209 réponses à ce sujet

[LolaLei]

During my first ever playthrough of any BioWare game I always play as myself and make decisions/choices I would pick if I was in that situation (just to see how badly I'd balls things up). Sooooo, I'm not entire sure if my character would be considered good or bad really.

Modifié par LolaLei, 19 décembre 2013 - 10:09 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

A Machiavellian unfettered true neutral who has no sense of conventional morality or ethics (although I understand it), who simply does what is most beneficial to achieving whatever my goal is.

Save an old lady, or burn down an orphanage. Doesn't matter what the action is, so long as it helps my goal.

[ObserverStatus]

First time I play DA:I, I think I'm going to play as a character who's a remarkably awful person. Going to watch a whole ton of Moral Orel for inspiration.

Modifié par bobobo878, 19 décembre 2013 - 11:45 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

bobobo878 wrote...

First time I play DA:I, I think I'm going to play as a character who's a remarkably awful person. Going to watch a whole ton of Moral Orel for inspiration.

God, I just feel like drop-kicking babies now.

For funsies.

[ObserverStatus]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...
First time I play DA:I, I think I'm going to play as a character who's a remarkably awful person. Going to watch a whole ton of Moral Orel for inspiration.

God, I just feel like drop-kicking babies now.
For funsies.

In Mass Effect 1, I found that it could bea lot of fun to just pick all the Renegade options without thinking about them and then rationalize them later.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

bobobo878 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...
First time I play DA:I, I think I'm going to play as a character who's a remarkably awful person. Going to watch a whole ton of Moral Orel for inspiration.

God, I just feel like drop-kicking babies now.
For funsies.

In Mass Effect 1, I found that it could bea lot of fun to just pick all the Renegade options without thinking about them and then rationalize them later.

I call it culling the weak.

Most of the people I protect aren't worth the protection anyway. And I'm saying that in real life as well as the game world.

[David7204]

The people 'you protect,' huh?

[Plaintiff]

Someone who tries to effect lasting, positive change. As opposed to a sociopathic, sadistic, ****-mangling douchewizard.

[Thomas Andresen]

I don't decide that until I'm at least half way through the character creator.

[CroGamer002]

Try to be good as realistically is possible.

However I'm not naive and I know I'll on occasion have to do serious dirty stuff.


Game should punish me for being overly good, same as being overly bad.

Modifié par Mesina2, 19 décembre 2013 - 12:12 .

[ThatGamerWithSouvlaki285]

Whatever the feeling takes me, which is normally mostly good with the odd dark choice if it serves for a greater good.

[David7204]

Mesina2 wrote...

Try to be good as realistically is possible.

However I'm not naive and I know I'll on occasion have to do serious dirty stuff.

Game should punish me for being overly good, same as being overly bad.

Being 'overly good' somehow means 'dumb' now, does it?

[wolfhowwl]

Miscellaneous Mind wrote...
By "doing the right thing," I mean "killing every elf and mage I run across".

*tips Templar helm*

[CroGamer002]

David7204 wrote...

Being 'overly good' somehow means 'dumb' now, does it?

Being overly good makes you naive and a fool.

As well, being overly bad makes you a jackass and a moron.



Bassically, you need to find a balance between the two.

[David7204]

That is really just very silly.

This is for you.

Modifié par David7204, 19 décembre 2013 - 12:35 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

That is really just very silly.

This is for you.

That doesn't apply here. He's not calling for an argument of the middle path as you're claiming, he's calling for a balance of traits. 

You on the other hand are making the fallacy of the extreme false dichotomy. You always do. It's basically you versus the world, and you can't possibly be wrong, so the whole world is wrong then.

[CroGamer002]

David7204 wrote...

That is really just very silly.

This is for you.

Balance =/= Middle

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Good - Basically trying to help / save everyone - always picking the best option to bring good 

Is choosing one value over another "good?" Only if the game makes it so - and, in my eyes, makes the entire experience more shallow for it.

There should be no good option, nor a clearly labeled bad on.

That is ridiculous.

Stories are made better for themes. In fact, they're made existant for themes. And you would have them sucked away like a vacuum cleaner.

Indiscision, and thus, weakness placed up on an alter to worship as an ideal.

No. 

Indecision? To worship an ideal? I don't even understand what you are saying.

I'll use an ME-only example, since the much better DA examples would be lost on you.

I could be a good player who kills the Rachni Queen because the last time the Rachni were alive, they were easily manupulated by the reapers and nearly wiped out all galactic life. Similarly, I could play a ruthless, self-serving "bad" character who saves the Rachni, as an insurance policy to help with the Reapers.

Doing "good" things for "bad" reasons, or doing "bad" things for "good" reasons make for an interesting story. And the theme that the Reapers were a bigger threat that didn't give us the luxury of playing intergalactic politics was easily one that was reinforced multiple times. So regardless of what you chose, your character coukd have seen themselves as good... so playing a "good" character shouldn't be as easy as choosing a color. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Miscellaneous Mind wrote...

Assuming the option presents itself, I'm going to play as a sarcastic, puckish rogue that was a penchant for doing the "right" thing.

By "doing the right thing," I mean "killing every elf and mage I run across".

Every non-human bastard will die. Every mage and chantry believer will die.

Only the few rationals will survive and thrive!

[David7204]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I could be a good player who kills the Rachni Queen because the last time the Rachni were alive, they were easily manupulated by the reapers and nearly wiped out all galactic life. Similarly, I could play a ruthless, self-serving "bad" character who saves the Rachni, as an insurance policy to help with the Reapers.

Doing "good" things for "bad" reasons, or doing "bad" things for "good" reasons make for an interesting story. And the theme that the Reapers were a bigger threat that didn't give us the luxury of playing intergalactic politics was easily one that was reinforced multiple times. So regardless of what you chose, your character coukd have seen themselves as good... so playing a "good" character shouldn't be as easy as choosing a color. 

What exactly is your point? Yes, the player is always perfectly free to consider their character, in indeed any character in any fiction, as 'good' or 'bad.' And? Does that for some reason necessitate that the story is no longer allowed to say such things itself? How exactly does that justify you 'despising' such a thing?

Modifié par David7204, 19 décembre 2013 - 12:43 .

[CroGamer002]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Miscellaneous Mind wrote...

Assuming the option presents itself, I'm going to play as a sarcastic, puckish rogue that was a penchant for doing the "right" thing.

By "doing the right thing," I mean "killing every elf and mage I run across".

Every non-human bastard will die. Every mage and chantry believer will die.

Only the few rationals will survive and thrive!

Until they all die out of loneliness and not being able to feel superior over those inferior to them.


Hey, it's true.

[David7204]

Mesina2 wrote...

Balance =/= Middle

Ah, I see what's going you. Clearly, you're someone who goes starry-eyed over 'balance.' Mmm. I bet you have a tendency to support nature-y things? As 'balance?'

Well, that's a very nice little alignment for Dungeons and Dragons. But it really has no place beyond that.

Modifié par David7204, 19 décembre 2013 - 12:50 .

[Magdalena11]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Good - Basically trying to help / save everyone - always picking the best option to bring good 

Is choosing one value over another "good?" Only if the game makes it so - and, in my eyes, makes the entire experience more shallow for it.

There should be no good option, nor a clearly labeled bad on.

That is ridiculous.

Stories are made better for themes. In fact, they're made existant for themes. And you would have them sucked away like a vacuum cleaner.

Indiscision, and thus, weakness placed up on an alter to worship as an ideal.

No. 

Indecision? To worship an ideal? I don't even understand what you are saying.

I'll use an ME-only example, since the much better DA examples would be lost on you.

I could be a good player who kills the Rachni Queen because the last time the Rachni were alive, they were easily manupulated by the reapers and nearly wiped out all galactic life. Similarly, I could play a ruthless, self-serving "bad" character who saves the Rachni, as an insurance policy to help with the Reapers.

Doing "good" things for "bad" reasons, or doing "bad" things for "good" reasons make for an interesting story. And the theme that the Reapers were a bigger threat that didn't give us the luxury of playing intergalactic politics was easily one that was reinforced multiple times. So regardless of what you chose, your character coukd have seen themselves as good... so playing a "good" character shouldn't be as easy as choosing a color. 

Could you give a DA example for me?  I don't know what you mean and I don't play ME.

To give you an example of what I would consider a "good" decision as opposed to a beneficial one, I would guess you mean something like siding with Branka and preserving the anvil of the void.  That's the whole reason the warden is in the deep roads, after all, and preserving the anvil gives you golems to fight.  I only preserved the anvil once to be a completionist since I don't feel justified dooming faceless dwarves to golemhood.  I thought saving the anvil was wrong even though that was what I was supposed to be doing.

Is this the kind of example you mean?

I plan on making the decisions that seem like the best idea at the time because broad-brush good v. evil rarely come with stickers that list the ingredients and nutritional information.  I woun't know how they taste until they're in my mouth, as it were.

[CroGamer002]

David7204 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Balance =/= Middle

Ah, I see what's going you. Clearly, you're someone who goes starry-eyed over 'balance.' Mmm. I bet you have a tendency to support nature-y things? As 'balance?'

Well, that's a very nice little alignment for Dungeons and Dragons. But it really has no place beyond that.

???



What are you talking about?