216 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Outside of Leliana, Wynne, and Alistair, I don't see why the others would really care.

It does not have to be a matter of religious conviction. The others may simply object to the motivation of the PC, which is apparently to desecrate an alleged sacred artifact... for the sake of.... well, nothing reasonable that I can think of.

Sten seems to be an honest person, so I would wager that were anyone to ask him what would happen, he would say exactly what you did.

[GodWood]

In Exile wrote...
It does not have to be a matter of religious conviction. The others may simply object to the motivation of the PC, which is apparently to desecrate an alleged sacred artifact... for the sake of.... well, nothing reasonable that I can think of.

My Warden had the belief that it was either:
Fight his way through a cult, than fight a high dragon or...
Spill some blood on some ashes.

The latter seemed the most reasonable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Outside of Leliana, Wynne, and Alistair, I don't see why the others would really care.

It does not have to be a matter of religious conviction. The others may simply object to the motivation of the PC, which is apparently to desecrate an alleged sacred artifact... for the sake of.... well, nothing reasonable that I can think of.

Sten seems to be an honest person, so I would wager that were anyone to ask him what would happen, he would say exactly what you did.

Sten also might not realise that the desecration would offend the other companions.  If they've pledged themselves to follow the Warden, then he might expect them to accept every decision the Warden makes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

GodWood wrote...

In Exile wrote...
It does not have to be a matter of religious conviction. The others may simply object to the motivation of the PC, which is apparently to desecrate an alleged sacred artifact... for the sake of.... well, nothing reasonable that I can think of.

My Warden had the belief that it was either:
Fight his way through a cult, than fight a high dragon or...
Spill some blood on some ashes.

The latter seemed the most reasonable.

Good point.

[Aermas]

Being "good" is not what normal everyday people are, normal people will help others when it is relatively safe & easy for them to do so, like calling 911 after seeing a car crash. To be truly "good" one must commit themselves to helping others even when they are put in peril or disadvantage. "Evil" is to actively work against those that help others, & to promote this ideal. "It's not I'm going to kill this random person hahaha" That is a mental problem not a moral problem.



Lawful is the same way, truly lawful people will follow the law or oath or rules whatever the cost. & Chaotic people will do whatever they can to flout the rules. Chaostic-ness is not just deciding to break the rules when you see fit, it is a constant attack against the rules..

[mopotter]

Addai67 wrote...

mopotter wrote...

I wouldn't mind an evil companion, as long as I can kill them; tell them to go away or just have them take off because they don't agree with me. One of my wardens killed Zev. He attacked me. 

Is that your definition for "evil"?
If Zevran is evil, I'm for having an evil companion. 

Well, of all the DA:O companions he betrayed my warden.  But I didn't find any of them evil in the psychotic evil way.  I kept Zev around a couple of times and romanced him twice, but I had no trouble or sadness when I killed him after he attacked me.   

Main point is, I want to be able to kill or get rid of any companion I don't agree with.  No matter whether they are evil or good, if my character is the opposite I want the option to get them out of my group one way or the other.  

[Crimson Invictus]

Aermas wrote...
 & Chaotic people will do whatever they can to flout the rules. Chaostic-ness is not just deciding to break the rules when you see fit, it is a constant attack against the rules..

So acting chaotically shows a consistent behaviour?

Ironic.

Modifié par Liana Nighthawk, 15 décembre 2010 - 07:24 .

[Aermas]

Liana Nighthawk wrote...

Aermas wrote...
 & Chaotic people will do whatever they can to flout the rules. Chaostic-ness is not just deciding to break the rules when you see fit, it is a constant attack against the rules..

So acting chaotically shows a consistent behaviour?

Ironic.

Only with the dichotomy of the D&D Alignment system, that is one reason it's broken

[Liablecocksman]

Aermas wrote...

Lawful is the same way, truly lawful people will follow the law or oath or rules whatever the cost. & Chaotic people will do whatever they can to flout the rules. Chaostic-ness is not just deciding to break the rules when you see fit, it is a constant attack against the rules..

That's simply not true.
Or else we have different views on the matter.
My perspective of the d&d universe tells me that chaotic characters just view discipline and restrait as weaknesses. In my head chaotic characters don't just break rules for the sake of breaking rules, but becomes said rules prevents them from fullfilling their goal: Chaotic Good characters break the rule of "everyone deserves a fair trial, killing the assailant" because they know said "assailant" will somehow win the ensuing court-battle and be set free again. Chaotic Neutral characters break the rule of "don't steal" because they simply feel like stealing from some rich sod. Chaotic Evil characters simply revel in destruction and chaos, because they like seeing others suffer - if in some case NOT breaking the rules, will result in a worse fate for a person than ADHERING to the rules, I'm sure the Chaotic Evil character would adhere the rules. In essence they will side with whatever authority(!) they can, as long as this authority(!) permits them to wreaking havoc, or something.

While writing this, I have come to think that there are surely also characters I can recall, scattered about in my memories, that fit your definition(for an entirely other thread) - BUT!
There are, I think, many different archetypes for "Chaotic", being it Good, Neutral or Evil. How much value is placed in Chaotic, how much in Good/Neutral/Evil, how intelligent are they (shaping their actions), etc.

I doubt non-monster characters, excluding an extremely low-intelligence player character, would act in the way you describe.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 15 décembre 2010 - 11:19 .

[Aermas]

I'm talking extremes. There is no way to clearly define human behavior in two words. & if a chaotic person is not a total anarchist then they have a little bit of lawfulness in them, if a lawful person thinks that jaywalking is okay as long as no cars are passing & no one is on the streets then he is a little bit chaotic. & they both start sliding toward neutral.

[Liablecocksman]

Aermas wrote...

I'm talking extremes. There is no way to clearly define human behavior in two words. & if a chaotic person is not a total anarchist then they have a little bit of lawfulness in them, if a lawful person thinks that jaywalking is okay as long as no cars are passing & no one is on the streets then he is a little bit chaotic. & they both start sliding toward neutral.

But you can apply that to anything, it doesn't mean the D&D system is inherently flawed.
If you are, in real life, an EXTREME anarchist, you will also ALWAYS work against the rules, and thus exemplify consistent, chaotic behaviour.

DrRockso1551 wrote...

I want a companion that is evil but
we dont know that until the last second. Like the guy who always helps
you out and follows with you ideas only to betray you. When that
Happens I will grin and say "well played."

I would find this idea quite intriguing as well, with the only problem being that the PC couldn't do anything about in (in terms of dialogue or actions) if the PC suspects it (or on a later playthrough).
Said companion should be entirely optional(Unlike, say, Bishop in NWN2).

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 16 décembre 2010 - 03:48 .

[Celtic Latino]

ErichHartmann wrote...

I prefer morally ambiguous companions that are open to interpretation by the player.

This.

I would definitely say that most of the companions in Dragon Age were neither good nor evil.

Alistair generally preferred to do the right thing but he betrayed you if you spared Loghain and was selfish about his desires of taking the throne. Though he's more of a neutral good character, he had a major whiny, selfish streak as well (but I'd still consider him good).

Wynne always preached about doing the right thing but abandoned you over the ashes, not giving the warden a chance to give his or her reasoning, plus tended to do good to make herself feel better, sometimes just to make her feel good about herself. I think she believes herself to be good, but I'd probably consider her lawful neutral because she believes everyone should adhere to what she thinks the world should be like.

Leliana murdered, engaged in promiscuity, and spied for others, she is also a known liar. She also uses her religion as a shopping cart, taking what she wants and leaving the rest, which is inherently fine but you can't claim a religion without accepting all of it. She strikes me as a chaotic good character if you can believe her, or potentially chaotic neutral if she's using everything to make herself feel better, not because she wanted to change.
Loghain is a good example of an evil character. He ruled by tyranny and fear, he fervently believed he was right to the point of extreme xenophobia, using his pride to refuse help that could have saved Ferelden faster, sending assassins to kill those he believed to be his enemies, and betraying his son in law to get into power. He was also willing to have his own daughter locked up because she disagreed with him. He could be described as lawful evil from his actions, though he believes himself a lawful neutral type.

Morrigan, while definitely not inherently evil, is a far cry from a good or nice character. She is willing to engage in dark rituals and potentially unleash the old gods, using an infant for her own selfish needs, treating others poorly, and putting herself above overs. She could easily sway between the line of chaotic neutral (at best an individualist) and neutral evil (because she uses others to get ahead regardless of who or what gets hurt along the way).

Zevran I see similar to Morrigan. As he puts it himself, he was raised to be an assassin and only knows thievery, murder, lust, and prostitution. He swears an oath of loyalty to save himself from being killed but can potentially turn against the Warden when the Crows come later on. He's not afraid to use others for his pleasure or for getting ahead, and despite his one story of Rinna, he generally feels no remorse for his actions, and his romance can easily be described as friends with benefits, not even mutual love. I would consider him chaotic neutral at best, neutral evil at worst.

Sten on the other hand is most definitely not an evil character. He does an evil act by murdering the family, but shows genuine remorse and regret. He follows a Closed Fist path, believing others should be self sufficient. While he does have a black and white view of things, he does show signs of caring and is not against seeing a friend in the Warden and helping out. I would consider him lawful neutral because of the Qun, his personal code he does not sway from.

Oghren I would consider to be true or chaotic neutral. He seems to not care about anything aside from losing Branka. He takes what he can get and leaves it at that, no real morality for better or worse with him.

I prefer companions with moral dilemmas and ambiguity because black and white characters can be boring. Star Wars: KOTOR and Neverwinter Nights 2 were guilty of this (they are still great games), where some companions were excessively nicey nice while others were perpetual thugs with little to no humanity.
 
I hope DA: 2 continues in the same light as Origins, as you can really look at each character and have your own perspective.

[Celtic Latino]

DrRockso1551 wrote...

I want a companion that is evil but we dont know that until the last second. Like the guy who always helps you out and follows with you ideas only to betray you. When that Happens I will grin and say "well played."

Much like Kreia from KOTOR2. Would love a character like that, especially if it were a family member or elder type. : ) Morrigan may also fit this mold as her story isn't done yet

[KJandrew]

I'd love for there to be character (not necessarily a companion) who is very untrustworthy and very likely to betray you but you need to keep them around because you can't win without them

Modifié par KJandrew, 16 décembre 2010 - 06:36 .

[Liablecocksman]

KJandrew wrote...

I'd love for there to be character (not necessarily a companion) who is very untrustworthy and very likely to betray you but you need to keep them around because you can't win without them

I think that is a terrible idea.
I can only speak my own mind, obviously, but this is the main gripe I have with this type of characters: That you can't get rid of them.
Look at Bishop in NWN2, for instance. If you were playing a good(or even neutral) character, it was quite clear that Bishop would somehow screw you in the end. Hell - even an evil character would get screwed, they just had a way to ally with him again, shall we say.

I think that is a terrible design choice. Forced companions are NEVER a good thing, in my book. I think the fact the the story in DA:O was carried by Alistair only worked because he was also a Grey Warden. It made sense.
Beyond that, you should be able to tell any and all companions to leave, if that's what you want - like you can in DA:O.