245 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

In regards to the Dalish, the idea someone mentions earlier in this thread, where they would have been more ineffective if they had just lost their Keeper, might have been a good ramification. The best possible moral outcome, but the worst possible war asset (Dalish with a leader and the Werewolves themselves would be better fighters). Especially if the assets weren't just random support units like in DA:O, but actually did affect how things like the safety of Denerim or the number of soldiers lost were. Something to say "was it better to let the Alienage burn to cure the Wolves? Was it better to let Zathrien sacrifice himself rather than have the Chantry be destroyed?"

THOSE would be good questions. Where the consequences are not asking "what is morally right" but rather "which set of morals takes precedence over the other?"

Indeed. This I agree with. It would have been interesting. I am sure I as a person wouldn't have chosen any different, but perhaps, no I know, my dalish warden would. (I assume that there wouldn't have been a convinent replace keeper ready to take over for Zatherian in this case).

But I still think da:o would just have been immersively better wihtout coercion.

And I agree with which Moral takes precedence choice, but you cannot expect the player to feel uncomfortable with the choice between two morals/ideals if the player already have cleared that question with themself beforehand. (Such as I have with the mage/templars situation which happens to be too close to home with a real life question).

I also don't see why the player must feel uncomfortable with choosing. Bioware can still show the consequences good and bad as they like. Bioware are not psychis I do not see why they should be able to predict how I would feel about a choice. Their job is to show both sides with equal game play content, so game play wise both are viable choices.

[Sylvius the Mad]

esper wrote...

What I have a problem with is when there in a game is an 'optimal outcome' that offer the clearly best solution to everyone. Like I felt that da:o had thanks to coercion. I know that you, Sylvius, is a strong enough roleplayer that you can ignore these option being there if they are out off character, but for me the option of the games exist and I feel forced to take them simply because the mental hoops I have to jump through to justify my charater not taking them is too great.

Thanks.

[Fast Jimmy]

And I agree with which Moral takes precedence choice, but you cannot expect the player to feel uncomfortable with the choice between two morals/ideals if the player already have cleared that question with themself beforehand. (Such as I have with the mage/templars situation which happens to be too close to home with a real life question).

I also don't see why the player must feel uncomfortable with choosing. Bioware can still show the consequences good and bad as they like. Bioware are not psychis I do not see why they should be able to predict how I would feel about a choice. Their job is to show both sides with equal game play content, so game play wise both are viable choices.

I don't require that the choices offered make a player feel uncertain, but I do consider ramifications of a choice to have more influence than just 1:1. A choice should have branching, spiraling outcomes, some of which are good, some of which are bad.

For instance, if the above example I had given was true, how would an Elven character feel about that? Would saving the Dalish AND the werewolves be worth having all the City Elves lives and homes be eradicated? Would it have mattered if your character was a City Elf or a Dalish one?

To elaborate further, many people think destroying the Anvil is the good choice, one that falls into their morals. But the outcomes shown in the epilogue slides show that the Dwarves are able to finally fight back the Darkspawn and even take back a few of their lost thaigs. What if the game had gone step further and made it so that if you didn't save the Anvil, the dwarves had no reserve for es left underground, so Darkspawn burned and destroyed large parts of Orzammar, forcing them topside, making them abandon their empire? Would the souls of a few be worth preserving an entire civilization? Or what if they weren't recruited, the dark spawn did irreparable damage to Redcliffe, killing many of the civilians we worked hard to keep alive in the first run through. Again, are a few souls worth lives lost?

I find many games (not just Bioware games) offer "dark" choices but do not give any incentive to being bad other than the option to be bad. If it costs nothing to follow your morals, it's easy to do so. It's only when it's difficult to make that stand do we really find out who we are. That's what I want - a chance for a game to challenge my own pre-conceptions of right and wrong, of good and evil. Good literature and cinema does this. Video games have a unique vehicle to give this an even more impactful examination of this, so I'd challenge Bioware to do so.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 janvier 2013 - 01:03 .

[Malanek]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And I agree with which Moral takes precedence choice, but you cannot expect the player to feel uncomfortable with the choice between two morals/ideals if the player already have cleared that question with themself beforehand. (Such as I have with the mage/templars situation which happens to be too close to home with a real life question).

I also don't see why the player must feel uncomfortable with choosing. Bioware can still show the consequences good and bad as they like. Bioware are not psychis I do not see why they should be able to predict how I would feel about a choice. Their job is to show both sides with equal game play content, so game play wise both are viable choices.

I don't require that the choices offered make a player feel uncertain, but I do consider ramifications of a choice to have more influence than just 1:1. A choice should have branching, spiraling outcomes, some of which are good, some of which are bad.

For instance, if the above example I had given was true, how would an Elven character feel about that? Would saving the Dalish AND the werewolves be worth having all the City Elves lives and homes be eradicated? Would it have mattered if your character was a City Elf or a Dalish one?

To elaborate further, many people think destroying the Anvil is the good choice, one that falls into their morals. But the outcomes shown in the epilogue slides show that the Dwarves are able to finally fight back the Darkspawn and even take back a few of their lost thaigs. What if the game had gone step further and made it so that if you didn't save the Anvil, the dwarves had no reserve for es left underground, so Darkspawn burned and destroyed large parts of Orzammar, forcing them topside, making them abandon their empire? Would the souls of a few be worth preserving an entire civilization? Or what if they weren't recruited, the dark spawn did irreparable damage to Redcliffe, killing many of the civilians we worked hard to keep alive in the first run through. Again, are a few souls worth lives lost?

I find many games (not just Bioware games) offer "dark" choices but do not give any incentive to being bad other than the option to be bad. If it costs nothing to follow your morals, it's easy to do so. It's only when it's difficult to make that stand do we really find out who we are. That's what I want - a chance for a game to challenge my own pre-conceptions of right and wrong, of good and evil. Good literature and cinema does this. Video games have a unique vehicle to give this an even more impactful examination of this, so I'd challenge Bioware to do so.

Just on this, a good example of where they did this was in the Conner/Desire demon situation. I hope I've got this right, my memory is a bit fuzzy, but I believe you could bargain with the demon and gain a skill point ultimately leaving it in possession of the boy. I think you could also gain a massive amount of gold by bargaining with the demon that you reasemble the body parts of in the deep roads. So there are examples of them doing this. Ultimately though it is a heroic game so I don't think they should go overboard and make "good" characters miss out too much.

Modifié par Malanek999, 31 janvier 2013 - 04:03 .

[esper]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And I agree with which Moral takes precedence choice, but you cannot expect the player to feel uncomfortable with the choice between two morals/ideals if the player already have cleared that question with themself beforehand. (Such as I have with the mage/templars situation which happens to be too close to home with a real life question).

I also don't see why the player must feel uncomfortable with choosing. Bioware can still show the consequences good and bad as they like. Bioware are not psychis I do not see why they should be able to predict how I would feel about a choice. Their job is to show both sides with equal game play content, so game play wise both are viable choices.

I don't require that the choices offered make a player feel uncertain, but I do consider ramifications of a choice to have more influence than just 1:1. A choice should have branching, spiraling outcomes, some of which are good, some of which are bad.

This is true. It doesn't have to be exactly 1:1. As long as both outcome is viable to take it is fair. In my opion as long as both outcome shows some negative consequences and positive consequence of both choice it is still fair game. One choice is fully allowed to be more negative than the other.

Fast Jimmy wrote...


For instance, if the above example I had given was true, how would an Elven character feel about that? Would saving the Dalish AND the werewolves be worth having all the City Elves lives and homes be eradicated? Would it have mattered if your character was a City Elf or a Dalish one?

To elaborate further, many people think destroying the Anvil is the good choice, one that falls into their morals. But the outcomes shown in the epilogue slides show that the Dwarves are able to finally fight back the Darkspawn and even take back a few of their lost thaigs. What if the game had gone step further and made it so that if you didn't save the Anvil, the dwarves had no reserve for es left underground, so Darkspawn burned and destroyed large parts of Orzammar, forcing them topside, making them abandon their empire? Would the souls of a few be worth preserving an entire civilization? Or what if they weren't recruited, the dark spawn did irreparable damage to Redcliffe, killing many of the civilians we worked hard to keep alive in the first run through. Again, are a few souls worth lives lost?

Now you are going into a completely different problem. How should our character know that this is the consequence. As said if there had been some hint that the clans would fall aparat without their Keeper (as in the next in line was not ready yet, the dwarven could have been complaining about how their military was beginning to be push more back, the legion being killed in da:o instead of da:a) if our character have no chance to know they cannot possible feature it into their moral thinking. Making the question moot. Not that the consequences couldn't still be there, but when our characters are standing in the choice they cannot predict it, thus justificate it for that reason.

Fast Jimmy wrote...


I find many games (not just Bioware games) offer "dark" choices but do not give any incentive to being bad other than the option to be bad. If it costs nothing to follow your morals, it's easy to do so. It's only when it's difficult to make that stand do we really find out who we are. That's what I want - a chance for a game to challenge my own pre-conceptions of right and wrong, of good and evil. Good literature and cinema does this. Video games have a unique vehicle to give this an even more impactful examination of this, so I'd challenge Bioware to do so.

This I agree with.
The problem is that nobody challenge our concept while we make the choice.

Nobody on the team said: "Warden, the dwarves need the anvil to survive, they are on the brink of destruction". Instead they basically went "Warden the anvil would make our lives easier".

Throwing concesquence in our head after is cool and should be done, but to make it a difficult choice we need the warning beforehand, so that we know that there is a dillemma.

Also I personally need them to show the consequence in something else than an epilog slide.

This is because I actually think that a game can challenge these preconception better than books/films. Simply because games offer the opportunity to make an active choice.

da2 actually managed to do this to me. I used to think that I was oppossed to violence no matter the circumstances, I discovered that I am not.

[esper]

Malanek999 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And I agree with which Moral takes precedence choice, but you cannot expect the player to feel uncomfortable with the choice between two morals/ideals if the player already have cleared that question with themself beforehand. (Such as I have with the mage/templars situation which happens to be too close to home with a real life question).

I also don't see why the player must feel uncomfortable with choosing. Bioware can still show the consequences good and bad as they like. Bioware are not psychis I do not see why they should be able to predict how I would feel about a choice. Their job is to show both sides with equal game play content, so game play wise both are viable choices.

I don't require that the choices offered make a player feel uncertain, but I do consider ramifications of a choice to have more influence than just 1:1. A choice should have branching, spiraling outcomes, some of which are good, some of which are bad.

For instance, if the above example I had given was true, how would an Elven character feel about that? Would saving the Dalish AND the werewolves be worth having all the City Elves lives and homes be eradicated? Would it have mattered if your character was a City Elf or a Dalish one?

To elaborate further, many people think destroying the Anvil is the good choice, one that falls into their morals. But the outcomes shown in the epilogue slides show that the Dwarves are able to finally fight back the Darkspawn and even take back a few of their lost thaigs. What if the game had gone step further and made it so that if you didn't save the Anvil, the dwarves had no reserve for es left underground, so Darkspawn burned and destroyed large parts of Orzammar, forcing them topside, making them abandon their empire? Would the souls of a few be worth preserving an entire civilization? Or what if they weren't recruited, the dark spawn did irreparable damage to Redcliffe, killing many of the civilians we worked hard to keep alive in the first run through. Again, are a few souls worth lives lost?

I find many games (not just Bioware games) offer "dark" choices but do not give any incentive to being bad other than the option to be bad. If it costs nothing to follow your morals, it's easy to do so. It's only when it's difficult to make that stand do we really find out who we are. That's what I want - a chance for a game to challenge my own pre-conceptions of right and wrong, of good and evil. Good literature and cinema does this. Video games have a unique vehicle to give this an even more impactful examination of this, so I'd challenge Bioware to do so.

Just on this, a good example of where they did this was in the Conner/Desire demon situation. I hope I've got this right, my memory is a bit fuzzy, but I believe you could bargain with the demon and gain a skill point ultimately leaving it in possession of the boy. I think you could also gain a massive amount of gold by bargaining with the demon that you reasemble the body parts of in the deep roads. So there are examples of them doing this. Ultimately though it is a heroic game so I don't think they should go overboard and make "good" characters miss out too much.

'

This is not a good examples.
It is basically being selfish and does not challenge any concept of morality.
(You could scare the demon in Conner into giving you that skill point for free btw.)

The whole point of choice like this is to go. 'What is really good and heroic'. It is very, very clear to everyone that the warden who does the thing you mention is purposefully being selfish.  Now the warden might be able to rationlize it in alot of different ways, but the very fact you  as a player can clearly see what the 'good' or 'heroic' option is when making the choice makes it an example off how not to do it.

As Jimmy have said, what if the choice for the Anvil had been between sacrificing the dwarven society or allow them to condem those souls to the Anvil? There is no way you can say either is a 'good'  choice, nor 'heroic'.

[Sylvius the Mad]

esper wrote...

This is not a good examples.
It is basically being selfish and does not challenge any concept of morality.
(You could scare the demon in Conner into giving you that skill point for free btw.)

The whole point of choice like this is to go. 'What is really good and heroic'. It is very, very clear to everyone that the warden who does the thing you mention is purposefully being selfish.  Now the warden might be able to rationlize it in alot of different ways, but the very fact you  as a player can clearly see what the 'good' or 'heroic' option is when making the choice makes it an example off how not to do it.

I completely disagree.  The Warden could well think he's trading one life for the lives of millions.  This is very much like the choice to defend Redcliffe from the zombies.  Sten makes, I think, a very compelling argument that staying in Redcliffe to help with its defense is reckless by risking the life of every remaining Warden in Ferelden in something that has little or nothing to do with the Blight.

What's good and heroic might not even matter.  A Warden concerned with duty over heroism makes very different choices from one concerned with being a hero.

As Jimmy have said, what if the choice for the Anvil had been between sacrificing the dwarven society or allow them to condem those souls to the Anvil? There is no way you can say either is a 'good'  choice, nor 'heroic'.

The Anvil choice is presented with the presumption that it will use only volunteers.  In that case, I don't see any good argument for not keeping the anvil.  Destroying the Anvil risks all of dwarven society - indeed, all society at all, given that the dwarves are the first line of defense against the darkspawn - with the sole benefit of protecting volunteers from doing the thing they're entirely willing to do.

I can't even imagine a credible argument for destroying the Anvil that doesn't presuppose its eventual misuse.

[esper]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

esper wrote...

This is not a good examples.
It is basically being selfish and does not challenge any concept of morality.
(You could scare the demon in Conner into giving you that skill point for free btw.)

The whole point of choice like this is to go. 'What is really good and heroic'. It is very, very clear to everyone that the warden who does the thing you mention is purposefully being selfish.  Now the warden might be able to rationlize it in alot of different ways, but the very fact you  as a player can clearly see what the 'good' or 'heroic' option is when making the choice makes it an example off how not to do it.

I completely disagree.  The Warden could well think he's trading one life for the lives of millions.  This is very much like the choice to defend Redcliffe from the zombies.  Sten makes, I think, a very compelling argument that staying in Redcliffe to help with its defense is reckless by risking the life of every remaining Warden in Ferelden in something that has little or nothing to do with the Blight.

What's good and heroic might not even matter.  A Warden concerned with duty over heroism makes very different choices from one concerned with being a hero.

As Jimmy have said, what if the choice for the Anvil had been between sacrificing the dwarven society or allow them to condem those souls to the Anvil? There is no way you can say either is a 'good'  choice, nor 'heroic'.

The Anvil choice is presented with the presumption that it will use only volunteers.  In that case, I don't see any good argument for not keeping the anvil.  Destroying the Anvil risks all of dwarven society - indeed, all society at all, given that the dwarves are the first line of defense against the darkspawn - with the sole benefit of protecting volunteers from doing the thing they're entirely willing to do.

I can't even imagine a credible argument for destroying the Anvil that doesn't presuppose its eventual misuse.

Again, Sylvius we are discussion this on the player's not the character level of perception. (At least I am).
As a player it is very clear which choice are meant to be good and heroic and which are not. And that makes any value off questioning morals moot. As said, the warden can easily rationlize it, but as the player behind the screen, I can see it forthe rationlization it is.

Sten's argument is one line long, not very compelling.

As for the Anvil, Caradin makes it very clear what happens last time it was 'only volenteers' and then we have the token selfish party members arguing for the Anvil and no one coming with the argument that it is needed, just helpfull and it would be a waste. Meaning that the most standard moral perspective in high fantasy. (Sacrificing souls is wrong) is not questioned very much.

You have to purposefully choose to create a very pragmatic, ruthless, selfish or downright evil character to make these choices because that is how they are presented in game.

Instead I wish that the game discuss what is truly pragmatic or heroic in these situations. It is never questioned.

[Sylvius the Mad]

esper wrote...

Again, Sylvius we are discussion this on the player's not the character level of perception. (At least I am).

I dispute that the player's perception, as distinct from the character's perception, ever matters.  These decisions are being made by the character from a perspective inside the character's world.  If you're using your outside knowledge (which includes your awareness of RPG tropes), then you're metagaming.

As a player it is very clear which choice are meant to be good and heroic and which are not.

And I would also dispute this.  I don't see how the descriptors "good" or "heroic" are even meaningful.

Doing your duty is arguably a good thing, even if that means letting people die when you could have saved them.

[Fast Jimmy]

As for the Anvil, Caradin makes it very clear what happens last time it was 'only volenteers' and then we have the token selfish party members arguing for the Anvil and no one coming with the argument that it is needed, just helpfull and it would be a waste. Meaning that the most standard moral perspective in high fantasy. (Sacrificing souls is wrong) is not questioned very much.

You have to purposefully choose to create a very pragmatic, ruthless, selfish or downright evil character to make these choices because that is how they are presented in game.

See, in my canon first playthrough, I saved the Anvil. The darkspawn do horrible, unspeakable things to the dwarves, as well as the rest of the world when a Blight occurs. The amount of death, torture and warping of lives they cause is, to me, worth the sacrifice. Both Carridan and Shale don't seem to be too bad off for a "fate worse than death." You don't see them languishing in eternal torment, they just are constrained to service if someone possesses their control rod. An eternity of servitude isn't great, but if that service allows the dwarves to reclaim some of the shattered world they lost when humans unleashed the taint on Thedas, than that is a decision for the dwarves to make.

Destroying the Anvil doesn't free the souls of the already imprisoned golems (as can be seen that golems all over both games still continue to operate), so all destroying the Anvil will do is take away the ability for future generations to make the decision.

[Siegdrifa]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

esper wrote...

This is not a good examples.
It is basically being selfish and does not challenge any concept of morality.
(You could scare the demon in Conner into giving you that skill point for free btw.)

The whole point of choice like this is to go. 'What is really good and heroic'. It is very, very clear to everyone that the warden who does the thing you mention is purposefully being selfish.  Now the warden might be able to rationlize it in alot of different ways, but the very fact you  as a player can clearly see what the 'good' or 'heroic' option is when making the choice makes it an example off how not to do it.

I completely disagree.  The Warden could well think he's trading one life for the lives of millions.  This is very much like the choice to defend Redcliffe from the zombies.  Sten makes, I think, a very compelling argument that staying in Redcliffe to help with its defense is reckless by risking the life of every remaining Warden in Ferelden in something that has little or nothing to do with the Blight.

What's good and heroic might not even matter.  A Warden concerned with duty over heroism makes very different choices from one concerned with being a hero.

As Jimmy have said, what if the choice for the Anvil had been between sacrificing the dwarven society or allow them to condem those souls to the Anvil? There is no way you can say either is a 'good'  choice, nor 'heroic'.

The Anvil choice is presented with the presumption that it will use only volunteers.  In that case, I don't see any good argument for not keeping the anvil.  Destroying the Anvil risks all of dwarven society - indeed, all society at all, given that the dwarves are the first line of defense against the darkspawn - with the sole benefit of protecting volunteers from doing the thing they're entirely willing to do.

I can't even imagine a credible argument for destroying the Anvil that doesn't presuppose its eventual misuse.

I just would like to point that those elements shouldn't stay or be unchanged for eternity.

Specificaly to the anvil, at some point it didn't existed, i see no reason why it should remain forever; 1 solution to a problem is not the best solution for the end of time.
Sometimes you have to destroy what you are used to to find a better one. (all people working in a creative field will know what i mean).

So it's great that we as a character can refuse or have a big impact on those kind of things.

If humanity never looked twice at their current available solution to explain or "fixe" various things, we would still believe earth is flat and plague is a curse, not an illness. At some point in our history, there was always a jack-ass to push the etablished rules and yell "YOU ARE WRONG !".

Because X individual do not see Y reason for a change doesn't mean nobody don't either, far from it.
This is in our very existance to always rethink / rebuild / refine what we know, what we use and how we use it; i don't see why it should be different in a video games.
As one of my teacher said when i was a student " try to understand why some people tell you you can't do it; then prove them they were wrong".

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 31 janvier 2013 - 06:26 .

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

esper wrote...

Again, Sylvius we are discussion this on the player's not the character level of perception. (At least I am).

I dispute that the player's perception, as distinct from the character's perception, ever matters.  These decisions are being made by the character from a perspective inside the character's world.  If you're using your outside knowledge (which includes your awareness of RPG tropes), then you're metagaming.

As a player it is very clear which choice are meant to be good and heroic and which are not.

And I would also dispute this.  I don't see how the descriptors "good" or "heroic" are even meaningful.

Doing your duty is arguably a good thing, even if that means letting people die when you could have saved them.

So Loghain was doing the right thing by retreating at Ostagar, so he can protect his soldiers and Ferelden on the whole? Or was it him doing what he thinks was right in the given situation, and sacrificing the king because he had no choice in the matter?

Doing ones duty can be noble, but also deceptively damaging as well. Even if you role-play as that character, what, then, is the point of enjoyment when it becomes a job? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 31 janvier 2013 - 06:32 .

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

esper wrote...

Again, Sylvius we are discussion this on the player's not the character level of perception. (At least I am).

I dispute that the player's perception, as distinct from the character's perception, ever matters.  These decisions are being made by the character from a perspective inside the character's world.  If you're using your outside knowledge (which includes your awareness of RPG tropes), then you're metagaming.

As a player it is very clear which choice are meant to be good and heroic and which are not.

And I would also dispute this.  I don't see how the descriptors "good" or "heroic" are even meaningful.

Doing your duty is arguably a good thing, even if that means letting people die when you could have saved them.

So Loghain was doing the right thing by retreating at Ostagar, so he can protect his soldiers and Ferelden on the whole? Or was it him doing what he thinks was right in the given situation, and sacrificing the king because he had no choice in the matter?

Doing ones duty can be noble, but also deceptively damaging as well. Even if you role-play as that character, what, then, is the point of enjoyment when it becomes a job? 

I don't consider wrestling with a tough moral decision a job. In fact, in video games, I consider it the high point of story-telling.

[Fast Jimmy]

Siegdrifa wrote...

I just would like to point that those elements shouldn't stay or be unchanged for eternity.

Specificaly to the anvil, at some point it didn't existed, i see no reason why it should remain forever; 1 solution to a problem is not the best solution for the end of time.
Sometimes you have to destroy what you are used to to find a better one. (all people working in a creative field will know what i mean).

So it's great that we as a character can refuse or have a big impact on those kind of things.

If humanity never looked twice at their current available solution to explain or "fixe" various things, we would still believe earth is flat and plague is a curse, not an illness. At some point in our history, there was always a jack-ass to push the etablished rules and yell "YOU ARE WRONG !".

By the same token, if every new technology was destroyed because of the potential for harm it could create, we wouldn't have made it to fire and spears.

Because X individual do not see Y reason for a change doesn't mean nobody don't either, far from it.
This is in our very existance to always rethink / rebuild / refine what we know, what we use and how we use it; i don't see why it should be different in a video games.
As one of my teacher said when i was a student " try to understand why some people tell you you can't do it; then prove them they were wrong".

But that is the exact argument being made. The dwarves used a solution of the golems and it let them build the most massive empire in Thedas. Then Caridan said "no, you can't use it" and then their empire sunk into the depths of darkness and chaos. Our character is given the chance to prove him wrong, that using the Anvil can be done for the good of all dwarves and all of Thedas.

Whether or not that actually happens is debatable (the epilogue slides seem to indicate it to be the case, but the slides we are told are not canon and there was also a lot of bad things done with the Anvil in addition to reclaiming thaigs). But the dwarves were given centuries to try out other solutions, including get the races topside to help. None of them worked, to the point where there is only one dwarven city left of the original empire (excluding Kal'Sharok). At what point do you say "maybe this solution we were told is wrong isn't all that wrong after all?"

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

esper wrote...

Again, Sylvius we are discussion this on the player's not the character level of perception. (At least I am).

I dispute that the player's perception, as distinct from the character's perception, ever matters.  These decisions are being made by the character from a perspective inside the character's world.  If you're using your outside knowledge (which includes your awareness of RPG tropes), then you're metagaming.

As a player it is very clear which choice are meant to be good and heroic and which are not.

And I would also dispute this.  I don't see how the descriptors "good" or "heroic" are even meaningful.

Doing your duty is arguably a good thing, even if that means letting people die when you could have saved them.

So Loghain was doing the right thing by retreating at Ostagar, so he can protect his soldiers and Ferelden on the whole? Or was it him doing what he thinks was right in the given situation, and sacrificing the king because he had no choice in the matter?

Doing ones duty can be noble, but also deceptively damaging as well. Even if you role-play as that character, what, then, is the point of enjoyment when it becomes a job? 

I don't consider wrestling with a tough moral decision a job. In fact, in video games, I consider it the high point of story-telling.

But thats the thing, by following the logic of what the Warden may or may not do, it does become a job. It doesn't make it high or low storytelling because the outcome is the same plot-wise, it just makes it more sanitized because the Warden decided to do his duty and go elsewhere, or choose one item over another because of its usefullness in a war.

If this was a scenario where the Warden's choice regarding the circumstances mattered, then the ramifications should have been harsher for doing your duty in most cases. For example, Redcliffe is lost and Teagan is basically dead, and you need to either get into the castle by force, and kill Connor no questions asked. Or even better, be locked out and stuck without Eamon's help (despite him being essential to the plot, considering he, you know, gets you to Denerim. 

Wrestling with a tough moral decision is not the job part. Actually enacting upon it with the justification of it being your job is. Spec Ops: The Line showed how much of a razor's edge that can be (finally played it, I forget who recommended it to me on here but I need to thank them), as you do your duty and justify your actions, and they are not only less than noble, but downright sinister in the long run as to how you justify those actions. 

If you want to play out a less than romantic situation i'm glad Dragon Age had it in them to even let you say no to saving Redcliffe, but it didn't go far enough for it to be worth saying no in the end. Same with the Anvil, which is a better dilemna because its all about a "what if?" To me there is no right or wrong answer there. But I guess, the point is the consequences don't mesh with the decisions made, and you still are rewarded with the main prize in the aftermath anyway. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 31 janvier 2013 - 06:57 .

[Siegdrifa]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

I just would like to point that those elements shouldn't stay or be unchanged for eternity.

Specificaly to the anvil, at some point it didn't existed, i see no reason why it should remain forever; 1 solution to a problem is not the best solution for the end of time.
Sometimes you have to destroy what you are used to to find a better one. (all people working in a creative field will know what i mean).

So it's great that we as a character can refuse or have a big impact on those kind of things.

If humanity never looked twice at their current available solution to explain or "fixe" various things, we would still believe earth is flat and plague is a curse, not an illness. At some point in our history, there was always a jack-ass to push the etablished rules and yell "YOU ARE WRONG !".

By the same token, if every new technology was destroyed because of the potential for harm it could create, we wouldn't have made it to fire and spears.

Because X individual do not see Y reason for a change doesn't mean nobody don't either, far from it.
This is in our very existance to always rethink / rebuild / refine what we know, what we use and how we use it; i don't see why it should be different in a video games.
As one of my teacher said when i was a student " try to understand why some people tell you you can't do it; then prove them they were wrong".

But that is the exact argument being made. The dwarves used a solution of the golems and it let them build the most massive empire in Thedas. Then Caridan said "no, you can't use it" and then their empire sunk into the depths of darkness and chaos. Our character is given the chance to prove him wrong, that using the Anvil can be done for the good of all dwarves and all of Thedas.

Whether or not that actually happens is debatable (the epilogue slides seem to indicate it to be the case, but the slides we are told are not canon and there was also a lot of bad things done with the Anvil in addition to reclaiming thaigs). But the dwarves were given centuries to try out other solutions, including get the races topside to help. None of them worked, to the point where there is only one dwarven city left of the original empire (excluding Kal'Sharok). At what point do you say "maybe this solution we were told is wrong isn't all that wrong after all?"

Everything end in the writters hands.

The given context is important. It's the writter job to either lead it in a good or bad way but with logical consequences (hopefully).

We should never forget, this is a fiction, every decision we made could have a good or bad conclusion from what we were hopping. so the "no better solution was found in century" isn't really a matter. Humanity are facing some problem since century and have no solution yet, it doesn't mean it will never get better.
That's why writting interactive story is complex; some people think "AHA ! the game make it conclude like this so i was righ !" but what really happen is that X writter decided to turn in that way while Y writer could have turned in a totaly different way with the same degree of logic.

Also, i never talk about destructing technologie, not in the sens i hoped to give (my mistake). What i wanted to say is when people are used to X solution they can stop to question it's sens it's imperfection it's purposes. In order to keep evolving, it is really important to tear appart our established knwoledge and looking for something new to achieve better / more adapted performance because sometimes the better solution are out of our reach if we remain on the same ground of thinking.
That's why i said those on the creation field should easly udnerstand what i'm talking about.
People who always use the same paterns of execution will meet stagnation.. and in the worst case, they will think there is nothing more to gain, wich is definitly what i want to point with the anvil and that it shouldn't stay here for eternity.
Every tools can be a perfect use at some point but it's just a matter of time before they stop to be the best way to do things.
New way of thinking, knew way of production, knew need to fulfil, nothing is written in stone.


I'll take an exemple on how to change your way of thinking for a more accurate one in a very simple way (or not if you already knew).
Lot of people think what they see is the reality, but there is no proof of that. That the shape we see is real, yeah, because our sens of tounching is matching what we see. But for colors... no... , colors are interpretation of the colowave hitting our retina and interpreted by our brain, but we have no idea if the bleu of the sky is really blue; what is known is what we call "blue" is the shortest coloware of the ray of life (the first to get separated from the ray of light because of the earth atmosphere and that's why the sky appear blue).
Lot of people think that their eyes are a like a radar to see the real world, but it is not, it's not acting as radar, it's a receptor, and the color are the interface suggested by our brain that distinguish colorwave.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 31 janvier 2013 - 07:41 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Siegdrifa wrote...

We should never forget, this is a fiction, every decision we made could have a good or bad conclusion from what we were hopping. so the "no better solution was found in century" isn't really a matter. Humanity are facing some problem since century and have no solution yet, it doesn't mean it will never get better.

Yes, but its not like Leonardo DaVinci invented a means to World Peace that involved slaughtering bunnies and we have just been ignoring it. The long-term problems we as a species are facing haven't had a solution presented yet. 

In the case of the dwarves, they DID have a solution. A solution to the Darkspawn, a solution to preserving their empire, a solution to possibly ending the Blights forever. Its cost was rather steep and the power involved was very tempting and hard to control... but it was a solution. Carridan then buried his head in the sand and hid his discovery while he watched the entire Dwarven empire dwindle to nearly non-existent. 

If the human race in the real world was facing the very real problem of extinction, I don't have a doubt that people would make the tough call and sacrifice the few to save the many. 

I do understand what you are saying about old solutions blinding us to new possibilities, but in this case, it was an old sense of morality that was blnding the dwarves to their only way to last another hundred years against the Darkspawn.

I'll take an exemple on how to change your way of thinking for a more accurate one in a very simple way (or not if you already knew).
Lot of people think what they see is the reality, but there is no proof of that. That the shape we see is real, yeah, because our sens of tounching is matching what we see. But for colors... no... , colors are interpretation of the colowave hitting our retina and interpreted by our brain, but we have no idea if the bleu of the sky is really blue; what is known is what we call "blue" is the shortest coloware of the ray of life (the first to get separated from the ray of light because of the earth atmosphere and that's why the sky appear blue).
Lot of people think that their eyes are a like a radar to see the real world, but it is not, it's not acting as radar, it's a receptor, and the color are the interface suggested by our brain that distinguish colorwave.

While this is all true, 99 times out of 100, two people with fully funcitoning retina and optical nerves can look at a the sky and both see it as blue. Whether or not that blue is truly the same exact experience between person to person is a philosophical one, but ultimately a futile one. Our language has agreed that when an object reflects light of a certain wavelength, regardless of how we experience that processing of light, we call it "blue."

Does blue look good? Some may say yes, some may say no, red is a better color.

When people look at a moral choice, they can see right and wrong, good and bad, but if they aren't thinking things through, they can make a decision that is equally as subjective as whether you like red or blue more. 

Most people hear Caridan and think "wow, the Anvil is really terrible." But Caridan has been holed up in his prison for centuries, with no idea how the picture of the Dwarves looks. If you look at the fact that the Dwarves have lost the vast majority of their empire and COUNTLESS lives to the darkspawn (some killed quickly, others not killed at all, but mutated into Broodmothers), then it quickly becomes apparent it is not just a good/bad issue. The likelihood of the dwarves surviving past the Dragon Age seems rather bleak, to me. With barely a respite in the last Blight, the Deep Roads will become a terror for the Dwarves. There is only one main city left out of dozens, only a few thaigs left out of hundreds. The chances of the Dwarves holding onto their homeland another 100 years seems highly unlikely.

In light of that, the destruction of the dwarves and nothing to prevent the darkspawn from marching right onto the Surface, is the question of the Anvil as black and white? Its not just about a golem army for the Warden, but a future for the Dwarves and maintaining the safety of all other races from the threats found Underground. That's a very big choice.

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

But thats the thing, by following the logic of what the Warden may or may not do, it does become a job. It doesn't make it high or low storytelling because the outcome is the same plot-wise, it just makes it more sanitized because the Warden decided to do his duty and go elsewhere, or choose one item over another because of its usefullness in a war.

If this was a scenario where the Warden's choice regarding the circumstances mattered, then the ramifications should have been harsher for doing your duty in most cases. For example, Redcliffe is lost and Teagan is basically dead, and you need to either get into the castle by force, and kill Connor no questions asked. Or even better, be locked out and stuck without Eamon's help (despite him being essential to the plot, considering he, you know, gets you to Denerim. 

Wrestling with a tough moral decision is not the job part. Actually enacting upon it with the justification of it being your job is. Spec Ops: The Line showed how much of a razor's edge that can be (finally played it, I forget who recommended it to me on here but I need to thank them), as you do your duty and justify your actions, and they are not only less than noble, but downright sinister in the long run as to how you justify those actions. 

If you want to play out a less than romantic situation i'm glad Dragon Age had it in them to even let you say no to saving Redcliffe, but it didn't go far enough for it to be worth saying no in the end. Same with the Anvil, which is a better dilemna because its all about a "what if?" To me there is no right or wrong answer there. But I guess, the point is the consequences don't mesh with the decisions made, and you still are rewarded with the main prize in the aftermath anyway. 

I don't disagree at all, more nuances and outcomes to our choices would be great. Honestly, the way the choices are treated, you could have just gone to Haven first, got the Urn and then woken up Eamon (its possible to go to Haven if you haven't saved Redcliffe). Your allies provided no real differences in the outcome of things, so all of those problems could have remained unsolved. It would have made for a boring game, of course, but it could have been possible for how little those allies played into the final battle.

I would have also liked a way to command those forces, not just as support units, but "Have the Dalish secure the Market, have the Dwarves focus on the Alienage, I want the Mages and Eamon's troops to punch a hole to Fort Drakon for us to get to, etc." And having real consequences to these decisions, as well, would have been cool.

Basically, instead of just having the hero show up and kill everyone in combat to solve the problem, it would be nice if the choices we made had impacts, impacts outside of what we may think is, on the surface, right or wrong.

[Thasinta]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Most people hear Caridan and think "wow, the Anvil is really terrible." But Caridan has been holed up in his prison for centuries, with no idea how the picture of the Dwarves looks. If you look at the fact that the Dwarves have lost the vast majority of their empire and COUNTLESS lives to the darkspawn (some killed quickly, others not killed at all, but mutated into Broodmothers), then it quickly becomes apparent it is not just a good/bad issue. The likelihood of the dwarves surviving past the Dragon Age seems rather bleak, to me. With barely a respite in the last Blight, the Deep Roads will become a terror for the Dwarves. There is only one main city left out of dozens, only a few thaigs left out of hundreds. The chances of the Dwarves holding onto their homeland another 100 years seems highly unlikely.

In light of that, the destruction of the dwarves and nothing to prevent the darkspawn from marching right onto the Surface, is the question of the Anvil as black and white? Its not just about a golem army for the Warden, but a future for the Dwarves and maintaining the safety of all other races from the threats found Underground. That's a very big choice.

Besides, the Dwarves have the Legion of the Dead. The members are already considered dead, and I'd imagine at least some of the legionnaries would like the idea of becoming a golem. If only that had been an option - instead of telling the king, only tell the Legion. They don't come to Orzammar that often anyway (as far as I know), so the existence of the anvil could be kept secret from the rest of the world. The Legion is all made up of volunteers (and if the king or council can force criminals and political opponents into joining, well then, what's the difference between that and the Anvil anyway?), so there'd be a lesser chance of the Anvil being misused.

[Fast Jimmy]

Thasinta wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Most people hear Caridan and think "wow, the Anvil is really terrible." But Caridan has been holed up in his prison for centuries, with no idea how the picture of the Dwarves looks. If you look at the fact that the Dwarves have lost the vast majority of their empire and COUNTLESS lives to the darkspawn (some killed quickly, others not killed at all, but mutated into Broodmothers), then it quickly becomes apparent it is not just a good/bad issue. The likelihood of the dwarves surviving past the Dragon Age seems rather bleak, to me. With barely a respite in the last Blight, the Deep Roads will become a terror for the Dwarves. There is only one main city left out of dozens, only a few thaigs left out of hundreds. The chances of the Dwarves holding onto their homeland another 100 years seems highly unlikely.

In light of that, the destruction of the dwarves and nothing to prevent the darkspawn from marching right onto the Surface, is the question of the Anvil as black and white? Its not just about a golem army for the Warden, but a future for the Dwarves and maintaining the safety of all other races from the threats found Underground. That's a very big choice.

Besides, the Dwarves have the Legion of the Dead. The members are already considered dead, and I'd imagine at least some of the legionnaries would like the idea of becoming a golem. If only that had been an option - instead of telling the king, only tell the Legion. They don't come to Orzammar that often anyway (as far as I know), so the existence of the anvil could be kept secret from the rest of the world. The Legion is all made up of volunteers (and if the king or council can force criminals and political opponents into joining, well then, what's the difference between that and the Anvil anyway?), so there'd be a lesser chance of the Anvil being misused.

That's actually a pretty brilliant solution.

You'd have to keep Branka's mouth shut, but as long as she got to use the Anvil, I think she would be fine with keeping whoever was needed in the dark as long as possible.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

So Loghain was doing the right thing by retreating at Ostagar, so he can protect his soldiers and Ferelden on the whole?

He probably thought so.  And his perception of what was right is the only perception that matters to his decision-making.

Doing ones duty can be noble, but also deceptively damaging as well. Even if you role-play as that character, what, then, is the point of enjoyment when it becomes a job?

That's what roleplaying is: In-character decision-making.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Letting people die is arguably a bad thing.

Sure it is.  But the point is that it's arguable.  Every moral position is arguable.  As such, there's no reason for any player to find any moral choice difficult.

The only choice I can recall that I found hard in a recent BioWare game was the choice in ME2 on whether to destroy the Geth.  Legion's explanations offered insufficient grounds to favour either side.

The question is, of course, is: Does the arguably good thing outweigh the arguably bad thing?

My on-going point here is that there is never any objective grounds to determine that.  I'm not confident such a question even makes sense.

My characters, though, do routinely hew to one side or the other.

[Siegdrifa]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

We should never forget, this is a fiction, every decision we made could have a good or bad conclusion from what we were hopping. so the "no better solution was found in century" isn't really a matter. Humanity are facing some problem since century and have no solution yet, it doesn't mean it will never get better.

Yes, but its not like Leonardo DaVinci invented a means to World Peace that involved slaughtering bunnies and we have just been ignoring it. The long-term problems we as a species are facing haven't had a solution presented yet.

In the case of the dwarves, they DID have a solution. A solution to the Darkspawn, a solution to preserving their empire, a solution to possibly ending the Blights forever. Its cost was rather steep and the power involved was very tempting and hard to control... but it was a solution. Carridan then buried his head in the sand and hid his discovery while he watched the entire Dwarven empire dwindle to nearly non-existent.

If the human race in the real world was facing the very real problem of extinction, I don't have a doubt that people would make the tough call and sacrifice the few to save the many.

I do understand what you are saying about old solutions blinding us to new possibilities, but in this case, it was an old sense of morality that was blnding the dwarves to their only way to last another hundred years against the Darkspawn.

I'll take an exemple on how to change your way of thinking for a more accurate one in a very simple way (or not if you already knew).
Lot of people think what they see is the reality, but there is no proof of that. That the shape we see is real, yeah, because our sens of tounching is matching what we see. But for colors... no... , colors are interpretation of the colowave hitting our retina and interpreted by our brain, but we have no idea if the bleu of the sky is really blue; what is known is what we call "blue" is the shortest coloware of the ray of life (the first to get separated from the ray of light because of the earth atmosphere and that's why the sky appear blue).
Lot of people think that their eyes are a like a radar to see the real world, but it is not, it's not acting as radar, it's a receptor, and the color are the interface suggested by our brain that distinguish colorwave.

While this is all true, 99 times out of 100, two people with fully funcitoning retina and optical nerves can look at a the sky and both see it as blue. Whether or not that blue is truly the same exact experience between person to person is a philosophical one, but ultimately a futile one. Our language has agreed that when an object reflects light of a certain wavelength, regardless of how we experience that processing of light, we call it "blue."

Does blue look good? Some may say yes, some may say no, red is a better color.

When people look at a moral choice, they can see right and wrong, good and bad, but if they aren't thinking things through, they can make a decision that is equally as subjective as whether you like red or blue more.

Most people hear Caridan and think "wow, the Anvil is really terrible." But Caridan has been holed up in his prison for centuries, with no idea how the picture of the Dwarves looks. If you look at the fact that the Dwarves have lost the vast majority of their empire and COUNTLESS lives to the darkspawn (some killed quickly, others not killed at all, but mutated into Broodmothers), then it quickly becomes apparent it is not just a good/bad issue. The likelihood of the dwarves surviving past the Dragon Age seems rather bleak, to me. With barely a respite in the last Blight, the Deep Roads will become a terror for the Dwarves. There is only one main city left out of dozens, only a few thaigs left out of hundreds. The chances of the Dwarves holding onto their homeland another 100 years seems highly unlikely.

In light of that, the destruction of the dwarves and nothing to prevent the darkspawn from marching right onto the Surface, is the question of the Anvil as black and white? Its not just about a golem army for the Warden, but a future for the Dwarves and maintaining the safety of all other races from the threats found Underground. That's a very big choice.

Like i said,  everything end in the hands of writters.
Would you accept if it made sens that a better solution is introduced to replace the anvil ? and why ?

As i said in the thread "how dark you want DA3 to be", there is a difference between a tragic dark event and sadistic event. IMO i would see nothing wrong keeping the anvil a necessary artefact to fight against dark spawn, building a sad destiny for some being in order to unsure the survival of other blablabla, it is cool.
But as opposite, if a better solution would be introduced, i would see nothing wrong either (all depend of the writting quality), because this is what a hero do, bringing an opportunity to break free from dark / sad pattern that chained the fate of other.
While i do agreee that a hero shouldn't fix every problem he see, he can't never fix anything either. A hero become a hero because he wants to accomplish something; if there is nothing to accomplish, there is no hero, if nothing is accomplished it is no worth telling as a story.
But i know some would just hate that for the sole purpose of "no because i find it better if it remain the same" then input X justification.
If we ask people to choose between black / white; some would say they have to consider black OR white, and some would say the have to consider black AND white, wich is a subtile difference.

And here we enter the "crafting" process of writting... how to use the anvil ? will it be used for X character to build their personnality, swearing that they will change this awefull fate of a race, granting pation and debate for the story? or will it be used as a reminder of the artistic direction (a never changing  tragic event that help the player uderstand in what kind of world he is in) or will it be used as something that must be overcome and changed for a greater good ?
All i'm sayng is the potential for the anvil are many but we have no power over what it will be in the end, as it is the writter decision.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 01 février 2013 - 12:29 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I would have to see the alternative solution to the Darkspawn, of course, but if it didn't involve binding the soul of someone into servitude for all of eternity or something similar, I'd consider it.

However, if the alternate solution is the Architect's, where his goal was to poison and kill every being in Thedas with the Taint so that the Darkspawn could become sentient at the cost of less than 5% of all the other races surviving, then I'd say no, that's not a good solution.

It all becomes relative. However, if the choice presented was "bind souls to slavery for all time" or "rainbows and butterflies," then that's a pretty shallow choice. The only person who wouldn't choose the happy outcome is someone who wanted to be evil just evil's sake, not because of any real conviction the Anvil was a better choice.

That's the tough part - you have to make the decision not just a foregone conclusion if you are playing a "good" character or playing a "bad" character.

The Mage/Templar conflict in DA2 tried to make this hard by giving us crazy blood mages and sadistic Templars, so that no one was right, but all this did is make me hate both groups and wish I could just cut my losses and leave, not try and make a stand for one insane group over another. So the key isn't to make everything look bad to try and find out which one is the better one. The choice has to be framed as a cost-benefit situation that is weighed against your morals.

Does defiling the Urn of Sacred Ashes really do anything for the world? No. It saves you a fairly simple fight against the Dragon Cultists. It costs a fight between the Guardian and possibly forces you to lose two companions of yours permanently (Wynne and Leliana). All for the benefit of the Reaver specialization, which is a decent warrior spec, but nothing to write home about (not to mention the way Origins was set up, you could defile the Ashes, get the spec., then reload the game and choose the other path and still keep the spec.).

What if sparing the Mages in DA:O resulted in an Abomination being loosed during the attack on Denerim by a Mage who was possessed but hiding the symtoms? What if that cost you a companion? Would people still be pro-Mage in that case? Its easy to be for the Mages when they are consistently the victims of Templar jurisdiction, but have we ever saved a Mage who didn't turn out to be fine? No, we haven't. We've never, as a player, had to deal with what happens if you show mercy to a mage who may later become an Abomination and kill your allies or friends. So how can we say that the Templars side of the story has even be accurately portrayed?