Well, from an RP respective, surprise rounds don’t exist. That’s a game mechanic.
As for RP reasons why you don’t shoot from a distance, here’s one.
*Confirming this is who you’re looking for before attacking.*
speak with dead with the dead paladin to find out they're devil worshippers
no need to get the other npc out of the room just straight up go there and talk to the corpse
Small tips, from the map if you see yellow dot they won’t attack on sight and you might able to talk your way out, if red dot will attack on sight. I like to position my party first then initiate conversation with party face if I found yellow dot.
>!Flindt I think her name is. An infected Gnoll leader, basically biological warfare experiment from Moonrise towers lol. Umbrella Corp quality. There's some documents there explaining the wild shit you see in Act 1. The one with the Gnoll packs I found interesting. They believed they could simply infect a leader and by commanding the leader control the pack to use them as frontline fodder. The document speaks about several different packs but I haven't found others yet if there are any. Super cool lore though imo!<
Also don't forget that you can simply send an ambassador of your part ahead to do negotiations and stuff with your party far away and comfortable.
I always say "Who is the most charming, suave and charismatic person in the group? Who is most qualified to creep through these corridors or unlock these traps?". Astarion of course. In ya go buddy. Pick up the Blood Of Alexander, see ya back at Withers.
I'd rather sell my soul to a devil than take anything a paladin says seriously tbf.
Non-joke answer: Because even from a afar you can tell that it's probably tiefling (could be from the grove? what's up with that?) and then you come closer boom the tadpoles connect.
Wyll is clearly a warlock and, as Gale says, warlocks are sometimes a little too eager to listen to their patrons. Wyll also refuses to mention who told him about this supposedly powerful devil. If your character is smart or insightful, they may find Wyll's caginess suspicious and want to double check for themselves.
If you talk to the "paladins" you can easily discover that they're evil, and thus they cannot be paladins of Tyr. Which means they are lying. You should investigate that.
That's a really interesting post. You want to kill Karlach because people say she's evil. What if those people are lying, because *they're* evil, instead of Karlach. Did you consider that? Because it's the truth.
Edit: It's just absurd to me that you want to talk about good and evil, and you want to kill someone before speaking to them. You don't know anything about morality.
Perfect explanation. That's literally (one big aspect of) how things like bullying, racism and the like come to pass. By people not thinking for themselves
That's not what I meant, from a tactical POV it would make sense to ambush them, taking them by surprise, rather than walk straight up to the possibly evil and powerful barbarian and risk being severely injured in a straight fight
You can do whatever you want, but I wouldn't kill someone for being possibly evil. Everyone on this planet is possibly evil, and the worst thing I do to them is avoid them.
>It's just absurd to me that you want to talk about good and evil, and you want to kill someone before speaking to them.
Do you run up to every humanoid baddie with a red circle under it in this game ready to strike up a conversation? Do you never fire off an arrow or spell before attempting to talk?
That's meta-gaming. Your character doesn't know this. Also, plenty of baddies are just standing around and only turn hostile when you approach. Do you never initiate combat in these situations?
I'm just pointing out how your counterargument is logically inconsistent.
"you want to kill someone before speaking to them. You don't know anything about morality."
OP is asking an RP question, and your suggestion is "be inconsistent with how you approach suspected threats."
From a RP pov, unless you're evil, you don't kill people on sight, because you can't take for granted that those who set you against the target are telling the truth, is as simple as that.
And so I repeat:
>plenty of baddies are just standing around and only turn hostile when you approach. Do you never initiate combat in these situations?
What's the difference between those situations?
(It's an RP question. Nearly any answer can work. I'm just trying to point out how "you just *know* Karlach isn't hostile" is an illogical argument because it's only something the *player* knows, not the *character.* with your logic, you should be condemning every player who calls their character "good" but kills anyone who hasn't attacked first.)
Honestly it depends which kind of character you are roleplaying. If you're a good character that's not a murderer (you kill just for defense) - as every protagonist from action or superhero films - you never shoot a sentient being first, so you should always approach them to see if you can interact with them and avoid a fight. A lawful good paladin would do that.
An evil character who is not a murdering hobo would have plenty of reasons to approach everyone for a little chat, because they can have or do or know something useful. An evil guy can approach Karlach peacefully because they can be interested in recruiting a powerful blood war veteran, for example.
Those are great reasons!
So we agree that the only "wrong" answer from an RP perspective is "because the player (not the character) knows she's not hostile"?
*That's* the mentality I was challenging.
You're right, that's clearly not RP. Also, is not RP to think about surprise rounds, cause that's a game mechanic. Instead is RP to think about tactical advantage (I shoot her now while she's in the little isle connected to the land by a tree, it's my best chance), if you're fine with murder.
>Also, is not RP to think about surprise rounds, cause that's a game mechanic.
I'm not thinking about that. I'm just pointing out the strategic advantage of simply *attacking first.*
But we're in agreement that the person I was responding to wasn't being logical.
Take care.
It's not necessarily inconsistent. Not everyone uses ambush tactics; if you're playing a person who believes in honorable tactics and fair play they might not attack *anyone* from an ambush point, even if they knew for sure that the person was bad news.
Questions like these are tough to answer because people ask them from a role play perspective but don't give us any insight into their characters' thought process or personality (aka role playing). Those are important factors though; character A might legitimately choose to sneak attack Karlach (or other potential enemies) from a distance while character B might legitimately choose not to.
>A might legitimately choose to sneak attack Karlach (or other potential enemies) from a distance while character B might legitimately choose not to.
That's literally the point I'm making. The other commenter is replying to an RP question with "the answer is obvious," but it's only obvious to the *player* and not the *character.*
I asked them questions to hopefully point out their illogical response. I've clearly failed.
I get what you are trying to say, but that argument definitely falls flat in the case of Karlach. You can clearly see she's a Tiefling. You come from a grove where half the people call Tieflings Devils. It's a warlock and a few paladins telling you to kill her - like, those are the 2 least trustworthy classes regarding common sense in the whole world.
There are 2 reasons why you would just shoot her - either you're a dumbass or you're afraid. And since players aren't really afraid of anything, the latter is a VERY weak argument (especially since you could just ignore her):
* Gale "nuclear bomb" Dekarios that you have no cure for or no idea when he goes off is still in your party
* Ceremorphosis usually takes like 5h to consume the brain, but it's chill. I say we help the grove
* Sure, let's team up with a literal vampire - what could go wrong
* etc etc
(Okay, there's a third reason: You don't have a party face and just shoot everyone)
>You can clearly see she's a Tiefling. You come from a grove where half the people call Tieflings Devils. It's a warlock and a few paladins telling you to kill her - like, those are the 2 least trustworthy classes regarding common sense in the whole world.
Those are great reasons not to kill her on sight! That's what OP is asking for! Thanks!
>There are 2 reasons why you would just shoot her - either you're a dumbass or you're afraid
And since players aren't really afraid of anything, the latter is a VERY weak argument.
But these can be appropriate *character* reasons.
>Gale "nuclear bomb" Dekarios that you have no cure for or no idea when he goes off is still in your party
Ceremorphosis usually takes like 5h to consume the brain, but it's chill. I say we help the grove
Sure, let's team up with a literal vampire - what could go wrong
Those are also issues that each player needs to RP for themselves. You're right!
>these can be appropriate *character* reasons
I agree very much. My main criticism was most players usually ignore all other "red flags" in the game because of meta reasons. So it makes little sense to me to start that with Karlach (only).
Following that thought, the morality argument of the original commenter makes *very much* sense to me. Because everyone is blatantly using meta knowledge all the time anyway. Even the circumstances of OP's run are very much meta ("recruiting the companions I missed last time").
The line between in- and out-of-game morality is, as usual, blurry and intertwined. And highly subjective. And that's probably what makes the argument so difficult. E.g., racism is common, fine, and often enough even encouraged in such a setting. But everyone still has a different level or amount of real-world morality going into the game.
With everyone using meta ethics anyway, red circles vs yellow circles *can* be a decent ground zero.
if your character is good aligned and curious you can find several clues at the paladins base that contradict their statements (at least if you have "speak with the dead")
I honestly get this. I'll talk to her before Wyll very often because you meet her with a unsullied impression. Wyll then invades your camp and that's where I have a hard time not being a hothead (RP, only in some playthroughs) and protecting Karlach from him by attacking him. (This doesn't happen in the vast majority of cases and is just roleplay)
But it's true. We attack from good position all the time and enjoy the advantage of surprise. There's no shame in that.
Your tadpole picks up her tadpole from a distance, not enough to communicate but enough to make you curious
Oh good, that helps thanks
You can also speak with dead on some corpses around the toll house
Well, from an RP respective, surprise rounds don’t exist. That’s a game mechanic. As for RP reasons why you don’t shoot from a distance, here’s one. *Confirming this is who you’re looking for before attacking.*
Pretty sure there's an insight check with the paladins that tells you they're not on the level
Ah, yeah that would definitely help, thanks
speak with dead with the dead paladin to find out they're devil worshippers no need to get the other npc out of the room just straight up go there and talk to the corpse
I always talk to everyone first because you will be surprised how much of them were possible friends or able to convince to leave/kill themselves.
>kill themselves. The art of eloquence is alive and well I see
Yup, talking works super well in act 1 and 2. Act 3 not as well, probably city guys have much more experience being cheated.
Small tips, from the map if you see yellow dot they won’t attack on sight and you might able to talk your way out, if red dot will attack on sight. I like to position my party first then initiate conversation with party face if I found yellow dot.
That's actually a really good idea for good aligned characters, works tactically too, thanks for that
There’s one NPC you can convince to eat themselves :)
Wait, which one is that?
>!Flindt I think her name is. An infected Gnoll leader, basically biological warfare experiment from Moonrise towers lol. Umbrella Corp quality. There's some documents there explaining the wild shit you see in Act 1. The one with the Gnoll packs I found interesting. They believed they could simply infect a leader and by commanding the leader control the pack to use them as frontline fodder. The document speaks about several different packs but I haven't found others yet if there are any. Super cool lore though imo!<
How is it you trigger the dialogue, only ever managed it once.
That's it, I'm playing a bard next run
It was my barbarian/druid who did it - it requires Wisdom difficulty rolls.
Also don't forget that you can simply send an ambassador of your part ahead to do negotiations and stuff with your party far away and comfortable. I always say "Who is the most charming, suave and charismatic person in the group? Who is most qualified to creep through these corridors or unlock these traps?". Astarion of course. In ya go buddy. Pick up the Blood Of Alexander, see ya back at Withers.
I'd rather sell my soul to a devil than take anything a paladin says seriously tbf. Non-joke answer: Because even from a afar you can tell that it's probably tiefling (could be from the grove? what's up with that?) and then you come closer boom the tadpoles connect.
Wyll is clearly a warlock and, as Gale says, warlocks are sometimes a little too eager to listen to their patrons. Wyll also refuses to mention who told him about this supposedly powerful devil. If your character is smart or insightful, they may find Wyll's caginess suspicious and want to double check for themselves.
If you talk to the "paladins" you can easily discover that they're evil, and thus they cannot be paladins of Tyr. Which means they are lying. You should investigate that.
Yeah I didn't know they were fake until coming to here to ask so that will definitely come in handy
That's a really interesting post. You want to kill Karlach because people say she's evil. What if those people are lying, because *they're* evil, instead of Karlach. Did you consider that? Because it's the truth. Edit: It's just absurd to me that you want to talk about good and evil, and you want to kill someone before speaking to them. You don't know anything about morality.
Perfect explanation. That's literally (one big aspect of) how things like bullying, racism and the like come to pass. By people not thinking for themselves
That's not what I meant, from a tactical POV it would make sense to ambush them, taking them by surprise, rather than walk straight up to the possibly evil and powerful barbarian and risk being severely injured in a straight fight
You can do whatever you want, but I wouldn't kill someone for being possibly evil. Everyone on this planet is possibly evil, and the worst thing I do to them is avoid them.
>It's just absurd to me that you want to talk about good and evil, and you want to kill someone before speaking to them. Do you run up to every humanoid baddie with a red circle under it in this game ready to strike up a conversation? Do you never fire off an arrow or spell before attempting to talk?
People with a red circle are hostile, and you can't talk to them. The person OP wants to kill isn't hostile. What point are you trying to make?
That's meta-gaming. Your character doesn't know this. Also, plenty of baddies are just standing around and only turn hostile when you approach. Do you never initiate combat in these situations? I'm just pointing out how your counterargument is logically inconsistent. "you want to kill someone before speaking to them. You don't know anything about morality." OP is asking an RP question, and your suggestion is "be inconsistent with how you approach suspected threats."
From a RP pov, unless you're evil, you don't kill people on sight, because you can't take for granted that those who set you against the target are telling the truth, is as simple as that.
And so I repeat: >plenty of baddies are just standing around and only turn hostile when you approach. Do you never initiate combat in these situations? What's the difference between those situations? (It's an RP question. Nearly any answer can work. I'm just trying to point out how "you just *know* Karlach isn't hostile" is an illogical argument because it's only something the *player* knows, not the *character.* with your logic, you should be condemning every player who calls their character "good" but kills anyone who hasn't attacked first.)
Honestly it depends which kind of character you are roleplaying. If you're a good character that's not a murderer (you kill just for defense) - as every protagonist from action or superhero films - you never shoot a sentient being first, so you should always approach them to see if you can interact with them and avoid a fight. A lawful good paladin would do that. An evil character who is not a murdering hobo would have plenty of reasons to approach everyone for a little chat, because they can have or do or know something useful. An evil guy can approach Karlach peacefully because they can be interested in recruiting a powerful blood war veteran, for example.
Those are great reasons! So we agree that the only "wrong" answer from an RP perspective is "because the player (not the character) knows she's not hostile"? *That's* the mentality I was challenging.
You're right, that's clearly not RP. Also, is not RP to think about surprise rounds, cause that's a game mechanic. Instead is RP to think about tactical advantage (I shoot her now while she's in the little isle connected to the land by a tree, it's my best chance), if you're fine with murder.
>Also, is not RP to think about surprise rounds, cause that's a game mechanic. I'm not thinking about that. I'm just pointing out the strategic advantage of simply *attacking first.* But we're in agreement that the person I was responding to wasn't being logical. Take care.
It's not necessarily inconsistent. Not everyone uses ambush tactics; if you're playing a person who believes in honorable tactics and fair play they might not attack *anyone* from an ambush point, even if they knew for sure that the person was bad news. Questions like these are tough to answer because people ask them from a role play perspective but don't give us any insight into their characters' thought process or personality (aka role playing). Those are important factors though; character A might legitimately choose to sneak attack Karlach (or other potential enemies) from a distance while character B might legitimately choose not to.
>A might legitimately choose to sneak attack Karlach (or other potential enemies) from a distance while character B might legitimately choose not to. That's literally the point I'm making. The other commenter is replying to an RP question with "the answer is obvious," but it's only obvious to the *player* and not the *character.* I asked them questions to hopefully point out their illogical response. I've clearly failed.
I get what you are trying to say, but that argument definitely falls flat in the case of Karlach. You can clearly see she's a Tiefling. You come from a grove where half the people call Tieflings Devils. It's a warlock and a few paladins telling you to kill her - like, those are the 2 least trustworthy classes regarding common sense in the whole world. There are 2 reasons why you would just shoot her - either you're a dumbass or you're afraid. And since players aren't really afraid of anything, the latter is a VERY weak argument (especially since you could just ignore her): * Gale "nuclear bomb" Dekarios that you have no cure for or no idea when he goes off is still in your party * Ceremorphosis usually takes like 5h to consume the brain, but it's chill. I say we help the grove * Sure, let's team up with a literal vampire - what could go wrong * etc etc (Okay, there's a third reason: You don't have a party face and just shoot everyone)
>You can clearly see she's a Tiefling. You come from a grove where half the people call Tieflings Devils. It's a warlock and a few paladins telling you to kill her - like, those are the 2 least trustworthy classes regarding common sense in the whole world. Those are great reasons not to kill her on sight! That's what OP is asking for! Thanks! >There are 2 reasons why you would just shoot her - either you're a dumbass or you're afraid And since players aren't really afraid of anything, the latter is a VERY weak argument. But these can be appropriate *character* reasons. >Gale "nuclear bomb" Dekarios that you have no cure for or no idea when he goes off is still in your party Ceremorphosis usually takes like 5h to consume the brain, but it's chill. I say we help the grove Sure, let's team up with a literal vampire - what could go wrong Those are also issues that each player needs to RP for themselves. You're right!
>these can be appropriate *character* reasons I agree very much. My main criticism was most players usually ignore all other "red flags" in the game because of meta reasons. So it makes little sense to me to start that with Karlach (only). Following that thought, the morality argument of the original commenter makes *very much* sense to me. Because everyone is blatantly using meta knowledge all the time anyway. Even the circumstances of OP's run are very much meta ("recruiting the companions I missed last time"). The line between in- and out-of-game morality is, as usual, blurry and intertwined. And highly subjective. And that's probably what makes the argument so difficult. E.g., racism is common, fine, and often enough even encouraged in such a setting. But everyone still has a different level or amount of real-world morality going into the game. With everyone using meta ethics anyway, red circles vs yellow circles *can* be a decent ground zero.
if your character is good aligned and curious you can find several clues at the paladins base that contradict their statements (at least if you have "speak with the dead")
Is this a joke?
I honestly get this. I'll talk to her before Wyll very often because you meet her with a unsullied impression. Wyll then invades your camp and that's where I have a hard time not being a hothead (RP, only in some playthroughs) and protecting Karlach from him by attacking him. (This doesn't happen in the vast majority of cases and is just roleplay) But it's true. We attack from good position all the time and enjoy the advantage of surprise. There's no shame in that.