262 réponses à ce sujet

[ejoslin]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

Ejoslin, thieving is one thing, I break into everything too. By the old D&D system, I most enjoy playing chaotic good characters - or chaotic neutral. I can do the lawful versions of those, but they're not as much fun.

But murder is another. And killing people who first attack you is not the same as murder. Ingame I've never killed anyone who didn't attack me first. And as for enjoying killing people - no. I just don't play that kind of character. Even angry, bitter, and out for revenge (my human noble), I only want revenge on the guilty party, who did attack me and mine first.

Haven't you murdered too? No, I've killed in self defence.
Don't you enjoy killing people, feeling the blade sink in? No.
And so on, and so forth.

Like I say, I can understand him. But for me to feel real warmth towards him, he'd need to want to stop being an assassin, to not want to be a murderer for money any more. It's not enough that he loves me and is loyal to me - he needs to have ethics, some understanding of right and wrong, and a willingness to act on that understanding.

Susan, my characters have murdered, not always in self defense -- I don't always use the persuade check.  And yes, he talks about the feeling of power, sinking the blade in.  It's bad, that I agree.  It's also understandable, as he has never known another way.  And that conversation is an early one, one of the first you can have with him.  It's as he talks more to the Warden that you start getting a sense that what he says and what he feels are two very different things.  He's not happy that he killed innocents, though.  And the wording . . .he consoles himself with the fact that most of them had it coming (again, I think of people like Vaughn and Howe when it comes to that comment).

However, he does have ethics, but as good character you may never see him beg you to spare the lives of the Dalish or the Mages.  You will never see him get angry with your warden if he thinks you're considering letting the slavers go (though all you have to do is talk to Caladrus instead of kill him outright to see that).  It's one thing killing someone who has it coming, quite another just killing for no reason at all.  

[SusanStoHelit]

So why his stance on the Anvil? That is truly evil.

[ejoslin]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

So why his stance on the Anvil? That is truly evil.

Think how much it could do for your war effort -- 1 golem = 50 men.  Besides, if you use the persuade check, he changes his mind.

Edit: given as to how he was taught to value human life, I find it more surprising that he pleads for others more than anyone else in your party, not when he takes a pragmatic view.

Modifié par ejoslin, 09 février 2010 - 12:03 .

[SusanStoHelit]

Yah, see, not my idea of ethics. The Anvil is evil - I don't care how 'useful' it is. He didn't decide the Anvil was evil, I talked him into 'agreeing' with me. That's love or coercion, or both, but it's not ethics.

And as I said, I can understand how he was raised. But he isn't changing.

Edit: I think he sides with the Dalish because his mother was Dalish - not because of ethics. And with the mages because he saw himself as being kept in a gilded cage, as they are, not because of ethics. In both cases, that's empathy, not ethics.

Modifié par SusanStoHelit, 09 février 2010 - 12:08 .

[ejoslin]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

Yah, see, not my idea of ethics. The Anvil is evil - I don't care how 'useful' it is. He didn't decide the Anvil was evil, I talked him into 'agreeing' with me. That's love or coercion, or both, but it's not ethics.

And as I said, I can understand how he was raised. But he isn't changing.

But he does change his mind about the anvil if you use the persuade check.  

I actually find him more compassionate than Alistair (*grin* waiting for it now), or at least more willing to speak up for what he believes which amounts to the same thing.  Again, you won't see it if you play a strictly good character most likely.  It's when you start making questionable decisions that you see Zevran step up for the underdog.

Not that he ever becomes a kind hearted, gentle soul.  But there's a lot more there than a coldblooded killer.  You know, I can't help but contrast the way he says that he consoles himself that most people he's killed had it coming to Leliana talk about how much she loved hunting men down and killing them.  Why would he need to console himself at all if he just enjoyed killing?

Modifié par ejoslin, 09 février 2010 - 12:12 .

[SusanStoHelit]

Then maybe I need to roll a 'bad' character to see Zevran being 'good', that's kind of contradictory, don't you think?

Kind-hearted, gentle souls - I like those. You say 'there's a lot more there than a coldblooded killer'. I agree with you. There is. But, nevertheless, he is still a coldblooded killer in addition to those other things. As for Leliana, she is actually tougher for me to 'get' than Zevran. She has all his flaws + she's a chantry nut case. Oh, and she chose to be that way and to live that life.

Edit: I'm trying very hard to 'feel the love' for Zevran and Leliana. I had no problems with Alistair or even Morrigan. I see much to like in Zevran, if not Leliana so much, though that romance is still very early on. I think I could truly see what's to love in Zevran as he might have been, if he hadn't been so badly damaged. A credit to the writers that I keep trying, I suppose.

Modifié par SusanStoHelit, 09 février 2010 - 12:33 .

[ejoslin]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

Then maybe I need to roll a 'bad' character to see Zevran being 'good', that's kind of contradictory, don't you think?

Kind-hearted, gentle souls - I like those. You say 'there's a lot more there than a coldblooded killer'. I agree with you. There is. But, nevertheless, he is still a coldblooded killer in addition to those other things. As for Leliana, she is actually tougher for me to 'get' than Zevran. She has all his flaws + she's a chantry nut case. Oh, and she chose to be that way and to live that life.

See, I don't see him as coldhearted.  He admits he wishes he were, and tries very hard to be, but doesn't quite succeed.  What he does is take whatever situation he's in and makes the best of it.  He's a survivor.  I think what may make him seem remorseless unless you speak with him and are willing to dig is he didn't break under conditions designed to break all but the strongest.  The fact that not only did he not break, but ended up with any sense of right and wrong shows an inner strength that you don't see with your other companions.  And a lot of what he says is nothing but a facade.  You can see that at the circle tower.

I do agree with you about Leliana.  

[Sabriana]

"Unfortunately, being cold doesn't come natural to me." That's a Zevran line. So is "I've had to do many bad things." and  "I regret far more than the women and men in my life."

He talks big in the beginning, but when the PC gets to know him, and he trusts her, he opens up and leaves the defenses behind.

No, my PCs are not 'bad'. But they do agree that some people need killing, in their case Howe and his murderous minions. For a City Elf it might be Vaughn. Who, by the way gets killed by my HNF as well. He's in a cell and unarmed, but she will kill him because they all talk to Soris first, and then have to listen to Vaughn spouting bile.

My HNF does not agree with him all the time, on the contrary, in the beginning she disagrees, but not in a nasty way. She also disagrees with Alistair and Morrigan a lot, but still not in a nasty way.

[SusanStoHelit]

ejoslin wrote...

See, I don't see him as coldhearted.  He admits he wishes he were, and tries very hard to be, but doesn't quite succeed.  What he does is take whatever situation he's in and makes the best of it.  He's a survivor.  I think what may make him seem remorseless unless you speak with him and are willing to dig is he didn't break under conditions designed to break all but the strongest.  The fact that not only did he not break, but ended up with any sense of right and wrong shows an inner strength that you don't see with your other companions.  And a lot of what he says is nothing but a facade.  You can see that at the circle tower.

I do agree with you about Leliana. 

I didn't say he was coldhearted, I quoted your use of coldblooded killer - which he is. I have spoken to him and dug - I've exhausted every possible conversation to date - and I'm almost ready for Landsmeet. I am absolutely aware of what he went through - and it makes me feel strongly for him. I could weep for him. It doesn't, however, make it possible for me to agree with him or to ignore his lack of ethics. And, I'm sorry, but so far I've seen no ethics at all, nor have you showed me any. Empathy for those he identifies with in some way, yes; ethics, no.

[ejoslin]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

I didn't say he was coldhearted, I quoted your use of coldblooded killer - which he is. I have spoken to him and dug - I've exhausted every possible conversation to date - and I'm almost ready for Landsmeet. I am absolutely aware of what he went through - and it makes me feel strongly for him. I could weep for him. It doesn't, however, make it possible for me to agree with him or to ignore his lack of ethics. And, I'm sorry, but so far I've seen no ethics at all, nor have you showed me any. Empathy for those he identifies with in some way, yes; ethics, no.

Fair enough.  I see him as having a strong sense of right and wrong; I can understand why where his lines are make you uncomfortable.  But as far as it being about who he identifies with?  You need to side with Cullen one time, just to hear what he has to say.  Unfortunately, you cannot change your mind, so unless you want to kill the mages, you have to reload.  But it's pretty safe to say he does not believe in killing for the sake of killing.  

[SusanStoHelit]

Sabriana wrote...

 But they do agree that some people need killing, in their case Howe and his murderous minions. For a City Elf it might be Vaughn. Who, by the way gets killed by my HNF as well. He's in a cell and unarmed, but she will kill him because they all talk to Soris first, and then have to listen to Vaughn spouting bile.

I agree that some people need killing - but not that they need to be murdered. By an assassin.  Who is murdering them for money, not because they are evil, not for truth or justice or even vengeance. An assassin does their job because they are paid to do it. And they'd kill an innocent if paid to do so, too.

[Sabriana]

Saying that he pleads for the mages because he thinks they are just as much prisoners as he is/was is conjecture. He says "why kill defenseless mages?" Sounds pretty ethical to me. He kills for money. That's his reason to do what he does. He knows nothing else that's what he's been bred for, after all.

Yet, what would utterly and completely shatter 99 out of 100, didn't break him. Sure, he has to learn everything from the bottom up, but he is willing to do that. "I'm on a new path...." and "Fighting the blight..., I've never done anything so worthy."  Maybe we differ on what we see as 'ethical' vs. empathy.

Actually, both are very good notions in and of themselves. Lack of empathy shows an antisocial personality disorder, lack of ethics? Ethics can be learned by watching and absorbing. Empathy is inherent, ethics are not. What is considered ethical in my country might not be considered ethical in yours. It's a socio-cultural entity for the most part, a feeling for what is right and/or wrong. If it is right/wrong depends on the outlook you have been taught.

[SusanStoHelit]

ejoslin wrote...

  But as far as it being about who he identifies with? 

He identifies with the Dalish for obvious reasons. He identifies with the mages because he describes his life in the Crows as being 'in a cage, if a gilded cage'. The mages are described in the exact same way, our pc can say to Wynne, of the Tower, whether we are a mage or not, that it was a prison or a gilded cage.

[ejoslin]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

I agree that some people need killing - but not that they need to be murdered. By an assassin.  Who is murdering them for money, not because they are evil, not for truth or justice or even vengeance. An assassin does their job because they are paid to do it. And they'd kill an innocent if paid to do so, too.

Saying Zevran would kill an innocent if paid is not borne out by anything he does or says.  Since they choose what contracts they accept, since he has strong feelings about not killing innocents, my guess is he would not just kill innocents for money.

[Sabriana]

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. As far as my HNF go, they know next to nothing about the mages. Why should he know more.

He doesn't plead for their freedom, he pleads for their lives.

A good person is not quick to condemn those who were forced into a life they had no control over. A slave is a slave. "I've never had choices, they were always made for me." is a line that tells my PC that much. He learned his 'massage techniques' in the wh**ehouse. He was a small boy then, remember, he was sold to the Crows at age 7. Possibly because he was getting too old for the purpose he was used for.

[SusanStoHelit]

Sabriana wrote...

Actually, both are very good notions in and of themselves. Lack of empathy shows an antisocial personality disorder, lack of ethics? Ethics can be learned by watching and absorbing. Empathy is inherent, ethics are not. What is considered ethical in my country might not be considered ethical in yours. It's a socio-cultural entity for the most part, a feeling for what is right and/or wrong. If it is right/wrong depends on the outlook you have been taught.

True for the most part - with the exception that I believe that some things are just plain wrong - even if your society believes that they are right. And vice versa. But the evidence of Zevran, who talks as though he is on a new path (you're right there) actually changing his ethical compass to reflect that new path - that's what I'm looking for. And I haven't found it yet. 

If saving the elves is right and siding with the werewolves is wrong - why is using the Anvil okay? Because the victims are dwarves? Both involve a choice where you can gain a potentially powerful new ally at the cost of innocent lives. Either they're both right - or they're both wrong. And please don't say you can persuade him - I'm talking about him taking a stand, not being talked into something.

[VampireCommando]

well if i'm honest i was quite touched by what happens with the romance at the end of the game with morrigan. . . a bit heart breaking i found it but it was good in a kind of heart destroying way

[Creature 1]

SusanStoHelit wrote...
If saving the elves is right and siding with the werewolves is wrong - why is using the Anvil okay? Because the victims are dwarves? Both involve a choice where you can gain a potentially powerful new ally at the cost of innocent lives. Either they're both right - or they're both wrong. And please don't say you can persuade him - I'm talking about him taking a stand, not being talked into something.

I think that's a case of inconsistent writing. 

[SusanStoHelit]

Oh, and Ejoslin and Sabriana, thank you both for responding. I do appreciate it. I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm really trying to see what it is you all see.



Maybe it's something in me that just can't see it. Or maybe we just have different values, and draw our lines in different places. But I appreciate the effort.

[ejoslin]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

Sabriana wrote...

Actually, both are very good notions in and of themselves. Lack of empathy shows an antisocial personality disorder, lack of ethics? Ethics can be learned by watching and absorbing. Empathy is inherent, ethics are not. What is considered ethical in my country might not be considered ethical in yours. It's a socio-cultural entity for the most part, a feeling for what is right and/or wrong. If it is right/wrong depends on the outlook you have been taught.

True for the most part - with the exception that I believe that some things are just plain wrong - even if your society believes that they are right. And vice versa. But the evidence of Zevran, who talks as though he is on a new path (you're right there) actually changing his ethical compass to reflect that new path - that's what I'm looking for. And I haven't found it yet. 

If saving the elves is right and siding with the werewolves is wrong - why is using the Anvil okay? Because the victims are dwarves? Both involve a choice where you can gain a potentially powerful new ally at the cost of innocent lives. Either they're both right - or they're both wrong. And please don't say you can persuade him - I'm talking about him taking a stand, not being talked into something.

The anvil really sticks in your craw.  But . . . it potentially can save thousands (unlike the werewolves), save Orzammar from the destruction it's heading into.  I am not arguing for the anvil, I am trying to point out the practical side to it, though.  Say a war that would kill hundreds can be won easily with 50 golems.  That is, 50 lives lost as opposed to hundreds.  Of course, the potential for abuse is too great, but if you are looking at it from purely a practical point of view, it does make sense.  The talking into -- what's wrong with that?  It shows he's willing to change his mind on things.  It's not that he just goes along with it and doesn't get as mad -- he ends up agreeing that the anvil should be destroyed.

Since he takes a stand more often than any of your other party members, and almost always on the side of compassion, I don't get why on this one issue, it brands him as bad.  Is Alistair a bad person because he says it's not his decision whether you save Redcliff or not and then doesn't take a stand if you choose to leave?  After all, it's only his home town and the village of the person he cares most about in the world . . .  And no, I don't think that makes Alistair a bad person at all, but I'd rather have the type of compassion where someone is willing to speak up and try to sway you than the type which the person just stands aside even if they think you're wrong.  Maybe yell at you afterwards when it's too late to do anything about it.

[ejoslin]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

Oh, and Ejoslin and Sabriana, thank you both for responding. I do appreciate it. I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm really trying to see what it is you all see.

Maybe it's something in me that just can't see it. Or maybe we just have different values, and draw our lines in different places. But I appreciate the effort.

No, it's not a matter of values I don't think.  *grin* how I see things in a video game is far different than the way I see things in my life.  And thank you for at least reading and responding.  I love these discussions!  I really do enjoy seeing other people's views, especially when they are well-thought-out and articulated!

Modifié par ejoslin, 09 février 2010 - 01:20 .

[Helios969]

The romance aspect took a game that was fun to plan and made it an incredible experience.  And not just the romances, but the various relationships I had to cultivate amongst my party members.  I really think I enjoyed the dialogue interactions with my characters more than battling the darkspawn.  DAO successfully evoked a whole range of emotions - from geniune affection with those I was romantically entangled to revulsion by some of Zevran's statements to laughter by some Oghren's comments.  Sten's tendencies to speak in abrupt monosyllables and Leliana constantly teasing him with "big softy" had me cracking up.

My first romance was with Morrigan.  I think for most men she's the obvious and easiest route.  She just emanates sexuality.  I was pissed at the end when I realized there was no way to keep her around, and a bit "heart-broken."  My second time through I pursued Leliana.  She's much more challenging.  In fact the overall experience was fuller, more complex.  She is a far more dynamic character than Morrigan - who is cold, somewhat flat, and not much of conversationalist.  Morrigan and Leliana are in fact polar opposites.  At any rate I found myself genuinely in love with Leliana at the end.  We were setup to travel with Sten to the Qunari lands at the end of the game.

[SusanStoHelit]

ejoslin wrote...


The anvil really sticks in your craw.  But . . . it potentially can save thousands (unlike the werewolves), save Orzammar from the destruction it's heading into.  I am not arguing for the anvil, I am trying to point out the practical side to it, though.  Say a war that would kill hundreds can be won easily with 50 golems.  That is, 50 lives lost as opposed to hundreds.  Of course, the potential for abuse is too great, but if you are looking at it from purely a practical point of view, it does make sense.  The talking into -- what's wrong with that?  It shows he's willing to change his mind on things.  It's not that he just goes along with it and doesn't get as mad -- he ends up agreeing that the anvil should be destroyed.

What it can save is irrelevant in my view. It's evil - plain and simple. Some things are grey, neither black nor white, the anvil isn't.

Since he takes a stand more often than any of your other party members, and almost always on the side of compassion, I don't get why on this one issue, it brands him as bad. 

I'm not looking for compassion, I'm looking for ethics. They're not the same thing. They're not even close.

[Sabriana]

You're quite welcome, Susan. I too value discussions, after all, it can open up new avenues and new outlooks. It simply seems that on this point there can be no agreement, however, discussing it in a nice and friendly way is enjoyable too.

I think he does learn, and I think he does show compassion and increasingly so. He thinks he is doing something worthy in fighting the Blight. My PC told him she wasn't going to hold him to his oath, but he stayed. He could have left at any time, but he continued with them and fought at her side, rushing to her defense, ignoring the threats to his own life and limbs. Not out of patriotism, and not because he had no other choice, but in the end, he wanted to be part of this 'worthy' venture.

In the beginning he stays because he needs protection from the Crows. Yes, he'll turn on the PC if he thinks the protection isn't forthcoming, but I chalk that up to self-preservation. The Crows nullify the need for a standing army in Antiva, I doubt they are a wishy-washy organization.

As for the Anvil, it's not evil if not abused. Oghren says that there would be many, many volunteers if that would save Orzammar. However, a device like that lends itself easily to abuse, and therefore can't be allowed to fall into anyone's hands. Definitely not Branka, who thought nothing of sacrificing her whole house and her lover for it.

To Zevran it's a practical matter, and when he's asked whether he wouldn't like to be big stone machine, he backs down quickly enough because he now sees it from a different angle. Life and people come cheap where he comes from. "You don't survive the training, you die." And the other goodie "Do you want to know what happens to the wh**rehouse boys who don't bring a good price?" Ahh, no Zevran, no thanks. I'd rather not.

[SusanStoHelit]

Sabriana wrote...

As for the Anvil, it's not evil if not abused. Oghren says that there would be many, many volunteers if that would save Orzammar. However, a device like that lends itself easily to abuse, and therefore can't be allowed to fall into anyone's hands. Definitely not Branka, who thought nothing of sacrificing her whole house and her lover for it.

I disagree, I think it's utter evil. Even when volunteers are used. Imprisoning souls in 'machines', as long as they've volunteered, I could see. I wouldn't like it, but I could see the logic and the temptation in that. It's the control rods that make the use of the anvil evil - not the potential abuse of using non-volunteers (though that's evil, too). The control rods means that no-one, volunteer or not, has free will. They can be made to do anything, not just fight darkspawn. They are no longer able to make choices, to say no - to anything. The anvil is utterly evil not because it turns people into golems, but because it uses control rods to enslave souls.