Leaving Imoen behind in Spellhold
istara
(1) Does she get out by herself?
(2) Are there any consequences/disadvantages to not having her in my party?
(3) Later on are there any extra quests for her that I will miss?
(4) Can I pick her up again on a temporary basis later?
Henry Lockwood
How dare you! </shock>
> (1) Does she get out by herself?
Yes
> (2) Are there any consequences/disadvantages to not having her in my
party?
Yes. You keep your current party and don't have a T/M dual. If you're
magic-heavy already, this isn't a problem. Similarly, if your style
involves "hit it until it dies", she's not much help to you. If you feel
like you could use another mage, then she's very helpful in this regard.
> (3) Later on are there any extra quests for her that I will miss?
Erm.... not AFAIK. She's got some of the best banters in the game though,
particularly once you reach ToB.
> (4) Can I pick her up again on a temporary basis later?
I'm pretty certain you can. You can definitely summon her in ToB, but if
you don't want to wait that long, I think she goes to the Copper Coronet.
Htn963
The answers in order are: yes, no, no, yes.
And I wouldn't lose too much sleep over the "morality, realism, and RP of
leaving Imoen behind." It's just poor game design. In fact, I seriously
suspect that these issues are brought up by people who are just frustrated that
they can't boink Imoen.
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
Jonathan Ellis
"Charles M. Kozierok" <ix...@PCGuide.com> wrote in message
news:b22vuj$7kv$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <20030208080823...@mb-fb.news.cs.com>,
> Htn963 <htn...@cs.com> wrote:
> } istara wrote:
> }
> } >(Leaving issues of morality, realism and RP behind):
> } >
> } >(1) Does she get out by herself?
> } >
> } >(2) Are there any consequences/disadvantages to not having her
in my party?
> } >
> } >(3) Later on are there any extra quests for her that I will
miss?
> } >
> } >(4) Can I pick her up again on a temporary basis later?
> }
> } The answers in order are: yes, no, no, yes.
> }
> } And I wouldn't lose too much sleep over the "morality,
realism, and RP of
> } leaving Imoen behind." It's just poor game design. In fact, I
seriously
> } suspect that these issues are brought up by people who are just
frustrated that
> } they can't boink Imoen.
>
>
> *Minor Spoiler below*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, on a more serious note regarding the role-playing and "how
would
> Imoen get off the island", I *did* notice one interesting thing when
> I recently replayed this. When you get out of the maze and run into
the
> Lonk guy and bribe him off, he makes a comment about quickly getting
> down to the docks and getting onto a ship to get away from Irenicus.
> It's apparently not as difficult as some people think to get off
> Brynnlaw. :)
Indeed. The only person who tells you that there's only one ship
available to get you off Brynnlaw, and it's captained by Saemon
Havarian, is... Saemon Havarian himself. Not, one would think, the
most reliable source of information.
In fact, come to think of it, Imoen would probably be safer off on
Desharik's ship (of all people) rather than Saemon's. She's a mage,
and the pirates would most likely fear her for that reason - they did
leave the resident Cowled Wizard to keep his home and his (magical,
and thus to be feared) treasures. (Irenicus didn't, but that's another
story.) In fact she's probably safer getting a pirate ship back to the
mainland than going with you ;-)
Jonathan.
Kish
>
> In article <20030208080823...@mb-fb.news.cs.com>,
> *Minor Spoiler below*
>
> Well, on a more serious note regarding the role-playing and "how would
> Imoen get off the island", I *did* notice one interesting thing when
> I recently replayed this. When you get out of the maze and run into the
> Lonk guy and bribe him off, he makes a comment about quickly getting
> down to the docks and getting onto a ship to get away from Irenicus.
> It's apparently not as difficult as some people think to get off
> Brynnlaw. :)
Of course. How could I ever have thought Imoen might have trouble
finding a way to escape that CharName can't? We have the word of
someone who is so in touch with reality that he didn't grasp Irenicus
wasn't Wanev's legitimate successor that he knows how to get a ship.
Really, if leaving Imoen behind wasn't such terrible roleplaying for a
Good character, I'd still probably argue against it just out of
embarassment at the mindboggling stupidity of the arguments in favor of
doing so.
Jonathan Ellis
"Charles M. Kozierok" <ix...@PCGuide.com> wrote in message
> In article <3E45355B...@pacbell.net>, Kish
<Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> } "Charles M. Kozierok" wrote:
> }
> } > *Minor Spoiler below*
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> Funny, I went down to the docks and there was Calahan, who informed
me
> that he successfully got Ason and Ginia on a boat. What did that
cost
> me, I think it was 200 gold? And all I have on me is 70,000 to
encourage
> him to help Imoen off the island. And nearby is Golin, who says he
"owes
> me a favor". Yep, sure sounds like "near-certain death" to me. ;)
>
> No, those pirates are far too dangerous. Clearly, it is *far*
> safer to drag her onto a ship with a proven liar like Saemon
Havarian,
> so she can end up caught in the middle of a Githyanki invasion, then
> somehow survive a capsized ship, to end up fighting in a Sahuagin
civil
> war, which eventually leads to a long journey through the "tranquil
> paradise" of the Kua-Toa-, Drow-, Mind-Flayer- and Beholder-infested
> Underdark, with no real clue how to get out of it, while chasing
after
> a dangerously psychotic uber-mage who destroys me *with a thought*
if I
> dare face him without the Spellhold inmates to help me.
>
> Would that be the sort of "mindbogglingly stupid" argument you would
> enjoy arguing against? ;) Unfortunately for you, I haven't seen
anything
> that even comes close to it from those arguing that it isn't
necessarily
> safer to take Imoen along.
Indeed. Your one and only pressing reason to leave Brynnlaw *right
now* is so that you can *pursue* Irenicus. Were it not for this
reason, there would be no need to leave Brynnlaw right now - or
indeed, at all, since you'd be entirely safe there on account of every
single member of your party being able probably to kill every pirate
on the island, and probably every other inhabitant too, if they felt
like it.
The only question would be, is it too *dangerous to Imoen* to take
her - who probably lags behind the rest of the party in experience
level - in pursuit of Irenicus? It is the safer option to leave her in
Brynnlaw, to *wait* for a future ship to the mainland: she won't die
any slower or quicker as a result of having had her soul stolen,
whether she's with you or not, and is considerably less likely to die
in battle (as she could easily win any fight against any number of
pirates, and neither Irenicus nor Bodhi has any further interest in
her location if she's not actively chasing after them). Considering
the danger you're running into - and either going direct into the
Underdark, or trusting yourselves to a proven liar who has already
betrayed you once already - I'd consider it entirely reasonable to
leave Imoen, or indeed *anybody*, in Brynnlaw, and still expect them
to get back to Athkatla safely, and more likely sooner than you
anyway.
Jonathan.
Kish
>
> In article <3E45355B...@pacbell.net>, Kish <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> } "Charles M. Kozierok" wrote:
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> } > Well, on a more serious note regarding the role-playing and "how would
> } > Imoen get off the island", I *did* notice one interesting thing when
> } > I recently replayed this. When you get out of the maze and run into the
> } > Lonk guy and bribe him off, he makes a comment about quickly getting
> } > down to the docks and getting onto a ship to get away from Irenicus.
> } > It's apparently not as difficult as some people think to get off
> } > Brynnlaw. :)
> }
> } Of course. How could I ever have thought Imoen might have trouble
> } finding a way to escape that CharName can't?
>
> to get back to the mainland, as CharName clearly could easily do if we
> were looking only at *game reality reasons*, all of the Underdark would
> be skipped which would wreck the game.
>
> } We have the word of
> } someone who is so in touch with reality that he didn't grasp Irenicus
> } wasn't Wanev's legitimate successor that he knows how to get a ship.
>
> some wild beast ate him and carefully disposed of his bones. ;)
...or some pirate cut his throat and looted his body. He got off the
island? Where are you getting that? Oh, yeah, you're pulling it out of
thin air.
> And so
> does Imoen, for that matter.
And CharName knows that as soon as s/he sends Imoen away. Oh, wait,
s/he doesn't know it until s/he gets back to the Copper Coronet.
> Funny, I went down to the docks and there was Calahan, who informed me
> that he successfully got Ason and Ginia on a boat. What did that cost
> me, I think it was 200 gold? And all I have on me is 70,000 to encourage
> him to help Imoen off the island. And nearby is Golin, who says he "owes
> me a favor".
And one or both of them offers to take Imoen. Oh, wait, neither does.
> Yep, sure sounds like "near-certain death" to me. ;)
>
> No, those pirates are far too dangerous. Clearly, it is *far*
> safer to drag her onto a ship with a proven liar like Saemon Havarian,
[...]
>while chasing after
> a dangerously psychotic uber-mage
[...]
More out-of-character knowledge (which was 75% of your paragraph)
elided, since claiming CharName can base anything on that is even
stupider than claiming CharName should take Lonk's word.
> Would that be the sort of "mindbogglingly stupid" argument you would
> enjoy arguing against? ;)
Trust the pirate named Saemon Havarian, or trust the pirates named
Pirate, it comes to much the same thing: Incredibly risky, but less
certain to be lethal the more companions you have to watch your back
(and guard you when you sleep). Either you can defeat Bodhi and
Irenicus (who, as far as CharName knows, will stay together) and get
Imoen's soul back, or you can't defeat them and won't get Imoen's soul
back and she'll die anyway, so she's not in significantly more danger
facing Irenicus with you than not facing him, and it would be far less
of a stretch than any of your arguments and your insistent repetition of
"she makes it back!" rely on to give CharName the ability to guess that
s/he might get a chance to drop Imoen off somewhere safe before actually
facing Irenicus.
> Unfortunately for you, I haven't seen anything
> that even comes close to it from those arguing that it isn't necessarily
> safer to take Imoen along.
Unfortunately for me? What you see, or choose to see, doesn't really
impact my fortunes.
Henry Lockwood
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > Funny, I went down to the docks and there was Calahan, who informed me
> > that he successfully got Ason and Ginia on a boat. What did that cost
> > me, I think it was 200 gold? And all I have on me is 70,000 to encourage
> > him to help Imoen off the island. And nearby is Golin, who says he "owes
> > me a favor".
>
> And one or both of them offers to take Imoen. Oh, wait, neither does.
That's not entirely a fair comparison. If you've got Imoen around at that
stage, it's assumed she's going with you. If you haven't, then you'd have
to have left her in Spellhold, and it's assumed that she's attempting to get
off the island without your assistance. It is reasonable to believe, IMO,
that <CHARNAME> could bribe someone to get Imoen off the island at a later
date. This isn't included, presumably because the designers felt it
unnecessary for the plot. I would have liked to see it though.
> > Unfortunately for you, I haven't seen anything
> > that even comes close to it from those arguing that it isn't necessarily
> > safer to take Imoen along.
>
> Unfortunately for me? What you see, or choose to see, doesn't really
> impact my fortunes.
I think he meant "unfortunately for your argument".
I must admit, I'm equivocal on this point. I feel that Immy _can_ get back,
even without OOC knowledge, but I still get guilt feelings when leaving her
behind even if I'm playing an EEEVIL PC...
Kish
>
> In article <3E45355B...@pacbell.net>, Kish <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> } "Charles M. Kozierok" wrote:
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> } > Well, on a more serious note regarding the role-playing and "how would
> } > Imoen get off the island", I *did* notice one interesting thing when
> } > I recently replayed this. When you get out of the maze and run into the
> } > Lonk guy and bribe him off, he makes a comment about quickly getting
> } > down to the docks and getting onto a ship to get away from Irenicus.
> } > It's apparently not as difficult as some people think to get off
> } > Brynnlaw. :)
> }
> } Of course. How could I ever have thought Imoen might have trouble
> } finding a way to escape that CharName can't?
>
> to get back to the mainland, as CharName clearly could easily do if we
> were looking only at *game reality reasons*, all of the Underdark would
> be skipped which would wreck the game.
And it would have cost them /nothing/ to have Golin or Calahan offer to
take one companion back and give an excuse for why only one person could
go, or just to give CharName a line suggesting Imoen seek one of them
out, yet they did neither. And since they did neither, it's
self-serving to assume she must have an ability you don't have anyway.
> } We have the word of
> } someone who is so in touch with reality that he didn't grasp Irenicus
> } wasn't Wanev's legitimate successor that he knows how to get a ship.
>
> And yet, shockingly enough, he does manage to get off the island. Unless
> some wild beast ate him and carefully disposed of his bones. ;)
...or some pirate cut his throat and looted his body. He got off the
island? Where are you getting that? Oh, yeah, you're pulling it out of
thin air.
> And so
> does Imoen, for that matter.
And CharName knows that as soon as s/he sends Imoen away. Oh, wait,
s/he doesn't know it until s/he gets back to the Copper Coronet.
> Funny, I went down to the docks and there was Calahan, who informed me
> that he successfully got Ason and Ginia on a boat. What did that cost
> me, I think it was 200 gold? And all I have on me is 70,000 to encourage
> him to help Imoen off the island. And nearby is Golin, who says he "owes
> me a favor".
And one or both of them offers to take Imoen. Oh, wait, neither does.
> Yep, sure sounds like "near-certain death" to me. ;)
>
> No, those pirates are far too dangerous. Clearly, it is *far*
> safer to drag her onto a ship with a proven liar like Saemon Havarian,
[...]
>while chasing after
> a dangerously psychotic uber-mage
[...]
More out-of-character knowledge (which was 75% of your paragraph)
elided, since claiming CharName can base anything on that is even
stupider than claiming CharName should take Lonk's word.
> Would that be the sort of "mindbogglingly stupid" argument you would
> enjoy arguing against? ;)
Trust the pirate named Saemon Havarian, or trust the pirates named
Pirate, it comes to much the same thing: Incredibly risky, but less
certain to be lethal the more companions you have to watch your back
(and guard you when you sleep). Either you can defeat Bodhi and
Irenicus (who, as far as CharName knows, will stay together) and get
Imoen's soul back, or you can't defeat them and won't get Imoen's soul
back and she'll die anyway, so she's not in significantly more danger
facing Irenicus with you than not facing him, and it would be far less
of a stretch than any of your arguments and your insistent repetition of
"she makes it back!" rely on to give CharName the ability to guess that
s/he might get a chance to drop Imoen off somewhere safe before actually
facing Irenicus.
> Unfortunately for you, I haven't seen anything
Kish
>
> In article <3E454447...@pacbell.net>, Kish <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> } "Charles M. Kozierok" wrote:
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> } > }
> You claim to be considering role-playing but you
> assume that because the human game doesn't offer an option, that means
> one cannot possibly consider it existing,
...no. One cannot /assume/ it conveniently exists.
> Saemon has already proven himself less trustworthy than the average
> pirate.
Right, it's much worse to drug someone than to attack them with a knife
on sight.
> He also has the Pirate Lord after his head.
Before or after you kill the Pirate Lord?
> Trusting the pirate named Saemon Havarian or trusting the pirates named Pirate,
> } it comes to much the same thing: Incredibly risky, but less
> } certain to be lethal the more companions you have to watch your back
> } (and guard you when you sleep).
>
> Non sequitur. The level of danger depends on not just the number in the
> party, but the *dangers they face*. Imoen against a few pirates is safer
> than a party of six in a beholder or mind flayer lair.
And of course CharName knows s/he is going into a beholder or a mind
flayer lair.
<snip>
> I don't recall having any information that I need to get Imoen's soul
> back for her not to die.
Then I'd suggest you pay a minor amount of attention to when Irenicus
says next time you're there.
> I also have no information that she needs to be
> present when that happens, or that Bodhi will be with Irenicus.
I can't believe even you said that you have no evidence that Bodhi will
be with Irenicus with a straight face.
Anyway. The bulk of your post consisted of proof by assertion once
again. No one could argue that you've convinced yourself, and I'm not
really interested in convincing you, just in pointing and laughing at
your initial claim that Lonk's word that he can get off the island
constitutes proof positive of anything. I wonder why, if your argument
is valid, you feel a need to shore it up with such blatant nonsense as
"Lonk says he can get off the island so it's easy to get off the island"
and repeatedly dragging in OOC knowledge.
Stephen Mackey
>} > He also has the Pirate Lord after his head.
>}
>} Before or after you kill the Pirate Lord?
>
>I never killed the Pirate Lord in my game. As soon as his lackies die,
>he screams at Saemon and ship pushes off.
(No, I'm not gettin' into this. Been through it once already, thanks. Just
wanted to make a random comment.)
I killed the pirate lord in his home once, once I learned he was a murderin'
SOB. Looted his corpse, too. Amusingly, he STILL showed up later in the
cutscene with Saemon. Silly, silly game designers....
>Pirates which, near as I can tell, can be utterly avoided with a simple
>invisibility spell. Do they even have magical weapons? Goodness.
Pirate lord has a couple of scimitars +1.
::chuckle::
--
Signing off as Stephen Mackey, the Multi-Threaded RFE Database Liaison.
"There is no sig. There is only Zuul."
Kish
>
> In article <3E454DBE...@pacbell.net>, Kish <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> } "Charles M. Kozierok" wrote:
> } >
> } > In article <3E454447...@pacbell.net>, Kish <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> } > } "Charles M. Kozierok" wrote:
> } > } > } > (NO LONGER MINOR) *Spoilers below*
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > Saemon has already proven himself less trustworthy than the average
> } > pirate.
> }
> } Right, it's much worse to drug someone than to attack them with a knife
> } on sight.
>
> More assumptions, since there are plenty of pirates on the island that
> attack nobody.
Most of them do. You're arbitrarily deciding that the few nonhostile
pirates are more "average" than the majority who attack on sight.
>
> } > He also has the Pirate Lord after his head.
> }
> } Before or after you kill the Pirate Lord?
>
> I never killed the Pirate Lord in my game. As soon as his lackies die,
> he screams at Saemon and ship pushes off.
>
> Even if I did kill him, so what? He doesn't have a successor who
> wouldn't want revenge? Oh right, they didn't explicitly show any
> sucessor so I have to assume he has no organization. Right? :)
Assume nothing. Support any claims you want to make.
>
> } > Trusting the pirate named Saemon Havarian or trusting the pirates
> } named Pirate,
> } > } it comes to much the same thing: Incredibly risky, but less
> } > } certain to be lethal the more companions you have to watch your back
> } > } (and guard you when you sleep).
> } >
> } > Non sequitur.
Yeah, that doesn't follow at all from a claim that going on a ship with
the nameless pirates is safer from going on a ship with Saemon Havarian.
> The level of danger depends on not just the number in the
> } > party, but the *dangers they face*. Imoen against a few pirates is safer
> } > than a party of six in a beholder or mind flayer lair.
> }
> } And of course CharName knows s/he is going into a beholder or a mind
> } flayer lair.
>
> He has reason to believe he is headed for the *Underdark*,
Yeah, Saemon announces that his ship is going to the Underdark. That's
why CharName takes the ship instead of the portal directly to the
Underdark. Oh wait. The whole point of taking the ship is to /avoid/
the Underdark. I can't believe I've been bothering to argue with
someone who either remembers hardly anything of Chapter Four or who
makes up whatever looks like it might support his argument, constantly.
> which is
> quite obviously more dangerous than a silly island filled with silly
> pirates.
...which can be left only by ship (at the mercy of the pirates) or
through the Underdark.
> } > I also have no information that she needs to be
> } > present when that happens, or that Bodhi will be with Irenicus.
> }
> } I can't believe even you said that you have no evidence that Bodhi will
> } be with Irenicus with a straight face.
>
> The last I saw of Bodhi, she defied Irenicus's explicit instructions.
The last you saw of Bodhi, she said, "Irenicus must know of this." The
last you saw of Irenicus, he told you that Bodhi had reported your
Slayer change to him.
> I don't remember exactly what she said,
Obviously.
> } Anyway. The bulk of your post consisted of proof by assertion once
> } again.
>
> Not in the slightest. Again, my only burden here is to show that it is
> *conceivable* that a good-aligned character might have a reason to leave
> Imoen on Brynnlaw. If anyone else thinks I haven't made that burden,
> they haven't said anything, and at this point it seems evident that you
> don't have an open mind on this subject.
What I don't have is any respect left for you. Mutual, I'm sure. If
your argument was valid, you wouldn't need to resort to rewriting the
dialogue to support it.
>
> } No one could argue that you've convinced yourself, and I'm not
> } really interested in convincing you, just in pointing and laughing at
> } your initial claim that Lonk's word that he can get off the island
> } constitutes proof positive of anything.
>
> I never said it was "proof positive" of anything.
<<he makes a comment about quickly getting down to the docks and getting
onto a ship to get away from Irenicus. It's apparently not as difficult
as some people think to get off
Brynnlaw. :)>>
The only way anything is "apparent" from Lonk's claim is if you treat it
as valid.
>
> } I wonder why, if your argument
> } is valid, you feel a need to shore it up with such blatant nonsense as
> } "Lonk says he can get off the island so it's easy to get off the island"
>
> I never said it was "easy to get off the island".
No, you said it was "not as difficult as some people think," based on
the goofy premise that the ironically named Lonk the Sane, despite not
knowing that Irenicus isn't the rightful director, knows what he's
talking about.
> } and repeatedly dragging in OOC knowledge.
>
> Kish, your entire argument is "out of context".
OOC=Out of Character, not Out of Context.
> The only way that one
> can believe that CharName leaving Imoen behind represents "near-certain
> death" is to
...presume that CharName knows what he or she can and cannot do.
You've now added appealing to authority to your argumentative
reportoire. I've had enough; I'm bowing out of this thread. If you
post anything more with obvious holes in it in future threads, I may
poke at them, if I see them, but I won't argue the matter with you
anymore.
Kish
Re: Leaving Imoen behind in Spellhold
Date:
Sat, 08 Feb 2003 19:48:15 GMT
From:
Kish <Kis...@pacbell.net>
Organization:
Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Newsgroups:
alt.games.baldurs-gate
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5
"Charles M. Kozierok" wrote:
>
> In article <3E454DBE...@pacbell.net>, Kish <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> } "Charles M. Kozierok" wrote:
> } >
> } > In article <3E454447...@pacbell.net>, Kish <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> } > } "Charles M. Kozierok" wrote:
> } > } > } > (NO LONGER MINOR) *Spoilers below*
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
> } > } > }
<snip points already gone over repeatedly>
> } > Saemon has already proven himself less trustworthy than the average
> } > pirate.
> }
> } Right, it's much worse to drug someone than to attack them with a knife
> } on sight.
>
> More assumptions, since there are plenty of pirates on the island that
> attack nobody.
Most of them do. You're arbitrarily deciding that the few nonhostile
pirates are more "average" than the majority who attack on sight.
>
> } > He also has the Pirate Lord after his head.
> }
> } Before or after you kill the Pirate Lord?
>
> I never killed the Pirate Lord in my game. As soon as his lackies die,
> he screams at Saemon and ship pushes off.
>
> Even if I did kill him, so what? He doesn't have a successor who
> wouldn't want revenge? Oh right, they didn't explicitly show any
> sucessor so I have to assume he has no organization. Right? :)
Assume nothing. Support any claims you want to make.
>
> } > Trusting the pirate named Saemon Havarian or trusting the pirates
> } named Pirate,
> } > } it comes to much the same thing: Incredibly risky, but less
> } > } certain to be lethal the more companions you have to watch your back
> } > } (and guard you when you sleep).
> } >
> } > Non sequitur.
Yeah, that doesn't follow at all from a claim that going on a ship with
the nameless pirates is safer from going on a ship with Saemon Havarian.
> The level of danger depends on not just the number in the
> } > party, but the *dangers they face*. Imoen against a few pirates is safer
> } > than a party of six in a beholder or mind flayer lair.
> }
> } And of course CharName knows s/he is going into a beholder or a mind
> } flayer lair.
>
> He has reason to believe he is headed for the *Underdark*,
Yeah, Saemon announces that his ship is going to the Underdark. That's
why CharName takes the ship instead of the portal directly to the
Underdark. Oh wait. The whole point of taking the ship is to /avoid/
the Underdark.
> which is
> quite obviously more dangerous than a silly island filled with silly
> pirates.
...which can be left only by ship (at the mercy of the pirates) or
through the Underdark.
> } > I also have no information that she needs to be
> } > present when that happens, or that Bodhi will be with Irenicus.
> }
> } I can't believe even you said that you have no evidence that Bodhi will
> } be with Irenicus with a straight face.
>
> The last I saw of Bodhi, she defied Irenicus's explicit instructions.
The last you saw of Bodhi, she said, "Irenicus must know of this." The
last you saw of Irenicus, he told you that Bodhi had reported your
Slayer change to him.
> I don't remember exactly what she said,
Obviously.
> } Anyway. The bulk of your post consisted of proof by assertion once
> } again.
>
> Not in the slightest. Again, my only burden here is to show that it is
> *conceivable* that a good-aligned character might have a reason to leave
> Imoen on Brynnlaw. If anyone else thinks I haven't made that burden,
> they haven't said anything, and at this point it seems evident that you
> don't have an open mind on this subject.
What I don't have is any respect left for you. Mutual, I'm sure. Your
posts started out with goofy assumptions and have only been going
downhill from there.
>
> } No one could argue that you've convinced yourself, and I'm not
> } really interested in convincing you, just in pointing and laughing at
> } your initial claim that Lonk's word that he can get off the island
> } constitutes proof positive of anything.
>
> I never said it was "proof positive" of anything.
<<he makes a comment about quickly getting down to the docks and getting
onto a ship to get away from Irenicus. It's apparently not as difficult
as some people think to get off
Brynnlaw. :)>>
The only way anything is "apparent" from Lonk's claim is if you treat it
as valid.
>
> } I wonder why, if your argument
> } is valid, you feel a need to shore it up with such blatant nonsense as
> } "Lonk says he can get off the island so it's easy to get off the island"
>
> I never said it was "easy to get off the island".
No, you said it was "not as difficult as some people think," based on
the goofy premise that the ironically named Lonk the Sane, despite not
knowing that Irenicus isn't the rightful director, knows what he's
talking about.
> } and repeatedly dragging in OOC knowledge.
>
> Kish, your entire argument is "out of context".
OOC=Out of Character, not Out of Context. Your repeated assertion that
CharName can and should presume Imoen has abilities s/he does not, when
it's convenient for Imoen to have those abilities, impresses me as
little as it did the very first time you wrote it.
> The only way that one
> can believe that CharName leaving Imoen behind represents "near-certain
> death" is to
...presume that CharName knows what he or she can and cannot do.
You've now added appealing to authority to your argumentative
reportoire. I've had enough; I'm bowing out of this thread. If you
post anything more with obvious holes in it in future threads, I may
poke at them, if I see them, but I won't be drawn into arguing the
matter with you again.
Kish
>
> Charles M. Kozierok said:
>
> >} > He also has the Pirate Lord after his head.
> >}
> >} Before or after you kill the Pirate Lord?
> >
> >I never killed the Pirate Lord in my game. As soon as his lackies die,
> >he screams at Saemon and ship pushes off.
>
> (No, I'm not gettin' into this. Been through it once already, thanks. Just
> wanted to make a random comment.)
> I killed the pirate lord in his home once, once I learned he was a murderin'
> SOB. Looted his corpse, too. Amusingly, he STILL showed up later in the
> cutscene with Saemon. Silly, silly game designers....
Yeah. Now I generally kill him twice--once after hearing Ginia's tale,
and once when he shows up at the ship. (I wonder if he'd survive the
second time if I killed all his lackies before targeting him for some
reason. Note to self: Never kill all Desharik's men before Desharik
himself is dead.)
MPrilla
>} suspect that these issues are brought up by people who are just frustrated
>that
>} they can't boink Imoen.
>
>LOL.
Ah Imoen is your sister.
MPrilla
to him at spellhold if you know what I mean.
Cool Hand
I played all the BG series, and I played a lot fo AD&D (pen and paper).
Maybe this is a bit simple, but hear me out:
"When I was at Spellhold, and Imoen asked me to take her along, I had no
choice but to take her. She had been with me since the start of BG, and
shared all my travels. Heck, I grew up with her, and she is my sister. The
this bastard Irenicus steals her soul (now, that cannot be good for her). In
my opinion, I will never leave her behind at Spellhold, no matter how
dangerous it is to go with me. She can hold her own, and we don't want to be
separated again!"
What do you think? This is how I imagined my Character was thinking when he
finally found Imoen again.
DH
"Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3E456296...@pacbell.net...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27.01.2003
Kish
>
> Ah, Kish. I see that you don't want to discuss this. Still...
>
> I played all the BG series, and I played a lot fo AD&D (pen and paper).
> Maybe this is a bit simple, but hear me out:
>
> "When I was at Spellhold, and Imoen asked me to take her along, I had no
> choice but to take her. She had been with me since the start of BG, and
> shared all my travels. Heck, I grew up with her, and she is my sister. The
> this bastard Irenicus steals her soul (now, that cannot be good for her). In
> my opinion, I will never leave her behind at Spellhold, no matter how
> dangerous it is to go with me. She can hold her own, and we don't want to be
> separated again!"
>
> What do you think? This is how I imagined my Character was thinking when he
> finally found Imoen again.
That's good roleplaying. :-)
And I don't mind discussing it. I'm just...satisfied that there is no
room for constructive discussion between Charles and myself anymore.
Kish
>
> In article <cqf1a.25794$Rc7.3...@news2.e.nsc.no>,
> Cool Hand <dagh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> } "When I was at Spellhold, and Imoen asked me to take her along, I had no
> } choice but to take her. She had been with me since the start of BG, and
> } shared all my travels. Heck, I grew up with her, and she is my sister. The
> } this bastard Irenicus steals her soul (now, that cannot be good for her). In
> } my opinion, I will never leave her behind at Spellhold, no matter how
> } dangerous it is to go with me. She can hold her own, and we don't want to be
> } separated again!"
> }
> } What do you think? This is how I imagined my Character was thinking when he
> } finally found Imoen again.
>
> Imoen with. The question was not how *I* personally view this, however,
> nor how Kish does. The question was the matter of whether or not there
> is a valid role-playing justification for leaving her in Brynnlaw even
> if we don't agree with it. Kish says leaving her means "near-certain
> death"
...as far as the PC has any way of knowing. Do quote me correctly.
> and I just don't see how.
istara
by leaving her is going to be my somewhat guilty conscience.
But if she's good enough to merit a place in my party, she's good
enough to get herself home. Plus it seems appalling ungrateful to
offload any of the characters who've travelled with me thus far.
Difficult situation all round.
Almost as ghastly as deliberately getting Khalid killed in BG1 (so I
could still keep Jaheira - I didn't realise I could have just left him
in a pub or something) - making him go off ahead to fight bandits and
not healing him. Still cringe at that one.
Cringed all the more in BG2 when picking up Jaheira, and hearing her
lament Khalid's death, not realising that *I* was the one that
actually brought it about...
Enkidu
Hehe, while I never red-shirted Khalid, I understand how that might
happen. But, unfortunately, Khalid's future is unavoidable and his
widow's lamentations no less upsetting.
Enkidu
Cool Hand
why she shouldn't be left behind!
DH
"MPrilla" <mpr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030208161336...@mb-mc.aol.com...
Nova
frustrated that they can't boink Imoen>
No, I'm frustrated that they didn't bring back Kivan for my PC to boink. Kivan
wouldn't dump me like that no-good bum Anomen did!
Kristen
MPrilla
>why she shouldn't be left behind!
>
>DH
I understand that. However the boinking of imoen stuff is way over the top
even if your playing an evil character.
Enkidu
>
>
Is it getting too close to the root of your anger?
Technically, their relationship is a spiritual one, it is neither
genetic nor were they raised in the same household. Arguably, they are
"soul mates" rather than brother and sister.
Enkidu
Stephen Mackey
You've got Valygar. Same thing. ;)
Stephen Mackey
>Technically, their relationship is a spiritual one, it is neither
>genetic nor were they raised in the same household. Arguably, they are
>"soul mates" rather than brother and sister.
Look, I'm really sorry about all this, but I swore I'd do it to the next person
who used that term, so....
::vomits all over you::
Kish
> > Can we not talk about boinking Imoen. OK she is the protagonists
> > sister.
>
> >
>
> Is it getting too close to the root of your anger?
>
> Technically, their relationship is a spiritual one,
They had the same father. That's the definition of half-siblinghood.
Enkidu
>>>Is it getting too close to the root of your anger?
>>>
>>>Technically, their relationship is a spiritual one,
>>
>
> cultures not to mention geneticists tell us that is a very bad idea.
Don't you mean "you're a sick person" and no, they are not half
brother and sister in the way that your purulent mind imagines. The
game adheres to Cartesian mind body dualism whereby Pernis is able to
separate Bhaalspawn essence from its bodily vessel. So rest easy,
there is no need to fear some sort of eugenic degeneracy. By the way,
geneticists do not tell people who to marry and if they did, they
would probably attempt to dispel your ill informed perception that
deleterious recessives are necessarily linked to mutual heritage.
If there is a "sick" person in this use group it is not me, but a self
absorbed, Narcissistic, excessively argumentative, self proclaimed
expert who insist in turning every thread into his own theater of
fantasized persecution.
Oh, and so you don't perversely whine about this being off topic here
is a clear Baldur's Gate reference -
Q. "How do Noober and Mprilla differ?"
A. Noober eventually shuts up.
Please go away,
Enkidu
Enkidu
Replace Pernis with Irenicus, damn spell checker.
E
Kish
> Enkidu wrote:
>
> > MPrilla wrote:
> >
> >>>> Is it getting too close to the root of your anger?
> >>>>
> >>>> Technically, their relationship is a spiritual one,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ah your a sick person. They are half brother and sister and all modern
> >> cultures not to mention geneticists tell us that is a very bad idea.
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't you mean "you're a sick person" and no, they are not half
> > brother and sister in the way that your purulent mind imagines. The
> > game adheres to Cartesian mind body dualism whereby Pernis is able to
> > separate Bhaalspawn essence from its bodily vessel. So rest easy,
> > there is no need to fear some sort of eugenic degeneracy. By the way,
> > geneticists do not tell people who to marry and if they did, they
> > would probably attempt to dispel your ill informed perception that
> > deleterious recessives are necessarily linked to mutual heritage.
> >
> > If there is a "sick" person in this use group it is not me, but a self
> > absorbed, Narcissistic, excessively argumentative, self proclaimed
> > expert who insist in turning every thread into his own theater of
> > fantasized persecution.
> >
> > Oh, and so you don't perversely whine about this being off topic here
> > is a clear Baldur's Gate reference -
> >
> > Q. "How do Noober and Mprilla differ?"
> > A. Noober eventually shuts up.
> >
> > Please go away,
> >
> > Enkidu
> >
>
> Replace Pernis with Irenicus, damn spell checker.
Wtf? Irenicus steals your soul. He certainly does not "separate
Bhaalspawn essence from its bodily vessel"--he separates your /souls/
from their bodily vessels. That has no connection to your relationship
with Imoen, or Sarevok, or any of your other siblings.
Enkidu
> Wtf? Irenicus steals your soul. He certainly does not "separate
> Bhaalspawn essence from its bodily vessel"--he separates your /souls/
> from their bodily vessels. That has no connection to your relationship
> with Imoen, or Sarevok, or any of your other siblings.
>
ah yes, your right. He steals your soul but the Bhaalspawn essence
floods into the gap.
E
Enkidu
>>Don't you mean "you're a sick person" and no, they are not half
>>brother and sister in the way that your purulent mind imagines.
MPrilla:
> Stop correcting peoples English it only proves your a low person. And yes they
> are half brother and sister the game tells you that. Bhaal is both of their
> fathers. OK so get off it already.
Enkidu:
Don't you mean - "Please stop correcting other people's English. It
only proves that you're a low person." What is a low person? Do you
have something against short people? Are you some sort of heightist? I
bet you won't play a halfings and gnomes. Am I right?
MPrilla:
> Hey you know what so what? They are still genticially half brother and sister.
> That is against the laws of man and most gods. All the gods currently
> worshiped in large numbers in fact. Its against nature too. Wild animals
> don't do that by instint. Ok jerk. You are sick.
Enkidu:
Genticially? No, my point is that they are not, in fact, genetically
relate. The word is "instinct" and you are quite wrong. Many animals
closely interbreed without deleterious effects. I'm sorry that offends
your Puritan sensibilities.
And they must have been inbreeding on the Sword Coast. Look at the
people and animals, they are ALL exact copies of each other!! How do
you think they got that way? ;)
MPRilla:
> You need help. See a therapist and not the one Michael Jackson sees. See a
> real therapist. Imoen is the protagonists sister. We all know this. You know
> this. If you think its cool to boink her then you are a sick person.
Your logic is flawed. Firstly, I never advocated incest, only that the
charge of incest misapplied. Now you've added another layer of
misdirection. Mr. Jackson was suspected of pedophilia, no incest. Do
you recognize the difference and that Michael Jackson has no bearing
on this argument?
Enkidu:
>>By the way, geneticists do not tell people who to marry and if they did, they
>>would probably attempt to dispel your ill informed perception that
>>deleterious recessives are necessarily linked to mutual heritage.
MPrilla:
> Ah no you jerk Geneticists do tell people to never marry their brother, sister,
> 1st cousin, mother, father, aunt, uncle, neice, nephew and don't advice 2nd
> cousins either.
Enkidu:
Really, I'm unaware of such advice. Could you please send me a url
containing direct advice from a geneticist about who to marry? You
should be able to find something so important quite quickly, don't you
think?
MPrilla:
> In most places in the world this is also against the law both of the government
> and of most religions. Though some places allow 2nd cousins and a very few
> places allow 1st cousins. None that I know of or would want to live
> in allow the others. No gentitists would tell the others to marry
> and have children you moron. You are a complete and utter west
> virgina inbred hick aren't you?
Enkidu:
Really, what is your source for this worldwide survey of cultures?
Have you been consulting the HRAF?
Again, and I think it is important for you to realize this, that
you've misunderstood the argument being posed to you. My position was
that geneticists do not tell people WHO to marry, which you seem to
have interpreted as advocating incest. Do you see the difference?
Further, state names are spelled with capital letters and I would
imagine that West Virginians might be offended by your words.
MPrilla:
> Good God its common sence.
Enkidu:
"Good God, its common sense." Are you now changing your position? That
the prohibition against sibling marriages stems from the common sense
rather than science?
MPrilla:
>>If there is a "sick" person in this use group it is not me, but a self
>>absorbed, Narcissistic, excessively argumentative, self proclaimed
>>expert who insist in turning every thread into his own theater of
>>fantasized persecution.
>
> I am not the one wanting to boink his own sister. You are totally sick.
Enkidu:
In case you missed it, I was referring to you in the paragraph above.
See here it is again. You've made yet another logical misstep. The
original assertion was that Charname and Imoen were not true siblings,
so that the stigma of incest did not apply. Which you then confounded
with pedophilia, and attempted to support first by "gentitists" and
then by the "common sence." Neither of which has direct bearing on a
situation wherein the couple in question are not in fact true
siblings. Now you have shifted the charge of incest from the
protagonists of the computer game to me personally.
Enkidu:
>>Oh, and so you don't perversely whine about this being off topic here
>>is a clear Baldur's Gate reference -
>>
>>Q. "How do Noober and Mprilla differ?"
>>A. Noober eventually shuts up.
MPrilla:
> Q. How does Enkidu and Michael Jackson differ?
> A. Michael Jackson rapes other peoples children not his own.
Enkidu:
Oh my is this clever! So are you suggesting that because I fail the
incestuousness of a Charname-Imonen relationship that I therefore
molest my own children? Do you see how this is yet another confused
misstep on your own part?
Jonathan Ellis
"Enkidu" <Enk...@spamblock.com> wrote in message
news:3E4A8609...@spamblock.com...
But... Gods don't obey any laws of genetics.
Otherwise, given that Imoen is * fully human*, it would be IMPOSSIBLE
for any other Bhaalspawn to be fully non-human, they would have had to
have at least one human parent. We KNOW that to have not been the
case: Yaga-Shura, for example, is not half-giant and half-human, he's
a genuine Fire Giant. Similarly, Sendai is Drow, not Half-Drow, and
Abazigal is Dragon, not Half-Dragon. And a Dwarvish PC would be a
Dwarf, not a Half-Dwarf.
Therefore, if Bhaal can be called your "father", it works in a
different way to mortal parentage. Gods don't obey the genetic rules.
(Hell... in Greek myth, Zeus and Hera were brother and sister as well
as husband and wife: although incest was very much against the law for
mortals, they recognised that gods work by different rules.)
Jonathan.
Cool Hand
serious?
Several places Enkidu is obviously just pulling your chain, and you don't
get it.
Keep your temper down, discuss nicely and have fun.
----------
And by the way: Charname and Imoen are probably not genetical siblings.
Being Bhaalspawn does not necessarily mean Bhaal procreated with a human
being (have you ever seen Bhaal? You'd understand). The point is the essence
of Bhaal... Charname and Imoen both have it. Who their human parents were,
we don't know for sure.
Mind you, I don't support a relationship between Imoen and Charname - since
they grew up together they are practically like siblings (at least in name,
if not in genes), so it would just be too weird.
DH
"MPrilla" <mpr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030212173522...@mb-fn.aol.com...
> >But... Gods don't obey any laws of genetics.
>
> Your a sick man. There are no major religions on this earth the real
world at
> this time that permit sex or marrage between siblings and no governments
at
> this time that do either.
>
> >
> >Otherwise, given that Imoen is * fully human*, it would be IMPOSSIBLE
> >for any other Bhaalspawn to be fully non-human, they would have had to
> >have at least one human parent. We KNOW that to have not been the
> >case: Yaga-Shura, for example, is not half-giant and half-human, he's
> >a genuine Fire Giant. Similarly, Sendai is Drow, not Half-Drow, and
> >Abazigal is Dragon, not Half-Dragon. And a Dwarvish PC would be a
> >Dwarf, not a Half-Dwarf.
>
> Your a moron. Bhaal made all of them all of them are your siblings sex or
> marrage with any of Bhaal children is disguisting.
>
> For you to even suggest a romance between the protagonist and Imoen by any
> rashonal at all no matter what the hell reason you give means your
mentally
> disterbed. They are brother and sister you sick bastard.
>
> >
> >Therefore, if Bhaal can be called your "father", it works in a
> >different way to mortal parentage. Gods don't obey the genetic rules.
>
> YOU are sick. And looking for reasons to justify a sick union that no one
> without serious mental problems would agree with.
>
> >
> >(Hell... in Greek myth, Zeus and Hera were brother and sister as well
> >as husband and wife: although incest was very much against the law for
> >mortals, they recognised that gods work by different rules.)
>
> Don't care this is here and now. Everyone is against incest you asshole.
And
> Zeus and Hera were some of the first Gods there was no one else for them
to
> marry other than their own siblings. That was done out of pure necesisty
and
> it is not meant to be emulated.
>
> Even if differnt rules apply for gods Imoen and the protagonist are not
gods at
> least not till the game is over.
>
> And there are instances where the greek gods punished mortals for incest.
YOU
> asshole.
> >
> >Jonathan.
Kish
> But... Gods don't obey any laws of genetics.
>
> Otherwise, given that Imoen is * fully human*,
But why give that? It makes much more sense to call her half-human and
half-god.
> it would be IMPOSSIBLE
> for any other Bhaalspawn to be fully non-human, they would have had to
> have at least one human parent. We KNOW that to have not been the
> case: Yaga-Shura, for example, is not half-giant and half-human, he's
...half-giant and half-god.
>
> Therefore, if Bhaal can be called your "father", it works in a
> different way to mortal parentage. Gods don't obey the genetic rules.
This is true.
Kish
>
> And by the way: Charname and Imoen are probably not genetical siblings.
> Being Bhaalspawn does not necessarily mean Bhaal procreated with a human
> being
"Bhaal sought out women of every race and forced himself upon them."
Sure sounds like it does to me.
Cool Hand
of speaking the old legends...?
DH
"Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:TbB2a.182$U16.24...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Kish
> Hmmm.. yeah, you're right. Still, is it meant literally? Or is it just
> a way
> of speaking the old legends...?
Either
1) Bhaal reproduced sexually with each of the women who bore a Child of
Bhaal. Supported by: The fact that CharName's biological mother is
named, but never a biological father other than Bhaal, nor even a /hint/
that anyone except Bhaal could be the biological father of any Bhaal
child. All the references to Bhaal as the father (not "creator" or
anything similar) of the Children of Bhaal--well into three digits.
That line about Bhaal seeking out women and forcing himself upon them.
Imoen's statement about not wanting to picture Bhaal mating with a fire
giant, when she learns of Yaga-Shura. Melissan's response to Imoen's
statement, which tacitly agrees that Bhaal conceived all the Bhaalspawn
in the traditional manner. The book in BG1 that talks about Mystra's
avatar conceiving and bearing seven children. The fact that of the four
Children of Bhaal whose upbringing we know about--CharName, Imoen,
Sarevok, Yaga-Shura--all four were adopted, none grew up with biological
parents. (What was Abazigal's hatchlinghood like, I wonder? He was
despised as a half-breed by the green dragon, and he demonstrated a
sensitivity to that insult that suggests he was far more used to it than
he wanted to be. And Sendai--what would life be like for a child of a
Lolth-worshiping drow, who was conceived through rape by a god Lolth
does not acknowledge?)
or
2) Bhaal waved a hand and turned children who had been conceived without
any input from him into creatures who, for some reason, were referred to
from then on not as "Vessels for Bhaal's power," or, "Chosen of Bhaal,"
but as "Bhaalspawn" and "Children of Bhaal." Supported by...?
(There are, of course, other alternatives, and they get suggested
occasionally. But only those two seem to be on the table at the moment.)
Cool Hand
the most likely one.
Thanx,
DH
"Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:_5J2a.227$GU2.99...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...