79 réponses à ce sujet

[stonerbishop]

So I'm doing a personal research thing for my own amusement (yes, I'm lame). For this, I need to classify companions. I'm having some trouble with alignments. I'm by no means an expert on what DnD would classify as what. My knowledge of it is... rudimentary. I think I know the characters pretty well but I also can't remember everything they do.

So, please offer reasons why a character would be what, and I will try to find the most logical.

This is what I have so far (by no means right or accurate, just my first impression jotting it down)

Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic: L, N, C
Good, Neutral, Evil: G, N, E

Origins:
Alistair, NG
Morrigan, NE
Leliana, CG
Sten, LN
Wynne, LG
Zevran, CN
Oghren, CN
Shale, N
Dog, LN

DA2:
Bethany, LG
Carver, LN
Aveline, LG
Varric, NG
Anders, CN
Merrill, CG
Fenris, CN
Isabela, CN
Sebastian, LG

Inquisition:
Cassandra, LG
Varric, NG
Solas, CG
Sera, CN
Vivienne, LN
Iron Bull, LN
Cole, CG
Dorian, NG
Blackwall, LN

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I personally think you have Leliana and Blackwall reversed.

 

Based on the loose guidelines for D&D, Blackwall is actually Chaotic, and Leliana would be Neutral. She follows certain rules (Chantry, The Game) but she is also willing to break them to do what she needs to.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

I would set alinement a bit differently.

 

Origins:
Alistair, NG Yes he is NG
Morrigan, N She is a bit selfish but, she wants to do what is best for her, though that is based on incomplete information, she doesn't know that at the time.
Leliana, CG Agreed
Sten, NG He does as he is told by his Arishock, for the good of his people, or so he believes.
Wynne, LG Agreed
Zevran, NE He is out for himself at the expense on anyone else, he only does good if it serves his selfish desires.
Oghren, NG He tries to do right but, he lets outside people affect him too much.
Shale, N she is a manufactured being, never meant to be a golem.
Dog, LG Loyal to the HoF, obidient.

DA2:
Bethany, LG Agreed
Carver, LN He isn't evil, he has a good heart but, he feels he has to try to be something he is not and, he wants to lead when he should not.
Aveline, LG Agreed
Varric, NG He can be underhanded, but he does want what is best for all.
Anders, CE Agreed
Merrill, CG She thinks she is doing good by recovering some of the elven history. She does not see demons as evil, only as spirits.
Fenris, CE He would kill all slavers even those that treat slaves well jsut because they own slaves.
Isabela, CN She will do what is right so long as it is not to her detriment and, will do evil if she must to serve herself.
Sebastian, LG Agreed.

Inquisition:
Cassandra, LN She did go against the chantry and, even her own order.
Varric, NG See above
Solas, NG He wants to make the world right but, his definition of right would not be accepted as such by the rest of the world.
Sera, CN She is self serving but, not smart enough to be evil.
Vivienne, LE While she comes of as wanting good, all she really wants is power for herself.
Iron Bull, NG He gave up an eye to save a Vint he didn't even know despite his general dislike of Vints But he will also forsake the Qun, which is LG to him, so NG.
Cole, CG Agreed
Dorian, LN He wants what is right but, wastes so much time hiding insecurities that he really has little effect on anything or anyone.
Blackwall, NG Yes and possible LG, depending on your choices for him.

[pawswithclaws]

I find it hard to imagine that Anders is CE - running a free underground clinic just doesn't strike me as something CE would do.

[Draining Dragon]

I would call Sten Lawful Neutral, since he's so devoted to the Qun.

I would also say that Anders is chaotic neutral.

[cronshaw]

So I'm doing a personal research thing for my own amusement (yes, I'm lame). For this, I need to classify companions. I'm having some trouble with alignments. I'm by no means an expert on what DnD would classify as what. My knowledge of it is... rudimentary. I think I know the characters pretty well but I also can't remember everything they do.

So, please offer reasons why a character would be what, and I will try to find the most logical.

This is what I have so far (by no means right or accurate, just my first impression jotting it down)

Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic: L, N, C
Good, Neutral, Evil: G, N, E

Origins:
Alistair, NG
Morrigan, NE
Leliana, CG
Sten, N
Wynne, LG
Zevran, NC
Oghren, NC
Shale, NE
Dog, N

DA2:
Bethany, LG
Carver, LE
Aveline, LG
Varric, NY
Anders, CE
Merrill, CN
Fenris, CN
Isabela, CG
Sebastian, LG

Inquisition:
Cassandra, LG
Varric, NY
Solas, N
Sera, CG
Vivienne, LN
Iron Bull, LN
Cole, CG
Dorian, NY
Blackwall, NG

Nobody in any of the games is evil
Except maybe vivienne she cares the least about others, but even she proably isn't evil
Every evil should be changed to neutral
Sera is CN not CG she cares about the little guy but is to unconcerned with collateral damage to be good, she also actively despises nobles.
Blackwall should be LN, concerned only with duty, perhaps moving towards LG as he tries to atone
Varric is CG cares about people and freedom not really tied to any code
Isabella is CN

[Neleothesze]

I don't really feel like thinking about the DA:O and DA II companions but when it comes to the Inquisition:
Cassandra - Lawful Good
Varric - Neutral Good
Solas - Neutral (and we should have seen it right there... because True Neutral characters will always f*** you up more than the Evil ones. Evil ones just stab you in the heart, Neutral ones stab you in the feels first )
Sera - Chaotic Neutral (definitely not CG with some of the things she does/supports; And she's a character fully driven by emotion... if she feels slighted she can make mashed potatoes out of a human... Plus, she's really, really spiteful. That's not for a Good alignment no matter how you look at it. )
Vivienne - Lawful Neutral with Lawful Evil tendencies (she will support any kind of ordered society provided that it places her at the top or the rules allow for her to wheedle her way to the top. She's like a more intelligent Edwin Oddesseiron from BG.)
Iron Bull - Chaotic Good bound by the Qun... I don't really know how that fits...
Cole - Neutral Good now, Chaotic Good in the novel.
Dorian - Neutral Good
Blackwall - s***; If it were just Blackwall Blackwall I'd say Neutral Good... If we're talking about T.R... Neutral Evil... So I guess he changed... I don't trust him.

[Super Drone]

Sooooo much bias in this thread.

[NRieh]

 

Anders, CE

Nope, Chaotic - Neutral\Good (if I had to follow the 100 scale it's something like 70-80, where 'good' starts at 75) .

Runs free clinic, wants to make life for the mages better, no matter what.   

[ASheppard]

Nobody in any of the games is evil
Except maybe vivienne she cares the least about others, but even she proably isn't evil
Every evil should be changed to neutral
Sera is CN not CG she cares about the little guy but is to unconcerned with collateral damage to be good, she also actively despises nobles.
Blackwall should be LN, concerned only with duty, perhaps moving towards LG as he tries to atone
Varric is CG cares about people and freedom not really tied to any code
Isabella is CN

 

Agree with most of this except I don't think we know enough about Solas yet to rule out any evil companions so far. 

[stonerbishop]

I have Morrigan as evil because she supports all the "evil" things you can do for the sake of power, or fun. She laughs when you intimidate the priest in lothering. She supports killing the dalish, she supports annulment of the circle magi, she supports keeping the anvil of the void


I don't know

[stonerbishop]

So dog is LG because why? I know he's a dog so it doesn't matter really, but curious

[cronshaw]

Just some guidelines OP and you can get more info by googling D&D alignments
Evil vs Good has to do with having respect for the lives of others.
For me I always took neutral along this axis to mean you didn't have as much trouble justifying killing someone, but you did need some sort of justification aside from expediency.
Lawful vs Chaotic has to do with rules and freedom.
Lawful characters belive in and feel bound by laws and chaotic people don't feel obliged to follow laws just because they are there.
Neutral along this axis means the character belives laws are proably necessary but would proably not follow them blindly.
So Blackwall when he was Thom Rainer was Lawful Neutral ( it's an easy alignemt to assign to soldiers) he cared about others to a certain extent but was was so bound by duty he could use that to justify murder.
When I play D&D singular actions generally don't change alignment unless it is a particularly powerful action. If Blackwall had embraced his actions he would be lawful evil but his remorse and desire (eventually) to repent redeems him from that.

[cronshaw]

I have Morrigan as evil because she supports all the "evil" things you can do for the sake of power, or fun. She laughs when you intimidate the priest in lothering. She supports killing the dalish, she supports annulment of the circle magi, she supports keeping the anvil of the void


I don't know

Right neutral and even good characters can kill and do "mean" things
Morrigan just doesn't have enough disdain for the life and wellbeing of others to meet the evil criteria for me. She's neutral, probably chaotic neutral

[cronshaw]

So dog is LG because why? I know he's a dog so it doesn't matter really, but curious

Not sure what the new rules say but typically animals weren't intelligent enough to be anything but neutral
3 intelligence was the traditional threshold

[stonerbishop]

Just some guidelines OP and you can get more info by googling D&D alignments
Evil vs Good has to do with having respect for the lives of others. for me I always took neutral along this axis to mean you didn't have as much trouble justifying killing someone, but you did need some sort of justification aside from expediency.
Lawful vs Chaotic has to do with rules and freedom lawful characters belive in and feel bound by laws and chaotic people don't feel obliged to follow laws just because they are there.
Neutral along this axis means the character belives laws are proably necessary but would proably not follow them blindly.
So Blackwall when he was Thom Rainer was Lawful Neutral ( it's an easy alignemt to assign to soldiers) he cared about others to a certain extent but was was so bound by duty he could use that to justify murder.
When I play D&D singular actions generally don't change alignment unless it is a particularly powerful action. If Blackwall had embraced his actions he would be lawful evil but his remorse and desire (eventually) to repent redeems him from that.

Thanks for the info. Based on that I feel Anders is evil based on one significant event... but I will wait and see as others chime in

[stonerbishop]

Not sure what the new rules say but typically animals weren't intelligent enough to be anything but neutral
3 intelligence was the traditional threshold

Mabari are pretty smart tho.

[stonerbishop]

Updated original post based on feedback. Still would like more though if anyone else has any

[cronshaw]

Mabari are pretty smart tho.

True and special animals like Druid companions could have higher INT scores
in which case LN seems like a good choice
He is bound by duty and loyalty to the Warden more than anything else

[stonerbishop]

True and special animals like Druid companions could have higher INT scores
in which case LN seems like a good choice
He is bound by duty and loyalty to the Warden more than anything else

I like that explanation. Updating original

[Navasha]

Lawful is people that follow the rules, whether its the laws or their own personal code.   Chaotic doesn't automatically mean people intentionally break every rule.   It just means they either will break rules that don't suit them or have a complete disregard for rule. 

 

Best example :Cassandra would be Lawful and Sera would be Chaotic.

 

Good and Evil aren't really defined as people believe them to be.    Its more on how they view others.   Good will tend toward self-sacrifice and putting others in priority over themselves.   "Evil" are more all about themselves being the priority. 

 

Best example:  Merrill is actually a great example of a 'good' character.   "evil" is a tough one because I can't think of a clear cut companion who is in it only for themselves.    Sten, as a member of the Qun, would be the closest.    To the Qun faithful, there is only the Qun, which they view as themselves.   All others, don't matter or are beneath them.  

[stonerbishop]

A brief summary of neutral evil for Morrigan:
 
"A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has."

I think this fits Morrigan really well. Remember I'm looking at them in each game. I'm not counting inquisition Morrigan's actions where I think Kieran could change this