78 réponses à ce sujet

[Behindyounow]

telephasic wrote...

You have NO REASON to pick the option of persuading the werewolves to kill all the Dalish. You don't have a werewolf treaty, you have no reason to believe the werewolves will help you. 

You have plenty of reason. Elves are the scum of the Earth, and the world would be better off with them dead.

[elijah_kaine]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

I disagree that there is a lack of moral ambiguity in Dragon Age. It's probably not as high as the ambiguity of The Witcher, say, but it IS true that for the majority of the decisions in the game, especially the major ones, you're not choosing between "evil" and "good" choices, you're choosing between being a jerk or being a nice guy, being selfish or being altruistic, or even just trying to figure out what will be the greatest help in defeating the darkspawn, all considerations of selfishness or nicety aside.

Promote Alistair for the throne or Anora?  Destroy the Anvil of the Void, or restart it?  There's no real "right" answer for these situations.  You're just trying to choose what will be the most help in stopping the Blight.

Dragon Age is more ambiguous than almost any other RPG, so I think Bioware succeeded.

Oh I don't mean to come across as saying that Bioware wasn't sucessful with making a complelling game. They did, and a lot of the choices and story moments are excellent. There's nothing glaringly flawed about the game in the least, there's no part of the game that makes me cringe out of dislike for something they've done, the game is an excellent game.

I don't however want to ignore the room for imporvement the choice and consquences of the game have out of the love for the game. There is always room for imporvement.

To often these discussions (anywhere on the internets) tend to turn into a lot of people picking one side of the arugement (which is human nature) in that there's always an urge to be clearly on one side of the fence. Certaintly there's a moral choice or decision that you felt could have been more compeling or more complicated or even, there must be a lack of a choice somewhere that represents a missed oppritunity for you?

[elijah_kaine]

Behindyounow wrote...

telephasic wrote...

You have NO REASON to pick the option of persuading the werewolves to kill all the Dalish. You don't have a werewolf treaty, you have no reason to believe the werewolves will help you. 

You have plenty of reason. Elves are the scum of the Earth, and the world would be better off with them dead.

Man I wanted to smack that storyteller elf around when I was playing as my human noble.

"Oh look it's a human. You know what this is the perfect time for that story about how evil humans are."

"So you just decided to tell that story at random then? It wouldn't happen to be your racism toward humans?" 

[Taleroth]

elijah_kaine wrote...

Behindyounow wrote...

telephasic wrote...

You have NO REASON to pick the option of persuading the werewolves to kill all the Dalish. You don't have a werewolf treaty, you have no reason to believe the werewolves will help you. 

You have plenty of reason. Elves are the scum of the Earth, and the world would be better off with them dead.

Man I wanted to smack that storyteller elf around when I was playing as my human noble.

"Oh look it's a human. You know what this is the perfect time for that story about how evil humans are."

"So you just decided to tell that story at random then? It wouldn't happen to be your racism toward humans?" 

Give the guy a break.  He only knows 3 stories, that one, the woods one, and one that's REALLY racist.

[RunCDFirst]

Roxlimn wrote...

You can't actually choose to be that much of a bad guy in Dragon Age. You can make some questionable decisions, but they never really offer the evil outcome. You can't for instance, choose to ally yourself with the Darkspawn.

I actually like that just the way it is. I'm not sure I would like to play a game where half the content means I have to be a genuinely bad guy.

This has come up a couple of times. I don't mind the developers removing the Chaotic Stupid options from games. There really is no place for them.

Unless, there's an option for you to join the darkspawn and immediately you get a cutscene of them taking you underground, turning you into a broodmother/eating you followed by the game over screen.

[jinx01313]

Roxlimn wrote...

You can't actually choose to be that much of a bad guy in Dragon Age. You can make some questionable decisions, but they never really offer the evil outcome. You can't for instance, choose to ally yourself with the Darkspawn.

I actually like that just the way it is. I'm not sure I would like to play a game where half the content means I have to be a genuinely bad guy.

Who says all evil gets along?

[Giygas Starman]

Somebody may have mentioned this, sorry then for repeating you, unknown creature!



One quest has this little girl who is tricked by a cat, okay? You have the obvious choice to kill the demon who takes the girl down with her (desire demon ftw) or let the demon possess said girl and let father to said girl think all is ok. But, there are more choices, like make the father possessed, or lie to miss DD and solve puzzle BUT kill the Desirable demon while girl still survives.



Last choice is undoubtedly the good choice, but the rest? What is good and evil amongst their choices? You tell me, I always kill the children when I am given the choice.

[elijah_kaine]

Taleroth wrote...

Give the guy a break.  He only knows 3 stories, that one, the woods one, and one that's REALLY racist.

Guess I haven't heard the really racist one yet. Man that guy made me mad, lol, I remember sitting at the screen frowning at him. I was so waiting for (Smack). To pop up. I did argue with him though. Pretty satisfying.

[Behindyounow]

Roxlimn wrote...

I actually like that just the way it is. I'm not sure I would like to play a game where half the content means I have to be a genuinely bad guy.

But that discrimates players who like playing evil characters. The majority of games force you to play as the good guy. Its refreshing to be able to play an evil character for once.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giygas Starman wrote...

Somebody may have mentioned this, sorry then for repeating you, unknown creature!

One quest has this little girl who is tricked by a cat, okay? You have the obvious choice to kill the demon who takes the girl down with her (desire demon ftw) or let the demon possess said girl and let father to said girl think all is ok. But, there are more choices, like make the father possessed, or lie to miss DD and solve puzzle BUT kill the Desirable demon while girl still survives.

Last choice is undoubtedly the good choice, but the rest? What is good and evil amongst their choices? You tell me, I always kill the children when I am given the choice.

Kant would tell you that the fourth choice, which involves lying, is wrong because you cannot wish your maxim of lying to be a universal law.
So a Kantian would kill the demon and risk getting the girl killed.

[elijah_kaine]

RunCDFirst wrote...

This has come up a couple of times. I don't mind the developers removing the Chaotic Stupid options from games. There really is no place for them.

Unless, there's an option for you to join the darkspawn and immediately you get a cutscene of them taking you underground, turning you into a broodmother/eating you followed by the game over screen.

Personally I don't miss the Chatoic Stupid Choices at all.

You know the "Pet the cat who won't stop bugging you" "Kick the cat who won't stop bugging you' or "Skin the cat and eat him becaue he won't shut up.' Because there's nothing really compelling about that. Although it's hilarious. mmm mm good, cat, the other white meat.

[RunCDFirst]

Behindyounow wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

I actually like that just the way it is. I'm not sure I would like to play a game where half the content means I have to be a genuinely bad guy.

But that discrimates players who like playing evil characters. The majority of games force you to play as the good guy. Its refreshing to be able to play an evil character for once.

Define evil.

I think there should be options to be unscrupulous without being completely mentally retarded. And DAO has those options, whether you want to massacre the elves (though there should have had the werewolves swear fealty before suggesting this), wipe out the mages, abandon Redcliffe etc...

[elijah_kaine]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Giygas Starman wrote...

Somebody may have mentioned this, sorry then for repeating you, unknown creature!

One quest has this little girl who is tricked by a cat, okay? You have the obvious choice to kill the demon who takes the girl down with her (desire demon ftw) or let the demon possess said girl and let father to said girl think all is ok. But, there are more choices, like make the father possessed, or lie to miss DD and solve puzzle BUT kill the Desirable demon while girl still survives.

Last choice is undoubtedly the good choice, but the rest? What is good and evil amongst their choices? You tell me, I always kill the children when I am given the choice.

Kant would tell you that the fourth choice, which involves lying, is wrong because you cannot wish your maxim of lying to be a universal law.
So a Kantian would kill the demon and risk getting the girl killed.

There's a lot of stuff going on there and it's a choice I would like to see more results from then the brief ones given in the game.  KnightofPheniox already pointed out the fourth choice's moral problem. the first choice to attack and risk the girl dying is the noble choice, following a strict code of ethics. It's unethical to lie to the demon and betray her, but you do save the girl in the process.

With the letting the girl get possessed or dad getting possessed you have to ask yourself, it it wrong for the demon to want to be free? To explore the world? If your willing to make a deal with the demon, is it better to give the demon the father as he's already lived more of his life? Do you just let the demon have what it wants and take the girl, or do you just not care and let the demon have what she wants. So there is complcation there, I would love however to see more consequence.

[BlueEyes_Austin]

I found Bhelen versus Harrowmont the most difficult choice in the game, actually. As an outsider I had no clear insight into what the choice entailed, only a set of self-serving stories from each side.

[telephasic]

Herr Uhl wrote...
Yes, the heroic choice *coughs*.

I admit the way I worded it sounded harsh.  But ultimately, at least IRL (not RPing a character) slavery is never conscionable, even if it helps defeat a "greater evil."  I think 90% of people in modern western society would agree on that.  

[telephasic]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I disagree. I tried getting the werewolves to join the army and it felt gratifying. I wouldn't trust the werewolves on their own, but one can trust the lady of the forest, who obviously doesn't want to see the blight win.

It's actually very pragmatic. You either get weakling elves, many of which are cursed. Or you get badass powerful werewolves, who will get a boost to their numbers via cursed elves. It's not chaotic stupid at all. It's ultimate pragmatism. And you can convince your party members of that fact.

Once again, you only could do this because of metagame knowlege.  You don't have a werewolf treaty.  And unlike the templars, they don't offer you their help if only you solve the pesky dalish issue.  

[telephasic]

Behindyounow wrote...
You have plenty of reason. Elves are the scum of the Earth, and the world would be better off with them dead.

Maybe, it's a very thin line. 

As I see it, you have three different motivations in RPing a decision.  

1.  Does your character think it's the choice most applicable to their own internal morality?
2.  Does your character believe they will personally gain from the decision?
3.  Does your character believe the grey wardens will benefit/the blight will be easier to stop with this decision?

Now, RPing a human committed to elven genocide could fall under all three, if they were sufficiently racist to think elves could make no contributions worth noting.  However, if the decision is coupled with a string of others tilted towards the ruthless, it basically comes down to chaotic stupid, coming up with a rationale after the fact to excuse your "evil" decisions. 

[Nosuchluck]

telephasic wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...
Yes, the heroic choice *coughs*.

I admit the way I worded it sounded harsh.  But ultimately, at least IRL (not RPing a character) slavery is never conscionable, even if it helps defeat a "greater evil."  I think 90% of people in modern western society would agree on that.  

I don't. If a hundred people have to be enslaved inside rock for my entire culture to survive? I'd go for it no questions asked.

[RunCDFirst]

Nosuchluck wrote...

telephasic wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...
Yes, the heroic choice *coughs*.

I admit the way I worded it sounded harsh.  But ultimately, at least IRL (not RPing a character) slavery is never conscionable, even if it helps defeat a "greater evil."  I think 90% of people in modern western society would agree on that.  

I don't. If a hundred people have to be enslaved inside rock for my entire culture to survive? I'd go for it no questions asked.

That's good, I hope you're the first in line for golemfication.

[Nosuchluck]

RunCDFirst wrote...

Nosuchluck wrote...

telephasic wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...
Yes, the heroic choice *coughs*.

I admit the way I worded it sounded harsh.  But ultimately, at least IRL (not RPing a character) slavery is never conscionable, even if it helps defeat a "greater evil."  I think 90% of people in modern western society would agree on that.  

I don't. If a hundred people have to be enslaved inside rock for my entire culture to survive? I'd go for it no questions asked.

That's good, I hope you're the first in line for golemfication.

Naw, I wouldn't mind rounding up the beggers in Orzammar and offering them "free food and shelter" aslong as they come inside to my forge though

Modifié par Nosuchluck, 04 décembre 2009 - 06:47 .

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Wolf68 wrote...

I can't agree with every statement.

Let's take the Orzammar storyline as an example.

Supporting the obviously good Harrowmond, destroying the anvil, establishing a chantry ... results in a "bad" epilogue text.
Taking a more evil approach results in a great future for Orzammar. As a common dwarf you are even declared paragon with an own house.

That was suprising for me. And a bit confusing.
Being rewarded for being opportunistic? That's almost like in real life.
I am not sure, what the developers wanted to tell us. Doing the right thing is not always the right? Orzammar is better served with a murderous tyrant? Or maybe a simple "lol owned".

To be honest, I would have preferred a clear good-evil morale. Being good helps the people, being evil don't. Something like that.

I actually felt it was reasonably accurate. Bhalen isn't evil. He is just determined and ruthless. Harrowmont isn't good, he is traditional and honorable to a point. He believes in traditional dwarven values, the same values that created Dust Town and keep a good fraction of the citizenry as non-people...

I saw him as a good guy until I had the bad epilogue and then really paid attention to dwarven society. Harrowmont let me down but that is who he is. Tradition not progress. I am actually curious to see how Harrowmont will act towards a Casteless Dwarf.

If you check on Bhalen, you'll hear about the scandal of him taking a casteless bride. Bhalen treats all dwarves like dwarves. I wouldn't call that evil. I call that more noble than cleaving to a tradition of having an entire group of non-people.

[DeathWyrmNexus]

RunCDFirst wrote...

Behindyounow wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

I actually like that just the way it is. I'm not sure I would like to play a game where half the content means I have to be a genuinely bad guy.

But that discrimates players who like playing evil characters. The majority of games force you to play as the good guy. Its refreshing to be able to play an evil character for once.

Define evil.

I think there should be options to be unscrupulous without being completely mentally retarded. And DAO has those options, whether you want to massacre the elves (though there should have had the werewolves swear fealty before suggesting this), wipe out the mages, abandon Redcliffe etc...

This...

There isn't any real point to joining the Darkspawn. They are empty shells and pawns of the archdemon. At best, you would alienate everybody in your party and end up a petty Alpha Darkspawn. I am all for evil, I just like there to be a point as well. Evil for the sake of evil is rather dumb.

I was actually annoyed at the kill the elves option because it didn't seem to have a point. Witherfang didn't want them dead and I doubt werewolves would be able to get along with the other allies I could get together. So they would be worthless.

I was furious when I did the reaver quest and they basically said "Lol wut" when I told them to help against the darkspawn and that **** Morrigan didn't say a damn thing which pissed me off more because she was the one who suggested they would be useful...

So yea, I am all for the lack of Chaotic Stupid in my games. If I am going to be evil, I want this as the driving question: "What's in it for me?"

If I am a nice guy, I tend to get presents and acclaim. I am REWARDED for my actions. I actually wanted a Slap Morrigan With Story Logic response when I was in Redcliff. "Why help these whiny villagers?" "Because they will give me ****, you oblivious tart!!!!"

If I am evil, I want to be rewarded for it. Being a blood mage was its own reward, as in you get some of the most hardcore spells in the game, period. Other than that, I didn't see a point in being evil. It just didn't do anything towards my goals. Siding with the cult got me jack and **** as well as a Guardian fight that pissed me off. Killing the elves didn't seem to advance my cause at all. I'm a Grey Warden, not a LOL KILLER, I have a mission. I am okay with doing evil to accomplish my mission. However, evil didn't pay so why bother?

I love being a hardcore badass. It is why this game makes me happy. I would actually enjoy intelligent evil options. You actually get a couple of them in the game and I enjoy them. More would be nice but I have to concur that Chaotic Stupid can stay the **** out and what is in there can leave.

[slackbheep]

Dragon Age never really seemed to be about choosing between good and evil, it was about choosing just how ruthless you were willing to be to stop the blight. For all people have complained about playing "evil" resulting in less rewards playing like a ruthless bastard seems to reward you the most.

[RunCDFirst]

Nosuchluck wrote...

RunCDFirst wrote...
That's good, I hope you're the first in line for golemfication.

Naw, I wouldn't mind rounding up the beggers in Orzammar and offering them "free food and shelter" aslong as they come inside to my forge though

How (dwarven) noble of you.

Modifié par RunCDFirst, 04 décembre 2009 - 07:21 .

[CJohnJones]

elijah_kaine wrote...

Behindyounow wrote...

telephasic wrote...

You have NO REASON to pick the option of persuading the werewolves to kill all the Dalish. You don't have a werewolf treaty, you have no reason to believe the werewolves will help you. 

You have plenty of reason. Elves are the scum of the Earth, and the world would be better off with them dead.

Man I wanted to smack that storyteller elf around when I was playing as my human noble.

"Oh look it's a human. You know what this is the perfect time for that story about how evil humans are."

"So you just decided to tell that story at random then? It wouldn't happen to be your racism toward humans?" 

Right. Do YOU want to do the laundry and scrub the floors? no? Then leave the Elves alone.