150 réponses à ce sujet

[dversion]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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?'

They were an interesting concept but the majority of people don't want to be jerks. I think of mass effect 1 where Shepard was sort of a racist jerk and while I liked being a 'tough guy' I don't know why anyone would say racial slurs like 'big dumb jellyfish' other than wondering what would happen if i did it.

Usually the result is that everyone in the game hates me.

The only time I enjoyed being evil was when the game was sort of built around that idea. Playing what I did of TOR, the sith inquisitor being an evil dick was really fun because everyone around totally supported it and other sith dug it when I electrocuted people.

[Kidd]

dversion wrote...

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.

What "evil" choices don't make sense to pick for any character in either DA game, in your opinion? I can't think of any.

[MrMcDoll]

In Baldur's gate 1&2, the first character I made was a chaotic evil Halfling thief. I used him in a few D&D campaigns I've been PC in.
He is a on the surface, helpful and sweet, but on the sideline is a serial killer who consumes elf-flesh.
It's barrels of fun thinking up ways in which to make him seem real without resorting to plain old "mwuhahaha" evil.
Problem for me in Baldur's gate was that It was in-character to choose "good" speech options, but then in deeds, double-cross or murder people whenever possible. In those games though, often i'd find his alignment changing due to having selected too many "good" speech choices since the game doesn't psychically know that he's "faking it".
Even so, it was both challenging for me to live with some of the decisions that he would make but I would most definitely NOT. It's a creative exercise.

Another challenge for me was to play a super religious do-gooder paladin in BG series, since I am by my own nature very chaotic and certainly not one to support any religious establishment. Same with a playthrough of DA2 in which my Hawke was a pro-templar mage hater (who was, ironically, a mage- he was kinda "highlander" about magic - wanted to be the only one!.)
It's about challenging yourself to make decisions based on wants, needs and intentions that you have imagined.
Mind you, my Warden was pretty much just me in Thedas (even looked the same and was pulling a derp face in his portrait) and I just tried to get cozy with anyone and everyone I could, saving the world was kinda secondary to that.

I still felt bad about cheating though, so always made him break things off prior to messing around with a new interest - since that's how I roll IRL.

[dversion]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

dversion wrote...

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.

What "evil" choices don't make sense to pick for any character in either DA game, in your opinion? I can't think of any.

It's been a while since I played  them so forgive me if I'm not exact but destroying Andreste's ashes, siding with the templars (you lose your only healer!), siding with the werewolves. You just lose way too much making amoral choices and you feel like a jerk. There's sort of no reason to do it.

[Kidd]

dversion wrote...

It's been a while since I played  them so forgive me if I'm not exact but destroying Andreste's ashes, siding with the templars (you lose your only healer!), siding with the werewolves. You just lose way too much making amoral choices and you feel like a jerk. There's sort of no reason to do it.

These are just a few motivations I can come up with right away, there's certainly more =)

Destroying Andraste's ashes; distrusting magic, believing in the dragon cult or generally wanting to use them with no regard to the Chantry, not wanting the Chantry to be able to rise further as a non-Andrastian (dalish & both dwarf origins especially).

Siding with the templars DA1; distrusting magic, wanting to ensure no maleficar or possessed mages remain to poison future generations of the Circle.

Siding with the templars DA2; distrusting magic, wanting to keep bloodshed in the city to a minimum, distrust of Orsino's claims of the Circle being blood magic free (Quentin's research).

Siding with the werewolves; being sympathetic to the stories of the Lady of the Forest and resentful of Zathrian's lead

I agree the werewolves one is harder than the rest though, that may very well be the weakest choice in the series the more I think of it. Unless your character is very quick to go for bloodshed, the only motivation I can come up with for the werewolf situation will end up in the curing werewolves path as long as the warden's persuasion score is high enough.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Another reason to side with the werewolves could be that your character doesn't like elves and would rather have the werewolves and the Lady onside than a band of pointy-eared heretics.

[katiebour]

Of the many PTs I've had of DA2, the ones that stood out to me the most were the ones with my two main Hawkes, who made decisions and chose dialogue based on my read of their character. My main f!Hawke was mostly diplo, although if you threatened her family or loved ones she would absolutely go aggro, and who rarely if ever chose sarcastic or humorous options. My main m!Hawke was mostly sarcastic, although aggro to Carver because they had a fractious childhood in my headcanon, and a few servings of diplo here and there when he wasn't out to be a complete ass. He also chose to do some really crappy things, like destroying the demon books scattered around Kirkwall with Merrill in party, due to major differences of opinion on the nature of blood magic. He might have been nice to fellow mage Anders, but he treated Merrill like a very stupid, overgrown child, and her reaction and relationship with him was interesting to see.

RP for me is more an investigation into who a character is- I didn't choose the same flavor every time, because some characters will have different reactions in different situations, and for me it was awesome to see my little diplo!Hawke go full aggro on Sebastian during endgame. That gave her a faceted personality that I could further explore in headcanon and written fic/RP.

My third and most troubling main PT was with my version of Marian. It was almost traumatic, because she was such a close-minded, angry, resentful character, someone who lusted after power and position and didn't want inconvenient things like mages in the family to get in her way. She often chose aggro options, sided with the Templars, took her sister to the Deep Roads without Anders, ousted him from party in Act 2 and executed him in Act 3, and rivalmanced Sebastian, reporting into the Chantry regularly, blackmailing people left and right, and really giving me a completely different view of the game.

I'd finish a half-hour of play and feel like I needed therapy, she was so awful. But the process allowed me to see how other characters react- for example, evil!Marian blackmailed Thrask about his dead daughter, Olivia. Aveline, normally a rule-keeper and one fairly happy to side with the Templars, was vocal in her disgust. Fenris, shockingly, was totally in favor of the situation and chimed in with a smug "That seems fair."

Out of the entire PT, evil!Marian rivaled EVERYONE except Fenris, who was at full approval of every vile action she took. I considered having her sell him to Danarius, but 5 measly gold wasn't nearly enough, and she liked having a former elvhen slave bow and scrape and reinforce her opinion of herself.

It really just allowed me to more fully understand my party members and their range of reactions and moral compasses. Evil!Marian's PT showed me a side of Fenris in many a situation that I wouldn't have seen otherwise, and like when Anders chimes in with approval regarding selling Fen back to Danarius, was something by which I was shocked and appalled. That gives the characters a richness, however- no one's perfect all the time, people make bad decisions, say horrible things, are terribly flawed and at times utter bastards, and that makes them all the more enjoyable for me as the player and audience.

In order to really RP without going "Oh, Maker, this is HORRIBLE and I JUST CAN'T," you sort of have to divorce yourself from the character. They aren't you, and you wouldn't ever make those decisions, but you get twice the replay value through the game in seeing it from a completely different perspective. Meredith's dialogue on a pro-Templar vs. pro-Mage PT puts her in a much more sympathetic light than if you miss out on that, and fills out the richness of the writing, the characters, and the possibilities of who the characters are and can be based on how you play.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

What I don't understand is how people, for instance in TOR, can play dark side jedi, or any empire toon.

The evil side bores me. A lot of the evil choices are arbitrary and make little sense to me. There is a choice to either kill slaves painfully or quickly. Quickly is the 'good' choice. Why isn't there a choice to save them? Short of not doing the quest, I mean.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Maria Caliban wrote...

It's hard being mean and evil. I can role-play different personality traits and world views, but the only way I can manage a different ethical system is if I can create a sound moral philosophy or the game can provide me with one.

My experience with BioWare games is that they don't express their setting's 'morality system' within the the experience of the PC well enough for me to see it as something the PC could internalize.

True dat.
I never managed to finish a evil playtrough in any game I played.

I can RP good and neutral people, but evil just doesn't sit with me. At all.

[Gibb_Shepard]

xAmilli0n wrote...

I don't play RPGs in the first person, so YMMV. I love creating characters. I love doing bio sketches and coming up with their past, their way of thinking, their morality, their values, etc. and sticking too them throughout a playthrough. So for me, roleplaying is creating different characters and essentially seeing how different people handle the same situations.

In short, its fun.

This right here. Authoring a character and influencing how he progresses is some of the most fun i can get out of games.

[Archyyy]

I dont roleplay like what OP described. I always play as myself in whatever world the rpg takes place in. I get to shape it in ways that are good which is always fun.

Roleplaying for me is playing as a character with my ideals and principles in the games world.

Modifié par Archyyy, 09 novembre 2012 - 01:45 .

[Archyyy]

Double post.

Modifié par Archyyy, 09 novembre 2012 - 01:44 .

[GodWood]

DarthLaxian wrote...
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?

Because I don't limit myself to self-inserts. As a roleplayer I construct a variety of characters (some whose viewpoints I agree with, others who I don't) and see how they play out.

E.g. Despite being fervently anti-mage liberation my canon Hawke sided against Meredith. Why? It fit the character I was roleplaying.

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

Then you're a fool.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Being evil is easy. You just pretend everything you do in them is non-canon. Of course, "evil" is subjective and some of the so called "evil" mentioned in this thread don't even feel like evil choices to me.

Modifié par DarkKnightHolmes, 09 novembre 2012 - 02:12 .

[Pzykozis]

Because the evil options usually have the most entertaining consequences and that dagger throw to take out genitivi is brutal also to be fair there's not much in the way of outright evil you can do in either DA game, it's all a matter of what you or if you're rping your character intentions and reasonings behind the actions that make that sort of thing. Well aside from making an elven smoothie that was pretty evil, I'd have done it but content loss is content loss and that trumps anything else, also just a single stat point at that far in game is fairly pointless.

Usually an evil playthrough is the comedy playthrough though since most games the evil stuff you do is so comically evil it can't be taken seriously.

[Plaintiff]

"Good" and "Evil" are subjective concepts, and thus utterly meaningless in any game that does not have a clearly denoted morality measurement, which Dragon Age does not.

All the characters I've played have been "good", in accordance with my personal view of what "good" means. People with a differing view are going to see my choices as "evil". That potential for discussion and debate is part of what makes Dragon Age so interesting, even though anyone who disagrees with me is obviously wrong.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 09 novembre 2012 - 02:33 .

[Petr0nella]

On a first playthrough my decisions are probably quite close to what I would choose. On subsequent playthroughs I have a sense for the story/decisions to be made, so it becomes a question of 'how would that character react?'

So long as I feel that the decision fits the character it doesn't bother me if it's evil or unethical by my standards, plus I then I get to see aspects of the game I might otherwise have missed. It also helps that I never design my characters to look like me or how I might want to look - it's usually about making them distinct from each other.

[Vilegrim]

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

To see what happens, to play someone I am not, (I don't like stupid evil or lawful stupid choices, so don't make them, but short of that).  Also I could sympathise with Loghain, he saw his bewloved homeland being reinvaded at the Kings invitation (he was wrong, but his interpretation of events made sense) , so letting him live on a playthru made sense to me, he was a well intentioned extremist not a monster.  No charcter in DA2 struck me a that, the opposing bosses felt like stupid evil, especially Meredith, whi just seemed to be cruel for the evuls even before the red lyrium thingy got to her (and Orsino was just as bad, 'lets turn into a huge blood beast..for no apparent reason muhahaha *sigh*).

[Rpgfantasyplayer]

I always tend to play the "good guy" and is hard for me to be evil. But I am trying to push myself into being more of a flexable player when it comes to this. I guess for me it is because I am not that way in real life and that this is a game so I am not hurting anyone by trying to see what other outcomes, consequences and the NPC's reactions I get by doing things that are normally seen as wrong.

[Caiden012]

I think age and maturity have to do with the way someone roleplays. When I was younger and playing KOTOR I would always pick darkside options cause I though it made me a bad***. But as I got older and played through the game again I found myself thinking more of the weight of my actions than just how cool I thought it was. I found that I didn't like being the 100% evil guy. If I was going to be evil I usually tried to give my character the "greater good" approach or find ways to justify actions.

When I play a sith in SWTOR and choose darkside options I try to give that character a reason to be darkside. And when I play games where I have the option to just go on a mindless killing spree (Fable, TES) I usually don't even if my character is evil because I normally roleplay him as someone who just doesn't care much for others or has his own motives, not someone who just likes to mindlessly kill others.

Roleplaying has a lot to do with the creativity of your own mind not just what is put in the game for you.

[nightscrawl]

Kileyan wrote...

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.

There are a variety of "evil" choices. Some, as you say are just stupid, in that they are counter productive for your character, not furthering his goals in any way, perhaps even setting them back. Other choices, the "pull the wings off flies" choices, I don't have an issue with. That is cruelty. There are cruel people in real life who hurt others just for the sick pleasure of it. I think those types of choices are just as valid.

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.

I only partly agree with you here. I think the main issue is that they need more variety. The "good" choices are often fairly obvious, unless you're dealing with a grey issue like the Anvil of the Void. The problem is that there are rarely any neutral options, and the "evil" choices need work all around. What I would like to see there are more for-profit, selfish choices for the neutral option (not necessarily related to money/loot, but in relation to a PC's goals), and also more goal oriented choices for the "evil" option as well.

All of that aside, I did think that DA2 did pretty well with that. You have your semi-neutral/profit options, your good option, and your "I'm Hawke, the jerkface" options. The inclusion of the mage/templar issues in DA2 bring in my statements about being goal oriented, because that is exactly how you could choose to handle many of those quests. Unfortunately, choosing to help mages was often presented as the good choice and the templars as the bad, rather than each of those being presented as two options with the same weight.

It's been mentioned before, but I'll reiterate: most of the dialogue options and choices relating to mages and templars do nothing to enforce the gray morality that Bioware seemed to be going for. Time and again, despite every mage group summoning demons, they were presented in a sympathetic light. True, there are players who are very pro-templar and have no issue coming up with their own reasons, but I really believe that most of that has to do with what a player has in their own mind, rather than what the game provides us as background.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 09 novembre 2012 - 06:28 .

[Emerald Rift]

esper wrote...

I can semi-understand your confusion. In da:o because the warden is so avatar lilke and feel disconnected to the world (for me), I have a really difficult time seperating me the player from the characther.

As to answer you question.

Why do I do it:

I like stories, I like stories about people, I like stories about morals. I do not never think off the characther as me (if I succesfully can roleplay) but as any other characther I read about.

How do you it:

Depends on the game, different games have different restriction. I always play the game through once without roleplaying, though. To get a feel of the world.

In da:o I had trouble get the world to acknowlegde the wardens personality which in turn means I had trouble roleplaying different personalities, however the ending slide of Awakening made it for me, and I do plan to go back and remake my canon warden a bit with the oppertuneity since I was struck for inspiration about how she was and will someday before da3 go back and make that playthrough.

da2, I start up picking out Hawkes outer personality, then I think why is she such, how was life before Lothering and what are my primary goal for this playthrough.
Then I begin to think about which situation will Hawke revert from the outer personality, what is her inner personality - those I have typically determined before arrivng in arc 1,
from then on out I begin to think about how she will react from situation to situation. It sounds like a lot of thinking, but once I have reached this stage I know my Hawke inside out and have a good instinct about how they will react to each situation when I am in it.

How can you take action against your own moral compass:
Easy,  the more succesfully I can roleplay/create a characther, the less the characther is me and the less I feel morally responsible for them. I was midway in my rival Hawke's playthrough (the Hawke with the moral compass most different from my own) when I realised that she was basically the abuser in an abusive romantic relentionship. I was a little uneasy, but it was an interesting playthrough, because it makes me think about motivations I not normally think about. and she is one of the Hawkes which I will preserve for da3 

Will you do it in da3: 
Absolutely yes, if I can. I have to have the game first, then I will see how easy it is for me to roleplay.  

Wow you actually made me want to try roleplayin in the DA universe