147 réponses à ce sujet

[Tenebrae]

I had a discussion a while ago that involved the merits and drawbacks of adding a follower with a more "malevolent" morality or to be more accurate a cold blood pragmatist, say a chevalier or real tevinter magister (sorry Dorain, you are just too noble for me, snarky or not) or even a crow ( who unlike Zevran has no regrets about his "choice" in profession personal or otherwise).

 

And before someone brings her up i find it hard to count Morrigan as she is at best a cartoonish portrayal of evil, her potential was solid but it was poorly executed ,all you have to do is remember her suggestions to the warden as to which path to take at major intervals and in the end most of her suggestions where highly idiotic, "malevolence" and especially pragmatism should not equal stupidity.

 

As i expected there were those who were completely against the idea no matter how appropriate it would be in accordance to the lore even forgoing the fact that said companion would be optional on the merit that they would be missing out on content as a result of killing or rejecting said companion.

 

Never mind the fact that a malevolent character in origin has the potential of killing or losing most of his party (whether it was an intelligent choice or a foolish one which cost you a companion) while a 'good" character lost none not matter what he did, the only way to lose a companion while being "good" is by choosing a more "malevolent" path, and yes killing Sten or Zevran counts while they did try to kill you and while that does gives you justification you are killing a defenseless qunari/elf and the former had surrendered and the latter was unconscious such an act would be considered malevolent by current standards (that have no place in theadas as far as i am concerned, but those who were against said character used said standards to illustrate their point against the inclusion of a more malevolent companion)

 

But what intrigued me the most we're those who didn't mind said character should they be able to redeem him/her, and that is when i got curious.

 

I asked myself "Why would they want to do that?" and i found myself lacking an answer, for me such a path would undermine any respect i had for said character as he/she would have proven himself/herself weak in his/her conviction and fit for manipulation, and as a result i would have lost any interest i had in said character.

 

Please note that i am talking about redemption and not repentance,as a character seeking repentance has always felt to some extent that what he was doing was "wrong", he my have had his reasons but he was never truly malevolent nor is he truly a pragmatist if he is showing remorse for a choosing a logical course of action.

 

So i would like to bring my inquiry to the people of bsn:

 

Why do you like redemption stories? Assuming you like them at all, if not feel free to share why not.

 

Wouldn’t said redemption undermine said character for you?

 

Would you be so against having a “malevolent" companion? or a companion who is a cold blooded pragmatist? If so why?

 

Thank you in advance for any input provided, i am honestly curious as to why people like these stories so much.

 

Edit: People seem to believe i would like a Joker like companion, i would not, he would be too much of hindrance as wild cards usually are.

 

I should also add that in my view good and evil are a matter of perspective which is shaped by current societal norms as is malevolence, i am choosing to use the term "malevolence" because that is the term most people would associate with being overly pragmatic.

Modifié par Tenebrae, 05 juillet 2014 - 11:23 .

[Xilizhra]

Evil is very rarely at the core of anyone's character, and those for whom it is tend to be highly mentally ill. Via redemption, you remove all the psychological crap that's forced someone down a dark path and aid in the emergence of their true self.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I think Bioware makes morally grey characters. They're believable as people. Some of them do things that you will agree with and some do things you will really, really not agree with and you have a limited amount of wiggle room for how much you can influence them. None of them are really shining paragons of generally accepted pure morality and none of them are caricatures of evil. That's how people are and that's how I like the characters to be written. I think they should keep them in the shades of grey.  

[Karlone123]

I would like to think not everyone is beyond redemption, Loghain is one of my favourite redeemers despite never let him die.

[Sir DeLoria]

I'm not a fan of redemption arcs because they're generic and too common. You've seen one, you've seen em all.

[Tenebrae]

Evil is very rarely at the core of anyone's character, and those for whom it is tend to be highly mentally ill. Via redemption, you remove all the psychological crap that's forced someone down a dark path and aid in the emergence of their true self.

 

How many would truly want redemption though, a person that desires redemption for following his social norm would be seen as an oddity in any society (Tevinter, Orlais, Antiva)  which shaped him, and what are the chances that said companion is such a person? maybe he would find any attempt to redeem him laughable because he fails to see any flaw in his current conduct, the odds of such a person rejecting any attempt to "redeem him" are much higher.

 

While i see where you are coming from in your desire to help said person better themselves, the "redeem me" type of characters are a dime a dozen in today's industry and i only wish we had a chance to view the other end of the spectrum.

[Tenebrae]

I would like to think not everyone is beyond redemption, Loghain is one of my favourite redeemers despite never let him die.

 

Loghain is never "redeemed" he says that knowing everything that has happened he would have still done as he did,the only flaw he really admits to is his ignorance as to the importance of the grey wardens (which is kind of their fault) in ending the blight, had he known he would have found another way to dispose of Cailan.

 

But make no mistake he would have disposed of him, son in law or not he was a danger to ferelden.

[DaySeeker]

Your language is very loaded.

 

Why would we invite evil characters into a party?  Evil is arbitrary and selfish.  If a character were evil they would be boring or insane.  The other party members would not get along with them, and they'd either be looking for power or chaos.  I would guess most people play RPG's to save a world from a problem not become the problem in the world.  Also, as a previous poster stated, DA is about gray characters with gray choices.  I would also venture to say that the idea that a character or person would be totally evil is childish.  The struggle between the parts of our nature make us human and interesting.  

 

Morrigan was manipulative and secretive, not pure evil.  I can think of no character in the Dragon Age universe that exists only to sow destruction and cause pain.  Destruction is simple.  Deterioration is natural.  Redemption is a victory of self and nature.  Evil is delusion and disatisfaction.     

[Tenebrae]

I'm not a fan of redemption arcs because they're generic and too common. You've seen one, you've seen em all.

 

And that is my point, they are so common that they can help but be generic, it would be nice to see an "evil" that has no interest in being redeemed.

[Former_Fiend]

Everyone likes to believe in second chances, incase they're ever in need of one.

[Sir DeLoria]

And that is my point, they are so common that they can help but be generic, it would be nice to see an "evil" that has no interest in being redeemed.

I can only think of Jericho and Clover from Fallout 3. They were nasty to the core, especially Jericho.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Why would an "evil" character help us to begin with? There are stereotypical Tevinter Magisters in Inquisition. They're helping Alexius. It's not just about us being willing to accept their help, it's about explaining why a character that supports our opposition isn't, you know, supporting the opposition.    

[displayname]

I like to think the reason people are obsessed with redemption stories because it gives them hope that differing ideologies can change. Instead of just accepting that other people have differing ideologies. Its a form of delusion that permiates itself into the weak minded so that if conflict ever arises they can feel they have the "moral high ground."

[Former_Fiend]

Why would an "evil" character help us to begin with? There are stereotypical Tevinter Magisters in Inquisition. They're helping Alexius. It's not just about us being willing to accept their help, it's about explaining why a character that supports our opposition isn't, you know, supporting the opposition.    

 

I imagine not every evil person in the world is in a position to benefit from the demonic invasion. Imminent death is a pretty substantial motive to help.

[DaySeeker]

And that is my point, they are so common that they can help but be generic, it would be nice to see an "evil" that has no interest in being redeemed.

This is nonsense.  If a character does not change, is not forced to change, does not want to change it is not a story.  There is no motion.  The idea that every redemtion story is the same is ludicrous.  Redemption is a core desire of human beings who have lived, made mistakes, been forced through hard times and decisions, realizes their error and wants to be better.  CHaracters with different types of moral codes, cultures, worldviews- interesting.  Evil characters are charicatures. 

[In Exile]

And that is my point, they are so common that they can help but be generic, it would be nice to see an "evil" that has no interest in being redeemed.

 

Those are called villains, and we generally kill them. 

[TheJediSaint]

Those are called villains, and we generally kill them. 

 

If they're the protagonist, they're an anti-hero.

[Tenebrae]

Your language is very loaded.

 

Why would we invite evil characters into a party?  Evil is arbitrary and selfish.  If a character were evil they would be boring or insane.  The other party members would not get along with them, and they'd either be looking for power or chaos.  I would guess most people play RPG's to save a world from a problem not become the problem in the world.  Also, as a previous poster stated, DA is about gray characters with gray choices.  I would also venture to say that the idea that a character or person would be totally evil is childish.  The struggle between the parts of our nature make us human and interesting.  

 

Morrigan was manipulative and secretive, not pure evil.  I can think of no character in the Dragon Age universe that exists only to sow destruction and cause pain.  Destruction is simple.  Deterioration is natural.  Redemption is a victory of self and nature.  Evil is delusion and disatisfaction.     

 

Good and evil are a matter of perspective stupidity is not and Morrigan suggestions were stupid (minus the anvil of the void, but that was just common sense).

 

One can be malevolent and not be foolish or insane, take Kain as an example he is in my mind one of the more fascinating characters in video game history, he is malevolent yet he has gray undertones, and would laugh at the idea of redemption.

 

And what do you mean loaded? in what way?

[Sir DeLoria]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. A character could be as sadistic, vile and spiteful as they wished and still help the protagonist fight a common foe.

[Sir DeLoria]

If they're the protagonist, they're an anti-hero.

Or villain-protagonist (GTA, God of War etc)

[Former_Fiend]

If they're the protagonist, they're an anti-hero.

 

If they're the protagonist, they're an anti-hero.

 

No, if they're a villain, they're a villain protagonist. You can be an anti-hero without being a villain and you can be a villain protagonist without being an anti-hero.

[Xilizhra]

I don't know. I'm not fond of redemption stories either.

 

If a character wants a chance to make up for past grievances like Sten (for slaughtering the family), or turn a new leaf like Zevran (provided the right conditions are met), then I'm all for giving them the chance to work through their psychological problems to become what or who they want to be. If they resist (like Loghain, who fights tooth and nail over most of DA to avoid even admitting he might have been wrong), then it's not my problem, not my responsibility. They don't want to find redemption? They don't have to get it. I'm not going to start chasing them or coaxing them. Instead, they can answer for their crimes and receive with the punishment they deserve. (Execute Loghain every time and don't feel bad.) Less effort for me.

I see redemption as pragmatic, in a way. If you kill someone evil, you remove the evildoer, but if you redeem them, you both remove an evildoer and gain a benefactor. Coaxing may be more work, but it's also a net gain.