64 réponses à ce sujet

[Saibh]

WingsandRings wrote...

My memory is that both Orzammar epilogues kind of sucked, no matter who you choose.

Neither were perfect, but Bhelen's is a helluva lot better than Harrowmont. Harrowmont puts further restrictions on the casteless vs. Bhelen lessening them, and also giving them a chance to become citizens by fighting in the army; Bhelen opens trade with the surface vs Harrowmont completely shutting them out. Bhelen didn't read as a tyrant to me, but he definitely became a dictator.

[Tokion]

There is a morality meter in DAO. Not a traditional system like "Reputation" or "Renegade/Paragon" points, but NPC approval system bar.
Morrigan = Evil
Wynne = Good

The approval system should be taken out imo, have all the party members actually remember HOW you solve every quest instead of a bar that can be pumped by gifts. This way companion actually feel more organic because there will be consequences for every decisions you made through out the whole game.

Modifié par Tokion, 23 juillet 2010 - 11:30 .

[JergenKajaton]

I'm wondering if the OP played the same DAO that I played, because I remember several instances in which I stared at the dialog options -- occasionally for several minutes at a time -- trying to determine the morally superior path. Occasionally I turned out to be wrong. And in some cases I never really found out if I made the right decision. The game itself never made it clear, forcing me to trust my conscience.

Bottom line: DAO is one of the most morally complex games I've ever played.

In the case of Bhelen vs. Harrowmont, however, my conscience is 100% clean for supporting Harrowmont. Yes, supporting Bhelen results in a better outcome, but the Warden has no way of knowing that at the time. Bhelen is a lying, murdering, manipulative jerk, whereas Harrowmont seems to be on the up-and-up. Every morally good character I've ever played (or ever will) has supported Harrowmont with no regrets and no guilt.

[Saibh]

Tokion wrote...

There is a morality meter in DAO. Not a traditional system like "Reputation" or "Renegade/Paragon" points, but NPC approval system bar.
Morrigan = Evil
Wynne = Good

The approval system should be taken out imo, have all the party members actually remember HOW you solve every quest instead of a bar that can be pumped by gifts. This way companion actually feel more organic because there will be consequences for every decisions you made through out the whole game.

But what Wynne feels is the correct thing to do, Alistair may not. Zevran may agree with Wynne, but disagree with Morrigan. Yeah, you can probably categorize all of the characters into "Good" "Neutral" and "Evil", but they don't have the exact same set of morality.

Besides that, being told you've done a good thing by Alistair isn't the same as a morality meter giving you the final say on whether or not you've done something good.

And, as I recall, they're improving gift-giving in this game, by all gifts being character-specific (as opposed to handing Dog's veal bones to everyone and getting +5 approval), as well as the general metagaming aspect of the approval bars. Whatever that means.

[elfdwarf]

witch view

are you looking for?

city elf

dalish elf

noble dwarf

casteless dwarf

human

mage

they have their own evil &good view

but you see in eyes of greywarden

[Captain Jazz]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why is it that when someone asks for "morally grey" options all they really want is unforseen consequences to their choices?

Because white is good, black is bad and grey is chaos... obviously. Although they have a point, unforseen consequences happen all the time and it would make sense to have some more turn up in games.

The major problem that I have with moral grey areas is that there's almost always an optimal choice. It's like the thought experiment - two tracks, one person on one track, hundreds on the other, a train is coming and headed to the track of hundreds, do you switch tracks and effectively kill one or leave it and allow hundreds to die? Switch the tracks. Of course, the BEST choice would be to switch the tracks and tell the dumb ass to get off the tracks before the train comes, but we're not allowed that one <_<

Modifié par Captain Jazz, 24 juillet 2010 - 12:09 .

[JergenKajaton]

Captain Jazz wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why is it that when someone asks for "morally grey" options all they really want is unforseen consequences to their choices?

Because white is good, black is bad and grey is chaos... obviously. Although they have a point, unforseen consequences happen all the time and it would make sense to have some more turn up in games.
The major problem that I have with moral grey areas is that there's almost always an optimal choice. It's like the thought experiment - two tracks, one person on one track, hundreds on the other, a train is coming and headed to the track of hundreds, do you switch tracks and effectively kill one or leave it and allow hundreds to die? Switch the tracks. Of course, the BEST choice would be to switch the tracks and tell the dumb ass to get off the tracks before the train comes, but we're not allowed that one <_<

But what if that one person is a medical researcher on the verge of a major breakthrough that will save more than 100 lives?

[Saibh]

JergenKajaton wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why is it that when someone asks for "morally grey" options all they really want is unforseen consequences to their choices?

Because white is good, black is bad and grey is chaos... obviously. Although they have a point, unforseen consequences happen all the time and it would make sense to have some more turn up in games.
The major problem that I have with moral grey areas is that there's almost always an optimal choice. It's like the thought experiment - two tracks, one person on one track, hundreds on the other, a train is coming and headed to the track of hundreds, do you switch tracks and effectively kill one or leave it and allow hundreds to die? Switch the tracks. Of course, the BEST choice would be to switch the tracks and tell the dumb ass to get off the tracks before the train comes, but we're not allowed that one <_<

But what if that one person is a medical researcher on the verge of a major breakthrough that will save more than 100 lives?

...It's still switch the tracks. I imagine the guy left notes behind. And besides that, who's to say that guy will actually breakthrough? You're weighing a possible outcome of the inforseeable future with the right-now lives of men, women, and children.

[Never]

YohkoOhno wrote...

AFAIK, there were no "morality meters" in DA:O, just reactions of other people.
Keep in mind though, this is meant to be an entertaining game. Can you have agonizing choices, yes. But should the game be angst filled and always make people feel bad after playing? If you get too grim and gritty it's not that fun to experience.

This! I enjoy the tough choices, and the suprising consequences at times, but if every single choice involved something bad happening I wouldn't care to play. I think DA:O found a great balance. After all, there are plenty of black and white decisions in real life.

[JergenKajaton]

Saibh wrote...

JergenKajaton wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why is it that when someone asks for "morally grey" options all they really want is unforseen consequences to their choices?

Because white is good, black is bad and grey is chaos... obviously. Although they have a point, unforseen consequences happen all the time and it would make sense to have some more turn up in games.
The major problem that I have with moral grey areas is that there's almost always an optimal choice. It's like the thought experiment - two tracks, one person on one track, hundreds on the other, a train is coming and headed to the track of hundreds, do you switch tracks and effectively kill one or leave it and allow hundreds to die? Switch the tracks. Of course, the BEST choice would be to switch the tracks and tell the dumb ass to get off the tracks before the train comes, but we're not allowed that one <_<

But what if that one person is a medical researcher on the verge of a major breakthrough that will save more than 100 lives?

...It's still switch the tracks. I imagine the guy left notes behind. And besides that, who's to say that guy will actually breakthrough? You're weighing a possible outcome of the inforseeable future with the right-now lives of men, women, and children.

No, I actually agree with you completely. Unforseen consequences have no impact on the moral value of descisions made in real-time, hence my having no regrets about supporting Harrowmont over Bhelen regardless of the outcomes.

I just threw that question out there because, well, it's fun to throw questions like that out there. And they're certainly worth thinking about.

Modifié par JergenKajaton, 24 juillet 2010 - 12:36 .

[Saibh]

vilnii wrote...

I do not quite agree, and i'll give an example:

The unforeseen consequences of the 'Hardening of Alistair' resulted in moral decisions at Landsmeet that no one playing the game could have anticipated. An obscure moment basically altered the entire Landsmeet outcome

This was made even worse because you have NO idea that a one line dialogue option can have such significant consequences

Well...having played a BioWare game before and having previous experience with "hardening" a character, I pretty much assumed that was what the difference was going to be. After all, the only way to get that line of dialogue is for him to bring up his sister--and the only way he'll do that is mentioning he's in line for the throne. A Genre Savvy gamer puts two-and-two together fairly easily.

Also, if you're in a romance with him and you mention that you don't want to end the relationship with him because he's king, he's much more confident and firm about it, instead of "well, best hope we have an option".

I'm sure for some players they were surprised--but it's pretty hard to surprise gamers today with plot devices like that.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Captain Jazz wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why is it that when someone asks for "morally grey" options all they really want is unforseen consequences to their choices?

Because white is good, black is bad and grey is chaos... obviously. Although they have a point, unforseen consequences happen all the time and it would make sense to have some more turn up in games.

The major problem that I have with moral grey areas is that there's almost always an optimal choice. It's like the thought experiment - two tracks, one person on one track, hundreds on the other, a train is coming and headed to the track of hundreds, do you switch tracks and effectively kill one or leave it and allow hundreds to die? Switch the tracks. Of course, the BEST choice would be to switch the tracks and tell the dumb ass to get off the tracks before the train comes, but we're not allowed that one <_<

That's not really morally grey, it's just the lesser of two evils.

Here is an example:
A: Help an old lady get her cat down a tree without any promised reward. (Good)
B: Help the old lady's cat down for a promised reward. (Grey)
C: Take the old lady's money, and set the tree on fire for good measure. (Evil)

The morally grey choices are usually a neutral stance to events and not doing anything without a clear view of your reward. The "doomed if you do, doomed if you don't" choices are not neccesarily morally grey, though usually they fall into that category because it's generally easier to make acceptable choices within that parameter (imagine the outrage some of the "do gooder" RP'ers would make if they were forced to make an evil choice).