395 réponses à ce sujet

[aphelion4]

I don't mind decisions mattering, so long as they're logical ones. Turning darkside because you logically killed an ******* traitor makes zero sense and is no where in the same league as randomly shanking a chantry sister.

[Helmetto]

I don't mind decisions mattering, so long as they're logical ones. Turning darkside because you logically killed an ******* traitor makes zero sense and is no where in the same league as randomly shanking a chantry sister.

Again, wasn't random. She was working for an enemy of the Inquisition.

 

She didn't turn "darkside", she always was darkside. You were trying to turn her back. You were trying to unharden, not reaffirm harden.

[Wulfram]

Leliana was part of the Chantry, Sister pretended to be her friend, was apart of an enemy that threatened her and the Inquisition (Some chantry lady who really, really didn't like them or something), is a threat if allowed to live.

 

Leliana being part of the chantry is irrelevant.  The Inquisition is not part of the chantry, and Natalie owes them no allegiance. 

 

Allowing her to live doesn't have to mean letting her go, so she's no threat.  And I don't see how she'd be a threat even if she was let go - what exactly could she do?  She doesn't seem to possess dangerous intelligence or political influence or martial skill or anything, she's just a random flunky of some political rival of the Inquisition - who herself doesn't seem to be doing anything actually wrong.

 

Leliana doesn't really have any reason to kill her except annoyance at her lies.  But Leliana can hardly act like dishonesty is cause for execution.

[Kuvira]

I guess I didn't mind, because I never assumed Natalie was 'harmless'. Just because there wasn't some big Frigga vs Malekith-style showdown doesn't mean she is some delicate flower. I just interpreted it as her knowing she'd lost the element of surprise, and not wasting her time fighting an inevitable conclusion. 

 

I told her to keep the Haven guy alive, because he could be useful. Still resulted in hardened L, I guess most people don't take that option, only the first two

[Lebanese Dude]

This thread was a fun read. A lot of good points on all sides.

 

Still I agree with those who have stated that Leliana is ruthless by default.

Those who are surprised by her darkness are letting themselves be influenced by her lighter side in Dragon Age Origins.

 

In DAI she's unabashedly ruthless.

 

Prior to your first conversation with her, you can visibly hear how her faith has been shattered. During the discussion, she explicitly tells you that she has lost her direction.

 

Even her earliest war table mission approaches are quite sinister and are often the riskiest and deadliest.

 

So it's not entirely irrational to assume that she has a darker personality in DAI even if you've never met her.

If you have met her in DAO, then you'd know that her faith was the only thing holding her together. She's a bard through and through.

So not stopping her from killing the guy (or otherwise actively encouraging her) is basically reaffirming her resurgent belief that the end justifies the means, which Dorothea had convinced her was NOT the case way back in the day when it came to the treacherous Marjolaine.

 

The inquisitor stepping in at this one juncture can lead her down a path that heals her. Your inquisitor does NOT heal her at that point. It's clear through her war table missions that she's still ruthless despite your later choices.

 

Even if you later tell her that her scouts aren't disposable, it's too late to repair the damage that has been building up inside her since the events at Haven.

 

So it's natural that an inconsistent approach towards mercy and compassion would eventually lead her to just "do her job" and kill an enemy of the Inquisition.

 

The inquisitor isn't some magician who can change her outlook entirely by ONLY ONCE picking the correct option to "unharden" her.

She has her own character development that can only be realigned by your inquisitor depending on a strict set of consistent choices.

 

She remains relatively hardcore no matter what  you do, but the main difference is that by the time she becomes the Divine (presumably much later), she lets go of the darkness and takes up the mantle of a radical but peaceful diplomat that Josephine so dearly wanted her to be like.

 

So honestly, I see nothing wrong with this approach and frankly it's completely logical.

[Wulfram]

There's a difference between being ruthless and being an insane rogue murderer who the inquisitor can do nothing about.

 

If there was a neutral path where Leliana doesn't go all hippy or turn into an insane murderer, but remained like she was the rest of the game, things would make a lot more sense.

[Lebanese Dude]

There's a difference between being ruthless and being an insane rogue murderer who the inquisitor can do nothing about.

 

If there was a neutral path where Leliana doesn't go all hippy or turn into an insane murderer, but remained like she was the rest of the game, things would make a lot more sense.

 

Why are you assuming that you should be able to control Leliana? She's not some puppet to your whims

 

Killing Natalie is completely within character. She's just doing her job. The end justifies the means, which you have not consistently argued against.

Why would she stay the same? Isn't that the opposite of character development?

[Wulfram]

Why are you assuming that you should be able to control Leliana? She's not some puppet to your whims

My character is supposed to be her boss. They are also supposed to have a concern for justice, so ignoring blatant murder is a problem. If the writers wanted Princess Stabbity to escape so she can go find some priests to murder, then that would be OK, but my character should not have to act like nothing has just happened.
 

Killing Natalie is completely within character. She's just doing her job. The end justifies the means, which you have not consistently argued against.

Killing Natalie serves no ends. And her job includes doing what she's told, not murdering people for no purpose. Leliana's character has never been about purposeless bloodshed.

edit:

Why would she stay the same? Isn't that the opposite of character development?

She's already "developed" into generic ruthless angsty person. I don't see the virtue in tossing her personality out entirely.

Plus, if you're going to have her turn into a crazy murderer you need to give the PC appropriate responses to this. If your game can't practically handle this, then you shouldn't do it. The player should not be forced to allow an insane murderer to run a large part of their organisation.

[Get Magna Carter]

 

...snip

 

Choices and consequences are great, when they make sense. The whole outcome here makes almost as much sense as Mordin getting a rocket in the face at the end of ME2 because you didn't complete his loyalty mission... because loyalty and dodging a stray rocket are obviously connected.

The only thing that doesn't make sense in the ME2 situation is Bioware's usage of the word "loyalty" - it's the wrong word.  "Focus" would be much better.

 

The idea is that all the squad are distracted by personal issues - Miranda is worried about her sister, Mordin is worried about his assistant, Tali is worried about her status in the fleet, Grunt is confused about what it means to be Krogan, Jack is confused about her past, Samara is very worried about her daughter, etc.

If you take them into the suicide mission like that their minds will be elsewhere, they'll get distracted and make mistakes and people will die as a result.

If you complete their personal missions they will move on and focus on the "suicide mission" and maybe get through alive.

[Get Magna Carter]

Gee, to people want thier choices to matter or not? 

We want to play the game without having to follow a strategy guide

We don't want one small decision early in the game when we don't fully understand the situation, don't have any authority and are just happy not to be executed ourselves to prevent later choices (when we have the understanding and authority) from having any effect 

[Lebanese Dude]

My character is supposed to be her boss. They are also supposed to have a concern for justice, so ignoring blatant murder is a problem. If the writers wanted Princess Stabbity to escape so she can go find some priests to murder, then that would be OK, but my character should not have to act like nothing has just happened.
 

Killing Natalie serves no ends. And her job includes doing what she's told, not murdering people for no purpose. Leliana's character has never been about purposeless bloodshed.

edit:
She's already "developed" into generic ruthless angsty person. I don't see the virtue in tossing her personality out entirely.

Plus, if you're going to have her turn into a crazy murderer you need to give the PC appropriate responses to this. If your game can't practically handle this, then you shouldn't do it. The player should not be forced to allow an insane murderer to run a large part of their organisation.

 

The mission wasn't official Inquisition business though. This was the Inquisitor accompanying on her on a supposedly friendly trip to discover her past.

 

You are technically not her boss in this scenario, just as your boss has no business with what you do in your personal time.

 

It is true that Natalie is a pawn, but she is an enemy nonetheless. She was attempting to steal the Divine's personal message to Leliana for her boss, a Grand Cleric that is using the Divine's death to further her own selfish desires at the expense of the Inquisition. Furthermore, she insisted that Leliana is the one in the wrong and proclaimed that she would gladly die for the cause.

 

She is hardly innocent. It is justified that releasing her has so much to lose and little to gain. It ends up paying off if you do, but neither you nor Leliana knew that at the time. 

[Wulfram]

The mission wasn't official Inquisition business though. This was the Inquisitor accompanying on her on a supposedly friendly trip to discover her past.
 
You are technically not her boss in this scenario.  You don't command her to let Natalie go.

If you're going to say it's not inquisition business, then she's a private citizen who just murdered someone. So, trial and execution or conscription into the wardens. You don't get to remain head of the CIA just because you do your murdering outside work hours.

But it is Inquisition business. All your justifications are based on Inquisition interests. She's acting as an agent of the inquisition on behalf of the Inquisition.

And of course she then uses inquisition resources to kidnap some kid, whatever the inquisitor thinks. That's obviously Inquisition business
 

It is true that Natalie is a pawn, but she is an enemy nonetheless. She was attempting to steal the Divine's personal message to Leliana for her boss. She is hardly innocent. It is justified that releasing her has so much to lose and little to gain. It ends up paying off if you do, but Leliana did not know that.

She's hardly done anything even vaguely warranting death. And if you don't want to release her, then don't. We have prison cells.

[2leggywillow]

I very much enjoyed this idea though I think the implementation wasn't perfect.  I especially like the idea that it's something that multiple choices and quests can affect (telling her what to do with the traitor scout, encouraging her to see her men as tools vs people, etc) but it is a little boggling to find that a really minor choice most players likely made in the first hour of the game basically sets it in stone.  As in, the later conversation about scouts doesn't have any value at all if you've already locked her in to the ruthless path.  So it feels less like a sum total of your decisions and growth across the whole game.

 

For me, the Hard vs. Soft Leliana thing sort of emphasized to me that I was mistaken in something I thought I wanted.  I like the idea of minor choices and conversations having bigger repercussions, sure.  But it turns out when you're constructing a larger narrative, that can make the end result seem out of left field.  My first playthrough was around 90 hours.  I had the traitor conversation with Leliana around Hour 1 and did her personal quest in the Chantry about 80 gameplay hours later (more like 3 weeks in real time).  When Leliana brings it up, she says something like "I remember what you told me to do with Barrett" (Bartlett?  Barter? I can't even remember his name, because this was a non-character.  My brain had no reason to retain that info) and I was like "uhhhh well I'm glad you do because I have no idea who or what we're talking about."

 

I think it was too minor a decision to be effective narratively.  It should have been later in the game, at least, perhaps with a character tied to the plot (maybe a scout who abandoned his post at Haven who we have to judge in Skyhold or something, IDK).  So anyway, cool idea, but I think it needs a little improvement in the future (either more chances to sway characters via more tiny choices and conversations, or a more obvious locked-in-do-or-die choice).

[Helmetto]

If you're going to say it's not inquisition business, then she's a private citizen who just murdered someone. So, trial and execution or conscription into the wardens. You don't get to remain head of the CIA just because you do your murdering outside work hours.

But it is Inquisition business. All your justifications are based on Inquisition interests. She's acting as an agent of the inquisition on behalf of the Inquisition.

And of course she then uses inquisition resources to kidnap some kid, whatever the inquisitor thinks. That's obviously Inquisition business
 

She's hardly done anything even vaguely warranting death. And if you don't want to release her, then don't. We have prison cells.

 

She doesn't use Inquisition resources, she uses her own.  You know, the ones she cheerfully shares with the Inquisition.

 

Also, you complain about the Chantry sister, but what about Alexius' son, who she, if you do the mage quest, up and up murders despite you telling her to back off? Don't recall the option to give her crap about it.

 

Its within Leliana's character. The dilemna rides with the Dialogue wheel (which is funny, because I could've sworn I had the option to call her out on it? Might be mistaken)

[Wulfram]

Also, you complain about the Chantry sister, but what about Alexius' son, who she, if you do the mage quest, up and up murders despite you telling her to back off? Don't recall the option to give her crap about it.

That's future Leliana, and Alexius' son was currently wearing her skin. If she hadn't promptly died and then had that timeline undone, I'd have wanted the ability to give her crap about it, though the fact that she has good excuse for being nuts in that case would play a part in my response. And that Felix was terminal anyway without the insane treatment being provided by his father

[ThreeF]

I very much enjoyed this idea though I think the implementation wasn't perfect.  I especially like the idea that it's something that multiple choices and quests can affect (telling her what to do with the traitor scout, encouraging her to see her men as tools vs people, etc) but it is a little boggling to find that a really minor choice most players likely made in the first hour of the game basically sets it in stone.  As in, the later conversation about scouts doesn't have any value at all if you've already locked her in to the ruthless path.  So it feels less like a sum total of your decisions and growth across the whole game.

 

You are taking it the other way around, you are not trying to make her a monster you are given an opportunity to make her more caring. The conversation about scouts matters very much in that. You get 3 opportunities to make her a softer person, fail once and you are done.  Tell her to not kill the scout and then tell her that the scouts don't matter and you have failed. Tells her to not kill the scout and then tell her that the scouts matter, but let her kill the sister and you have failed again. You just need one instance to fail. 

[robertthebard]

My character is supposed to be her boss. They are also supposed to have a concern for justice, so ignoring blatant murder is a problem. If the writers wanted Princess Stabbity to escape so she can go find some priests to murder, then that would be OK, but my character should not have to act like nothing has just happened.

So you stopped her from killing the agent in Haven? If not, how can you claim some kind of moral high ground whilst allowing vengeance to guide your hand? 

Killing Natalie serves no ends. And her job includes doing what she's told, not murdering people for no purpose. Leliana's character has never been about purposeless bloodshed.

Except it does serve a purpose, it prevents a spy from returning to their master to inform them of what transpired in the Chantry. If you allowed her to kill the double agent, how is allowing her to kill an actual spy not the same thing?

edit:
She's already "developed" into generic ruthless angsty person. I don't see the virtue in tossing her personality out entirely.

Plus, if you're going to have her turn into a crazy murderer you need to give the PC appropriate responses to this. If your game can't practically handle this, then you shouldn't do it. The player should not be forced to allow an insane murderer to run a large part of their organisation.

So you can see no reason for her to question her faith in Haven? The Maker "allowing" Justinia to die shouldn't have any adverse affect on her at all?

You get chances to comment on this. The problem is, if you sanction the killing of the agent in Haven, you, in her eyes, come off as a hypocrite. Sanctioning this, btw, has two separate options, even though, at the time, you're not the leader of the Inquisition. In Haven, you're little more than a pawn, despite game mechanics making that impossible to play out, so you get to voice an opinion. If you condone the murder of that agent, then you're condoning murder, you're condoning the "end justifies the means". This is reminiscent of the discussion in ME 2 of people being mad that despite choosing to go all Renegade or Paragon, the opposing choice wasn't available when they needed/wanted it to be. Or people that avoided both as much as possible not understanding why they couldn't shout the Quarians down.

Any time you get to make a choice, you should be weighing both the long term and short term affects, as well as the "instant gratification". If you're not doing that, you're going to find yourself in this exact situation; something you didn't want to happen happens, and it happens because you created the scenario where it could, because you didn't look at the longterm, but only the short term of the situation.

[Wulfram]

So you stopped her from killing the agent in Haven? If not, how can you claim some kind of moral high ground whilst allowing vengeance to guide your hand?

Because taking pragmatic action to deal with a traitor who is still at large is not the same as murdering a captive for no reason
 

Except it does serve a purpose, it prevents a spy from returning to their master to inform them of what transpired in the Chantry. If you allowed her to kill the double agent, how is allowing her to kill an actual spy not the same thing?

Natalie hasn't seen anything yet. And like I've said, we have cells.

1. Natalie hasn't done anything all that wrong, unlike the traitor
2. Natalie isn't a threat, unlike the traitor who has your secrets
3. Natalie is already at your mercy, not still at large

 

So you can see no reason for her to question her faith in Haven? The Maker "allowing" Justinia to die shouldn't have any adverse affect on her at all?

I'm not sure where you got this from. Of course it should affect her.
 

You get chances to comment on this. The problem is, if you sanction the killing of the agent in Haven, you, in her eyes, come off as a hypocrite. Sanctioning this, btw, has two separate options, even though, at the time, you're not the leader of the Inquisition. In Haven, you're little more than a pawn, despite game mechanics making that impossible to play out, so you get to voice an opinion. If you condone the murder of that agent, then you're condoning murder, you're condoning the "end justifies the means". This is reminiscent of the discussion in ME 2 of people being mad that despite choosing to go all Renegade or Paragon, the opposing choice wasn't available when they needed/wanted it to be. Or people that avoided both as much as possible not understanding why they couldn't shout the Quarians down.

The only sane position is that the end sometimes justifies the means, and that it depends on the ends and the means. If Leliana is incapable of comprehending that, and instead thinks that violence in one case justifies the use of violence against any trifling inconvenience, then it's pretty obvious she's not an appropriate person to be our spymaster.

Insisting that people play extreme caricatures to get decent results is not good design.
 

Any time you get to make a choice, you should be weighing both the long term and short term affects, as well as the "instant gratification". If you're not doing that, you're going to find yourself in this exact situation; something you didn't want to happen happens, and it happens because you created the scenario where it could, because you didn't look at the longterm, but only the short term of the situation.

How is the Inquisitor supposed to realise that this killing, unlike all the others the Inquisitor and Leliana are involved in before and during the game, will make this person they've barely met suddenly go totally nuts months later?

Should the Inquisitor spare Florianne because otherwise In 9:43 Varric might embark on a murder spree to avenge bad book reviews? Might slaughtering those poor innocent rams in the hinterlands lead Vivienne to strike out at those who wear unfashionable head wear?

[Aurelet]

Maybe the decision was supposed to be a reflection of your earlier conversation with her?  And your silence, agreement, and disagreement affirms her belief that the Maker wants more blood?

[Helmetto]

How is the Inquisitor supposed to realise that this killing, unlike all the others the Inquisitor and Leliana are involved in before and during the game, will make this person they've barely met suddenly go totally nuts months later?

Should the Inquisitor spare Florianne because otherwise In 9:43 Varric might embark on a murder spree to avenge bad book reviews? Might slaughtering those poor innocent rams in the hinterlands lead Vivienne to strike out at those who wear unfashionable head wear?

 

They're not supposed to. The Inquisitor isn't psychic, they're just responding to events as they come.

[robertthebard]

Because taking pragmatic action to deal with a traitor who is still at large is not the same as murdering a captive for no reason
 

Natalie hasn't seen anything yet. And like I've said, we have cells.

1. Natalie hasn't done anything all that wrong, unlike the traitor
2. Natalie isn't a threat, unlike the traitor who has your secrets
3. Natalie is already at your mercy, not still at large

Yet, if you let her go, she is indeed at large. You don't take her into custody, you release her to go back to her patron and report that you have found something from the Divine. She doesn't know what, but she does know. I'm curious though, why does pragmatism only stand when you agree with the situation? If you're going to use pragmatism to support killing the agent, how is it not pragmatic to kill the spy? The idea is the same, you don't want the enemy to know what you're up to. Hindsight is 20/20, but what knowledge do you have, outside of meta knowledge, that releasing the spy won't do more harm than killing her? Based on pragmatism, it's better to kill her, isn't it?

I'm not sure where you got this from. Of course it should affect her.
 

The only sane position is that the end sometimes justifies the means, and that it depends on the ends and the means. If Leliana is incapable of comprehending that, and instead thinks that violence in one case justifies the use of violence against any trifling inconvenience, then it's pretty obvious she's not an appropriate person to be our spymaster.

Insisting that people play extreme caricatures to get decent results is not good design.

 
How, exactly, is reinforcing consistency painting extreme caricatures? That's all this mechanic does, after all, is reinforce consistency. Here's the problem: In Haven, you feel like pragmatism should override compassion. In the Chantry, you feel like compassion should override pragmatism. You're not being consistent. Either the ends justify the means, or they don't. Based on your Haven decision, it's never a good idea to take prisoners. They do, after all, have to be housed, fed and cared for, that's not pragmatic. It is, however, for some reason, pragmatic to allow a spy to report to their patron, because she's wearing Chantry robes? She's a spy, just as the double agent in Haven. So the robes is the only difference I can see, other than the obvious; instead of sending one of her agents to kill her, she does it herself.
 

How is the Inquisitor supposed to realise that this killing, unlike all the others the Inquisitor and Leliana are involved in before and during the game, will make this person they've barely met suddenly go totally nuts months later?

You're not, and you're not supposed to. This isn't entirely about her, though. It's also about you, and what you're going to be willing to do to achieve your ends. You claim you're about justice, but take the pragmatic road here, because ...? Shouldn't justice apply to everyone? So if you're not going to go all out "the ends justifies the means", but be a force for justice, shouldn't you try to have her bring the traitor in instead of kill him? You have, in the name of "justice" officially sanctioned murder.
 

Should the Inquisitor spare Florianne because otherwise In 9:43 Varric might embark on a murder spree to avenge bad book reviews? Might slaughtering those poor innocent rams in the hinterlands lead Vivienne to strike out at those who wear unfashionable head wear?

Nice hyperbole, and totally unrelated. You place the blame squarely on the wrong person here: Leliana is exactly the person you allowed her to be by not exercising the principles you claim to stand for from the start. If you truly believed justice was the goal, then you don't kill the agent, and you don't kill the sister. If you're trying to soften Leliana, which is the end goal here, she was hardened in Origins, then you have to proactively soften her. You have to show her that all lives matter, not just the ones you think matter. You didn't do that. You thought instant gratification, instead of long term, and you got what you played for; pragmatism.

[Aaleel]

Yeah I thought it was stupid.  You'e eavsdopping on a conversation you here her say the man killed one of her agents and information that could lead he deaths of the others and the game doesn't even give you conversation options to gather facts to make an informed decision.  "If this man escapes can he wipe out your entire network," "Do you know why he did this, who could he be working for," "Can we lose our ability to collect intel" "Can we make changes so that the information he has no longer puts your people in danger", something.

 

We get nothing but half a conversation and this instance overrides every other encounter the rest of the game.

 

She's vulererable in Skyhold and actually asks your opinion but this conversation carries no weight even though she specifically asks you.  Another time you have the option to say 'no killing' when she's talking about something she is about to do, you have the option to go Josephines route and not hers to stop the assassins, you have war table missions.  But none of this matters, just that one moment three hours into the game overrides 60, 70, 80+ hours of other encounters.

 

When she throws that moment in your face during her missions the dialogue wheel should have popped up with all the other choices that were soft options and you should have been able to say but remember when... and rattle them off one at a time to show her she's different, things are done differently.  But no, we get this nonsense.

[Wulfram]

Yet, if you let her go, she is indeed at large. You don't take her into custody, you release her to go back to her patron and report that you have found something from the Divine. She doesn't know what, but she does know. I'm curious though, why does pragmatism only stand when you agree with the situation? If you're going to use pragmatism to support killing the agent, how is it not pragmatic to kill the spy? The idea is the same, you don't want the enemy to know what you're up to. Hindsight is 20/20, but what knowledge do you have, outside of meta knowledge, that releasing the spy won't do more harm than killing her? Based on pragmatism, it's better to kill her, isn't it?

No, I don't. She knows nothing that is any threat. Murdering priests in temples tends to be bad for your reputation.

And if you start murdering people over such bizarre concoctions, you'll soon run out of people in Thedas

How, exactly, is reinforcing consistency painting extreme caricatures? That's all this mechanic does, after all, is reinforce consistency. Here's the problem: In Haven, you feel like pragmatism should override compassion. In the Chantry, you feel like compassion should override pragmatism. You're not being consistent. Either the ends justify the means, or they don't. Based on your Haven decision, it's never a good idea to take prisoners. They do, after all, have to be housed, fed and cared for, that's not pragmatic. It is, however, for some reason, pragmatic to allow a spy to report to their patron, because she's wearing Chantry robes? She's a spy, just as the double agent in Haven. So the robes is the only difference I can see, other than the obvious; instead of sending one of her agents to kill her, she does it herself.

It's not reinforcing consistency, it's trampling over nuance and forcing people into an arbitrary box marked "Paragon" or "Renegade". Killing an traitor who is on the loose, knows your secrets and is responsible for the deaths of one of your agents is not the same as killing someone whose only crime is being in the service of someone politically opposed to you, and who knows nothing that poses a threat to you, and who you already have in custody if you do think there is a threat.

If my character objected to the first, they'd be inconsistent. After all, the game does not allow you to play a pacifist - you kill a ton of people for less clear cause.

I would say that the situations could be closer if the game allowed you to get more information before making the choice. If it turned out that capturing the traitor was easy and low risk, then the pragmatic case for killing him would be weakened

You're not, and you're not supposed to. This isn't entirely about her, though. It's also about you, and what you're going to be willing to do to achieve your ends. You claim you're about justice, but take the pragmatic road here, because ...? Shouldn't justice apply to everyone? So if you're not going to go all out "the ends justifies the means", but be a force for justice, shouldn't you try to have her bring the traitor in instead of kill him? You have, in the name of "justice" officially sanctioned murder.

 
In one case, the pragmatic case is compelling and not especially against justice. In the other, the supposed "pragmatic" case is a figment, and totally against justice. They're totally different situations.

Nice hyperbole, and totally unrelated. You place the blame squarely on the wrong person here: Leliana is exactly the person you allowed her to be by not exercising the principles you claim to stand for from the start. If you truly believed justice was the goal, then you don't kill the agent, and you don't kill the sister. If you're trying to soften Leliana, which is the end goal here, she was hardened in Origins, then you have to proactively soften her. You have to show her that all lives matter, not just the ones you think matter. You didn't do that. You thought instant gratification, instead of long term, and you got what you played for; pragmatism.

I allowed her to be a pragmatic spy master. She turned into an insane murderer. I'm not trying to manipulate her, I just want her to do her job. I just want to be able to play a character that isn't a massive hypocrite, but the game doesn't let me - either I have to have my character suddenly insist on sparing someone who has done worse than many people you kill, or I have to have my Inquisitor sit back and allow Princess Stabbity to run amok.

[robertthebard]

No, I don't. She knows nothing that is any threat. Murdering priests in temples tends to be bad for your reputation.

And if you start murdering people over such bizarre concoctions, you'll soon run out of people in Thedas


It's not reinforcing consistency, it's trampling over nuance and forcing people into an arbitrary box marked "Paragon" or "Renegade". Killing an traitor who is on the loose, knows your secrets and is responsible for the deaths of one of your agents is not the same as killing someone whose only crime is being in the service of someone politically opposed to you, and who knows nothing that poses a threat to you, and who you already have in custody if you do think there is a threat.

If my character objected to the first, they'd be inconsistent. After all, the game does not allow you to play a pacifist - you kill a ton of people for less clear cause.

But you're not killing the agent, she is, with your consent. You claim the moral high ground because his blood isn't on your hands, but it is on your hands, through you tacitly allowing it to happen. Whether you order it, or simply allow it, you're approving murder as a method to deal with people, through the Inquisition. There is no trial, there is no hearing, there is only murder. He's not one of the mooks out in the world trying to kill you, he's a spy for the enemy, just like the sister in the Chantry. If killing a spy is acceptable, it's acceptable. I realize that you want to rationalize "but I wanted to give a kill order with no consequences". There are consequences. They're just not what you were expecting them to be.

I would say that the situations could be closer if the game allowed you to get more information before making the choice. If it turned out that capturing the traitor was easy and low risk, then the pragmatic case for killing him would be weakened

Apparently it is, because you can order that instead of following the blood lust and allowing or ordering him to be killed. Since you're claiming you're a force for good, then why wouldn't you at least try to have him apprehended? Because he's a spy?
 

In one case, the pragmatic case is compelling and not especially against justice. In the other, the supposed "pragmatic" case is a figment, and totally against justice. They're totally different situations.

...and I submit that a spy is a spy, no matter who they work for.

I allowed her to be a pragmatic spy master. She turned into an insane murderer. I'm not trying to manipulate her, I just want her to do her job. I just want to be able to play a character that isn't a massive hypocrite, but the game doesn't let me - either I have to have my character suddenly insist on sparing someone who has done worse than many people you kill, or I have to have my Inquisitor sit back and allow Princess Stabbity to run amok.

We know only that the spy in Haven resulted in one person being killed. How does that make him worse than many of the people we have to fight to kill? At the very least, those people are trying to kill us. However, when you step into the role of General, or Inquisitor, you have to think about the greater good, or not, depending on how you're running things. Since you're arguing that you wanted to be for the greater good, then you need to demonstrate that by showing mercy where it's possible. You decided not to.

[Wulfram]

Traitors are different from mere spies, particularly when they cause the death of your agents. Killing someone as a pragmatic method of dealing with a threat is not the same as murdering out of spite someone who is wholly in your power, has done nothing seriously wrong and presents no real threat.

The traitor is worse because they are a traitor, whereas many of the people we kill are simply defending themselves from the attack of the inquisitor.

My Inquisitor demonstrated mercy on many occasions. They always served the greater good. There was no reason for Leliana to think that they would in any way condone the murder of a captive