223 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

Before we start discussing morality and how it functions in DAI, we should separate it completely from other BioWare games, especially if they are a different franchise. KotOR was an exception due to the fact Good/Light vs. Evil/Dark is a major theme of the Star Wars universe. Mass Effect is also a bad example as early on the franchise was much more black and white. From ME2 and ME3, however, there was a lot more ambiguity and a grey area that developed.

 

For the Dragon Age franchise, we don't even have a morality bar like we had in KotOR or ME. The only thing we have to ground our decisions is "approval/disapproval" based on how our companions react to our choices. Even with that in mind, part of the reason you may believe the "bad boy/renegade" archetype is being diminished is likely because of how unconvincing it can be. It certainly can be viewed as comedic value for a short period of time, but it has been statistically proven that most players generally do not choose those choices.

 

Now do not get me wrong. I'm in no way suggesting "renegade" should be removed as an option to players. What I believe BioWare should do is make choices more ambiguous, more practical, and less "feed the kitten and give it a home" or "curb stomp kitten and still baby's candy." From what BioWare has already stated about DAI, it's going to be less off the good guy/bad guy act, and more of you can either be a benevolent ruler who tries to do things the right way, or the one who rules with an iron fist and will go to whatever links it takes to get the job done.

 

In that instance neither is necessary good or bad given the context, but merely different approaches to trying to resolve the issues that plague Thedas through the power of the Inquisition. As far as companions are concerned, I would argue they generally will lean more so towards being neutral than sharply one way or the other. Make a companion too polarizing and it's almost impossible to like them or take them seriously due to their extreme views on a topic. It's also likely companions, in general, should be more reasonable as you won't be able to "gift" your way to full approval like we could in DAO and to a lesser extent in DA2.

 

As far as Dragon Age is concerned as a whole though, it has always been much less good and evil than the other BioWare franchises. The only "evil" is the Archdemon and Dark Spawn, of which is a common enemy to everyone. Everything else about the franchise is more so moral dilemmas. Should you support the mages even though they could become abominations? Should you support the Templars even though their draconian methods oppress others, even if it is well-intentioned? A lot more nuances in DA.

[FumikoM]

Well there's a difference between being renegade and evil. I'm saying this because way too many think being anti-hero, or renegade or whatever you want to call it, means you're evil. Like chaotic evil. A renegade could be a chaotic good character of sort. Ruthless, you get the job done and if there's some collateral damage, so be it. People will still end up liking you in the end. With this said it makes less sense to me if there's a bunch of companions who will suddenly hate you. They might still complain, though.

 

And yes renegade protagonists tend to get punished more in the friends department. Nothing surprising, people prefer individuals who have a good hearth, who does good, cares about justice and have compassion and lala unicorns and rainbows. A realistic approach. I guess. Yeah nothing that have not been said by others in this thread already.

 

Personally I prefer the SWTOR way, being a Sith and get away with being truly chaotic evil. I wish we could be more like this in DA:I. But that's not gonna happen, would not make any sense if we could either. I also realize that if you could be like this, prepare to be forever alone. Because really, it's fun in a fictional world but we would not want to hang out with our evil selves in the "real world". I would probably not survive an encounter with my evil self anyway...

[Giantdeathrobot]

 

Morrigan was a cold hearted sorceress who doesn't mind murder. Same applies to Zevran, an assassin. Shale also doesn't mind killing innocents so that's an entire party you could make of people who didn't care if you murdered innocents in Origins.
 
DA2 only gives you Isabella. Contrary to Giantdeathrobot's list, the rest hesitate upon killing innocents so they hardly qualify for a "renegade play-through." He's also got it wrong on Lelianna and Sten being evil. The former was a murderer in the past but whines if you murder anybody during Origins and the later abides by a strict sense of principles and a code of honour, condemning you if you strike down unarmed people, he is also remorseful for killing the family (which happened because he went berserk and loss sense, not because he rejoices in bloodshed).

 

I don't think Inquisition will allow us to make a full party of evil characters like in Origins who don't moan if you kill somebody innocent. Cole, Iron Bull and Sera seem neutral at best.

 

 

 

Renegade doesn't automatically equal evil. Baldur's Gate also allowed the character and the party to be neutral and you had a fair share of evil, neutral and good companions. That's what the OP is getting at here, Inquisition's seemingly lack of evil companions and its focus on "morally grey" and good companions instead.

 

 

Uh, I said that these characters were neutral. As in, they didn't always go out of their way to help people and generally had no problem with killing if its even slightly justified. Not that they were baby eating villains, since apparently these are the only characters who qualify for a ''renegade playthrough'' (which is silly in itself, Dragon Age is not Mass Effect).

 

As for ''EVIL'' companions, quite honestly, the less of those we have the happier I'll be. Because I don't think I've ever seen an Evil companion that wasn't a boring psycopath. Oh look, this person doesn't care about how many people are killed, so they're Evil. Yawn. Give me someone like Loghain or Sten any day instead of that.

 

At any rate, you could be a complete psycho in Origins, you could be a murderous jerk in DA2, I don't see why Inquisition wouldn't let you. We know Patrick Weekes is doing an AssQuisitor playthrough, which I assume involves more villainy than scaring away kittens, and we also know we can drive away all companions but one. You can act as judge, jury and executioner at Skyhold, and we already saw that opportunities for dog-kickery exist in Crestwood. I'm certain the game will be able to satisfy everyone's inner Jack the Ripper.

[Revan Reborn]

Well there's a difference between being renegade and evil. I'm saying this because way too many think being anti-hero, or renegade or whatever you want to call it, means you're evil. Like chaotic evil. A renegade could be a chaotic good character of sort. Ruthless, you get the job done and if there's some collateral damage, so be it. People will still end up liking you in the end. With this said it makes less sense to me if there's a bunch of companions who will suddenly hate you. They might still complain, though.

 

And yes renegade protagonists tend to get punished more in the friends department. Nothing surprising, people prefer individuals who have a good hearth, who does good, cares about justice and have compassion and lala unicorns and rainbows. A realistic approach. I guess. Yeah nothing that have not been said by others in this thread already.

 

Personally I prefer the SWTOR way, being a Sith and get away with being truly chaotic evil. I wish we could be more like this in DA:I. But that's not gonna happen, would not make any sense if we could either. I also realize that if you could be like this, prepare to be forever alone. Because really, it's fun in a fictional world but we would not want to hang out with our evil selves in the "real world". I would probably not survive an encounter with my evil self anyway...

It's just more of an issue for Dragon Age for the simple fact that morality isn't as blatantly black and white as it is in Star Wars.

 

The Jedi are good. The Sith are evil. This is undisputed fact and this largely drives many themes and stories in the Star Wars universe. Dragon Age is much more like The Witcher in terms of lots of ambiguities, lots of moral dilemmas, and there isn't necessarily pure good or pure evil characters. In DAO and DA2, we were constantly being tossed moral dilemmas that we had to make a choice on. Should we allow the Right of Annulment to restore "order" and "stability"? Or should we try and spare the mages who have not become abominations, knowing they could be tempted at anytime in the future?

 

Who deserves to live or die? Alistair? Loghain? Anders? Knight Commander Meredith? Are any of these characters truly evil? Or did they merely make choices based on what they believed was the "right" choice? There are no clear cut answers in Dragon Age, and that's why I personally love it. I obviously love Star Wars as well, but the basic "good vs evil" doesn't work as well with DA, unless there is a blight and the Wardens (good) are fighting the Archdemon (evil).

 

Again, I believe the best "renegade" approach is for it to be more nuanced. Choices shouldn't be as blatantly ridiculous as they were in KotOR or ME where they can't be taken seriously. Whatever choice the Inquisitor makes, it needs to be believable, serious, and should be looking to achieve the same result. Now, how you go about achieving that result can vary widely, whether you promote diplomacy, or use military force or assassinate individuals of authority. Inevitably you are trying to do what you believe is best for the Inquisition and Thedas. There are no right or wrong answers, just choices with varying consequences that people will inevitably judge you differently for.

[FumikoM]

It's just more of an issue for Dragon Age for the simple fact that morality isn't as blatantly black and white as it is in Star Wars.

 

The Jedi are good. The Sith are evil. This is undisputed fact and this largely drives many themes and stories in the Star Wars universe. Dragon Age is much more like The Witcher in terms of lots of ambiguities, lots of moral dilemmas, and there isn't necessarily pure good or pure evil characters. In DAO and DA2, we were constantly being tossed moral dilemmas that we had to make a choice on. Should we allow the Right of Annulment to restore "order" and "stability"? Or should we try and spare the mages who have not become abominations, knowing they could be tempted at anytime in the future?

 

Who deserves to live or die? Alistair? Loghain? Anders? Are any of these characters truly evil? Or did they merely make choices based on what they believed was the "right" choice? There are no clear cut answers in Dragon Age, and that's why I personally love it. I obviously love Star Wars as well, but the basic "good vs evil" doesn't work as well with DA, unless there is a blight and the Wardens (good) are fighting the Archdemon (evil).

 

Again, I believe the best "renegade" approach is for it to be more nuanced. Choices shouldn't be as blatantly ridiculous as they were in KotOR or ME where they can't be taken seriously. Whatever choice the Inquisitor makes, it needs to be believable, serious, and should be looking to achieve the same result. Now, how you go about achieving that result can vary widely, whether you promote diplomacy, or use military force or assassinate individuals of authority. Inevitably you are trying to do what you believe is best for the Inquisition and Thedas. There are no right or wrong answers, just choices with varying consequences that people will inevitably judge you differently for.

 

Agreed. But I still wish for a really ruthless personality for my protagonist. A woman who conquers a town and have everyone who survives executed. Because to her, violence and death is fun. And in the end she would be everyone's enemy, any friend she had would betray her. It would of course not hold up for long but it might be fun. These kind of characters are almost never someone we can play, in any game, just fight against and that is tiresome, IMO. Let me be the villain for once!

[Revan Reborn]

Agreed. But I still wish for a really ruthless personality for my protagonist. A woman who conquers a town and have everyone who survives executed. Because to her, violence and death is fun. And in the end she would be everyone's enemy, any friend she had would betray her. It would of course not hold up for long but it might be fun. These kind of characters are almost never someone we can play, in any game, just fight against and that is tiresome, IMO. Let me be the villain for once!

Well being a complete sociopath doesn't lead to a very compelling story, and makes it difficult to perpetuate any kind of story forward, which is why BioWare probably avoids it.

 

You are more than welcome to live out your villain ways in Skyrim, where you legitimately can be evil and people will hate you for it. That level of freedom where you can be good or evil is seldom found in games, however. That's part of the reason The Elder Scrolls is so special! Perhaps at some point BioWare will make a game where you can really be the hero or the villain. However, that's not the current direction they are taking DAI, and likely ME won't follow that direction either.

 

I do have to admit it would be interesting to play a BioWare game from the perspective of the villain one of these days though. Of course, they would need to be likable to some extent. You can only enjoy a story so much as you can connect with the actual protagonist, or in this case, the antagonist. Just imagine what it would have been like to play Darth Revan during the Jedi Civil War before he was betrayed by Malak? What about Saren in Mass Effect as he first came into contact with Sovereign and was looking at ways of saving the galaxy? Those could lead to some interesting storytelling opportunities.

[Mr.House]

There's also that one creepy bit in DA2 where all of your "good" companions encourage you to murder a defenseless mentally ill man.

A man who killed a crapton of innocent women, was being protected by his father and his victims would not get justice and was blaming demons? Ya.... HOW CREEPY THE COMPANIONS ARE FOR KILLING HIM!

[Ailith Tycane]

Well ya know, including evil companions is kind of hard to do, because, go figure, no one likes being around them. Having someone who is antisocial at best and sociopathic at worst is not really ideal.

[Revan Reborn]

A man who killed a crapton of innocent women, was being protected by his father and his victims would not get justice and was blaming demons? Ya.... HOW CREEPY THE COMPANIONS ARE FOR KILLING HIM!

I don't believe "creepy" is the apt term to describe that situation in DA2. However, I do believe because he was mentally handicapped, and he generally didn't mean harm, it led to a bit more of an ambiguous scenario. Could we really hold him responsible due to his mental disability? Do we have the right to treat him as if he had the reasonable capacity of a normal person? There really wasn't a right or wrong answer. It was just a bad situation and either way, someone was going to have to pay.

[Zjarcal]

A man who killed a crapton of innocent women, was being protected by his father and his victims would not get justice and was blaming demons? Ya.... HOW CREEPY THE COMPANIONS ARE FOR KILLING HIM!

Dat poor defenseless murderer, we should've all snuggled around him in a campfire instead, feasting on the corpses of his victims.

BIOWARE PLS Y WAS DAT NOT AN OPTION

[pallascedar]

Well being a complete sociopath doesn't lead to a very compelling story, and makes it difficult to perpetuate any kind of story forward, which is why BioWare probably avoids it.

 

You are more than welcome to live out your villain ways in Skyrim, where you legitimately can be evil and people will hate you for it. That level of freedom where you can be good or evil is seldom found in games, however. That's part of the reason The Elder Scrolls is so special! Perhaps at some point BioWare will make a game where you can really be the hero or the villain. However, that's not the current direction they are taking DAI, and likely ME won't follow that direction either.

 

I do have to admit it would be interesting to play a BioWare game from the perspective of the villain one of these days though. Of course, they would need to be likable to some extent. You can only enjoy a story so much as you can connect with the actual protagonist, or in this case, the antagonist.

 

Yeah, pretty much the reality is that the more complex you make the story focused around the character the more you have to make the story about the character being either a hero or villain. Skyrim is great and all, but the Dragonborn isn't a very interesting character, and his place in the story isn't particularly interesting. There's flexibility, but that added flexibility takes away from a writer's ability to develop that character.

 

In DA and ME the characters are extraordinarily well developed, but unfortunately, that means that the roles the character can fill becomes more limited. So DA and ME characters are heroes, not villains. I get that some people want to be able to play the villain's story. But most people don't. Most people like being the hero in RPGs. So Bioware is going to keep on writing hero stories.

[Mr.House]

I don't believe "creepy" is the apt term to describe that situation in DA2. However, I do believe because he was mentally handicapped, and he generally didn't mean harm, it led to a bit more of an ambiguous scenario. Could we really hold him responsible due to his mental disability? Do we have the right to treat him as if he had the reasonable capacity of a normal person? There really wasn't a right or wrong answer. It was just a bad situation and either way, someone was going to have to pay.

Didn't mean harm? WHAT.  He was a serial killer! He killed so many innocent elves and no justice was being done at all. He was being protected by his father. Sounds to me you bought his **** and ball story, that's your fault .Aveline, Carver, Isabela, ect and me did not buy his story. He was an insane loony that deserved to be killed.

 

Jesus Christ. This is worse then people defending Quintin.

[pallascedar]

Didn't mean harm? WHAT.  He was a serial killer! He killed so many innocent elves and no justice was being done at all. He was being protected by his father. Sounds to me you bought his **** and ball story, that's your fault .Aveline, Carver, Isabela, ect and me did not buy his story. He was an insane loony that deserved to be killed.

 

Jesus Christ. This is worse then people defending Quintin.

 

Yeah, the dude was a monster. But I think it's a bit more complex, He's clearly severely mentally ill, and the best way to him isn't necessarily death. However, the man's father was a magistrate and was clearly getting in the way of justice. It might have been best to throw Kelder in jail, but with who his father was, it wouldn't have happened. 

[Revan Reborn]

Yeah, pretty much the reality is that the more complex you make the story focused around the character the more you have to make the story about the character being either a hero or villain. Skyrim is great and all, but the Dragonborn isn't a very interesting character, and his place in the story isn't particularly interesting. There's flexibility, but that added flexibility takes away from a writer's ability to develop that character.

 

In DA and ME the characters are extraordinarily well developed, but unfortunately, that means that the roles the character can fill becomes more limited. So DA and ME characters are heroes, not villains. I get that some people want to be able to play the villain's story. But most people don't. Most people like being the hero in RPGs. So Bioware is going to keep on writing hero stories.

Very true. I love BGS and I have been playing TES games since Morrowind. However, the main story and character development has always generally been weak due to too much freedom and choice on the part of the player. Dragonborn really didn't have a lot of character development, and honestly it's hard to have any especially when the main character isn't voiced. Heck, I love DAO but even the Warden is rather one-dimensional without someone's performance to bring him/her to life. That's why Mass Effect was such a major game changer with Commander Shepard. There certainly is probably a middle ground to be found somewhere between freedom and great storytelling and character development. Rumor has it the unconfirmed Fallout 4 will finally give the main protagonist an actual voice, which I believe is a smart move on BGS's part to remain competitive with more story-driven RPG developers such as BioWare and CD Projekt Red.

 

Yeah, certainly the good guy saving the day will be the de facto story. I think it's entirely possible at some point we could have more of an anti-hero, somewhat like a Geralt of Rivia, that BioWare could potentially write. I think the writing team is going to have to continue to be ambitious, willing to take risks, and try to go new directions. Otherwise, at some point there would be a concern of continuing to produce quality stories that really do create a new experience never before seen. We'll see what BioWare does. Whether they decide to go with a more defined character like Commander Shepard or try for a clean slate such as the Warden, as long as execution is on spot, I won't complain too much one way or the other.

[Ms .45]

I don't believe "creepy" is the apt term to describe that situation in DA2. However, I do believe because he was mentally handicapped, and he generally didn't mean harm, it led to a bit more of an ambiguous scenario. Could we really hold him responsible due to his mental disability? Do we have the right to treat him as if he had the reasonable capacity of a normal person? There really wasn't a right or wrong answer. It was just a bad situation and either way, someone was going to have to pay.

 

I always get Fenris to kill Kelder, but a legalistic solution should have been available... except ELVES LOL

[Revan Reborn]

Didn't mean harm? WHAT.  He was a serial killer! He killed so many innocent elves and no justice was being done at all. He was being protected by his father. Sounds to me you bought his **** and ball story, that's your fault .Aveline, Carver, Isabela, ect and me did not buy his story. He was an insane loony that deserved to be killed.

 

Jesus Christ. This is worse then people defending Quintin.

It's not a matter of "buying" his story or not. It's a moral question of whether you can judge a mentally-disabled person the same way you can a reasonable person. Personally, I would have much rather detained him and locked him away in a prison. DA2 didn't give you such an option, and you either had to kill him, or essentially let him go free, which are two ridiculous extremes.

 

It was an attempt on BioWare's part to force a moral dilemma, which worked to some extent? They tried to give it more credibility by the young elf girl defending the "serial killer." Either way, I would question those who are quick to judge others just based on hearing one side of the story. What we should take away from the DA franchise is BioWare intends for there to not be any easy decisions. Now, that's entirely subjective ultimately as some will feel some questions are easier to answer than others, as you clearly have.

[Mr.House]

I always get Fenris to kill Kelder, but a legalistic solution should have been available... except ELVES LOL

A legal way was never going to happen because of his father. That's why Aveline was royally pissed off. This was corruption and misuse of power. The only way the victims would get the justicet hey deserve is by him getting killed. That's all there is too it.

[Mr.House]

It's not a matter of "buying" his story or not. It's a moral question of whether you can judge a mentally-disabled person the same way you can a reasonable person? Personally, I would have much rather detained him and locked him away in a prison. DA2 didn't give you such an option, and you either had to kill him, or essentially let him go free, which are two ridiculous extremes.

 

It was an attempt on BioWare's part to force a moral dilemma, which worked to some extent? They tried to give it more credibility by the young elf girl defending the "serial killer." Either way, I would question those who are quick to judge others just based on hearing one side of the story. What we should take away from the DA franchise is BioWare intends for there to not be any easy decisions. Now, that's entirely subjective ultimately as some will feel some questions are easier to answer than others, as you clearly have.

You missed the point of that story line, It was to show you the corruption in the government and how even guards where being used for someones own gain. That is why those two choices where there.

[Revan Reborn]

I always get Fenris to kill Kelder, but a legalistic solution should have been available... except ELVES LOL

Yeah I don't mind the moral dilemmas. It's only a bit irritating when your choices are "world peace and lets hold hands" or "crush 'em all." I'm hoping that the moral dilemmas we will have to face as the Inquisitor, of which I'm sure there will be many, will be based more on our leadership skills and what we believe is the best way to resolve a situation. Do we send our army to defend a nearby city soon to be under attack by templars/mages where thousands are likely to be slaughtered? Or do we focus our efforts on a key fortress in the region that would further augment the power of the Inquisition and take us one step closer to saving Thedas? Those are the kinds of moral dilemmas I'd like to see more of.

[themikefest]

Kelder. What a joke? I just kill the piece of crap and move onto the next quest.

[AshenEndymion]

A legal way was never going to happen because of his father. That's why Aveline was royally pissed off. This was corruption and misuse of power. The only way the victims would get the justicet hey deserve is by him getting killed. That's all there is too it.

 

And yet, Aveline denounces the idea of Captain Jevan being killed for his crimes.  Seems odd to me that the mentally-deranged dude deserves to die, but the guy who knows that he is embezzling funds and murdering his own guardsman to do it "should see justice"...  Especially when the fact that he's not in prison 6 years later tells me he didn't really "see justice"...

 

Don't get me wrong.  I kill Keldar, too.  But Aveline's opinion on the matter is a tad hypocritical to me...

[Revan Reborn]

You missed the point of that story line, It was to show you the corruption in the government and how even guards where being used for someones own gain. That is why those two choices where there.

No... I'm fairly certain the major focus of the story was on whether you should condemn a mentally-disabled person to death or not. Yes, his father was a magistrate and was trying to shield his son from fault. However, that had little relevancy in the actual larger scheme of the issue and moral dilemma. I could care less what the magistrate thought. My only concern was on how best to deal with his mentally-ill son.

[Osena109]

Meatbag i loved me some Hk-47

[pallascedar]

No... I'm fairly certain the major focus of the story was on whether you should condemn a mentally-disabled person to death or not. Yes, his father was a magistrate and was trying to shield his son from fault. However, that had little relevancy in the actual larger scheme of the issue and moral dilemma. I could care less what the magistrate thought. My only concern was on how best to deal with his mentally-ill son.

 

But there's more to it than that. There are certainly better ways to deal with mentally ill people than killing them, even if they're serial killers. The issue is that if you don't kill Kelder you might as well have been the murderer who killed all of his future victims. Because Hawke and his companions knew that if they didn't stop Kelder, then nobody would.