173 réponses à ce sujet

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

secretsandlies wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...
Anders?

what?

I'd bet he's as close to "evil" as you're going to get with a love interest, and he's not "evil." He believes in a cause and believes committing an act of terrorism will further it.

Morrigan is selfish, Anders is dangerously selfless.

[Medhia Nox]

@Upsetting Shorts: I'm babbling about whatever I damn well please - and you're assessment of what is, or is not, for me has no relevance.

Moral complexity is very different than what most people talk about when they start talking about "grey morality".

Piling flaw after pitiful flaw on a character does not make them "complex" - if they're doing nothing about those flaws (whether experiencing the consequences of those flaws - or making the journey out of them)

Anything else is just celebrating character failure - which, admittedly, is not for me.

Striving for self-improvement over a more base nature "is" ultimately my goal - so sure, if Dragon Age is about a bunch of modern hipsters who celebrate their own failure - maybe you are right.

[Maria Caliban]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

secretsandlies wrote...

by who?

If you're talking about my second comment, who doesn't think being an unrepentant assassin, being Morrigan, blowing up a Chantry, and being a pirate qualified as amoral? (I'm not getting into Isabella and Zevran's "Anything that Moves" attitude because I don't see any moral problem with that.)

Amoral means indifferent or apathetic to issues of morality.

Anders was fanatical about good and evil. He was probably the least amoral character by the end of the game.

Alternatively, Isabela's hedonism is part of her being amoral. "I do what I do because it feels good" is one of the most natural amoral philosophies to hold. That you have no moral problem with it isn't here or there.

[upsettingshorts]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Upsetting Shorts: I'm babbling about whatever I damn well please - and you're assessment of what is, or is not, for me has no relevance.

Moral complexity is very different than what most people talk about when they start talking about "grey morality".

Piling flaw after pitiful flaw on a character does not make them "complex" - if they're doing nothing about those flaws (whether experiencing the consequences of those flaws - or making the journey out of them)

Anything else is just celebrating character failure - which, admittedly, is not for me.

Striving for self-improvement over a more base nature "is" ultimately my goal - so sure, if Dragon Age is about a bunch of modern hipsters who celebrate their own failure - maybe you are right.

So tell me, have you played Dragon Age?

Because that was the inspiration for my question investigating your babbling, as there seems to be little evidence of this approach in either game despite your confident assertions to the contrary.

[LinksOcarina]

I already romanced Zevran, Isabela and Merrill. All of them could be seen as evil rather easily depending on who you ask.

So isn't this really a misnomer because then the definition of Evil is pretty concrete to follow?

[Medhia Nox]

Actually - I think I was talking about "Potential Characters for Dragon Age: Inquisition" which is ultimately what this thread is about.

A morally complex character in Dragon Age: Inquisition? Sure.

But I would not want a LI that is comfortable in their own cesspool of flaws.

====

Morrigan, at least without going through every last available dialogue option - seems like just such a character.

She delights in cruelty - has no interest in changing - and is just a craven base survivalist.

No thank you.

Zevran, Isabella and Anders are very much like that as well - though they may rock different cesspools.
====

But, let it be said - that I am NOT against one being available for people who find such characters compelling.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 10 décembre 2012 - 06:17 .

[upsettingshorts]

Morrigan isn't a sadist, otherwise she would have hardly objected to Sten's imprisonment in Lothering.

[Althix]

Pseudocognition wrote...
I'd bet he's as close to "evil" 

He is not "evil" or close to that. He is broken man. He is pathetic. He is possessed by daemon.

[Medhia Nox]

Though I would argue that dialogue was placed to encourage the gamer to release him - I'll leave it that one line of dialogue doesn't make her complex.

She is all one direction... all flaws and cruelty and conniving manipulative ****. To the very end.

@secretsandlies: I'd argue that all evil people are "broken and pathetic".

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 10 décembre 2012 - 06:20 .

[Maria Caliban]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I already romanced Zevran, Isabela and Merrill. All of them could be seen as evil rather easily depending on who you ask.

So isn't this really a misnomer because then the definition of Evil is pretty concrete to follow?

If the definition of evil depends on who you ask, the definition of evil isn't 'concrete to follow.'

[upsettingshorts]

secretsandlies wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...
I'd bet he's as close to "evil" 

He is not "evil" or close to that. He is broken man. He is pathetic. He is possessed by daemon.

He's broken on the Rival path, and Justice takes over completely. 

On the Friend path, he and Justice merge as their thoughts become one.  

In both cases, the entity that is called Anders is hardly pathetic, he is the determinator.  A rebel with a cause.

The ethics of his action are open to vigorous and spirited debate, and many would have cause to call him evil.  

Medhia Nox wrote...

Though I would argue that dialogue was placed to encourage the gamer to release him - I'll leave it that one line of dialogue doesn't make her complex.

She is all one direction... all flaws and cruelty and conniving manipulative ****. To the very end.

I'm currently replaying DA:O.  Tell me how many lines it would take that contradict this assessment for you to accept a more nuanced interpretation of her character and I will keep an eye out for them.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 décembre 2012 - 06:23 .

[DeathScepter]

Pseudocognition wrote...

secretsandlies wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...
Anders?

what?

I'd bet he's as close to "evil" as you're going to get with a love interest, and he's not "evil." He believes in a cause and believes committing an act of terrorism will further it.

Morrigan is selfish, Anders is dangerously selfless.

Anders in heavily influence by Justice. So I can't call him evil due to outside influences. But I do consider Justice to be evil now due to making Anders blow up the Chantry. This is the only time, the Devil made me do it has any weight.

[upsettingshorts]

DeathScepter wrote...

But I do consider Justice to be evil

Justice isn't evil.  Justice is justice.  It's already something of an abstract concept.  

One that, when limited by human experience and perspective, can lead to ends one might describe as "evil."

Blaming Justice alone absolves Anders, but they corrupted each other.  

To put it more bluntly:  By merging with Anders, Justice was no longer "blind."  He had a stake in things, which justice is not supposed to be burdened by.

[DeathScepter]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

DeathScepter wrote...

But I do consider Justice to be evil

Justice isn't evil.  Justice is justice.  It's already something of an abstract concept.  

One that, when limited by human experience and perspective, can lead to ends one might describe as "evil."

Blaming Justice alone absolves Anders, but they corrupted each other.  

To put it more bluntly:  By merging with Anders, Justice was no longer "blind."  He had a stake in things, which justice is not supposed to be burdened by.

Without Mercy, Justice become Revenge. merciless and cruel. One of the reasons, I do blame Justice due to he is the stronger of the 2 personalities in the end. I am not saying Anders is not a strong person. I do think he is quite strong and I am one of his fans. Justice due to his stronger personality bears the responsiblity of Ander's actions. I do hope in DA3 that Velanna(the Dalish Elf from DAOA) returns and does a ritual similar to the Ritual in Redcliffe for Connor.

[Althix]

Evil? Evil it's when i decapitate someone and put his head on trophy rack behind my back. After that i go and burn a village for no reason but fun. Killing young and old, throwing children into fire and forcing mothers watch how their babies screams in pain and horror when fire consumes them.
That is - Evil.

Anders is not evil, he is a terrorist. And a stupid one i must add. There is no Justice, there is Vengeance. Also daemonic possession is bad.

[upsettingshorts]

DeathScepter wrote...

Without Mercy, Justice become Revenge. merciless and cruel. 

Right.

Humans can combine these concepts because they are not manifestations of them.

Justice is.  He is only justice.  In the Fade where he does vague Fade things - like his appearance in DA:A - this is fine.

Put him in the real world and it's an entirely different story.  Likewise put him in the body of a mage, and he's going to view things through the perspective of that human, which is far more limited and narrow than anything he'd experience in a supernatural realm.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 décembre 2012 - 06:37 .

[DeathScepter]

secretsandlies wrote...

Evil? Evil it's when i decapitate someone and put his head on trophy rack behind my back. After that i go and burn a village for no reason but fun. Killing young and old, throwing children into fire and forcing mothers watch how their babies screams in pain and horror when fire consumes them.
That is - Evil.

Anders is not evil, he is a terrorist. And a stupid one i must add. There is no Justice, there is Vengeance. Also daemonic possession is bad.

But Terrorism is a form of Evil. Yes Justice is Vengeance. Vengeance is a corruption of Justice into something quite evil. Anders is just a puppet for a Mad Spirit.

[Maria Caliban]

Justice *was* an abstract concept. Justice *was* only justice.

Justice *is* a moral agent.

You could argue that Justice as an abstract concept and Justice as a moral agent are so different enough that they aren't the same person, but we never interacted with Justice when he was purely an abstract concept.

Tangentially, I'm not sure I agree with your characterizations of spirits. We know that they draw power from and seem to embody different concepts, but that doesn't mean that they're limited to those concepts and have no personality outside of them. A different spirit of Justice might have taken Anders in a different direction.

[sunnydxmen]

I see the romance scene already you kissing evil li . he wants to take things to the next level you say no he smacks you in forces his self on you proceeds to have his way with you.

[Maria Caliban]

sunnydxmen wrote...

I see the romance scene already you kissing evil li . he wants to take things to the next level you say no he smacks you in forces his self on you proceeds to have his way with you.

This is like the third day in a row someone has suggested that the PC or their LI be a rapist.

Given that the PC is always a deadly mass murderer, I have trouble believing that an LI could 'smacks you in forces his self on you proceeds to have his way with you.'

[upsettingshorts]

Maria Caliban wrote...

You could argue that Justice as an abstract concept and Justice as a moral agent are so different enough that they aren't the same person, but we never interacted with Justice when he was purely an abstract concept.

What about when he was in the Fade in DA:A?  Before ending up in whatshisface's body.  Not Anders.

Maria Caliban wrote...

 A different spirit of Justice might have taken Anders in a different direction.

Possibly.  I'm not sure.  It's ambiguous.

All I really want to get across with any of this is that Justice and Anders were both influenced by each other, it wasn't a one-way thing.  As to the details of how or why that is the case, I'm open to ideas.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 décembre 2012 - 06:49 .

[Althix]

US of A are made by terrorists. Soviet Union as well.
And now USSR is no more and US of A forcing democracy by bomb runs and military actions.
However radical muslims are considered evil simply because they do what US of A or USSR already did before them.
So how about that?

anyway what is my point - we all are very different people, we grow up in different conditions and those conditions are base for our view on a world around us. There should not be pure good or pure evil characters. There should be different characters who have different views on events of the game. They should not be mindless sheeps like in DA2 or ME2/3. Complex, different characters will make game better, and as result LI as well.

[Vilegrim]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Upsetting Shorts: I'm babbling about whatever I damn well please - and you're assessment of what is, or is not, for me has no relevance.

Moral complexity is very different than what most people talk about when they start talking about "grey morality".

Piling flaw after pitiful flaw on a character does not make them "complex" - if they're doing nothing about those flaws (whether experiencing the consequences of those flaws - or making the journey out of them)

Anything else is just celebrating character failure - which, admittedly, is not for me.

Striving for self-improvement over a more base nature "is" ultimately my goal - so sure, if Dragon Age is about a bunch of modern hipsters who celebrate their own failure - maybe you are right.

define failure ?  Is hating the Templars to the point of wiping them out to ht last apprentice in the most painful and demeening way you can think of a 'failure?' Is considering that the ends justify the means a 'failure'?  Is despising people to apathatic to fight for themselves a 'failure'?

DeathScepter wrote...

[

But Terrorism is a form of
Evil. Yes Justice is Vengeance. Vengeance is a corruption of Justice
into something quite evil. Anders is just a puppet for a Mad Spirit.

Anders isn't a terrorist, the Chantry was the command and control apparatus of the Templar order, and of the Circle, the Chanters where completly legitimate targets for a decapitation strike.  Text book resistance movement op.  As legitimate as hitting the Ba'ath party HQ was in both Iraq wars.

Modifié par Vilegrim, 10 décembre 2012 - 06:56 .

[Tootles FTW]

esper wrote...

Tootles FTW wrote...

From what little we know of Inquistion, and taking what we know from the novels, I'm thinking Cole would fit quite nicely in this role.

I do not want a companion let alone a Li, who has had major characther development outside of the game media.

I don't mind, and I haven't read Asunder (FYI) so I'm  "in the dark" about the particulars of his character, too. 
I think Cole sounds interesting, though, and since people exist outside of the bubble of our protagonist's life it's perfectly acceptable to me that he lived & adventured beyond what we see in-game.  I take his involvement in other media as a perk to the character.  If I love him, I can read more about his life previous to my/the PC's involvement - that's cool as hell, in my opinion.

[toto2300]

secretsandlies wrote...

US of A are made by terrorists. Soviet Union as well.
And now USSR is no more and US of A forcing democracy by bomb runs and military actions.
However radical muslims are considered evil simply because they do what US of A or USSR already did before them.
So how about that?

anyway what is my point - we all are very different people, we grow up in different conditions and those conditions are base for our view on a world around us. There should not be pure good or pure evil characters. There should be different characters who have different views on events of the game. They should not be mindless sheeps like in DA2 or ME2/3. Complex, different characters will make game better, and as result LI as well.

The characters in ME 2/3 were not mindless sheep.