81 réponses à ce sujet

[Satyricon331]

I've been thinking about the types of moral situations the DA games place you in and while they do an admirable job of putting you in gray situations, I think there's some room for at least greater variety, if not improvement.

Often in the games, the moral grayness comes from an unclear fact situation.  An (extreme) example from DAO would be selecting the next dwarven king.  The game basically tells a non-dwarf character nothing about what policies either candidate favors, except Bhelen wants change and Harrowmont doesn't (and even here, it's muddled since the one dwarf you talk to who favors getting rid of the caste system favors Harrowmont!).  An example from DA2 would be the decision whether to spare Gascard du Puis.

While those situations are not morally clear-cut, the problem is that they usually come down to your expectations about the facts rather than because of how they challenge your moral thinking.  I think it'd be interesting to have more situations where you know the facts and face a moral, rather than a factual, tradeoff.  Perhaps the best example is trolleyology, where people know that whichever choice they make, they have to give up something they would ordinarily moralize.  

An in-game example might be like in DAO where you find the Dalish woman who's turned into a warewolf and wants you to euthanize her (although here it's strange since the obvious first thing to do would be to assure her you're going to end the curse and she should give it a few days, but it's just not an option).  I've been wracking my brain and I can't come up with any big decisions of this type, though; the closest might be picking between the mages and templars in Act III of DA2 since you know the immediate consequences (though not long-term ones).

Obviously you wouldn't want to give up the first type since these games need some mystery, and really despite the way I've cast the issue the distinction between the two types is not always very sharp (issues of known risks as opposed to uncertainty, for instance).  Nonetheless I'd like to see the moral conundrums depend less on simple incomplete information and more on moral challenge, and I'm curious whether other people shared this opinion.

It's kind of a tall order and I wouldn't mention it if I didn't think the writers were up to it 

Modifié par Satyricon331, 28 août 2011 - 03:35 .

[dragonflight288]

Hmm....

A nice morally ambiguous moment with the templars and the mages.

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of a (not-in-game) moment. Hawke is asked by Meredith/Orsino to track down some templars/mages that are under investigation. This would give the player the sense that Orsino and Meredith are doing their jobs. While investigating the templars and mages, we find they are indeed breaking rules and laws, but their motivations may be simply "Mage is in love with someone and is seeing them, templars want her dead for breaking law" or "Mage/Templar relationship" so we don't compare every templar to Alrik and Mage to Grace.

We know the law, we know they're breaking it, and we know the punishment. We know Meredith and Orsino are investigating and will likely find out anyway. What do we do?

That sounds like something we could do in Act 2 before Leandra's meeting with Quentin.

[Sajuro]

I think that DA2 had some tough moral choices, and I would like it if there were more lose lose situations pulled off in a way that didn't seem cheap, or problems of losing one or the other without a third option (such as Nature of the Beast where you convince the keeper to end the curse and everyone walks away happy except the keeper, who's dead.)

[Foolsfolly]

BioWare choices really run on lack of information don't they? They usually only give you one person's point of view, another's word, and then you must choose.

I would like choices where you do X but Y suffers or do Z but A suffers. Both choices have very different draw backs. And hopefully there's plenty of information to allow for an informed choice instead of a "shoot from the hip" type choice.

Perhaps even a New Vegas like system of influence with the multiple organizations and sides in the game. So doing X might be right, but you gain/lose influence with this organization.

(I wish there was a way to keep track of your standing within DA2, a simple "You support Mages/Templar" counter and having NPCs use dialogue as appropriate.)

Related, I don't think moral choices are tough. I think they have their place but anytime it comes down to any kind of good or evil it's easy to role-play. Choices with no good or evil are tougher. Choices like "a large army is baring down on this keep: abandon the keep and take the people to a neighboring and better fortified keep or stay and fight hoping to train them, build up fortification quickly, and commanding the defenders."

Both choices comes from the same place, "I want to help these people." But the reasons behind it are different for role-playing purposes. There's no shame in a tactical retreat especially if the fort is in disrepair and the defenders are greatly out-numbered. Likewise, it's not cocky to assume that a smaller group can hold chokepoints and hold off a larger army. Neither choice is strictly wrong: fight another day (while being under constant threat by the enemy) or hope you do everything good about the Alamo and Thermopyale without that whole messy deaths at in the end.

(I just realized I created a choice that is both parts of the Battle of Helmsdeep, running to it and then holding off the larger force. Totally accidental but it's a nice mental way to see the choices.)

Likewise I'm a fan of the KOTOR 2 "Pick a second squad" thing during the second Dxun/Onderon part of the game. And I'm a huge fan of the Mass Effect 2 suicide mission choices throughout the mission.

[Ferretinabun]

Totally agree with the OP. I really appreciate the moral conundrums in Bioware games, though it does rankle me a little that the choices are often based on either incomplete information, or are given a third 'getout' option between two tough choices. Examples would include the Dwarven King for the first, and Loghain's execution for the second.
I thought DA2 was lacking interesting moral conundrums, which was a real shame. There was a lot of potential. The tranquil for one. What if you had a mage who was extremely upset for some reason(perhaps somenoe who's just been widowed), and wants to be made tranquil out of despair? Would you let them do it? What about the other Ferelden refugees at Kirkwall's gates? Should you try to let more in? How many, and on what grounds would you discriminate? Lots to work with...

[LobselVith8]

I would really love a New Vegas type of system. Multiple factions, different choices that can have different outcomes, where aiding one faction can cost the protagonist reputation with the other (similar to Morrowind and Fallout 1, 2, and NV).

[ParnAkuma]

I'd hazard that the Feynriel quest in the Fade has at least some elements of the type of decision-making you describe, because Marethari and Feynriel himself both offer a sort of "moral release" from the responsibility of killing him should things go awry. Since you aren't in a fit of anger or righteous indignation when making the end decision about committing a "mercy killing," and since the perhaps-victim is not only patiently waiting for you to slip the knife in (or...go for the gore and completely decapitate him) but compounds his voluntary defenseless-ness with his own actual desire for you to end his life.

At that point the fact pattern is pretty fully set; seems like that makes it more of a decision based on the character's (or player's) personal set of principles relating to the permissibility of taking someone's life when the only clear repercussions of your actions are emotional, ethical and/or philosophical in nature.

What is it with DA+ and people wanting to die at your marvelous champ-hand? Seems like it'd be easier to just ask for an autograph. :\\

[jamesp81]

It's nearly impossible to craft believable decisions like these, because they just don't actually happen very often for real. Most major decisions a person makes in his life aren't clear cut right vs wrong (although there are quite a few of these, they constitute a significant minority).

In all other cases, decisions are measured against a moral hierarchy, and the decision-maker determines the best course of action from that. Bioware, either consciously or unconsciously, has tried to avoid even this by making some of these "hard choices" equally as bad. That is a hopeless cause, however. Within any given cultural or philosophical mindset, a moral hierarchy will show itself by pushing players to predominately choose one course over another.

In other words, no matter how hard you try, some decisions are still going to be the right decisions despite the associated drawbacks. And that's why writing a true moral conundrum is almost impossible.

[esper]

It is also more diffucult because we as players see the world from outside. When we stand in our own real life grey situations we can't see the whole picture - nor can we 100% predict the outcome. When we play, even if we roleplay we as the player have a much broader picture of the situation than the character and if it is not our first playthrough we might even know all the consequences. Even if we don't want to metagame that will count towards our judgement of the morality of the situation.
The only way bioware can make true grey areas is making them black/black choices or make them so that people will have different moral standars to judge them by. Such as the mage/templar situation where the fanbase is obviosuly divided in what we think is the good side.

[jamesp81]

esper wrote...

It is also more diffucult because we as players see the world from outside. When we stand in our own real life grey situations we can't see the whole picture - nor can we 100% predict the outcome. When we play, even if we roleplay we as the player have a much broader picture of the situation than the character and if it is not our first playthrough we might even know all the consequences. Even if we don't want to metagame that will count towards our judgement of the morality of the situation.
The only way bioware can make true grey areas is making them black/black choices or make them so that people will have different moral standars to judge them by. Such as the mage/templar situation where the fanbase is obviosuly divided in what we think is the good side.

Oh, I don't know so much about that.

I would love to correlate the data on national origin, political affiliation, and religious affiliation to who chose mages and who chose templars.  I have a very strong suspicion that information would burst a lot of bubbles, and likely not the ones you're thinking.

[Follow Me on Twitter]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I would really love a New Vegas type of system. Multiple factions, different choices that can have different outcomes, where aiding one faction can cost the protagonist reputation with the other (similar to Morrowind and Fallout 1, 2, and NV).

Factions is something ive been dying to have in this game. As well as a reputation tab with Fame and Infamy making npc adore or fear you depending on how you handle situations.

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 28 août 2011 - 10:55 .

[phaonica]

Perhaps the best example is trolleyology, where people know that whichever choice they make, they have to give up something they would ordinarily moralize.

I personally really do like these kind of in-game choices, if I understand you correctly. Kind of like the "choosing the lesser of two evils" choices. Or sometimes that the "best" outcome can only be achieved by doing something immoral. Or when sticking too rigidly to a system of personal honor puts someone(s) in grave danger. I find those to be the most interesting choices. However, such things should definitely come in moderation because it might be hard to feel heroic when you aren't actually improving anyone's situation, but rather only preventing it from becoming much worse.

[esper]

jamesp81 wrote...

esper wrote...

It is also more diffucult because we as players see the world from outside. When we stand in our own real life grey situations we can't see the whole picture - nor can we 100% predict the outcome. When we play, even if we roleplay we as the player have a much broader picture of the situation than the character and if it is not our first playthrough we might even know all the consequences. Even if we don't want to metagame that will count towards our judgement of the morality of the situation.
The only way bioware can make true grey areas is making them black/black choices or make them so that people will have different moral standars to judge them by. Such as the mage/templar situation where the fanbase is obviosuly divided in what we think is the good side.

Oh, I don't know so much about that.

I would love to correlate the data on national origin, political affiliation, and religious affiliation to who chose mages and who chose templars.  I have a very strong suspicion that information would burst a lot of bubbles, and likely not the ones you're thinking.

I never said that we are equally dived in the mage/templar thing. Just that we are divided. The mage/templar thing is that we in Kirkwall literally saw the worst the two factions. It is when there is no optimal outcome that we begins to take measure thing at different scales depending on who we are.
Take redcliff in da:o. The is an obvious optimized conclusion. You can either safe everyone/ or you can for different roleplay reasons only save some.
In the mage/templar thing both sides are crazy (in Kirkwall) so you have to say which cause do I believe in the most and that is when we begin to choose differently.
I am firmly pro-mage, I am also in real life a true agnostic (as in I am an agnostic by belief, not by saying that I am not believing anything), I am from a scandinavian country and I belong firmly to a 'red' wing. When I jugde the morality of the mage/templar thing I use that scale. I, however, also belief that someone from the outmost 'blue' wing might be inclined to think otherwise, but I don't know because I don't think like them and sometimes I can't even comprehend how they can think like that,  but I doubt that anyone outthere in the 'blue' wing think of themself as 'evil' which most mean that they have a different sense of moral than I.
I guess what I am saying is. It is when we have to chose between two no good outcomes that we have different moral standars to measure by and that is why people disagree on what is right.   

[jamesp81]

esper wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

esper wrote...

It is also more diffucult because we as players see the world from outside. When we stand in our own real life grey situations we can't see the whole picture - nor can we 100% predict the outcome. When we play, even if we roleplay we as the player have a much broader picture of the situation than the character and if it is not our first playthrough we might even know all the consequences. Even if we don't want to metagame that will count towards our judgement of the morality of the situation.
The only way bioware can make true grey areas is making them black/black choices or make them so that people will have different moral standars to judge them by. Such as the mage/templar situation where the fanbase is obviosuly divided in what we think is the good side.

Oh, I don't know so much about that.

I would love to correlate the data on national origin, political affiliation, and religious affiliation to who chose mages and who chose templars.  I have a very strong suspicion that information would burst a lot of bubbles, and likely not the ones you're thinking.

I never said that we are equally dived in the mage/templar thing. Just that we are divided. The mage/templar thing is that we in Kirkwall literally saw the worst the two factions. It is when there is no optimal outcome that we begins to take measure thing at different scales depending on who we are.
Take redcliff in da:o. The is an obvious optimized conclusion. You can either safe everyone/ or you can for different roleplay reasons only save some.
In the mage/templar thing both sides are crazy (in Kirkwall) so you have to say which cause do I believe in the most and that is when we begin to choose differently.
I am firmly pro-mage, I am also in real life a true agnostic (as in I am an agnostic by belief, not by saying that I am not believing anything), I am from a scandinavian country and I belong firmly to a 'red' wing. When I jugde the morality of the mage/templar thing I use that scale. I, however, also belief that someone from the outmost 'blue' wing might be inclined to think otherwise, but I don't know because I don't think like them and sometimes I can't even comprehend how they can think like that,  but I doubt that anyone outthere in the 'blue' wing think of themself as 'evil' which most mean that they have a different sense of moral than I.
I guess what I am saying is. It is when we have to chose between two no good outcomes that we have different moral standars to measure by and that is why people disagree on what is right.   

You'll have to forgive me, as I don't know what the blue vs red signifies for you.

The issue I see here is that I don't view the ending of DA2 as being a case of two bad outcomes.  There are bad elements in both outcomes, certainly.  This is helped along by the fact that leaders of both sides decided that going insane was a good idea.  This is where that moral hierarchy comes in.  Judged by a moral hierarchy, and taking into account all of the history of mages and templars from the beginning and not just the situation at hand, the picture changes.  For this reason, I would be willing to bet that one of the options, mage vs templar, is favored quite a bit more than the other.

If it were a true shades of gray decision, then players would choose each side in roughly equal numbers.  I do not believe that's happening, however, as I strongly suspect one choice is favored over the other.

[esper]

jamesp81 wrote...

esper wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

esper wrote...

It is also more diffucult because we as players see the world from outside. When we stand in our own real life grey situations we can't see the whole picture - nor can we 100% predict the outcome. When we play, even if we roleplay we as the player have a much broader picture of the situation than the character and if it is not our first playthrough we might even know all the consequences. Even if we don't want to metagame that will count towards our judgement of the morality of the situation.
The only way bioware can make true grey areas is making them black/black choices or make them so that people will have different moral standars to judge them by. Such as the mage/templar situation where the fanbase is obviosuly divided in what we think is the good side.

Oh, I don't know so much about that.

I would love to correlate the data on national origin, political affiliation, and religious affiliation to who chose mages and who chose templars.  I have a very strong suspicion that information would burst a lot of bubbles, and likely not the ones you're thinking.

I never said that we are equally dived in the mage/templar thing. Just that we are divided. The mage/templar thing is that we in Kirkwall literally saw the worst the two factions. It is when there is no optimal outcome that we begins to take measure thing at different scales depending on who we are.
Take redcliff in da:o. The is an obvious optimized conclusion. You can either safe everyone/ or you can for different roleplay reasons only save some.
In the mage/templar thing both sides are crazy (in Kirkwall) so you have to say which cause do I believe in the most and that is when we begin to choose differently.
I am firmly pro-mage, I am also in real life a true agnostic (as in I am an agnostic by belief, not by saying that I am not believing anything), I am from a scandinavian country and I belong firmly to a 'red' wing. When I jugde the morality of the mage/templar thing I use that scale. I, however, also belief that someone from the outmost 'blue' wing might be inclined to think otherwise, but I don't know because I don't think like them and sometimes I can't even comprehend how they can think like that,  but I doubt that anyone outthere in the 'blue' wing think of themself as 'evil' which most mean that they have a different sense of moral than I.
I guess what I am saying is. It is when we have to chose between two no good outcomes that we have different moral standars to measure by and that is why people disagree on what is right.   

You'll have to forgive me, as I don't know what the blue vs red signifies for you.

The issue I see here is that I don't view the ending of DA2 as being a case of two bad outcomes.  There are bad elements in both outcomes, certainly.  This is helped along by the fact that leaders of both sides decided that going insane was a good idea.  This is where that moral hierarchy comes in.  Judged by a moral hierarchy, and taking into account all of the history of mages and templars from the beginning and not just the situation at hand, the picture changes.  For this reason, I would be willing to bet that one of the options, mage vs templar, is favored quite a bit more than the other.

If it were a true shades of gray decision, then players would choose each side in roughly equal numbers.  I do not believe that's happening, however, as I strongly suspect one choice is favored over the other.

Blue and red are what we call the different political blocks in our country. I just wanted you to get the impression that they were different.
I don't know if you are pro-templar or pro-mage, so sorry if I offend you or anyone with the next bit.
The templar/mage thing is abo****ely not a grey area for me personally - in fact due to my moral standars the templars as a group are outright evil in my eyes (not saying that the individuals are, but what they belief is), and the chantry as a organisation are beginning to come very close to be it.
However there are templar siders who belief they do the right thing. As they don't think of themself as evil it must mean that they have a different moral system than I. 
The mage/templar are not a black/black situation but it is a situation which people judge differently because their moral belief aren't the same - which I think bioware intended.
The other is black/black situation where there is no right solution. They are a bit harder to come up with. Perhaps Behlen/Harromont in da:o. Harromont want to keep the caste system completely unchanged/ Behlen wants some change, but his metods... I still hadn't decided which one is the morally best to side with.  

[Satyricon331]

Thanks for the loads of good replies, guys.  (I kind of doubted anyone would respond!)  Just briefly - 

phaonica wrote...
I personally really do like these kind of in-game choices, if I understand you correctly. Kind of like the "choosing the lesser of two evils" choices. Or sometimes that the "best" outcome can only be achieved by doing something immoral. Or when sticking too rigidly to a system of personal honor puts someone(s) in grave danger. I find those to be the most interesting choices. However, such things should definitely come in moderation because it might be hard to feel heroic when you aren't actually improving anyone's situation, but rather only preventing it from becoming much worse.

Yeah, that's the general idea.  There would have to be a variety of these situations to discomfort "every"one, since people have differing views, but I agree you couldn't use them too much.  There'd have to be a balance between them and the incomplete-info ones.

jamesp81 wrote...
It's nearly impossible to craft believable decisions like these, because they just don't actually happen very often for real.

Ordinarily I'd agree - even the trolley scenarios usually assume a remarkable comprehension of the situation, for instance - but the reason I raised the issue here is because fantasy/scifi settings are exactly where they're most congenial.  If you read (edit: present tense, not past!  I'm not suggesting you haven't) the literature, most of these hypotheticals are in scifi terms simply because that's where you can most easily acquire the discomforting fact patterns.  It would take some writing skill, but as I mentioned I think the Bioware writers are up to it if they have the time, which I think they will for DA3.

jamesp81 wrote...If it were a true shades of gray decision, then players would choose each side in roughly equal numbers.  I do not believe that's happening, however, as I strongly suspect one choice is favored over the other.

I disagree; there's little evidence to suggest that most shades-of-gray choices split respondents equally.  Rather, most people, when they break from their own (stated) principles, do so in similar ways.  (Most people actually share the same mishmash of deontological and consequentialist intuitions!)  But if you're simply coming from a perspective that defines moral conundrums as only those scenarios where people split evenly, then I'll simply note that as far as my own suggestion goes, that definition wasn't the one I was using (I'd imagine your approach would exclude the elf-turned-warewolf euthanasia example I mentioned).  It'd be nice to have but I wasn't looking for it; ordinarily I'd expect something along the lines of a 60-40 or 70-30 split.

Modifié par Satyricon331, 29 août 2011 - 01:09 .

[Gervaise]

I highlighted on another post the fact that the final decision can virtually be made in isolation from the rest of the game, particularly when you considered what happens post battle.   You can play pro-mage the whole game (as acknowledged by Templars such as Cullen) and then change sides at the last moment, yet the Templars bow the knee to you and people beg you to be Vicount.  This can occur even if you are a mage.  Clearly this is absurd.  Just because Meredith finally flipped (as everyone including Cullen suspected would eventually happen), that doesn't mean the Templars are suddenly going to abandon their entire belief system.  Mages are not meant to rule and they know you have been promoting mage freedom, even if you aren't a mage.  Your only supporters are going to be the relatives of the mages, who may well be keeping a low profile after the outbreak of abominations and demons in the city itself, if not already dead.   Now in fact, if as a mage you make this choice as one of survival and because you feel the cause of mages would be best served by serving the Templars, then the result is a spectacular endorsement of your choice but there is in fact no way of knowing this prior to your decision and logic would suggest this would not be the outcome.   

Likewise, if you have supported the Templars throughout much of the game, consistently returning mages to the Circle and opt for the Circle mages out of conscience, there is no acknowledgement of this decision.  It is assumed you are pro-mage freedom through and through. 

So an outcome based on the decisions you have taken over the previous 7 years would for me be more satisfying.  Perhaps even an end scene in which they ask you to put forward reasons why you should or should not be made vicount and you can then bring forward the actions you have taken as evidence, whilst others can step forward and argue against based on other actions.   A bit like the Landsmeet when the number of your supporters is governed by who you help and who you don't and which actions you choose to highlight in defense of your position.   An alternative would be a trial as to whether you should be set free.

This would make your moral and philosophical choices throughout the game more interesting and relevant.

[jamesp81]

esper wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

esper wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

esper wrote...

It is also more diffucult because we as players see the world from outside. When we stand in our own real life grey situations we can't see the whole picture - nor can we 100% predict the outcome. When we play, even if we roleplay we as the player have a much broader picture of the situation than the character and if it is not our first playthrough we might even know all the consequences. Even if we don't want to metagame that will count towards our judgement of the morality of the situation.
The only way bioware can make true grey areas is making them black/black choices or make them so that people will have different moral standars to judge them by. Such as the mage/templar situation where the fanbase is obviosuly divided in what we think is the good side.

Oh, I don't know so much about that.

I would love to correlate the data on national origin, political affiliation, and religious affiliation to who chose mages and who chose templars.  I have a very strong suspicion that information would burst a lot of bubbles, and likely not the ones you're thinking.

I never said that we are equally dived in the mage/templar thing. Just that we are divided. The mage/templar thing is that we in Kirkwall literally saw the worst the two factions. It is when there is no optimal outcome that we begins to take measure thing at different scales depending on who we are.
Take redcliff in da:o. The is an obvious optimized conclusion. You can either safe everyone/ or you can for different roleplay reasons only save some.
In the mage/templar thing both sides are crazy (in Kirkwall) so you have to say which cause do I believe in the most and that is when we begin to choose differently.
I am firmly pro-mage, I am also in real life a true agnostic (as in I am an agnostic by belief, not by saying that I am not believing anything), I am from a scandinavian country and I belong firmly to a 'red' wing. When I jugde the morality of the mage/templar thing I use that scale. I, however, also belief that someone from the outmost 'blue' wing might be inclined to think otherwise, but I don't know because I don't think like them and sometimes I can't even comprehend how they can think like that,  but I doubt that anyone outthere in the 'blue' wing think of themself as 'evil' which most mean that they have a different sense of moral than I.
I guess what I am saying is. It is when we have to chose between two no good outcomes that we have different moral standars to measure by and that is why people disagree on what is right.   

You'll have to forgive me, as I don't know what the blue vs red signifies for you.

The issue I see here is that I don't view the ending of DA2 as being a case of two bad outcomes.  There are bad elements in both outcomes, certainly.  This is helped along by the fact that leaders of both sides decided that going insane was a good idea.  This is where that moral hierarchy comes in.  Judged by a moral hierarchy, and taking into account all of the history of mages and templars from the beginning and not just the situation at hand, the picture changes.  For this reason, I would be willing to bet that one of the options, mage vs templar, is favored quite a bit more than the other.

If it were a true shades of gray decision, then players would choose each side in roughly equal numbers.  I do not believe that's happening, however, as I strongly suspect one choice is favored over the other.

Blue and red are what we call the different political blocks in our country. I just wanted you to get the impression that they were different.
I don't know if you are pro-templar or pro-mage, so sorry if I offend you or anyone with the next bit.
The templar/mage thing is abo****ely not a grey area for me personally - in fact due to my moral standars the templars as a group are outright evil in my eyes (not saying that the individuals are, but what they belief is), and the chantry as a organisation are beginning to come very close to be it.
However there are templar siders who belief they do the right thing. As they don't think of themself as evil it must mean that they have a different moral system than I. 
The mage/templar are not a black/black situation but it is a situation which people judge differently because their moral belief aren't the same - which I think bioware intended.
The other is black/black situation where there is no right solution. They are a bit harder to come up with. Perhaps Behlen/Harromont in da:o. Harromont want to keep the caste system completely unchanged/ Behlen wants some change, but his metods... I still hadn't decided which one is the morally best to side with.  

I am pro-mage, almost ridiculously so.  Also pro-chantry, and I'm someone who likes the concept of templars as monster hunters, but I rabidly detest the current crop of them and the things they do.  IRL, I find myself right of center politically and fairly religious.  Both of those sets of values informs how I RP this game and how I determine to support the templars.

As for Bhelen / Harrowmont, I think you're on to something.  Both of those are not good choices and comes closest to a true shades of gray kind of decision.  Bhelen is better in the short to medium term since his reforms bolster the economic and military strength of Orzammar.  Long term he dissolves what semblance of republican government the dwarves had.  It's like the Roman Empire.  Having an all-powerful emperor / king / dictator works only when the person in charge knows what he's doing.  Inevitably, you get an incompetent at some point.  Bhelen has created a situation where Orzammar will pay dearly when an incompetent gets on the throne.  Harrowmont, on the other hand, is poor leader and oppressive of the casteless, but preserves a system that, long term, will avoid the worst excesses of poor kings.

Despite being a immature twit and a tyrant in the making, I went with Bhelen.  No particular reason I did either.  Chiefly, because on my first playthrough I went with Harrowmont and I decided to go a different route for my second playthrough.

[Xilizhra]

Harrowmont, on the other hand, is poor leader and oppressive of the casteless, but preserves a system that, long term, will avoid the worst excesses of poor kings.

I don't think I agree here... the system itself has never needed a poor king to be a complete pile of failure. I doubt a singular tyrant will be much worse than the cultural tyranny.

[esper]

jamesp81 wrote...

esper wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

esper wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

esper wrote...

It is also more diffucult because we as players see the world from outside. When we stand in our own real life grey situations we can't see the whole picture - nor can we 100% predict the outcome. When we play, even if we roleplay we as the player have a much broader picture of the situation than the character and if it is not our first playthrough we might even know all the consequences. Even if we don't want to metagame that will count towards our judgement of the morality of the situation.
The only way bioware can make true grey areas is making them black/black choices or make them so that people will have different moral standars to judge them by. Such as the mage/templar situation where the fanbase is obviosuly divided in what we think is the good side.

Oh, I don't know so much about that.

I would love to correlate the data on national origin, political affiliation, and religious affiliation to who chose mages and who chose templars.  I have a very strong suspicion that information would burst a lot of bubbles, and likely not the ones you're thinking.

I never said that we are equally dived in the mage/templar thing. Just that we are divided. The mage/templar thing is that we in Kirkwall literally saw the worst the two factions. It is when there is no optimal outcome that we begins to take measure thing at different scales depending on who we are.
Take redcliff in da:o. The is an obvious optimized conclusion. You can either safe everyone/ or you can for different roleplay reasons only save some.
In the mage/templar thing both sides are crazy (in Kirkwall) so you have to say which cause do I believe in the most and that is when we begin to choose differently.
I am firmly pro-mage, I am also in real life a true agnostic (as in I am an agnostic by belief, not by saying that I am not believing anything), I am from a scandinavian country and I belong firmly to a 'red' wing. When I jugde the morality of the mage/templar thing I use that scale. I, however, also belief that someone from the outmost 'blue' wing might be inclined to think otherwise, but I don't know because I don't think like them and sometimes I can't even comprehend how they can think like that,  but I doubt that anyone outthere in the 'blue' wing think of themself as 'evil' which most mean that they have a different sense of moral than I.
I guess what I am saying is. It is when we have to chose between two no good outcomes that we have different moral standars to measure by and that is why people disagree on what is right.   

You'll have to forgive me, as I don't know what the blue vs red signifies for you.

The issue I see here is that I don't view the ending of DA2 as being a case of two bad outcomes.  There are bad elements in both outcomes, certainly.  This is helped along by the fact that leaders of both sides decided that going insane was a good idea.  This is where that moral hierarchy comes in.  Judged by a moral hierarchy, and taking into account all of the history of mages and templars from the beginning and not just the situation at hand, the picture changes.  For this reason, I would be willing to bet that one of the options, mage vs templar, is favored quite a bit more than the other.

If it were a true shades of gray decision, then players would choose each side in roughly equal numbers.  I do not believe that's happening, however, as I strongly suspect one choice is favored over the other.

Blue and red are what we call the different political blocks in our country. I just wanted you to get the impression that they were different.
I don't know if you are pro-templar or pro-mage, so sorry if I offend you or anyone with the next bit.
The templar/mage thing is abo****ely not a grey area for me personally - in fact due to my moral standars the templars as a group are outright evil in my eyes (not saying that the individuals are, but what they belief is), and the chantry as a organisation are beginning to come very close to be it.
However there are templar siders who belief they do the right thing. As they don't think of themself as evil it must mean that they have a different moral system than I. 
The mage/templar are not a black/black situation but it is a situation which people judge differently because their moral belief aren't the same - which I think bioware intended.
The other is black/black situation where there is no right solution. They are a bit harder to come up with. Perhaps Behlen/Harromont in da:o. Harromont want to keep the caste system completely unchanged/ Behlen wants some change, but his metods... I still hadn't decided which one is the morally best to side with.  

I am pro-mage, almost ridiculously so.  Also pro-chantry, and I'm someone who likes the concept of templars as monster hunters, but I rabidly detest the current crop of them and the things they do.  IRL, I find myself right of center politically and fairly religious.  Both of those sets of values informs how I RP this game and how I determine to support the templars.

As for Bhelen / Harrowmont, I think you're on to something.  Both of those are not good choices and comes closest to a true shades of gray kind of decision.  Bhelen is better in the short to medium term since his reforms bolster the economic and military strength of Orzammar.  Long term he dissolves what semblance of republican government the dwarves had.  It's like the Roman Empire.  Having an all-powerful emperor / king / dictator works only when the person in charge knows what he's doing.  Inevitably, you get an incompetent at some point.  Bhelen has created a situation where Orzammar will pay dearly when an incompetent gets on the throne.  Harrowmont, on the other hand, is poor leader and oppressive of the casteless, but preserves a system that, long term, will avoid the worst excesses of poor kings.

Despite being a immature twit and a tyrant in the making, I went with Bhelen.  No particular reason I did either.  Chiefly, because on my first playthrough I went with Harrowmont and I decided to go a different route for my second playthrough.

I too goes with Bhelen on my canon walkthrough, but I am not sure it is wise. It is just that if something should happend Bhelen seems most likely to be the one capable of adapting to the situation - and the dwarven system needs change. I am just not sure if Bhelens way is the right one.

I really think that polical stance and religion has a say in what we tend to pick to do with what we pick in the mage/templar thing. I am as said a true agnostic, but in medivial fantasy worlds I tend to like the religion organisation because they tend to be the only one that has some grasp of mercy and humanity, but when I look at the chantry in DA I just gets a more and more icky feeling. The want a malevouent god to reutrn his gaze on the world, they are involved with politics and they have a conqueres mindset - as in the chant of Ligth most be spread to all four corners of the world. Those are the basic thing of the chantry I don't like and then I haven't even begun to go into all those readings of the chant that various people uses to opress different groups. (Elves and mages). The more I look at the chantry the less I can morally defend it.

[Xilizhra]

The Chantry as an institution has fallen into evil, certainly, though not quite as badly specifically as the templars. Some parts of the Chantry seem salvageable, anyway.

[esper]

There is good people in the chantry - just like there are good templars like Trask and that young kid who we save, but what good does it do that there is good people in an organisation, when something in the core of the organisation are fundementally wrong?

[Xilizhra]

That's why we probably need to take out the current Divine; the whole system needs to change.

[esper]

I am not sure that is enough. I have two main problems with the chant of light.
1. That they actually want the Maker back, everything we so far have been told seems to scream to me that we don't want the attention of a deity who has a tendency to throw world shattering temper tantrums.
2. That the chant of light must be spread to all four corner of the worlds - when such a sentence exits there will always be fanatic that will see it as an excuse to kill in order to accomplice their goal.

[Xilizhra]

1. I'm not worried about, as I doubt the Maker exists.
2. Unfortunately, anything and everything has fanatics. Buddhists and Taoists have had religious wars. It would be nice if that part of the Chant of Light could be altered, but I don't know if it waould end anything.