Skip to content

Baldur's Gate Logic

1414244464777

Comments

  • NeverusedNeverused Member Posts: 803
    About the whole Irenicus thing, it’s not as though he doesn’t use Imoen’s soul... he gives it to his sister who’s just trying to feel alive again. Irenicus seemed more picky for himself, since he wants enough power to wreck the elven homeland. Charname is apparently at just the right level of “untapped power” (probably due to the whole priestess of Bhaal for a mother) versus “holy crap why do you have so much power?”
    ThacoBell
  • ProontProont Member Posts: 141

    Also, all Liches with the exception of Coldhearth. keep their Phylactery attached to their bodies so adventurers need only kill them once.

    What makes you say that? Charname doesn't actually destroy any lich phylacteries in BG2. Meaning, Charname doesn't actually kill any liches in BG2.

    Meaning, for all those players who put Kangaxx together to snag a ring with a near- useless amount of regeration, and justify by claiming they only want to end the threat of the lich? Uh no, sorry buddy. You just unleashed the lich. His little magical trinket was simply the bait he used to dupe you. Why do you think his fighting tactics are so bad that he can't defeat an unusually angry warrior?? He wants to lose.

    @subtledoctor
    You just made Kangaxx *way* more awesome, thank you.

    I'm sure Kangaxx is more than willing to part with a reasonably powerful artifact (he probably has tons more) and then hope he doesn't cross paths with the significantly more powerful CHARNAME again in the future.

    Kangaxx is smart, he won't mess with people he can't beat again, he'll stick to gaining power and knowledge like most liches. Oh and playing to take over the world.


    Though I bet Szass Tam could give him a run for his money.

    @subtledoctor

    I was going through this thread because I was bored, and wanted to bring this back up for discussion, because a thought occurred.

    What if the Ring of Gaxx IS Kangaxx's phylactery? It would certainly keep him alive as the party would never destroy such a powerful artifact that is benefiting them, and the respawned Kangaxx can then go about and do whatever he wishes.

    Don't liches reform next to their phylacteries? Charname would probably notice. Maybe that's just 3e liches.
    ZaramMaldovarThacoBellChronicler
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    Proont said:

    Also, all Liches with the exception of Coldhearth. keep their Phylactery attached to their bodies so adventurers need only kill them once.

    What makes you say that? Charname doesn't actually destroy any lich phylacteries in BG2. Meaning, Charname doesn't actually kill any liches in BG2.

    Meaning, for all those players who put Kangaxx together to snag a ring with a near- useless amount of regeration, and justify by claiming they only want to end the threat of the lich? Uh no, sorry buddy. You just unleashed the lich. His little magical trinket was simply the bait he used to dupe you. Why do you think his fighting tactics are so bad that he can't defeat an unusually angry warrior?? He wants to lose.

    @subtledoctor
    You just made Kangaxx *way* more awesome, thank you.

    I'm sure Kangaxx is more than willing to part with a reasonably powerful artifact (he probably has tons more) and then hope he doesn't cross paths with the significantly more powerful CHARNAME again in the future.

    Kangaxx is smart, he won't mess with people he can't beat again, he'll stick to gaining power and knowledge like most liches. Oh and playing to take over the world.


    Though I bet Szass Tam could give him a run for his money.

    @subtledoctor

    I was going through this thread because I was bored, and wanted to bring this back up for discussion, because a thought occurred.

    What if the Ring of Gaxx IS Kangaxx's phylactery? It would certainly keep him alive as the party would never destroy such a powerful artifact that is benefiting them, and the respawned Kangaxx can then go about and do whatever he wishes.

    Don't liches reform next to their phylacteries? Charname would probably notice. Maybe that's just 3e liches.
    I'm not incredibly well versed in this stuff, but my personal thought is that the methods of becoming a lich are numerous, and incredibly secretive. Most liches do not go on to teach other mages their own methods, so each new mage seeking to become a lich must discover their own method.

    Because of that I'd imagine the particulars of lichdom would vary a lot from lich to lich. The basic idea is always the same. They've put their soul in some mundane object, and now they cannot die so long as the object is unharmed. Beyond that, who's to say?
    Proont
  • ZaramMaldovarZaramMaldovar Member Posts: 2,309
    I think @Proont has a point actually, as far as phylacteries go.

    If you can just put your soul in it and then leave it behind it ceases to be a phylactery and becomes a Horcrux.
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391

    I think @Proont has a point actually, as far as phylacteries go.

    If you can just put your soul in it and then leave it behind it ceases to be a phylactery and becomes a Horcrux.

    "Phylactery" and "Horcrux" are pretty much just different authors coming up with different terms for the same general idea.

    I don't think The Realms should be limited in their use of Phylacteries, because they don't want to stray too close another author's word invented decades after the fact.

    Like are we teleporting or are we apparating?
    semiticgoddessProont
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    Honestly, Horcrux is a much cooler name. But phylactery is the older term, so if you say Horcrux, everyone's going to think it's the Harry Potter kind.
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391

    Honestly, Horcrux is a much cooler name. But phylactery is the older term, so if you say Horcrux, everyone's going to think it's the Harry Potter kind.

    I'd imagine the term "horcrux" is also J.K. Rowling's intellectual property, so using it outside of Harry Potter contexts is iffy anyway.
    ZaramMaldovar
  • Eadwyn_G8keeperEadwyn_G8keeper Member Posts: 541
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwju_ab81-3dAhWKt1kKHV2jBNwQFjAAegQICRAB&url=https://thenerdvault.wordpress.com/2015/09/12/160/&usg=AOvVaw0YNJMXu9GyJR1jcnCNNDYs Link to an article in The Nerd Vault, Tales of Damaged Souls: The Mythology of the Horcrux. Apparently the famous multi-volume opus by JGFrazer, The Golden Bough, cites many references to Early Myths from around the world.
    ZaramMaldovarProont
  • ZaramMaldovarZaramMaldovar Member Posts: 2,309
    @Eadwyn_G8keeper
    Cool thanks.

    Anyway, back on topic.

    Edwin Logic: Expects Charname to venture into a tomb where a powerful lich is guarding centuries old magic and is willing to face off against god knows what to get there.

    Craps his pants and runs in the face of Firkragg.
    semiticgoddessProontThacoBell
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    Are there that many instances of rich people building dungeons to protect their wealth?

    Always felt like that was more of a monstrous thing. Big monster builds a lair with a bunch of lesser monsters. Kind of creature that just hangs out all day waiting for Adventurers to come slay them, doesn't move about too much.
    Proont
  • ZaramMaldovarZaramMaldovar Member Posts: 2,309
    edited October 2018

    Are there that many instances of rich people building dungeons to protect their wealth?

    Firkragg built a lair partially to protect his own wealth as well as provide security for his home. He's not just a dragon, he's also a nobleman with a lot of connections.

    Durlag also built a tower to protect his wealth and his family but that backfired horribly.

    ChroniclerProontThacoBell
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    Firkragg's also very much a dragon though, so personally I'd just chalk that up to instinct. You know how dragons do.

    Never realized that was the backstory of Durlag's tower though.
  • JoenSoJoenSo Member Posts: 910
    edited October 2018
    Well, it does happen that people build vast, insane mansions in real life too. The Winchester Mystery House and H. H. Holmes murder hotel come to mind.
    Balrog99
  • ZaramMaldovarZaramMaldovar Member Posts: 2,309
    @JoenSo
    Mystery House? Is that the one with the stairways that lead to nowhere or was that the Murder Hotel which has since been torn down?
  • OlvynChuruOlvynChuru Member Posts: 3,075
    A skeleton: a set of bones animated by magic.
    A bone golem: a set of bones animated by magic.

    One is undead while the other isn't...
    semiticgoddessChroniclerProont
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    A skeleton: a set fo bones summoned and animated by forcing souls into them by magic.

    A Bone Golem: A set fo bones gathered and assembled by hand. Animated by magic.
    Proont
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    Wait, I thought a Bone Golem was a sex robot.
    ProontThacoBell
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    edited October 2018
    ThacoBell said:

    A skeleton: a set fo bones summoned and animated by forcing souls into them by magic.

    A Bone Golem: A set fo bones gathered and assembled by hand. Animated by magic.

    If it's the soul that makes it undead, could you do that with other stuff?

    There are animate suits of armor you can fight for example. If you animated a suit of armor with a soul, would it be undead?

    If so, why are undead creatures largely so limited to flesh?
    Proont
  • ZaramMaldovarZaramMaldovar Member Posts: 2,309
    Archers fire poison arrows at the party, yet there are no poison arrows or poison on their corpses....very efficient archers if you ask me.
    ProontMontresor_SPThacoBellGotural
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391

    Archers fire poison arrows at the party, yet there are no poison arrows or poison on their corpses....very efficient archers if you ask me.

    I'm pretty sure every archer that ever poisoned me has had arrows of biting on their corpse. Maybe you're just not killing them fast enough?
  • NeoptolemusNeoptolemus Member Posts: 26
    Same here with the elite hobgoblins. I assume it's primarily a balance thing but I saw a role-play explanation that they dip the arrows in poison just before they fire them.
    ZaramMaldovar
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    Sometimes they only have a couple poisonous arrows on them, so you've gotta kill them fast if you wanna loot them.
  • Permidion_StarkPermidion_Stark Member Posts: 4,861
    edited October 2018

    Sometimes they only have a couple poisonous arrows on them, so you've gotta kill them fast if you wanna loot them.

    I regularly sneak up behind them and backstab them into chunks before they know I am there. They never have arrows of biting.
    ThacoBellZaramMaldovarGotural
  • SkatanSkatan Member, Moderator Posts: 5,352

    Wait, I thought a Bone Golem was a sex robot.

    Nah, that's the flesh golems you're thinking of. Someone once wrote about Thalantyr and his flesh golem servants in a crude way and I haven't got that dreadful picture out of my head still.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    edited October 2018
    Skatan said:

    Wait, I thought a Bone Golem was a sex robot.

    Nah, that's the flesh golems you're thinking of.
    Skatan
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235

    Sometimes they only have a couple poisonous arrows on them, so you've gotta kill them fast if you wanna loot them.

    If you are talking about Hobgoblin Elites, well, no they don't. Stealth and backstab is one of the best strategies to use against them, and they only ever drop normal arrows. If you are finding some poison arrows or arrows of biting on them, it must be from a mod.
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    I don't use any mods most of the time, but I seem to be the odd one out here. I'll have to pay more attention in the future.
Sign In or Register to comment.