244 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

If my PCs were all that desperate to stay alive, they wouldn't be there

[Maria Caliban]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Piecake wrote...

Also, a lot of people did'nt like Morrigan's proposition?  I thought that was definitely one of the best choices you had to make.  I actually had to think about it for a while. 

I think that's the thing a few people here seem to be missing. They put these decisions throughout the game for people to think about. The outcomes don't necessarily need to be dark to achieve that (though "morally grey" was a theme of the game), but they do need weight in every direction so that it's an emotional or moral puzzle.

To be honest, I've never had to 'think about it for awhile' for any BioWare decision. I've spent more time picking which set of daggers I want to give Leliana and wondering if I should buy the Felon's Coat or save up for a new weapon than I have picking a solution to one of the 'moral puzzles.'

That's not to say that I wouldn't welcome a situation that made me furrow my brow and ponder.

In Exile wrote...


The choice is about temptation. Picking the ritual is about doing the selfish thing. Well, for you do want to do it, there has to be some meaningful payoff.

This assumes that the PC is 1) afraid to die, and 2) doesn't have anyone else there that they're willing to sacrifice.

Given the plot of the game so far, we've seen the PC risk their lives and that of their companions many, many times, so that makes little sense to me.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 12 novembre 2010 - 06:19 .

[Zjarcal]

Wulfram wrote...

If my PCs were all that desperate to stay alive, they wouldn't be there

Well, there is no option to quit the blight at the beginning of the game (or at any moment for that matter), which is what some of my PCs would've done. So there's really no choice but to be there, no matter how they feel.

[upsettingshorts]

scyphozoa wrote...

The longest I've ever had to think about a choice in a Bioware game is rewriting the heretic Geth in ME2.

I've found, based on a bunch of discussions on the ME2 board, that very few people are capable (or interested) in making that decision based on the ethical implications for a synthetic race as opposed to an organic one.  That's a great example in fact, of one you could actually spend a great deal of time thinking about if you want to.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 novembre 2010 - 06:25 .

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I've found, based on a bunch of discussions on the ME2 board, that very few people are capable (or interested) in making that decision based on the ethical implications for a synthetic race as opposed to an organic one.  That's a great example in fact, of one you could actually spend a great deal of time thinking about if you want to.

I just shot the console, yelled to my companions that we had "company" and jumped down the garbage shoot.

[Maria Caliban]

Zjarcal wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

If my PCs were all that desperate to stay alive, they wouldn't be there

Well, there is no option to quit the blight at the beginning of the game (or at any moment for that matter), which is what some of my PCs would've done. So there's really no choice but to be there, no matter how they feel.

I think that's an important point. During the game, could you really express cowardice or attempt to have someone else die instead of you? You could express cruelty or lack of empathy, but whether you were good, bad, or merely pragmatic, you weren't terrified of death.

You can't have temptation plot with a main character who hasn't expressed a desire for something and has seemed indifferent to the matter for most of the story.

[Ziggeh]

Maria Caliban wrote...
To be honest, I've never had to 'think about it for awhile' for any BioWare decision. I've spent more time picking which set of daggers I want to give Leliana and wondering if I should buy the Felon's Coat or save up for a new weapon than I have picking a solution to one of the 'moral puzzles.' 

That seems a terrible shame. Not even stopping to think how the anvil might be used? Question Eamon's relationship to either party? The potential danger's of the Rachni versus the morality of genocide?

When I say "unfathomable", I don't mean in any way "you're doing it wrong", just that I can't fathom it out. This sort of thing is why I love the games.

[DAO - Grey Warden]

in my opinion decisions in mass effect and dragon age are like one the critics sad "overwhelming" . the reason why? because they are, especially in dragon age, you have a lots of different outcomes of your decisions...and of course you always want to choose the best possible option for your companions and yourself.....and of COURSE THAT wont always be the case. mass effect most of the time had black or white decisions, but in dragon age was different and harder because in dragon age you didnt have a moral meter like in mass effect, which was Paragon or Renegade, which told you if did something bad or good......in dragon age you had to figured it out for yourself........which wasnt THAT hard, but still decisions were by the number INFINITE, and the color GREY...that is my opinion.....dragon age is sort of a moral compass of yourself

[Maria Caliban]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
To be honest, I've never had to 'think about it for awhile' for any BioWare decision. I've spent more time picking which set of daggers I want to give Leliana and wondering if I should buy the Felon's Coat or save up for a new weapon than I have picking a solution to one of the 'moral puzzles.' 

That seems a terrible shame. Not even stopping to think how the anvil might be used? Question Eamon's relationship to either party? The potential danger's of the Rachni versus the morality of genocide?

1) Why would I think about how the anvil might be used when I already know how it's been used? Unless you're suggesting there's a use for the anvil that Caradin or Branka doesn't mention.

2) I saved them both. Even if I didn't, it's my character doing the murdering. How Eamon might feel about the matter would rarely be a large concern in his or her mind.

3) The game already tells you the danger of the Rachni, and real life has had plenty of genocide. I'm not sure how a modern person wouldn't know about the morality of genocide.

When I say "unfathomable", I don't mean in any way "you're doing it wrong", just that I can't fathom it out. This sort of thing is why I love the games.

I like it when my character gets to make decisions. The more complex those decisions, the better. At the same time, as a player, I tend to know a great deal about the setting and lore before I even pick up the game, and will have a strong concept of my character before I sit down to make them in the creator.

I find it 'unfathomable' that someone could play an RPG for 30 hours and then stumble upon a situation where they don't know what their character would do. I'm not saying it could never happen to me, but it hasn't so far.

Edit: That's not quite true. When I began to play RPGs, I tended to have a very loose idea of my character and whenever I came upon a decision, I'd sit there and wonder what my PC should do. I think this is because I was used to games/stories where the player simply enabled the character's goal. I mean, Mario was going to try to save the Princess - the player was just there to make sure he did so.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 12 novembre 2010 - 07:46 .

[In Exile]

errant_knight wrote...
Ahh... I see. In that case, we just differ on what constitutes a temptation. My PC found saving herself and Alistair an irresistable temptation. She probably would have done it to save Alistair, alone. 30 years is a whole lot more life than none. To me, it was a clear illustration of what Wynne meant by saying that love is selfish.

Ah, it's the male PC versus female PC issue. Not having to account for an LI makes the entire thing a little less dramatic.

ziggehunderslash wrote...
Yeah, I never saw it as an offer to
save people, as far as I was concerned, she was after something,
something potentially more dangerous than the current Blight and she was
playing on your survival instincts to get it. The fact that she was
reluctant to outline her thinking or plan for such a dangerous being
just made me all the more suspicious. It is far from a "happy" ending.

Not to mention she could be lying. There isn't any way to know. The only way you might know is if you were a mage and she could give you some technical proof, but that could still be BS.

I
still think it's an interesting dilemma, because some of Morrigan's
logic holds: you're sticking to a tradition you don't really hold,
you're destroying something powerful that might feasibly be turned to
good etc, but by that point in the game I'd consigned myself to the fact
that having asked all these sacrifices of all these people, now it was
my turn to face the music.

Only if she isn't lying, and only if the old gods ever were good, which we don't really know. It's a really outrageous theological question that you can't possibly answer in a night while Morrigan wants to you or Alistair/Loghain to get off in her.

PsychoBlonde wrote...
Morrigan didn't strike me as amoral--it
wouldn't have been possible to get so much negative favor with her if
she was amoral, because she'd be indifferent.  (Zevran and Oghren were
largely amoral--the only real way to get negative favor with them was to
go against their personal interests, and those were generally pretty
shallow.)

Morrigan doesn't care; she just is result oriented. So she thinks things that are a waste of time (like hugging puppies) instead of doing the important things like stoping the Blight. This is why she basically disapproves of every sidequest.

Zjarcal wrote...
What?

Offering you to NOT die when
killing the Archdemon isn't worthwhile? To each their own I guess.

The odds of that are so low, the offer is stupid. It only works in the scenario where you have survived to the archdemon instead of Alistar/Loghain and Riordan (and either of you could die on the way) and haven't suffered any fatal injuries fighting the thing.

Killing the archdemon with only three Grey Wardens is already such an insane longshot, that when you start accounting only for this one super special eventuality where you can die...

Well, I don't see it.

Zjarcal wrote...

Oh I know, but from an RP perspective,
you couldn't know if Alistair or Loghain would even make it to the AD.
Sort of like Riordan also offering to make the final blow but failing at
it. So for my PCs doing the DR is the only way to make sure that they
really have a chance of surviving the battle

From an RP perspective, there is no way of knowing you won't die.

Here are the things you need to do:

1) Survive initial darkspawn assault
2) Fight throughout Denerim
3) Not die during all of this
4) Somehow corner a flying dragon
5) Injure and cripple flying dragon (if someone steals your kill, everyone is screwed)
6) Not die or get mortally wounded during all of this
7) Get final blow

The odds of surviving to the end are so insane, that if you are actually willing to go through with this stupid half-cocked plan of Riordan's instead of abandoning Ferelden and waiting for 400 Grey Wardens from Orlais.

Seriously, the endgame plot is so stupid.

----9----- wrote...
The same with the ritual which appears to
have been Flemeth's idea given to Morrigan to accomplish; Morrigan may
not have been told everything either, yet she takes on the burden of not
just carrying a child, but a god child. Getting pregnant seems to be
contrary to what we've learned of Morrigan up to that point. And I get
the sense that she's doing the ritual because she totally believes in it
and that it's the best thing to do. Yet she doesn't force you or anyone
into this–you choose. And who would be wise enough to figure out what
the god child is or isn't going to do.

Well, there can be lots of ways she can profit from it. What we know from Morrigan is that she doesn't do things for the sake of puppies and hugs. She advocates near full on mass murder a few times, so it's hard to believe she would ever be doing something for a good reason.

And there's what we know from Flemeth - Morrigan has research into swapping souls and bodies, and may well want to use an archdemon soul for that purpose.

I don't recall that
Morrigan promising or suggesting the taint can be removed, so she isn't
dangling any reward. In fact, she tells you once the final battle is
over, she's gone, don't follow. And in WH she discourages you from
following.

I'm not saying she lied; I'm saying I misunderstood. When it was the taint removed, it was temping. When it's just not dying during the final blow, that's not tempting at all.

[Crimson Invictus]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I find it 'unfathomable' that someone could play an RPG for 30 hours and then stumble upon a situation where they don't know what their character would do. I'm not saying it could never happen to me, but it hasn't so far.

While I can't say this is the situation here I suspect some people play as "themselves" and some people role-play a specific character. I'd suggest it is easier to dissociate yourself from a choice if you role-play a character since you know your character would do "X" because that is how you designed them and to do otherwise would break character.

[Maria Caliban]

Ah, yes, that's always a possibility.

The problem with that method (for me) is that I'd never do what the PCs do. In all the Origins, I can imagine myself being conscripted and joining the Wardens, but after Ostigar, I'd make a b-line to Orlais to join up with the Wardens there. If nothing else, I'd want them to know just how FUBAR the situation in Ferelden was.

Most of my PCs have a bit of me in them, though. I mean, I continuously romance Leliana and struggle to play Jerky McPuppyKiller.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 12 novembre 2010 - 07:54 .

[upsettingshorts]

I do a "me" playthrough first, because that's most fun for me to do given limited knowledge of the world, I can imagine what some other person will do later. Then I roleplay a few different toons. Then I metagame the heck out of the game until I get bored and move on. The "me" and the evenutal metagame playthroughs might end up wildly different.



But no CRPG has ever really allowed me to do everything I wanted to do. My example being to argue that the Couslands have just as much right - in the sense that they'd have a compelling case - to the throne in that Landsmeet scenario as anyone else, especially if Alistair isn't hardened. But the specifics of that argument are for another thread.

[Ziggeh]

Maria Caliban wrote...

1) Why would I think about how the anvil might be used when I already know how it's been used? Unless you're suggesting there's a use for the anvil that Caradin or Branka doesn't mention.

Would Harrowmont use it more responsibly than Bhelen? What influence would Branka have upon either of them? You have the option to give them something that not only helps you directly, something that saving Ferelden may rely upon, but potentially hands them back the empire they once held and decreases the threat of future Blights by crushing them in the ground before they start, but is the price too high? Do they deserve an Empire? Is placing the Queen of Crazy sacrifices in charge of the sacrifice engine a bad idea? Just because she's mental, should the dwarves be robbed of their heritage? Given the ethos of the Legion, is personal sacrifice as meaningful a term in their culture as ours?  Can you trust the dwarven political system to never produce a leader who wouldn't just start chopping up "dusters" in order to field the military machine?

Maria Caliban wrote...

2) I saved them both. Even if I didn't, it's my character doing the murdering. How Eamon might feel about the matter would rarely be a large concern in his or her mind.

You go there explicitly to gain his help. As he's landed gentry I figured killing his only begotten son, the heir to his estate and potential apple of his eye was a pretty poor way to go about this. But maybe he was a little brat, maybe their were suitable heirs amongst his entourage and maybe he loved his wife to the point that life was meaningless without her. Maybe spilling her blood all over the floor was something he'd take into consideration when deciding to help you or not. Alistair says he's bound to help, but I'm pretty sure I'd be a might upset if I was woken to the news that the thing I loved most had been sacrificed in order to have a conversation with me. Which one represents a greater risk to Eamon himself, given you don't understand his condition? Added to the "which is more moral" is "which is most likely to help the current situation", a decision you have to make with no information on the matter.

Maria Caliban wrote...

3) The game already tells you the danger of the Rachni, and real life has had plenty of genocide. I'm not sure how a modern person wouldn't know about the morality of genocide.

Right, but what's the price of your (or your characters) morality? Genocides might occur as a consequence of your unwillingness. Do you let fate decide or make that decision there and then? Can you take a "life is sacred" approach when your job is the protection of those you risk by setting her free?

I could honestly go on and on and on about all of them, such is their strength, but I'd better stop there. It's already too long.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 12 novembre 2010 - 08:24 .

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote..
But no CRPG has ever really allowed me to do everything I wanted to do. My example being to argue that the Couslands have just as much right - in the sense that they'd have a compelling case - to the throne in that Landsmeet scenario as anyone else, especially if Alistair isn't hardened. But the specifics of that argument are for another thread.

Yes! A kindred soul. I think a Cousland has a stronger case than Alistair with an unhardened Alistair, including having Alistair as a backer.

[Ziggeh]

Liana Nighthawk wrote...

While I can't say this is the situation here I suspect some people play as "themselves" and some people role-play a specific character. I'd suggest it is easier to dissociate yourself from a choice if you role-play a character since you know your character would do "X" because that is how you designed them and to do otherwise would break character.

For myself I'd say that while the character's I play are somewhat modeled on my morality, "they" tend to act more pragmatically than I would.

That said, while some of the decisions have simple answers (Andraste's ashes: "Am I a jerk or not?"), some are so complex that I don't understand (my failing, not a criticism) how any morality you might model could give you a straightforward path. Not without simplifying the questions, if Branka's sacrifices up to that point had already sealed her fate in your mind for example.

In the same way I only really thought about the dark ritual in retrospect because I'd decided it was my sacrifice to make.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 12 novembre 2010 - 08:22 .

[Archereon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

If my PCs were all that desperate to stay alive, they wouldn't be there

Well, there is no option to quit the blight at the beginning of the game (or at any moment for that matter), which is what some of my PCs would've done. So there's really no choice but to be there, no matter how they feel.

I think that's an important point. During the game, could you really express cowardice or attempt to have someone else die instead of you? You could express cruelty or lack of empathy, but whether you were good, bad, or merely pragmatic, you weren't terrified of death.

You can't have temptation plot with a main character who hasn't expressed a desire for something and has seemed indifferent to the matter for most of the story.

There's a difference between risking your life, and a certain, unavoidable death.  Its easier to risk your life knowing you have a decent chance of making it out alive, but to go to a certain death like the Ultimate Sacrifice screams against every fiber of a person's nature.  For example, while modern soldiers frequently are killed in combat, but cases of genuine "heroic suicides" are rather rare.

[Ziggeh]

Archereon wrote...

There's a difference between risking your life, and a certain, unavoidable death.  Its easier to risk your life knowing you have a decent chance of making it out alive, but to go to a certain death like the Ultimate Sacrifice screams against every fiber of a person's nature.  For example, while modern soldiers frequently are killed in combat, but cases of genuine "heroic suicides" are rather rare.

It's also Ultimate. You're not risking just your life but your immortal soul.

[Maria Caliban]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Would Harrowmont use it more responsibly than Bhelen? What influence would Branka have upon either of them? You have the option to give them something that not only helps you directly, something thatn saving Ferelden may rely upon, but potentially hands them back the empire they once held and decreases the threat of future Blights by crushing them in the ground before they start, is the price too high? Do they deserve an Empire? Is placing the Queen of Crazy sacrifices in charge of the sacrifice engine a bad idea? Just because she's mental, should the dwarves be robbed of their heritage? Given the ethos of the Legion, is personal sacrifice as meaningful a term in their culture as ours?  Can you trust the dwarven political system to never produce a leader who wouldn't just start chopping up "dusters" in order to field the military machine?

The important questions are: What can this do? (answered already) What are the drawbacks of its existence? (answered already) What are the benefits? (very clear to the PC at this point) How does my PC feel about this? (easy enough to guess)

The rest of your speculations, while interesting, only inform those questions or are immaterial. Even if I *were* to ask myself them, it would add about 15-30 seconds to my thought process and not actually alter my decision.

You go there explicitly to gain his help. As he's landed gentry I figured killing his only begotten son, the heir to his estate and potential apple of his eye was a pretty poor way to go about this. But maybe he was a little brat, maybe their were suitable heirs amongst his entourage and maybe he loved his wife to the point that life was meaningless without her. Maybe spilling her blood all over the floor was something he'd take into consideration when deciding to help you or not. Alistair says he's bound to help, but I'm pretty sure I'd be a might upset if I was woken to the news that the thing I loved most had been sacrificed in order to have a conversation with me. Which one represents a greater risk to Eamon himself, given you don't understand his condition? Added to the "which is more moral" is "which is most likely to help the current situation", a decision you have to make with no information on the matter.

That's nice, but not important to my character because
1) She saved them both. I see no reason for Eamon tobe upset about the PC saving his wife, son, city, and life.
2) If she's slitting the throats of people she sees as innocent, she has more on her mind than how the Arl would feel about the situation.

Right, but what's the price of your (or your characters) morality? Genocides might occur as a consequence of your unwillingness. Do you let fate decide or make that decision there and then? Can you take a "life is sacred" approach when your job is the protection of those you risk by setting her free?

Again, you've asked a series of questions I can easily answer in a matter of seconds.

The important questions are: What are the drawbacks of releasing the rachni? (already answered) What is the benefit? (unknown) How does my character feel about this? (Even easier to guess than the anvil)

It took me all of three seconds make the Rachni decision. Do I think it's interesting? Sure. Did I have to spend time thinking about it? No, I already had all the meaningful information.
----------------------

I have to turn this around: Did you not consider any of this before you were giving a decision to make?

I mean, you're told the danger the rachni pose over and over again. The scientists tell you that they've captured what might be the last rachni queen.

Why did you wait until BioWare gave you the option to kill the rachni queen before you decided how your PC felt about genocide vs possibly endangering the galaxy?

Why didn't you ask yourself if you/your PC considered geth 'people' in the original Mass Effect while you were blowing thousands of them away? I mean, you saw them praying, and that strange recording the geth kept of the singing.

Did you really need Legion to point out to you that reprogramming a geth is akin to brainwashing a human?

[upsettingshorts]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Did you really need Legion to point out to you that reprogramming a geth is akin to brainwashing a human?

He also says that applying organic logic to their situation is basically "racist" and implies that such comparisons are unreliable at best, prejudicial and inaccurate at worst.  That decision is only, in my view, superficially simple.

I've gone back and forth with that one in my "me" games.  Finally settling on blowing them up for a specific reason unrelated to the question of the morality of "brainwashing."

Edit: I'll only go into it further in this thread if asked.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 novembre 2010 - 09:14 .

[Crimson Invictus]

ziggehunderslash wrote...
That said, while some of the decisions have simple answers (Andraste's ashes: "Am I a jerk or not?"), some are so complex that I don't understand (my failing, not a criticism) how any morality you might model could give you a
straightforward path.

I'm curious how the choice over Andraste's ashes equates to being a jerk. Your view of the example would seem to do little to support your following point.

Maria Caliban wrote...
The important questions are: What are the drawbacks of releasing the rachni? (already answered) What is the benefit? (unknown) How does my character feel about this? (Even easier to guess than the anvil)

It took me all of three seconds make the Rachni decision. Do I think it's interesting? Sure. Did I have to spend time thinking about it? No, I already had all the meaningful information.

Out of curiosity, what did you choose?

Modifié par Liana Nighthawk, 12 novembre 2010 - 09:23 .

[upsettingshorts]

Well, the only "not a jerk" justifications for defiling the Urn I've heard are:

* Sylvius (I think it was him, it might have been a different player with a similar character) cowardly, conflict-avoiding character who determined it would be safer to simply cooperate with the crazy man wielding the large axe.

* Roleplaying a character that doesn't believe that the crazy man with the large axe is crazy, and the soul of Andraste has been reborn into the dragon.

I'm open to others. But those two and "you're a jerk" strike me as the most obvious.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 novembre 2010 - 09:28 .