Everybody Grows a Spine - Leaving Companions

neleothesze

I've sometimes wondered: why aren't some companions afraid to leave your party even though their views conflict with yours?

Scenario 1: You are a Good character in a party with Ajantis, Jaheira, Khalid [insert other staunch defenders of good and justice ]... or Keldorn, Jaheira, Mazzy, Minsc... You pick up Xzar and Monty or Viconia or Edwin; Korgan... etc. Your reputation raises too high. Why aren't they afraid that by stating their staunch opposition to your beliefs and their disdain of all that is good you could deem them a threat to society and either dispose of them or present them to the authorities?

Scenario 2: You are an Evil character in a party with other Evil characters and 1 Good. You kick little children, kill kittens, pillage, rape and are a general a-hole. Your reputation hits rock bottom. Why aren't some good (and in this case neutral) characters afraid of leaving? After all, if you have no qualms about backstabbing a priest, stealing from a beggar and tripping an old lady down the stairs why should you care about some guy you met 2 weeks ago who wanted to kill a 'dragon', save his lady or avenge his relatives?

Standing up for what you believe in is all fine and dandy but when the odds are against you, doesn't it seem foolish? From this pov, Imoen seems the most realistic. She might hate your guts if you're evil, but she grew up with you and knows not to cross you.

What does an evil character have to gain by loudly proclaiming his alignment in the middle of a group of 'do-gooders', maybe some of them fanatic? What can a good character win by abandoning his group maybe in a sticky situation... does he think an evil group will let it slide?
From a roleplaying perspective (and not a game limitation) is everyone brave to the point of suicidal? Why not leave in the middle of the night ...while at an inn... while causing a distraction...after preferably having thinned the numbers of the people that might chase you.

I'd like to hear your opinions.

HaHaCharade

In my opinion, evil and good NPCs shouldn't adventure together. But as a good PC, if you're naive enough to let an evil person go with you, then they might stay because there's great profit to be had, and they're less likely to get on the bad side of say, the Flaming Fist, or other do-gooders like you if they associate with you. Pretty clever.

Good siding with evil... I just don't get. Cept maybe for Imoen because of the reasons you stated.

Aasimar069

HaHaCharade said:

In my opinion, evil and good NPCs shouldn't adventure together. But as a good PC, if you're naive enough to let an evil person go with you, then they might stay because there's great profit to be had, and they're less likely to get on the bad side of say, the Flaming Fist, or other do-gooders like you if they associate with you. Pretty clever.

Good siding with evil... I just don't get. Cept maybe for Imoen because of the reasons you stated.

If you check the few dialogues between PC and Xzar/Montaron at the beginning of the game, they are clearly expecting you to follow/obey them (to Naskhel) since they have offered you a potion.

And therefore as you said "there's great profit to be had" for them with your presence.

Shin

I certainly agree that for some characters it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to leave your party. Viconia makes for a good example as you haul her out of trouble both in BG and BG2, and she's got to know that her chances of staying alive are a lot better with a dependable group than on her own, and this would be likely to outweigh any differences in morality between her and the party. Other characters are in less exposed situations though - I don't think Shar-Teel/Mazzy would hesitate to leave a group that did good/bad deeds, and she likely wouldn't be afraid to look every party member in the eye as she did so, even if it meant a fight.

In the end though, it's really just a result of a streamlined party alignment/happiness system that doesn't take the various motivations and different outlooks of individual NPCs into account. They leave in plain sight after a period of warning so the player can understand what's going on and why, rather than just being gone after a resting screen.


Edit: There's also the power/destiny aspect of things. With the bhaalspawn destiny ahead of you, every NPC that follows you is bound to gain great power and shake the Realms, compared to being left to their own devices. Obviously not all NPCs are capable of realizing this early on, but for people like Edwin who value power over everything else, working for the PC is probably the best decision he'll ever make. At the end of the trip he'd likely be able to take on Elminster.

ARKdeEREH

I think it would make sense for Viconia to stay with a good party even if she doesn't fully agree with them because of the whole stigma against drow. Since the party she is traveling with obviously accepted her on some level and in both games saved her from being killed by less accepting people, she would probably feel safer with them than taking her chances with another group or by herself.

VedwintheTyrant

I love this conversation topic! This is exactly the kind of thing which would create a deeper, more character-driven story if it were implemented. I agree with all the points you've raised, and I'll go you one further--what if each NPC had a quest that involved tracking them down after they'd left your party and having a final reckoning with them? It would have to be a very optional kind of thing, but that's the first thing that comes to mind when I think about how alignment tensions might be implemented to greater detail the characters. I imagine it as a mystery/detective type quest where you run down contacts of the NPC in order to find them. Some NPCs, particularly the paranoid ones, might go into hiding. Others might be easier to find but harder to remonstrate with. After all, doesn't Ajantis belong to the Order of the Radiant Heart? Wouldn't he be inclined to gather some allies and put a stop to you if you were evil? This is one of the best ideas I've seen broached on these forums.

Aasimar069

So if this system is ever implemented (mod or other), I guess, Montaron is the most directly threatening character in the game.

We could even imagine that, if you dismiss them at the friendly arm inn, they might turn hostile against you at some time.

Example: when you remove them from the party, a banter triggers, and, you have a few dialogues line to choose. Some of them (when you express the fact that you don't like his wickedness) can lead to a fight against them.

neleothesze

@Shin Precisely! People like Viconia, Edwin or Tiax have everything to gain by sticking by your side. In Viconia's case, you're the perfect protector. In Edwin's case you offer access to magical artifacts and magical scrolls. In Tiax's case, the better liked you are, the more likely it is that you will have people supporting you, aka future followers for him

VedwintheTyrant said:

I imagine it as a mystery/detective type quest where you run down contacts of the NPC in order to find them. Some NPCs, particularly the paranoid ones, might go into hiding. Others might be easier to find but harder to remonstrate with. After all, doesn't Ajantis belong to the Order of the Radiant Heart? Wouldn't he be inclined to gather some allies and put a stop to you if you were evil? This is one of the best ideas I've seen broached on these forums.

@VedwintheTyrant I really like your quest ideas. I can see paladins willing to enlist the aid of their Order to bring you down if you and your party is evil and I can see characters such as Eldoth trying to escape your radar.

@Aasimar069 Monty does say 'Sleep lightly, taskmaster.' That alone is ominous.

Syntia13

neleothesze said:

Standing up for what you believe in is all fine and dandy but when the odds are against you, doesn't it seem foolish?

For a random citizen of the Sword Coast? Certainly. For a joinable NPC? Not really. Remember they are always at the exact same level as you are, and quite often they could kick your ass if they got the first hit in. They can defend themselves if you choose to attack, and they know it. (Or at least, they believe so. They don't know about the QuickSave/Load spell you have always handy).

Pantalion

@Syntia13 - NPCs can be removed from the party easily enough, and I don't believe they auto-level. As a result you can definitely have a level 7 Viconia telling a level 14 Charname that he's being too goody-goody for her, or Korgan deciding that he can take on the guy who tells time itself to take a break whilst he applies fourteen different death spells...

Personally I find the entire way evil characters are handled (good is eh, I could see them wanting out rather than be party to another "nursery incident", no matter the risk) to be rather odd, possibly because in order to make the characters relatable, they.... well they're not really that evil. Yet the idea that you successfully complete a lot of missions, gaining wealth unimaginable and a stellar reputation? Oh that's just not kosher, kill a parking attendant or I'm leaving!

I'd want to see a charming evil character who not only sticks around at high reputation but actively praises you for having one. "Excellent! Now they'll never suspect...." Perhaps because I play most of my villains as being perfectly happy to be hailed and worshipped as a hero if it's in their interests.

reedmilfam

I agree with @Pantalion, but also understand the limitations of what they had to work with. It's a good thing that the NPC's differing with you is a good thing - I want them to have different opinions. However, tying it to reputation is troublesome. I prefer the newer systems where that NPC's agreement with your actions is specific to that character.

I've never partied with Viconia (no double entendre meant) and am generally reputation 19+ until things force your hand in Baldur's Gate or when the changes occur in BG2. It's frustrating to me that I would have to do some rep management, just to keep her around. This is mostly from curiosity because she's heralded as an awesome NPC.

Maybe I should just try to play a neutral character. It'll be hard to find ways to fulfil quests without too much Gorion would be proud of your actions so that I can keep some of the colorful personages around...

sebas

Good and Evil are relative notions while the social interactions and bonds people can form care little for terminology. Also, Good and Evil definitions have always been subject to context: Mother Theresa didn't torture people because she enjoyed them screaming in pain, she did it because she honestly thought that not giving them painkillers will move their spirits closer to God. Judging this particular action of hers will be different now than it was then, than it would have been 1000 years ago, than it would be in Faerun.

I personally believe that good implies tolerance and altruism, which pretty much rules out half of the Good-aligned NPCs in BG2, no? Keldorn is racist, Anomen is vain etc. Also you can have a character be truly evil with outsiders but truly good with close people, for various reasons.

This is, I feel, what makes the BG2 NPCs so great: they feel like real people, with flaws and qualities, they have their own mind and speak it. They are not simple goody-two shoes or evil psychopaths. And their interractions, from banter to fighting and bonding feels real and true. Restricting them based on some "silly" terminology such as Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil would make them exceptionally boring and common.

Pantalion

sebas said:

Good and Evil are relative notions while the social interactions and bonds people can form care little for terminology. Also, Good and Evil definitions have always been subject to context: Mother Theresa didn't torture people because she enjoyed them screaming in pain, she did it because she honestly thought that not giving them painkillers will move their spirits closer to God. Judging this particular action of hers will be different now than it was then, than it would have been 1000 years ago, than it would be in Faerun.

I personally believe that good implies tolerance and altruism, which pretty much rules out half of the Good-aligned NPCs in BG2, no? Keldorn is racist, Anomen is vain etc. Also you can have a character be truly evil with outsiders but truly good with close people, for various reasons.

This is, I feel, what makes the BG2 NPCs so great: they feel like real people, with flaws and qualities, they have their own mind and speak it. They are not simple goody-two shoes or evil psychopaths. And their interractions, from banter to fighting and bonding feels real and true. Restricting them based on some silly terminology such as "Good" or "Evil" would make them exceptionally boring and common.

Whilst yes, morality in general could be argued to be largely relative (though there are at least a few acts considered abhorrent across the board), this has never been the case for D&D. There is a concept of absolute Good, Law, Chaos and Evil. Perhaps confusingly, Murder, as Charname can attest, can be considered Good, Neutral or Evil, making killing itself a neutral act.

Tolerance, however, is an explicitly Chaotic trait, not a Good trait, whilst Law encourages homogenity, and as an extension, can expand to racism. How much of the Drow's reputation is thoroughly deserved, the fact that Viconia *is* objectively Evil - which any cleric or paladin can *see*, and the fact he gives her a day to leave are all ameliorating aspects over what might on the surface appear to be simple racism.

Much of the relative morality you describe is effectively a Law versus Chaos consideration, not a Good versus Evil consideration, which is why some consider it good and others evil (and the vast majority colosally ignorant).

sebas

@Pantalion

Hmm, you do raise a couple of very good points. I did say it's a matter of context but I did not think about the fact that paladins are supposed to be able to "see" evil, which is just that, a context to Keldorn's actions.
And I definitely agree that murder can have different nuances. I mean, we are talking about a world in which death looms at every corner.

Why do you say though that tolerance is a Chaotic trait? I would say apathy would be, not tolerance.

Pantalion

@Sebas

Chaos embodies liberty, individualism, relativism and focus on the self over society. When you value your individualism, you are more likely to value others' individualism and consider everything to be relative; and that can emerge in the form of tolerance (and as with any Chaos/Law consideration, tolerance is not always a good thing).

Kirkor

I never got it: Why evil characters leave the group if it gets too high reputation? It's not like they loose something by doing good...

They are leaving group just to say "Hey, I'm truly evil. Now I will leave you in the middle of Underdark, so Ilithids can eat my face off. But I'm evil and I won't make good quests just to get cool treasure. It's not evil enough for me."

neleothesze

Syntia13 said:

neleothesze said:

Standing up for what you believe in is all fine and dandy but when the odds are against you, doesn't it seem foolish?

For a random citizen of the Sword Coast? Certainly. For a joinable NPC? Not really. Remember they are always at the exact same level as you are, and quite often they could kick your ass if they got the first hit in. They can defend themselves if you choose to attack, and they know it. (Or at least, they believe so. They don't know about the QuickSave/Load spell you have always handy).

@Syntia13 I did say "when the odds are against you". A PC travelling with Edwin only might find it reasonable to let the man go because he is a powerful wizard. Edwin himself might view it as something natural and to be expected since he is arrogant enough to believe he can win against the PC.

[btw, about that QuickSave/Load button... haven't needed it handy in ages; but Edwin doesn't know that I'm the dark voice whispering in his ear what spells to cast... when he leaves he will suddenly find himself growing very, very inefficient at hurling spells... still a bit of a menace.... but a tiny one. :P]

But Edwin against PC / Keldorn / Mazzy / Minsc and Imoen ? I think even he would stop to consider things... Do I really want to leave in a huff from a Paladin, wannabe-Paladin, crazy Ranger, mageling and thig guy who can turn into the embodiment of murder if he's feeling cranky? I think I'll stick around till I can make a quiet exit. And I can even see him talking to himself and saying these things when he thinks no one can hear

Trist

Most people in Faerun worship a particular god. Divine intervention and the afterlife are realities of life (and death). For any character to act contrary to the preferences or designs of the deity they worship is pretty dangerous.

For instance, I don't remember who Korgan worships (Abatthor?), but whether he'd continue travelling with the bhaalspawn would be at least partly dependent on his deity's reaction. Presumably his deity would be quite interested in keeping an eye on things, and could conceivably encourage Korgan to take measures to prevent any ascendancy should Bhaal V 2.0 be perceived as a threat.

Minsc is a different matter though. He'd sooner die than allow Charname to commit an evil act.

neleothesze

@Trist That's a very interesting point. Especially since the rules say that you can only change gods a limited number of times ( 2-3?)... and after that if you become godless (be it because you stopped believing in him or maybe acted against his wishes) it's game over.... Hmmm... Wall of the Faithless or angering 5 mean looking adventurers... what to pick, what to pick.

MERLANCE

Shin said:

Obviously not all NPCs are capable of realizing this early on, but for people like Edwin who value power over everything else, working for the PC is probably the best decision he'll ever make. At the end of the trip he'd likely be able to take on Elminster.

He tried that. It didn't work out so well.

AHF

Kirkor said:

I never got it: Why evil characters leave the group if it gets too high reputation? It's not like they loose something by doing good...

They are leaving group just to say "Hey, I'm truly evil. Now I will leave you in the middle of Underdark, so Ilithids can eat my face off. But I'm evil and I won't make good quests just to get cool treasure. It's not evil enough for me."

It depends on how you frame it. I think you can make a role playing reason for most of the evil characters along the lines of:

"I can't bear spending all my time helping these weaklings for one more minute. Find my book. Find my husband. Protect me from the bear. Bah, it is a waste of my time and holds me back. These people will never have strength until they do for themselves and the weak aren't worthy of my efforts."

"Why do we keep giving away our gold and turning down magic items and rewards? If I am going to do the extraordinary, I am going to get everything I can out it. I am not doing this for charity."

"I can't bear passing up these opportunities to tap into real power just to help some do gooder. Pass on being granted a boon from a Demon Lord just to appease some uppity Silver Dragon? And pass on secret magic protecting armor in the process? I don't think so."

"How can I be a part of groveling before these losers for one more minute? Am I supposed to be polite to some obnoxious, spoiled old witch when I come and destroy the trolls in her castle? Am I supposed to care what piece of art is in the lobby in Helm's church when his followers would love nothing better than to end my existence? I am supposed to strengthen the Harpers? I can't stand it another minute."

elminster

This post literally now has no purpose. So uhh...just ignore it.

VedwintheTyrant

@AHF - we can all rationalize what happens in the game. I think the point is the game developers have an opportunity here to deepen and expand their characterizations--by addressing the points you're bringing up in the game. It would be nice to debate your party members on the merits of saving old witches vs. stealing their loot. I think it would be awesome if you could sway their opinion to some degree. I've always appreciated how set-in-stone alignment is in 2nd ed., and I wouldn't want Baldur's Gate to delve too far into KotOR's schtick by having alignment be malleable in NPCs, but I do want to see more developed social interactions so that the NPCs have a chance to show off their unique interpretations of their alignments. I find it frustrating when NPCs only express themselves by leaving the party. Wouldn't it be a better story if the developers could find more ways for the NPCs to have meaningful dialogue and actions? I want to hear Viconia be the one to say "I can't bear passing up these opportunities to tap into real power just to help some do gooder."

Quartz

Ehh. I agree with you entirely, but the programming of such things was very very simplistic and it doesn't seem likely they would change that.

AHF

VedwintheTyrant said:

@AHF - we can all rationalize what happens in the game. I think the point is the game developers have an opportunity here to deepen and expand their characterizations--by addressing the points you're bringing up in the game. It would be nice to debate your party members on the merits of saving old witches vs. stealing their loot. I think it would be awesome if you could sway their opinion to some degree. I've always appreciated how set-in-stone alignment is in 2nd ed., and I wouldn't want Baldur's Gate to delve too far into KotOR's schtick by having alignment be malleable in NPCs, but I do want to see more developed social interactions so that the NPCs have a chance to show off their unique interpretations of their alignments. I find it frustrating when NPCs only express themselves by leaving the party. Wouldn't it be a better story if the developers could find more ways for the NPCs to have meaningful dialogue and actions? I want to hear Viconia be the one to say "I can't bear passing up these opportunities to tap into real power just to help some do gooder."

Agreed. Let's call it an opportunity for BG3!

RavenX

Now, it's been a loooong time since I've played BG (can't wait for BG:EE) , but I do seem to recall Minsc threatening to leave my party on more than one occasion and I want to say once I did indeed drive him off with my "evil" actions. I usually play a "Lawful Evil" or "Neutral Evil" character.

It's been far too long for me to recall the details but I do want to say I had some problems with good aligned characters. As I tend to play as a evil aligned character of some kind it often made me wonder why some of the evil characters in the game (NPCs) didn't like my character more or want to join up with me.

I would love to see some more depth added to the alignment system in the game to better reflect how the characters would really interact with one another.