Debt to Sarevok
Debt to Sarevok
When I has doing to the second Pocket Plane trial and my PC learnt of her past and the Solar asked if I had a debt to Sarevok since I could have easily had his life if fate had not intervened I sort wasn't sure... I said yes. I don't think it makes a difference but it sort of got me thinking I mean what do you guys think? Do you think your PC had a debt to Sarevok because fate intervened on the PC behalf? Or did Sarevok pretty much make his own fate independent of his horrible childhood?
Love is eternal till you meet someone you like better.
*YOU* don't owe Sarevok a damn thing. Regardless of the question of nature or nurture (was Sarevok evil because of his choices or a rotten childhood), *YOU* did not make that choice....Gorion did. Gorion is the one that owes Sarevok not you. YOU are not responsible for the decisions of others....an ethical standard that has been part of Western Civilization since Ancient Greece.
-Polaris
-Polaris
-
incandescent one
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Fortress of Regrets
- Contact:
No one owes anyone anything. Gorion made the choice unwittingly, he could not have forseen your path or Sarevok's. No one owes a debt to anyone.
P.S. After the first time through the game, I just get through the dialogs as fast as possible, because there are never any real consequences, very much in contrast to real life.
P.S. After the first time through the game, I just get through the dialogs as fast as possible, because there are never any real consequences, very much in contrast to real life.
Death comes for you .... FEEL IT'S ICY BREATH !
If you installed the additional Bhaal powers patch from Baldurdash, then the dialogue will determine which power you get, Good or Evil. And I think it also determine what type of god you become in the end, if you choose to be a god that is.
On the topic, I think that my PC does have a debt of sort to Sarevok. Since it was as likely that Gorion could have taken Sarevok instead of my PC, and since he have such a bad childhood, it kind of set his course towards evil.
[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Sabre ]
On the topic, I think that my PC does have a debt of sort to Sarevok. Since it was as likely that Gorion could have taken Sarevok instead of my PC, and since he have such a bad childhood, it kind of set his course towards evil.
[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Sabre ]
Sabre,
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but logically (in philosophy anyway), you don't owe Sarevok anything fate or no.
If you believe in fate, then there was no choice in the matter. You were *meant* to be chosen and Sarevok was not. End-of-Discussion.
If you believe in free will (as my protagonists do), then you have to ask yourself WHO made the choice to take you rather than Sarevok. That answer is clear. It was GORION'S choice. Since Gorion had freewill, HE owes the debt not you.
BTW, this is hardly original thinking. I would have *thought* that the Black-Isle staff would have at least bothered to read up on Socrates before posing so-called moral questions.
The fact is (good or evil), you are NOT responsible for Sarevok...so what were the designers thinking?
-Polaris
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but logically (in philosophy anyway), you don't owe Sarevok anything fate or no.
If you believe in fate, then there was no choice in the matter. You were *meant* to be chosen and Sarevok was not. End-of-Discussion.
If you believe in free will (as my protagonists do), then you have to ask yourself WHO made the choice to take you rather than Sarevok. That answer is clear. It was GORION'S choice. Since Gorion had freewill, HE owes the debt not you.
BTW, this is hardly original thinking. I would have *thought* that the Black-Isle staff would have at least bothered to read up on Socrates before posing so-called moral questions.
The fact is (good or evil), you are NOT responsible for Sarevok...so what were the designers thinking?
-Polaris
That conversation didn't really sit well with me either, since as you have pointed out, it was hardly your "fault" that Gorion rescued you and not Sarevok. Hell, I found the whole matter to be severely contrieved and inconsistent, period. From the sources in BG1, I gathered Sarevok had been born to Rieltar's wife instead of having been adopted ... and why would Rieltar adopt a street urchin, anyway? The revision of this part of his story is just not "right".
Ahem. Back to the topic at hand.
If you haven't progressed past this conversation with the solar and don't want to be spoiled, don't read further.
.
.
.
.
.
Wanting to be Good, I thought about the question a little. Maybe you can re-interpret "debt" to mean a form of "responsibility" that ties in with the PC's role in the prophecy and the whole business with the Fateful Coin. She is not only the most powerful of the Children, but also probably the only one who has the inner strength to break free of Bhaal's grasp. Gorion's protection, tutelage and love were likely one important, if not the most important source of that strength. Aware of who she was and what her heritage would lead to, he still took her in and showed her another way. How many other Bhaalspawn were given this kind of chance? Imoen and the PC may well be the only ones.
Of course, a rotten childhood doesn't absolve Sarevok or the others of their responsibility for their actions (he even admits, if he changes alignment, that he has much to atone for). Nor am I saying that the PC always had it easy. But in her formative years, she was safe, loved and happy. It's easy to say "My siblings could have chosen another path!" when you're the one with the happy childhood while your siblings are the ones born into brutal, oppressive or otherwise Evil families.
Keeping all that in mind, my PC felt a certain obligation to offer Sarevok a second chance ... despite her hatred for him. Most likely, there is no one else who can offer him this chance - Sarevok holds most everyone in contempt and respects only power wielded by an iron will. The PC has plenty of that. She beat him twice and thus, in Sarevok's own words, has earned his respect. He acknowledges that she is the stronger, which is the first vital step to get him to listen and think.
It was also a test for herself, a test of her dedication to her principles and her strength to resist her tainted blood. If she can deal with Gorion's murderer, then she can probably handle most any temptations of her divine essence.
Gorion took great chances raising the PC and, since he is dead now, there really is no way to repay him other than by upholding your principles (and his) no matter what. And I think he would approve if you help another Bhaalchild battle your sire's stranglehold.
Ahem. Back to the topic at hand.
If you haven't progressed past this conversation with the solar and don't want to be spoiled, don't read further..
.
.
.
.
Wanting to be Good, I thought about the question a little. Maybe you can re-interpret "debt" to mean a form of "responsibility" that ties in with the PC's role in the prophecy and the whole business with the Fateful Coin. She is not only the most powerful of the Children, but also probably the only one who has the inner strength to break free of Bhaal's grasp. Gorion's protection, tutelage and love were likely one important, if not the most important source of that strength. Aware of who she was and what her heritage would lead to, he still took her in and showed her another way. How many other Bhaalspawn were given this kind of chance? Imoen and the PC may well be the only ones.
Of course, a rotten childhood doesn't absolve Sarevok or the others of their responsibility for their actions (he even admits, if he changes alignment, that he has much to atone for). Nor am I saying that the PC always had it easy. But in her formative years, she was safe, loved and happy. It's easy to say "My siblings could have chosen another path!" when you're the one with the happy childhood while your siblings are the ones born into brutal, oppressive or otherwise Evil families.
Keeping all that in mind, my PC felt a certain obligation to offer Sarevok a second chance ... despite her hatred for him. Most likely, there is no one else who can offer him this chance - Sarevok holds most everyone in contempt and respects only power wielded by an iron will. The PC has plenty of that. She beat him twice and thus, in Sarevok's own words, has earned his respect. He acknowledges that she is the stronger, which is the first vital step to get him to listen and think.
It was also a test for herself, a test of her dedication to her principles and her strength to resist her tainted blood. If she can deal with Gorion's murderer, then she can probably handle most any temptations of her divine essence.
Gorion took great chances raising the PC and, since he is dead now, there really is no way to repay him other than by upholding your principles (and his) no matter what. And I think he would approve if you help another Bhaalchild battle your sire's stranglehold.
"Beware of the blindness of those who would follow, and the damnable lure of those who would lead."
- Tamoko
"Mmm? What's this? You gots hammer? Bhaal once drop hammer on big godly toe. Jump around and swear for days, he did. Kicked poor me all the way to Baator. Very bad week, that."
- Cespenar the imp
- Tamoko
"Mmm? What's this? You gots hammer? Bhaal once drop hammer on big godly toe. Jump around and swear for days, he did. Kicked poor me all the way to Baator. Very bad week, that."
- Cespenar the imp
-
incandescent one
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Fortress of Regrets
- Contact:
I think you’re the one who is missing the point Polaris. The issue isn't whether or not you're protagonist is responsible for the choices Gorion made. Clearly a person is not responsible for the actions of another. The debt is one of karma. Because of a twist of fate you got a nice loving childhood in Candlekeep while Sarevok lived on the streets until he was adopted by the ruthless Reiltar Anchev of the Iron Throne. You were raised by kind and compassionate people while Sarevok was raised by morally deficient scoundrels. One of the tests in the Pocket Plane has you fighting an evil version of yourself. This demonstrates that things could have been very different had Gorion chose Sarevok instead of you (there but the grace of God go we). The argument that ‘Gorion made the decision so why should I feel guilty for Sarevok’s sh*tty childhood’ seems a bit condescending to me. Of course one is not obligated to feel a certain way emotionally, but to me the progtagonist does owe Sarevok a karmatic debt (A karmatic debt is an obligation a person owes, usually to the universe as a whole but occasionally more specific, for their exceptional position or ability).Originally posted by polaris:
<STRONG>Yeah, but you guys are MISSING THE POINT.
It is *not* your fault that Savevok turned out the way he did. *YOU* did not make the decision. How is aknowledging that evil.</STRONG>
I always saw philosophy as unique to one’s self and not subject to the diverging viewpoints of others. Just because someone’s personal beliefs differs from yours doesn’t make them wrong (philosophy by its very nature cannot be right or wrong).Originally posted by polaris:
<STRONG>Somebody PLEASE give me an answer that makes sense....or did the Bioware developers flunk philosophy in college?</STRONG>
Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
This irked me a bit too, but the incongruity is not a major one and I can rationalize the discrepancy with only a little imagination. Besides it doesn’t really alter my view of Sarevok or his childhood traumas (remember the Sarevok and Wild Mage stats dissertations on his psyche?Originally posted by Nightfire:
<STRONG>From the sources in BG1, I gathered Sarevok had been born to Rieltar's wife instead of having been adopted ... and why would Rieltar adopt a street urchin, anyway? The revision of this part of his story is just not "right".</STRONG>
) In fact, looking back on that old topic (written prior to ToB) I’m insufferably proud of my exposition on Sarevok. [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=004379"]Here[/url] is the link to the old topic for those that care. P.S. As usual some pretty insightful stuff coming from you Nightfire. Maybe this topic will continue where the last one left off.
Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Kayless,
I can only go from what western philosophers have said from Socrates on down. There *is* no such thing as a 'Karmic' debt as you put it?
Of course chance plays a role, how could it not? However....and it bears repeating....YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS/CHOICES OF OTHERS!
Is this really so hard to understand? How am I being 'condescending' when I hold someone fully responsible for the choices that they make (or fail to make). Should I expect any less from any of you? How does that make that an 'evil' choice, please tell me.
In short, I am not buying your Karmic debt argument....and Western ethicist haven't since Socrates.
-Polaris
I can only go from what western philosophers have said from Socrates on down. There *is* no such thing as a 'Karmic' debt as you put it?
Of course chance plays a role, how could it not? However....and it bears repeating....YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS/CHOICES OF OTHERS!
Is this really so hard to understand? How am I being 'condescending' when I hold someone fully responsible for the choices that they make (or fail to make). Should I expect any less from any of you? How does that make that an 'evil' choice, please tell me.
In short, I am not buying your Karmic debt argument....and Western ethicist haven't since Socrates.
-Polaris
Polaris: Why are you always trying to convince that your and only your thoughts are correct. Someone here said that philosophy isn't in it's nature right nor wrong. It's just a matter of opinion. I totally agree with Kayless about the karmic debt. Had Gorion chosen him instead of the protagonist, it would be the other way around. You aren't paying attention to the posts others are making.
Gorion had the choice of choosing the protagonist or Sarevok. He chose the Big P and the consequences are obvious. Sarevok became what he became. I interpret Sarevok's possibility to change alignment (and how the P helps him in this) as a way for the protagonist to pay her debt by kinda balancing the scales.
Philosophy is highly individual and if you can't talk about it without losing your temper, you really shouldn't. No one will take you seriously. Philosophy is about discussing different perspectives and accepting them without forcing your own down one's throat.
Gorion had the choice of choosing the protagonist or Sarevok. He chose the Big P and the consequences are obvious. Sarevok became what he became. I interpret Sarevok's possibility to change alignment (and how the P helps him in this) as a way for the protagonist to pay her debt by kinda balancing the scales.
Philosophy is highly individual and if you can't talk about it without losing your temper, you really shouldn't. No one will take you seriously. Philosophy is about discussing different perspectives and accepting them without forcing your own down one's throat.
-I know why everyone would hate and despise me, but I have no idea why anyone would love and admire me-
1. I did not lose my temper at any time.
2. There are some standards in philosophy (even ethical philosophy) that are generally agreed upon. While philosophy is NOT a science, it is also far more than a matter of opinion.
The FACT of the matter is that our ideas of right and wrong (and thus the underpinnings of our legal traditions among other things) are rather firmly founded in some of the 'truths' found in ethical philosophy.
The FACT is (and this is a verifiable fact which is why I am suprised everyone here is so dense) NO western philosophy (even the most absolutist one) holds ANY individual responsible for the actions of others.
My *point* is that the entire 'test' was badly written. If you stick with western ideas of right and wrong, then it is CLEAR that the pro owes Sarevok nothing. There is nothing owed, therefor there is no *debt* [that choice of words was very bad].
OTOH, had the question been, *ought* the protagonist do something for Sarevok given that 'here by the grace of God go I', *that* would have been a different question. It is clear there is no *debt*, but there *might* be a catagorical imperative (to use Kantian language).
Is my objection clearer now? How is denying a non-existant debt an EVIL CHOICE? I have yet to hear a straight answer.
-Polaris
2. There are some standards in philosophy (even ethical philosophy) that are generally agreed upon. While philosophy is NOT a science, it is also far more than a matter of opinion.
The FACT of the matter is that our ideas of right and wrong (and thus the underpinnings of our legal traditions among other things) are rather firmly founded in some of the 'truths' found in ethical philosophy.
The FACT is (and this is a verifiable fact which is why I am suprised everyone here is so dense) NO western philosophy (even the most absolutist one) holds ANY individual responsible for the actions of others.
My *point* is that the entire 'test' was badly written. If you stick with western ideas of right and wrong, then it is CLEAR that the pro owes Sarevok nothing. There is nothing owed, therefor there is no *debt* [that choice of words was very bad].
OTOH, had the question been, *ought* the protagonist do something for Sarevok given that 'here by the grace of God go I', *that* would have been a different question. It is clear there is no *debt*, but there *might* be a catagorical imperative (to use Kantian language).
Is my objection clearer now? How is denying a non-existant debt an EVIL CHOICE? I have yet to hear a straight answer.
-Polaris
I'm not entirely sure about Polaris' debating style (can you say... aggressive? ), but I feel I have to agree nevertheless. How could the protagonist possibly have done any different? Neither Sarevok or the protagonist actively did anything for the other (until the various BG1 killing attempts ).
I think the dialogue would have been stronger if the question had instead been whether or not you felt pity / compassion for Sarevok in any way. This would allow a decent spectrum of replies - eg 'he got what he deserved' to 'I feel sorry for him - his upbringing made it difficult to be otherwise.'
Just my 2p worth!
), but I feel I have to agree nevertheless. How could the protagonist possibly have done any different? Neither Sarevok or the protagonist actively did anything for the other (until the various BG1 killing attempts ).I think the dialogue would have been stronger if the question had instead been whether or not you felt pity / compassion for Sarevok in any way. This would allow a decent spectrum of replies - eg 'he got what he deserved' to 'I feel sorry for him - his upbringing made it difficult to be otherwise.'
Just my 2p worth!