89 réponses à ce sujet

[Giggles_Manically]

Wait which definition are we even using?

There are different ones in each new release of D and D.

[DRTJR]

You can't slay innocents with out Going to teh EVELZ, Lawful evil is the typical for the greater good regardless of who is in his way.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Anders is more about justice as an abstraction, though. He places it out of context and goes to whatever end to achieve it. Aren't Lawful Evil types about maintaining order? Anders is fighting against that completely.

[DRTJR]

Lawful evil and true neutral are the most morally fuzzy, The simplest definition of LE is evil with standers

[jlb524]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
The demon already got Merrill to trust it, come back to it, and learn blood magic from it. There's a *huge* history of mages making deals with demons and becoming abominations, and very, very few of mages dealing with demons and coming out the victors. I'd say the burden of proof lies in Merrill proving that she'll always be strong enough to overrule the demon, because the history of mages shows that dealing with demons is almost always a bad idea. Almost all of them knew that spirits are dangerous and have to be handled with care, but almost all of them still thought that they were the exception, and could get away with it.

I don't think Merrill trusted the demon though.  Merrill went back to the demon not because she trusted it's intentions, but because it was her only option.  At that time, the demon was her only source of knowledge but she was always cautious of dealing with it.  There is a 'history' of mages doing as you've said, but I'm usually wary of histories that come from the Chantry.  There are also in-game instances where Hawke can deal with a demon and get off free with no consequences.

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Blood magic may not be inherently corrupting any more than any other power, but there's a very good reason the adage goes "power corrupts". I think you're incorrect about the blood magic causality. Bad mages don't turn to it because it was criminalized. It was criminalized because bad mages turned to it.

No, I agree that blood magic was criminalized for a reason by the Chantry (the Tevinters and all that)....similar to the drug analogy.  However, the situation becomes worse once it has been criminalized and they type of people that now turn to it don't particularly care about following the rules.

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I'm not sure where you get that demons are single-minded and predictable. Demons are merely spirits with specific goals. Their goals vary, and so do their methods.

I'm thinking b/c a demon represents one part of the psyche that you have an advantage when dealing with one.  I admit that the other things can vary, but you will have an advantage against a demon knowing its nature vs. a human where you have no clue as to what his/her basic motivations are.  Using Anders as an example, I wasn't too surprised over the direction he went with the Justice spirit.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

That doesn't mean she's too strong to be corrupted. The fact that she even considered going back to the demon indicates that it's already got a hold on her, rather than, say, look elsewhere, or do other things that may help the elves.

Where else could she go though?  The main theme I take from Merrill's story is one of desperation in the elven condition.  There's quite frankly very little knowledge left from the ancient elves in the form of text and given that she's an elven apostate she can't just walk into the Circle and ask for needed supplies.

The bottom line is that she feels the restoration of ancient elven magic and lore is the best way to aid the elves and possibly empower them.  There's not much to be done through political channels given that elves are horribly oppressed throughout Thedas...and mages to boot.

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Then how can we trust her judgement when she says she's strong enough to not give in to the demon's temptations? 

Well, I don't think one has to claim to be an all-knowing expert on the subject to warrant a degree of trust.  She does know quite a bit and Hawke (or at least, my Hawke) trusts her in that.   I think Merrill knows enough not to unbind the demon and let it possess her, especially considering she can still get the demon's assistance while bound to the statue.

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I'm not sure that's the case. And in doing so, she loses sight of those very others she's doing it for. She ignored the pleas of Marethari and clan to stop with the demon and with what she was doing. If she's ultimately doing it for other people, I'd hope that she'd actually listen to those other people.

But if she thinks those other people are wrong then what?  I always got the impression that she was trying to help 'the elves' in the abstract...including future elves that weren't even born yet.  She wanted to restore something lost to all of them to give them a morale boost, so to speak.  Individual elves might not agree with it or think it's wrong, but she's under no obligation to listen to them if she thinks the project could do some good for her race overall.  There are precedents for things like this in our own world...people exploring uncharted worlds to advance their kingdom even if others feel it's foolish and dangerous.

hoorayforicecream wrote...
But all it takes is a little to start. Maybe she doesn't use a human. Maybe she uses an animal instead. Maybe that's all it takes to start with. But if it keeps up, maybe the animals aren't enough anymore. Then some thug tries to knife her, and she almost kills him in self-defense. But he lives. He's never going to be missed, and he's obviously a bad guy. You see how such a slippery slope type situation might happen? I have a harder time seeing Fenris or Isabela in a similar situation. In their cases, they grow *away* from the source of their trouble over the years, while Merrill moves closer towards it.

There's no indication that Merrill does this, though.  The slippery slope could work with the others as well (if Fenris is given to Danarius and if Isabela leaves Hawke stranded in Kirkwall with the Qunari mess). 

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Isabela actually changes for the better. Temptation for Isabela isn't really that big a deal, because she doesn't have any sort of grand ideas. Her goal is to get a ship and sail. That's all there is to it. She doesn't care to have the biggest ship, or the fastest ship, or whatever. She just wants to be free, and that's not going to happen unless somebody has something dangling over her like death, with Castillon, and even then it's still under duress - she'd never really do it of her own will, it'd be more of "if I don't do this, I'm going to die".

'Personal Freedom' is a grand ideal for Isabela though. 

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I suppose that Fenris could become utterly consumed by his desire for revenge and become a merciless killer of any who stand in his way if they had written him like that, but his situation really doesn't play out that way. He actually kind of mellows out over the years.

Right, and I argue that Merrill also changes over the years to become 'better'. 

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I disagree. Spirits don't really fear anything, because they can't die. Even if you kill them in the physical realm or the fade, they just dissipate, then come back again later. If it's been trapped in the statue, it's just a matter of time before it gets out. Eventually the seals will break down, or someone will free it, or whatever. It might be boring, but for a creature that has forever, it really doesn't matter. All it's got to do in the meantime is plan and try to figure out what it wants to do once it gets free. It's not in a weakened position, because that implies that there can be some sort of actual consequence to it staying there. The only real consequence is possibly boredom.

They don't fear death of course.  But being stuck in a statue doesn't give them as many options as being free in the Fade. It's not so much a problem of fear but a problem of limited options.  I think it is a weakend position considering it takes powerful magic to let Audacity out and most mages won't do it knowing that the demon is just as capable of assisting them bound as it is 'free'.

[jlb524]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Anders is more about justice as an abstraction, though. He places it out of context and goes to whatever end to achieve it. Aren't Lawful Evil types about maintaining order? Anders is fighting against that completely.

I interpret 'Justice' as being independent law and chaos as some laws could be seen as just while others...not so much.

'Justice' is often seen as a noble and good ideal, though.  So, you could say that 'Justice' is neutral good in that sense.

[ipgd]

DRTJR wrote...

You can't slay innocents with out Going to teh EVELZ, Lawful evil is the typical for the greater good regardless of who is in his way.

That's basically a description of chaotic good, not lawful evil. Neither lawful nor evil really describe Anders.

Chaotic/neutral/lawful is about action, good/neutral/evil is about intent. And Anders certainly means well, and believes the innocents who must die are justified by his cause.

Modifié par ipgd, 14 juillet 2011 - 03:44 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

DRTJR wrote...

You can't slay innocents with out Going to teh EVELZ, Lawful evil is the typical for the greater good regardless of who is in his way.

That's... not lawful evil.

Lawful evil is evil in concert with upholding order or some code. Usually the "law of the land." Meredith at the beginning of the game is the definition of Lawful Evil, before she starts going beyond the law, at which point she becomes neutral evil.

You can kill people who are a part of an evil organization while remaining chaotic good. You should try all other methods before you resort to it (and he did) but in the end, that's what the chaotic part means. If you just chose the "good" option every single time, valuing the goodness of an act over its utility or lawfulness, you'd be neutral good. I'm not going to claim that Anders is neutral good, that's preposterous.

Lawful good thinks that there are strong and strict rules of order, and we must follow them at all times. Sometimes the greater good must be sacrificed to uphold the law, but for the most part, you seek to do those acts that result in the greatest amount of order or hewing to your own code and the greatest amount of good.

Chaotic good thinks that whatever you do for good is fine, and if it involves taking down THE MAN, then so much the better. If you have two ways to do good, and one is working within the system, and the other is slightly less good but it takes THE MAN down a peg or two, well it's time to burn some stuff DOWN.  Elthina personifies both the evil of turning a blind eye to suffering and she also represents THE MAN, so blowing her up is the perfect chaotic good act.

[jlb524]

Yeah, most evil characters tend to avoid doing things for the 'greater good'.

Lawful Evil characters manipulate the existing social and political structures for their own gain and theirs alone.

[CrimsonZephyr]

jlb524 wrote...

Yeah, most evil characters tend to avoid doing things for the 'greater good'.

Lawful Evil characters manipulate the existing social and political structures for their own gain and theirs alone.

Er, no, that's Neutral Evil. Lawful Evils govern through a greater amount of fear and oppression than a Lawful Neutral, but they are still loyal to a code, a government, a power of some sort. Neutral evil is more selfish. There is no higher cause.

[jlb524]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Yeah, most evil characters tend to avoid doing things for the 'greater good'.

Lawful Evil characters manipulate the existing social and political structures for their own gain and theirs alone.

Er, no, that's Neutral Evil. Lawful Evils govern through a greater amount of fear and oppression than a Lawful Neutral, but they are still loyal to a code, a government, a power of some sort. Neutral evil is more selfish. There is no higher cause.

I always thought they were loyal to a code because they could benefit from it...which is where all the fear and oppression comes in.

[CaptainZaysh]

D&D alignments are retarded. Any system of morality that codifies blowing up a place of worship full of innocent people as an act of goodness has got some real problems. By that rationale the 9/11 hijackers were Chaotic Good.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

It all depends on your definition of innocent people. In my mind, Elthina was the administrator of an evil regime. It's the classic "blowing up the death star" question: is it wrong to destroy an enemy installation if most of the people working on it are technically civilians? 

Addendum: if someone who is technically in command of someone who commits atrocities fails to stop them, and in fact allows such atrocities to continue, are they culpable for said atrocities?

It was an attack on an enemy with collatoral damage, rather than an attempt to kill as many innocents as possible. There's a big difference, there.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 14 juillet 2011 - 09:52 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Anders cant follow any lawful alignment since those people follow a strict code.

From Tvtropes:
Chaotic Good: Rebels and free spirits who are more often than not seen opposing tyrants and other oppressive types. Somewhat like Chaotic Neutral, only much nicer. They tend to believe that things like order, discipline, and honor get in the way of doing good. Or they may believe too much order is bad for everyone. Whatever their stance is, they act on their ideals before they let laws get in the way, and sometimes they dare the laws to get in the way. Whether they're portrayed as Big Damn Heroes, too damn idealistic, a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, or just a damn problem depends on the views of the author and, ultimately, readers.

I would say that fits Anders., with just a splash of Chaotic Neutral:

Chaotic Neutral: The ultimate free spirits, or just lunatics? It can go either way. Chaotic Neutral characters are all about freedom, and don't care so much about morality. Sometimes they're just amoral nutjobs, and sometimes they're generally good people with a wild streak that sometimes leads them into bad things. Often used by players in Tabletop Games to excuse doing anything they feel like (in the case of a Game Master who disables evil alignments - see Neutral Evil, below), and often prohibited by the sort of Game Master who also prohibits outright evil characters. Like Lawful Neutral, however, how "good" they ultimately end up seeming depends on which side of Order Versus Chaos the plot tends toward. The toadlike slaad ("I didn't know what he was talking about, so I ate him."), inhabitants of Limbo, are Chaotic Neutral.

[DRTJR]

Anders is evil, it is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. blowing up the chantry full of innocent people is an act of serious F***ing EVIL, anders is an abomination that is willing to kill indiscriminately to obtain his objective which was a WAR betwine the Circles of thedas and the Templar orders. You don't get much more evil than that.

[Chiramu]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Anders cant follow any lawful alignment since those people follow a strict code.

From Tvtropes:
Chaotic Good: Rebels and free spirits who are more often than not seen opposing tyrants and other oppressive types. Somewhat like Chaotic Neutral, only much nicer. They tend to believe that things like order, discipline, and honor get in the way of doing good. Or they may believe too much order is bad for everyone. Whatever their stance is, they act on their ideals before they let laws get in the way, and sometimes they dare the laws to get in the way. Whether they're portrayed as Big Damn Heroes, too damn idealistic, a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, or just a damn problem depends on the views of the author and, ultimately, readers.

I would say that fits Anders., with just a splash of Chaotic Neutral:

Chaotic Neutral: The ultimate free spirits, or just lunatics? It can go either way. Chaotic Neutral characters are all about freedom, and don't care so much about morality. Sometimes they're just amoral nutjobs, and sometimes they're generally good people with a wild streak that sometimes leads them into bad things. Often used by players in Tabletop Games to excuse doing anything they feel like (in the case of a Game Master who disables evil alignments - see Neutral Evil, below), and often prohibited by the sort of Game Master who also prohibits outright evil characters. Like Lawful Neutral, however, how "good" they ultimately end up seeming depends on which side of Order Versus Chaos the plot tends toward. The toadlike slaad ("I didn't know what he was talking about, so I ate him."), inhabitants of Limbo, are Chaotic Neutral.

THIS is definitely Anders.

Anders can't be evil because he would be going against Justice inside of him if he were evil.

Everything Anders' did was (in his mind) for "the greater good". To those who say he's evil, you need to read more and meet more people, or watch the news .

[DRTJR]

From TvTropes Lawful Evil type 2
•Type 2 is a baddie with a code of honor (personal order) that prevents them from doing truly heinous things. The second type tends to either perform a Heel Face Turn or suffer death by redemption. These tend to be reliable allies in an Enemy Mine situation where alignments would fizzle out. The alternative is that they ultimately choose evil over this and cross the Moral Event Horizon. Note that these two types are not mutually exclusive.

[CaptainZaysh]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

It all depends on your definition of innocent people. In my mind, Elthina was the administrator of an evil regime. It's the classic "blowing up the death star" question: is it wrong to destroy an enemy installation if most of the people working on it are technically civilians? 

Addendum: if someone who is technically in command of someone who commits atrocities fails to stop them, and in fact allows such atrocities to continue, are they culpable for said atrocities?

It was an attack on an enemy with collatoral damage, rather than an attempt to kill as many innocents as possible. There's a big difference, there.

Nahhhhh.

The Death Star was a weapon, populated entirely by uniformed soldiers.  Legitimate target, no question.

Kirkwall's Chantry was a civilian place of worship, full of civilians and religious workers.  Blowing it up to get Elthina would be just like firing a Tomahawk into the Faisal Mosque to get Mullah Omar.

[CaptainZaysh]

Chiramu wrote...

Everything Anders' did was (in his mind) for "the greater good".

So was everything the 9/11 hijackers did, I'm sure.  Does that mean you look at this incredibly sad photograph and think "Chaotic Good"?

Chiramu wrote...
To those who say he's evil, you need to read more and meet more people, or watch the news .

NO U.

[Wulfram]

Merrill is Neutral Good IMO.  She's selfless to an unhealthy degree.  Maybe her mirror obsession could have moved her towards evil, but the death of Marethari seems to have snapped that somewhat even on friendship path

Anders is Chaotic Good .  But he's possessed by a "spirit" whose idea of Justice is murdering people for thinking he's scary, and in the end surrenders to it as the only way of ending the war for his mind.

Isabela is CN.  Starting out on the evil side, but if she comes back with the relic then she gets better.

Varric is probably TN, maybe CN.  He's not particularly selfless, though he cares about his friends and disapproves of needless violence.  He is casual about his own lawbreaking, but doesn't have any real ideological belief in freedom

Fenris is mostly CG, but more LE when dealing with mages.

[Rinji the Bearded]

From Wikipedia:

Chaotic Good is known as the "Beatific," "Rebel," or "Cynic" alignment. A
Chaotic Good character favors change for a greater good, disdains
bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement,
and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but
for others as well. They always intend to do the right thing, but their
methods are generally disorganized and often out of alignment with the
rest of society. They may create conflict in a team if they feel they
are being pushed around, and often view extensive organization and
planning as pointless, preferring to improvise.

While they do not have evil intentions, they may do bad things (even though they will not enjoy doing these things) to people who are, in their opinion, bad people, if it benefits the greater good.

Anders is Chaotic Good.  He perceives the Chantry as being something that forces the status quo, and that isn't good for mages at large.  Yes, people died because of his actions, people who are perceived as good, but he did not share the same perception.

It doesn't matter what YOUR perception of his actions are.  It's all about HIS perceptions.  

Sheesh it's like none of you have ever played DnD before.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 14 juillet 2011 - 01:48 .