81 réponses à ce sujet

[HolyAvenger]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

What does their "innocence" have to do with anything? Do we call them innocent in order to elevate them unreasonably? They live in filth and squalor and do not contribute anything to society. It's doubtful that they could do so, given how their "free" brethren choose to live like savages.

Er what? He enslaves then offers to butcher a bunch of people. How is that anything but reprehensible?

As for your list: I'm not sure what this Vaughan actually did. I know he's the son of the former Arl of Denerim, so he probably caused the civil disorder in the Alienage, at least in part. Awful, but certainly not the same as the aforementioned.

Kidnapped a bunch of elven women and raped your cousin. Play the city elf origin.

[antigravitycat]

Some people's disrespect for life is concerning. Also that they assume they have the right to judge everybody else. And the elves certainly chose to live in filth and squalor. They could just walk out of the alienages and make tons of money with lyrium potioning! Eh, the short sightedness...

(edit: typo)

Modifié par antigravitycat, 04 mars 2011 - 05:57 .

[Emperor Iaius I]

Belrix wrote...

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

"Odd that neither of them recognized the human noble at Denerim before the Landsmeet or refused to recognize the surviving Couseland since they were familiar with them and met."

I take it you refer to their first confrontation, at Lord Redcliffe's estate? They'll recognize a Cousland Warden if she uses one of the specific lines for the Human Noble.

No, I refer to when you first arrive at Denerim with the Arl of Redcliff, prior to the Landsmeet, and then met by Logaine, Howe and miss clueless loyalty.  They act as if they have never seen you...

Yes. Unless you pick the option "I demand blood rights! This man murdered my family" or any similar ones (if available), they treat you like any other Warden. You're right that it's odd, but they do recognize you. . . provided that you say something.

HolyAvenger wrote...

Er what? He enslaves then offers to butcher a bunch of people. How is that anything but reprehensible?

[. . . ]

Kidnapped a bunch of elven women and raped your cousin. Play the city elf origin.

Well, I suppose the question is reprehensible to whom, no? To anybody in the 21st century (I hope), enslavement and/or blood sacrifices is beyond the pale of acceptable behavior. But I'd presume we're talking about things from the perspective of the characters in the game, at which point things become more complicated.

For instance, not every party member objects to working with Caladrius. Similarly, I'd imagine his magister brethren would have no issues with that sort of thing because of the way they've framed their polity. An Orlesian Chevalier might be shocked at the idea of blood magic, but might not care about what happens to a bunch of elves. A Fereldan bann might be shocked at the very notion of slavery in their fair *cough* city, but wouldn't go far enough to advocate that the elves have better living conditions than the ghetto they've left them to live in--and so on.

I would have thought putting the Grand Cleric on my list was clear enough, but perhaps I ought to preface my posts with "pretend I'm an evil blood mage with a twisted sense of morality" or somesuch, lest I be instructed never to speak to certain people again.

As for the city elf origin, hm. I suppose I should play it at some point--I've only went through half of the origins as it is. It reminds me a great deal of what that Orlesian woman said at the marketplace; the chevaliers were known to do similar things.

It's easy to call murderers, rapists, and slavers reprehensible. It's a more interesting exercise, I feel, to see who's most reprehensible even by the social standards of the time and place. Were someone to say "oh, but they're just elves," a player of the game might be reminded of similar statements made about groups of people in real life and they'd be rightly horrified. However, in the game, such a comment might well be commonplace.

[rayvioletta]

interesting point and I agree that some of it does come down to perspective

for example, if you assume that Cailan is an arrogant brat whose ego is endangering his entire army and the Battle of Ostagar was already lost then Loghain isn't so much guilty of desertion and regicide but could be seen as having made the right call to escape. but of course his case is not helped by the fact that he had clearly decided on this course of action in advance regardless of the actual state of battle, he was certain Cailan had doomed them to a terrible loss and pretended to offer support he had no intention of giving. but if your character is unaware or choses not to believe the latter, it's easier to see Loghain in a more positive light
Bhelen is another prime example. from a dwarf noble perspective he's practically an evil genius, but from a dwarf commoner he represents the best and only hope for the Castless to have any kind of future. you have to dig pretty deep to find anything beyond mere rumour to show him as being anything but a hero, and even then the only solid proof of his involvement in Trian's murder is from playing the noble origin

luckily it's easy to find Soris in Howes dungeon before Vaughn so by the time you meet that particular monster you know exactly what he's capable of, unless of course you chose to think Soris is lying. it's one of the interesting things about DA, not only do we have a lot of choice on how we behave but playing the game in different ways lets us see new perspectives on some things

[Ryzaki]

Loghain, Vaughn, Howe

Mostly those three.

[Persephone]

In DAO Bioware succeeded at writing antagonists that define shades of grey.

However, people like Vaughan and Howe disgust me.

Cailan's shiny armor doesn't excuse his treachery against his wife, his country and his father's legacy in my book. Never mind his whinging about there being no archdemon sightings, boo hoo, it's not a true Blight! Argh!

[Joy Divison]

antigravitycat wrote...

Joy Division, when you let Bella take over the bar and Lloyd survives the attack, you can see a bit of a change in his alignment, I got the impression. I agree on Zathrian, but never killed him, lifting the curse seems more benefitial for all.

Yes, I've seen the reformed Lloyd one time out of curiosity.  But everytime I role-play the game I find it difficult to divert from the murder by zombie route.  There's absolutely nothing about his character when you meet him in the bar to demonstrate to me he is a candidate for redemption.

I also agree the lifting the curse ending is more benefitial for all.  It doesn't make Zathrian any less reprensible considering the only means to bring it about is to slice his throat.

From a role-play persepective, I find it hard to get the sacrifice.  When swiftrunner says "Kill them all," you aren;t in an enviable position.  If you fight Zathrian and kill him (which would be the most likely outcome without metagaming), then the curse can never be lifted and would have to side with the werewolves since you can't get the aid of the Dalish.  Most of my GWs think they are forced to side with Zathrian to get the help of the Dalish and figure at some point in the future an fatal "accident" can be arranged for Zathrian.  Of course when he tells you his apprentice knows the cure...

[TJPags]

Belrix wrote...

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

"Odd that neither of them recognized the human noble at Denerim before the Landsmeet or refused to recognize the surviving Couseland since they were familiar with them and met."

I take it you refer to their first confrontation, at Lord Redcliffe's estate? They'll recognize a Cousland Warden if she uses one of the specific lines for the Human Noble.

No, I refer to when you first arrive at Denerim with the Arl of Redcliff, prior to the Landsmeet, and then met by Logaine, Howe and miss clueless loyalty.  They act as if they have never seen you...

Game issue.  If you're not a HN, then Howe has never met you, and Loghain has seen you once (with Duncan at the strategy meeting) or possibly twice (if you seek him out when you first get to Ostagar - I'm pretty sure you can do that even if not a HN).  He's not likely to remember your face so well.

[TJPags]

Persephone wrote...

In DAO Bioware succeeded at writing antagonists that define shades of grey.

However, people like Vaughan and Howe disgust me.

Cailan's shiny armor doesn't excuse his treachery against his wife, his country and his father's legacy in my book. Never mind his whinging about there being no archdemon sightings, boo hoo, it's not a true Blight! Argh!

Come on.  He was, at worst, considering divorcing her.  Hardly rises to the level of treachery or make him reprehensible. 

[LobselVith8]

For me, the most morally reprehensible character is Arl Vaughan. He kidnaps women out of the Alienage to rape them. My favorite part of the dungeon is killing him.

[HolyAvenger]

TJPags wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Cailan's shiny armor doesn't excuse his treachery against his wife, his country and his father's legacy in my book. Never mind his whinging about there being no archdemon sightings, boo hoo, it's not a true Blight! Argh!

Come on.  He was, at worst, considering divorcing her.  Hardly rises to the level of treachery or make him reprehensible. 

Not only that, but this was surely one of the things Cailan was doing right given that Anora wasn't getting pregnant.

[TJPags]

HolyAvenger wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Cailan's shiny armor doesn't excuse his treachery against his wife, his country and his father's legacy in my book. Never mind his whinging about there being no archdemon sightings, boo hoo, it's not a true Blight! Argh!

Come on.  He was, at worst, considering divorcing her.  Hardly rises to the level of treachery or make him reprehensible. 

Not only that, but this was surely one of the things Cailan was doing right given that Anora wasn't getting pregnant.

We don't objectively know if that was her fault, his fault, or some combination. 

Also, as I'm sure someone will point out, Anora claims he was cheating on her.  I bring that up because, if true, it may be considered evidence that it was his fault she wasn't pregnant.

However, I'm not sure that, even if the cheating is added in, that it rises to the level of reprehensible.

[HolyAvenger]

No we don't, but it was a solution, adopted by plenty of real world kings in the past.

As for in-game vs out-game definitions of reprehensible- of course that depends on how your RP your characters. I've RP'd some nice and some not so nice ones. But like I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm not much of a moral relatavist. Vaughan, Howe, Caladrius and others cross lines that I and my characters think are beyond the pale and hence are to be called reprehensible. Of course that is from my own perspective. If you're a twisted-evil-blood-mage then probably the templars are reprehensible I guess.

[Emperor Iaius I]

Well, the Chantry is, at any rate. The templars are simply lyrium-addled thralls of the Grand Cleric: slaves enslaving the mages. Templars and mages are useful to the Chantry, but the moment either try to challenge the Chantry's dominance, they are struck down. The Chantry controls everything: even kings answer to them. The only thing that matters to the Chantry is its own power, and it will continue its never ending march to hear its Chant sung from the four corners of the world.

[HolyAvenger]

But if you're a power-hungry blood-mage, then by that definition the Chantry is exactly the same as you only more succesful. Hence hardly reprehensible.

[Emperor Iaius I]

Only from the perspective of an outside, third party (you, for example). A blood mage would be unlikely to frame their own perspective as "evil" and therefore would either distinguish their actions from those of the Chantry, or say that their position was good a priori and leave it at that.

Reversing the positions, an Andrastian like Wynne or Leliana would not characterize the Chantry's actions as immoral. The Divine, Grand Clerics, and Revered Mothers certainly wouldn't. The Chant of Light, by definition, gives them the moral justification to do as they see fit. I'm sure you can imagine that the religious precepts of the Imperium provide similar definitional shields.

Hence perspective. On close examination, both positions appear quite similar and it forces one to question why the Chantry is "good" and the blood mages are "evil."

But let's say the third party protests, saying this is just perspective bias. I answer: of course it is! If I wanted to, I'm sure I could find something morally reprehensible about every character position that the game can possibly let you take: and that's likely by design. So why should we hold some positions as more acceptable than others just because the Chant of Light and Andrastian precepts have been lain down as normative?

After all, if all blood mages must be slain no matter what because of their history with Andrastians, then one wonders if that doesn't also apply to elves because of their own history with early humanity. I find little morally superior about the society that criticizes elven slavery, yet is willing to segregate them into such awful conditions: at least the Imperium is willing to take them from that situation and bring them into a society where they're equal to everybody else (everybody who isn't a mage, that is).

[Xilizhra]

Branka is too insane to be really evil. Caladrius is a slaver among slavers, and nothing special. Marjolaine is pretty bad, but she seems to be driven more by obsession than actual malice. Loghain at least had good intentions and reforms. We never meet the Grand Cleric, even though Id on't like the Chantry either.

It almost comes down to a tie between Howe and Vaughan for me, but I give Howe the edge because Vaughan is younger and dumber.

After all, if all blood mages must be slain no matter what because of their history with Andrastians, then one wonders if that doesn't also apply to elves because of their own history with early humanity. I find little morally superior about the society that criticizes elven slavery, yet is willing to segregate them into such awful conditions: at least the Imperium is willing to take them from that situation and bring them into a society where they're equal to everybody else (everybody who isn't a mage, that is).

While saying that I support the Tevinter Imperium is going too far, I fully agree with this statement. The Fereldan supposed ideology of freedom makes this even more annoying.

[Wedger]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Cammen. His existance offends me like nothing else.

I agree.  He was more concerned about getting a girl in bed then the fate of his fellow elves. 

[Mox Ruuga]

I appreciate your point, Emperor Iaius.

But for us to consider the morality of the setting through time appropriate glasses would be something more fitting for say, A Song of Ice and Fire, if you know the book series, one of the supposed inspirations of Dragon Age.
While Dragon Age makes baby steps towards presenting a credible "dark ages" medieval setting, it is still mired in modern pop culture depictions of the fantasy age of sword and sorcery. The equality of women, the non oppression of sexual minorities, the general lack of grit (yes, Dragon Age is "grittier" than Baldur's Gate, but still a far cry from the real thing), etc.

You cannot really roleplay a "period appropriate" knightly "hero", without being considered a villain by many characters.

I'm not sure if a realistic "dark ages" simulation could even be made, beacuse of all the flagrantly un pc material it would need to contain. What's "worse", it would need to depict some pretty abhorrent behaviour as something acceptable, or even virtuous, which would in turn cause the professional outrager set in media and online to flare up.

[Persephone]

TJPags wrote...

Persephone wrote...

In DAO Bioware succeeded at writing antagonists that define shades of grey.

However, people like Vaughan and Howe disgust me.

Cailan's shiny armor doesn't excuse his treachery against his wife, his country and his father's legacy in my book. Never mind his whinging about there being no archdemon sightings, boo hoo, it's not a true Blight! Argh!

Come on.  He was, at worst, considering divorcing her.  Hardly rises to the level of treachery or make him reprehensible. 

In Medieval times this was the worst you could to to a woman. Leaving her dishonored, disgraced and shamed. While he'd happily have gone on to marry Celene, a woman older than Anora. So much for divorcing a woman not yet thirty because she has failed as a royal breeding machine. Sickening! Henry VIIIish, that's what that is!

[Persephone]

HolyAvenger wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Cailan's shiny armor doesn't excuse his treachery against his wife, his country and his father's legacy in my book. Never mind his whinging about there being no archdemon sightings, boo hoo, it's not a true Blight! Argh!

Come on.  He was, at worst, considering divorcing her.  Hardly rises to the level of treachery or make him reprehensible. 

Not only that, but this was surely one of the things Cailan was doing right given that Anora wasn't getting pregnant.

Oh really? She wasn't even 30 yet. Even Henry VIII waited till Katherine Of Aragon was past 40 before he tossed her aside like a broken toy. And marrying Celene, a woman much older than Anora, based on THAT? Hypocrisy at its worst. 

[harryriedl]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

I appreciate your point, Emperor Iaius.

But for us to consider the morality of the setting through time appropriate glasses would be something more fitting for say, A Song of Ice and Fire, if you know the book series, one of the supposed inspirations of Dragon Age.
While Dragon Age makes baby steps towards presenting a credible "dark ages" medieval setting, it is still mired in modern pop culture depictions of the fantasy age of sword and sorcery. The equality of women, the non oppression of sexual minorities, the general lack of grit (yes, Dragon Age is "grittier" than Baldur's Gate, but still a far cry from the real thing), etc.

You cannot really roleplay a "period appropriate" knightly "hero", without being considered a villain by many characters.

I'm not sure if a realistic "dark ages" simulation could even be made, beacuse of all the flagrantly un pc material it would need to contain. What's "worse", it would need to depict some pretty abhorrent behaviour as something acceptable, or even virtuous, which would in turn cause the professional outrager set in media and online to flare up.

I disagree certianly looking at the darkness of the witcher and the sucess it has gained you do a dark rather unplesent world. Also thinking about how the warhammer world (both fantasy and 40K) the medevil trates you associate with making a credible dark age fantasy is do able. oppression, racism, religious fanatism, sexism, ignorance ect some of many of which is seen as postive trates, this is partiularly apparent in Warhammer a nice quote of this is 'an open mind is like a fortress with its gates open'. I know Bioware got a little burned with mass effect media controvercy. I for one would want as dark as possible, ideally forcing the player charature to have to have to be as morally compromised as the rest. This I think the Witcher dose this well.

I found Vaugne upleasent to return on topic

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Calian might be naive, overeager and unfaithful to his wife but that really isn't high on the list given all the other characters in the game. Ducan believed in Calain's strategy so, I'm pretty sure the implication was that it would have worked if it wasn't for Loghain's betrayal.

As far as characters go, OTHER than things like the Archdemon or any of the darkspawn and demons and ghouls and abominations and such, I'd probably say Arl Howe was the worst.

After him I'd say Branka, Sten and Vaughn.

Branka lead her house to their doom and then allowed the woman to be transformed into broodmothers to try to reach the Anvil, although I suppose she does mention that they were already infected with the taint.

Vaughn is a racist rapist spoiled tyrant.

Sten is a child murderer. I left him to die in his cage without remorse on my first and second playthrough.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 05 mars 2011 - 10:24 .

[Emperor Iaius I]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

I appreciate your point, Emperor Iaius.

But for us to consider the morality of the setting through time appropriate glasses would be something more fitting for say, A Song of Ice and Fire, if you know the book series, one of the supposed inspirations of Dragon Age.
While Dragon Age makes baby steps towards presenting a credible "dark ages" medieval setting, it is still mired in modern pop culture depictions of the fantasy age of sword and sorcery. The equality of women, the non oppression of sexual minorities, the general lack of grit (yes, Dragon Age is "grittier" than Baldur's Gate, but still a far cry from the real thing), etc.

You cannot really roleplay a "period appropriate" knightly "hero", without being considered a villain by many characters.

I'm not sure if a realistic "dark ages" simulation could even be made, beacuse of all the flagrantly un pc material it would need to contain. What's "worse", it would need to depict some pretty abhorrent behaviour as something acceptable, or even virtuous, which would in turn cause the professional outrager set in media and online to flare up.

I would agree except in that the game allows you those options: you are allowed to let Caladrius bribe you (which, honestly, is far worse: he's only doing what's appropriate in his society, whereas you're taking a bribe to allow something that's inappropriate in Fereldan society) and you are allowed to let Caladrius use the blood magic ritual on you. Characters may agree and disagree, but the absence of a light/dark scale (as in KOTOR or JE) to accompany these options is rather telling.

The equality of women, the non-oppression of sexual minorities, and all of that is a feature of Fereldan society for the most part. Yet as the store of Aveline goes, such thinking is far from universal. Even in Ferelden, people comment on how a female human noble acts manly by becoming a warrior--curious, no? 

And really, I'd say that the non-oppression of sexual minorities is actually a sign that this *isn't* meant to be taken through a modern perspective. Sexual minorities are treated far worse today than they were treated in antiquity, where nobody cared for the most part (only sort of).

If there were a light/dark meter, you would be correct. I think the lack of such a meter is intentional, and I think the cruelty of the Chantry--the supposed arbiter of good--is telling that morality is a matter of perspective. Or, more accurately, nobody's truly "good." You can play that way, certainly: but you also don't have to.

edit: And yes, I'm familiar with ASOIAF. Great series.

Modifié par Emperor Iaius I, 05 mars 2011 - 10:49 .

[TJPags]

Persephone wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Persephone wrote...

In DAO Bioware succeeded at writing antagonists that define shades of grey.

However, people like Vaughan and Howe disgust me.

Cailan's shiny armor doesn't excuse his treachery against his wife, his country and his father's legacy in my book. Never mind his whinging about there being no archdemon sightings, boo hoo, it's not a true Blight! Argh!

Come on.  He was, at worst, considering divorcing her.  Hardly rises to the level of treachery or make him reprehensible. 

In Medieval times this was the worst you could to to a woman. Leaving her dishonored, disgraced and shamed. While he'd happily have gone on to marry Celene, a woman older than Anora. So much for divorcing a woman not yet thirty because she has failed as a royal breeding machine. Sickening! Henry VIIIish, that's what that is!

Well . . . let's just put this on the list of things you and I will disagree about.