Consequences of Raedric's Hold

[jsaving]

I too struggle to understand the "harsh but fair" label that is sometimes applied to Raedric.  I *think* what people are getting at is that they see him as a Lawful Neutral character who may lack compassion but is still obviously preferable to a Chaotic Evil character like Kolsc who pretends to be Chaotic Good in order to win popular support.  But I have to say, I actually thought *both* NPCs were pretending to be something they're not.  Raedric in my view dressed up his cruelty with a professed commitment to the rule of law while Kolsc dressed up his inherent power-hungriness with a professed commitment to liberating the masses.  Neither is remotely close to being Good-aligned (a sentiment my PC also felt in Defiance Bay when choosing a faction with which to align). 

 

But I have to say these uncertainties illustrate the strength of PoE's narrative rather than being a weakness.  We've all played games before where it is completely clear what people's alignments are and who one ought to side with if one is Good-aligned -- heck, many games let you infallibly know someone's alignment by casting the proper spell on them.  While I wouldn't say role-playing is impossible in those games, it's a much richer experience to make the best judgment you can with the information you have, all the while not being entirely sure whether the group you've chosen to help will do a better job than the group you've decided to oppose.

[gkathellar]

 

 

i went with Raedric.

he is harsh but fair.

I went with Raedric, but to call him "harsh but fair" is stupid. His management of the Hollowborn crisis was cruel and short-sighted. But I couldn't shake the impression that if he didn't have to worry about Korsk, he would become less harsh and less inclined to hang people from Gilded Vale, and that once the crisis was over, he would become a more respectable leader.

 

the part about him being fair is the part about his wife. his choice may have being cruel, but considering he had no clue as to what was going on or how to solve it and the wild west type of place the Dyrwood is (first we hang him, then we decide if he is guilty), the measures were not extreme. if the target of these measures was anyone but the locals, the people would be more than happy to participate in the hangings, but since they were included, Raedric was unpopular

 

Lemme see if I can sum up this point. "Raedric's behavior was stupid and terrible, but at least he was stupid and terrible to everybody! He may have been killing and exiling his people en masse over unfounded assumptions, but that's okay, because he was also willing to kill and exile his loved ones over those unfounded assumptions. After all, people in the Dyrwood frequently kill people for crimes they have no evidence of those people committing, and since it's customary, it must be okay."

 

I *think* what people are getting at is that they see him as a Lawful Neutral character who may lack compassion but is still obviously preferable to a Chaotic Evil character like Kolsc who pretends to be Chaotic Good in order to win popular support.

 

Which is ironic, because it's mentioned later on that Kolsc was actually a pretty good leader until vampire Raedric made off with his head.

[Nakia]

Personally I think every view point of Raedric is valid.  This is a work of fiction, a fantasy and a game where conflict, intrigue and challenges are needed to hold the player's interest.  When I step into the story as a role player I do my best to set aside my own moral values, political viewpoints.  I don't succeed completely but I try.  While I am playing the game the world of Eora becomes real and my choices and judgments are measured by the constrains, rules and lore of the game.  Even in real life good and evil are not so black and white as some would like to think.  I do not consider Raedric evil because to me evil is as  morality is a conscious choice.  I know that a certain act is wrong but I choose to do it.  Raedric is trying to do what he believes is right for his people.  He may be wrong and he may seem cruel but he is not evil.  Which side your character chooses is also a moral choice.  If you feel that Raedric's actions are evil and you believe he should be stopped that is your decision to make.  I have played both sides depending on my character.

 

This whole discussion has modified my  initial reaction to Raedric.  Good job people it isn't easy to get me to change my options. 

[Zekram Bogg]

The easiest analogue for Raedric in my mind is Stannis Baratheon from ASOIAF/Game of Thrones.

 

They're both very lawfully minded characters who will neither exempt themselves from the law nor anyone else, in part because they feel justified in whatever it is they do  because they include themselves in the category of "MUST follow the letter of the law". It means they're highly unyielding characters who, when circumstances don't go their way for too long, tend to break rather bend and adapt.

 

You can totally see that with Raedric. Everything went to **** after Waidwen got blown up and he tried a bunch of things and absolutely nothing worked, so now he's in broken "kill everything until this nightmare ends" mode. But he IS honest about it.

 

That's what people thinking Raedric supporters are evil aren't weighing as heavily I think. It's that fundamental honesty of the situation. Raedric's a definite detriment to Gilded Vale, for sure, but Kolsc is constantly lying to the player, the people around him, and using them toward his own power-hungry ends. There's so much manipulation there that I tend to think people who support Raedric are doing so mostly because at least the despot deals squarely with them. An honest **** being better than a dishonest one and all that, even if the dishonest one is probably the better choice in the long run.

 

Also, I think there's a game mechanics inspired backwards justification going on here too. I know when I first started out, I tried taking on Raedric a few times and just couldn't do it, even on normal difficulty. That party around him is just too high level, well equipped, and well composed for when you can get to Raedric early on, and Kolsc is so much easier to take down and finish the quest. In order to take on Raedric you almost certainly have to leave and come back to him later on when you're better equipped and have some more levels under your belt.

 

Since that's the case, it does seem odd that we can't imprison either Raedric or Kolsc in the dungeons of Caed Nua. I mean, there's really no way to beat Raedric until you've at least obtained ownership of Caed Nua in a progression, so it's strange that he's not "prisonerable" in my mind. Hell, he'd seem a prime candidate for a person you'd WANT to imprison - the rightful heir to a province that needs some time in a dungeon to cool off and reflect. Maybe some time in a dungeon would give the guy some perspective on what he's actually done rather than either feeling continually justified in his choices or dying rightfully thinking it was all a plot from a power-hungry relative.

 

I'd even nominate that if you went down that path, Raedric would make a fine candidate for a party member. If you break him down in a dungeon for a while, he could see that he has to redeem himself for what he's done, and to actually pursue the causes for Waidwen's Legacy with the player, since most people who get to know the new Watcher in town do eventually seem to realize that the PC is probably the person best on the path to actually solving the Legacy more than most.

 

Other thoughts on Raedric:

 

1. Since there's obviously an animation of Raedric sitting in a throne, this should be cannibalized so the player can sit on the throne of Caed Nua.

2. I love that if you side with him you can mention later on in the Blood Legacy quest that you "know a certain noble who's recently single". Dark humor at it's finest.

[jsaving]

Raedric certainly portrays himself as a lawfully minded character who will neither exempt themselves nor anyone else from the law. But there are questions raised in-game about whether this is an accurate perception. One can also ask whether his legal framework is sensible and whether Raedric's personality and temperament make him a suitable ruler. My character answered "no" on all counts and ultimately concluded the Vale was better off without Raedric. But a great thing about PoE is that it doesn't definitely answer any of these questions, so I can see how characters on the "yes" side of the equation might support him instead.

 

Regardless of where one comes out on these questions, I think having Raedric as a party member would be a great idea. Guiding him toward the realization that his rules don't make sense, or that even if they do he isn't the person to implement them, would be one possible outcome of his character development. Another might be to reinforce that draconian methods are needed to deal with the problem at hand and that critics those who don't understand this truth simply lack the insight or discipline to see things through and do what must be done. This wouldn't be entirely dissimilar to some of the ways you can "guide" Grieving Mother in PoE, for example, or even Anomen and Sarevok in BG2.

[gkathellar]

Also, I think there's a game mechanics inspired backwards justification going on here too. I know when I first started out, I tried taking on Raedric a few times and just couldn't do it, even on normal difficulty. That party around him is just too high level, well equipped, and well composed for when you can get to Raedric early on, and Kolsc is so much easier to take down and finish the quest. In order to take on Raedric you almost certainly have to leave and come back to him later on when you're better equipped and have some more levels under your belt.

I hate to tell you this, but for all that Raedric is a wake-up call fight, that's exactly what he is - a signal that you need to adjust your tactics. He's totally beatable at level 3 or 4 prior to Caed Nua, even on PotD.

[613 The Evil]

 

 

 

I killed raedric and put kolsc in place and there was an interesting development latr on in act 3.

 

I am too interested in this, i went back to glided vale and the hold and still no event, what do i ave to do to trigger it?

 

 

There's an npc in the twin elms tavern that triggers it

 

 

That's not even necessary. Your stronghold gets attacked by a certain kind of enemy at some point. After that attack, if talking to the steward, she hands you a message containing the details. But as has been said. It's not that interesting compared to other quests and events.

 

Killing Kolsc doesn't seem to have any impact at all other than Guilded Vale not being as happy with your decision than it is when Raedric is killed.

 

 

 

 

 

I killed raedric and put kolsc in place and there was an interesting development latr on in act 3.

 

I am too interested in this, i went back to glided vale and the hold and still no event, what do i ave to do to trigger it?

 

 

There's an npc in the twin elms tavern that triggers it

 

 

That's not even necessary. Your stronghold gets attacked by a certain kind of enemy at some point. After that attack, if talking to the steward, she hands you a message containing the details. But as has been said. It's not that interesting compared to other quests and events.

 

Killing Kolsc doesn't seem to have any impact at all other than Guilded Vale not being as happy with your decision than it is when Raedric is killed.

 

Does this mean I will still get the Champion of Berath quest, even though I have killed both Kolsc and Raedric? Can you confirm this? I want to progress but I can't until I am sure.

[Dr <3]

Of course

[IamNOOB]

 I think there is a difference but you should not so much care about it. Kolcs is kind of bandit-like and has no great ideas about governing the realm, while he has the surely positive trait of not being insane and phanatical. He at least does not kill his own family. Nor does he hang people from trees like the ruling Lord. Problem is you face a great deal of uncertainty when chosing Kolcs. You surely do not know what will happen if he gains power, as power changes people or brings out the worst in them. I had a different problem-I could not defeat Lord Rodrick as he is surrounded by a pretty stable group of guards, spellcasters are there and ... my party was weak, 4 members, all were lv 4. So I killed Kolcs to finish the quest, not because I support Redrick. But if you think a lot about it  ----- it might be a better choice in the long run.

1. You defend order against vandals and militia men who are no real army. Of course we know "order" means in this case an absolutely insane lord.
2. You gain good ties with the old aristocracy, which is usually useful. Surely that lord can help you later or at least say a few nice words about you to another lord/duke.

3. Redrick might suppress and hang local people and might be doing useless thing to stop the Hollowborn but what do you care<??? Bad lords are everywhere, he is not the only one. This is true only if you have not chosen to be an "angel" like character who defends people against all evil.

[Lordgorzul]

 

You sure that Raedric isn't just crazy?... I mean, he tries to cure the land by building temple to Berath If that was all it would take to end the Legacy, then surely Legacy wouldn't be a thing everywhere in Dyrwood

 

Raedric is absolutely not crazy. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is a very, very bad man, and a very, very bad ruler. Here's a really easy way to tell the difference between a good ruler and a bad one: good rulers' lands are not on the verge of open revolt and kept in check only by mass indiscriminate public executions.

 

Raedric definitely deserves to die. That doesn't necessarily mean Kolsc deserves to rule, but at least he isn't a mass-murderer. It doesn't matter, though, because regardless of who you pick everyone dies. With that in mind, I would say that killing Raedric is extremely satisfying, especially after he brags about murdering his own wife in cold blood because she tried to keep him from murdering their child, all while he's in the process of squeezing the life out of his people.

 

Do it early on and you even get to do it again later!

 

 

thanks for all the spoilers.

[LittleArmadillo0]

 

 

You sure that Raedric isn't just crazy?... I mean, he tries to cure the land by building temple to Berath If that was all it would take to end the Legacy, then surely Legacy wouldn't be a thing everywhere in Dyrwood

 

Raedric is absolutely not crazy. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is a very, very bad man, and a very, very bad ruler. Here's a really easy way to tell the difference between a good ruler and a bad one: good rulers' lands are not on the verge of open revolt and kept in check only by mass indiscriminate public executions.

 

Raedric definitely deserves to die. That doesn't necessarily mean Kolsc deserves to rule, but at least he isn't a mass-murderer. It doesn't matter, though, because regardless of who you pick everyone dies. With that in mind, I would say that killing Raedric is extremely satisfying, especially after he brags about murdering his own wife in cold blood because she tried to keep him from murdering their child, all while he's in the process of squeezing the life out of his people.

 

Do it early on and you even get to do it again later!

 

 

thanks for all the spoilers.

 

Perhaps avoid looking through the PoE story forum. Try the PoE general discussion, less spoilers.

 

Here:

https://forums.obsidian.net/forum/88-pillars-of-eternity-general-discussion-no-spoilers/