173 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

leaguer of one wrote...

The codex makes it a point that a demon can't live in this plain with out possesing someone or thing. So if those demons are still around with out doing so it has to do with they feeding. With the demon in the forest, you see bones of all it's victeims.

Neither of which support consuming life force as opposed to, well, not-life-force. The first can be based on the concept of anchoring (as we've seen that demons can possess objects or locations and even corpses rather than living people with life force), and the later is easily explainable by decomposition and consumption by the local forest life after the victims died from, well, sleeping and not eating.

The later in particular is a poor argument example because the implication of bones is physical devouring, not life force vampirism, and life force draining isn't the only explanation for death.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 01 décembre 2013 - 09:44 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Ash Wind wrote...

Not really. Demons are so-named because of their nature. If one rebels, that would be one thing... could be interesting. But thieves are so named because the steal things that don't belong to them. Demons by their nature are negative, they would have to change in some manner to not be an enemy.

This is a tautalogy argument, which confuses cause and effect. The distinction between demons and spirits is based more on ideology and doctrine than nature and composition- this is pointed out between Merrill and Anders, especially vis-a-vis Anders belief that since Justice wasn't a demon it wasn't dangerous.

[leaguer of one]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

The codex makes it a point that a demon can't live in this plain with out possesing someone or thing. So if those demons are still around with out doing so it has to do with they feeding. With the demon in the forest, you see bones of all it's victeims.

Neither of which support consuming life force as opposed to, well, not-life-force. The first can be based on the concept of anchoring (as we've seen that demons can possess objects or locations and even corpses rather than living people with life force), and the later is easily explainable by decomposition and consumption by the local forest life after the victims died from, well, sleeping and not eating.

The later in particular is a poor argument example because the implication of bones is physical devouring, not life force vampirism, and life force draining isn't the only explanation for death.

But they still have been shown to feed of beings of this world, If not life force. My point is that demon see beings of this plane as food one way or another and use that to stay in this plain.

[Hellion Rex]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Bat32391 wrote...

I wouldn't mind seeing a demon that was some how warped into being good just like how justice turned into a demon.

Or just benign, really. While the demons are classified along the traditional sins, there are more than a few stories in which traditional sins are a source of character virtues or admirable traits.

Take, well, rage. We generally think of anger as a bad thing... but then, anger can be a powerful motivator and channeled into productive fields. Anger at an injust status quo can be a catalyst for driving social reform or justified revolution. I, personally, suspect that Vengeance would have been closer to a Rage demon than any other. Of the abominations with personalities we've seen, some have been goal-oriented... which could be a basis for cooperation and diplomacy. Enemy Mine, and all that.

The real trick, of course, is that the spirits and demons of Dragon Age don't appear to be the sort you can satisfy. No matter how much you fulfill their mental focus, they'll want more- which means a goal-oriented abomination, even if benign up to that point, probably won't be able to handle the aftermath of success. What does Vengeance!Anders do once the mages are freed and enemies dead? It would probably pick another cause to fixate on, and keeps on pursuing its precept.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing, and we can always work in a character delimma in which the atypical abomination, ala Anders, is concerned what they will do once they accomplish their goal.



Just to muse things out, here are some things I could see as interesting twists or basis for benign/cooperative demon/abomination encounters.


Rage

-Cold Fury. While Rage demons have typically been depicted as firery, like how anger generally is, I'd be interested in the sort of cold, iceblooded rage that doesn't detract from intelligence. Revenge and a dish served cold. Such a being could be open to cooperation in pursuit of their revenge, and could be cast as not lashing out blindly at others and keeping composure even when angered.

-Reformist Rage. Call it anger at the corruption in society. This could easily be cast as an alternative/similar aspect to the Justice/Vengeance type, and as it could easily be linked to a noble cause (say- anger at rapist chevaliers) the rage abomination could be channeled against something the players see as an acceptable target. This can tie into the Cold Fury concept.


Sloth

Sloth could be used to justify someone who, well, is lazy. Or who wants to be lazy (and harmless), and is willing to go to great lengths to go back to being so.

To be honest, I've never really seen why Sloth-abominations would be considered particularly bad, outside of when they're prodded to act by some other force or actor.



Desire

Man, there's a lot you could potentially do with desire demons, both as an abomination or as an outside influence. Since Desire can so easily be goal-based, having the abomination have an acceptable goal to desire and strive to could be a way to channel the abomination's imbalances. Whereas Connor's desire-pact was fulfilled with saving Eamon's life, and thus leaving Connor directionless and free to indulge in childish desires, a goal that is ever out-of-reach could be a focus to prevent such cruelties. Say a Knight who desire to regain his lost love- his desire is focused on the objective, and the demonic fixation/obsession limits other distractions.

On the other hand, a Desire demon that's more of a spectator that feeds off of the fulfilled/fulfilling the desires of others offers interesting prospects. In the Ferelden Circle we saw a Desire Demon bewitch but otherwise not harm a Templar that wanted a family. Variations of that, especially tempered by circumstance, would be easy to exploit.



Pride

Pride is tricky to write benign, as its so easy to turn a nettled ego into opposition. I'm not sure you could ever have a truly 'good' entity if it could go into a murderous rage at mockery. But if I had to suggest an aspect of pride to be a companion, I'd suggest 'Ambition' and tie it to a goal. Ambition is a sin through which you can see a lot of good and bad things result.

Griffith from Berserk is an example, admittedly one who went past the deep in and jumped off the cliff of evil. But the idea is pretty sound- a guy who wanted a kingdom, and whose ambition drove him to impressive accomplishments in the process. In the DA setting, we could have an Elf who wants an Elvish Land. Ambition to achieve such may require compromises and biting down ego to fulfill (justifying negotiation, patience, interaction). The targetted nature of the goal can benefit others (elves in the new kingdom), and could be pushed for good (those who benefit) and to evil (excess, paranoia).

Very interesting and thorough analysis, Dean.

[His Name was HYR!!]

OperatingWookie wrote...

It's kind of hard to argue for demons to not be mislabeled as "evil", when people think demon=evil.

We can call them "spirits" if you prefer.

Just because citizens of the fade come from a different place doesn't mean that they should be treated so poorly. They're people too.

Yyyeah, that doesn't sound like troll bait at all. =|

To say nothing of the false-equivalence between demons and unsavory individuals among mortals, I think that demons' portrayal in the game is fine. I disagree they are "just enemies" [sic]. You can make deals with them. Off the top of my head: Connor's desire-demon, Torpor, that one rock-wraith in the Deep Roads, "Sophia," The Baroness (sp?) ...

So yeah, they're all evil, but they can potentially "help" a protagonist that's willing to get their hands a little dirty.


^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^

That said, this thread did get me thinking a bit. Things like desire and pride are not completely bad things, though they are the essence of two demonic Fade spirits. Nonetheless, thinking about this made me think of a "what if" scenario.

What if... on rare occasions, demonic posession backfired for the demon? They take control of someone who is severely lacking the trait that the demon embodies, hence being "offset." Like, a victim of abuse is possessed by a pride demon, but is unable to elevate the victim's sense of pride above a level that's fairly normal by human standards. In doing so, the victim gets a self-esteem boost and overcomes trauma, but the demon cannot take its control any further, and is thus trapped in a host unsuitable for its needs. It would only be a rare occurance, not the rule, nor a sustainable solution to possession.

... Okay, I'll shut up now.

[TEWR]

Or just benign, really. While the demons are classified along the
traditional sins, there are more than a few stories in which traditional
sins are a source of character virtues or admirable traits.

Quite true. I remember Fullmetal Alchemist (the original manga/Brotherhood series) touched on this by having Greed talk about how... well... greed wasn't all bad.

[Angrywolves]

wookie is just inexperienced . I get grief from the mods for calling players newbies. They consider the term newbie inflammatory . For me newbies start thread like these, don't make any sense, I get frustrated reading them as they usually say things that run counter to DA lore, or the way rpgs and fantasies are written and I feel the posters who start threads like these should know better, but they don't because they're inexperienced and they get so excited at starting they're own thread, even if it's a bad poorly conceived one. It's nothing personal against the OP, I wish he and others like him had thought out the topics more before they post. And someone will take shots at me for posting aka if you don't like the topic don't post, well I don't always post in topics I don't like but I do sometimes out of frustration . Topics like this one frustrate me so I posts.
Demons are evil. They will likely stay evil in DA. The OP can wishful think all he wants. He's wrong . That's it.

Modifié par Angrywolves, 01 décembre 2013 - 04:34 .

[Medhia Nox]

"Sin" is the absence of a good trait. It is a "sin" because it corrupts what otherwise would be beneficial not only to the person, but to others as well.

Greed is never good, otherwise it is not greed.

What did this "Greed" demon say in Full Metal Alchemist? I'm curious as to the argument.

I would suggest "Competition" would be a very good word for the "good" nature of what then becomes greed. Two shopkeepers can have a healthy competition between themselves. Both selling the same thing, they try to innovate beyond the other without resorting to actively undermining.

Of course, if both act fairly in this theoretical, and the losing party begins to level false accusations against the other - we transition to Envy, which is the absence of satisfaction. One sin leads to the next. The absence makes a man hollow until all good traits fall in. Like a mini-black hole.

There's plenty of philosophical texts that say it more eloquently than I'm bothering to.

========

As for the demons of Thedas.

We have already been given a mechanism by which they "evolve" and it should be used.

I do NOT want demons to just become complex on their own. I want them to seek Abomination status and evolve in a symbiotic manner. I believe this is unique and interesting.

Demons with the feels - not interesting (to me).

[Hellion Rex]

Medhia Nox wrote...

"Sin" is the absence of a good trait. It is a "sin" because it corrupts what otherwise would be beneficial not only to the person, but to others as well.

Greed is never good, otherwise it is not greed.

What did this "Greed" demon say in Full Metal Alchemist? I'm curious as to the argument.

I would suggest "Competition" would be a very good word for the "good" nature of what then becomes greed. Two shopkeepers can have a healthy competition between themselves. Both selling the same thing, they try to innovate beyond the other without resorting to actively undermining.

Of course, if both act fairly in this theoretical, and the losing party begins to level false accusations against the other - we transition to Envy, which is the absence of satisfaction. One sin leads to the next. The absence makes a man hollow until all good traits fall in. Like a mini-black hole.

There's plenty of philosophical texts that say it more eloquently than I'm bothering to.

========

As for the demons of Thedas.

We have already been given a mechanism by which they "evolve" and it should be used.

I do NOT want demons to just become complex on their own. I want them to seek Abomination status and evolve in a symbiotic manner. I believe this is unique and interesting.

Demons with the feels - not interesting (to me).

The "demon" of Greed in FMA merged with a human, resulting in a rather symbiotic relationship, with Greed ending up influenced heavily by his host's more positive emotions.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Relevant to dragon age how? Don't demons kill their hosts souls before they turn them into abominations anway?

[Cainhurst Crow]

@Dean

Sloth is dangerous because it acts like a venus fly trap, waiting for prey to stumble into its trap before influencing them into a coma and tormenting them in the fade, as we saw in the circle mission of DAO.

[TK514]

We've seen at least three situations in which a pride demon was willing to put its pride aside to tempt mortals. And they do so by stroking the mortal's pride.

Mouse made the Mage feel like a powerful protector of someone weak, and introduced them to a riddling sloth demon so they could feel smart and clever.

The pride demon tempting Merrill made her the only person who saw clearly the path forward for her people, and made Merethari the only person who could contain it and save Merrill.

The Pride demon after Fenryel made him the savior of his people, the greatest mage in the current time who would bring the elves back to power. In every case, the Pride demon made itself out to be secondary or subservient to the mortal it was tempting, encouraging their Pride.

[Medhia Nox]

@TK514: Which already makes them as "complex" as I want them to be without becoming abominations.

It's interesting that Rage, Sloth and Desire don't seem capable of doing this - at least as far as we are shown (unless there are examples?)

Would a rage demon play a victim to incite rage?

Would a Sloth demon work mortals to the bone to incite sloth?

Would a desire demon practice asceticism to promote desire?

Have we seen this yet? Those would be complexities I'd welcome.

Not: "I want to be understood! Woe is me, the poor demon with a heart!"

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 01 décembre 2013 - 05:56 .

[TK514]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@TK514: Which already makes them as "complex" as I want them to be without becoming abominations.

It's interesting that Rage, Sloth and Desire don't seem capable of doing this - at least as far as we are shown (unless there are example ?)

Would a rage demon play a victim to incite rage?

Would a Sloth demon work mortals to the bone to incite sloth?

Would a desire demon practice asceticism to promote desire?

Have we seen this yet? Those would be complexities I'd welcome.

Not: "I want to be understood! Woe is me, the poor demon with a heart!"

I agree completely.  I didn't really make my point, which ultimately was that just because the Pride demon wasn't being externally prideful doesn't make it 'misunderstood', 'amoral', or 'not evil'.  It was directly and deliberately reflecting it's victim's pride to make them ripe for possession.

And in a way, we do see Desire demons practice something similar.  Rather than just being intrisically desirable, they provide what the victim desires (or at least the illusion of same).  A family, a friend, power, approval, big boats, etc.  I should stress that this is not an example of a demon being creative, because it doesn't come up with any of these things on its own.  It simply reflects whatever the victim most desires as best the demon can in the circumstances.

Modifié par TK514, 01 décembre 2013 - 06:03 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Medhia Nox wrote...

What did this "Greed" demon say in Full Metal Alchemist? I'm curious as to the argument.

The basic premise is that, Greed wanting it all, it fled from and oppossed the Big Bad who was attempting to become god. Moreover, while Greed wanted possessions and power, it also wanted followers and friends, which it saw as a sort of possession. People who killed or hurt its friends/followers were stealing from it, and meant invoking Greed's antagonism.

In the end, rather than let the Big Bad take away everything and everyone it had, including it's host, Greed sacrificed itself to cripple a physical god.


There's a couple good youtube videos in which reflect this, but I can't link to them.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

I agree with the OP I've always wanted some grey put into the demons represented in the game. As I've said before many times I think the Sloth demon has the highest ability to be neutral or even good. The Sloth demon in the mage origin openly helped the mage with his Harrowing and did so without asking for anything or trying take over the mage at all. He simply wanted to be left alone.

I could see another Sloth demon that is very similar one that wants to do his own thing and helps the player with certain tasks with no problem.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Ash Wind wrote...

Not really. Demons are so-named because of their nature. If one rebels, that would be one thing... could be interesting. But thieves are so named because the steal things that don't belong to them. Demons by their nature are negative, they would have to change in some manner to not be an enemy.

This is a tautalogy argument, which confuses cause and effect. The distinction between demons and spirits is based more on ideology and doctrine than nature and composition- this is pointed out between Merrill and Anders, especially vis-a-vis Anders belief that since Justice wasn't a demon it wasn't dangerous.

Maybe it's a tautology, but at the same time that's how the definition works. Anders was thinking tautologically, true, but demons really are called demons because of how they act. A demon that acted differently would cease to be a demon, in the same way that Vengeance became a demon. The main problem with Anders' logic was that he didn't realize the transition was possible. (Which, to be fair, there hadn't yet been any evidence of.)

[zMataxa]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Maybe it's a tautology, but at the same time that's how the definition works. Anders was thinking tautologically, true, but demons really are called demons because of how they act. A demon that acted differently would cease to be a demon, in the same way that Vengeance became a demon.

_______________

You better let the creators of "Shrek" who was an Ogre know that.
The point being definitions like Demon and Witch can be revised.
But it takes something special like a Shrek spin to do it.

[Karlone123]

There will be a returning character from Asunder, and I am inclined to believe it will be Cole. Whether he will be a companion or not is unknown, but maybe he fills in for the "grey evil spirit" you want.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

zMataxa wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Maybe it's a tautology, but at the same time that's how the definition works. Anders was thinking tautologically, true, but demons really are called demons because of how they act. A demon that acted differently would cease to be a demon, in the same way that Vengeance became a demon.

_______________

You better let the creators of "Shrek" who was an Ogre know that.

To the best of my knowledge, there's no in-setting definition of ogre that Shrek fails to meet by ending up as a truly heroic character. So, he's still an ogre.

The point being definitions like Demon and Witch can be revised.
But it takes something special like a Shrek spin to do it.

And you're arguing that this definition ought to be revised... why? If it's so that there can be non-evil demons, that's already happened. They're called spirits. (Though even those can be shady.)

[zMataxa]

The definition of an ogre before the arrival of Shrek was a a very large - brutish - dirty powerful creature. 
Or I never saw any other popular versions before that.
Adding the sweet sympathetic side in a believable way that many of us liked was how they completely recreated what an Ogre is.

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
And you're arguing that this definition ought to be revised... why? If it's so that there can be non-evil demons, that's already happened. They're called spirits. (Though even those can be shady.)

I didn't say that it should be revised.
I said it could be.  I'm not a fan of one definition has always been - so it must remain so.
This was my impetus for adding this possibility.

In truth, I would think it would be easier to come up new spirit characters as I posted a few pages ago in this thread.  But I would never be OK with saying that Demons are what they are - and so they should never be revised.

Modifié par zMataxa, 01 décembre 2013 - 08:29 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

zMataxa wrote...


The definition of an ogre before the arrival of Shrek was a a very large - brutish - dirty powerful creature. 
Or I never saw any other popular versions before that.
Adding the sweet sympathetic side in a believable way that many of us liked was how they completely recreated what an Ogre is.

Except that that doesn't quite cover my argument. My argument is that this setting's terminology has another word for non-evil demon, and that what most of you picture falls into that word.

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
And you're arguing that this definition ought to be revised... why? If it's so that there can be non-evil demons, that's already happened. They're called spirits. (Though even those can be shady.)

I didn't say that it should be revised.
I said it could be.  I'm not a fan of one definition has always been - so it must remain so.
This was my impetus for adding this possibility.

In truth, I would think it would be easier to come up new spirit characters as I posted a few pages ago in this thread.  But I would never be OK with saying that Demons are what they are - and so they should never be revised.

A demon can probably reform itself to become better than it is. Why not? Justice fell, and fell hard, so their natures clearly aren't set in stone. The problem is that according to the definitions this setting uses, it would therefore no longer be a demon, much as Justice became one. (Though one could make the argument that he is a morally ambigous demon, depending on how you view the Chantry bombing.) Point is, the definitions the setting already uses cover non-evil demons.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 01 décembre 2013 - 08:34 .

[zMataxa]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Except that that doesn't quite cover my argument. My argument is that this setting's terminology has another word for non-evil demon, and that what most of you picture falls into that word.

I understood from the beginning what you meant.
And it's true it would be easier to go this route as you describe.
I responded to your post initially because of your reluctance in accepting another poster's point that alot of this demon definition is a tautological debate (circular reasoning).
And I continue to post from this point of view.
A demon could be revised.  I simply want to leave that door open.  If it should be? - well that is simply a debate and in the end the creative minds will do their thing irrespective.

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

A demon can probably reform itself to become better than it is. Why not? Justice fell, and fell hard, so their natures clearly aren't set in stone. The problem is that according to the definitions this setting uses, it would therefore no longer be a demon, much as Justice became one. (Though one could make the argument that he is a morally ambigous demon, depending on how you view the Chantry bombing.)

So if I see this right, your preference is once a archetype is setup, it shouldn't be modded in any signifcant way?  Instead it's easier to setup a new one?
Again, I won't argue with this.  It's one valid pathway.  I likes this option at times, but other times I'm not opposed to making bigger changes to established defintions.   And demons would fit with this. 

Morally ambigious demon or spirit - all great for me in the end.

Modifié par zMataxa, 01 décembre 2013 - 08:47 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

zMataxa wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Except that that doesn't quite cover my argument. My argument is that this setting's terminology has another word for non-evil demon, and that what most of you picture falls into that word.

I understood from the beginning what you meant.
And it's true it would be easier to go this route as you describe.
I responded to your post initially because of your reluctance in accepting another poster's point that alot of this demon definition is a tautological debate (circular reasoning).
And I continue to post from this point of view.
A demon could be revised.  I simply want to leave that door open.  If it should be? - well that is simply a debate and in the end the creative minds will do their thing irrespective.

Okay, but I just don't see any argument for revising that word's definition at all.

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

A demon can probably reform itself to become better than it is. Why not? Justice fell, and fell hard, so their natures clearly aren't set in stone. The problem is that according to the definitions this setting uses, it would therefore no longer be a demon, much as Justice became one. (Though one could make the argument that he is a morally ambigous demon, depending on how you view the Chantry bombing.)

So if I see this right, your preference is once a archetype is setup, it shouldn't be modded in any signifcant way?  Instead it's easier to setup a new one?
Again, I won't argue with this.  It's one valid pathway.  I'm simply not opposed to making bigger changes to established defintions.

Morally ambigious demon or spirit - all great for me i the end.

A spirit became a demon, and I didn't object. So clearly I'm okay with some major shifts in the way those two archetypes work.

[zMataxa]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Okay, but I just don't see any argument for revising that word's definition at all.

A spirit became a demon, and I didn't object. So clearly I'm okay with some major shifts in the way those two archetypes work.

I think that's cool that you're ok with major shifts.
As for an argument to revise it - well if I want to play devils's advocate - I could say that maybe "my group" doesn't like B/W definitions to describe any sapient creatures.  Instead, shades of grey are preferred.  The idea being pure evil and pure good are myths. 
But that opens a huge debate on the value of B/W vs shades of grey.
And I don't have the time for that.  So I'll just have to leave this door open there.

Modifié par zMataxa, 01 décembre 2013 - 08:58 .