209 réponses à ce sujet

[Lebanese Dude]

Well my first play-through in any RPG is role-playing what I would do if I were the protagonist.

So essentially:

1) I am a "paragon" that does whatever it takes to help, even when people don't deserve it.
2) I attempt to avoid unnecessary casualties and bloodshed.
3) I am a little predictable and reasonably naive when it comes to my enemies. I know some people are irredeemable but I always try to convince them to stop doing whatever they are doing.
4) I try to make a lasting impact on the world by making it a better place according to my own personal moral values.
5) I will be friendly to all companions and take the time to listen to them, but will always attempt to sway them from a relatively destructive path when possible.

and finally

6) If I don't have fuzzy feels inside after a significant decision or accomplishment, I am doing it wrong.

---

It may seem idealistic to some, but it is what I would do if I had the power in the real world as well. 
I legitimately care about people in any world. I can't tell if it's a blessing or a curse sometimes.

I do end up roleplaying a malicious or selfish person eventually, and I have to admit it does feel good to see people get what they deserve. But, I don't have that need to see people pay for whatever they did, unless I see it serves a better purpose beyond my own gratification. 

I could never have Alistar executed even though I planned to on my power-hungry Human Male Noble, and I could never play a full renegade playthrough in any Mass Effect game before hitting a spot that I simply could not proceed with in my character's personality.

Modifié par Lebdood, 21 décembre 2013 - 12:22 .

[ParkBom]

Lebdood wrote...

Well my first play-through in any RPG is role-playing what I would do if I were the protagonist.

So essentially:

1) I am a "paragon" that does whatever it takes to help, even when people don't deserve it.
2) I attempt to avoid unnecessary casualties and bloodshed.
3) I am a little predictable and reasonably naive when it comes to my enemies. I know some people are irredeemable but I always try to convince them to stop doing whatever they are doing.
4) I try to make a lasting impact on the world by making it a better place according to my own personal moral values.
5) I will be friendly to all companions and take the time to listen to them, but will always attempt to sway them from a relatively destructive path when possible.

and finally

6) If I don't have fuzzy feels inside after a significant decision or accomplishment, I am doing it wrong.

This but add

7) I will be a force of sass within Thedas. Many will bow to my sarcasm.
8) Supportive of mages but willing to work with Templars if the situation calls for it.

[Lebanese Dude]

JusticarFlareon wrote...
7) I will be a force of sass within Thedas. Many will bow to my sarcasm.
8) Supportive of mages but willing to work with Templars if the situation calls for it.

Well I do joke around whenever I think it is appropriate. In Dragon Origins it would occasionally be the funny line (like the Alistair rose weapon joke) and in Dragon Age 2 it was the charming response. 

Also 8) is a very specific example of my "moral values", which basically means I am against treating minorities with disdain and contempt when they can still function the same way as any typical person.

Modifié par Lebdood, 21 décembre 2013 - 12:22 .

[ParkBom]

LOL. My characters are funny whenever they feel like it, which is nearly all the time. (After making love with Anders, she asked if he was hungry and wanted a sandwich. Pure win)

[Lebanese Dude]

JusticarFlareon wrote...

LOL. My characters are funny whenever they feel like it, which is nearly all the time. (After making love with Anders, she asked if he was hungry and wanted a sandwich. Pure win)

I cracked up on that line on my "selfish comedian" playthrough. It was gold.

[Giant ambush beetle]

In my first playthrough I always play a hardened, bitter and callous but not entirely cold hearted ''the ends justify the means'' leader - someone who does the unpopular stuff to get things done but still avoids the most abhorrent evil acts. Probably favoring the templars. 
Thats the kind of personality I'm most comfortable with roleplaying.

I just hope I'll have the options available to play such character, now with Bioware destroying the most fundamental aspects of Roleplaying in DA2 with forcing a character into one of three personality archetypes. *facedesk*

Modifié par The Woldan , 21 décembre 2013 - 12:34 .

[Zered]

I feel like playing an goodie guy.

White horse, horn of Gondon in the background. Yep knight in a shiny armor to the rescue.

[Lebanese Dude]

michalooo wrote...

I feel like playing an goodie guy.

White horse, horn of Gondon in the background. Yep knight in a shiny armor to the rescue.

Same here. I am also literally a knight in shining armor because I play human male shield-bearing warriors 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

osbornep wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Then why on a Earth would someone pretend to have a second set of principles simply to throw away and make way for the 'real' principles any time a slightly difficult situation rears its head? That seems to be quite pointless and ridiculous.

Actually, John Stuart Mill proposes a system very much like this in Utilitarianism. Under most circumstances, you follow a system of secondary principles (which consist of generalities like "Keep promises," "Do not harm others," etc.); only when these secondary principles are in conflict do you apply the over-arching Principle of Utility directly. The reason why you didn't just apply that principle to every situation, according to Mill, was that utilitarian calculation was time-consuming, and people are generally very bad at it. Thus, the general good would actually be promoted more if people relied on secondary principles most of the time. Henry Sidgwick took this line of thinking even further, suggesting that even though he himself took utilitarianism to be true, it would probably be best if most folk weren't utilitarians.

You can't really understate this. I underline with a bit of broad moral and ethical nihilism which is what I believe in, which is part Machiavellian, and part Nietzche. You reach a conclusion that principles don't really mean anything when it comes to the outcome. If I have to 'sacrifice' principles to reach the desired end, I'll do it without a second thought. 

[Hellion Rex]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

osbornep wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Then why on a Earth would someone pretend to have a second set of principles simply to throw away and make way for the 'real' principles any time a slightly difficult situation rears its head? That seems to be quite pointless and ridiculous.

Actually, John Stuart Mill proposes a system very much like this in Utilitarianism. Under most circumstances, you follow a system of secondary principles (which consist of generalities like "Keep promises," "Do not harm others," etc.); only when these secondary principles are in conflict do you apply the over-arching Principle of Utility directly. The reason why you didn't just apply that principle to every situation, according to Mill, was that utilitarian calculation was time-consuming, and people are generally very bad at it. Thus, the general good would actually be promoted more if people relied on secondary principles most of the time. Henry Sidgwick took this line of thinking even further, suggesting that even though he himself took utilitarianism to be true, it would probably be best if most folk weren't utilitarians.

You can't really understate this. I underline with a bit of broad moral and ethical nihilism which is what I believe in, which is part Machiavellian, and part Nietzche. You reach a conclusion that principles don't really mean anything when it comes to the outcome. If I have to 'sacrifice' principles to reach the desired end, I'll do it without a second thought. 

+1

[Lebanese Dude]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
 If I have to 'sacrifice' principles to reach the desired end, I'll do it without a second thought. 

I used to this a lot in any RPG before I started to take the role-playing aspect more seriously.

Now I have to be able to justify any means to the end. I don't mind it if my character does something unexpectedly, but it has to fit in with something.

Like, my pro-mage warrior would kill any mage in order to save someone in his family but wouldn't do it for anyone else.
I want this (because I want to keep my character's family intact), but I would have to justify it (my character puts family above all else)

Etc...

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Lebdood wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
 If I have to 'sacrifice' principles to reach the desired end, I'll do it without a second thought. 

I used to this a lot in any RPG before I started to take the role-playing aspect more seriously.

Now I have to be able to justify any means to the end. I don't mind it if my character does something unexpectedly, but it has to fit in with something.

Like, my pro-mage warrior would kill any mage in order to save someone in his family but wouldn't do it for anyone else.
I want this (because I want to keep my character's family intact), but I would have to justify it (my character puts family above all else)

Etc...

I don't worry about justifying it. If it's economical and physically beneficial towards my goal, then in my eyes, it's justified. Any tangible benefit towards my goal counts. Helping my team out works. It makes them clear headed and concentrated on the task at hand.

[ruggly]

Sarcastic ass hole, but really is a loving fluffy bunny on the inside.

[Medhia Nox]

@MassivelyEffective: Hmm, sounds unreliable from a third party standpoint - I certainly wouldn't support your goal knowing you were this way.

Good thing you don't actually need others in these games.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@MassivelyEffective: Hmm, sounds unreliable from a third party standpoint - I certainly wouldn't support your goal knowing you were this way.

Good thing you don't actually need others in these games.

It's not unreliable. I'm doing what you want so that you will do what I want.

[SgtSteel91]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

It's not unreliable. I'm doing what you want so that you will do what I want.

But what if you had soldiers with family they want to protect and are fighting for, and that family is in Crestwood (or whatever that village was in the PAX demo) being attacked by Red Templars while your keep is simultaneously under attack? Would you do what they want and protect the village so they can keep fighting for you, or would you see more value in saving the keep and disregard those soldiers losing their reason to fight and deserting you?

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 21 décembre 2013 - 03:23 .

[Medhia Nox]

@MassiveEffective: Which is exactly what makes you unreliable.

If there is ever an imbalance that leaves me at a disadvantage - then I will have to be concerned about your motives.

I'd prefer to throw my hat in the ring with people with principles that suggest that, were I at a disadvantage, I would not have to worry about them becoming predatory.

If the only thing that solidifies our "alliance" - is what you can gain from me. Better to not have an alliance at all.

Note: This is just my personal view.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

SgtSteel91 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

It's not unreliable. I'm doing what you want so that you will do what I want.

But what if you had soldiers with family they want to protect and are fighting for, and that family is in Crestwood (or whatever that village was in the PAX demo) being attacked by Red Templars while your keep is simultaneously under attack? Would you do what they want and protect the village so they can keep fighting for you, or would you see more value in saving the keep and disregard those soldiers losing their reason to fight and deserting you?

What's has more strategic value? Is there anything in my keep or about my keep that is strategically valuable? You're not really giving me a good read on the situation. What's my METT-TC? What is the value in fighting for the village? Is there a strategic asset I can use? Or is it just the families, non-combatants who I'm risking wasting my forces for who bring no value to my plight beyond emotional appeasement for my troops? 

It comes down to raw economics. What is physically more beneficial to my goal?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@MassiveEffective: Which is exactly what makes you unreliable.

If there is ever an imbalance that leaves me at a disadvantage - then I will have to be concerned about your motives.

I'd prefer to throw my hat in the ring with people with principles that suggest that, were I at a disadvantage, I would not have to worry about them becoming predatory.

If the only thing that solidifies our "alliance" - is what you can gain from me. Better to not have an alliance at all.

Note: This is just my personal view.

It's pretty naive to be honest. Think of it this way: What can you gain from me? Not it's a cooperative for mutual benefit. 

I'll help you so long as it doesn't become a hindrance to my cause. I look at things from a purely economic perspective. 

Where you see people, I see resources. 

[Lebanese Dude]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote..

It comes down to raw economics. What is physically more beneficial to my goal?

This is definitely a valid approach.

However, sometimes I help people and am "good" just for the sake of it. I may not gain anything but if it makes me feel good then I'm content.

[Kalas Magnus]

a psycho

Modifié par Kalas Magnus, 21 décembre 2013 - 03:33 .

[SgtSteel91]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

What's has more strategic value? Is there anything in my keep or about my keep that is strategically valuable? You're not really giving me a good read on the situation. What's my METT-TC? What is the value in fighting for the village? Is there a strategic asset I can use? Or is it just the families, non-combatants who I'm risking wasting my forces for who bring no value to my plight beyond emotional appeasement for my troops? 

It comes down to raw economics. What is physically more beneficial to my goal?

The keep does have more strategic value but saving the village will likely have grateful people who could send supplies to repair the keep as well as earning the love and trust of the soldiers with family there.

So are you still going to do what your soldiers want so they do what you want?

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 21 décembre 2013 - 03:35 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Lebdood wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote..

It comes down to raw economics. What is physically more beneficial to my goal?

This is definitely a valid approach.

However, sometimes I help people and am "good" just for the sake of it. I may not gain anything but if it makes me feel good then I'm content.

See, I don't get that feeling of good. I understand how people do, but I don't. I have no economic or strategic need or benefit to feel good. Simply put, to me, it doesn't make sense.

Good is subjective in my opinion. Even a serial killer feels 'good' when he kills his victims. 

I'm not going to begrudge him his feelings. There are reasons he feels the way he does, and much of them are completely beyond his control.

However, his existence, at least in an unfettered freedom sense, is an issue to my own circumstances. We simply have two incompatible approaches to life, and I'm not going to possibly compromise my own ends to accomodate his, unless it's beneficial to some goal of mine.

[BlueMagitek]

It depends on the background of the character that we're given.

Though, if we have a blank slate :

1) Male, Orlaisian Alienage Warrior
2) Attitude : City Elves first. Shems are untrustworthy, dwarves are thieves of the worst sort, Dalish are barbarians.
3) End Goal : Stop Orlais from falling apart; if possible, use influence/fighting prowess to impress nobility to allow elves to join Chevalier class.
4) Let people be people. They don't need to like him, he doesn't need to like them so long as they are willing to work together without stabbing each other in the back.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

SgtSteel91 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

What's has more strategic value? Is there anything in my keep or about my keep that is strategically valuable? You're not really giving me a good read on the situation. What's my METT-TC? What is the value in fighting for the village? Is there a strategic asset I can use? Or is it just the families, non-combatants who I'm risking wasting my forces for who bring no value to my plight beyond emotional appeasement for my troops? 

It comes down to raw economics. What is physically more beneficial to my goal?

The keep does have more strategic value but saving the village will likely have grateful people who could send supplies to repair the keep as well as earning the love and trust of the soldiers with family there.

So are you still going to do what your soldiers want so they do what you want?

I focus all attention on my keep. The soldiers swore an oath to something greater than themselves and their families when they joined my army. Even at personal cost to them, I will hold them to their duty. 

Because, if I do spend my resources on the village, I lose whatever strategic capabilities I have from the loss of my keep. I also lose soldiers in defense of the village.

What do I gain? Grateful civilians with no utility.

A fat lot of good that does for my army. And without a means to support my army from my keep, things become disorganized, we gradually lose more ground, and we're put against the wall. All I did was save the village for one day. Moral sinks, the people turn against me when I can no longer effectively protect them, the soldiers lose faith in me due to putting emotion above logic, we cease to be an effective fighting force, the war is prolonged, more people die.

You end up losing more by saving the village than you do defending the keep.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 21 décembre 2013 - 03:42 .