79 réponses à ce sujet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Not really someone who gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling

I don't know, he does give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

And I am not even joking lol
He is my favorite Dwarf ever (and I do mean ever) and one of my favorite NPCs in the entire game.

Well, he does now (really...I think of how awesome he does as king) but before I knew this, my first playthrough, I wanted to go wash myself after dealing with him and his toad.

I mean, the crowning ceremony, and right after, Bhelen demands Harrowmont be executed, even after he gave up his claim and aknowledged Bhelen as king. I though to myself  "great, I've just picked a psychotic little slug with a Napoleon complex".  My first virgin playthrough.

Now when Bhelen orders Harrowmont executed, he recieves some heavy fist pumpage from me, as well as the chosen response "So will be the fate of all who defy Bhelen!":wub:

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Not really someone who gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling

I don't know, he does give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

And I am not even joking lol
He is my favorite Dwarf ever (and I do mean ever) and one of my favorite NPCs in the entire game.

Well KoP, you are a very different person than most, which is why you're so loved in this boards! 

[termokanden]

The fact that cutthroat politics and (actual) backstabbing is standard in dwarven politics doesn't mean I agree with it on any level.

[KnightofPhoenix]

termokanden wrote...

The fact that cutthroat politics and (actual) backstabbing is standard in dwarven politics doesn't mean I agree with it on any level.

You don't have to of course.
But when you are picking a king who is going to rule Orzammar, it is arguably wiser to pick someone who knows how to play the dwarven game than one who doesn't really.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 novembre 2010 - 07:34 .

[termokanden]

Depends on their agenda. Don't care if they know how to play the game if I don't trust their agenda.



Anyway, my next character will be a dwarf commoner who will support Bhelen. I haven't exactly worked out the roleplaying reasons for everything, but I can imagine it will be easy to justify siding against the traditionalist when you're at the very bottom of the system.

[ejoslin]

termokanden wrote...

Depends on their agenda. Don't care if they know how to play the game if I don't trust their agenda.

Anyway, my next character will be a dwarf commoner who will support Bhelen. I haven't exactly worked out the roleplaying reasons for everything, but I can imagine it will be easy to justify siding against the traditionalist when you're at the very bottom of the system.

DC is very easy to justify choosing Bhelen, actually.  In fact, it's hard to justify not siding with him.  

[NuclearSerendipity]

Corker wrote...

@KoP, I think my comment still mostly stands, although I understand that the terminology I used doesn't work for you. Whatever your moral code, if you can characterize it well, it's not usually hard to figure out what the moral choice in a given situation is (ETA: IN DAO). It's not complex. It's only when different elements of your morality are in competition that there's any complexity. Setting up that kind of a choice is hard, not in the least because the writers don't know what moral codes the players will bring to the table (although I suspect there are a few broad, common categories they can guess). It's much easier to write choices that set one category of moral code against another.

So I'd suspect that which choices one finds morally complex would depend on one's moral code, but I'd still bet there aren't going to be too many of them.

ETA2: And just to be clear - although I don't think the choices aren't 'morally complex,' I do think they can be difficult and compelling.  Unless your moral code is "I do what I wanna," there's always the possibility for tension between what you want to do and what you think you ought to do. 

I'm not sure, though, first of just how easy it is to characterize a moral code, and second of how easy it is to apply said code to a given situation. It seems one of the hardest things lies precisely in managing to define what you believe is good (with the exception of course of moral codes that'd be like "whatever suits me" and what not), and in deciding whether a given situation falls within the category of what you consider good or doesn't. I think that there are situations in DAO that resort precisely not only to dealing with subjects that are rather difficult for the player to define morally, but also to making these situations sometimes in a such a way that even assuming the player's moral code on the matter at hand is clearly defined, it's still complicated to apply that moral code to the situation at hand, since it isn't an easily classifiable one. It's likely, I think, that many player will have trouble deciding whether what the desire demon does to the templar at the Circle is good or bad accordingly to their code, since it relies on a sort of "grey area" situation that maybe requires a moral code's characterization far more difficult than what the player can usually provide. After all, it might be harder than it seems to define to others as well as to ourselves what is it that we consider Right and Wrong, or Better and Worse, when it comes to situations that are far too peculiar to be easily classified and dealt with, such as that one with the demon and the templar seems to be to me.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm not sure if the moral complexity of a choice shouldn't be measured precisely by how much it relies on situations that are hard to define or on topics that are rather difficult for one to have a clear and determinate stand on it. 

Of course, it might be also that I just didn't quite understand what you mean - and I do think I didn't really manage to express myself well here - but if that's the case, I'm truly sorry.

[NuclearSerendipity]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Corker wrote...
So I'd suspect that which choices one finds morally complex would depend on one's moral code, but I'd still bet there aren't going to be too many of them.

Yes, I see your point. You're right.

I think maybe the Architect choice was the most complex? At least for me, I stood there for 5 minutes not knowing what to do with him.

Agreed. Still not sure I made the right call.

But that personally raised to me the question: did they go too far in order to make choices difficult that they ended up making an unbelievable character? I mean, I can't help but get the feeling that there's a gap between the things the Architect does and the way he actually behaves. His actions indicate to me one that is obstinate with his objectives and thus inclined to act and behave rashly. Yet his behavior is completely "sagely", and his willingness and tranquility just doesn't seem to add up with his reckless pursuit of his objectives.  And he never behaves rashly, so it's like there's a link missing between his actions and his behavior. Of course, it's just my opinion, but I couldn't help but get that impression after having to make that last decision.

[roundcrow]

NuclearSerendipity wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think maybe the Architect choice was the most complex? At least for me, I stood there for 5 minutes not knowing what to do with him.

Agreed. Still not sure I made the right call.

Yes, I think I went and made myself a snack while I thought about it.  My canon response right now is to kill him, but I am not entirely convinced that it is best for Thedas in the long run, even having read the books.  

[NuclearSerendipity]

roundcrow wrote...

NuclearSerendipity wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think maybe the Architect choice was the most complex? At least for me, I stood there for 5 minutes not knowing what to do with him.

Agreed. Still not sure I made the right call.

Yes, I think I went and made myself a snack while I thought about it.  My canon response right now is to kill him, but I am not entirely convinced that it is best for Thedas in the long run, even having read the books.  

Same response here, though I haven't read the books And I keep getting more and more reasons to.

[Giggles_Manically]

I cant even find anything the Architect did that was a complete success.

-Tried to awaken the Archdemon, started the blight

-Tried to awaken the Mother- started the Awakening issues

-Planned to poison all of Thedas with the taint- killing well most of the people, or making them ghouls.

-Cant control his own troops who do what THEY want not what he wants.

-Half the darkspawn he wakes up go Berserk.

-Attacks me once, experiments on me, then sends dragons after me.



Pretty much he is the Jowan of the Darkspawn world, and made me wonder what Bioware was thinking. Honestly if he had well any real successes I would think of siding with him, but since he dosent I squash him like the piece of mutated disease he is.

[CalJones]

When you put it like that, it's hard not to kill him, isn't it? Then again, I'd rather not kill Jowan...but he has a lot less power than the Architect.

[Giggles_Manically]

CalJones wrote...

When you put it like that, it's hard not to kill him, isn't it? Then again, I'd rather not kill Jowan...but he has a lot less power than the Architect.

I feel bad for Jowan poor bugger cant even do one thing without something bad happening.
Still he lied to me and Lily and attacked a lot of people, so I dont really have that much compassion for him.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I think the Architect's plan has been retconned somewhat. I don't see much correlation between what he is doing in the book and what he is doing in the game. Add the fact that in-game, we don't know about the plan he proposed in the book. I think the Architect changed his mind or altered his plan at least.

[NuclearSerendipity]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I cant even find anything the Architect did that was a complete success.
-Tried to awaken the Archdemon, started the blight
-Tried to awaken the Mother- started the Awakening issues
-Planned to poison all of Thedas with the taint- killing well most of the people, or making them ghouls.
-Cant control his own troops who do what THEY want not what he wants.
-Half the darkspawn he wakes up go Berserk.
-Attacks me once, experiments on me, then sends dragons after me.

Pretty much he is the Jowan of the Darkspawn world, and made me wonder what Bioware was thinking. Honestly if he had well any real successes I would think of siding with him, but since he dosent I squash him like the piece of mutated disease he is.

Hum, I didn't know about that whole poison all of Thedas thing. Well, it does makes me feel more at ease with choosing to not allow him to continue his experiments... But, yeah, either way, all those other reasons you gave came up to mind ('cept the Archidemon one, since I didn't know yet) when I had to decide about him, and how it was pretty clear that he didn't actually have a clue about what he was setting himself up to do and just how bad it could go. I mean, great, so Grey Warden's blood makes the darkspawn go free: but just how many blood exactly would you need to END the Blights altogether, assuming that would be possible (which is already assuming far too much)? I mean, does he even have a clue of just how much darkspawn are there? And how's he gonna get this blood, since 99% of the Grey Wardens probably wouldn't be willing to part with it? And even assuming his experiments could eventually diminish or dispense altogether with the need for the blood: how many blood would be needed until then, and what other catastrophes would happen with the failed experiments? And finally, even supposing all of that went smoothly, what about the fact not all freed darkspawn are willing to respect other species and just become extremely dangerous to all other people with no need for a Blight, such as the Mother herself?

In the end, even though it was a really strong reason to me to spare him that the darkspawn should be given a chance to be free, that right didn't seem to justify the means through which the Architect intend to reach that freedom, or would ultimately resort to even if it went beyond the scope of his intentions.

Still... Gah, it's tough.

[Giggles_Manically]

Yah the Darkspawn still would need broodmothers, and still carry the taint which sickens all those around them.



So no dice.



Really when he captured the warden and said "I dont want to be enemies" but kept on experimenting he signed his death writ. Same with Charr on BDTS, "we only came for slaves", well that gave me all the excuse I needed to kill him.

[Collider]

You can believe that he is tainted, so killing him would not only put
him out of his misery, but also avoid infecting the others. In addition,
that guy was bound to go screaming in campo telling erveryone how
monstrous the darkspawn are, thus possibly shaking their morale.
So it doesn't have to be for no reason.

Only problem with that is that the warden is unable to express those opinions. When the warden kills the wounded soldier, the warden's wording is like s/he's trying to proving to prove that s/he's a psycho badass to Alistair.

Alistair: He's still alive.
Warden: Not anymore he is! (slices throat)

[Ferretinabun]

I think quite a few moral choices had potential, but Bioware would push down on one side of the scales. Killing or rescuing the mages could have been presented as a far more difficult position, but Bioware effectively promote a particular decision with the introduction of Wynne. Same with the Anvil of the Void - had Branka been the heroic and brilliant woman she apparently once was, desperately trying to save her people, the decision would have been much tougher. But siding with her was discouraged by making her bat-s**t crazy. The formula for several choices seemed to be '1) Design a complex moral dilemna, 2) Shove the characters into making a particular decision.'

I much prefer the decisions you have to make at the Landsmeet. They got the balance just right there. Those are the ones I replay the game for, really.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Collider wrote...

You can believe that he is tainted, so killing him would not only put
him out of his misery, but also avoid infecting the others. In addition,
that guy was bound to go screaming in campo telling erveryone how
monstrous the darkspawn are, thus possibly shaking their morale.
So it doesn't have to be for no reason.

Only problem with that is that the warden is unable to express those opinions. When the warden kills the wounded soldier, the warden's wording is like s/he's trying to proving to prove that s/he's a psycho badass to Alistair.

Alistair: He's still alive.
Warden: Not anymore he is! (slices throat)

Yes true, that's why I don't take dialogue options literally.
Might be cheating or illusionary, but eh. I don't feel like I have to play a character that only speaks a few words and never links two sentences.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 novembre 2010 - 12:06 .

[NuclearSerendipity]

Collider wrote...

You can believe that he is tainted, so killing him would not only put
him out of his misery, but also avoid infecting the others. In addition,
that guy was bound to go screaming in campo telling erveryone how
monstrous the darkspawn are, thus possibly shaking their morale.
So it doesn't have to be for no reason.

Only problem with that is that the warden is unable to express those opinions. When the warden kills the wounded soldier, the warden's wording is like s/he's trying to proving to prove that s/he's a psycho badass to Alistair.

Alistair: He's still alive.
Warden: Not anymore he is! (slices throat)

Yeah, I find that extremely annoying too. It seems there's alot of situations in the game where you can't make a choice without being an ass about it, where it'd be perfectly reasonable that you could choose to do something without having to act "badass" about it.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

It's very easy to find reasons to kill the Architect, and seems the most logical choice. It's harder to spare him and feel good about it. But that's what makes it even more fascinating, because the epilogue states the Deep Roads get quiet, the darkspawn seeming to retreat. What this means is anyone's guess, and it could be the herald of something good or bad.



That mystery in itself is enough to make me want to spare him more.

[NuclearSerendipity]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

It's very easy to find reasons to kill the Architect, and seems the most logical choice. It's harder to spare him and feel good about it. But that's what makes it even more fascinating, because the epilogue states the Deep Roads get quiet, the darkspawn seeming to retreat. What this means is anyone's guess, and it could be the herald of something good or bad.

That mystery in itself is enough to make me want to spare him more.

Well, it depends on what angle you think about that choice, I guess: personally, I felt it was harder to kill him, because I'm prone to not killing unless absolutely necessarily, and it was really hard to decide to kill him despite the fact that he didn't offer any immediate threat. And I find the epilogue much more appeasing when you spare him than when you don't, considering how, at first, things get better if you spare him, and just remain the same, with the cycle continuing, when you don't...

I agree, though, that the mystery, if what you're looking for is what makes a story more interesting, is worthwhile. :happy:

[Tigress M]

termokanden wrote...

Tigress M wrote...

Brother Burkel - If you get Orzammar to allow him to open a Chantry things get really ugly.  So bad, that Brother Burkel is killed in the rioting and the Chantry considers doing an Exalted March on Orzammar.

Well that's exactly what I don't like. The moral "complexity" of it all seems forced at times. You aren't really warned that there would be violent resistance against the Chantry in Orzammar. In the same way, you are punished for picking the "wrong" king of Orzammar. Nobody in their right mind would pick Bhelen after seeing the kind of person he is. But if you pick the only alternative, they WILL let you know that you were wrong.

Might as well pick a random number instead of trying to be good/evil. Because from what your character is told ingame, you will rarely have enough information to know what you're actually doing.

But, isn't that exactly like RL?  You make decisions based on the information you have at the time, which may turn out to be really bad decisions down the road.  I guess that's why I like DA so much... it's a very believable story.

[termokanden]

It's too realistic that way

[Giggles_Manically]

Too bad the devs said they wont be following the architects story anymore though during a podcast.