444 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

But you are justifying just as much, Qistina. You are justifying whether or not to use the Anvil of the Void under the justification of "That is not my mission. The Blight comes first.". So doesn't that make you just as much an extremist as Jensaarai?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

That is not my justification...you made it up

 

Umm, no I didn't. Look:

In the game, you yourself watched how capable Dwarves is handling the darkspawns in the Deep Road. Those Legion of the Dead fighting darkspawns everyday. Even Duncan recognized the dwarves in Noble Dwarf origin. It means dwarves themselves are more than capable in fighting darkspawn. "The Blight" is surface problem, and new problem in current situation, while in the Deep Road it is a constant threat, yet in the game you can see Dwarven government survive, it's people survive.

 

Your cause now is to end the Blight on the surface, your objective in the Deep Road is to find Branka to elect Orzamar king, then the King can gather his army to aid you. Not recruiting an army of golems.....

 

The thing about those golems are just along your way, there is no indication about the need or anything that hinting you to get golem army at all. It is not Grey Warden objective either. So you stumble upon the thing...you see what Branka did...you hear Caradin pleas...up to you....

 

Again...you seek JUSTIFICATIONS

 

Now if I'm misunderstanding, then I apologize. But it reads as you saying you are only down there for your mission, therefore doing the "The mission comes first" type of justifications.

[Cainhurst Crow]

In the game, you yourself watched how capable Dwarves is handling the darkspawns in the Deep Road. Those Legion of the Dead fighting darkspawns everyday. Even Duncan recognized the dwarves in Noble Dwarf origin. It means dwarves themselves are more than capable in fighting darkspawn. "The Blight" is surface problem, and new problem in current situation, while in the Deep Road it is a constant threat, yet in the game you can see Dwarven government survive, it's people survive.

 

Your cause now is to end the Blight on the surface, your objective in the Deep Road is to find Branka to elect Orzamar king, then the King can gather his army to aid you. Not recruiting an army of golems.....

 

The thing about those golems are just along your way, there is no indication about the need or anything that hinting you to get golem army at all. It is not Grey Warden objective either. So you stumble upon the thing...you see what Branka did...you hear Caradin pleas...up to you....

 

Again...you seek JUSTIFICATIONS

 

And in awakening you get to see the legion of the dead all die, and their main encampment get taken by the darkspawn. What do ya know, another major defeat. Who'd have thunk it.

[Grieving Natashina]

Er, a lot of this Warden stuff is all well and good, but would you two be willing to take the debate into PMs?  It's gotten into much more than just moderate characters/companions and I'd rather not see the thread derailed.

[Fredward]

If you're not an extremist that means you're not trying.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Meta knowledge detected.....how many of players think that going into the Deep Road in Orzamar is ACTUALLY not about to recruit golems?

 

The objective of going to the Deep Road is ACTUALLY to find Branka, because she is the only one who can break the stalemate in Orzamar politc

 

it is just Branka is a crazy woman who manage to divert you into her scheme

 

Recruit golem or not is not the mission...the Grey Warden themselves don't give a heck about golems. If they do then surely the order will make missions to find the lost technology and revive it all these time and Duncan sure will mention about it in Dwarf Origin. But no...recruiting golems is not Grey Warden objective

 

it is just something The Warden stumble upon...since The Warden is the only surviving Grey Warden other than Alistair, what he/she decide represent the order.

 

Now the player ONLY ASSUME what the order stand for...there is the issue...are you an extremist?

 

What does the warden's objective have to do with anything. I play a dwarf who is concerned for the future of orzummar. There, now my warden has an object to also help his people's survival.

 

Just like if I play a mage character I have a vested interest in helping to save as many mages as possible. Or if I play a noble character I have a added objective of wanting to see my family avenged. And if I play a dalish elf I want to help the dalish people as an objective.

 

Or not, it can be any number or combination of objectives so pulling the "I'm only here for my mission objective" doesn't really seem to fit for any warden except those with a zealos commitment to the grey wardens. And even that in itself is just another extremist view, placing the value of completing your objective above all other moral or ethical boundaries and importance.

 

In fact I am failing to see what any of this even has to do with getting a moderate character in future dragon age titles.

[Grieving Natashina]

Thanks Jen, for tying it back to the main point of the thread

 

 

 

@Qistina, let this one go.  You've started to defeat your own arguments, and the Wardens tends to get you kinda riled up.  Breathe and reboot.

 

What do you consider a moderate stance?  You've talked a lot of about what you see as extreme in your posts and that's all well and good.  However, what do you consider a moderate character?

[Cainhurst Crow]

Okay. Time to get back on topic.

 

If you're not an extremist that means you're not trying.

 

And if you're an extremist, it means you gave up trying at all.

[Grieving Natashina]

Okay. Time to get back on topic.

 

 

And if you're an extremist, it means you gave up trying at all.

Or that you are trying too hard.  

[Cainhurst Crow]

Also true. XD

[Fredward]

And if you're an extremist, it means you gave up trying at all.

 

That was a joke.

 

Mind you it wasn't like there wasn't any moderate options present in DA2 it was just that you weren't allowed to choose any of them.

[Grieving Natashina]

That was a joke.

 

Mind you it wasn't like there wasn't any moderate options present in DA2 it was just that you weren't allowed to choose any of them.

Ah, gotta love tone getting lost in text.  My apologizes.

 

I think that was the most frustrating part.  In a game series where I'm used to having my choices matter, I hated being railroaded into a choice between templars and mages.  Plus, since up to that point, I had been pretty engaged in the story.  I was fed up with both groups.  I wanted the choice to say, "Nope, you both are nuts," fight her/his way to the Gallows to grab Bethany, fight Meredith (like I couldn't see that coming from Act 1,) and get the hell out of that madhouse.   

 

If my choices are supposed to matter, then don't offer up a third option and then get told at the last second that you have to make a black and white choice.  I have an idea as to why the writers did it that way: It was supposed to reflect that Hawke didn't have a choice.  I think that's fair, but as a player, it was poorly done; there is supposed to be more shades of grey in Thedas and I felt let down.  It was a bait and switch that I didn't like.

[Xilizhra]

Though perhaps your right and we should have made it so that those particular choices come across as perhaps better ones to make, with respect to the goals of defeating the blight.

Why? Why would you weight things toward decisions like that?

[KainD]

Or that you are trying too hard.  

 

Or you realize that some things are just not meant to be.  

[CybAnt1]

Or when something called the Long Narrative Arc (now with Plot Drivers! ™) ******-slaps you. 

[wright1978]

Ah, gotta love tone getting lost in text.  My apologizes.

 

I think that was the most frustrating part.  In a game series where I'm used to having my choices matter, I hated being railroaded into a choice between templars and mages.  Plus, since up to that point, I had been pretty engaged in the story.  I was fed up with both groups.  I wanted the choice to say, "Nope, you both are nuts," fight her/his way to the Gallows to grab Bethany, fight Meredith (like I couldn't see that coming from Act 1,) and get the hell out of that madhouse.   

 

If my choices are supposed to matter, then don't offer up a third option and then get told at the last second that you have to make a black and white choice.  I have an idea as to why the writers did it that way: It was supposed to reflect that Hawke didn't have a choice.  I think that's fair, but as a player, it was poorly done; there is supposed to be more shades of grey in Thedas and I felt let down.  It was a bait and switch that I didn't like.

 

Agree there's often i get to the end of DA2 i'm only making a choice because the game won't let me throw up my hands and go 'a plague on both your houses'.

I think at the very least it could have been set up differently so even if the player just wants to cut and run, Meredith turns the might of the templars against them for not backing her. It would in reality be akin to siding with mages(therefore little resource impact) but at least there would be the illusion that it is out of necessity rather than out of support of the mage cause.

[Aremce]

^ Oh yes - the DA2 endgame choice still annoys me, even though I understand why it was done this way ... I just wanted to tell Meredith and Orsino to shut up and settle their stupid fight on the spot - instead of letting their people and the whole city burn.

 

Please, if there are conflicts like this again - let the PC have the option to refuse to join sides! This doesn't have to be an "ideal" solution. I would be totally okay if it results in loosing both sides as allies, leading to harder battles, or some other form of penalty. I just prefer to have more than two options.

[Cainhurst Crow]

That was a joke.
 
Mind you it wasn't like there wasn't any moderate options present in DA2 it was just that you weren't allowed to choose any of them.

Sorry bout that then.

[AresKeith]

Why? Why would you weight things toward decisions like that?

 

Because sometimes you have to

[EmissaryofLies]

Apparently the good Knight Captain Cullen is moderate. At least that's what immediately came to mind when I heard him talking about weapons and 'these aren't people' and all but endorsing the final solution. 

 

But as I said earlier. Moderates don't matter unless you give 'em teeth. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Why? Why would you weight things toward decisions like that?

 

Why not?

 

If there's clearly better, more optimal solutions, perhaps we didn't execute as well as we could have?

[Master Warder Z_]

I don't think either pragmatism nor practicality are necessarily exempt from extreme takes.

 

Very True!

 

Both are merely labels just as extremism is one i grant you.

 

The entire matter boils down to personal perspective, or rather the PC perspective you view said events from; Are you willing to cross certain moral boundaries or no complete a goal or complete it with more alacrity or more completely then otherwise. Do you view morality, and thus extremism or the view of said actions being called immoral or extreme by others to be more important then moving towards your ultimate goal?

 

I personally think that the PC ultimately is the arbiter of whether or not they commit themselves to being completely for the goal of the moment or commiting themselves to a set bound of morals and trying to stick with it no matter what. But in the case of the Wardens combating a blight, that isn't as say cut and dry as merely deciding whether or not to release a captive demon in exchange for a reward even knowing it will likely wreak havoc down the line.

 

You are combating the very real threat of complete destruction of Humanity and its cousin races, Where is the line, the morality for combating such a total and nonrestrictive universal threat? Personally i find the debate of Warden Morality fascinating given that, to me? Personally mind you, not necessarily my PC. There isn't a price too high to pay for the continuation of life.

[Xilizhra]

Why not?

 

If there's clearly better, more optimal solutions, perhaps we didn't execute as well as we could have?

Different people will have different optimal solutions. Many here, for instance, ride high on racism boners and find that slaughtering elves is a good end in and of itself. Some directly want Isolde dead, or will Annul Circles because they think mages bring everything on themselves. It's no failure of storytelling to have one option that's viewed as most commonly optimal, as you'll still always have different opinions regarding it.

 

You are combating the very real threat of complete destruction of Humanity and its cousin races, Where is the line, the morality for combating such a total and nonrestrictive universal threat? Personally i find the debate of Warden Morality fascinating given that, to me? Personally mind you, not necessarily my PC. There isn't a price too high to pay for the continuation of life.

The line of morality is what's necessary, as opposed to what's expedient.

[Master Warder Z_]

The line of morality is what's necessary, as opposed to what's expedient.

 

But how can you determine such with out metaknowledge?

 

You cannot, You have a field commanders view for the fifth Blight.

 

Is morality a luxury you can afford?

[Xilizhra]

But how can you determine such with out metaknowledge?

 

You cannot, You have a field commanders view for the fifth Blight.

 

Is morality a luxury you can afford?

The moral choice is almost always the most efficacious for the major choices, for reasons I mentioned earlier. Even without metaknowledge.