160 réponses à ce sujet

[Owlbear]

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?

 

The developers can only create so many options for your character’s response. While I can understand how players may feel that the options are often limited and constrained (I, too, frequently feel that the option I’d like to pick isn’t on the wheel) I can think of many other personality types that I’d like to see supported by the game before “cruel sadist.”

 

Cruelty is not an interesting moral choice: there is no nuance or subtlety to it, and it’s a step backwards to when games offered the “good” choice of being the selfless hero and the “evil” choice of simply being evil for evil’s sake. Dragon Age has done a better job than any other game series that I can think of that offers players a menu of choices that represent genuine moral dilemmas (even if they undercut this by offering two choices that required making tradeoffs and a reasonably obvious third that offered the best of both worlds) or ones that pit the approval and support of one companion or faction against another.

 

In the context of the game, any character who displayed consistent cruelty, sadism, or mental instability would be removed from the post of inquisitor pretty quickly. Once the first part of the story is over and your green glowy hand isn’t strictly necessary, no one would realistically put up with you as a monstrous tyrant.

[omgodzilla]

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.

 

The Soviet Union was a backwater third world mess when Stalin first came into power and not the superpower it was when Stalin died. The inquisition was also weak at first but gets built up in power. And honestly, the inquisitor doesn't really become the leader of the organization until you reach Skyhold. So by the time he actually takes control is sort of like when Stalin came into power in the Soviet Union, with the exception being that the inquisitor doesn't murder all of his competitors to get there. You already have a power base when you become the inquisitor. You're not the toughest person the block but you still have a reputation of getting things done. People know of you. They know you're the herald of Andraste. That can be exploited. You can use propaganda and indoctrination to rally the common people to your side. Just like Stalin, you can make people think you're not an ass. You certainly wouldn't have much freedom to do as you please in the beginning but as you build up your power base, you'll have more and more freedom. Stalin didn't occupy Eastern Europe and form puppet states until the end of World War 2 when the Soviet Union had become a force to be reckoned with. 

[Eldial3los]

When you sit on your throne and judge people why not give as us more option than imprison, kill or exile.

 

Where is torture, parade around town while degrading someone, blackmail or reward a killer for taking care of something messy. (Why cant we play THE GAME also, high court seem to do it in Orleais)

[Mr.House]

My Inquisitor was only nice to their friends and allies, on the job and to threats she was extremely ruthless and pragmatic.

[Mr.House]

When you sit on your throne and judge people why not give as us more option than imprison, kill or exile.

 

Where is torture, parade around town while degrading someone, blackmail or reward a killer for taking care of something messy. (Why cant we play THE GAME also, high court seem to do it in Orleais)

Making an Orlaisian douchess my personal court jester with bad shoes is worse then death.

 

Or how about giving a warden public humiliation for the rest of her life?

[omgodzilla]

 

The developers can only create so many options for your character’s response. While I can understand how players may feel that the options are often limited and constrained (I, too, frequently feel that the option I’d like to pick isn’t on the wheel) I can think of many other personality types that I’d like to see supported by the game before “cruel sadist.”

 

Cruelty is not an interesting moral choice: there is no nuance or subtlety to it, and it’s a step backwards to when games offered the “good” choice of being the selfless hero and the “evil” choice of simply being evil for evil’s sake. Dragon Age has done a better job than any other game series that I can think of that offers players a menu of choices that represent genuine moral dilemmas (even if they undercut this by offering two choices that required making tradeoffs and a reasonably obvious third that offered the best of both worlds) or ones that pit the approval and support of one companion or faction against another.

 

In the context of the game, any character who displayed consistent cruelty, sadism, or mental instability would be removed from the post of inquisitor pretty quickly. Once the first part of the story is over and your green glowy hand isn’t strictly necessary, no one would realistically put up with you as a monstrous tyrant.

 

 

Maybe if you're batshit insane like Caligula, you would be disposed of. However, I disagree with the idea that no one would put up with a monstrous tyrant. I mean if that were true, then why is history full of monstrous tyrants? Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong il, Mao, Pol Pot were some of the worst mass murderers and brutal dictators in history. If you're stupid tyrant like Joffrey, then you won't last long but if you are a smart tyrant who can convince people that you are infact NOT a tyrant or if you can destroy your enemies before they destroy you, then you can rule for the rest of your life. 

[omgodzilla]

Making an Orlaisian douchess my personal court jester with bad shoes is worse then death.

 

Or how about giving a warden public humiliation for the rest of her life?

 

It wasn't presented as such though. It was pure comedy. She doesn't even care. She's like "meh whatever, I'm already the laughing stock of Orlais so this won't change much". Also, the Warden is doing hard labour. That's hardly the worst thing you can do to a person. I mean I doubt that hard labour for the inquisition is as brutal and horrific as Stalin's Gulags. She even agrees that the punishment is fair (sort of). 

[Mr.House]

It wasn't presented as such though. It was pure comedy. She doesn't even care. She's like "meh whatever, I'm already the laughing stock of Orlais so this won't change much". Also, the Warden is doing hard labour. That's hardly the worst thing you can do to a person. I mean I doubt that hard labour for the inquisition is as brutal and horrific as Stalin's Gulags. She even agrees that the punishment is fair (sort of). 

Maybe your character didn't feel like that, but mine felt great pleasure making the Douches even more of a joke.

[omgodzilla]

Maybe your character didn't feel like that, but mine felt great pleasure making the Douches even more of a joke.

 

I get what you're saying but it didn't really feel ruthless at all. Giving a crazy noble the job of a regular person isn't cruel. Its funny but I don't find it morally questionable. Ruthless would've been having her hanged or something. Hell, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who judged her, made her into a jester just because it was funny. I doubt most of them would've had ruthless intentions. They probably just wanted a laugh. 

[Mr.House]

I get what you're saying but it didn't really feel ruthless at all. Giving a crazy noble the job of a regular person isn't cruel. Its funny but I don't find it morally questionable. Ruthless would've been having her hanged or something. Hell, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who judged her, made her into a jester just because it was funny. I doubt most of them would've had ruthless intentions. They probably just wanted a laugh. 

Death is too easy.

[Ashagar]

You not thinking of it in context think of the sort of person the grand duchess was, making her a commoner or forcing her into the chantry are the sort of things that are worse than death for people like her.

[omgodzilla]

You not thinking of it in context think of the sort of person the grand duchess was, making her a commoner or forcing her into the chantry are the sort of things that are worse than death for people like her.

 

I get that but her reaction to those sentences makes it seem like she doesn't really care what you do. If it really was worse than death, wouldn't she start begging for death or something? Maybe she's too proud and doesn't want to give that satisfaction to the inquisitor. Still though, the game didn't present the choices as being overly-cruel to her. It very much was portrayed as being comedic rather than being sinister. The way these choices are presented is very important. Putting the goat thrower into the gibbet sounds horrific in theory. When you actually make the choice in-game, it doesn't feel cruel at all. Its just another cheap laugh. The inquisitor is like "put him in that thing..**** I forgot what it was called, oh right! a gibbet! put him in the gibbet for a bit and then let him go!". Then the dude just starts laughing. Now if the inquisitor had said it in a more confident, stern and sinister tone and the guy got a look of fear in his face, the scene would've changed completely. THAT would've actually been cruel. The way its currently presented in the game makes it seem like the writers weren't being serious when they wrote it into the game. 

[Owlbear]

Maybe if you're batshit insane like Caligula, you would be disposed of. However, I disagree with the idea that no one would put up with a monstrous tyrant. I mean if that were true, then why is history full of monstrous tyrants? Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong il, Mao, Pol Pot were some of the worst mass murderers and brutal dictators in history. If you're stupid tyrant like Joffrey, then you won't last long but if you are a smart tyrant who can convince people that you are infact NOT a tyrant or if you can destroy your enemies before they destroy you, then you can rule for the rest of your life. 

 

All of these dictators would not have lasted as the inquisitor either. There is no point in the game where the inquisitor logically has absolute power over the inquisition and can act with impunity. In fact, the whole inquisition is supposed to be fighting for legitimacy throughout the game. Maybe after the final battle you can become a corrupt tyrant and get away with it.

 

The point it not really whether such behaviour is plausible but whether it is reasonable to see it presented as one of the limited options. In a pen and paper RPG, you can act however you want and the GM can react to it, though players who insist on playing in a way that the rest of the group doesn't like may be invited to not return to the table. In a computer game, you are limited to what the developers choose to program into the game. In general, games will be more fun if you can accept their basic premise and play within the boundaries that they set, rather than decide that you are going to play it your way no matter how much it contradicts the basic premises on which the game is designed.

 

It's not as though you are forced to play only one way: you do have quite a range of choices. I am sure that all of us have run into situations where the decision we'd like to have made isn't available; the game wasn't made for any of us individually but rather to appeal to a reasonably broad audience and still come in on budget and on schedule. Agreeing to work within the basic parameters established by the game world makes it much easier to enjoy. It's also more enjoyable if you keep in mind that it's not you on the throne; it's your character. (Though I hope nobody wants the "have him hung, drawn and quartered, but first let me beat him with a broken bottle for a bit" option because that's what they figure they'd to in real life.)

[Darth Death]

This is why I love & tend to replay KOTOR 2 a lot. I can be truly evil in that game if I wanted to. In DAI, I can't seem to kill any of my companies off which is very disappointing. Telling them not to join my inquisition isn't the same. I want to use & destroy them, and not simply have companies walk away from me. No one does that & lives to tell about it.  

[omgodzilla]

All of these dictators would not have lasted as the inquisitor either. There is no point in the game where the inquisitor logically has absolute power over the inquisition and can act with impunity. In fact, the whole inquisition is supposed to be fighting for legitimacy throughout the game. Maybe after the final battle you can become a corrupt tyrant and get away with it.

 

The point it not really whether such behaviour is plausible but whether it is reasonable to see it presented as one of the limited options. In a pen and paper RPG, you can act however you want and the GM can react to it, though players who insist on playing in a way that the rest of the group doesn't like may be invited to not return to the table. In a computer game, you are limited to what the developers choose to program into the game. In general, games will be more fun if you can accept their basic premise and play within the boundaries that they set, rather than decide that you are going to play it your way no matter how much it contradicts the basic premises on which the game is designed.

 

It's not as though you are forced to play only one way: you do have quite a range of choices. I am sure that all of us have run into situations where the decision we'd like to have made isn't available; the game wasn't made for any of us individually but rather to appeal to a reasonably broad audience and still come in on budget and on schedule. Agreeing to work within the basic parameters established by the game world makes it much easier to enjoy. It's also more enjoyable if you keep in mind that it's not you on the throne; it's your character. (Though I hope nobody wants the "have him hung, drawn and quartered, but first let me beat him with a broken bottle for a bit" option because that's what they figure they'd to in real life.)

 

The inquisitor doesn't have to act with impunity, nor does he have to have absolute power. Infact, I would say that none of the dictators I mentioned had absolute power. They were constrained by politics. Its why Stalin didn't go and invade western Europe. I'm not saying we should be able to do or kill anyone we want. I'm just saying that there is alot that we COULD get away with, especially as the inquisition becomes more and more powerful. Being the herald of Andraste could be utilized as a very valuable propaganda tool. And most nations will eventually realize that the inquisition isn't something they can just ignore or brush aside. I think history has proven that countries are very much willing to ally with monsters or to set aside their ideals when its beneficial to their national interests. The allies sided with Stalin in world war 2 because of the whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing. I think it very much is plausible for the inquisitor to become a tyrant. Maybe not at the beginning of the game, but certainly near the end. 

 

As for limited options, I agree that we're not always gonna get what we want. At the same time though, I really feel that the morality system in this game lacks variety. Alot of the time, it feels we're just saying the same thing in slightly different tones. I miss the days of ME2 renegade Shepard.

[Arl Raylen]

Yeah, DA:I really just made me want to go back and play Bioware games where I can be evil. So I did. Currently doing an evil playthrough of Jade Empire and DA2 and it's glorious. DAI ain't bad, but unless you want to be a goody two shoes or Neutral Shepard at your worse, you don't have many options.

[Arl Raylen]

It's funny, from DA:O to ME3 we went from every option you can think of to Good/Dick options, now it's been truncated even further to Good/Neutral Good/Still Good but passive agressive options. Guess that's the price of an open world.

[frostajulie]

I find that the evil decisions of Origins were more hilarious than evil. I mean, some guy is profiteering in Lothering, and the Warden gets a funny line before you knife him "I hear you're making a killing. So am I!" lol. You can suddenly get all righteously indignant over Andraste's ashes, and murder some schmuck even though it probably won't help anything at all. Trying to knife the Mad Hermit, etc.. Then there's the off-the-wall suggestion that the werewolves simply wipe out the Dalish. My city elf was hitting the deep mushroom pretty hard when he suggested this, without even knowing if it would be any help at all, because f*** the Dalish! I'm not sure how far the Inquisitor could go if such options existed throughout the game. You can, however, create a pretty fearsome organization that does terrible and shady things. Just look at that ridiculous favor for the that singing bard on the war table. Leliana's suggestion is pretty messed up.

On my initial read I thought you wrote "My city elf was hitting the derp mushrooms pretty hard when..."  It's still funny the way you wrote it but I LOL'd.

[omgodzilla]

It's funny, from DA:O to ME3 we went from every option you can think of to Good/Dick options, now it's been truncated even further to Good/Neutral Good/Still Good but passive agressive options. Guess that's the price of an open world.

 

I think BIoware is too hesitant to make ruthless options because alot of people were upset by having the option to shoot Mordin in ME3. Even though that was one of the few choices in the game that was actually ruthless (but still justifiable). Its really annoying. The main reason why I fell in love with bioware games was because we didn't have to play as a good guy. I wanna be a ruthless pragmatist. I wanna be able to strike fear into my enemies. The game was centered around leadership but didn't give us the option to be a selfish and ruthless tyrant. We can still save the world AND be a tyrant. They really could've gone much further with the ruthless decisions. It really takes away from the replay value of the game. Even ME3 had more variety than this. 

 

I want to be extremely vicious to my enemies. I would've loved to have some harsher options in the judgements. I think every judgement should've atleast had the option of executing the person on trial. Why can't we execute the warden or the goat-thrower? The gibbet was a decent idea but it was presented as a cheap laugh than an actual punishment. He doesn't even die from it. Why can't we attack and wipe out the goat-thrower's entire tribe? Why can't we torture enemy agents to extract information? The game lacks morally questionable choices. Bioware needs to take a hint from Teltale. The Wolf Among Us had a great balance of noble and ruthless choices and all of those choices made sense. It also added a great deal of variety and made every playthrough feel unique. 

[Ieldra]

People were upset that there was an option to shoot Mordin in ME3? That's the first time I heard that. That was the best Renegade option in the trilogy. If you really believed curing the genophage is a bad idea you just had to do it, even if it made you feel like sh*t afterwards.

 

DAI has nothing on that level, but then, there has be to be a rationale for an option like this where you feel forced to kill a friend. DAI has quite a few other pragmatic options, and that counts even though none of them is as intense as that moment in ME3. Also, I wonder what it feels like to give out the harshest punishment available to everyone you judge. I'll probably never do it, but I suspect there's a strong "cruel tyrant" vibe if you do it.

[KaiserShep]

The only real criticism I can recall about the Mordin confrontation was about the motivation of the character himself, since some did not believe that ME2 Mordin would have been at all passionate about curing the genophage.

[Bethgael]

The Spanish one just outlasted all the others. It wasn't the cruelest one or the one with the highest body count.

 

And no one expected it.

/mandatory Monty Python reference

 

Just a side thought: There is, I believe, no one more evil than the goody two shoes who puts everyone under their control "for their own good."

There's a famous quote by CS Lewis that's thrown around a lot about this, but I prefer the quote attributed to Charles de Montesquieu that says, "There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice."

It's a theme in this series. CF: Loghain Mac Tir, Knight-Commander Meredith.

Now, The Inquisitor.

So you can be playing a "good" character who is actually a tyrannical bastige. RP is always in one's head.

[Bethgael]

sorry, stupid double post.

[dreamgazer]

This game is missing a huge roleplaying aspect.

Maker, is this another brothel thread?

[ORTesc]

It's EA man, they're like a disease.