225 réponses à ce sujet

[AllThatJazz]

While I play 'good' characters for a first playthrough, my favourite characters usually end up being the pragmatists. I feel more at liberty to do anything I want, as long as I can justify its practicality. My Paragade FemShep absolutely rules.

[Lintanis]

 What will be interesting is the choices we make will have a more immediate effect rather then having to wait for the Epilogue 

[Furevu]

As others have pointed out, the absence of a morality meter offers a great amount of opportunity for this game to shine in morality matters. There will be no, or rather should not be, I think, definable 'good' or 'evil' ways to play through a game. Morality meters, and clearly defined morality at that, is a simplistic defect far too many games wish to cling to.

Take Mass Effect for example. You don't define your own morality. The game defines for you what is right and wrong. It has to, because you need to know whether what you will do will further you on a paragon or renegade scale. Therefore, every action you perform is obvious, and the game even shows you by clearly offering you an evil, red text option, and a blue, good text option. Essentially, the artificial morality god of the game defines what is morally correct or depraved, and thus decided for you how you should act depending on what kind of character you wish to play. All philosophy and all personal points of view are thrown out of the window in favor of a simplistic points system. You disable ambiguity, you can't offer unforeseen consequences, and you really can't fill the world with interesting ambiguous characters because any interaction with them will be impossible to rate on a good/evil scale.

DA:O did this right with switching to character relationships. Rather than having your choices affect a morality meter, it is your companions that respond to your actions depending on their own points of view, their own believes. Yet, what DA:O did not do far enough is to flesh out the world accordingly. Your main interactions are with your companions. Interaction with the world did, of course, carry moral choices and consequences, but only on a very short temporal scale.

Let me clarify a bit further. I'm not stating that DA:O was shallow in its use of morality; there were some wonderful moments, especially, for example, the entire mage circle quest line. But on the whole, especially in the main quest, the game didn't strike the gray part enough, simply because it still clung to the age-old idea of wanting to offer a prime evil, and in the end it just didn't make enough use of the opportunities that become available once you remove morality meters.

For example, the whole thing with Loghain betraying the king and going to great lengths, and using any possible means, to fight the darkspawn. In the end, although he was portrayed as somewhat morally gray, using debatable means to a good end, this entire line of behavior was not fleshed out at all and, to any reasonable person, must seem rather incoherent. Rather than betray your own forces ad hoc, it would've been far more interesting to see the king actually fail horrible at leading his troops, constantly insisting on unnecessary heroics, wasting manpower and resources. Suddenly, to betray your own king seems vastly more reasonable. Furthermore, why not have Loghain actually succeed to some degree in fighting the darkspawn? It is somewhat disappointing to, in the end, notice that all of Loghain's machinations served no purpose at all, and did absolutely nothing in the battle against the darkspawn. Rather than making Loghain appear, or seem to be, to a degree, allowably evil, using debatable means successfully, in the end he serves no purpose to the game but be an evil character.

If you don't stick to a morality meter, try and actually get rid of the old evil and good dichotomy in your main quest and story as well. I would love to see people end up discussing why they thought what they did was the right thing to do according to what they themselves thought. Too many quests still end with a rather easily defined good or evil result, without actually giving credence to either choice. Rather than not support any choice the player makes, support all choices, but merely differentiate the characters that support you in your actions. DA:O already went pretty far with this idea, but I think there’s still a lot of opportunities left to explore.

And now I need to do some shopping.

Modifié par Furevu, 05 août 2010 - 11:32 .

[zazei]

I don't know why but evil even when it makes me eyesroll and make me sigh at how silly some options that I really can't find any justification for are always my first choice in all games. I can't play the good path before I gone down the evil one. In most cases though if both stories are well told I enjoy the good path more.



What I really enjoy most though is a mix of both and to play something like Mass effect for example while being a generally paragon character that has a half bar of renegade as well for all those choices when it's between being very overly generous or just saying no. I have trouble sparing bad guys that tried to trick me even if they surrender in the end. ^^

[Lintanis]

 Just hope there will be more decisions that  make you think  more 

[GodWood]

My main Warden did things that he felt were in his best interests but also were the most logical thing to do to stay alive andstop the blight (eg, he'd cure the werewolves but he'd rather kill Leliana and side with the Dragon Cult rather than fight a high dragon which is much more likely to kill him which would result in the death of the last of the Grey Wardens and thus the fall of Fereldan)

So at the end of the day he could be seen as something of a chaotic good character (or perhaps lawful evil depending how you interpret his actions)



Keeping that in mind my Hawke will probably be a more moral character (you can't roleplay 2 different characters in the same universe the exact same way, thats boring)

[Schuback]

Machiavelli: Better to be feared than loved. Bad but not evil.

Modifié par Schuback, 05 août 2010 - 02:55 .

[Lintanis]

Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed! 

King Arthur: Bloody peasant! 

Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you? 

Change King Arthur to Hawke and it could be a line in the game 

[In Exile]

The thing is, the value in being a proper Grey Warden is effectively zero until the endgame. Detecting darkspawn and being immune to the taint seem to be plusses, but the majority of the armies in the game have neither talent handy and do just fine, and you're expected to produce an army that is made up exclusively of people who do not have this talent.

When you talk to Flemeth, she says your power in stopping the blight relates to what you represent (i.e. the Grey Wardens). The issue with that is that there is no Warden authenticity test. Anyone who looks midly capable as a soldier or mage can go around, claim to be a Warden, and with the treaties in hand raise an army to fight the Blight.

Quite honestly, prior to learning that your existence is needed to kill the archdemon, quite literally anyone willing to call themselves a Warden and collect an army and look plausible doing it is a fine replacement for you. So the inherent value in being the last Grey Warden in Ferelden is effectively zero. Which is why your particular life has no value insofar as someone in your party plausibly can take up your mantle. Even someone outside your party could do the same.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Schuback wrote...

Machiavelli: Better to be feared than loved. Bad but not evil.

Well, not necessarily.  Machiavelli had much more nuance than that, though much of it's forgotten in favor of a catchphrase.  He believed it was best to be both feared and loved, and he actually wrote much more on republics than he did on principalities.

I personally lean toward fairly pragmatic characters, regardless if I play good or evil.  It's just a thing where I don't like having the Idiot Ball glued to my character's face.

[DarthValo81]

Usually play good because it is easy to miss a good chunk of content by playing evil. I do always do one evil playthrough though because it's good fun.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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.

We have no reason to expect an army from Redcliffe.  We have no treaty for Fereldan soliders.

Your reasoning works with the mages, because we can reasonably expect aid from them if they are saved.  Your argument works with the dwarves, because we can reasonably expect aid from them if they are helped.  Your argument works with the elves, because we can reasonably expect aid from them if they are protected.

But that isn't true in Redcliffe.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...
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.

We have no reason to expect an army from Redcliffe.  We have no treaty for Fereldan soliders.

Your reasoning works with the mages, because we can reasonably expect aid from them if they are saved.  Your argument works with the dwarves, because we can reasonably expect aid from them if they are helped.  Your argument works with the elves, because we can reasonably expect aid from them if they are protected.

But that isn't true in Redcliffe.

Of course, you can make the argument that you can't reasonably expect any help from Eamon if you allow his people to be wiped out.  That was often one of the guiding thoughts of my Wardens who saved Redcliffe.  You could of course argue that if the town is wiped out, no one would know that you failed to help them, but you can't just assume that no one saw you go in, then leave without making any effort to help.

Heck, I'd expect Eamon to side with Loghain against the Wardens if you allow Redcliffe to be destroyed.  Even if you did talk to Berwick/Jowan and get their evidence, Eamon could easily argue that you're lying about Berwick (who's now dead) and that Jowan is testifying against Loghain merely because you told him to, or you'd leave him to die in the dungeons.

Now, if you don't really care about getting Eamon's support, I suppose you could leave the town to die, but I don't know that you can reasonably hope to succeed without Eamon's support against Loghain.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
We have no reason to expect an army from Redcliffe.  We have no treaty for Fereldan soliders.

Eamon already committed to fighting the blight. As you can see in the opening cinematic at Ostagar, Eamon had prepared to raise an army and sent it to Ostagar if Cailin merely waited.

Your reasoning works with the mages, because we can reasonably expect aid from them if they are saved.  Your argument works with the dwarves, because we can reasonably expect aid from them if they are helped.  Your argument works with the elves, because we can reasonably expect aid from them if they are protected.

But that isn't true in Redcliffe.

I'm sorry, but your entire argument is based on the expectation that any party bound by a 500 year old treaty will care about the treaty and believe you about the blight. Neither of which are any more unwarranted than assuming that Eamon will continue to believe the blight is a threat as a he demonstrably did at the start of the game at Ostagar.

The treaty is not magic. It has no more force than people are willing to grant it, which is to say that it depens on whether or not they will believe a) you are a Warden there is a Blight and c) that they are threatened by it. All of which, if Eamon were to believe, would be enough to sent you aid treaty nonwithstanding.

In fact, Loghain himself would probably do the same. His entire motivation is that he does not believe that it is a Blight, due to his almost paranoid fear of Orlais.

Modifié par In Exile, 05 août 2010 - 09:10 .

[Lintanis]

Loghain does recognise that help is needed against the Darkspawn even if he doesnt think it is a blight, because one of his lackeys is trying to get in to see the dwarves when you go knocking.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Of course, you can make the argument that you can't reasonably expect any help from Eamon if you allow his people to be wiped out.

Sure, but getting help from Eamon won't matter if I'm dead.

Now, if you don't really care about getting Eamon's support, I suppose you could leave the town to die, but I don't know that you can reasonably hope to succeed without Eamon's support against Loghain.

Loghain's not really my problem, is he?  I'm worried about the Blight, not internal Fereldan politics.

And if I'm making the Redcliffe decision early in the game (as the game seems to want you to, suggesting that you visit Redcliffe immediately after Lothering), would you have any reason to think Loghain's going to be a major problem?

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Eamon already committed to fighting the blight. As you can see in the opening cinematic at Ostagar, Eamon had prepared to raise an army and sent it to Ostagar if Cailin merely waited.

But was he doing that because he feared a Blight, or was he doing it because his King asked him to, or was he doing it because he considered Cailan a friend?

We don't know these things.  We can't intuit motive - especially not for people we don't even know.

I'm sorry, but your entire argument is based on the expectation that any party bound by a 500 year old treaty will care about the treaty and believe you about the blight. Neither of which are any more unwarranted than assuming that Eamon will continue to believe the blight is a threat as a he demonstrably did at the start of the game at Ostagar.

Everything I know about the Wardens I learned from Duncan.  Duncan told me the treaties were important.

The treaty is not magic. It has no more force than people are willing to grant it, which is to say that it depens on whether or not they will believe a) you are a Warden there is a Blight and c) that they are threatened by it. All of which, if Eamon were to believe, would be enough to sent you aid treaty nonwithstanding.

Why would we think that of Eamon?  We don't know Eamon at all.

In fact, Loghain himself would probably do the same. His entire motivation is that he does not believe that it is a Blight, due to his almost paranoid fear of Orlais.

We don't really know Loghain, either (though we arguably know him better than we know Eamon, having actually met him).

Remember that we don't even witness Loghain quitting the field at Ostagar.  We only hear about that from Morrigan and Flemeth, two people we have little reason to trust.

[Blessed Silence]

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.

Taking my playthrough from ME ...

I started with vanilla male Shepard and ran it through Paragon.

Then I made a female Shepard as a Paragon.

Now I made a male Shepard again and running it through Renegade.

There is quite a difference.

I find having the extra visual and voice cues really help to know how "good" or "evil" Shepard was.  Because nothing is more awesome than punching somone out or throwing them against the wall when I don't feel like negotiating.

[Malanek]

Furevu wrote...
Let me clarify a bit further. I'm not stating that DA:O was shallow in its use of morality; there were some wonderful moments, especially, for example, the entire mage circle quest line. But on the whole, especially in the main quest, the game didn't strike the gray part enough, simply because it still clung to the age-old idea of wanting to offer a prime evil, and in the end it just didn't make enough use of the opportunities that become available once you remove morality meters.

For example, the whole thing with Loghain betraying the king and going to great lengths, and using any possible means, to fight the darkspawn. In the end, although he was portrayed as somewhat morally gray, using debatable means to a good end, this entire line of behavior was not fleshed out at all and, to any reasonable person, must seem rather incoherent. Rather than betray your own forces ad hoc, it would've been far more interesting to see the king actually fail horrible at leading his troops, constantly insisting on unnecessary heroics, wasting manpower and resources. Suddenly, to betray your own king seems vastly more reasonable. Furthermore, why not have Loghain actually succeed to some degree in fighting the darkspawn? It is somewhat disappointing to, in the end, notice that all of Loghain's machinations served no purpose at all, and did absolutely nothing in the battle against the darkspawn. Rather than making Loghain appear, or seem to be, to a degree, allowably evil, using debatable means successfully, in the end he serves no purpose to the game but be an evil character.

I agree, good post.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But was he doing that because he feared a Blight, or was he doing it because his King asked him to, or was he doing it because he considered Cailan a friend?

We don't know these things.  We can't intuit motive - especially not for people we don't even know.

Of course we can. This is how reality works. Reasonable extrapolation from limited information.

That aside, we have no idea how dwarves, elves, and mages will see 500 year old treates brought on by an alleged Grey Warden who is an accused traitor by the crown.

If we are going to take the route that we can only act on what we know is certain, then the treaties have absolutely no value above and beyond any kind of personal conjecture about Eamon.

Everything I know about the Wardens I learned from Duncan.  Duncan told me the treaties were important.

And Alistair tells you Eamon is a good man who will stand against Loghain and the Blight. Why is Duncan's legal expertiese worth any more than Alistair's character evaluation?

Believing that Duncan is any kind of absolue arbiter on treaties is as absurd as believing that any one person is an absolute perfect judge of character.

Why would we think that of Eamon?  We don't know Eamon at all.

There is no reason to think this of Eamon at all. I am simply outlining what someone would have to believe to be compelled by the treaty - trust that the Warden is a Grey Warden, trust that there is a darkspawn incursion, trust that the Blight is, in fact, a Blight and a desire to act if it is the case that there is a blight. Insofar as Eamon could believe these things, there is no difference between Eamon and a mage, dwarf or elf representative.

The only claim you can make is that the treaty has a special power above and beyond this, but there is no reason to believe it.

[Wedger]

Machiavelli was a satirist. I think he would heartily laugh if he knew how we used his name. And roll his pretty eyes.



Anyway, I'll play good first play though. It is more my style. And I can sleep at night after, which is nice.



Why is it folks post asking for help on how to play evil, but few post for thoughts on how to play good? Is it just a natural state of mind? Or do we enjoy posting about evil things more? The world may never know.

[Dtelm]

Who posts for help on how to play evil? I should think its pretty basic. You do bad stuff.



Anyway. I gotta agree with inexile on most points. Even if you dont know, and dont assume that eamon will help you.... its a little counterproductive to assume an attititude of "Well. I'm not positive how this will turn out, I cant say for sure it will help my cause, so I'ma just screw it"



Rarely are you going to be able to know excatly how a course of action will affect your cause. The idea is that you take positive action towards your goal. Alot of things are going to be uncertain, and proceeding with the limitied perspective of only dealing in absolutes and what you know for a certainity is just foolhardy.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
Of course, you can make the argument that you can't reasonably expect any help from Eamon if you allow his people to be wiped out.

Sure, but getting help from Eamon won't matter if I'm dead.

True, but Eamon's help seems fairly important in getting the support of Ferelden, and the more forces you can bring to bear against the darkspawn, the better.  I consider it a calculated risk.

Now, if you don't really care about getting Eamon's support, I suppose you could leave the town to die, but I don't know that you can reasonably hope to succeed without Eamon's support against Loghain.

Loghain's not really my problem, is he?  I'm worried about the Blight, not internal Fereldan politics.

And if I'm making the Redcliffe decision early in the game (as the game seems to want you to, suggesting that you visit Redcliffe immediately after Lothering), would you have any reason to think Loghain's going to be a major problem?

Well, I'll admit I tend to do Recliffe late (mostly based on the reasoning that Loghain is less likely to know or care what I'm up to if it doesn't involve the Ferelden people/nobility.)  Still, it's obvious from interacting with Loghain at Ostagar that he has an antagonistic relationship towards the Grey Wardens, so getting some part of Ferelden's ruling class on your side seems like a reasonable desire.

[saMoorai]

i usually play as a morally good character so i will be Good when i play the game