57 réponses à ce sujet

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

 I dont like to use the word "evil", hence dark. This thread is about discussing dark player options in dragon age, and the freedom for us players to roleplay more complex and villanous characters.

In the course of DA:O/DA:2 we could do all sorts of stuff. From lying, betraying and killing to sleeping with the woman another guy loved and pretty much ruining his life - we also had huge sacriligious  options to defile the ashes of  Andraste.

So these things are pretty dark right? And having these options makes Dragon Age feel great for what it is - a dark fantasy setting.

So why am I concerned? I came to think of how much darker DA:O was. DA:O had some pretty great villanous stuff you could do, but these options were fewer in DA:2, not to mention that they had less emotional impact and were less creative.

Why is it important? Because Dragon Age Origins scored high in its moral gray areas and realism, the same ingredient that makes Game Of Thrones so good. Here are some points:

1) For us roleplayers, it really adds the power of seduction to the table. It allows us to roleplay more complex characters. 

2) It increases the value of playing a good guy aswell. By having darker outcomes possible, doing something actual good can feel more rewarding. 

3) Realism.  Kill a guy and grab quest item or do 3 chores for him instead? What if time is of the essence and killing this one guy will save ten others? Being a good guy isnt always easy. This is an example of actual hard choices.Moral dilemmas like this represents real life well, where sometimes you are forced to take the lesser evil.

4)Wider roleplaying options. What if my inquisitor is a fanatic? What if my Inquisitor is a powerhungry bloodmage? More open doors and less closed doors.

5) I cant think of a single game where the protagonist is the villain. This is why RPGs are great as they allow those who want that roleplaying experience -  possible, to a lesser degree. Hell, in DA:O I'd evem say a medium degree - now THAT is a compliment!

Im scared, that Bioware might be too scared, to implement dark enough choices in the game.Seeing that they decreased drasticly from DA:O to DA2.

Some types:

Fanatical 



Mad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAeXSwE1HGI 

There are selfish people, cruel people, mad people, fanatical people or even flawed heroes ( I believe the term in literature is byronic hero?). 

Anyway Im derailing abit. Do you guys think Bioware will allow gruesome, heinous and inhuman acts in DA:I? Or will they maintain the low-dark/evil of DA:2 and force our character into a hero role? Im not exactly expecting to be able to crucify mages alive along the main road of Ferelden to Orlais. But Im certainly hoping personally, that some of the good stuff from DA:O will resurface. 

[Zoikster]

I hope so! I love being able to go into one character with the best of intentions and others with more shades of gray. The more variability the better. This complicates things for the writers and story developers, but it's what people want.

Modifié par Zoikster, 15 décembre 2013 - 12:45 .

[leaguer of one]

It's raining demon...So clearly they will be more.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm not really interested in "dark for the sake of dark" options.

I am interested in doing something morally questionable for what I perceive to be the greater good.

People can opt to purge the Towers in DA:O and DA2 and kill every mage there. They can do so not because they want to be "evil" or "dark" but because they believe they are protecting loves of those who may be harmed by an abomination or blood mage set loose by the events of either game. While the player can certainly make these choices to be "evil" or "dark" but the reason the game presents these choices is because they want the player to weigh the reasons and consequences for doing so.

The same goes for Connor/Isolde, The Anvil of the Void, the various kings you can send to the throne, whether or not you let a Dreamer live, die, be possessed or become Tranquil... and many other choices. Point being, these choices are not offered just for players to have fun being evil... they are offered because they were intended to make the player weigh the deciison and possibly determine if the clearly labeled "good" choice is really the best one.

[Aaleel]

I think you may have to do some things that some may find below board to obtain information about the events that have transpired.

[Zoikster]

Here is an example of some of the dark paths we have been allowed to take thus far:

http://dragonage.wik..._Evil_character

[Angrywolves]

http://www.shacknews...-ripple-effects

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm not really interested in "dark for the sake of dark" options.

I am interested in doing something morally questionable for what I perceive to be the greater good.

People can opt to purge the Towers in DA:O and DA2 and kill every mage there. They can do so not because they want to be "evil" or "dark" but because they believe they are protecting loves of those who may be harmed by an abomination or blood mage set loose by the events of either game. While the player can certainly make these choices to be "evil" or "dark" but the reason the game presents these choices is because they want the player to weigh the reasons and consequences for doing so.

The same goes for Connor/Isolde, The Anvil of the Void, the various kings you can send to the throne, whether or not you let a Dreamer live, die, be possessed or become Tranquil... and many other choices. Point being, these choices are not offered just for players to have fun being evil... they are offered because they were intended to make the player weigh the deciison and possibly determine if the clearly labeled "good" choice is really the best one.

If I want to roleplay a powerhungry bloodmage that deceives and sides with the templars to kill all mages, for the personal gain in less magical opposition later - from the perspective that my character is a paranoid, selfish, half-mad, powerhungry mage that considers other people as "playthings". Then Im not doing "evil for the sake of evil" am I? Said mage could also save a woman running from bandits for "fun". Or save a village for the self-gratifying feeling of being loved. And then go kill another innocent person simply for regretting saving someone else. 

You are only defining acts of evil from an external view (evil for the sake of evil), instead of an internal view? 

My character can kill an innocent because he feels like it, because they reminded him/her of someone, because he opposes their viewpoint or a million other reasons. Its called roleplaying for a reason and the reasons for committing "evil" can be hundreds - in the minds of different characters played by different people.

Im not entirely sure if I misunderstood your argument of "evil for the sake of evil"

[Angrywolves]

well some players just want to experience evil for evil's sake.
I don't, it's against who I am, but others can if they want to.

[leaguer of one]

Angrywolves wrote...

well some players just want to experience evil for evil's sake.
I don't, it's against who I am, but others can if they want to.

Who said it was going to be evil for the sake of evil?

[Zoikster]

Laidlaw told Rock Paper Shotgun that the new tool to help clarify choices "never tells you the outcome," and instead simply clears up what you're deciding. Rather than directly informing you that you're going to start a war, for example, it might simply make sure you know that you're choosing to behead a man. That resulting in a consequence of war is never spelled out."I would never want to tell you the outcome, because that's annoying. There's GameFAQs for that." 

This I like! The consequences of your choices -- whether good intentioned or bad having unknown consquences is one of my favorite aspects. Thanks for the link!

[jazzy B 3]

SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...

 5) I cant think of a single game where the protagonist is the villain. This is why RPGs are great as they allow those who want that roleplaying experience -  possible, to a lesser degree. Hell, in DA:O I'd evem say a medium degree - now THAT is a compliment!

*Ahem* Dungeon Keeper *Ahem*

Though it is true, the option to be the vilain is nice now and again.

[Angrywolves]

leaguer of one wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

well some players just want to experience evil for evil's sake.
I don't, it's against who I am, but others can if they want to.

Who said it was going to be evil for the sake of evil?

who said it wasn't ?
People get bored playing the good guy ? You can understand that can';t you ?
shrugs.

[leaguer of one]

Angrywolves wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

well some players just want to experience evil for evil's sake.
I don't, it's against who I am, but others can if they want to.

Who said it was going to be evil for the sake of evil?

who said it wasn't ?
People get bored playing the good guy ? You can understand that can';t you ?
shrugs.

Look at DAO, not much evil for evil sake there. Also, ME is like that. The only truely evil choices are in BG1,2 ,Kotor and Swtor.

[Zoikster]

Look at DAO, not much evil for evil sake there. Also, ME is like that. The only truely evil choices are in BG1,2 ,Kotor and Swtor.

There are certainly plenty of morally ambiguous choices and that's all I want.

Modifié par Zoikster, 15 décembre 2013 - 01:17 .

[leaguer of one]

Zoikster wrote...

Look at DAO, not much evil for evil sake there. Also, ME is like that. The only truely evil choices are in BG1,2 ,Kotor and Swtor.

There are certainly plenty of morally ambiguous choices and that's all I want.

Which is my point. Thank you.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
People can opt to purge the Towers in DA:O and DA2 and kill every mage there. They can do so not because they want to be "evil" or "dark" but because they believe they are protecting loves of those who may be harmed by an abomination or blood mage set loose by the events of either game. While the player can certainly make these choices to be "evil" or "dark" but the reason the game presents these choices is because they want the player to weigh the reasons and consequences for doing so.  

The problem is that the game doesn't give us a reason to actually worry about the choice. I mean, yes, it's theoretically possible that some of Uldred's blood mages were among the very few mages we rescued who were not with Uldred being forcefully converted at the time. But we don't see actual danger - seedy characters we would suspect in the mage origin (or see beforehand as potential blood mages) as being among the survivors and not knowing. 

So I think that the game has to work harder to show both paths as justified. That's not something DA did well, IMO, with the exception of the Anvil. Even Bhelen v. Harrowmon only works if you actually investigated both. 

[Angrywolves]

leaguer of one wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

well some players just want to experience evil for evil's sake.
I don't, it's against who I am, but others can if they want to.

Who said it was going to be evil for the sake of evil?

who said it wasn't ?
People get bored playing the good guy ? You can understand that can';t you ?
shrugs.

Look at DAO, not much evil for evil sake there. Also, ME is like that. The only truely evil choices are in BG1,2 ,Kotor and Swtor.

Really ?
You could kill Zevran, you could kill the mages in the tower, you could let the people of Redcliff get killed,you could kill Connor or Isolde, you could kill Leliana and join with Kolgrim, pollute the ashes, kill the dalish, other stuff.Seems pretty evil to me.
shrugs.

Modifié par Angrywolves, 15 décembre 2013 - 02:39 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Angrywolves wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

well some players just want to experience evil for evil's sake.
I don't, it's against who I am, but others can if they want to.

Who said it was going to be evil for the sake of evil?

who said it wasn't ?
People get bored playing the good guy ? You can understand that can';t you ?
shrugs.

Look at DAO, not much evil for evil sake there. Also, ME is like that. The only truely evil choices are in BG1,2 ,Kotor and Swtor.

Really ?
You could kill Zevran, you could kill the mages in the tower, you could let the people of Redcliff get killed,you could kill Connor or Isolde, you could kill Leliana and join with Kolgrim, pollute the ashes, kill the dalish, other stuff.Seems pretty evil to me.
shrugs.

Zevran was an assassin- you are pretty justified in killing him.
With the mages they could be possessed by demons.
Yeah, Redcliff was kinda nasty choice, I admit.
Connor was possessed, something that has pretty much no cure and he killed numerous people while possessed.
Isolde offers herself up to help save her son- willingly.
Leliana attacks you first, though you can have her back off.
Ashes- some dead burnt woman and if you aren't Andrastian, why would you care.
Wouldn't be a Dragon Age game without an elf clan to kill.

[The Elder King]

I'd say that making a deal with the Tevinter slave and sacrifice the elven slaves for power in DAO was 'evil for the sake of evil'. Giving Fenris to Danarius too.

[Hellion Rex]

hhh89 wrote...

I'd say that making a deal with the Tevinter slave and sacrifice the elven slaves for power in DAO was 'evil for the sake of evil'. Giving Fenris to Danarius too.

Thank God I didn't have Anders in my group on that Danarius quest. I don't care if Fenris is anti-mage, nothing could ever justify selling him back into slavery.

[The Elder King]

eluvianix wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

I'd say that making a deal with the Tevinter slave and sacrifice the elven slaves for power in DAO was 'evil for the sake of evil'. Giving Fenris to Danarius too.

Thank God I didn't have Anders in my group on that Danarius quest. I don't care if Fenris is anti-mage, nothing could ever justify selling him back into slavery.

Indeed. In my opinion, Anders is an hypocrite in that quest (though he already shown this side in the banter with Merrill). 

Modifié par hhh89, 15 décembre 2013 - 10:09 .

[Hellion Rex]

hhh89 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

I'd say that making a deal with the Tevinter slave and sacrifice the elven slaves for power in DAO was 'evil for the sake of evil'. Giving Fenris to Danarius too.

Thank God I didn't have Anders in my group on that Danarius quest. I don't care if Fenris is anti-mage, nothing could ever justify selling him back into slavery.

Indeed. In my opinion, Anders is an hypocrite in that quest (though he already shown this side in the banter with Merrill). 

He was a bit of a hypocrite. I found his diatribe against Merrill rather hilarious.

Modifié par eluvianix, 15 décembre 2013 - 10:15 .

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Always annoyed me that the side quests in ME 1, 2 & 3 like save the space port or the resedential aria. never had any consequences to them. i'd love to see that being an evil jerk bites you on the arse.

[The Elder King]

eluvianix wrote...
He was a bit of a hypocrite. I found his diatribe against Merrill rather hilarious.

Well, I laughed at the fact that he expressed the same opinion of the side he hated and was fighting, showing his Chantry background (but Anders is against the Chantry as an organization, not the religion, so it seems reasonable that he expresses Andrastianism views). He's an hypocrite in criticizing her because he's technically, an abomination, and he's practically in the same (if not worse. Merill can control herself) of Merrill. He has no ground to criticize her. 
That's coming from someone who is wary of both blood magic and spirit bonding. 

Modifié par hhh89, 15 décembre 2013 - 10:25 .