114 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

Plaintiff wrote...

esper wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Bioware encourages us to use our own judgement by not putting moral values on any action we perform. In fact it provides us with an array of differing viewpoints to highlight the ambiguity of these situations.

I wish other games were like that. "Karma" and "alignment" mechanics are stupid.

Yeah, one think that turned me off from ME was the renegade/paragon system (which despite claims was a karma meter). Espically because you might not always agree with the developers.

I still think it was more henious to brainwash than kill the geths in ME, but I had to because of 30 points to the wrong bar was just something I couldn't afford it. Which is why I hate karma system in games. The only thing that makes them worse is if they are coupled with and law/chaotic system as well.

I don't have as much of a problem with the Paragon/Renegade system as I do with other ones because the two are measured separately: ie, when my rengade score goes up, my paragon score doesn't go down, so nothing is stopping me from being a paragon of virtue and also a renegade.

There were plenty of times when I also thought the renegade decision was the more morally correct one, but I don't interpret renegade as straight "evil" so much as "plays by his own rules". "Renegade" covers an entire span of actions of varying morality, many of which are quite harmless, such as being rude to the Council members when they deserve it.

Oh... the paragon and renegade system is better than straight 'good/evil', but it is still much bette what they went and did in ME3. (And generally I think that they should never have introduced the two terms in the first place, but I applauded from trying to differ 'taling experience point' from figthen 'experience points'. )

[Medhia Nox]

Inappropriate for public posting - removed and sent via PM.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 20 février 2013 - 03:09 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

esper wrote...

No we are still talking about perception, if your help towards somebody is end up being destrucitve for that persons chances are the person you are helping will not see the good intent of your 'help', they will only feel the consequence and thus you are in danger of being viewed as evil by that person no matter how altrustic your act was from your point of view.
but to be fair I didn't read the marked out bit from your first post. Of course you are welcome to your own perception of good and evil and which acts you think are good and you think are evil. I don't agree with your definition of good and evil, the very fact that you divide people in 'good guys', 'innocents (here seeming to mean civilians)' and 'bad guys' and distinctively says that the life of the 'bad guys' hold less value and thus it is not bad to kill them, shows me that our moral system are lightyears from each other. I place equal value in each human life and and generally think it is bad to kill anyone. I might have to (ie. self defense and ect.) but I will never stop to think it a 'bad and morally wrong' action.

Which is again why we are never going to agree on what is 'evil' in this forum.

And of my own moral compass is irrellevant for my character, as they will have a moral compass which differs from mine.

Not necessarily civilians because warriors can be good too here i don't say i prefer killing instead redemption(that why i spare Anders i hope he will do not blow up the city) but for me killing is moraly good when creature shows no remorse and will continue what he do and for me yes life bad guys have much less value because they do not show a bit of humanity and hurts other for own gain so i say mercy for humane creatures for monsters in human skin no i doubt you cry when you kill darkspawn:).In that logic you will let guy kill entire village because killing bad guy is wrong?

Heh and now thread is about what is good and evil not we want evil character or not i hope admins do not kick us out of here:whistle:.  Maybe we should just simply assume that we are talking about what is evil for us and if we want to be evil in our way.

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 20 février 2013 - 05:03 .

[Medhia Nox]

@TheKomandoShepard: Suggested that on page 2.

[esper]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

esper wrote...

No we are still talking about perception, if your help towards somebody is end up being destrucitve for that persons chances are the person you are helping will not see the good intent of your 'help', they will only feel the consequence and thus you are in danger of being viewed as evil by that person no matter how altrustic your act was from your point of view.
but to be fair I didn't read the marked out bit from your first post. Of course you are welcome to your own perception of good and evil and which acts you think are good and you think are evil. I don't agree with your definition of good and evil, the very fact that you divide people in 'good guys', 'innocents (here seeming to mean civilians)' and 'bad guys' and distinctively says that the life of the 'bad guys' hold less value and thus it is not bad to kill them, shows me that our moral system are lightyears from each other. I place equal value in each human life and and generally think it is bad to kill anyone. I might have to (ie. self defense and ect.) but I will never stop to think it a 'bad and morally wrong' action.

Which is again why we are never going to agree on what is 'evil' in this forum.

And of my own moral compass is irrellevant for my character, as they will have a moral compass which differs from mine.

Not necessarily civilians because warriors can be good too here i don't say i prefer killing instead redemption(that why i spare Anders i hope he will do not blow up the city) but for me killing is moraly good when creature shows no remorse and will continue what he do and for me yes life bad guys have much less value because they do not show a bit of humanity and hurts other for own gain so i say mercy for humane creatures for monsters in human skin no i doubt you cry when you kill darkspawn:).In that logic you will let guy kill entire village because killing bad guy is wrong?

Heh and now thread is about what is good and evil not we want evil character or not i hope admins do not kick us out of here:whistle:.  Maybe we should just simply assume that we are talking about what is evil for us and if we want to be evil in our way.

But what is good and evil are necessary discussion if we are going to ask for a 'evil' character. The definition of it is kinda necessary.

And you also keep moving goal posts in 'what is good and what is evil' discussion.  (Or at least in seems so to me, veyr tired right now.) Killing is never going to be morally good for me, but I do think that I specificly stated I might had to kill someone for various reasons (self defense or the guy killing the entire village if I don't spring into mind,) it is just, I am perfectly willing to admit that I am capable of performing acts that my moral compass deem wrong, it is just not the first action I would take.

Anyway we cannot simply assume that the kind of evil we talk about is evil in our own way, and then execpt bioware to read our mind and provide these options when there are as many definition of evil as there are bsn'er, which is why I once more will state that we will be much better off description the kind of actions we want to be able to take instead of an subjective word as 'evil'.

I once more will make a wish for more manipluative options (I knows those kan be hard to implement in praxis),more option to lie for the sake of lying and generally the option to be a little more destrutive without being selfdestructive.

Modifié par esper, 20 février 2013 - 11:44 .

[Medhia Nox]

The discussion should be a consensus - not a battle of egos trying to overpower one another in pseudo-intellectual debate.

A consensus of that nature could really only be effectively reached through examples provided by the fan base.

@esper: You believe morality is relative (according to your posts) - I do not. But that argument is totally useless to Bioware.

However - through whatever mechanism we use - we both seem to agree that killing is "wrong". That's an example Bioware "could" work with. They won't - since we haven't moved past 'Computer RPG = Combat Obstacle Course'. But they could.

More examples 'could be' - and I'd argue are - valuable to Bioware and they try to listen and develop games accordingly.

Your last sentence is exactly the kind of excellent examples I think Bioware could use.

I'd also love the ability to manipulate NPCs - I think it would be great to get NPCs to do things for you, and you reap the benefits from it - or, that NPC suffers the consequences of it's failure. Perhaps two NPCs could be manipulated to go search for an item... turns out the item is guarded by magic and you're clued into that. So - not unlike the ME suicide mission - you could choose between a good (not moral good) choice (a mage - let's say) or a bad choice (a merchant) - or you could go yourself.

You send the mage - and the sidequest gets finished for you (and you get XP - etc as if you had gone). You send the merchant - and the merchant dies.

You could even take it further - perhaps, you don't go "all evil" and so - you pay the mage a small sum for a larger reward. OR - you tell him you'll meet him in an alley to settle your debts - and then hire a group of Templars to take him down and you collect your reward this way.

RPGs totally need better conflict resolution - "evil" options should be amongst them.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 21 février 2013 - 02:24 .

[Silfren]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

People repeatedly keep noting Kelder as a pedophile or child molester, when it never said he did that. He just killed them, there was no talk of diddling I ever saw. Did I miss some bit of dialogue? I've even replayed it recently, never saw any of that.

He JUST killed them?  LOL.  I get what you're saying, but er, yeah...

I don't think it's explicitly mentioned that Kelder sexually abuses kids, but it's implied strongly enough that many players get exactly that interpretation, so I'd bet hard money that the writers wrote it that way intentionally.

Modifié par Silfren, 21 février 2013 - 06:28 .

[Bayonet Hipshot]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

So, Bioware and BSN, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.

I want to be a freaking Blood Mage + Necromancer  + Elemental Mage 

POWER !!! UNLIMITED POWER !! 

[esper]

Medhia Nox wrote...

The discussion should be a consensus - not a battle of egos trying to overpower one another in pseudo-intellectual debate.

A consensus of that nature could really only be effectively reached through examples provided by the fan base.

@esper: You believe morality is relative (according to your posts) - I do not. But that argument is totally useless to Bioware.

However - through whatever mechanism we use - we both seem to agree that killing is "wrong". That's an example Bioware "could" work with. They won't - since we haven't moved past 'Computer RPG = Combat Obstacle Course'. But they could.

More examples 'could be' - and I'd argue are - valuable to Bioware and they try to listen and develop games accordingly.

Your last sentence is exactly the kind of excellent examples I think Bioware could use.

I'd also love the ability to manipulate NPCs - I think it would be great to get NPCs to do things for you, and you reap the benefits from it - or, that NPC suffers the consequences of it's failure. Perhaps two NPCs could be manipulated to go search for an item... turns out the item is guarded by magic and you're clued into that. So - not unlike the ME suicide mission - you could choose between a good (not moral good) choice (a mage - let's say) or a bad choice (a merchant) - or you could go yourself.

You send the mage - and the sidequest gets finished for you (and you get XP - etc as if you had gone). You send the merchant - and the merchant dies.

You could even take it further - perhaps, you don't go "all evil" and so - you pay the mage a small sum for a larger reward. OR - you tell him you'll meet him in an alley to settle your debts - and then hire a group of Templars to take him down and you collect your reward this way.

RPGs totally need better conflict resolution - "evil" options should be amongst them.

As long as the game doesn't begin to add a karma meter and decide what actions are good and evil, then yes. This is exacly the sort of thing I wish we would see.

More conflict solutions, and sometimes choosing the non-violent solution doesn't mean that the PC is a saint, but ´just that they can see beyond the random desctruction and be allowed to work towards the goal they have in mind with whatever means the character deems necessary.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Medhia Nox wrote...

However - through whatever mechanism we use - we both seem to agree that killing is "wrong". That's an example Bioware "could" work with. They won't - since we haven't moved past 'Computer RPG = Combat Obstacle Course'. But they could.

 

Is killing wrong though? Again, for me, it's about POV. In medival times when there was no nuclear deterrent sometimes the only way you could survive, and protect the ones you love, is to prove you were the strongest and kill those who threatened you. That to me isn't wrong, and killing those who could potentially threaten you is only an extension of that - yes it's debateable as to whether it's the right/wrong thing to do, but sometimes needs must - EG I think killing hitler before he ended the lives of several million people would have been a good thing morally.

And I think the very nature of games is that there are a lot of paying gamers who want to see things explode,  people want conflict, and action is just waht gamers desire, so the "Combat Obstacle Course" may be here to stay for some time. I personally really enjoy it.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 21 février 2013 - 12:39 .

[Medhia Nox]

@SpunkyMonkey: Arguing about killing isn't helpful to Bioware though.

I know mass amounts of combat won't be going anywhere. You're love of it is very useful to Bioware (doesn't mean they "will" use it - though, on this topic I doubt you'd have to worry) - my distaste of it, could also be useful. Those are examples Bioware can work with - philosophy really isn't.

====

@Esper: You have no problem with the mage in my example potentially finding out and considering you "evil" though - correct? What if he was a popular man in a village and turns a lot of the village against you - is that okay as a form of "meter"?

[esper]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@SpunkyMonkey: Arguing about killing isn't helpful to Bioware though.

I know mass amounts of combat won't be going anywhere. You're love of it is very useful to Bioware (doesn't mean they "will" use it - though, on this topic I doubt you'd have to worry) - my distaste of it, could also be useful. Those are examples Bioware can work with - philosophy really isn't.

====

@Esper: You have no problem with the mage in my example potentially finding out and considering you "evil" though - correct? What if he was a popular man in a village and turns a lot of the village against you - is that okay as a form of "meter"?

Sure, that is not a meter, though, that is a consequence. And it is not surprising that the mage would consider the main character evil after that.

Of course a balance of consequence must be struck, all villagers turning against you because of a mage in Thedas doesn't sound right according the lore... It would be more realistic with a close group of the mage's friend or family turning against, and perhaps the rest of the village applauding you for discovering an apostate or something. (Due to the status mages have in Thedas)

[Medhia Nox]

Absolutely - it was just an example to suggest the mage's opinion of you having ripples amongst a community. Let's say - the Circle Tower he was part of?

Heck - I'd even have some people like you more for taking advantage of the mage.

Anyway - we're largely in agreement here. More intricate interaction with NPCs.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@SpunkyMonkey: Arguing about killing isn't helpful to Bioware though.

I know mass amounts of combat won't be going anywhere. You're love of it is very useful to Bioware (doesn't mean they "will" use it - though, on this topic I doubt you'd have to worry) - my distaste of it, could also be useful. Those are examples Bioware can work with - philosophy really isn't.

====

@Esper: You have no problem with the mage in my example potentially finding out and considering you "evil" though - correct? What if he was a popular man in a village and turns a lot of the village against you - is that okay as a form of "meter"?

I know chap, I was just using it to illustrate the point that good/evil is often about POV.

And yeah, there are too many customers which enjoy combat and expect it for it not to be included. If BW could find ways of ommitting combat without shortening the game too much then that would be great for everyone, but I'm not sure they'd have the time or resources to do that.

[killswitch423]

I remember being a pretty horrible person in DA2...

As previously noted, you can accept deals with demons, murder Javaris Tintop when he's leaving just because he annoys you despite actually being the "victim" on that particular quest, hand over someone who trusts you to their enemies TWICE (Izzy and Fenris, though Izzy can be less of an 'evil' decision depending upon how you roleplay it [example: Lawful]), own a slave, murder a templar who wants to help you to help some apostates, free a serial criminal (a murderer at the least, child molestor at worst) and that's all just off the top of my head and not including slaughtering all the mages cus Anders went all insano.

Modifié par N7_killswitch, 22 février 2013 - 12:43 .