59 réponses à ce sujet

[marbatico]

shale is a she, not an it, (you are according to her)

[Ulrik the Slayer]

marbatico wrote...

shale is a she, not an it, (you are according to her)

No spoilers allowed, lulz.

[J.O.G]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...
You don't seem to grasp what the "True" in "True Neutral" means. What you've described is most likely Chaotic Neutral. Zevran is the very embodiment of Chaotic Neutral.

3.5 Player's Handbook I, page 103...

Neutral "Undecided"
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil - after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Chaotic Neutral "Free Spirit"
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't protect other's freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organisations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated by either good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer).

A chaotic neutral character would never have stayed in the Crows for so long, he would have seized the first opportunity to leave the organisation. That would have been the first night in the assassin group's camp, not when he was the last survivor at the mercy of his intended victim. I agree that Zevran shifts to CN, but he isn't yet. just like Leliana isn't LG.

And yes, I think it's a good thing that 4.0 cleaned up the mess and moved the whole neutral axis into an undecided alignment, where people can just be people.

Modifié par J.O.G, 27 décembre 2009 - 09:00 .

[Ulrik the Slayer]

Chaotic doesn't mean you can't stay with any form of organization. You're not totally "anti-establishment". I'm pretty sure the Crows have a lot of Chaotic Evil killers in their ranks who fit right in. Likewise the Bandits roaming about ought to have a lot of Chaotic Evil and Neutral characters in their ranks.

Modifié par Ulrik the Slayer, 27 décembre 2009 - 09:09 .

[Lord Phoebus]

Borschtbeet wrote...

Allistair:Lawful good.

He is a templar which is the Dragon Age equivalent to a Paladin which are as a rule always lawful good.  It is apparent by his actions and demeanor that he is both concerned with doing what is morally just and respecting legitimate authority.  

I think Alistair is Chaotic Good (maybe NG?), he was trained as a Templar but he dislikes the chantry with all their rules and doesn't really care about the law.  As far as he's concerned Duncan rescued him from the life of a Templar.  He doesn't want to be king because he doesn't want to be tied down with responsibilities.  He's the classic free spirit with a heart of gold, which makes him CG imho.

Morrigan:Neutral Evil.

She is primarily concerned with herself and doing whatever is necessary to benefit herself and does not care who she hurts in the process.  She is self-serving and cares little of those around her unless they advance her own personal interests.  She is practically the textbook definition of neutral evil.

I think she might be true neutral,

For starters in D&D she would be a druid.  She doesn't favor any evil choices, but rather looks for the greatest benefit to the group/mission.  She feels people should solve their own problems unless they're willing to pay for it.  The only people she really hates are the circle mages because she thinks they're weak for letting the chantry control them.  For the most part she has an animal's perspective, and in D&D animals are TN.

Lelianna:Neutral Good.

Lelianna doesn't mind the authority that the chantry holds but she is not completely beholden to it as we see from her own interpretations of the Maker that she tells the player character.  Lelianna is ultimately concerned with doing what is best, and if working with authority is the best way to achieve that then all the better.  However, if she sees ways outside of the law to do a greater good, she won't hesitate.
Authority isn't useless to her, but goodness always comes first.

I'm not entirely sure where to place Leliana, she joined the chantry to evade pursuit, and you can convince her that she is a killer and she was just lying to herself in the chantry.  She tends to favor good choices, but I think that's either guilt or the role she's playing her mind.  I think I would say she's Chaotic Neutral since that's the D&D alignment for lunatics.

Shale:True Neutral

Shale cares nothing about laws, morality or anything of the sort.  It has never really had the chance to act on any of it's feelings being that it was enslaved so it chooses to follow the Grey Warden not knowing what else to do with it's newfound freedom.

I think Shale might be Chaotic Evil.  She has a lot of anger.  She really just wants to smash things (birds in particular) and she sees following the Grey Warden around a good way to accomplish that.

I agree with the other alignments though.

Edit: my quote-fu is weak

Modifié par Lord Phoebus, 27 décembre 2009 - 09:50 .

[KariTR]

Borschtbeet wrote...
Allistair:Lawful good.
He is a templar which is the Dragon Age equivalent to a Paladin which are as a rule always lawful good.  It is apparent by his actions and demeanor that he is both concerned with doing what is morally just and respecting legitimate authority. 

 
But then there is the whole Grey Warden "needs, must" ethic which puts the "Lawful" part on a slippery slope.

Sten:Lawful Neutral.
Sten acts in accordance to the philosophy of his people's Qun religion and would never let his personal feelings of morality conflict with that under any circumstances.  He will destroy anything that does not fall under his faith's teachings regardless of whether or not they present themselves as good or evil.  Morality doesn't matter, only honor and tradition are important to Sten.

Morality does matter to Sten, or have you forgotten what he was seeking when you met him? Like Wynne, Sten is one of the two companions who fit best in the DnD alignment system, but I would definately mark him Lawful Evil.

Zevran:Chaotic Neutral.
Zevran is a free spirit who is not particularly driven to good or evil and will act according to his own interests, though not at any cost as we see in the Bercillian forest that he is not completely incapable of mercy or a sense of justice.

Lawful Neutral. It's a complete stretch to call Zev a free spirit, he obeyed the Crows and now he is completely willing to obey your hero.

It's difficult to debate more as examples in game would be a spoiler and we are in the wrong forum for that. I will say though, I am glad that Bioware moved away from the alignment system. I missed it initially - or at least expected to miss it - but it was evident very early on that the lack of alignments deepened the story instead of confining it, as it would have if we had been playing DnD rules.

Modifié par KariTR, 27 décembre 2009 - 09:53 .

[Ulrik the Slayer]

Zev definitely is Chaotic Neutral. He never liked being with the Crows after all, and just look how he acts after he has been freed from them. Compare to Sten who most definitely is of Lawful alignment - he still believes in and honors the Quanari way of life. Zev, on the other hand, is quick to leave the Crows behind him because he never liked it.

[AsheraII]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

Their definitions doesn't matter. The alignments don't work like that. What if an insane murder believes that the commoners he is slaying are orcs and that he is a protector of the people for killing them? Chaotic Evil.

Alignments don't work like that, no. The Drow society is Evil and the Drow who live in it are doing Evil. They don't see themselves as Good nor are their alignments Good of any kind.

What you don't seem to grasp is how the alignments system is limited by what the viewer decides to be "good" or "evil". Good and Evil are not fixed things, rather they are modelling other peoples' behaviours relative to ones personal definitions. D&D got so fixated on this system, that they even invented silly mechanics like "detect evil" and "detect evil intend". While it's nice to set out such as a framework to organize and simplify things, this framework became a straightjacket to the game as a whole, limiting roleplay further than what would've been necessary.
So yes, I'm pretty happy DA:O got rid of it and worked out something more realistic, though it will prove to have its limitations as well. Every character is good in his or her thread of reality, but there is also always the possibility that he or she is evil according to another persons interpretation of reality. The good guys are always in your own football team, the bad guys in the opposing team. But that's what they believe too: the good guys are in their team, the bad guys in the opposing, your, team.
I seriously wouldn't be amazed if someday some game evolved around the world as demons see it: being feared, unwanted and hunted by another species, their deaths, while fighting for your life, making you stronger, giving you new abilities.. Uhmmm, wait, it's starting to sound an awful lot like your everyday RPG now.

[thegreateski]

"Don't worry kid I'll help you find your mom."



10 mins later . . .



"I hear your making a killing! me too! *Stab merchant with murder knife"







Alignment is not really something you can use in this game.

[Templ]

thegreateski wrote...

"Don't worry kid I'll help you find your mom."

10 mins later . . .

"I hear your making a killing! me too! *Stab merchant with murder knife"



Alignment is not really something you can use in this game.

LOL, by that definition, it doesn't work in any RPG... which is true.

[KCat]

Borschtbeet wrote...

Wynne:Lawful Good.

Wynne upholds the laws of the circle and believes wholeheartedly in the Chantry's gospel.  She is a motherly saint who is as compassionate as they come.

Wynne is motherly and compassionate, but she does not completely buy into the Chantry's gospel. She's driven to help and protect others, but if you talk to her in Ostagar about the Chantry, she basically says she doesn't know whether their teachings are truthful, or merely allegorical, and that it's good to question such things.I also don't believe she does particularly uphold the laws of the Circle, but rather, upholds the traditions that she believes will keep people safe (which just happens to roughly fall in line with what the Circle has done).

[Wolfshayde1]

an assassin is not evil...he feels neither glee nor remorse for his target...at best he may be neutral if he must consider such...if good or evil is even looked at, it is by others outside of his profession

[mathewgurney]

I think it's slightly naive to believe you can categorise any personality with only a few types, even the limited AI's in this game, but for the sake of amusing discussion i'll use the only person i know well enough to test this category system, myself. I'd say i'm chaotic/neutral lol, i'll give you some info and if you want to you can try to categorise me, it would provide me some amusement, if not who cares lol, i'll just write and see how i amuse myself.
Truly evil people are IMO usually made weak by the very characteristics that make them evil, the most dangerous individuals are always neutral because they think clearly and act without inhibiting emotions.
I personally am a taoist of sorts and try to be the essence of neutrality, i always try to find the middle ground but am capable of delving to either extreme of behaviour should it suit me, not emotionally but in terms of action i mean, by excercising impartial judgement i guarantee you that i am capable of far more "evil" and "good" acts simply because people who i don't care about can utterly irrelevant to me or something akin to an entertaining toy while a classically evil person will always be emotionally involved to some degree with thier victim through hate or desire, and thus are made clumsy or impulsive and thier potential is reduced, to me you simply don't exist, you're just a bug on my windscreen or a puppet in my play.
But then because i chose long ago to "make" myself this way as a response to a hostile environment i'm able to be selective about who qualifys as "human" on my register, i've got two kids and love them completely and utterly, would step in front of death for them in a second, i act mostly only to fulfill thier needs and may have progressed too far down the road of neutrailty to the point where i have almost no desire for anything myself and life is little more than a game played out of boredom, but this leads to inaction and i suspect should i lose my children or in some way or no longer be responsible for them i would simply cease to act at all, become a stone.
So maybe that makes me like Sten, dutiful/good/neutral, pretty much anyone else outside my "family" just doesn't exist to me, maybe i am evil and i'm just deluded that im neutral, but then if you met me then i would act good and so probably you would make the wrong judgement on me anyway to your detriment because while we made small talk i might be thinking of the best way to profit from you even if i liked you, or depending on my mood i might be thinking how best to help you even if your problem was none of my business and i hated you simply because i was bored and it amused me.
Perhaps everyone is by nature schizophrenic and thus can fulfill all categories depending on thier situation, with loved ones we are good/dutiful, defending our loved ones we could be dutiful/evil because to defend them requires an evil act, or in some situations we must do great evil such as killing individuals for the benefit of the larger population and so are directly good/evil, we all wear many faces.
Life is very strange and i think my intial assessment correct in that it's just not possible to quantify people in that way and trying will send you insane with the contradictions. I am mathewgurney and you are whoever and that and any other label you may choose will always be insufficient to describe what we are, even the most seemingly boring individual has hidden depths i assure you.
I'll tell you one thing for certain, i talk a lot of sh*t when i run out of weed to tranquilise myself with !

BTW my post is the biggest so i win the thread, can i haz it coookie prz ?

Modifié par Torias, 28 décembre 2009 - 09:11 .

[andysdead]

Alistair is more like Lawful Stupid, IMO.

[Breadcrab]

The characters in Dragon Age: Origins seem to be crafted intentionally to NOT fall into the alignment system from D&D properly. If anything, their 'alignment' could be summed up in a few words apiece, though it wouldn't fit on the 3x3 alignment chart.

Sten: Honor. (With a minor in Foreign lol :-P)
Morrigan: Homeschooled and self-centered.
Alistair: Well-intentioned.
Barkspawn: Awesome. (I'm kidding, his alignment is Dog.)
Just a few examples.

Modifié par Torias, 28 décembre 2009 - 09:12 .

[ejikvkaske]

Breadcrab wrote...

The characters in Dragon Age: Origins seem to be crafted intentionally to NOT fall into the alignment system from D&D properly. If anything, their 'alignment' could be summed up in a few words apiece, though it wouldn't fit on the 3x3 alignment chart.

Sten: Honor. (With a minor in Foreign lol :-P)
Morrigan: Homeschooled and self-centered.
Alistair: Well-intentioned.
Barkspawn: Awesome. (I'm kidding, his alignment is Dog.)
Just a few examples.

I think it's possible to lump DA:O characters into the D&D categories, as long as you don't expect them to always behave according to their alignment. Having said that, I disagree with the OP on several characters.

Morrigan and Shale should both be Chaotic Neutral. Oghren in my opinion is more Chaotic Good.

Modifié par Torias, 28 décembre 2009 - 09:12 .

[KariTR]

ejikvkaske wrote...

I think it's possible to lump DA:O characters into the D&D categories, as long as you don't expect them to always behave according to their alignment.

But in DnD if a character doesnt behave in accordance to his alignment then his alignment shifts. A big enough contrary action - of which there are several in the game - would have a GM changing our character and companions alignment's completely.

[Torias]

Hitler is off topic.

[mathewgurney]

That was some seriously surgical excision Torias, nice work and thx.

[AsheraII]

I'm impressed.

/approve +8

[EJ42]

I came to this thread just to see where the OP mistakenly labeled Morrigan as "evil", and I was not disappointed.

You're an idiot.

She's not evil.  She's innocent.  Even Kate Mulgrew said as much (voice of Flemeth).

If anything, she's a prime example of Chaotic Neutral.

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral is called the "Anarchist" or "Free Spirit" alignment. A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions. Good and Evil come a distant second to their need for personal freedom, and the only reliable thing about them is how totally unreliable they are. They typically act out of self-interest, but do not specifically enjoy seeing others suffer. Many free-spirited adventurers are of this alignment. Alternatively there are madmen whose actions are chaotic, but are not themselves inclined towards evil.

Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen from the TV series Deadwood, and Snake Plissken from Escape from New York are Chaotic Neutral characters according to Complete Scoundrel.[7] Slaadi represent pure chaos.


Consider Morrigan's reaction to Sten.  If she had an evil alignment, she would have been thrilled at the idea of watching the darkspawn devour him alive.  She also didn't seem too happy about what happened to the soldiers at Ostagar.

People who claim Morrigan is "evil" are most likely adolescents who have unresolved issues with an older sister.

[Baalzie]

EJ42 wrote...

I came to this thread just to see where the OP mistakenly labeled Morrigan as "evil", and I was not disappointed.

You're an idiot.

She's not evil.  She's innocent.  Even Kate Mulgrew said as much (voice of Flemeth).

If anything, she's a prime example of Chaotic Neutral.

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral is called the "Anarchist" or "Free Spirit" alignment. A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions. Good and Evil come a distant second to their need for personal freedom, and the only reliable thing about them is how totally unreliable they are. They typically act out of self-interest, but do not specifically enjoy seeing others suffer. Many free-spirited adventurers are of this alignment. Alternatively there are madmen whose actions are chaotic, but are not themselves inclined towards evil.

Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen from the TV series Deadwood, and Snake Plissken from Escape from New York are Chaotic Neutral characters according to Complete Scoundrel.[7] Slaadi represent pure chaos.


Consider Morrigan's reaction to Sten.  If she had an evil alignment, she would have been thrilled at the idea of watching the darkspawn devour him alive.  She also didn't seem too happy about what happened to the soldiers at Ostagar.

People who claim Morrigan is "evil" are most likely adolescents who have unresolved issues with an older sister.

No.... YOU just don't understand ADD alignments...
They are NOT how You VIEW them it's a set thing!
An alignment solely IS, its forces of nature... EVIL is a force of nature, just as CHAOS and GOOD and LAW....
Don't post if You do not understand what is being discussed... They're not saying she is evil , they say that her character would in a ADD game have the ALIGNMENT Evil.....
She reacts badly to YOUR character helping others even when said actions help the party!
She likes the ideas of letting innocents suffer to boost YOUR powers, chosing NOT to makes her upset!
That is NOT how an non-evil aligned *NOTE ALIGNMENT AGAIN* character in ADD would behave... Her ACTIONS and REACTIONS put her totally in Evil alignment...
She might not be considered evil by us players but that has NOTHING to do with it...

Learn about alignments first if You want to discuss them!

And There IS no "pure Chaos". Chaotic only represents one of two axis of the alignments... You'd say that Slaadi represent Chaotic Neutral in that case, only chaotic without care about evil and good...
As said, do not just read a page on a website and then think You know how things work...
Do the work Yourself, play the games, read the rules, understand the whole gamsystem, THEN use that knowledge in debates and discussions, unless You LIKE loooking like a nab ofc...

[Bibdy]

The alignment system is dumb. Like Sten says,

Sten:

"Get used to disappointment. People are not simple. They cannot be defined for easy reference in the manner of: 'the elves are a lithe, pointy-eared people who excel at poverty.'"

[Serogon]

Bibdy wrote...

The alignment system is dumb. Like Sten says,

Sten:
"Get used to disappointment. People are not simple. They cannot be defined for easy reference in the manner of: 'the elves are a lithe, pointy-eared people who excel at poverty.'"

Well, that doesn't directly fit here (he was reffering to "people" as in a race or group of people) but it still fits pretty well.

[Basher of Glory]

Baalzie wrote...

No.... YOU just don't understand ADD alignments...
They are NOT how You VIEW them it's a set thing!
An alignment solely IS, its forces of nature... EVIL is a force of nature, just as CHAOS and GOOD and LAW....
Don't post if You do not understand what is being discussed... They're not saying she is evil , they say that her character would in a ADD game have the ALIGNMENT Evil.....
She reacts badly to YOUR character helping others even when said actions help the party!
She likes the ideas of letting innocents suffer to boost YOUR powers, chosing NOT to makes her upset!
That is NOT how an non-evil aligned *NOTE ALIGNMENT AGAIN* character in ADD would behave... Her ACTIONS and REACTIONS put her totally in Evil alignment...
She might not be considered evil by us players but that has NOTHING to do with it...

IMO this is, where your opinion differs from those of other players.
I never had the impression, that she "likes" it, when others suffer, nor could I say, that she "reacted badly" BECAUSE I wanted to help others.

In my eyes she accepts the suffering of others, because she thinks, it will slow down the efforts to fight the main enemy. There is a difference between "to accept" and " to derive pleasure from the suffering of others".

She does not react "badly", when the PC decides to be "good", she reacts more like a mother who has told her son hundreds of times not to put his fingers onto the hot stove top just to see, that he does it again.
Morrigan is - simply said - not able to UNDERSTAND the concept of "I help you - you help me", because she grew up alone, brainwashed by Flemeth, with just one thought: I must survive and I am alone to achieve this.
Thus, her motives are not "how can I make others suffer", which would be "evil" in the AD&D concept.
She cares only about the (higher) goals of the PC which are - in a certain way - coincident with her own.

For me she is more the archetype of a (AD&D) "neutral" person. Not "neutral" like a druid, who WANTS balance of all things, rather "neutral", because she never learnt other ways to solve problems, except some really evil ones committed by Flemeth, which she declined in many conversations.
If DA:O would be an AD&D game with the option to shift alignments, then I'm sure, that Morrigan would end up close to a chaotic good character.