Obadiah wrote...
There are some real issues with these Dragon Age games and murder. I'm not sure why the devs gave the players so many of these characters as companion options.
There is such a thing as lawful killing, and I think the game does deserve this discussion. Considering that most of Hawke's opponents draw their blades on him first, or even ambush him, I'd class the vast majority of his killings as self-defense.DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...
Uhuh. Like killin all those templars, or "renegade guards", or making a clearly assasination mission for Sebastian, or "paragon" solution of killing mad mayor's son, or slaying templars which lawfuly obide to their duty to annul the Circle, or.. oh c'mon, even without going deep into debate about moral superiority of "lawful" stabbin people and "murdering" people, Hawke virtually baths himself in blood.Hawke's actions don't fall under the definition of "murder" most of the time.
This game does't deserve discussion like that, as it promotes killing as the only solution to any situation, it forces player into thinkin that killing is artsy, fun and cool, and anyone who attacks Hawke is a bad guy and unlawful because they have those nasty names, like "blood something", or "fallen guards", or "not good templars", and Hawke kills stuff, and they even pay him for that, "Yes, yes, you killed those half a hundred mercenaries, have your gold, and we will pay you if you'll kill another hundred of nameless NPC's, cause they are nameless, you know, these NPCs are not people, they're bad guys, you can kill bad guys".
Damn, I should stop thinking about that game, it just like cabbage that is rotten inside, the more leaves are taken out, the more **** you can see. Damn.
Or because the Dragon Age games are set in a fantasy feudal system where large-scale conflict is hardly rare.Stazro wrote...
Obadiah wrote...
There are some real issues with these Dragon Age games and murder. I'm not sure why the devs gave the players so many of these characters as companion options.
That's exactly the same in ME2: The squad is full of sociopaths and criminals of various kinds. They probably think that such characters are more interesting to the player.
ME 2 has you lead a suicide mission. Picking up competent yet expendable people is the clever thing to do. It's basically the Dirty Dozen IN SPACE!, only worse because no Charles Bronson.Stazro wrote...
That's exactly the same in ME2: The squad is full of sociopaths and criminals of various kinds. They probably think that such characters are more interesting to the player.Obadiah wrote...
There are some real issues with these Dragon Age games and murder. I'm not sure why the devs gave the players so many of these characters as companion options.
Plaintiff wrote...
Or because the Dragon Age games are set in a fantasy feudal system where large-scale conflict is hardly rare.Stazro wrote...
Obadiah wrote...
There are some real issues with these Dragon Age games and murder. I'm not sure why the devs gave the players so many of these characters as companion options.
That's exactly the same in ME2: The squad is full of sociopaths and criminals of various kinds. They probably think that such characters are more interesting to the player.
Yellopranda wrote...
I've been reading these forums for a time now, and it suprises me to see
so many people defend, sympathize and even agree with what are obviously mass-murderers,
religious fanatics, dictators or terrorists. In particular, the characters i'm talking about are Meredith, the Arishok, Anders and to some degree Elthina
I think Bioware did what they could to make everything as morally grey as possible. As there was little moral ambiguity to be had, bioware had to rely on emotional factors instead, like making Anders your friend and/or companion. However when you start out with such extreme characters it's really hard to see any grey area at all. Though some people do, apparently.
I can't help, but think that these people are seduced, not but the value or logic of these characters' philosophies, but by their force of personality. Both Meredith and the Arishok are very impressive. Meredith talks eloquently with total conviction and absolute certainity, a proven way of influencing other people. Sadly, in the real world, how much conviction you have and how certain you are makes you no more or less right than anyone else.
The Arishok is very large and strong, talks with a deep voice and in a distinct, forceful manner. Surely this man must be worthy of respect! Alas, again, looking and sounding impressive doesn't mean that you are. As they say, judge a man by his deeds. I'm sure many militant mass-murderers throughout history were also very impressive and charismatic.
Bioware does something different with Anders. They make him your companion, and everyone stands by his friends, right? Well, when your friend turns out to be a terrorist maybe it's time to reevaluate your friendship. If in real life a friend of mine would suddenly turn out to be a murderer i'm sure i would sympathize with him, a pure emotional instinct. Agreeing with his actions, however, would be another matter entirely. It wouldn't make you a terrorist, but certainly a terrorist supporter.
Elthina; what can possibly be wrong with her? She's such a wise and gentle soul, always kind and caring. seemingly standing above the chaos and destruction in her own little part of heaven, untouched by the world's corruption. An angel watching over us. Except she doesn't do that, does she? She doesn't watch over anyone, she simply observes. She's someone with the power and influence to, possibly, prevent all that follows, yet she does nothing. That suggests to me one of three things, either she likes the way events are transpiring, she doesn't care or she's spineless. We should judge by actions, but remember that inaction is also a choice. While not stopping the falling axe isn't as bad as actually holding it, it's still bad.
I've read several very strange things people have said in defense of these characters, one even going so far as to blame Isabela for being guilty of all the deaths the Arishok caused. A sort of: "She made me do it!" kind of argument that the serial killer in the Magister's Orders quest uses to defend himself. And that's the strange thing, that people don't see that the arguments they use to defend these characters are the same that's been used throughout history to justify the actions of mass murderers, terrorists and dictators. Notions like: the end justfies the means (remember, it's the means which define a terrorist, not the ends), the Greater Good and one of my favourites, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs (a saying some attribute to Robespierre who sent thousands of innocent people to the guilloutine during the Reign of Terror).
I invite people who sympathize with these people to examine their actions. Look past their words, their heartfelt emotions, their stern (or soft) demeanor, or goddamn amazing armor in one case and see what cruelty and terror they have wrought upon the world. They are not worthy of respect. They should be despised, and maybe pitied for having become such a sorry excuse for a human being (or abomintion, or qunari or what have you).
Lastly i'd like to add that writing this has made me realize, even more than before, what a great game DA2 is. Because it made me care enough to write this post.
Modifié par Ksandor, 12 avril 2011 - 11:03 .
Talking about V from V-Vendetta. I thought devs tried to pull out something like that, no? It's just that they.. uh.. did't do it well."Justified extremist" characters should be able to bring about a sense of understanding, despite their often violent, desperate acts.
One can just wonder how much people he can slay in self-defense without any doubts about himself.Considering that most of Hawke's opponents draw their blades on him first
Also, in ME2 Shep was operating in the Terminus systems (except for Illium and the Citadel), a largely lawless area. Seems like criminals and murderers are just who you would end up working with. The difference with the Dirty Dozen is those bad guys started off caught in prison (with death sentences I think) and paying their debt to society.Xewaka wrote...
ME 2 has you lead a suicide mission. Picking up competent yet expendable people is the clever thing to do. It's basically the Dirty Dozen IN SPACE!, only worse because no Charles Bronson.Stazro wrote...
That's exactly the same in ME2: The squad is full of sociopaths and criminals of various kinds. They probably think that such characters are more interesting to the player.Obadiah wrote...
There are some real issues with these Dragon Age games and murder. I'm not sure why the devs gave the players so many of these characters as companion options.
Rifneno wrote...
Hmm. That's quite possible. Or perhaps they just train their soldiers as such. After all we've only seen the military arm of the qunari. It reminds me of a conversation Leliana had with Sten. "I don't know. You don't seem like very musical people to me." "You base this on me? I am a soldier. The ansaam does not do battle with lutes." Obviously music isn't the same thing (although come to think of it, any good music does seem to carry an emotional intent) but it could be a similar situation. I guess it'd be a double standard for me to judge the qunari based on the bunch of soldiers we see while still defending the Circle citing that just because we see a ton of blood mages doesn't mean they're representative of the whole. Still... very leery...
Agreed. Well, mostly. I still don't like them, but you definitely presented the first case that made me view them in a better light than I had before. Most of the folks that like the qunari just swoon over how "badass" they are or just flatly forgive their methods because "the Qun tells them to" rather than make a good rationale.
Yeah, their badassery isn't really what impresses me. Ogres and Broodmothers are badass, and the Archdemon tells them to do the bad things they do, but I don't have any admiration for them. LOLOL. I think the Qunari are pretty deep, and I'm always excited when I find out more about them.
Modifié par Girl on a Rock, 12 avril 2011 - 02:06 .
Dragon Age seems to be operating on a fairly loose set of morals. Unless the player starts off as a Cousland, there is a good chance even the Warden is a murderer by the end of the Origin as well. And if not, there is always work from the crows (rolls eyes).Ksandor wrote...
...
I like grey areas like what Garrus does in ME2 but still Garrus is a good man and he can repent if you choose to do so in the game. I can't make DA II characters behave in the way I want unlike ME 2 where I had a degree of role playing freedom . But I think Bioware prefers moral ambiguity because this way everybody can find something familiar in the game and ambiguity would make the game appeal to masses.
...
But DA II characters are evil in many ways in my opinion. Why can't we have true heroes anyway? Why should we settle for bad people, the lesser evil?
Girl on a Rock wrote...
Ahhh, totes! I forgot about that part. Yeah, given what we've read about Qunari and what's been hinted at, I get the sense that their culture is very different when you're actually in a Qunari city, and I get the feeling we'd be very surprised by what we saw there. Or maybe just many people would be. And honestly, I think leeriness is fair. They are definitely True Believers, and True Believers are always dangerous!
Well thank you!
You know, there are games where you can solve all your problems with talking. They're called dating sims.DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...
Talking about V from V-Vendetta. I thought devs tried to pull out something like that, no? It's just that they.. uh.. did't do it well."Justified extremist" characters should be able to bring about a sense of understanding, despite their often violent, desperate acts.
One can just wonder how much people he can slay in self-defense without any doubts about himself.Considering that most of Hawke's opponents draw their blades on him first
And yeah, most of the games today are based on violence and how good and c00l it's presented, and I hate it, but even more I hate the games that "are about choice", and yet they still end with killin everything. And that is not because devs wanted to show us something important about murdering or some ideas into medieval society, it's much more simple - they don't know the way to do games "the other way", or don't have enough money, or special people to do it, or actually don't want you to do anything but disjointing NPC's knees with their ancles. No matter how good dialogues are, or characters are - if in the movie protagonist talks about human nature and peace meanwhile shooting all the stuff with his double UZIs, it's nothing more than a farce.
Girl on a Rock wrote...
You say we should not judge the Arishok according to traditional western values, but then go on to judge the other characters discussed in this thread, by those same values. I wonder what special status you accord the Arishok that he should be the exception.
The same reason I try not to judge the actions of people who lived in ancient Rome or Greece or China by the same standards that I live by today - because removing something from its cultural and historical context will inevitably lead it to be deemed unworthy. By judging Qunari cullture and the Arishok from a Westernized ethnocentric purview will inevitably leave them wanting, because the Qun values different things than the West, particularly America. Whereas American culture - the one from which I think the writers of the game come, if I'm not mistaken - is a culture that values the individual above all else, there are other cultures that see that as selfish and corrupt. So if you're going to judge the Qun by the standard of how much individual freedom its followers have, it's going to fall short. If you judge the Qun by how happy its followers are, or how much good it does (how safe its followers are, how much peace its followers enjoy within their own lands, how content the populace is in general) you may find something quite different.
Girl on a Rock wrote...
You seem to say with regards to the Arishok that we should be tolerant. I find it interesting that the qunari culture is one of the most intolerant fictional cultures i've ever come across. To be tolerant of intolerance is not tolererance, in my book. If one accepts intolerance and do not oppose it, one becomes guilty, in much the same way Elthina was, of allowing it to spread unchecked.
You haven't seen any real evidence of this, other than the Arishok saying Kirkwall was a festering pit of corruption and foulness, which, hey, it kind of was/is. One can tolerate the Qunari's beliefs and the Arishok, and even respect them, without allowing them to cross the boundaries into interfering with the rights of others as more Western values perceive them. But that's going to lead to war. However, I don't think anybody needs to act like Fereldens or Kirkwallers have never gone to war for the sake of conquest, and probably with far less noble goals than the Arishok.
Well, first, I think DAO did a fine job of depicting the moral ambiguity of the age.Plaintiff wrote...
...
They don't "need" a better way of doing it, there isn't a "better" way of doing it. In order to remove the depictions of and the capacity for violence, you would be reducing the final product to an interactive storybook suitable for small children.
...
Modifié par Obadiah, 12 avril 2011 - 04:09 .
Girl on a Rock wrote...
Oh, come on. "Violence, war, subjugation, and forceful conversion"? That sounds a whole lot like the Chantry to me - except the Qun don't try to cover it up with the "loving mother" tripe that the Chantry tries to feed you. The Qunari are honest, and I respect that, too. You really don't know anything about the Arishok other than what you assume about him, and what you project onto him, and the same goes for your knowledge of the Qun - we're given very little information about the Qun and the Qunari, and you appear to have decided to fill in all the blanks with your own opinions and biases. Which is cool, and your right. I'm starting to think that not too much more will be accomplished by continuing this thread of conversation.
Modifié par Joy Divison, 12 avril 2011 - 05:44 .
Joy Divison wrote...
I think the OP confuses that to understand something is not to forgive.
To you the arishock is a "militant mass murderer," Anders a "terrorist," and Meredith a "religious fanatic," and you liberally use the word "dictator" in the OP that I must assume that's what you perceive what all the authority figures are.
Some of us do not see the world in such black and white terms.
LyndseyCousland wrote...
Say what you want but leave my Anders out of it!
Modifié par Yellopranda, 12 avril 2011 - 06:19 .
Slidell505 wrote...
But Hawke kills more people than all of them. I mean he's killing people all day eray day.
LyndseyCousland wrote...
Say what you want but leave my Anders out of it!
Yellopranda wrote...
The desire to understand other people is a commendable one, but this post was not made in response to those people who simply want to understand, but rather those who, as i said: "defend, sympathize and even agree" with these people and their actions (though i guess i can understand a bit of sympathy).
I certainly understand Meredith, whose entire family was killed by her mage sister. Also the Arishok. He is after all a product of the society he comes from. And Anders who all his life has either been a prisoner or lived in fear of the Templars hunting him down. To go from understanding to condoning the actions of these people though is quite a leap.
(I can only see that i use the word dictator twice, and only once in reference to some of the characters discussed, but that's splitting hairs.)
Joy Divison wrote...
Yellopranda wrote...
The desire to understand other people is a commendable one, but this post was not made in response to those people who simply want to understand, but rather those who, as i said: "defend, sympathize and even agree" with these people and their actions (though i guess i can understand a bit of sympathy).
I certainly understand Meredith, whose entire family was killed by her mage sister. Also the Arishok. He is after all a product of the society he comes from. And Anders who all his life has either been a prisoner or lived in fear of the Templars hunting him down. To go from understanding to condoning the actions of these people though is quite a leap.
(I can only see that i use the word dictator twice, and only once in reference to some of the characters discussed, but that's splitting hairs.)
I'm very curious of your interpretations of "defend, sympathize and even agree" with when you depict these characters as "militant mass murders," "religious fanatics," "terrorists," and "dictators." I suspect from such characterizations you'd easily confuse understnading w/ sympathizing.
Retour en haut