34723 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Are we like we were at Cass's age in DOTS?

I am.

I didn't see the movie, but I read about it on the wiki (not the same thing, I know, I'll remedy that when I can) and my understanding was that from Dawn of the Seeker to Inquisition quite a few years have passed. She may have changed during this time.
She also may have not changed at all, but I find it odd, everyone changes at least a bit during the course of their lives. But, as always, I might be wrong.

The movie character's personality felt rather generic to me. Movie Cass will do what is right, but there was only one type of right available to her. She could 1) let evil blood mages kill people, or 2) save people from evil blood mages. That she picked the first one just tells me she's a heroic protagonist.

She's 'aggressive' and 'goes good things,' but both of them are very paint by the numbers.

[Hellion Rex]

Takes place two decades prior to DAI.

 

Its natural for a character to have some evolution in that, plus she was a teenager.

 

Are we like we were at Cass's age in DOTS?

On top of that, Thedas is a whole other experience compared to our lives here. She's fighting demons and God knows what else as a Seeker. That's bound to have a dramatic effect on a person.

[Hellion Rex]

I am.

You were fighting blood mages, pride demons, and dragons?

[Master Warder Z_]

On top of that, Thedas is a whole other experience compared to our lives here. She's fighting demons and God knows what else as a Seeker. That's bound to have a dramatic effect on a person.

 

Having seen war, i will agree with this assessment, having to fight to merely continue existence warps perspective.

[Master Warder Z_]

She's the same brow furrowing Seeker in DA2. She's already in her 30s by that point.

 

I doubt she's going to turn evil now. Maybe softened or openminded, like a Fenris at full approval, but come on. Even Fenris retained his personality when you did that.

 

Do you know what the difference between Lawful Evil and Lawful Neutral is?

 

Its boundaries, perspective.

 

Its lines you are willing to cross to get a goal done.

 

  Its not as bland as "merely turning evil" its accepting that to achieve desired results you often need to do things that would be construed as "evil" as "vile", "Genocidal".

 

Its being willing, eager even able to look forward to crossing those lines, because not only is necessary, it can result in as much personal fulfillment as objective achievement if you allow it.

 

If you like i can send you my two page treatise on lawful evil as a ideological concept.

[azarhal]

Are we like we were at Cass's age in DOTS?

 

I haven't changed much between my teenage year and now, but I had a stable life.

 

In the case of Cassandra, we do know (from dev's mouth) that she had the biggest transformative arc between all the characters of DA2 though. Section that is important: “To some degree, I think that Cassandra undergoes probably the biggest transformative arc of any character in Dragon Age II,” Laidlaw says. Cassandra has always supported the Chantry, but after talking to Varric and seeing both sides of the issue, her opinions may change. “In a lot of ways, I think she represents the opportunity to grow by understanding [and not] getting increasingly lost in the noise of Dragon Age’s rising chaos,” Laidlaw says.

 

I find the last quote interesting (underlined by me).

[Master Warder Z_]

I know what they mean. You'll have to forgive me from typing any of this out in a sophisticated way. It's just a forum I'm screwing around at, while watching TV.

 

Lawful Evil stoops to awful **** to protect order. Like Judge Dredd or the Templars in DA2 (especially the "tranquil" solution types). I don't see Cassandra doing that. Especially not just because a player wants it. There'd have to be a damn good reason besides befriending her or making some kind of persuasion check. That's all I'm going to say. I don't want them cheapening a character they've done a lot to establish, just because of players.

 

She is willing to work as the Right hand of the Divine, you think she isn't used as a blade for the Chantry?

 

You think the Chantry only has "evil" enemies?

[Master Warder Z_]

Of course she's a blade. What does that have to do with anything in this context? Everyone and their mom kills in the Dragon Age world. It's the norm. Rather than a gauge of moral alignment. Even Andraste waged war.

 

Everything, because as you said every one kills, every one combats each other but its all context.

 

Do you think she would kill those who posed her no threat if ordered? But say if they were killed, their deaths benefited the community or the Church or even a Nation.

 

She has shed blood for this church for a long while, do you think the Divine never had her slay some one who might have caused her to doubt any attachment to "goodness" she may have possessed. My question to you is, Do you think she would cross that line, and if she would, why wouldn't she go further if it would achieve even more?

 

I am pointing out that once you start walking that road, it becomes easier and easier to justify it.

[Maria Caliban]

Bend the rules?

Samara has to hunt down Ardat-Yakshi as long as she's alive.
Her daughter is an Ardat-Yakshi but is free because the monastery was destroyed.
Samara doesn't want to kill her daughter.

Samara's solution to this is to kill herself. The only thing that prevents this is that her daughter agrees to spend the rest of her life in said monastery. Note here: Falere is the only one left alive in the monastery and she's just watched the only people she's known for a couple centuries be horrifically murdered within it. That's rather nightmarish.

I have no doubt Samara loves her daughter, but let's contemplate the fact that after her daughter has gone through some deeply traumatic violence, Samara is about to blow her brains out while her daughter watches because she has a code she has to follow, no matter what.

[Hellion Rex]

Well Maria, when you say it like that...

[Maria Caliban]

I'm going to add here that I adore Samara and I think she's a good person. It's simply that way in which she's decided to go about helping the universe in one based on strict adherence to a set of rules. I consider her more 'lawful' than any other BioWare character.

[azarhal]

She is willing to work as the Right hand of the Divine, you think she isn't used as a blade for the Chantry?

 

You think the Chantry only has "evil" enemies?

 

Right hand of the Divine is an honorary title.

[Xilizhra]

I'm going to add here that I adore Samara and I think she's a good person. It's simply that way in which she's decided to go about helping the universe in one based on strict adherence to a set of rules. I consider her more 'lawful' than any other BioWare character.

Personally, I don't agree that she's a good person, or at least think she's not allowing herself to be because of that stupid code. Which makes the notion of slowly wearing away at her devotion with the romance path until it finally culminates in Citadel... an admittedly tempting one.

[Maria Caliban]

I should add that the same writer (before Weekes took over) created Samara and Jack. I think what was supposed to seperate these two biotics wasn't "good" or "evil" per se, but the Lawful/Orderly and Chaotic sides of each. They both still retain that, no matter what else you chip away (I think Jack veers from chaotic neutral to chaotic good, I guess, in ME3).

Lawful meaning 'dedicates her life to protecting others from harm' and chaotic meaning 'mentally ill mass murderer.'

Totally different from good and evil.

[Maria Caliban]

It's impossible to frame killing others as intrinsically good or bad in BioWare games as killing accounts for the majority of our interaction with others and is impossible to avoid if you want to play the game*.

Jack kills people because she has an addiction to violence and feels pleasure when she harms and brutalizes another. That is the exact definition of evil in DnD terms. Samara primarily kills people because they have shown themselves dangerous to either individuals or the public good. When put in the position of harming others because of her duty, she expresses sorrow and dislike.

I consider them both interesting and sympathetic characters, but their versions of Lawful and Chaotic align heavily with Good/Evil, Light Side/Dark Side, Open Palm/Closed Fist. This is especially true when you look at the other companions ME 2 gives you, who are primarily morally ambiguous. In fact, in terms of traditional RPG morality, Jack and Samara could form the two end points of a continuum that the rest of the companions fall along**.

This is not to say they're 'bad characters.' They suffer from a lack of fleshing out (Jack's relationship with FemShep just fizzles out) but that's true of many of the companions. On a conceptual level, I can appreciate that ME 2's crew are quite varied while all fitting the mold of a 'dirty dozen' and while some of the costumes struck me as questionable, the character design, voice work, personal quests, and cinematics are all solid and do a good job of expressing the characters themselves.

****, I need to try to tie this to the actual topic, don't I?

One of my disappointments for DA:I is that they're getting rid of (or lessening) the companion quests. I thought these worked well in DA II or ME 2. I find myself wondering what Cassandra's would have been.

* Gameplay and story separation are a thing, but I believe the concept is abused.
** The exception being Morith. I'd rather not talk about her.