87 réponses à ce sujet

[hero 2]

Bibdy wrote...

So what would be your ideal alternative? Lop their head off on the spot and get rewarded the same amount of XP, money and items had you gone roaming around the countryside, killed a bunch of creatures, grabbed an item and brought it all the way back?

The effort-reward ratio in that case is a little off

No, I'd have said party member shut up and remember that in order to reap rewards the player has to do all these tasks for people, especially as the motives of said party member require that they do a similar thing. I call hypocrisy on that character!

[Solistus1]

I, for one, enjoy the fact that there are bad decisions to make as well as good ones in terms of game rewards. It allows roleplaying to become a challenge mode - for example, I can roleplay a magic-averse hero who refuses to accept - or offer - help involving magic whenever possible. Sometimes this would mean the easier route, but usually not. That would make the playthrough harder, but not in an arbitrary, immersion-breaking way like most 'challenge playthrough' rulesets people make up. Dragon Age is not meant to be powergamed.



Besides, why do you need all the phat lewt and exp? From a metagame perspective, again, the game is pretty easy if you're good with the combat system, so it only makes sense to do some sidequests if your goal is completion, achievements or to see the content for the first time. If you've seen it all before and are doing a speed playthrough, for example, being able to say "no thanks" is a perfectly valid option. People can strike their own balance between powergaming and RPing with regards to how they make in-game decisions.



Also, this is a no spoilers forum so I won't go into any details, but sometimes the consequences of your actions may surprise you...

[Stitch808]

The end, it doth justify the means...

[hero 2]

Solistus1 wrote...

If you've seen it all before and are doing a speed playthrough, for example, being able to say "no thanks" is a perfectly valid option.  

See, that's an interesting perspective. In some ways I agree and in others I disagree:

I agree in that it's good to have the option to say, "no" - giving the player options is what makes the game a game and not a movie.

I disagree in that I feel some things must be done to move the story along. Maybe I'm wrong and saying "no" will yield different results. I don't want to miss out on the action, though, so I'll probably save it first and then try - and go back if I don't like what happens. I feel a little guilty doing this, what do you think?

I also disagree for the reason of fun - why play a game and then skip the fun bits? Is it because RP means that you can't have fun (or have to restrict your options for RP reasons) on a specific character you made?

[Gena Mafer]

Oyclo wrote...

I felt this right away.

The options are 'right' 'meh' and 'Chaoticstupid'

Having no alignment gauge was supposed to be an advancement.  Supposedly.

When there are few real consequences and the PC dialogue choices don't change fundamentally,  all you are left with is a game without an alignment meter.

At least before there was the chance for dialogue choices to reflect your alignment.  

No alignment also means no alignment-restricted unlockable items or classes.

DA isn't a jot darker or more gritty than NWN was (the ridiculous blood decals don't even count) and doesn't have a plethora of meaningful, branching paths; so, this supposed better, ambiguous approach is not an advancement.  On anything. It is inferior to what came before it, and is therefore yet another sorry example of a hyped and buzzworded 'new' feature-- one which actually signifies that something has been removed from, and not added to, the game.

Modifié par Gena Mafer, 18 décembre 2009 - 08:48 .

[skotie]

Dark83 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...
Yet if you're playing a character that can't be bothered, how do you square wandering off into the middle of nowhere to help some twit with his family?  It doesn't make sense.

Then don't do it. These jobs are posted with a clear understanding of "do this and get paid". The nice altrustic guy does it to help, the selfish bastard does it to get paid. The apathic guy who doesn't bother ignores it. So? If you're going to have a character who doesn't care to do a job - then he won't get the benefit of doing a job. Actions have consequences. He'll be poorer then the employed, and it's perfectly in keeping with the character.

This is like a player in a PnP campaign coming up with a pacifist, incompetant noncombatant. Why should everyone cater to that PC? If that PC isn't the sort to go dungeon delving in the first place, then why is that character even there (other than the flashing neon Player Character halo on her)? If she's built to be weak, then she is. If a character is designed to be unemployed - then he is, along with all the consequences of that.

You're basically saying every design choice should have the same result - which removes all consequences from making the choice, doesn't it?

I have to honestly agree with the OP about this, there really is no reason to be a true "evil" or rather a self serving jerk in this game. You are given options on what to do and choices you can make but not enough imo to play as a true self serving person.

****Spiolers Below****

Here's a great example, you were conscripted into the Grey Wardens against your will to save you from some crime, which is a very likely origin story. After Ostegar when everyone was dead but you and Alistair, you had the oppurtunity to free yourself from the Grey Wardens, by leaving Alistair behind or potentially killing him, no one would know you survived the battle and the other Grey Wardens would end up dealing with the blight, as a truely self serving character I would not be willing to risk my own life to stop this blight no matter who else it killed. I only let myself be conscripted to save my own life.

It might be true that Morrigan would try to kill you as well but your dog would not, so at the least it would be two vs. two, not an impossible fight to escape with your life, the only person who might hunt you down would be Flemeth.

The point I'm trying to get at here is your not allowed a different storyline, your intention always must be to stop this blight, clearly a heroic and noble goal, when you're not the only character who could. When you have the oppertunity to escape you let it pass you by. Its not to say the game would need to end, you could still go about your adventure, perhaps running from Flemeth for killing her daughter, trying to stay alive when people find out your a Grey Warden deserter, and looking for riches and wealth for your self. There's nothing to say you couldn't meet like minded companions along the way who would watch your back for a nice slice of the loot ether.

The point is there is no truely "evil" routes imo, but I suppose thats just my opinion.

Modifié par skotie, 18 décembre 2009 - 09:51 .

[Smkswazi]

How i see the good evil problem is that it all comes down to game feedback. If you are role-playing a good character than there is no problem because you accept all the help me quests you complete them and you get a reward and NPC telly you how happy they are. Game feedback for being good. Only other option it seem is to accept a quest and be a jerk about it. Now you can say that if you role-play an evil character you can skip or not do some quests but the point of playing is getting XP, rewards and all this while being in-character. Now the problem i see is that there simply are not enough evil quests and there is close to non evil feedback. Lets say you role-play an evil character and you get a quest log about a quest but your evil character refuses there is no such game feedback only everlasting quest entry till you decide to complete a quest and be a jerk about it. OK you can fail the quest but failing and completing in an evil way with appropriate feedback from NPC's is a different thing.

[Ariq007]

The OP makes a good point. This also extends somewhat to the "approval system" among the party members. As we know, having high approval means we get buffs for our allies. So naturally, upsetting them is never a good idea because it will only ever make them weaker. So, for example, why say something in a dialogue that they might not agree with? Unless you are strictly role-playing there really is no reason, since as far as mechanics are concerned, losing approval means weaker companions.

[Arvay5]

there is always a motive for being the bad guy it is just that you are apparently a nice person when others (like me) believe that some ppl deserve punishment or etc and are not afraid to do it (=.

[skotie]

Arvay5 wrote...

there is always a motive for being the bad guy it is just that you are apparently a nice person when others (like me) believe that some ppl deserve punishment or etc and are not afraid to do it (=.

Sorry but what kind of evil guy really wants to save the world? That's essentially your main goal of the entire game. Even if you end up saving the world in the most evil sadistic mannern possible you still end up a hero of sorts.

[LaztRezort]

I keep seeing the idea of alignment come up on these threads, and I can't help but rant

Is "evil" even a character trait?  Is "good"?  Good riddence to alignment, I have come to dislike the taste of it.  Alignment was originally conceived to be an oversimplification to aid in role-playing a character, generally for beginner role-players -- it was meant to be a general guide when there was nothing else to go by, or when a quick and dirty decision had to be made by the DM, and for exploring the general themes of a setting.  How it became so synomonous with absolute personality and behavior is still a mystery to me (well, it isn't really much of a mystery, but that would be OT).

My suggestion still stands:  forget everything about alignment - it is the worst possible trait to give to a character.  A character can be greedy, loving, timid, psychotic, ignorant, stubborn, violent, impatient, methodical, jealous, angry, etc.  These are interesting to play, and make sense.  But what the hell does being "evil" even mean?  How could anyone have fun trying to play lawful good, especially in a game world where such conventions haven't been mercilessly forced down our throats?  The fact that one can argue ad infinitum on whether saving kittens is good or can be evil llustrates this.

Take the decision to save the world -- why try to pigeonhole this behavior into a so-called alignment?  Why try to justify why an "evil" person would do such a thing, when "evil" is such a weak metric to judge behavior by?

How about a merciless character who hungers for power and fame, yet still holds a sense of duty for country and kin?  How about a character who gets his kicks off the pure adrenaline rush of battle, and hungers for the biggest battle of them all?  How about a violent, hostile character, yet who is scared to death of the world ending, and realizes that she, alone, is perhaps the only one able to end the threat?  Maybe these examples would work well in this game, maybe they wouldn't, but I'd think they would make for a lot more interesting (and believable) characters than, say, Type A Evil Wizard.

My only complaint about the Job Board (and related) quests, is that many of them are a little weak on role-playing motivation, when there is such a time-critical job the character should be doing.  Only an insane amount of greed, mixed with bad judgement, could lead a character to run around wasting time saving kittens for 2 gold pieces when they should be doing something much more important.

[skotie]

LaztRezort wrote...

I keep seeing the idea of alignment come up on these threads, and I can't help but rant

Is "evil" even a character trait?  Is "good"?  Good riddence to alignment, I have come to dislike the taste of it.  Alignment was originally conceived to be an oversimplification to aid in role-playing a character, generally for beginner role-players -- it was meant to be a general guide when there was nothing else to go by, or when a quick and dirty decision had to be made by the DM, and for exploring the general themes of a setting.  How it became so synomonous with absolute personality and behavior is still a mystery to me (well, it isn't really much of a mystery, but that would be OT).

My suggestion still stands:  forget everything about alignment - it is the worst possible trait to give to a character.  A character can be greedy, loving, timid, psychotic, ignorant, stubborn, violent, impatient, methodical, jealous, angry, etc.  These are interesting to play, and make sense.  But what the hell does being "evil" even mean?  How could anyone have fun trying to play lawful good, especially in a game world where such conventions haven't been mercilessly forced down our throats?  The fact that one can argue ad infinitum on whether saving kittens is good or can be evil llustrates this.

Take the decision to save the world -- why try to pigeonhole this behavior into a so-called alignment?  Why try to justify why an "evil" person would do such a thing, when "evil" is such a weak metric to judge behavior by?

How about a merciless character who hungers for power and fame, yet still holds a sense of duty for country and kin?  How about a character who gets his kicks off the pure adrenaline rush of battle, and hungers for the biggest battle of them all?  How about a violent, hostile character, yet who is scared to death of the world ending, and realizes that she, alone, is perhaps the only one able to end the threat?  Maybe these examples would work well in this game, maybe they wouldn't, but I'd think they would make for a lot more interesting (and believable) characters than, say, Type A Evil Wizard.

My only complaint about the Job Board (and related) quests, is that many of them are a little weak on role-playing motivation, when there is such a time-critical job the character should be doing.  Only an insane amount of greed, mixed with bad judgement, could lead a character to run around wasting time saving kittens for 2 gold pieces when they should be doing something much more important.

Ok fine saving the world does not have to be "good" the fact of the matter is if I wanted to play a character only interested in looking out for myself I cannot, I have to fight the blight no matter what, I'm not given the option to say "screw this blight, let someone else deal with it".

Since my character isn't given the option to do anything else and I'm saving the world anyways I mind as well rescue kittens out of trees to get a good rep and help people along the way, though I could care less about them, I usually do quests for the gold and nothing more. Its funny though at the end of the game despite how much of a greedy jerk I've been I'm still considered a hero.

That is the real problem I have with the game, why can I not end the game as the infamous malificar  who instead of saving fereldan leaves it to its fate.