Change the alignments of Jaheira and Garrick to Good alignments
thelovebat
Member Posts: 218
Jaheira for all intents and purposes acts and functions like they're a Good aligned NPC who was simply restricted to a Neutral alignment in the original game for gameplay/rule reasons at the time, being 2nd Edition and all. However she acts, behaves, and talks like someone of a Good alignment, is married to a Good aligned NPC with Khalid, will leave your party if your reputation goes too low, and will get into a fight with the Evil pair of Xzar and Montaron if you leave them in the party together enough.
As for Garrick, he simply doesn't seem to act the same as other Neutral aligned NPCs (besides the previously mentioned Jaheira). Whenever you lose reputation, he comments
"Why did we just do that?"
as to indicate he doesn't approve of negative or evil actions. At the very least, it sounds on par with the tone of what Coran (Chaotic Good) says when you lose reputation. When talking to him the first time and activating the encounter which allows you to get him in your party, you can't get him in your party if you take the evil route of that encounter and kill the merchants, you have to take the good route and side against Silke. From what I have played he will also end up leaving your party if you get too low of a reputation. Finally, if you have a positive reputation he will have passive banter to another Good aligned NPC in your party saying
"You, are an honorable person."
Then someone like Ajantis would generally say something like
"I thank you for your compliment."
Judging by dialogue and behavior, it seems like these are two NPCs that were not given the proper alignments in the original game for one reason or another. And considering there are combinations of stats, skills, and proficiencies a player character wouldn't normally be able to start with (like Kagain's 20 Constitution, Coran's 20 Dexterity and 3 PIPs in Longbows, Dorn being a Half Orc Paladin, Xan being a single class Mage and getting access to a Moonblade sword) I don't think it would be a big deal to have these two NPCs start with what seem to be the proper alignments for their character.
As for Garrick, he simply doesn't seem to act the same as other Neutral aligned NPCs (besides the previously mentioned Jaheira). Whenever you lose reputation, he comments
"Why did we just do that?"
as to indicate he doesn't approve of negative or evil actions. At the very least, it sounds on par with the tone of what Coran (Chaotic Good) says when you lose reputation. When talking to him the first time and activating the encounter which allows you to get him in your party, you can't get him in your party if you take the evil route of that encounter and kill the merchants, you have to take the good route and side against Silke. From what I have played he will also end up leaving your party if you get too low of a reputation. Finally, if you have a positive reputation he will have passive banter to another Good aligned NPC in your party saying
"You, are an honorable person."
Then someone like Ajantis would generally say something like
"I thank you for your compliment."
Judging by dialogue and behavior, it seems like these are two NPCs that were not given the proper alignments in the original game for one reason or another. And considering there are combinations of stats, skills, and proficiencies a player character wouldn't normally be able to start with (like Kagain's 20 Constitution, Coran's 20 Dexterity and 3 PIPs in Longbows, Dorn being a Half Orc Paladin, Xan being a single class Mage and getting access to a Moonblade sword) I don't think it would be a big deal to have these two NPCs start with what seem to be the proper alignments for their character.
1
Comments
As for Garrick, I guess that I would start by saying that not all neutrally aligned people are morally apathetic. You might not actively work toward the greater good, but you could still not like it when people get murdered. Garrick's neutral alignment makes sense because while he dislikes evil behavior, and likes those who do good, he doesn't himself strive to do good in the world, only to avoid those who are dangerously malevolent. Recall that he was working for Silke until you arrived, happy to hire mercenaries on her behalf until he realized that doing so was actively promoting malevolent actions.
Also recall that, in Shadows of Amn, you find him trying to woo a woman using another man's words (especially those of a man who clearly is in love with that same woman). Setting aside my distaste for Christian de Neuvillette for a moment, this dishonest way to a woman's heart is certainly not a "good" action, even if it isn't directly evil.
What's interesting (and in many ways more compelling) about neutral characters isn't that they're apathetic to the morality of your quest; it's that, despite their general apathy about "what a good person should do", they have been spurred to action by the importance of your quest. You wouldn't see Garrick or Xan leaping into fire to save a child from a burning building, even though they both might feel bad for the child, but you would see both of them working to stop the evil that's trying to take over the land because that is a cause that "cannot be ignored".
Of course, this is one thing I may have preferred about Planescape Torment's alignment system and how it worked compared to some forms of D&D, but then again that was a pretty unique game to begin with, where you can't easily replicate that system of how alignment works without the proper context and extensive programming. For something like Baldur's Gate though, it all comes down to behavior for me since that's supposed to be representative of that person's alignment. Heck for example Kivan hates caves and spots where dwarven folk like Yeslick enjoy exploring, but he's still a good NPC who doesn't bicker with Yeslick. Also his motivation for joining you is to get payback for his murdered loved one and take out the bandits. So I'm not so sure Jaheira wanting nature to be left alone for its own balance is automatically neutral. Chaotic Good tends to fit that sort of thing fairly well. That Chaotic Good Halfling Thief you can get in the Baldur's Gate city, Alora, you meet cus she wants you to help in a heist, not exactly a noble thing to do.
I can understand if my observations sound incredibly picky or dumb to bring up, but I'm not really sure bringing up the game's rules has any meaning considering the features of at least a few NPCs pretty much bend or break the rules anyway. Dorn who was introduced in the Enhanced Edition by Beamdog was a race/class combination that isn't allowed for the player to use for their character, but the devs decided to have him in there anyway even if the rules wouldn't normally allow it just like these alignment rules Dee brought up. All I'm saying is if there's an argument being made for one thing, it would make more sense to have a bit of consistency if it sounds okay to bend the rules one way but not another.
Case in point, in the Forgotten Realms, Druids of Mielikki can be neutral good or true neutral, and use any weapons a ranger can (but not other equipment). they can also dual-class or Multi-class as ranger/druids if they're neutral good. (though only good druids get those extra benefits, and if they "fall" out of Good they become normal druids with the regular restrictions).
Jaheria and Faldorn however both worship Silvanus, who is the strictest of the druidic deities that places preserving nature over everything else (in BG2 her rhetoric is calmed down a lot but in BG1, if you pay attention, Jaheria is almost as harsh as Faldorn about protecting nature and balance, though isn't quite as extreme). The only difference between them is which sub-faction they belong to.
Shadow Druids aren't evil, they're just VERY militant in their beliefs about maintaining balance and protecting nature, where as the moderates tend to favor teaching/diplomacy first and only resulting to militancy as a last resort.
Fallen Druids though are, due to losing sight of maintaining the balance. (the shadow druid that went insane and murdered his circle being an example. Though interestingly Faldorn in BG2 is not Fallen, just on the very extreme end of Shadow Druidism, since she still obeyed all the laws of druidism, just using some frowned upon (but allowed) tactics to carry out her mission. And keep in mind, the majority of the Druids were perfectly happy with her rule because they openly admitted that her predecessors methods weren't making much impact on the surrounding cities, and only a couple of the really hard-line moderates were resisting).
As for Bards, Garrick made it VERY clear that he knew exactly the sort of person Silkie was, and didn't particularly care, even hinting that she pulls that trick all the time, of promising 1 group a reward for stealing/acquiring something really expensive, while having another group kill them for chump change.
And he's totally fine as long as he gets an occasional something-something out of it, and gets to stay out of harms way himself. About the only kind of decent thing you see him do is berate Eldoth for being an abusive dick to Skie (though it's possible he's got ulterior motives himself to motivate him to stick up for her, i.e. he wants to tap that himself, since he comes on pretty strong with his flirting to her).
And Haer'dalis in BG2 is a DOOM GUARD that wants to bring about the end of everything.
Eldoth on the other hand, being evil, is maliciously motivated. He isn't afraid of dirtying his hands directly and doing or using everyone for personal gain.
Where the neutral bards will turn a blind eye evil actions as long as they can consider themselves clean of the bulk of the wrong doing. Like Garrick with Silkie, he just sits back and lets the things happen without getting directly involved one way or another, if she gets killed, he remains unscathed and can even claim she forced him to help her, or if she wins, he can continue as he has been doing. As long as he can deflect the worst of the wrong doing on someone else, he can keep a relatively clear conscience of the matters.
Both are druids- Both can be fine party members. But Jaheira is slightly more inclined to mercy, Faldorn for harshness.