199 réponses à ce sujet

[Tidus]

Loghain is just as  loony as Hitler and thinks along the same lines. Hitler hated Jews Logain hates Orlesians and Grey Wardens. Hitler was well known for his tantrums like in the bunker scene from "Downfall"  Loghain threw a similar fit after  the Landsmeet voted to back the wardens.

 

Think of the damage Logain cause in his hate for the Orlesians and the Greys. He was the Darkspawns best ally.

 

No,a madman doesn't to be cuddled.. They are to be eliminated.

 

 

My wardens never had to kill Leliana because they just take a pinch of the ashes and not the whole urn.. Why would they want it?

[TevinterSupremacist]

And I'm saying that shouldn't be how it always is, just because that is how it has been.  Just because you are the PC, shouldn't be a magic shield against pissing off an assassin type character and reaping what you sow.  If you do stupid evil things, being dealt with in your sleep or your drink poisoned, should be a possible consequence. 

There is no "magic shield" (except when you activate a spell like that in combat, but that's a different story). Many characters, including the PC and companions are just stronger than that. A stealth dagger or poison isn't enough to kill them. Proof of that is is that there are enemy rogues that utilise poison or stealth in combat and can't kill you with one shot.

 

People forget that in a videogame the most important and unique storytelling device is the gameplay. What happens in battle isn't a separate dimension from the cutscenes and the story, it's the same. The fact that you overcome such trials in battle is why you don't get offed like that in your sleep. You really endure more. This is part of the character, it's an aspect of the story. Gameplay tells part of the story. A major part of it, in fact.

 

Not to mention that if you get killed in your sleep or by poison, enemy assassins would have done that ages ago. If you take an approach where PCs die like that, they wouldn't just die by doing bad deeds. They'd die by opposing the powerful antagonist who can hire assassins. Or simply by entering battle. Because the PC would be a weakling.

 

Once again, gameplay is a storytelling device, cutscenes and combat parts are not and should not be treated as different realities.

[Captain Wiseass]

I'm sure players would love to get a sudden "game over" out of nowhere because of a choice they made twenty hours of gameplay ago.

[TheRatPack55]

 

Not to mention that if you get killed in your sleep or by poison, enemy assassins would have done that ages ago. If you take an approach where PCs die like that, they wouldn't just die by doing bad deeds. They'd die by opposing the powerful antagonist who can hire assassins. Or simply by entering battle. Because the PC would be a weakling.

 

This is a very good point. If a game went with these types of "realistic" consequences we'd be getting a game over every five minutes after every choice that didn't please all parties involved. What would stop an evil group that got scorned by your pc from murdering them in their sleep in that exact way?

[Kabraxal]

There is no "magic shield" (except when you activate a spell like that in combat, but that's a different story). Many characters, including the PC and companions are just stronger than that. A stealth dagger or poison isn't enough to kill them. Proof of that is is that there are enemy rogues that utilise poison or stealth in combat and can't kill you with one shot.

 

People forget that in a videogame the most important and unique storytelling device is the gameplay. What happens in battle isn't a separate dimension from the cutscenes and the story, it's the same. The fact that you overcome such trials in battle is why you don't get offed like that in your sleep. You really endure more. This is part of the character, it's an aspect of the story. Gameplay tells part of the story. A major part of it, in fact.

 

Not to mention that if you get killed in your sleep or by poison, enemy assassins would have done that ages ago. If you take an approach where PCs die like that, they wouldn't just die by doing bad deeds. They'd die by opposing the powerful antagonist who can hire assassins. Or simply by entering battle. Because the PC would be a weakling.

 

Once again, gameplay is a storytelling device, cutscenes and combat parts are not and should not be treated as different realities.

 

I never conflate gameplay mechanics for actual survival principles within that universe.  Gameplay mechanics often fly right in the face of the actual abilities of those characters (especially magical capabilities).  If we simply went by gameplay mechanics, then hunting would be near impossible in this universe.... especially if you are playing on nightmare.  And every schmoe around seems to have magically imbued skin since half the enemies can stand right in a line of fire or lightning or stream of arrows and not even flinch. 

 

Simple fact: if the Inquisitor or Warden were to take an arrow unaware, they would die easily.  Should Bioware limit assassination attempts? Yes.  There has to be a balance.  But it should be an option, especially for characters that favour such tactics. 

[TevinterSupremacist]

 But it should be an option, especially for characters that favour such tactics. 

Why especially for those and not for good people? Because you say so?

 

And no, gameplay is part of the story. This is why the warden does the things he does and not a random dalish or college mage. They fought and grew stronger hence they can take down the archdemon. Which means surviving a vortex of archdemon flame. Having such a character die from an arrow would be an insult. Putting your hands over your ears and going "lalalallalalalala" doesn't change that.

[Kabraxal]

I'm sure players would love to get a sudden "game over" out of nowhere because of a choice they made twenty hours of gameplay ago.

 

As a viable ending, it would be interesting.  As something that is within 30 minutes of game time or so from the choice, it would be a nice change of pace to an evil douche that never has to face the consequences of his actions. 

 

And really, if it is a choice of having this evil options just for the sake of being evil with no realistic reactions or retributions and the choice of more tempered evil options that wouldn't illicit what should be immediate and fatal retribution for the PC, I'll take the second.  If you are only throwing in the evil options to be evil and not have any realistic reactions or consequences, then I really don't want those options in the game.  Usually I'd argue for options, but there has to be a realistic system around them that would react appropriately. 

 

I mean, if in Inquisition you displayed traits close to Corypheus or a common lunatic, it would be quite acceptable for the final "celebration" actually be where Leliana poisons you to take you out of the equation.  That would be such an amazing ending actually.... they use you to win, then do the right thing and rid the world of your evil.  I think I'd be in shock if a dev had the balls to do that. 

[TevinterSupremacist]

And really, if it is a choice of having this evil options just for the sake of being evil with no realistic reactions or retributions and the choice of more tempered evil options that wouldn't illicit what should be immediate and fatal retribution for the PC, I'll take the second.

The problem is you want these "realistic while ignoring what the PC has proven what he/she can do and endure, so not really realistic, but whatever" consequences only for evil actions. A good guy could also get throatarrowed or poisoned.

[Dabrikishaw]

I miss being able to kill people because I wanted to as well. 

[Inkvisiittori]

As a viable ending, it would be interesting.  As something that is within 30 minutes of game time or so from the choice, it would be a nice change of pace to an evil douche that never has to face the consequences of his actions. 

 

And really, if it is a choice of having this evil options just for the sake of being evil with no realistic reactions or retributions and the choice of more tempered evil options that wouldn't illicit what should be immediate and fatal retribution for the PC, I'll take the second.  If you are only throwing in the evil options to be evil and not have any realistic reactions or consequences, then I really don't want those options in the game.  Usually I'd argue for options, but there has to be a realistic system around them that would react appropriately. 

 

I mean, if in Inquisition you displayed traits close to Corypheus or a common lunatic, it would be quite acceptable for the final "celebration" actually be where Leliana poisons you to take you out of the equation.  That would be such an amazing ending actually.... they use you to win, then do the right thing and rid the world of your evil.  I think I'd be in shock if a dev had the balls to do that. 

 

Basically this would make playing evil character the wrong choice unless you want your character to die. If your character is wise he will eliminate untrustworthy advisers like Leliana before they make their own move against him. He will replace them with fanatical believers and execute all those who oppose his rule. Like in the future that demon showed us in Champions of the Just.

 

If you give companions and advisers freedom to kill the player character when they make choices they disapprove, then the player also needs to have that same unlimited power to kill other characters as they please. If not then it's just unfair. Realistically this would just not work.

 

We need companions and characters that are as diverse as possible - some good, some evil and some neutral. Good & Evil is often just a point of view, though. Some companion thinks that helping slaves escape is good and other one thinks that stealing another man's property is evil. 

[Kabraxal]

Basically this would make playing evil character the wrong choice unless you want your character to die. If your character is wise he will eliminate untrustworthy advisers like Leliana before they make their own move against him. He will replace them with fanatical believers and execute all those who oppose his rule. Like in the future that demon showed us in Champions of the Just.

 

If you give companions and advisers freedom to kill the player character when they make choices they disapprove, then the player also needs to have that same unlimited power to kill other characters as they please. If not then it's just unfair. Realistically this would just not work.

 

We need companions and characters that are as diverse as possible - some good, some evil and some neutral. Good & Evil is often just a point of view, though. Some companion thinks that helping slaves escape is good and other one thinks that stealing another man's property is evil. 

 

I agree.  I would love to see that as well.  Especially if the game actively reacts to the point you are not sure you actually succeeded until the slides roll.  I can see where you think you won over a Leliana, only to be "betrayed" or how you actually do put enough fanatics in place that you overcome any backlash.  It would be interesting.

 

As for the other poster saying I only want this done to evil characters... not really, I would love to see a good character that keeps believing in an evil character that shows no signs of actual change, to get betrayed and left to die/rot/whatever negative consequence would be inflicted.  It would be awesome to roleplay the trusting leader, only for one of your generals to back off or ambush you in battle like Loghain did. 

 

I think looking outside the lines of the normal consequences would be interesting.  It's something that few companies have delivered on in any way actually. 

[PhroXenGold]

Loghain is just as  loony as Hitler and thinks along the same lines. Hitler hated Jews Logain hates Orlesians and Grey Wardens. Hitler was well known for his tantrums like in the bunker scene from "Downfall"  Loghain threw a similar fit after  the Landsmeet voted to back the wardens.

 

Think of the damage Logain cause in his hate for the Orlesians and the Greys. He was the Darkspawns best ally.

 

No,a madman doesn't to be cuddled.. They are to be eliminated.

 

 

My wardens never had to kill Leliana because they just take a pinch of the ashes and not the whole urn.. Why would they want it?

 

I don't think anyone's really suggesting cuddling Loghain. We're suggesting using him. Nothing more, nothing less. And once all is said and done, and the Blight is ended, then he can be eliminated if he still survives.

[Catilina]

I don't think anyone's really suggesting cuddling Loghain. We're suggesting using him. Nothing more, nothing less. And once all is said and done, and the Blight is ended, then he can be eliminated if he still survives.

In any case, he is tainted, then this is only postponed execution. And a chance for him to atone his sins. But this also a solution:

 

Spoiler

[straykat]

Loghain is just as  loony as Hitler and thinks along the same lines. Hitler hated Jews Logain hates Orlesians and Grey Wardens. Hitler was well known for his tantrums like in the bunker scene from "Downfall"  Loghain threw a similar fit after  the Landsmeet voted to back the wardens.

 

Think of the damage Logain cause in his hate for the Orlesians and the Greys. He was the Darkspawns best ally.

 

No,a madman doesn't to be cuddled.. They are to be eliminated.

 

 

My wardens never had to kill Leliana because they just take a pinch of the ashes and not the whole urn.. Why would they want it?

 

The Jews did nothing to Hitler. Loghain grew up as basically a slave to Orlesians. It's like comparing everyone in history who fought their oppressors to Hitler. lol

 

He's definitely irrational when it comes to them, but not nearly for the same reasons.

 

And Loghain's "fit" at the Landsmeet is that he shed the most blood out of those people. They were nobles and barely had anything to do with it. He was the commoner who fought his ass off for his nation. Do you even know the story? What you're doing is defending a bunch of rich, fat nobles to a guy who rose from nothing and lead Ferelden's armies. He became the hero of River Dane.. like Ferelden's version of Hawke or something. The country loved him afterwards. But the point of DAO Loghain is heroes can fall. Not that he's some cartoonish madman.

[ModernAcademic]

Some people never read Stolen Throne or The Calling and thus have no idea what are Loghain's reasons to mistrust Orlesians and Wardens.

 

And now he's being compared to a racist supremacist.

 

Ain't that great.

[Catilina]

Some people never read Stolen Throne or The Calling and thus have no idea what are Loghain's reasons to mistrust Orlesians and Wardens.

 

And now he's being compared to a racist supremacist.

 

Ain't that great.

For example, I never accused Loghain that he is racist. I think his greatest sin is the slave trade. It is pretty big sin, and not questionable: we have irrefutable proof of it.

 

(Hitler eventually pop up everywhere...)

[KaiserShep]

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged." (Matt 7:1)

 

 

I don't care what Matt's stats are. I'd never listen to that clown. 

[straykat]

For example, I never accused Loghain that he is racist. I think his greatest sin is the slave trade. It is pretty big sin, and not questionable: we have irrefutable proof of it.

 

(Hitler eventually pop up everywhere...)

 

It's definitely wrong.. I won't say otherwise.

 

And yeah, Godwin's Law at work.

[Xilizhra]

Some people never read Stolen Throne or The Calling and thus have no idea what are Loghain's reasons to mistrust Orlesians and Wardens.

 

And now he's being compared to a racist supremacist.

 

Ain't that great.

Well, to be fair, he is a racist who inherently values elven lives less than human ones.

[Catilina]

Well, to be fair, he is a racist who inherently values elven lives less than human ones.

I do not think that this was his reason for this. It was simply for practical reason, I think. It is easier to sell an elf than a human, because the people do not realize/care if it disappears in a few residential from the Alienage. This is general racism, Loghain only exploits.

 

The human life also does not matter so much to him, there are many humans between the Wardens.

[straykat]

Well, to be fair, he is a racist who inherently values elven lives less than human ones.

 

I'm not sure it's that simple either. He employed them in the army and made them a special unit.. the Night Elves. Few even gave them a chance before.

 

But he still sucks for what he did. 

[Xilizhra]

I do not think that this was his reason for this. It was simply for practical reason, I think. It is easier to sell an elf than a human, because the people do not realize/care if it disappears in a few residential from the Alienage. This is general racism, Loghain only exploits.

 

The human life also does not matter so much to him, there are many humans between the Wardens.

I'd buy that if he wasn't so obsessed with protecting human Fereldans from Orlesian slavery. Apparently, though, it's fine to sell elves to Tevinter.

[Catilina]

I'd buy that if he wasn't so obsessed with protecting human Fereldans from Orlesian slavery. Apparently, though, it's fine to sell elves to Tevinter.

I still prefer to call that a high degree of insensitivity than explicit racism. At least not a conscious racism. Perhaps not much difference, but it exists. That's no excuse, do not get me wrong. 

 

I assume: Loghain would not have sell Ferelden elves to the Orlais.

[Inkvisiittori]

Well, to be fair, he is a racist who inherently values elven lives less than human ones.

 

I dislike Loghain, but he is not a racist. That term has long ago lost its meaning because it's used so frequently nowadays.

 

Loghain is a patriot - he cares for his homeland and people. Elves who live in alienages should have no loyalty to human rulers who have for generations oppressed them. Loghain is paranoid and could fear that Orlais will try to use them against Ferelden - as spies and infiltrators, maybe with false promises of better life and rights under orlaisian rule?

[Xilizhra]

I still prefer to call that a high degree of insensitivity than explicit racism. At least not a conscious racism. Perhaps not much difference, but it exists. That's no excuse, do not get me wrong. 

 

I assume: Loghain would not have sell Ferelden elves to the Orlais.

Racism doesn't have to be based on hatred. Insensitivity is an extremely common manifestation of it.