55 réponses à ce sujet

[maxernst]

I actually enjoyed my first playthrough (and it's the one I based my fanfic on) the most because I wasn't burdened by foreknowledge and could let my character react freely. If he had to do it over again, maybe he'd make Bhelen king instead of Harrowmont, but regrets are fine. I'm okay with my characters making mistakes, as long as they're not game ending.

[lyriumaddict104]

[quote]Vanilka of the Sword Coast wrote...
Nah, you didn't ruin anything. As I said, the information I had hinted at it.
I actually don't know what's worse. To take her with you or leave her at home. As you say, after returning I felt I wasn't there when she needed me the most. I really felt she was my character's sister, I liked her and was sorry to lose her.
As you say, not knowing what to expect makes the experience stronger. Personally, I always expect everything to come to bite me in the butt. Then I'm surprised when it actually doesn't. [/quote]
I guess I got some metagaming in there too, whether to take her. Have you played with Carver yet? I think I read someone's input on Bethany and have been making the decision to leave her behind ever since they said which choice seems to make her happier. But yes, I did feel connected to her, as you said, like she was really my Hawke's sister. I'm glad it made me care that she was taken. Hehe, that's kind of funny. Even though I do expect something (I guess this is more real life than fiction) to bite me in the ass, I'm still surprised when it does. That's probably the opposite of what it should be. I was still kind of surprised when it started happening in-game. For a later quest, I always choose to turn someone in because of that.

[quote]Yes, reading these forums is a bit dangerous. Sometimes you discover things you don't want to know. Even if you keep to safe places and non-spoiler forums. I hate spoilers and try to avoid them but once you come here, it's improbable you'll be able to avoid all of them. No matter how careful you are.
I remember that I learnt about the possibility of making Alistair king from comments for some mod in DA Nexus. I didn't even expect any spoilers there. After that, I actually thought he has to become king. It was at the very beginning of my first playthrough and I was horrified.  Now I'm making fun of it but it pretty much ruined all the surprises. His confession about him being a prince, for example. Knowing about it may or may have not made me react differently. I'll never know. I must say I wish I could go back and experience the shock fully. Ah, well...[/quote] That's a good example. I think I've come across some spoilers that way with watching youtube videos...people leaving comments only have to leave vague leads to another situation/more info but sometimes it's enough to ruin it for the reader. I think I did get that experience first-hand, where he tells you he's a prince and I think it was unspoiled enough for me that I liked his answer, something to the effect of "I wanted you to like me for who I am" and I realized I did like him before I knew he was a prince. That sucks that it was spoiled for you. It's kind of a tinny piece but when you already know about it...it's not a big deal to me now of course since I'm several playthroughs into it but it sucks to have missed that initial reaction to it, if it's news to you.

[quote]As for Fenris, (spoiler) I actually expected him to leave the party completely for some time after I learnt about him running off. I still curse the day I learnt about it though. It felt much differently when I expected it. Another example of a surprise ruined by knowing what's going to happen.
However, I wasn't really angry at him and I don't think I would have been even if I hadn't known. I understood why he left. I only felt it was a pity you can't help him or talk some sense into him and have to wait for three years in order to do so. I mean, THREE goddamn YEARS. For the love of gods! I think Hawke ought to have done something during such an unholy period of time. Instead, she looks like she doesn't care at all. Which definitely wasn't my case. (spoiler)[/quote] That whole episode of the romance has been kind of odd for me in several playthroughs...I mean, he doesn't actually leave the party like Isabela does (you can still use him in fights and quests) but you apparently can't talk to him about what happened for three years while he's still palling around with you? When you do talk to him again it's sounds like he was away tracking down his sister? He was physically with us but was also supposed to be gone to Minrathous or near there? It doesn't matter, I kind of just wanted to jump in there when talking to him, to say something different...you have an awkward moment after a really intimate interaction and for three years either you can't track him down and talk about it or you have to keep him with you, close, and still not be able to say anything? I guess if it was for gameplay I let it go 'cause I didn't want to lose another warrior but still...I agree, the only part that's really ruined by knowing ahead of time is that conversation when he walks out on you...and then whatever happens in between. I wasn't even angry at him when he asked for forgiveness either. I actually got what he was trying to tell Hawke the night he walked away and I kind of felt that she was being kind of dense no matter what convo option you can choose.

[quote]Err, maybe we should stop with those DAII spoilers before we ruin the game for somebody. I wouldn't want that. Moreover, I guess this is not the place for it. Even if it's still basically about using previous knowledge of the game for whatever purpose. I suggest we take this discussion to private messages if you're willing.[/quote]
Yeah, I'd like that. I was worried I'd derailed this thread quite a bit (and had kept it up for a while) 'cause this is kind of an extended pm convo anyway. lol.
[quote]I had to say this somewhere but I so wish now that we could have seen him with his armor off (at least to see his torso) at some point in the game (since that's not possbile without mods). That's the only regret I have of the less exposed "sex scenes" with our characters.[/quote] 
[quote] Hah. What, I'm not the only one who thinks that?
But yes, he sure dresses fast. I also don't mind fade-to-black instead of giving us the bed scene. It was executed rather nicely in DAII. Both ways have their ups and downs, in my opinion. However, I wouldn't mind a little bit of Fenris fanservice, true.[/quote] Yes, DA:O was my first Bioware experience, or gaming experience for that matter, ever where there's even anything like a sex-scene. I was quite shocked and embarrased. I used to play in an open area where anyone could just walk by and with just my luck that'd be the only time someone would walk in on me playing this game and possibly think I'm watching game porn or something of the like. Now that I've seen the fade-to-black, I like it better, I don't really need to see much more than that, though, the Fenris fanservice would have been a nice exception. I know this is wrong, but afterall, my Hawke was in her undies, and Fenris did get dressed pretty fast, as you said.

[quote]Yes, and I guess I make a point as often as I can to say I didn't do it alone when I get the chance. I have played other games where you do everything yourself and don't have a party that you travel with so since we do in DA I feel more strongly that I didn't make the effort on my own. It's easier to wish the others were congratulated as well. And even if Alistair is still alive, king or no, he doesn't go with you outside wherever the crowd cheers for you. It's nice we got to use it as a way to say goodbye to our companions but I would have liked it more if we'd all been presented to the public even if they still called me the hero. At least it would have been shown I had help.[/quote]
[quote]Yes, I wish this was an option. They all did their share of fighting and helping. If the Warden had done it alone, everything would have been much more difficult. The companions don't get much recognition for their service to Ferelden. It would be pretty amazing if you could choose to present them to the crowd. They are all Heroes of Ferelden in a way after all.
I know that the game probably tries to make you feel like the best of the best. I guess that's nice in a way. I also know it's usually the leader who gets celebrated, not his soldiers. Still, it would be nice to share the attention. That's why I like to think that my characters gave some nice speech at the end, about how they all had participated. Even if it's not the same as seeing it in the game.[/quote] I do like that they try to make you feel the best of the best, in a way, for some reasons, one of which being that I feel the Grey Wardens are supposed to be more capable or worthy of respect as warriors, etc. but I often don't feel that somehow for myself...I said it earlier too but I've played games where having companions wasn't central to the story or gameplay and the feel for that is quite different. In that setting I can handle the praise better because for the most part I really did do it on my own. But having that to compare it to, taking all the congrats and whatnot at the end in DA seems wrong. I like your way of dealing with it, imagining them giving speeches. I guess in some way it's implied that they were respected. I think Oghren gets some deal to lead a human army on the surface? But on the whole, I don't think they get enough recognition. I agree with what you said, and it's also probably true that leaders shoulder most of the blame if something goes wrong too. I'll keep pretending they got to stand in front of the crowds with me.

[quote]I agree completely. I only once played a character that was just mean to everybody (I just figured I witness all the bad you can do in one person since I can't be mean to my companions or unless it's seriously warranted somehow) so each of my characters has also been supportive. That's why they're fighting with us, right? I hope it's not giving too much away but he thinks you mean it for him, and not to explain his sister's behavior. I guess I can see how it may not seem as harsh but when you have the option to say it it does. I felt like he needed more encouragement or sympathy and that line seemed to have no way of offering such. I do like his personality however, after the "hardening". It's worth a try if you want to or can fit it into one of your roles. It's interesting to see Alistair with more self-confidence. [/quote]
[quote]That's what I think. Friends or lovers should feel for and, as you say, encourage each other. Good leader should be supportive and motivate. That's what I believe in and that's how I play most of my games. The line doesn't feel that way, that's why I would never use it if I didn't know about how it changes his character. I guess metagaming can be good... sometimes.[/quote] Yes, and I've been trying to keep this idea in mind with whatever origin I play...I tend to think of my warden as the exception, so that he or she won't necessarily carry with him/her the prejudices that might come with each respective background. Given what you have to accomplish I don't think the warden, in reality at least, would have gotten very far by being an jerk to everyone. I know it's an RPG and it still allows for the player to be a jerk or cynic and playing it different ways is core to the RPG genre, having choices that is, but I like for my warden to be supportive of those who choose to fight with him/her, as much as that's possible and perhaps to be more open-minded than people he or she has known in the past might have been. Of course that's just my playstyle and my justification for what I say or do in-game even though that in a way might be metagaming. For example, I find it hard to roleplay a character outside the Circle of Magi who isn't at least a little wary of mages in general. I like to think that the way they are feared/treated, etc. in-game implies that only those going through it themselves would ever truly understand what it's like to be a mage. That's not to say it's impossible to come up with an HN for instance who's sympathetic to mages, etc. Back to the point, I agree with what you said, other than for metagaming I don't and wouldn't choose that line either. It doesn't fit into supportive roles I play and I wonder if there's something mean to say if you play a character that doesn't like Alistair? Meaner than that line. That line would probably more fit a Warden who didn't want to babysit Alistair, was just hard and wanting to move forward...I guess?

[quote]Lol, I'm probably just blocking it is what it is. The dumping me part. I think my first playthrough was a confused mix. I didn't harden him even though I was in a romance with him but something came up where I still made him king (and possibly he chewed me out for that too) and then he dumped me because I was an elven mage but I was still in love with him and deluded so I didn't persuade him to do the DR and he died and I was the only one who still cared. I shouldn't have made him king if he was going to sacrifice himself. Oh well. I guess whatever happens I've tried several endings with him, lol. Even the one where he's exiled. That was kind of difficult, even though I was roleplaying a selfish, power-hungry evil mage (male) in a romance with Morrigan and I shouldn't have cared about hurting Alistair, lol. [/quote]
[quote]Hah, I'm only lucky I've never cared about making him a king. Otherwise, I think I would have got dumped, too. Not having known about the hardening line and everything. With how people treat elves, I knew my girl wouldn't have been able to become a queen. But I wouldn't have expected him to dump her either. I guess this is one of the places that will always be a subject of heavy planning once you finish your first playthrough. The same with the Dark Ritual. The same with sparing Loghain.
I don't know whether I would have spared him during my first playthrough if I hadn't known Alistair leaves you if you do. Another unfortunate spoiler that made the decision easier for me. Some of my characters are rather pragmatic and would be willing to overlook Loghain's being a paranoid idiot. From roleplaying perspective, you can always have your revenge later. And another Warden would come in handy. But I've never spared him and probably never will because I value the companion that had been loyaly standing at my side the whole time much more than a potentional Warden that spent the whole game trying to kill us and making it difficult for us. I always metagame a little there. Always find a different reason for executing Loghain.[/quote] Hehe, yeah I actually do consider it lucky honestly to have never cared about making him king. I can roleplay it easier now but for personal reasons I'm conflicted and I hate that. I think that for the sake of his country he should be king but then again that's only with the hardening done and his shaping up and coming to terms with it on his own and realizing he might actually be able to do it. That's all metagaming though. So there again I guess it's also to do with planning...do I want my character to "harden" him and make him a good king because personally I think he's better than Anora alone perhaps? But I can only say that 'cause metagming that part changed my perspective on Alistair too. I do like him more self-confident and determined. Not knowing that, like on my first playthrough, I think he's better off staying with the wardens. Yeah, I think that's it. I kind of didn't expect that I could stay with him since I was an elf but the way he dumped me was also a surprise...he could have at least waited and I thought we could have pretended for our own sakes that we fought against separation at least a little longer. I felt like he didn't try hard enough.
Sparing Loghain is tough too. It was easier for me not to spare him the first playthrough 'cause again I didn't know what was coming and I guess I went along with killing him in part because of Alistair's reaction. And now that I know about the death of the warden who deals the killing blow to the Archdemon, it's actually harder to decide to kill Loghain, 'cause as you said you could always use another warden. That was true before but the first time I didn't know that Alistair or me had to die. And now I can get the roleplaying part too, that some players on pragmatic enough to overlook all Loghain's faults and choose to keep him out of necessity. And, I agree, on my first playthrough I didn't have any outside info on Loghain or who he was prior to DA:O so going on what I gleaned from the game's cutscenes and how it appeared I couldn't see any reason for any warden to choose to spare him. Seems to me that the Warden wouldn't have known what players on this forum know about him now. So, I like what you said, about choosing the person who stuck with you from the beginning rather than the one who hunted you down and even sent an assassin to kill you. And some origins do make it easier to kill him. I know that others here can justify what Loghain does but for me my characters see only what they've been through and can hate him based on that. For my mage, for example, I got to know Jowan a little more and questioning him I find that Loghain promised to resolve his issues with the Circle and perhaps fix it so that Jowan doesn't have to be killed for being a blood mage. Loghain ended up using my friend to do his dirty work and take the fall. So, that in mind it's easier, in short, to execute Loghain. And then metagaming again, I finally tried a character that spared Loghain and it was kind of hard to see Alistair take it as betrayal but I wanted to try it after watching youtube videos with Loghain in the party.[quote]
[/quote]
[quote]Oh, I could go on about the benefits of Alistair staying a Grey Warden forever.  Well, okay, not forever, but still... He just seems to be much more useful and happier where he's been the whole game. I do believe he would make a great king eventually, but Ferelden already has a queen and is in a desperate need of Grey Wardens. From pragmatic perspective, making him a king is a waste of resources. Together with other things, I simply don't see much sense in making him a king. But that's just my personal opinion.
As for Eamon. Suffice to say he doesn't care about our plans and therefore I don't care about his. But since it's at least some plan, let's play along as long as it's convenient. [/quote] Yeah, it's kind of weird that my perspective keeps shifting with each playthrough. I dislike Anora again because she turned on me again, when I was starting to like her in a previous playthrough. But since my last playthrough my preference for Alistair as a GW has changed now. I am probably back to seeing him as I did before I knew about the "hardening". And in this view he seems better off and happier staying as he was. You may have said before, he was told from childhood that he wouldn't be a contender for the throne, so that to me is the start of where he's conditioned to believe he's not good enough. He may not have wanted to be a prince but being told from the start that he'd be in the way is just a way of saying "you're a bastard, you have no place anywhere", in my opinion. So, that really set him off from the beginning to look for belonging elsewhere and I think he found it to some degree in the Templar training, as he tells you, and later in the Wardens. I think to make him willing and ready to be King the player has to somehow undo all he's ever been told since he was a kid, and how he learned to process that info and his role since then. He manages it on his own somehow with that one line you deliver but again, I think it's impossible to do that without metagaming. There's no way (without prior knowledge) to know how to make him stronger and accepting of his role as the last surviving heir to the throne. When I tried it before knowing about that line I think he was mad at me for making him King and still didn't want it for himself. I think it's crucial for him to come to that decision on his own for him to ever make a good king, especially if you don't marry him yourself or marry him to Anora. When he's not "hardened" whoever he's tied to his burdened with kind of carrying him on, being the strongest of the pair, etc. I mean, even if Anora is more than capable of ruling, Alistair's more like a puppy to follow her lead, imo, and he's just there to produce an heir. Man, I'm rambling. Cutting it short, I agree with you. Keeping him is better as you need more GW's in Ferelden and he's pretty useful in that role, even if others think he's stupid and weak.
Heh, I like that justification for sticking with Eamon. I mean, I kinda need one for my characters seeing as how he's not inherently a bad guy but you're kind of just stuck with him if he survives, going along with his plan to put Alistair on the throne. I had a hard time with that.
Going back to the original question. I think that DA II is actually one that could turn out better, to the player's liking, with metagaming, if it had to be one or the other. I had some surprises with DA:O but nothing too terrible really happens in this game that you absolutely must know about beforehand, right? And then I guess with different playthroughs you can find out on your own how different choices can be made.

[Vanilka]

lyriumaddict104 wrote...
I guess I got some metagaming in there too, whether to take her. Have you played with Carver yet? I think I read someone's input on Bethany and have been making the decision to leave her behind ever since they said which choice seems to make her happier. But yes, I did feel connected to her, as you said, like she was really my Hawke's sister. I'm glad it made me care that she was taken. Hehe, that's kind of funny. Even though I do expect something (I guess this is more real life than fiction) to bite me in the ass, I'm still surprised when it does. That's probably the opposite of what it should be. I was still kind of surprised when it started happening in-game. For a later quest, I always choose to turn someone in because of that.

I've sent you a PM so we can continue the discussion about DAII without posting spoilers here. 

I do like that they try to make you feel the best of the best, in a way, for some reasons, one of which being that I feel the Grey Wardens are supposed to be more capable or worthy of respect as warriors, etc. but I often don't feel that somehow for myself...I said it earlier too but I've played games where having companions wasn't central to the story or gameplay and the feel for that is quite different. In that setting I can handle the praise better because for the most part I really did do it on my own. But having that to compare it to, taking all the congrats and whatnot at the end in DA seems wrong. I like your way of dealing with it, imagining them giving speeches. I guess in some way it's implied that they were respected. I think Oghren gets some deal to lead a human army on the surface? But on the whole, I don't think they get enough recognition. I agree with what you said, and it's also probably true that leaders shoulder most of the blame if something goes wrong too. I'll keep pretending they got to stand in front of the crowds with me.

You've got a point. It's true that as the leader of the group you are to blame for the bad decisions as well as praised for the good ones. It's also true that you do the most of work - you have to bring together a group of people who couldn't possibly be more different from each other, you do all the talking, negotiating and deciding, most of my characters also do the most fighting and most bosses fall by their hand. My petite Dalish lass delivered the final blow to all the dragon bosses in both Origins and Awakening. I was so proud of her.  I guess a little more appreacion is in order.
You're also right that most of the companions get rewarded in a way - Wynne gets a position at the royal court and expresses a relief that it's not her who receives all the attention if I remember correctly, Leliana can be a part of an expedition going for the Ashes which seems to be a great honour to her etc. However, Alistair, Zevran and Sten seem to be hugely overlooked. And, "Thank you Warden, we're lucky you came when you did." will probably never stop bothering me. Exactly as you say, there are games where you truly have to do everything on your own. Then getting all the praise is perfectly fine. But that's not DA:O's case.
It's true the game does a good job tickling your ego. And I must admit I can't get enough of hearing how awesome my Warden is in DAII. 

Yes, and I've been trying to keep this idea in mind with whatever origin I play...I tend to think of my warden as the exception, so that he or she won't necessarily carry with him/her the prejudices that might come with each respective background. Given what you have to accomplish I don't think the warden, in reality at least, would have gotten very far by being an jerk to everyone. I know it's an RPG and it still allows for the player to be a jerk or cynic and playing it different ways is core to the RPG genre, having choices that is, but I like for my warden to be supportive of those who choose to fight with him/her, as much as that's possible and perhaps to be more open-minded than people he or she has known in the past might have been. Of course that's just my playstyle and my justification for what I say or do in-game even though that in a way might be metagaming. For example, I find it hard to roleplay a character outside the Circle of Magi who isn't at least a little wary of mages in general. I like to think that the way they are feared/treated, etc. in-game implies that only those going through it themselves would ever truly understand what it's like to be a mage. That's not to say it's impossible to come up with an HN for instance who's sympathetic to mages, etc. Back to the point, I agree with what you said, other than for metagaming I don't and wouldn't choose that line either. It doesn't fit into supportive roles I play and I wonder if there's something mean to say if you play a character that doesn't like Alistair? Meaner than that line. That line would probably more fit a Warden who didn't want to babysit Alistair, was just hard and wanting to move forward...I guess?

The point of RPG is to play a character with certain traits I think. Those don't always have to be what the stereotype tells you about them. I see no problem with a character that is not prejudiced. Even though my characters are influenced by their origin, in a similar way you mentioned with your mage, I think that no matter of what race, origin, religion etc. you are, you can always have a different approach to things than the rest of the group. 
Just because I play a Dalish Warden doesn't mean I'm going to be hostile to all the shems. My Dalish was cautious and suspicious of them and didn't feel comfortable among them at first but she was also very curious about them and their world. Most of the shemlen, a few exceptions aside, gave her no reason to hate them.
Moreover, as you say, I think that being a jerk doesn't help in your task, nor does it provide morale for your companions. With all that said, I have no problem with people playing mean characters. I, personally, don't see a point in playing an evil character for evil's sake but I like playing characters in the grey area from time to time myself.
However, as you said, it's hard for me to play a character that is not supportive of their companions, no matter whether they're generally jerks. The hardening line is a problem. Not only with Alistair but also with Leliana. I wouldn't have figured out the way to harden Leliana without reading about it first.
My problem with Alistair's hardening line is not only that it looks harsh and is so nicely hidden but it also feels... very strange in that context. It doesn't make much sense to me, which is one of the reasons I wouldn't pick it under natural circumstances. What does "Everybody is out for themselves." even have to do with anything in that situation? Maybe I'm missing something as someone who is not a native speaker. Still, I simply don't like the line in general. I don't like how the whole thing is executed.
As for your question as to whether there's a worse thing to say to Alistair after meeting his sister - yes, there is. You can tell him he's an idiot or you can simply ignore what's happened.

Hehe, yeah I actually do consider it lucky honestly to have never cared about making him king. I can roleplay it easier now but for personal reasons I'm conflicted and I hate that. I think that for the sake of his country he should be king but then again that's only with the hardening done and his shaping up and coming to terms with it on his own and realizing he might actually be able to do it. That's all metagaming though. So there again I guess it's also to do with planning...do I want my character to "harden" him and make him a good king because personally I think he's better than Anora alone perhaps? But I can only say that 'cause metagming that part changed my perspective on Alistair too. I do like him more self-confident and determined. Not knowing that, like on my first playthrough, I think he's better off staying with the wardens. Yeah, I think that's it. I kind of didn't expect that I could stay with him since I was an elf but the way he dumped me was also a surprise...he could have at least waited and I thought we could have pretended for our own sakes that we fought against separation at least a little longer. I felt like he didn't try hard enough.
Sparing Loghain is tough too. It was easier for me not to spare him the first playthrough 'cause again I didn't know what was coming and I guess I went along with killing him in part because of Alistair's reaction. And now that I know about the death of the warden who deals the killing blow to the Archdemon, it's actually harder to decide to kill Loghain, 'cause as you said you could always use another warden. That was true before but the first time I didn't know that Alistair or me had to die. And now I can get the roleplaying part too, that some players on pragmatic enough to overlook all Loghain's faults and choose to keep him out of necessity. And, I agree, on my first playthrough I didn't have any outside info on Loghain or who he was prior to DA:O so going on what I gleaned from the game's cutscenes and how it appeared I couldn't see any reason for any warden to choose to spare him. Seems to me that the Warden wouldn't have known what players on this forum know about him now. So, I like what you said, about choosing the person who stuck with you from the beginning rather than the one who hunted you down and even sent an assassin to kill you. And some origins do make it easier to kill him. I know that others here can justify what Loghain does but for me my characters see only what they've been through and can hate him based on that. For my mage, for example, I got to know Jowan a little more and questioning him I find that Loghain promised to resolve his issues with the Circle and perhaps fix it so that Jowan doesn't have to be killed for being a blood mage. Loghain ended up using my friend to do his dirty work and take the fall. So, that in mind it's easier, in short, to execute Loghain. And then metagaming again, I finally tried a character that spared Loghain and it was kind of hard to see Alistair take it as betrayal but I wanted to try it after watching youtube videos with Loghain in the party.

Well, not to excuse Alistair for dumping the Warden, but I think his decision can be explained in various ways. I know that I would bite the Warden's head off for doing that to me.  But I understand your reasons for making him a king and you have a point. I also know what you mean by saying he didn't try to make it work. I've never seen the part of the game so I have no idea what his reasons are. Pity the hardening is so cryptic. You couldn't possibly see that coming. You're not the only one who had this happen from what I've heard.
My only experience with the relationship with His Majesty Alistair was through a bug when I asked him with my Dalish, "What do you see happening between us?" Or something along those lines. He responded: "I won't let you get away if that's what you're asking. King or not king, I'll make it work." Which is funny because it was after the Landsmeet and I hadn't hardened him and hadn't made him a king.  That blew my mind. However, I reloaded and never asked the question again, it's out of character for my Dalish Warden to ask something like that. But I was too curious and couldn't help trying it.

As for Loghain, I think it requires a lot of thinking in order to get to the point when you can justify Loghain's actions. You make an excellent point saying that your Warden cares about what happens to her. Whatever Loghain's reasons are, she doesn't know them. Everybody you meet seems to believe that Loghain betrayed the king. Flemeth tells you that, Wynne tells you that, Anora and Teagan think that. Many other characters are at least suspicious of Loghain's motives. Even in DAII, it is directly stated both by Varric and Aveline that Loghain betrayed the king and nobody ever argues with any of them about it. Your Warden has no reason to think otherwise. Being hunted by Loghain's lackeys, finding all the evidence about his selling elves to slavery, poisoning Eamon, cooperating with Howe etc. don't exactly help his case either. You, as a player, may see what most Wardens can't, so you might feel for him more than the Warden. Again, that requires having some knowledge of him first. Or having a Warden that still sees the great Hero of the River Dane who would do anything to save Ferelden and is able to forgive him all that. I can't. Nor can my Wardens.
My Warden's usually don't feel any reason to spare him, aside from temporary conveniency. And, as you say, some have more reasons to kill him than the others. But since I know what happens after sparing him, I simply won't do it, not even out of necessity. And not only because of that. I guess those are my personal reasons. Knowing I wouldn't actually be able to give him what I think he deserves would bother me, even as a player. He might have meant well by doing what he had done. But that doesn't justify doing it. At least I don't believe it does. However, that's, of course, in my humble opinion.
Fortunately, I'm not really interested in him as a companion.

Yeah, it's kind of weird that my perspective keeps shifting with each playthrough. I dislike Anora again because she turned on me again, when I was starting to like her in a previous playthrough. But since my last playthrough my preference for Alistair as a GW has changed now. I am probably back to seeing him as I did before I knew about the "hardening". And in this view he seems better off and happier staying as he was. You may have said before, he was told from childhood that he wouldn't be a contender for the throne, so that to me is the start of where he's conditioned to believe he's not good enough. He may not have wanted to be a prince but being told from the start that he'd be in the way is just a way of saying "you're a bastard, you have no place anywhere", in my opinion. So, that really set him off from the beginning to look for belonging elsewhere and I think he found it to some degree in the Templar training, as he tells you, and later in the Wardens. I think to make him willing and ready to be King the player has to somehow undo all he's ever been told since he was a kid, and how he learned to process that info and his role since then. He manages it on his own somehow with that one line you deliver but again, I think it's impossible to do that without metagaming. There's no way (without prior knowledge) to know how to make him stronger and accepting of his role as the last surviving heir to the throne. When I tried it before knowing about that line I think he was mad at me for making him King and still didn't want it for himself. I think it's crucial for him to come to that decision on his own for him to ever make a good king, especially if you don't marry him yourself or marry him to Anora. When he's not "hardened" whoever he's tied to his burdened with kind of carrying him on, being the strongest of the pair, etc. I mean, even if Anora is more than capable of ruling, Alistair's more like a puppy to follow her lead, imo, and he's just there to produce an heir. Man, I'm rambling. Cutting it short, I agree with you. Keeping him is better as you need more GW's in Ferelden and he's pretty useful in that role, even if others think he's stupid and weak.
Heh, I like that justification for sticking with Eamon. I mean, I kinda need one for my characters seeing as how he's not inherently a bad guy but you're kind of just stuck with him if he survives, going along with his plan to put Alistair on the throne. I had a hard time with that.
Going back to the original question. I think that DA II is actually one that could turn out better, to the player's liking, with metagaming, if it had to be one or the other. I had some surprises with DA:O but nothing too terrible really happens in this game that you absolutely must know about beforehand, right? And then I guess with different playthroughs you can find out on your own how different choices can be made.

I think I can understand your shifting like and dislike of Anora. I suffer from that with some characters as well and it depends on what type of Warden I'm playing. I must say I've never liked Anora very much. She's your stereotypical noble - wants power and is not afraid to manipulate others to get it. I must give her credit for being nefariously smart at times. I like that. The rest of her personality does nothing for me and the way she treats some characters, like expendables who are there to get her what she wants, has made me dislike her. Which doesn't change the fact she does quite well in her position and that she's pretty damn convenient if you want to get rid of the problem with the throne and continue with what you were supposed to be doing in the first place.
If you care what happens to Ferelden, I wonder who is better as a ruler. There are whole threads about this and I don't think there's an easy answer. I haven't made Alistair a lone king yet and I haven't had a Warden marry him as well. But I think the outcome was slightly better when he ruled with Anora and had the Warden as his counsellor, in comparison with Anora having the throne for herself. I hadn't hardened him - I had wanted to but I didn't manage... again  - but he and the Warden were still a powerful duo that didn't let Anora do everything she wanted. It also depends on what you think is important. I liked that Alistair helped to improve the situation in the alienage and actually gave Shianni the right to participate in politics. For me, as someone who plays elves a lot in DA, this was a huge victory.
I think you're right in saying that the hardening makes things much easier and it's the only way to make him realise that, despite what he had been told his whole life, he's able to be a king. I think it's a little cruel to push someone into the position Alistair gets pushed into despite him protesting the whole time. And why wouldn't he? As you say, his whole life he had been told he's nothing but a bastard whom nobody wanted - his father couldn't and didn't care about him, Isolde had him sent to the Chantry where everybody disliked him for either being a commoner or being a noble because he was a little bit of both. I remember him saying that he used to sleep with hounds, I also remember him saying he's been told that the throne is not in his future, that he's the son of a commoner. Then, after all those years, he finally finds his place... until someone else suddenly remembers he could come in handy and wants to put the responsibility he was told he had no right to even think about carry on his shoulders and make him lead the whole nation. Not to even mention again that the Grey Wardens are not supposed to mess with politics. Yet you have to do it in Denerim and you have to do it in Orzammar. Funny story.
Again, I wish the hardening wasn't so... strange. I also wish there were more opportunities to do that. Maybe the metagaming wouldn't be necessary then. I just don't buy this, "ZOMG, this one sentence has changed the world as I knew it!" But I guess I should be grateful for having the opportunity at all.

Hm... I don't think Eamon is a bad guy. However, I do see him as an opportunist. Whether he really is... I wonder. Anyway, you can't refuse what he's offering which makes it easier. Moreover, let's face it, you don't have any other option or plan anyway. At least the game doesn't provide the space for you to deal with the problem on your own. Some of my Wardens dislike Eamon's plans, some hate them, but they also know that they will have to deal with Loghain sooner or later and they will need all the help they can get. Conveniency and necessity are always strong arguments, I think. "It'll have to do... for now," is how I played my last Warden.

As for metagaming in DA:O and DAII. I don't know. I must say I think it's the opposite. There are some not very nice decisions you can make in DA:O. It's not necessary to metagame to get it right but they're there. The whole Redcliffe affair, for example. You can kill Isolde or Connor. Or you can prevent their death by going to the Circle, which is extremely risky, however. Not doing the Dark Ritual can have a few nasty consequences. Defiling the Urn of Sacred Ashes, sparing Loghain, you can kill or not recruit some companions, you can influence Alistair's fate in many ways... and the list goes on.
I didn't have this feeling in DAII. Whatever nasty thing happened was usually bound to happen no matter what you did. I didn't need to metagame at all. The only knowledge I had about the game was the thing with the romance I mentioned in my earlier posts and you can't influence that. It's true I avoided some of the unpleasant things that can be avoided... I was probably lucky again.
But I've made about... 1.5 playthroughs of DAII so far and am still exploring it, so I can't really argue about anything. 
On the other hand, I might metagame in order to get companions' friendship or rivalry. I don't take certain companions to certain places because of their likes or dislikes. I don't know if it's metagaming since my Hawke knows very well what their companions believe in. But it probably is. I find it difficult to get proper influence with some companions otherwise. Be nice to them and your rivalry score lowers. Take them to some places and their friendship score lowers. It drives me insane.

Modifié par Vanilka of the Sword Coast, 01 septembre 2012 - 10:23 .

[lyriumaddict104]

[quote]Vanilka of the Sword Coast wrote...[quote]
[/quote]
You've got a point. It's true that as the leader of the group you are to blame for the bad decisions as well as praised for the good ones. It's also true that you do the most of work - you have to bring together a group of people who couldn't possibly be more different from each other, you do all the talking, negotiating and deciding, most of my characters also do the most fighting and most bosses fall by their hand. My petite Dalish lass delivered the final blow to all the dragon bosses in both Origins and Awakening. I was so proud of her.  I guess a little more appreacion is in order.
You're also right that most of the companions get rewarded in a way - Wynne gets a position at the royal court and expresses a relief that it's not her who receives all the attention if I remember correctly, Leliana can be a part of an expedition going for the Ashes which seems to be a great honour to her etc. However, Alistair, Zevran and Sten seem to be hugely overlooked. And, "Thank you Warden, we're lucky you came when you did." will probably never stop bothering me. Exactly as you say, there are games where you truly have to do everything on your own. Then getting all the praise is perfectly fine. But that's not DA:O's case.
It's true the game does a good job tickling your ego. And I must admit I can't get enough of hearing how awesome my Warden is in DAII. [/quote]
Yes, and I know it's kinda small-minded but I found myself wishing I could have heard more about him/her in DA II. I guess that's in part because it feels like a lot of "work" getting to the end of the game and you've changed a lot of lives by that point, it would just seem nice to see if word of it got as far as the Free Marches. (kinda spoiler?) I think someone mentioned the boon to the Circle of Magi being scrapped. I was hoping that was untrue but haven't heard mention of it in Kirkwall. I think I feel the ego thing more when I'm a loner in other games, lol, but I do like when it comes up in DA. At least, I feel more deserving of it, to an extent, when I've done everything on my own. But I like switching between games for that reason. DA does it well. Having companions, relationships, etc. Sometimes, after playing DA and going to a solo rpg I catch myself/player, slowing down to wait for my companions or looking back over my shoulder for them, til I remember they're not actually there. 
[quote]
[/quote]
[quote]The point of RPG is to play a character with certain traits I think. Those don't always have to be what the stereotype tells you about them. I see no problem with a character that is not prejudiced. Even though my characters are influenced by their origin, in a similar way you mentioned with your mage, I think that no matter of what race, origin, religion etc. you are, you can always have a different approach to things than the rest of the group. 
Just because I play a Dalish Warden doesn't mean I'm going to be hostile to all the shems. My Dalish was cautious and suspicious of them and didn't feel comfortable among them at first but she was also very curious about them and their world. Most of the shemlen, a few exceptions aside, gave her no reason to hate them.
Moreover, as you say, I think that being a jerk doesn't help in your task, nor does it provide morale for your companions. With all that said, I have no problem with people playing mean characters. I, personally, don't see a point in playing an evil character for evil's sake but I like playing characters in the grey area from time to time myself.[/quote]
I agree completely. I think though that my problem comes in with the conflict I have in deciding am I making this character her own person or doing something because I want it to happen that way? I agree that say if I play as a Dalish rogue or warrior I don't have to stick to the general stereotype that all Dalish hate all humans but then I guess I have to still tweak that one on how much I let her go of what might have been a unique upbringing strongly influenced by an intense dislike of humans (with reason)...I played my Dalish rogue to be nicer but I wasn't sure if that was accurate or not, simply because I couldn't separate myself from the character I was playing...it's probably just as true that you don't have to be nice to everyone you meet just as you don't have to always be a jerk. I'm sometimes too nice to people in-game, even the rude ones.
I have this issue sometimes with creating characters that have to "save the world"...how far will she get if she can't get along with the people she's forced to work with? But that's just my dilemma, which probably no one else has, lol. There's certainly no reason another player can't work that all out for herself/himself and come up with a character he/she's happy with. I do have a hard time playing mean characters, that's probably part of the problem. I think I did it on those two extremes in order, possibly, to get more comfortable with it, playing characters who make choices I could live with (as if it's real life) and then one that I couldn't. With my evil blood mage (that's in itself almost a stereotype, heh) I did all of the "evil" things I was afraid to do, like letting Isolde die in the ritual, spoiling Andraste's ashes, selling the city elves to the Tevinter slavers, and putting Bhelen on the throne. I was way too chicken to take a chance on those things at first, even if I could see my character doing any of them. I mean I don't think all my wardens necessarily have to revere Andraste or have much love for the Chantry but perhaps I only got so far with showing that in that I didn't donate money when the Mother asks you in Lothering, small things like that. And I think that's in part due to some of the hostility from NPC's the player can get if those characters don't like decisions you make? For example, I was kinda surprised when a random guard I'd passed (in Elder Scrolls) called me "breton trash" and then I had to remember I was playing a thieving murderer and of course people aren't going to like me much. Though I don't think DA:O or DA II show much NPC reactions to the players like that game. If it were like that, you couldn't walk past anyone in-game without them knowing almost everything you've done. I'm getting on another tangent again. Anyway, I guess I just like being too nice and have a hard time keeping my personal preferences or opinions out of what my characters do but all the more excuse to keep playing and attempting to roleplay characters that don't do everything I want them to.

[quote]However, as you said, it's hard for me to play a character that is not supportive of their companions, no matter whether they're generally jerks. The hardening line is a problem. Not only with Alistair but also with Leliana. I wouldn't have figured out the way to harden Leliana without reading about it first.
My problem with Alistair's hardening line is not only that it looks harsh and is so nicely hidden but it also feels... very strange in that context. It doesn't make much sense to me, which is one of the reasons I wouldn't pick it under natural circumstances. What does "Everybody is out for themselves." even have to do with anything in that situation? Maybe I'm missing something as someone who is not a native speaker. Still, I simply don't like the line in general. I don't like how the whole thing is executed.
As for your question as to whether there's a worse thing to say to Alistair after meeting his sister - yes, there is. You can tell him he's an idiot or you can simply ignore what's happened.[/quote]
I wasn't sure if I was the only one, which is probably silly, who likes to be supportive of his/her companions but can't be rude to others the player interacts with. Not to go back too much into DA II but I recently played a more direct/blunt Hawke (and I find I like it, lol) but to certain companions I'm nicer and don't choose the more aggressive responses and I worry that really just means I'm playing a Hawke with a borderline personality disorder or something. I start to feel trapped in those response choices and maybe that some of the nicer options would be out of character for her? But I've decided to make her friends with at least one person whose views she mostly shares so now I actually have only one friend and a romance. Anyway, Leliana's line is a good example too. I actually haven't read yet which one it is that hardens her, though hers seems easier to guess on? I mean, I guess that's because most either seem to encourage her to stick to her faith or be whoever she is as a consequence of meeting the player. I have had a few endings with her where I don't know how it happened it just did. In one she's accepting the offer to lead the expedition to hunt for brood mothers and then in the other she's working for the Chantry to protect the Sacred Ashes. Though those likely have to do with how you choose to deal with the Ashes as well as what line hardens her or not.
Yeah, I think I couldn't understand exactly what the warden was trying to say to Alistair if he/she chose that line either. Now, somehow, it just makes more sense (but that's after metagaming I guess) and I can tell the warden is refering to Alistair's sister and I guess people similar to her. The first time that line didn't even seem relevant to the conversation and now I believe it's just there for someone who doesn't care to offer Alistair much comfort other than to say that some people in the world only care about themselves, which is probably why his sister wasn't looking for that family connection when she met him and she only wanted Alistair for what he could do for her, like giving her money or status or support in some way, rather than being interested in what she could do for Alistair. Since he'd had no real family and hadn't been made to feel wanted for most of his life she could have at least given him that validation (for want of a better word) he had probably been searching for for a long time. I think that's kind of what he wanted most. On the surface it was family and someone who actually loved him. But I think it was also deeper, he needed a place, something that he came from and to call his own. But his sister wasn't willing to give him any of it, she only cared about herself. It was kind of surprising at first, not expecting her to react that way to learning that her long-lost brother was still alive. I guess that "hardening' line sums up all of that into an unsympathetic, direct and short response. Heh, even Alistair misunderstands! Kind of can see that now.
Thanks, that sounds like it, the meaner choices for what to say. I played a character that didn't like him much and I may have chosen one of those...did you know that Alistair doesn't disapprove much if it's a male Warden who's mean to him? That's kind of off topic but I've wondered at that. All the unsympathetic or harsh responses you can choose don't seem to make him hate you as much if you're a guy. Other than for metagaming I can't see a reason to choose that line either.

[quote]Well, not to excuse Alistair for dumping the Warden, but I think his decision can be explained in various ways. I know that I would bite the Warden's head off for doing that to me.  But I understand your reasons for making him a king and you have a point. I also know what you mean by saying he didn't try to make it work. I've never seen the part of the game so I have no idea what his reasons are. Pity the hardening is so cryptic. You couldn't possibly see that coming. You're not the only one who had this happen from what I've heard.
My only experience with the relationship with His Majesty Alistair was through a bug when I asked him with my Dalish, "What do you see happening between us?" Or something along those lines. He responded: "I won't let you get away if that's what you're asking. King or not king, I'll make it work." Which is funny because it was after the Landsmeet and I hadn't hardened him and hadn't made him a king.  That blew my mind. However, I reloaded and never asked the question again, it's out of character for my Dalish Warden to ask something like that. But I was too curious and couldn't help trying it.[/quote] Heh, there's some things like that that I've tried out of curiousity and then reloaded 'cause it was out of character or not part of my plan. I think that if I had chosen that "hardening" line for my character, without metagming, I would have wondered how I got him to change, lol, even with seeing that camp cutscene where he later tells the Warden he'd been thinking over what he/she said. I wouldn't have understood how it was possible. It is cryptic and just odd...I'm unsympathetic one time and then for the rest of the game he's suddenly ready and willing to be King? meh. That's really funny about the bug...I can't remember if anything like that happened to me when I was romancing him with another character or not. Some odd things have happened, and it took several playthroughs also to realize that with him you can't flirt at all. When I was playing a character not interested in him I was surprised to get that rose from him...I hadn't even asked him the lamp post question.

[quote]As for Loghain, I think it requires a lot of thinking in order to get to the point when you can justify Loghain's actions. You make an excellent point saying that your Warden cares about what happens to her. Whatever Loghain's reasons are, she doesn't know them. Everybody you meet seems to believe that Loghain betrayed the king. Flemeth tells you that, Wynne tells you that, Anora and Teagan think that. Many other characters are at least suspicious of Loghain's motives. Even in DAII, it is directly stated both by Varric and Aveline that Loghain betrayed the king and nobody ever argues with any of them about it. Your Warden has no reason to think otherwise. Being hunted by Loghain's lackeys, finding all the evidence about his selling elves to slavery, poisoning Eamon, cooperating with Howe etc. don't exactly help his case either. You, as a player, may see what most Wardens can't, so you might feel for him more than the Warden. Again, that requires having some knowledge of him first. Or having a Warden that still sees the great Hero of the River Dane who would do anything to save Ferelden and is able to forgive him all that. I can't. Nor can my Wardens. [/quote]
I haven't heard Varric say it and would like to but I like that Aveline, who was there, feels the same way.
You make a good point that it requires a lot of thinking and perhaps planning to get your Warden to the point where he/she can justify sparing him at that point. The closest I can think of right now would possibly be the HN. That character could have grown up on stories of Loghain's heroic triumph over the Orlesians and whatever else he did. But then Howe's betrayal kind of ruins that, I believe. I guess the player might have reason not to connect Loghain to that but I wouldn't support him if one of his lackeys just murdered my family in cold blood. I think what Loghain says is just spin. We both talked about it before that the leader does often take the blame for his subordinates' actions whether he wants to or not. So I really did not like Loghain's trying to brush it off as not his responsiblity or fault that someone who has taken his orders before is suddenly on his own for choices he made later on, even if he did it behind Loghain's back. And if it wasn't Sten, I believe someone in-game commented that the leader does take responsibilty for his followers' actions. I'm not certain who might have said that but most of my "good" Wardens believe in that kind of leadership and don't conveniently drop somebody when his actions are damning and the Warden doesn't want to take the blame (even though I realize that real-life politicians and agencies can do this sort of thing all the time). Howe was too visible, too closely associated with Loghain for L. to get away with dismissing Howe's actions as his own and nothing to do with Loghain. I don't have much respect for him because of that and I can't see many of my Wardens appreciating that either.
Most of your companions follow you through whatever you decide to do, even if they don't always approve. They don't abandon you and as you become a leader of that small group you can do the same. I took on the responsibility of killing Morrigan's mother for her, so I became equally guilty if that was the wrong thing to do. When I was thinking that the HN could have possibly had a bit of hero worship for Loghain that was kind of ruined with the killing of his/her entire family. And the mage too can later learn that Loghain ruined the Circle as well. Whether one likes Loghain or not, it's he who persuaded Uldred to rebel (I remember him promising U. that the Circle could be free) even if Uldred was already a blood mage, and it was Loghain who stole Jowan from the Templars and sent Jowan on the path of poisoning Eamon. The dwarven and Dalish Wardens might not have had personal reasons to dislike Loghain before the Joining but I think both Howe and Loghain even had a hand in the city elves' rebellion even before selling some to slavery? In my opinion, it makes more sense to start with either a Dalish elf or dwarf if I had to plan a Warden that might end up sparing Loghain, if only for their not having previous experience with his or his lackeys' treachery.
In a way, I think that having any more information on Loghain, like reading The Calling, is kind of metagaming too. If other players are able to come up with reasons to spare him just based on what the Warden experiences throughout the game, then that's fine but I think knowing more than what you can see in-game kind of spoils one's view of Loghain up to the time of the Landsmeet. Just going on what we could learn of him without outside help, I did not respect him enough to ever want to do anything but kill him. That actually changed when he surrendered after the duel. He gained a lot of respect for accepting his defeat and not trying to challenge or break the rules just because he was the one who lost. And after several playthroughs I kind of feel bad for him and Anora to just have to stand there for that part where Alistair, the Warden, and Riordan talk about whether to kill him. Without metagaming, it's hard to see any reason to spare him, for most of my characters. It's even a stretch to say that maybe a hearless Alistair-hater could do it. I could see it as possibly a practical choice if you know before the Landsmeet that the Warden has to die, and it could work for a character who'd be willing to spare Loghain at that time if only to throw him at the Archdemon later.

[quote]My Warden's usually don't feel any reason to spare him, aside from temporary conveniency. And, as you say, some have more reasons to kill him than the others. But since I know what happens after sparing him, I simply won't do it, not even out of necessity. And not only because of that. I guess those are my personal reasons. Knowing I wouldn't actually be able to give him what I think he deserves would bother me, even as a player. He might have meant well by doing what he had done. But that doesn't justify doing it. At least I don't believe it does. However, that's, of course, in my humble opinion.
Fortunately, I'm not really interested in him as a companion.[/quote]
I think those youtube videos made me want to try a part of the game I hadn't experienced before, and to try to take out all my anger on him in questions you can ask him at camp. I wanted the chance to do that myself. Some players do like him and haven't grilled him after having him join the party but I guess in a way I felt that was the closest a player could come to getting satisfaction from confronting Loghain. I liked what you said about both you and the characters you create not feeling like you can give him what he deserves. I can agree. When I spared him the first time (I think at least two characters have done it) personally I didn't feel that he deserved an heroic end. Personally, on some level, I do believe people deserve a second chance (if they're willing to take it) so I feel I can't deny him that in a way and if he wants to throw himself at Death, by all means go ahead but I also can't fault you're personal reason for not wanting to spare him. I'm kind of conflicted on that. I don't like him and it's hard to forgive what he did, even if he supposedly meant well, but it's also hard, for someone who likes Alistair, to lose Alistair's friendship and "betray" A. in that way. Sometimes I feel that it's even more personal for Alistair, since Loghain is directly or indirectly responsible for Duncan's death and sometimes I like letting Alistair deliver the killing blow.

[quote]I think I can understand your shifting like and dislike of Anora. I suffer from that with some characters as well and it depends on what type of Warden I'm playing. I must say I've never liked Anora very much. She's your stereotypical noble - wants power and is not afraid to manipulate others to get it. I must give her credit for being nefariously smart at times. I like that. The rest of her personality does nothing for me and the way she treats some characters, like expendables who are there to get her what she wants, has made me dislike her. Which doesn't change the fact she does quite well in her position and that she's pretty damn convenient if you want to get rid of the problem with the throne and continue with what you were supposed to be doing in the first place.
If you care what happens to Ferelden, I wonder who is better as a ruler. There are whole threads about this and I don't think there's an easy answer. I haven't made Alistair a lone king yet and I haven't had a Warden marry him as well. But I think the outcome was slightly better when he ruled with Anora and had the Warden as his counsellor, in comparison with Anora having the throne for herself. I hadn't hardened him - I had wanted to but I didn't manage... again  - but he and the Warden were still a powerful duo that didn't let Anora do everything she wanted. It also depends on what you think is important. I liked that Alistair helped to improve the situation in the alienage and actually gave Shianni the right to participate in politics. For me, as someone who plays elves a lot in DA, this was a huge victory.[/quote]
That's kind of neat to have that experience of playing the elves so often and thus having a stronger appreciation end-game for what Alistair does for them. I think that I liked it in general just because I like seeing everyone's situation improve as much as possible but so far I've only had one Dalish playthrough and never got very far with my CE. I need to try both again. It's a good point, that choosing the next leader of Ferelden depends on what you think is important. Since I've had Alistair as king it's hard for me to not put him in that role again, as I've probably already said too much. Heh, but he is better when he's confident and I was a little worried what might happen to us when I left the throne to Anora on her own. In my last ending we killed her father and it said he died in disgrace, so nothing in the duel redeemed even a smidgeon of his honor and I worried that she might betray us again and maybe send assassins after us. But trying it as Chancellor might be interesting, and then letting Anora and Alistair marry. I've never done that before. I think when he's hardened he doesn't let her push him around but I did worry that she might if he went into it reluctantly, as king or consort and as a married man. I think Eamon only stays on as advisor if Alistair is alone (shows how strong Anora is even married to Alistair) since Anora can't push him out. I should read those other threads sometimes, check out what endings other players had. I liked mine enough when Alistair was hardened but alone his life kind of seemed sad to me, well since he was alone. Bah, conflicted again.
[quote]I think you're right in saying that the hardening makes things much easier and it's the only way to make him realise that, despite what he had been told his whole life, he's able to be a king. I think it's a little cruel to push someone into the position Alistair gets pushed into despite him protesting the whole time. And why wouldn't he? As you say, his whole life he had been told he's nothing but a bastard whom nobody wanted - his father couldn't and didn't care about him, Isolde had him sent to the Chantry where everybody disliked him for either being a commoner or being a noble because he was a little bit of both. I remember him saying that he used to sleep with hounds, I also remember him saying he's been told that the throne is not in his future, that he's the son of a commoner. Then, after all those years, he finally finds his place... until someone else suddenly remembers he could come in handy and wants to put the responsibility he was told he had no right to even think about carry on his shoulders and make him lead the whole nation. Not to even mention again that the Grey Wardens are not supposed to mess with politics. Yet you have to do it in Denerim and you have to do it in Orzammar. Funny story.
Again, I wish the hardening wasn't so... strange. I also wish there were more opportunities to do that. Maybe the metagaming wouldn't be necessary then. I just don't buy this, "ZOMG, this one sentence has changed the world as I knew it!" But I guess I should be grateful for having the opportunity at all.[/quote]
Heh, well put, all of it. It makes me wonder how awful he must have felt when it came back around to him that suddenly when he's useful someone wants to put him on the throne after it must have been drilled into him to never even want it in the first place. In a way, I might have disliked Eamon for doing that. Does it ever come up that Eamon thought more of Alistair than as a spare butt to sit in a chair when it came to blocking Loghain's gamble for the throne? I know that Eamon cared for Alistair, in some way, afterall he kept Alistair's mother's locket (even had it repaired) all those years ago and as Alistair says it was A.'s mom that the man married to Eamon's sister cheated with (heh, that's a complicated way of putting it). But it doesn't seem that Eamon considered Alistair's feelings all that much, if you look at the dramatic change it is for how much value Alistair has to everyone else and himself. Aside from duty or obligation as the last surviving heir, I don't think it's that selfish for Alistair to not want the throne, considering how he was treated most of his life. "Stay out of sight, brat... (and later) you're half-brother whom you weren't close to is dead, now you must take the throne (suddenly you're worth something to us)." that's kind of lame to put it that way but seems the gist of it. And now that you mention it, I too wish we had other opportunities to "harden' him, since that line is strange. You do get some chances to talk to him about the king thing but I think he doesn't like for the Warden to bring it up and nothing else ever comes close to helping him resolve those issues either.

[quote]Hm... I don't think Eamon is a bad guy. However, I do see him as an opportunist. Whether he really is... I wonder. Anyway, you can't refuse what he's offering which makes it easier. Moreover, let's face it, you don't have any other option or plan anyway. At least the game doesn't provide the space for you to deal with the problem on your own. Some of my Wardens dislike Eamon's plans, some hate them, but they also know that they will have to deal with Loghain sooner or later and they will need all the help they can get. Conveniency and necessity are always strong arguments, I think. "It'll have to do... for now," is how I played my last Warden.[/quote]
I think I tried killing him in one playthrough, and it didn't quite work. I think though I destroyed the ashes I still had to take a pinch for Eamon and that bothered me a bit, since I believed it was out of character for me to see how useful the ashes could be to save someone but I'll defile the rest in unholy rage or something. I did manage to kill his wife at least, though that didn't stop him either. On the whole I may have been just trying a new approach to our problem, kind of going along with the idea that there may be another way and there wasn't. When you first get to Lothering Morrigan says she thinks the Warden should go directly after Loghain (I was kind of glad we couldn't at level 5ish) but sometimes with different Wardens I kind of wished we didn't need Eamon, at least because later I didn't go along with his choice for Ferelden and I kind of felt like all the effort to save him was sort of a waste. I mean, we only had him because he expected us to do it his way, right? I know you're right, the game doesn't give us any other option and sometimes I wanted one. But as you've said, at least your Warden can not like Eamon's plans even if we must accept them. I had always thought of him as a good guy but maybe my opinions on him have changed since I've done so many playthroughs where I liked him...which is probably silly. But I like your description of him as an opportunist. Probably fits him best.

[quote]As for metagaming in DA:O and DAII. I don't know. I must say I think it's the opposite. There are some not very nice decisions you can make in DA:O. It's not necessary to metagame to get it right but they're there. The whole Redcliffe affair, for example. You can kill Isolde or Connor. Or you can prevent their death by going to the Circle, which is extremely risky, however. Not doing the Dark Ritual can have a few nasty consequences. Defiling the Urn of Sacred Ashes, sparing Loghain, you can kill or not recruit some companions, you can influence Alistair's fate in many ways... and the list goes on.
I didn't have this feeling in DAII. Whatever nasty thing happened was usually bound to happen no matter what you did. I didn't need to metagame at all. The only knowledge I had about the game was the thing with the romance I mentioned in my earlier posts and you can't influence that. It's true I avoided some of the unpleasant things that can be avoided... I was probably lucky again.
But I've made about... 1.5 playthroughs of DAII so far and am still exploring it, so I can't really argue about anything.[/quote] I might feel that way about DA II because I've come from playing it much more than Origins recently so it's fresh and I guess I've played Origins so many times (months ago) that I've lost any sense of surprise with that game. To me, most of what happens isn't unexpected anymore, so I can't remember what it felt like before I knew what happened. You gave good examples and I can see what you're saying too. I just don't know which is more true for me. And we did talk about what a twist the DR was, especially the first time through.  I think the hardening lines are the best examples of the need to metagame if you want those outcomes since they are strange and cryptic. Origins definitely still seems to offer way more alternate paths according to the players' choices but I guess for me it's just easier to deal with than what happens in DAII (spoiler) like with your family dying off so much. Especially one of your siblings being killed by the Ogre based on what class you choose. I think I metagamed for that just in choosing who I want to stay with me sometimes. I didn't like it since it wasn't a choice you made in-game... I wanted to be a mage and have a mage sister. Maybe I was thinking that DAII had more changes that didn't "make sense" than the twists that Origins did. Though, Alistair's dumping the player was one that didn't make sense. I may have to re-evaluate the claim that DA II requires more metagaming... though I think mine goes back to "I didn't see that coming", lol. I guess I could have expected trouble in the Deep Roads, though maybe I was spoiled by not losing companions unless you killed them or really upset them.

[quote]On the other hand, I might metagame in order to get companions' friendship or rivalry. I don't take certain companions to certain places because of their likes or dislikes. I don't know if it's metagaming since my Hawke knows very well what their companions believe in. But it probably is. I find it difficult to get proper influence with some companions otherwise. Be nice to them and your rivalry score lowers. Take them to some places and their friendship score lowers. It drives me insane.
[/quote] Well-said. I've played it so much now that it's finally sinking in for me what certain characters like and dislike but when I first played I just took people with me 'cause I needed rogues or warriors or certain mages on some quests and kind of hoped for the best. Now, I guess it's still metagaming 'cause I know from doing some of it before what they'll approve of or not. I think my Hawke could learn some of these things in time to not bring people along to do something they really hate but maybe some occasions their approval/disapproval can come as a surprise. I know Fenris pretty much hates anything to do with mages but there were things I found out about him so much later. I'm rambling. The switching back and forth drives me crazy too. And with not knowing ahead of time it does feel difficult to make it work whichever way you want it. I think metagaming would have changed what I did with Isabela too. My first playthrough she wasn't easy to make friends with (to lock it in). I guess Origins was different since the people who joined you had a more common cause to share than the mages vs. templar deal where there are two sides and even someone you may like might not side with you over political/personal differences. The friendship/rivalry thing is a good example, if any, of how metagaming helps, whether one wants to do it. Origins I felt gave us more "face time" with our companions so it wasn't really hit or miss with them when they accompany you. DA II didn't seem to give the player all that much time to build a friendship or rivalry for all the years it was to have taken place. In Origins you can have conversations with them in camp, and with some you can spam them with gifts galore to earn approval points. But from a roleplay perspective I don't think you have enough time to get to know your companions or to find some other reason to like each other than for what they see you do or not do. I liked Morrigan for instance and could get along with her when I was mage-friendly or just agreed with her on some points and I had her friendship even though I almost never made a decision she approved of (like saving the Anvil). DA II so much makes it feel like you have to either say what they want to hear, do what they want you to do, or not take them with you or even make the decision to take them with you when you otherwise might not have.

[Vanilka]

[quote]lyriumaddict104 wrote...
Yes, and I know it's kinda small-minded but I found myself wishing I could have heard more about him/her in DA II. I guess that's in part because it feels like a lot of "work" getting to the end of the game and you've changed a lot of lives by that point, it would just seem nice to see if word of it got as far as...
[/quote] 
Well, that makes two of us. I don't know whether it's small-minded. But I'm very fond of my Warden, much more than I'm fond of Hawke. One of the reasons I was looking forward to playing DAII was the Warden references. Having played a Dalish, I got quite a few. I wouldn't mind more, however. On the other hand, some things didn't make much sense with the save I had imported.

[quote]I agree completely. I think though that my problem comes in with the conflict I have in deciding am I making this character her own person or doing something because I want it to happen that way? I agree that say if I play as a Dalish rogue or warrior I don't have to stick to the general stereotype that all Dalish hate all humans but then I guess I have to still tweak that one on how much I let her go of what might have been a unique upbringing strongly influenced by an intense dislike of humans (with reason)...I played my Dalish rogue to be nicer but I wasn't sure if that was accurate or not, simply because I couldn't separate myself from the character I was playing...it's probably just as true that you don't have to be nice to everyone you meet just as you don't have to always be a jerk. I'm sometimes too nice to people in-game, even the rude ones.
[/quote]
I believe there's no wrong way to roleplay a character. You can be a black sheep of the group. Or you can be its generic member. Or something in between. Letting your character be influenced by their origin may be somewhat important. I think it would be strange to play a mage, for example, that goes around asking: "Huh? What is a templar? What is an apostate? What is a phylactery?" I don't mean to say it's impossible, I think it's possible to roleplay almost anything, but you know what I mean...
However, the rest of your character's personality is up to you. If you can come up with a good reason for your Warden's actions, I see no problem. Why would my Dalish care about that neglected human prisoner in Ostagar? Well, maybe she believes that, no matter whether he's a deserter or a thief, no matter whether he's human, no being should be treated this way, unless it did something terrible. Why would she donate to the Chantry despite not believing in the Maker? Let's say Alistair or Leliana told her that the money would be actually used to feed the poor. (My Dalish didn't donate; I'm just giving an example.)
I also don't think it's wrong to make a decision just because you, the player, like it. Moreover, I'm pretty sure you will always find a reason for your character to do certain things if you try hard enough. I think the reasons for making certain decisions are a big part of what makes the character who they are, not only the option you choose for them. Of course, it might look silly to make an evil character donate to the Chantry. (However, even this could be roleplayed.) But what's the worst thing that could happen? Your character might become inconsistent. Unless it takes the enjoyment from the game for you, of course. That's the only thing that matters in the end.

[quote]I mean I don't think all my wardens necessarily have to revere Andraste or have much love for the Chantry but perhaps I only got so far with showing that in that I didn't donate money when the Mother asks you in Lothering, small things like that. And I think that's in part due to some of the hostility from NPC's the player can get if those characters don't like decisions you make?[/quote]
I think there's beauty in the small things like being able to refuse the donation to the Chantry. Your character doesn't have to prove (s)he doesn't believe in Andraste or the Maker wherever (s)he goes. You know (s)he doesn't and there are a few places you can express it (Lothering, Orzammar, Haven etc.). Bringing it up all the time is unecessary, in my opinion. If not annoying. Actually, this is exactly one of the things that bothered me in DAII: "Mages this. Templars that." The whole game! My poor nerves.
I think I know what you mean by wanting to avoid negative reactions from NPCs though. Especially companions. It took me time to learn to disagree and not fear the disapproval points. But let's face it. You can get such a massive approval with some companions just from the dialogues that a few lost points don't hurt. A few disapproval points here and there can also be helpful if you don't want to finish your romance too early.

[quote]I wasn't sure if I was the only one, which is probably silly, who likes to be supportive of his/her companions but can't be rude to others the player interacts with. Not to go back too much into DA II but I recently played a more direct/blunt Hawke (and I find I like it, lol) but to certain companions I'm nicer and don't choose the more aggressive responses and I worry that really just means I'm playing a Hawke with a borderline personality disorder or something. I start to feel trapped in those response choices and maybe that some of the nicer options would be out of character for her? But I've decided to make her friends with at least one person whose views she mostly shares so now I actually have only one friend and a romance.[/quote]
I don't see a problem with that. (Haha, I like Hawke the jerk, too. Well, the male version at least.) The fact your character is generally jerk doesn't stop her from growing fond of her companions. Jerks have feelings, too. You don't have to kick puppies just because you're not playing a "good" character.

[quote]Thanks, that sounds like it, the meaner choices for what to say. I played a character that didn't like him much and I may have chosen one of those...did you know that Alistair doesn't disapprove much if it's a male Warden who's mean to him? That's kind of off topic but I've wondered at that. All the unsympathetic or harsh responses you can choose don't seem to make him hate you as much if you're a guy. Other than for metagaming I can't see a reason to choose that line either.[/quote]
What? I had no idea. Hey, that's not fair!  I guess it's easier to take insults from someone you're not planning to woo. 

[quote]I haven't heard Varric say it and would like to but I like that Aveline, who was there, feels the same way.[/quote]
Varric states during the storytelling somewhere at the beginning of the game something along the lines of "...the king was betrayed by his most trusted general..."

[quote]You make a good point that it requires a lot of thinking and perhaps planning to get your Warden to the point where he/she can justify sparing him at that point. The closest I can think of right now would possibly be the HN. That character could have grown up on stories of Loghain's heroic triumph over the Orlesians and whatever else he did. But then Howe's betrayal kind of ruins that, I believe. I guess the player might have reason not to connect Loghain to that but I wouldn't support him if one of his lackeys just murdered my family in cold blood. I think what Loghain says is just spin. We both talked about it before that the leader does often take the blame for his subordinates' actions whether he wants to or not. So I really did not like Loghain's trying to brush it off as not his responsiblity or fault that someone who has taken his orders before is suddenly on his own for choices he made later on, even if he did it behind Loghain's back. And if it wasn't Sten, I believe someone in-game commented that the leader does take responsibilty for his followers' actions. I'm not certain who might have said that but most of my "good" Wardens believe in that kind of leadership and don't conveniently drop somebody when his actions are damning and the Warden doesn't want to take the blame (even though I realize that real-life politicians and agencies can do this sort of thing all the time). Howe was too visible, too closely associated with Loghain for L. to get away with dismissing Howe's actions as his own and nothing to do with Loghain. I don't have much respect for him because of that and I can't see many of my Wardens appreciating that either.
Most of your companions follow you through whatever you decide to do, even if they don't always approve. They don't abandon you and as you become a leader of that small group you can do the same. I took on the responsibility of killing Morrigan's mother for her, so I became equally guilty if that was the wrong thing to do. When I was thinking that the HN could have possibly had a bit of hero worship for Loghain that was kind of ruined with the killing of his/her entire family. And the mage too can later learn that Loghain ruined the Circle as well. Whether one likes Loghain or not, it's he who persuaded Uldred to rebel (I remember him promising U. that the Circle could be free) even if Uldred was already a blood mage, and it was Loghain who stole Jowan from the Templars and sent Jowan on the path of poisoning Eamon. The dwarven and Dalish Wardens might not have had personal reasons to dislike Loghain before the Joining but I think both Howe and Loghain even had a hand in the city elves' rebellion even before selling some to slavery? In my opinion, it makes more sense to start with either a Dalish elf or dwarf if I had to plan a Warden that might end up sparing Loghain, if only for their not having previous experience with his or his lackeys' treachery. [/quote]
There's nothing I could add you haven't already said. I agree with basically everything. You make a good point about taking responsibility for the people you lead, too. Yes, I guess it does apply to Loghain as well. I know he can't be held responsible for a random soldier out of the hundreds he has. But Howe's his right hand and, whatever bad thing can be said about Loghain, he's definitely not so stupid as not to notice what kind of person Howe is.
It's difficult to say whether Dalish or Dwarven Warden is more likely to spare Loghain. On the other hand, those probably don't give a damn about Fereldan politics. Or heroes for that matter. I'd say it depends on the kind of personality you give your Warden, as well. Dalish Warden may have the same reasons for killing Loghain as a City Elf would. I know that it's said that Dalish do not respect the "flat-ears" but that doesn't change the fact they are their people. Or had been once. However, I'm not saying you're not right. I'm just thinking out loud.
I've always thought that out of all the origins, Human Noble might have a lot of reasons to spare Loghain. He's the national hero and as one of not many origins, HN is supposed to know something about politics and military which means (s)he could find an explanation for Loghain's actions. The one HN is after is Howe, not Loghain.

[quote]In a way, I think that having any more information on Loghain, like reading The Calling, is kind of metagaming too. If other players are able to come up with reasons to spare him just based on what the Warden experiences throughout the game, then that's fine but I think knowing more than what you can see in-game kind of spoils one's view of Loghain up to the time of the Landsmeet. Just going on what we could learn of him without outside help, I did not respect him enough to ever want to do anything but kill him. That actually changed when he surrendered after the duel. He gained a lot of respect for accepting his defeat and not trying to challenge or break the rules just because he was the one who lost. And after several playthroughs I kind of feel bad for him and Anora to just have to stand there for that part where Alistair, the Warden, and Riordan talk about whether to kill him. Without metagaming, it's hard to see any reason to spare him, for most of my characters. It's even a stretch to say that maybe a hearless Alistair-hater could do it. I could see it as possibly a practical choice if you know before the Landsmeet that the Warden has to die, and it could work for a character who'd be willing to spare Loghain at that time if only to throw him at the Archdemon later.[/quote]
I think that the knowledge of Loghain outside of your Warden's point of view or even outside the game is nice and may be relevant to defend Loghain's actions here in the forums, but I also don't think you can base your in-game decision on that. Well, you can... but I do consider it to be metagaming. Unless your Warden is a member of Loghain fanclub or something, I don't think there's a way (s)he can know all these things.
Hm, I know that a lot of people who don't like Alistair so much are delighted at the option to switch him for Loghain. But I know a lot of people do it for the hell of it - they are curious about Loghain, they want to see what happens, they want a different decision imported into DAII etc. I've read posts of Alifangirls here in the forums who actually had Alistair executed or exiled because they wanted to experience that part of the game. I couldn't stomach doing that to any of my companions and that's the reason there are parts of the game I'll never see. However, you can still make Alistair a king and spare Loghain, which is probably more bearable for someone who actually likes Alistair than having him leave for good or, Creators forbid, have him executed.
Knowing the Warden delivering the final blow dies, prior to Riordan actually telling you, is also heavy metagaming. Unless you roleplay that your Warden has found out somehow, which is pretty improbable. How? From where? Even if you roleplayed that your Warden persuaded Riordan to tell you earlier, he still tells you (again) before the final battle. It wouldn't make much sense.
However, yes, every able body you can throw at the Archie counts. That's for sure. I can't blame anyone who decides to spare Loghain. While I can't think of many reasons to do it - metagaming or not, I can understand if someone thinks otherwise.

[quote]I'm kind of conflicted on that. I don't like him and it's hard to forgive what he did, even if he supposedly meant well, but it's also hard, for someone who likes Alistair, to lose Alistair's friendship and "betray" A. in that way. Sometimes I feel that it's even more personal for Alistair, since Loghain is directly or indirectly responsible for Duncan's death and sometimes I like letting Alistair deliver the killing blow. [/quote]
I don't think Loghain is responsible, directly or indirectly, for Duncan's death. Or king's. The darkspawn are. The deal was to wait for the signal. I've always thought that the moment when he reacts to the signal by leaving with his troops is the moment of his betrayal. But at that moment, both Cailan and Duncan were beyond saving. I may be wrong though. Maybe Loghain should have sent scouts to find out what was happening when the signal took too long.
Of course, the Warden and Alistair don't know that. Flemeth doesn't seem to know either. She's pretty much clear while stating that Loghain betrayed the king, possibly for his own gain.

[quote]Since I've had Alistair as king it's hard for me to not put him in that role again, as I've probably already said too much. Heh, but he is better when he's confident and I was a little worried what might happen to us when I left the throne to Anora on her own. In my last ending we killed her father and it said he died in disgrace, so nothing in the duel redeemed even a smidgeon of his honor and I worried that she might betray us again and maybe send assassins after us. But trying it as Chancellor might be interesting, and then letting Anora and Alistair marry. I've never done that before. I think when he's hardened he doesn't let her push him around but I did worry that she might if he went into it reluctantly, as king or consort and as a married man. I think Eamon only stays on as advisor if Alistair is alone (shows how strong Anora is even married to Alistair) since Anora can't push him out. I should read those other threads sometimes, check out what endings other players had. I liked mine enough when Alistair was hardened but alone his life kind of seemed sad to me, well since he was alone. Bah, conflicted again.[/quote]
It's difficult if you try to make everyone happy. Especially as Alistair doesn't seem to have many endings where he's genuinely happy. I guess that's also partly in my head as I, personally, don't find being a ruler a good thing. Too much responsibilities and people licking your boots and everything. But I think that marrying your Warden to him or being his mistress should be better than leaving him alone if you're concerned about him. As for Ferelden, who knows.  I haven't seen his epilogue for when he's ruling alone but it doesn't say he died alone, does it? I would expect a king to marry eventually. At least for political reasons.
I must say I have my favourite playtrough that I import into Awakening and DAII and don't take the others too seriously. Maybe it's silly but it helps me do some of the less pleasant decisions.

[quote]In a way, I might have disliked Eamon for doing that. Does it ever come up that Eamon thought more of Alistair than as a spare butt to sit in a chair when it came to blocking Loghain's gamble for the throne? I know that Eamon cared for Alistair, in some way, afterall he kept Alistair's mother's locket (even had it repaired) all those years ago and as Alistair says it was A.'s mom that the man married to Eamon's sister cheated with (heh, that's a complicated way of putting it). But it doesn't seem that Eamon considered Alistair's feelings all that much, if you look at the dramatic change it is for how much value Alistair has to everyone else and himself. Aside from duty or obligation as the last surviving heir, I don't think it's that selfish for Alistair to not want the throne, considering how he was treated most of his life. "Stay out of sight, brat... (and later) you're half-brother whom you weren't close to is dead, now you must take the throne (suddenly you're worth something to us)." that's kind of lame to put it that way but seems the gist of it.[/quote]
It's hard to tell whether he cares about Alistair. He probably had once. Unfortunately, not enough to protect him against his harpy of a wife. He might have given up on him after Alistair refused to see him multiple times after having been sent to the Chantry. At the time he and the Warden come to Redcliff, he doesn't seem to show much affection towards him. However, Alistair said he was never the one to do such things, if I remember correctly. He does seem to think much more like a nobleman than like an uncle... or whatever he's supposed to be. Which is a bit frustrating. Sometimes I think that, "If I'll hear the word 'duty' one more time...! <_<"
I understand necessity but uniting the nobles against Loghain was Eamon's "duty". Alistair's was defeating the Blight. Yet both Eamon AND Teagan sit on their bums, doing nothing, hoping that "Maric's bastard" they got rid of before will magically solve every problem in Ferelden.
However, there wouldn't be much for us to do if everyone did what they were supposed to do, I guess. 

[quote]When you first get to Lothering Morrigan says she thinks the Warden should go directly after Loghain (I was kind of glad we couldn't at level 5ish) but sometimes with different Wardens I kind of wished we didn't need Eamon, at least because later I didn't go along with his choice for Ferelden and I kind of felt like all the effort to save him was sort of a waste. I mean, we only had him because he expected us to do it his way, right? I know you're right, the game doesn't give us any other option and sometimes I wanted one. But as you've said, at least your Warden can not like Eamon's plans even if we must accept them. I had always thought of him as a good guy but maybe my opinions on him have changed since I've done so many playthroughs where I liked him...which is probably silly. But I like your description of him as an opportunist. Probably fits him best.[/quote]
Liking a character is never silly. There are people who like Loghain or Anora. There's nothing wrong with that. Just because someone else doesn't like him doesn't mean you shouldn't. Or because you don't agree with everything s/he does. Moreover, Eamon's motives are never directly stated. Maybe he truly wanted to save Ferelden. Maybe he wanted to put a puppet on the throne. Maybe neither. That's left for the player to decide.
I think that the important thing was stopping the civil war and preventing Loghain and the Wardens from wasting resources fighting each other instead of fighting the Blight. Ferelden needed to be united. Even if you don't make Alistair a king, that's what happens. If Eamon really cares about uniting Ferelden and not just pushing someone he could manipulate on the throne, he should be fine with that.

[quote]I might feel that way about DA II because I've come from playing it much more than Origins recently so it's fresh and I guess I've played Origins so many times (months ago) that I've lost any sense of surprise with that game. To me, most of what happens isn't unexpected anymore, so I can't remember what it felt like before I knew what happened. You gave good examples and I can see what you're saying too. I just don't know which is more true for me. And we did talk about what a twist the DR was, especially the first time through.  I think the hardening lines are the best examples of the need to metagame if you want those outcomes since they are strange and cryptic. Origins definitely still seems to offer way more alternate paths according to the players' choices but I guess for me it's just easier to deal with than what happens in DAII... [/quote]
To be honest, I don't think metagaming is necessary with either. However, the consequences don't always have to be to your liking and your plans simply don't have to work. I don't think there's anything wrong with a "bad" decision though. It's just another part of the game. Metagaming is only necessary if you want to achieve certain outcomes. However, after the first, second or whatever playthrough, you simply start doing that automatically. You start thinking: All right, this time I'm going to romance Leliana, I will kill Isolde and pick Bhelen as a king, I will harden Alistair and make him rule and I will make the ultimate sacrifice at the end...
You make a good point about DAII being more painful because of being more personal though. I must say I still feel stronger about DA:O but I would lie if I said that DAII doesn't have tear-inducing moments. However, I think that both games do a good job scarring you for life.  Then there's always a matter of personal preference, I guess.

[quote]The friendship/rivalry thing is a good example, if any, of how metagaming helps, whether one wants to do it. Origins I felt gave us more "face time" with our companions so it wasn't really hit or miss with them when they accompany you. DA II didn't seem to give the player all that much time to build a friendship or rivalry for all the years it was to have taken place. In Origins you can have conversations with them in camp, and with some you can spam them with gifts galore to earn approval points. But from a roleplay perspective I don't think you have enough time to get to know your companions or to find some other reason to like each other than for what they see you do or not do. I liked Morrigan for instance and could get along with her when I was mage-friendly or just agreed with her on some points and I had her friendship even though I almost never made a decision she approved of (like saving the Anvil). DA II so much makes it feel like you have to either say what they want to hear, do what they want you to do, or not take them with you or even make the decision to take them with you when you otherwise might not have. [/quote]
Yes, I see the friendship/rivalry system as a problem. It's very frustrating without metagaming because, despite what BioWare says about the system, it basically works completely the same as approval/disapproval. You disagree = rivalry. You treat your companion like a piece of dirt = rivalry. While in the first case, I can understand why the companion would have no problem to keep respecting you. In the second, it doesn't make any sense. In the end, since I like to treat the companions well, I find myself jumping towards rivalry one moment and towards friendship the other. The lack of companion dialogues doesn't help either. As you say, locking some companions is quite difficult that way. Though I appreciate that it gets locked once you reach the maximum because I can finally relax and take my favourites wherever I go.
I've never had to metagame with approval/disapproval system. There are companions I've never maxed. Oghren, for example. Sten too, I think. But maxing their approval usually isn't as critical as in DAII. Well, unless you make them hate you. I must say I feel much less anxious about losing or gaining points in DA:O and thus don't feel it's necessary to "cheat" by switching companions in order not to hang in the middle.

Modifié par Vanilka of the Sword Coast, 10 septembre 2012 - 09:01 .

[lyriumaddict104]

Vanilka of the Sword Coast wrote...

Thanks, that sounds like it, the meaner choices for what to say. I played a character that didn't like him much and I may have chosen one of those...did you know that Alistair doesn't disapprove much if it's a male Warden who's mean to him? That's kind of off topic but I've wondered at that. All the unsympathetic or harsh responses you can choose don't seem to make him hate you as much if you're a guy. Other than for metagaming I can't see a reason to choose that line either.

What? I had no idea. Hey, that's not fair!  I guess it's easier to take insults from someone you're not planning to woo. 

Varric states during the storytelling somewhere at the beginning of the game something along the lines of "...the king was betrayed by his most trusted general..."

It's funny that I realized the beginning is where he says it after I posted that. I guess I got too used to ignoring the intro, thinking you could talk to him about it somewhere else. Of course, but I think I wasn't even trying to woo him when I talked to him that way, as a female once...good reason to try someone else who does that now just to be sure. Muahaha. Poor Alistair. I guess I didn't like it so much that he never "stood up" to my male Warden when he talked to Alistair that way.

To be honest, I don't think metagaming is necessary with either. However, the consequences don't always have to be to your liking and your plans simply don't have to work. I don't think there's anything wrong with a "bad" decision though. It's just another part of the game. Metagaming is only necessary if you want to achieve certain outcomes. However, after the first, second or whatever playthrough, you simply start doing that automatically. You start thinking: All right, this time I'm going to romance Leliana, I will kill Isolde and pick Bhelen as a king, I will harden Alistair and make him rule and I will make the ultimate sacrifice at the end...
You make a good point about DAII being more painful because of being more personal though. I must say I still feel stronger about DA:O but I would lie if I said that DAII doesn't have tear-inducing moments. However, I think that both games do a good job scarring you for life.  Then there's always a matter of personal preference, I guess.

No, you're right. I hope I didn't say so but I don't think metagaming is necessary either. Even if there are outcomes we don't like it's not the end of the world and we can create another character that chooses differently and then we can get an outcome we like, if need be (I say it that way 'cause I think that's how I felt the first time through, lol, it is the end-of- the- world-serious that I didn't like my first ending). That events happen out of your control makes the game more enjoyable and "realistic" in the sense that not everything in life goes according to one's plans either. But you're also right that just playing another time allows you to do that automatically. You've done it before so you already know what happens at least one way and you can choose not to do it that way based on previous experience if you want and who you romance is even a good example. You can kind of plan on that instead of just having a character "fall in love" with one by happenstance. You already mostly know what the romanceable characters are like anyway so it's hard to make a choice based on first impressions. I agree that metagaming is necessary if you want to achieve certain outcomes, or have it be a "good" game according to how you the player think everything should turn out.

Yes, I see the friendship/rivalry system as a problem. It's very frustrating without metagaming because, despite what BioWare says about the system, it basically works completely the same as approval/disapproval. You disagree = rivalry. You treat your companion like a piece of dirt = rivalry. While in the first case, I can understand why the companion would have no problem to keep respecting you. In the second, it doesn't make any sense. In the end, since I like to treat the companions well, I find myself jumping towards rivalry one moment and towards friendship the other. The lack of companion dialogues doesn't help either. As you say, locking some companions is quite difficult that way. Though I appreciate that it gets locked once you reach the maximum because I can finally relax and take my favourites wherever I go.
I've never had to metagame with approval/disapproval system. There are companions I've never maxed. Oghren, for example. Sten too, I think. But maxing their approval usually isn't as critical as in DAII. Well, unless you make them hate you. I must say I feel much less anxious about losing or gaining points in DA:O and thus don't feel it's necessary to "cheat" by switching companions in order not to hang in the middle.

I think you're right. The friendship/rivalry thing is still so much like the approval/disapproval system only with less opportunities to "influence" or change your standing with a character one way or the other. Not that everyone does it this way but I find myself metagaming because of that issue, choosing to take certain companions on quests whose outcomes I know they'll approve of and then my only excuse for that is to say that at least in the three years we're in the city together (and maybe he/she comes with me on "missions" we don't see) I would have had ample, possibly, opportunity to build a frienship or rivalry based on other experiences/discussions. That's what I have to take from the "I respect you" thing. Knowing that you can at least have that much regard for a person you don't necessarily like. When you don't talk to them as much you get fewer opportunities to interact with them which might change how they feel about you, or not but at least it's available. And I agree about the rivalry that comes from treating them badly and they can still say they respect you. I've done that with at least one of them and he said that after I told him we weren't friends. I chose to pretend that it was because I had made decisions I knew he would have agreed with had he been there even though in every discussion we did have I was mean to him and unsupportive. 
 I agree with you too about the friendship lock in part. I liked having it settled so I could take people with me without concern for what they might like or dislike. And I can accept the lock-in because I believe it makes sense for a friend to put up with you doing something they don't necessarily agree with or like once they've "accepted' you as a friend. I don't believe it means they can't disapprove but after a certain point it doesn't make sense to loose their support just because they might not agree with something you said. I've tried the rivalry or just let it happen with a Hawke that just doesn't care whether they like or hate her but these companions stayed with her because she chose "their" side in the end. And I can understand that it might be necessary to have companions locked in one way or the other because in this game we're not fighting a single bad guy that threatens everybody but at the same time I don't like it as much since I find myself at least thinking about it in that way, who's going to stay with me in the end based on which side I choose?
I feel the same way about the dis/approval system in Origins. My first playthrough, of course, I thought it mattered more and worried about it but I didn't have to metagame for it. I didn't make anyone hate me and I didn't ask anyone to leave either so I still had the people I'd "collected" in the end. And it makes sense that way. You and your companions share a common cause (even if they have their personal reasons, there's only one side to take) and you can roleplay your own reasons for allowing them to join or not in the first place. I think maxing out their approval rating changes what they say they do after the battle. (Spoiler) For instance, I found that when I was at max for approval on both Shale and Wynne, Wynne told me they were going to Tevinter together to find a way to make Shale mortal again. That didn't happen on the playthrough where I wasn't maxed approval on Shale. But now I like how it doesn't matter how they feel about you in the end. I don't really like Oghren, so I found him hard to max out even with the dialogue and didn't bother to try on some playthroughs. I really like Sten, and I didn't realize that until several playthroughs later, so that was an interesting discovery. I didn't use him much, thought he was useless and didn't enjoy talking to him at first. But they both stayed.
Treating companions well in DA II for the most part wasn't too hard and even in the first playthrough I still had most of them towards the end, minus the one that stays or leaves according to that friendship/rivalry bar. I metagame for that one if I want that companion to stay.

Modifié par lyriumaddict104, 11 septembre 2012 - 09:27 .