29 réponses à ce sujet

[snackrat]

 Just something I want to mention. I'll probably come back and add bits later, so just... bear with me here.

Related snippet from one of my other comments:

 
HOWEVER: one thing that irks me in DAII is the assumption 'diplomatic' is 'good' and 'aggressive' is 'bad'.

I would consider a manipulative weasel, a sycophant, sly and cunning, to be 'diplomatic'. But if he is doing it for his own goals, he is not 'good'.
I liked the idea of playing a character who was blunt, didn't bear around words, hated playing mind games. But the assumption was automatically that he was a heartless ***hole.

I know it is an unrealistic expection, perhaps, but I would like for MORALITY to be tracked SEPARATELY from personality.  

So how about it? Did it annoy you to see your blunt Hawke become an unfeeling monster without direction? To see your potentially manipulative character go around patting orphans? For your sarcastic Hawke to have no concept of timing or when it is appropriate?

When playing DAII, I... okay, I like the personality system, really. But it was too cut and dried. It assumed personality and morality were the same thing. As a result, no 'Hawke' felt 'real' if they were taking the same options all the time.

One Hawke might normally be snarky, but I would take the diplomatic route if I was dealing with some traumatised, or the aggressive route if things just got srsbsns (take 'the kidnapping' the final act of DAII for example).
One Hawke might normally be blunt, but I would take the diplomatic route of "no, I'm afraid that's not possible" just because I didn't want to say something like "no. Also, YAY PUPPY MURDER" or something that could be considered 'evil'. Alternatively, taking the snarky option to show he is not intimidated rather than bristling at every 'threat'.

A blunt Hawke may not necessarily revel in death, but see it as a necessary means to an end.
A diplomatic Hawke may see killing as an emotional release dealing with trying to navigate the political pressures, or perhaps they take a firm stance on anyone that oppose law and ord--

--okay, now I'm just thinking this. You know that old nine-square chestnut, the Alignment Chart? Y'know, Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Neutral, so on? Here.

Hawke is past being recovered in that manner, but perhaps it would be nice if DA3 handled it this way. Youer personality is more likely tied to your LAWFULNESS (Diplomatic - lawful, Humourous - neutral or chaotic, Blunt - chaotic or neutral - not sure of order of the last) whereas your MORALITY should be tracked separately (Good, Neutral, Evil). Build a reputation for being cruel or kind, rather than something based on how popular you are at parties!

That sycophant I meantioned, sly and cunning? Lawful Evil.
The blunt character that isn't an unfeeling ass? Potentially Chaotic Good.

TL;DR
Personality and Morality are seperate states. (Blunt not always evil, diplomatic/manipulative not always good)
Please track them separately rather than assuming such.
____________________________________________

[EDIT 1]: BONUS THOUGHT. Which of you guys played a mage? Which of you then talked to Carver? When he blames you for Bethany's demise, you have six potential lines of dialogue. You have your three personalities (depending on how the conversation went thus far) and then you have two options: exposing his pettiness, or spitting the blame on him. Practically an example of good and evil separate within personalities!
When they have auto-dialogue, have that affected as is relative. Track how often a character shows mercy (even better: to whom. All mages? Only mages uninvolved with demons? Only templars?) versus how many times they leave someone to die, or blackmail, or whatever 'evil' things. Then when it comes to dialogue that shows 'evil' - a callous diregard for someone's suffering perhaps - have that relfected.

Take Grace in DAII for example, and turning her in:
DIPLO, GOOD: I'm sorry Grace. But this is bigger than both of us. I have to turn you in.
DIPLO, EVIL: You cannot run from justice, apostate. You will come with me.
SNARK, GOOD: Just a little murder? Don't think so. You'll have to come with me. 
SNARK, EVIL: Oh, sweep all this mess and murder under the rug? Wouldn't that be a fine idea? I don't think so.
BLUNT, GOOD: I am taking you in. That is the right of it.
BLUNT, EVIL: You don't DESERVE my mercy.

Helping her escape:
DIPLO, GOOD: I cannot take you to inevitable suffering. I will do what I can.
DIPLO, EVIL: They are not fufilling their roles as protectors. Until they meet their role, neither should you. 
SNARK, GOOD: Well, I quite like the idea of being part of a dashing escape plan!
SNARK, EVIL: Those idiots couldn't find their ass with both hands. I can make sure they don't find yours either.
BLUNT, GOOD: They're monsters. They don't get to have you.
BLUNT, EVIL: Nothing like a little chaos in the ranks!

Modifié par Karsciyin, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:42 .

[Chiramu]

I personally liked straight-talking, blunt Hawke too ; that Hawke got on famously with Fenris.

The personalities in DA2 were very simplistic though. More like children cartoon style protagonists/antagonists.

I still want a SHY character to play though! Biowares' never had a shy main character from the player to play :<.

[Wulfram]

I didn't think Aggressive Hawke had too much assumption of evil. But Diplomatic Hawke did too often come across as a total goody goody.

And I never understood why Snarky Hawke was the only one who could lie decently.

[Plaintiff]

I don't see this argument. I can't remember any instance where "Aggressive" Hawke reacted gleefully to the chance of murdering someone.

"Alignments" are dumb (so are karma systems, and any sort of "morality" meter), and I don't support them. I don't want characters to be reduced to squares on an alignment chart. If they're well-written, then they should defy any attempt at such simple classification to begin with.

I don't see how the personalities were at all related to morality. Playing as a "Blunt/Aggressive" Hawke didn't preclude you from doing "the right thing", whatever you think "the right thing" is.

Speaking as someone who plays Sarcasm!Hawke almost exclusively, the innappropriate moments are my favourite parts. I especially love trololololing at Saemus' murder.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:36 .

[Plaintiff]

Wulfram wrote...

I didn't think Aggressive Hawke had too much assumption of evil. But Diplomatic Hawke did too often come across as a total goody goody.

And I never understood why Snarky Hawke was the only one who could lie decently.

Because the purple option also doubles as "Charming".

Also, it's the same reason that Diplomatic Hawe is the best at persuasion, and that some "threaten" options are only successful for a predominantly Aggressive Hawke. Because it's the type of character they are. It functions the same as "persuasion" and "coercion" skill checks in DA:O. If you haven't put enough "points" into that kind of personality, then you'll fail the check.

[AntiChri5]

Hmmmm. I never felt my aggressive Hawke was a bad person, or did bad things. He was just blunt, suspicious and angry with everyone he didn't consider family. Except for Gamlen.

[Plaintiff]

Chiramu wrote...

I personally liked straight-talking, blunt Hawke too ; that Hawke got on famously with Fenris.

The personalities in DA2 were very simplistic though. More like children cartoon style protagonists/antagonists.

I still want a SHY character to play though! Biowares' never had a shy main character from the player to play :<.

Doesn't shyness tend to preclude interaction with other characters, especially complete strangers? You can't do the things that are expected of a player character if you mumble, stare at your shoes, and hide behind another party member.

[esper]

The feeling that personality and morality are the same is one made in our players head and not the game.

There are few times where morality is a consequence of the personality (the worse of course being the petrice decision, that choice should never have been tied to personality)

Points to avatar, My canon Hawke is diplomatic, that is a polite facade, as much as I love her, I am fully aware that any pro-templar, pro-chantry or just generally non violent person who comes across her on a bad day could rightfully label her malificar. The diplomatic personallity did not prevent me from playing that. I am currently working on an blunt/agressive base Hawke who is much more nice.

The diplomatic being good is a thing we have from mass effect where upper position are associated with a much more moral choice. That and we generally associate blue with good and red with bad.

I do not never want to see the game have a morality system again, escpially not good/evil/lawfull/chaotic I loathe those and they are unfit to be in dragon age, lawfull/chaotic have no meaning when the laws are as inconsistent as they are in Thedas and good/evil means that the game basically decides for me what is right and wrong, and I don't want the game to do that.

Generally speaking though. If you have a characther who is violent and/or agressive it will be more natural for the world to percieve them as evil as a sly intregant, but diplomatic characther because the agressive behavoir is visible to the world as large, while the evil actions of a polite mastermind is something only those who knows the reason can see.

I do not ever want to see chaotic/lawfull/good/evil classifications in a game again. I will decide what I think is right and wrong, and don't want the game to tell me that.

Edit

The carver argument was exactly where I do not want good and evil points. He is my main characther little brother and have just said something that steps on her very sore point.  It is not a yes/no situation. It's a mood/personality situation, morality have nothing to do with it.

As for grace, or should we say, yes-no choices, I simply wish that we had six option, and agree/disagree for each personality. Failing that or choices which are not yes/no I simply wish we have the arrows (personality neutral) choices for everything that have to do with how we choose to help the npc's.

Modifié par esper, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:51 .

[snackrat]

I'm not saying that people should stop SEEING a blunt character as rude, or a diplomatic character as polite.

The whole point of diplo is to navigate the social field. And few people trust an ***hole. What I dislike is HAWKE HIM/HERSELF acting to that standard.

Making Blunt Hawke unsympathetic to anyone's suffering was depressingly common (in the prologue alone, you dismiss you siblings death, scold your mother's sorrow, and speak coldly Weasley's condition), and making diplomatic Hawke being all... all.... guh, "Let's make Kirkwall a better place for everyone! Teeheehee". Idealism to an absurd degree.

A much more achievable alternative, I suppose, would be to simply avoid assuming that at all. Rather than tracking morality, to simply provide a choice for the parts where it becomes relevant.

And I'm NOT saying switch diplo/snark/blunt for the law/neu/chaos system, because they don't actually align that well. I'm saying to keep them SEPARATE, and yet COMPARED TO, morality.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:50 .

[AntiChri5]

Involving a morality system of any sort is a bad idea. I have never seen one used well. The old D&D Chaotic/Lawful/Good/Evil/Neutral system, the Paragon/Renegade system, the Open Palm/Closed fist system........

It's never enough. It is always far too simple or wildly inconsistent.

[AntiChri5]

I'm not saying that people should stop SEEING a blunt character as rude, or a diplomatic character as polite.

The whole point of diplo is to navigate the social field. And few people trust an ***hole. What I dislike is HAWKE HIM/HERSELF acting to that standard.

Making Blunt Hawke unsympathetic to anyone's suffering was depressingly common (in the prologue alone, you dismiss you siblings death, scold your mother's sorrow, and speak coldly Weasley's condition), and making diplomatic Hawke being all... all.... guh, "Let's make Kirkwall a better place for everyone! Teeheehee". Idealism to an absurd degree.

A much more achievable alternative, I suppose, would be to simply avoid assuming that at all. Rather than tracking morality, to simply provide a choice for the parts where it becomes relevant.

And I'm NOT saying switch diplo/snark/blunt for the law/neu/chaos system, because they don't actually align that well. I'm saying to keep them SEPARATE, and yet COMPARED TO, morality.

Did you ALWAYS pick the same personality option with Hawke? Did your Agressive character always pick agressive?

[snackrat]

Honestly, I'm not sure what the alternative could be. I just know that I dislike treating morality and personality like they are the same thing, yet I also believe it... petty to pick apart a system without at least attempting to provide an alternative.

AntiChri5 wrote...
Did you ALWAYS pick the same personality option with Hawke? Did your Agressive character always pick agressive?

 
No, pretty much out of necessity. The characters feel much more real when you do not, and more likable. Less a cardboard cutout.
The problem becomes when it enters into auto-dialogue. When you make a decision, what Hawke says is then based on their personality. How they say it also can imply morality - cruel, or kind. Merciful, or uncomprimising. Maybe a blunt Inquisitor just 'does what needs to be done' instead of being unconditionally violent and bloodthirsty. I would like for my Inquisitor to have that option.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:58 .

[sylvanaerie]

Perhaps the 'alignment' system was a bit simplistic, but in my head, I had reasons for doing everything I did.

One of my diplomatic mages was a complete pacifist, she always tried to talk her way out of a situation (when the option came up). She romanced a very angry Fenris (rivalmance) and the feel I got from him when he left was completely different from any other Hawke I've played before or since. It almost had a "I'll just hurt you" feel to it rather than a "I can't deal with this" as it had on other playthroughs. She even let Dupuis live after her mom died. I never saw her as 'goody goody' though some people may from my description, she just felt like everyone deserved a second chance. I took options I hadn't in most of my other playthroughs, and it had a completely different feel for those options I had taken.

My favorite snarky Hawke playthrough I chose almost exclusively the humorous responses, getting some pretty funny lines, though the 'automatic' stuff was kind of harsh sometimes (like turning over the bones to Emeric and asking him if he 'recognized his mage'). I played her as viewing nothing serious, even serious business, and sometimes her light spirit lifted others, sometimes it just pissed them off. As it did Meredith when Kit suggested the very sensible option of 'running for the hills' instead of battling the Qunari!

For my aggressive Hawke, I played him as very protective of those he loved, and he loved his family greatly. Losing Bethany (in Lothering), Carver (in the deep roads to the GWs) and mom left him scrambling to hold onto something in the chaos that his life was descending into.

It's all in how you perceive what's happening.  Diplomatic can just be a charming facade and you can play your Hawke as the most charming backstabber ever.  Aggressive doesn't have to be 'evil', you may just have some serious anger issues that make others perceive you as a dangerous person, but again, you could just be grumpy by nature, not an evil bastard.

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:58 .

[Reaverwind]

Karsciyin wrote...

I'm not saying that people should stop SEEING a blunt character as rude, or a diplomatic character as polite.

The whole point of diplo is to navigate the social field. And few people trust an ***hole. What I dislike is HAWKE HIM/HERSELF acting to that standard.

Making Blunt Hawke unsympathetic to anyone's suffering was depressingly common (in the prologue alone, you dismiss you siblings death, scold your mother's sorrow, and speak coldly Weasley's condition), and making diplomatic Hawke being all... all.... guh, "Let's make Kirkwall a better place for everyone! Teeheehee". Idealism to an absurd degree.

A much more achievable alternative, I suppose, would be to simply avoid assuming that at all. Rather than tracking morality, to simply provide a choice for the parts where it becomes relevant.

And I'm NOT saying switch diplo/snark/blunt for the law/neu/chaos system, because they don't actually align that well. I'm saying to keep them SEPARATE, and yet COMPARED TO, morality.

You're right. Blunt Hawke was simply put, an ****, but was more tolerable than diplomatic "let's hold hands and sing kumbayah!" Hawke. Diplomacy is NOT altruism, Bioware.

[esper]

Karsciyin wrote...

I'm not saying that people should stop SEEING a blunt character as rude, or a diplomatic character as polite.

The whole point of diplo is to navigate the social field. And few people trust an ***hole. What I dislike is HAWKE HIM/HERSELF acting to that standard.

Making Blunt Hawke unsympathetic to anyone's suffering was depressingly common (in the prologue alone, you dismiss you siblings death, scold your mother's sorrow, and speak coldly Weasley's condition), and making diplomatic Hawke being all... all.... guh, "Let's make Kirkwall a better place for everyone! Teeheehee". Idealism to an absurd degree.

A much more achievable alternative, I suppose, would be to simply avoid assuming that at all. Rather than tracking morality, to simply provide a choice for the parts where it becomes relevant.

And I'm NOT saying switch diplo/snark/blunt for the law/neu/chaos system, because they don't actually align that well. I'm saying to keep them SEPARATE, and yet COMPARED TO, morality.

There should be no morality tracker at all, a personality tracker  nicer because it makes it easy for the characther to fit into the world without assuming if they are good and bad. If you want a dimplomatic evil characther simply give them evil reasons for being diplomatic. And btw my agressive character did not dismiss her sibling dead, she simply said they needed to move (because of the monsters), my diplomatic picked the exact same line there because of the same reason (esacpe monsters first, grieve later) the beauty of the system is that you do not have to pick all the diplomatic lines.

Sure, I wish a more refined tracker of personality than simply a base personliaty, my dream is that the game track base tone towards groups/factions/indiviual companions + plus and eventual base personality.

[snackrat]

To clarify an additional point on 'always picking the aggressive options' and whatnot, due to the.. odd... way that the paraphrasing was handled, you didn't necessarily KNOW that 'in this instance blunt=heartless, diplomatic=idealistic, snarky=jackass'. You didn't know until you took it and headdesk'd, and by then the damage was done.

[esper]

Karsciyin wrote...

To clarify an additional point on 'always picking the aggressive options' and whatnot, due to the.. odd... way that the paraphrasing was handled, you didn't necessarily KNOW that 'in this instance blunt=heartless, diplomatic=idealistic, snarky=jackass'. You didn't know until you took it and headdesk'd, and by then the damage was done.

That's the paraphrase and thus a completely different problem which have nada to do with morality vs. personality.

[snackrat]

Yes, it is it's own problem. But it is a problem that HIDES connecting morality with personality. A better paraphrase would make it easier to DODGE those assumptions, but not necessarily negate them.

[Wulfram]

Plaintiff wrote...

Because the purple option also doubles as "Charming".

Also, it's the same reason that Diplomatic Hawe is the best at persuasion, and that some "threaten" options are only successful for a predominantly Aggressive Hawke. Because it's the type of character they are. It functions the same as "persuasion" and "coercion" skill checks in DA:O. If you haven't put enough "points" into that kind of personality, then you'll fail the check.

I understand the mechanic

The other ones at least had fairly logical connections, but the jokes = lying is just made up and silly.

[esper]

Karsciyin wrote...

Yes, it is it's own problem. But it is a problem that HIDES connecting morality with personality. A better paraphrase would make it easier to DODGE those assumptions, but not necessarily negate them.

Again, the world of Thedas does not assume anything, it is only us players.

My diplomatic Hawke was never pure good or evil she is a very grey characther who saw the world in black and white and every who fell on her black side was completely permittable to kill in her eyes, my two agressive characther are wildly different with one being a weak cowardly person who has serious self estemm issues and was selfish, and the other just being a bit grumpy and blunt, but has a very good and helpsome heart who would go that extra mile for others.

I never found the game contradicitng those personalities or saying that I interprented their morals wrong, because the game thankfully doesn't assumes which actions or which are good and evil.

[Gibb_Shepard]

They definitely need to get rid of the dominant personality mechanic. It's truly bad; constantly contradicting what my envisioned Hawke would do in certain circumstances.

Leave autodialogue in a neutral tone and i'll be much happier.

[Plaintiff]

Wulfram wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Because the purple option also doubles as "Charming".

Also, it's the same reason that Diplomatic Hawe is the best at persuasion, and that some "threaten" options are only successful for a predominantly Aggressive Hawke. Because it's the type of character they are. It functions the same as "persuasion" and "coercion" skill checks in DA:O. If you haven't put enough "points" into that kind of personality, then you'll fail the check.

I understand the mechanic

The other ones at least had fairly logical connections, but the jokes = lying is just made up and silly.

You're oversimplifying.

If your character is perceived as a charmer, which sarcastic Hawke is, then I don't think it's a stretch to say they'd be good at lying.

But you could argue that "Charming" and "Sarcastic" don't really go together, since Sarcastic Hawke can be kind of a douche.

[Last Vizard]

Blunt and honest, quick way to get banned or rack up infractions.

[snackrat]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

They definitely need to get rid of the dominant personality mechanic. It's truly bad; constantly contradicting what my envisioned Hawke would do in certain circumstances.

Leave autodialogue in a neutral tone and i'll be much happier.

That could work...
1) it prevents making assumptions on characters
2) it helps cut down on production times and VA, so it is simpler for developers.

...but I still like how they managed tone though. Diplo would often use more flowery, tactful terms while blunt would use only the words needed, with no regard for feelings. The problem comes from them not technically saying the same things. (Take Merril's demon for example. Diplo: It helped us yay! Snark: They're helpful until EVIL. Blunt: IT'S NOT A 'SPIRIT' IT'S A DEMON.)

I know blunt people are not generally likable, certainly not as far as first impressions. For one playthrough, I took the blunt option everytime it was available. If I had a mage/templar option, I went with pro-mage, anti-demon (the character was a mage himself, and resented being controlled by anyone, be it chantry or spirit, and was therefore a force mage). Regardless of whether he was lawful or mischievous, greedy or generous, helpful or callous, choosing the blunt option meant EVERYONE was locked into Rivalry at like, the beginning of Act II. (Except for Anders, since they had similar ideals, but he's pretty blunt himself.)

That's not a pure translation of course, because choices come into account, but almost ALL of those choices were actually tied to personality. The blunt Hawke would attack people a lot (which makes sense to a degree, since the second side is aggressive) which nobody really liked. He stabbed and threatened people. He broke the law for himself but was cruel to anyone who did the same. He was practically the PICTURE of 'evil'.
He... he was also mean to Bodahn and Mumsy 


Of course it is too early at this stage to say what will happen, and Bioware shows themselves eager to move forward and experiment until they find a system that works. I like the system as a base idea, I just think it needs a little less.... generalisation.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 20 septembre 2012 - 01:17 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

They definitely need to get rid of the dominant personality mechanic. It's truly bad; constantly contradicting what my envisioned Hawke would do in certain circumstances.

Leave autodialogue in a neutral tone and i'll be much happier.

Not what you wanted =/= truly bad

Sure, the tone system might be adjusted a little bit but I think it was a step in the right direction.