84 réponses à ce sujet

[Nhani]

marshalleck wrote...
The point though is that if you tell someone to ****** off, there is no replacing that source of XP. There is no alternative path for many of the side quests. It's a meta-game problem, not a narrative problem.

I fail to see whether telling someone to ****** off is a decision about good versus evil, however - if you don't ever want to hear someone out and just want to set everyone on fire, where exactly would the quests come from? Magically written in the ash?

okay, okay, that's a bit of a cheap shot, but I found what I felt like plenty of opportunities for both neutral and outright morally questionable quests - some of which I personally told to bugger right off because it wasn't things I could see my character doing. If you want to do absolutely everything then yes, telling people to go away presents a problem, but it never struck me that there was a noticeable lack of content no matter whether your character was only out for him or herself or actually wanted to save the world.

I'm not seeing this whole "Good is more rewarded than evil!" angle, because all I'm seeing is "hearing people out is more rewarding than asking everyone to go away" and "looking out for yourself can often net greater rewards than helping people just to be nice".

[Medet]

One of the issues with being "evil" is that you can't, really. It is somewhat like Mass Effect, where you can burn and kill your way towards saving the universe, but your still going to end up saving it. No matter how many people your kill in DA:O, your still trying to stop the blight and save everyone (well, most of them). Being pure evil just doesn't work as most of the time it's not an option. The mages tower for example, you can choose to side with the templars or mages, but either side has its pros and cons, morally speaking. Neither option is inherently evil. With the ending the blight as your main goal, any decisions you make that aren't "good" can be either pragmatic or petty but not evil for the most part, although you do occasional have a moment where you can be.



KOTOR on the other hand, had the option for you to be true evil as there was no greater evil you were forced to save everyone from, you could be that evil.

[dannythefool]

Nhani wrote...
I fail to see whether telling someone to ****** off is a decision about good versus evil

Right. Most of the time you make a decision about socially adapted versus jerk. You don't actually get to be evil, you might think you can be good though but I'm sure that's only for a limited set of definitions of "good". 

okay, okay, that's a bit of a cheap shot, but I found what I felt like plenty of opportunities for both neutral and outright morally questionable quests - some of which I personally told to bugger right off because it wasn't things I could see my character doing.

I'd even go so far as to say that the majority of quests is morally questionable in one way or another and many of these quests aren't recognised as such.

Is it really your place to decide who should rule the dwarven kingdom? The accepted consensus appears to be that it is and that there is a good and an evil choice.

Does it matter what kind of fade spirit posesses a human? The accepted consensus appears to be that it does, and there's something that makes one posessed human an abomination while another posessed human can be a perfectly fine human.

I could go on, but I don't want to spoil much...

[telephasic]

I dunno. While the game doesn't really have "good" and "evil" I am sort of disappointed so far with how most major plot lines have a "forgiving" and "ruthless" option. Now, ruthless doesn't mean evil per-se, but it does generally involve allowing non-combatants to be slaughtered. I haven't gotten to Orzammar yet however, and I hear the moral choices you make there are a bit more difficult.

[Fudzie]

dannythefool wrote...

Nhani wrote...
I fail to see whether telling someone to ****** off is a decision about good versus evil

Right. Most of the time you make a decision about socially adapted versus jerk. You don't actually get to be evil, you might think you can be good though but I'm sure that's only for a limited set of definitions of "good". 

okay, okay, that's a bit of a cheap shot, but I found what I felt like plenty of opportunities for both neutral and outright morally questionable quests - some of which I personally told to bugger right off because it wasn't things I could see my character doing.

I'd even go so far as to say that the majority of quests is morally questionable in one way or another and many of these quests aren't recognised as such.

Is it really your place to decide who should rule the dwarven kingdom? The accepted consensus appears to be that it is and that there is a good and an evil choice.

Does it matter what kind of fade spirit posesses a human? The accepted consensus appears to be that it does, and there's something that makes one posessed human an abomination while another posessed human can be a perfectly fine human.

I could go on, but I don't want to spoil much...

You know, if given the option, I'd just as soon have ignored that and gone straight into the Deep Roads, but, well, the Dwarves are infamously useless without their figurehead, and Harrowmont and Bhelen are scrambling over each other for your loyalty just because you're a Grey Warden. Short people are funny like that.

And it's the spoilers forum, spoil away, lol

[marshalleck]

telephasic wrote...

I dunno. While the game doesn't really have "good" and "evil" I am sort of disappointed so far with how most major plot lines have a "forgiving" and "ruthless" option. Now, ruthless doesn't mean evil per-se, but it does generally involve allowing non-combatants to be slaughtered. I haven't gotten to Orzammar yet however, and I hear the moral choices you make there are a bit more difficult.

They're only difficult because you're barely given any context whatsoever, unless you played a dwarf origin. If you don't have the advantage of dwarf origin background knowledge, it basically comes down to a coin toss. There's some information to go on, but very little.

[PhogoX]

I agree that evil is lacking big time. They could have a story line where you're saving the world to install yourself as its overlord. The amount of morally good side quests is substantial more than evil. Crows line is rewarding but simple. 9 out of 10 times 'evil' is just jerk.



I wanted to play as a xenophobic evil Dalish rogue who is just saving the world to save his race. But it ended up being elvish jackass.



Bioware clearly wants us to play on the good side. Just look at the companions. Allistar, Leliana and Wynne are pure good. Morrigan is the only evil character. Sten and Shale just want to kill darkspawn. Oghren and Dog will follow you regardless. And Zevran just wants to survive period which makes him the second closest to evil character. Add to the fact if you play good the entire team can stay with you. But if you play evil you are guaranteed to lose at least 2.

[dannythefool]

marshalleck wrote...
They're only difficult because you're barely given any context whatsoever, unless you played a dwarf origin. If you don't have the advantage of dwarf origin background knowledge, it basically comes down to a coin toss. There's some information to go on, but very little. 

Some characters in your party will actually comment on your choices. You can learn a part of Bhelen's story from them when you're accepting a certain quest. You can find out a helpful detail about the first Bhelen quest if you ask the right dwarf about the item you're given. But it still comes down to what random other people say that might really be farther away from the truth than you'd hope for, and how much you trust people you talk to.

Apart from that it really is a coin toss for a non-dwarf, there really is no good choice as both more or less amount to picking a guy who might help you if you slay stuff for him. So in a way the end justifies the means for a non-dwarf and there's no way out of it.

[Endurium]

When you play like the monsters do, you'll reap the same rewards (they get nothing and nobody will offer them quests). You might as well hack your character to be a Hurlock Emissary and continue playing your way. The game wasn't designed for your play style, so you'll have to go back to Oblivion or whatever (I loved killing the imperial guards).

[Arcadionn]

There are limits to what you can do in a game when the scope is killing the darkspawn... you cannot go around killing everyone... even if you can finish the game without using the back-up armies you gathered... it still does not make sense on a Stopping the blight perspective to be a complete douche and only help the daylish... you wouldnt be able to kill 100,000 darkspawn with 5,000 elves (no source for the numbers... just used as example).

Which is why you do need to help others, despite you being evil or good...allies are mandatory in defeating the blight, no matter how you do it and who you align with. There are options you could take as evil, but this isnt KotoR, if you were truly evil you would steal the archdemon soul for yourself and rule the darkspawn over a burning ferelden.... that option is not given to you, because it wouldnt make a lot of sense after all you've been through no matter your alignment.


Once again though... you act as a mysanthrope, do not expect the rewards people get when they help the npcs you kill/toss aside, its merely how it works... Bioware did a really good job of making evil difficult to play, because in a time when the land needs a savior, why would you be rewarded for being an ace-hole.

Modifié par Arcadionn, 17 novembre 2009 - 05:30 .

[JensenBakura]

Zweijsters wrote...

 First of all let me say that I love this game, I really do. But I'm on my second playthrough now and being 'evil' in this game is REALLY unrewarding. You lock out quests of greater value for instance, the smuggling one. I purged the mages tower and later I went to Orzammar, but now Godwin is nowhere to be found in the mages tower. This is the only way to make a decent amount of money, enough to buy more than one good item from the vendors in-game. Which is another point, making money is a pain. Since content ceizes to exist and random encounters do aswell, your influx of cashiesh ends aswell.

As for being a jackass to random people you meet, you instantly lock out quests or just prolong the inevitable. If you tell someone to bugger off, ofcourse they won't tell you their deepest secrets and ask you to help them, but there should be some sort of replacement for those quests.. I mean what's the point in taking offensive chat options if they will cancel out quests, thus cancelling out xp, and maybe even nice quest rewards. 

I had to redo the whole of redcliff because I wanted to become a blood mage. First time through I set free Jowan, and had already destroyed the mages. I mean, I love the interconnectiveness of the whole storyline, but come on... I had wasted all my options to enter the fade to be able to get the bloodmage specialization. 

All in all, being evil is not rewarding at all, the game forces you to be a do-gooder who is interested in helping anything and everyone, for the sake of experience and money. If you don't give a rats ass about all these silly people and their problems, you will end up a poor, underpowered warden with exactly 0 interesting specializations.

Siding with Bronka inspite of everything is pretty cold, and gets you the awesome golem army for the last battle.

[Nhani]

On the topic of Bhelen versus Harrowmont - I've come to realize I find it an interesting choice, though perhaps not for the reasons one might think. Having picked both of them with two seperate Dwarven Noble playthroughs (though I've not hit the epilogue with the Bhelen one yet so I'm not completely privy to the differences), I've really come to the conclusion that the main reason why it seems most people who played the Dwarf Noble origins gravitate away from Bhelen is either because they're flowery-eyed idealists or simply because he got to you first.

Analysing my own actions in hindsight, it's actually hilarious how my first dwarven noble chose Harrowmont largely out of vengeance - scarcely a very noble choice.

[dannythefool]

I agree that evil is lacking big time. They could have a story line where you're saving the world to install yourself as its overlord.

You can do that, or at least you can save Ferelden and install yourself as a king or queen. In fact you can determine *two* kings, both of which for the sole reason that they'll help you do something you want to do. But you can't do that by ignoring other people's needs, you still need to do one or two things that might be considered good on a smaller scale.

The amount of morally good side quests is substantial more than evil. Crows line is rewarding but simple. 9 out of 10 times 'evil' is just jerk.

The thing is you don't get to choose between good or evil. Evil is as much defined by your intentions as it is by your actions. You can kill Connor because you like killing children and it's evil, you can kill him because it's the only way you see to banish the demon and it's good. You can save Isolde and Connor both because you really like them and it's good, you can save them both because you want the Arl's political support to overthrow the queen and the regent and it's evil.

Bioware clearly wants us to play on the good side. Just look at the companions. Allistar, Leliana and Wynne are pure good.

So the assassin that used her seduction talents to solve conflicts with "less violence" is pure good? Suuure. The desire demons must be good too then? They do the same thing. And Wynne has her own little secret that she puts a lot of effort into making it look like it's not so bad at all. I'll give you that Alistair isn't evil, but he's  too small-minded for any grand evil overlord ambitions anyway.

Morrigan is the only evil character.

Morrigan isn't evil at all. She doesn't trust anyone and conversely has no need to go out of her way to help anyone, but if you'd leave her on her own she'd not go on a rampage for silly reasons. Like Sten...

Zevran just wants to survive period which makes him the second closest to evil character.

Actually that line is from Morrigan ("Power has meaning. Survival has meaning."). Zevran will turn on you (and die for it) if he doesn't like you. 

[Zweijsters]

Good point about party members being goodie two shoes. Although I did get Leliana accept the fact that she feels good while killing, which was kinda nice since I had no idea you could be influential on party members. Mostly because Sten/Morrigan are so stuck in their way nothing you will say matters, unless it's politcally correct according to them



Back on topic, I'm actually okay with most things being in the morally grey area, but I would just like to see more options to set the world against you. For instance, i'm hoping that my choice of becoming a blood mage will influence how the world perceives me. Not as much as choosing an origin does, but some comments now and then would be nice. Although I did read on the forums that it doesn't. Still.. fingers crossed.

[OniDaimyo]

So if your a dwarf noble cant YOU be the Dwarf King? That's what I'd want.

[JensenBakura]

OniDaimyo wrote...

So if your a dwarf noble cant YOU be the Dwarf King? That's what I'd want.

Very unfortunately, you cannot.  That was the biggest downer in my dwarf play through by far.  You still have to pick between Bhelen and Harrowgate.

I wanted that golden crown.

[Nhani]

OniDaimyo wrote...
So if your a dwarf noble cant YOU be the Dwarf King? That's what I'd want.

Not me knowing - the thing being that post exile, you're essentially no longer a noble; less, in fact - you scarcely even exist; you have no house, you have no caste, you only have the Grey Wardens and the fact that some people remember you from back before you were stripped of your identity and put into exile.

That said, my first epilogue around I was named a Paragon and had people flock to my very own noble house, so it wasn't as if I ended up with a shortage of political clout.

If you want to ursurp the throne however, it seems human noble is the only real way to go.

[dannythefool]

Zweijsters wrote...

Good point about party members being goodie two shoes. Although I did get Leliana accept the fact that she feels good while killing, which was kinda nice since I had no idea you could be influential on party members. Mostly because Sten/Morrigan are so stuck in their way nothing you will say matters, unless it's politcally correct according to them

You can do this with other party members too, it'll make them object to your decisions less and enable certain morally ambiguous options.

Back on topic, I'm actually okay with most things being in the morally grey area, but I would just like to see more options to set the world against you. For instance, i'm hoping that my choice of becoming a blood mage will influence how the world perceives me. Not as much as choosing an origin does, but some comments now and then would be nice. Although I did read on the forums that it doesn't. Still.. fingers crossed.

Blood magic isn't something that people automatically know about. You can tell certain NPCs that you have it and then it will have an effect, but for the most part they won't realise and you don't get an option to tell them. 

[PhogoX]

You can do that, or at least you can save Ferelden and install yourself
as a king or queen. In fact you can determine *two* kings, both of
which for the sole reason that they'll help you do something you want
to do. But you can't do that by ignoring other people's needs, you
still need to do one or two things that might be considered good on a
smaller scale.

Being a King/Queen is not an option for some origins.  You have to pick a ruler regardless.  I much rather the human empire fall and humanity suffer.  Use them to defeat the darkspawn then have them civil war to death.  It is not an option at all for the Dalish to give the finger to humanity.  Everything in the Dalish background has them tolerating to hating humans yet when giving the chance to screw them you cannot.

The thing is you don't get to choose between good or evil. Evil is as
much defined by your intentions as it is by your actions. You can kill
Connor because you like killing children and it's evil, you can kill
him because it's the only way you see to banish the demon and it's
good. You can save Isolde and Connor both because you really like them
and it's good, you can save them both because you want the Arl's
political support to overthrow the queen and the regent and it's evil.

I rather kill Connor because he is a human and it's the path of least resistance.  The dialogue doesn't allow my intentions to show as evil.  It does however clearly on numerous occasions allow for good intentions.  "I won't harm an innocent" is used how many times?  Killing him is a greater good option for safety.  I rather wipe out the Arl's family, be the only one to tell him what happen, get his help then let him fight Logain.  Again good intentions are clearly expressed throughout Dragon Age but evil intention is rare and often is just being an ass.

So the assassin that used her seduction talents to solve conflicts with
"less violence" is pure good? Suuure. The desire demons must be good
too then? They do the same thing. And Wynne has her own little secret
that she puts a lot of effort into making it look like it's not so bad
at all. I'll give you that Alistair isn't evil, but he's  too
small-minded for any grand evil overlord ambitions anyway.

Throughout the game you so much as fart in a hostile manner to someone, Leliana disapproves.  Don't give aid, disapprove.  Don't be nice, disapprove.  She completely regrets her past and is trying to make up for it.  She is pure good now with chaotic good in the past.  Still clearly good.  Wynne is exactly the same.  They have different sins in the past but as far as playing the game it's girl scouts all the way.

Morrigan isn't evil at all. She doesn't trust anyone and conversely has
no need to go out of her way to help anyone, but if you'd leave her on
her own she'd not go on a rampage for silly reasons. Like Sten...

I've had Morrigan in party 100% of the time it's allowed.  Her banter shows she enjoys the suffering of others.  Yes she is in it for herself.  Often her dialogue goes beyond "I don't want to help" to "they deserve to suffer."  She takes pleasure in it.  Rampages does not make an evil person.  Serial killers don't go on rampages.  Sten is suffering greatly for killing the farmers.  Evil people wouldn't have pain from doing it.

Actually that line is from Morrigan ("Power has meaning. Survival has
meaning."). Zevran will turn on you (and die for it) if he doesn't like
you.

Only because he fears the Crows more than you.  He'd be with the Archdemon if he thought he'd survive.  He is not really true evil in that he is plays on whatever side he thinks will win.  Morrigan is interested in power and is willing to die if she can't have it.

The amount of content in quests and dialogue in story developement is schuing  heavily on the side of good.  Evil comes off as being a social misfit.

[JamesX]

Zweijsters wrote...

Being a **** for money doesn't equal being evil from my point of view. And no I haven't been using intimidate on this char for that reason, I wan't mindless killing to be rewarding aswell hehe.

As for killing the dwarf, if you persuade right you can make 70g profit of that quest.. 
plus you can only kill him by saying 'I'm turning you in'  which makes you a goodie again.

Yes Being a Noble Evil who refuse to take the low road and get the loot will get you.. no rewards.  That is just the way it is.
Dr. Evil in Austin Powers doesn't get any rewards - he is already rich so he can afford to be "above it all"

[EricHVela]

I think there is a need for a lot more (lie) dialog options so people can play characters with ulterior motives.

[Dark83]

One important thing is missing in this discussion, which is the definition of evil.

Quickly browsing, at least one person appears to use "evil" to denote "psychopathic jerk", whereas a few others are using "selfish and self serving".



Ultimately, the psychopathic schadenfreude model is not supported. The game does not support a Gray Warden who wishes to cause the Holocaust. At worst, it supports selfish and self serving, pragmatic Gray Wardens.



In all the origin stories, the player character is a functioning member of society with friends, and while both heroes and anti-heroes are supported, psychopathic rampaging idiots are not.



(I have to point out here that this is one thing that really annoys me. As players, it is pragmatic for us to assist others because we know we are rewarded with experience (power) and items (wealth). Further, even in character, it is not an "evil" character that would reject a potential ally, but an extremely stupid one. If you were evil and really hated them, just send them in first, sheesh. That's one of the reasons I hate Sten, in Redcliff. "What does this have to do with killing Darkspawn?" "It turns public opinion away from an enemy sending assassins after us, and gives us an army, you moron. Not to mention we get to loot the castle while 'saving' it!")



This is one of the issues with the psychopath here - accurately deemed Chaotic Stupid. Unlike real life, helping people gives tangible rewards. That fuzzy feeling from rescuing those refugees is you leveling up. It is in the best interest of the most self-serving, power-hungry person to help them (and demand a reward after).

[Ranik15]

Fudzie wrote...

dannythefool wrote...

Nhani wrote...
I fail to see whether telling someone to ****** off is a decision about good versus evil

Right. Most of the time you make a decision about socially adapted versus jerk. You don't actually get to be evil, you might think you can be good though but I'm sure that's only for a limited set of definitions of "good". 

okay, okay, that's a bit of a cheap shot, but I found what I felt like plenty of opportunities for both neutral and outright morally questionable quests - some of which I personally told to bugger right off because it wasn't things I could see my character doing.

I'd even go so far as to say that the majority of quests is morally questionable in one way or another and many of these quests aren't recognised as such.

Is it really your place to decide who should rule the dwarven kingdom? The accepted consensus appears to be that it is and that there is a good and an evil choice.

Does it matter what kind of fade spirit posesses a human? The accepted consensus appears to be that it does, and there's something that makes one posessed human an abomination while another posessed human can be a perfectly fine human.

I could go on, but I don't want to spoil much...

You know, if given the option, I'd just as soon have ignored that and gone straight into the Deep Roads, but, well, the Dwarves are infamously useless without their figurehead, and Harrowmont and Bhelen are scrambling over each other for your loyalty just because you're a Grey Warden. Short people are funny like that.

And it's the spoilers forum, spoil away, lol

I have to meet Bhelen on my Dwarf Noble and see his reaction upon knowing his brother/sister is still very much alive.

[dk3dknight]

I feel the reason some do not see some of the options as being evil as they define evil as chaotic evil.



You do have lawful evil which was mostly described across this post by others but not actuallyed called that.



Lawful evil is still evil but its lawful, to me the darkspawn are a representation of neutral evil as they are not chaotic nor lawful, perhaps the arch demon may be a representation of chaotic.



You can have a good chaotic person this is someone who is good morally but also is more free willed and cares less for law itself, Robin hood was a good chaotic person.



Anyway other then being the arch demon there really is no place in the story for a evil chaotic person who goes around destroying and killing everyone for no reason.. as really being a grey warden leads you down either Lawful good, chaotic good, Lawful Evil, Neutral Neutral, Lawful Neutral, (I really did not see the presence of a Chaotic Neutral but that might be a oversight.)



I do not believe a evil chaotic could be a grey warden or follow the same story you did, as he/she would not allow him/herself to become a tool of salvation by others.



When you look closely you are in fact being used, either under the guise of good, or lawful.



Some of the your supposed comrads that are considered evil are in fact good but either good chaotic or good lawful, notice both morrigan and sten get upset at you if you make a promise you have no intention of keeping you lose like 7 points on each..



Anyway that is my thoughts on the issue.

[Brother-D]

Woa ... hold on a mo

Plain an simple -

There are multiple convo choices, the most stern is not always the most evil. Choose wisely. Cant make money? Ever tried to pick Pocket? Also good choises usually end in no death whereas death leaves loot.