76 réponses à ce sujet

[Dessalines]

I did not think Dragon Age gave you the evil option. it is not like when Alistair told you about being alll Grey Wardens die that you got the option to gut him. right there. Itis not like you could then just present your armies to Loghain and fight the Blight that way. No, you have to wait, and have Alistair executed. Which isn't really evil, because all of your companions obvious agree with your decision, because they never mention it again.

[Malsumis]

Allan Schumacher wrote...



I think it depends on the circumstances. One thing I found interesting about DAO's setting is that whether or not you perceive something as evil depends on your ethical perception of the situation. The fact that some people consider the mages evil, and others consider the templars evil, is what I think is so fascinating. Making a deal with a demon to unlock blood magic definitely strikes me as evil though!

Templars and mages is not about good and evil, it's just a question on what the PC believes. But some actions are good/evil regardless of perception. The demon choice is one of those, an option for self interest without caring about others. Both groups would call that a callous and selfish act.

Allan Schumacher wrote..

A game like KOTOR has more clearly defined good and evil, so I think it's easier to work that in.

KOTOR just allowed labeling it easier. I'm not asking for a measuring tool or an icon that that indicates evil, just the choice.

A  Mage, making deals with demons left and right to increase his power. Fits the universe.

A Warrior/noble, murdering and bribing people in order to increase his station. Fits the universe

A thief, robbing/murdering/extorting for more gold and more underworld power. Fits the universe

Betrayal of those around them. So often the PC will be betrayed at some point, very rarely is this option given to the PC.

Allan Schumacher wrote..

I like the idea of being able to choose good and evil, there's also times where it just doesn't make sense (especially considering the limitations of plot divergence). I don't think there's really a way to do a more pure "evil" type of playthrough in DAO given that the Darkspawn nemesis was not something that can really be bargained with orsided with.

Evil will normally be self interested, obviously the blight is a threat to themselves and therefore must be dealt with. However that didn't mean you couldn't create sub plots where the PC uses the current bad situation to improve their lot in life. 

Or what about not having a plot where the entire universe is at stake. The war between mages and templar is an 'epic' story, but the world isn't going to be annhilated be either faction...... Assuming the mages behave themselves.

Allan Schumacher wrote..

In what sort of ways could evil have been more interesting beyond a "MUahahaha I am evil so I choose to kill you all!" (I don't find that very interesting ) when looking at the DA games?

Pure unadulterated self interest, is one way. Lust for power another, revenge etc.

GodWood wrote...

Malsumis wrote...

But that is wrong. Sure siding with either mages or templars isn't evil,
but actions required to do so could easily be.

You missed the
point.

Choices shouldn't be labled as 'good' and 'evil'. These concepts are subjective.

I'm not asking for the label, I'm asking for the choice. Some actions are good and some are evil, viewpoint does not matter. Naturally the said person doesn't believe they are evil, but the world around them can.

See evil is a broad term, that can include many traits:

Self interest
No empathy
callousness
Rage
Lust for power/money/individuals
deceitfulness
etc

At the end of Kotor and JE the PC was the villain. I would like to see a return to this. This does not have to overwrite the Mage vs Templar story, as in both cases a villain or a hero would work.

Maria Caliban wrote...

The metaphysics of both the DnD and Star Wars games was created by someone other than them.

They included all those evil options because the setting required them.

True, but what about JE? Jade Empire had quite a developed 'evil' path, even allowing you to break your companions into your way of thinking.

Modifié par Malsumis, 14 avril 2012 - 06:34 .

[Lord Gremlin]

I loved evil path in Jade Empire, was immensely satisfying. I wonder if modern Bioware is even good enough to make something like that.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

I loved evil path in Jade Empire, was immensely satisfying. I wonder if modern Bioware is even good enough to make something like that.

DOES MODERN BIOWARE HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE AN INCONSISTENT SET OF CHOICES THAT DON'T MATCH LORE AND DON'T HOLD UP TO THE INITIAL PROMISE OF THE MORALITY SYSTEM'S DESIGN?

[Cultist]

Maria Caliban wrote...
loose = not tight
lose = opposite of win

Yes, typing from smartphone. Damn thing think that it knows better what I mean.

As for  KOTOR, sadly, we got very rudimental way of shifting your companions' alignments towards yours. that resulted mostly in some dialogues and their appearance. In Dragon Age: Origins, we got great option of "Hardening" with Allistair and Lelianna. Corrupting them was one of the most fun experiences in DA NPC interaction. Sadly, we couldn't destroy Lelianna's faith in the Maker, but turning her from pious ways is fine too.

[Massakkolia]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Allow us to be a manipulative bastard.

Allowing players to become the Loghains, the Arl Howes and such would be awesome. I don't say those characters are "evil" but allowing us to manipulate the scenes, letting us be the chess player rather than the pawn, would be fascinating.

You'd need to commit things which most people would say is "evil", though.

This is the most appropritate way to approach diverse morality in Dragon Age series, in my opinion. "Evil" in its blackest form just doesn't quite fit to the overall feel of DA. Moral ambiguity and wide range of motivations is much more fitting to Thedas than black-and-white dichotomy. I want more options, which can be interpretted as cruel but actually have solid reasoning behind them. PC should have a chance to be self-serving, power-hungry and manipulative while maintaining her senses.

With evil characters the problem is that, well, they tend to be insane. It works well in The Elder Scrolls type of games, because the plot or companions aren't very important. In an open world what matters most is your interaction with the environment. Motivations aren't that important unless you want them to be.

As stated earlier, the evil path also works in a fairytale like setting, which Star Wars universe ultimately is. Dragon Age is reaching for something more realistic and relatable. Most importantly, DA places a lot of importance on the core plot and relationships. These can be very difficult to write with depth if the moral system of the game allows the PC to act irrationally. 

I do hope that DA3 will offer more space for players to create characters that are ambitious and ready to commit cruelties to support their goals. These choices just have to be logical within the context of the main storyline. DA:O did a pretty good job with that but I felt DA2 limited my chances to roleplay a manipulative person cohesively throughout the game. 

[Takamori The Templar]

Sorry its not a limitation of the setting, its a matter of how much time you will have to expand your story.
Enough to add a Good Goal, Neutral goal and a Evil Goal.
Saying that being "Dragon Age" is the limitation, its a big fat fallacy.

[Dasher1010]

I'd personally like to see a good faction and an evil one with different ways to complete quests for both. For instance, you can be a hero fighting for evil or you can fight for the good faction while also killing anyone or anything you possibly can. Also, the villain faction will have some redeeming qualities and the good faction will have some less noble goals.

[Wozearly]

Ria wrote...

"Evil" in its blackest form just doesn't quite fit to the overall feel of DA. Moral ambiguity and wide range of motivations is much more fitting to Thedas than black-and-white dichotomy. I want more options, which can be interpretted as cruel but actually have solid reasoning behind them. PC should have a chance to be self-serving, power-hungry and manipulative while maintaining her senses.

With evil characters the problem is that, well, they tend to be insane...DA places a lot of importance on the core plot and relationships. These can be very difficult to write with depth if the moral system of the game allows the PC to act irrationally. 

I do hope that DA3 will offer more space for players to create characters that are ambitious and ready to commit cruelties to support their goals. These choices just have to be logical within the context of the main storyline. DA:O did a pretty good job with that but I felt DA2 limited my chances to roleplay a manipulative person cohesively throughout the game. 

My dark side Revan and dark side Exile were particularly evil characters, but neither was insane or irrational. They were driven by a desire for revenge, they valued the acquisition of power, used their abilities for selfish ends to achieve that, manipulated their allies if it suited them - and anyone who got in the way got stamped on.

I don't have a problem with the Paragon / Renegade approach to good vs evil acts (ie, you have a specific goal to achieve, but kind / cruel alternatives to get it done), but there's a risk it can feel unsatisfying if your perception as a player is that you ended up in exactly the same place at the end. That's fine if you're trying to roleplay a Renegade type, who gets the heroic things done to benefit others by being a git because they believe its more effective / they're just built that way, but it rings hollow if you're trying to roleplay someone who is actually primarily in it for themselves.

KotoR handled being evil well as a series. In the first, you had companions that turned on you once they realised your intentions, and even if the gameplay path through the endgame was very similar, the good / evil routes had a distinctly different feel, a very different beginning and a wildly different ending. In the second, you had the opportunity to sway the views of your companions, the dark side quest was almost the mirror image in terms of goals as the light side one, the allies you picked up were different...its a shame it was never completed as fully as intended because there were some fantastic ideas about two very different approaches to the ending, including your companions ending up at each others' throats.

Some of the most memorable parts in the 'evil' playthroughs in KotoR and DA:O were when either one-off actions or sustained decision-making forced one or more of your companions to try to stop you. A particularly devoted 'evil' playthrough of DA:O could lead to you killing six of your nine companions - four in open combat, two through your decisions. Now that's player agency in action.

Modifié par Wozearly, 14 avril 2012 - 10:58 .

[Cultist]

Certain actions should be unacceptable to some of your companions. I doubt pious Templar will accept protagonist that delve into Blood Magic rituals, sacrifices and pacts with Demons.

[nightcobra]

 this discussion reminds me of ammon jerro, a very well written character for neverwinter nights 2.
a warlock that sacrificed his humanity and made pacts with demons in order to stop a greater evil.

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I've also been the type of person that feels evil should sometimes be the one that just gets the better loot.  I dislike it when games seemingly provide the option to be evil in order to be self serving, but in the end make it so that the reward for being good is equivalent (or better).

If you're going to describe "evil" as "self-serving", you've introduced a fundamental problem into creating an "evil" sort of path--namely, that intentions are not the same as actions.  Look at Redcliffe as an example.  A self-serving person could quite easily decide that it's in their own personal interest to defend the town, because that'll leave more people alive for fighting the Archdemon later.  Or maybe, if anybody's going to be oppressing villagers, IT'S GOING TO BE THEM.  The only reason NOT to defend the town, actually, is . . . laziness.  

You could have rewritten the scene where you talk to Teagan in such a way that he urges you to abandon the town as strategically unimportant so you can save the Arl or do X other important task, reverse the companion's opinions, and it would make precisely the same amount of sense as before.  It might even be a more interesting occurance, because "do I help these people?" is such an overdone trope in heroic fantasy.

One solution to this, is to have the hero in either case do *exactly the same thing*, but have the manner in which they talk about it determine NPC reactions.  Granted, this can feel a little railroady and forced.  It also comes across kind of goofy when the "evil" way of talking about it is to *demand money*.  Why is it WRONG to want to get paid?  You gotta eat.  Your companions gotta eat.  You gotta upgrade your gear if you want to defeat that Archdemon sometime in the next century.  Maybe the townspeople were only gonna spend that money on booze and then beat their wives.  You're doing the world a favor by taking it off their hands.  Plus, maybe you were going to use it for the help and comfort of widows and orphans.  Since each situation/encounter area is divorced from the others, there's really no way to take into account aggregate or long-term consequences.

This is why having an "evil path" generally means you wind up with a system for a priori designating some stuff as "evil", and handing out "evil" points for it--because if you don't do this, the player may ascribe all different kinds of motives, purposes, and be aware of other results, which can make even kicking Baby Jesus in the nuts seem like it's only "a bit ruthless" in context.  It can also lead to a total disconnect when someone does something that *they* think is absolutely the "right" thing to do, then their companions call them a jerkface.  Granted, that's realism, but it still makes it basically impossible to really make an "evil path".

So instead of fussing about coming up with some way to let people be the evilest bastard who ever lived, maybe it'd be better to come up with options that let people express different perspectives on situations.  And also, letting them *mess with the NPCs*.  Here's my main suggestions for how to accomplish this:

1.  Let PCs defend their decisions.  Don't just have the PC make a decision, get friendship/rivalry points, and call it a day.  Have a concerned NPC protest (or express agreement), and then let the PC give a rationale for their decision.  THEN hand out the points.  You don't have to do this every time, but if you have enough important cusps of this type, it'll make a big difference as to whether the PC feels like a really nice guy or an absolute bastard
(or something else) to the PLAYER.

2.  Let the PC tell off someone even while "agreeing" with them.  You could even sneak in some interesting characterization this way by having certain companions or NPC's, after a SCATHING telling-off, still insist they think the PC is a "nice person".

3.  Let the PC do more things that NOBODY WANTS OR ASKED FOR.  Far too often, you're presented with a binary choice that amounts to either doing what Person A (who is shifty or unpleasant) wants, and doing what Person B wants (who seems nice until later on they go crazy and you have to kill them anyway).  Can we have more options where instead of retreiving the artifact for either A or B, you, say, break it down and sell the parts for money?  Or destroy it?  Or find Person C who you think would be better (or hilariously worse) and hand it off to THEM?  Let the PC generate some plans of their own, whether "nice" or downright awful.  This also ties gameplay and story more closely together in a lot of instances, because most of the "alternate solutions" ought to depend on you doing things like, say, exploring the area and planting a few bombs to blow up the building where the bad guys are supposed to meet with you, or going around and meeting other people in town who might have an interest in X situation, stuff like that.

 

[esper]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I've also been the type of person that feels evil should sometimes be the one that just gets the better loot.  I dislike it when games seemingly provide the option to be evil in order to be self serving, but in the end make it so that the reward for being good is equivalent (or better).

If you're going to describe "evil" as "self-serving", you've introduced a fundamental problem into creating an "evil" sort of path--namely, that intentions are not the same as actions.  Look at Redcliffe as an example.  A self-serving person could quite easily decide that it's in their own personal interest to defend the town, because that'll leave more people alive for fighting the Archdemon later.  Or maybe, if anybody's going to be oppressing villagers, IT'S GOING TO BE THEM.  The only reason NOT to defend the town, actually, is . . . laziness.  

You could have rewritten the scene where you talk to Teagan in such a way that he urges you to abandon the town as strategically unimportant so you can save the Arl or do X other important task, reverse the companion's opinions, and it would make precisely the same amount of sense as before.  It might even be a more interesting occurance, because "do I help these people?" is such an overdone trope in heroic fantasy.

One solution to this, is to have the hero in either case do *exactly the same thing*, but have the manner in which they talk about it determine NPC reactions.  Granted, this can feel a little railroady and forced.  It also comes across kind of goofy when the "evil" way of talking about it is to *demand money*.  Why is it WRONG to want to get paid?  You gotta eat.  Your companions gotta eat.  You gotta upgrade your gear if you want to defeat that Archdemon sometime in the next century.  Maybe the townspeople were only gonna spend that money on booze and then beat their wives.  You're doing the world a favor by taking it off their hands.  Plus, maybe you were going to use it for the help and comfort of widows and orphans.  Since each situation/encounter area is divorced from the others, there's really no way to take into account aggregate or long-term consequences.

This is why having an "evil path" generally means you wind up with a system for a priori designating some stuff as "evil", and handing out "evil" points for it--because if you don't do this, the player may ascribe all different kinds of motives, purposes, and be aware of other results, which can make even kicking Baby Jesus in the nuts seem like it's only "a bit ruthless" in context.  It can also lead to a total disconnect when someone does something that *they* think is absolutely the "right" thing to do, then their companions call them a jerkface.  Granted, that's realism, but it still makes it basically impossible to really make an "evil path".

So instead of fussing about coming up with some way to let people be the evilest bastard who ever lived, maybe it'd be better to come up with options that let people express different perspectives on situations.  And also, letting them *mess with the NPCs*.  Here's my main suggestions for how to accomplish this:

1.  Let PCs defend their decisions.  Don't just have the PC make a decision, get friendship/rivalry points, and call it a day.  Have a concerned NPC protest (or express agreement), and then let the PC give a rationale for their decision.  THEN hand out the points.  You don't have to do this every time, but if you have enough important cusps of this type, it'll make a big difference as to whether the PC feels like a really nice guy or an absolute bastard
(or something else) to the PLAYER.

2.  Let the PC tell off someone even while "agreeing" with them.  You could even sneak in some interesting characterization this way by having certain companions or NPC's, after a SCATHING telling-off, still insist they think the PC is a "nice person".

3.  Let the PC do more things that NOBODY WANTS OR ASKED FOR.  Far too often, you're presented with a binary choice that amounts to either doing what Person A (who is shifty or unpleasant) wants, and doing what Person B wants (who seems nice until later on they go crazy and you have to kill them anyway).  Can we have more options where instead of retreiving the artifact for either A or B, you, say, break it down and sell the parts for money?  Or destroy it?  Or find Person C who you think would be better (or hilariously worse) and hand it off to THEM?  Let the PC generate some plans of their own, whether "nice" or downright awful.  This also ties gameplay and story more closely together in a lot of instances, because most of the "alternate solutions" ought to depend on you doing things like, say, exploring the area and planting a few bombs to blow up the building where the bad guys are supposed to meet with you, or going around and meeting other people in town who might have an interest in X situation, stuff like that.

 

This is exactly why I think that 'evil' is just not possible in dragon age. We thankfully have no morality points which means that we as player gets to design the pc's motivation, could we use more ruthless, manipulating and other such choices: yes. Should we name it an evil path, absolutely not.

[Malsumis]

esper wrote...
This is exactly why I think that 'evil' is just not possible in dragon age. We thankfully have no morality points which means that we as player gets to design the pc's motivation, could we use more ruthless, manipulating and other such choices: yes. Should we name it an evil path, absolutely not.

Evil not possible in Dragon Age? You know how people like to say, not everything is black and white? Well they're right, it's just that not everything is grey either.

An evil path is just that, an evil path. A path divergent from good/hero, the path of a villain. It has nothing to do with meters. Again the PC doesn't think himself as evil or the villain, but that doesn't mean the rest of the DA universe doesn't.

I should of named this thread: What happened to path of the villain? Too many people seem to be stuck in the SW/DnD way of thinking. I don't want a meter, I don't want the PC to be a cat stroking psychopath, what I want, is to be the villain of the story.

And yes being a villain is very posssible in the DA universe, regardless of point of view.

[esper]

Malsumis wrote...

esper wrote...
This is exactly why I think that 'evil' is just not possible in dragon age. We thankfully have no morality points which means that we as player gets to design the pc's motivation, could we use more ruthless, manipulating and other such choices: yes. Should we name it an evil path, absolutely not.

Evil not possible in Dragon Age? You know how people like to say, not everything is black and white? Well they're right, it's just that not everything is grey either.

An evil path is just that, an evil path. A path divergent from good/hero, the path of a villain. It has nothing to do with meters. Again the PC doesn't think himself as evil or the villain, but that doesn't mean the rest of the DA universe doesn't.

I should of named this thread: What happened to path of the villain? Too many people seem to be stuck in the SW/DnD way of thinking. I don't want a meter, I don't want the PC to be a cat stroking psychopath, what I want, is to be the villain of the story.

And yes being a villain is very posssible in the DA universe, regardless of point of view.

It was not possible in da:o because you were fighting an all killing threath. You could not, not stop the blight. You could do horrible thing, but all off them vould rationaled under 'it is necessary' thus making you just an anti-hero.

I would say that a Hawke who side with the templar is a villain. I am sure that the pro-templars disagree with me which is exactly the problem. I don't want the game to tell me what is villain and what is heroic. 

Do I want the option to take some horrible, ruthless options. Yes. Do I want the game to automatically brand me villain for it: No.  

The villain is not always the one kicking puppies, the hero is not always helping old grandmothers crossing streets.r. The hero might kick a puppy because they know that kicking that puppy will save the world. A villain might help the old grandmother cross a street because they know that they would gain acces to her familiys vault for it and they need those money to obtion weapon of worlddomination. Motivation is not something I want the game to decide for me when I pick an option so I say. They cannot make an evil path , they can just give us the option to act such and such and then it is up to the player to decide wherever their protagonist doing it for heroic or the villanous reasons.  

[Cultist]

You know, "It is necessary" is an excuse for everything. Absolutely. That way w can say that genocide is necessary, sacrificing people is necessary, slavery is necessary and so on.

[Malsumis]

esper wrote...
It was not possible in da:o because you were fighting an all killing threath. You could not, not stop the blight. You could do horrible thing, but all off them vould rationaled under 'it is necessary' thus making you just an anti-hero.

I said DA universe, not DA:O or DA2. In the DA universe, being the villain is possible.

esper wrote...
I would say that a Hawke who side with the templar is a villain. I am sure that the pro-templars disagree with me which is exactly the problem. I don't want the game to tell me what is villain and what is heroic.

No, neither choice is evil or villainous, it's a choice about why way you believe is best for thedas. It's a terrible and narrow example. There is more to choice than, picking a side. What you do for that side, how you do it, who you do it with and what you try to gain from said choice are what makes a character the hero or villain.

Either mage or templar can be good/evil/hero/villain.

esper wrote...Do I want the option to take some horrible, ruthless options. Yes. Do I want the game to automatically brand me villain for it: No.

Becoming the villain, is not something done from one choice, one event, it based on the action of the character throughout the whole game(if done well). And yes if you murder, betray, bibe, extort your etc your way throughout the game, then you are the villain, especially if it's done for your own advancement.

Consequence for your actions.

esper wrote...The villain is not always the one kicking puppies, the hero is not always helping old grandmothers crossing streets.r. The hero might kick a puppy because they know that kicking that puppy will save the world. A villain might help the old grandmother cross a street because they know that they would gain acces to her familiys vault for it and they need those money to obtion weapon of worlddomination. Motivation is not something I want the game to decide for me when I pick an option so I say.

I'm sorry but if you act like a villain, you deserve to be viewed as one. Whether or not the PC is one is irrelevant, the world should judge on what they know. Ammon Jerro was considered a villain by the people of Neverwinter, even if he did the things he did to stop something worse. The world didn't know and even if they did, does that make Jerro a hero?

If a PC becomes a blood mage, despite the PC reasons, characters of the DA world should treat the PC as any other blood mage. The PC gets out of jail free card is just plain silly. Blood magic is considered evil/wrong/immoral, by everyone but Tevinter, therefore any character that knows the PC is one should treat them based on those world beliefs. Not well, 'they may be a blood mage, but they like bunnies and rainbows, so they can't be bad'.

esper wrote...They cannot make an evil path , they can just give us the option to act such and such and then it is up to the player to decide wherever their protagonist doing it for heroic or the villanous reasons.  

Of course they can. They have just chosen not to. Hell they could create the entire game about the rise of a villain.

A Templar supporter that uses 'the evil' of mages to gain higher standing in the DA universe, that extorts fellow nobelmen, to gain greater coin, murders those that find out their intentions etc. Is a villain and more than plausible in the DA universe. They also still plays a part in the mage v templar conflict.

A mage that use blood magic, takes slaves and sacrifices them to demons for more power. That controls entire courts through blood magic, murders those that oppose his way of doing things, sacrifices cities in 'their effort to defeat the templar'. Is a villain/evil but plays a role in the mage vs templar conflict.

Just because you don't want or like the idea doen't make it wrong or impossible.

[PsychoBlonde]

Cultist wrote...

You know, "It is necessary" is an excuse for everything. Absolutely. That way w can say that genocide is necessary, sacrificing people is necessary, slavery is necessary and so on.

Not exactly, because X, Y, and Z are "necessary" only to accomplish some goal in a specific situational context.  Evaluating certain actions requires you to evaluate not just the means, but the goal.  You have to determine, does this method *actually* serve to accomplish that goal?  Are there other methods which would also serve?  Etc. etc. etc.  It is a hugely complex matter and not open to shortcuts.  Unfortunately, in a video game, you're pretty much stuck with a shortcut of *some* kind or another because they cannot write the game moment-by-moment to account for every possibiity.  What I'd like to see is the inclusion of *at least* a few moments where a certain amount of complexity is allowed-for.  You can accomplish a LOT by having only a FEW moments like those.

You could actually write up the PC as a convincing villain just by having them announce "it was necessary" or "I have no choice" whenever a dramatic choice comes up.  I'm not sure this would be fun to play, exactly, but it would definitely be chilling in some circumstances.

It is interestingly paradoxical that, when you're judging another person's actions, intentions don't matter much.  Loghain was a villain *regardless* of whether he meant well by betraying Cailan and Duncan and allowing elves to be sold into slavery because the means he chose were a.) wrong and b.) counter-productive to boot.  However, your own intentions are vitally important to you when you're evaluating yourself, and this is something that kind of needs to be addressed if you're going to establish motivation and character for the PC. 

[PsychoBlonde]

Malsumis wrote...

Of course they can. They have just chosen not to. Hell they could create the entire game about the rise of a villain.

A Templar supporter that uses 'the evil' of mages to gain higher standing in the DA universe, that extorts fellow nobelmen, to gain greater coin, murders those that find out their intentions etc. Is a villain and more than plausible in the DA universe. They also still plays a part in the mage v templar conflict.

That's not an "evil path", that's a game where the PC is a villain--because if you go too far in that direction you wind up precluding the existence of a "good path".  Since the good-guy path is always, BY FAR, the most popular, this is not likely to be a game that will get made.  Or if it is (Dungeon Keeper? Saint's Row?), it's likely to be nonserious.

There's a limit to how much you can stretch a single plot.  Granted, some plots may  have more stretch than others, but they also tend to be increasingly generic.  It is HARD to create a coherent story that allows for the main character to be both a freedom fighter AND Mu-Thon, Destroyer of Hope.  The more leeway you want, also, the BIGGER your story has to be, which means the more meta-story IMPACT it's going to have, which creates problems for writers down the road when they have to implement those world-state changes in some kind of coherent manner.

That's not to say it *can't* be done, but the planning and implementation difficulties (and thus the EXPENSE) grow so fast they can wind up taking over.  It's a non-trivial problem.

[Firewolf99]

I literally cannot do evil play-through's, but it would be nice to see the option to become a villain. Though personally, the cheesier the better. I wouldn't mind sitting on a throne, kidnapping the hero's girl and stroking a mustache while cackling over a pit of lava in an outrageously over the top, bright red leather costume...

OK, I have got to stop watching Flash Gordon.

[PsychoBlonde]

Firewolf99 wrote...

I literally cannot do evil play-through's, but it would be nice to see the option to become a villain. Though personally, the cheesier the better. I wouldn't mind sitting on a throne, kidnapping the hero's girl and stroking a mustache while cackling over a pit of lava in an outrageously over the top, bright red leather costume...

OK, I have got to stop watching Flash Gordon.

Yeah, you and I have the same problem.  I just don't enjoy playing whatever "bad-guy" options exist 99% of the time,  but I would *love* to be able to play an angry hardass.  I tried doing a red-personality playthrough in DA2, but I found that it felt way too schizophrenic because Hawke was *constantly* switching between "mildly-voiced investigate option" and "grr grr angry Hawke!"  At least Sarcastic and Nice Hawke felt (mostly) consistent.

Granted, if they did a better job at writing the exposition so you weren't constantly stuck with this question/answer format, it'd be a LOT EASIER to write different personalities for the PC.  I'm just saying.

[esper]

Malsumis wrote...

esper wrote...
It was not possible in da:o because you were fighting an all killing threath. You could not, not stop the blight. You could do horrible thing, but all off them vould rationaled under 'it is necessary' thus making you just an anti-hero.

I said DA universe, not DA:O or DA2. In the DA universe, being the villain is possible.

esper wrote...
I would say that a Hawke who side with the templar is a villain. I am sure that the pro-templars disagree with me which is exactly the problem. I don't want the game to tell me what is villain and what is heroic.

No, neither choice is evil or villainous, it's a choice about why way you believe is best for thedas. It's a terrible and narrow example. There is more to choice than, picking a side. What you do for that side, how you do it, who you do it with and what you try to gain from said choice are what makes a character the hero or villain.

Either mage or templar can be good/evil/hero/villain.

esper wrote...Do I want the option to take some horrible, ruthless options. Yes. Do I want the game to automatically brand me villain for it: No.

Becoming the villain, is not something done from one choice, one event, it based on the action of the character throughout the whole game(if done well). And yes if you murder, betray, bibe, extort your etc your way throughout the game, then you are the villain, especially if it's done for your own advancement.

Consequence for your actions.

esper wrote...The villain is not always the one kicking puppies, the hero is not always helping old grandmothers crossing streets.r. The hero might kick a puppy because they know that kicking that puppy will save the world. A villain might help the old grandmother cross a street because they know that they would gain acces to her familiys vault for it and they need those money to obtion weapon of worlddomination. Motivation is not something I want the game to decide for me when I pick an option so I say.

I'm sorry but if you act like a villain, you deserve to be viewed as one. Whether or not the PC is one is irrelevant, the world should judge on what they know. Ammon Jerro was considered a villain by the people of Neverwinter, even if he did the things he did to stop something worse. The world didn't know and even if they did, does that make Jerro a hero?

Kicking the puppy will allow me to gain acces to the key which I need to save the princess, as a player I know that the option to feed the dog also exist, but my characther does not know that so they take the option they feel is necessary. At most it makes the player evil because they know the alternative existed but for the characther it just make them desperate and depending on how obvious the not-puppy-kiciking option is, kinda dumb. Now if they kick the puppy for the lulz it is entirely different, but that should be left for the players to decide (why we're kicking the puppy that is). 

Malsumis wrote...

If a PC becomes a blood mage, despite the PC reasons, characters of the DA world should treat the PC as any other blood mage. The PC gets out of jail free card is just plain silly. Blood magic is considered evil/wrong/immoral, by everyone but Tevinter, therefore any character that knows the PC is one should treat them based on those world beliefs. Not well, 'they may be a blood mage, but they like bunnies and rainbows, so they can't be bad'.

If they PC become a blood mage they just become a misunderstood hero and an anti-hero. Of course the world should react like the world reacts. But a lot of stories are about heroes who the world judge a villain, just for the hero to eventually to prove them wrong. A blood mage is only a villain if they became a blood mages with the specific intention in mind to dominate and mind control other people. A PC who simply do because they are desperate are at best only an anti-hero.

How the world should react to the PC have nothing to do with if the pc are good or evil.

Malsumis wrote...

esper wrote...They cannot make an evil path , they can just give us the option to act such and such and then it is up to the player to decide wherever their protagonist doing it for heroic or the villanous reasons.  

Of course they can. They have just chosen not to. Hell they could create the entire game about the rise of a villain.

A Templar supporter that uses 'the evil' of mages to gain higher standing in the DA universe, that extorts fellow nobelmen, to gain greater coin, murders those that find out their intentions etc. Is a villain and more than plausible in the DA universe. They also still plays a part in the mage v templar conflict.

A mage that use blood magic, takes slaves and sacrifices them to demons for more power. That controls entire courts through blood magic, murders those that oppose his way of doing things, sacrifices cities in 'their effort to defeat the templar'. Is a villain/evil but plays a role in the mage vs templar conflict.

Just because you don't want or like the idea doen't make it wrong or impossible.

No they can't. Without some clear judgement from the narrative who is right or wrong it is left to the players to decide who is morally right in doing what an everything can be given a justifiable justification from the players perspective.

Leaving Redcliff to the undead? The warden knows that time is of the essence, they need to find the Arl now or the whole of Fereldan is overrun. So with a heavy heart the leave Redcliff behind to find another army praying that the village survive. But if they don't they are convinced that it would be the Fereldan. (Wherever they are right or wrong is not relevant to the discussion.)

You could make da2, the story of an evil rising to power.
Let's take Trane and Rel Hawke (both templar path because it is easier for me to villify that).
Spoilor warning

Trane don't care. He knows that his family could have been vicount so he loathes the magic which made him lose his position so, yet that is not the reason why he curry favours with the templars. No he does it because already from his first day it is made clear that the templars gets to decide  who is Vicount and are the only real army in the city. Those measly little guards have no real say. So he takes every pro-templar choice in the attempt to stay on their good side and even let his sister go without a fight because he is not about to let her get in way of his ambition. Then by a twist of fate Trane gets the option to save the nobles from the qunaris and become champion of Kirkwall. The annulment happens, and Trane sides with Meridith because that is the person who he for now needs to please to accomplish his goal. he saves his sister from Meridith, not because it is the right thing to do, but because deep down Trane hate bowing to this woman and this is a small way he can defy her without losing his goal. And look, lo and behol Meridith turns on him and suddenly he have the templars and Kirkwall bowing to his feet. It is finally his to rule.

Rel is a good person, but he knows that magic is dangerous. In his eyes his sister is basically a circle mage, just under his supervision and not the circle (and he has of course gained the necessay training). Rel to take every pro-templar choice, but not because he wants power, he does it because if he don't he knows that the mages will cause harm to innocent people and he must protect those. When the templars come for his sister, he lets them take her because she begs him and he cannot stand to see her cry anymore than she already have. The status of champion is something trust upon him for nothing other than doing what he had to do. Because of course he procted the city against the qunari. Then the annulment comes and Rel sides with Meridith because he cannot allow the mages to harm the city anymore than they already have. Of course he worries about his sister and wonder if he can save her, because she is after all innocent. And luckely he can, sadly Meridith proves to be not the good knight he thought she was as she turns on him and Rel defeats her in an attempt to prevent her from doing anymore damage. As an result for his misdeed his is crowned vicount and are now free to dominate the city as he wants.

Those are two wildly different persons, but in the game they took the exact same option. Trane is a villainous PC, I am fully aware that was he does is wrong, for the wrong reason. Rel is a hero, albeit tragic with the way da2 ends and we all know how his good intention turned out. In the story all his choices are made for the right reason, some of them have an unlucky outcome but in the end Rel still saves Kirkwall and becomes a good and wise ruler.

Modifié par esper, 18 avril 2012 - 07:48 .

[Withidread]

If I recall correctly, Bioware deliberately made an attempt to move away from the clear cut "Good" and "Evil" choices when they started working on Dragon Age. I also seem to recall certain elements not being satisfied that they succeeded in that goal...

So much of this is in the eye of the beholder, (I'm tempted to say that it will likewise turn you to stone if you stare at it too long,) I like how they've done things so far.

[Cultist]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
You could actually write up the PC as a convincing villain just by
having them announce "it was necessary" or "I have no choice" whenever a
dramatic choice comes up.

And here comes the difference. Villain should not not make excuses, will not regret about doing what he\\she did. For villain it is not necessary to justify their deeds.

Withidread wrote...
If I recall correctly, Bioware deliberately made an attempt to move away from the clear cut "Good" and "Evil" choices when they started working on Dragon Age. I also seem to recall certain elements not being satisfied that they succeeded in that goal...
So much of this is in the eye of the beholder, (I'm tempted to say that it will likewise turn you to stone if you stare at it too long,) I like how they've done things so far.

Moving away from D&D alignment system was an aweome decision. D&D alingments restricted player, instead of giving him freedom of choice. The point of this thread is that "evil" and ruthless options are significantly fewer than "good" ones.

[Halberd96]

I liked it how you could make a deal with that blood mage at the end of DA:O and he would give you some sort of power (a health bonus, ability or spec tree I can't remember.)

Also if any readers of this post have played the first two Fallout games you might remember that the game could be difficult sometimes but you could do selfish/evil things that would get you money and items that would make it easier for the more hardass/bad people.

Modifié par Halberd96, 19 avril 2012 - 09:46 .