I beat drizzt, it was easy

[Legolas]

Not exactly. He'll be there no matter what chapter you are in (although it may be a tad difficult to prove he was there during the Candlekeep prologue).You can't miss him if you search, just follow the smell of the gnolls. If you don't know what Gnolls smell like, you can pick up their scent at the Gnoll Stronghold map

[InsaneBane]

Originally posted by Byrd: What I want to know is how can you hit a 5' something dark elf surrounded by gnolls or hobs, with your arrows. The graphics look like your shooting over them. They must fall fast.

It is the main reason why missile attacks are so good in BG: The lack of rules for firing into a melee. You should be able to hit your own party members/summons as well, because melee fighting individuals are moving fast and unpredictable.

As goes for the discussion of role playing vs. power gaming: I am as a player a power gamer in my hearth, BUT I would NOT allow my characters to turn against their 'inner' beliefs. Example:

As a player I would very much like to have the items of Drizzt (and thereby killing him). No one in my party wants to kill him (maybe except for Edwin, but he sees it as too much risk to do it on his own [img]smile.gif[/img] ). Anyway my neutral thief sees the items on Drizzt and thinks: "What sort of nice weapons - He has two scimitars - I guess he wouldn't notice if I 'borrowed' one of them". The next thing that happens is that my thief gets caught red handed and Drizzt turns into a rage wanting to chop the thief into pieces. The rest of the party - not knowing what happened - try to calm down Drizzt without succes. They now have to choose side: Drizzt or the good old thief (maybe my paladin and lawful good cleric don't even know she is a thief). If they choose the side against Drizzt they will certainly use what they have to conquer the drow (summonings and missiles).

When the drow is dead - they might think - well, he was a drow. Maybe he fell back to old habits.

The thief would certainly pick up all the items on the dead body.

[img]graemlins/greenbounce.gif[/img]
Insane

[Dragonshadow]

Hhow can youi kill Drizzt! He is a nice drow.
Noone listen to them that kill him! Do you hear me?
SAVE THE DROW!!!!!

[Dude 77]

if i killed him 10 to 1 id feel guilty for it

[InsaneBane]

Sometimes he just happens to be not so nice.

Especially when you want to 'borrow' one of his scimitars, and he refuses you to do so.

He could just have said "no - I do not want you to borrow my scimitar". Instead he flies off the handle and wants to kill you - and that I think - isn't very nice.

[img]graemlins/greenbounce.gif[/img]
Insane

[Timber Loftis]

As for roleplaying the encounter, I think you could kill Drizzt with a GOOD character. He is a Dark Elf and you don't know him. Right? Remember, distinguishing Player Knowledge from Character Knowledge is central to Role-play. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[InsaneBane]

Exactly - A paladin, who does not know about Drizzt, simply sees a drow and attacks the drow immediately - no time to talk.

A persuading speech from the drow (or any good deeds) are simply interpreted as
snaky business by the paladin.

A good drow is a dead drow - that is what he has learned since he was born.

[img]graemlins/greenbounce.gif[/img]
Insane

[Lemmy]

Arledrian:
My whole point is that it's not supposed to happen from a roleplaying perspective. You bump into Drizzt in BG II - oops, how did you ever get resurrected again, drow? . . . If you want to roleplay you should keep him alive . . . it's about playing the game properly.

Your logic is faulty. Example:
Suppose Imoen gets "chunked" in BG1. No resurrection is possible, yet she shows up again in BG2. By your logic, it's cheating to let Imoen die a permanent death in BG1 because it destroys the continuity of the game world.

You can make up an excuse of some sort for *why* she returns, but, ultimately, she shows up in BG2 because the story assumes the PC played with a certain group of party members in BG1. If the games were truly continuous, your exact party from BG1 would translate to BG2 *including* all bounties, warrants, and ill-will toward you character. But it's out of your hands.

The player can only maintain so much continuity in the context of a pre-crafted game world. *However*, the player is in complete control of the continuity of his character's personality. That sort of continuity is what must be maintained to draw the line between roleplay and powerplay. Considering continuity of character, there are plenty of reasons a character (evil, neutral, or even good) might choose to attack Drizzt. Whether you think the methods that work to kill Drizzt are legitimate is another matter - and something you can argue.

-Lem

[Arledrian]

You don't understand what I mean, Lemmy. Of course it's okay for Imoen to die in BG I, if it happens, it happens, because the game was designed to be tough, and you have every opportunity to die. This doesn't compare to killing Drizzt though - you're not supposed to do it, end of story. If you could talk to Drizzt, and one of the dialogue options was 'Die now, pathetic drow!' then I would agree with you, but at the end of the day, you're still clicking that sword and shield icon and pointing it at a neutral character. Just because you can do it, it doesn't mean it's right. By killing Drizzt, you're not just committing an evil action, you're ruining the plot, acquiring what I consider to be illegitimate items, and going against the general nature of the game. I'll give you an example: you talk to Ardrouine, the woman who fears for her son in the lighthouse area, and tell her to stuff her stupid quest; that's an evil action, but absolutely fine, because it's within game rules. Killing Drizzt is not, for the reasons stated above. Now you and anyone else is completely free to murder the dark elf as brutally as you like, all I'm saying is that it doesn't conform to my ideas of playing the game properly.

[Lemmy]

Of course it's okay for Imoen to die in BG I, if it happens, it happens, because the game was designed to be tough, and you have every opportunity to die.

I'll alter the story a bit. Suppose now that Imoen was "chunked" by the Player Character for whatever reason. She's just as "chunked" as she was before, but now your "it's supposed to be hard" exemption does not hold up now. Got another excuse?

This doesn't compare to killing Drizzt though - you're not supposed to do it, end of story. If you could talk to Drizzt, and one of the dialogue options was 'Die now, pathetic drow!' then I would agree with you. . .

Confining yourself to taking action based only on what you can say? ::shakes head:: I'll come back to this later.

but at the end of the day, you're still clicking that sword and shield icon and pointing it at a neutral character. Just because you can do it, it doesn't mean it's right.

Now you're saying not to kill Drizzt because it's morally "not right"? I'm terribly sorry to have to break this to you, but the game allows evil.

By killing Drizzt, . . . you're ruining the plot. . .

This is malarkey. Drizzt has nothing to do with the plot; killing him cannot and does not ruin it. Besides, by this logic it would *still* be illegal for Imoen to get "chunked" because that *directly* interferes with the main plot of the second game. In contrast, killing Drizzt only interferes with his cameos.

. . .acquiring what I consider to be illegitimate items. . .

This you can legitimately argue.

. . .and going against the general nature of the game.

I don't see where the "general nature of the game" was defined.

I'll give you an example: you talk to Ardrouine, the woman who fears for her son in the lighthouse area, and tell her to stuff her stupid quest; that's an evil action, but absolutely fine, because it's within game rules. Killing Drizzt is not, for the reasons stated above.

This illustrates that you don't understand how to roleplay evil. You take each situation and examine it only in the context of THAT situation. In doing so, you roleplay evil by trying to select the "most evil" dialogue selection - and you end your RPing there. That's fine and dandy, but your character has no depth. RPing should give enough depth to the character so that, when you examine his/her actions as a whole, they make sense; there must be continuity. It's the difference between being a character and being a giant walking moral. Not all evil "characters" would want to kill Drizzt. All evil "walking morals" probably would.

That said, telling the woman to "stuff it" is not necessarily evil. A paranoid character could conclude she's another would-be assassin, which would be perfectly logical given how many assassins come after the PC. That's not evil, despite the fact that it'll probably result in the death of her boy.

Still, your comparison is flawed. You didn't assert whether it's agaisnt the "game rules" to attack the woman. Given that you're arguing against taking action outside the game's dialogue options (i.e. attacking non-hostiles), you need to provide an example in kind (i.e. one that deals with attacking non-hostiles). You didn't address the essential question posed by roleplaying: If a character has sufficient motivation, why shouldn't he be permitted to do something?

Here's a legitimate counter argument: Deus Ex Machina
Consider the effects of attacking Gorion in comparison to attacking Drizzt. Gorion casts a "Lightning Bolt" that instantly kills you. You could draw a comparison between that and Drizzt's seemingly godly fighting prowess, then assert that both characters have such powerful offensive abilities because they're not supposed to die. You could then conclude that killing either character would require abusing a loophole of some kind (something the game makers overlooked) and is therefore cheating.

-Lem