Yeah, that's the problem with a threat like Cory, or Solas, or the Reapers -- rational self-interest and being a big damn hero are pretty much the same thing.
I like being the hero. Make my character everything i can't be in real life.
I really wouldn't want to be evil but, I'm not crazy about being a goody goody two shoes either. In my games my PC is chaotic neutral going by D &D alignments...
Thank you. Indeed I thought of DAO's protagonist as the last one I could play as darker. Hawke couldn't be dark, Hawke could just be an assh*le.
As for the choices, it depends on the scope of the story, which motivations you could reasonably ascribe to your character, and which kinds of decisions would constitute your rational self-interest in that situation. Also, you could have different motivations. For instance, if you're a Tevinter Altus, do you just care about your personal power or do you want to strengthen the Imperium? Personally, I'd love to play a character like Calpernia - a renegade of the Imperium but determined to see it find its strength again; a character with some good and some bad, good to and for those she cares about but who never forgets that enemies are enemies, who would enforce the ban against human sacrifice but who is otherwise elitist and supports a continuing magocracy.
What mean the "dark"? Hawke's story was really dark. (I cannot imagine darker than anything that you do, go wrong ... Ergo: A "good" Hawke have much darker story as an "evil".)
(And by the way: Hawke can be cruel ["dark?"], not "just an "assh*le". True, this is not really relevant of the end of the story.)
Hmm, it's not that I like darkness, but I like being able to make a character arc....like maybe a character who starts off darker and finds a reason to care, or a lighter character who become cynical and has a moral crisis to overcome. I find those kinds of stories more statisfying than a hero who is always good and never struggles or changes.
This was actually a part of my motivation for writing the OP. I feel my main Inquisitor would've turned really cynical after the end of Trespasser.
Whether or not we should be able to play sociopathic, selfish PCs, I think it's a real shame you dismiss BioWare's treatment of its protagonists as a bad thing. That they have losses as well as victories is part of what makes them interesting to role-play. I seem to recall you being upset that the Inquisition couldn't continue as-is indefinitely, but I thought it was entirely expected and narratively justified. Playing the base game I already knew that once Corypheus was stopped there were going to be major conflicts coming up between the Inquisition and the sovereign powers of Thedas. I mean, half the game is essentially conquest-slash-colonization of land that is already claimed by either Ferelden or Orlais. That Trespasser allows you to be subsumed into the Chantry as a means to preserve the Inquisition as an organization was clever and a nice callback to the first Inquisition. That you can decide to disband the Inquisition and retain your core to pursue Solas is not a defeat unless you already subscribe to the power-for-power's sake mindset that you're looking for. That's not my Inquisitor, sorry. She stopped Corypheus, stopped a Qunari invasion, and is beginning to form a new shadow organization to counter Solas. Losing an arm and the Inquisition after its purpose was served is worth that cost. I also have to shake my head at Shepard "losing" at the end of ME3. That takes some real egomaniacal thinking on Shepard's part, ie my personal pride in my own morals outweighs billions of lives now, and also trillions more in stopping future harvests. Yeah, totally not worth the effort.
Whether or not we should be able to play sociopathic, selfish PCs, I think it's a real shame you dismiss BioWare's treatment of its protagonists as a bad thing. That they have losses as well as victories is part of what makes them interesting to role-play. I seem to recall you being upset that the Inquisition couldn't continue as-is indefinitely, but I thought it was entirely expected and narratively justified. Playing the base game I already knew that once Corypheus was stopped there were going to be major conflicts coming up between the Inquisition and the sovereign powers of Thedas. I mean, half the game is essentially conquest-slash-colonization of land that is already claimed by either Ferelden or Orlais. That Trespasser allows you to be subsumed into the Chantry as a means to preserve the Inquisition as an organization was clever and a nice callback to the first Inquisition. That you can decide to disband the Inquisition and retain your core to pursue Solas is not a defeat unless you already subscribe to the power-for-power's sake mindset that you're looking for. That's not my Inquisitor, sorry. She stopped Corypheus, stopped a Qunari invasion, and is beginning to form a new shadow organization to counter Solas. Losing an arm and the Inquisition after its purpose was served is worth that cost. I also have to shake my head at Shepard "losing" at the end of ME3. That takes some real egomaniacal thinking on Shepard's part, ie my personal pride in my own morals outweighs billions of lives now, and also trillions more in stopping future harvests. Yeah, totally not worth the effort.
The part about Shepard was more about the choices offered to you than their cost. They are so tainted by the Catalyst that they don't feel worth it on the meta-level. In-world, of course saving the galaxy is worth one life, and I won't choose Refuse out of spite.
As for the Inquisitor, that the story has no more use for the Inquisition doesn't make it feel better. Also, quite likely I wouldn't resent it quite as much if the main game hadn't painted a nice picture of the future, which was taken away in a DLC, of all things. I feel betrayed by the story, my Inquisitor feels betrayed by fate. Yeah well, I defeated Corypheus and the qunari and that's really nice, but what do I get for it? I get stabbed in the back after my task is done, in order to avoid inconvenient complications in the future. Compare that with the Warden's outcome in DAO, if you didn't choose the US. I'm quite happy with that.
Mass Effect could have easily got me to be a "villain".
Had the Reapers harvested biological sapients because of the danger they represent to biodiversity on a galactic scale... I would have allowed the Reapers to wipe sapient species off the map.
Instead... I had to listen to some nonsense about robots who didn't want robots to hurt biological beings... so they killed biological beings so those beings wouldn't make robots who hurt biological beings.
If one life is worth a galaxy.
Then one species is worth 8.74 million others (in Earth terms).
The universe will make more poets.
The part about Shepard was more about the choices offered to you than their cost. They are so tainted by the Catalyst that they don't feel worth it on the meta-level. In-world, of course saving the galaxy is worth one life, and I won't choose Refuse out of spite.
As for the Inquisitor, that the story has no more use for the Inquisition doesn't make it feel better. Also, quite likely I wouldn't resent it quite as much if the main game hadn't painted a nice picture of the future, which was taken away in a DLC, of all things. I feel betrayed by the story, my Inquisitor feels betrayed by fate. Yeah well, I defeated Corypheus and the qunari and that's really nice, but what do I get for it? I get stabbed in the back after my task is done, in order to avoid inconvenient complications in the future. Compare that with the Warden's outcome in DAO, if you didn't choose the US. I'm quite happy with that.
All right, I understand the ME part then.
I like that we get "stabbed in the back." It felt very natural to me that Orlais and Ferelden would not be content with the status quo of the Inquisition. Considering the Inquisition ties to Orlais after Wicked Hearts, does it make sense that Ferelden would feel comfortable with the Inquisition essentially taking over some of its lands? Does it make sense for Orlais to be all right with it considering the Game? I understand the desire for acceptance, respect, reward, but its precisely the unfulfillment of that desire that can produce strong feelings towards the narrative. And the Inquisitor herself can voice those strong feelings, as you are given opportunities to be angry about your current lot in life. I was content with the speech my Inquisitor gave when she decided to disband the Inquisition, essentially telling the Council that she wouldn't let the Inquisition be turned into something else for someone else's purposes.
I need to get this straight, you're tired of playing the hero, but disappointed when you're not treated as one at the end of the game?I feel betrayed by the story, my Inquisitor feels betrayed by fate. Yeah well, I defeated Corypheus and the qunari and that's really nice, but what do I get for it? I get stabbed in the back after my task is done, in order to avoid inconvenient complications in the future. Compare that with the Warden's outcome in DAO, if you didn't choose the US. I'm quite happy with that.
I need to get this straight, you're tired of playing the hero, but disappointed when you're not treated as one at the end of the game?
I will just jump right in here and interrupt with a good point...
Allowing evil choices to exist gives the righteous choices meaning.
So even if you would never choose to do something evil, the fact that you could have makes your moral choice worth it. Compare that to having no choice but the moral one. So what if your character chose it, everyone's character chose it.
And getting a "stab in the back" when our task is done is clearly better than getting burned at the stake .
And getting a "stab in the back" when our task is done is clearly better than getting burned at the stake .
Andraste pls
This is something I've been feeling for quite some time. In short, the way Bioware treats its protagonists, I increasingly don't want to play them as heroes any more. It has left so much dark emotion in me that I want little else from them now but the ability to act that out in a game. In Trespasser you lost your arm, your cool magical extra and you lost against three of your four opponents. In the ME trilogy, you died for outcomes that weren't worth it. No more, I say.
And while I was thinking that, I realized how interesting, how different it could be to play a darker character in the first place, if written right, and no, I'm not talking of the usual caricature of evil we tend to get in our stories, but about a character whose main motiviation is *rational* self-interest. In stories I read, I often find the antagonists more interesting than the protagonists, because they aren't restricted in their presentation by the hero template and have more varied motivations than the hero protagonists. At least if they're presented as sane and rational.
So here's what I'd like to see in Bioware's next game: the ability to play a character whose main motivation is rational self-interest, and who doesn't care overmuch about morals or others' wellbeing, and even less about saving the magical order or any group in which they wouldn't have a natural interest. Above all, I don't want to save the status quo. I want change, as radical, as large-scale and as complete as I can imagine. I don't care if the outcome will be non-canon and I'll never see it continued in a sequel. I want a story that's more interesting, and more varied, than being someone's or something's hero. Because I'm tired of being that. Utterly fed up.
Comments welcome. It's why I'm posting this after all...
This will never happen, much less in Dragon Age, though you may keep talking about how you'd implement such a thing.
I need to get this straight, you're tired of playing the hero, but disappointed when you're not treated as one at the end of the game?
Anyway, I agree with @CronoDragoon that the ending is quite realistic; none of the countries want a "freebaser" with that much power within their borders. And remember that we're only halfway through the inquistor's story (even though I think we'll experience the rest of it at least partly through someone else's perspective).
I like that we get "stabbed in the back." It felt very natural to me that Orlais and Ferelden would not be content with the status quo of the Inquisition. Considering the Inquisition ties to Orlais after Wicked Hearts, does it make sense that Ferelden would feel comfortable with the Inquisition essentially taking over some of its lands? Does it make sense for Orlais to be all right with it considering the Game? I understand the desire for acceptance, respect, reward, but its precisely the unfulfillment of that desire that can produce strong feelings towards the narrative. And the Inquisitor herself can voice those strong feelings, as you are given opportunities to be angry about your current lot in life. I was content with the speech my Inquisitor gave when she decided to disband the Inquisition, essentially telling the Council that she wouldn't let the Inquisition be turned into something else for someone else's purposes.
I didn't say it wasn't realistic. I actually did say that Trespasser told its story well, but I hated the outcome.
The impression "I lose" came from heaping it all up: I lose the arm, I lose my cool magical extra, I lose my organization and I lose against Solas, Ferelden and Orlais. On the meta-level, it feels like being discarded by the story because I'm no longer needed (and isn't that exactly what it is?), and the worst part is that I'm supposed to be content with that, again, on the meta level, because Bioware expects their stories to be emotionally satisfying. Well, I'm not satisfied.
You're correct in that such a drastic downturn can produce motivations, but then, it's the end of the Inquisitor's story, I'll get no opportunity to play out my dissatisfaction in-world. If I got to play the Inquisitor again, and were again locked into the hero template, it would feel out of character. That's the immediate reason why I was posting this just now.
Well I don't have strong feelings about the character you described (more options are good, but not personally interested), I definitely agree with this:
This is something I've been feeling for quite some time. In short, the way Bioware treats its protagonists, I increasingly don't want to play them as heroes any more. It has left so much dark emotion in me that I want little else from them now but the ability to act that out in a game. In Trespasser you lost your arm, your cool magical extra and you lost against three of your four opponents. In the ME trilogy, you died for outcomes that weren't worth it. No more, I say.
And this:
Indeed so. DAI did a fairly ok job in making the main plot acceptable for different character types, but having an outcome like Trespasser's written in stone ruins that impression. You should've had the choice of fighting for your independence.
I didn't say it wasn't realistic. I actually did say that Trespasser told its story well, but I hated the outcome.
The impression "I lose" came from heaping it all up: I lose the arm, I lose my cool magical extra, I lose my organization and I lose against Solas, Ferelden and Orlais. On the meta-level, it feels like being discarded by the story because I'm no longer needed (and isn't that exactly what it is?), and the worst part is that I'm supposed to be content with that, again, on the meta level, because Bioware expects their stories to be emotionally satisfying. Well, I'm not satisfied.
You're correct in that such a drastic downturn can produce motivations, but then, it's the end of the Inquisitor's story, I'll get no opportunity to play out my dissatisfaction in-world. If I got to play the Inquisitor again, and were again locked into the hero template, it would feel out of character. That's the immediate reason why I was posting this just now.
That describes my feelings towards Trespasser perfectly. Well told but the outcome felt like a vice that crushed any affection for the protagonist out of me.
I never really understood the idea that we "lost" to Ferelden and Orlais.
Personally, never having to deal with these squealing pigs ever again is the greatest gift my Inquisitor could have asked for.
I didn't say it wasn't realistic. I actually did say that Trespasser told its story well, but I hated the outcome.
The impression "I lose" came from heaping it all up: I lose the arm, I lose my cool magical extra, I lose my organization and I lose against Solas, Ferelden and Orlais. On the meta-level, it feels like being discarded by the story because I'm no longer needed (and isn't that exactly what it is?), and the worst part is that I'm supposed to be content with that, again, on the meta level, because Bioware expects their stories to be emotionally satisfying. Well, I'm not satisfied.
You're correct in that such a drastic downturn can produce motivations, but then, it's the end of the Inquisitor's story, I'll get no opportunity to play out my dissatisfaction in-world. If I got to play the Inquisitor again, and were again locked into the hero template, it would feel out of character. That's the immediate reason why I was posting this just now.
Yeah, I just thought of this yesterday, and it irks me too. I never really analyzed it as much before, because I thought the Inquisitor might return. But if it's really the end of their story like you say, it changes my perspective quite a bit, since we'll have no chance to change or even express emotion over it. It's the end. Done. No more.
That's not satisfying.
Turn off the lights of your room when you play DA
And getting a "stab in the back" when our task is done is clearly better than getting burned at the stake .
DA4 is the perfect time for us to be members of The Raiders of the Walking Sea with our own custom pirate ship acting as our skyhold or normandy and transport between tevinter ports and seheron. A wartable or whatever it would be best called and Isabella as one of our advisers or quest givers at least since she is a Admiral now. Raiders allow us the best of all 3 games, being apart of a morally grey faction like The Warden, at the same time Independent like Hawke because the Raiders still work independently of each other, and we can be the leader of our own ship controlling our crews actions and even having the title The Captain since our names wont be called often similar to the Inquisitor. As a Raider we can either be Antihero pirates or Heroes. We can find treasure or racket a town for protection. Most importantly the Raiders have a history with the Qunari so who better to stand up to a full invasion then a pirate hero. Love them or hate them The Captain does whatever to get the job down and saving Tevinter from the Qunari can be a good way to have our crimes waved if our hero went really dark. That to me is the best route we can go with going towards a darker hero. Take a Mass effect 2 route and have us recruit our companions who best fit the bill upgrade our ship so we can survive invading a Qunari stronghold stop Sten(Arishok) then impress Dorian to the point he calls up the Inquisitor that we have our hero to stop Solas. To stop someone as extreme as solas maybe we need a hero who is not afraid to step in his shoes.
Retour en haut
