Anyone else feel bad fighting the crusaders?
Grum
Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,100
I mean...these are good people. They voluntarily march into danger following an Aasimar Paladin, risking their lives and souls.
And here comes Charname, a worldwide of destruction. Going into defensive stance, tanking platoons. With friends who will the air with acid, throws fireballs, etc...
I’m thinking this will make a RP paladin run much harder.
And here comes Charname, a worldwide of destruction. Going into defensive stance, tanking platoons. With friends who will the air with acid, throws fireballs, etc...
I’m thinking this will make a RP paladin run much harder.
11
Comments
If he/she is one of those "it's all about duty", things will be easy.
If he/she is one of those "it's all about valor", things will be harder.
I killed as many crusaders as possible without blinking an eye, but maybe that's because of my former RL profession (military).
Actually, the only motivation I had to antagonize with Caelar was the fact that she was the one guiding innocent people to a slaughter.
There's also links to a mod by which you can avoid much killing of innocents and go with Caelar for the real villain, Mr. H.
This De Lancie isn't one on your side I would trust, by the way.
The ones to loathe are the Hepherniaans and Dukes and such, not Corwin or Caelar.
Eat steel, eco-terrorist scum!
Except you SEE the effects of the Crusade as you travel. Where exactly do you think all the refugees, all telling stories of a crusade led by a "Shining Lady" streaming into Baldur's Gate come from? The burned down inn and the now homeless people on the road who all claim that crusaders did this? There are Crusaders IN THE CRUSADER CAMP who talk about looting and burning towns they pass through. There is even a quest where you can help a crusader who warned his home town the crusade was coming so that the people could all escape safely? In fact, if you fail to get him out, he is EXECUTED and its explicitely stated for the reason of WARNING INNOCENT PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE ABOUT TO BE SACKED.
Tell me, what exactly puts the coalition on an even moral standing with a glorified band of raiders?
If whimpering politicians refuse to help them, then they take what they need for their cause. They don’t kill anyone, they just take material goods. And if someone warns people to remove what the crusade needs...Well...that puts them at risk of starving, right?
I think that Beamdog really did a good job with the representation of the crusade, because it is very similar to the actual crusades of the 12th century. The crusaders acted just like any other army, ransacking villages, raping women etc..., while being allegedly led by God's will to justify this.
Some pretty face says god is on their side and suddenly you feel guilty.
1: Kobolds
2: Bandits
3: Iron Throne Mercenaries
4: Gnolls
5: Xvarts
6: Ogres
7: Undead
Most of whom are actively doing evil things. Only the xvart village makes me feel bad.
BG2’s enemies are also pretty evil...
1: Vampires
2: Shades
3: Beholders
4: Some bandits and evil mercs
5: Drow
6: Sahugains
7: Demons and Devils
8: Undead
So again...few enemies that you feel bad killing
ToB has more of the same. Few foes you feel bad killing. Maybe the monks? Though they are made out to be heartless jerks.
—-
Here you have varied people, followering An Aasimar from a family of heroic Paladins. On a quest which a Charname could well be on. They act like a real world army of crusaders, with the good and the bad that comes of it.
That’s...different. It makes slaughtering them feel less heroic. Much more conflicted.
Again, you're not even introduced to most of these people. You often travel way out into the middle of nowhere to find them, far away from any non-monsterous civilization that they could be bothering. You don't know a single thing they've done, good or bad, let alone why they did it.
You've already defended The Crusader's pillaging saying they need supplies to live. So, hypothetically speaking, if those ogres you met five miles from nowhere had been hassling the people of Nashkel, who's to say they wouldn't have some similar story? Do ogres not need to eat the same as anybody?
Red circle = HOSTILE, not necessarily EVIL.
If a Charname is doing evil things in BG, like killing innocents, stealing and so on, Flaming Fist guards will come to have that Red circle around them. But it doesn't mean they're evil, it's just that they're hostile to the Charname who's the one doing evil.
Same goes for other cases as well.
Take the example of Dorn in Lunia as well. Red circle is not necessarily Evil.
Crusaders take your shyt for their war effort, as they plan to march on hell to free the souls of unjustly tortured people. In their minds, they’re risking their souls too...so you can suck it up and give them your food/whatever.
One is actively evil. The other is being a huge jerk, but a realistic one.
Killing one group makes me feel heroic. Killing the other makes me feel conflicted.
The crusaders are enemy combatants in a war, actively running around leaving a trail of bloodshed wherever they go.
Edit: They literally send assassins to you in your home within minutes of starting the game. You weren't really given an option to just live and let live with these guys.
- do you actually pay the ogrillons guarding the bridge to the gnoll stronghold when they ask for a reasonable toll?
- you've already mentioned the xvart village.
- what about all the 'enemies' who only turn hostile because you've invaded their home (like Sunin)?
- ever killed Shandalar's daughters?
- have you obstructed the Flaming Fist just trying to do his job with Viconia (or Greywolf with Prism)?
- is Bassilus actually evil or just a bit weird?
- do you keep the Revenant's dagger, despite being told it has a legitimate claim on it (there's a similar situation with the Doomsayer)?
- do you defend yourself when attacked by the paladin in Baldur's Gate (or Entillis Fulsom)? After all they are only attacking what they perceive to be evil.
Like I guess technically it wasn't doing any tangible harm but it was quite disturbing for the people of Bereghost.
You know I've never actually thought about this one in depth before...
An invading army moving into sovereign territory, killing, looting, raping, burning can NEVER ever be justified. Especially not if lead by a person who does it all only for her own benefit, sacrificing everyone and everything for her own selfish goals.
And before someone tries to play the "boo hoo but charname is also bad and kills", just because something is "evil" doesn't necessarily make the other side "good", meaning if Charname kills evil crusaders, charname can still be evil too.
Peoples conflicting emotions around Caelar and the crusade intrigues me. It's very interesting how different we obviously find the persons and situations in SoD. For me, it's crystal clear that Caelar is pure neutral evil and that most crusaders probably range between chaotic neutral to chaotic evil, but as always there's as many interpretations of the alignment system as there is people, heh.. There were a lot of very good discussions in my old thread about this as well.
My characters are always good-aligned (usually chaotic but can change) and for example
In the same way that you can't go around just killing anybody who scans positive on a Detect Evil spell, you also can't refuse to kill people just because they scan negative.