63 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

I completely disagree. You can't actively undermine the mission, but you can be indifferent to it, or do it for entirely unheroic reasons.

This is where DAI surpasses DA2 - Hawke, quest by quest, was assumed to be doing things for jeroic reasons. Any choice made, Hawke's stated justification was that it was the right thing to do. The Inquisitor doesn't do that (largely by not tying quest options to dialogue).

If Hawke turns the Magister's son over to the angry mob, it is for justice. If Hawke returns the son to the Magister, it is in the hope of redemption. If Hawke makes a deal with slavers, it is reluctantly.

DAI wins by offering neutral response options, thereby not forcing justifications on the Herald.

 

You can never really use your power as the inquisitor for personal gain, though. Exploit people, and things like that to gain wealth and the like.

[Rawgrim]

You can't play proper Lawful Evil in a RPG. Ever. Because Lawful Evil means being an agent in a way that's impossible in the game. More importantly, people aren't asking for Lawful Evil choices. DA:O never had Lawful evil choices. It had insane psycho murder choices that should immediately backfire but don't, and "neutral" choices, in the sense that you had a utilitarian option that was not pure 100% good and the pure 100% good option that always paid off. 

 

I think you can in Planescape?

[b10d1v]

Where does all this destructive behavior come from?   Could it perhaps be aggression toward this broken pos?  I don't recommend trashing your computer, but tossing the DVD into a tree or perhaps shooting it -"Pull - bang!"  

 

It's choice w/o a choice, the inquisitor is by no means free to be some mindless aggressor, his position is supported by the people, support that can as quickly fall away.  Although a few youthful indiscretions may be tolerated, as history has shown.  You already have chaos and the people look to him/her to fix it -one slip and "off with his head!"  They'll find someone else.  For those of you fond of killing merchants, the economy in the game is weak enough -game over!  But maybe that is the goal?

 

On the other hand, if you were never caught and wish to go it alone, why not?  Many of us go it alone most of the time anyway, so everyone is after your glowing hand.  You could help society or trash them all and help Corey until you get that soul jump ability then screw Corey and become a god and remake the world to your liking!  Major changes, none the less, and the foundations remain weak.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You can never really use your power as the inquisitor for personal gain, though. Exploit people, and things like that to gain wealth and the like.

I don't think that matters. That you can acquire that power for selfish reasons (or any reason you can imagine) is what I like.

[AntiChri5]

You can never really use your power as the inquisitor for personal gain, though. Exploit people, and things like that to gain wealth and the like.

But you make tremendous personal gains by increasing the power of the Inquisition and can increase the power of the Inquisition in some immoral ways.

[thats1evildude]

Evil isn't a possibility, but the Inquisitor can be darn ruthless in a lot of situations.

[katerinafm]

But you can stop a bear from getting treats for a week!

[TheOgre]

Evil isn't a possibility, but the Inquisitor can be darn ruthless in a lot of situations.

 

I suppose that can be true with Celine's death and literally leaving Briala without a chance in hell against Gaspard.

[Frybread76]

It wouldn't fit. Your character is not evil & can not be evil. If they tried to be evil your party would just up & kill you. They have access to your army to you know.

 

I don't think the Inquisitor's followers would rise up and kill him simply because he has the only known way of closing Fade rifts.  They would probably remove him from leadership, imprison him and only bring him out only to close rifts.

[Octarin]

Why do video game players asking for evil options always sound like the guy in a tabletop game who annoys the rest of the players by trying to shiv townspeople?

 

This. And QFE. 

[Terodil]

Why do you assume that 'evil' means running around and stabbing people into the face in plain view of the public? Why do you assume that 'evil' is so extremely anti-social?

Evil can be a lot more insidious. Subtly changing an organisation from a helpful, seemingly altruistic organisation into an iron-fisted power apparatus that accepts no competitors can be done really well. It would enrich both the story ("make sure that the shadow you chase is not the shadow you cast") as well as the PC's relationships with various characters, most notably his/her companions. The slippery slope motif could/should play out differently for every companion, with some following the Inquisitor into hell itself, and others just making the u-turn before the Gates and seeking redemption. (I'd also like 'proper' evil companions that would object/leave if your Inquisition turned too goody-goody!)

Once again, re: resistance against an 'evil' Inquisitor: We have a concrete counterexample in game already which proves that provided you are strong-willed enough and have enough support, a dictator can get away with it: Darth Leliana ("the streets ran red..."). If the Inquisitor managed to pull the top tier of the Inquisition on his/her side (Cassandra and Leliana; Cullen would already be optional I think), there would not be many people who would dare openly oppose the Inquisitor. And if they did... well... people disappear all the time. :>

[TheOgre]

Why do you assume that 'evil' means running around and stabbing people into the face in plain view of the public? Why do you assume that 'evil' is so extremely anti-social?

Evil can be a lot more insidious. Subtly changing an organisation from a helpful, seemingly altruistic organisation into an iron-fisted power apparatus that accepts no competitors can be done really well. It would enrich both the story ("make sure that the shadow you chase is not the shadow you cast") as well as the PC's relationships with various characters, most notably his/her companions. The slippery slope motif could/should play out differently for every companion, with some following the Inquisitor into hell itself, and others just making the u-turn before the Gates and seeking redemption. (I'd also like 'proper' evil companions that would object/leave if your Inquisition turned too goody-goody!)

Once again, re: resistance against an 'evil' Inquisitor: We have a concrete counterexample in game already which proves that provided you are strong-willed enough and have enough support, a dictator can get away with it: Darth Leliana ("the streets ran red..."). If the Inquisitor managed to pull the top tier of the Inquisition on his/her side (Cassandra and Leliana; Cullen would already be optional I think), there would not be many people who would dare openly oppose the Inquisitor. And if they did... well... people disappear all the time. :>

 

Leliana is allowed to be the brutal Divine, I feel like we should have that honor too :*(

[Captain Wiseass]

Why do you assume that 'evil' means running around and stabbing people into the face in plain view of the public? Why do you assume that 'evil' is so extremely anti-social?

I don't assume that's the nature of evil. I assume that's what most gamers' conception of playing an evil protagonist is. And I make that assumption based on experience of what most gamers (not all, but most) do and say when playing or discussing an evil protagonist.

 

(And evil is inherently anti-social. Even an evil person who creates a well-ordered fascist state will have created a diseased society that's ultimately doomed to collapse.)

[Dai Grepher]

You can kill three helpless nugs in the thaig under Crestwood. There's your evil option.

 

Seriously though, it would be cool if you could switch out your advisors with agents. Like replace Josephine with Floriannne, replace Leliana with Servis, and replace Cullen with Movran. Then you could get some real evil done.

 

I think the only real evil ending is to intentionally undermine the Chantry so that it collapses. Which means putting Leliana on the Sunburst Throne without doing her personal quest. Her indecisiveness in the face of internal rebellions leads Morrigan to say that the Chantry is on the verge of being destroyed forever. Also, conscript the mages so that the same situation occurs all over again.

 

You can also screw up Orlais pretty badly. Have low court approval and side with anyone really, but I think Gaspard with Brialla controlling him is actually the worst option that is most likely to lead to widespread chaos. Or maybe it was Celene alone with Gaspard exiled and gaining a new army.

 

Other than that, leave Crestwood flooded. Leave the dragons alive. Leave the red templars alone. Don't work with the qunari, thus letting the red lyrium through to Par Vollen and (in theory) allowing the Venatori fire ship to level Denerim. Also the Venatori spies in the Inquisition stay hidden. Recruit the Wardens but make all the wrong choices so that they get wiped out against the darkspawn and demons. Let Imshael go in exchange for power. Kill everyone you possibly can.

[Terodil]

@Dai: Yeah, that's the best entry in the 'let's eff everything up' competition It's pretty much just (partly even self-)destructive and/or inactive. I wouldn't really call those choices 'evil', I'd be more tempted to call them 'bad' in the best case and 'stupid' in the worst xD

(Though we do have precedents. Most RPGs indeed have this kind of chaotic, (self)destructive behaviour pinned down as 'evil', and the opposite -- the well-reasoned choice -- as 'good'. Which is nonsense, of course, since the rational soundness of a decision is in most cases unrelated to its moral component.)

[Dai Grepher]

Thanks. I agree there weren't many opportunities to be intentionally evil, like giving Vivienne the wrong heart on purpose. Other evil outcomes are not chosen by you directly. Morrigan murder knifing Abelas only happens if you (logically) chase after the bad guys. But there should have been such opportunities. Like the judgments at Skyhold should have given you the option to close it off to the crowd so no one can see how you're acting.

 

It would also be pretty evil if you could make Cole human, anger him to where he wants to leave, but then you kill him because he lost most of his power by becoming more human. Another would be actually being able to track down and kill Sera after you give her the head start. We should also be able to put Thom Rainier in a gibbet out in the yard. And we should be able to shave his beard and throw eggs at him. Also, about Vivienne's quest. Even the evil option there doesn't seem to have any disastrous consequences. The guy just dies, which he was going to do anyway. I think a more evil ending would have him yell out in excruciating pain and thrash around violently until his stomach ruptures and blood gushes from his mouth. Then as Vivienne looks at the Inquisitor with eyes full of tears and rage the Inquisitor says, "Welp... Ahhh- think I'll be hittin' the ol' dusty trail..." as he slithers away.

 

I think making Cullen keep taking lyrium could be evil, depending on your response. If you're doing it for effectiveness, that's fine. If you're doing it because you flat out don't care about him, then yeah, evil.

[nightscrawl]

For the random violence, I do know a single example for a (I think) rogue Inquisitor. When doing the Dorian romance, you have the option of killing the merchant during the romance-only amulet quest. If you bring him along for this quest (doing so is optional) he gets royally pissed and disgusted with your thuggery and I'm pretty sure this ends the romance.

[DirkJake]

I think some immoral choices could be interesting. I like the idea of the Inquisitor trying to undermine other powers in Thedas and consolidating them into his/her own.  

[Erstus]

It wouldn't fit. Your character is not evil & can not be evil. If they tried to be evil your party would just up & kill you. They have access to your army to you know.

The Chantry and Templay Order are supposed to the righteous defenders of humankind yet both are full of rampant corruption.

Forcing me to be the world's "good guy" hero is boring and generic. At least in Origins you could make some immoral choices all while pushing yourself into a better position and saving Ferelden still.

[Erstus]

You can never really use your power as the inquisitor for personal gain, though. Exploit people, and things like that to gain wealth and the like.

Exaxtly

[nightscrawl]

You can never really use your power as the inquisitor for personal gain, though. Exploit people, and things like that to gain wealth and the like.

 

There is one instance where, if playing a Trevelyan, you can pick the noble option during the judgement of Mistress Poulin to take her assets for your family.

[Spectre Impersonator]

Where is my option to murder the self-righteous Vivienne?

 

Why can't I just say screw Orlais and walk out of the ball, leaving the Game and all its players to burn?

[S_i_d_e_winder]

As I see it it's not evil that should be a play style choice in this game, but how you acquire and use unlimited power.

The inquisitor begins as a powerful person, hence their invitation to the conclave. They were accused of being involved in the death of the Divine, but as soon as the Inquisitor's Rift closing abilities prove useful to others, albeit for a good cause, everyone was able to look the other way.

Now wouldn't a person accustomed to power understand that opportunity and seize on that advantage? That should be the optional play style. The titles Inquisition and Inquisitor just beg for that option. They even give meters for power and influence to measure your effectiveness.

So you should be able to choose to be the Inquisitor who uses their power to right wrongs, perform feats of derring-do and save the world. But you should also be able to choose to be the Inquisitor who can exploit their lofty position to rule an unstoppable army, increase their power by drinking from the Well of Sorrows, and ultimately removing the only real threat to you power, Corypheus.

[Eelectrica]

It wouldn't fit. Your character is not evil & can not be evil. If they tried to be evil your party would just up & kill you. They have access to your army to you know.

our character is the only one capable of closing the rifts as such our inquisitor has every one over a barrel.
It's a shame they didn't think to allow for a power mad quizzy. Power corrupts...

[Eelectrica]

My guess as to why they didn't is because of the keep.

Having two inquisitors at opposite ends of the moral spectrum would make writing DA4 almost impossible. Unless they killed the immoral inquisitor off screen for DA4.