Quick BG1 question

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Kish" <Kish_K@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:IBLOd.2798$lz5.744@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> kevin wrote:
> No. I meant what I said.

Ok, here's what you said:

<For most people, the Neutral alignment means not doing a
mix of good and evil things, but not doing anything that really stands
out as remarkable in a good or bad way, morally.>

I can't make sense out of it.

> If it's good or evil then it stands out; most
> Neutral characters are as unlikely to risk themselves for other people
> are they are to significantly hurt other people for their own gain.
> Neutral doesn't mean amoral--truly amoral people are evil--and it
> certainly doesn't mean schizophrenia or inconsistency. If you know a
> particular neutral person, it's no harder to predict what that person
> will do than it is to predict what a particular good or evil person will
do.

So again, what do your neutral characters do?

> > You say that my phrase suggests that it is the rule of behavior for
> > neutral characters to commit spectacularly bad deeds, and I think
> > that's not accurate for at least two reasons: 1) if someone were to
> > do an act... erm 40% of the time that the opportunity presented itself,
> > for example, then I think that it would be accurate to say that that
> > person should not be expected to shy away from it - it doesn't mean
> > that it's to be expected either. My wording was proly unclear though,
>
> Not unless it still is.

what? Talk about unclear...

> > so fine and whatever and 2) how many situations are presented where
> > "the work is already done" which is one of the reasons previously
> > mentioned for why I believe a neutral character is not out of line to
> > hold the hostage.
>
> That's a rationalization, not a reason.

What is being rationalized? This is the situation that is presented.
I don't see what there is to rationalize, but since you're not likely
to start answering my questions at this point, I wont ask. <g>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

kevin wrote:
> "Kish" <Kish_K@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:IBLOd.2798$lz5.744@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...

> So again, what do your neutral characters do?

/My/ neutral characters? They don't exist. 😛


>>>so fine and whatever and 2) how many situations are presented where
>>>"the work is already done" which is one of the reasons previously
>>>mentioned for why I believe a neutral character is not out of line to
>>>hold the hostage.
>>
>>That's a rationalization, not a reason.
>
>
> What is being rationalized?

Holding Lady Elgea hostage.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Hong Ooi schrieb:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:49:15 +0100, Martin Wächtler
> <sandbox@familie-waechtler.de> wrote:
>
>
>>Kish schrieb:
>>
>>>The Stare wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I decided to put off that area for now. Something tells me vampiric
>>>>wolves are harder to kill than i think. Still picked up a few magic
>>>>projectiles for everyone in case they're needed after i leave the mine
>>>>and go (try?) to rescue Minsc's friend.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't keep her waiting too long. Ten days after you pick Minsc up,
>>>he'll figure the gnolls must have eaten her by now. He'll then be
>>>rather, ah, upset with you for promising to help him and then dragging
>>>him off in another direction. You might want to consider rescuing her
>>>first and then exploring the mines.
>>
>>I support Kish's view. Your other team members are satisfied once you
>>arrived in Nashkell. That is where they wanted to go. And Dynaheir might
>>be kind of helpful in the mines.
>>Martin
>
>
> This thread is making me want to play BG1 again.
>
Do it. I had a go with tutu quite recently. Really enjoyed it.
Martin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Kish" <Kish_K@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Y0PPd.3800$lz5.708@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> kevin wrote:
> > "Kish" <Kish_K@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:IBLOd.2798$lz5.744@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > So again, what do your neutral characters do?
>
> /My/ neutral characters? They don't exist. 😛

ok LOL... and *that's* why they're so predictable!!!

> >>That's a rationalization, not a reason.
> >
> >
> > What is being rationalized?
>
> Holding Lady Elgea hostage.

but... but... I said it was an evil act!

/My/ neutral characters, which really do exist, are
wild & yes, they're unpredictable too; fully capable
of utilizing lowbrow methods or high ideals, they will
choose to plunder or to protect depending on how
they're feeling at the time.

I know - that's not a neutral character to you - but
it is to me.

har - I'm not even going to begin to tell you how
my evil characters routinely find themselves
equipped with the Tuigan Bow - and all the while
their operator remains fully in roleplay mode!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

kevin wrote:

> ok LOL... and *that's* why they're so predictable!!!

Noo...I wasn't talking about "my" neutral characters.

>>>>That's a rationalization, not a reason.
>>>
>>>
>>>What is being rationalized?
>>
>>Holding Lady Elgea hostage.
>
>
> but... but... I said it was an evil act!

....but not too evil for a neutral character to do it.

> /My/ neutral characters, which really do exist, are
> wild & yes, they're unpredictable too; fully capable
> of utilizing lowbrow methods or high ideals, they will
> choose to plunder or to protect depending on how
> they're feeling at the time.

So they're actually Chaotic Evil.

> har - I'm not even going to begin to tell you how
> my evil characters routinely find themselves
> equipped with the Tuigan Bow - and all the while
> their operator remains fully in roleplay mode!

That doesn't need explanation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

kevin wrote:

> ok LOL... and *that's* why they're so predictable!!!

Noo...I wasn't talking about "my" neutral characters.

>>>>That's a rationalization, not a reason.
>>>
>>>
>>>What is being rationalized?
>>
>>Holding Lady Elgea hostage.
>
>
> but... but... I said it was an evil act!

....but not evil enough that a neutral character should be expected to
shy away from it.

> /My/ neutral characters, which really do exist, are
> wild & yes, they're unpredictable too; fully capable
> of utilizing lowbrow methods or high ideals, they will
> choose to plunder or to protect depending on how
> they're feeling at the time.

So they're actually Chaotic Evil. A serial killer who helps old ladies
across the street is not a "neutral" character.

>
> I know - that's not a neutral character to you - but
> it is to me.
>
> har - I'm not even going to begin to tell you how
> my evil characters routinely find themselves
> equipped with the Tuigan Bow - and all the while
> their operator remains fully in roleplay mode!

That doesn't need explanation. Indeed, it's quite easy.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Kish" <Kish_K@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:WouPd.3473$lz5.2123@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> The Stare wrote:
>
>> So i got to the Xvart village and the Ursa the cave bear was summoned.
>> The bear then attacked the Xvart that summoned it and had to walk all the
>> way around my party to get to him. This gave me plenty of time to kill
>> it. Is this anyone elses experience?
>
> Everyone's. Nexlit is apparently deluding himself about how Ursa views
> him and the xvarts.

Is it possible to kill all the Xvarts or do they respawn forever?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Kish" <Kish_K@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:MFTPd.3883$lz5.3627@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> kevin wrote:
> > but... but... I said it was an evil act!
>
> ...but not evil enough that a neutral character should be expected to
> shy away from it.

True, that's what I'm saying.

My view is this: It's not the act but the motivation behind the act
that serves primarily to determine whether a character is good,
neutral, or evil. "Why was the act committed" means more in this
determination than does "What happened?".

What place, if any, do motivations hold in your determination
of good, evil, and neutrality. Does it matter to you why a character
did a particular act? Can we agree that an act can be committed as
a result of far different motivations? A person is not good simply for
helping grandma's cross the street safely - Good has been done -
no question - but the person in this example does it so that the
community will speak about what a nice, helpful person he is - this
is not necessarily a good person. I think it's possible that what we
have here is an evil person doing a good act. Likewise, an evil act
can be committed from motivations that are not evil - to provide
for your family, to bring down (in whatever manner) someone who
is most likely above the law (the Anomen case - and some will
actually consider that to be an evil deed - I understand that), and
yes, also to simply stick it to a rude SOB - Evil has been done -
again, no question - but that just makes the perp guilty (unless the
act was sanctioned by the gov't - LOL); in any case it doesn't
make him evil. Evil is in every respect the equal of Good. Evil is
not merely the absence of Good. It takes more than an evil act
to make a person evil just as it takes more than a good act to
make soemone good.

And amoral people are not evil.

> > /My/ neutral characters, which really do exist, are
> > wild & yes, they're unpredictable too; fully capable
> > of utilizing lowbrow methods or high ideals, they will
> > choose to plunder or to protect depending on how
> > they're feeling at the time.
>
> So they're actually Chaotic Evil. A serial killer who helps old ladies
> across the street is not a "neutral" character.

I've never played a neutral character like that - so yeah, I
agree that you're not describing a neutral character.<g> I don't
believe a serial killer can be motivated by neutral motivations.

Evil... evil...

And then there's the unique BG factor to consider: It's
impossible for me to play an evil character in this game who
tries to live a satisfyingly evil life and who doesn't become a
serial killer!

The game forces you to become one since the occassions
presented are so few in number where you can actually bully
people, or in other similar ways browbeat targeted segments
of the population into a desired degree of compliance, that
end short of a fight to the death. Nuh uh, a wise, intelligent,
charismatic villain says a rude word or two to Nalia's aunt, for
example, (though arguably not so rude as she says to you) and
the guard - the stupid lone underpowered guard - along with
Nalia's aunt herself LOL - decide to attack your entire group.
Killing these two is not an evil act - it's a mercy killing - it's
putting an end to a lousy string of programming.

And this happens all the time.

And for Mask's sake - let's not let a sly, crafty villain have
any option other than the one that says he must cut his way
through the opposition - like some stupid paladin or
whatever - in order to claim the prize. My evil characters
would welcome the *chance* to be something other than
serial killers. But no - it's strength, dexterity, and constitution
that matter. That's not evil per se - but it's piss-poor.

I would still like to hear, to get a better understanding of
your viewpoint - I wont even argue them at this point, which
quests you believe a neutral character can legitimately
undertake. In any case, I'll stop asking.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

kevin wrote:
> "Kish" <Kish_K@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:MFTPd.3883$lz5.3627@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>kevin wrote:
>>
>>>but... but... I said it was an evil act!
>>
>>...but not evil enough that a neutral character should be expected to
>>shy away from it.
>
>
> True, that's what I'm saying.
>
> My view is this: It's not the act but the motivation behind the act
> that serves primarily to determine whether a character is good,
> neutral, or evil. "Why was the act committed" means more in this
> determination than does "What happened?".

I will be quite impressed if you can come up with a Good motivation for
holding Lady Elgea hostage. "She's rude to me"--besides being
debatable--is an Evil motivation. "I want the Silver Pantaloons" is an
Evil motivation. Your turn.

> What place, if any, do motivations hold in your determination
> of good, evil, and neutrality. Does it matter to you why a character
> did a particular act?

Yes and no. "The ends justify the means" is itself a deeply, deeply
Evil idea.

> Can we agree that an act can be committed as
> a result of far different motivations? A person is not good simply for
> helping grandma's cross the street safely - Good has been done -
> no question - but the person in this example does it so that the
> community will speak about what a nice, helpful person he is - this
> is not necessarily a good person. I think it's possible that what we
> have here is an evil person doing a good act. Likewise, an evil act
> can be committed from motivations that are not evil - to provide
> for your family, to bring down (in whatever manner) someone who
> is most likely above the law (the Anomen case - and some will
> actually consider that to be an evil deed - I understand that)

Seeing as how the only evidence you have of Saerk's guilt is the word of
an abusive, evil drunk who freely admits to hating him, only a complete
moral cripple would /not/ consider going out and killing him to be an
evil deed.

> Evil is in every respect the equal of Good.

No, they differ in a number of important particulars, as you might
expect from them being two different things. Most notably, it's really
very easy to be evil--just do whatever you want and don't think about
who you're trampling on, and *bang* you're evil--and much harder to be good.

> And amoral people are not evil.

Haven't we been over that? A person who is unconcerned with any sense
of morality is a person with no reason to refrain from trampling freely
on people who get in his/her way, and thus, is quite thoroughly evil
unless s/he is truly incapable of understanding the concept of morality
(and, thus, is completely insane and can't be properly
alignment-classified).

> I don't
> believe a serial killer can be motivated by neutral motivations.

Wtf is a "neutral motivation"?


> Nuh uh, a wise, intelligent,
> charismatic villain says a rude word or two to Nalia's aunt, for
> example, (though arguably not so rude as she says to you) and
> the guard - the stupid lone underpowered guard - along with
> Nalia's aunt herself LOL - decide to attack your entire group.

Considering the words in question are "I'm going to kill you," yeah.
The guard will not attack if you say anything--anything at all--except
some variation on "GRAG YOU DIE NOW!" So, once again, I'm afraid I
disagree with everything you say here, from "arguably not as rude as she
says to you" (at least, if she announces her intent to kill the PC, I
must have somehow missed those lines) to "killing these two is not an
evil act."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

The Stare wrote:

> Is it possible to kill all the Xvarts or do they respawn forever?

They respawn forever.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Kish wrote:

> I will be quite impressed if you can come up with a Good motivation for
> holding Lady Elgea hostage. "She's rude to me"--besides being
> debatable--is an Evil motivation. "I want the Silver Pantaloons" is an
> Evil motivation. Your turn.

The simple fact that she is wealthy would have been enough for Robin
Hood. A neutral character is merely looking for a reward for saving the
Lady from her captors. However, the balance is not perfect and CHARNAME
takes a two point hit in reputation. Something that which can be cleaned
up by any number of good acts for people who are deemed to be more
deserving.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Kish wrote:
> Haven't we been over that? A person who is unconcerned with any sense
> of morality is a person with no reason to refrain from trampling freely
> on people who get in his/her way, and thus, is quite thoroughly evil
> unless s/he is truly incapable of understanding the concept of morality
> (and, thus, is completely insane and can't be properly
> alignment-classified).

You've said that already, yes, but you didn't respond to my earlier
reply regarding animals, as far as I saw.

- Sim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

A few snips - I didn't intentionally try to sway the fabric of the message!

>"Kish"

>> kevin wrote:
> I will be quite impressed if you can come up with a Good motivation for
> holding Lady Elgea hostage.

Ha, I would impress myself if I could do that!

"She's rude to me"--besides being
> debatable--is an Evil motivation.

No, it's a neutral motivation.

"I want the Silver Pantaloons" is an
> Evil motivation. Your turn.

Not to mention that from a roleplay perspective the
character doesn't even know what this is all leading up to.

I've never completed it - I don't want it (not that it matters)

> "The ends justify the means" is itself a deeply, deeply
> Evil idea.

I agree. I don't believe I've tried to justify anything.

I believe evil acts can be committed by people who are not
evil - and that these acts can be committed on a regular basis -
even daily, without it proving that the persons responsible are
themselves evil - it just proves that they're guilty.

Here's the slavery example again -

Slavery is evil. Slavery is evil regardless of how society views
it. This is a constant. I believe you've said much the same thing.

My contention is that not all slave holders were evil. I'd like to
know if you dispute this notion. The slave holder is morally
guilty - but it's not yet proven that he's evil. The circumstances
surrounding the act must be considered in order to determine
evil intent.

~Neutral Motivations~

A person who lived in a place that expected him to participate
in an evil institution would have to defy societal norms in order
to not be judged guilty by distant observers - us . The bar is
raised higher for this person than it is for someone who
happened to live in a more just society, isn't it? It's for that
reason that it's not enough to say - "ha - you had slaves!" or
"you supported segregation!" if we're looking to attribute evil
intent rather than just simple guilt to these people.

Why did they have slaves? Were the slaves (given the situation)
treated humanely? How "into" the job was the slave holder?

"Did Southerners Dream of Electric Wheat?" erm.. anyway the
point I'm trying to make is that society must be taken into
account simply because it's the framework that is operated in.
I believe this was the point being made by erm... someone - I
forget - anyway, it's mu point. A desire to "fit in" to society,
an attitude of "just following orders," are neutral motivations -
neither good or evil - that can lead to both good and evil acts.
Some people are just not strong of will - that doesn't make
them evil; neither does doing evil acts make them evil.

Lady Elgea - the decision to hold ( in this case it's not even -
take) someone of obvious means hostage in order to raise funds
to pay for the trip to Spellhold is a neutral motivation. The primary
concern is to get to Spellhold as quickly as possible - of course
your character has no idea that the payoff is an article of clothing.

> Seeing as how the only evidence you have of Saerk's guilt is the word of
> an abusive, evil drunk who freely admits to hating him, only a complete
> moral cripple would /not/ consider going out and killing him to be an
> evil deed.

I believe you're wrong on a number of fronts. But argument obviously
is useless on this point since only a moral cripple would take up the
challenge. sheesh!

>Most notably, it's really
> very easy to be evil--

Are you again talking about something that you haven't actually tried?
Why do you believe it's so easy to be evil? Have you tried it in either
real life or in a roleplaying sense?

And stop tossing all the lunatics and other unwanted baggage into
the camp of evil.

Of course evil is easy for you - it's GRAG YOU DIE NOW!

just do whatever you want and don't think about
> who you're trampling on, and *bang* you're evil--and much harder to be
good.

> Wtf is a "neutral motivation"?

I've tried to answer this elsewhere - we disagree
so ahem... it is a motivation, of course, that is neither good or evil!

> > Nuh uh, a wise, intelligent,
> > charismatic villain says a rude word or two to Nalia's aunt, for
> > example, (though arguably not so rude as she says to you) and
> > the guard - the stupid lone underpowered guard - along with
> > Nalia's aunt herself LOL - decide to attack your entire group.
>
> Considering the words in question are "I'm going to kill you," yeah.
> The guard will not attack if you say anything--anything at all--except
> some variation on "GRAG YOU DIE NOW!"

I believe the the situation is as bad as I say it is.

How many characters can the evil PC bully? How many quests can
be solved in ways other than through force? What exactly are these
options that are presented to the wise, charismatic, intelligent evil
player?

***And why doesn't someone "Fallout" BG?***

Oh, that's right, because there's already so many options
presented other than GRAG YOU DIE NOW! Any more
added - which would also I believe just happen to be the
first - would just be needless window-dressing.

>So, once again, I'm afraid I
> disagree with everything you say here, from "arguably not as rude as she
> says to you" (at least, if she announces her intent to kill the PC, I
> must have somehow missed those lines) to "killing these two is not an
> evil act."

You rescue her and you're treated like dirt.
Actually, I like the dialogue.

and, well... the "not an evil act" part was a joke.

OTOH, I meant it... the situation is too ridiculous and too
contrived to have any moral implications - I have no sense
of roleplay in this situation. Despite the multitude of absolutely
wonderful lines from which my character can choose a
response the situation seems to call for a parley - followed
by begging for mercy - or something other than them going
GRAH YOU DIE! They aren't that brave and they aren't
that desperate. Wee!

~~~~~~~~
I got snippy in this post. I don't believe this is going anywhere.
Of course, do what you want...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"SimDing0" <SimDing0@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hc2Qd.58623> You've
said that already, yes, but you didn't respond to my earlier
> reply regarding animals, as far as I saw.

Ants and flying roaches are evil! ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

kevin wrote:

>>"Kish"
>
>

> "[Lady Elgea is] rude to me"--besides being
>
>>debatable--is an Evil motivation.
>
>
> No, it's a neutral motivation.

"She's rude to me" is a Neutral motivation for holding someone hostage?
Holding anyone who is rude to you hostage doesn't make someone worse
than Neutral?

Uh, yeah. You're right--this conversation has nowhere valuable to go.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Kish" <Kish_K@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Z9uQd.336$Pz7.58@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> kevin wrote:
>
>>
> "She's rude to me" is a Neutral motivation for holding someone hostage?

Yes. There can be (and in the case we've *been* talking about -
there actually is) a difference between an act itself and the motivating
force behind the act.

- there is no premeditation involved
- funds are needed to rescue Imoen
- she is rude to *my* character
- Vicky is impressed

These are all the reasons I can think of that have ever led me to go
through with the kidnapping.

It is an unjust act brought about by neutral motivations.

If I was to kidnap her simply because I happened to be
playing an evil character and also bought in to the notion
that that's just what evil characters are supposed to do then
that character would be operating under evil motivations.

The same act unjust has now been prompted from different motivations.

Here's another example of something I consider to be an
unjust situation brought about by neutral motivations -

the case of Nalia's brave Aunt.

Nalia's Aunt supports an evil system. How many have
died or suffered under this system? eh - perhaps it's a
number larger than the PCs sure to be impressive kill
total will end up being. The Aunt is not evil herself -
she can't help it. Characters are warned "Don't get her
started!" I wonder how many good PCs take up that
offer to turn a blind eye.

> Holding anyone who is rude to you hostage doesn't make someone worse
> than Neutral?

context!

and besides, that's just not possible to do.

> Uh, yeah. You're right--this conversation has nowhere valuable to go.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

kevin wrote:

> If I was to kidnap her simply because I happened to be
> playing an evil character and also bought in to the notion
> that that's just what evil characters are supposed to do then
> that character would be operating under evil motivations.

So the only way to be evil, in your world, is to think "I'm evil"?
Irenicus (who clearly thinks of himself as good and justified) is not evil?

No. A character does evil things--the character comes up with a load of
self-serving rationalizations for them, as you just did for holding Lady
Elgea hostage--that character is evil. The fact that the character
thinks of himself/herself as something else isn't really relevant;
hardly anyone actually believes s/he is evil.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Kish" <Kish_K@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:98NQd.579$DC6.503@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> kevin wrote:
>
> > If I was to kidnap her simply because I happened to be
> > playing an evil character and also bought in to the notion
> > that that's just what evil characters are supposed to do then
> > that character would be operating under evil motivations.
>
> So the only way to be evil, in your world, is to think "I'm evil"?
> Irenicus (who clearly thinks of himself as good and justified) is not
evil?
>
> No. A character does evil things--the character comes up with a load of
> self-serving rationalizations for them, as you just did for holding Lady
> Elgea hostage--that character is evil. The fact that the character
> thinks of himself/herself as something else isn't really relevant;
> hardly anyone actually believes s/he is evil.

Have all slave holders been evil?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

kevin wrote:
> "Kish" <Kish_K@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:98NQd.579$DC6.503@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

>>So the only way to be evil, in your world, is to think "I'm evil"?
>>Irenicus (who clearly thinks of himself as good and justified) is not
>
> evil?
>
>>No. A character does evil things--the character comes up with a load of
>>self-serving rationalizations for them, as you just did for holding Lady
>>Elgea hostage--that character is evil. The fact that the character
>>thinks of himself/herself as something else isn't really relevant;
>>hardly anyone actually believes s/he is evil.
>
>
> Have all slave holders been evil?

I'd need more knowledge of history than I have to answer that
thoroughly. They certainly weren't Good. Any who realized, at any
point, that their slaves were fundamentally human, and then convinced
themselves, "no, they're really not like us," and went on holding
slaves--they were evil, at least at that point in their lives, though
they may have changed alignment before they died.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Kish" <Kish_K@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:UCNQd.623$OU1.426@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> kevin wrote:
> > "Kish" <Kish_K@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:98NQd.579$DC6.503@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >>So the only way to be evil, in your world, is to think "I'm evil"?
> >>Irenicus (who clearly thinks of himself as good and justified) is not
> >
> > evil?
> >
> >>No. A character does evil things--the character comes up with a load of
> >>self-serving rationalizations for them, as you just did for holding Lady
> >>Elgea hostage--that character is evil. The fact that the character
> >>thinks of himself/herself as something else isn't really relevant;
> >>hardly anyone actually believes s/he is evil.
> >
> >
> > Have all slave holders been evil?
>
> I'd need more knowledge of history than I have to answer that
> thoroughly. They certainly weren't Good. Any who realized, at any
> point, that their slaves were fundamentally human, and then convinced
> themselves, "no, they're really not like us," and went on holding
> slaves--they were evil, at least at that point in their lives, though
> they may have changed alignment before they died.

Thanks for answering that.

Now, let's end on that relatively positive note. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

What good are the bracers of defence 8 to anyone that already wears armor?

They only seem to work on a mage or someone with no armor. I gave Dynahier
the Gauntlets of Dexterity so she can't use the Bracers either. Should i
just sell them or might they be handy later?

On the subject of selling things... i have been selling most every potion
(except heal & cure poison) i come across. Is this a good idea or not?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

The Stare wrote:
> What good are the bracers of defence 8 to anyone that already wears armor?
>
> They only seem to work on a mage or someone with no armor. I gave Dynahier
> the Gauntlets of Dexterity so she can't use the Bracers either. Should i
> just sell them or might they be handy later?
>
> On the subject of selling things... i have been selling most every potion
> (except heal & cure poison) i come across. Is this a good idea or not?
>


Sell them.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"The Stare" <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:FHhRd.8107$IB1.4533@news02.roc.ny...
> What good are the bracers of defence 8 to anyone that already wears armor?
>
> They only seem to work on a mage or someone with no armor. I gave Dynahier
> the Gauntlets of Dexterity so she can't use the Bracers either. Should i
> just sell them or might they be handy later?

Selling them would be fine. Or you could instead try giving
the gauntlets of dexterity to one of your fighters and the AC8
bracers to Dynaheir. The fighter will most likely (I can't recall
wht the lowest dex for a BG1 fighter is) show less of an
improvement to AC than Dynaheir does but... I like keeping
my BG1 mages out of harm's way. The fighter will be targeted
all the time, while the mage (hopefully never) is far less often
the object of your opponents' wrath.

A few points of AC, considering particularly how often they're
targeted, can make a big difference to a fighter.

> On the subject of selling things... i have been selling most every potion
> (except heal & cure poison) i come across. Is this a good idea or not?

I like keeping some strength potions. They all their uses, but as you've
probably noticed - they do accumulate. Sure, sell 'em.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

The Stare wrote:
> What good are the bracers of defence 8 to anyone that already wears armor?
>
> They only seem to work on a mage or someone with no armor. I gave Dynahier
> the Gauntlets of Dexterity so she can't use the Bracers either. Should i
> just sell them or might they be handy later?

Sell them. Those bracers are weak, anyway. If it was Bracers of
Defense 4, or 3, you should consider having Dynaheir wear them instead
of the Gauntlets of Dexterity...but not 8.

>
> On the subject of selling things... i have been selling most every potion
> (except heal & cure poison) i come across. Is this a good idea or not?

If you don't have a use for what the potions do, you might as well.
Personally, I like to hang on to some of every potion to use when
battles are tough.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"kevin" <completely@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:I1mRd.9266$cW2.7983@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> "The Stare" <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:FHhRd.8107$IB1.4533@news02.roc.ny...
> > What good are the bracers of defence 8 to anyone that already
wears armor?
> >
> > They only seem to work on a mage or someone with no armor. I gave
Dynahier
> > the Gauntlets of Dexterity so she can't use the Bracers either.
Should i
> > just sell them or might they be handy later?
>
> Selling them would be fine. Or you could instead try giving
> the gauntlets of dexterity to one of your fighters and the AC8
> bracers to Dynaheir. The fighter will most likely (I can't recall
> wht the lowest dex for a BG1 fighter is) show less of an
> improvement to AC than Dynaheir does but... I like keeping
> my BG1 mages out of harm's way. The fighter will be targeted
> all the time, while the mage (hopefully never) is far less often
> the object of your opponents' wrath.
>
> A few points of AC, considering particularly how often they're
> targeted, can make a big difference to a fighter.
>
> > On the subject of selling things... i have been selling most every
potion
> > (except heal & cure poison) i come across. Is this a good idea or
not?
>
> I like keeping some strength potions. They all their uses, but as
you've
> probably noticed - they do accumulate. Sure, sell 'em.

IMPORTANT NEWS:

The bonuses from the Gauntlets of Dexterity DO stack with armour.
They're an excellent addition to, say, Minsc, who has 15 dexterity in
this game - they give him 3 extra points of AC.

Whereas Dynaheir, who can't wear armour and has low dexterity, gets
THE SAME boost from Gauntlets of Dexterity or Bracers Of Defence AC 6
(there is a pair of these in the game): 4 bonus points to AC.

So, give the Gauntlets of Dexterity to her *for now*, and scrap the AC
8 Bracers, but when you find the AC 6 Bracers, give those to Dynaheir
and swap the Gauntlets of Dexterity out to a fighter who will have
more use for them in the front lines.

Jonathan.