134 réponses à ce sujet

[Wildfire Darkstar]

J0nnara wrote...

And don't forget the desire demon in Conner wanted to kill all the people in red cliff and turn them into an undead army.
They are all evil.

Oh? Do Loghain's actions imply that all teryns are evil? Does Sten's fondness for cookies mean that all qunari have a sweet tooth? It seems to me that the only things we can presume regarding desire demons is that they do form a parasitic relationship with their target/victim. Well, I suppose you could argue that the relationship is not neccessarily parasitic in nature, and can, under the right circumstances, be considered symbiotic, but I wouldn't press the point. Since it's not really clear how Connor's demon's actions in Redcliffe served that end, it seems that her actions could just as easily be explained as a particularly sadistic and highly personal extracurricular activity as they could an example of the inherent nature of all desire demonkind.

It seems to me that there are multiple ways to interpret demons, as a group. We're told elsewhere in the game that not all natives of the Fade are malicious in nature, and are happy enough to keep to themselves. By that token, one definition of demon is simply an inhabitant of the Fade who is disinclined to limit his, her, or itself exclusively to the Fade, for whatever reason. The reasons could be malicious, to feed off of mortals, to wreck havoc for their own amusement, or they could equally be out of a personal sort of disaffection with their lot. The idea that a given desire demon might well be interested in experiencing something close to a mortal life is, then, as plausible an explanation as any.

On my original playthrough, I had pretty strong idea of what kind of character I wanted to role-play as from the beginning. A human noble, I tried to make sure that my choices were driven by both compassion (a sort of noblesse oblige, if you like) and practical politics. In practice, this meant a mild mistrust for most traditional authorities (other than my own) without ever straying into open hostility, as well as a tendency to seek out compromise and avoid conflict provided doing so didn't conflict with my own goals. Given this, I couldn't see my character mustering the kind of righteous indignation necessary to pick a fight with both the demon and the templar when neither seemed to pose a real threat to either my immediate goal of cleaning out the Mage Tower or to my broader goal of defeating the Blight.

[Taerda]

Where is Neo when you need him?



- sorry, just got done watching the Matrix trilogy, and the whole "leave him in his false world thing" led me to think of this.

[Lord Phoebus]

Demons in DA:O aren't the same as the Jewish/Moslem/Christian Demons that we commonly think of and that the D&D demons are based off of. They are spirits that embody what we consider negative emotions, though these emotions can have positive qualities as well (or at least contribute to our survival and dominance as a lifeform on this planet). The entity possessing Connor, the Lady of the Woods and the demon possessing Flemeth are all demons and, in the case of the latter two, not entirely evil. They probably aren't all that different from the spirit possessing Wynne, though they draw their power from a different source. While most of the abominations you encounter are evil there are a few who are reasonable or even helpful within the game. It seems like while most demons are evil, there are a few exceptions.



Though I do agree that the one in the circle is evil and needs to be killed.

[Rugaru]

Actually in game there is clear definitions behind what a demon is and what a spirit is. Demons ARE malicious in nature and feed off particular emotions (which they are named for) and, detest the living world. Spirits are mostly uncaring but tend to be beneficial when they show themselves.



Demons are, to put it simply, the purest form of evil because they can't really be reasoned with (its akin to scorpion and the frog).

[Original182]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
Oh? Do Loghain's actions imply that all teryns are evil?

No, but I have never seen a Desire Demon who helps people. In fact, all the Desire Demons I encounter want to kill me, or possess people who in turn causes great harm, all under the pretense of "just wanting to experience what it's like to be mortal". If that were true, was the carnage caused by Connor necessary?

There's no such thing as a good-two-shoes Desire Demon, like the Spirit that is within Wynne. (More below)
All demons are evil. Show me a Desire Demon that compassionately wants to help people.

We're told elsewhere in the game that not all natives of the Fade are malicious in nature, and are happy enough to keep to themselves. By that token, one definition of demon is simply an inhabitant of the Fade who is disinclined to limit his, her, or itself exclusively to the Fade, for whatever reason. The reasons could be malicious, to feed off of mortals, to wreck havoc for their own amusement, or they could equally be out of a personal sort of disaffection with their lot. The idea that a given desire demon might well be interested in experiencing something close to a mortal life is, then, as plausible an explanation as any.

There's a difference between Spirit and Demon. Not all Spirits are malicious in nature, such as the one that Wynne has, who actually kept her alive long enough to do more good, even giving her some power in battle. But all Demons are evil.

You want to say there may be good or neutral Desire Demons, and the one that possessed Connor just happens to be an evil one. Again, you have to show me a Desire Demon that is actually clearly good like the one that Wynne has.

Given this, I couldn't see my character mustering the kind of righteous indignation necessary to pick a fight with both the demon and the templar when neither seemed to pose a real threat to either my immediate goal of cleaning out the Mage Tower or to my broader goal of defeating the Blight.

People who kill Desire Demons aren't doing it out of some self-righteous indignation, no more than killing abominations. The Desire Demon is saying all those nice sweet words just to escape from you, hoping that you'd be sympathetic to her. Once you let one loose into the world, it will wreck havoc. It said all those things about giving the templar what it wants, just to talk her way out.

Eventhough your character is good, you've been tricked by the Desire Demon. That is exactly how they manipulate people.

Even someone like Morrigan acknowledges making pacts with demons is a very bad idea, at Arl Eamon's castle, when Connor was possessed by a Desire Demon.

[The Angry One]

Original182 wrote...

Imagine if it was your own daughter who is under the thrall of Kitty. Would you allow it because "desire demons aren't so bad and just want to experience the world"?

I would hope my own daughter would never be as insufferably stupid as the one with Kitty.
"Duuur the talking purple eyed demon kitty iz my friend lol!"

[Tennmuerti]

Couldar wrote...

Actually in game there is clear definitions behind what a demon is and what a spirit is. Demons ARE malicious in nature and feed off particular emotions (which they are named for) and, detest the living world. Spirits are mostly uncaring but tend to be beneficial when they show themselves.

Demons are, to put it simply, the purest form of evil because they can't really be reasoned with (its akin to scorpion and the frog).

Demons are just a human(earthly) classification of certain types of fade spirits from what the game codexes/dialogues lead me to believe.
I reasoned wih quite a few demons in the game. Main demon in Wardens Keep, desire demon in Stone Prisoner, desire demon in Redcliff, desire demon in mage tower, 2 different sloth demons in the fade can also be reasoned with. Demons may have a specific agenda in mind at all times (rage, desire, sloth etc) but quite a few of them are willing to have a chat with you over a nice cup of tea. True the outcome of said debate may not always be without bloodshed but sometimes concessions can be made.

I really don't see the demons as evil. They seem more elemental in nature. IE representing a certain facet, is for example desire inherently evil? It is their way to survive ouside the fade, may look evil to some (my first good char viewed it as such) but not to others.

But this is starting to turn into an argument about what is evil like I have seen so many times already on these forums, so I will stop.

[KalDurenik]

Ugh it all come down to the question "what is evil?"

They might not see themself as evil but we see them as evil... In that case who is right? We or them?

[Rugaru]

KalDurenik wrote...

Ugh it all come down to the question "what is evil?"
They might not see themself as evil but we see them as evil... In that case who is right? We or them?

Well considering "they" are coming into "our" world then they should be "judged" by us. Law of the land kind of thing.

[The Capital Gaultier]

KalDurenik wrote...

Ugh it all come down to the question "what is evil?"
They might not see themself as evil but we see them as evil... In that case who is right? We or them?

It's pretty clear from the lore in-game that the demons are mimicking human traits.  The traits that human beings see as bad are mimicked by spirits who become evil beings and the traits that human beings see as good are mimicked by spirits who become good beings.

There's a grey area due to our perceptions of individual traits.  In this case, desire.  The spirits see nothing as good or evil themselves - they copy what they see.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Original182 wrote...

No, but I have never seen a Desire Demon who helps people. In fact, all the Desire Demons I encounter want to kill me, or possess people who in turn causes great harm, all under the pretense of "just wanting to experience what it's like to be mortal". If that were true, was the carnage caused by Connor necessary?

Point of order, only one Desire Demon in the game makes the argument that it "just wants to experience what it's like to be mortal," really. Connor's demon certainly doesn't.

My point is that it may not be wise to treat all demons as a homogenous group, any more than it is wise to treat all teryns as of a similar mind and temprament. All that we know for sure about the demons are that they fuel and are in turn fueled by strong (negative) emotions. I'm see no inherent issue in taking the Mage Tower desire demon at her word simply because she is a desire demon

There's no such thing as a good-two-shoes Desire Demon, like the Spirit that is within Wynne. (More below)
All demons are evil. Show me a Desire Demon that compassionately wants to help people.

That's a non-sequitur. The desire demon in the tower is certainly not altruistic, and I don't think anyone has made that argument. The demon itself doesn't, for that matter: it never lies about the fact that it's using the templar for its own purposes. It merely argues that its own purposes happen to not (in this case) be in conflict with what's best for the templar himself. And while I can understand feeling differently about the matter, I don't think it's as black-and-white as you're suggesting.

There's a difference between Spirit and Demon. Not all Spirits are malicious in nature, such as the one that Wynne has, who actually kept her alive long enough to do more good, even giving her some power in battle. But all Demons are evil.

I think we're forgetting that there's no omniscient narrative voice in the game. All the information that is revealed to us, regarding demons or anything else, is filtered through the preconceptions of the individual presenting that information. As a general rule, both the Chantry nor the Circle of Magi have very good reasons for taking a profoundly negative view of demons. But that doesn't mean that their views should be taken in uncritically.

More to the point, however, demons are described as "malicious spirits," which suggests that the dividing line between demon and spirit may be a little less clear cut than you'd like. The question is, what makes a spirit "malicious," and, therefore, a demon? Is it simply taking an active interest in the mortal world? Since demons by nature feed off of emotions, its certainly possible that just attempting to pass between the Fade and the mortal world can be seen as an act of malice, regardless of the intentions of the being itself. A demon's motivations and actions could range from acts of questionable or minimal malice such as just wanting to experience the world as mortals do (the desire demon in the mage tower, if we take it at face value) to unquestionably malicious activities like reanimating the dead and using them to attack the living (Connor's demon).

You want to say there may be good or neutral Desire Demons, and the one that possessed Connor just happens to be an evil one. Again, you have to show me a Desire Demon that is actually clearly good like the one that Wynne has.

Why on earth would I need to point to a "clearly good" demon in order to assert that not all demons are necessarily evil? There's a universe of possibilities between sinner and saint, and all I'm arguing for is the possibility that demons may fall at different points on that spectrum, just like any human, elf, dwarf, or qunari.

People who kill Desire Demons aren't doing it out of some self-righteous indignation, no more than killing abominations. The Desire Demon is saying all those nice sweet words just to escape from you, hoping that you'd be sympathetic to her. Once you let one loose into the world, it will wreck havoc. It said all those things about giving the templar what it wants, just to talk her way out.

Two things, here:

First, it is obviously and self-evidently "going to [give] the templar what he wants," because, well, that's how desire demons work, isn't it? A desire demon that doesn't traffic in desire isn't much of a desire demon, is it? The only thing in question at that point in the exchange is whether or not what the templar desires is what is actually best for the templar. It's entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that what the templar wants is not what the templar actually needs. But the PC is in no more of a position to decide that than the desire demon is, ultimately. Equally obvious is the fact that the desire demon doesn't want to be killed, and is attempting to talk its way out of a fight. Which means, simply put, that nothing the demon says is a lie, technically speaking. It's not attempting to deceive you, because it has no reason to do so.

Second, what havoc is the demon going to wreck? If you take it at its word, none. You certainly don't have to take it at its word, but, to be fair, it hasn't lied about anything else so far. But even if it is lying, what are the potential consequences? One demon and one ensorcelled but unpossesed templar are not a threat when weighed against the remainder of what the Warden and company are facing. The amount of havoc that can be wrecked by the demon, assuming it has an interest in wrecking havoc in the first place (which is far from a foregone conclusion) is not a credible threat, in its own right. If its not going to get in the way of my mission (to rescue the First Enchanter and save the magi as a group), there's no logical reason to pick a fight with it.

Eventhough your character is good, you've been tricked by the Desire Demon. That is exactly how they manipulate people.

And you've let religious dogma distract you from the actual pressing concerns of the moment. My job was not to go demon hunting. While my character is motivated by a wish to not be overtly malicious (not the same thing as good, per se), the decision itself was one of practicality for a character who sees little benefit in provoking conflict when it serves no tangible benefit and can be avoided.

Even someone like Morrigan acknowledges making pacts with demons is a very bad idea, at Arl Eamon's castle, when Connor was possessed by a Desire Demon.

I made no pact. Should I happen to run into the demon wrecking havoc somewhere else at some point in the future, I will not hesitate to respond as necessary. All I did was let the demon leave quietly under the tacit understanding that it wasn't going to get in my way.

Again, though, you're falling into the trap of assuming that every desire demon is like every other desire demon. Other than broadly shared characteristics, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make, any more than it would be safe to assume that all Bards have a shoe fetish.

[Rugaru]

@Wildfire- you keep comparing different human "classes" to demons, humans are multi-faceted they can be more than one thing, demons on the other hand are the embodiment of ONE thing in this case desire, they have no other qualities all they are is the embodiment of that one emotion.

____

"what are the potential consequences? One demon and one ensorcelled but unpossesed templar are not a threat when weighed against the remainder of what the Warden and company are facing"

____



One demon and a child had all of Redcliff imprisoned. If the demons had some way of planning then they could easily be a bigger threat than the blight if left unchecked. One demon opening the way for others then you could effectively multiply Redcliff and cover the whole of the waking world.

___

"I made no pact. Should I happen to run into the demon wrecking havoc somewhere else at some point in the future, I will not hesitate to respond as necessary. All I did was let the demon leave quietly under the tacit understanding that it wasn't going to get in my way."

_____

You did make a pact with it. The pact you made with it was to let it go if it left you alone. The pact you made leaves the door wide open for the entire mage tower incident to happen again or another Redcliff.

[Korva]

Too much semantics here. Demons are malicious and I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would think otherwise. They are parasites and rapists. They don't give a damn about their "hosts", they just abuse them for their own benefit. Just because some desire demons aren't as flat-out aggressive as rage demons doesn't make them any less dangerous -- hell, it makes them MORE dangerous since clearly they can dupe a lot of people into thinking they're harmless.



The choice wasn't hard for me at all. I wanted to save the poor guy, but if the only way to do that is kill him because he won't snap out of it even when the demon dies ... sad, but far better than the alternative.

[Rugaru]

Exactly Korva, that is the main reason why the desire and pride demons are so dangerous is because they don't seem as aggressive. Sloth demons are in that same boat mainly cause people just assume that they themselves are slothful and lazy.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Couldar wrote...

@Wildfire- you keep comparing different human "classes" to demons, humans are multi-faceted they can be more than one thing, demons on the other hand are the embodiment of ONE thing in this case desire, they have no other qualities all they are is the embodiment of that one emotion.

An assumption. Possibly true, but there's no evidence for it. All we know for certain about demons is that they feed off certain emotions. I actually like the idea of the single-facet demon, but I don't think the game really supports that premise as is: Connor's desire demon seems capable of its own agenda, for example, since I rather doubt it was Connor's desire to reanimate the dead and to keep his father in a permanent coma.

One demon and a child had all of Redcliff imprisoned. If the demons had some way of planning then they could easily be a bigger threat than the blight if left unchecked. One demon opening the way for others then you could effectively multiply Redcliff and cover the whole of the waking world.

A single-faceted, single-minded demon would, almost by definition, be unable to formulate complex plans. And I don't mean to disregard the potential threat of an unchecked demon. I just think there's a fair amount of difference between Connor's situation, where the demon's role in events is unknown to all but a handful of people inside the castle, and the desire demon with the templar.

You did make a pact with it. The pact you made with it was to let it go if it left you alone. The pact you made leaves the door wide open for the entire mage tower incident to happen again or another Redcliff.

No, as I mentioned before, the nature of my character was not to seek out fights that don't need to be fought. We're progressing from two very different premises, here: you're assuming that the "default" position, as it were, is to slaughter each and every demon and abomination in the tower. My default position is that the tower must be secured, the main threat eliminated, and the First Enchanter returned in order to prevent the Rite of Annulment from being carried out. My default position is that I have neither the interest nor the (ahem) desire to mop up every last corner of the tower, particularly if doing so would waste potentially precious time.

There is, of course, calculated risk in letting the demon walk free, just as their is risk in engaging it in battle (at least, from a role-playing perspective: as a gamer, I felt fairly certain I could successfully defeat both the demon and the templar if I was inclined to do so). But I think any reasonable assessment of the situation would have pegged the chances that this one desire demon and her pet templar were going to be responsible for another Redcliffe, or another Mage Tower incident, pretty minimal. And that's a simple cost/benefit analysis, without even needing to get into the question of whether the demon itself can be trusted.

Once you add the moral side of the question back in, it gets even murkier, for all the reasons I've stated previously. Do the actions of Connor's demon necessarily imply anything about any other demon? Maybe. Does the PC have the moral right to decide on behalf of the templar what is best for him? Depends on your (or, more to the point, your PC's) moral code. I can easily see role-playing a character where I would be unable to let the demon go without breaking character, but it would require a much starker worldview than the one I made the decision to adopt here.

[Original182]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

Point of order, only one Desire Demon in the game makes the argument that it "just wants to experience what it's like to be mortal," really. Connor's demon certainly doesn't.

How do you know the demon wasn't lying, and that possessing the Templar was just a step to wreck havoc like what the one with Connor did?
You don't know what the Desire Demon said to Connor. Maybe that's the line she also used, that she just wants to experience the world, or something equally convincing. In return I will keep your father alive.
If the Desire Demon had said I will keep your father alive, but then I plan to send waves of undead to kill the villagers at Redcliffe, would Connor have agreed? No of course not.

So how would a Desire Demon convince Connor that let her possess him? By lying, just like how that Desire Demon at the Tower lied to you to escape!

Just like how the Desire Demon Kitty in Stone Prisoner lied to you that she would let the girl go if you free her, but then clearly went back on her word. She lied to get what she wants.

That is just how they work, as per Codex in-game. That is why the First Enchanter says not to listen to the Desire Demon when entering the Fade to free Connor. (more below)

The demon itself doesn't, for that matter: it never lies about the fact that it's using the templar for its own purposes. It merely argues that its own purposes happen to not (in this case) be in conflict with what's best for the templar himself. And while I can understand feeling differently about the matter, I don't think it's as black-and-white as you're suggesting.

Neither was the Desire Demon Kitty lying to you when she said she would possess the girl. It changes nothing. They are a scourge that must be removed.

It is very black and white. I asked you to show me a Desire Demon that is good or possibly neutral because you seem convinced that not all Desire Demons are evil. You cannot show me one. Therefore it is black and white when it comes to demons. Demons are evil, plain and simple, and shouldn't be allowed to "experience the world".

I think we're forgetting that there's no omniscient narrative voice in the game. All the information that is revealed to us, regarding demons or anything else, is filtered through the preconceptions of the individual presenting that information. As a general rule, both the Chantry nor the Circle of Magi have very good reasons for taking a profoundly negative view of demons. But that doesn't mean that their views should be taken in uncritically.

They are the most experienced when it comes to demons. Who else would be an expert on demons except the Circle of Magi. And if they say demons are bad, they're bad. Burden of proof then lies in you to prove that demons may be misunderstood. Thus why I asked you to find me a Desire Demon that is good or neutral. You cannot.

More to the point, however, demons are described as "malicious spirits," which suggests that the dividing line between demon and spirit may be a little less clear cut than you'd like.

And yet you have no problem taking that at face value, despite just saying above that "there's no omniscient narrative voice in the game".
So we seem to have selective thinking from you. Anything that is against my opinion, it is not the absolute truth, codex tainted by biased views of the Chantry and Circle of Magi, etc.
Anything that goes with my opinion, is the absolute truth. No Chantry religious dogma. It's truth.

The question is, what makes a spirit "malicious," and, therefore, a demon?

Easy. If the enemy has the word "demon" in it. The game has made it simple for you. If it is a spirit like the Spirit of the Woods, it won't have the word demon.

Why on earth would I need to point to a "clearly good" demon in order to assert that not all demons are necessarily evil? There's a universe of possibilities between sinner and saint, and all I'm arguing for is the possibility that demons may fall at different points on that spectrum, just like any human, elf, dwarf, or qunari.

Because Codex and the game has made it very clear that demons are bad news. No more different than how the blight is bad news. If you want to prove that not all demons are necessarily evil, then show me one that isn't. If you cannot find one, does it exist?
And if all Desire Demons are evil, it was a mistake for your character to let it go.

Second, what havoc is the demon going to wreck? If you take it at its word, none. You certainly don't have to take it at its word, but, to be fair, it hasn't lied about anything else so far. But even if it is lying, what are the potential consequences? One demon and one ensorcelled but unpossesed templar are not a threat when weighed against the remainder of what the Warden and company are facing. The amount of havoc that can be wrecked by the demon, assuming it has
an interest in wrecking havoc in the first place (which is far from a
foregone conclusion) is not a credible threat, in its own right. If its
not going to get in the way of my mission (to rescue the First
Enchanter and save the magi as a group), there's no logical reason to
pick a fight with it.

The Desire Demon using Connor indicates otherwise. Connor is also just a little boy compared to the templar. The capability of the possessed person is irrelevant.

You just let a Desire Demon go on to wreck havoc on Ferelden.

And you've let religious dogma distract you from the actual pressing concerns of the moment. My job was not to go demon hunting. While my character is motivated by a wish to not be overtly malicious (not the same thing as good, per se), the decision itself was one of practicality for a character who sees little benefit in provoking conflict when it serves no tangible benefit and can be avoided.

You don't need to be religious to know Desire Demons are evil. Circle of Magi, who have a lot of reasons to be against the Chantry, thinks they are evil. Morrigan thinks they are bad news.

Again, though, you're falling into the trap of assuming that every desire demon is like every other desire demon. Other than broadly shared characteristics, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make, any more than it would be safe to assume that all Bards have a shoe fetish.

Because there is no Codex entry saying that all bards have a shoe fetish. There is Codex saying demons are evil, and they use trickery to get what they want. There is a lot of convincing proof that demons are evil, based on what happened to Connor, the Circle of Magi, Kitty in Stone Prisoner, etc.

Modifié par Original182, 26 novembre 2009 - 01:15 .

[Tennmuerti]

Korva wrote...

Too much semantics here. Demons are malicious and I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would think otherwise. They are parasites and rapists. They don't give a damn about their "hosts", they just abuse them for their own benefit. Just because some desire demons aren't as flat-out aggressive as rage demons doesn't make them any less dangerous -- hell, it makes them MORE dangerous since clearly they can dupe a lot of people into thinking they're harmless.

The choice wasn't hard for me at all. I wanted to save the poor guy, but if the only way to do that is kill him because he won't snap out of it even when the demon dies ... sad, but far better than the alternative.

Semantics are a nessesity in the circumstance. Good and Evil are by their very nature very relative concepts.
Do you view stealing as evil?
What if perosn who is stealing is only doing a bare minimum to survive and has no other options?
You say Demons are parasites and rapists. How about modern day humans and what we do to our planet everyday. Some would call humans parasites. Some would say we are raping our planet. Some wouldn't even blink at dumping some toxic waste.

Please note that I am not saying that demons are not evil.
I'm just saying that maybe if I was a demon in the fade devoid of life and emotion and my one chance at experiencing feelings and life was to seduce some human I would do it the instant the oportunity presented itself.

For example I viewed the choice to kill him as unnecessary cruelty to the man who already suffered too much and had a chance to be happy for once. So I let the demon go.

On my other playghrough my character viewed it as a rape of a human soul regardless of the fact tat it made the man happy, it was a false illusion and I put him out of his missery.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Korva wrote...

Too much semantics here. Demons are malicious and I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would think otherwise. They are parasites and rapists. They don't give a damn about their "hosts", they just abuse them for their own benefit. Just because some desire demons aren't as flat-out aggressive as rage demons doesn't make them any less dangerous -- hell, it makes them MORE dangerous since clearly they can dupe a lot of people into thinking they're harmless.

Oh, absolutely.

I think what I'm failing to adequately express here is that it wasn't really an issue of "trust," per se. I trusted the desire demon to act like a desire demon. I never once believed it had anything other than selfish motives: the question was simply whether or not those selfish motives were in conflict with my character's interests, and (to a lesser extent) with the interests of the templar. And harmlessness is, of course, relative to a particular setting: a demon might well be a fearsome threat in one situation and toothless and unthreatening in another.

[Original182]

Tennmuerti wrote...
For example I viewed the choice to kill him as unnecessary cruelty to the man who already suffered too much and had a chance to be happy for once. So I let the demon go.

On my other playghrough my character viewed it as a rape of a human soul regardless of the fact tat it made the man happy, it was a false illusion and I put him out of his missery.

You have to consider what you would like if it was YOU that the demon is giving the illusion. Would you want to live in the world like what the Sloth Demon gave you, a false illusion that the Darkspawn are defeated?

You main character is strong enough to defeat the Sloth Demon, but not before it drained Niall of all his life essence.

That is what the Desire Demon would have done with the Templar.

[Lianaar]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
Once you add the moral side of the question back in, it gets even murkier, for all the reasons I've stated previously. Do the actions of Connor's demon necessarily imply anything about any other demon? Maybe. Does the PC have the moral right to decide on behalf of the templar what is best for him? Depends on your (or, more to the point, your PC's) moral code. I can easily see role-playing a character where I would be unable to let the demon go without breaking character, but it would require a much starker worldview than the one I made the decision to adopt here.

I believe that sums up my view quite a bit. Here we do not talk about what I, the player would have done in RL, as I don't really run into templars and desire demons. Howver we can imagine playing various personalities who have their integritiy, motivations, values and differences as well as priorities.
Refusing to as much as consider the option that the demon might not be evil means that all your playing chars have parts of moral codes in common. Role playing allows so much more.
We have no proof that the demons are evil. You can have the paradigm that all demons are evil, just because they are evil.
I have the paradigm that I don't have proof of the demons being evil, or that all demons are one type of things. I have the paradigm that the makers of this game wanted to keep things explainable. And not only from a single view. That means that not only a single opinion is justifyable about the demons. Which widens the diversity of the gaming experience you can have.
So you are free to believe that demons are evil, but you are just so free to believe that not all demons are evil. You are free to believe that the information provided to you is not only canon but true as well. Which I believe is rarely the case.
I noticed that desire demons, while use tricks, tend to be quite honest in their dealings. None of them seemed to lie to my character. The kitty mislead the girl, but she was clear to me: I will merge with her, I will go and eat. Likely that is a tool for the game makers to provide for harder choices. After all it would be easier to let the demons go if they say: oh, once we leave this room I let the girl go and I am never around any more, I got to like her so much after all. But she is clear on what she will do and your moral choices might be heavier.

The whole disagreement comes down to paradigms though. Are demons necessrily evil or not? Are demons just the embodyment of a single thing and thus are not able to make thorough plans and have individual urges apart from the feeling they embody?

[Rugaru]

Connor's case was to me the "end game" of what a demon does. Whatever it was that Connor desired that drew the demon allowed said demon to possess him. Once possessed the demon was then able to draw on his magic to "wreck havoc". The same is what happened with the mage tower, pride called the demon and allowed it to possess the mage. And in that case we see that indeed demons can "bring their friends" so to speak.



If you truly was going the "fastest" and safest route through, trying to talk a demon down seems like completely the opposite way to go. Just smack it down and keep running why would you try to get into a debate with it when you don't know if you could talk it out of the situation, or how long it would take. Considering the fact that you have already smashed through bunches of them to get to this point why even stop to think about it?



If I remember correctly the agreement you made to get into the tower was that you would "mop up every last corner" and get Irving so the templar would not "nuke" the place.



Morally speaking it is even clearer not murkier, as morals are society based then in this society the morality is that demons are evil and must be killed.

[Lianaar]

Original182 wrote...
How do you know the demon wasn't lying, and that possessing the Templar was just a step to wreck havoc like what the one with Connor did?
You don't know what the Desire Demon said to Connor. Maybe that's the line she also used, that she just wants to experience the world, or something equally convincing. In return I will keep your father alive.
If the Desire Demon had said I will keep your father alive, but then I plan to send waves of undead to kill the villagers at Redcliffe, would Connor have agreed? No of course not.

You make presumptions and take them to be true while we have no proof. The child called for the demon to help. It was the child who invited the demon. Maybe the child didn't give a damn about the price as long as his father is alive. Maybe he didn't even want to think about it. But it was not the demon forcing herself on the child, and she kept to her promise. The father remained alive. The demon even calls on that, she claims: we made a deal and I am keeping myself to it.

Just like how the Desire Demon Kitty in Stone Prisoner lied to you that she would let the girl go if you free her, but then clearly went back on her word. She lied to get what she wants.

That demon did not lie to me. She told me clearly what she wants and what would happen to the child. If we didn't agree, she possessed the child saying: she is mine, I won't let you have her. But she didn't lie. She didn't tell me she will give up without fight should I say no. She didn't tell me she'll leave the girl alone if I say no. She was clear: I will merge with her and she will cease to exist to give room for something different.

That is just how they work, as per Codex in-game. That is why the First Enchanter says not to listen to the Desire Demon when entering the Fade to free Connor. (more below)

The codex in game is deliberately showing things from a given perspective. They are written by someone and the events are filtered by the writer's moral code. If you talk with people you will hear information that contradicts the information in the codex 100%. Just consider how many versions of Flemeth's tale there are and what common points they posses?

It is very black and white. I asked you to show me a Desire Demon that is good or possibly neutral because you seem convinced that not all Desire Demons are evil. You cannot show me one. Therefore it is black and white when it comes to demons. Demons are evil, plain and simple, and shouldn't be allowed to "experience the world".

It is grey, everything in this game is grey. You might wish to see it as black and white, but that is just a step toward realism of the game. People can see the same things and have a different reading from it because that is how the game is designed, thanks for the Marker(s) for that.

So we seem to have selective thinking from you. Anything that is against my opinion, it is not the absolute truth, codex tainted by biased views of the Chantry and Circle of Magi, etc.
Anything that goes with my opinion, is the absolute truth. No Chantry religious dogma. It's truth.

It might not be him with the selective attention. He merely expressed that we don't have enough information to or right or base on which we can make 100% decision knowing we are in the right. Because we don't. We fill in the gaps as we wish. Some fill it with their RL moral code. Some RP and consider what the PC they play would think. That's what I do. I don't even care what I would do in RL. The situation won't appear in RL. 

Easy. If the enemy has the word "demon" in it. The game has made it simple for you. If it is a spirit like the Spirit of the Woods, it won't have the word demon.

Demon. And what gives that name to creatures? So who is the filter that calls something good or bad? Does it mean that you(r char) do(es) not wish to consider what is good or bad merely takes the words of someone he didn't even check out? That is certainly the way of Templars. They are told what is bad and they act upon it.
Is it any less or more justifyable then somoene deciding to look into the matters and try to find proof on what is right or wrong?

Because Codex and the game has made it very clear that demons are bad news. No more different than how the blight is bad news. If you want to prove that not all demons are necessarily evil, then show me one that isn't. If you cannot find one, does it exist?

And there we go again. Codex. But the codex might easily be self contraditional. Right? Oh wait, yes, they can! Please refer to the easiest example: Flemeth.

And if all Desire Demons are evil, it was a mistake for your character to let it go.

If... yes if they are.
I doubt there is such thing as evil box. Evin within evil there are measures. Some are less evil or more evil. Some might be evil, but are beneficial for the great good, so some deeds seem to be quite rightous if you look at it from a larger picture. Or smaller depending on what you do. It is not a simple "it has a demon written over its head, so I must kill it or I am bad" schema.

Modifié par Lianaar, 26 novembre 2009 - 01:42 .

[Lianaar]

Original182 wrote...
You have to consider what you would like if it was YOU that the demon is giving the illusion. Would you want to live in the world like what the Sloth Demon gave you, a false illusion that the Darkspawn are defeated?

And you totally don't have to. You might have a character that believes it is his duty to do so. But it does never say that all people must consider that.
Actually there are some studies into equal treatment being the bed of unjustice, it might not be worth going into too much. But in short: people are different. If you do to people what you want to be done to yourself, it might be that some people will be very unhappy. Because what is good for you, might not be good for others. And failing to see other people's own needs, desires, wants and personality makes you rightous,  but wrong. Weather you belive in integrity of a personality is up to you(r char), but it will be still a force upon the other character that you push your values on them. Maybe the templar does snap out of it, but he is not thankful. He lost everything with snapping out and attacks you either to be killed, so he is freed from the feelings he has, or to kill you as a revenge. There is no proof that he would thank you for it.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Original182 wrote...

How do you know the demon wasn't lying, and that possessing the Templar was just a step to wreck havoc like what the one with Connor did?

I don't. That where the whole "evaluating the situation" angle comes in. The other option, of course, was undifferentiated slaughter of every potentially hostile being in the game. That's a potentially interesting choice, but it wasn't the one I had made when envisioning my character, and its not the person that I consider myself to be outside of the game, either.

So how would a Desire Demon convince Connor that let her possess him? By lying, just like how that Desire Demon at the Tower lied to you to escape!

Honestly, I'd be surprised if most demon/victim exchanges were that involved. A desire demon tells its victim what it wants to hear. In Connor's case, I imagine it didn't go much beyond "I'll keep your father alive."

On the topic at hand, though, the lies (if they were indeed lies, which we ultimately can't say for sure one way or the other) are fairly irrelevant. The meat of the discussion, as it were, is that the demon wants to live, and is willing to get out of my character's way, at least in the short term, to ensure that I don't kill her. And that, tactically speaking, is the only thing that really matters.

Neither was the Desire Demon Kitty lying to you when she said she would possess the girl. It changes nothing. They are a scourge that must be removed.

Mmm. Maybe. I'm not convinced by the clearly biased religious dogma that's present in the codex, and even if I were, I have bigger fish to fry. No demon is as big a threat as the Blight, after all.

It is very black and white. I asked you to show me a Desire Demon that is good or possibly neutral because you seem convinced that not all Desire Demons are evil. You cannot show me one. Therefore it is black and white when it comes to demons. Demons are evil, plain and simple, and shouldn't be allowed to "experience the world".

The fundamental disconnect here is that its all open to interpretation. I'm making the argument that the desire demon with the templar is neutral, or, rather, harmless in the larger scheme of things (since I don't think the actual morals of the demon are what's important, merely its actions). However, we don't have a omniscient third-person perspective, so we only appeal to our interpretations of events. You choose to interpret differently than I do, and that's totally your right, but that doesn't make it black and white.

They are the most experienced when it comes to demons. Who else would be an expert on demons except the Circle of Magi. And if they say demons are bad, they're bad. Burden of proof then lies in you to prove that demons may be misunderstood. Thus why I asked you to find me a Desire Demon that is good or neutral. You cannot.

You're putting words in my mouth, now. I don't think they're misunderstood, and I certainly am not making the argument that they're "good." As I said before, I trust a desire demon to do that which is in its own interests. I don't neccessarily believe that its own interests are always in conflict with the interests of others.

And yet you have no problem taking that at face value, despite just saying above that "there's no omniscient narrative voice in the game".

No. I take it for what it is. I'm entertaining it as a possibility (even probability) in the absence of a convincing alternative, and exploring what it means. In any case, just because a source is biased doesn't mean it is completely divorced from all facts.

Easy. If the enemy has the word "demon" in it. The game has made it simple for you.

I distrust simple answers. If nothing else, they tend to be the most boring

And if all Desire Demons are evil, it was a mistake for your character to let it go.

Not really, no. There's plenty of evil going on that I'm not busy avenging, after all. It's only needs to be a matter of prioritization (though I grant you that if I had believed that all Desire Demons are evil, I probably would not have let it go, but I feel like being contrary...)

Because there is no Codex entry saying that all bards have a shoe fetish. There is Codex saying demons are evil, and they use trickery to get what they want.

No, but the only first-hand evidence of a bard we have does like shoes, so its a potentially logical jump to make.

I guess it's really just a question of how you approach the game. If you view the codex as a unbiased, incontrovertible source of facts, then yes, there's no room for doubt. If you see it as a collection of documents that are probably not outright lies but may very well have their own perspectives and biases, there's more room for doubt and interpretation. It all depends on how you wish to engage with the game, ultimately.

[Talieth]

double post ...

Modifié par Talieth, 26 novembre 2009 - 02:01 .