wulfram]

She's not turning to the inquisitor for advice, the inquisitor is sticking their nose in uninvited.

But I don't actually think the problem, or at least the main problem, is the mechanic. The problem is how the personal quest is written.

If Leliana merely remained "hardened", the mechanic would fit tolerably, if still distinctly videogamey. The problem is that she seems to go totally nuts, and does things that would destroy any working relationship with the inquisitor. To fix that, I would

1. Have Natalie seem like an actual threat. Instead of an inept spy, she should be an assassin, whose intent was to kill Leliana. Thus Leliana's killing her would be purposeful,if ruthless, and could justifiably be considered an outgrowth of that early decision.

2. Leliana shouldn't ignore the Inquisitor telling her not to kill Natalie. Since the game doesn't allow us to remove her from her post, outright disobedience should be avoided. Either allow the Inquisitor to ultimately get her to reluctantly back down, or have her strike quickly so that the Inquisitor cannot intervene.

3. Write the disagreement between Leliana and the Inquisitor better. If the inquisitor disagrees, then don't just brush it off with a reference to prior events - let us have a proper argument and have Leliana recognise that argument rather than proceeding on seemingly oblivious to the Inquisitor's real position. And have future interactions be coloured by the changed relationship, rather than assuming Quizzie and Lels are best buds

[FemShem]

I was just happy something I did mattered that much plot wise; however, only my goody two-shoes Qun following Quanari has a shot at making Leliana nicer than steel.

[Wulfram]

So you stopped her from killing the guy in Haven then?

Potentially, yes. She'll turn into Princess Stabbity if you acknowledge the plain fact that you are going to have to sacrifice the lives of your followers to fight Corypheus, even if you do choose the hypocrite option in the haven choice.

What two games? In Origins you have the option to harden her or not, but you don't have the option to make her "more compassionate".

You have the option to encourage her on the compassionate road she has embarked upon.

Then, in Inquisition, when they have a chance to actually allow her to be "more compassionate", they allow her to kill someone w/out the benefit of a trial, or at least some questioning, and then claim they're "making her more compassionate"? I don't think that word means what you think it means.In the 10 or so years between the end of Origins, and DA I, how many people, at a guess, would you say that she's killed in the name of the Divine? This is part of her job description as Left Hand of the Divine. If you wanted that to stop, why didn't you stop it?

I don't want her to stop killing people. That would be ridiculous. The Inquisitor kills by the score, they're not a pacifist. Just like the Warden kills people.

But that doesn't mean that the Warden and the Inquisitor lose all sense of right and wrong, or stop being compassionate where it is possible.

Because you didn't feel like you had the authority? Sorry, unless I intended for her to continue on being the unashamed ruthless killer I turned her into in Origins, I stop her from killing the guy in Haven. What gives me the authority? Player agency. The game puts me in a position to be able to do so, if I so choose, and I do.It doesn't matter to me if that were the only choice to make to make her "more compassionate" or not, what matters is if I don't want the Inquisition just randomly killing people, I need to speak up then, so that my outlook on it is clear. The game presents me with the opportunity to do so, and makes it really clear that something important is about to happen, by putting you right into a cutscene for the dialog.

I prefer to be able to roleplay, not have to metagame constantly.

[Mykel54]

I think it should have been based around a number of decisions, like a point system:

 

1) Spare agent +1 or Kill agent -1

2) Agents are people +1 or they´re disposable -1

3) Let the priest go +1 or kill her -1

 

With this system there is never a tie so she goes one way or the other. If you are in negative she is ruthless, and if you are in positive she is nicer.

[In Exile]

I think it should have been based around a number of decisions, like a point system:

1) Spare agent +1 or Kill agent -1
2) Agents are people +1 or they´re disposable -1
3) Let the priest go +1 or kill her -1

With this system there is never a tie so she goes one way or the other. If you are in negative she is ruthless, and if you are in positive she is nicer.

As I said above, I think this is the core of the dispute: some people take issue with requiring the Inquisitor to effectively and consistently have to drag Leliana toward a softer tone.

My own view is that there's no problem with requiring the Inquisitor to take a strong line. We're talking about a person who - throughout her youth - was conditioned to be a seductive killer and - for the last decade - was used as the Chief Assassin and Spymaster for the Chantry.

It should take more than three conversations to get her onside.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 It's alright, OP. Softened Leliana is one of the stupidest things that exists in-game.

[robertthebard]

Potentially, yes. She'll turn into Princess Stabbity if you acknowledge the plain fact that you are going to have to sacrifice the lives of your followers to fight Corypheus, even if you do choose the hypocrite option in the haven choice.


You have the option to encourage her on the compassionate road she has embarked upon.

I don't want her to stop killing people. That would be ridiculous. The Inquisitor kills by the score, they're not a pacifist. Just like the Warden kills people.

But that doesn't mean that the Warden and the Inquisitor lose all sense of right and wrong, or stop being compassionate where it is possible.


I prefer to be able to roleplay, not have to metagame constantly.

I did roleplay, I saw her about to kill a man without the benefit of at least a hearing, or some interrogation, and I stopped her, because that's not how I wanted the Inquisition to function. How is that not role play? Because you chose to role play the "innocent bystander"? BTW, when we're out in the field killing mooks, they're just that. It's not like they'd offer us tea and cookies if we didn't attack them first. If they did, what we do during the course of gameplay might be relevant to the conversation. They won't, and it's not. However, evidently, your Inquisitor did stop being compassionate, on at least one occasion where it really mattered. You chose to let fear of speaking out against something you disagree with get in the way of compassion.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

As I said above, I think this is the core of the dispute: some people take issue with requiring the Inquisitor to effectively and consistently have to drag Leliana toward a softer tone.

My own view is that there's no problem with requiring the Inquisitor to take a strong line. We're talking about a person who - throughout her youth - was conditioned to be a seductive killer and - for the last decade - was used as the Chief Assassin and Spymaster for the Chantry.

It should take more than three conversations to get her onside.

 

Part of my problem is that she insisted that I had been encouraging her to do all that stuff for the entire game, even when more often than not the opposite was true. 

 

There's also a case to be make that the whole mechanic is silly. You're the head of the Inquisition by the end of the game. Why can't you just veto her tactics if you don't like them? Why does she follow your wishes when you have no authority to tell her what to do, but doesn't when you do?

[In Exile]

Part of my problem is that she insisted that I had been encouraging her to do all that stuff for the entire game, even when more often than not the opposite was true. 

 

There's also a case to be make that the whole mechanic is silly. You're the head of the Inquisition by the end of the game. Why can't you just veto her tactics if you don't like them? Why does she follow your wishes when you have no authority to tell her what to do, but doesn't when you do?

 

I agree that the dialogue is not reactive enough; but that's a different issue. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by vetoing her. I don't recall any point where she ignores you in terms of Inquisition policy - she's just a bit of a loose cannon when it comes to people she wants to stab (she does that in the bad future too). 

[Realmzmaster]

What is the old adage that Silence gives consent. Or the other adage The way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. If you stand by and say nothing to prevent the traitor's death your Herald is giving consent to the act. The situation requires the Herald to actively stop her from killing.

 

At this point both the people and Leliana see the protagonist as the Herald. She will take her cue from the Herald. The Herald may not be the Inquisitor yet but the Herald is still seen as an important figure whose opinion carries weight.

 

Others are arguing it should be a cumulative effect. Why? The first impression or action that the Herald gives may be the lasting impression and action and subsequent impressions or actions are not enough to offset that first impression or action.

 

I can see it taking a very consistent path by the Herald (Inquisitor) to change Leliana. Any deviation from that path will lead to her remaining as the hardened person life has made her.

 

Even if softened in DAO, the subsequent years under the Divine as a tool of deception and assassination still has turned her into a hardened spymaster. The hypocrisy that is presented is interesting. 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I agree that the dialogue is not reactive enough; but that's a different issue. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by vetoing her. I don't recall any point where she ignores you in terms of Inquisition policy - she's just a bit of a loose cannon when it comes to people she wants to stab (she does that in the bad future too). 

 

Well if you tell her not to kill the Sister in the Chantry she says "No. She is an enemy. I must protect the Inquisiton." And afterward when she orders the nephew of the Grand Cleric who had sent her kidnapped, you can suggest she is being too harsh, but can't do anything else about it.

[Ieldra]

You're misunderstanding. If you get the "right" answer on the first conversation but get the "wrong" answer on any subsequent important conversation you can't soften her.

 

People make a big deal about missing the first option, but IMO that's missing the point of the way the score works. Every option counts. You have to stand up each time. And it makes sense: at the war table she's constantly being asked to think of murder and assassination as solutions. When she has a crisis, and turns to you for advice, that's the time you can try to nudge her away. Don't nudge enough, and she doesn't change.

 

It makes her an actual person as opposed to someone who gets pushed around. I understand the frustration by the choice being really early - there's no time to look it up and understand the mechanics, you as the player on your first PT might get locked into a choice that you don't want for a worlstate - but that's all purely metagame criticism about how you can't metagame the outcome.

 

Note that I'm using you in the last paragraph in the pluraral sense - not you the poster but "people". I'm quoting your post though because I think it really sets out a good issue: the idea that the decision should have been some cummulative score that required less than 100% "softening" answers. 

The thing is, I'm ok with not being able to soften her. I'm not interfering in her first decision with my Inquisitors because it's not my place to do so at that point and I do not understand her position well enough to make my interference not sound wilful and stupid. As far as I'm concerned, I cannot soften her. That's ok.

 

What's not ok: if I attempt to interfere in her last decision, she blames me, even if I *never* did anything to encourage her and did everything to discourage her *except* for interfering in the first decision. As if it was my fault for not doing something stupid early in the game to encourage general good-ness. This follows the almost omnipresent tendency to equate goodness with emotion at the expense of intellect and evilness with intellect at the expense of emotion. Well, if being regarded as evil by people who don't know better is the price of not acting stupid, I'll pay it, but I'll never, ever accept that association as having anything valid to go for it.

[OriginalTibs]

Who among us does not recognize that consequences follow each of our decisions? Why should we imagine otherwise? I'll share something else: the consequences of your decisions even in a video game will affect who you are in real life as well. You are still yourself, even when you play a game. The things we choose help define who we are.

[In Exile]

What's not ok: if I attempt to interfere in her last decision, she blames me, even if I *never* did anything to encourage her and did everything to discourage her *except* for interfering in the first decision. As if it was my fault for not doing something stupid early in the game to encourage general good-ness. This follows the almost omnipresent tendency to equate goodness with emotion at the expense of intellect and evilness with intellect at the expense of emotion. Well, if being regarded as evil by people who don't know better is the price of not acting stupid, I'll pay it, but I'll never, ever accept that association as having anything valid to go for it.

 

I think that gamers are far too sensitive. The game isn't blaming you - Leliana is blowing up at you, and she's doing it because her being "hardened" takes an incredible mental and emotional toll on her. That's her establishing scene - she's figuratively breaking under the strain that was placed on her by Justinia, Justinia's death, her own idealism,, and the dark deeds that await her on her (perceived) chosen path. 

 

Leliana isn't some moral authority - you tried to stop her, and she can barely handle herself at that point in time. 

[Ieldra]

I think that gamers are far too sensitive. The game isn't blaming you - Leliana is blowing up at you, and she's doing it because her being "hardened" takes an incredible mental and emotional toll on her. That's her establishing scene - she's figuratively breaking under the strain that was placed on her by Justinia, Justinia's death, her own idealism,, and the dark deeds that await her on her (perceived) chosen path. 

 

Leliana isn't some moral authority - you tried to stop her, and she can barely handle herself at that point in time. 

Taking my dissatisfaction in-world is of course the standard way to deal with such things if possible. However, the fact remains she says "after everything you've said and done" even in games where I never did anything to encourage her. That's a rather drastic difference in perception if you interpret it as Leliana - your spymaster - not seeing you as you are. At all. I find it hard to stay in-world with this, and thus I'm not saying Leliana is written to be a moral authority. I say that if this design isn't some kind of oversight, the writers designed this sequence in a way that promotes stupidity as good.