Tree of Life gut check

[jcompton]

If an NPC really didn't feel like sticking their neck out for the PC at the end, how would you suggest would be a good way to go about it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It depends a little bit on whether we're talking about obligatory or conditional abandonment.

 

If it's conditional, if it's "I find you a waste of space" or "I can't keep risking my life for you" or whatever, then this shouldn't, by far, be the first indication we get of it. From a game design perspective, ideally there should still be some way to rectify the situation once the warning signs show up, because if not, my optimal decision is to cut my losses, boot the NPC, and pick up Aerie from the circus.

 

If it's obligatory, I wouldn't even consider it unless I felt that my character's story really and truly best ended at that point of the overall storyline. And if it did, I would design my character's story so that it was a logical and satisfyingly dramatic end to his/her participation in the story.

 

Bad: "It says TN/CN/*E on the charsheet, so of course you shouldn't have expected them to stay!"

 

Maybe good: The character has been building to some sort of crisis of faith/confidence which is brought to a head by witnessing/participating in the events at Suldy. (And the ToL is not by far the first sign we've had of this impending crisis!)

 

Basically, if it actually adds to the player's experience in a meaningful* way, then it can't be ruled out... but if it's just a "Muahahah, screw you, <CHARNAME>!" incident, it's a waste of everybody's time.

 

* - Meaningful does not necessarily mean "beneficial from a party power perspective"--Yoshimo's death is meaningful but not strictly speaking beneficial, except for the Imoen party slot problem, about which the less said, the better.

[jcompton]

No, it's not actually the end. It's a climax before a false ending, which is a fairly common and effective device used in novels, music, (obviously) video games...

[Domi]

It is irritating though, then again, I might just be not a fan of killing the same villain three or so times. I agree with you about the build up idea, the forewarning would be a great way to deal with it.

[Usually Lurking]

I’d like to try and summarize what I’ve picked up from what’s been posted and what I’ve been able to work through just by getting my thoughts out through posting:

 

1) The Tree of Life (ToL) is more a chance for the NPC to tell <CHARNAME> why they are willing to stay and fight by his/her side even if it means their own death rather than to be used as an exit strategy. I’m beginning to think that maybe it was never really supposed to give them a chance to leave. (I also think Andyr was spot on with his comment about it gives/adds to the sense of drama.)

 

 

2) Generally agreeable that the cookie-cutter “let’s go get your soul back buddy†ToL response is not the best approach and the real reason(s) and the actual responses should vary from NPC to NPC.

 

 

3) In general NPC’s leaving at ToL, though feasible, is a bad idea.

a). If it’s going to happen it should have been obvious the NPC hasn’t been happy in the party or has had a major issue brewing for a while.

OR

b). Makes sense within the storyline of the NPC or in some way adds to the PC experience (not necessarily from a party power/balance perspective) but again is obvious in its coming.

 

 

4) An NPC leaving the party for good at any time is not a popular event and may lead to reload fests or removal of the MOD from the user’s computer, especially when it happens at a crucial moment such as the ToL. However, it could be viewed as acceptable if it fits the NPC (obviously coming) or is an ending point to the NPC’s story. (though it should go without needing to be said I’ll say it anyway - NPC’s leaving should never been done as a “gotcha†to the PC).

 

 

Unless someone feels I missed something or has something to add I will consider my question answered. Thanks to everyone that responded.

[BigRob]

By the way, another interesting(related) question: should an NPC leave the party of their own volition at all? Another roleplaying vs gameplay comfort issue, I guess.

 

When writing, I am naturally tempted to make the consequences as various as possible, i.e. leaving if an especially evil deed is committed, etc. But when playing, I get annoyed, reload and try again, i.e. if Keldorn objects to me killing Demin, I kill him first and revive him after the battle.

 

So, where is the happy medium? At the moment, I am inclining towards verbal reaction only. But still, I have doubts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think this kind of thing should be character driven. If you slay an obviously innocent and good character, I wouldn't expect good NPC (and particularly paladins) to stand for it. Fortunately, there's usually a grey area to play in, where you could make the NPC get angry and demand an explanation, or simply stay silent about the whole thing and lose some happiness.

 

So, specific events that the NPC would truly despise beyond any hope of explanation could induce the NPC to leave, which I think is fair enough if you pay attention to the NPC's personality.