328 réponses à ce sujet

[Acemath]

Ninjaphrog wrote...

AND BIOWARE SUCKS DONKEY BALLZ MAHN!!!!!

Trolls ftw

dont like it? go f urself.

(Yoda voice on)The maturity is strong in this one(Yoda voice off)

[Roxlimn]

 Sidney:

How you choose to imagine your character behaving and thinking is up to you.  You could make pretty "appalling" choices in a Monopoly board game.
Just to clarify (again and again and again) - I have no problems with DAO not being a dark fantasy - I like light-hearted romps.

Cpl_Facehugger:

[quote]
Orzammar's politics are dark for the fact that chosing the seemingly "good" option ends up with an ending that is either "bad" or "holy Hannah, that's bad!" depending on your choice at the anvil. It takes what you'd think is a safe choice and twists it into bitterness. Well, that and the whole greasy "truth and honor don't matter, bribery and lies are how the game is played" theme that's running through the whole political structure of Orzammar.
[/quote]

Good option?  What good option?  Both candidates for the throne are corrupt politicians.  Who you choose there is a matter of expediency, not morality  There is no moral choice to be made.  That said, the outcomes were not all that bad, and it's not like you could predict what would happen.

Truth and honor do matter, but without any representative on the throne, it's not all that important.  The nature of truth being malleable is NOT a dark theme.

[quote]
While yes, themes of obsession are present in LOTR, they are also considerably less demanding as those of DAO. What Frodo's obsession for the ring drives him to do pales in comparison to what Branka did (and ends up doing if you side with her). Seriously, sacrificing your entire clan, people who rely upon you and look to you for leadership just for a limitless supply of meat to trip traps is a lot more amoral than anything Frodo did. Frodo didn't kill anyone over the ring. He would have, especially towards the end, but he never did.
[/quote]

Saruman's obsession with Ring lore and craft led him to obsess over beating the Dark Lord through force.  Guess how that turned out?

[quote]
The political corruption is balanced the same way between the two stories. In DAO, saving the anvil eventually causes many people to be enslaved and turned into golems against their will - not a particularly pleasant process. In fact, this happens twice in the anvil's lifespan. Once with Caridin and once with Branka. There's no Faramir here to say "I know I'm not strong enough to wield this power without it corrupting me, so I'm not going to take it," unless you the player says that.
[/quote]

There ARE people in LOTR that DID take the Ring, you know.  Gollum is one.  The mere obsession for the Ring leads Saruman to his downfall.  Frodo fell, too.  Eventually, anyway.  It nearly led to the Dark Lord's victory, if not for fortuitous circumstances.  Going by moral choice alone, Middle Earth should have been lost to Sauron.  It was saved by deus ex machina.

[quote]
Denethor's sacrifice was clearly portrayed as an unnecessary mistake, and hence isn't particularly dark except in the "pointless sacrifice is dark" sense. And even then, there were little consequences to this action because Gandalf was there to pick up the slack. It's not a real sacrifice if things of value don't actually end up being sacrificed, right? It's not like the city of Minas Tirith fell because of Denethor's lunacy or anything. 
[/quote]

Much was lost because of Denethor's folly.  He failed utterly to call for forces that should have been Gondor's to summon and the defenses were not as well prepared as they should have been.  People died when those walls were taken.
Weren't you obsessing over people dying as a titanically bad consequence?

[quote]
Gondorian politics being corrupt is something I'm not at all sure about either. Admittedly I haven't read the Silmarillion, but I got the impression that Gondor wasn't particularly corrupt or malicious in its politics. Denethor didn't want to give up power to Aragorn, but that doesn't say the whole of Gondorian politics is corrupt. I certainly never got the impression that Gondor was as ill-ruled as Orzammar.
[/quote]
What makes you say Orzammar is ill-ruled?  Because there's a casteless underclass?  Because succession is marred by conflict and underhanded politicking?  That happens in Gondor - Denethor would have made sure Aragorn never made it as King, if he were still alive.
[quote]
The Dalish stuff is dark not just because it was a cruel punishment, but because its punishment was continuing on past the lives of those responsible for it. Is it not dark for innocent people to suffer punishment for something they had no hand in doing? For something done centuries before the fact? Perhaps that's normal clan feuding, but very rarely do stories actually get into detail about what caused the feud, and whether the continuing feud is justified or not. I'd say that's an indicator for darkness, since the story actually explores these questions and studies them in relative detail, rather than just shrugging and accepting this as the way things are, as a mere background detail.
[/quote]
OH!  So the children of Orcs are not unfairly judged and are seen to be helpless victims waiting to be saved in LOTR.  Wait, no, they're not.
Orcs are bred and raised from Elves and Men captured and twisted by the power of the Morgoth.  They not only pass it on to their offspring - they never did anything wrong in the first place!

[quote]
The possession of the mages circle isn't exactly typical either. For one thing, there's an awful lot of powerful mages getting possessed at once. For another, there are very few settings I'm aware of where mages are at risk of being possessed by horrible demons simply by existing. Certainly not any D&D derived setting I'm familiar with, certainly not LoTR... In fact, the only ones that comes to mind are Warhammer and its cousin Warhammer 40k. 
[/quote]
See: Demonbinders in D&D.  See: Earthsea Trilogy by Ursula le Guin.

[quote]
All the choices in Redcliffe are most certainly bad. Either you're forced to kill a woman who's only crimes stem from loving her child too much, you're forced to kill a child who's been possessed, or you're forced to put the whole town at risk until you can get the mages in for a proper exorcism/fade stroll. Any of those options is bad. Granted the town is saved at the end of all of them... But we're still talking something that required high risks or the sacrifice of someone who didn't strictly need to die.
[/quote]

You're not killing Isolde.  She's offering her life as a means for her child to be saved.  That is noble and honorable.
Being forced to kill abominations is something you do pretty much everywhere.  Why is it so much worse if he looks like a little kid?  Ugly = bad?  That counts as dark for you?  Killing cute-looking vehicles of death?
Alternatively, you try your best and hope for the best.  Not bad, either.

None of these choices are bad.  They're not free from tragedy, but neither are choices in LOTR.  At the end of book one, Aragorn gets to choose whether to go after the Ringbearer or go after Merry and Pippin, who may already be dead.  Is this somehow an easier or rosier picture?

[quote]
Connor being an abomination is only true after a fashion. While yes, there's a demon in there, there is also a little boy who just wanted to save his father. He hasn't fully turned yet, and he can be saved. Given that his abominationhood is not a permanent state of affairs, I find it hard to say that you're not killing a child in the "slit his throat" option. You're killing a demon, but you're killing Connor as well. It's like justifying killing Wynne because she is, technically, an abomination. Yeah, you destroy the demon/spirit, but you're still killing an innocent person. 
[/quote]
It's tragic, sure.  How is it bad, though?  Many people have already died.  Many more people will, if you don't do anything.  It's not like you have superior options, if we don't consider the super-kumbayah ending to be a valid choice.
All I'm seeing here is you focusing on shock value rather than true moral dilemma.  There is no moral dilemma here.  Your choices are all good - one way or another someone is saved where they would otherwise be dead.  In one choice, everyone wins.
[quote]
You could argue that killing the kid is a necessary sacrifice, but the very fact that such a situation came up at all is an indication that this story is considerably darker than a lot of stories. Including - especially Lord of the Rings. I certainly didn't see Aragorn slit a child's throat out of necessity. I didn't see Gandalf light Pippin on fire after he looked at the Palantir. In Arthurian stories, I didn't see Gawain or Lancealot slit a child's throat out of necessity either.
[/quote]
Aragorn doesn't go out of his way to save children.  The situation never comes up, sure, but just because Bioware presents you with the death of children doesn't, IMO, suddenly make it bad.  Child death is common.  Why is the death of a child inherently worse than the death of an adult?  Because he had no moral power?  Many adults don't have moral power, either.  In some cases, they don't even make a moral mistake.  All those adults killed by undead?  What did THEY do to deserve it?  Nothing.
[quote]
LoTR deals with these issues in a relatively sanitary way. It's not as hugely amoral and dark as the way these issues are examined in DAO. To put things into perspective, to equal what Branka did for the Anvil, Frodo would have had to sacrifice much of Hobbiton to Sauron to help him claim the ring. And it's gotta be Hobbiton, to truly capture the evil of sacrificing those close to you out of obsession.
[/quote]

He would have done it, too.  At the end, he could not see ANYTHING but the Ring.  In a way, Hobbiton WAS destroyed - that was why it had to be rebuilt.  You know why it was destroyed?  Because Aragorn and his Rangers abandoned it.  They marched South to join the War.
[quote]
Sam considering murdering Gollum is fairly dark, yet he never actually does it. Not like Mr. "I am sorry" Duncan. It's darker, I think, to actually have someone murdered, than to merely contemplate murder and then to be overcome with compassion.   
[/quote]

He never does it because Frodo forbade it.  He never actually changes his mind on this subject.  Aragorn himself regrets showing compassion for Gollum - he wanted Gollum dead, too.  So did Frodo, at the start.  And it's not like Aragorn doesn't torture Gollum while he kept him prisoner.  Sam himself took a perverse pleasure in the fact that the Elven Rope hurt Gollum.
[quote]
While this is true, the circumstances of Theoden's death (glorious and exactly how he'd want to go out) and the fact that there's a leader to pick up the slack (albiet one not related by blood), ensures that the consequences are not particularly severe compared to, say, Cailan's death. 
[/quote]
There IS a leader to pick up the slack after Cailan's death.  It's by sheer authorial power alone that the transition was not smooth.  Certainly, Loghain expected it to be, which is more than either Denethor or Theoden ever did.
[quote]
Gandalf sacrifices himself to help the fellowship get where they're going. His sacrifice is also very heavily undermined by the fact that he comes back even more powerful and wise than when he left. Don't you think it rather cheapens his sacrifice and makes things brighter if the only thing it resulted in was him becoming even more awesome?
[/quote]
He's a Maiar.  He "sacrificed" himself because he knows he can't really die.  This was true regardless of whether he came back or not.
[quote]
As for the rest... The whole point of the journey was that it was born of hope. A fool's hope, perhaps, but still a hope. If it were utterly pointless (dark in the Lovecraftian sense), they wouldn't have gone to begin with. Perhaps I was simply corrupted by my culture, thinking "nah, there's no way the bad guys will win" when I was reading LOTR, and yet I never once was left with the impression that Frodo would fail. I figured he might die at the end, but I never expected him to fail. The narrative doesn't lend itself to the idea that he will, at least in my readings. Possibly because so few named characters actually die or are even permanently injured.
[/quote]

Actually, at least three or four named characters die in the precursor: The Hobbit in The Battle of Five Armies - just not anyone Bilbo knew personally.  That said, most of that party came to bad ends.  Did you miss what happened to Balin and the Mines of Moria?
The entire expedition was a shot in the dark, and in the end, they survived by the purest luck.  Note that this is very similar to how you do as a lone Grey Warden in Ferelden.  Your journey is borne of hope and bouyed by hope.  You go around the world righting wrongs and setting things right on a mission of mercy so that an ultimate unambiguous bad guy can be defeated.  Comparatively speaking, you do have a chance.  Frodo had what is called "a snowball's chance in hell."
[quote]
Easily. No author is going to have the hero go on a three book journey only to screw up. Admittedly that's a bit of meta knowledge that the characters wouldn't have had, but at no time is fighting sauron ever pointless. It might seem so to some of the characters, like Denethor, but they're repeatedly proven to be wrong. Everything Aragorn and Gandalf and co do is because they have the hope that what they're doing will allow Frodo to complete his task. 
[/quote]
Actually, even Aragorn is skeptical about this.  You never see him criticizing Gandalf, but he doesn't push for the Quest himself - he just follows Gandalf's lead.  They never know how Frodo is doing.  They do what they do because Frodo's chance in hell is the only chance they have left, so they assume that he's still alive and going on, even when they know it's not very likely.  That's pretty damn bleak.
Why is it that you don't carry this optimistic view into DAO, but are perfectly willing to view LOTR from a meta-perspective?
[quote]
The hunger and the symptoms of the ring are all well and good, yet they never seem to impact anything. There's always that lembas bread that fills your stomach with a bite until the ending half of the third book, there's always supplies that the Orcs left on the side of the road for resupply during a forced march after that, there's always a convenient hope spot somewhere that reminds you the journey isn't pointless or impossible.

Hence, clear sense of hope. 
 [/quote]

What?  That bread ran out real fast once they entered Mordor, and water was always a problem.  Hunger and thirst made the protagonists constantly miserable, apart from the cold and the hard terrain.  By the end of the book, Frodo was so so weak he couldn't stand and so light Sam could hoist him bodily up the side of Mount Doom.  He couldn't have been much beyond skin and bones.
They went hungry and thirsty often.  I don't see this clear sense of hope you're pointing out.
[quote]
As long as the ring got destroyed, it would be worth the sacrifice, no? Really, any outcome with "ring ends up tossed into the volcano" is one to hope for. And yeah, they were very fortunate with the end. Which is part of the reason that LOTR isn't all that dark. It's hard to call a story dark if the ending is 95% puppies and sunshine, with the other 5% being "oh, woe is me, I lost a finger and I've got to live with these immortal elves in a land of unending summer beauty!"
[/quote]
The end of the story in DAO IS 95% puppies and sunshine.  You DO realize that those elves are immortal because many of them are DEAD, right?  The Undying Lands is for dead elves.  Of the Nine Walkers, Frodo, Legoals, Gimli, and Gandalf end up in "Heaven."  Aragorn ends up cursing the girl of his dreams to a painful death and gets to spend the rest of life thinking about it.
Seriously, did you not get how miserable most of them were?  They're only deliriously happy because they would otherwise have been thralls of Sauron, and that's a fate too bad to think about.
[quote]
Perhaps that's true, yet by making the undying lands a real place, a lot of the trepidation of "death" is removed as well. A lot of the fear and tragedy of death comes from not knowing what to expect. By showing it as a rather nice place of flowers and summer and sunshine, it's hard to argue that "dying" once the evil was defeated is a bad thing. It's not like they all got sucked up into nothingness or eternal torment or something. 
[/quote]
In Thedas, the Fade is real, and the Golden City was a real place.  You can even see its ruins in the game in the distance.  The Chant tells us that Fereldens who die go to the Maker, which is presumably a fantastic place to be.  That's a pretty direct analogue right there.
[quote]
She chose to do so out of love, and had more years of happiness than most moral people. Not particularly bad all told.
[/quote]

WORSE THAN DEAD is not particularly bad?  Okay.
[quote]
It's not like she had to die of life sucking sorrow. I see no reason she couldn't have moved on in life, had she chosen to do so.  She can't get to the undying lands any more, but there's still beauty  and things worth living for in the mortal realms as well. Human women survive the deaths of their loves all the time. It kind of cheapens the impact of Arwen's death if it's not necessary, you know? 
[/quote]
Elven women who give up their immortality universally die of sorrow when their loved ones die.  This is presumably how things naturally are.  You have to understand that this is a portrayal of despair.  Arwen dies because she can no longer see the beauty and worth of living that you do.  It's not cheap.  It's horrible.  Have you never seen people who have mental illnesses?
[quote]
And if she was really too weak to live in a world without her beloved, there was always the suicide option. Presumably her soul would go to Eru or whoever the overdeity of Tolkeinland is, and she'd get to plead her case to be with her beloved for all time. Eru wasn't a jerk god, I bet he could've been moved to allow it. 
[/quote]
You DO realize that Eru CREATED Morgoth, right?
[quote]
Not soley. But for something to be dark in my opinion, it does have to give more than a token mention to dark themes. It's like My Little Pony saying that war is bad in a token line, and then going on with the happy pony puff themes for the rest of the episode.
[/quote]

So if the show goes on and on and on about how evil being colorless is, that makes it dark?  Emo is what's dark to you?
[quote]
Ser Jory and Daveth disagree.
[/quote]
Daveth took the cup, so he didn't disagree.  Ser Jory was a gutless traitor.
[quote]
All the other origins have an option of painting it to be an honor as well. And yet... There's still that pesky right of conscription that allows a warden to take anyone they want, from a templar, to a city elf  who's just murdered at least one member of the nobility. The very fact that such a thing exists and is necessary is dark in of itself. It should be setting off warning bells that either things are desperate, or that the wardens can't get recruits any other way. 

Being forced to drink a poison that is either an immediate or delayed death sentence simply to stop an even greater threat to everyone sounds rather dark, no? It's a necessary sacrifice, certainly, but it's definitely dark. 
[/quote]

Not at all.  Soldiery is essentially this.  You spend your body and your soul and your talents fighting for others.  You don't have normal skills when you quit fighting.  You don't get super-benefits.  Your life expectancy is markedly shorter and you suffer from many occupational hazards like nightmares and bad health, particularly if you're exposed to chemical weapons or too much physical trauma.  Many are maimed for life fighting in combat, both physically and mentally.
Drinking the taint is simply a metaphor for the armed life.  It's not like Grey Wardens should even be expecting to live their whole 30 years given how dangerous their lives normally are.
[quote]
It's a bit different here. In most boot camps, deaths during training are an accident - and one that happens very rarely. You're not guarenteed to die in the military. The joining is a death sentence. Whether you die from the taint now, or die in thirty years time, you're going to end up dying much earlier than you could have otherwise. 
[/quote]
Life is a death sentence.  Everyone dies, dude.  Get that down pat.  EVERYONE dies.  Your likelihood of death in the military depends on the activity of that force.  In some cases, it is pretty much a death sentence, and you don't even get the possibility of 30 years - you're expected to die in like 4 or 5.  Certainly this was an expectation in active combat duty during medieval times.
When I heard that the ultimate limit was 30 years, I was like, "Is that even something worth mentioning?"  If drinking Darkspawn blood in any way makes it likely that you ever exercise the option of going to Orzammar, then it's a fantastic thing!  If your character drank the blood at 20, he'd have until 50 to live!  That's a fantastic age for a soldier on active duty for 30 years.
[quote]
It's dark when those critters are winning because your own side screwed you over in a shortsighted grab for power, yeah.
[/quote]
Ah.  So LOTR must be dark because Denethor essentially sends Faramir out to die, then?
[quote]
Armies raping and pillaging across the countryside with nobody doing anything to stop them because they're all too busy with petty succession issues is. 
[/quote]
Why?  This was not an uncommon historical occurrence.  So history is dark now?  For that matter, large tracts of Gondor's protectorates were left undefended because Gondor was too busy with her own troubles.
[quote]
The Anvil? Siding with Harrowmont or Behlen? Deciding whether to spare Loghain or lose Alistair? All three of the Redcliffe/Connor decisions? Whether to purge or save the circle?  Erm... Are you seriously saying that none of those are difficult decisions?  Oh, to have such a sure moral compass. 
[/quote]
Nope.  None of those are hard because they ALL lead to pretty okay outcomes.  If you destroy the Anvil, then you rid the world of a horrible artifact.  If not, it can be used to aid you against the Archdemon.  Neither is a bad end.  Going with either Harrowmont or Bhelen unites the dwarves and spares them from outright civil war.  That's good, too.  

Losing Alistair is NOT a moral dilemma!!!  If he wants to leave off saving the world because he's too busy throwing a hissyfit, then that's his business, isn't it?  Where is the moral dilemma?
In Redcliffe, choice 1 saves the village.  Choice 2 saves the village.  Choice 3 also saves the village.  Where is the problem?
In the Circle, you either save innocents, or make sure no demons make it out for sure.  Both decisions have morally beneficial results.  Where is the problem?  Either choice is good.

[quote]
Yes, being told one of you must sacrifice themselves to destroy the archdemon is dark. It's different than "oh, you might die in battle", it's the certainty that makes it dark. The idea that you must sacrifice yourself and destroy your soul to end the blight is very dark. I don't understand, how could you say otherwise?  
[/quote]
See, this is how it works.  When you're going up against the Archdemon of the Age, that is apparently a suicide mission.  NONE of you expect to make it out alive.  In fact, there is NO reason why this cannot be made public or at least known to your party.  Lots of people volunteer for suicide missions when their lives and the lives of their families are on the line.  Like, people line up for it.  For days.
When your life is essentially forfeit, having the enemy pay a large price for it isn't a bad thing - that's incredibly fantastic!  Knights and musketeers and Huscarls vied for the honor of participating in excessively deadly charges!  You know what makes the Marines so hardcore?  It's because they're shock troops - they're expected to pay heavy losses in life in every conflict they join.  People actually get disappointed over not being able to join what is essentially a death squad.  I know this may make no sense to you.  Just take my word for it.

Why is this important to your party?  Because in DAO, YOU are essentially Frodo.  The only hope for anyone to survive the war is for you to kill the Archdemon.  This is a pretty important piece of tactical knowledge.  If I were a soldier and I don't expect to survive the battle and someone aims a bullet at our only chance of winning, you can bet your ass I'm going to catch it - with my head if necessary.
The reason that everyone is so emo about this is because deep down YOU and THEY expect to survive the Archdemon, meaning that it's not quite as desperate a battle as they're making it out to be.

You get it?  This is supposed be essentially a nuclear holocaust and the only way to prevent it is for 4 of you to head deep into Chernobyl's dead zone.  None of you expect to make it out alive.  Then you're told that YOU have to die to kill the nuclear switch.  Woopdedoo  Die one way or another - who cares?  But this way, you're the lynchpin - you're the hero, the champion - DA MAN.  Everyone is going to jump in front of bullets for you just so you make it.

Ya dig?

[quote]
I guess it's because I'm assuming that when I put it a particular way, you'll see how it's dark. I mean, how exactly am I to prove that slitting a child's throat to kill a demon who's possessed him is dark? That sacrificing people who depend upon you for nothing more than trap springers is dark? Shouldn't these be some of those self-evident things like "the sky is blue" or "lighting hobos on fire for laughs is bad"?
[/quote]
What you're doing is necessary and saves many, many, many lives.  Sure, it involves consigning a person to death who HAPPENS to be a child.  These things happen.  They happen in fantasy, too.  Gandalf was perfectly willing to send Frodo into a suicide mission without telling him it's a suicide mission just to save the world.  How is that any different?

[Malkut]

Ninjaphrog wrote...

AND BIOWARE SUCKS DONKEY BALLZ MAHN!!!!!

Trolls ftw

dont like it? go f urself.

An abject lesson in why lulzcows should not troll.

Roxlimn wrote...

GIANT WALL O' TEXT

You just wrote an impromptu ten page essay comparing the darkness of the themes of Dragon Age to the darkness of themes found in Lord of the Rings.

TEN PAGES. 

TEN ****ING PAGES.

Nothing human could do that and not die of shame.

What are you?!

[Roxlimn]

I type very quickly. And I have a little time to kill. And Alistair annoys me that much.

[Acemath]

Malkut wrote...

Ninjaphrog wrote...

AND BIOWARE SUCKS DONKEY BALLZ MAHN!!!!!

Trolls ftw

dont like it? go f urself.

An abject lesson in why lulzcows should not troll.

Roxlimn wrote...

GIANT WALL O' TEXT

You just wrote an impromptu ten page essay comparing the darkness of the themes of Dragon Age to the darkness of themes found in Lord of the Rings.

TEN PAGES. 

TEN ****ING PAGES.

Nothing human could do that and not die of shame.

What are you?!

[Vormaerin]

You are really really going off the deep end here trying to prove that the Lord of the Rings is a grim, dark tale. Its a somber tale, but it is not grim and nobody actually comes to a bad end except the bad guys.

Arwen dies of grief, but she goes beyond the world to be with Aragorn. That's the Gift of Men. You fundamentally misunderstand Tolkein if you think death is a bad thing for men. There's also a huge difference between being dead and being alive as an Elf in the Undying lands. Those who died dwell in the Halls of Mandos. They are not free to wander the countryside like the many, many living elves. Some of the dead elves can walk in the sunlight in the gardens of Mandos, but most are not so free. Feanor would not have been as upset as Finwe's death (or Finwe of Feanor's mother's death) if being dead and being alive were the same thing.

Over and over again, characters in Tolkein's works take the Gift of Men over the Gift of the Eldar. Elros does. Beren and Luthien do. Elrond's sons do. Several of those who do chose the Gift of the Eldar (Earendil, Tuor) do so only because someone else does. Arwen is the only one who seems to rue it and she openly admits that she doesn't understand the whole thing anyway at one point.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 02 décembre 2009 - 02:26 .

[Cpl_Facehugger]

[quote]Roxlimn wrote...

Good option?  What good option?[/quote]

Harrowmont. Comparing the two, doesn't Harrowmont seem the obvious "good" choice? He's honorable, and his quests are "fight in my name in a tournament + find out why my other champions withdrew from the arena" and "clear dust town of a criminal organization." Compare with Behlen who's first quest is "deliver theise illegally forged documents to two of my enemy's supporters" and with Behlen's response to being crowned. "My first act... Is to order Lord Harrowmont's execution!"  

[quote]Both candidates for the throne are corrupt politicians.  Who you choose there is a matter of expediency, not morality  There is no moral choice to be made.  That said, the outcomes were not all that bad, and it's not like you could predict what would happen.[/quote]

The outcome of choosing Harrowmont was basically "Harrowmont is too weak a leader to keep the assembly in line. He gets assassinated, prompting another civil war from which Orzammar may never recover." Or, even better, if you saved the anvil, it goes "Being too weak to stand up to Branka, Harrowmont gives in to her every desire. He raids the surface for humans and elves to forcibly turn into golems, gives up the casteless to be turned into golems... " I don't recall the rest of Harrowmont's end, but Behlen's endings are considerably better. :/

[quote]Truth and honor do matter, but without any representative on the throne, it's not all that important.  The nature of truth being malleable is NOT a dark theme.[/quote]

This isn't truth being malleable, this is outright lying to get power.  

[quote]

Saruman's obsession with Ring lore and craft led him to obsess over beating the Dark Lord through force.  Guess how that turned out?[/quote]

Hmm, that is a good point.  

[quote]There ARE people in LOTR that DID take the Ring, you know.  Gollum is one.  The mere obsession for the Ring leads Saruman to his downfall.[/quote]

Gollum didn't exactly do much with the ring when he had it; he just sat in his cave and went crazy. Saruman never actually got his paws on the ring either. Of the people who actually had the ring, only Sauron actually did anything seriously evil with it. 

[quote]Much was lost because of Denethor's folly.  He failed utterly to call for forces that should have been Gondor's to summon and the defenses were not as well prepared as they should have been.  People died when those walls were taken.[/quote]

What was lost because of his folly? What forces that were Gondor's to summon? The southern kingdoms weren't coming due to the threat of the corsairs. What other forces  was he supposed to summon? The Rohirrim, who were already coming? And what was he supposed to do to fortify the city that he didn't do? The walls were strong and secure, the city was well provisoned for siege.  

[quote]Weren't you obsessing over people dying as a titanically bad consequence?[/quote]

No. I was obsessing over people dying unnecessarily as a bad consequence. 

[quote]
What makes you say Orzammar is ill-ruled?  Because there's a casteless underclass?  Because succession is marred by conflict and underhanded politicking?  That happens in Gondor - Denethor would have made sure Aragorn never made it as King, if he were still alive.[/quote]

Didn't you see how the assembly acted in the game? They were at each others' throats over minor slights. Heck, when you first enter Orzammar, you see a Behlen supporter kill a Harrowmont one without  even the guard captain doing anything to prevent it.

[quote]
OH!  So the children of Orcs are not unfairly judged and are seen to be helpless victims waiting to be saved in LOTR.  Wait, no, they're not.
Orcs are bred and raised from Elves and Men captured and twisted by the power of the Morgoth.  They not only pass it on to their offspring - they never did anything wrong in the first place![/quote]

Then they go on to kill people and murder them for no reason greater than malice. Just like darkspawn. In fact, genlocks kind of look like midget LoTR movie orcs, don't they? 

[quote]See: Demonbinders in D&D.  See: Earthsea Trilogy by Ursula le Guin.[/quote]

Demonbinders? It's a bit of a different situation compared to what we've got here. In DAO, every mage is at risk of demonic possession, in addition to their magic potentially being used for ill purposes. In D&D you've got a very small subset of mages being at risk, and that only because they regularly consort with demons, right?

I can't comment upon the Earthsea Trilogy, as I'm not familiar with it. 

[quote]
You're not killing Isolde.  She's offering her life as a means for her child to be saved.  That is noble and honorable.[/quote]

It's still a sacrifice that doesn't need to be made. It's still a life lost, no?

[quote]Being forced to kill abominations is something you do pretty much everywhere.  Why is it so much worse if he looks like a little kid?  Ugly = bad?  That counts as dark for you?  Killing cute-looking vehicles of death?
Alternatively, you try your best and hope for the best.  Not bad, either.[/quote]

He's not your average abomination. They even come out and say this. Remember how Irving says "since the child gave himself willingly to the demon, he may yet be saved"? Any way you slice it, slitting the kid's throat is killing him, even if it does kill the demon in his body too.

The problem isn't that he isn't ugly, it's that he can still be saved. The dark theme comes in having to sacrifice a child who can potentially be saved, or sacrificing his mother to save him. Or risking everying going totally wrong by trying to save both of them.  

It'd be one thing if there was just the demon in there. If it was like Sophia in the Warden's Keep, but it isn't. The kid's in there too. 

[quote]None of these choices are bad.[/quote]

Either the kid's mother dies, the kid dies, or you leave and risk coming back to a burnt down Redcliffe. How are these not bad options? 
 
[quote]They're not free from tragedy, but neither are choices in LOTR.  At the end of book one, Aragorn gets to choose whether to go after the Ringbearer or go after Merry and Pippin, who may already be dead.  Is this somehow an easier or rosier picture?[/quote]

Yes. Yes it is. Why do you think that "following your friends who were captured" or "continuing with your mission" is as remotely difficult a choice as "kill a child to stop a demon", "kill the child's mother to stop a demon" or "stop a demon at the risk that the demon will destroy everything by the time you got everything you need to avoid either sacrifice?" 

[quote]It's tragic, sure.  How is it bad, though?[/quote]

You don't think it's a bad choice to murder a child just to kill a demon? Yes it achieves safety for Redcliffe, but so does killing Isolde. You seriously don't think that Redcliffe's questline has you choosing from a couple of bad options?  

[quote]All I'm seeing here is you focusing on shock value rather than true moral dilemma.  There is no moral dilemma here.  Your choices are all good - one way or another someone is saved where they would otherwise be dead.  In one choice, everyone wins.[/quote]

What do you mean there's no moral dilemma? You have to choose either a mother or her son to die, or risk sacrificing everyone in the town for a third option to escape it.  The ends look almost the same, so you've got to look at the means to make the decision.

[quote]Aragorn doesn't go out of his way to save children.  The situation never comes up, sure, but just because Bioware presents you with the death of children doesn't, IMO, suddenly make it bad.  Child death is common.  Why is the death of a child inherently worse than the death of an adult?  Because he had no moral power?  Many adults don't have moral power, either.  In some cases, they don't even make a moral mistake.  All those adults killed by undead?  What did THEY do to deserve it?  Nothing.[/quote]

That's part of the point, Aragorn's story doesn't put him in the position where he has to kill children, and hence, it's less dark than DAO where you're thrust right into a dilemma of "Hmm... So, I've got to either kill this kid or sacrifice his mother to stop this rampaging demon. Or rely upon these mages who I may have already purged because they're too much of a threat." 

[quote]
He would have done it, too.  At the end, he could not see ANYTHING but the Ring.[/quote]

He would have perhaps, but he never did. That's a rather large part of my point here. DAO can and does have these things happen. LoTR doesn't for the most part. It's why I'm so baffled at pointing to LoTR as evidence that DAO isn't dark.

Though, perhaps they're both dark, since you later make some good points about certain elements of LoTR.
 
 [quote]In a way, Hobbiton WAS destroyed - that was why it had to be rebuilt.  You know why it was destroyed?  Because Aragorn and his Rangers abandoned it.  They marched South to join the War.[/quote]

That is a lot more indirect than Miss "Hey, I'm going to give my clan to the darkspawn" Branka. Especially because it's arguable whether Aragorn and the rangers would've eventually joined the war anyway.

Besides, Hobbiton was rebuilt , while Branka's clan is never going to be rebuilt, unless someone figures out how to turn a brood mother back into a normal person. 

[quote]He never does it because Frodo forbade it.  He never actually changes his mind on this subject.  Aragorn himself regrets showing compassion for Gollum - he wanted Gollum dead, too.  So did Frodo, at the start.  And it's not like Aragorn doesn't torture Gollum while he kept him prisoner.  Sam himself took a perverse pleasure in the fact that the Elven Rope hurt Gollum.[/quote]

What? In the end, when fighting Gollum on the slopes of Mt. Doom, Sam has an opportunity to kill Gollum but he's overcome with compassion. That's what I was referring to. Again, there's a difference between thinking about killing someone and actually doing it. Don't you agree?  When push came to shove, Sam wasn't able to do it. 

[quote]
There IS a leader to pick up the slack after Cailan's death.  It's by sheer authorial power alone that the transition was not smooth.  Certainly, Loghain expected it to be, which is more than either Denethor or Theoden ever did.[/quote]

Come again? Who is this leader to pick up slack? Loghain? A commoner who recieved a noble title and who's actions are rather suspicious of late? Anora, the queen who hasn't been able to produce an heir in, what, four years of marriage and who also has no noble blood? Alistair, a bastard who nobody actually knows about until Eamon calls the landsmeet, and who takes some serious convincing and/or being blinded by hatred to even consider taking the throne? 

There was certainly no leader waiting in the wings like Eeomer was. The Rohirrim weren't tossed into civil war like Ferelden was.

[quote]
He's a Maiar.  He "sacrificed" himself because he knows he can't really die.  This was true regardless of whether he came back or not.[/quote]

So... You don't think it's a brighter world where your allies "can't really die" because they're immortal super-spirits? Don't  you think that shifts the story a bit closer to the happy end of the spectrum? If one of the protagonists appears to die, but then comes back even more powerful than they were before because, hey, he's an immortal Maiar? 

[quote]
Actually, at least three or four named characters die in the precursor: The Hobbit in The Battle of Five Armies - just not anyone Bilbo knew personally.  That said, most of that party came to bad ends.  Did you miss what happened to Balin and the Mines of Moria?[/quote]

I've never read the Hobbit. 

[quote]The entire expedition was a shot in the dark, and in the end, they survived by the purest luck.  Note that this is very similar to how you do as a lone Grey Warden in Ferelden.  Your journey is borne of hope and bouyed by hope.  You go around the world righting wrongs and setting things right on a mission of mercy so that an ultimate unambiguous bad guy can be defeated.  Comparatively speaking, you do have a chance.  Frodo had what is called "a snowball's chance in hell."[/quote]

Hmm. Fair enough, that is a good point. 

[quote]
Actually, even Aragorn is skeptical about this.  You never see him criticizing Gandalf, but he doesn't push for the Quest himself - he just follows Gandalf's lead.  They never know how Frodo is doing.  They do what they do because Frodo's chance in hell is the only chance they have left, so they assume that he's still alive and going on, even when they know it's not very likely.  That's pretty damn bleak.[/quote]

If it were impossible, the fellowship never would have set out to begin with. They also knew Frodo hadn't been captured or anything, since Sauron wasn't using the ring to overpower them. 

[quote]Why is it that you don't carry this optimistic view into DAO, but are perfectly willing to view LOTR from a meta-perspective?[/quote]

You asked why I said there was a sense of hope in LoTR. I explained my feelings. There is also a sense of hope in DAO, albiet one that's tempered by darkness. Either you or one of your party members dies, or you have to risk a ritual that may end up bringing an evil god back into the world. 

Something can be both a "noble sacrifice" and dark, after all.

[quote]
What?  That bread ran out real fast once they entered Mordor, and water was always a problem.[/quote]

The bread lasted at least until Frodo was captured and for some time after that, if memory serves. And after that, they found Orc supplies. Enough to keep them going, albiet at minimum levels.

[quote]Hunger and thirst made the protagonists constantly miserable, apart from the cold and the hard terrain.  By the end of the book, Frodo was so so weak he couldn't stand and so light Sam could hoist him bodily up the side of Mount Doom.  He couldn't have been much beyond skin and bones.
They went hungry and thirsty often.  I don't see this clear sense of hope you're pointing out.[/quote]

How much of the weakness was in Frodo's mind, with the ring getting "heavier and heavier?"

[quote]The end of the story in DAO IS 95% puppies and sunshine.[/quote]

Not unless you do everything right out of luck, or you have a guide you're referring to in order to get the best ending.  Endings in DAO range from "wow, that's pretty bad" to "hey, it's almost perfect!" With the good endings requiring many seperate conditions to fulfill. The arguably "best" ending for anyone who isn't a human noble requires maxed out persuade, large amounts of cunning, for you to "harden" Alistair by taking one seemingly inocuous dialog option in a subquest you probably did twenty hours before the the end, and then for you to spare Loghain. 

And even then, it still doesn't compare to LoTR, because there are still Darkspawn out there, and there will still be more blights. 

[quote]You DO realize that those elves are immortal because many of them are DEAD, right?  The Undying Lands is for dead elves.  Of the Nine Walkers, Frodo, Legoals, Gimli, and Gandalf end up in "Heaven." [/quote]

Just so we're clear, you're talking metaphorically, right? Because I'm not seeing the connection between "sail away to the undying lands" and "dead." Unless the boats sank or something. 

[quote]Seriously, did you not get how miserable most of them were?  They're only deliriously happy because they would otherwise have been thralls of Sauron, and that's a fate too bad to think about.[/quote]

No, I didn't get the sense that any of them, save possibly Frodo, were miserable. And with Frodo, it was more weariness and less emo-ness to my eye. 

[quote]
In Thedas, the Fade is real, and the Golden City was a real place.  You can even see its ruins in the game in the distance.  The Chant tells us that Fereldens who die go to the Maker, which is presumably a fantastic place to be.  That's a pretty direct analogue right there.[/quote]

Key word being was. Now it's the black city. Where the Darkspawn came from. If you believe the chant, that is. Speaking of which, the chant says lots of things. What it says is not necessarily true.  The  Dalish don't follow the chantry's dogma. Is the chantry right, or them? What about the dwarves? Morrigan and Flemeth don't believe in the chantry's teachings either. What makes the Chantry's version of things accurate?

Any claims of what happens to a person in Thedas when they die should be taken with a grain of salt. It is, at best, ambiguious. Heck, even the Urn of Sacred Ashes isn't proof of the Chantry being right; taking Oghren with you gets a comment that the temple is over a large lyrium vein, which could also explain what you see there.  

 [quote]
Elven women who give up their immortality universally die of sorrow when their loved ones die.  This is presumably how things naturally are.  You have to understand that this is a portrayal of despair.  Arwen dies because she can no longer see the beauty and worth of living that you do.  It's not cheap.  It's horrible.  Have you never seen people who have mental illnesses?[/quote]

I've seen people depressed, hell, I've been depressed because of the death of a loved one. But part of being alive is being able to cope with that and move on. 

On the other tentacle, now that I think about it, perhaps my human perceptions shouldn't really be applied to an elf. I doubt she has the emotional framework or mindset necessary to truly cope with death in the same way humans do. We internalize death in the sense of we all know that eventually, we'll die. To a being that wouldn't die without  something going wrong, death would seem more terrifing and depressing than it is for us.

Hmm. Okay, conceded on the darkness of Arwen's eventual fate. 

[quote]You DO realize that Eru CREATED Morgoth, right?[/quote]

Indeed. He also created all the other and more benevolent valar too, didn't he?  

[quote]So if the show goes on and on and on about how evil being colorless is, that makes it dark?  Emo is what's dark to you?[/quote]

No. I already explained that for something to be a "dark" work to me, it must spend more than a token line or mention on whatever it is that's supposed to make it dark. Again, I cite Pokemon as an example. Not really a dark show even though at its premise is pretty heinous.   

[quote]
Daveth took the cup, so he didn't disagree.  Ser Jory was a gutless traitor.[/quote]

Daveth died, hence he's an example of why joining the Grey Wardens isn't necessarily a good thing. Jory tried to back out and he got gutted for his trouble. Ha, gutless. Hahahah.  

[quote]Not at all.  Soldiery is essentially this.  You spend your body and your soul and your talents fighting for others.  You don't have normal skills when you quit fighting.  You don't get super-benefits.  Your life expectancy is markedly shorter and you suffer from many occupational hazards like nightmares and bad health, particularly if you're exposed to chemical weapons or too much physical trauma.  Many are maimed for life fighting in combat, both physically and mentally.[/quote]

I don't know how it is where you are, but here in the US, you actually learn several valuable skills depending on your MOS, and most employers will look favorably on any sort of military service. And the government will pay for you to go to college afterwards under the GI bill. Becoming a soldier is also not permanent unless you reup and decide to make it your career. Lots of people do the standard four year stint and then move on.   

[quote]Drinking the taint is simply a metaphor for the armed life.  It's not like Grey Wardens should even be expecting to live their whole 30 years given how dangerous their lives normally are.[/quote]

Grey Wardens are already soldiers of one sort or another, be it swordsmen or mages or archers, so making the joining a metaphor for a soldiering life is... Rather superflous. It's also different in that it's a garenteed death sentence, rather than a mere potential death sentence.

[quote]Life is a death sentence.  Everyone dies, dude.  Get that down pat.  EVERYONE dies.[/quote]

Naturally, but most people live past thirty. Again, the problem here is that the taint is putting a hard cap on lifespan.

[quote]When I heard that the ultimate limit was 30 years, I was like, "Is that even something worth mentioning?"  If drinking Darkspawn blood in any way makes it likely that you ever exercise the option of going to Orzammar, then it's a fantastic thing!  If your character drank the blood at 20, he'd have until 50 to live!  That's a fantastic age for a soldier on active duty for 30 years.[/quote]

Presumably he wouldn't be fighting for all of those 30 years. Wardens usually don't go down to the deep roads until their nightmares start in earnest AFAIK, and without a blight, it's not like there are all that many darkspawn to kill. 

[quote]

Ah.  So LOTR must be dark because Denethor essentially sends Faramir out to die, then?[/quote]

If LoTR had the other factors that made DAO dark, yes. It's not one or two of these elements that makes the story dark, it's all of them coming together.

[quote]Why?  This was not an uncommon historical occurrence.  So history is dark now?  For that matter, large tracts of Gondor's protectorates were left undefended because Gondor was too busy with her own troubles.[/quote]

Well, they do call the medieval periods the dark ages.   

On the Gondorian troubles - it's one thing if there's no troops available to defend something because they're all fighting to keep the Orcs from the capital. It's another if those troops are too busy fighting a petty civil war over succession. 

[quote]Nope.  None of those are hard because they ALL lead to pretty okay outcomes.  If you destroy the Anvil, then you rid the world of a horrible artifact.  If not, it can be used to aid you against the Archdemon.  Neither is a bad end.[/quote]

And then after it's used to aid you against the archdemon, it ends up being used to turn people into golems against their will, going so far as to drive Branka to abduct surfacers to feed that hungry anvil in the Harrowmont ending.  That is a decidedly bad end. 

[quote]Going with either Harrowmont or Bhelen unites the dwarves and spares them from outright civil war.  That's good, too.  [/quote]

Up until Harrowmont is assassinated a few years later prompting another civil war, this time without even someone like Behlen to take over, or Behlen completely dissolves the assembly and rules as a dictator. 

[quote]Losing Alistair is NOT a moral dilemma!!!  If he wants to leave off saving the world because he's too busy throwing a hissyfit, then that's his business, isn't it?  Where is the moral dilemma?[/quote]

Choosing your friend's happiness over choosing mercy for your mortal enemy. Granted Alistair needed to be slapped in that scene, but it is a hard decision for people who liked Alistair, and people who've grown attached to the character.

[quote]In Redcliffe, choice 1 saves the village.  Choice 2 saves the village.  Choice 3 also saves the village.  Where is the problem?[/qoute]

Choice 1 forces you to kill a child. Choice 2 forces you to sacrifice that child's mother. Choice 3 risks losing everything but also may save everything.  The ends are irrlevant, since they basically lead to the same outcome with the only difference being one person or another surviving. The means here are what's important. 

[quote]In the Circle, you either save innocents, or make sure no demons make it out for sure.  Both decisions have morally beneficial results.  Where is the problem?  Either choice is good.[/quote]

The latter closes off choice 3 in Redcliffe. It also results in the loss of much of the experience of the mages circle, which will hamper any future training of mages. 

The former, however, risks an abomination or blood mage escaping and tearing open the veil, allowing demons to pour into Thedas and potentially destroying lots of things.

Both choices have good sides, but both choices also have very bad sides. It's a hard decision because you've got to weigh each option, but the problem is that there's no real good answer there. 

[quote]
See, this is how it works.  When you're going up against the Archdemon of the Age, that is apparently a suicide mission.  NONE of you expect to make it out alive.  In fact, there is NO reason why this cannot be made public or at least known to your party.  Lots of people volunteer for suicide missions when their lives and the lives of their families are on the line.  Like, people line up for it.  For days.[/quote]

I never got the impression it was a suicide mission for anyone but the player, Riordan, and Alistair/Loghain. The odds against the army were only 3 to 1, with the Wardens having access to the best that each race had to offer and the kill of, in my case, two other high dragons under their belts. I don't see why it would be a suicide mission, barring the archdemon shenanagins. 

[quote]You get it?  This is supposed be essentially a nuclear holocaust and the only way to prevent it is for 4 of you to head deep into Chernobyl's dead zone.  None of you expect to make it out alive.  Then you're told that YOU have to die to kill the nuclear switch.  Woopdedoo  Die one way or another - who cares?  But this way, you're the lynchpin - you're the hero, the champion - DA MAN.  Everyone is going to jump in front of bullets for you just so you make it.[/quote]

I don't think the battle was so desperate as that.  I dunno, I got the impression that barring the archdemon death thing, the coming battle was perfectly survivable. Maybe it was because of the hundreds of darkspawn listed under my character's kill counter, or the fact that the sacrifice was such a big deal. 

[quote]What you're doing is necessary and saves many, many, many lives.  Sure, it involves consigning a person to death who HAPPENS to be a child.  These things happen.[/quote]

Indeed, but having that happen in your story makes it darker than it would be otherwise.  See? Even if it is the most moral choice, the very fact that the story is structured in such a way that the question of "do you cut a child's throat, even if to kill a demon" comes up is another "darkness point" to use a gaming term.  

[quote]They happen in fantasy, too.  Gandalf was perfectly willing to send Frodo into a suicide mission without telling him it's a suicide mission just to save the world.  How is that any different?[/quote]


Well, presumably Frodo was what passes for an adult amongst his people. That means he's able to make decisions for himself, or at least better decisions than ten year old Connor was. 

Modifié par Cpl_Facehugger, 02 décembre 2009 - 04:31 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Roxlimn LotR is NOT and have never been, nor will it ever become a dark story. The lines in LotR is way too clear cut, sure there are some dark themes, but you are never in any kind of doubt about who are the bad guys and who are the good guys, not once do you bring the whole mission into question. They are out to destroy the manifestaion of evil in their world (a commendable goal). All these dark themes happens "off-screen" btw, which lessens their impact even more. The only really dark part of the trilogy I remember is Shelob's lair. Now that part would be fitting into a dark fantasy setting, but the rest is High Fantasy (some would call it low fantasy because of the lack of "real" magic).
While the overall goal in DAO isn't questionable, all of your decissions getting there are however.

But I guess we should give up trying to convince you otherwise, since you are being way too unreasoably stubborn in your point of view.


EDIT: Just for the record, Gandalf sacrificed himself knowing he would die, as in die, as in the end, to make sure that the ringbearer escaped. Being a Maiar does NOT make Gandalf immortal, it makes him immortal to any being of lesser power than him, yes, but a Balrog is a Maiar too. Gandalf died on the top of that mountain, and for all intents and purposes he should be completely gone, however the creator god (who's name eludes me) intervened. This is the only case of divine intervention in the whole LotR mythology.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 02 décembre 2009 - 04:55 .

[Malkut]

People with dissertation-length posts should use PMs.

[RunCDFirst]

Malkut wrote...



People with dissertation-length posts should use PMs.

While maybe a little harsh, that was pretty funny.

[JigPig]

ITT: Nerds with page long discussions.

[Kabraxal]

I think there are too issues here.



Dark Fantasy is not limited to fantasy with horror elements. Where those arguing for this as the only "dark fantasy" got this definition from is beyond me. Dark fantasy is simply a term to cover a grittier, less "clean" fantasy setting. It seems a great deal of people are unaware that this game was inspired, in part, by the dark fantasy epic of George R.R. Martin. And that is a recognised and acclaimed dark fantasy saga known as the Song of Fire and Ice.



Which brings us to the other side who don't limit dark fantasy to simple horror elements but do think that only hopeless despair where everybody always loses is "dark"... well, it is dark after a fashion, but it is also horribly contrived trite that rarely works as a complete story. Even when the good-guys lose, nothing is totally hopeless. Being totally devoid of any light or hope is simply bad writing.



DA is a dark fantasy. There is rape, murder, abuse, loss, betrayal, and moral consequences. I keep seeing people bring up how there is a "happy choice" for many of the moral events... are they only playing one way? If don't keep watch on characters, they can betray you. If you make certain decisions, then some happy endings are lost for good (the Isolde/Connor choice being evident). You can execute people on a regular basis... including important characters!



SPOILER for the Anvil of the Void:



Hell, you can essentially choose to rip the souls out of people's bodies to help grow your army by making golems. That ain't exactly fluffy bunnies...



The darkness in this can be either greatly alleviated if the player chooses to play a heroic character. On the flip side, if they choose to be selfish or aim for the "greater good", the darkness in this game can quickly become overwhelming. The level of darkness is dictated by the actions of the player.



I will grant this to the argument though. Even at its worse, this is not as dark as some titles... Sword of Truth and the Song of Ice and Fire especially. Those two sagas are rife with rape, death, betrayal, more rape, rape, and death. Even then, there is never an air of complete hopelessness.

[Roxlimn]

 Vormaerin:
[quote]
You are really really going off the deep end here trying to prove that the Lord of the Rings is a grim, dark tale. Its a somber tale, but it is not grim and nobody actually comes to a bad end except the bad guys.

Arwen dies of grief, but she goes beyond the world to be with Aragorn. That's the Gift of Men. You fundamentally misunderstand Tolkein if you think death is a bad thing for men. There's also a huge difference between being dead and being alive as an Elf in the Undying lands. Those who died dwell in the Halls of Mandos. They are not free to wander the countryside like the many, many living elves. Some of the dead elves can walk in the sunlight in the gardens of Mandos, but most are not so free. Feanor would not have been as upset as Finwe's death (or Finwe of Feanor's mother's death) if being dead and being alive were the same thing.

Over and over again, characters in Tolkein's works take the Gift of Men over the Gift of the Eldar. Elros does. Beren and Luthien do. Elrond's sons do. Several of those who do chose the Gift of the Eldar (Earendil, Tuor) do so only because someone else does. Arwen is the only one who seems to rue it and she openly admits that she doesn't understand the whole thing anyway at one point.
[/quote]

Eh what?  It's times like this when I have to wonder if people are reading the same books I am.  Elrond's sons do NOT choose the Gift of Men - they're counted among the Elves, like their father.  The Eldar don't HAVE a gift!  The fates are sundered and you choose to be counted among Elves or among Men, but this choice is only ever given to the Half-Elven, and the three Houses of Edain.

We don't know why Feanor was upset at Finwe's death.  Certainly no one else seems to mind overmuch being confined to the Halls of Mandos - it's not presented as unpleasant place.  Presumably, nothing in the Undying Lands is really all that unpleasant.

I don't suppose that the Gift of Man is a bad thing and I never said so.  Read my posts.  What's bad is that Arwen is forever sundered from ALL her kin until the world is unmade, and possibly even beyond that.  That means that not even Death reunites her with Elrond.  We don't know that she actually ever goes and meets Aragorn again, because the Gift of Man means that Men go beyond the world after death and no knowledge exists that tells anyone what becomes of Men.

Characters in Tolkien works don't choose the Gift of Man "over and over again."  In fact, as time went by it came to be known as the Doom of Men instead.  This is explicitly mentioned in the Silmarillion.  Most Elves do not envy Men this Gift, whereas the Numenoreans increasingly came to fear it and envy Elves their Immortality.  In fact, that is why Numenor is no more - the Numenoreans invaded the Undying Lands, in order to seize immortality by force of arms.

Cpl_Facehugger:
[quote]
Harrowmont. Comparing the two, doesn't Harrowmont seem the obvious "good" choice? He's honorable, and his quests are "fight in my name in a tournament + find out why my other champions withdrew from the arena" and "clear dust town of a criminal organization." Compare with Behlen who's first quest is "deliver theise illegally forged documents to two of my enemy's supporters" and with Behlen's response to being crowned. "My first act... Is to order Lord Harrowmont's execution!" 
[/quote]
Um, no.  Don't you know anything about politics?  Harrowmont is wishy-washy and is plagued by a weak will.  He's probably a fantastic advisor, but he doesn't make for a good King.  Bhelen's move to execute Harrowmont is GOOD.  This cuts down on civil war and leads to peace in the long run.  Exile is the least that Harrowmont should expect.  We're talking ruling policy and politics here.  This is how things are done.  The existence of strong political rivals in a feudal clan-based political system is BAD, not good.

[quote]
The outcome of choosing Harrowmont was basically "Harrowmont is too weak a leader to keep the assembly in line. He gets assassinated, prompting another civil war from which Orzammar may never recover." Or, even better, if you saved the anvil, it goes "Being too weak to stand up to Branka, Harrowmont gives in to her every desire. He raids the surface for humans and elves to forcibly turn into golems, gives up the casteless to be turned into golems... " I don't recall the rest of Harrowmont's end, but Behlen's endings are considerably better. :/
[/quote]
Shrug.  That was to be expected.  Harrowmont was obviously the weaker of the two candidates.  Why anyone would choose him is beyond me.  Why is he "good," exactly?  Because he speaks nice and has a fatherly image?  Because his quests are goody two-shoes?

[quote]
This isn't truth being malleable, this is outright lying to get power.
[/quote]
Yes.  So?  This is normal for monarchies and feudal systems.  People lie.  All the time.  The only worlds where people don't "fib" are worlds populated by rainbow colored heroes and anthropomorphic trains or animals.  Denethor lies to get what he wants.  SO DOES Gandalf.
[quote]
Gollum didn't exactly do much with the ring when he had it; he just sat in his cave and went crazy. Saruman never actually got his paws on the ring either. Of the people who actually had the ring, only Sauron actually did anything seriously evil with it.
[/quote]
So murdering people for food isn't "seriously evil," now?  What gives?  Please make up your mind about this.  Gollum is a murderer.  He used the Ring to commit countless murders over the centuries.  This is not "seriously evil?"
[quote]
What was lost because of his folly? What forces that were Gondor's to summon? The southern kingdoms weren't coming due to the threat of the corsairs. What other forces  was he supposed to summon? The Rohirrim, who were already coming? And what was he supposed to do to fortify the city that he didn't do? The walls were strong and secure, the city was well provisoned for siege. 
[/quote]
Yes, the Rohirrim.  Denethor did not call for them.  They almost came too late, and only just in time by luck.  They could have been better positioned.  Theoden might have been killed.  They were NOT coming until Gandalf came in and removed Wormtongue.  Gondor should have been mustering its forces LONG before then.
The Southern forces weren't coming because of the corsairs, but also because they were not being summoned.  Denethor didn't even try.  That was a major factor - Aragorn bringing up those forces really turned the tide on Pelennor, even if the Legion of the Dead did not help.
What was he supposed to do?  Gather his forces, make earthwork fortifications.  Prepare for imminent siege.  Gather intel from reliable sources.  He was not doing these things.
[quote]
No. I was obsessing over people dying unnecessarily as a bad consequence. 
[/quote]
In that case, Connor dying is NOT a bad consequence; his death is necessary to stop the demon, unless you count the kumbayah option, in which case you choose that and everything is hunky-dory.  No bad option, like I said.
[quote]
Didn't you see how the assembly acted in the game? They were at each others' throats over minor slights. Heck, when you first enter Orzammar, you see a Behlen supporter kill a Harrowmont one without  even the guard captain doing anything to prevent it.
[/quote]
That is how things are when there is no King.  Fereldens were in open Civil War with entire armies killing each other on the field, if you didn't notice.  What happened during the game in Orzammar was tame by comparison.
[quote]
Then they go on to kill people and murder them for no reason greater than malice. Just like darkspawn. In fact, genlocks kind of look like midget LoTR movie orcs, don't they? 
[/quote]
The werewolves were also killing Elves out of malice.  There was the point of asking the Elves to remove the curse, but most of them were too feral to really care about that - all they wanted was to kill the Elves.  And no, I don't particularly buy into the prevalent Western trope that ugly peoples are evil.
[quote]
Demonbinders? It's a bit of a different situation compared to what we've got here. In DAO, every mage is at risk of demonic possession, in addition to their magic potentially being used for ill purposes. In D&D you've got a very small subset of mages being at risk, and that only because they regularly consort with demons, right?

I can't comment upon the Earthsea Trilogy, as I'm not familiar with it. 
[/quote]
Every person in D&D is at risk of demonic possession - it's just that other people do things to mitigate that - like player characters.  Most mages in Ferelden are NOT possessed, since being possessed by a demon is kind of universally made out to be a bad thing.
[quote]
It's still a sacrifice that doesn't need to be made. It's still a life lost, no?
[/quote]
You can't argue that both ways.  Either it wasn't necessary and you get to exercise a morally superior option, or it was necessary and it's okay.  I don't believe the game portrays making this choice as a malicious decision borne out of wanting to kill people unnecessarily.  That was not the impression I got from this part of the game.
[quote]
He's not your average abomination. They even come out and say this. Remember how Irving says "since the child gave himself willingly to the demon, he may yet be saved"? Any way you slice it, slitting the kid's throat is killing him, even if it does kill the demon in his body too.

The problem isn't that he isn't ugly, it's that he can still be saved. The dark theme comes in having to sacrifice a child who can potentially be saved, or sacrificing his mother to save him. Or risking everying going totally wrong by trying to save both of them.  

It'd be one thing if there was just the demon in there. If it was like Sophia in the Warden's Keep, but it isn't. The kid's in there too.
[/quote]
False dilemma.  The kid is dead anyway.  He MAY yet be saved, if you're willing to take the risk, but there is the risk.  I don't see how putting probabilities instead of certainties makes this "dark."  Is uncertainty dark now?
All your decisions have pros and cons, but they are all morally good.  At no point does the game give you an option to kill Connor just because you're a jerk.  It's always portrayed as a morally unimpeachable choice.  Isolde herself doesn't blame you at all, even though she's emotional and you just killed her kid.  Her wrath is reserved for Jowan.
[quote]
Either the kid's mother dies, the kid dies, or you leave and risk coming back to a burnt down Redcliffe. How are these not bad options?
[/quote]
Because they all involve you doing something in order to save a village and a family that is otherwise doomed to death?  They're not perfectly desirable options, but this is normal in life, and normal in standard fantasy.
[quote]
Yes. Yes it is. Why do you think that "following your friends who were captured" or "continuing with your mission" is as remotely difficult a choice as "kill a child to stop a demon", "kill the child's mother to stop a demon" or "stop a demon at the risk that the demon will destroy everything by the time you got everything you need to avoid either sacrifice?
[/quote]
How?  Because I don't fall prey to shock value and I don't drown in dramatic false dilemmas.  The child is dead - killing him ultimately would make no difference to him.  If he were wiser, he would ask you to kill him, himself.  You don't kill the mother.  She volunteers to sacrifice herself in order to provide you a chance to save the kid that you otherwise don't get.  Normal occurrence - present in standard fantasy.  Risk a great deal in order to gain a great deal?  Same thing - nothing problematic there.

Aragorn is faced with abandoning the sole hope of the survival of Men to Mordor and abandoning friends to torture and death by Orcs, in the hope that they will die before they actually reveal anything important.  He's not considering one or two lives here.  In his hands was the survival of nations, cities, and races, and there was no clear choice that would result in anything good.  It's a pretty stressful thing.
This is contrast to Redcliffe where most of your choices transparently result in immediate benefit.
[quote]
You don't think it's a bad choice to murder a child just to kill a demon? Yes it achieves safety for Redcliffe, but so does killing Isolde. You seriously don't think that Redcliffe's questline has you choosing from a couple of bad options?  
[/quote]
No.  You're getting hung up on shock value.  There is no actual moral dilemma here.  There is nothing to be gained by allowing the child to run free without doing anything about it.  Clearly, something has to be done, and killing the kid is one such option that is sure and quick and saves lives immediately.  One more kid has to die, out of scores that are already dead.  And he's doomed, anyway.  It's tragic, but so were all those other deaths in the village.

Isolde proposes to save her kid by sacrificing herself.  You are not forcing this on her.  This choice isn't actually yours to make, and you don't,  She is volunteering.  She has already made the choice to trade her life for Connor's.  The only choice you have to make is whether you want to go along with it, since you're the one who actually has to go in and kill the demon.  There is no moral dilemma here.
There is no bad choice here.  Every choice is morally correct.  You are morally unimpeachable no matter what you do, and anything you do saves people's lives.
[quote]
That's part of the point, Aragorn's story doesn't put him in the position where he has to kill children, and hence, it's less dark than DAO where you're thrust right into a dilemma of "Hmm... So, I've got to either kill this kid or sacrifice his mother to stop this rampaging demon. Or rely upon these mages who I may have already purged because they're too much of a threat." 
[/quote]
What is it about killing children that makes it morally worse than killing adults?  Certainly, Christian morals does not distinguish.  All murder is evil.  However, in this case, you are not murdering.  You are killing a demon - it just so happens that a kid who's dead anyway is involved temporally with the killing.
[quote]
He would have perhaps, but he never did. That's a rather large part of my point here. DAO can and does have these things happen. LoTR doesn't for the most part. It's why I'm so baffled at pointing to LoTR as evidence that DAO isn't dark. 

Though, perhaps they're both dark, since you later make some good points about certain elements of LoTR. 
[/quote]
That is my point.  DAO is very similar to standard fantasy in terms of how dark it portrays its world.  If one is High Fantasy, isn't the other High Fantasy as well?
[quote]
That is a lot more indirect than Miss "Hey, I'm going to give my clan to the darkspawn" Branka. Especially because it's arguable whether Aragorn and the rangers would've eventually joined the war anyway.

Besides, Hobbiton was rebuilt , while Branka's clan is never going to be rebuilt, unless someone figures out how to turn a brood mother back into a normal person.
[/quote]
A dwarven clan is nothing more than a political construct.  It's no tragedy to lose one.
[quote]
What? In the end, when fighting Gollum on the slopes of Mt. Doom, Sam has an opportunity to kill Gollum but he's overcome with compassion. That's what I was referring to. Again, there's a difference between thinking about killing someone and actually doing it. Don't you agree?  When push came to shove, Sam wasn't able to do it. 
[/quote]
Nah.  He'd changed by then, because he'd seen what Frodo had become.  He was perfectly willing to do it before.
[quote]
Come again? Who is this leader to pick up slack? Loghain? A commoner who recieved a noble title and who's actions are rather suspicious of late? Anora, the queen who hasn't been able to produce an heir in, what, four years of marriage and who also has no noble blood? Alistair, a bastard who nobody actually knows about until Eamon calls the landsmeet, and who takes some serious convincing and/or being blinded by hatred to even consider taking the throne? 

There was certainly no leader waiting in the wings like Eeomer was. The Rohirrim weren't tossed into civil war like Ferelden was.
[/quote]

Anora is Queen.  The fact that she was unable to produce an heir has no bearing on her capabilities as a ruler in any other respect.  There is no real reason why Ferelden was thrust into Civil War and the game is quite nebulous on why this actually came to be, other than that the Bannorn Lords are a stubborn bunch of fools.
If you ask me, the Dwarven Assembly was better.
[quote]
So... You don't think it's a brighter world where your allies "can't really die" because they're immortal super-spirits? Don't  you think that shifts the story a bit closer to the happy end of the spectrum? If one of the protagonists appears to die, but then comes back even more powerful than they were before because, hey, he's an immortal Maiar?[/quote]
You don't really die, either.  It's a known phenomenon that you go into the Fade as a Spirit.  There are other ways to achieve Immortality in Thedas.
[quote]
If it were impossible, the fellowship never would have set out to begin with. They also knew Frodo hadn't been captured or anything, since Sauron wasn't using the ring to overpower them. [/quote]
It wasn't impossible.  Just incredibly improbable.  You can't second-guess the intent of the Fellowship this way.  It could have been impossible, but Gandalf didn't know.  The Fellowship would have set out even then.  Balin's expedition was doomed from the start, since the Balrog was there, but he didn't know that, and he set out with his entire clan.  His obsession with the Mines led to the death of his entire clan.
[quote]
You asked why I said there was a sense of hope in LoTR. I explained my feelings. There is also a sense of hope in DAO, albiet one that's tempered by darkness. Either you or one of your party members dies, or you have to risk a ritual that may end up bringing an evil god back into the world. 

Something can be both a "noble sacrifice" and dark, after all.[/quote]

Dude... ... understand this: NONE of your party is expected to survive an encounter with a freaking Archdemon.  NONE.  The expectation is that BOTH of you die in the encounter, along with everyone else on the rooftop.
[quote]
The bread lasted at least until Frodo was captured and for some time after that, if memory serves. And after that, they found Orc supplies. Enough to keep them going, albiet at minimum levels.
[/quote]
Well, they didn't die of starvation.  I don't believe that this qualifies as saying that either food or hunger was never a problem.
[quote]
Not unless you do everything right out of luck, or you have a guide you're referring to in order to get the best ending.  Endings in DAO range from "wow, that's pretty bad" to "hey, it's almost perfect!" With the good endings requiring many seperate conditions to fulfill. The arguably "best" ending for anyone who isn't a human noble requires maxed out persuade, large amounts of cunning, for you to "harden" Alistair by taking one seemingly inocuous dialog option in a subquest you probably did twenty hours before the the end, and then for you to spare Loghain. 

And even then, it still doesn't compare to LoTR, because there are still Darkspawn out there, and there will still be more blights.
[/quote]
There were still Balrogs in Middle Earth, many of them stronger than Gandalf, possibly even Sauron.  There were still many dark places in the world.  There was still the Watcher in the Water, as an example.
ALL the endings in DAO result in the demon dying and your entire party surviving.  I don't see any result like this as being "pretty bad."
[quote]
Just so we're clear, you're talking metaphorically, right? Because I'm not seeing the connection between "sail away to the undying lands" and "dead." Unless the boats sank or something.
[/quote]
You cannot go to the Undying Lands.  For all intents and purposes, Frodo is dead to Sam.  He will never see Frodo again.
[quote]
Key word being was. Now it's the black city. Where the Darkspawn came from. If you believe the chant, that is. Speaking of which, the chant says lots of things. What it says is not necessarily true.  The  Dalish don't follow the chantry's dogma. Is the chantry right, or them? What about the dwarves? Morrigan and Flemeth don't believe in the chantry's teachings either. What makes the Chantry's version of things accurate?

Any claims of what happens to a person in Thedas when they die should be taken with a grain of salt. It is, at best, ambiguious. Heck, even the Urn of Sacred Ashes isn't proof of the Chantry being right; taking Oghren with you gets a comment that the temple is over a large lyrium vein, which could also explain what you see there.  
[/quote]
There IS also the Black City, which is pretty concrete evidence that that part of the Chant has a visible evidence.  The Dalish have their own belief system, but that is never really fleshed out, so it can't really be "dark," can it?  Dwarves have their own thing, too.  This doesn't mean that you don't go to the Maker when you die.  As far as evidence suggests, you do.
[quote]
Indeed. He also created all the other and more benevolent valar too, didn't he?
[/quote]
Sure.  My point is that he created Evil in the world.  Who knows what it's like to be with him?
[quote]
No. I already explained that for something to be a "dark" work to me, it must spend more than a token line or mention on whatever it is that's supposed to make it dark. Again, I cite Pokemon as an example. Not really a dark show even though at its premise is pretty heinous.
[/quote]

Yeah.  More than a token line.  Entire scads and story arcs dealing with how lack of color is bad/evil.  You're saying here that it must spend more than a line in order for it to be "dark."  Okay.  So LOTS of lines.  As many lines as you want, all explaining how being colorless is such a morally bankrupt thing.  If so, would Rainbow Brite be a dark show?
[quote]
Daveth died, hence he's an example of why joining the Grey Wardens isn't necessarily a good thing. Jory tried to back out and he got gutted for his trouble. Ha, gutless. Hahahah.  
[/quote]
Daveth's death is also just shock value.  It's no indication that joining the Grey Wardens is bad.  Obviously, YOU don't have to deal with death on a daily basis.  It shocks you so much you think it's bad.  It's not.  It's just life.  Everyone dies, eventually.  How is it bad to die attempting to join the only organization that saved the world from Blight?  'Tis a totally honorable and pragmatic thing.  Even cynical Morrigan and Flemeth have nothing bad to say about the Grey Wardens, and they have something snarky to say about just about everything.
[quote]
I don't know how it is where you are, but here in the US, you actually learn several valuable skills depending on your MOS, and most employers will look favorably on any sort of military service. And the government will pay for you to go to college afterwards under the GI bill. Becoming a soldier is also not permanent unless you reup and decide to make it your career. Lots of people do the standard four year stint and then move on. 
[/quote]
Lucky you.  You do realize that all this money is being funneled essentially to make soldiery a good thing, because it's otherwise so bad?
I mean look at it this way: The Grey Wardens assure you of a meal and occupation in a feudal system where entire races have it worse.  You got a good 30 years to live, and you get special powers, political benefits, and moxie.  It's not really a bad deal at all.
It is a metaphor about soldiery.  Just because the US is rich enough to pad their soldiers doesn't mean that such padding is universal for soldiering
[quote]
Grey Wardens are already soldiers of one sort or another, be it swordsmen or mages or archers, so making the joining a metaphor for a soldiering life is... Rather superflous. It's also different in that it's a guaranteed death sentence, rather than a mere potential death sentence.
[/quote]
And yet this is never really portrayed otherwise, is it?  Soldiers get all kinds of mental problems.  How come the Grey Wardens never have any?  They're subject to mutilation, disability, and horrific battle conditions.  Where is this?  The game metaphorically shields you from the reality of war and portrays actual problems as side effects of the Joining.  It's a useful metaphor because DAO's portrayal of the mercenary life is otherwise impossibly, fantastically perfect.
And no, it's not all that different.  As I told you, EVERYONE dies.  Getting to age 50 is not a bad deal at all.  Some mercenary units and soldier units have a mortality rate of over 98% over 4 or 5 years.  Practically nobody lives through it.  How is that materially different from a death sentence?  It's not, really.  As I said, all things considered, I would have expected most Grey Wardens to have a lifespan of 5 years, maybe 10, given that there's always a warzone with Darkspawn in it, and they're always on active duty.  The fact that living to 30 years is portrayed as a tragedy of some sort tells me that this is not particularly gritty or realistic or dark.

[quote]
Naturally, but most people live past thirty. Again, the problem here is that the taint is putting a hard cap on lifespan.
[/quote]
Read the Codex.  You get thirty years to live.  You don't live TO thirty.  You get thirty years to live.  Most soldiers in a shock unit on continuous active duty medieval setting would be lucky to make it TO thirty at all.  Such a hard cap, even the way you put it, is not particularly shocking given what they are and what they do.
[quote]
Presumably he wouldn't be fighting for all of those 30 years. Wardens usually don't go down to the deep roads until their nightmares start in earnest AFAIK, and without a blight, it's not like there are all that many darkspawn to kill. 
[/quote]

The entire purpose of the Grey Wardens is to fight darkspawn wherever they.  If they're not fighting, they're slacking on their duties.  I find it hard to feel sympathy for a person who lives the duration of his contract because he was largely slacking on a duty he's reaping benefits for.
[quote]
On the Gondorian troubles - it's one thing if there's no troops available to defend something because they're all fighting to keep the Orcs from the capital. It's another if those troops are too busy fighting a petty civil war over succession. 
[/quote]
Why?  It makes the humans colossally stupid and short-sighted.  I don't know that it makes the setting "dark."
[quote]
And then after it's used to aid you against the archdemon, it ends up being used to turn people into golems against their will, going so far as to drive Branka to abduct surfacers to feed that hungry anvil in the Harrowmont ending.  That is a decidedly bad end.
[/quote]
Why?
[quote]
Up until Harrowmont is assassinated a few years later prompting another civil war, this time without even someone like Bhelen to take over, or Behlen completely dissolves the assembly and rules as a dictator.
[/quote]
Bhelen acting decisively is good.  Harrowmont being deposed was predictable.  Either way, you get the help you needed.  If you chose Harrowmont, you should have known trouble was just around the corner.  He was a transparently weak leader.  I can't imagine why Wynne would support Harrowmont.  She's otherwise so worldly.
[quote]
Choosing your friend's happiness over choosing mercy for your mortal enemy. Granted Alistair needed to be slapped in that scene, but it is a hard decision for people who liked Alistair, and people who've grown attached to the character.
[/quote]

So it's dark because you're encouraged to pick against your shallow, vengeful friend in order to extend mercy to a useful man?  I confess that I'm having difficult seeing the moral dilemma here.  Alistair is clearly being an idiot, and Loghain is clearly going to be useful.
[quote]
Choice 1 forces you to kill a child. Choice 2 forces you to sacrifice that child's mother. Choice 3 risks losing everything but also may save everything.  The ends are irrelevant, since they basically lead to the same outcome with the only difference being one person or another surviving. The means here are what's important.
[/quote]
So the ends are irrelevant because they all end up with you being a hero and saving the day?  Pardon me, but that was exactly my point.  They ALL end up with you being a hero and saving the day, regardless of how you act.  Means schmeans - there is nothing dark here.  All your choices are morally correct, and they all end well.

[quote]
Both choices have good sides, but both choices also have very bad sides. It's a hard decision because you've got to weigh each option, but the problem is that there's no real good answer there. 
[/quote]
No real good answer?!?  Both are good answers!  A situation is which there is no good answer is a situation in which everybody dies and demons escape regardless of what you do!  THAT is a situation with no good answer.  DAO is not like this.
[quote]
I never got the impression it was a suicide mission for anyone but the player, Riordan, and Alistair/Loghain. The odds against the army were only 3 to 1, with the Wardens having access to the best that each race had to offer and the kill of, in my case, two other high dragons under their belts. I don't see why it would be a suicide mission, barring the archdemon shenanagins. 
[/quote]
See, that makes it NOT a dark thing in and of itself.  You're entering a conflict you highly expect to survive, so right away, you should be feeling good about it.  So one of you has to die to ensure victory.  Wow.  Those are actually pretty good odds, considering most conflicts in fantasy and history.
You're elite for a reason.  In soldiers, this usually means it's because you take the most risks and do the most crucial tasks.  This thing is perfectly in line with that.

This situation is totally at odds with my experiences and readings.  You are supposed to be elite soldiers.  Given a chance to ensure victory single-handed, most such soldiers would be champing at the bit for a chance at the prize - even if it ensures their death, particularly in a case where none of you have families to support.  Ask any Marines you know.  Given a chance to SINGLE-HANDEDLY win something like the Battle of the Bulge, would they do it?  Not a one will say no, and most will jump at the chance.  It's a fantastic opportunity.

Riordan and Alistair talk about it and go all emo on you.  Are these soldiers or tea guests?!?!  This really broke all my belief in them as soldiers.  Stupid pansies.  They should be fighting each other over the chance for the killing blow.
[quote]
I don't think the battle was so desperate as that.  I dunno, I got the impression that barring the archdemon death thing, the coming battle was perfectly survivable. Maybe it was because of the hundreds of darkspawn listed under my character's kill counter, or the fact that the sacrifice was such a big deal. [/quote]
If it's not that desperate, then it's not really as dark as the final battles of LOTR, is it?  In LOTR it's made abundantly clear that only Frodo really had a chance to save them, and even then, most of them would be lucky to live through it, anyway, given how many people had already died.
[quote]
Indeed, but having that happen in your story makes it darker than it would be otherwise.  See? Even if it is the most moral choice, the very fact that the story is structured in such a way that the question of "do you cut a child's throat, even if to kill a demon" comes up is another "darkness point" to use a gaming term.
[/quote]
The question DOESN'T come up.  It's only coming up because it's shocking you so much.  It's shock value, nothing more.
[quote]
Well, presumably Frodo was what passes for an adult amongst his people. That means he's able to make decisions for himself, or at least better decisions than ten year old Connor was.
[/quote]

Gandalf very carefully did NOT allow Frodo to know that this was probably a suicide mission.  Gandalf is knowingly sending Frodo to his death, through no fault of Frodo's, and he's not even telling Frodo about it.  At least Connor sees you killing him.  Frodo doesn't get that opportunity.  None of this was even remotely his fault.  He shouldn't be having to do it at all.

EmperorSahlertz:
[quote]
VThe only really dark part of the trilogy I remember is Shelob's lair. Now that part would be fitting into a dark fantasy setting, but the rest is High Fantasy (some would call it low fantasy because of the lack of "real" magic).
While the overall goal in DAO isn't questionable, all of your decissions getting there are however.
[/quote]
None of the decisions you're allowed to make in DAO are at all morally questionable.  They are all above reproach.  Many supposedly "good" partymates will disapprove of certain decisions, but this is because of their biases, not because of morals.
[quote]
But I guess we should give up trying to convince you otherwise, since you are being way too unreasoably stubborn in your point of view.
[/quote]
Stubborn implies that any of you actually have made a point other than reiterating the premise in various ways without supporting argument.  You haven't.  So far, the most compelling argument has been that DAO has arguably more shock value - it's not a particularly strong argument.

Present a stronger argument, if you want.  Reiterating that DAO is dark is not a strong argument - it's just repetition.
[quote]
EDIT: Just for the record, Gandalf sacrificed himself knowing he would die, as in die, as in the end, to make sure that the ringbearer escaped. Being a Maiar does NOT make Gandalf immortal, it makes him immortal to any being of lesser power than him, yes, but a Balrog is a Maiar too. Gandalf died on the top of that mountain, and for all intents and purposes he should be completely gone, however the creator god (who's name eludes me) intervened. This is the only case of divine intervention in the whole LotR mythology.
[/quote]
Nonsense.  Spirits like Maiar are bound to the world by nature.  They cannot leave it.  They cannot be destroyed, though their physical forms can be.  It is impossible for them to die as mortals do.  It is possible for them to be dispersed or rendered powerless, but not die as mortals know death.
Refer to the Silmarillion.  Other sources concur.  There is no divine intervention happening here.  Eru never intervenes at all - he never has since he sent the Valar to the world.  When he died, he left his body (he natively doesn't have one, actually) and stood before the Valar to receive counsel and orders.  He was obviously not destroyed, since he could stand and take orders.

[Roxlimn]

Kabraxal:



LOTR also has rape, murder, abuse, loss, betrayal, and moral consequences. If nothing else, LOTR is all about morals and moral consequences.

In DAO, you CANNOT choose to side with the Darkspawn and doom the world. Frodo actually did just as Isildur did before him. It was the purest chance that his moral failure did not result in Sauron winning. Pure Deus Ex Machina.



If people will agree that Grimm Fairy Tales and Hans Christian Anderson and LOTR is what passes for "dark," these days, then I will agree that DAO is a "dark fantasy."

[Lotion Soronarr]

Roxlimn wrote...

I type very quickly. And I have a little time to kill. And Alistair annoys me that much.

You fail at everything.

Losing Alistair is NOT a moral dilemma!!!  If he wants to leave off saving the world because he's too busy throwing a hissyfit, then that's his business, isn't it?  Where is the moral dilemma?

What? You don't see a moral dillema here? Erm...hmm...after reading your posts again I think I get it. You define "good" and "bad" simply by outcome and nothing more.

[Roxlimn]

You fail at everything.

Touch typing is actually a very useful skill. I type as fast as I speak, and I read faster. You should try it. I highly recommend acquiring these very useful skills.

What? You don't see a moral dillema here? Erm...hmm...after reading your posts again I think I get it. You define "good" and "bad" simply by outcome and nothing more.

No. I define "good" and "bad" by actual, real moral principles, not because things shock me because I'm that sheltered and innocent. Few decisions in this game are even morally questionable, and even then, not by much.



Vengeance is not proposed as a morally correct principle in many real religions, and not in the Chant of Light, which teaches compassion. Alistair in this situation is being driven by a desire for revenge. The moral choice is quite clear cut and it goes against Alistair.



The only reason I can see where people might find this difficult is if they don't really know moral principles through theological study, or if they're allowing their friendship to override moral considerations, which isn't exactly a moral choice.



The less moral choice is to kill Loghain, but even though it's not morally superior, it does have justification in political policy - it's good policy to kill him in order to facilitate political unity, which is ultimately good for many, many commoners.

[Waleis]

I think the developers had to balance incorporation of serious (dark) themes, and playability. you don't want to depress the players. imo, they could've made the game a bit darker, but all things considered i think they did an amazing job! This is literally the best RPG I've ever encountered.

[Roxlimn]

I LOVE the way the game is made. It's not dark, but it is quite good, and I prefer my fantasy heroic and uplifting, which is how DAO is, even when you try to make the worst moral choices.



It never really allows you to do things like make a Broodmother yourself, side with the Archdemon, or create abominations for you own ends. By and large, all the choices are okay.

[Vormaerin]

Roxlimn wrote...

Eh what?  It's times like this when I have to wonder if people are reading the same books I am.  Elrond's sons do NOT choose the Gift of Men - they're counted among the Elves, like their father.  The Eldar don't HAVE a gift!  The fates are sundered and you choose to be counted among Elves or among Men, but this choice is only ever given to the Half-Elven, and the three Houses of Edain.

We don't know why Feanor was upset at Finwe's death.  Certainly no one else seems to mind overmuch being confined to the Halls of Mandos - it's not presented as unpleasant place.  Presumably, nothing in the Undying Lands is really all that unpleasant.

I don't suppose that the Gift of Man is a bad thing and I never said so.  Read my posts.  What's bad is that Arwen is forever sundered from ALL her kin until the world is unmade, and possibly even beyond that.  That means that not even Death reunites her with Elrond.  We don't know that she actually ever goes and meets Aragorn again, because the Gift of Man means that Men go beyond the world after death and no knowledge exists that tells anyone what becomes of Men.

Characters in Tolkien works don't choose the Gift of Man "over and over again."  In fact, as time went by it came to be known as the Doom of Men instead.  This is explicitly mentioned in the Silmarillion.  Most Elves do not envy Men this Gift, whereas the Numenoreans increasingly came to fear it and envy Elves their Immortality.  In fact, that is why Numenor is no more - the Numenoreans invaded the Undying Lands, in order to seize immortality by force of arms.

Tolkein never explicitly states what Elladan and Elrohir's choice was, but he does state that the children of Elrond have to chose when Elrond himself departs Middle Earth.   And we know that Elladan and Elrohir chose to remain behind rather than go to Valinor.   Its widely accepted that they chose to be counted amongst Men, though I'll grant its never explicitly stated.

Elrond ends up alone, because he's the only one of his kindred to chose to be numbers amongst the Eldar.  His brother chose to be a Man.  All three of his children chose to be a Man.   His father wanted to chose to be a Man, but his mother wanted to be an Elf, so Earendil settled for sailing around in space all day.   

Of the 10 half elves we know of, three die before they get a choice.    Of the remainder, exactly two prefer (Elrond and Elwing) prefer to be Eldar.   And one choses against his own preference because of his wife (Earendil).   I thik that five of the 7 choices being "pro Man" is quite telling.

We don't know what Illuvatar plans for Men, other than that they will join in the Second Music of the Ainur.  But Aragorn and other express the belief that they will be reunited beyond the bounds of this world.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that Elves don't mind being in the Halls of Mandos.  No one is apathetic about the death of Finwe or the Kinslaying of Aqualonde or the sack of the Havens.   And the first two took place in the Undying Lands.    Melian the Maia was broken by grief at Thingol's death.  She reacted far worse than to the mortality of Luthien.   Why, if Mandos' Hall is a vacation home?   She's a Maia, she could certainly visit if anyone could...

Yes, it becomes known as the Doom of Men.   Because people are 'tards.     Its repeated over and over again that it was lack of understanding that soured Men on their Gift.   Everyone who was wise or enlightened (Gandalf, Aragorn, etc) saw it as a good thing.

You are right.  We obviously haven't read the same books.  Most of what you claim in there is not....

[Roxlimn]

Fans choose to speculate that Elladan and Elrohir ultimately choose to be with Men because they remained in Rivendell after a time. Tolkien himself deferred. No further mention is made. I think they chose to count among the Eldar, since they've deferred the choice for so long and have no compelling reason to choose the Gift of Man.



So my count is quite different from your "5 of 7." By my estimate, most of the Half-Elven chose NOT to count among Men, whether to defer the choice or to choose against, only Arwen and Elros actually ever benefited from the Gift of Man by choice. I'm not dithering and making all kinds of qualifications there - only two meet that simple criterion. It's only happened twice. Twice is not "over and over again."

We don't know what Illuvatar plans for Men, other than that they will join in the Second Music of the Ainur. But Aragorn and other express the belief that they will be reunited beyond the bounds of this world.

I don't see how Aragorn is any authority on the matter. Why should we be taking his word for it?

I'm not sure where you get the impression that Elves don't mind being in the Halls of Mandos. No one is apathetic about the death of Finwe or the Kinslaying of Aqualonde or the sack of the Havens. And the first two took place in the Undying Lands. Melian the Maia was broken by grief at Thingol's death. She reacted far worse than to the mortality of Luthien. Why, if Mandos' Hall is a vacation home? She's a Maia, she could certainly visit if anyone could...

I get the impression that the Elves don't mind being there because it's never portrayed as a bad place. Sure, the Elves minded dying and being killed. I'm sure you would, too. But that doesn't mean that getting to spend the rest of your time post-recuperation in a glorious land isn't enjoyable for all that.



Melian DID return to Aman following Thingol's death. Since Thingol is presumably reembodied there, she can see him. At no point does Elrond speak of death separating kin - the sundering of fates does that, not death.



As far as I can tell, Feanor is the only Elf specifically mentioned as being kept in the Halls bodily against his will. Many Elves reembody and stay in the Halls, but they're not really restrained.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Roxlimn wrote...
Touch typing is actually a very useful skill. I type as fast as I speak, and I read faster. You should try it. I highly recommend acquiring these very useful skills.

Thinking before typing is ever more usefull.
Like David Gaider said a long time before (there were quite a few of these "dark" threads), "dark" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. In the eyes of hte devs is is a dark fantasy.
I gree with them. I'ts not dark dark, but light dark..or medium dark?

You can't really excepct them to hit hom on everyones definition of everything.

[Roxlimn]

Well, that only means it's as meaningless as I said it was. If everything is relative, then I can point to Power Rangers as a dark fantasy because it's darker than Dora the Explorer, which is MY arbitrary standard.

[Rhian-Skyblade]

Dragon Age being called Dark Fantasy just works fine for me.

There are enough cruel, bitter and sad elements in there and not all ends happily ever after.



A story doesn't need to be entirely "all is doomed and lost - no happy end and nothing nice happening... just doom and despair" in order to be called dark.

And Dragon Age possesses enough dark elements that touch some of us emotionally, turn our guts to knots, cause heart ache and what not - that it deserves to be called dark fantasy.



Honestly, if you watch or read news - what's happening out there is pretty dark, too. All the nice things happening, like love, birth, happiness don't make it go away or any better. Just maybe more bearable... but if you consider it all - even our real world is dark.

[Roxlimn]

Apparently, everything outside children's TV-acceptable fare is dark these days. Heck, I get the feeling that if Pokemon actually spent some time detailing the morals of capturing random monsters for violent combat, it'd be "dark," too.

[Aldandil]

I'd like to add that I think the OP is somewhat off when it comes to the interpretation of the word "Dark Fantasy". To the OP, it seems to mean that the game will be full of horrible events. I suppose it has more than a few elements of that, but I don't get the impression that that is what BioWare was trying to fill the game with. The "dark" in this game is more related to not making good and evil as clear cut as in for instance LOTR , an example often mentioned in this thread. 

I would say that it's hard to argue that the LOTR isn't about a struggle between good and evil, although that struggle is described in many different layers. In LOTR we have good guys and bad guys, where the good guys are good through and through and the bad guys are infinitely bad.

I get the impression that DA:O is trying to be a bit more relative. The Blight is obviously evil in the sense that it's an unreasonable force intent on destroying everything. However, the Blight is mostly the backdrop for the game, most of the time is spent elsewhere. I feel that the developers have tried to make the overlapping conflict here not good vs evil, but the Blight vs humans, dwarves and elves. They have tried to add characters that are self-serving rather than good or evil, and some of them are being pretty ruthless about it. This is a realistic take, in my opinion, rather than the romantic approach that most "High" fantasy novels follow (LOTR being the trendsetter).

Is DA:O very dark then? Well, not a hell of a lot, IMO. But it certainly can be described as dark fantasy. I think the darkness can be put in question but not in the way and with the emphasis of the OP. "DARK fantasy ?!?!?!?" probably should be reduced to "Dark fantasy?", and it should be discussed in other terms than "how much nasty stuff can be put in a game".

Modifié par Aldandil, 02 décembre 2009 - 11:21 .