Everybody Grows a Spine - Leaving Companions
neleothesze
Member Posts: 231
I've sometimes wondered: why aren't some companions afraid to leave your party even though their views conflict with yours?
Scenario 1: You are a Good character in a party with Ajantis, Jaheira, Khalid [insert other staunch defenders of good and justice
]... or Keldorn, Jaheira, Mazzy, Minsc... You pick up Xzar and Monty or Viconia or Edwin; Korgan... etc. Your reputation raises too high. Why aren't they afraid that by stating their staunch opposition to your beliefs and their disdain of all that is good you could deem them a threat to society and either dispose of them or present them to the authorities?
Scenario 2: You are an Evil character in a party with other Evil characters and 1 Good. You kick little children, kill kittens, pillage, rape and are a general a-hole. Your reputation hits rock bottom. Why aren't some good (and in this case neutral) characters afraid of leaving? After all, if you have no qualms about backstabbing a priest, stealing from a beggar and tripping an old lady down the stairs why should you care about some guy you met 2 weeks ago who wanted to kill a 'dragon', save his lady or avenge his relatives?
Standing up for what you believe in is all fine and dandy but when the odds are against you, doesn't it seem foolish? From this pov, Imoen seems the most realistic. She might hate your guts if you're evil, but she grew up with you and knows not to cross you.
What does an evil character have to gain by loudly proclaiming his alignment in the middle of a group of 'do-gooders', maybe some of them fanatic? What can a good character win by abandoning his group maybe in a sticky situation... does he think an evil group will let it slide?
From a roleplaying perspective (and not a game limitation) is everyone brave to the point of suicidal? Why not leave in the middle of the night ...while at an inn... while causing a distraction...after preferably having thinned the numbers of the people that might chase you.
I'd like to hear your opinions.
Scenario 1: You are a Good character in a party with Ajantis, Jaheira, Khalid [insert other staunch defenders of good and justice
]... or Keldorn, Jaheira, Mazzy, Minsc... You pick up Xzar and Monty or Viconia or Edwin; Korgan... etc. Your reputation raises too high. Why aren't they afraid that by stating their staunch opposition to your beliefs and their disdain of all that is good you could deem them a threat to society and either dispose of them or present them to the authorities?Scenario 2: You are an Evil character in a party with other Evil characters and 1 Good. You kick little children, kill kittens, pillage, rape and are a general a-hole. Your reputation hits rock bottom. Why aren't some good (and in this case neutral) characters afraid of leaving? After all, if you have no qualms about backstabbing a priest, stealing from a beggar and tripping an old lady down the stairs why should you care about some guy you met 2 weeks ago who wanted to kill a 'dragon', save his lady or avenge his relatives?
Standing up for what you believe in is all fine and dandy but when the odds are against you, doesn't it seem foolish? From this pov, Imoen seems the most realistic. She might hate your guts if you're evil, but she grew up with you and knows not to cross you.
What does an evil character have to gain by loudly proclaiming his alignment in the middle of a group of 'do-gooders', maybe some of them fanatic? What can a good character win by abandoning his group maybe in a sticky situation... does he think an evil group will let it slide?
From a roleplaying perspective (and not a game limitation) is everyone brave to the point of suicidal? Why not leave in the middle of the night ...while at an inn... while causing a distraction...after preferably having thinned the numbers of the people that might chase you.
I'd like to hear your opinions.
2
Comments
Good siding with evil... I just don't get. Cept maybe for Imoen because of the reasons you stated.
And therefore as you said "there's great profit to be had" for them with your presence.
In the end though, it's really just a result of a streamlined party alignment/happiness system that doesn't take the various motivations and different outlooks of individual NPCs into account. They leave in plain sight after a period of warning so the player can understand what's going on and why, rather than just being gone after a resting screen.
Edit: There's also the power/destiny aspect of things. With the bhaalspawn destiny ahead of you, every NPC that follows you is bound to gain great power and shake the Realms, compared to being left to their own devices. Obviously not all NPCs are capable of realizing this early on, but for people like Edwin who value power over everything else, working for the PC is probably the best decision he'll ever make. At the end of the trip he'd likely be able to take on Elminster.
We could even imagine that, if you dismiss them at the friendly arm inn, they might turn hostile against you at some time.
Example: when you remove them from the party, a banter triggers, and, you have a few dialogues line to choose. Some of them (when you express the fact that you don't like his wickedness) can lead to a fight against them.
@Aasimar069 Monty does say 'Sleep lightly, taskmaster.' That alone is ominous.
Personally I find the entire way evil characters are handled (good is eh, I could see them wanting out rather than be party to another "nursery incident", no matter the risk) to be rather odd, possibly because in order to make the characters relatable, they.... well they're not really that evil. Yet the idea that you successfully complete a lot of missions, gaining wealth unimaginable and a stellar reputation? Oh that's just not kosher, kill a parking attendant or I'm leaving!
I'd want to see a charming evil character who not only sticks around at high reputation but actively praises you for having one. "Excellent! Now they'll never suspect...." Perhaps because I play most of my villains as being perfectly happy to be hailed and worshipped as a hero if it's in their interests.
I've never partied with Viconia (no double entendre meant) and am generally reputation 19+ until things force your hand in Baldur's Gate or when the changes occur in BG2. It's frustrating to me that I would have to do some rep management, just to keep her around. This is mostly from curiosity because she's heralded as an awesome NPC.
Maybe I should just try to play a neutral character. It'll be hard to find ways to fulfil quests without too much Gorion would be proud of your actions so that I can keep some of the colorful personages around...
I personally believe that good implies tolerance and altruism, which pretty much rules out half of the Good-aligned NPCs in BG2, no? Keldorn is racist, Anomen is vain etc. Also you can have a character be truly evil with outsiders but truly good with close people, for various reasons.
This is, I feel, what makes the BG2 NPCs so great: they feel like real people, with flaws and qualities, they have their own mind and speak it. They are not simple goody-two shoes or evil psychopaths. And their interractions, from banter to fighting and bonding feels real and true. Restricting them based on some "silly" terminology such as Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil would make them exceptionally boring and common.
Tolerance, however, is an explicitly Chaotic trait, not a Good trait, whilst Law encourages homogenity, and as an extension, can expand to racism. How much of the Drow's reputation is thoroughly deserved, the fact that Viconia *is* objectively Evil - which any cleric or paladin can *see*, and the fact he gives her a day to leave are all ameliorating aspects over what might on the surface appear to be simple racism.
Much of the relative morality you describe is effectively a Law versus Chaos consideration, not a Good versus Evil consideration, which is why some consider it good and others evil (and the vast majority colosally ignorant).
Hmm, you do raise a couple of very good points. I did say it's a matter of context but I did not think about the fact that paladins are supposed to be able to "see" evil, which is just that, a context to Keldorn's actions.
And I definitely agree that murder can have different nuances. I mean, we are talking about a world in which death looms at every corner.
Why do you say though that tolerance is a Chaotic trait? I would say apathy would be, not tolerance.
Chaos embodies liberty, individualism, relativism and focus on the self over society. When you value your individualism, you are more likely to value others' individualism and consider everything to be relative; and that can emerge in the form of tolerance (and as with any Chaos/Law consideration, tolerance is not always a good thing).
They are leaving group just to say "Hey, I'm truly evil. Now I will leave you in the middle of Underdark, so Ilithids can eat my face off. But I'm evil and I won't make good quests just to get cool treasure. It's not evil enough for me."
[btw, about that QuickSave/Load button... haven't needed it handy in ages; but Edwin doesn't know that I'm the dark voice whispering in his ear what spells to cast... when he leaves he will suddenly find himself growing very, very inefficient at hurling spells... still a bit of a menace.... but a tiny one. :P]
But Edwin against PC / Keldorn / Mazzy / Minsc and Imoen ? I think even he would stop to consider things... Do I really want to leave in a huff from a Paladin, wannabe-Paladin, crazy Ranger, mageling and thig guy who can turn into the embodiment of murder if he's feeling cranky? I think I'll stick around till I can make a quiet exit. And I can even see him talking to himself and saying these things when he thinks no one can hear
For instance, I don't remember who Korgan worships (Abatthor?), but whether he'd continue travelling with the bhaalspawn would be at least partly dependent on his deity's reaction. Presumably his deity would be quite interested in keeping an eye on things, and could conceivably encourage Korgan to take measures to prevent any ascendancy should Bhaal V 2.0 be perceived as a threat.
Minsc is a different matter though. He'd sooner die than allow Charname to commit an evil act.
"I can't bear spending all my time helping these weaklings for one more minute. Find my book. Find my husband. Protect me from the bear. Bah, it is a waste of my time and holds me back. These people will never have strength until they do for themselves and the weak aren't worthy of my efforts."
"Why do we keep giving away our gold and turning down magic items and rewards? If I am going to do the extraordinary, I am going to get everything I can out it. I am not doing this for charity."
"I can't bear passing up these opportunities to tap into real power just to help some do gooder. Pass on being granted a boon from a Demon Lord just to appease some uppity Silver Dragon? And pass on secret magic protecting armor in the process? I don't think so."
"How can I be a part of groveling before these losers for one more minute? Am I supposed to be polite to some obnoxious, spoiled old witch when I come and destroy the trolls in her castle? Am I supposed to care what piece of art is in the lobby in Helm's church when his followers would love nothing better than to end my existence? I am supposed to strengthen the Harpers? I can't stand it another minute."
It's been far too long for me to recall the details but I do want to say I had some problems with good aligned characters. As I tend to play as a evil aligned character of some kind it often made me wonder why some of the evil characters in the game (NPCs) didn't like my character more or want to join up with me.
I would love to see some more depth added to the alignment system in the game to better reflect how the characters would really interact with one another.