Maria Caliban wrote...
Hukari wrote...
Not necessarily. He has whatever knowledge the -author- says they have.
An author saying something is a form of expression.
I said above, perceptions are a frail and transient thing. Our first impressions hardly define who a character is...
Yes, they do. But that definition might change over time. It might change over chapters or over over paragraphs, but that first impression is a definition.
In the beginning of Aladdin, we see that Aladdin is a thief and rogue. At the end we see that he's caring, heroic, and a prince.
Imagine someone reads the first part of the story, quits before the end, and never sees him be caring, heroic, and a prince. Is their definition of him wrong? (Not a rhetorical question.)
To tie this into Dragon Age: Is Zevran a rapist? Fans might say 'no' and the writer might say 'no,' but he admits to placing a woman in a situation where her only option is to sleep with him or die. A modern court would probably have him tried for sexual assault.
No, they each are their characters.
They are what is expressed and perceived. They have no existence outside of this transaction.
Well played, but allow me to answer first your non-rhetorical question. No, it is not an inaccurate assessment, -for that part of the story-. If characters remained the same as when you first meet them, then what is the point of the story? You've gone from beginning to end and not changed a whit. Within ten minutes of meeting him, Loghain became the ultimate evil in Ferelden. And yet, he grew; his character molded, it shifted. It changed.
To the Zevran question, I would also argue; He is not a rapist, by Ferelden's standards. You provide the caveat that he would be convicted in a modern court. Indeed he would. But Ferelden is far from modern; in a place where vigilantism and murder are, seemingly, commonplace, I doubt they have much in the way of available people to investigate and prosecute trials outside of high treason and other crimes of gravitas. Otherwise, we adventurer's would be out of work (Making our living off of aforementioned vigilantism, murder, property damage, theft, et cetera, et cetera).
Edit: I think, Maria Caliban, the thing that I am trying to summarize is thus: Stories are meant to occur with sentient, living beings. We see examples of people changing fashion styles, behaviour, personality, in rapid succession in our own modern lives (and, indeed, in more ancient periods). Yet, we still understand who they are, because we've decided to learn about their personality. If my friend puts on a different shirt, he doesn't cease existing as my friend; he is just my friend with a different shirt. That, I think, is the dissonance we're seeing here; we see it as detrimental to both gameplay and story to have us restricted to 'von und only von' outfit. It implies that they have no personality to identify themselves.
Modifié par Hukari, 19 novembre 2010 - 09:23 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
