127 réponses à ce sujet

[RunCDFirst]

ShadowKhan wrote...
Even though her solution was to save your life? That doesn't sound like your getting screwed over.

I think everyone is missing a big point with Morrigan. She admits to having limited contact with others and being uncomfortable in social situations.  Flemeth even admits Morrigan's social skills are lacking, I believe one of the reasons she sent her with you. Morrigan is very self centered and has her own plan and has had all along as evidenced when she recruited you to kill Flemeth. Fleneth even retorts "What has she told you? So she has you dancing to her tune now?" The first time I killed Flemeth and the second time I let her live...

I think in a DLC or sequel we will see what both of those two are up to or maybe we should.

It's rather clear that saving your life is just a bonus, not the purpose of the ritual. Besides, I had Loghain with my to take the fall for the archdemon, I don't need some twisted ritual for that. And the whole, 'I won't tell you what I'm going to do and you will never be able to see it' makes it quite obvious that she has nothing pleasant planned.

You don't need to be a social savant to know that what she's doing is incredibly selfish. Thinking otherwise is just... well... naive.

[taxtell]

I think the true moral of the story is, you simply cannot please everyone.



I liked my ending.

[Roxlimn]

I get the feeling that she's planning to modify Flemeth's ritual so that she can take the powers of the Old God for herself.

[RunCDFirst]

Roxlimn wrote...

I get the feeling that she's planning to modify Flemeth's ritual so that she can take the powers of the Old God for herself.

Well it's not a resurfacing, deeply-seated maternal instinct motivating her, that's for sure.

[Roxlimn]

I also get the distinct suspicion that "Flemeth" isn't, in fact, Flemeth, particularly since she seems a bit addled and none too intelligent. I get the feeling that Flemeth has already completed her ritual and is now housed in the body of someone who used to be Morrigan, but her new body takes getting used to and she still needs to get rid of the old body, which presumably is still very powerful.



So what does she do?



She manipulates the old body with the addled soul to rescue two Grey Wardens and then joins them for a variety of reasons, one of which is to flesh out her new body and powers in the relative safety of two powerful individuals. This puts her out of danger from the old body. Later on, she manipulates the Wardens into killing the old body, and retrieving all her old stuff to boot. She can't be there because killing the old body might have disastrous results if she were near. Convenient.



Certainly, from all the old tales of what Flemeth is capable of doing, I wouldn't put this past her.

[RunCDFirst]

Roxlimn wrote...

I also get the distinct suspicion that "Flemeth" isn't, in fact, Flemeth, particularly since she seems a bit addled and none too intelligent. I get the feeling that Flemeth has already completed her ritual and is now housed in the body of someone who used to be Morrigan, but her new body takes getting used to and she still needs to get rid of the old body, which presumably is still very powerful.

So what does she do?

She manipulates the old body with the addled soul to rescue two Grey Wardens and then joins them for a variety of reasons, one of which is to flesh out her new body and powers in the relative safety of two powerful individuals. This puts her out of danger from the old body. Later on, she manipulates the Wardens into killing the old body, and retrieving all her old stuff to boot. She can't be there because killing the old body might have disastrous results if she were near. Convenient.

Certainly, from all the old tales of what Flemeth is capable of doing, I wouldn't put this past her.

I hope so, I  Kate Mulgrew.

But you can still spare 'Flemeth' at her hut after Morrigan sends you there. No, I'm more inclined to believe that she somehow doesn't die from the confrontation not that she's already possessing Morrigan.

[Recidiva]

I think the theme for me is the concept of ends justifying the means.



This game has horrific ends, preventing that puts you through the wringer of choice and consequence in order to gather the means to stop it.



If I were to compare this to me personally, I know that my particular weakness, which can occasionally be a weakness used against me, is my "mama bear" protectiveness of my children or my spouse. My family is the thing that I will kill for given the right circumstances. I'm not a pacifist and in general I believe in the courts and justice.



But I do know if in reality my daughter were raped in the manner of the beginning of the elven city origin, my life is forfeit to a cause then. Kill everyone who did that. Stop at nothing. I'm lost to wrath at this point.



So you have characters constructed that way. Extreme circumstances that violate extreme ideals. It's not about which road do you pick, it means that whatever road you pick, everything on the other road is forfeit.

[Taleroth]

Recidiva wrote...

I think the theme for me is the concept of ends justifying the means.

This game has horrific ends, preventing that puts you through the wringer of choice and consequence in order to gather the means to stop it.

If I were to compare this to me personally, I know that my particular weakness, which can occasionally be a weakness used against me, is my "mama bear" protectiveness of my children or my spouse. My family is the thing that I will kill for given the right circumstances. I'm not a pacifist and in general I believe in the courts and justice.

But I do know if in reality my daughter were raped in the manner of the beginning of the elven city origin, my life is forfeit to a cause then. Kill everyone who did that. Stop at nothing. I'm lost to wrath at this point.

So you have characters constructed that way. Extreme circumstances that violate extreme ideals. It's not about which road do you pick, it means that whatever road you pick, everything on the other road is forfeit.

That's cool and all and it would be a great theme.  But how does the game present that?

What is forfeit when you choose the road to ending the curse of the Werewolves?  What is forfeit when you choose to involve the circle in rescuing Conner?

Or what about "ends justifying the means?"  How does anything get justified?  We know the ends in advance, defeating the darkspawn, but what is the justification for the means to that?  What justifies taking Conner's or Isolde's life over saving them both?  What justifies wiping the Elves out when you could instead cure the Werewolves?  How is killing Loghain justified compared to sparing him?

Can one really justify killing a child to save a town when you can equally save a town without killing him?  Doesn't that directly contradict such an idea?  The means cease to be justified when the ends are equally accomplished in other, less drastic, ways in my mind.  So I have trouble understanding how this is presented.

Modifié par Taleroth, 01 décembre 2009 - 05:56 .

[Kuravid]

Recidiva wrote...

I think the theme for me is the concept of ends justifying the means.

This game has horrific ends, preventing that puts you through the wringer of choice and consequence in order to gather the means to stop it.

I can see that, but I still have a difficult time constructing a main moral theme throughout the game. Perhaps it just depends on the way you approach it. With me, I played my first character with a no nonsense attitude in mind (no saving Connor, no chantry in Orzammar, no submitting to Alistair's outbursts, no Morrigan demon baby offers, etc). The whole point, for my first character, was simply to end the Blight, no matter what, because otherwise civilization would collapse or something. The character pretty much sacrificed her own needs and wants throughout the entire game simply because it was demanded that she do so.

Maybe that's it: there are more important things in life than what you want, and sometimes **** just happens and you gotta roll with it.

[Recidiva]

Taleroth wrote...

That's cool and all and it would be a great theme.  But how does the game present that?

What is forfeit when you choose the road to ending the curse of the Werewolves?  What is forfeit when you choose to involve the circle in rescuing Conner?

Or what about "ends justifying the means?"  How does anything get justified?  We know the ends in advance, defeating the darkspawn, but what is the justification for the means to that?  What justifies taking Conner's or Isolde's life over saving them both?  What justifies wiping the Elves out when you could instead cure the Werewolves?  How is killing Loghain justified compared to sparing him?

Can one really justify killing a child to save a town when you can equally save a town without killing him?  Doesn't that directly contradict such an idea?  The means cease to be justified when the ends are equally accomplished in other, less drastic, ways in my mind.  So I have trouble understanding how this is presented.

There are several ways you can deal with Connor.

My first time through I seriously screwed up and unintentionally talked to Connor too much and Isolde ended up choosing to end his pain and slit his throat.

The consequences are set up to not necessarily be in game.  But I find that I become attached to what I know will BE consequences to the characters.  It's really not all about me.  It's how I feel about either leaving a healthy child alive with a bright future or end up with nothing but memories of a woman with a knife at a child's neck, asking him to close his eyes.

A LOT of the "consequences" are that the player has to deal with knowing what they did and whether or not they could have done better or given a damn about doing better.  Go through all the possiblities with Connor and see what suits the player best.  Do you save the circle and do the ritual and kill the demon in the fade?  Do you save the circle and do the ritual and make a deal with the demon, ultimately knowing it's more of the same for Connor in the future?  Do you let Isolde do blood magic?  

If you don't become involved in the story or the characters, and they don't resonate with you, of course there are no consequences.  But I find that they work on me and my conscience just fine.

I don't feel I've "won" a game if I take Morrigan's deal because I KNOW that I'm basically dooming someone, somewhere.

A lot of the choices aren't directly impacting the character in game, but it is certainly impacting the player's conscience if they're into that sort of thing, and I am.

[Recidiva]

Kuravid wrote...

I can see that, but I still have a difficult time constructing a main moral theme throughout the game. Perhaps it just depends on the way you approach it. With me, I played my first character with a no nonsense attitude in mind (no saving Connor, no chantry in Orzammar, no submitting to Alistair's outbursts, no Morrigan demon baby offers, etc). The whole point, for my first character, was simply to end the Blight, no matter what, because otherwise civilization would collapse or something. The character pretty much sacrificed her own needs and wants throughout the entire game simply because it was demanded that she do so.

Maybe that's it: there are more important things in life than what you want, and sometimes **** just happens and you gotta roll with it.

I think the theme is sacrifice.  In the end it's possible to get the most "happy" ending for lots of Ferelden if the player makes all the sacrifices, including sacrificing reason or mercy or other "good" things when what's at stake is more important to the player.  You're not asked to just sacrifice the bad things, there's compelling reasons to sacrifice good things.

If you sacrifice yourself or bits of Ferelden along the way is the theme for me.

The mechanical point of the game is to finish the game, sure, but this is a game that's about a lot more than finishing.  I've started several games and been unable to finish for various reasons and they still make excellent stories in their own way.

[Taleroth]

Recidiva wrote...

The consequences are set up to not necessarily be in game.  But I find that I become attached to what I know will BE consequences to the characters.  It's really not all about me.  It's how I feel about either leaving a healthy child alive with a bright future or end up with nothing but memories of a woman with a knife at a child's neck, asking him to close his eyes.

A LOT of the "consequences" are that the player has to deal with knowing what they did and whether or not they could have done better or given a damn about doing better.  Go through all the possiblities with Connor and see what suits the player best.  Do you save the circle and do the ritual and kill the demon in the fade?  Do you save the circle and do the ritual and make a deal with the demon, ultimately knowing it's more of the same for Connor in the future?  Do you let Isolde do blood magic? 

If you don't become involved in the story or the characters, and they don't resonate with you, of course there are no consequences.  But I find that they work on me and my conscience just fine.

I don't feel I've "won" a game if I take Morrigan's deal because I KNOW that I'm basically dooming someone, somewhere.

A lot of the choices aren't directly impacting the character in game, but it is certainly impacting the player's conscience if they're into that sort of thing, and I am.

You've completely lost me.  Everything I said was from the perspective of being involved and accepting consequences for the characters as a consequence.

That said, saving Conner's life and not taking Isolde's life provides absolutely no negative consequence.  And there is no reason to take anything on your conscience for this choice.

This contrasts with the solutions of taking Conner's life, or taking Isolde's life, or bargaining with the demon.  All of these instead have consequences.  Which speaks more of "if you take less than ideal means, you get less than ideal ends."  That's the position opposite "the ends justify the means."

[Layn]

the moral of the story is that it's a story and everyone gets something different out of it.



heck i befriended Morrigan, let her have her god-child and let her go. i didn't feel backstabbed. She gave me the choice, guaranteed to me that she would not harm ferelden (i trust her), and that she would leave. as her friend i respected her decision, and just hoped that our friendship has given her a different, better outlook on everything.

[Recidiva]

Taleroth wrote...

You've completely lost me.  Everything I said was from the perspective of being involved and accepting consequences for the characters as a consequence.

That said, saving Conner's life and not taking Isolde's life provides absolutely no negative consequence.  And there is no reason to take anything on your conscience for this choice.

This contrasts with the solutions of taking Conner's life, or taking Isolde's life, or bargaining with the demon.  All of these instead have consequences.  Which speaks more of "if you take less than ideal means, you get less than ideal ends."  That's the position opposite "the ends justify the means."

Okay.  Then if there's no consequence for your conscience then you're probably not the intended audience of that particular encounter.  Hit me damned hard because I'm a mother of a young boy that I could see doing just that.  I wouldn't have behaved as Isolde did and put other people at risk, but I didn't have a problem buying that a perfectly awesome kid would end up in that position.

Lots of other people get hit hard by Morrigan's leaving if you turn her down and will take her deal just to have her stay a little bit longer.  That does nothing for me and that's a reasonable consequence.  Never particularly liked her.  There's no loss as far as I'm concerned, whereas for other people the game can hinge on that one moment.

Connor is one of my hinge moments.  I can't not save him.

So maybe it's not your "hot point" or anything that gets to you.  Kicked me right in the tender bits, it did.

The consequence is having Alistair ream you out at camp.  You will lose approval with Alistair if you don't save Connor, you will gain approval if you save him. 

It might not be a great consequence, but I as a player do not enjoy the consequence of the righteous disapproval of a party member reaming me out for not trying hard enough, particularly if he's entirely right.   I also look for the epilogue bubble that tells me Connor became a promising mage and I smile. 

As a result strictly for Connor's sake (him being a symbol that is for me deeply attached to my own son) I am unwilling to condemn the circle because of it, unwilling to NOT go that extra few miles to save his life, and I get a nice "attagirl" for doing it in my own head.

So that doesn't mean that this bit of the story HAS to resonate or have consequences for you or anyone else, but there are lots and lots of parents that have played, and this part of the story dictates how they behave and they are absolutely not willing to sacrifice Connor, no matter what it costs their strategy in the long run.  I've seen them say essentially the same thing I'm saying.  So it may make no sense unless you have someone in your life like Connor that you want to protect.

So I guess for me I see the consequence, you don't, that's cool.  Just presenting how it works out for me and why that part of the story HAS to go a certain way because I can't tolerate it any other way.

So do you have any hinge points that you've discovered you can't do any other way?  Having played, are there choices you can't stomach or can't carry out or find you must carry out?

It's interesting because people will defend their hinge points and know exactly why they do what they do and it seems so obvious to them.  But I think that's what makes it a powerful game.  Some things are total nobrainers for one person while the opposite choice is a complete nobrainer for another.  It's what makes it a nobrainer for that individual that makes it such a good game that's able to evoke those responses.

[nicethugbert]

Haven't finished the game yet, but, when I do, I suspect that the answers regarding Darkness lie within the game's Demonology. Let's see, there is Sloth, Rage, and Hunger. What other demons are there? Hmm, Darkness is not shinning so well with such heritage.

[Taleroth]

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of consequence in my context. NEGATIVE consequence. Meaning "bad things happen." Conner becoming a happy mage, Isolde living, none of these are negative consequence. To anyone. Unless you really hate these people.

The idyllic path has no consequence.  Which is the position opposed to the cynical idea that "ends justify the means."  "Ends justifying the means" referring to the notion that something bads means are required for good ends.  But, in this instance, bad means lead to bad ends and good means lead to good ends.   An argument against it.

Modifié par Taleroth, 01 décembre 2009 - 07:04 .

[Recidiva]

Taleroth wrote...

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of consequence in my context. NEGATIVE consequence. Meaning "bad things happen." Conner becoming a happy mage, Isolde living, none of these are negative consequence. To anyone. Unless you really hate these people.

Oh, well, there is.  You're giving up whatever deal can be made wtih the Desire Demon at Connor's expense.

You're giving up all the things she can offer, sex, stat boost, unlocking the blood mage specialty, an approval bonus on one of your party members...she has a whole menu.

That may not seem like a consequence to you, but I certainly took her deal to unlock Blood Mage myself.  I just don't want to do it again and didn't like doing it then, and didn't enjoy playing that character particularly other than for the completely horrifying results.  Okay, some of them were funny, but "evil" isn't my favorite suit in this game.

[marshalleck]

Bioware can't write negative consequences into their games because every time they've tried in the past, people become enraged. That's why there's always the Shining Paladin of Goodness option, which from a metagaming perspective invalidates all but the most ideal solution to every problem.

[sagevallant]

Taleroth wrote...

Or What Do You Mean Its Not Symbolic?

I'm having a hard time coming up with consistent themes or overriding morals to the story.  On one hand, we have promotional material referring to the game as "dark heroic fantasy."  There are various references within the game that state the Grey Wardens do anything it takes to stop the Blight.  Duncan kills Jory, a man attempting a retreat.  All of these together tend to agree in a vague sense.  They're relatively dark, they imply hard decisions of killing one to save many or similar, sacrifices.

But does that show up in the rest of the game?

Do we need to sacrifice anyone to save Redcliffe?  Not really, we can potentially save everyone, though it's hard.  There's definitely no overt sacrifice, just people dying in battle.  I still can't save that stupid Mayor.  That's hardly dark.  There's no hard decisions, you don't have to kill anyone to save anyone else, no sacrifices to be made.  Heck, the only person you're even allowed to kill, the Smith, leads to a less than ideal setup for the battle.

Moral of Redcliffe?  It seems to be a simple one of being helpful saves the day.

How about Redcliffe Castle?  We must have to sacrifice in order to save Conner?  You don't HAVE to, but you can.  You can kill the possessed child to save Redcliffe, kill the mother to save the child and Redcliffe, or kill absolutely nobody and save everyone.  It hardly seems a moral dilemma when your options are to kill one of two people or kill nobody and get the almost the exact same outcome.  Pretty much the only ultimate difference between the three options I can find is whether or not Alistair gets angry at you.

Moral of Redcliffe Castle?  Killing people is okay for a good cause but totally unnecessary, you lazy git.  That's kind of dark, I guess.

Moral of Mage's Tower?  A popular early visit.  This one has to be dark.  The Mages basically live in a state of necessary incarceration to protect the world.  They, early on, must be forced to a challenge that could lead to their death.  And if its believed they won't pass it, they may just get lobotomized early to save their life.  Whoah, that's like SUPER-DARK.  Heck, when you arrive people are suggesting that you just kill them all to save the world, even the innocents, just to be safe.  And that is ultimately a choice presented to you.  Maybe it's time for that hard decision!  Kill everyone to save the world or let them live and potentially doom it.  Does the necessity of this decision play itself out in the consequences to choice we make?  Does saving the Mages doom the world to abomination terror?  No.  Saving lives ends as it often does in these things, with a happy ending.

Moral of the Mage Tower?  At times in life, you will be confronted with hard decisions.  Such as whether or not you want to have guys with swords or Mages join your army.  Deep.

Holy crap this is getting long.

Welcome to Brecilian Forest.  Where the Elves are tormented by Werewolves.  However, things are not always as they seem.  You see, the Elvish leader created the Werewolves as an act of vengeance.  And the Werewolves attacked the Elves seeking some of their own vengeance.  An ages long hatred between peoples with no end in sight.  You, however, must end it now by any means necessary.  DUM DUM DUUUUUUM!  The obvious solution is to kill these tormented Werewolves to save the Elves.  And to enhance the tragedy, you are constantly confronted by a fairly peaceful, if incredibly wary, Werewolf.  So, this choice could indeed be hard.  Two peoples, who themselves desire peace and an end to their conflict and pains.  But, hey, why choose?  Why not save them both?  It's easy!  Either way you fight a boss fight of similar difficulty.  And the only casualties end up being two people who have already lived way too long, they choose this fate and meet it gladly.  But ultimately more people are saved.

Moral of Brecillian Forest?  Vengeance creates a terrible cycle, but peace can eventually be found when people talk with each other.  Unless you're really persuasive and think Wolfmen are awesome.  Hint: They are.

Orzammar, home of the Dwarves.  I think I'll end my post with them.  Fitting, since I view them as being the most interesting decisions faced in the game.  It's a feud between successors to the throne.  A son of the King and the man the King chose to succede him.  One's a terrible man who murdered and framed family for power, the other is a double dealing liar.  And to gain either one's favor, you must find a cherished citizen, a Paragon.  Your quest leads you to the revelation that this Paragon is ****g nuts.  It also leads you to the truth of Golems and a difficult choice.  Gain the Golems to your forces, but enslave a people.  Or end this slavery and do without them.  Wait a sec.  That's a dilemma!  Either way you still get your Paragon and the Dwarves, but you can also get Golems, if you choose the less ideal path.  And at the end, you can choose the King.  Double dealing, but seemingly nice Harrowmont.  Or murdering and framing tyrant Bhelen.  At the end you find the consequence of this, nice Harrowmont is a terrible king, tyrant Bhelen is terrific.

Moral of the Dwarves?  Sometimes the less ideal choice leads to a better outcome for you and extra help you need.  Also, politicians suck.


I said I'd end this with the Dwarves, but like Harrowmont, I'm a liar.  I'm going to end this with Morrigan.  A cold hearted witch.  A person who, through friendship or love, you can melt the ice that flows through her veins to show her the little girl that still hides inside.  Only to get kicked right in the cherrypicker by being abandoned at the end regardless.

What is the moral of Morrigan?  *bleep* you, that's what.

There's more to discuss, but I hope my question is clear.  What connects these?  Redcliffe, Mage's Tower, and Brecillian Forest all can end with ideal solutions without any additional effort, no negative consequences at all to the shiny happy path.  But the Dwarves can end with you choosing a less "ideal" solution on the Golems for greater reward.  And choosing the greater evil choice for King that leads to a better outcome for Dwarves.  Then there's Morrigan, where you get kicked in the junk whether you invest or not.

What are we supposed to take away at the end of it all?

The Aesop of this game is that, if you really want to save everyone and make everyone happy, you better be prepared to work your ass off and not take the easy route, not even once. And that's pretty much true.

Also, it's that demon-possessed children are remarkably patient. You go off on a journey to the mage tower, clean that place out--getting caught in a nightmare realm while you're at it--and finally make your way back to save the kid, and he's right where you left him. Hasn't even sent another wave of walking corpses at the poor townsfolk.

[Recidiva]

marshalleck wrote...

Bioware can't write negative consequences into their games because every time they've tried in the past, people become enraged. That's why there's always the Shining Paladin of Goodness option, which from a metagaming perspective invalidates all but the most ideal solution to every problem.

They did a decent job in KOTOR.  But in that situation you were able to lie to others about what you did.

In this game there are always witnesses everywhere.  It becomes entirely impossible for me to play my version of evil, which is looking like the perfect, upstanding citizen, while doing horrible things in the dark.

Especially with Loghain in this game leaving evidence everywhere in the game...from witnesses...it just makes it impossible for me to do "whatever" with three people watching me.  Even if they approve, I don't want them knowing.  My entire "Evil" persona characters are based on being a seamless hypocrite.

[Suron]

the complaints here are all based on meta game knowledge..and if you play a game that way of course it's dull and un-rewarding.



On my first playthrough I decided to sacrifice Isolde..becuase I didn't know, having not spoiled it and it being my first play, that leaving for a few days wouldn't result in something happening...that's how my CHARACTER saw the situation.



now that I've played through it a few times I try and make choices based of the personality/theme of the character I'm playing NOT meta-game knowledge...YOUR CHARACTER HAS NO IDEA that everything will be all hunky-dory with Redcliffe if you leave for several days.



or in short..the complaints are stupid if you're going to only opt for the best-case-scenerio because you know all the outcomes.



YOUR CHARACTER may have felt outraged like Zathrian and thought the werewolves deserved punishment..or vise-versa..



once again these arguments are idiotic. Bio put in various outcomes for someone ROLEPLAYING A CHARACTER..NOT meta-gaming and min/maxing a character...



if you're too shallow to play from your characters perspective and thoughts on the matter instead of your existing knowledge of ALL outcomes...don't come here complaining BioWare did something wrong..show some intelligence

[sagevallant]

marshalleck wrote...

Bioware can't write negative consequences into their games because every time they've tried in the past, people become enraged. That's why there's always the Shining Paladin of Goodness option, which from a metagaming perspective invalidates all but the most ideal solution to every problem.

A large portion of the audience buys Epic Quest Game to go forth and be the hero. If they want to f*** up the city, stab hobos, and kill hookers, they play GTA.

I vote for a GTA spinoff titled Grand Theft Dragoon, where we can all be our sadistic bastard selves.

[Taleroth]

You do realize you're making an argument largely for in-character FUD, right?



It's not done as metagaming, it's a comparison argument. With several scenarios presented, as a whole they present the idea. Even in a singular context, if a man can choose the idyllic path and ignore the negative actions (out of principle, if you will) and still get an idyllic ending, you're not justifying the negative path that was avoided. You're condemning it.

[Tristera]

I really like the way you write, Taleroth. You use punctuation, subject-verb agreement and everything!



Joking aside, I think the most I got out of this game could be summed up in the line you can feed Alistair after the unpleasant reunion with his sister: Everyone is in it for themselves. Without starting a lofty argument about the iffy truths of altruism and charity, I can point to this sort of 'I'm Only Looking Out for Number One' attitude in most characters, in most situations. When a game can hand you a good ending after being jerked around by feuding noble houses, or give you a devilishly ambiguous ending after sleeping with someone who told you she loved you, there are few lessons to learn. While it's awful that everyone uses everyone for something, I suppose it reflects the way some people look at real life.



I should also qualify these statements by saying I don't personally think (maybe 'hope' is a better word) the 'everyone is out for themselves' viewpoint is the most true. What I *do* know to be true is a lot of moral grey, and the sometimes-random labels of 'good' and 'evil'. If anyone's ever played Oblivion, the powerful necromancer Mannimarco says something similar to you about the nature of good and evil...whether it's to soften you up before he steals your soul, or his genuine interest in giving you pause before the inevitable end of his life is unclear.

[Suron]

but your character doesn't know that..he took a chance..and it ends up paying off...yes I believe something SHOULD have happened...be it even small..some mention..SOMETHING.



however..my point stands..and your counter-argument is weak. The complaints are based off knowing all outcomes..your character doesn't...and whether it's your 1st or 100th time playing..if you make the choice based off the personality you set for your character (OMG roleplaying in an RPG????? NO F'n WAY!) this is a non-issue. Does YOUR CHARACTER think it's worth the time it will take going to the mage tower? does YOUR CHARACTER feel disgusted by the elves/werewolves and think one or the other should pay...



omg...roleplaying...in an rpg..what a concept? I know I'm crazy