160 réponses à ce sujet

[lady8jane]

Executing someone or robbing them of their magic are nice things now?

 

I'm clearly living in a totally different world with a hugely different moral compass.

[Vilegrim]

Executing someone or robbing them of their magic are nice things now?

 

I'm clearly living in a totally different world with a hugely different moral compass.

 

 

compared to what he deserves? Yes.  Hell compared to what is done to random mooks yes.  Dragon Age has lost it's way, in my view it has headed into the land of heroic fantasy, which is over crowded and not very interesting.

[KaiserShep]

Executing someone or robbing them of their magic are nice things now?

I'm clearly living in a totally different world with a hugely different moral compass.

Not nice. Just funny. Sometimes anyway. That rotten mage that was helping Corypheus to control the Wardens deserves to have his wish fulfilled to get the chop. I do find something a bit insidious about making him tranquil, since it's more about what it means for mages in general than him specifically, but that's what makes it interesting.

[lady8jane]

compared to what he deserves? Yes.  Hell compared to what is done to random mooks yes.  Dragon Age has lost it's way, in my view it has headed into the land of heroic fantasy, which is over crowded and not very interesting.

 

Lost it's way? Are we playing the same game? Dragon Age is a bit darker than most heroic fantasy but it's far from being low fantasy or even dark fantasy. In DAO you were the hero who saved the world from the Blight, usually sacrificing yourself for that. Sure, you could be a bit of a dick to people, but honestly you never were the bad guy or even remotely conflicted about your goals.

 

Heck most sword and sorcery is way darker than DAO.

[Vilegrim]

Lost it's way? Are we playing the same game? Dragon Age is a bit darker than most heroic fantasy but it's far from being low fantasy or even dark fantasy. In DAO you were the hero who saved the world from the Blight, usually sacrificing yourself for that. Sure, you could be a bit of a dick to people, but honestly you never were the bad guy or even remotely conflicted about your goals.

 

Heck most sword and sorcery is way darker than DAO.

 

 

the whole 'kidnapping people and turning them into golems' thing, the annihilation of an Elven clan because funny (or doing the same to the werewolves because funny), the selling a child's soul to a demon for power, the roaring rampage of murderkill that is the alienage origin, the killing an entire room of slaves to gain power via blood magic...yea really light that DA:O

[Father_Jerusalem]

"DAI WON'T LET ME PLAY A HORRID ****! BIOWARE SUCKS! PREORDER CANCELLED!"

 

Lord. Some people.

 

Trust me, I'm playing an ******* playthrough right now, and I can do plenty of bad ****. Maybe I can't literally walk around kicking puppies and stabbing babies, but man. If THAT'S how you define "evil"... 

[Tensai]

 sentence a mage to become Tranquil

 

Do you really think to make this Lord Erimond - however he's spelled -  a Tranquil was an evil decision? It is the only punishment that he is afraid of and considering the things he did, it is more than justified.

[Lianaar]

Evil is not an objective term, it is defined by perspective. And many thing I personally call evil is self-justified by their actors for themselves.
Maybe the whole disagreement stems from the different idea you have as in what is evil.

 

For me, making anyone tranquil is evil. One of my characters thinks differently. Many here think it is not evil, many think it is. The guy you can turn tranquil thinks it evil.

[KaiserShep]

Do you really think to make this Lord Erimond - however he's spelled -  a Tranquil was an evil decision? It is the only punishment that he is afraid of and considering the things he did, it is more than justified.

The main reason I generally oppose this sentence is because when trying to establish the kind of Inquisitor I want, I like to have her consider the ramifications of certain judgments. Rendering mages tranquil as punishment is something I consider entirely wrong in principle, because it's not suppose to neutralize hostile mages; it's supposed to spare mages who are far beyond controlling their powers. That this guy is afraid is not how I weigh the judgment. What he prefers is irrelevant. I prefer to treat him as a man who did evil things with zero remorse, regardless of his magical ability.

[Tensai]

Interesting point of view @KaiserShep .

Tbh, it was my only ruthless sentence. I even recruited Alexius for the Inquisition, because the did the wrong things for the right reasons. But Erimond did the wrong things for the wrong reasons and his will to serve Cory was unbroken, so how to deal with such a person? Hand him over to the wardens? They'll probably kill him, imprison him forever? Or make him a tranquil? To be honest, there is no merciful sentence in my opinion, neither he deserves one.

[Zu Long]

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).

I did look up Sulla. He enacted reforms to balance power between Tribunes and the Senate, and shocked the world by giving up dictatorship and restoring constitutional rule. Not exactly the picture of a heartless monster, though he was later depicted as such in a number of plays which take some considerable liberties with history.

Ivan killed his son, largely by accident during an argument. Again, not exactly the mustache-twirler you present.

[Icy Magebane]

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

I know it's too much work to be made reality, but I would have loved this...

[Chashan]

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?

 'Messiahs' are by no means meant to be exclusively nice people. Purging the world at the end of things, as they usually are described to do in scripture, requires a good deal more than that, at any rate.

 

Looking at fictional settings, you also got a 'messiah' of the likes of Paul Muad'Dib in Dune, who led a crusade to kill billions across that setting's universe - and did it anyway, with full foreknowledge.

 

In Dragon Age itself, the prophetess did not beat the Imperium with mere words, she had a war of conquest led against it in her name, doubtlessly without much discriminating who would fall prey to that.

Finally, DA:I goes out of its way to establish the nature of the first Inquisition, the forerunner of the organization the PC is put in charge of. It is stated directly by characters in-game that this forerunner was not received as universally positive nor benevolent, quite to the contrary.

The game may offer a choice selection of more questionable decisions, yet many of those are text-only. Direct, hands-on approaches of that nature are far fewer, and I can certainly see where the frustration in that regard is coming from. Add to that the predictable connotations that come to mind in regards to 'Inquisition' and 'Inquisitor' and yes, it can be surmised that the game is lacking on that 'darker side'. Given this, BW might as well have made reconstructing the Seekers the starting premise of the game.

[Lianaar]

I did look up Sulla. He enacted reforms to balance power between Tribunes and the Senate, and shocked the world by giving up dictatorship and restoring constitutional rule. Not exactly the picture of a heartless monster, though he was later depicted as such in a number of plays which take some considerable liberties with history.

Ivan killed his son, largely by accident during an argument. Again, not exactly the mustache-twirler you present.

Yeah, I was just looking things up, and I realised I was wrong about Ivan. I said wrong information on him, my bad.

So yes, he did a lot of good things too, but he was very passionate about things and he was very firm in using executions as an example that would keep people from opposing him. So he was in many aspects bloodthirsty. And his other son lived. The rest of his children died but not due to him.

 

I also check Julius Ceasar again. He was a soldier and killed people in war, but he preferred political marriage or political machinations to rule. He basically 'bought' his soldiers, which loved him in return. He rebuilt the town when it was going downhill. So he was pretty kind in many many aspects. He stopped the rich to buy too much grain so in the end everyone has enough food. He was killed because the rich guys feared he would become king. Legend says, when the head of his opponent was given to him as a gift, he was upset enough to cry over it.
 

Ghengis Khan, valued loyalty, when he fought with his opponent and his bodyguard shielded the target of his loyalty with is life, he decided not to kill him, instead acknowledged the loyalty, and even hired the bodyguard for him. He was particularly well known for religious tolerance and acceptance.

As mentioned, Achilleus and Odysseus we know from literature, not from history, and literature was heavily influenced by the faith and expectations of the time.

 

Alexandros the Great was very loyal to people who helped him and never forgot people who were kind to him. He was a military leader and a conqueror, which contains murdering people. He did murder anyone who was taking part in his father murder or would be eligable for the throne, and the method was ruthless, I agree.  However he pacified his land with politics, not with military force. He could have chosen differently.  Even in the Theban bloodbath, he first offered the town to reconcile their alliance first and only when Thebes refused, did the battle end in bloodbath. Not to mention that he explicitly forbid his soldiers to harm the women during the war.

 

What is common in these people: they were cultured, educated, they made reforms. They know when to show mercy and at times they were ruthless, but not out of pure whim, it was out of wanting to achieve something. Even if they did evil, it was not due it being fun, nor just because they could. It was with a clear goal, and politics or being nice or showing mercy was not cast aside.

 

Now Caligula and Vlad Tepes are two people I know were different. I don't know about Nero, too much argument about him for me to know the facts. Not to mention I have not engaged in history for over a decade and I forgot too much. I tried to be as accurate as possible, I am sure corrections can be made.
 

[Vilegrim]

I did look up Sulla. He enacted reforms to balance power between Tribunes and the Senate, and shocked the world by giving up dictatorship and restoring constitutional rule. Not exactly the picture of a heartless monster, though he was later depicted as such in a number of plays which take some considerable liberties with history.

Ivan killed his son, largely by accident during an argument. Again, not exactly the mustache-twirler you present.

 

 

Sulla also had up to 9000 people executed and appropriated their property for the state and for himself.  Not to mention how many died in the civil war.

 

Ivan had robed thugs with actual dogs heads on their saddles riding round terrorising his enemies....

[Lianaar]

While this, in my book, is evil, it is not evil for the pure reason for being evil. This is not the same as kicking someone because it is fun.
They were both very goal driven people. They applied other methods when applicable and more useful. So they didn't chose to be evil for evil's sake.

[Isaidlunch]

I miss it too. I found playing a crazy evil character very therapeutic - it's a great way to get revenge on characters that really ticked me off in previous playthroughs. Executing romanced Alistair at the Landsmeet and repeatedly telling Juhani to shut up every time she opens her mouth are some of the most memorable moments I've had in gaming.

[Lianaar]

The game may offer a choice selection of more questionable decisions, yet many of those are text-only. Direct, hands-on approaches of that nature are far fewer, and I can certainly see where the frustration in that regard is coming from. Add to that the predictable connotations that come to mind in regards to 'Inquisition' and 'Inquisitor' and yes, it can be surmised that the game is lacking on that 'darker side'. Given this, BW might as well have made reconstructing the Seekers the starting premise of the game.

I can see how that is true. Yes, many of the morally questionable decisions are not cut scenes or audible.
I can accept that people might think it is less because of it. For me, those things exist and are there, but eg my brother easily skips over written text and ignores it. So if the claims is: being morally questionable and doing evil in the game isn't giving an explicit disposition and return, and it is not intoned enough, I can agree to it. I merely debate the statement, that the option is not there. The option is just not as pointed out and prominent. Fully true. I wouldn't mind if it was more notable.

[pengwin21]

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.

 

Things like interrogations already happen in the game- see things like Harding's dialogue upon entering the Western Approach. A hardened Leliana kidnaps a cousin of a Grand Cleric to intimidate her- the Inquisitor just isn't in charge of all of these decisions.

 

@Erimond I actually chose to Tranquil him as well because my PC was pissed and wanted to punish him as much as possible- death was insufficient for his crimes. I'm not sure I would qualify that motivation as 'good'.

[Vilegrim]

Executing someone or robbing them of their magic are nice things now?

 

I'm clearly living in a totally different world with a hugely different moral compass.

 

 

Given the choice I would have had him drawn then kept alive with magic. drawn as in hung, drawn, quartered

[omgodzilla]

My opinion is that if Joseph Motherfucking Stalin managed to get allies during World War 2, then the inquisitor shouldn't have much of a problem even if he is a monster. I'm not saying we should be able to murder random people on site but we really could've been much more ruthless and tyrannical. The judgements could've been harsher, we could've been allowed to torture enemies for information, we could've had the option to kill thousands of innocent people to strike a decisive blow against Cory or something. We could've conscripted vast numbers of people to join our army and throw them into battle even if we lacked equipment just as Stalin did with millions of Soviet citizens. We could've used propaganda tactics to make the inquisitor look more heroic than he actually is. We could've indoctrinated people into worshipping the inquisitor or something. As long as the inquisition manages to fight and get results in the war against Cory just as the USSR did against Nazi Germany, then the leaders of Thedas will flock to his side. I say let us go commit the most horrific atrocities against our enemies just as the Germans and Soviets did to each other on the Eastern Front. 

[Lianaar]

There is a huge difference though, namely when Stalin took over, he had an empire at his disposal. He used an already existing power and wormed his way into it by pretending he is not the ass he is. The power he grasped and used to further his might was not built up by him at first.

If you suddenly sit into a power, a built up Inquisition and then you start to be a ******, because you can, because you have the power, that is one thing. BUt being an upstart self-proclaimed inquisitor trying to gain power? You can not allow the same things. Alas I agree Stalin was sick and evil.

 

In this story you build up the Inquisition, it is not a given power, you make it. And you can not do it by being a hard ass, because there are tougher players in the beggining. Before Val Royeaux, people don't even TALK with you.