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 think in part it depends on what kind of character you're playing. A Warrior or Rogue Hawke who has Bethany in the circle would have more reason for killing Anders than a Mage Hawke who has Carver in the Grey Wardens, for example.
If every option has a both good and bad sides, then that's the definition of grey, as opposed to black and white, where one option monopolizes the good and the other the bad.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.
If every option has a both good and bad sides, then that's the definition of grey, as opposed to black and white, where one option monopolizes the good and the other the bad.
For example, if you play Overlord 2, everything you do is simply evil. There is no white, or even grey. You are either enslaving everyone or killing everyone to build your own kingdom. There is no good about it.
Or in Legend of Zelda, it's all 'good' choices. You have no choice but to fight to save the world and to try and help people. (Although I haven't played the newer Zelda games.)
Given that different people will find different things morally ambiguous, I'd rather DAI aim to have a variety of moral dilemmas that may or may not be seen as ambiguous rather than aim for moral ambiguity without that diversity. At least then they'd be more likely to hit more types of ambiguity.
The most common moral delimmas in Bioware games focus around The Greater Good. Generally they pose a question of 'is it better for a few to suffer to benefit more.' It may play with the degrees of harm or risk, but they tend to follow that pattern. Kill one in the name of protecting a hundred more.
That's too limited. Besides the fact that such security dilemmas were frequently subverted by never having a consequence be payed (see- Paragon risk-taking in the ME trilogy), that type of delimma is pretty unambiguous to someone who follows a greater good morality, someone who would always pick the many over the few. You could muddle the water by making the costs speculative and potential rather than immediate, but that's just changing the cost calculus rather than the moral delimma itself.
You can have different sorts of delimmas that test different sorts of morality. The Geth Heretic choice, for example, was always going to functionally commit genocide against Heretic Geth. The Collector Base decision pitted 'tainted' technology against potential gains in the hands of untrustworthy people. The Dwarven King crisis pitted two different aspirants for the Dwarven throne. The Old God Baby was about faith in a companion.
Not all of these were hard for everyone- but they provided more chances to be challenged in different ways.
Given that different people will find different things morally ambiguous, I'd rather DAI aim to have a variety of moral dilemmas that may or may not be seen as ambiguous rather than aim for moral ambiguity without that diversity. At least then they'd be more likely to hit more types of ambiguity.
The most common moral delimmas in Bioware games focus around The Greater Good. Generally they pose a question of 'is it better for a few to suffer to benefit more.' It may play with the degrees of harm or risk, but they tend to follow that pattern. Kill one in the name of protecting a hundred more.
That's too limited. Besides the fact that such security dilemmas were frequently subverted by never having a consequence be payed (see- Paragon risk-taking in the ME trilogy), that type of delimma is pretty unambiguous to someone who follows a greater good morality, someone who would always pick the many over the few. You could muddle the water by making the costs speculative and potential rather than immediate, but that's just changing the cost calculus rather than the moral delimma itself.
You can have different sorts of delimmas that test different sorts of morality. The Geth Heretic choice, for example, was always going to functionally commit genocide against Heretic Geth. The Collector Base decision pitted 'tainted' technology against potential gains in the hands of untrustworthy people. The Dwarven King crisis pitted two different aspirants for the Dwarven throne. The Old God Baby was about faith in a companion.
Not all of these were hard for everyone- but they provided more chances to be challenged in different ways.
I think a good example is Rana from ME1 at Virmire. If you let her live (the paragon choice), it turns out she's indoctrinated in ME3 (you read about it in an article.) The only problem is it lacks teeth, because iirc, it doesn't lower your war assets.
But something like that...where the good-person decision ends up having a negative result would be interesting.
Like, you encounter Templars corralling a blood mage. You're given dialogue from each: Templars claim this person is a blood mage. Blood mage claims they've never done anything wrong. It could seem that freeing the blood mage is the right option, but perhaps later, if you do, they turn into an abomination and kill fifty people. Stuff like that might make decisions you make more weighty.
I think a good example is Rana from ME1 at Virmire. If you let her live (the paragon choice), it turns out she's indoctrinated in ME3 (you read about it in an article.) The only problem is it lacks teeth, because iirc, it doesn't lower your war assets.
But something like that...where the good-person decision ends up having a negative result would be interesting.
Like, you encounter Templars corralling a blood mage. You're given dialogue from each: Templars claim this person is a blood mage. Blood mage claims they've never done anything wrong. It could seem that freeing the blood mage is the right option, but perhaps later, if you do, they turn into an abomination and kill fifty people. Stuff like that might make decisions you make more weighty.
And how freeing walking unstable nuke is right decision?
And how freeing walking unstable nuke is right decision?
It depends on if you think a blood mage is an inherent danger. Given that your character could potentially be a blood mage, it's not a black or white option.
It depends on if you think a blood mage is an inherent danger. Given that your character could potentially be a blood mage, it's not a black or white option.
Well so what that you are blood mage? You are stable he may not be so by that he is danger to you and your goals killing him prevent possible damage and well it costs nothing.And pretty much there is rule in da that every person that played in previous game should know if there is mage and someone claims that it is blood mage it is blood mage.
Besides devs did everything they could to put blood magic and blood mages into black morality territory.
Well so what that you are blood mage? You are stable he may not be so by that he is danger to you and your goals killing him prevent possible damage and well it costs nothing.
Besides devs did everything they could to put blood magic and blood mages into black morality territory.
Then it was a poor example. Chillax, bro.
Over the course of Origins and Awakening, my Wardens tend to shift from an idealist to a more pragmatist approach, getting increasingly more grey as time passed, which I felt was a natural progression of how their character would change given all they experienced.
While they destroyed the Anvil, they spared Avernus and the Architect, believing that both their research into the Taint could prove ultimately beneficial for the Wardens and perhaps slow or even halt the Taint entirely, while giving sentience to the Darkspawn turns them from a mindless horde to rational creatures who might be willing to broker a peace.
It's a dangerous gamble, but perhaps an act of faith on the Warden's part might be enough to convince the awakened Darkspawn that every non-Darkspawn doesn't necessarily have to be the enemy?
Then it was a poor example. Chillax, bro.
Im calm so well...
on topic
As i im not very moral person and i see dumb decisions and smart decisions not good or evil and choose smart i don't care about morality what i hate is only dumb decisions for sake grey and grey morality.To be honest i don't know why dai won't allow us torture other for informations and i assume others effective but not accepted by society (our) won't be allowed as well shame...
And i rly hope that i won't be forced into paragon and renegade and can go toward black morality in fiction...
Personally, I like a mix of both, but I do find the grey decisions to be more intense and thus interesting, as it forces me to decide for myself which choice is the right one.You always have to decide that for yourself. And if you understand your own moral positions, none of these decisions should ever be difficult.
Im calm so well...
on topic
As i im not very moral person and i see dumb decisions and smart decisions not good or evil and choose smart i don't care about morality what i hate is only dumb decisions for sake grey and grey morality.To be honest i don't know why dai won't allow us torture other for informations and i assume others effective but not accepted by society (our) won't be allowed as well shame...
And i rly hope that i won't be forced into paragon and renegade and can go toward black morality in fiction...
You just came across....very intensely.
I rarely find that DA offers truly evil choices at all. Mainly, they have idealistic options and then more pragmatic ones. Sometimes, they toss in a few that are primarily self-serving.
You just came across....very intensely.
I rarely find that DA offers truly evil choices at all. Mainly, they have idealistic options and then more pragmatic ones. Sometimes, they toss in a few that are primarily self-serving.
I don't know why peoples tend think that it isn't that i use caps.
Well we had that in dao when it was still decent rpg with choices sadly with da 2 they decided they should turn dragon age into dragon effect with defined protagonist that can be created in 3 only ways... something like paragon shepard and renegade shepard with 3 new option...
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.
To be fair, the darkspawn aren't THAT big of a threat.
All the blights so far have been stopped. Some very fast.
Compared to the reapers, the darkspawn are "meh".
So I wouldn't call it so big of a threat that EVERYTHING is justified to fight it.
Besides devs did everything they could to put blood magic and blood mages into black morality territory.
Technically the Joining Ritual is a form of Blood Magic and we saw Malcolm Hawke (and later Hawke) use a form of it to break the seals in Legacy. Fallstick from the Dragon Age comic (if it's canon) is another good example of a creepy looking, yet utterly benevolent Blood Mage. The trailer version of Hawke in DA2 was also depicted as being a Blood Mage, yet used that power against the Arishok in order to save Kirkwall. Those are just some examples of what tvtropes refers to as "Bad Powers, Good People", which would include Blood Magic if used correctly.
It's really down to how it's applied and the intent behind it. I've compared it before to being like the Thedas equivalent of a nuclear weapon, something you have to be very careful if and when you ever decided to use it and hope for the most part that you wouldn't have to. Blood Magic has a lot of potential for misuse, but I don't think that being a user of it necessarily makes you automatically evil by default.
Nah.
Nah?
Power based on death and pain , attracts demons and in 98 % cases makes you insane giggling villain in 1,5 % it only makes you dumb and another 0,5 % stays unaffected
pretty much sounds like dark side...
Nah?
Power based on death and pain , attracts demons and in 98 % cases makes you insane giggling villain in 1,5 % it only makes you dumb and another 0,5 % stays unaffected
pretty much sounds like dark side...
But using the Dark Side analogy, the Star Wars Expanded Universe still gave us Light Side Sith who channel their Dark Side powers for good purposes, or Grey Jedi who flirt with the Dark Side for the greater good. They're not many and sadly haven't appeared in any movie thus far (which is a shame), but still are a concept within the universe itself.
Merrill was reckless with her Blood Magic, yes and she made a lot of poor choices, but she still (tentatively) qualifies as a "good" Blood Mage, all things considered.
PC is never frowned upon for using blood magic. there is absolutely no repercussions for using that school and he/she is never able to actually hurt someone with it.
so yeah, it's basically another skillset. very useful and no, there's nothing evil about it. Chantry propaganda, that's all there is to it.
But using the Dark Side analogy, the Star Wars Expanded Universe still gave us Light Side Sith who channel their Dark Side powers for good purposes, or Grey Jedi who flirt with the Dark Side for the greater good. They're not many and sadly haven't appeared in any movie thus far (which is a shame), but still are a concept within the universe itself.
Merrill was reckless with her Blood Magic, yes and she made a lot of poor choices, but she still (tentatively) qualifies as a "good" Blood Mage, all things considered.
Pretty much darkspide corrupts by nature and why so most sith are at best super di*** that would destroy everything for power in rare examples we have peoples like darth vader or dooku who are well-intentioned but still di***.So jedi who uses darkside won't stay "good" person for very long.
And pretty much as far only individual was sane blood mage (and he hated blood magic and used that only once) malcolm hawke in other cases as i said 98 % follow dark side rule 1,5 % are dumb like merril , jowan and alain...
PC is never frowned upon for using blood magic. there is absolutely no repercussions for using that school and he/she is never able to actually hurt someone with it.
so yeah, it's basically another skillset. very useful and no, there's nothing evil about it. Chantry propaganda, that's all there is to it.
Pc don't suffer any consequences with clasess like mage , blood mage or reaver so poor example... not to mention that blood magic is driven by pain and death and makes you even easier target for demons...
Pc don't suffer any consequences with clasess like mage , blood mage or reaver so poor example... not to mention that blood magic is driven by pain and death and makes you even easier target for demons...
that wasn't example. that was... counterexample.
you've said
devs did everything they could to put blood magic and blood mages into black morality territory.
and i disagree. they could have done much more 
life of a PC blood mage is a stroll in the park, not a single moral challange.
about pain and death... yeah.. well, none of my blood bags complained, so i find that argument invalid.
But using the Dark Side analogy, the Star Wars Expanded Universe still gave us Light Side Sith who channel their Dark Side powers for good purposes, or Grey Jedi who flirt with the Dark Side for the greater good. They're not many and sadly haven't appeared in any movie thus far (which is a shame), but still are a concept within the universe itself.
Merrill was reckless with her Blood Magic, yes and she made a lot of poor choices, but she still (tentatively) qualifies as a "good" Blood Mage, all things considered.
I don't think Merrill's choices were based off of poor logic, but rather poor information. How would one know, after all, that Marethari would succumb to Audacity's lure?
In any case, Merrill's actual blood magic only ever accomplished good things, like cleansing the Eluvian shard.
Or killing people Hawke doesn't like.
Or killing people Hawke doesn't like.
True; that technically depends on Hawke making moral decisions as well.
Retour en haut