Page 1 of 1
Big spoiler: Alternative way in the Sahuagin city?
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:40 am
by Mazeh
I've completed this game about 4 times, and everytime I'd take the sahuagin way, I'd do their quests. Yet, this time, i decided to just screw 'em, and kill them all. I got all items, probably not as much xp, but ALOT of it. I was still able to do the beholder quest, and i got "2" magical robes, but both were used up (How weird, we people have to use all we can use?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2a0b6/2a0b65fb49162e60a25e5243b8f83db2ebf2b389" alt="Smile :)"
). Doing this way didn't take much longer time(If even any). But i wanted to know, have this been noticed before? And what are your opinions on this way?
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:17 pm
by CrownHead
I do this just about every time, no matter what alignment I am. It's just so fun to kill them all and have no allies. (unless I'm a monk in which case I have to side with the king)
A good character will see the Sahaugins as evil monster's that all deserve to die.
A Nuetral character will not choose either side of the quest but kill them all to maintain true balance.
A Evil character would kill them all for fun and more loot.
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:31 pm
by Mazeh
I'm chaotic good. Well chaotic
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2a0b6/2a0b65fb49162e60a25e5243b8f83db2ebf2b389" alt="Smile :)"
Anyway, it is WAY more fun to kill them all! See how easily they die, "How easily they fall under my muscle and skill!"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2a0b6/2a0b65fb49162e60a25e5243b8f83db2ebf2b389" alt="Wink ;)"
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:14 pm
by Coot
[QUOTE=CrownHead]A good character will see the Sahaugins as evil monster's that all deserve to die.[/QUOTE]Really?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2a0b6/2a0b65fb49162e60a25e5243b8f83db2ebf2b389" alt="Smile :)"
I think a
good character wouldn't judge or massacre a whole race. Even if there's something fishy about them.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2a0b6/2a0b65fb49162e60a25e5243b8f83db2ebf2b389" alt="Wink ;)"
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:24 pm
by CrownHead
Really? Are you sure? Look at a great and noble paladin. For some reason it seems that paladins are good, but only to a certain degree. Monsters have been attacking good people for a long time, so a prejudice against them is made. Most of the "good" characters I see in this game see monsters as just that, monsters.
Then also look at the fact that your boat was capsized by the Sahaugin, then you were kidnapped by them. Then they ask you to perform a service for them. The image set by their actions shows them to you as evil characters. If you were truly a good character, you'd have more pride than to stoop to helping these creatures that did so much to you already. And since they tell you they'd kill you if you don't help them, that gives you plenty reason to kill them, as no good creature makes threats at such an obviously good person as you.
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:29 pm
by dragon wench
[QUOTE=CrownHead] If you were truly a good character, you'd have more pride than to stoop to helping these creatures that did so much to you already. And since they tell you they'd kill you if you don't help them, that gives you plenty reason to kill them, as no good creature makes threats at such an obviously good person as you.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about that... What if you were roleplaying a semi-pacifist character who only attacked when provoked, in the belief that violence only begets more violence and should be avoided as much as feasible within the confines of the game?
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:04 pm
by Phantom Lord
Imho the good character would not slaughter everyone, because that's a little far from the idea of "good", which basically is "live and live". Unless the Sahuagin would impose a real threat - which they don't, lacking access to the surface.
The neutral character would kill them all if really threatened or push odds towards balance if not, it's a matter of interpretation if "and then there was none" is ones personal perception of perfect balance.
The evil character would go "live and let die", no more fishy beings in existance.
One of those settings that could cause night long discussions in PnP ...
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:50 pm
by Deadalready
When I finished the game the first time I didn't have most of the legendary items, so I decided to have a look at the online guides and work out where the rest of the legendary items were hidden.
When I found out that the Sahaguin Prince held the Wave head I decided I may as well kill him so from that day on I decided to maximise my benefits by doing all the quests for the prince, then killing everything left in the city for experience.
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:54 am
by VonDondu
[QUOTE=Phantom Lord]Imho the good character would not slaughter everyone, because that's a little far from the idea of "good", which basically is "live and live". Unless the Sahuagin would impose a real threat - which they don't, lacking access to the surface...[/QUOTE]
The dialogue makes it clear that the Sahuagin make regular raids on the surface (and they had access to your sinking ship when they rescued you). They regard humans as animals and kill and/or eat every human they meet. The only reason they don't serve you for dinner is because one of their priestesses thinks you're some sort of messiah. Keldorn (a Lawful Good Paladin and Torm's truest servant) advocates their genocide, which apalls Jaheira, the crabby True Neutral Druid who believes that even vicious predators have their place in the "balance". From the game's perspective, it obviously makes no difference whether you slaughter them all or help them to strengthen their bloodline.
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:50 pm
by Coot
[QUOTE=VonDondu]Keldorn (a Lawful Good Paladin and Torm's truest servant) advocates their genocide[/QUOTE]Keldorn also condems Viconia for no other reason than that's she's a Drow.
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:01 pm
by CrownHead
Exactly! That's exactly the point that I'm trying to make.