266 réponses à ce sujet

[Dabrikishaw]

What is wrong with you?

[vertigomez]

What is wrong with you?

I'm assuming it's a hallucinogenic.

[Dai Grepher]

You didn't have a point. You still don't. There's no chance in hell I'm touching your rape fantasy, so instead I'm going to talk about this in generalities.

Don't try it. The City Elf origin had a rape storyline, DA2 had a rape storyline, Inquisition ALMOST had a rape storyline, which the writers dropped because they thought it would distract from the plot. Rape is a common crime in Tevinter and even Orlais, and it's a dark scenario where the element of choice would be crucial.

You had meaningless rhetoric. To the extent there even was a point, it was a general moral one: there's greater value to a "good" choice if you could also choose an "evil" one. That point is stupid, as illustrated by the lazy indifference example: lazy indifference is always better than actually harming others, so lazy indifferent people making meaningful and valuable moral choices.

Thom Rainier was indifferent when the thugs in his town were abusing a dog. It was his choice. He wishes he had made a different choice. Why? Because lazy indifference was better than joining in on the "fun", but it wasn't as meaningful as stepping in to stop it.

Sure, having multiple options is a great thing in a game.

Oh, ya think?

Having the option to do harm doesn't make the option not to do harm any more or less significant. It is simply another option.

Oh yeah? Well my Cousland risked his own life by going through the Joining. My Hawke risked her life by entering the Deep Roads. My Trevelyan accepted the title of Inquisitor. What do you think of that?

As for the option to harm not making the option to help more significant, tell that to the mages in the Circle Tower. Tell that to Fenris. Tell that to Blackwall.

But if all those choices had been made for you, it wouldn't mean anything for your character.

[In Exile]

Don't try it. The City Elf origin had a rape storyline, DA2 had a rape storyline, Inquisition ALMOST had a rape storyline, which the writers dropped because they thought it would distract from the plot. Rape is a common crime in Tevinter and even Orlais, and it's a dark scenario where the element of choice would be crucial.

 

I didn't say I had any issue with a storyline about rape. I said I had an issue with your rape fantasy. These are not the same thing.

 

Thom Rainier was indifferent when the thugs in his town were abusing a dog. It was his choice. He wishes he had made a different choice. Why? Because lazy indifference was better than joining in on the "fun", but it wasn't as meaningful as stepping in to stop it.

 

You completely missed the point of his story. The point of his story was that standing by made him no better than the men who committed the crime. You missed the point so hard that you can actually hear it zooming over your head. 

 

Oh yeah? Well my Cousland risked his own life by going through the Joining. My Hawke risked her life by entering the Deep Roads. My Trevelyan accepted the title of Inquisitor. What do you think of that?

But if all those choices had been made for you, it wouldn't mean anything for your character.

 

I think all those choices were made for you. I can't even begin to grasp whatever point you think you're making by undermining your own examples. 

[Ieldra]

However, I have an issue with the originally stated op of 'Acting Out.' This is not a character that has a convoluted sense of right and wrong, but more a character that knows what they are doing is wrong, and do it anyway.

Perhaps you misunderstand. This isn't about doing bad stuff for its own sake. It's just about stopping being other people's hero and doing stuff for yourself.

[In Exile]

Perhaps you misunderstand. This isn't about doing bad stuff for its own sake. It's just about stopping being other people's hero and doing stuff for yourself.

 

You know the difference between a manipulative bastard like the brilliant David Xanatos and, say, Morrigan in DA:O? Xanatos isn't going to tell everyone he's doing it for his own selfish sake and profit. Just how exactly do you think the option of "doing stuff for yourself" would play out? 

[Aulis Vaara]

Not me. A person like this is just giving in to their darker nature. Anybody can do that. To be a "hero" requires sacrifice. Self discipline. You know, attributes worth emulating, role-playing, aspiring towards. If I want to witness self-interest, rational or otherwise, all I have to do is turn on the news and watch a politician.

Oh yes, all the sacrifice and self-discipline of the game not giving you a choice but to be a hero...

That's such a hard thing to do! Almost nobody does that!

[Eckswhyzed]

You know the difference between a manipulative bastard like the brilliant David Xanatos and, say, Morrigan in DA:O? Xanatos isn't going to tell everyone he's doing it for his own selfish sake and profit. Just how exactly do you think the option of "doing stuff for yourself" would play out?

The problem of course being that very often it's in your rational self-interest to not appear to be acting in your rational self-interest.

[Ieldra]

To be a "hero" requires sacrifice.

Sacrifice loses its meaning if the choice is made for you. And even more to the point: it's one thing to buy victory with your sacrifice - at least ME3 did that right, no matter that the victory feels tainted - but quite another to take away everything you've gained for yourself in the epilogue. It's one thing to sacrifice because it's wriiten as necessary, and another to lose because you became inconvenient for future chapters of the story.

[Ieldra]

You know the difference between a manipulative bastard like the brilliant David Xanatos and, say, Morrigan in DA:O? Xanatos isn't going to tell everyone he's doing it for his own selfish sake and profit. Just how exactly do you think the option of "doing stuff for yourself" would play out? 

Not having a "save the world" plot would be a good start. Hawke's story had potential. Of course they lose most of what they've gained, too. Also, it would be nice if roleplaying was extended to things you do in secret. For instance, in DAI a line of war table missions nobody knew about but you and Leliana.

[In Exile]

Not having a "save the world" plot would be a good start. Hawke's story had potential. Of course they lose most of what they've gained, too. Also, it would be nice if roleplaying was extended to things you do in secret. For instance, in DAI a line of war table missions nobody knew about but you and Leliana.

 

Okay. I'll raise you TW2. No world saving. Again, how do you think the option would play out? Why are you suddenly outing your motives to Leliana? Part of being rationally self-interested is keeping your schemes to yourself. 

[Donk]

What is wrong with you?

I don't know but I'm dying of laughter here.

[Donk]

NOT THAT GUY !!! YOU WANTED TO TALK TO Me ..... ???

Instead of always beee a HERO, .....

You wanna see people, who can TURN into BAD-GUYSS, YES ?
Like SOLAS.

IT MUSN'T NEVER STOP HERE.

SOLAS can BECOME, our NEW THREAD, the replacement of Corefeus.

I just wanna say: There are ENOUGH OPTIONS LEFT,

To tell the story further. And who says, you WILL BECOME the NEXT HERO ??

There is time enough, to change all THINGS !!!!!

Somebody forgot to take their meds

[Ghost Gal]

Perhaps you misunderstand. This isn't about doing bad stuff for its own sake. It's just about stopping being other people's hero and doing stuff for yourself.

 

Isn't that what every BioWare protagonist has had the option to do (except maybe the Inquisitor)? You keep saying things like "rational self-interest," but don't elaborate on what that means.

 

Do you mean like lining your own pockets, seeking fame and glory, becoming nobility? Because most past BioWare games let you do that.

 

As Yahtzee pointed out in his DAO review, most quests involve "go to a dungeon, murder everyone you find, steal their pocket change, steal their trousers, then come back, hand in your quest, sell all the trousers, then flee like some kind of extremely dedicated wandering second-hand clothing salesman." Pretty much every BioWare protagonist except the Inquisitor had the option to flat-out tell everyone you meet that you don't care about them or their problems and you're just doing it for the money, and possibly extort or betray them. 1/3 of DA2 is basically just Hawke trying to raise money for a "get rich quick" expedition so they can move to Hightown. (Although if you're a cynic like me, you could probably argue that that self-serving quality never really went away since those two three-year time skips involved Hawke kicking their feet up in Hightown even as trouble brewed in the city--who cares if Meredith is turning Kirkwall into a tyrannical Templar police state as long as Hawke can nap undisturbed in their mansion?) Renegade Shepard? Hoo boy.

 

Just short of becoming a crime boss like Jarviah, I don't understand how much more blatantly "self-serving" you think a protagonist can get, nor even what you mean by "rational self-serving."

[Ieldra]

Okay. I'll raise you TW2. No world saving. Again, how do you think the option would play out? Why are you suddenly outing your motives to Leliana? Part of being rationally self-interested is keeping your schemes to yourself. 

You usually depend on others to carry any schemes out. Most of them, anyway. Sure, they don't need to know everything, but they need to know something or they won't be able to do their job.

 

I understand what you're going for though. There is an option when you're made Inquisitor, something like "I'll do this for my own power". I have no idea what you actually say if you select that option - I never use it even for Inquisitors where it's true, because that would be stupid. Motivations are invisible after all. So yeah, this is  a little tricky - but do you think you can play the Inquisitor with underlying self-interested motivations? I tried. It doesn't feel that way. The problem is that you have no ways to express yourself about anything except by talking. So if you're stuck with talking - what about options not as grossly stupid as that one? My main Inquisitor's schemes - those I would've liked her to have and act upon - would be of a kind I could talk about with Morrigan, for instance.

 

 

But....here's a better example: ME3 did this right in the genophage plot, when you decide whether or not to reveal the sabotage. The motivation wasn't self-interest beyond "saving my world will also save me", but the scene was successfully portraying a hidden motivation, if you chose to be silent. Another option would be to mark what you say as a lie - some crpgs did that and it worked well for me. 

[Ieldra]

Isn't that what every BioWare protagonist has had the option to do (except maybe the Inquisitor)? You keep saying things like "rational self-interest," but don't elaborate on what that means.

 

Do you mean like lining your own pockets, seeking fame and glory, becoming nobility? Because most past BioWare games let you do that.

Only that you *always* do that, and that defeats the point. If you acquire fame and nobility anyway, what's the point of doing bad stuff? Rational self-interest would dictate that you avoid unnecessary evil because it's not rational to antagonize people for no reason. Also, almost everything you've gained is always taken away again in the end, and that, too, defeats the point on a meta-perspective.

 

Actually, there is one thing that would reconciliate me with playing the hero: let me keep what I've gained in the course of the story. Most of it, anyway. I'm ok with being the hero for little gain, but *if* I gain something - an estate, special powers, influence - I want to keep it. At the very least, taking those three items as an example, give me a choice to keep one of them. Of my choice. Taking it all away at the end after I've already won, that's an insult of fate.

[Almostfaceman]

Oh yes, all the sacrifice and self-discipline of the game not giving you a choice but to be a hero...

That's such a hard thing to do! Almost nobody does that!

 

That's metagaming, with you playing a game you chose to play. Which is, you know, silly.

 

Since it's such a burden for you to play these types of games, then you really are the hero, self-sacrificing your valuable time in real life to play a character you don't like. 

 

For example, I'm playing the Inquisitor. I can role-play I'd rather be back doing whatever I was doing instead of risking my neck fighting demon after demon because some silly religious people think I'm some Herald. You can't really do that role-playing any game from the perspective of the OP. Which is what the OP is talking about, motivations. I can't play a game based on those motivations, supported or not supported by the in-game story. For reasons already stated. 

[CronoDragoon]

Sacrifice loses its meaning if the choice is made for you. And even more to the point: it's one thing to buy victory with your sacrifice - at least ME3 did that right, no matter that the victory feels tainted - but quite another to take away everything you've gained for yourself in the epilogue. It's one thing to sacrifice because it's wriiten as necessary, and another to lose because you became inconvenient for future chapters of the story.

 

And again I'll assert that it was necessary as written, something you didn't feel the need to argue about previously in the thread. The Inquisition was not going to be allowed to continue without being assimilated into the existing power structure of Thedas in some way. And as Weekes said, losing the Mark bookends the Rift crisis. The world no longer needs The Inquisitor-as-Rift-closer, but it does need her as a counterbalance to Solas, which is what Trespasser's ending showed.

 

You also keep saying that the Inquisitor lost, which I think is nonsense, pardon me. The Inquisitor defeated Corypheus and stopped a Qunari invasion. Solas is in the position of power for the moment, but the cold war with Solas has only just begun.

[Addictress]

I read the title of this thread in Wade's voice (you know, the genius whiny blacksmith Wade)

[In Exile]

And again I'll assert that it was necessary as written, something you didn't feel the need to argue about previously in the thread. The Inquisition was not going to be allowed to continue without being assimilated into the existing power structure of Thedas in some way. And as Weekes said, losing the Mark bookends the Rift crisis. The world no longer needs The Inquisitor-as-Rift-closer, but it does need her as a counterbalance to Solas, which is what Trespasser's ending showed.

You also keep saying that the Inquisitor lost, which I think is nonsense, pardon me. The Inquisitor defeated Corypheus and stopped a Qunari invasion. Solas is in the position of power for the moment, but the cold war with Solas has only just begun.

While I agree with the general sentiment I do think the Inquisitor lost. Ultimately, you were forced to bend to the political will of Thedas (at most you could tell them off) and Solas did absolutely own you (you basically spend the entire scene on your knees). The game ends on an incredibly low note.

It's basically TESB from star wars. Don't think it makes sense to say Luke won in that one.

[Dai Grepher]

I didn't say I had any issue with a storyline about rape. I said I had an issue with your rape fantasy. These are not the same thing.

And yet you wrote that you would not touch it, and accused me of fantasizing about it. Where did that despicable accusation come from sir?

You completely missed the point of his story. The point of his story was that standing by made him no better than the men who committed the crime. You missed the point so hard that you can actually hear it zooming over your head.

No, you missed the point of the example I gave. Thom chose to do nothing. That defined his character at the time. What he thinks of doing nothing is irrelevant. His desire to go back to that time and make the choice to do right proves my point. Having the ability to choose wrongly gives the right action more meaning and value to defining the person's character.

I think all those choices were made for you. I can't even begin to grasp whatever point you think you're making by undermining your own examples.

That's because you miss the point, as usual. Yes, all those actions were chosen for me, which is why you think nothing of them except that they were chosen for me. And that's my point. Why do those actions seem meaningless to you? Because they were chosen for me. I didn't choose them. It was just part of the game.

So now I hope you understand where you went wrong here. And if not, well then I hope DA4 has a special "In Exile" feature just for you where the game automatically customizes the protagonist for you, chooses all dialogue responses for you, and even plays the game for you. So basically you'll just be watching a movie while the rest of us define our custom characters through various choices and play the game ourselves.

[CronoDragoon]

While I agree with the general sentiment I do think the Inquisitor lost. Ultimately, you were forced to bend to the political will of Thedas (at most you could tell them off) and Solas did absolutely own you (you basically spend the entire scene on your knees). The game ends on an incredibly low note.

It's basically TESB from star wars. Don't think it makes sense to say Luke won in that one.

 

It's difficult for me to see the Inquisition choice at the end as a loss when it was an obvious eventuality from the beginning. Nevertheless, I can see a situation where a defiant Inquisitor would want to remain independent. I'm just not sure it would have been nearly as interesting as what we got, which was a lot of plot movement.

 

I don't see the situation as analogous to TESB. In that movie, there's no third party conflict through which you emerge victorious like the Qunari. Luke also loses the battle with Vader, who cuts off his hand. The Inquisitor defeats the Qunari but is dying because of the Mark anyway and that's why they spend the scene on their knees with Solas. It's more accurate to say that you're incapable of winning against Solas at that moment due to the Anchor killing you than that Solas defeated you. I also did not interpret that scene as you did, that Solas steals the anchor. I thought he merely destroyed it, as Corypheus earlier established that it was impossible to separate it from the Inquisitor, going so far as to say the Anchor was effectively "ruined." Is it possible? I suppose so. But comments from BioWare imply to me that the Rift-opening and closing chapter of Dragon Age is finished. I suppose we'll see in DA4.

 

tl;dr I don't dispute there's some loss and poignancy in Trespasser, but it's well-counterbalanced by victories and positive plot movements. In that particular sense, it may be analogous to TESB in that Luke and Leia together looking out the ship window demonstrates a sense of hope and determination in the same way the core Inquisition team formulating a plan against Solas at the end of Trespasser does.

[Steelcan]

OP I think you have a bit of a hang up on wanting to play an Übermensch.  While you can find elements of this kind of "rational self-interest" in some plots from DA and ME, I don't think BioWare is all that interested in making such a character the protagonist, and their efforts to make NPC's like this are hit or miss at best.

 

I am curious though if you are familiar with the story of Ciaphas Caine (HERO OF THE IMPERIUM) from Warhammer 40k, because he fits this pretty well, only instead of trying to get rich, accrue power, or some other pursuit, his main ambition is not to end up on the receiving end of friendly fire/the business end of a Xeno etc...

[AlanC9]

Actually, there is one thing that would reconciliate me with playing the hero: let me keep what I've gained in the course of the story. Most of it, anyway. I'm ok with being the hero for little gain, but *if* I gain something - an estate, special powers, influence - I want to keep it. At the very least, taking those three items as an example, give me a choice to keep one of them. Of my choice. Taking it all away at the end after I've already won, that's an insult of fate.

Isn't "taking it all away" a bit hyperbolic? My first Inquisitor ends up as one of the most powerful people in Thedas, working under a Divine whose reign he not only personally engineered but who is, in fact, his lover. (Or was, anyway, depending on how you interpret stuff.)

Works for Hawke, I guess, who often gets out of Kirkwall with just his reputation, his sibling, his lover, and his life. Though after DAI he seems to regain his social status in Kirkwall.

[Medhia_Nox]

Did I miss the part where the Inquisitor becomes a broke, homeless, friendless vagrant wandering the back alleys of Denerim looking for his next fix? 

 

Would I have kept my holding through violence?  Perhaps...

 

However, here's the problem with that.

 

It absolutely demands another story... and Bioware doesn't want to continue the Inquisitor's story directly.