Idle Speculations & Entitlement
Humanoid_Taifun
Member Posts: 1,063
In Baldur's Gate 1, the protagonist saves up to 3 dukes from assassination, stops a coup and prevents a war, before being sent off by one of the said dukes to bring to justice the man responsible for all this.
In Baldur's Gate 2, it is not clear if or how the protagonist was rewarded for this, being robbed of all their possessions and suffering of a somewhat confused mind.
However, with the introduction of Siege of Dragonspear, it is made clear (by the new writers) that the protagonist received neither treasure nor artifacts nor anything of the sort. (let's ignore the theft of all of the protagonist's money for the sake of this discussion)
At the same time, the protagonist is recruited to a war effort. Just like when the hunt was on for Sarevok, no payment (or promise thereof) is given. And while the army is provided for with supplies, the protagonist's group is not.
This sort of mission is not entirely fictional. During the middle ages, nobles and knights were expected to support the war efforts of their lieges.
In that light, one can interpret the protagonist to be a vassal to the dukes, organizing and financing their own band, and being expected to make profit of loot and ransoms. This could be the reward that was previously missing.
After the disturbing conclusion of the campaign, the protagonist would be stripped of their title and be rendered a commoner once again.
Of course, none of this is reflected in any of the conversations in the game.
One more point:
After the eponymous castle is taken, the protagonist stumbles over a few looters and has the opportunity to point out that looting is forbidden to the cities' soldiers.
Does this mean that the protagonist was in fact expected to wage this entire campaign on an empty purse without any means to raise funds?
I choose to interpret this to mean that it is the salaried soldiers are the ones who are not permitted to loot. Again the historic precedent:
If a medieval captain paid for his soldiers' equipment, their wages and, when it came to it, their ransoms, then naturally all the treasures that their efforts produced, should go to that captain. Private looting was then theft, not from the victims of your violence, but from your employer.
Of course, by medieval standards, this entire campaign would not qualify as a war, and thus the laws of war would not apply, and so looting&ransoming would be illegal for everybody. I am ignoring that because the game goes to great lengths to convince me that this is more than just a punitive action against a band of thugs. (and also, because I am not getting paid)
In Baldur's Gate 2, it is not clear if or how the protagonist was rewarded for this, being robbed of all their possessions and suffering of a somewhat confused mind.
However, with the introduction of Siege of Dragonspear, it is made clear (by the new writers) that the protagonist received neither treasure nor artifacts nor anything of the sort. (let's ignore the theft of all of the protagonist's money for the sake of this discussion)
At the same time, the protagonist is recruited to a war effort. Just like when the hunt was on for Sarevok, no payment (or promise thereof) is given. And while the army is provided for with supplies, the protagonist's group is not.
This sort of mission is not entirely fictional. During the middle ages, nobles and knights were expected to support the war efforts of their lieges.
In that light, one can interpret the protagonist to be a vassal to the dukes, organizing and financing their own band, and being expected to make profit of loot and ransoms. This could be the reward that was previously missing.
After the disturbing conclusion of the campaign, the protagonist would be stripped of their title and be rendered a commoner once again.
Of course, none of this is reflected in any of the conversations in the game.
One more point:
After the eponymous castle is taken, the protagonist stumbles over a few looters and has the opportunity to point out that looting is forbidden to the cities' soldiers.
Does this mean that the protagonist was in fact expected to wage this entire campaign on an empty purse without any means to raise funds?
I choose to interpret this to mean that it is the salaried soldiers are the ones who are not permitted to loot. Again the historic precedent:
If a medieval captain paid for his soldiers' equipment, their wages and, when it came to it, their ransoms, then naturally all the treasures that their efforts produced, should go to that captain. Private looting was then theft, not from the victims of your violence, but from your employer.
Of course, by medieval standards, this entire campaign would not qualify as a war, and thus the laws of war would not apply, and so looting&ransoming would be illegal for everybody. I am ignoring that because the game goes to great lengths to convince me that this is more than just a punitive action against a band of thugs. (and also, because I am not getting paid)
0
Comments
If you’re still concerned, just use EEKeeper to return your money after you escape the opening dungeon.
I was just thinking about the lore of the game, and the implications of how you are treated.