190 réponses à ce sujet

[Duelist]

Zevran, Isabela and Varric. Apparently I really like smartass rogues.

Vivienne and Shale warrant a mention too as do Cassandra and Aveline.

[congokong]

And then we have Sten. He had commited a terrible crime, but he demonstrates his desire for atonement in both word and deed by surrendering to the authorities.

 

Sten reminds me of an apologetic woman-beater. You know, the type who in a rage batters their spouse's face, then afterwards feels terrible remorse ...only to do it again later.

[Spirit Vanguard]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said nobody recruits those two outside of meta-gaming. There are role-playing reasons, if poor ones, to do it. My initial statement that people seem to keep misinterpreting is that there's no logical reason outside of meta-gaming to recruit them. I thought I made it clear.

 

I am trying to understand.

 

Recruiting them the first time doesn't involve metagaming.

 

Recruiting them again in future playthroughs is metagaming because we know the characters.

 

But to recruit these companions in any case is illogical.

 

Is that it? There's no acceptable reason that anyone could acquire these companions beyond role play?

 

Meh. Agree to disagree. 

[Kabraxal]

Like I said, I don't want to argue it. I regret saying anything about it because it has opened the doors for people to start giving their reasons for how they think it makes sense. I've heard this all before and strongly disagree with the reasoning.

 

It is easy to disagree with a line of reasoning and still concede that it is logical.  Logical does not mean objectively correct. 

 

It seems you are simply holding to a much too narrow definition of logic that holds significant meaning for the purposes of this discussion.  There is the standard definition of logic, then whatever you are using to justify your unwillingness to even entertain the ideas presented to you.  

 

So I guess we'll agree to disagree and let it end there. 

[congokong]

I am trying to understand.

 

Recruiting them the first time doesn't involve metagaming.

 

Recruiting them again in future playthroughs is metagaming because we know the characters.

 

But to recruit these companions in any case is illogical.

 

Is that it? There's no acceptable reason that anyone could acquire these companions beyond role play?

 

Meh. Agree to disagree. 

It involves meta-gaming the first time as well because you know it's a game and Zevran isn't going to stick you in the back with a game-over message half-way through. And if he did kill you with a game over, you could just reload.

 

Seeing the choice to recruit them outside of the knowledge this is a game with the pc wearing plot armor is irrational IMO.

 

It is easy to disagree with a line of reasoning and still concede that it is logical.  Logical does not mean objectively correct. 

 

It seems you are simply holding to a much too narrow definition of logic that holds significant meaning for the purposes of this discussion.  There is the standard definition of logic, then whatever you are using to justify your unwillingness to even entertain the ideas presented to you.  

 

So I guess we'll agree to disagree and let it end there. 

Of course this isn't objective. You don't see people arguing 1+1=2. If this was truly objective, there would be no debate. Problem is, if anything is even a bit subjective, there will always be people taking the other position. It's my subjective interpretation of risk/reward regarding their recruitment, and non-meta-gamed lack of foresight into their characters, that deems their recruitment to be absurd. Understand?

[Kabraxal]

It involves meta-gaming the first time as well because you know it's a game and Zevran isn't going to stick you in the back with a game-over message half-way through. And if he did kill you with a game over, you could just reload.

 

Seeing the choice to recruit them outside of the knowledge this is a game with the pc wearing plot armor is irrational IMO.

 

Of course this isn't objective. You don't see people arguing 1+1=2. If this was truly objective, there would be no debate. Problem is, if anything is even a bit subjective, there will always be people taking the other position. It's my subjective interpretation of risk/reward regarding their recruitment, and non-meta-gamed lack of foresight into their characters, that deems their recruitment to be absurd. Understand?

 

O I understand your subjective reasoning.  But your inability to not concede the logic of an argument or idea is where the problem is.  Logic is actually a well defined subject within philosophy that has an objective basis.  You can disagree with a logical statement, but it does not destroy the logic of the statement. 

 

I can see the logic in your arguments, and one that some of my characters actually hold to.  But other characters, while seeing the same logic within that argument, hold to a different logical process that comes to a different conclusion.  Both are absolutely logical yet both end up with radically different results. Understand yet?

[Qun00]

Sten reminds me of an apologetic woman-beater. You know, the type who in a rage batters their spouse's face, then afterwards feels terrible remorse ...only to do it again later.

I doubt that a woman-beater whose remorse is only temporary would turn himself in and accept death as his punishment, which Sten did.

[congokong]

O I understand your subjective reasoning.  But your inability to not concede the logic of an argument or idea is where the problem is.  Logic is actually a well defined subject within philosophy that has an objective basis.  You can disagree with a logical statement, but it does not destroy the logic of the statement. 

 

I can see the logic in your arguments, and one that some of my characters actually hold to.  But other characters, while seeing the same logic within that argument, hold to a different logical process that comes to a different conclusion.  Both are absolutely logical yet both end up with radically different results. Understand yet?

You sound like Legion.

 

I understand what you're saying, and agree with it ...to an extent. There are opinions I disagree with but can respect, and there are opinions that I just think are irrational; even if there is some foundation to their formation.

 

If you take what you're saying as an absolute, no position with any bit of subjectivity should be judged as right/wrong by another.

 

You are also mistaking me not wishing to argue the flaws in people's reasons (in this thread) for recruiting Sten/Zevran as an inability to concede to their logic. That's not true. I'm just tired of arguing it, and it's pointless. Anyone who really believes recruitiing those two makes sense will not be swayed by anything I say on a message board.

 

And I'm not entirely sure how you could see the logic in my arguments against their recruitment when I haven't provided any. I have simply stated recruiting them is irrational without giving details, and it has turned into a debate about what is meta-gaming, interpretations of logic, etc.

[congokong]

I doubt that a woman-beater whose remorse is only temporary would turn himself in and accept death as his punishment, which Sten did.

I'm sure some have, and they'd be more likely to with a qunari upbringing probably. And who says the remorse would be temporary, especially if it involved something so "permanent" as the murder of 8 people?

 

Remember, it's a comparison. Comparing =/= equating.

[Qun00]

I'm sure some have, and they'd be more likely to with a qunari upbringing probably. And who says the remorse would be temporary, especially if it involved something so "permanent" as the murder of 8 people?

Remember, it's a comparison. Comparing =/= equating.

It is true that the murderer's decision to mend his ways cannot return the lives that were taken or ease the pain of those who cared about them.

However, I believe in redemption even if I can't really blame anyone that doesn't feel the same.

One of my issues with Zevran is that his quest against the Crows in DA2 had nothing to do with redeeming himself, but simply revenge for the way his former masters treated him.

[congokong]

It is true that the murderer's decision to mend his ways cannot return the lives that were taken or ease the pain of those who cared about them.

However, I believe in redemption even if I can't really blame anyone that doesn't feel the same.
 

I have mixed feeling about redemption, but am pretty certain about risk and trust.

 

One of my issues with Zevran is that his quest against the Crows in DA2 had nothing to do with redeeming himself, but simply revenge for the way his former masters treated him.

It does give us a potential threesome though. I never thought Zevran cared much about redemption anyway. Remember when he wanted to leave you (unless romanced) in Denerim after confronted by the Crows ...not long before the final battle.

[sniper_arrow]

Unsurprisingly, Dorian is on a lot of people's favorites list.

 

...Am I the only one who isn't the biggest fan of him? I think he means well and is generally a good guy, but there are things about him that irk me that I never see discussed on the boards. He's a slavery apologist, for one, which I don't like. He's also a bleeding heart; actually disapproving if I kill Calpernia, for example, after revealing Corypheus' betrayal of her. Seriously, Dorian?! I'm going to just let her go after all the bloodshed she caused?! Awww, she did it for Tevinter. That makes it ok, right?

 

Dorian's narcissistic wit also can be irritating. I'm sure he's partially joking, yet still.

 

He also lets his guard down a lot; showing his vulnerability (pretty much the opposite of Vivienne). To an extent, this is a good thing. Though at times, I felt a little awkward with how much of his personal grievances he shares with you. It made me feel like his therapist.

 

I guess I bring this up because I never see it mentioned. Some characters' flaws (like Sera, Solas, and Vivienne), people are quite outspoken about.

 

Nah, I like him but I agree with your assessment. 

 

As for his vulnerability, I'm guessing he doesn't really have a lot of friends in Tevinter (except for Maevaris) due to his arrogance.

[Xilizhra]

It does give us a potential threesome though. I never thought Zevran cared much about redemption anyway. Remember when he wanted to leave you (unless romanced) in Denerim after confronted by the Crows ...not long before the final battle.

He won't want to leave if he just has regular high approval.

[Christy]

Each companion can be different things to different people. I went with the idea that Isabela just insinuates herself into the group every now and then, with a disgruntled Hawke becoming more frustrated every time. While my Hawke is pretty aggressive, he also follows a fairly lawful code. In addition, he is a very serious person. So, Isabela and Hawke did not get along. Then, when everything explodes, Hawke is more than happy to hand the pirate over to the Qunari. While, he doesn't agree with all of the policies, my Hawke was in a relationship of mutual respect with the Qunari.

 

Regarding Fenris, yes it is related to the friendship/rivalry scores. I had either middling friendship or higher rivalry, but I do know I don't complete his Act 3 Questioning Beliefs quest. I believe I am able to persuade Fenris to rejoin Hawke through dialogue, but I always choose an option that places the two characters on opposite sides of the issue.
 

 

For me, I simply don't see all of that negative side of her. Vivienne likes my Inquisitor. Sure, she is still manipulating the situation for her gain, but, in my Inquisitor's case, they are friends. My Inquisitor is an Andrastian that is finally being allowed to "stand tall" and sing the praises of his faith. Being typically excluded, my Inquisitor is actually trying to reconstruct the Chantry as it was, not as some sort of new, progressive, evolved form of the institution. Besides hoping other races can participate, and that mages should be included, he comes from a pretty traditional platform. And he relies on Vivienne for guidance in many things. So, despite dissolving the organization in the end, I always envisioned my Inquisitor being Divine Vivienne's Right Hand.

 

Obviously, this alters the dynamic of the relationship. Whereas other players can rightfully despise Vivienne due to their interactions, I adore her. So again, different things for different player characters.

I see. Your way of playing seems very interesting. I guess I roleplay as well to some extent as I never create myself and try to figure this new person out and make choices accordingly, but you seem to really go there, if that makes sense.   

You're probably right about peoples impressions of the companions being limited to your experience as Inquisitor. Maybe just maybe I'll change my mind about Vivienne when playing as someone with a very traditional look at the mage/templar dilemma, but I very much doubt it. My Inquisitor has been very mild and quite open minded when it comes to magic and religion, and yet there's all these false sugary statements from Vivienne's side.

[Christy]

I was going to correct an error in my post, somehow managed to quote myself instead, and now I don't know how to delete this. Awesome.

[Tidus]

Another fun group that I like to use is my Rogue, Cole, Sera and Verric.  Its not a squad I would care to use on the assault on Aramant or any major quest  but,still a fun group on easier quests. . 

[Catilina]

Another fun group that I like to use is my Rogue, Cole, Sera and Verric.  Its not a squad I would care to use on the assault on Aramant or any major quest  but,still a fun group on easier quests. . 

I like fun groups. My favorite are 4 mages with much aoe! Destructive!

[vertigomez]

One of my issues with Zevran is that his quest against the Crows in DA2 had nothing to do with redeeming himself, but simply revenge for the way his former masters treated him.

Eh, I think it's more than that. The Crows are an organization that utilizes child-soldiers for murder and... other purposes. It's not just Zevran they've hurt, so going after them feels a little more altruistic than just getting revenge.

But his motivations aren't exactly clear, so it's a fair assessment either way.

[congokong]

He won't want to leave if he just has regular high approval.

I recall having to sway him with the prospect of treasure or something despite him having max approval.

[vertigomez]

I recall having to sway him with the prospect of treasure or something despite him having max approval.

At +26 approval he'll walk away from the fight, and at +71 he'll side with you completely. Less than 26 results in betrayal.

edit: and romance skews it so that he sides with you earlier, I think.

[Catilina]

I recall having to sway him with the prospect of treasure or something despite him having max approval.

This is not what I remember. In fact, if after the fight you offered him free to go where he wants, he chooses to stay with you (if you want).

[congokong]

At +26 approval he'll walk away from the fight, and at +71 he'll side with you completely. Less than 26 results in betrayal.

edit: and romance skews it so that he sides with you earlier, I think.

I'm not talking about the fight. Afterwards, he suggests being allowed to leave; even at max approval. I had to convince him to stay.

 

 

This is not what I remember. In fact, if after the fight you offered him free to go where he wants, he chooses to stay with you (if you want).

I never offered to let him go so I cannot say. I just remember him wanting to be freed from his vow after killing his former crows, and me convincing him to stay.

[Catilina]

I'm not talking about the fight. Afterwards, he suggests being allowed to leave; even at max approval. I had to convince him to stay.

 

 

I never offered to let him go so I cannot say. I just remember him wanting to be freed from his vow after killing his former crows, and me convincing him to stay.

I freed him from his vow, I wanted to stay with me freely. I told him, he can go where he wants, it's his life. He ask me, what I want, then I repeated to him, that is his decide. He told me: nobody never offered him this before, then, if I want, he prefer to stay with me. It was a good scene (I think this option working not only in romance...) 

[Spirit Vanguard]

I'm not talking about the fight. Afterwards, he suggests being allowed to leave; even at max approval. I had to convince him to stay.



I never offered to let him go so I cannot say. I just remember him wanting to be freed from his vow after killing his former crows, and me convincing him to stay.

You can use a persuade choice to convince him to stay, but if approval is high enough you don't actually need to use it. It's just there becauz speech options. He'll always bring up leaving, but you can use other dialogue paths to have him stay -- and reveal that he'd actually like to stay with you.

Modifié par Spirit Vanguard, 20 juillet 2016 - 05:55 .

[congokong]

I freed him from his vow, I wanted to stay with me freely. I told him, he can go where he wants, it's his life. He ask me, what I want, then I repeated to him, that is his decide. He told me: nobody never offered him this before, then, if I want, he prefer to stay with me. It was a good scene (I think this option working not only in romance...) 

Aww, that's sweet. Still, the initial argument being challenged was that Zevran wasn't too interested in redemption. Your argument is less invalidating that than more validating that Zevran is loyal to the Warden. That he wished to leave at all is where my argument lies that redemption wasn't a priority for him.