16 réponses à ce sujet

[Reznore57]

One thing i'd like to change in DA3 is when you play a character that's neutral it rarely pays off.
Anders and Fenris , for example , were a pain if you play that way.
In the beginning of Act 3 , if you didn't approve of Meredith or Orsino , you missed a couple of quests.
By the end ,when you pick a side it's assumed you choose between mages and templars , and it would have been nice to have a third choice : like the guard ,like "i'm only getting into this mess to keep the peace".

I'm not saying that there were no way for your character to express this middle ground , there were a few sentences here and there...But it was not enough in my opinion.

If DA3 is like DA2 , with a goal a little more complicated than killing the big bad ,I'd like to have more option than to be just pro or anti something.
I appreciated that the story was more human centered and grey but our character should benefit from it and gain depth too.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Playing neutral diplomatic character doesn't benefit friendship/rivalry path too. The companions and Hawke are indifferent to each other. Some events and character's growth remain locked due to insufficient points. For example I agree that mages are oppressed. I don't agree mages should roam freely without safety precaution. Maintaining this position only result in constant 5% to 20% friendship path ( in my case ).

The funny things I don't have such problem with non-romance-able companions like Aveline, Varric and Bethany. I can't remember Sebastian F/R path though. I think I rarely talk to him but I get his personal quest and more dialogue options compare to romance-able companions like Merril, Isabela, Fenris and Anders. I'm not interested playing pro-mage or pro-templar character when I can't find any justification to do so. ( Mage isn't my favored class and Bethany is on Warden's path. I played apostate's role once but couldn't get into such character. It's just feel wrong to me because my character is always lawful neutral and diplomatic even I played as Sheepard. )

Anyway, I hope in DA 3, my neutral diplomatic character isn't alienated by narrative simply because of who my character is.

[AkiKishi]

Biowares legacy of KOTOR.

[Dakota Strider]

While there are certainly situations where a person/character should want to be neutral, the thought of having the main character follow this path in every aspect made me think of some quotations I have heard.

"The man who straddles the fence, deserves to land on his groin"  Unknown


"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis. "  Dante Aleghieri

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Revelation 3:16


"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. "   Paulo Freire


"Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong. "  Theodore Roosevelt

Now I can understand how it may be interesting to try to play the game by trying to choose the middle course, whenever possible.  However, there are certainly repercussions for doing so.  The old phrase "If you are not with us, you are against us" may be applied by both sides in a conflict, if you choose neither side. 

 

[AkiKishi]

All well and good, but it's more like being an ass or being doormat than anything profound.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 mai 2012 - 02:46 .

[Tirigon]

The Witcher had a neutral path. It was the "true" one, even, because Witchers are supposed to always be neutral, being monsterslayers rather than knights or evildoers.


But then, the Witcher did alot better than DAO, and everything better than DA2.

[Pedrak]

A neutral path is especially welcome when both sides are deeply flawed, like the mages/templars thing in DA - or in Skyrim, the Witcher 1, Bloodlines.

I'd rather have a neutral option and miss some game content (like in Skyrim) or have to fight everyone (TW1, Bloodlines) than being forced to side with the lesser of two evils (DA2, TW2).

So, moral ambiguity is fine (when both main factions have merits and limits it's more interesting), but it would be great to have also the "You both suck, I'll choose my own path" option. Not always feasible, I know.

Modifié par Pedrak, 03 mai 2012 - 04:04 .

[Darth Krytie]

Tirigon wrote...

But then, the Witcher did alot better than DAO, and everything better than DA2.

Oh? So, they had a much improved character creator set up? I never heard that before. I'm so tired of hearing about TW. I'm sure it's fantastic, but since there's no other choice than to play a straight, white dude, the game's a nonstarter for me. And seeing it brought up as superior to DA in all ways in practically every thread gets annoying because of that specific point.


There are relatively few times in a BioWare game did they have a situation where a neutral way even made sense. It's hard to feel neutral irt Darkspawn. Besides, if your character truly feels neutral to any given situation, what's the motivation for dealing with anything at all?

Though, truly, there were times in DA in which I didn't have the option express an opinion beyond "I'm evil, so I'll kill you" and "I'm good, so I'll save you" when I'd rather have the ability to say "I'm completely self-serving and it benefits me to do as you ask" or "I don't really care what your beef is, but guy over there needs this done, so tough **** for you."

[Tirigon]

Darth Krytie wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

But then, the Witcher did alot better than DAO, and everything better than DA2.

Oh? So, they had a much improved character creator set up? I never heard that before. I'm so tired of hearing about TW. I'm sure it's fantastic, but since there's no other choice than to play a straight, white dude, the game's a nonstarter for me. And seeing it brought up as superior to DA in all ways in practically every thread gets annoying because of that specific point.

Granted, but they never said you could create your own Char. You play Geralt, and that's it.
Ironically, EVEN SO you had a lot more roleplaying options than in DA2.

There are relatively few times in a BioWare game did they have a situation where a neutral way even made sense. It's hard to feel neutral irt Darkspawn.

And then, there was the Architect.

Besides, if your character truly feels neutral to any given situation, what's the motivation for dealing with anything at all?

Helping and protecting the innocent. Or just your own survival and power, if you are a selfish person.
Or in DA2's case because either you are a mage and your brother is not, or you are not and your sister is?
Honestly there are a lot more reasons to be neutral than to side with someone.

Though, truly, there were times in DA in which I didn't have the option express an opinion beyond "I'm evil, so I'll kill you" and "I'm good, so I'll save you" when I'd rather have the ability to say "I'm completely self-serving and it benefits me to do as you ask" or "I don't really care what your beef is, but guy over there needs this done, so tough **** for you."

Exactly.

[Pedrak]

Darth Krytie wrote...
. I'm so tired of hearing about TW. I'm sure it's fantastic, but since there's no other choice than to play a straight, white dude, the game's a nonstarter for me. And seeing it brought up as superior to DA in all ways in practically every thread gets annoying because of that specific point.

I also hate fixed protagonists in RPGs, so I can see your point... but I suggest you to try and make some exceptions, or you'll miss some great games (TW1 and especially Torment) and some very good ones (TW2, Risen 2, Alpha Protocol). Just saying.

Modifié par Pedrak, 03 mai 2012 - 04:10 .

[AkiKishi]

Darth Krytie wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

But then, the Witcher did alot better than DAO, and everything better than DA2.

Oh? So, they had a much improved character creator set up? I never heard that before. I'm so tired of hearing about TW. I'm sure it's fantastic, but since there's no other choice than to play a straight, white dude, the game's a nonstarter for me. And seeing it brought up as superior to DA in all ways in practically every thread gets annoying because of that specific point.


There are relatively few times in a BioWare game did they have a situation where a neutral way even made sense. It's hard to feel neutral irt Darkspawn. Besides, if your character truly feels neutral to any given situation, what's the motivation for dealing with anything at all?

Though, truly, there were times in DA in which I didn't have the option express an opinion beyond "I'm evil, so I'll kill you" and "I'm good, so I'll save you" when I'd rather have the ability to say "I'm completely self-serving and it benefits me to do as you ask" or "I don't really care what your beef is, but guy over there needs this done, so tough **** for you."

Got to agree with Trigon on that one. If your supporting DA2 because it allows you to choose gender, that's your perogative. But it does not change anything.

[Darth Krytie]

Pedrak wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...
. I'm so tired of hearing about TW. I'm sure it's fantastic, but since there's no other choice than to play a straight, white dude, the game's a nonstarter for me. And seeing it brought up as superior to DA in all ways in practically every thread gets annoying because of that specific point.

I also hate fixed protagonists in RPGs, so I can see your point... but I suggest you to try and make some exceptions, or you'll miss some great games (TW1 and especially Torment) and some very good ones (TW2, Risen 2, Alpha Protocol). Just saying.

True enough. I have and do play fixed protags. I just prefer if they're not s/w/m. tbh, those are the games I've got that remain unfinished. I get very bored with it, very quickly.

At this point, not playing TW is solely due to feeling like it's getting shoved down my throat. The more I see people bring it up, the less I want to play it. Though, it's probably due to the fact it's coupled with a negative attitude towards games I've enjoyed playing for hours and hours. classical Conditioning and all.

Tirigon wrote...

Helping and protecting the innocent. Or just your own survival and power, if you are a selfish person.
Or in DA2's case because either you are a mage and your brother is not, or you are not and your sister is?
Honestly there are a lot more reasons to be neutral than to side with someone.

I don't see helping and protecting the innocent as a neutral position, though I do concede the point. It's just hard. If you don't truly agree with either the mages or the templars, how do you decide how to help?

I guess I find it a bit weird to have a hero (or tyrant) who didn't have a moral/immoral imperative guiding the decision making.

Modifié par Darth Krytie, 03 mai 2012 - 04:26 .

[Reznore57]

The thing is the templars , mages , qunari, chantry etc...are not a case of right or wrong for me.
None is evil per se , they're like the good intentions paving company that ends up in bad places.

At the end of DA2, i took my decision only because i think the right of annulment is an awful thing and shouldn't happen.

I fought the qunari not because i didn't like them , i kinda do , but i'm against forcing people into one's faith.

I'm likely to kill all of them or help them if they cross my line , and as much as i sympathize with them , i really don't wanna be part of any club.

So yeah i want to play a character who can be neutral , doesn't mean playing someone passive or without any kind of personality , good bad selfish whatever...

[Dakota Strider]

Darth Krytie wrote...

I don't see helping and protecting the innocent as a neutral position, though I do concede the point. 

Agreed, going out of your way, to help someone else, is not neutral.
 

It's just hard. If you don't truly agree with either the mages or the templars, how do you decide how to help?

That was a tough one for me.  There were aspects of both sides I did not agree with.  I thought that the Templars and the Circle did serve a purpose, but they were abusing their authority.  Because of the potential danger that even an innocent, well-meaning mage can pose to society, I was loath to support full freedom from the Circle for mages, and overthrowing the Circle/Templars.  There was no middle ground offered, or compromise.  So, my decision was based on the moral rational, that I had to deal with the immediate situation, and stop the murder of innocent mages, which was going to happen with Meredith's Rite of Annulment she declared.  
 
"My" Hawke may have very well given support to Templars in a future conflict against renegade blood mages, that were using their powers to dominate others, or summon demons.  But in Kirkwall, the "right" thing for him to do, seemed to go against Meredith...not be "for" the mages, or be "against" the Templars as a whole.

  I guess I find it a bit weird to have a hero (or tyrant) who didn't have a moral/immoral imperative guiding the decision making.

Agreed.  Tried to come up with an example of a "hero" that took the middle ground, and its not easy to do.   Perhaps in some of the Clint Eastwood westerns, where he seemed to be hated by both sides.  The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, is an example. 

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 03 mai 2012 - 04:41 .

[Maria Caliban]

Pedrak wrote...

I'd rather have a neutral option and miss some game content (like in Skyrim) or have to fight everyone (TW1, Bloodlines) than being forced to side with the lesser of two evils (DA2, TW2).

I don't recall TW2 making you side with the lesser of two evils.

[Tirigon]

Darth Krytie wrote...


True enough. I have and do play fixed protags. I just prefer if they're not s/w/m. tbh, those are the games I've got that remain unfinished. I get very bored with it, very quickly.

For what its worth - I think The Witcher would be even better if you were playing as a sexy, lesbian chick instead:D.
But if that is not so, that sure as hell doesnt kill the game for me (the fact it does, for some odd reason, not run on my new PC kinda does, but that is another matter entirely.....

I don't see helping and protecting the innocent as a neutral position, though I do concede the point. It's just hard. If you don't truly agree with either the mages or the templars, how do you decide how to help?

Well you could defend the peasants and washerwomen and all these people whom BOTH mages and templars see as mere cannonfodder, for example.

Forgive me to bring it up again, but in the Witcher there is a part for example, where you need to defend a hospital run by neutral sisters; first some ScoiaTael attack nd want to slay the wounded humans, then some humans attack to slay the wounded elves, and both want to rape the sisters, so you, being neutral, kill them both.

[Pedrak]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Pedrak wrote...

I'd rather have a neutral option and miss some game content (like in Skyrim) or have to fight everyone (TW1, Bloodlines) than being forced to side with the lesser of two evils (DA2, TW2).

I don't recall TW2 making you side with the lesser of two evils.

No, huh? End of chapter 1.  SPOILERS You have to choose between helping a freedom fighter/terrorist who is cooperating with Geralt and trusting him (Iorveth) or a black ops, elves-killing - but not cartoonishly evil - dude (Roche) who helped you before but now is forcing your hand. It's a very cool moment, but both sides are deeply flawed and thus both choices are somewhat grating to me; a neutral path in which you go after the kingslayer (and T.) by yourself in ch. 2 would have made the game superb.

Modifié par Pedrak, 03 mai 2012 - 04:55 .