As far as morality in video games is concerned, I prefer how it was done in Witcher series over ME/DA.
The cut-throat nature of the world requires everyone to be a douche in varying degrees. But the focus wasn't on deliberate "good vs evil" decisions; it was more about taking sides and bearing the consequences at a later point in the game.
Topics like these remind me of why I despise the Alignment system in D&D (generally speaking, but it can be useful as a quick snapshot) and the Dark Side/Light Side dichotomy in Star Wars (though I dislike it much less than alignment).
Dragon Age, in my view, goes far beyond the simplistic good and evil binary - characters have virtues and flaws, ambitions and fears, and so forth. In the case of Inquisition, I see it like this: Much as with the Origins, you are leading an organization that's primary goal is to put an end to the chaos sweeping across Thedas and plug up the giant hole in the sky. How you go about that goal will likely vary hugely.
Cole strikes me as the most altruisitc character, whereas I can see Vivienne being a bit of a rutheless politician that believes the end justifies the means. Cassandra seems somewhat in the middle. Varric wants to stop the chaos but he's also a nice guy and doesn't want to see innocents get hurt (as seen in the Crestwood demo). Solas is unreadable at the moment, and I suspect that Dorian will likely be a mix of true desire to do good and help people (seems like a decent fellow) mixed with some serious denial about the reality of his homeland (sort of like...Nalia in BG2. I fight for the right side, but I'm also totally socialized a certain way). Iron Bull...really difficult to say - he seems like he'd be cool with mostly anything a bit like Oghren. Blackwall will likely have a strong sense of justice. Sera...she lives in the moment, I guess?
These are all just guesses based off of what we've seen, but my point (and I'm sure others have said it too) is that the characters are far more complicated than just good and bad.
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.
She's not Police Comissioner, she's Guard Captain. I got the feeling her main responsability is to keep the peace, not enforce the rules. I if that means turning the ocassional blind eye to broken laws, she'll do it.
short answer: yes, it will.
longer answer: this is dragon age not mass effect you shouldn't be worried about petty things like picking a color to stick with.
long answer: picking stupid evil choice because lol evil is fun will probably backfire horribly, as it should. for the most part it looks like it more political then good/evil. hopeful the days of everyone at their worst is over now that we're out of kirkwall.
killing as many of the Chantry and templar hierarchy as I can isn't 'stupid evil' it's brutal pragmatism, the point of terrorism is to terrorise..and they SHALL fear me, if only to end their stupid, expansionist wars, and meddling in secular politics.
Wait, you want to play an egoistical ass and complain that people don't love you for it?
The optimal level of crime is not zero.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.
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.
I couldn't agree more.
I thought there were more renegades in DA:2 than there were good guys.
Anders a renegade mage who blew up the Chantry,
Isabela a slave running, book stealing rogue who runs out on you half way through the second act(I know she comes back but still).
Merrill a blood magic using Mage with a tenancy to atract demons.
Varric a lovable scoundrel who couldn't careless how bad you act.
Kept away from Caver and Fenris as there whinning got on my nerves.
The only good characters I actually played with were Aveline and Bethany.
Guest_TrillClinton_*
You don't have to be a good guy to save the world.
Protagonist =/= good guy.
A good rpg dialogue design allows the character to play a variety of characters. Railroading the character into "nice dialogue" or nice actions comes into conflict for someone playing a morality deficient character.
Okay lets say im playing an evil character? Why I'm I doing so? Maybe I want to get to this big evil to find out his power? Maybe I am only doing this because I want to survive and take over the world myself? Maybe I just don't like his style?
You don't have to be a good guy to save the world.
Protagonist =/= good guy.
Have you never watched Hancock?
So, you expect being a jerk to have no consequences?
We would like pragmatism to be a viable option, to let the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
I don't feel DA has ever been paragon versus renegade. Each major decision can be viewed in a number of ways. What a character may approve of in one scenario, they may disapprove of in the next because the context is different. In DAI some characters have been presented as caring about the little people, not sacrificing them for the "greater good", Sera and Cole spring to mind. However, others would probably not have any problem with this, Vivienne springs to mind because she is comfortable in the setting of the Orlesian Court and the nobility there are constantly sacrificing those beneath their social scale and on it, for the greater good or simply their own. Blackwall is invested in the idea of the noble sacrifice of the Grey Wardens but anyone who is willing to drink darkspawn blood understands that the end can justify the means. Riorden seemed a decent sort of Warden but it was him who made the suggestion about sparing Loghain. So I wouldn't assume too much about Blackwall until you get to know him. Iron Bull just likes enjoying himself whilst fulfilling his duty to the Qun as a spy but beyond that what he respects is a strong leader. Provide you have sound reasons for doing something and are able to defend your decision, I'm pretty sure he will go along with it. We don't yet know enough about Solas to know what he will object to. From the Twitter post of the Assquissitor, it would seem that if you are a petty jerk who insists on insulting him and treating him badly on racial grounds, eventually he is going to crack. That has nothing to do with a person making tough decisions. Cassandra may not like you making a ruthless choice but again I think she is someone who may understand the logic in doing so.
The only thing that I think they will all be agreed on is that they want to big hole in the sky fixed. If you decide to "lead the world to its bitter end" as Morrigan suggested you could do in the first ever trailer, I think there will be a major rebellion in the ranks but then you would not be renegade, merely stupid.
So, you expect being a jerk to have no consequences?
Well to be honest it never had for me at least yet. 
I just hope i don't have care about others (im worried as it seems in demo inq was concerned with leliana life) and not much rp options like in da 2 from what i saw in discussion about alexius you could pull only nice dialogue safe for third "i want to go home" .
To be honest i never felt that we had more "good" companions in dao in fact i felt other way that number of companions mentally unbalanced was far greater than those sane.
So, you expect being a jerk to have no consequences?
No, it should have as many as being a good two shoes idealist. Both should have consequences, but 'good' rarely seems to.
Guest_TrillClinton_*
No, it should have as many as being a good two shoes idealist. Both should have consequences, but 'good' rarely seems to.
this
As far as morality in video games is concerned, I prefer how it was done in Witcher series over ME/DA.
The cut-throat nature of the world requires everyone to be a douche in varying degrees. But the focus wasn't on deliberate "good vs evil" decisions; it was more about taking sides and bearing the consequences at a later point in the game.
I think the Witcher goes a bit overboard and just makes everyone into unlikeable assholes. So you're very often choosing the lesser of two evils at best. While it works sometimes, having it happen almost constantly just gets tiring. Vergen vs Henselt in TW2 was basically the only conflict in the series, that I remember, that was light grey vs dark grey.
Dragon Age does morality just fine if you ask me. Better than Mass Effect, and better than The Witcher.
Indeed. Morrigan, if I'm going into the Redcliffe Castle anyway, how does it hurt me to open the door for Valena to escape? Sten, I can't beat the darkspawn by myself. How am I going to wake up Arl Eamon without the ashes?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?
Sometimes a Hero can lead by ruling with an Iron fist, even with fear. Would he be loved? Maybe not, but at least he would have the support and power to save the world or land.
Or find himself court-martialed, or poisoned for being a tyrant.
Also, it makes me wonder how much of this about being a "renegade" and how much about playing a "serial killer".
Don't get me wrong, playing a ruthless bastard can be tons of fun. But don't expect everyone to pat you on the back for it and to make your life nice and easy.
Or find himself court-martialed, or poisoned for being a tyrant.
Also, it makes me wonder how much of this about being a "renegade" and how much about playing a "serial killer".
Don't get me wrong, playing a ruthless bastard can be tons of fun. But don't expect everyone to pat you on the back for it and to make your life nice and easy.
Short-term loss for long term-gain is what we're talking about. letting the city fall to end the war and save more people. But either the city falls no matter what or you can manage both.
Topics like these remind me of why I despise the Alignment system in D&D (generally speaking, but it can be useful as a quick snapshot) and the Dark Side/Light Side dichotomy in Star Wars (though I dislike it much less than alignment).
Dragon Age, in my view, goes far beyond the simplistic good and evil binary - characters have virtues and flaws, ambitions and fears, and so forth. In the case of Inquisition, I see it like this: Much as with the Origins, you are leading an organization that's primary goal is to put an end to the chaos sweeping across Thedas and plug up the giant hole in the sky. How you go about that goal will likely vary hugely.
Wait a minute, how can Star Wars Light vs. Dark, the very good-evil binary you applaud DA for not having, be more tolerable to you than D&D which has 9 grades on 2 axes, including 'pure gray'?
Short-term loss for long term-gain is what we're talking about. letting the city fall to end the war and save more people. But either the city falls no matter what or you can manage both.
Ah, those always make for an interesting dillema, and usually drama with your companions. 
It would be nice to have a few choices like that, but I still highly doubt they'll go over well with most companions.
Reminds me of the good old Warcraft III days and playing through Arthas' story*.
Maybe I'm a bit lost since I haven't read the entire thread yet, but isn't everyone going "*gasp!* You can't just do that!" part of the fun of playing an anti-hero, renegade, or whatchamacallit? Rather than having all the companions simply be "yes men"?
* Even though DA:Awakening had an actual choice like that, WC3 still left more of an impression for some reason.
Yeah, there always was a good reason for most of Origin's good actions beyond ''being nice''.
Not helping Redcliffe is just, well, bafflingly stupid. You know you need the Arl for your army. You know a horde of undead are ready to attack the village. Said horde of undead, without your help, will probably overwhelm the village. This means 1) you now have more undead to contend with, 2) said undead were people who could have helped you and 3) maybe the Arl is going to be a bit ticked off that you let the village surrounding his castle to die because you couldn't be bothered/were lazy/wanted sleep with Morrigan? I'm really not sure what is rational here.
Same for Morrigan's ''oh, well the mages were imprisoned in the Circle, so in principle we shouldn't help them''. Just, what? We need mages. There are mages, right here. End of discussion. I'm not leaving them be because Flemeth bad mouthed them to you a few times. Besides, didn't she said we shouldn't leave Sten in a cage? Why the double standard here?
At least Sten could be reasoned with, or, well, persuaded the hard way. But Morrigan's particular brand of ''pragmatism'' was laughably inept and short-sighted.
Well said.
Some people assume that being ruthless is being effective. It doesn't work that way. Being ruthless is being ruthless. Being effective is being effective. And I find a bit laughable that it's acceptable to criticize paragons for not suffering possible failure scenarios while not realizing that the same standard could be applied to renegades, who also don't suffer any failures despite them being equally possible.
Well said.
Some people assume that being ruthless is being effective. It doesn't work that way. Being ruthless is being ruthless. Being effective is being effective. And I find a bit laughable that it's acceptable to criticize paragons for not suffering possible failure scenarios while not realizing that the same standard could be applied to renegades, that also don't suffer any failures despite them being equally possible.
Ruthlessness is not compromising. It's making cold, calculating decisions.
Being a moral choice loses it's difficulty when pragmatic decisions line up perfectly with morality.
What we want is Coventry, not being rewarded for dickishness.
Retour en haut