I feel I should have more options

Onestep

I can't help but feel, in many quests, that I'm being shoved along rails.

Perhaps the one that sticks out most to me is that of the woman with a body in a cart. She lies about this to begin with, claiming that it's her cousin. Question her, and you find out that the body in the cart is that of her husband, whom she says she accidentally killed. She then claims that he abused her. My options are A: Believe her and give her money. B: believe her and don't give her money, or C: Blackmail her.

My question is: where is my ability to report her to the authorities?

Because that would seem like by far the most sensible solution for any non-Stupid Good character. The only evidence we have that she's telling the truth about the events regarding his death is her own word. But she already shows that she's capable of lying to get money to dispose of her husbands body quietly.

Even if she is telling the truth, she still murdered someone. In self-defence, perhaps, but still. This seems like a matter that any Lawful character would want to undergo due process, not get decided on in a back alley.

Obviously, BG1 and BG2 weren't particularly great for this either, but most quests at least had options that made sense for most alignments. At worst, they were Reasonable Good, Apathy and Cartoonish Evil. Here, I find Cartoonish Good, Apathy and Cartoonish Evil to be more common. There's exception to this, but overall, that's the impression I get.

rapsam2003

Onestep said:

Even if she is telling the truth, she still murdered someone. In self-defence, perhaps, but still.

It's NOT murder if it's self-defense. That's called..."self-defense".

Onestep said:

This seems like a matter that any Lawful character would want to undergo due process, not get decided on in a back alley.

Agreed. But, on the other hand, if you have Corwin in the party, she is a member of the Flaming Fists. She is part of the authority.

Onestep

rapsam2003 said:

Onestep said:

Even if she is telling the truth, she still murdered someone. In self-defence, perhaps, but still.

It's NOT murder if it's self-defense. That's called..."self-defense".

Onestep said:

This seems like a matter that any Lawful character would want to undergo due process, not get decided on in a back alley.

Agreed. But, on the other hand, if you have Corwin in the party, she is a member of the Flaming Fists. She is part of the authority.

Technically, it's called justifiable homicide, and is a matter of some debate in and of itself.. But that's splitting hairs.

And Corwin doesn't have the authority to decide something like that right off the bat. The alignment is called Lawful because there are laws to follow. An individual member of the Flaming Fist below their very highest ranks (Scar and Duke Eltan, basically) should not be judge, jury and executioner except in extremely obvious cases. Which makes the whole situation even weirder.

Take the Flaming Fist guy who tries to kill Viconia. The Drow are a notoriously evil race. If you've got 500 drow, perhaps one will be good. And yet he's still portrayed as wrong for wanting to kill Viconia on the spot. He's going beyond his authority as a member of the Flaming Fist.

gangler said:

For the most part the protagonist takes matters into their own hands. Just because the game gets boring if your answer for everything is let The Flaming Fist handle it.

Plus "murder" is sort of legally nebulous in The Realms anyway. Your own character's probably killed plenty of people, under diverse circumstances and for diverse reasons. Paladins are pretty much the embodiment of holiness and lawful good and even they've got a whole shtick around "vanquishing evil".

Ultimately nobody would want to be lawful if it meant constantly wringing your hands about whether each murder meets a stringent criteria for when murder is and isn't acceptable in a functioning society.

There's a difference between ringing one's hands, and handing a criminal over to the authorities. But I see your point. So where's my Good option if I don't believe her? Maybe I think she murdered her husband in cold blood?

I can think of several things. As is, my only option is to believe her story, one way or another.

joluv

Onestep said:

And Corwin doesn't have the authority to decide something like that right off the bat. The alignment is called Lawful because there are laws to follow. An individual member of the Flaming Fist below their very highest ranks (Scar and Duke Eltan, basically) should not be judge, jury and executioner except in extremely obvious cases. Which makes the whole situation even weirder.

How do we account for "I serve the Flaming Fist. I AM the law!"?

Onestep

joluv said:

Onestep said:

And Corwin doesn't have the authority to decide something like that right off the bat. The alignment is called Lawful because there are laws to follow. An individual member of the Flaming Fist below their very highest ranks (Scar and Duke Eltan, basically) should not be judge, jury and executioner except in extremely obvious cases. Which makes the whole situation even weirder.

How do we account for "I serve the Flaming Fist. I AM the law!"?

Judge Dredd reference?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qolk_rDA9xU

Arcanis

Onestep said:

I can't help but feel, in many quests, that I'm being shoved along rails.

Perhaps the one that sticks out most to me is that of the woman with a body in a cart. She lies about this to begin with, claiming that it's her cousin. Question her, and you find out that the body in the cart is that of her husband, whom she says she accidentally killed. She then claims that he abused her. My options are A: Believe her and give her money. B: believe her and don't give her money, or C: Blackmail her.

My question is: where is my ability to report her to the authorities?

Because that would seem like by far the most sensible solution for any non-Stupid Good character. The only evidence we have that she's telling the truth about the events regarding his death is her own word. But she already shows that she's capable of lying to get money to dispose of her husbands body quietly.

Even if she is telling the truth, she still murdered someone. In self-defence, perhaps, but still. This seems like a matter that any Lawful character would want to undergo due process, not get decided on in a back alley.

Obviously, BG1 and BG2 weren't particularly great for this either, but most quests at least had options that made sense for most alignments. At worst, they were Reasonable Good, Apathy and Cartoonish Evil. Here, I find Cartoonish Good, Apathy and Cartoonish Evil to be more common. There's exception to this, but overall, that's the impression I get.

I want to point out two things:
Judge Dread is one of the most famous examples of Lawful Neutral. In one comic he is suspended (I believe) and he goes into the city and *ignores crime*. It is not his job as a regular citizen to do anything (especially not vigilintiasm since that is directly against the law) - so he does nothing.

Secondly, it is virtually impossible to play through BG2 as a Paladin without falling if you take the p&p rules seriously. Why? The game has three parts, part one you ally with an evil faction to get into a prison after your sister got imprisoned by non-evil people for legitimate reasons (even if the enforcers overreacted and are shady). Second part: you work for Drows and even if you try to undermine them, you are still lying and working with evil (also forbidden ^^) only the third part is a place where a paladin would not fall (unless you enlist the Shadow Thieves).

Also, Baldurs Gates trackrecord with evil dialogue answers has a bad track-record if I remember the discussions on this board about playing evil.
Most answers boiled down to neutral good, something else and chaotic evil. Playing a Lawful Good character was seldom possible, that an evil character could be outwardly nice did not seem to cross the minds of Bioware etc.

For a looong time BG2 was my absolutley favorite game, but even then I can say that it was not really perfect (and I always gravitated towards good, so I had little problems, once age made me more lawful I saw more problems =P)

Onestep

gangler said:

Onestep said:

gangler said:

For the most part the protagonist takes matters into their own hands. Just because the game gets boring if your answer for everything is let The Flaming Fist handle it.

Plus "murder" is sort of legally nebulous in The Realms anyway. Your own character's probably killed plenty of people, under diverse circumstances and for diverse reasons. Paladins are pretty much the embodiment of holiness and lawful good and even they've got a whole shtick around "vanquishing evil".

Ultimately nobody would want to be lawful if it meant constantly wringing your hands about whether each murder meets a stringent criteria for when murder is and isn't acceptable in a functioning society.

There's a difference between ringing one's hands, and handing a criminal over to the authorities. But I see your point. So where's my Good option if I don't believe her? Maybe I think she murdered her husband in cold blood?

I can think of several things. As is, my only option is to believe her story, one way or another.

I haven't done this quest yet. From the way you described it I thought that was the blackmail option.

Could you maybe elaborate on that line of thought a bit? We got a bit off track with the whole "Call the authorities" bit and I think we neglected to properly examine what you feel is lacking here.

If I genuinely think that a woman is lying about the death of her husband, then blackmailing her to keep quiet about it is not a morally Good option. It's Evil, because I don't care at all about the death and just want to profit.

I suppose my greatest complaint is that all options just immediately accept that A: She is telling the complete truth, and B: She should get off scot-free (or pay me, because I'm a douche).

I guess replaying Planescape before playing SoD was a mistake. I'm used to tons of options.

rapsam2003

Onestep said:

I guess replaying Planescape before playing SoD was a mistake. I'm used to tons of options.

In Planescape, it makes more sense to have tons of options. While I agree that there should have been more options here, I understand the rationale as to why your options are limited.

joluv

I am very upset that NPCs in Siege of Dragonspear don't pass the Turing test. Step up your game, Beamdog.

rapsam2003

joluv said:

I am very upset that NPCs in Siege of Dragonspear don't pass the Turing test. Step up your game, Beamdog.

Onestep

joluv said:

I am very upset that NPCs in Siege of Dragonspear don't pass the Turing test. Step up your game, Beamdog.

I don't see what this has to do with anything I've posted, but I like what you're saying.

Yulaw9460

Arcanis said:

I want to point out two things:
Judge Dread is one of the most famous examples of Lawful Neutral. In one comic he is suspended (I believe) and he goes into the city and *ignores crime*. It is not his job as a regular citizen to do anything (especially not vigilintiasm since that is directly against the law) - so he does nothing.

Secondly, it is virtually impossible to play through BG2 as a Paladin without falling if you take the p&p rules seriously. Why? The game has three parts, part one you ally with an evil faction to get into a prison after your sister got imprisoned by non-evil people for legitimate reasons (even if the enforcers overreacted and are shady). Second part: you work for Drows and even if you try to undermine them, you are still lying and working with evil (also forbidden ^^) only the third part is a place where a paladin would not fall (unless you enlist the Shadow Thieves).

Also, Baldurs Gates trackrecord with evil dialogue answers has a bad track-record if I remember the discussions on this board about playing evil.
Most answers boiled down to neutral good, something else and chaotic evil. Playing a Lawful Good character was seldom possible, that an evil character could be outwardly nice did not seem to cross the minds of Bioware etc.

For a looong time BG2 was my absolutley favorite game, but even then I can say that it was not really perfect (and I always gravitated towards good, so I had little problems, once age made me more lawful I saw more problems =P)

The rules for Paladin behaviour are way too set in stone for my tastes. Lawful Good is on many occations way too Lawful Stupid in my book. And, as you stated, not as feasible many times in the BG setting.

I always did prefer the karma-meter of, say, KOTOR or Mass Effect way more. Just because you acted like a douche on the select rare occation, it didn't mean that you were an overall bad character. And you didn't lose your Jedi-mojo by shifting up or down, but your powers did change subtlely to reflect that shift in alignment.

And vice versa, you could play as a total scumbag and still get by. Hell, even get bigger rewards for it at some points.

rapsam2003

Yulaw9460 said:

The rules for Paladin behaviour are way too set in stone for my tastes. Lawful Good is on many occations way too Lawful Stupid in my book. And, as you stated, not as feasible many times in the BG setting.

2E was kind of...ridiculous in that regard. I mean, rangers had to be good. Druids were true neutral always.

Yulaw9460 said:

I always did prefer the karma-meter of, say, KOTOR or Mass Effect way more. Just because you acted like a douche on the select rare occation, it didn't mean that you were an overall bad character. And you didn't lose your Jedi-mojo by shifting up or down, but your powers did change subtlely to reflect that shift in alignment.

The way 5E views alignment is actually more loose. It's still the same system, but you can have Lawful Neutral Paladins, for instance; it depends on the god being served and the Paladin oath chosen now.

Rathenau

I missed this quest in my first play through, it's kinda hidden but I would agree with the opening post; the option of simply turning the woman over to the authorities is missing. Or alternatively; killing her on the spot for being a murderer, as ironic as that might be. Now for my theory, as it was the first thing that popped into my mind when I wondered why the option wasn't there.




So here goes: the option isn't there because the quest was written with a very present day feminist mindset. It's no secret that multiple laws have been put in place that make it easier for the reporting of serious crimes like rape and physical / mental abuse. These laws have the precarious side effect to come in conflict with the founding principle of our judicial system; innocent until proven guilty. There have been several feminists who claim that by not believing accusations of such magnitude a large part will go unreported and thus unpunished.

In this particular quest, I see the hallmarks of such an issue. A woman who claims that she was abused and acted in self defence. By listening and believing there can be no question of guilt and certainly no mention of any lawful procedure. That is why the option isn't there.

Now to any reasonable person it's clear as day that that's absurd. Not only is the woman trying to get rid of a corpse in an illegal way and is thus automatically at the very least an accomplish in any supposed crime, she did after all move the body, she also lied about the events in question. But by hearing her abuse story we're suppose to nod and motion her to carry on? (Or extort her, but not extort and report.)

The presence of Corwin makes the matter completely unreal to me and furthers my suspicions. There are several situations in the expansion that seems to point me to the works of social justice, Cowin's own back story being one of them, but this is one of the more prominent cases.

joluv

Getting vertigo just thinking about the enormous leap you took there. Also,

Rathenau said:

it's kinda hidden

Rathenau said:

this is one of the more prominent cases.

Rathenau

Ha ha, well you did give me a good chuckle with that.

Onestep

Rathenau said:

stuff

I can kinda see where your coming from, especially given that Amber Scott proudly admitted that she injected a lot of SJW elements into SoD.

But we don't know that she wrote this quest, or that she had any involvement in it.

More likely, this is just the result of bad writing, rather than a conspiracy.

Ayiekie

Putting aside the kind of stretching assumptions about agendas (like, wouldn't a proper SJW agenda have PROVEN that the guy was abusive, involved a lecture about how typical this is, and had the PC's good-aligned path involve showing the corrupt law enforcement who didn't believe the abused woman the error of their ways?), here's what I wish had been the simple solution here:

Know Alignment.

Woman is good-aligned? She's innocent. Evil-aligned? She's lying.

Beamdog actually did the unthinkable and made infravision actually useful in a couple of spots, why not do the same for one of the other worthless spell/abilities? (Actually, anybody actually tried this? I haven't seen the woman in question in my SoD game.)

(Also could just get M'Khiin to raise the guy's ghost and extract the truth out of him, but that's neither here nor there.)

Onestep

Ayiekie said:

Putting aside the kind of stretching assumptions about agendas (like, wouldn't a proper SJW agenda have PROVEN that the guy was abusive, involved a lecture about how typical this is, and had the PC's good-aligned path involve showing the corrupt law enforcement who didn't believe the abused woman the error of their ways?), here's what I wish had been the simple solution here:

Know Alignment.

Woman is good-aligned? She's innocent. Evil-aligned? She's lying.

Beamdog actually did the unthinkable and made infravision actually useful in a couple of spots, why not do the same for one of the other worthless spell/abilities?

(Also could just get M'Khiin to raise the guy's ghost and extract the truth out of him, but that's neither here nor there.)

Even that's not accurate. I mean, good people can do bad things. And bad people can do good things. A single event isn't necessarily enough to change someone's nature.

A bandit and thief who's killed dozens might save a child, but it doesn't negate the blood on his hands. Or a good person, driven by an act of rage, might hurt someone who didn't really deserve it.

Ayiekie

Onestep said:

Even that's not accurate. I mean, good people can do bad things. And bad people can do good things. A single event isn't necessarily enough to change someone's nature.

A bandit and thief who's killed dozens might save a child, but it doesn't negate the blood on his hands. Or a good person, driven by an act of rage, might hurt someone who didn't really deserve it.

In real life, sure, I'd agree, but D&D's alignment system never had a lot to do with real life.

But that aside, given the actual situation (either an abused wife killed her husband in self-defence, or a wife murdered her husband and is trying to hide the body and lying about it), it would be plausible to have alignment provide a strong clue as to the truth of the matter and allow additional dialogue options that would provoke a confession/attack (if she's lying) or allow you to feel safe to vouch for her and send her somewhere safe (if she's not).

Rathenau

Ayiekie

Alas! Still, I figured as much; hence why I'd "wished" this had been a thing.

joluv

Her name is Aileen? Hmmm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Wuornos

Rathenau

Well, I was wrong. You can get her arrested by choosing not to promise anything and then going straight to the Flaming Fist. A little illogical but fair is fair, so far for my theory.

Onestep

Oh, cool. Ah well. Requesting a thread lock.