173 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

toto2300 wrote...

secretsandlies wrote...

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.

Nor were they in Dragon Age 2.  That assertion is categorically preposterous since there was an entire game mechanic built around your companions disagreeing with the protagonist.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 décembre 2012 - 06:59 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

By 'we' I mean 'me.' 

Yeah, I never played all the way through Awakenings and had no idea you interacted with him pre-Christoph. I've just seen the interweb videos with him as zombie!dude.

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.

Even if spirits are giant conceptual sponges, I can imagine different spirits of Justice absorbing different variations of Justice. And there’s the question of whether concepts in the Fade are Platonic ideals or the product of sophont minds.

But yes, I’m probably not adding to your discussion here. I agree that the interplay between Anders and Justice is a complex one and it’s not easy to call either of them evil, even if you believe their action were evil.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 10 décembre 2012 - 06:59 .

[Althix]

yeah right. they don't even have a option to voice their opinion.

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

What? How can you even say this and think it is true?

The French Revolution saw the common folk seize control and establish one of Europe's first democracies... by pulling nobles out into the the streets and decapitating them. The American Revolution took people sympathetic to the British and tarred and feathered them - literally dumping boiling hot tar all over their body and covering them in feathers, usually killing them in the process. These would very easily be labeled as terroristic acts today, but instead we view them as the birth pains to freedom.

This brutal, wanton slaughter of people happens in the world. War, just like terrorism, is a terrible, terrible tragedy... but it isn't "evil." It's a military tactic. I don't condone it of the people who practice it, but it cannot be "evil", anymore than guerrilla tactics are "evil."

How these tactics are used, against what targets and in what circumstances are what you can base your declaration on, but the concept of terrorism itself is not an "evil" in this world. Saying so makes you sound like a child.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 décembre 2012 - 07:03 .

[upsettingshorts]

secretsandlies wrote...

yeah right. they don't even have a option to voice their opinion.

Every time they spoke they did!

Are you mad, son?  Their opinions - and their interaction with and influence on Hawke's - are what the game was about!

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 décembre 2012 - 07:03 .

[Althix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
gon Age 2.  That assertion is categorically preposterous since there was an entire game mechanic built around your companions disagreeing with the protagonist.

yeap, and they are still were with PC even if you do something fun like executing Anders infront of them, with out trial.

[upsettingshorts]

secretsandlies wrote...

yeap, and they are still were with PC even if you do something fun like executing Anders infront of them, with out trial.

Demonstrably false:

Merrill pleads for Anders to be spared after he destroys the chantry, and for him to assist the party and make up for his act. She willingly joins Hawke in defense of the mages. She can also stick with Hawke despite siding with the Templars, if completely loyal.

If otherwise, Merrill initially refuses to help a pro-Templar Hawke if she was not spoken to after an unpleasant encounter with her clan, and if Anders considers Hawke a full rival. He must also be talked with after fulfilling all his requests so that he can be potentially persuaded to turn against the mages; his actual fate is irrelevant.

During the finale in Act 3, you have to choose between killing Anders or having Sebastian threaten to seek vengeance on all of Kirkwall.

If you kill Anders and side with the mages he will join you, saying that all creatures have the right to redeem themselves in the Void while the others are free to walk with the Maker. He will then vow to stop the "tyranny" of the Templars. Alternatively, siding with the Templars shows that he is eager to end the threat of all "Maleficarum".

It's possible that Isabela will permanently leave the party at the end of the quest to retrieve the Qunari relic called the Tome of Koslun near the end of Act 2. It turns out that Isabela stole the tome from the Orlesians, who were giving it back to the Qunari. While fleeing a pursuing Qunari dreadnought, both it and Isabela's ship were caught in a storm and shipwrecked. If romanced, or having a high enough friendship or rivalry, she will return at the end of the same act to return the relic to the Qunari, saying that Hawke's influence was what made her come back. It is at this point that the opportunity presents itself to surrender her to the Qunari, or to duel the Arishok for her life. Defeating the Arishok will cause Isabela to rejoin the party with the option of continuing her romance.

During The Last Straw, Aveline does not approve of allowing Anders to live; if Hawke does, and puts both Aveline and Anders in the party, she will tell him to turn himself in. Aveline always joins Hawke who sided with the templars. In most cases she also immediately joins Hawke who sided with the mages.

However, Aveline initially refuses to support Hawke who sided with the mages if her Act 3 quest Questioning Beliefs has not been completed and Hawke has 100% friendship or rivalry with Fenris and has completed his last personal quest. Later Hawke meets Aveline in the Gallows courtyard. Hawke can still convince Aveline to join the party at this point. Otherwise Aveline walks away and then shows up inside the Gallows with a group of city guards. She refuses to fight Hawke in battle because she owes her life to Hawke. Instead, she angrily leaves stating that she wants nothing to do with Hawke anymore.

Also, there's this.

After the destruction of the Chantry Fenris advocates for killing Anders. In the final battle Fenris always joins Hawke who sided with the templars. He also immediately joins Hawke who sided with the mages if he/she has 100% friendship or rivalry with Fenris and has completed his last personal quest.
Otherwise Hawke who sided with the mages meets Fenris in the Gallows courtyard:

If Hawke has any (0-100%) amount of friendship or less than 50% rivalry (1-49%) or exactly 100% rivalry with Fenris, he can still be convinced to join the party at this point.

If Hawke chooses any reply other than "Join me" or has more than or equal to 50% and less than 100% rivalry with him (50-99%), Fenris objects Hawke. Later he shows up with a group of city guards inside the Gallows and Hawke has to kill him.

You are wrong.  The opinions and worldviews of the characters in Dragon Age 2 matter a great deal, and the only one whose presence is never in any kind of doubt is Varric, for narrative reasons.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 décembre 2012 - 07:10 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Ah, I get it now. Mindless sheep. That's a silly stance to take, since the whole point of the rivalry path with each character is where they can disagree with the protagonist.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 10 décembre 2012 - 07:11 .

[Robhuzz]

TOR had several evil companions. One of them, Jaesa, was a LI for the male Sith Warrior.

Not sure how an evil LI would fit in the DA universe, but they did it before at least.

And depending on how you look at it, you can say the same for Bastila in KOTOR if you take the alternate dark side ending...

[Althix]

what influence? They are sheeps in a herd and Hawke is their shepherd. They can't leave you, they can't confront you, they can do NOTHING. Hell they even can't solve their own problems.

Yes you are right about that, i agree about Fenris, Anders and Aveline. But most likely only Fenris or Anders will confront you. Because they are on very different sides. And you can also influence Fenris, not Anders.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 10 décembre 2012 - 07:14 .

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy 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.

What? How can you even say this and think it is true?

The French Revolution saw the common folk seize control and establish one of Europe's first democracies... by pulling nobles out into the the streets and decapitating them.

I have no problem thinking that the French Revolutionaries did some seriously evil stuff.

The American Revolution took people sympathetic to the British and tarred and feathered them - literally dumping boiling hot tar all over their body and covering them in feathers, usually killing them in the process. These would very easily be labeled as terroristic acts today, but instead we view them as the birth pains to freedom.

The majority of people didn't die from being tarred and feathered. They suffered serious burns but 'boiling tar' isn't that much hotter than boiling water.

Mob violence has nothing to do with the 'birth pains to freedom.' It's also not terrorism.

[hoorayforicecream]

secretsandlies wrote...

what influence? They are sheeps in a herd and Hawke is their shepherd. They can't leave you, they can't confront you, they can do NOTHING. Hell they even can't solve their own problems.

Yes you are right, Fenris and Anders will confront you, but what about the rest?

Merrill can leave you.
Aveline can leave you.
Fenris can leave you.
Sebastian literally makes you choose: Anders or him.
Isabela (if she is still around) will stay, since her crisis point came in Act 2.

The only one who literally can't leave you (at all) is Varric. All of this hinges on who Hawke sides with, what each character's friendship/rivalry is, and whether Hawke has a mage and/or warrior still in the group. It isn't very hard to get them to stay, but something being easy is not the same thing as something not existing.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 10 décembre 2012 - 07:15 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Vilegrim: Yes, even the last one - which defines me - perhaps especially the last one.

The point is not to have "zero" flaws - the point is not to glorify them and I will assert that there is no truly complex character that revels in their own character flaws.  ((Edit: For the duration of any relevant story))

@Upsettingshorts: You wouldn't be able to do it honestly - not because they aren't there, but because unless I go and experience them, I can't determine properly for myself.

And I'll be replaying DA:O soon as well - and I'll be forcing myself to not be confrontational with characters like Morrigan. ((She clams up after you call her pathetic for hunting Templars and making excuses as to why she's justified.))

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 10 décembre 2012 - 07:16 .

[LinksOcarina]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.'

That is kinda the point. 

There is no definition of evil in Dragon Age, with the exception of demons. 

If you romance a demon then there you go I guess. But even that is a bit suspect no? 

[Medhia Nox]

Hubris is very clearly defined as evil in Dragon Age - there's an entire morality tale about the dangers of hubris.

[Fast Jimmy]

Terrorism is attacking non-military targets with goal of spreading fear, in its distilled sense.

Killing nobles and inflicting severe burns all over the body during 1700's level of medicine are pretty extreme attacks against non-military targets.

I'm not condemning or endorsing the acts, but just because they don't use a bomb doesn't make it not terrorism. And if you begin calling attacks by civilians on other civilians evil, then where is the line drawn? Terrorism usually just has the stigma of a political/ideological goal behind it.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 décembre 2012 - 07:38 .

[Tootles FTW]

secretsandlies wrote...

what influence? They are sheeps in a herd and Hawke is their shepherd. They can't leave you, they can't confront you, they can do NOTHING. Hell they even can't solve their own problems.

Yes you are right about that, i agree about Fenris, Anders and Aveline. But most likely only Fenris or Anders will confront you. Because they are on very different sides. And you can also influence Fenris, not Anders.

Um.  "Most likely"?  It's CONFIRMED that every character except Varric confronts you if they disagree with your stance and you don't have a certain relationship % with them.  And I can't influence Anders?  Tell that to my Hawke who convined him to reject Justice and side with the Templars... 

I mean, wow.  You're just speaking out of your butt at this point.  Go play the game, because obviously you haven't.

[Zjarcal]

I'll be very happy the day people stop using the term "evil" to describe characters.

[DeathScepter]

Fast Jimmy 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.

What? How can you even say this and think it is true?

The French Revolution saw the common folk seize control and establish one of Europe's first democracies... by pulling nobles out into the the streets and decapitating them. The American Revolution took people sympathetic to the British and tarred and feathered them - literally dumping boiling hot tar all over their body and covering them in feathers, usually killing them in the process. These would very easily be labeled as terroristic acts today, but instead we view them as the birth pains to freedom.

This brutal, wanton slaughter of people happens in the world. War, just like terrorism, is a terrible, terrible tragedy... but it isn't "evil." It's a military tactic. I don't condone it of the people who practice it, but it cannot be "evil", anymore than guerrilla tactics are "evil."

How these tactics are used, against what targets and in what circumstances are what you can base your declaration on, but the concept of terrorism itself is not an "evil" in this world. Saying so makes you sound like a child.

History is written by the victors. Terrorism can be written to look good by the Victors where Terrorism has been successful. But it is doesn't make it good.

[DarkDragon777]

I'd be interested in having an evil mistress to compliment my own evil character.

[Maria Caliban]

Filament wrote...

It's defined as evil in Dragon Age by the Chantry, and most encounters with demons of pride tend to paint them in that light, yes. But there are some instances with demons (mostly desire demons) where there is some ambiguity injected into their motivations (where it might be more accurate to say amoral rather than immoral, at least).

In DA, the darkspawn seem to be the Chaotic Evil race and demons seem to be the Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Neutral race. Qunari seem to be the Lawful Neutral race, with even the Tal-Vashoth playing out a per-assigned role.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Terrorism is attacking non-military targets with goal of spreading fear, in its distilled sense.

I think that's a sloppy definition of terrorism. Stoning women who don't wear proper attire or lynching blacks who try to go to white schools are acts now of terrorism.

I believe there's a difference between the violence a group uses on members of its own community and the violence a group uses against another community. I think there's a difference between the systemic use of violence and an angry mob.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 10 décembre 2012 - 07:50 .

[Fredward]

esper wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

If we can't settle on a definition of evil (which we can't if we don't want to get philosophical up in this female dog) lets say "amoral."

But most of the companions have their amoral points, all ready.

They also all have their moral boundaries. I'm hard pressed to think, for example, that any of the characters would kill someone who could potentially give information to the enemy (cept Morrigan) but otherwise an innocent. I dunno. You don't get people who just kick puppies and steal candy because they like it. Well yes you do but these people usually are either sadists or have anti-social personality disorder, maybe both. And that isn't something I'd want. Being evil for the sake of being evil isn't attractive and it isn't edgy, it's just wrong.

I'd rather want someone who's willing to make totally ruthless decisions because they just don't care about anyone else. Not out of a inherenet maliciousness. They'd leave people alone unless that person was a threat/could inconvenience them, instead of the "MWAHAHAHA I BAD" type of evil.

I outgrew villians like that at like 6. I definitely wouldn't want a companion like that.

[Fast Jimmy]

History is written by the victors. Terrorism can be written to look good by the Victors where Terrorism has been successful. But it is doesn't make it good.

Something being 'not good' doesn't make it evil.

Starting a fist fight in a bar isn't good... that doesn't mean drunken brawls are evil. Padding expenses so it looks like you made less isn't good... that doesn't mean cheating on your taxes is evil. Shooting a civilian who was running to alert nearby soldiers to come and kill you isn't good... but that doesn't mean self-preservation is evil.

Just because something is not the crystallization of piety does not inherently make it evil. To say otherwise is pretty naive.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 décembre 2012 - 08:00 .