Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

So, I just killed Kivan to save Viconia

2

Comments

  • SharGuidesMyHandSharGuidesMyHand Member Posts: 2,471
    edited September 2014
    Heindrich said:



    I guess my main point above was that if we don't subconsciously humanize Viconia because she looks like an attractive female human being, and is placed in a classic damsel in distress scenario, then would a Good/Lawful character really kill an (albeit questionable) Flaming Fist soldier to defend her?

    Speaking personally, I would still say "yes." Quite simply, the soldier's behavior just rubs me the wrong way, and I just can't bring myself to say, "Go ahead and just kill that person/thing (or whatever) in cold blood," no matter how many times I look over the dialogue options.
    Heindrich said:

    Remember that if you are seriously roleplaying the scenario, you cannot use metagame knowledge about how you can redeem Viconia in the long run via romance, to make a decision about her in the present.

    For the record, I don't do that. First of all, I've never even engaged in Viconia's romance in BG2, as I typically play as a female character. Second, I typically don't use Viconia in my BG2 party (although I do rescue her there as well) - and it's typically because I quickly get rubbed the wrong way by the way that she starts antagonizing Aerie (who is a staple of my BG2 parties) as soon as I rescue her. As I noted in my OP, Viconia is portrayed as much more ostensibly "evil" in BG2 than in BG1 - but that's just one of numerous discrepancies that exist between the two games (and one of several reasons that I'm not the world's biggest fan of BG2).
    Heindrich said:


    I guess a lot depends on your interpretation of evil in the FR setting. If you take a fairly simplistic view that evil deities are objectively evil, and races/individuals can be objectively evil, then "racism" is easier to justify than if "Drow and Beholders are evil because of their harsh environment and they need to be evil to survive." I know the subject is further complicated by lore inconsistency and development.

    But even if you accept that it's OK to view an entire race as inherently evil, couldn't it still be argued that cold-bloodedly murdering someone else (which is what Kivan and the Fist mercenary attempted to do to Viconia) is still an inherently evil act?

    Post edited by SharGuidesMyHand on
    ElectricMonkNonnahswriterDJKajurujackjack
  • SharGuidesMyHandSharGuidesMyHand Member Posts: 2,471

    You shall honor those who are stronger

    But if Viconia were truly adhering to this principle, wouldn't she have sided with whoever was the controlling force in the Underdark, and still be worshiping Lolth?

    As her bio states, she's actually put her life in danger by leaving the Underdark and turning her back on Lolth.

    ElectricMonkjackjack
  • BladeDancerBladeDancer Member Posts: 455
    edited September 2014
    @TheGraveDigger‌

    Oh wow... Fun and games, huh? Still, I don't think I want to know the worst things you've been called.

    Yeah, not everyone will follow the same form of "good" actions. Nothing is ever easy, dealing with someone like Viconia, even moral codes aren't always simple. I recall recently during Mazzy's banter with Neera she tried to ask Neera what her moral code is, and she got Mazzy all confused by telling her that she has no "code" and that "codes" sound fun, but in the end they don't make a clear message. Her point in the conversation is that having the morals of a paladin may sound like the best ethical thing to have, but in the end it doesn't mean you'll always do the right thing just because you're good aligned.

    Yep, you're right, it's mostly because she knows he's a Bhaalspawn, it's also the main reason she is attracted to him. I suppose I should be thankful that my Charname is not weak.

    Please, don't get upset at people who believe that siding with Viccy over Kivan is a "good" act, it's all in their point of view and mine. It's like someone saying that siding with the Stormcloaks over the Imperials in Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim is a good act. Whether it is a good act or not depends on the perspective of the player. It's tough to remember that games like Baldur's Gate don't force you to make the most "ethical" choice, and if there is an ethical choice, sometimes it isn't so clear to define.

  • CatoblepasCatoblepas Member Posts: 96
    @BladeDancer‌

    I don't know, Drizzt might preach a lot, but he has done some nasty stuff before. He doesn't seem to have any problems with killing defenseless enemies, including paralyzed or fleeing enemies-and he's tortured enemies for information on at least one occasion.

    Among the reasons why I don't care overly much for him-he can be rather sanctimonious IMO-personally It doesn't surprise me overly much that he might attack you, esp in BG II if he finds out you attacked him in BG I.

  • SayenSayen Member Posts: 18
    [quote]But even if you accept that it's OK to view an entire race as inherently evil, couldn't it still be argued that cold-bloodedly murdering someone else (which is what Kivan and the Fist mercenary attempted to do to Viconia) is still an inherently evil act?[/quote]

    I don't disagree with this, but now that I think about it, pretty much all of the NPC conflicts climax with the good-aligned NPC attacking the evil-aligned one (well, there's also Aerie who just runs away from Korgan/whines at you about him, but she's also scared of the dark, so no surprise there). Minsc attacking Edwin for taunting him about Dynaheir is about as understandable as it gets, Valygar attacks Viconia for a much less serious taunt, numerous NPCs attack Hexxat for being a vampire and Keldorn attacks Viconia for, well, existing. Keldorn also makes his comment about how all Sahuagin ought to be eliminated (and I always double cross whoever I sided with anyways, not just for the XP/loot but because I have no problem with justifying it from a roleplaying perspective with a good party because they are both evil and they both did try to manipulate me and use me for their own ends). So I think that we are meant to think that it's not evil to go around casually killing creatures if it's known that they are evil.

    On the other hand, there is Madulf and his ogres (although I've forgotten whether they detect as evil or not) who are not the ones responsible for the Innesvale troubles and end up in a mutually beneficial relationship with the village. So the games seem like they can go either way on these issues.

    ElectricMonk
  • BladeDancerBladeDancer Member Posts: 455
    edited September 2014
    @Catoblepas‌

    Sorry, I don't recall him killing a defenseless enemy in the novels, coming close to doing so or almost harming someone innocent... Unless he was in the "Hunter" mode because when that happens, he nearly loses control to this animalistic personality, regressing into a bestial, instinctive and powerful fighter.

    Sanctimonious, shmanctimonious. That is in the game, and the games are usually not canon material to Wizards of the Coast for reasons beyond multiple choices and endings. Apparently BioWare wanted players who attacked Drizzt to face the consequences of their actions in BG2.

  • CatoblepasCatoblepas Member Posts: 96
    @BladeDancer‌

    He kills a *lot* of defenseless folk in "Hunter" mode though, and never seems to have any qualms about his actions afterwards.

    And he certainly wasn't in hunter mode when he tortured and executed the Orc Shaman he captured in one of those books.

    At any rate, he's definitely not someone who you'd want to get on the bad side of, he doesn't seem to be inclined to give quarter, and has no problem killing anyone he might think are evil.

  • SharGuidesMyHandSharGuidesMyHand Member Posts: 2,471
    Sayen said:

    So I think that we are meant to think that it's not evil to go around casually killing creatures if it's known that they are evil.

    If I'm genuinely RPing a good-aligned character, I find it very hard to bring myself to kill, or allow someone else to kill, someone in cold blood, even if they are considered "evil." For example, if I'm genuinely RPing, I will usually allow someone like Tranzig to live once he has given us his information and begs for his life. I suppose that my reasoning is, there has to be something that distinguishes good and evil-aligned characters from one another, and this is it. Maybe that's an overly idealistic way of looking at things, but then again, the game is considered a fantasy for a reason. ;-)


    But I will now contradict myself somewhat and admit that the one scenario where I sometimes depart from this principle is the altercation between Aldeth and the druids. I suppose that it's because Aldeth starts off by insulting my intelligence with a sugar-coated story that is clearly BS, and then it's revealed that he inexplicably "forgot" to mention the simple detail of him having killed one of the druids. If I'm RPing a lawful good character, I will still usually try to quell the disagreement (which causes the druids to turn hostile), but if I'm playing as a neutral or chaotic good character, I may consider the "Screw you Aldeth, Imma going home!" option, and leave him to fend for himself.

    Nonnahswriterrufus_hobartlunarjackjack
  • BladeDancerBladeDancer Member Posts: 455
    @Catoblepas‌


    Well hey, no matter how you look at it, no matter how you spin facts, the truth is nobody is perfect.

  • CatoblepasCatoblepas Member Posts: 96
    @BladeDancer

    'Spin facts'? He tortured and murdered a captive (one of the few times he actually bothered taking captives)

    'losing it' and doing brutal, brutal things in 'Hunter mode' is something he does on a regular basis, and even when he's not doing so, he's rarely one to show quarter to his enemies, or any sort of sympathy really.

    My impression from the ~6 Drizzt books I have read is that there's some sort of hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance going on with Drizzt. When chapters are filled with Drizzt carving up orcs and/or drow wholesale, the moralizing monologues in-between just fall a bit flat for me.

    Personally, I find his hostility perfectly in-line. If anything it would be more likely for him to not even bother talking with you if you had Viconia tagging along with you when you met him.

  • Avenger_teambgAvenger_teambg Member, Developer Posts: 5,862
    edited September 2014
    Sayen said:


    On the other hand, there is Madulf and his ogres (although I've forgotten whether they detect as evil or not) who are not the ones responsible for the Innesvale troubles and end up in a mutually beneficial relationship with the village. So the games seem like they can go either way on these issues.


    Madulf would show up as ally on the pallies radar.

    Nonnahswritertypo_tillyjackjack
  • SharGuidesMyHandSharGuidesMyHand Member Posts: 2,471
    Sayen said:

    That's two of the three lawful good characters, plus lawful neutral Anomen.

    I should add that Anomen shows what a chauvinist pig he is in that exchange. First he advocates burning Viconia, then he relents and becomes agreeable to allowing her in the party once he realizes how "striking" she is.

    BlackravenNonnahswriterbooinyoureyesSayen
  • typo_tillytypo_tilly Member Posts: 5,702
    edited October 2014
    From a role-playing perspective, I normally save Viconia then leave her be. I don't trust her that much, but I won't kill her. However, in the conversation*, Kivan is the aggressor yet Viconia escalates the situation. I say let them fight it out. They both handled the situation poorly.

    1. Kivan says he doesn't trust her. He says she's evil.
    2. Viconia replies with a threat to kill him [if he continues saying he distrusts her and that she's evil?].
    3. Kivan calls her bluff.
    4. They fight.

    Kivan is racist for good reason: unlike human ethnic groups, drow are pretty much all evil.
    Kivan is racist for bad reason: Viconia hasn't done anything bad.
    If BG had drow parties coming up for slaves, the RPing player may look upon Viconia differently.


    *The last line is a comma splice.
    Is "You dark-hearted bitch, you'll die for that."
    Should be
    "You dark-hearted bitch. You'll die for that." (preferably a full stop)
    "You dark-hearted bitch; you'll die for that." (or a semi-colon if you're stubborn)

    EDIT - Yes, I know it's a borderline comma splice. I base my opinion on 2 combined factors:
    (1) I just don't like noun groups to be as long as the rest of a sentence. It looks ungainly.
    (2) When people say such lines, they usually have a relative pause between the sections.

    With shorter noun-group of simply "Viconia":
    "Viconia, you'll die for that." -- would be alright by me, if said without a notable pause.
    "Viconia! You'll die for that." -- would be alright by me, if said with a pause or her name punctuated in exasperation.

    EDIT 2 - No, I won't start correcting your punctuation (or mine). Just BG. :p

    Post edited by typo_tilly on
    booinyoureyesJuliusBorisovrufus_hobartjackjack
  • SharGuidesMyHandSharGuidesMyHand Member Posts: 2,471

    From a role-playing perspective, I normally save Viconia then leave her be. I don't trust her that much, but I won't kill her. However, in the conversation*, Kivan is the aggressor yet Viconia escalates the situation. I say let them fight it out. They both handled the situation poorly.

    1. Kivan says he doesn't trust her. He says she's evil.
    2. Viconia replies with a threat to kill him [if he continues saying he distrusts her and that she's evil?].
    3. Kivan calls her bluff.
    4. They fight.

    Two things that are worth pointing out here IMO:
    1. Viconia didn't initially escalate the situation - at first she tried to diffuse it by reassuring Kivan that she no longer worshiped Lolth. It was only after he continued to harass her that she tried to warn him off.
    2. Despite Viconia's threat, it was still Kivan who decided to turn the argument into a physical altercation, and he attacked Viconia first (I don't think the screenshots captured it, but he did indeed attack first).

    Ardul
  • WigglesWiggles Member Posts: 571



    I should add that Anomen shows what a chauvinist pig he is in that exchange. First he advocates burning Viconia, ...(cut)

    This is the only advice I take from Anomen, burn the witch. Then he falls back into line. :P

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190

    You just murdered the only likeable elf in the Forgotten Realms.

    Kivan was only speaking the truth and proved his point perfectly.

    Proved his point...by throwing the first proverbial punch?
    Heindrich said:



    I guess my main point above was that if we don't subconsciously humanize Viconia because she looks like an attractive female human being, and is placed in a classic damsel in distress scenario, then would a Good/Lawful character really kill an (albeit questionable) Flaming Fist soldier to defend her? It's not like she's completely helpless, she does fight back against the soldier.

    Remember that if you are seriously roleplaying the scenario, you cannot use metagame knowledge about how you can redeem Viconia in the long run via romance, to make a decision about her in the present.

    I just think it is rather unfair to judge Good characters' intolerance and hostility towards evil characters and races based on modern sensibilities, when the setting is clearly much darker and much more dangerous than even our own Medieval Age.

    I guess a lot depends on your interpretation of evil in the FR setting. If you take a fairly simplistic view that evil deities are objectively evil, and races/individuals can be objectively evil, then "racism" is easier to justify than if "Drow and Beholders are evil because of their harsh environment and they need to be evil to survive." I know the subject is further complicated by lore inconsistency and development.

    Even without any metagame knowledge, a Good character should probably give redemption a shot, anyway. That is, unless one of those alignment exceptions is manifesting itself. Perfectly natural, every character has them.

    Furthermore, MONSTER X in your hypothetical scenario is being attacked first, by a mercenary who intends to simply skewer it/him/her for some crime about which the details are incredibly vague. MONSTER X begs for your help, which it would not need if it were a beholder or mind flayer, so let's assume it's a gnoll or hobgoblin. Now, perhaps it wouldn't be a citizen of the Realms' first instinct to help out this creature, but then most citizens of the realm are not actually Good-aligned. Especially for a Paladin, whose desire to do good is informed by a code of conduct that includes things like not slaughtering beings that beg for mercy or help, being of Good alignment is a completely different mindset than Neutral.

    So, my verdict is that a Good character might refuse to help Viconia when she's being prejudiced against, but a Good character unwilling to hear out the pleas of others probably isn't going to remain Good for long.

    BlackravenSharGuidesMyHandjackjack
  • TheGraveDiggerTheGraveDigger Member Posts: 336

    You just murdered the only likeable elf in the Forgotten Realms.

    Kivan was only speaking the truth and proved his point perfectly.

    Proved his point...by throwing the first proverbial punch?
    Read it again.

    KIVAN: "How are we to trust one who venerates the Spider Queen?"
    Seems like a reasonable question to ask. Considering Lolth is a choatic evil goddess of chaos, assassins, poison, trickery, and sacrificing babies according to Viconia... You'd have to be kind of foolish not to ask such a question.

    VICONIA: "I worship Lolth no longer."
    Oh right. She swapped one EVIL diety for another... Good to know.

    KIVAN: "Your evil ways will bring your ruin, dark elf."
    He's not blinded, he knows she still worships evil. His question is no different than saying gambling will ruin you or too much drinking will ruin you. But some people don't like the truth.

    VICONIA: "If you wish to die, I am pleased to assist."
    This is the first "proverbial punch", an open and happy threat to kill him, and for what exactly? Would she kill you for saying the same things?

    KIVAN: "You dark-hearted bitch! You'll die for that!"
    Notice Kivan only stops being reasonable after SHE openly threatened to kill him.

    *Party kills Kivan because he tried to help. He wouldn't have asked the questions if he didn't give a damn about the group's safety.*


    The final part is what seems to confuse people most. She say...
    VICONIA: "You have been very kind to me in this strange and lighted world. Perhaps you are right, though. The drow were meant to be a race apart... Take care of yourselves, all right?"

    Wow, she actually seems pretty grateful and nice. Until you realize she always says this when leaving a BAD REP group. It has nothing to do with Kivan.

    In the exact same situation with a GOOD REP group she says...
    VICONIA: "A welcome release. Your weakling surface ways have left a bitter taste in my mouth. Perhaps I should seek shelter back under the cover of the earth. I understood my fellows there."

    typo_tillyBlackravenWigglesGrum
  • LateralusLateralus Member Posts: 903
    Sooo, he was asleep...you Imoen murdered him in his sleep? A NG murdered a CG to save a NE? And she did it in COLD BLOODED fashion (<----PUN, right there another pun, re-read it! Brilliant, right? I want a ppun badge!).

    I think just kicking him out of the party while he was asleep would have sufficed. How do you sleep at night?

    Blackraven
  • TheGraveDiggerTheGraveDigger Member Posts: 336
    @Lateralus‌
    Good eye. But they were technically already kicked, and their fight never stops until one them is taking a dirt nap. It's always a lose one or both situation.

  • typo_tillytypo_tilly Member Posts: 5,702


    1. Kivan says he doesn't trust her. He says she's evil.
    2. Viconia replies with a threat to kill him [if he continues saying he distrusts her and that she's evil?].
    3. Kivan calls her bluff.
    4. They fight.

    Two things that are worth pointing out here IMO:
    1. Viconia didn't initially escalate the situation - at first she tried to diffuse it by reassuring Kivan that she no longer worshiped Lolth. It was only after he continued to harass her that she tried to warn him off.
    2. Despite Viconia's threat, it was still Kivan who decided to turn the argument into a physical altercation, and he attacked Viconia first (I don't think the screenshots captured it, but he did indeed attack first).
    "I'm going to kill you if you keep talking about not trusting me" is not what I call diffusing.

    Yeh, we'll have to agree to disagree here. ^_^

    Grum
  • SharGuidesMyHandSharGuidesMyHand Member Posts: 2,471


    "I'm going to kill you if you keep talking about not trusting me" is not what I call diffusing.

    I'm referring to when she says, "I worship Lolth no longer."

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190

    You just murdered the only likeable elf in the Forgotten Realms.

    Kivan was only speaking the truth and proved his point perfectly.

    Proved his point...by throwing the first proverbial punch?
    Read it again.

    KIVAN: "How are we to trust one who venerates the Spider Queen?"
    Seems like a reasonable question to ask. Considering Lolth is a choatic evil goddess of chaos, assassins, poison, trickery, and sacrificing babies according to Viconia... You'd have to be kind of foolish not to ask such a question.

    VICONIA: "I worship Lolth no longer."
    Oh right. She swapped one EVIL diety for another... Good to know.

    KIVAN: "Your evil ways will bring your ruin, dark elf."
    He's not blinded, he knows she still worships evil. His question is no different than saying gambling will ruin you or too much drinking will ruin you. But some people don't like the truth.

    VICONIA: "If you wish to die, I am pleased to assist."
    This is the first "proverbial punch", an open and happy threat to kill him, and for what exactly? Would she kill you for saying the same things?

    KIVAN: "You dark-hearted bitch! You'll die for that!"
    Notice Kivan only stops being reasonable after SHE openly threatened to kill him.

    *Party kills Kivan because he tried to help. He wouldn't have asked the questions if he didn't give a damn about the group's safety.*


    The final part is what seems to confuse people most. She say...
    VICONIA: "You have been very kind to me in this strange and lighted world. Perhaps you are right, though. The drow were meant to be a race apart... Take care of yourselves, all right?"

    Wow, she actually seems pretty grateful and nice. Until you realize she always says this when leaving a BAD REP group. It has nothing to do with Kivan.

    In the exact same situation with a GOOD REP group she says...
    VICONIA: "A welcome release. Your weakling surface ways have left a bitter taste in my mouth. Perhaps I should seek shelter back under the cover of the earth. I understood my fellows there."
    Kivan is the one who physically attacks first. Viconia tells him to back off with that threat, not that she's going to kill him as a matter of course.

    SharGuidesMyHandjackjack
  • WigglesWiggles Member Posts: 571



    Kivan is the one who physically attacks first.

    Are you one of those people that believe Han Solo shot first? :P

  • SharGuidesMyHandSharGuidesMyHand Member Posts: 2,471
    Lateralus said:

    Sooo, he was asleep...you Imoen murdered him in his sleep?

    Imoen triggered her wand at the exact same instance in which Tiax "commanded" Kivan to sleep. The sleep spell acts instantaneously, whereas the wand takes a second or two to fire off. Also, Imoen had fired her wand with the expectation that the command spell wouldn't work, since elves are supposed to have high resistances to sleep magic.

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    edited October 2014
    Wiggles said:



    Are you one of those people that believe Han Solo shot first? :P

    Facts don't require one to believe in them.

    SayenSoren_The_Wildjackjack
Sign In or Register to comment.