49 réponses à ce sujet

[TheChris92]

The whole concept of humanizing the antagonist like this worked in FMA:Brotherhood - Having the antagonist be anything like Bradley would certainly be interesting. I don't know whether it'll fit the overarching narrative of this game. I just hope, whoever the villain is gonna be, won't fall into the Saturday-Morning-Cartoon-Villain category.

[The Six Path of Pain]

The Mad Hanar does have a point, Kill Them All! It's so simple.

[grumpymooselion]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Antagonists don't have to be villains you know.

I concur, hence the thread as it exists.

Medhia Nox wrote...

The problem with the DA universe using this is that magic is used for everything in their storylines.

When
the big bad is too magical - a family storyline seems trite. When the
big bad is doing something too magical - the family storyline seems
awkward (like the Veil tears).

This isn't a Game of Thrones where magic and magical "things" are kept at a severe minimum.

Those are the kinds of stories that support deep villains well.

Games
that are overloaded with a glut of magic - are more like the
blockbuster action movies loved for it's 'splosions.

I quite disagree. Magic, high fantasy and the like are no such restriction. It's all about how a thing is handled, how it's written and presented. Such a concept is only awkward when written in such a way, poorly handled.

Early one brought up Loghain. He's one of the few things I liked about DA:O because his character, and relationships in the world scraped the surface of this. They didn't delve into it as a central concept with various choice and consequence surrounding it to the degree this thread's concepts are meant suggest though. So it can be done, Bioware have already somewhat attempted it. It's not a question of, "if" it can be handled non-awkwardly but of the, "whens", "wheres", "whats", "hows" and "whys" in making it not be awkward. Loghain is a great first step, but it's not something that has reached what I'm speaking on.

You are right that it has been handled awkwardly, however. I absolutely agree with that. In my mind, as a writer and artist, however, I know that this isn't a question of possibility, but one of handling a thing with care, and the ways in which one does so.

simfamSP wrote...

The main antagonist for this game is
probably going to be the typical 'big bad.' But I feel there will be a
Loghain or two somewhere, and in that case, by all means!

Even a side antagonist is a good place to start, but, as I noted in the original post, this could be discussed in regard to DA:I, but it's not meant to be asking, "Please put this in DA:I" as much as asking people explore the concepts and possibilities here, in regard to the DA franchise as a whole. Surely you could use DA:I examples, and I certainly wouldn't mind these concepts in DA:I if they fit, but, this is meant to be a discussion rather than a, "Please I'm begging you put this in" brand of thread.

As for big bads . . . that's another thread entirely, but I'll admit to being sick of them before moving on. I may have liked Loghain, the landsmeet, things in the city elf origin and dwarf origin and other parts of DA:O quite a lot. But the grey wardens, the archdemon and the dark spawn ended up getting in the way of the things I actually found interesting about DA:O. I wanted to play that story about the elf on the run for the reasons the city elf origin suggested, but the grey wardens step in and suddenly I'm far less interested. The Circle origin as a mage, again, I find all this stuff of interest and then suddenly . . . grey wardens. Dark spawn. Blah blah blah. The landmeet has definite ties to the main storyline, but ultimately the things I enjoyed about it could have been achieved without, "evil army evil leader #2345235235" . . . but that's just me. And it's veering away from the discussion I meant to spark.

Modifié par Janan Pacha, 18 décembre 2013 - 09:02 .

[Nharia1]

... doesn't the word, 'had' imply a past tense? shouldn't you be saying 'has' instead?

[SilkieBantam]

Loghain had a family, didn't stop me from decapitating him.

[grumpymooselion]

SilkieBantam wrote...

Loghain had a family, didn't stop me from decapitating him.

The interesting thing about stimuli and Humans is that people can react widly differently to it from one another. I think that's what makes games that have choices, especially choices with a better grip on consequence, attractive to me.

Still, Loghain, as much as I liked Loghain's character, while it's a step toward what I'm talking about . . . it's neither as in depth, nor as central, as the concept I'm speaking of.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

SilkieBantam wrote...

Loghain had a family, didn't stop me from decapitating him.

Always thought it was oddly funny when his blood splashes in his daughters face

[Maria Caliban]

I'm still waiting for a Dragon Age game where the protagonist has a family that survives to the end.

That said, sure, I'd be interested in seeing an antagonist with family or friends if they would be worked into the game proper. I don't want to only see them via cutscenes.

It really wouldn't make the antagonist more or less sympathetic to me though, if that's what you're going for.

Filament wrote...

Romance the family, magic sex cures all trauma over a loved one's death. Videogames taught me this.

I laughed.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 18 décembre 2013 - 10:20 .

[Angrywolves]

Demons and Gods don't have families.

[KC_Prototype]

Maybe for an antagonist but not the main one because what if the main antagonist is a demon or god or Cory? So maybe a antagonist to the equivalent of Howe in DA:O, not the main baddie, but a significant one.

[grumpymooselion]

KC_Prototype wrote...

Maybe for an antagonist but not the main one because what if the main antagonist is a demon or god or Cory? So maybe a antagonist to the equivalent of Howe in DA:O, not the main baddie, but a significant one.

Demon and God villains tend to reek of typical hero versus the dark lord/dark army brand of nonsense anyways. Better to just do away with such concepts entirely, or choose an entity that's less absolute. All that said, if you think of Gods in the sense of the Ancient Greek mythology or Sumerian mythologies then family and friends make an absolute amounts of sense. Especially given few of them were ever absolutes of good or evil, despite how some shows, books and movies later depicted them. One of the most engaging things about the great Gods was that, for all their power, they weren't really all that different. They could be just as petty and cruel as any Human one second, but just as mild mannered as a Human can be in another second, or even as kind and caring to their family or a particular mortal they liked as any Human could be.

It's more modern religious ideas of an absolute good or evil God and Devil that tend to spoil deties as characters in modern fictions. Not all the time, mind you, but it does happen far more often than it probably should. We like making Hades evil in our Disney cartoons, for instance, but he wasn't really evil or a bad guy, or anything like that. Hades could even be downright altruistic at times.

I'll get grumpy at the idea of gods and demons as 'villains' but it's more because of how they're handled, they don't have to be villains or black and whtie ideas of good and evil, but we too often make them such. The idea of absolutes in Gods in fiction is a sadly popular trend.

In contrast . . . the idea in DA of the golden city already being corrupted when the magisters entered has always been a curiousity of mine, making one wonder if they just let something out that was already there. Also making one reassess the idea of the blights as a punishment and the Maker's hand in it all, if at all. In addition it makes one give a second glance to Tevinter claims that Andraste wasn't the Maker's chosen, but, instead, a supremely powerful mage, as well as other claims. True or not, they give a flavor that would otherwise be lacking and too straight forward. It could still use more layers, in general, though, as the Maker and the Blight/Archdemons have always been my least favorite portion of the DA universe.

In the end I go back to characters like Loghain that, due to their layers and complexity, recieved a much more varied reaction to their existence as stimuli than the hordes of dark spawn killing everyone in their path ever could. Loghain, again, being a step toward what the thread topic is about, but just a first step. It's not as central, layered or fleshed out as what the topic is suggesting. A step in the right direction, but only a step.

[Medhia Nox]

@Janan Pancha: Loghain is neither a "magical big bad" nor a big bad doing "big magic" - which is why someone like him work.s

Those are two situations I don't believe work with these kinds of situations.

[Angrywolves]

Janan Pacha wrote...

KC_Prototype wrote...

Maybe for an antagonist but not the main one because what if the main antagonist is a demon or god or Cory? So maybe a antagonist to the equivalent of Howe in DA:O, not the main baddie, but a significant one.

Demon and God villains tend to reek of typical hero versus the dark lord/dark army brand of nonsense anyways. Better to just do away with such concepts entirely, or choose an entity that's less absolute. All that said, if you think of Gods in the sense of the Ancient Greek mythology or Sumerian mythologies then family and friends make an absolute amounts of sense. Especially given few of them were ever absolutes of good or evil, despite how some shows, books and movies later depicted them. One of the most engaging things about the great Gods was that, for all their power, they weren't really all that different. They could be just as petty and cruel as any Human one second, but just as mild mannered as a Human can be in another second, or even as kind and caring to their family or a particular mortal they liked as any Human could be.

It's more modern religious ideas of an absolute good or evil God and Devil that tend to spoil deties as characters in modern fictions. Not all the time, mind you, but it does happen far more often than it probably should. We like making Hades evil in our Disney cartoons, for instance, but he wasn't really evil or a bad guy, or anything like that. Hades could even be downright altruistic at times.

I'll get grumpy at the idea of gods and demons as 'villains' but it's more because of how they're handled, they don't have to be villains or black and whtie ideas of good and evil, but we too often make them such. The idea of absolutes in Gods in fiction is a sadly popular trend.

In contrast . . . the idea in DA of the golden city already being corrupted when the magisters entered has always been a curiousity of mine, making one wonder if they just let something out that was already there. Also making one reassess the idea of the blights as a punishment and the Maker's hand in it all, if at all. In addition it makes one give a second glance to Tevinter claims that Andraste wasn't the Maker's chosen, but, instead, a supremely powerful mage, as well as other claims. True or not, they give a flavor that would otherwise be lacking and too straight forward. It could still use more layers, in general, though, as the Maker and the Blight/Archdemons have always been my least favorite portion of the DA universe.

In the end I go back to characters like Loghain that, due to their layers and complexity, recieved a much more varied reaction to their existence as stimuli than the hordes of dark spawn killing everyone in their path ever could. Loghain, again, being a step toward what the thread topic is about, but just a first step. It's not as central, layered or fleshed out as what the topic is suggesting. A step in the right direction, but only a step.

Obviously the Inquisitor will be able to kill or otherwise overcome the Protagonist, God, demon or whatever it is.So it is not absolute in any sense,.
If you get rid of everything that's stronger than you/more powerful than you, and I understand dragons and some other monsters will be stronger than the Inquisitor's party early on, then that takes alot of the challenge out of the game imo.

[grumpymooselion]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Janan Pancha: Loghain is neither a "magical big bad" nor a big bad doing "big magic" - which is why someone like him work.s

Those are two situations I don't believe work with these kinds of situations.

I've responded to this prior. This is absolutely false. I've gone over the issue of, 'the magical big bad' and, 'having to implement such aspects right' in two posts now. It's about how they're handled, how they're written. If you couldn't insert ideas like that into a story where a God is an antagonist then many of the Pantheon Mythologies, and some of the oldest and most lasting stories written wouldn't hold up after all this time.

Handling being the first issue, in other words, don't make your antagonist an absolute. If you antagonist is an absolute evil overlord, monstrous in every respect, you're right, it won't work. Again, the Greek Gods are a great example of handling done right. You have Dieties, gods, that serve as antogonists (sometimes, but not always) yet also as characters with emotions, motivations, families, alliances, rivals and friends, people they favor and people they curse - layered characters that are still beings of massive power. Not that your antagonist should have to be a being of massive power to still be a threat, even in a world of magic.

Powerful and challenging doesn't have to mean God, Demon or anything of the sort. The Warden and Hawke are examples of this, in and of themselves, they're more than capable of taking down powerful foes without being a God or a Demon or anything of the sort. They're still mortal beings, simply ones of great power, and the player gives them layers such as interests, dislikes, people they favor, disfavor, goals and so on. An antagonist can be powerful, like Hawke or the Warden, and still have layers and complexities beyond, "Grr me evil." Just the same, as with the Greek God example above, you can have a very powerful being have those layers and complexties, those little Human things.

A great part of what makes the idea of the Greek Gods so frightening is that they're just as changeable as any normal Human being. They are Human beings, all the complexties we have are there. They can be kind and giving one second, helping a favored follower or just relaxing enjoying Human delights in Human form. Then, suddenly, they can be all wrath and lightning bolts from the sky. All the power of a God, but, at the end of the day, the Greek Gods were still very Human. They had family. They had relationships. Wants. Loves. Hates. Dislikes. Complex thoughts, goals and motivations that were neither wholly good or evil. They could fight over a child, or over a man or over a woman. They could have children. They could help someone out one day because they felt like it.

The Sumerian Gods in their mythology become ever more detailed, because they didn't hide amongst the Human as Humans, but instead walked amongst them. One of the most interesting aspects of the Sumerian pantheon of 3600 different dieties is that they were flesh. Walking, living breathing, fighting, breeding, dying and just 'existing' alongside the people that worshipped them. They could live separately, but it wasn't a mount olympus style thing, some of them lived and went about their lives right in the cities of their worshippers in these mythologies. It's very neat stuff for a writer to study, because it shows just how wrong this concept is:

"Loghain is neither a "magical big bad" nor a big bad doing "big magic" - which is why someone like him work.s"

In bold. That concept. Right there. Wrong. Not just now. Not ten years ago. Some of the earliest mythological fiction ever written by Humans beings, amongst our first civilizations were proving this idea wrong. Thousands of years of this idea being wrong. Whatever has put this idea in your head - get rid of it. It's a bad source of information.

Angrywolves wrote...

Janan Pacha wrote...

KC_Prototype wrote...

Maybe
for an antagonist but not the main one because what if the main
antagonist is a demon or god or Cory? So maybe a antagonist to the
equivalent of Howe in DA:O, not the main baddie, but a significant
one.

Demon and God villains tend to reek of typical hero
versus the dark lord/dark army brand of nonsense anyways. Better to just
do away with such concepts entirely, or choose an entity that's less
absolute. All that said, if you think of Gods in the sense of the
Ancient Greek mythology or Sumerian mythologies then family and friends
make an absolute amounts of sense. Especially given few of them were
ever absolutes of good or evil, despite how some shows, books and movies
later depicted them. One of the most engaging things about the great
Gods was that, for all their power, they weren't really all that
different. They could be just as petty and cruel as any Human one
second, but just as mild mannered as a Human can be in another second,
or even as kind and caring to their family or a particular mortal they
liked as any Human could be.

It's more modern religious ideas of
an absolute good or evil God and Devil that tend to spoil deties as
characters in modern fictions. Not all the time, mind you, but it does
happen far more often than it probably should. We like making Hades evil
in our Disney cartoons, for instance, but he wasn't really evil or a
bad guy, or anything like that. Hades could even be downright altruistic
at times.

I'll get grumpy at the idea of gods and demons as
'villains' but it's more because of how they're handled, they don't have
to be villains or black and whtie ideas of good and evil, but we too
often make them such. The idea of absolutes in Gods in fiction is a
sadly popular trend.

In contrast . . . the idea in DA of the
golden city already being corrupted when the magisters entered has
always been a curiousity of mine, making one wonder if they just let
something out that was already there. Also making one reassess the idea
of the blights as a punishment and the Maker's hand in it all, if at
all. In addition it makes one give a second glance to Tevinter claims
that Andraste wasn't the Maker's chosen, but, instead, a supremely
powerful mage, as well as other claims. True or not, they give a flavor
that would otherwise be lacking and too straight forward. It could still
use more layers, in general, though, as the Maker and the
Blight/Archdemons have always been my least favorite portion of the DA
universe.

In the end I go back to characters like Loghain that,
due to their layers and complexity, recieved a much more varied reaction
to their existence as stimuli than the hordes of dark spawn killing
everyone in their path ever could. Loghain, again, being a step toward
what the thread topic is about, but just a first step. It's not as
central, layered or fleshed out as what the topic is suggesting. A step
in the right direction, but only a step.

Obviously
the Inquisitor will be able to kill or otherwise overcome the
Protagonist, God, demon or whatever it is.So it is not absolute in any
sense,.
If you get rid of everything that's stronger than you/more
powerful than you, and I understand dragons and some other monsters will
be stronger than the Inquisitor's party early on, then that takes alot
of the challenge out of the game imo.

I'm not sure what you're responding to, but it seems you massively misunderstood what I meant when I was speaking of absolutes. Completely. It had nothing to do with them being powerful, or killable. It didn't have anything to do with things being stronger than you, or getting rid of things that were stronger than you. It had nothing to do with taking out challenge.

[The Elder King]

Angrywolves wrote...

Demons and Gods don't have families.

...Which gods? The ones in DA?

[Phoenix_Fyre]

Just adding my two bits.... if the villian has a loved one or something.... it'd be interesting as the Inquisitor to take that person hostage...

heck, it'd happned to Hawke's sibling in DAII, so we'll return the favor in DAI

[Medhia Nox]

@Janan Pancha: Interesting how you talk about how absolutes are bad - but then assert that you know about the topic "absolutely".

If you think polytheistic gods are a great example of deep human complexity - I'd suggest you read something that isn't about magical beings for a while.

Polytheistic beings work on a whole other level - and are not meant to explore - "deep human complexity".

[Plaintiff]

Janan Pacha wrote...
"What if these things were true of the antagonist?"

I wouldn't give even the slightest crap.

Bullies have families that love them, but they are still bullies. Tyrants have families that love them, but they are still tyrants. Bigots have families that love them, but they are still bigots. The presence of a loving family does not make these individuals less awful, and it doesn't counteract the need to put a stop to them.

Besides which, anyone who loves a bully, tyrant or bigot is either a) a bully, tyrant or bigot themselves or too selfish and stupid to notice or care. In both cases, their death is no big loss.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 19 décembre 2013 - 01:45 .

[Medhia Nox]

Geeze, and I thought I was black and white.

[Sc2mashimaro]

I remember that one of the big inspirations for DA:O was A Song of Ice and Fire. So, if they are still keeping their inspirations in mind, I suspect the villains/antagonists will be more complex than many are thinking here. I hope so! I like a story like that.

Also, while we are not introduced to the families of the antagonists in Kirkwall, that doesn't mean they don't have complexities. DA:2's story-telling strength was in developing the backstory of the hero and his/her family and friends. I thought the flawed, but interesting and empathetic stories of those closest to Hawke were very compelling. When we get both...well, that's the magic ticket, isn't it?

[Nightdragon8]

honestly what of it. Osmaa Bin Laudin had family and I don't give 2 ****s about him. Same with all dictaors in history (Hitler being the only one not to I think) all had familes that they love. However it didn't stop them from murdering 1000's of people for there own gain.

[Rebel Wolf]

Well,going by the other games he won't have one for long.

[grumpymooselion]

Plaintiff wrote...

Janan Pacha wrote...
"What if these things were true of the antagonist?"

I wouldn't give even the slightest crap.

Bullies have families that love them, but they are still bullies. Tyrants have families that love them, but they are still tyrants. Bigots have families that love them, but they are still bigots. The presence of a loving family does not make these individuals less awful, and it doesn't counteract the need to put a stop to them.

Besides which, anyone who loves a bully, tyrant or bigot is either a) a bully, tyrant or bigot themselves or too selfish and stupid to notice or care. In both cases, their death is no big loss.

So when "random antagonist B's" little, say, eight year old, daughter throws herself over her father's body, just as you're swinging the killing blow, and she dies from the wound . . . you think to yourself, "Well her father a was a bigot, no loss, now to try and kill the father again since his bigot daughter's body got in the way the first time" ?

I mean, if she loves him and he was a bully, turant, bigot or anything else you might list . . . then she's one too, by that logic. Of course . . . regardless of what you think of her, intentionally or not, you've still killed a child. Regardless of her father's politics, one wonders what others would think of you even if you feel nothing yourself. "The Hero of - insert country X - slayer of a tyrant and . . .  his little daughter" just doesn't have the ring to it that you seem to think it does.

That, of course, is what makes a complex story interesting and complex. If you make a choice, and your choice doesn't go as you intended it, and the choice has consequences . . . this is good writing. So now, what if you don't slay him, what if he gets away, after what you did, what if he runs taking the surviving members of his family with him. Goes into hiding. Now you're just the slayer of a little girl. The rumors spread. The game goes on. The rumors build. People begin to think of your differently. And one day . . . when you're least expecting it, the once antagonist appears, and takes something as precious from you as you once took from him. Perhaps a love interest. Perhaps a close friend. Perhaps someone you wanted to protect with all your might.

And then one wonders, what would have happened if you'd chosen not to slay him? What if you'd stayed your blade just a second longer? What if she'd lived. Would the one precious to you be suffering, be dead, now, if you'd handled things in another way back then? Choice. Consequence. You might even defeat him now, after he has gotten his revenge. But the rest of his family might still be out there.

Are you filled with the need for further revenge? Even if you're not . . . are they? Do you go off then to find and face them because you know they're out for revenge in your mind? Do you find them and slay them? Do you then come across a diary that suggests they'd left him, that he'd gone mad with grief, and that they'd meant you no harm at all? Or did you decide that it was over after you slew the father, and assumed they wouldn't come after you? Do they then come after you? Or do you go after them, not to fight, but to talk? And what do they say? Do speak of peace? Do they speak of revenge? Do they speak of atonement for the sins of their father? Do they say peaceful things, but not really mean them? How do you know? Do you believe them? Do you act on your suspicions? Do you wait and get caught off guard by a sneak attack when you least expect it?

Countless possible ways in which a writer could handle these things, all manner of options for them to present a player. So many potential ways in which a thing could be handled, all off that simple idea that . . . the little girl was just a bigot, like her father, so it didn't matter if she died. Of course, given that the girl is young, she may fall under your second example. That she's just too stupid or selfish. Many of the same plot threads still come up, even under that example though.

Of course, she probably isn't a bigot, tyrant or anything else her father might be. She probably isn't stupid or selfish either. She's probably just a little girl that loves her father. Her greatest crime is probably that she's young, which isn't a crime, and that she's naive, which likely isn't her fault at all. Many parents shelter their children, especially when they're quite young. Still, your choice to land a killing blow on the father, likely in a dialogue option as we see in DA style games, is what it is. You meant to kill him. Now she's dead instead.

Consequences abound to such an thing, even if it is a mistake, in good writing. Further consequences are just as likely if your character proudly states such things as, " Her father was a bigot, so she was probably one too, no great loss" or, "She was a stupid and/or selfish child, I know because I never met her and based all my opinions of her on her father's actions alone, while assuming she had any knowledge of them! Her life is no loss."

Of course, is the antagonist a bigot? Are they a tyrant? Are they evil or bad? What if their views just differed from yours on matters of church, state, mages, templars and all the fun things DA games like to throw at us?  It's surely easier if you turn him into a monster, and any who associate him into monsters as well . . . but . . . that is the low road. It's like a horror movie making the people that end up dying all disgusting and terrible people. It may work, technically, but it's still the low road. If you're fleshing out the antagonist enough to give them a family, and personality, one would  like to think we've not taken the low road in the first place.

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Janan Pancha:

If you think polytheistic gods are a
great example of deep human complexity -

And why shouldn't I? Nevermind that Greek tragedies, often involving their Gods and the relationships of those Gods, with others Gods, as well as the relationships with the mortals and demi-Gods, are prime examples of writings that have rippled throughout time. They've had affect on all our writings in some manner, even when we don't know it. They're classically hailed, and celebrated, their merits taken apart and put back together countless times across hundreds of years and countless places of learning.

Yes, I think the mythologies and tragedies written by the old masters, whose writings still influence us today, are full of complexity. Because they are. We still mimic these things even today in our own works. Yes, oddly enough, the people who etched out frameworks for  all manner of academia, that we still pull from to this day, knew what they were doing. Dismiss such things if you like. It will not be to your intellectual benefit.

[Little Princess Peach]

The Inquisitor would kill them or use them as bait the Antagonists family would be used in some plot