216 réponses à ce sujet

[SDNcN]

Drasanil wrote...

-Sten cutting down Bann Teagan and getting you run out of Recliffe.

Part of Sten's story is the guilt he felt over murdering the innocent people who found him. I don't really see him offing Teagan just because he thinks helping the village is a waste of time.


Edit:

Also Alistair already executes Loghain without player input. You just have to harden Alistair and pit him against Loghain in the Landsmeet duel.

Modifié par SDNcN, 13 décembre 2010 - 06:59 .

[Maria Caliban]

I don't think Sten felt guilty about killing them as much as he felt it was inappropriate of him to lose his temper.

And one of the biggest complains about Alistiar is when he 1) leaves you if you take Loghian, and 2) dumps the player if you make him king.

All quite in character.

I think the majority of players wouldn't like the companions acting out when appropriate.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 13 décembre 2010 - 07:01 .

[Drasanil]

SDNcN wrote...

Drasanil wrote...

-Sten cutting down Bann Teagan and getting you run out of Recliffe.

Part of Sten's story is the guilt he felt over murdering the innocent people who found him. I don't really see him offing Teagan just because he thinks helping the village is a waste of time.

I don't think he would out of hand, but I could see him coming to the conclusion that he needs to so in order to "convince" the Warden that saving Redcliffe is a waste of time and figuring Bann Sexy would die regardless.

EDIT: What Maria said, Sten doesn't seem to care that he killed a family so much as to why he killed that family, the Qunari sense of honor isn't exactly what we'd consider conventional.

Maria Caliban wrote...
And one of the biggest complains about Alistiar is when he 1) leaves you if you take Loghian, and 2) dumps the player if you make him king.

All quite in character.

I thought those were both awesome personally... and most players should have figured something of the sort was likely to happen any ways, you don't get something for nothing.

I think the majority of players wouldn't like the companions acting out when appropriate.

The majority of players are babies, which is why I propose the Coercion/Persuade test first; that way it's their own fault if it happens.  

Modifié par Drasanil, 13 décembre 2010 - 07:04 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I don't think Sten felt guilty about killing them as much as he felt it was inappropriate of him to lose his temper.

And one of the biggest complains about Alistiar is when he 1) leaves you if you take Loghian, and 2) dumps the player if you make him king.

All quite in character.

I think the majority of players wouldn't like the companions acting out when appropriate.

Might be that Sten wasn't as upset about murdering that family. However, when you tell him what he did is terrible, he says he knows, that he cannot change what he did and that his honor is forfeit.

Sten rebelling in Haven was brilliant, by the way. Personal opinion, of course.

[Adhin]

Again on the Loghain evil... thing and instigating the Cousland thing. You have to understand the working over of Fereldan. Teyrn's are second 'only' to the King. The King is, all things considerd to the people a Teyrn who rules in a general sense over the whole nation. He however works 'with' the Teyrn's (Loghain and the Couslands, that's it) to keep the whole thing going. Everyone else is under that. He had the Arl of Redcliff POISONED because of his political sway, Couslands had as much sway as Loghain and just as much 'right' to the throne if they're was no more blood reletives alive - Alistair being the only one left (that no one really knew about).

So while its not 'directly' stated, Arl Howle being Loghain's Lacky and the Couslands being a 'direct' threat to his rule they had to go immediately.

[Ollymandias]

And one of the biggest complains about Alistiar is when he 1) leaves you if you take Loghian, and 2) dumps the player if you make him king.
All quite in character.
I think the majority of players wouldn't like the companions acting out when appropriate.

I raged when Alistair threw his fit at the Landsmeet. But it was perfectly in character.

At the time, my Warden was furious. "He's always done what I want before! How could he put on those hysterics? In front of everyone too! All he had to do was stand there and keep his damned mouth shut!"

My Warden only remembered later when she thought about it. Alistair had told her a story once, about a little boy who had been sent away from his home to the Chantry. He had been so upset that he threw his most treasured possession against a wall and it broke. He felt the most terrible regret about it afterwards.

He hadn't grown up a bit since then. But that was rather my Warden's fault for coddling him, then trying to use him as a puppet king. Throws away his Grey Warden membership and runs away with my nicest armour and the Keening Blade. ("Wear this set today, Alistair. It looks kingly.") Poor Alistair. He must have felt terrible afterwards. My Warden certainly did when she examined her behaviour.

I really hope that DA2 has characters who are deeply flawed in realistic ways.

Modifié par Ollymandias, 13 décembre 2010 - 07:23 .

[Liablecocksman]

DMC12 wrote...
I'm generalizing, I know, but it's hard not to notice the repeated character types and then to not roll your eyes at them. It's a good thing those character types are usually good.

While the rest of your post in very quoteworthy, certainly, I just agree with everything of it, and there would be no real reason to quote. Except for this portion.
I just agree very much. So much that I felt like highlighting it.

Maria Caliban wrote...

I often wonder if the defense of
evil companions would be so strong if they weren't complete puppets to
your will when with you. If instead of passively approving or
disapproving, Morrigan handed the little girl over to the demon and if
you attempted to fight the demon, stood in the corner and watched
instead of joining it.

Oh, you mean like how we already have character like Wynne and Leliana attack you, if you do a bad thing?
That would be awesome.
I would defend evil characters even more, if they tried to sabotage the player so obviously (as in your example), provided that the player was then given the option to kill them.
That's the whole problem with Origins(and Awakening), essentially. The *Good* companions have some sort of *good* agenda, that drives them to attack (or leave) you, if you do something evil, because they realise you aren't helping them further their case.
While that is also the case with Morrigan, her leaving of you was simply caused by (spoiler) not participating in the Flemeth-sidequest, and even then she returns to give birth to your child.

You think I want some sort of moron following me around, pointing fingers at beggars before cutting their heads off, while also agreeing with everything I do, even though I'm "good"? NO! THAT IS NOT WHAT A WANT.

I want companions who are evil not just for being evil, but because being *EVIL* is something they have choosen to further their own agenda. I want them to second-guess me, if I'm good, and I want them to agree with me, when I'm evil. Just like how the *good* companions already function.

[Aermas]

Howe is evil, don't assign Loghain as evil, he was mad, not evil

[Drasanil]

Liable****sman wrote...
I want companions who are evil not just for being evil, but because being *EVIL* is something they have choosen to further their own agenda. I want them to second-guess me, if I'm good, and I want them to agree with me, when I'm evil. Just like how the *good* companions already function.

That's the problem though, evil companions have an absence of morality not some wierd D&Dish form of anti-morality. To use your example Evil would be a question of how much "Sin" you're willing to tolerate to accomplish your goals, what ever they may be. 

A "good" companion would likely object to you lopping off a beggars' head because he asked you for a copper and the ground that it violates his/her notion of morality. Where as an evil companion really shouldn't care if you gave said beggar a copper, provided it didn't somehow hinder his own personal over-arching goals. Sure he might mock you or think you a gullible sap, but what does he care? It's your problem and it's not like he has many, if any, notions of morality for you to violate in the first place. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I don't think Sten felt guilty about killing them as much as he felt it was inappropriate of him to lose his temper.

This is why Sten is my favourite DAO companion.

[Liablecocksman]

Drasanil wrote...



A "good" companion would likely object to you lopping off a beggars' head because he asked you for a copper and the ground that it violates his/her notion of morality. Where as an evil companion really shouldn't care if you gave said beggar a copper, provided it didn't somehow hinder his own personal over-arching goals. Sure he might mock you or think you a gullible sap, but what does he care? It's your problem and it's not like he has many, if any, notions of morality for you to violate in the first place.

Eh, yes.

That's my point.

I'm not looking for an evil character that is only as evil as I allow him, or as horrendously stupid that he thinks one copper will make a difference - but I'm looking for one to provide entertainment to me (the player) by constantly mocking and questioning my every move.

Edwin from Baldur's Gate is a prime example. He never joined you to help in your main quest, he joined (if you let him) to have you help him kill someone. He would question and mock the main character, and offer his insults at every turn. He was incredibly entertaining.



I'm not asking to have 10000 characters that are like this, I'm just asking for the possibility of it. There are, as stated, already *good* companions who work in such a fashion, so why not any evil ones? Through-and-through evil PCs in DA:O are forced to either let Wynne leave, or kill her.

One single companion mirroring Wynne, but just being *evil* instead of *good* would have made me happy. There just isn't one, and hasn't been for a long time.

[Drasanil]

That's why you had Morrigan, she does even one better by actively disapproving of just about every "good" or "kind" thing you do and is fairly snarky about it. If you had a respec mod or waited till level 14 you could even make her a spirit healer to avoid the whole Wynne dilemma.



I suppose Bioware might make a more obnoxious Morrigan-esque character in DA2.

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I don't think Sten felt guilty about killing them as much as he felt it was inappropriate of him to lose his temper.

This is why Sten is my favourite DAO companion.

Have to agree there. The idea that he considers it a faux pas to have murdered them all violently is juts wonderful.

[Liablecocksman]

Drasanil wrote...

That's why you had Morrigan, she does even one better by actively disapproving of just about every "good" or "kind" thing you do and is fairly snarky about it. If you had a respec mod or waited till level 14 you could even make her a spirit healer to avoid the whole Wynne dilemma.

I suppose Bioware might make a more obnoxious Morrigan-esque character in DA2.

Only Morrigan wasn't really evil, she just adhered to a darwinistic "Survival of the fittest" rule. She was equally tiring as she was humourous, exactly because she wasn't stricly evil.
There also are many flaws in her character. She will not, for instance, accept a deal with a demon in redcliffe, but she will approve when you make deals with demons yourself?
That is just one of several oddities in her personality. Regardless, she struck me as being very grey (and very suitable for the time-period) rather than actually being evil.

And that's the problem with Wynne, you had to make Morrigan a spirit healer if you went for an evil character. That's is absolutely rubbish. Maybe you could do without a healer when playing on easy, but surely not anything above that.

Morrigan doesn't care about anything, that's why she isn't evil. She doesn't go out of her way to help, she just doesn't go out of her way to harm either. She is exceptionally "chaotic neutral", if you will forgive the terminology. Look at Alistair, Leliana, Wynne, etc. They all want to help everyone they can. Look at Morrigan, she just doesn't care.

EDIT:
The problem with the Morrigan-case is that Dragon Age has options and ways to solve quests. None of these options are blatantly evil, whereas one of them is always blatantly good. If you did the blatantly good thing, Morrigan would be angry because it conflicts with her neutral-perspective. Had there actually been evil-options, I'm sure Morrigan would be equally displeased that you, yourself, are going out of your way to harm.

The only example I can think of, that had a blatantly evil choice, is Shale-DLC, where you can let the demon possess the girl.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 13 décembre 2010 - 08:45 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

Morrigan? Neutral Evil, go.

Modifié par FellowerOfOdin, 13 décembre 2010 - 09:05 .

[Ryzaki]

Really? So sacrificing your family for a minor power boost isn't a blatantly evil choice? Killing a bunch of helpless mages (among them children) when you know they are no threat isn't an evil choice?

Edit: And good god not another Morrigan. Her slimey contradictions and ignorance made me want to kick her in the face.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 décembre 2010 - 09:07 .

[Liablecocksman]

Ryzaki wrote...



Really? So sacrificing your family for a minor power boost isn't a blatantly evil choice?

What are we talking about here?

Killing a bunch of helpless mages (among them children) when you know they are no threat isn't an evil choice?

It should be noted that nobody actually ever kills children. They are there in the dialogue with Wynne, but that's it.

Morrigan only supports this case because we are talking about circle-mages. Ask yourself: Had these been apostate mages, would Morrigan then had wanted me to slaughter them all?

The answer is no.

[Amyntas]

Pure evil characters just become caricatures of themselves *twirls mustache* *evil laugh*. Interesting evil characters have an agenda they value higher than morality which can be understood by the player (power, honor, religion etc.). Although a mentally unstable companion could be quite ... interesting as well ;-)

[Sable Rhapsody]

Amyntas wrote...

Pure evil characters just become caricatures of themselves *twirls mustache* *evil laugh*. Interesting evil characters have an agenda they value higher than morality which can be understood by the player (power, honor, religion etc.). Although a mentally unstable companion could be quite ... interesting as well ;-)

I think of not BioWare but Obsidian when I think of evil NPC companions that work.  Even evil companions of the pure evil card-carrying villain variety.   Bishop, Atton (if turned dark side), Kreia, and One of Many come to mind.  Bishop was an ass, and the game was very, very clear about him being bad news.  But he was interesting and nuanced enough in his warped reasoning that I ended up liking him despite knowing I shouldn't.  One of Many is more the MWAHAHA type, but the way in which you acquire it is just so deliciously bad.

The trouble with evil companions causing problems is that it can be obnoxious for the player.  Obsidian's really bad characters got around it because the game made it obvious that these folks were bad news, and tangling with them was a bad idea.  (To be fair, Bishop and Kreia's arcs were story hard-coded, but that's a complaint for another day).  That made it more of a character moment when awful things happened and less of a "Oh, that character's getting in my way again" annoyance.

[Urazz]

Liable****sman wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Really? So sacrificing your family for a minor power boost isn't a blatantly evil choice?

What are we talking about here?.

I'm assuming the sacrifice of the alienage elves for that power up from the slaver blood mage.  It's only sacrificing your family and friends if you are a city elf.

Anyways, I find Morrigan to be more 'survival of the fittest' and 'against the chantry' than evil.  And if it was based on those two then it was usually choices that helped strengthen the Warden's chances of defeating the blight.

If anything I'd peg her as more neutral evil than the chaotic evil with an agenda that you are hoping for.

Modifié par Urazz, 13 décembre 2010 - 09:57 .

[Crimson Invictus]

Morrigan states her case from within the game, the majority of people who brand her evil because of her choices (which are invariably along the lines of not risking your own skin for others) are metagaming since they know they are playing a game and the worst that will happen is reloading.

---
It would appear that anybody who suggests Morrigan's attitude has anything to do with "survival of the fittest" has no idea what "survival of the fittest" actually means.

Modifié par Liana Nighthawk, 13 décembre 2010 - 10:07 .

[Liablecocksman]

Liana Nighthawk wrote...

Morrigan states her case from within the game, the majority of people who brand her evil because of her choices (which are invariably along the lines of not risking your own skin for others) are metagaming since they know they are playing a game and the worst that will happen is reloading.

---
It would appear that anybody who suggests Morrigan's attitude has anything to do with "survival of the fittest" has no idea what "survival of the fittest" actually means.

What does it mean then, apart from natural selection?
That is my view of Morrigan, and I certainly know what "Survival of the Fittest" mean.
She risks not her own skin, because anyone worthy to not be dead, will save their own skin -> Natural selection. She disagrees with helping others, because this interferes with natural selection.

She grew up in the wilds, if she doesn't adhere to "The Jungle Law"/"The Stronger Survives"(Survival of the Fittest), then I don't know who would ever adhere to it.

Tell me... How does her actions and personality deviate from said "law"?

[Havokk7]

Liable****sman wrote...
You call Sten, Shale, Zevran and hardened Leliana evil!?

Sten, not evil, no. Racist, sexist and bigoted, yes.
Shale, not evil. Amoral perhaps.
Zevran, an assassin (someone who kills for no other reason than money), an oath-breaker and turncoat (betrayed his masters and changed his allegience to you), who thinks things (leather things, in particular) are more important than people. Yes, I put him in the "evil" camp.
Leliana, a spy who seduces and/or kills people not only for the mission but also for fun. Never shows any remorse for all the people she swindled, embarassed, ruined the career of, murdered, tricked, stole from and conned. I put her in the "evil" cap. She might claim to be redeemed but I'm not seeing much remorse.
Morrigan, a calculating mercenary who doesn't care anything about anyone other than herself. Yes, I put her in the "evil" camp, though more "selfish" than "evil" perhaps, or maybe in the "grey" camp that the game is telling the story about.

None of these, however, are of the "Chaotic-Stupid" alignment that many D&D players think is the say "evil" acts.


B

[Crimson Invictus]

Liable****sman wrote...

That is my view of Morrigan, and I certainly know what "Survival of the Fittest" mean.

She risks not her own skin, because anyone worthy to not be dead will save their own skin -> Natural selection. She disagrees with helping others, because this interferes with natural selection.

I see.

"Survival of the fittest" means to fit the requirements of the niche in which that creature survives. You literally fit the best into that environment by being “better adapted for immediate, local environment”.It has nothing to do with an inability to save your own skin nor allowing others to die because they couldn’t.

Natural selection, by the way, relates to traits been lost or gained over a period of generations due to their effect upon the survival or reproductive capabilities of the species. It also has nothing at all to do with what you’re talking about.

Liable****sman wrote...
Only Morrigan wasn't really evil, she just adhered to a darwinistic "Survival of the fittest" rule.

Liable****sman wrote...
Tell me... How does her actions and personality deviate from said "law"?

I'm not sure Morrigan has any real thoughts about the ability of people to breed or has any real cause to attempt making certain phenotypic traits dominant.

Modifié par Liana Nighthawk, 14 décembre 2010 - 01:39 .

[Ryzaki]

Urazz wrote...

Liable****sman wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Really? So sacrificing your family for a minor power boost isn't a blatantly evil choice?

What are we talking about here?.

I'm assuming the sacrifice of the alienage elves for that power up from the slaver blood mage.  It's only sacrificing your family and friends if you are a city elf.

Anyways, I find Morrigan to be more 'survival of the fittest' and 'against the chantry' than evil.  And if it was based on those two then it was usually choices that helped strengthen the Warden's chances of defeating the blight.

If anything I'd peg her as more neutral evil than the chaotic evil with an agenda that you are hoping for.

That's what I meant. The fact that my CE couldn't punch her in the face for saying that was maddening.

And Morrigan always choses the laziest most narcisstic way. Not even the most convient. <_<

This thread goes into detail with nearly everything I find wrong with her.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 14 décembre 2010 - 01:43 .