I am wondering what a good character should do regarding the silver sword.
Theft is usually considered bad, but against them, is it wrong? They send an anti-paladin against you if you decide to keep it after all.
Are there any problems later in the game if you decide to keep it?
Githanki and the silver sword
Débuté par
wise grimwald
, nov. 05 2010 09:45
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 05 novembre 2010 - 10:43
R.U.N
-
- Members
- 86 messages
I only had one extra encounter with them in chapter 6. I presume this is what you meant with anti-paladin?
Otherwise there aren't any ''problems''. As far as I'm concerned these guys aren't exactly saints to begin with and the question isn't what a good character would do but rather what would your character do?
Is your interpretation of your character more the selfless paladin type good or rather the anti-hero kind of good?
Otherwise there aren't any ''problems''. As far as I'm concerned these guys aren't exactly saints to begin with and the question isn't what a good character would do but rather what would your character do?
Is your interpretation of your character more the selfless paladin type good or rather the anti-hero kind of good?
#3
Posté 05 novembre 2010 - 11:09
Flamedance
-
- Members
- 370 messages
The encounter with the Githyanki group in chapter 6 is the last you'll see of them.
Githyanki are evil aligned, so you could argue taking it from them is actually a good act. If you are Lawful Neutral, the only consistent rp option would probably be to give it back. It IS their sword after all. As a paladin, it's harder to decide. My personal opinion: a paladin should hand it over to them. Acquiring such an item by ignoble means would violate any paladin's code of conduct, no matter the alignment of those it was stolen from.
Githyanki are evil aligned, so you could argue taking it from them is actually a good act. If you are Lawful Neutral, the only consistent rp option would probably be to give it back. It IS their sword after all. As a paladin, it's harder to decide. My personal opinion: a paladin should hand it over to them. Acquiring such an item by ignoble means would violate any paladin's code of conduct, no matter the alignment of those it was stolen from.
Modifié par Flamedance, 05 novembre 2010 - 11:10 .
#4
Posté 05 novembre 2010 - 12:17
wise grimwald
-
- Members
- 327 messages
In that case, since my character is chaotic good, keeping it is a reasonable option.
I thought that they were evil, but wasn't sure.
The Anti-paladin who turned up however did make me think that they were probably evil.
Keeping it and fighting them is of course the only way of getting all the parts. (I think)
I thought that they were evil, but wasn't sure.
The Anti-paladin who turned up however did make me think that they were probably evil.
Keeping it and fighting them is of course the only way of getting all the parts. (I think)
#5
Posté 05 novembre 2010 - 02:29
Morbidest
-
- Members
- 137 messages
Yep, you have to kill the Giths to get the other piece (unless you have some sort of super pick pocketing skills??). The bug in Seamon's ship battle often gave you at least two silver blades, but the sword hilt is on the leader of the "sword rescue" party. But unless you have a big bunch of 2HS users in your party, do you really want it? +3 vorpal and all, the other swords you've picked up (+4, +5) seem to make it 2nd rate for chapter 6, and certainly for ToB. 
Modifié par Morbidest, 05 novembre 2010 - 02:34 .
#6
Posté 05 novembre 2010 - 05:22
wise grimwald
-
- Members
- 327 messages
You're right, and as yet I don't know if the item upgrade mod allows me to improve it.
A lot of trial and error going on here.
It's a real trial and lots of error!!
A lot of trial and error going on here.
It's a real trial and lots of error!!
#7
Posté 06 novembre 2010 - 07:48
igneous.sponge
-
- Members
- 189 messages
Yeah, it is a pity the Silver Sword is 'only' of +3 enchantment level. I know, +3 is enough to hit pretty much anything in the entire game, but it pales in comparison to weapons like Carsomyr or the Ravager.
I think Demivrgvs was planning to increase the Silver Sword's level to +4 or +5 with the next release of Item Revisions. So that may be of interest to you.
As an aside, my supposedly righteous Paladin nicked the sword fragment. I'm terrible, I know.
I think Demivrgvs was planning to increase the Silver Sword's level to +4 or +5 with the next release of Item Revisions. So that may be of interest to you.
As an aside, my supposedly righteous Paladin nicked the sword fragment. I'm terrible, I know.
#8
Posté 06 novembre 2010 - 08:14
Flamedance
-
- Members
- 370 messages
As an aside, my supposedly righteous Paladin nicked the sword fragment. I'm terrible, I know.
Well, we all succumb to greed now and then.
I have no idea whether it's easy to implement (probably not), but what i would like to see is a paladin getting 'fallen' status on an act like that. Temple of Elemental Evil implemented that. I actually remember my paladin getting 'fallen' status from participating in a drinking contest...
Modifié par Flamedance, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:38 .
#10
Posté 06 novembre 2010 - 01:18
Seagloom
-
- Members
- 7 094 messages
I found it a decent enough weapon since the vorpal effect kicks in even when striking enemies immune to its damage. I wrote a story of a game experience like that in another thread some time ago.
As far as githyanki go, they are evil and dutifully serve a cruel lich queen. Putting aside the fact that simply becoming a lich requires a ritual that will automatically corrupt any mage undertaking it, she has been known to consume the souls of any followers who become powerful enough to threaten her and is generally not a nice person. Githyanki are not destroy everything they see evil, as their society is highly regimented and many of their actions are based around an almost religious fanaticism. They are definitely not good though, and in my opinion handing back the silver sword shard is irresponsible for a good character.
A paladin giving back the silver sword is little different from a paladin giving an evil necromancer his magic staff back. The staff may belong to the necromancer, but a paladin will not return an item of power to a known evil entity without a fight. Their code of conduct stipulates helping those in need unless such aid serves chaotic and evil ends. Somehow I doubt the githyanki will use that sword to crusade for goodness.
Putting all tabletop lore aside, look at their actions during the game. They attack Saemon Havarian's ship and want to kill the entire crew despite the slimy captain willing to offer up the sword piece willingly. In the Underdark, Simyaz and company leave you to die at the mind flayer's hands. Later, they demand the sword's return and attack you whether you are carrying it or not. Finally, the raiding party is all too willing to kill your entire party and risk innocent bystanders to get at the blade. At least in my case, they always seem to attack in Athkatla's slums. The leader is a wild mage who openly admits to having poor control of his powers, but is still willing to attack with them. Those are all hallmarks of what D&D considers neutral/chaotic evil behavior. I think any Baldur's Gate 2 pally is perfectly justified in keeping the silver sword based on their experiences with githyanki up to that point.
tl;dr - Kill 'em all and take the sword!
As far as githyanki go, they are evil and dutifully serve a cruel lich queen. Putting aside the fact that simply becoming a lich requires a ritual that will automatically corrupt any mage undertaking it, she has been known to consume the souls of any followers who become powerful enough to threaten her and is generally not a nice person. Githyanki are not destroy everything they see evil, as their society is highly regimented and many of their actions are based around an almost religious fanaticism. They are definitely not good though, and in my opinion handing back the silver sword shard is irresponsible for a good character.
A paladin giving back the silver sword is little different from a paladin giving an evil necromancer his magic staff back. The staff may belong to the necromancer, but a paladin will not return an item of power to a known evil entity without a fight. Their code of conduct stipulates helping those in need unless such aid serves chaotic and evil ends. Somehow I doubt the githyanki will use that sword to crusade for goodness.
Putting all tabletop lore aside, look at their actions during the game. They attack Saemon Havarian's ship and want to kill the entire crew despite the slimy captain willing to offer up the sword piece willingly. In the Underdark, Simyaz and company leave you to die at the mind flayer's hands. Later, they demand the sword's return and attack you whether you are carrying it or not. Finally, the raiding party is all too willing to kill your entire party and risk innocent bystanders to get at the blade. At least in my case, they always seem to attack in Athkatla's slums. The leader is a wild mage who openly admits to having poor control of his powers, but is still willing to attack with them. Those are all hallmarks of what D&D considers neutral/chaotic evil behavior. I think any Baldur's Gate 2 pally is perfectly justified in keeping the silver sword based on their experiences with githyanki up to that point.
tl;dr - Kill 'em all and take the sword!
Modifié par Seagloom, 06 novembre 2010 - 01:27 .
#11
Posté 06 novembre 2010 - 04:26
Morbidest
-
- Members
- 137 messages
Not that I ever role play a paladin (CG is about as 
as I ever aspire to), but aren't they supposed to turn at least 4 cheeks before slaughtering evil? Keldorn, as an Inquisitor, is not really the perfect example of paladin-like behavior. Don Quixote or Sir Nigel Loring (he had poor eyesight since he once didn't kill a young lady about to throw boiling oil at him; it would have been ungentlemanly like behavior to strike a woman, don't ye know?). And even Keldorn puts up with thieves and drow (except for Vicona) for the greater good of the party. Wouldn't a gentlemanly paladin make allowances for a Gith with a sense of humor who is just trying to recover stolen property? 
as I ever aspire to), but aren't they supposed to turn at least 4 cheeks before slaughtering evil? Keldorn, as an Inquisitor, is not really the perfect example of paladin-like behavior. Don Quixote or Sir Nigel Loring (he had poor eyesight since he once didn't kill a young lady about to throw boiling oil at him; it would have been ungentlemanly like behavior to strike a woman, don't ye know?). And even Keldorn puts up with thieves and drow (except for Vicona) for the greater good of the party. Wouldn't a gentlemanly paladin make allowances for a Gith with a sense of humor who is just trying to recover stolen property?
#12
Posté 06 novembre 2010 - 05:32
wise grimwald
-
- Members
- 327 messages
Some interesting arguements there. Personally, I think that with it being a morally grey area, the best thing to do is follow your own instincts on the issue.
I remember Elminster supporting Jahiera for doing what she thought was right, without actually saying whether or not it was right.
I remember Elminster supporting Jahiera for doing what she thought was right, without actually saying whether or not it was right.
#13
Posté 06 novembre 2010 - 06:07
Seagloom
-
- Members
- 7 094 messages
That is kinda my point, Morbidest. By this point you have seen the githyanki do some fairly dicey things in their quest for the silver sword. That said, I agree some paladins might hand it over. It depends on the paladin's personality and the god they worship. Some are more lawful than good, others are quicker to turn the other cheek. A typical paladin of Ilmater would probably hand it over, while a paladin of Helm would be smite happy. Myself, I am more inclined to go with smiting. Then again I am more chaotic neutral than lawful good. 
@wise grimwald - Ultimately that is best. Fortunately the game does not penalize a player for either choice.
@wise grimwald - Ultimately that is best. Fortunately the game does not penalize a player for either choice.
#14
Posté 07 novembre 2010 - 12:18
Demivrgvs
-
- Members
- 59 messages
Yep, I planned +5 to stay true to PnP, but players voted for +4.igneous.sponge wrote...
Yeah, it is a pity the Silver Sword is 'only' of +3 enchantment level. I know, +3 is enough to hit pretty much anything in the entire game, but it pales in comparison to weapons like Carsomyr or the Ravager.
I think Demivrgvs was planning to increase the Silver Sword's level to +4 or +5 with the next release of Item Revisions. So that may be of interest to you.
Long story short, Silver Swords +3 are not vorpal in PnP, they are semi-rare weapons granted to powerful gith warriors. There are instead very rare +5 specimens with vorpal property granted only to the most powerful giths.
Paladins cannot use this sword within Item Revisions, because their code doesn't allow them to wield an evil artifact. In theory I could make it cause any paladin wielding it to fall (it's doable) but I thought some players could do that by accident and then complain about it, thus I went for the easy way (not usable). After all, the end result is pretty much the same (though I like roleplaying features).
Regarding the moral question of keeping it or not, it's hard to tell. Paladins are "righteous zealots", thus my first guess is they'd simply eradicate the evil giths from the realms, and then find a way to destroy the evil artifact (bringing it back to the order for example), but a strict paladin of Helm may consider keeping the weapon like stealing, and not tolerate it. More tolerant paladins could even think they are in debt with the giths, for the help they gave to escape the illithid city, and not kill them on sight...but the giths also abandoned the party after helping it a little, making my first guess the more likely again.
Long story short, paladins like to smite evil above everything else.
Modifié par Demivrgvs, 07 novembre 2010 - 01:47 .
#15
Posté 07 novembre 2010 - 01:25
Chebby
-
- Members
- 160 messages
I'd say no mercy for the Githyanki. The Githzerei's a different story.
#16
Posté 07 novembre 2010 - 03:07
Morbidest
-
- Members
- 137 messages
Yeah, yeah. "Kill them all and let the gods sort them out". 
But the reason that this indeed is a gray area is that BG is full of inconsistencies, which is part of its appeal. For instance,
1- in ToB most PC's wind up forgiving Sarevok for killing the only father they ever knew, and some of them can even convert him from evil to good. This would argue that Mercy/Forgiveness/Redemption is the central BG theme.
2-We have all the different versions of DnD rules, which are much more rigid.
3-Paladins seemed to based on the various permanent crusading knightly orders (Templars, St. John, German Knights of the Sword, Hospitaliers, Malta, etc.) which all behaved differently. Templers became Europe's bankers and were so good at it that they would up being declared heretics so that their wealth could be seized. St. Johns became an early Red Cross organization. Most of the rest became permanent religious armies answerable only to themselves. So any type of paladin behavior has a historical precedent
To me the arguments for Always destroying the poor, bumbling, badly armed Giths are much weaker than those for attacking Saemon H. Afterall, his girlfriend is an archvampire, he poisons you, he plants stolen goods on you and then squeals on you. Yet how often do you slit his lying throat?
But the reason that this indeed is a gray area is that BG is full of inconsistencies, which is part of its appeal. For instance,
1- in ToB most PC's wind up forgiving Sarevok for killing the only father they ever knew, and some of them can even convert him from evil to good. This would argue that Mercy/Forgiveness/Redemption is the central BG theme.
2-We have all the different versions of DnD rules, which are much more rigid.
3-Paladins seemed to based on the various permanent crusading knightly orders (Templars, St. John, German Knights of the Sword, Hospitaliers, Malta, etc.) which all behaved differently. Templers became Europe's bankers and were so good at it that they would up being declared heretics so that their wealth could be seized. St. Johns became an early Red Cross organization. Most of the rest became permanent religious armies answerable only to themselves. So any type of paladin behavior has a historical precedent
To me the arguments for Always destroying the poor, bumbling, badly armed Giths are much weaker than those for attacking Saemon H. Afterall, his girlfriend is an archvampire, he poisons you, he plants stolen goods on you and then squeals on you. Yet how often do you slit his lying throat?
Modifié par Morbidest, 07 novembre 2010 - 03:08 .
#17
Posté 07 novembre 2010 - 04:13
Seagloom
-
- Members
- 7 094 messages
I actually make it a point to slit that weasel's throat *every* game. I reload whenever the ship battle concludes before my Bhaalspawn protagonist can chunk him. Unless I play a mage, then it becomes easier to finish him quickly. Saemon Havarian is pond scum.
#18
Posté 07 novembre 2010 - 05:06
polytope
-
- Members
- 342 messages
Morbidest wrote...
To me the arguments for Always destroying the poor, bumbling, badly armed Giths are much weaker than those for attacking Saemon H. Afterall, his girlfriend is an archvampire, he poisons you, he plants stolen goods on you and then squeals on you. Yet how often do you slit his lying throat?
More often than I fought Kruin certainly. I liked Kruin as a character, he was funny. Saemon by contrast is so annoying that there is a mod option (in Oversight) to remove him from ToB if he died in SoA.
#19
Posté 07 novembre 2010 - 02:29
Morbidest
-
- Members
- 137 messages
Right on! And while we're at it, how about clobbering Sime for doing such a poor job of protecting us from Saemon? She's probably on the take.
#20
Posté 08 novembre 2010 - 12:53
Humanoid_Taifun
-
- Members
- 1 444 messages
In my opinion people treat Saemon unfairly.
The only reason why he is specifically picked out and hated by everybody (rather than all the other traitors and enemies you have) is because his attacks are the only ones that feel kind of personal.
Sarevok killed my father and many more people? He can wield a sword, right? Let him join.
Irenicus kidnapped myself and my sister, twice, stole my soul and raped nature? He is a powerful mage, right? Let him join.
So this dude left his wife in the fangs of a lich and is currently allowing his daughter to die slowly and painfully the same way? Let him walk. Whatever.
Whoa, that guy was forced to betray me (or be killed) and he used me 2 more times to save his sorry behind (which was no problem for me, because the enemies were really no challenge, and now I have a neat new sword)? KILL HIM!
I'm not saying Saemon is innocent. I'm only saying that the hatred is disproportionate.
The only reason why he is specifically picked out and hated by everybody (rather than all the other traitors and enemies you have) is because his attacks are the only ones that feel kind of personal.
Sarevok killed my father and many more people? He can wield a sword, right? Let him join.
Irenicus kidnapped myself and my sister, twice, stole my soul and raped nature? He is a powerful mage, right? Let him join.
So this dude left his wife in the fangs of a lich and is currently allowing his daughter to die slowly and painfully the same way? Let him walk. Whatever.
Whoa, that guy was forced to betray me (or be killed) and he used me 2 more times to save his sorry behind (which was no problem for me, because the enemies were really no challenge, and now I have a neat new sword)? KILL HIM!
I'm not saying Saemon is innocent. I'm only saying that the hatred is disproportionate.
#21
Posté 08 novembre 2010 - 01:00
Chebby
-
- Members
- 160 messages
I think a lot of people maintain a certain ire for Saemon due to the character being a generally unlikeable one. Swashbucklers, pirates, sailors, daring thieves and all that. Really hard to pull off without something unique about it all. As much as you can avoid him in SoA, it does get sort of irritating in ToB when you meet again, this time having no choice but to be dragged into a pathetic game of 'point the finger.'
*Shrug and wander off.* May have been a good option.
*Shrug and wander off.* May have been a good option.
#22
Posté 08 novembre 2010 - 02:18
igneous.sponge
-
- Members
- 189 messages
I had no idea everyone hated Saemon. Is this true?
I certainly don't mind him. Then again, I think I'd be hard-pressed to name any one character I actively disliked in the entire saga...
I certainly don't mind him. Then again, I think I'd be hard-pressed to name any one character I actively disliked in the entire saga...
#23
Posté 08 novembre 2010 - 02:32
Seagloom
-
- Members
- 7 094 messages
I thought Saemon Havarian was a great character for what he was. The writers made me hate the guy, but at the same time I did find him inspiring enough to once create a swashbuckler/mage with dual scimitars as a homage to him in BG2 *and* NWN. He is fun to watch, but not so fun when my character is his fall guy/gal.
On another note, I only ever had Sarevok join up when playing evil. I tried him with a good character once and felt weird about it. That said, BioWare does give us many opportunities to forgive the guy for his laundry list of crimes. I think they expected most players to forgive him. Even in Baldur's Gate, there are dialogue options before the final encounter to plead he turn away from Bhaal and make a go at being a good man. Good Charnames are portrayed as saints by their dialogue.
As far as Irenicus goes, I would never want him in my party. His implied rape of Imoen alone is enough to make me want to kill him with extreme prejudice. If Saemon is pond scum, than Irenicus is bile. I only ever let the dude that dealt with Von Goethe free because it feels like I would be punishing his daughter as much as him. That is one of those quests where none of the outcomes feel optimal. Perhaps there is something to whether or not your character is personally betrayed or attacked.
I find Irenicus easier to hate than Sarevok, but his attacks are also very personal. They are directed either at my character or those my character holds dear. Ditto with Bodhi and her kidnapping of a love interest. Sarevok killed my character's dad early in BG1, a character I as a player was barely acquainted with, whereas I am familiarized with Sarevok through rumor, diaries, and notes. I get to understand him, and at some level sympathize with why he made the choices he did. With Gorion, he croaks too quickly to grow on me. I cared that he died, but he was about as meaningful as Winthrop or Hull. Except in a way those guys top him since we get to meet them again later on. The game just made it feel like my character had a stronger connection with Sarevok, a person who was very similar but took a darker path. Still, as noted above I have yet to invite him into my party as a good character and play out his redemption arc.
On another note, I only ever had Sarevok join up when playing evil. I tried him with a good character once and felt weird about it. That said, BioWare does give us many opportunities to forgive the guy for his laundry list of crimes. I think they expected most players to forgive him. Even in Baldur's Gate, there are dialogue options before the final encounter to plead he turn away from Bhaal and make a go at being a good man. Good Charnames are portrayed as saints by their dialogue.
As far as Irenicus goes, I would never want him in my party. His implied rape of Imoen alone is enough to make me want to kill him with extreme prejudice. If Saemon is pond scum, than Irenicus is bile. I only ever let the dude that dealt with Von Goethe free because it feels like I would be punishing his daughter as much as him. That is one of those quests where none of the outcomes feel optimal. Perhaps there is something to whether or not your character is personally betrayed or attacked.
I find Irenicus easier to hate than Sarevok, but his attacks are also very personal. They are directed either at my character or those my character holds dear. Ditto with Bodhi and her kidnapping of a love interest. Sarevok killed my character's dad early in BG1, a character I as a player was barely acquainted with, whereas I am familiarized with Sarevok through rumor, diaries, and notes. I get to understand him, and at some level sympathize with why he made the choices he did. With Gorion, he croaks too quickly to grow on me. I cared that he died, but he was about as meaningful as Winthrop or Hull. Except in a way those guys top him since we get to meet them again later on. The game just made it feel like my character had a stronger connection with Sarevok, a person who was very similar but took a darker path. Still, as noted above I have yet to invite him into my party as a good character and play out his redemption arc.
#24
Posté 08 novembre 2010 - 04:59
wise grimwald
-
- Members
- 327 messages
In my Dragonslayer game, I did invite him to join my party and then gave him an amulet of opposite alignment. I thought that it might help him.
Don't know ToB at all though. My first time playing it.
Don't know ToB at all though. My first time playing it.
#25
Posté 08 novembre 2010 - 05:42
Morbidest
-
- Members
- 137 messages
Regarding Sarevok, BG is big on forgiveness, particularly amongst siblings. Imoen will stick with you regardless of how low your reputation sinks, so the implication is that you should be equally forgiving with Sarevok. Donating a bit of your soul to him seems to be on a par with donating a kidney to a brother that you don't particularly care for - but he's still your brother! 
I've never been tempted to use the Irenicus mod since he failed this fundamental family love test regarding his treatment of Bodhi. After Spellhold he knows that you're on the loose, coming after him and have grown powerful, yet he gives the lanthorn to Bodhi and sends her off to a place that will be the first spot you try looking for her. He's willing to trade off a sister (and a full sister at that) in exchange for distracting you for a few weeks while he tries to master the Tree.
In a medieval world where people died all the time from bad colds, family was more important that indivituals, since only a united family was likely to survive. So try to be kind to your murderous, erring brother - after all ToB sort of tells us that he was an abused child
I've never been tempted to use the Irenicus mod since he failed this fundamental family love test regarding his treatment of Bodhi. After Spellhold he knows that you're on the loose, coming after him and have grown powerful, yet he gives the lanthorn to Bodhi and sends her off to a place that will be the first spot you try looking for her. He's willing to trade off a sister (and a full sister at that) in exchange for distracting you for a few weeks while he tries to master the Tree.
In a medieval world where people died all the time from bad colds, family was more important that indivituals, since only a united family was likely to survive. So try to be kind to your murderous, erring brother - after all ToB sort of tells us that he was an abused child
