It always annoys me when people talk as though all killing is morally identical--self-defense equivalent to killing for power, killing in defense of others just the same as killing for fun.  Yes, you have to kill thousands of people in BG; no, you do not have to murder any of them.

In the end, they are just as dead. If you break into a castle and kill all of the guards who try to stop you, what gives you the right to call it self-defense? The fact that the guards attacked you rather than standing aside? Think of it this way: suppose a heavily armed person with unbelievable combat skills walks into the White House (or the equivalent in your nation) and proceeds to kill the president (or equivalent leader) and everyone who stands between them. Are all of the deaths of the security personnel classified as 'self-defense'? Would they be classified so if the leader happened to be really evil from the warrior's perspective?

The protagonist has no choice except to go through this breaking and entering routine -- and more than once.

That's funny, I can't remember a single non-optional quest in BG1 or 2 where you had no choice except to break into someones home and kill them except in response to a threat against your own life or the life of another. You seem to have been playing a different game.

@ Althernai In the end, they are just as dead. Thanks for putting this in obviously more fitting words than I have.

@ Kish Nothing gives you the right to call it self-defense, which is why I wouldn't try. Nice try, though.

You are all about semantics in this case. That is ok. No, need to be defiant.

@Tazok: Sadly mentioning his name attracted unwanted attention.

An interesting thought from above would be what kind of god Jon would have become. Or is your portfolio up to you once you ar a god?

The moral and legal distinction between the use of force in self defense or the rightful defense of another and murder is not semantic.

OK, all I am saying is that Jon's atrocities are by no means greater than many other killing sprees. It is not like he could be rightfully banned from redemption IMHO, because he killed Khalid.

I thought that this rated a slightly lengthier reply;

It was actually a reference to something said about the game mechanics and the whole fantasy setting a couple of pages ago.

I don't claim to know where the line is beyond which spiritual redemption becomes impossible, or when it has been crossed. The argument that some people's lives are vastly more valuable in a cosmic sense than the lives of others is accurate from the point of view of xenophobes, self justifying thugs and hack authors;

In the real world, yes, absolutely, and I never doubted this for a second nor argued against it. I was going for headcount, kish for semantics and morals. The way the game is designed there is no peaceful solution to the game, sadly. Besides there are some who think of history in 'what if' terms and some people might have made a difference IMHO, but I am neither of your three mentioned categories.

it's not an argument I find appealing in fiction, and it fuels quite a lot of violence in the real world.

100% agreed upon. Not part of the argument though. This is not about the real world.

A story that takes Irenicus on the path to redemption as he realizes the depth of the atrocities he has committed might be worth reading;

That is personal development which hopefully occurs. I was arguing about a principle of fairness.

allowing him and those around him to write off his victims as "no one of importance" is not redemption of any sort at all.

I am sure dorotea took care of this and it does not happen. Insight into your wrongdoings are paramount for the process.

Irenicus and those around him do not know that they are fictional characters. Any discussion of the moral and ethical issues of Irenicus' redemption that proceeds from the idea that they are only fictional characters and that in their world only named characters matter strikes me as meaningless, unless Redemption is intended as a comedy mod.

EDIT: @ Bob: To be legally granted a right does not make it morally acceptable per se. The context for self-defense is rather limited. I wholeheartedly subscribe to self-defense in the personal context, but this argument has been abused for far to many preemptive actions by larger groups which are debatable.

I agree that the term "self-defense" is often abused, but in the context of the player character's life in BG1 and 2 I can't remember any mandatory uses of deadly force that don't fit into that term. Maybe the killing of the whore-house guards, but even that can be skipped without using out of character knowledge. ToB is more problematic; you have no choice but to kill the 5, and you can't completely avoid killing their troops. Even then, they have made an unprovoked attempt on CHANAME's life, and can reasonably be expeted to do so again even if CHANAME flees.

In the context of the mod, I can't see any actions taken by a well played non-evil PC on the same level as the actions taken by Irenicus.

How many dwarves have been killed and resurrected in Georgia this year? I am saying that it is a fantasy setting. This has been debated in this thread around the pages 3-5 somewhere IIRC. Read more of this thread and you may still disagree with me, but on a more justified basis.

I read those arguments, and disagreed, while still lurking.

The premise that some people just matter more does show up in poorly written fiction and in xenophobic and "great man" belief systems. I think that Dorotea and the others involved are shooting higher than "poorly written".

As to the belief systems in force in BG's version of the Forgotten Realms, that I can't comment on.

... on a more justified basis.

I read those arguments, and disagreed, while still lurking.

Ok, sorry for bugging you about it then.

No prob, no harm, no foul.

I mean I do not mind killing anybody who had it coming in-game, but sometimes I think about this. A young indoctrinated druid is asked to defend the druid grove by Faldorn. He is maybe just starting out and not wise enough to see the consequences of her crusade. Does he deserve to die? Another would be a young guy who finally got a job as a bouncer in a local pub in the greedy and morally corrupted town he hails from, Atkhatla. Although he is against what is happening there he desperately needs the money to survive. Does he deserve to die? Some characters do for sure and I put them down with glee every time. I can only think of a couple of storylines that would even beg a good PC to have second thoughts. A paladin plundering the Guarded Compound, because he can and wants CF? I don't know how many paladins forgo this blade and stick with their principles.

Fair questions; those are grey areas. I'd say that in all three cases those involved know that they're participating in criminal activities (slavery in the case of the Copper Corronet and the Guarded Compound, terrorist attacks on the people of Trademeet in the case of Faldorn's druids), but CHANAME only has anything resembling legitimate police powers in the case of Trademeet. Those are optional quests, and in a true pacifist game you could skip them. In the case of the druid grove you only have to kill Faldorn; invisibility will get you past everyone else. The Djinn and the Rakasha are a tougher problem; you either have to give in to extortion by killing someone who is not (as far as you know) causing any harm or invite future reprisals by killing the extortionists.

I never had a good PC raid the guarded compound except when playing with mods that restored the links between the compound and the slaver quests. Without those mods that's definitely a case of breaking into someone's house and killing them to take their stuff. Still, it's optional.

The only good feature of Lionheart is IMO the ability to gain a portion of the XP you would get for killing someone by sneaking past them. So the use of invisibilty for this would make more sense. For a pacifist approach , I have to try this someday. Maybe I end up at level 12 when I meet Irenicus at the Tree

I did not know that the GC is linked to the slavers.

IIRC, you end up around level 15+ if you play a Solo-Semi-Pacifist game thanks to the quest rewards, scrolls, locks and traps. There are many quests you just won't be able to complete if you try for a true pacifist game, including the main quest.

I liked the level advancement system in Morrowind and Dagerfall; you level up by successfully using your skills. The D&D system turns everyone into a Vampire, gaining power by killing.

At this point we are undeniably off-topic.

EDIT: The Guarded Compound was originally the Slavers' Stronghold. Koshi was the go between for the Slavers you meet through the Copper Corronet quest and the Twisted Rune members in the Bridge district. The Slavers' quests were also linked to the Roenall quests, and possibly to the invasion of Nalia's keep.

Here is an interesting post by Maidros discussing how little people you actually *have* to kill in order to progress through BG2-SoA:

http://www.gamejag.c...ewtopic&t=73741

Cool, but he forgot Irenicus and Bodhi.

On the other hand, an (almost) true pacifist can just skip the Planar Prison quest and save two lives!

@ GC and slavers: Is this restored in UB, because I never experienced any links or altered dialogues? Perhaps the Improved Battles and Tactics interferes with this.

It was discussed at length in the forums a few years ago, confirmed by one of the game designers, and (iirc) was restored by The Darkest Day by placing notes on the appropriate characters. It was still present in version G of the Big Picture mod, but Koshi's note was eventually removed by a patch. The rest of the notes and diary entries may still be found.

That's funny, I can't remember a single non-optional quest in BG1 or 2 where you had no choice except to break into someones home and kill them except in response to a threat against your own life or the life of another. You seem to have been playing a different game.

Gromnir, Yaga-Shura, Sendai, Balthazar... sound familiar? Show me where in the game any of them ever threatens you or anyone else until you break into their homes. They never even communicate with you -- except in the case of Gromnir, all you have are rumors and hearsay.

TOB was pure hack and slash. That said, an assasin claiming to be a representative of the 5 attacks CHANAME at the start of ToB, and every exchange CHANAME has with the five includes threats on CHANAME's life based on CHANAME's status as Bhaalspawn; even the Deva indicates that these are the final battles. CHANAME has no logical reason not to believe that it's kill or be killed.

As to killing the minions, that's almost entirely optional. You can stealth past the vast majority of the fights.

Just out of curiosity, does it seem relevant to you if I mention that I consider it quite evil to attack, say, Saladrex or Nevaziah?

Certainly the Gaxx-guardian lich fights are immoral, though you have no chance to back down once you engage. CHANAME would have to be an idiot not to realize that keeping Gaxx trapped was a good thing.

Fact number 1.

The Protagonist is 'by the plot' the child of Murder. Not just any other evil God mind it (say of vengeance, strife, deception, poisoning, storms, whatever other portfolios are out there) By FR lore chance and Bio choice it is Bhaal who seeded the children. Thus we are faced with fact accompli.

So CHANAME should feel guilty by virtue of having been born? What a very Christian viewpoint.

Fact number 2.

Protagonist has a choice what to do with their power and chose any career, alignment, gender, race pleases them - but they are turning into a Slayer nonetheless and have a chance to damage their friends unintentionally.

CHANAME should be concerned about this; it would have worked better if the longer CHANAME went without a soul, the greater the chance of turning into the slayer after each rest or in each combat. As it is, CHANAME only changes unintentioally twice, and the player can ignore that part of the plot.

Fact number 3.

Whatever the sins all Five Bhaalspawns committed - they are your siblings by 'divine' blood but still the closest you get. And you are presented (in case with Sarevok) with a little interplay suggesting what could have happened if Gorion picked Sarevok in that temple not you.

They are "siblings" CHANAME has never met or heard of, have killed many of CHANAME's other siblings, and are trying to kill CHANAME. The position that CHANAME wouldn't consider them siblings at all is reasonable.

My question is - should PC always feel as pristine shiny and guiltless and remorseless or should they at least try to role-play their background?

CHANAME's background doesn't give CHANAME any more reason to feel guilty than anyone else, unless CHANAME accepts the idea of inherited guilt. Maybe all of that time growing up in a library taught CHANAME to throw off the bonds of irational lineage based prejudice.

I mean - comon. I am not blaming PC for killing all the endless 'evil' folk that attacks you first or turns hostile if you try to grab some treasure etc. But seriously - slaughtering Zaranda's entire army after they attack you on her order, and all these endless Duergar slaves in Sendai's basement... Should it at least make you feel uneasy as a character? Even if you are doing this for the 'greater good' - and there is a 50/50 chance you are happily chunking everything in sight as 'true spawn' - but I assume you are like Domi, and run around with a shiny big sword of justice and song of righteousness in your heart saving elves and righting wrongs. Still, should not you feel a little bit conscious, and comprehensive?

Killing the army and slaves are optional. CHANAME can just cast invisibility and non-detection and waltz past them if the player is trying to role-play a Good character. Killing them should induce some introspection.

Well, maybe I am asking all the wrong questions here. But I always though PC must be truly a hypocrite to blame Yoshimo, for example, for betrayal. After all poor Yoshi always could say - I thought you are like Yaga Shura and all the others, and by helping to get rid of you; I was doing word justice...

Yoshimo was under a geas. His choice was obediance or death. Iirc CHANAME can forgive him, and if the player is playing as Good probably should.

I always kick out Yoshi myself; CHANAME couldn't reasonably trust him after the hints he drops throughout the game.

Every paladin should pass here. You are absolutely right. I should make a nono quest guide for the LG community.

A "How to be Good" mini-faq might be a very cool idea.

CHANAME's background doesn't give CHANAME any more reason to feel guilty than anyone else, unless CHANAME accepts the idea of inherited guilt. Maybe all of that time growing up in a library taught CHANAME to throw off the bonds of irational lineage based prejudice.

Or maybe it is just easier to ignore the offered storyline and pretend you are in Icewind Dale, eh? Seriosly - you are having nightmares about rivers of blood throught all the game (by storyline), you kill your own siblings, you are forced to eliminate incredible amount of sentient beings - true to protect yourself, but still - you terminate their lives and it is a big question were your 'destiny' is leading you.
And still you can be a happy little paladine without a droplet of guilty consciousness and deep inner confidence of done nothing wrong? I know it is 'just a game' - but aren't all the LG folk here deliberately blinding themselves? Is it even possible to play through this game without ever seriously feeling unsure of yourself (as a character) ? It is not just 'any' rpg, and Bhaalspawn is not just 'any' other character...

OK, a more serious answer:

Personally I usually play the game as Chaotic Neutral; imo a sane and seriously role played Good character would have raised the 20000 GP and left for spellhold before the end of day two after one or two quests in Athkathla (a true CG rogue would get the money even faster). He or she would then fight a nightmarish low level battle through the underdark taking on only one of the *monster* cities (probably the Beholders; safest path if CHANAME went through the Shauguin city), return to the surface, kill Bodhi, then head straight for the elven city. The player would see a fraction of the quests, and many Mods wouldn't even be noticed. At this stage I like mods, and I want to see the world. CN means never having to say you're sorry.

However, it is possible to play a Good character who does not accept that being the child of Bhaal should be a source of guilt; the dreams are disturbing, but can be seen as coming from the "outside". Guilt over the deaths of those who attack you is a philosophical point of view that isn't all that common among soldiers and the general populace, both now and historically. I can easilly see someone roleplaying a *Good* Samurai or Knight who feels little guilt over his or her actions. That role-player's take on the character seems as valid to me as any other.

Besides, if someone were really trying to role play a good character they would be able to do so without killing (almost) anyone other than Irenicus, Bodhi, the five and Mellisan.

@ IWD
I would have sided with Isair and Madae if they had let me. *sigh*

I always buy the Beljuril from the farmer for 50 GP.

I buy or ignore it. Money is everywhere; my CHANAME rarely needs another jewel.

I doubt that anyone has the right to demand of a person to feel guilty for being born. Person is judged by him/herself and others for his/her actions alone, not for the actions of their parents.

In fairness to Dorotea and others, the idea that a child is tainted by the sins of the parent has been and is widely held, even if it is publicly out of fashion in the west. I disagree with it, and a well read character in a semi-middle ages setting could reasonably disagree with it, but this is a fantasy game. In a fantasy world it could be literally true, and the game's storyline treats it as such (CHANAME carries the taint). Nothing stops the character from rejecting the taint as something that is not part of himself on an intellectual level, but it is within CHANAME, accepted or no.

Also, I think that any character who aspires to the title 'good', with or without Bhaalspawn taint, should question his/her own actions now and then. Remember that Nietzsche quote in the beginning of BG1? 'He who stares too long into the Abyss will find it staring back at him'? I think that all people have the potential for both good and evil, and a person who doesn't recognize the potential for evil within him/herself is far more likely to succumb to it than one who does.

This, by the way, doesn't mean that I think CHARNAME should wallow in guilt over every life he/she takes, but I think the thought should at least cross his/her mind now and then that maybe they weren't all bad people.

I haven't read the entire thread, and this is a sincere question; Has anyone actually suggested that CHANAME shouldn't question the morality of his own actions? My own position has been that the actions required of CHANAME to complete the storyline are justifiable, based on time, place, and situation, and that CHANAME has no reason to be particularly haunted by the faces of the thugs and monsters he/she was required to slay on the way to his/her goal. I've also stated that the actions required of CHANAME by the storyline are in no way morally equivelant to the actions of Irenicus; that killing to protect ones own life and the lives of others is not the moral equivelant of torture and murder for personal gain. CHANAME can perform any number of evil acts as part of the game, but at no time is he required to do so as part of the story. If the player has decided to slaughter slaves and armies, that's his or her choice; CHANAME can avoid those foes with one or two spells and a little fast walking.

That's an interesting proposition, BT. I think though, that the game implies that a character is capable of resisting the taint, and even more so, the final goal of the whole affair can be viewed as relieving onself of it via surrendering the essence. I do not think that the game carries a message that PC is powerless before his destiny and that it is Bhaal who is fully in control of his fate/actions. On the opposite there are I guess certain symbolic scenes which indicate that PC is actively fighting against his Sire's influence and people are shown to treat the PC both fairly and unfairly (the most telling perhaps was Jaheira's neverending Harper's saga). So I think it is closer to the POV of "it is your own choice"

BG1 and the end of ToB are certainly about CHANAME accepting or rejecting the taint and his/her destiny. I'm not sure if CHANAME should see the Taint as part of him/her, or as something imposed on him/her. I'd say that both are valid RPing options.

In fairness to Dorotea and others, the idea that a child is tainted by the sins of the parent has been and is widely held, even if it is publicly out of fashion in the west.

I never said every PC should feel guilty for having been born, merely that even the 'brightest champion of the Realms' who had Bhaal's blood at one point IMHO should be a kinder and gentler person and definitely less judgmental than any 'regular' paladin in his position. On the other hand they can be harsher - because they can say - if I was able to overcome whatnot - than everybody else should yada. It is open to interpretations of course... But somehow I always though that doubting one's perfection is a 'positive' trait, rather than handicap.

I've always thought of the overly judgemental paladin as more parody than Forgotten Realms reality. Paladins are more than just knights in shining armor or even crusaders; a true paladin strives to embody the highest ideals of the god(s) he or she serves. If humility, mercy and empathy are in any way favored by the paladin's god, then the paladin would strive to develop those traits or risk falling. Not all FR gods will favor those traits; they're not Buddhist or Judeo-Christian faiths.

Of course BG paladins can lie, steal and murder without falling, but hopefully the Virtue mod will address that.

Well, at least you'll be able to say that you are the best thing since sliced bread. 

... and we would have our daily dose of worshippers. We would reign over dawn and the late afternoon (for those who went out the day before). Chauntea would smile upon our endeavours.

Wouldn't CHANAME have to become the Death of Toast?

I'm still not clear on what benefits the Spellweaver gets out of this, other than being able to potentially cast high level spells with Reckless Dwemer. The Wild Mage has him beat on range of spells (a Wild Mage can learn every Wizard spell in the game) and from your description the Spellweaver seems to learn even fewer spells than the Sorcerer, with a near certainty of screwing them up when he casts multiple spells in a high level battle (a problem the WM avoids). If you're trying to keep the kit ballanced with standard Sorcs and WMs, you might want to give him more known spells than a Sorcerer rather than fewer.

If you're going for pure comic relief, then please disegard the above.

Is the Planar sphere mod compatible with the multi-stronghold component?

It should be, as it gets started by a new creature after the old planar sphere quest is completed. If psq01.cre doesn't show up after the original quest is complete, you can use CLUA:CreateCreature("psq01") to create him anywhere on the first level of the sphere. A duplicate might show up later if you do this too early; just tell him to get lost.

Howdy Dorotea.

LOL! What would you prefer then - a fantasy genre based on Sharia law would be a novelty indeed...

Yes it would, and I'd love to see something like that. Why not have a devout Muslim NPC, tweaked to fit into the realms? Now that would be interesting.

For that matter I suspect the laws/traditions of say medieval Japan or ancient Greece would not appeal to you much as well.

As places to live? Quite right, no appeal at all. As alternatives to yet another frickin' semi-middle class westerner fantasy world cultural background? Again, I'd love to see that.

Did a poll on this issue over in the Fridge.

And to imagine that a person that lives hundreds and hundreds of years and accumulate all that incredibale amout of knowledge would still be interested in experimenting with thier sexual lives like a bunch of kids is a bit naive, to say the least. I expect elven sexuality to be of a more refined nature - they probably have tomes written on the theory of erotica, not to mention developed extensive branch of magic dedicated to enhancing the experience.

(Paraphrasing Heinlein) "It's amazing how much mature wisdom resembles being too tired".
I'm not of the opinion that Elves would 'experiment' one way or another; a certain percentage of mature adults do participate in and have always participated in swingers clubs, same sex relationships, serial marriages, pollygamous marriages and other such diversions. This suggests that, if we have to use a human culture as our model of elven culture, their greater range of experience might easilly encourage a range of sexual play. That aside, there is no reason to assume that a set of cultural norms and taboos developed and followed by short lived humans in one time and place would apply at all to an enirely different species living in a different world.
I'd love to see an 'adult' mod with a sexy Drow elf explaining, very matter of factly, that "Of Course the Queen only breeds with her strongest sons, and then feeds her mates to her favorites in order to share his strength; the way you humans spread around your royal blood is disgusting."  

there is no such thing as prostitution of forced marriage in elven society, and any union is truly freely chosen one.

I doubt such a society would have place for poligamy by the way, since elves are very individual and centered in their expression of 'self-ness' - ie they don't like to share partners.

The first two are mixed economic/gender issues that might easily exist regardless of gender equality; the only change such equality might make would be in the demand for male prostitutes (something that would require a rewiring of sexual signalling and sellection behavoirs in humans, but who knows with elves) and an increase in the number of social climbing famillies "forcing" sons into marriage. Polygamy is historically a cultural answer to the problem of ensuring support for women and children in times and places where male populations have been reduced and/or extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a small number of households has taken place. It would be well suited to a fantasy world where the males are being regularly killed off in war, though some kind of group marriage or extended family system would be more likely if women actively participated in warfare.

Still, I respect your vision of the gender-free sylvan lifestyle.