How many times do we have to give our reasons for why we find the Inquisitor interesting? From a certain perspective, the Inquisitor offers more variance than most other Bioware protagonists in the past, but saying that leads to the opposition essentially saying that the people who feel that way are "doing it wrong" or "imagining things". That's just as dismissive of simplifying the argument of those who don't like the Inquisitor down to an "I can't be a jerk" complaint.
Nevertheless, I am an optimist so I will say this again. Always being diplomatic does not mean that every Inquisitor is the same. Diplomacy is a tool by which one attempts to reach their goals. It doesn't matter what those goals may be. Diplomacy can be used to help a dictator assume a throne in much the same way that it can be used to end wars and effect social change. For another example, lets look at Star Wars. Chancellor Palpatine and Padme both relied heavily on diplomacy to achieve their goals, but those goals and the people who championed them could not have been more different.
How many times do we have to give our reasons for why we find the Inquisitor interesting? From a certain perspective, the Inquisitor offers more variance than most other Bioware protagonists in the past, but saying that leads to the opposition essentially saying that the people who feel that way are "doing it wrong" or "imagining things". That's just as dismissive of simplifying the argument of those who don't like the Inquisitor down to an "I can't be a jerk" complaint.
Nevertheless, I am an optimist so I will say this again. Always being diplomatic does not mean that every Inquisitor is the same. Diplomacy is a tool by which one attempts to reach their goals. It doesn't matter what those goals may be. Diplomacy can be used to help a dictator assume a throne in much the same way that it can be used to end wars and effect social change. For another example, lets look at Star Wars. Chancellor Palpatine and Padme both relied heavily on diplomacy to achieve their goals, but those goals and the people who championed them could not have been more different.
Diplomacy, a tool for what in DA:I ? Could you keep some secrets from others for yourself and use them at the expense of others ? Could you use diplomacy to gain power, could you use diplomacy to lie, to deceive and to mislead some people in your way, whether they are annoying allies or ennemies ? Could you use diplomacy for ambitious projects ? For evil goals ? Could I betray people for a particular interest ?
Could I be a Staline in DA:I ? Someone deceitful, a powerful leader that matters ? Staline, considered as a hero by millions communists in the world, respected by all the leaders from the world. And yet who never hesitated to do many horrors during the war. A ruthless man. He gaves orders and horrible things happened.
Did you see that effect in the game ? My ambitious Trevelyan would have been happy to be diplomatic in such way, it didn't happen. In DA:I, you are diplomatic in a neutral way. It's bland. That's it. Please do tell me when we are able to play Palpatine in the game with the effects. Let's be concrete.
Diplomacy, a tool for what in DA:I ? Could you keep some secrets from others for yourself and use them at the expense of others ? Could you use diplomacy to gain power, could you use diplomacy to lie, to deceive and to mislead some people in your way, whether they are annoying allies or ennemies ? Could you use diplomacy for ambitious projects ? For evil goals ? Could I betray people for a particular interest ?
Could I be a Staline in DA:I ? Someone deceitful, a powerful leader that matters ? Staline, considered as a hero by millions communists in the world, respected by all the leaders from the world. And yet who never hesitated to do many horrors during the war. A ruthless man. He gaves orders and horrible things happened.
Did you see that effect in the game ? My ambitious Trevelyan would have been happy to be diplomatic in such way, it didn't happen. In DA:I, you are diplomatic in a neutral way. It's bland. That's it. Please do tell me when we are able to play Palpatine in the game with the effects. Let's be concrete.
First, I will say that my last post has nothing to do with what can and can't be done in the game itself. I see people repeating that the Inquisitor shows no variation because he is always diplomatic. This implies that there can be no variation between different individuals who happen to be diplomatic, and that's patently false. My last post was aimed only at illustrating the faulty nature of that assumption.
But since you ask, I will answer (again). My Inquisitor is able to put himself in a position to influence the course of one of Thedas' major empires. He does so by finding the secrets of influential people and coercing them by threatening to make them public or keep them secret. He can force an elite order of warriors to dissolve and be absorbed into his own faction. The entire game is about completing ambitious projects, so in a way he can't not use diplomacy to complete them.
The fact that the game doesn't explicitly say that you used diplomacy for an evil goal doesn't mean that you didn't. As an example, you can conscript the templars for perfectly reasonable, noble reasons, or you can do it to get back at them for oppressing you and your fellows in the Circle for the last several centuries. The motivations for your decisions are left in your hands instead of being packaged with the decisions themselves. I think that's better. I like that I'm free to determine why my character does the things he does rather than having the game tell me.
It's fine if you don't like things the same way I do, but I do think it's just false to say that Inquisition doesn't let you have unique and interesting Inquisitors. It just happens to do so in a way that is less satisfying to you.
PhroXenGold, Elhanan, Lebanese Dude et 1 autre aiment ceci
All I've been reading today is people asking to be dictators and totalitarians.
Considering you can be quite ruthless in both active and passive missions, one can say that you can be one already.
You simply can't order the death of everyone who displeases you.
Again, give me all those minor and big ruthless decisions, so I might understand what you mean.
People asked to be able to play a ruthless / selfish / ambitious / jerk inquisitor. Given that you are a leader, a figure of power, that seems a bit normal that people would consider examples like dictators. There are many other ways to be ruthless without that,. People are asking that they could play different kind of leaders. That's totally logic and totally relevant. Being a leader never meant being heroic. Saving the world never meant that you were a parangon. You can be a hero without being a nice guy, with many flaws. There are heroes in history who were for slavery, who were racists, who did horrible things.
They were considered as heroes by some, as disguting men by others. I remember a phrase from solas. i'm just wondering what kind of leader you'll be ? " Well, I wish those words meant something.
The fact that the game doesn't explicitly say that you used diplomacy for an evil goal doesn't mean that you didn't. As an example, you can conscript the templars for perfectly reasonable, noble reasons, or you can do it to get back at them for oppressing you and your fellows in the Circle for the last several centuries. The motivations for your decisions are left in your hands instead of being packaged with the decisions themselves. I think that's better. I like that I'm free to determine why my character does the things he does rather than having the game tell me.
True enough.
Although I would love it if they toned down the proclamations at the end of the quests.
The way my Inquisitor announced the mage alliance was hilariously out of character xD
The way my Inquisitor announced the mage alliance was hilariously out of character xD
Haha, yes, there are couple dialogues like this. Well, you can go and say that you lied (but i suspect that Josephine will say something to the effect of "you dug this hole, now live in it") You can set Vivienne on them though too.
First, I will say that my last post has nothing to do with what can and can't be done in the game itself. I see people repeating that the Inquisitor shows no variation because he is always diplomatic. This implies that there can be no variation between different individuals who happen to be diplomatic, and that's patently false. My last post was aimed only at illustrating the faulty nature of that assumption.
But since you ask, I will answer (again). My Inquisitor is able to put himself in a position to influence the course of one of Thedas' major empires. He does so by finding the secrets of influential people and coercing them by threatening to make them public or keep them secret. He can force an elite order of warriors to dissolve and be absorbed into his own faction. The entire game is about completing ambitious projects, so in a way he can't not use diplomacy to complete them.
The fact that the game doesn't explicitly say that you used diplomacy for an evil goal doesn't mean that you didn't. As an example, you can conscript the templars for perfectly reasonable, noble reasons, or you can do it to get back at them for oppressing you and your fellows in the Circle for the last several centuries. The motivations for your decisions are left in your hands instead of being packaged with the decisions themselves. I think that's better. I like that I'm free to determine why my character does the things he does rather than having the game tell me.
It's fine if you don't like things the same way I do, but I do think it's just false to say that Inquisition doesn't let you have unique and interesting Inquisitors. It just happens to do so in a way that is less satisfying to you.
So.. that's what is an evil inquisitor... ? A jerk ? Are you kidding me ? This is how you see the effects ? In DAO, When I decide to cut the throat of a child, when her mother tries to prevent me to do so, crying and forcing me to punch her, and people after come to tell me that I did an horrible thing, something actually aknowelgded by the game, there, I could feel I did something morally wrong.
When I lie to the cultists saying to them that I will never drink the ashes of Andraste, and that they come after me to scream to me that I lied to them, there I could feel that I deceived them.
pfff, so conscript the templars is a ruthless choice ? Nothing to do with being ruthless or deceiftul. The guy is asking you what to do with the templars. He is giving you the choice of their future. What you decide is hardly ruthless, it's just political. And they don't seem unhappy with what you did.
Franckly, if people are only able to point out what they headcanoned in their head, then, there is definitely an issue.
Haha, yes, there are couple dialogues like this. Well, you can go and say that you lied (but i suspect that Josephine will say something to the effect of "you dug this hole, now live in it") You can set Vivienne on them though too.
Alternatively, I mute the game and cover my ears
Jk...although I did do that when my IQ said "but we would be mad to trust you" to the mages. God that was SO out of character and completely unavoidable.
Phoe answered the gist of it in the post above. I'll refrain from repeating a relatively similar point
Then, I'm afraid I have seen nothing that could indicate me that the game allowed me to have ruthless / evil decisions. Something else than headcanon. The Palace winter, is meh, but I could at least aknowledge it as ruthless, though it's the only one I remember.
Franckly, if people are only able to point out what they headcanoned in their head, then, there is definitely an issue.
Let me say it again. There's an issue for you because that's not how you'd prefer it. It is not an issue for me because it doesn't make things any less "real" or meaningful. It's. A. Matter. Of. Preference.
Or maybe I should just convert to your way of thinking because it's clearly the right way. What do I know about how I enjoy to play my games?
I find it morally wrong to sit and watch my subordinates being slaughtered in front of my eyes just because I want to be viewed as hero and if you think that was headcanon you might want to pay close attention to what is going on on the screen.
I find it hilarious that once the naysayers are asked to give real in game choices to back up their claims and not their own head canon they completely derp out.
It's okay to admit that the game does not actually give you these options but you can roleplay your motives however you like. Which is essentially how the game works and why this doesn't work for those who want an actual manifestation of their actions to play out in the environment.
With that said, the only time I felt like I made a ruthless pragmatic choice that had in game results was the Winter Palace. But that is one quest choice.
Let me say it again. There's an issue for you because that's not how you'd prefer it. It is not an issue for me because it doesn't make things any less "real" or meaningful. It's. A. Matter. Of. Preference.
And preferences are fine but usually when these threads pop up there is always the group that come in to tell everyone else how wrong they are, and how they can most certainly play X character type when all they are doing is using head canon to argue facts.
I find it hilarious that once the naysayers are asked to give real in game choices to back up their claims and not their own head canon they completely derp out.
They were given gurl. Check the above posts.
Do we have to write a thesis on the same game we both played?
Spoiler
It can take only one choice to be ruthless, or are you really implying that choosing to ALLOW a person (the Empress) to die for the sake of pragmatic resolution to not be one.
How about insisting that Iron Bull's team (the one you personally interacted with) sacrifice themselves in order to secure an alliance with the Qunari?
How about attacking the CLEARLY non-aggressive Wardens in Adamant after you handled them earlier in the mission. KILL THEM ALL!!!!!! It can also be argued that this quest FORCES you to be relatively ruthless. Either exile the remaining Wardens despite them just helping you and with them potentially having NO senior leadership left, or conscript them into the Inquisition knowing full well that they are vulnerable. The latter is relatively "happy", but it's still a risk you take in the name of pragmatism (you need all the help you can get).
How about the various judgments? Pretty sure you can have most of them executed. They can be justified but they're still ruthless.
There are dozens of dialogue choices that support a ruthless inquisitor...
The war table missions.... pretty sure I was rather ruthless on my 3rd playthrough. It actually felt justified too... not crazy and psychopathic.
I can go and on but you can clearly see that potential ruthlessness is plentiful, if not murderous psychopathy.
Modifié par Lebanese Dude, 25 février 2015 - 08:50 .
After looking back, perhaps I misunderstood what people want when they ask for "concrete examples". I don't think I've ever said that the game shows you the effects of your choices beyond the obvious. Like I said, it's fine if you don't like how the game handles that aspect, but I just can't agree when they say that you cannot make a ruthless or self-serving character.
Let me say it again. There's an issue for you because that's not how you'd prefer it. It is not an issue for me because it doesn't make things any less "real" or meaningful. It's. A. Matter. Of. Preference.
Or maybe I should just convert to your way of thinking because it's clearly the right way. What do I know about how I enjoy to play my games?
Oh please, I am reasonable, I can be easily convinced, when people give the good arguments with concrete examples, and this hasn't been done at all in my opinion. At this point, telling to Cassandra that you don't want her to be the divine might be considered as evil/ ruthless because of my headcanon motivations. Oh yeah, I'm Palpatine in my head, I have evil plans !
Not but really ? Are you. kidding. me ? Headcanon, that's the new defense ? Something in your head that is never aknowledged ? This isn't skyrim. I do something like that in skyrim. Someone is asking me something, I say " no ", and I imagine that it was because I was an evil man that didn't care about him. Of course it was in my head, the game didn't show me that it was morally wrong to not help this poor guy in the need.
Replay Mass effect, replay DAO, replay DAII, as the worst man ever. Try the same with DA:I. And you'll see pretty much the difference. That's the only thing i can say at this point. Now, we agree on something, we think differently and people have zero chance to convince me.
Why, because the only argument seems to be all about headcanon, and this isn't how truly it should work. Headcanon isn't an argument that I would ever consider.
It boggles me that I have to. It's like we didn't play the same game.
Pardon DAI if it doesn't allow you to be a ruthless douchebag every step of the way. Considering it shies away from 2-dimensional caricatures, that's hardly a surprise.
So is there somewhere that can tell me which games it's okay to headcanon in and which games it's unacceptable in?
Replay Mass effect, replay DAO, replay DAII, as the worst man ever. Try the same with DA:I. And you'll see pretty much the difference. That's the only thing i can say at this point. Now, we agree on something, we think differently and people have zero chance to convince me.
Why, because the only argument seems to be all about headcanon, and this isn't how truly it should work. Headcanon isn't an argument that I would ever consider.
I never argued that the Inquisitor can be the same as the Warden or Hawke. Evil comes in many different flavors and varieties. I may not be slitting throats or kicking puppies, but that doesn't mean I'm a good guy.
I'd use an example here, but I'm sure that it would be twisted and used against me in some way with little regard to its actual point.
I'm not trying to bring anyone about to my way of playing the game. I don't care how you go about it. I do, however, care that people dismiss those of us who are satisfied with the Inquisitor's capacity for unique personalities just because we view things in a way that didn't occur to them.
And for the record, I'm not thrilled with the quality of argument that's been brought against me either. Most of it pretty much boils down to "you're wrong for being satisfied with headcanon because I'm not satisfied with headcanon".
What's funny is that the majority of decisions in DAO boil down to whether you're a pragmatist, a jerk, or a good guy. The actual intent behind the decisions is always headcanon'd.
Why would you save the anvil if you aren't a pragmatist? The entire point of it is sacrifice. and as Caridin points out, very likely not voluntarily.
Why would you kill the elves if you aren't a douchebag? I mean...LOL ... speaks for itself. Sure you can headcanon that ...elves are icky...?
Why would you leave the village to die or let Isolde sacrifice herself if you aren't being pragmatic about your cause? ...yeah... knocking out momma while you stab her child. That's noble.
Why would you let Loghain, the guy who's responsible for your current situation, survive while sacrificing your companion through all the challenges you faced if not to be pragmatic?
etc..
meanwhile, DAI actually gives you decisions that don't require you to be a jerk, a pragmatist, or a good guy.
Spoiler
Take the direct path and assist the soldiers or take the less risky mountain path and try to find the scouts?
Both mages and templars have their good and bad points.... no ruthless or angelic personality required.
Drinking from the well or letting Morrigan do it herself have good and bad points. Trust in an ancient being or not?
Judgments give you potential solutions that do not have to be "paragon" or ruthless.
Yeah... I'd much rather prefer DAI's approach with the occasionally potentially ruthless decision-making rather than it being the point ALL THE TIME.
Do we have to write a thesis on the same game we both played?
Spoiler
It can take only one choice to be ruthless, or are you really implying that choosing to ALLOW a person (the Empress) to die for the sake of pragmatic resolution to not be one.
How about insisting that Iron Bull's team (the one you personally interacted with) sacrifice themselves in order to secure an alliance with the Qunari?
How about attacking the CLEARLY non-aggressive Wardens in Adamant after you handled them earlier in the mission. KILL THEM ALL!!!!!!
How about the various judgments? Pretty sure you can have most of them executed. They can be justified but they're still ruthless.
There are dozens of dialogue choices that support a ruthless inquisitor...
The war table missions.... pretty sure I was rather ruthless on my 3rd playthrough. It actually felt justified too... not crazy and psychopathic.
I can go and on but you can clearly see that potential ruthlessness is plentiful, if not murderous psychopathy.
I'll give you the Chargers although I only liked the "Not a Mage" elf.
The judgements...no. Punishing people who have committed crimes is not ruthless.
I've attacked those Wardens mostly by accident, but they are an enemy force. I don't consider that ruthless.
Where are these ruthless dialogue choices?
The only thing I saw manifest from the Wartable was the marriage in VR.
-----------
Mass Effect: Had a stand off with Wrex and shot him in the face and told the Salarians to dump his body in the swamp. Sacrificed the Council, was openly pro human, told my companions to shut up whenever they annoyed me. Sabotaged the Genophage with Wrex and Eve alive and well, shot Mordin in the back, punched a reporter in the face cause I didn't like her, sacrificed innocent people to stop the Batarian who wanted to ride an Astroid into the planet, recruited a barbarian who was killing humans in ME3, Killed my old gang buddy, Let Samara kill herself to save her daughter then killed her right after, Killed Samara and recruited her serial killer daughter, pushed an enemy out the window for not answering my questions, let the Quarians pew pew themselves to death when I could have recruited both them and the Geth, had a face down with Wrex in ME3 where I tried to lie to him, then I shot him up and said he just went crazy.
Dragon Age: Killed a child in front of his crying mother, convinced the wolves to kill the elves, sided with Branka, allowed avernus to continue his unethical research, left Redcliffe to burn, Married Anora, spared Loghain, had Alistair's head rolling(after befriending him), told him the GWs mean nothing to me, sold elves into slavery, Killed Leliana, Wynne, and Shale. Helped Petrice aggravate the war between the Qunari and Kirkwall, knew one mage was getting raped but still sold him out to the Templars, Killed kienan(sp?) the innocent Templar who was about to be possessed, after I cost him his job, can sell Fenris back into slavery (never took that option), and can threaten nearly anyone to get what I want.
Mind you I know it's unfair to stack two and three games on top. But I want to show how much things have dwindled in DAI compared to the mass Effect series and the two previous DA games.
Winter Palace
Bull's chargers
Letting Sera horribly kill a noble (see I'll help you out)
That's it. See why I'm not at all impressed here. DAI does rely heavily on head canon and the motivations in your head, the game rarely gives you the meat and potatoes to act out those motivations or to witness the results. I got teary eyed with I shot Mordin, I watched him crawl coughing up blood to the console. I watched Wrex and Eve proclaim me a hero to their people and someone they will sing songs about, heck they wanted to name their first child after me. That is a deep betrayal. Not sacrificing a bunch of fighters you shared one drink with.
Retour en haut
