13 réponses à ce sujet

[Yemeth]

Malcolm Reynolds kicking his enemy into the Starhip's engine when he originally wanted to let him roam free, but the enemy promised to hunt him down. Han Solo shooting Greedo under the table. The Warden killing the bandits on the bridge to Lothering because they only stood down when faced with a superior force.

 

All examples of renegade actions (in Mass Effect terms) that were the right actions at that point in time. While I like the morality system in the ME series (and the DA series to an extent), it is often the paragon actions that are the "right" actions to pick. Renegade actions are more often expressions of a character who operates through force to achieve his goals. Almost never did I pick a renegade action because I had actually been provoked (exception: Han'Gerrel firing at the Geth Dreadnought) or because it was the right course of action (exception: the Warden on the bridge to Lothering).

 

What I suggest is to implement more situations where the character would later (or immediately) be punished for being naive, or where he could demonstrate strength or aggressiveness without being the aggressor. 

 

In the ME series, you could mainly play as a nice, helpful person or an aggressive brute, but what was (mostly) lacking was some sort of middle ground - the pragmatist who does what is necessary and shows no weakness when threatened. It would be great to see some of this in DA:I (and also the upcoming ME).

[Kimarous]

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished, huh? I hate that mentality. Assumes Good Is Dumb. No, Dumb is Dumb, regardless of alignment.

 

Using the bandits at Lothering was a bad example. I was playing a generally "Paragon" Warden and I still killed them even though they would have stood down. Why? Because they're bandits and they would have caused problems for others, even if they didn't inconvenience me! Surprise surprise, this proved out to be a good choice, because a templar wanted them cleared out anyway, and it allowed a family to attempt to recover what the bandits had stolen from them.

 

Pragmatism =/= renegade. There is plenty of room to demonstrate that Good Is Not Soft, Not Dumb, or even Not Nice. One of the great things of Dragon Age is that there is no singular morality bar to judge whether or not pragmatism is "bad" or not.

 

Also, what the heck does "demonstrate strength or aggressiveness without being the aggressor" even mean?

[Zazzerka]

Also, what the heck does "demonstrate strength or aggressiveness without being the aggressor" even mean?

 

"You see my gun. Do you really wanna do this?"

 

That's what I thought of, anyway.

[Kimarous]

"You see my gun. Do you really wanna do this?"

 

That's what I thought of, anyway.

 

So in other words, "demonstrate strength or aggressiveness without being the aggressor" is just a really wordy way of saying "provide intimidation options"?

[Zazzerka]

I suppose so, but intimidation in response to a threat, rather than just using it to extort extra silver.

[Yemeth]

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished, huh? I hate that mentality. Assumes Good Is Dumb. No, Dumb is Dumb, regardless of alignment.

 

Using the bandits at Lothering was a bad example. I was playing a generally "Paragon" Warden and I still killed them even though they would have stood down. Why? Because they're bandits and they would have caused problems for others, even if they didn't inconvenience me! Surprise surprise, this proved out to be a good choice, because a templar wanted them cleared out anyway, and it allowed a family to attempt to recover what the bandits had stolen from them.

 

Pragmatism =/= renegade. There is plenty of room to demonstrate that Good Is Not Soft, Not Dumb, or even Not Nice. One of the great things of Dragon Age is that there is no singular morality bar to judge whether or not pragmatism is "bad" or not.

 

Also, what the heck does "demonstrate strength or aggressiveness without being the aggressor" even mean?

 

No good deed goes unpunished - absolutely not what I was getting at. No good deed towards the wrong faction goes unpunished, yes. You played the same character as I did, obviously, and by the same reasoning as mine you killed those bandits. What I was saying is that we need more of those situations - where you need to pull the trigger to protect others or yourself (perform a "renegade action" for a "paragon" outcome) like you did there. I want my paragon character to be forced into situations where he must pull the trigger or suffer the consequences, for himself or for others. Like you did in Lothering.

 

Otherwise, Zazzerka got it right.

[Jack Druthers]

In that example, maybe what could have been another option was if the bandits were not attacked, but  ran off or just stopped extorting people, they could have still been in the area and been there to help against the Darkspawn.  You had groups of these guys outside a village with no real defences.  Both the bandits and templars could have provided more time for people to escape.  So in a way I'm advocating a knock on effect rather than punishing decisions.

[Wulfram]

I don't think too many of the game's decisions should be arranged around a Paragon/Renegade dichotomy.  Because it assumes both choices are looking for the same ultimate aim, it becomes too zero-sum - Renegades can only be vindicated by the failure of Paragons.  I'd rather have choices where the ends are different, and neither are inherently Paragon or Renegade.

[Fast Jimmy]

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished, huh? I hate that mentality. Assumes Good Is Dumb. No, Dumb is Dumb, regardless of alignment.

Yes, but saying Good can never be Dumb is naive. Bioware games are riddled with examples where any route other than Paragon/Diplomatic/Good is the foolish one.

The OP isn't asking for every good deed to lead to ruin. Just more than the tiniest handful of them to have an assertive, non-passive manner of resolution be the best way of dealing with things. For a genre that has your player being a mass murderer in gameplay, it really is silly that anytime you are given a choice of saving someone's life, even an enemy's, is always the best (or at least equally balanced) option. Rarely beyond measure does it come back to bite you in the end. Which is silly.

[Maclimes]

Yes, but saying Good can never be Dumb is naive. Bioware games are riddled with examples where any route other than Paragon/Diplomatic/Good is the foolish one.

 

This is why I LOVED the Orzammar questline/epilogue for DA:O. Arguably, the "paragon" option was Harrowmont, while the "renegade" option was Bhelen.

 

But choosing Harrowmont ended with Orzammar becoming more cut off from the world and stagnating, while Bhelen expanded surface trade and brought Orzammar into the world at large.

 

Soo... what was the right choice? There was no "right choice" at all. Both had their ups and downs. It was very grey. (Unlike the Brecilian Forest questline, which most definitly had a "correct" solution).

[Fast Jimmy]

Exactly! Orzammar choices, all the live long day. The fact that people still debate Bhelen/Harrowmont shows how good of a choice it was.

[Wulfram]

If you go by the epilogues, there is no ambiguity.  Bhelen is the right choice, Harrowmont is just useless.  Debate happens because those outcomes are wholly disconnected from what we're presented in the game

[Fast Jimmy]

Depends on what you call useless. Bhelen openly courts war with the surface in certain outcomes. Harrowmont being mired by the Assembly at least prevents that from happening. Then again, you can have a prosperous Bhelen outcome and an outcome where Harrowmont brutally wipes out every living person in Dusttown. Which is even better - the fact that the choice has degrees of variety not based on just one choice make it a great setup.

[Yemeth]

Yes, but saying Good can never be Dumb is naive. Bioware games are riddled with examples where any route other than Paragon/Diplomatic/Good is the foolish one.

The OP isn't asking for every good deed to lead to ruin. Just more than the tiniest handful of them to have an assertive, non-passive manner of resolution be the best way of dealing with things. For a genre that has your player being a mass murderer in gameplay, it really is silly that anytime you are given a choice of saving someone's life, even an enemy's, is always the best (or at least equally balanced) option. Rarely beyond measure does it come back to bite you in the end. Which is silly.

Correct - it would be great if you could play a "badass paragon" instead of an overly diplomatic paragon or renegade jerk. Renegade actions are too often inherently negative because they are unnecessary and gratuitous, that's what my post was all about.