71 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Miashi wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Anders does not ask you for permission, nor should he. Karl, (REAL Karl, not mind-raped beyond recognition Karl) made his desires known and the humane and respectful thing is to fulfill them.

I don't think a player should be able to control the party members to that extent anyway. In an RPG you play A role, not ALL the roles. You're not the GM.

Why kicking Anders in the balls to stop him from killing Karl shouldn't be allowed?
Just as a side example, you can kill Fenryiel in the fade and make him tranquil. Although he DOES asks that you do that, you still have the choice of persuading him to survive. That's 2 outcomes for a NPC instead of 1 like Karl.

It's not like Karl changes much to the story anyway. Allowing him to live would've just felt like an awesome reason to make Anders even more bitter about you, and possibly expand better dialog options.

The only explanable excuse on not allowing Karl to live is that development time was too short to allow it.

edit: I mean, no point on trying to find a chantry or whatever else reason to motivate Hawke's reasons on stopping Anders. Not every choice has to be dictated by a rule. Greasing up the dialog options just to find out they're meaningless is pointless. It adds no replay value at all.

Because characters should be allowed to act on their own to an extent. You're a character within the world, not the god of it. If kicking Anders in the balls should be an option, then a  retaliatory punch in the face should be the result, followed by Anders stabbing Karl anyway.

Hawke doesn't have the right to decide everything just by virtue of being the PC. Karl wants to die, and he asked Anders to do it, not Hawke. Hawke has no history with Karl, no relationship with Karl. It's an extremely personal situation and Hawke has no right to interfere, it makes no sense for him to do so.

If you happened to be in the room when a patient was asking their doctor to take them off life support, would you intervene?

[Rifneno]

=/

The idea I thought this quest was supposed to give you is to show you what a truly monsterous thing forcing tranquility is.  It's like stealing someone's soul.  I can't believe anyone honestly walks out of that quest wanting for an option to keep the poor guy alive as little more than a zombie after he begs not to suffer that fate.

[Miashi]

Plaintiff wrote...
Hawke doesn't have the right to decide everything just by virtue of being the PC. Karl wants to die, and he asked Anders to do it, not Hawke. Hawke has no history with Karl, no relationship with Karl. It's an extremely personal situation and Hawke has no right to interfere, it makes no sense for him to do so.

If you happened to be in the room when a patient was asking their doctor to take them off life support, would you intervene?

It becomes personal at the moment Anders asks me to help him. Your example would've been more pertinent if you said "If you accompanied a friend to the hospital to visit a sick family member and they were discussing unplugging them, would you interviene?" And f*** yes I would.

This is a roleplaying game. It's fair to expect that what you say or do shape your companions. Whatever you tell Anders does not shape him in any way. He's already got his mind set, and even if he eventually agrees with you that mages are dangerous, his end speech is not altered and he is the same person than if you support mages all the way. Utimately, you have to be extremely dense to consider someone as your friend and remain untouched by any of their arguments.

You may say that Anders is not your friend yet at the time you meet Karl, and that's true, I'll concede you that. However, if I'm just going to pick whatever option in a game that calls itself a roleplaying game and that the same outcome will happen regardless, well, may as well play Space Ace or Dragon's Lair.

[Plaintiff]

Rifneno wrote...

=/

The idea I thought this quest was supposed to give you is to show you what a truly monsterous thing forcing tranquility is.  It's like stealing someone's soul.  I can't believe anyone honestly walks out of that quest wanting for an option to keep the poor guy alive as little more than a zombie after he begs not to suffer that fate.

Oh, you know what would be cool? An option to let Wesley live, and bring him along so Aveline can watch as he's slowly and torturously consumed by the taint and transforms into a bloodthirsty ghoul.

[Rifneno]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

=/

The idea I thought this quest was supposed to give you is to show you what a truly monsterous thing forcing tranquility is.  It's like stealing someone's soul.  I can't believe anyone honestly walks out of that quest wanting for an option to keep the poor guy alive as little more than a zombie after he begs not to suffer that fate.

Oh, you know what would be cool? An option to let Wesley live, and bring him along so Aveline can watch as he's slowly and torturously consumed by the taint and transforms into a bloodthirsty ghoul.

Well, some people actually give Meredith the go-ahead to execute a weeping Bethany, so I'm sure someone actually would take that option.

[Miashi]

Rifneno wrote...
The idea I thought this quest was supposed to give you is to show you what a truly monsterous thing forcing tranquility is.  It's like stealing someone's soul.  I can't believe anyone honestly walks out of that quest wanting for an option to keep the poor guy alive as little more than a zombie after he begs not to suffer that fate.

Maybe, but a roleplaying game is about exploring both sides of the fences. Dragon Ages is supposed to be dark fantasy, it should allow you to explore the evil side as much as the good side. That's like saying turning in Fenris is cruel and I can't believe anyone would turn the poor guy in. Welp, you can if you want. Why can't you let Karl live then?

edit: You're questioning the moral justification of the decision. I'm questioning the premice of giving the choice of the decision, yet not allowing to execute it. I'm bringing forward other scenarios in the game where you have multiple outcomes and question why it does not happen with Karl. This is the point of the post, not if doing it is just or not.

Modifié par Miashi, 14 avril 2011 - 03:16 .

[Plaintiff]

Miashi wrote...
It becomes personal at the moment Anders asks me to help him. Your example would've been more pertinent if you said "If you accompanied a friend to the hospital to visit a sick family member and they were discussing unplugging them, would you interviene?" And f*** yes I would.

It's not the same situation at all. Hawke is there in a mercenarial capacity. Anders and Karl are complete strangers. Hawke is there to fight templars, not to butt in on an extremely personal situation where his opinion wasn't even asked for.

Hell, even in the scenario you just presented, I'd say you were extremely rude. The decision to end one's life is nothing if not personal.

This is a roleplaying game. It's fair to expect that what you say or do shape your companions. Whatever you tell Anders does not shape him in any way. He's already got his mind set, and even if he eventually agrees with you that mages are dangerous, his end speech is not altered and he is the same person than if you support mages all the way. Utimately, you have to be extremely dense to consider someone as your friend and remain untouched by any of their arguments.

Hawke's companions are adults, not twelve year-olds. They should be mostly immune to peer pressure by now and should have their own opinions of right and wrong. Their personalities should be pretty much fixed. Not everybody changes just from being talked to. Anders will never abandon his fight to free mages, Aveline will never stop trying to apply the law, Fenris will never stop being a bitter, mage-hating ****. And the same goes for Origins. Morrigan will always be haughty and sarcastic, Alistair will always be selfless and witty, Leliana will always believe in the Maker, Wynne will always be a nag.

As unrealistic as DA2 may be now, it would be far more unrealistic to have your party members be as impressionable as jello. Hell, the whole party member interaction system depends on the fact that they will disagree with you, disobey you and even turn on you. In Origins, you didn't "change" anyone by talking to them, you got them to like you by being agreeable yourself. And in 2 it's the same thing, you decide whether you agree or disagree with their views, and your relationship alters as a result.

You may say that Anders is not your friend yet at the time you meet Karl, and that's true, I'll concede you that. However, if I'm just going to pick whatever option in a game that calls itself a roleplaying game and that the same outcome will happen regardless, well, may as well play Space Ace or Dragon's Lair.

In a roleplaying game, you play one role. You are Hawke, not Anders.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 avril 2011 - 03:37 .

[Icy Magebane]

I think it's wrong to kill the Tranquil. I mean, whatever Karl wanted out of life was gone after his mind was wiped... so what's the point of killing him? "Karl" was already gone. At that point, you're just killing a defenseless person because you don't want to see them "suffer." I have to put that in quotations because the Tranquil do not feel emotions and therefore being Tranquil isn't a bad thing . Becoming Tranquil is a bad thing. It's more Anders' selfishness that makes him want to kill Tranquil mages... kind of weird that he can't understand that whatever distaste a person may feel for being made Tranquil is gone once it's over. Anyway...

That said, I would have liked the option to tackle Anders or something, not just stand there and watch. I mean, Hawke is supposed to be the big bad of the DA2 world, but after saying "don't kill him," he just stands there while Anders murders somebody... slowly... he had more than enough time to intervene. This is why Shepard is the superior hero. One of the reasons, at least...

Modifié par Icy Magebane, 14 avril 2011 - 03:40 .

[Miashi]

Plaintiff wrote...
It's not the same situation at all. Hawke is there in a mercenarial capacity. Anders and Karl are complete strangers. Hawke is there to fight templars, not to butt in on an extremely personal situation where his opinion wasn't even asked for.

What about that quest when you throw your murder knife in the head of the mercenary to save the mage that they want to sell into slavery? How more personal that is? You act in there as a mercenary, yet you have far more options to play from than a pivotal quest with Anders.

Hawke's companions are adults, not twelve year-olds. They should be mostly immune to peer pressure by now and should have their own opinions of right and wrong. Their personalities should be pretty much fixed. Not everybody changes just from being talked to. Anders will never abandon his fight to free mages, Aveline will never stop trying to apply the law, Fenris will never stop being a bitter, mage-hating ****. And the same goes for Origins. Morrigan will always be haughty and sarcastic, Alistair will always be selfless and witty, Leliana will always believe in the Maker, Wynne will always be a nag.

You spend SEVEN YEARS with your companions. If in seven year you've done nothing to at least change their perception of the world, then I don't know what to tell you. I can accept that you can't denature someone in short term, but there are very logical adults that have their vision of the world changed by certain people.

As unrealistic as DA2 may be now, it would be far more unrealistic to have your party members be as impressionable as jello. Hell, the whole party member interaction system depends on the fact that they will disagree with you, disobey you and even turn on you. In Origins, you didn't "change" anyone by talking to them, you got them to like you by being agreeable yourself. And in 2 it's the same thing, you decide whether you agree or disagree with their views, and your relationship alters as a result.

The "hardened" Alistairs fans would like to have a talk to you about this.

In a roleplaying game, you play one role. You are Hawke, not Anders.

Sorry what's your point? Isabela was supposed to carry slaves that she didn't care about and she released them. She could've done her job without asking a question. It was Castillon's shipment, not hers. Maybe your Hawke is a pushover, but mine likes to express his opinion, and he disagrees with yours.

Again, I'm not discussing if it's morally right or wrong, I'm questionning, just like the OP, why putting in a choice that you can't carry over.

Modifié par Miashi, 14 avril 2011 - 03:46 .

[Plaintiff]

Miashi wrote...
What about that quest when you throw your murder knife in the head of the mercenary to save the mage that they want to sell into slavery? How more personal that is? You act in there as a mercenary, yet you have far more options to play from than a pivotal quest with Anders.

... Not personal at all? You're there to get Feynriel. And again, you miss the point. You're controlling Hawke's actions, not anyone else's.

You spend SEVEN YEARS with your companions. If in seven year you've done nothing to at least change their perception of the world, then I don't know what to tell you. I can accept that you can't denature someone in short term, but there are very logical adults that have their vision of the world changed by certain people.

In reality, such changes are very slight, if they occur at all. If I allow my political and moral views to be altered by a relationship then they weren't very solid to begin with.

The "hardened" Alistairs fans would like to have a talk to you about this.

Yeah... I have hardened Alistair, and it's not that much of a difference. For all his claims of 'standing up for himself more', he's still a puppy.

Sorry what's your point?

I dunno how to make this any simpler for you, but I'll give it one more shot:

In a traditional roleplaying game, you have direct control over one character and one character only. That character is then placed in situations and reacts to them, resulting in one of several preset outcomes. In Dragon Age 2, you are Hawke. You make Hawke's decisions. Anders makes his own, because he is not your character. If Dragon Age were a tabletop game, Anders would belong to another player, which is effectively the situation here. Anders is his own person, he has autonomy and if he wants to stab Karl, he's damn well gonna do it.

Isabela was supposed to carry slaves that she didn't care about and she released them. She could've done her job without asking a question. It was Castillon's shipment, not hers. Maybe your Hawke is a pushover, but mine likes to express his opinion, and he disagrees with yours.

What does this even have to do with anything? Isabela released slaves of her own accord. She was presented with a scenario and she made a choice. So what? You, the player, did not make her do it. It's part of her background story and you had no control over it whatsoever.
 
Guess what: your party members aren't pushovers either. I never said your Hawke could not express his opinion, I said that it was unrealistic to expect Anders to kowtow to it when you know damn well that he strongly disagrees.

I'm not debating the morality of it either, I'm simply saying, the characters are not always going to do what you want because they have their own beliefs and they are going to act in accordance with those. Even in a tabletop game, where the possibilities are theoretically endless, the GM makes the final decisions because they're in control of the overall story.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 avril 2011 - 04:08 .

[Joy Divison]

Miashi wrote...


This is a roleplaying game. It's fair to expect that what you say or do shape your companions....

I think you mean CONTROL and not shape.  You are clearly miffed that you had no effective control over the situation.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 14 avril 2011 - 04:13 .

[Miashi]

You sure you play tabletop games? Because in a tabletop setting, if Anders was played by a person and I played chaotic neutral Hawke, and then Karl said "I'd rather die than live like this kill me", I could very well tell the GM: "I kick Anders in the balls to stop him from drawing his dagger." A good GM would probably have me do an initiative and then see if I hit or miss. The guy playing Anders would most likely not be pleased at me, but who cares, you *can* do it, and it's totally in character.

Just like you have renegade and paragon interrupts in Mass Effect. They make sense and they are lovely. Pushing people off the window or making things explode usually conveys the message better, and it gives everyone a good laugh.

[Miashi]

Joy Divison wrote...

Miashi wrote...


This is a roleplaying game. It's fair to expect that what you say or do shape your companions....

I think you mean CONTROL and not shape.  You are clearly miffed that you had no effective control over the situation.

You're right. I'm miffed. Karl is just one the many quests where I realize that picking a dialog option brings the same result, just like refusing to help Hubert still forces you to help him, or you're obligated to help Sister Petrice, or what else.

Behold Dragon Age 2, the game where roleplaying is synonym of determinism. How brilliant!

[Plaintiff]

Miashi wrote...

You sure you play tabletop games? Because in a tabletop setting, if Anders was played by a person and I played chaotic neutral Hawke, and then Karl said "I'd rather die than live like this kill me", I could very well tell the GM: "I kick Anders in the balls to stop him from drawing his dagger." A good GM would probably have me do an initiative and then see if I hit or miss. The guy playing Anders would most likely not be pleased at me, but who cares, you *can* do it, and it's totally in character.

Just like you have renegade and paragon interrupts in Mass Effect. They make sense and they are lovely. Pushing people off the window or making things explode usually conveys the message better, and it gives everyone a good laugh.

The guy playing Anders could just as easily say "I cast 'Heal Testicles' and stab Karl anyway". Anders is gonna give Karl the death he wants with or without your help, because he believes it's right, and because it was the last wish of a man he once cared very deeply for.

The only real difference is that in a tabletop game you run the risk of being stuck in an endless loop where you kick each other in the balls forever until the GM gets bored and has the templars arrest you both.

[Miashi]

Plaintiff wrote...
The guy playing Anders could just as easily say "I cast 'Heal Testicles' and stab Karl anyway".

Even if that did happen, the entertainment value of this would be worth more than "I would wish for a companion compasionnate enough to kill me."

[Asdara]

Plaintiff wrote...

Miashi wrote...

You sure you play tabletop games? Because in a tabletop setting, if Anders was played by a person and I played chaotic neutral Hawke, and then Karl said "I'd rather die than live like this kill me", I could very well tell the GM: "I kick Anders in the balls to stop him from drawing his dagger." A good GM would probably have me do an initiative and then see if I hit or miss. The guy playing Anders would most likely not be pleased at me, but who cares, you *can* do it, and it's totally in character.

Just like you have renegade and paragon interrupts in Mass Effect. They make sense and they are lovely. Pushing people off the window or making things explode usually conveys the message better, and it gives everyone a good laugh.

The guy playing Anders could just as easily say "I cast 'Heal Testicles' and stab Karl anyway". Anders is gonna give Karl the death he wants with or without your help, because he believes it's right, and because it was the last wish of a man he once cared very deeply for.

The only real difference is that in a tabletop game you run the risk of being stuck in an endless loop where you kick each other in the balls forever until the GM gets bored and has the templars arrest you both.

Underneath this is the echo of an understanding I think.

Even if we can't alter the outcome of events, the fact that we, as the character we do control, stand basically mute and motionless while this significant act takes place.  Anders includes us in this moment (he could have said "please wait over there" and the game could have just shown us a movie after all) and we stand there without being able to interact with the moment we've been put into.  Even if we just got to turn our backs and say "I want no part of this, it is murder" it would be something more than we've been scripted.  

The dissatisfaction doesn't seem directly related to outcome, or a desire to control all aspects of every event compulsively, but the disappointment of being left with nothing to do in a situation we have been placed in merely to witness it - when clearly if it were a real situation a sea of options would arise in support or defiance of what Anders is saying and doing.  

It almost foreshadows the Chantry boom scene really, now that I ponder it.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Mages shouldn't run away from the Templars. They should give in. Anders needs to learn how to control his magic and he will learn discipline once the Templars get hold of him.

Here's your apostate Templars.

[GavrielKay]

I suppose the misleading thing here is to allow Hawke to tell Anders that he doesn't think Karl should be killed. If you couldn't say anything, or it was all cutscene and just happened, the player wouldn't have the illusion of control. I do think it's fair play that you can't just make all of Anders' decisions for him however, especially when you've just met.

[PlumPaul93]

It's to make you think there is a choice or alternative outcome when there isn't, which seems to happen a lot in DA2. I told him to kill him, which in my opinion would be better than be an emotionless slave.

[XX55XX]

Regardless of how Anders feels about granting Karl's last wish, the point of role-playing is to give the player options. Why can't I physically stop Anders from killing Karl? Knock the knife off of his hands? Freeze him? Tackle him even? It may result a massive amount of rivalry points, but such an option should have been available, even if Karl doesn't appear in the game ever again.

Ensuring that a player feels as if he or she is in control is very important, especially for role-playing games like these rely heavily upon player choice.

Regardless of what Karl himself thinks, the Tranquil Karl clearly didn't want to die.

[LobselVith8]

Rifneno wrote...

=/

The idea I thought this quest was supposed to give you is to show you what a truly monsterous thing forcing tranquility is.  It's like stealing someone's soul.  I can't believe anyone honestly walks out of that quest wanting for an option to keep the poor guy alive as little more than a zombie after he begs not to suffer that fate.

I agree. The Rite of Tranquility is monstrous and strips a person of their humanity. I think it would be cruel to allow Karl to live out the rest of his life as a templar puppet.

[Joy Divison]

Miashi wrote...

You're right. I'm miffed. Karl is just one the many quests where I realize that picking a dialog option brings the same result, just like refusing to help Hubert still forces you to help him, or you're obligated to help Sister Petrice, or what else.

Behold Dragon Age 2, the game where roleplaying is synonym of determinism. How brilliant!

While I agree DA2 has too many of these moments, the fact that you can't stop Anders from killing Karl should absolutely be one of those moments.

Hell, I can't convince my roommate to take out the garbage and we're best friends.