Ce sujet est fermé
Cole spent most of Asunder learning about the morality of killing. He knows when its justified (when defending himself and his friends) and when its not (killing innocents). I think by DAI he's in a position to make his own decisions about whether he wants to fight or not.
However, nobody told him anything about sex or romance, so his knowledge on that is still non-existent. And I maintain that even if he did understand it, doesn't mean he'd want to pursue it.
However, nobody told him anything about sex or romance, so his knowledge on that is still non-existent. And I maintain that even if he did understand it, doesn't mean he'd want to pursue it.
He'd make a great creepy pervert character who stands around outside showers and watches people sleeping.
He'd make a great creepy pervert character who stands around outside showers and watches people sleeping.
He would, I suppose.
I personally hope he doesn't.
He'd make a great creepy pervert character who stands around outside showers and watches people sleeping.
Oh, no, he wouldn't. That would be wrong 
Cole spent most of Asunder learning about the morality of killing. He knows when its justified (when defending himself and his friends) and when its not (killing innocents). I think by DAI he's in a position to make his own decisions about whether he wants to fight or not.
However, nobody told him anything about sex or romance, so his knowledge on that is still non-existent. And I maintain that even if he did understand it, doesn't mean he'd want to pursue it.
I said this in the Cole thread, but you can make the argument that he goes on to kill innocents even after his pep talk with Rhys. I'd argue it's more accurate to say "He learns to not kill those that matter to Rhys."
Oh, no, he wouldn't. That would be wrong
It is something I can see him doing (heck, he already has, in Asunder) but not because he's a pervert, he doesn't get aroused by it, in fact it stirs up no emotion of any kind within him. He's curious, but mostly indifferent to it all.
It is something I can see him doing (heck, he already has, in Asunder) but not because he's a pervert, he doesn't get aroused by it, in fact it stirs up no emotion of any kind within him. He's curious, but mostly indifferent to it all.
I wouldn't be suprised if he doesn't end up doing this sort of thing any more, actually, seeing as he now knows Evangeline didn't like him doing it. Like you said, Cole's moral development in Asunder was largely based around doing things (or not doing things) based on whether his friends approved.
I said this in the Cole thread, but you can make the argument that he goes on to kill innocents even after his pep talk with Rhys. I'd argue it's more accurate to say "He learns to not kill those that matter to Rhys."
The big question with Cole is whether he is learning or he's just being trained. Like how you train a dog not to attack certain people.
I said this in the Cole thread, but you can make the argument that he goes on to kill innocents even after his pep talk with Rhys. I'd argue it's more accurate to say "He learns to not kill those that matter to Rhys."
Who does he kill?
I can only recall him killing the Templars, and that falls under 'protecting Rhys', since they were going to kill/harm him. They might have been 'innocent', but Cole deemed their deaths to be necessary in order to save his friend.
I actually think that will be one of the issues we'll have to face in DAI - whether actions are 'necessary', and whether they are 'justified'. The fact that Cole will try to do what is best doesn't necessarily mean that he will do what is best.
But regardless of whether the people he kills are innocent, as long as he is making an informed decision I don't feel that the PC would be 'using' him. Whether he kills because "those people are evil", or because "those people looked at us funny", the choice is still his to make.
In fact, I think this is where the PC has an opportunity to steer him onto a better path. To encourage him to choose to kill the evil people, rather than ordering him to kill the evil people.
Yes I was talking about the Templars, and no they weren't going to kill or harm Rhys, they weren't an immediate threat to him at all. They were doing their job. Standing guard. Their deaths weren't necessary in the slightest, who gained from their deaths? Cole was invisible, and could just have easily knocked them out, instead he slit their throats and let them choke on their own blood.
Before someone brings up the fact that Leliana also approved of their deaths, she was in the wrong too.
Whether the people Cole kills are deserving of death is a question that's present for every single character in the game, as every companion character and definitely your PC will be responsible for multiple deaths. You can disagree that the morality he's come to accept is correct and that's totally fine, but you have to separate that from the question of whether or not it's a competent choice he's making. Personally, I've always felt his actions with the mages he killed were more merciful and morally correct than what the templars were planning for them. I felt he would have been right to kill Pharamond when he asks for death, even if he ultimately decided for himself that it wasn't. Morality is subjective. I don't always agree with his choices, but I do think Cole comes a long way through Asunder in deciding what choices fit his own system of reasoning. Protecting one's loved ones above all else is certain type of morality and not everyone will agree with it, but it doesn't mean it isn't competently reasoned.
I think people may actually be holding Cole to a higher standard than other characters at this point in trying to discern if he's adequately learned morality. I doubt there will be many people on the team that haven't done things that got people hurt. There certainly have been some things past companions have done that I thought were a lot more shocking and difficult to accept than Cole's choices.
I tend to agree with that approach. Dead stuff won't get up and raise an alarm. If you leave a trail of bodies, it's less living things to come after you if the alarm does get raised. It's purely pragmatic.
Cole might have different reasons.
It's also worth considering that Leliana was going to make the same choice in killing the templars, Cole just knew he could do it more effectively using his stealth ability. Nobody would question, however, if Leliana was competent in making the decision. The question as to whether you think it's morally correct is different than whether you think the individual making the decision is competent and they need to be argued separately.
Well, we've never had a mentally stunted serial killer companion before. We've had paid assassins, people who have murdered in a fit of passion or rage, but never someone who was compelled to go around slitting people's throats as he creepily made eye contact with them. The guy felt that ending peoples lives prevented him from fading away. He's nothing like any companion we've ever had before.
Yes I was talking about the Templars, and no they weren't going to kill or harm Rhys, they weren't an immediate threat to him at all. They were doing their job. Standing guard. Their deaths weren't necessary in the slightest, who gained from their deaths? Cole was invisible, and could just have easily knocked them out, instead he slit their throats and let them choke on their own blood.
Before someone brings up the fact that Leliana also approved of their deaths, she was in the wrong too.
Look at it this way-
In DAO, you needed to get Anora out of Howe's estate. In order to get her out, you had to kill Howe's guards. Some of them were probably innocent. But you killed them all the same, because they had to die so that you could help Anora.
In Asunder, Cole needed to get Rhys out of his cell. In order to get him out, he has to kill the Templar guards. Some of them were probably innocent. But he killed them all the same, because they had to die so that he could help Rhys.
And I'm not no sure about his options here. He was new to using his powers at will, and he struggled to remain hidden long enough to slit their throats. Now imagine if he'd had to knock out 2/3 heavily armed and armoured Templars, hope they stayed unconscious long enough to get Rhys out of his cell, and hope that they wouldn't join the hunt for him after they'd come round.
Edit: At any rate, my point is he killed to protect Rhys. And it was his decision to do so. So I think he's capable of making a choice about who he does or doesn't want to fight/kill when in the Inquisition.
People wanting to romance Cole and continuing to ask if he's romancable terrify me. ;A;
I blame Twilight
I want to recruit Cole just for the turnips in the fireplace thing...
I hope they meant that.
I want my Inquisitor to come home and just find every cookiejar in the keep filled with codfish or something.
"COLE!"
"TUCKER DID IT!" (RvB Reference, sorry, I couldn't resist)
He'd make a great creepy pervert character who stands around outside showers and watches people sleeping.
Me, on Monday mornings.Who sleeps in the shower?
Who sleeps in the shower?
There was a boy without a bellybutton who slept in a tub 
Who sleeps in the shower?
drunk people
Who sleeps in the shower?
Krogan.
Retour en haut
