160 réponses à ce sujet

[New Kid]

How could you be evil? It wouldn't work in this. I mean, people would stop giving you the messiah treatment, the advisers would probably ditch and take their assets with them... y'know?

[Jill Sheperd]

they should have put two different story one good is the normal story that we know and one evil where in haven you choose to stay with corypheus and help him to become a god (and maybe in the end you can betay him and become a god yourself ) and in the story you have to help demons to kill the inquisition warriors, and you can take fortress (like in the normal story) but in every fortress instead of a evil boss you have to kill your old friends (like this fortress is the base of cassandra and you have to kill her to have it), it would be cool

[Ieldra]

That is the point. Those aren't the three choices you have. Kill him is the choice you have. If you don't Sera does. There are no other options.

Not true. In my game I confiscated his lands and resources for the Inquisition and made him work for me. Quite a bit more satisfying than killing him too. Sera saw it my way as well after an initial moment of disgruntlement.

 

Don't complain about the absence of options if you haven't tried them all.

[jtav]

The "I want to be a psychopath" crowd will never cease to amaze me.

[Vilegrim]

The "I want to be a psychopath" crowd will never cease to amaze me.

 

 

Why is asking for that option, for an actually interesting character rather than the bland goody two shoes we always get rammed down our throats bad?  Also have you actually read the stories where the word hero came from, psychopath doesn't do those characters justice, The Illiad and the Odyssey?  Those guys where insane...and lauded for it, Beowulf? Brutal, savage, cruel, charismatic everything that makes a hero. Look at the list of people who made being a heroic leader work, they where all genocidal mad men, it was exactly that quality that got them followers, and the power to shake the foundations of the world, 'good' (by western values) men do not do that, heroes, the actual meaning of the word, not the modern meaning do that, and they are not nice, they are not kind, they are heroic, that means they are blood drenched and cruel.

[Taura-Tierno]

ok if we can be evil..where was the torture? The genocide?  The breaking of peoples lives because it amused me to see them suffer? Because I noticed some batman level douchery, but no evil at all in the game, no demonic pacts that actual meant anything (ala Connor in origins) no wrathful annihilation of any who oppose...didn't see any of it.

Where were those options in the previous game? The closest thing to evil I can think of would be in DA:O and slaugthering the elves. That's very close to evil. Perhaps it could be simply "ruthless" because you see the werewolves as better allies, but ... I take it that would qualify? But that's probably the only thing. Most other "evil" options are very close to what you get to do in DA:I.

There aren't really the kind of opportunities in DA:I that would allow for a silent or condoned mass murder of innocents. *shrugs* You can be completely ruthless anyway, but I don't really think you can fault Bioware for not allowing you to commit genocide and eradicate all elves, slaughter the entire Olraisian court or kill Krem because he's trans (something I imagine some sick people would enjoy doing, therefore I mention it). Or no wait, you actually can leave Krem to die ...

[berrieh]

Why is asking for that option, for an actually interesting character rather than the bland goody two shoes we always get rammed down our throats bad?  

 

You really don't have to be a "goody two shoes" though. That's not a fair assessment. You can't be a bloody psychopath, sure, but you can make plenty of rude, cruel, pragmatic but immoral, or even evil decisions throughout the game.

 

I understand people are asking for more - and maybe they're right, though I suspect such a small % of gamers would take it that it will never happen - but saying you can only be pure as driven snow is hyperbolic. 

[QueenofPixals]

 

 

It seems like Dragon Age: Inquisition is really missing that evil/douchebag aspect that you used to be able to take.

 

 

 

I will never understand the appeal of being a jackass to NPC's just because you can.   Loosing this option looses nothing for me.  In fact  I would think that the kind of person you describe might have a hard time building the kind of following needed to run an Inquisition of many volunteers.  It just doesn't fit the narrative for them to include that kind of option. 

[Vilegrim]

I will never understand the appeal of being a jackass to NPC's just because you can.   Loosing this option looses nothing for me.  In fact  I would think that the kind of person you describe might have a hard time building the kind of following needed to run an Inquisition of many volunteers.  It just doesn't fit the narrative for them to include that kind of option. 

 

 

Except as I listed earlier, the exact opposite is true, bloody psychopaths build huge followings very easily. Also a large part of the marketting was 'Order or Chaos?' 'Tyrant or saviour'?  Well we got an ordered saviour...and no other options.

 

Note: I do not consider DA:I a bad game 7-8/10 for me. 

 

To people asking about evil in Origins, leaving redcliff to die, selling Connors Soul, defiling the sacred ashes, leaving the Templar as the desire demons mind slave, annulling the circle. Off the top of my head,

[Lianaar]

While bloody psíchopaths have been followed, they are not followed due to being bloody psychopaths, but despite that attributes.
Unless the bloody part was used in forging a common enemy picture. You want mass murder? You have it: red templars and venatori and demons, your common enemy you are murdering on sight. That is bloodier genocide then many things done in word wars, if you want a real life reference. Can you kill people purely because they are Venatori? Hell yeah, you can.

And there are many driven people who became leaders in many aspects without being murderers and psychopaths.
As for the bloody leaders, many didn't know they were bloody, when they followed them. I am sure people often said things like. 'If this leader knew about the terrible things done in his name, he would have stepped up' only to turn out the person knew about it and ordered it.

I don't play a goody two shoes, for I find pure white just as boring as pure black, and just as unreasonable and unrealistic. It is my preference.
But you can be evil in this game, if you wish. You just ignore parts where you can and pretend they don't exist. But they do. Not in the way you want to be. The game lets you be evil within a scope.

Just think about it in this way: if you play the character you describe, you don't make it as leader and will be killed. End of story.
In RPGs there is a story, and certain characters don't fit the story. Eg if you want to tell a story about inner Chantry fighting, then probably a loyal Qun servant won't be the best choice of role to play with.

[Vilegrim]

While bloody psíchopaths have been followed, they are not followed due to being bloody psychopaths, but despite that attributes.
Unless the bloody part was used in forging a common enemy picture. You want mass murder? You have it: red templars and venatori and demons, your common enemy you are murdering on sight. That is bloodier genocide then many things done in word wars, if you want a real life reference. Can you kill people purely because they are Venatori? Hell yeah, you can.

And there are many driven people who became leaders in many aspects without being murderers and psychopaths.
As for the bloody leaders, many didn't know they were bloody, when they followed them. I am sure people often said things like. 'If this leader knew about the terrible things done in his name, he would have stepped up' only to turn out the person knew about it and ordered it.

I don't play a goody two shoes, for I find pure white just as boring as pure black, and just as unreasonable and unrealistic. It is my preference.
But you can be evil in this game, if you wish. You just ignore parts where you can and pretend they don't exist. But they do. Not in the way you want to be. The game lets you be evil within a scope.

Just think about it in this way: if you play the character you describe, you don't make it as leader and will be killed. End of story.
In RPGs there is a story, and certain characters don't fit the story. Eg if you want to tell a story about inner Chantry fighting, then probably a loyal Qun servant won't be the best choice of role to play with.

Ghengis Khan, Sulla, Julius Caesar, Ivan the Terrible, Charles the Twelth of Sweden, Gustavus Aldolphus, Achilles, Odysseus,  Alexander the Great,  William the Conqueror ...all followed precisely because there where brutal and cruel..and got results, and bought rewards to those who followed them.

[Ieldra]

Really, people, I don't get this mindset. As the Inquisitor, I ordered several assassinations, intimidated several small factions by use of my army and deliberately let the Empress of Orlais be assassinated. It may be for the best, but I don't feel like a "goody-two-shoes" but rather like a pragmatic ruler who does what needs to be done to strengthen her faction. And one of the possible epilogues says that the Inquisition is feared throughout Thedas for the strength of its army. 

 

If the story doesn't let us go beyond that, well, every story has its limitations. This one I don't mind. The "I'm evil because I can" mindset is stupid anyway.
 

[luism]

So far I've enjoyed making mages tranquil the most. Need more options to do this and I'd actually like to see the anticipation maybe let them rot in a cell like jowan before I do it have a few threatening dialogues with them first tell them that I won't make them tranquil if they publicly state that I am the herald of andraste and the true prophet. Then make them tranquil anyway.

[wright1978]

Really, people, I don't get this mindset. As the Inquisitor, I ordered several assassinations, intimidated several small factions by use of my army and deliberately let the Empress of Orlais be assassinated. It may be for the best, but I don't feel like a "goody-two-shoes" but rather like a pragmatic ruler who does what needs to be done to strengthen her faction. And one of the possible epilogues says that the Inquisition is feared throughout Thedas for the strength of its army. 

 

If the story doesn't let us go beyond that, well, every story has its limitations. This one I don't mind. The "I'm evil because I can" mindset is stupid anyway.
 

Yeah the games got flaws but i wouldn't it's missing this manner of roleplaying aspect

[Giantdeathrobot]

I suppose a lot of 'evil' choices in this game depend on what one views as moral. You can 'enslave' the mages, have a violent ruthless reformer as Divine, encourage your military commander to become addicted to a drug, sentence a mage to become Tranquil etc. which could be seen as pretty evil depending upon how you view the issue and your Inquisitor's intentions. You can't murder knife random merchants and stuff though I guess.

 

Yeah, I don't think we need to have ''mwahahaha murderdeathkill'' options to have roleplaying.

[Vilegrim]

I suppose a lot of 'evil' choices in this game depend on what one views as moral. You can 'enslave' the mages, have a violent ruthless reformer as Divine, encourage your military commander to become addicted to a drug, sentence a mage to become Tranquil etc. which could be seen as pretty evil depending upon how you view the issue and your Inquisitor's intentions. You can't murder knife random merchants and stuff though I guess.

 

 

I cannot however order 'interrogations' or order genuinely pragmatic things like the use of biological weapons against my enemies, I mean seriously Tevinter wont control the venatori ? Well plague blankets for them then, smuggle them in, distribute them in the slums of the capital,  lets see how they interfere when a third to a half their population is dead.  Very simple really. It is far better to be feared than loved, so teach the world bowel loosening terror at the merest whisper of my displeasure.

[Zu Long]

Ghengis Khan, Sulla, Julius Caesar, Ivan the Terrible, Charles the Twelth of Sweden, Gustavus Aldolphus, Achilles, Odysseus, Alexander the Great, William the Conqueror ...all followed precisely because there where brutal and cruel..and got results, and bought rewards to those who followed them.

I think you're missing the point on that last part. Many of the people you mention could be brutal or cruel... to their enemies. To their friends they were usually quite loyal, and they built large followings with their own people generally by being seen as kind and fair to the common folk. Not one of the went around randomly executing their subjects, and most were quite gracious to enemies that surrendered.

If you want a leader from history who was a true psychopath, Caligula might be a better example, though he didn't fair particularly well, iirc.

[Vilegrim]

I think you're missing the point on that last part. Many of the people you mention could be brutal or cruel... to their enemies. To their friends they were usually quite loyal, and they built large followings with their own people generally by being seen as kind and fair to the common folk. Not one of the went around randomly executing their subjects, and most were quite gracious to enemies that surrendered.

If you want a leader from history who was a true psychopath, Caligula might be a better example, though he didn't fair particularly well, iirc.

 

 

erm look up Sulla before you make that statement who executed all who could be a threat, friend or foe, and died an old, old man.  Look up Ivan the Terrible (who murdered his own children).

[Lianaar]

Julius Ceasar was a soldier mostly, I don't think he was a bloodthirsty sociopath. He was not the as radical as others in that list were, he didn't get all the opponents killed (or there would have been none to kill him, right?) He stepped up in an era when change was needed in a land that could no longer properly govern itself due to legislation not fitting the actual situation no longer. I would not call him ruthless at all.  He was determined but he didn't just erased the system to make a new one. He altered the already existing system by creating the primus inter parem position for himself. If he was the person you describe, he would have just killed all the senators and as the only living one proclaimed himself God, no? Napoleon was egocentric, but people loved him, not because he collected kittens he could tortue. If you really want to bring up a loon for a ruler I would sooner go with Nero and Vlad Tepes. Ghengis Khan in my opinion followed the tradition of the lands he came from. As for Acchileus and Odysseus, you realise there is only a collection of text that describes them and as such it is obvious that people used their figures to flash out something, to intone and show something. Wether this has anything to do with reality, that's another question. Do you really think people would have followed Odysseus, if he allowed his people to be eaten with a simple shrug as described in the said book? He more often then not tossed his men aside whenever it was convenient for him. In real life, that doesn't work. People are loyal to those who stand up for them, whom they like. Julius Cesar for that matter, just like Napoleon was LOVED by his people, because they were one of them. Not because they were different and ruthless and murderous. Caligula was loved because he was basically raised by the soldiers raising him to power, they didn't see what actually became of him until too late, he was a monster you described for a ruler. What did become of him again? Oh wait, he was killed by his own men! But you can not go to an army with a shotgon, shoot half of the army single handedly and stand there bloody handed, with gore spilling from your mouth saying: follow me and expect people will fall to the knees and hail you for leader. That just won't happen. Instead you'll face resistance.

 

Being charismatic and being sociopath are not interlinked.
 

I would call Peter the Great and Catherina the Great way more impressive people of Russia, then Ivan, despite him creating the legal format. The former two led with firm hand, but they were not loons. Especially not bloodthirsty ones.

And even Ivan didn't just go about kicking anyone in his way because he enjoyed seeing the suffering of people. Those people were ruthless out of utilitarism. And that is very far from being a sadist. Well, Vlad Tepes might have.

[Lianaar]

erm look up Sulla before you make that statement who executed all who could be a threat, friend or foe, and died an old, old man.  Look up Ivan the Terrible (who murdered his own children).

Ivan didn't muder his own children because he enjoyed it. He executed his own children because they rebelled against him and no other dared to execute his children. He had to chose between family and the land he believed in. Not a choice many would have made, not one I agree with, but it was not made of bloodthirst and being evil.

[Vilegrim]

Ivan didn't muder his own children because he enjoyed it. He executed his own children because they rebelled against him and no other dared to execute his children. He had to chose between family and the land he believed in. Not a choice many would have made, not one I agree with, but it was not made of bloodthirst and being evil.

 

he beat his daughter in law so badly she miscarried, then when he husband, his son, Ivan complained, he beat him to death with a staff.   So..yea.

[Vilegrim]

Julius Ceasar was a soldier mostly, I don't think he was a bloodthirsty sociopath. He was not the as radical as others in that list were, he didn't get all the opponents killed (or there would have been none to kill him, right?) He stepped up in an era when change was needed in a land that could no longer properly govern itself due to legislation not fitting the actual situation no longer. I would not call him ruthless at all.  He was determined but he didn't just erased the system to make a new one. He altered the already existing system by creating the primus inter parem position for himself. If he was the person you describe, he would have just killed all the senators and as the only living one proclaimed himself God, no? Napoleon was egocentric, but people loved him, not because he collected kittens he could tortue. If you really want to bring up a loon for a ruler I would sooner go with Nero and Vlad Tepes. Ghengis Khan in my opinion followed the tradition of the lands he came from. As for Acchileus and Odysseus, you realise there is only a collection of text that describes them and as such it is obvious that people used their figures to flash out something, to intone and show something. Wether this has anything to do with reality, that's another question. Do you really think people would have followed Odysseus, if he allowed his people to be eaten with a simple shrug as described in the said book? He more often then not tossed his men aside whenever it was convenient for him. In real life, that doesn't work. People are loyal to those who stand up for them, whom they like. Julius Cesar for that matter, just like Napoleon was LOVED by his people, because they were one of them. Not because they were different and ruthless and murderous. Caligula was loved because he was basically raised by the soldiers raising him to power, they didn't see what actually became of him until too late, he was a monster you described for a ruler. What did become of him again? Oh wait, he was killed by his own men! But you can not go to an army with a shotgon, shoot half of the army single handedly and stand there bloody handed, with gore spilling from your mouth saying: follow me and expect people will fall to the knees and hail you for leader. That just won't happen. Instead you'll face resistance.

 

 

 

Caesar killed millions in Gaul, he claimed at least a million non-combatants killed and more than that enslaved. 

[lady8jane]

Except as I listed earlier, the exact opposite is true, bloody psychopaths build huge followings very easily. Also a large part of the marketting was 'Order or Chaos?' 'Tyrant or saviour'?  Well we got an ordered saviour...and no other options.

 

Note: I do not consider DA:I a bad game 7-8/10 for me. 

 

To people asking about evil in Origins, leaving redcliff to die, selling Connors Soul, defiling the sacred ashes, leaving the Templar as the desire demons mind slave, annulling the circle. Off the top of my head,

 

But they don't do that by being arseholes. Psychopaths can be very, very charming and convincing when they want you to work for them. They still see you as a tool they can use rather than a person or even an equal. But they know very well which buttons to press and which things to say to make you love them. You don't have to be genuine about it to say nice things, you know?

[Vilegrim]

But they don't do that by being arseholes. Psychopaths can be very, very charming and convincing when they want you to work for them. They still see you as a tool they can use rather than a person or even an equal. But they know very well which buttons to press and which things to say to make you love them. You don't have to be genuine about it to say nice things, you know?

 

 

but then we HAVE to do nice things.  People mention evil acts in this game, I have tried to find them, the best I can find is 'a bit dickish kinda'.  Prime example, capture the mortal leader of the Venatori, the guy who nearly destroyed the grey wardens: our options are: A clean death or imprisonment  or tranquillity...what the hell all of those are nice, where is breaking him and getting all he knows? Where is a true medieval execution?

[Lianaar]

I didn't say Ivan was not evil in my book, you don't see that writtenanywhere from me. I pointed out why he executed his children. He obtained the name Terrible from somewhere, probably not for being a jolly old fellow.

 

That doesn't disvaldate (is there such an English word at all?) my statements. Most bloodthirsty rulers were killed by their own followers or by his people. Because it just doesn't work, imho.