Morality in Dragon Age 2

[Roland07]

Between the gameplay and story issues, I don't think Dragon age 2's new conversation mechanic gets enough attention. More importantly than replacing the dialogue list with a radial menu and including protagonist voice acting, they actually tell you what each option does, so no more accidental renegade points, except Dragon Age doesn't even have renegade points, or any morality system for that matter.

For the big decisions Dragon Age still leaves it ambiguous, they remove the indicators and just let you make the choice. But in the bulk of the dialogue, they tell you whether you're being a jerk or a real nice guy, they even indicate just how big of a jerk, or nice guy you are. They just refrain from telling you whether you're a real villain or a hero though by never showing you a morality bar of any kind. So essentially they'll let you know whether your being a douche or not, they just won't tell you whether being a douche is bad.

I, for instance, tried to play as good guy on all the big choices, but always hit the more brutal conversation options. I noticed it had a funny effect on my decision making when it didn't tell me what kind of a person would say each option though. Because I was looking for the tough, harsh, and brutal options in 95% of the conversations, I naturally tended to look for those options when it didn't tell me what they were, even though I had decided at the beginning to choose what I thought were the "good" options. Basically, my role playing as an anti-hero just turned me into a straight up villain.

I haven't decided whether I like it more than DA 1, but I do like it more than Mass Effect where I was constantly worried about accidentally choosing a renegade option when I was playing paragon, and vice versa. Do any of you have thoughts, on the subject? I sometimes like being able to play as a clear cut super villain/hero, but I also like the challenge of moral ambiguity, and I can't tell if Bioware has got the positives of both, or neither in this case.

Also, I made all the Mass Effect/Dr. Horrible fans here a picture, and I couldn't figure out how to work it into the post. Enjoy.

Spoiler

 

[Naheal]

You forgot smartass. The smartass options were awesome.

 

[A Weakgeek]

You forgot smartass. The smartass options were awesome.

...ughhh...

Well they aren't moral choices are they? Moral choices are when you choose what you think is good and do that. Where as here the game tells you what you should do and you can either: A)Do what the game considers good B) Or on purpose do the different thing OR the gayest choice of them all C) Invoke the brain fart that is the developers thought of "Funny" or "Snide" response.

 

[Naheal]

C) Invoke the brain fart that is the developers thought of "Funny" or "Snide" response.

The smartass response was normally a "neutral ground" response, however. Which is more than welcome in an RPG now.

 

[A Weakgeek]

C) Invoke the brain fart that is the developers thought of "Funny" or "Snide" response.

The smartass response was normally a "neutral ground" response, however. Which is more than welcome in an RPG now.

More like the: "I don want to luuz mah loyalty points" or "I don't care" option

 

[Naheal]

C) Invoke the brain fart that is the developers thought of "Funny" or "Snide" response.

The smartass response was normally a "neutral ground" response, however. Which is more than welcome in an RPG now.

More like the: "I don want to luuz mah loyalty points" or "I don't care" option

Or, in the case of some conflicts in the game, "You're both morons and I'm going to explain why."

 

[A Weakgeek]

C) Invoke the brain fart that is the developers thought of "Funny" or "Snide" response.

The smartass response was normally a "neutral ground" response, however. Which is more than welcome in an RPG now.

More like the: "I don want to luuz mah loyalty points" or "I don't care" option

Or, in the case of some conflicts in the game, "You're both morons and I'm going to explain why."

The option often regarded as "The Egotistical bastard who knows better than you all do" option.

 

[Naheal]

C) Invoke the brain fart that is the developers thought of "Funny" or "Snide" response.

The smartass response was normally a "neutral ground" response, however. Which is more than welcome in an RPG now.

More like the: "I don want to luuz mah loyalty points" or "I don't care" option

Or, in the case of some conflicts in the game, "You're both morons and I'm going to explain why."

The option often regarded as "The Egotistical bastard who knows better than you all do" option.

So, renegade/evil?

 

[A Weakgeek]

C) Invoke the brain fart that is the developers thought of "Funny" or "Snide" response.

The smartass response was normally a "neutral ground" response, however. Which is more than welcome in an RPG now.

More like the: "I don want to luuz mah loyalty points" or "I don't care" option

Or, in the case of some conflicts in the game, "You're both morons and I'm going to explain why."

The option often regarded as "The Egotistical bastard who knows better than you all do" option.

So, renegade/evil?

No that would be the "Anti christ, reincarnation of satan/Bond villian" option

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Um, I didn't find any, or at least little, ambiguity in any of the moral options in DA:O

Spoiler

Defile the Ashes or Not: Hmm, listen to the clearly insane cultists or don't. Little moral ambiguity there.

The Arl of Redcliffe quest: This one was close to a big moral decision, but was completely negated by the happy, fuzzy third option of getting the mages to help. If you couldn't do that, it still wasn't that hard. Kill the kid who's not at fault for what happened, or kill his annoying mother who's completely at fault for not getting her kid proficient help.

Nature of the Beast: Again, a happy, fuzzy third option where you kill those responsible and no one else is available. After that, it was do I want to be a jerk and kill innocent werewolves who were wrongfully cursed, or be a jerk and kill innocent elves that had nothing to do with the curse.

Paragon of Her Kind: Hmmm, side with a clearly psychotic dwarf and help her save an object that while may start with volunteers, as before will quickly end in unwilling victims being turned into golems, or destroy the Anvil, preventing unwilling victims from being painfully forced into stone? Hard... /sarcasm

I liked the conversation wheel. By seeing the general tone of what I was going to say, I was able to play a character that actually had a voice and personality instead of one that constantly looked like this:

I like the sarcastic/funny options. Not everyone does, but I was able to build an enjoyable character for myself.

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

The thing people miss about the new dialogue is that you're not limited in any way.What was mentioned on the site in fact was that sometimes you're afraid what you'll choose not to lose loyalty with this or that character.In DA2 the loyalty bar goes in both directions to positive effects.Nobody judges you in same good/bad evil sense in the game except the polar opposite factions.The only flaw would be the inability to walk in the middle.But that doesn't happen in real life when you think about it.You're always forced to choose.So you can be pretty much anything you like.It's not what you choose that makes you it's more like what you are thinking while choosing.It might be just you...You might be a homicidal maniac or a true paladin of justice sent to earth to write all the wrongs.Whatever really.They've almost managed to perfect the dialogue trees in my opinion.

 

[godofallu]

Unit Member Brown- A morale choice as I understand it is not a choice between good and bad. Between good and bad there is no choice, one must do good. No a morale choice is between two evils.

So to sum up the dialogue in DA2: Always pick the top one, unless you're a total dick or roleplaying as a total dick.

 

[Roland07]

Um, I didn't find any, or at least little, ambiguity in any of the moral options in DA:O

Spoiler

Defile the Ashes or Not: Hmm, listen to the clearly insane cultists or don't. Little moral ambiguity there.

The Arl of Redcliffe quest: This one was close to a big moral decision, but was completely negated by the happy, fuzzy third option of getting the mages to help. If you couldn't do that, it still wasn't that hard. Kill the kid who's not at fault for what happened, or kill his annoying mother who's completely at fault for not getting her kid proficient help.

Nature of the Beast: Again, a happy, fuzzy third option where you kill those responsible and no one else is available. After that, it was do I want to be a jerk and kill innocent werewolves who were wrongfully cursed, or be a jerk and kill innocent elves that had nothing to do with the curse.

Paragon of Her Kind: Hmmm, side with a clearly psychotic dwarf and help her save an object that while may start with volunteers, as before will quickly end in unwilling victims being turned into golems, or destroy the Anvil, preventing unwilling victims from being painfully forced into stone? Hard... /sarcasm

Spoiler

Admittedly, the choices were less difficult in Origins than Awakening. With The Arl of Redcliffe though, you assume no one but the demon is to blame. If the arlessa had given Conner to the circle, nothing would have happened, and if Conner hadn't willingly accepted a deal with a demon, nothing would have happened. Both are arguably responsible for all the deaths in Redcliffe, and both could reasonably be put to death for their negligence. The arlessa more so than Conner, who was just a stupid kid for all purposes, but that raises the question of whether children are entirely responsible for their actions or not. Depending on whether you value justice or mercy more, killing the demon through Conner's body, or in the fade using arlessa's life could be considered more morally responsible than using lyrium.

On the Anvil of the Void, I think it depends on how you put as leader. I don't trust Bhelen at all, but I think Harrowmont could easily be strong enough leader to make sure it's used responsibly. And don't forget the dwarves have an entire military division every member of which has already had funeral, and resigned themselves to death by darkspawn. Turn them into golems, and they'd be severally times more effective, and at virtually no cost of any kind.

Awakening is what did it for me though, the one big choice in that literally took me hours to decide on.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Um, I didn't find any, or at least little, ambiguity in any of the moral options in DA:O

Spoiler

Defile the Ashes or Not: Hmm, listen to the clearly insane cultists or don't. Little moral ambiguity there.

The Arl of Redcliffe quest: This one was close to a big moral decision, but was completely negated by the happy, fuzzy third option of getting the mages to help. If you couldn't do that, it still wasn't that hard. Kill the kid who's not at fault for what happened, or kill his annoying mother who's completely at fault for not getting her kid proficient help.

Nature of the Beast: Again, a happy, fuzzy third option where you kill those responsible and no one else is available. After that, it was do I want to be a jerk and kill innocent werewolves who were wrongfully cursed, or be a jerk and kill innocent elves that had nothing to do with the curse.

Paragon of Her Kind: Hmmm, side with a clearly psychotic dwarf and help her save an object that while may start with volunteers, as before will quickly end in unwilling victims being turned into golems, or destroy the Anvil, preventing unwilling victims from being painfully forced into stone? Hard... /sarcasm

Spoiler

Admittedly, the choices were less difficult in Origins than Awakening. With The Arl of Radcliffe though, you assume no one but the demon is to blame. If the arlessa had given Conner to the circle, nothing would have happened, and if Conner hadn't willingly accepted a deal with a demon, nothing would have happened. Both are arguably responsible for all the deaths in Redcliffe, and both could reasonably be put to death for their negligence. The arlessa more so than Conner, who was just a stupid kid for all purposes, but that raises the question of whether children are entirely responsible for their actions or not. Depending on whether you value justice or mercy more, killing the demon through Conner's body, or in the fade using arlessa's life could be considered more morally responsible than using lyrium.

On the Anvil of the Void, I think it depends on how you put as leader. I don't trust Bhelen at all, but I think Harrowmont could easily be strong enough leader to make sure it's used responsibly. And don't forget the dwarves have an entire military division every member of which has already had funeral, and resigned themselves to death by darkspawn. Turn them into golems, and they'd be severally times more effective, and at virtually no cost of any kind.

Awakening is what did it for me though, the one big choice in that literally took me hours to decide on.

Awakenings was a big one. I agonized over that one, and even turned to the Wiki to see if meta-gaming would help me make it.

Spoiler: As for Origins

Possibly with the Arl of Redcliffe one. But I blamed the mother more. While Connor certainly should have known better, his father was dying, and mages more mature than him would have been sorely tempted to accept a demon's offer to save someone they loved.

As for the Anvil, I found Harrowmount to be a weak leader. I went with him on my first playthrough, but he seemed a little too rigid and conservative to be an effective leader. And considering it seems to be the Assembly that really rules, I clearly saw history repeating itself. It would have started with volunteers (likely from the Legion of the Dead) but the Assembly would want more and more until people were again being forced to undergo the procedure.

And regardless if Harrowmount could have prevented it, he wasn't going to be king forever. I took the long view, and sooner or later, it would be used for evil.

I'm not saying Origins wasn't incredible, it really was. DA2 was just as good, I felt. It was just more centrally located around one major choice, instead of 5 largely disparate ones, and was a little more ambiguous about the "right thing to do".

 

[revenge6000]

For me, the smartass lines of dialogue were completely validated by one particular bit: "Well, at least it can't get any worse. Today, anyway. It's pretty late."