I just don't want a repeat of ME where I end up saying "well, if you just read the book, you'll see that this character is fairly nuanced and I'm not delusional for liking them." But it's Gaspard I worry about, not Celene.
Which character are you referring to? is it the Illusive Man?
Oleg Petrovsky, who's still pretty ruthless in the Invasion series (he threatens to destroy Omega level by level) but also cares about his men and keeps his cool when Aria has captured him and has a gun to his head. Not traits that carry through to the game.Which character are you referring to? is it the Illusive Man?
Oleg Petrovsky, who's still pretty ruthless in the Invasion series (he threatens to destroy Omega level by level) but also cares about his men and keeps his cool when Aria has captured him and has a gun to his head. Not traits that carry through to the game.
Ah yes, I do agree, just because a character is an antagonist does not mean that they have no good qualities, I did think he was a pretty well written character, and liked his personality quite a bit.
Hopefully, people don't look at Gaspard in the same light as they do with characters such as Petrovsky or Loghain. Just because they oppose you, the player, doesn't mean they are evil incarnate.
What in the world happened in this thread?
I didn't read all the comics with Petrovsky in them so I can't say exactly how well it translates to the game, but I do think that he did appear in the game with some degree of nuance.
I do think we have to use a certain amount of context when discussing historical figures and behaviours. For example, slavery is totally and utterly reprehensible. We can make distinctions however between people who actively fought against slavery, people who owned slaves but treated them like equals, people who owned slaves because it was a cultural norm and never considered the implications, and people who abused and violated their slaves. Most of the people I have mentioned took part in an abhorrent institution- but these people are all individual cases. People can live within an institution without being supportive of it. People can also be culturally insular- especially in situations where the media is strongly controlled b the reigning government. Many of us are lucky to live in a situation where we can view our actions through the eyes of other cultures, and thus shed light upon ourselves. Historical cultures often did not have that option.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that even in awful situations we can make distinctions between people's attitudes and behaviour. I also think the Milgram experiment is very apt here- a very high percentage of people will do things they disagree with because someone in authority ordered them to. Its been replicated over several different cultures, with both men and women, and it shows how frighteningly easy it is to obey.
I totally agree. I read pretty ugly stories about slavery in Usa. I did feel often angry and felt disgusted. But reading history, I didn't forget my brain and go, " ZOMG, today slavery is evil, all those people were evil for having slaves. They were villains. " Despite the thing being entirely disgusting and utterly reprehensible, I've looked who was really mean, who was kind to his slaves, who considered them as equal, etc etc. I didn't deny that among those who had slaves, there were good mothers, good fathers, people that never did anything wrong in their life, and yet considered slavery as fine.
I don't think it is. Slavery wasn't illegal at the time, but that's not the point, it was still unethical. Just because something is socially acceptable and legal doesn't mean it's right. "Everybody does it!" is not an argument, it's an excuse.
But then again, whether or not morality depends on the context is an old question, and I'm not saying I have all the answers. But to assume that morality is entirely a matter of opinion is just lazy thinking.
Please dont argue about one point I didn't really raise. That you find something unethical is fine. Going : ZOMG they are all villains, they are all evil, KILL THEM ALL, when judging people or a whole society in medieval times based on modern standards, with war crimes against humanity, convention of geneva, U.N laws or whatnot, without any regard for what they were being taught in the past, their level of evolution isn't fine. Before we reach those same modern standards you are applying to those people, it took us thousands of years, the era of humanism, industrial,, etc, so please think about that, and do not forget it. As do people who write history.
I won't think that romans were villains and evil. What they did with slavery was wrong, unethical but the era was barbaric in all the world. So I do not forget the context, and personal differences between people and when I judge their society, I judge them for what they were, humans at their time, with bad sides and good sides, I condemn what needs to be condemned. I don't think at all that Caesar was evil despite having slaves, and despite being a conqueror. He was good to his slaves, he achieved good things, he had good sides, etc.
What is lazy thinking to me, it's comparing some medieval fantasy ( or rl ) guys to Nazy, totally irrelevant. What is lazy thinking, it's denying the social context, the social norm, the era, in a whole society and condemning an entire medieval country to death just because they are not as tolerant with their opinions as we are today, in modern times. It took time to change the mindset of many societies. What is lazy thinking is thinking black and white.
Please dont argue about one point I didn't really raise.
Right back at you. I haven't said anything like "ZOMG KILL'EM ALL THEIR EVIL". I did say that morals are nothing like Schrodinger's cat: something can't be both good and bad depending on the time and place and mood of the observer.
tl;dr: Might seem harsh, but Anders was right. Justice is righteous. Justice is hard. Justice is absolute. There's no in-between here.
Right back at you. I haven't said anything like "ZOMG KILL'EM ALL THEIR EVIL". I did say that morals are nothing like Schrodinger's cat: something can't be both good and bad depending on the time and place and mood of the observer.
Spoiler
tl;dr: Might seem harsh, but Anders was right. Justice is righteous. Justice is hard. Justice is absolute. There's no in-between here.
Actually that is the entire point of moral relativism... That what is fine in one situation, is not fine in another.
1 - Because he knew the country would be easily upset, especially the nobles. It was an asset to turn against her so Celene can make the move he expected. At this point, he was clearly at war with Celene and nothing else mattered, it was all about the victory. He lied about Briala as her lover to amplify the phenomenon, based precisely a bit on facts ( celene helping the elves ) and that's why people would believe his lies about briala . Also, the city elves didn't prove anything to Gaspard as citizens at this point, so, the point of MisterJb still stand.
2 - Omg, that is absurd. She is a woman, so he can marry her to rule with her, that's why he asks. He couldn't simply ask with a man... isn't that obvious ? ... So, I'm not sure what you are arguing there, about assaulting a defensless woman and rape. He expected it to go easier, because Celene is not supposed to be a warrior, should be easy to kill, and she was alone without any guard at her side as usual, simple. The fact that she is a woman doesn't matter when it's about killing the ruler of the empire that doesn't want to cooperate. An effective way to avoid the civil war by the way. Not sure why the gender matters so much. Honestly, it seems like you are building your own fantasy on this point.
1-So he’s not racist, he’s just willing to use racism to his advantage in order to take out someone who is not racist. And this is…an excuse to you? Again, if your explanation for one crime requires acknowledging another crime, it isn’t a good explanation.
2- You are only strengthening my argument at this point.
Just finsihed reading Masked Empire, I predict that the Inquisitor will be called upon to take sides in the Orlesian civil war. Definitely getting a Orzammar succession vibe here, with Celene=Bhelen and Gaspard=Harrowmont.
Honestly I think I like Gaspard more personally, but he hates elves and wants to start external wars so he's got to go.
Hey! Someone who gets that you can like a villain but still not have to pretend they are a good guy.
Ah yes, I do agree, just because a character is an antagonist does not mean that they have no good qualities, I did think he was a pretty well written character, and liked his personality quite a bit.
Hopefully, people don't look at Gaspard in the same light as they do with characters such as Petrovsky or Loghain. Just because they oppose you, the player, doesn't mean they are evil incarnate.
Little chance of that happening, i'm afraid. These are the forums where people consider it a betrayal if a companion has their own ideals, and refuses an order from the PC due to those ideals.
Hopefully, people don't look at Gaspard in the same light as they do with characters such as Petrovsky or Loghain. Just because they oppose you, the player, doesn't mean they are evil incarnate.
Personally I hated that they made Shepard hate Petrovsky. I liked him more than Aria and in my headcanon take him up on his offer on eventually possibly becoming friends. Man was like the General Lee of Cerberus. As for Loghain, well I only kill him when I'm romancing Alistair.
Gaspard however has a heck of a ditch to climb out, and unless Celene turns out to be one of the Agents of Chaos he won't have sufficient points to do so.
So...
How about that Empress huh, I hear she rules Orlais. (Trying to put forum back on track)
Long live the Empress!
Gaspard however has a heck of a ditch to climb out, and unless Celene turns out to be one of the Agents of Chaos he won't have sufficient points to do so.
Just curious, is the reason you dislike Gaspard because of his indifference towards the elves? or is it to do with his possible plans for an invasion of Fereldan? or is it something else?
Genuinely curious, and also do you think you will do a playthrough where you side with him? (assuming that there is an option in-game to side with him)
@ Maraas, I swear if we weren't so off topic... Whatever, let's drop this topic. Don"t want to bother other folks in this thread.
1-So he’s not racist, he’s just willing to use racism to his advantage in order to take out someone who is not racist. And this is…an excuse to you? Again, if your explanation for one crime requires acknowledging another crime, it isn’t a good explanation.
2- You are only strengthening my argument at this point.
1 - You said he would be obviously against the elves being in better position. You don't know that though. We never entered the head of Gaspard. We do know though that he didn't care about Ser Michel's blood and thought that he better deserved to be a chevalier than any other human despite this same blood. Your example about Gaspard preparing his ambush against Celene to make your point valid is simply wrong. Because the point of this political asset that Gaspard used about the elves was for a military move to trap Celene as it happened. Nothing to do with what he thinks, it's about the victory and all about the victory. I don't know what exactly think Gaspard, but this is a weak argument there.
2 - lol. Honestly to me you aren't making sense anymore on this point and I have no desire to argue further there. Gaspard simply wanted to kill the ruler of Orlais, his opponent that he thought weak enough to attack alone without guards around. That's the only fact. Everything else you said is your own fantasy you built yourself.
Just curious, is the reason you dislike Gaspard because of his indifference towards the elves? or is it to do with his possible plans for an invasion of Fereldan? or is it something else?
Genuinely curious, and also do you think you will do a playthrough where you side with him? (assuming that there is an option in-game to side with him)
His attitude towards the elves
His attitude about wanting to "reclaim Orlesian glory" (aka reconquering Anderfels, Ferelden, Free Marches, and Nevarra)
Him being a Chevalier
Really the only good thing about him in my mind is his desire to end The Grand Game in Orlais.
Really the only good thing about him in my mind is his desire to end The Grand Game in Orlais.
Do you know where he says that (or something to that effect) in the book? I can't find it and I'd like to read what he has to say.
Do you know where he says that (or something to that effect) in the book? I can't find it and I'd like to read what he has to say.
He never out and out says it, but he says he has contempt for the game, and those who play it. He goes on about being straightforward and upholding his honor code, etc. Its implied I guess.
He never out and out says it, but he says he has contempt for the game, and those who play it. He goes on about being straightforward and upholding his honor code, etc. Its implied I guess.
Thanks. 
All I could remember was that he felt inadequate, which is why he needed Remache around to help him keep the throne (should he gain it). I guess my perception of it is different.
No, no no no no no!
If ANYONE needs to have extravagant hair, its the Empress! Her hair looks like mens hair, messy and ragged like a boy! Marjolaine would hate that!
I understand they like having short hair and all, but this needs to be an exception. Miranda in Mass Effect had good long hair, Lady of the Forest too. I highly doubt we'll see Celene in anything other than a polite scenario, so her hair needs to be extravagant. If she is fighting, she can bind it up somehow but as it stands, I really hope that isn't how it looks in game. Look horrible! Try to think of me sounding like an Orlesian, if that helps.
I do like Tilda Swinton though. But... Celene needs better hair.
Ah yes, I do agree, just because a character is an antagonist does not mean that they have no good qualities, I did think he was a pretty well written character, and liked his personality quite a bit.
Hopefully, people don't look at Gaspard in the same light as they do with characters such as Petrovsky or Loghain. Just because they oppose you, the player, doesn't mean they are evil incarnate.
I thought it was shown very well that Loghain isn't evil incarnate in the trial thingy. I loved Loghain. That whole scene caught me by surprise because, after hearing what Loghain had to say, I wanted ot side with him. When Alistar sounded so hurt, so betrayed, I realized for the first time that I actually cared bout that character as a person. It was the defining moment of the game to me, to agree with Loghain but at the same time have to sentence him to death because I could not stand to lose my friend.
I want to romance her so I can become all powerful and then kill her because I'm the best.
Retour en haut