Telling Valygar to take off mid quest

[Lymond]

SPOILER


I met Valygar in the usual way, and I let him join my party to get into the planar sphere. I don't plan on "keeping" him long term, so I don't want to waste any good equipment on him, even temporarily. The result is that he's not that helpful to the point where I frequently forget about him during fighs. I'm at a point in the sphere where I know what I need to get it restarted, and think I may have to leave the sphere.

Can I do all that without Valygar? If I leave the sphere (or, better yet, leave him out there) can I get back in? Will Lavok hold it against me? Do I lose anything without Valygar?

ps- I don't know fully how to complete the quest, so please just tell me about Valygar's possible role in it. Thanks.

[LadyLuthien]

You really don't need Valygar in the sphere at all. You can let him into your party long enough to open the door, and then dismiss him, and then you can do everything on your own.

[mad=dog]

Just give him some good gear and watch him kick butt. I think you get more quest XP on completion if you have him in the party alive. As far as I know he is only needed to open the actual door when you enter the sphere the first time.
I don't understand what your aim is. Even a lawful good paladin may kill him and use his body to gain entrance to the sphere without repercussions so if you never planned to have him along why did you take him then?

[Link]

Valygar can kick butt, that's true, but he's not essential in completing the Planar Sphere quest. You do miss some dialogue, and story plot of course, but the main line still remains the same.

[Lymond]

mad=dog,

I'm pretty sure my character is lawful evil. It's whichever one means that you follow the rules as long as they suit you, or something like that. I took it to mean that you're not a bad guy, but decide for yourself what rules to follow, primarily looking out for yourself.

So here I am about to apprehend a guy I've been hired to capture. We talk, and he comes out with this sphere story. By attempting this quest, it must mean that I believe the guy, in which case why would I kill him? Reading about Valygar, I've learned that killing him is an option, but from a roleplaying standpoint it doesn't make sense to me. It makes even less sense for a Paladin- "Thank you for enlightening me good citizen! No, no need to join my party- I'll just kill you instead."

[mad=dog]

For a lawful evil character it would make a lot of sense to kill him.
"Thanks for telling me that your body will grant me access to a great deal of treasure. However you ARE guilty of killing two government officials regardless of your excuses and the law is the law as they say. Draw steel!"
and for a Paladin
"It is a sad story indeed, but I am dutybound to pursue you regardless of your story. Since you are not willing to come freely I propose a duel. If you win none of my companions will harm you and you are free to flee. Trust me in this though - should I win I will carry your body with me and rid the world of this Necromancer before I turn you in." and then fight him alone without interference - just turn AI off.

The alignments are always something people debate and interpret. Here are my views:
Lawful - This represents a character that believes in order. The character will generally follow the letter of the law and will abide to agreements as long as he fells they are valid.
Neutral - This character is a person that does not believe in rules, but doesn't always act in self interest either. It is the typical arbiter convincing the Lawful character that since he was cheated he may break his promise and the Chaotic character that it might be more beneficial to leave the gold behind in the long run.
Chaotic - This character always act in his own interest unless he sees some point in not doing so.

Good - This character is benevolent and cares about other peoples wellbeing. He will gladly share his last ration with a starving peasant, but doesn't necessarily do so. He might need the ration to help more people.
Neutral - This character is concerned, but doesn't try to help other people unless it is absolutely called for. He will not share his last ration, but might give one if there is plenty.
Evil - This character is malevolent. He will specifically stop to eat his food in front of a starving peasant even though he is not hungry.

Please note that evil does not mean you always act in self-interest, only that you have a tendency to do so. A lawful evil character will do so as long as he lives up to his promises. A chaotic evil character couldn't care less.
I profoundly dislike stereotypes and like "loose" alignment definitions like above. For starters it gives Paladins a bit more elbowspace and you can create excellent Lawful Evil companions - beware if you are not a friend though. I personally played a LE Templar in the Darksun setting and while the players knew I was colaborating with the Sorceror King the PC's didn't and I was a really good friend and companion torn between my vow to the king and my commitment with the group. I had to give the king tid-bits of information or I wouldn't be able to memorize spells (much like Paladins a Templar will fall if he breaks his vow to the king). Excellent roleplaying if you ask me.

EDIT:
Arggh. I forgot the most important message in all this babble. I don't intend to interfere with YOUR role for your character of course. This is only intended to show which types of characters that will kill Valygar and why.

[ 04-28-2004, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Chaotic doesn't mean one always acts in self-interest... Your Law-Chaos scale looks a LOT like the Good-Evil scale...

Law means one follows rules and the law. Chaos means one doesn't like to be pushed around or see others pushed around. Neutral falls someplace in between.

[mad=dog]

Hmmm. I believe Chaotic means the opposite of organization and order - and that is the individual.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

But you make it sound as if every chaotic character acts in self-interest.. This isn't true. Consider a Chaotic Good ranger. She might feel unbound by the rules of society, but aids travelers and slays bandits. She is not acting in self-interest, she simply feels good is better furthered by the actions of individuals.

[Lymond]

mad=dog,

Thanks for the explanation. I can see where you're coming from now. That's why I don't like or play Paladins- they're such uptight do-gooders. Sure, Valygar killed two cowled wizards, but they set him up!

Another factor for me (deep into the role) was that I don't really trust the cowled wizards. They took my friend (sister?) for defending herself and have been no help getting her back. Arrogant, quill pushing, government flunkies!