109 réponses à ce sujet

[Eveangaline]

Luigitornado wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

What if I want a LI who is evil in a jovial way?

A demented jester type of companion, cracking bad puns whilst cracking heads?

Oh, I'd be all over that.

Harley Quinn?

I don't know, I mean I'd love it, but we've already got a bisexual lady LI, and I think they only put one in per game.

[Maria Caliban]

You could have a bisexual female companion who is cute, evil and constantly talks about how much she loves her evil, abusing boyfriend while being completely oblivious to the PC's flirtation.

[Revan312]

Maria Caliban wrote...

You could have a bisexual female companion who is cute, evil and constantly talks about how much she loves her evil, abusing boyfriend while being completely oblivious to the PC's flirtation.

Something we should know Maria?  You can let it out, we're all mature here

[blothulfur]

A blood mage who can read peoples minds and see their petty selfish natures and thus has become alienated from humanity would make a pretty interesting love interest, if he or she saw something different in hawke or simply could not break down the champions iron will.

Would also be nice to be the hunted and not the hunter for a change.

[Sharn01]

Atakuma wrote...

ptibog wrote...

ME2 had boring, manichean characters so whe can expect DAII to have some aswell

if you have nothing to contribute other than pladitudinal remarks, then i suggest that you just not post anything at all.


On topic I dont think there will be any evil love interests

Except he did contribute, evil characters that know they are evil and are evil for the sake of being evil are extremely one dimensional and boring. 

An interesting villian is commiting evil for reasons that he or she believes are completely justified, or even good.

[Chuvvy]

I demand a Pol Pot romance.

[Revan312]

Sharn01 wrote...

An interesting villian is commiting evil for reasons that he or she believes are completely justified, or even good.

That depends imo..

I've liked villains that were pure evil that knew what they were doing was wrong but just simply didn't care anymore.  Kariya in Samurai Champloo being one of them. All he wanted was an opponent that was a match for him and he essentially did anything he could to see that come to fruition.

Or there's been villains I've liked that are just pretty much insane.  The example everyone brings up for that is the Joker.  He knows what he's doing is despicable, but he doesn't care, all he wants is to shove Batman's belief about good nature and justice in his face and show him just how ruthless and malicious most people can be, attempting to twist and break down others through tramatic events he causes, post crisis series joker at least.

So I'll agree for the most part that evil for the sake of evil can and most of the time is boring, but there have been a few I've liked, so imo it can be done if it's executed well.

[Wicked 702]

Maria Caliban wrote...

You could have a bisexual female companion who is cute, evil and constantly talks about how much she loves her evil, abusing boyfriend while being completely oblivious to the PC's flirtation.

Women from Los Angeles???

...No thanks.

[Sharn01]

Revan312 wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

An interesting villian is commiting evil for reasons that he or she believes are completely justified, or even good.

That depends imo..

I've liked villains that were pure evil that knew what they were doing was wrong but just simply didn't care anymore.  Kariya in Samurai Champloo being one of them. All he wanted was an opponent that was a match for him and he essentially did anything he could to see that come to fruition.

Or there's been villains I've liked that are just pretty much insane.  The example everyone brings up for that is the Joker.  He knows what he's doing is despicable, but he doesn't care, all he wants is to shove Batman's belief about good nature and justice in his face and show him just how ruthless and malicious most people can be, attempting to twist and break down others through tramatic events he causes, post crisis series joker at least.

So I'll agree for the most part that evil for the sake of evil can and most of the time is boring, but there have been a few I've liked, so imo it can be done if it's executed well.

I never watched Samarai Champloo so I cant comment, but the Joker is a good villian since he is the antithesis to Batman.  Joker would not have the popularity he has without Batman, and it could be said that Batman would not be as interesting of a character had the Joker never been introduced.  In an RPG where we have any choice at all about our PC's motives, a Joker like villian would not work well.   

It could work in a game with a completely preset character following a cinematic story where we are just watching, but there are plenty of games like that, Final Fantasy comes to mind, so I dont really want Bioware making those kind of games.

Modifié par Sharn01, 24 novembre 2010 - 03:34 .

[GodWood]

Morrigan was evil

[upsettingshorts]

Morrigan was amoral. If her designs with the God baby are "evil" that's a different matter.

Granted, other folks would consider "amoral" to be "evil" - but I'm not one of them.  Aside from Arl Howe, it's hard to come up with too many human(oid) evil characters in Dragon Age: Origins.  The Darkspawn of course don't count.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 novembre 2010 - 06:04 .

[GodWood]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Morrigan was amoral. If her designs with the God baby are "evil" that's a different matter.
Granted, other folks would consider "amoral" to be "evil" - but I'm not one of them.  Aside from Arl Howe, it's hard to come up with too many human(oid) evil characters in Dragon Age: Origins.  The Darkspawn of course don't count.

(God I'm not in the mood for a morality debate but...)
What does it take for Morrigan (or any character really) to be considered 'evil'?
Based on what people consider evil and who people consider evil, Morrigan definitely fits the bill of an 'evil' character.
I have noticed some think the romance brings the 'good' out in her thus they believe she was never truly evil but to me this is ridiculous, at the end of the day she is still a cold hearted ruthless b*tch she just happens to also care for the warden (which an 'evil' person is perfectly capable of doing)

Modifié par GodWood, 24 novembre 2010 - 06:26 .

[Leonia]

Morrigan fits the bill of a "self-serving" person to me, not necessarily evil. She's not intentionally trying to hurt anyone, except for possibly Flemeth. Does that make her chaotic neutral maybe? She's not really evil or good.

Anyway, a pure Chaotic Evil love interest sounds terribly boring but I think Bishop from NWN 2 was one.. not that the romance in NWN 2 was all that interesting (aside from that sweet moment with Casavir just before the assault on the player's stronghold *swoon*).

Modifié par leonia42, 24 novembre 2010 - 06:20 .

[Maria Caliban]

Have I mentioned my desire for a Heart of Darkness Colonel Kurtz inspired female warrior? Preferably one not associated with the Chantry as that would devolve all discussion about her to 'the Chantry is evil.'

Edit:

I suppose that clip is a bit ambiguous so I'll go into detail. What I'd love to see is a warrior who fought in a bloody, prolonged conflict as a captain/colonel or something - basically someone who was more than a grunt but still in the action.

At some point, the horror of the conflict got to them and they became a monster because they viewed monstrous actions as the only way to survive and win. But I don't want to see insane or bloodthirsty, or the flip of utterly cold and cynical. Maybe someone who is soft-spoken, intelligent, and polite.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Morrigan was amoral.

If someone had an object Morrigan wanted and she could neither steal it, seduce it from them, or buy it, do you think she'd use magical or physical force to take it? What about possibly lethal force?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 24 novembre 2010 - 06:57 .

[upsettingshorts]

I'll skip ahead in the debate: My definition of "evil" calls for malicious and/or malevolent intent. I'd even go so far as to say that very few people in the history of the world or fiction l've been exposed to would qualify for the label. So, so many fall under being both amoral and wrong.  That and they lost. 

However, it's not as if I've done an extensive logical proof of this. It's just my impression, I don't expect others to share it - I wouldn't even go so far as to try to convince people I'm right about it. And if you've been around the forums the last few months it's pretty obvious that when I feel like I've got a point to make I'll argue it. This isn't one of those cases, not yet anyway. My position on the issue of evil/amorality is fluid.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 novembre 2010 - 06:59 .

[Leonia]

@Maria: Sounds similar to the 9th Doctor (Eccleston, for those who get their numbers confused) in Doctor Who.. who survived a gruesome war by having to commit genocide against the enemy and his own people. He was a bit cynical and cold at first but he warmed up nicely eventually. Wouldn't say he was insane or bloodthirsty at all, just sort of distant after what he had experienced. I'd love a love interest like that, someone deep with lots of layers to break through. Suffering from survivor's guilt can be tough on one's own but with a capable lover there to guide them.. it could be very sweet.

Modifié par leonia42, 24 novembre 2010 - 07:21 .

[Super_Fr33k]

I think Upsettingshorts puts it quite nicely: malice and callousness are not the same thing, and I see Morrigan as coldly calculating more than evil. Dire threats require sacrifice to overcome, in her estimation. Notice how she usually tries to get you to dismiss or sacrifice people who lack useful traits or social significance, but will defend those with unique circumstances or backgrounds. Is this evil, or saving what must be saved? Morrigan sees people only for what they presently are and not what they could be; realism divorced from idealism is unfulfilling and self-defeating, but not intrinsically evil.
Compare this with real world debates, especially ones regarding espionage, torture, rules of engagement, personal privacy and other national security questions. Would you call the people you consider the be going too far to be evil? Or, more likely, would you call them misguided? (Please, no specific RL examples, don't send this spiralling off-topic...)
I know people knock D&D morality, but Morrigan as true neutral makes a lot of sense. She doesn't go out of her way to harm others, but will do so in the furtherance of a worthy goal. To kick it old school, if the conniving Saemon Havarian of BG2 is True Neutral, then Morrigan has no trouble qualifying.
Ironically, ME2 and DA:O gave people evil LIs-- I'd say Jack and Zevran qualify. The problem is, BW writers know players like to try to reform evil people, and so they tend to use psychological trauma and other external factors imposed on evil characters to justify their behavior and make redemption seem possible. Viconia, of BG2 and one of my favorite bad girl game romances, also fit this bill.
Bioware can't rely on these inhibitors while making someone truly, deeply evil. If they did want an evil "that goes to 11," I think they need to go beyond chaotic stupid and make a deeply intelligent and disturbing npc. The most evil villians are always the ones who destroy moral compasses, who can make any decision seem destructive, self-serving and futile.
That kind of villian as an LI would be awesome, but very difficult to achieve. They'd have to seriously have a shot at corrupting the player, which requires subtle writing and difficult choices.
I guess I'm saying, if they can pull it off well, sign me up.

[Behindyounow]

I'm not sure about romance, but I want a damn evil bastard as a companion (Not evil as in "Mwa ha ha ha! I'm so evil" more like they don't give a toss about the morality of their actions). But, make it so he's always 100% loyal to Hawke. Like say they join the party with Hawke saving his life, possibly from an execution or something, so He'll never question your actions.

But, he'll act independantly now and again though (Like how Wrex kills Fist even if you want to spare him). Unlike Wrex though, the things they'll do are damn horrible. Like say if you had him in your party at Redcliffe, He'll immediately to kill Connor to stop the demon, and probably stab Isolde when she steps in to stop him.

Now as I said earlier, He'll never question you. However you'll probably damn question yourself for keeping him around, and your other party members will certainly question you.

Modifié par Behindyounow, 24 novembre 2010 - 08:20 .

[Tamyn]

Luigitornado wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

What if I want a LI who is evil in a jovial way?

A demented jester type of companion, cracking bad puns whilst cracking heads?

Oh, I'd be all over that.

Harley Quinn?

Shagwell the fool from ASoIaF. I'd kill him.

[Cutlasskiwi]

I want a drinking buddy for LI! Evil drinking buddy could be fun.

[ejoslin]

Super_Fr33k wrote...

I think Upsettingshorts puts it quite nicely: malice and callousness are not the same thing, and I see Morrigan as coldly calculating more than evil. Dire threats require sacrifice to overcome, in her estimation. Notice how she usually tries to get you to dismiss or sacrifice people who lack useful traits or social significance, but will defend those with unique circumstances or backgrounds. Is this evil, or saving what must be saved? Morrigan sees people only for what they presently are and not what they could be; realism divorced from idealism is unfulfilling and self-defeating, but not intrinsically evil.
Compare this with real world debates, especially ones regarding espionage, torture, rules of engagement, personal privacy and other national security questions. Would you call the people you consider the be going too far to be evil? Or, more likely, would you call them misguided? (Please, no specific RL examples, don't send this spiralling off-topic...)
I know people knock D&D morality, but Morrigan as true neutral makes a lot of sense. She doesn't go out of her way to harm others, but will do so in the furtherance of a worthy goal. To kick it old school, if the conniving Saemon Havarian of BG2 is True Neutral, then Morrigan has no trouble qualifying.
Ironically, ME2 and DA:O gave people evil LIs-- I'd say Jack and Zevran qualify. The problem is, BW writers know players like to try to reform evil people, and so they tend to use psychological trauma and other external factors imposed on evil characters to justify their behavior and make redemption seem possible. Viconia, of BG2 and one of my favorite bad girl game romances, also fit this bill.
Bioware can't rely on these inhibitors while making someone truly, deeply evil. If they did want an evil "that goes to 11," I think they need to go beyond chaotic stupid and make a deeply intelligent and disturbing npc. The most evil villians are always the ones who destroy moral compasses, who can make any decision seem destructive, self-serving and futile.
That kind of villian as an LI would be awesome, but very difficult to achieve. They'd have to seriously have a shot at corrupting the player, which requires subtle writing and difficult choices.
I guess I'm saying, if they can pull it off well, sign me up.

(Zevran isn't evil -- Morrigan is far more heartless than Zevran is).

I think it's a problem of definition, and also a problem of people not getting to know the characters. None of the love interests in DAO are evil, though two of them are pragmatic.

[EmperorSahlertz]

It all comes down to moral absolutism or moral relativism really. Absolutist would say Morrigan is an evil person because of her actions. Relativist would say she is good because of her intentions.

This explanation is extremely caricatured, but it gives a basic outline of the dilemma.

[Saibh]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It all comes down to moral absolutism or moral relativism really. Absolutist would say Morrigan is an evil person because of her actions. Relativist would say she is good because of her intentions.
This explanation is extremely caricatured, but it gives a basic outline of the dilemma.

...Morrigan has no good intentions. She has selfish intentions. Not evil ones, but definitely not good ones.