1079 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Doesn't "looks after family/friends/own species" fall pretty much under "being at certain point of altruism scale"?

It's a specific behaviour. You could not do any of these things, but still be very high in altruism (for example constantly sacrificing to save strangers). Mechanically, a trait is a set of interrelated behaviours in factor analysis. You take lots of behaviours, and see if and how much they corelate, then you see if you can separate clusters. Those clusters become your 'major' personality variables that predict these other minor traits.

To me, it is things like how altruistic, how extraverted, how curageous, that matters. Broad traits. The specific behaviours, those are in-game but it doesn't matter per se how a character does this.

Perhaps because I look at personality this way, I see Shepard as my character as much as the Warden, just with worse presentation.

This is why in the original statement i included both the inability and unwilingness as possible reasons -- it wasn't to imply that everyone who finds themselves in this spot is there because they don't have choice in this matter.

So long as you even include inability, you are advocating an elitist position. Even right now - you are saying at least some people can't recognize the superiority of silent VO. 

I outright object to any view that puts a preference on a pedestal in this way.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

It's a specific behaviour. You could not do any of these things, but still be very high in altruism (for example constantly sacrificing to save strangers).

And you could do any of these things and based on it score somewhere lower in altruism. I'm not sure why the "specific behaviour" is of such importance here -- everything we ever do is specific behaviour. Including your example of constantly sacrificing to save strangers. These are indications of sort for the intended "level of altruism", and doing something directly opposite makes that level of altruism in the character questionable.

So long as you even include inability, you are advocating an elitist position. Even right now - you are saying at least some people can't recognize the superiority of silent VO. 

I outright object to any view that puts a preference on a pedestal in this way.

I think you're reading something that isn't there -- it is quite possible to say someone may be incapable of doing something without putting anything on the pedestal. If i say that some people cannot sing or paint (on certain level) i'm not putting on pedestal these who can. Just acknowledging it's something not everyone can do.

full disclosure: i suck at singing. And at drawing too, for this matter.

I'm also not saying anything about "superiority of silent VO" -- just that some people may have difficulty substituting content that isn't provided with one of their own. This says nothing about supposed superiority of lack of such content, vs situation where one gets provided.

[upsettingshorts]

I personally wouldn't have a problem if as part of your argument you specified that there are just as likely to be people out there who "don't get" the superiority of the voiced protagonist.

But I'm not going to speak for In Exile.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 décembre 2010 - 03:38 .

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I personally wouldn't have a problem if as part of your argument you specified that there are just as likely to be people out there who "don't get" the superiority of the voiced protagonist.

Well, by doing so i'd be apparently placing the ability to "get" the voiced protagonist on the pedestal...

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
And you could do any of these things and based on it score somewhere lower in altruism. I'm not sure why the "specific behaviour" is of such importance here -- everything we ever do is specific behaviour. 

It isn't. Specific behaviour is actually very much useless. It's a behaviour predisposition that matters, and we measure that via a series of different behaviours.

Including your example of constantly sacrificing to save strangers. These are indications of sort for the intended "level of altruism", and doing something directly opposite makes that level of altruism in the character questionable.

Not at all. The problem with this is the fallacy of consistency - that a person who has a trait acts the same in all situations. Actually, the situation has a dramatic influence on traits. It can go so far as to turn a dramatic extrovert into a dramatic introvert.

I think you're reading something that isn't there -- it is quite possible to say someone may be incapable of doing something without putting anything on the pedestal. If i say that some people cannot sing or paint (on certain level) i'm not putting on pedestal these who can. Just acknowledging it's something not everyone can do.

The problem is the counter-factual.

If you could appreciate this, you would see the value.

It would be like saying the only reason you don't like the opera is because you can't sign. That automatically diminishes any other reason you might have to not like opera.

You're not saying some people have better or worse imaginations. That's just an observation. You're saying the imagination explains the preference. Which is putting the preference on a pedestal, because it's reducing it to a "you can't get it" moment.

I'm also not saying anything about "superiority of silent VO" -- just that some people may have difficulty substituting content that isn't provided with one of their own. This says nothing about supposed superiority of lack of such content, vs situation where one gets provided.

It says that at least some these people, if they only had the capacity to do it, would. Which absolutely diminishes other reasons not to like silent VO.

It would be like saying - you would like mathematics if only you were more intelligent.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Well, by doing so i'd be apparently placing the ability to "get" the voiced protagonist on the pedestal...

It's not the ability that is put on the pedestal. It's the feature. The other way is just as bad.

It's saying people would get PC VO if only they didn't lack [x] feature. It diminishes the reasons they actually give for not liking PC VO, like the fact that it removes customization, because it makes it about something that's wrong with them.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

The problem with this is the fallacy of consistency - that a person who has a trait acts the same in all situations. Actually, the situation has a dramatic influence on traits. It can go so far as to turn a dramatic extrovert into a dramatic introvert.

Or make someone who is supposed to look after certain group of people to actually ruin lives of these people, instead?

At what point would the displayed behaviour start to conflict with supposed personality of the character? Considering the game doesn't provide that many opportunities to display said behaviours, overall.

The problem is the counter-factual.

If you could appreciate this, you would see the value.

It's only the problem because you think that's what i'm saying.

While what i'm saying is rather "if you could/wished to see it, you wouldn't say it's not there".

If you remember, the context of this is the claim made that the silent protagonist is "dead and empty and it's the lack of speaking that does it". My point to that was, the lack of speaking doesn't make universally everyone think the silent protagonist is dead and empty. So this impression of dead, empty character is also in part dependant on the viewer.

Note, this doesn't equal to saying that silent protagonist is preferable or has any special value that should be appreciated, compared to the voiced alternative. That's entirely different argument altogether.

You're not saying some people have better or worse imaginations. That's just an observation. You're saying the imagination explains the preference. Which is putting the preference on a pedestal, because it's reducing it to a "you can't get it" moment.

I say nothing about the preference there -- finding a character not "dead and empty" because you can envision situations which remove this impression doesn't mean person capable of that must automatically see this version as preferable over one provided by the game in the voiced version. Or have the opposite preference, for this matter.

I'm also not saying anything about "superiority of silent VO" -- just that some people may have difficulty substituting content that isn't provided with one of their own. This says nothing about supposed superiority of lack of such content, vs situation where one gets provided.

It says that at least some these people, if they only had the capacity to do it, would.

Would what, substitute content that isn't provided with one of their own? And how does that say anything about superiority of this approach over situation where the content is provided?
 

It would be like saying - you would like mathematics if only you were more intelligent.

No, it's like saying -- if you could solve mathematical equations you wouldn't be saying they're unsolvable. I.e. nothing about whether you'd actually like to solve these equations.

Modifié par tmp7704, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:10 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Graunt wrote...

I'm just going to assume you never played PnP RPGs much?

I'm not sure why you're assuming that, but go ahead.

The assumption is incorrect, but I also don't see how it matters here, so I see no reason t dispute it.

Again, this is the difference between fixed variables and what you can do outside of a video game. The kind of adventure you're talking about is not possible in a video game and I mostly agree with Wissenschaft on
the "in a box" vs "free roam" styles of gameplay. 

Actually, I think free roam is more possible is a CRPG because a CRPG design team is quite a bit bigger than a tabletop game run by a single GM.  They can flesh out the world a lot better than you get in a tabletop game
(unless you're using a pre-fab setting).

Furthermore, we've seen that kind pf free roam in CRPGs, so it's rather silly, I think, to declare it impossible.  We've seen it.  We saw it in Baldur's Gate (1, not 2).  We've seen it in most of the Ultima games. 

To me, Oblivion is one of the most boring RPGs I've ever played in my life, not only because of how many dead spots there are (where I'm assuming you would find to be some grand adventure in psychological
development), but because the actual gameplay was so utterly awful.

I agree entirely with you on Oblivion.  Terrible game.  The world was boring, the combat mechanic was terrible, and the levelling system was horribly horribly broken.  Also, the main plot has the most idiotic hook I've ever seen, and in my opinion encouraged the player character never to follow it.

I certainly never saw Oblivion's main quest.  I don't even know what it was.

Morrowind was vastly superior in all aspects other than graphics.

Basically the same combat, so I found both games entirely unpleasant.

There's a point where free roam for the sake of free roam is not a good thing.  Fallout 3 was essentially "Oblivion with guns" yet for some reason it was a lot more interesting to me.  Probably because of how they handled the narrative. 

Fallout 3's world is far more detailed and interesting that Oblivion's was, and the quest design in FO3 is really very good.

I don't believe Dragon Age was nearly that bad at all in terms of the way they handled the story and "roaming", but my Bio-sense is leading me to belive it will be greatly improved in Dragon Age 2 despite what the
nasayers are saying right now.

DAO's roaming was basically equivalent to BG2 and KotOR, which is to say there wasn't much roaming except inside areas you'd been specifically told to visit.  You couldn't just go wherever you wanted just because it was there.

BG1 allowed that.  So did ME1.  It's a good feature, I think.

In Exile wrote...

Which, of course, you had lots of control over. The issue isn't personality but what you think makes up that personality and what makes you feel like you are in control of it. That's at the centre of all these what is an RPG debate.

Yes, if you're not concerned with what your character says or how he says it, then I could see how you'd disagree with me on this.

Rather, on the topic of a free roam RPG, I'm rather sure that if Biioware did such a thing, depending on how exactly they were going to implement it, the game would probably fall into the same ''rental-only'' category I filled Fallout and Oblivion under.

I still don't know why you didn't like BG1.

If we had tactical turn based combat (hex based turn, like in Journeys) then I would buy the game with no concern for any other feature (I mean, I would have honestly bought a full version of Journeys).

So would I.  I said so at the time.  I was hoping EA 2D would make a full version of Journeys I could buy, but they never did.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:14 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Actually, I think free roam is more possible is a CRPG because a CRPG design team is quite a bit bigger than a tabletop game run by a single GM.  They can flesh out the world a lot better than you get in a tabletop game
(unless you're using a pre-fab setting).

The initial world yes, but a human GM is capable of extending the borders of the world at any time - for any reason - on a whim.  The level of detail of course depending on how much detail the GM wants or is capable of providing.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, if you're not concerned with what your character says

Unless you're physically typing in the lines - you can't do this.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

or how he says it

Being concerned and deciding to believe in the writer's implied tone or not are not mutually exclusive.  Put another way, I care about tone and intent - but I'm picking from a list. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:22 .

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Actually, I think free roam is more possible is a CRPG because a CRPG design team is quite a bit bigger than a tabletop game run by a single GM.  They can flesh out the world a lot better than you get in a tabletop game
(unless you're using a pre-fab setting).

The initial world yes, but a human GM is capable of extending the borders of the world at any time - for any reason - on a whim.  The level of detail of course depending on how much detail the GM wants or is capable of providing.

Plus a GM can tailor anywhere you visit for the party and narrative. At least for our group whenever one of us GM we only do a very basic sketchout of the world at large and let the narrative and how the game unfolds flesh out. It gives much more control over the world thus making a much more fleshed out an easier to explore world.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Or make someone who is supposed to look after certain group of people to actually ruin lives of these people, instead?

I don't understand. This seems to be about a social role.

At what point would the displayed behaviour start to conflict with supposed personality of the character? Considering the game doesn't provide that many opportunities to display said behaviours, overall.

At the point it breaks character, i.e. whenever it is something the character won't do. And that comes back to what it means to be in control of the character. And it isn't just displayed behaviour - it's behaviour the game refuses to allow you. Like a Sole Survivor in ME2 not being allowed to say "WTF!?" to working with Cerberus. Or the I<3 Grey Warden vibe that permeates all throughout DA:O. Or how DA:A breaks any character that isn't ready to continue being a Grey Warden.

While what i'm saying is rather "if you could/wished to see it, you wouldn't say it's not there".

The point I brought up (which determines the context of any claim, since you were responding directly to me) was that the value of PC VO is independent of imagination.

There was never a point we weren't discusing the value of PC VO. The person that you were initially responding to said, basically, "PC VO sucks because of this feature." You then said he isn't imagining it right. Which is just moving the goalposts about the issue. 

If you remember, the context of this is the claim made that the silent protagonist is "dead and empty and it's the lack of speaking that does it". My point to that was, the lack of speaking doesn't make universally everyone think the silent protagonist is dead and empty. So this impression of dead, empty character is also in part dependant on the viewer.

No. The value of PC VO was justified by the fact the silent PC is dead and empty. This was an experience. You then said that not using your imagination makes the silent PC dead and empty, ergo implying that it is the lack of imagination that makes someone not see the value in no VO.

I say nothing about the preference there -- finding a character not "dead and empty" because you can envision situations which remove this impression doesn't mean person capable of that must automatically see this version as preferable over one provided by the game in the voiced version. Or have the opposite preference, for this matter.

The context is preference. Insofar as you are making a coherent response to any post, you are commenting on value.

No, it's like saying -- if you could solve mathematical equations you wouldn't be saying they're unsolvable. I.e. nothing about whether you'd actually like to solve these equations.

If someone said: "Math sucks because it is unsovable." and you say "Your problem is that you lack the ability to solve math," your conclusion is "Math does not suck."

Hence the value judgement. Hence the entire debate.

Modifié par In Exile, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:45 .

[Graunt]

In Exile wrote...

After many conversations on this forum, I have begun to appreciate that to many people, details matter very much to who someone is. So being an elf versus a mage is an incredible defining aspect for a character. I just don't get that. To me, it's personality by itself that matters. That sort of content, the where you come from part, is only interesting insofar as people react to it. But with DA:O you have very little of that.

Which comes back to why I like PC VO - because it adds a lot to the game, without taking the only aspect of RP that matters to me, which is variability in personality.

We all get that you're supposed to imagine the character speak. That doesn't make the character less dead and empty. It is the lack of speaking that does this, not an inability on our part to understand that the character is supposed to speak.

I can imagine the speech just fine. I don't want to. To me, that an impovrished experience. I want a visual and auditory medium. Within that medium, the character is dead. Constantly having to switch between imagination and action, with the game telling me what is going on, is not a fun experience at all. When I imagine things, I prefer to be in control of the content.

Can't agree with this enough.

Modifié par Graunt, 27 décembre 2010 - 07:54 .

[TheStrand221]

Graunt wrote...

In Exile wrote...

After many conversations on this forum, I have begun to appreciate that to many people, details matter very much to who someone is. So being an elf versus a mage is an incredible defining aspect for a character. I just don't get that. To me, it's personality by itself that matters. That sort of content, the where you come from part, is only interesting insofar as people react to it. But with DA:O you have very little of that.

Which comes back to why I like PC VO - because it adds a lot to the game, without taking the only aspect of RP that matters to me, which is variability in personality.

I don't think it helps to explain how precisely how imagination is
supposed to work. We all get that you're supposed to imagine the
character speak. That doesn't make the character less dead and empty. It
is the lack of speaking that does this, not an inability on our part to
understand that the character is supposed to speak.

Can't agree with this enough.

Seconded.

I mean thirded.

I mean... the second is seconded... or something.

Shots anyone?  Or is it too early on a Monday for the rest of the world to be binge drinking?

In anycase, a world that is reactive to the choices you make is what's most intriguing about these games to me.  The origins are nice, but to the extent they can complicate the process of crafting a reactive world, I'd sacrifice them to have a more finely tuned interactive story in DA2.  Hopefully DA2 lives up to that expectation.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

I don't understand. This seems to be about a social role.

...

Let's see. You were making a point how in certain circumstances a person's trait can reverse -- extrovert turning into an introvert.

I've applied this mechanics to a supposed altruist we were discussing, because i was curious if this couldn't in fact become:

At the point it breaks character, i.e. whenever it is something the character won't do.

The value of PC VO was justified by the fact the silent PC is dead and empty. This was an experience. You then said that not using your imagination makes the silent PC dead and empty, ergo implying that it is the lack of imagination that makes someone not see the value in no VO.

I said that lacking the imagination or choosing not to use it can be a factor in perceiving the silent PC dead and empty. Will you disagree with it? If yes, then please explain how comes not everyone perceives the silent PC dead and empty.

If someone said: "Math sucks because it is unsovable." and you say "Your problem is that you lack the ability to solve math," your conclusion is "Math does not suck."

No, technically my point in such situation is, your conclusion is based on faulty premise. My goal may just as well be to make you change that claim to "math sucks because i can't solve it" which would be more accurate.

Modifié par tmp7704, 27 décembre 2010 - 06:21 .

[AlanC9]

tmp7704 wrote...

I said that lacking the imagination or choosing not to use it can be a factor in perceiving the silent PC dead and empty. Will you disagree with it? If yes, then please explain how comes not everyone perceives the silent PC dead and empty.

Is it different perceptions, or just different evaluations of the same perception? "Dead and empty" is a way of describing a lack of content you use when you actually want that content to be there; if you didn't want that content you'd describe its absence in a different way. Value is already inscribed there.

I don't know if this is on you or In Exile, since I don't know who tossed out the phrase first.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
...

Let's see. You were making a point how in certain circumstances a person's trait can reverse -- extrovert turning into an introvert.

I've applied this mechanics to a supposed altruist we were discussing, because i was curious if this couldn't in fact become:

Your example is bad. "someone who is supposed to look after certain group of people to
actually ruin lives of these people"  - that isn't a personality trait. That's a job (i.e. social role). Like saying "someone who is supposed to do the taxes of a group of people to
actually not doing it."

If what you want to know is could a situation make someone an introvert? That's a hard question. It's hotly debated. I can't anwer it. What we can say is that the same personality profile will respond differently in different situations, but we don't know what the causation (or rather, there are theories on both sides and empirical work is mixed).

I said that lacking the imagination or choosing not to use it can be a factor in perceiving the silent PC dead and empty. Will you disagree with it? If yes, then please explain how comes not everyone perceives the silent PC dead and empty.

In a visual medium, people want equivalent presentation of all things. So the mere fact that the PC is not represented in the same medium as the rest of the NPCs (the game, versus your imagination) makes the PC seem lacking.

No, technically my point in such situation is, your conclusion is based on faulty premise. My goal may just as well be to make you change that claim to "math sucks because i can't solve it" which would be more accurate.

But that isn't saying anything different about math not sucking. Chaging it from a particular to a universal doesn't change your point because you'd say that statement is true of anyone who says math sucks anyway.

[tmp7704]

AlanC9 wrote...

Is it different perceptions, or just different evaluations of the same perception? "Dead and empty" is a way of describing a lack of content you use when you actually want that content to be there; if you didn't want that content you'd describe its absence in a different way. Value is already inscribed there.

Hmm that's a fair point, there can be considerable difference between what people actually perceive and how they choose to describe it. "X is the worst game ever" because the player just didn't like it comes to mind.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

Is it different perceptions, or just different evaluations of the same perception? "Dead and empty" is a way of describing a lack of content you use when you actually want that content to be there; if you didn't want that content you'd describe its absence in a different way. Value is already inscribed there.

I don't know if this is on you or In Exile, since I don't know who tossed out the phrase first.

I believe I used it first, and mean it relative to the medium, i.e. all the NPCs move and act and respond, except the PC. The PC is lacking in this respect. This is the perception. Yes, I could imagine the content to be there, but that isn't addressing what I see as the fundamental lack. This is why imagination isn't the answer. It doesn't address my problem.

To go back to the math analogy - "I think math sucks because I dislike solving problems" isn't a statement about my ability. I could be quite good at it.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Your example is bad. "someone who is supposed to look after certain group of people to
actually ruin lives of these people"  - that isn't a personality trait. That's a job (i.e. social role). Like saying "someone who is supposed to do the taxes of a group of people to
actually not doing it."

I could've worded it wrong. "Supposed to be" was used in the sense of "the player's character is supposed to be an altruist because that's how the player envisioned this particular character". Nothing to do with a job.

"supposed" here is in the sense of "believed, imagined, made by intent or design", not "required, obliged, under orders".

In a visual medium, people want equivalent presentation of all things. So the mere fact that the PC is not represented in the same medium as the rest of the NPCs (the game, versus your imagination) makes the PC seem lacking.

This does not explain why some people do not perceive such PC as lacking.

But that isn't saying anything different about math not sucking.

It's not supposed to say anything about value attached to math, at all. That part of statement isn't challenged.

You really don't see any difference between statements like:

* swimming sucks because people can't swim
* swimming sucks because i can't swim

where one is in part patently false and the other isn't? Some people can swim, after all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Unless you're physically typing in the lines - you can't do this.

This is just false.  First, In Exile was referring to his preference for controlling the characte'rs personality by virtue of what he acheives in the world, regadless of the details about how he achieves it.  So if he wants to persuade some NPC of something, that his PC manages to do that is wholly sufficient for him to feel like he was in control of the situation.

Whereas, I don't think a person can actually do such a thing (control the thoughts of others), so my concern is always with what my character says, regardless of the outcome that line produces.

In Exile likes the dialogue wheel because it does a better job of offering him the level of control he likes, but it utterly fails to offer me the level of control I like,  And the level of control I like is in choosing what my character says - even if I'm choosing from a list.

Furthermore, what you say fails again if you view the dialogue options in a game like DAO as abstractions of what the PC actually says.  Just like in an Elder Scrolls game, where the dialogue options (keywords) are abstractions of what the PC says, there's just as much reason to believe that the full lines in a BioWare game function the same way.  And with a silent protagonist, the game never contradicts this approach to conversational gameplay.

Being concerned and deciding to believe in the writer's implied tone or not are not mutually exclusive.  Put another way, I care about tone and intent - but I'm picking from a list.

Sure, but most games don't let you know what the tone is, so you're not picking from a list.  DA2 is the first game BioWare has made that allows this.

It's certainly a step up from the Mass Effect system, but requiring us to choose from a list is still a step dow from the total freedom granted by an unvoiced PC.

[Taritu]

Oddly, I actually kind of like this. It increases the replay value. Now I need to play a mage once to see Carver. Good enough.



As for human/non human, I think if the game is structured around it, it matters. I liked playing city elves, because I liked the down out, world against me, prejudiced feeling. As long as we're not stuck in humans for every game because of VO concerns, eh, whatever, looking forward to playing Hawke.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
I could've worded it wrong. "Supposed to be" was used in the sense of "the player's character is supposed to be an altruist because that's how the player envisioned this particular character". Nothing to do with a job.

"supposed" here is in the sense of "believed, imagined, made by intent or design", not "required, obliged, under orders".

That's just a belief though. That isn't a personality trait.  A personality trait is like an immutable impulse or motivation.

Let's put it this way: a person might believe they need to be outgoing, but an extraverted person feels the need to be outgoing. 

But like I said: I fully acknowledge my problem here is just deformation after 4 years of university.

This does not explain why some people do not perceive such PC as lacking.

Yes it does. The PC doesn't do any of this in-game. The PC might do this in my imagination, but you're assuming I consider these two things to be interchangeable. I don't. I prefer the other one.

It's not supposed to say anything about value attached to math, at all. That part of statement isn't challenged.

You really don't see any difference between statements like:

* swimming sucks because people can't swim
* swimming sucks because i can't swim

where one is in part patently false and the other isn't? Some people can swim, after all.

There is a difference, sure. But the conclusion you are trying to draw in either case isn't, which is "swimming doesn't suck".

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote..

Whereas, I don't think a person can actually do such a thing (control the thoughts of others), so my concern is always with what my character says, regardless of the outcome that line produces.

Just one correction: you don't need to control the thoughts of others to do this. You just need to be able to find some set of inputs that gets you your desired output. 

Sure, but most games don't let you know what the tone is, so you're not picking from a list.  DA2 is the first game BioWare has made that allows this.

Right, but this is a major problem with silent VO too. Which is why prior to PC VO I was adamant about [lying], [sarcasm] and [joking] tags.

I think we even debated this on the DA:O forum once, but it was mainly about the [lying] tag.

[Alet]

In Exile wrote...

I think we even debated this on the DA:O forum once, but it was mainly about the [lying] tag.

Oh man, I hated the lack of a [lying] tag in DAO.  There's one instance in Redcliffe where Sten disapproves because you tell the smith that you'll find his daughter -- yeah, some of my characters were just saying what they needed to say to get him to work, but some were being completely genuine, and presumably would have tried to break into the castle another way had Teagan not given you the key to the secret tunnel.  And then you never got a retraction from Sten on returning the daughter safely.  Grumble grumble.  [/sidetrack]

[Maria Caliban]

I'm not sure what a lying tag would do for you there. Sten wouldn't know if you were lying, and probably wouldn't approve of it even if he did know.