I think that when you see the man who murdered your family going out with parole and you asked to work with him, and you just man up and don't say anything, you'll have the right to say that.frostajulie wrote...
It amazes me how anyone who has seen the part where Loghain is spared can have 1 redeemable comment about poser baby Allistair.
That seems unfair.Akka le Vil wrote...
I think that when you see the man who murdered your family going out with parole and you asked to work with him, and you just man up and don't say anything, you'll have the right to say that.frostajulie wrote...
It amazes me how anyone who has seen the part where Loghain is spared can have 1 redeemable comment about poser baby Allistair.
Until then, I simply laugh.
Modifié par Radahldo, 24 novembre 2009 - 08:17 .
Ah but this not wanting to be king is precisely what will make him the BEST of all possible kings...TremCenwyth wrote...
Because unlike most obese, pimple-ridden video-game-playing nerds, he has some anxieties concerning his ability to lead and realizes that making decisions that affect thousands of people's lives is a responsibility that is not be taken lightly.
But I'm sure all the obese, pimple-ridden video-game-playing nerds were born ready to be the leaders of nations. Not like anyone here would have any anxieties, second thoughts, doubts, etc.
Here's the short answer:
Why is Alistair sad when you make him King?
-- Because he is human.
This is mostly due to him being an unreasonably goody two shoes gimp like many of the self proclaimed 'paladins' here, who are so wrapped up in being virtuous, kind and generous at every turn that they cannot for the life of them see the expedience in just out and out killing a **** to get what you want SOONER and with LESS danger for all involved...Radahldo wrote...
That seems unfair.Akka le Vil wrote...
I think that when you see the man who murdered your family going out with parole and you asked to work with him, and you just man up and don't say anything, you'll have the right to say that.frostajulie wrote...
It amazes me how anyone who has seen the part where Loghain is spared can have 1 redeemable comment about poser baby Allistair.
Until then, I simply laugh.
This is actually a fairly common plot novels.
In one story I recall a Man ruins this girls father financially; her father kills himself, she becomes a nurse; the man becomes blind and ends up in her continuous care, for years, all while not voicing complaint like Alistair does. I don't think it's whiny, but it's not a particularly unique feeling. He divides and compromises the success of the mission. I found it cloying.
Suprez30 wrote...
Like someone said ... I don't even bother with Allistair anymore .. I'm not a frigging therapist .
It's was quite unpleasant also to hear him complain right and left when my family (Noble campaign ) got killed in my face and i was forced to save the world , while at the same time reducing my lifespan and risking my life for month while goofy boofy just complain about his heritage.
The best moment was when Howe told me about how the wife and daugher of my brother were burned on a pile of poo and my brother was prob dead somewhere in the forest(add more insult) .. and my mother/father (add b...t here and other insult). Yet no one in my party gave a **** .. while goofy woopy doo allistair cry about everything and i need to run everywhere in the camp and do my job (Psy).
lol .. anyway
That why i loved so much Wynne has a character.She's the only character in the game that talk about YOU and encourage you.The other just complain 24/24
Lughsan35 wrote...
many words and used Redcliffe as an example
Precisely because it requires some very heroic main character to work.Radahldo wrote...
That seems unfair.
This is actually a fairly common plot novels.
Still there are many better ways to deal with it, than getting drunk in some backwater tavern, even for an "average" human.Akka le Vil wrote...
Precisely because it requires some very heroic main character to work.Radahldo wrote...
That seems unfair.
This is actually a fairly common plot novels.
Most regular humans would totally refuse (and very understandably so).
My point is that people have extremely high expectation of badassness for video game characters, and judge them according to these expectations, but all the while considering that these expectations are "normal".
The media also have a tendency to show that "the hero is always right", and people disagreeing with him are always the "wrong" ones. So Alistair protesting about Loghain be spared is supposed to be "whiny", while he simply shows having a mind of his own.
Fulgrim88 wrote...
Still there are many better ways to deal with it, than getting drunk in some backwater tavern, even for an "average" human.Akka le Vil wrote...
Precisely because it requires some very heroic main character to work.Radahldo wrote...
That seems unfair.
This is actually a fairly common plot novels.
Most regular humans would totally refuse (and very understandably so).
My point is that people have extremely high expectation of badassness for video game characters, and judge them according to these expectations, but all the while considering that these expectations are "normal".
The media also have a tendency to show that "the hero is always right", and people disagreeing with him are always the "wrong" ones. So Alistair protesting about Loghain be spared is supposed to be "whiny", while he simply shows having a mind of his own.
Indeed that was the point...TremCenwyth wrote...
Lughsan35 wrote...
many words and used Redcliffe as an example
It's funny that you should use Redcliffe as an example, because I actually agree with you here. The most responsible thing to do at Redcliffe is to get rid of the demon immediately. I actually think Bioware really dropped the ball here -- if they wanted to really teach some of us a bitter lesson, then they should have had all of Redcliffe destroyed if you chose to stall and play the "not a single person will die!" type of hero. It would have really driven home the idea that your choices really do have consequences and that trying to play the hero will not always work. Sometimes doing the right thing is making the choice no one else wants to make.
Of course, we already have people complaining about how "dark" this game is -- could you imagine the uproar over having the "good" choice rewarded with dozens/hundreds of innocent people killed as a consequence? I think it would have been an absolutely brilliant move, but it would not have gone over well with many people.
Now with that being said -- I've clearly disagreed with Alistair on the proper course of action in Redcliffe, but does that necessarily make me despise him as a character? Absolutely not. I'm curious, do you ever disagree with your friends? Do you just throw them away when they demonstrate an ability to think for themselves and disagree with you? No? Then why are you assuming that in order for me to like Alistair I must blindly agree with every opinion he has? We don't all have to be "paladins", you know.
I know, it's just a video game. But I challenge everyone to really start treating it more seriously. Perhaps then many of you will learn to understand why Alistair can't forgive Loghain, why he "whines" about the loss of loved ones, and why some of us can continue to like him and consider him a friend even when we have our disagreements.
Fulgrim88 wrote...
Still there are many better ways to deal with it, than getting drunk in some backwater tavern
Yeah, strongly agree. The problem with "good vs evil" choices in many games, is that the lack of actual consequences for your choices - or the very arbitrary consequences that you feel have nothing related to your choices and are just set-up - make most games too simplisticly manicheist.TremCenwyth wrote...
It's funny that you should use Redcliffe as an example, because I actually agree with you here. The most responsible thing to do at Redcliffe is to get rid of the demon immediately. I actually think Bioware really dropped the ball here -- if they wanted to really teach some of us a bitter lesson, then they should have had all of Redcliffe destroyed if you chose to stall and play the "not a single person will die!" type of hero. It would have really driven home the idea that your choices really do have consequences and that trying to play the hero will not always work. Sometimes doing the right thing is making the choice no one else wants to make.
Of course, we already have people complaining about how "dark" this game is -- could you imagine the uproar over having the "good" choice rewarded with dozens/hundreds of innocent people killed as a consequence? I think it would have been an absolutely brilliant move, but it would not have gone over well with many people.
Lughsan35 wrote...
Indeed that was the point...
Lughsan35 wrote....
So all you Paladins would prefer to make a bad situation much much worse instead of simply just killing one person..
TremCenwyth wrote...
Lughsan35 wrote...
many words and used Redcliffe as an example
It's funny that you should use Redcliffe as an example, because I actually agree with you here. The most responsible thing to do at Redcliffe is to get rid of the demon immediately. I actually think Bioware really dropped the ball here -- if they wanted to really teach some of us a bitter lesson, then they should have had all of Redcliffe destroyed if you chose to stall and play the "not a single person will die!" type of hero. It would have really driven home the idea that your choices really do have consequences and that trying to play the hero will not always work. Sometimes doing the right thing is making the choice no one else wants to make.
Of course, we already have people complaining about how "dark" this game is -- could you imagine the uproar over having the "good" choice rewarded with dozens/hundreds of innocent people killed as a consequence? I think it would have been an absolutely brilliant move, but it would not have gone over well with many people.
Now with that being said -- I've clearly disagreed with Alistair on the proper course of action in Redcliffe, but does that necessarily make me despise him as a character? Absolutely not. I'm curious, do you ever disagree with your friends? Do you just throw them away when they demonstrate an ability to think for themselves and disagree with you? No? Then why are you assuming that in order for me to like Alistair I must blindly agree with every opinion he has? We don't all have to be "paladins", you know.
I know, it's just a video game. But I challenge everyone to really start treating it more seriously. Perhaps then many of you will learn to understand why Alistair can't forgive Loghain, why he "whines" about the loss of loved ones, and why some of us can continue to like him and consider him a friend even when we have our disagreements.
Akka le Vil wrote...
Yeah, strongly agree. The problem with "good vs evil" choices in many games, is that the lack of actual consequences for your choices - or the very arbitrary consequences that you feel have nothing related to your choices and are just set-up - make most games too simplisticly manicheist.TremCenwyth wrote...
It's funny that you should use Redcliffe as an example, because I actually agree with you here. The most responsible thing to do at Redcliffe is to get rid of the demon immediately. I actually think Bioware really dropped the ball here -- if they wanted to really teach some of us a bitter lesson, then they should have had all of Redcliffe destroyed if you chose to stall and play the "not a single person will die!" type of hero. It would have really driven home the idea that your choices really do have consequences and that trying to play the hero will not always work. Sometimes doing the right thing is making the choice no one else wants to make.
Of course, we already have people complaining about how "dark" this game is -- could you imagine the uproar over having the "good" choice rewarded with dozens/hundreds of innocent people killed as a consequence? I think it would have been an absolutely brilliant move, but it would not have gone over well with many people.
When you have an easy solution that is best in everyway to the other, there is not really any point in chosing the "evil" path, except being evil for the sake of evil.
When the consequences ARE logical and not forced upon the player, but organically grow from his choices, I find it much more interesting. After all, people DO warn you about the danger of having Connor breaking loose if you take too much time and the like.
It's too easy to take the "risky" path when the risks are, after all, zero. That's not a "risky" path anymore in this case
The game is much less manicheist when you can take actually justifiable hard decisions and not just have a "perfect" way on one side and an "evil" way on the other.
On the Redcliffe part, I was a bit irked with all the "but it's a child !" crying. I mean, we kill abominations elsewhere without a second thought, but here, just because it's a child, it becomes horribly evil. I guess you become expandable as soon as you're no more a child.
You got me wrong then, as so do I. Nohing's as boring as an infallible Superman.TremCenwyth wrote...
There really is no right or wrong here. I just happen to find flawed characters infinitely more interesting and likeable. To each their own.
...by pretty much doing the oppositetragically human -- characters who have real shortcomings and who,
despite that (or perhaps even because of it) , can manage to rise to
the heroic when given the chance, if only for one fleeting moment.
She's only selectively angry at the person who do the killing blow. Just let Alistair get it out of his chest and kill Loghain himself, Anora will have no problem marrying you.Taritu wrote...
As for Alistair, I completely understand why he doesn't forgive Loghain. Don't hold it against him at all. Last time I let him do it, next playthrough I'll toss him aside. But either way, Loghain is a mass murdering slaver. The reason I won't kill him next time is that I'm marrying Anora, and I think it's a bad idea to kill your wife's father, especially when your wife is a machiavelian schemer.
Fulgrim88 wrote...
He thereby fails your definition of a flawed hero;...by pretty much doing the oppositetragically human -- characters who have real shortcomings and who,
despite that (or perhaps even because of it) , can manage to rise to
the heroic when given the chance, if only for one fleeting moment.
Modifié par TremCenwyth, 24 novembre 2009 - 11:14 .
Retour en haut