307 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

If being a hero means imbued with all the positive characteristics and we're playing a "hero" in ME, where is the roleplaying then? I thought we were roleplaying Shepard the protagonist, not the hero. You can mold him into the hero if you want, but there may be hidden consequences down the line.

[David7204]

Wreav says that?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Interesting that this topic has turned to the discussion of heroes.

I've only played one War Hero Shepard. The rest have been sole survivor or ruthless. Ruthless Shepard would not let Balak go free - she would either kill him or turn him over to the Alliance. My ruthless Shepard turned him over to the Alliance to extract further information. Since she was also a Colonist she had a little fun with him first. Role playing you know. Then the Alliance let him go.

[GimmeDaGun]

David7204 wrote...

From what I've heard about the Witcher, everything goes to hell no matter what. The world is full of corrupt, selfish, evil characters no matter what.

Is that fun? To have my intent as a player utterly nullified because the world is full of people not worth caring about?

It's not true. I mean, yes the world in it is selfish, corrupt etc.. (but there's lots of good there also, but as it is in real life, with us, it is also mixed with sins and weaknesses...it's human), so it is more like our world: no blacks and whites, no moral simplisity, what people like so much (that's why they need the idealised hero - the "god" or, "man of God", the "deus ex machina" if you like - archeotype so much who makes things so much clearer and easier), but still you can take a stand there too for your own reasons and intentions (and they can be of good). So what you do as a hero - more like an anti-hero (a person who's not ****ting gold and pissing wine and has a rosey breath, but happens to be a real person with personal dilemmas, weaknesses, even sins etc.) does matter. You can make a difference, but you are not almighty. You can't change the world or bring salvation to it. Your deeds are not nullified, they are only not world shaking.. you remain whaty you always were: a human being. 

So Geralt is not the typical hero archeotype (mr. center of the univers, almighty which people want Shepard to be) in a world which is not of simple shades of black and white (where things can be easily judged), but of many colours and shades. A world like ours, a world which is worth fighting for and world which does need a hero, though will never get it (since real heroes are the saints who are not that spectacular and not guys on a power trip with blazing guns). That makes that story so human and likeable (for a game), but it also makes it more realistic, because it is not an idealistic fairy tale about the mythical fight between good and evil... it might be more cynical, but if you play it you realise that it isn't, because there's alway love and hope in there. If you want a mythology full of the evil vs. good kind of symbolism, then read The Lord of The Rings (even if you can't even compare it to The Witcher in literal value, because it's Beethoven to the Witchers Metallica, anyway I love those kind of stories too, because they have the message of hope, a hope that we humans might be able to overcome our fallible nature by defeating evil in our own souls)

Give it shot. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 30 janvier 2013 - 07:47 .

[David7204]

So do I get to role-play this guy or not? Because if I'm 'forced' to have 'sins and weaknesses' that doesn't sound much like roleplaying to me.

[DirtyPhoenix]

As far as I'm concerned, heroic action is nothing without context. Curing genophage when Wrex is in charge maaaay be viewed as heroic, but curing it with Wreav in charge who says it on your face that the galaxy would quake beneath their boots is moronic beyond comparison. Good job, Mr. compassionate hero!

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

David7204 wrote...

Wreav says that?

Yes. Wreav does. Wreav vows that once the war is over the Krogan will take their revenge on the Turians and the Salarians.

Thus, since I'd already destroyed Maelon's cure in ME2, and Eve was not healthy or strong. She would not be able to control Wreav. I let Eve die going up in the tower and accepted the Dalatross' offer and talked Mordin into faking the cure.

Pragmatic, yes.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 30 janvier 2013 - 07:50 .

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

Wreav says that?

Listen to what he says if Wrex is there, then consider that he's in charge in non-import playthroughs. When he's in charge, Wreav says that there will be revenge for the Genophage, only he warns a rival clan leader that he will decide when it happens. Listen to background dialogue in ME2 - Urdnot males talking about getting revenge against the Turians and Salarians despite not even knowing what they look like, and despite the fact that the ones who cursed them with the Genophage are long dead.

Neither the Quarian/Geth nor the Genophage issues are cut and dried. And yet, Paragon sympathizes with the Krogan and Geth unconditionally.

[DirtyPhoenix]

I don't think even a healthy Eve will be able to contain Wreav.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

pirate1802 wrote...

I don't think even a healthy Eve will be able to contain Wreav.

Unfortunately nor do I. I would make the same choice. Although in both cases in Conference I would sound totally pro-Krogan.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 30 janvier 2013 - 07:54 .

[CynicalShep]

pirate1802 wrote...

I don't think even a healthy Eve will be able to contain Wreav.

What happened to "I have the p***y, I make the rules"? 

[GimmeDaGun]

David7204 wrote...

So do I get to role-play this guy or not? Because if I'm 'forced' to have 'sins and weaknesses' that doesn't sound much like roleplaying to me.

So if I get it right,  what you basically want is: a character that you define and control completely along with all his or her deeds with all their consequences, along with the world he or she lives in. So you want complete control over the story and the impact of the character? ... don't get me wrong pal, but if you want that you should write a book instead of playing a game. 

Role playing is not about being unhuman, but about playing a role - gaining a certain level of control over a character - which is very human (yeah and all humans have weaknesses and sins), and games which tell a story you usually have certain restrictions and rules (I don't think I need to elaborate this). You want to play God or an angel with almighty powers and an effect on anything or what? 

Yeah, the more options you get the better the role playing is (in terms of games), but controlling the world and the consequences of your choices... that's writing and not role-playing.   


So if you want to play a hero without weaknesses ... a true hero (the archeotype) then you should write that story, because there's nothing role-playing about being all perfect. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 30 janvier 2013 - 08:52 .

[Ieldra]

^Actually, the heroic archetype is never without flaws. Otherwise, I fully agree. In a roleplaying game, you make the decisions, but the GM makes the consequences. And as a long-term GM of tabletop RPGs, I know perfect consequences are things to be used sparingly. It gets boring if every plan goes 100% as intended.

[Dean_the_Young]

David7204 wrote...

No. This is not the writer's idea of a hero. Or mine. These are heroic qualities, period. A hero is compassionate, honorable, kind, selfless. That's what makes him a hero.

No, that's what makes a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Different people, differeng groups, and different cultures have different standards of what makes someone a hero, and what is considered heroism: those are not all required traits for all concepts of a Hero, nor do all concepts of the Hero require the Hero to be those at all time, as oppossed to only under specific circumstances. An excellent sub-culture is the military sphere.

[Dean_the_Young]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes, making the compassionate choice is, by definition, heroic. The question is not whether it's the heroic choice, but whether it's the best choice.

Compassion... towards whom? The Krogan inflicted with the genophage, or the Turian whose home said Krogan has vowed to burn?

Why not look further back to the Greeks, the people who more or less developed the Heroic myth as we know it? The ranks of their Heroes were filled with people like Odysseus (who killed everyone who tried to make a move on his wife when he was missing and presumed dead), Herculeus (whos fits of rage and killing are a good part of his legend), Achilles (who was incredibly petulant and self-centered), and plenty of others for whom mercy and compassion for their enemies was certainly not part of the gameplan: if anything, retribution and punishment, not compassion, were key actions against those who wronged them.

National heroes are also frequently people who lionized for their feats in crushing their enemies, rather than the moral integrity. This is particularly true of Revoluiontary Heroes, from Britain's Boudica to Germany's Hermann (aka Arminius, aka one of the more famous traitors of history), to more modern examples of Che, Mao, and even the likes of Stalin. Even less historic and more legendary examples have plenty of un-Paragon activities that are central to their legends: King Arthur sentenced Guinevere to burn at the stake for adultry rather than forgive her, leading to Lancelot's treason and assault: 

Sub-cultures can also have their own views of Heroism as well: the modern USA lionizes and raises up rank-and-file soldiers, policemen, and firemen as modern heroes, regardless of their actual character unless it becomes so outrageous that they are removed from the service. Even within the groups themselves, what the Army considers heroic within its own is a different standard: anyone who dies is classified a Hero and given different treatment regardless of their conduct in life, while recognitions of valor and exceptional conduct (including the Medal of Honor) frequently fixate entirely on a soldier's conduct in a particular instance rather than their moral nature or beliefs. While the military certainly does embrace some of the traits referenced as 'heroic', such as self-sacrifice, others such as compassion are far from necessary: plenty of military heroes are heroes because they killed a lot of enemies under extreme conditions, not because they were nice to them.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 30 janvier 2013 - 12:33 .

[wright1978]

I think issue with any kind of 2 sided morality scheme is that you get lots of people point hunting. Personally i like to roleplay and that leads to making choices that fit with the character not with some attempt to max out a moraility stat. I'd like something that is more dynamic and makes people think about choices but at the very least ensure players aren't punished for being in the middle ground supported by neutral options as well as pragmatic/idelaistic ones.

[KingZayd]

I don't mind there being a way of measuring "how the galaxy sees you".

That said, I don't like not knowing exactly what I'm about to say/do before I say/do it. I should know what I'm about to say, and if so, there shouldn't be any need to pre-label choices as paragon and renegade. Let me decide for myself which I believe is appropriate.

[Helios969]

I almost always play my characters in a manner consistant with my own attitudes and beliefs...I guess you can't really call that role playing. But there really is no such thing as a true paragon/true renegade, which I view more as diplomatic vs. hard azz than good/evil...hero/antihero.

Modifié par Helios969, 30 janvier 2013 - 12:51 .

[Steelcan]

Is David still being ridiculous?

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

If anything, I think in Mass Effect 4 they should mix the Paragon and Renegade choices up on the wheel so you don't know what is the Paragon choice, and it will force you then to make the choice you would naturally choose.

[Seboist]

Steelcan wrote...

Is David still being ridiculous?

Is that even a question? You're dealing with the same guy who stated that Mr. House has no reason to be against the NCR in New Vegas.

[Steelcan]

Seboist wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Is David still being ridiculous?

Is that even a question? You're dealing with the same guy who stated that Mr. House has no reason to be against the NCR in New Vegas.

. 

[Seboist]

Exactly.

[GimmeDaGun]

Seboist wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Is David still being ridiculous?

Is that even a question? You're dealing with the same guy who stated that Mr. House has no reason to be against the NCR in New Vegas.

Whatever (never played the new FO games, only the two originals)... but why the ad hominem remarks? Not nice.

[Steelcan]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Is David still being ridiculous?

Is that even a question? You're dealing with the same guy who stated that Mr. House has no reason to be against the NCR in New Vegas.

Whatever (never played the new FO games, only the two originals)... but why the ad hominem remarks? Not nice.

. If the shoe fits