449 réponses à ce sujet

[Gwydden]

motomotogirl wrote...

I 100% agree; I think Loghain is a perfect example of a villain. He is a sympathetic character, and he truly believes that HE is doing the right thing. But he's not, and what he does is so horrific and wrong, and he's definitely the Warden's antagonist for most of the game.

BW did an interesting thing by making him a potentially playable character towards the end of the game, but it's the kind of decision a certain "kind" of Warden would make (not the kind, hero type) so, that's pretty neat.

Funny. I always considered sparing Loghain to be the kind, heroic, selfless decision while killing him was the selfish, short sighted one. I also consider his actions to be far from horrific.

[KaiserShep]

eluvianix wrote...

Despite how much flak DA2 gets, I did actually like Meredith as an antagonist. I particularly enjoyed listening to her dialogue/ramblings as her mind began to spiral out of control.

My favorite part is actually when she looks at Orsino with regret and admits that what she's doing breaks her heart, but is necessary.

[Gwydden]

Kingroxas wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...

The best villains.... aren't villains.

So Littlefinger is not a villain xD? I love the guy, but he's by far the most villanous characters in the entire series, except for maybe Euron.

[Hellion Rex]

KaiserShep wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Despite how much flak DA2 gets, I did actually like Meredith as an antagonist. I particularly enjoyed listening to her dialogue/ramblings as her mind began to spiral out of control.

My favorite part is actually when she looks at Orsino with regret and admits that what she's doing breaks her heart, but is necessary.

Yes, exactly. I found that quote to be particularly powerful.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

rasloveszev wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

rasloveszev wrote...

 Belief that they are the good guys. 

That's why I loved to hate Meridith and Lohgain. They did such awful evil things in the name of  'good' and there was no talking them out of it. 

Awful and evil is subjective. As is good.

So you're okay with slavery and murdering innocent people out of paranoria? 
No, good and bad is not that black and white, but it's not that gray either. 
There are lines most do not cross.

There are no lines that cannot be crossed. 

Can you make an argument that is based on science, research, and measurable data and evidence rather than a moralistic is-ought emotional appeal fallacy?

Killing a rapist that couldn't be convicted? Gray area.
Unapologetically enslaving people? Evil.
Falsely accusing innocent mages as blood mages and abusing the use of Tranquility to silence the people you oppress? Evil.

To be honest, none of those actions are intrinsically evil, since universal evil does not exist.

I'd enslave people if it helped me accomplish a goal that had to be met.

If that rapist had some value to me, I'd keep him alive, and depending on that value, I might even give him legal immunity.

And that's not evil. I'd could say that I see that simply as absolutely ensuring that no one else dies due to a very plausible threat of demonic possession that has proven to be very devastating in the past.

There is no action that is 'evil', only the abstract notions that we as humans place on said actions.

I prefer to see things from a practical, rational, and physical perspective. The universe is inherently amoral.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 03 février 2014 - 12:49 .

[Steelcan]

Kingroxas wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...

The best villains.... aren't villains.

*looks at your avi*

*back at your statement*

*back at your avi*

[King Cousland]

eluvianix wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

I like villains like Kreia. People that make you think and make you question the choices you make in life. Plus, her dialogue is probably some of my most favorite, ever.

Aside from preferring Obsidian games in general, if there's one thing they really exceed at compared to Bioware, its antagonists.

Despite how much flak DA2 gets, I did actually like Meredith as an antagonist. I particularly enjoyed listening to her dialogue/ramblings as her mind began to spiral out of control.

I feel that - like so much in DA II - Meredith was a missed opportunity. If she was allowed more time for development and exposition she could have been an intriguing and engaging villain. You started to see some of this development emerge in Act 3 when she told Hawke about her sister's death and how that led her to the templars. The way she began to trust and open up to the Champion humanised Meredith considerably, and for me presents a glimpse at what might have been had she been allowed time for proper development.

Even if you sided with her far enough to unlock this dialogue however, that humanisation was undermined by the unecessary inclusion of the lyrium sword which caused her insanity - a natural descent into madness caused by the compound of bitter memories, growing rivalries and paranoia would have presented a much more compelling, sympathetic and tragic villain than what was delivered.

[Gwydden]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

To be honest, none of those actions are intrinsically evil, since universal evil does not exist.

I'd enslave people if it helped me accomplish a goal that had to be met.

If that rapist had some value to me, I'd keep him alive, and depending on that value, I might even give him legal immunity.

And that's not evil. I'd could say that I see that simply as absolutely ensuring that no one else dies due to a very plausible threat of demonic possession that has proven to be very devastating in the past.

There is no action that is 'evil', only the abstract notions that we as humans place on said actions.

I prefer to see things from a practical, rational, and physical perspective. The universe is inherently amoral.

You know, I agree that moral is a completely subjective concept. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I wonder, what is your particular set of priorities? What sorts of "goals" merit extreme measures?

Modifié par Gwydden, 03 février 2014 - 12:54 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

rasloveszev wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

rasloveszev wrote...

 Belief that they are the good guys. 

That's why I loved to hate Meridith and Lohgain. They did such awful evil things in the name of  'good' and there was no talking them out of it. 

Loghain'll actually say he regrets a lot of the things he did and feels he needs to atone for them if you spare him. 

He lost his chance at redemption when he used slavery to fund his stupidity. And that's on top of poisoning Eamon, inspiring Uldred's rebellion, and framing the Wardens for Calin's murder. Nope! I let Alistair fight him, and automatically became his excutioner.

If slavery helped me beat the Darkspawn, damn right I'd do it. As it is, I made a deal with the Blood mage to give me the life essence of the elves to increase my Warden's stamina and combatability. It furthers my goals. That's all I care about.

Loghain is an enemy that can be made an ally through a common cause. The things he did were irrational and unreasonable, though understandable from his perspective, though his actions were also very damaging and damning (Had he had his way all the time, Ferelden would not have been able to repel the Blight).

Look at things objectively. Cast off the emotion and morality and ethics. Look at what is. The only thing that should matter is stopping the Blight/Reapers/etc. The only criteria I base it off of is whether or not its feasible, practical, possible, and economically acceptable.

Anybody who makes any kind of moral or ethical argument is laughed at.

[Gwydden]

King Cousland wrote...

Even if you sided with her far enough to unlock this dialogue however, that humanisation was undermined by the unecessary inclusion of the lyrium sword which caused her insanity - a natural descent into madness caused by the compound of bitter memories, growing rivalries and paranoia would have presented a much more compelling, sympathetic and tragic villain than what was delivered.

But a much less flashy boss fight.

[KingRoxas]

Steelcan wrote...

Kingroxas wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...

The best villains.... aren't villains.

*looks at your avi*

*back at your statement*

*back at your avi*

Androme wrote...

 What makes a great villain?


That there is no villain, but simply conflicting interests and ideologies. 

Modifié par Kingroxas, 03 février 2014 - 12:59 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Gwydden wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

To be honest, none of those actions are intrinsically evil, since universal evil does not exist.

I'd enslave people if it helped me accomplish a goal that had to be met.

If that rapist had some value to me, I'd keep him alive, and depending on that value, I might even give him legal immunity.

And that's not evil. I'd could say that I see that simply as absolutely ensuring that no one else dies due to a very plausible threat of demonic possession that has proven to be very devastating in the past.

There is no action that is 'evil', only the abstract notions that we as humans place on said actions.

I prefer to see things from a practical, rational, and physical perspective. The universe is inherently amoral.

You know, I agree that moral is a completely subjective concept. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I wonder, what is your particular set of priorities? What sorts of "goals" merit extreme measures?

Economics. Is it physically practical or beneficial to perform certain actions? What are the positives versus the negatives. It's like route planning. I'm looking for obstacles, and when I see one, I look at what I can do to cross it, and choosing which method works best (gets me the best bang for my buck, and measuring it with my objective). If it's economically more practical to leave the innocent people to die than it is to bring them along (and put a strain on the resources of my fighting men), then I'll leave them to their fate. Or euthanize them to spare them from said fate.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Kingroxas wrote...
That there is no villain, but simply conflicting interests and ideologies. [/quote

Exactly.

Simply put my philosophy is this:

Necessity knows no law or boundary. Do whatever you have to do. If it fits, it ships.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 03 février 2014 - 01:02 .

[Il Divo]

For me, all it takes is great acting/voice-acting and a great script.

I know there's a huge movement to push for "morally grey" villains (hence all the Loghain favorites) and while I think that's great, I can still enjoy a good villain in a black and white type story, if the presentation is great.

[AresKeith]

Il Divo wrote...

For me, all it takes is great acting/voice-acting and a great script.

I know there's a huge movement to push for "morally grey" villains (hence all the Loghain favorites) and while I think that's great, I can still enjoy a good villain in a black and white type story, if the presentation is great.

Pretty much everything comes down to being done well

[Gwydden]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Economics. Is it physically practical or beneficial to perform certain actions? What are the positives versus the negatives. It's like route planning. I'm looking for obstacles, and when I see one, I look at what I can do to cross it, and choosing which method works best (gets me the best bang for my buck, and measuring it with my objective). If it's economically more practical to leave the innocent people to die than it is to bring them along (and put a strain on the resources of my fighting men), then I'll leave them to their fate. Or euthanize them to spare them from said fate.

That is not exactly what I asked. I asked what sorts of goals do you consider important enough to leave innocent people die. Even if you consider is a necessary action, or simply don't care whether is considered moraly repugnant by most, doing acts most people would qualify as "evil" is dangerous in and of itself.

As an example, two sociopaths enter a story of mine (sociopath here meaning they have no empathy not do they feel bound by morality). One does "what is necessary" the other does "what he pleases". The first one commits constant "evil" acts to fulfill his goals, everyone hates him, he dies. The second one puts up a facade of kindness, does "good" deeds even if he doesn't really care and helps overthrow the former, he thrives.

Even if you consider morality stupid, you can't just ignore it.

Modifié par Gwydden, 03 février 2014 - 01:07 .

[Steelcan]

[quote]Androme wrote...

 What makes a great villain?


That there is no villain, but simply conflicting interests and ideologies. [/quote]
[/quote]

wasn't aware trying to seduce 13yr old girls was a confciting idealogy...

[phunx]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Can you make an argument that is based on science, research, and measurable data and evidence rather than a moralistic is-ought emotional appeal fallacy?

This is one of the silliest  things I've ever heard. Scientism much?

[KingRoxas]

Steelcan wrote...

wasn't aware trying to seduce 13yr old girls was a confciting idealogy...

Sansa's 13?

Modifié par Kingroxas, 03 février 2014 - 01:13 .

[Orian Tabris]

Steelcan wrote...

Androme wrote...

What makes a great villain?

That there is no villain, but simply conflicting interests and ideologies. 

wasn't aware trying to seduce 13yr old girls was a confciting idealogy...

It is, as long as the pedaphille actually considers doing it with young (underage) people as natural and reasonable.

1 thing that every villain needs, is someone who opposes them, or whom they oppose. Otherwise, they'll just be bad people.

Modifié par Orian Tabris, 03 février 2014 - 01:14 .

[Karlone123]

CommanderJessica wrote...

I think Loghain was a great villain.

He was blinded by what he thought was right and he was very human and relatable.
I think his self-belief and refusal to listen to others made him a very dangerous man, especially because he held so much power and respect.

I tend to dislike nationalistic hate, but Loghain was somewhat right about the Orlesians.

[Steelcan]

Kingroxas wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

wasn't aware trying to seduce 13yr old girls was a confciting idealogy...

Sansa's 13?

yep

[2Pac]

Erm, A gun?

[Zatche]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Kingroxas wrote...
That there is no villain, but simply conflicting interests and ideologies.

Exactly.

Simply put my philosophy is this:

Necessity knows no law or boundary. Do whatever you have to do. If it fits, it ships.

But sometimes in life, people do evil things not out of necessity, but out of greed.

Characters, including antagonists, can do the same thing and still be well developed, interesting, and intelligently written.

I think morally grey antagonists are often interesting, but I don't think writers need to restrict themselves to only writing a certain type of antagonist.

Modifié par Zatche, 03 février 2014 - 01:30 .