Branwen Romance

[Guest Guest_vile fairy_*]

A cleric of Tempus would not have to switch sides often, but a cleric of Tempus cannot be "true neutral" (FR supplement Faiths & Avatars, p. 159). As for why a "true neutral" character would have to switch sides, see the screenshot above. But I'm not the one trying to defend Branwen's alleged smack-dab-in-the-centre-true-neutral alignment, which I'm really not seeing.

 

I'm not defending Branwen's alignment choices; I don't consider her to be more likely good than neutral, though.

 

What I'm not following is your description of a neutral cleric of Tempus, which looks like a description of a druid, with war substituting for nature's balance.

[Miloch]

What I'm not following is your description of a neutral cleric of Tempus, which looks like a description of a druid, with war substituting for nature's balance.

WTF? I'm not describing a neutral cleric of Tempus: I'm saying they can't exist. Read the citation you just quoted, which I think is at least the second or third time I've cited it in this thread (starting from very early in it).

[Guest Guest_vile fairy_*]

I have read it. I am aware of the limitations of cleric alignment; what I was discussing was the possible interpretations of Branwen's character - which I view as neutral, not good, and the different concepts of honor that can be used in a fantasy game.

 

Of course you can simply explain that she does not exist; what is the point of the discussion then?

[Miloch]

I have read it. I am aware of the limitations of cleric alignment; what I was discussing was the possible interpretations of Branwen's character - which I view as neutral, not good

If you'd read it, you'd've seen I view her as chaotic neutral. To repeat myself again: she can't be true neutral as a cleric of Tempus, and she must be chaotic (good, neutral or evil) to be a Battleguard, which she aspires to be in BG1 NPC and even claims to be at one point (@644 in p#brlt.tra).

and the different concepts of honor that can be used in a fantasy game.

I never said honour had any bearing on alignment; Tempus expects his clergy to behave honourably regardless of their alignments (which again, can be anything except true neutral).

Of course you can simply explain that she does not exist; what is the point of the discussion then?

I believe the discussion wore itself some time ago, especially when I'm repeating what I said 4 pages back.

[Wounded_Lion]

If you'd read it, you'd've seen I view her as chaotic neutral. To repeat myself again: she can't be true neutral as a cleric of Tempus, and she must be chaotic (good, neutral or evil) to be a Battleguard, which she aspires to be in BG1 NPC and even claims to be at one point (@644 in p#brlt.tra).

 

I never said honour had any bearing on alignment; Tempus expects his clergy to behave honourably regardless of their alignments (which again, can be anything except true neutral).

 

By PnP Battleguard requirements, you might be correct (I don't know). However, BG2 does not adapt AD&D 2E rules exactly, and there is no Battleguard kit in unmodded BG2.

 

I've seen a number of different adaptations of the Battleguard kit/prestige class, and the alignment descriptions included with BG2 are pathetically inadequate (they tend to describe only one of the various types of characters appropriate to that alignment; a good example is the description referring to all Chaotic Neutral characters as insane). Taken together, it's easy to imagine a Battleguard of almost any alignment (unless you define Law as legislation or statutory law, in which case the alignment requirement becomes Any Non-Lawful; obviously, True Neutral qualifies as Any Non-Lawful).

 

Also, Branwen is a *very* unusual cleric of Tempus - for starters, she's a woman.

 

aWL

[Miloch]

By PnP Battleguard requirements, you might be correct (I don't know).

I've split my reply to this also off into another topic. I think we stopped talking about Branwen's romance in BG1 NPC (if indeed we were ever talking about any real content within it) some time ago. This thread is getting a bit long in the tooth anyway.

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Not sure if this is the right plae to report, but there's a small typo in one of Branwen's lovetalks:

 

@71 = ~I would gladly have become a scald of virtue, to sing ballads and inspire heroes, but 'tis unfitting to hail two deities at once.~

 

The "c" should be replaced with a "k" so that the word reads "skald" (as the bard kit) and not "scald" (as the burn injury). BTW, I found Branwen's romance quite refreshing. Nice work!

[cmorgan]

Hey, I'll take reporst anyplace -

 

[F:\BG1NPC_Workspace\bg1npc_v17\tra\english\p#brlt.tra]

Line 72 : @71 = ~I would gladly have become a scald of virtue, to sing ballads and inspire heroes, but 'tis unfitting to hail two deities at once.~

 

 

now reads

 

[F:\BG1NPC_Workspace\bg1npc_v17\tra\english\p#brlt.tra]

Line 72 : @71 = ~I would gladly have become a skald of virtue, to sing ballads and inspire heroes, but 'tis unfitting to hail two deities at once.~

 

because it is bad enough to have a bard dragging along, but there is no point in tossing boiling water on the situation...

 

expeact this in the anniversary release in a few days.

[cmorgan]

confirmed typo repaired v17 prerelease. Well, except for the "couple of days until release" part, of course.

[Guest Molgar]

My synthesis from discussion (biased by my perceptions of the Viconia romance) are as follows: Tempus took note of his faithful Branwen when she took up arms and became an adventurer. He allowed her progress to be arrested by petrification for two reasons: she knew not the honor bestowed upon a woman who submits, and she knew not a cause worthy of devotion. The circumstances changed as Gorion's ward began his career. Branwen, faithful and not a heretic, submitted immediately to the worthiness of the Bhaalspawn's cause.

 

But inasmuch as Viconia's protection from Lolth was lifted by Shar on those occasions when Viconia transgressed the faith by valuing love more than hatred, Branwen's fate will be to experience misfortune upon each time she becomes too haughty. Branwen will learn an important lesson in life: you can't go back. This stands in stark contrast to the Jaheira romance when the player is smothered into not disbanding, but is disbanded time after time. Branwen is oft tempted to leave to return north, but only when least rational. It is Tempus' will that Branwen be unstained in honor.

 

Hopefully, her growing passion for CHARNAME leads her to forsake a land that has long forgotten her and choose a side. But woe be unto her should she act upon that passion outside of consecrated bonds...! A successful romance with her full submission to the player, including alignment change to that of the Bhaalspawn with no penalty. Branwen may not romance another True Neutral character or a half-orc (as a parental safety).

 

In game terms: brief irrational disbanding during the Spellhold dungeon, followed by an "I was crazy" speech at the same time the player is getting all the other lunatics together to fight Irenicus, opportunity to sleep together during Underdark, but she dies immediately thereafter like Diz in Starship Troopers if you do. "At least I got to have you, CHARNAME!" Glarghhhh!" Damn arachnids. Veldrin's got no chance of telling Phaere he's a eunuch if she catches him in the act! Otherwise, dialogue becoming increasingly commitment oriented leading to discussion of the value of marriage leading to a proposal, culminating in an opportunity to propose marriage and with alignment change in Suldanesselar, leading to two possible threads in Throne of Bhaal, depending on if the character was true to their own ideals in Hell.