Let us corrupt our companions

[Cultist]

In vast majority of RPGs the only way you could change or affect your companions is by making them better, turning them from the "dark side" or persuading them to abandon their evil ways.

Could we do the opposite as well? Let us corrupt our companions. Make paladins fall, priests abandon their gods, vigilant betray their comrades.

We already had it to some extent in KOTOR2 and DA:O.

In Dragon Age it was called "hardening" - making companion more cynical, harsh and selfish. In KOTOR2 via your influence and certain dialogues you could turn companions to the dark side, like "helping" Atton to accept and be proud of his past as a jedi murderer.

We already have seen companions in PE like Cadegund - a priestess of Magran. by corrupting her we may have option either to shatter her faith or push her into more sever actions - more like "kill them all, Magran will recognize her own"

[Sandro G Meier]

Actually, in Arcanum, as well you could guide Virgil to the dark side...(Darth Vida! Huh, I mean Darth Vigi), even Virgil is not a totally good character...

[uaciaut]

You were able to change alignment/mentality of some companions in BG2 as well. Having interaction with companion NPC's have a more in-depth affect on their beliefs and perspective would be pretty interesting

[JFSOCC]

yes. I don't want to be the one who is always convinced, or learning wisdom. My Character has enough wisdom that I can at least attempt to make others see things (more) my way.

[Alexjh]

This was already covered here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62305-changing-companion-alignment/

 

As I said there, that's fine, but aslong as we can't corrupt all our companions, I don't want to be adventuring with a group of personality mirrors, I want people who will argue with me and confront me when they think I'm out of line, just as I would with them.  Some should be fairly impressionable some unshakable, just like real life.

[Keyrock]

Companions should comprise a full spectrum of personalities from stubborn and unyielding to naive and pliable to everything in between (well, not everything, there is a limited number of companions).  As such, some companions should be easier to influence than others, while others still may be completely impossible to corrupt (or redeem).  By that same token, certain companions, depending on their personality and motives, should actively be trying to manipulate the player character.

[AGX-17]

In vast majority of RPGs the only way you could change or affect your companions is by making them better, turning them from the "dark side" or persuading them to abandon their evil ways. Could we do the opposite as well? Let us corrupt our companions. Make paladins fall, priests abandon their gods, vigilant betray their comrades. We already had it to some extent in KOTOR2 and DA:O. In Dragon Age it was called "hardening" - making companion more cynical, harsh and selfish. In KOTOR2 via your influence and certain dialogues you could turn companions to the dark side, like "helping" Atton to accept and be proud of his past as a jedi murderer. We already have seen companions in PE like Cadegund - a priestess of Magran. by corrupting her we may have option either to shatter her faith or push her into more sever actions - more like "kill them all, Magran will recognize her own"

This thread has already been made, but whatevs. It's silly to have the idea of making all your companions evil in a game which has been declared as having no good/evil simplistic morality system dominating it. "Corrupting your companions" falls pretty clearly under the "good/evil binary sliding scale" category so far as I see it. If I had posted earlier, I basically would have said what Keyrock said.

[Cultist]

I never said everyone should be corruptable. That was the mistake of DA2 - where everyone would agree and support main protagonist, no matter how offensive you act towards your companions. There should be uncorruptable and resolute who would could and would resist.

It's silly to have the idea of making all your companions evil in a game which has been declared as having no good/evil simplistic morality system dominating it. "Corrupting your companions" falls pretty clearly under the "good/evil binary sliding scale" category so far as I see it.

How option to corrupt your companions means there is "good/evil binary sliding scale"? Or you are opposed to ANY acts that could be interpretated or viewed as good\evil? Make everyone grey for greyness sake? How making priest abandon his\her god is evil? Making wizard to ignore restrictions in research could be seen as evil by those who set this restrictions, but not everyone.

[WotanAnubis]

Corrupt/Redeem my companions? No, maybe not. But I wouldn't mind being able to sway them towards my side.

 

Eternity is gonna use a faction reputation system, right? Well, I'd like to be able to convince my companions to join whichever faction I happen to support.

 

For example... you know how in New Vegas Arcade is really opposed to joining up with the Legion? Well, it'd neat if, with the appropriate Speech checks, dialogues, mayb sidequests, whatever, I'd be able to convince Arcade that siding with the Legion just might be an acceptable course of action, making it so that he'll stick with me even when I go for a Legion victory.

 

Something like that.

[Osvir]

I'm only answering the title of this thread:

Yes! :D

[rjshae]

In vast majority of RPGs the only way you could change or affect your companions is by making them better, turning them from the "dark side" or persuading them to abandon their evil ways. Could we do the opposite as well? Let us corrupt our companions. Make paladins fall, priests abandon their gods, vigilant betray their comrades.

 

Perhaps, but you shouldn't have it all your own way. It would be more realistic if your efforts to corrupt one party member had significant ramifications for the remainder. Turning a paladin to a life of debauchery should cause another upright NPC to view your behavior as utterly vile and thenceforth oppose your intentions. He or she may well leave your party and ally with those seeking your defeat.

[Ieo]

Since there's no alignment, I'd rather take out the whole "corruption" good/evil bias built into the question and go--

 

I'd like to be able to change a companion's mind about a belief they might hold dear to their hearts, or an unconscious prejudice they simply assume. Maybe not completely, maybe only fuzz out the edges of a belief and introduce self-doubt, maybe a real honest conversion. And obviously, vice-versa NPC->PC.

 

(The question to always ask when these types of threads pop up is "good/evil to whom?" You have to realize that the word "corrupt" assumes good/evil binary alignment. )

[AGX-17]

I never said everyone should be corruptable. That was the mistake of DA2 - where everyone would agree and support main protagonist, no matter how offensive you act towards your companions. There should be uncorruptable and resolute who would could and would resist.

It's silly to have the idea of making all your companions evil in a game which has been declared as having no good/evil simplistic morality system dominating it. "Corrupting your companions" falls pretty clearly under the "good/evil binary sliding scale" category so far as I see it.

How option to corrupt your companions means there is "good/evil binary sliding scale"? Or you are opposed to ANY acts that could be interpretated or viewed as good\evil? Make everyone grey for greyness sake? How making priest abandon his\her god is evil? Making wizard to ignore restrictions in research could be seen as evil by those who set this restrictions, but not everyone.

 

 

Given the context and history of fantasy, cRPGs, etc. your post makes rather clear that you want to make your "good" aligned characters turn "evil" aligned.

 

With this response, all you're doing is dancing around the fact that you're asking for a binary good/evil system. You're even letting slip that you want a binary good/evil morality system with your strawman "argument" against "make everyone grey for greyness sake."[pic]

 

When you say "How making priest abandon his\her god is evil?"[gic] you're presenting a morally ambiguous situation, depending on context, something you just attacked in the same post by implying that morally gray situations are bad simply by virtue of being morally gray, and you are the one who started a thread called "Let us corrupt our companions."

Edited February 1, 2013 by AGX-17

[Dwarfare]

It seems to me that just because there's no built-in morality monitoring system does not in any way mean that there is no morality in the game, nothing but a gray quagmire.  I don't think that's how it'll turn out to be, personally.  They've just left deciding what is good, evil, neither or both up to the player (and hopefully providing excellent responses to the choices the player makes to have some impact both on the player as well as the world around).  That in no way means that "corruption" fails to be a term that will have any relation to the game's characters or story or whatnot. 

 

Just because there isn't a system saying "Alignment changed (5) points toward evil, Alignment changes (10) points toward lawful" doesn't mean that something akin to that doesn't happen.

 

For me, I'd definitely vote to have some corruptable companions, as well as some incorruptible companions.  Some people are more maleable, or willing to listen and consider another positions and alter their own as they see fit, however this new understanding came to be.  Some are entirely devoted to their ways, and try as you might, you will not change them.  Perhaps your attempting to change them doesn't mean that they simply stand their ground, or come to your side, but instead pull away and follow another course to oppose you.  You tried to show him the light, where before he was ambivalent, but in the end the light only opened his mind and make him more aware of all the darkness, and it beckoned him more strongly than you ever could.  Had you simply left well enough alone, who knows...

 

Having influence over your companions, or having it shown exactly how little influence you have over someone?  Hell yeah, I'll take that, especially if one of those tricky bastards feigns following your way to capitalize on the deception somehow later. 

Edited February 1, 2013 by Dwarfare

[BruceVC]

Don't forget convincing your companions to have sordid sexual encounters with the main character, thats a form of corruption?

 

[Dwarfare]

Yes, but that kind of corruption requires special ointments rather than soul searching.  Or both!

Edited February 1, 2013 by Dwarfare

[BruceVC]

Yes, but that kind of corruption requires special ointments rather than soul searching.  Or both!

 

 

Yeah, good point, And depending on the encounter some serious soul searching could be required

[Cultist]

Given the context and history of fantasy, cRPGs, etc. your post makes rather clear that you want to make your "good" aligned characters turn "evil" aligned.

that's why I said "In vast majority of RPGs". There are but few exceptions where you can change goody-two-shoes and righteous character to be more ruthless, selfish and egoistic.

With this response, all you're doing is dancing around the fact that you're asking for a binary good/evil system. You're even letting slip that you want a binary good/evil morality system with your strawman "argument" against "make everyone grey for greyness sake."

No, I'm asking to provide such option for those who prefer to stick with darker path, meaning being selfish, egoistic and ruthless. As opposite features like "redeeming" of "evil' companions\NPCs is common in RPGs.

When you say "How making priest abandon his\her god is evil?"[gic] you're presenting a morally ambiguous situation, depending on context, something you just attacked in the same post by implying that morally gray situations are bad simply by virtue of being morally gray, and you are the one who started a thread called "Let us corrupt our companions."

No, you are twisting my words. I never said grey situations should not be present or are bad. I said that OPTION to corrupt and sway companions from their path would be a credit to Role-playing experience.I can always make an excuse for slavery, murder of innocents, thievery and other deeds. I can create a character with fictional ideology that'll see all this deeds as normal, but to a majority of players it will always be seen as "evil". I can call persuading the paladin to abandon his oaths and turn to a life of depravity "enlightening", "opening his eyes" and such, but, again, for a majority of players it will be "corruption". So I will continue to call it that way for better understanding.I'm askign for an option, not overhauling to keep only evil-neutral-good interactions. If someone want other options, like "redeeming" and such - they can make a topic for it, but I'm more interested in corrupting aspect.

[aelreth]

Let companions corrupt our characters it would be something fresh.

They do, if you want to keep using them, you can't alienate them.

 

Obsidian did this well in NWN2. Even earlier in BG2, thought not that vocally.

 

Every time you made a decision they disagreed with they could pull you aside or they could start acting insubordinate.

[PoisonWar]

Our companions always corrupt us even thought we may not notice. We often side with our companions on some pretty dark choices even if we were trying to do good the entire time, we may resort to murder if it means our companion's nemesis will no longer threaten them. And we think that we're in control...

[Monte Carlo]

I've always wanted to corrupt a vegan into wearing a meat dress a la Lady GaGa, and gorge themselves on steak.

 

Can we have something like that please?