268 réponses à ce sujet

[Aimi]

True, but she isn't the only source. The Legion of the Dead, other guards, random NPCs - they all talk about as time passes, they lose more ground, sacrifice more Thaigs and it is just going to be a matter of time until the Darkspawn are on the doorstep to Orzammar. Possibly doubly so since the latest Blight didn't get a chance to relieve some of the pressure, so to speak.

Missing the point. None of those people is in a position to know the future. They know the past, but if history should teach you anything it is that the past does not predict the future. They believe that things are grim, but so what? Maybe they think that they're worse than they really are. Lots of people in the northern United States thought that the Civil War was going pretty badly in the summer and fall of 1862, when an objective military analysis - even without hindsight - would have shown nothing of the sort.

There are trends in all directions. What does the resumption of contact with Kal Sharok mean for the future of dwarven society? What does the Legion of the Dead's defeat at Kal'Hirol mean...and what about the later, successful attempt to recapture the thaig? Does that balance the loss of Bownammar, if Bownammar is not recaptured after the Fifth Blight? How does the situation with the Architect change things? If Orzammar has a stronger relationship with surface kingdoms, does that mean anything?

None of these things is predictive at all, and all of them put together create a baffling picture of simultaneous decline and rise across all spectra of dwarven society. Few of them would have even been heard of by the Warden at the time of the Anvil decision; some would not have even happened yet.

The point is that the Anvil choice is not a choice between the extinction of the dwarven race on the one hand and the conscription, torture, and enslavement of living beings on the other. We know neither the value nor the added value (i.e. "how much better having lots more golems in the dwarven army is than not having lots more golems in the dwarven army") of keeping the Anvil. There are only guesses. If you guess that the Anvil will have a tremendous impact on dwarven society's ability to defeat and drive back the darkspawn, then there is nobody who can gainsay you...but if you guess that golems would instead be a relatively marginal military advantage for a dwarven society that isn't going away anytime soon, then nobody can gainsay that, either.

[AlanC9]

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

Fortunately, you can just walk out on the quest. I suppose that guy's still in the cage.

[Fast Jimmy]

Missing the point. None of those people is in a position to know the future. They know the past, but if history should teach you anything it is that the past does not predict the future. They believe that things are grim, but so what? Maybe they think that they're worse than they really are. Lots of people in the northern United States thought that the Civil War was going pretty badly in the summer and fall of 1862, when an objective military analysis - even without hindsight - would have shown nothing of the sort.

There are trends in all directions. What does the resumption of contact with Kal Sharok mean for the future of dwarven society? What does the Legion of the Dead's defeat at Kal'Hirol mean...and what about the later, successful attempt to recapture the thaig? Does that balance the loss of Bownammar, if Bownammar is not recaptured after the Fifth Blight? How does the situation with the Architect change things? If Orzammar has a stronger relationship with surface kingdoms, does that mean anything?

None of these things is predictive at all, and all of them put together create a baffling picture of simultaneous decline and rise across all spectra of dwarven society. Few of them would have even been heard of by the Warden at the time of the Anvil decision; some would not have even happened yet.

The point is that the Anvil choice is not a choice between the extinction of the dwarven race on the one hand and the conscription, torture, and enslavement of living beings on the other. We know neither the value nor the added value (i.e. "how much better having lots more golems in the dwarven army is than not having lots more golems in the dwarven army") of keeping the Anvil. There are only guesses. If you guess that the Anvil will have a tremendous impact on dwarven society's ability to defeat and drive back the darkspawn, then there is nobody who can gainsay you...but if you guess that golems would instead be a relatively marginal military advantage for a dwarven society that isn't going away anytime soon, then nobody can gainsay that, either.

True, but again - I'm not arguing that the choice is 100% right for all the right reasons. Just that, unlike most other "bad" moral choices, choosing it isn't radically stupid. You can make a logical decision to take this choice based on the information you have at the time.

That's a huge departure from "kill people for the lolz."

[Aimi]

True, but again - I'm not arguing that the choice is 100% right for all the right reasons. Just that, unlike most other "bad" moral choices, choosing it isn't radically stupid. You can make a logical decision to take this choice based on the information you have at the time.

That's a huge departure from "kill people for the lolz."

 
Which I agree with. And I, like others, am not even sure that destroying the Anvil is the bad moral choice, or that it is "meant" to be viewed as such.
 

I think you're looking just a bit too deeply into this.

EVERY CHOICE IS A MONKEY'S PAW CHOICE

CONSEQUENCES ARE UNKNOWABLE AND CHOICE IS ALL THAT EXISTS

*slaps herself*

*swigs bourbon*

...okay, okay, I'm good. Sorry about that.

[The Night Haunter]

Yes, given that that group had nothing whatsoever to do with their plight. That was all on Zathrian; his clanmates were all complete innocents in the matter.

 

I only barely cure the curse, due largely to Zathrian's rather crappy logic, and frankly I don't want to just let the werewolves go afterward. I don't like killing people in general, but I want them to at least acknowledge the fact that they did exactly what Zathrian did to them.

Given that the Werewolves were tortured and not really at 100% intelligence (without the Lady they are just animals, with her they are semi-intelligent animals) can you really blame them for not seeing the distinction? 

 

But the only reason I pick Werewolves is when I am playing a human supremacist or anti-elven character. I pick Elves when I am playing an elf. I go with the Break the Curse option in all other cases.

 

I much prefer the Bhelen/Harrowmont choice (or the Anvil of the Void) for a grey choice.

Although I almost always pick Bhelen, because the good of the many...

Anvil is the true grey choice in DAO. Mages/Templars could be, depending on if we ever learn that sparing the mages led to a blood mage escaping. Loghain/Alistair is interesting, but not too many compelling choices to choose Loghain over Alistair (You can harden Alistair and keep both alive though, then throw Loghain at the Archdemon). The Urn is another silly choice, who would bother poisoning the urn? 

[Ennai and 54 others]

I was hoping this is what would happen in the mass effect series and the krogan if you cure the genophage

 

I wanted to see their population skyrocket and deplete the resources of all the worlds they colonize just like the first time (one female can produce hundreds of children a year,there are already over a billion krogan females,recipe for disaster,wrex or no).

 

 

[AshenEndymion]

The Urn is another silly choice, who would bother poisoning the urn? 

 

Someone who believes that what's in the Urn is just dirt, and that dropping dragon blood in said dirt won't do anything(basically, a dwarf who doesn't care about the tall-tales of the surfacers)...

[The Night Haunter]

Someone who believes that what's in the Urn is just dirt, and that dropping dragon blood in said dirt won't do anything(basically, a dwarf who doesn't care about the tall-tales of the surfacers)...

Maybe, but then that Giant spirit dude attacks you, and Lelliana turns on you, and so does Wynne. Before you know what's happening you are not only down 2 members, but they are on the wrong side.

 

...

Happened to me on my douche play through lol.

[Ennai and 54 others]

There is the village of crestwood in the very first Demo which shows the inquisitor having to make a choice between sending his troops to defend a village and sending them to defend the keep.He chooses  the keep in that playthrough,the keep is successfully defended but crestwood is utterly destroyed by red templars.

 

I suppose this is what happened in awakening,where you had to choose between vigils keep and amaranthine.

 

The dark ritual is also such a choice

Refuse and die a hero

agree and live as hero but possibly cause the emergence of some greater evil in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think there is any such choice in DA2 as far as I remember.

 

[Who Knows]

I really don't think the decisions and their rewards should be thought of by the developers as a matter of good/evil.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I prefer RPGs to give me a choice between two lesser evils. Simply because in the real world, especially when you make big decisions, it is often a decision of "Which sucks less for me ?"

[AshenEndymion]

Maybe, but then that Giant spirit dude attacks you, and Lelliana turns on you, and so does Wynne. Before you know what's happening you are not only down 2 members, but they are on the wrong side.

 

...

Happened to me on my douche play through lol.

 

Well, I expected the giant spirit dude to attack... He's a spirit outside of the fade.  And, in my experience, spirits outside the fade always attack people...  Plus the first time I defiled the ashes, I didn't take Wynne or Leliana with me... So I didn't really have anyone spouting moral platitudes at me when Kolgrim suggested it(though, Leliana didn't like it when I returned to camp...).

[Tex]

[quote name="DalyaTheTurtle" post="17613188" timestamp="1414552505"]For all its flaws I must say I really liked the way Fable 3 did the whole save everyone and be branded a tyrant or be spend all your money fixing Logan's mess while essentially dooming those you're trying to help. Granted you could be kind and make the money playing lute hero, but that got boring in about two seconds[/quote

I have to agree but I admit it was ironic that I was able to save the world literally with Pie. It is truely a shame the direction they've taken that game

P.S sorry for going of topic

[Eveangaline]

So like the quest in Dragon Age Origins where you can smuggle lyrium illegally, physically threaten the person who you smuggle it too for extra money and a nice dagger, smuggle the money back, physically threaten the person you're smuggling to in order to get them to give you more shares, then pick-pocket them for the rest afterwards?

 

That quest was pretty much the biggest moneymaker of the game and not for those high in morality.

[Nefla]

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. 

You'd feel a lot better about it if you were a Dwarf commoner Uplifting your brother in law and ensuring the future of your Nephew and sister is a no brainer, plus he's nice to you the whole time.

[Stiler]

IMO it's for more mature/natural to have quests that turn out like this. RAther then just black and white, good and evil, have quests (and characters) that might present as the "morally" good but in the end the consequences are unexpected or the person was just flat out lying to you

 

A lot of the most memorable villains in many books/movies are so memorable not because they were "super evil" but because they thought they were right and they had reasons, which people would relate to, for doing what they did.

 

I would hope that there are quests/characters that are like this and it's not more of the usual "do everything good and everything turns out the best."

 

I want to do things that I , as a player, morally think are good, and then have the quest have unexpected consequences or have a character flip on me and have lied or did something that I didn't see coming.

[Fast Jimmy]

So like the quest in Dragon Age Origins where you can smuggle lyrium illegally, physically threaten the person who you smuggle it too for extra money and a nice dagger, smuggle the money back, physically threaten the person you're smuggling to in order to get them to give you more shares, then pick-pocket them for the rest afterwards?

That quest was pretty much the biggest moneymaker of the game and not for those high in morality.

But money is worthless - it played no bearing in the story, only worked as a vehicle to get the most L33t loot. Yes, it was a chance to roleplay someone with looser morals, but ultimately here were zero narrative consequences for doing it either way.

I don't know... I'm just not convinced making money in an RPG is proper motivation for most players of money serves no other purpose other than to make the gameplay easier.

[Xilizhra]

Given that the Werewolves were tortured and not really at 100% intelligence (without the Lady they are just animals, with her they are semi-intelligent animals) can you really blame them for not seeing the distinction?

Given that they only came up with this plan at the Lady's behest, yes.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Given that the Werewolves were tortured and not really at 100% intelligence (without the Lady they are just animals, with her they are semi-intelligent animals) can you really blame them for not seeing the distinction?

I'd always assumed that they did see it, but were in too much pain to care.

[In Exile]

But money is worthless - it played no bearing in the story, only worked as a vehicle to get the most L33t loot. Yes, it was a chance to roleplay someone with looser morals, but ultimately here were zero narrative consequences for doing it either way.

I don't know... I'm just not convinced making money in an RPG is proper motivation for most players of money serves no other purpose other than to make the gameplay easier.

 

And money doesn't even do that, really, because being good at the game obviates the need for money and - sometimes - even loot. 

[9TailsFox]

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. 

Spoiler

[AlanC9]

But money is worthless - it played no bearing in the story, only worked as a vehicle to get the most L33t loot. Yes, it was a chance to roleplay someone with looser morals, but ultimately here were zero narrative consequences for doing it either way.

I don't know... I'm just not convinced making money in an RPG is proper motivation for most players of money serves no other purpose other than to make the gameplay easier.

Surely making the gameplay easier would be highly valuable to most RPG characters. They're fighting for their lives here, right? We know that they can just respawn, but they don't.  (With some exceptions: NWN1 OC, PS:T, maybe a couple of others.)

 

I had more of a problem with money in Skyrim, where money is all but useless since anything the shops sell is dropping randomly too. (I suppose the RP  thing to do is sink all the cash into training even though that's a Red Queen's Race, since the PC doesn't know that enemies scale either.)

[xSammy13x]

I've been saying this for a while now (mostly on tumblr) that I'm fairly certain letting Varric keep the lyrium shard in DA2 is the genophage decision of DA:I.

 

Varric Keeps the Shard:

1) Goes crazy like his brother at some point during DA:I?

2) Maybe helps you uncover something to do with the Red Templars?

 

Varric Destroys the Shard:

1) Doesn't go crazy like his brother.

2) We lose out on something important- the same way Mordin could cure the genophage, but Eve dies because he doesn't have the previous information. In one of the demos, they find a red lyrium shard, and Dorian is there, and says he wants to look at it later. It's the one where Leliana is held captive.