Make Companions Memorable

[TRX850]

http://forums.obsidi...aracterization/

 

Chris Avellone is the guy who's come up with some of the most loved and well-known characters in RPGs.

 

Oh, right. I did actually see that post a while back, but had possibly forgotten the specifics.

 

I'm glad he's on the case anyway. I'm excited to see what transpires.

[Hormalakh]

All that to say that you shouldn't be too worried. Our precious game is in good hands.

[Umberlin]

The thing with the concept of this thread, is that more the half the time people note characters they liked, or loved, from BG or BG, or quite a few games, they're the ones I typically couldn't stand. I typically ran these characters off when I could, or outright killed them, or just treated them badly when I couldn't get rid of them. Which characters a person likes is subjective, and the ones I liked someone else may cringe at. So the basic idea of the thread is inherently, irreparably, flawed. You don't know who will be liked, and some you may not like others may absolutely adore.

 

Your essential push with this thread comes down to things like:

 

if having a full range of character traits in the game world is inevitable, then consider making the less likeable types as true NPCs, such as commoners, quest-givers, plot characters, villains, and other enemies.

 

Which sound good in theory, but, really, if you think about it, who decided that those characters weren't likable enough to be party characters? Would the rest of us agree? I don't think you can handle such a thing in such a way, because the variety of party characters in a game is 'because' people have different tastes. The ones you don't like? Someone else loves them. Pushing characters 'you don't like' off as true NPC or what have you doesn't do anything but deprive 'people that aren't you' of something they'd enjoy.

 

Half the fun of a game like BGII is the different personalities, and how they interact and conflict. Taking characters out because they bicker, or because you percieve them as annoying, doesn't do anything for everyone else. It only does something for 'you' and games aren't made for 'you' they're made for an audience with varaible viewpoints and tastes.

 

Some people here really like Minsc. Personally I wanted him dead. I wouldn't want him out of the game though, despite that, because it's not just my viewpoint of character and their likability or usefulness that matters. In regard to usefulness specifically . . . they don't actually have to be. I can name times when I've played through a game purposefully with characters that were weak, or flawed in some way. Usually because I just wanted to see what would happen. I hated that little Gnomish Bard in NWN2, but I still used him in one playthrough just to see it play out, and was entertained, despite wanting him to die horribly painfully and screaming.

[TRX850]

@Umberlin, you are of course correct. Likeability will always be subjective. The two example links I included on page one of this thread list their own criteria for how likeable or useful they deemed each BG character to be, and came up with a score at the end. People will always do this, especially for popular games, and there are many of these so-called character assessments out there, not just those two. The problem I see is long term however, because given enough time, these sorts of rank listings become part of the public memory; a sort of "go to" guide when players need to remind themselves of how they want to plan their next playthrough. The point I was hoping to make by demonstrating this is that when people praise game characters, it's all well and good, but when they slate other characters who are perceived to be comparatively worse, for all sorts of reasons, then someone should look at why there is such a divide and consider tweaking the character design to normalize things more.

 

I did eventually suggest that perhaps the meaning of this thread could be better worded and that instead of trying to quantify likeability (which would inevitably go round in circles), that perhaps we should look at what makes characters "compelling" or "intriguing". I wasn't trying to disguise anything by doing this, but to invite members to consider it from a slightly different perspective.

 

But the reasons behind it remain. I would like the choice of who I want to join my party to be made *even more difficult* because I now have fewer reasons to reject certain characters, and more reasons to see that they are more balanced in their overall purpose for being in the game. Things like entertainment value, special abilities, unique personalities, quest potential, and many other reasons like this are the reasons I should be considering. Not things like how bad their stats are, or their voice acting and so on. I've played BG a few times, and there are only a couple of NPCs I haven't tried yet, but I do find that it's human nature to choose the more compelling, more intriguing characters who have great entertainment value, special abilities, unique personalities, and in particular, quest potential. That last point is very important in game design.

 

Anyway, as Hormalakh so aptly pointed out, there is indeed an information packed article by Chris Avellone addressing these concerns and that we're basically in good hands.

[TMZuk]

For me, what makes or breaks a good RPG is the quality of NPCs and companions.

 

That was one of two reasons why I thought Fallout:NV a far better game than Fallout 3. That is why I've never been able to get into Bethesda's games. And that's why I used to really like Bioware's games. So yes! Make them intriguing, dangerous, treacherous, caring, emotional, lying, loving and larger than life.

 

Anyone remember Bishop from NWN 2? I remember when I did my playthrough with a female protagonist and the bastard betrayed her. And later, in MotB, when they met again and she could spit in his face! Fantastic! That's the sort of emotion I want. Not that it ~has~ to involve betrayal. But strong feelings? Oh yes!

[Sacred_Path]

What makes a character likeable and memorable is so subjective. I remember a certain psychotic necromancer and his murdering halfling friend who to me were much more welcomed company than a certain female fighter/ druid. Therefore, I'd clearly advocate for companions in P:E to be as diverse as possible, ensuring that everyone will find some of them likeable and some not. If you can't bring yourself to include one of them in your party that is ok, because:

 

1) there's still the Adventurer's Hall

 

2) you're probably not a powergamer, therefore there's no fault in you just taking those characters you like. If you are a PG and still can't for the life of you include that ranger companion that your party setup lacks, see 1)

[Umberlin]

The point I was hoping to make by demonstrating this is that when people praise game characters, it's all well and good, but when they slate other characters who are perceived to be comparatively worse, for all sorts of reasons, then someone should look at why there is such a divide and consider tweaking the character design to normalize things more.

 

Or not. If you tweak them you lose the people that found them interesting as is. You gain no one, the other types already had their interest. If another form doesn't exist you don't have that additional audience. Your take on this sounds like everything that is wrong with board room game development.

 

I did eventually suggest that perhaps the meaning of this thread could be better worded and that instead of trying to quantify likeability (which would inevitably go round in circles), that perhaps we should look at what makes characters "compelling" or "intriguing".

 

Still subjective on a person to person basis.

[Sylvanpyxie]

In terms of the more subjective side of the argument it all boils down to the Players - What some people might find charming and intriguing others might find dull in comparison and this isn't something that will be changed. There will always be people that enjoy a character like Grobnar Gnomehands and there will always be those that hate him, no matter how hard you try to make him pleasing. I wouldn't like to see the formula for character design change in an attempt to please the masses. It would be a futile endeavour that would have the same results - Some Players interested, others not. No sense changing something that, in my opinion, isn't broken.

 

 

Leaving the subjective round about nature of the character personality argument behind, I would like to share my experiences and opinions on the memorability of characters:

 

I find it difficult to assess companions as good/bad, memorable or not. I tend to try and keep things in the perspective of my character as much as possible, and this includes character interaction. Obviously as a Player I have favourite characters - Grobnar Gnomehands for one - but that doesn't mean I'm going to be gluing myself to them for the majority of the game every time I play, simply because my character might not share my opinion.

 

Maybe it's just that I like to immerse myself so deeply in the personality of my own character, but I always find myself quite heavily impacted by the characters of the games I play and they all end up sticking in my mind, for both their good and bad qualities. The only characters that really fade into my memory are the ones that are so poorly written that they have almost no redeeming qualities, but even then one of my characters will inevitably become compatible and I'll end up dragging them around anyway.

 

As a Player - I disliked Bishop and his self-absorbed egotistically mocking nature and yet, despite my hatred of him, I can enjoy his character. Not because he's a Hot Ranger, not because he's an awesome badass, but because when I look at him through the eyes of my character I managed to find a depth and complexity that I wouldn't have seen. It's a unique experience, uncovering a certain sense of joy from a character I loath and, no matter how much I want to disregard him as a character, I find it impossible to forget him.

 

I've always felt that bias against characters is the result of Player knowledge, disregarding a character that the Player dislikes, no matter how much they might add to the experience. When I pick up an RPG I try to leave my Player opinions at the door, I get the most enjoyment when I allow my characters to lead me and they often lead me to a different cast of characters each time. I always end up making the characters "fit" and, no matter how much I dislike them, I still seem to enjoy their company in the end.

 

I can understand why some people would go out of their way to avoid characters they dislike, but speaking for myself, I consider every character to memorable (though admittedly, it's not always in a good way).

Edited January 10, 2013 by Sylvanpyxie

[TRX850]

The point I was hoping to make by demonstrating this is that when people praise game characters, it's all well and good, but when they slate other characters who are perceived to be comparatively worse, for all sorts of reasons, then someone should look at why there is such a divide and consider tweaking the character design to normalize things more.

 

Or not. If you tweak them you lose the people that found them interesting as is. You gain no one, the other types already had their interest. If another form doesn't exist you don't have that additional audience. Your take on this sounds like everything that is wrong with board room game development.

 

Not necessarily. Consider a henchman that 50% of players preferred just the way he is, and the other 50% thought he was lacking because he didn't have any particular goal or purpose in the game and was just there purely as a henchman. That's fine, the people have decided. But what if you introduced a side-quest that opens up possibilities for him to discover something about himself or the game world or even about the main player character?

 

You've preserved the initial interest in him from the original 50%, but have now given the other 50% a "compelling or intriguing" reason to play him.

 

Honestly, I am not, nor was I ever, trying to force players to like or dislike henchmen based on someone else's personal preference. If that came across, it wasn't meant to.

 

You know what I would like to see, is if we asked 100 people to look at this link http://www.gamebanshee.com/baldursgate/strategies/npcguide1.php (and click through to the other pages in that list to see what they've done), then consider all the assessment criteria for those Baldur's Gate NPCs and come up with their own list and final scores, and then compare them. I would expect there to be some wild variations based on personal choice, but there's certain criteria like class abilities and related quests that are more reasonably quantifiable using logical deduction rather than an emotional process. All I was hoping is that where the perceived % values differ wildly, we could tweak that NPC to appeal to both sides without losing anything in the process.

 

Improving something doesn't automatically mean watering it down. I didn't mean that. And for the record, I actually do like reading through character assessments like the example given, and making my own judgements. I'm not against them. If anything, they provide a useful template for how you might plan your next playthrough. But you certainly don't have to use them if you prefer to "forget" your previous playthrough and re-experience the game afresh. I've done that too. What bothers me about those lists though, and I've mentioned this before, is that over time, people start to believe them as absolute truth, or at least that's the impression I get from reading other forums on player preferences.

 

If we can give the game reviewers who assess these things some "compelling and intriguing" reasons to increase a low % to a high %, then everyone's a winner, and we've lost nothing in the process.

Edited January 10, 2013 by TRX850

[Lephys]

In regard to the voice-acting bit, I like to look at it like this:

 

Gollum, in the LOTR films, has what COULD be an annoying voice. It isn't a pleasant sound, let's put it that way. BUT, I think with his lines, and mannerisms, and the way in which he delivers the lines, it works very well. Whereas, with that SAME kind of vocal style, if you pushed it a bit farther, you'd have Donald Duck. If Gollum sounded exactly like Donald Duck, I'd hate it. It would irk me to no end. NO END, I say!

 

I don't know exactly what all the technical differences are in between Gollum's voice and Donald Duck's, but there's something there that's just overly adjusted and misses the mark. It's kind of like the English voices in a lot of animes. Technically, they are the right sound for that character, but they just... I dunno, they're off-key or something. The big, burly guy doesn't just sound like a big burly guy, he sounds like his voice is trying to PROVE he's a big burly guy, even though you already know it.

 

I think that was the problem with Neeshka. I didn't hate her voice, but it did border on "Hey, did my voice mention I'm wily, sarcastic, cute, and opinionated?"

 

It's sort of the difference between an assassin visciously stabbing someone's back without remorse, then fleeing and an assassin leaping out of the crowd with a big "I love stabbing people in the back because I'm so, so evil and don't feel any remorse for such actions" sign on his head. It's 100% accurate, but it's so unnecessary, it detracts from his portrayal.

[Sacred_Path]

Not necessarily. Consider a henchman that 50% of players preferred just the way he is, and the other 50% thought he was lacking because he didn't have any particular goal or purpose in the game and was just there purely as a henchman. That's fine, the people have decided. But what if you introduced a side-quest that opens up possibilities for him to discover something about himself or the game world or even about the main player character?

 

Instead of making characters memorable/ likeable I'd argue for them to be "rooted" in the game world.

 

Take Minsc in BG1; he has a purpose of his own in the game, but still he sticks out like a sore thumb. The whole Rashemen theme wasn't implemented very well and seemed strange to people not steeped in Forgotten Realms lore. His miniature giant space hamster and powergaming stats just increased that perception of him as an oddball choice.

 

A well-done example is Keldorn in BG2. He convincingly ties into the world and is aligned with a faction, he has a residence and his personal troubles are bound well into the gameplay.

 

So instead of making all characters "stand out" like Minsc did by adding contrived details (not every companion should have a hamster/ parrot/ peg leg and eye patch) make them more convincing by making the player feel that this really is a character who had a life of his own before they met the PC.

[Malevolent]

As other people have said, I think that this is entirely a matter of opinion. Several of my favorite characters of all time are prone to polarization in terms of fans' opinion on them. Jack, from ME2, I personally loved. I have a strong affinity toward empowered, badass bitches that don't take nothing from no one. Yet she is one of the most reviled characters of Mass Effect 2, between her hostile personality and appearance. I also love Reaver from Fable 2 (not so much Fable 3, he was too much for me). Also an incredibly despised character. Not only is he a hedonist in every sense of the word, but he's a turncoat and a coward. Some players loathe him not only for his personality, but for the fact that he gets away with treachery. I've encountered a few who felt their character was "depowered" or "made helpless" by the fact that Reaver was able to betray/outsmart them in the Fable 2 narrative twice, and there was nothing they could do about it.

 

To me, that's a sign of good writing. Having characters that divide people, because it means you've done a good enough job to merit a strong reaction. Even if a character is despised by the bulk of the community, that means you've succeeded in your job to elicit a response. It's the characters that are forgettable and don't leave a strong reaction in the slightest that tend to be the "bad" characters.

 

I guess the only other "oopsy" besides a bland character is a character than invokes the opposite of what it was intended to. If a character is SUPPOSED to be likeable and held in high regard by the majority of the population, but then comes across as an annoying bastard you want to space/shove down a mining shaft... well. I guess you could write that off as a nominal, unintended success?

 

But that's just my two cents.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Malevolent

[AGX-17]

"Hey Obsidian, do this thing for which your team is already well known. I know it'll be hard, because nobody at Obsidian has ever done it before, but do it."

Edited January 10, 2013 by AGX-17

[TRX850]

"Hey Obsidian, do this thing for which your team is already well known. I know it'll be hard, because nobody at Obsidian has ever done it before, but do it."

 

Sarcasm aside, you could post that comment on every other P:E forum thread and it would have the same meaning.

 

You do realize that the purpose of these forums is for RPG fans to discuss ideas and bring a range of experiences to the table so that it might provide insight to the development team, don't you?

 

Of course they know what they're doing, but our "job" is to help by providing feedback. Otherwise what is the point of these forums?

 

Now, is there anything you'd like to add about characters that you found amazing, or not so amazing, and tell us why you think so? I'd like to hear it.

[Lephys]

You do realize that the purpose of these forums is for RPG fans to discuss ideas and bring a range of experiences to the table so that it might provide insight to the development team, don't you?

 

Blasphemy! Everyone knows the purpose of all internet forums is to tell as many people -- whom you pre-emptively believe are inherently beneath you and therefore incapable of comprehending your celestial words -- as possible how wrong they are about stuff and how right you are purely because you have a thought on the matter, with no basis in reason or any other such nonsense. u_u

 

...

[Odglok]

I've only skimmed through the thread so far, but I really just have one suggestion: limit voice acting as much as possible. For some reason the only RPGs I've played that have voice acting I could appreciate were Bethesda games, but these were also first-person and (apparently) didn't want to force the player to read a lot of dialogue. But I thought Morrowind and Fallout 3 were great in that respect (Morrowind's Dunmer are truly special in my opnion).

 

Obviously this whole topic is extremely subjective, but I think in an isometric, pseudo-2D RPG like P:E, voice acting is best kept to a minimum. As awesome as BG2 was, I think it's vocals were straight up campy, pretty much breaking the immersion everytime an NPC spoke up. Grunts and battlecries are fine, but when it comes to whole lines of conversation in interactive dialogue, I could do without simultaneously hearing the same words I'm trying to read.

[TRX850]

Reading through the other forum threads here, I've noticed ~95% of them come with personal opinions. The rest are either a statement of fact, or a statement of...I don't know what.

 

If you read Chris Avellone's excellent article on Characterization http://forums.obsidian.net/blog/1/entry-168-project-eternity-and-characterization/ you will see he addresses many of the points that players talk about when discussing game characters. But it shouldn't end there. Maybe some of you have had ideas brewing for a while on what YOU think would make a great addition to an already established RPG franchise.

 

Because, you know, sometimes amid a sea of rhetoric, a pearl of wisdom emerges.

[Lephys]

I think you've got to give them deeper psyche's than simply splitting them up at a choice intersection. Kind of the similar thing I said in the villains thread. It's just... I don't know, inherently boring to the subconscious processing power of our brains to have someone who follows you around saying "I'm part of a holy order, and holiness is good, because yay holiness! You did something that was bad?! That's bad because it's not good! I don't like it 'cause it's bad!" And every time you do something that isn't directly within the walls of their holy creed, it's automatically bad. There aren't ever any other factors involved, so you end up with a huge string of binary switches. "Was it holy and good? Then I like it. Was it not? Then I hate it."

 

It's extraordinarily one-dimensional. There are plenty of ally characters I've seen in games that I found interesting and likable despite their having certain beliefs and making certain decisions that I wouldn't have or that aren't my preference. Someone mentioned Jack from the Mass Effect series, already. She's pretty much a huge **** to everyone, but she has pretty good reason to be. She has a complexity of feeling about things that involves changes, doubts, re-assessments, etc. as things unfold.

 

I think we need to be able to relate to the behind-the-scenes aspects of characters' beliefs and decisions, even when they're things we might do differently, personally. The character and how they're presented should cause you to want to at least imagine yourself in their shoes for a moment before judging them. They need to feel conflicted at times, because that's what people do. The fearless raging Barbarian should have something he's afraid of, even if it's no opponent in combat. The stalwart Priest who's 110% dedicated to his deity needs to be able to have his faith shaken by SOMEthing in the world. Etc.

 

The effects that actions, circumstances, and events can have upon your companion characters is one of the most important aspects of their depth.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Lephys

[moridin84]

I think you've got to give them deeper psyche's than simply splitting them up at a choice intersection. Kind of the similar thing I said in the villains thread. It's just... I don't know, inherently boring to the subconscious processing power of our brains to have someone who follows you around saying "I'm part of a holy order, and holiness is good, because yay holiness! You did something that was bad?! That's bad because it's not good! I don't like it 'cause it's bad!" And every time you do something that isn't directly within the walls of their holy creed, it's automatically bad. There aren't ever any other factors involved, so you end up with a huge string of binary switches. "Was it holy and good? Then I like it. Was it not? Then I hate it."

 

It's extraordinarily one-dimensional. There are plenty of ally characters I've seen in games that I found interesting and likable despite their having certain beliefs and making certain decisions that I wouldn't have or that aren't my preference. Someone mentioned Jack from the Mass Effect series, already. She's pretty much a huge **** to everyone, but she has pretty good reason to be. She has a complexity of feeling about things that involves changes, doubts, re-assessments, etc. as things unfold.

 

I think we need to be able to relate to the behind-the-scenes aspects of characters' beliefs and decisions, even when they're things we might do differently, personally. The character and how they're presented should cause you to want to at least imagine yourself in their shoes for a moment before judging them. They need to feel conflicted at times, because that's what people do. The fearless raging Barbarian should have something he's afraid of, even if it's no opponent in combat. The stalwart Priest who's 110% dedicated to his deity needs to be able to have his faith shaken by SOMEthing in the world. Etc.

 

The effects that actions, circumstances, and events can have upon your companion characters is one of the most important aspects of their depth.

I don't exactly disagree but at the same time... I don't think that companions actually need to be changed by your actions. Characters can be complex and interesting without necessarily being swayed by you.

 

Kaelyn the Dove from NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer is a good example. Ultimately her beliefs are not swayed in the slightest by how you act or what you say to her, her different "endings" mostly relate to the practical consequences of your actions.

[Lephys]

I don't exactly disagree but at the same time... I don't think that companions actually need to be changed by your actions. Characters can be complex and interesting without necessarily being swayed by you.

 

Kaelyn the Dove from NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer is a good example. Ultimately her beliefs are not swayed in the slightest by how you act or what you say to her, her different "endings" mostly relate to the practical consequences of your actions.

 

Well, I don't advocate definite change for every action or factor. Only potential influence and effect.

 

In other words, instead of a party member simply disagreeing with you and reiterating their stance OR agreeing with you because you chose what was exactly in line with their stance, they should have complex enough thoughts to consider a new notion or perspective sometimes based upon what others around them are saying, the situation, and other nearby factors.

 

That's what real people do. We sometimes doubt, reconsider, consider new information, second-guess ourselves, change our minds about things that affect other doubts and reconsiderations, etc. We have a core set of beliefs that essentially have a high resistance to effect, and we have less-imperative beliefs and perspectives that are increasingly more malleable, on down the line. So, there may only be ONE instance in the game that effects each character's stalwart, core ideals. But, having none kinda sucks a bit of the virtual soul out of the character.

 

Your self-centered Rogue might never change his desire to take what he can at every opportunity, but something, at some point, should be capable of causing him to question his reason for doing so. Unless he's literally pure evil, encountering a noble (and at least slightly well-to-do) family who's been pillaged and tortured by bandits (whom he, perhaps, sees as lacking some form of honor or integrity within circles of thievery) might make him question tenants of his own creed, which he perhaps previously thought was 100% sufficient at handling all situations without conflicting with any other aspects of his beliefs. "These people have more than plenty of other people... does it matter what they've just gone through? Should I find out more about the kind of people I steal from?"

 

I'd rather have a Rogue companion whom I can observe having a conflict similar to the above than one who just says "I love stealing... stealing stealing stealing... WEEEEeeee stealing!" every single time there's even anything that's possible to steal.

 

Humans are not omniscient, and we want to have everything figured out, but we're constantly affected by new information. Even if, after the process of considering the new information, we still arrive at the same decision, the basis for the decision is not the same.

[Jasede]

I disagree completely, I think the companions should be shallow and forgettable.

 

I really hope Obsidian doesn't listen to TC!

[Lephys]

I also hope they don't listen, 'cause they probably won't hear anything. Reading might be beneficial, though.

[moridin84]

Well, I don't advocate definite change for every action or factor. Only potential influence and effect.

 

In other words, instead of a party member simply disagreeing with you and reiterating their stance OR agreeing with you because you chose what was exactly in line with their stance, they should have complex enough thoughts to consider a new notion or perspective sometimes based upon what others around them are saying, the situation, and other nearby factors.

 

That's what real people do. We sometimes doubt, reconsider, consider new information, second-guess ourselves, change our minds about things that affect other doubts and reconsiderations, etc. We have a core set of beliefs that essentially have a high resistance to effect, and we have less-imperative beliefs and perspectives that are increasingly more malleable, on down the line. So, there may only be ONE instance in the game that effects each character's stalwart, core ideals. But, having none kinda sucks a bit of the virtual soul out of the character.

 

Your self-centered Rogue might never change his desire to take what he can at every opportunity, but something, at some point, should be capable of causing him to question his reason for doing so. Unless he's literally pure evil, encountering a noble (and at least slightly well-to-do) family who's been pillaged and tortured by bandits (whom he, perhaps, sees as lacking some form of honor or integrity within circles of thievery) might make him question tenants of his own creed, which he perhaps previously thought was 100% sufficient at handling all situations without conflicting with any other aspects of his beliefs. "These people have more than plenty of other people... does it matter what they've just gone through? Should I find out more about the kind of people I steal from?"

 

I'd rather have a Rogue companion whom I can observe having a conflict similar to the above than one who just says "I love stealing... stealing stealing stealing... WEEEEeeee stealing!" every single time there's even anything that's possible to steal.

 

Humans are not omniscient, and we want to have everything figured out, but we're constantly affected by new information. Even if, after the process of considering the new information, we still arrive at the same decision, the basis for the decision is not the same.

Hopefully we will get companions that are much more complex than the standard archtypes (self-centred rogue, self-righteous priest, etc).

 

The type of character development you are suggesting for companions feels too heavy-handed for my tastes. Though I might be just nitpicking at this point, you are likely just trying to emphasize your point?

Edited January 11, 2013 by moridin84

[nocoolnamejim]

Examples of unlikeable characters tend to be everywhere in JRPGs.

 

Vanille.

Rikku

 

Just to name two.

[kenup]

Let's just hope they don't stoop to KotoR2 level. Whether memorable or not, I don't like being forced to recruit a companion without good reason, especially if the PC told them to **** off(or fought them in self defence) in the previous scene.

Edited January 11, 2013 by kenup