147 réponses à ce sujet

[Feybrad]

The Joker would make a great Companion. Of course. Irredeemable Evil beyond all Reason is a good starting Point for a Relationship.

 

Seriously though, while completely malevolent People rarely make for a good Choice to have your back, they can make wonderful Villains in itself. The Joker is enjoyable to me BECAUSE he does never attempt to justify his Actions. Today, we so rarely see even Villains themselves that do not have a somewhat sympathetic Reason. One Man's Terrorist is another Man's Freedom Fighter. The bank Robber has a sick Mother he needs to pay for. The raging Monster is really just protecting her Babies.

 

Where are the Terrorists that only kill People because they like the Feeling of Power over Life and Death? Where is the bank Robber that just wants to get filthy rich? Where is the Monster that simply enjoys killing People? Why does evil even need a Reason? The Joker is such a popular and interesting Character because we DO NOT KNOW why he does all these horrible Things. He just does them. And that makes him all the more terrifying.

 

But such a Character as a Companion? That's simply not possible. The Player Character always works towards a Goal that is at it's Core sympathetic (Stopping the Blight, closing the Fade Rifts, stopping Kirkwall from going to Hell - that worked out great, by the Way). A purely evil Character however would not work for that Goal. He would not do good Things - and if he did, it is in itself a Redemption Story, even if he doesn't show Remorse or Desire to be redeemed.

[Ajna]

The person you describe is a psychopath and I'd rather have nothing to do with them.

It baffles me how anyone could respect such a creature.

[Tenebrae]

The person you describe is a psychopath and I'd rather have nothing to do with them.

It baffles me how anyone could respect such a creature.

Yes that person would fit the ever shifting term of psychopath.

 

This is a role-playing game though, one PC could be noble and valiant and as such would abhor said person and refuse to work with them, while another PC could be a cold blooded pragmatist who would admire said persons resolve and like-minded attitude, the PC can even find said persons lack of morality highly disturbing but still keep him around because he is in the end very useful, that is the beauty of role-playing, each PC has the potential to be drastically different then the other.

[javeart]

I think redemptions stories can be very beautiful, and some of my favourites novels and films are based on those (it can be even more beatiful when the attempt to achieve redemption fails and things end tragically, because I think it's just very human) But i like them so much better when they're told from the point of view of the protagonist, so, applied to DA, I'd love it if the redmpetion story was for the us, the PC.

 

On the other hand, I kind of hate the fact that you can "change" your companions, even if it's for the best... I don't like feeling like I'm telling people what to do with their lives and what they should feel or how they should behave or whatever unless it affects me directly... I fhtey're evil or saints or whatever, I'm fine and I'm fine too if they evolve, I'm not asking for static characters, but I rather see them evolving on their own....

 

In any case, I'm usually perfectly fine with companion doing and saying things which in real life would me make run as far away from them as possible, though on ocassion can make me wish not befreind them. For instance, I love Morrigan as a character but I don't find any reason to trust her and I think she's mean and I usually don't bother to get her approval and become her friend (and make her a better person, more open to love and such?), even if I take her on my party to hear her banter quite frequently... 

[Lucijenifer]

I'd love to explore the potential of having a true Magister or a chevalier character in the group, or someone else that is legitimately malevolent. It's the chance to see the darker sides of Thedas up close and personal, without being made squeaky clean and pleasant like Dorian is. As far as I am concerned, he is less of a Magister and more of a normal Mage with plenty of exposition to provide about the Tevinter Imperium. I don't want exposition, I want opinions, I want to see someone defend the slavery and blood magic and ruthless imperialism of that empire. I want to see chevaliers defend the supposed superiority that knights have over the commonfolk and their immunity to common law. Not only that but I'd like to see what sort of people they are beneath all of that. I want companions that are people who are magisters or chevaliers, not just magisters or chevaliers alone.

 

And as a result, redemption needs to be a possibility.

 

A magister from the Tevinter Imperium that is an unrepetant practitioner of slavery, blood magic and a dozen other forms of cruelty with no regrets and no desire to hide or refrain from said forms of cruelty would be a boring character. It'd be far more one-dimensional than you claim Morrigan is and it's not companion material at all. Now, if you made that character able to respect the people and the laws of the civilisation they're working in enough to cooperate and work towards the greater good, you've got something a bit better. A ruthless pragmatist, able to put aside their differences and strive towards the player character's goal. And then we need to explore why they are what they are. Were they born into it and raised that way? Was it the only way for them to survive? Is it a decision they came to after a life-altering personal experience? Do they simply not know anything else? Whatever reason you choose, that reason is a vulnerability. A crack in their armour, their conviction, their way of life. If there's a reason why they're the way they are, then there's a reason why they could be redeemed or turned away from their ideals.

 

Besides, I personally want to explore the positives of these factions. Why can't we see the rigid honour and discipline of the chevaliers, rather than their crimes against elves and the peasantry? Why can't we see how magisters treat Imperial citizens and what they've actually created with the foul magic that is spoken about in hushed whispers? I want to see what they're capable of beyond raw evil, because evil without reason, without character, without a light side that can be brought to the surface is boring.

 

I don't want boring companions.

[Steelcan]

Well then a think you may be in for disappointment, DA has a history of making characters walking talking points in their respective issues, there aren't many characters that I would consider well rounded, and based on what I've seen of the Inquisition companions this trend does not seem to be being bucked.

[Lucijenifer]

Well then a think you may be in for disappointment, DA has a history of making characters walking talking points in their respective issues, there aren't many characters that I would consider well rounded, and based on what I've seen of the Inquisition companions this trend does not seem to be being bucked.

 

I'm entirely aware and I know that's all that Dorian will be. A walking talking point about Tevinter without the offensive Tevinter opinions. That's the last thing I want to see and I feel like it's such a waste of the Tevinter Imperium's potential, as is the lack of a chevalier companion. I've been disappointed in the past but I can hope that we'll see improvements.

 

We can. Just not in a game so far. Gaspard and Michel.

 

And besides, I think books handle stories better anyways. But we'll probably get a chance in-game sooner or later too.

 

I suppose the 'in a game' is the key part. I'd like to see writing in the game match the writing found in books. It's a long shot but it's something I can hope for. I'm a dreamer!

[Steelcan]

The only one that might be promising is Vivienne, she's a Mage, but not concerned with the uprising, this may mean that she is simply going to be completely involved in the Orlesian Civil War plot line instead

[javeart]

Well then a think you may be in for disappointment, DA has a history of making characters walking talking points in their respective issues, there aren't many characters that I would consider well rounded, and based on what I've seen of the Inquisition companions this trend does not seem to be being bucked.

 

Compaired to ME characters, I tend to like better DA companions...I'm curious as to which ones would you considere well rounded (as in no so one-dimensional, I guess?)

[Steelcan]

Compaired to ME characters, I tend to like better DA companions...I'm curious as to which ones would you considere well rounded (as in no so one-dimensional, I guess?)

Depends on the ME characters, several of the villains are certainly one trick ponies, or are later reduced to such, but the better characters such as Mordin, Javik, Garrus, Ashley, etc.. have views on a variety of topics and involve themselves in other issues besides their "original" one.

As for DA, Id say Alistair, Loghain, Shale, Anders in DA:O, and Zevran manage to escape one dimensionality

[Lucy Glitter]

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.

 

 

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.  

 

Basically how I feel about the topic. Choice based games mean you really alter a lot in the game world - including characters... leading them to different fates. 

 

Not everyone, but I think a lot of people go down the, "paragon" route. It's not unnatural to want to see the people around you be the best that they can be. I know I want that for my family and friends. It reflects in the game. 

[mikeymoonshine]

I expect a person whose entire ideology is an obsession about power to understand at even a basic level what power is and how it can be acquired.

 

I don't think that really refutes the fact that she grew up in a forest and knew nothing about political power at the time. Sure she cares about power but there are different kinds of power. Flemeth was powerful, incredibly so but she doesn't rely on others to solidify her power. When someone was a threat to her am Morrigan she killed them, you just have to ask Morrigan about how they dealt with Templars to know this is so. 

 

It seems like Morrigan didn't truly understand (at the beginning at least) that other people who may not be as powerful as she is on the battlefield could ever be a threat to her. She doesn't fear the Templars or the circle at all and she thinks you could just walk up to Loghain and kill him. 

 

Morrigan is naive and she is meant to be but she is not stupid. She's also not "stupid evil" or whatever the OP is saying, she isn't some badly written evil character. Her opinions make sense given who she is and how she was raised. 

 

I think Morrigan learned allot from her time with the warden so it will be interesting to see how much she has changed in Inquisition. 

[javeart]

I know you didn't ask me, but...My favorite characters so far seem to be the ones that aren't really tied to big plots or act as "representatives" of any particular point of view. The ones who just sort of muse on their own personal tale. Shale and Leliana are like this. They're more about just their own selves. They have their "hooks" and all that, but they're not really representing anything. edit: Perhaps Leliana does now though.

 

I can understand that... I have to say though, that introducing diferent pints of view of a conflict through your companions, making it more personal, so to speak, it's a good thing for me. Ideally, those companions would be not only that in the story, but, well, truth it's they got limited resources... I don't know, I can live with it

 

Depends on the ME characters, several of the villains are certainly one trick ponies, or are later reduced to such, but the better characters such as Mordin, Javik, Garrus, Ashley, etc.. have views on a variety of topics and involve themselves in other issues besides their "original" one.

As for DA, Id say Alistair, Loghain, Shale, Anders in DA:O, and Zevran manage to escape one dimensionality

 

I see. I agree that those are great, but for example, I LOVE Mordin, but I'd say he's pretty much all about the genophage + some insights into salarians... and It's true that Garrus covers much more ground, but he's been with us for a while... and even so In ME1 he has little more to say that "I don't want to let rules get in my way" and in ME2 , well, little more that he's in the middle of some calibrations   But, yes i see you point, even if it's somthing that doesn't bother me that much

[Steelcan]

Mordin also offers perspective on the Collectors, the Salarians, the alien perceptions of Cerberus, in addition to his genophage content, that does make up the bulk of his content, but it is by no means the only thing he is involved in.

[javeart]

Basically how I feel about the topic. Choice based games mean you really alter a lot in the game world - including characters... leading them to different fates. 

 

Not everyone, but I think a lot of people go down the, "paragon" route. It's not unnatural to want to see the people around you be the best that they can be. I know I want that for my family and friends. It reflects in the game. 

 

I think that's my problem, I have the feeling that in this kind of game we can alter thing just too much... I'm ok with making big decisions with big consequences, but it's like we can change everybodys life, it feels a little bit crazy to me   It's great to have options to choose how to react to something but I don't ike feeling that I (almost) always can get what I want, not only in our main mission (which would be the point of the game) but in a lot of other things which most of the time have nothing to do with us    

 

Then again, I (almost) always have the chance to let people be, so I guess it's ok, everybody wins  But I do appreaciate a lot that there's no way for us to stop Anders, for instance

[KaiserShep]

I admit, the ability to have a "malevolent" companion is interesting, but it's also pretty tricky. Such a character can be well rounded and even liked in how they contribute to the story, but this character's malevolence/vileness whatever has to also be taken into moderation, lest they become murder knife fodder. Like, there has to be a pretty good reason why this character is the way he/she is, so that we're not dealing with some joker who is malevolent for malevolence's sake.

[Lucijenifer]

I admit, the ability to have a "malevolent" companion is interesting, but it's also pretty tricky. Such a character can be well rounded and even liked in how they contribute to the story, but this character's malevolence/vileness whatever has to also be taken into moderation, lest they become murder knife fodder. Like, there has to be a pretty good reason why this character is the way he/she is, so that we're not dealing with some joker who is malevolent for malevolence's sake.

 

And then you've got the swarms of people on BSN who spout "They're a chevalier/blood mage/templar/magister/crow/qunari? KICKED OUT OF THE GROUP AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY."

 

People seem very unwilling to try any sort of companion connected to something they consider 'evil.'

[javeart]

Mordin also offers perspective on the Collectors, the Salarians, the alien perceptions of Cerberus, in addition to his genophage content, that does make up the bulk of his content, but it is by no means the only thing he is involved in.

 

Well, that's true, he also have have nice dialogues about collectors, he might be a little more varied that I depicted him(but no too much  )

[KaiserShep]

And then you've got the swarms of people on BSN who spout "They're a chevalier/blood mage/templar/magister/crow/qunari? KICKED OUT OF THE GROUP AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY."

 

People seem very unwilling to try any sort of companion connected to something they consider 'evil.'

 

I can't say that I blame them, though. Characters you don't like or outright hate must make up for this by being immensely useful or providing some valuable insight to keep things interesting. If you don't like someone, it basically comes down to how useful that character is, and that can be tough in a game which has a plot that can pretty much progress with or without the majority of followers, and that the character's survival is at the bottom of the list of concerns doesn't help.

 

That said, I do like the idea of having a character who is ruthless and has a rather harsh sense of morality, but with a purpose. Someone who is not some Thedasian Snidely Whiplash type would be preferable.

[Tenebrae]

I'd love to explore the potential of having a true Magister or a chevalier character in the group, or someone else that is legitimately malevolent. It's the chance to see the darker sides of Thedas up close and personal, without being made squeaky clean and pleasant like Dorian is. As far as I am concerned, he is less of a Magister and more of a normal Mage with plenty of exposition to provide about the Tevinter Imperium. I don't want exposition, I want opinions, I want to see someone defend the slavery and blood magic and ruthless imperialism of that empire. I want to see chevaliers defend the supposed superiority that knights have over the commonfolk and their immunity to common law. Not only that but I'd like to see what sort of people they are beneath all of that. I want companions that are people who are magisters or chevaliers, not just magisters or chevaliers alone.

 

And as a result, redemption needs to be a possibility.

 

A magister from the Tevinter Imperium that is an unrepetant practitioner of slavery, blood magic and a dozen other forms of cruelty with no regrets and no desire to hide or refrain from said forms of cruelty would be a boring character. It'd be far more one-dimensional than you claim Morrigan is and it's not companion material at all. Now, if you made that character able to respect the people and the laws of the civilisation they're working in enough to cooperate and work towards the greater good, you've got something a bit better. A ruthless pragmatist, able to put aside their differences and strive towards the player character's goal. And then we need to explore why they are what they are. Were they born into it and raised that way? Was it the only way for them to survive? Is it a decision they came to after a life-altering personal experience? Do they simply not know anything else? Whatever reason you choose, that reason is a vulnerability. A ****** in their armour, their conviction, their way of life. If there's a reason why they're the way they are, then there's a reason why they could be redeemed or turned away from their ideals.

 

Besides, I personally want to explore the positives of these factions. Why can't we see the rigid honour and discipline of the chevaliers, rather than their crimes against elves and the peasantry? Why can't we see how magisters treat Imperial citizens and what they've actually created with the foul magic that is spoken about in hushed whispers? I want to see what they're capable of beyond raw evil, because evil without reason, without character, without a light side that can be brought to the surface is boring.

 

I don't want boring companions.

 

The player should always be able to broach the subject of redemption according to their own moral standards, but those standards shift form society to society and individual to individual, so there is a good chance that the player would be barking up the wrong tree so to say.

 

And of course i would like to explore their past and see/hear about the events that shaped their current world view, no one becomes a cold blood pragmatist just because they felt like it,we are shaped by our past as well as our society.

 

What i would like to see is being able to argue your character moral position in game using logic and stressing why a more benevolent approach is the smart choice, saying "but that's evil" is a weak argument for someone who believes in practically, and should you choose said argument as an attempt to redeem a character i believe that it should fail.

 

Oh and on a general note i want to thank all you for sharing your views, I find this whole discussion very revealing and enjoyable.

[Lucijenifer]

The player should always be able to broach the subject of redemption according to their own moral standards, but those standards shift form society to society and individual to individual, so there is a good chance that the player would be barking up the wrong tree so to say.

 

And of course i would like to explore their past and see/hear about the events that shaped their current world view, no one becomes a cold blood pragmatist just because they felt like it,we are shaped by our past as well as our society.

 

What i would like to see is being able to argue your character moral position in game using logic and stressing why a more benevolent approach is the smart choice, saying "but that evil" is a weak argument for someone who believes in practically, and should you choose said argument as an attempt to redeem a character i believe that it should fail.

 

Oh and on a general note i want to thank all you for sharing your views, I find this whole discussion very revealing and enjoyable.

 

Then I agree, I'd like to see an intelligent approach rather than something as crude as I AM THE VESSEL OF THE PLAYER'S WILL, OBEY ME that some redemption stories seem to boil down to.

 

It should be a complex and difficult discussion but redemption needs to be an option. If the evil character was turned towards evil by outside stimulus, then the character can certainly be turned towards good. As for a more benevolent approach... Remember that in most cases, characters are evil for the purpose of convenience. A smart character that is evil will take the most beneficial choice that's available to them, not limited by morality or any code in particular. If you're going to be hunted down and killed like an animal for your choice, it's certainly not a beneficial one. As such, any sort of pragmatic character would know to obey the laws and maybe even act in a benevolent fashion, for their own benefit. But the moment they're able to enslave and cast blood magic again, expect them to jump right back into the habit and even enjoy the liberty of being able to do what they please once more.

[Tenebrae]

I can't say that I blame them, though. Characters you don't like or outright hate must make up for this by being immensely useful or providing some valuable insight to keep things interesting. If you don't like someone, it basically comes down to how useful that character is, and that can be tough in a game which has a plot that can pretty much progress with or without the majority of followers, and that the character's survival is at the bottom of the list of concerns doesn't help.

 

I think it has more to do with people projecting themselves on to their pc's, when you do that your range of choices shrinks dramatically.

 

I see why they do it yet in my view they are depriving themselves of the true joy of role playing, which is the chance to be someone else entirely.

 

Would i personally want to befriend/join forces with the character i had described in my op? of course i wouldn’t, but when i role play i certain character i am not being myself instead i become said character and adopt their perspective and i judge potential followers by that character perspective and not my own.