IGN: The Villains of Neverwinter

[Pop]

Yeah, but due to the "lack" of feeling now why would he really care?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I'm hearing here is that losing his soul would make him apathetic towards things. If we assume that he can compare memories, and find out that having a soul is good, and there's one out there for the taking, then it makes sense that he would kidnap the Bhaalspawn.

 

I had always assumed (from the way the thing was written) was not that Irenicus and Bodhi had no souls, it was that they lacked their elf essence which made them immortal. They were aging rapidly, and becoming senile. The Bhaalspawn represented a chance to get their youth back and exact punishment on the Seldarine. So they exhibited the Bhaalspawn to many tortures for that reason.

[Tigranes]

Pop is on the right track. There is an automatic assumption that without a soul Irenicus becomes apathetic to all things, and therefore would nto care about anything - if that was the case he would really be a vegetable man, only reacting in the face of physical pain that he would 'care' about, basic needs, etc. Just an animal.

 

Not a great villain there.

 

Remember than fantasy wise we are dealing with the elven spirit. Irenicus did not lose his entire soul. Irenicus only lost the elven spirit, that connection elves have with all things nature and all that crap. He was, effectively, made a human. He lost what was elf but retained the more base parts of the mind and the body. The body he could sustain for an extended period of time through his magics; the mind, too, he could restore to a degree with the Bhaalspawn soul.

 

Just because he had to take YOUR soul, does not mean that he had no soul whatsoever and it was a pure substitute. If that was the case, the outcome would have been rather different. Especially to your character.

 

You could argue this is convoluted, or this is unrealistic, but it's all on what you decide your perspective to be. If you lean towards accepting these plot requirements then I find Irenicus to be an good, if not the best, villain. Because resting upon t hese foundations that could be incessantly picked at, but need not be, he is attractive in his ruthlessness, his plans are not quite as retardedly far-fetched (and involving Super Artifact of Doom you must get) as some others, does not destroy all world as they know it (just one city, which I find to be much more relevant), and he has a very attractive style of dialogue made even better by the fine voice acting.

 

I liked the potential in Sarevok, but judging on the game itself - at least, BG1 only - he was not as good as Irenicus because you could never flesh out his character as much. That, and I don't believe irenicus was blinded by anything. He knew exactly what he wanted and why he wanted it. Remember that revenge was not his only aim; to refuse it and live normally was to accept a 'lesser' life than he had known and for his pride and his greatest ability in his life to be curbed. It's rather similar to a war general losing any right to command armies. On the other hand, Sarevok was clearly manipulated by Bhaal to concoct a ridiculous scheme that was not even guaranteed to succeed (afaik).

[Dark_Raven]

Melissan is a horrible villain. B O R I N G

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Truly.

[Tel Aviv]

There are some villains you just hate, but some you love to hate. Torio is a villain that you initially hate to love, but later on find yourself hating but not quite loving, and then finally you cave in and love the hating but in a "just friends" sort of way, because you don't want it to get weird.

 

 

Who wrote this? MCA?

[Volourn]

"Yes she was, but I preferred her over Morag."

 

Anyone who prefers Melissan over Morag needs help. Morag, while not the best or deepest villain, is 1 million times better than Melissan. Melissan has nothing to offer. Morag has LOTS. She actually was a worthwhile villainess who added to the game.

[Judge Hades]

No.

[Pidesco]

I agree with Hades.

[Colrom]

I think Irenicus was a very good villian. He would have been better for me if he had been presented in more sympathetic/tragic terms earlier and explained a bit better at each stage of discovery to help sustain the sympathy and also the repulsion. He has some really good lines - especially his speech about his forgotten love - which was quite touching.

 

Bhodi was easier to understand - more primative and ferrel and less tortured (oddly). A fine basic monster.

[Pop]

Pop is on the right track. There is an automatic assumption that without a soul Irenicus becomes apathetic to all things, and therefore would nto care about anything - if that was the case he would really be a vegetable man, only reacting in the face of physical pain that he would 'care' about, basic needs, etc. Just an animal.

 

Not a great villain there.

 

Remember than fantasy wise we are dealing with the elven spirit. Irenicus did not lose his entire soul. Irenicus only lost the elven spirit, that connection elves have with all things nature and all that crap. He was, effectively, made a human. He lost what was elf but retained the more base parts of the mind and the body. The body he could sustain for an extended period of time through his magics; the mind, too, he could restore to a degree with the Bhaalspawn soul.

 

Just because he had to take YOUR soul, does not mean that he had no soul whatsoever and it was a pure substitute. If that was the case, the outcome would have been rather different. Especially to your character.

 

You could argue this is convoluted, or this is unrealistic, but it's all on what you decide your perspective to be. If you lean towards accepting these plot requirements then I find Irenicus to be an good, if not the best, villain. Because resting upon t hese foundations that could be incessantly picked at, but need not be, he is attractive in his ruthlessness, his plans are not quite as retardedly far-fetched (and involving Super Artifact of Doom you must get) as some others, does not destroy all world as they know it (just one city, which I find to be much more relevant), and he has a very attractive style of dialogue made even better by the fine voice acting.

 

I liked the potential in Sarevok, but judging on the game itself - at least, BG1 only - he was not as good as Irenicus because you could never flesh out his character as much. That, and I don't believe irenicus was blinded by anything. He knew exactly what he wanted and why he wanted it. Remember that revenge was not his only aim; to refuse it and live normally was to accept a 'lesser' life than he had known and for his pride and his greatest ability in his life to be curbed. It's rather similar to a war general losing any right to command armies. On the other hand, Sarevok was clearly manipulated by Bhaal to concoct a ridiculous scheme that was not even guaranteed to succeed (afaik).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, it's coming back to me now.

 

I really think that age was the problem Bodhi and Irenicus had. Bodhi didn't have magic to keep her alive, so she became a vampire to circumvent the Seldarine's curse, and she succeeded in keeping herself from aging, but she lost her soul, and when Imoen takes her soul back there's no problem. But Irenicus had a soul that kind of "fused" with the PC's divine soul, so when the PC kills Irenicus the first time, he's able to fight for its ownership in hell. That's how it was all explained by Imoen, anyway.

 

So Darque was kind of right, Bodhi indeed had no soul, as she was an undead vampire, so the soul-transfer didn't work as it was intended to do, there was no soul to heal, and Bodhi wasn't capable of "possessing" the soul. Irenicus had a cursed soul that he healed through the Bhaalspawn. That's how it worked.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Pop

[Pidesco]

Let's not forget the voice acting. Irenicus was all about David Warner's voice.

[Darque]

Let's not forget the voice acting. Irenicus was all about David Warner's voice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

His only redeeming quality :D

[Dark_Raven]

Let's not forget the voice acting. Irenicus was all about David Warner's voice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That it was.

[Dark_Raven]

If Bohdi was given more time she would have been a good villain. But the spot light went to Jon boy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

the goth girl likes a vampire chick... big surprise there, eh?

 

bodhi plays lady macbeth to irenicus' macbeth. neither one got the development they deserved, but bodhi were far more one-dimensional than were irenicus.

 

biowarians and obsidains both make same error over and over and over again. protagonist needs necessary be left underdeveloped so that a wide-range o' players can enjoy. is the villains who can and shoulds get the bulk of development efforts as they is static and completely w/i control o' writers... though kreia had potential even if execution were amateurish and climax wee laughable.

 

oh well.

 

oh, and Gromnir weren't a villain in tob, even if he did fill role of level-boss.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

R00fles Grommie, R00fles!

[Enoch]

Let's not forget the voice acting. Irenicus was all about David Warner's voice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Warner was good, but perhaps a bit too recognizable. I kept expecting to see a dialogue choice in one of the torture scenes along the lines of "There are FOUR lights!"

[Tel Aviv]

I'm finding it difficult to think of a really unique videogame villain to be honest. The Master? Hector LeMans? Kreia? Walton Simons? (I don't even know why he's there what with being Page's cronies and all. I just liked the creepiness)

 

Oh! And Gromnir of course.

 

I mean, what constitutes a good villain, I'd be interested in your opinions.

[Atreides]

I think Irenicus and TNO were done well. Sarevok's good for a power hungry melee fighter but not as deep as the previous two, and let's face it - if it wasn't for his cool armour he wouldn't be half the villain he was.

[Sand]

As you know, the clothes (in this case armor) makes the man.

[Pop]

I guess the quality of the villain depends on the game, as certain villains lend themselves to the atmosphere of a game. I remember being freaked out by Icarus in Deus Ex when he first made contact with the PC. I'd say Bioware has made a lot of great villains, but Darth Malak and Morag were just so boring. Dug Sarevok, dug Irenicus/Bodhi. The Valsharess was okay, but I had hoped they would have explored the disappearance of Lolth a little more.

 

As far as Obsidian goes, I thought Kreia was alright (I didn't much care for objectivism before I played it, and it kind of got in the way of my connecting with the character) Sion and Nihilus were designed well. I actually thought Atris was the best-drawn villain from KOTOR2.

 

Are there any games in which an established good character from earlier games becomes a villain in later ones? Maybe the PC becomes the villain? I'm thinking that would be good for a D&D game, but I don't play often enough :\

Edited October 7, 2006 by Pop

[Dark_Raven]

I'm finding it difficult to think of a really unique videogame villain to be honest. The Master? Hector LeMans? Kreia? Walton Simons? (I don't even know why he's there what with being Page's cronies and all. I just liked the creepiness)

 

Oh! And Gromnir of course.

 

I mean, what constitutes a good villain, I'd be interested in your opinions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Master and Kreia were good evil bad guys.

[Pidesco]

SHODAN is the best game villain of all time.

[Dark_Raven]

I think Irenicus and TNO were done well.  Sarevok's good for a power hungry melee fighter but not as deep as the previous two, and let's face it - if it wasn't for his cool armour he wouldn't be half the villain he was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A shame that your character didn't get cool looking armor like that.

[kirottu]

SHODAN is the best game villain of all time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There definately was something about Shodan.

[Volourn]

"The Master and Kreia were good evil bad guys."

 

Master was good; Kreia was horrible. She was one dimensional, obvious, and wannabe intellect who failed at that.

 

 

Valsharess is overrated. Mala was ok though he was one dimensional as well but he fit his role perfectly. Again, Morag is undderrated as a villain. She did what she wa ssupposed to, and filled her role near perfectly

 

BIO's worst villains are Melissan, and the stupid medusa.

[Tel Aviv]

I guess the quality of the villain depends on the game, as certain villains lend themselves to the atmosphere of a game. I remember being freaked out by Icarus in Deus Ex when he first made contact with the PC. I'd say Bioware has made a lot of great villains, but Darth Malak and Morag were just so boring. Dug Sarevok, dug Irenicus/Bodhi. The Valsharess was okay, but I had hoped they would have explored the disappearance of Lolth a little more.

 

As far as Obsidian goes, I thought Kreia was alright (I didn't much care for objectivism before I played it, and it kind of got in the way of my connecting with the character) Sion and Nihilus were designed well. I actually thought Atris was the best-drawn villain from KOTOR2.

 

Are there any games in which an established good character from earlier games becomes a villain in later ones? Maybe the PC becomes the villain? I'm thinking that would be good for a D&D game, but I don't play often enough :\

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely agree about Malak and Morag. Malak especially, being victimized by a sith thug (I believe that was his prestige class) isn't exactly my cup of tea. Atris was interesting though what with the complicated relationship with the exile and all.

 

As for good characters becoming villains, the only immediate example I can think of is in the Max Payne series. Theirs a particular character who serves as an ally of sorts in the first and a villain in the second.

[Darque]

SHODAN is the best game villain of all time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>