63 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

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.

 

Didn't know about that one. I'd say that one counts though.

[In Exile]

<1.> You can. Even if your agency is somewhat limited by the authors' script.

<2.> I am.

 

Name some Lawful Evil choices in DA:O. Give me 10, and I'll admit I'm wrong. 

[In Exile]

I think you can in Planescape?

 It's been so long since I've played PS:T. I don't remember it well enough, because I don't commonly play "evil" characters (selfish and power-hungry, sure, but DA:I works just fine for that kind of character; you just can't be so stupid as to tell everyone you're pretending to be good for evil purposes). 

[In Exile]

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. :>

But Leliana is a phenomenal example of how it isn't "evil" in a meaningful sense. In her Bloody Divine epilogue, she's forcing the most inclusive and "moral" change we can imagine on the Chantry: freedom and greater rights for mages, the inclusion of elves, dwarves (and even qunari) into the clergy, a split between the Chantry as a military/political power to a purely political one. She just so happens to be doing this by a very dark path: suppression and violence. 

 

But her open goal is very noble, and that's what binds the cause together. To say that what she does is evil is like saying the Anvil of the Void (siding with Branka) choice is "evil" because you have to sacrifice dwarves to create anti-darkspawn elite forces (the golems). 

 

More importantly, did you miss the most important part of the Bloody Divine ending? It turns into a civil war in the Chantry, threatening to tear it apart (though Leliana is brutal enough to reign everyone in). That's something that's incredibly expensive in-game to implement. You need to basically write a whole parallel game where the Inquisition threatens to disintegrate itself and have quests centered around purges and other quasi-dictatorial approaches to seize power. 

 

When I say that a game doesn't do justice to evil besides psycho-murder, it's because dictators don't rise to power in clean ways. 

[Lethaya]

I would say the Inquisitor was more limited because the story they wanted to tell was a large one, encompassing religions, world leaders and politics, and at a certain point the Quizzy just needed to fulfill a certain role for the story to progress in a way that wouldn't completely wreck the worldstate for future installments in the series. XD Like the whole Inquisitor claiming godhood thing people have thrown around - an option like that would either make future storylines vary a ton, or be forecully made inconsequential so they wouldn't have to deal with it. I'd rather have Quizzy not have the option than have it cause trouble down the line or feel like it was all for nothing.

 

Though maybe in making the next game, hopefully one with a bit more of a mundane protagonist (it's good to mix things up, no?), Bioware can offer more in regards to morality, as it'd be a simpler matter since it wouldn't effect nearly as much with the world's bigger picture in mind. That's what I'm hoping, anyways. I mean I don't usually go with the bad decisions, but it's nice to have them there regardless.

[In Exile]

I would say the Inquisitor was more limited because the story they wanted to tell was a large one, encompassing religions, world leaders and politics, and at a certain point the Quizzy just needed to fulfill a certain role for the story to progress in a way that wouldn't completely wreck the worldstate for future installments in the series. XD Like the whole Inquisitor claiming godhood thing people have thrown around - an option like that would either make future storylines vary a ton, or be forecully made inconsequential so they wouldn't have to deal with it. I'd rather have Quizzy not have the option than have it cause trouble down the line or feel like it was all for nothing.

 

Though maybe in making the next game, hopefully one with a bit more of a mundane protagonist (it's good to mix things up, no?), Bioware can offer more in regards to morality, as it'd be a simpler matter since it wouldn't effect nearly as much with the world's bigger picture in mind. That's what I'm hoping, anyways. I mean I don't usually go with the bad decisions, but it's nice to have them there regardless.

 

I thought the godhood bit was pretty clearly just Corypheus being a full on nutter. 

[Lethaya]

Yeah, but then everyone in the Inquisition does discuss whether or not it's truly possible, and the Inquisitor may ask Morrigan if that meant they could rival him on that subject or enter the City themselves and such things. As I said, I don't believe it would work so much as ah. Cause more problems? XD

[TaHol]

Ability to be a total jerk can be oddly entertaining and refreshing. Yesterday I laughed my butt off when my Sith said something like "well you can't put a price to peace so start count those credits on my hand and stop when I say so". I was not prepared for that. I have shocked and killed people just for fun, something I would never do (IRL) but it was so frieking fun to be able to do it...and then I have a full Light-side Agent who surprises me all the time too by being the kindest person in Empire. I blaim Vectors influence.

 

What happened to BioWare, I don't get it. If they would do SWTOR now...omg. My Sith would be like "for the Empire", "for the Code", "for the honour of Sith" and do everything he was told to with no exeptations.

 

I have complained time after time about Inquisitors personality and lack of choices that would actually give him a personality, and my complain stays. And playing SWTOR has made me really sad. It might be the last time I get to enjoy surprising, well-written lines for my character. Stories and writing is what brought me to BioWare-games, and when those are gone there is no reason for me to keep buying them.

[Terodil]

Name some Lawful Evil choices in DA:O. Give me 10, and I'll admit I'm wrong.

KoTOR (and to a lesser extent, KoTOR 2) did allow you plenty of opportunity to be lawful evil (just off the top of my head: enslaving the wookies on Kashyyyk by working with Czerka and installing a puppet wookie regime; wiping out the Progenitor on Manaan to force the Selkath to ally with you; taking over the Starforge to establish your very own reign of terror over the galaxy). SWTOR does too.
  

But Leliana is a phenomenal example of how it isn't "evil" in a meaningful sense. In her Bloody Divine epilogue, she's forcing the most inclusive and "moral" change we can imagine on the Chantry: freedom and greater rights for mages, the inclusion of elves, dwarves (and even qunari) into the clergy, a split between the Chantry as a military/political power to a purely political one. She just so happens to be doing this by a very dark path: suppression and violence.

The end justifies the means, so since she tries to change the Chantry to the better, who cares about all the corpses littering her path?

You have a very weird understanding of good and evil.
 

But her open goal is very noble, and that's what binds the cause together. To say that what she does is evil is like saying the Anvil of the Void (siding with Branka) choice is "evil" because you have to sacrifice dwarves to create anti-darkspawn elite forces (the golems).

Siding with Branka is indeed an evil choice, because you know that the dwarves to be turned into Golems wouldn't all go willingly. The codices and the surrounding evidence (also Shale's story) corroborate it. Branka is evil and mad, almost to the point of being a caricature of it, and you'd enable her by chosing to side with her rather than Carridin.

Branka is not a 'good' counterexample.
 

When I say that a game doesn't do justice to evil besides psycho-murder, it's because dictators don't rise to power in clean ways.

I don't get what you're trying to say. 'Clean ways'? Lawful Evil is not about being 'clean'. Most dictators are Lawful Evil, abusing the system for strengthening their powerbase until they have either warped the system completely or simply taken over. History provides plenty of examples. Very few are chaotic evil, such as Nero.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

Name some Lawful Evil choices in DA:O. Give me 10, and I'll admit I'm wrong. 

no such thing... all depends on a char you want to RP. here's a chantry apologist mage who imho fits Lawful part, hint: being a self-righteous, religious zealot is evil:

1. giving Jowan to Irving/Gregoir

2. persuading another chantry apologist mage to become tranquil

3. killing Sten in Lothering (there's no 'die, infidel', dialogue, true)

4. killing prisoner in ostagar

5. killing soldier before ostagar instead of healing him / killing elven ranger instead of carying him to the camp

6. circle annulment

7. accepting Loghain surrender (that's very gray imho, so doesn't quite fit, replace with telling Ruck's mother he's alive and that she should visit him)

8. killing Alistair

9. killing slave master in Alienage

10. killing elves because blood magic, demon worshiping, lying keeper

[TevinterSupremacist]

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?

Never as annoying as the guy who keeps playing the LG paladin.

[ask_again_later]

Honestly the only time you can really ever have an immoral character is origins. I mean Hawke can do bad stuff but the Warden you can make flat out evil. Hawke might be a jerk but he still has his beliefs and he still stands up for what he thinks is right even if he's a jerk about it . But the Warden you can make manipulative you can make selfish you can make flat out evil. A lto of people say the Warden can't be customized that much but I completely disagree. I'm actually a fan of the silent character because the dialogue options are more complex. But yeah basically Warden is the evilest you can get. And I like evil stuff. 

[ask_again_later]

most evil stuff my Warden's done:

Betrayed people basically any time I got the chance

Left Redcliffe for dead because not my problem.

Male a deal with the desire demon.

Drank dragon blood.

Helped Kitty.

Defiled the ashes and tricked Leliana and recruited Wynne afterwards so that I could keep her.

Kept the anvil and tricked Shale into thinking I helped Caridin.

Drank Warden blood.

Killed Cathrien instead of letting myself get arrested.

Made a deal with Anora, recruited Loghain and let Alistair get killed. my last words to him were "be a man for once alistair."

Let Loghain die. Just as planned.

Other evil things.

[chrstnmonks]

I support this. It can be very fun playing a immoral ruthless character.