147 réponses à ce sujet

[Huntress]

Can it be killed? thats all i want to know can MY character kill it..

Anders was evil, so is the chantry tell me: If the chantry stoped every templar from raping/using torture physical or mentally against mages and stoped turning mages who pased the harrowing a total veggy, will Anders still want to blow up the heart of the templars in kirkwall? I don't think so.  And for vengance he would get so bored that he will try to leave Anders before the night is out.

So yea for every action there is a reaction, Would my hawke had spare Ser Alrik after what he was planning for Ella? No. you call my hawke what ever you please, am totally sure My hawke will kill every templar who rape/toruture or try to take over a city forgetting that his role is not to rule over people but to serve under the chantry, to abuse of mages when his job is to protect them from themselves, my hawke doens't need to be possesd by justice she already knows the meaning of it and will fight for it, as a mage or not.

Modifié par Huntress, 12 janvier 2012 - 07:49 .

[ColGali]

Slayer299 wrote...

^ That pretty much says it for me.

@Plaintiff - And yes, Anders was evil. because his cause, right or wrong, he murdered innocents and thought that was fine. The whole "ends justify the means crap".

True... Anders is Chaotic Evil and not a "shade of grey..."

[blaidfiste]

ladyofpayne wrote...

Oh yes. Evil like Morinth or Ammon Jerro. Morrigan isn't evil. Gascard Dupui is a good choise. And as LI I want bad guy too. because danger is soo sexy.

Amon Jerro! I'd like 1 neutral evil merc type tank (BG2s Korgan) to offset the goodie goodie Alistair and Aveline but I'm quite happy with the alternatives provided so far.

[Silfren]

Slayer299 wrote...

^ That pretty much says it for me.

@Plaintiff - And yes, Anders was evil. because his cause, right or wrong, he murdered innocents and thought that was fine. The whole "ends justify the means crap".

Firstly, whether Anders killed innocents is also a matter of opinion.  Not all of us see the Chantry priests, especially the Grand Cleric, as innocent.  Secondly, the visual evidence doesn't actually show a mass of people being killed.  

Finally, Anders himself acknowledges that he sees his actions as terrible.  Nowhere does he suggest that what he did was "fine."  

Okay, done being off-topic now.  Just had to address this one bit.

[Plaintiff]

Slayer299 wrote...

^ That pretty much says it for me.

@Plaintiff - And yes, Anders was evil. because his cause, right or wrong, he murdered innocents and thought that was fine. The whole "ends justify the means crap".

Except, as I jsut addressed, that only counts if you believe the Chantry is innocent. I do not. I think Anders was doing Thedas a favour. I would've gladly helped him blow up the Kirkwall chantry, and every other chantry.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Plaintiff wrote...

Slayer299 wrote...

^ That pretty much says it for me.

@Plaintiff - And yes, Anders was evil. because his cause, right or wrong, he murdered innocents and thought that was fine. The whole "ends justify the means crap".

Except, as I jsut addressed, that only counts if you believe the Chantry is innocent. I do not. I think Anders was doing Thedas a favour. I would've gladly helped him blow up the Kirkwall chantry, and every other chantry.

So because one is brainwashed by an overpowering religious body, one is not innocent? We could make a real world comparison here, but that would cause quite the ****storm. 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

@OP - I'm all for any kind of character so long as I can kill them or tell them to go away and never come back, and they actually stay gone.

[Plaintiff]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Slayer299 wrote...

^ That pretty much says it for me.

@Plaintiff - And yes, Anders was evil. because his cause, right or wrong, he murdered innocents and thought that was fine. The whole "ends justify the means crap".

Except, as I jsut addressed, that only counts if you believe the Chantry is innocent. I do not. I think Anders was doing Thedas a favour. I would've gladly helped him blow up the Kirkwall chantry, and every other chantry.

So because one is brainwashed by an overpowering religious body, one is not innocent? We could make a real world comparison here, but that would cause quite the ****storm. 

The "innocence" of individuals doesn't detract from the overall guilt of the organization. The Chantry is a cancer on Thedas and needs to be purged from existence. If they truly are "brainwashed" then they'll fight me to the death, and I'm not inclined to take the time to make them see reason. If they aren't brainwashed and choose to fight for the Chantry anyway, then screw them.

Not every German who fought in World War II was a terrible person, they didn't even all support the **** party. But I don't see anyone weeping bitter tears over the loss of "innocents" there. In the fight to end an oppressive regime, a certain amount of death is unavoidable.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 13 janvier 2012 - 03:51 .

[Dave of Canada]

Slayer299 wrote...

@Plaintiff - And yes, Anders was evil. because his cause, right or wrong, he murdered innocents and thought that was fine. The whole "ends justify the means crap".

Morality isn't that simple, dear. I don't even like Anders or his cause, he wasn't evil. Just because you happen to disagree with somebody on something doesn't mean so, as one person's "evil" is another's "good" and that's where morality as a term loses it's value.

"Morally", he's gray. He commited a terrible act for what he believed was the only way to achieve some good, that isn't "evil". He isn't burning down an orphanage because it's funny.

[Plaguemaster]

I will coincider Anders as "evil" should he scream something like "Burn, you scum!" after what he's done.
But even then his actions are justified - he attacked an institution that opressed his "social group" and imposed their ideology upon him. The difference is that he could regret that he is harming innocent people or be more pragmatic and be glad that he killed his enemies accepting end justifies the means ideology.
I would like to see the latter - companion, unrepentable and without any wish to repent or regret about his\\her actions that could be seen as evil or ruthless by others.

[Cultist]

Making everyone "grey" got its dangers too. The main one IMHO is losing personality of characters, making them faceless. Like all-bisexual morally neutral party that will accept everything protagonist do.
In origins a LOT of companions may turn against you should Warden make a decision that is strongly opposedby them. Dragon Age 2 have no such thing, the only exaple I could find is Anders during elven boy's dream. Sadly, that is all.

[TheShadowWolf911]

i agree with Cultist...........not a a phrase i expected to ever say (not you per se, but the name i mean, as in agreeing with a cultist)

as for the question, yes.

[Nathan Redgrave]

BioWare seems to be trying to distance itself from hero/villain roleplay, instead opting for hero/anti-hero roleplay. Everything is Paragon/Renegade and all the grey areas in-between, rather than being about good versus evil. No matter what sort of character you are, you're going to save the world or the galaxy or whatever, you just have the option to be a no-nonsense bastard about it if "goody two-shoes" isn't to your fancy.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

How about seeing evil Player Character who betray and murder his companion, in order to receive powerful artifact from demon, instead?

Oops that's Skyrim.

For a moment, I thought you were talking about Fable.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 26 mars 2012 - 11:44 .

[Worrywort]

I'd like a companion that is evil in a way that makes sense. Like the closed fist path from jade empire. Not evil just for the sake of being evil.

[Maria Caliban]

Desire Spirit companion, please.

[Sharn01]

The companions in BG where optional, if you didnt like them you didnt need to take them and could even kill them. In a game where you are forced to take companions its better to make them more likable.

[filetemo]

sylvanaerie wrote...
 I play to have fun not psychoanalyze sociopathic companions.

Evil doesn't has to mean crazy, serial murderer or chaotic.It can be silent, shadowy, refinated or so extremely pragmatic that crosses the line to evil.

"Hawke I'll travel with you, but know this: When we find the Ancient Hammer of slaughtering Grandmas,  I'll take it and slaughter every elder person in Ferelden, because the high costs in health care are stealing resources better spent with the war against Orlais, and if you try to stop me at that moment, I'll be forced to kill you"

[Sharn01]

filetemo wrote...

sylvanaerie wrote...
 I play to have fun not psychoanalyze sociopathic companions.

Evil doesn't has to mean crazy, serial murderer or chaotic.It can be silent, shadowy, refinated or so extremely pragmatic that crosses the line to evil.

"Hawke I'll travel with you, but know this: When we find the Ancient Hammer of slaughtering Grandmas,  I'll take it and slaughter every elder person in Ferelden, because the high costs in health care are stealing resources better spent with the war against Orlais, and if you try to stop me at that moment, I'll be forced to kill you"

In BG I could tell him I dont want an **** who wants to kill every elderly person in Ferelden to travel with me, and its highly likely after the dialogue ended I would have disintegrated him into a pile of dust if I felt he would still do so without me.  In DA you would have no choice but to have him join your party and help him on his quest of mass murder, no thanks.

[Zzulu2]

Sure. Companions are usually the most interesting part of Bioware games so more nuanced additions there would be welcome

[Maria Caliban]

filetemo wrote...

Evil doesn't has to mean crazy, serial murderer or chaotic.It can be silent, shadowy, refinated or so extremely pragmatic that crosses the line to evil.

1. Evil and crazy tend to go hand and hand in BioWare games. In fact, crazy tends to power up evil.

2. You can't have an evil companion in BioWare games because no matter how evil they are, people will not perceive them as such. The Black Whirlwind was hideously, grotesquely evil. When two men were arguing over a woman, he solved the problem by chopping her in half. Yet, he's largely regarded as a comical character.

In KoTOR, you had a badass Mandalore who's a mass murderer. The most frequent comment I see about him? "Why can't we romance Candrous instead of that whiny Carth?!"

I've been thinking about why this is, and I suspect that it's because of two things. The first is that while in your party, the companions are under the control of the player. Jack does not firebomb the Citadel if you visit it with her. She doesn't even get into a fight with C-Sec. The Black Whirlwind never decides he's going to rape the young woman you just saved, despite the fact that it's just the sort of thing he'd do.

This means that the player never witnesses the companion doing anything 'bad' unless they've ordered the companion to do so.

The other reason is that RPGs function by telling the player that some characters are inherently more valuable than others. I can run around Kirkwall slaughtering mooks and no one bats an eye, or even comments on it. Yet, during a quest, there's a big to-do about killing one mentally ill man or one woman that abused Fenris years ago.

Companions are probably the highest value of character in the game after the PC. For some people, they're even more valuable than the PC. The people they've harmed or killed are nameless, faceless mooks.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 mars 2012 - 05:19 .

[DeadPoolX]

Maria Caliban wrote...

filetemo wrote...

Evil doesn't has to mean crazy, serial murderer or chaotic.It can be silent, shadowy, refinated or so extremely pragmatic that crosses the line to evil.

1. Evil and crazy tend to go hand and hand in BioWare games. In fact, crazy tends to power up evil.

2. You can't have an evil companion in BioWare games because no matter how evil they are, people will not perceive them as such. The Black Whirlwind was hideously, grotesquely evil. When two men were arguing over a woman, he solved the problem by chopping her in half. Yet, he's largely regarded as a comical character.

In KoTOR, you had a badass Mandalore who's a mass murderer. The most frequent comment I see about him? "Why can't we romance Candrous instead of that whiny Carth?!"

I've been thinking about why this is, and I suspect that it's because of two things. The first is that while in your party, the companions are under the control of the player. Jack does not firebomb the Citadel if you visit it with her. She doesn't even get into a fight with C-Sec. The Black Whirlwind never decides he's going to rape the young woman you just saved, despite the fact that it's just the sort of thing he'd do.

This means that the player never witnesses the companion doing anything 'bad' unless they've ordered the companion to do so.

The other reason is that RPGs function by telling the player that some characters are inherently more valuable than others. I can run around Kirkwall slaughtering mooks and no one bats an eye, or even comments on it. Yet, during a quest, there's a big to-do about killing one mentally ill man or one woman that abused Fenris years ago.

Companions are probably the highest value of character in the game after the PC. For some people, they're even more valuable than the PC. The people they've harmed or killed are nameless, faceless mooks.

The above is why I've always hated the "if you kill him, you're as bad as he is" trope.

It's kind of claptrap you'll hear someone tell a Jedi when he's got a Sith cornerned.  But no one has a problem with the 5000 storm troopers or other soldiers he's killed just to get to the Sith in the first place!

Modifié par DeadPoolMK, 27 mars 2012 - 06:22 .

[unbentbuzzkill]

interesting maybe have a good and evil companion giving conflicting advice thus changing how people interact with you depending on your choices

[dragonflight288]

My concern is that if we have a truly evil companion, they would have to offer justifications for their advice, even if they're flat out lying to us. That would turn them morally grey in the end. It wouldn't be possible to have a "MWAHAHAHA I'm Dr. Evil!"

[RazorrX]

For me I would very much like to be able to tell companions to go away and never come back, kill them, etc. If they are all "Muahahahah! I am evil!" the odds are I would prefer to kill them. The same goes for "Oh! But I am a sweet innocent Blood Mage!" Nope, not buying into that.

I guess for me I have to actually want to LIKE the companion vs have the game decide I do. I am all for a system of Companions where there is the possibility of say 12 total, but depending on who you have you will not get others so you end up with like 6 or 8. That would rock. So if you have 'evil' companions perhaps a different companion will abandon you.

That said morally ambiguous is fine with me. Evil is fine if that is my play through. But to be forced to have an evil one - no, same as to be forced to have a shining beacon of goodness when I am playing a ruthless killer. Pass please.

And for sure I do not want the game to refer to someone I only dealt with one time as a 'companion' or 'friend' (yeah looking at you Anders).