Allan Schumacher wrote...
How many of them supported Harrowmont and then switched over to supporting Bhelen immediately upon hearing that he gives the happy ending? I don't mean to be offensive but most of them are not thinking of their decisions. Which is why things like Rannoch, Connor, Werewolves and such never really have much discussion--it ultimately leads to "why not do the happy ending?".
I don't think you'll ever be able to fully get rid of this. What I liked about the Bhelen/Harrowmont issue is that you don't see the results of it until the end game (presumably long after doing Orzammar). If someone wishes to reroll their story to make sure it's rainbows and lollipops, is that necessarily a bad thing?
I picked Harrowmont and stuck with my guns afterward, and it was somewhat refreshing to know that it was the suboptimal choice.
I never looked at Behlen as the "optimal" choice either really. The Orzammar choice is my favorite in the entire game simply because by the end you discover that they are both bad in their own way. I've had a lot of discussion about this.
The first time I played I was a dwarven noble. Naturally, I wasn't too keen on Behlen because of it and automatically chose Harrowmont in the spirit of RP. It took me a couple of more plays, even as another race, to finally bite the bullet and pick Behlen.
Speaking in terms of my real views and morals, I find it difficult to reconcile Behlen's lust for power and traitorous personality with the fact that I dislike Orzammar's caste system, and personally feel that Behlen's "modernist" views would be good for Orzammar as a whole. I also feel that I don't have a right to make a "choice" based on that criteria. Like Star Trek's Prime Directive, I don't feel that I should interfere with the way another culture does things, simply because I disagree with them. Where does the interference then stop? I find it to be an interesting moral quandary.
Behlen is not a good person. He rules Orzammar with an iron fist, and
as DA2 shows, he is ruthlessly trying to eliminate the mere possibility of future contestation to his rule. The question of who is a "better ruler" is certainly subjective, based on the way you measure it. Is it the happiness of your citizens, that they are not abused by yourself or your subordinates? Or is it the long term stability of your nation, bought at any cost? Does the end justify the means in that case? I'm not really sure it does.
That is the
beauty of that single decision in DAO. After playing the game and having had the chance to pick each, you really see how there is no "happy ending" in that scenario.
David Gaider wrote...
I hold Redcliffe up as my own personal failure on this front. I wimped out and gave the "third option" of a consequence-free solution just by doing something the player was going to do anyhow... when that really should have come with its own cost. Yes, you should have been able to save both Isolde and Connor... at the price of returning and seeing the village of Redcliffe desolated just the same as if you'd abandoned it to the zombie horde.
Sorry to pour salt on the would, but that would have been awesome!
Allan Schumacher wrote...
I guess I just never saw it as an easy out because it would require the player to either have outside knowledge or prior experience in order to make the choice, or just some luck in doing the Circle first.
For a first play, I agree. During that scene you can question Jowan and
learn about all of the options and their possible results. He does mention using lyrium and the circle, but rather dismissively since it can't be done right then and there. If you ask about it, Alistair responds with "Of course! The Wardens have treaties for them as well!" and seems really enthusiastic about the idea. You are then presented with
the choice of trying the Blood Magic, thereby sacrificing Isolde, or rushing to the Circle to see if they will help, where you then have to slog through a tower full of demons, and then romp through the fade.
The first time I played, even after hearing all of the options, I still picked "This is too urgent to delay [by taking a detour to the Circle]" and chose the sacrifice, because I
really believed that it was "too urgent to delay." Had David's above scenario been present in the game, that would have proven true and more people would have died because I tried to find the "best solution". As it was, having the delay is inconsequential, and really, it doesn't make too much sense. I think there was probably
at the very least, a delay of three days. Certainly enough time for the demon to reassert itself and start terrorizing again. In this case, travel time and actual completion of events at the Circle were completely ignored
The very first time you play the game you don't know that taking the delay is the best option. The dialogue doesn't really indicate that it's so. For all we know David's scenario could have happened. It's not until after we've done it once and seen what happens if you go to the Circle that we can go "Oh, so the supposed 'delay' doesn't really mean anything."
Even though the western side of Lake Calenhad seems shorter, it looks to be more mountainous, adding to time. The Eastern side, along the Imperial Hwy seems to be much longer, but also located on the Ferelden plains side; also not shown are possible land bridges that might exist in those non-lake areas.
Since we (can) leave Redcliffe in the morning (after the night where we fought the undead), that is perhaps a day's travel to the Circle (being very generous), some several hours for the events
at the Circle, then a day's travel back. Unfortunately, I don't recall any sort of dialogue reference in either of the two games (although I don't recall from the novels, I'll have to reread looking for that info!) as to any sort of distance between any two points than can be used to scale the map of Thedas, so pretty much any travel numbers are estimates.
(I think too much about this stuff...)
Modifié par nightscrawl, 14 juin 2012 - 02:36 .
Retour en haut
