147 réponses à ce sujet

[Lucijenifer]

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.

 

I do blame them, as they seem to disregard characters based entirely on single words in a description of the character. 'Magister' or 'chevalier' or 'qunari.'

[Tenebrae]

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.

 

Indeed redemption should be very difficult to achieve, shifting a person’s entire moral spectrum is no small feat and would require a very intelligent and charismatic character to be able to even being the process, not to mention you would need a very good argument, being a "villain" with good publicity is the staple of pragmatism but good publicity is subjective to said society, in tevinter being a blood mage and a proper magister equals good publicity while acting in what we consider a just and noble manner would be akin to committing social if not literal suicide.

 

As you said a pragmatist would adapt to societal norms where he/she is currently staying/traveling, after all there is no logic in making things overly difficult for yourself for no reason is there?

[Lucy Glitter]

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

 

Sure, being able to alter an entire world through one character is not realistic, but it's one of the staples of BW and it seems a popular one. I the PCs are always very special people. There aren't many in the real world, much like this one. They have something about them. KotOR II goes into that in an interesting way - the force is a beacon inside of them that inspires others to a scary extent. Then like in DA2, you kind of fall into it through pure chance but it seems fateful. I guess I just like that idea - that some people despite all odds are destined to do great or terrible things. 

 

I don't think you're changing someone, you're influencing them when they are in critical moments of their life. Seeing a loved one go or confronting your past - it is a time where you make realisations you can choose in that point where you want to go with your life. I find other's opinions on it often influence mine because they are usually right or appeal to me. So I don't find it that far-fetched that you can influence a friend to help alter their ways. Games are usually in a time of crisis where people are reflective, so naturally they are more likely to hear opinions on what they should do. Sometimes it doesn't work - Oghren is a good example of that.

 

Keep in mind you can also go through a lot of BW games with the barest of influence on your friends or enemies and only make changes because you have to.

[Lucijenifer]

Indeed redemption should be very difficult to achieve, shifting a person’s entire moral spectrum is no small feat and would require a very intelligent and charismatic character to be able to even being the process, not to mention you would need a very good argument, being a "villain" with good publicity is the staple of pragmatism but good publicity is subjective to said society, in tevinter being a blood mage and a proper magister equals good publicity while acting in what we consider a just and noble manner would be akin to committing social if not literal suicide.

 

I disagree on the last bit. There's no proof that the Tevinter Imperium actively encourages blood magic and slavery and cheers on the people that are best at it. It probably just considers it all par for the course. Oh, you've got a cadre of loyal slaves? Well done, do you want a cookie? I doubt they award anything other than ambition. The people that solve the Imperium's problems no matter the cost, whether it's with blood magic and slavery or through personal sacrifice and virtue, are the ones that likely get admired. The pursuit of knowledge and power is of paramount importance and all of the sins committed by the Tevinter Imperium are done in the name of that pursuit. At least, that's what I hope. I'd utterly despise it if they performed slavery for slavery's sake, as that's the type of mindless evil we're all rallying against.

 

I'd just love a closer look at the Tevinter Imperium. Chevaliers would also be nice but I've always loved the Imperium. I want to try and understand it. All we know of it so far comes from the eyes of a slave with amnesia and as such, Fenris doesn't give too much insight. I want to explore Tevinter through the eyes of a true slave rather than a favoured pet/experiment, or through the eyes of a true Magister rather than a rebellious one that despises the ways of his people.

[MWImexico]

The definition of malevolent :
http://www.thefreedi....com/malevolent


So it doesn't matter if a character is from Tevinter or not, what matter is the result of his/her actions and his/her intentions.

Also, pragmatic isn't synonyme of malevolent, but as others said before, pragmatism could be a sufficient reason for a good aligned character to chose to keep a malevolent character in his/her team. If somehow, those two happen to have similars goals for a while and if both of them are pragmatics enough to put aside their moral for a while, for the sake of the results.

[Tenebrae]

I disagree on the last bit. There's no proof that the Tevinter Imperium actively encourages blood magic and slavery and cheers on the people that are best at it. It probably just considers it all par for the course. Oh, you've got a cadre of loyal slaves? Well done, do you want a cookie? I doubt they award anything other than ambition. The people that solve the Imperium's problems no matter the cost, whether it's with blood magic and slavery or through personal sacrifice and virtue, are the ones that likely get admired. The pursuit of knowledge and power is of paramount importance and all of the sins committed by the Tevinter Imperium are done in the name of that pursuit. At least, that's what I hope. I'd utterly despise it if they performed slavery for slavery's sake, as that's the type of mindless evil we're all rallying against.

 

I'd just love a closer look at the Tevinter Imperium. Chevaliers would also be nice but I've always loved the Imperium. I want to try and understand it. All we know of it so far comes from the eyes of a slave with amnesia and as such, Fenris doesn't give too much insight. I want to explore Tevinter through the eyes of a true slave rather than a favoured pet/experiment, or through the eyes of a true Magister rather than a rebellious one that despises the ways of his people.

 

Yes the ability to enhance the position of the Imperium and solve its problems politically or militarily would be of greater importance then being a blood mage or having a cadre of loyal slaves, but i believe slaves are viewed as fancy commodity’s they are there show your status, the more unique the slave to more important the magister looks, and blood magic is a highly useful and very powerful tool and a magister would be viewed as being very foolish for forgoing its use, brave but foolish.

 

Getting a closer look at Tevinter Imperium would be great, i was quite disappointed that we won’t be going there this time around, being either a slave or a magister would be a fascinating role playing experience.

[Tenebrae]

The definition of malevolent :
http://www.thefreedi....com/malevolent


So it doesn't matter if a character is from Tevinter or not, what matter is the result of his/her actions and his/her intentions.

Also, pragmatic isn't synonyme of malevolent, but as others said before, pragmatism could be a sufficient reason for a good aligned character to chose to keep a malevolent character in his/her team. If somehow, those two happen to have similars goals for a while and if both of them are pragmatics enough to put aside their moral for a while, for the sake of the results.

 

Yes i know being pragmatic does not always equal being malevolent, but people tend to look at the result of actions not the reason behind them, in any event i have edited my main post to illustrate my desire for a more pragmatic character.

 

But the fact of the matter is that characters who tend to favor the most pragmatic path also tend to be viewed as malevolent, whether they are malevolent or not is another matter all together and is also a matter of perspective.

[mikeymoonshine]

Morrigan is pretty "stupid evil" in the Alienage quests. Encouraging you to Caladrius' deal. For a measly +1 Con at that. lol

 

It's even more stupid evil if you're a City Elf yourself. Then she's telling you to kill your own dad.

 

Well idk if encourages is the right word, she seemed rather indifferent to it in my opinion. I can't remember what she said exactly though.

 

Anyway she doesn't know how much con it will give and that is more a gameplay thing than a story thing. She also doesn't have much in the way of sentimentality when it comes to parents. 

 

That said one of the elves being your father is probably just a circumstance that bioware didn't add in different lines for, they can't change every line of dialogue for every possible situation. 

[javeart]

Sure, being able to alter an entire world through one character is not realistic, but it's one of the staples of BW and it seems a popular one. I the PCs are always very special people. There aren't many in the real world, much like this one. They have something about them. KotOR II goes into that in an interesting way - the force is a beacon inside of them that inspires others to a scary extent. Then like in DA2, you kind of fall into it through pure chance but it seems fateful. I guess I just like that idea - that some people despite all odds are destined to do great or terrible things. 

 

I don't think you're changing someone, you're influencing them when they are in critical moments of their life. Seeing a loved one go or confronting your past - it is a time where you make realisations you can choose in that point where you want to go with your life. I find other's opinions on it often influence mine because they are usually right or appeal to me. So I don't find it that far-fetched that you can influence a friend to help alter their ways. Games are usually in a time of crisis where people are reflective, so naturally they are more likely to hear opinions on what they should do. Sometimes it doesn't work - Oghren is a good example of that.

 

Keep in mind you can also go through a lot of BW games with the barest of influence on your friends or enemies and only make changes because you have to.

 

Totally agreed, as I said, that's the good thing, I'm almost never forced to influence people, so I have room enough to play a somewhat "laissez fair laissez passer" kind of PC, which is my favourite way to go about it, so, no complaints here 

[KainD]

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 should not equal stupidity.

Only your opinion. I didn't find any of Morrigans suggestions stupid. You don't want malevolent characters.

[Tenebrae]

Only your opinion. I didn't find any of Morrigans suggestions stupid. You don't want malevolent characters.

Really?

 

So slaughtering the circle of magi on a whim and wasting a powerful resource is what you consider a smart suggestion? how about disapproving when it comes to saving Redclif and sacrificing both political and material resources?

 

Saying that some of her suggestions weren't stupid is something i can understand, while i don't credit her with those that weren't idiotic (common sense, and an idea that wasn't even her's to being with) that's another matter altogether , saying non of them were stupid baffles me.

 

They only way i would consider her advice not a product of writer induced stupidity, is if DaySeekr's assessment of her reasons proves to be correct.

 

I do believe i am entitled to my opinion, but dismissing it without any counter evidence on your part seems lazy.

 

And i believe i do want a highly pragmatic (and as such potentially viewed as malevolent) character as do others, the more variety we have in companion personalty the better.

[Lucijenifer]

It's interesting how the language has shifted from 'malevolent' to 'pragmatic.'

[Tenebrae]

Well a pragmatic character would most likely be viewed by most people as malevolent, his/her actions would cause harm to others, they would most likely show little to no regret for following what he/she views as the most logical option, most people would label such a character as malevolent because of his/her apparent lack of remorse.

 

What is considered malevolent is of course depended on the person who is evaluating said character’s action, the whole process being highly subjective.

[MWImexico]

Yes i know being pragmatic does not always equal being malevolent,

 

This ^^

I think you want a pragmatic, smart and malevolent compagnon?

[Lucijenifer]

This ^^

I think you want a pragmatic, smart and malevolent compagnon?

 

A very awkward combination, and difficult to pull off without being a villain of some kind.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I do not like redemption stories. I prefer acceptance and understanding of self as opposed to redemption of self. 

 

When it comes to character development... being responsible, accepting the truth about oneself and being able to see the pros and cons of something is important to me... so my Wardens and Champions acted accordingly when it came to their followers.

[Tenebrae]

This ^^

I think you want a pragmatic, smart and malevolent compagnon?

 

What i would want is an intelligent pragmatic non moralistic companion, some people might consider such a character malevolent, but as always that is a matter of perspective which would shift form pc to pc.

[KainD]

Really?

So slaughtering the circle of magi on a whim and wasting a powerful resource is what you consider a smart suggestion? how about disapproving when it comes to saving Redclif and sacrificing both political and political resourses.

Circle was not in the best shape and arguably Templars were in a better condition and more useful, so it was fine to prove a point if you still get allies.

Redcliff soldiers that cant defend themselves against a bunch of corpses also not the most powerful allies vs darkspawn. She basically suggested not risking too much and not wasting time. And when you are a powerful individual like Warden or Morrigan you can get away with many things to prove a point or act on your whims and still succeed.

[Tenebrae]

Circle was not in the best shape and arguably Templars were in a better condition and more useful, so it was fine to prove a point if you still get allies.

Redcliff soldiers that cant defend themselves against a bunch of corpses also not the most powerful allies vs darkspawn. She basically suggested not risking too much and not wasting time. And when you are a powerful individual like Warden or Morrigan you can get away with many things to prove a point or act on your whims and still succeed.

 

It is still wasteful but if you want to loss potential resources just to prove a point be my guest (and whether Templar's are better as war asset then the Mages is debatable).

 

To my pragmtic character every tool has its uses to discard a tool to prove a ridiculous point is foolish, that is why Morrigan earned my ire when she suggested wasting potentially valuable resources just to prove a ridiculous point...well she did prove a point though that point being: when Morrigan makes a suggestion it is mostly in my best interest to tune her out, mostly anyway.

 

I am not even going to include my more benevolent character reasons, his aversion to Morrigans suggestions should be quite clear.

[KainD]

It is still wasteful but if you want to loss potential resources just to prove a point be my guest (and whether Templar's are better as war asset then the Mages is debatable).

 

To my pragmtic character every tool has its uses to discard a tool to prove a ridiculous point is foolish, that is why Morrigan earned my ire when she suggested wasting potentially valuable resources just to prove a ridiculous point...well she did prove a point though that point being: when Morrigan makes a suggestion it is mostly in my best interest to tune her out, mostly anyway.

 

I am not even going to include my more benevolent character reasons, his aversion to Morrigans suggestions should be quite clear.

 

Look, doing what you want is not foolish, it's pleasant. That's the point of being a free selfish individual, you enjoy your life and don't give a damn about consequences or other people. 

[Tenebrae]

Look, doing what you want is not foolish, it's pleasant. That's the point of being a free selfish individual, you enjoy your life and don't give a damn about consequences or other people. 

 

So assuming what a person wants to do is jump into an incinerator just because he's/she's cold, or jump off a cliff just because he/she finds the friction of the wind enjoyable, how is following through with it not foolish? (and yes those are extreme examples,i am just using them to illustrate my point, pleasant does not equal wise).

 

If you want to play your character as someone who does whatever they want and consequences be damned that is your prerogative, but just because said character does whatever he/she feels is pleasant does not make his/her choices wise, because his/her actions are based on whims they have a higher probability of damaging his cause rather then benefiting it and are thus classified as foolish, especially when your end goal is to recruit an army and what you choose to do is kill off potential ally's just because it makes you feel tingly.

[KainD]

So assuming what a person wants to do is jump into an incinerator? or jump off a cliff just to feel the friction of the wind? how is following through with it not foolish? (and yes those are extreme examples,i am just using them to illustrate my point, pleasant does not equal wise).

 

If you want to play your character as someone who does whatever they want and consequences be damned that is your prerogative, but just because said character does whatever he/she feels is pleasant does not make his/her choices wise, because his actions are based on whims they have a higher probability of damaging his cause rather then benefiting it and are thus classified as foolish, especially when your end goal is to recruit an army and what you choose to do is kill off potential ally's just because it makes you feel tingly.

 

Only the individual determines what is wise and what is not when it comes to actions and not science. If someone wants to jump into the incinerator, it's their choice and it is not foolish. Selfish people rarely have any cause past their own wishes.