225 réponses à ce sujet

[Sable Rhapsody]

RosaAquafire wrote...

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.

I kind of liked ME2 for the lack of third options in certain decisions.  I'm mixed on third options.  Sometimes when there's an obvious third option and I can't take it, I want to howl.  But ME2 did a pretty good job of there being no obvious third options in some of the more morally questionable decisions.  Mordin's sidequest was a good one: what do you do with his student's research?  The data was acquired with horrible methods, and the kid betrayed his mentor and his training.  On the other hand, it could be put to use in curing the genophage.  And what about the genophage itself?  Was there really no other option; do you trust Mordin's science?  No particularly right answer.

[captain.subtle]

Dtelm wrote...

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?

Opinion poll: Do you think Qunari are good or Evil.  Please answer.

[Malanek]

captain.subtle wrote...
Opinion poll: Do you think Qunari are good or Evil.  Please answer.

Both. Just like humans.

[Vandrayke]

Saibh wrote...

I can't stand the guilt of playing an evil character that's female. I have to wait to play a male character first (which is usually, like, four playthroughs down the line) to make him evil to see what it's like. And only then can I tolerate making an evil girl.

Lol that's funny.  I usually do one playthough as a good male and one playthrough as an unscrupulous female.  

[RosaAquafire]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

I kind of liked ME2 for the lack of third options in certain decisions.  I'm mixed on third options.  Sometimes when there's an obvious third option and I can't take it, I want to howl.  But ME2 did a pretty good job of there being no obvious third options in some of the more morally questionable decisions.  Mordin's sidequest was a good one: what do you do with his student's research?  The data was acquired with horrible methods, and the kid betrayed his mentor and his training.  On the other hand, it could be put to use in curing the genophage.  And what about the genophage itself?  Was there really no other option; do you trust Mordin's science?  No particularly right answer.

I would have liked the Circle of the Magi choice being there, and then you get back to Redcliffe and the entire place is levelled except Eamon and Teagan who got out in time so the plot can continue. Take that, happy-go-lucky third option >!

[Lord Gremlin]

Saibh wrote...

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.

Also, there's a pretty obvious motive here: you NEED to make Arl Eamon assist you. "I've saved YOUR whole ****ing village" is a good argument in that debate.

[RosaAquafire]

captain.subtle wrote...

Opinion poll: Do you think Qunari are good or Evil.  Please answer.

The idea of an entire species being either good or evil is hilarious.

Hey bro do you think that humans are good or evil?

[Lord Gremlin]

RosaAquafire wrote...

captain.subtle wrote...

Opinion poll: Do you think Qunari are good or Evil.  Please answer.

The idea of an entire species being either good or evil is hilarious.

Hey bro do you think that humans are good or evil?

Only one thing is certain: qunari are awesome. And they don't even need beards to be extremely manly.

Humans are weak and feeble. Therefore, they lean towards evil.

[captain.subtle]

@RosaAquafire

Dtelm wrote...

"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?"

The question was in response to this.

I have no opinions worth presenting in regard to Qunari on this thread. There is another elsewhere.

Modifié par captain.subtle, 04 août 2010 - 11:03 .

[RosaAquafire]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Also, there's a pretty obvious
motive here: you NEED to make Arl Eamon assist you. "I've saved YOUR
whole ****ing village" is a good argument in that debate.

Okay,
okay, fair enough, you actually have a pretty good point there. How about this, Redcliffe can still be standing and mostly happy, but at least have
Connor have gone off his face and killed Isolde and Teagan while we were
faffing about at the Circle Tower for a month. None of this "literally no negative effects for taking this huge, stupid risk in an attempt to make everybody happy" tomfoolery!

I should make a mod for this. Too bad I'm stupid and lazy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

"Failure" is a bad thing to have in your reputation.

captain.subtle wrote...

Sten can be a Short-sighted idiot, even being ultra-cool in general.

Getting a forward-thinking head-start on rebuilding the Wardens won't matter if everyone is dead.

Saibh wrote...

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

One night that could kill you, thus handing victory to the darkspawn.

mr. big-pants wrote...

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.

And that's the selfish angle.  You're not saving Redcliffe because it's important.  You're saving Redcliffe to assuage your own guilt.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 août 2010 - 11:39 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

"Failure" is a bad thing to have in your reputation.

captain.subtle wrote...

Sten can be a Short-sighted idiot, even being ultra-cool in general.

Getting a forward-thinking head-start on rebuilding the Wardens won't matter if everyone is dead.

Saibh wrote...

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

One night that could kill you, thus handing victory to the darkspawn.

mr. big-pants wrote...

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.

And that's the selfish angle.  You're not saving Redcliffe because it's important.  You're saving Redcliffe to assuage your own guilt.

Or you could take into account every individual Warden's thought process.  My Warden was confident in her ability to kill ass-loads of zombies and thought it would be a great way to hold something over a noble whom she wasn't sure was going to help.  Another Warden might have done it out of compassion.

Oh, and as for Sten?  Yeah, he's win.  But he also makes mistakes.  Killing an entire family out of fear, challenging the Warden at Haven when you ABSOLUTELY NEED those Ashes for the Landsmeet, things like that.  Sten is awesome and strong and badass, but one thing he is not is subtle.  When the situation calls for subtler thought, I would not default to Sten.

Redcliffe is a calculated risk.  As is the Circle Tower, as are Orzammar and the Brecilian Forest.  Any one of those major plot quests could kill you.  The Circle Tower can kill you just as easily no matter who you side with.  And your Warden didn't know that the zombies would just kill everyone in Redcliffe and then hole up in the castle.  For all you knew, they could have just swarmed the entire town Left 4 Dead style, and then you'd never be able to get to Arl Eamon at all.  Calculated risk: one that my mage Warden took and my dwarf Warden didn't.

[In Exile]

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.

But if Redcliffe is overwhelemed, there may not be an army to levy to raise to stop the Blight. So it's not entirely clear what the issue is, and what saving the town will do.

[RevengeofNewton]

I generally play my first good, my second evil, and my third neutral.

[Jonathan Seagull]

I pretty much always play a good guy on my first playthrough. Then bad on the second. My first Warden was the noble, caring type; my second one was more self-interested. Although an interesting thing happened, which was that my concept of my second Warden softened a bit during the game, to the point where I started to wonder if one or two of her earlier, more villainous actions were out of character. Further, in at least one situation my second, colder Warden wound up being more capable. (Next, however, I plan to play an as-evil-as-possible Warden)

Anyway, I was actually considering playing bad first on DA2, but then I realized something: I tend to think of my first character as my own "personal canon" character. In other words, I generally think of my first Warden as my "real" Warden -- it's his choices I'll be importing into the sequel, at least to start -- and subsequent ones more as Alt-Universe possibilities. So there's a good chance I'll go ahead and try for good first on DA2, even though it would be interesting to go with bad, which I don't think I've ever done.

Side note: Arcanum also lets you do some awesomely evil things, both in the story and through (perhaps unforeseen) gameplay mechanics.

Modifié par Jonathan Seagull, 05 août 2010 - 05:18 .

[elvenXasari]

i usually play as a grey/neutral character...in real life im a huge collection of contradictions...and my characters reflect in myslf..sumtimes i seem like a saint,othr times a demon...and most of the time a moderate/neutral tone 2 my actions

[Lintanis]

 How many people doing a "good" run will be tempted by a few of the dark side choices ;)

[Dave of Canada]

I will pillage, maim and burn everything in my way and then save some kitten from a tree... ... before slicing it's neck.



Na, just kidding. I'd just throw it in a fire.

[Dave of Canada]

Lintanis wrote...

 How many people doing a "good" run will be tempted by a few of the dark side choices ;)

Depends entirely on the situation, to be honest. For example, if this one guy stabs me in the back and then begs for mercy - I won't give him the mercy he desires, he wouldn't do the same to me if I were in his position. In Mass Effect, I still can't simply go "Alrighty then." when Udina betrays me to the Council - I always threaten him.

[BallaZs]

Every decison of mine depends on the circumstances, even if it's evil, I'll decide the way which I consider right.

For example: I killed Brother Genetivi when he wanted to tell the others about the Sacred Ashes. I think I made the right thing with that.

I'm showing no mercy for those who have tried to kill me though.

I don't know if that makes me more aggressive, that's my mentality

[Tony.R]

i would sorta be neutral if i had choice or cunning... u can say...Robin Hoodish"....like for example i'd be "reasonable..friendly"..in a conversation....and if you're a dousche bag or i simply feel like it when you turn around rob the **** out of you if im found out knock u the **** out and run like hell unless im threatened called names or forced to ...u know ...kill you....XD....!!!!

[elearon1]

I always play characters of all three sorts - evil, neutral, good - though the order tends to depend upon the character concept I have in my head. While most people fall in the middle, and I have a character type I tend to play that route, playing the extremes can be fun if they alter the story and npc reactions enough.