225 réponses à ce sujet

[Insanehitman]

Chaotic Neutral.That is,do whatever you want.I really don't care how i turn out to be since in recent games i have played i choose the decision that gets me the most money.It was a bit different with DAO though since i acted according to Morrigan's "survival of the fittest" thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wedger wrote...

Machiavelli was a satirist.

His opinion of the truth value of his words has no bearing on the truth value of his words.

[Tony.R]

for me dragon age origins was more like BAD VS EVIL..... of course me being bad.... XD......like Riddick

[Dave of Canada]

Tony.R wrote...

for me dragon age origins was more like BAD VS EVIL..... of course me being bad.... XD......like Riddick

Depends entirely on who you deem the villain, Loghain or the Archdemon?

[Blastback]

I'm almost cliniccaly unable to play a character that isn't good, in any game. Every time I try, I end up guilt tripping myself until I either just stop or remake the charater good. Only time I ever even managed to play a neutral character in a tabletop was when I started channeling Deadpool.



Don't know what that says about me...

[Kalgaleth]

I always play a mixed neutral, the goal is everything, weighing stopping the Blight, vs. some party members personal issues the Blight always takes precedence, same with magical weapons and talents necessary to gain power.

Ex: I killed the possessed kid, because I had no way of knowing he wouldn't just destroy the entire town once I'd left. It's not something I enjoyed, but it was a realistic decision.

The ends justify the means.

Modifié par Kalgaleth, 06 août 2010 - 07:41 .

[Anarya]

Blastback wrote...

I'm almost cliniccaly unable to play a character that isn't good, in any game. Every time I try, I end up guilt tripping myself until I either just stop or remake the charater good. Only time I ever even managed to play a neutral character in a tabletop was when I started channeling Deadpool.

Don't know what that says about me...

I'm pretty much the same way. I feel guilty being mean to imaginary people. I am a giant wuss, it's true.

Although I sometimes will take the evil route just to see what happens and then immediately reload, but I was always one of those kids who would cheat and look at all the endings of a choose your own adventure book.

One thing I could never bring myself to do on any playthrough though is to refuse to put the lifegem on the altar. That is such a gratuitously cruel thing.

[Anarya]

Kalgaleth wrote...

Ex: I killed the possessed kid, because I had no way of knowing he wouldn't just destroy the entire town once I'd left. It's not something I enjoyed, but it was a realistic decision.

The ends justify the means.

I sacrificed Isolde the first time through. I think it's a morally sound decision if you can't be sure the demon won't rampage while you're gone. There should have been a consequence to that third option.

[Dave of Canada]

Anarya wrote...

Blastback wrote...

I'm almost cliniccaly unable to play a character that isn't good, in any game. Every time I try, I end up guilt tripping myself until I either just stop or remake the charater good. Only time I ever even managed to play a neutral character in a tabletop was when I started channeling Deadpool.

Don't know what that says about me...

I'm pretty much the same way. I feel guilty being mean to imaginary people. I am a giant wuss, it's true.

Although I sometimes will take the evil route just to see what happens and then immediately reload, but I was always one of those kids who would cheat and look at all the endings of a choose your own adventure book.

One thing I could never bring myself to do on any playthrough though is to refuse to put the lifegem on the altar. That is such a gratuitously cruel thing.

I've always been a morally good person in games but I'm growing more and more evil if I don't reason it as being evil.

It sucks but game mechanics aside, this is what goes through my head: "Werewolves are stronger than elves, why would I want the elves if it means losing to the blight?"

[Anarya]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I've always been a morally good person in games but I'm growing more and more evil if I don't reason it as being evil.

It sucks but game mechanics aside, this is what goes through my head: "Werewolves are stronger than elves, why would I want the elves if it means losing to the blight?"

Well it all comes down to cost/benefit or risk/reward and how you weigh each of those things. To me, the small advantage you would gain with the werewolves or the golems is not worth the cost of what you have to do to get them. But you could just as easily say that any advantage however small is worth it to kill the AD. There's not really a right answer.

[Dave of Canada]

Anarya wrote...

Well it all comes down to cost/benefit or risk/reward and how you weigh each of those things. To me, the small advantage you would gain with the werewolves or the golems is not worth the cost of what you have to do to get them. But you could just as easily say that any advantage however small is worth it to kill the AD. There's not really a right answer.

Yeah, that was a poor example. I've just been doing a lot of "evil" choices in games recently, having done two Renegade playthroughs in Mass Effect 2 and picking the "evil" options in Starcraft 2.

[Blastback]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Anarya wrote...

Blastback wrote...

I'm almost cliniccaly unable to play a character that isn't good, in any game. Every time I try, I end up guilt tripping myself until I either just stop or remake the charater good. Only time I ever even managed to play a neutral character in a tabletop was when I started channeling Deadpool.

Don't know what that says about me...

I'm pretty much the same way. I feel guilty being mean to imaginary people. I am a giant wuss, it's true.

Although I sometimes will take the evil route just to see what happens and then immediately reload, but I was always one of those kids who would cheat and look at all the endings of a choose your own adventure book.

One thing I could never bring myself to do on any playthrough though is to refuse to put the lifegem on the altar. That is such a gratuitously cruel thing.

I've always been a morally good person in games but I'm growing more and more evil if I don't reason it as being evil.

It sucks but game mechanics aside, this is what goes through my head: "Werewolves are stronger than elves, why would I want the elves if it means losing to the blight?"

I can't even do it that way.  My concious just gets the better of me each and every time.  Then again, I think that part of the reason that I'm drawn to escapist fantasy is that it allows for the forces of good to always triumph over evil without being corrupted in any way, or crousing any lines.  Real life has to much of that, it's nice to escape to a more idealistic sort of existance.

[Saibh]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Anarya wrote...

Blastback wrote...

I'm almost cliniccaly unable to play a character that isn't good, in any game. Every time I try, I end up guilt tripping myself until I either just stop or remake the charater good. Only time I ever even managed to play a neutral character in a tabletop was when I started channeling Deadpool.

Don't know what that says about me...

I'm pretty much the same way. I feel guilty being mean to imaginary people. I am a giant wuss, it's true.

Although I sometimes will take the evil route just to see what happens and then immediately reload, but I was always one of those kids who would cheat and look at all the endings of a choose your own adventure book.

One thing I could never bring myself to do on any playthrough though is to refuse to put the lifegem on the altar. That is such a gratuitously cruel thing.

I've always been a morally good person in games but I'm growing more and more evil if I don't reason it as being evil.

It sucks but game mechanics aside, this is what goes through my head: "Werewolves are stronger than elves, why would I want the elves if it means losing to the blight?"

No, not that can of worms! Must...resis--

Alright, you know what? Putting metagaming aside, what a completely idiotic choice killing the elves is. You just ran through the Werewolf Lair and murdered the whole lot of them. None of them proved, even in numbers, to be much of a challenge to you. You can be pretty positive that you just killed a large chunk of the army you want to have.

To make more werewolves, first they must hunt down a victim, attack them in a successful manner that turns them into werewolves, hope they survive the process, then hope that they are capable of retaining their minds with the Lady's help, and then hope that they're not completely bitter about being turned into a freaking werewolf. And then hope that they're willing to help you out in your whole defeat the Blight thing, rather than run off screaming.

And, of course, once the Blight is defeated, you have a bunch of goddamned werewolves running around infecting more people and spreading the lycanthrope plague. Yay! Oh, and if the Dalish ever catch wind of what you did to them, I'm sure that will help political relations.

There is no reason to side with the werewolves and kill the elves. It is Stupid Evil, the very definition of it.

Modifié par Saibh, 06 août 2010 - 08:04 .

[Dave of Canada]

Saibh wrote...

No, not that can of worms! Must...resis--

Alright, you know what? Putting metagaming aside, what a completely idiotic choice killing the elves is. You just ran through the Werewolf Lair and murdered the whole lot of them. None of them proved, even in numbers, to be much of a challenge to you. You can be pretty positive that you just killed a large chunk of the army you want to have.

You aren't a normal person, though. Depending on when you're doing the forest, you've probably slain bajillions of Darkspawn / cleaned out the Mage Tower of Abominations / freed Redcliffe from the zombie horde. The werewolves were extremely powerful in their  time and were a major enough threat that people needed to unite to put them down. While you're slaughtering them, there's probably still a lot more than that (you're never really given a real estimate of their numbers but the assault on the elven camp still show them to be pretty numerous)

To make more werewolves, first they must hunt down a victim, attack them in a successful manner that turns them into werewolves, hope they survive the process, then hope that they are capable of retaining their minds with the Lady's help, and then hope that they're not completely bitter about being turned into a freaking werewolf. And then hope that they're willing to help you out in your whole defeat the Blight thing, rather than run off screaming.

The entire elven camp's survivors after it's defeat are being turned into werewolves, you can talk with one of them and they are overseering their transformation. It's possible that werewolves have some sort of charm that makes them work as the werewolf that wanted to kill you a few moments before was completely different when transformed back into a human. This would probably already create more than enough werewolves for the army.

And, of course, once the Blight is defeated, you have a bunch of goddamned werewolves running around infecting more people and spreading the lycanthrope plague. Yay!

But the Lady of the Forest has control over them, there's no sign of her not going to lose control of her werewolves and the werewolves (while under her control) weren't infecting innocent people who were walking around the roads. The only people that they've attacked were the elves who's clan leader first caused their transformation in the first place.

Oh, and if the Dalish ever catch wind of what you did to them, I'm sure that will help political relations.

Dalish already hate everybody, it wouldn't change much.

Ironically, my "evil" playthrough is a Dalish.

[Saibh]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Dalish already hate everybody, it wouldn't change much.

Ironically, my "evil" playthrough is a Dalish.

My response is that your defense relies on a lot of "ifs, maybes, or buts". You don't know the sort of points you present, like having "charm" over them, or the Lady of the Forest always being able to help out, or the amount of numbers they have. Yes, there are some elves at the Dalish camp being turned, but the werewolves themselves admit not all will survive.

Again, it has to do with being just plain stupid. Siding with the werewolves seems far less logical and intelligent than siding with the Dalish.

Modifié par Saibh, 06 août 2010 - 08:22 .

[Super ._. Shepard]

EVIL

[Dave of Canada]

Saibh wrote...


My response is that your defense relies on a lot of "ifs, maybes, or buts". You don't know the sort of points you present, like having "charm" over them, or the Lady of the Forest always being able to help out, or the amount of numbers they have. Yes, there are some elves at the Dalish camp being turned, but the werewolves themselves admit not all will survive.

Yet that's the thing, you're not informed of anything and all you have is the information infront of you:
Lady of the Forest is the leader of the werewolves.
Lady of the Forest has control over most of the werewolves.
The Dalish clan are still relatively low on numbers.
Werewolves only attacked the Dalish due to Zathrian.
Werewolves are stronger than Dalish.
If you fail to defeat the Archdemon, it doesn't matter if you spared the Dalish - they'd die in the blight.

Assuming that the Lady will lose control over the werewolves or how they'd pose a problem in the future is also an assumption being made against the werewolves.

[Saibh]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Saibh wrote...


My response is that your defense relies on a lot of "ifs, maybes, or buts". You don't know the sort of points you present, like having "charm" over them, or the Lady of the Forest always being able to help out, or the amount of numbers they have. Yes, there are some elves at the Dalish camp being turned, but the werewolves themselves admit not all will survive.

Yet that's the thing, you're not informed of anything and all you have is the information infront of you:
Lady of the Forest is the leader of the werewolves.
Lady of the Forest has control over most of the werewolves.
The Dalish clan are still relatively low on numbers.
Werewolves only attacked the Dalish due to Zathrian.
Werewolves are stronger than Dalish.
If you fail to defeat the Archdemon, it doesn't matter if you spared the Dalish - they'd die in the blight.

Assuming that the Lady will lose control over the werewolves or how they'd pose a problem in the future is also an assumption being made against the werewolves.

The Lady says herself she doesn't command them, that they choose to follow her because she gives them humanity, which brings me back to my original points.

What you do know, is that you go through their lair and wipe out everything in your path--whereas there are several hunters of the Dalish dead, and several that can be cured with Winterfang's heart, or with Zathrian's sacrifice, not to mention the ability to call upon other Dalish clans. You are not given any estimate to the werewolves' numbers, but I don't see why the Warden would think they are a substantially bigger number than what you see in the Lair.

Also, what makes the werewolves immediately stronger than the Dalish? The werewolves attack the Dalish sure, but they haven't wiped them out. You have no way to gauge the ability for the werewolves to use their claws and teeth over the Dalish and their weapons and armor. You never fight the Dalish, but you do fight the werewolves. They might be stronger once you have your army, but at the moment, you don't know that.

Modifié par Saibh, 06 août 2010 - 08:43 .

[Dave of Canada]

Saibh wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Saibh wrote...


My response is that your defense relies on a lot of "ifs, maybes, or buts". You don't know the sort of points you present, like having "charm" over them, or the Lady of the Forest always being able to help out, or the amount of numbers they have. Yes, there are some elves at the Dalish camp being turned, but the werewolves themselves admit not all will survive.

Yet that's the thing, you're not informed of anything and all you have is the information infront of you:
Lady of the Forest is the leader of the werewolves.
Lady of the Forest has control over most of the werewolves.
The Dalish clan are still relatively low on numbers.
Werewolves only attacked the Dalish due to Zathrian.
Werewolves are stronger than Dalish.
If you fail to defeat the Archdemon, it doesn't matter if you spared the Dalish - they'd die in the blight.

Assuming that the Lady will lose control over the werewolves or how they'd pose a problem in the future is also an assumption being made against the werewolves.

The Lady says herself she doesn't command them, that they choose to follow her because she gives them humanity, which brings me back to my original points.

What you do know, is that you go through their lair and wipe out everything in your path--whereas there are several hunters of the Dalish dead, and several that can be cured with Winterfang's heart, or with Zathrian's sacrifice, not to mention the ability to call upon other Dalish clans. You are not given any estimate to the werewolves' numbers, but I don't see why the Warden would think they are a substantially bigger number than what you see in the Lair.

Also, what makes the werewolves immediately stronger than the Dalish? The werewolves attack the Dalish sure, but they haven't wiped them out. You have no way to gauge the ability for the werewolves to use their claws and teeth over the Dalish and their weapons and armor. You never fight the Dalish, but you do fight the werewolves. They might be stronger once you have your army, but at the moment, you don't know that.

I had written a post for this but firefox decided to crash and now I'm just too tired and frustrated to write something else.

*gives you a trophy*

You win this round.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 06 août 2010 - 08:49 .

[Super ._. Shepard]

good is too boring go EVIL

[Maverick827]

As a unhealthy large fan of the monomyth (well, as large a fan as one can be not having yet read The Hero with a Thousand Faces), I typically gravitate towards reluctantly kind heroes.  A few witty one liners here and there, but I'll rescue your cat from the tree none the less.

I'm playing my first evil Origins character and I just killed Wynne.  Now I feel bad. 

[Lintanis]

 It is amazing how some people me included cant do bad things to characters in a game with out feeling guilty 

[jaikss]

Really depends on the game for me,but if the "evil" choices are well thought out and actually have some benefits of their own rather than just being "evil for the sake of being evil" then I tend to lean towards a bit more ruthless char on my 1st playthrough.

About this redcliffe discussion going...Well from the characters POV I would agree with Sten,risking the life of the two remaining grey wardens in a battle that doesnt really involve them is pretty foolish regarding your mission to stop the blight.Heck,the only help the wardens could gain from saving the village (regarding their mission)would be to possibly get the arl on their side...assuming the arl actually is still alive once you get the chance to talk to him...and is actually in any condition to help you even if he agrees,afterall the man is practically on his deathbed by the time the wardens arrive to redcliffe.

[Lintanis]

 So when they get to be "Champion Of Kirkwall" who is going to be handing out cookies and who is going to be hanging out the back of your hand 

[KJandrew]

I usually just do what gets me the most power, which to be honest is usually the evil option but i saved Redcliffe because i needed Arl Eamon's help and i didn't think abandoning his village would get me in his good books