225 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyanide Disaster]

Personally, I choose options that are closest to how I would react to a situation, at least the first play through. Which usually are the sarcastic vocal comments, the "Okay, I'll do the right thing, but I really don't want to" actions, and ya'know, "Romance: everyone I can. :3

[Saibh]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But if you die trying to save Redcliffe, the Blight overwhelms Ferelden.  That's not better.

Sten is right.  Saving Redcliffe is reckless and selfish.

Reckless, perhaps. But not necessarily selfish. The reputation of the Wardens is a component of power, and restoring it is something the Wardens need to do. Though with only two Wardens left this probably should be in the "Someday" file.

To add, saving Redcliffe takes only one night, and you deal with hordes of darkspawn all the time.

[RosaAquafire]

I wish there was more opportunity to play a Chaotic Neutrel type character. It would be great to have a character playing and manipulating everyone with purely selfish motives, posing behind a nice face.



But I'm not sure that AI is advanced enough to do that, yet. I can go through games treating everyone well, knowing my character is playing them, but the game just assumes that my character is a nice person and treats me accordingly.



Another option that would be nice is playing a character who's really moody. She tries to be a good person, and on some days she does a good job of it, when things are going well for her and she's gotten enough sleep. But then she gets stressed and cranky and BAM she starts treating everyone like crap and making selfish choices. Games tend to punish you for neutrel/seemingly "inconsistant" behaviour, even when there are RP reasons for it. Even in DA2, there are going to be benefits for making your party members hate you, but not for keeping them are arm's length. Maybe my character is cold! Maybe he's shy!



I hope eventually RPGs get to a point where you can play any sort of person and the game will let you do it convincingly



... sorry, wandered off there.

[Sable Rhapsody]

captain.subtle wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Very true.  Most BioWare evil tends to be along the lines of Stupid Evil or Chaotic Stupid, though ME and DA have gotten marginally better about it.  But Obsidian...oh, Obsidian 

:D:D:D:D

But I respectfully disagree....

Respect?!  ON THE INTERWEBS?!  *brain explodes*

Fair enough.  Where would you disagree?  I'd say that for the Baldur's Gate and NWN games, your "evil" actions tend to be of the thuggish variety right up until the endgames, where you can indulge in some Magnificent Bastardry.  Same with KOTOR and JE.  In fact, it seems that the games are good about giving you decent evil ENDINGS, but pretty bland and thuggish evil RP options during the body of the campaign.

For ME, I felt Renegade was a bit simplistic in ME1, but better in ME2.  For example, the Renegade interrupt that lets you electrocute that batarian technician during Garrus's mission.  Sure, you're killing a guy in cold blood, but it's more important that you live and extract Garrus safely than it is that he lives.  And for DA:O, despite it having no morality meter, I felt there were pretty obvious "good" and "evil" choices for much of the game.

[Sable Rhapsody]

ReinaHW wrote...

After almost three decades of suffering male characters in games and the usual 'Me man thump chest, me man be hero!' stereotypes from developers, I've become pretty sick to death of them and yearn for more gender choice in games.

Having to also endure years of manly chest thumping throughout my childhood and well in my adult years hasn't helped in wanting to play as male characters anymore either.

Erm...female stereotypes aren't much better.  Selvaria, Tifa, Bayonetta, Lara Croft...in fact, I find horribly stereotypical female characters in video games as nauseating as horribly stereotypical male characters.  There's a couple of iterations: Boobs of Steel/Action Girl, Purity Sue, and Girl-who-exists-to-be-exploited.  And they're all Fetish Fuel.  BLEAAAAARGH 

[Dtelm]

captain.subtle wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Very true.  Most BioWare evil tends to be along the lines of Stupid Evil or Chaotic Stupid, though ME and DA have gotten marginally better about it.  But Obsidian...oh, Obsidian 

:D:D:D:D

But I respectfully disagree....

Dtelm wrote...
 Do I save the bus full of blind, starving, deaf dumb and crippled orphans? Or my companion?

IMHO

If its an OR its not a dilemma as you point out that the correct thing is clearly represented.

A true dilemma would be when you have to save One companion or the other....

Or a Bus full of Healthy children with future... (sorry, I do feel bad)....

Haha that was a bad example. I meant i want to see some dilemnias between consequentialism and deonism. I want to see some scenarios where doing the right thing could end diasastrously and a morally wrong thing could end well.

I want to be asked if the ends justify the means.

[Anarya]

Cyanide Disaster wrote...

Personally, I choose options that are closest to how I would react to a situation, at least the first play through. Which usually are the sarcastic vocal comments, the "Okay, I'll do the right thing, but I really don't want to" actions, and ya'know, "Romance: everyone I can. :3

This is pretty much how I play. It turns out to be mostly good. Maybe 15% renegade 85% paragon on the ME scale. And it turns out I am really, really bad at romancing since I manage to barely turn the romance on before the game ends.

This hits a little too close to home, actually. *sob*

[captain.subtle]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Respect?!  ON THE INTERWEBS?!  *brain explodes*

You are welcome.

Fair
enough.  Where would you disagree? 

JE: Evil == Way of the Closed fist... Tragically thuggified BUT justifiable.
NWN1/BG : Evil == lame, mostly agreeing with Grimgnaw in NWN . eeeech.
KOTOR 1/2 : Evil == Dark-side; Not very different from JE

Modifié par captain.subtle, 04 août 2010 - 10:06 .

[captain.subtle]

Dtelm wrote...


Haha that was a bad example. I meant i want to see some dilemnias between consequentialism and deonism. I want to see some scenarios where doing the right thing could end diasastrously and a morally wrong thing could end well.

I want to be asked if the ends justify the means.

Hmm..  This makes sense..

i would like to have serious reward against Good acts.

E.g.?

The Sword Yusaris against acting good. You would be forced to choose if you value morality over Prizes and ease of Game-play...

[mr. big-pants]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But if you die trying to save Redcliffe, the Blight overwhelms Ferelden.  That's not better.

Sten is right.  Saving Redcliffe is reckless and selfish.

Reckless, perhaps. But not necessarily selfish. The reputation of the Wardens is a component of power, and restoring it is something the Wardens need to do. Though with only two Wardens left this probably should be in the "Someday" file.

IMO, saving Redcliffe is not about the reputation of the Wardens in Ferelden. I couldnt stand seeing all those people die like that, knowing that I have the power to prevent it.

Regarding the subject of the thread, I really hope that the choices in DA2 wont be as simple as "good" or "evil". Its very shallow an unrealistic. I'd prefer issues in the "gray area", where theres is no absolute.
I can say, that DA:O did a very good job in the choices it offered you. If you think about it enough, there is no issue in DA:O that can be resolved by either being a    or a  :innocent:. Everything has its possitives and negatives.

[ReinaHW]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

ReinaHW wrote...

After almost three decades of suffering male characters in games and the usual 'Me man thump chest, me man be hero!' stereotypes from developers, I've become pretty sick to death of them and yearn for more gender choice in games.

Having to also endure years of manly chest thumping throughout my childhood and well in my adult years hasn't helped in wanting to play as male characters anymore either.

Erm...female stereotypes aren't much better.  Selvaria, Tifa, Bayonetta, Lara Croft...in fact, I find horribly stereotypical female characters in video games as nauseating as horribly stereotypical male characters.  There's a couple of iterations: Boobs of Steel/Action Girl, Purity Sue, and Girl-who-exists-to-be-exploited.  And they're all Fetish Fuel.  BLEAAAAARGH 

Aye, those kinds are bad as well.  Those who create such characters need a reality check, as well as those who demand such characters.

Prefer having the option to create my character, not hav ethem voiced, not have their personality already pre-determined and just develop the character as I play according to my own actions, which tends to work better for me if it's a female character instead of male.

The media and those who don't like real life though tend to love the stereotypes and expect everyone to be exactly like those stereotypes. 

[Sable Rhapsody]

captain.subtle wrote...

JE: Evil == Way of the Closed fist... Tragically thuggified BUT justifiable.
NWN1/BG : Evil == lame, mostly agreeing with Grimgnaw in NWN . eeeech.
KOTOR 1/2 : Evil == Dark-side; Not very different from JE

See, for me the Closed Fist felt more like the RP version of Informed Ability.  We were told that CF actions were justifiable and not straight-up evil.  We were TOLD that the morality had more subtlety than that.  But when it came to the actual in-game actions, Open Palm and Closed Fist were not terribly different from NWN/BG's black-and-white morality.  IMO, at least.

As for KOTOR1 and 2, I'd agree for KOTOR 2 but not for KOTOR1.  Partially because we had Kreia in KOTOR2 muddling about with our heads, but KOTOR1 felt like a pretty straightforward light/dark orthodox Star Wars dichotomy for me.  Except on Korriban where if you know you're Revan, you can play Mr. or Ms. Machiavelli with Uthar and his apprentice.  FUN TIEMZ.

Dtelm wrote...

Haha that was a bad example. I meant i want to see some dilemnias between consequentialism and deonism. I want to see some scenarios where doing the right thing could end diasastrously and a morally wrong thing could end well.

I want to be asked if the ends justify the means.

I engaged in a lot of this with my Paragade Shepard in ME.  The Rachni queen, Legion's sidequest, the missile sidequest, and especially Mordin's sidequest did a really good job of sticking consequentialist vs. deontological morality in your face, then not giving you a "correct" answer.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 04 août 2010 - 10:23 .

[sporky1]

In DAO, I made a good girl first, bad guy second. I'm going to switch it up this time and have a good guy, bad girl

[Kimarous]

Deviating away from the whole "Good vs Evil" issue, let's look at that passage again: "a kind ruler or an unscrupulous despot." That, to me, is not so much "good or evil" so much as "Harrowmont or Bhelen". Harrowmont may be more kind and fair, but nothing improves for the better in the long run because he cannot instill discipline. Bhelen gets things done regardless of who objects; he fixes Orzammar, even if the nobility hates him for it.

Even Awakening delves into this issue. The Warden becomes the Arl of Amaranthine, complete with the judicial responsibilities that come with it. Say you have a soldier who deserts her post to defend her family against marauding darkspawn. One might be kind and let her do so, but won't this send a message that deserting your post won't have any consequences? One might follow the law and execute her for her transgressions, but sympathizing commoners might rebel for such "cruelty".

It isn't "good or evil". It's "law or chaos". Good and evil will simply be in the eye of the beholder.

[captain.subtle]

Kimarous wrote...

Deviating away from the whole "Good vs Evil" issue, let's look at that passage again: "a kind ruler or an unscrupulous despot." That, to me, is not so much "good or evil" so much as "Harrowmont or Bhelen". Harrowmont may be more kind and fair, but nothing improves for the better in the long run because he cannot instill discipline. Bhelen gets things done regardless of who objects; he fixes Orzammar, even if the nobility hates him for it.

Even Awakening delves into this issue. The Warden becomes the Arl of Amaranthine, complete with the judicial responsibilities that come with it. Say you have a soldier who deserts her post to defend her family against marauding darkspawn. One might be kind and let her do so, but won't this send a message that deserting your post won't have any consequences? One might follow the law and execute her for her transgressions, but sympathizing commoners might rebel for such "cruelty".

It isn't "good or evil". It's "law or chaos". Good and evil will simply be in the eye of the beholder.

No! No!! NO!!!

Good and Bad are absolutes...!!
Its the consequential Good that is Not!

Harrowmont is good! Consequentially Bad,,,,
Bhelen is Bad... Consequentially good.. but Despotic! (which may be consequnetially bad again)...

Kindness != Stupidity ALWAYS.

Pardon for that soldier was good.

 If you help the dying broodmothers out of pity, THAT is stupidty. Perhaps choices don't only judge your Morality but ALSO your intelligence and Wisdom. I want THAT much Immersion...

[RosaAquafire]

captain.subtle wrote...

Good and Bad are absolutes...!!

Inherently flawed statement! There are a lot of choices where good and evil aren't absolutes, where there's no right answer. I'd like to see more of them in games, myself

[captain.subtle]

RosaAquafire wrote...

captain.subtle wrote...

Good and Bad are absolutes...!!

Inherently flawed statement! There are a lot of choices where good and evil aren't absolutes, where there's no right answer. I'd like to see more of them in games, myself

ummm... care to explain?

[Sable Rhapsody]

captain.subtle wrote...

No! No!! NO!!!

Good and Bad are absolutes...!!
Its the consequential Good that is Not!

Harrowmont is good! Consequentially Bad,,,,
Bhelen is Bad... Consequentially good.. but Despotic! (which may be consequnetially bad again)...

Kindness != Stupidity ALWAYS.

Pardon for that soldier was good.

 If you help the dying broodmothers out of pity, THAT is stupidty. Perhaps choices don't only judge your Morality but ALSO your intelligence and Wisdom. I want THAT much Immersion...

Well, it actually depends on the IP.  In Star Wars, canonically speaking, good is good and bad is bad.  None of this consequentialist nonsense, and if it does exist, it exists in the EU contrary to Word of God--though I prefer the more muddled morality myself.  In an IP like Dragon Age, we get a prime example of Good is Not Nice.  In Loghain, in some of the more questionable stuff the Warden can do, in the novels about Maric and Duncan, in the treatment of the Chantry, all sorts of things.

[Lord Gremlin]

Lintanis wrote...

 its great to have a choice though 

Of course! I always play as evil, but if you don't have good option how can you really be a dick? Good choices and options must be included, so I can deny them.

[mr. big-pants]

RosaAquafire wrote...

captain.subtle wrote...

Good and Bad are absolutes...!!

Inherently flawed statement! There are a lot of choices where good and evil aren't absolutes, where there's no right answer. I'd like to see more of them in games, myself

+1

I hope Bioware will read this reply.

[Kimarous]

EDIT: Never mind, misread the quote.

Modifié par Kimarous, 04 août 2010 - 10:43 .

[RosaAquafire]

captain.subtle wrote...

ummm... care to explain?

The "save an innocent child" or "save your wonderful, kind best friend" example is a good one. No right answer there. You could argue that the child has more years and thus is a more moral choice, but you could also argue that the child could grow up to be a douchebag while your friend has already proven their worth to society.

There's also the emotional baggage of the death of a complete innocent versus the death of someone you care deeply for personally. That one is less of an absolute, but just as loaded, especially if they make that kid sad and pathetic and loveable enough.

That's a choice with no right answer, and I'd like to see more choices like that

For an example of one in game, the Redcliffe choice without that STUPID third "everybody lives" option that makes me so angry that it even exists. The choice between Connor's dying and Isolde dying for him is an amazingly weighted one. Connor isn't responsible for his actions, but he's still done terrible things and there's no guarantee he won't again. Meanwhile, Isolde is ultimately the one responsible for what happened, but her only sin was loving her son too much and being instantly willing to die for him makes her death tough to handle, especially when she didn't REALLY do anything wrong, either.

That choice would have been so awesome if not for the damn third option. Sigh.

[Malanek]

captain.subtle wrote...

RosaAquafire wrote...

captain.subtle wrote...

Good and Bad are absolutes...!!

Inherently flawed statement! There are a lot of choices where good and evil aren't absolutes, where there's no right answer. I'd like to see more of them in games, myself

ummm... care to explain?

When you talked about consequentially good and bad, you can't be certain of the consequences because you have imperfect information. You have to figure out what is right and take your best guess.

[Dtelm]

Kimarous wrote...
Deviating away from the whole "Good vs Evil" issue, let's look at that passage again: "a kind ruler or an unscrupulous despot." That, to me, is not so much "good or evil" so much as "Harrowmont or Bhelen". Harrowmont may be more kind and fair, but nothing improves for the better in the long run because he cannot instill discipline. Bhelen gets things done regardless of who objects; he fixes Orzammar, even if the nobility hates him for it.

Thats a little different. Bhelen is moraly gray and power hungry at best, a bad dude at worst, but a good leader and free thinker. Harrowmont is good intentioned, but he is a ****ty ruler, a damn isolantionalist. You could argue harrowmont is just as evil though. Is not the caste system an evil of its own? Something bhelen does away with?

[captain.subtle]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Well, it actually depends on the IP.  In Star Wars, canonically speaking, good is good and bad is bad.  None of this consequentialist nonsense, and if it does exist, it exists in the EU contrary to Word of God--though I prefer the more muddled morality myself.  In an IP like Dragon Age, we get a prime example of Good is Not Nice.  In Loghain, in some of the more questionable stuff the Warden can do, in the novels about Maric and Duncan, in the treatment of the Chantry, all sorts of things.

Right.

I would like to point out that Morality is defined (objectively) by history, fixing standards for good and bad. Subjectiviy muddles the view. Of course morality changes with time, but at that time good and bad shifts objectively too...

They are objective all the time.

And I mean the current Good and the Current Bad. Consequential Good and Bad are difficult to predict/understand/ feel in the heat of emotions...

Malanek999 wrote...

When
you talked about consequentially good and bad, you can't be certain of
the consequences because you have imperfect information. You have to
figure out what is right and take your best guess.

In fact I agree with that. I am just saying that the present good or bad (under given info) is an absolute. The future may hold different results.

Modifié par captain.subtle, 04 août 2010 - 10:47 .