Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
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

1235

Comments

  • MaurvirMaurvir Member Posts: 1,017
    borntodie wrote: »
    If roleplaying a good character, your only real option is to give the ore back to the Duergar.

    Only an evil character could legitimately use it to gain political power by bribing the church with a vanity project.

    :: resists urge to comment... ::

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    borntodie wrote: »
    If roleplaying a good character, your only real option is to give the ore back to the Duergar.

    Only an evil character could legitimately use it to gain political power by bribing the church with a vanity project.

    AFAIK you can't give it to him.

  • borntodieborntodie Member Posts: 199
    edited August 2020
    If you're into roleplaying, you can. Just put it on his table and leave it there. He's not the type to say "thank you" but quietly accepts. ;)

    My comment was a little trollish, but I really feel that labelling it as "good" to satisfy the whims of Sir Sarles is arguable at best. It's no coincidence that the head of the church approves when you fail to do so.

    Trying to cheat him is naughty, but you have the option to avoid that and fail the quest deliberately. If you talk to the smith with the mace in your possession, he will tell that you need the iridium to upgrade it, so you have a roleplay reason to retrieve it anyway.

    Post edited by borntodie on
    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    @borntodie That's 200lbs of Illithium though! You'd break the table, and that's not very nice to the tavern owner. Clearly the only way is to put it on the floor next to him. He even picks it up eventually ;)

    borntodie
  • VanDerBergVanDerBerg Member Posts: 212
    To me, the choice is really clear and easy - if you play a good char/party and care about RP, then don't cheat in that quest and just give up on improved MoD. While it is cool, I don't think it is, by any mean, an essential weapon. I never got it because I always play good aligned parties (most of the time my character being lawful good) and I did just fine.

    If you are looking for a RP excuse that will justify your powergaming game decision, then just save yourself time, get the weapon and forget about the RP part. Because the motivation for getting it is not RP based, but purely powergaming one of getting an extremely powerful weapon. Which is perfectly fine, I don't mind it at all, it's just...not RP

  • borntodieborntodie Member Posts: 199
    Well really, if roleplaying I am far more uncomfortable with not returning the ore to the poor dwarf that had it stolen.

    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    @VanDerBerg "To me, the choice is really clear and easy - if you play a good char/party and care about RP, then don't cheat in that quest and just give up on improved MoD."

    There is nearly an essay's worth of comments in this thread as to why its RP sound to give the alloy to Sarles as a good aligned character.

  • VanDerBergVanDerBerg Member Posts: 212
    There is nearly an essay's worth of comments in this thread as to why its RP sound to give the alloy to Sarles as a good aligned character.

    The fact that it takes an essay to justify a decisions only means the decision is very dubious. If you dig deep enough, you can find justification to do anything you want. For example, why a good aligned Gorion's ward wouldn't kill Gorion in the prologue of BG1? Gorion secretly plots something, wants to take the ward from the safety of Candlekeep and is not telling him anything. Maybe he wants to murder his ward to prevent the Bhaal from raising again? It makes sense to strike first, then. Probably you can find the justification for killing Drizzt, breaking into peoples' homes to loot them, summoning demons and skeleton warriors etc.

    Secondly, if the reward for giving fake ore to Sarles wasn't an extremely powerful weapon, would this thread even exist? Would anyone spend more than 3 seconds thinking about whether to give him the real ore or not? Definitely not, any good-aligned char would simply hand the real ore. So, the motivation for even considering the subject relies on meta-knowledge on what the reward for the dubious action is. That's where RP stops and metagaming starts. Just makes me wonder...why? There is no RP jury out there than is weighing every move that the player makes and gives RP grades. So, if you don't want to give up on a powerful weapon for RP reasons, just - don't. No need to look for justification of metagaming decisions.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    @VanDerBerg "The fact that it takes an essay to justify a decisions only means the decision is very dubious."

    You've completely missed the point. Multiple people have given very good explanations as to why statements like this: "So, the motivation for even considering the subject relies on meta-knowledge on what the reward for the dubious action is." Are OBJECTIVELY wrong. Its not an essay because it requires mental gymnastics, or that its complicated, simply that a lot of very good discussion of the subject has already happened. But you're posts make it very clear you actually haven't read any of it.

  • VanDerBergVanDerBerg Member Posts: 212
    Simply put - if the reward in the quest wasn't a powerful weapon, no one would even engage in discussion as to whether the choice is justified or not. The only reason that it has even started is meta knowledge of the reward. Now, you can keep arguing for the sake of arguing and opposing, as you pretty much always do, I am out.

  • WoebegoneWoebegone Member Posts: 10
    VanDerBerg wrote: »
    Simply put - if the reward in the quest wasn't a powerful weapon, no one would even engage in discussion as to whether the choice is justified or not. The only reason that it has even started is meta knowledge of the reward. Now, you can keep arguing for the sake of arguing and opposing, as you pretty much always do, I am out.

    I can kinda see your point for a Lawful character, but the act itself isn't evil. It's chaotic. Perhaps even neutral if you've talked to Cromwell with the mace in your possession before doing that quest for the priest. It's a frivalous quest to begin with...a vanity project.

    In my first playthrough, I took a fairly direct route to Spellhold. When I got back from the Underdark and started gearing up for the final battle, upgrading the mace to face off against a powerful vampire took precedence. Then I went ahead and gave that fop the alloy. My decision was ultimatly justfied by the High Priest's reaction. Chaotic yes. Not evil.

    Now if you decide 'yes, it's evil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!', fine...that's your prerogitive as it's your game. But that kind of absolutism doesn't fit everyone. Its a subjective viewpoint.

  • VanDerBergVanDerBerg Member Posts: 212
    I can kinda see your point for a Lawful character, but the act itself isn't evil. It's chaotic. Perhaps even neutral if you've talked to Cromwell with the mace in your possession before doing that quest for the priest. It's a frivalous quest to begin with...a vanity project.

    I appreciate it and I agree that the quest is, indeed, a vanity project. But it is a quest you have received and agreed to do for the temple. If, upon receiving the quest and discovering all the information, you say "okay, this is all dodgy, I am dealing with the stolen ore to help an arrogant artist complete a vanity project, so I will not do it" and walk away, that's fine - I can see that as a good action. But, on the other hand, having all that information and deciding to keep the ore to yourself with the ultimate goal of using it for your own benefit (to obtain a very powerful weapon which is, by no mean, necessary to finish your grand story - it is merely a convenience) is hardly a GOOD resolution to the situation, be it lawful, chaotic or neutral. Two wrongs don't make it right and, ultimately, the only person that benefits from that kind of resolution is yourself. So, the motivation for doing it is, to me, purely selfish. It's not Robin Hood-like "I will steal from rich and give to poor" (chaotic good), but "I will steal from rich and keep to myself".

    Again, the definition of what constitutes chaotic good and what constitutes neutral good are quite vague (as is, for that matter, what constitutes good and what neutral alignment - selfish actions that benefit yourself while not hurting others too much, to me, is more in line with neutral alignment). So, different interpretations are certainly possible. It's just that all kinds of things can be justified by "for greater good" mantra.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    @VanDerBerg "Simply put - if the reward in the quest wasn't a powerful weapon, no one would even engage in discussion as to whether the choice is justified or not. The only reason that it has even started is meta knowledge of the reward."
    As much as this game is talked about, and how many roleplaying discussions we get, this would ABSOLUTELY come up as a discussion even without a reward. (I'm gonna give you a hint, I don't even use the mace, prefer the Azuredge.)

    " Two wrongs don't make it right and, ultimately, the only person that benefits from that kind of resolution is yourself. So, the motivation for doing it is, to me, purely selfish."

    But its not? Sarles doesn't even WANT to do the project, he asks for the Illithium as a roundabout way to say "no". And when the ore merchant tells you that getting 200lbs of Illihium is impossible, its perfectly reasonable to go with the alloy and be honest about it from the start. No meta needed, no evil needed, and gotten through 100% legal channels. Lawful good quest resolution done.

    "Now, you can keep arguing for the sake of arguing and opposing, as you pretty much always do, I am out."

    This right here is 100% not called for.
    You resurrected a thread to made a statement that was already discussed, and then got upset because someone disagreed with you. Okay, sure.

  • VanDerBergVanDerBerg Member Posts: 212
    Disagreeing is perfectly fine, being aggressive and condensending with pretty much every comment you ever make, with the lines of "You've completely missed the point" and " But you're posts make it very clear you actually haven't read any of it." is not and makes me not want to bother to discuss anything with you. Therefore, please ignore my posts in future as I will yours. Thanks!

  • WoebegoneWoebegone Member Posts: 10
    edited August 2020
    I just want to reiterate that I don't think giving Sarles the alloy is an evil act. If our party did the same in our PnP group, our alignments would move a tick toward chaotic (according to my DM). Perfectly in line with my own thinking. As has been stated numerous times, you don't even have to lie during the quest, unlike with the golem in the initial dungeon(unless I'm missing something). Rationalizing and meta-gaming are moot really.

    Post edited by Woebegone on
  • VanDerBergVanDerBerg Member Posts: 212
    I don't consider it an evil act, but I would consider the whole resolution of that quest in that way as, say, 'chaotic neutral'. And I prefer not to do it in my good playthroughs, especially the last one that I did with cleric of Lathander. For the same reason I never used Animate Dead, even though it was so tempting to resolve some encounters by summoning a bunch of magic resistant skeleton warriors. I think playing with a good party has numerous benefits (reputation, free use of some magics that target evil aligned, such as holy Smite, which covers almost every enemy in the game) that I am more than ready to give up on one weapon for it, as good as it is. One cannot have everything. Well, in BG you can, but...

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    @VanDerBerg "Disagreeing is perfectly fine, being aggressive and condensending with pretty much every comment you ever make,"

    YOU decided what you think my tone is, and rather than ask for clarification, decided to be insulting because of it.

  • MaurvirMaurvir Member Posts: 1,017
    I do think it was a missed opportunity RP-wise for good aligned clerics to get spirit warriors instead of skeleton warriors when casting animate dead. In fact, that would be a nice mod if it were possible to pull off.

    ThacoBell
  • VanDerBergVanDerBerg Member Posts: 212
    I do think it was a missed opportunity RP-wise for good aligned clerics to get spirit warriors instead of skeleton warriors when casting animate dead. In fact, that would be a nice mod if it were possible to pull off.

    That would have been nice. Though, I think good-aligned clerics are good even without Animate Dead altogether. They get Holy Smite and Holy Word which are immensely useful, while evil clerics get Unholy Blight and Unholy Word that are practically useless. Holy Smite alone makes up for not casting Animate Dead...Partly friendly (nerfed) skull trap and you can get bajillion of castings per day with high wisdom, in the game where pretty much anything that attacks you is evil? Sounds like something that Animate Dead is worth giving up for. Also, destroying undead is much more useful than controlling them at higher levels.

  • BlackbɨrdBlackbɨrd Member Posts: 287
    It's such a good feeling to hear Sir Sarles say ''You have cheated my art!''. For that reason alone I always give him the fake material. :p

    borntodiePermidion_Stark
  • MaurvirMaurvir Member Posts: 1,017
    VanDerBerg wrote: »
    I do think it was a missed opportunity RP-wise for good aligned clerics to get spirit warriors instead of skeleton warriors when casting animate dead. In fact, that would be a nice mod if it were possible to pull off.

    That would have been nice. Though, I think good-aligned clerics are good even without Animate Dead altogether. They get Holy Smite and Holy Word which are immensely useful, while evil clerics get Unholy Blight and Unholy Word that are practically useless. Holy Smite alone makes up for not casting Animate Dead...Partly friendly (nerfed) skull trap and you can get bajillion of castings per day with high wisdom, in the game where pretty much anything that attacks you is evil? Sounds like something that Animate Dead is worth giving up for. Also, destroying undead is much more useful than controlling them at higher levels.

    I tend to agree - good aligned clerics definitely get more mileage in a game where most of the enemies are of an evil alignment. That said, summons are eminently useful for controlling where a battle takes place, which can often mean the difference between a tough battle and a manageable battle. Until you get to summon devas, most cleric summons aren't all that useful for more than bait or meat shields anyway. It's the druids and wizards that get the awesome summons.

  • ithildurnewithildurnew Member Posts: 245
    edited September 2020
    As usual, reading a discussion on ethics by gamers leaves me with a rather bleak outlook on humanity.

    Maybe dolphins will do better.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    As usual, reading a discussion on ethics by gamers leaves me with a rather bleak outlook on humanity.

    Maybe dolphins will do better.

    Probably not considering (legit warning for bad things)
    Dolphins go out of their way to gang rape other animals, whether dolphin or not, and also make games out of killing other animals' babies.

  • BlackbɨrdBlackbɨrd Member Posts: 287
    We need a new animal alternative. How about Squirrels?

  • ZaxaresZaxares Member Posts: 1,261
    Squirrels will gleefully steal from each other's hoards of winter nuts given the opportunity. ;) Next animal?

    Blackbɨrd
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    edited September 2020
    How about Gorillas? Typically very gentle and can be capable of compassion.

  • borntodieborntodie Member Posts: 199
    Let's stop here before anyone says something bad about dogs. :(

  • MaurvirMaurvir Member Posts: 1,017
    Dogs are legit better than people unless they have been specifically trained otherwise.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,175
    borntodie wrote: »
    Let's stop here before anyone says something bad about dogs. :(

    Nature's not "bad" its True Neutral. Things simply are what they are. That being said, wild dogs are fairly standard pack hunters. Nothing that would come out as unusually cruel by human standards. Also, domesticated Doggos are as good as the person who raised them.

  • SkitiaSkitia Member Posts: 713
    I don't read the choice as good aligned. It doesn't really have much to do with goodness versus evil, even if taking out a criminal possibly during the quest is good. It's more about Law vs. Chaos, one of the few times where that conflict between the two exists.

    In fact if you give him the fake one and Keldorn is with you, the veteran paladin feels the need to interject to say that they are lying, and that it is really a fake one, because finding the actual one was too difficult.

    A chaotic-good oriented <CHARNAME> has justification beyond mechanics and power to give him the fake one; it is presumably, just as good, and the ore can be used to good ends. A lawful character on the other hand, especially a lawful good one, and especially a paladin, has more of a reason to complete it by giving him the actual ore, or being upfront that this is not quite the ore, but is as close as they could get. A lawful evil character also wouldn't give up a fake one, unless there was a way to weasel it in that way.

    ThacoBell
Sign In or Register to comment.