Debt to Sarevok

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Fri Aug 03, 2001 9:05 am

Hey, maybe we could convince Bioware to change it? They've got a patch in the works ...

Goof · Post by **Goof** » Fri Aug 03, 2001 11:15 am

ok, heres "IMHO"

Bad childhood or not, it was still Sarevok decision to act the way he did. No one forced him, and he coudl have been etreamly good (chaotic/lawfull good). How many have seen the play(movie to now) Les Misrable? (did I spell that right?). That is a very good example.

Now, does your pc owe ANYTHING to Sarevok? No. You may feel like it because it "could" have been you. But all in all, its each individuals choices that make people who they are. No one is a victim.

You could have very well been good being raised by the very same parents, and Sarevok could have still been evil. Same thign with Imeon. In fact, you could have been evil, no?

However, if your Ngood or Lgood, in a rp way, I think you would give him a second chance, and teach him.

But in the end, neither gorion nor you are at all resposible for the way he turned out. Even if you don't take him in its not your fault, however your not helping either.

The fallen one · Post by **The fallen one** » Fri Aug 03, 2001 12:37 pm

I feel that my PC has no debt to pay back to the brother. I do feel sorry for him that he turned out that way. He was a product of his child hood and I can see why it would have been easier for him to choose the path that he did take. But all that is in the past we now fight side by side and he is now one tough cookie.

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Fri Aug 03, 2001 1:22 pm

Nurture, shmurture.

Sarevok did what he did (whatever the reason), and the protagonist had to kill him because of it. A very natural consequence of trying to enact some mad doomsday plot, I would say.

Whatever did you (the protagonist) do to indebt yourself to Sarevok? From what I recall about different religions is either:

Sh1t happens. Deal with it.
God meant it to be this way.

Where exactly are you supposed to feel guilty? No guilt, no debt, right?

"Oooh, Sarevok, I am so sorry that I had a good childhood when you did not! Please forgive me for not succumbing to the Bhaal essence and doing the right thing regardless. I am so ashamed of myself now! It's all my fault! If it hadn't been for me, you would have butchered the whole Sword Coast and become the new Lord of Murder. It was so incredibly selfish and thoughtless of me that I stopped you... I must make reparations. I truly am in your debt!"

Yeah, right...

Originally posted by Kayless:
philosophy by its very nature cannot be right or wrong.

Everyone is right in some way. Some are more right than others, however...

incandescent one · Post by **incandescent one** » Fri Aug 03, 2001 2:10 pm

"Oooh, Sarevok, I am so sorry that I had a good childhood when you did not! Please forgive me for not succumbing to the Bhaal essence and doing the right thing regardless. I am so ashamed of myself now! It's all my fault! If it hadn't been for me, you would have butchered the whole Sword Coast and become the new Lord of Murder. It was so incredibly selfish and thoughtless of me that I stopped you... I must make reparations. I truly am in your debt!"

Sounds callous and egocentric to me.

I think one of the most important things that you need to realize in your formative years, is that the world does not revolve around you. That consequences do factor in. If all the "good" in your life was wiped out before your eyes, and you were taught that through force comes strength, then you would justify it as what is "right". So by Sarevok he was doing what he thought was good. Just like you were.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for this relativist garbage. That is one point of contention I have with this world. I don't agree that "if it's ok by you, then it's ok by everyone". No, rather I think that there is one constant unchanging set of guidelines that will still be constant regardless of era, epoch or circumstances, and from those guidelines is where judgement will come from. But, I ramble, and that's not what we're talking about.

Ok. I think that Sarevok believed what he was doing was for the good. His good. The only kind that existed in his world. He did not have the morals that Gorion and co. taught you. Now, of course it's not your fault, and neither do I subscribe to Karmic debt, but if anyone is role-playing good, I would expect a healthy and sincere measure of compassion and sympathy, maybe even debt if your charachter believes it so. But compassion and sympathy definately if you're playing good.

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Fri Aug 03, 2001 2:28 pm

Yes, but the point was that the test was very poorly done.

Compassion and sympathy != Debt. The term 'debt' implies that you 'owe' someone. In this case it is implied that you 'owe' Sarevok somehow because you (by the admitted luck of the draw) had a better childhood than he did. This idea of negative responsiblity has been firmly *denied* by EVERY western philosophy from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle on down.

OTOH, if the question was the one Achilles' question...i.e. do you feel PITY for Sarevok (and by extension should you act on it), then the test would have been a lot more believable.

I guess it really chaps my hide to be labled 'evil' (as this test does), when my pro (a paladin in my last game) DENIES a non-existant debt.

-Polaris

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Fri Aug 03, 2001 4:41 pm

Originally posted by transcendent two:
if anyone is role-playing good, I would expect a healthy and sincere measure of compassion and sympathy, maybe even debt if your charachter believes it so.

Compassion: You must have a very strange take on 'Goodness' if you don't. It just might be possible, but it would be highly unusual.

Sympathy: Maybe, though that implies that you could imagine that you would have done something similar had you been in his position instead. I am not convinced that Bhaal essence cannot be controlled even in those circumstances.

Debt: I don't see where this comes in... and I certainly don't see why your opinion on this, instead of the above two, decides whether you are 'Good' or 'Evil'.

incandescent one · Post by **incandescent one** » Fri Aug 03, 2001 6:48 pm

I think everyone can agree that the word 'debt' is a poor choice, because as polaris pointed out, it implies something being owed.

Compassion- (edit) sorry, I just realized, you were agreeing with me (edit)

On the next comment. It's one thing to fight the Bhaal taint with the help of everyone around you. It's something else to have everyone around you telling you to sieze control and be your father's heir. I mean for your protagonist it was the battle between the "evil" nature and the "good" nurture. For Sarevok it was the "evil" nature being nourished by the "evil" nurture.

Hmmm, a thought just came to me, if Sarevok fragged you at the end of BG1, who do you think would win out, Sarevok or the Five ? Sarevok may be smart enough to play on their divisions and splinter the group, but militaristically, unless Sarevok's mind is an amalgamation of the greatest general's of all time, I don't think he could have outfought the five. Or he may have taken some idiot like Gromnir under his wing. Hmmm ..... the speculation.

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: transcendent two ]

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Fri Aug 03, 2001 7:11 pm

Originally posted by polaris:
This idea of negative responsiblity has been firmly *denied* by EVERY western philosophy from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle on down.

Why do you keep bringing up the historical views of ‘western philosophers’? What if some of the designers were Buddhists or hailed from eastern nations? Western philosophy is not the only/most righteous viewpoint in the world. And who’s to say the Solar that’s giving the tests doesn’t subscribe to a more eastern philosophical worldview?

While admittedly the Solar’s question could have been worded better, I feel the gist came through loud and clear. Do you feel remorse that you have prospered while someone else (who’s position could easily have been reversed with yours) has languished? Obviously it’s a controversial question. Some people feel obligated to give something back while others feel they owe nothing. There’s no right or wrong answer, (especially if your playing the game sans the extra Bhaal abilities patch) though it makes sense that Bhaal would favor self-interest over altruism, regardless of whether or not the feelings are justified or not (thus giving the player an ‘evil’ ability instead of a ‘good’ one if the additional abilities patch is installed).

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Sat Aug 04, 2001 12:24 am

Kayless,

I again STRONGLY disagree. I feel quite justified in using western philosophical standards since those form the basis behind most of our conventional ideas behind good and evil.

I also STRONGLY disagree that the gist was clear. IMO it was as clear as mud. The question was did I *owe* Sarevok anything. The clear and unambigious answer is NO. This has nothing to do with feeling compassion for Sarevok, but you can NOT owe anyone for decisions that others made. This is the essence of WHY western philosophy denies the existence of negative responsibilities.

Before you defend the 'good' or 'evil' side of it (which I consider indefensible), consider this: If you *did* owe Sarevok something because you were lucky and he wasn't (due to the decisions of others), then where does it stop? If you *don't* stop the thread of responsibility somewhere then you get into a never ending cycle of revenge and vengence....which IMO is hardly 'good'.

-Polaris

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Sat Aug 04, 2001 2:19 am

So, suppose, for the sake of discussion, that I owe Sarevok. Does that mean that I have rights to what other people have that have had better childhoods than me? Does that mean that Sarevok can lay righteous claims to anything denied to him due to his nature and nurture?

If we reverse that reasoning, it becomes...

"Gimme that <whatever>. I was mistreated as a child and you weren't. I have more rights to it than you."

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Sat Aug 04, 2001 3:21 am

Xyx,

You have stated the reason why western philosophy DENIES the existance of negative responsibility very well IMO. If you allow for such responsibility, then you have an 'evil' (or at the very least vengful and ruthless) society....which IMO can not be considered 'good' (in AD&D terms).

-Polaris

KillerKid · Post by **KillerKid** » Sat Aug 04, 2001 3:32 am

WAIT A SECOND HERE

i remember someone saying

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.

hehe copy paste anyway umm did you forget that gorion NEVER told her about her destiny/heritage/daddy being a ****ing god how can that be their power

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Sat Aug 04, 2001 3:42 am

I remember what you said, but that WASN'T the question that you were asked.

You were asked if you felt you had a DEBT to Sarevok. The answer is clearly NO, but that answer is considered 'evil'.

In short, you are defending bioware's error by changing the question. I consider that a foul.

-Polaris

Goof · Post by **Goof** » Sat Aug 04, 2001 9:09 am

obviously the person who made this question feels like its societies fault that hes not bill gates, and they owe him.

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Sat Aug 04, 2001 9:24 am

Originally posted by Goof:
obviously the person who made this question feels like its societies fault that hes not bill gates, and they owe him.

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Sat Aug 04, 2001 1:31 pm

Originally posted by Goof:
obviously the person who made this question feels like its societies fault that hes not bill gates, and they owe him.

Indeed

.

Protagonist <--> Sarevok
Bill Gates <--> me

Bill Gates owes me big time.

Nightfire · Post by **Nightfire** » Sat Aug 04, 2001 1:52 pm

Whoa, this thread has become heated.

Remember, polaris, that I agree with you. The test as it is sounds terribly contrieved to me ... and no, I do not think either Gorion or the PC can be "blamed" for Sarevok's actions. If anyone is to blame, then the chaps at Bioware.

So, because I don't like the situation as it is presented, I engaged in some personal reinterpretation, as I always do when something doesn't make sense to me (don't we all ... it's actually fun IMO, though I'd definitely prefer a game without plotholes, contradictions and other inconsistencies).

Case in point: No, Sarevok has no right to walk up to my PC and demand anything from her. If anything, he owes her for everything he did in BG1. A miserable childhood is no excuse for doing Evil, but it should play a part in considering what to do with Sarevok, at least when you are Good. Compared to Irenicus, who had everything that anyone could reasonably ask for and still decided to turn into a monster, Sarevok is the lesser evil and definitely has better chances at "redemption".

In my mind, the solar should have asked if you feel any ... hmm, compassion for Sarevok, though I'm not completely happy with that term, and whether you think you could and should help him see things from a different angle (especially since you are likely the only one who could do this). Empathy and altruism are building blocks of the Good alignments, after all.

(She does ask, and I would keep that part, if it would be possible that the PC would have turned out like Sarevok and vice versa, had Gorion raised him instead of you. This is important IMO because the PC's "moral superiority" over Sarevok is learned, not inherent.)

I like the general point of this part of the revelation, that a Good character "should" feel morally obliged to try turning Sarevok from the path of Evil. What I don't like is the way it is presented, so I am using some creative license to change it in "my" BG universe.

Nightfire · Post by **Nightfire** » Sat Aug 04, 2001 2:18 pm

KillerKid: I'm not quite sure what you mean. No, Gorion did not directly tell the PC that she is a Bhaalchild, but he was aware of her heritage when he took her in. Sorry if that was unclear. And because he raised her the way he did, she has an easier time fighting her tainted blood than Sarevok did. Being treated with love, patience and kindness makes for a much healthier childhood than fear and brutality.

Kayless: Hello again.

If you have dragged Sarevok kicking and screaming onto the path of Good, what do you think of the way it was handled?

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Sat Aug 04, 2001 2:24 pm

Nightwing,

You have a point. What really got on my nerves was the game (if using the balderdash patch), labled my protagonist as EVIL if I denied a nonexistant debt. I really got mad because it is this sort of philosophical nonsense that IMO is the cause of a lot of our real world problems (i.e. the professional victim).

-Polaris