77 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

Sylvanpyxie wrote...

Bishop wasn't all that evil, tbh, despite what his alignment says. He's just self serving, and he respects strength more than anything.

Would he help a load of random strangers if they were about to be eaten by Bugbears? Probably not. But he wouldn't go around slaughtering innocent people at random.

He just doesn't want to save people that refuse to save themselves, it's one of the reasons he respects the Player in NwN2, when the Githyanki attacked the townsfolk fought them back.

If this is the kind of "evil" that you're asking for, then sure. More self serving ego-maniacs would be cool. If you're asking for Xzar level crazy evil, then no thanks.

Bishop. I think you're right about him. And we do need more characters like that. Morrigan was similar, but to a much lesser degree. We didn't have that character at all in DA2, sadly.

As far as the truly evil, Emperor Palpatine type, I think it only works if you the PC are also given the dialogue choices to make your character into a similar type as well, or if the game is structured so that having that companion is necessary. On the other hand, forum goers have pointed out time and again how they hate being forced into bringing certain people along for plot reasons (Merrill, Anders). I do think it could be worked in such a way as to have it be "You need me because I have such-and-such information." Or "We don't have to like  each other in order to be useful  to one another." Otherwise it just seems weird, as it ended being with Morrigan for me, to not interact with the person for most of the game, where they then come in at the end with an important plot device.

[Rawgrim]

Not sure if I want an evil one...but a psychotic one might be fun.

[Rayndorn]

I would like the PC to get blood sacrificed for a change

[Arthur Cousland]

I'm not sure if it make sense for the hero of the story to be joining forces with some homicidal maniac, or someone who sacrifices children for their blood magic (ex. The Baroness), but I would like to see a reaver companion.  They could be a mercenary seeking a big payday down the road, and I'd like for them to laugh during combat, if for any reason, that it makes them more powerful when they lose health.

Nyree from Redemption, or someone like her would make for a nice "evil" companion, and a reaver.

Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 11 août 2012 - 11:49 .

[ladyofpayne]

I want someone in party like Ozai or Azyla (Avatar).

[Cultist]

Yes, I meant that kind of "evil" - unrepentant, not regretting about what s\\he has done. Like Anders, after blowing up Cathedral, but not whining about how he is sorry, istead, telling everyone, "Serves them right!". Or Merill, after killing her clan and telling us that they only dragged her down. The best written Evil characters I remember are not regretting that they are doing or have done already.
Viconia - she's ruthless, merciless and disregarding about lives of others, yet still cares about thoise she loves.
HK-47 - nuff said, plain murderous fun.
Bishop - hated to be controlled, never regretted massacring his village.
Sarevok - never repenting about spreading chaos and destruction in the entire Sword Coast. Arguably the most evil of them, who clearly understood that he was evil and still treated you like a brother. A rival but still a brother.
Edwin - he was more of a comical character yet managed to add a bit of murders in his quests.
Qara - lusted for power, facinated by fires and destruction and hated limitations, invested upon her by her tutors.

Arthur Cousland wrote...
I'm not sure if it make sense for the
hero of the story to be joining forces with some homicidal maniac, or
someone who sacrifices children for their blood magic (ex. The
Baroness)

Apart from bigger question of "Would you kill a
child if his\\her death could prevent Warld War", allying with homicidal
maniacs is by far not uncommon in RPGs and we see this in almost every game. Subject Zero, One-Of-Many, Sarevok, and others listed above come to mind first.
The End justifies the Means.

Modifié par Cultist, 11 août 2012 - 11:54 .

[cogsandcurls]

"Evil" isn't a personality trait. What do you actually mean? More self-serving characters? More unrepentant murderers? Blood mages? Cackling psycopaths? You're asking for a character with a good/evil alignment in a game where alliances and motivations are, on the whole, a lot more complicated and interesting than that already.

The thing with Dragon Age is that you can play it multiple ways and interact with the characters multiple ways. Play DA:O a certain way and Morrigan will come across as distant, self-serving and unwilling to actually be a part of the team. Play it another way and Zevran, the unrepentant assassin, will corner you in an alley and try to murder you (Hell, if you like you can recruit Loghain, a man who invites slavers into an Alienage and then defends that decision when asked). Play DA2 as a Chantry-loving templar enthusiast and Anders may very well come across as "evil" to your PC. Play a mage and you might judge Sebastian's attempt to needle Fenris into selling you out to the templars as "evil". Play DA2 another way and Isabela turns out to be a selfish turncoat who runs away and leaves you and your friends in the lurch. But it doesn't happen EVERY time, and that's what makes it interesting. You get to see different facets of their character, because a character you can't sympathise with on at least SOME level in SOME playthroughs is boring. Have some characters be self-serving jerks, sure. But "evil"? Nah.

[meanieweenie]

I think I'd like a companion that's either a turncoat or total spy from the get-go. Someone who had their own agenda and was only playing nice and friendly to either get info or destroy your mission. Depending on your stats, you could potentially figure it out before their dastardly plan is fulfilled. If not, then you're doomed. lol

[Sylvanpyxie]

Bishop - never regretted massacring his village

Actually, you're wrong about that. It's one of the factors in why he became so bitter.

He tried to save them, tried to tell them to run. When they refused to listen to him they all burned and that is what originally set him on his path of "Fight for Survival". It was his regret over the entire Village Massacre that caused him to become so closed off.

Bishop was never truly evil, as i said, he was self serving, bitter and angry. Obsidian Entertainment did an excellent job writing Bishop, and it was his bitterness that made him so compelling.

This is why "evil" is a very broad term. It's why a lot of people can view Zevran, Anders, Merrill, Isabela, the Qunari, the Templars, pretty much everything and everyone that has questionable morals, as evil.

It's also why some "evil" characters can seem to be particularly misunderstood, like Bishop. It's very broad, undefined.

The kind of character you seem to be asking for is a new Xzar, Bioware's Mad Mage from Baldur's Gate. Xzar was the closest thing to "evil" that Bioware have created, he had no real agenda which is what made him so dangerous. Of course Xzar's evil stems largely from his complete lack of sanity so it could be claimed that he isn't truly evil either.

What you're asking for is so undefined that Bioware have already given it to us on multiple occasions, our opinions as a fan base are just so different that some people see evil more than others.

I personally don't see the appeal of having someone who goes around committing wanton slaughter for the sake of it. I prefer characters to have a deeper layer of complexity, like Obsidian's Bishop.

Evil characters only really work if they aren't truly evil.. More morally grey. At least in my opinion.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 11 août 2012 - 12:06 .

[Cultist]

cogsandcurls wrote...
"Evil" isn't a personality trait. What do you actually mean? More self-serving characters? More unrepentant murderers? Blood mages? Cackling psycopaths? You're asking for a character with a good/evil alignment in a game where alliances and motivations are, on the whole, a lot more complicated and interesting than that already.

No, I hate Alignment concept, that is an abomination from AD&D legacy, limiting PC in every way possible. But there are some things that absolute majority of people consider as evil - child killing, rape, murder for pleasure, slavery and such. Im talking about "Evil" as most people understand it. It is impossible to define "evil" as universal, because for me, killing templars is pretty normal, but for you it may be a horrible act. Some think Chantry is evil, some think Mages should be restrained by every mean possible.
A matter of perspective, yes, but there are some acts that is extremely hard to justify. Sacrificing several people for Blood Magic to save a city is one thing, but doing the same to increase your own power is different.
Making everyone "grey" got its dangers too. The main one IMHO is losing
personality of characters, making them faceless. Like all-bisexual, all-accepting,
morally neutral party of walking templates from DA2.

The kind of character you seem to be asking for is a new Xzar, Bioware's
Mad Mage from Baldur's Gate. Xzar was the closest thing to "evil" that
Bioware have created, he had no real agenda which is what made him so
dangerous. Of course Xzar's evil stems largely from his complete lack of
sanity so it could be claimed that he isn't truly evil either.

No, evil for evil sake never works and I can't remember good character with this approach, even One-of-Many - it lacked interaction options and personality. Bishop and other well written characters are the kind of "Evil" I ment by creating this thread.

Modifié par Cultist, 11 août 2012 - 12:11 .

[Firky]

Cultist wrote...

Not scoundrels or opportunists but cruel and ruthless party members like Edwin, Viconia, Bishop or One-Of-Many?

I never saw Viconia as evil. Or Edwin.

I think I have trouble grasping a personality that is truly evil. Like, I can understand why people do evil things, but not someone who is just inherently evil.

[Sylvanpyxie]

Bishop and other well written characters are the kind of "Evil" I ment by creating this thread.

So you're not actually asking for evil, you're asking for deep, complex, interesting characters who are self-serving, self-absorbed, egomaniacs?

Those kinds of characters are interesting. If someone lives by a code that you view as "evil", but through-out a game they can make such compelling arguments that you begin to see a twisted kind of logic to it, then they're a very well written character. Like Bishop.

The problem is, Bioware have never really written a character that has *that* level of complexity, at least ->*I*<- don't think they have. They always seem to fall slightly short of Obsidian's expertise in that area.

No offense Bioware

I'd definitely like to see them try it though.

Editted to high-light *MY* opinion before i get crucified.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 11 août 2012 - 12:23 .

[Cultist]

Sylvanpyxie wrote...
So you're not actually asking for evil, you're asking for deep, complex, interesting characters who are self-serving, self-absorbed, egomaniacs?

Those kinds of characters are interesting. If someone lives by a code that you view as "evil", but through-out a game they can make such compelling arguments that you begin to see a twisted kind of logic to it, then they're a very well written character. Like Bishop.

The problem is, Bioware have never really written a character that has *that* level of complexity, at least ->*I*<- don't think they have. They always seem to fall slightly short of Obsidian's expertise in that area.

No offense Bioware

I'd definitely like to see them try it though.

Exactly this. Complex personality with logic behind their, for example, ruthlessness or cruelty.
BioWare in theor better times got plenty of well written characters like that. Edwin, Viconia - she got quest line that spanned two games and goddamg lot of dialogues. HK-47 got nice expansion when Obsidian took over KOTOR2.

[CuriousArtemis]

Doesn't Loghain sort of count? I never understood why people would give up Alistair in favor of the man who orchestrated the massacre of the king and his army. So maybe make the "evil" character voluntary.

[Cultist]

motomotogirl wrote...

Doesn't Loghain sort of count? I never understood why people would give up Alistair in favor of the man who orchestrated the massacre of the king and his army. So maybe make the "evil" character voluntary.

I did, at least he's not whining and complaining. The problem with loghain is that he comes into play extremely late. You simply skip 90% of game interaction when he joins you, so hardly he can count as a "full" companion. he's closer to temporary.

[_isia_]

I'd like to see difficult personalities, i don't like this path from bad guy to a hero, from hater to lover cause it's too obvious and usually it happens too fast and simple. I would like companion who will chalenge me, who will try to trap me, who will make me think about what's right and wrong. I like when my party members shake my ethic.

[Wulfram]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'd wager that Viconia is hardly an evil character at all, regardless of what her alignment says.

She's about as evil as Morrigan, Zevran and Isabela.

[Arthur Cousland]

I wouldn't count Isabela as evil. She let those potential slaves free, and she only kept the Tome of Koslun a secret because her life depended on it, and valued her life over everyone else in Kirkwall. She wasn't out killing anyone. Isabela's attitude had a lot to do with her being sold by her mother, and she had to look out for herself. Toward the end of DA2, she does let her guard down and open up to Hawke.

I'd consider evil, more the type of person who enjoys killing, and sometimes kills for little to no reason at all. They kill because they're bored, someone annoys them, they sacrifice others for personal gain, or they believe they are superior to others and it's their right to do as they please.

[brushyourteeth]

My answer is, of course, yes -- though it comes with the knowledge that no matter how clearly evil the writers choose to make a character, there will still be plenty of folks on the forum who insist on seeing as the only truly good and noble character in the game. And that's always one of my itchiest irritants. But, c'est la BSN! It makes for hot discussion.

[Realmzmaster]

The problem comes in defining evil or good for a character. Evil and good can be very subjective. Are characters evil or good because of their intentions or because of the outcomes of their actions?

A character can have the best of intentions and end messing up half a population while benefiting the other half. The characters intention may have been to benefit all, but half the population may now see the character as evil.

What if the character's intention is to screw over the poor and benefit only the nobles? Is the character good or bad? It depends on perception by each group.

I want to see characters that can run the gauntlet from simple to complex. As Merrill says to Aveline Something simple is good. Complex characters are also good. How do you know if a character is complex or evil unless there is something to compare it with.

Take Merrill for example is she good, evil or somewhere in between like Morrigan? In her clan's eyes she is bordering on evil. She clearly knows what she is doing and she has dealt with demons. What about Anders? Had the best of intentions, but it turns out wrong in one group's eyes while giving hope to another.

[Arthur Cousland]

Merrill was good, though she was asking for trouble while dealing with her demon. According to Merethari, the demon's plan was always for Merrill to fix the Eluvian so it could possess Merrill. Her clan was afraid of Merrill due to Merethari telling them that she would bring the blight to them, like she was carrying some contagious disease. Of course, we'll never know, as the Eluvian was never repaired, and thus the demon never had the chance to possess Merrill.

Anders is a bit more grey. He wanted freedom for mages and wasn't afraid to be a martyr and involve harming innocents in carrying out his plans. Only time will tell if the mages get their "freedom" in the end or if they'll end up back as prisoners in the circles, or worse.

A better example of evil companions might be someone like Tarohne, who worked with demons to make her more powerful. She wasn't trying to help anyone, unlike Merrill.

In Anders' case, if he blew up the chantry because of his hatred for them alone and not to ignite a mage revolution, that would make him more evil.

An true evil companion would bring death, harm or misfortune to others and feel no remorse.

Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 13 août 2012 - 07:05 .

[Beerfish]

Bishop was 100% for sure evil but one of the few if any characters that was not crazy evil.

[Maria Caliban]

Cultist wrote...

Dragon Age 2, as well as DA:O got only "grey" companions.

Yeah, it's not like we got a companion who blew up a church.

[thats1evildude]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Yeah, it's not like we got a companion who blew up a church.

But dammit, he's a freedom fighter! A freedom fighter! THE CHANTRY'S BAD, YO!

Modifié par thats1evildude, 13 août 2012 - 10:30 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I would choose interesting characters like Edwin over evil characters like Edwin. First, Xzar was evil, but not nearly as interesting (though brilliantly voiced by my favourite voice actor, Frank Welker). And second, I would dispute that Edwin was particularly evil, again, despite what his character sheet says.