Killing companions

[Crosmando]

In BG I nearly always killed Imoen, because I really hated her one liners. So I want same option in Project Eternity too, if my copanions hit my (character) nerve they may die by fireball thrown in one second rage .

Aerie is far more annoying.

 

But Aerie will eventually sleep with you if you put up with her annoyance.

Indeed, she will also love you so much she'll give birth to your child in 30 days flat! (30 minutes game-time that is)

[TheyCallMeElvenKing]

While I think being able to kill them at any time gives the player more options, I also like when your going through the story and if you have a certain companion that has a conflict/love interest gets killed. I think I prefer the interactive story where a decision can cause a companion to be killed.

[codexer]

No NPC should at any time be immune to death and the player character should be free to attack anyone, including companions. There should be consequences from killing people, or even letting companions die. The game world has to be responsive to the players actions; this is what it means to play a game.

[Suen]

I was really, really set on killing Zhjaeve in NWN2... however my vote is

"Yes, but only during specific conflict-driven scenes as part of the narrative. "

because it's more interesting (see NWN2: MotB).

 

still looking for a way to kill Zhjaeve. And Wheatley (yes, yes, wrong game).

[Jozape]

Heh, in a perfect world, having every single companion (a fully fledged one, not just another character created by the player, like in the Icewind Dale series) killable would be perfect, but I'm not sure they have the time or budget to do that.

 

How so? All Obsidian has to allow us to do is click 'Attack' and click 'Annah'. Assuming companions are non-vital to the main plot(unlike Annah in PS:T iirc), killing them won't cause the main plot to be impossible to finish. It'll just mean one less person in the world, and possibly a few quests to be impossible to start or finish. On the other hand, it could also cause new quests to open up if Obsidian takes these killings into account.

 

While I think being able to kill them at any time gives the player more options, I also like when your going through the story and if you have a certain companion that has a conflict/love interest gets killed. I think I prefer the interactive story where a decision can cause a companion to be killed.

 

That can be done too while allowing the player to kill a companion at any time. Refrain from killing your LI(if your character is the killer) until the moment is right.

[C2B]

EVERYBODY should be killable. As well as there should be a complete pacificst run.

 

That's actually something I pretty much expect.

[Sarog]

Heh, in a perfect world, having every single companion (a fully fledged one, not just another character created by the player, like in the Icewind Dale series) killable would be perfect, but I'm not sure they have the time or budget to do that.

 

If killing a companion means more than a "forced attack" (combat mechanic) on him/her, you would need motivation for that, which means dialogue options, the possibility of partially altering the companion side-story; then, you have to take into account party size vs. the world when it comes to encounters (or, you can leave this last aspect unchanged, so that the player knows in advance that killing a couple of companions would mean having a VERY hard time during the subsequent fights).

 

I don't think all that is necessary. I think forced attack, with opinion penalties ala Arcanum, does just fine.

 

Everything you mention about altering companion stories, scripting dialogue, etc. is great for when the writers choose to do so as part of their companion's story. I think we all expect that if the writers present us with the choice of killing a character in a scripted scene, that it be suitably detailed. But if the player can decide that they don't care about seeing a particular companion's story through to the finish (especially if the narrative never presents the player with the choice of killing the character), I think it is enough to let the player simply gank the character and leave them where they lie without the game having to add anything to that (aside from from opinion penalties where appropriate).

 

That's just a personal roleplaying thing, and you don't need scripting for decisions that you reason through on your own iniative. If the game never presents me with a scripted scene that makes me confront the villainy of Korgan Bloodaxe that doesn't mean that I, as the player character, cannot conclude that "this Korgan dude is a ticking timebomb who is probably going to slit my throat in my sleep and then go murder some villagers" and then deal with the problem as I see fit. Even if there were a scripted scene to face the problem later, that doesn't mean that my character, thinking the way he does, shouldn't get a chance to preempt it.

 

Simply removing plot armour from companions, and leaving it up to the player to justify how they take advantage of that lack of plot armour, would resolve a great deal of frustration.

 

And of course, giving the player this freedom doesn't mean that the writers can't still write scripted scenes involving companion death. It just means that if you kill the companion before those scenes come up, you don't see those scenes. Which is a perfectly fair decision.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Sarog

[Estelindis]

I'd like to vote for something between option one or two. If it is possible to kill a companion any time, or at least try to kill them, it should trigger a conflict-driven scene which varies depending on a range of factors (e.g. their personality, where you are in the plot, what you know about them, what they know about you, etc). They may demand to know why you are trying to kill them, fight you, try to get away without fighting, or what-have-you. The event should impact other characters who are aware of it and care about you, the companion in question, and/or the morality of anyone involved (or general morality of killing).

[C2B]

I'd like to vote for something between option one or two. If it is possible to kill a companion any time, or at least try to kill them, it should trigger a conflict-driven scene which varies depending on a range of factors (e.g. their personality, where you are in the plot, what you know about them, what they know about you, etc). They may demand to know why you are trying to kill them, fight you, try to get away without fighting, or what-have-you. The event should impact other characters who are aware of it and care about you, the companion in question, and/or the morality of anyone involved (or general morality of killing).

 

That scene would make sense if I attack them frontal. But what about if I take them by surprise or sneak up on them?

[Lucas]

Heh, in a perfect world, having every single companion (a fully fledged one, not just another character created by the player, like in the Icewind Dale series) killable would be perfect, but I'm not sure they have the time or budget to do that.

 

If killing a companion means more than a "forced attack" (combat mechanic) on him/her, you would need motivation for that, which means dialogue options, the possibility of partially altering the companion side-story; then, you have to take into account party size vs. the world when it comes to encounters (or, you can leave this last aspect unchanged, so that the player knows in advance that killing a couple of companions would mean having a VERY hard time during the subsequent fights).

 

I don't think all that is necessary. I think forced attack, with opinion penalties ala Arcanum, does just fine.

 

Everything you mention about altering companion stories, scripting dialogue, etc. is great for when the writers choose to do so as part of their companion's story. I think we all expect that if the writers present us with the choice of killing a character in a scripted scene, that it be suitably detailed. But if the player can decide that they don't care about seeing a particular companion's story through to the finish (especially if the narrative never presents the player with the choice of killing the character), I think it is enough to let the player simply gank the character and leave them where they lie without the game having to add anything to that (aside from from opinion penalties where appropriate).

 

That's just a personal roleplaying thing, and you don't need scripting for decisions that you reason through on your own iniative. If the game never presents me with a scripted scene that makes me confront the villainy of Korgan Bloodaxe that doesn't mean that I, as the player character, cannot conclude that "this Korgan dude is a ticking timebomb who is probably going to slit my throat in my sleep and then go murder some villagers" and then deal with the problem as I see fit. Even if there were a scripted scene to face the problem later, that doesn't mean that my character, thinking the way he does, shouldn't get a chance to preempt it.

 

Simply removing plot armour from companions, and leaving it up to the player to justify how they take advantage of that lack of plot armour, would resolve a great deal of frustration.

 

And of course, giving the player this freedom doesn't mean that the writers can't still write scripted scenes involving companion death. It just means that if you kill the companion before those scenes come up, you don't see those scenes. Which is a perfectly fair decision.

 

I understand what you're saying: regarding the decision on what armour your companion should wear (unless there are class/racial restrictions of any kind, of course), weapons, how he/she should behave in a fight...That is fine, but I think it also depends on the approach Obsidian is going to take with the game in general.

 

For example, I put personal roleplaying restrictions on my character in Bethesda games, because they're designed like that (sandbox approach), so my fighting character will never join the mages guild or dabble in enchantments or alchemy, even though the game allow you to do that (but he's great at blacksmithing)

 

Companions in this game, though, could be a little more interwoven with the plot and your choices, so that Obsidian take a more "cinematic" approach to the whole thing that makes them unkillable (hence a "force kill" would be useless).

[Darji]

Voted for 2. Every time makes no real sense. however if you get some huge dispute in your party because of your actions they should offer such moments. Or maybe that he will leave the group forever or even tries to kill you because he wants to stop you from evil doing or whatever.

[Kilroy_Was_Here]

I'd like to vote for something between option one or two. If it is possible to kill a companion any time, or at least try to kill them, it should trigger a conflict-driven scene which varies depending on a range of factors (e.g. their personality, where you are in the plot, what you know about them, what they know about you, etc). They may demand to know why you are trying to kill them, fight you, try to get away without fighting, or what-have-you. The event should impact other characters who are aware of it and care about you, the companion in question, and/or the morality of anyone involved (or general morality of killing).

 

That scene would make sense if I attack them frontal. But what about if I take them by surprise or sneak up on them?

 

Then there's a puff of smoke and it turns out you backstabbed a log. Then they kill you from the shadows...

[Gorgon]

I am really not a fan of immortal companions. I particularly disliked how it was done in NWN2. You should'nt keep NPCs on life support just because they have lines later on. There is always a workaround for it if you think it through.

 

It's a bit reminiscent of the babysitting mission debacle. As long as you can have the NPC die and have that be a result rather than a reload, I'm fine with it, but having to reload a babysitting mission over and over while being a victim of AI quirks and bad pathfinding. It's one of the tings that will make me give up on a game completely.

[Darkpriest]

I am ok with companions being killable, as long as they are still some random NPC for us... If they become a party member, I would rather not make them a subject to random hack&slash temptation, but would make killing possible in plot/adventuring related disagreements.

[Hornet85]

EVERYBODY should be killable. As well as there should be a complete pacificst run.

 

That's actually something I pretty much expect.

 

That's easy to implement but there will be the problem of your game coming to a halt once crucial key character for the story progression is dead.

 

You can't have infinite quest branches to accommodate every possibility of who you decide to kill because this isn't a real world, its a software that needs the dev to decide and design how the quest are.

[Elfwyn]

I think it should be allowed to kill companions... but not because I would take advantage of that.

Disallowing this act would just be felt as a limitation by the players in my opinion.

I would instead go for drastic consequences considering other (surviving) companions.

Those should act accordingly or ask themselves if they are next maybe...

 

And: I liked Aeries Character very much, even if some people don't share this opinion.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Elfwyn

[Sarog]

I am ok with companions being killable, as long as they are still some random NPC for us... If they become a party member, I would rather not make them a subject to random hack&slash temptation, but would make killing possible in plot/adventuring related disagreements.

 

But if you don't feel the temptation of said random hack&slash, that doesn't mean that other people won't encounter some of the dilemmas I've talked about and be frustrated if plot armour limits their actions.

 

The freedom would be nice, and that freedom wouldn't impact on anyone's play experience unless they chose to exercise it.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Sarog

[Ashram]

I think you should be able to take out one of the party members, but it might be a good idea to make that a selectable option. Goodness knows sometimes AI doesn't do what you are trying to get it to do all the time.

[IEfan]

Have companions warn you for attacking your companion (that all agrees is On Our Side) so that accidental attacks are avoided, then make all party hostile to you and attack you (you lunatic!! whatever got into you?? stop killing him you idiot!!). It makes sense, ne? Who the hell just "kill" people just for fun? OH... oh yeah, the area of effect spells-accidental kills.. well, that was solved by making party invicible to own AOE damage (which i disliked strongly)...

 

I mean don't be such a babies - in BG1 companions attacked each other in time (well, it was badly written/handled but it did it's function) for disliking each other (ofc were uncontrollable when fighting each other), in Fallout you could kill your follower since the game treated them more like automaticly-following friendly NPC (whose inventory you could look but you couldn't steal his stuff) - killing him resulted in other teammates attacking you and the surrounding people becoming hostile as well. Arcanum had a really cool idea with how to handle this - when they lose their trust in you for real, it lead them to gank up on you, save some of them who just hated others or had other reasons to side with you. It made sense and it was human, who would ever tolerate or side with an lunatic serial murder who'd kill even teammates? Please don't spoil any of the games i mentioned otherwise.

Edited September 19, 2012 by IEfan

[Muzrub333]

Kill Em All.

 

I want the option for sure; I always try to play through with at least one thoroughly deranged character.

[Nonek]

There's always one who needs to be put down, except in Mask of the Betrayer.

[Lady Evenstar]

I think it's fine for folks to kill companions. I also think that it's fine for them to discover that doing so has limited the endings available in their game.

[Ieo]

I keep misreading the title and thinking "Is EA a choice?"

 

 

The problem I have with the narrative requirement is that there's still a possibility for stupidly arbitrary cheese--like the main antagonist saying "I'm going to kill someone in your party just to prove how powerful I am!" NOt that Obsidian would do that.

 

I did think BGII:ToB's pocket plane random choice in relation to the good/evil path was an interesting implementation, though. And in BGII, I did kill off Anomen pretty quick. Given the expected subrace/cultural range in PE, I fully expect NPCs to have different and possibly opposing backgrounds. Nifty.

[Badprenup]

Why not both? Scripted events where you can kill party members or potential companions with story changes or relationship changes. Just being able to kill a party member and accepting the consequences of other people leaving your party or having a problem with it. Being able to kill anyone and everyone, from party members to merchants. Kill a quest giver? Breaks the quest and informs you of such. Break the main quest? That's your problem for being a psychopath, might as well just go on a massacre in the places you can go.

 

Hell, it wouldn't even be challenging to put this as an option. All it would be is a single variable on NPCs that will make them invinvible if you happen to be on "Easy" mode.

[Monte Carlo]

If the critical path is predicated on the survival of one key NPC then the game wasn't designed right in the first place.

 

I want to be able to kill them, send them off running naked into a pack of monsters (qv Jaheira) or do anything else and not break the critical path. If I choose to run out of NPCs or lose them through bad play then tough on me.