64 réponses à ce sujet

[Master Warder Z_]

Ewww Qunari

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I didn't say they were evil. None of those choices by themselves are bad. However, that combination of choices is going to leave Thedas in a worse state than it was when the Inquisition started. No problem has been solved and many have just been made worse.

Vivienne fixes the Circle.

I'd say the worst state of Thedas is Leliana as Divine without doing her personal quest.

Or, for that matter, putting her hardened persona on the throne -- even if that ending is 1000000x more reasonably believable than that of her softened self.

[The Baconer]

Looking back on some of the trailer images, it did appear that the inquisitor could be evil. False advertisement...

 

 

Yeah, but what would one have to accomplish to be evil in this situation? At worst, I'd bet you'd be able to do... basically what hardened Leliana does in her own ending. Oh, but you might be a non-human! A male, even! The horror, the villainy!

 

Personally, I find the idea of "being evil" within Inquisition's narrative pretty dumb. Now, I'd love the choice to be more brutal, or cold, calculating, even corrupt. But "evil", to me, describes a person who would not be Inquisitor for very long.

[BansheeOwnage]

The Inquisitor is Captain America, Hawke is Tony Stark, and the Warden is Loki. If you're going for having dramatically different personalities over a trilogy-playthrough.

[Illyria]

Looking back on some of the trailer images, it did appear that the inquisitor could be evil. False advertisement...

 

 

That piece of art was only released after the game came out as an example of stuff the devs wanted to do but hadn't been able to make work.  It was never used in advertising.
 

[Illyria]

Vivienne fixes the Circle.

I'd say the worst state of Thedas is Leliana as Divine without doing her personal quest.

Or, for that matter, putting her hardened persona on the throne -- even if that ending is 1000000x more reasonably believable than that of her softened self.

 

I'd agree that

Spoiler

Leliana without doing The Left Hand of the Divine is the worst of the Divine candidates, but getting her as Divine would also be very hard to do with the worldstate I outlined.  I also picked Vivienne for that scenario as she's the one most interested in getting things back to how they were rather than outright reform.  In a worldstate were the mages were conscripted (meaning that the leaders of the rebellion are still alive and the mages had a chance at freedom but this was taken away from them) means that the resentments that existed before the war broke are still there.  Since I've never actually had Vivtoria I don't actually know enough about her ending, just what I've read and heard online.

 

Overall I do think that putting Leliana in charge without doing her quest is the best (worst?) choice for this worldstate.

[Ieldra]

I'd say that "evil" is more a state of mind, and it doesn't necessarily need to manifest in specific types of actions.

You can:

(1) Regard the Inquisition as your stepping stone to power, and see everything you do in service of that.
(2) Recommend and/r order ruthless solutions to some problems coming up.
(3) Not care about anyone's wellbeing unless it suits your interests. The thing is, as along as people are your henchmen, you're naturally interested in their well-being at least to a point.

"Evil" is an attitude of stepping over corpses to achieve ends that benefit yourself. However, even if you have such an attitude you'd usually prefer to achieve them without stepping over corpses, simply because that causes fewer problems. Also, ends that benefit yourself can, accidentally, also benefit others. An intelligent "evil" person wouldn't go out of their way to prevent those, because hey, if you can achieve your ends *and* have a good reputation, that's all for the better.

So, is there a way to play such an Inquisitor? That depends on what your goals are. You'll end up with the power of a ruler revered as a religious figure by many people. Having that as a goal would suit some "evil" types well, and that you can achieve it with very little ruthlessness doesn't mean your intentions are altruistic.

However, there are some goals it is not possible to contemplate. For instance, I regret that I couldn't at least contemplate to follow Corypheus' path, because that's the kind of power my main Inquisitor would be after, if any, and that's what she would be actively seeking if it was possible to do so without destroying half the world for it. And she isn't even evil - in fact, she hates to see people suffer and will go out of her way to mitigate that - she just believes that there is no limit to the level of individual autonomy that is desirable.

[Boost32]

I wish my ?inquisition could be like this:

[Lulupab]

Vivienne fixes the Circle.

I'd say the worst state of Thedas is Leliana as Divine without doing her personal quest.

Or, for that matter, putting her hardened persona on the throne -- even if that ending is 1000000x more reasonably believable than that of her softened self.

 

I like the way you think my dear, taking all the power from Templars and making them puppets. Vivienne is casting a large shadow for Tevinter Magisters.

 

Actually when I blamed the Templars in early conversations and Vivienne approved, it kinda came as a shock but seeing what she does with Templar order when becoming divine, its not actually a surprise. I wanted to be on the good side of Vivienne but without saying things that I vehemently disagree with such as the old circles were fine. All you have to do is tell her mages shouldn't be kept from Chantry ranks and blame Templars, she will forget everything about mages and greatly approves.

 

In fact I really like hardened Leliana. Both Cassandra and Leliana (hardened) acknowledge the utter corruption and incompetence in chantry, yet Cassandra still tries to "fix" it. I like Leliana's fixing method better. The chantry needs to be shaken from top to bottom just like the seekers. Once all the bad seeds are gone, a new chantry will rise, better than ever.

[Lulupab]

BTW has anyone seen disapproving Cassandra? She becomes a drunkard and insults the Inquisitor while downing in her own sorrows. Its absolutely pitiful and evil, punching Solas pales in comparison.

[BansheeOwnage]

Does everyone see Corypheus' head on a pike? Yeah, it seems like you were originally going to have been able to have a darker personality. (And apparently you weren't going to fade-disintegrate him.) "Dark" might be a better word here than "evil" in this conversation anyway.

 

I'd say that "evil" is more a state of mind, and it doesn't necessarily need to manifest in specific types of actions.

You can:

(1) Regard the Inquisition as your stepping stone to power, and see everything you do in service of that.
(2) Recommend and/r order ruthless solutions to some problems coming up.
(3) Not care about anyone's wellbeing unless it suits your interests. The thing is, as along as people are your henchmen, you're naturally interested in their well-being at least to a point.

"Evil" is an attitude of stepping over corpses to achieve ends that benefit yourself. However, even if you have such an attitude you'd usually prefer to achieve them without stepping over corpses, simply because that causes fewer problems. Also, ends that benefit yourself can, accidentally, also benefit others. An intelligent "evil" person wouldn't go out of their way to prevent those, because hey, if you can achieve your ends *and* have a good reputation, that's all for the better.

So, is there a way to play such an Inquisitor? That depends on what your goals are. You'll end up with the power of a ruler revered as a religious figure by many people. Having that as a goal would suit some "evil" types well, and that you can achieve it with very little ruthlessness doesn't mean your intentions are altruistic.

However, there are some goals it is not possible to contemplate. For instance, I regret that I couldn't at least contemplate to follow Corypheus' path, because that's the kind of power my main Inquisitor would be after, if any, and that's what she would be actively seeking if it was possible to do so without destroying half the world for it. And she isn't even evil - in fact, she hates to see people suffer and will go out of her way to mitigate that - she just believes that there is no limit to the level of individual autonomy that is desirable.

I would say that evil (being subjective) goes beyond selfishness and ambition and into sadism. So in that case, you can't really play an evil character and I think that would be too far anyway.

[Master Warder Z_]

Nothing wrong with sadism.

It sends a effective message.

If you stand against me; you won't just die, you'll die slow, and your family, and your friends, all the people who are close to you will suffer horribly because you picked the wrong fellow to mess with.

[Riven326]

Have they ever addressed the obvious role play disadvantages regarding DA:I?

[Carmen_Willow]

SHALLOW WATERS STATES:

[Edited for space]

There are a lot of things I hoped of DA:I which weren't there. Demanding tithes or 'protection fees' (note: this is something gangs frequently do) of the local lords and ladies in exchange for military support and defence against whatever evil faction you require, for instance, would be a start. If war table missions required resources, it may force your hand into cutting corners - for instance, helping refugees requires resources, men, and money most likely, and you may decide not to do that in order to focus on your goal. Essentially, there's a finite amount of things in the world (game would make that clear), and you have to choose whether you'd pursue that side-quest or instead whether you'd have the most effective option when it comes to dealing with the big bad (e.g. you might have heavy losses in the army, or even have to lose one of your companions). I would also have judgement outcomes having bigger options - dependent on choices and which factions you side with, you get more/less money from nobles, and would have to tailor your choices to meet your allies demands. I think the fact that Skyhold is so distant and so in need of repair would come into this - it's tactically placed, but its lack of arable land would mean it's not self-sufficient, and thus money is always an issue.[Edited for space]

 

Well, you CAN do this,

Spoiler

Keep the Wardens and then send them out on dangerous missions and get most of them killed off.

[BansheeOwnage]

 

SHALLOW WATERS STATES:

[Edited for space]

There are a lot of things I hoped of DA:I which weren't there. Demanding tithes or 'protection fees' (note: this is something gangs frequently do) of the local lords and ladies in exchange for military support and defence against whatever evil faction you require, for instance, would be a start. If war table missions required resources, it may force your hand into cutting corners - for instance, helping refugees requires resources, men, and money most likely, and you may decide not to do that in order to focus on your goal. Essentially, there's a finite amount of things in the world (game would make that clear), and you have to choose whether you'd pursue that side-quest or instead whether you'd have the most effective option when it comes to dealing with the big bad (e.g. you might have heavy losses in the army, or even have to lose one of your companions). I would also have judgement outcomes having bigger options - dependent on choices and which factions you side with, you get more/less money from nobles, and would have to tailor your choices to meet your allies demands. I think the fact that Skyhold is so distant and so in need of repair would come into this - it's tactically placed, but its lack of arable land would mean it's not self-sufficient, and thus money is always an issue.[Edited for space]

 

Well, you CAN do this,

Spoiler

Keep the Wardens and then send them out on dangerous missions and get most of them killed off.

 

I got the impression you can do some of the bolded, though I can't remember exactly when. I am all in favour of resources meaning more, costing you in the final battle(s), as well as doing sidequests helping, in different ways. I was... let's say "disappointed" (especially after playing DA:O, ME2 and ME3) to find out that in DA:I, it doesn't make any difference at all - good or bad - (in relation to missions and especially the endgame) if you do all the sidequests or none. Or even the companion quests.