629 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Absolutely not. The point of a roleplaying game isn't to try to iron out every conflict, run every chore and appease every NPC. The point of a roleplaying game is to roleplay. Roleplay a character who has their own convictions and morality and values. A character that has a defined stance on a international crisis in Thedas. 

There should be no easy or comfortable choices in DAI. Those kinds of choices are bad RPG design. They don't promote roleplaying, they just promote narcissistic completionism. 

 

This one understands!

[Gtdef]

An outright peace option is too simplistic in my opinion. I think peace should be a result of compromise and the severity of it should be tied to the actions and managing ability of the protagonist.

 

The scope of the conflict is big. Getting the basic "Zathrian and the Werewolves" treatment won't cut it. There should be more grey areas than that.

[Dean_the_Young]

I agree with this. One thing i never liked about the Dragon Age (and Mass Effect) games, that there were almost always "wrong" and "right" decisions.(or good and bad) For example the werewolves-elves choice in Origins. There are three possible choices but two of them are pointless. Why should anybody choose to not save both? It's hardly even a decision. I prefer when you have to choose between one evil and another, while the game doesn't ' show you with a big red arrow which of the choices is the lesser evil.

 

You'd have to address the topic of meta-gaming and knowledge to answer this appropriately.

 

In-universe, it's easy to justify: the PC doesn't always know in advance that an ideal outcome is possible. In fact, for first-time players sometimes the player doesn't know it is either (or doesn't know what the conditions are). If the basis isn't telegraphed clearly (or relies on unrecognized tropes and structure), you may simply not know that the best outcome is possible.

 

For the unclear mechanics for success, I'd point to the Renegade route for the Genophage choice in ME3, where having Mordin alive yet sabotaging the genophage cure is the 'best' outcome for that route. One of the highpoints of the scene is Mordin's refusal to go along with the sabotage unless conditions are met, forcing a confrontation of killing him or allowing the genophage cure by default. The thing is, it's not clear in any lead-up that the conditions will enable that- partly because the choices were made in previous games, and partly because those previous choices weren't framed in the context of the Mordin point. Aiming for the 'best' Renegade route requires extensive meta-knowledge of both the plot and the conditionals that wouldn't be obvious for many/most players who played through the series (where, for the longest time, killing Wrex was viewed as a 'bad' option). A good part of this ambiguity was because ME3 was the first ME game in which previous decisions seriously impacted the availability of major outcomes- a good masking of player influence that previous Bioware games largely avoided. (In DAO, it never mattered who's claim you supported leading up to the Crown of the Paragons- you could give the crown to whoever and you were suddenly their bestie.)
 

The example for uncommon tropes and structure comes in DA2 The 'best' outcome of the Merrill questline is, well, not destroying the Clan. But because the choice that determines the outcome isn't framed in the context of being about the Clan (it is, instead, focused on the arc's thematic delimma of trusting Merrill to take responsibility for all her actions and consequences, versus taking the responsibility away from her), the player doesn't know what the context and consequence of the choice is. Also, considering the thematic rather than consequence-focused set-up of the choice, there's less of an inclination/opportunity to try to aim for the 'best' solution in advance.

 

 

So, to round up, it is possible to frame delimmas with 'best' outcomes in ways that aren't simply the player choosing the 'best' outcome at the time. There's little you can do about truly deliberate meta-gaming, except to make it thematically incoherent and unappealing in practice, but Big Decisions can be cast in ambiguous contexts and set-up so that 'best' choices are unclear or even hard to obtain.

[Willowhugger]

The example for uncommon tropes and structure comes in DA2 The 'best' outcome of the Merrill questline is, well, not destroying the Clan. But because the choice that determines the outcome isn't framed in the context of being about the Clan (it is, instead, focused on the arc's thematic delimma of trusting Merrill to take responsibility for all her actions and consequences, versus taking the responsibility away from her), the player doesn't know what the context and consequence of the choice is. Also, considering the thematic rather than consequence-focused set-up of the choice, there's less of an inclination/opportunity to try to aim for the 'best' solution in advance.

 

Very much so.

 

Take for instance, Bhelen. It requires paying very careful attention to Bhelen and the surrounding politics (or just getting lucky) to realize Harrowmount isn't any better than Bhelen. In fact, on my first playthrough, the reason I chose Bhelen was because the Dwarf in Tapsters (who I wish could be King instead) said that Harrowmount wasn't any better than Bhelen. So I picked Bhelen because he was marrying a Casteless according to the Criers.

 

However, I suspect that Harrowmount was meant as a "trap" for goody-goodies.

 

Likewise, much to my annoyance, Ser Karras may show up in Dragon Age 3 and my Goody-Goody Hawke is left knowing that not only did Alain getting sexually abused because he WASN'T violent enough but that further people might get screwed over if Karras continues to live. Yet, I want to keep Karras alive in my Keep playthrough because, well, that represents the choice my Hawke would have made being the Paragon who wants to avoid violence that he is.

[zqrahll]

I disagree with the TC as strongly as possible.  I want anything but a everybody play nice now ending to the Mage vs. Templars war.

 

I want, more than anything in DA3, to be able to side with the Mages & wipe out the Templars. 

[DuskWanderer]

Everyone sides with the Mages. Everyone forgets how brutally insane most of them are. So many turn to blood magic and abominations. Quite literally, every mage we meet in DA2 aside from Bethany does just as horrible things. 

[Willowhugger]

Everyone sides with the Mages. Everyone forgets how brutally insane most of them are. So many turn to blood magic and abominations. Quite literally, every mage we meet in DA2 aside from Bethany does just as horrible things. 

 

Everyone is some form of scum in Dragon Age but Alistair, Leliana, and Bethany.

 

Even Wynne is a self-righteous overbearing hypocrite.

 

So if I'm going to side with someone, I might as well side with someone I like.

[TTTX]

Everyone sides with the Mages. Everyone forgets how brutally insane most of them are. So many turn to blood magic and abominations. Quite literally, every mage we meet in DA2 aside from Bethany does just as horrible things. 

Kirkwall is hardly the best place in Thedas for Mages, since it was the most likely site where old magisters crossed the veil and one of the old magisters was hold prisoner not that far away, + there where these ancient demons living in city.

[Hibernating]

Kirkwall is hardly the best place in Thedas for Mages, since it was the most likely site where old magisters crossed the veil and one of the old magisters was hold prisoner not that far away, + there where these ancient demons living in city.

 

I want, more than anything in DA3, to be able to side with the Mages & wipe out the Templars. 

 

So magic users are perfectly safe as long as they are kept away from certain geographic locations?

Like the circle in Fereldan?

Mages caused the blights, from what we have seen so far they caused the breach, the only land they are free is a nation which they took over and is run on slaves, and when they were all free they ruled the world as unaccountable and unrestricted god-kings.

We should totally let the mages free of any oversight, whats the worst that could happen?

[Willowhugger]

Mages caused the blights, from what we have seen so far they caused the breach, the only land they are free is nation which they took over and is run on slaves and when they were all free they ruled the world as unaccountable and unrestricted god-kings.

 

Okay, I really have to step in to say this.

 

Magic is the only reason people can STOP the Blights. Tevinter mages created the Joining.

[Hibernating]

Okay, I really have to step in to say this.

 

Magic is the only reason people can STOP the Blights. Tevinter mages created the Joining.

 

First off, even if that were true (which it isn't) its like saying. Its OK I caused a problem which killed hundreds of thousands of people because I found a way to fix it! sucks to be one of those dead guys through, you're going to stay dead.

But that point is moot as the grey wardens created the joining, an independent body formed in -305 Ancient who abandoned all military and political ties for the sole purpose of defeating the darkspawn.

THEY created it, independent of all other nations largely based off the works of a elven/dalish bloodmage called Nakiri of Donark Forest.

[Willowhugger]

First off, even if that were true (which it isn't) its like saying. Its OK I caused a problem which killed hundreds of thousands of people because I found a way to fix it! sucks to be one of those dead guys through, you're going to stay dead.

But that point is moot as the grey wardens created the joining, an independent body formed in -305 Ancient who abandoned all military and political ties for the sole purpose of defeating the darkspawn.

THEY created it, independent of all other nations largely based off the works of a elven/dalish bloodmage called Nakiri of Donark Forest.

 

Check out World of Thedas. You're wrong.

Also, it's in the main game that Magic is required for the Joining.

The Darkspawn blood is enchanted by the wizards there.

 

Without mages there's no Grey Wardens, which means the Blight kills everyone.

 

As for the other bit, a bunch of wizards 2,000 years ago caused a problem and I'm going to pay the price for it?

That's ludicrous.

 

That's like saying every Orlaisian should be locked up or killed for what was done to the Dalelands.

[SgtSteel91]

Everyone sides with the Mages. Everyone forgets how brutally insane most of them are. So many turn to blood magic and abominations. Quite literally, every mage we meet in DA2 aside from Bethany does just as horrible things. 

 

IMO, some people value liberty and freedom over safety and believe that a society that takes too much freedom and liberty away from others for safety deserves neither.

[Hibernating]

Check out World of Thedas. You're wrong.

Also, it's in the main game that Magic is required for the Joining.

The Darkspawn blood is enchanted by the wizards there.

 

Without mages there's no Grey Wardens, which means the Blight kills everyone.

 

Without mages, there was no blight, no one dies? you managed to totally ignore that point

I did check out the World of Thedas, it agrees with what I said? If you want a summary read under "Grey wardens" in this link.

http://dragonage.wik...ki/First_Blight

Darkspawn blood is mixed with lyrium and a drop of the archdemons blood, no where is it stated that magic is required. Dwarves handle lyrium just fine.

Speaking of the dwarves, theres a group of people who have survived an endless blight for hundreds of years without magic.

[Willowhugger]

Without mages, there was no blight, no one dies? you managed to totally ignore that point

 

I'm not ignoring the point, I just think it's irrelevant. Magic is a tool and blaming its users for the Blight (which they stop because magic is necessary).

 

http://forum.bioware...en/#entry574693

 

I could argue Dumat is also responsible for the Blights over the Tevinter mages but, either way, I think magic being dangerous means it should be studied MORE than less.

 

Just my .02.

[Hibernating]

I'm not ignoring the point, I just think it's irrelevant. Magic is a tool and blaming its users for the Blight (which they stop because magic is necessary).

 

http://forum.bioware...en/#entry574693

 

I could argue Dumat is also responsible for the Blights over the Tevinter mages but, either way, I think magic being dangerous means it should be studied MORE than less.

 

Just my .02.

 

David Gaider literally says in that post that you can do it with just straight Archdemon blood, which it being a dragon I imagine it has quite a lot of. Magic is only involved if you need to make normal darkspawn blood potent enough to compare to the level of taint in an archdemon. The joining with Loghain is magic free.

Curious do you think the mentally ill, and no not depression or ADHD but the serious kind in which you are a threat to both yourself and others, should be contained? Do you think they should be allowed the same rights as everyone else while in this state?

Society has deemed not, it has said that the safety of the many outways the freedom of a few and if you have an illness which might pose a threat to others or yourself EVEN BEFORE hurting anyone you will have rights and privileges denied to you.

 

Mages are a bit like this, except more extreme. A mentally ill person might pose a threat to a few people or themselves, in the modern world it might be more than a few people, or they might harm no one. Mages can be helpful sure, but they can kill hundreds, and a mage going insane and becoming an abomination or treating with demons or simply using their power out of rage or hate seems to be horribly common.

Yes mages are people, but its about the good and safety of everyone over the safety and good of a few.

I've loved having this convo with you man, but I need to sleep now. Post a devastating response and I look forward to challenging it tomorrow

[TTTX]

So magic users are perfectly safe as long as they are kept away from certain geographic locations?

Like the circle in Fereldan?

Mages caused the blights, from what we have seen so far they caused the breach, the only land they are free is a nation which they took over and is run on slaves, and when they were all free they ruled the world as unaccountable and unrestricted god-kings.

We should totally let the mages free of any oversight, whats the worst that could happen?

Kirkwall has a lot of crazy in it that's not just mages who go crazy.

 

Ferelden was an special case in some ways as the blight was gave Uldred the opportunity to gain the circle for himself first he tried to gain the circle peacefully which obviously didn't work and he went to plan B and well we know what happened, although if it wasn't for the Blight and Logainh the circle probably wouldn't have gotten in a such a bad shape as it was in DA:O.

 

Which wasn't easy being, transferred into the fade physically takes a lot power more than any mage would be able to do on their except if they have some really powerful magical object and they were tricked into the black city by someone by promise of being given the powers of Gods which let's face it not many people would say no to or try to get it.

 

Hate to burst your bobble but we don't know if mages caused the Breach even if they did, they will be in the service of the Elder One if which case he will be to blame since he will obviously be the one who makes sure they have the power to do so.

 

Letting mages free is not a good idea, but if the circle system is going to return there be some upgrades and increase of some right for the Mages and Templars.

[Willowhugger]

November can't get here fast enough!

[Aimi]

Absolutely not. The point of a roleplaying game isn't to try to iron out every conflict, run every chore and appease every NPC. The point of a roleplaying game is to roleplay. Roleplay a character who has their own convictions and morality and values. A character that has a defined stance on a international crisis in Thedas. 
There should be no easy or comfortable choices in DAI. Those kinds of choices are bad RPG design. They don't promote roleplaying, they just promote narcissistic completionism.

I think that this post is coming from somewhere that is fundamentally flawed.

For a start, I don't entirely understand what you mean by saying "absolutely not" to "peace". Does this mean you think that the current mage-templar conflict should continue indefinitely? Does it mean that you want one side or the other to completely exterminate the other? "Peace" simply means an end to the war; it doesn't specify what form the end of the war would take, or whether it would eventually restart.

If you're objecting to the first of those things, and would prefer that the war be forced to continue forever, I simply think you're being ridiculous. In the real world, there is no such thing as a forever war, and there are plenty of reasons for participants and bystanders to want to negotiate some kind of peace. The crisis facing the Inquisition needs to be dealt with, and distractions need to be ended.

If you're objecting to the second of those things, and would prefer the mage-templar decision to be an all-or-nothing choice (like the OP's example of the geth-quarian war, without the peace option), that's equally as ridiculous. Almost every war in history has had a winner and a loser; almost no war in history has seen the loser be exterminated. Virtually all peaces are some form of compromise. And yet nobody would seriously suggest that those who fought these wars didn't have convictions, that they didn't choose sides. This all-or-nothing total-war nonsense is ahistorical; it's also frankly inhumane.

What you see as "easy" or "comfortable" choices are frequently, in reality, the only sane and possible ones.

I know you were mostly talking about things in an RPG-specific sense: that RPGs offering a kind of peace option to the player give the player an option that in terms of metagaming, is clearly superior to others, and that supposedly devalues other options. Well, I mean, duh. That's the funny thing about peace. If you're enough of a sociopath to want to exterminate entire races - going by the geth-quarian example in the OP - then what possible in-game or realistic reason could there be for not penalizing that somehow?

And at the same time, "peace" does not mean "happy little farm animals dancing for joy from now until the end of time". It does not mean "not taking a side". All peace is, is an end to open warfare. It does not preclude a settlement that advantages or disadvantages one side or the other. It does not preclude a resumption of open warfare at some later date. It does not solve all the problems that the respective sides have for all time. There are plenty of opportunities to insert roleplaying opportunities in the construction of a peace: the legal position of mages, the restrictions or lack thereof on the templar order, the involvement of the Chantry, the future form of the Circle system should it still exist. Do not confuse the ability to make Big Choices like genocide or social revolution for good roleplaying: that can and should come out more effectively in comparatively "little" choices.

Now, I think it's fairly difficult to misread an answer of "absolutely not" to the statement "there should be a peace". But in the event that I have misapprehended you - or that you did not express yourself in the manner that you intended - then I apologize.

[raging_monkey]

I think that this post is coming from somewhere that is fundamentally flawed.For a start, I don't entirely understand what you mean by saying "absolutely not" to "peace". Does this mean you think that the current mage-templar conflict should continue indefinitely? Does it mean that you want one side or the other to completely exterminate the other? "Peace" simply means an end to the war; it doesn't specify what form the end of the war would take, or whether it would eventually restart.If you're objecting to the first of those things, and would prefer that the war be forced to continue forever, I simply think you're being ridiculous. In the real world, there is no such thing as a forever war, and there are plenty of reasons for participants and bystanders to want to negotiate some kind of peace. The crisis facing the Inquisition needs to be dealt with, and distractions need to be ended.If you're objecting to the second of those things, and would prefer the mage-templar decision to be an all-or-nothing choice (like the OP's example of the geth-quarian war, without the peace option), that's equally as ridiculous. Almost every war in history has had a winner and a loser; almost no war in history has seen the loser be exterminated. Virtually all peaces are some form of compromise. And yet nobody would seriously suggest that those who fought these wars didn't have convictions, that they didn't choose sides. This all-or-nothing total-war nonsense is ahistorical; it's also frankly inhumane.What you see as "easy" or "comfortable" choices are frequently, in reality, the only sane and possible ones.I know you were mostly talking about things in an RPG-specific sense: that RPGs offering a kind of peace option to the player give the player an option that in terms of metagaming, is clearly superior to others, and that supposedly devalues other options. Well, I mean, duh. That's the funny thing about peace. If you're enough of a sociopath to want to exterminate entire races - going by the geth-quarian example in the OP - then what possible in-game or realistic reason could there be for not penalizing that somehow?And at the same time, "peace" does not mean "happy little farm animals dancing for joy from now until the end of time". It does not mean "not taking a side". All peace is, is an end to open warfare. It does not preclude a settlement that advantages or disadvantages one side or the other. It does not preclude a resumption of open warfare at some later date. It does not solve all the problems that the respective sides have for all time. There are plenty of opportunities to insert roleplaying opportunities in the construction of a peace: the legal position of mages, the restrictions or lack thereof on the templar order, the involvement of the Chantry, the future form of the Circle system should it still exist. Do not confuse the ability to make Big Choices like genocide or social revolution for good roleplaying: that can and should come out more effectively in comparatively "little" choices.Now, I think it's fairly difficult to misread an answer of "absolutely not" to the statement "there should be a peace". But in the event that I have misapprehended you - or that you did not express yourself in the manner that you intended - then I apologize.

1: this i like reasonable and well articulated
2: remind to never get on your bad side

[Tenebrae]

While compromise should be achievable it will in the end amount to nothing more then half measures, and those are a recipe for utter failure in the long run, the only way to insure complete and utter victory and the oh so coveted "peace" is to utterly annihilate the opposing side.

 

Now will that be hard to achieve? Of course it will, choosing the logical path is always hard but in the end the destruction of the opposing side will ensure the war will not repeat itself while half measures will give you another prelude to said war.

 

So to summarize if i had to choose i would choose the most efficient route the one that will ensure that i will not have to fight the same opponent again a few years in the future, no matter what that may entail.

[Aimi]

While compromise should be achievable it will in the end amount to nothing more then half measures, and those are a recipe for utter failure in the long run, the only way to insure complete and utter victory and the oh so coveted "peace" is to utterly annihilate the opposing side.

Name me a war that has ended in the total extermination of the losing side.

[raging_monkey]

Its been tried many times but theres been no succussful attempt

[Willowhugger]

You don't need to kill all the Templars.

 

I plan to disband their order if that's an option, though.

I'll offer any who want to live under the new rules a place in the Inquisition barring known crimes against mages, though.

[Tenebrae]

Name me a war that has ended in the total extermination of the losing side.

Define total extermination, as a state as a group or as a culture? all three are doable given the proper motivation and conviction.

 

Genghis Khan ordered that Xi Xia to be wiped from the face of the earth, his army's followed that order to the latter (though i am sure a few escaped, most of them were hunted down), hell mass exterminations were a well tested and proven Mongol tactic.

 

The Romans exterminated the Gauls and many others culturally,

 

And finally there are always the Nazi's, and had Hitler not been a tactical moron they would have succeeded in their attempt to literally exterminate a distinct group of people.

 

So yes it can be done, and for the last one just replace technology with magic, I'm sure Tevinter has a few ideas.