Howdy, Stranger!

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

Categories

Planescape: Torment: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit www.planescape.com to purchase and check for details.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

SoD story discussion

124»

Comments

  • jasteyjastey Member Posts: 307
    ThacoBell said:

    Why would a single court case in Baldur's Gate have any impact on politics in Amn? Especially since, if you defend yourself well enough, your sentence is controversial enough to cause riots in BG, since half the population want you dead and the other half want you pardoned. Especially since half the Dukes try to downplay everything and let you out to keep the peace. I don't see why news of that would reach Amn.

    There is a child of an evil diety who is told to try to be reborn by bis offspring who causes such riots in one oft the lands that such measures have to be taken and that should be of no interest to authorities in other parts?
    In my opinion, the point that this would be of no interest in Amn is contradicted by what you listed yourself (sorry, not trying to pick a fight).

    And don't geht me started about that trial, because the PC has to defend himself, if he did the right things this will give the ending you described, if you don't, you get the "PC is evil murderer" ending which, if your PC weren't up to that point, will make you one since you have to fight your way out through several FF soldiers including wasting Corwin.
    So, the all-mistrusted PC who is accused of murder and who suddenly all want to see dead is supposed to defend himself to get support of some of the Dukes. This is not well done: either the PC is dividing people's opinions, then there should be defenders for his innocence, or he should be mistrusted by all, then what he says for his defence should not matter. The way it is scripted it screws the endscene were my modest paladin was chased out as an evil murderer with a lot of blood on her hands until she got out of the sewers and no possibility to *not* go that path.
    (And yes, of course she could have defended herself, but roleplaying a paladin of actions, not words, and definitely not self-defence, this really was a bummer - let her fall and be executed if she is not capable to talk for herself, if you want, but being freed by an assassin with no game choice than to kill your way out - please.)
    SkatanRawgrim
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 2,335
    You always have the choice not to kill your way out. Your actions have an impact on how people see you. Choosing not to defend yourself in court is tantamount to a confession.
    Skatan
  • jasteyjastey Member Posts: 307
    No, it's not. Duke Eltan says something like that a lot of points have been weighted and then the PC is asked whether he wants to say something for himself, with one of the reply options being "I trust in your judgement" or something the like (iirc). Sorry for beging dumb but I did believe what was said.

    And for the assassin ending -all the guards are already killed when the cell door is opened. Of course you can try not to kill anyone on your way out but you also don't get the explanation that there are riots because of you. The assassin ending gives you nothing about the controversy the PC's capture spread. It's just "the guards are murdered, now fight your way out alone, and oh - by some very strange incident all of your belongings werde put on that table over there".
    It's very unsatisfactory and way too much drama if you play a good-aligned PC. Pointing the finger at the player because he didn't know how the ending scenes are triggered is too short sighted. This is an oversight of the devs, and it led to a very frustrating gaming experience.
    ThacoBellSkatanRawgrim
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 2,335
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 5,790
    There's a basic problem here that will always plague any interquel story.

    If Siege of Dragonspear is too big in scope, then people will wonder why BG2 doesn't retroactively reference the events of SoD, because those events should have far-reaching effects. But BG2 always left that story untold, and rewriting the BG2 plot to mesh with SoD would upset even more people.

    If Siege of Dragonspear wasn't large in scope, then it would feel like a boring letdown in comparison to the massive, earthshaking plots of BG1, BG2, and ToB.

    SoD was the first option. They told an epic story on the scale of the other games, at the cost of raising the question why nobody talks about Caelar in BG2 (which predates her by 15 years). The alternative was telling a story that nobody in BG2 would think was worth talking about.

    For an interquel, or for a prequel, either nothing meaningful happened, or the events are too meaningful not to be referenced in the layer stories.
    ThacoBellJuliusBorisovSkatanArtona
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 940
    @semiticgod

    Events can feel very significant to the player and still be confined to a small group that is affected.

    For instance, the Unseeing Eye quest in BG2. That feels very significant when playing, you do a lot of good and stop something nasty. But overall the effects are confined.
    As is Windspear. Big deal killing Firkrag, freeing the child, righting the wrongs done to GW and apart from the RH being informed it goes no further.

    SOD didn't just attempt epic, it tried to outdo BG2 in scale of significance. The story of Charname and Irenicus didn't actually have much to do with Athkatla/Sword Coast/BG in the end. And the final confrontation was set somewhere so that all that we had experienced up to that point, didn't have to change.

    If the gameplay is interesting and the personal story is compelling, I don't think players are so concerned with always feeling like they are at the center of the known universe.
    To a large extent that's pretty much how people live their lives.

    TOB gets us back on track to the "epic".
    semiticgodSkatan
  • typo_tillytypo_tilly Member Posts: 4,860
    It was a resource limit, I think. They just didn't have enough time or money to create new dialogue, quests, and new areas(? maybe) required from joining the crusade. :/ Andrew Foley mentioned something about this.
    JuliusBorisovSkatanAndrewFoley
  • Ludwig_IILudwig_II Member Posts: 7
    Thanks typo_tilly, I didn't know that.

    It's kinda disappointing, but I can understand.
    JuliusBorisovtypo_tilly
  • fatelessfateless Member Posts: 187
    In your first conversation wit CA across the destroyed bridge. One of her comments is there have been two recent DS wars with demons and them snatching up all the souls before they migrate on. With that in mind. She is basically knowingly damn in many souls for a few. Unless she somehow thinks she'll get all the souls back from her own army.

    However when you then make a remark about the lives already being lost. She basilly says she doesn't care and sacrifices must be made. You can then make a kind of middle of the road response that you'll be forced to stop her.
  • fatelessfateless Member Posts: 187
    I'd have been fine if it had been lacking any bhaalspawn tie in myself. Except maybe a kidnapping thing at the end to move you from it to bg2. The repeated hooded man cameos weren't needed for me. Or the bg2 related guilt trip dreams.
    UnderstandMouseMagic
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 940
    fateless said:

    I'd have been fine if it had been lacking any bhaalspawn tie in myself. Except maybe a kidnapping thing at the end to move you from it to bg2. The repeated hooded man cameos weren't needed for me. Or the bg2 related guilt trip dreams.

    Yep, those are two of the most irritating things about the game.

    It's hardly a state secret that people replay BG a lot so having all this stuff you have to sit through makes the game infuriating.

  • BigfishBigfish Member Posts: 365
    fateless said:

    The repeated hooded man cameos weren't needed for me.

    On the one hand, they were completely unnecessary. On the other, David Warner. David Flippin Warner. Nuff said.
  • BarachielBarachiel Member Posts: 21
    edited May 1
    Skatan said:




    OK, so my crude summarization of the main story and the antagonist's purpose is this: Argent amasses an army to go to Dragonspear castle to free the souls of her dead father and the others. Her army moves through the country, slaughtering everything they see, pillaging, burning, plundering yet she sits on her high (moral) horse in all dialogues with CHARNAME.

    I don't get this part of the story? I don't get how you can write an antagonist's purpose and reason to be this.. oxymoronic? I mean, kill thousands of innocents to save a few innocents? Sure, Hephernaan is there to fool her into this like a Grima Wormtongue, but still.. when I get the story told to me in the game it makes absolutely zero sense. It doesn't feel plausible or believable to me. Noone would act that stupid yet still sit on their moral throne looking down on others. I'm struggling to find the correct way in english to describe to you now what I mean by this statememt.

    Why does this bother me? Well, I could have accepted the fact that the antagonist is deluded, cheated by her advisor and that the crusade has expanded and spiraled out of control. But then when CHARNAME get to talk to her, the conversation options offer plenty of opportunities to kinda agree to her, to make our CHARNAME almost agree to her cause even if we do not agree to her actions. Again, unbelievable. To me, that is. I mean, the cause is absolutely ridiculous and their can be no justification of it whatsoever. I would much have preferred that they had just portrayed her as completely deranged and mad rather than almost fully in control and that any dialogue choices for the CHARNAME reflected that.

    OK, so now I want you to help me understand :) I have probably misunderstood or missed certain aspects of the story and need your help to understand it.



    Well to address your biggest complaint, this is rather typical of human nature. How do you justify it? Simple. The lives you want to save are "worth more" than theirs. They're meaningless peons whose sacrifice will live on forever, whereas normally they'd live as poor dirt farming peasants, and die, never to be thought of again. You give their lives meaning, and you get what you want.

  • SkatanSkatan Member Posts: 2,251
    Barachiel said:



    Well to address your biggest complaint, this is rather typical of human nature. How do you justify it? Simple. The lives you want to save are "worth more" than theirs. They're meaningless peons whose sacrifice will live on forever, whereas normally they'd live as poor dirt farming peasants, and die, never to be thought of again. You give their lives meaning, and you get what you want.

    Hi @Barachiel; if you read the full thread you can see that my qualms are not about her actions but how they are portrayed in-game, how the dialogues are written and the responses I get to choose from as CHARNAME.
  • SkatanSkatan Member Posts: 2,251
    Bigfish said:

    fateless said:

    The repeated hooded man cameos weren't needed for me.

    On the one hand, they were completely unnecessary. On the other, David Warner. David Flippin Warner. Nuff said.
    There's a scene where he says "lippspickle" and I can almost imagine in my head how it must have looked when he read/recorded that line and the amount of saliva spraying forth, hehe :D It sounds like it could have been an epic amount indeed!
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 940
    Skatan said:

    Bigfish said:

    fateless said:

    The repeated hooded man cameos weren't needed for me.

    On the one hand, they were completely unnecessary. On the other, David Warner. David Flippin Warner. Nuff said.
    There's a scene where he says "lippspickle" and I can almost imagine in my head how it must have looked when he read/recorded that line and the amount of saliva spraying forth, hehe :D It sounds like it could have been an epic amount indeed!
    Surely that's meant to be,

    "lickspittal" ?

    definition "a fawning subordinate"

    Skatansemiticgod
124»
Sign In or Register to comment.