32 réponses à ce sujet

[RazorrX]

On redcliff I really wish that if you chose to travel to the circle when you came back the town was in ruins, undead everywhere, etc. and the castle was worse than before.



Mentioning the Witcher, did you get the reference to the Northern Grey Wardens who were . . . different?

[phoenixds24]

In my mind, things only seem less ambiguous if you're stepping out of the gameworld. It's true, there end up being no consequences for going to the Circle to save Connor, but consider from an RP perspective. You're leaving Redcliffe in the hands of an abomination while you head off for a day or two. You have no idea what they're going to do while you're gone. When you get to the Circle, if you haven't cleared it yet, you now have to clear out the tower in order to save Connor. More than that, in order to save Connor, you HAVE to defeat the abominations and help the mages because the templars will just kill him, and if you cleanse the tower of mages, there won't be anyone who can help with the ritual. From the character's perspective, this is a very complicated decision.



The only place where I'd say there's a clear right answer is in the Brecilian Forest. However, it's also not the easiest answer. If your character isn't interested in right and wrong but just in getting the job done the easiest way they can, things can get quite a bit more nasty.

[Supersomething]

Yes I will agree that there are no real difficult choices within this game. The decisions given to the player here are more black and white than they should have been. A game with actual tough moral decisions would be The Witcher imo... But either way idc, this game is still great either way.

[Maria Caliban]

RazorrX wrote...

Okay, stepping back from the whole its a game and time does not really concern itself so you can take MONTHS to do every single side quest first then come back to Redcliff and it is 5 minutes later . . .

Assuming you look at the choices from the characters POV vs the players:

Option A.  Use Blood Magic to save the boy, at the cost of his mother.

Option B. Kill the possessed child.

Option C. Travel days (weeks) away to try and get the circles help (assuming someone in your party tells you the option), during which time the boy creates yet ANOTHER undead plague on the now almost dead town, Kills even More in the castle and possibly kills the Arl and his family.

Which is the best option?

Except option C doesn't exist. There are no negative consequences to going to the Circle. This is a thread about what BioWare did to present morally ambiguous choices, not what justification you can add to make choices more ambiguous than they are.

No one tells you that going to the Circle will cost lives
No one disapproves of doing so
Going to the Circle does not cost Redcliffe one life

Contrast that to the anvil or whether to let the blood mage live or not, where BioWare actually provided ambiguity.

phoenixds24 wrote...

In my mind, things only seem less ambiguous if you're stepping out of the gameworld.

A number of things are more amibiguous if you step out of the game world. From a role-playing perspective, the choice between Beyhlen and Harrowmant is fairly black and white.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 09 novembre 2009 - 07:47 .

[Tiberas]

I agree they're black and white, but at the same time (although I don't know if it's just me) I've found myself stopping after I've made my decision and started regretting it.



Happened a few times too. The MORAL side of these choices were easy for sure, but the practicality and outcomes of it are more complicated. Branka and the anvil for example. Morally, yeah the answer is completely obvious who is the 'evil' one and who is the good guy. But thinking about the security of the Deep Runs and the rest of the dwarven Tiags, AND the Blight on a whole, having the anvil is a great advantage. That and the dwarves will be able to rebuild their empire - thus strengthening their numbers for future (?). Not to mention, the golems you apparently (I haven't done this just yet) get for the final fight are extremely useful.



I agree completely with Redcliff though, something should've happened if you left to find help. Like the boy killed off more people thus giving you a shorter number of troops for the last battle.

[asaiasai]

Nice topic OP i am sorry for the massive bump but i was to busy yesterday to make my post after reading it. I am glad i did not post right away as i had more time to ponder the questions you pose.

Ambiguity by definition means doubtfull or not clear imho every decision fit this bill and i will explain. This game can be played from several perspectives depending on the way you as the MC want to play. You have the choice to play to keep certain members of your party happy either the screw everybody Morrigan way or the help everybody Leilana way. Goth or cheerleader or some balance between the two. The biggest thing i have noticed is "no good deed goes unpunished", being the concurrent running theme through out the game.

Life or death decisions are not really cut and dry, who gets to live and who gets to die, your job is to sort it out using the approval rating of which ever team your using (goths or cheerleaders) and your own choice of play style as a guide.  Regardless of your origin looking at it from the perspective of, through a unfortunate turn of events YOU are suddenly thrust into the world of politics and intrigue, regardless of your origin armed with those treaties you have the power to command kings, or so you set off thinking. Had Duncan survived the battle he would dealt with the political realities and it would have been much simpler to play as the gofer, Duncan could have said i need this taken care of, you would have responded with "on it boss" and marched happily off knowing that the tough decisions are someone else's. The game threw a curve at you and now you are boss and gofer, and you will bear the consequences of the choices you make.

The decisions are not simple, and there is no real right or wrong decision. If you look at it from the big picture the most pressing danger is the blight, everything you do is towards stopping the blight. You slaughter a village, while at first look it could be labeled as evil, when in reality if they were going to hinder your goal then they were evil. One could also look at it as an act of mercy, better to die quick and at my hands than to die at the hands of the blight.

I think that the moral ambiguity you say the game lacks is there in spades, as no choice is really a happy one you wind up making a compromise. Every decision you made in the game good bad or neutral ended up costing you something later, or creating an even more difficult task later on. Who lives who dies, what action do you take, what are the consequences of this choice that can only be decided by you the player all pile into one big morass of moral ambiguity which is nothing more than a matter of perspective. What is perspective? Perspective is a view point formed by the collection of your life experiences jammed into the little meat puppet you are, weighed and judged according to the perspectives of the rest of us meat puppets. If that is not morally ambigious what is?

Asai

[Noxxio]

Playing the Casteless Dwarf origin and roleplaying as an honorable warrior type I found the decision between Bhelen and Harrowmont to be the toughest one in the game. On the one hand you have Bhelen, progressive yet ruthless. On the other is Harrowmont, conservative and very much in favor of the status quo yet wise and diplomatic. What ultimately made my mind was the fact that I could see Bhelen doing away with the caste system or at least allow brands to work their way out of it. Whereas Harrowmont may have sympathy for the casteless but will be too compromising with the conservatives in the assembly to do anything about it. The way the casteless are treated in Orzimmar is an evil in and of itself.



I do realize however that choosing Bhelen means siding with a tyrant, although I feel he at least has a more progressive vision for the dwarves with the strength to make it happen.

[KingSarevok]

Even though I agree with the OP, DA:O is a big step in another direction from KOTOR or Mass Effect.



The moral system feels very different to me. It's not exactly as advertised but it's also not a complete black/white-system.