115 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

You need choices to fall all along the moral spectrum.  If they all the same shade of grey, then they lack meaningful difference.

Wrong. Because the moral spectrum is not one-dimensional. Everyone's value hierarchy is a little different, and values can come into conflict within one person. The only way they could be meaningless if, say, choice 1 resulted in a random group of people dying, choice 2 resulted in another random group of people of the same size dying, and nothing else was different.

[Ieldra]

I have almost never encountered a supposedly "morally ambiguous" dilemma in which I was unable to see the clearly correct path.
 
But since spending even a minute on this forum demonstrates that not everyone agrees with me about the clearly correct path, clearly the choices Bioware offers aren't as "black and white" as you claim.

An interesting response. What about this variation: I have almost never encoutered a dilemma where I wasn't emotionally drawn to one path. However, I would never presume to judge one path the "correct" one on a sentiment alone and in fact, often end up choosing the opposite. So I maintain that there can be conflict within one person about what is the correct path or not, or if there even is one.

[Thomas Andresen]

Wrong. Because the moral spectrum is not one-dimensional. Everyone's value hierarchy is a little different, and values can come into conflict within one person. The only way they could be meaningless if, say, choice 1 resulted in a random group of people dying, choice 2 resulted in another random group of people of the same size dying, and nothing else was different.

If by random you mean that in the truest sense of the word, then yes. I agree. I don't really see any game doing that, however.

Interestingly, even in the Star Wars setting, there is moral ambiguity. Or at least, what is "morally right" isn't always based on what the choice will lead to, but more about the principles and ideals you hold on to.

[Ieldra]

If by random you mean that in the truest sense of the word, then yes. I agree. I don't really see any game doing that, however. [1]

Interestingly, even in the Star Wars setting, there is moral ambiguity. Or at least, what is "morally right" isn't always based on what the choice will lead to, but more about the principles and ideals you hold on to. [2]

ad [1]: Which was exactly the point. As a rule, morally ambiguous choices we find in games are not meaningless.
ad [2]: That's the classical conflict between deontology and consequentialism. Do actions themselves and the principles and ideals they represent determine what's good or do outcomes? Are there things like "intangible evil"? Yet, it is implied in Star Wars that acting against certain ideals will ultimately result in more tangible evil down the road, so it is not neutral.

[Sir DeLoria]

Hmm, the Rannoch and Tuchanka questlines in ME3 were a clear case of grey vs gray(a ton of bad writing there, but still). I don't see why they shouldn't be able to pull it off again.

[Thomas Andresen]

Yet, it is implied in Star Wars that acting against certain ideals will ultimately result in more tangible evil down the road, so it is not neutral.

Though off-topic; there is an argument to be made on the nature of the dark side of the Force, which is very much real to Force users. I think the conversations with Bastilla Shan in KotOR on specifically this topic is especially interesting.

More on-topic, the way I see it, moral ambiguity comes when I face decisions to the effect of "how much will you sacrifice to maintain your ideals and principles," and "which of your principles and ideals are you willing to sacrifice to achieve your goals."

[DarthLaxian]

Bio can try and write grey choices. But to some people some choices will be black and white. Personal priorities and logic comes into play.

 

A clear choice for me might be a difficult moral dilemma for you.

 

that said...yes, less "perfect golden solutions" please.

indeed.

 

For me it is like this:

 

I will find out which outcome I like best (through re-playing - and maybe even re-loading, if I don't like the outcome of the choice I made!) and probably stick to it for all future re-plays (i don't "roleplay" as in: this time I am playing a character who is a "**** you" kind of guy, so I will screw everyone over this time *laughs in an evil way* or something, no I am always me and I insert myself and my morals into the game!)

 

Unless it is something really really ambiguous like the Anvil of the Void, were I had decided that from a moral point of view, that destroying it is the only "good" choice...now however, after seeing how desperate the dwarfs are (their society is dying a slow death in my oppinion!) and how much a single war-golem can do, I changed my mind and now think that destroying it is wrong (yes, it can be - and it was - abused, but as a means of helping a dying people, I just can't destroy it anymore, as the thing might tip the balance for the dwarfs!)

 

Still, I love choices were the rewards are "equal" (so that there is no "golden" option (note: but not all the time, choices with a "golden" option spice it up, too - even more if you have to be at the top of your game to get said choice(s)) and you have to decide by yourself wich you think is best!)

 

greetings LAX

[Darth Krytie]

Execution aside, there are a fair amount of decisions you have to make based one of the most central of morally ambiguous questions DA poses: What do you do when one segment of the society poses a great potential danger simply by existing.

 

I think it depends on the situation. What I'd rather are options that allow you to continue along whatever your character's morality is...I don't want to be forced to choose options counter to my PC's morality too often.  Killing all the things might be the morally correct choice if your character is a kill all the things sort of person.

 

Say for instance in On the Loose...no matter if you were a templar supporter or a mage supporter, you were forced to kill two of the three mages. If my PC is a mage supporter, a fervent one, I think there should have been an option to aid in their escape instead of forcing a confrontation that allowed those two mages to commit unconscionable acts.

 

That's the most important thing...fidelity to the PC's morality instead of too many situations where you have to pick from a few equally counter-to-your-morality choices.

[Thomas Andresen]

Say for instance in On the Loose...no matter if you were a templar supporter or a mage supporter, you were forced to kill two of the three mages. If my PC is a mage supporter, a fervent one, I think there should have been an option to aid in their escape instead of forcing a confrontation that allowed those two mages to commit unconscionable acts.

The way I see it, the mages in question were the ones dictating the outcome, not Hawke. I'd have had a problem with the quest if it wasn't for the third mage(ignoring just how pathetic the boy was), that you actually could help.

That's the most important thing...fidelity to the PC's morality instead of too many situations where you have to pick from a few equally counter-to-your-morality choices.

That's rather difficult though, considering how the player character's morality can change a lot depending on who's playing. Some people, myself included, sometimes at least, play characters whose morality doesn't match their own at all, for the better or worse. (That said, I did find it surprisingly hard to play a pro-circle Hawke, not because of what the game allowed me to, but rather how I generally feel about magic, in any fantasy setting. Never mind a pro-chantry Hawke, or even warden, but I digress.)

[Darth Krytie]

The way I see it, the mages in question were the ones dictating the outcome, not Hawke. I'd have had a problem with the quest if it wasn't for the third mage(ignoring just how pathetic the boy was), that you actually could help.

__

That's rather difficult though, considering how the player character's morality can change a lot depending on who's playing. Some people, myself included, sometimes at least, play characters whose morality doesn't match their own at all, for the better or worse. (That said, I did find it surprisingly hard to play a pro-circle Hawke, not because of what the game allowed me to, but rather how I generally feel about magic, in any fantasy setting. Never mind a pro-chantry Hawke, or even warden, but I digress.)

 

Oh, I know they forced the issue and I didn't have a problem killing them...it was more that a very pro-mage Hawke didn't have a preemptive way of helping them instead of having the mages immediately resort to blood magic.

 

I know it can't account for every morality...but if the game fosters a morality--which the games do foster an ability to be pro-mage, anti-circle, then there should be decisions that allow you to bear that out without it always going horribly wrong.

[KainD]

Well I wanted to support Tyrohne, where was that option? I felt ridiculous disconnect at that point, as well as when I was forced to complete any quests what so ever for Meredith or the Qunari. 

[Thomas Andresen]

I know it can't account for every morality...but if the game fosters a morality--which the games do foster an ability to be pro-mage, anti-circle, then there should be decisions that allow you to bear that out without it always going horribly wrong.

I must admit, I'm a bit confused now. Are we conflating morality with opinions? I say "we" because my own post might have been a bit ambiguous like that.

[Darth Krytie]

I must admit, I'm a bit confused now. Are we conflating morality with opinions? I say "we" because my own post might have been a bit ambiguous like that.

 

I meant morality. In as such, the game fosters through dialogue and action the ability to be lawful or a bit more mercenary. (As well as others) But it doesn't really allow for complete sociopathy.

 

If your character is allowed to morally consider that certain things are wrong, then a majority of the actions you're allowed to take should reflect it.

 

If your character is allowed to be morally-bankrupt, there should be choices that you're allowed to pick that reflect that.

[KainD]

Are we conflating morality with opinions?

 

Morality is an opinion. 

[TheJediSaint]

Wrong. Because the moral spectrum is not one-dimensional. Everyone's value hierarchy is a little different, and values can come into conflict within one person. The only way they could be meaningless if, say, choice 1 resulted in a random group of people dying, choice 2 resulted in another random group of people of the same size dying, and nothing else was different.

 

 

I never said the moral spectrum is one-dimensional. What is one-dimensional is moral greyness for the sake of it.  Choices should be morally complex, each with clear pros and cons.  

[Thomas Andresen]

Morality is an opinion.

I'm having some problem accepting this. Especially the singular article.

I'd be inclined to agree morality is based on opinions, at least in the sense that I'm using the word. See:
 

(countable) A set of personal guiding principles for conduct or a general notion of how to behave, whether respectable or not.  
1781, Samuel Johnson, "Sheffield" in Lives of the Poets:
His morality was such as naturally proceeds from loose opinions.
1994, "Man Convicted of Murder in '92 Bludgeoning," San Jose Mercury News, 4 Nov., p. 2B:
Deputy District Attorney Bill Tingle called Jones "the devil's right-hand man" and said he should be punished for his "atrocious morality."

[KainD]

I'm having some problem accepting this. Especially the singular article.

I'd be inclined to agree morality is based on opinions, at least in the sense that I'm using the word. See:
 

A set of personal guiding principles for conduct or a general notion of how to behave, whether respectable or not.  

 

Yeah, everybody has an opinion on how they themselves or someone else should behave, and that's their morality. 

[Divine Justinia V]

The morally difficult decisions can be quite interesting, like sparing Avernus because of the value of his research against the darkspawn.

 

tbh I would have spared him anyway

[KainD]

tbh I would have spared him anyway

 

His just such a nice fellow, why would anyone ever want to hurt him?

[Swoopdogg]

Actually I feel the previous games have had plenty of "grey" options, it is just that initially you might not view them that way.  

 

• Choosing Bhelen or Harrowmount.   You know the former is likely to become a dictator but, as Zevran points out, the latter seems too weak to be a leader if he cannot even maintain the loyalty of his own soldiers and has to get an outsider to fight for him.   Bhelen is for change and greater contact with the outside world, Harrowmount is for tradition and remaining isolated.    Even the epilogue leaves you wondering whether the choice you made was better than the alternative.
• Choosing to spare Loghain.   Much might depend on your character's origins and relationship with Alistair, particularly if you didn't have the Return to Ostagar DLC, but if your character can justify this, then actually it almost becomes the "golden option" since he will volunteer to make the sacrifice, so you can keep the Warden and Alistair alive and refuse Morrigan.   At the end Alistair, as king, even grudgingly admits that may be you made the right call.   However, you only discover this at the end.   At the time it can seem like you are just a ruthless opportunist, particularly if you are male and planning on marrying Anora and becoming king yourself.
• Agreeing or refusing the ritual.   There are valid arguments for either course of action.   Again, much will depend on your particular Warden but definitely a "grey" decision.
• Sparing or killing the Architect.   Since I hadn't read the Calling, I didn't know what his previous actions had been.   An argument for not reading the books prior to playing the game.   Still, the Grey Wardens were apparently appalled if you spare him, so they at least thing it is a bad thing but he seemed to give a very reasoned argument for why you should not, so to my mind it is another "grey" area.
• There were less obviously "grey" areas in DA2, at least so far as I was concerned.   I had steadfastly maintained neutrality on the mage/Templar issue until Act 3, only to be forced into taking sides.   Since I don't believe people should be punished for something they didn't do, I invariably backed the mages, apart from once when I did the opposite, just to see what difference it would make - as it turned out precious little.

These are just a few examples, but I'd say I was pretty happy with the balance of the choices as presented in Origins.  

• The Connor choice might have seemed less black/white if by delaying dealing with the issue, more people in the village died.   On the face of it, you did seem to be taking one hell of a chance that Isolde and Teagan could keep Connor under control until you got back with mages from the Circle, particularly if you hadn't been to the Circle first, so you would have heard rumours of trouble there and then when you get there, you are delayed while you deal with the problem.    So this was an example of a "golden choice" because by taking the least logical option/chance, you got the optimal outcome.

Where I feel happier with a black/white breakdown is in the final ending.   I am an old fashioned fantasy gamer who likes to see good triumph over evil.     

 

In Origins the ultimate aim was to destroy the Archdemon and defeat the darkspawn - nice and clear cut.   

 

Then in Awakening we are introduced to the Architect and intelligent darkspawn and it becomes less so.

 

In DA2 I echoed Varric at the end: "I'm sick of mages and Templars".   My supposed ally blew up a public building, the surviving authority figure sought revenge on all mages, not just the one responsible for the act, the First Enchanter went nuts for no good reason (since I had just saved the mages with him), and finally Meredith was revealed as a steaming great hypocrite and insane to boot.   I suppose you could call that "grey".

 

I would also draw attention to the controversy over the ending choices to ME3.   There was no black/white choice there but only varying shades of grey (no matter what the colour system seemed to suggest) and look how people responded to that.   Would you really want the same at the end of Inquisition?

Within the game, I'd like to have many "grey" decisions, but, yes, when it comes to the ending, I want to have a clear-cut black and white decision so I know I'm saving the world. That's why I said I'd like a mix of both.

 

You bring up many interesting points, and I agree with you on most of them.

 

I actually liked the ME3 endings, because they did seem more morally grey than the rest of the trilogy, and I was satisfied with picking the outcome I picked simply out of self-justification. But, in retrospect, I would have much preferred a clearer moral line.

 

But, as I said, throughout the course of the game itself, grey choices bring an out-of-combat intensity that many games don't have.

[Swoopdogg]

I have almost never encountered a supposedly "morally ambiguous" dilemma in which I was unable to see the clearly correct path.

Have you ever played the Witcher 2? I hate to bring it into the discussion, because I know there are people who hate when it and DA get compared

 

But, at the end of the first act of the game, you have to make a decision between who's side to take

 

On the one hand, you can go with a human-hating terrorist who can sleep at night even after murdering whole villages of people. Seems bad, but he happens to be fighting for freedom and the equal treatment of elves and dwarves, two severely repressed groups.

 

On the other hand, you can side with your cool best friend who isn't nearly as crazy or bloodthirsty. Problem is, he's siding with a tyrannical butthole who wants to take over another kingdom and repress its people.

 

There's your moral dilemma.

 

I tend to think through my decisions carefully, giving thought to every outcome. Not every gamer is the same way, and I respect that.

[dragonflight288]

Have you ever played the Witcher 2? I hate to bring it into the discussion, because I know there are people who hate when it and DA get compared

 

But, at the end of the first act of the game, you have to make a decision between who's side to take

 

On the one hand, you can go with a human-hating terrorist who can sleep at night even after murdering whole villages of people. Seems bad, but he happens to be fighting for freedom and the equal treatment of elves and dwarves, two severely repressed groups.

 

On the other hand, you can side with your cool best friend who isn't nearly as crazy or bloodthirsty. Problem is, he's siding with a tyrannical butthole who wants to take over another kingdom and repress its people.

 

There's your moral dilemma.

 

I tend to think through my decisions carefully, giving thought to every outcome. Not every gamer is the same way, and I respect that.

 

The problem with the Witcher 2 analogy here is that you don't know that Roche is going to support the King of another country, whereas Iorvith at least gives you a hint that he's going to go back someone who he feels deserves the crown as it would bring equality to the races. Roche mainly saves your life at the beginning and is working to avenge his murdered king, solve a murder and has no problem getting his hands dirty to do so.

 

Both are good in their own way, but you don't know at the time you side with Roche how things'll go down. 

[LobselVith8]

His just such a nice fellow, why would anyone ever want to hurt him?

His research made all the difference to me.

My Warden encouraged him to pursue his invaluable research because of the potential that it offered to give the order a weapon against the greatest threat to all sentient life on Thedas; given the severity of the threat posed by the darkspawn, I played my protagonist as pragmatic.

Hoping Inquisition also offers interesting choices for the Inquisitor.

[Spectre Impersonator]

Stabbing Anders in the neck was a bit morally grey to me. He deserved to die for what he'd done but he could also make himself useful in some way to atone.

[dragonflight288]

Stabbing Anders in the neck was a bit morally grey to me. He deserved to die for what he'd done but he could also make himself useful in some way to atone.

 

I would've preferred to send him back to the Wardens, or send him to the Deep Roads for his Calling, but 9/10 times I usually kill him as it is 'justice.'