57 réponses à ce sujet

[Sk1nHoUnD]

My character is evil....so it seems natural to let the folks tuff it out themselves...but it seems to be a big chunk of the game to miss out on...is there any other benefit to skipping this other than being an **** and returning to an empty village?

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's a strong roleplaying reason to avoid saving Redcliffe. Sten explains it quite well if he's there when Teagan asks for help.



In terms of gameplay, there doesn't appear to be much benefit. You miss out on XP from the battle, and it's harder to find enough corpse gall for that other quest.

[Vuokseniska]

in the end i never missed alot of exp... my character was lvl 23 in the end so i think the zombiefied villagers in the castle give the extra xp

[Sk1nHoUnD]

are there any evil choices to make after committing to saving the village? Other than with the village blacksmith

[Lekwid]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There's a strong roleplaying reason to avoid saving Redcliffe. Sten explains it quite well if he's there when Teagan asks for help.

In terms of gameplay, there doesn't appear to be much benefit. You miss out on XP from the battle, and it's harder to find enough corpse gall for that other quest.

What's the RP reason?  I never use Sten and I've always helped Redcliffe...I just can't not help them.  Yes, I have a hard time making evil characters.

I try to get Bella her own brewery and Kaitlyn to marry Bann Teagan since I figure that will give me connections in the future. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's not an evil decision to leave them to their fate.

You're a Grey Warden. Your job is to defeat the blight. Defending Redcliffe from some threat that has nothing to do with the blight (you'll not the town isn't getting attacked by darkspawn) is a waste of your time and an unreasonable risk. Sten correctly points out that defending Redcliffe is reckless and irresponsible. You might want to save those people, but doing so is a selfish quest for glory rather than part of your greater duty as a Grey Warden.

[the_one_54321]

Hmmm...



I would see it as a means to a greater end. You need the Arl to back you up. So you need to get into the castle. So you need to defend the town.



There are risks involved, but there are risks involved in all the tasks you undertake. You take the risks for the sake of what is to be gained.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I would see it as a means to a greater end. You need the Arl to back you up.

If you go to Redcliffe first, you don't know that.  They're not even on your list of treaties.  By the time you do know that, the town may have already been lost.

So you need to get into the castle. So you need to defend the town.

Even those two things don't go together.  You don't need to defend the town in order to get into the castle, and there's not even any reason for the PC to think that's true at the time.

There are risks involved, but there are risks involved in all the tasks you undertake.

Yes, but some of those tasks are actually important.  Those risks are worth taking.

You take the risks for the sake of what is to be gained.

From the point of view of defeating the blight, defending Redcliffe gains nothing.

[Sk1nHoUnD]

Gah...the whole gray warden main quest is counter productive to my evil intentions....



I'm basically bound to follow the linear plot of saving ferelden while making greedy choices along the way.



As an evil dwarf, i'd like to unite all the dwarves under one tyranical banner, but i dont think thats gona happen

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I would see it as a means to a greater end. You need the Arl to back you up.

If you go to Redcliffe first, you don't know that.  They're not even on your list of treaties.  By the time you do know that, the town may have already been lost.

So you need to get into the castle. So you need to defend the town.

Even those two things don't go together.  You don't need to defend the town in order to get into the castle, and there's not even any reason for the PC to think that's true at the time.

There are risks involved, but there are risks involved in all the tasks you undertake.

Yes, but some of those tasks are actually important.  Those risks are worth taking.

You take the risks for the sake of what is to be gained.

From the point of view of defeating the blight, defending Redcliffe gains nothing.

That's one way to see it. Alistair suggested going to Redcliffe for support from the Arl as soon as you arived in Lothering. (another something that Morrigan objected to off-hand despite it's potential for helping the cause) So I went to Redcliffe, specifically to try and get the Arl to lend us support. I find out that we can't get into the castle (and I tried to get into the castle but was unable to) until after the assult on the town. So I agreed, originally out of the thought of saving some folks and gaining the Arls favor, but really wasn't even able to circumvent the issue without just abandoning them.

It is an unnecessary risk, and it can be avoided. But there are some readily apparent gains to be had if you take the risk. The only really openly obvious one being to gain the Arls support.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Arl, who hasn't been heard from in a week and might already be dead.

[the_one_54321]

Yeah, so you need to find out what's going on, or else you can't get his help. There's also succession, after all. You don't need him in specific. And if you don't save him or his family you can't count on their help one way or the other.



It's just another way to look at the issue. You can walk away and save yourself the time and the risk, or you can look to secure this bit of help as well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As a Grey Warden, succession isn't really your concern.

I'm not saying you shouldn't save Redcliffe. I'm saying there are good, duty-based arguments for not doing it.

[AlanC9]

Of course, even a Grey Warden who doesn't really care about the town relative to the Blight could figure that rebuilding the reputation of the Grey Wardens will result in an important advantage, long-term. Morrigan and Sten just don't understand the value of soft power.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That soft power isn't worth anything if the last remaining Wardens are killed pursuing an objective that has nothing at all to do with the blight.

[MightySword]

for the most part, the RP element in Dragon Age story is weak especially stuff regarding the blight. In fact, my first thought after being the game was "the blight is overrated". It's felt like the blight is just a simple drive that serves as the backdrop for the things you do in the game. The game never gave me the "OMG the blight is coming!!!!!" so to speak. So yes, I agree that from that stand point of view, a lot of things done in the game are pretty much trivial or irrelevant. Out of all the main quests, only the Dwarf Army quest line makes sense to me in term of RPing.

Modifié par MightySword, 02 mars 2010 - 02:45 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That soft power isn't worth anything if the last remaining Wardens are killed pursuing an objective that has nothing at all to do with the blight.

The remaining Wardens could have been killed winning over a faction of dwarves, or by siding with the elves or werewolves, or by taking on demons in the mage tower. There were plenty of oportunities for them to die. It's just a matter of weighing the gains against the risks. There was something to gain at Redcliffe. Maybe it wasn't something huge, but it was there and readily evident.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The remaining Wardens could have been killed winning over a faction of dwarves

Yes, but that risk was necessary.

or by siding with the elves or werewolves

Yes, but that risk was necessary.

or by taking on demons in the mage tower.

Yes, but that risk was necessary.

There were plenty of oportunities for them to die. It's just a matter of weighing the gains against the risks.

I agree entirely.  But some of the opportunities to die were frivolous and there are good reasons why they should have been avoided.  Redcliffe was one such occasion.

There was something to gain at Redcliffe. Maybe it wasn't something huge, but it was there and readily evident.

If there was an ice cream vendor trapped in the deep roads, would you have saved him?  The ice cream was there, and readily evident.

[Realmzmaster]

Is it a Ben & Jerry or Good Humor vendor? If so, I am so there.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 02 mars 2010 - 05:51 .

[Nauthiz84]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If there was an ice cream vendor trapped in the deep roads, would you have saved him?  The ice cream was there, and readily evident.

So basically i get to choose between the greater good of ferelden and ice cream? well, that one's easy, ice cream!

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If there was an ice cream vendor trapped in the deep roads, would you have saved him?  The ice cream was there, and readily evident.

Can ice cream help me fight the blight? 

I probably would have, but that would indeed have been fully irresponsible.

In the case of the Arl, it's not exactly the wisest course of action, but it does have a measure of justification.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 02 mars 2010 - 06:13 .

[Lekwid]

Though you have no treaty obliging Redcliffe to help you, it's still somewhat implied that the helping out the village will result in some sort of military aid. Despite being one of the worst armies you can call on at the final battle, I guess it can still be used as cannon fodder.



Given there is no time restraint, there isn't really any reason to not help Redcliffe. Now, if helping Redcliffe did have an impact time wise, there would be even more reason to not help it. If helping it meant you potentially lost the aid of one of the treaty nations because the blight came too quickly then I'd consider not helping it.



The way I see it now, Redcliffe isn't much of a risk and my life isn't threatened when I go there. It's actually a pretty easy quest even on nightmare, solo or non solo. Perhaps helping out Redcliffe will have an impact on Awakening? Time and safety just aren't very good arguments in practice but I understand that within the confines of the storyline it does make sense.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lekwid wrote...

Though you have no treaty obliging Redcliffe to help you, it's still somewhat implied that the helping out the village will result in some sort of military aid.

That's a somewhat weaker promise than a treaty compelling aid.

Given there is no time restraint, there isn't really any reason to not help Redcliffe. Now, if helping Redcliffe did have an impact time wise, there would be even more reason to not help it. If helping it meant you potentially lost the aid of one of the treaty nations because the blight came too quickly then I'd consider not helping it.

The way I see it now, Redcliffe isn't much of a risk and my life isn't threatened when I go there. It's actually a pretty easy quest even on nightmare, solo or non solo.

That's all meta-game information.  Your character doesn't know that when making the decision.

There are good reasons not to save Redcliffe.  That's all I'm saying.  Some of you think there are good in-game reasons to save Redcliffe, and there are.  No one's disputing that.  But it's not a clear-cut decision where every reasonable Warden will make the same one.  That's why I like it so much.

Usually in RPGs there's only one option that makes sense to me, so it's the one I always choose.  KotOR and ME did this a lot.  But DAO presents dilemmas as actual dilemmas: with two distinct and compelling lemmas.

[the_one_54321]

I can definitely see walking away and choosing to do something more concretely beneficial to the cause.

But in terms of Morrigans input, it's kind of like that merchant dispute you can mediate in Lothering. Sure, you appear to have nothing to gain from doing so, but you don't lose anything for the effort either. She just doesn't like to help people unless they are somehow being hurt by the Chantry.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 02 mars 2010 - 07:03 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

That merchant in Lothering is, I think, less well done.

I can see why someone might choose to help the merchant - it's his stuff, and he's allowed to sell it at whatever price he wants.

And I can see why someone might choose to kill him and let the villagers have his inventory. Though this option isn't actually available in the game.

No, if you don't help the merchant, your only other available action is to rive him out of town, and that doesn't benefit anyone. It harms the merchant, because he's no longer allowed to sell to desperate consumers, but it also harms the consumers, because they're no longer allowed to buy what they can afford. No one benefits from driving the merchant out of town.

That one I just don't understand.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 mars 2010 - 09:16 .