142 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

The third option is called capitalism..and is going very well these days.  The real world does not punish evil as much as you seem to think, just look at how successful the brutal empires of the age of exploration where, of Ivan the Terrible, or Ghengis Khan. I will not give any more modern examples as that would start a flame war.

 

But that's not the morality that Bioware portrays in its characters. It's not that evil gets punished in some abstract sense. It's that the characters who join the party are not Ivan the Terrible and Genghis Khan, but a large pack of lawful good and chaotic good persons whose often stated goal is to combat the exact form of evil the player can engage in. 

[Vilegrim]

But that's not the morality that Bioware portrays in its characters. It's not that evil gets punished in some abstract sense. It's that the characters who join the party are not Ivan the Terrible and Genghis Khan, but a large pack of lawful good and chaotic good persons whose often stated goal is to combat the exact form of evil the player can engage in. 

 

 

yes, the variety of characters has fallen off a cliff.  Morrigan was the last one I really found fascinating as a character.  Not that I have liked, but one I actually enjoyed trying to get into the head space of.

[Swaggerjking]

Can we stop complaining about past games being supposedly broken yes da 2 was rush everyone knows that they could of made it make more sense but you could rip anything to shreds with hindsight

[In Exile]

yes, the variety of characters has fallen off a cliff.  Morrigan was the last one I really found fascinating as a character.  Not that I have liked, but one I actually enjoyed trying to get into the head space of.

 

That's just because the DA2 cast seems like they came right out of Angel or Buffy the Vampire Slayer. IMO, they all left like Joss Whedon characters, which made them seem very much the same. 

[Tajerio]

But that's not the morality that Bioware portrays in its characters. It's not that evil gets punished in some abstract sense. It's that the characters who join the party are not Ivan the Terrible and Genghis Khan, but a large pack of lawful good and chaotic good persons whose often stated goal is to combat the exact form of evil the player can engage in. 

 

That might be more apt as a criticism of DA2, where even the neutral characters are strongly good-leaning. Origins, on the other hand, had Sten, Morrigan, Shale, and Zevran, all of whom are pretty squarely neutral and can shade towards evil as much as they shade towards good.  Given that DA:I has the "save the world" setup instead of the "follow Hawke" setup, I think we have a pretty decent chance to see a wider variety of companion morality.

[In Exile]

That might be more apt as a criticism of DA2, where even the neutral characters are strongly good-leaning. Origins, on the other hand, had Sten, Morrigan, Shale, and Zevran, all of whom are pretty squarely neutral and can shade towards evil as much as they shade towards good.  Given that DA:I has the "save the world" setup instead of the "follow Hawke" setup, I think we have a pretty decent chance to see a wider variety of companion morality.

 

I agree with you that there was more moral variability, but not that it supported what people are asking for in this thread in terms of "evil". Other than (sort of Morrigan) those characters didn't like cruelty. They favoured expediency - like going for Arl Eamon over Redcliffe, and Zevran wasn't adverse to you killing people - but they gave no indication they would generally be onboard with pure chaotic evil actions. 

[Tajerio]

I agree with you that there was more moral variability, but not that it supported what people are asking for in this thread in terms of "evil". Other than (sort of Morrigan) those characters didn't like cruelty. They favoured expediency - like going for Arl Eamon over Redcliffe, and Zevran wasn't adverse to you killing people - but they gave no indication they would generally be onboard with pure chaotic evil actions. 

 

And I agree with your modification--BioWare companions, if they aren't paragons of good, will tend towards ruthlessness over cruelty.  How agreeable we are

[Vilegrim]

I agree with you that there was more moral variability, but not that it supported what people are asking for in this thread in terms of "evil". Other than (sort of Morrigan) those characters didn't like cruelty. They favoured expediency - like going for Arl Eamon over Redcliffe, and Zevran wasn't adverse to you killing people - but they gave no indication they would generally be onboard with pure chaotic evil actions. 

 

 

I don't think the examples I gave engage in purely chaotic evil actions.  It was brutality with a point, usually to terrify potential enemies into avoiding a fight.  Which to me is the difference, killing peasnats for the evulz is pointless and counter productive, obliterating a town that rebels/kills an emissary/collaborates with an enemy, is evil, but not pointless.

[In Exile]

I don't think the examples I gave engage in purely chaotic evil actions.  It was brutality with a point, usually to terrify potential enemies into avoiding a fight.  Which to me is the difference, killing peasnats for the evulz is pointless and counter productive, obliterating a town that rebels/kills an emissary/collaborates with an enemy, is evil, but not pointless.

 

We can quibble whether or not it's actually evil depending on the moral outlook we take, but I do agree with you overall. In my post I was distinguishing between the kind of chaotic evil that this thread seemed to open with versus, essentially, medieval like brutality that's quite instrumental in achieving some (morally justifiable) end, like ending the threat of demons in Thedas. 

[Medhia_Nox]

@Vilegrim:  "Evil" is not a word I'm fond of using. 

 

Degenerate acts always corrupt the self.  Even a soldier - an otherwise good man who defends his country, is often left corrupted by his/her acts of violence.  If you limit "punishment" to physical forces outside of the self - then certainly, it would seem that "evil" often goes unpunished. 

 

However - if you forced a player to obtain the qualities of men/women corrupted by their actions - you would have an army of gamers screaming bloody murder. 

 

Also - it's interesting that some say medieval brutality did not go unpunished - as there are precious few monarchies left in Europe in this day and age.  Their brutality was, in fact, punished permanently by the destruction of the station (or, at the very least, it's relevance)

[Aimi]

@Vilegrim:  "Evil" is not a word I'm fond of using. 
 
Degenerate acts always corrupt the self.  Even a soldier - an otherwise good man who defends his country, is often left corrupted by his/her acts of violence.  If you limit "punishment" to physical forces outside of the self - then certainly, it would seem that "evil" often goes unpunished. 
 
However - if you forced a player to obtain the qualities of men/women corrupted by their actions - you would have an army of gamers screaming bloody murder. 
 
Also - it's interesting that some say medieval brutality did not go unpunished - as there are precious few monarchies left in Europe in this day and age.  Their brutality was, in fact, punished permanently by the destruction of the station (or, at the very least, it's relevance)

That just shifts the burden of the language from 'evil' to 'degenerate' and 'corrupt'. It implies a savagery and bestiality to the actions that people take that makes those actions less human. I'm not comfortable with that, because that essentially constructs a world in which only people who give up some essential aspect of their humanity can do awful things. I think that it's better to acknowledge that these people are human. They're all too human.

Also, in most cases, the European monarchies that were destroyed were not destroyed due to the memory of medieval savagery. They weren't even destroyed because of modern savagery. They were mostly destroyed because they lost the First World War, a war which had no 'good guy' side in the first place. And the groups that replaced them were just as brutal (if not, in some cases, infinitely more brutal) than the monarchies themselves.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Eirene: It's your perogative to embrace all aspects of human nature.  I do not.  Some, I find repugnant and beneath the purview of a better human. 

 

And since judgement and discernment are, in your eyes, worth embracing do to their very human qualities - I will assume you totally support my decisions.

 

Just because I can do so many things as a human - does not mean that I should do, or even consider, a great many of them.  I am quite thankful that it is not in the general nature of the majority to act on their more vile impulses (I would not presume they do not "consider" them at some point).

 

====

 

As it concerns Dragon Age - I prefer choices that are "evil" to be present.  In fact - I'd prefer choices that are not only evil, but of greater advantage to the player during the course of the game - to be present. 

 

The choices I would make - are not done so for reward.

[Genshie]

All the evil I need is the triumphant return of our lord THE MURDER KNIFE! *snirk* 

[xXxshemlifexXx]

Being the biggest ******* in the world in Playthrough 2 is part of the fun

 

I still say enslaving all my friends and the spirit of life itself and becoming the supreme overlord of NotChina was the best bit of Jade Empire. Why choose between saving the world in a nice way or saving the world in a meaniehead way when I can choose saving the world or one-upping the villain and taking it over myself?

[N7_5P3CTR3]

There should be "evil" options and even though I find it difficult I always do an evil run, right after my paragon run so I can have the widest range of dialog options in my "true" play through where I'm ruthless or compassionate depending on my personal head canon.

[DarthSliver]

Hate to say it but we need a level of "evil" choices that just make it feel good to make that choice. Honestly the last game that I really enjoyed being evil on was Infamous 2. The recent titles of Bioware, Dragon Age and Mass Effect, just felt like making the non good guy choice was making the game worse for yourself. Well not Dragon Age Origins exactly per say, probably mainly Mass Effect in this case. It is just that the last Bioware game I actually felt right about being Evil in was Knights of the Old Republic for Xbox Original. I just think people wanna be able to make Evil choices and still enjoy the game not feel like they are being punished for making a different choice since we usually only have Good Guy choice or Poopy Head choice

[HydroFlame20]

You want to open the veil tears instead of close them, don't you. 
 
And become the great lord Sauron! Mwaaaaahaha!

I love this idea for my Elf mage lol and hopefully my Romance can give in and join the Darkness.

[Vilegrim]

We can quibble whether or not it's actually evil depending on the moral outlook we take, but I do agree with you overall. In my post I was distinguishing between the kind of chaotic evil that this thread seemed to open with versus, essentially, medieval like brutality that's quite instrumental in achieving some (morally justifiable) end, like ending the threat of demons in Thedas. 

 

 

I was objecting to the chaotic, not the evil

[In Exile]

I was objecting to the chaotic, not the evil

 

It really does sound like the OP was asking for the chaotic moreso than the evil, e.g. being cruel to your party members for no appreciable gain. 

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

It really does sound like the OP was asking for the chaotic moreso than the evil, e.g. being cruel to your party members for no appreciable gain. 

I don't understand those terms you guys throw around, but that sounds "psychopathic sadistic" to me.

[Vilegrim]

I don't understand those terms you guys throw around, but that sounds "psychopathic sadistic" to me.

 

 

It's the DnD alignment chart,  Chaotic Evil is cruelty adn evil without purpose beyond doing it, it's puppy kicking serial killing evil.   Lawful Evil (which imho is easier to contain in the plot) is Evil with a purpose and drive, sometimes honour, usually believing they are doing what needs to be done.  It's the difference between Tywin Lannister and Joffery Baratheon, Tywin is evil, but everything he does has a purpose,  Joffery is a sadistic psychopath.

[Sidney]

Hate to say it but we need a level of "evil" choices that just make it feel good to make that choice. Honestly the last game that I really enjoyed being evil on was Infamous 2. The recent titles of Bioware, Dragon Age and Mass Effect, just felt like making the non good guy choice was making the game worse for yourself. Well not Dragon Age Origins exactly per say, probably mainly Mass Effect in this case. It is just that the last Bioware game I actually felt right about being Evil in was Knights of the Old Republic for Xbox Original. I just think people wanna be able to make Evil choices and still enjoy the game not feel like they are being punished for making a different choice since we usually only have Good Guy choice or Poopy Head choice

The problem in too many cases is that "evil" is dumb. I'm not sure why it is "evil" or "renegade" or whatever to be a jerk to your allies for example. I mean even the worst scumbags in history had friends.

You also have cases when actions and motives are different. I always helped the villagers in Redcliffe. As a good guy I'm doing because, well, helping people. As my more "evil" play through it was calculated expediency where Eamon's help was worth the effort I put into saving his village. My problem most of the time is that the games don't differentiate what I'm doing from why I'm doing it.

[Swoopdogg]

I think I recall Morrigan in the first trailer saying something along the lines of "Will you save the world or destroy it" or whatever. So, I'm guessing from that that destroying the world is, well, an option

[In Exile]

It's the DnD alignment chart,  Chaotic Evil is cruelty adn evil without purpose beyond doing it, it's puppy kicking serial killing evil.   Lawful Evil (which imho is easier to contain in the plot) is Evil with a purpose and drive, sometimes honour, usually believing they are doing what needs to be done.  It's the difference between Tywin Lannister and Joffery Baratheon, Tywin is evil, but everything he does has a purpose,  Joffery is a sadistic psychopath.

 

To continue the Game of Thrones analogy, Eddard Stark would be someone who is Lawful Good, and arguably Jon Snow would be Neutral to Chaotic Good. Gregor Clegane is another example of chaotic evil.