NPC's that are holding together idea

Zakeros

You know some NPCs in your party are depending on each other, meaning, when one of them leaves, the second one goes with them. Best example will be Khalid and Jaheira. I know people not always want Khalid in their party, so they're just killing him and having only Jaheira. What is silly? You can order her to kill Khalid, and she'll do it.

My thoughts are to prevent situation like that. You want Jaheira or Khalid? You've got to have them both. I know it's hard to obtain, but, if Khalid would die in battle, Jaheira stays for several days (hours) and if CHARNAME won't revive him, she'd just leave with his corpse.

This relates to several other characters, like Minsc and Dynaheir or Xzar and Montaron. Since they are not to be splitted, there shouldn't be a way around!

Theudipald

It's a cool idea, just that in my case I'd never dream of ever letting J&K or Minsc & "the Witch!" tag along for the ride, which leaves my homeboys Xzar and Montaron whom I think should be exempt from this rule given the somewhat complicated nature of their relationship.

Montaron! I... (heh) I never loved you!

(Although when I think about it, I'd say anyone going to such lengths as to "abort" the unwanted NPC should still be allowed that prerogative. Pro-choice!)

Cadros

I'm going to have to agree with @Theudipald while @Zakeros 's suggestion has some roleplaying, and realism merit, it will also be stopping people from playing the game as they choose to. Some responsibility has to go to the player when crafting their Bhaalspawns story.

nulspace

In my opinion, anything that comes across as an inconvenience to the player is something that has to be thought about very carefully. Just like @Cadros said, although realism may be preserved, you're greatly restricting player freedom.

Dee

Also, it's worth noting that in the novel, Abdel does kill Khalid. Granted, he kills him when he becomes a vampire, but the principle is the same.

spiderdave

As these are story oriented games I would want to enforce story consequences. Playing the way you want doesn't mean unlimited options, especially in a story based game. You can kill Khalid if you want, but I doubt Jaheira is going to want to continue adventuring with you. You can put Aerie and Korgan in your party, but they aren't going to have a good time. These are the kinds of things that are important in a game like this, I I wouldn't take them away.

Cadros

@spiderdave If the player targets and kills Khalid deliberately (i.e not under the influence of spells), then I agree there should be consequences. However this does become tricky if the player character throws a fireball which happens to also kill Khalid, what does Jaheira say then? How about if a not CHARNAME in your party kills Khalid, will Jaheira stay so long as you agree to kill that party member? What if you sent Khalid cold, naked and alone into a bear den, will your poor orders warrant Jaheira's wrath? Unfortunately a game cannot judge intent very well, and I feel that if a player wants real consequences in complex situations then they may have to deal them out to themselves.

I would not want to remove antagonism between different party members, as this after all helps to develop their personalities.

nulspace

Having Minsc beat Dynaheir to death always seemed a tad unrealistic...

In my mind it becomes a trade off between player freedom and game realism, which isn't an easy solution either way.

AndreaColombo

Having Minsc beat Dynaheir to death always seemed a tad unrealistic...

Also, why would anyone want to kill Dynaheir? *misty eyed emoticon*

Zakeros

@Cadros Remember what I said - if CHARNAME won't take care of reviving deceased Khalid, Jaheira is to set off with his body. Another matter is, when Khalid is gone for good and reviving isn't possible...

nulspace

@AndreaColombo because Edwin

nulspace

@Zakeros - something I mentioned in another thread (http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/230/request-modify-kivans-bandit-timer-mechanic-to-allow-for-more-flexibilityless-stress#latest) is that I think that ideas like yours could possibly work given that NPCs don't leave permanently. If Jaheira wanted to take Khalid's broken body to a temple and wait for CHARNAME there, for example, that's cool. But I have a big issue with NPCs leaving permanently.

Zakeros

Yea, that's exactly what I mean - waiting at the temple. Of course she won't be happy we didn't take care of it on the first place, but well, isn't Jaheira always whiny?

technophobe

I can come up with as many valid reasons for these pairs to be split as there are for them to remain inviolable. What needs to happen is a non-metagaming way for either to happen via dialog so that I am not forced to kill Jaheira when I only need Khalid.

Zakeros

That's the point! You can't only need one of them, since they're supposed to be working together, as one. You need only Khalid? Well then, he also needs someone, and it is Jaheira...

wendigo

In my opinion, anything that comes across as an inconvenience to the player is something that has to be thought about very carefully. Just like @Cadros said, although realism may be preserved, you're greatly restricting player freedom.

I think what makes BG a special game is just the realism of the game and the consequences of actions taken by the CHARNAME and the group.

kamuizin

If ppl want ignore realism just wait for a Icewind Dale EE so, it's a more versatile history for those changes.

Baldur's Gate has a very specific and attractive history to be mixed this much, as i said in many other posts i don't care if you want to play with a drow, vampire, lich, beholder.... etc, or if you want a chucknorris kit. As long the overpower/fun/ variant ppl want, come as a unnoficial mod or as a separate implement not direct linked to the original game history, ok with me. Just don't screw with the game history and consistency for everyone.

After more than 12 years ppl come to remade this game, would that happen if the history was a shit with no consistency? Answer that before try to screw the bhaalspawn saga.

AndreaColombo

I must agree with kamuizin, here (as well as on the "I wanna play a drow ZOMG" thread).

nulspace

@Wendigo - I agree completely, but I think there is more to think about than that (hence "carefully" :P), such as when those consequences directly interfere with the level of fun that the player is having.

If a new player (someone who hasn't been and ardent devotee of BG/BG2 for 12 years has a character unexpectedly leave and/or die, potentially in a situation without a save to fall back on (because what game has manual saves w/o autosaves these days?), there's the potential for said player to become disheartened and unhappy with the game.

wendigo

@nulspace, a like what @kamuizin says. for these gamers, there is IWD. lol
for the old gamers (who makes sucess BG even today) let BG realistic. and maybe new gamers agree with the old ones.

nulspace

@Wendigo, I'm not sure we're arguing about the same thing. I think "realism" as it's used here is important, don't get me wrong (maybe a better word is continuity). I think BG1 and BG2 both currently have good systems in place for that. I agree with Zakeros here in that respect: http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/2033/#Comment_2033, with my own suggestions.

On the other hand, I do like being able to play, as a player, how I want to - If I want Minsc to beat Dynaheir to death, I can do it.

Right now, BG1/BG2 offers a perfectly acceptable middle-ground: NPCs react to your reputation accordingly, and will leave you permanently if they're so inclined. They'll also fight each other if their personalities clash (Minsc v. Edwin, for example).

At the same time, should I choose to invent a story wherein: Dynaheir declares she's going rogue, and tries to kill Boo, forcing Minsc to do the unthinkable and beat her to death with his bare hands...well, the game lets me do that as well.

As it currently stands, there's nothing preventing the player from inventing a story for his NPCs in which Khalid must die, for example. By having a neutral reaction from Jaheria, the game lets the player create his/her own story about the NPCs instead of being bound to a stricter game narrative.

kamuizin

@nulspace The game doesn't have this prupose, the only reason the game don't stop you when you try to do that is because those actions don't ruin the storyline PERMANTENTLY. If you think i'm wrong go to BG2 and try to make your roleplay as "i decided that the cost of save Imoen/Hunt Irenicus was too great, an aliance with the scourge of amn, the shadow thieves" with that in mind you decide to kill the entire guild.

Well, explain that to Arkanis when he start to crush your entire party with hit-kills attacks, try to force that with a ctrl+Y console cheat and see if the game will allow you to do that.

The game allow you to attack a party member cos sometimes attack him can save him (as attack someone with the staff of the magi or holy avenger to dispel a confused or other status effect), or when an attack area spell kills an ally.

For game engine prupose, baldur's gate will not stop you of killing dinaheir with minsc for the above reasons, that doesn't mean the game want to allow you to that. Sorry but what you said was a tremendous fallacy, it is a try to justify a point with one of the games engine limitations.

You are free to make what you want on the game, but request a non reaction from the NPCs for your actions is not an expression of free will but of ignorance.

nulspace

You are free to make what you want on the game, but request a non reaction from the NPCs for your actions is not an expression of free will but of ignorance.

I never understood why people are so quick to turn to insults on a forum like this :P I don't particularly want to escalate this; it might be better to leave it as is, with the conclusion of we disagree over the original "strictness" of the original BG1/BG2 NPC interaction mechanic. However the devs choose to approach the issue, I'm sure they'll give it some serious thought, if only for the reaction it drew here!

kamuizin

I'm not insulting you, my domain of the english language is not perfect and sometimes i use heavy words instead of diplomatic ones. Ignorance on the dicionary is the lack of knowledge of something. Want the NPCs to not answer your actions in kind is a lack of knowledge of their roleplay or i'm wrong?

My intention is not to offend here just to argue. I will absent myself of any direct posts to prevent a conflict just to be sure.

Dee

I tend to agree with Nulspace's argument that giving the player more freedom is a better course of action than taking that freedom away.

There are already measures in place to show how the NPCs feel about a certain character's death - Jaheira, for example, saying "Damn you, Khalid - if you die here, I swear you'll never hear the end of it!", or Minsc going into a rage upon Dynaheir's death - and I think that's probably enough.

The only possible way to avoid that kind of break in continuity, that I can see, would be to prevent members of the party from attacking other members of the party, if they're not charmed or otherwise hostile. But I don't think that's a good solution either.

Zaccaro

This game is not only meant for us fans of the original too. The prevention of gamers to do their own decision like killing off Dynaheir could lead to alienation and it might also be hard to implement in the game. Ofcourse there might at some point be a mod done by a fan but that's already directed to fans. I find this "killing off Khalid makes Jaheira leave." Better suited for HC-fans who already know the original.

kamuizin

In previous posts i told that the structure of the game don't allow the game to recognize if a NPC died on prupose or in friendly fire, i don't defend a barrier of killing NPCs here but i full support the frist post from @Zakeros, if you kill a NPC linked to another the survivor would stay some ingame days , after this he would leave with the body of the dead NPC just that. It's a roleplay control enough and viable for me.

AzL0n

''In previous posts i told that the structure of the game don't allow the game to recognize if a NPC died on prupose or in friendly fire, i don't defend a barrier of killing NPCs here but i full support the frist post from @Zakeros, if you kill a NPC linked to another the survivor would stay some ingame days , after this he would leave with the body of the dead NPC just that. It's a roleplay control enough and viable for me.''

I like that. What happens when you drop the NPC though? Maybe it won't allow you to do it? The NPC leaves your party with the body instead? Yeah I'd like that. I'd like it only for the goodfully aligned characters however. Khalid/Jaheira , Minsc/Dynaheir. Not for Xzart/ Monty or Eldoth/Ski... I just don't see them going out of their way to bring eachother back to life. Okay Ski would definitely take care of Eldoth but the other way around I don't think so.

caruga

Speaking of silliness, I think the very fact of being able to command good characters to commit cold-blooded murder, and 'grumble' about the course their party is taking afterward, takes the cake. I'd like to see an RPG where the reactions truly make sense.

Anton

NPC Request: Make Keldorn only join the party when we have >12(?) reputation.
I mean that PC should be quite recognized and famous already in order such guy as Keldorn to join him.

smeagolheart

don't order minsc to kill dynaheir. don't order jaheria to kill khalid. crisis in roleplaying averted.