Howdy, Stranger!

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

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!

Vi had to freaking what? (Umm spoiler)

OK, one of my biggest problems with RPG games sually fall around its dialogue. Even more so with games that try to have multiple paths. Baldur's Gate is no exception, but I think I just reached a point where I literally just said "what the fuck, really?"
So I just left the underdark, lovely place and really wished there was a evil outcome that didn't lead to me having to kill or have Phaere killed.preferably having Viconia fight her seeing how there was I tiny bit of jealousy in her words after the night with Phaere.

So anyways, after being forced into a truth or lie session with Elhan, I finally agree to do the quest. Any thing to speed up the clock to the point where I can put a fireball into Irenicus's chest, and then use his smoldering chest cavity, two pieces Graham crackers, a piece of chocolate, and a marshmallow to make a smore.

Then they turn their attentions to Viconia, and questions her loyalty, eve Jaheira freaking comments. And they continue until they force her into a damn Geas!

Where is my input on this?

Oh i forgot, before then you can tell them to just kill her. Do, charname gets forced into the "I don't trust her category." I don't get to object to putting magical chains on someone who been with me since I after I started my journy? Someone Charname trusts with his life on the battlefield? Someone my charname told "I love you" and begged to stay when she was going to leave...

OK maybe it makes a possessive type of sense with that last part.

But still, she gets magical chains and shackles from a spell/ability that pretty much turn people into slaves and I'm not allowed to object to this?

SmilingSwordsemiticgodEmpyrialJuliusBorisov

Comments

  • doggydoggy Member Posts: 313
    It just comes down to the fact that Elhan and friends for some reason really don't trust drows (well the reason is quite obvious).

    In reality most people don't trust them. You loose reputation for just traveling with her.

    But I don't think you can talk your way out of the geas either if romancing her or just traveling with her.

    And the rest of the conversation with Elhan clearly shows his lack of trust in you as well. You can be used as a tool but you get absolutely nothing in return.

    DJKajuruJuliusBorisov
  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,851
    I don't trust him either, but despite that from my perspective I'm the one holding more cards.

    I'm the one who can go get their little lantern from Bodhi.
    I'm the only one capable of even challenging Bodhi or Irenicus.
    I'm the one responsible for both the death of the matron mother and one of her favored.


    What cards does he have?

    He knows how to get me into the city... The city that I ultimately fight s shadps Dragon to get their little trinket from and summon their guardian.

    Do again whether they font trust me or not, they are in no position to do that bullshit. They need Charname or they will face extinction. I should've just reloaded and see if I could have killed them all, the Drow and half-elfs seem to be the only elves I can tolerate and thaya saying something since I already tired of the race in general.

    JuliusBorisov
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 14,379
    His card is that he's surrounded by an army of elves and if you attack him you get a forced-kill script. His card is your life, as he points out, if you ask why you should cooperate. It's not just about what he can offer you, or you him, but what he can take away from you.

    JarrakulJuliusBorisov
  • SethDavisSethDavis Member Posts: 1,812
    could you leave her outside and come back for her? would she even willingly enter?

    JuliusBorisov
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    I'm sorry, but elves are waaaaay to arrogant to ever accept that they truly need your help. They believe they hold all the cards, which means you have nothing they really want, and they're both willing and capable of killing you, which means they have something you want quite a lot. Like it or not, their arrogance means you have no bargaining power, and however much you protest, you play by their rules or they kill you.

    semiticgod[Deleted User]JuliusBorisov
  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,851

    His card is that he's surrounded by an army of elves and if you attack him you get a forced-kill script. His card is your life, as he points out, if you ask why you should cooperate. It's not just about what he can offer you, or you him, but what he can take away from you.

    And if I die, his whole race gets genocides. Based on his own word, majority of his own army are fighting off the Drow, and I'm not arguing game mechanic here. It's literally the domino effect, he kills Charname, he kills himself. So he can't take anything from me that doesn't end him. Now if his city was being DESTROYED from within, I could understand that PERFECTLY. This isn't like the undark where the Matron or Favored holds all the cards, and Charname death won't affect the outcome of the city or the Drow lives within it.
    SethDavis said:

    could you leave her outside and come back for her? would she even willingly enter?

    That would kill the romance,

    SethDavisJuliusBorisov
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,279
    @DragonKing , I wouldn't worry about it much ... Vicky seems quite used to being accused of several crimes.

    semiticgod
  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,851
    edited July 2015

    The elves treat you as untrustworthy because they have no reason to trust you.

    The problem with this, is I'm not arguing "why they don't trust," they put a Geas on Viconia AFTER taking me through a truth and lie detector, while still withholding information after determining I wasn't a threat. Even AFTER I bring the lantern back, he acknowledges that he knows something and refuses to reveal information.

    They don't know you're their salvation the moment you crawl out of the Underdark. You're a complete stranger to them. They recognize on interrogation that you're not Irenicus' friend, and Elhan says "classically speaking" that makes you their ally. But why would they know you're their savior, if you've only just met them?

    Whether or not they know or trust me was never my point which is seemingly being overlooked here. But this very argument works to back my point. Just like they don't know you, YOU don't know them. So by what logic does it make sense that after Charname accepts the quest and then Elhan turns his attention to Viconia and FORCES her into a GEAS, WITHOUT the charname saying a single thing? You can't interject, you can't show any support for her. Charname just sits there, lets it happen. Oh and god forbid that Jaheira literally gets a say in it which was pretty much a threat. But that is to be expected, I'm surprised they haven't went at each others throat while they sleep. :lol:

    Now, when you actually do save their civilization, they treat you as their savior. Until then, you're just some random Bhaalspawn who stumbled into their war zone

    At every stage, their level of trust in you is rational:
    (1) When you say you're not their enemy, and they know you're telling the truth, they let you live.
    (2) When you offer to get the Lanthorn, they give you some assistance, but can't go with you because elven armies marching on human grounds could start a two-front war.
    (3) When you bring back the Lanthorn, they let you enter the city--an unheard-of honor.
    (4) When you fight Irenicus' monsters, they tell you how to use their sacred artifacts and commune with their god.
    (5) When you kill Irenicus, they bring you back to life and treat you as a hero.

    You can't expect them to hail you as their savior until after you've saved them.

    Again you missed the point of my post. IT WAS NEVER ABOUT HOW THEY TRESTED CHARNAME.


    Edit,
    DJKajuru said:

    @DragonKing , I wouldn't worry about it much ... Vicky seems quite used to being accused of several crimes.

    They can accuse her all they won't, but depending on how you choose to play, wrongful persecution of her is another. In BG1 and 2 you rescue her from WRONGFUL PERSECUTION, but now she literally being wrongfully persecuted again, and the person who saved her the first two times says nothing? The person she's travelled with for so long and even clhad a romance with just stand there while a trusted/loved/useful ally gets forced into a GEAS just to prove to people YOU DON'T KNOW, she is trustworthy. And this is OK?

  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 14,379
    And that wasn't the point of my post, @DragonKing. We're not talking about the same thing. You were talking about Charname's and Viconia's lack of options in response to the elves; I was talking about the elves themselves. Our opinions are compatible. I also find it problematic that the player doesn't have the option of objecting to the geas.

    I'm not arguing with you. That's why I didn't quote you, or tag you, in my own post. I'll put an Agree on your post, if that clarifies things.

  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 14,379
    To be a little more clear, I was responding to this post, not any of your others:


    And if I die, his whole race gets genocides. Based on his own word, majority of his own army are fighting off the Drow, and I'm not arguing game mechanic here. It's literally the domino effect, he kills Charname, he kills himself. So he can't take anything from me that doesn't end him.

    I merely found it realistic that the elves would want the geas, since they didn't know their survival was contingent on yours. But like you, I didn't find it realistic that Charname or Viconia would accept it without argument. That much I agree with--Charname should be able to say no.

  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,851
    It's all good, don't get me wrong I can see where the separation could have occurred. In my second post where I said "despite from my perspective I'm holding more cards " I was referencing to whether or not they had the right to put a Geas on anyone.

    The way I see it, they don't, or they have to force a Geas on the whole team. A evil charname would just tell him to kill her, a good wouldn't allow that to happen to a companion. Neutral, maybe. Even looking at it from the view of lawful and chaotic;

    Lawful good- wouldn't let it happen because it isn't right, they don't know her or they would've recognized her beyond her race, so they know nothing of her past crimes.

    Chaotic Good- wouldn't let it happen for similar reasons as Lawful, that and he wouldn't let the bound her will like that in any way.

    Chaotic Evil- wouldn't have saved her at all and watched her burn at the stakes.

    Lawful Evil- wouldn't allow someone else control over his/her comrads or tools. Especially if it undermined the others authority.

    SmilingSword
  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,851

    To be a little more clear, I was responding to this post, not any of your others:


    And if I die, his whole race gets genocides. Based on his own word, majority of his own army are fighting off the Drow, and I'm not arguing game mechanic here. It's literally the domino effect, he kills Charname, he kills himself. So he can't take anything from me that doesn't end him.

    I merely found it realistic that the elves would want the geas, since they didn't know their survival was contingent on yours. But like you, I didn't find it realistic that Charname or Viconia would accept it without argument. That much I agree with--Charname should be able to say no.
    Realistically they should've geased athe whole party, not just Viconia because of her race, and against the party's will.

    semiticgod
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    edited July 2015
    Isn't the geas just to follow you, though? While I can see some Charnames objecting to that on moral principle, I can see others saying "eh, it's fine, I just won't abuse it." Or even others saying "score, more control over my minions."

    In the end, though, while I think more argumentative options from Charname would be entirely appropriate, I don't see Charname actually having a real choice in the matter.

  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,851
    Jarrakul said:

    Isn't the geas just to follow you, though? While I can see some Charnames objecting to that on moral principle, I can see others saying "eh, it's fine, I just won't abuse it." Or even others saying "score, more control over my minions."

    In the end, though, while I think more argumentative options from Charname would be entirely appropriate, I don't see Charname actually having a real choice in the matter.

    The geas in BG at least is "you follow the order or you die." If she breaks it, it kills her. This type of deal would be more more understandable when you first meet her in bg1. By the time you get to the Elven city in BG2. You've put your life in her hands more than once, you've travelled around and fought everything from liches to demons and even her own kind together. She literally puts her life in your hands down in the underdark, so unless you're playing the type of character who view others as tools meant to be used and then discarded. I don't see how charname would just sit there and let someone put magical shackles on a companion that has proven themselves over and over again.

    No matter what the defining pretenses that must not be broken are.

  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    I'm sympathetic on that point, I really am. Even if you're never planning to give her an order, it's kind of squicky to basically enslave a person, especially a friend. But my larger point is that the options are either agree or be swarmed and killed by an elven army. I'm not saying that's the best set of options to choose from, but I think binding someone to an unbreakable oath that you never plan to hold them to is definitely better than getting them killed, and notably, Viconia seems to agree (as evidenced by her agreeing to the whole deal).

  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,851
    Jarrakul said:

    I'm sympathetic on that point, I really am. Even if you're never planning to give her an order, it's kind of squicky to basically enslave a person, especially a friend. But my larger point is that the options are either agree or be swarmed and killed by an elven army. I'm not saying that's the best set of options to choose from, but I think binding someone to an unbreakable oath that you never plan to hold them to is definitely better than getting them killed, and notably, Viconia seems to agree (as evidenced by her agreeing to the whole deal).

    For the record, I would've been fine with killing them all. I've never made a charname, even a evil one who had a problem with killing someone who tried to bring harm to his companions.

    Actually your larger point is invalid, because there is no logic what so ever behind the da t you can fight your way out of a ENTIRE Drow city, but you can't fight a army that is broken between trying to defend against Drow attacks and trying to get into the city.

    Add onto the fact, there is no way that if you can talk a matron favored daughter into not having sex with Charname and not causing her to turn the whole city against. Coming up with a logical reason why Elhan has no freaking right to impose his will on someone he doesn't even freaking know, especially when he is asking the group that person is obviously is obviously with to fetch the key to their city basically.

  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    First, Ust Natha is an outpost, not a full-fledged city, and their army is absent at the time. And while slaughtering the whole thing isn't that hard, it's thematically mentioned as being neigh-impossible. The game's failure is in the mechanics of Ust Natha, in making it possible to kill everyone inside, not in the mechanics of Elhan's army.

    There's also the fact that you can't use the Lanthorn, so if you kill Elhan and co., you can't get to Irenicus and you'll eventually waste away. Even if the game did give you the option of just killing all the elves, even if that was remotely reasonable, you'd die anyway.

    Second, what Elhan has the right to do isn't the issue here. You don't get to make the choices for him, so the quality of his choices is irrelevant to the quality of yours. He says that either Viconia dies, she submits to a geas, or you all die. Those are your choices. That's the decision you get to make. Viconia's willing to submit to the geas to avoid being killed, so you taking any of the other two options is forcing your will on her more surely than the geas is.

    semiticgod
  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,851
    Jarrakul said:

    First, Ust Natha is an outpost, not a full-fledged city, and their army is absent at the time. And while slaughtering the whole thing isn't that hard, it's thematically mentioned as being neigh-impossible. The game's failure is in the mechanics of Ust Natha, in making it possible to kill everyone inside, not in the mechanics of Elhan's army.

    This argument is the same for Elhan, where you meet him is not a city, its a outpost. His army is already fighting a war on 2 fronts, both defending the city from the inside so their army is just as absent. If not more so since the Drow were only dealing with ONE threat but the elves would have three threats to deal with if you attacked.
    Jarrakul said:

    There's also the fact that you can't use the Lanthorn, so if you kill Elhan and co., you can't get to Irenicus and you'll eventually waste away. Even if the game did give you the option of just killing all the elves, even if that was remotely reasonable, you'd die anyway.

    Right because fantasy story never have loopholes or wormholes? It's the only way because the writers wanted it that way, a second way could have easily been written into the story. Not to mention fighting isn't always about, "oh I gotta kill this thing" then again this is balders Gate, I can only remember 1 fight in this game that was more then 'oh kill it."
    What? He doesn't say we all die, JUST HER! Secondly a high enough charismatic or intelligent character should be able to explain the to a character the illogicality of telling someone in a group of people who agreed to freaking help YOU, if they don't put on these chains we will kill you. Is not only COUNTER PRODUCTIVE in the making the group or its leader NOT WANT TO HELP THEM NOW. Unless they forxe a Geas on the WHOLE TEAM. That's just poorly written hole put in just because "oh know we don't like Drow."

    Then I just cant explain it to you, hell I wouldn't be surprised if they had tried to force a Geas on Drizzt, why not he's a Drow and that is all the logic they need to do it.

    I hate using this type of example really I do...

    But this is no different then if I was to walk into a "fancy" store five of my Caucasian associates. But as we walk around I'm the one getting followed and singled out because I'm black (one of the most loved stereotypes revovles around stealing.) At least one of the other five people that came in with me WILL say something in my defense.

    In this case that person should've been the charname, you say charname has no choice because YOU ACCEPT that we weren't given a choice. Based on Drow culture a male SHOULDN'T have a choice but to have sex with a female that desired it especially a favored, but we are given a way to back out of it without death. That should be where the npc choic e is irrelevant, but instead that is allowed to ruin romances with certain characters. Putting a geas on Viconia is just poorly written moment to try and make her presence there acknowledge without taking into account the charnames thoughts or feeling on the situation.

  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    At no point have I argued that this is a good situation. At one point I mentioned that I would support having more options to protest the situation. I think that would make a lot of sense, and you should absolutely be allowed to tell Elhan, in no uncertain terms, where he can shove it. What I don't support is alternative ways to get out of the situation.

    You say this is also an outpost. No. This is a war camp. Both the drow and elven armies are currently outside their respective settlements. The difference is that the elven army is right there when you're having the conversation, while the drow army is largely in the elven city itself.

    You say that if you can talk Phaere out of sleeping with you, you should be able to talk Elhan out of geasing Viconia. No. Phaere and Elhan are not the same person. They are not equally persuadable, and there's no reason they should be. Even if they were exactly the same person, just in different circumstances, it still wouldn't make sense. Phaere wants to sleep with a guy. Elhan is fighting tooth and nail to save his homeland from a madman, and sees this as a necessary precaution. If Elhan weren't an order of magnitude more stubborn than Phaere on their respective issues, it'd be bad writing.

    You say there should have been other ways into the city, and, well... I think this touches on my main problem with your argument. You seem to think the game should bend itself so that you can get your way. I understand that argument. A lot of people feel that way. They feel like being the player character makes them The One Who Chooses, and that that means they should be allowed to do whatever they want and the game should facilitate that. I couldn't agree less. As a player character, it is your right to make choices, but it is also your right to be royally screwed over by those choices. Sometimes people are in situations where they don't actually have a choice, or more specifically, where some choices will end very badly for them. Baldur's Gate knows this. It's not always perfect, but it knows that "RPG" doesn't mean you always get your way. This is one of the most realistic moments in the entire game, and that's awful, but good storytelling portrays awful things sometimes.

    And for the record, I agree that Elhan's very much in the wrong, here. I agree with your analogy to the way black people are treated in the real world, and I'd be among the first to call Elhan racist for his actions. That doesn't mean I think it's bad writing. It just means I think he's written as a racist.

  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,851
    edited July 2015
    During a time of war a warcamp and a outpost can survive similar if not the SAME PURPOSEs and the fact that the matron mother was constantly preparing it for war, long before you got there compared to the Elven war camp was formed. Not I will emit I just made a strong assumption, but we are given no evidence that that war camp was,

    1. There and armed for war before Irenicus's attack.

    2.The elves were already prepared for.

    If you ask around the tavern in the underdark, the whole were didn't even seem to be a that big of knowledge from how some of the patrons seemed to talk.

    And again the Elven army was divided still fighting two battles. It's doesn't matter how close their army might have been to the camp, heck if the battle was actually so close that one army could turn around and attack. They technically already lost that war, sor at the less, that current battle ground because the Drow are arguably close enough to over run them. Heck they are close enough to take the city if they could get in.

    I also want to correct you on one thing, I believe the character should have been able to argue it, whether it changed the out come or not, I would have been fine with. There are a few things in this game that you can argue but the ending remains the same.
    As far as the second entrance, I thought I said one "could have" been written in, not "should have." In looking over my other post to make sure I worded that correctly because those two aren't interchangeable. I don't believe my character should get its way, but I believe my character SHOULD be able to voice even of it means get put in his place.

    I'm trying to remember a game that I felt did dialogue on that level, and I want to say vampires the masquerade. Another crpg based off a tabletop game. You could talk your way through majority of that game, but if your communication ability was right then you got shut down, and there were still parts that even if you tried to be persuasive, you ended up with the ae path.

    But at the end of the day, all I am saying is I just was sad that I couldn't voice disagreement about that action. Everything else is more or less mute.

    Post edited by DragonKing on
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029

    I also want to correct you on one thing, I believe the character should have been able to argue it, whether it changed the out come or not, I would have been fine with. There are a few things in this game that you can argue but the ending remains the same.
    As far as the second entrance, I thought I said one "could have" been written in, not "should have." In looking over my other post to make sure I worded that correctly because those two aren't interchangeable. I don't believe my character should get its way, but I believe my character SHOULD be able to voice even of it means get out in his place.

    I'm trying to remember a game that I felt did dialogue on that level, and I want to say vampires the massacred. Another crpg based off a tabletop game. You could talk your way through majority of that game, but if your communication ability was right then you got shut down, and there were still parts that even if you tried to be persuasive, you ended up with the ae path.

    But at the end of the day, all I am saying is I just was sad that I couldn't voice disagreement about that action. Everything else is more or less mute.

    I'm not sure we're really getting anywhere with the rest of this argument, but I do want to say I agree with you on these three paragraphs. I think you should absolutely have the option to protest. I think you should be able to explain to Elhan, in explicit detail, exactly why what he's doing is wrong. I don't think it should get you anywhere, but I damn well don't think you should be forced to take it quietly.

    I also think VtM: Bloodlines (I assume that's the one you're referring to, since I don't recall much talking in Redemption) is an awesome game with some really great writing. It's just a pity it devolved almost entirely into fighting at the end. Kind of screwed over social characters, although I suppose by then you'd had plenty of opportunity to level your combat skills.

  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,851
    Jarrakul said:

    I also want to correct you on one thing, I believe the character should have been able to argue it, whether it changed the out come or not, I would have been fine with. There are a few things in this game that you can argue but the ending remains the same.
    As far as the second entrance, I thought I said one "could have" been written in, not "should have." In looking over my other post to make sure I worded that correctly because those two aren't interchangeable. I don't believe my character should get its way, but I believe my character SHOULD be able to voice even of it means get out in his place.

    I'm trying to remember a game that I felt did dialogue on that level, and I want to say vampires the massacred. Another crpg based off a tabletop game. You could talk your way through majority of that game, but if your communication ability was right then you got shut down, and there were still parts that even if you tried to be persuasive, you ended up with the ae path.

    But at the end of the day, all I am saying is I just was sad that I couldn't voice disagreement about that action. Everything else is more or less mute.

    I'm not sure we're really getting anywhere with the rest of this argument, but I do want to say I agree with you on these three paragraphs. I think you should absolutely have the option to protest. I think you should be able to explain to Elhan, in explicit detail, exactly why what he's doing is wrong. I don't think it should get you anywhere, but I damn well don't think you should be forced to take it quietly.

    I also think VtM: Bloodlines (I assume that's the one you're referring to, since I don't recall much talking in Redemption) is an awesome game with some really great writing. It's just a pity it devolved almost entirely into fighting at the end. Kind of screwed over social characters, although I suppose by then you'd had plenty of opportunity to level your combat skills.
    Yea, I am trying to end this more or less in a high note. The main point I think majority.of the commenters agreed on, but more things got brought into it that took the topic in a different direction. Plus auto correct on my phone combined with what I've been told is dyslexia likes to make me suffer when I'm typing on a phone... Or at all... Or when I'm writing in general.

    Yes, I am talking about bloodlines and not redemption, I never played redemption but I heard it was god awful. The thing about bloodlines though is you could play the whole game through social/stealth based characters if you wanted. I remember seeing one guide about beating the game without doing a single fight., even the part with the werewoldf you could stealth through.


    With that said, Tremere is the Truth!

Sign In or Register to comment.