Unraveling Ravel (spoilers)

[Platter]

Originally posted by VonDondu
If anyone is the Nameless One's "enemy", isn't it his Mortality? But he's not even considered one of the "three". Maybe I'm missing something.

Well, yea, he's mentioned as being even more powerful than the three!

Originally posted by VonDondu
BTW, the CRE file says that the Practical Incarnation is "Lawful Neutral". The game assigns an alignment to the Player Character based on an internal code. According to that internal code, the Practical Incarnation couldn't possibly be Lawful, and I can't picture him doing enough Good things to keep his alignment from being Evil. What is your opinion on that?

You shouldn't really judge character's alignments based on the way the game decides it for the player. When deciding the alignment of a character where you can actually choose it outright and you know the character (because you made it), it doesn't have to follow the simple 2 variable scale. The way the player's alignment is decided in the game is by no means perfect, and can't be as good as someone really watching your actions and deciding personally.
The game's decision of the player's alignment is a calculation. As evidenced by Chris' post, the pre-made character's alignments seems to be more of a gut feeling, if anything, while still keeping the official definitions in mind. Taking their personality into account more than there actions. But all there is for the player is actions. This is a limitation - one that is not so when considering the alignment of a character who already has a personality and motivations that are mapped out.

By the game's system, Ravel would definitely be Evil (that poor guy from the Sensory Stone...), but she is Neutral. If you think about it, if Vhailor were judged the same way the player is, he would probably be Chaotic Evil. And there'd be no way Morte would reach Good.
In the game, you can maintain Lawful Good while still murdering thugs - even if they don't strike first - just to get more experience or because you damn well feel like killing someone. In the end that Law or Good variable is not getting a -1 because of it.

There could be multiple explanations given for Practical's alignment. Obeying a society's laws is not the only "lawful" thing.
He seems like he must be a very organized person. He kept record of a lot, sometimes just writing for days (as Xachariah tells you). He was obviously a great believer in a strict hierarchy, keeping his "companions" practically as slaves. And as the "Longing" sensory stone mentions, usually "There are no lies, only cold calculations." He lies when it is absolutely necessary, but most of the time it is just avoidance of the truth and leading on (which the game does not penalize the player for - the "bluff" options cause no Law decrease, and you can often trick people into doing and telling you things so that you don't have to break a vow).

On the Good/Evil scale for him... yes he seems Evil to me too. But the descriptions given for him make him seem pretty emotionless.
First of all, consider his very name! Obviously a clue to the creator's opinion on this matter (either that or some form of sarcasm). He doesn't bother going for the most "Good" option, but he's not the serial killer "Paranoid" was. He kills if he thinks he has to, not because he particularly wants to. I guess it depends on whether you consider not caring one way or the other about people Evil or Neutral. The same problem fable mentioned.
Some things he does are pretty evil, but consider the extreme situation he's in. He purposefully got Deionarra killed, but he was hoping it would lead to the end of him being killed countless times. It's also important to note that he went about it so that she did it willingly. Coldhearted, but in the end very different from sticking the knife in her himself. More like the "bluff" options...

But he's definitely an assh*le...

[Aubrey]

@ VonDondu --

I'm about to tell you a few spoilers. They are things that you might have seen without understanding what they really were. First of all, Annah and Fall-From-Grace can fall in love with the Nameless One if you treat them well. That makes the ending of the game particularly bittersweet. Dak'kon is sworn to die in the service of the Nameless One, and he can't be released from that service unless he stays with you until the end. Morte is the Nameless One's familiar, which means he has no idea where else to go. Nordom sees the Nameless One as his Creative Director, and he also feels a strong sense of gratitude for the new sense of identity that the Nameless One has given them. They would be very disappointed if the Nameless One abandoned them.

It might be that Dak'kon is sworn to die in my service, but I never liked that thing. In one of our many conversations I had told him I would made sure I would die so as he be freed from his vow. During the whole game I have been thinking my promise to Dak'kon and how to make it true. So, when the time came for us to enter the Fortress of Regrets, I thought it necessary to let him out of this, and go in myself alone.

Annah had falled in love with me, and that was another reason not to "sacrifice" her. Fall-from-Grace might be a tormented soul, but she could always go back to that brothel of hers. Nordom would be apparently lost away from his Creative Director, but is that a reason to have him killed in your service? I know, Nordom is just a robot, but still...

About Morte, well, I don't know what to say. He didn't like the idea to go inside. He even warned me of what had happened in the past. However, I wonder why it took him so long to tell me about it. Why he kept it secret from me? And if he kept it secret till that very moment, what other secrets he had had?

When I met the previous three incarnations of mine, and I asked the Practical Incarnation about the tattoo warning regarding the Skull, he said, "Leave him have his own secrets" or something like that (I'm not quoting his exact reply). What it was supposed to mean?

Another reason I didn't take them with me was the question, "What would happen to them once they're dead?" Would they become shadows and remained prisoners in there? Considering the fact that everyone who died in my stead or because of me became shadow looking for revenge, I didn't found it impossible to happen. So, was it what I really wanted for my companions? No, it wasn't, and that's why leaving them out of this made sense to me.

How did you deal with the three other incarnations that you met--the Good Incarnation, the Practical Incarnation, and the Paranoid Incarnation? If you want some spoilers, I could tell you a few things about them.

I asked them all the questions I could and finally merged with them. There was no problem with the Good Incarnation, neither with the Practical one. There had been some problem with the Paranoid Incarnation, because I pushed him too hard once and he turned against me, but I reloaded and followed a softer, more reassuring path the second time. I then spoke to him using the Ugo (spl?) language and he soon calmed down and surrendered to me.

The Nameless One's Mortality doesn't seem all that evil to me, so I would call him Neutral. Trias strikes me as evil, and I definitely wouldn't call him Good.

To my eyes, NO's Mortality is evil, whether you agree or not. He has become an entity of his (its) own and has no hesitation to kill anyone in NO's stead as long as NO stays alive, which is for his best interest.

As for Trias, I believe him being absolutely Good, and he's the one, I believe, for whose sake the phrase "twisted by the planes" was invented. He's the Good incarnated, and his story, in my opinion anyway, shows that a moment of weakness, or a breach in one's faith and belief, or even a momentarily feeling of futility are capable of bringing up chaos. Don't forget that if you redeem him, he will return to Paradise asking for forgiveness. This is not what an evil creature would normally do.

Anyway, I might be rambling nonsense here, but that's how I perceive in-game events and how interprete them. And, I will repeat that game's uniqueness is more or less based on the feelings and their impact on the player. A true role-playing game-novel.


Cheers

[Platter]

^ You can raise them all when they die at the end. You missed some good parts of their connections to you if you didn't bring them to the Fortress. It's like skipping a part of the story for no reason.
And did you find out the Good Incarnation's secret, and use the Bronze Sphere?

[Aubrey]

Originally posted by Platter
^ You can raise them all when they die at the end. You missed some good parts of their connections to you if you didn't bring them to the Fortress. It's like skipping a part of the story for no reason.
And did you find out the Good Incarnation's secret, and use the Bronze Sphere?

Yes, I found his secret, used the Bronze Sphere, but still can't be sure about the name. I know, however, the name itself doesn't play an important part, it's the knowledge you achieve that counts. But still, the name remains a mystery...

I replayed the Fortress of Regrets; it was Morte's trick that added a bit to the story, plus that Dak'kon had been there before. But this is a bit weird, isn't it? If he had been there before and died, how was that I found him later in the Hive's Bar?

As to their connection to me, wasn't it clear before about the tormented souls, etc.? or, is there anything else you have in mind?


Cheers

[VonDondu]

Aubrey, here are my responses to some of the issues you raised, based on my own interpretation of events. I'm open to comments, suggestions, and differences of opinion.

By the game's inner logic, if Dak'kon dies in your service, he is released from your service, even if you resurrect him. So letting him fight shadows and then resurrecting him is the best thing you could do for him.

Fall-From-Grace could return to the Brothel if she wanted to, but she doesn't want to, even after the Nameless One is taken away. In my game, she wanted to stay with him always, and she promised to look for him in the Lower Planes, no matter how long it took.

Nordom is not a robot; he's a construct. His body is made out of "gear spirits", which are alive in their own way. Yes, Modrons are very weird. But so are creatures made of flesh and blood.

Morte did not really keep any secrets from the Nameless One. Morte had no idea what the Fortress of Regrets was because the Practical Incarnation didn't "share the chant" with anybody, not even his own party members. Morte remembered going there, but he didn't why know the party went there, and he didn't understand what happened there. He spent all of his time there running away from shadows, then all of a sudden, he was transported back to Sigil, and that's all that he knew about the place. If you don't know something, how can you keep it "secret"?

When the Practical Incarnation told the Nameless One to "let the skull have his secrets", I think all he meant was that most of Morte's knowledge had turned out to be pretty useless, so it didn't matter if he kept a few things to himself. Also, if you asked Grace how she felt about you, she told you, "A woman must have her secrets." Everyone is entitled to a few.

In my opinion, the Nameless One's Mortality acts out of self-defense, not malice. He tells everyone who comes to the Fortress of Regrets that they should leave, and he kills them only if they refuse to leave. The first time the Nameless One and his party went there and got killed, their deaths were not permanent, with the exception of Deionarra, who the Nameless One himself murdered. But their deaths caused all of them to lose something. The Nameless One lost his memories. Morte lost his courage. Dak'kon no longer *knew* himself. I'm not sure what Xachariah lost, but he died on the street soon afterward. The Nameless One's Mortality didn't murder them; quite mercifully, he neutralized them and sent them back to Sigil where they couldn't harm him. That's why Dak'kon was in the bar.

In my opinion, the Nameless One's Mortality does not "kill without hesitation"; he gives everyone a chance to stop threatening his existence and kills them only as a last resort. Since the Nameless One's current party was so persistent, he decided to kill them permanently to serve as a warning to others who might threaten him. He takes no pleasure in causing death. He wants to avoid the need to kill anyone else. Even when he sends shadows to kill the Nameless One, the purpose is not to harm him, but to make him to forget where to find his Mortality. That doesn't strike me as evil. The only outright murders that the Nameless One's mortality has committed are Pharod and Ravel, both of whom deserved death for their terrible crimes and the continuing threat they posed to everyone around them.

When creatures die in the Fortress of Regrets, they don't become shadows. They either stay dead permanently if the Nameless One's Mortality wills it, or they can be resurrected if the Nameless One's Mortality wills it. There's no reason why they would become shadows. The shadows are created when the Nameless One dies: another person dies in his place, allowing him to continue living, and the other person becomes a shadow who hates him for it. But as Deionarra explains, the Fortress of Regrets is cut off from the Planes. If the Nameless One is killed there, he will die permanently because no one else can die in his place. That's why Deionarra warns him to leave, even if it means abandoning his companions, who are probably "already dead". That's why the Nameless One must have faith and believe that he can get all of them safely out of there.

I think it's pretty clear that you can't pigeon-hole people when it comes to alignment. Take the Good Incarnation, for example. The crimes in his life were so great, the Nameless One will suffer eternal damnation. Regret changed his nature, and he sought immortality to make amends for his crimes, but it was too late, and when he lost his memories, he lost his purpose and couldn't pursue his goal. I don't know how many good deeds he would have to perform to redeem himself, but if it would take him a thousand lifetimes to do it, then he hasn't been redeemed, and I'm not sure he deserves the title of "Good". But personally, I don't think a label like that matters. The only reason I bring it up is because a game like this involves an alignment system. If we're ready to declare that it is irrelevant, it wouldn't bother me.

[VonDondu]

Originally posted by Aubrey
There had been some problem with the Paranoid Incarnation, because I pushed him too hard once and he turned against me, but I reloaded and followed a softer, more reassuring path the second time. I then spoke to him using the Ugo (spl?) language and he soon calmed down and surrendered to me.

Did you notice that he pulled his arm off and used it like a club? That's what I was referring to earlier when I mentioned detachable body parts that you could use as weapons. Using an arm as a club is a lot less gross than pulling out your own intestines and strangling someone with them.

Sorry, that was a sick joke. (Again.)

For what it's worth, the Paranoid Incarnation didn't seem as evil to me as some of the other characters in the game. Everything evil thing he did was done under duress. That's a moral defense as well as a legal defense, since we don't hold people responsible for their actions if they don't realize what they're doing or if they can't help themselves. His crimes were a lot less severe than the Practical Incarnation's crimes, which were calculated and cold-blooded.

By the way, if I'm not mistaken, didn't the Practical Incarnation say that he killed Deionarra with his own hands?

[fable]

Originally posted by VonDondu
For what it's worth, the Paranoid Incarnation didn't seem as evil to me as some of the other characters in the game. Everything evil thing he did was done under duress. That's a moral defense as well as a legal defense, since we don't hold people responsible for their actions if they don't realize what they're doing or if they can't help themselves. His crimes were a lot less severe than the Practical Incarnation's crimes, which were calculated and cold-blooded.

I'm in general agreement with the above. Especially after experiencing that memory in the Sensorium from Deionarra's POV, the practical incarnation seems incredibly ruthless, manipulative and repugnant. But I'm curious: was it ol' Mr. Practical who dealt with Hamry's dad, the architect of your tomb? Or the paranoid manifestation?

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by fable
But I'm curious: was it ol' Mr. Practical who dealt with Hamry's dad, the architect of your tomb? Or the paranoid manifestation?

Certianly the paranoid incarnation, there are several references to it...of course I can't recall the exacts...I really need to start playing this game again

[Robnark]

the writing on the diary was most certainly by the paranoid incarnation, and it follows that, since he was the one who learnt the language and didn't want anyone else reading the diary - paranoia - he killed the linguist.

[fable]

Originally posted by Robnark
the writing on the diary was most certainly by the paranoid incarnation, and it follows that, since he was the one who learnt the language and didn't want anyone else reading the diary - paranoia - he killed the linguist.

Which makes him seem every bit as evil in his actions as Mr. Practical, even though Paranoia has I'm Crazy written all over his forehead.

[VonDondu]

In case there's any confusion, the Practical Incarnation built the tomb trap near the Drowned Nations. He admits that it was a waste. If you ask him about it, the Paranoid Incarnation will interrupt you and boast that he found the trap and changed it to make it even HARDER. He also changed the writings on the wall, which makes the Practical Incarnation very angry. Since the Practical Incarnation is the one who built the tomb, he's the one who killed Hamrys's father to keep it secret.

The Paranoid Incarnation created the dodecahedron and wrote in it using the Language of the Uyo. He killed his tutor so that he would be the only person who could read it. He also created the Sensory Stone trap, and he's the one who was caught in the Maze. He really likes solving puzzles and building traps (which must be difficult with only one good arm).

[Platter]

Xachariah died in the Fortress.
Dak'kon;
"The woman died the death of grief. The blind archer died the final and most merciful death, the death of the body."

And I'm all for forgetting the alignment system even exists.

For what it's worth, this is the exact quote from Ravel;
"I had thought that dying at his hand would fulfull the requirements the past put forth."
She said the "away with ye" stuff probably because she knew it didn't work when she saw TTO had still come for her, and let's face it, she's a little screwy...
As TTO says right afterwards, "You cannot have thought that one would have a chance?"
Seriously, you do realise that was TTO's plan the whole game, to follow you around so he could know how you found him, and then destroy every "link" in the chain that led you to him?

Ravel: Ravel cackles. "Of the past I am not held to particulars... you are fortunate to receive *anything,* o caustic one!"
Nameless: "Oh, am I? It's just that the chain of who knows what and where they are never seems to be a smooth series of links."
Ravel: "Ahhh..." Ravel smiles, holding up one of her talons. "And that is why you must keep each link safe, for if they are not smooth now, imagine what the chain will be like when MORE links shatter... time and death are not as *patient* with others as they are with you."
Nameless: "What are you saying?"
Ravel: "What if one of your precious links was to *die?* And what if you forgot yourself again? What would you do then? Where would your stolen mortality be, then... it would be LOST forever, for there would be no one left to ASK how to reach it. Tracing your path would become harder... mayhap IMPOSSIBLE..."

[Platter]

I managed to track down the source for that Chris Avellone quote;
http://feedback.blackisle.com/forums...5&pagenumber=4

[VonDondu]

Thanks for the link.

After perusing some of the messages, I can see that several people thought the same things I did: the prophecy referred to the three incarnations you meet inside the Fortress of Regrets, Ravel was never the Nameless One's "enemy", and Fhjull's inclusion among the "three" was a bit of a twist because you never had to fight him. I never considered Pharod to be an "enemy", either; he helped the Nameless One, especially by giving him Annah. Looks like it was an interesting debate.

[Aubrey]

@ VonDondu --

By the game's inner logic, if Dak'kon dies in your service, he is released from your service, even if you resurrect him. So letting him fight shadows and then resurrecting him is the best thing you could do for him.

I remember Dak'kon saying that he would be freed from my service as long as I die -- become a mortal again, that is. But you might be correct.

Nordom is not a robot; he's a construct. His body is made out of "gear spirits", which are alive in their own way.

Okay.

In my opinion, the Nameless One's Mortality does not "kill without hesitation"; he gives everyone a chance to stop threatening his existence and kills them only as a last resort. Since the Nameless One's current party was so persistent, he decided to kill them permanently to serve as a warning to others who might threaten him. He takes no pleasure in causing death. He wants to avoid the need to kill anyone else. Even when he sends shadows to kill the Nameless One, the purpose is not to harm him, but to make him to forget where to find his Mortality. That doesn't strike me as evil. The only outright murders that the Nameless One's mortality has committed are Pharod and Ravel, both of whom deserved death for their terrible crimes and the continuing threat they posed to everyone around them.

TTO may give a chance to NO's party to get out of there, but the rest of his actions don't seem so innocent to me. The fact that he (it) wants to keep his freedom, though he (it) was never meant to be free and separated from NO, doesn't look as an act of self-defense to me. He admits that will deal with both Trias and Deionarra's spirit so as no one be able of helping NO next time. Is this an act of self-defense. Possibly, but not to my eyes. TTO's plan and hope that NO would kill Trias states his (its) evil. He (it) might be a Neutral Evil, but evil remains there.

As for Ravel's and Pharod's deaths, do you think that because they had commited terrible crimes TTO's act of murdering them is justifiable? I don't.

Finally, I feel I should say that my characterization of one being good or evil is not based on game's logic, but on my impressions while playing the game. I understand that there might be many things I haven't understood, and maybe I need a second time through the game (not right now, at any rate) so as to have the chance to find some missing "links", i.e., about the game's ending and the Blood War.

Whatever the "truth" might be, I feel there are a lot of intepretations one can give to issues involved in the game. As I have also the feeling that there are a lot of unanswerable issues, such as why Fhjull was NO's enemy? Unless I've missed something, there hadn't been a clear statement of Fhjull hating NO or why was that.


Cheers