35177 réponses à ce sujet

[ejoslin]

You're right, Aroihkin, he does say that. And that is why I think he's amoral. That is not an insult, it's not a bad thing -- it's all a part of him. Had he lived by a very strict code of morality, he would have been dead. It says nothing about his conscious, because he obviously has one. I think he's got more compassion for the helpless than any of your other party members. But when it all comes down to it, he survives.

The thing I think is amazing about Zevran is he not only survived what would kill most people outright, but that he remained a caring, compassionate man. His training was meant to destroy any type of feeling anyone may have -- yet he was that much stronger that he survived despite not losing his compassion.

Top of the page!  Mad Wynne giving her opinion about Zevran!



Ok, but I have no new screenies.

Modifié par ejoslin, 11 avril 2010 - 01:31 .

[Aroihkin]

Creature 1 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

The gloves I think were given to him by a wh*re. The wh*res there probably had as much choice to be there as the children, but there was probably bonding there as well.

He grew up in Antiva, and from what I've read it seems to have been pretty sexist.  Ferelden is no beacon of enlightenment, but it seems women are permitted to go into any career they desire and are capable of executing there.  In Antiva per Word of God (Gaider) women aren't permitted to go into combat, which suggests they aren't permitted to take jobs such as the guard or join the military.  I assume it was at least like a century or two ago, where it was considered improper for women to travel without a male escort, and possibly even more strict.  In my mind women in the Crows in Antiva were in an unusual position of near-equality with the men. 

Yeah, the wiki entry for it: Antiva is kind of interesting.

From the entry, which is apparently something Gaider talked about... somewhere? "Women have strictly defined roles in Antiva. They are considered pure and delicate and not allowed to participate in combat, among other things."

The ****s are obviously an exception to the pure and delicate rule. And, ew, if "respectable" women are so taboo and untouchable... :/

Modifié par Aroihkin, 11 avril 2010 - 01:31 .

[Sannox]

Aroihkin wrote.... Does it count if it's your own unique moral code you care about?

Yes, it does, in my book.   How can you be amoral if you have your own unique moral code?

(ETA: Sorry, I shouildn't really have quoted your line without context.  And I'm agreeing with you, I think).

Modifié par Sannox, 11 avril 2010 - 01:49 .

[Creature 1]

Aroihkin wrote...
Yeah, the wiki entry for it: Antiva is kind of interesting.

From the entry, which is apparently something Gaider talked about... somewhere? "Women have strictly defined roles in Antiva. They are considered pure and delicate and not allowed to participate in combat, among other things."

The ****s are obviously an exception to the pure and delicate rule. And, ew, if "respectable" women are so taboo and untouchable... :/

Kind of runs counter to the impression Zevran gives of Antiva, which is that they were licentious.  Although you could work that in with a patriarchical society, it would just take some finesse.  Possibly the "pure" standard was only required of upper-class women, who would be endangering their husband's right to leave his property to his child by sleeping around. 

[Aroihkin]

Sannox wrote...

I've wondered if he 'worked' in the ****house, but he does say something about never having taken his clothes off for business. Maybe I just prefer to believe it never happened, because it's just too awful a thing to add to everything else.

There's also the fact that sex, above all things, seems to have retained its purity and joy for him. That could have happened even if he'd been sexually abused, but it would be harder for him, maybe, to hang on to it as something good.

But he does say he learned skills in the ****house. When I wrote my silly story I left out the bit about growing up, because it's disturbing. My wardens can't take it that way either ('I'll show the sexual skills that I learned before I was seven'). So in my own mind, I've imagined that ****houses played a part throughout his life. He does talk about men and women being supplied to the Crows, as if sex workers were brought in to entertain them, or they were respected guests at an establishment. I like to imagine that maybe he was exposed to sexual activity (seeing the women get ready for customers, etc.) at very young age, but not involved in sex until later, when he was a willing participant.

But like I say, that's wishful thinking on my part, and there is some other things he says that could contradict his assertion that he has been strictly an amateur.

I get uncomfortable about the word '****' too. I know 'sex worker' maybe doesn't fit with the setting, and presumably '****' helps to show their lower status. But when he uses it about his mother, I want to say 'You don't need to say that'. I try to think he's reclaming it - that his attitude is 'don't you dare disapprove'. But it's another thing that makes me uncomfortable.

ETA: It obviously makes the forum uncomfortable too, because it has been censored!   But you know what I mean - the word he uses to describe his mother's profession.

Ignacio -- hope I'm spelling that right, I can't check right now -- calls him ****son and he doesn't even blink. I get the feeling this was a normal thing for him (and probably half their forces, considering) to be called among the Crows.

Also note that massage -- even erotic massage -- doesn't necesarilly mean sex. And a seven year old boy wouldn't have the physical strength to do much actual massage to a person in more than a learning sense. If he was being groomed to become a **** himself, he'd have been taught regardless of whether he was involved in other things yet or not.

[Sannox]

Would a soldier be considered amoral if they accepted that innocents might die when they, say, dropped a bomb? I think Zevran's attitude is similar, and not amoral.

[Sabriana]

Thanks everyone for the sympathy. I sure can use it.

The HNs sister-in-law would be an example for the prim-and-proper Antivan woman.

I believe that this is merely a belief that doesn't really show reality. Women in our world were also supposed to be pure and delicate in earlier times, but the ones that played fast and lose with that were the nobles.

A wh0re was always a wh0re and never really counted as much, unless they were high class prostitutes. Or courtesans. A nobleman's piece on the side, as it were.

The high-born Antivan woman and the ones in higher social standing can play fast and lose with their societies morals, as long as they are discreet. Isn't that what Oriana tells my HN?

[TheComfyCat]

Well, I think he is amoral in that he doesn't care about things being "right" or "wrong," rather, he looks at what's practical. I don't think his actions can be considered strictly moral or immoral (and he probably doesn't give moral considerations to his opinions, but rather opinions based on his own experiences and what's in the best interest of the Warden), which would make him amoral.

Edit: I think you're making sense, ejoslin (I also agree with you), and it does seem that we're arguing semantics at this point.

Modifié par senorfuzzylips, 11 avril 2010 - 01:58 .

[ejoslin]

I think we're arguing semantics here.

Zevran is obviously not suffering PTSD. He doesn't make it his mission in life, as Wynne suggests he should, that he go saving a life for every one he killed (though he does manage to do that, his motives were the warden, not saving people).

I think Zevran first and foremost survives. He usually looks at things from a practical point of view -- he thinks the anvil should be used, and has no compassion for the suffering that creating golems causes. But I agree with him to an extent -- the anvil IS powerful, and can potentially save far more lives than it takes. His argument for keeping the anvil is quite interesting and very compelling. But the cost, the suffering it causes, it's too high, and while even with a persuade check he will disapprove of destroying it, he can at least understand your decision.

But again, I think we're arguing semantics. Amoral does not mean cold, or without compassion. But his decisions are very practical.

I doubt I'm making much sense this morning, however.

Edit: Gah, what senorfuzzylips said!  Much more succinctly than I did.

Modifié par ejoslin, 11 avril 2010 - 01:55 .

[Aroihkin]

ejoslin wrote...

I think we're arguing semantics here.

Zevran is obviously not suffering PTSD. He doesn't make it his mission in life, as Wynne suggests he should, that he go saving a life for every one he killed (though he does manage to do that, his motives were the warden, not saving people).

I think Zevran first and foremost survives. He usually looks at things from a practical point of view -- he thinks the anvil should be used, and has no compassion for the suffering that creating golems causes. But I agree with him to an extent -- the anvil IS powerful, and can potentially save far more lives than it takes. His argument for keeping the anvil is quite interesting and very compelling. But the cost, the suffering it causes, it's too high, and while even with a persuade check he will disapprove of destroying it, he can at least understand your decision.

But again, I think we're arguing semantics. Amoral does not mean cold, or without compassion. But his decisions are very practical.

I doubt I'm making much sense this morning, however.

Edit: Gah, what Senorfuzzylips said!  Much more succinctly than I did.

He disapproves of destroying the anvil if you pass the check? I don't remember getting disapproval from him when I convinced him that the anvil in the wrong hands was a bad enough thought to justify destroying it. O_o

I told him "What if I made you a golem?" and he was like "..You wouldn't do that. ...Would you?" and I was like "I would if I was a powerhungry @$#%******." and he was like "...Good point. Destroying it is a good idea."

Paraphrased heavily, of course.

[ejoslin]

It's a small approval drop, -1, but it's there.

[Aroihkin]

senorfuzzylips wrote...

Well, I think he is amoral in that he doesn't care about things being "right" or "wrong," rather, he looks at what's practical. I don't think his actions can be considered strictly moral or immoral (and he probably doesn't give moral considerations to his opinions, but rather opinions based on his own experiences and what's in the best interest of the Warden), which would make him amoral.

Yeah, I can see that. I looked at the city elf slavery and the dalish and mage slaughter as him holding to a moral code, but that doesn't have to be the case. He still does whatever the Warden decides, after all.

[ejoslin]

Aroihkin wrote...

senorfuzzylips wrote...

Well, I think he is amoral in that he doesn't care about things being "right" or "wrong," rather, he looks at what's practical. I don't think his actions can be considered strictly moral or immoral (and he probably doesn't give moral considerations to his opinions, but rather opinions based on his own experiences and what's in the best interest of the Warden), which would make him amoral.

Yeah, I can see that. I looked at the city elf slavery and the dalish and mage slaughter as him holding to a moral code, but that doesn't have to be the case. He still does whatever the Warden decides, after all.

I see it as more compassion.  He IS compassionate.  He was a slave, he was helpless.

[Sannox]

Aroihkin wrote...
Ignacio -- hope I'm spelling that right, I can't check right now -- calls him ****son and he doesn't even blink. I get the feeling this was a normal thing for him (and probably half their forces, considering) to be called among the Crows.

Also note that massage -- even erotic massage -- doesn't necesarilly mean sex. And a seven year old boy wouldn't have the physical strength to do much actual massage to a person in more than a learning sense. If he was being groomed to become a **** himself, he'd have been taught regardless of whether he was involved in other things yet or not.

True. 

He talks about his mother being a **** when if you ask him about love, and it's not exactly disparaging, but pretty two-dimensional - that he was born of a **** and bred as an assasin, so only knows pleasure and death.   But his mother was other things apart from a **** (as I'm sure the other workers were).   She likely loved the woodcutter.  Of course, he never knew her, so he he only heard about that later.  But it's funny that he blames his mother's profession for his attitude to love, when really it's the Crows who shaped his attitude to love.   Not that he's blaming her, exactly.  But he's giving it as a reason, when really, it's not that relevant.   She didn't even get a chance to bring him up.  

What a thought - to feel your life slipping away and being unable to protect your little baby, knowing how bad their fate is likely to be without you.

[Aroihkin]

ejoslin wrote...

It's a small approval drop, -1, but it's there.

Ahh, I didn't even notice it, then. Probably because it was immediately then OMGWTF COMBAT TIME. With golems!

[Aroihkin]

ejoslin wrote...

Aroihkin wrote...

senorfuzzylips wrote...

Well, I think he is amoral in that he doesn't care about things being "right" or "wrong," rather, he looks at what's practical. I don't think his actions can be considered strictly moral or immoral (and he probably doesn't give moral considerations to his opinions, but rather opinions based on his own experiences and what's in the best interest of the Warden), which would make him amoral.

Yeah, I can see that. I looked at the city elf slavery and the dalish and mage slaughter as him holding to a moral code, but that doesn't have to be the case. He still does whatever the Warden decides, after all.

I see it as more compassion.  He IS compassionate.  He was a slave, he was helpless.

Yeah, I was agreeing; it doesn't have to be about some moral code to be simple compassion. Especially since if the Warden decides to do whatever bad thing it is he didn't like, he'll still do it. He won't like it, but he'll do it.

[UnDutchable]

Amoralism isn't about not having morals, it's about not believing that there's such a thing as objective morals. Morality is a system of beliefs, cultural values, etc. Being amoral simply means that you're probably going to laugh at anyone who tells you that "murder is wrong" as if it's some kind of truth. (hi there, Wynne!) Zevran is amoral, but he's also ethical. He's constantly making comments to his companions that make them question their views on right and wrong; asking Wynne what feeling guilty would accomplish; that convo with Alistair about asking forgiveness...

[ejoslin]

Hmmmm, some interesting things in the toolset about that exchange. They will make people yell though.

Edit: When saying you're going to destroy the anvil the first time, there's this comment: DO ONCE  (bad characters try to convince the player to keep the anvil)

Then this I found a bit disturbing, though it only describes how his voice is supposed to sound:

Zevran: Living souls suffer all the time. Peasants working the land are trapped, but we do not go about destroying farmland, do we? (mocking, sarcastic)
Zevran: It just seems a waste to destroy the Anvil, given what it could do. (greedy, wants the Anvil for himself)

Modifié par ejoslin, 11 avril 2010 - 02:14 .

[Aroihkin]

Sannox wrote...

Aroihkin wrote...
Ignacio -- hope I'm spelling that right, I can't check right now -- calls him ****son and he doesn't even blink. I get the feeling this was a normal thing for him (and probably half their forces, considering) to be called among the Crows.

Also note that massage -- even erotic massage -- doesn't necesarilly mean sex. And a seven year old boy wouldn't have the physical strength to do much actual massage to a person in more than a learning sense. If he was being groomed to become a **** himself, he'd have been taught regardless of whether he was involved in other things yet or not.

True. 

He talks about his mother being a **** when if you ask him about love, and it's not exactly disparaging, but pretty two-dimensional - that he was born of a **** and bred as an assasin, so only knows pleasure and death.   But his mother was other things apart from a **** (as I'm sure the other workers were).   She likely loved the woodcutter.  Of course, he never knew her, so he he only heard about that later.  But it's funny that he blames his mother's profession for his attitude to love, when really it's the Crows who shaped his attitude to love.   Not that he's blaming her, exactly.  But he's giving it as a reason, when really, it's not that relevant.   She didn't even get a chance to bring him up.  

What a thought - to feel your life slipping away and being unable to protect your little baby, knowing how bad their fate is likely to be without you.

I think "I was born of a ****" is more a reference to being born into a ****house than anything. He didn't know the woman, after all. And the ****house may well have helped shape a lot of his views on such things, especially if he was being groomed at all to be a **** himself. Or was even acting as one.

[Sannox]

I don't think being practical is the same as being amoral. If he was amoral he wouldn't have a sense of right or wrong, would he? And he does. It doesn't have to have the same morals as Wynne or the others - if he has morals, he's not amoral. Although maybe it is just semantics. I mean, David Gaider said clearly that he is amoral. I just wondered if he was only talking about his attitude to assassination.

Rinna again - I know it's a terrible example because he's so emotionally involved there - but I do get the impression that he feels what he did was wrong, morally wrong. (And that he tried to believe that what she did was morally wrong at the time). I think he can sometimes come across as amoral because there aren't that many things that set off his personal morality. Neither he nor the PC have to see choosing the dwarven king as a moral decision, for instance.

It's one reason I find it difficult to imagine him wanting to take over the Crows - I do think he believes that their methods (slavery and child abuse) are morally wrong, rather than practically wrong. I know he goes back in certain circumstances, but I believe that's because his view of the world and his sense of right and wrong has been shaken, not because he doesn't have a sense of right and wrong.

Modifié par Sannox, 11 avril 2010 - 02:21 .

[UnDutchable]

ejoslin wrote...

Zevran: It just seems a waste to destroy the Anvil, given what it could do. (greedy, wants the Anvil for himself)

What the bloody hell?

[Sabriana]

I usually go by the VO comments, because they make sense and/or because it's come through in the game. This one doesn't make any sense at all. He doesn't sound mocking at all. Jon Curry seems to agree that Zevran wouldn't act like that and put his own spin on things. And he was right.

It makes zero sense for Zevran wanting the anvil for himself. For what purpose? He could never utilize it any which way you look at it. It's simply a stupid comment, and Jon Curry seems to have agreed, bless his hear.

[Sannox]

UnDutchable wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Zevran: It just seems a waste to destroy the Anvil, given what it could do. (greedy, wants the Anvil for himself)

What the bloody hell?

That seems strange.  Why would he want the anvil?  He never comes across as ambitious or power hungry.  Or greedy, even. 

[ejoslin]

Hmmmm, if Zevran does take over the crows, it's tragic. But if it happens as a friendwarden, it seems like it's just another situation he found himself in -- he's not happy with it, but it is what it is. If he was in love though, it's horrible. What was good there no longer is -- his love of life, his love of pleasure, his compassion, all gone.



I really liked what DG said about Zevran, because obviously, it fit with what I believe about him. I don't think he was meant to be an assassin with a heart of gold -- his beliefs just, to me, don't seem to jibe with that. His compassion seems to be really only for the helpless. He doesn't seem to have compassion for the weak at all.



Whether he believes slavery is morally wrong, or morality enters into what he allowed to happen to Rinna, I can't say. I don't think so, but there's not enough information there. He obviously had deep feelings for Rinna and he thinks what he did to her was terrible, but I'm not sure he thinks that on a moral level.



A lot of that is open to interpretation.

[Aroihkin]

I think we're just going into semantics at this point, amoral is a tough one for that it seems. :3

I'm cool with it either way, whether he's amoral all-over or only in the sense of his job. It's just a label, the character does what he does either way, and his motives could be painted in either color. It's damn interesting to try to figure out, though.

@Sannox: Re taking over the Crows: Why not? Someone has to run them, it may as well be someone who will look for ways to change the current system. After the Warden dies to the Ultimate Sacrifice, I don't think he cares anyway, and is probably just waiting for someone to manage to take him out. If you mean the Awakening ending where your Warden might take over the Crows with him, I like to think that various policies are made to change.