This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Helter Skelter - I removed the In Love with Love trope under Alistair—he may chew her out, but only one decision in the entire game will force him to leave you. And, as memory serves, he only ever "chews her out"—instead of simply expressing his opinion on the matter—after Redcliffe, depending on your choices.
You could argue that all of your romances are In Love with Love; so long as you say nothing to end the relationship, they will all fall in love with you no matter your personality type and decisions, so long as you give them enough gifts and raise their approval through conversations. Both Alistair and Leliana have a Moral Event Horizon—but even Leliana can be Persuaded out of it. The only reason the trope does not apply to all of your romances is that they have particular personality types that they like more—Alistair prefers a more comedic lady, for instance.
So, no, Alistair is not In Love with Love. He simply prefers and likes a person who shares his taste in morality. Like, you know, not slitting children's throats. Morrigan prefers if you're Chaotic Evil, so isn't she just as In Love with Love?
Roland: As I said in the changes comments, I personally believe using the Character Alignment tropes for most of the characters of more recent Bioware games is a bad idea. Almost all of these characters can grow and evolve, shifting along the moral spectrum; many have intelligent and reasonable motivations for their behavior in any case.
Furthermore, even Dungeons and Dragons itself admits that alignment is a simplification, a game term that implies a very black and white worldview where the forces of Good and Evil always know where they stand and who to fight (each other). The fact that Lawful Evil encompasses everything from a sympathetic Anti-Villain who takes steps to minimize harm to a cold, ruthless tyrant willing to do whatever it takes makes using "Evil" very misleading for many characters. Although Bioware started with Baldur's Gate, even there the alignments were sometimes poorly applied solely for game reasons. I don't think they fit either Mass Effect or Dragon Age. If others disagree, by all means, explain your reasons and we can come to an agreement.
lrrose: I was the one who added the character alignment tropes and began to regret it almost instantly. However, when I asked if anyone agreed with me about removing them, I did not get the impression that I had a large enough amount of support. I'm expecting someone to re-add them, but I do agree with you.
HelterSkelter: The simplification is why it's added. It's an easy way to get ahold on how the character will react to your decisions/behaviors, wouldn't you say? And considering how important approval/disapproval is to this game, I think the Character Alignments are valid.
Roland: I'm very reluctant to add the alignments to PC characters precisely because of just how much characters can grow and how nuanced their relative motivations are. Almost very one of the PC characters has a good reason to feel and act the way they do; calling, say, Zevran Neutral Evil seems an oversimplification that does him no justice and paints him as far more villainous and unsympathetic than he actually is. Most of them aren't malicious people.
Morrigan is pretty borderline, though; honestly, the more I hear of what she says the more horrid a person she seems to be. If it weren't for Word of God about how she's "innocent", and the flashes of more decency she shows, she'd be the easiest character to pin down, alignment-wise.
Helter Skelter: The quote on the Lawful Stupid page is "Always consider alignment as a tool, not a straitjacket that restricts the character."
People have taken this to mean, by extension, "Character Alignments are not valid". Not as a way to completely sum up a character, no. But it serves it's purpose. To understand that character, play the game. The get a two-word summary of what that character will be like, pick an Alignment. It's sort of a fail syllogism to say "Character Alignment quickly define characters. Characters are complex. Therefore, Character Alignment is invalid." That's not the point of the alignments, to say "the character is this way and only this way"; it's a tool, just like the first quote
Roland: Be that as it may, I still argue they're very poor indicators of a character's motivations, opinions, or, really, their worth as a person. Labeling someone as Neutral Evil implies they are a contemptible, treacherous individual, and more likely than not a villainous one. It doesn't say anything about mitigating circumstances, different social norms, slow and steady character growth into a better person, or anything else- nope, they're Evil, move on. That's why alignments were for in D&D, and it works fine for static, simplistic characters, but not for complex ones. Otherwise, the alignment becomes equally meaningless, because Evil doesn't actually mean evil and Good doesn't actually mean good.
It's really doing these characters a massive disservice to try and cram them into the very simplistic categories of D&D, and I feel it would be a mistake. You want to know what, say, Zevran or Sten is like? Read the tropes. Don't just slap an alignment label on them and imply that's the sum total of their being.
Gfrequency: I won't modify the character entry because it would be deleted within five minutes like every other edit made to the page recently, but I can't possibly be the only one who finds it utterly chilling that Ser Jory's death is seen with approval by the fandom. Everyone seems to have branded him a coward, but he fights plenty of darkspawn in the Wilds before returning to the campsite, and explicitly states that his fear is the notion of fighting an enemy that cannot be bested with a sword and potentially leaving his wife and child alone. He was never told of the ritual, and his motivations are clearly intended to be sympathetic. A case of inverted Misaimed Fandom? Perhaps. And he doesn't "threaten" Duncan - he draws his sword to cover himself while he backs away to make his escape. The majority of the tropes under his character entry bear little to no resemblance to his portrayal in-game, and I find myself wondering why exactly a fair number of people are perfectly fine with Duncan killing him in cold blood when he had a problem with the Wardens' somewhat questionable methods of recruitment.
Jerrik: The Grey Wardens are an army. Ser Jory signed up in a time of war. A soldier doesn't get to run away just because they think they're going to die. Ser Jory refused to obey a command from a superior officer, was attempting to desert, and when he was prevented from doing so he drew his weapon and attacked people on his own side ( and all of these are, you know, crimes). What happened to him wasn't very nice, but you can hardly say he wasn't a coward or that he didn't deserve to die.
Helter Skelter: I think the vehemence towards Jory is a little much. The Grey Wardens go out of their way to keep the Joining and the fact that you may die in a situation completely out of your control a secret, so I don't think it's something everyone in Ferelden would accept. Yes, he's a coward, but he didn't deserve to die. It's more Too Dumb to Live.
Jerrik: Eh, I guess it depends on how you interpret the whole situation. Ser Jory didn't really seem to get that the whole 'Grey Wardens are willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good' thing wasn't a joke and that he would actually be expected to live up to that. What made Ser Jory completely unsympathetic to me was him being the first to draw his blade, and him being the first to attack. You may see it differently, but to me the fact that he swung his sword at Duncan's head made it fairly obvious that he was trying to kill Duncan, and if Duncan hadn't reacted to the attack he probably would have died. The way I see it, Ser Jory was willing to kill the man leading the defense of Ferelden just so he could save his own skin by running away. In my opinion, dislike of the character is mostly justified.
