733 réponses à ce sujet

[javeart]

 

Eh. The most "evil" choice really is letting Celene die to further your own goals. And that works fine. (I actually like how all three of them are on the neutral side of the spectrum.) And the get them to work together option can be seen as trying to expand your powerbase. (That said it backfiring is a nice change. Usually the everyone works together is cheesy and always works).

 

The winter palace it's a good example of why I like better the DAI approach, every possible outcome seems moraly grey... I'd never thought of making Briala rule in the shadows as an "evil" choice. It's a decision I can easily make, in fact, it's my canon choice 

[JackPoint]

Yeah, that gave my character pause too, although even there at least Cole thinks he putting these people out of their misery. 

 

It still might lead to conflict, but the biggest eye-brow raising evil decisions often portray the character as a Sadist or at least unaware of potential consequences. 

Just reminded me far too much of the nurse who thought the same, but this was real life. He kill count was 16 before she was caught.

[In Exile]

It's a great story until I consider whether characters value their survival in this world. Anvil of the Void is a bad example....there's reasons why a player could argue they think it's the best course of action. Party members may not like it and (consequently) may leave, but it's a debatable point.

The problem comes when a lot of these choices frame the PC as something resembling a sadist, not as a pragmatic individual doing the best he can in difficult circumstances. Even if I supported someone's pursuit of wealth and power, I'd question their sanity if I saw them indiscriminately killing people in the streets because "we need money!".

Listening to a unwashed hermit living in a cave that you should drink some dragon blood is beyond stupid evil and just plain stupid.

[JackPoint]

The winter palace it's a good example of why I like better the DAI approach, every possible outcome seems moraly grey... I'd never thought of making Briala rule in the shadows as an "evil" choice. It's a decision I can easily make, in fact, it's my canon choice 

If you recruit Gaspard to the IQ, you effectivly remove 1 threat, then all you have to do is deal with Celene and Briala.

[Ryzaki]

The evil choice is to make Briala, Celene and Gaspard work together for you, that's actually the only clear despotic action you can make as Inquisitor  in the whole game. Orlais needs stability, stability can only be accomplished by having one indisputable ruler, which means you have to kill the competition, so letting even one person go free is a darn stupid move.

 

That's not evil. That's uniting them together and getting them to work together. It's neutral at best.

 

And it was stable. For a time long enough for you to achieve what you needed which is exactly what you went there for. You weren't trying to bring prosperity to Orlais. You went there to ensure Cory couldn't use the chaos to his advantage. Which is exactly what Quizzy accomplishes no matter the ending.

 

Again stupid =/= evil. Sparing all of them and getting them to work together is not an evil action. I'm not sure why you're claiming it is either. You get instability from sparing anyone (well excluding reuniting Celene and Briala).

 

Granted you can do it for selfish reasons. (You wanted to blackmail all of them into doing your bidding). But you can do that even when siding with one of them as long as you keep at least one of their rivals alive.

 

 

The winter palace it's a good example of why I like better the DAI approach, every possible outcome seems moraly grey... I'd never thought of making Briala rule in the shadows as an "evil" choice. It's a decision I can easily make, in fact, it's my canon choice 

 

Yeah my elf sided with Briala easily. I mean you can do it for evil reasons (wanting the elves of Orlais and the nobles to tear the country apart with the infighting) but you can also do it for noble ones (wanting the elves to finally stop being treated as scum of the earth).

[Il Divo]

Might be a result of nauseatingly self-righteous do-gooders trying to dabble in things they usually make a point of condemning their enemies for, all the while not having a good damn clue what they are doing.

 

Honestly, getting to know that this sort of pricks were messing with the PC made turning on them that much more satisfying.

 

 

Which does add to the insanity of the storyline. Jedi should be lawful good, not lawful stupid. The latter doesn't improve the story line. Blatantly, I have the ability to perform wanton slaughter in crowded streets, blackmailing, extortion, support slavery, etc, but apparently no one sees how this plan to keep my character in check can go wrong. It's pretty weak, as the premise for a story since all we get from Bastila are a few mild-mannered talks about how I'm "giving in to my emotions". 

[Aimi]

A 'random Padawan' noted for her exceptional ability. Aside from that, why she wasn't already promoted for bringing that selfsame 'bane of galactic civilization' down before is indeed problematic. Yet even so, she is established as not just plain-gaoler-jane.
 
 
To be blunt, I was going into that game first time around not that long ago, not having much of any direct connection with the SW-universe at large. Against my expectation, I was pleasantly surprised at how the story could unfold in this way.

Exceptional ability at battle meditation and fighting, not "mentoring a mind-wiped mass murderer to try to get her to work for us". She's also never taught anybody anything in her entire life. I had to go through training before they'd even let me be a TA; you'd think that they'd do a bit more with Bastila. Slapping the title of Knight or Master on her would not change anything, because her experience is the same, and her experience is the thing that is deficient.

Or even - novelty of novelties - assign an actual trained and experienced Master to do the job!

It's not like the game's writers were alone in this. Yoda letting Obi-Wan Kenobi teach Anakin Skywalker was a decision that should have been stupid, too, and ended up mostly working out. But pointing at the movies and saying "look they do unconscionably dumb stuff too!" does not make the games' unconscionably dumb stuff somehow less dumb.

[Ryzaki]

Which does add to the insanity of the storyline. Jedi should be lawful good, not lawful stupid. The latter doesn't improve the story line. Blatantly, I have the ability to perform wanton slaughter in crowded streets, blackmailing, extortion, support slavery, etc, but apparently no one sees how this plan to keep my character in check can go wrong. It's pretty weak, as the premise for a story since all we get from Bastila are a few mild-mannered talks about how I'm "giving in to my emotions". 

 

Eh I justified it as how KOTOR2 does with Atton. She was feeling the relish your DS character did but she hid it until she finally burst after Malak broke her.

 

Not the best justification but it works for me.

 

Carth on the other hand is just a little whiner.

[Ryzaki]

Listening to a unwashed hermit living in a cave that you should drink some dragon blood is beyond stupid evil and just plain stupid.

 

It really is.

 

I'm not sure why I couldn't just try to take the vase and walk off.

 

Why on earth would I leave behind a bunch of magical healing ashes that can raise someone from the dead? I'd slugged that crap over my shoulder and bounced.

[ThreeF]

That's not evil. That's uniting them together and getting them to work together. It's neutral at best.

 

And it was stable. For a time long enough for you to achieve what you needed.

 

Again stupid =/= evil. Sparing all of them and getting them to work together is not an evil action. I'm not sure why you're claiming it is either. You get instability from sparing anyone.

 

They do not work together, the epilogue suggests that it creates a very chaotic situation and that essentially you have not solved anything at all. Not good for Orlais as a country and it is clearly an evil choice because of the way IQ gets to phrase it.

 

I did not said stupid==evil action, I actually said stupid==good action. In winter palace situation good intentions lead to very bad things. You might  think you are doing something good by sparing them but you end up actually doing something very stupid if your intention is stability in Orlais.

[Ryzaki]

They do not work together, the epilogue suggests that it creates a very chaotic situation and that essentially you have not solved anything at all. Not good for Orlais as a country and it is clearly an evil choice because of the way IQ gets to phrase it.

 

I did not said stupid==evil action, I actually said stupid==good action. In winter palace situation good intentions lead to very bad things. You might  think you are doing something good by sparing them but you end up actually doing something very stupid if your intention is stability in Orlais.

 

They worked together when you needed them to. That was my point. Also it's clearly a good choice (that backfires) because of the way quizzy phrases the whole "you're the best of Orlais you should work together." option. (Which is why I called it neutral. It can be used with a good or evil justification. Trying to say it's evil period is absurd).

 

Most of the choices are neutral yes and have intended (or unintended) consequences. Which is actually why I love that segment. You could think you're being kind by sparing X or you could be sparing them because you want Y to have to rely on you to keep x at bay.

[Chashan]

Exceptional ability at battle meditation and fighting, not "mentoring a mind-wiped mass murderer to try to get her to work for us". She's also never taught anybody anything in her entire life. I had to go through training before they'd even let me be a TA; you'd think that they'd do a bit more with Bastila. Slapping the title of Knight or Master on her would not change anything, because her experience is the same, and her experience is the thing that is deficient.

Or even - novelty of novelties - assign an actual trained and experienced Master to do the job!

It's not like the game's writers were alone in this. Yoda letting Obi-Wan Kenobi teach Anakin Skywalker was a decision that should have been stupid, too, and ended up mostly working out. But pointing at the movies and saying "look they do unconscionably dumb stuff too!" does not make the games' unconscionably dumb stuff somehow less dumb.

 

Seems to be central to the good Jedi Order, then, screwing up when it comes to whom to assign to vastly powerful force-users.

 

Else, 'stupid good'* aside a good dose of arrogance might also explain why the Council thought themselves capable of playing dirty the Sith-way. Couple that with inexperience with 'turning an enemy into an ally' this way...

 

 

*I'd argue 'lawful good' does not quite cover the Jedi Order's alignment; in some respects it does meander into Lawful Neutral to True Neutral-ish territory, after all.

[ThreeF]

They worked together when you needed them to. That was my point. Also it's clearly a good choice (that backfires) because of the way quizzy phrases the whole "you're the best of Orlais you should work together." option. (Which is why I called it neutral. It can be used with a good or evil justification. Trying to say it's evil period is absurd).

 

Most of the choices are neutral yes and have intended (or unintended) consequences. Which is actually why I love that segment. You could think you're being kind by sparing X or you could be sparing them because you want Y to have to rely on you to keep x at bay.

 

That's what Quizzy might think, but it's not a good outcome at all in the end, now about the evil phrasing, I probably should have been clearer, you are given an option to make it an evil action with "you are working for me" option,  it stops being neutral if you make it evil and it is the only act that can be viewed as self-serving.

 

I do like Winter Palace quest a lot because it averts many things, mainly the work together=happy ending,  all these options are neutral until you give them intention, you are not making a "good choice" if you aim for stability and end up doing something that messes it up, you are making a "stupid choice". On the other hand if you are aiming for chaos the "stupid choice" becomes "evil choice" because the intention changes.

[Il Divo]

Seems to be central to the good Jedi Order, then, screwing up when it comes to whom to assign to vastly powerful force-users.

 

Else, 'stupid good'* aside a good dose of arrogance might also explain why the Council thought themselves capable of playing dirty the Sith-way. Couple that with inexperience with 'turning an enemy into an ally' this way...

 

 

*I'd argue 'lawful good' does not quite cover the Jedi Order's alignment; in some respects it does meander into Lawful Neutral to True Neutral-ish territory, after all.

 

Still, even giving them the benefit of the doubt, I'd argue that given the level of stupidity exhibited by the Jedi Council regarding your character's actions, they should never have survived to this point as an institution, yet they're admired for wisdom and knowledge. 

 

Your character has the potential to be a blatant psychopath. This isn't Palpatine's hiding behind the scenes stabbing in the back, but up front stabbing in the face and laughing about it. It's obvious even before the player leaves Dantooine what kind of personality they are dealing with. Even if they needed your character alive, the Jedi approach would not be to pretend that your character is an angel while he's repeatedly murdering people before Bastila's eyes. 

[Ryzaki]

That's what Quizzy might think, but it's not a good outcome at all in the end, now about the evil phrasing, I probably should have been clearer, you are given an option to make it an evil action with "you are working for me" option,  it stops being neutral if you make it evil and it is the only act that can be viewed as self-serving.

 

I do like Winter Palace quest a lot because it averts many things, mainly the work together=happy ending,  all these options are neutral until you give them intention, you are not making a "good choice" if you aim for stability and end up doing something that messes it up, you are making a "stupid choice". On the other hand if you are aiming for chaos the "stupid choice" becomes "evil choice" because the intention changes.

 

Not a good outcome =/= evil once again. You can make a decision for good reasons and have it blow up in your face. That's what I adore about that choice. But yes it can be seen as an evil action. It can also be a good action that didn't go the way quizzy hoped.

 

It's still a good choice though. Just a naive/stupid good choice which is great because that suits some characters (even some of mine). But yeah I do like that most of the Halamshiral choices can be twisted to either alignment.

[Seraphim24]

a gross murderous power fantasy

 

Again though, isn't that kind of a lot of games? Including DA:I as it already is? Theoretically, anyway.

[Sekondar]

Honestly the game I want is one where sometimes being good screws you over, sometimes being evil screws you over and being stupid always screws you over.

Surely we can agree on that?

Don't get your hopes up.

[Ryzaki]

Don't get your hopes up.

 

Oh I know it's a pipe dream.

 

But it's a nice dream.

[Father_Jerusalem]

TIL that forcing the mages to serve you as, essentially, prisoners and slaves is not - to some people - "evil".

 

Here's the thing, there are no mustache twirling acts of evil in this game. Nor should there be. Every act you take, every single one, is based on the personality of your Inquisitor.

 

And who decides your Inquisitor's personality?

 

YOU. DO.

 

"Waaah, Hawke has a set personality! I hate it! I want a protagonist I can personalize!" "Okay, here you go." "Waaaah. I have to decide my Inquisitor's personality! I hate it! I can't be evil! Waaaaah!"

 

My elf Inquisitor was a ruthlessly evil woman who destabilized the shem power bases as best she could in an attempt to create a world of elf soverignty. Enslaving the mages? Evil, because that's what she wanted. Exiling the wardens? Evil. Assassinating Celene and putting Briala in power? Evil. 

 

Because that's who my Inquisitor was. Her entire motive was "**** the shemlen." 

 

For years these boards have been crying about wanting a blank slate protagonist. Well, the Inquisitor as is blank slate as you're going to get within the dialogue system Bioware is using. And now y'all are complaining that you have to actually RP your character.

 

Good lord. There's literally no way to win, is there?

[Sekondar]

Oh I know it's a pipe dream.

But it's a nice dream.

I personally find it too hard to believe. Like picturing an atom.

[Sekondar]

TIL that forcing the mages to serve you as, essentially, prisoners and slaves is not - to some people - "evil".

Here's the thing, there are no mustache twirling acts of evil in this game. Nor should there be. Every act you take, every single one, is based on the personality of your Inquisitor.

And who decides your Inquisitor's personality?

YOU. DO.

"Waaah, Hawke has a set personality! I hate it! I want a protagonist I can personalize!" "Okay, here you go." "Waaaah. I have to decide my Inquisitor's personality! I hate it! I can't be evil! Waaaaah!"

My elf Inquisitor was a ruthlessly evil woman who destabilized the shem power bases as best she could in an attempt to create a world of elf soverignty. Enslaving the mages? Evil, because that's what she wanted. Exiling the wardens? Evil. Assassinating Celene and putting Briala in power? Evil.

Because that's who my Inquisitor was. Her entire motive was "**** the shemlen."

For years these boards have been crying about wanting a blank slate protagonist. Well, the Inquisitor as is blank slate as you're going to get within the dialogue system Bioware is using. And now y'all are complaining that you have to actually RP your character.

Good lord. There's literally no way to win, is there?

What? I'm complaining that I CAN'T roleplay my character evil, not that I have to roleplay? And I personally find him to be very bland. I get the impression, that I'm not the only one.

[TevinterSupremacist]

TIL that forcing the mages to serve you as, essentially, prisoners and slaves is not - to some people - "evil".

 

And who decides your Inquisitor's personality?

 

YOU. DO.

For years these boards have been crying about wanting a blank slate protagonist. Well, the Inquisitor as is blank slate as you're going to get within the dialogue system Bioware is using. And now y'all are complaining that you have to actually RP your character.

 

No, it's a necessary action to push back Corypheus by utilising the forces available at the time, while having them pay for their crimes. Ruthless, not evil.

 

Extremely narrow scope of decisions available. A blank slate protagonist is very good, provided you can paint him with a wide range of colours. We got from white to mild gray. Hardly a painting worth looking at.

[Father_Jerusalem]

What? I'm complaining that I CAN'T roleplay my character evil, not that I have to roleplay? And I personally find him to be very bland. I get the impression, that I'm not the only one.

 

Then it sounds like you have problems with actually roleplaying. Perhaps something from the Call of Duty oeuvre would be easier?

[omgodzilla]

Being evil for the sake of being evil is boring and stupid. Being ruthless to achieve your goals however is my favourite way to play any Bioware game. And that is where DAI falls short of previous Bioware games. The inquisitor is a boy scout compared to Renegade Shepard. 

[Sekondar]

Then it sounds like you have problems with actually roleplaying. Perhaps something from the Call of Duty oeuvre would be easier?

Oh, I see. How mature, glad we've ventured into this part of the woods. It's hard to roleplay a certain way, lacking the options to allow you.