80 réponses à ce sujet

[Jacks-Up]

FFLB wrote...

Why would the essence of the Archdemon even want a human/dwarven/elven body? It's already got the body of a DRAGON GOD. Compared to a little humanoid form with no wings, that's like taking a couple thousand steps backwards.

Because that human/dwarven/elven body just kicked the living crap out of it and it's a fraction of it's age.

[HoboJ]

FFLB wrote...

Why would the essence of the Archdemon even want a human/dwarven/elven body? It's already got the body of a DRAGON GOD. Compared to a little humanoid form with no wings, that's like taking a couple thousand steps backwards.

One reason could be the human/elf/dwarven body blends in with the world its trying to destroy. Why destroy the world from the outside when you can do it from within?! 

[FFLB]

Jacks-Up wrote...

FFLB wrote...

Why would the essence of the Archdemon even want a human/dwarven/elven body? It's already got the body of a DRAGON GOD. Compared to a little humanoid form with no wings, that's like taking a couple thousand steps backwards.

Because that human/dwarven/elven body just kicked the living crap out of it and it's a fraction of it's age.

Along with an army, loads of magic, and party members of varying skills. There's no guarantee that the essence of it would find the most powerful body out of that group. Also, if the Archdemon dragon is still capable of being slain, albeit, with much difficulty, wouldn't an Archdemon human be slain more easily than that? Besides that, I don't think the Archdemon would even remain in the form of the possessed being. Riordan does state that the Archdemon will just twist a darkspawn's body until it fits what it had originally. How it gets enough mass for a dragon's body beats me though.

One reason could be the human/elf/dwarven body blends in with the world
its trying to destroy. Why destroy the world from the outside when you
can do it from within?!

The Archdemon was never shown to have desired communication with other beings. It just commands. And it's commands are to destroy. The extent of its guile seems to be sending assassins to attack the Grey Wardens. Other than that, I wouldn't expect much more subtlety out of it.

Modifié par FFLB, 19 novembre 2009 - 02:49 .

[KalosCast]

Syrellaris wrote...

Actually, that would be one of my goals as a chaotic evil person.

as for the rest of the game, the evil choices were kind of pathetic. None of them made you feel evil at all. In fact in some of them, no matter what you picked, you were quickly set good again. You pick, what would be a evil answer and the npc tells you, nope sorry cant do that. Not a single persuade or intimidate offer there either, just a nope sorry. Redcliff would be a good example of this.

This game, even though its dark and still a great game, it lacks real evil but has plenty of good and neutral.

No, that would be one of your goals as Chaotic-Stupid. If this was a pen and paper game, you'd be the one killing faceless NPC's and shouting "it's what my alignment dictates!"

And no, even if you're chaotic stupid, it wouldn't be one of your goals. Given that there's no possible way to become the Archdemon, all you'd get for your troubles is that the Darkspawn would kill everything INCLUDING you, or you'd just keep running from them for 30 years until you fell over dead... assuming a pissed off group of Ferelden refugees didn't hunt you down first.

Do you see a good and evil system in this game? I mean, look at the order you belong to... the GREY Wardens, because this game is all about GREY morality. Do you help the politician who lies and cheats his way to the top in order to bring about progress and improvement, or do you help the one who's a genuinely good person but leads a flimsy government that props up oppression and a brutally unfair caste system? Do you let the Demon and her enchanted templar live together in a magical hallucination where they're both happy, or do you give him a freedom that can only be found in his death? Do you exterminate the mages in the name of security, ensuring that no maleficar and abominations terrorize the populace, or do you take the risk (which has reprecussions in the endgame mind you) of sparing lives who's allegiance is in question (and can even spare lives of confessed blood mages). If you were the Knights of Niceness, Bioware would have probably chose to call you the alliteration-friendly White Wardens. This game exists more as a deconstruction of moral choice systems, which boil down solely into Divine Benevolence and Cartoonish Villainy (which is what you seem to want) and instead gives you relatable characters with more than one level to them, and conclusions that tend to be something of a mixed bag.

There's plenty of room in this game to be truly evil, to make the world a genuinely worse place through manipulation, death, destruction, and general disregard of the laws of both man and Maker, they just don't let you be a completely unrealistic sociopathic moron.

[LaztRezort]

I think the idea of the game is to spin a good story. The closest analogy I can think of to siding with the darkspawn would be siding with cancer, or nuclear war. Sure, we can all imagine a personality that would want to do such a thing, but would it really make for a good story? I cannot think of one book I've ever read that ended in such a senseless fashion.



And the whole alignment thing was originally a particular game mechanic from a particular PnP role-playing game that was invented to give the player's a framework to start from when learning how to role-play. The best games of that era, from my experience, quickly threw that mechanic out the window when the players became better at role-playing (i.e. acting as a real person would, with real motivations and depth of character).

[FFLB]

LaztRezort wrote...

I think the idea of the game is to spin a good story. The closest analogy I can think of to siding with the darkspawn would be siding with cancer, or nuclear war. Sure, we can all imagine a personality that would want to do such a thing, but would it really make for a good story? I cannot think of one book I've ever read that ended in such a senseless fashion.

I guess some people would like to think that if nuclear powered destruction could think about how to best rain death upon all things, it would be best to do so from within a human frame rather than a metal shell.:innocent:

[KalosCast]

FFLB wrote...

LaztRezort wrote...

I think the idea of the game is to spin a good story. The closest analogy I can think of to siding with the darkspawn would be siding with cancer, or nuclear war. Sure, we can all imagine a personality that would want to do such a thing, but would it really make for a good story? I cannot think of one book I've ever read that ended in such a senseless fashion.

I guess some people would like to think that if nuclear powered destruction could think about how to best rain death upon all things, it would be best to do so from within a human frame rather than a metal shell.:innocent:

If a nuclear bomb could think, it wouldn't blow itself up, realizing that its true potential is in scaring other people not to challenge it by threatening to blow up.

[Dr3xx]

You cant do that obviously, because there is a story plot. Sometimes decisions are a bad idea.... sometimes, you just need to let the story unfold. Personally I'm glad they didn't go that route, as it would have ruined the game (obviously, as what happened had to happen to shape the way for the expansion).

[FFLB]

KalosCast wrote...

If a nuclear bomb could think, it wouldn't blow itself up, realizing that its true potential is in scaring other people not to challenge it by threatening to blow up.

Well, it would actually have to show evidence first that it would be willing to blow up and that it could blow up. If it just makes demands without ever showing the power to back that up, people are going to eventually start wondering whether it could or would actually do it anyway. That would probably lead to a lot of goading and refusals of its demands, which could lead it to give up its existence and blow itself up... being a martyr to all future nuclear bombs since they wouldn't have to blow themselves up to get demands met through fear.

But... if they were actual living beings, I think someone would've figured out a way to hit the proverbial kill switch by that point.

Modifié par FFLB, 19 novembre 2009 - 03:17 .

[KalosCast]

FFLB wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

If a nuclear bomb could think, it wouldn't blow itself up, realizing that its true potential is in scaring other people not to challenge it by threatening to blow up.

Well, it would actually have to show evidence first that it would be willing to blow up and that it could blow up. If it just makes demands without ever showing the power to back that up, people are going to eventually start wondering whether it could or would actually do it anyway. That would probably lead to a lot of goading and refusals of its demands, which could lead it to give up its existence and blow itself up... being a martyr to all future nuclear bombs since they wouldn't have to blow themselves up to get demands met through fear.

But... if they were actual living beings, I think someone would've figured out a way to hit the proverbial kill switch by that point.

Assuming, of course, that this world has had no nuclear bombs blow up yet.

[FFLB]

KalosCast wrote...

Assuming, of course, that this world has had no nuclear bombs blow up yet.

Of course. It's obviously not our world since our nuclear bombs aren't sentient. Even then, I wouldn't see them going to drastic lengths unless someone had the bright idea to enslave sentient nuclear bombs without giving them rights, or maybe even their own planet. Heck, they could live on the moon.

[KalosCast]

FFLB wrote...

Of course. It's obviously not our world since our nuclear bombs aren't sentient. Even then, I wouldn't see them going to drastic lengths unless someone had the bright idea to enslave sentient nuclear bombs without giving them rights, or maybe even their own planet. Heck, they could live on the moon.

Just like how normal humans don't commit suicide and try to take as many people as they can down with them? It would definitely happen, but they wouldn't blow themselves up just because their character sheet says they're chaotic.

[LaztRezort]

KalosCast wrote...

Just like how normal humans don't commit suicide and try to take as many people as they can down with them? It would definitely happen, but they wouldn't blow themselves up just because their character sheet says they're chaotic.

Well, they might, but it would be A) a very boring/ridiculous RPG gaming session, or a very boring/ridiculous plot resolution.

I, personally, would want neither.

[FFLB]

KalosCast wrote...

Just like how normal humans don't commit suicide and try to take as many people as they can down with them? It would definitely happen, but they wouldn't blow themselves up just because their character sheet says they're chaotic.

Whoever said they had to be chaotic in order to be willing to give up their life?

Anyway, you've moved away from the idea of sentient nuclear bombs, so I don't feel much need to take this thread further off-topic.

[Sable Rhapsody]

If you look at the "evil" endings in other BioWare games, they never involve wanton destruction of everything that exists. Not even ToB, which probably ended the worst. There is never a DESTROY THE WORLD/KNOWN UNIVERSE option in any BioWare game ending, no matter how ruthless or evil. There's conquering the world, ruling it with an iron fist, becoming an evil god of evil win, ruling hell, and various other things. Siding with the darkspawn, siding with Saren in ME...these are all destroy the known universe options, and I think the fact that BioWare would like to continue with these game settings and NOT have them be eaten by some awful evil is reason enough not to have those kinds of pointlessly nihilistic options XD

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 19 novembre 2009 - 08:02 .

[dannythefool]

I don't get it, why do people think the ultimate evil end has to be siding with the archdemon? The archdemon is a force on its own and you'll just have to live with not being able to become it. That is something only old gods get to do.



If you want to be evil, and if you want power, you must seek it in the mortal realm. There is nothing wrong with killing the regent, imprisoning the queen and taking the throne for yourself (or putting a puppet on it). It's as evil as it gets if you do it for evil/selfish reasons. But siding with the archdemon? That's not evil, it's plain impossible in this world. It'd be like an architect saying he wants to be evil and side with an earthquake...

[OneBadAssMother]

Good and evil means close to nothing in this game, just like in real life, and just the way many people like it

[Jacks-Up]

dannythefool wrote...

I don't get it, why do people think the ultimate evil end has to be siding with the archdemon? The archdemon is a force on its own and you'll just have to live with not being able to become it. That is something only old gods get to do.

If you want to be evil, and if you want power, you must seek it in the mortal realm. There is nothing wrong with killing the regent, imprisoning the queen and taking the throne for yourself (or putting a puppet on it). It's as evil as it gets if you do it for evil/selfish reasons. But siding with the archdemon? That's not evil, it's plain impossible in this world. It'd be like an architect saying he wants to be evil and side with an earthquake...

Yes because becoming an evil god or immortal and such never happens in video games and certainly not Bioware game....Oh wait

[ZGold]

Jacks-Up wrote...

dannythefool wrote...

I don't get it, why do people think the ultimate evil end has to be siding with the archdemon? The archdemon is a force on its own and you'll just have to live with not being able to become it. That is something only old gods get to do.

If you want to be evil, and if you want power, you must seek it in the mortal realm. There is nothing wrong with killing the regent, imprisoning the queen and taking the throne for yourself (or putting a puppet on it). It's as evil as it gets if you do it for evil/selfish reasons. But siding with the archdemon? That's not evil, it's plain impossible in this world. It'd be like an architect saying he wants to be evil and side with an earthquake...

Yes because becoming an evil god or immortal and such never happens in video games and certainly not Bioware game....Oh wait

strange...I looked at the forum title (Dragon Age: Origins) and never realised we were actually playing a multitude of different Bioware games at the same time.

danny's point is relevant to the game world we're supposed to be discussing.  Your point is like someone arguing that Aeris' demise (final fantasy 7) could have been prevented if only the Octavo (Terry Pratchett) had gotten off its behind and done something. 

So far in the Dragon Age universe I've seen no indication that you can become an 'evil god' or 'immortal' (although Flemeth seems to be close, but I have my own theories there - Dread Pirate Roberts anyone?).  Strangely enough I've also seen no indication that you can Ascend (ala Guild Wars)...should I be calling hax?

[Tjolme]

I can't see how any of the siding with the darkspawn endings could possible fit into the game. This isn't a completely freeform rpg where you can do whatever you like, play however you want to and ignore the story. There is a set story building up to an ending, if you didn't save the world from the archdemon then there would have been no point in playing through everything else to get to that point. If you wanted the Blight to rampage across the world destroying it then why waste the time fighting it, just kill yourself after Ostagar and let the idiots of Ferelden doom themselve.

[Itkovian]

RunCDFirst wrote...

Sigh.

'You' would not survive being possessed by an archdemon. People don't survive being possessed by mere rage demons.

But you're right, there is not Chaotic Stupid ending. BioWare! Why can't I completely and irrevocably act in a manner that is neither logical nor purposeful! Why can't I have a Darkspawn Origin?!?!

Well said. The endings available are those consistent with the storyline. You don't get the option to just go away or steal power, because that option is either not available, or makes no sense (this isn't a free roaming RPG - your character, regardless of his "alignement", is dedicated to destroying the Darkspawn).

Itkovian

[Varenus Luckmann]

The ultimate evil ending is there. Sleep with Morrigan.

Edit: On the topic of missing endings, though, I miss an ending where I can allow Loghain to redeem himself and still keep Alistair, preferably married with the Queen.

It feels like there's only three endings. One where I die, one where I sell out to Morrigan and sire a bastard son of evil, and one where Alistair dies. Dammit.

Modifié par Varenus Luckmann, 19 novembre 2009 - 02:04 .

[Boeresmurf]

being the foster parent of a cute diablo-witch-imuum imba grey warden baby isnt an act of evil... is a biological clock that is ticking... and as grey warden u dont get old , so that clock ticks alot faster as with normal people my pc just wanted a family.



but indeed i miss a ending like jedi academy. kill ur classmate/ kill the nemesis/ kill ur trainer who tries to stop u / and became the new sith lord.

and the future tyrant of the world.

[EgasKrad]

I missed the option that turn myself into Maker and destroy the undead Duncan with a plasma gun...



Well, that is not an option? I thought Bioware can do everything?

[Elwoodw]

Dragons are an endangered species. Be kind to dragons.