147 réponses à ce sujet

[Tenebrae]

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. 

 

I disagree, logic dictates what is wise or not, an individual has the potential to be an idiot logic by its very nature does not have the potential of being idiotic, the character you are describing is destined to fail in any realistic scenario (not DOA Origin, the Warden should have been able to fail in stopping the blight by acting like an absolute moron,aka Shepard getting himself and his team killed by being moron in ME 2) because in the end said character is extremely short sighted and has no concept of a larger goal, no more then an agent of chaos or as known by genre Chaotic Stupid.

 

Your character seems to resemble the Joker, and i cant see the Joker being able to let alone being bothered to stop the blight, he would most likely follow Morrigan advice while cackling like the loon he is, and when all is said and done he'll just find a good vantage point and watch the blight consume Ferelden and by most likely himself as well...the supposed savior ends up dooming everyone by virtue of being a moron.

 

Now isn't that a hoot? I'm sure that would give him a pleasant tingly feeling, he'd still be an idiot though.

[Tenebrae]

I would never actually slaughter the Circle of Magi either, but I couldn't resist commenting: If the mages are so easily slaughtered by the Templars' Right of Annulment and/or the Warden's party, they probably aren't exactly a powerful resource, are they? 

 

The Templars are not more useful in fact i find them to be the inferior resource, both groups are weakened but against the Darkspawn the Templars are just your run of the mill warriors, the Mages have a wider variety of uses.

 

The Templars did not slaughter the Circle, the Warden is the only reason they can even preform the Right of Annulment, without the Warden they’d have being slaughtered by abominations, and the more powerful Mages were weakened by Uldred's torture so that most likely contributed to the ease of said "slaughter".

 

The Templars+Circle have the potential to suffer the same fate if you use the restored dialogue option and declare yourself a blood mage (not matter how stupid picking said option is)... so we can just agree that the Warden>Templars+Circle, but the Templars alone are not very impressive.

[KainD]

I disagree, logic dictates what is wise or not, an individual has the potential to be an idiot logic by its very nature does not have the potential of being idiotic, the character you are describing is destined to fail in any realistic scenario (not DOA Origin, the Warden should have been able to fail in stopping the blight by acting like an absolute moron,aka Shepard getting himself and his team killed by being moron in ME 2) because in the end said character is extremely short sighted and has no concept of a larger goal, no more then an agent of chaos or as known by genre Chaotic Stupid.

 

Your character seems to resemble the Joker, and i cant see the Joker being able to let alone being bothered to stop the blight, he would most likely follow Morrigan advice while cackling like the loon he is, and when all is said and done he'll just find a good vantage point and watch the blight consume Ferelden and by most likely himself as well...the supposed savior ends up dooming everyone by virtue of being a moron.

 

Now isn't that a hoot? I'm sure that would give him a pleasant tingly feeling, he'd still be an idiot though.

 

Ok, we are going to deep into a philosophical debate. Ok, you don't want to see characters that want to see the world burn, and it kinda makes sense, since we pursue a plot where they wouldn't fit in, protagonist might as well join the darkspawn if they agree. 

 

What do you want to see? Say a slaver that doesn't want to lose his slaves and thus fights, to preserve his wealth or something along those lines? As a malevolent character that doesn't need redemption, and won't have it.

 

Also to the first original question ( sorry, I sometimes fly through a bunch of threads without activating all my critical analysis when I reply )

I do not believe in redemption, as I do not see one path better than the other universally. 

[Dabrikishaw]

People like redemption stories for the same reason they like anything else concerning a character that's done wrong, drama.

[Ponendus]

Because human beings by their very nature strive to better themselves. Whether you are an evolutionist, theist, atheist, or pragmatist, whatever your core philosophies are, history tells us that humans always strive for something better, better within themselves, and better within their environment.

 

Stories and characters that emulate that are popular because humans can easily relate to them. I agree that there is cause for a different kind of story, or person, and that would be interesting too, but if you want to please most of the people most of the time, you go for a good journey of self-improvement.

[Roamingmachine]

Depends what the redemption is about. If its about making up for the characters past mistakes where he would have not done the things he did should he have all the information he had now, then I'm ok with it. If its some completely BS story about someone suddenly having some revelation that changes their personality and views on life completely, then its trash. I'm one of the few people who liked Morinth and I liked her specificly because she was openly predatory and completely unrepentant about it. Just need, thrill and power. I respect anyone who doesn't make excuses for their actions or opinions.

[Tevinter Rose]

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.

 

Tevinter seems like such a fascinating place. Too bad we don't get to visit there in DA:I but I'm hoping it will play a bigger role in the next game and we'll get to explore the place directly. Obviously the place has a reputation for being evil, but there is so much more in terms of the history and the magical pursuit of knowledge that I want to learn about. 

[Lucijenifer]

Tevinter seems like such a fascinating place. Too bad we don't get to visit there in DA:I but I'm hoping it will play a bigger role in the next game and we'll get to explore the place directly. Obviously the place has a reputation for being evil, but there is so much more in terms of the history and the magical pursuit of knowledge that I want to learn about. 

 

We do get Dorian, who I expect will be a bit of exposition on the magister side of things after Fenris has ranted and raved and coloured our perception with his view on Tevinter's treatment on slaves. Like you, I wish that we'll get the opportunity to explore Tevinter but I get the feeling that we won't, that all we'll ever get is a little bit more information and another totally evil magister for us to kill.

 

I find Tevinter far more intriguing than Ferelden or the Free Marches or Orlais, or even the more exotic locations like Par Vollen and Rivain. The more I hear about how evil it is, the more I'm interested in uncovering how it continues to exist when it's so isolated and apart from all of the other nations, and constantly at war with the threat of the Qunari that brought all of Thedas to a stand-still for a short time. So, here's to hoping we'lll learn as much as we can in DA:I, Rose.

[Danny Boy 7]

I'm gonna need just a little bit more info on what you mean by malevolent OP. As in do you want a character that is more or less ruthless or simply shirks societal norms in favor of what they feel is the preferred plan of action? I mean despite what might seem like stupidity Morrigan's choices perfectly reflect her mother's philosophy on survival of the fittest. If Circle Mages relinquish their freedom when they do have the power to rule on their own, be free, etc than perhaps they lack the will to properly use that power. I mean in the end the pragmatic thing to do would be to side with the leader who's willing to use their power not the one who'd rather submit themselves to who could be considered their lesser. If the Dalish can't outlive the werewolves then recruit the strongest of the two. Not that I think it's the best philosophy, but it's not necessarily the worst idea ever. A stupid idea imo would be to kill everyone around us so that the Darkspawn couldn't. Idk I just feel like however flawed her idea of power may be (despite how effective it might be considering she and her mother are some of the most powerful mages in Thedas) it's not exactly the worst idea (from a fictional standpoint) that  I've heard of.

[Tenebrae]

Ok, we are going to deep into a philosophical debate. Ok, you don't want to see characters that want to see the world burn, and it kinda makes sense, since we pursue a plot where they wouldn't fit in, protagonist might as well join the darkspawn if they agree. 

 

What do you want to see? Say a slaver that doesn't want to lose his slaves and thus fights, to preserve his wealth or something along those lines? As a malevolent character that doesn't need redemption, and won't have it.

 

Also to the first original question ( sorry, I sometimes fly through a bunch of threads without activating all my critical analysis when I reply )

I do not believe in redemption, as I do not see one path better than the other universally. 

 

I'm gonna need just a little bit more info on what you mean by malevolent OP. As in do you want a character that is more or less ruthless or simply shirks societal norms in favor of what they feel is the preferred plan of action? I mean despite what might seem like stupidity Morrigan's choices perfectly reflect her mother's philosophy on survival of the fittest. If Circle Mages relinquish their freedom when they do have the power to rule on their own, be free, etc than perhaps they lack the will to properly use that power. I mean in the end the pragmatic thing to do would be to side with the leader who's willing to use their power not the one who'd rather submit themselves to who could be considered their lesser. If the Dalish can't outlive the werewolves then recruit the strongest of the two. Not that I think it's the best philosophy, but it's not necessarily the worst idea ever. A stupid idea imo would be to kill everyone around us so that the Darkspawn couldn't. Idk I just feel like however flawed her idea of power may be (despite how effective it might be considering she and her mother are some of the most powerful mages in Thedas) it's not exactly the worst idea (from a fictional standpoint) that  I've heard of.

 

 

I actually have no real issue with a Joker like character, they have their merits and have the potential to be quite fascinating at times, they still have a tendency to make choices that would be considered foolish, and i wouldn't want to place them in any position that would require them to lead or achieve anything..its just a disaster waiting to happen.

 

As to what i want to see ill link you to a trope that is mostly similar to what i had in mind the Magnificent Bastard, that is the archetype i would like to see, or at lest some variation of it.

[Seraphim24]

I'm not really sure 'we' is the correct term, but my theory would be that it parallels the reality where a lot of people have a lot of regrets, 

[Storm King]

I imagine redemption stories are attractive to people because it allows us to see that everyone has some good in them and that's an uplifting sentiment. Personally, I like darker protagonists or typical heroes becoming darker and dirtier as reality wears down on them. I think Jon Snow could be a good example of this in the future. Nevertheless, I do think a fundamentally pragmatic or ruthless companion would be interesting; it would provide for a change of pace at least.

[Ieldra]

@OP:

As a rule, I really dislike redemption stories. The main reason is that all too often, when more "grey" characters are involved, I don't agree about there being a need for redemption in the first place. If it is about having been pragmatic, I often perceive the Atoner mentality as a needless guilt trip about things you should acknowledge as having been necessary at the time, even if you wouldn't do the same again in the present. 

 

The other reason is that within a redemption story arc, an ideology I like is all too often denigrated along with and by the methods it has used to gain power, even if there is no necessary association between those methods and the ideology itself.

 

I am fan of grey characters who stay grey. Neither do I want them to cross the moral event horizon and become "villains", nor do I ever want them to conform to a more conventional form of morality. Whether I agree with them or not in any single case, I highly value if someone has their own personal ethics which is independent from the mainstream, as long as it makes sense to me and I can agree at least with the principle it's built on. Most redemption stories are about making a turn away from that to a more mainstream morality.   

 

If it is about "evil" characters turning about, then all too often I think that it's impossible to make up for the past because the damage is done and irreversible, and redemption in that sense is a delusion. All you can do is do things differently in the future, and that should be enough. Drowning in guilt about not being able to do more doesn't make any sense. 

 

And lastly, guilt is all too often used as an indoctrination device. To use a RL example, take certain Christian churches' attitude towards sex. A typical example of inducing guilt about things people can't change for the simple fact it's built into their genes, because they're human beings. I perceive this kind of thing as a tool to gain power over the minds of people, and it is among the most detestable things people can do to each other. The need for redemption may or may not be justified in any single case, but guilt as a motivator to do things remains thoroughly suspect in my eyes.

[Dean_the_Young]

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.'

 

And the only mitigating factor for that, often enough, is the prospect of changing them through PC involvement in a redemption arc. I  believe Gaider once remarked that he could write 'Jerk with a Heart of Gold' all day, and honestly that's pretty much what Bioware does. Bioware focuses on making characters sympathetic: evil generally isn't sympathetic (though it can sometimes be pitiful). I really struggle to think of a modern Bioware character who was 'a bad person in a common cause', rather than 'a good person underneath it all.'

 

I don't view Bioware games as, say, Fallout RPGs in which even the act of getting a companion is a voluntary action. Bioware companions are part of the story, and I personally don't mind if Bioware doesn't let me dismiss a character I don't like who is a part of that. If Bioware let people expel all the parts of the story they didn't like, there wouldn't be much of a game left. I might dislike the character or the role they're fitted into, but I'm willing to put up with fan gnashing of teeth for not being able to kill/expel and especially turn a character's viewpoints to what they find more agreeable.

[Dean_the_Young]

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?

 

Of course, actual social norms are often far from the social pretensions that groups like to adopt- or what the player, often a well-educated and relatively affluent product of western liberalism, expects. (And, let's face it, western liberalism is the primary target demographic for the luxury products of this Canadian company.)

 

What is claimed, and what is actually a norm, are often two different things. Corruption is a frequent case: few societies boast about being corrupt, but corruption can be a dominant and even expected trend. Corruption is often a means to taking care of friends, of family, of providing resources to 'your' group as a responsible and helpful member of the group. And that's not even considering the criminal underworld, a norm which is always hidden under the surface.

 

 

 

 

Mind you, my ideal character arc that I want to see isn't a character who changes towards the player's position- it would be a character who moves away from it on the basis of what the player isn't. A yin-yang relationship of sorts. If the player is a moralizing do-gooder who stands for the innocent, then the character will be a more cynical reaction who comes to believe that someone needs to stand for the not-innocent as well (since, say, most people are assholes and it's not moral to just save the nice and sympathetic ones). Whereas if the player takes a more 'evil' route, the companion would become more of a knight in sour armor, being the good person because someone has to.

 

And that's not even considering the potential of a corruption arc, in which the player's influence, possibly for the best of intentions, bring down a good person.

[Tenebrae]

I know the Templars didn't actually do it, but it's not from lack of ability. They simply didn't have the right numbers and Gregor was waiting for reinforcements when the Warden showed up in. Since the Warden couldn't wait, he pretty much said: "Things can't get any worse. If you'd like to try to save/slaughter the mages before our reinforcements get here? Go ahead. If you succeed, that's one less annulment that we have to perform. If you fail and/or get killed? Not our problem."

 

 

That is your own interpretation just as mine was that of the Templers being too weak, if they had to wait for reinforcements (that were not coming by the way, you know blight and all..) then they could not have annulled the circle by themselves had the Warden not intervened they simply lacked the numbers, therefore my deduction is: no warden = Templers being abomination chew toys.

 

 

And yet the Templars are able to wipe out the mages. So much for being "inferior." 

 

And I'm sure every Circle that has ever been on the receiving end of a Right of Annulment would agree with you. You know, if they were still alive.

 

 

Yes it’s not the first Annulment in history, and if the Templers weren’t systemically making sure that mages were untrained for combat then many Annulments would end in Templers demise, though i applaud them for thinking ahead and denying their prisoners the chance to master marital pursuits in the end mages have a wider variety of uses in combat and therefore are a more useful resource, at least from my tactical view point.

 

Of course, actual social norms are often far from the social pretensions that groups like to adopt- or what the player, often a well-educated and relatively affluent product of western liberalism, expects. (And, let's face it, western liberalism is the primary target demographic for the luxury products of this Canadian company.)

 

What is claimed, and what is actually a norm, are often two different things. Corruption is a frequent case: few societies boast about being corrupt, but corruption can be a dominant and even expected trend. Corruption is often a means to taking care of friends, of family, of providing resources to 'your' group as a responsible and helpful member of the group. And that's not even considering the criminal underworld, a norm which is always hidden under the surface.

 

 

 

 

Mind you, my ideal character arc that I want to see isn't a character who changes towards the player's position- it would be a character who moves away from it on the basis of what the player isn't. A yin-yang relationship of sorts. If the player is a moralizing do-gooder who stands for the innocent, then the character will be a more cynical reaction who comes to believe that someone needs to stand for the not-innocent as well (since, say, most people are assholes and it's not moral to just save the nice and sympathetic ones). Whereas if the player takes a more 'evil' route, the companion would become more of a knight in sour armor, being the good person because someone has to.

 

And that's not even considering the potential of a corruption arc, in which the player's influence, possibly for the best of intentions, bring down a good person.

 

 

Indeed players tend to project their own modern world view into the games they play, even when its grossly inappropriate, I personally believe that a player should inspect the fictional universe of said game then their characters background and last but not lest the society in which said character grew, then and only then should you form your character’s morality, you can still have a "good" morality it just needs to make sense in said setting.

 

And partnership based on a yin yang aspect would be quite fascinating to explore, and having a reactive companion instead of a passive one would also increase any replay value the game or said companion provides, i approve.

 

@OP:

As a rule, I really dislike redemption stories. The main reason is that all too often, when more "grey" characters are involved, I don't agree about there being a need for redemption in the first place. If it is about having been pragmatic, I often perceive the Atoner mentality as a needless guilt trip about things you should acknowledge as having been necessary at the time, even if you wouldn't do the same again in the present. 

 

The other reason is that within a redemption story arc, an ideology I like is all too often denigrated along with and by the methods it has used to gain power, even if there is no necessary association between those methods and the ideology itself.

 

I am fan of grey characters who stay grey. Neither do I want them to cross the moral event horizon and become "villains", nor do I ever want them to conform to a more conventional form of morality. Whether I agree with them or not in any single case, I highly value if someone has their own personal ethics which is independent from the mainstream, as long as it makes sense to me and I can agree at least with the principle it's built on. Most redemption stories are about making a turn away from that to a more mainstream morality.   

 

If it is about "evil" characters turning about, then all too often I think that it's impossible to make up for the past because the damage is done and irreversible, and redemption in that sense is a delusion. All you can do is do things differently in the future, and that should be enough. Drowning in guilt about not being able to do more doesn't make any sense. 

 

And lastly, guilt is all too often used as an indoctrination device. To use a RL example, take certain Christian churches' attitude towards sex. A typical example of inducing guilt about things people can't change for the simple fact it's built into their genes, because they're human beings. I perceive this kind of thing as a tool to gain power over the minds of people, and it is among the most detestable things people can do to each other. The need for redemption may or may not be justified in any single case, but guilt as a motivator to do things remains thoroughly suspect in my eyes.

 

What you describe reminds me of a nietzsche's superman (or Übermensch), a character that declares that he or his objectives should not be hindered by considerations about good and evil. Such "meaningless, fallacious false dichotomies" are for simple-minded beings, not for him. He often terms them antiquated or childish propaganda, and may go on to question What Is Evil?

 

Though writing such a character in a companion role and giving them biowarein (is that a word?) depth is no easy feat, it is much easier to cast them in a antagonistic role, i still hope to see such a character as a companion one day....a man can dream cant he?

[javeart]

 

 

 

 

And partnership based on a yin yang aspect would be quite fascinating to explore, and having a reactive companion instead of a passive one would also increase any replay value the game or said companion provides, i approve.

 

 

Definitely! sounds nice, not only for sake of variety but because it'd be nice to see a mechanic that makes companion's evolution partially influenced by our actions but not necessarily at our will

[frostajulie]

I love a good redemption story because it serves as a powerful RP motivator for the character to persevere. I also like to see characters work toward something better than what they have always known, the self discovery that I can do douchebag things but I do not HAVE to be a douchebag.  My favorite characters are the redemption stories. Zevran, Jack, I enjoy the amount of character growth that occurs based on my PC's choices.  Although my favorite warden was a mage who was unrepentent in her quest for power, motivated by fear of being forced back into the circle. 

 

I think when a character is malevolent for the sake of malevolence it would make for  boring character arc or character story.  In the end even at m worst the PC is still the hero of the tale and I will put down the guy who is so evil for no reason.  However a guy so amoral as to believe his evil actions are not evil, like that guy in Silence of the Lambs, he was interesting.  Whatever, the evil guy needs motivation that pulls you into the story.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

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

redemption story... that's way too fuzzy for my tastes. do i like when character grows from cold-hearted bastard into a noble ****** trying to right every wrong he/she has done and fix the world? no i do not. do i like when he/she gets a perspective and within own constraints (morals, goals, tastes) changes behaviour to be a bit more tolerant/understanding - it depends on execution and so far it wasn't that terrible (Zevran, Isabella). i didn't like the chars very much so the redemption story wasn't very appealing to me and felt kind of shallow (i'd suspect more of a change in Isabella or some sort of explanation why she'd returned or why she'd stolen the book in the first place - assuming she was designed as cunning and intelligent, able to see the big picture and knowing the action-reaction principle. that kind of argues with freeing slavers).

whilst i didn't like Morrigan (yeah... she is stupid), i think she's the most malevolent companion in DA ever. surprisingly, she doesn't seek redemption and stays with the same moral code at the end of the story as when Warden meets her first time, in the wilds. and i very much would like to see more chars with solid convictions.

 

Wouldn’t said redemption undermine said character for you?

again - depends. seeking redemption (whatever would that be - fixing mistakes, paying for harms done,... things) does undermine chars for me. but learning about consequences, learning new opinions (by dialogues, battles, meeting new cultures) should affect everyone, maybe even to a point he/she cares about preserving something more abstract than her/his well-being (or maybe it's somehow connected?).

 

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

of course i wouldn't. i just cringe everytime i see one in BW game, with Sten being the only exception (much due to exotic nature of qun). i'm not exactly in cold blooded pragmatist camp - such thing doesn't event exist (Shale - the DLC i've never played and most likely won't) or is bound to have a character developement which changes the mindset entirely (oh hai Loghain; i do like him tho) or... those are simply boring villains (Danarius, i don't even...). but i don't mind refreshing change from disney-like heroes so far.

[Cheech 2.0]

Sometimes in real life redemption is no longer viable. Games especially rpg's albeit fantasy give you a chance to make amends in that world. Depending on what's going on in your real life games can be the best way to cope with things out of your control. The Last of Us although not really about redemption became a deeply personal journey for me, and a way to change a situation you were not able to do in reality. Life's not sunshine and rainbows, but sometimes you'll find some electronic redemption, and for me it was a respite I needed.