Killing off [spoiler]
caruga
Member Posts: 375
It was the original plan to have Imoen killed by Irenicus, but they scrapped it later (not sure why?).
I personally preferred BG1's storyline partly because I felt that the motivation for pursuing Irenicus after Spellhold was rather weak. I didn't feel any connection to having 'lost my soul'--it seems that those without souls still have motivation (like, the motivation to get their soul back), so I wasn't entirely sure what it meant for me for Irenicus to have it or why I would even want it back. It wasn't really expounded upon. Just "Oh no, Irenicus took your soul, how dastardly, go get him for it!".
The tree thing was a 'save the day' kind of thing, but a selfish/evil character wouldn't care. Unless maybe out of self-preservation (it wasn't clear to me whether Irenicus getting what he wanted would spell the doom of everyone, or not...).
Killing off Imoen would have given you a reason of vengeance added. Beside which with her being out of the loop for a large chunk of the game she wasn't the most attractive party member to have back.
What's your feeling on the matter? I personally would have liked it to be possible for her to be killed off, or not as now; i.e. you can influence the outcome.
I personally preferred BG1's storyline partly because I felt that the motivation for pursuing Irenicus after Spellhold was rather weak. I didn't feel any connection to having 'lost my soul'--it seems that those without souls still have motivation (like, the motivation to get their soul back), so I wasn't entirely sure what it meant for me for Irenicus to have it or why I would even want it back. It wasn't really expounded upon. Just "Oh no, Irenicus took your soul, how dastardly, go get him for it!".
The tree thing was a 'save the day' kind of thing, but a selfish/evil character wouldn't care. Unless maybe out of self-preservation (it wasn't clear to me whether Irenicus getting what he wanted would spell the doom of everyone, or not...).
Killing off Imoen would have given you a reason of vengeance added. Beside which with her being out of the loop for a large chunk of the game she wasn't the most attractive party member to have back.
What's your feeling on the matter? I personally would have liked it to be possible for her to be killed off, or not as now; i.e. you can influence the outcome.
6
Comments
Rather we focus on what does make your soul special. The loss of your special abilities apparently not enough, maybe there needs a bigger explanation of what happens. For example, what happens to a soulless creature who dies? Can't be pretty. Could be an interesting discussion with a spiritual partymember (Aerie/Jaheira/Viconia/Anomen/Keldorn)
If they could redo the plot of post-spellhold BG2 then it might make sense to do something different. Maybe a plot by Irenicus to torture Gorions soul or something.
At that point in the story post-spellhold the protagonist is just learning about his destiny as a Bhaalspawn by first turning to the slayer after his soul was stolen and even then he still has enough essence or whatever left to turn into the slayer.
Were the plot-writers overruled by someone else, I wonder, or were they the ones who listened to the complaints? I wish they would show more confidence in their art and decision-making, fans be damned. I've seen both games and tv shows spoiled because of 'fan-service' where they didn't have the heart to kill a popular character off even though it was necessary for the evolution of the plot-line. It's treating the parts as more important than the whole.
It's a given that fans will vocalise at the prospect of their favourite character dying; if it were me I'd put faith in their being enough fans of the game alone, whether or not that character was there. I doubt that there are many people who like Baldur's Gate just because of Imoen.
Maybe choices you make during your dream-sequences could add or subtract from a score and influence PC's/Imoen's stats; if you choose selfishly too often she doesn't have the spiritual strength to endure what Irenicus does to her. I think it would have been neat.
I don't think killing her off was something necessary to the plot.
Unless Saemon was originally planned to be recruitable
The gameplay reason is that she makes an underlevelled thief/mage for what is probably the last 90% of the game (unless you're playing all the side-quests after chapter 5).
The other is: think: if you like Imoen as much as you say, and as much as you're loathe to see her die, wouldn't it make you want to kill that bastard Irenicus all the more if he did murder her?
Technically, you can get Imoen relatively early in the game and still have plenty to do, many people just do everything before going to Spellhold.
As for the other reason, I didn't really need any extra motivation, so its really a non-issue for me.
Imoem death would have to change A LOT of things, as Bodhi would never be able to get a divine soul for her, what would kill her reasons to work with irenicus, Khalid reason to die would not exist if imoem where to be dead, and a lot of ToB banters with Imoen aware of her condition as a children of Bhaal would be lost. While the last point would be just a loss of content, the previous ones would disrupt the base of the bhaalspaw plot saga.
Look at it another way, aside from the intellectual curiosity of analyzing sociopaths, what is the point in going the evil path? There is no ultimate motive for the evil path, aside from acquiring material possession and racking up xp points by taking down do-gooders. True evil is banal and is uninteresting as a plot device. This probably explains why good vs. evil is the norm. We do not pass down tales through the ages of 'the great glorious evil', no, we pass down tales of that which thwarted the evil against all odds.
We can also look at villains in games, like Irenicus, or Sarevok. They weren't petty minded criminals who enjoyed killing for the sake of it, or to gain monetary profit or whatever, they both had long-term goals in mind. Sarevok wanted to start a war and rack up kills in order to complete an ancient ritual that would make him the new lord of murder (similar to the the evil arc of MotB). Irenicus "goal" was to regain his soul and exact vengeance on the elves that banished him from his home. Neither of these motives are flat or banal, like say Lord Sauron from LOTR who just seems to be intrinsically evil, wanting nothing other than a complete destruction of all living things, until one day when he's all alone in a desert realizing his mistake "Hey.. hey guys? Anyone? Is there anyone out there that I can flay alive for my own amusement? No? ...please come back so I can be a cruel dick to you again!"
There's also the less extreme "evil" path as portrayed by the Mass Effect series in the form of Renegade options, instead of being downright evil, it's more loose, wild, with disregard for consequences, more of a "the ends justify the means" type of path, this is also interesting as an option besides the usual "save everyone no matter what" path that most games already do just fine.
Speaking of evil paths, there should also be a more thought out neutral path, and I don't mean neutral as picking a good choice here and a bad one there coming off as totally schizo, but rather acting in a way that benefits all parties involved at all times... that's what true neutral really should be about after all, balancing forces, not tipping scales to either good or evil. It's a middle path of compromises, ex: you stop the gnolls from killing the villagers, but you allow them to take food resources from the village for their clans survival (which was why they attacked the village to begin with etc. etc.)
Sometimes I dont want to play a do gooder who can only see hope and a workd of peace. I want to find power, steal and manipulate fools, call me sick haha but I like the evil party members like viconia, xzar and montaron and its part of the game that can seem dull with all evil options being silly and pointless.
Space Noober on the other hand...
I think an interesting character who took evil paths (but not always) is the practical incarnation in Planescape: Torment. He manipulates, decieves and kills to achieve his ends, but not more than he has to. Having the ability to do something similar would be intrigueing. That said, I'm going Boyscout Cavalier first playthrough. My selfish swashbuckler would like some opportunities to be naughty though.
BG don't try to avoid evil players by nature, as some missions in the game can only be done by evil players. I believe that, in BG, was more a lack of content or mistake forgetfulness of the evil patch by the original creators of the game than an intentioned discouragement of evil patch