Let us kill Ashara

[rumpol]

Samantha Wallschlaeger wrote Ashara and much of KotFE. KotET and Onslaught,

In a interview in 2018 she was out-lining her views on romance and this is why Ashara is as she is.

 

"An NPC-player romance arc is always going to be a form of escapism, but I don’t think it has to give players absolutely everything they want. It’s important for me to follow a character’s truth, and really dig into the unique way he or she feels and expresses love. When I wrote Avela Kjar’s romance for Mass Effect: Andromeda, I knew that despite being kind and expressive, she would never allow herself to fully fall for anyone. And I stuck to that, even though it would mean letting the player down in the end. And that’s just it—it’s okay to break the player’s heart a little, if it makes for a better character experience. Injecting that kind of nuance into a relationship makes it feel more real, and lets the player become more immersed in the experience."

 

So because of her views on "romance" she destroyed the agency the player has in their own character whether they romanced Ashara or not to further her agenda.

 

And to push that further out, this is why we got Arcann

 

"That’s not to say I don’t use tropes when I write romances. I think they’re an excellent starting point—people like them for a reason, after all (enemies-to-lovers is my particular weakness). And in order to provide a new spin on classic tropes, you need to be a practiced study. I make a point to grill my friends and colleagues on why they enjoy particular kinds of romance arcs, and what they’d like to see done differently."

 

https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/GregBuchanan/20180404/316142/How_do_you_approach_writing_romance_in_games.php

 

You mean her view on that particular romance for that particular game. This is the beginning of that article:

 

"I grew up on older Japanese visual novels, which used romance solely as a form of fantasy fulfillment for the player. Audiences expected each romance arc to follow an existing trope, and the games of that era were happy to oblige. And there’s nothing particularly wrong with that, but it frustrated the hell out of me, because it was fantasy fulfillment at the expense of character development. A romance should reveal character depth, not hinder it. So when I began writing romances for games, I made a conscious decision to approach the process differently."

 

Why do you think her views on romance impacted the Ashara return?

 

This seems quite apt from another contributor to that article:

 

"The world of most games is a reactive one - static until the player arrives and starts flipping over tables and kissing everyone.

 

This is a problem if you’re trying to represent romantic relationships because romance involves the agency of two people, not one. In reality, potential romantic partners aren’t just sitting around waiting for you to arrive. In relationships, both parties must make tough decisions. This is why it's so impactful when Tali’Zorah takes off her mask in Mass Effect 3. This isn’t something the player has asked her to do - it’s a decision that she’s made of her own volition

 

Romance is a two way street, and it’s only convincing when you feel as though the other party has exercised their agency in picking you."

[QuinlanSaathis]

You mean her view on that particular romance for that particular game. This is the beginning of that article:

 

"I grew up on older Japanese visual novels, which used romance solely as a form of fantasy fulfillment for the player. Audiences expected each romance arc to follow an existing trope, and the games of that era were happy to oblige. And there’s nothing particularly wrong with that, but it frustrated the hell out of me, because it was fantasy fulfillment at the expense of character development. A romance should reveal character depth, not hinder it. So when I began writing romances for games, I made a conscious decision to approach the process differently."

I know that, I linked it.

Why do you think her views on romance impacted the Ashara return?

Because she allowed the characters agency to override the players agency and she clearly states that it was entirely her intention to do so as that is how she writes.

 

This seems quite apt from another contributor to that article:

 

"The world of most games is a reactive one - static until the player arrives and starts flipping over tables and kissing everyone.

 

This is a problem if you’re trying to represent romantic relationships because romance involves the agency of two people, not one. In reality, potential romantic partners aren’t just sitting around waiting for you to arrive. In relationships, both parties must make tough decisions. This is why it's so impactful when Tali’Zorah takes off her mask in Mass Effect 3. This isn’t something the player has asked her to do - it’s a decision that she’s made of her own volition

 

Romance is a two way street, and it’s only convincing when you feel as though the other party has exercised their agency in picking you."

 

The player agency matters more than the npc agency, that is just fact.

She could have kept hers and we could have kept ours by killing her as a normal DS Nox would likely do.

 

My Nox wanted to shock the living hell out of her and break her spirit.

Edited May 28, 2020 by QuinlanSaathis

[BelorfinSiana]

So, about that wedding?

[eabevella]

I thought the agency of killing a companion was taken away by Bioware, not the writer, on demand of the players because players were pissed that they can't accept the fact that a decision is a decision, you can't go back and change it even though there is a big warning "are you sure" window before you click "kill"?

 

Speak of Vik, My SI killed Vik because to her he's just a nobody gangster who dared to held her crew and threaten her. My JK did not kill Vik but if I can make free choices, I'll let her either Jedi mind trick Vik or beat the **** out of him instead of being scammed by him. But we can't all get what we want in a game that only gives us three options in any situation.

[rumpol]

Because she allowed the characters agency to override the players agency and she clearly states that it was entirely her intention to do so as that is how she writes.

 

The player agency matters more than the npc agency, that is just fact.

She could have kept hers and we could have kept ours by killing her as a normal DS Nox would likely do.

 

My Nox wanted to shock the living hell out of her and break her spirit.

 

She never stated that she put the NPC above the player, she stated she looked at the story from both sides. There is no such thing as a "normal DS". You are stating that the way you play your Nox is what should have been catered to. I understand that. I believe though, that more players do not want the kill options than those that do.

[QuinlanSaathis]

She never stated that she put the NPC above the player, she stated she looked at the story from both sides. There is no such thing as a "normal DS". You are stating that the way you play your Nox is what should have been catered to. I understand that. I believe though, that more players do not want the kill options than those that do.

 

I said I would prefer to shock the hell out of her and break her, the kill option is not my preference.

However the kill option would allow both the NPC and the Player to retain their agency.

[djbullenx]

If we cannot have the option to turn her then at least let us kill the stinking Jedi on our ship! Seriously...Making my Sith be TOTALLY out of character by allowing my "Jedi Apprentice" to argue with me with no consequences? Very, very poor story for this companion. The best I can do is pretend that she is not there. Guess I'll just pretend I ended her. LOL

[Ner_idia]

The biggest problem with Ashara is her lack of character development. Even though she accepts the role of Sith apprentice; she never makes the mental transition. No matter how dark your character is, she continues to insist that she's a jedi (and she's clearly not. If you follow her companion conversations, she again insists that you "try to follow the light": even if you're a Dark 5 murder bot.

 

Her dialogue should have been written to reflect your character alignment; but it doesn't. And when you finally get around to tracking her down, she tries to insist that she's your equal. And if you don't accept that, she refuses to rejoin you.

 

Kill option? No. Torture her until she breaks? Yup.

 

Personally, I'd have turned her over to Harkun once Xalek was on board for a proper "education". A year or so would have done nicely to turn the whiny togruta into a proper apprentice.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Ner_idia

[djbullenx]

The biggest problem with Ashara is her lack of character development. Even though she accepts the role of Sith apprentice; she never makes the mental transition. No matter how dark your character is, she continues to insist that she's a jedi (and she's clearly not. If you follow her companion conversations, she again insists that you "try to follow the light": even if you're a Dark 5 murder bot.

 

Her dialogue should have been written to reflect your character alignment; but it doesn't. And when you finally get around to tracking her down, she tries to insist that she's your equal. And if you don't accept that, she refuses to rejoin you.

 

Kill option? No. Torture her until she breaks? Yup.

 

Personally, I'd have turned her over to Harkun once Xalek was on board for a proper "education". A year or so would have done nicely to turn the whiny togruta into a proper apprentice.

 

Hear hear and AMEN! I like the way you think!

[ceryxp]

The biggest problem with Ashara is her lack of character development. Even though she accepts the role of Sith apprentice; she never makes the mental transition. No matter how dark your character is, she continues to insist that she's a jedi (and she's clearly not. If you follow her companion conversations, she again insists that you "try to follow the light": even if you're a Dark 5 murder bot.

 

Her dialogue should have been written to reflect your character alignment; but it doesn't. And when you finally get around to tracking her down, she tries to insist that she's your equal. And if you don't accept that, she refuses to rejoin you.

 

Ashara's dialogue was written to reflect your character's alignment; specifically a light sided Inquisitor. Prior to 4.0 companion dialogue was gated behind affection level (now called influence). Originally, if you did not have high enough affection with Ashara you would never receive those conversations and, barring feeding Ashara gifts to raise their affection, a dark Inquisitor would likely never have high enough affection to unlock those conversations. Those conversations were meant to be had with a light sided Inquisitor. With 4.0 BW changed that and make story progress the gate that unlocks companion conversations, which meant that regardless of one's influence with Ashara, and regardless of one's alignment, they would have those conversations. Conversations that they may not be meant to have due to their alignment.

 

BW removed the original RPG element to companion interaction with 4.0 and the result is conversations with some companions that make no sense.

[Kaiserkain]

Ashara's dialogue was written to reflect your character's alignment; specifically a light sided Inquisitor. Prior to 4.0 companion dialogue was gated behind affection level (now called influence). Originally, if you did not have high enough affection with Ashara you would never receive those conversations and, barring feeding Ashara gifts to raise their affection, a dark Inquisitor would likely never have high enough affection to unlock those conversations. Those conversations were meant to be had with a light sided Inquisitor. With 4.0 BW changed that and make story progress the gate that unlocks companion conversations, which meant that regardless of one's influence with Ashara, and regardless of one's alignment, they would have those conversations. Conversations that they may not be meant to have due to their alignment.

 

BW removed the original RPG element to companion interaction with 4.0 and the result is conversations with some companions that make no sense.

 

Feeding your companions gifts was the only real way to get to the final conversations in the original game no matter what your alignment was. Don't pretend that approval from dialogue was enough and that bioware never intended you to get all dialogues if you had the "wrong" alignment. In particular since you gained gameplay advantages from having higher influence with your companions right away and shortly after launch they added the legacy system which rewarded you for finishing all dialogues with your companions. You were always supposed to get to them eventually.

 

Ashara was definitely written for LS inquistors but she sticks out with how absolutely nonsensical she is if you aren't LS. Bioware actually did a reasonably decent job with most other companions making at least some sense no matter your alignment outside of her and a handful other ones like Skadge. (and to keep this on topic with the OP so did they at least let us kill Skadge)

Edited June 21, 2021 by Kaiserkain

[casirabit]

Part of the problem why some people want Ashara dead is because of the way they did other companions because some people wanted them dead and they figure what is fair for one should be fair for them as well.

 

I can understand their point but actually just wish they hadn't started down that road as while it is good for some it does create a problem for others that don't kill the companion because we still have no interactions with them.

Edited June 21, 2021 by casirabit

[Hrafnhildur]

Part of the problem why some people want Ashara dead is because of the way they did other companions because some people wanted them dead and they figure what is fair for one should be fair for them as well.

 

I can understand their point but actually just wish they hadn't started down that road as while it is good for some it does create a problem for others that don't kill the companion because we still have no interactions with them.

 

The reason why we cannot kill Ashara is quite simple : she is put "in storage" for the future expansions, as a reserve, along with

Felix Iresso, Kira, Doc, Nadia,Corso,Risha,Raina .

 

 

At some point, the developers will realize is easier to use an old companion than to code a new one. Besides, some people will say "enough with Lana, why can't *insert non-killable companion name here* give us the mission? "

[ceryxp]

Feeding your companions gifts was the only real way to get to the final conversations in the original game no matter what your alignment was. Don't pretend that approval from dialogue was enough and that bioware never intended you to get all dialogues if you had the "wrong" alignment.

 

It absolutely was not the only way because I unlocked all of Nadia's dialogue on my first Consular without feeding gifts. This was in 2012. I only fed gifts in order to max affection for the achievement of hitting max affection. Two different things. Also, way to go with the red herring. What I said was that barring feeding gifts a dark Inquisitor would likely never have high enough affection to unlock those conversations.

Edited June 21, 2021 by ceryxp

[Saretorianus]

Support this topic.

Also would be great to make another jedi female to seduce to the dark side like Jaesa for the Inquisitor.

[Saretorianus]

Part of the problem why some people want Ashara dead is because of the way they did other companions because some people wanted them dead and they figure what is fair for one should be fair for them as well.

 

I can understand their point but actually just wish they hadn't started down that road as while it is good for some it does create a problem for others that don't kill the companion because we still have no interactions with them.

 

No people wanat that @@#@@ because she is a whiney @@#@#@ and gets tired quickly of her @#@##$@ whining

which is endless.