Branwen Romance

[Wounded_Lion]

Why aren't Evil characters eligible to romance Branwen?

 

She's True Neutral (unless you've changed her alignment).

 

She worships a god (Tempus/Tempos) whose primary domain is war.

 

Hells, I can envision Branwen hooking up with Korgan. Both love battle and freedom (everyone seems to forget Korgan's dislike of slavery and his easy acceptance of CHARNAME as a fellow warrior and comrade-in-arms). It's easy to imagine the two characters forming a bond. Yet my Evil PC (similar in many ways to Korgan) can't romance her?

 

I'm debating whether or not to try this mod. I see only good things said about it, but it seems to me that you've got at least some of the characters wrong. I'm posting in the hope that you might share and discuss your rationale for the Branwen romance restrictions, or perhaps even revise the romance to allow for Evil characters. Not to insult the mod, the modders, etc. So, don't take this as an attack (it's not).

 

aWL

[Domi]

Branwen, like Jaheira, is leaning towards good rather than evil in this mod, so her talks will not really work as well for an evil protagonist as they do for a good one. And, there is technical difficulty that requires a conflict with Shar-Teel's romance if Branwen would romance an evil PC. In view of both issues, the romance restricts Branwen from romancing evil PCs. If you think that the character is written 'wrong', well, there is nothing for it. BG1 character characterisation allows for different interpretation, and, yes, so does BG2 (you think Korgan is a great chap, for me it's all overshadowed by his line that women ain't fun unless they are fighting)

[Wounded_Lion]

Branwen, like Jaheira, is leaning towards good rather than evil in this mod, so her talks will not really work as well for an evil protagonist as they do for a good one. And, there is technical difficulty that requires a conflict with Shar-Teel's romance if Branwen would romance an evil PC. In view of both issues, the romance restricts Branwen from romancing evil PCs. If you think that the character is written 'wrong', well, there is nothing for it. BG1 character characterisation allows for different interpretation, and, yes, so does BG2 (you think Korgan is a great chap, for me it's all overshadowed by his line that women ain't fun unless they are fighting)

 

I do not know whether or not the character is written poorly because I have not played the mod. I think that the character might be handled in the wrong manner based on the BG1 NPC Romance Guide. "Wrong" is a fairly objective term here; adding a bias towards Good to a True Neutral character is contradictory to the nature of the True Neutral alignment itself.

 

If asked, I'd argue that Bioware/Black Isle characterized Jaheira inconsistently with her alignment. That aside, even Bioware/Black Isle, in their clumsy way, recognized such as I claim above concerning the alignment: Jaheira eventually comes to crisis with her membership in the Harpers.

 

What is the problem with a romance conflict with Shar-Teel? I've only wetted my feet into the sea of NPC creation, but it seems not only possible but rather easy to code romance conflicts. The toughest part involved is, in general, the writing itself.

 

You and I have very different views concerning character development (from past postings, I am aware that you refute the concept of inconsistent characterization). So, rather than further a fruitless argument between us, perhaps you could share a bit of creator insight with me: What is your Branwen like? Why did you decide to write her that way? Why do you feel that an Evil character would be incompatible with Branwen? She's always been a favorite character of mine, so I'm very curious about how you handle her (her characterization alone will likely determine whether or not I play the mod).

 

You are, of course, perfectly free to decline sharing. However, I ask that you not reply with: "Play the mod to find out." I don't intend to waste to my time playing the mod if I believe that the character has been (figuratively) murdered.

 

aWL

[Domi]

I didn't write much of the Branwen's material, a couple of talks, few flirts.... Her initial Czar was Karakodin (who quit long ago) and the Romance was compiled by Kulyok - and you can ask her about more in depth answer. It is my impression from playing the mod that she is a good character rather than evil, she is too honorable, too much on the side of what's right. The conflict is possible to code, but the mod was historically done that way (ie alignment prevented the conflict) and will not be reopened for the submissions to prevent the infinite growth of the project. Please, do understand that what you are looking at is a finished piece of work. Now, you can either try it out or not. The choice is yours There are plenty of mods to go around, and you can pick the ones that have a romance for an evil PC.

[Miloch]

There are plenty of mods to go around, and you can pick the ones that have a romance for an evil PC.

Um, last I checked, BG1 NPC did have a romance for an evil PC. Unless we're talking about the Branwen romance as a "mod within a mod" but it's not a mod per se, and to avoid playing the entire BG1 NPC mod just on account of one character is unreasonable. It's also cheating yourself of some great additions to pretty much all the Bioware NPCs, including quests, etc.

[Domi]

Yes. Shar-Teel. But he obviously didn't want to romance her, so I assumed he doesn't care if there is one or not. And in my experience one can't really expect people being reasonable where their favorite characters and strong visions of thereof are concerned.

[Wounded_Lion]

I didn't write much of the Branwen's material, a couple of talks, few flirts.... Her initial Czar was Karakodin (who quit long ago) and the Romance was compiled by Kulyok - and you can ask her about more in depth answer. It is my impression from playing the mod that she is a good character rather than evil, she is too honorable, too much on the side of what's right. The conflict is possible to code, but the mod was historically done that way (ie alignment prevented the conflict) and will not be reopened for the submissions to prevent the infinite growth of the project. Please, do understand that what you are looking at is a finished piece of work. Now, you can either try it out or not. The choice is yours There are plenty of mods to go around, and you can pick the ones that have a romance for an evil PC.

 

Really? I had no idea that there were other mods... Thanks, Domi!

 

Sarcasm aside, I understand. Thank you.

 

Um, last I checked, BG1 NPC did have a romance for an evil PC. Unless we're talking about the Branwen romance as a "mod within a mod" but it's not a mod per se, and to avoid playing the entire BG1 NPC mod just on account of one character is unreasonable. It's also cheating yourself of some great additions to pretty much all the Bioware NPCs, including quests, etc.

 

The availability of Shar-Teel's romance to Evil PCs has no bearing on the characterization of Branwen.

 

I doubt the quality of the overall mod based on this component; some form of quality control (in regards to content) clearly wasn't present for this component, which leads me to assume the same concerning the rest. Perfectly reasonable, if you ask me.

 

Besides, in the vein of irrational behavior, I don't avoid a whole community's mods because I dislike one or two mods hosted there. (psst.. it's a joke... laugh a bit)

 

Yes. Shar-Teel. But he obviously didn't want to romance her, so I assumed he doesn't care if there is one or not. And in my experience one can't really expect people being reasonable where their favorite characters and strong visions of thereof are concerned.

 

I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect True Neutral characters to actually behave in a True Neutral fashion.

 

aWL

[berelinde]

In the original game, we're given what? Forty lines of spoken dialogue on which to form an opinion of the character? There's a lot of room in there for different interpretations.

 

And yet, somehow, the majority of players do agree with the representation of Branwen put forth in BG1 NPC. I'm not sure I do, but even in disagreement, my opinion of Branwen is different from yours.

 

Unless you're signing the modder's paycheck, the modder is only compelled to write the character as he or she sees him or her. Should you elect to commission a mod (assuming you'd find someone willing to enter that sort of arrangement), or should you choose to write a new Branwen romance yourself, you can write her any way you like.

[Wounded_Lion]

In the original game, we're given what? Forty lines of spoken dialogue on which to form an opinion of the character? There's a lot of room in there for different interpretations.

 

And yet, somehow, the majority of players do agree with the representation of Branwen put forth in BG1 NPC. I'm not sure I do, but even in disagreement, my opinion of Branwen is different from yours.

 

That's a questionable claim. Unless you've interviewed the majority of players.

 

Unless you're signing the modder's paycheck, the modder is only compelled to write the character as he or she sees him or her. Should you elect to commission a mod (assuming you'd find someone willing to enter that sort of arrangement), or should you choose to write a new Branwen romance yourself, you can write her any way you like.

 

Thank you, 'o sweet Mistress of the Obvious. I'd have never guessed such. You mean I'm actually free to create my own mods? Wow. What a concept. I've never created a mod before. Maybe I'll pay bigg or Sim to mod for me. Although I am a bit suprised that Domi does not consider herself my modding slave. That woman needs to learn her place... Perhaps a little discipline is in order...

 

Note: That's sarcasm above. It's a natural defense to painfully obvious, stupid, and/or useless comments.

 

aWL

[cmorgan]

[painfully obvious, stupid, generally useless comments]

 

I think there is another Branwen romance at RPG Dungeon. Other than that, you really don't have much choice, except to not install the romance, or not use the Project at all - and you are a capable modder, so you can even do the whole build-your own thing! I wish there was a less stupid/useless/inane/ridiculous answer, but for BG1NPC, it is the only possible one.

 

For good or evil, BG1NPC is a closed shop; finished product. Huge community effort, thousands of person-hours, 2002 to the present, plenty to like or dislike, and a world of choices out there and within the project itself - and folks are certainly welcome to provide feedback on what they liked or hated about the mod/characterization/whatever. Even "ask the authors" is cool, except for one minor detail - most of the authors have moved on to other things. So we are in "fix any bugs that show up" mode. Characterization is not a bug, it is an author choice, so we ain't fixin' it or addin' it... just like Coran's extended friendship talks and Xan's extended friendship talks, folks can write their own "add-on"s.

 

Not sure what you are discussing here really, aWL, or why - if the request is "please make/rewrite/recode Branwen to match a TN alignment for more comfort of characterization", the answer is "no"

 

If the question really is "why did you do that?" the answer is "that was what the authors decided at the time."

 

If the question is "can I get a spirited debate about the view of bg1npc as good/bad/indifferent/no QC", well, ok- point taken - it has a ton of folks ideas, so some characterizations will match what people like, others won't. QC has been over 100 members from both Tutu and BGT based communities actively providing fixes and updates/grammar/etc. for it, plus a ton more folks contributing on forums that never made it into the credits. But there is always something, so if someone finds a typo or code error, please post so we can fix it. Spirited debate, not to much from my side, too busy, shouldn't even be typing this post, but what the heck - but I am sure someone around here can entertain you, if the goal is rhetorical discussion.

 

If you look over at PPG, JCompton has a link to a thread where a dude actively tries to give negative feedback. Basically, a "Find the worst mod and publically humiliate the modmaker". Not my style, even when I find the mod personally abysmal, because there are people behind the mods who have invested tons of their life into making something for other folks for free. Crappy? Sometimes. Then again, Tom Clancy and Shakespeare are booked/cost too much/pushing up daisies, and watching evening TV shows makes me realize I'm paying cable to bring drek into my life that is far worse than the worst mod that has ever soiled my harddrive. JCompton has some good discussion points on it, too, especially the part about getting "both sides' of the feedback - both positive and negative.

 

Choosing to focus on *teh sux* means telling people the thing they worked so hard to create is crap, but it looks like what you are doing here isn't that at all. You are providing specific feedback about what you felt was a misstep on the various author's parts, which is cool. Not many folks provide negative feedback, which means modders get nice ego boosts, but don't necessarily get what people *don't* like. The challenge here is, that feedback can't help *this* project, only others. And only those mod authors who sometimes drop by.

 

[/painfully obvious, stupid, generally useless comments, and 15 minutes of my life donated freely to your entertainment on rehtorical grounds what can I say. I type teh slow. ]

[Miloch]

I don't want to get bogged down in another slagfest thread either, if that's what this is going to be, but let me mention 2 or 3 things:

 

1) There is no real such thing as "True Neutral" outside of animals and mindless creatures. Humans and other intelligent creatures usually have tendencies in one direction or another, and they can do that without crossing the line into NG, CN or whatever. This is all canon and has been for some time - here's one discussion of alignment tendencies - there are many others in similar veins.

 

2) Having said that, Tempus's clergy can't, in fact, be neutral - they can be any alignment *but* neutral. And his specialty priests (Battleguards) can be only chaotically-aligned. This is perhaps an inconsistency on the part of the developers (or those who wrote the FR supplement Faiths & Avatars). Personally, I see Branwen as chaotic neutral with good tendencies. She seems to have joined forces with the Iron Throne not really knowing what they were about, and refers to them as "Loki spawn" and "dishonorable" (this is from her unmodded BG1 dialogue). And it is this very experience that may make her distrustful of evil characters - one turned her to stone, after all.

 

3) BG1 NPC has had more QC than any other mod I've come across. It's also had more contributors than any other mod I've seen. Don't like one author's characterisation? Don't judge the whole mod on that basis, there are plenty other aspects to explore within the mod. And if that's not good enough, no one's forcing you to play it. I'm sorry your favourite NPC isn't romanceable by your favourite PC. I have mixed feelings about the Branwen romance myself, but I've played (at least part of) it, so I can judge it. Whatever else it may be, it's been QCed. I don't think you'll find any Runglish in it (Russian English).

[Kaeloree]

aWL, what is your perception of Branwen as a character?

[Wounded_Lion]

aWL, what is your perception of Branwen as a character?

 

I view Branwen as an honor-driven True Neutral warrior-priestess.

 

Have you seen the film "The Predator"? No, that's not a joke.

 

Predators are driven primarily by the challenge and thrill of the hunt. They will not kill an unarmed or previously injured/sick opponent because it is dishonorable to do so.

 

I view Branwen as being similar in some respects. She is driven by the challenge and thrill of battle but considers it dishonorable to kill the defenseless or the innocent. She believes strength is necessary in this world (for it is not a kind place). She loves the finer things in life: good food, good companionship, good sex. She will not suffer an insult. If you do not respond to an insult or challenge (with an attack or a strong verbal retort), she will lose respect for you. She is a warrior and does not fear death.

 

One thing I'd like share with Miloch in particular is my view that honor does not imply goodness of any sort. Often, honor demands dark deeds.

 

Please keep in mind that I posted here to provide feedback (I was not aware that the mod was considered finished and closed to further additons/feedback). As stated, no insult was meant to the modders who participated in this project.

 

@Miloch: I wasn't referring to grammar/punctuation/spelling/etc when I mentioned quality control. I was referring to content (writing, characterization, etc; bear in mind that unlike some others I do believe in literary critique and analysis - no, that's not meant to be a cloaked insult). But perhaps it may have been a harsh judgement, so let's not dwell on it.

 

@cmorgan: Your comments were far from useless or stupid.

 

aWL

[Miloch]

One thing I'd like share with Miloch in particular is my view that honor does not imply goodness of any sort. Often, honor demands dark deeds.

Maybe, but there's still the first and last sentences to consider in my second point. And even if you ignore the "rules" implicit in the first item (which I suppose you can since the developers did), it's hard to ignore the latter. But there's not a whole lot of dialogue beyond that in the vanilla game, so I guess there's room for various interpretations of the character's motives.

 

I never held much stock in PnP alignment categories, because it reduces characters that should be three-dimensional to two dimensions quite literally: an axis between law and chaos and another one between good and evil. Putting a 3x3 grid on top of it just compounds this problem and characters that are "neutral" get it worst of all. They can tend toward eight different directions yet people assume they have to stay in the exact centre of the cubbyhole, which would be rare if not unheard of for a dynamic character.

[Domi]

Predators are driven primarily by the challenge and thrill of the hunt. They will not kill an unarmed or previously injured/sick opponent because it is dishonorable to do so.

 

I view Branwen as being similar in some respects. She is driven by the challenge and thrill of battle but considers it dishonorable to kill the defenseless or the innocent. She believes strength is necessary in this world (for it is not a kind place). She loves the finer things in life: good food, good companionship, good sex. She will not suffer an insult. If you do not respond to an insult or challenge (with an attack or a strong verbal retort), she will lose respect for you. She is a warrior and does not fear death.

 

I would say that I saw all that in Branwen in BG1NPC. In particular, the issue of the strength, and desire to be a warrior above all else was presented beautifully in the conclusion of the romance, imo. However, what you described first in BG1 world is considered an evil act (kill an innocent, and your reputation goes down; do it enough times, and you lose your good alignment-related class.) The particular emphasis you made on not killing innocent is the reason why Branwen leans towards good rather than evil in BG1 world. Evil character of any alignment can rationalize the killing of innocent, injured, sick (or, indeed, enjoy or seek it out). If Branwen in your view cannot do either, she will lean towards good. Faldorn, on the other hand, can rationalize that, hence she leans towards evil from her True Neutral.

 

As an aside, after years of seeing Alignment arguments, I think Miloch got it right. And, the good thing to take into consideration is that a game cannot consider player's motives....