449 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Ok lets say you were offered a large sum of money by a prominent Orlesian noble family to rescue their daughter from a Red Templar prison camp, the fate of any other hostages is to be left to your discretion. You sneak in under the cover of darkness and once you find the girl you see that her friend has been wounded is unable to move and she refuses to leave his side while he still draws breath and she believes that he can still be saved, you being the practical person that you are realise that sneaking out of the prison camp with the wounded man and the girl will not be easy and could very well cost you the mission, but then you also remember that the reward is for the girl alone and all other hostages are expendable, what do you do?

I would knock her out leaving her friend to die or I would just kill him. Before handing her back to her family I would demand a larger reward otherwise  l kill her.

Modifié par themikefest, 04 février 2014 - 03:01 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

themikefest wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Ok lets say you were offered a large sum of money by a prominent Orlesian noble family to rescue their daughter from a Red Templar prison camp, the fate of any other hostages is to be left to your discretion. You sneak in under the cover of darkness and once you find the girl you see that her friend has been wounded is unable to move and she refuses to leave his side while he still draws breath and she believes that he can still be saved, you being the practical person that you are realise that sneaking out of the prison camp with the wounded man and the girl will not be easy and could very well cost you the mission, but then you also remember that the reward is for the girl alone and all other hostages are expendable, what do you do?

I would knock her out leaving her friend to die or I would just kill him. Before handing her back to her family I would demand a larger reward otherwise  l kill her.

Damn, that is smart. I wish I thought of that.

[Martyr1777]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Martyr1777 wrote...

Regardless thats not even a hard choice. You release other prisoners, let then cause a riot and get out with both parties during the confusion.

Damn was really hoping nobody would say that.

That is an effective plan, though it can be a detriment to egression if the facility is locked down and responded to with force. 

Or you just dont over analyze a simple hypothetical thats meant to demonstrate performing a villainous act to accomplish some other task. Especilly a poor theoretical exmple that has any number of easier solutions.

The real test is what do you do in Loghains shoes at Ostagar. Do you risk a no win situation or abandon your king?

I favor the option Stolen Throne Loghain would have taken. Forced Cailan to see sense. But even so Loghain was a very complelling antagonist.

[Maiden Crowe]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

rasloveszev wrote...

I've already answered the questions. It's about emotional reaction and majority rule. 

I kind of figured that.

Seems like a ****ty and ****ed up way of deciding what's right and wrong don't you think? Instead of, you know, thinking about it and coming to an objective conclusion based on quantifiable benefits and objective gains rather than limited and uninformed subjective perspective.

And what would you consider to be a quantifiable benefit or objective gain in comparison to the action needed to achieve it?

... Said quantifiable benefit or objective gain. You didn't stipulate any situation or conundrum or thought experiment for me to really work with. So there's my response.

Does the benefit or gain get me closer to my goal? Is it economically feasible? Is it practical? How does help me reach my conclusion? What is the most efficient way of achieving said goal? Do I have any alternatives to the method presented to me? Is my end significant to warrant possible costs that might be heavy (and damaging to the accomplishment of my goal in the long-run)?

Ok lets say you were offered a large sum of money by a prominent Orlesian noble family to rescue their daughter from a Red Templar prison camp, the fate of any other hostages is to be left to your discretion. You sneak in under the cover of darkness and once you find the girl you see that her friend has been wounded is unable to move and she refuses to leave his side while he still draws breath and she believes that he can still be saved, you being the practical person that you are realise that sneaking out of the prison camp with the wounded man and the girl will not be easy and could very well cost you the mission, but then you also remember that the reward is for the girl alone and all other hostages are expendable, what do you do?

Well, he's not ambulatory, and if I'm on my own, we're not going to have the manpower or strength to move him rapidly without detection. Honestly, I'd say that I'm being very impractical for having such a crappy egression plan. Practically, I'd have a team and intel of where I'm targeting and how I'm going for an escape route.

But... following your parameters, I'd be best served to alert the Templars via a red herring manuever, render the girl unconscious, euthanize the friend, and get her out, lying to her about her friends fate later. I'd be an ineffectual agent to not have some kind of LoW route that would utilize some kind of clearance of Templar patrols.

If my resources are as limited as I believe you're intending to make them;

Practically. I wouldn't accept the mission. Too many zero variables, with no intelligence, and no special equipment.

You are missing the point, entrance and escape have been left purposely vague as they are irrelevant to the question, the point is who are you trying to benefit with your actions? Yourself, others or society as a whole? The important part of the question is do you take the girl against her will or kill her friend just to cash a paycheck?

While good and evil is largely subjective it is still not enough to justify doing anything you please to benefit yourself especially when your actions have a large effect on others.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Martyr1777 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Martyr1777 wrote...

Regardless thats not even a hard choice. You release other prisoners, let then cause a riot and get out with both parties during the confusion.

Damn was really hoping nobody would say that.

That is an effective plan, though it can be a detriment to egression if the facility is locked down and responded to with force. 

Or you just dont over analyze a simple hypothetical thats meant to demonstrate performing a villainous act to accomplish some other task. Especilly a poor theoretical exmple that has any number of easier solutions.

The real test is what do you do in Loghains shoes at Ostagar. Do you risk a no win situation or abandon your king?

I favor the option Stolen Throne Loghain would have taken. Forced Cailan to see sense. But even so Loghain was a very complelling antagonist.

In Loghain's shoes at Ostagar. Hmm. Tactically, it's left ambiguous as to whether his intervention and engagement would have won the battle. If not, then yes, I would have ordered a retreat, though I wouldn't have resorted to indirectly trying to incur civil war or prosecuting false villains (the Wardens) to secure policy against a false threat. I'd have been blunt and held accountability for myself in saying that Ostagar was not going to be a successful campaign as it was executed in the game.

If however the Battle was winnable, then I would indeed have engaged. Not for Ferelden, or for the King, or whatnot, but to stop the Blight. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

You are missing the point, entrance and escape have been left purposely vague as they are irrelevant to the question, the point is who are you trying to benefit with your actions? Yourself, others or society as a whole? The important part of the question is do you take the girl against her will or kill her friend just to cash a paycheck?

While good and evil is largely subjective it is still not enough to justify doing anything you please to benefit yourself especially when your actions have a large effect on others.

What point am I missing? I gave you my response on how I'd approach the issue.

Execution is everything. I'm not going to give you a satisfactory moral answer unless I have applicable details on an operation, and knowledge on what I'm going to be getting into. On a meta-scale, you failed to underline a necessity of cause or even a basic look at my resistance. I don'tbase any mission on whether it's 'good' or 'evil'. Morality has nothing to do with how I look at a mission at all. 

As it is, I wouldn't even accept the mission. It's a terribly unnecessary risk for an admittedly lucrative goal, though with too many unknowns and no-gives to make it worth my own life. 

I'd love a billion dollars. I'd happily let a hundred people die if it meant getting that billion dollars into my bank account. I'd sleep soundly, and I'd do far more 'good' in the world with that billion than any of those hundred people would ever have hoped to accomplish in their lifetimes.

But if you offered me a billion in cash and told me to break into Ft. Knox, or the White House, or Area 51, or even the Rock Island Arsenal, I'd laugh in your face and take my life and freedom.

Pragmatism also means knowing when to walk away from a score that's unbankable.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 04 février 2014 - 03:34 .

[AresKeith]

Big Boss, Liquid (Ocelot), Xehanort (Xemnas and Young Xehanort), Darth Sidious, Kreia, Haytham Kenway

Just a few examples

[Martyr1777]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Martyr1777 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Martyr1777 wrote...

Regardless thats not even a hard choice. You release other prisoners, let then cause a riot and get out with both parties during the confusion.

Damn was really hoping nobody would say that.

That is an effective plan, though it can be a detriment to egression if the facility is locked down and responded to with force. 

Or you just dont over analyze a simple hypothetical thats meant to demonstrate performing a villainous act to accomplish some other task. Especilly a poor theoretical exmple that has any number of easier solutions.

The real test is what do you do in Loghains shoes at Ostagar. Do you risk a no win situation or abandon your king?

I favor the option Stolen Throne Loghain would have taken. Forced Cailan to see sense. But even so Loghain was a very complelling antagonist.

In Loghain's shoes at Ostagar. Hmm. Tactically, it's left ambiguous as to whether his intervention and engagement would have won the battle. If not, then yes, I would have ordered a retreat, though I wouldn't have resorted to indirectly trying to incur civil war or prosecuting false villains (the Wardens) to secure policy against a false threat. I'd have been blunt and held accountability for myself in saying that Ostagar was not going to be a successful campaign as it was executed in the game.

If however the Battle was winnable, then I would indeed have engaged. Not for Ferelden, or for the King, or whatnot, but to stop the Blight. 

Thats the thing about war. You never know if it was winnable until its already won or lost. I would have been Cailans antagonist and flat told him unless he came down out of the clouds I wouldnt lead the troops at all... if not been more harsh. Basically exactly what Loghain did many times with Maric, told him something was stupid and never back down.

But to be honest I think the whole Ostagar thing is by far the worst writen aspect of the game. Aside from it did create drama and a 'DAMMNNN!!!' kind of moment.

[sandalisthemaker]

 Someone who is just as sassy as they are bad.

[Maiden Crowe]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

You are missing the point, entrance and escape have been left purposely vague as they are irrelevant to the question, the point is who are you trying to benefit with your actions? Yourself, others or society as a whole? The important part of the question is do you take the girl against her will or kill her friend just to cash a paycheck?

While good and evil is largely subjective it is still not enough to justify doing anything you please to benefit yourself especially when your actions have a large effect on others.

What point am I missing? I gave you my response on how I'd approach the issue.

Execution is everything. I'm not going to give you a satisfactory moral answer unless I have applicable details on an operation, and knowledge on what I'm going to be getting into. On a meta-scale, you failed to underline a necessity of cause or even a basic look at my resistance. I don'tbase any mission on whether it's 'good' or 'evil'. Morality has nothing to do with how I look at a mission at all. 

As it is, I wouldn't even accept the mission. It's a terribly unnecessary risk for an admittedly lucrative goal, though with too many unknowns and no-gives to make it worth my own life. 

I'd love a billion dollars. I'd happily let a hundred people die if it meant getting that billion dollars into my bank account. I'd sleep soundly, and I'd do far more 'good' in the world with that billion than any of those hundred people would ever have hoped to accomplish in their lifetimes.

But if you offered me a billion in cash and told me to break into Ft. Knox, or the White House, or Area 51, or even the Rock Island Arsenal, I'd laugh in your face and take my life and freedom.

Pragmatism also means knowing when to walk away from a score that's unbankable.

It really doesn't matter how you would go about it as we are already taking enough liberty as it is in assuming you actually have the capability of performing a rescue mission, in its simplest form the question comes down to this, the girl will not leave without her friend while he lives, you cannot rescue the girl and her friend, you can rescue the girl if you knock her out and take her against her will or ensure her friend suffers an unfortunate accident, you cant collect the paycheck unless you rescue the girl.

But that being said it doesn't really matter if you get the point or not as you have already given me the answer I seek.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Then yes, I'd take the girl against her will and collect my bread and butter. I have my own needs too.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 04 février 2014 - 03:49 .

[Steelcan]

A b*tchin theme song

Modifié par Steelcan, 04 février 2014 - 03:51 .

[Red Panda]

A villain that makes you admit they have a point.

[DeinonSlayer]

OperatingWookie wrote...

A villain that makes you admit they have a point.

This.

EDIT: *takes a look at Massive's post*



WTF is going on here?

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 04 février 2014 - 03:59 .

[Jorji Costava]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Then yes, I'd take the girl against her will and collect my bread and butter. I have my own needs too.

Taken in isolation, this post doesn't come across so great.

Regarding the original question, I don't think there's any way to decide what makes for a good or bad villain in isolation from whatever story one is trying to tell. I know that sounds like a pretty wishy-washy answer, but to me this question is like asking, "What's better: Happy endings or darker endings?" What's best is what fits with everything else the story is trying to do.

In a film like The Dark Knight, a completely psychopathic villain with seemingly no human or redeeming characteristics whatsoever works extremely well. On the other hand, if you're making a film about what makes ordinary people capable of doing horrific things (just saw The Act of Killing not too long ago, and I'd highly recommend it for pretty much anyone), then it would be extremely dishonest to have the main antagonist be a complete irredeemable psychopath. The moral is that there's no general requirements a villain must meet to be great; the requirements are set by the rest of the story.

Focusing on DA, one of the frustrating elements of DA's villains (which has been discussed by others as well as myself) is the tendency for them to become insane or somehow corrupted such that they are deprived of their true selves, whether by possession or by some other mechanism. Since the conflicts in DA are generally political in nature (the mage/templar conflict, dwarf politics, etc.), it seems more appropriate to have the major players in such conflicts act from more recognizably human and understandable (but not necessarily sympathetic) motivations. After all, most real world political crises don't arise from people just totally losing their $#!@ (well, in a sense I suppose they do, but hopefully you know what I mean).

[CybAnt1]

In a film like The Dark Knight, a completely psychopathic villain with seemingly no human or redeeming characteristics whatsoever works extremely well. 

My humble take on all three of the Nolan Batman films is that they are an extended debate on the nature of human beings - with the citizens of Gotham acting as the constant proxy for "humanity" - and with Batman & other characters trying to make the case for the fact that at least some people in Gotham are good and worth saving, and with all the villains making the case that all of Gotham is corruptible and irredeemably corrupted, and thus the whole city is not worth saving. 

In essence, this drives the narrative of Ras al Ghul, The Joker, and Bane in the third film. 

The (Heath Ledger) Joker is not completely psychopathic - in fact, he makes a good point to Batman at various points. Psychopathic insanity "is a bit like gravity" - "all you need is a little shove". Take away the things that matter most to people, and you can fundamentally transform them. Even Gotham's greatest hero - which Batman acknowledges is greater than him and more needed by the people - Harvey Dent, the crusader against crime, can be "brought low" and turned into Two-Face given the proper "shove" -- not just acid burning half his face, BUT the death of Rachel. 

Everything he does in this film is a riff on this theme, especially the situation with the two boats and the explosives. What's interesting, of course, is it's not just Batman who refutes Joker's belief that everyone is corruptible and irredeemable; it is a convict on one of the boats who tosses away the detonator, showing that even "hard core" criminals can be redeemed. 

What I like about all the Nolan Batman films is not just the villains but that some of the heroes (Commisioner Gordon, "pre" Harvey Dent, Rachel, and "Robin" in film 3) are not wearing capes, body armor, and masks. 

I guess I would say what makes Joker a good villain is he represents an argument about human nature and its corruptibility that all three films try and refute. With difficulty, with the final case of course only finally being made in the third film. 

[Konstantin]

"The definition of insanity"
Vaas the perfect villain...

[dragonflight288]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

rasloveszev wrote...

KainD wrote...

Villain is an oxymoron, they don't exist. There are only the antagonists.

Someone didn't watch a Disney movie.

What makes Disney's very shallow and one-dimensional, black and white portrayal correct?

You obviously haven't watched Frozen. Nothing black and white there. 

And yeah, I'm quite serious. This movie has everyone very well-rounded and developed. It even makes fun of standard Disney cliche's. 

[Jigglypuff]

Someone who has a good storyline and a little understandable logic as to why they are doing their villainy, Loghain was a good example.

[Nightdragon8]

Maiden Crowe wrote...
*sniping the others*
You are missing the point, entrance and escape have been left purposely vague as they are irrelevant to the question, the point is who are you trying to benefit with your actions? Yourself, others or society as a whole? The important part of the question is do you take the girl against her will or kill her friend just to cash a paycheck?

While good and evil is largely subjective it is still not enough to justify doing anything you please to benefit yourself especially when your actions have a large effect on others.

It all depends on who you are.

Viruious person, thus try to get them all out,

Sneaky out for yourself kind of person, kill the guy, (personally I would do it with a posion, clam that it was a medicen, have him die, and say "Sorry I was too late" and take her away.)

Or evil SOB. (stab kill the guy knock out the girl, and if she is very uncoperitative kill her and claim you where too late and brought back the body for a respectful barrial.

[KainD]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

While good and evil is largely subjective it is still not enough to justify doing anything you please to benefit yourself especially when your actions have a large effect on others.

If it wasn't justiied you haven't done what you pleased..

[Ieldra]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@OP:
I prefer the name "antagonist". If a "villain" deserves the term "villain", they already aren't what I like in antagonists.

Ok if you want to argue semantics then you can change the question to "what makes a great antagonist" but I Loghain still falls firmly under the villain catagory whether you like the term or not. Now you can argue that Loghain isnt an evil person at heart and had "good intentions" however his actions dont reflect this, in fact there seems to be no logical reason why Loghain would have done most of the stuff he did other than the fact that the plot demanded a more human villain (because the Archdemon wasnt interesting enough) and Loghain was crowbared in to fill that role.

I believe I read somewhere that the original plan was to have Loghain corrupted under the influence of the Archdemon and as cliche as it is I would have much rathered they stuck with this plan instead as at least it is somewhat more believable than the crap they ended up going with.

Good intentions don't matter. In fact, a goal "I want as much power as I can grab" is perfectly acceptable for an antagonist. The difference to the "villain" type is that the type I prefer goes about their goal with a grasp of reality, particularly about the pragmatic cost of things they do sacrifice. They may not care about anyone's wellbeing at all, but committing an atrocity has a cost not pertaining to morality, so they wouldn't do that unless they consider the benefit worth the cost. This will limit the "evil" they do.

As for Loghains motivations, I find those comprehensible, assuming that he did really didn't believe (or deceived himself into not believing) the darkspawn attack was a Blight. If you played Return to Ostagar, you came to know that Cailan wanted closer ties to Orlais, and Loghain would see that as a betrayal. Consequently, he'd think Ferelden would be better off ruled by him.

You know, I really don't get this obsession with the question whether someone "is" "evil". There may be a few people who may deserve to be called that (based on a culture's definition of "evil", which, if I may mention, varies quite a bit between cultures), but they're cases so extreme that they aren't interesting. Just excise them from society and be done with it. Antagonists who have a point from some relatable point of view are much more interesting.

[Ieldra]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Forced morals that people adhere to without really understanding why they believe in such everywhere!

I agree, but do *you* understand? How people come to believe in any particular brand of morality is a question with complex answers, with biology, cultural conditioning and personal experiences working together.

IMO the important thing that people need to acknowledge in this thread is that there isn't any one right answer to the question of what may be considered acceptable, and that this debate is riddled with implicit assumptions of such that need to be reflected upon and made explicit if we're going to have any reasonable discussion about antagonists in stories. 

[Zerker]

Here are some of the greatest villains,





See what they all have in common? 

An incredible level of intelligence, a distinct and detailed character, and at least a pinch of madness.

These three are so common among the successful villains it is now a stereotype. Still, this method almost never fails to deliver.

Modifié par Maddok900, 04 février 2014 - 09:51 .