First time in Andromeda

The problem is that Shepard didn't actually perform any of those actions herself. (I suppose the Citadel laws might include something like the U.K.'s proscribed organizations laws; in the U.S. there's no such thing.) Shepard might go on trial for providing "material assistance" to the organization, which would mean participating in the Freedom's Progress mission. But that trial would be a shitshow; they'd be charging Shepard with investigating the disappearance of human colonists.

Dragon Age 2 was the flip of Andromeda, it forced you to play a morally grey and apathetic character. It probably wanted to give you tough choices but in the end it (especially compared to Origins, but Origins had a much greater development time) only limited choices. Then Anders came along and railroaded you into a specific ending ...

Hmmm, there was an excellent article about this on PopMatters, let me see if it's still available. Basically it addresses the point that to promote the themes the game wanted to promote, it stripped the main character of meaningful choices:

www.popmatters.com/144945-choice-apathy-and-evil-in-dragon-age-ii-2495984317.html

Choice, Apathy, and Evil in 'Dragon Age II'

When the Blight rose in Ferelden, most fled or pretended it didn’t exist. Fortunately, Virginia Cousland, a new recruit to the Grey Wardens, turned out to be the best hero the country could have hoped for. She balanced pragmatism with benevolence. She could be coercive and callously calculated, but she never lost her compassion. There was context to her decisions and her moral character grew out of her choices. She always had the option to choose otherwise -- she could have tainted Andraste’s ashes as easily as she preserved them -- but she stuck to her principles even when an easier path forked away from them. Virginia’s successor, Mira Hawke, did not make her own choices even when there was room in the story to do so.

Both the Warden and Hawke’s moral strength can be judged by their actions, but Hawke’s actions, unlike the Warden’s, are largely out of the player’s control. Judging Hawke’s moral character, then, is done on the basis of actions that can not be avoided. Hawke is racially and economically privileged; she’s ushered into the ruling class, and she exploits the underprivileged citizens of Kirkwall.

One of the frequent defences of Dragon Age II is that it is a game about prejudice and the powerlessness in trying to stop human conflict. The problem with that argument though is that Hawke isn’t powerless. Of the few Fereldens that are actually admitted into the city, she’s the only one that manages to eke out a living above the poverty line. Her first act when she reaches Kirkwall is murdering other Ferelden refugees that have waited for days to be allowed into the city. Hawke isn’t incapable of stopping prejudice, she actively participates in it.

This treatment is vastly different from the Warden’s. Regardless of her origin story, the Warden’s class is levelled and her previous social connections are severed. How the Warden raises and commands Ferelden’s army is based on her choices. She may exploit or cooperate, coerce or negotiate. Origins forces the Warden along some paths, but for the most part, the player can build a unique character with concrete values. For Hawke, though, there are no choices, the player must abuse her position and delay action until any moral stand is too late to translate into results. The most that the player can do is choose “kind” dialogue options (which sound more like self-pandering and flimsy justifications).

For example, early in the game Hawke is given the chance to enter into a partnership with an Orlesian man that employs Ferelden miners. Should Hawke accept, she must clear out a dragon’s nest where many miners have been killed. After the dragon’s nest is cleared, the Fereldans exalt Hawke, and they round up more refugees to work at the mine, relieved that “we’ll have one of our own watching our backs.” A year later the mine is attacked by a giant spider and then demons and is finally destroyed along with the miners by a high dragon. Hawke is partnered in a profitable venture that exploits immigrant labour. There are plenty of warning signs that the work is dangerous enough to get every one of her employees killed, but Hawke only deals with the problems once the casualty count gets high enough to threaten profits. There’s no way to change how these events pan out. Hawke can’t choose to pay her employees better, and she can’t employ security to protect her workers. She can chastise the Orlesian, but she doesn’t accept responsibility herself. She collects the gear of the felled dragon and forgets the whole thing.

[...]Hawke isn’t any more generous to Kirkwall’s other persecuted group, the mages. When tasked with hunting a group of rogue mages, you’re forced either to kill them all or to kill half of them immediately and to kill the other half when they later seek revenge. Dragon Age II sets up which minority groups are the worst persecuted and places Hawke in a position in which she must continue persecuting them. The most that the player can do to ease the city’s suffering is sometimes make Hawke feel kinda bad for her systematic tyranny.

In fairness, my examples against Hawk have so far all been sidequests. Players don’t technically need to pursue any of them (although it’s most likely that they will, even if accidentally). But the main plot doesn’t make Hawke seem any better. During the prologue, Hawke flaunts her family title to get into a city that has already turned away hundreds of refugees. When Hawke’s title is questioned, her sleazy uncle worms Hawke into the city through his criminal connections. Hawke’s only choice is which crime lord will lift her above the masses of starving refugees. Once she is allowed into the city, her only character motivation for the first third of the game is to git rich or die tryin’.

During the second act, Hawke is commissioned to quell a Qunari uprising. While her tenure as ambassador has some success (perhaps the beneficiary of one classist society can relate to the beneficiary of another classist society) ultimately she’s too apathetic to change anything. Hawke doesn’t offer the Qunari official assistance in his search for their relic, she doesn’t warn Kirkwall of the coming slaughter (even when it seems inevitable), and she may only repay the Arishok’s violence in kind. The Qunari must revolt, they must catch the city by surprise, and Hawke must ultimately benefit from the siege. The third act parallels the second almost exactly; Hawke is only able to express sympathy or contempt for the mages -- without ever acting on either until it is too late.

Hawke’s rigid acceptance of her society is a far cry from the Warden’s behaviour in Origins. Where Hawke makes war with the Dalish, the Warden can choose to reconcile ancient Dalish feuds. Where Hawke takes slaves or abandons them to avoid responsibility, the Warden can dismantle a slave-trading cartel and expose the tyrant that made it possible. Where Hawke tracks down rogue mages, the Warden can disassemble the Circle of Magi in Ferelden entirely. Where Hawke euthanizes qunari mages according to the Qun or hunts qunari tal-vashoth race traitors, the Warden can restore the honour and position of a Qunari warrior, teach him Ferelden’s ways, and even join him when he returns home as emissary of the rest of Thedas. The Warden doesn’t have to do any of these things, but she has the choice to. She doesn’t have to accept the society that she lives in, and she can try to change it.

Kirkwall is a place where wealthy, nonmagical humans rule at the expense of the poor, the elves (Dalish and non-Dalish), the Qunari, mages, and unconnected immigrants, and it’s appropriate that the player takes on the role of a wealthy nonmagical (or mage whose powers are ignored) well connected human that has no interest in acting against her benefactors. As one of Kirkwall’s elite, Hawke either lacks the power or the benevolence to reject evil or abuses free will and perpetuates the already rampant evil in the city.

The Warden’s goodness or wickedness can be measured by her choices. The Warden must save Ferelden, but she is given a great degree of freedom with how she may do so. Hawke, on the other hand, is the result of accepting evil. The conclusion of Dragon Age II suggests that Hawke and the Warden may have met somewhere to deal with the crisis ignited in Kirkwall. If Virginia Cousland, my Gray-Warden Commander, and Mira Hawke do cross paths, I trust that Virginia will do what Mira was never willing to do: the right thing.

yep there's no difference between a Geralt who lets Dijsktra kill Roche, Ves, and Thaler and one who sticks up for his friends, none at all

I suppose the best way to look at and think of the differences between the two approaches is Choice/ morality driven dialogue systems versus a personality driven system. Examples of the former would be the MET, Witcher and DA I (though in the latter it was supplemented with the occasional bits of defining the Inquisitor's personality), the example of the latter would be DA 2 and MEA.

Its not a great example though. Geralt never seems to care one way or the other about nations and their fighting. Its all the same old nonsense to him, but he does care about those close to him. So to many that 'choice' felt bizarre. Since when does Geralt care more about the fate of the nations and politics than he does about his friends? Its just a bizarre 'we'd better let players have a say or they'll go ape' moment.

Hawke can be played as someone who cares about the fate of the city. That article is utter nonsense.

Character is made up of more then our choices.  This is especially so given the maxim "Sometimes all you have is bad choices, dosen't mean you don't have to choose."  A character's motivations and feelings on any given subject their personality can be just as important as the making of the choices themselves. 

Two things:  

One just because you make a choice does not mean it should work out in certain ways.  Sometimes we make choices and we fail, sometimes we make choices and succeed, and sometimes we make choices which result in the same outcome as if we did nothing at all.  

Two: Whether it is about Hawke, Ryder, or Geralt when 'controlling' a character I feel it comes down to a lot more then just controlling their actions.  I suppose this is my central thesis for my entire point and the big difference between what I might want and others might want.  Character is motivation, personality, and a hole host of other features which all that helps determine why characters do the things they do in any given narrative.  I suppose why 'choice driven' dialogue systems are so popular though is it gives instant feedback and a reward/ failure system.  It is cool seeing the results and fruits of our labor, for good or ill.  And while I see the point, and agree, I get just as much joy about creating a character through their personality.  Those hundreds of dialogue options that do not really effect anything, but they form character.  

Perfect case in point is the choice in DA 2 about whether or not to support Orsino, to support Meredith, or support yourself for leadership during the Qunari uprising.  This does not really change that much, certainly not long term, but it was a powerful moment for my Hawke's character. 

It sounds like you are complaining about the limitations inherit in CRPGS, which I'm not saying isn't a fair criticism but these games can only provide you so many realistic choices due to plot and what not.  See also: shoving peebee out the airlock.

Bioware have been serial offenders at presenting simple solutions to complex problems. Where decades long disputes are solved by going to the Swamp of Despair, killing some baddies and getting the Golden Key of Reconciliation. Everyone rejoices, you're praised for being the greatest person ever and that's that.

Its idiotic and bears no resemblance to real world issues. DA2 broke that formula by presenting a narrative that didn't allow for such Press X to Win resolutions to racial discrimination, segregation, intolerance etc etc. Its why Varric is so hesitant to engage with the city's widr issues - because such disputes are never ending, due to people's determination to act like complete arseholes to each other. There's no reasoning with them and nothing ever gets resolved, except that anyone who tries ends up getting burned.

And if you think otherwise, then I want to hear your detailed solution to Syria. How to stop the fighting, get all faiths to tolerate each other, appease all tribes and factions, keep the regional proxy players from interfering, solve the Migrant flow and have plans for reconstruction, fair allocation of territory, social care for the displaced, a full economic plan and how to deal with the need for justice versus the need to move on.

Or maybe you could help with Israel and Palestine? Irish Catholics and Protestants? How about solving the Church's need to accomodate modern values with regard to women and homosexuals without rewriting the Bible or dictating which parts the faithful should ignore?


This insistance that Hawke could have solved everything by X, Y and Z is and always has been utter idiocy. The forces at work were the product of deeply ingrained and fervently held beliefs, or else required more force and support than any 1 person could manage. Especially when all sides have valid arguments and *any* action will set precedent for the rest of Thedas, as Hawke is warned by numerous people.

I think I said in my review that if Dragon Age 2 was Acts 1 and 2 it would be my favorite game of all time, but Act 3 really ruined it and dragged it down to tier 2.  Act 2 was amazing though.  Thankfully they captured the magic in DA I.