• 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.

BoogieMan

Second Lieutenant
32 Badges
Sep 24, 2009
161
10
  • Magicka
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Dungeonland
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • BATTLETECH - Backer
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
I decided in advance, that regardless of the power I gathered, that my goal during my first playthrough was to remain completely loyal to Kyros, and save any sort of insurrection for the 2nd game.

But it seems I'm forced to take a stance against Kyros.. I assume it's impossible to do otherwise. Makes me wonder, why do anything but the solo path? I guess I'll find out after I finish that one.

In the end, Graven Ashe and the Disfavored accepted me as their leader, and Tunon joined as well. Killed Nerat personally. Wanted to avoid killing Bleden Mark, but he forced me to kill him.

Overall it's a bit disappointing being forced towards open defiance, but for future DLC/sequels I imagine the amount of work for both sides would have be significant. I still enjoyed the game quite a bit, but it's definitely too short and a few decisions are forced on you, which diminishes it. But still.. Fun game and looking forward to more, as this felt like 60% of a game.
 
Yea, all that talk about choices but in the end all choices lead to player character betraying Kyros and casting an Edict on her lands. I can barely count on my one hand games where choices really mattered at the end, this game is not among them.
 
The writing of the game makes it seem like you're pushed into open warfare against Kyros, but it doesn't necessarily need to be.

Whatever work you do in the tiers is ultimately completing Kyros's ambitions; killing or subjugating her Archons is in line with her command to do just that; the only action you do that is required to be against Kyros is launching an Edict on the capital... but that's because another army was coming in to wipe you out.

Your character can point out that armies will keep coming to depose you until you do something big to send a message, and that's the interpretation I took. Still loyal to Kyros, but needing to do something in self-defence.

Even if you have to do something against Kyros at this point, don't forget: Archons have been known to begin their employment with Kyros by defying her, only to be brought to heel. Warring against her, however briefly, for whatever reason, can be seen as a promotion interview.
 
By the end the PC has a power and ability that rivals the Overlords so it makes sense that you can't stay loyal to him/her as it sees you as a threat even if you did everything Kyros wanted. I haven't quite completed my rebel run but I can see it is about to end just like my Disfavored run did which is very disappointing. At least as a rebel I am seen as a true traitor which makes sense.
 
I haven't quite completed my rebel run but I can see it is about to end just like my Disfavored run did which is very disappointing. At least as a rebel I am seen as a true traitor which makes sense.
I've completed 3 runs and it all ends the same - whether you were a loyal lapdog or defiant rebel the ending is the same, which is lame considering this game is all about choices. It's obvious that the ending is a sequel bait, I just hope that devs will follow through with it.
 
I decided in advance, that regardless of the power I gathered, that my goal during my first playthrough was to remain completely loyal to Kyros, and save any sort of insurrection for the 2nd game.

But it seems I'm forced to take a stance against Kyros.. I assume it's impossible to do otherwise. Makes me wonder, why do anything but the solo path? I guess I'll find out after I finish that one.

In the end, Graven Ashe and the Disfavored accepted me as their leader, and Tunon joined as well. Killed Nerat personally. Wanted to avoid killing Bleden Mark, but he forced me to kill him.

Overall it's a bit disappointing being forced towards open defiance, but for future DLC/sequels I imagine the amount of work for both sides would have be significant. I still enjoyed the game quite a bit, but it's definitely too short and a few decisions are forced on you, which diminishes it. But still.. Fun game and looking forward to more, as this felt like 60% of a game.
I think we will get the chance to play nice with Kyros in the future, dependant on the choices we make. I'll admit that I think Obsidian began production with the clear intent of having players end the game in opposition to Kyros, not expecting that so many would actually want to serve Kyros! So it sucks in that way. Plus I guess they need to have a single jumping point for a sequel. I don't much like it but that would seem to be the case. For my part, I intend to do a canon run through at some time. I will go Anarchy, keep as many factions in my good graces as is possible, recruit Bleden and Tunon and cast one of the more benign edicts on the capitol, Malediction or Nights embrace (marks one) in the hopes that it will seem less hostile and more, back the f*** off boss. Maybe in this way, I can go into a sequel with my hat in my hands and a shuffling of the feet and beg Kyros to understand. Maybe that way I get the loyal to Kyros route I'm hoping for! ;)
 
I think we will get the chance to play nice with Kyros in the future, dependant on the choices we make. I'll admit that I think Obsidian began production with the clear intent of having players end the game in opposition to Kyros, not expecting that so many would actually want to serve Kyros! So it sucks in that way. Plus I guess they need to have a single jumping point for a sequel. I don't much like it but that would seem to be the case. For my part, I intend to do a canon run through at some time. I will go Anarchy, keep as many factions in my good graces as is possible, recruit Bleden and Tunon and cast one of the more benign edicts on the capitol, Malediction or Nights embrace (marks one) in the hopes that it will seem less hostile and more, back the f*** off boss. Maybe in this way, I can go into a sequel with my hat in my hands and a shuffling of the feet and beg Kyros to understand. Maybe that way I get the loyal to Kyros route I'm hoping for! ;)

Yeah I do have to say the nightfall edict is pretty softball compared to the other ones.
 
SAme, I did consider Malediction but it didn't really have any overt effects. Seems abit counter to actually making a statement.

With malediction all that happens is buildings fall to ruins and crafters have trouble fixing them and do remember it also lasts a few days. I also want to raise the point where did mark get that edict of nightfall from? Just raising the question here.

I do think we can still be loyalists considering the options in tunon's trial and what you can say to make but I feel kyros would take some convincing.
 
Its never said where he gets it from, one might think, Kyros, but then we are able to research an edict at the spires. Could be Mark has an innate understanding of how such an edict might work, due to his power over shadows and the outline is enough for our fatebinder to fill in the blanks?
 
I do think we can still be loyalists considering the options in tunon's trial and what you can say to make but I feel kyros would take some convincing.
I figured Kyros planning all this was the suptext :p

How many of her Archons started off opposing her? If Graven Ashe started off as a revolting rebel, only to become one of her more significant vassals, I doubt the player will have much to worry about.

Kyros plays CK2, and she relishes in making her vassals take the penalties for her actions.
 
Its never said where he gets it from, one might think, Kyros, but then we are able to research an edict at the spires. Could be Mark has an innate understanding of how such an edict might work, due to his power over shadows and the outline is enough for our fatebinder to fill in the blanks?

Yup hence why I think mark might be right on the money about our talent might be "copying" the magical talent of others in some form hence why our reputation abilities are similar to the factions but no where near as powerful.

Or he could of gotten it from kyros perhaps it's both? I mean hell nightfall was really softball in the ending all I read is that they got eternal night for a few days.
 
Last edited:
If you read some of the missives, it's pointed out that the life expectancy for Fatebinders isn't too far past reading their first Edict. The ability to absorb the power of the Edicts and awaken the Spires makes you a massive liability for Kyros, and the further you go down that path the more of a threat you become. By the end of the game, there isn't really any other way forward for you than making a show of force if not outright rebelling. It's not enough to simply do as you're told to survive in this world, you have to start thinking like a tyrant yourself.
 
If you read some of the missives, it's pointed out that the life expectancy for Fatebinders isn't too far past reading their first Edict. The ability to absorb the power of the Edicts and awaken the Spires makes you a massive liability for Kyros, and the further you go down that path the more of a threat you become. By the end of the game, there isn't really any other way forward for you than making a show of force if not outright rebelling. It's not enough to simply do as you're told to survive in this world, you have to start thinking like a tyrant yourself.
I think it would have been nice to grow into that kind of power more slowly though, over the course to two games and not over the course of just one, very short one!
 
Some companions (Eb and Sirin maybe ?) mention that Kyros probably knew about the fatebinder's power and has been accounting for it from that start. I think it's even something like "whatever happens, you can be sure it's part of Kyros' plan" or something.

Considering that I did everyhing in my power to stay loyal I was a bit desapointed to be forced into confrontation. Why not just crush the next army she is sending with an edict and the disfavored ? Casting an edict over the main land seemed a bit radical. Besides doesn't our character come from the Northern Realms ? Don't they have a home city and people they are attached to there ? Casting something like the edict of Fire on her homeland doesn't sound like something my character would do.
 
Considering how some of the pre game choices read it doesn't really look like the Fatebinder is much of a family or home kind of person. Add to that they have spent at least 3 years now in the south and for some that is enough time to call it home.
 
Some companions (Eb and Sirin maybe ?) mention that Kyros probably knew about the fatebinder's power and has been accounting for it from that start. I think it's even something like "whatever happens, you can be sure it's part of Kyros' plan" or something.

Considering that I did everyhing in my power to stay loyal I was a bit desapointed to be forced into confrontation. Why not just crush the next army she is sending with an edict and the disfavored ? Casting an edict over the main land seemed a bit radical. Besides doesn't our character come from the Northern Realms ? Don't they have a home city and people they are attached to there ? Casting something like the edict of Fire on her homeland doesn't sound like something my character would do.
Yeah, agreed. in my loyalist playthroughs, I use the edict of shadow or malediction. Pretty benign and hopefully not too overtly confrontational.
 
My power bar was maxed, wish I could have cast more than one edict :)

Had to settle on fire, just killed people instead of damaging the land too much like stone would have.
 
My power bar was maxed, wish I could have cast more than one edict :)

Had to settle on fire, just killed people instead of damaging the land too much like stone would have.
You can cast more than one edict. Each casting costs 500 power. I used an edict of malediction on the disfavoured camp to make the combat go quicker when I confronted Ashe. I used an edict of fire on the stone sea and chorus, for giggles and then the edict of shadows on the northern empire.
 
I've completed 3 runs and it all ends the same - whether you were a loyal lapdog or defiant rebel the ending is the same, which is lame considering this game is all about choices. It's obvious that the ending is a sequel bait, I just hope that devs will follow through with it.

The thing is, though, if Tyranny with all of it's narrative issues, forced choices and contrived outcomes is any indication, I don't want a sequel. I genuinely don't want any major expansions or sequels until Tyranny is finished, with all that entails.

As it stands, I haven't finished the game, and unless the core game is radically revised in terms of available content, narrative dialogues and choices, it's unlikely I ever will. But in regards to the topic of the thread, I would be fairly furious by the point where I'm forced to betray Kyros, because my main character's basic motivation from the start was always and was always supposed to be "a matter-of-fact loyal nobleman scholar of The Empire, fatebinder and enforcer of Tunon's Law, and firm believer in Kyros' Peace; will do good whenever possible, but will do evil if necessary". All things considered, I think that's a pretty basic and fundamental character concept in light of how the game is presented and how it starts, both in character creation and during The Conquest, but also (mostly) during the Prologue.

So not only is it impossible to act as some kind of unifier or arbitrator that convinces factions to lay down their arms or can negotiate some kind of acceptable compromise, or even legal subjugation instead of wholesale slaughter, with many narrative chances and reasonable possibilities instead being forced into essentially being hulk smash, but you are forced to betray your (essentially deified) Emperor, arguably a fundamental motivation and aspect of your character, having grown up in a society where Kyros' Will is paramount, and Kyros' Power omnipresent and omniscient.

It makes for a horribly shallow narrative.