PARTY MEMBERS WITH DIFFERING POLITICAL/FACTION VIEWS?

Posts

Pages: 1
So I was revisiting Dragon Age: Inquisition, and one of the most *fascinating* things about that game (and DA: II, now that I think about it) was the fact that your party members can have radically different views on the factions, rights for certain people, and big time events, and how this shapes the narrative, their character, and how they interact with each other.

To give it some background: In the Dragon Age universe, people who can use magic, Mages, are rare people who are born with some degree of randomness, where their powers manifest in their teen years. As you can imagine, being able to cast magic is pretty dope, but the kicker is that they're susceptible for being possessed (and effectively transforming) into a demon if they're caught slippin'. As a result, mages are a feared underclass that are kept in check, literally in towered communities, by the anti-magic ability embued military arm of a church, the Templars.

Basically, long story short, throughout the events of DA II and DA Inquisition, the mages get fed up and revolt and start a big war.

The interesting thing is how diverse your party members opinions are on the matter, in both games. Some characters are staunch pro mage rights, and some of those characters are mages themselves. Others are in favor of the Templars or against mages not having a leash (or even a long one) either out of pragmatism, religion, or personal experience. Some of these characters who feel this way are also mages. Often, these characters clash in ideas.

Long story short, between this game and a few others (Fallout: New Vegas was impressive for each companion feeling differently about the factions), it's interesting the characters in your party have wildly different opinions on fundamental aspects of their world, when often many games have your party members who are pretty united or ambivalent in their view points, past minor personality differences.

Is this something you think about?
Definitely. Part of creating a character, I find, is thinking about where they stand in their world, politically. Some characters are going to be more invested in their political stance than others, some will clash against others of the group and some will find themselves changing place over time.

It is, however, understandable how a lot of games have same-base characters - kind calls to kind. Think of your friends, you usually seek to make friendships with those you agree with about certain aspects. It's natural for most people to do so, so it's not a coincidence that a group of friends tend towards one direction or another politically, which is reflected when one creates a game and characters in a game - usually unintentionally the whole party groups towards one particular trend.

That said, it is interesting to play with external politics within a party - and I don't mean the trope of "x was on this side but now they're with us because x found out we were good". As mentioned above, there are games out there that push forward different party members with differing beliefs and political views whose ideals don't change, but who band together to get shit done.

Another thing to consider is what kinds of political groups are represented in the game and how they're handled. Take for example FF6 - the Empire was without a doubt bad and the various Kingdoms and other countries were opposing them and thus 'good'. So when Celes defected from the Empire, she did it completely and without conscience. Compare with a game like Dragon Age where there's good reason for the Templars to go after mages and good reason for mages to resist. There's good and bad on both sides of the fence and the political climate, and thus characters' views, become less "right" or "left" (to use modern political terms) but more individualised depending on what that character experiences in relation to those political views.

It makes for a more interesting tapestry than straight good vs evil and can be a cause for conflict and resolution with-in a party. It can be used to show depth in the way your characters handle having to deal with someone on the other side of the fence, can show flaws or strengths in a character. It can lead to heated debates, backstabbing, hate and fear of each other, but can also show forgiveness, the power of unity, acceptance and determination in your characters.

Well worth investing a thought or three in, I think~
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Bioware has a trend it's used in all three Dragon Age games, along with many of their other similar series like Knights of the Old Republic. They create one representative party member for each major viewpoint or faction in the game. This character is then used as a proxy in the story for the player's dealings with that entire faction. They do this to try to tell stories about these kinds of major political ideologies while still having all the scenes be personal and dialogue-driven.

I dunno, it seems to work for them, since they make games about being forced to choose sides in grand struggles. Most other games aren't about that - the player is told what side they're on from the get-go. And so the developers in most other games create the party a different way. The most common, for example, is probably that they give each party member a certain skillset, so that together they make up a functional team. Which, you know, realistically, is probably a way better way to form a team, if you know up front what your team is actually going to be doing.

There's always going to be some interpersonal conflict between party members because that makes for vastly more interesting dialogue. But party members really being on opposing sides gets in the way of most stories.

It does work well in something like FF13 or Warcraft 3 when they fight for a while but eventually get over their differences, and they all come together in the end to face a common enemy, though. Everyone always likes that kind of story, even though it's sappy.
author=LockeZ
The most common, for example, is probably that they give each party member a certain skillset, so that together they make up a functional team. Which, you know, realistically, is probably a way better way to form a team, if you know up front what your team is actually going to be doing.

That's all fair and good, but that's not mutually exclusive to anything; in the Bioware example, all of your team members have differing and diverse skillsets (and its one of the main themes of Mass Effect 2: gathering up talented individuals and professionals to achieve a goal).

author=LockeZ
But party members really being on opposing sides gets in the way of most stories.

Having diverse or opposing views doesn't have to mean being on an opposing side at the expense of achieving a goal.

Again, to use the Bioware example, in Dragon Age, it doesn't impact the larger goal that say, Cassandra is pro Templar and Solas is pro Mage, the bigger goal is to defeat Corypheus, and a good Inquisitor will be able to effectively manage your team to do so without anyone leaving. Dragon Age 2 is even a more extreme example, with party members such as Fenris and Anders having very, even violently strong views on Mage rights/Templar authority, and even then, it doesn't (or shouldn't, unless your Hawke is similarly extremist) get in the way because the goal is something else (even though you're right in this example, Dragon Age 2 is all about picking a side).

While you can become so pointed in your views in Dragon Age to get your party members to leave you for it, it takes a concentrated amount of effort to make your differences divide your team enough for it to fracture. The exception to this is games like Fallout: New Vegas, where the main goal is for you to pick a side, and certain party members will not compromise on your choices, for example, Boone will not only leave, but might actually turn hostile if you go down a Legion plot path. So it really depends on the narrative.

If you want a more JRPG example, in FFX your party members have some pretty diverse opinions on Yevon (with Tidus being a skeptical outsider, Wakka being an extremely devout believer, and Rikku outright thinking and saying the whole thing's bullshit), yet they stick together to fight the larger threat, Sin.

Or if you want a real life example, it's like saying that (American) Republicans and Democrats can't put aside their differences to fight ISIS, and I know we can, because I spent 6 years in the military seeing it and doing it.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Hmm, yeah. I would say that FF10 is different in that most of the party members who disagree with each-other change their beliefs over the course of the game. They find out things they were wrong about. The party members all realize the truth in the end, which they were initially blinded to by the dogma of their political or religious factions, or by events from their past. FF6, FF9 and FF12 all do kind of the same thing to lesser degrees.

In Bioware games, that doesn't happen - it's instead the player avatar whose views are shaped and changed over the game. The other party members generally stay in character, and as the player chooses a side, a rift grows between the player and the party members who disagree with their chosen path. The player then eventually sees the outcome of their choices. No one way is presented as the real "truth."

Both ways work, but they create pretty different types of stories. I think the Final Fantasy method creates a more traditional heroic story while the Bioware method creates a more morally ambiguous story with a lot more shades of gray.

Then you've got Final Fantasy Tactics and the Suikoden games. I don't even know where to start with describing those games, much less analyzing them.



One of the things I don't think is necessary or helpful to the story, in Dragon Age 2 and 3 in particular, is that the developers seemed to have a checklist of every single faction, every belief system, every race, every background, every profession, every nationality, and every major goal that was included or mentioned in any scene in the game. And when they made the characters, they made absolutely sure that every single one of those things was included in your party of eight characters. It felt gratutious at times and I don't think it's necessary to treat this sort of inclusiveness of different viewpoints like a checklist. Sometimes you can just have things in the game that are only happening to NPCs, you know? That's probably okay to do once in a while.
NeverSilent
Got any Dexreth amulets?
6280
I strongly agree that parties consiting of people with different world views often tend to make the narrative more interesting. It's also a good way for the storywriter to convey their creations' personalities and help characterise them, as conflict between characters often very clearly demonstrates what kind of people they truly are.

Of course, exaggeration is the danger here, too. If a group of people has so vastly different or opposing opinions that they can't stand spending time with each other and do nothing but fight, this setup will soon break itself, as the characters would have no reason to stay together any longer than absolutely necessary. But as long as there is at least some common goal or interest they can bond over, it really helps shape who they are and how they function in the context of their world.

A good non-video game example I'd bring up here is the Planescape setting for Dungeons and Dragons. The fundamental idea of this setting is that people's beliefs shape the multiverse around them. There are numerous factions with their own philosophies and interests, and being a member of such a faction will strongly shape a player character's personality - but even within each faction, there are again countless different interpretations of the faction philosophy, so that two members can still view the world in completely different ways. Especially in such an open medium as a tabletop RPG, those kinds of philosophical differences can not only cause debates among party members, it will likely even be a big part of their approach to adventuring and tackling certain tasks as a whole.
author=NeverSilent
Of course, exaggeration is the danger here, too. If a group of people has so vastly different or opposing opinions that they can't stand spending time with each other and do nothing but fight, this setup will soon break itself, as the characters would have no reason to stay together any longer than absolutely necessary. But as long as there is at least some common goal or interest they can bond over, it really helps shape who they are and how they function in the context of their world.


This can be an interesting idea to play with as well - a party that fractures under the burden of all these conflicts, eventually becoming a 'last ditch effort' against the big bad of the game (especially if it threatens all groups the party pitches for) and having to deal with that.

Hell, losing someone because the political climate for them changes for the better is also an interesting development. You make it to the big bad's castle finally after overcoming everything, determined to take down the danger to your world when it suddenly declares that elves are okay, you know? They're gonna be a protected species on their new world, and be given the rights they were denied for the last millenia. Suddenly your pro-elf-rights members (especially the elves) are questioning their place in the party. Are things going to go back to hatred for them at the end of the day when the big bad is slain? Maybe it'd be better for their people to side with it instead of this group who were thrown together and who they've had to deal with bigotry from x or y character this whole time.


It's a concept that can work if used well.
NeverSilent
Got any Dexreth amulets?
6280
author=Liberty
This can be an interesting idea to play with as well - a party that fractures under the burden of all these conflicts

You're obviously right. Sometimes, I have a tendency to think more in terms of tabletop games than of video games (as might have become clear from above post). If the members of a party go seperate ways in such a game, then it's usually not fun to play anymore, at least not with this group constellation. But since in a video game, one party member does not necessarily equate to one human player, yeah, messing around with that could lead to very interesting results as well. From telling a fractured story from multiple perspectives to a complete deconstruction of the unlikely party constellations in old-school games ("why would the noble knight ever tolerate a thief on their team?"), there's definitely a ton of possible approaches here.
I agree with LockeZ for the most part. Having party members with different political ideologies is great if world politics is a focal point of the plot, and it's definitely something you can use to color characters.

When writing, though, keep in mind that you're balancing depth and concision. If you want to include politics, that's fine, but there are lots of things that can define characters--religion, career, upbringing, etc. You're not obligated to bring any one particular aspect of their lives into the writing, as a large amount of unnecessary details can weigh down your script, but if having conflicting political ideology feeds into the overall narrative, then, yeah, you should definitely include that.
Most of my characters are defined by what special ability they can use in battle.
I think Bioware is the company best known for implementing this kind of ideological friction between protagonists, but the games which I thought had the most interesting approach to it were the Devil Survivor games in the Shin Megami Tensei superseries. Not that I'd recommend the approach they used to most designers, but I thought they were good examples of how you can build a plot around a cast of protagonists whose ideologies are not merely in friction, but are so irreconcilable that it ultimately prevents them from agreeing on a way to address a major existential threat.

This would be really, really easy to do badly, and probably completely ruin a game with, but I give them a lot of credit for pulling off a good implementation of a sort of conflict which as far as I can tell nobody else was really trying.
Pages: 1