217 réponses à ce sujet

[aberdash]

Bioware has never been in the habit of punishing a good deed and to me this is what made DA:O just another fantasy game. They advertised it as a "dark heroic fantasy" but in reality every decision you make had a very clear good or evil choice. This just reeks of typical fantasy and does nothing to set itself apart from DnD or other fantasy settings.

I'd like to see bioware included choices that while they may seem good or evil have the opposite outcome. Such as coming across an apostate being hunted by templar. The apostate has done nothing wrong so it would seem to be the good choice to help them escape. However if you do help the apostate escape they later become an abomination and wreak havoc on a nearby town killing 10s of people. Sure this may seem like a "gotcha" moment but it shows that the chantry does what it does for a good reason.

Modifié par aberdash, 20 juillet 2010 - 03:40 .

[Narreneth]

The Witcher is a game with really grey area morals. If you haven't played it, you should give it a whirl.



That said, I don't think Origins was quite as typical as you paint it. I also think that it's not a great idea to make the "good" choice be "evil." Unforeseen consequences are a good idea, and having morally grey choices is also awesome, but when the consequences are there just to throw you for a loop for trying to pick a certain way it feels more artificial than a game where everything is completely straightforward.

[Koffeegirl]

I kinda thought they did that with the Harrowment and Bhelen....the dwarven people received equal right, better trade/economy with Bhelen and he was a murderer and seemed to be the worse choice and then Harrowmont the "good guy" the casteless still have no rights and the kingdom seemed to go in decline.

[Narreneth]

Koffeegirl wrote...

I kinda thought they did that with the Harrowment and Bhelen....the dwarven people received equal right, better trade/economy with Bhelen and he was a murderer and seemed to be the worse choice and then Harrowmont the "good guy" the casteless still have no rights and the kingdom seemed to go in decline.

They also make mention that Bhelen turns out to be a tyrant though.  Both kings have their good and bad side.  He flat out executes Harrowmont when he's crowned.  So in addition to what you've already mentioned, that adds a bit of extra depth to the choice.

Good example.

[youjik33]

They DIDN'T call Bhelen a tyrant. They said that some dwarves thought he was a tyrant... while others thought he was amazingly progressive.



Still, the Orzammar stuff is a great example of a situation that has no perfect possible outcome. It's kind of awesome and frustrating at the same time. (Personally, I usually side with Bhelen, while making sure my character never bothers investigating those documents...)

[Captain Jazz]

Every decision has a clear good or evil choice?

Kill the werewolves who suffer from a curse cast by the elven elder in response to a crime that none of the werewolves committed or kill the elves who have done no wrong as revenge for the curse?

Risk abominations loose in the world or slaughter innocent mages?

Leave Orzammar to wither and die in isolation in the hands of a good king or allow it a chance to flourish in the hands of a brutal dicatator?

Is it really so clear cut?



You want a choice that seems good but gives an evil outcome? Introducing the chantry into Orzammar resulting in an exalted march doesn't count? Granted, introducing anyone to religion is evil, but not everyone thinks so...

[Captain Jazz]

youjik33 wrote...

They DIDN'T call Bhelen a tyrant. They said that some dwarves thought he was a tyrant... while others thought he was amazingly progressive.

He dissolves the assembly and rules Orzammar alone... with Lord Blader by his side to do his bidding! (Second part may be fabrication.)

[youjik33]

Captain Jazz wrote...

Every decision has a clear good or evil choice?
Kill the werewolves who suffer from a curse cast by the elven elder in response to a crime that none of the werewolves committed or kill the elves who have done no wrong as revenge for the curse?
Risk abominations loose in the world or slaughter innocent mages?
Leave Orzammar to wither and die in isolation in the hands of a good king or allow it a chance to flourish in the hands of a brutal dicatator?
Is it really so clear cut?

You want a choice that seems good but gives an evil outcome? Introducing the chantry into Orzammar resulting in an exalted march doesn't count? Granted, introducing anyone to religion is evil, but not everyone thinks so...

Except that all those examples don't quite hold up. You can choose to investigate the mages and judge for yourself whether they're dangerous. You can choose to kill neither the wolves nor the elves but to confront Zathrian himself as the source of the curse and hold him solely responsible. (I never really unerstood why the "Kill all the elves" option is even THERE. There's just no logical reason to do that, and I can't imagine why a Warden WOULD, unless they were just a murdering psychopath.)

[youjik33]

Captain Jazz wrote...

youjik33 wrote...

They DIDN'T call Bhelen a tyrant. They said that some dwarves thought he was a tyrant... while others thought he was amazingly progressive.

He dissolves the assembly and rules Orzammar alone... with Lord Blader by his side to do his bidding! (Second part may be fabrication.)

But that's not the game calling him a tyrant. That's you interpreting his actions that way.

[Koffeegirl]

Narreneth wrote...

Koffeegirl wrote...

I kinda thought they did that with the Harrowment and Bhelen....the dwarven people received equal right, better trade/economy with Bhelen and he was a murderer and seemed to be the worse choice and then Harrowmont the "good guy" the casteless still have no rights and the kingdom seemed to go in decline.

They also make mention that Bhelen turns out to be a tyrant though.  Both kings have their good and bad side.  He flat out executes Harrowmont when he's crowned.  So in addition to what you've already mentioned, that adds a bit of extra depth to the choice.

Good example.

That's a good point. I forgot that they mention that some think Bhelen is a tyrant. I hope we get more choices like this in DA2, only I hope we get more background. It was difficult to pick a king, when not playing a dwarf. Both the dwarf noble and commoner give you more background into dwarven society making it easier to choose, but maybe that was the point as a human/elf would be less drawn into consequences of the choice with dwarven socieity and is more so concerned about the blight. Since the new game spans 10 years a choice could have multiple good/bad consequences at different points in the game.

[aberdash]

Captain Jazz wrote...

Every decision has a clear good or evil choice?
Kill the werewolves who suffer from a curse cast by the elven elder in response to a crime that none of the werewolves committed or kill the elves who have done no wrong as revenge for the curse?
Risk abominations loose in the world or slaughter innocent mages?
Leave Orzammar to wither and die in isolation in the hands of a good king or allow it a chance to flourish in the hands of a brutal dicatator?
Is it really so clear cut?

Yes, because there is always a "perfect" ending to most of those. You can have the elf who put the curse on them remove it. You dont kill the mages and it turns out they aren't abominations. Orzammar is one of the very few examples of no "perfect" outcome.

Modifié par aberdash, 20 juillet 2010 - 03:58 .

[Valthier]

I think it's hard to balance the grey consequences with the "gotcha!". I vaguely remember being nice to an elf in The Witcher and then getting to the next town and being told I'd gotten someone important murdered because of it. I also recall KotOR 2 and the moment with the beggar where if you choose to give a man some change you're then shown him being murdered for it. Make it too obvious that there will be bad consequences and that will become the "bad choice", make it too far out and you'll have me scowling at the monitor feeling like I've been punished. Perhaps some "lesser of two evil" options would be nice, like the Redcliffe situation without the Circle of Magi option.

[aberdash]

And you shouldn't be punished for making what you thought was the good choice? Have you never heard of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?

Going overboard with it would be just as bad as not having it at all. But if done right it can really set the tone for the world you are in. The Witcher did a great job at this imo.

In DA:O the choices were very clear most of the time so if you played a good character you defaulted to the good choice. Where is the roleplaying in that?

Modifié par aberdash, 20 juillet 2010 - 04:07 .

[Koffeegirl]

IN the new game there are so many more possibilities because of the 10 year time span..pretend a village has a plague....your choice could be kill the villagers which would prevent the plague from spreading and let the rest of the land flourish, or you could let the villagers live and as a result the plague spreads and half the population dies....however several years later a cure is developed although your armies/forces are weakened. However, if you chose to develop the cure then maybe if there is a DA3 and the plague occurred in that game carrying your choices over would allow you to already have access to the cure even if its a new PC. I'm probably not explaining myself well and I'm sure the DA writers will come up with much better choices than this, but I hope there choices that have a multiple of good/bad qualites that we get to see over the years that the game takes place.

Modifié par Koffeegirl, 20 juillet 2010 - 04:10 .

[Captain Jazz]

youjik33 wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...
Every decision has a clear good or evil choice?
Kill the werewolves who suffer from a curse cast by the elven elder in response to a crime that none of the werewolves committed or kill the elves who have done no wrong as revenge for the curse?
Risk abominations loose in the world or slaughter innocent mages?
Leave Orzammar to wither and die in isolation in the hands of a good king or allow it a chance to flourish in the hands of a brutal dicatator?
Is it really so clear cut?

You want a choice that seems good but gives an evil outcome? Introducing the chantry into Orzammar resulting in an exalted march doesn't count?
Granted, introducing anyone to religion is evil, but not everyone thinks so...

Except that all those examples don't quite hold up. You can choose to investigate the mages and judge for yourself whether they're dangerous. You can choose to kill neither the wolves nor the elves but to confront Zathrian himself as the source of the curse and hold him solely responsible. (I never really unerstood why the "Kill all the elves" option is even THERE. There's just no logical reason to do that, and I can't imagine why a Warden WOULD, unless they were just a murdering psychopath.)

What does an abomination look like? What does an abomination sound like? Have you ever met an abomination who didn't look or sound like one? Do you trust your ability to determine who is an untainted mage and who is an abomination?
What about blood mages? Can you tell just by looking? Would they tell you if they asked?
To save the mages seems to be the clear good option, but demons are devious beings and they may not always draw attention to themselves when surrounded by those who would remove them.

Is confronting Zathrian truly a purely positive option? Is it possible to take that route without being forced to fight him? (I've never managed it before) Granted, the curse is lifted, but how will the Dalish manage without their leader? I know they have Lanaya to take his place, but will she live up to her mentor's teachings? The Dalish seem proud of Zathrian - perhaps the first of their kind to regain immortality - even if Lanaya is as good a Keeper as he was, his death with hit them very hard, moreso if the truth of the curse is ever revealed to them.

youjik33 wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

youjik33 wrote...
They DIDN'T call Bhelen a tyrant. They said that some dwarves thought he was a tyrant... while others thought he was amazingly progressive.

He dissolves the assembly and rules Orzammar alone... with Lord Blader by his side to do his bidding! (Second part may be fabrication.)

But that's not the game calling him a tyrant. That's you interpreting his actions that way.

How else do you interpret the dissolution of a democractic, if flawed, government in favour of the rule of a single person? Every time that has been done in human history it has been called tyranny, why would it not be so when the tyrant is a dwarf?

Modifié par Captain Jazz, 20 juillet 2010 - 04:14 .

[errant_knight]

aberdash wrote...

Bioware has never been in the habit of punishing a good deed and to me this is what made DA:O just another fantasy game. They advertised it as a "dark heroic fantasy" but in reality every decision you make had a very clear good or evil choice. This just reeks of typical fantasy and does nothing to set itself apart from DnD or other fantasy settings.

I'd like to see bioware included choices that while they may seem good or evil have the opposite outcome. Such as coming across an apostate being hunted by templar. The apostate has done nothing wrong so it would seem to be the good choice to help them escape. However if you do help the apostate escape they later become an abomination and wreak havoc on a nearby town killing 10s of people. Sure this may seem like a "gotcha" moment but it shows that the chantry does what it does for a good reason.

You got that with choosing the dwarven leader. With your templar/apostate example, and knowing what we know about the dangers of magic, I'm not sure that's a good example of a clearcut 'good' choice. I know I'd have qualms about aiding the apostate without knowing more about the situation.

[Narreneth]

aberdash wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

Every decision has a clear good or evil choice?
Kill the werewolves who suffer from a curse cast by the elven elder in response to a crime that none of the werewolves committed or kill the elves who have done no wrong as revenge for the curse?
Risk abominations loose in the world or slaughter innocent mages?
Leave Orzammar to wither and die in isolation in the hands of a good king or allow it a chance to flourish in the hands of a brutal dicatator?
Is it really so clear cut?

Yes, because there is always a "perfect" ending to most of those. You can have the elf who put the curse on them remove it. You dont kill the mages and it turns out they aren't abominations. Orzammar is one of the very few examples of no "perfect" outcome.

Let's examine the major plot points and the decisions, then.  Since the game revolves mostly around a few points it's pretty easy to do.

First major decision we'll say is Connor:
You have three essential choices here:  Kill Connor, Sacrifice Isolde to save Connor (and while there you can still strike a deal with the demon if you're a mage), Or get the Mage's assistance to save Connor (again, can strike a deal with the demon)

Is there an "ideal" choice here?  Sure, if ideal means good.  But there's more than just the one.  I understand you want direct consequences, but if every single choice had that, then it would get played out.

Second major decision involves the Urn.  Do the blood ritual or don't.  Not really a whole lot else to this particular decision, but ultimately you'd be right that one decision is "good" while the other is not.  The not good one results in Leliana attacking you if she's with you, and regardless Wynne leaves the party.  If you do the "good" option, neither of these things happens.

Third major decision we can say is the Mage's tower which we already talked about.  EIther way, it does affect the troops available to you in the final battle, so you've got that as a consequence on the most basic level.  Of course if you do the Right of Annullment you can't use mages to enter into the Fade to save Connor.  This is not something you would have known if you decided to side with the Templars in this particular case and did not go to Redcliffe first.  That sounds like an extra consequence to me.  Maybe it's on the "bad" decision, but what kind of consequence would you choose otherwise?  That all the mages become abominations if you don't kill them?  That's just as asinine.  Okay, so I talked about it.  Big whoop.

Elves in Brecilian forest we don't need to go over. 

Anyway, I'm getting tired of typing this so I'll go to the next good point:

Killing Loghain or not.  There are many different outcomes from the Landsmeet, but immediately you have the decision to kill Loghain or bring him into the Wardens.  Granting him mercy seems like the good decision, but if you do it you lose Alistair.  If you kill him rather than having him undergo the Joining Alistair stays.  Then of course there's the matter of whether you kill him yourself or let Alistair do it.  Each of these affects the potential choices you can make when it comes to who rules Ferelden.


Essentially:  it's not as cut and dry good and bad as you claim it is.

Then again, you are the guy that claimed console game = bad soundtrack, so I guess I'd be expecting too much if I thought you could see the points people have been making.

[Narreneth]

Captain Jazz wrote...

How else do you interpret the dissolution of a democractic, if flawed, government in favour of the rule of a single person? Every time that has been done in human history it has been called tyranny, why would it not be so when the tyrant is a dwarf?

Because it goes directly against the point he was trying to make, therefore, it's different in this case.  DUH

[aberdash]

Captain Jazz wrote...

What does an abomination look like? What does an abomination sound like? Have you ever met an abomination who didn't look or sound like one? Do you trust your ability to determine who is an untainted mage and who is an abomination?
What about blood mages? Can you tell just by looking? Would they tell you if they asked?
To save the mages seems to be the clear good option, but demons are devious beings and they may not always draw attention to themselves when surrounded by those who would remove them.

We already know bioware doesn't punish good deeds though. If the event I mentioned before were to happen before this it might actually make you think about you decision a little harder.

Captain Jazz wrote...

Is confronting Zathrian truly a purely positive option? Is it possible to take that route without being forced to fight him? (I've never managed it before) Granted, the curse is lifted, but how will the Dalish manage without their leader? I know they have Lanaya to take his place, but will she live up to her mentor's teachings? The Dalish seem proud of Zathrian - perhaps the first of their kind to regain immortality - even if Lanaya is as good a Keeper as he was, his death with hit them very hard, moreso if the truth of the curse is ever revealed to them.

Its quite obvious this is a "And everybody lives happily ever after" situation and nothing bad happens after.

[aberdash]

Narreneth wrote...

Let's examine the major plot points and the decisions, then.  Since the game revolves mostly around a few points it's pretty easy to do.

First major decision we'll say is Connor:
You have three essential choices here:  Kill Connor, Sacrifice Isolde to save Connor (and while there you can still strike a deal with the demon if you're a mage), Or get the Mage's assistance to save Connor (again, can strike a deal with the demon)

Is there an "ideal" choice here?  Sure, if ideal means good.  But there's more than just the one.  I understand you want direct consequences, but if every single choice had that, then it would get played out.

Second major decision involves the Urn.  Do the blood ritual or don't.  Not really a whole lot else to this particular decision, but ultimately you'd be right that one decision is "good" while the other is not.  The not good one results in Leliana attacking you if she's with you, and regardless Wynne leaves the party.  If you do the "good" option, neither of these things happens.

Third major decision we can say is the Mage's tower which we already talked about.  EIther way, it does affect the troops available to you in the final battle, so you've got that as a consequence on the most basic level.  Of course if you do the Right of Annullment you can't use mages to enter into the Fade to save Connor.  This is not something you would have known if you decided to side with the Templars in this particular case and did not go to Redcliffe first.  That sounds like an extra consequence to me.  Maybe it's on the "bad" decision, but what kind of consequence would you choose otherwise?  That all the mages become abominations if you don't kill them?  That's just as asinine.  Okay, so I talked about it.  Big whoop.

Elves in Brecilian forest we don't need to go over. 

Anyway, I'm getting tired of typing this so I'll go to the next good point:

Killing Loghain or not.  There are many different outcomes from the Landsmeet, but immediately you have the decision to kill Loghain or bring him into the Wardens.  Granting him mercy seems like the good decision, but if you do it you lose Alistair.  If you kill him rather than having him undergo the Joining Alistair stays.  Then of course there's the matter of whether you kill him yourself or let Alistair do it.  Each of these affects the potential choices you can make when it comes to who rules Ferelden.


Essentially:  it's not as cut and dry good and bad as you claim it is.

You just said the major events have a clear "good" and "evil" outcome and then claim its not cut and dry? And you try to take a shot at me for not putting thought in to my posts. Very funny

Like I said there is a obvious "And everybody lives happily ever after" outcome and a very clear total dick outcome.

Modifié par aberdash, 20 juillet 2010 - 04:33 .

[Narreneth]

aberdash wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Let's examine the major plot points and the decisions, then.  Since the game revolves mostly around a few points it's pretty easy to do.

First major decision we'll say is Connor:
You have three essential choices here:  Kill Connor, Sacrifice Isolde to save Connor (and while there you can still strike a deal with the demon if you're a mage), Or get the Mage's assistance to save Connor (again, can strike a deal with the demon)

Is there an "ideal" choice here?  Sure, if ideal means good.  But there's more than just the one.  I understand you want direct consequences, but if every single choice had that, then it would get played out.

Second major decision involves the Urn.  Do the blood ritual or don't.  Not really a whole lot else to this particular decision, but ultimately you'd be right that one decision is "good" while the other is not.  The not good one results in Leliana attacking you if she's with you, and regardless Wynne leaves the party.  If you do the "good" option, neither of these things happens.

Third major decision we can say is the Mage's tower which we already talked about.  EIther way, it does affect the troops available to you in the final battle, so you've got that as a consequence on the most basic level.  Of course if you do the Right of Annullment you can't use mages to enter into the Fade to save Connor.  This is not something you would have known if you decided to side with the Templars in this particular case and did not go to Redcliffe first.  That sounds like an extra consequence to me.  Maybe it's on the "bad" decision, but what kind of consequence would you choose otherwise?  That all the mages become abominations if you don't kill them?  That's just as asinine.  Okay, so I talked about it.  Big whoop.

Elves in Brecilian forest we don't need to go over. 

Anyway, I'm getting tired of typing this so I'll go to the next good point:

Killing Loghain or not.  There are many different outcomes from the Landsmeet, but immediately you have the decision to kill Loghain or bring him into the Wardens.  Granting him mercy seems like the good decision, but if you do it you lose Alistair.  If you kill him rather than having him undergo the Joining Alistair stays.  Then of course there's the matter of whether you kill him yourself or let Alistair do it.  Each of these affects the potential choices you can make when it comes to who rules Ferelden.


Essentially:  it's not as cut and dry good and bad as you claim it is.

You just said the major events have a clear "good" and "evil" outcome and then claim its not cut and dry?

Like I said there is a obvious "And everybody lives happily ever after" outcome and a very clear total dick outcome.

No.  That isn't what I said at all.  What I said was most of the situations have 3 basic outcomes, with other variables tacked on.  Such as making a deal with a demon so it can come back at a later date.  Just because you don't see the direct consequence of the action doesn't mean it holds no weight in the story. 

[Captain Jazz]

aberdash wrote...

Yes, because there is always a "perfect" ending to most of those. You can have the elf who put the curse on them remove it. You dont kill the mages and it turns out they aren't abominations. Orzammar is one of the very few examples of no "perfect" outcome.

You're right, of course, and we can be sure that none of them are abominations because none of them raised their hands and owned up to it. Granted, all the abominations we experience in Dragon Age are wreaking some form of havoc or another... except for Flemeth, but is she actually an abomination or just a very, very creepy shapeshifter who steals her daughter's bodies? Not sure... But surely it's conceivable that a being as intelligent as a pride demon could keep a low profile for a little while? They're smart enough to know that advertising themselves can shorten their experience of mortal life and surely they can see an opportunity for freedom in allying themselves with the wardens temporarily?
I played a game once where the actions I took in the previous game in the series had a direct effect on what happened in this one - the civilizations of the galaxy called it Mass Effect - so surely it is also conceivable that the choices made in Dragon Age may have repercussions in Dragon Age 2? I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of abominations rampaging around the place.

aberdash wrote...
We already know bioware doesn't punish good deeds though. If the event I mentioned before were to happen before this it might actually make you think about you decision a little harder.

Umm... you know that, I don't... and I'm sorry if it hasn't been made clear that I already consider my decisions.

filaminstrel wrote...

Tyrant implies that the monarch is also cruel, though, and while Bhelen did have Harrowmont executed, he's noticably less cruel than Harrowmont, both directly (helping out the casteless) and indirectly (bringing more prosperity to Orzammar).

Technically true, but tyrant, like dictator, also means absolute ruler without necessarily invoking cruelty... although knowledge of Bhelen's personality makes me suspect he would be a cruel ruler... he'd just be cruel where the public couldn't see it.

Modifié par Captain Jazz, 20 juillet 2010 - 04:40 .

[aberdash]

@Narreneth

I have no idea what you are trying to argue so I'm not going to bother with you. I said choices are clearly good or evil and you only support this. You then keep going on about how I am wrong...

Modifié par aberdash, 20 juillet 2010 - 04:36 .