Npc question

gnomethingy · Post by **gnomethingy** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 3:49 am

Possibly this is a dumb post, maybe. Definatly, this is a dumb post... but thats never stoped me so far

Bioware did a good job adding "Flavour" to there collection of npc's, unfortunatly this "Flavour" mostly takes shape in mental disabilities and emmotional issues... I havent made this a poll, for it would be to big and stoopid (and already is)

But im interesting to know... Who is the npc, in your view that is most crippled and bok, barely able to function and such

I say they all are.... Saving o course Korgan, Imoen, Keldorn, Mazzy and Maaaaybe Valygar

Soul Reaper · Post by **Soul Reaper** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 11:13 am

in my opinion

agree, but Valygar isn´t an exeption

valygar sucks, he has a huge ego , wich is not justified with his fighting skills. he acts kind of cool at the begining (maybe just because you have just saved his life).

i have to admit that I like to have Minsc in my party, he is so stupid it makes me laugh, specially when Edwin Odesseiron is playing arround with his pittyful little brain............

resuming, everyone, but the ones in your list, are really f***** up

i think i killed Anomen, i just couldn´t take that bastard anymore

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 11:47 am

I suppose it's one of the tenets of literature that fictional characters can't be interesting unless they have problems and imperfections. I agree that Bioware sometimes took that idea too far. But I do think that BG2 is a big improvement over BG1. In BG1, the main thing that gives the NPCs any "character" is their griping, which is hardly satisfying to me. At least in BG2, the NPCs are fleshed out and have some interesting things to say.

The only characters who can be considered dysfunctional in combat are the ones who will kill other members of your party or leave in a huff if they're unhappy. If Evil NPCs storm away because your Reputation is too high, I wouldn't necessarily say that they are dysfunctional; but I would definitely say that your PARTY is dysfunctional, and you should reconsider your party composition.

Even one of the "weakest" characters, Aerie, won't leave your group if you take group harmony into consideration and if you answer her complaints with the right responses. That is, if you YOURSELF make wise decisions. Same with Anomen. He needs your guidance. He fails his Test only if YOU make bad decisions. What kind of leader do you think you are? As a leader, you need to deal with people's problems. Whether you're good at it or awful at it is a measure of your own character.

Even a character who is emotionally scarred can be effective in combat. Look at Korgan. Yes, Korgan. Korgan is violent and bloodthirsty because he HAS PROBLEMS, people. Just accept it. But it makes him effective in combat, so what do you care?

There are other measures of emotional problems besides weakness in combat. Most of them don't affect game play, but if you have any interest in the characters, you'll see them crop up. For example, Keldorn never sleeps at home; he'd rather sleep at the Order of the Radiant Heart, even though he loves his family more than anything in the world. Doesn't that seem messed up to you? THAT's dysfunctional.

The NPC who has the greatest strength of character is definitely Mazzy. She never falters in her convictions, and she never complains about the losses she has suffered. If you don't think she's good in combat, it's not because of any emotional problems; it's because you just don't think she's strong enough. If that's the case, then you're better off with a big, psychotic brute who kills at your command, since that's the only kind of party member you're capable of leading.

gnomethingy · Post by **gnomethingy** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 4:30 am

Its not a question of leading, its a question of how mentaly unstable the Characters well uh character is

There only one npc in the whole series whos issues affect his fighting and that khalid, with his low morale

Its not a question of how well they fight, its a question of there dialogues and how screwed in the head they are....

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 5:08 am

Originally posted by gnomethingy
Its not a question of how well they fight, its a question of there dialogues and how screwed in the head they are....

The characters in the game are definitely not "screwed in the head."

Several have gone through some pretty hellish times, but they've adapted incredibly well, and come out on top. Think of an analogy: if you'd actually been born and raised in an intense warzone, watched your home get bombed, your sisters raped, and fought for food for years, how well do you think *you* would adapt? I don't think I'd have done one-quarter as well as the sturdy survivors available for your party. Each one not merely came away with valuable lessons, but they've also risen far in their respective professions. Their experiences has given them power: power over themselves, power to interpret what happens around them.

Being "screwed in the head" isn't a matter of having an opinion or outlook that differs from the self-defining majority. It's a matter of failing to change, to grow.

Aqua-chan · Post by **Aqua-chan** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 7:05 am

Originally posted by VonDondu

Even one of the "weakest" characters, Aerie, won't leave your group if you take group harmony into consideration and if you answer her complaints with the right responses. That is, if you YOURSELF make wise decisions. Same with Anomen. He needs your guidance. He fails his Test only if YOU make bad decisions. What kind of leader do you think you are? As a leader, you need to deal with people's problems. Whether you're good at it or awful at it is a measure of your own character.

Allow me to severely disagree there, Von. While I respect how you take this into concept, there are other point of views that must also be respected.

I've never pulled the Aerie romance, so I'm not going to run off with that one. The Anomen romance, I know like the back of my hand. (Almost...) So, I'm going to use this to make my point:

You can mold the NPCs to fit your playing style. You get the choice whether or not you want to give Anomen advice for him to Fail, or advice to make him Pass. Neither one is "good" or "bad", it is just how you want the NPC to act in future situations that the party will be in. There is no such thing as a "bad decision"...This is a roleplaying game, and it's based on what your charactor would do if s/he were in these case scenarios.

No offense meant, I hope none was taken.

Time to shut my mouth now...

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 8:17 am

Your post does not offend me, Aqua-chan. FWIW, I have a degree in Philosophy. If I were the type of person who couldn't accept differences of opinion, I never would have made it.

In fact, I enjoy considering alternative points of view. Sometimes by challenging someone else's beliefs, I can sharpen my own beliefs, or revise them if something new comes to light. Or, if other people's beliefs are stupid enough, I might get a good laugh out of it.

Conflict is a creative dynamic. That's why in literature, plot is based on conflict. It creates a need to solve problems and work out differences. Tension between people keeps things interesting, especially if it's channeled towards a good purpose.

Besides, we're on the internet, and this is a messageboard. I know better than to take things here too seriously.

Soul Reaper · Post by **Soul Reaper** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 8:53 am

I think that baldurs gate is constantly pushing you to choose between good and evil, sometimes it even makes *you* to think about your true "aligment", so you get to know your self.
Obviously its not perfect, and the evil path is not completely convenient, going the evil way it should bring more material benefits, by evil I don’t mean that slaughter everywhere in Athkatla, but the possibility to lie and betray for your own benefit.

Many politicians do it in the real world, and well their "reputation" stays higher than the one of the cops who risk their life.

Personally I would play the righteous way, but it would be much more interesting if I had to choose between comfort and experience etc....

gnomethingy · Post by **gnomethingy** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 1:19 am

Originally posted by fable

The characters in the game are definitely not "screwed in the head." Several have gone through some pretty hellish times, but they've adapted incredibly well, and come out on top. Think of an analogy: if you'd actually been born and raised in an intense warzone, watched your home get bombed, your sisters raped, and fought for food for years, how well do you think *you* would adapt? I don't think I'd have done one-quarter as well as the sturdy survivors available for your party. Each one not merely came away with valuable lessons, but they've also risen far in their respective professions. Their experiences has given them power: power over themselves, power to interpret what happens around them.

Being "screwed in the head" isn't a matter of having an opinion or outlook that differs from the self-defining majority. It's a matter of failing to change, to grow.

I dont think anything this bad happened to any of the npc's in the game couse the funny thing is, the most bok npc's havent really had that hard a time of things
Think...
Keldorn, the man is angry phycotic and genocidal and has NO excuse
Jaheira is a self rightous, abusive and evil minded in a small and pety way and basicly acts more like a cn than tn and likewise, has no excuse
To name but two, neither of these pcs had to fight for food, ect infact Keldorn especially has had it easy

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 4:30 am

Originally posted by gnomethingy
I dont think anything this bad happened to any of the npc's in the game...

Come now: this is pretty well documented. Viconia was raised in a solitary culture where ruthlessness was expected from above, unquestioning obedience from below, and any attempt to change the pecking order was tested instantly by violence and death. Cruelty was prized as evidence of honor. Aeire was kidnapped, sold into slavery, tortured, and had her wings removed. Anomen's father, to whom he looked for guidance, love and respect, treated him savagely. Surely all this isn't news to anybody at this late date. These party NPCs' problems are visible, but they're hardly "screwed in the head," as you stated. They're trusty companions, people who have turned overwhelming handicaps into spurs for survival and growth. Like I wrote above, being "screwed in the head" isn't a matter of having an opinion or outlook that differs from the self-defining majority. It's a matter of failing to change, to grow.

Keldorn, the man is angry phycotic and genocidal and has NO excuse Jaheira is a self rightous, abusive and evil minded in a small and pety way and basicly acts more like a cn than tn and likewise, has no excuse

Maybe we're playing different games. Keldorn isn't psychotic in the BG2 I know of, but a man of honor and goodness, a champion of the underdog, sorely tested at one point. In fact, his anger only causes him to commit a crime if *you* encourage him to do that--so who's the psychotic, in that instance?

Nor is he genocidal; I don't recall any comments urging from him urging the destruction of an entire race of people. Jaheira doesn't abuse anybody. She snaps a bit at your hero, but can't you cut her a bit of slack after she's just seen her husband sliced open on a slab...? You appear a bit lacking in empathy.

"Evil-minded?" What's this? There's nothing evil about Jaheira. And even if there were, what does that have to do with being "screwed in the head," as you wrote?

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 12:41 pm

Originally posted by fable
Keldorn isn't psychotic in the BG2 I know of, but a man of honor and goodness, a champion of the underdog, sorely tested at one point. In fact, his anger only causes him to commit a crime if *you* encourage him to do that--so who's the psychotic, in that instance?

Nor is he genocidal; I don't recall any comments urging from him urging the destruction of an entire race of people...

I hate to quibble, but Keldorn does in fact advocate the destruction of the Sahuagin. (Jaheira questions his support of genocide.) You could also make the argument that he would kill all the Drow if he could. He tries to kill Viconia even though she hasn't committed any crime in his presence, just because he thinks she's a "demon".

As for killing his wife's "lover" and having her sent to prison or hanged for adultery or whatever, that's not a "crime" per se; in fact, that's supposedly what the law and honor and justice demand. You can steer him towards a merciful path that is far more beneficial for all concerned, but the traditional path is arguably not evil. Obviously, characters of different alignment see "the good" in different terms.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 4:19 am

Originally posted by VonDondu
I hate to quibble, but Keldorn does in fact advocate the destruction of the Sahuagin. (Jaheira questions his support of genocide.) You could also make the argument that he would kill all the Drow if he could.

I was actually waiting for that.

Let's remember that genocide in BG2 terms and genocide in realworld terms are really two words with entirely different meanings. In the realworld, genocide is an international crime against a culture, a people. In fantasy games like BG2, it's really a battle against *an alignment,* and its members who won't leave all the peacefully aligned people alone. When a paladin speaks for the destruction of all Sahaugin, or Drows, or Beholders, or anything similar, he's expressing his hatred of something that is actually, really, quintesentially *evil.* Genocide is not even a good word to use in such instances. Were the forces of the Rohan and the King guilty of genocide against the peoples of Sauron...? Who were the true aggressors? Wasn't it really a case of black and white? (These are rhetorical questions. Answering them is likely to gain you a visit from a large hill troll named Vito at 3 AM.)

So the word genocide really isn't applicable, IMO, to good/lawful types in BG2 who express a desire to destroy its evil races. If you really want to get in to a discussion of this, though, let's take it over to the SYM (Speak Your Mind) category.

He tries to kill Viconia even though she hasn't committed any crime in his presence, just because he thinks she's a "demon".

Just my point, above. Her people are by game definition an alignment who see their cultural goal lying in the subordination by force of other peoples. It's a very simplistic system that Gary Gygax developed. It's drawn from fantasy epics of various cultures, and suitable to great stories told around campsites and palace halls at night when the cold and dark are closing in. It speaks of myths and ideals. It's not adquate, IMO, for mirroring realworld conditions, or offering novels where character development and events come to the fore.

The Z · Post by **The Z** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 5:49 am

Valygar has a huge ego? Most of the time he doesn't say anything, and when he does, it's usually a question of his belief rather than "let's go kill mages".

Hesperus · Post by **Hesperus** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 6:51 am

@ Fable,
I think your assessment of alignment and the NPCs is really good (especially on *sigh* Viconia), but I think Gnomethingy has a point about genocide. I agree that 'genocide' is seen differently these days, but I think Keldorn's comments do qualify. Good/evil do have vague boundaries. I certainly agree that Keldorn is wholly committed to the good, a life of duty, and the protection of the many, but it seems to me that by paying too much attention to the racial stereotypes of drow, sahaugin, etc (evil races) he and others like him are paving the way to possible unforeseen negative consequences (like the slaughter of what are basically innocents, and the proposed treatment of his lonely wife). I think there are grounds for LG characters to be systematically led into error, by to much attention paid to the letter of the law. Good intentions, bad results type of deal. The law and what is right don't always go together. This is a reason why I have deeper problems role playing paladins--the law has to be correct for the project to really work, but how can we reliably tell if the law is right? Jaheria's reply to his comment in the underwater city is on to this I'd say, I think her point could be that in the universe's eyes, the evil races serve some important role in the overall balance of things. I hope I'm not sounding like a drunk gullydwarf, maybe a speak your mind on alignment, etc would be fun

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 5:23 pm

. I agree that 'genocide' is seen differently these days, but I think Keldorn's comments do qualify. Good/evil do have vague boundaries.

@Hesperus, I would never deny the accuracy of what you're saying in RL. But since Gary Gygax defined D&D (and subsequently AD&D) alignments very simply and rigidly as good/neutral/evil, I think my point still has, respectfully. some relevance. It is genocide to kill a people in the realworld because no cultural group is evil, neutral, or good; and no entire group is dedicated to the slaying of another. In AD&D, cultural groups are defined precisely by such white/black definitions. Some won't ever want to destroy anybody else, and others will want to completely remove any people they can't dominate.

I see Keldorn's hatred of evil against this unreal, comicbook backdrop. He isn't in favor of killing a bunch of people who are varied, some good, some evil, all just trying to live their lives and get by. He's in favor of killing a bunch of evil, distorted creatures who, by definition, are Evil with a capital E, with maybe one or two exceptions allowed simply because the company that makes the games wants to hire hack writers at a pittance to produce novels for them. Keldorn isn't advocating genocide. Genocide is a crime against a people. Keldorn is advocating the destruction of Evil. "Evil" doesn't exist in RL, only in superficially designed gameworlds, IMO.

Mind, I'm not saying you're wrong, only that this is how I see it.

Mercury Night · Post by **Mercury Night** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 5:34 pm

I think that people of lawful good alignment, especially paladins who are commmitted to eradicating Evil, are supposed to sometimes have to sacrifice mercy to maintain the law. Lawful good is based on the belief that a system of law designed to uphold the good and destroy evil is worth upholding at all costs - lawful alignments don't allow for as many exceptions and individual judgements as neutral and chaotic alignments, IMHO....that's the nature of them. I think Keldorn would say that in order for such laws to be upheld, "evil" races like the drow should not be allowed to live, because even if a few of them might have sparks of good in them (like Viconia) they're still inherently evil as a people.

Obviously this doesn't apply in RL...there are no people who are inherently evil as far as I'm concerned, and certainly no cultures.

As for the mental stability of the NPCs....I think they all have their 'issues', but as some people have mentioned, some of them have gone through a lot. And running around killing monsters, fighting demons, facing death daily and sometimes dying and being resurrected....and being led by a child of the lord of murder....aren't exactly things that would contribute to mental stability. I think if any of us lived their lifestyle, we'd have some quirks too!

gnomethingy · Post by **gnomethingy** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 5:22 am

See, this is the thing

Genocidal, does not mean you have or will commit genocide, it means you want to plan to or support it

Keldorn would, if he could.. wipe out all of say
Illithid
Drow
Orcs
Goblins
Suhaugin

Without a second though

If somone is screwed in the head, be it through there own foult or somone elses or even if its conditional or environmental... there still screwed in the head.
You cannot argue that Aerie, Viconia and Jaheira all have complex' or issues that sabotage there ability to operate with other people or at all
I will say no more......

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 6:20 am

Keldorn would, if he could.. wipe out all of say
Illithid
Drow
Orcs
Goblins
Suhaugin

Without a second though

Yes, and for exactly the reason I stated: because they're embodiments of Evil with a capital E. That's not genocide, because no race can be Evil. They're pure comicbook evil, and killing the Evil guys in a comicbook world isn't an act of evil. They're only symbols, not races. The Forces of Good aren't guilty of genocide when they kill all the orcs they can find in LotR. They're just destroying Evil. Got that?

If somone is screwed in the head, be it through there own foult or somone elses or even if its conditional or environmental... there still screwed in the head.

So you've said, before. But you've yet to provide an iota of evidence supporting this. They certainly don't act "screwed in the head." They demonsrate fearsome skills, and remain in complete control under situations during which, I dare so, you or I would require a change of shorts.

So where's the evidence that they're mentally unbalanced and ineffective?

Leonardo · Post by **Leonardo** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 8:01 am

They're pure comicbook evil, and killing the Evil guys in a comicbook world isn't an act of evil.

I object to the "comicbook" term there. Batman and other heroes take great pains not only to not kill but to not let die even the most wicked villain. Wolverine, Punisher, The Authority or some 90's creations may be exceptions, but as a role killing, even the evil guys, in a comicbook world IS an act of evil.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 8:05 am

Originally posted by Leonardo

I object to the "comicbook" term there. Batman and other heroes take great pains not only to not kill but to not let die even the most wicked villain. Wolverine, Punisher, The Authority or some 90's creations may be exceptions, but as a role killing, even the evil guys, in a comicbook world IS an act of evil.

That's because the owners of the companies (like Marvel and DC) know that once you kill "Evil," there's nothing left to fight, and no future issues to sell.

But it's still Comicbook Evil, a megalomaniac think complete with snarling cackle, metaphorically or literally,

and that was my point. Killing a race of people in reallife *is* genocide, because they're really, truly people, but killing a race of Pure Evil as defined by Gary Gygax isn't genocide, because they're two-dimensional, melodramatic figures whose goal is conquest and slavery.

Yes, I know I'm generalizing, above, but again, it's only to make a point about Evil in legend, fantasy or comicbooks, and evil in reality. Genocide is a realworld crime, and--purely my opinion, you understand--confusing the two is problematic.