Safana Theory

Dragonfolk2000

I haven't played Siege of Dragonspear yet so this may come up there but I had a thought about how Safana became a werewolf. What if Relair's Mistake from the pirate cove was her share of the treasure and it it gave her lycanthropy like it did to Relair?

Raltar

She wasn't a werewolf in BG2. She was just using them to try and kill the PC because she knew the werewolf lady had a thing for Coran.

BladeDancer

Safana actually wanted the werewolf woman to kill the PC to score a bounty reward, but the werewolf lady was only interested in Coran, not the bounty on the PC's head.

bleusteel

Was Safana after the bounty on Charname for

killing Skie in SoD?

Interesting.

DJKajuru

Before SoD I used to think that irenicus had promised a reward for my head (remember that in chapter 6 you're veing hunted by rakshasa ,also.) , but @bleusteel 's statement seems much more plausible.

Onestep

bleusteel said:

Was Safana after the bounty on Charname for

killing Skie in SoD?

Interesting.

I highly doubt it, considering that BGII was released more than a decade before SoD was even thought of.

More likely, CHARNAME simply has a ton of bounties on him in disreputable circles. I mean, remnants of the Iron Throne, bandits, mercenaries... Take your pick.

Abi_Dalzim

No, I think Irenicus is still the most likely explanation. It could have been from before you went to Spellhold, just in case you didn't decide to come after him.

O_Bruce

Abi_Dalzim said:

No, I think Irenicus is still the most likely explanation. It could have been from before you went to Spellhold, just in case you didn't decide to come after him.

I agree. As cool as other theories might sound like, Safana DOES mention a mage.

BladeDancer

Abi_Dalzim said:

No, I think Irenicus is still the most likely explanation. It could have been from before you went to Spellhold, just in case you didn't decide to come after him.

I don't buy your explanation, sorry. I don't see the logic behind it, but I see it in bleusteel's spoiler mention.

Onestep

BladeDancer said:

Abi_Dalzim said:

No, I think Irenicus is still the most likely explanation. It could have been from before you went to Spellhold, just in case you didn't decide to come after him.

I don't buy your explanation, sorry. I don't see the logic behind it, but I see it in bleusteel's spoiler mention.

Except BG2 came out years before SoD was even an idea. So that's not possible.

Abi_Dalzim

BladeDancer said:

I don't buy your explanation, sorry. I don't see the logic behind it, but I see it in bleusteel's spoiler mention.

What logic do you need? For Irenicus, I assume, since for the money sounds good enough for Safana. From Irenicus' POV, he needs your soul for his ritual, and so he does what he can to lure you to Spellhold. But hey, that might not be enough. There's nothing but the game design forcing you to come to him. What if you decided to flee Amn and keep going south to Tethyr or something? Budgeting for some cuthroats to drag you to him in chains is a reasonable backup plan.

BladeDancer

Abi_Dalzim said:

BladeDancer said:

I don't buy your explanation, sorry. I don't see the logic behind it, but I see it in bleusteel's spoiler mention.

What logic do you need? For Irenicus, I assume, since for the money sounds good enough for Safana. From Irenicus' POV, he needs your soul for his ritual, and so he does what he can to lure you to Spellhold. But hey, that might not be enough. There's nothing but the game design forcing you to come to him. What if you decided to flee Amn and keep going south to Tethyr or something? Budgeting for some cuthroats to drag you to him in chains is a reasonable backup plan.

But before Spellhold, isn't having Bodhi wait until the right moment to hire you to fight against the Shadow Thieves and lure you into Spellhold enough? I'm sure Irenicus knows of your desire to rescue Imoen or get revenge on him, they are perfect motives for you to willingly come to him rather than hiring someone to capture you and bring you to him. Sending bounty hunters after you is not necessary unless you make it clear you have no intention of rescuing Imoen or coming after him for revenge, but regardless, his goal is to lure you into Spellhold, not kill you, and Safana was clearly interested in killing charname, which seriously conflicts with Irenicus's intentions, even after you visit Spellhold, because after he takes half of your soul, he feels that you are beneath his notice, he believes you won't survive long with half of your soul stolen even if you save yourself from getting killed off by anyone. And Safana and Coran are in the Forest of Tethir, an area you can't explore until after Spellhold, that's why I believe your explanation lacks logic, no offense. I think the bounty comes from that little incident at the end of SoD, it makes more sense to me, it's a very good reason to flee to Amn too.

Abi_Dalzim

BladeDancer said:

But before Spellhold, isn't having Bodhi wait until the right moment to hire you to fight against the Shadow Thieves and lure you into Spellhold enough? I'm sure Irenicus knows of your desire to rescue Imoen or get revenge on him, they are perfect motives for you to willingly come to him rather than hiring someone to capture you and bring you to him.

Those are sufficient to expect that you might come, but not a guarantee that you will. He's invested a lot of time on you, but it could all be for nothing if he misreads your motivations. He *doesn't*, but I'll get to that later.

BladeDancer said:

Sending bounty hunters after you is not necessary unless you make it clear you have no intention of rescuing Imoen or coming after him for revenge, but regardless, his goal is to lure you into Spellhold, not kill you, and Safana was clearly interested in killing charname, which seriously conflicts with Irenicus's intentions, even after you visit Spellhold, because after he takes half of your soul, he feels that you are beneath his notice, he believes you won't survive long with half of your soul stolen even if you save yourself from getting killed off by anyone.

It may not be necessary to send bounty hunters, but Irenicus has a thing for over-preparing. Why have Yoshimo infiltrate your group when he has Havarian's services already? Why sever branches from the Tree of Life when he already thinks you're dead? He can more easily afford to shell out for mercs than he can afford to let you slip away. As for Safana wanting you dead, I don't read that in her dialogue, but regardless, it could more easily be explained as overzealousness or stupidity, which seem common among the game's cutthroats.

BladeDancer said:

And Safana and Coran are in the Forest of Tethir, an area you can't explore until after Spellhold, that's why I believe your explanation lacks logic, no offense. I think the bounty comes from that little incident at the end of SoD, it makes more sense to me, it's a very good reason to flee to Amn too.

Now, I think this is symptomatic of why we're not seeing eye to eye here. This sentence makes no sense outside of the logic that knows this is a game. Is there an in-game reason you can't find the Forest of Tethyr until Chapter 6? No, there isn't. Likewise, is there an in-game reason you're forced to go to Spellhold? No, which is really quite bad in principle, since a role-playing game is supposed to give you a certain level of freedom in how you roleplay your character. Now, we forgive it, because we understand that there's a story to be told, but that's not the same as pretending that there was no choice in the game world itself. And that's why it's important for Irenicus, in-story, to account for the possibility that you won't take his bait and go to Spellhold. Remember, he's mortal, losing his mind and his memories, so he can only wait so long for you. If Charname hightailed it and left Imoen to her fate, then Irenicus would lose everything. Given that, he would have been foolish to stake everything on the assumption that his prey would do what he wanted. At best, he could have taken Imoen's soul and left Bodhi out to dry, but even that would have been more costly than shelling out ten or twenty thousand gold on a bounty.

BladeDancer

But there is absolutely no reason for you not to take his bait. He tortured you for days for reasons not so easy to understand. If you have no intention of rescuing Imoen from him, would you let all the undignified suffering he inflicted on you slide? If "yes" is your answer, then you're much like Abdel Adrian, the so-called "canon" protagonist of the BG novels who would rather go back to Candlekeep and do nothing rather than rescue a friend in need or get revenge on someone who wronged you.

DragonKing

BladeDancer said:

But there is absolutely no reason for you not to take his bait. He tortured you for days for reasons not so easy to understand. If you have no intention of rescuing Imoen from him, would you let all the undignified suffering he inflicted on you slide? If "yes" is your answer, then you're much like Abdel Adrian, the so-called "canon" protagonist of the BG novels who would rather go back to Candlekeep and do nothing rather than rescue a friend in need or get revenge on someone who wronged you.

A friend who I might add, snuck out of candle keep to follow you after she was suppose to be left behind and more than likely a lot safer than with you. Just imagine, if she had never snuck out, she would have never been kidnap and tortured with you since her presence is practically unknown to other bhaalspawn until Throne of Bhaal. While I like Imeon, and I will acknowledge that Irenicus said some stuff in the beginning of BG2 that would insinuate that he knew and understood that she was a bhaalspawn, but the game never even played like it was important fact that she was the same as you. In fact it was more "oh a soul for my sister, done." There was no evidence showing that anyone's else soul couldn't have done the job, hers was just convenience since she put herself in that situation in the first place.

Abi_Dalzim

BladeDancer said:

But there is absolutely no reason for you not to take his bait. He tortured you for days for reasons not so easy to understand. If you have no intention of rescuing Imoen from him, would you let all the undignified suffering he inflicted on you slide? If "yes" is your answer, then you're much like Abdel Adrian, the so-called "canon" protagonist of the BG novels who would rather go back to Candlekeep and do nothing rather than rescue a friend in need or get revenge on someone who wronged you.

Spoken like a true railroading GM. There's reason enough to go if you make that choice, there's no dispute there. But there are also reasons you might not. For one, the power of Irenicus and the Cowled Wizards that imprisoned him might appear insurmountable. That's certainly the impression that the game likes to impart. An evil protagonist might not care about Imoen and think Irenicus being imprisoned is punishment enough. And maybe, just maybe, a savvy protagonist might recognize an obvious trap. Hell, simply distrusting both the Shadow Thieves and the Vampires might be reason enough not to take either up on their offer. If you take a look at all of those problems and simply think, "Nah, GW would go anyways, there's no other choice", then I don't think you really understand how roleplaying works. It's really not something a GM (or in this case game designers) should be forcing in such a way.

But really, none of that matters too much. What matters is that Irenicus, in the story, might foresee something other than a headlong Leeroy Jenkins charge into his clutches. It's said that Evil Cannot Comprehend Good, and if so, then he'd have even less reason to expect such behavior from his prey, especially if you're non-Good. I mean, I doubt anyone thinks he'd take inordinate personal risks to save Bodhi, so he wouldn't instinctively expect others to act differently. And you need to consider also the likelihood of getting what he wants versus the consequences if he's wrong. Even if there's only a 1 percent chance that Charname won't show, then that's a one percent chance that he'll go without a soul, lose his mind, and die without having gotten the revenge he wants. I think it's safe to say that even a one percent or a thousandths of one percent chance of that would be abhorrent to him. Therefore, bounty.

Now, I think I've blathered on enough about this topic. We seem to have fundamentally different perspectives on what's possible/plausible in this universe and in roleplaying motivations, so I don't really expect this post to be any more convincing to you than my last. Still, I wanted to get my perspective out there, and I think I've done so at enough length that it can be understood.

BladeDancer

@Abi_Dalzim What's wrong with railroading? All stories in movies, games and novels are meant to happen whether you like it or not. That's how stories go, even in games where your choices change the way the game plays out like Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect, there is freedom, but it isn't exactly the freedom you think you have, there technically is no such thing as a vast, very wide open narrative where you can betray the game's narrative and do whatever you want without giving the game any closure. There are side quests, yes, but eventually you'll have to focus back on the main mission.

An opponent may appear challenging, but there technically is no such thing as an insurmountable opponent, that's all in a state of mind. What I mean by that is a person who believes there is an obstacle that he/she can't overcome will never overcome that obstacle as long as he/she believes he/she can't do it, and Charname, no matter what alignment he/she is, does not have such a low self esteem. If you claim a Lawful Evil person is like that, Edwin Odesserion would beg to differ. If someone wronged him, he would not let that slide, he would find allies with goals that align with his and get revenge. He certainly had no intention of letting Caelar Argent in SoD off the hook for turning against him.

It's clear we have different perspectives. But can we respect each other despite our differences?

FinnTheHuman

This railroading discussion reminds me of xanatos gambit. A situation wherein no matter what the hero chooses the villian gets what he wants. Its awesome writing if you can achieve this. It would be especially useful in a CRPG such as BG, where we want both choice and a story line. Just tricky to manufacture a convincing one.

Malicron

FinnTheHuman said:

This railroading discussion reminds me of xanatos gambit. A situation wherein no matter what the hero chooses the villian gets what he wants. Its awesome writing if you can achieve this. It would be especially useful in a CRPG such as BG, where we want both choice and a story line. Just tricky to manufacture a convincing one.

Agreed, this is indeed what Irenicus was aiming for: whether you want power, revenge, or your friend back, you will follow him. That said, he came on a little strong; at the start of the game, the challenges seem utterly insurmountable. It would be entirely believable if CHARNAME decided to cut his losses and run back to the Sword Coast with his tail between his legs, thinking anything else is doomed to failure.

BladeDancer

Malicron said:

FinnTheHuman said:

This railroading discussion reminds me of xanatos gambit. A situation wherein no matter what the hero chooses the villian gets what he wants. Its awesome writing if you can achieve this. It would be especially useful in a CRPG such as BG, where we want both choice and a story line. Just tricky to manufacture a convincing one.

Agreed, this is indeed what Irenicus was aiming for: whether you want power, revenge, or your friend back, you will follow him. That said, he came on a little strong; at the start of the game, the challenges seem utterly insurmountable. It would be entirely believable if CHARNAME decided to cut his losses and run back to the Sword Coast with his tail between his legs, thinking anything else is doomed to failure.

If Charname had an attitude like that, giving up on seemingly impossible odds, it would be an amazing wonder how he/she found the motivation not to cut his/her losses and run when Sarevok framed him/her for the murder of the iron Throne leaders.

Malicron

BladeDancer said:

Malicron said:

FinnTheHuman said:

This railroading discussion reminds me of xanatos gambit. A situation wherein no matter what the hero chooses the villian gets what he wants. Its awesome writing if you can achieve this. It would be especially useful in a CRPG such as BG, where we want both choice and a story line. Just tricky to manufacture a convincing one.

Agreed, this is indeed what Irenicus was aiming for: whether you want power, revenge, or your friend back, you will follow him. That said, he came on a little strong; at the start of the game, the challenges seem utterly insurmountable. It would be entirely believable if CHARNAME decided to cut his losses and run back to the Sword Coast with his tail between his legs, thinking anything else is doomed to failure.

If Charname had an attitude like that, giving up on seemingly impossible odds, it would be an amazing wonder how he/she found the motivation not to cut his/her losses and run when Sarevok framed him/her for the murder of the iron Throne leaders.

Taking on an archmage and/or an entire order of angry wizards backed by a powerful nation is orders of magnitude more difficult than proving you were framed for murder.

BladeDancer

Malicron said:

BladeDancer said:

Malicron said:

FinnTheHuman said:

This railroading discussion reminds me of xanatos gambit. A situation wherein no matter what the hero chooses the villian gets what he wants. Its awesome writing if you can achieve this. It would be especially useful in a CRPG such as BG, where we want both choice and a story line. Just tricky to manufacture a convincing one.

Agreed, this is indeed what Irenicus was aiming for: whether you want power, revenge, or your friend back, you will follow him. That said, he came on a little strong; at the start of the game, the challenges seem utterly insurmountable. It would be entirely believable if CHARNAME decided to cut his losses and run back to the Sword Coast with his tail between his legs, thinking anything else is doomed to failure.

If Charname had an attitude like that, giving up on seemingly impossible odds, it would be an amazing wonder how he/she found the motivation not to cut his/her losses and run when Sarevok framed him/her for the murder of the iron Throne leaders.

Taking on an archmage and/or an entire order of angry wizards backed by a powerful nation is orders of magnitude more difficult than proving you were framed for murder.

The difficulty of these is all debatable (because you can't be sure that there are ways you'll succeed in clearing your name and exposing Sarevok's intentions because the major people who would support you are either sick or dead, and it takes a risky leap of faith to trust Tamoko's directions), but one thing these challenges have in common is they can never be accomplished by someone who is afraid to take risks and leaps of faith.

DragonKing

BladeDancer said:

@Abi_Dalzim What's wrong with railroading? All stories in movies, games and novels are meant to happen whether you like it or not. That's how stories go, even in games where your choices change the way the game plays out like Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect, there is freedom, but it isn't exactly the freedom you think you have, there technically is no such thing as a vast, very wide open narrative where you can betray the game's narrative and do whatever you want without giving the game any closure.

I suggest you actually look up the history of film, Italian Neorealism, even New Hollywood left open narritives and open closures, but those were trademark things for Italian Neorealism era of movie making.