311 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@Xil:
That I am concerned about this is an indication of how much I was burned by ME, where apart from the ending, the story is saturated with this attitude.

DA has been better, but even there elements were introduced to make pragmatic decisions more evil than they'd need to be. If I think a dangerous technology should be kept in spite of the potential for abuse, why do I have to give it to a madwoman on top of it? It connects the pragmatic with the evil in an altogether insulting message.

[snfonseka]

I prefer "shades of gray" than "black and white".

[naddaya]

I would not agree, as pragmatism can be just as subjective as idealism, and what one person calls pragmatic may not be called pragmatic by another. And I especially don't see this issue arising in Dragon Age, as virtually no bad consequence from what may have been a pragmatic decision could not have been foreseen: for instance, saving the Anvil of the Void leaves it under the control of a complete lunatic, and this fact isn't exactly hidden. To defile the Urn of Sacred Ashes has easily foreseeable consequences among your party alone. Siding with the werewolves means that they remain bestial and ill-controlled. And in DA2, no decision ever seems to have fully optimal consequences, so I don't entirely see why you're concerned with this coming into DAI.

 

Preserving the Anvil is pragmatic, leaving it to a madwoman isn't

Sadly, we had no option of trying to convince Caridin to keep the Anvil and oversee the cration of the golems, or trick him into forging the crown and then keep the Anvil for ourselves. I ended up destroying because I felt sorry for Caridin and there was no way I could trust Branka with such power (or Harrowmount/Bhelen for all that mattered).

Siding with the werewolf isn't pragmatic either to me, they were still feral and could hardly be controlled them, they still attacked the Warden and kept information from the Lady.

One could destroy the Ashes to avoid fighting the cultists, never saw a point in it myself, they were too useful to be destroyed.

The Amaranthine choice in Awakening was interesting. Burning the city seemed the most reasonable and pragmatic choice, yet both choices can have good results.

 

The only qualm I had in DAO was during the Connor situation. Taking him to the tower seemed like a good idea but we had no option of doing it, leaving him alone in the castle seemed dumb, attempting a blood magic ritual performed by a mage the Warden either 1. doesn't know, 2. knows he's Jowan. He fucks things up. Killing Connor is the saddest and the most practical solution. Even if that meant the death of Eamon, we would still have Teagan and the army of Redcliffe.

 

I liked the DA2 approach. Kirkwall was a madhouse, every action was a gamble. The Feynriel situation, taking your sibling into the deep roads, dealing with apostates.. most of the times there wasn't a clear pragmatic vs idealistic choice. I'd like things to be mixed in DAI. In real life some choices are easy to see through, in others idealism and pragmatism might overlap, sometimes you only get bad options and have to try and choose the lesser evil, sometimes you craft a great plan and everything still goes to ****.

[Jaison1986]

Preserving the Anvil is pragmatic, leaving it to a madwoman isn't

Sadly, we had no option of trying to convince Caridin to keep the Anvil and oversee the cration of the golems, or trick him into forging the crown and then keep the Anvil for ourselves. I ended up destroying because I felt sorry for Caridin and there was no way I could trust Branka with such power (or Harrowmount/Bhelen for all that mattered).

Siding with the werewolf isn't pragmatic either to me, they were still feral and could hardly be controlled them, they still attacked the Warden and kept information from the Lady.

One could destroy the Ashes to avoid fighting the cultists, never saw a point in it myself, they were too useful to be destroyed.

The Amaranthine choice in Awakening was interesting. Burning the city seemed the most reasonable and pragmatic choice, yet both choices can have good results.

 

The only qualm I had in DAO was during the Connor situation. Taking him to the tower seemed like a good idea but we had no option of doing it, leaving him alone in the castle seemed dumb, attempting a blood magic ritual performed by a mage the Warden either 1. doesn't know, 2. knows he's Jowan. He fucks things up. Killing Connor is the saddest and the most practical solution. Even if that meant the death of Eamon, we would still have Teagan and the army of Redcliffe.

 

I liked the DA2 approach. Kirkwall was a madhouse, every action was a gamble. The Feynriel situation, taking your sibling into the deep roads, dealing with apostates.. most of the times there wasn't a clear pragmatic vs idealistic choice. I'd like things to be mixed in DAI. In real life some choices are easy to see through, in others idealism and pragmatism might overlap, sometimes you only get bad options and have to try and choose the lesser evil, sometimes you craft a great plan and everything still goes to ****.

 

I actually disliked Caridin, he seemed to me like those kind of people that try to guilty trip you into doing their bidding. So I killed him and convinced Branka to destroy the Anvil. I would have preserved it however, if I had the option to give the Anvil to someone more sensible. Not to mention I will not force Oghren to kill his wife just because some giant metal statue told me to.

I left the ashes as an secret because even though they are useful, the Chantry would never allow people to benefit from them, not to mention the number of people saved would be highly limited. By the end of the day it would be nothing but an tool to cater more people to the Chantry worship.

I'm hoping that DAI will have more morally grey options like Orzammar for example, were trying to be an goody two shoes isn't exactly the smart option. Were the player use their wits rather then their emotions.

[Ieldra]

There was the same tendency to marry the pragmatic with the evil in ME, namely in the Collector Base decision. Quite obviously there was a huge potential for abuse if you saved it, but you'd need to be a principles zealot to see any evil in the action itself. Yet the story appeared to insist that you should see it as evil, and reinforced that by forcing you to give it to man you could be pretty sure would abuse it.

[naddaya]

I actually disliked Caridin, he seemed to me like those kind of people that try to guilty trip you into doing their bidding. So I killed him and convinced Branka to destroy the Anvil. I would have preserved it however, if I had the option to give the Anvil to someone more sensible. Not to mention I will not force Oghren to kill his wife just because some giant metal statue told me to.

I left the ashes as an secret because even though they are useful, the Chantry would never allow people to benefit from them, not to mention the number of people saved would be highly limited. By the end of the day it would be nothing but an tool to cater more people to the Chantry worship.

I'm hoping that DAI will have more morally grey options like Orzammar for example, were trying to be an goody two shoes isn't exactly the smart option. Were the player use their wits rather then their emotions.

You can convince Branka to destroy the Anvil? Crap. I didn't know that.

 

I didn't kill Brother Genitivi, but nobody could get to the Ashes because I didn't kill the dragon either

 

What I like about Orzammar is that you can come up with different reasons to support Harrowmount or Bhelen, whatever your Warden's origin is. Bhelen allows the casteless to fight, giving you an edge against the darkspawn. On the other hand, he's more hotheaded than Harrowmont and has wild card written all over him. Harrowmont is set in his ways and doesn't play as dirty as Bhelen, which makes him as easier target. However he might seem the safest choice, he talks in a polite and reasonable manner and doesn't plan drastic changes to the dwarven society, which might grant the stability the Warden needs during the Blight.

 

There was the same tendency to marry the pragmatic with the evil in ME, namely in the Collector Base decision. Quite obviously there was a huge potential for abuse if you saved it, but you'd need to be a principles zealot to see any evil in the action itself. Yet the story appeared to insist that you should see it as evil, and reinforced that by forcing you to give it to man you could be pretty sure would abuse it.

 

I took destroying it as the pragmatic choice. Cerberus would screw up like they usually do, and the risk of indoctrination would be huge.

[Helios969]

I think these games/stories are supposed to challenge our preconceptions of what "good" & "evil" are. Given how frequently these threads pop up I'd say they've been successful.

[Doominike]

Pragmatism isn't subjective, it's logic, cold and ruthless.

[Hazegurl]

Dragon Age isn't the only series that's guilty (Look up Game of Thrones regarding the Starks), but I've noticed something of a rising backlash against characters who'd be described as "good guys".

 

Most notably Wynne and Alistair as far as Dragon Age is concerned and I find this curious. Is it because "good guys" aren't as interesting as grey or ambiguous characters? Is it because they're predictable? Or are fantasy fanbases just becoming more cynical?

I think people primarily like good guys over bad guys. Usually, any character that isn't wholesome will receive the most hate. However, the popularity of bad guys has also shown that there is a fanbase who likes the villains and even wish to be one. IMO, the good guy is overplayed. In most games you will almost always be the good whole hero who only says good things, do everything right (aka good), and win the day. So any game that gives me the option to be a "d*ck" I'm going to take it cause you rarely see that in games or anywhere else. Sometimes, the good guys don't win and in most cases the buttholes are the ones getting goals accomplished.

[Maria Caliban]

Quite obviously there was a huge potential for abuse if you saved it, but you'd need to be a principles zealot to see any evil in the action itself.

You say 'principled zealot' like it's a bad thing.

In most games you will almost always be the good whole hero who only says good things, do everything right (aka good), and win the day.

That hasn't been my experience at all.

[Dean_the_Young]

Pragmatism isn't subjective, it's logic, cold and ruthless.

 

Only superficially. What would be considered logical, cold, or even ruthless are all subjective measures dependent on underlying biases.

 

There's also the great riddle of how can you best be pragmatic with someone who doesn't respond favorably to pragmaticism. Cost-benefit analysis and positive-sum strategies only works when your adversary and you work on similar metrics of what is considered a cost and what is considered a benefit. The most basic version of this is the question of the immortal soul: if the immortal soul does not exist, than the only costs and benefits that matter are the ones in the world of the living. But if the immortal soul does exist, if after-life concepts and heaven and hell are real, then eternity would logically be the most important consideration.

 

And people thought that Mother Petrice was crazy for believing that eternity was worth killing for.

[Maria Caliban]

I think these games/stories are supposed to challenge our preconceptions of what "good" & "evil" are. Given how frequently these threads pop up I'd say they've been successful.

I would hope that's not the intent; what's admirable in a young adult novel is patronizing in a work aimed at adults.

[BlueMagitek]

I would hope that's not the intent; what's admirable in a young adult novel is patronizing in a work aimed at adults.

 

The rating M is, what, 17 & up?  That's still a young adult by most standards.

[Maria Caliban]

Ratings are a poor measure of adultness, especially video game ratings.

Deenie is a 1970s book in which a 13-year-old girl masturbates in the bathtub. How would you stick that scene in a video game without it getting slapped with an AO rating? Yet it is most certainly a novel for children and teenagers.

[BlueMagitek]

Trick question, it wouldn't be in a video game in the first place.

 

What makes you believe they're targetting adults rather than young adults?

[Eveangaline]

I don't mind goody two shoes as long as they arent the only ones

[Maria Caliban]

Trick question, it wouldn't be in a video game in the first place.

I'm not sure what you're saying. That no one would ever make a video game where the main character is a 13-year-old girl dealing with her sexuality? I'd disagree with that.
 

What makes you believe they're targetting adults rather than young adults?

I didn't expresses that opinion. Rather, I hoped they would not have a YA handling of morality.

[BlueMagitek]

I'm not sure what you're saying. That no one would ever make a video game where the main character is a 13-year-old girl dealing with her sexuality? I'd disagree with that.
 

I didn't expresses that opinion. Rather, I hoped they would not have a YA handling of morality.

 

Yes.  I don't see that video game happening, unless it's Japan.  Because Japan.

 

Oh? You said that this work was aimed at adults. :/

[Helios969]

Maria:  I think most writers, whether targeting children or adults, like to challenge conventional views of morality, society, psychology, etc...  I play Bioware games with my 12 year old son specifically for these reasons.  I do not want him to have a narrow perspective on such things.

[Schreckstoff]

Speaking of rating Mass Effect git M because of Alien sex didn't it?

[naddaya]

Maria:  I think most writers, whether targeting children or adults, like to challenge conventional views of morality, society, psychology, etc...  I play Bioware games with my 12 year old son specifically for these reasons.  I do not want him to have a narrow perspective on such things.

 

Dragon Age is definitely not targeted at children. Too much sex and violence

 

Anyway, morality depends on many factors other than age, unless you take into consideration really small kids. Time simply gives people more experiences. A teenager and a middle aged person could play through DAO with similar views.

[Doominike]

Only superficially. What would be considered logical, cold, or even ruthless are all subjective measures dependent on underlying biases.

 

There's also the great riddle of how can you best be pragmatic with someone who doesn't respond favorably to pragmaticism. Cost-benefit analysis and positive-sum strategies only works when your adversary and you work on similar metrics of what is considered a cost and what is considered a benefit. The most basic version of this is the question of the immortal soul: if the immortal soul does not exist, than the only costs and benefits that matter are the ones in the world of the living. But if the immortal soul does exist, if after-life concepts and heaven and hell are real, then eternity would logically be the most important consideration.

 

And people thought that Mother Petrice was crazy for believing that eternity was worth killing for.

I agree in the case of social interactions. Otherwise I maintain my statement.

 

When it comes to decisions, this is how I proceed:

 

-> What is my goal : save the most people possible (which is the point of stopping the blight, so stopping the blight is really just the method used to accomplish my primary goal)

 

-> What are the options

 

-> Which one fulfills my objective the best, or failing that, which one comes the closest

 

Anything else is disregarded, I'll kill 1000 to save 1001, given of course that those individuals are all of equal value, saving 10 000 peasants only saves 10 000 lives, while saving 1000 wardens will most likely save many 10s of 1000s. As for the question of souls and afterlife, nothing so far in the series has given me reason to think those things are any less non-existent than they are in reality. 

 

Though I do equate a life and a consciousness so in my opinion you're not dead if who you are still exists. So to me the ancient elf in the flask who teaches you the Arcane Warrior specialization is alive, while I consider a brain dead patient whose body is sustained by a machine to be a corpse. Or a pseudo-zombie at best.

[naddaya]

As for the question of souls and afterlife, nothing so far in the series has given me reason to think those things are any less non-existent than they are in reality.

 

Not sure about this.

 

The existence of the fade and spirits is a fact in DA. Spirits see people travelling through the fade when they die. Morrigan is presumably able to preserve the soul of an old god. That goes beyond matter. People can be possessed by spirits and the Warden meets ghosts (although the latter could be caused by lyrium).

It doesn't prove the existence of souls and an afterlife, but it skews things a little.

[Doominike]

I see those like the Arcane Warrior elf in the flask. I guess you could call disembodied minds "souls" if you want and you wouldn't really be wrong per se. But a heaven and a hell analogs I don't think so, there's only the Fade/Beyond and that's more like the spirit realm that a place where dead people hang out