49 réponses à ce sujet

[chaosapiant]

Maybe i'm just weak, but i'm on my 5th character now, and I keep telling myself that "this" will be the one where i'm totally a ****** to everyone and completely "evil."  I'd take Bhelen over harrowmont, take branka over caradin, either make the werewolves eat the elves or the elves kill them, enter and immediately leave redcliffe leaving them to their fate, allowing the sacrifice of the elven hostages in the alienage for personal gain, killing conner, etc.  But, I simply can not justify, in any roleplaying sense whatsoever that kind of wanton slaughter.  Does anyone else have this issue?  If not, help me justify it in character, because i'd like to see these parts of the game. 

My other beef with playing evil to the bone, is it seems to cut out half the content of the game.

[KnightofPhoenix]

If you consider what you listed as "evil" choices, then no wonder you can't even imagine a character doing them.

[Cuddlezarro]

Siding with Bhelen is evil now!?

[Jabraham002]

I started my current character saying the same thing, yet half way through I realize "I've been making only kinda evil chooses?" Maybe next time I can do "pure evil."





To justify yourself you could pretend you're possessed by a demon? Or, that the taint has had an unexpected effect, and though you're working against the darkspawn, you have their desire to kill and destroy?

[thegreateski]

You have to start out small. Going full on stab-you-in-the-face evil right off the bat is not for everyone.



You have to work your way up. Start with things like lying to that Elf at Ostagar . . . to eventually slaughtering the Dalish.



As for an RP excuse? YOU are THE most important person in Ferelden. If these pathetic wastes of flesh do not bow down to your unfailing wisdom then it is your JOB to make their lives a living hell.

[krylo]

Siding with Bhelen is politically sound, if your character is the type to understand that kind of thing. Taking Branka over Caridin means fighting the blight more easily. It's a matter of x number of dead dwarves versus stopping the blight before it consumes the surface. Killing the werewolves OR the elves is simply a matter of justice over forgiveness, and which you chose is based entirely upon your own view point. Were the werewolves more in the wrong to have attacked the elves, and then you? Were the elves more in the wrong to have done this to the wolves in the first place and never seek to right it? Further the werewolves vs elves can come down to fighting the blight again. Werewolves are more vicious and powerful fighters than elves--would the people saved by having them fight the blight be worth turning on the Dalish?



The only one I can never quite justify is wiping out the mage tower. Not when there's kids right there.

[Jaredor]

Basically just think like Morrigan does; out for yourself, power is everything etc. As far as redcliffe and conor goes rp wise, I would say that you feel it is an unecessary risk to fight their battle (which is basically what Morrigan argues) and that you dont have time or the resources to confront conor's demon in the fade.

[chaosapiant]

I've actually argued all these points to myself as well, but it's different in practice. Again though, i'm also afraid of cutting out half the game. And I don't consider siding with Bhelen evil, I consider Harrowmont the "lesser" of two evils. Unless you consider the ending, which I try not to think about. I try to react naturally to circumstances. My real chance to be a ****** was my city elf rogue. He was mouthy and badass at first, but then grew compassionate at some point.

[KnightofPhoenix]

krylo wrote...
The only one I can never quite justify is wiping out the mage tower. Not when there's kids right there.

I could do it pretty easily.
Irving himself says that there is no way to know whether a mage is hosting a demon or not. So the possibility that some if not many of the mages you spared are in fact already abominations is very real. And should that happen, the victim being a kid or an adult is irrelevent. We have seen kids being as dangerous as adults with magic and a demon behind them (Connor, Alienage orphan).  

So, should you spare the mages, you risk letting demons on the loose. And, on a more practical level, that might threaten your army. The last thing a Commander needs is his mages going out of control. In addition, the Templars are known to be an elite force and since the emissaries are a pain in the ass, then having them along is helpful.  

I don't see it as unjustifible. That doesn't mean I would do it in rl. But I can certainly justify it.  

[Cuddlezarro]

Id hardly call any one who supports the horrid caste system as "lesser" of two evils even if the competition is a bastard

and you dont cut out half the game for "being evil" either

Modifié par Cuddlezarro, 14 mars 2010 - 05:35 .

[chaosapiant]

If that's the case, then what happens to all the Redcliffe quests if you let the town get eaten by zombies? Like the few Blackstone quests there, or Sten's sword and all that stuff?

[Cuddlezarro]

leaving Redcliff is the exception (though you can still get stens sword) and you still have to do the conner stuff



however you can still do some pretty dickish things in redcliff even if you help them (like killing Owen and murder knifing Lloyd the tavernkeep)

[Jaredor]

Stens sword is still there, you just dont have to talk to Dwyn to get it.

[chaosapiant]

Well, I appreciate all the replies! I'm gonna give it a go..one of these days!!!!

[ImNotTrent]

to me, playing someone "evil" doesn't mean playing stupid, there is no need to alienate your companions, you need them later. my noble human wanted to be king, he was willing to lie, use and manipulate whoever he needed to get what he deserved, this included letting Anora execute Alistair, letting Loghain sacrifice himself. He killed Connor because going to the tower would have taken to much time, the werewolves would be more help fighting the darkspawn, as were the golems and the templars. so those choices were made. he killed Ginitavi because he didn't want anyone else to get to the Ashes and desecrate them, which i found to be an odd choice for him, but it was his to make.



anyway, it was very odd for me to have someone with that mindset as everyone else who has played through has been a pretty nice guy. and in the end, it was the most interesting play through i've had honestly.

[chaosapiant]

What about poisoning the ashes? Is there any justification for that? I have yet to do that to unlock reaver.

[Cuddlezarro]

no one knows about the ashes other than a loony cult(that you can still wipe out), you and an old man which you can lie to plus playing as say a dwarf or some one who hates the chantry you dont exactly care about the remains of a woman long dead



for that you get turned into a reaver which if you read the codex reavers are actually supposed to be incredibly powerful

[guitarbard]

I'm doing an "evil play through" too, just to see if I could. It took a LOT of mental effort to finally say yes to wiping out all of the mages, and the slaughter of the Dalish nearly made me sick. I poisoned the ashes specifically so I could unlock Reaver - for my OTHER characters. Does that technically make my very kind-hearted reaver/champions evil?



As for slaughter, there's so much of that that a plausible excuse could just be that you're following the theme of the game: kill kill stabbity stabbity, or whatever.



Wait - you can just leave Redcliffe to the zombies??? What???

[ImNotTrent]

one of my elves desecrated the ashes with the blood for the Reaver talent. he didn't believe in the maker or any of that preachy chantry crap. so he saw no issue with pouring the blood on the ashes for some power and a pass through some fighting.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

I don't think you can be completely evil in dragon age. Whatever bad actions you take in the end you'll probably end up doing more good anyway what with stopping the blight and all.

[rhiain]

Wait - you can just leave Redcliffe to the zombies??? What???

Yep. I did it by accident on my second playthrough; I got halfway through Redcliffe, realized I was kind of annoyed by having to drop the Arl Eamon story thread to go do the mage tower/fade on the first playthrough, and decided to head out to get that out of the way. There's a guard dude that yells at you while you're leaving (something like, "Don't leave, when you come back we'll all be deaaaaaad"), but I figured it was like the Connor thing; sure, they'd threaten that he might do something bad if you took the time to go to the tower, but it would end up being fine.

Turns out, nope, the whole town dies. Except for Bann Teagan, of course. That was a surprise!

I've been experimenting with this a bit on my current playthrough. I ended up siding with the templars in the tower; I realized I could actually kill Wynn and the other mages myself. I got halfway through before I felt bad and loaded a savegame (at least that way Wynn survived!), but not before I got to see the kids head for the hills. So they're fine no matter what you do.

Modifié par rhiain, 14 mars 2010 - 09:07 .

[Tinnic]

I don't play evil characters but on my second play though, which I just finished yesterday, I ended up siding with Bhelen over Harrowmont. I sided with Harrowmont when I played through the first time and regretted it. Bhelen vs Harrowmont is not a good vs evil choice. As that dwarf in the tavern tells you, they both have their failing but Bhelen is the stronger king and choosing him leads to progress for the dwarves while choosing Harrowmont leads to regression and a weaker rule overall. So siding with Bhelen is... pragmatic not evil.

Also, siding with Branka is not evil. Not destroying the anvil of the void is evil because you just know that the castless dwarves are going to be forcably made into Golemn if you allow it to survive. But Oghran lets you know that there is a chance Branka can be talked down from her madness and she can be. So you can side with Branka to give Oghran a fighting chance to get through her confused obsessive mind. I didn't side with Branka, and probably won't ever, because of Shale.

Even with siding with the Templers over the mages isn't evil as that is the only way to ensure that no abomination survives. Just because you really, really don't know how many of the mages had "turned" or have been altered. As Cullen points out, the only way to be certain is to kill all the mages. The "evil" part of that comes into the play because you also have to kill the children. But just look at the damage Conner did to Redcliff. Which is also why killing Conner cannot really be considered an evil act. I didn't side with the Templars this play through because I wanted Wynn.

However, convincing the Werewolves to kill the Dalish is an evil act. Especially since the Werewolves don't even want that. You have to convince them to do it and for what? Werewolves for the final battle? I guess there might be roleplay reasons why people might go down that route. Gameplay wise... I rarely use the troops for the final battle. I just don't need them. I only enhance them for roleplay reasons.

Also "evil" are letting the desire demon have Connar. Leaving Redcliff to its fate might be evil or it might just be lazy/selfish considering you do need Arl Eamon to counter Loghain and Alistair makes this clear. Certainly defiling the ashes is most definitely evil.

Modifié par Tinnic, 14 mars 2010 - 11:08 .

[spottyblanket]

The main justifcation you could have is that your need to eridcate the blight raises over everything else. You choose the stronger allies, the golems, the werewolves and you don't waste time. You have a mission. Defilling the ashes is evil if you believe your get a dragon out of it. Killing all the mages is evil, but you can justify it saying you wanted to protect the land.



A true evil character just does as they please, on a whim without regarding their actions as 'the greater good' you motivation could simply be that you fail to understand the emotions of others, or simply, you're just bored.

[Felipevelloso]

Tinnic wrote...

I don't play evil characters but on my second play though, which I just finished yesterday, I ended up siding with Bhelen over Harrowmont. I sided with Harrowmont when I played through the first time and regretted it. Bhelen vs Harrowmont is not a good vs evil choice. As that dwarf in the tavern tells you, they both have their failing but Bhelen is the stronger king and choosing him leads to progress for the dwarves while choosing Harrowmont leads to regression and a weaker rule overall. So siding with Bhelen is... pragmatic not evil.

I have to disagree with you... Bhelen killed his brother and he's a cold power hungry dwarf. If you played the noble dwarf origin it's evilness is even more fleshed out. In that origin, Bhellen the younger son of the king, kills the heir and them frame you for it (and it is hinted that bhellen may have killed the king too). Harrowmont is showed as a true friend of the king and as benevolent ruler. And actualy the dwarf origins ends with harrowmont saving your life and letting you run away with Duncan... after all this, to side with bhelen is the evil thing.

[Tinnic]

Felipevelloso wrote...

Tinnic wrote...

I don't play evil characters but on my second play though, which I just finished yesterday, I ended up siding with Bhelen over Harrowmont. I sided with Harrowmont when I played through the first time and regretted it. Bhelen vs Harrowmont is not a good vs evil choice. As that dwarf in the tavern tells you, they both have their failing but Bhelen is the stronger king and choosing him leads to progress for the dwarves while choosing Harrowmont leads to regression and a weaker rule overall. So siding with Bhelen is... pragmatic not evil.

I have to disagree with you... Bhelen killed his brother and he's a cold power hungry dwarf. If you played the noble dwarf origin it's evilness is even more fleshed out. In that origin, Bhellen the younger son of the king, kills the heir and them frame you for it (and it is hinted that bhellen may have killed the king too). Harrowmont is showed as a true friend of the king and as benevolent ruler. And actualy the dwarf origins ends with harrowmont saving your life and letting you run away with Duncan... after all this, to side with bhelen is the evil thing.

I am not saying Bhelen isn't evil. Which is why I went with Harrowmont on the first play through. However, I did not care for the ending. King Harrowmont epilogue was a total failure in my book. The unrest in Ozrammer continued. He couldn't get anything done except isolate dwarves further, which many dwarves note to you to be a bad thing and then he dies from stress of leadership. The fact that Harrowmont won't be the king Ozrammer needs is evident enough as soon as you pick him because Bhelen and his supporters attack you.

However, if you are an outsider - which both my PCs were (Elven Mage and Dalish Elven Rogue) and your goal is to stabalise Ozrammer because that's the only way to ensure that the Dwarves can lend their full support to the blight, you have to go with Bhelen because brutal dictator though he is, he can stabalise Ozrammer. I also much prefer to ending Ozrammer gets under Bhelen. Because it gives the strong impression that the dwarves are better off in the long run. 

I did tell Bhelen that I heard all about his crimes and he did ask me why are you here and I was able to give him the answer for why I was there. Harrowmont won't be a strong enough king. It was unfortunate but true. I personally would have preferred to put a king on the throne who was both good and a strong leader. Unfortunately I had no such option in Ozrammer.

Besides which, Bhelen also does good things for the casteless and generally progresses the dwarves. He might be ruthless in his quest for power but he is liberal in his philosophy. While Harrowmont is a weak willed conservative. He doesn't want to do anything for the casteless and just wants to continue to let them suffer. That doesn't make him "good" in my book. Doesn't make him evil but doesn't make him good good either. I guess what I am saying is that I think they are both bad choices but between the two, Bhelen is the better choice in the long run.