Thoughts about the ending and BioWare's choice of BG1 NPCs in ID [SPOILERS!]

jastey

Overall, while playing, right before the last five minutes of the game, I really, really enjoyed SoD. The voicing, the music (brilliant battle music!), all those little quests on the way, and, I have to say, really very well done dungeons. I never thought I would say that, because I am not a "dungeon crawler". But yes, the dungeons in SoD were really very well done. I found the choice of BG1 NPCs available a bit arbitrary but I was open for the devs' decisions on this. I enjoyed the new NPCs available, although I didn't take all of them into the party.

I roleplayed a paladin who does good but doesn't talk about it. She was very confused about the Skie scene, acknowleding the fact that somehow she contributed to this, even if her god did not leave her, thus not being the murderer. She was ready to stand the trial and let her deeds talk for herself. So, if asked by Duke Belt whether she wanted to say something to the accusations, she merely replied "I've nothing to say. I await your judgement."

And then, it all went down the drain. Literally. Because - I got the "evil assassin" ending for my high-rep paladin PC, having to escape through the sewers, fleeing from FF gurads so not to have to kill them... This was so uncalled for it left me in a state of shock. Having this ultra shaming end completely spoiled the playing experience for me. I thought WTF, BeamDog, did it have to be so much drama? How is this supposed to close the gap between BG1 and BGII, with this huge accusation of guilt hanging in the air?

Then, I learned that there are different endings, or at least one different ending, if the PC defended herself in the public trial. I replayed and yes, this ending kind of seems fitting. Still, I did not fully recover from the ending I got on my first play-through. I already complained about this somewhere else (where I learned about the different ending), and I filed a Bugreport today.

Maybe spoiled by the wrong ending I got, my thoughts kept on wandering about where I wished the devs would have explained the ongoings better. I am talking about the very last minutes, before the PC escapes the prison. Having to escape with the help of an assassin, why would any NPC (and especially good-aligned ones) help the PC? I made up my mind the following way:

1. Why Khalid and Jaheira? -It makes sense that it's Khalid and Jaheira waiting for the PC even if shamed out of town. The PC is still Gorion's ward, and they promised to look after him/her. Maybe they also prefer to be at his/her side than having to hear about an evil Bhaal's child's deeds from a distance.
2. Why Dynahier and Minsc? -Dynaheir and Minsc are in the daschemma (sp?) to find a mighty Bhaal spawn at the Sword Coast. Now, with the PC's heritage not only known but also first effects taking place publicly, I could imagine Dynahier deciding to stay at the PC's side for both support and research, even if the PC is evil.
3. Why Imoen -Imoen could still see the PC as her childhood friend she doesn't want to abandon, maybe hoping that evil deeds were a result of the evil god's heritage.
4. Why would the PC go with them - well, maybe they just don't want to leave him/her now that they decided to help. It could still be they rush the PC to get away from the city first. Then, before the PC can argue about what (s)he wants, the ambush takes place.

So, the choice of NPCs BioWare defined the default party makes sense, and it also fits even if in SoD the PC has to escape the city with no dukal backup.

I only wished it would have been explained better. Because while playing it, it felt like an arbitrary group of NPCs forced onto the player because "it's the ones who have to be in ID".

rapsam2003

Ok, but...if you want the good ending, you really need to speak up and defend yourself.

koteko

I agree that some final conversation would have been nice, asking them clearly why they are there with you (in case you didn't travel with them). If evil, they might say they prefer to keep an eye for you rather than let you go on a rampage. But I found it minor, really (the whole thing is due to be forced anyway, considering that some people murder some or all of the canon party members, or that they could die permanently..).

What I don't understand is how can you decide NOT to speak for yourself. Doesn't make sense - even if you believed in a right trial (and there isn't any guarantee it would be, it wasn't under the supervision of Tyr), you'd need to make a good case for yourself, otherwise only external testimony matter (and that is VERY much against you!).

They could have had your companions speak for your character, but that would have needed much more coding: you need to make different cases for your alignment, the companion alignment etc (BG doesn't have a "relation metric", only a global reputation and some flags for romances). Quite an overkill for something so simple: you are accused, you make your case.

jastey

As I said, I was roleplaying. In my opinion, making the final ending depending on the paladin promoting his good actions is not fully thought through. Why would the judging be depending on the PC listing his/her good deeds? Duke Eltan states at the beginning of the trial that the diviners had presented evidence of the PC's deeds since leaving BG city, but it only counts if the PC lists it? Why would it?
Let me quote what I put into the bug report:
My reasoning is this: Either the PC is seen as a Bhaalspawn, with evil rising inside. Then defending him/herself at the trial should be of no consequence, because why would people listen?
Or, let some people still believe in the PC if (s)he did good deeds beforehand. Then the self-defending at the trial is not necessary, as these people could weigh in for him/her regardless of the PC listing all his/her deeds during the trial.

rapsam2003

jastey said:

Why would the judging be depending on the PC listing his/her good deeds?

In any court of law, if you (or your lawyer) don't make a statement, then you've basically lost the case already. Why wouldn't that apply here?

jastey

If all evidence is already collected by the court, the accused has to explicitly ask for it to be considered in the trial or it will be ignored? I don't think so.

Aedan

@bengoshi, we need your assistance as lawyer

rapsam2003

jastey said:

If all evidence is already collected by the court, the accused has to explicitly ask for it to be considered in the trial or it will be ignored? I don't think so.

To quote @koteko ...

koteko said:

What I don't understand is how can you decide NOT to speak for yourself. Doesn't make sense - even if you believed in a right trial (and there isn't any guarantee it would be, it wasn't under the supervision of Tyr), you'd need to make a good case for yourself, otherwise only external testimony matter (and that is VERY much against you!).

Arcanis

I'm just a historian of anciant europe (with some academical interest in the middle ages), but according to my knowledge for a long time evidence was not very safe to use, so testimony was more important.
To increase the safety of testimony, the reputation of the person who gives the testimony was taken into accord, in important cases (like this one is, murder) the threat of torture or certain degrees of torture where used (Not with the question "did you do that and that?" but with the question "Are you lying?", also torture was only allowed if the questioned one would survive it)

So, long story short, according to my knowledge the testimony of the accused (and people who are willing to speak in his defense) are essential to the trial.


Also, a Paladin should tell things that speak for his defense, or he would tempt his judge to kill an innocent man. Being Lawful does not mean to not defend yourself, but it means to work within the process -which gives you the chance to defend yourself.
Not defending yourself is either chaotic (if you refuse the trial in itself) or simply foolish (if you place blind trust in a judge who only has false evidence and unreliable witnesses)

Rathenau

I think you're taking the lawful alignment way to literally here. A lawful character doesn't have to obey the laws as described by the civilisation he lives in, they can take the form of his own personal moral code, his own beliefs, traditions or those of his patron or deity.

Being bound to the law without regard for the outcome is described as lawful neutral, therefore you cannot obey every law in a society while still being good. The example above illustrates such a code perfectly.

Arcanis

Rathenau said:

I think you're taking the lawful alignment way to literally here. A lawful character doesn't have to obey the laws as described by the civilisation he lives in, they can take the form of his own personal moral code, his own beliefs, traditions or those of his patron or deity.

Being bound to the law without regard for the outcome is described as lawful neutral, therefore you cannot obey every law in a society while still being good. The example above illustrates such a code perfectly.

I disagree. In my opinion the difference between Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good lies in hte characters intention. All three agree that order are important for a society. The Evil character will use the order and the laws for his selfhish purposes (he will try to advance but also use it as a defense).
While the good character will try to help other people -within the law.
Why within the law? Because the law garantuess safety for every one. It may not be perfect but a well-defined law is good in itself, so the LG character just needs to consentrate on extreme cases and on opholding the situation.


I think if you just follow a personal code (like a kensai or a monk) with little regards for society you are maybe lwaful neutral or evil, but it would be hard to be truly lawful good, because lawful good means (as far as I understand it) that you are orderly and altruistic - and once again, laws are the only way to help the people as a whole. Slaying a dragon or defeating an evil baron are band-aids, the REAL problems of a simple farmer are most porobably more about the weather, his neighbours, taxes and prices ^^'

Also, if you are a more solitary character who follows his own rigid laws, he will most probably think that just following the laws of the place he visits is easier than jsut rebelling against them, since he cares more about achieving perfection in his craft than changing his suroundings,,

xzar_monty

In one sense, not trying to make a case for oneself can be seen as a noble act from a paladin. But what even a paladin has to keep in mind is that a court of law is an extremely cynical place where common sense, honor or benevolence is NOT expected, from anyone.

In a court of law, whatever you want to count in your favor has to be said aloud, explicitly. The other side of this is that you should never, ever, volunteer any information that isn't explicitly asked for.

The OP is honorable and noble, in one way, and I can see his point. But from a realistic point of view, he was simply being ignorant and naive.

LoveViconia

Khalid, Jaheira, Dynahier, Minsc, they are supposed to be your canon party, and they are your canon party because Dynahier and Khalid were killed, so Minsc and Jaheira were kidnapped and imprisoned too. I do agree the end wasn't really that great.

koteko

There's also a gameplay reason there. Now, the script COULD have been automated: the judge goes on listing the things you've done, internally a score is calculated, and at the end he gives a verdict.

But that's totally passive. It doesn't even give you the illusion of making a difference with your defense. So they allow you to choose a subset of the things you've done as best "making your case". It gives you a little bit of interactivity.

You essentially wanted to give up that interactivity and let a script do that thing. How could a script calculate the same score (using a subset of the total defense lines)? Maybe selecting them at random? I don't know, in their shoes I'd have done the same. The alternative would have looked lazy.

Rathenau

I do think the best experience would have been somewhere in the middle. I believe it was Neverwinter Nights that made a big show off you being put on trial. Having various NPC's come on stage and state their experience with you as well as testify to your character (As in; your mental state) as well as you defending yourself would have greatly enhanced the experience.

Also, to support team evil a bit more; it would be nice if you could spin the truth of your actions or try to lie about them outright. After all, most of your deeds will not go over that well when you present them truthfully.

Mikey205

Meh I feel it's unnecessary to have so much song and dance. I enjoyed the trial, and it felt like a natural ending after all the events.

kamuizin

My rep 20 paladin gave 5 justifies during the trial and still i got the evil assassin end.

That was retard.

rapsam2003

kamuizin said:

My rep 20 paladin gave 5 justifies during the trial and still i got the evil assassin end.

That was retard.

You picked the wrong choices then.

koteko

@kamuizin maybe you had done the wrong thing, so some of the justifications were actually "bad things"? That result seem very strange to me. Maybe file a bug.

batoor

I could go back and check some other time, but I seem to remember my character gave several accounts of low rep, assisting coldheart and how I would do anything to accomplish my goals blah blah blah and then I was found not guilty by the dukes.

When I reloaded and only gave 1 justification I was proven guilty.

So I'm not entirely sure, but there could be something weird going on there?