What? Since when are flaws good? That's some backwards logic.
Like I said, Blackwall is my favourite DAI romance so far. Fenris is my favourite DA romance of all time to this point. They are both just big piles of flaws - and that's what makes the relationships interesting.
I think the last time BioWare wrote a flawless character was probably Ajantis in BG1, and that's probably just because the BG1 characters didn't have enough personality to make the resident KISA's flaws clear.
What? Since when are flaws good? That's some backwards logic.
I guess I'm just curious what the specific flaws are with Dorian's character that a KISA would displace.
Since the dawning of modern fiction. Complex characters are designed to have flaws so that they're relatable, so that they aren't boring and predictable and godlike. I could cite to you literally (I don't use the word "literally" lightly) hundreds of characters who are beloved as much because of their flaws as in spite of them. Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind, Oskar Schindler in Schindler's List, Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane, John McClane in Die Hard, Sophie Zawistowski in Sophie's choice (though, that's as much Meryl Streep's acting as anything).
Dorian's flaws, his multitude of humanizing flaws, are written into his character intentionally. Plenty of his fans love him while being perfectly aware of those flaws.
The quote Vertigomez referenced answers that question as eloquently as anyone could, I believe.
Completely OT but this reminds me of a quote...
what i mean when i call a character perfect is “wow look at how flawed you are, how broken and three dimensional and well written. look how much of a disaster you are and how you are constantly torn between right and wrong and you make so many mistakes along the way wow look how human you are”
so basically when i say they are perfect what i mean is thank god they aren’t
Because it makes characters more interesting, flawless characters are honestly boring
I can't say I agree, besides, who are we considering a "flawless" character at any rate? A lot of the time presentations of flawless heroes are boring because I simply disagree with the assertion, hence people's impression that "flawless" is boring.
Superman, for example.. pretty flawed yes? For starters he continuously misrepresent himself and basically lies to characters at pretty much every turn. In fact, he's kind of a violent sociopaths who beats the **** out of everyone he comes across to teach them various lessons. I'm not persuaded of his reasoning or humanity.
Compare to Gladiator (which I heard Casey Hudson liked), how flawed is Maximus? He kills and destroys, sure, but it's primarily either in service to the empire or in a struggle for his own life.
I think the last time BioWare wrote a flawless character was probably Ajantis in BG1, and that's probably just because the BG1 characters didn't have enough personality to make the resident KISA's flaws clear.
A fact I am slowly realizing, the Bioware I liked was possibly just an accident from their perspective. And yeah, I did like Ajantis.
Since the dawning of modern fiction. Complex characters are designed to have flaws so that they're relatable, so that they aren't boring and predictable and godlike. I could cite to you literally (I don't use the word "literally" lightly) hundreds of characters who are beloved as much because of their flaws as in spite of them. Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind, Oskar Schindler in Schindler's List, Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane, John McClane in Die Hard, Sophie Zawistowski in Sophie's choice (though, that's as much Meryl Streep's acting as anything).
Dorian's flaws, his multitude of humanizing flaws, are written into his character intentionally. Plenty of his fans love him while being perfectly aware of those flaws.
The quote Vertigomez referenced answers that question as eloquently as anyone could, I believe.
Maybe characters should be designed to be incredibly so they inspire fear and intimidation, as well as respect? All the characters you mentioned have at least some extremely razor-sharpened edges which makes them powerful and inspirational to people. Scarlett O'Hara doesn't take **** from anyone and ignores the societal norms to do what she wants. Oskar Schindler is brilliantly rich and calculating. Charles Foster Kane I don't know because Citizen Kane was boring. John McClane is clever and tactical. Sophie's Choice also didn't see.
Edit: Plus as someone else demonstrated below, perhaps whatever "weaknesses" they have are what make them unappealing to people on some level.
I guess I'm just curious what the specific flaws are with Dorian's character that a KISA would displace.
As for this. They wouldn't have to. Most of Dorian's aspects would be acceptable in a knightly character.
I refer to an earlier quote of yours:
Can you imagine him wielding the flaming sword of justice and stopping and going "My Dad doesn't get me and pushes unreasonable expectations on me?"
Damned right, I could.
Since the dawning of modern fiction. Complex characters are designed to have flaws so that they're relatable, so that they aren't boring and predictable and godlike. I could cite to you literally (I don't use the word "literally" lightly) hundreds of characters who are beloved as much because of their flaws as in spite of them. Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind, Oskar Schindler in Schindler's List, Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane, John McClane in Die Hard, Sophie Zawistowski in Sophie's choice (though, that's as much Meryl Streep's acting as anything).
Dorian's flaws, his multitude of humanizing flaws, are written into his character intentionally. Plenty of his fans love him while being perfectly aware of those flaws.
The quote Vertigomez referenced answers that question as eloquently as anyone could, I believe.
When Lady Artifice said "flaw", I took it to mean traits and habits that make characters more well-rounded and human. Or else you won't have your story.
For example, in terms of a knightly character, their possible flaw is that their faith or their narrow view of morality makes them naive and ignorant. Their journey is that their perspective isn't the only right one and must overcome their limited world view. They're still knight in shining armour characters in the sense they retain their knightly virtues of courage and chivalry and adhere to a strict moral code that makes them upstanding citizens. But flaws like maybe perhaps something akin to blind faith or a lack of understanding of other perspectives. Good traits give characters their base, I think. But something like flaws (among other things) gives them their story, something that they can work on, something that would make me want to see where they could be headed. Or else you won't have your story.
I wasn't really asking about the Knight though, I was asking about Dorian.
You know at this point the refusal to discuss Dorian's perceived "flaws" is starting to create a far worse impression than if people just spit it out, then at least maybe you would get a competing opinion like, oh, I don't really see those aspects as flaws.
Damned right, I could.
But why though? You want to see someone who whines about their parents at the age of 32 (30? 36?) or whatever Dorian is supposed to be? Heck, do you want to see someone who whines about their parents regardless of age? You want to see someone who just whines period?
What does it say about me that I don't know any of the characters you mentioned nor have I seen any of the movies you listed?
That you need to watch more films.
I haven't seen Sophie's Choice.
That you need to watch more films.
I haven't seen Sophie's Choice.
Because it makes characters more interesting, flawless characters are honestly boring
In your opinion. Personally I prefer genuinely good people than people who have big flaws.
Okay, Dorian... And let's see if I can put down everything in a nutshell while I'm on my phone and in transit...
In a culture that relies so heavily on the approval of your peers, that made him insecure, particularly in regards towards his father. Understandably, the frustration made him reckless and a bit of an alcoholic. Depending on your Inquisitor, he can hash it out with his father, finally try and reform Tevinter instead of bemoaning the nation's flaws, and follow your Inquisitor's example (should your Inquisitor do good).
And I appreciate his character for that even though I may not necessarily like those flaws in real life.
EDIT; needless to say, I haven't said everything. Just what came to mind first.
Why does he care so much about the approval his peers though? Some people don't give a ****.
In your opinion. Personally I prefer genuinely good people than people who have big flaws.
Even good people have flaws, nobody is perfect
Even good people have flaws, nobody is perfect
Some people basically are it seems to me.
Why does he care about the approval his peers though? Some people don't give a ****.
What does it say about me that I don't know any of the characters you mentioned nor have I seen any of the movies you listed?
It might say as much about how much of a film nerd I am as anything. Lol. I took three semesters of film studies. Horror film. Race and gender in film. Film theory.
There was a lot of Freud. It was horrible. And wonderful.
But seriously, you haven't seen Die Hard? 
He doesn't. But being lonely and often rejected for what he believes in could make a lot of people in his situation doubt themselves, even just a little.
Everyone's lonely, everyone experiences rejection, that's no excuse.
Even good people have flaws, nobody is perfect
Hence me using the word big in front of flaws. Bioware has been gravitating towards the whole "Hey, flawed/morally grey/edgy characters are cool" setups when it comes to their companions lately, and I'm not a fan. I miss having genuinely good characters. We're lucky to get more than one a game as a companion.
In your opinion. Personally I prefer genuinely good people than people who have big flaws.
I guarantee you that some of Merrill's qualities were intentionally written to be flaws, and she's the better character for it.
The fact that we can love those qualities just as much as her strengths, is part of my point.
Hence me using the word big in front of flaws. Bioware has been gravitating towards the whole "Hey, flawed/morally grey/dark characters are cool" setups when it comes to their companions lately, and I'm not a fan. I miss having genuinely good characters.
Flawed does not equate to morally grey.
Everyone's lonely, everyone experiences rejection, that's no excuse.
If you honestly think that, then I have nothing else to say to you since you lack perspective.
Speak for yourself, I've never met a living thing who didn't suffer at one point or another for one reason or another, and with great intensity (depending on the time and place). Straight, gay, bi, pan, sadomasochist, Disney princess. We all have that in common if nothing else.
We are steadily being steered into a discussion focused entirely on Dorian.
Flawed does not equate to morally grey.
I thought the discussion was about moral flaws. If it's not, my mistake.
We are steadily being steered into a discussion focused entirely on Dorian.
Well you know if people just said I don't like Dorian being X or Y we could of just been like oh yeah neither do I lets have a character minus that.
Instead it was built on a platform of "Everyone's perfect" that makes no sense.
Retour en haut
