217 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Saibh wrote...
While I don't want to sound like an ass if
someone proves me wrong, I'm fairly pretty positive that that's not true
at all. Morrigan says that the child will be born taint-less.
Not you. According to the novels--or at least in Fiona's case--Wardens
who give birth are somehow rendered taint-free. Morrigan never says or
implies one thing about the DR freeing you from the taint.

I'm going to replay the section and get a transript. That should settle things.

Ulicus wrote...
I think she'd have been a bit more explicit if the taint was transferred instead of simply inherited, since it would have made the offer even more tempting.

You mean actually tempting. Because if it is as you say it is, it's not tempting unless you're in love with Alistair.

Which is why Morrigan argues that even if Riordan/Alistair/Loghain has agreed to take the final blow, it could still fall to your character. She approaches it purely from the angle of avoiding death in the event that you have to slay the Archdemon.

But that's a stupid argument - you could very well get an arrow through the throat at the gate. It makes it no more likely you'd survive at all.

Given Gaider is on the record as saying that it will be (nigh) impossible for King Alistair and Queen Cousland to have children by virtue of their being tainted Grey Wardens, I don't think that's the case.

I could very well be wrong; would only make me dislike the story of the game more, I suppose.

[Ulicus]

In Exile wrote...

You mean actually tempting. Because if it is as you say it is, it's not tempting unless you're in love with Alistair.

It depends entirely on the character. Glory hounds would want to strike the final blow and live to be celebrated. Tacticians might consider the possibility that, following the ritual, anyone could strike the archdemon down (increasing the number of potential slayers from 3 to howevermany thousand) and so on and so forth.

And, y'know, you don't have to be in love with someone to want them to live through a battle.

In Exile wrote...

But that's a stupid argument - you could very well get an arrow through the throat at the gate. It makes it no more likely you'd survive at all.

Sure, the Warden goes in knowing that they could fail and die. What Morrigan offers is guaranteed life should they succeed. It's not stupid, it's specific.

Modifié par Ulicus, 20 juillet 2010 - 10:48 .

[In Exile]

Ulicus wrote...
It depends entirely on the character. Glory hounds would want to strike the final blow and live to be celebrated. Tacticians might consider the possibility that, following the ritual, anyone could strike the archdemon down (increasing the number of potential slayers from 3 to howevermany thousand) and so on and so forth.

Glory hounds are morons, since Alistair already at least knows about the ritual, so it seems that was keep about as secret as, well... things that aren't secrets, to paraphrase Alistair.

Beyond that, if we take David as his word, the tactical possibility is false, and that was something that Morrigan would have explained had they provided more resources.

And, y'know, you don't have to be in love with someone to want them to live through a battle.

If the cost is god knows what sort of eldrich abomination, you damn well better really like the person you're risking screwing the world up for.

Sure, the Warden goes in knowing that they could fail and die. What Morrigan offers is guaranteed life should they succeed. It's not stupid, it's specific.

No, Morrigan apparently offers the chance to guarantee life if the other Wardens are dead and this particular Warden survives long enough to kill a dragon single-handedly. It's stupid because of how implausible the one specific outcome where it applies is versus the potential risk.

If the pay-off isn't freedom, there's no temptation.

[In Exile]

As I read it, the line "the child will bear the taint" is what indicates that it would take your taint. Grey Wardens are supposedly infertile; yet you've just conceived a child. So my understand is that through the ritual, what it is that makes you a Warden is transfered to the child.

Of course based on what David said in that other thread, this appears to be contradicted. Still, if that's the case, I see absolutely no value or temptation in doing this ritual, especially since you'd have to keep it a secret if you even wanted to benefit from it (which could be the only other payoff).

[Saibh]

In Exile wrote...

As I read it, the line "the child will bear the taint" is what indicates that it would take your taint. Grey Wardens are supposedly infertile; yet you've just conceived a child. So my understand is that through the ritual, what it is that makes you a Warden is transfered to the child.

Of course based on what David said in that other thread, this appears to be contradicted. Still, if that's the case, I see absolutely no value or temptation in doing this ritual, especially since you'd have to keep it a secret if you even wanted to benefit from it (which could be the only other payoff).

Grey Wardens are not infertile. It makes conception very difficult, but not impossible. The child is always born taintless.

And I'm trying to find that line in the toolset and I just can't. I see the line "the child will be born apart from the taint".

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

Saibh wrote...
While I don't want to sound like an ass if
someone proves me wrong, I'm fairly pretty positive that that's not true
at all. Morrigan says that the child will be born taint-less.
Not you. According to the novels--or at least in Fiona's case--Wardens
who give birth are somehow rendered taint-free. Morrigan never says or
implies one thing about the DR freeing you from the taint.

I'm going to replay the section and get a transript. That should settle things.

Have to agree with Saibh here.  I've never heard this theory and it would make much of Awakening nonsense if the Warden had no remaining taint.

[Ulicus]

In Exile wrote...

Beyond that, if we take David as his word, the tactical possibility is false, and that was something that Morrigan would have explained had they provided more resources.

If we take David at his word... then it's up to us. And, even if it's not case that anyone can kill the Archdemon following the ritual (and it may not be), the Warden can draw the incorrect conclusion that it is.

In Exile wrote...
If the cost is god knows what sort of eldrich abomination, you damn well better really like the person you're risking screwing the world up for.

Well, yeah. Though what the Warden thinks about that in itself depends on the level of trust/faith they have in Morrigan and what she has to say on the matter.

In Exile wrote...
No, Morrigan apparently offers the chance to guarantee life if the other Wardens are dead and this particular Warden survives long enough to kill a dragon single-handedly.

Single-handedly? They always have an army and usually have several very capable companions. It's not like there are three Wardens charging into battle alone, or no-one else can aid in bringing the archdemon down. It simply has to be a Warden that finishes it off.

In Exile wrote...
It's stupid because of how implausible the one specific outcome where it applies is versus the potential risk.

If the pay-off isn't freedom, there's no temptation.

From your point of view. Don't undertake the ritual, in that case.

[R.U.N]

To sum up what Loghain said:
We don't need this ritual.

There's always a sacrifice to be made, either one Warden does it sooner or someone or many people do it later.
The DR only postpones the inevitable (imho of course ).

Modifié par R.U.N, 20 juillet 2010 - 11:02 .

[Sabariel]

I found that being an arse in DAO got me rewarded more often that not and being good just ended in frustration

[Ulicus]

Saibh wrote...

Grey Wardens are not infertile. It makes conception very difficult, but not impossible. The child is always born taintless.

Indeed. All Gaider said was that two Wardens conceiving together was nigh impossible. Since Morrigan isn't a Warden, that's moot. .

Saibh wrote...

And I'm trying to find that line in the toolset and I just can't. I see the line "the child will be born apart from the taint".

I'm 100% certain there is, in addition to what you've quoted, a reference to the child bearing the taint (prior to birth). Paradoxical as it may seem -- though, as I mentioned, the reason Warden kids are born without a taint may be due to antenatal development. Without the taint... there's no reason for the Archdemon's soul to be drawn to the kid at all.

Modifié par Ulicus, 20 juillet 2010 - 11:09 .

[Saibh]

EDIT: WTF that was a weird double-post.

Modifié par Saibh, 20 juillet 2010 - 11:05 .

[ObserverStatus]

The biggest problem with doing good in Bioware games is that you don't have to sacrifice anything. In real life, most of us try to good, but can't always afford to.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

And by "no way of knowing" I don't necessarily mean they need to be told-- just "is it reasonable to assume that this might happen?"

All sorts of things might happen.  The range of possible outcomes from each alternative would have to be pretty narrow for us to make meaningful choices like that.

And if the goal is to avoid there being "no way of knowing", then there must be "some way of knowing".  Are you guys going to tell us what that way is?  I've said several times that I wanted some sort of instruction about how to play Mass Effect because I simply could not figure out how to choose dialogue options beyond just guessing.

And while that problem appears to be a very small portion of ME's audience, sentiment here suggests it's a much bigger portion of DA's audience.  We just didn't understand how to use the wheel.

Please help us.

[ObserverStatus]

I never understood why Zevran couldn't sleep with Morrigan for the dark ritual. Half-elves are human for all intents and purposes.

[soteria]

In addition to what Ulicus said, you've already killed one or two dragons. This time you have an army to help--I don't see victory as that implausible, here. The city might get wrecked before you kill the Archdemon, but victory isn't such a slim chance as all that.

Also, in regards to the taint being removed, if that's true, how come you can still sense darkspawn after the ritual?

[tybbiesniffer]

bobobo878 wrote...

I never understood why Zevran couldn't sleep with Morrigan for the dark ritual. Half-elves are human for all intents and purposes.

Zevran doesn't bear the taint.  Or were you implying something that I'm missing?

[Sabariel]

bobobo878 wrote...

I never understood why Zevran couldn't sleep with Morrigan for the dark ritual. Half-elves are human for all intents and purposes.

Zevran's parents were both elves...

[Saibh]

Saibh wrote...

I'm 100% certain there is, in addition to what you've quoted, a reference to the child bearing the taint (prior to birth). Paradoxical as it may seem -- though, as I mentioned, the reason Warden kids are born without a taint may be due to antenatal development. Without the taint... there's no reason for the Archdemon's soul to be drawn to the kid at all.

A-HA! THERE IT IS AAHAHAHAHAHAH! I didn't find it until you edited your post to present that plot hole (if not taint then not drawn to), and looked under where Morrigan mentions it--and you're correct.

...That just raises further questions!

bobobo878...



The biggest problem with doing good
in Bioware games is that you don't have to sacrifice anything. In real
life, most of us try to good, but can't always afford to.

I would say that this is a gigantic plus on BioWare's part, since I'm entirely sick of the matyrdom endings most games present. (I frackin' hated Fable 2's--would you rather be good/evil/or able to play the game?)

Like I said earlier, you may not sacrifice anything, but you rarely get a reward that isn't just "hey, we built a statue of you, hero!" This is opposed to taking the selfish "evil" route and often getting rewards like cooler armor, powers, and (most infuriating of all) the satisfaction of punching that snide reporter in the nose.

Having to sacrifice too much makes it feel pointless and removes any sense of achievement on a good player's part, since you're not getting any reward whatsoever. Yet evil people do. We don't play the game to be life-isn't-fair simulators--we expect results.

EDIT: To clarify, that doesn't mean I believe in Sunshine Beams endings forever, I'm just saying that it seems impossibly unfair and like being punished for being a good person. In real life, (usually) we feel a social obligation to doing the right thing that reflects back on us by simply making us feel good. But the game isn't our real life.

Modifié par Saibh, 20 juillet 2010 - 11:29 .

[AlanC9]

soteria wrote...

The selfish part does not bode well to my lawful Good character alignment.... So I decided to do the Ultimate sacrifice... Plus my character thought that DR= One more Blight = lot more people dead.

Fridge Logic says it's actually not that selfish. If you perform the Dark Ritual, *anyone* can kill the Archdemon, as long as Morrigan is near enough. That means the fate of the world no longer hinges on your survival and ability to land the killing blow, which is a huge plus.

Morrigan really needs to take a couple levels  of Coercion. If she'd put it that way she'd have had a much better change of getting certain Wardens to agree to the DR.

Actually, her whole argument almost seems to be designed to fail. It's funny how so many people call her "manipulative" when it's obvious she's no bloody good at it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 juillet 2010 - 11:37 .

[Dick Delaware]

Yeah, that part of her character really fell flat. You aren't really good at the whole manipulative thing if you keep telling everybody you're manipulative. Now Kreia, that was was a damn good manipulative character.

[FDrage]

speaking of consequences what happens if you cleans the circle as a warrior and then ask good old Alistair to do the "ultimate Sacrifice" ? ... or Keep the Circle alive "Poison the Urn of Sacred Ashes" instead;).

Anyway ... why does it always seem that people only want consequences for "good" choices? One doesn't have to chose a certain response? Personally I like that the certain choice for the Redcliff quest is like it is in game. I don't need to use that specific solution, if my character wouldn't think it is possible. My mage made a pragmatic assessment of the situation and decided that going to the circle is too risky so Izolda had to die to free Conner. And the mage didn't blink about the sacrifice, as that was the most practical solution and now has to life with it.
Now if my mage is
a) ruthless, pragmatic and thinks sacrifcing the few for the "Greater Good". my mage won't really care the 1 person had to die.
nice good heroic mage will be devastated for the rest of the game and beyond. While the game it self doesn't allow me for these sentiments to be reflected in-game my character still carries that around and it might just "Inform" a decision later on in the game.

As I see it mage A ... has no consequences ... at least non that the mage cares about. I even go as far as saying that the very same mage won't care about what happens to Conner after making a certain deal. After all Ferelden is saved, the Blight defeated ... job done. And by the time the Demon comes back the very same mage will have walked the walk in the Deep Roads.

On the other side Mage B has consequences to life with from 2 out of 3 options available ... options that in the end the mage "knows" the outcomes only via "meta gaming knowledge". If you get to that situation the first time, I;m not sure that you can know that travelling to the mage tower and back will be without "so far" as much of a consequence.

So asking what if people want consequences for actions like Redcliff --> Mage Circel --> Redcliff event that means "punishing" (and I put the deliberate into "") the good person, what consequences would be suitable for the mage A from above that is willing to stop the Blight at all costs? 

The way I see it .. the good character gets all the consequences while the ruthless character won't have any consequences that they (the character not the player) would actually care about.

rabidhanar wrote...

They should balance them out, of
course people who play for godmode will not choose those examples that lead to problems, but it allows roleplayers like me to have a change of pace. Would I like some "bad" decisions to have advantages, heck yes!
Would I like some "good" decisions to have advantages, heck yes! What I do not want is for every situation to lead to advantages if you choose one alignment. I super roleplay my characters, as in I plan them in advance, spend a long time creating them (1+ hour on 1 Elvish Mage for example), and choose the decisions that as their role would indicate. (I.E. I choose to side with the elves, they are my people and they are being attacked, unacceptable.) No one alignment should be superior to the other.

I can understand that ... and I wouldn't mind that either. But one get the impression that is not what people want

However the way I see it is that "dark" for some people means .. concequences for the good guys, advantages for the bad guy and this would be something I would like as that just mean punish one side while the other can enjoy themselves. There would need to be advantages and disadvantages for these 2 (or maybe more) ways. Otherwise it is just .. chose between the "dark" and the "darker" choice ... fun.

Modifié par FDrage, 21 juillet 2010 - 12:02 .

[Dick Delaware]

Saibh wrote...
I would say that this is a gigantic plus on BioWare's part, since I'm entirely sick of the matyrdom endings most games present. (I frackin' hated Fable 2's--would you rather be good/evil/or able to play the game?)

Like I said earlier, you may not sacrifice anything, but you rarely get a reward that isn't just "hey, we built a statue of you, hero!" This is opposed to taking the selfish "evil" route and often getting rewards like cooler armor, powers, and (most infuriating of all) the satisfaction of punching that snide reporter in the nose.

Having to sacrifice too much makes it feel pointless and removes any sense of achievement on a good player's part, since you're not getting any reward whatsoever. Yet evil people do. We don't play the game to be life-isn't-fair simulators--we expect results.

EDIT: To clarify, that doesn't mean I believe in Sunshine Beams endings forever, I'm just saying that it seems impossibly unfair and like being punished for being a good person. In real life, (usually) we feel a social obligation to doing the right thing that reflects back on us by simply making us feel good. But the game isn't our real life.

No, I disagree here. Especially considering in the vast majority of RPG's, being an evil person is either just retarded and doesn't make much practical sense, or that making "good" options provides a lot of benefit with little cost. This was a problem in Origins during Redcliffe and the Dalish Elf/ Werewolf conflict. Mask of the Betrayer is probably the only RPG I've played where being an evil character offers a more interesting or deep playthrough than a good character.

Despite NPC's alluding that you going to the Circle Tower could cause the demon to turn desperate and really start causing some damage, you come back to town and everything is A-OK. And the way the Dalish quest ended with you freeing the wolves AND getting a Dalish Army? I dunno, I thought that was way too tidy. Really, a guy consumed with hate for as long as Zathrian was is willing to make nicey just like that? A nice twist would have been that doing the right thing here and freeing the werewolves would have meant that the Dalish blamed you for the death of their Keeper, so as a result, they refuse to give you the army you seek, leaving you shorthanded.

Likewise, if you play a more ruthless character, you lose Shale, Wynne, Zevran, potentially Leliana, and the Redcliffe Army. And you don't even get aid from Kolgrim's wacky cultists if you side with them, either. Yeah, the fact that you might get a powerful reward allowing the demon to remain dormant within Connor is great, but that's just one example and it's only applicable to mages. Getting to keep Morrigan for the final battle is probably the only other example where doing something morally questionable gives you a benefit.

Really, in most RPG's, players who opt for a heartless character are treated like second-class citizens. You can't really play as an intelligent, rational, but terrible human being. It's mostly just Chaotic Evil for the lulz. The funny thing is, compared to the vast majority of RPG's, Origins looks pretty good.

I think that being good and doing the right thing should come with some measure of sacrifice. I'm not saying it should make the game really hard or anything, but I think that integrity means that a person is willing to suffer because something is right. If there's nothing to ever be lost from doing the right thing, if there are no consequences, it just makes things really shallow and cheapens the choice.

That's why BioShock utterly failed at it's moral dilemmas. You got almost the same amount of ADAM no matter what, so it was ultimately shallow.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 21 juillet 2010 - 12:15 .

[Ulicus]

AlanC9 wrote...

soteria wrote...

The selfish part does not bode well to my lawful Good character alignment.... So I decided to do the Ultimate sacrifice... Plus my character thought that DR= One more Blight = lot more people dead.

Fridge Logic says it's actually not that selfish. If you perform the Dark Ritual, *anyone* can kill the Archdemon, as long as Morrigan is near enough. That means the fate of the world no longer hinges on your survival and ability to land the killing blow, which is a huge plus.

Morrigan really needs to take a couple levels  of Coercion. If she'd put it that way she'd have had a much better change of getting certain Wardens to agree to the DR.

To be fair, that particular implication of the ritual (and it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw) wasn't intended.

See here.