397 replies to this topic

[jester]

I am not arguing whether he does have a soul or not, but that it is irrelevant to his actions within the plot.

[dorotea]

Oh, sorry jester - I was answering Domi. We posted at the same time. As for him having soul or not being irrelevant. Not really - since he spends so much energy on capturing PC and stirring the 'essense'. But I agree that the pursuit of the Tree is an 'intellectual task' not desire.

[dorotea]

What makes PC special? His/her capability to take on immortality as a heir to a divine Sire.

This I agree with - Irenicus is after 'divine soul' not just any.

Not "you will loose your ability to love and feel empathy, but DIE, as in die a final and irreversible death.

I think he can could not care less for losing feelings of empathy once he lost them - thus he would not bother to specify.

Note, that divinity is placed on the first spot here and that's what irenicus had *taken*, while soul got *drained* (ie he does not even *take* his soul, it was a side-effect to getting the divinity)

If it was a side-effect - why bother preserving it? Why not take the 'instinct' - ie essense? Why is it later both PC and Immy got their souls back intact? If the 'souls' were not the goods that were sought and taken as something needed to remove the curse?

Erm, I heard the mind-flayer suck people's intellect, but that's the first time I hear that driads are in the business of capturing souls.

Check the monster manual - dryads can instill emotions by affecting the soul. It is their 'special' feat. And by the way they tell it to you in the game. Why do they tell you this if it has no importance?

Not sure what you mean. If this is a "What is his curse if..." then the question is: loss of immortality and Elven perception of the world, ie becoming a human.

Er - do you think that is what he means when he tells PC - you will wither, we shall not meet again? Is this why Imoen is half-mad? Because her 'potential immortality' was removed?

All these mention of lack of emotions in his dialogs, and dryads dialogs, and his Asylum speech - all of this was put there for nothing?

Believing these things villifies a woman, without giving a viable reason for Irenicus to be a monster

Er - how does it 'vilify' her? She was jealous, angry and thought out a suitable punishment - he was a traitor after all. See - the difference for me is that removal of his soul does not turn Ellesime into a demon. She is simply a vengeful lover who does something nasty rather hastily and in vain hope to 'save him'.

And why pray you absense of soul does not give a 'viable reason' for Irenicus to be a 'monster' (quoting you again - I don't think monster is quite a good word for him - rather a 'walking dead')


You did not convince me.

I still postulate that

1. He has no soul and no feelings of empathy ( as per dryads and his journal - and if you deny this - both of the entires have no sense and are gratuitous)

2. The soul died/was removed after the connection with the Spirit was severed by Ellesime's decree

3. Having a soul means ability to have feeling of empathy. As in no soul == no love, no compassion

I say your denial of basic facts of the game to defend Ellesime is no better than what you accuse me of.

[dorotea]

he alternately describes himself as either not having them at all, being dead inside, and having them come in violent outbursts.

The 'dead inside' is not his description of himself - it is of the dryads, who, you have to agree are not interested in 'white-washing' him


He never says he has 'human emotions' - he says he is left with 'barethread' heart of a human , but since he never 'was' human he can only assume that is how humans feel - ie that humans have no feelings...

[Kish]

That's nice, Domi, but it really doesn't justify blithe assertions that what he says actually means something quite different for which there is no evidence. "Which could mean the way humans feel" is arguable, "i.e. the way humans feel" is just wrong.
[...]could[...]can[...]might[...]

At this point, I'm wondering if you're aware of what "i.e." means.

You didn't say "he could mean this" initially. You said, "He means this." Supporting that he could mean that doesn't make your initial statement any less incorrect.

[dorotea]

So at least he, himself percieves his curse as death, rather than loosing emotions.

Not true - otherwise why would he write in his journal about being stripped of ability to truly feel and that he is not going to tolerate it any longer?

Because he could not care less about separating it out. He took both soul, and essence.

Actually - he tried to leave essense behind - see his remark about 'your Bhaal essense will now take over' If he got some - it was by mistake, not the other way around.

When that does not happen he writes down that he is dead inside.

The third time is the luck? Once again - he does not write it down. The dryads state so. And they should know.

All these mention of lack of emotions in his dialogs, and dryads dialogs, and his Asylum speech -

Could be explained by an elf having difficulty to accept humanity.

I missed this point before - but where did you get the idea that humans feel differently, i.e. - less intense? I have not seen it in any sources. If anything human senses are more intense - since they live shorter lives. What Irenicus is saying is merely his confusion, and taking sudden lack of feelings for 'humanity'.

In fact it is one of the main themes of his character - trying to 'recapture' love, pity, etc and being unable to. (clones, dryads, Ellesime's room, his monologue at the end).

Ignoring it deliberately does not make it go away.

and frequently used the term "Bitch Queen" to describe her

I believe you mistake me with LordE. She used this term quite frequently ( and it comes from her fanfic with Ellesime and Umberlee in it - Umberlee's title is Bitch Queen. I called Ellesime a 'bitch' maybe once in a private conversation with you, but I called Galadriel thusly as well. It does not mean I despise Galadriel or Ellesime. Merely not consider paragon of beauty and virtue, and otherwise ideal female being. But then, I find 'ideal females' incredibly boring.

As the "redemption" outcome of the mod comes packaged with convincing Irenicus to forget Ellesime (the love for whome, was perhaps his strongest "good" emotion described in the game, compared to his hatred, if not equal to it) it seems to me that by making that love a "bad" thing and Ellesime a "bad" woman you are aiming for the "good woman alternative"

I would ask you not to disclose the mod content here - in the open forum. Not just yet. The mod comes with convincing Irenicus to forget his 'revenge' as well as his 'obsession'. He himself says that his love is dead. And of course it is - with no soul how can there be love?

I do understand that the most redeemable villain is also the sexiest one (I have yet to see a line up to redeem Korgan), but it feels as an unessecary black-washing to me.

I would like to see you considering redeeming anybody at all - sexy or not. As for Korgan - why not? I accept the challenge.

He is smelly - but otherwise gorgeous specimen - reminds me of Tyrion Lannister somehow.

Because, as we have seen from the game, Irenicus continues to be a monster no matter what soul he carries. Changing a soul on him does naught to alter his mind-driven behaivour.

LOL. And that is why he is so compelling I guess - by his sheer stubborness and pride. But seriously - I think giving a soul makes a world of difference.

Still, I am not forcing you to download this mod as you can imagine, and you are not stopping me from coding it.

I do not accuse you of anything. I offer alternative POV. It was you who wanted a discussion. Discussion, necessitates the absence of the full agreement of all the participants.

And this time I indulged you to your heart content, you have to agree - I answered your every post for half a day.

[Laufey]

I do understand that the most redeemable villain is also the sexiest one (I have yet to see a line up to redeem Korgan), but it feels as an unessecary black-washing to me.

I would like to see you considering redeeming anybody at all - sexy or not. As for Korgan - why not? I accept the challenge.

He is smelly - but otherwise gorgeous specimen - reminds me of Tyrion Lannister somehow.

In Korgan's case, perhaps it might be called 'The Shortest Road'? Yes, yes, I know, that one was *awful*. I think Korgan is a far more straightforward character than Tyrion, but I do like both of them myself.

[jester]

@ Korgan
I think without a fall there is no redemption. George Lucas missed out on this very important element in most Greek tragedies. The height defines the fall of the character. Only the most noble paladin can truly be corrupted, only the paragon of something can be its true nemesis.

[Laufey]

@ Korgan
I think without a fall there is no redemption. George Lucas missed out on this very important element in most Greek tragedies. The height defines the fall of the character. Only the most noble paladin can truly be corrupted, only the paragon of something can be its true nemesis.

I think I'll reserve judgment on Anakin's fall until I've seen Epidode 3. Personally, I think that in Episode 2 he was much like I'd imagined him - passionate, eager to do the right thing, but with weaknesses that could be exploited. I hope the fall is written well, it certainly deserves to be.

As for the redemption theme in Star Wars, I always loved Vader's redemption. He was far into the Dark Side, ready to turn his own son over to the Emperor even, and yet at the final moment he was able to turn back. I like the message of hope that brings, because to me it says that though we are all flawed mortal beings, it is never too late for us, should we truly desire it. Speaking of which, I can really recommend Knights of the Old Republic if you haven't played it - excellent game, and it explores many of these same themes.

[jester]

I have my reservations about your characterization of Anakin. For me he is just a useless brat who likes to speed around. Let's see in E3. But Vader's redemption is a good point on topic actually.

[Kish]

Anakin. For me he is just a useless brat who likes to speed around.

I think we can be pretty certain that's not what the writer is going for.

[Merja]

[quote name='jcompton' date='Mar 26 2004, 11:02 PM']
[/QUOTE]
Merja was quite helpful the other day, presenting me with a thought exercise that helped us both recognize that, as the chronically guested Domi also points out, the last time Irenicus had a soul it was the critical piece of the puzzle he needed in order to fuel his murderous, destructive impulses (again.)

The idea of giving Irenicus a soul (again!) in the hopes he'll repent and seek absolution and become a pillar of society is rather like giving a very fast car to a bank robber on his way out of jail. Yes, he might choose to drive it to volunteer at a soup kitchen for 60 hours a week... but I'd suggest bolstering security at the First Bank and Trust instead. [/quote]
[quote]
Merja was quite helpful the other day, presenting me with a thought exercise that helped us both recognize that, as the chronically guested Domi also points out, the last time Irenicus had a soul it was the critical piece of the puzzle he needed in order to fuel his murderous, destructive impulses (again.)

The idea of giving Irenicus a soul (again!) in the hopes he'll repent and seek absolution and become a pillar of society is rather like giving a very fast car to a bank robber on his way out of jail. Yes, he might choose to drive it to volunteer at a soup kitchen for 60 hours a week... but I'd suggest bolstering security at the First Bank and Trust instead.
[/quote]



My astute debatig fellow forgets we also discussed how a few days of having a soul could not undo the harm done by hundreds of years of not having one.
When you lose a limb, it takes you quite long to learn how to use the replacement I countered the point, now it is up to the gods to decide

Damn, and I have no cause to go on a Drizzt rant. Sourly disappointed me

As for the bank robber analogy - we said that the decision of giving him a car or not depends on us 'taking the measure of the man and deciding which, based on his previous actions, motivations, and current stated intent he is most likely to pursue.' From thee I take notes - so.

It is quite obvious to be that somebody who wants to play this particular mod has either judged that based on all the above statements Jon deserves a second chance, or just heard rumor of the devastating figting scripts Dorotea gave the boy, and wants to see how it feels to have Jon mazing/dominating/horrid wilting/disintegrating someone else for a change

Seriously though, this is not an attempt to slander Ellesime or glorify evil - I am still working on adding the glorifying evil part though, be patient. This is a game addendum based on something that we, the people working on the mod concieve as true and a direct interpretation of game facts. While our interpretations of the quotes Dorotea presented above might not be your interpretation of those quotes, the bottom line is that they exist. They can be taken one way or the other with very much ease.

So based on those quotes, we think that he'd deserve a second, third, 2k+1-enneth chance. Some will agree with us, some most definitely will not - the idea of redemption per se, much like legalizing drugs or prostitution, abolishing death penalty and who came first? the chicken or the egg are endless debates. Valid arguments can be made for or against with no real chance of winning on either side.

In conclusion - we either drop the discussion and go to bed, or, if help is the intention, as I do not doubt it is...

What I suggest we do is this - we are presented with the ecuation of redeeming Jon in this particular way. Like it happened to me on various superiour math exams, we don't get to wonder why we were asked that question. Nor do we get to say 'I don't really wanna know the value of X in that expression, you darned nitwit!' - aka We don't think Jon deserves redemption, therefore the problem does not exist. We have the problem before us on the blackboard, and we are trying to solve it.

Dorotea is the writer and she has defined the terms on which we operate. If we dismiss those initial terms, there is nothing to discuss. If we do dismiss them, we don't want to solve the given problem, we want to solve another. Anyone is free to go redeem Jon in whatever way they think is suitable. But this is our way of doing it here.

Instead of wondering why the ecuation looks the way it does, and why we are trying to solve it, we should see if her solution works, in her terms. That's what we do when reading a book or playing a game - we place ourselves in the temperature and pressure conditions created by its authors and we assume certain facts are real. And truly, in this case they are not far fetched.

Ellesime herself admits to having failed when delivering Jon's punishment. That is a valid starting point for saying - perhaps she would like to remedy.

Jon did love Ellesime. It is a valid starting point for saying - it was a crime of passion.

Ellesime did love Jon. It is a valid starting point for saying - perhaps she loves him beyond reason and would try to save him again and again.

Jon did at one point feel regret over his actons. It is a valid starting point for saying - perahps he might be brought to feel regret again.

If your answers to all above are -they are completely false declarations, play of idle mind and whatnot - then you cannot honestly help LR in any way, and you are best off leaving us evil silly critters to run free on the green fields of insanity. You won't be able to reason with us anyway, illogical minions of distruction that we are

If you however accept that the facts of BG2 could POSSIBLY (in the best of all possible worlds, as Kant would put it) be interpreted in that way -our way - then we all should move away from LR's view of Ellesime, and into the actual writing. In the workroom.

I would love to see suggestions of the type - 'I do not think this statement is convincing enough', or 'This is not accurately put' or 'I think Jon would laugh his head off at this one, you beeping kidding me?', followed by helpful replacements of the criticized line, valid arguments...hm, actual help, not only pesimism and despair


Your play, Mr. Compton.

[jester]

Aiming for a target is not the same as hitting it, but I shall give him some leeway, although he spoiled Yoda for me.

[jester]

Erm, ...Illasera and Phaere's redemptions will be less lame, while I would gladly see Balthazar's corruption. Of course coming with good old-fashioned incestual romance, which is openly incestual.

Why would that be incestual?? I must have skipped the part where redemption is about romance. If that was the case excuse this post.