......You can ruthlessly shot Legion to death over and over again.... You can be evil.
He's a geth, you can have quite reasonable doubt as to his sincerity. Ruthless =/= evil. Ruthless = Pragmatic. Ruthless can be evil, but it isn't necessarily evil.
He's a geth, you can have quite reasonable doubt as to his sincerity. Ruthless =/= evil. Ruthless = Pragmatic. Ruthless can be evil, but it isn't necessarily evil.
Don't even try that. Killing him/it is one thing. Shotting Legion over and over again is another. Killing him is not evil, how you kill him is.
Well Sten tries to take over the leadership at one point, due to you being too soft. And the others are pretty easy to convince that you're a brilliant overlord and to follow you. Except maybe Leli, but just leave her behind at camp.
I have every faith that BioWare will give us a good mix of personalities.
The ends always justify the means. Literally always.The ends justify the means is more of the exception than the rule, sure sometimes it yields results sooner rather than later, generally the long term consequences are unfortunately worst.
My favourite moment in DAO.Well Sten tries to take over the leadership at one point, due to you being to soft.
The ends always justify the means. Literally always.
If ever you think they don't, you've misidentified your desired ends.
No not correct at all. Desired ends may not be immediately foreseen. In this world it is rare to be able to attain some pie in the sky everything is perfect ending. It comes down to problem solving and in many cases the ideal end is just not attainable. Shorts but decisions are made that can actually make things worse in the long run. You almost never have a perfect picture of a desired end. To only act on a desired end will often mean you do nothing because it is not obtainable.
If you don't act, then presumably you preferred the end that occurred without you rather than the one you could create.No not correct at all. Desired ends may not be immediately foreseen. In this world it is rare to be able to attain some pie in the sky everything is perfect ending. It comes down to problem solving and in many cases the ideal end is just not attainable. Shorts but decisions are made that can actually make things worse in the long run. You almost never have a perfect picture of a desired end. To only act on a desired end will often mean you do nothing because it is not obtainable.
The ends always justify the means. Literally always.
If ever you think they don't, you've misidentified your desired ends.
If you render the world inhospitable because you don't want to eat eggplant again the ends did not justify the means.
I really want the Pragmatic Argument option.
Morrigan, we're rescuing the mages because they are the perfect group to fight a horde from a distance. If you can tell me where to find another bunch of mages I'll totally leave them to their fate.
We're saving Redcliffe because I'm trying to ask Arl Eamon for help, losing Redcliffe is not likely to endear him to me.
Sten, we're searching for the ashes of a deadwoman because nobody will got off their ass until I do.
Oh my god, yes please. I mean, "Trust me, I'm right" usually does the trick, but it gets so annoying after awhile; I'd so much rather give them a good reason.
It really amounts to "Because I'm your mom and I said so!" Gah, why?
Any military tactician knows if you ignore your people's plea for help you'll eventually lose because of a few reasons
1: Allow the city to be captured while you march on you leave your rear flank unguarded allowing for an attack from behind while your focus is forward
2: Abandon the people and they abandon you. Many rulers have learned this the hard way.
3: Ignore a plea for help allows the opposing army to swoop in and gain favor over you, which can lead to revolts and attacks from behind and as we all know....Swooping is bad.
Helping people is not considered a weakness, and yes what you would lose in soldiers you'd gain in secure rear flanks, supplies, reinforcements and possible intel.
Being a "renegade" never ends well. Burn your allies and you'll soon find yourself without.
Except when it gives you an army of werewolves and a forest entity... But that's just my preference 
Saving the world isn't about 'being good' it's simply necessary to the survival of the self. A character and other characters, good, evil, neutral, or whatever alignment you want to put them in, wont be in favour of global destruction. The motives are plenty. Politicians would want order; Heroes would want peace; Villains simply don't want their own schemes at risk.
I'm hardly what you would call good. I'm the greyest motherhumper around. But if I were capable, and the world was at risk, I'd go and fight for it. Why? Because it's my own damned life at risk and nothing else.
Pretty much. Who the hell am I going to rule over if everyone is dead? Especially if I'm dead!
Unfortunately, this is how real life kinda plays out. Typically, our options aren't really good or evil, but a matter of priorities, differences of opinions, and the like. I thought the decision regarding Kelder was pretty true to life and believable. Making the decisions too obvious (good vs bad) gets boring - plus it's very hard to believe!
I thought they were a tad extreme as it was either "let him go free because you feel bad for him" or "kill him for the serial killer that he is." I believe a more practical approach would have been imprisoning him or placing him in the care of the Templars/Chantry. I don't mind the moral dilemma. I just didn't personally believe the choices you had were all that believable and felt more forced than anything else.
Dude, it's no different for choosing to save Kaiden or Ashley. The the entire point was to be hypothetical. You deciding what happen does not make is silly, heck the guy you are killing even ask you to do it.
It's entirely different. These are two companions you have grown to know and like. You can only save one, however. That is a rather straightforward moral dilemma where the choices are obvious and believable.
This was not the case for the mentally-disabled serial killer. He wasn't a companion. We didn't really have a reasonable option to choose from. It was either let his magistrate father bail him out of trouble and set him loose to the public again or kill him. There really wasn't "justice" or a resolution in either choice because both were morally bad. Again, I didn't mind the moral dilemma, I just felt the execution wasn't the greatest, in comparison to the ME example you just used.
If you render the world inhospitable because you don't want to eat eggplant again the ends did not justify the means.
But! You would only do that (or take that risk) if you believed that the possibility of rendering the world inhospitable was an acceptable price to pay for ending the tyranny of eggplant. Unless you're talking about unforeseen consequences of actions, which is (or should be) a problem with both "ruthless/ends justify means" and "paragon/idealist" choices, because you cannot ever know all the variables or predict the behavior of others/their true loyalties to eggplants.
....I would play this videogame, btw,but I'm siding with eggplants because they are delicious.
If a hospitable world was part of your desired ends, then you didn't achieve them.If you render the world inhospitable because you don't want to eat eggplant again the ends did not justify the means.
I didn't like that one because Hawke was forced to explain why he was choosing one, and the explanation didn't fit.This was not the case for the mentally-disabled serial killer. He wasn't a companion. We didn't really have a reasonable option to choose from. It was either let his magistrate father bail him out of trouble and set him loose to the public again or kill him. There really wasn't "justice" or a resolution in either choice because both were morally bad. Again, I didn't mind the moral dilemma, I just felt the execution wasn't the greatest, in comparison to the ME example you just used.
It's entirely different. These are two companions you have grown to know and like. You can only save one, however. That is a rather straightforward moral dilemma where the choices are obvious and believable.
This was not the case for the mentally-disabled serial killer. He wasn't a companion. We didn't really have a reasonable option to choose from. It was either let his magistrate father bail him out of trouble and set him loose to the public again or kill him. There really wasn't "justice" or a resolution in either choice because both were morally bad. Again, I didn't mind the moral dilemma, I just felt the execution wasn't the greatest, in comparison to the ME example you just used.
It is not always about justice. Order is not best ways to always do thing being that it's about negotiating with set rule. The rule are indifferent everyone flowing them have different ends and means.
Ply the game and then complain. I don't see your fears as founded. All of the characters seem to feel the need to get the job done and are in a desparate situation. Most are dedicated to a faction and I believe they will care more about how you treat that faction then a generalized morality, but yes, if you treat everyone like a sucker and a sap you will probably be punished. You are supposed to be gathering allies not gathering wealth.
It is not always about justice. Order is not best ways to always do thing being that it's about negotiating with set rule. The rule are indifferent everyone flowing them have different ends and means.
In my personal opinion, moral dilemmas are intrinsically tied to questions of justice. Will you send your troops to defend a city about to be raided? Or will you flank the enemy with hopes of ending the war quicker by crippling their numbers, but also likely costing the lives of millions of innocents? What is more just? Do the ends justify the means? Can a necessary evil really lead to the greater good? There really isn't a right or wrong answer, as moral dilemmas always take place in very unjust worlds or environments. It's up to the player to decide what justice is, and which aspect of that justice is more pronounced than the other. That, to me, is what's compelling about moral dilemmas. If I just let the mentally-disabled serial killer go or just outright kill him, how is either one of those just? To me, that's just a rash decision that doesn't satisfy the dilemma. A quick and thoughtless solution to a convoluted and unfortunate situation.
True, but my point is that by allowing the village to burn, you still have your forces in tact. Sometimes being a jerk is the best means of survival.
The Native Americans were good, virtuous, and open to the settlers, yet look how that turned out for them?
The stereotype of the noble savage is a stereotype all the same.
War and conquest existed in the Americas long before the arrival of Europeans. And not all were friendly to new arrivals.
Guest_TheDarkKnightReturns_*
Wait, Aveline doesn't have a flaw.... WTF?
Aveline is the most corrupt person in DA2. She's a good person, but corrupt as all hell. She turns a blind eye because she cares about the people breaking the laws she's sworn to uphold as Guard Captain.
I've lost count of many times Hawke broke laws in front of her. Or Isabela (thief and formerly a raider). Or Varric (basically runs organized crime in Kirkwall with Hawke). Or Fenris (kills Tevinters and takes their stuff willy nilly). Or Anders (an apostate abomination). Or Merrill (a maleficar). Or Sebastian (contracted Hawke for several assassinations). Don't get me wrong. These are all characters that I enjoy to varying degrees, but it's time to call a spade a spade folks.
Her direct subordinates were raping elves in the Alienage and she literally turned a blind eye until the Arishok got involved. Guards taking advantage of elves had been going on since Act I and in all that time she did nothing because she didn't want to get her 'family' into trouble.
That's a pretty glaring flaw if you ask me.
Does the player know how Shepard will kill Legion when the player makes the choice?Don't even try that. Killing him/it is one thing. Shotting Legion over and over again is another. Killing him is not evil, how you kill him is.
Wait, Aveline doesn't have a flaw.... WTF?
Aveline is the most corrupt person in DA2. She's a good person, but corrupt as all hell. She turns a blind eye because she cares about the people breaking the laws she's sworn to uphold as Guard Captain.
I've lost count of many times Hawke broke laws in front of her. Or Isabela (thief and formerly a raider). Or Varric (basically runs organized crime in Kirkwall with Hawke). Or Fenris (kills Tevinters and takes their stuff willy nilly). Or Anders (an apostate abomination). Or Merrill (a maleficar). Or Sebastian (contracted Hawke for several assassinations). Don't get me wrong. These are all characters that I enjoy to varying degrees, but it's time to call a spade a spade folks.
Her direct subordinates were raping elves in the Alienage and she literally turned a blind eye until the Arishok got involved. Guards taking advantage of elves had been going on since Act I and in all that time she did nothing because she didn't want to get her 'family' into trouble.
That's a pretty glaring flaw if you ask me.
I think you misunderstand how the world works. First of all Aveline at least sees her job as more of keeping the peace, she mentions this to Fenris in one of the idle conversations, guards will lt people lie if it keeps the peace. If you're not abducting or attacking innocents she has bigger things to worry about.
Killing people that attack you, is not a crime. Even walking into thier base is probably acceptable. Isabela doesn't actually do that much in the way of blatantly illegal activities, yes she WAS a smuggler. She can't really do that anymore. Aveline could probably haul her in for illegal entry into Kirkwall, ut it wouldn't stop the crime other people are doing. Varric works with the merchant's guild, and while he doesn't pay by thier rules, that's not Aveline's jurisdiction. She's not thier seargent-at-arms. I could go on, but the point is this, Kirkwall has gangs wandering the streets, abducting people for slavers, killing them, robbing them, etc. Aveline is going to worry about that rather than people who aren't hurting people but are breaking the law.
Guest_TheDarkKnightReturns_*
I think you misunderstand how the world works. First of all Aveline at least sees her job as more of keeping the peace, she mentions this to Fenris in one of the idle conversations, guards will lt people lie if it keeps the peace. If you're not abducting or attacking innocents she has bigger things to worry about.
Killing people that attack you, is not a crime. Even walking into thier base is probably acceptable. Isabela doesn't actually do that much in the way of blatantly illegal activities, yes she WAS a smuggler. She can't really do that anymore. Aveline could probably haul her in for illegal entry into Kirkwall, ut it wouldn't stop the crime other people are doing. Varric works with the merchant's guild, and while he doesn't pay by thier rules, that's not Aveline's jurisdiction. She's not thier seargent-at-arms. I could go on, but the point is this, Kirkwall has gangs wandering the streets, abducting people for slavers, killing them, robbing them, etc. Aveline is going to worry about that rather than people who aren't hurting people but are breaking the law.
Sounds like a long winded excuse to me. I'd buy it if she were still a Lieutenant. Captain of the Guard however, doesn't have the luxury of corruption. Especially when she got her predecessor locked up for the same thing.
She's supposed to uphold the law. Period. Judging which laws are worth upholding and who's allowed to break them is not part of her job description.
Retour en haut