47 réponses à ce sujet

[Biotic_Warlock]

Alignments such as:
Lawful Good
Neutral Good
Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral
True Neutral
Chaotic Neutral
Lawful Evil
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Evil

But of course, within Dragon Age this isn't expressed as a linear title as it is in D&D, but expressed in the attitudes of the characters; Sten wasn't one for following laws, and didn't mind who he killed, however does have certain opinions over things, so he could be considered either chaotic or true neutral to the player. Morrigan could be considered neutral evil, especially giving her dislike of people and weakness of others.

Considering Dragon Age companions, there weren't really many who could be considered evil at all (except morrigan and Zevran).

Should there be some companions who are properly evil, those who show no mercy or sympathy for others, or who help the protagonist just because the blight, or templar/mage war or whatever DA3 is all about involves them, and they help the protagonist to protect their own interests.

Modifié par Biotic_Warlock, 19 septembre 2012 - 01:39 .

[Face of Evil]

I only recognize five alignments: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil and Chaotic Evil.

[ReallyRue]

Sten actually was one for following the laws - those the Qun provided (his family-slaughtering moment aside).

[mousestalker]

The characters in DA3 should follow according to the natures, so that plot and action develop from the character interplay. Forcing the characters into the alignment mold would be a very bad idea.

[hoorayforicecream]

D&D's old alignment system does a lousy job of identifying selfish characters or characters who value certain principles over traditional "good" or "evil", like self-possession and the freedom to make one's own choices.

In that respect, I don't think they should try to hit all 9 points, since they'd not only miss out on some potentially interesting characters, but also force the writers to think of who's still missing and how to possibly shoehorn the missing characters into the narrative.

[EricHVela]

I prefer a three-axis system with no moral judgements.
Motive
Method
Zeal

JourneyQuest's Glorion would be of neutral motives, direct methods and total zeal.

Order of the Stick's Nale would be of selfish motives, complicated methods and moderate zeal.

LFG's Richard would be of selfish motives, direct methods and low zeal.

Goblins' Big Ears would be of altruistic motives, moderate methods and high zeal.

Stuff like that.

However, it's quite a bit more complicated than the 9 D&D alignments and not as much fun as trying to find the loopholes in D&D alignment definitions. (I'm sure everyone's heard of the Paladin that Valiantly fled in terror.)

[Wulfram]

Properly evil characters aren't people I'm interested in having in my party.

Not saying they shouldn't exist, only that I don't get much value out of them.

[cJohnOne]

mousestalker wrote...

The characters in DA3 should follow according to the natures, so that plot and action develop from the character interplay. Forcing the characters into the alignment mold would be a very bad idea.

I disagree. Since most characters are covered in the alignment system It would be a good idea, However I think it would be too hard to impliment.  Or it's easier to choose characteristics for you character without considering alignment.

[EricHVela]

Wulfram wrote...

Properly evil characters aren't people I'm interested in having in my party.

Not saying they shouldn't exist, only that I don't get much value out of them.

In my example, LFG's Richard might seem Evil, but by following the MMZ alignment, he ends up doing a lot of good. Glorion might think he's good (as does many viewers of the show) but he does a lot of harm by sticking to his MMZ alignment.

There's no real "evil" in the MMZ system except by the individual's opinion of "evil". It makes no moral judgement of that on its own.

What's "properly evil"?

[Wulfram]

ReggarBlane wrote...

What's "properly evil"?

Well, the OP defines it as "those who show no mercy or sympathy for others", which is a fair start.

In the terms you're using, someone with a very high level of selfishness for motive probably would count.

[Todd23]

I woul prefer you making decisions and your allignment make itself evident over time. But since Bioware sucks at that, I want to go with your plan. Make allignment one of the options during character creation.

[wsandista]

Should there be good and evil characters? Yes.
Should they use the alignment system from D&D(Pre 4E abomination)? No.

While good characters and evil characters should exist, the major problem with the D&D alignment system (in CRPGs) is that it is too complicated to implement well in a CRPG. when it is implemented, your PC might get alignment points that contradict what you were trying to do. especially since a CRPG can't know the player's motives for performing actions or be as reactive as a good GM.

TL;DR: Just have characters that are good, evil, chaotic, lawful without the label or point system.

[Plaintiff]

"Alignments" are stupid. No game should have them.

[cJohnOne]

Let me guess. Some people feel constrained by alignments on their characters?

Modifié par cJohnOne, 14 septembre 2012 - 06:23 .

[Plaintiff]

cJohnOne wrote...

Let me guess. Some people feel constrained by alignments on their characters?

Well, that's not my issue so much as that I think the enitre concept of "alignments" is supremely moronic. I also think "karma" systems are dumb.

Morality is subjective. "Good" and "Evil", "Lawful" and "Unlawful" are abstract concepts invented by humanity, and we can use them any which way we like. Imposing such morality systems is a limitation not just on the characters, but also on the setting and the plot. Plus, it's insulting to the intelligence of the player.

There is no "alignment" system in Dragon Age, so to ask for party members from each alignment is utterly meaningless. Alistair, Wynne and Aveline are not "Lawful Good". Morrigan and Zevran are not "Chaotic Evil". Varric and Isabella are not "Neutral". They are all individuals and their actions, personalities and viewpoints are open to interpretation.

For example; OP says that Sten is not "lawful", but that is false. Sten is extremely "lawful", in respect to his own law, the law he actually follows, which is the law of the Qun. Any other type of law is irrelevent to him, because it is not the Qun. He cannot be judged on a scale of "Lawful Good" to "Chaotic Evil" because those terms mean completely different things for him and for everyone else.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 septembre 2012 - 06:55 .

[jillabender]

Plaintiff wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

Let me guess. Some people feel constrained by alignments on their characters?

Well, that's not my issue so much as that I think the enitre concept of "alignments" is supremely moronic. I also think "karma" systems are dumb.

Morality is subjective. "Good" and "Evil", "Lawful" and "Unlawful" are abstract concepts invented by humanity, and we can use them any which way we like. Imposing such morality systems is a limitation not just on the characters, but also on the setting and the plot. Plus, it's insulting to the intelligence of the player.

There is no "alignment" system in Dragon Age, so to ask for party members from each alignment is utterly meaningless. Alistair, Wynne and Aveline are not "Lawful Good". Morrigan and Zevran are not "Chaotic Evil". Varric and Isabella are not "Neutral". They are all individuals and their actions, personalities and viewpoints are open to interpretation.

For example; OP says that Sten is not "lawful", but that is false. Sten is extremely "lawful", in respect to his own law, the law he actually follows, which is the law of the Qun. Any other type of law is irrelevent to him, because it is not the Qun. He cannot be judged on a scale of "Lawful Good" to "Chaotic Evil" because those terms mean completely different things for him and for everyone else.

I completely agree with you, Plaintiff. Dragon Age is a world where, as in our world, there is no absolute standard of good and evil, or of order and chaos, and that's part of what makes it interesting.

Modifié par jillabender, 16 septembre 2012 - 06:17 .

[nightscrawl]

ReggarBlane wrote...

There's no real "evil" in the MMZ system except by the individual's opinion of "evil". It makes no moral judgement of that on its own.

I like this, A LOT.

I think motivation is one of the most important factors in determining a character's personality, their actions, and how they interact with others. Why are they doing something? Whether it's good or bad, nasty or nice. Is the NPC spying for the enemy because they are malicious or because the enemy is holding something over them? Is the NPC supportive of your ideas because they actually believe in them, or because of self-interest?

That said, I think it's difficult to gauge some characters. Fenris is one such example. In Acts 1 and 2 I suppose you could say his motive is survival, which is a powerful motive by itself, but it really has no bearing on anything you do since it's directly related to Danarius and Fenris's personal history. He has certain opinions about mages in general, but he never actually does anything about them, and those in Kirkwall that he has interactions with have nothing to do with his motivation of survival.

cJohnOne wrote...

I disagree. Since most characters are covered in the alignment system It would be a good idea, However I think it would be too hard to impliment.  Or it's easier to choose characteristics for you character without considering alignment.

What is there to implement? The OP is simply asking for characters to be designed with the traditional D&D alignments in mind.

I tend to think that the writers will feel too constrained to fill all of the roles and might end up designing exaggerated characters, instead of doing what I imagine they do which is have a character concept based on the requirements of the story and build from the ground up.

[Rinji the Bearded]

cJohnOne wrote...

Let me guess. Some people feel constrained by alignments on their characters?

It's okay from a roleplaying perspective (as in your own character, the PC), but when it comes to characters that are largely out of our control?   No, I don't believe the writers should feel forced to shove their characters into categories to satisfy a meaningless personality quota.    It's contrived and meta.  

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 14 septembre 2012 - 03:24 .

[upsettingshorts]

RinjiRenee wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

Let me guess. Some people feel constrained by alignments on their characters?

It's okay from a roleplaying perspective (as in your own character, the PC), but when it comes to characters that are largely out of our control?   No, I don't believe the writers should feel forced to shove their characters into categories to satisfy a meaningless personality quota.    It's contrived and meta.  

Yep.

Plus lol @ Sten not being Lawful.  He's definitely Qunful Neutral.

[Sylvanpyxie]

You cannot pinpoint alignments. They're all subjective.

Better to just write the characters without consideration for alignment, allowing the pieces to fall into place and a personality to form of it's own volition. Trying to shoe-horn characters to fit the subjective opinion of a writer's view on alignment would ultimately only serve to limit, possibly even damage, the final result.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 14 septembre 2012 - 03:39 .

[Maria Caliban]

No.

[Beerfish]

They already have their alignments, they are just not stated.

Oh and Sten was 100% for sure Evil.

Modifié par Beerfish, 14 septembre 2012 - 03:48 .

[upsettingshorts]

Beerfish wrote...

Oh and Sten was 100% for sure Evil.

Nope.  

Lawful Neutral.  The Qun being the law.  His failure to follow the Qun led to the rage that killed the family, and that tragedy was hard on Sten further because it was another violation of the Qun.  When he challenges the Warden, it is over his/her perceived failure to do what the Qun would suggest/demand.  He doesn't use the Qun as a means to an end, like a Lawful Evil character would, but thinks of the Qun as both a means and an end.

Rendon Howe would be Lawful Evil.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 septembre 2012 - 04:02 .

[Beerfish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Oh and Sten was 100% for sure Evil.

Nope.  

Lawful Neutral.  The Qun being the law.  His failure to follow the Qun led to the rage that killed the family, and that tragedy was hard on Sten further because it was another violation of the Qun.  When he challenges the Warden, it is over his/her perceived failure to do what the Qun would suggest/demand.  He doesn't use the Qun as a means to an end, like a Lawful Evil character would, but thinks of the Qun as both a means and an end.

Rendon Howe would be Lawful Evil.

I would say his rage that killed the family was harder on the family than on poor Sten.

The old saying of actions speak louder than words is perfect here.  His words and those of the Qun say one thing, his actions of murdering a whole family who saved his rump incluidng chldren was an evil act any way you look at it.

This is unless of course in your defintion of lawful neutral that it is acceptable to be a mass murderer for no other reason that to think someone might have stolen your sword, with no proof otherwise.

The 'ideal' Qunari might be thought of as lawful neutral as that is what their words suggest, unfortunatley their actions in many cases are any but lawful neutral.