248 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

*gasps* KoP argued for killing Morrigan? O_O



That must've been a sight to behold.

[sylvanaerie]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

sylvanaerie wrote...
Personally I prefer to try to get KoP to meet me at least halfway.  I don't want to wear him down...like Chinese water torture

That's really what I want in most cases, especially since I do think all choices are valid and I just want to add a perspective (I mean I argued for killing Morrigan for goodness sake! ).


The only choice I will never compromise on is the "leaving the demon in Redcliff for a few days and hope she doesn't do anything" one.

Yea.  At the moment trying to do Orzammar on my CE but I think when it comes time for Redcliffe I'll probably be killing Isolde.  Game is absolutely stupid for there not to be consequences for that decision. 
I don't like killing the little boy, but have no qualms about feeding Isolde to Jowan's ritual for that.  Besides, Morrigan in the fade kicks ass!

[Sarah1281]

I see no reason to punish myself or others for the fact that the demon wants to spend the time I take going to the Circle and back sulking.

[Wulfram]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Nothing happening usually means peace. That for me is a plus. The fact that Anora can't balance her reforms with basic food needs isn't a mark in her favor to me.

Peace is good. Stagnation isn't. Nothing happening is usually a sign of stagnation and Ferelden is already considered the backwater of Thedas so it really can't afford any more of that. It would be nice if Anora could keep the Alienage elves fed but if she can't do both then I would rather she drag Ferelden into the modern age with her trade and universities.

Plus those statues to slavers don't pay for themselves.

[Sarah1281]

Statues to slavers? Are you talking about the fact she builds a statue for Loghain? I'm sure Alistair goes off and builds a GW statue if given the chance. It's not like one single statue is going to drain the treasury.

[Addai]

Due to ignorance, not hypocracy.

(Husband)

O'H COME ON.

You're talking about hypocrisy....   Is going on and on talking about how bad the Orlesians are (because of their flagarant violation of human rights) then selling the elves into slavery because in war "the ends justifies the means", ruling like a tyrant and giving a Arl Howe aka Marquis de Sade, a blank check not hypocrisy?

Modifié par Addai67, 22 novembre 2010 - 04:01 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

Due to ignorance, not hypocracy.

(Husband)

O'H COME ON.

You're talking about hypocrisy....   Is going on and on talking about how bad the Orlesians are (because of their flagarant violation of human rights) then selling the elves into slavery because in war "the ends justifies the means", ruling like a tyrant and giving a Arl Howe aka Marquis de Sade, a blank check not hypocrisy?

No, since it's a different context all together.
If the Orlesians were doing all this to protect themselves from an existential threat (that would also somehow justify their usage of rape), then I would agree with you.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:28 .

[Sarah1281]

Addai67 wrote...

Due to ignorance, not hypocracy.

(Husband)

O'H COME ON.

You're talking about hypocrisy....   Is going on and on talking about how bad the Orlesians are (because of their flagarant violation of human rights) then selling the elves into slavery because in war "the ends justifies the means", ruling like a tyrant and giving a Arl Howe aka Marquis de Sade, a blank check not hypocrisy?

When discussing these kinds of things it is always useful to make a disclaimer about how you don't support slavery or selling the elves into slavery or else people accuse you of doing just that.

That said, I don't see that as hypocrisy. Maybe if Loghain's entire platform on why the Orlesians were evil was because they sold elves into slavery and then he did just that he'd be a hypocrite. Still, he did not sell them into slavery in order to watch himself grow rich or because he saw them as sub-human. He sold them into slavery because he needed money to finish the civil war and then deal with both the Orlesians (which admittedly he might not have needed to do right that second but we don't know what would have happened had) and the darkpsawn.

The Orlesians went around forcing nobles from their homes, letting chevaliers go on a mad raping spree, raising taxes simply to force freeholders off of their land, ect. not out of necessity or what they could have seen as necessity. Regardless of if Loghain could have found another way, he thought selling the elves was the only option he had to get that funding he needed. The Orlesians just saw themselves as superior to the backwater Fereldens and in the case of the chevaliers they treat their OWN people like that.

Desperate measures taken in war are hardly the same as peace-time measures undertaken out of ethnocentrism, resentment, and the fact that they could get away with it.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Going to the Circle to save Connor is a viable option, depending on how one RP's it, though it's definitely not my favorite, it does have some potential for interesting RO options.



When I have chosen it, I have RP'd leaving templars and partymembers in watch on Connor, ready to kill him if the demon re-emerges. The reason things were so disasterous for Redcliffe the first time was because they were totally unprepared. No one knew Connor was a mage, let alone demon possesed, so that element of shock and surprise would have maxium advantage. By the time people realized what was happening, it was too late.



This time, however, people are more wary, and a group of capable individuals, namely templars, would be better prepared (We know of at least one templar in Redcliffe, and given that it has a Chantry, there's no reason to believe that there are not more of them).



The reason I like this option is because it is the only one where you can send Jowan into the fade and make him undo what he has done. In some playthroughs, this seems fitting. If there was some other way to send him through, I'd rather have taken that, but there is not.



That said, I wish there had been some major consequence for doing so. Like, the demon killing Eamon in the meantime. Though then again, that would make me choose that option more often. But something getting sacrificed, maybe a whole bunch of Redcliffe troops liek Ser Perth getting killed when the demon re-emerged.

[Sarah1281]

Sided with the Magi in the Circle -- no obvious impact on the conclusion

Actually, what happens is that Cullen gets control of the Circle after all the mages are 'interrogated' and is insanely strict. Everyone is even more afraid of mages than before. Irving, in fact, is broken and passively allows himself to be sent to Orlais.

Sided with Hairecourt (sic) -- the Dwarfs remained fractured but I suspect that would be the case with or without the anvil

Actually, Harrowmont + Anvil is the worst thing you could do to the dwarves.
"In Orzammar, King Harrowmont quickly put down Bhelen's rebellion and then passed a series of laws to please the clan lords. Unfortunately, that isolated the dwarves even further from the surface. Caste restrictions and the rights of the nobles both grew, and trade with the human lands was all but cut off. After a law excluding the casteless from common areas of the city was passed, a rebellion saw the slums reduced practically to rubble. Although outrage was widespread, the Assembly remained united behind King Harrowmont.
It was not long before Branka mastered Caridin's technique, learning how to use the Anvil of the Void to create new golems--the first in many centuries. The dwarven people greeted this news with cheers, though few knew of the cost. Initially, King Harrowmont was more than willing to provide volunteers for Branka. The golems were sorely needed to crush Bhelen's rebellion, after all, and they did so with success. But eventually, Harrowmont declared that no new dwarven souls could be used on the Anvil. The unending need for golems in the Deep Roads, however, gave rise to secret surface raids to kidnap humans and elves for the mad Paragon. When this came to light, a brief war broke out between Orzammar and Ferelden. The gates to the subterranean city were sealed and Harrowmont's kingdom became more isolated than ever. Branka insists, of course, that the raids on the surface continue."
So no, the dwarves are all united behind King Anvil Harrowmont but they're better off fractured.

Refused Morrigan's offer (thanks for keeping me warm at night but seriously, I'm not that gullible)

You DO realize that by saying you turned down the ritual because you're not gullible implies that everyone who didn't turn it down is, right? 

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

The impact your descisions have is also heavily based on your origin.



In siding with Harrowmont, saving the anvil produces a much worse ending for the dwarves.

Elves always remain second class citizens, no matter what you do.



I do agree on the Landsmeet and having to get involved in politics. It does leave a bad taste in my mouth, since you are forced to get directly involved in the civil and government affairs of both humans and dwarves. And even get used.

[NuclearSerendipity]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I don't see the point of him ranting if he was planing to kill them anyways, giving them time to prepare their defenses.
But yes, we dont' really know how Ferelden operates this stupid tradition of duels being able to overturn everything.

I just wanted to say, that annoys the crap out of me aswell. And it's not the first time that Bioware has come up with stuff like that - they do something terribly similar to it in NWN 2's trial, which is, by far, one of the best quest lines of the game, and just gets screwed with that  "oopsie, there's a duel" thing.

In that quest, you're being accused by the Luskans (traditional Neverwinter city's enemies, but supposedly cooperating with it at the moment) of burning down a village, and have to travel to places to gather evidence and talk to people in order to defend yourself when the Trial begins. And  you have not only to gather that evidence, but also to use whatever means you have to make your case during the Trial, whether by persuasion, intimidation, lore (which is awesome, because it makes you refer to Neverwinter's city history with the Luskans and how they've done things that makes them untrustful) and even "off the records" help (such as some guy barging in the Trial and making fun of the Luskan's embassador). It's, IMO, awesomely written, and has the credit precisely of focusing on the roleplaying part of the game, rather than the hack'n'slash.

Until, of course, you win the trial (if you do) and the Luskan Ambassador claims the right of challenging the Trial's result by... A duel? And everyone says she has the goddamed right of doing so?

Oh, but there's a bright side, of course: if you lose the trial, you can also, of course, challenge it with your right to duel the accusers.

WHAT. THE. HELL? Isn't one of the main reasons of there being a Trial that a case is decided accordingly to justice, and not to who is the strongest? And what's the point of taking all that effort to win the trial, if it won't make any difference but give you a lousy achievement? If the only difference it possibly makes isn't story-outcome-related (since the outcome will be the same: duel), but "power gaming" related (a little more XP for finding the evidence and what not)?

It just plainly disappoints me that Bioware feels obliged to give in to a hack'n'slash logic where every problem in the game can be solved by shoving a sword up its... ahem... plothole... :innocent: Even when it doesn't make the faintest sense. If they really want to make games focused on the stories and, moreover, on the role the players take in these stories, they shouldn't, IMO, betray these intentions by sacrificing the story for the sake of keeping the game bound to the parameters of hack'n'slash, where every main plot storyline can or even must be ultimately solved by hacking your way through it.  I think we've had enough of players' spoiling, by allowing everything that matters to boil down to be ultimately (possibly or necessarily) solvable by fighting: if it's the game story that should be emphatized, then the folks at Bioware should quit spoiling the story for the sake of spoiling the gamers. DAO came a long way through in that direction, by making story-related choices a lot more difficult and interesting. But it still has a long way to go before it can be said that the game's story isn't subordinated to any other of its spheres.

Of course, that's only my opinion... It's just that this subject really gets me ranting about it.

Modifié par NuclearSerendipity, 22 novembre 2010 - 09:20 .

[Sarah1281]

He's a question: if the losers of a trial/vote/whatever can just challenge the verdict with a duel and everyone ignores the pervious verdict and follows whoever wins the duel then it's pretty clear that for contentious issues like whatever you end up embroiled in, there will always be a duel. Why not save time and effort by just skipping the first part that is totally going to become meaningless when you have the duel and just duel at the start?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

NuclearSerendipity wrote...

I just wanted to say, that annoys the crap out of me aswell. And it's not the first time that Bioware has come up with stuff like that - they do something terribly similar to it in NWN 2's trial, which is, by far, one of the best quest lines of the game, and just gets screwed with that  "oopsie, there's a duel" thing.

In that quest, you're being accused by the Luskans (traditional Neverwinter city's enemies, but supposedly cooperating with it at the moment) of burning down a village, and have to travel to places to gather evidence and talk to people in order to defend yourself when the Trial begins. And  you have not only to gather that evidence, but also to use whatever means you have to make your case during the Trial, whether by persuasion, intimidation, lore (which is awesome, because it makes you refer to Neverwinter's city history with the Luskans and how they've done things that makes them untrustful) and even "off the records" help (such as some guy barging in the Trial and making fun of the Luskan's embassador). It's, IMO, awesomely written, and has the credit precisely of focusing on the roleplaying part of the game, rather than the hack'n'slash.

Until, of course, you win the trial (if you do) and the Luskan Ambassador claims the right of challenging the Trial's result by... A duel? And everyone says she has the goddamed right of doing so?

Oh, but there's a bright side, of course: if you lose the trial, you can also, of course, challenge it with your right to duel the accusers.

WHAT. THE. HELL? Isn't one of the main reasons of there being a Trial that a case is decided accordingly to justice, and not to who is the strongest? And what's the point of taking all that effort to win the trial, if it won't make any difference but give you a lousy achievement? If the only difference it possibly makes isn't story-outcome-related (since the outcome will be the same: duel), but "power gaming" related (a little more XP for finding the evidence and what not)?

It just plainly disappoints me that Bioware feels obliged to give in to a hack'n'slash logic where every problem in the game can be solved by shoving a sword up its... ahem... plothole... :innocent: Even when it doesn't make the faintest sense. If they really want to make games focused on the stories and, moreover, on the role the players take in these stories, they shouldn't, IMO, betray these intentions by sacrificing the story for the sake of keeping the game bound to the parameters of hack'n'slash, where every main plot storyline can or even must be ultimately solved by hacking your way through it.  I think we've had enough of players' spoiling, by allowing everything that matters to boil down to be ultimately (possibly or necessarily) solvable by fighting: if it's the game story that should be emphatized, then the folks at Bioware should quit spoiling the story for the sake of spoiling the gamers. DAO came a long way through in that direction, by making story-related choices a lot more difficult and interesting. But it still has a long way to go before it can be said that the game's story isn't subordinated to any other of its spheres.

Of course, that's only my opinion... It's just that this subject really gets me ranting about it.

Yep, totally agree. NWN2 was an excellent example: it was like, in the end, the trial was meaningless, you're just gonna end up cracking skulls in the end. Would have been nice to skip the BS and get to the hurting.

Landsmeet was the same, and I think the general consensus is, is that they pretty much rushed Landsmeet and all points after, and it got pretty sloppy.

[Sarah1281]

Glaucon wrote...

@NuclearSerendipity

Yeha I yawned a little when the dual option came up in DA:O. At least the dual in NWN is a major event and (depending on your PC build) quite entertaining and challenging -- try doing it as a level 11 Arcane Trickster.

I've found that if you've never played a warrior yourself and then have Alistair (who you had automatically levelled up)  duel Loghain then it can be quite challenging as well.

[Sarah1281]

Glaucon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Glaucon wrote...

@NuclearSerendipity

Yeha I yawned a little when the dual option came up in DA:O. At least the dual in NWN is a major event and (depending on your PC build) quite entertaining and challenging -- try doing it as a level 11 Arcane Trickster.

I've found that if you've never played a warrior yourself and then have Alistair (who you had automatically levelled up)  duel Loghain then it can be quite challenging as well.

In that event do you still control Alistair or is it a sequence?  I'd do it if it were a sequence, that would be cool.

You control Alistair. And if you have no idea what the special attack options are because you have literally never seen them before...let me just say that Alistair earned his revenge that time.

[NuclearSerendipity]

Sarah1281 wrote...

He's a question: if the losers of a trial/vote/whatever can just challenge the verdict with a duel and everyone ignores the pervious verdict and follows whoever wins the duel then it's pretty clear that for contentious issues like whatever you end up embroiled in, there will always be a duel. Why not save time and effort by just skipping the first part that is totally going to become meaningless when you have the duel and just duel at the start?

Exactly!
It makes no sense whatsoever, since the trial/vote/whatever loses its whole point if the matter at hand is ultimately and legitimately solved by violence. The whole point of having these procedures is to make decisions accordingly to a different criterion than violence... But then you say that these procedures can be anulled by violence? Shouldn't one expect that any society that works like that will easily fall into chaos and disorder? It's really a gruesome thing to be done to a game's story, and really affects how believable it is.

Modifié par NuclearSerendipity, 22 novembre 2010 - 09:38 .

[sylvanaerie]

Glaucon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Glaucon wrote...

@NuclearSerendipity

Yeha I yawned a little when the dual option came up in DA:O. At least the dual in NWN is a major event and (depending on your PC build) quite entertaining and challenging -- try doing it as a level 11 Arcane Trickster.

I've found that if you've never played a warrior yourself and then have Alistair (who you had automatically levelled up)  duel Loghain then it can be quite challenging as well.

In that event do you still control Alistair or is it a sequence?  I'd do it if it were a sequence, that would be cool.

you control whomever is doing the fighting at that point.

[Sarah1281]

NuclearSerendipity wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

He's a question: if the losers of a trial/vote/whatever can just challenge the verdict with a duel and everyone ignores the pervious verdict and follows whoever wins the duel then it's pretty clear that for contentious issues like whatever you end up embroiled in, there will always be a duel. Why not save time and effort by just skipping the first part that is totally going to become meaningless when you have the duel and just duel at the start?

Exactly!
It makes no sense whatsoever, since the trial/vote/whatever loses its whole point if the matter at hand is ultimately and legitimately solved by violence. The whole point of having these procedures is to make decisions accordingly to a different criterion than violence... But then you say that these procedures can be anulled by violence? Shouldn't one expect that any society that works like that will easily fall into chaos and disorder? It's really a gruesome thing to be done to a game's story, and really affects how believable it is.

Obviously, we don't need much less serious things to be decided by a duel but I think it would make more sense if when two parties are opposing each other in a Landsmeet/trial/whatever that they should be asked whether they would accept the outcome if they lose. If one or both parties says no, they have the duel instead. If they both insist that they would be fine with losing then they forfeit their right once they lose to call a duel.