141 réponses à ce sujet

[Harle Cerulean]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

There's a bit of a stretch between companions that are interesting or relatable but who also like to slaughter refugees for fun and profit. Even Bioware's arguably morally dubious companions (Morrigan, Wrex, Jack, Canderous) had a human core, and weren't running around murdering innocent people who happened to cross their paths. I think a truly irredeemable companion would alienate a lot of people.

I struggle to see how a genuinely evil party member like the one you describe could ever be written well enough to be an interesting or entertaining companion. If they're charming or humorous one minute and performing blood magic rituals on slaves the next, the effect is going to be more schizophrenic or psychopathic than endearing. At the very least they're going to look absurdly, "I kill puppies for fun" villainous.

We already have a schizo via Anders, but I wouldn't mind a psychopathic companion. In DA2 all companions are 'good' to a point; they'll all complain if you kill someone who gets in your way barring a few (mainly Varric but even he gets grumpy with you.) It was way more balanced in DAO where you have a variety of opinions. In DA2 you had no such luck and the whining from Fenris and co pissed me off to no end when I played a sociopathic Hawke.

Yes, how dare they not approve of you being a sociopath.    Perhaps you should leave companions at home and go it alone, if you can't handle the fact that they have morals.

[KiwiQuiche]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

There's a bit of a stretch between companions that are interesting or relatable but who also like to slaughter refugees for fun and profit. Even Bioware's arguably morally dubious companions (Morrigan, Wrex, Jack, Canderous) had a human core, and weren't running around murdering innocent people who happened to cross their paths. I think a truly irredeemable companion would alienate a lot of people.

I struggle to see how a genuinely evil party member like the one you describe could ever be written well enough to be an interesting or entertaining companion. If they're charming or humorous one minute and performing blood magic rituals on slaves the next, the effect is going to be more schizophrenic or psychopathic than endearing. At the very least they're going to look absurdly, "I kill puppies for fun" villainous.

We already have a schizo via Anders, but I wouldn't mind a psychopathic companion. In DA2 all companions are 'good' to a point; they'll all complain if you kill someone who gets in your way barring a few (mainly Varric but even he gets grumpy with you.) It was way more balanced in DAO where you have a variety of opinions. In DA2 you had no such luck and the whining from Fenris and co pissed me off to no end when I played a sociopathic Hawke.

Yes, how dare they not approve of you being a sociopath.    Perhaps you should leave companions at home and go it alone, if you can't handle the fact that they have morals.

...wut, dude calm down.

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 02 juin 2013 - 06:14 .

[ElitePinecone]

I thought Anders was a good example of a companion that became increasingly unhinged until even most players were shocked by his behaviour, to the point that supporting him at the end became a "difficult choice" in the game. It was (mostly) good storytelling about the progression of extremism and the lengths players are personally willing to go to support someone who is ostensibly meant to be our party member, even love interest. "Damnit, Anders!" might be a fun meme but I thought the storytelling trick of having a previously endearing character turn into a mass-murderer was pretty well done.

I think there's a functional difference between that kind of scenario and a hypothetical Tevinter magister companion who starts out throwing fireballs at refugees and stays stereotypically evil for the whole game. There's not a lot of space there for redemption or growth (whereas, say, Shepard could convince Wrex that thinking of the bigger picture was better than casual mindless violence all the time) and a character who does evil things *because* they're evil is rather less interesting than looking at why people feel pushed or drawn to do evil things.

I guess this question is also influenced by the degree to which players can influence their companions; I haven't played KOTOR 2 for ages but I do remember thinking Obsidian's game had somewhat more freedom for players to actively shape the worldview of the party. Bioware's characters seem more independent (and react to the player's actions based on their personality, rather than being shaped by them).

This was getting slightly off-topic, but in summary: I don't mind the idea of an outcast Tevinter magister rebelling against their culture and nation (whether that's Mae or Dorian), and I think there's a lot of storytelling potential there in the clash between personal morality and a society constructed on being a ruthless oppressor of everyone below you. It's a trope we've seen with Sith characters for years, but I still like the resulting drama.

[KiwiQuiche]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I thought Anders was a good example of a companion that became increasingly unhinged until even most players were shocked by his behaviour, to the point that supporting him at the end became a "difficult choice" in the game. It was (mostly) good storytelling about the progression of extremism and the lengths players are personally willing to go to support someone who is ostensibly meant to be our party member, even love interest. "Damnit, Anders!" might be a fun meme but I thought the storytelling trick of having a previously endearing character turn into a mass-murderer was pretty well done.

I think there's a functional difference between that kind of scenario and a hypothetical Tevinter magister companion who starts out throwing fireballs at refugees and stays stereotypically evil for the whole game. There's not a lot of space there for redemption or growth (whereas, say, Shepard could convince Wrex that thinking of the bigger picture was better than casual mindless violence all the time) and a character who does evil things *because* they're evil is rather less interesting than looking at why people feel pushed or drawn to do evil things.

I guess this question is also influenced by the degree to which players can influence their companions; I haven't played KOTOR 2 for ages but I do remember thinking Obsidian's game had somewhat more freedom for players to actively shape the worldview of the party. Bioware's characters seem more independent (and react to the player's actions based on their personality, rather than being shaped by them).

This was getting slightly off-topic, but in summary: I don't mind the idea of an outcast Tevinter magister rebelling against their culture and nation (whether that's Mae or Dorian), and I think there's a lot of storytelling potential there in the clash between personal morality and a society constructed on being a ruthless oppressor of everyone below you. It's a trope we've seen with Sith characters for years, but I still like the resulting drama.

The problem was Anders was just insane and possessed. That and his change from Awakening to DA2 was too jarring and stupid.

No strangling puppies or anything like that. But more of the "Get out of my way" killings going down or someone who is completely disinterested in helping those hundred of needy beggers who show up in DA games.

I don't want a companion who needs 'redemption'. That's my point. Throughout we are told there is something wrong with them, "Oh Morrigan is such an utter b!tch because she doesn't want to get along with everyone and help every needy orphan." "Sten, how dare you not speak with me and like it when I kiss your ass"

But that is soooo cliched; Oo change of heart! I finally realized the real evil of my station! Guide and save me, PC! That happens way too often and it's irritating.

[Harle Cerulean]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Harle Cerulean wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

There's a bit of a stretch between companions that are interesting or relatable but who also like to slaughter refugees for fun and profit. Even Bioware's arguably morally dubious companions (Morrigan, Wrex, Jack, Canderous) had a human core, and weren't running around murdering innocent people who happened to cross their paths. I think a truly irredeemable companion would alienate a lot of people.

I struggle to see how a genuinely evil party member like the one you describe could ever be written well enough to be an interesting or entertaining companion. If they're charming or humorous one minute and performing blood magic rituals on slaves the next, the effect is going to be more schizophrenic or psychopathic than endearing. At the very least they're going to look absurdly, "I kill puppies for fun" villainous.

We already have a schizo via Anders, but I wouldn't mind a psychopathic companion. In DA2 all companions are 'good' to a point; they'll all complain if you kill someone who gets in your way barring a few (mainly Varric but even he gets grumpy with you.) It was way more balanced in DAO where you have a variety of opinions. In DA2 you had no such luck and the whining from Fenris and co pissed me off to no end when I played a sociopathic Hawke.

Yes, how dare they not approve of you being a sociopath.    Perhaps you should leave companions at home and go it alone, if you can't handle the fact that they have morals.

...wut, dude calm down.

I'm not upset.  I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is that you get pissed off that your companions generally don't like amoral actions.

[KiwiQuiche]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Harle Cerulean wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

There's a bit of a stretch between companions that are interesting or relatable but who also like to slaughter refugees for fun and profit. Even Bioware's arguably morally dubious companions (Morrigan, Wrex, Jack, Canderous) had a human core, and weren't running around murdering innocent people who happened to cross their paths. I think a truly irredeemable companion would alienate a lot of people.

I struggle to see how a genuinely evil party member like the one you describe could ever be written well enough to be an interesting or entertaining companion. If they're charming or humorous one minute and performing blood magic rituals on slaves the next, the effect is going to be more schizophrenic or psychopathic than endearing. At the very least they're going to look absurdly, "I kill puppies for fun" villainous.

We already have a schizo via Anders, but I wouldn't mind a psychopathic companion. In DA2 all companions are 'good' to a point; they'll all complain if you kill someone who gets in your way barring a few (mainly Varric but even he gets grumpy with you.) It was way more balanced in DAO where you have a variety of opinions. In DA2 you had no such luck and the whining from Fenris and co pissed me off to no end when I played a sociopathic Hawke.

Yes, how dare they not approve of you being a sociopath.    Perhaps you should leave companions at home and go it alone, if you can't handle the fact that they have morals.

...wut, dude calm down.

I'm not upset.  I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is that you get pissed off that your companions generally don't like amoral actions.

You certainly threw down enough anger in your post. That and you missed my point.

[Kidd]

ElitePinecone wrote...

This was getting slightly off-topic, but in summary: I don't mind the idea of an outcast Tevinter magister rebelling against their culture and nation (whether that's Mae or Dorian), and I think there's a lot of storytelling potential there in the clash between personal morality and a society constructed on being a ruthless oppressor of everyone below you. It's a trope we've seen with Sith characters for years, but I still like the resulting drama.

Could kind of enter that Nalia writing space, too. You say you have a certain opinion, do your best to uphold it, yet when it all comes down to it in the end it's not always you actually act according to what you teach. Growing up in a certain context works against you and what you want to do I've always loved that kind of conflict, and it's why I think Nalia is one of the more interesting characters in BG =)

KiwiQuiche wrote...

But that is soooo cliched; Oo change of heart! I finally realized the real evil of my station! Guide and save me, PC! That happens way too often and it's irritating.

I don't think anybody has such a saviour's complex they feel all bad characters must be saved by them. It's more like... it's hard to justify a truly evil character that isn't absolutely insane. In the end, people do what they think is right. They may however be at odds with each other of what is right - see the Qun for instance, who truly feel they are helping people by forcing them into a radically new lifestyle. The Qun isn't evil, they're self-sacrificing hard workers who do their best to make a better society for all their citizens. I doubt most people think of perfect saints when they imagine the Qunari even so.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 02 juin 2013 - 07:08 .

[Fredward]

There are different kinds of "ebil" folks. You get the manical kind (Titus anyone?) and you get the kind who sets out to do something and does it regardless of the costs. Bioware has yet to write a character who would do anything to achieve their goals, who would blithely ignore the suffering of others if it meant that they could reach that goal faster. With the possible exception of Morrigan. Think Bishop from NWN2. He has a backstory that sort of "excuses" his behaviour, or makes it more nuanced, but he also remains unashamedly Bishop throughout the game. Whether they're inured to suffering because they've lived through too much of it or whether they simply have a psychopathic streak they just don't care about other people. Mostly.

'Cept the protag. Otherwise he/she wouldn't be romancable.

Oh and also the kind of character I'm talking about here wouldn't go out of their way to hurt people but they also wouldn't help them or flinch from killing a percieved obstacle.

[Solmanian]

Why would a magister join your group? "Hey, I'm rich and powerfull, but I can take the decade off to help you with your shenanigans. I'm sure the byzantine politics and cutthroat (literaly) bloodmages that rule my country won't exploit my absence...". That's like expecting Irwin and gregore to be companions.

[KiwiQuiche]

Solmanian wrote...

Why would a magister join your group? "Hey, I'm rich and powerfull, but I can take the decade off to help you with your shenanigans. I'm sure the byzantine politics and cutthroat (literaly) bloodmages that rule my country won't exploit my absence...". That's like expecting Irwin and gregore to be companions.

Why would the heir to the throne join your group? Why would the Captain of the Guard join your group?

[KiwiQuiche]

Filament wrote...

They both joined your group before they could claim either of those titles. Cailan was still alive when you first teamed up with Alistair (and Alistair clearly wanted to avoid this duty at this point anyway) and Aveline started as a lowly recruit.

That being said it depends on how important the Inquisitors and their mission are.

Yet they still chill with you even after getting them.

[Fredward]

Filament wrote...

Hmph, any talk of evil characters in NWN2 and it's always Bishop, Bishop, Bishop. No love for the great One of Many. And Ribsmasher.

I liked One of Many, but he was crazy. And a really, really specific kind of crazy. Unless DA could have something similar I'd shy away from evil crazy.

Though a romance would have been nice...

[KiwiQuiche]

Filament wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Filament wrote...

They both joined your group before they could claim either of those titles. Cailan was still alive when you first teamed up with Alistair (and Alistair clearly wanted to avoid this duty at this point anyway) and Aveline started as a lowly recruit.

That being said it depends on how important the Inquisitors and their mission are.

Yet they still chill with you even after getting them.

So the magister would have to not be a magister until after they join up (near the end of the game, really), is what you're suggesting.

No.

[KiwiQuiche]

Filament wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

No.

It's all what you've said supports.

No.

[KiwiQuiche]

Filament wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

No.

It is, unless you'd care to elaborate otherwise, as these petty one liners (one worders, even) really don't help discussion.

So I'm being petty for giving you a very clear response? Interesting.

[ElitePinecone]

Solmanian wrote...

Why would a magister join your group? "Hey, I'm rich and powerfull, but I can take the decade off to help you with your shenanigans. I'm sure the byzantine politics and cutthroat (literaly) bloodmages that rule my country won't exploit my absence...". That's like expecting Irwin and gregore to be companions.

Dorian Pavus is a magister. The title conjures fear of arcane masters who once
enslaved nations. Dorian may wield power of the magisters, but he delights in
not being what you’d expect of them. Brazen and clever, this outcast is on a
crusade to rid his homeland of its corruption.

An outcast would join the protagonist's group, especially if they actively want to *escape* the byzantine politics of Tevinter.

[KiwiQuiche]

Filament wrote...

I guess that's a "no" on the caring to elaborate, too. Have it your way...

I was just reacting towards that snide little insult you put in there. If you would have left it out, I would have complied with your wishes and explained my stance.

[KiwiQuiche]

Filament wrote...

OK, maybe it's just a personal beef of mine, but responding to a post with nothing but "no" is one of the most obnoxious trends on these boards, IMO. So I got annoyed by that. But ok, so you're not petty, it's just me. Better? (so help me if you say 'no' again... )

Tempted to respond with another 'no' but since you've explained your previous mannerism, I suppose that would be in bad taste.

To explain; Tevinter is one of the few parts we haven't heard a lot about in the DA. We have Fenris, yet his memory is blanked and he's an annoying brooder so he is largely irrelevant. With a Magister it could be a variety of reasons why they would join you; they could know about Loony McMad Titus after he went insane and started pulling that dragon crap out and wishing to find out the source of his power; and since the PC will be caught in the thick of the Thedas-done-mad, their best bet would be with the PC. That would make sense since a lot of Magisters crave more power and since the PC is central, it would make sense to accompany them.

Or you could get an apprentice of a Magister whom you killed who wishes to serve you (makes sense if you're a mage) but I would largely prefer a full-blown Magister to an apprentice.