Howdy, Stranger!

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

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Wellyn's ghost and a paladin

1246

Comments

  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 738
    And come to think of it, doesn't your undead hunter have a direct line to some undead-hating god who commands and empowers them to do their work?

    If you really must justify where they learned it you can just say their god gave them some pointers during one of their prayer sessions.

    ElysianEchoes
  • chimaerachimaera Member Posts: 802
    edited April 8
    Chronicler wrote: »
    It's implicitly understood that your character is studying their class skills somehow.

    Bards learn their bardic lore, for example, without you actually having to go out and study each and every artifact.

    Your fighter achieves grandmastery without actually having to train under a grandmaster.

    Thieves learn new traps without you having to go through all the rigamarole of finding the blueprints and tracking down the materials and so on and so forth.

    There is absolutely no reason to believe that your level infinity undead hunter is ignorant of the undead.
    Neither does it imply that they are omniscient about undead. If that were the case, they would not have to go questing about vampirism just like everyone else. But even if your undead hunter is indeed omniscient, that still doesn't answer the question how do you justify giving the bones back to Kangaxx.

    All you have is the word of another lich that Kanggy won't be grateful, implying that he might turn against you. But what if that ancient evil demilich would have done a runner instead, once you gave him the bones? (now that would be a fun quest outcome :D ) I'd expect that a character with above-the-average wisdom would consider all possible outcomes at this point.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,586
    I think its worth noting that there are good aligned Liches in the setting. Something being a lich doesn't automatically make it evil.

    gorgonzola
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,443
    edited April 8
    @Chronicler i agree.
    the way the toons gain levels, abilities and lore has nothing to do with rp, is only geared to a mechanic thing, the game is designed to have you rise in power and find more powerful enemies as you progress.
    other way what rp excuse we can give to the fact that at the beginning we find only goblins, lousy mages and fighters that are beginners and to loot a +2 weapon is a god sent present but in later game +3 weapons drop every moment, a lot of fighters have hla and each mage you find is so close to be an archmage? it is only a mechanics thing, without any root in the rp.

    the same is true for our toons. maybe the fighters have some reason to improve as fighting hard every day can be almost as effective as sparring with a master, but how can a bard rise so fast his lore if he walks, cast and fight all the time he is not sleeping? also how a specialist mage can know about the opposite school of magic and react to it, he can not learn a single spell of it...
    or how a thief that has not set a single trap in the whole game can improve in it if he has no free time that we can rp he uses to study the trapping art?
    and on and over.
    are all things that have no rp sense at all, a true role player should probably refuse to level up in many situations, or level up much slower, thing that is not possible as you always level at your current xp level.

    to assume that the undead hunter has a way to know more about the undeads then the other toons, as he is a dedicated kit specialized to fight them, has much more rp value then setting a trap with a thief that before getting enough points in it has not done it a single time. to rp a thief one should try to set traps constantly from the beginning, accepting to have his thief fail and be damaged many times, waste his rounds trying to detect illusions he can not detect and on and over.
    other way we can accept to rp that a undead hunter of a certain level can get from the bones and other clues a certain knowledge about the evil that he is going, or not going, to free (if we wish, as i told every player has to find his own way to rp, and i am not talking to balance it with pg, i am strictly talking of giving his own flavor according to his feelings to the rp aspect) .

  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 806
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    I think its worth noting that there are good aligned Liches in the setting. Something being a lich doesn't automatically make it evil.

    But I think only evil liches have a fear aura, so it should be fairly easy to keep them apart. And the vast majority of human liches are evil.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,586
    Ammar wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    I think its worth noting that there are good aligned Liches in the setting. Something being a lich doesn't automatically make it evil.

    But I think only evil liches have a fear aura, so it should be fairly easy to keep them apart. And the vast majority of human liches are evil.

    Yeah, but how do you tell? Note that detect evil doesn't differentiate between "This person object is evil" and "This object have an evil put upon it."

  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 738
    @chimaera you keep coming back to the game's dialogue options as if the game has any unique dialogues for any of the kits.

    It very rarely even has class specific dialogues. There's only so much time they were going to put into writing this stuff.

  • MaurvirMaurvir Member Posts: 130
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    I think its worth noting that there are good aligned Liches in the setting. Something being a lich doesn't automatically make it evil.

    While technically possible, were there any in the game that weren't some variant of evil? Also, I thought the necromantic arts required to become a lich pretty much meant you had to have an evil alignment?

    That said, with Kangaxx you shouldn't need a very high wisdom score to figure out that a dude that was bad news. I mean, he was buried in multiple pieces across the city, each tomb guarded by powerful liches themselves. If that wasn't a big enough hint, then maybe you deserve the plastering you get if you go in there unprepared. ;)

    It would have been nice if a party member with higher than average wisdom pointed that out directly, but seriously. Has anyone ever done that quest thinking it was just an average step-n-fetchit quest?

  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 738
    Maurvir wrote: »

    While technically possible, were there any in the game that weren't some variant of evil? Also, I thought the necromantic arts required to become a lich pretty much meant you had to have an evil alignment?

    Good Liches usually become so through divine means. There are gods that will make particularly good servants into liches, so that they might serve in the mortal realm forever.

    However those liches are usually on the move, doing stuff. They don't tend to just hang out in their lair waiting for adventurers to find them.

    If I recall there's some major elven exception though, where the liches have a Winter Soldier type situation going. They sleep, until their people need them, and then they awake and do their work once more.

  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 738
    I would also hazard a guess that the gods that employ lich servants would likely be contentious with the gods that employ undead hunters, so make of that what you will.

  • ElysianEchoesElysianEchoes Member Posts: 231
    Weren't Elven Baelnorns good aligned liches? Though I likely spelled it way wrong.

    Chronicler
  • chimaerachimaera Member Posts: 802
    Chronicler wrote: »
    @chimaera you keep coming back to the game's dialogue options as if the game has any unique dialogues for any of the kits.

    It very rarely even has class specific dialogues. There's only so much time they were going to put into writing this stuff.

    Agreed, but this still doesn't address why charname would give back the bones and let this ancient evil reassemble itself. Especially if they know it's a demilich. Kanggy could have had a ring of teleportation instead (where does he hide his ring, that's the biggest question :D ) and whooshed out of there as soon as you let him out, for example.

    I've said it before, but quests like this is why I'm convinced charname is chaotic neutral in BG2. And likely with wisdom as their dump stat.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,586
    @chimaera
    "Agreed, but this still doesn't address why charname would give back the bones and let this ancient evil reassemble itself. Especially if they know it's a demilich."
    Easy, charname doesn't know Kangaxx is an ancient evil. The player has a pretty good idea from previous gaming experience, but that's not the same thing. You only have the conflicting word of a few different liches for information. Charname also doesn't know that he is a demilich. Absolutely nothing in the game indicates this until Kangaxx transforms.

    gorgonzola
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 738
    chimaera wrote: »
    Chronicler wrote: »
    @chimaera you keep coming back to the game's dialogue options as if the game has any unique dialogues for any of the kits.

    It very rarely even has class specific dialogues. There's only so much time they were going to put into writing this stuff.

    Agreed, but this still doesn't address why charname would give back the bones and let this ancient evil reassemble itself. Especially if they know it's a demilich. Kanggy could have had a ring of teleportation instead (where does he hide his ring, that's the biggest question :D ) and whooshed out of there as soon as you let him out, for example.

    I've said it before, but quests like this is why I'm convinced charname is chaotic neutral in BG2. And likely with wisdom as their dump stat.

    The larger question of why or whether you'd give the bones is up to your discretion, but I think it makes perfect sense that an undead hunter, at this point in their adventure, would go into the decision with an understanding of what kind of undead they were interacting with.

    Like somebody else mentioned earlier, the quest is kind of fundamentally weird, in that you have to bring him back to destroy him. There's no option to pursue methods to destroy him in his weakened, fragmented state.

    I'd also add that some people question whether we ever truly destroy any of the liches we face in BG2 to begin with, as we only destroy their bodies, not their immortal soul. It's a valid interpretation that after bringing him back and besting him in combat, you just leave him to reform and resume his dark work.

    ThacoBellArvia
  • MaurvirMaurvir Member Posts: 130
    edited April 9
    Arguably, since you never destroy a phylactery in BG2, the answer is yes, the destruction is only temporary. This is something SoD got right.

    It is possible, in Kangaxx case, that his bones formed said phylactery, but I sort of doubt it.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,586
    I like the theory that Kangaxx's ring is his phylactery.

    ZaghoulRaduziel
  • ZaghoulZaghoul Member, Moderator Posts: 3,824
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    I like the theory that Kangaxx's ring is his phylactery.

    Hehheh. Following that thought, now that would put ya into a real roleplaying decision moment. To destroy that fine ring or not, even for a paladin I would think. Well, as long as he couldn't reform again from it anyway. If he could, it might make the decision a little easier perhaps. Give it say a 1% chance whenever the regenerative power was used, then he pops up and has another go at ya. :)

    ThacoBell
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 738
    If I recall wasn't Sauron and the One Ring used as inspiration for DnD liches?

    Tying your soul to a ring of great power would be a return to form at least.

  • RaduzielRaduziel Member Posts: 4,282
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    I like the theory that Kangaxx's ring is his phylactery.

    Double Plot Twist: so is Daystar!

    ThacoBell
  • karnor00karnor00 Member Posts: 672
    In the dungeon masters guide (either first or second edition) the Ring of Kangaxx is a powerful evil artifact. So it’s pretty clear that Kangaxx is evil.

    Incidentally, the ring being an artifact means that it will eventually corrupt whoever uses it...

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,586
    karnor00 wrote: »
    In the dungeon masters guide (either first or second edition) the Ring of Kangaxx is a powerful evil artifact. So it’s pretty clear that Kangaxx is evil.

    Incidentally, the ring being an artifact means that it will eventually corrupt whoever uses it...

    Charname doesn't have a dungeon masters giude.

    ElysianEchoesBalrog99
  • RaduzielRaduziel Member Posts: 4,282
    edited April 9
    He/she definitely should get one.

    ElysianEchoesZaghoulThacoBell
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,443
    edited April 9
    @Raduziel i strongly disagree :D
    and this mean that i choose to regard the computer game as something different from the pnp dnd, derived from it but different for many reasons, is not turn based but is a mix of turns and real time, the magic system is different, spell tables, spells working in a different way or missing and on an d over. and the main difference imho is that the player(s) deal with a computer engine that is quite rigid and eventually can be exploited, in the pnp there is a dm that can maybe agree with your reasons to do something if you have good reasons and can also use home rules.
    for those reasons i think that only the lore in the computer game is compelling and the decision if to exploit the engine or if to use the fr lore or not is up to the player.

    you follow a different doctrine, for you the more close to the pnp the better it is, you use the fr lore to rp and the pnp rules to determine if something in the computer game can be done or is an exploit to avoid and ask yourself "what a dm would have allowed" before taking a decision.

    imo both are valid ways to see the computer game and both have the very same dignity. is up to the player decide which way is good for him.
    so i take your statements like the one in the last post like if followed by an implicit " if he wants to play the computer game as close to pvp as possible".

    @karnor00 @ThacoBell also the in game description of the ring clearly states that the ring emanate an evil aura. if to assume that using it should not be done by a pally or that he can use also evil items (aka believe that the results are deeply rooted to the means, or are independent from those) is up to a player's choice. also in the real word people have completely different stances on this, mahatma gandhi believed that violence can not be used even for self defense as is an evil mean, that as from an apple tree will never grow an orange, form violence will never grow peace. some nations do preemptive attacks, sometimes for reasons that are proved to be false like mass destruction weapons that after the invasion are not found, while themselves have the largest possible inventory of mass destruction weapons.
    ( i don't want to talk here of politics that is completely OT, mine is only an example of how means and results can or can not be regarded as deeply related, if someone wants to debate about politics there is a proper tread, we can do it there... ).

    about the phylactery in the bg2 in game lore there is no clue at all that such thing exist, if you kill a lich you kill him, while with the demon prince boss of wk there is a clear lore about killing him being only to kill an avatar and not his very essence. again imo the single player has to decide if to use the fr lore or only the in game one.
    maybe, but i am not sure about it, that in sod there is some in game lore about phylactery, so for those that own and play that game maybe there is "in saga" lore about phylactery.
    BUT I DON'T OWN THAT GAME AND I DON'T WANT TO BE SPOILED IN ANY WAY ABOUT IT
    this is the bg2 forum, not the general discussion (spoiler warning) one. if you want to discuss about any plot related aspect of sod here please do it under spoiler, the forum rules are clear about the right of a forum member to not be spoiled.
    thank you if you do it... :)

    Raduziel
  • MaurvirMaurvir Member Posts: 130
    Zaghoul wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    I like the theory that Kangaxx's ring is his phylactery.

    Hehheh. Following that thought, now that would put ya into a real roleplaying decision moment. To destroy that fine ring or not, even for a paladin I would think. Well, as long as he couldn't reform again from it anyway. If he could, it might make the decision a little easier perhaps. Give it say a 1% chance whenever the regenerative power was used, then he pops up and has another go at ya. :)

    This should have been a thing... It would make using some of those arcane artifacts a bit more interesting.

    Also, I believe I'm the one who brought up the phylactery issue, so my apologies. It's a fairly minor spoiler, fortunately, and I honestly didn't think about it. That said, my knowledge of them comes from PnP campaigns.

    Fun story: When my first PnP character finally got the ability to cast third level spells, the very first one I bought for him was fireball. After learning what "volumetric" meant, I found myself aggravated that the campaign we were playing was largely in a cavern. The DM realized this and decided to spice things up by introducing us to our first (low level) lich. I have zero doubt that it was no accident that the lich's phylactery was made of wood...

    ZaghoulgorgonzolaChronicler
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,443
    @Maurvir np at all, the spoiler so far is indeed a minor one. i posted only cause i don't want that people answering to you spoils me more about the plot related to the phylactery... :)

  • ArviaArvia Member Posts: 346
    I haven't signed in for 2 days only and already my brain is in knots trying to follow the rabbit trails this thread has taken. It's going to take me a while to catch up 😁

    ThacoBell
  • ArviaArvia Member Posts: 346
    edited April 10
    I'd also add that some people question whether we ever truly destroy any of the liches we face in BG2 to begin with, as we only destroy their bodies, not their immortal soul. It's a valid interpretation that after bringing him back and besting him in combat, you just leave him to reform and resume his dark work.

    Exactly! As a player you meet several persons or groups much stronger than you (you just happen to beat them because you can reload and they can't), and there were certainly more powerful groups or people in the past. Is Charname really arrogant enough to believe that they went to all this trouble with Kangaxx (if killing him would have done the job) just because they were not powerful enough to kill him, and we're the only person that can?
    It makes sense that killing him just gives him the chance to maybe escape to another plane or something, leave some relatively powerful item behind to fool everybody and make us believe we destroyed him, and go about his evil plans, whatever they are.

    And I still insist that, if you want to roleplay and not just max your XP, you wouldn't even know he was there, and depending on the class you play, even then you wouldn't try to destroy him.

    BelgarathMTHgorgonzola
  • MaurvirMaurvir Member Posts: 130
    Strictly speaking, you have point. The only way to discover him is to essentially burglarize the place. However, since I always have a thief on deck, I usually send him/her out alone while the rest of my party kicks back at the nearest inn. This works out great until your thief breaks into the "wrong" house and has to run back to get the rest of the party. ;)

    Still, this is one advantage to starting SoA with a game from BG1 + ToSC. You aren't quite so strapped for XP that you feel you have to kill everything in your path. Instead, you can explore other options that might net less XP, but have a less violent end. For example, I quit bothering with Firkraag. While I know you can get him wound up by only talking, I always feel bad attacking a blue circle unless there are special circumstances.

    That said, Kangaxx' ring is pretty snazzy, which makes it awfully tempting. Likewise with the Crooked Crane inn - that sword is too tempting to pass up.

    gorgonzola
  • ArviaArvia Member Posts: 346
    edited April 11
    I have to admit I first had to google what "phylactery" means in this context. I hope I'm still allowed to play 😉
    I can agree with that theory when it comes to the Daystar. Why else would a lich possess such an item? He certainly doesn't need a weapon.
    But the Ring of Gaxx? I don't think so. If the item is (or contains, whatever) his soul, shouldn't the effects be somehow proportional to his power?
    The ring is great of course, if you choose to use it, but it's not such a powerful item if you put it in relation to the fight you have with Kangaxx and the power he has, using the fight with that other lich and, relative to that, the power of the Daystar as a reference.

    Kangaxx escaped and left us his worn-out socks because he has better stuff hidden away somewhere.

    @Maurvir I agree that Daystar is nice, but during my first EE run (after a long break from the old game) I forgot it was there and didn't get it, and it was only later that I remembered that there was another sword against undead creatures. So, it is possible to live without it. But then again, I am an undead hunter and the evil abominations in the crypts are supposed to tremble no matter which weapon I use 😉

    BelgarathMTH
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,443
    Arvia wrote: »
    I have to admit I first had to google what "phylactery" means in this context. I hope I'm still allowed to play
    i did learn it on those forums after 15 years of bg playing. and i not only claim the right to play the game, but also to play it using only the lore and the rules that i find in game. for those that play also the pnp game, maybe was playing pnp before the computer game, and/or read the forgotten realms novels the perspective can completely different from mine.
    i also think that comparing a computer game to a pnp game with a dm is like comparing a book and a movie based on the same subject. somehow it has no sense as are 2 different things, a book contain a lot more lore and plot details details, but also the movie contain other things that the book can never have (unless written by georges simenon :) ). even if i started form the books is hard for me now to imagine an aragorn or an hermione granger different from the movie ones...
    i would say that in many cases, but not all and is not true for every person, is more easy to be biased towards what we have discovered before, i often hear from who started from the book: "the movie was bad cause miss this and that and that and that", completely ignoring the things that the movie add and that the movie is great in itself and does not need the missing things to work. i am obviously talking of great movies and great books on the some subject, as there are both trash books written after a movie with his original plot and trash movies based on great books.
    this maybe can look ot, but i think that there is an analogy with our game, who started from it somehow appreciate it for what it is, like happens for the movie, and who started from other sources miss the lore of the books and the rp complexity of the pnp.

    about daystar, the ring of gaxx, the robe of vecna as well as any other powerful item and also minmaxing stats, over average charname stats and maxed dice roll on levelin up is certainly possible to live without them, a poverty run, where usually only a mundane staff is allowed, is possible for only few classes, but an "average joe with average stuff" run is possible both in vanilla and hard modded game, possibly also playing lob, but i am not sure about it.

Sign In or Register to comment.