Evil Companions

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Violence is a solution to most if not all problems. If you apply enough violence the conditions that are the cause of the problem get fixed.

 

Oh my sweet summer child...

[Luckmann]

A Bleak Walker could've made an interesting companion if Bleak Walkers were what they were initially pitched as, but after playing through the game as one, I can confirm that they're just blackguards-by-any-other-name after all.

 

If a companion would've been made after the same mould, they wouldn't have made a very interesting companion at all.

[KDubya]

 

Violence is a solution to most if not all problems. If you apply enough violence the conditions that are the cause of the problem get fixed.

 

Oh my sweet summer child...

 

 

Not saying that violence is a good solution but just that it is a solution. I do not consider violence, in and of itself, as evil. It is just another tool in the tool box. A really blunt instrument but still just a tool.

 

What problem does violence not solve? From global hunger and over-population to global warming, from shoplifting to insurrection, they can all be solved through the application of violence.  Only violence can bring about peace during a war, while having a ceasefire almost always results in further conflict or at least extending the conflict.

[Teioh_White]

I guess a fair statement is Violence is great at solving a problem, but it often has the side effect of creating a new problem. One that's sometimes worse than the original issue. Sometimes not though. And sometimes there is a better solution, of course. But yes, to be precise, enough violence can solve most any issue, from a point of view.

[Romanul]

 

 

 

Yeah, I too think the game needs more Evil companions. I think evil is objective but I won't go into a debate on why evil is objective. I will instead give a short description of the character I would like to see: a slaver searching for fugitive slaves. A kind of character that doesn't complain when I trade a hatchling for 500 copper (like Ender does in WM1) or when I harm the baby (like the G. Mother does). A kind of character that would support my dungeon efforts in the Stronghold and would be willing to trade some of my companions to the slavers. 

 

On the plus side, the Devil of Caroc is well done and fits my definition of evil. I like how in the Caed Nua debates I can use her to kill the NPCs who ask for my help. Definitely a nice touch. What I would have liked to see is a better explanation/option for why the Devil of Caroc is my companion. The official one is pretty vague and I would have liked to have the option of blackmailing her some way ( a truly evil way basically making her a slave or something). It's not the kind of character I would normally allow free as a companion (without some major leveraging).

 

How do you consider Devil of Caroc to be Evil?

 

People came and slaughtered her entire village and family by burning their homes down and killing whomever fled the flames. She survived and brought justice to the guilty. I see no evil in what she did. She did not go and slaughter the entire village of everyone who slaughtered hers, she just meted out justice to the guilty ones.

 

I could see Grieving Mother as evil for her actions and manipulation of people. Mind control seems pretty evil to me.

 

There's an event in Stronghold. An animancer comes to me seeking help. I have the option to consult with my team. The options are to send the Devil to the guy's lab, kill him and destroy his work, the other is to send the double personality Elf to destroy his work but not kill him. I chose to send the Devil and, I may remember incorrectly here, she said "With pleasure!".

 

I believe there are small clues around that show likes killing/hurting people.

 

When I heard her story I said "Oh man, not another she's not evil, she was just abused and is seeking retribution character". But seeing her in that event + some small other flavour text led me to believe she's the only evil companion we get. Sure, you might argue that she's insane (that is referenced at least to times by NPCs) but still, she's definitely neutral evil (if you remember the alignment from Baldur's Gate).  

 

I would have loved to have a Bleak Walkers paladin or a slaver as a companion since those are part of the lore and would have added a bit to the replayability. 

 

 

I'd consider her to be pragmatic, not evil, Also consider that she is trapped in a metal shell due to an animancer, the opportunity to kill one is another opportunity for revenge.

 

Violence is a solution to most if not all problems. If you apply enough violence the conditions that are the cause of the problem get fixed.

 

I agree that a Bleak Walker would have made an interesting companion.

 

 

 

An interesting perspective. She enjoyed killing him because he was an animancer. I never thought about it this way. Anyways, it doesn't change much IMO that just gives her a motive not justification for killing the guy. She's killing the animancer because of what he is and  not because of what he has done to her. That's an evil character in my book. It's like killing all cops because one abused you.

 

Also, I remembered another instance that also proves she's evil. During the chats you have with her she confesses (or brags) that she kidnapped the people who were used for experiments by the "Italian" animancer. She says that they were all  "Murderous (or slavers, I don't remember exactly), thieves, smuggles and the likes". At fist I thought she meant to say she only killed/kidnapped  the scum of the earth, like a cleaning operation. While it would make sense with murderers, it makes little sense with thieves and even less with smugglers. I believe what she meant is that she killed (or kidnapped) people who were outside the law and thus unlikely to have the authorities looking for them. That's evil behavior without doubt.  

 

As far as I'm concerned the only debate to have is if she's neutral evil or lawful evil (as in she has a code she follows).

[Romanul]

 

I would have loved to have a Bleak Walkers paladin or a slaver as a companion since those are part of the lore [...]

 

Slavery is one part of the lore that seems to have been kinda deemphasized in the released game, compared to what Josh/other devs (and the guidebook too, I think) have told us about the setting.

 

If I'm not mistaken, slavery is supposed to be a wide-spread phenomenon in this part of the world, with Aedyran and Readceran humans/elves enslaving orlans on a grand scale, and having done so for quite a while.

And the Dyrwoodans used to do it too, but officially agreed to stop in a treaty with Eír Glanfath after the War of Black Trees, so now they do it inofficially by calling it 'indentured servitude'.

 

In the game, this doesn't really come across all that much. Sure, there's that one quest in Stalwart, and that slaver guest in the stronghold, etc., but the whole topic is not presented in an in-your face way at all - if you skip reading the in-game books, you could finish the whole game and not realize that slavery is anything more than an insignificant side-note in this setting.

 

 

 

Good point. It's quite strange considering the universe is dark in tone. I guess they didn't have the time and resources to flesh this out (and the implications)  so they only mentioned it a couple of times. I hope a future PE2 will improve that. This is definitely a franchise that explores the dark side of human nature and history. 

[HawkSoft]

Good point. It's quite strange considering the universe is dark in tone. I guess they didn't have the time and resources to flesh this out (and the implications)  so they only mentioned it a couple of times. I hope a future PE2 will improve that. This is definitely a franchise that explores the dark side of human nature and history. 

PoE explores a more realistic (darker?) pre-modern reality than most cRPGs, in this I think it is to be applauded.

 

 

Personally, I've had more than enough of the Disneyfied Renfair alternatives

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Violence is a solution to most if not all problems. If you apply enough violence the conditions that are the cause of the problem get fixed.

 

Oh my sweet summer child...

 

 

Not saying that violence is a good solution but just that it is a solution. I do not consider violence, in and of itself, as evil. It is just another tool in the tool box. A really blunt instrument but still just a tool.

 

What problem does violence not solve? From global hunger and over-population to global warming, from shoplifting to insurrection, they can all be solved through the application of violence.  Only violence can bring about peace during a war, while having a ceasefire almost always results in further conflict or at least extending the conflict.

 

 

How the hell would you use violence to solve global warming?

 

Other problems that can't be solved by violence: math and engineering problems, diseases (assuming you actually need the ill to be productive, so massacring them wholesale isn't a solution), heartbreak, optimizing employee performance and productivity (fear is an extremely poor motivator), anything related to logistics (which is kind of important because the ability to commit violence on any scale beyond the personal relies on this), and so on and so forth. Seriously, violence is not only a blunt tool, but also an extremely limited one, once you transcend the basest steps of the Maslow pyramid.

[Infinitron]

The more narratively coherent RPGs become, the less Baldur's Gate-style moustache-twirling punch clock villain companions like Edwin or Korgan make sense. Obsidian might design a dark companion in the future, but I'm pretty sure they'll never make something like that.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Infinitron

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Violence is a solution to most if not all problems. If you apply enough violence the conditions that are the cause of the problem get fixed.

 

Oh my sweet summer child...

 

 

Not saying that violence is a good solution but just that it is a solution. I do not consider violence, in and of itself, as evil. It is just another tool in the tool box. A really blunt instrument but still just a tool.

 

What problem does violence not solve? From global hunger and over-population to global warming, from shoplifting to insurrection, they can all be solved through the application of violence.  Only violence can bring about peace during a war, while having a ceasefire almost always results in further conflict or at least extending the conflict.

 

 

How the hell would you use violence to solve global warming?

 

As global warming is caused according to experts by humans producing too much carbon dioxide, so simple solution is to bombard most of the humanity and their devices of the planet and then planet will be capable to solve global warming by itself and if it is not then at least global warming will not cause mass starvation.    

[Ymarsakar]

 

 

Violence is a solution to most if not all problems. If you apply enough violence the conditions that are the cause of the problem get fixed.

 

Oh my sweet summer child...

 

 

Not saying that violence is a good solution but just that it is a solution. I do not consider violence, in and of itself, as evil. It is just another tool in the tool box. A really blunt instrument but still just a tool.

 

What problem does violence not solve? From global hunger and over-population to global warming, from shoplifting to insurrection, they can all be solved through the application of violence.  Only violence can bring about peace during a war, while having a ceasefire almost always results in further conflict or at least extending the conflict.

 

 

 

TFT? H2H? Self Defense training?

 

That tool in the tool box thing sounds familiar.

 

 Romanul

 

Half the Dyrwood is racist, and thus evil, by that kind of judgment. They are also classist, ultra nationalistic, and backwards. Referring to killing animancers because of what they do or who they are. That's how mobs are or how passion rules reason.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Ymarsakar

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

Violence is a solution to most if not all problems. If you apply enough violence the conditions that are the cause of the problem get fixed.

 

Oh my sweet summer child...

 

 

Not saying that violence is a good solution but just that it is a solution. I do not consider violence, in and of itself, as evil. It is just another tool in the tool box. A really blunt instrument but still just a tool.

 

What problem does violence not solve? From global hunger and over-population to global warming, from shoplifting to insurrection, they can all be solved through the application of violence.  Only violence can bring about peace during a war, while having a ceasefire almost always results in further conflict or at least extending the conflict.

 

 

How the hell would you use violence to solve global warming?

 

As global warming is caused according to experts by humans producing too much carbon dioxide, so simple solution is to bombard most of the humanity and their devices of the planet and then planet will be capable to solve global warming by itself and if it is not then at least global warming will not cause mass starvation.    

 

 

The problem is, we're already past the tipping point. Unless you can punch so hard that you travel back in time, you can't "solve" global warming at this point by trying to reduce carbon emissions through mass murder.

[Ymarsakar]

About that tipping point, that's what they said about peak oil in the 21st century, then fracking came along and they are now trying to kill it off by lowering oil prices so the fracking companies lose investors.

 

Human made global warming is an economic con and game. Violence there would normally be used to intimidate scientists into promoting the mass deception, diverting funds to global warming and green credits, so that people can make bank on them.

 

Because it is a con, violence is incredibly effective, because if the earth isn't dying due to carbon dioxide... all someone has to do is to use violence to Make it Happen. Then they can claim that they need power and gold to "solve the problem". The problem that they themselves created.

 

For example, using jets and spraying things into the upper atmosphere can have deleterious effects on the planet's natural water cycle and weather patterns. The violence would be used to get people to shut up about the criticism of so many global warming cultists using planes to fly around the world talking about man made global warming.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Ymarsakar

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Human made global warming is an economic con and game. Violence there would normally be used to intimidate scientists into promoting the mass deception, diverting funds to global warming and green credits, so that people can make bank on them.

 

Because it is a con, violence is incredibly effective, because if the earth isn't dying due to carbon dioxide... all someone has to do is to use violence to Make it Happen. Then they can claim that they need power and gold to "solve the problem". The problem that they themselves created.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Ymarsakar]

That's what they said about HFCS being the same as sugar too. But I get ahead of myself. Back when people needed television to tell them what to think, that is what they would have said if they could think for themselves without the idiot tube.

 

Now a days, of course, they have internet videos for similar purposes, on top of social media. Remember seeing all those Facebook propaganda videos and posts? It's like they think they came up with it all on their own.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Ymarsakar

[KDubya]

 

 

 

 

 

Violence is a solution to most if not all problems. If you apply enough violence the conditions that are the cause of the problem get fixed.

 

Oh my sweet summer child...

 

 

Not saying that violence is a good solution but just that it is a solution. I do not consider violence, in and of itself, as evil. It is just another tool in the tool box. A really blunt instrument but still just a tool.

 

What problem does violence not solve? From global hunger and over-population to global warming, from shoplifting to insurrection, they can all be solved through the application of violence.  Only violence can bring about peace during a war, while having a ceasefire almost always results in further conflict or at least extending the conflict.

 

 

How the hell would you use violence to solve global warming?

 

As global warming is caused according to experts by humans producing too much carbon dioxide, so simple solution is to bombard most of the humanity and their devices of the planet and then planet will be capable to solve global warming by itself and if it is not then at least global warming will not cause mass starvation.    

 

 

The problem is, we're already past the tipping point. Unless you can punch so hard that you travel back in time, you can't "solve" global warming at this point by trying to reduce carbon emissions through mass murder.

 

 

 

Solving Global Warming is easy with violence. What is more powerful than Global Warming? ............ Nuclear Winter. There easily solved with the bonus of perhaps solving additional problems at the same time.

 

Obviously you can't solve a math problem with violence , well other than threatening the teacher for a better grade or the answer.

[Karkarov]

What is more powerful than Global Warming? ............ Nuclear Winter.

Ok mods I think this is a clear sign this thread has run it's course.  Even Durance wouldn't inflict this craziness on us.

[house2fly]

 

 

 

Violence is a solution to most if not all problems. If you apply enough violence the conditions that are the cause of the problem get fixed.

 

Oh my sweet summer child...

 

 

Not saying that violence is a good solution but just that it is a solution. I do not consider violence, in and of itself, as evil. It is just another tool in the tool box. A really blunt instrument but still just a tool.

 

What problem does violence not solve? From global hunger and over-population to global warming, from shoplifting to insurrection, they can all be solved through the application of violence.  Only violence can bring about peace during a war, while having a ceasefire almost always results in further conflict or at least extending the conflict.

 

 

How the hell would you use violence to solve global warming?

 

Global warming is caused by humans, so the answer to this question would seem to be incredibly obvious.

[Teioh_White]

Yeah, I don' think anyone is arguing Violence is the best solution to all problems. Or even that it's a -good- solution. Just, you throw enough violence at something, that particular issue will go away.

 

(Didn't X-Files or something just try to solve Global Warming with a Global death plague or something, anyways?)

[Romanul]

 

Half the Dyrwood is racist, and thus evil, by that kind of judgment. They are also classist, ultra nationalistic, and backwards. Referring to killing animancers because of what they do or who they are. That's how mobs are or how passion rules reason.

 

 

 

When defining good and evil we judge actions. I believe I don't have to explain the big difference between being a racist and murdering someone. You can have interesting characters who are racists and choose to defend the perceived lower race from abuse because they give precedence to upholding the law no matter what etc. A character being racists doesn't automatically make him evil. 

 

Anyways, the evil -good , chaotic-lawful is explained in detail on many sites and has a long tradition in RPGs. Sure, it's not perfect but's a solid system.

 

Having more evil companions and even having them leave if your actions are too selfless would be a welcome addition to the game iMO. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Yeah, I don' think anyone is arguing Violence is the best solution to all problems. Or even that it's a -good- solution. Just, you throw enough violence at something, that particular issue will go away.

 

Which is still a damn stupid viewpoint, once you go beyond caveman-level issues.

[Luckmann]

 

Yeah, I don' think anyone is arguing Violence is the best solution to all problems. Or even that it's a -good- solution. Just, you throw enough violence at something, that particular issue will go away.

 

Which is still a damn stupid viewpoint, once you go beyond caveman-level issues.

 

There is no feat of civilization, advance of science, nor marvel of architecture that cannot be set to default by liberal application of blunt force trauma.

 

Solving Global Warming is easy with violence. What is more powerful than Global Warming? ............ Nuclear Winter. There easily solved with the bonus of perhaps solving additional problems at the same time.

 

Obviously you can't solve a math problem with violence , well other than threatening the teacher for a better grade or the answer.

We won't need "math" where we're going.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Luckmann

[Teioh_White]

 

Yeah, I don' think anyone is arguing Violence is the best solution to all problems. Or even that it's a -good- solution. Just, you throw enough violence at something, that particular issue will go away.

 

Which is still a damn stupid viewpoint, once you go beyond caveman-level issues.

 

 

Eh? Stupid? It's just a true statement, not a judgement on it's merits compared to other options Stupid would be saying 'Violence is a good solution to all problems'. Or heck, even 'Violence is a good solution to a reasonable minority of problems'. Or maybe 'Violence can't solve all problems.'

 

You're trying to argue against the possibility of something by pointing out it'd be a terrible idea, which isn't exactly how it works.

[redneckdevil]

Actually math can be solved by violence and is done almost everyday. U need a certain amount to get whatever, u don't have total amount, so u forcibly go out and take by force the remaining amount and most likely more and u reach the solution of the problem lol. Most math equations u could apply to pyramid schemes or mafia or any type of cause and effect plan such.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Yeah, I don' think anyone is arguing Violence is the best solution to all problems. Or even that it's a -good- solution. Just, you throw enough violence at something, that particular issue will go away.

 

Which is still a damn stupid viewpoint, once you go beyond caveman-level issues.

 

 

Eh? Stupid? It's just a true statement, not a judgement on it's merits compared to other options Stupid would be saying 'Violence is a good solution to all problems'. Or heck, even 'Violence is a good solution to a reasonable minority of problems'. Or maybe 'Violence can't solve all problems.'

 

You're trying to argue against the possibility of something by pointing out it'd be a terrible idea, which isn't exactly how it works.

 

 

 

Given that the original statement being objected to was:

 

 

Violence is a solution to most if not all problems. If you apply enough violence the conditions that are the cause of the problem get fixed.

 

 

Which, again, is simply untrue. In any complex civilization, the number of problems literally unsolvable by violence (unless you broaden your definition of "violence" to the point where it ceases to have meaning) will always be greater than the opposite.