227 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

See that wasn't so hard even for a Dalish PC.

So you really think a Dalish PC would side with human-based werewolves against another Dalish clan- down to the last man, woman and child- no matter what the justification?  No, not unless they're Hannibal Lecter material too.  I do think it justifiable that a Dalish PC would agree to kill Zathrian, which is essentially what you're doing when you agree to fight him to force him to end the curse and when you tell him "you'll end this curse if I have to force you myself."

All I am saying is that for some wardens (admittedly some more than others), it's not an implausible leap to make.  I don't have to appeal to this for a non-evil lulz character to side with the wolves either, but it does make the point even stronger.

For you, maybe.  I'll add to my list:

- homicidal maniac
- violently xenophobic against the elves
- stupid gamble on werewolves being better support agains the Blight
- privy to arcane knowledge about the Dalish, guesses Zathrian's secret and decides the whole clan has to die as a result

Or say that it's all predicated on the Persuade not actually saying what it's saying.  There's at least one other instance- Alistair's hardening- where that seems to be the case.  If we're going to handwave, the whole discussion is moot.

Modifié par Addai67, 23 décembre 2010 - 07:52 .

[Xilizhra]

Right, speaks the one who would side with Zathrian.

I did that on my elven revolutionary playthrough. What I would do personally is lift the curse.

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

See that wasn't so hard even for a Dalish PC.

So you really think a Dalish PC would side with human-based werewolves against another Dalish clan- down to the last man, woman and child- no matter what the justification?  No, not unless they're Hannibal Lecter material too.  I do think it justifiable that a Dalish PC would agree to kill Zathrian, which is essentially what you're doing when you agree to fight him to force him to end the curse and when you tell him "you'll end this curse if I have to force you myself."

Again please look at that cutscene because that is not what happens.  If you are going to argue against a point at least know what that point is.  During the cutscene, the Lady of the Forest gives Zathrien one last chance to end the curse.  Even begs him to do so telling the entire clan the real history of the curse.  The Dalish PC doesn't want to slaughter the clan, but when the clan attacks him at Zathrien's order, they become accessories to his crime...that and simple self defense leave you no choice.

You aren't attacking the clan directly.  You are trying to finally force Zathrien to do the right thing by holding over his head the one think you'd think he'd value over all else.  His people.  Yes, that's a complete misread of Zathrien (who cares more for his hate than his people) but it's not evil and it's not unreasonable.

All I am saying is that for some wardens (admittedly some more than others), it's not an implausible leap to make.  I don't have to appeal to this for a non-evil lulz character to side with the wolves either, but it does make the point even stronger.

For you, maybe.  I'll add to my list:

- homicidal maniac
- violently xenophobic against the elves
- stupid gamble on werewolves being better support agains the Blight
- privy to arcane knowledge about the Dalish, guesses Zathrian's secret and decides the whole clan has to die as a result

Or say that it's all predicated on the Persuade not actually saying what it's saying.  There's at least one other instance- Alistair's hardening- where that seems to be the case.  If we're going to handwave, the whole discussion is moot.

We have many cases where the persuade description is abysmal which is why I am urging you to look at the cutscene.  That like Alistair's hardening is needed to see what the description should have been (in no case to you actually say verbatim any persuade option).

Finally you are ignoring a whole host of other possibilities (well maybe not a host, but we've come up with several reasonable ones that don't require homocidal evil tendencies).

-Polaris

[Costin_Razvan]

Oh Addai, tell me are you a psychologist? Or an expert at military decisions or you are just flaming those not agreeing to YOUR personal ****ing view?

[Xilizhra]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Oh Addai, tell me are you a psychologist? Or an expert at military decisions or you are just flaming those not agreeing to YOUR personal ****ing view?

Look, being evil doesn't bar you from being a Grey Warden or anything.

[Costin_Razvan]

Evil is most certainly the decision to place the blame of what Zathrian did on the entire clan ( due to their inaction ) and to refuse to help them and instead opt to gather a stronger army to win a war where thousands of lives are at risk.

[IanPolaris]

Xilizhra wrote...

Right, speaks the one who would side with Zathrian.

I did that on my elven revolutionary playthrough. What I would do personally is lift the curse.

I've sided directly with Zathrian before as well.  In one case, it was because of a cold calculation that trustworthy or not, a bird in the hand (Zathrien and his elves) were worth more than two in the bush (the werewolves).

In the other case, I was playing a hard-bitten and bitter Cousland noble who didn't care about anything other than ending the blight and doing so with as much personal power as possible doing so.  Zathrian needs the heart of Witherfang to join my army?  Fine.  One wolf-heart coming up.  That was cemented by the fact the werewolves refused to talk all the way down until the gatekeeper at which time it was too late.  My warden had stopped listening....the werewolves in that game got one chance to explain themselves and blew it.  In addition he had a very high cunning and so suspected that Witherfang and the Lady were the same person and didn't care to be lied to by the Gatekeeper on that point.

Result:  Werewolf genocide.  Zathrien gets the heart.  MIssion accomplished.

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

Evil is most certainly the decision to place the blame of what Zathrian did on the entire clan ( due to their inaction ) and to refuse to help them and instead opt to gather a stronger army to win a war where thousands of lives are at risk.

Precisely. Except that the "stronger army" part is seriously questionable and, in my own view, badly misguided. The rest is solidly evil, yes.

[IanPolaris]

Xilizhra wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Oh Addai, tell me are you a psychologist? Or an expert at military decisions or you are just flaming those not agreeing to YOUR personal ****ing view?

Look, being evil doesn't bar you from being a Grey Warden or anything.

From my post above, I think it's clear that siding with Zathrien directly (and going through and just taking the heart) is almost as evil (if you want to place a judgement call on it) as destroying the Dalish clan.  Perhaps even more so given that the werewolves have been directly wronged and for centuries by those you are aiding.

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

I never said that my elven revolutionary wasn't evil. She's a blood mage who unhesitatingly sacrificed Isolde because she wanted to see the ritual in action, and bargained Connor's life away for further power. She also has no problem with unleashing mass death upon the human population of Thedas if it'll accomplish her plans.

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Oh Addai, tell me are you a psychologist? Or an expert at military decisions or you are just flaming those not agreeing to YOUR personal ****ing view?

We're discussing roleplay reasons for certain actions.  You're the only one engaging in the personal stuff.

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...
Again please look at that cutscene because that is not what happens.  If you are going to argue against a point at least know what that point is.  During the cutscene, the Lady of the Forest gives Zathrien one last chance to end the curse.  Even begs him to do so telling the entire clan the real history of the curse.  The Dalish PC doesn't want to slaughter the clan, but when the clan attacks him at Zathrien's order, they become accessories to his crime...that and simple self defense leave you no choice.

All of this depends on either metagame knowledge or the assumption that the Persuade is not saying what it actually says (i.e. handwaving).  If what you've been arguing all along is that you handwave, we wasted a lot of bandwidth because it's all moot.

Finally you are ignoring a whole host of other possibilities (well maybe not a host, but we've come up with several reasonable ones that don't require homocidal evil tendencies).

-Polaris

And I admitted at least the idea of a Circle mage who comes across keeper knowledge, or a Warden with very poor judgment of the military situation.  That's the only plausible non-batsh*t situations I'm convinced are likely.

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...
All of this depends on either metagame knowledge or the assumption that the Persuade is not saying what it actually says (i.e. handwaving).  If what you've been arguing all along is that you handwave, we wasted a lot of bandwidth because it's all moot.

I take it you never harden Alistair either then?  By your standards that's a "metagame" descision too....or in that case do you do what the vast majority of the rest of us do and read the persuade description for what it should have said, i.e. "You need to look after yourself more or you'll never be happy." (Which btw is what Alistair himself tells you, you told him much later if you hardened him)

However, if you never harden Alistair, then you'd never know what the description should have been.  You never outright say what the persuade option is saying and that is why I am intensely disspointed in you, Addai, in that you seem to refuse to actually look at evidence that might change your opinion of what the persuade check should have "said" (which really is a discription...you never actually say the exact verbage of any persuade check).

So please do everyone a favor and actually view the cutscene.  If you do, you'll see that the correct description was "Go back to the camp and FORCE Zathrien to end the curse in pain of the life of his clan" or something like it.  Not-good but not lulz, Hannibal Lector evil either.  If you actually do the scene, it's clear that you have no intention of killing off the whole clan unless Zathrien refuses to listen to reason and end the curse.

Finally you are ignoring a whole host of other possibilities (well maybe not a host, but we've come up with several reasonable ones that don't require homocidal evil tendencies).

-Polaris

And I admitted at least the idea of a Circle mage who comes across keeper knowledge, or a Warden with very poor judgment of the military situation.  That's the only plausible non-batsh*t situations I'm convinced are likely.

You are refusing to view evidence that might possibly change your mind.  That tells me that nothing will ever convince you.

-Polaris

[Costin_Razvan]

We're discussing roleplay reasons for certain actions. You're the only one engaging in the personal stuff.

And your are basically pissing on everyone who doesn't share your opinion by refusing to see that they may have a point.

Tell you what: Duncan would have either killed the elves or sided with Zathrian. There would have been no middle path for him. I personally find it more acceptable to kill the elves then the Werewolves for a number of reason. 

I don't disagree ending the curse is a good moral choice, but it's also the one which gives the least in terms of benefits in the war against the Blight.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 décembre 2010 - 08:38 .

[IanPolaris]

Xilizhra wrote...

I never said that my elven revolutionary wasn't evil. She's a blood mage who unhesitatingly sacrificed Isolde because she wanted to see the ritual in action, and bargained Connor's life away for further power. She also has no problem with unleashing mass death upon the human population of Thedas if it'll accomplish her plans.

(Alistair Voiceover):  "How charming"

Seriously though, seems like we're pretty much on the same page, although my bloodmages (good or evil) prefer to simply FORCE the demon to give them what they want rather than bargin.  It's a dominance thing, and if I am going to leave a powerful demon alive, it has to know that it owes it's existance to my sufference and I can change my mind at any time.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

We're discussing roleplay reasons for certain actions. You're the only one engaging in the personal stuff.

And your are basically pissing on everyone by refusing to see that they may have a point.

Honestly what's bothering me more is a refusal to look at evidence that's in the game that might change her mind.  The scene is on You-Tube if you don't actually want to play it out.

-Polaris

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
All of this depends on either metagame knowledge or the assumption that the Persuade is not saying what it actually says (i.e. handwaving).  If what you've been arguing all along is that you handwave, we wasted a lot of bandwidth because it's all moot.

I take it you never harden Alistair either then?  By your standards that's a "metagame" descision too....or in that case do you do what the vast majority of the rest of us do and read the persuade description for what it should have said, i.e. "You need to look after yourself more or you'll never be happy." (Which btw is what Alistair himself tells you, you told him much later if you hardened him)

I do harden him and I do handwave.  I just didn't realize your whole argument was predicated on a handwave.

Not sure what you mean by "description"??  Is there a whole 'nother in-game mechanic about Persuades that I never knew existed? 

You are refusing to view evidence that might possibly change your mind.  That tells me that nothing will ever convince you.

-Polaris

No, I'm refusing to acknowledge that metagame information matters to my point, which is based on accepting the dialogue as it's written.  As it seems that you've been saying all along that the only way you can make the choice is to use metagame information, you've been arguing A and I've been arguing B and the cutscene is irrelevant.

Modifié par Addai67, 23 décembre 2010 - 08:41 .

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...
Honestly what's bothering me more is a refusal to look at evidence that's in the game that might change her mind.  The scene is on You-Tube if you don't actually want to play it out.

-Polaris

See above.  If what you want me to change my mind about is that there is metagame support for killing the Dalish, that was never what I was arguing against in the first place.  I'm going solely on roleplay i.e. in-game justification, as I've said all along and numerous times.

Modifié par Addai67, 23 décembre 2010 - 08:44 .

[IanPolaris]

Addai,



Any conversation item that starts with [persuade], [intimidate], [statistic] is never meant to be interpreted as the literal verbatim words of your character. That's why these things are indicated. Rather it's a DnDism in the game where you tell the DM (the computer), "OK, I'd like to convince the grand-poobah of 'Y'" and the DM says, "How do you want to do this." and you say, "I'll say something like 'X' " and then the DM says, "OK roll [skill/attribute]"



Rather than go through this clunky mechanic in the game, however, it's easier simply to say:



2. [skill/attribute] "X"



Where "X" is the general description of what you are saying. The only problem is the game botches the description several time and the description does not match your actual language. The ONLY way to find that out, however, is to select the option and see what happens which is why you get no love from me for refusing to view evidence.



If you want to argue against a point, please do everyone the courtesy and actually SEE what happens and see what that persuade check really is. If you still aren't convinced, fine, but at least view the evidence or admit you will never, ever change your mind no matter what.



-Polaris

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

Addai,

Any conversation item that starts with [persuade], [intimidate], [statistic] is never meant to be interpreted as the literal verbatim words of your character. That's why these things are indicated. Rather it's a DnDism in the game where you tell the DM (the computer), "OK, I'd like to convince the grand-poobah of 'Y'" and the DM says, "How do you want to do this." and you say, "I'll say something like 'X' " and then the DM says, "OK roll [skill/attribute]"

Do you have a dev post which backs this up or are you just assuming?  To me, a Persuade or Intimidate just indicates you're using a skill check, it's an OOC aside and not any indication that the dialogue itself isn't just as it's displayed.

If you want to argue against a point, please do everyone the courtesy and actually SEE what happens and see what that persuade check really is. If you still aren't convinced, fine, but at least view the evidence or admit you will never, ever change your mind no matter what.

-Polaris

Again, it doesn't matter, since I was only arguing on the basis of the dialogue as it's written and not a handwave.  Not sure why this is unclear.  IOW, I concede that it's possible to reasonably choose this option if you're just handwaving the in-game dialogue.

Modifié par Addai67, 23 décembre 2010 - 09:00 .

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

Again, it doesn't matter, since I was only arguing on the basis of the dialogue as it's written and not a handwave.  Not sure why this is unclear.  IOW, I concede that it's possible to reasonably choose this option if you're just handwaving the in-game dialogue.

That's pretty hypocritical of you since you admit that you generally harden Alistair on a handwave.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

Do you have a dev post which backs this up or are you just assuming?  To me, a Persuade or Intimidate just indicates you're using a skill check, it's an OOC aside and not any indication that the dialogue itself isn't just as it's displayed.

I know this because the game itself tells you this (albeit indirectly) which is why I am calling you a hypocrit when it comes to Alistair.  There are many cases where the game explicitly doesn't use the exact words listed after the [persuade] as your verbatim conversaion.  I point to Alistair in particular, because later on in the game he DOES tell you what you actually said which was, "You told me that I need to look after myself more and I won't be happy until I do."  That's quite different from the hardening option listed in the dialog, so we know that your interpretation is incorrect any my interpretion therefor is the more reasonable one.

-Polaris

[Addai]

LOL- I'm a hypocrite because I misunderstood your argument? Ok, whatever.  If you had said from the beginning that you were using metagame information, there would be half a thread less posting.  You were insisting that you didn't need metagaming.

Though as I think back on it, it seems to me that Zevran's reaction, at least, supports a literal interpretation of the Persuade lines. If you're really only suggesting confronting the clan rather than attacking them, not sure that he would object at all. But it's been a while since I played that so I'd have to go back and see what he actually says.

Modifié par Addai67, 23 décembre 2010 - 09:54 .

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

LOL- I'm a hypocrite because I misunderstood your argument? Ok, whatever.  If you had said from the beginning that you were using metagame information, there would be half a thread less posting.  You were insisting that you didn't need metagaming.

You don't.  You've agreed with at least one possibility that didn't involve an evil warden yourself, so I think I've pretty much shown that.  However, your stance on persuade checks this entire thread IS hypocritical given how you handle Alstair.  This is not meant to insult.  Just a statement that you are using a double standard.

Though as I think back on it, it seems to me that Zevran's reaction, at least, supports a literal interpretation of the Persuade lines. If you're really only suggesting confronting the clan rather than attacking them, not sure that he would object at all. But it's been a while since I played that so I'd have to go back and see what he actually says.

Not really.  Otherwise the persuade check on Zev would make no sense, and the literally interpreation is counter-indicated almost everywhere else in the game.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Addai,



I just got done looking over the dialog files. You should look at them as well. If you use the persuade option, Swiftunner explicitly says that this is done to force Zatherian to break the curse OR they die. You do not (from that conversation) advocate killing the Dalish for the lulz but as the grim alternative to breaking the curse.



This is done even before the scene I mention.



-Polaris