204 replies to this topic

[Gothic Rose]

- a good necromancer. Is it even possible? Can a necromancer be good if he tampers with negative energy? Maybe, but that would require a lot of thinking through... Maybe a person that had looked to necromancy to preserve his family, or recover them? Slowly going crazy, even though their motives were good? Well, sorry, I can't think of a good necromancer - one that wouldn't follow the cliche - 'become too powerful, and you are either destroyed and your power consumed by something else, or continue on the path and become a lich.' Meh...

Anyway, don't these characters start seeming cliche? And not a tad, a lot...

YES YES YES YES YES It is possible!

Necromancers manipulate Positive and Negative energy. That is to say, the energies of LIFE, and the energies of DECAY.

Energy is energy, unless it is ALIGNMENT energy (Remember that in the Multiverse, Alignment energies exist - there is the power of Evil energies, just as there are Good, Law, and Chaos. Dont confuse that with Holy and Unholy, which are different.) then energy is energy and thus, is neither inherently good or evil. It's how you use it. It's true that some spells are considered inherently evil - Create Undead, Animate Dead, Unholy Aura, so on so forth - but most magics, even most death magics, are not intrinsically evil.

So yes, it's entirely possible to have a good necromancer. Once I have gotten the basics of making NPC mods (I'm working on Karmic Twins - Grim and Raine right now), then I might be convinced to make a good aligned necromancer mod. (It's an idea that's been brewing in my noggin for awhile now.)

[fallen_demon]

I think loi's going to have a good necromancer.

@toughluck: Hubeplot's pretty cliche free.

[Kulyok]

An idea so overused that it overwhelmes redemption, alignment inconsistency and being (tragically) misunderstood:

(tragic) past love.

Done to death. Ellesime, Khalid, Deheriana, Phaere, various mods - I personally think it is rather overused.



By the way, I have noticed another overused idea in this thread: "altruism in romances". Does anybody know a realistic way around this one, save "You do not understand what I want. Give me consideration and respect?"

[Miss Sakaki]

To clarify - do you mean Charname being forced to be altruistic otherwise the character gets upset and ends a romance/friendship?

[Kulyok]

To clarify - do you mean Charname being forced to be altruistic otherwise the character gets upset and ends a romance/friendship?

Vice versa: NPC states that they give their life for CHARNAME, will do everything for CHARNAME, put CHARNAME above all, etc. I am doing my best not to end like this, and I would appreciate helpful hints.

[Lord Ernie]

An idea so overused that it overwhelmes redemption, alignment inconsistency and being (tragically) misunderstood:

(tragic) past love.

Done to death. Ellesime, Khalid, Deheriana, Phaere, various mods - I personally think it is rather overused.

Overused as opposed to what? Happy, enduring love? By nature, most adventures tend to be troubled individuals who in some way have been driven to the road. Tragic love is a very powerful motivator.

I wouldn't call this overused, per se. Tragic love is a classic ingredient in novels, movies, and more. Also, there's a number of variations on it, as your own examples prove, and every character responds to each case differently. I think we've hardly seen the end of this one.

Vice versa: NPC states that they give their life for CHARNAME, will do everything for CHARNAME, put CHARNAME above all, etc. I am doing my best not to end like this, and I would appreciate helpful hints.

So you're saying the NPC should say "CHARNAME, I love you more than I've ever loved anyone, but eh... laying my life on the line? No, sir, I don't think so."? Sounds a bit strange to me.

I wouldn't call this altruistic, either. Do remember that during the course of most romances, most NPC's need a number of rescues, at least one resurrection (Bodhi), and come to rely on the main character. They literally owe their life to CHARNAME, multiple times.

Edited by Lord Ernie, 16 October 2005 - 08:10 AM.

[Kulyok]

I wouldn't call this overused, per se. Tragic love is a classic ingredient in novels, movies, and more. Also, there's a number of variations on it, as your own examples prove, and every character responds to each case differently. I think we've hardly seen the end of this one.

I put the word "tragic" into brackets on purpose. It does not matter if it is tragic or not, I am indulging in Greek tragedies myself. The key word is *past* love.

Look at the romance mods available. Tashia - past love, and she speaks of it at length. Kelsey - possibly slept with Busya, and literally introduces you to the woman! Soulafein - talks about Phaere, you know the drill.
Kivan - it is Deheriana all around. CoM romance mods - I have yet to see one without mentioning of past love\close partner. I think it has been done to death.

So you're saying the NPC should say "CHARNAME, I love you more than I've ever loved anyone, but eh... laying my life on the line? No, sir, I don't think so."? Sounds a bit strange to me.

I am worrying about the degree of realism here. How much is too much? Where does the devotion end and sickly sweetness begins? Because if players stated it as overused, it might be an issue to consider.

(For the record, I think it was fine in Bioware romances.)

[Lord Ernie]

Look at the romance mods available. Tashia - past love, and she speaks of it at length. Kelsey - possibly slept with Busya, and literally introduces you to the woman! Soulafein - talks about Phaere, you know the drill.
Kivan - it is Deheriana all around. CoM romance mods - I have yet to see one without mentioning of past love\close partner. I think it has been done to death.

A valid, but entirely different point. I know your opinion on the matter that old loves shouldn't be a conversation topic, but I seem to remember we agreed to disagree there.

Again, love is a powerful motivator, and past (and most of the time), lost loves are even more so. Besides, what do you expect then? An NPC that talks about his past, but 'tactfully' leaves out his old/lost love? Even if it has determined most of his current life (see the motivator argument again)?

Sides, I seem to recall 'NPC who won't talk about his past' being a done to dead thing. Strange then, that past loves and their discussion is also done to death.

[Kulyok]

I think it is possible to talk about the past and not talk about past love. Anomen, Viconia and Kelsey might be a good example, or a starting point. Family, old friends, art, dreams, childhood, the place of birth and its customs - it is all interesting.

It might be easier to write about the past love than simply about the past, because the past love has emotional context. But all past has emotional context, one just need to reach out and find it. Adolescence and childhood emotions\memories are a golden mine for a romance writer, I think, especially considering that such feelings as shyness, diffidence and doubts about one's current path accompany nearly everyone at this stage of life.

Besides, the past loves factor carries another danger: without it, you have only one NPC you are going to present to the player. With it, you have got practically two NPC's, and while the romance partner is more or less developed, the second one (past love, who is repeatedly mentioned) may turn to
1) a bland and boring figure;
2) an ideal man\woman out of the dream;
3) a hated and despised figure, an object of jealousy(does it strengthen a relationship?)
4) Mary Sue.

[Miss Sakaki]

I admit full guilt in the case of Nathaniel; my defence is that it's less a melodramatic love than a reasonably contented one that ended badly, rather than the experiences of Kivan and Solaufein. (by the way, Kulyok, if you've played Nathaniel would it be possible to hear your thoughts on how past love is dealt with in the mod? It would be interesting to know how people think about it)

I think that if a character has invested a great deal of emotional commitment to a lover in the past, it's reasonable to speak about it since to a degree it shows the level of trust he or she is showing to Charname. I do agree though that there is plenty of dialogue that can occur without the "hook" of a past love - bonds can be forged from similar childhood experiences - though it can be tricky to make a character speak of their past without making them seem self-centred.

I am worrying about the degree of realism here. How much is too much? Where does the devotion end and sickly sweetness begins?

I suppose that writers have to judge for themselves; everyone's going to have a different sense of what's too sappy. I suppose it's difficult to present romantic love in the game setting without the NPC promising love and support: there's only dialogue to represent his or her love, whereas in real situations there are less dramatic ways to show how much you care about someone.

[Kulyok]

(by the way, Kulyok, if you've played Nathaniel would it be possible to hear your thoughts on how past love is dealt with in the mod? It would be interesting to know how people think about it)

Okay, but it may take weeks - BG1 NPC will be released soon, and I'll have to stick with TUTU on my desktop for some time, yet.

I suppose that writers have to judge for themselves; everyone's going to have a different sense of what's too sappy. I suppose it's difficult to present romantic love in the game setting without the NPC promising love and support: there's only dialogue to represent his or her love, whereas in real situations there are less dramatic ways to show how much you care about someone.

Yes, I think the same way. Well, perhaps I'll start from checking on the occurrences of the words "love", "admire", "beautiful", "tonight" and "die for you" in the dialogues - and search for other clues in the meanwhile.

[jcompton]

Although I understand that this is some sort of personal and/or cultural taboo for you, Kulyok, based if nothing else by how frequently you've been bringing it up lately, personally I see avoiding discussion of previous entanglements rather difficult. Unless, of course, one changes jobs and cities every time a relationship ends. Even then, you can never be too sure... a previous girlfriend ended up not only going to the same university as my then-fiancee and me, but living in the same dorm. Now, true, this curious coincidence did not please my then-fiancee, but the solution certainly wasn't "Let's just not discuss it!"

I understand the appeal of coming into a relationship as a blank slate, but as much as that may be a noble idea, I think it's ultimately fooling yourself. We develop preferences for how we like to treat a lover and be treated, understand and be understood, touch and be touched, etc. etc. through time and experience. It may be the height of insensitivity for Alassa to say "Bruce used to touch me this way, and it was maaaaarvelous," but sooner or later Jimbo's likely going to figure out for himself that he's not the first man to have laid eyes, or a hand, on her.

My point is not that I believe the "prior lover" talk (or "lack of a prior lover" talk) is absolutely necessary to the creation of a CRPG romance, but that I do believe it's a fairly reasonable and natural topic. If A is interested in B, is it not natural to try to learn as much about B as possible, including what B's life was like before A and B met? And is it not somewhat natural to talk to friends and family who may in turn happen to mention previous close acquaintances--particularly if they broke B's little heart and said friends/family want to assure/warn A that they are/should be better than that?

Again, it seems like a rather natural part of getting to know someone. Megalomaniac I may be, but even I don't go so far as to dismiss the possibility that people had a life history before I met them.

(as an aside, it was not my intention to convey that Busya was Kelsey's former lover--although Ajnos's tale which portrays them as lovers in a post-<CHARNAME> world is super-great. Their dialogue is just there to remind you that Kelsey's had some background in death-defying adventure, and to point out that he's earned some degree of respect in certain quarters.)

Department of Redundancy Department edit. -JC

Edited by jcompton, 17 October 2005 - 06:23 AM.

[Kulyok]

Well, of course I keep bringing it on! Every week, a new romance mod gets started, and so far only two existing male romances do not raise the topic: Anomen's and Edwin's. If nobody points out that the theme of past loves is overused, two it will remain.

(Not to say that I haven't noted and quietly written down for myself some of your points...)

[Theodur]

Well, of course I keep bringing it on! Every week, a new romance mod gets started, and so far only two existing male romances do not raise the topic: Anomen's and Edwin's.

They don't raise the topic because they don't have any notable, serious past loves to speak of?

[Kulyok]

I am not saying it is a thing Ye Should Not Do. I will probably not enjoy such a romance as much as a romance without the topic raised, but if it serves character development admirably, why not?

However, I would indeed rather play a romance with a character without a notable, serious past love than, say, with a man who is romantically and sexually attracted to a married woman.

[Theodur]

Well, you can always make your own romance mod, written the way you would enjoy playing it. I believe that with Xan your hands are free to do so.

[Delight]

I would prefer to be the girl's/woman's first and only.
I think that a person who failed to create a stable relationship, isn't a good candidate for lifetime partner.

[Sillara]

I will freely admit that Tsujatha, one of the CoM mods Kulyok mentioned above, has a past love. However, neither Saerileth nor Yasraena do. And what about Fade?


Sillara