397 replies to this topic

[dorotea]

Hi folks,

I admit to being influenced by other polls here - but the topic seemed appropriate for the Redemption Forum, and I think we can benefit from having another fun discussion. Please feel free to express your opinion on the villains redemption business in BG-BG II whatever it maybe.

[Caedwyr]

I voted for one of the five, but if I could have voted for multiple individuals, Irenicus would definately have gotten a vote, his story is quite tragic in a way and I can definately see how and why it would be a good idea to give him another chance.

Actually, for the five I think it is more of an issue of allowing for greater roleplaying options, and a way to talk them out of their actions. Gromnir in particular always struck me (besides the vanilla Balthazar) as someone who could potentially be reasoned with if the proper approach were taken with him. Unfortunately the game forces you to accept an unsatisfactory end to the argument (especially since you cannot subdue opponents in BGII).

Sarevok is another who could have gotten a vote. I think that his redemption would work better if there were some more dialogues (I like how Silrana has approached it in her BGII fanfic "A Capella" over at the Attic) and it were drawn out slightly longer. Spending some time in the Abyss as a result of your actions in life, and then getting a second chance would definately make the person want to reconsider how they live their new life.

Albert (I loved that scene in BGI), could do with a redemption , but I think that Borani (reloads) needs much more thorough characterization. Also, his mage and barbarian friends need to have their agendas and reasons for their actions explained in greater detail. I nominate these three for a Weimer improved battle component, or as a replacement of Redemption the Longer Road.

[Laufey]

Hi folks,

I admit to being influenced by other polls here - but the topic seemed appropriate for the Redemption Forum, and I think we can benefit from having another fun discussion. Please feel free to express your opinion on the villains redemption business in BG-BG II whatever it maybe.

I'd like to split my vote between Sarevok and Irenicus, perhaps with some emphasis on Sarevok, since he doesn't suffer from the 'no soul present' handicap. These two are well developed characters, and so I find it interesting to imagine redeeming them. Simpler characters such as Melissan just don't capture my attention in the same way.

[jester]

Gromnir or Sendai should have been accessible to true strength. Balth is good anyways and Yaga is way too much blinded by his own grandeur, abot the dragon I don't know. I did not get to talk to him that much. Irenicus and Sarevok are already being redeemed as I see it (taking RtlR for Jon into account). Gromnir would be a nice addition, since there are no Half-Orcs in the game and I crave variety above all else. sendai is not a good choce storywise, because I think she doesn't team up with anyone except as a pretext to further her plans.

If Angelo is up there, I would rather have Semaj (IIRC the other last henchman). The weaknes of TOB is that your opponents lack character. In SoA you have ample time to muse about the motives and tory of Jon, in BG1 the musterious hunter keeps you guessing, But in ToB it is a mere shopping list. At least they could have given them some interaction, meetings or whatever. It is like 'five kills till godhood for dummies'. So one of the five would be a good choice for me.

[dorotea]

Irenicus and Sarevok are already being redeemed as I see it (taking RtlR for Jon into account).

That was probably one of the most heartening comments anybody ever made about my work - it means a lot, since it actually tells me that you consider Redemption one of the legitimate outcomes of the game. That was exactly what I was after when I started to work on it. Hopefully LR will turn out to be the mod that will also feel like 'part of the original story' .

Thanks!

[Sav]

Hmm, let me start. Why are they going in a redemption forum if they think redemption is lame?

On topic, I voted Phaere, because she WAS in love with Solaufein, so there has to be a spark of good in her because of that. It's too bad you're forced to kill her rather than Drownap her and teach her how to be a goody goody.

[Hendryk]

I voted 'lame' on general principles. That doesn't mean that one well-thought-out redemption wouldn't work but having a noble PC accompanied by Good Sarevok and Good Irenicus plus Good Solaufein, just for variety - with Good Viconia for dessert. That's just funny. There should be a Redemption Cap 2DA in here somewhere.

[dorotea]

There should be a Redemption Cap 2DA in here somewhere.

Touche! I laughed my head off on this one. I am always mollifyed by an excellent sense of humor.

On the side note - in both original Redemption and LR Irenicus stays Neutral Evil through your journey with him. He switches to TN in about 25% of the possible outcomes, but you never have a chance to experience his new personality - the game ends at this point. And since TN is basically no fish nor fowl, you cannot truly complain about the exuberance of 'goodness'.

'Redemption' was picked merely as a catchy label for my mods - in reality they are more about 'Getting to know your enemy from inside' then 'redeeming' them.

Chuckle - do you know that if you do a google search on redemption you will most likely find something about recycling soda cans?

Now I will be blasted for 'glorifying evil' I bet - all because I did not instantly fall in love with a certain red-haired sorcerer.

[Schatten]

bodhi because i love undead chicks and "On topic, I voted Phaere, because she WAS in love with Solaufein, so there has to be a spark of good in her because of that. It's too bad you're forced to kill her rather than Drownap her and teach her how to be a goody goody."

[jester]

Yup, but Kelsey needs a bisexual expansion. He desperately needs a romance add-on for dwarfs and half-orcs

I think redemption is about deepening a character not spoiling it by leading it into a wrong direction. Tazok wont be all about playing nice and citing sonnets all of a sudden, but that old routine ('Me Tazok' -> dead/ 'Me Tazok alive again'-> dead again) doesn't really qualify him as a named character. Biff the Understudy has more depth than some of our adversaries. I want to be able to RP the game. That also means that there is no outright right or wrong decision. Just as you develop as PC, the characters around you should reflect that.

And I will try my best to ensure that Jon fails at redeeeming himself, when I play a bad character.

The only prob here is that ToB doesn't give you much leeway for the development of some characters, so I might need some uberextension for Sendai *sigh*

[Sovran]

There should be a Redemption Cap 2DA in here somewhere.

:) And STATE_REDEEMED should result in random outbursts of [REDEEM.WAV] "I feel I must... thank you." Urk.

< rant >

In my opinion, how lame a redemption is depends almost entirely on how it's handled (and let me elaborate before you pat me on the head for that display of fierce intellect.) In principle, the possibility of redeeming a villain isn't lame, quite the opposite, it makes them human instead of Demogorgons or Melissans. (Whoops, did I give away something there?)

However, I'm not particularly fond of alignment, or metaphysical evil. Unfortunately, in FR, they're something we have to cope with (and now you can pat me on the head for not giving in to the huge bad pun potential there.) Nor am I fond of redemptions or other changes in character where the PC simply gives the villain or whatnot their new object in life.

I'll take Sarevok as an example. When I started playing ToB and first encountered him, I saw potential for great interaction that would show more depth and more human character instead of simplistic game-villain villainy. And this wouldn't even require any redemption, just giving that villainy a human scope.

Of course, this was back when I was unaware of how much would be swept away by essence this, essence that, and how soon. Hmph. And it turned out that I could just about click away my youth blindfolded, and Sarevok would hang onto every single word. Really, that seemed to me simply out of character for him. I'm not fond of redemptions that seem to assume that with a snap, the old self is utterly gone. And finally, I'm definitely not fond of redemptions that take place during the course of *three dialogues* (cf. original Sarevok.) But I would be biased.

My point? [edit: to half of which jester beat me, while I was busy writing a book. :)]

a) Redemption, or any shift in alignment, way of life, you name it, shouldn't be something you can buy from a vending machine with the right chink of coins. You can affect someone else's views, but even though we *know* that the results depend entirely on your stats, rep, and dialogue choices, it should not feel like ordering your very own Redeemed Villain TODAY!

b) Redemption (or any shift and so forth) shouldn't (always) be black-or-white, immediate and absolute. Mayb a dramatic and permanent redemption is possible, in some situations. But couldn't there be transition phases? Different levels of change? For some characters, and some situations, a shift of view, any shift of view, would result in a full-fledged redemption. Or the change could, in the end, be very slight. It shouldn't be simply

Redeemable Villain - I await your command.

Charname - 1. Kneel and repent!

Redeemable Villain - *does so*

any time, anywhere (add only water.)

< /rant >

Um...

Still, Hendryk has a point. :)

[jester]

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."
-- Albert Einstein

I actually think you missed at least two other answers

'I think redeeming villains is lame' is in fact
'I think redeeming villains is lame', 'What do you mean by redemption?' and 'Why is it all spelled correctly?'. That is why it is the majority vote in here.

[dorotea]

However, I'm not particularly fond of alignment, or metaphysical evil. Unfortunately, in FR, they're something we have to cope with (and now you can pat me on the head for not giving in to the huge bad pun potential there.) Nor am I fond of redemptions or other changes in character where the PC simply gives the villain or whatnot their new object in life.

*An excellent post Sovran, I feel like signing after almost every line. Thank you, this is exactly why I started this thread - to find out if there anybody out there who shares my view on alignment and roleplaying. It is extremely encouraging to find out I am not alone in my thinking after all.

Why was not Viconia on the poll? After all she was another one of "BioWARE"'s chosen?

**Domi I never thought Viconia was a villain in the first place - therefore she did not qualify to be in the poll. The fact that her alignment has letter 'E' in it means less to me than her story. (But it is only MHO of course - and I do not insist on it)

And I will try my best to ensure that Jon fails at redeeeming himself, when I play a bad character.

*** jester - I promise I will try to make it as much (or even more) fun than the neutral/good outcome!

[jester]

And I will try my best to ensure that Jon fails at redeeeming himself, when I play a bad character.

*** jester - I promise I will try to make it as much (or even more) fun than the neutral/good outcome!

What more can I say