266 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

This is something I've been feeling for quite some time. In short, the way Bioware treats its protagonists, I increasingly don't want to play them as heroes any more. It has left so much dark emotion in me that I want little else from them now but the ability to act that out in a game. In Trespasser you lost your arm, your cool magical extra and you lost against three of your four opponents. In the ME trilogy, you died for outcomes that weren't worth it. No more, I say.

And while I was thinking that, I realized how interesting, how different it could be to play a darker character in the first place, if written right, and no, I'm not talking of the usual caricature of evil we tend to get in our stories, but about a character whose main motiviation is *rational* self-interest. In stories I read, I often find the antagonists more interesting than the protagonists, because they aren't restricted in their presentation by the hero template and have more varied motivations than the hero protagonists. At least if they're presented as sane and rational.

So here's what I'd like to see in Bioware's next game: the ability to play a character whose main motivation is rational self-interest, and who doesn't care overmuch about morals or others' wellbeing, and even less about saving the magical order or any group in which they wouldn't have a natural interest. Above all, I don't want to save the status quo. I want change, as radical, as large-scale and as complete as I can imagine. I don't care if the outcome will be non-canon and I'll never see it continued in a sequel. I want a story that's more interesting, and more varied, than being someone's or something's hero. Because I'm tired of being that. Utterly fed up.

Comments welcome. It's why I'm posting this after all...

[Smudjygirl]

I'm interested in what would constitute rational self interest, in your opinion

[Steelcan]

I don't think BioWare would be interested in such a character, nor do I think they could write one well.

[vertigomez]

I love playing the hero (even if they're a failure hero ), but I love the idea of a villain protagonist as well. That's one thing I enjoyed about Bloodlines, Mask of the Betrayer, and Baldur's Gate... that morally grey area, acting purely for one's own self-interest and experiencing the consequences of your (terrible, no good, very bad) behavior.

I'm less interested in the radical change idea, though, because I do like the sense of continuity that comes from having decisions carry over. But on a small scale? Playing a character who is motivated by power and greed? Sounds interesting.

[Ieldra]

I'm interested in what would constitute rational self interest, in your opinion

One main principle is being unscrupulous in achieving your goals, but considering more unpleasant means to do that last rather than first, because after all, it's not rational to antagonize people for no reason. It means being not overly concerned about morals or others wellbeing per se, but also carefully considering the effects of your actions, as far as they could have bad repercussions for you down the road.

"Macchiavellan" would probably be a fitting term as well.

[Ieldra]

I'm less interested in the radical change idea, though, because I do like the sense of continuity that comes from having decisions carry over. But on a small scale? Playing a character who is motivated by power and greed? Sounds interesting.

The thing is, in the DA games people always speak of a big change, but we always end up with saving the status quo anyway. It would be enough if a story that promises change would actually deliver on that promise once in a while.

As for the appeal: after Trespasser, I was playing with the idea of a character who agrees with Solas. It's just that "world-wide genocide that is likely to to include your power base" isn't something anyone could rationally agree to if they're not ancient elves.

@Steelcan:
Yeah, that's the main problem. No chance at all for such a thing, too, with Patrick Weekes at the helm. I wonder, though: don't *they* get tired of writing the hero?

[fraggle]

I don't think BioWare would be interested in such a character, nor do I think they could write one well.

 

I'd also like to think the majority of people wouldn't like to play one. Many love playing the hero. I don't care much for the hero theme myself, it's dull and boring to me, yet I love playing ME and DA over and over. But I like to play characters that have flaws and screw some things up so I never really see them as a hero, but a normal person. One that made or makes mistakes and some of them sure do make morally questionable choices, and they got pushed into something bigger than them. Others (in-game) can see heroes in them, sure, but I never do.

 

It's an interesting concept, but I'm not sure how well it would work. How would you set up a theme that pushes it more to self-interest? Is there no self-interest in preserving a world or to defeat something "evil"? Would you do it in a more undercover way and not make a big fuss about it? Would you not have a setting in which the world needs to be saved, but something on a smaller scale, yet has a large impact?

 

With that said, we already can do quite some morally questionable things imo. What I would like to see of course are more different outcomes and ways to get there ideally, but both roads (hero or villain type) should be open I think.

[Medhia_Nox]

There's a large camp of scholars that believe Machiavelli (The Prince) was a satire... but also, there are so many things about The Prince (for example) that are misunderstood.

 

Take: "It's better to be feared, than loved."  That's not what he says - at all - because most people truncate the quote which is actually.  "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both."  He says first, it is ALWAYS better to be loved AND feared.. but, barring that, it is good to be feared... than to be simply loved.  His reason... is that fear can be "more" controlled... while love is almost totally in the hands of "other".  Being loved AND feared... means loyalty. 

 

Also... fear to Machiavelli is not the fear Corypheus creates.  It's the fear wronging a loved one creates.  It's truly:  "I'm not angry, I'm disappointed."  He suggests if you can engender within your subjects the fear of disappointing their good leader... they will be loyal.  

 

Fearing to disappoint your bad leader... will eventually fade and turn to revolt.  

 

--------------

 

That being said - I have no taste for bad people... that is to say, people who's moral compass is so degenerate that they do not consider the weight of their actions only the efficiency.  

 

NOTE:  Bethesda is making a game called Tyranny that will scratch this itch for you Ieldra. 

[Ieldra]

It's an interesting concept, but I'm not sure how well it would work. How would you set up a theme that pushes it more to self-interest? Is there no self-interest in preserving a world or to defeat something "evil"? Would you do it in a more undercover way and not make a big fuss about it? Would you not have a setting in which the world needs to be saved, but something on a smaller scale, yet has a large impact?

Consider Solas. If you were an ancient elf, you could rationally agree with him. Consider a post-Trespasser Inquisitor. In another thread, I said the motivations for such a character's actions that came most naturally to me was "Damn them to hell. I'm going to get back what's mine". As for saving the world, for a mainly self-interested character the question would be: what's the consequence of not saving it? Do I survive? Does my power base survive, or anything else I value? Will anyone else be so powerful that I'm effectively left a slave, or will the new order remove restrictions I'm chafing against anyway?

With that said, we already can do quite some morally questionable things imo. What I would like to see of course are more different outcomes and ways to get there ideally, but both roads (hero or villain type) should be open I think.

Indeed so. DAI did a fairly ok job in making the main plot acceptable for different character types, but having an outcome like Trespasser's written in stone ruins that impression. You should've had the choice of fighting for your independence.

[sniper_arrow]

Well, you better hope that Bioware will create a Magister/Altus origin where you side Tevinter by strengthening it with more slavery and lay waste on the Lucerni like the Red Wedding.

[Dai Grepher]

Ieldra, you're my hero.

Basically you're arguing for the return of the Origins protagonist.

If Tevinter is the new setting, then we will probably get some options to do the wrong thing. Those who are evil might conflict with the (ex)Inquisitor, and in that case the (x)In will have to work with the new character out of necessity, but there will be conflict. It may even have an effect on the final confrontation with Solas, in that he will chide the (x)In for working with such a character.

But what choices would you want in this setting?

[Ieldra]

There's a large camp of scholars that believe Machiavelli was a satire... but also, there are so many things about The Prince (for example) that are misunderstood.
 
Take: "It's better to be feared, than loved."  That's not what he says - at all - because most people truncate the quote which is actually.  "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both."  He says first, it is ALWAYS better to be loved AND feared.. but, barring that, it is good to be feared... than to be simply loved.  His reason... is that fear can be "more" controlled... while love is almost totally in the hands of "other".  Being loved AND feared... means loyalty.

It is rather rational, isn't it?
 

Also... fear to Machiavelli is not the fear Corypheus creates.  It's the fear wronging a loved one creates.  It's truly:  "I'm not angry, I'm disappointed."  He suggests if you can engender within your subjects the fear of disappointing their good leader... they will be loyal.  
 
Fearing to disappoint your bad leader... will eventually fade and turn to revolt.

Perhaps that's why I wouldn't want to play something like Corypheus....
  

That being said - I have no taste for bad people... that is to say, people who's moral compass is so degenerate that they do not consider the weight of their actions only the efficiency.  
 
NOTE:  Bethesda is making a game called Tyranny that will scratch this itch for you Ieldra.

What about a highly cynical character, one who says "I tried the hero's path and look what it got me, and those I loved. Now I don't care anymore. The world is a dark place, and love is a lie." Not quite what I proposed, but a darker template that I'd also find interesting. I guess such a character's story would need a way towards reconciliation, but then it would have to be a kind of reconciliation I can believe in. Which means: not dying or losing in the end, because that would just enforce the cynicism.

[vbibbi]

Yeah I don't think Bioware wants to make this type of game, and to be fair, I don't think we should be expecting this type of game from them. Even when they've done "good/evil" with the light side and dark side, or open palm and closed fist, the game is really designed for the "good" side with a morality crisis point near the very end.

 

The closest they've come recently is Hawke, where it's all about their self interest and survival, which ends up involving them in Kirkwall's politics. But the types of stories Bioware tells are about having a large impact on the world, and it's hard to do that with a selfish protagonist who's only in it for themselves.

 

It would be nice if we had the option to roleplay as someone other than a goody two shoes, sure. Maybe have more dialogue options showing our motivations are from self interest, and helping powerful people is in our best interest. But I don't see why someone who is motivated by self interest would care whether or not the status quo changes. They would just want to place themselves in a good position, regardless of status quo or new world order.

 

 

I'm not sure I see how DAI allowed PCs of different types to play the main story. There was the moment arriving at Skyhold where we can declare what we as the Inquisitor stand for, but other than that I don't recall any instances of us being able to be in it "for ourselves." If you count stopping the world from ending as selfish, yeah, but there was never any chance for a ruthless or ambitious Inquisitor to try and gain more power because they could, or to make any changes to the status quo that wasn't as a result of our conflict with Cory. Choosing mages or templars, Orlais' ruler, keeping or exiling the Wardens, those decisions were all done in the context of how best to fight Corypheus, not with the goal of implementing political and social change.

[Iakus]

 
So here's what I'd like to see in Bioware's next game: the ability to play a character whose main motivation is rational self-interest, and who doesn't care overmuch about morals or others' wellbeing, and even less about saving the magical order or any group in which they wouldn't have a natural interest. Above all, I don't want to save the status quo. I want change, as radical, as large-scale and as complete as I can imagine. I don't care if the outcome will be non-canon and I'll never see it continued in a sequel. I want a story that's more interesting, and more varied, than being someone's or something's hero. Because I'm tired of being that. Utterly fed up.

I'd rather leave the motivation up to the player.  Give us a mission, but leave it up to us why we're doing it.

 

Like in BG2, you could go after Irenicus to rescue Imoen, to get payback fro your torture, to discover how to unlock your hidden potential, etc.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

I think Bethesda does that better of how you play your protagonist whether to be good or evil or neutral on Fallout series. I think they should set it up for the player to decide to go either the three.

[wright1978]

Consider Solas. If you were an ancient elf, you could rationally agree with him. Consider a post-Trespasser Inquisitor. In another thread, I said the motivations for such a character's actions that came most naturally to me was "Damn them to hell. I'm going to get back what's mine". As for saving the world, for a mainly self-interested character the question would be: what's the consequence of not saving it? Do I survive? Does my power base survive, or anything else I value? Will anyone else be so powerful that I'm effectively left a slave, or will the new order remove restrictions I'm chafing against anyway?


Indeed so. DAI did a fairly ok job in making the main plot acceptable for different character types, but having an outcome like Trespasser's written in stone ruins that impression. You should've had the choice of fighting for your independence.

 

Personally i think there's a rational argument for an elf to side with Solas. If the character believes in the justness of the cause isn't self sacrifice as valid as self preservation. Though i can see from a story complication why they'd never allow it.

 

Yeah i'd have liked option to resist disbandment/religious servitude even if that resistance was futile.

[Medhia_Nox]

Well... my "canon" Warden is a douche.  He saved Ferelden to rule it.  

 

My Hawke is just a person who wanted peace and quiet and was forced into fighting... reluctant hero, yeah sure - but hardly a goody goody for the sake of others. 

 

My Inquisitor was probably the closest to "Hero" - but I'm thinking of changing that. 

 

I don't think most people have what it takes to play a truly selfless person... and I don't think these games model good people at all.  Most people's definition of what it is to be good... is woefully anemic.  

 

I'd be more interested in a person that struggles to be a good man in a world where being evil was easy... but then I'd have to stay far away from the boards because it would be lit up with self-righteous whining about being "judged" by the game. 

[Reznore57]

My advice , play Fallout New Vegas.

 

I played a pc who could free slaves but didn't because it meant a lot of trouble down the line.

Only cared about killing the slaver leader when this dude called him a little b**** .Yeah slavery wasn't his problem , he wasn't a slave , but personal insult was totally going too far.

Sold drugs to awful raiders (kinds that rape puppies and eat your mother) because well drugs and money were good for my pc and those dudes didn't do anything to his puppy or his mother.Also he wanted to build a good relationship with the faction manifacturing the drugs because it could be useful.

Etc...etc...

 

I didn't feel like my pc did anything evilz.He didn't torture or kill any innocent , just sometimes he didn't help out of self preservation and made some situation worse for profit.

[Witch Cocktor]

Sorry dude, but there's a crazy egg running around trying to destroy the world. Thedas needs heroes, and that hero is going to be us unless there's a choice to let the egg destroy the world.

And I don't generally understand what you're on about. You can play every protagonist as a selfish dick who only cares about themselves. And if you don't think you can play as one, that's just lack of imagination from your part.

 

EDIT: and for the record, yes, I HATE PLAYING THE HERO, because I just can't really put myself into that position, in game or in real life. But that's also what's so good about it, being in a situation where you definitely don't want to be! It builds character and trying to keep a straight face while you are dying on the inside, I freaking love it. That's what my canon Inquisitor was in the end, totally messed up by being held in such high regard, with all eyes on him, but still trying to fight through it.

 

Reluctant hero is like my favorite trope tbh. So cheesy but so good.

[Abyss108]

I'm hoping Obsidean's next game, Tyranny, is something like this.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, that's the problem with a threat like Cory, or Solas, or the Reapers -- rational self-interest and being a big damn hero are pretty much the same thing.

[Qis]

The purpose of playing a game is players want to be a hero, because players are not heroes in real life. So a game that provide the players feel being a hero in the end will sell. Why would wasting time and money playing an anti-hero while in real life we already suck at everything?

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

My advice , play Fallout New Vegas.
 
I played a pc who could free slaves but didn't because it meant a lot of trouble down the line.
Only cared about killing the slaver leader when this dude called him a little b**** .Yeah slavery wasn't his problem , he wasn't a slave , but personal insult was totally going too far.
Sold drugs to awful raiders (kinds that rape puppies and eat your mother) because well drugs and money were good for my pc and those dudes didn't do anything to his puppy or his mother.Also he wanted to build a good relationship with the faction manifacturing the drugs because it could be useful.
Etc...etc...
 
I didn't feel like my pc did anything evilz.He didn't torture or kill any innocent , just sometimes he didn't help out of self preservation and made some situation worse for profit.

Hey I still have that game!! I love how set it up to creates different endings based on the player's choices to be good or evil and how your deeds affect the entire wasteland. BioWare can learn something from that especially for ME ending.

[Iakus]

Yeah, that's the problem with a threat like Cory, or Solas, or the Reapers -- rational self-interest and being a big damn hero are pretty much the same thing.

Not really.  Though the goal is the same, the motivation, and likely the method, is completely different.

 

Superman and Lex Luthor would both want to protect Earth from an alien invasion, but they'd so so in very different ways.

[AlanC9]

Motivation isn't something I think an RPG should try to address. Anyway, the only way it would come out is in dialogue, and the PC could simply be lying.

Method, sure, depending on the situation. ME3's Tuchanka works -- though the setup required the dalatrass to be an idiot. Rannoch's setup couldn't offer such a choice, since anyone who can get both forces should get both.