Ascension NPC's?

[Hrothgar]

*SPOILER*






















I heard some people about Ascension and some new NPC's, but my question is when do I meet these characters cause I'm eager in meeting them. I only installed Ascension for these new NPC's and not for the stronger opponents.

[VonDondu]

Ascension does not add any new NPCs to the game per se. But it does allow you to talk Balthazar into joining forces with you instead of fighting you. IF you can convince him, he meets you at the Throne of Bhaal for the final battle sequence. He doesn't actually become a member of your party.

[jcompton]

Alternately, Bodhi can fight for an evil party.

[Hrothgar]

Yeah but I heard some people about one NPC named Tashia

[serjeLeBlade]

If you want Tashia, you need the Tashia mod, not Ascension!

Two different things.
(Anyway, you can have both of them installed, if you want to)

[Littiz]

@Hrothgar:
check the second post of this page.

links to everything you may need/want

[Quitch]

People often confuse this issue. Balthazar fights for the good, while Bodhi fights for evil.

In fact, it is simply the case that Balthazar fights for the weak, recognising his own kind, while Bodhi fights alongside the strong, and the worthy.

The people who confuse this issue likely could not even persuade Balthazar to join them.

[Aubrey]

@Quitch

In fact, it is simply the case that Balthazar fights for the weak, recognising his own kind, while Bodhi fights alongside the strong, and the worthy.

How do you explain, then, that if a party is good-aligned Bodhi won't join them, no matter what? Or, you are implying that a good party consists of weak and unworthy creatures?

Moreover, how is it possible, according to your view, a person who "confuses this issue" [good/evil] to have already persuaded Balthazar to join?


Just curious.

[VonDondu]

I don't want to get into the middle of an argument over whether Evil characters are "stronger and more worthy" than Good characters. But I would like to say that the changes that the Ascension MOD made to Balthazar are very interesting.

In the original Throne of Bhaal, Bathazar is Lawful Neutral--adamantly opposed to chaos--and obviously not very concerned about the weak and the poor. The Ascension MOD changes his alignment to Lawful Good and gives your character the opportunity to call him to task for the way he has treated the citizens of Amkethran and to question whether he really believes that "the end justifies the means". The Ascension MOD also illuminates his own personal struggle with the taint of Bhaal. I don't want to spoil it, but those are exactly the sorts of issues I thought about when I first played Throne of Bhaal, and I was very pleased to see that they were addressed in the Ascension MOD. IMO, it significantly improves the story.

[Aubrey]

@VonDondu --


We're all in the middle of arguments here; don't worry.

Having read your comment on Ascension's Balthazar --which is good by the way, for, telling the truth, I hadn't noticed this alignment change-- I'm still wondering how and why should this be translated as "weakness"?


Cheers

[VonDondu]

Originally posted by Aubrey
We're all in the middle of arguments here; don't worry.

Well, if that's the case...

Permit me to offer a counter-example to the argument that only an Evil character is "strong and worthy" enough for an Evil NPC to follow. What about the big man himself, Sarevok? He's about as evil as they come, and yet he has a strong desire to join your group. Look at what he says: "I can help you... Of course, I do this for no selfless reason. There is power in your wake. I am sure I am not the first to tell you this. And there is no better opportunity for me elsewhere. Besides...you defeated me long ago. You have earned my respect... I have only become stronger from my time in Hell. Under one such as you, I could be greater, still."

Although I haven't seen Bodhi's dialogue the way it was written in the Ascension MOD, I could imagine Bodhi making the very same argument herself. How many characters in the Realms are strong enough and worthy enough to defeat The Five? If Bodhi does not want to follow a Good character, it's not because she doesn't respect his or her power. It's probably because she knows that no Good character would have her, so she seeks revenge for being reduced to her current state and calls it a "game".

Edwin, Korgan, and Viconia are also willing to follow a Good character, and they are Evil, too, if not quite as intimidating as Sarevok and Bodhi. Edwin made an argument similar to Sarevok's at the foot of the Tree of Life: "And where do you suppose I should be going [if not with you]? You have a nose that seems to sniff out the path of power, and I will wrest what portion of it I wish until I am sated.. (And then, perhaps, we see what becomes of *you*! )"

IMO, a character who is truly Good would never allow Bodhi into his or her party even if she were willing to join forces, and that's a good reason not to allow such an option. By the same token, Balthazar would not join forces with a character whose soul does not possess some innate goodness, so it's not an option. It's as simple as that.

[Aubrey]

@VonDondu

IMO, a character who is truly Good would never allow Bodhi into his or her party even if she were willing to join forces, and that's a good reason not to allow such an option. By the same token, Balthazar would not join forces with a character whose soul does not possess some innate goodness, so it's not an option. It's as simple as that.

That's what I was trying to say.

And most of us have seen what was the end of such strong and "worthy" characters. "Nooo! This is life is mine!" Well, not anymore, darling!


Cheers

[Quitch]

Sarevok is hardly evil. Once, perhaps. However, after his experiences in the abyss he spends his time weeping and wailing about death and how hollow he has become. Truly pathetic.

Viconia has hidden pain. She ran away from her home because she wasn't strong enough to do what was required of her.

Korgan starts whimpering over the pointless battles he and his kin have fought.

Edwin is a bumbling fool, too incompotent and comical to prove to be evil.

[Aubrey]

And Bodhi is a fool who suffers from a super-ego. So, what?

Who says that such characters are worthy? And worthy of what? Of screaming out of realisation that winning forever is no longer an option? Ha!



Cheers

[fable]

Originally posted by VonDondu
IMO, a character who is truly Good would never allow Bodhi into his or her party even if she were willing to join forces, and that's a good reason not to allow such an option. By the same token, Balthazar would not join forces with a character whose soul does not possess some innate goodness, so it's not an option. It's as simple as that.

With respect, I don't see it as quite that simple. "Good" and "evil" are not capable of being reduced to such quick abstractions. A significant part of Christianity, for instance, holds that devils are a test of their God--so that evil is in the service of good, tempering the soul. (And no, I'm not Christian, or even monotheistic, but it's an accurate summation.) Nations fighting wars on the "right" side have often made use of very violent, uncontrollable men, who would be locked away during peacetime. My point is that sometimes, your traveling fellows on the road through life must be chosen from among those who can get to a specific place, rather than those who carry the right union cards.

Of course, what I've just written isn't laid in stone, either. I'm merely indicating the breadth of spectrum in interaction between forces that are supposedly good and supposedly evil. We won't even go into what defines evil and good, or how cardboard-simplistic Gary Gygax' tyrannical good/neutral/evil and lawful/neutral/chaotic are.