Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jul 2022
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2022
I've recently found out a new Withers' interaction for myself, that triggered after attacking him both in a temple and at camp, but it is still just an insult - a piece of dialogue that changes nothing about it. I think it'd be cool if Larian allowed us to kill Withers at some point with some powerful relic or at least banish him from our very midst. Or persuade him to conceal his existence because he is annoying! Something, at least. What do you guys think? Would it be extra, or should it be an option?

An option to kill/banish/expel Withers
single choice
Votes accepted starting: 24/08/22 04:54 PM
Joined: Feb 2022
Location: UK
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2022
Location: UK
I’m abstaining on this one for now, though possibly someone might say something that makes my mind up one way or the other. I personally don’t have any problem with him hanging round my camp minding his own business, and do tend to use his services. Though I don’t know why I hoard the scrolls when I know I’ll not need them all! I’m also looking forward to finding out more about Jergal’s connection to the story.

But even if Withers does have an important story role to play, and I’m not sure if he’ll appear even if you don’t visit his temple in act 1, it still feels as though you could be given an option to ask him to go and he’ll say his “we’ll meet again in another time and place” line and just pop up again later when he has some lines.

I struggle to think how persuading him to hide somehow would feel realistic, though, and I don’t think we should be given a means to kill him unless that’s actually part of/a branch of the story anyway.

Joined: Jul 2022
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2022
I mean, from a roleplay perspective it is weird to have an undead following you from camp to camp. I was once playing as a cowardly cleric of Ilmater and I wanted him gone and his answer was simply NO. Why so?

In previous patches he appeared even if you've never visited a temple. It could trigger if you died by falling into the abyss, then he'd just magicaly appeared to offer services and later you could find his sarcophagus opened. With the introduction of soul fragments that allow resurrection even when the body is gone, that might not be the case. Need to chk on this one.

BTW I don't have any problems with Withers staying at camp in general. I'd want to have an option though, to not keep a skeleton around.

I mean, this game is all about options. I am not complaining about anything, if I didn't make myself clear in the initial post. I am offering a new option. As of now Withers feels being forced upon you, with no way to resist.

Last edited by neprostoman; 24/08/22 06:44 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
I voted for yes ...
Now i realized that i would like to change it for no ...

I mean, it makes perfect sense to me that certain Clerics and Paladins would dislike having Undead in their camp ... on the other hand, that ... dunno, thing? ... is obviously too powerfull for us to banish, destroy, or otherwise deal with ... so his simple "no" seems absolutely perfect.
Its as if Superman would say to some regular guy "make me" and i love it how our dear paladins are completely screwed. laugh laugh laugh


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Oct 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2021
Meh

Joined: Jun 2022
C
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
C
Joined: Jun 2022
Personally I would never want to kill him or banish him because he is interesting and I like his sass. Dead serious and takes crap from no-one laugh

Joined: Jul 2022
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2022
Originally Posted by Ranxerox
Meh
-1

Joined: Mar 2021
M
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
M
Joined: Mar 2021
He isn't a skeleton.

Since D&D has it's monster lore, he seems to be a lich of some kind, some kind of immortal creature with body issues as it's body is dead. The question is whatever he is some kind of divine avatar or other super divine servant.

Making him leave is on the same level as not wanting "the box", you are not going to get a choice in the matter he is part of the fabric of the story, so the choice is do not play BG3 and avoid Mindflayers, Withers and "the box" or accept it as part of the game.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Withers is the Guardian of Tombs. We know virtually nothing about him other than this.

But... did you know? One of Jergal's titles is the Guardian of Tombs. Have you considered that he might actually BE Jergal, the original God of Death who gave his portfolio to the Dead Three ages ago?

So should we be able to kill him? Absolutely not. I think Withers is actually important to the story. Maybe not essential because you can skip him altogether, but I think it's going to link back to him.

Last edited by GM4Him; 25/08/22 02:28 AM.
Joined: Oct 2021
Z
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Z
Joined: Oct 2021
We know so little about him right now. For all we know, Withers could be the final boss.


Remember the human:
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
In this particular case, we should have options, but those options are there to impress upon us that nothing we do or say will dissuade this creature from his duty; it should reinforce his nature.

This entity has a duty, and nothing we mortals say or do has any impact upon that; what we, simple mortals, want doesn't come into it - he will do his duty, whether we want him to or not.

I feel like Larian are completely jumping the shark to actually make this entity Jergal himself- that's *stupid* and it also doesn't really fit with the way deities work in the realms (So... that's probably exactly what they're doing... /cynical). They do not and cannot manifest physically in the realms themselves, except in particularly dramatic situations that are world-shaking events. What he should be is a chosen envoy of the Scribe, given a duty to fulfil by the Scribe, and the divinely-given powers necessary to carry out that duty, which should put him well enough beyond our abilities to interfere with.

Joined: Feb 2022
Location: UK
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2022
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Niara
I feel like Larian are completely jumping the shark to actually make this entity Jergal himself- that's *stupid* and it also doesn't really fit with the way deities work in the realms. They do not and cannot manifest physically in the realms themselves, except in particularly dramatic situations that are world-shaking events. What he should be is a chosen envoy of the Scribe, given a duty to fulfil by the Scribe, and the divinely-given powers necessary to carry out that duty, which should put him well enough beyond our abilities to interfere with.

Yes, I’d assumed that the “he” that Withers says at some point had spoken and was right as always was Jergal and that Withers was his representative. But I guess it’s possible that Withers is some sort of avatar of Jergal but still separate, or that the “he” refers to someone else (Kelemvor?). Or that Withers can become an avatar of Jergal at some point in the late game when the events become world-shaking - I’m guessing the fate of Bhaal at least is going to be in the balance given this is a sequel to BG1&2, which does seem like something Jergal and other gods of aspects of death would be keenly interested in.

As folk have said, we just don’t know very much at the moment and though it’s fun to speculate I think I’m with Niara on this one and it would be a bit much to have Withers straightforwardly being Jergal himself and spending time just hanging round our camp, however much our story might later intersect with his.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Niara
(So... that's probably exactly what they're doing... /cynical)
There is still hope ...
He told is that hes not here by choice ... that wouldnt be true if he is God himself right? ... right?


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
I never really had the wish to kill him. He is useful and interesting.


"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."

Doctor Who
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
"Bane, Bhaal and Myrkul inherited most of the portfolios of Jergal when he wearily stepped down from his position and then faded into near-obscurity. The death of those deities left Jergal in the service to Cyric and then Kelemvor; he worked well with Kelemvor, but retained his scorn for Cyric. He spent much of his efforts combating Velsharoon's efforts to prolong life into undeath.

Jergal had a fondness from his time in Netheril as Nakasr for who the once-dead Amaunator was. Their opinions of each other after the Second Sundering and the slight changes to Amaunator's ethos and ideals were unknown."

Whether I want Withers to be Jergal or not (I don't know if I care on this one), keep in mind he is no longer a god. He gave up his godhood to the Dead Three and now serves as a seneschal of Kelemvor. The fact that he has a fondness for Netheril and that Netherese magic is heavily involved with our characters also suggests Jergal.

So, I'm guessing that he likely is Jergal because:

1. "Herein lies the Guardian of Tombs". A title of Jergal
2. He is not a god any longer so God rules don't necessarily apply.
3. The "he" in "so he has spoken" is likely Kelemvor whom he serves as a seneschal.
4. He likes Netherese and there is a lot of Netherese going on in BG3
5. Jergal has a direct connection to Bhaal's story so it would make sense to have him in the final game in the trilogy - assuming it's the final game.
6. The whole crypt is Jergal's, and his statue is right outside the final sarcophagus chamber just like an Egyptian crypt might have a statue of the pharaoh buried within.

Since Jergal's not a god anymore, he could be killed. Right? However, at most PCs should be level 2 at this point, 4 at most if you return to it later. So killing a once-god would be pretty much an impossibility. The DM should just call it impossible - as they have - so players move on.

Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Withers screams Early Access feature. It takes me completely out of the game to have him shuffling along behind our party no matter where we go. I just can't take him seriously.

Joined: Oct 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
Withers screams Early Access feature. It takes me completely out of the game to have him shuffling along behind our party no matter where we go. I just can't take him seriously.

+1

Joined: Jan 2021
L
member
Offline
member
L
Joined: Jan 2021
Got to say, I really hope this isn't Jergal. It seems like a serious misuse of one of the most powerful, important, and enigmatic entities in the setting to casually introduce him in the first 20 minutes of the game and then have him sit around camp, unremarked upon by companions or npcs, as essentially a gameplay convenience for if players get bodies stuck in unreachable locations and need to resurrect. Ideally npc priests would do that like in BG I+II, but afaik Larian just doesn't trust players to not kill them and leave themselves in a situation where they can't resurrect?

It's possible(likely even) that he'll become plot relevant later on, but his implementation right now just feels very awkward. A complaint that pops up now and again (and one that I feel is warranted) is that the game wants to be far to epic right out the gate. Having the OG god of death show up out of nowhere in the first hour of the game, ambiguously allude to greater powers commanding him/having a vested interest in you, and then turn into a glorified debug vendor just....takes me out of it whenever I remember he's there. (which is easy to forget, because the party members don't care/notice his presence)

That being said, even if he was just an original character lich or whatever, having a creepy undead park itself in your camp with no option to expel it is really odd from a rp perspective. You can tell him to leave, he refuses....and that's that. Can't bring it up with your companions even. "hey anyone concerned with the lich next to the river?"

Joined: Jun 2022
C
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
C
Joined: Jun 2022
Originally Posted by Leucrotta
Got to say, I really hope this isn't Jergal. It seems like a serious misuse of one of the most powerful, important, and enigmatic entities in the setting to casually introduce him in the first 20 minutes of the game and then have him sit around camp, unremarked upon by companions or npcs, as essentially a gameplay convenience for if players get bodies stuck in unreachable locations and need to resurrect. Ideally npc priests would do that like in BG I+II, but afaik Larian just doesn't trust players to not kill them and leave themselves in a situation where they can't resurrect?

Apparently it is already known or at least heavily speculated that Withers is indeed Jergal, as the 3D model for Withers was named Jergal on the artist's showcase page.Reddit post going into details.

And also this dialogue in which a Cleric can detect divine energy within him. Reddit post

But yes, so far he just seems to be a glorified revival bot with some interesting backstory and plenty of sass ^^

Joined: Jun 2022
Location: outback nsw
enthusiast
Online Content
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2022
Location: outback nsw
you just want to kill a GOD... how hard could it be?


Luke Skywalker: I don't, I don't believe it.
Yoda: That is why you failed.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5