"Jerk" is about the worst you can be. Far from the dark figure that could destroy Thedas which we were initially promised.
That's all?
Become godlike, sacrifice your followers for your own power, seize the power of the Water Dragon and master power over the dead and become an immortal ruler feared by all!
That's what Jade Empire showed me Bioware is capable of.
You could be kicked out of the WinterPalace,and the world is end.lol.
This is actually one of my complaints about DAI. You can't play a negative (or "evil") Inquisitor/Inquisition. This upsets me because when DAI was on the drawing board and Bioware was selling us on the idea, it was stated (or at least strongly implied) that you could. That is, the Inquisitor would either save the world or destroy it.
I think the people who actually believed that the Inquisitor would ever be *evil* are a bit dense. Bioware, to my recollection, has never let the player be evil, only an inconsiderate d**k at the absolute worst.
I think the people who actually believed that the Inquisitor would ever be *evil* are a bit dense. Bioware, to my recollection, has never let the player be evil, only an inconsiderate d**k at the absolute worst.
Darkside Revan in KOTOR, Way of the Closed Fist Spirit Monk.
Evil Spirit Monk actually made me feel unclean, (s)he is so ruthless in pursuit of their own power.
Darkside Revan in KOTOR, Way of the Closed Fist Spirit Monk.
Evil Spirit Monk actually made me feel unclean, (s)he is so ruthless in pursuit of their own power.
Indeed Dark Revan in Kotr was outright despicable including having the Naive Little Girl (Twi'lek Rogue with a heart of gold) being murdered by her Wookie best friend through using the Dark Side of the Force.....and Dark Bastilla gloats about how wonderful that was and how much the girl deserves it. Just one example.
You could be kicked out of the WinterPalace,and the world is end.lol.
Yeah, but that's the world ending because the Qizzy was a dumb-dumb, not from being deliberately malicious. In fact it's so easy to earn Palace approval, that it's almost impossible to get kicked out [you really, really have to work at it].
I think the people who actually believed that the Inquisitor would ever be *evil* are a bit dense. Bioware, to my recollection, has never let the player be evil, only an inconsiderate d**k at the absolute worst.
This has already been answered, but Bioware in the past has been more than willing to allow the PC to be very dark if not outright evil. The Evil Spirit Monk, Dark Revan, heck in BG you could end the game by becoming the new God of Murder....and justifiably so. Even in ME1, Shepard could do some things as a Specter that were down right dark and frankly evil and malicious. The Sanitizing of the Main Hero in Bioware games is actually pretty recent.
This has already been answered, but Bioware in the past has been more than willing to allow the PC to be very dark if not outright evil. The Evil Spirit Monk, Dark Revan, heck in BG you could end the game by becoming the new God of Murder....and justifiably so. Even in ME1, Shepard could do some things as a Specter that were down right dark and frankly evil and malicious. The Sanitizing of the Main Hero in Bioware games is actually pretty recent.
It did start immediately following Jade Empire... Way of the Closed Fist was magnificent, but far too many people who played just saw it as "stupid evil" rather than "evil with a purpose". Likely because they didn't agree with the premise of "forcing people to pull themselves up can be considered helping". Of course, there are stupid evil choices in Jade Empire, but those were decidedly different from Way of the Closed Fist, and some people couldn't really differentiate between them...
Bioware kinda just stopped with the nuanced ways of evil, and just stuck with the stupid evil options in ME1 and Origins, and has since tried to excise "evil" completely while trying to maintain the illusion that the hero could be...
Actually if you do the Templar quest in DAI, you get an image of how evil the Inquisition could be and honestly how it was at times pre-Chantry. That option should be open to the PC. I am particularly annoyed because at least initially Bioware promised that it would be. I also note that they also promised that you wouldn't have to be pro-Chantry as leader of the Inquisition. Who do they think they are fooling? Dorian himself says it best that the Inquisition is chalk full of references and images that very much harken to the Southern Chantry.
I think the people who actually believed that the Inquisitor would ever be *evil* are a bit dense. Bioware, to my recollection, has never let the player be evil, only an inconsiderate d**k at the absolute worst.
Dark Side Revan; Evil Warden; Renegade Shepard and Dark Side TOR Heroes/Villains all strongly prove you wrong.
The constant requirement to toe the Chantry line is irksome. My latest play through my elven Inquisitor at every opportunity has denied faith in the Maker, refused to accept the title of Herald and wanted people to know the truth about how he came by his mark but is continually ignored or patted on the head and told it is best to leave the people to their faith. This doesn't even just come from Chantry stalwarts like Cassandra, Leliana or Mother Giselle but even Hawke urges him to keep quiet about it. By contrast, when they discover something about his People's traditions and gods everyone seems only too glad to dish the dirt. When to my mind the Dalish got an awful lot about their past right, whereas everything that has been revealed about the Chantry and the Maker points to their religion being a big fraud. (WoT2 was a big eye opener but I do also wonder where the Maker was when Solas raised the Veil).
However, back to the main point of my post. The capacity for evil decisions was watered down from what we were shown in early extracts from the game. Nevertheless a remnant does still exist as shown in the Keep options. However, it would seem that in terms of the reaction to the Inquisition 2 years down the line, it makes no difference if you were a committed follower of the Maker and a paragon of virtue, or a Maker denying evil bastard (not closing the rift at Crestwood when you have the ability to do so does seem to qualify in my mind).
What would have been interesting and made sense would be that if you had been claiming to be the chosen of the Maker, people had found out the truth and that was the reason they turned against you; which I would have found both plausible and more acceptable than simply I'd stayed in a vacant Keep a bit too long. Then reducing the size of your Inquisition and putting it under the control of the Divine would have been your face saving and long term survival way out of it.
By contrast, if you had been denying faith in the Maker and chosen status, this would also have been leaked and thus the faithful would no longer believe in you, again giving a plausible reason why you had no choice but to disband because you no longer had the support of the common people, let alone the nobility.
Currently it makes no sense with such a major threat as Solas having been identified to reduce the Inquisition in size if you are going to retain it. If the organisation is riddled with double agents that is going to be the case no matter how big it is. The simple answer (not one that I like advocating but there none the less) would be to purge it of all elves. Since we are told at the end they run off to join Solas anyway, we don't actually have to do much to achieve this. No matter how corrupt and self seeking the other members of the Inquisition might be, it is not in anyone's interests that Solas should succeed in his plans since he has admitted we will all be destroyed. Even qunari agents should be aware of that fact. So keeping our current network of spies throughout southern Thedas (and even to some extent in Tevinter) with a force sizeable enough to take action wherever it is required would seem to make sense to me. That is not what I understood to be function of the Divine's peacekeeping force since the majority of the army is disbanded regardless.
My elf disbands because he still retains his cultural belief that he should submit to no one, least of all the Chantry, which is what the Divine represents. He wants to focus on one thing alone, the hunt for Solas. He always knew the humans would turn on him in the end. He had the example of Ameridan to show how he is likely to be wiped from history and end up being depicted as a faithful human but at least this way may be some people will remember that he didn't willingly merge his organisation with the Chantry. I was happy to go with this because I saw the Inquisition as an independent organisation that stood for all and if it can't be that way and continue, then so be it.
Criticism isn't a sign of not appreciating someone's effort and work. Don't start on that tangent, it goes nowhere.
Are you kidding? Answer the question then: If you are evil why would Solas in Trespassers want to help you? Solas is a major player in this story. Playing evil doesn't make sense with this story.
The constant requirement to toe the Chantry line is irksome. My latest play through my elven Inquisitor at every opportunity has denied faith in the Maker, refused to accept the title of Herald and wanted people to know the truth about how he came by his mark but is continually ignored or patted on the head and told it is best to leave the people to their faith. This doesn't even just come from Chantry stalwarts like Cassandra, Leliana or Mother Giselle but even Hawke urges him to keep quiet about it. By contrast, when they discover something about his People's traditions and gods everyone seems only too glad to dish the dirt. When to my mind the Dalish got an awful lot about their past right, whereas everything that has been revealed about the Chantry and the Maker points to their religion being a big fraud. (WoT2 was a big eye opener but I do also wonder where the Maker was when Solas raised the Veil).
However, back to the main point of my post. The capacity for evil decisions was watered down from what we were shown in early extracts from the game. Nevertheless a remnant does still exist as shown in the Keep options. However, it would seem that in terms of the reaction to the Inquisition 2 years down the line, it makes no difference if you were a committed follower of the Maker and a paragon of virtue, or a Maker denying evil bastard (not closing the rift at Crestwood when you have the ability to do so does seem to qualify in my mind).
What would have been interesting and made sense would be that if you had been claiming to be the chosen of the Maker, people had found out the truth and that was the reason they turned against you; which I would have found both plausible and more acceptable than simply I'd stayed in a vacant Keep a bit too long. Then reducing the size of your Inquisition and putting it under the control of the Divine would have been your face saving and long term survival way out of it.
By contrast, if you had been denying faith in the Maker and chosen status, this would also have been leaked and thus the faithful would no longer believe in you, again giving a plausible reason why you had no choice but to disband because you no longer had the support of the common people, let alone the nobility.
Currently it makes no sense with such a major threat as Solas having been identified to reduce the Inquisition in size if you are going to retain it. If the organisation is riddled with double agents that is going to be the case no matter how big it is. The simple answer (not one that I like advocating but there none the less) would be to purge it of all elves. Since we are told at the end they run off to join Solas anyway, we don't actually have to do much to achieve this. No matter how corrupt and self seeking the other members of the Inquisition might be, it is not in anyone's interests that Solas should succeed in his plans since he has admitted we will all be destroyed. Even qunari agents should be aware of that fact. So keeping our current network of spies throughout southern Thedas (and even to some extent in Tevinter) with a force sizeable enough to take action wherever it is required would seem to make sense to me. That is not what I understood to be function of the Divine's peacekeeping force since the majority of the army is disbanded regardless.
My elf disbands because he still retains his cultural belief that he should submit to no one, least of all the Chantry, which is what the Divine represents. He wants to focus on one thing alone, the hunt for Solas. He always knew the humans would turn on him in the end. He had the example of Ameridan to show how he is likely to be wiped from history and end up being depicted as a faithful human but at least this way may be some people will remember that he didn't willingly merge his organisation with the Chantry. I was happy to go with this because I saw the Inquisition as an independent organisation that stood for all and if it can't be that way and continue, then so be it.
When you disband in a positive note, the scene I get is that you and your trusted team will be looking for a new team that can be properly vetted. The speech my inquisitor gave stated anyone can take up the cause. A new group with a new purpose sounded reasonable to me
Are you kidding? Answer the question then: If you are evil why would Solas in Trespassers want to help you? Solas is a major player in this story. Playing evil doesn't make sense with this story.
That's post hoc ergo propter hoc. Obvioiusly if a truly evil option were available in the main part of DAI, Trespasser would have been written to reflect that.
That's post hoc ergo propter hoc. Obvioiusly if a truly evil option were available in the main part of DAI, Trespasser would have been written to reflect that.
And then Bioware would have to do write a series of justifications to explain why an "evil" Inquisitor would work in both the main game and the DLC. Fact is that with the exception of Iron Bull you can't kill any of your companions or even many supporting characters because Bioware likely plans to bring them back in some fashion even if you made them leave or kick them out of the Inquisition.
Furthermore, unlike say Origins or even the ME series, all your companions are Good for most part who would constantly disapprove of any actions that are blatantly Neutral or Chaotic Evil actions to the most where it wouldn't make much sense why you're the leader of the Inquisition and a public figure when they could just make a specialist they have to suffer through to close rifts.
And then Bioware would have to do write a series of justifications to explain why an "evil" Inquisitor would work in both the main game and the DLC. Fact is that with the exception of Iron Bull you can't kill any of your companions or even many supporting characters because Bioware likely plans to bring them back in some fashion even if you made them leave or kick them out of the Inquisition.
Furthermore, unlike say Origins or even the ME series, all your companions are Good for most part who would constantly disapprove of any actions that are blatantly Neutral or Chaotic Evil actions to the most where it wouldn't make much sense why you're the leader of the Inquisition and a public figure when they could just make a specialist they have to suffer through to close rifts.
Post Hoc ergo Proper Hoc. if the DAI main game were written differently, then the DLC would have been written differently as well. This entire argument is based on a fallacy.
Post Hoc ergo Proper Hoc. if the DAI main game were written differently, then the DLC would have been written differently as well. This entire argument is based on a fallacy.
Alright, yes, the game would be written differently, but then said game would completely dissimilar to the one we actually played. Were talking about Inquisition, right, and since this entire discussion is based around the implementation of an evil Inquisitor arc in Inquisition I have argued that doing so would be incredibly difficult because of the demands of the franchise.
Alright, yes, the game would be written differently, but then said game would completely dissimilar to the one we actually played. Were talking about Inquisition, right, and since this entire discussion is based around the implementation of an evil Inquisitor arc in Inquisition I have argued that doing so would be incredibly difficult because of the demands of the franchise.
That isn't necessarily so. The DLC might have had to be a bit different but saying that more genuinely dark choices would have made it such a different game that it would no longer be DAI, I think both misses the point and it also untrue. Look at other Bioware games in the past.
That isn't necessarily so. The DLC might have had to be a bit different but saying that more genuinely dark choices would have made it such a different game that it would no longer be DAI, I think both misses the point and it also untrue. Look at other Bioware games in the past.
When you mean darker choices what exactly are you talking about? Sacrificing the Chargers is a dark choice. Allying with that noble that attacked Verichel is a dark choice. Banishing the Wardens is a dark choice. Conscripting either the templars or mages can be a dark choice. Attacking Abelas and his sentinel elves after completing the trials is a dark choice.
What exactly are you looking for?
If your talking about dark choices like occasional murder of random innocent NPC who don't matter then sure that could of been implemented and actually even was on some level with that Dalish keeper being possibly killed in the Hinterlands. But if your talking about killing companions or making setting massive changing decisions like say destroying the Chantry, then no, I don't think that would of been possible because Bioware has a sequel to make and status quo to at least mildly adhere to.
The reason why we were able to get away with so many dark choices in Origins comes from the fact that Bioware didn't know they were getting a sequel and therefore might not have even cared about making up another story. But since that did happen a lot of your decisions in Origins had to either made irrelevant, ignored or changed in some way. For example, Leliana a character that seemed pretty inconsequential in Origins had be revived with magic singing Lyrium if you killed her, which is why in Inquisition they won't even bother with giving you the option anymore.
Darkside Revan in KOTOR, Way of the Closed Fist Spirit Monk.
Evil Spirit Monk actually made me feel unclean, (s)he is so ruthless in pursuit of their own power.
I've never played Jade Empire, so I won't speak for that. I haven't played KOTOR in a long time, so I'll need to refresh my memory on how bad Dark Side Revan can be.
Regardless, none of Bioware's games in the last decade have let you be *evil* (i.e. where the player character would be a villain in any other story), though there have been varying levels of darkness.
Dark Side Revan; Evil Warden; Renegade Shepard and Dark Side TOR Heroes/Villains all strongly prove you wrong.
The entire point of the Renegade morality in ME is that it's not evil. It's darker and more pragmatic, whereas Paragon is lighter and more idealistic. The Warden could never go full-on evil either. I'm not counting TOR here because A). it's an MMO and every single other game discussed thus far isn't, and 
. you straight-up play as a character from either the Republic or the Sith Empire, and in spite of the morality choices available, you still ultimately fall into those 2 paradigms. you're never truly able to break the mold.
I've never played Jade Empire, so I won't speak for that. I haven't played KOTOR in a long time, so I'll need to refresh my memory on how bad Dark Side Revan can be.
Regardless, none of Bioware's games in the last decade have let you be *evil* (i.e. where the player character would be a villain in any other story), though there have been varying levels of darkness.
If Mass Effect were told from a Krogan point of view, Shepard could be considered a villain based on the choices s/he made... If that's not what you mean, then I'm uncertain what you mean by "in any other story"....
What the flipping f.u.c.k is evil anyway?
Until we have an agreed definition on what that is then we probably aren't going to be able to decide whether it even existed in Inquisition.
Retour en haut