53 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowLordXII]

This Elder One sounds like an awesome antagonist in addition to everything else that we'll be facing.

 

Please don't ruin things by trying to excuse the villain.

 

What I mean is where a story tries really hard to repeatedly tell it's audience that an antagonist isn't completely "evil", but became evil because of unfortunate circumstances and etc. But I must make clear that I have no problems with adding back-story or context to a villain. After all, this brings to light why an antagonist would think and operate the way that they do and why they're pushing towards their goal.

 

I'm just against excusing the villain of their actions.

 

Or worst, trying to arbitrarily validate the villain's actions despite how much harm that they've objectively caused or other indications that the villain/antagonist was wrong.

 

Loghain made no excuses for himself and he was awesome whether you agreed with what he did or not.

 

Meredith on the other hand...grabbed the red lyrium idol (groan...)

 

The Reapers were an awesome antagonistic force...until StarChild ripped the very fabric of the ME trilogy's plot apart with his presence and nonsense.

 

Give the antagonist a backstory? Fine. Give them context and motivation for their actions? Cool. Give them layers and dimensions to make them more interesting? Even better.

 

But don't turn around and try to say that judging this character is wrong even after said antagonist has just murdered a thousand orphans and forced their mothers to watch them die. Don't try to say that this is okay just because the villain's daddy and mommy didn't give them enough attention as a child.

 

That's just silly. In a very dumb way.

[Master Warder Z_]

I would agree to this.

[MACharlie1]

I get what you're saying. But using the word "excuse" is not the correct term. The correct terminology would be giving the villain a justifiable reason - at least in the eyes of a sane individual that makes someone say "okay, I get why you did it...but it's still wrong."

[Willowhugger]

There's room for both, IMHO.

 

The Darkspawn are a force of nature but the game wouldn't be any fun without Loghain.

The Elder One, I hope, is more or less Dragon Age Satan.

However, I think Duke Gaspard and Celene should be evil yet understanding.

[90s Luke]

I would just like to point out that villain and antagonist are not the same thing.

[Willowhugger]

Sometimes, people think depth of character makes for better storytelling.

I disagree as sometimes it's just fun to fight evil.

Also, I hate when we're supposed to sympathize and...I don't.

 

**** Gaspard and Celene even if they do have excuses.

[Master Warder Z_]

I would just like to point out that villain and antagonist are not the same thing.

 

There is that.

[Icy Magebane]

I don't think the Elder One will have any redeeming qualities, but you never know... I'm sure somebody out there will find a reason to sympathize with it.

[Master Warder Z_]

I don't think the Elder One will have any redeeming qualities, but you never know... I'm sure somebody out there will find a reason to sympathize with it.

 

I'm sure.

[Br3admax]

I'm sure most people will be thrilled that they waited an extra year for their cardboard cutout, Disney villains, OP. 

[HiroVoid]

So what, a black and white antagonist? No chance for the player to empathize with the antagonist? A "pure evil" antagonist?

Just a big old boring villain then...

**** that.

The post talks about the villian's behavior not being able to be excused with some sort of plot device or being controlled; not that the character's actions can't be understood.

[Wolfen09]

really, cause all the back story they gave loghain in the novels is like that, in it justifies his fear of orlais.... but im sorry the damn darkspawn are not orlais and id rather beat the darkspawn and have orlais take us over for 60 more years than risk my entire country be destroyed by darkspawn and nobody wanting to invade cause its a damn wasteland like the anderfels.  Darkspawn are antagonist, a group we must defeat, nont much backstory, just pure evil.... loghain is the villain, cause they make him seem more human.

 

And no, they didnt give meredith any justification in my opinion....  they said oh the red lyrium made her crazy... yeah, im pretty sure it just gave her a slight push in her crazy direction....  we could see from the first time we met her in act 2, and the mage v templar quests in act 1 that she was bat sh*t crazy without the damn idol.  Everybody is a damn antagonist, im killing everyone regardless of back story, im not giving them a villain.

 

The only one we are probably gonna see get some justification is alexius, the dude who is dorian's former master.  I think the elder one is gonna be the antagonist, the ultimate evil we must defeat, but i think alexius will be our villain.

[ShadowLordXII]

So what, a black and white antagonist? No chance for the player to empathize with the antagonist? A "pure evil" antagonist?

Just a big old boring villain then...

**** that.

 

Never said that.

 

I mean don't try to "force" players to empathize with the antagonist. An antagonist can still be awesome/interesting without having a sad sob story about getting dumped so they've chosen to destroy the world.

 

I'm all for giving them layers that make them deeper and more interesting. But that crosses a line when the story "demands" that the player not hate the antagonist or when the story tries to justify/excuse the antagonist despite evidence to the contrary.

[Icy Magebane]

I always thought Arl Howe was a better villain because he never made any excuse for his deeds.  He wanted power and was clever, brave, and ruthless enough to seize it, simple as that.  I'd have thought less of him if the story attempted to justify his behavior in any way.  Having the character fall prey to insanity after the fact is even more exasperating... I mean, Bartrand was a good villain long before the lyrium idol took over his mind, and after the fact, there was some lame attempt to evoke pity from the player if you happened to have Anders along to help him regain his senses... not my cup of tea.

[SmilesJA]

I felt Arl Howe was too cartoonish as a villain to be taken seriously. I prefer depth to the bad guys. 

[Willowhugger]

I felt Arl Howe was too cartoonish as a villain to be taken seriously. I prefer depth to the bad guys. 

 

I'm iffy.

The Blight was a great villain and there's nothing more one-dimensionally evil than the Darkspawn, Architect aside.

[Zjarcal]

Never said that.
 
I mean don't try to "force" players to empathize with the antagonist. An antagonist can still be awesome/interesting without having a sad sob story about getting dumped so they've chosen to destroy the world.
 
I'm all for giving them layers that make them deeper and more interesting. But that crosses a line when the story "demands" that the player not hate the antagonist or when the story tries to justify/excuse the antagonist despite evidence to the contrary.

Yeah I'm going to plead guilty of having replied without fully reading the OP, only the last paragraph. Having fully read the thing I can see your point, though I still don't totally get the part about the story "demanding" we sympathize.

I mean, Meredith's idol excuse was lame as hell and turned a potentially interesting character into, well, a husk, but at no point does it feel (to me at least) that the story is trying too hard to make me sympathize or telling me I'm wrong for hating her. I would've agreed that was the case if we couldn't oppose her or if after killing her we got chastised by the companions or sumthin like that.

Lame excuses or explanations for the antagonists actions may ruin them as characters, but that doesn't quite mean the story is telling you you're wrong about judging them.

However, I suppose this is sorta the case with Starchild (for the record, destroy ending covers my needs by allowing me to kill him, albeit using his own methods, so it still works fine for me), but err, not gonna touch that one, since it's ME and not DA related, and I'm tired of discussing anything ME3 ending related. Fair point with that one though.

Anyway, apologies for the rushed reply without having actually read the whole post.

[Seraphim24]

 in the eyes of a sane individual that makes someone say "okay, I get why you did it...but it's still wrong."

 

What is this "sane individual" you speak of?

[raging_monkey]

This Elder One sounds like an awesome antagonist in addition to everything else that we'll be facing. Please don't ruin things by trying to excuse the villain. What I mean is where a story tries really hard to repeatedly tell it's audience that an antagonist isn't completely "evil", but became evil because of unfortunate circumstances and etc. But I must make clear that I have no problems with adding back-story or context to a villain. After all, this brings to light why an antagonist would think and operate the way that they do and why they're pushing towards their goal. I'm just against excusing the villain of their actions. Or worst, trying to arbitrarily validate the villain's actions despite how much harm that they've objectively caused or other indications that the villain/antagonist was wrong. Loghain made no excuses for himself and he was awesome whether you agreed with what he did or not. Meredith on the other hand...grabbed the red lyrium idol (groan...) The Reapers were an awesome antagonistic force...until StarChild ripped the very fabric of the ME trilogy's plot apart with his presence and nonsense. Give the antagonist a backstory? Fine. Give them context and motivation for their actions? Cool. Give them layers and dimensions to make them more interesting? Even better. But don't turn around and try to say that judging this character is wrong even after said antagonist has just murdered a thousand orphans and forced their mothers to watch them die. Don't try to say that this is okay just because the villain's daddy and mommy didn't give them enough attention as a child. That's just silly. In a very dumb way.

i stand with this guy and statement

[Icy Magebane]

I felt Arl Howe was too cartoonish as a villain to be taken seriously. I prefer depth to the bad guys. 

He may not have been nuanced, but I don't know if I'd call him cartoonish.  He was just an ambitious guy with no qualms about committing immoral actions for personal gain.  That sounds pretty realistic to me.  I feel that the more a villain attempts to explain their deeds, the less I like them.  Nobody is forcing them to commit atrocities and I'm not interested in whatever excuses they try to come up with.  Sometimes villains wind up in this nebulous realm of morality where they can easily be seen as anti-heroes... while that may be an interesting type of character, I feel that it's often overdone and done poorly at that.  A villain who doesn't try to pretty up their actions is often preferable to me.  But of course, it's just a matter of taste...

[Daerog]

Well, as the Elder One is from beyond Thedas (most likely from the Fade, but who knows? That blight stuff is strange, and Morrigan spoke of somewhere else), so it wouldn't make sense to give it a "woe be me, I had a hard life" background.... unless it is some ascended mage or something weird like that, but I hope not.

 

So far, I'm just seeing it like Morgoth/Sauron or some Daedric Prince, like Molag Bal.

[Wolfen09]

Antagonist in my eyes is someone or a group that is evil and must be destroyed (even if they dont get too much background, aka darkspawn)

 

Villain in my eyes is someone or a group (think legion of doom, not too big a group though) that has a lot of back story and is at odds with the PC a lot during the game (Loghain, Howe for a short time) (darkspawn could be considered, but they are too big a group to be considered a villain)

[Ninjasplaycardgames2]

I disagree as sometimes it's just fun to fight evil.

 

 

 

So what, a black and white antagonist? No chance for the player to empathize with the antagonist? A "pure evil" antagonist?
 

Y not both?

[Daerog]

Y not both?

 

Ya, I don't see the problem with that. Morgoth in the Silmarillion was basically The Evil One, but one could empathize with him at times as "he alone of the Valar knew fear."

 

Edit: Or the Mummy from those Brendan Frasier Mummy movies... just saw that recently again, he was totally selfish except when it came to his love, and he would burn the whole world to get what he wanted. One is able to empathize, but the dude was evil.

[AresKeith]

Ya, I don't see the problem with that. Morgoth in the Silmarillion was basically The Evil One, but one could empathize with him at times as "he alone of the Valar knew fear." 

 

I personally think a pure evil antagonist can work well, if done right