111 réponses à ce sujet

[Terrorize69]

Evil.. not so much..

Renegade followers, yes please!

People who "enjoy" murder etc etc.

Some guy has somethign we need? Borrow it from him with a smile, or stab him 10 times and run off with it with my Renegade follower saying Hell yeah!

Hopefully DA3 will see the end of 95% Paragon followers and go more 50/50.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

daaaav wrote...

I'm not sure why people want to play as psychopaths...

Because it's fun.

[Eire Icon]

I like the idea of having characters on different ends of the spectrum. For example Fenris is basically racist when it comes to Mages, with Anders at the other end of the spectrum and hating of Templars.

I would love to see more interaction between the companions and possibly consequences to the main character siding with a particular faction. For example in DA2 I don't think it should have been possible for a Mage to romance Fenris

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

Sounds great, go for it.

[GodWood]

Pedrak wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
A topic like this is like fly paper for the: "Morality is too hard so I'll state it doesn't exist." crowd.

Probably just 16-year olds who have the luck to have never met / been damaged by evil people in real life.

One's own personal trauma doesn't negate the subjectivity of morality.

Medhia Nox wrote...
At "least" take one college philosophy class before blathering on about universal human truths.

College philosophy classes don't teach morality in absolutes.

[Medhia Nox]

@Godwood: Even if moral relativism were "fact" - the reality is that any institution created by man is "real" in so far that it governs, or thereby influences, the actions of mankind.

Are you a "patriot"? Are you aware that whatever country you live in - no matter how long lived - is only a make believe invention possessing no scientifically quantifiable "reality"? I'm sure you are - but I have to wonder if that stops you from "believing" in your country?

===

As far as "college philosophy" - it doesn't "teach" much actually. If a philosophy professor has done his job properly - he will only lead you to the workings of philosophers that have come before - and empower you toward thought.

Which is why I wrote - 'at least'.

====

The real world solves the moral relativistic problem - even if only on a basic level.

No matter how much someone wants to theorize about how cool it would be to be "Grimdark" and how raping and pillaging is so - "grey" - governments with the power to enforce their code of ethics - simply won't allow the behavior.

So - I suspect - people want to enact every perverse impulse they can in an environment that not only "doesn't" judge them - but encourages whatever morality they choose is best.

===

"I gained this from philosophy, that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." - Aristotle.

[macrocarl]

I really liked Ammon Jerro from NWN2. He was complicated and his reasons turned out to be understandable even though he was LE. I think the DA team does a good job splainin' character motives...... But I guess by 'evil' are we talking gross and super bad with no discernible motives?

[Malsumis]

Ah yes the everyone/thing is grey phenomenon. A blight on story telling and role playing and another boring and uninteresting feature plaguing the genre.

There should be, good, evil and everything in between.

Modifié par Malsumis, 08 octobre 2012 - 03:06 .

[Todd23]

Arch1eviathan wrote...

I want a mage hating companion for lulz.

Cullen.  

[Todd23]

daaaav wrote...

I'm not sure why people want to play as psychopaths...

Because I want to be myself. 

[Arch1eviathan]

Yana Montana wrote...

I'd go with a Desire Demon companion. Evil has never been hotter.

for Companion and LI! I'm down with this. 

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

By "pure evil" do you mean chaotic evil?

[EricHVela]

GodWood wrote...

Define 'pure evil'.

Can't get any simpler than that.

Not everyone seems to agree what it means.

I would immediately guess that it would be someone that is completely egoist versus altruist.

Haven't we already had that?

Some seem to think that it's just someone wanting to cause mayhem, but even that has an egoist motive (by the definition of "wanting").

Even someone that believes they're being completely altruist can be detrimental to society. (There are many stories of oppression -- historical and fictional -- because the oppressor felt that it was the best solution for everyone.)

Someone who disagrees with a nice protagonist isn't necessarily evil, either. From what we've seen so far in BWE games that feature such, they've ranged from egoist through altruist and somewhere in-between.

Someone who just wants mayhem would likely be a poor companion even for a protagonist that also just wants mayhem (which is unlikely -- nice and mean seem to be the options with silly being a third option in the 2nd DA).

[scootermcgaffin]

Hanz54321 wrote...

scootermcgaffin wrote...

God no. Morrigan was awful about this in DA:O. Just straight up suggests screwing yourself over and sabotaging your own goals just for the sake of being evil.

Morrigan was not evil.  She straight up suggests either increasing the Warden's power in order to defeat Archie the Archdemon, or she suggests abandoning quests or pleas for help that are ultimately only going to slow the mission down and give Archie the upper hand.  She was practical and socially awkward from living in isolation since infancy.  Anyone who has played the game or even dicussed it in the Origins forums knows she tells you this if you talk to her.

You're kidding right? Redcliffe is a perfect example of her being evil for kicks. "So, we need to get an army to fight Loghain and the Darkspawn both but um....let's just let these dudes be eaten by zombies that's a pretty good way to get the arl's support."

[scootermcgaffin]

Yeah, but Sten's a Qunari. I expect them to be stupid and evil in the pursuit of "following the Qun" or whatever.

[EricHVela]

scootermcgaffin wrote...

Yeah, but Sten's a Qunari. I expect them to be stupid and evil in the pursuit of "following the Qun" or whatever.

Case-in-point that not everyone defines evil the same way.

The Qun was a dogma. Nothing more or less. It didn't have any intent to be "evil" nor "good". It was intended to define what was more beneficial to people and what was not. EDIT: It was a definition of what was "necessary" and not what was "nice". Necessary isn't always nice.

It is a contest of pros and cons. While metagaming tell us that there's no reason we cannot save those people and still build the necessary army, the in-game character as if it were the first play-through wouldn't know that and would have to weigh the delay against the gain.

Sacrifice the fewer to save the greater? Not an easy choice and not an evil one if the devastation would be terrible otherwise.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:49 .

[Sylvanpyxie]

Yeah, but Sten's a Qunari. I expect them to be stupid and evil in the pursuit of "following the Qun" or whatever.

Qunari aren't evil, their morals differ from your's, but their ultimate goal and social agenda is to unite the world and rid Thedas of conflict. Their intentions are pure, at least in their eyes, and they consider every act to have a purpose, every action a step forward towards achieving their goals.

To quote myself from an old thread on the exact same topic of discussion from months back:

Sylvanpyxie:

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

The kind of character I would personally define as "evil" is 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, just sick.

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 or Ammon Jerro.

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

Edit: http://social.biowar...ndex/13613705/1 This is the previous thread in question, in case anyone is interested.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:46 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I always saw 'evil' and 'good' as very poor ethics models. I like the D&D model of lawful, neutral or chaotic (I thought it could be labeled better, such as rebellious) but thought they could include a metric such as someone governed by reason and logic rather than emotions and feeling. More of an empathic morality, or a logical one.

In such a model, one could be rebellious against authority, but be guided by logic to rule their actions. . And one could be a follower of societal rules and norms, but be passionate about a cause, regardless of the reason or logic behind it.

Regardless, such static systems (no matter how well they are designed) break down when you have characters from different societies. If it was the law in a country to throw a child out the window at the age of five, as a proof that they are strong enough to survive, would a Lawful character follow this, since it is the law of the land (but maybe not the law of the player or the law that the character grew up with)? Would a good character abide, since stronger children may actually help make a more powerful army, which keeps a greater evil at bay?

It's easy to play a Lawful Good character in standard situations. It's impossible to do so when you are thrown into socially non-normal situations.

[Realmzmaster]

The problem is that no person is completely evil, or good. Even Desire demons do not do it for evil sake, but have their own motives and desires. If you remember the desire demon that possessed Kitty in DAO. The demon desired to see the world through the child's eyes that the warden was trying to save.
Evil companions are capable of doing good when it is to their benefit. Would the populace still see the companion as evil if that happens?
If you are talking different cultures then evil or good can be defined in different ways. So unless one can define a universal good or evil we only have grey to work with.

If you work with a guild of thieves stealing from others for the group would be considered good, but stealing from other guild members would be evil.
The Antivan Crows are neither good nor evil but weapons to be used by the forces of good or evil. If a good king hires an assassin to rid the kingdom of an evil rival for the betterment of the kingdom is that an evil or good act?

Also who would want a completely evil companion in their party? You could not trust the companion. It is easy to deal with a person if motivations are known. What are the motivations of a purely evil companion? Also both evil and good come in degrees. Are they mostly evil or good, sometimes evil or good etc.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:19 .

[EricHVela]

I've never liked D&D's Lawful-Chaotic/Good-Evil 2D axis for the reason that Chaotic suggested random while everyone does something for a purpose (even if that purpose is to cause mayhem) and their definition of "good" varied with Dungeon Masters and house rules (while "evil" seemed decidedly self-centered in motives in the stuff I've seen).

I prefer no further system of judgment other than the immediate nearby population's reactions to player character actions. Coexisting comes with certain advantages and certain costs.

Lost in a jungle where there's nobody to judge, there's no morality other than the player's character's own morality, defined as that character sees fit. Necessity can easily take over any former codes of morality that the character once held.

[FINE HERE]

'Pure' Evil characters would be trying to kill you and/or everyone in your party and work with the enemy against you.
I'd like a character that's kinda a jerk while still being a bit like a hero.
Maybe a guy that's completely sexist, talks down to the female party members, starts fights with the men but still geninuely in his own way wants to stop the Templar/Mage war or whatever the conflict is.
Or a woman who's a catalyst and makes others fight each other for a laugh, and often uses her looks to look down on the others or mock the PC. But she still wants to save people while she has her fun.
Or someone who is literally forced to join you, absolutely despises you, and insults you for the first 1/2 of your PC and his conversations with each other until you eventually win him over. He's only there because he has to be and would rather fight with others.
I don't know... Maybe those kind of characters would work better than 'pure' evil.

[DarkDragon777]

scootermcgaffin wrote...

Yeah, but Sten's a Qunari. I expect them to be stupid and evil in the pursuit of "following the Qun" or whatever.

I was hoping people would get it through their heads that the Qun is Lawful Neutral.

Modifié par DarkDragon777, 08 octobre 2012 - 07:10 .