Is that even possible? I went with the rebels and couldn't get one, because the option to go and get last potential allies in Act II was interrupted by an attack on the Mountain Spire which automatically launched the plot to Act III.
At what route can all 5 Edicts be gained?
- Thread starter Aramintai
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
.png){kind=avatar}
Went Chorus, makes both Edict of Storms and the one Bleden gives you impossible. From what I've heard, Anarchy is the only path that lets you get all five.
- 1
Rebel seemed to make me choose between fire and stone. Anarchy indeed appeared to permit me to end all the Edicts, but the quests in Azure seemed a little bugged or something. At any rate, Azure was nearly a full storyline for my anarchist, whereas for my rebel (who opted for the library first instead) was only greeted with a trail of corpses leading to the Spires in the area. Too, she never even got Halfgate and some other places on her map.
Yeah, I'm seeing these complaints pop up quite a bit. Obsidian decided that in order to improve replayability, content had to be arbitrarily locked off. If you don't pick to do the main quest in an area with a tower or are given the option to for your chosen faction, they still allow you access to the Spires in that area. The prime example is Azure. The information ingame actually states that finding a path to one of the Spires in Azure is almost impossible due to the Edict of Stone, but if you don't have a questline that occurs there, someone shows up who conveniently is able to tell you how to get to that Spire (in my case, I took the rebel path and the Fatebinder that arrived to tell me about how Kyros declared me an Archon just before also declaring a free for all in the Tiers essentially said "oh, btw, you can get to that Spire that almost nobody knows a safe path to by going this way" right before leaving). I never understood why the Edicts aren't the same....
- 6
I think the worst thing is that it comes off as so arbitrary, like there's literally no point to it, you're just artificially held back from doing it, without a justification, the option is just gone.
- 11
- 1
Honestly I could go on for a few paragraphs ranting about it but this is an excellent way to summarize it.
- 5
Do not appreciate the arbitrary locking out of content. Having some rail roading in terms of dealing with the content is fine I guess but basically being told I can't experience it is frustrating.
- 9
On Anarchy route you can gain all 5 edicts. 3 are from breaking edicts, 1 is given by Bleden Mark and the last one is a research.
It seems that Obsidian basically did not allow you to make choices that should lead to a fail state for the game (with the exception of the beginning act 1). You aren't given the option to go break an edict on the library because there is a horde of scarlet chorus trying to burn your tower to the ground. I think the game should let you choose to ignore the peril of the invading army so you can satisfy your personal OCD with breaking Kyros' Edicts, then you come home to find your Edict machine broken with a missive from Nerat on it.
- 1
^ That qualifies as an arbitrary design choice to prevent the player from visiting all areas in a playthrough. They could have made the assault happen after you visited all areas, but chose to do so after you visit 3 out of 4 of them. That is not the case on the anarchist path, where more people should be eager to attack you, so how does that make sense?
- 2
- 1
As an anarchist, you do not have any allies. You are less of a "threat" than if you have the backing of the rebels / chorus / disfavored. More people don't like you, but you are not as dangerous from a strategic standpoint.
To go anarchist you tick off both factions big time and earn the "traitor" badge from everyone who is affiliated with the Empire (except Mark), while still getting the hate from the rebel factions ... I'd say that warrants an assault or twenty long before either faction would assault you upon siding with the other one 
EDIT: to clarify, my argument is not that they should change the only path that gets it right (anarchist); my argument is that locking the player out of areas on other paths is arbitrary and not particularly great.
EDIT: to clarify, my argument is not that they should change the only path that gets it right (anarchist); my argument is that locking the player out of areas on other paths is arbitrary and not particularly great.
Its only arbitrary because you refuse to accept it as part of the narrative.To go anarchist you tick off both factions big time and earn the "traitor" badge from everyone who is affiliated with the Empire (except Mark), while still getting the hate from the rebel factions ... I'd say that warrants an assault or twenty long before either faction would assault you upon siding with the other one
EDIT: to clarify, my argument is not that they should change the only path that gets it right (anarchist); my argument is that locking the player out of areas on other paths is arbitrary and not particularly great.
Through anarchy path all sides end up fighting each other. Disfavored vs Scarlet Chorus vs the Rebels vs you. Leaving you plenty of distraction to move around the tiers and assert yourself as an independent power without anyone's backing.
- 3
- 2
If there is a narrative rationale, rather than a post-hoc rationalization like this, it is not conveyed to the player. Which is why it's considered arbitrary. It is not a refusal to accept it as part of the narrative - it's the realization that it's arbitrary because in relation to the narrative it's nonsense.
- 1
- 1
So you need the game to spell it out for you that the tiers are in anarchy, leaving you to do what you will, if you follow the anarchy path?
The anarchy path is so called because you don't follow anyone; not because the tiers are in anarchy. The tiers are in the same state regardless of the alliance you choose. Again, there is no good reason why you're attacked earlier when allied than when you are not allied; if you go anarchist, if anything, you have one more enemy.
- 1
In fairness, the Tiers are in anarchy no matter who you side with. The Disfavored and Scarlet Chorus started a civil war over the disagreements between the Voices of Nerat and Graven Ashe, every region has at least one group in open rebellion, and half the Tiers are plagued by Edicts. I agree with the people who say it makes no sense (Andrea posted a message while I was typing this) that there's no reason why you're attacked earlier when allied with someone than you are if you aren't allied, but I say we should take it a step further: why aren't we attacked earlier on the Anarchist path? In this situation, we insult one of the Archons by leaving them and their army out of the siege, wipe out the rebels, overtly backstab the other Archon's army, and then start wiping out literally everyone we come across throughout the Tiers, proving we can easily take on entire armies by ourselves and show that we're still gaining power. In the paths where we side with the Disfavored or the Chorus it could be explained that the one we offended would be too busy fighting our allies to really do anything and when we side with the rebels we leave both armies weakened (possibly killing the second-in-command of both armies) and help reinforce the rebellions in other regions of the Tiers while Kyros' forces recover their strength and fight each other. It doesn't really make much sense that the Archons would ignore someone who could potentially wipe out their entire armies on their own or with just three people supporting them.
- 1
Just a minor remark here:
Have you actually tried to do otherwise?
Yes. They threw a fit when I suggested they work together and just remaining quiet during the argument before the final attack leads to something that results in Ashe more or less threatening to kill Nerat. Choosing to side with the Disfavored causes Nerat to go ballistic and appearantly try to kill you and Ashe. I have no clue what Ashe does if you side with the Chorus, but the obvious assumption is he flies off the wall as well. Act I is set up entirely to cause them to be at each others' throats and you can't finish it without angering someone.
- 1