217 réponses à ce sujet

[ObserverStatus]

Sabariel wrote...

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...

I was referring to Morrigan and Zevran's hypothetical child.

[Saibh]

Dick Delaware wrote...

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.

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.

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.

Okay, I think I see where we diverge: You see a reward in what ultimately happens, I see in a reward in the bling, dammit.

Good characters tend to have to say "no, no, I won't accepty oodles and oodles of cash and that game-breaking sword...your family needs it more than I, savior of this world, does". Evil characters just get whatever they please (and again, satisfaction).

I see what you mean by it being a problem for good characters to always get this completely spot-free result--and I agree. I took "sacrifice" to mean "everything goes wrong" or "you lose your family and your dog", instead of a partial-sacrifice. Partial-sacrifice is good. Wholesale fail isn't.

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.

I absolutely agree. But I always always always despise the A) Do you pick death?  Do you pick god-awful-you're-permenately-stuck-at-the-red-end-of-the-morality-meter evil? It just feels like such a cheat. It's the end of the game. There's nothing left to see but the epilogue. You've worked so hard, dammit--and then, boom fake drama because of the plot reason we hate you all.

Modifié par Saibh, 21 juillet 2010 - 12:22 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I think DA:O had very nice "shades of grey" plot lines myself. Alot of it depends on how you approach each quest, who you follow, who you are roleplaying as. Yeah...I'm going to sound like a dork here but I have to say it: Most people don't try to think as the character they create because they just play themselves and click on the pretty dialogue options till they get the most desirable (i.e. most loot/experience) result. If you try to roleplay your way through the game giving the limited dialogue options of a CRPG, you can find the shades of grey quite easily. Try to think like your characters.

[Dick Delaware]

Saibh wrote...
Okay, I think I see where we diverge: You see a reward in what ultimately happens, I see in a reward in the bling, dammit.

Good characters tend to have to say "no, no, I won't accepty oodles and oodles of cash and that game-breaking sword...your family needs it more than I, savior of this world, does". Evil characters just get whatever they please (and again, satisfaction).

I see what you mean by it being a problem for good characters to always get this completely spot-free result--and I agree. I took "sacrifice" to mean "everything goes wrong" or "you lose your family and your dog", instead of a partial-sacrifice. Partial-sacrifice is good. Wholesale fail isn't.

God, I hate that choice, too. You know the one I'm talking about, it looks like this:

Villager: Thank you for finding my family's cherished necklace / bong / sex toy / whatever and obtaining it from the foul clutches of those wretched Orcs / Gnolls / 4chan forumites!
PC: No problem at all, good sir.
Villager: Would that I could give you something, stranger, but I am merely a humble mud farmer. Oh wait, I know just the thing! I inexplicably have a superbly crafted Sword of Awesomeness and 300 gold, even though I live in this dilapidated shack, making this already inane fetch quest make even less sense than it did to begin with.
.
And the options you get for karma points look like this
Good PC: You'll need it more than I do. Take care, humble mud farmer, may the sun shine on you for all your days!
Neutral PC: Thanks!
Evil PC: This is it? I wanted a reward, not useless crap! MOAAAARRRRRRR!!! Now you die, peasant!

Saibh wrote..
I absolutely agree. But I always always always despise the A) Do you pick death?  Do you pick god-awful-you're-permenately-stuck-at-the-red-end-of-the-morality-meter evil? It just feels like such a cheat. It's the end of the game. There's nothing left to see but the epilogue. You've worked so hard, dammit--and then, boom fake drama because of the plot reason we hate you all.

Can you cite any particular examples? I'm not sure what you mean. I don't recall a game that put you in a position where if you didn't do something completely terrible, you would die. Nice in theory, but It doesn't sound like particularly good design, probably because it's seriously railroady.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 21 juillet 2010 - 12:47 .

[In Exile]

Ulicus wrote...
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.

Fair enough.

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.

I would think it doesn't matter what Morrigan says. Even if you trust her, it's a matter of competence. I trust my best friend, but if tells me about how we could build a nuke toghether, I'm not inclined to listen to someone who's closest experience with science was a first year seminar.

Even if Morrigan is the sweetest angel on the planet that could not tell a lie and only wants puppies and flowers for everyone, she could very well be wrong. At the least she is asking you to save an old god, which according to the chantry is a false god who was punished by God.

So we've got two levels of blasphemy in the ritual: blood magic and saving an old god.

What I am saying is as the player, you know nothing about what Morrigan is offering. Even if you are a mage, you have no understanding and no one of understanding the process. You are shooting blind.

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.

Then there is a very reasonable chance that Alistair does not die, since you've overcome an insane amount of obstacles. You could have killed two dragons, a pride demon, a super-golem, a broodmother, not to mention effectively an army of soldiers, werewolves and darkspawn plus enough abominations to put the templars to shame.

Basically, if you suppose you as the Warden has awesome odds to survive, you have to suppose the same applies to Alistair. And if you think Alistair has a huge chance to die, then so do you.

So what I am saying is that her actual potential payoff is only if you are left alone, and the odds of that mattering are astronomicaly low in either possible case.

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

That's a little vacuous. Let's say that instead of having to sacrifice Isolde for the blood ritual, you had to sacrifice Connor's puppy. Now, presumably, the puppy is innocent (and cute!). The puppy can't consent to being killed. And if you go for the Circle Tower, everyone can still be saved (puppy included). It is quite conceivable that many would argue that from their point of view, the Circle Tower is still the only moral choice, and the puppy sacrifice is terrible.

Survey the majority, however, and you are likely find that the choice becomes much easier, and the apparent risk of going to the Circle is dramatic compared to before.

soteria wrote...

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.

What I am saying is simple: Alistair has no more of a risk to die than the Warden. If the risk for Alistair dying is enormous, it is the same for the Warden. So the dark ritual in that case is nothing but for the special scenario where the Warden lives and Alistair dies, which is incredibly unlikely beacuse all signs point to both dying. And if the odds of the Warden living are high, then the chance of Alistair doing the same is higher.

Effectively, if there is no payoff of true freedom, suddenly the relative cost of th dark ritual increases [b]enormously[.b], and in my view that relative risk is what acts to destroy the temptation.

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

You could never sense darkspawn. At the very least, I've never seen any time where they Warden has the opportunity to sense darkspawn at any point after the Joining.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.

Part of it is inferring from context. That's a skill, and one you've admitted is not your strenght when it comes to conversation. I think this is what most do.

[Saibh]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Can you cite any particular examples? I'm not sure what you mean. I don't recall a game that put you in a position where if you didn't do something completely terrible, you would die. Nice in theory, but It doesn't sound like particularly good design, probably because it's seriously railroady.

And there I go with my over-active hyperbolic imagination. I didn't exactly mean do this or die (even though that's exactly what I said, I know). I meant if the situation at the end of the game, you are given the choice of "life/life of loved ones/save the world or screw that, I choose life". You need not do something terrible, but the mere act of picking yourself over the fate of the world or whatever is pretty bungholio.

Off the top of my head, Fallout 3 and both Fables present this as a choice. I don't count DA since we don't really know yet whether commiting to the DR is truly evil and has bad consequences yet--adding that whole "grey" factor.

[Elessara]

I guess I don't understand why people think that doing "good" deeds should mean you get punished for it. That's one of the reasons I actually enjoy playing fantasy rpg's ... to be the (yes, stereotypical) good guy and save people and do good deeds, etc. And why would anyone do anything good if they're just going to get screwed over for it?

[soteria]

Ulicus wrote...

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.

Well, that's why I call it Fridge Logic.  To be honest, it's not something that occured to me until I saw your post, but it makes sense.  And as for why Morrigan didn't use that argument, I think it can be explained by looking at her character.  At one point in the game, she tells you something to the effect of "survival is the most important thing."  Disagreeing causes a loss of approval.  As a selfish person her self, she assumes that everyone else is basically similar, even if they pretend to be more altruistic than that--so she pitches the survival argument, not considering that some people truly don't consider death to be the worst thing that can happen.

[Dick Delaware]

Saibh wrote...
And there I go with my over-active hyperbolic imagination. I didn't exactly mean do this or die (even though that's exactly what I said, I know). I meant if the situation at the end of the game, you are given the choice of "life/life of loved ones/save the world or screw that, I choose life". You need not do something terrible, but the mere act of picking yourself over the fate of the world or whatever is pretty bungholio.

Now I understand exactly what you mean. I've played Fallout 3 and the ending (well, the whole main story and a good portion of the dialogue, actually) was completely retarded. It is the worst kind of contrived nonsense and a cheesy attempt to thatch together some sort of moral dilemma. Yeah, I agree, the entire concept is idiotic - "DO U SAVE THE GIRL OR THE WORLD?!?! TEH CHOIZES!"

The entire idea of the fate of the world coming down to the Chosen One sacrificing themselves or not is stupid, but that's not even the worst part of it. The worst part is, is that it nullifies everything you've done so far by making it all come down to one thing, regardless of the things you've done prior. 

Saibh wrote...
Off the top of my head, Fallout 3 and both Fables present this as a choice. I don't count DA since we don't really know yet whether commiting to the DR is truly evil and has bad consequences yet--adding that whole "grey" factor.

Dragon Age did this too, and it's done well because things are murky. Also, you don't really have to die, even if you tell Morrigan to ****** off. Alistair/Loghain could sacrifice themselves instead. The key here is, that it's a lot more nuanced and is more of a natural continuation of the choices you made throughout the game, rather than the designer just railroading you and out of nowhere forcing you into some sort of ridiculous situation so that the game can end.

[In Exile]

The sentiment comes from people who want a game that embodies Duncan's philsophy: know that whatever is done, we do it because it is neccesary. Rather than heroism, people appreciate that sort of single minded sacrifice.

[soteria]

What I am saying is simple: Alistair has no more of a risk to die than the Warden. If the risk for Alistair dying is enormous, it is the same for the Warden. So the dark ritual in that case is nothing but for the special scenario where the Warden lives and Alistair dies, which is incredibly unlikely beacuse all signs point to both dying. And if the odds of the Warden living are high, then the chance of Alistair doing the same is higher.

You obviously haven't seen how many injuries Alistair racks up in my games... oh, and many people would say Alistair is innocent, too. And cute! Right?

More seriously, yes, it could come down to whether you care about Alistair's survival or not. If you made him king, you should, since presumably you have your reasons for not wanting Anora to be king. Also, most people assume bad things will happen to other people. If you've ever been robbed, I'm sure you're familiar with the feeling--"This sort of thing always happens to someone else!" Of course, everyone acknowledges the possibility of being robbed, just as every soldier acknowledges the possibility of being killed. Internally, though, I don't think people take that possibility as seriously when it applies to themselves.

[In Exile]

soteria wrote...
More seriously, yes, it could come down to whether you care about Alistair's survival or not. If you made him king, you should, since presumably you have your reasons for not wanting Anora to be king.

I disagree. You could have made Alistair King because you prefer him to Anora, which is very different. And it does not have to be Alistair; it could be Loghain. They are simply your spare Grey Warden.

More importantly, there is a difference between caring about Alistair and caring about Alistair enough do die for him or summon Cthulhu.

Also, most people assume bad things will happen to other people. If you've ever been robbed, I'm sure you're familiar with the feeling--"This sort of thing always happens to someone else!"

Yes, I was. I don't follow, however.

Of course, everyone acknowledges the possibility of being robbed, just as every soldier acknowledges the possibility of being killed. Internally, though, I don't think people take that possibility as seriously when it applies to themselves.

Well, certainly. But in that case it doesn't matter. It only matters how likely you think your spare is to live relative to how likely you think the ritual is dangerous. And I am saying that the degree of temptation falls dramatically if the only thing that it does is remove your worry of your spare dying at the cost of saving the life of the archdemon.

Because seriously, this is what Morrigan is asking you to do: save the archdemon's life.

Modifié par In Exile, 21 juillet 2010 - 01:50 .

[Narreneth]

soteria wrote...

What I am saying is simple: Alistair has no more of a risk to die than the Warden. If the risk for Alistair dying is enormous, it is the same for the Warden. So the dark ritual in that case is nothing but for the special scenario where the Warden lives and Alistair dies, which is incredibly unlikely beacuse all signs point to both dying. And if the odds of the Warden living are high, then the chance of Alistair doing the same is higher.

You obviously haven't seen how many injuries Alistair racks up in my games... oh, and many people would say Alistair is innocent, too. And cute! Right?
More seriously, yes, it could come down to whether you care about Alistair's survival or not. If you made him king, you should, since presumably you have your reasons for not wanting Anora to be king. Also, most people assume bad things will happen to other people. If you've ever been robbed, I'm sure you're familiar with the feeling--"This sort of thing always happens to someone else!" Of course, everyone acknowledges the possibility of being robbed, just as every soldier acknowledges the possibility of being killed. Internally, though, I don't think people take that possibility as seriously when it applies to themselves.

Anora could never be queen!  She lacks the proper equipment!

[soteria]

Now I understand exactly what you mean. I've played Fallout 3 and the ending (well, the whole main story and a good portion of the dialogue, actually) was completely retarded. It is the worst kind of contrived nonsense and a cheesy attempt to thatch together some sort of moral dilemma. Yeah, I agree, the entire concept is idiotic - "DO U SAVE THE GIRL OR THE WORLD?!?! TEH CHOIZES!"

The end of FO3 was stupid on many levels, not just because it came out of the blue. It was a false conundrum that didn't make sense from a gameplay or story perspective. I found the sacrifice in DA acceptable mostly because you weren't forced into it. Rather, you had already been forced into being a Grey Warden and your character knew you were destined to die early be it from the taint or death in battle. You were supposed to be a sort of hero. In FO3, you were really nothing of the sort, and had every expectation of (probably) living happily ever after.

[In Exile]

soteria wrote...
The end of FO3 was stupid on many levels, not just because it came out of the blue. It was a false conundrum that didn't make sense from a gameplay or story perspective. I found the sacrifice in DA acceptable mostly because you weren't forced into it. Rather, you had already been forced into being a Grey Warden and your character knew you were destined to die early be it from the taint or death in battle. You were supposed to be a sort of hero. In FO3, you were really nothing of the sort, and had every expectation of (probably) living happily ever after.

You also had the option of having someone else die in your place or no one dying in your place (despite the choice apparently being far less tempting than I thought), so it wasn't as much of a false dillema.

[2papercuts]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Saibh wrote...
And there I go with my over-active hyperbolic imagination. I didn't exactly mean do this or die (even though that's exactly what I said, I know). I meant if the situation at the end of the game, you are given the choice of "life/life of loved ones/save the world or screw that, I choose life". You need not do something terrible, but the mere act of picking yourself over the fate of the world or whatever is pretty bungholio.

Now I understand exactly what you mean. I've played Fallout 3 and the ending (well, the whole main story and a good portion of the dialogue, actually) was completely retarded. It is the worst kind of contrived nonsense and a cheesy attempt to thatch together some sort of moral dilemma. Yeah, I agree, the entire concept is idiotic - "DO U SAVE THE GIRL OR THE WORLD?!?! TEH CHOIZES!"

The entire idea of the fate of the world coming down to the Chosen One sacrificing themselves or not is stupid, but that's not even the worst part of it. The worst part is, is that it nullifies everything you've done so far by making it all come down to one thing, regardless of the things you've done prior. 

one could argue though that thats the theme of fallout 3, that no matter what you do or where you go you will always end up at the same place.

Modifié par 2papercuts, 21 juillet 2010 - 02:08 .

[soteria]

Well, certainly. But in that case it doesn't matter. It only matters how likely you think your spare is to live relative to how likely you think the ritual is dangerous. And I am saying that the degree of temptation falls dramatically if the only thing that it does is remove your worry of your spare dying at the cost of saving the life of the archdemon.

Because seriously, this is what Morrigan is asking you to do: save the archdemon's life.

She's not asking you to save the archdemon's life. Isn't the archdemon technically a ghoul, similar to a broodmother? That's like saying a ritual that would preserve Hespith's (untainted) soul is "saving the broodmother's life." And I have to disagree that Morrigan isn't competent to judge what sort of results the ritual will have. If your character doesn't think she's a competent authority on what the results will be, how can your character possibly believe the ritual will even be a success? And as I said upthread, you could always plan to do away with Morrigan after the battle.

[In Exile]

soteria wrote...

She's not asking you to save the archdemon's life. Isn't the archdemon technically a ghoul, similar to a broodmother

The old god, then. Depending on your background, you come from a religion where you're comiting two acts of blasphemy to get things off the ground. But let's suppose the dalish don't have a problem with that and the dwarves are cool with that, so let's put this concern on the backburner.

That's like saying a ritual that would preserve Hespith's (untainted) soul is "saving the broodmother's life."

If Hespith was one of the last 3 living beings that could become brood mothers, saving her untained soul isn't quite the good deed. We don't know whether or not the old god could return as an archdemon again. That is a risk that youa re taking with the ritual, provided it does what it is designed to do.

And I have to disagree that Morrigan isn't competent to judge what sort of results the ritual will have. If your character doesn't think she's a competent authority on what the results will be, how can your character possibly believe the ritual will even be a success? And as I said upthread, you could always plan to do away with Morrigan after the battle.

Morrigan may well believe the ritual does what she says it does, but the idea comes from Flemeth. And if you are not a mage, you are in no position to judge whether or not Morrigan is a particularly good mage. I am saying precisely because you have no idea whether or not it will work, and the fact that if it does you have just saved the essence of something that could cause a blight again, there is not much temptation.

Recall, our argument is how strong the temptation of the dark ritual is if all it does is save the life of the Grey Warden if the Grey Warden lands the final blow. And I am arguing it is very weak.

I think taking anyone at face value wihout any basic understanding of what they do is stupid. I'm not a doctor, but I have studied enough biology and chemistry can I can double check if my doctor is a quack. It is just absurd to make a choice on an area of expertiese taking someone whose competence you can't judge at face value.

Fair point about planning to kill her after, however. To that, though, I would simply have to say that my meta-game knowledge prevents me from considering it, since the game plays it straight that you let her get away and I don't write fan fictions.

[Saibh]

soteria wrote...

Well, certainly. But in that case it doesn't matter. It only matters how likely you think your spare is to live relative to how likely you think the ritual is dangerous. And I am saying that the degree of temptation falls dramatically if the only thing that it does is remove your worry of your spare dying at the cost of saving the life of the archdemon.
Because seriously, this is what Morrigan is asking you to do: save the archdemon's life.

She's not asking you to save the archdemon's life. Isn't the archdemon technically a ghoul, similar to a broodmother? That's like saying a ritual that would preserve Hespith's (untainted) soul is "saving the broodmother's life." And I have to disagree that Morrigan isn't competent to judge what sort of results the ritual will have. If your character doesn't think she's a competent authority on what the results will be, how can your character possibly believe the ritual will even be a success? And as I said upthread, you could always plan to do away with Morrigan after the battle.

I just love the moral quandry the Dark Ritual presents. I think almost every side presented is valid: I may have my personal opinion on what I believe to be the right choice, or what I think is alright or not, but there's such a beautiful spectrum of choices.

[Chairon de Celeste]

In imho high quality rpg it is like in real life with the deeds and consequences.

When everybody happily pats your back but still there is that nagging feeling
the unintended consequences will come back from the road to bite you,
this will most cerainly happen, self-fulfilling  prophecy aside.

As a defender of a region under siege on the other hand, your decisions
will hardly ever satisfy everybody

Spoiler  warning (wish we had a show / hide spoiler script here)





In Amaranthine folks nagged my warden deaf about each
and every decision.

I had the feeling reinforcing the keep in every possible way
would make a possible tough decision less hard.
And since BioWare storylines aren't really hard to predict,
you'll always get a few fair warnings, it turned out as expected...
Defending the city and siding with the Architect earned me
no end of protest and dsapprove - I had the feeling though
that was the best my pc could do for Amaranthine, Ferelden
and Orzammar.
The post-game slide-show proved me right.

Just because there is no numberboy crossing the scene
each time, holding up a transparent reading 'good deeds
may trigger bad consequences' doesn't mean that chance
isn't there.

As stated in my previous post here: I'd like to see that
continue in DA 2.

And for those who wish to go diggin' blind completely I
recommend the russian afterlife rpg 'The Void' :innocent:

Modifié par Chairon de Celeste, 21 juillet 2010 - 09:57 .

[Sabariel]

bobobo878 wrote...

Sabariel wrote...

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...

I was referring to Morrigan and Zevran's hypothetical child.

...Zevran isn't a Warden.

[Sappy69]

Put me down on the side of those that were disappointed that the DR was not as tempting as it could've been.  Maybe that wasn't the purpose, but to me the DR was clearly a selfish, if not outright evil and certainly irresponsible choice of action.

Let's break down what we know (in-character) when the DR offer is made.  You've got 3 Grey Wardens: the PC, Alistair/Loghain, and Riordan.  At this point, we don't know that Riordan is going to make his ill-advised attempt at soloing the archdemon and failing spectacularly (metagame-wise, I'm sure we all knew he was going to buy it the moment he explains that a GW has to die in order to defeat the archdemon, he may as well have worn a red-shirt, heh).  We just know that one of those 3 will need to die, and Riordan volunteers since it's tradition for the most senior GW to do it.  Besides, he's been around about as long as Duncan has and is probably close to his Calling anyway, so he doesn't have long to live regardless.

Morrigan makes the DR offer to both save your life and preserve the soul of an Old God.  However, it's only to *potentially* save your life at this point.  You're not even first in line to die (Riordan is) and you've still got another backup (Alistair/Loghain).  So at this point, any rational, thinking person is going to weigh the risk vs. reward of this offer.  Same way we evaluate stocks, or how far my poker hand can take me.

The rewards are that none of the 3 GW's has to die (even though one is going to die soon anyway), and now Morrigan has an Old God baby.  But, what are the pro's of this baby?  Will the Old God usher in a new era of peace?  Will it just be a normal baby with an awesome soul?  Will it have superpowers?  Will it transform into a dragon?  Does it even care about humanity?  We don't know any of this...no one does, not even Morrigan.

What's the risk?  Well, you might have fought tooth and nail all this time to stop a Blight just to have another Blight start again and risk the entire world...yay!  Based on what we know, how does the reward even remotely justify the risk?  Imagine if most of what you owned was a house, and someone told you "Would you like to make a bet with your house?  I won't tell you what you'll win, but if you lose, you lose your house!"

The DR decision becomes even less tempting if the other GW was Loghain instead of Alistair.  I know many players are attached to Alistair and imagine it may come down to a choice of letting yourself or Alistair die, but if it were Loghain?  He *deserves* to die, his entire purpose at being a GW is to die in service to them.  Now, you as the PC get to live, you don't worry about the risk of another Blight from the DR, and Loghain dies!  Everyone wins...

Don't get me wrong, I liked having the choice of the DR.  It gives more roleplaying opportunities for people of different moral spectrums.  But to paint it as a choice that "could be justified" by any rational, unselfish person is inaccurate.  It really wasn't hard for my first playthrough to reject that choice.  My character even romanced Morrigan and it still seemed creepy and shady.  I think the decision may have had more impact if the DR choice were made more tempting to good-aligned characters and less of a "good characters choose X, selfish characters choose Y, evil characters choose Z" situation.

As an example of a choice I did like which ties into the whole "shades of gray" thing, I really enjoyed the choice between Harrowmont and Bhelen.  It's more nuanced than the whole "support the good leader" vs. "support the bad leader" choice.  Instead, it's an opportunity to reflect on your character's philosophy.  Do you support the tyrannical, murdering scumbag who does good by his people, or do you support the honest, honorable leader who will maintain the status quo of a crumbling and corrupt society?  In my first playthrough, I initially supported Harrowmont, but after finding out what happens to Dwarven society in the epilogue, I wasn't so sure I made the right choice...maybe, maybe not.  Something which can make players question themselves and their decisions is always a powerful thing...something which the Bhelen/Harrowmont decision did well and the DR did not.  I hope to see more of this in DA2.

[Sappy69]

SirShreK wrote...

@sappy:

I agree with you except on one point. If Morrigan's offer was accepted, the Warden will automatically make the killing blow. This makes sense that the DR allows only the ritual participant to kill the Archdemon.

I'm a bit hazy on the details of who has to make the killing blow when the DR is involved, but I'll take your word for it.  However, whoever makes the killing blow is largely irrelevant to the decision-making process when evaluating whether to initiate the DR or not.