Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Dec 2020
B
Banned
Offline
Banned
B
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by BuckettMonkey
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by fylimar
could help HER.

With SH I have no idea, what will happen. As mentioned, she gives approval when helping the Tieflings

Protecting tieflings and feeling sorry for them is evil though.
Why?
Why not?

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Haifa, Israel
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Haifa, Israel
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by BuckettMonkey
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by fylimar
could help HER.

With SH I have no idea, what will happen. As mentioned, she gives approval when helping the Tieflings

Protecting tieflings and feeling sorry for them is evil though.
Why?
Why not?
Understandable. Have a Nice Day.


Hello there.
Joined: Dec 2020
B
Banned
Offline
Banned
B
Joined: Dec 2020
Thank you. I hope you have a nice day as well.

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
Originally Posted by NorimizuRintarou
Originally Posted by Labayu
Originally Posted by NorimizuRintarou
Surely the people pursuing her romance her were the ones for whom her existing personality was fine?
I assume you're not a hetero male.

What is that supposed to mean
I have not yet played this game much still level 3 my party and have not come to any romantic situation despite my character has 12 Charisma as Cleric and not 8.

Shadowheart pretty much is a stonewall in progression for romance for my character so far... I am sure people would like more lasting relationship. I am not looking for one night romantic scene. More like sexual companion and for long lasting relationship and not one night there you go.

Before you ask am I romantic person? No I have very little empathy or romantic feelings and never fall easily into love in real life. I like sex though with women.

Hopefully they have a brothel in Nevewinter city. Prostitution is legal in my country as it should be. Oh do not get me wrong I am not saying marrying is wrong my brother is married and has 3 children and I will import (not mail order bride wife more like go there for months and get to know a wife candidate) wife from Asia or Russia or Ukraine unless I get good one from the Western world.

Last edited by Terminator2020; 28/12/20 03:11 PM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by biomag
Originally Posted by Niara
I was just answering another person's question with my view on that matter; whatever the expected justifications or explanations, it doesn't alter the facts - and they are facts - that she behaves towards you as I described, and that is the source of my dislike.

Aside from those factual details, my reading of her from that is, of course, all just personal opinion.

Sure, maybe she does tell you more later, if you pass a half a dozen checks over the course of several events... but that doesn't *change* the fact that she is the sort of person who will eagerly press *You* for information, get huffy, snide or agitated at you when you *Don't* spill everything to her, but in the same breath and at the same point in her development, will *Not* consider it fair for you to ask the same questions of her, and will get angry and condescending at you for doing so.

It doesn't *matter* what the justification for that is. It IS what it is, and it's atrocious behaviour.

It's about her characterisation, yes, but it's also about the writing - because obviously they want to write her in a way that will make people want to unpack her story and find out - and from my perspective, they fail at doing so abysmally. If I show interest, the game punishes me, and she's just generally an unpleasant person to be around the vast majority of the time; NO, I'm not interested in devoting time and energy to someone whose primary reaction to anything is to insult, belittle, condescend or act superior towards - with almost no exception, for the first chunk of your interactions, even when angling more positive. Even when you DO learn more, and she *Invites* you to talk to her about it later - her next response is to snap waspishly at you for daring to have the impertinence to follow her up on that invitation. I'm sorry, I play this game to have fun - not to be treated like dirt for even trying.

Like I said; I don't KNOW if I've hit her 'new' dialogue or not yet, because I hadn't seen the old on its own before this playthough... I'm up to the point where she's told me what I think is more or less everything (I know she likes a certain type of flower, and cannot, apparently swim). It's been less than pleasant a journey, and I've had to frequently swallow any objection I would otherwise take to her trash-talking of other people's beliefs and views, just because I'm trying to actually get her dialogue unpacked, and any wrong word at any point cuts it short, or seems to. Certainly, if I have seen any of the 'new' dialogue, I could not distinguish it from what was there before just by listening. As I said, I don't know.

Everything Niara said about Shadowheart is 100% my experience with her. In BG2 I liked the romances with Jaheira or VIcona. DAO - Morrigan. Isabella in DA2, the evil Thiefling in Pathfinder. And naturally Yen in Witcher 3. It's not that I can't handle strong female characters, I actually prefer them and can't stand princess-/save-me-type females. So in theory Shadowheart should be in my lane, but she is horribly written. The only reason I tried talking to her after the first couple of comments was that I wanted to see if I can unlock the content and if somehow she would surprise me - but those rolls prevented it and I simply didn't care at all about her enough to keep trying. She acts like you desparately need her and she is in possession of power that you need or that you are completely enthralled by her wit... well she doesn't and I ain't.



Lae'zel... yeah, if you want to play evil maybe you can find some connection to her. I think she is ok when it comes to writing, but I simply don't care about an alien rassist that proves to be pretty clueless about her own faction or anything else you encounter. So yeah, well written, but completely uninteresting for me if I don't want to play something along her lines. Combined with SH though you get 2 out of 2 female characters that think highly of themselves while acting quite dumb and constantly belittering you - surprisingly that doesn't connect with a part of the audience.
Totally agree with you both. @Niara put it very well. With SH, it's not her character concept that is the problem. It is her writing. The character should be given over to a (much) better writer.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Innateagle
SH's traditionally evil, no two ways about it. If she was simply selfish and out for herself, which she mostly is, an argument could be made, but she supports destroying the grove, going so far as disapproving of betraying the drow at the last second, and only shows regret after killing a bunch of kids. That's not really being neutral in my book.

Shw is neutral. She only cares about herself. She doesn't want any trouble. But she does not wish harm to others. She doesn't approve of killing tieflings, if you kill them then at the goblin party she will feel GUILTY. There is nothing close to evil, look at Astarion and Lae, do you see how they feel guilty? I'm not.

Besides, at the Tiefling party, Shadow says she was worried about them and didn't expect it herself. It can't be that evil is worried about a bunch of weak refugees. Again, if you kill them, then her romance scene closes. Obviously, she's neutral.


I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by Innateagle
SH's traditionally evil, no two ways about it. If she was simply selfish and out for herself, which she mostly is, an argument could be made, but she supports destroying the grove, going so far as disapproving of betraying the drow at the last second, and only shows regret after killing a bunch of kids. That's not really being neutral in my book.

Shw is neutral. She only cares about herself. She doesn't want any trouble. But she does not wish harm to others. She doesn't approve of killing tieflings, if you kill them then at the goblin party she will feel GUILTY. There is nothing close to evil, look at Astarion and Lae, do you see how they feel guilty? I'm not.

Besides, at the Tiefling party, Shadow says she was worried about them and didn't expect it herself. It can't be that evil is worried about a bunch of weak refugees. Again, if you kill them, then her romance scene closes. Obviously, she's neutral.

? It's in the game that she approves of going along with Minthara's plan, and that she disapproves of betraying her (to save the grove). I agree she's not sadistic like Lae'zel and Astarion, but that doesn't really make her neutral. It's pretty mucht he basis of the alignment that to be neutral and not evil a character mustn't actively put their needs above those of others, especially if they're innocent. Because that's an evil trait.

I also don't see how guilt after doing, and supporting, something as wicked as killing a bunch of kids changes anything. Is Anakin neutral because he got manipulated and his reasons weren't all that bad? Is Thanos neutral because he eventually felt remorse about some stuff (in IW)? Not every 'evil' character is evil in the same way and for the same reasons.

Joined: Dec 2020
N
stranger
Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Dec 2020
Shadowheart actually disapproves of either course of action once Minthera gets to the gates. If you look at her responses after doing both, she clearly prefers helping the tieflings even if she finds it hard to admit.

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
If i had the game installed i'd go to that moment to screenshot the Shadowheart disapproves when Minthara gets the finger.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Innateagle
? It's in the game that she approves of going along with Minthara's plan, and that she disapproves of betraying her (to save the grove). I agree she's not sadistic like Lae'zel and Astarion, but that doesn't really make her neutral. It's pretty mucht he basis of the alignment that to be neutral and not evil a character mustn't actively put their needs above those of others, especially if they're innocent. Because that's an evil trait.

I also don't see how guilt after doing, and supporting, something as wicked as killing a bunch of kids changes anything. Is Anakin neutral because he got manipulated and his reasons weren't all that bad? Is Thanos neutral because he eventually felt remorse about some stuff (in IW)? Not every 'evil' character is evil in the same way and for the same reasons.

At what point in the game does she approve of Mintara's plan? I literally never saw it. Tell me so I can take a look. When do you betray the Tieflings? Or when you talk to Mintara? The difference is that Thanos did it all by himself. And Shadow is a hostage to Tav's decisions, it's our decision to betray the Tieflings, not hers. So yes, she feels guilty because she didn't want to do it. And don't forget that she actually feels joy when she saves them, because she says she was worried about Tieflings. Neutral EVIL doesn't care what happens to the Tieflings, just like any other evil. Well, why should an evil character be happy about this? Weird.

upd: Well, I watched it, she doesn't approve (she just doesn't care, she doesn't react to it) of Mintara's plan, and she disapprove of her betrayal. But I think this is due to the fact that it will cause us additional problems. Not that she wants to kill the Tieflings. At the same time, Astarion (who is obviously evil), for example, does not care if we betray Mintara. So for me, it still doesn't prove that she's evil. That's not enough. Her reaction after the battle seems more important than that.

udp 2: lol sorry but she disapprove if we open gate too, she disapprove both choice with Mintara, wut means u must just kill goblins if u dont want Shadow disapprove.

Last edited by Nyloth; 29/12/20 01:42 AM.

I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Feb 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Feb 2020
it's nice to be around pleasant beings

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by Innateagle
? It's in the game that she approves of going along with Minthara's plan, and that she disapproves of betraying her (to save the grove). I agree she's not sadistic like Lae'zel and Astarion, but that doesn't really make her neutral. It's pretty mucht he basis of the alignment that to be neutral and not evil a character mustn't actively put their needs above those of others, especially if they're innocent. Because that's an evil trait.

I also don't see how guilt after doing, and supporting, something as wicked as killing a bunch of kids changes anything. Is Anakin neutral because he got manipulated and his reasons weren't all that bad? Is Thanos neutral because he eventually felt remorse about some stuff (in IW)? Not every 'evil' character is evil in the same way and for the same reasons.

At what point in the game does she approve of Mintara's plan? I literally never saw it. Tell me so I can take a look. When do you betray the Tieflings? Or when you talk to Mintara? The difference is that Thanos did it all by himself. And Shadow is a hostage to Tav's decisions, it's our decision to betray the Tieflings, not hers. So yes, she feels guilty because she didn't want to do it. And don't forget that she actually feels joy when she saves them, because she says she was worried about Tieflings. Neutral EVIL doesn't care what happens to the Tieflings, just like any other evil. Well, why should an evil character be happy about this? Weird.

upd: Well, I watched it, she doesn't approve (she just doesn't care, she doesn't react to it) of Mintara's plan, and she disapprove of her betrayal. But I think this is due to the fact that it will cause us additional problems. Not that she wants to kill the Tieflings. At the same time, Astarion (who is obviously evil), for example, does not care if we betray Mintara. So for me, it still doesn't prove that she's evil. That's not enough. Her reaction after the battle seems more important than that.

udp 2: lol sorry but she disapprove if we open gate too, she disapprove both choice with Mintara, wut means u must just kill goblins if u dont want Shadow disapprove.

Well, that's confusing. My mistake on her approval of Minthara's plan, must have remembered it wrong.

I don't abide to the 'hostage' argument, though. Just in the previous BGs companions could leave the party, or outright attack, if their morals and beliefs were questioned (which makes me question what Gale is, since i'm sure Wyll will leave the party in next iterations of the game in the evil route but not so sure about Gale). And Tav also isn't really the Jedi Exile from Kotor 2, aka a character who's subconsciously manipulating other people into becoming like him.

Back going back to SH, I do think she'll probably end up being neutral or even good based on how she generally behaves, but, again, a character who's willing to go along with something so firmly in the evil scale because it's somewhat convenient to them simply isn't 'live and let live'.

I also would like to point that not all evil characters need be evil all the time, much like not all chaotic neutrals needn't be the tropy 'screw with everyone' type, or every lawful good the dumb paladin. They all can be, sure, but they also can be more or less regular people with boundaries and emotions, just backed up by different sets of morals. In Kingmaker i have a lawful evil character who wants to be hailed as a god and basically shackle the people he reigns over to an oppresive regime, but he also does the occational good deed, out of actual goodness, based on his emotional response to certain situations and even keeps around a bunch of his companions solely because he grew attached to them.

In the specific case of the tieflings, i can easily see that evil character seriously considering going with Minthara but ultimately not doing it simply because Halsin appears to be more reliable than a bunch of goblin nutjobs, and because the nutjobs want to attack the place with the hugeass walls, and maybe even because he likes the thief kids and a couple other people.

So yeah, i don't think (neutral) evil needs to mean evil sadistic monster (and evil sadistic monsters needn't be evil sadistic monster all the time, see Astarion). Neutral evil most especially can easily be a blend of 'i'd rather not kill a bunch of innocent people' and 'but i'll do it if it benefits me'.

Last edited by Innateagle; 29/12/20 07:10 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Well, that's confusing. My mistake on her approval of Minthara's plan, must have remembered it wrong.

I don't abide to the 'hostage' argument, though. Just in the previous BGs companions could leave the party, or outright attack, if their morals and beliefs were questioned (which makes me question what Gale is, since i'm sure Wyll will leave the party in next iterations of the game in the evil route but not so sure about Gale). And Tav also isn't really the Jedi Exile from Kotor 2, aka a character who's subconsciously manipulating other people into becoming like him.

Back going back to SH, I do think she'll probably end up being neutral or even good based on how she generally behaves, but, again, a character who's willing to go along with something so firmly in the evil scale because it's somewhat convenient to them simply isn't 'live and let live'.

I also would like to point that not all evil characters need be evil all the time, much like not all chaotic neutrals needn't be the tropy 'screw with everyone' type, or every lawful good the dumb paladin. They all can be, sure, but they also can be more or less regular people with boundaries and emotions, just backed up by different sets of morals. In Kingmaker i have a lawful evil character who wants to be hailed as a god and basically shackle the people he reigns over to an oppresive regime, but he also does the occational good deed, out of actual goodness, based on his emotional response to certain situations and even keeps around a bunch of his companions solely because he grew attached to them.

In the specific case of the tieflings, i can easily see that evil character seriously considering going with Minthara but ultimately not doing it simply because Halsin appears to be more reliable than a bunch of goblin nutjobs, and because the nutjobs want to attack the place with the hugeass walls, and maybe even because he likes the thief kids and a couple other people.

So yeah, i don't think (neutral) evil needs to mean evil sadistic monster (and evil sadistic monsters needn't be evil sadistic monster all the time, see Astarion). Neutral evil most especially can easily be a blend of 'i'd rather not kill a bunch of innocent people' and 'but i'll do it if it benefits me'.

That's right, and Wyll leaves you if you choose the path of evil, literally, if you kill tieflings, Wyll immediately leaves you. I think that Shadow can be swayed in any direction, both for evil and for good, but she herself, judging by her statements, does not want to harm others. I also do not consider Astarion a neutral evil, he is completely chaotic, there is no benefit or logic in his actions. So for me, he is a Chaotic evil, and Lae is Lawful. Gale is one big mystery, all I can say is that he's an excellent manipulator.

As for Shadow, I would agree with you if it wasn't for that scene at the goblin party where she wants to "drown" her grief in alcohol. It looks strange for an evil character, she could just not care, and she feels guilty for some refugees, on whom she only recently did not care.

But…

Shadow has memory loss, maybe that's the problem. If she doesn't know herself, how can we know her? She's obsessed with her mission.


I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Well, that's confusing. My mistake on her approval of Minthara's plan, must have remembered it wrong.

I don't abide to the 'hostage' argument, though. Just in the previous BGs companions could leave the party, or outright attack, if their morals and beliefs were questioned (which makes me question what Gale is, since i'm sure Wyll will leave the party in next iterations of the game in the evil route but not so sure about Gale). And Tav also isn't really the Jedi Exile from Kotor 2, aka a character who's subconsciously manipulating other people into becoming like him.

Back going back to SH, I do think she'll probably end up being neutral or even good based on how she generally behaves, but, again, a character who's willing to go along with something so firmly in the evil scale because it's somewhat convenient to them simply isn't 'live and let live'.

I also would like to point that not all evil characters need be evil all the time, much like not all chaotic neutrals needn't be the tropy 'screw with everyone' type, or every lawful good the dumb paladin. They all can be, sure, but they also can be more or less regular people with boundaries and emotions, just backed up by different sets of morals. In Kingmaker i have a lawful evil character who wants to be hailed as a god and basically shackle the people he reigns over to an oppresive regime, but he also does the occational good deed, out of actual goodness, based on his emotional response to certain situations and even keeps around a bunch of his companions solely because he grew attached to them.

In the specific case of the tieflings, i can easily see that evil character seriously considering going with Minthara but ultimately not doing it simply because Halsin appears to be more reliable than a bunch of goblin nutjobs, and because the nutjobs want to attack the place with the hugeass walls, and maybe even because he likes the thief kids and a couple other people.

So yeah, i don't think (neutral) evil needs to mean evil sadistic monster (and evil sadistic monsters needn't be evil sadistic monster all the time, see Astarion). Neutral evil most especially can easily be a blend of 'i'd rather not kill a bunch of innocent people' and 'but i'll do it if it benefits me'.

That's right, and Wyll leaves you if you choose the path of evil, literally, if you kill tieflings, Wyll immediately leaves you. I think that Shadow can be swayed in any direction, both for evil and for good, but she herself, judging by her statements, does not want to harm others. I also do not consider Astarion a neutral evil, he is completely chaotic, there is no benefit or logic in his actions. So for me, he is a Chaotic evil, and Lae is Lawful. Gale is one big mystery, all I can say is that he's an excellent manipulator.

As for Shadow, I would agree with you if it wasn't for that scene at the goblin party where she wants to "drown" her grief in alcohol. It looks strange for an evil character, she could just not care, and she feels guilty for some refugees, on whom she only recently did not care.

But…

Shadow has memory loss, maybe that's the problem. If she doesn't know herself, how can we know her? She's obsessed with her mission.

Didn't have Wyll in my evil playthrough, was wanting to rush it just to see how it was and his quest is hella buggy so i noped him. But if he's already set to leave and Gale's not that's pretty interesting.

I also agree on Astarion and Lae'zel, i worded wrong my last point. What i actually meant is "i don't think evil needs to mean evil sadistic monster, especially neutral evil".

Last edited by Innateagle; 29/12/20 08:45 AM.
Joined: Dec 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Innateagle
But if he's already set to leave and Gale's not that's pretty interesting.

Well, as of Patch 3 when you speak to Gale at the party he does threaten to leave if you sided with Minthara. You need to persuade or intimidate him into staying if I remember correctly.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Kajsentlyha
Originally Posted by Innateagle
But if he's already set to leave and Gale's not that's pretty interesting.

Well, as of Patch 3 when you speak to Gale at the party he does threaten to leave if you sided with Minthara. You need to persuade or intimidate him into staying if I remember correctly.

I didn't have that. But I did feed him a lot of magic items...


I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Haifa, Israel
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Haifa, Israel
Originally Posted by Innateagle
"i don't think evil needs to mean evil sadistic monster, especially neutral evil".
However, the neutral evil worldview, in most editions of D&D, as well as Pathfinder, is characterized by an extreme degree of selfishness. It's funny, even she's a little surprised by her genuine compassion for others and her desire to justify Shar as The Sacred Darkness, when most of her clergy just hates everything. She’s also the least cruel of the three “evil” companions, and approves of acts like taking care of animals and being nice to children.
I think she is far from the generally accepted standards of kindness, but it is difficult to call her truly evil.
Either way, due to her amnesia, we don't know how angry she was originally.

Last edited by BuckettMonkey; 29/12/20 12:08 PM.

Hello there.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
I will just put out there for the sake of the discussion:

Classically speaking, Evil alignments are defined by selfishness; to be selfish and self-motivated to the point that you and your plans and your needs or desires are all you really care about; to be self-interested in such a way that you don't care who or what gets hurt or left out in the cold, if you are pursuing your interests; to be the one who will always put yourself first and sacrifice anyone or anything else before your own self-interest; to value and utilise others only insofar as they serve your self-interest; this is the core of what it is to be classically evil.

Astarion is chaotic and destructive; he likes to poke the beehive just because it's there to be poked, and he wants you to do interesting things because they're funny. Alone this would just be chaotic neutral. He also has a bloodlust and enjoys seeing other people in pain and suffering - he wants to pursue that and doesn't care who gets hurt in doing so; that is the part that makes him evil. He also craves power for the sake of his own freedom and survival, and again, doesn't care who gets gutted in the pursuit of it - that is what makes him evil.

Shadow is entirely self-motivated and doesn't consider other people's rights, wants, needs or desires to be at all equal to her own; she has the right, in her mind, to demand things of others to suit her own ends, but they do not have any right whatsoever to ask or require anything of her. She is the most important person in her world, by a country mile, and she will leave anyone and everyone to rot in favour of pursuing what she views as her own needs and goals. She favours avoiding overt conflict - or anything else that might risk her life or wellbeing, isn't interested in justice, or following laws unless they suite her ends. She is classically neutral evil; evil with occasional pangs of regret and conscience, maybe, but still evil. Her locked memories may evoke a change in this - but it will be very poor writing if these personality traits magically flip when she gets her memories back; she's still the person that she is, after all, or should be.

Lae'zel has a doctrine and a code. It is the creed of her people, but it is a selfish, self-serving and brutal creed that devalues the lives of people who are of 'lesser' races - which is everyone. It also devalues the lives of anyone of their own race who is subordinate, and any course of action that does not follow the will of their ruler is considered wasteful at best and punishable at worst. Lae'zel follows this creed with absolute blindness and fury, and would (and has) killed even her own kin in the following of it, without thought or question, or remorse or conscience; Lae'zel is classically lawful evil.

None of these things dictate how they interact with other people, or how they have to behave at an interpersonal level; it doesn't require them to be obnoxious or objectionable people, overtly.

Wyll and Gale are trickier to place; they both strike me as originally good-hearted people who have made selfish choices in their past, and regretted them to varying degrees. Wyll hides the truth of where his power comes from and what his motives are behind the heroic image he is famed for, but he genuinely values helping and protecting those who cannot help or protect themselves. His motives may involve vengeance underneath it, but it would be disingenuous to suppose that he doesn't actively want to defend the people who need it as well, and isn't afraid to risk his own life for their sakes. Would he still be as adamant about ending the goblin threat if his vengeance target wasn't in there, and if another important figure to him wasn't involved? That's much harder to say. It probably wouldn't be his top priority, but he'd certianly still want to help them to some extent. He likely wouldn't choose to stay and help them if his patron's needs were pulling him in the complete opposite direction, however. It's harder to pin, but Wyll is somewhere in the spectrum of neutral to chaotic neutral, but one who wishes to be seen as good, and wishes to be good, if he can and it doesn't conflict with his personal goals.

Gale is definitely self-interested and puts his own needs as a high priority, but his actions and inclinations on the ground, moment to moment, are to help those in need, save those who need saving, and to do the right thing where possible, even if it is a personal risk. He will stress the importance of his need for magic items, but if you tell him you still need it, he doesn't insist - only stress the danger of denying him. His personal goals are for power, but for now it seems his reason for seeking that power is to undo his own mistake... I do not think Gale is evil, particularly. I think he is a highly intelligent archmage who did something very, very unwise, and I think he is a good person at his core; I read him as neutral leaning towards neutral good.

Now here's the thing: people will say that they might by lying to us or deceiving us. perhaps... but so far larian have shown no hesitation in stuffing ability checks into all kinds of places throughout our companion dialogues, gating this that and the other behind rolls.. which is a very stupid move... but it means that we can at least be sure that they aren't lying to us directly, since we don't get insight checks against them. If Larian later reveals that they were lying, and we didn't get insight checks, despite all of the other rolls they make us do for companion interactions, that will be a very black mark against hem, their game design and their story-telling.

Last edited by Niara; 29/12/20 12:16 PM.
Joined: Dec 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by Kajsentlyha
Originally Posted by Innateagle
But if he's already set to leave and Gale's not that's pretty interesting.

Well, as of Patch 3 when you speak to Gale at the party he does threaten to leave if you sided with Minthara. You need to persuade or intimidate him into staying if I remember correctly.

I didn't have that. But I did feed him a lot of magic items...

I had it in two separate runs. One with Gale at neutral approval (I'd been starving him) and the other at high. Does he close an eye on the slaughter of a whole village if his approval is exceptional? Now that would be interesting...

Joined: May 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Originally Posted by Kajsentlyha
Originally Posted by Innateagle
But if he's already set to leave and Gale's not that's pretty interesting.

Well, as of Patch 3 when you speak to Gale at the party he does threaten to leave if you sided with Minthara. You need to persuade or intimidate him into staying if I remember correctly.

Is it possible to keep Wyll in the party if you side with Minthara?

Page 5 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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