Lack of evil companions (potential spoilers)

[gkathellar]

 

 

I tend to believe that this game is about as "evil friendly" as any game can hope to be unless it is built around the "evil protagonist" concept. 

 

Overall:

1) The protagonist has a good reason to follow the main quest, regardless of his/her ethics.

 

[...]

 

Eeeeh.. I never really felt that at all. But.. I'm not going to get into it, because it's pretty blatant spoiler territory. All I'll say is that by the time I got to Defiance Bay, I no longer had any idea why I was doing this or why I should care.

 

But when it comes to "evil friendly", oh god, Planescape: Torment. That treatment of Dak'kon.

 

 

The game doesn't bring the point up as often as it should, but the protagonists awakening will eventually drive him insane unless he resolves whatever issue it is that caused him to be awakened in the first place.

 

Yeah ... not only does your PC have good reason to believe that's not actually the case, they have the opportunity to say they believe as much. There's no compelling reason to think Maerwald went insane because of being a Watcher, and not because of his ridiculously troubling soul lineage.

[gkathellar]

Allignment was the worst thing invented in D&D

 

Right up until Planescape got a hold of it.

[Voss]

 

 

Lack of evil characters? I love how the characters in this game are more complex than that in that regard. People aren't evil or good, that's a flawed conception. Evil characters always end up being tropes or just one dimensional.

Durance is as evil as realistic people come with wanting to purge those he does not like with fire and has no problems with wanting to murder all Eothas followers on sight. They only don't seem that evil because the game does not put in situations where they do more than talk about that stuff. They needed to do more and put in situations where "evil" characters want to do something that is considered cruel or sadistic in the game and you must help them or reject them. But game designers decided that your companions will not be attacking or leaving you just like that, so...

 

I agree that more situations with harsh morality choices and maybe some unexpected displays of ego or lack of empathy would be welcome. I think Sagani is the most one dimensional character, but she's just such a doll, that I can't really be angry about it. Most of the characters certainly got the potential for evil in them as well as good. Which makes them more "human".

 

EDIT: Kana is pretty one dimensional as well.

 

Disagree with this entirely.  Sagani and Kana (and Eder) have real motivations, reflect their cultures, and have ties to other people (granted you don't meet them). They are the kinds of people you can actually meet, where questions of good/evil are rightly irrelevant, as opposed to sad little puzzle characters like Durance and GM, which you won't meet outside a game, and don't serve any purpose beyond unlocking the conversation path the 'right' way for the sake of completing the companion quest.

[waltc]

I smell a petition to bring Xzar into Eora

 

I actually thought him shall-we-say "mentally challenged" as opposed to "evil"... 

[TheisEjsing]

Well I think you're wrong. Pallegina is also reflecting the same factors as you mentioned. She has real person issues with orders, loyalty and morality. She fits your criteria better. And I don't think the good/evil thematic is irrelevant.

[Gromnir]

there is limited scenarios in which any reasonable person would want an overtly evil individual to be a long-term companion.  heck, the evil protagonist would be less trusting o' evil companions, no? gully foyle is a compelling character, but we wouldn't be able to sleep in the same room with him unless he were trussed up like... well, like hannibal lecter... another interesting character with interpersonal issues. 

 

 

does an obsessive desire for revenge makes a character evil?  if not, at what point does we see the individual seeming possessed by Nemesis cross the ambiguous divide that separates the seeker o' justice from an immoral avatar o' malice? perhaps writers try for the exact opposite with the revenge-seeker eventual finding redemption? try and make an edmond dantes as an optional side-quest character? overt evil characters, particularly in a crpg wherein you need accelerate development through a limited number o' dialogue encounters, can feel a bit cartoony. given the paucity o' text and action a writer and developer may use to present the evil character, coupled with an audience burdened by crpg preconceptions and an endemic impatience for subtlety,  crafting an obvious evil character that is anything other than silly becomes a difficult task.   am much in favor o' companion offerings that is complex and arguably evil.  sure, we get that folks liked hk-47, but he were, particular in kotor, a caricature more than a character.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[RedSocialKnight]

Personally, I find the oo-me-so-evil companion type as much a boring cliche as the white knight or the Spunky Kid Sister Type.

 

If it's something people want, great, but to me it's a step backward.

[waltc]

I would love to see an RPG game where you can actually play evil and have an evil party.  Maybe a darker version of Villains by Necessity (evil was defeated and good rules the world, now evil character ban together to bring evil back to the world).  Or even better would be to use something like the amazing Fire Mountain's Way of the Wicked pathfinder adventure path books for villain characters.  

 

Do you mean "evil" in the sense that most people are evil...in that they generally get caught doing their evil and have to pay for it, or are you referring to a type of fantasy "evil" that involves only rewards for evil deeds?  I've seen a couple of RPGs in the past (if only I could remember which!) where you could "play" an evil character, but it was several times more difficult to play the game, because people shunned you and your reputation was crap and you were always on the run from the authorities, and so on...I tried it and quickly dropped it--no fun, more like hard work than fun, I thought.  Fairly true to life, though...and then there's the fact that "evil people" in reality are generally not as intelligent as the law-abiding folk.  It's like the old adage about smiling using 11 facial muscles and frowning requiring the use of 22 facial muscles--it's simply very hard to be "evil" and have an "evil party," I think. I mean, in an "evil party" they'd all be plotting against each other and trying to cut each other's throats the whole game...   Like I say, evil folk are generally not the brightest bulbs in the room.  Just doesn't seem like fun.

 

I try and picture myself enjoying being an evil character in a game and it's difficult, as if that were true I'd have to wonder if somehow I had slipped into sadomasochism...   But anyway...I guess my point is that this is something which superficially sounds like fun, maybe, but probably really wouldn't be...

 

But this game has no shortage of evil in it...   "There are many creatures of evil lurking everywhere in the game," Waltc said.  Suppose we could play an evil character, though...if the monsters were suddenly our "friends" because now we were "evil", too, good gracious that would become boring...but if we still had to fight the monsters even though we, too, were "evil" (pronounced "eeeee-e-e-e-e-ville"), then it would be no different than when we were playing as regular imperfect folk trying to be decent folk...so that wouldn't really work out, either. 

 

I think there are good reasons why this probably has never worked...but this is just my opinion, of course...

[MReed]

 

[spoilerS]

Dude, I'm, like, saying it right there that I'm not getting into it because of spoilers. You're basically spelling out key parts of the plot in the General Forum. Not cool.

 

 

Sorry, my apologies -- forgot which forum I was posting in, sorry.

[Badmojo]

Well, motivations vary why people would choose to be evil.  Some are just naturally twisted individuals, the old revenge route is well known to turn good people evil, more dark grey characters do evil things for self interest (think mafia killing rivals, leaving horse heads in bed..etc or just general assassins), then you have the temptation of evil.  Worship an evil god for vast power, but the god requires you to do evil things, or maybe someone does evil things for survival, take catching a disease like vampirism, requires you to be a parasite on people which will obviously loosen a few Morales after a while.  

[Jasta11]

I always disliked over the top, let's-kill-something-because-EVULZ types. It's not interesting at all, and I'm happy that recent RPGs have moved away from that.

 

Durance is a pretty despicable man, leading purges in the name of a god he barely even believes in anymore and generally being an **** to everyone. He's a great character, but as a person he's rotten.

 

Grieving Mother uses highly questionable methods to attain her goals. Let's leave it at that.

 

Aloth is not an innocent fairy either, and one of his endings is, well, problematic to say the least.

 

Éder and Sagani are the only ones that are mostly good people, and not in a clihé bleeding heart way but just by not being jerks. The rest are mostly neutral with Kana changing a lot during his personal quest.

 

I don't have a problem with more ruthless party members. But leave Chaotic Evil psychopaths to D&D where they belong.

[LadyCrimson]

I also would consider Durance on the "evil" side, if you read all his dialogues. An unpleasant (if occasionally comment-amusing) person indeed. But he's not eeeeveeelllllll.

 

I don't find any of the companions super good or super evil in any obvious cliche ways (which I personally like). They have histories, beliefs and goals that they'll impart and you either agree/respect them or dislike/don't respect them or somewhere inbetween. Kind of like in real life.

[MReed]

My two cents: 

 

• Grieving Mother would be evil if she didn't show regret for her problematic actions. 
• Aloth might be evil in the future if he continues his problematic actions after learning the full picture -- it would depend on why he continued his problematic actions (if for power, then evil -- if because all the alternatives are worse, then not so much).  But, while ignorance may not be a defense in court, honest (not willful!) ignorance is a valid defense to charges of being "evil".
• Durance is simply confused during the time of the game -- as far as I remember, since his crisis of faith he hasn't lead any purges (or done anything at all, basically) that would be morally suspect in the name of his his goddess.  Prior to the game he may well have engaged in some dubious actions on behalf of his deity, but during this time he was a "true believer", and when his faith was shaken he stopped.  If, in the future, he performs similar actions knowing what he knows at the end of the game, then arguably he would be evil.

 

Basically, I have a hard time classifying a character that believes his/her actions are wrong (= not justified) and would do something else if the same situation arose again as evil.  Note that this refers to honest regret, not "Well, I'm going to say I'm sorry because otherwise I'll get into more trouble" -- villains with good PR are valid, after all.  Also, it is OK if the character regrets some evil actions, while considering other actions justified, as long as the "justified" actions are evil.

[dekergus]

im thinking of starting a game where i would act very evil , like killing and stealing everything ^^

 

i could imagine playing this with durance and grieving mom , but yes a few really evil compagnons could be fun !

[KingNee]

 Enjoys clubs (the weapon)

 

Enjoys clubs, partying and venturing forth. 

[Emptiness]

Two of my active playthroughs are with less-than-good protagonists.  One is amoral, the other is outright evil.  So far, I haven't had any problem getting the npcs they have chosen to accompany them to happily support their amoral or evil actions.  So, I'm not really clear on why this thread exists.  Are players asking for an npc option that is evil-only, and won't stay with a good pc?  If so, I'm not sure of the point.  I think I prefer npcs whose morality flexes to match the morality of the pc, so that the player is not restricted with regard to which companions they can play with.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Emptiness

[gkathellar]

Two of my active playthroughs are with less-than-good protagonists.  One is amoral, the other is outright evil.  So far, I haven't had any problem getting the npcs they have chosen to accompany them to happily support their amoral or evil actions.  So, I'm not really clear on why this thread exists.  Are players asking for an npc option that is evil-only, and won't stay with a good pc?  If so, I'm not sure of the point.  I think I prefer npcs whose morality flexes to match the morality of the pc, so that the player is not restricted with regard to which companions they can play with.

 

The OP (and others) are expressing a desire for companions who are a better natural fit for such evil PCs, and/or a cynically disapproving complement to their good PCst. Characters the like of Korgan, Edwin, or Viconia - all perfectly believable characters, with less-than-kindly inclinations.

 

Or, as the kids put it: jerkwads.

[b0rsuk]

Actually, Grieving Mother is the only companion you can make LEAVE your party due to despicable acts !

Grieving Mother is fine with luring a group of survivors to the starving gul in the tower, but will leave if you do that to the survivor girl. She will probably leave too if you

Sagani doesn't do as much as raising an eyebrow. She's very pragmatic, down to earth, as needed to survive in tundra. Beat people up, ally with criminals, kill someone for a drug discount, no comments. Kana does have issues with killing someone just because he's in the way.

When you're told to kill Nedmar, the priest in Raedric's HOld

. Sagani, while cute, seems to accept that life is brutal. She believes in survival. I don't think she makes a single morality-based comment in the game. Even when you

do the forge knights quest, Sagani is only concerned about the conflict between the smith and the leader, because a pack that doesn't stick together is doomed. Hiravius questions the idea that souls for forge knights come from willing donors.

.

 

Companions which make morality-based comments:

 

- Eder

- Grieving Mother

- Kana

- Aloth

- Hiravius

- Durance, wondering if he's done the right thing

 

Notable absences:

- Sagani

- Pellegrina

[Luckmann]

 

Two of my active playthroughs are with less-than-good protagonists.  One is amoral, the other is outright evil.  So far, I haven't had any problem getting the npcs they have chosen to accompany them to happily support their amoral or evil actions.  So, I'm not really clear on why this thread exists.  Are players asking for an npc option that is evil-only, and won't stay with a good pc?  If so, I'm not sure of the point.  I think I prefer npcs whose morality flexes to match the morality of the pc, so that the player is not restricted with regard to which companions they can play with.

 

The OP (and others) are expressing a desire for companions who are a better natural fit for such evil PCs, and/or a cynically disapproving complement to their good PCst. Characters the like of Korgan, Edwin, or Viconia - all perfectly believable characters, with less-than-kindly inclinations.

 

Or, as the kids put it: jerkwads.

 

 

Well I have a mild spoiler about Pallegina that I think most (sane) persons have missed.

 

 

Remember that kid I keep bringing up? The one with the knife? The one I can pick up, force the truth out of, and then hurl to the ground with an audible crack from his bones?

 

Pallegina approves.

 

 

Grieving Mother does not.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2015 by Luckmann

[gkathellar]

 

 

Two of my active playthroughs are with less-than-good protagonists.  One is amoral, the other is outright evil.  So far, I haven't had any problem getting the npcs they have chosen to accompany them to happily support their amoral or evil actions.  So, I'm not really clear on why this thread exists.  Are players asking for an npc option that is evil-only, and won't stay with a good pc?  If so, I'm not sure of the point.  I think I prefer npcs whose morality flexes to match the morality of the pc, so that the player is not restricted with regard to which companions they can play with.

 

The OP (and others) are expressing a desire for companions who are a better natural fit for such evil PCs, and/or a cynically disapproving complement to their good PCst. Characters the like of Korgan, Edwin, or Viconia - all perfectly believable characters, with less-than-kindly inclinations.

 

Or, as the kids put it: jerkwads.

 

 

Well I have a mild spoiler about Pallegina that I think most (sane) persons have missed.

 

 

Remember that kid I keep bringing up? The one with the knife? The one I can pick up, force the truth out of, and then hurl to the ground with an audible crack from his bones?

 

Pallegina approves.

 

 

Grieving Mother does not.

 

 

 

 

... I am surprised, but not shocked. In her rare moments of characterization, Pallegina comes across as entirely devoted to her country, and little else. Even when we first meet her, it's pretty clear from the way she's ...

 

 

... willing to leave her countryman to die ...

 

 

... that she is impressively merciless.

 

Brotherhood of Five Suns ... Diplomatic/Aggressive, anyone?

Edited April 16, 2015 by gkathellar

[Valsuelm]

 

I agree, make a rogue companion in the expansion and have him/her be a heartless villain. Some one truly despicable.

Nah, it's always the rogue. Make the Monk companion in the expansion heartlessly evil instead.

 

 

I'd prefer to see the evil Barbarian myself.

 

 

I never have use for monks.

[Elerond]

On which moral standards you want Obsidian use to determine evilness of companions they write? 

 

Currently PoE tries it best to stay away of any universal moral standards and leave such determinations to player. They try their best to look morality from view point of their characters, meaning that one action is morally good for some characters and morally bad for some other characters. This kind lack of universal morality standards was one of their goals that they said they want to do with the game. So lack of your typical highlighted morally evil (and good) companions is purposeful design decision.

 

But I have find morally questionable side from all the companions

 

 

Durance: God killer, support genocidal actions, has questionable about many of population groups in Eora, etc.

Grieving Mother: Is willing to do quite questionable actions to save children (or what in her opinion saves children).

Edér: Is in some cases and willing to look other way one questionable acts are done around him and is quite uncaring towards lots of things that other people see as bad.

Sagani: Leave her children and husband behind for several years to go hunt something that she don't really even believe that she will ever find, mainly because she feels boredom towards her life.

Kana: Seeks mainly ways to get name for himself, but tries to hide it behind excuse that he is doing it for his country and seeking knowledge for next generations. Although he has lots of naivety in him and he seems to be willing to put his head in sand that face the reality.

Pallegina: Has strong belief that results are more important than means, has often quite little care towards people that she don't find living up to her standards and she seems to often think that she knows better than others what is good and what is bad.

Hiravias: He lets his belief that he is wronged or that he is unworthy or maybe both to over shadow everything in his life and reject everybody in his life and make him wander world alone.

Aloth: He is member of Leaden Key, he is willing to kill people instead of telling truth of his condition because he finds it embarrassing. 

 

 

Of course every character also has their morally upright side. 

 

In my opinion this kind characters are much more interesting and feel more real than your typical caricature characters that you get in CRPGs as your companions.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Elerond

[gkathellar]

 

 

I agree, make a rogue companion in the expansion and have him/her be a heartless villain. Some one truly despicable.

Nah, it's always the rogue. Make the Monk companion in the expansion heartlessly evil instead.

 

 

I'd prefer to see the evil Barbarian myself.

 

Oooh, but a Conan-style warrior-philosopher. Not a survival-of-the-fittest type like Durance ... maybe a sort of Hobbesian/Legalist believer in absolute authority and the merciless, violent assertion thereof, who defers to the Watcher as his personal Leviathan? All like,

 

"What do you think of when you fly into that murderous death-rage of yours?"

"MISDEMEANORS."

[Qorach]

Actually, Grieving Mother is the only companion you can make LEAVE your party due to despicable acts !

Grieving Mother is fine with luring a group of survivors to the starving gul in the tower, but will leave if you do that to the survivor girl. She will probably leave too if you

Sagani doesn't do as much as raising an eyebrow. She's very pragmatic, down to earth, as needed to survive in tundra. Beat people up, ally with criminals, kill someone for a drug discount, no comments. Kana does have issues with killing someone just because he's in the way.

When you're told to kill Nedmar, the priest in Raedric's HOld

. Sagani, while cute, seems to accept that life is brutal. She believes in survival. I don't think she makes a single morality-based comment in the game. Even when you

do the forge knights quest, Sagani is only concerned about the conflict between the smith and the leader, because a pack that doesn't stick together is doomed. Hiravius questions the idea that souls for forge knights come from willing donors.

.

 

Companions which make morality-based comments:

 

- Eder

- Grieving Mother

- Kana

- Aloth

- Hiravius

- Durance, wondering if he's done the right thing

 

Notable absences:

- Sagani

- Pellegrina

Pallegina does make morality comments - during Blood Legacy quest and in response to some Durance interjections in particular. I'm only in Act 2, but so far Blood Legacy seems to be the benchmark on this topic - none of my 5 companions (GM, Eder, Pallegina, Durance, Kana) showed understanding or sympathy for Lord Harond, even though his actions were common enough during Medieval Ages.

[Luckmann]

 

 

 

Two of my active playthroughs are with less-than-good protagonists.  One is amoral, the other is outright evil.  So far, I haven't had any problem getting the npcs they have chosen to accompany them to happily support their amoral or evil actions.  So, I'm not really clear on why this thread exists.  Are players asking for an npc option that is evil-only, and won't stay with a good pc?  If so, I'm not sure of the point.  I think I prefer npcs whose morality flexes to match the morality of the pc, so that the player is not restricted with regard to which companions they can play with.

 

The OP (and others) are expressing a desire for companions who are a better natural fit for such evil PCs, and/or a cynically disapproving complement to their good PCst. Characters the like of Korgan, Edwin, or Viconia - all perfectly believable characters, with less-than-kindly inclinations.

 

Or, as the kids put it: jerkwads.

 

 

Well I have a mild spoiler about Pallegina that I think most (sane) persons have missed.

 

 

Remember that kid I keep bringing up? The one with the knife? The one I can pick up, force the truth out of, and then hurl to the ground with an audible crack from his bones?

 

Pallegina approves.

 

 

Grieving Mother does not.

 

 

 

... I am surprised, but not shocked. In her rare moments of characterization, Pallegina comes across as entirely devoted to her country, and little else. Even when we first meet her, it's pretty clear from the way she's ...

 

 

... willing to leave her countryman to die ...

 

 

... that she is impressively merciless.

 

Brotherhood of Five Suns ... Diplomatic/Aggressive, anyone?

 

<inser obligatory quip about Sawyer's Snowflake and female passive-aggressiveness>

 

...but yeah, that sounds about right. Favoured Diplomatic/Aggressive, Disfavoured Clever/Honest?

 

 

 

 

I agree, make a rogue companion in the expansion and have him/her be a heartless villain. Some one truly despicable.

Nah, it's always the rogue. Make the Monk companion in the expansion heartlessly evil instead.

 

I'd prefer to see the evil Barbarian myself.

 

Oooh, but a Conan-style warrior-philosopher. Not a survival-of-the-fittest type like Durance ... maybe a sort of Hobbesian/Legalist believer in absolute authority and the merciless, violent assertion thereof, who defers to the Watcher as his personal Leviathan? All like,

 

"What do you think of when you fly into that murderous death-rage of yours?"

"MISDEMEANORS."

 

Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease let us have another Vhailor.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Luckmann