Of course not- I might not place you above my life goals, but it wouldn't mean I stopped caring. I'd try to be merciful and spare you the pain- killing you by gentle poison if possible, by proxy and ambush if not.
Naturally, if the later, I would avenge you, both on the bandits and whoever would dare force my hand so.
....damn. We really do need a romance like you.
So long as it doesn't go down the route of Fifty Shades of Grey where they outright condone abuse and excuse the behavior of the ****** ******* that is Christian Grey, then I don't see an issue with it. My only worry is that there is a very fine line they're going to have to be careful of crossing, lest it get into supremely uncomfortable territories.
Since I'm comfortable in distinguishing between telling and condoning (and reality and fiction), I actually enjoy fiction that makes people uncomfortable. People who are uncomfortable, whether by moral choices or by uneasy situations that they can't quite identify, are forced to think about what they really value and what really bugs them. So a romance arc that places the player in an ethically tough spot is good if done well.
You are right, this is a forum of requests and suggestions, not the ideas bushing (though discussion is discussion). I'll leave the thread and will stop bothering you. Just one more though: let's say it's true, 17% of players are pure renegades (in game, of course, and "renegades" in general, not only in ME). But how many of them are women? And what percent of THAT percent wants dark LI? (because generate options does not mean automatically a desire for a dark LI)
Just a curious question, nothing more.
Pretty sure if we looked at the male romances Jacob had gotten romanced by...5% of players. So clearly low numbers aren't something that stops them from doing romances. (after all 18% divided by 4 isn't going to be very high at all.) So yeah the whole low percentages is a bit moot. There's always going to be things that are low percentage wise that doesn't mean the devs aren't going to put in effort to put them in the game.
Of course not- I might not place you above my life goals, but it wouldn't mean I stopped caring. I'd try to be merciful and spare you the pain- killing you by gentle poison if possible, by proxy and ambush if not.
Naturally, if the later, I would avenge you, both on the bandits and whoever would dare force my hand so.
Not going to lie- you aren't my favorite person on BSN. But you're up there.
Your job in the club will be disciplinarian, to punish anyone who goes to Tali Sweat levels of devotion and weirdness.
Welcome home, dear. What would you like first? Dinner cooked over the embers of our roasted foes? A bath drawn from the tears of our betrayed friends? Or... me?
[The correct answer is 'All of them.']
Oh man nooo why did you remind me of that 
Oh man nooo why did you remind me of that
Because I'm evil yet supportive without being subservient. And you want that.
Because I'm evil yet supportive without being subservient. And you want that.
Bioware, please take notes.
Because I'm evil yet supportive without being subservient. And you want that.
Yes yes I do
I wish I had never saw that thread But yes I shall help Elu keep your thread free for questions about how your sweat tastes 
....damn. We really do need a romance like you.
Stepping out of the hammy self-promotion a bit...
The thing needed for effective 'anti-social' character romances is the use of special status for the partner. The idea of 'I'll make an exception, just for you,' which allows both a sincere emotional relationship and of course that uniquely special snowflake status for the LI to be cherished and valued and not merely mistreated. 'Exception making' is one of those character traits that can often be confused with/associated with character development, to make even bad flaws seem redeemable or fixable (even when they aren't). If there was ever a romance with a racist, for example, the idea of 'I hate X but love you (who are X)' would doubtless be used as a justification for some fans to justify a relationship to 'fix' the racist.
On the other hand, some 'dark' LI's are less 'anti-social' and more 'goal driven,' to the point that people are below principles or objectives. A possible key to this type of character is the absence of special exceptions... especially when it does conflict with the emotional relationship. It's not a tension unique to villainous characters (good characters have their own: 'duty or love'), but a 'dark' LI placing their goals (even non-admirable ones) above the partner doesn't mean that the relationship wasn't sincere. In this case the tension and emotional angle can be played, even without excusing the action: the betrayal doesn't have to be for a particularly noble goal (a mundane reason could be 'self-survival'- the LI wants to survive more than risk certain death to save you), but it doesn't have to be without emotional consequence either. People do things they hate all the time because they feel they 'must'. That 'must' doesn't have to be something we accept as morally justified.
Just some thoughts.
Ye But yes I shall help Elu keep your thread free for questions about how your sweat tastes
Ry, stop right there please. I'm getting sick just thinking about it.
Ry, stop right there please. I'm getting sick just thinking about it.
I know BUT NOW CAN'T FORGET. BLAME DEAN.
(also I'm now remembering lyrium fluid from the Fenris thread. >_< )
Stepping out of the hammy self-promotion a bit...
The thing needed for effective 'anti-social' character romances is the use of special status for the partner. The idea of 'I'll make an exception, just for you,' which allows both a sincere emotional relationship and of course that uniquely special snowflake status for the LI to be cherished and valued and not merely mistreated. 'Exception making' is one of those character traits that can often be confused with/associated with character development, to make even bad flaws seem redeemable or fixable (even when they aren't). If there was ever a romance with a racist, for example, the idea of 'I hate X but love you (who are X)' would doubtless be used as a justification for some fans to justify a relationship to 'fix' the racist.
On the other hand, some 'dark' LI's are less 'anti-social' and more 'goal driven,' to the point that people are below principles or objectives. A possible key to this type of character is the absence of special exceptions... especially when it does conflict with the emotional relationship. It's not a tension unique to villainous characters (good characters have their own: 'duty or love'), but a 'dark' LI placing their goals (even non-admirable ones) above the partner doesn't mean that the relationship wasn't sincere. In this case the tension and emotional angle can be played, even without excusing the action: the betrayal doesn't have to be for a particularly noble goal (a mundane reason could be 'self-survival'- the LI wants to survive more than risk certain death to save you), but it doesn't have to be without emotional consequence either. People do things they hate all the time because they feel they 'must'. That 'must' doesn't have to be something we accept as morally justified.
Just some thoughts.
Dropping my fanboying, I agree with what you wrote. It makes sense, at least to me. I also really found poignant what you said about the concept of betrayal within the romance.
I know BUT NOW CAN'T FORGET. BLAME DEAN.
(also I'm now remembering lyrium fluid from the Fenris thread. >_< )
O______o
stahp
What was Jack in ME2? She more or less fits exactly what the OP is asking for, especially if you were a Renegade Shepard. I personally don't really care what the character's moral compass is as long as they have an interesting personality and are worth getting to know. Being nicer or meaner is irrelevant to me.
O______o
stahp
Dean's fault! Dean's fault!
Stepping out of the hammy self-promotion a bit...
The thing needed for effective 'anti-social' character romances is the use of special status for the partner. The idea of 'I'll make an exception, just for you,' which allows both a sincere emotional relationship and of course that uniquely special snowflake status for the LI to be cherished and valued and not merely mistreated. 'Exception making' is one of those character traits that can often be confused with/associated with character development, to make even bad flaws seem redeemable or fixable (even when they aren't). If there was ever a romance with a racist, for example, the idea of 'I hate X but love you (who are X)' would doubtless be used as a justification for some fans to justify a relationship to 'fix' the racist.
On the other hand, some 'dark' LI's are less 'anti-social' and more 'goal driven,' to the point that people are below principles or objectives. A possible key to this type of character is the absence of special exceptions... especially when it does conflict with the emotional relationship. It's not a tension unique to villainous characters (good characters have their own: 'duty or love'), but a 'dark' LI placing their goals (even non-admirable ones) above the partner doesn't mean that the relationship wasn't sincere. In this case the tension and emotional angle can be played, even without excusing the action: the betrayal doesn't have to be for a particularly noble goal (a mundane reason could be 'self-survival'- the LI wants to survive more than risk certain death to save you), but it doesn't have to be without emotional consequence either. People do things they hate all the time because they feel they 'must'. That 'must' doesn't have to be something we accept as morally justified.
Just some thoughts.
But yeah curse you Dean for being so eloquent. I can never explain myself as well
But yeah curse you Dean for being so eloquent. I can never explain myself as well
Damn him for being so perfect! An eloquent and "dark" LI. Ugh. 
On the other hand, some 'dark' LI's are less 'anti-social' and more 'goal driven,' to the point that people are below principles or objectives. A possible key to this type of character is the absence of special exceptions... especially when it does conflict with the emotional relationship. It's not a tension unique to villainous characters (good characters have their own: 'duty or love'), but a 'dark' LI placing their goals (even non-admirable ones) above the partner doesn't mean that the relationship wasn't sincere. In this case the tension and emotional angle can be played, even without excusing the action: the betrayal doesn't have to be for a particularly noble goal (a mundane reason could be 'self-survival'- the LI wants to survive more than risk certain death to save you), but it doesn't have to be without emotional consequence either. People do things they hate all the time because they feel they 'must'. That 'must' doesn't have to be something we accept as morally justified.
This really reminds me of Bishop. I really liked how he stayed true to his nature, even though it meant betraying my PC. No redemption path there. I didn't like his overly chaotic nature throughout the game though, being contrary for the hell of it just isn't enough.
Bioware, please take notes.
If it helps them, I don't consider myself particularly evil most of the time.
Speaking of note taking, one of the ideas I've had about effective villains is the idea of seemingly compelling ideologies of evil. I use that word (evil) in this way in the sense that there are ideologies that, when implemented, frequently come with unavoidable harm to real people and their freedoms... and which, if trying to justify them in utopian end-states, are never viable for that goal. But people can still believe in the goal or the logic, and believe themselves moral even if their actions and ideologies allow or condone significant harm to others despite being seemingly hypocritical and against the ideology.
A favorite of mine was the justification for tyranny by a fallen angel of freedom from the Fall From Heaven uber-mod for Civilization. In it's backstory, the angel of freedom falls into corruption and becomes an angel of might and oppression- the embodiment of 'might makes right' and more or less the patron of brute force. Power is used to subjugate and enslave... in the name of personal freedom. The basic idea is that, in order to be Truly Free, one must be unrestrained by any outside influence that would restriction actions. Laws, threats, obligations... even social pressures and expectations. Anything that restricts your freedom to do what you want, whatever you want, is the anathema of FREEDOM. And freedom is a good thing, and most be treasured above all else- especially against anything that might restrict it, because the opposite of being free is to be a slave. But to avoid being a slave, one must actively express and demonstrate their willingness and ability to be free- to restrain on the basis of convention or morality is to allow one's self to be enslaved by others, even weaker than you. The only meaningful expressions of freedom are to act against social expectations and wishes- not merely because you can, but you must. To prove yourself free, you must break the rules. The greater the rules and the greater the violation you can get away with, the freer you are. And what rules in society are more restrictive and oppressive to True Freedom than prohibitions on murder?
You must because you can, for the greatest good known to mankind. Prove your strength and ability to be unrestrained. Murder for freedom, because you can, because you must because you can or else you were never anything but a slave. And so the angel of freedom became the god of murder.
Now, it's making sophisticated justifications for evil where I creep myself out at times... because I don't have faith that people will always see the internal flaws in such things. Or worse, won't consider them flaws at all. And that's when I consider myself really evil.
So long as it doesn't go down the route of Fifty Shades of Grey where they outright condone abuse and excuse the behavior of the ****** ******* that is Christian Grey, then I don't see an issue with it. My only worry is that there is a very fine line they're going to have to be careful of crossing, lest it get into supremely uncomfortable territories.
And what would 'condoning' or 'excusing' certain behaviour look like? They just present it, how you judge and react to it is up to you and your pc. And including things that a supremely uncomfortable to some people is perfectly fine, especially given that this would be optional content.
(Can't really comment on Christian Grey specifically, as I haven't read (and don't plan to ever read) Fifty Shades of Grey.)
Ry, stop right there please. I'm getting sick just thinking about it.
I know BUT NOW CAN'T FORGET. BLAME DEAN.
(also I'm now remembering lyrium fluid from the Fenris thread. >_< )
O______o
stahp
Dean's fault! Dean's fault!
So, if you drink enough Nuka-Cola...
(Hey, it's better than that time I started the whole Asari sex organs debate. That one still bounces around.)
So, if you drink enough Nuka-Cola...
(Hey, it's better than that time I started the whole Asari sex organs debate. That one still bounces around.)
And there goes my lunch....
So, if you drink enough Nuka-Cola...
(Hey, it's better than that time I started the whole Asari sex organs debate. That one still bounces around.)
Oooh on that front I guess I might as well play Fallout: NV since my Skyrim decided to crap itself and force me to reinstall!
That was your fault?
Elu! Help me out with some shovels and a body bag. I have some digging to do 
But man angel. Road to hell and all that.
If it helps them, I don't consider myself particularly evil most of the time.
Speaking of note taking, one of the ideas I've had about effective villains is the idea of seemingly compelling ideologies of evil. I use that word (evil) in this way in the sense that there are ideologies that, when implemented, frequently come with unavoidable harm to real people and their freedoms... and which, if trying to justify them in utopian end-states, are never viable for that goal. But people can still believe in the goal or the logic, and believe themselves moral even if their actions and ideologies allow or condone significant harm to others despite being seemingly hypocritical and against the ideology.
A favorite of mine was the justification for tyranny by a fallen angel of freedom from the Fall From Heaven uber-mod for Civilization. In it's backstory, the angel of freedom falls into corruption and becomes an angel of might and oppression- the embodiment of 'might makes right' and more or less the patron of brute force. Power is used to subjugate and enslave... in the name of personal freedom. The basic idea is that, in order to be Truly Free, one must be unrestrained by any outside influence that would restriction actions. Laws, threats, obligations... even social pressures and expectations. Anything that restricts your freedom to do what you want, whatever you want, is the anathema of FREEDOM. And freedom is a good thing, and most be treasured above all else- especially against anything that might restrict it, because the opposite of being free is to be a slave. But to avoid being a slave, one must actively express and demonstrate their willingness and ability to be free- to restrain on the basis of convention or morality is to allow one's self to be enslaved by others, even weaker than you. The only meaningful expressions of freedom are to act against social expectations and wishes- not merely because you can, but you must. To prove yourself free, you must break the rules. The greater the rules and the greater the violation you can get away with, the freer you are. And what rules in society are more restrictive and oppressive to True Freedom than prohibitions on murder?
You must because you can, for the greatest good known to mankind. Prove your strength and ability to be unrestrained. Murder for freedom, because you can, because you must because you can or else you were never anything but a slave. And so the angel of freedom became the god of murder.
Now, it's making sophisticated justifications for evil where I creep myself out at times... because I don't have faith that people will always see the internal flaws in such things. Or worse, won't consider them flaws at all. And that's when I consider myself really evil.
Zealotry doesn't sound like a very compelling evil to me. Sure it is effective, interesting though...not so much, not to me at least. But then I've never been fond of lawful good paladins either and many people love those. I prefer a more manipulative evil...give me power plays, seduction, intrigue, betrayals.
Zealotry doesn't sound like a very compelling evil to me. Sure it is effective, interesting though...not so much, not to me at least. But then I've never been fond of lawful good paladins either and many people love those. I prefer a more manipulative evil...give me power plays, seduction, intrigue, betrayals.
Yeah I'd prefer that more in just the bad guy I have to fight than a romance option. More interesting that way.
What was Jack in ME2? She more or less fits exactly what the OP is asking for, especially if you were a Renegade Shepard. I personally don't really care what the character's moral compass is as long as they have an interesting personality and are worth getting to know. Being nicer or meaner is irrelevant to me.
Jack's a pretty bad example. Horrible, really, on multiple levels.
First and foremost, she's a woobie. No, that doesn't really capture it- in a cast full of woobies, she is the woobie, the one whose backstory was specifically created and exagerated to explain and justify who she is and make her sympathetic despite anything else. Torture without cause, involuntary drug use, pavlovian conditioning, both explicit and implicit abuse of emotional, physical, and possible (IIRC) sexual nature. Jack isn't a dark badass who owns her abilities and nature- they were forced on her, and she never wanted them. Emotionally and ethically, she's a scared and desperate kid who doesn't want to be hurt by others yet again.
Moreover, her character arc centers on normalization and healing, not rationalizing or defending who she is. While ME2 leads of with a Renegade-esque path of accepting herself as a killer, ME3 overrides that to return it to the Paragon path of normalization and healing. This isn't a bad thing for Jack, the character, but it isn't a 'dark' or 'evil' characterization route either. It's character railroading in entirely the opposite direction. Even when she's supposed to be 'edgy' and 'badass' compared to her students, her characterization doesn't present anything more immoral than some f-bombs and a soft strike on the PC. Her morality is pretty conventional, and even in ME2 if she had her druthers she wouldn't have done most of the stuff she did.
Speaking of which... all her alleged villainy is utterly off screen. Heck, we don't even get to see Jack actually destroy those mechs in her own introduction scene, and the trail of destruction we see is implied to be hers but we never see that sort of power or chaos from her again. Despite her fearsome reputation, the sort to make hardened killers scared and afraid, she never actually does anything partiuclarly immoral or unethical. The best she gets is her cat fight with Miranda... but in the end it's just words. Just like all her stories and boasts are words, told rather than shown, and many of which were suspect. And what we do know that isn't just words...
Well, there was a really strong tendency by the writers to basically imply that anyone Jack fucked with, deserved it. Or that at least it wasn't her fault, or that she was a victim in it at all, and basically anything that could be used to make the blame not hers. None of Jack's crimes come with a body count or anyone who could be confirmed as innocent, and they fall into two broad categories: Jack being used and abused by real criminals, or Jack getting revenge on someone who fucked with her first. In many respects, Jack's presentation is all talk, or justified, to the point that I once incensed a number of Jack fans with the mere suggestion that she could be a murderer or have initiated significant crimes of her own volition. They challenged me to find even one point in the games that indicated she ever did anything for personal enrichment (past survival and fleeing) or just for the lols (which she implies, but is never validated), and... I couldn't. Jack never does, and is never claimed to have done, anything unnecessary against anyone who didn't deserve it (by being a scumbag or hurting her first). There's not even any substantiated charges of collateral damage and civilian casualties, which is whack.
Given what the OP is looking for... Jack definitely isn't it.
Oooh on that front I guess I might as well play Fallout: NV since my Skyrim decided to crap itself and force me to reinstall!
That was your fault?
Elu! Help me out with some shovels and a body bag. I have some digging to do
In my own defense, I was drunk at the time.
You clearly don't want Aizen. Because Aizen as an LI is an abusive monster - look at what he does to Hinamori. He builds up her entire life to idolise him and throws her away like yesterday's garbage once she outlives her usefulness. He doesn't care about his minions, which he experiments on for the purpose of advancing his agenda. And he doesn't have anything even approaching a companion he cares about in any way.
They are considered bad to the people they have wronged. And I used thugs as an example of some bad behavior and to say that just because a person does those things, does not mean they don't have a line. I'm not using it as an argument for what I want.
Once again I used these companies as an example of heartless behavior by those in charge. What is a company but an organization created by people. I work for a company that fosters a work environment of lying and scheming to customers despite their claims otherwise. The people in charge of said company have a direct responsibility for this but only care about lining their own pockets. I have no doubt that the CEO lives good, and goes home to a loving family. Just as those in charge of approving the bank loan do the same. The employee is just doing their job to get a paycheck but they are responsible for "going with the flow." and overall the person who gets their gas shut off and freezing to death isn't thinking totally about the faceless corporate executives, but the employee who has to say no. I've been cursed out more times than I can count over choices that weren't mine to make. But I still like getting paid.
I have no idea what you are arguing. I used the banker as an example of a person who may make a "bad" decision without remorse but is still NOT a monster. Once again, just because I use an example doesn't mean that is what I'm asking for. It's just an example.
LOL!! If you say so, then it MUST be true. Yes I want a heartless murderer who stabs people in the street, then comes home and pours bleach in the fish tank, and beats me over a pot roast for the lulz while twirling his mustache of doom.
I think many mobsters and drug kingpins will disagree.
Actually what I want is an Aizen Souske type. Handsome, smart, arrogant, and calculating. A person who is in control and commands respect but with LI tendencies. Oh yeah and give me a Haytham Kenway.
If you don't want it then pick a LI that is more your style instead of trying to tell everyone else what they shouldn't have.
Retour en haut
