- Thread starter Vanderer
- Start date
- Jan 2, 2023
- 1,888
- 2,658
vanderer hit the average render for a update already mentioned in his weekly status updates,so my guess coming monday for patreons then the 2 week timer until public, unless its a more chunky update then 1 or 2 more weeks.
hey guys so yk there is an option to kill the troll in part 1 which turns on the "all trolls are evil flag" what's the best option . kes hesitated cuz the troll is a kid so i just wanted to know what would get the best outcome . Will it be an ally or will it take revenge , will it affect my morality ,will i loose points with kes stuff like that . Help would be appreciated
- Aug 4, 2022
- 3,170
- 6,210
- Jan 2, 2023
- 1,888
- 2,658
for now its only dialogue changes,and i honestly believe it will stay that way aside from maybe some end game thing where its grown up and causes problems if you didn't kill it
- Oct 17, 2017
- 1,413
- 1,170
vander said the conseguence will be far in the future for now, and it can fall in both direction, based on other prerequisite
Last edited:
- Oct 21, 2021
- 297
- 214
So what? Just do whatever you believe is right. Kill the kids if you think they would grow into a problem in future.
Though I doubt it would be a GoT-level drama, where it rips apart your waif.
- Nov 13, 2021
- 1,285
- 3,524
This game doesn't have points, and most LIs are not optional (in some cases, there is a choice of whether the relationship is romantic or just sexual, but it only changes dialogue), so you don't have to worry about it.
But there are decisions that clearly shape MC's morality on certain things, is he merciful or is he more wrothful. Like the mentioned decision regarding that young troll, or with the bandit that surrenders etc....
The surrendering Bandit one feels weird though since when travelling to Glenval the mc just slids the throat of a surrendering bandit setting an example of what to do.
Not really, in the case of you showing mercy, the bandit gets fair trial and depending on the severity of their crimes might still have slight chance of redemption through being branded. Where as you deciding to kill the surrendering bandit means you don't show mercy towards those that ask for it and potentially in the future end up with situation where enemy might surrender and be an asset to your side, but due to reputation/attitude of MC they end up fighting to the last. Of course this is all still speculation since Vanderer hasn't revealed yet what is the effect of these morality choices for MC.
Yup, sounds right. Even if those kind of choices make a minimal impact later on, they are pretty valid as choices of the story being told.
Be it warding Nessa, sparing the troll kid or killing the bandit on spot. It's just a way for some initial flavour of the MC finding his boundaries in the world that opened up to him after being secluded in a tower for the better part of his childhood and early adulthood.
I'm really interested in what capacity those choices will be reflected later on.
so when the mc has no stress and just kills a surrendering bandit it is fine but when he is stressed it is all of a sudden a morality choice that is just weird to me. to be clear my issue isn't that is a morality my issue is that in a calmer situation before it is fine to just kill a surrendering bandit. hell the only comment then is Erika telling you she didnt think you had it in you that is just weird.
Last edited:
- Aug 4, 2022
- 3,170
- 6,210
You run into the bandit again if you take her surrender. Swinging from a gibbet the next time you come into town. Something about killing a kid.
You get the point why it is a morality choice but you miss the relevant context.
The morality choice between the glenval bandit and later on going back due to the withering is due to given authority and ability to resist succumbing to impulsive behaviour.
While going to Glenval he was tasked of patrolling the road and given authority to kill bandits on spot by Athagan. Additionally he was not able to bring back the bandit for trial as he still had to go to Glenval and having a prisoner either on carriage or following on foot would be just a disadvantage to everyone involved (the party, Glenval's populace) and this bandit in particular already commited to attacking the party.
Later on in the withering arc the sudden kill of the bandit is not due to given justification of the local lord but by his anger. He has the time and he has the possibility of serving the bandit to the lord for trial. Especially since he flung a fireball first and the bandit just surrender without prior attack but only threatening to attack.
To put it in perspective: A police officer shooting an armed criminal who already started shooting vs a police officer taking custody of a criminal who saw his accomplice being shot after drawing his gun.
Yes, but they still got their fair trial, it was just this bandit in question had commited the worst kind of crime in the book. It's not like they got killed by arbitrary decision.
The surrendering bandit fired an arrow at the mc and only surrendered after the other archer got her neck broken. Surely glenval has a jail and the mc has rope just like the second situation
Yes, MC has the authority to kill the bandits while doing the patrol mission, but there's big difference in killing an bandit that throws their weapon down and surrenders to killing bandit that is fighting to the last. Even if the bandit originally attacked the MC's party.
To respond in your modern perspective: Even if criminal has shot at the police officers, they still can't execute the criminal if the criminal throws their weapon to the ground and informs that they surrender. In that situation the law requires police to capture the criminal alive, sure in some places around the world the cops might get some leniancy for still killing the criminal, but in the eyes of the law they should arrest them when they clearly have indicated surrender by throwing their weapon on the ground and raising their hands above their heads. If the cops kill a criminal that indicates that they surrender, even if they had killed another cop before hand, then it is revenge murder perpetrated by the cops. And no one should want that, cops murdering people is not a way to deal with crime and punishment, since they aren't the judge nor executioner. Now if the criminal never surrenders, then it's acceptable if they shoot the criminal dead in case they can't disable the criminal, since cops should always try to capture the criminal alive so society can have real justice.
Last edited:
But if a cop wounds his opponent until they cant do anything it is fine to kill them after (kes shot the bandit already and she was just laying on the ground)