80 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

Thanks for pointing out the Baldur's Gate "good" godhood ending, didn't think that existed.

Emzamination wrote...

So you commit immoral binding peoples souls to your service for example acts to achieve your goals, and just when you obtain it, you suddenly grow a softer moral core? That makes no sense. If you wanted to rule with a gentle hand, why not lead by example and use a gentler method to achieve your means.

In most playthroughs, you kill thousands to reach where you are--good or evil--so what's a few more deaths to achieve your goals?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 janvier 2013 - 07:58 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^
That's a very valid point. The hero always has to slaughter countless people to "save the day."

That's one of the things I hate about games that REQUIRE combat. A game like DE:HR or Dishonored actually gives you the "bad" endings if you killed everyone who would attack you. While I'm not a huge fan of stealth games, I think its a little ludicrous that our character kills hundreds, if not thousands, of people who may be bandits because they can't afford food and live in Dust Town, or Tal'Vashoth who think the Qun is stupid, but then were trained their entire lives for armed combat and don't know any other skills or ways of life.

Not saying that these people are innocent victims, but anytime a hero of a Bioware game comes in town, the morticians of the city can start planning their retirement. Its a little silly to act like killing a few more people on top of that is anything to worry our heroes head about.

[wright1978]

H. Birdman wrote...

As some have said above, "bad" choices really do need to be framed in terms of something that is at least arguably justifiable for some greater good. Even Stalin genuinely believed what he was doing was for the long-term benefit of humanity. And it's just implausible to a have a pure, raving psychopath leading a group of non-psychopathic adventurers.

Now, it's certainly possible (indeed, desirable) to raise the stakes of "the greater good" and the price you have to pay to get it. "Slap a reporter to correct biased reporting," doesn't do it for me. It should be something like, "Let a whole village be slaughtered by the darkspawn because it will slow them down long enough to fortify defenses for a much larger settlement." And you should have to see the results of the choice.

Agree i'm happy for option to be there to make some horrific choices ifthere's a perceived benefit. Not keen on evil just for kicks choices.

[Renmiri1]

I personally don't like it but whatever makes you enjoy your game is fine by me

[Masha Potato]

I don't think the fact that PC has to kill hordes of enemies to get through the game can be used to justify anything. You know, story/gameplay segregation

[Emzamination]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If there was a reason to do these things that the game actually
acknowledged, I'd be more inclined to do them. Even if it was wealth,
respect and power. 

But the game still treats you like a savior,
your LI's still treat you like a good person, your allies don't have
problems standing next to Templars who are still cleaning the Mage blood
off of their blades or werewolves who have just butchered an entire
clan of elves. 

If the game reacted to you being evil, then I could see its merit. But it doesn't.

I wouldn't say the game treats you like a good person. You saved all of ferelden and yourself skin from the blight, so of course they're going to be in awe of their hero, but that doesn't change your motivations or how you choose to capitalize on that renown later on.

To your second point, you must've never been disliked in origins, your good allies treat you like the plague if they make it to the final battle and have appropriate dialogue to go with it. As far as LI go, morrigan actually does acknowledge your ruthless persona in redcliffe. When you're attempting to the dark ritual and she speaks of blood magic, she'll add "I think that matters little to one such as you" if you were evil most/all of the game.

What examples can you give of a story where the main character is a
truly evil person, but leads others who are of not the same mindset to
save all of humanity? I'm sure there is some, but the amount of
contrivance required to make it work has got to be through the roof.

Bg/nwn/jade empire/kotor

[Emzamination]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Thanks for pointing out the Baldur's Gate "good" godhood ending, didn't think that existed.

Emzamination wrote...

So you commit immoral binding peoples souls to your service for example acts to achieve your goals, and just when you obtain it, you suddenly grow a softer moral core? That makes no sense. If you wanted to rule with a gentle hand, why not lead by example and use a gentler method to achieve your means.

In most playthroughs, you kill thousands to reach where you are--good or evil--so what's a few more deaths to achieve your goals?

Killing people because they force you to do it, is not the same thing as making the conscious choice to do it yourself. I think the best example would be the jedi who kill when forced but otherwise are gentle and don't go out looking to make others do as they please.

[Fast Jimmy]

BG/NWN/Jade Empire all required you to be the hero, so it was never truly evil.

And KOTOR could arguably say yes, you turned to the Dark Side and were evil... but it ALSO had a hugely contrived plot of your character randomly having amnesia.

Amnesia as a plot device is one of the flimsiest. Right up there with "it was all a dream."

I think you are confusing evil with self-serving. And even then, self-serving choices aren't explored in all that much depth.

[MerinTB]

No, I don't want more evil options. I don't want any evil options, personally, and find even the class of rogue unwanted.

I'm not really going to judge against a game that gives the options, and it's not like I've not tried them (first DA:O play was a rogue, unprecedented as that was for me) but usually playing "evil" makes me physically ill. It has caused me to stop playing given games and, with only one notable exception, I've not gone back to said games as a result.

[Xilizhra]

I will say this: has anyone read the novel Fire Warrior? It's a book based on the 40K computer game of the same name, and while it's mediocre in parts, it actually goes into the ramifications of what a typical video game protagonist's lot (in this case, it's an FPS, but some of the same things may apply to RPGs) is like. This one begins as a rookie soldier who has father-related self-esteem issues; he ends it a walking killing machine, more than half crazy from his massive kill count (that's incidentally been achieved with barely any rest), and then winds up going outright comatose by the very end.

[Dave of Canada]

Emzamination wrote...

Killing people because they force you to do it, is not the same thing as making the conscious choice to do it yourself.

Most of the people you kill in the games are simply doing their own thing until you interfere, most people you kill in KOTOR are simply empire soldiers which follow their dark jedi's commands. The sad part? You can allow those dark jedi to live because of your ethics despite killing dozens of his men without mercy five seconds earlier.

Now, how's that any different than turning on the Republic? You're still killing soldiers listening to their commanders, how does siding against the Republic mean it's ethically evil? is it because it's "dark side"--something which can be touted as an alternate philosophical concept based off which Star Wars you play?

Theoretically, Revan becoming Sith Lord should lead to a safer galaxy due to ending the war and the Star Forge being used to supply the Empire with ships and weapons. Hell, one of the huge sub-plots which was retconned in SWTOR was that Revan was preparing the universe to fight against the True Sith--something which he fails to do if you do the Light Side ending.

That's not to say the Empire decision isn't questionable but the idea that one decision is done purely for "evil" is silly, it can be used to serve the greater good.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 janvier 2013 - 08:55 .

[esper]

Emzamination wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Thanks for pointing out the Baldur's Gate "good" godhood ending, didn't think that existed.

Emzamination wrote...

So you commit immoral binding peoples souls to your service for example acts to achieve your goals, and just when you obtain it, you suddenly grow a softer moral core? That makes no sense. If you wanted to rule with a gentle hand, why not lead by example and use a gentler method to achieve your means.

In most playthroughs, you kill thousands to reach where you are--good or evil--so what's a few more deaths to achieve your goals?

Killing people because they force you to do it, is not the same thing as making the conscious choice to do it yourself. I think the best example would be the jedi who kill when forced but otherwise are gentle and don't go out looking to make others do as they please.

Kill when forced? bah, Unless somebody takes physically control over your body or mind (plausible in a fantasy game), you always have the option to surrender your own life.

Bioware heroes are downright mass murderers. And I don't think that soldier number five's children is going to care very much that their father was killed for just doing his job, you know.

You simply don't get to be called gentle when you have a body count with more than one ciffer.

[Emzamination]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Killing people because they force you to do it, is not the same thing as making the conscious choice to do it yourself.

Most of the people you kill in the games are simply doing their own thing until you interfere, most people you kill in KOTOR are simply empire soldiers which follow their dark jedi's commands. The sad part? You can allow those dark jedi to live because of your ethics despite killing dozens of his men without mercy five seconds earlier.

Now, how's that any different than turning on the Republic? You're still killing soldiers listening to their commanders, how does siding against the Republic mean it's ethically evil? is it because it's "dark side"--something which can be touted as an alternate philosophical concept based off which Star Wars you play?

Theoretically, Revan becoming Sith Lord should lead to a safer galaxy due to ending the war and the Star Forge being used to supply the Empire with ships and weapons. Hell, one of the huge sub-plots which was retconned in SWTOR was that Revan was preparing the universe to fight against the True Sith--something which he fails to do if you do the Light Side ending.

That's not to say the Empire decision isn't questionable but the idea that one decision is done purely for "evil" is silly, it can be used to serve the greater good.

Each one of those soldiers has a choice to throw down their gun and surrender, they chose not to. "I can't stop trying to kill you because my commander will kill me if he finds out" is not a valid excuse for attempting to take someones life unprovoked.They chose their life over anothers, and as such chose their fate, just as if they'd ordered the kill themselves. Vice versa the pc killing the soldiers attacking him/her is merely excercising self-preservation by fighting back.

[Emzamination]

esper wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Thanks for pointing out the Baldur's Gate "good" godhood ending, didn't think that existed.

Emzamination wrote...

So you commit immoral binding peoples souls to your service for example acts to achieve your goals, and just when you obtain it, you suddenly grow a softer moral core? That makes no sense. If you wanted to rule with a gentle hand, why not lead by example and use a gentler method to achieve your means.

In most playthroughs, you kill thousands to reach where you are--good or evil--so what's a few more deaths to achieve your goals?

Killing people because they force you to do it, is not the same thing as making the conscious choice to do it yourself. I think the best example would be the jedi who kill when forced but otherwise are gentle and don't go out looking to make others do as they please.

Kill when forced? bah, Unless somebody takes physically control over your body or mind (plausible in a fantasy game), you always have the option to surrender your own life.

Bioware heroes are downright mass murderers. And I don't think that soldier number five's children is going to care very much that their father was killed for just doing his job, you know.

You simply don't get to be called gentle when you have a body count with more than one ciffer.

It's called self-preservation. If you think getting down on your hands and knees and letting someone take your life because thats what they choose to do is ok, more power to you. If you saw that same soldier attempting to harm a child or a defenseless woman, would you hesitate to kill them because no one has control of your body? and if you did, would you look at yourself as evil or having prevented a evil person from comitting a evil act on innocence? and if the latter, I wonder how much you value protecting your own innocence.

[Dave of Canada]

Except it's not self-preservation, the average BioWare protagonist is often the aggressor when it comes down to side-quests. You break into a building filled with mercenaries, kill all of them and then reach their leader and refuse to kill him because you won't "be like him".

Who cares about the dozens of soldiers you've killed, who cares if they've had families or were doing their jobs. You only care about sparing the man giving orders because the game decided to make it a big deal when it's not.

Hell, you probably spare that blood mage in the Circle Tower in Origins because they decided to give her a cutscene where she's sympathetic, right? She's spared by a lot of people despite the fact that every other blood mage you've killed has the same plight.

BioWare games try to make you think like you're some grand savior when you mass-murder more people than you save, often leaving the leaders unharmed because the game decided to offer them a sympathy / sparing scene.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 janvier 2013 - 09:42 .

[Knight of Dane]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Thanks for pointing out the Baldur's Gate "good" godhood ending, didn't think that existed.

Emzamination wrote...

So you commit immoral binding peoples souls to your service for example acts to achieve your goals, and just when you obtain it, you suddenly grow a softer moral core? That makes no sense. If you wanted to rule with a gentle hand, why not lead by example and use a gentler method to achieve your means.

In most playthroughs, you kill thousands to reach where you are--good or evil--so what's a few more deaths to achieve your goals?

In most playthroughs, the majority who dies by my hero's hand attack him/her first. If I had a "Submit and I won't kill you" talent, I would have loved to use that.

[Kidd]

Evil options are silly. Evil isn't a personality, it's a mental disorder. And there's many nuances in dialogue I'd prefer to take part of before certain mental disorders are brought into the picture.

[Xilizhra]

Hell, you probably spare that blood mage in the Circle Tower in Origins because they decided to give her a cutscene where she's sympathetic, right? She's spared by a lot of people despite the fact that every other blood mage you've killed has the same plight.

She'd already been defeated, I just didn't have to kill her. My goal has always been to survive and win, not to kill as such; if I can do the least amount of killing possible, it's better than the alternative. One life saved is better than none.

[DreGregoire]

I don't really need to be evil in video games, but I do want to have the opportunity to be self-serving while I save Thedas (or whatever it is we'll be doing in DAIII:I) and/or a complete and utter jerk from time to time. I liked in DAO that my companions had reactions (both verbally and in terms of an increase of decrease in their opinion of me) to the things I did as we travelled throughout Ferelden. Confrontations are always fun. I enjoyed the differences in behavoirs towards me in DAII based on the particular companion's level of Friend vs Rival. The biggest difference between the two games is that in DAO the companions can walk away, but in DAII they are still in Kirkwall. In a video game, for me, the significance of my decisions are only worth anything if there is some type of reaction (good or negative) from the companions and npc's around me.

Modifié par DreGregoire, 31 janvier 2013 - 10:56 .

[Johnny Shepard]

Not evil but more Ruthless options. DA is still about playing a hero, but how far will he/she go is what I wan't options on.
The truth is, being able to play Evil never works good with the story and that is why you never get to play a really evil in a storydriven game where you can also play good. Not even Elder Scrolls or Baldur's Gate lets you play true evil. It's more about how selfish or ruthless you are.
KotOR tried but it just fealt unbalanced to play Dark Side.

If you could have played Evil in DA:O they would have to make a new game just for that because an Evil character would never do most of the things you do in DA:O.
The more options you have, the less story you get and with Bioware it's all about story. For me, a good storydriven RPG is more importaint then freedom and options.

[esper]

Xilizhra wrote...

Hell, you probably spare that blood mage in the Circle Tower in Origins because they decided to give her a cutscene where she's sympathetic, right? She's spared by a lot of people despite the fact that every other blood mage you've killed has the same plight.

She'd already been defeated, I just didn't have to kill her. My goal has always been to survive and win, not to kill as such; if I can do the least amount of killing possible, it's better than the alternative. One life saved is better than none.

While I agree with this, I still don't think we can possible call our 'heroes' anything, but ruthless.

Gentle, pacifistic and only killing in self preservation is certainly not it.

I really wish that we generally speaking could get the body count down, or stop having the narrative present us as boy scout, because even the most heroic one of our PC aren't.

[esper]

Emzamination wrote...

esper wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Thanks for pointing out the Baldur's Gate "good" godhood ending, didn't think that existed.

Emzamination wrote...

So you commit immoral binding peoples souls to your service for example acts to achieve your goals, and just when you obtain it, you suddenly grow a softer moral core? That makes no sense. If you wanted to rule with a gentle hand, why not lead by example and use a gentler method to achieve your means.

In most playthroughs, you kill thousands to reach where you are--good or evil--so what's a few more deaths to achieve your goals?

Killing people because they force you to do it, is not the same thing as making the conscious choice to do it yourself. I think the best example would be the jedi who kill when forced but otherwise are gentle and don't go out looking to make others do as they please.

Kill when forced? bah, Unless somebody takes physically control over your body or mind (plausible in a fantasy game), you always have the option to surrender your own life.

Bioware heroes are downright mass murderers. And I don't think that soldier number five's children is going to care very much that their father was killed for just doing his job, you know.

You simply don't get to be called gentle when you have a body count with more than one ciffer.

It's called self-preservation. If you think getting down on your hands and knees and letting someone take your life because thats what they choose to do is ok, more power to you. If you saw that same soldier attempting to harm a child or a defenseless woman, would you hesitate to kill them because no one has control of your body? and if you did, would you look at yourself as evil or having prevented a evil person from comitting a evil act on innocence? and if the latter, I wonder how much you value protecting your own innocence.

No, but I wouldn't pretend I wasn't murdering them either. Or that I somehow had a morally higher right to take their life than they had to take mine. (often we are murdering people who is just doing their jobs as a guard).

A life is a life. If you choose to take one, you choose to take one.

Self-preservation doesn't give you the moral high ground. Being the non-agressor (which we just as often are not) doesn't give you the moral high ground if you still act agressive.

All the example you give, where is my context. How would I know that the woman was defenseless, innoncent or not commiting an act of evil. I would have to decide in a split second and while I would properly interfere (which in dragon age mean the death of the offending party more times than not). I have not moral right to kill these people.

If I am killing people, I am killing people, I am sure as hell not going to pretend that I have a higher moral standing than them, simply that I am fighting for a different cause and hopefully a cause my character believes in. And I certainly wouldn't consider myself innocent at that point anymore.

At no point do I have the audacity to claim that my life is worth more than their to any other than to... well my and my nearest. I don't see why I have more right or less then them to life.

Modifié par esper, 31 janvier 2013 - 11:22 .

[Sutekh]

Which evil options are we talking about?

Hardcore evil: I know what I'm doing is bad, but I'll do it nonetheless because I'm self-serving / power mongering / sociopath / bully. I'll attain my evil goal using my evil ways.

Insane evil: The voices told me to kill and rape those children (the Magistrate's son).

Evil in Good Clothing: I'm quite sure that I work for the greater good, and if it takes the suffering of thousands to get there, then so be it (I think Petrice is a good example of this).

2-D evil: Now I'm gonna torture that puppy just because I can. I'm dark, and evil, and baaad, mwahahaha.

Evil born from Good: In hindsight, saving the life of that possessed child maybe wasn't such a good idea.

Good born from Evil: I'm gonna purge the planet of every murderer, rapist and various ne'er do well, and I'll do it by hand, painfully. I am the Law, and all that sort of things.

Self-defense evil: I killed thousand cultists / bandits / templars / city guards / mages but they attacked first (your honor).

Casual evil: I know those people are abused and oppressed, but I'll just look the other way because I don't really care.

There's many aspects to "evil", and while it can be interesting to explore them, it must be done well, which isn't easy. Not mentioning the fact that most evil people don't consider themselves evil at all.

Personally, I'd love more hard choices, mixed results and pyrrhic victories, such as the fate of Amaranthine in Awakening, but true evil is complex and should be treated so, imo, to avoid a childish caricature.