GameBanshee Forums

This was a post of mine:

" You know, PS:T really sets the alignment system on its ear, even as it uses the thing in its fascinating worlds of Order, Chaos, Good and Evil. Ravel, for instance: she's evil, isn't she? And yet--she has a soft spot for the NO. All her fractured personalities that he/you see are neutral or good, and all will help you. Chaotic Neutral? No; there are many reliable references to her malicious nature and her lack of concern for life throughout the game. Is she an evil character capable of roleplaying good and neutral? This begs the question, IMO. She is what she is, and the tidy, airtight alignment divisions simply don't fit her.

"Btw, does anyone else think Ravel dies a bit too easily in PS:T? In other words, is it possible she's fooled her killer, just as she's fooled the NO into thinking he killed her?"

VonDondu indicated an interest in discussing the subject under a thread marked for its spoiler content, but this is really open to anybody. So feel free to have at it.

Ravel does whatever she pleases. She isn't constrained by any system of morals. If she feels like helping people, she helps them. If she feels like torturing them for the thrill of it, she does.

One thing that really sets her apart from other creatures is her incredibly vast knowledge. Even a glimpse of what she knows about the Planes is enough to raise the Nameless One's WIS by up to three points.

As she explains, she's in a weakened condition when you meet her. Being caged has taken its toll on her, despite the comforts she has created for herself. I do think she falls too easily when she forces the Nameless One to fight her. She also falls too easily when the Nameless One's Mortality strikes her down.

For that matter, Annah, Dak'kon, Grace, and Nordom fell way too easily to the Nameless One's Mortality and his minions. Dak'kon, in particular, could have taken down dozens of shadows before he fell if I had played him, and Grace's lightning bolts would made the Nameless One's Mortality feel some serious pain. Annah and Nordom didn't have a chance if the Nameless One's Mortality is immune to +3 weapons or highly resistant to physical damage. But in any case, I thought it was kind of strange that the same characters who fell so easily the first time they met him could defeat him so easily if the Nameless One chose to follow the path of steel instead of finding a more peaceful solution.

For that matter, the Nameless One's Mortality is way too easy to defeat in battle. I guess a lot of people would have been disappointed if you couldn't fight him and win. But the non-violent solutions are a lot more gratifying, in my opinion.

I admit there's something I don't understand. Why did Ravel pretend to let the Nameless One kill her? She mentioned some kind of "requirement that was set down long ago". What was that all about? What was Ravel planning to do after she faked her own death? Where exactly did her encounter with the Nameless One's Mortality take place? And if the Nameless One suffers amnesia again and forgets that he "killed" Ravel, what good does it do?

The Nameless One's Mortality wants the Nameless One to lose all of his memories permanently. That's why he sends assassins to kill the Nameless One, and it's also the reason why he sent assassins to kill people like Pharod who could help the Nameless One recover his memories after dying. According to such logic, the Nameless One's Mortality should have tried to kill Trias and Ravel as well. If the Nameless One could kill Trias, then surely the Nameless One's Mortality could do it, since the Nameless One's Mortality gains all of the benefits of the Nameless One's experience due to the link between them and never loses any of HIS powers to amnesia.

That brings up another interesting subject: what the Nameless One becomes when he merges with his Mortality, especially if he has merged with the "Good Incarnation" (you know that's his original incarnation, right?) and uses the Bronze Sphere/sensory stone to learn about his past and remember his name. All that power, and now he's doomed to fight in the Blood War.

Obviously, a fate like that is hard to avoid. But the question arises, why does it have to happen so soon? From what I gather, the Nameless One is not far from death when he is finally reunited with his Mortality. No more immortality, obviously. But the Transcendental One has power over life and death, and surely he has some power to prolong his own life. He mentions that something is coming to get him. Is it an irresistable power that kills him instantly and sends him to the lower Planes? It must be something very powerful if it can reach him inside the Fortress of Regrets, which is supposed to be completely cut off from the Planes.

Back to the original subject, the encounter with Ravel in her maze is easily the most interesting dialogue I've ever seen in a game. I never expected her to be in love with the Nameless One. Her remarks about mortality are very interesting. And the whole thing is just so weird and otherworldly, it's easy to become immersed in it. It's definitely one of the high points of the game. But then you learn that you've been tricked, and the strangest creature you've ever seen appears and kills her "again". That voice!

I thought I wasn't sure what to do before I met Ravel. After speaking to her, I thought maybe it wouldn't be too hard to find the Nameless One's "mortality" and I thought that maybe things would be a little easier from then on. But I didn't realize that his Mortality had such a strong will of its own. After watching it kill Ravel, I was just as apprehensive as I was before, no matter how much wiser I had become. "Just when you thought you had reached a turning point..." It's amazing how the game went from one level to the next.

I also wonder exactly what was going on between Ravel and the Nameless One's Mortality. Did she only pretend to be in love with the Nameless One? She was rather condescending, after all, and not completely sincere, as it turns out. Did she love the Nameless One's Mortality even more? I'll try to dig up a few choice quotes.

Originally posted by fable
Ravel, for instance: she's evil, isn't she? And yet--she has a soft spot for the NO. All her fractured personalities that he/you see are neutral or good, and all will help you. Chaotic Neutral? No; there are many reliable references to her malicious nature and her lack of concern for life throughout the game. Is she an evil character capable of roleplaying good and neutral? This begs the question, IMO. She is what she is, and the tidy, airtight alignment divisions simply don't fit her.

According to Deionarra's prophecy she is Neutral, though this may be referring to Law/Chaotic neutrality... but considering the other two mentioned are Good and Evil, I think it does mean Good/Evil neutrality... And her alignment in her CRE file is "Neutral" (True Neutral).

Originally posted by VonDondu
I admit there's something I don't understand. Why did Ravel pretend to let the Nameless One kill her? She mentioned some kind of "requirement that was set down long ago". What was that all about?

She was trying to trick TTO, not Nameless. She knew TTO was coming to kill her so she decided to fake her death in her encounter with Nameless to try and trick TTO so he'd think "Well, she's already dead so I don't have to kill her" and so she'd still get to live. It didn't work, and TTO tells her to stop messing around and then kills her.
The "requirement" was simply that TTO wanted her dead so she could never help Nameless find him again.

Originally posted by VonDondu
According to such logic, the Nameless One's Mortality should have tried to kill Trias and Ravel as well.

Huh? He did kill Ravel.
And he was hoping that Nameless would kill Trias for him, as he doesn't like leaving the Fortress. But now that Nameless has led him to Trias he plans on taking care of the situation eventually, if Nameless hasn't already killed him. He tells you about it in some sound files right before you fight him, if you fight him. It's the "No, that is no longer possible..." thing. Which sounds play change depending on whether or not you've killed Trias and whether or not you've betrayed/killed Fhjull (who is also one of the "links").

Originally posted by VonDondu
He mentions that something is coming to get him. Is it an irresistable power that kills him instantly and sends him to the lower Planes? It must be something very powerful if it can reach him inside the Fortress of Regrets, which is supposed to be completely cut off from the Planes.

He says it is Time and Fate itself that is coming for him. Not too easy to avoid - unless, of course, you've been separated from your mortality and your name lost to everyone and everything.

Originally posted by VonDondu
I also wonder exactly what was going on between Ravel and the Nameless One's Mortality. Did she only pretend to be in love with the Nameless One? She was rather condescending, after all, and not completely sincere, as it turns out. Did she love the Nameless One's Mortality even more?

What? Why do you think it was a lie that she loved Nameless?
I don't think there is a reason to believe she was lying about anything except for the end where she forces a fight with you, which was just so she wouldn't get killed by TTO (which failed).
If you talk to Fall-From-Grace after meeting Ravel and say you might love Annah, you can get some interesting dialog from her;
"Before you seek to guard others from your feelings, know this - love is powerful, so powerful that it found its way into Ravel's twisted black heart and its touch caused her to value another more than herself. Do you not know the *strength* required to change a heart such as Ravel's? For all the pain it may have caused, I think there is something to be said for the good it has created."

Did you copy this thred from Interplay's forums, or did someone from Interplay's forum copy this, Fable? 'Cause I found a nearly identical thred in Interplay's forum.

The same topics pop up not only across the boards, but across time (check the archives of some Torment forums, it's all the same stuff).

Originally posted by Mikael Skiffard
Did you copy this thred from Interplay's forums, or did someone from Interplay's forum copy this, Fable? 'Cause I found a nearly identical thred in Interplay's forum.

I've been to Interplay's BG2 and IWD2 forums on a few occasions, but never checked out their PS:T one. It doesn't surprise me that this topic would appear there, or anywhere that PS:T maniacs exist. I don't think you'd find a serious thread considering the ethical substrata of Haer'dalis or anyone else in BG2 for very long, much as I love the game; but PS:T...? Definitely.

According to Deionarra's prophecy she is Neutral, though this may be referring to Law/Chaotic neutrality... but considering the other two mentioned are Good and Evil, I think it does mean Good/Evil neutrality... And her alignment in her CRE file is "Neutral" (True Neutral).

I agree with this. Platter's hit on one of the failings of the AD&D alignment system: neutrality can mean either commitment to neutrality, or a self-willed choice of actions based on personal criteria that has no external links to objective moral systems. They aren't the same, and Ravel's neutrality is the latter.

Is Ravel, then, truly dead? If the NO's Mortality has killed her, I would think so--but she's clearly one of the trickiest beings in the dimensions, judging by her actions as revealed in PS:T; the kind of character about whom Philip Jose Farmer might say "they probably meet themselves coming around the corner."

Well at least one point can be made for Ravel`s survival:

Mebbeth , Ei-Vene and Marta all lives when you return after your little tour of the planes.

Ei-Vene and Marta are no where to be found when you get back, and Mebbeth dies soon afterwards.

Oh, VonDondu, about Ravel really loving you;
Did you talk to Mebbeth after you got back to Sigil and have a Black-Barbed Seed to give her? One of the most touching scenes in the game...

I must have interpreted things a little differently from the rest of you.

First of all, Ravel is truly dead when the Nameless One's Mortality kills her. Ei-Vene and Marta disappear, and Old Mebbeth is dying if you go to see her. As Mebbeth explains, the threads of Ravel's multi-layered existence are unraveling, and she doesn't have much time.

If you ask Mebbeth how it's possible that she doesn't know who she really is, she says, "How is it *ye* do not know yerself?" Mebbeth licks her lips. "Many things... even bits of the self... they fall through memory's cracks, shadows of things forgotten, these memory thing-pieces, maybe bad... maybe good... Here, in this place, all I did was the mendin' of things and bodies, settin' bones, deliverin' babes... In all these things, I was content." She sighs. "As for being that *other,* that Ravel..." She licks her lips again. "I think... ye take for granted what a comfort it would be, oft times, to misplace a memory or two..."

As she's dying, she says, "Little time remains... the threads, these Ravels... they are unraveling as we speak... My end... it's traveling from all of time's directions, all of Ravel's threads are unraveling..."

Mebbeth is like a splinter of Ravel's personality, yet she is distinct from "Ravel", much as the Nameless One's incarnations are distinct from one another.

Mebbeth isn't really "Ravel" if we take Mebbeth at her word. But in the end, Ravel comes to the surface (just as all of the Nameless One's incarnations come to the surface and merge in the end, which is literally the end of his life). Mebbeth has always been kind and helpful. But speaking through Mebbeth, Ravel says that *she* herself has performed only a few acts of kindness: 1) trying to release the Lady of Pain from the cage known as Sigil, 2) extending the Nameless One's life, and 3) something she has done (or wanted to do) for her daughter, Kesai, but which she doesn't explain. She goes on to say, "There is a saying on the Planes... that a hag's kindness is crueler... than her hate, and poisons all it touches..." Mebbeth never hurt anybody, but Ravel's *three* acts of kindness have hurt, or would have hurt, lots of people. (Opening Sigil to everything and everyone, causing others to die in the Nameless One's place, and injuring her own daughter first through the ignorance of who she was and then the knowledge of it.) If you ask Mebbeth/Ravel if she's in pain, she nods and says, "Yes... yet it is the irony which hurts the most..." She gives a sickly smile. "An act of kindness, thrice repaid... it is the way of the Planes that my few acts of kindness should be the death of me." She laughs softly. "Yet I have no regrets..."

There's a dialogue option that lets you say, "I mourn Mebbeth's passing, but not [Ravel's]." This means that it's possible for you to care for Mebbeth even if you don't care for Ravel. That doesn't sound illogical or unreasonable to me. Since Ravel herself has distinct incarnations, that's one of the reasons why I wondered if Ravel loved the Nameless One's *CURRENT* incarnation just as much as she loved his orginal incarnation. Does she love the Paranoid Incarnation and the Practical Incarnation just as much? Ravel also indicates that she loves the Nameless One's Mortality. When you ask her to give the Nameless One's mortality back to him (without realizing that his Mortality is actually a separate creature now with a will of its own), Ravel says, "Ravel *cannot* give such a thing to you, my precious man, for Ravel has *nothing* to give... I never possessed *you* or your mortality... though I wished to keep them both in my garden as selfish affection's keepsakes, trace the patterns of your flesh... but such things Ravel could not bring herself to do..." That's when it becomes clear that Ravel loves the Nameless One...and his Mortality, as well.

I didn't understand what was going on when Ravel got into a fight with the Nameless One's Mortality and got killed, but I thought perhaps that she was in league with him somehow. I didn't realize that he had come to kill her. Maybe it was just barminess on her part, but if she had wanted him to think that she was dead, she shouldn't have said, "Away with you! I'm dead now." And I still don't understand what she meant by "the requirements set down long ago." I thought that maybe she had made some kind of pact with him. When she said, "This incarnation is very strong," that meant that she recognized their individuality. It also seemed a bit condescending to me, and it made me wonder what she really thought of him. In any case, I didn't think that we should trust everything that Ravel said. She's a tricky one, you know.

I did think that some of the things she said were insightful, though. For example, when she explains why the Nameless One is "broken", she says, "My pretty, pretty thing, there is much wisdom and understanding in the truth that life is a preparation for the ultimate goal: death. Our life is a means by which we learn *how* to die. If we FORGET such things... Without the mortality to hold such memories tight, the body is a shell..."

And of course, all the talk about love changing Ravel's black-brambled heart is very touching. Only a very strong kind of love could do something like that. But I still think it's appropriate to ask, *who* does she love?

When it comes to Ravel's alignment, I don't think it makes any difference what her character file says it is. You're not supposed to see it in the first place, and that sort of thing isn't reliable, anyway. In BG2, Jon Irenicus's character record says that he's Chaotic Good (as if), Drizzt wears his scimitar on his head (I guess he wields it with his teeth), and chickens are 1st Level Mages, among other silly things. I really don't think we should take all of that at face value.

There's one other thing. Deionnara said, "You shall meet enemies three, but none more dangerous than yourself in your full glory. They are shades of evil, of good, and of neutrality given life and twisted by the laws of the planes." I thought that she was referring to the Good Incarnation, the Practical Incarnation, and the Paranoid Incarnation. (I geared up for a big fight that never came.) If Ravel was one of them (the Neutral one), then who are the other two?

@ VonDondu --

For that matter, Annah, Dak'kon, Grace, and Nordom fell way too easily to the Nameless One's Mortality and his minions. Dak'kon, in particular, could have taken down dozens of shadows before he fell if I had played him, and Grace's lightning bolts would made the Nameless One's Mortality feel some serious pain. Annah and Nordom didn't have a chance if the Nameless One's Mortality is immune to +3 weapons or highly resistant to physical damage.

Why did you take them with you?

Morte said that last time we were divided as soon as we entered there. If we were divided that meant that my companions would be slaughtered not very long after. Why to do that to them?

I had had *real* regrets, believe it or not. I left them all outside taking with me all of their healing potions. They wouldn't need them, anyway, but I would.

I didn't manage to kill a single Greater Shadow, and I run from one hall to another climbing stairs up and down like a maniac, while I was trying to figure out what I was supposed to do. My heart was ready to explode. I found the portal by chance and was saved just before the Shadows feast on my dead body.

And, I hadn't understood that Nameless One was going to fight in the Blood War. Thanks for filling up the blank.

Comments?
PS:T is the BEST BLOODY GAME EVER!!!!


Cheers

Originally posted by VonDondu
There's one other thing. Deionnara said, "You shall meet enemies three, but none more dangerous than yourself in your full glory. They are shades of evil, of good, and of neutrality given life and twisted by the laws of the planes." I thought that she was referring to the Good Incarnation, the Practical Incarnation, and the Paranoid Incarnation. (I geared up for a big fight that never came.) If Ravel was one of them (the Neutral one), then who are the other two?

That "given life" bit doesn't fit me well, but could they be the deva, Trias (Good), and Nameless One's Mortality (Evil)? A rough guess though.


Cheers

Originally posted by Aubrey
Why did you take them with you?

Morte said that last time we were divided as soon as we entered there. If we were divided that meant that my companions would be slaughtered not very long after. Why to do that to them?

I took them with me because they wanted to come. As Morte and others might have explained to you, the people who have traveled with the Nameless One wear the mark of Torment just like the Nameless One does. Their fate is tied to his. The only way they will ever feel any peace is to help the Nameless One find a satisfactory conclusion to his quest. If you play it the right way, it pays off. Consider the alternative: the Nameless One steps through the Portal to the Fortress of Regrets and never returns, and they have no idea what has happened to him. Not very satisfactory, in my opinion.

I'm about to tell you a few spoilers. They are things that you might have seen without understanding what they really were. First of all, Annah and Fall-From-Grace can fall in love with the Nameless One if you treat them well. That makes the ending of the game particularly bittersweet. Dak'kon is sworn to die in the service of the Nameless One, and he can't be released from that service unless he stays with you until the end. Morte is the Nameless One's familiar, which means he has no idea where else to go. Nordom sees the Nameless One as his Creative Director, and he also feels a strong sense of gratitude for the new sense of identity that the Nameless One has given them. They would be very disappointed if the Nameless One abandoned them.

When the group enters the Fortress, they are indeed separated. What happens to them is the stuff of great drama, and you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't allow yourself to see it. Even if they fall, the Nameless One is able to resurrect them. You just need to have faith that everything will turn out for the best, and you have to do your best to make sure it happens.

There are several different ways for the game to end. You can either fight the Nameless One's Mortality or convince him to merge with the Nameless One. If the Nameless One manages to learn his true name, he can even make himself cease to exist. Did you ever get into a debate with Delora at the Brothel? If so, the Nameless One might have recovered a memory in which he made another man cease to exist simply by convincing him that he didn't. The Nameless One has ungodly powers, if only you can tap them.

How did you deal with the three other incarnations that you met--the Good Incarnation, the Practical Incarnation, and the Paranoid Incarnation? If you want some spoilers, I could tell you a few things about them.

It would really be nice if you had a saved game so you could re-do the Fortress of Regrets and see all of these things for yourself.

As for the Shadows, they're easy to avoid and outrun if you know where you're going. If you want to fight them, you can let them swarm you and then cast Blacksphere, which will immobilize them while you destroy them. Or if you don't want to fight them, you can still use Blacksphere if you ever get swarmed by them. You can also get buffed up with Blur, Luck, Black-Barbed Shield, Submerge the Will, or lots of other spells that make you harder to hit.

Originally posted by Aubrey
That "given life" bit doesn't fit me well, but could they be the deva, Trias (Good), and Nameless One's Mortality (Evil)? A rough guess though.

The Nameless One's Mortality doesn't seem all that evil to me, so I would call him Neutral. Trias strikes me as evil, and I definitely wouldn't call him Good. Besides, Ravel, Trias, and the Nameless One's Mortality don't seem like "three" to me. But the three incarnations you meet in the Fortress of Regrets do seem like "three" to me. For what it's worth, their character records show them as Good (the Good Incarnation), Neutral (the Practical Incarnation), and Evil (the Paranoid Incarnation), so it fits the scheme perfectly. The reason why they're "enemies" is because each of them would like to absorb the Nameless One (the current incarnation) and become the dominant personality, creating a contest of will among the Nameless One's fractured identities. The Practical Incarnation is particularly dangerous.

Personally, the Practical Incarnation strikes me as the most evil of the three, but I've been known to disagree about a lot of things like that. His remorselessness, cold-bloodedness, and sheer ruthlessness don't strike me as Neutral, whether he's practical or not. He certainly isn't Lawful; he's as deceitful as can be. Look at what he did to poor Deionarra. He even lies to the Nameless One (the current incarnation) to trick him.

For that matter, the Good Incarnation might be misnamed. If you uncovered his secret, you know what I'm talking about. It also goes a long way to explain why everything has turned out the way it did.

Lol fable, mind if I borrow that hat?

Originally posted by VonDondu
When it comes to Ravel's alignment, I don't think it makes any difference what her character file says it is. You're not supposed to see it in the first place, and that sort of thing isn't reliable, anyway. In BG2, Jon Irenicus's character record says that he's Chaotic Good (as if), Drizzt wears his scimitar on his head (I guess he wields it with his teeth), and chickens are 1st Level Mages, among other silly things. I really don't think we should take all of that at face value.

This is not really the case in Torment. All the main characters are pretty true in their CRE alignments. And alignment in a CRE has in-game effects, for things like weapons and spells that effect certain aligned creatures, or "Detect Evil" spells.
Anyway, that was just sort of an addition, it wasn't my main evidence.
BTW, The Transcendent One has a script that changes his alignment to the opposite of whatever Nameless One's is.

Originally posted by VonDondu
There's one other thing. Deionnara said, "You shall meet enemies three, but none more dangerous than yourself in your full glory. They are shades of evil, of good, and of neutrality given life and twisted by the laws of the planes." I thought that she was referring to the Good Incarnation, the Practical Incarnation, and the Paranoid Incarnation. (I geared up for a big fight that never came.) If Ravel was one of them (the Neutral one), then who are the other two?

Chris Avellone was the Lead Designer of Torment, and personally wrote the dialog of Deionarra and Ravel.
Originally posted by Chris Avellone;
"It's been a while, but here's the deal:

"You shall meet enemies three, but none more dangerous than yourself in your full glory (The Transcendent One). They are shades of evil (Fhjull), of good (Trias), and of neutrality (Ravel) given life and twisted by the laws of the planes."

Ravel = Neutrality, twisted by the planes - even though she's done some nasty things, I always considered her more a neutral figure than an evil one.

Trias = Good, twisted by the planes.

...and here's the kicker that will no doubt inspire many flames:

Fhjull = Evil, twisted by the planes. Even though he does nothing against you directly, he wants you dead - and there's hints he's done horrible stuff to you in the past. I imagine he's the hardest one to believe, but he hates the Nameless One with a passion... even if he can't quite remember the Nameless One when they first meet.

The Transcendent One was referred to in the same line, "none more dangerous than yourself in your full glory."

Hope this helps,

Chris"

If that was Chris Avellone's intent, then I'll take him at his word. But that's not what his words meant to me when I read them. That's the problem with obscurity: if a person's writing is too ambiguous, then it can mean anything. And if it can mean anything, then it doesn't mean anything at all.

I don't have a problem seeing Fhjull as the Evil one. But I was expecting a different kind of encounter when Deionarra said the Nameless One would "meet enemies": I thought there would actually be a *confrontation* in the game. As long as Trias lives, Fhjull doesn't pose a threat to anyone. If Trias dies, then Fhjull is freed and he can seek vengeance on the Nameless One after the game is over (for whatever cause that makes him feel he needs vengeance). But since he isn't more any more dangerous than the Nameless One (the Transcendent One) in his full glory, then I guess there's nothing to worry about.

If Ravel is supposed to be Neutral, so be it. People can call her whatever they want to. But there's something else I do have a problem with. Is Ravel really the Nameless One's "enemy"? I just don't see it that way. When she attacked him, it was a trick, and she didn't intend to hurt him. If Deionarra could see the truth, then why did she call Ravel an "enemy"?

For that matter, I don't see why Fhjull and Trias are the Nameless One's "enemies". If the Nameless One left them alone, would they pose any threat to him? If anyone is the Nameless One's "enemy", isn't it his Mortality? But he's not even considered one of the "three". Maybe I'm missing something. But as it is, the prophecy doesn't make much sense to me.

BTW, the CRE file says that the Practical Incarnation is "Lawful Neutral". The game assigns an alignment to the Player Character based on an internal code. According to that internal code, the Practical Incarnation couldn't possibly be Lawful, and I can't picture him doing enough Good things to keep his alignment from being Evil. What is your opinion on that?

Originally posted by VonDondu
If anyone is the Nameless One's "enemy", isn't it his Mortality? But he's not even considered one of the "three". Maybe I'm missing something.

Well, yea, he's mentioned as being even more powerful than the three!

Originally posted by VonDondu
BTW, the CRE file says that the Practical Incarnation is "Lawful Neutral". The game assigns an alignment to the Player Character based on an internal code. According to that internal code, the Practical Incarnation couldn't possibly be Lawful, and I can't picture him doing enough Good things to keep his alignment from being Evil. What is your opinion on that?

You shouldn't really judge character's alignments based on the way the game decides it for the player. When deciding the alignment of a character where you can actually choose it outright and you know the character (because you made it), it doesn't have to follow the simple 2 variable scale. The way the player's alignment is decided in the game is by no means perfect, and can't be as good as someone really watching your actions and deciding personally.
The game's decision of the player's alignment is a calculation. As evidenced by Chris' post, the pre-made character's alignments seems to be more of a gut feeling, if anything, while still keeping the official definitions in mind. Taking their personality into account more than there actions. But all there is for the player is actions. This is a limitation - one that is not so when considering the alignment of a character who already has a personality and motivations that are mapped out.

By the game's system, Ravel would definitely be Evil (that poor guy from the Sensory Stone...), but she is Neutral. If you think about it, if Vhailor were judged the same way the player is, he would probably be Chaotic Evil. And there'd be no way Morte would reach Good.
In the game, you can maintain Lawful Good while still murdering thugs - even if they don't strike first - just to get more experience or because you damn well feel like killing someone. In the end that Law or Good variable is not getting a -1 because of it.

There could be multiple explanations given for Practical's alignment. Obeying a society's laws is not the only "lawful" thing.
He seems like he must be a very organized person. He kept record of a lot, sometimes just writing for days (as Xachariah tells you). He was obviously a great believer in a strict hierarchy, keeping his "companions" practically as slaves. And as the "Longing" sensory stone mentions, usually "There are no lies, only cold calculations." He lies when it is absolutely necessary, but most of the time it is just avoidance of the truth and leading on (which the game does not penalize the player for - the "bluff" options cause no Law decrease, and you can often trick people into doing and telling you things so that you don't have to break a vow).

On the Good/Evil scale for him... yes he seems Evil to me too. But the descriptions given for him make him seem pretty emotionless.
First of all, consider his very name! Obviously a clue to the creator's opinion on this matter (either that or some form of sarcasm). He doesn't bother going for the most "Good" option, but he's not the serial killer "Paranoid" was. He kills if he thinks he has to, not because he particularly wants to. I guess it depends on whether you consider not caring one way or the other about people Evil or Neutral. The same problem fable mentioned.
Some things he does are pretty evil, but consider the extreme situation he's in. He purposefully got Deionarra killed, but he was hoping it would lead to the end of him being killed countless times. It's also important to note that he went about it so that she did it willingly. Coldhearted, but in the end very different from sticking the knife in her himself. More like the "bluff" options...

But he's definitely an assh*le...

Various issues

@ VonDondu --

I'm about to tell you a few spoilers. They are things that you might have seen without understanding what they really were. First of all, Annah and Fall-From-Grace can fall in love with the Nameless One if you treat them well. That makes the ending of the game particularly bittersweet. Dak'kon is sworn to die in the service of the Nameless One, and he can't be released from that service unless he stays with you until the end. Morte is the Nameless One's familiar, which means he has no idea where else to go. Nordom sees the Nameless One as his Creative Director, and he also feels a strong sense of gratitude for the new sense of identity that the Nameless One has given them. They would be very disappointed if the Nameless One abandoned them.

It might be that Dak'kon is sworn to die in my service, but I never liked that thing. In one of our many conversations I had told him I would made sure I would die so as he be freed from his vow. During the whole game I have been thinking my promise to Dak'kon and how to make it true. So, when the time came for us to enter the Fortress of Regrets, I thought it necessary to let him out of this, and go in myself alone.

Annah had falled in love with me, and that was another reason not to "sacrifice" her. Fall-from-Grace might be a tormented soul, but she could always go back to that brothel of hers. Nordom would be apparently lost away from his Creative Director, but is that a reason to have him killed in your service? I know, Nordom is just a robot, but still...

About Morte, well, I don't know what to say. He didn't like the idea to go inside. He even warned me of what had happened in the past. However, I wonder why it took him so long to tell me about it. Why he kept it secret from me? And if he kept it secret till that very moment, what other secrets he had had?

When I met the previous three incarnations of mine, and I asked the Practical Incarnation about the tattoo warning regarding the Skull, he said, "Leave him have his own secrets" or something like that (I'm not quoting his exact reply). What it was supposed to mean?

Another reason I didn't take them with me was the question, "What would happen to them once they're dead?" Would they become shadows and remained prisoners in there? Considering the fact that everyone who died in my stead or because of me became shadow looking for revenge, I didn't found it impossible to happen. So, was it what I really wanted for my companions? No, it wasn't, and that's why leaving them out of this made sense to me.

How did you deal with the three other incarnations that you met--the Good Incarnation, the Practical Incarnation, and the Paranoid Incarnation? If you want some spoilers, I could tell you a few things about them.

I asked them all the questions I could and finally merged with them. There was no problem with the Good Incarnation, neither with the Practical one. There had been some problem with the Paranoid Incarnation, because I pushed him too hard once and he turned against me, but I reloaded and followed a softer, more reassuring path the second time. I then spoke to him using the Ugo (spl?) language and he soon calmed down and surrendered to me.

The Nameless One's Mortality doesn't seem all that evil to me, so I would call him Neutral. Trias strikes me as evil, and I definitely wouldn't call him Good.

To my eyes, NO's Mortality is evil, whether you agree or not. He has become an entity of his (its) own and has no hesitation to kill anyone in NO's stead as long as NO stays alive, which is for his best interest.

As for Trias, I believe him being absolutely Good, and he's the one, I believe, for whose sake the phrase "twisted by the planes" was invented. He's the Good incarnated, and his story, in my opinion anyway, shows that a moment of weakness, or a breach in one's faith and belief, or even a momentarily feeling of futility are capable of bringing up chaos. Don't forget that if you redeem him, he will return to Paradise asking for forgiveness. This is not what an evil creature would normally do.

Anyway, I might be rambling nonsense here, but that's how I perceive in-game events and how interprete them. And, I will repeat that game's uniqueness is more or less based on the feelings and their impact on the player. A true role-playing game-novel.


Cheers

^ You can raise them all when they die at the end. You missed some good parts of their connections to you if you didn't bring them to the Fortress. It's like skipping a part of the story for no reason.
And did you find out the Good Incarnation's secret, and use the Bronze Sphere?

Originally posted by Platter
^ You can raise them all when they die at the end. You missed some good parts of their connections to you if you didn't bring them to the Fortress. It's like skipping a part of the story for no reason.
And did you find out the Good Incarnation's secret, and use the Bronze Sphere?

Yes, I found his secret, used the Bronze Sphere, but still can't be sure about the name. I know, however, the name itself doesn't play an important part, it's the knowledge you achieve that counts. But still, the name remains a mystery...

I replayed the Fortress of Regrets; it was Morte's trick that added a bit to the story, plus that Dak'kon had been there before. But this is a bit weird, isn't it? If he had been there before and died, how was that I found him later in the Hive's Bar?

As to their connection to me, wasn't it clear before about the tormented souls, etc.? or, is there anything else you have in mind?


Cheers

Aubrey, here are my responses to some of the issues you raised, based on my own interpretation of events. I'm open to comments, suggestions, and differences of opinion.

By the game's inner logic, if Dak'kon dies in your service, he is released from your service, even if you resurrect him. So letting him fight shadows and then resurrecting him is the best thing you could do for him.

Fall-From-Grace could return to the Brothel if she wanted to, but she doesn't want to, even after the Nameless One is taken away. In my game, she wanted to stay with him always, and she promised to look for him in the Lower Planes, no matter how long it took.

Nordom is not a robot; he's a construct. His body is made out of "gear spirits", which are alive in their own way. Yes, Modrons are very weird. But so are creatures made of flesh and blood.

Morte did not really keep any secrets from the Nameless One. Morte had no idea what the Fortress of Regrets was because the Practical Incarnation didn't "share the chant" with anybody, not even his own party members. Morte remembered going there, but he didn't why know the party went there, and he didn't understand what happened there. He spent all of his time there running away from shadows, then all of a sudden, he was transported back to Sigil, and that's all that he knew about the place. If you don't know something, how can you keep it "secret"?

When the Practical Incarnation told the Nameless One to "let the skull have his secrets", I think all he meant was that most of Morte's knowledge had turned out to be pretty useless, so it didn't matter if he kept a few things to himself. Also, if you asked Grace how she felt about you, she told you, "A woman must have her secrets." Everyone is entitled to a few.

In my opinion, the Nameless One's Mortality acts out of self-defense, not malice. He tells everyone who comes to the Fortress of Regrets that they should leave, and he kills them only if they refuse to leave. The first time the Nameless One and his party went there and got killed, their deaths were not permanent, with the exception of Deionarra, who the Nameless One himself murdered. But their deaths caused all of them to lose something. The Nameless One lost his memories. Morte lost his courage. Dak'kon no longer *knew* himself. I'm not sure what Xachariah lost, but he died on the street soon afterward. The Nameless One's Mortality didn't murder them; quite mercifully, he neutralized them and sent them back to Sigil where they couldn't harm him. That's why Dak'kon was in the bar.

In my opinion, the Nameless One's Mortality does not "kill without hesitation"; he gives everyone a chance to stop threatening his existence and kills them only as a last resort. Since the Nameless One's current party was so persistent, he decided to kill them permanently to serve as a warning to others who might threaten him. He takes no pleasure in causing death. He wants to avoid the need to kill anyone else. Even when he sends shadows to kill the Nameless One, the purpose is not to harm him, but to make him to forget where to find his Mortality. That doesn't strike me as evil. The only outright murders that the Nameless One's mortality has committed are Pharod and Ravel, both of whom deserved death for their terrible crimes and the continuing threat they posed to everyone around them.

When creatures die in the Fortress of Regrets, they don't become shadows. They either stay dead permanently if the Nameless One's Mortality wills it, or they can be resurrected if the Nameless One's Mortality wills it. There's no reason why they would become shadows. The shadows are created when the Nameless One dies: another person dies in his place, allowing him to continue living, and the other person becomes a shadow who hates him for it. But as Deionarra explains, the Fortress of Regrets is cut off from the Planes. If the Nameless One is killed there, he will die permanently because no one else can die in his place. That's why Deionarra warns him to leave, even if it means abandoning his companions, who are probably "already dead". That's why the Nameless One must have faith and believe that he can get all of them safely out of there.

I think it's pretty clear that you can't pigeon-hole people when it comes to alignment. Take the Good Incarnation, for example. The crimes in his life were so great, the Nameless One will suffer eternal damnation. Regret changed his nature, and he sought immortality to make amends for his crimes, but it was too late, and when he lost his memories, he lost his purpose and couldn't pursue his goal. I don't know how many good deeds he would have to perform to redeem himself, but if it would take him a thousand lifetimes to do it, then he hasn't been redeemed, and I'm not sure he deserves the title of "Good". But personally, I don't think a label like that matters. The only reason I bring it up is because a game like this involves an alignment system. If we're ready to declare that it is irrelevant, it wouldn't bother me.