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!

Sir Sarles, or the Mace of Disruption

13

Comments

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,589
    jsaving wrote: »
    You don't promise the church you'll "try" to acquire his services, you promise to acquire his services. Then when you ask Sarles what it will take to recruit him, he says he'll be insulted by anything less than pure illithium and won't work unless you find the actual metal and give it to him.

    You can choose to give him the alloy anyway, sure. But it's hard to see how doing that would even count as "trying" to recruit Sarles since you've already been told he won't accept it.

    None of that would matter much to a neutral or chaotic character. After all, Sarles is a world-class jerk and the pure ore would be wasted in a sculpture when it could instead be put to better use in CHARNAME's mace. But doing something you know will sabotage Sarles' recruitment, rendering you unable to fulfill your promise, isn't a lawful act.

    You DON'T "Know" it will sabotage Sarles' recruitment. The ore merchant explicitly says that 200lbs of Illithium is IMPOSSIBLE to get. There are only two ways that anyone knows this will pay off: 1) Its a game, so you probably will succeed. 2) You've done the quest before, and already know how it ends. Both of these things are meta knowledge, and something charname has no way of knowing. In universe, it makes more sense to listen to the expert, than to run on a wild goose chase. The alloy is also a very resonable compromise, as its physical properties are identical, and would not limit Sarles in any way. Not to mention, the Illithium is an excuse, and Sarles doesn't WANT to work for any church anyway. Considering that (at least Lathander) the church PREFERS the raw alloy to whatever Sarles sculpts, he probably halfed arsed his sculpture anyway.

    gorgonzolaronaldoStummvonBordwehr
  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,107
    Gatekeep3r wrote: »
    jsaving wrote: »
    But doing something you know will sabotage Sarles' recruitment, rendering you unable to fulfill your promise, isn't a lawful act.

    I see your point, but an Undead Hunter is by definition LG. Lawful since they follow the word of their god. And their god in this case would never condone using precious metal for something as ridiculous as a sculpture.

    I disagree with that post very, very strongly. Especially if it's the Temple of Helm being served. Maybe, and emphasis on *maybe*, the Church of the Neutral Good god Lathander would go along with that if they had complete information.

    Arvia
  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,107
    edited May 16
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    jsaving wrote: »
    You don't promise the church you'll "try" to acquire his services, you promise to acquire his services. Then when you ask Sarles what it will take to recruit him, he says he'll be insulted by anything less than pure illithium and won't work unless you find the actual metal and give it to him.

    You can choose to give him the alloy anyway, sure. But it's hard to see how doing that would even count as "trying" to recruit Sarles since you've already been told he won't accept it.

    None of that would matter much to a neutral or chaotic character. After all, Sarles is a world-class jerk and the pure ore would be wasted in a sculpture when it could instead be put to better use in CHARNAME's mace. But doing something you know will sabotage Sarles' recruitment, rendering you unable to fulfill your promise, isn't a lawful act.

    You DON'T "Know" it will sabotage Sarles' recruitment. The ore merchant explicitly says that 200lbs of Illithium is IMPOSSIBLE to get. There are only two ways that anyone knows this will pay off: 1) Its a game, so you probably will succeed. 2) You've done the quest before, and already know how it ends. Both of these things are meta knowledge, and something charname has no way of knowing. In universe, it makes more sense to listen to the expert, than to run on a wild goose chase. The alloy is also a very resonable compromise, as its physical properties are identical, and would not limit Sarles in any way. Not to mention, the Illithium is an excuse, and Sarles doesn't WANT to work for any church anyway. Considering that (at least Lathander) the church PREFERS the raw alloy to whatever Sarles sculpts, he probably halfed arsed his sculpture anyway.

    The ore merchant, unless I'm badly misremembering this quest and all its associated dialogues, explicitly tells you who might know how to get real illithium, a dwarf in the Copper Coronet. So a lawful good character is naturally going to go there and talk to that contact about how to get real illithium.

    There is no metagaming needed whatsoever. I've *always* roleplayed lawful good over all the years since the initial release of BG2, and I've *never* failed to find the real illithium to give to Sarles and then give the sculpture to my church. I've *never* in 20 years of playing Baldur's Gate even so much as known that keeping the real ore could upgrade the Mace of Disruption, until I started reading threads like this one. Metagaming and tortured, ethically-challenged rationalizations, all. Lathander and Helm help us and save us from greedy, power-hungry, deeply flawed, ethically challenged humanity!

    ArviajsavingCalmar
  • NeverusedNeverused Member Posts: 640
    Hey, I’m actually taking @ThacoBell ’s side in an argument for once. I guess pigs can fly. :tongue:
    The interpretation where the paladin MUST give the illithium to Sir Sarles is... kind of Minsc-level reasoning, in my opinion. Let’s assume this is in chapter 6, since we shouldn’t even have the mace until we deal with the vampires the first time. If it’s before then, it’s difficult in-game to know that illithium can be used in such a fashion. By then, we should have had several items available to forge from Cromwell, so if you still have the mace, he should have told you it can be upgraded with illithium. Here’s where the interesting arguments come in.

    So, Imoen’s soul is still in Bodhi’s hands, and from all accounts Bodhi will commence an attack on the Elven capital if she’s not stopped. She’s already killed many Shadow Thieves, and even after forming your small coalition, you’re not quite sure if you can stop her. You’re told you can make a weapon specifically geared to destroying undead with the illithium, and the only other use for it is... a vanity sculpture, albeit for a church. You have two options now, one more Lawful, and one more Good in my opinion. The Lawful option, almost lawful neutral in my opinion, is to give the illithium to Sir Sarles because, hey, a promise is a promise and your word is for certain or something like that. The Good option is to use the illithium to help destroy the evil undead scourge in the city before they can kill MORE people. Without metagaming, you have no idea how much of an upgrade this weapon is going to be, but the base one can destroy undead with a single hit sometimes.

    In the end, it comes down to a question: how much does your character value his honor versus a potential lifesaving item, and not just his life, but potentially the lives of an entire elven city that Irenicus may already be assaulting? I can see a Lawful Good character choosing either option, one with faith that choosing the honorable thing now will eventually result in his victory, and the second thinking of it as a trolley problem, on which one track is a sculpture and the other track contains an entire elven city.

    StummvonBordwehr
  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,107
    "Let's assume this is chapter 6"
    But it's highly likely not chapter 6. It is almost certainly much earlier in the game than that. Sorry, but I think that one assumption invalidates your entire argument.

  • NeverusedNeverused Member Posts: 640
    Uhh, I don’t want to even think about facing a hive of beholders until post underdark. I’m currently underdark right now, and I haven’t touched the cleric stronghold.

  • Humanoid_TaifunHumanoid_Taifun Member Posts: 963
    @BelgarathMTH When you bring up the fact that you have never failed to find the illithium, that is meta gaming. After all, the point is not whether you can find it, but whether your character can reasonably assume that they will find it. So telling us that meta gaming is not needed is a bit weird in that context.
    Jerlia does not tell you that you can get your hands on illithium by going to her source. Her first reaction to the idea of acquiring that much illithium is "200 pounds! He's mad! Raving! Out of his mind!"
    When she talks of the source, she says you can "try" to get it from him.
    He is also no mere dwarf, but a duergar. So if you are playing a Keldorn-like racist LG, then you might have some additional reason to not want to associate with him at all. That is the reason the dialog options give you when after inquiring about her source you decide to take the alloy instead.

    When you tell us that you play all your characters in a certain way, that does not imply that your way of playing is the right one.

    ThacoBell
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 910
    edited May 16
    Alignment is not a sufficiently well defined concept to use as a basis for these arguments. But it is rather difficult for one to imagine a character like Sir. Galahad justifying the upgrading & continued use of the weapon. After all, the player doesn't really *need* the weapon if they've defeated the vampires once already and the poor darlings are crumbling to dust as soon as the party cleric looks in their general direction.

    If I were playing in a no-reload I might allow a good character to upgrade the weapon (particularly if item randomiser had put it elsewhere), dispose of Bodhi, and then donate it to the temple. On d6 roll of 1-3 the church would return it with their blessings, on a 4-6 they would use it elsewhere. One loses little and one gains a great deal of pleasure from roleplaying in a suboptimal way :).

    The wider difficulty with arguing about ethical issues in relation to video games is that only the player has agency. If the Church had a chance to discover the deception, if there are other actors who can defeat Bodhi, or if Irenicus has a chance to crush the elves *today* then all calcuations change. In a universe where the player is the saviour any action they perform will have value for utilitarian calculations. However accepting limitations can also be a source of pleasure, and I suppose it could be a fun challenge to no-reload a righteous paladin who follows a fairly strict moral code - and tithes magic items to the church!

    Post edited by Mantis37 on
  • NuinNuin Member Posts: 423
    edited May 16
    "Ethically-challenge metagaming" is preferable to blind zealotry. The former is merely a gaming caveat that at least provides a valuable lesson - the importance of learning to question; to explore the path less traveled. The latter is an extreme that has no value whatsoever outside of the romance of fiction.

    I'm not sure why it's so hard to roleplay not giving the ore to Sir Sarles - giving something so valuable to someone who is clearly just going to waste its potential is stupid. Is it not enough that the ore could even be sold to feed the hungry or fuel some kind of relief effort? Hell, why wouldn't someone who is truly good sell the ore to some good-aligned god's temple or discreetly donate it to some worthy organization after completing the quest? And of course this is a rationalization, because I personally never play good characters if I can help it. And this kind of good-guy bureaucracy is exactly why.

    Post edited by Nuin on
    StummvonBordwehr
  • Humanoid_TaifunHumanoid_Taifun Member Posts: 963
    @Mantis37 But the protagonist's life is no-reload. There is only a single person in the Baldur's Gate series that actually has the super-power of being able to reload after dying, and that is Bondarin, not the protagonist.
    Using your ability to reload as an argument is super-meta.

    gorgonzola
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 910
    @Humanoid_Taifun I'm mainly commenting on how I tend to approach these issues- and I personally usually play no-reload with a particular archetype in mind- not arguing that any approach is really more valid than any other. Play the game as you like, and have fun :). After all most of us approach the game from the metatextual perspective of multiple playthroughs & reading about other players' perspectives. The 'right' answer is the one that involves having more fun, and sometimes placing restrictions upon yourself - like following a strict code- can be more fun.

    Arvia
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,448
    @Mantis37 you are certainly free to play your game as you like, but charname is not supposed to know that he is a toon in a game and that the player wants to play that game reloading or no reload.
    so rp wise charname should not use the no reload as a data for the decisions he takes.

    from charname's point of view every playtrough is no reload as he see himself as a real person in a real world and see his death or the death of his companions as real ones.

    this is why to use the no reload condition as a relevant data in charname decision process is metagame, is to use other then the lore and knowledge that are present in game.

    this does not mean that you don't have to play the way you like, only that a charname should take his decisions in a way that is not dependent from if you want to reload or not. we are using metagame knowledge if we buff and prepare with more attention our party in a no reload as well if we do it less in a play trough where it is allowed, and this is fine.
    our rl time is limited and to waste it to overbuff in a context where is not needed or to loose a whole play trough because we buff too little has no sense.
    charname think in terms of survival, not of reload.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,589
    @BelgarathMTH The ore merchant literally tells you that getting 200 lbs of Illithium is impossible. When she gives you her confidential source, you have to bribe her to do this, she says you might be able to get *some* Illithium from him. It is 100% metagaming to assume that getting 200lbs. of Illithium is at all possible. There is nothing unlawful or less good about getting the alloy for Sarles.

    StummvonBordwehr
  • ArviaArvia Member Posts: 349
    Just because Keldorn hates most drow and the Sahuagin doesn't imply that every paladin or lawful good character must be a racist and refuse to talk to a duergar. There have been multiple discussions on the subject, and I distinctly remember some people here insisting that Keldorn is not the perfect paladin (and I agree with that), so don't use him now as an absolute role model for lawful good here, please.

    @Nuin , if you never play good characters, you should have pointed that out earlier, because I think that was kind of the common ground in this discussion. Of course a character of non-good alignment won't care if it's right or wrong to upgrade the mace.
    *And* I think we all agree that everybody can play the game however they want. But since roleplaying was the point of the question, why should we attack each other's opinion? Obviously roleplaying decisions made by two different people won't ever be the same.
    There is not "the" right way to play. But there is a right way to really roleplay a lawful good character, especially in this case with the church involved and playing a cleric or paladin.

    Some people like to express their real life ethics in games (that includes me), others like to be as powerful as possible.
    I have understood now what @ThacoBell was saying, that you can give the alloy to Sarles without ever lying, but "good" "lawful good" and "paladin" wouldn't necessarily make the same choices. In my book, a paladin would never go for the second best option after giving his word to the church. But that's me being a parrot again, I've said that countless times.

    Those who call us blind zealots should maybe try roleplaying a paladin, or a lawful good cleric, for a change, with all the restrictions of what you can and can't use, never lie, give away all excess money, refuse quests like helping the Bloodscalp, don't steal...It's quite a challenge. It's fun, also because it's sometimes more difficult than powergaming. Different.
    I dare you to try it at least once before you judge.

    gorgonzolaThacoBell
  • Humanoid_TaifunHumanoid_Taifun Member Posts: 963
    @Arvia I was merely pointing out that LGs can be racist.
    absolute role model
    I am not sure why you think that was even implied.
    Also, your attack on @Nuin is somewhat unjustified. Nuin put forth an argument and you brushed it off based on his playing preferences. The question of whether there is "a" right way to really roleplay a lawful good character [in this instance] or multiple ones is still up for debate, as evidenced by people debating it. You have a right to your opinion, but you do not get any points for pretending the debate is already over.

    That said, I disagree with @Nuin as I do not think that his argument addresses the lawful aspect of the alignment at all.
    But I already told you that I do not think that your way of choosing the best option over the second-best is sufficiently codified to count as an actual "lawful" code.

  • ArviaArvia Member Posts: 349
    I thought this was still a discussion where people were allowed to have different opinions. I have explained my opinion, and @Nuin , if you felt attacked or brushed off, I apologize. That was not my intention.

  • jsavingjsaving Member Posts: 499
    Changing your agreement with Sarles and the church because your conscience tells you they're undeserving is understandable, especially since your initial efforts to find illithium come up empty. But using your conscience to figure out when to keep your word is a chaotic action, as is altering a deal because you now feel like a different arrangement is warranted.

    Moreover unless you use metagame knowledge, you have no idea whether other opportunities to find illithium will arise over the course of the game. All you do know is that an ore merchant you have no reason to trust can't imagine where you would find it, whereas a sculptor whose ego you have no reason to doubt says he won't work unless actual illithium is provided.

    I do agree with @Neverused that a lawful good character could potentially make either choice depending on how strongly he leans toward one extreme toward the other. A CHARNAME who is strongly good but only weakly lawful might reason that he needs to make the chaotic choice in this instance so the greater good can be served. If he did, he might move a tick toward neutral goodness but not nearly enough to change alignment. On the other hand a CHARNAME who is strongly lawful but only weakly good wouldn't be willing to make that tradeoff, because his word would be his bond regardless of circumstances. Perhaps that character would move a bit toward lawful neutrality but again, it wouldn't be nearly enough to change alignment.

    However the paladin code of conduct doesn't allow them to make these tradeoffs. In addition to maintaining a lawful good alignment overall, they have to seek atonement whenever they commit even a single chaotic action and fall immediately whenever they commit even a single evil action. This doesn't end up mattering so much in-game because BG2 doesn't generally enforce code-of-conduct restrictions (with a few exceptions), but it would matter if you were RPing a paladin.

    Neverused
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 910
    An amusing edge case for this discussion might be a Diviner looking ahead at possible futures (like Doctor Strange!). That would be a case where metagaming would often be justified ;).

    jsaving
  • NuinNuin Member Posts: 423
    edited May 17
    The debate is mostly philosophical and I understand that we MUST poke holes into each other's arguments and opinions if we're going to get anywhere. As long as we don't get personal or too extreme (feel free to call me or anyone else out if it gets to that point) then I don't see any reason to take offense.

    Also, my point is based on being an outsider looking on at how "good" characters are supposed to play which I think is still relevant because you just can't call yourself "good" and have it automatically be true - it doesn't work that way. In many cases that's actually an indication that someone might NOT be good.
    Anyway in my eyes "good-guy bureaucracy" does more harm than good. I see the value in law, and I can indeed see how a lawful neutral character might surrender the ore to Sarles, but never a truly good (and informed) character. The very thought is anathema to what I consider "good" is.

    If (and that's a very big IF) I had to roleplay a lawful good paladin and was forced to make that choice, then regardless of whether the character falls so be it - I would feed Sarles the fake ore. Helm can suck it (why the hell am I worshiping him as a good character anyway) and if Lathander/other good deities can't see how that choice counts as good then I was obviously in the wrong profession to begin with. I've only ever seen situations "fall into place" (in a "force of good begets good" kind of way) like they do for shining beacon characters like Mazzy in stories. Everywhere else there's always both an element of good and evil in every action, especially where major decisions are concerned.

    Post edited by Nuin on
    gorgonzola
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,448
    just to return in topic, that is not about the lawful or not lawful side of the charname alignment, but specifically about he being good and running a good oriented party, and is not about RP only, but about the balancing of the RP and PG ways to play the game, i would say that yes, to use the illithium to upgrade the mace is imho surely worth, is the wisest choice.

    because there are very few items in the game that can protect from level draining, and the spell that do it is very short lasting and too long to cast in ambushes, and because there are only 3 weapons that have the chance to kill undeads with 1 hit, the hammer is tob only, the axe has alignment and class restrictions that make for some parties not effective to use it (jaheira, anomen, haer dalis before uai, korgan, that is sometimes used in good oriented parties are examples of people that can use the mace efficiently, but not the axe).

    undeads are abominations and afaik all the undeads in the game are evil and most of them very dangerous,
    as there is a way to obtain the metal without a single lie, the party can tell the truth both to the artist and the church, to have the mace upgraded is what i suggest.
    Maurvir wrote: »
    Since these ethical debates are popular, I'd like to pose one.
    ............I figure spending all that coin on another worthless object for the church is pointless when that illithium can be used to pound the undead back into the ground.

    However, it is the dishonest choice, and I am playing with a primarily good party (Jaheira being the sole neutral). In everyone's opinion, is the mace worth screwing the temple over?...............

    the xp loss is minimal, not noticeable in a playtrough, the temple is not screwed as at the end they are happy of the result and the mace will be very useful to the party.

    my answer uses meta game knowledge, about the outcome of trying the fake illithium way, but the question itself uses meta knowledge, as it is very unlike that a party do the quest before they get the mace and know that that metal could have been useful to upgrade it.
    a question based on meta knowledge needs an answer that uses meta knowledge.

    the only exception to this can be if charname is lawful good and the player likes to play lawful good in a certain very strict way limiting most of the choices (but probably such charname should also not side with thieves that torture and do extremely evil things for the purpose of breaking in the cw's prison, as siding with those thieves (or with the vampires, even worst) is not a good way to act, and to try to free imoen using legal ways is the only valid lawful option. so in such way to RP a lawful good the game can not be beat and the mace will never be obtained.

    the anomen's quest set the borders of what is lawful good, self done justice, in his case but also it the goal of freeing imoen, is not the right way to go, not the way that allow a person to be member of the radiant hart or the way a paladin should use.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,589
    @Arvia "In my book, a paladin would never go for the second best option after giving his word to the church. But that's me being a parrot again, I've said that countless times."

    This is funny, because the alloy IS the best option. The church actually prefers the alloy over the sculpture.

  • ArviaArvia Member Posts: 349
    I have understood that and I respect that, @ThacoBell. But I prefer to roleplay as if I don't know the result before.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,589
    Arvia wrote: »
    I have understood that and I respect that, @ThacoBell. But I prefer to roleplay as if I don't know the result before.

    What do you consider the "best" result?

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,589
    edited May 19
    An interesting question has popped into my head. How do lawful good players (and especially paladin players) rationalize getting pure Illithium when they have to bribe the ore merchant to break contract to get it? Bribes are not good, and breaking contracts are not lawful.

    *edit*
    How can I misspell the same word multiple times like that?

    Post edited by ThacoBell on
    StummvonBordwehr
  • Humanoid_TaifunHumanoid_Taifun Member Posts: 963
    Is that really what is happening though?
    Normally merchants are protecting themselves by keeping their contacts to themselves. After all, they are the middle-men who only profit if people trade with them.
    Her contact on the other hand is the source and he could earn more money by trading directly if he were not a duergar. This is not explicitly stated, but it is certainly possible that he has a vested interest in people not knowing about him. People are trying to burn a drow in the government district.
    To me the dialogue was always straight-forward in that she was just trying to cover her own potential losses if her source was made known. Paying her in that regard would not be shady. Now that you made me think about it however, perhaps she is betraying his trust. I do not readily believe that though.

    Right now I feel a bit uncomfortable with the possibility that perhaps she is making money from his inability to appear in public. I am not sure what to make of this idea.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,589
    She mentions that her source is supposed to be secret, and when you meet the source he is visibly agitated that she betrayed his trust to you. His annonymity is what protects him from predjudice. You cannot get the Illithium without bribing the merchant to break their agreement. The only way she would lose profits is if 1) charname undercuts her and buys the Illithium at better prices to get a corner on the market. But that's not gonna happen, charname isn't a merchant, and they can't settle down until the prophecy is ended anyway. Now 2) is that the Duregar is so disgusted at being exposed by his contact, that he breaks ties with her. So yes, what you pay the merchant is a bribe. Its is not a legal, documented transaction. You are paying someone to break their contract.

    I put forth that you CANNOT get the pure Illithium without acting in an unlawful manner. And depending on how you view bribes, not in a good manner either.

    StummvonBordwehr
  • jsavingjsaving Member Posts: 499
    I wouldn't agree with that at all. The ore merchant tells you it is difficult, but not impossible, to get the 200 pounds of iron ore. She then points you in the right direction by saying you'll need to go to her source, which she is willing to let you do if you pay her 1000 gold. That kind of finders' fee is paid all the time in transactions and wouldn't generally be considered a bribe. She even directs CHARNAME to say she sent him because this will help persuade him to hand over the ore, which she certainly wouldn't do if she were breaking faith with him by revealing his name. She even explains her reason for keeping the name secret: because she profits from knowing the name when others don't, hence the need for 1000 gold to offset any future losses she might incur. So no, there is no unlawful bribe involved here.

  • Gatekeep3rGatekeep3r Member Posts: 91
    Jsaving is correct. I'm working in a very commercial job, and we pay fees all the time when a third party finds someone we need for us. This is the same thing, really. The ore merchant went through all the trouble of finding a supplier and she deserves compensation for that. In her mind charname might very well be a competitor who wants to break into the Amnian ore trade.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,589
    @jsaving No, she DOES tell you that getting 200 lbs. of Illithium is impossible. She further calrifys that she gets a fraction of that per SEASON. Also, the "finders fee" is NOT a normal occurance. The source is very openly upset that their exclusive/annonymous agreement was violated by bringing you in.

    StummvonBordwehrgorgonzola
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 806
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @jsaving No, she DOES tell you that getting 200 lbs. of Illithium is impossible. She further calrifys that she gets a fraction of that per SEASON. Also, the "finders fee" is NOT a normal occurance. The source is very openly upset that their exclusive/annonymous agreement was violated by bringing you in.

    That is correct; and the merchant has clearly violated the trust of the Duergar merchant. However, we are discussing this from the perspective of CHARNAME - so the question is whether this violation is in any way apparent to CHARNAME. Without further context, as stated above a finder fee for a supplier is in no way unusual and it is necessarily given that CHARNAME should feel that something is off and anything unlawful is going down.

    Also, the fact that the alloy is the best option is nice, but it is just a happy coincidence and therefore irrelevant to discussing how CHARNAME should behave from an alignment perspective.

    Also noting, it is a bit strange that a lawful character would wander around in the docks and randomly bring the Illithium to Cromwell at all, instead of directly returning home with it. After all, it is valuable and CHARNAME could get robbed.

    At this point I feel the only thing which could bring the discussion forward is if someone posts the entire dialogue tree. There are too many nuances that might be lost otherwise, especially the dialogue with the ore merchant. Unfortunately, I do not have a save in that vicinity.

    ThacoBell
Sign In or Register to comment.