170 réponses à ce sujet

[draken-heart]

Evil Inquisitor...as a savior? Not what I am picturing at all when I hear those words. It would make sense as an evil inquisitor to JOIN Coryphetit  rather than stopping him, then stab him in the back when they got to the black city.

[IanPolaris]

Evil Inquisitor...as a savior? Not what I am picturing at all when I hear those words. It would make sense as an evil inquisitor to JOIN Coryphetit  rather than stopping him, then stab him in the back when they got to the black city.

 

Cory isn't the type who would acquire allies though; just minions.  Reason enough to stop him.  He's the competition.

[draken-heart]

Cory isn't the type who would acquire allies though; just minions.  Reason enough to stop him.  He's the competition.

 

EVIL inquisitor would use Cory THEN backstab him. Simple way to remove him.

 

Seriously though. The fact that almost everyone sees the Inquisitor as a savior/HERO kind of makes the Evil/VILLAIN idea fall apart. Best to allow more of an Anti-hero instead.

[IanPolaris]

You destroyed a city pretty minor compared to destroy the world and make yourself a god.

 

Only in degree.  The Arling of Amaranthine is a pretty significant Arling.

[IanPolaris]

Key word is recover the orb not give it to you or Cory. He was helping you because you were helping him. Remember he was suppose to be the Trickster. Not a very good one if you can fool him easily. 

 

Yes, but YOU can die.  Cory can't.  That makes backing you the much better bet from Solas' PoV.

[IanPolaris]

EVIL inquisitor would use Cory THEN backstab him. Simple way to remove him.

 

That assumes that Cory would let you be in a position to use him.  He won't.  He's that arrogant.  The only way you get close to Cory is if you have an unbreakable leash to him that effectively enslaves you.

 

Not. An. Option.  I don't care how evil you are, that's a non-starter.

[Ariella]

You destroyed a city pretty minor compared to destroy the world and make yourself a god.

He forgets to mention that the 'destroy' is really making a hard choice between saving the city and saving the Vigil, which is a typical Bioware choice with no good answer. Unless you upgraded everything at the keep.

[draken-heart]

That assumes that Cory would let you be in a position to use him.  He won't.  He's that arrogant.  The only way you get close to Cory is if you have an unbreakable leash to him that effectively enslaves you.

 

Not. An. Option.  I don't care how evil you are, that's a non-starter.

 

It.Was.A.Joke.

 

Point was that evil and savior do not mix, unless you hide the fact that you are evil, which means making non-evil choices meaning you are not evil.

[AshenEndymion]

He does it to get his orb back not make you a god. So somewhere along the line he would take the orb back from either you or Cory. Your job was to help him succeed. You just didn't know it.

 

... But the Inquisitor doesn't particularly care about the orb.  S/he has the mark, and could theoretically enter and exit the fade at will...

 

I think the problem is that your misinterpreting the argument... No one is saying Solas would help the Inquisitor do what the Inquisitor wanted...  Just that Solas wouldn't care about what the Inquisitor does until he got his orb back.  And even then, Solas would leave the Inquisition regardless because nothing the Inquisitor does matters to Solas.

 

Solas is concerned about Corypheus, but not because Corypheus might succeed and rule as a God... It's because Corypheus might succed and take the Orb into the fade with him, which would keep the Orb away from Solas...  Solas needed the Orb to regain his power, and he needs his power to bring down the veil.  Corypheus, or anyone really, can rule the Black City, but that likely won't matter after the veil is gone...  Anyone can do just about anything in Thedas, and Solas would only care if it hinders his efforts to bring down the veil(which is why he even appears in Trespasser, because the Qunari were hindering said efforts).

 

My issue is that Bioware wants to present the idea that the protagonist can be good and bad, but doesn't actually provide any bad options in the game(or it does, then ignores those options when they're inconvenient to the story).  It's fine if Bioware wants the Inquisitor to be good, and all they're actions are ultimately for the good of Thedas.  But Bioware should just be upfront about it, and say they have no interest in allowing the player to play the Inquisitor in a contrary way...  Rather than imply when the game comes out that the Inquisitor and the Inquisition can be a destructive force, when nothing could be further from the truth...

[Cobra's_back]

DAI could have easily been written with Hawke not showing up though.  Hawke was a pure cameo.  Same goes for the Quizzy.  I think it's pretty clear the Quizzy will not be the protagonist of DA4 esp w/losing an arm.

Personally, I enjoyed seeing snarky Hawk again. It actually made me want to play DA2 again. That Cameo closed the loop nicely for me at least. 

[Cobra's_back]

... But the Inquisitor doesn't particularly care about the orb.  S/he has the mark, and could theoretically enter and exit the fade at will...

 

I think the problem is that your misinterpreting the argument... No one is saying Solas would help the Inquisitor do what the Inquisitor wanted...  Just that Solas wouldn't care about what the Inquisitor does until he got his orb back.  And even then, Solas would leave the Inquisition regardless because nothing the Inquisitor does matters to Solas.

 

Solas is concerned about Corypheus, but not because Corypheus might succeed and rule as a God... It's because Corypheus might succed and take the Orb into the fade with him, which would keep the Orb away from Solas...  Solas needed the Orb to regain his power, and he needs his power to bring down the veil.  Corypheus, or anyone really, can rule the Black City, but that likely won't matter after the veil is gone...  Anyone can do just about anything in Thedas, and Solas would only care if it hinders his efforts to bring down the veil(which is why he even appears in Trespasser, because the Qunari were hindering said efforts).

 

My issue is that Bioware wants to present the idea that the protagonist can be good and bad, but doesn't actually provide any bad options in the game(or it does, then ignores those options when they're inconvenient to the story).  It's fine if Bioware wants the Inquisitor to be good, and all they're actions are ultimately for the good of Thedas.  But Bioware should just be upfront about it, and say they have no interest in allowing the player to play the Inquisitor in a contrary way...  Rather than imply when the game comes out that the Inquisitor and the Inquisition can be a destructive force, when nothing could be further from the truth...

Ian Polaris wanted the option to enter the Black City and be a God. Sorry, I don't think Solas would support that. Yes he wanted his orb, and he wants to tear down the veil, but I don't think he supports you taking his orb to become a God.

 

I also don't believe the writers wanted you to be able to outwit Solas. The writers successfully wrote Solas as a trickster god. There are so many thread all about Solas because he is an interesting complex character.

[IanPolaris]

It.Was.A.Joke.

 

Point was that evil and savior do not mix, unless you hide the fact that you are evil, which means making non-evil choices meaning you are not evil.

 

You obviously haven't read much history.  History is chock full of people who were both evil and considered saviors.

[IanPolaris]

Ian Polaris wanted the option to enter the Black City and be a God. Sorry, I don't think Solas would support that. Yes he wanted his orb, and he wants to tear down the veil, but I don't think he supports you taking his orb to become a God.

 

I also don't believe the writers wanted you to be able to outwit Solas. The writers successfully wrote Solas as a trickster god. There are so many thread all about Solas because he is an interesting complex character.

 

No, please don't misrepresent my position.  I want the option to be an EVIL Inquisitor, which was an option that Bioware at least initially promised (at least by implication in the early trailers) would be an option.  Wanting to enter the Black City yourself and attain god-hood was one possibility I mentioned.  I also meantioned the evil zealot possibility (aka Torquemada).  I also don't see why a protagonist should not be able to outwit Solas.  Solas himself admits (rather vehemently in fact) that he is no god and does have limitations.  As for the orb, I don't see why Solas would not support you at least initially even if you were evil.  After all if Cory with actual immortality gets the orb, it's GAME OVER for Solas since there's really no way Solas can get it back.  You (the PC) are a mortal and it's quite reasonable for Solas to assume you don't know what you're playing with and he can thus guide you...especially when he's the one supplying the information.

 

So while Solas might not support you storming the Black City, until he get his orb, you could count on Solas being your loyal companion right up until he could get the orb for himself....since he (Solas) is clearly of the school of "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...."

[ShadowLordXII]

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.

 

Renegade isn't always evil, but there are several instances where it very much can cross that line. The multiple episodes of genocide which Renegade Shepard can commit aren't at all evil? Or murdering Samara's daughter after letting her mother commit suicide? Killing Wrex when you could have talked him down? The various acts of unprovoked theft, murder, extortion, and brutality that Renegade Shepard can commit? There's darker and more pragmatic and then there's unnecessarily cruel and evil and Bioware wasn't afraid to let Renegade Shepard cross into the later multiple times.

 

The Warden can literally kill off nearly all of their party for merely disagreeing with him. He can also leave Redcliffe to get massacred by zombies. Lead the werewolves to massacre an entire elven clan because their leader cursed them. He can sell Alistair down river because politics. He can murder children, imprisoned and impoverished prisoners, wounded soldiers, and Chantry brothers. He can poison a holy artifact for lols and ally with an insane heretic order who drink dragon blood for power. He can make deals with demons and unleash them on the world for power and even endanger children to possession. He can wipe out the whole Circle Tower for kicks when only a few of them are actually blood mages and abominations. If none of that is evil, then we've got different definitions of the term.

 

TOR counts because it's a Bioware RPG despite being an MMO as well. True, you are inevitably part of the Empire or the Republic mold, but you're very capable of acting as you wish within the parameters of your character. You can play a straight evil Sith or become an honorable ls sith and vice versa with a jedi. And believe me, you can pull off some very despicable feats as merely a Sith such as: Assassination; Participation in slavery; Torture; Executing your own men; corrupting a jedi apprentice to fall to the dark side and become your disciple/wife; Burning people alive; unprovoked mass murder; and much...much more. And that's just as the sith classes. I haven't even touched on the evil stuff that you can do as a jedi; scoundrel; trooper; imperial officer or bounty hunter.

 

And that's what makes the role-playing potential great.

 

Stripping that out and sanitizing things to a comfortable "grey area" where nothing is really good or evil is just dishonest and robs a pc of moral responsibility, culpability and agency. Which decreases replay value because the consequences of the so-called darker actions are pretty much nonexistent in Inquisition. Especially when compared to previous games which frankly had more balls to both let the pc be outright evil and let them experience the consequences of their decisions.

[vbibbi]

Personally, I enjoyed seeing snarky Hawk again. It actually made me want to play DA2 again. That Cameo closed the loop nicely for me at least. 

I enjoyed seeing Hawke again but thought he wasn't snarky enough. He felt like aggressive Hawke for most of his appearance. I get the world weary, beaten down vibe, but we already get that all game with Varric. Can't we have a little more snark?

 

No, please don't misrepresent my position.  I want the option to be an EVIL Inquisitor, which was an option that Bioware at least initially promised (at least by implication in the early trailers) would be an option.  Wanting to enter the Black City yourself and attain god-hood was one possibility I mentioned.  I also meantioned the evil zealot possibility (aka Torquemada).  I also don't see why a protagonist should not be able to outwit Solas.  Solas himself admits (rather vehemently in fact) that he is no god and does have limitations.  As for the orb, I don't see why Solas would not support you at least initially even if you were evil.  After all if Cory with actual immortality gets the orb, it's GAME OVER for Solas since there's really no way Solas can get it back.  You (the PC) are a mortal and it's quite reasonable for Solas to assume you don't know what you're playing with and he can thus guide you...especially when he's the one supplying the information.

 

So while Solas might not support you storming the Black City, until he get his orb, you could count on Solas being your loyal companion right up until he could get the orb for himself....since he (Solas) is clearly of the school of "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...."

I really would have liked to play as a religious zealot who ends up abusing their power. Paving a road with good intentions and all that. This wouldn't mean we're playing as an "evil" Inquisitor but a hardcore ruthless one, or one who sees a benevolent dictator as a better option than misguided freedom.

 

Renegade isn't always evil, but there are several instances where it very much can cross that line. The multiple episodes of genocide which Renegade Shepard can commit aren't at all evil? Or murdering Samara's daughter after letting her mother commit suicide? Killing Wrex when you could have talked him down? The various acts of unprovoked theft, murder, extortion, and brutality that Renegade Shepard can commit? There's darker and more pragmatic and then there's unnecessarily cruel and evil and Bioware wasn't afraid to let Renegade Shepard cross into the later multiple times.

 

The Warden can literally kill off nearly all of their party for merely disagreeing with him. He can also leave Redcliffe to get massacred by zombies. Lead the werewolves to massacre an entire elven clan because their leader cursed them. He can sell Alistair down river because politics. He can murder children, imprisoned and impoverished prisoners, wounded soldiers, and Chantry brothers. He can poison a holy artifact for lols and ally with an insane heretic order who drink dragon blood for power. He can make deals with demons and unleash them on the world for power and even endanger children to possession. He can wipe out the whole Circle Tower for kicks when only a few of them are actually blood mages and abominations. If none of that is evil, then we've got different definitions of the term.

 

TOR counts because it's a Bioware RPG despite being an MMO as well. True, you are inevitably part of the Empire or the Republic mold, but you're very capable of acting as you wish within the parameters of your character. You can play a straight evil Sith or become an honorable ls sith and vice versa with a jedi. And believe me, you can pull off some very despicable feats as merely a Sith such as: Assassination; Participation in slavery; Torture; Executing your own men; corrupting a jedi apprentice to fall to the dark side and become your disciple/wife; Burning people alive; unprovoked mass murder; and much...much more. And that's just as the sith classes. I haven't even touched on the evil stuff that you can do as a jedi; scoundrel; trooper; imperial officer or bounty hunter.

 

And that's what makes the role-playing potential great.

 

Stripping that out and sanitizing things to a comfortable "grey area" where nothing is really good or evil is just dishonest and robs a pc of moral responsibility, culpability and agency. Which decreases replay value because the consequences of the so-called darker actions are pretty much nonexistent in Inquisition. Especially when compared to previous games which frankly had more balls to both let the pc be outright evil and let them experience the consequences of their decisions.

Yes. Some of the options we could play as the Warden were stupid!evil rather than practical or ruthless evil. And some of Morrigan's dialogue followed this path. I wouldn't want stupid!evil options for the Inquisitor, but realistic, hard decisions made.

[ComedicSociopathy]

Renegade isn't always evil, but there are several instances where it very much can cross that line. The multiple episodes of genocide which Renegade Shepard can commit aren't at all evil? Or murdering Samara's daughter after letting her mother commit suicide? Killing Wrex when you could have talked him down? The various acts of unprovoked theft, murder, extortion, and brutality that Renegade Shepard can commit? There's darker and more pragmatic and then there's unnecessarily cruel and evil and Bioware wasn't afraid to let Renegade Shepard cross into the later multiple times.

 

The Warden can literally kill off nearly all of their party for merely disagreeing with him. He can also leave Redcliffe to get massacred by zombies. Lead the werewolves to massacre an entire elven clan because their leader cursed them. He can sell Alistair down river because politics. He can murder children, imprisoned and impoverished prisoners, wounded soldiers, and Chantry brothers. He can poison a holy artifact for lols and ally with an insane heretic order who drink dragon blood for power. He can make deals with demons and unleash them on the world for power and even endanger children to possession. He can wipe out the whole Circle Tower for kicks when only a few of them are actually blood mages and abominations. If none of that is evil, then we've got different definitions of the term.

 

And that is why this argument wont go anywhere.

 

All those acts can be justified in some fashion that goes beyond doing it because you just like seeing people suffer, furthermore even if they did whose to say that your Inquisitor had motives that went beyond just saving the world, but was stopped by Orlais and Ferelden meddling in Trespasser. Fact is you cant do an evil play through that actual impacts the story in way that matters or has consequences of serious depth.

 

Of course, that's just my definition of evil. 

[ShadowLordXII]

And that is why this argument wont go anywhere.

 

All those acts can be justified in some fashion that goes beyond doing it because you just like seeing people suffer, furthermore even if they did whose to say that your Inquisitor had motives that went beyond just saving the world, but was stopped by Orlais and Ferelden meddling in Trespasser. Fact is you cant do an evil play through that actual impacts the story in way that matters or has consequences of serious depth.

 

Of course, that's just my definition of evil. 

 

And mine is doing an evil act with evil or malicious intent which fits a lot of actions which the warden and other past PC's could commit.

 

Sure, you can rationalize your actions as being necessary or for the greater good and even have some support for them. But that doesn't change letting kids be possessed by demons from being an evil act when there are clear alternatives that you can take.

 

No serious consequences? Did you miss the part where you can literally kill off nearly all of your party because they disagreed with you or you pissed them off with a morally reprehensible action? How is that not a serious consequence? What about the genocide of an entire elven clan or abandoning an arling to get destroyed by the undead? Giving the Anvil of the Void to a madwoman? Giving the dwarven crown to a ruthless and corrupt kinslayer? I'm kind of lost on what you're asking for or how it's meant to be a counter to my point or why the "evil pc" argument isn't going anywhere.

[IanPolaris]

For another example, how about the Warden letting a Tevinter Magister (and Slaver) do a blood sacrifice killing all the captive elves for just a few point of con.  {And Morrigan approves btw.}  If that isn't evil, then the term is utterly meaningless.

[ComedicSociopathy]

And mine is doing an evil act with evil or malicious intent which fits a lot of actions which the warden and other past PC's could commit.

 

Sure, you can rationalize your actions as being necessary or for the greater good and even have some support for them. But that doesn't change letting kids be possessed by demons from being an evil act when there are clear alternatives that you can take.

 

No serious consequences? Did you miss the part where you can literally kill off nearly all of your party because they disagreed with you or you pissed them off with a morally reprehensible action? How is that not a serious consequence? What about the genocide of an entire elven clan or abandoning an arling to get destroyed by the undead? Giving the Anvil of the Void to a madwoman? Giving the dwarven crown to a ruthless and corrupt kinslayer? I'm kind of lost on what you're asking for or how it's meant to be a counter to my point or why the "evil pc" argument isn't going anywhere.

 

None of that changes how the story comes to an end when realistically it should.

 

You get an army of barely controlled werewolves that nobody seems to care about. You let an entire village be destroyed and its Arl doesn't care and it doesn't impact the Arl's military manpower when Eamon calls his army. You are forced to go off a ridiculous quest to find some ashes that may or may not exist when a truly evil character would probably just kill Eamon and have Teagan be Arl of Redcliffe.  My point is, regardless of all those "evil" acts, the Warden ends up in the same place with only minor changes to the narrative that lose most of their relevance in sequels. Any possible evil ambitions that your Warden may had done don't actually change how the main narrative develops. Instead you only get the illusion of meaningful choice and the occasionally chance to be a jerk. All that you've done should give you a completely different story line with new scenarios, major events and a different conclusion for your Warden, but in the end you can only choose to do Ultimate Sacrifice or the Dark Ritual. 

 

Anyways, people here are asking for two completely different narratives with allowing you to be utterly evil (getting a demon army, sabotaging Orlais, being a Go-Emperor) and from what I've seen in recent Bioware history is that Bioware has only one story line that its PC's can ultimately play through and they won't bother to create a significantly different one where you get to be evil and completely change the status quo of the setting. 

 

If you were hoping for that Inquisition then I suggest you donate a couple million dollars to Bioware for their delevopment of DA4 and a couple million more so they don't create a sequel that will make everything irrelevant. 

[ShadowLordXII]

None of that changes how the story comes to an end when realistically it should.

 

You've consistently looked over that tidbit about almost your whole party being murdered by your warden. How is having less companions to stand by you not a realistic consequence?

 

Besides, the ability to determine your pc's morality and alignment based on their actions and intentions has less to do with the "main plot" and more to do with your character's story. It's about how you experience these actions and make you question if you'd be able or willing to pull such a horrific act and attitude in real life. It's about challenging the notions of how a hero can be considered a savior even if truthfully, they may have been just as destructive as their enemy.

 

You say that Origins didn't do this well because it doesn't affect the main story. But perhaps that's the point. Grey Wardens are stated to be a heroic order who protect Thedas from the darkspawn, but that also means that they are willing to do whatever is necessary to defeat the blight. So within this context, you're free to either act as a lawful and noble hero who always seeks the right and moral choice; the selfish and cruel sadist who manipulates people and gleefully causes genocide or murder with their "grey warden" status as a barrier against legal consequences; or an anti-hero that walks the fine line between good and evil and is willing to dip into both pools if it means defeating the Blight.

 

Perhaps Origins should have done more to integrate the Warden's actual morality into it's final act, but that doesn't mean that the ability to be "evil" should be cut out altogether like they did in Inquisition. It's still a vital aspect of role-playing that was gutsy and ultimately fun to play around with and experiment with. Sanitizing a protagonist to always be good or neutral is both unrealistic and seemingly done to keep from offending someone or making them uncomfortable, like a lot of things in Inquisition.

 

If BW were the bold developers that they still claim to be, then they wouldn't shriek away from the possibility of an evil Inquisitor and rather develop and explore the concept and see where it goes. I'm certain that Inquisition wouldn't be hurt by losing one or two areas like the Forbidden Oasis or Hissing Wastes if those same resources can go towards expanding the Inquisitor's alignment possibilities and even fully committing to exploring the consequences of said morality. 

 

And believe it or not, there is room for an evil inquisitor without ruining the story that BW wants to tell. Maybe not to the degree of wanting to enter the Black City yourself or conquering all of southern Thedas. But something can be done to give credence to Teagan's nonsensical arguments for your disbandment. For instance, perhaps the Inquisitor can start having his troops extort funds, manpower and resources from the areas that they set camp in and can violently enforce this tribute; Or start raiding villages and towns said to be aligned with the venatori and killing it's people, innocent or guilty and capturing any survivor for imprisonment and/or torture until they confess to any knowledge that they might have (like the real world Inquisition did); or even start feeding fuel into the "Herald of Andraste" beliefs to create a rival institution to the Chantry and can even absorb it into a new religion seeing as that the Chantry has lost it's Divine and most of it's leaders at this moment and has lost the circle mages and templars...whom the Inquisition can also recruit into it's ranks.

 

Not sure what this last comment is supposed to mean, but if I did have a couple million dollars to burn, it would be used for more beneficial and helpful efforts than funding a video game. BW has enough money and income to do well enough by themselves. If this comment was meant to shut up an attempt at honest criticism from a fan of the game and the series, then it didn't work.

[TheKomandorShepard]

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.

Eee, actually almost every bioware game allowed you to play "evil" characater in other word villain protagonist to the point your character could kill people for the hell of it, care only for himself and kick puppies left or right. Of course sadly roleplaying in bioware games became worse and worse after dao and severely limited in possibilities.   

[Aren]

Eee, actually almost every bioware game allowed you to play "evil" characater in other word villain protagonist to the point your character could kill people for the hell of it, care only for himself and kick puppies left or right. Of course sadly roleplaying in bioware games became worse and worse after dao and severely limited in possibilities.   

The evil Warden of DAo can be considered as the most evil character of the franchise,just on the topic discussion

http://forum.bioware...-the-franchise/

[TheKomandorShepard]

The evil Warden of DAo can be considered as the most evil character of the franchise,just on the topic discussion

http://forum.bioware...-the-franchise/

Well, to be honest i think that kotor protagonist beats warden in that matter by amount of pettiness and cruelty. 

[sylvanaerie]

I've only played BG and DA from Bioware.  The narrative changes a little for BG, but i don't recall (beyond some useful companions up and leaving your party) where playing the evil character worked out much differently from the good.  I think your reputation affects the cost of gear, but I am unsure since I don't play unconscionable assholes.  I think at one point you can sacrifice one of them permanently to keep from losing a point of a stat (dexterity?).

 

In Origins, you could play a heartless SOB who commits despicable acts for 'practicality' or even 'the lulz', but ultimately Ferelden reveres the special snowflake as a 'hero' for ending the Blight, even if your warden had Alistair or Loghain fall on the AD, and was too cowardly/selfish to do it him/herself.  In the end, the Archdemon was still stopped. You couldn't for instance, team up with the darkspawn and wreak havoc destroying Ferelden, or join Uldred's army of demons.  Unless you got the DSC dlc, but then that's a dlc and has zero connection to any of the stories or sequels since it's an alternate reality in which the special snowflake dies in the Joining.  Ultimately, regardless of choices made, Ferelden recovers and no consequences come of it.  Even Leliana being dead is retconned due to lyrium ghosting--though she does mention and speaks less than glowingly of the 'hero' who killed her in the temple.

 

In DA2, whatever decisions Hawke makes (and some of those can be pretty despicable) in the end, Hawke still leaves Kirkwall after the fiasco with the mages/templars is sparked.  None of what Hawke did has anymore lasting consequences than what the Warden did a decade prior in Origins.  Except releasing Corypheus and that's not technically his/her fault since they were trapped and had no other way out.  And Hawke did try to kill Corypheus, it didn't work because of that whole warden possession thing.

 

At the start of Inquisition, we see despite the world state we put into Keep (I actually had one where the warden and Hawke did everything horrible, killed everyone they could, wreaked a path of destruction from Ostagar to the Free Marches) and none of it made a single difference in game beyond minor things where this or that NPC doesn't turn up.  All it did was rob me of content.  Zombiefied Redcliffe was still the same as rescued Redcliffe.

 

Far worse than being evil in a game is playing where evil has little to no consequence.   And I don't count killing off companions as a significant consequence since that doesn't last beyond that one game, and rarely gets any message.  No one says anything if your evil Warden has Anora execute Alistair, kill Leliana in the Temple, kill Dog instead of curing him, or leave Sten in the cage in Lothering.  If you had played an assquisitor and succeeded in your goal to attain the Black City, there should be a "Game Over" message, because the entire point of the game was 'IF Corypheus tears down the veil and attains the Black City, it means the end of the world" should have been your first clue that 'this is a bad idea'.  That would have been a logical consequence to playing someone who would outrace a rival Corypheus to his goal.  If DAI was intended to be the end story, yea sure, play whatever kind of inquisitor you want, even one who destroys the world, but how on earth would they be able to make any kind of sequel with any continuity to it if your inquisitor destroys everything?  

 

And then players would be whining about "My Inquisitor destroyed everything, how can Bioware just retcon all that and make DA4?"

 

There has to be some story continuity and making two entirely different games for those who wanted to play good guys and those who wanted to play evil makes no sense at all.  Because evil without consequence isn't evil at all, it's just lame.

[Cobra's_back]

I enjoyed seeing Hawke again but thought he wasn't snarky enough. He felt like aggressive Hawke for most of his appearance. I get the world weary, beaten down vibe, but we already get that all game with Varric. Can't we have a little more snark?

 

I really would have liked to play as a religious zealot who ends up abusing their power. Paving a road with good intentions and all that. This wouldn't mean we're playing as an "evil" Inquisitor but a hardcore ruthless one, or one who sees a benevolent dictator as a better option than misguided freedom.

 

Yes. Some of the options we could play as the Warden were stupid!evil rather than practical or ruthless evil. And some of Morrigan's dialogue followed this path. I wouldn't want stupid!evil options for the Inquisitor, but realistic, hard decisions made.

For me Hawk was still snarky and I expected remorse from Hawk. Consider this Hawk released Cory. Hawk's life was painful:

1. sibling dead
2. mom murdered
3. Isabella thieving caused Qunari attack of Kirkwell's people
4. Ander's bombing the Chantry to kill an old lady caused the war between templars and mages
5. Icing on the cake Hawk's blood released Cory
6. Varric's red lyrium idol caused so much death

Sorry, but that would depress me as well. I have read about famous snarky writers who battled depression. You can be both. Making Hawk and Varric sound depress sounds reasonable and real to me. Finally, I love the fact that both didn't run away they came back to fight. I assumed from the slide I saw in Trespassers that both were much happier. They were both laughing in the slide I got.