Whether it's discussions about the mages and templars, or the debate over Loghain's actions, people have strong feelings one way or the other, and so do the characters. However, it seems like characters will go against their own principles and ideals to follow the protagonist. If Hawke is pro-templar, Anders and Merrill will fight alongside him, and help him with his goals, even if it runs in opposition to their own morality. The same is true for a pro-mage Hawke and Fenris, despite his own views about mages. It doesn't really make much sense to me.
Does it really ring true for pro-templar and pro-mage companions to side with the protagonist on issues that go against their moral compass? Why would a pro-templar companion help the protagonist free mages if he (or she) believes in the Chantry controlled Circles and the Order of Templars? Why would pro-mage companions help put mages inside the Circle of Magi if they view the institution as slavery? If Fenris is strictly anti-slavery because of his background, should he really side with Hawke if he endorses slavery, to the point where he manages to get an elven slave?
I think it might be more interesting to have repercussions among our companions as a result of who our protagonist is and what he believes in, as well as what side he (or she) is on (whether it's the potential civil war in Orlais or the seemingly inevitable mage and templar war), rather than having the companions blindly following the protagonist regardless of whether or not they cross moral lines that would cause a real person to oppose them.
Should companions stop siding with us if we go against their views and morality?
Débuté par
LobselVith8
, août 03 2012 07:20
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 03 août 2012 - 07:27
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
Anders and Fenris don't really compare because while Anders was an advocate for the Circle and an enemy of the templars, Fenris was never really an advocate of the templars or their methods, just the general controlling of mages. It's not nearly as large a moral leap for Fenris as it is for Anders. Hence, there's not really an equivalency there.
I... sort of agree with you, but on the other hand, your system basically punishes people for taking sides in this conflict, and I'm not entirely sure if people would like that.
I... sort of agree with you, but on the other hand, your system basically punishes people for taking sides in this conflict, and I'm not entirely sure if people would like that.
#3
Guest_Nizaris1_*
Posté 03 août 2012 - 07:37
Guest_Nizaris1_*
Guest_Nizaris1_*
-
- Guests
DA2 lack what the option in DA:O.
In DA2, companion only leave due to quest, like Bethany died or become Grey Warden or become Circle Mage. Isabella leave if not much friendship or rivalry when she got the book.
in DA:O companions will leave in certain point when they disagree or despise the Warden totally, such as Leliana and Wayne will leave or attack the Warden when the Warden destroy Urn of Sacred Ashes. But in some cases the Warden can persuade them to agree with his/her decision, by reason with them or just simply lie.
DA:O have many options that lead to various result. Sten would challenge the Warden leadership. Zevran would betray the Warden if he see there is no reason to be loyal. Morrigan will simply leave if you don't want to kill Flemeth. And everyone can be asked to leave if the Warden don't like them or just don't need them.
In DA:O, everybody follow the Warden because want to help against the Blight, have a clear goal, clear motivation.
DA2 companions except Varric, are just lost their sense, they just hangout with Hawke with no real reason, no motivation...it just like "lets hangout with Hawke and see what trouble she cause next"
By the point to choose allegiance, Templar or Mage, no one actually have any motivation to stay with Hawke. They all actually can leave Hawke alone and not their problem at all.
In DA2, companion only leave due to quest, like Bethany died or become Grey Warden or become Circle Mage. Isabella leave if not much friendship or rivalry when she got the book.
in DA:O companions will leave in certain point when they disagree or despise the Warden totally, such as Leliana and Wayne will leave or attack the Warden when the Warden destroy Urn of Sacred Ashes. But in some cases the Warden can persuade them to agree with his/her decision, by reason with them or just simply lie.
DA:O have many options that lead to various result. Sten would challenge the Warden leadership. Zevran would betray the Warden if he see there is no reason to be loyal. Morrigan will simply leave if you don't want to kill Flemeth. And everyone can be asked to leave if the Warden don't like them or just don't need them.
In DA:O, everybody follow the Warden because want to help against the Blight, have a clear goal, clear motivation.
DA2 companions except Varric, are just lost their sense, they just hangout with Hawke with no real reason, no motivation...it just like "lets hangout with Hawke and see what trouble she cause next"
By the point to choose allegiance, Templar or Mage, no one actually have any motivation to stay with Hawke. They all actually can leave Hawke alone and not their problem at all.
Modifié par Nizaris1, 03 août 2012 - 07:40 .
#4
Posté 03 août 2012 - 07:49
Sealy
-
- Members
- 1 178 messages
I think this should be brought back, yes it sucks in the first playthrough where you never know what will set the character you are trying to romance off but it was incredibly immersive for the game, Fenris should leave if you take a slave, Anders should leave if you are incredibly pro templar Merrill should... something when you something, Good writing this would be. 
#5
Posté 03 août 2012 - 07:53
Dave of Canada
-
- Members
- 17 484 messages
Companions represent windows into the world and they're very often tinted by the writer's fears of what the player desires, unfortunately hurting the actual character as their personalities mold to the player's specifications.
I'd love to see conflict among you and those who follow you, more so than the conflict which the supposed "Rivalry" system breed (which seems more like petty squabbling than arguments). Idealists hate pragmatism, Pragmatists hate idealists, some see Gaspard as a hero and others love Celene, mage/templar, ect.
Not just... one-button issues like DA2 had, which Anders would loathe your Hawke and call him anti-mage simply because you didn't pat him on the back and told him he's a pretty boy who'll stay with you because too much conflict with them (leading to abandonment / betrayal) would upset some players who are upset when they don't get +100 approval with everyone.
I'd love to see conflict among you and those who follow you, more so than the conflict which the supposed "Rivalry" system breed (which seems more like petty squabbling than arguments). Idealists hate pragmatism, Pragmatists hate idealists, some see Gaspard as a hero and others love Celene, mage/templar, ect.
Not just... one-button issues like DA2 had, which Anders would loathe your Hawke and call him anti-mage simply because you didn't pat him on the back and told him he's a pretty boy who'll stay with you because too much conflict with them (leading to abandonment / betrayal) would upset some players who are upset when they don't get +100 approval with everyone.
Modifié par Dave of Canada, 03 août 2012 - 07:56 .
#6
Posté 03 août 2012 - 08:11
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
Merrill should leave if you keep the arulin'holm.Fleshdress wrote...
I think this should be brought back, yes it sucks in the first playthrough where you never know what will set the character you are trying to romance off but it was incredibly immersive for the game, Fenris should leave if you take a slave, Anders should leave if you are incredibly pro templar Merrill should... something when you something, Good writing this would be.
#7
Posté 03 août 2012 - 08:23
Baronesa
-
- Members
- 1 934 messages
In the same way you could lose Wynne and Leliana on DA:O, taking a different stance than one of your companions should make them leave... For example siding with the mages should alienate Sebastian and Fenris, with no way of stop it. Same as siding with Templars should make Merril and Isabela leave, and things like that.
So, for the next game if you recruit a templar supporter, don't be surprised if they betray you if you side with the mages, or vice versa... That would be a good thing to see. Or having arguments and even heated fights when you take too many decisions against their believes, something like what happened on Baldur's Gate when characters commented on your actions... even to the point of characters openly attacking other NPC with an opposite point of view.
So, for the next game if you recruit a templar supporter, don't be surprised if they betray you if you side with the mages, or vice versa... That would be a good thing to see. Or having arguments and even heated fights when you take too many decisions against their believes, something like what happened on Baldur's Gate when characters commented on your actions... even to the point of characters openly attacking other NPC with an opposite point of view.
#8
Posté 03 août 2012 - 08:53
caradoc2000
-
- Members
- 7 550 messages
Fenris, Merrill and Anders will fight you at the end, if you don't have full friendship/rivalry.
#9
Posté 03 août 2012 - 08:57
Baronesa
-
- Members
- 1 934 messages
caradoc2000 wrote...
Fenris, Merrill and Anders will fight you at the end, if you don't have full friendship/rivalry.
That is the thing... even if they are fully your friends, their convictions should weight more... the only excemption I could see is if they are ina romantic relationship, then they could trust you...
What I would say is, no matter how close of a friend they are, if what you do is against their core values they should leave you. Maybe peacefully or to become enemies (depending on how strong is the relationship)
#10
Posté 03 août 2012 - 09:05
caradoc2000
-
- Members
- 7 550 messages
Maybe they have begun to question their core values. At least for Merrill it is quite plausible with the Keeper affair.
#11
Guest_Nyoka_*
Posté 03 août 2012 - 09:11
Guest_Nyoka_*
Guest_Nyoka_*
-
- Guests
I'd like to be able to reason with them too, and sway them if I'm persuasive enough like in other games (Jade Empire, Mass Effect series). Let disagreements be solvable.
I like the approach they took with the VS in ME3 where they took into account practically everything you did with them to determine how much they're willing to put up with. I did everything right with Ashley and had no problem with her, and then my second playthrough I didn't go to the hospital before he was made Spectre ("saw it in the vids") and I could feel the conversation was tense, like faking friendship. It was very cool. Definitely something they should steal for DA3 imo.
I like the approach they took with the VS in ME3 where they took into account practically everything you did with them to determine how much they're willing to put up with. I did everything right with Ashley and had no problem with her, and then my second playthrough I didn't go to the hospital before he was made Spectre ("saw it in the vids") and I could feel the conversation was tense, like faking friendship. It was very cool. Definitely something they should steal for DA3 imo.
#12
Posté 03 août 2012 - 09:14
Dave of Canada
-
- Members
- 17 484 messages
But it's sudden, how come friendship or rivalry suddenly makes you capable of going against their beliefs completely and they'll still follow you? Why did Aveline sit around while I backed up Petrice after she murdered Saemus? Fenris sat around while I took an elven slave or supported slavers? Anders sat there grumbling and going "I'M VERY UPSET WITH YOU" when I allowed Feynriel to be possessed?
Core values are just that, core values. Friendship should influence it somewhat but not alter them drastically, perhaps the character doesn't want to backstab you but sees no alternatives.
Core values are just that, core values. Friendship should influence it somewhat but not alter them drastically, perhaps the character doesn't want to backstab you but sees no alternatives.
#13
Posté 03 août 2012 - 09:27
Zjarcal
-
- Members
- 10 836 messages
Baronesa wrote...
caradoc2000 wrote...
Fenris, Merrill and Anders will fight you at the end, if you don't have full friendship/rivalry.
That is the thing... even if they are fully your friends, their convictions should weight more... the only excemption I could see is if they are ina romantic relationship, then they could trust you...
Even if they're in a relationship, there should be a limit. When I think back of Leliana staying in a relationship with a warden who defiles the ashes... well that's just silly (at the very least, if she was gonna stay with the warden to fight the blight, she should've broken up with them... instead you can have your first sexy time with her right after that
).I do like the idea of being able to try and reason with them, but only if it's within certain limits. So for example, yes to Aveline siding with the Mages because she can see that Meredith is just out of control (and doing it not so much to "free" the mages but to stop Meredith), but no to Anders ever siding with the Templars.
#14
Posté 03 août 2012 - 09:39
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 948 messages
For the ending I didn't have a huge problem with how it worked, except for Anders maybe. Even the anti-mage types aren't going to be all that eager to help massacre innocent mage kids, so I can buy that they'd be swung by friendship. While with Merrill, it's not really her fight. She's only involved in this human affair because of her involvement with Hawke and co.
But some of the more blatantly jerkish things Hawke can do before that should probably have the potential to cause people to leave. And definitely shouldn't make people more loyal if you're on the rivalry path.
But some of the more blatantly jerkish things Hawke can do before that should probably have the potential to cause people to leave. And definitely shouldn't make people more loyal if you're on the rivalry path.
#15
Posté 03 août 2012 - 09:44
Baronesa
-
- Members
- 1 934 messages
Zjarcal wrote...
Baronesa wrote...
caradoc2000 wrote...
Fenris, Merrill and Anders will fight you at the end, if you don't have full friendship/rivalry.
That is the thing... even if they are fully your friends, their convictions should weight more... the only excemption I could see is if they are ina romantic relationship, then they could trust you...
Even if they're in a relationship, there should be a limit. When I think back of Leliana staying in a relationship with a warden who defiles the ashes... well that's just silly (at the very least, if she was gonna stay with the warden to fight the blight, she should've broken up with them... instead you can have your first sexy time with her right after that
I do like the idea of being able to try and reason with them, but only if it's within certain limits. So for example, yes to Aveline siding with the Mages because she can see that Meredith is just out of control (and doing it not so much to "free" the mages but to stop Meredith), but no to Anders ever siding with the Templars.
I think we can agree on that.
#16
Posté 04 août 2012 - 01:29
SerTabris
-
- Members
- 254 messages
Fleshdress wrote...
I think this should be brought back, yes it sucks in the first playthrough where you never know what will set the character you are trying to romance off but it was incredibly immersive for the game, Fenris should leave if you take a slave, Anders should leave if you are incredibly pro templar Merrill should... something when you something, Good writing this would be.
Most of them are fairly obvious in the first playthrough, I think. I could easily predict how Anders, Merrill, and Fenris would feel about most decisions, and usually Aveline also. (I didn't really ever think about what Varric thought of anything, but never got a single rivalry point from him anyway.) Isabela I don't understand as well (I guess that's why she didn't stay in my party).
In any case, I do think there should be some things you do that make companions leave, and I don't think any of the ones suggested here would come as much of a surprise, unless one just wasn't thinking about the possibility of someone leaving. It should be balanced with their reasons for staying, though; it would make more sense for people who didn't like you to be in your party in Origins than DA2, since you have an important overall quest.
#17
Posté 04 août 2012 - 02:42
TEWR
-
- Members
- 16 987 messages
Yes.
Honestly, I can't really be bothered to go in depth on this, because how I'd do it is dependant on a lot of things. And while I could give off some hypothetical scenarios for how DAII could've handled this, quite simply I just.... don't want to go into it right now.
Honestly, I can't really be bothered to go in depth on this, because how I'd do it is dependant on a lot of things. And while I could give off some hypothetical scenarios for how DAII could've handled this, quite simply I just.... don't want to go into it right now.
#18
Posté 04 août 2012 - 03:28
Foolsfolly
-
- Members
- 4 770 messages
Xilizhra wrote...
Merrill should leave if you keep the arulin'holm.Fleshdress wrote...
I think this should be brought back, yes it sucks in the first playthrough where you never know what will set the character you are trying to romance off but it was incredibly immersive for the game, Fenris should leave if you take a slave, Anders should leave if you are incredibly pro templar Merrill should... something when you something, Good writing this would be.
And skip out on that rivalry sex?
To be honest I haven't given her that thing since my first playthrough. Why the hell would you give Gollum the One Ring?
#19
Posté 04 août 2012 - 03:31
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
Any Hawke who'd perform rivalry sex on Merrill deserves to hump a scythe blade-first. Also, Gollum getting the One Ring is what saved the world.Foolsfolly wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
Merrill should leave if you keep the arulin'holm.Fleshdress wrote...
I think this should be brought back, yes it sucks in the first playthrough where you never know what will set the character you are trying to romance off but it was incredibly immersive for the game, Fenris should leave if you take a slave, Anders should leave if you are incredibly pro templar Merrill should... something when you something, Good writing this would be.
And skip out on that rivalry sex?
To be honest I haven't given her that thing since my first playthrough. Why the hell would you give Gollum the One Ring?
#20
Posté 04 août 2012 - 03:52
Simocrates
-
- Members
- 332 messages
Xilizhra wrote...
Any Hawke who'd perform rivalry sex on Merrill deserves to hump a scythe blade-first. Also, Gollum getting the One Ring is what saved the world.
How do you know the world wouldn't of been better?
#21
Posté 04 août 2012 - 03:59
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
Frodo wasn't going to drop it into Mount Doom, so Gollum had to grab it and fall in himself for it to be solved.Zanza86 wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
Any Hawke who'd perform rivalry sex on Merrill deserves to hump a scythe blade-first. Also, Gollum getting the One Ring is what saved the world.
How do you know the world wouldn't of been better?
#22
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 04 août 2012 - 04:04
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Yes, unless they consider the main quest to be more important than their views and morality. And that should vary based on the makeup of each companion.
I think the approval system is one of the strengths of the DA games.
I think the approval system is one of the strengths of the DA games.
#23
Guest_Nizaris1_*
Posté 04 août 2012 - 04:46
Guest_Nizaris1_*
Guest_Nizaris1_*
-
- Guests
In DA:O
1. When Morrigan complaining about helping the Circle Mage, the Warden can reason with her, and in friendship warm status, Morrigan quickly understand and doesn't mind at all.
2. If the Warden don't want to help Redcliff, Leliana will complain, but the Warden can reason with her with persuade option. If want to help Redcliff, Morrigan will complain, but the Warden can force the decision and suffer disapproval.
3. When the Warden want to destroy Anvil of the Void, some party members will complain or questioned that decision, the Warden have persuade option or forced the decision and suffer disapproval. Similar if want to keep the Anvil.
4. Sten will challenge the Warden leadership near Haven if he is in the party and no or low friendship, there are options either to accept the challenge or persuade.
5. With certain level of relationship, Leliana can be intimidated to shut up when the Warden destroy the Urn, but in certain level Leliana just attack the Warden no question. If she is in the camp, she will leave or being lied about it.
These are some example quality i like in DA:O, unlike in DA2. The player must study the character of each companions, carefully made decision, and have options to reason with them, lying with them, asking them to leav...ect.
In DA2,
1. Fenris hate mages, and that's it, you will have to hear his babbling about it non-stop and suffer rivalry for every helping mage decision
2. Anders hate Templar and blood magic, you will never stop hearing he babbling about that, complaining about how people treat mages, and you suffer rivalry for every helping Templar decision. And there is no option to force him to reveal his plan and no option to make him stop doing it.
3. You just can't reason with Merill, she will do what she intend to do even though everybody tell her not to do it, up to the point the Keeper die for her she still like that. You will suffer rivalry for every anti-blood magic option
It means the companions will never understand Hawke, despise Hawke just because Hawke is not doing what they expecting Hawke to do. They never see reason behind it, they never compromise. They like then they like, they hate then they hate.
Like i said before, they have no real motivation to hangout with Hawke, they all just opportunists
1. When Morrigan complaining about helping the Circle Mage, the Warden can reason with her, and in friendship warm status, Morrigan quickly understand and doesn't mind at all.
2. If the Warden don't want to help Redcliff, Leliana will complain, but the Warden can reason with her with persuade option. If want to help Redcliff, Morrigan will complain, but the Warden can force the decision and suffer disapproval.
3. When the Warden want to destroy Anvil of the Void, some party members will complain or questioned that decision, the Warden have persuade option or forced the decision and suffer disapproval. Similar if want to keep the Anvil.
4. Sten will challenge the Warden leadership near Haven if he is in the party and no or low friendship, there are options either to accept the challenge or persuade.
5. With certain level of relationship, Leliana can be intimidated to shut up when the Warden destroy the Urn, but in certain level Leliana just attack the Warden no question. If she is in the camp, she will leave or being lied about it.
These are some example quality i like in DA:O, unlike in DA2. The player must study the character of each companions, carefully made decision, and have options to reason with them, lying with them, asking them to leav...ect.
In DA2,
1. Fenris hate mages, and that's it, you will have to hear his babbling about it non-stop and suffer rivalry for every helping mage decision
2. Anders hate Templar and blood magic, you will never stop hearing he babbling about that, complaining about how people treat mages, and you suffer rivalry for every helping Templar decision. And there is no option to force him to reveal his plan and no option to make him stop doing it.
3. You just can't reason with Merill, she will do what she intend to do even though everybody tell her not to do it, up to the point the Keeper die for her she still like that. You will suffer rivalry for every anti-blood magic option
It means the companions will never understand Hawke, despise Hawke just because Hawke is not doing what they expecting Hawke to do. They never see reason behind it, they never compromise. They like then they like, they hate then they hate.
Like i said before, they have no real motivation to hangout with Hawke, they all just opportunists
Modifié par Nizaris1, 04 août 2012 - 04:49 .
#24
Posté 04 août 2012 - 05:49
CELL55
-
- Members
- 915 messages
Another problem with the Friendship/Rivalry system is that it is entirely binary. There is no middle ground. If I am in a rivalry with Anders, then he assumes I must be pro-Templar, no matter what my true allegiance is. If I'm friends with Merril, then I support her crazy blood magic/ demon deals.
You have to either love everything about a character, or hate everything about a character in order to max out the bar. You can't generally like a character but debate certain points of their philosophy because then, according to game mechanics, you'd be slipping into rivalry.
I don't agree 100% with everything my friends do, but that doesn't make us any less of friends for it. We have different opinions, but we are not so bull-headed we let it make us mortal enemies.
Phew, that was long. Did you get all that?
You have to either love everything about a character, or hate everything about a character in order to max out the bar. You can't generally like a character but debate certain points of their philosophy because then, according to game mechanics, you'd be slipping into rivalry.
I don't agree 100% with everything my friends do, but that doesn't make us any less of friends for it. We have different opinions, but we are not so bull-headed we let it make us mortal enemies.
Phew, that was long. Did you get all that?
#25
Posté 04 août 2012 - 09:42
Sabariel
-
- Members
- 2 826 messages
Yes, yes, yes. They should leave if you ****** them off enough. None of this "rivalry" BS. My jerk!Hawke enslaved Orana right in front of rivaled!Fenris. Later, Fenris tells Hawke that he respects him. WHY!? Why didn't he turn on Hawke the very instant he enslaved Orana? At the very least, he should have chewed Hawke out and left.
