223 réponses à ce sujet

[Basement Cat]

The thing with 'renegade' or 'stone cold pragmatism' options is that not everyone will see it the same way you do. If you make a bunch of ruthless choices and you claim the greater good, people might start to question just how far you will go. Would you sell out a companion for gain? Let's take Cassandra as an example: she is seen as a traitor by the Seeker order. If they promise you aid in exchange for her, will you give her up? Let's say you do. After all she is only one person and they are a large group of trained soldiers, which you need. Some other companions might start to wonder when it will be their turn to be sold out. People might be hesitant to throw in with you because you look like someone who is not loyal to your underlings.

 

So, by all means, take the ruthless options, but don't complain about being penalized when you get consequences for it. There are not that many people who can accept such measures, especially not when it's their life on the line. Sacrifice is a rare virtue.

[TheEternalStudent]

The thing with 'renegade' or 'stone cold pragmatism' options is that not everyone will see it the same way you do. If you make a bunch of ruthless choices and you claim the greater good, people might start to question just how far you will go. Would you sell out a companion for gain? Let's take Cassandra as an example: she is seen as a traitor by the Seeker order. If they promise you aid in exchange for her, will you give her up? Let's say you do. After all she is only one person and they are a large group of trained soldiers, which you need. Some other companions might start to wonder when it will be their turn to be sold out. People might be hesitant to throw in with you because you look like someone who is not loyal to your underlings.

 

So, by all means, take the ruthless options, but don't complain about being penalized when you get consequences for it. There are not that many people who can accept such measures, especially not when it's their life on the line. Sacrifice is a rare virtue.

I'm not asking to make friends this way, I'm asking for it to be effective.

[Basement Cat]

I'm not asking to make friends this way, I'm asking for it to be effective.

I'm not talking about making friends. I'm saying that an army is made of people, people have emotions, emotions color judgement and that can lead to mass desertions if the leader gets called into question.

 

Part of being effective is being able to inspire confidence in the people you lead. And if they start to think that they have a better chance without you, well... stuff happens.

[Mistic]

I'm not talking about making friends. I'm saying that an army is made of people, people have emotions, emotions color judgement and that can lead to mass desertions if the leader gets called into question.

 

Part of being effective is being able to inspire confidence in the people you lead. And if they start to think that they have a better chance without you, well... stuff happens.

 

Given that wannabe ruthless tend to like quoting him, here's something from Machiaveli:

 

"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women"

 

Fear is a powerful tool for the prince/ruler/boss/whatever. But hate? Hate is much more powerful, and impossible to control. It can devour even the most fearsome prince. Machiaveli knew that. He also pointed out that the best of the best would be being feared and loved at the same time, but cynical as he was, he deemed it difficult (but not impossible). The ruthless forget that, and the part about hate too.

[Dean_the_Young]

I couldn't agree more.

 

I'll surprise you by disagreeing- I wouldn't want a pragmatic option category, unless the pragmatic identity was fallible and open to being flawed and un-pragmatic.

 

Pragmaticism is basically the idea of 'success off of practical application,' which to many people means 'what works,' in the same way that 'logical' is often a lazy shorthand to 'makes sense and agrees with me.' I don't want a categorical 'this is what works' dialogue category, because the distinguishing difference between the 'this is what works' option is always going to touch on the 'this is not what works' spectrum. I don't want a 'this doesn't work' category.

 

Plus, what counts as pragmaticism differs a lot from context and culture. In the not-distant-enough-past, chattel slavery was very pragmatic. Now, anyone who even suggests it openly risks all manner of formal and informal reactions against it. It is no longer pragmatic. The notion of a simplistic 'what works' gets even more convoluted when you start factoring in culture and morality. In some parts of the world, looking a woman in the eyes and directly addressing her in the presence of her family is a very pragmatic thing to do, conveying respect and attention. In other parts of the world, it does not convey that, and in fact can be offensive enough to not be pragmatic at all.

 

I wouldn't want a dialogue category with a regularly changing expression of pragmaticism to keep with the context, any more than I wanted Paragon dialogue in ME that flip-flopped on themes and principles the moment the principle became unsympathetic. I do not want a dialogue option that always works in practical application.

 

 

Now, I would enjoy a dialogue option/theme that takes a practical tone or rational to everything... so long as that focus on rationality and pragmaticism can both be wrong and/or inferior to other approaches. Cutting losses and leaving allies to die is a pragmatic viewpoint. Sometimes it even deserves to be the correct assessment. It doesn't mean I don't think a principled 'leave no ally behind' player should sometimes pan out and avoid the cost a pragmatic dialogue would have accepted. (Of course, I also think that sometimes morally doubling down on a losing bet should double your losses. Balance.)

[Sylvius the Mad]

Indeed. Morrigan, if I'm going into the Redcliffe Castle anyway, how does it hurt me to open the door for Valena to escape?

Morrigan isn't objecting to you saving Valena (though I doubt she would think it was worth any effort); she's objecting to you pandering to Owen's.weakness.

This is jusy like her opposition to saving the Circle Mages. They a made their bed - they can die in it.

[AshenEndymion]

The thing with 'renegade' or 'stone cold pragmatism' options is that not everyone will see it the same way you do. If you make a bunch of ruthless choices and you claim the greater good, people might start to question just how far you will go. Would you sell out a companion for gain? Let's take Cassandra as an example: she is seen as a traitor by the Seeker order. If they promise you aid in exchange for her, will you give her up? Let's say you do. After all she is only one person and they are a large group of trained soldiers, which you need. Some other companions might start to wonder when it will be their turn to be sold out. People might be hesitant to throw in with you because you look like someone who is not loyal to your underlings.

 

So, by all means, take the ruthless options, but don't complain about being penalized when you get consequences for it. There are not that many people who can accept such measures, especially not when it's their life on the line. Sacrifice is a rare virtue.

 

The problem with doing the opposite, keeping Cassandra safe at the expense of Seeker support, is that it only fosters support with your companions.  The soldiers who follow you can realize that you don't actually care about accomplishing the goal you've set out to do, and only care about the safety of your companions.  Since a soldier isn't a companion, why should they care about fighting for you when you clearly don't believe in your cause.  Sure you'll get more companions, specialized people who are great at what they do, but the people who will make up your actual army might be hesitant to throw in with you because you look like someone who only cares about his friends.

 

Yes, some people seem to think ruthless = effective.  And yes that's a problem.  But it's also a problem that some people seem to think altruism = effective, too.

[Basement Cat]

@AshenEndymion

 

I'm not arguing that either. I'm saying that I like seeing consequences to whatever choice we make, be it ruthless or altruistic. I was just trying to point out that the game isn't punishing you for whatever choice you make, just that it has consequences one way or the other.

[AshenEndymion]

@AshenEndymion

 

I'm not arguing that either. I'm saying that I like seeing consequences to whatever choice we make, be it ruthless or altruistic. I was just trying to point out that the game isn't punishing you for whatever choice you make, just that it has consequences one way or the other.

 

I enjoy seeing consequences too.  But it's bothersome when a game will tell me "these are the morally good choices, and you should take them because there will be no negative consequences for doing so."  And I would have a problem if the game did the opposite too...  The point is that, since DA wants to tell the player that there are no "right" choices, there should be a relatively equal amount positive and negative consequences for choosing a purely "ruthless" or "altruistic" path. If it doesn't, then the game is punishing you for taking a path...

 

And yes, we can differentiate between short and long term consequences.  Ruthless choices could, and probably should, benefit the short term at the expense of the long term.  But this rarely happens in games when such choices are made.  Said Ruthless choices tend to only result in negative consequences whereas there are very few negative consequences for being altruistic(if there are any at all)...  And if there are only negative consequences for a choice in a game, said game is punishing you for that choice...

 

Your scenario is plausible in the game.  And your presented consequences for choosing to sacrifice Cassandra sounds like something that could happen in the game based upon that choice.  But the consequences presented in my counter is unlikely because Bioware isn't going to "punish" a player for choosing the "good" option, even if it would realistically show the soldiers in the army that you don't care about your cannon-fodder.  And that's a serious issue.

[sunnydxmen]

HEROES IS ALWAYS BETTER THEN VILLAINS BUT ANTI HEROES  KICK BOTH THERE ASSES

 

[dekarserverbot]

Change your avatar.

 

Ser Jory's face is just too punchable.

 

I know what you mean, i also watched Xena a Lot

[Aimi]

HEROES IS ALWAYS BETTER THEN VILLAINS BUT ANTI HEROES  KICK BOTH THERE ASSES
 

Who are those guys?

Imitation versions of Caine?

[Dabrikishaw]

I'm not seeing the penalization here.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Morrigan isn't objecting to you saving Valena (though I doubt she would think it was worth any effort); she's objecting to you pandering to Owen's.weakness.

This is jusy like her opposition to saving the Circle Mages. They a made their bed - they can die in it.

 

Which would be an argument if she didn't also advocate for freeing Sten. Who made his bed with his remorse and the blood of the family he killed. Also doesn't stop Morrigan herself from accepting help when she thinks her life and soul are on the line.

 

Plus, if Morrigan's survival of the fittest rhetoric gets between me and a battalion of mages, well, philosophy won't fireball any Darkspawn in the face.

 

Also, I fully agree with Dean_The_Young: I wouldn't want a dialogue that's always pragmatic and ''right'', that must makes the other options ''wrong''. What I would like is the ability to defend altruistic actions from a pragmatic PoV if it's at all present. I really dislike doing something ''good'' and not being able to point out that it was also a rational decision (if it was of course), not just the PC being a bleeding heart for the sake of karma points.

[pengwin21]

I'm of the opinion that Morrigan just doesn't like the Circle or Owen, she likes herself and she thinks Sten is a 'proud creature' so her philosophy shifts to reflect this.

[veeia]

Well, Morrigan's viewpoint there is colored by her perspective (inherited from Flemeth) on the Circle mages.

Sten didn't choose fear over freedom, as Morrigan perceives with the mages. She seems them as scared cattle, allowing themselves to be sent to the slaughter because they fear their own power...while Sten is something alien and defiant, proud and owning his life even when he's trapped. Possibly she relates to that, although I doubt she'd make that connection.

It's not particularly rational, but it makes sense to me for the character.

[Basement Cat]

Well, Morrigan's viewpoint there is colored by her perspective (inherited from Flemeth) on the Circle mages.

Sten didn't choose fear over freedom, as Morrigan perceives with the mages. She seems them as scared cattle, allowing themselves to be sent to the slaughter because they fear their own power...while Sten is something alien and defiant, proud and owning his life even when he's trapped. Possibly she relates to that, although I doubt she'd make that connection.

It's not particularly rational, but it makes sense to me for the character.

The funny thing is how hypocritical it is for Morrigan to say that. She accuses Circle Mages of allowing themselves to be held prisoner and just spouted the doctrine they are fed. Isn't she doing the same, though? She just repeats what Flemeth taught her, and she always came back home even if she hated it. It's not until she has the Warden on her side that she tries anything against Flemeth.

 

I really wish we could have called her out on it.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Morrigan's logic in DA:O is anything but pragmatic, despite that being the intention.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Also, I fully agree with Dean_The_Young: I wouldn't want a dialogue that's always pragmatic and ''right'', that must makes the other options ''wrong''. What I would like is the ability to defend altruistic actions from a pragmatic PoV if it's at all present. I really dislike doing something ''good'' and not being able to point out that it was also a rational decision (if it was of course), not just the PC being a bleeding heart for the sake of karma points.

I sort of agree woth this. Regardless if what choice my character makes, the writers aren't going to know whether it was chosen because it was righteous, or because it was smart, ot because it was prideful. So they need to be careful not to assume motives based on actions.

This is especially important for the writers given the paraphrase.

[ADeadDiehard]

Morrigan's logic in DA:O is anything but pragmatic, despite that being the intention.

You could argue that's the point, given how she doesn't really know that much about people.

[Gtdef]

You could argue that's the point, given how she doesn't really know that much about people.

 

 

Don't know about that. She doesn't know much about society but she is pretty "street smart". She was raised that way. She is good at maneuvering and manipulating people, but doesn't know the big picture which is kinda evident when she says that the Warden should go after Loghain before the treaties. I think she doesn't understand the implication and doesn't really try to defend her opinion after Alistair counters her. She just says that that's her opinion and moves on.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I sort of agree woth this. Regardless if what choice my character makes, the writers aren't going to know whether it was chosen because it was righteous, or because it was smart, ot because it was prideful. So they need to be careful not to assume motives based on actions.

This is especially important for the writers given the paraphrase.

 

The DA team has usually been decently good about this, but when playing Mass Effect (all three games) I sometimes stared blankly at the screen as Shepard explained away a perfectly logical decision with moral platitudes that wouldn't convince a ten year old. The Collector Base was the worst: I chose to destroy it because I didn't trust the Illusive Man with it father than I could throw him and his fancy chair. But I was forced to look at Sherpard going on about the ''soul of our species'' and other assorted nonsense.

 

It was also a problem the other way, mind you. I still remember Renegade Shepard in ME1 being less of a pragmatist and more of a racist *******.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The DA team has usually been decently good about this, but when playing Mass Effect (all three games) I sometimes stared blankly at the screen as Shepard explained away a perfectly logical decision with moral platitudes that wouldn't convince a ten year old. The Collector Base was the worst: I chose to destroy it because I didn't trust the Illusive Man with it father than I could throw him and his fancy chair. But I was forced to look at Sherpard going on about the ''soul of our species'' and other assorted nonsense.

It was also a problem the other way, mind you. I still remember Renegade Shepard in ME1 being less of a pragmatist and more of a racist *******.

When rescuing the Magister's son in DA2, Hawke for some reason gave this little speach about how he thought the boy could stilll be redeemed. When the truth was, Hawke had been hired to do a job and he was going to do it. He did not care about the boy or his antics at all.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

It was also a problem the other way, mind you. I still remember Renegade Shepard in ME1 being less of a pragmatist and more of a racist *******.

That became weird from ME2 onwards with Garrus automatically becoming Shepard's best friend after she/he could go as far as openly supporting a xenophobic anti alien group like Terra Firma in ME1, although im glad ME2 eased down on the glaring racism