Arguable. Loghain did everything he did to protect his country. Zevran was raised a killer but he showed a great deal of compassion during the course of the game. Shale was imprisoned and only wanted her freedom.
Having good intentions does not preclude you from being evil. Even selective compassion doesn't do that. Zevran's an unrepentant killer of many for both money and pleasure, Shale just takes "money" out of it and is outright bloodthirsty, and Loghain is a mass murderer and enslaver.
There is fiction that makes us feel good because everybody wins in the end. There are tough situations, heroes meet them, suffer a bit and win, the comes happily ever after. Some fiction is grittier and situations do not have perfect solutions, nothing is ever quite won, in fact it may just be stopping something horrible from becoming more horrible. People are flawed and selfish and scared and there are lots more of them then heroes. It's not a backlash against heroes it's just a desire for more layers.
Ned Stark got himself killed because he refused to see how others played the game. Great guy, good dad, but blinded by his simplisitic view.
Having good intentions does not preclude you from being evil. Even selective compassion doesn't do that. Zevran's an unrepentant killer of many for both money and pleasure, Shale just takes "money" out of it and is outright bloodthirsty, and Loghain is a mass murderer and enslaver.
How is Loghain an mass murderer?
How is Loghain an mass murderer?
The civil war.
The civil war.
Erm, then the entire bannorn are mass murderers, since they had almost as much people killed as Loghain, not to mention that Loghain wasn't the one that actually started the civil war.
Erm, then the entire bannorn are mass murderers, since they had almost as much people killed as Loghain, not to mention that Loghain wasn't the one that actually started the civil war.
Yes he was. He usurped the throne for no reason. Had Anora remained in command with Loghain just acting as her main general against the darkspawn, the civil war never would have happened.
Most notably Wynne and Alistair as far as Dragon Age is concerned and I find this curious. Is it because "good guys" aren't as interesting as grey or ambiguous characters? Is it because they're predictable? Or are fantasy fanbases just becoming more cynical?
Personally for me I find Wynne annoying not because she is "good" but because she has a pre-determined notion of what grey wardens should be like, and yet she ahs had no experience with them, she's lived in the Circle her whole life, and then she gets overly critical when you do not meet her expectations
Yes he was. He usurped the throne for no reason. Had Anora remained in command with Loghain just acting as her main general against the darkspawn, the civil war never would have happened.
He acted as regent, he didn't go around calling himself King Loghain, but the Bannorn saw through the ruse and demanded he step aside, so they rose up and started the war
His messenger calls him King Loghain though. And if you don't count the civil war as his fault how about when he betrayed Cailan and the Wardens ?
His messenger calls him King Loghain though. And if you don't count the civil war as his fault how about when he betrayed Cailan and the Wardens ?
Sigh, this will become another Loghain debate, won't it?
His messenger calls him King Loghain though. And if you don't count the civil war as his fault how about when he betrayed Cailan and the Wardens ?
his messenger, never once did he say "I am the King blah blah"
that's a whole other can of worms, Celene was hoping to bring Ferelden back into the fold through marrying Cailan and Loghain apparently knew about this, which is why he abandoned him
Having good intentions does not preclude you from being evil. Even selective compassion doesn't do that. Zevran's an unrepentant killer of many for both money and pleasure, Shale just takes "money" out of it and is outright bloodthirsty, and Loghain is a mass murderer and enslaver.
Actually, I think intention alone is what makes you fit into "good" or "evil". Actions alone are hard to see through. The environment you grow up in and the people you learn from shape you, especially if you're a kid. If you don't meet different realities, you can't compare your behaviour to other standards. I don't blame Zevran for what he became. I realize this way of thinking makes it possible to justify everything though.
As for Loghain, I can't help but have a soft spot for him. He did done terrible things and he was aware of this, he was been ruined by his own intentions and stubbornness. He looked so tired and defeated after the landsmeet.. I pitied him. I could see where he was coming from, his hate of the Orlesians made him blind. He ended up being the kind of person he used to fight against, selling people into slavery after fighting to free Ferelden from the same oppression. But he knows it, you can bring it up if you recruit him and you can see it's eating away at him. I can see why people see him as evil though.
I feel sorry for all the good characters being discriminated again.
For me, it's not a backlash, it's just everywhere. People just want something different. Good moral characters are predictable, morally gray characters are a lot more fun in this regard because we don't know what they would do. If Batman points a gun at the joker, we know he's not gonna shoot (At least in recent incarnation), however, if it's a more morally ambiguous character like catwoman, there would be more leeway.
Sigh, this will become another Loghain debate, won't it?
Nah, I'm just saying
I don't mind good characters, but so often I think the writers confuse "good" with "boring".
Its the same thing in wrestling. The heels are interesting because they have personality while the faces are boring because they're generic cut and paste "Say your prayers and take your vitamins" type guys more often than not.
Not all the faces are boring, just some.
Actually, I think intention alone is what makes you fit into "good" or "evil".
The problem is that everyone sees themselves as 'good'. To apply Godwin's law, Hitler believed he was doing a good thing for his people.
The problem is that everyone sees themselves as 'good'. To apply Godwin's law, Hitler believed he was doing a good thing for his people.
Not everyone. But everyone (nearly) knows and understands the reasons behind their own actions. They can't see themselves as truly "evil" either, for the same reason.
I find it very difficult to use the terms "good" and "evil" myself. Some actions simply can't be accepted, but I find myself unable to judge the people behind them unless it gets personal and I let anger cloud everything. From a philosophical point of view, I'd say evil people don't exist. Everyone is merely the product of their life experiences, and their own reactions are derived from these experiences too. From a practical point of view, there's a point where you have to draw a line, stop thinking about people's abusive childhood and plant a bullet in their head.
I think evil people do exist, even without cause, some people are just a-holes by nature.
What backlash?
That being said, they both suck big time cuz they're annoying.
^ I agree. At least, for Alistair I do. His whining ALL the time and refusal to step up and be a man is so irritating. And if you don't have the patience for him, he has no patience in return. Very immature... He gets better eventually though, like everyone thankfully.
Wynne on the other hand, I don't agree with. People get annoyed by her lecturing, but I love those. She teaches good lessons, like, wise advice applicable even IRL. Some people dislike her because they don't like being told what to do, or being judged by anyone.
As an early poster said, I don't think the "good" characters get the most backlash. Those with strong/conflicting opinions to the player get the most backlash. Mainly Anders/Fenris, Morrigan/Leliana, Sebastian, Merrill. Even Sten.
I realize this way of thinking makes it possible to justify everything though.
Justice is subjective.
The last time I heard stuff like that was in a very bad place. That is an example of something called "the thin end of the wedge". Hmmmm....
Questioning the inherent righteousness of every aspect of Western morality is somehow the start of a harmful development? What, exactly, is bad about about broadening our view to accept the idea that, just maybe, current Western culture is not the pinnacle of all development? I'm certainly not advocating that we all chuck in with extremists, but if our world view and definition of goodness never expanded, we'd never develop tolerance for other creeds, faiths, sexual orientation etc.
Although, I admit that my views are certainly colored by own brand of agnosticism and my particular educational background, I can understand why that piece you snipped might have sounded like the intro for a crazy "Down with all Westerners, time for a holy crusade!" diatribe. Certainly wasn't intended as one; more intended to be a "Down with narrow closed-mindedness! Let's not simply assume that something is bad because tradition tells us that it is!"
I don't think Martin will ever kill Arya.
Chaotic good never dies. Lawful? For sure.
But if he goes that route, screw him.
If GRR ever kills Arya, I'm not sure I could bring myself to keep reading 
.
He acted as regent, he didn't go around calling himself King Loghain, but the Bannorn saw through the ruse and demanded he step aside, so they rose up and started the war
He declared himself Regent, but he was gave no indication he was ruling in Anora's stead, or for a temporary period while the Bannorn decided on a new ruler. The implication of his regency was that Anora was still the nominal ruler of Ferelden - an adult woman clearly capable of ruling in her own right, and someone who allegedly governed Ferelden anyway while her idiot husband was alive - so the declaration had every aspect of a power grab.
Actually, I think intention alone is what makes you fit into "good" or "evil". Actions alone are hard to see through. The environment you grow up in and the people you learn from shape you, especially if you're a kid. If you don't meet different realities, you can't compare your behaviour to other standards. I don't blame Zevran for what he became. I realize this way of thinking makes it possible to justify everything though.
So let's say a Dalish elf believes that humans are the cause of elven mortality, and he wants to save his people and make them immortal, so he does everything possible to cause a total and complete genocide of humanity. Disease, massacres, forced sterilizations, mutilations, etc. Hundreds of thousands of people are killed in terrible ways.
Is this person good, because the intention - to save the elves and restore their immortality - is a good intention?
Moreover, your characterization is problematic because we're not clear on what intention we're talking about. Clearly someone intends their means as much as their goal. So if my intentional goal is good - e.g. save the elves - but my intentional means are clearly evil - commit genocide - then which intention trumps?
So let's say a Dalish elf believes that humans are the cause of elven mortality, and he wants to save his people and make them immortal, so he does everything possible to cause a total and complete genocide of humanity. Disease, massacres, forced sterilizations, mutilations, etc. Hundreds of thousands of people are killed in terrible ways.
Is this person good, because the intention - to save the elves and restore their immortality - is a good intention?
Moreover, your characterization is problematic because we're not clear on what intention we're talking about. Clearly someone intends their means as much as their goal. So if my intentional goal is good - e.g. save the elves - but my intentional means are clearly evil - commit genocide - then which intention trumps?
Doing good for your people is generally regarded as moral. Helping them, taking care of them, putting their safety and happiness above yours. Who you consider as "your people", that's up to you. If it's "all living beings", genocide is amoral. If it's a smaller group, killing people outside of it would not be seen as amoral, or at least less so.
Whether the end justifies the means, that's a good question. Does it depend on the means and the end? Was killing Orlesian chevaliers to free Ferelden good? If the warden kills a guard who's just doing his job to infiltrate a mansion, is it an evil action? If someone kills a friend or a family member, would it be evil to kill them too? When something is personal, people stop caring about the reasons behind actions. To put it coldly, there's a conflict of interest. If I were a human in the scenario you presented I would try to stop that elf, and probably end up doing some questionable things in the process. But I don't know if I would call that "good".
Morality is a dodgy and complex subject. I still don't have a defined opinion about it. My current take is what I wrote earlier: "From a philosophical point of view, I'd say evil people don't exist. Everyone is merely the product of their life experiences, and their own reactions are derived from these experiences too. From a practical point of view, there's a point where you have to draw a line, stop thinking about people's abusive childhood and plant a bullet in their head."
Retour en haut
