177 réponses à ce sujet

[Mubar]

You dont need to kill them. 
Evisceration works well.Electrocution and blunt trauma also work well, I understand


-Meatbags

Modifié par Mubar, 03 octobre 2010 - 07:15 .

[LPPrince]

Mubar wrote...

You dont need to kill them. 
Evisceration works well.Electrocution and blunt trauma also work well, I understand


-Meatbags

[Demx]

Perhaps having the player constantly skinning the wolves he kills is a bit much.

[LPPrince]

Siradix wrote...

Perhaps having the player constantly skinning the wolves he kills is a bit much.

[Demx]

@LPPrince That was my reaction after I killed Danyla.

[Darkren186]

skinning the werewolfs was more offensive then the wolfs are they human? or elf even

[Jenova65]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

OnionXI wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

You are still missing a large part of my original point a little, in a fantasy game reality is not necessary and therefore immersion is not sacrificed, and I don't like killing the mabari either btw, my point was/still is - If the game were tweaked so that you could kill bears to your heart's content BUT I don't have to, it shouldn't bother you! And your sense of immersion is not affected unless you are playing thinking ''Urgh, that pansy I chatted with on BioWare isn't killing these animals it is totally ruining my experience...........'' 

It seems like a rather pointless thing for BioWare to spend time on. Ultimately, it's not keeping you and others like you from playing the game, is it?

You all have (want to point out that I'm speaking generally here) killed pixel animals in the past and if BioWare chooses not to make the enemies a la carte you'll do it again. It can't be that jarring if you come back for more. Sure, raise the issue if it makes you feel better but when the game comes out you'll stop the bleeding from your heart and kill a smattering of wild animals amongst the dozens, if not hundreds, of humanoids you'll decapitate, set on fire, etc.

It isn't pointless and it isn't time wasting since it already exists in pretty much every area of every BioWare game, the mechanics for it are already there  but no need to quibble over it since they aren't going to change it anyway. I just don't see why it would bother people that want to kill, if people who didn't want to didn't have to.

It bothers me because I don't want to kill them, I have to. And I like being put in that possition as it helps the story seem more real. If they put in the choice then I obviously wont kill them. But if they stick in bears that are docile then I will not appreciate the unnecessary break from reality.

Which was why, in my original comment I suggested a ranger skill that would pacify, rather than having unrealistically passive animals..................
Are you still bothered?
Look, I am just saying I don't like it, there is a way round it that would work for everyone and I would choose a non killing option if it were there. 
As I mentioned my lack of need for reality in the game doesn't/shouldn't/wouldn't affect your fun at all and remember - Unless their opinion affects your opinion, their opinion matters not at all.
Anyway, it's been nice exchanging different opinions  But  since your opinion has not affected mine and mine hasn't affected yours, further debate might be pointless.............. Lol
I hope you have a lovely weekend 

Bah! You're so incredibly sweet and understanding in your arguments its infuriating! But you win. I concede the point. I'd vote for a ranger or survival ability that allowed you to passify animals no matter how silly I find the concept to be...

how about a compromise? :happy:

At lower levels it gives you the chance to passify animals, that chance increasing the more you put points into it until it essentially works every time? That way we maintain realism and get the option...

No? Then we can just do it your way.

Hope you have a nice weekend as well.

Lol, thank you, I enjoy sharing opinions with people who don't make you feel you are banging your head against a wall, hopefully I didn't make you feel that way either......  And so far my weekend has been good!

[ZaroktheImmortal]

It's a game, they're not real. And neither are we really killing them. Also as has already been stated these wild animals in a medieval setting. It's not like you're actively hunting them down, you're just defending yourself. And most importantly it's not real.

[Jenova65]

When I kill a human in any game it is because they are doing bad things, I always play paragon and do my level best to not kill an innocent human, hell, if there is way to allow the bad guy to survive (when they promise to walk the straight and narrow, of course) I will do it! I prefer to play a game as a good guy, so shoot me..... lol

It is a strange and skewed logic to ASSUME that because one person likes humans better than animals, that we all do, there is a reason that they sell bumper stickers saying ''The more people I meet, the more I like my dog/cat'', and that is because people buy them.

It isn't rocket science, the people I kill in games are 'up to something bad', the animals are not planning to take over/destroy anything they are responding to their natural urges to eat and to protect their young/territory. That is a very different scenario to many of us than being threatened at knife/sword/gun point etc.

It is important to remember we are wired up differently and see the world with our own eyes. It isn't like the OP is trying to ruin the fun of people who enjoy killing wolves and bears, just asking for an option to NOT kill if we don't want to and let's be honest BioWare are the masters at this kind of thing.............. :-)

[Demx]

Darkren186 wrote...

skinning the werewolfs was more offensive then the wolfs are they human? or elf even

The ones we met in the Nature of the Beast were humans.

[ShrinkingFish]

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

OnionXI wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

You are still missing a large part of my original point a little, in a fantasy game reality is not necessary and therefore immersion is not sacrificed, and I don't like killing the mabari either btw, my point was/still is - If the game were tweaked so that you could kill bears to your heart's content BUT I don't have to, it shouldn't bother you! And your sense of immersion is not affected unless you are playing thinking ''Urgh, that pansy I chatted with on BioWare isn't killing these animals it is totally ruining my experience...........'' 

It seems like a rather pointless thing for BioWare to spend time on. Ultimately, it's not keeping you and others like you from playing the game, is it?

You all have (want to point out that I'm speaking generally here) killed pixel animals in the past and if BioWare chooses not to make the enemies a la carte you'll do it again. It can't be that jarring if you come back for more. Sure, raise the issue if it makes you feel better but when the game comes out you'll stop the bleeding from your heart and kill a smattering of wild animals amongst the dozens, if not hundreds, of humanoids you'll decapitate, set on fire, etc.

It isn't pointless and it isn't time wasting since it already exists in pretty much every area of every BioWare game, the mechanics for it are already there  but no need to quibble over it since they aren't going to change it anyway. I just don't see why it would bother people that want to kill, if people who didn't want to didn't have to.

It bothers me because I don't want to kill them, I have to. And I like being put in that possition as it helps the story seem more real. If they put in the choice then I obviously wont kill them. But if they stick in bears that are docile then I will not appreciate the unnecessary break from reality.

Which was why, in my original comment I suggested a ranger skill that would pacify, rather than having unrealistically passive animals..................
Are you still bothered?
Look, I am just saying I don't like it, there is a way round it that would work for everyone and I would choose a non killing option if it were there. 
As I mentioned my lack of need for reality in the game doesn't/shouldn't/wouldn't affect your fun at all and remember - Unless their opinion affects your opinion, their opinion matters not at all.
Anyway, it's been nice exchanging different opinions  But  since your opinion has not affected mine and mine hasn't affected yours, further debate might be pointless.............. Lol
I hope you have a lovely weekend 

Bah! You're so incredibly sweet and understanding in your arguments its infuriating! But you win. I concede the point. I'd vote for a ranger or survival ability that allowed you to passify animals no matter how silly I find the concept to be...

how about a compromise? :happy:

At lower levels it gives you the chance to passify animals, that chance increasing the more you put points into it until it essentially works every time? That way we maintain realism and get the option...

No? Then we can just do it your way.

Hope you have a nice weekend as well.

Lol, thank you, I enjoy sharing opinions with people who don't make you feel you are banging your head against a wall, hopefully I didn't make you feel that way either......  And so far my weekend has been good!

I'm glad to hear it. And no, I definitely didn't feel like I was banging my head against a wall... luckily. I don't really like that feeling, if I do say so myself.

Also! Interesting thing that kind of relates to our discussion. I watched something today about a man who completely integrated himself into a wolf pack. Learned their ways, how to communicate with them, even got himself a rank within the pack and defended it as they do. These were wild wolves mind you. And he was one of them.

He went out into the woods, completely abandoned all human contact, slept where they slept, ate what they ate, etc, etc, for about five months.

He demonstrated this by bringing a fresh carcass to the pack while they were all very hungry and didn't get himself killed. He sat there among them, defended his share of the prize and everything. Some of the wolves growled and snapped at him but he held his ground and growled and snapped back and they backed off. It was amazing.

So yeah. Possibilities towards the legitimacy for your whole ranger survivalist not needing to fight wolves thing. Cool stuff.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Jenova65 wrote...

When I kill a human in any game it is because they are doing bad things, I always play paragon and do my level best to not kill an innocent human, hell, if there is way to allow the bad guy to survive (when they promise to walk the straight and narrow, of course) I will do it! I prefer to play a game as a good guy, so shoot me..... lol
It is a strange and skewed logic to ASSUME that because one person likes humans better than animals, that we all do, there is a reason that they sell bumper stickers saying ''The more people I meet, the more I like my dog/cat'', and that is because people buy them.
It isn't rocket science, the people I kill in games are 'up to something bad', the animals are not planning to take over/destroy anything they are responding to their natural urges to eat and to protect their young/territory. That is a very different scenario to many of us than being threatened at knife/sword/gun point etc.
It is important to remember we are wired up differently and see the world with our own eyes. It isn't like the OP is trying to ruin the fun of people who enjoy killing wolves and bears, just asking for an option to NOT kill if we don't want to and let's be honest BioWare are the masters at this kind of thing.............. :-)

Perhaps, but self preservation is important. You simply kill whoever or whatever tries to kill you. And you can't exactly ask these wild animals live wolves and such to play nice.

[ShrinkingFish]

Jenova65 wrote...

When I kill a human in any game it is because they are doing bad things, I always play paragon and do my level best to not kill an innocent human, hell, if there is way to allow the bad guy to survive (when they promise to walk the straight and narrow, of course) I will do it! I prefer to play a game as a good guy, so shoot me..... lol
It is a strange and skewed logic to ASSUME that because one person likes humans better than animals, that we all do, there is a reason that they sell bumper stickers saying ''The more people I meet, the more I like my dog/cat'', and that is because people buy them.
It isn't rocket science, the people I kill in games are 'up to something bad', the animals are not planning to take over/destroy anything they are responding to their natural urges to eat and to protect their young/territory. That is a very different scenario to many of us than being threatened at knife/sword/gun point etc.
It is important to remember we are wired up differently and see the world with our own eyes. It isn't like the OP is trying to ruin the fun of people who enjoy killing wolves and bears, just asking for an option to NOT kill if we don't want to and let's be honest BioWare are the masters at this kind of thing.............. :-)

In respect to this, because I play a similar character though with some very distinct differences (i.e. the innocent are always spared, but the guilty are sought out with merciless vengeance regardless of their willingness to repent), wasn't the scene outside Lothering just terrible? When the refugees all attacked you, nearly unarmed, and you were forced to defend yourself?

I mean, I like that it was included in the game. Made it much richer and more intense. Really made it clear just how desperate the people were. And it struck my character's morality hard and all that so it was brilliant writing... but still. It really sucked, lol.

[Jenova65]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

When I kill a human in any game it is because they are doing bad things, I always play paragon and do my level best to not kill an innocent human, hell, if there is way to allow the bad guy to survive (when they promise to walk the straight and narrow, of course) I will do it! I prefer to play a game as a good guy, so shoot me..... lol
It is a strange and skewed logic to ASSUME that because one person likes humans better than animals, that we all do, there is a reason that they sell bumper stickers saying ''The more people I meet, the more I like my dog/cat'', and that is because people buy them.
It isn't rocket science, the people I kill in games are 'up to something bad', the animals are not planning to take over/destroy anything they are responding to their natural urges to eat and to protect their young/territory. That is a very different scenario to many of us than being threatened at knife/sword/gun point etc.
It is important to remember we are wired up differently and see the world with our own eyes. It isn't like the OP is trying to ruin the fun of people who enjoy killing wolves and bears, just asking for an option to NOT kill if we don't want to and let's be honest BioWare are the masters at this kind of thing.............. :-)

Perhaps, but self preservation is important. You simply kill whoever or whatever tries to kill you. And you can't exactly ask these wild animals live wolves and such to play nice.

And I do, I know it is just a game, I know it isn't real, I just would *prefer* not to if there were a choice  Which is basically the point that OP was making. BioWare (as stated) are the masters of choice, it would be as much effort as sneezing to BioWare.

[Jenova65]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

OnionXI wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

You are still missing a large part of my original point a little, in a fantasy game reality is not necessary and therefore immersion is not sacrificed, and I don't like killing the mabari either btw, my point was/still is - If the game were tweaked so that you could kill bears to your heart's content BUT I don't have to, it shouldn't bother you! And your sense of immersion is not affected unless you are playing thinking ''Urgh, that pansy I chatted with on BioWare isn't killing these animals it is totally ruining my experience...........'' 

It seems like a rather pointless thing for BioWare to spend time on. Ultimately, it's not keeping you and others like you from playing the game, is it?

You all have (want to point out that I'm speaking generally here) killed pixel animals in the past and if BioWare chooses not to make the enemies a la carte you'll do it again. It can't be that jarring if you come back for more. Sure, raise the issue if it makes you feel better but when the game comes out you'll stop the bleeding from your heart and kill a smattering of wild animals amongst the dozens, if not hundreds, of humanoids you'll decapitate, set on fire, etc.

It isn't pointless and it isn't time wasting since it already exists in pretty much every area of every BioWare game, the mechanics for it are already there  but no need to quibble over it since they aren't going to change it anyway. I just don't see why it would bother people that want to kill, if people who didn't want to didn't have to.

It bothers me because I don't want to kill them, I have to. And I like being put in that possition as it helps the story seem more real. If they put in the choice then I obviously wont kill them. But if they stick in bears that are docile then I will not appreciate the unnecessary break from reality.

Which was why, in my original comment I suggested a ranger skill that would pacify, rather than having unrealistically passive animals..................
Are you still bothered?
Look, I am just saying I don't like it, there is a way round it that would work for everyone and I would choose a non killing option if it were there. 
As I mentioned my lack of need for reality in the game doesn't/shouldn't/wouldn't affect your fun at all and remember - Unless their opinion affects your opinion, their opinion matters not at all.
Anyway, it's been nice exchanging different opinions  But  since your opinion has not affected mine and mine hasn't affected yours, further debate might be pointless.............. Lol
I hope you have a lovely weekend 

Bah! You're so incredibly sweet and understanding in your arguments its infuriating! But you win. I concede the point. I'd vote for a ranger or survival ability that allowed you to passify animals no matter how silly I find the concept to be...

how about a compromise? :happy:

At lower levels it gives you the chance to passify animals, that chance increasing the more you put points into it until it essentially works every time? That way we maintain realism and get the option...

No? Then we can just do it your way.

Hope you have a nice weekend as well.

Lol, thank you, I enjoy sharing opinions with people who don't make you feel you are banging your head against a wall, hopefully I didn't make you feel that way either......  And so far my weekend has been good!

I'm glad to hear it. And no, I definitely didn't feel like I was banging my head against a wall... luckily. I don't really like that feeling, if I do say so myself.

Also! Interesting thing that kind of relates to our discussion. I watched something today about a man who completely integrated himself into a wolf pack. Learned their ways, how to communicate with them, even got himself a rank within the pack and defended it as they do. These were wild wolves mind you. And he was one of them.

He went out into the woods, completely abandoned all human contact, slept where they slept, ate what they ate, etc, etc, for about five months.

He demonstrated this by bringing a fresh carcass to the pack while they were all very hungry and didn't get himself killed. He sat there among them, defended his share of the prize and everything. Some of the wolves growled and snapped at him but he held his ground and growled and snapped back and they backed off. It was amazing.

So yeah. Possibilities towards the legitimacy for your whole ranger survivalist not needing to fight wolves thing. Cool stuff.

That sounds vaguely familiar........... And very interesting 

[Jenova65]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

When I kill a human in any game it is because they are doing bad things, I always play paragon and do my level best to not kill an innocent human, hell, if there is way to allow the bad guy to survive (when they promise to walk the straight and narrow, of course) I will do it! I prefer to play a game as a good guy, so shoot me..... lol
It is a strange and skewed logic to ASSUME that because one person likes humans better than animals, that we all do, there is a reason that they sell bumper stickers saying ''The more people I meet, the more I like my dog/cat'', and that is because people buy them.
It isn't rocket science, the people I kill in games are 'up to something bad', the animals are not planning to take over/destroy anything they are responding to their natural urges to eat and to protect their young/territory. That is a very different scenario to many of us than being threatened at knife/sword/gun point etc.
It is important to remember we are wired up differently and see the world with our own eyes. It isn't like the OP is trying to ruin the fun of people who enjoy killing wolves and bears, just asking for an option to NOT kill if we don't want to and let's be honest BioWare are the masters at this kind of thing.............. :-)

In respect to this, because I play a similar character though with some very distinct differences (i.e. the innocent are always spared, but the guilty are sought out with merciless vengeance regardless of their willingness to repent), wasn't the scene outside Lothering just terrible? When the refugees all attacked you, nearly unarmed, and you were forced to defend yourself?

I mean, I like that it was included in the game. Made it much richer and more intense. Really made it clear just how desperate the people were. And it struck my character's morality hard and all that so it was brilliant writing... but still. It really sucked, lol.

I totally agree, why couldn't your warden have the option to go ''Oh, you poor fellows, I not will surrender but please, take this....'' And offer some gold (it isn't like gold is that hard to come by....) as you can do in the Alienage to the *cough* veterens/orphans *cough* The warden sees beyond the lie to real problem, the real need.
The thing I really hate doing is giving Alistair's b**** of a sister anything <_< but Alistair is a good guy and he means well and I don't like the idea of him being disappointed in me......

[Sabariel]

I say, more variety in the animals to kill! Lions and tigers and hippopotami... oh my!

...Sorry.

[ShrinkingFish]

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

When I kill a human in any game it is because they are doing bad things, I always play paragon and do my level best to not kill an innocent human, hell, if there is way to allow the bad guy to survive (when they promise to walk the straight and narrow, of course) I will do it! I prefer to play a game as a good guy, so shoot me..... lol
It is a strange and skewed logic to ASSUME that because one person likes humans better than animals, that we all do, there is a reason that they sell bumper stickers saying ''The more people I meet, the more I like my dog/cat'', and that is because people buy them.
It isn't rocket science, the people I kill in games are 'up to something bad', the animals are not planning to take over/destroy anything they are responding to their natural urges to eat and to protect their young/territory. That is a very different scenario to many of us than being threatened at knife/sword/gun point etc.
It is important to remember we are wired up differently and see the world with our own eyes. It isn't like the OP is trying to ruin the fun of people who enjoy killing wolves and bears, just asking for an option to NOT kill if we don't want to and let's be honest BioWare are the masters at this kind of thing.............. :-)

In respect to this, because I play a similar character though with some very distinct differences (i.e. the innocent are always spared, but the guilty are sought out with merciless vengeance regardless of their willingness to repent), wasn't the scene outside Lothering just terrible? When the refugees all attacked you, nearly unarmed, and you were forced to defend yourself?

I mean, I like that it was included in the game. Made it much richer and more intense. Really made it clear just how desperate the people were. And it struck my character's morality hard and all that so it was brilliant writing... but still. It really sucked, lol.

I totally agree, why couldn't your warden have the option to go ''Oh, you poor fellows, I not will surrender but please, take this....'' And offer some gold (it isn't like gold is that hard to come by....) as you can do in the Alienage to the *cough* veterens/orphans *cough* The warden sees beyond the lie to real problem, the real need.
The thing I really hate doing is giving Alistair's b**** of a sister anything <_< but Alistair is a good guy and he means well and I don't like the idea of him being disappointed in me......

You gave Alistair's sister something?? Weird. I didn't even know that was an option... I just called her a b**ch and we walked out together in a self righteous huff. Gave him a pat on the back once we were outside and made it clear to him that we, me and him, were all the family either of us would ever need. Very bromantic I must say. Anyways...

Yeah, it was sad that the refugees didn't give you a chance to talk them down. They didn't need to die. And they would have been much more useful to their families alive. But still. Excellent writing. Really drove the point home for me.

And yes, I liked the Alienage beggars debacle. Especially calling out the "beggar" in the rich cloths. Good stuff.

[ShrinkingFish]

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

OnionXI wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

You are still missing a large part of my original point a little, in a fantasy game reality is not necessary and therefore immersion is not sacrificed, and I don't like killing the mabari either btw, my point was/still is - If the game were tweaked so that you could kill bears to your heart's content BUT I don't have to, it shouldn't bother you! And your sense of immersion is not affected unless you are playing thinking ''Urgh, that pansy I chatted with on BioWare isn't killing these animals it is totally ruining my experience...........'' 

It seems like a rather pointless thing for BioWare to spend time on. Ultimately, it's not keeping you and others like you from playing the game, is it?

You all have (want to point out that I'm speaking generally here) killed pixel animals in the past and if BioWare chooses not to make the enemies a la carte you'll do it again. It can't be that jarring if you come back for more. Sure, raise the issue if it makes you feel better but when the game comes out you'll stop the bleeding from your heart and kill a smattering of wild animals amongst the dozens, if not hundreds, of humanoids you'll decapitate, set on fire, etc.

It isn't pointless and it isn't time wasting since it already exists in pretty much every area of every BioWare game, the mechanics for it are already there  but no need to quibble over it since they aren't going to change it anyway. I just don't see why it would bother people that want to kill, if people who didn't want to didn't have to.

It bothers me because I don't want to kill them, I have to. And I like being put in that possition as it helps the story seem more real. If they put in the choice then I obviously wont kill them. But if they stick in bears that are docile then I will not appreciate the unnecessary break from reality.

Which was why, in my original comment I suggested a ranger skill that would pacify, rather than having unrealistically passive animals..................
Are you still bothered?
Look, I am just saying I don't like it, there is a way round it that would work for everyone and I would choose a non killing option if it were there. 
As I mentioned my lack of need for reality in the game doesn't/shouldn't/wouldn't affect your fun at all and remember - Unless their opinion affects your opinion, their opinion matters not at all.
Anyway, it's been nice exchanging different opinions  But  since your opinion has not affected mine and mine hasn't affected yours, further debate might be pointless.............. Lol
I hope you have a lovely weekend 

Bah! You're so incredibly sweet and understanding in your arguments its infuriating! But you win. I concede the point. I'd vote for a ranger or survival ability that allowed you to passify animals no matter how silly I find the concept to be...

how about a compromise? :happy:

At lower levels it gives you the chance to passify animals, that chance increasing the more you put points into it until it essentially works every time? That way we maintain realism and get the option...

No? Then we can just do it your way.

Hope you have a nice weekend as well.

Lol, thank you, I enjoy sharing opinions with people who don't make you feel you are banging your head against a wall, hopefully I didn't make you feel that way either......  And so far my weekend has been good!

I'm glad to hear it. And no, I definitely didn't feel like I was banging my head against a wall... luckily. I don't really like that feeling, if I do say so myself.

Also! Interesting thing that kind of relates to our discussion. I watched something today about a man who completely integrated himself into a wolf pack. Learned their ways, how to communicate with them, even got himself a rank within the pack and defended it as they do. These were wild wolves mind you. And he was one of them.

He went out into the woods, completely abandoned all human contact, slept where they slept, ate what they ate, etc, etc, for about five months.

He demonstrated this by bringing a fresh carcass to the pack while they were all very hungry and didn't get himself killed. He sat there among them, defended his share of the prize and everything. Some of the wolves growled and snapped at him but he held his ground and growled and snapped back and they backed off. It was amazing.

So yeah. Possibilities towards the legitimacy for your whole ranger survivalist not needing to fight wolves thing. Cool stuff.

That sounds vaguely familiar........... And very interesting 

I thought you might like that. 

[Jenova65]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

When I kill a human in any game it is because they are doing bad things, I always play paragon and do my level best to not kill an innocent human, hell, if there is way to allow the bad guy to survive (when they promise to walk the straight and narrow, of course) I will do it! I prefer to play a game as a good guy, so shoot me..... lol
It is a strange and skewed logic to ASSUME that because one person likes humans better than animals, that we all do, there is a reason that they sell bumper stickers saying ''The more people I meet, the more I like my dog/cat'', and that is because people buy them.
It isn't rocket science, the people I kill in games are 'up to something bad', the animals are not planning to take over/destroy anything they are responding to their natural urges to eat and to protect their young/territory. That is a very different scenario to many of us than being threatened at knife/sword/gun point etc.
It is important to remember we are wired up differently and see the world with our own eyes. It isn't like the OP is trying to ruin the fun of people who enjoy killing wolves and bears, just asking for an option to NOT kill if we don't want to and let's be honest BioWare are the masters at this kind of thing.............. :-)

In respect to this, because I play a similar character though with some very distinct differences (i.e. the innocent are always spared, but the guilty are sought out with merciless vengeance regardless of their willingness to repent), wasn't the scene outside Lothering just terrible? When the refugees all attacked you, nearly unarmed, and you were forced to defend yourself?

I mean, I like that it was included in the game. Made it much richer and more intense. Really made it clear just how desperate the people were. And it struck my character's morality hard and all that so it was brilliant writing... but still. It really sucked, lol.

I totally agree, why couldn't your warden have the option to go ''Oh, you poor fellows, I not will surrender but please, take this....'' And offer some gold (it isn't like gold is that hard to come by....) as you can do in the Alienage to the *cough* veterens/orphans *cough* The warden sees beyond the lie to real problem, the real need.
The thing I really hate doing is giving Alistair's b**** of a sister anything <_< but Alistair is a good guy and he means well and I don't like the idea of him being disappointed in me......

You gave Alistair's sister something?? Weird. I didn't even know that was an option... I just called her a b**ch and we walked out together in a self righteous huff. Gave him a pat on the back once we were outside and made it clear to him that we, me and him, were all the family either of us would ever need. Very bromantic I must say. Anyways...

Yeah, it was sad that the refugees didn't give you a chance to talk them down. They didn't need to die. And they would have been much more useful to their families alive. But still. Excellent writing. Really drove the point home for me.

And yes, I liked the Alienage beggars debacle. Especially calling out the "beggar" in the rich cloths. Good stuff.

I did say I play a goody two shoes, right?  15 blummin', gold!!!!!!!!!!!!! There isn't an option to say ''Here take a fiver, good day to you madam.........'', lol!

[ShrinkingFish]

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

When I kill a human in any game it is because they are doing bad things, I always play paragon and do my level best to not kill an innocent human, hell, if there is way to allow the bad guy to survive (when they promise to walk the straight and narrow, of course) I will do it! I prefer to play a game as a good guy, so shoot me..... lol
It is a strange and skewed logic to ASSUME that because one person likes humans better than animals, that we all do, there is a reason that they sell bumper stickers saying ''The more people I meet, the more I like my dog/cat'', and that is because people buy them.
It isn't rocket science, the people I kill in games are 'up to something bad', the animals are not planning to take over/destroy anything they are responding to their natural urges to eat and to protect their young/territory. That is a very different scenario to many of us than being threatened at knife/sword/gun point etc.
It is important to remember we are wired up differently and see the world with our own eyes. It isn't like the OP is trying to ruin the fun of people who enjoy killing wolves and bears, just asking for an option to NOT kill if we don't want to and let's be honest BioWare are the masters at this kind of thing.............. :-)

In respect to this, because I play a similar character though with some very distinct differences (i.e. the innocent are always spared, but the guilty are sought out with merciless vengeance regardless of their willingness to repent), wasn't the scene outside Lothering just terrible? When the refugees all attacked you, nearly unarmed, and you were forced to defend yourself?

I mean, I like that it was included in the game. Made it much richer and more intense. Really made it clear just how desperate the people were. And it struck my character's morality hard and all that so it was brilliant writing... but still. It really sucked, lol.

I totally agree, why couldn't your warden have the option to go ''Oh, you poor fellows, I not will surrender but please, take this....'' And offer some gold (it isn't like gold is that hard to come by....) as you can do in the Alienage to the *cough* veterens/orphans *cough* The warden sees beyond the lie to real problem, the real need.
The thing I really hate doing is giving Alistair's b**** of a sister anything <_< but Alistair is a good guy and he means well and I don't like the idea of him being disappointed in me......

You gave Alistair's sister something?? Weird. I didn't even know that was an option... I just called her a b**ch and we walked out together in a self righteous huff. Gave him a pat on the back once we were outside and made it clear to him that we, me and him, were all the family either of us would ever need. Very bromantic I must say. Anyways...

Yeah, it was sad that the refugees didn't give you a chance to talk them down. They didn't need to die. And they would have been much more useful to their families alive. But still. Excellent writing. Really drove the point home for me.

And yes, I liked the Alienage beggars debacle. Especially calling out the "beggar" in the rich cloths. Good stuff.

I did say I play a goody two shoes, right?  15 blummin', gold!!!!!!!!!!!!! There isn't an option to say ''Here take a fiver, good day to you madam.........'', lol!

Dang! Hefty sum, considering the same fed about 16 beggars in the Alienage... I didn't even see that option.

[Saraphial]

For the love of God, erase some of the previous quotes already!



Ahem, back on topic: Pfffft, this is ridiculous. This is how people reacted when they discovered that you had to kill tree's in DA:O lol. And now we can't kill bears and wolves?



Although, I agree that a wolf companion would indeed be cool.

[Jenova65]

Saraphial wrote...

For the love of God, erase some of the previous quotes already!

Ahem, back on topic: Pfffft, this is ridiculous. This is how people reacted when they discovered that you had to kill tree's in DA:O lol. And now we can't kill bears and wolves?

Although, I agree that a wolf companion would indeed be cool.

NO! 

[Jenova65]

ShrinkingFish wrote...Dang! Hefty sum, considering the same fed about 16 beggars in the Alienage... I didn't even see that option.

I don't think it was even that much for all of them, IIRC? 
@Saraphial - There, happy now? 

[Saraphial]

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...Dang! Hefty sum, considering the same fed about 16 beggars in the Alienage... I didn't even see that option.

I don't think it was even that much for all of them, IIRC? 
@Saraphial - There, happy now? 

Yes, very 
Anywho, now that it's nearly 3:00am and I am contented I am going to bed. Adieu Bioware community, Adieu.