Meisterdieb on 27/10/2007 at 06:28
And even those "kills" are not evil, are they?
Let's have a look.
The Trickster is trying to open the gates between his world and Garrett's. What that means for the City and the rest of the world can be glimpsed in "Strange Bedfellows"...
I thus believe that thwarting the Trickters by switching the Eye ist not evil but good - even heroic. (Furthermore tricking the Trickster has a certain irony...)
With Karras it is the same. He tries to kill everybody; so keeping him from doing so is the right thing to do.
I don't think anyone would classify those two acts as evil, rather as necessary.
No court would find him guilty.
If you play Garrett only as a thief, then you are breaking the law but you are not evil; that is, not "evil" as most would define the term.
If you choose to play the assassin style or to run amok then , yes, you are being an evil Garrett.
Beleg Cúthalion on 27/10/2007 at 07:30
In fact his only two "canon" kills (if we include these) are those from the intro movies. Have I forgotten anything? Concerning his loot...Arsène Lupin steals a great lot of things in all the books, too, and is still not considered really evil (and also he never kills, at least not intentionally). But Garrett doesn't look like doing all this as a passion, like the Frenchman appears to do – and of course he is less charming.
demagogue on 27/10/2007 at 08:09
Suddenly everybody wants to put words into quote marks.
Anyway, as for my opinion, by the book I'd say he's officially chaotic neutral.
Gambit on 27/10/2007 at 11:53
I assume these "Intro movie kills" to be only a marketing thing. So the intro has a bit of action instead of just sneaking. Because, let´s be fair, Garrett is pretty amateur and attention seeker at these animations.
Beleg Cúthalion on 27/10/2007 at 13:41
Quote Posted by demagogue
Suddenly everybody wants to put words into quote marks.
"Really"? Titles and also words that are not meant the way they usually are, so I guess I stayed to the rules. At least to the German ones.
Inline Image:
http://www.eidosforum.de/images/smilies/addon/kratz.gifMikael Grizzly on 27/10/2007 at 16:14
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
No, Neo kills lots of cops and whatnot. They are humans. Even the agents he temporarily disables use humans as proxies and when the agent is shot and disabled they re-convert back into the human they acted through. A human that is now dead.
Where's the evidence for that the cops etc. were human?
jay pettitt on 27/10/2007 at 16:34
I always understood that everyone in the Matrix was their human counterpart, except the agents and various other named programs. I don't think it's ever suggested otherwise. Why would police not be regular people?
"The body cannot live without the mind."
Mikael Grizzly on 27/10/2007 at 16:42
Because a human is too unpredictable. Plus, it would make more sense for the machines to use programmes as peacekeepers rather than machines - easier overwriting and such.
Plus, I really doubt the n00bie Neo would have no qualms whatsoever slaughtering twentysomething fellow human beings.
SubJeff on 27/10/2007 at 18:21
So I'm having to answer different people in this post. Bear with me...
Jashin - Garrett is not an ideological blank. He has a history prior to the events of the games, a history dictated
by his ideology. He left the Keepers for his own reasons and you have no choice on that. Even where we meet and play him his acceptance of missions is beyond our control, his comments mid-mission reflect his beliefs, not ours.
I only compare him to Neo because both of them do questionable things in the name of the greater good. I don't "want" Garrett to be a Robin Hood character - you've completely missed the point of mentioning Robin Hood. Re-read my posts.
Quote:
I assume these "Intro movie kills" to be only a marketing thing.
This makes no sense. I assume Galadriel's beauty to be a marketing thing. I assume Darth Vaders voice to be a marketing thing. No. It's in the game/film/book - it's a feature of the character. I cannot even begin to describe how wrong your perception is. In both T1 and 2 intros Garrett kills someone. That is his history, that is his truth and failure to recognise this is to further romanticise the whole thing and be an apologist for his actions.
What is so hard to accept? He is a Thief. He has chosen to be criminal and to reject his place amongst a non-criminal organisation.
Quote:
Whats wrong with prostitutes and sex?
There is nothing wrong with sex. Where would the world be without it? But if you cannot recognise the seediness of Garretts "reward" for rescuing Cutty there is nothing I can do for you. Sure, perhaps Garrett and the sister really like each other, perhaps this is the only time he's done it, and perhaps those times in the cutscenes where he kills are the only times in his history he has ever killed, right?
I you place the entire scenario in the real world and think about his life and his actions it's all pretty bleak stuff. I like it for the game and the character though. Why deny it?
Quote:
Where's the evidence for that the cops etc. were human?
Quote:
it would make more sense for the machines to use programmes as peacekeepers rather than machines - easier overwriting and such.
They act just like humans. They are restricted in the same way as humans are. They are disbelieving of the insane physics bending that Neo et al (and the agents!) do. There is the whole agent using humans as proxies thing. There is no reason to think they are not human.
Mikael Grizzly on 27/10/2007 at 20:44
Except it's never mentioned.
I return to my example - agents are the Photoshop, while the SWAT/security are the Paint.
