36 réponses à ce sujet

[Battlebloodmage]

I feel like more and more games are leaning toward good companions. Back in the day, games like Baldur's Gates allows you to have a roster full of evil companions. Even in Fallout 4 which supposedly give us many freedom, almost all the characters are good or morally good. Everytime I tries to steal something, they dislike me or join in with the NPC to shoot me. In DAI, almost all the companions are good, and the evil actions are almost universally hated by companions, even if you execute an evil character. I would like at least a few characters that are in favor of our protagonist if we decide to choose more selfish and bad behaviors like Morrigan in DAO. Maybe it's not evil, but practical or necessity. 

[Synthetic Turian]

I need more evil companions in my life, seriously. I mainly play paragon, and it would be very refreshing to have an evil companion with me who made me second guess my paragon choices. I thought Thane was going to be like that... 

[Fredward]

~fondly remembers Bishop~

[KaiserShep]

I can't help but feel that any attempt to make a companion "evil" would just end with that character being a largely toothless follower that just disapproves of our goody-goody actions but does little about it. I guess the most one could really expect is just someone who is largely indifferent and passive, like Morrigan.

[Battlebloodmage]

I can't help but feel that any attempt to make a companion "evil" would just end with that character being a largely toothless follower that just disapproves of our goody-goody actions but does little about it. 

That's basically the same as good characters if you do bad. Alistair would just grumble at my bad actions most of the time. That's why choices are good. I just want more morally gray characters if I choose to bring on certain missions. Fallout 4 failed at that the same with DAI, almost all the characters disapprove of bad choices except for femShep from Fallout 4. It actually provides more variety and reasons to bring different characters if their morality is different from each other. 

[Seraphim24]

I can't help but feel that any attempt to make a companion "evil" would just end with that character being a largely toothless follower that just disapproves of our goody-goody actions but does little about it. I guess the most one could really expect is just someone who is largely indifferent and passive, like Morrigan.

 

WINNER

 

I can actually tell you exactly how this happened in SWTOR on my Sith Inquisitor

 

I'm on Alderran, the boss wants me to come help them do something or other that I've been ordered to help, I say, I'm just here for artifact, and she gets all mad and storms off.

 

Then I go to leave the planet and some guy's like "You, you who did not help, we're searching for a Sith that did this wrong! Now our ally was killed in a revolt!"

 

And I'm like "really? Wasn't me?"

 

And he's like "That's funny, it seems like we had cameras watching you in particular and it would be hard to imagine it was anyone else."

 

And I'm like "Nope"

 

And he's like "Well next time you better.."

 

And at that point I just tuned him out.

 

The funny thing is too I actually wanted to help her, I just wanted to make sure she understood I wasn't fundamentally beholden to her interests, and normally you get a "refuse" quest option whenever you are really refusing a quest, but in story missions those options are hidden which I'd argue is an inconsistent communication of game rules but whatever....

[Seraphim24]

The other side is when you have an "evil" conversation option and the NPC just spouts the quest anyway like you aren't even there, I'm fairly certain the responses from many NPCs in that game are designed to be identical regardless of what you say.

[Panda]

I don't want plainly evil companions, but it would be refressing to have some that would be more end justifies means type of guys and would be against helping random people if there is no gain to the group, maybe even extent of wanting to sacrifice innocents for greater of good if situation like that arises.

[Sanunes]

I think it would be very hard to justify why a truly evil person would want to help out on a noble goal and I neutral would be easier, but in the long run those characters would turn out pretty close to what we have had in the past because their personal goals will align with story mission we are part of for otherwise why would they bother sticking around.

[Gago]

I am all for questionable decisions and grey moral zones. That is why I loved Liara's change most. 

[DaemionMoadrin]

I don't think "evil" would work. Evil as a concept is flawed and one dimensional. People whose goals are in opposition to mine and who are ruthless enough to act against me? Because they believe they are right and their way is the best way for everyone? Yes, that might work.

[Larry-3]

Gray characters are the best.

[RUDAL]

I don;t think it would work in ME, Dragon Age maybe but not in Mass Effect.

I remember playing Neverwinter Nights 2 and there was one character in tavern that could join you and he was kind of bad (evil) one, not really friendly and so on.

Some how I don't really see something like that would fit into ME team.

[Synthetic Turian]

Is it gray or grey?

[Degrees1991]

I think it would be very hard to justify why a truly evil person would want to help out on a noble goal and I neutral would be easier, but in the long run those characters would turn out pretty close to what we have had in the past because their personal goals will align with story mission we are part of for otherwise why would they bother sticking around.

So that they can stab you in the back in the final cut scene.

[Fredward]

Is it gray or grey?

 

Both. One's British the other one's American.

[Display Name Owner]

I suppose we did have Zaeed, but his nastiness kind of turned into loveable gruffness over time, so they kind of took a step in the opposite direction with him. Like, to begin with, he really was just a fairly bad guy, but after his loyalty mission he stopped feeling like it.

[Mdizzletr0n]

I don't think Zaeed was "bad" per se. He was a hired gun and did whatever payed him.

On the question of why an evil character would join a noble goal: personal gain, assassination of you/ another character or enemy of my enemy kind of thing.

The formed works better if their true selves aren't completely obvious (I know this already happened a bit in DAI) but you get a sense of who they really are by how they respond to certain actions or dialogue.

[Synthetic Turian]

Both. One's British the other one's American.

 

 

Indeed.

[Wulfram]

If we have evil companions, we need to be able to not recruit them/boot them out/arrest them/kill them.

[BioWareM0d13]

I'd be a little concerned about outright evil characters, just because of how they are typically portrayed in video games. I wouldn't want to have a cartoonish mustache-twirler who does evil for evil's sake, because outside of people like Charles Manson that's just not how most evil people roll. 

 

Think of some the most evil people in our own history. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, Osama Bin Laden, Vlad Tepes, ect, ect. All were mass murderers, but none of them committed atrocities just for the sake of killing folks. They all were either ideologically driven or committed ruthless acts in what they saw as the greater good, whether that was in service to their state, political party, nation, kingdom, tribe, ect. In their own twisted minds they would have saw themselves as heroes rather than the villains.

 

So if there is an evil squadmate I would hope he or she would have some motivation beyond just being a chaotic evil douche, even if the cause their ruthless acts serve is a bad one. As far as fictional villains go, think Tywin Lannister, Darth Vader, Bill 'the Butcher' Cutting, or the Wicked Witch of the West. 

 

An evil character that has some deeper motivation beyond just "I like doing bad things," also is easier to justify as a companion to the main character, because those sorts of evil characters would be willing to serve a good cause if their interests align. It's a lot easier to justify both that character tolerating a do-gooder Pathfinder and a good Pathfinder trusting the evil companion to follow orders, than it is just to justify an unpredictable psychopath as a follower.

 

On that note, that was my problem with Morinth. There is literally no justification at all from a story perspective to recruit her. She's an unpredictable serial killer who openly professes a desire to murder Shepard.

[wright1978]

Don't want evil companions. I'm all for companions with greyer morality alongside goody two shoes types.

[Hazegurl]

I would love a more pragmatic and independent companion.  ME3's Garrus was close to that.  Telling him about Mordin was tough but he neither approved nor disapproved, just remarked about how crappy the whole Reaper War was.  I prefer recruiting Morinith because the last thing I needed was some Justicar woman chasing me down over a decision I made.  What sucks about Morinith is that once she's recruited, that's pretty much it, the story is gone and she becomes Reaper chow.  I loved Morrigan in DAO.  She was along for her own means so it makes sense that she would put up with a Warden she disliked. But she always let her opinions be known and in some cases I even agreed with her.

 

Sadly, most companions are just one note balls of goodness who just want to be your friend and sit back as you make all the good guy decisions.

[Lulupab]

Morrigan in DAO is as "Evil" as we can get. Not caring for suffering of others at all and mostly about having fun. Who cares about innocents dying while we enjoy ourselves, right? Its not like we are doing it anyhow.

 

Given that Miranda was good too. Trigger happy Ice Queen.

[omgodzilla]

I would love to have more "ends justifies means" type companions, such as Javik or ME1/ME2 Garrus.