268 réponses à ce sujet

[Generic Guy]

Its typical for most RPGs that give you a choice on how to resolve an issue will, in general, present the more "moral" choice as being more beneficiary for everyone (player included), while the "selfish" choice will result in misery for others. Essentially karma exists, "do good and good things happen," but what of the "path to hell laid with good intentions?"

 

One of my favorite quest lines from an RPG is the Tenpenny tower, where an elitist community of, mostly though not all, racists hold up in a luxury hotel and refuse to let Ghouls (mutated humans) into their community. After persuading/threatening the most bigoted members of the tower to leave, and convincing the rest that Ghouls really aren't all monsters, the tower lets the Ghouls in. A few days latter the Ghouls kill every single human in the tower at the behest of their leader.

 

You did the moral thing and the world is a worse place for it.

 

Now I know if every quest line was like this, a game would get awfully depressing really fast, but isn't one or two in a game at least break the monotony of everything going as the player wished? What about the rest of you, is having a few quest lines where cause and effect trump good intentions something you'd like in this game?

[sylvanaerie]

Hell, Bioware did this with Bhelen/Harrowmont.  Bhelen is a sleazy, backstabbing, fratricidal (possibly patricidal), selfish but progressive piece of slime.  Harrowmont, by contrast seems kinder, honorable and and overall nicer candidate (aside from that traditionalist mentality perpetuating a caste system that can only be described as despicable).  The sleazy candidate, overall, is the better choice for Orzammar than the 'nice guy' by far.  While Harrowmont doesn't really have time on the throne to really screw up anything (since he dies not long after taking it) Bhelen actually is supposed to be better for Orzammar, dragging them into a more progressive state.

 

While not an 'evil' choice to put Bhelen on the throne, I still felt horrible the first time I did it and his first action was to kill Harrowmont and wipe out Harrowmont's entire family except for the one cousin/nephew who finds Hawke in Kirkwall. 

[Xilizhra]

Now I know if every quest line was like this, a game would get awfully depressing really fast, but isn't one or two in a game at least break the monotony of everything going as the player wished?

No.

 

I could tolerate it in small doses, but I'd never consider it an improvement.

 

And IIRC, the alternative Tenpenny choice is to just murder every ghoul, so I'd say that it's more that neither option has a better outcome.

 

Hell, Bioware did this with Bhelen/Harrowmont.  Bhelen is a sleazy, backstabbing, fratricidal (possibly patricidal), selfish but progressive piece of slime.  Harrowmont, by contrast seems kinder, honorable and and overall nicer candidate (aside from that traditionalist mentality perpetuating a caste system that can only be described as despicable).  The sleazy candidate, overall, is the better choice for Orzammar than the 'nice guy' by far.  While Harrowmont doesn't really have time on the throne to really screw up anything (since he dies not long after taking it) Bhelen actually is supposed to be better for Orzammar, dragging them into a more progressive state.

 

While not an 'evil' choice to put Bhelen on the throne, I still felt horrible the first time I did it and his first action was to kill Harrowmont and wipe out Harrowmont's entire family except for the one cousin/nephew who finds Hawke in Kirkwall. 

Harrowmont is a bigoted classist *******, the game just isn't too good at showing it.

[In Exile]

Its typical for most RPGs that give you a choice on how to resolve an issue will, in general, present the more "moral" choice as being more beneficiary for everyone (player included), while the "selfish" choice will result in misery for others. Essentially karma exists, "do good and good things happen," but what of the "path to hell laid with good intentions?"

 

One of my favorite quest lines from an RPG is the Tenpenny tower, where an elitist community of, mostly though not all, racists hold up in a luxury hotel and refuse to let Ghouls (mutated humans) into their community. After persuading/threatening the most bigoted members of the tower to leave, and convincing the rest that Ghouls really aren't all monsters, the tower lets the Ghouls in. A few days latter the Ghouls kill every single human in the tower at the behest of their leader.

 

You did the moral thing and the world is a worse place for it.

 

Now I know if every quest line was like this, a game would get awfully depressing really fast, but isn't one or two in a game at least break the monotony of everything going as the player wished? What about the rest of you, is having a few quest lines where cause and effect trump good intentions something you'd like in this game?

 

That's just a gotcha choice. It's a gotcha choice because there's no actual way to predict or inform yourself - you either do the quest or don't, and if you do, you get trolled. 

[LaughingWolf]

100% agree. The only thing I hated in Mass Effect was that the goody nice guy, morally right choice always yielded the best outcomes. I'd like it if sometimes what seems to be the nice guy and most morally right choice, yields the worst outcome.

It'd be awesome  if making the ruthless choice would sometimes be the best thing to do. Like that early demo of DA:I where the Inquisitor chose to save a keep over a town.

[Xilizhra]

That's just a gotcha choice. It's a gotcha choice because there's no actual way to predict or inform yourself - you either do the quest or don't, and if you do, you get trolled. 

Ah, yes, like accepting that one Molag Bal quest in Skyrim where the only way to progress is to work evil.

[Otter-under-the-mountain]

Dragon Age overall seems to be less "the world is a better place because you did good things", and more "you helped someone, so now they're willing to help you." Like in Orzammar. You have a choice between a progressive, effective ruler who is nonetheless personally despicable and a conservative, weak one who happens to be a nice guy. And it makes no difference in-game. Sure, it effects the wider world, but, as Branka put it (paraphrasing), the Warden is only interested in the dwarven armies, and he/she can't get them unless there's a warm ass on the throne. But the king doesn't command the armies, so it makes no difference who's attatched to that ass.

[Jaison1986]

Hell, Bioware did this with Bhelen/Harrowmont.  Bhelen is a sleazy, backstabbing, fratricidal (possibly patricidal), selfish but progressive piece of slime.  Harrowmont, by contrast seems kinder, honorable and and overall nicer candidate (aside from that traditionalist mentality perpetuating a caste system that can only be described as despicable).  The sleazy candidate, overall, is the better choice for Orzammar than the 'nice guy' by far.  While Harrowmont doesn't really have time on the throne to really screw up anything (since he dies not long after taking it) Bhelen actually is supposed to be better for Orzammar, dragging them into a more progressive state.

 

While not an 'evil' choice to put Bhelen on the throne, I still felt horrible the first time I did it and his first action was to kill Harrowmont and wipe out Harrowmont's entire family except for the one cousin/nephew who finds Hawke in Kirkwall. 

 

It might seem harsh, but I liked that. I think it's too binari to simply think being good= good results and then the other way around. I think that so long as an moraly reprehensible choice has an logical reason to being followed, is worth an shot. For example, even if Mass effect shows the genophage cure as the moraly good option, I personally thought it was an pretty bad idea. The Krogans held an lot of resentments against the galaxy, and curing them would just give them the numbers to act on said resentments.

[In Exile]

100% agree. The only thing I hated in Mass Effect was that the goody nice guy, morally right choice always yielded the best outcomes. I'd like it if sometimes what seems to be the nice guy and most morally right choice, yields the worst outcome.

It'd be awesome  if making the ruthless choice would sometimes be the best thing to do. Like that early demo of DA:I where the Inquisitor chose to save a keep over a town.

 

But the renegade choices were often stupid and insane. Rewarding them makes no sense. 

[virtus753]

Hell, Bioware did this with Bhelen/Harrowmont.  Bhelen is a sleazy, backstabbing, fratricidal (possibly patricidal), selfish but progressive piece of slime.  Harrowmont, by contrast seems kinder, honorable and and overall nicer candidate (aside from that traditionalist mentality perpetuating a caste system that can only be described as despicable).  The sleazy candidate, overall, is the better choice for Orzammar than the 'nice guy' by far.  While Harrowmont doesn't really have time on the throne to really screw up anything (since he dies not long after taking it) Bhelen actually is supposed to be better for Orzammar, dragging them into a more progressive state.

 

While not an 'evil' choice to put Bhelen on the throne, I still felt horrible the first time I did it and his first action was to kill Harrowmont and wipe out Harrowmont's entire family except for the one cousin/nephew who finds Hawke in Kirkwall. 

 

Bhelen's progressive streak is exactly why I chose him in all of my playthroughs in DA:O; I somehow managed to ignore the rumors about foul play and his decision to execute Harrowmont. Then I played the Dwarf Noble origin just to see what it was like, and that I couldn't stomach. (Maybe because it was a more personal betrayal, or a betrayal experienced firsthand for the first time. I was never invested in Harrowmont or Bhelen's other victims.) Now I'm absolutely torn in terms of what decision I'd like to take into DA:I. On the one hand, I'd prefer more contact with the surface; on the other, Bhelen.

 

But I'm not sure this was a decision that came back to bite us in hindsight: through dialogue we could find out the character of each candidate, including the accusations of foul play on the part of Bhelen (though we didn't really get to experience it firsthand except for the DN origin and then after the choice in the council) and the fact that Bhelen would be progressive whereas Harrowmont would be conservative.

 

I'm thinking we might get truly faked out at some point in DA:I, where we have no idea that there will be anything resembling "bad" consequences until they're happening. The unexpectedness might be a nice change of pace, so long as it's not overused; it would certainly be more realistic, if more depressing.

[Drasanil]

Ah, yes, like accepting that one Molag Bal quest in Skyrim where the only way to progress is to work evil.

 

Molag Bal is the guy known as the King of Rape, that's hardly a gotcha, that's more of a 'what else were you expecting?'.

[Fast Jimmy]

 

Harrowmont is a bigoted classist *******, the game just isn't too good at showing it.

 

To be fair, most bigoted classist ballet dancers (I can only assume that's the phrase you used in there) who make into the realm of politics are very good at not showing this side of their mentality. In that regard, I think the game did a great job at depicting a realistic characterization.

[sylvanaerie]

It might seem harsh, but I liked that. I think it's too binari to simply think being good= good results and then the other way around. I think that so long as an moraly reprehensible choice has an logical reason to being followed, is worth an shot. For example, even if Mass effect shows the genophage cure as the moraly good option, I personally thought it was an pretty bad idea. The Krogans held an lot of resentments against the galaxy, and curing them would just give them the numbers to act on said resentments.

 

Very realistic indeed, unfortunately repeated plays led to me to actually developing an extreme dislike of everything Orzammar and dwarven related.  To the point where I stopped caring about that part of the game at all.  The 'nice guy' was a traditionalist dick and the sleazy guy was overall better.  I never got over that 'execute him' moment though.  I'd prefer my pixel people to be happy, and the payoff for Bhelen is only after the game is done.  The only time I felt good about putting him on the throne after watching that scene was on my DC, who did it not for Bhelen but for Rica and her nephew.

[RobRam10]

Let no good deed go unpunished my friends.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

But the renegade choices were often stupid and insane. Rewarding them makes no sense. 

Yeah, let's hope the evil choices in this game aren't all like that.

[LaughingWolf]

But the renegade choices were often stupid and insane. Rewarding them makes no sense. 

Thats the point, make the renegade choice not the stupid one. Have them over different outcomes:

Paragon = nice guy route, yields a good outcome and everyone looks at you like your a hero

Renegade = yields a better outcome but people think you're too ruthless

 

What I'm saying is that the renegade choices shouldn't be stupid and insane.

[Fast Jimmy]

Molag Bal is the guy known as the King of Rape, that's hardly a gotcha, that's more of a 'what else were you expecting?'.

 

I forget... was the Molag Bal quest the one where you entered the house under the pretense of fighting Daedra and then Molag Bal demands you kill the other person with you?

I mean... that's one I thought I just stumbled into and, before I knew it, was killing in the name of.

[Xilizhra]

Molag Bal is the guy known as the King of Rape, that's hardly a gotcha, that's more of a 'what else were you expecting?'.

The quest starts by agreeing to help a Vigilant of Stendarr check out a possibly haunted house. Molag Bal doesn't appear until he demands that you kill the Vigilant numerous times; if you don't, the Vigilant tries to kill you anyway, then you automatically get a quest to bring a rival priest back for sacrifice.

 

 

To be fair, most bigoted classist ballet dancers (I can only assume that's the phrase you used in there) who make into the realm of politics are very good at not showing this side of their mentality. In that regard, I think the game did a great job at depicting a realistic characterization.

I might buy this more were it not for the fact that dwarven society, particularly the nobles, lauds that sort of mindset.

[Drasanil]

I forget... was the Molag Bal quest the one where you entered the house under the pretense of fighting Daedra and then Molag Bal demands you kill the other person with you?

I mean... that's one I thought I just stumbled into and, before I knew it, was killing in the name of.

 

Yup. Vigilant asks you to help clease a house of demons. Next you know Molag Bal makes you kill each other. Even then there is still a 'good' cop-out though, if you refuse long enough the vigilant will chicken out and attack you.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

I'd say every major choice in DAO was a shade of grey. They all had their benefits and their negatives. DA2 was also pretty grey when it came to dealing with the Arishok.

 

This is more of a Mass Effect problem with paragon being "Everyone lives!" and renegade being "Everyone dies!". Hopefully ME4 will throw the paragon/renegade system in the bin.

[Jaison1986]

Very realistic indeed, unfortunately repeated plays led to me to actually developing an extreme dislike of everything Orzammar and dwarven related.  To the point where I stopped caring about that part of the game at all.  The 'nice guy' was a traditionalist dick and the sleazy guy was overall better.  I never got over that 'execute him' moment though.  I'd prefer my pixel people to be happy, and the payoff for Bhelen is only after the game is done.  The only time I felt good about putting him on the throne after watching that scene was on my DC, who did it not for Bhelen but for Rica and her nephew.

 

I loved my response to Bhelen after it was all over: "Congratulations! Bravo! Seriously, were are my troops?" My warden was just so done at that point. I actually share your sentiment. I like the dwarfs as individuals, but I despise them as an society.  Either way, I still like the concept of morally bad options giving an good result depending on the situation. Like Redcliffe, Alistair throws an fit because Isolde was sacrificed, but all I thought was, that the city and the boy were saved, no time was wasted to go the circle and the world was rid from an selfish ******. Win win scenario!

[Fast Jimmy]

Yup. Vigilant asks you to help clease a house of demons. Next you know Molag Bal makes you kill each other. Even then there is still a 'good' cop-out though, if you refuse long enough the vigilant will chicken out and attack you.

 

Still... I can see someone going down the path of starting the quest and saying "well, I've already killed one person at this god's behest... why not go for just one more?"