heh .. now there's a ball that was missed (no pun intended) : now imagine a Casavir who's struggling against his 'lustful thoughts', can barely control himself, becomes a hermit in the Monastery as soon as its built ..Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I liked casavir just fine, but they really did not implement his romance very well. I mean, he pretty much declares his affections for ANY PC, no matter how twisted, corrupt, and wicked, or how low one's influence is with him, which is not only totally OOC for a Paladin, but pretty much an emersion killer at that point.
I mean, when my LE tiefling Warlock/Blackguard of Loviatar who has kicked every puppy and shoved old ladys into the path of oncomming buses, has Casavir talking about what a shining "light" she is (with like -30 influence or so), it really ruins the special feature of in game romances and creates a serious WTF moment.
Why do people consider this romance "unfinished" or "partial"?
#51
Posté 19 décembre 2010 - 08:06
#52
Posté 19 décembre 2010 - 08:50
kevL wrote...
heh .. now there's a ball that was missed (no pun intended) : now imagine a Casavir who's struggling against his 'lustful thoughts', can barely control himself, becomes a hermit in the Monastery as soon as its built ..
heh, yeah, though the temple, since he's a Tyrran, would be more likely.
They also ruined his character potential there in dropping his original sidequest regarding a past affair with a certain madame of Neverwinter's most prestigous brothel. That would have certainly added something to the game, and given the romance more sense/impact. A paladin of Tyr involved in a rather racy scandal would have certainly added an interesting twist/dimension to him.
But given what we have in game, I still found the idea of getting a wall scene with either Casavir or Elanee, regardless of what sort of person your KC is, was pretty lazy. It should have been based on companion influence and responses in some conversations.
At least you got that somewhat with Bishop. If your influence was more than zero, he admits betraying your female KC was necessary because he was starting to have unwanted feelings for her, an admission you don't get with negative influence. The wall scene with Casavir should have been based on the same factors, and a character who has done little more than ****** him off throught the game should have got nothing as punishment/reward for being so naughty.
#53
Posté 19 décembre 2010 - 11:34
don't matter. As long as he's a friggin hermit and everytime I see him he's kneeling at an altar holding his sword in front of himself like a cross. And he doesn't say anything in that deep, low, effectively whiny "oh, I'm so aggrieved I can barely stand it, but I'll try" tone of voice, right?Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
heh, yeah, though the temple, since he's a Tyrran, would be more likely.
*wondering if there's a flagellation animation*
Cut! Cut! We can't print that!!
ps. I actually like playing Paladins, I just think Casavir gives them a bad rep.
#54
Posté 20 décembre 2010 - 12:44
But then again, I tend to be ill-disposed towards enthusiastic righteousness and zeal.
Self Flagelation animations need to standard in all future RPGs. As well as the flagelation of others. ME2 style interrupts in NWN2! The option to suddenly, for no reason, whip out your flail and bash nevalle upside his pretty Barbie-man skull!
Fun for the whole family!
#55
Posté 20 décembre 2010 - 04:38
Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Self Flagelation animations need to [be] standard in all future RPGs.
agreed.
Nevalle .. don't get me started : a flower with purple and yellow petals *springs* to mind ..
geez, i never realized how Bad (sic) the OC is until this thread
*Look Out!
what? what is it?
.. rocks ..
Oh no, not Rocs!!!
no, no, not Rocs .. ROCKS!!
But, they're not moving.
That's how sly, subtle, and insidious they are ..*
okay, sorry, I'll go do something constructive now
#56
Posté 20 décembre 2010 - 10:13
#57
Posté 20 décembre 2010 - 11:09
@Vaalyah: That was actually probably the number one point brought up many times on the old board: resurrecton. I mean, even with Zhjaeve vanishing, there's still a rez rod, plus possibly rez scrolls, and Khelgar and neeshka are both confirmed to still be amongst the living. Neeshka being a rogue can use magic items, and anyone can use the rod. And according to 3.5e rules, you can rez a person quite sometime after their death.
yeah. Plot pothole from hell.
#58
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 12:18
Well, except the Golem... He can't be raised seeing how he doesn't have a soul and all...
#59
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 12:20
Zaxares wrote...
Well, except the Golem... He can't be raised seeing how he doesn't have a soul and all...
Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology...
#60
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 10:57
#61
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 11:48
virumor wrote...
Wouldn't it be a problem for the resurrection that all the bodies are underneath a huge pile of rubble, and mangled at that? Or does a new body just materialize out of nowhere?
It's not a problem - the cleric just needs to find a suitable 'host' for the soul. This was the cause of the Possessed Guinea Pig Epidemic of '55, which I'll tell you all about some other time.
#62
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 02:22
virumor wrote...
Wouldn't it be a problem for the resurrection that all the bodies are underneath a huge pile of rubble, and mangled at that? Or does a new body just materialize out of nowhere?
No, a ressurection completely restores the body in full, woulds healed, status effects gone. It is an "act of (insert deity here)."
#63
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 04:34
Say your character is a priest of Tyr and you were trying to raise Neeshka or Grobnar... chances are Tyr would refuse unless he felt there was a *very* good reason to bring them back. Since the King of Shadows is dead by then, they are not needed to defeat him--hence he would probably deny his cleric's request. Generally the farther one strays from a given god's ethos and alignment, the more likely that is. Tyr would probably be quick to okay a raise for Casavir, and he may even accept Sand or Zhjaeve, but a character like Qara? Not happening. Conversely, Talos might be fine with raising Qara but is unlikely to raise Casavir or Elanee. Although Talos, being the muffin he is, will likely still demand recompense. In any case, that is how it goes.
Resurrection, when given the oversight of a DM, is not a revolving door. NWN2 just makes it seem trivial.
Modifié par Seagloom, 21 décembre 2010 - 04:48 .
#64
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 04:36
#65
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 05:27
#66
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 06:32
The start of MotB needn't have been based on the collapse and death of the party.
Regards
#67
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 06:35
Seagloom wrote...
Skadi got it right. Raise dead on the other hand is not as thorough. That aside, resurrection is not the magic bullet NWN mechanics make them out to be. Going by P&P logic, those spells only work under two circumstances. Firstly, the recipient must be willing to come back. Some souls see their ultimate fate in the afterlife and prefer it to returning from the grave. Secondly, each spell has to be sanctioned by the god doing the resurrecting. Unlike what NWN implies, gods do not hand these out willy nilly. They usually demand reciprocation from either their cleric or the person returned, and circumstances might result in the spell failing outright.
Say your character is a priest of Tyr and you were trying to raise Neeshka or Grobnar... chances are Tyr would refuse unless he felt there was a *very* good reason to bring them back. Since the King of Shadows is dead by then, they are not needed to defeat him--hence he would probably deny his cleric's request. Generally the farther one strays from a given god's ethos and alignment, the more likely that is. Tyr would probably be quick to okay a raise for Casavir, and he may even accept Sand or Zhjaeve, but a character like Qara? Not happening. Conversely, Talos might be fine with raising Qara but is unlikely to raise Casavir or Elanee. Although Talos, being the muffin he is, will likely still demand recompense. In any case, that is how it goes.
Resurrection, when given the oversight of a DM, is not a revolving door. NWN2 just makes it seem trivial.
You are right in terms of PnP/ general lore, in that ressurections are special cases and rely on the will of the diety as well as the desire of the ressurected.
Though the KoS is dead, it is possible that the fallen companion's "work" on the Prime might not be done, hence a legit reason to have them ressurected. Since theorhetically, the KC, even a Cleric, has already been abducted by gargoyles and is currently either in Rashamen or the Plane of Shadow, that leaves the rez rod and any raise dead/rez scrolls to bring the companions back to life. I am not fully certain how objects imbued with such divine spells work in terms of resurrection guidelines, but would imagine, if they were created with the power of some deity, then they still apply in terms of deity's will/master plan.
Of course, priests could be brought to the site weeks later by the survivors and attempt ressurections on anyone who is dead, and from there, one can decide whether or not the spells would be granted.
But ressurections are possible, regardless. And in some cases, a deity one would think would oppose the ressurection of a certain companion might allow it, if, for some reason, that deity has some unknown but future purpose for their continued existance.
All that said, it doesn't change my opinion that "rocks fall, everyone dies, teh end" is a pretty lame and sloppy way to end the game and remove companions from the board. With a little imagination, there are more creative and sensible ways to kill off or remove companions from the scene if one wanted to. Just lazy writing.
#68
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 06:56
The KoS is dead, mega power surge. KC gets knocked out or trapped/seperated from companions somehow. Portal to Shadow Plane opens, gargoyles jump out and snatch KC and take off. Maybe one companion is killed by falling rocks, the others manage to escape. But you want to make reasons for OC companions to be out of the picture, in terms of MotB and beyond.
Sand: If he's alive, he could assist in scrying or other magical efforts to figure out what happened to KC, but eventually gives up and goes on to do something else.
Neeshka: she survives anyway.
Khelgar: survives anyway.
Zhjaeve: vanishes. Understandable, she was with you for a purpose, a purpose you succeeded at. However, when you vanished, so did the Sword of Gith. So maybe p[ossible future encounter there.
Qara: If she's alive, she could decide to go and expand upon her powers. Dies in some very dangerous and risky magical experiment, or becomes such a nuissance and threat to public welfare that she is assassinated by someone.
Elanee: If in relationship with KC, decides to search for whereabouts, possibly meeting an untimely end in the process. If not, disappears into Mere to start regenrating the land, might meet untimely end that way as well.
Grobnar: 1001 possiblities to kill him in some amusing way, given his penchant for tinkering and screwing with things he knows little about.
Casavir: If in relationship with KC, same thing as Elanee. Goes off looking for KC, meets untimely end. otherwise, returns to old calling as knight errant, meets end valiantly fighting evil or something.
Bishop: There are so many ways to off him. Luskans end up catching up with him, old enemies hunt him down and kill him, he is captured, tried, and executed by Neverwinter for treason and mass murder (Red Fallows Watch).
All of the above scenarios took next to no imagination to come up with. Given even a touch of imagination, one can easily do better.
#69
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 07:39
#70
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 07:50
Given who Kelemvor is, I could easily see you having even more trouble getting resurrections than a relative nobody. Burned bridges and all that.The Fred wrote...
Still, resurrection *is* possible, however it's handled. You'd think that a character of MotB's proportions, someone who can get to a stage where he/she gets to argue face-to-face with Kelemvor (however briefly or lamely before he tells you he doesn't care what you think), would be able to remove a few rocks and bring back their beloved... hell, even Orpheus managed it (almost) and all he could do was sing well, let alone cast L9 spells.
#71
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 08:20
Putting that aside, I do agree with Skadi that it was a cop out. Rocks fall, everyone dies is so old it was a tabletop trope long before NWN2 say the light of day. Whoever approved that ending had a sadistic sense of humor *and* a fondness for tradition. I can only imagine what it must have felt like to finish NWN2 early on, before we knew MotB continued KC's story. I bought the game at launch but did not finish it until much later.
On the topic of rods of resurrection, I am not sure those rods even exist in tabletop. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. As far as I am aware there is no way by the rules to craft a rod like that. A cleric could theoretically scribe a scroll of resurrection, however, and I think by the rules divine power is already stored in an item for use at the time of its creation. That might be able to bypass deity oversight on raising. Maybe. There is nothing saying otherwise far as I know.
#72
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 09:58
#73
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 10:37
#74
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 11:04
I keep my idea: I am a cleric, so at the end of the battle, as usual, I would have raised everyone. So, why don't let this option? I'm so mad that each time I enter a town, my character goes around to cast cure spells on everyone around who's injured! (really!) So it would be perfectly aligned with my PC's behaviour to raise back all her friends...
#75
Posté 21 décembre 2010 - 11:07





Retour en haut







