150 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

DarthLaxian wrote...

Hey guys (and of course, girls),

I have a question for you:

why do some of you "roleplay" (playing a character that would do things you yourselves never would, like say (for me) sparing Loghain (i just can't, because he is a traitor - i hate those! - and a mass murderer and i would be unsure of his loyalty (hell he sold out his king, he defied his oath and let the darkspawn kill his best friends (king marrics) son (king calen)) your characters?

why do i ask?

because i just can't, i strive to do the best i can (for me, for my party and for the world at large) but i still hesitate when there are amoral decisions (and i mostly decide against going the easy way....one exception: the anvil of the void, because it can do so much good IMHO) or decisions that make you "badass" but are really harsh (like siding with the templars in DA2 - sorry, but mages deserve to be treated like human beings, not like prisoners, their fate strikes a chord in me and i am unable to side with oppressors, i just can't...freedom is the most valuable commodity there is and i will take it away from no one by default (if someone is a violent criminal, a thief, a murder or a rapist, then ok, but not just because he/she was born!))

so, please answer me this, how can you do it and why do you do it?

and: will you do it in DA3 - even if it upsets your moral compass more then the most controversial decisions we have had up to now?

greetings LAX

I'm mostly with you in that I tend to make the same decisions, even in successive plays. Usually when I diverge from my usual choices it's to see a different path, or because I have decided that my character will have certain motivations or make decisions based on their own experiences.

A DAO character-based example would be the reason my human noble Warden decides to go ahead with the blood magic ritual and let Isolde sacrifice herself. My line of thought is that in that case my Warden believes in the urgency of the situation, and not being familiar with mages or magic, doesn't really consider a trek to the Circle a viable alternative. In that instance, I (as the player) have made a decision based on what my character is likely to know and the opinions she is likely to have based on her background as a human noble. My mage Warden does not hesitate to suggest going to the Circle for help, nor is she willing to risk using blood magic. For her, it is a logical choice.

A DA2 example for conflicting with my own morality and emotions, despite the downside of never seeing the content, would be the horrible decision to hand Fenris back to Danarius. I cannot tell you how horrific I think this is. I can just imagine Fenris's reaction, and that's quite enough for me, I don't need to actually see it.


Finally, you don't seem to consider that you are also doing roleplay. Just think that you can't do some of the things in real life that you can do in a game. You can't just execute a murderer because we have laws. In a sense, you are roleplaying your own morality in a universe where there are no consequences for doing so, and sometimes it's even applauded (by the NPCs).

[Mummy22kids]

I will try almost anything at least once but I don't always continue with playthroughs if I don't "like" the PC. Usually I do it for a specific reason (like unlocking a specialization) but sometimes i just want to see what will happen.

[silentassassin264]

Because there is no fun in being me in a video game. If I was playing me in Dragon Age: Origins for example, I would have ditched Duncan on the way to Ostagar and run for life to Orlais or something that did not require putting myself in harm's way (except Dalish warden. I would ditch after Ostagar failed as I would need to become Warden to stop dying as fast).

My morals are also boring. My morals are formed from living in a middle class American family in the South. I never have my morals challenged in any significant capacity. I never have to factor in life or death for tons of people, what is justice, etc. etc. Nothing that I am even come close to fitting in with a fantasy world.

Roleplaying allows me to become someone else and explore philosophical questions about how to react if raised in X scenario and faced with Y scenario. To me, that is infinitely more exciting than sitting back and playing as essentially me with a greatsword bigger than I am. If I was playing as strictly me, the game would have no replay value and I would probably not even finish the game because it would be so incredibly boring.

[Kileyan]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The answer for myself is often simply: "To see how it plays out."

It's difficult for me to do outright evil things in games too (I used to never be able to do it), but sometimes it leads to some really interesting stories and much how people can "enjoy" being scared, I think there's something enjoyable about that guilty feeling of acknowledging "Holy crap, that was a right dastardly thing I just did right there!"


One of my favourite playthroughs of an RPG ever is my first playthrough of KOTOR, which had my character try very hard to be a good guy, but ultimately was hot headed and I rationalized that as I became more darkside, it consumed me and influenced my decisions further.

I'm going to be a dick here, but if Bioware wants to complain about people only taking the good choices, I think they need to stop blaming the players and start blaming themselves.

In most Bioware games there are a lot of white and black choices, that vary from mini quests to game changing quests.

The problem is the game changing quests are usually done really well, but the little in between choices are just stupid for the evil/bad choices. Your good guy choices make sense, the bad guy choices are just stupid choices, pull the wings off of flies choices, filler choices that are really hard to pick, because they are mostly just stupid choices.

DO better, be more subtle if you want to complain that everyone always chooses the good path. It may just be because your bad path is really bad, stupid bad.

Modifié par Kileyan, 09 novembre 2012 - 02:46 .

[silentassassin264]

I agree with Kileyan. In Mass Effect, for example, all the polls had people choosing paragon over renegade by significant margins. There was a reason for that. Despite renegade is advertised as being the cold and pragmatic mission first type, it actually is just being an idiot with a fetish for failure. Being renegade usually involved skipping quests and deliberately destroying assets. In fact, Bioware didn't even support most of the renegades decisions and just defaulted the neutral option. At the end of the first Mass Effect there are three options: save council, hold out for sovereign, and intentionally leave the council to die. Despite the neutral and renegade had the same end effect of the council dying, they were for different reasons. The neutral one is about rebuilding the council and return to the status quo and the renegade one is advocating using an all human council and rule the aliens pretty much with fear. Naturally the renegade option is ignored and the game defaults to the neutral endgame.

The game you mentioned, Kotor, did this much much better (at least in the beginning level that I played). I remember a mission in some slums with some shmuck trying to find some directions to some promised land. The light side thing is to give him the directions when you find them. There is, however, a dark side option to give the directions to this merchant who didn't want them to leave because he was the supplyman and was making money off of them being in the crappy area they were. Both ways to end the quest had you profit something. In Dragon Age: O we have Redcliffe. You have the good option to defend the city and get xp, helm of redcliffe, a store and thriving (well existing) city afterwards. If you don't defend the city, you get nothing. Absolutely effing nothing. Choosing the not paladin lightside response just makes you lose content. Same with Mass Effect. For too many instances to list here, choosing the renegade option with tantamount to turning down the quest entirely or removing assets with nothing to make up for it. It also took until the third game for the devs to realize it was also pretty derpy to force paragon points on you for finishing even neutral quests and they made a neutral +reputation.

You are not going to get people who like to play the game as themselves to do anything other than the "good" choice if the "bad" choice is irredeemably stupid.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

DarthLaxian wrote...

Hey guys (and of course, girls),

I have a question for you:

[...]

I enjoy characters. If I only play a character who makes the same choices for the same reasons as the last character, then in essence, no matter what he or she looks like or how they're named, it's the same character (good, evil or otherwise).

I'm also a writer, so being able to 'play' characters with their own personalities and motivations is a good skill to have. Sometimes I need to write a villain, or a self-serving jackass, or someone who always says one thing but does the other. Computer games don't give the same breadth of RP possibilities as more traditional RPGs do, and less so when good/evil choices lead to practically the same outcome, but there's still a bit of room to manoeuvre.

Are 'evil' choices easy, even in a game? Not always, no. Sometimes it's quite hard. I don't think I could ever play/get into the head of a pure black-hearted psychopath who took joy in hurting other people, or a character like Heath Ledger's 'Joker', but Dragon Age is very careful about just how far into the abyss it's willing to let its players wander, mechanically speaking. That's probably just as well.

[Realmzmaster]

Gamers are roleplaying themselves. The PC becomes their avatar. Before I sit down to play I decide what type of character I want the Warden or Hawke to be. When I come to a choice I ask myself given the nature of my character what would he/she do not what would I do.

It is tough to do that, but it allows one to see content that otherwise would not be seen except in a youtube video.

[Sonowske21]

Why do I roleplay? Because I like to immerse myself in a world that you can never go to, playing a character that you could never be.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

DarthLaxian wrote...

Hey guys (and of course, girls),

I have a question for you:

why do some of you "roleplay" (playing a character that would do things you yourselves never would,

I do it or the sake of fun and because I am an avid fan of escapism in its many forms.

[Plaintiff]

People spare Loghain for a variety of reasons. They consider his actions to be morally correct, or strategically sound, or they find his character sympathetic because he used to be a war hero, or they just think Alistair is "annoying" for some reason.

I say screw those people. I've never spared Loghain and I never will. And if it was an option, I'd kill his deceitful, conniving daughter as well.

[StarcloudSWG]

That's just it. Loghain is not a traitor to Ferelden. He's a traitor to Cailan, but not Ferelden; everything he did, he did to preserve the Ferelden he'd spent his life fighting for.

Plus, sparing him requires that he join the Grey Wardens. That's a pretty harsh sentence in itself.

[Sable Rhapsody]

DarthLaxian wrote...
why do some of you "roleplay" (playing a character that would do things you yourselves never would, like say (for me) sparing Loghain (i just can't, because he is a traitor - i hate those! - and a mass murderer and i would be unsure of his loyalty (hell he sold out his king, he defied his oath and let the darkspawn kill his best friends (king marrics) son (king calen)) your characters?

I used to not be able to play characters who were less than moral or who I disagreed with.  IMO it comes with roleplaying experience.  In the first few RPGs I played, I just roleplayed myself, more or less.  A more powerful and slightly changed version, but generally my characters thought what I thought and did what I would do.

That changed slowly--with every game I played, I got more flexible in my roleplaying.  It really came down to producing that separation between player and character.  As a player, *I* don't do things like kill Connor or sabotage the genophage or punch that annoying reporter.  The CHARACTER does those things--I'm more in the role of a director or storyteller than the actual agent who does things.  And boy, some of the more morally difficult decisions make for a great yarn.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 09 novembre 2012 - 04:28 .

[silentassassin264]

Loghain IS a traitor to Ferelden. He argued against letting the Grey Wardens in and even kidnapped the emissary to keep the Grey Wardens for bringing any reinforcements. That caused over half the country to be lost. All those people who died, who were Fereldens as you might realize, died because Loghain would rather see the place blighted than allow the only people who could stop it from stopping it. Loghain was a prideful power hungry idiot living in the past. He was spared on a couple of my games because I roleplayed in a way that he was "useful" but that does not change the fact that he did betray his country.

[WhiteThunder]

I'm actually on my first ever "evil" playthrough, albeit for Vampire: Bloodlines.

Of course, I'm rationalizing it as a "What would Angelus do" playthrough. Ventrue with maxed seduction and persuasion and a low, low Humanity.

Modifié par WhiteThunder, 09 novembre 2012 - 04:46 .

[cJohnOne]

I usually don't play evil but I do enjoy exploring different characters and like having the option even if I don't use it.

[Iosev]

I vary my decisions between playthroughs, but there are some choices that I simply won't choose, such as letting Meredith execute Bethany.

[Genshie]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

"Holy crap, that was a right dastardly thing I just did right there!"


One of my favourite playthroughs of an RPG ever is my first playthrough of KOTOR, which had my character try very hard to be a good guy, but ultimately was hot headed and I rationalized that as I became more darkside, it consumed me and influenced my decisions further.

Darkside has cookies. You can never say no to cookies. My favorite personally is chocolate chip. Never can go wrong with cookies.

On a serious note I find playing a balance of being good/evil the most rewarding. In my current playthrough of DAO as a Dalish Rogue elf I am finding that it suites her pretty well to the T and I am running into content I have never seen/heard by doing so. So in the long don't play to much of either side and just don't sit on the fence. Neutral has never worked out in most games I played that gives you the choice. 

[dversion]

I believe someone a few years ago (maybe Peter Moleneux or N'Gai Croal) Describes something called the 'Han Solo effect' where gamers start off choosing the dark options because they think it's cool only to feel guilty and switch it up to being good later on.

It's one of the reasons moral choice of good and evil has sort of never worked. I like what BioWare did with Mass Effect where 'bad' doesn't necessarily mean evil, it's just a way of getting the job done.
However with Dragon Age they still fell into a trap of doing evil things even though it doesn't benefit you at all, in fact you can lose vital characters.

There's a morality system in Fallout:New Vegas, if you're good, people give you things and you get new companions, if you're evil... well you get diddly.

Interesting gray choices (like leaving that one guy in prison, killing him, or setting him free) are much more interesting than "Kill children or pet the kitten"

Modifié par dversion, 09 novembre 2012 - 07:40 .

[Fredward]

I can't be evil just for the heck of it. If the situation is a difficult one, and the seemingly amoral decision will actually lead to saving MORE people, that's usually the one I go with. That just seems like the logical thing to do. My characters however are often driven by more base impulses, and while they don't kick puppies into wells just for the lulz of it all they do often make selfish decisions if I decide it's the type of decision they would make.

So for me it depends on the character I'm playing, and I usually play a pragmatic yet flawed human.

[Allan Schumacher]

dversion wrote...

I believe someone a few years ago (maybe Peter Moleneux or N'Gai Croal) Describes something called the 'Han Solo effect' where gamers start off choosing the dark options because they think it's cool only to feel guilty and switch it up to being good later on.

It's one of the reasons moral choice of good and evil has sort of never worked. I like what BioWare did with Mass Effect where 'bad' doesn't necessarily mean evil, it's just a way of getting the job done.
However with Dragon Age they still fell into a trap of doing evil things even though it doesn't benefit you at all, in fact you can lose vital characters.

There's a morality system in Fallout:New Vegas, if you're good, people give you things and you get new companions, if you're evil... well you get diddly.

Interesting gray choices (like leaving that one guy in prison, killing him, or setting him free) are much more interesting than "Kill children or pet the kitten"

What New Vegas did well was have factions react to you, as opposed to a generalized morality score.  So you can make up whatever rationalizations you want for killing someone or sparing them, the factions will respond in an appropriate way and it makes sense for a gamer.

[Maria Caliban]

dversion wrote...

It's one of the reasons moral choice of good and evil has sort of never worked.

How have moral choices 'sort of never worked?'

[JWvonGoethe]

esper wrote...
[..]I always play the game through once without roleplaying, though. To get a feel of the world.[...]

If I had played DA2 without roleplaying then Hawke would still be hiding under a box in Lothering...

In all seriousness, I don't think it is actually possible play as someone with the same moral system as I have. Even a diplomatic Hawke spent a lot of time slaughtering large swathes of criminals without exhibiting so much as a pang of conscience or self doubt - something very few people would be capable of in real life. The question is really always a matter of extent: just how far removed is the character's morality to my own, and in what ways does it differ?

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 09 novembre 2012 - 08:25 .

[dversion]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

dversion wrote...

I believe someone a few years ago (maybe Peter Moleneux or N'Gai Croal) Describes something called the 'Han Solo effect' where gamers start off choosing the dark options because they think it's cool only to feel guilty and switch it up to being good later on.

It's one of the reasons moral choice of good and evil has sort of never worked. I like what BioWare did with Mass Effect where 'bad' doesn't necessarily mean evil, it's just a way of getting the job done.
However with Dragon Age they still fell into a trap of doing evil things even though it doesn't benefit you at all, in fact you can lose vital characters.

There's a morality system in Fallout:New Vegas, if you're good, people give you things and you get new companions, if you're evil... well you get diddly.

Interesting gray choices (like leaving that one guy in prison, killing him, or setting him free) are much more interesting than "Kill children or pet the kitten"

What New Vegas did well was have factions react to you, as opposed to a generalized morality score.  So you can make up whatever rationalizations you want for killing someone or sparing them, the factions will respond in an appropriate way and it makes sense for a gamer.

The factions had varying levels of good and evil , though I doubt anyone would argue that Ceaser's Legion was 'good'

But yes, it was fun to associate with a faction. I wonder if them being more morally ambiguous would be more fun for the player or would people be upset that they couldn't be 'the goodest guy.'

There's also a difference when some choices present you with morally iffy choices but a choice that would solve everything and be keep your conscious clean isn't available even though, as a player, I can think of a way that works.