135 réponses à ce sujet

[Siha]

How did 'dark' (the opening premise of the thread) become 'dishonorable'? Those are 2 separate things, even though they may overlap.

 

Because I think that is what he meant, as I stated in my first post here, and he agreed so I must have understood correctly. He wishes more choices where the protagonist can do something "evil", completely independent from that choices' future implications. That is why I said you had come to misinterpretations. He did not mean to say DA had gotten too happy-go-lucky, but that it was harder to be the "bad guy" now, the dishonorable guy, the ruthless killer for personal gain, and so on. If I did misunderstand Wayne after all he will have to speak up and correct me.

 

You're really ignoring all the history of the genophage trying to change that into an evil/good choice. It's not that simple. You tried to claim the shooting Mordin in the back choice was about betrayal. It was not. It was about two friends or allies reaching an impasse and them both doing what they felt was right.

 

I never brought up honor I brought up honesty. Don't try to flip this into being about honor because honor can cause some pretty "evil" actions too.

 

Nope. I am not ignoring anything. I say the protagonist could have said "No, I will not help you cure the Genophage", the Krogans would not have joined Shepard's war efforts but the Salarians would have. Same immediate result (= Genophage not cured, allies won) but different approach with different future implications (no chance to win the Krogans at all etc. you know all that). The choice to lie beforehand, shoot Mordin, and lie again is dishonorable dishonest "unnecessary" because the other way would have led to the same immediate outcome. The direct difference is how you as the protagonist will feel about it: "I was honest from the start and bear the consequences now" vs. "I killed my friend and lied but I got what I wanted".

 

I apologize for using "dishonorable".

 

I will not be able to explain once more in yet other words what I mean, so if you still misunderstand me it will have to stand.

[raging_monkey]

'Storytelling' would be what you're looking for.
 
Most every story in the history of mankind applies realistic concepts in at least a partially consistent manner, because 'realistic' is the foundation for human life and society. The Witcher, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, even Star Wars, they all apply realism and realistic themes and concepts, whether it be morals, politics, violence, etc. Some are more fantastical than others, but all of them are at least a tiny bit realistic.

aha so obvious how could not know that haha. Appreciated

[Ryzaki]

Nope. I am not ignoring anything. I say the protagonist could have said "No, I will not help you cure the Genophage", the Krogans would not have joined Shepard's war efforts but the Salarians would have. Same immediate result (= Genophage not cured, allies won) but different approach with different future implications (no chance to win the Krogans at all etc. you know all that). The choice to lie beforehand, shoot Mordin, and lie again is dishonorable dishonest "unnecessary" because the other way would have led to the same immediate outcome. The direct difference is how you as the protagonist will feel about it: "I was honest from the start and bear the consequences now" vs. "I killed my friend and lied but I got what I wanted".

 

I apologize for using "dishonorable".

 

I will not be able to explain once more in yet other words what I mean, so if you still misunderstand me it will have to stand.

 

Did you just ignore everything else that happened in game or are you just being deliberately obtuse? Shepard lied because otherwise it'd been critical mission failure for the galaxy. He couldn't have refused the Krogan's help straight out not without dooming the galaxy.

 

So unnecessary? I suggest you play the game again because you clearly forgot the mission.

 

Again you tell Mordin to walk away you warn him. He chose not to listen. Which was his right but again he knew that shot was coming. The only ones you actually betray are the Krogan and that's easily justified and can't be swept aside as just "evil".

 

I only started this discussion to argue about betraying Mordin. That is not the case. The Krogan? Yep that's the point of the deception. But Mordin was warned to back away or else. He didn't listen. *shrug* it sucks but yeah.

 

The actual betrayal comes during the funeral scene. So I'm not sure why you keep harping about Mordin's backshot.

[wiredrawn]

Yeah DA:O felt more like I was defining my character and his motives/morals individually which my party was lucky enough to witness. From then on though, it's more like my character is just picking a choice that nobody wants to take the fall for, but have already galvanized their opinions on anyway, so I haven't really cared which way I went just which way was more rewarding. DA:O though, so much fun to finish a choice like mentioned above and giggling on how ****ed up I am in the end. 

[Red of Rivia]

the witcher is "dark" fantasy but appearently real fantasy at times its complicated

If we take it this way, ASoIaF wins of all in terms of reality , without giving spoilers , that we could apply in real life, a person leaves home to work and can not come back, and there will change everything in her family and etc, is what happens in the books. To be dark in my opinion, have to show some of the dirty reality  wich we live in, I agreed with you, but also have to have bizarre things, like Berserk manga. Hopelessness , doom, these things build a dirty world. I think the '' dark fantasy '' is very overrated, but still, I love it, much because I see that reality in fact, then it is easier to associate things.

[Siha]

Did you just ignore everything else that happened in game or are you just being deliberately obtuse? Shepard lied because otherwise it'd been critical mission failure for the galaxy. He couldn't have refused the Krogan's help straight out not without dooming the galaxy.

 

So unnecessary? I suggest you play the game again because you clearly forgot the mission.

 

Again you tell Mordin to walk away you warn him. He chose not to listen. Which was his right but again he knew that shot was coming. The only ones you actually betray are the Krogan and that's easily justified and can't be swept aside as just "evil".

 

I will not answer to that, you will not understand anyway.

 

But in fact, there is another way: cure the Genophage, which is what I do because I believe in that. And obviously you also thought so in ME2 because you must have let Mordin keep the results. If he destroys them you can actually talk him out of it all and make him stay without the need to shoot him.

[Ryzaki]

I will not answer to that, you will not understand anyway.

 

But in fact, there is another way: cure the Genophage, which is what I do because I believe in that. And obviously you also thought so in ME2 because you must have let Mordin keep the results. If he destroys them you can actually talk him out of it all and make him stay without the need to shoot him.

 

No because you're trying to change the genophage plot into a good/evil choice despite the game constantly bashing you over the head with a "It's not so simple".

 

Actually no. You can also justify that with keeping it just in case it's needed or not getting rid of potential resources. You don't have to believe in Krogan having the genophage lifted to save the cure.

 

(Not to mention you can only talk him down with both Wrex and Eve dead so just destroying Maleon's data does nothing if you talked down Wrex with the renegade persuade in ME1).

 

It's not a good/evil choice. It's just not.

[o Ventus]

I can tell you that: yes.

But still, if we put the witcher in the equation, I think he is very dark with a little high fantasy too, for those who read the books will understand what I mean. But the game is ''dark and dark'' at least the first and the second, the second not so much because it is over policy, but the first surely. The same thing  with A song of ice and fire, I consider a low fantasy with very high elements. The biggest reason The Witcher be considered dark fantasy is the gray tone that he has and the idea of ​​'' reality'' medieval he tries to bring (I used quotes because ... well, monsters are not real where I live   ), Dragon Age also acts, but on another scale. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I think one is closer to reality than the other.

 

It's more than a 'little'. It has all the magic and fantastical creatures of any high fantasy work, but it is fairly graphic at times. There's no need for these arbitrary labels when one can combine the two and just call it dark high fantasy.

 

The big difference between the Witcher and Dragon Age (DAI, at least) is that the Witcher is more overt and in-your-face with what it tackles. From the onset, major characters are either terrorists, racists, rapists, or they engage in incest. If one isn't careful, they could mistake this for cheap shock value (and at times it does sort of stumble into that territory). Dragon Age, on the other hand, has its darker elements in the background, either through codex entries or through talking with companions. The most overt thing in the series is the Broodmother. Other things, like how the Dalish deify a mass-murdering despot willing to start wars just for attention and followers, or the way the Qunari re-educate people and how they keep their mages in check, or the implied rape and murder of a refugee girl by Templars, you only learn by reading codex documents or by going out of your way to talk to people.

 

One is not darker than the other, they just take different approaches to said darkness.

[Red of Rivia]

It's more than a 'little'. It has all the magic and fantastical creatures of any high fantasy work, but it is fairly graphic at times. There's no need for these arbitrary labels when one can combine the two and just call it dark high fantasy.

 

The big difference between the Witcher and Dragon Age (DAI, at least) is that the Witcher is more overt and in-your-face with what it tackles. From the onset, major characters are either terrorists, racists, rapists, or they engage in incest. If one isn't careful, they could mistake this for cheap shock value (and at times it does sort of stumble into that territory). Dragon Age, on the other hand, has its darker elements in the background, either through codex entries or through talking with companions. The most overt thing in the series is the Broodmother. Other things, like how the Dalish deify a mass-murdering despot willing to start wars just for attention and followers, or the way the Qunari re-educate people and how they keep their mages in check, or the implied rape and murder of a refugee girl by Templars, you only learn by reading codex documents or by going out of your way to talk to people.

 

One is not darker than the other, they just take different approaches to said darkness.

But as I said, dragon age is dark, but on another scale. It may be more or less, depending on how you see.

[Eliastion]

I don't say it applies in any way to ME (Never played it, most likely never will), but I get the feeling that at some points people tend to ignore the fact that necessary evil is still evil. And the morality of the character (playable or not) is defined mostly by how easily he deems certain evils necessary necessary.

Of course, then there is the layer of "what is actually evil". Things there get much more complicated if certain character doesn't even consider something an evil act. In DA we have a whole nation/religion that pretty much believes that things like personal liberties or family hold absolutely no value whatsoever. 

[Siha]

Then the OP is an idiot for not understanding the premise of his own thread by saying 'dark' when he meant 'evil or dishonorable'.

 

I would not call him an idiot for using a word. He meant it referring to the protagonist. And sometimes we pick a word and others don't find it suitable and get hung up on it. It just happens to me here in that thread, so I know. Not fair to call anybody an idiot for that.

 

No because you're trying to change the genophage plot into a good/evil choice

...

It's not a good/evil choice. It's just not.

 

Exactly. Because this has never been about the Genophage. It was about the way the protagonist intends to reach his goals. The OP never wanted black and white decisions. He wanted to make decisions that can be frowned on, even if they turn out better in the long run. In DAI you get this with Celene. You can just let her die and put Gaspard or Briala in her place. Or you can let her live. Saving her is the "moral choice" while letting her die is "evil". You maybe even get it with Bull. You can sacrifice the Chargers ("evil") or the alliance ("good"). In both cases I always pick the "evil" choice because I believe it better in the long run. Just as you said it is not so simple, because an "evil choice" can be better in the long run. (The probably only simple choice is Imshael because you get nothing of high value out of him if you make a deal.)

What the OP pointed out however, is that these choices do not feel as "dirty" as killing the Dalish by siding with the werewolves, or seducing Cammen, or killing Connor instead of seeking help for him etc. This is what I was saying in my initial post, nothing more but simply this.

 

The sad thing is simply that you and me are speaking of different things and I seem unable to make you understand that. And if you feel I picked a bad example to support the OP, I am really sorry, but then it was only that: I picked a bad example but this discussion now has nothing at all to do with this thread's topic and so, please, let us end this.
 

[Eliastion]

(...)

 

One is not darker than the other, they just take different approaches to said darkness.

I must disagree. Darkness is all about presentation - the fact that bad things happen in the world but are almost always in the background makes it significantly less dark than a story in the very same world that would actually show you the bad things rather than make a decoration out of them.

If you have a dragon that threatens a city into giving him a virgin to eat every month, but then a knight arrives and kills the beast to marry the princess, that can be pretty dark or not dark at all, depending on how you present the story and to what extent you gloss over those dead girls before the hero arrived.

 

High/dark fantasy has, of course, a lot to do with the setting, but presentation remains the main element, usually. Look at Lord of the Ring - it sits firmly on the high fantasy side of the fence, but you literally have orcs shooting severed heads into Minas Thirith to destroy their morale. And you also have relatively limited assortment of great spells and fantastic creatures - there are some, but much less in many dark fantasy stories/settings. Look how much fantastic/magical elements is there in Warhammer universe, but it still remains far on dark fantasy end of the spectrum.

[Ryzaki]

The sad thing is simply that you and me are speaking of different things and I seem unable to make you understand that. And if you feel I picked a bad example to support the OP, I am really sorry, but then it was only that: I picked a bad example but this discussion now has nothing at all to do with this thread's topic and so, please, let us end this.
 

 

Probably because those decisions weren't evil. They just prioritized different things. They weren't meaningless puppy kicking.

 

But yeah bad example the genophage was one of BWs few examples of gray and gray morality done well so I rather it not be dragged into this evil/good nonsense.

[Dean_the_Young]

Probably because those decisions weren't evil. They just prioritized different things. They weren't meaningless puppy kicking.

 

But yeah bad example the genophage was one of BWs few examples of gray and gray morality done well so I rather it not be dragged into this evil/good nonsense.

 

Eh. Even the genophage arc was weakened by the fact that Bioware constantly conflated population numbers for (space) navy threat. The genophage kept being treated like a tactical/immediate short-term threat of immediate warfare. It... really wasn't. Population boom is one thing- feeding enough and raising an effective army from it was another. But turning that into space ships needed to get off planet... there can't be a Krogan Rebellion worth the name is they're stuck (and starving) on Tuchanka.

 

Well, the whole 'break the relays' thing does offer a convenient time skip for them to rationalize building infrastructure, yes, but that's a meta conclusion.

 

(The genophage arc as a whole, though- I still agree it was pretty good. Mostly because of Mordin.)

 

 

 

If I had to raise a successful Grey vs Gray moral delimma, though... the ME2 Legion loyalty mission was a good one. A bit inconsistent in the morality setup, but that one was an actual thinker.

 

 

My personal favorite, of all time, is from DA2. The quest of the Magistrate's Son- which offered themes of the validity of a corrupt justice system, racism, unrecognized victims of mental disorders, and the question of what you, the player, were willing to do to get the support of a magistrate when the early game is dedicated to the premise that you are an apostate hiding (or hiding an apostate) from the authorities.

[Ryzaki]

Eh. Even the genophage arc was weakened by the fact that Bioware constantly conflated population numbers for (space) navy threat. The genophage kept being treated like a tactical/immediate short-term threat of immediate warfare. It... really wasn't. Population boom is one thing- feeding enough and raising an effective army from it was another. But turning that into space ships needed to get off planet... there can't be a Krogan Rebellion worth the name is they're stuck (and starving) on Tuchanka.

 

Well, the whole 'break the relays' thing does offer a convenient time skip for them to rationalize building infrastructure, yes, but that's a meta conclusion.

 

(The genophage arc as a whole, though- I still agree it was pretty good. Mostly because of Mordin.)

I did say it was for BW not in general though and that's good for them. Usually it's puppy kicker or jesus.

[Siha]

My personal favorite, of all time, is from DA2. The quest of the Magistrate's Son- which offered themes of the validity of a corrupt justice system, racism, unrecognized victims of mental disorders, and the question of what you, the player, were willing to do to get the support of a magistrate when the early game is dedicated to the premise that you are an apostate hiding (or hiding an apostate) from the authorities.

 

But does his support ever give you anything? I think I let that boy live once and I don't think it changed a thing. I would have preferred had it actually been a meaningful decision. But maybe I made a mistake or missed something. I don't think I ever really suffered consequences worse than "You killed the elfroot merchant, have fun for the rest of the game without secured health potion resupplies".

[Eliastion]

Probably because those decisions weren't evil. They just prioritized different things. They weren't meaningless puppy kicking.

(...)

But evil isn't puppy-kicking, really. I mean, yeah, there are those people too, but that's bordering on insanity while a sane, smart and truly evil person wouldn't do things just to show how evil they are. I hate that idea that evil is stupid and any rational explanation of an action makes it somehow non-evil. Evil is all about getting what you want/need by any means. That's where the term "necessary evil" comes from - sometimes the stakes are so high and the situation so hopeless that awful means really seem necessary. But that doesn't make those means ok. You can murder the whole Dalish clan to secure werewolves as allies - but you still murder a bunch of people who had nothing to do with Zathrian's curse, men, women, children. You're doing what you think is best to fight Archdemon and save Ferelden, fair enough. That doesn't change the fact that you still have blood of those slaughtered children on your hands.

That's something that's very important when writing villains, including (potentially) villainous protagonists: a sane, well-written villain usually either thinks that what he does is not evil at all (a case of severe values dissonance) OR he has some greater goal that lets him justify all those reprehensible actions he commits along the way. How evil the person appears to be depends generally on how much we do or don't agree that the goal is great... and on extent to which we buy the explanation that the means chosen were actually necessary. The line between a good person doing evil things out of necessity and an evil person is a blurred one.

Either way, sane people don't do thing For Teh Evulz

[Dean_the_Young]

But does his support ever give you anything? I think I let that boy live once and I don't think it changed a thing. I would have preferred had it actually been a meaningful decision. But maybe I made a mistake or missed something. I don't think I ever really suffered consequences worse than "You killed the elfroot merchant, have fun for the rest of the game without secured health potion resupplies".

 

It doesn't beyond a throw-away line*, which is why it's largely unnoticed and undiscussed, but that's a purely meta-gaming argument. From the in-game rational, and my basis as a role player, it was less about the consequence and more about the factors building up to the decision.

 

 

Consequences are something Bioware's typically been pretty weak at, but that's just part of the moral delimma buildup. Sometimes it's the prospect of consequences that matter more- particularly in arguing a delimma on its own merits and not on the future hindsight of it all.

 

 

*If you leave Bethany behind and she goes to the Circle, it's mentioned that the Magistrate steps in on your behalf to keep the Hawkes from facing any legal problems. Purely aesthetic dialogue change.

[Ryzaki]

But evil isn't puppy-kicking, really. I mean, yeah, there are those people too, but that's bordering on insanity while a sane, smart and truly evil person wouldn't do things just to show how evil they are. I hate that idea that evil is stupid and any rational explanation of an action makes it somehow non-evil. Evil is all about getting what you want/need by any means. That's where the term "necessary evil" comes from - sometimes the stakes are so high and the situation so hopeless that awful means really seem necessary. But that doesn't make those means ok. You can murder the whole Dalish clan to secure werewolves as allies - but you still murder a bunch of people who had nothing to do with Zathrian's curse, men, women, children. You're doing what you think is best to fight Archdemon and save Ferelden, fair enough. That doesn't change the fact that you still have blood of those slaughtered children on your hands.

That's something that's very important when writing villains, including (potentially) villainous protagonists: a sane, well-written villain usually either thinks that what he does is not evil at all (a case of severe values dissonance) OR he has some greater goal that lets him justify all those reprehensible actions he commits along the way. How evil the person appears to be depends generally on how much we do or don't agree that the goal is great... and on extent to which we buy the explanation that the means chosen were actually necessary. The line between a good person doing evil things out of necessity and an evil person is a blurred one.

Either way, sane people don't do thing For Teh Evulz

 

And that just leads to a what's evil or not debate. The werewolf thing wasn't really justifiable to me  because A. You had 2 ways to avoid it and B. The werewolves don't even promise you their aid until after you suggest it. It's not like they say if you help us do this we'll help you out you literally "HEY WE SHOULD KILL ALL OF THEM!" and if you pass the persuade they agree with you. Because logic.

[Uccio]

The fact that there are "just sampling the goods" dialogue available made it perfect. 

 

The "just sampling the goods, no harm done" really cracked me up. 

[Siha]

It doesn't beyond a throw-away line*, which is why it's largely unnoticed and undiscussed, but that's a purely meta-gaming argument. From the in-game rational, and my basis as a role player, it was less about the consequence and more about the factors building up to the decision.

 

 

Consequences are something Bioware's typically been pretty weak at, but that's just part of the moral delimma buildup. Sometimes it's the prospect of consequences that matter more- particularly in arguing a delimma on its own merits and not on the future hindsight of it all.

 

Hmm... maybe the moral dilemma had not been so obvious to me. I just do not believe/trust him. I do not like to kill him, actually, I would prefer a "modern" solution (e.g., having Aveline apprehend him) but as I can only either let him walk free or kill him, I kill him. I never even cared about that magistrate's support; it seemed so trivial and unimportant to me that it could not influence my decision. (Maybe I even consider the Blackwall dilemma to be a better example for this sort of moral choice?)

That said, I personally do not mind BW not delivering much regarding the implications of my choices. Mostly because I consider it infeasible. They cannot implement all possible world states in one game, not in an acceptable amount of time and for an acceptable price. So it's a necessary evil (sic) that they disregard some player choices and advance the story. I usually see choices only under the moral point of view, "what would I do, what can I justify to do, what am I willing to sacrifice, and where do I draw the line". And for that they give me a few good options.

[Obb42]

See? You get my point.

You don't state your opinion right away, instead play along until in front of that tower, shoot, go back and go on pretending.

Not dishonorable?

Why does being honourable matter? You can get Krogan support or you can get Krogan AND Salarian support. Seems like an easy decision to make, a cure for the genophage can wait until the galaxy isn't at stake.

[Siha]

Why does being honourable matter? You can get Krogan support or you can get Krogan AND Salarian support. Seems like an easy decision to make, a cure for the genophage can wait until the galaxy isn't at stake.

 

That's not the topic, but my statements were aimed at the topic. And that topic is exactly that we get little of such choices recently.

[Uccio]

It's more than a 'little'. It has all the magic and fantastical creatures of any high fantasy work, but it is fairly graphic at times. There's no need for these arbitrary labels when one can combine the two and just call it dark high fantasy.

 

The big difference between the Witcher and Dragon Age (DAI, at least) is that the Witcher is more overt and in-your-face with what it tackles. From the onset, major characters are either terrorists, racists, rapists, or they engage in incest. If one isn't careful, they could mistake this for cheap shock value (and at times it does sort of stumble into that territory). Dragon Age, on the other hand, has its darker elements in the background, either through codex entries or through talking with companions. The most overt thing in the series is the Broodmother. Other things, like how the Dalish deify a mass-murdering despot willing to start wars just for attention and followers, or the way the Qunari re-educate people and how they keep their mages in check, or the implied rape and murder of a refugee girl by Templars, you only learn by reading codex documents or by going out of your way to talk to people.

 

One is not darker than the other, they just take different approaches to said darkness.

 

But that is a tremendous difference, just reading it does not have the same effect as gameplay depiction of it. Not even close. I am not shocked about reading refugee girl rape and murder by templars, just annoyed since I have been given this crime and then there is nothing I can do about it. In Witcher you can disembowel the rapist commander and bring his terror to end. It brings the horror in your face through the gameplay and then a option to stop it. So the scale is totally different IMO.

[Dean_the_Young]

And that just leads to a what's evil or not debate. The werewolf thing wasn't really justifiable to me  because A. You had 2 ways to avoid it and B. The werewolves don't even promise you their aid until after you suggest it. It's not like they say if you help us do this we'll help you out you literally "HEY WE SHOULD KILL ALL OF THEM!" and if you pass the persuade they agree with you. Because logic.

 

It's sad that such a cool option (recruiting werewolves, not killing Dalish) is hidden behind such a dumb dialogue route. I liked the werewolf army idea in concept, but the execution was silly.

 

At least the Anvil of the Void made clear why you would want to do such a thing.