Coward's Option
One thing that bothers me a bit about the character traits for playable characters, especially Gared, is that they are still a little too fixed. From the start, the game pushes the idea that even if he's a little useless, Gared is quite honourable and loyal. Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with that. We're shown straight away that Lord Forrester is a good man and deserving of our loyalty, but it does not really give us the option to be disloyal to him, if we so choose. And that seems like a flaw. Obviously choice is largely an illusion in the game anyway, as the narrative is eventually going to go basically the same way no matter what you do, so might I suggest a few additions:
So, suggestions for the Coward's Option -
1. When Gared and Lord Forrester run off into the forest away from the turmoil of the Red Wedding, Lord Forrester collapses and Gared goes back for him, but then he's startled when he hears some Frey soldiers coming and almost bolts, but stays with Lord Forrester.
The missing option here seems to be to follow Gared's impetus to 'Leave Lord Forrester and run' - if you were to choose this, I suspect you'd have a very brief dead-end cutscene where Lord Forrester shouts 'Coward!' after you, as you bolt and a Frey soldier springs out from behind a tree and kills you. Of course, you'd have no way to defend yourself and avoid this, because if you ran away, then Lord Forrester never gave you the greatsword. Valar Morghulis - you get taken back to before Lord Forrester collapses - you stay, receive the sword and everything plays out. Then when you escape as Lord Forrester is being murdered, to preserve continuity, the same Frey springs out from behind the tree, but this time you kill him.
2. At Gared's father's farm, when Britt comes at you saying 'I'll have that sword, boy.", you're given the option of basically replying 'Come at me, bro!' in three different ways (one being 'Fuck. You.'), which really isn't a choice at all.
The missing option here seems to be to say 'Fine. Take it and leave!' and throw the greatsword on the ground at his feet, thus breaking your oath to return it to Ironrath, in favour of possibly protecting your family. Of course, it wouldn't work - the game then just skips to the shot where Britt picks the greatsword up off the ground and immediately orders the other soldier to kill Gared. And from there it would play out the same. You'd end up getting the greatsword back, as you do, but you'd know in your heart that you broke your oath to Lord Forrester.
3. When Gared is on his way to the Wall and encounters Ramsay, it seemed implausible to me that Gared's honour is enough to force him to go to the Wall without even an escort to make sure he doesn't just escape somewhere else. In the earlier scene, when Gared, Duncan and Royland are arguing about what to do and you are given no option other than to willingly go to the Wall, it always bothered me that you've been stonewalled into being honourable and accepting your fate. Of course, the reason the game forces this on you is because that's where Gared's storyline is. If you didn't go, they'd have to come up with an entirely different storyline with Gared as a fugitive or something, which is obviously impractical.
The missing option here seems to be that after almost being caught by Ramsay, (either when you run away, or once Ramsay has left and you take a closer look at the flayed man), Gared should be rattled enough to re-examine his options. The game should then give you the choice to either 'Continue North to the Wall' or 'Flee South'. Now there are a few things that could happen here - either fleeing south means you get instantly caught by Ramsay's soldiers and killed. Valar Morghulis - then you get taken back to before the choice. Or perhaps you run into someone else who forcibly escorts you the rest of the way, I'm not sure, but either way you'd still end up at the Wall, it's just that the choice is more clearly out of your hands, rather than relying on you being honour-bound.
So, those are just some of my thoughts about how the game could have given a few more 'cowardly' options, which in the long run wouldn't have changed anything, but may make Gared seem a little more believably yours to control. If you have any similar ideas, please share.
Edit: Continuing with the cowardly theme, I'd also be really interested to see whether or not Gared is given the opportunity to try to leave the Wall before he takes his vows. I would imagine not, just because of where the story is going and the fact that he's already basically agreed to stay, without there being any real choice about it. He's really not a master of his own destiny, this guy. Not by a long stretch.
Comments
I like your ideas. They are at least practical and implementable. Still, I also wonder if someone would really miss those choices in their first playthrough. I think everyone would just pick the heroic choices anyway. The things you list fall into the category of "I normally wouldn't choose this, but I just want to see what happens if I do!"
So while it would be interesting to be able to explore those options, I don't think they are essential for the game. And I wonder if those options would really add something to the story, other than satisfying our curiosity.
Just an addition to this -
In episode 2, when Mira got that note saying 'I have information about the Imp. Meet me in the gardens at midnight', I'm pretty sure the majority of players would have just been like 'Nope, that is clearly a trap. I am not going to the garden.' Then of course next time you see Mira, she's hiding in the garden like a moron. Now, again, obviously the altercation with Damien has to happen, so that's why the game hasn't given you a choice about going to the garden or not, but the fact that whoever left the note refers to Tyrion as 'The Imp', is enough to tell you they're probably not your friend. I feel something a bit more dire needed to happen to convince Mira to go to the gardens, or maybe if the note lied and said it was from Sera or the coalboy or something.
You're right, for a lot of people it would be largely to satisfy curiosity and just to round out the game a little more. Although I would point out that, if there are no options to break your oaths, and therefore no consequences, then there is also really no reward in picking the heroic choices. It's like the 'North Grove' message. We swear not to tell anyone and despite a couple of opportunities to break that oath, we have absolutely no reason to, so it seems pointless swearing it in the first place.
I'm a big fan of a game called 'The Stanley Parable', which is basically a meta story about determinism and the illusion of choice in games, so whenever the narrative in a game that's supposed to be about branching options, clearly doesn't give me an option, it always stands out and bothers me.
I'm not sure there's much point in having such choices if making the coward's decision always ends with instant death (aside from the second one which probably should have been implemented).
Well, I guess death is just the best way to course correct, so that you don't end up needing a separate storyline where you don't have the greatsword, for instance. It's also sort of karmic retribution, I guess. If there was another way to do it without dying, that didn't add too much more work to the process, then that would obviously be preferable.
I think have game over options wouldnt work.
Right now the 'game over' screens only happen during quick time events. If you choose not to fight during a qte, for whatever reason, you quickly discover that's obviously not really an option, because as circumstances play out, that choice would result in your death. Having these added dead-end options would just let you discover, that if you, for example, 'choose' to run away without a sword, as circumstances play out, that choice would also result in your death.
But then people would feel pressured in choice to not pick that choice wouldnt have consequences just a quick non canon death
Well, exactly. Just like if you keep choosing not to fight during a qte, you'll just keep dying, and you can't progress in the game until you 'choose' to fight. We are already pressured into making choices all the time, because there's no other option.
If you're being pressured to choose option A (because B ends in death), then what's the difference between that and not being given a choice at all (which is what already happens in the game). At least this way you find out what happens if you make the wrong choice and are given the option to go back and make the right one.
I dont mind there being effects of choices but that not an effect of a choice thats just a pointless non canon death. Also the entire point is live with your choices not die until you get the right one
Live with your choices, except when they kill you. Ingenious!
Look, I'd love if they could have a whole other story where you get to live with your choice to run away without the sword, and it changes what happens and branches off in different directions. That would be fantastic. But, as we've seen, unfortunately it's just not practical for the people making the game, because it would mean everything would take ten times longer to make. Killing off that story branch quickly is the only way that this would work, and at least it answers narrative questions rather than just ignoring the fact that, if Gared was given the choice to run, he may have done. But he wasn't. And so neither were you.
Well if I Recall correctly in Episode 2 of the first Season of TWD there were non-canon dialogue choices that led to your death, it was in the scene where you're trying to save Katjaa from Brenda, you have the option to try to convince her by being more or less nice, threatening her and I think there's a secret option to talk about her husband if you find something but I've never done that, anyway point is that threatening her always gets you killed which I find really odd, but unless you've done the husband thing which I'm not really sure if it's possible you only have one real option if you want to progress, I kinda appreciated being able to do that and fail.
Good point.
Why implement that when all your options end with death? So the game is telling you "HAHAHAHA You bad - you die"
To end that new branch of the storyline quickly so that it doesn't create more work for the makers of the game.
No offense, but you seem to forget that the Foresters are a NORTHERN House. If Gared was born outside of the North then we'd have coward options, but as a Northener it's not plausible in Westeros to be a coward. Every coward on the Wall comes from the South and the honorable ones come from the North (Yes, even Bran and Bronn despite being like 10 and 8 years old.). So as viable as your opinion is, Telltale wouldn't make Gared a coward unless he came from anywhere except the North.
Thank you for making me aware that a person's location of origin defines their likelihood to fear death. I had forgotten that cowardice was decided by region.
Just because northerners are known for being honourable, loyal and brave, doesn't mean it's impossible for them not to be. Not to mention, we're talking about a squire/pig-farmer, not a nobleman who may have been raised with an ingrained sense of bravery. Would you feel more comfortable if I re-titled this thread 'Disloyalty Option', given the three examples I gave are also acts of disloyalty? I can list quite a few northerners who could be defined as disloyal. But I guess that's not a character trait you would define by location.
In any case, your generalisation is bizarre.
I have yet to see a cowardly Northener. A disloyal one, I can name plenty. But as the history of Westeros is defined (in a general way of saying it) The North Breds Hard Men. Hard men from what fantasy tells us usually means they aren't cowards.
That doesn't mean there aren't any. Are you one of the Old Gods or are you just claiming omniscience? What about Erik the craven/thief? Or doesn't he count because he's not a soldier, despite the fact that most of the soldiers are just conscripted peasants forced into fighting. We barely get any insight into the low-level soldiers/peasants/squires of the northern armies and I'm pretty sure just because we don't necessarily hear about it, that doesn't mean they don't have their fair share of deserters, just like any army made up of regular humans.
Oh, wait, I get it - you mean the North is a 'warrior' factory. All the individuality of human characteristics is absent, because northern soldiers are clones built to a specific 'bravery' template. If only the slavers of Astapor knew that they didn't need to condition and abuse children for years in order to make them the Unsullied, i.e. physically incapable of fear or cowardice or a bunch of other emotions, all they had to do was enslave people from the North.
Also, if you want to fling about platitudes, I would suggest Ned Stark's 'The only time a man can be brave is when he is afraid', because I'm pretty sure the quote "hard places breed hard men" is originally attributed to Balon Greyjoy and its about the Iron Islanders, not the North. And the show has painted the Ironborn as more than willing to be cowardly when it suits them.
But not the Northerners - no, they would stand and fight to the death and never run away, even when all hope is lost and the odds are against them. Although I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Lord Forrester and Gared were doing, wasn't it? Running away from the Frey soldiers into the forest, rather than continuing to fight them in the camp with Norren. Of course, because he was already dead basically from the extent of his wounds, Lord Forrester could still die heroically protecting Gared, thus upholding the 'bravery' rule of the Northerners. But what if he hadn't been mortally wounded? Then they would have escaped. Would that have made them cowards or deserters to Robb's army, by refusing to fight? Now arguably them running to the forest in the first place could be seen as a structured retreat to protect the Lord of the Ironrath, or at least his greatsword, as it turned out, but it does blur the lines. What's the difference between running away out of 'cowardice' and running away to save your life? It certainly has the same result.
'PUT THE GUN DOWN, BITCH!'
There are several disloyal and cowardly Forrester soldiers who deserted throughout the game, especially after Ethan died, so your point is moot.
There was actually a coward's option in the game and that was Mira's choice to run away from her attacker. It's off topic from Gared but I thought you should know.
I'm not fighting you on this, but a coward and being afraid are two separate things.
Read above reply.
You're right. I see now. So you're saying the Northerners can be 'disloyal' and they can be 'afraid', but they can't be 'cowards' (people who act disloyally, because they are afraid). Right, got it.
K thanx bye
That doesn't make her a coward. It's an instinct, she is afraid for her life.
Like someone said being a coward doesn't equal being afraid. If she stayed and let's say fought him that wouldn't be courageus it would be stupid, she's unarmed and very likely weaker. I could write a whole article about fear but being afraid of a rational thing that is facing you is actually smarter. There are of course irrational fears made up by human mind but not this one.
She had a knife and it was very easy for her to stab her attacker because he's distracted with coal boy. I don't see how running away was the smarter thing.
Killing someone doesn't make you brave nor smart and is not encouraged unless it is self defense. This was self defense but my point was that running away from a murderer does noz make xou a coward.
Killing a Lannister is a death sentence and same can go to a Lannister guard. Whichever choice you make is not cowardly made. I did kill the guy but it does not make it smart. From what you said killing seems to be always the smart option. Objectively looking however you could rrconsoder it. In GoT world it may or may not be smart but i was speaking in general that sometimes running away from a situation actually makes you smarter.
Cowards don't fight. They avoid it. I have yet to see a Northener willingly not fight in Game of Thrones. That's what I'm saying here.
Both options still screw Mira over one way or another. I only thought of killing the lannister guard because I couldn't afford to lose the coal boy as a potential ally but I know that the murder of Damien will definitely bite me in the ass.
Right, again. Cowards don't fight. But are you saying that 'cowardice' only applies to fighting? That a Northerner can only be defined as a 'coward' if they avoid fighting specifically, which you've never seen happen and therefore it is an impossibility. You can't for instance be deemed a 'coward' for responding to something else in a cowardly fashion, or giving a cowardly answer? Let's define 'cowardice', shall we? Yay!
The good people at Wikipedia define 'Cowardice' as
So 1) Cowardice relates to self-interest over all. 2) It relates to how you face any challenge, not just fighting. 3) There are 'cowards' (Samwell Tarly perhaps, for instance) and then there are individual acts of cowardice; so you can act cowardly without being a 'coward'. So how many individual times do you have to act cowardly, before you are considered a 'coward'? Or is it not as black-and-white as that?
In episode 2 of the game, Jon Snow specifically refers to the Boltons and the Freys as 'cowards', because they stabbed Robb in the back and ambushed the other soldiers when they weren't expecting it, rather than challenging them openly. Does he think Roose Bolton is a coward? No. But he does think Roose Bolton acted 'cowardly' by the manner of his betrayal and his disloyalty.
I never said Gared was a 'coward', just that he should be given the option to act cowardly, because he is human. What about the idea of surrendering the greatsword? There you would arguably be justified in the interest of protecting your family, but you're still trying to 'avoid having to fight' in an act of self-preservation over loyalty. And avoiding your supposed 'duty' by not going to the Wall, when you're meant to. Cowardly, because you are running from your responsibilities and breaking your word. But justifiable or even brave, because you're not allowing others to dictate your future when you are essentially innocent of what the Whitehills are accusing you of. Not so black-and white either.
Cowards only come from the south, never from the north. Not so black-and white.
So, is it just the semantics of the word 'coward' you dislike in this context, not the concept of giving players a cowardly/disloyal option? Importantly, 'Gared' isn't just 'Gared', he's also the person playing the game. So even if acting cowardly isn't a physical possibility for the character in your view, that doesn't mean it's not possible for the player. The supposed point of the game is that while there's a framework, we still have the option of shaping the playable character in whatever way, including overriding what may be expected of them.
Of course. I killed the the Guard because finally i had the opportunity to kill someone connected to the Lannister's even if it is just a guard :P Actually i killed him because i like the Coal boy and wanted to save him.
Of course GoT will screw you always and forever
Hear, hear!
I like your suggestions, but the majority of them are pretty determinant so it makes little difference. I get what your saying though- it seems your forced into making the "right decisions", rather than actually having much of a choice.