What if Eder died in your PoE 1 game?

[Michaelfycle]

I noticed that choices you made in Pillars 1 will have an impact on your playthrough of Pillars 2... but I also noticed that Eder is a returning character.

 

My question is... will Eder still be in the game if he is dead in your old game and you want to go off that save? Will he come back to life somehow? What if you (Possible PoE1 spoiler) sacrificed him to Skaen? Do you get zombie Eder??

 

???????

[Amentep]

I'm pretty sure they said dead companions would still be dead if you brought over a poe save.

[Mygaffer]

Josh has said on stream if Edér is dead in your game, he'll be dead when you import your save. But hey, you've got a full year to do another replay.

[injurai]

You will also get a chance to construct a save template in case you weren't happy with some of you're choices. Though I don't know if the created profile will be as robust as your save data.

​

​The community should totally create a save game editor.

[George_Truman]

I don't think its a big issue because nobody in their right mind would kill off Eder.

[dragubaba]

It's also interesting to see how they handle characters who never met Eder or any other companions. That is solo characters.

[tid242]

I don't think its a big issue because nobody in their right mind would kill off Eder.

 

 

Well, just because someone decides to kill off one NPC over another doesn't mean that that player is any less entitled to rewarding NPC's in the sequel, IMHO.  I think the OP has a totally valid point.

 

I personally killed of Sagani 1st chance I got, because I found her to be hella-annoying (I also don't like Aloth), I can only assume that other people hated the NPCs that I liked, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.  Everyone's entitled to their opinions..

 

That all being said, I think that the team has alluded to the fact that they are working on a work-around for this, either starting from a non-save-state, or something else.  So I don't suspect that it'll hold you back too much if you killed off the "wrong" NPCs.

 

cheers

 

-tid242

[Messier-31]

I personally killed of Sagani 1st chance I got, because I found her to be hella-annoying

 

Story-wise your character must be fun at parties.

 

In my run Zahua gets to swim in a blood pool, though

[tid242]

 

I personally killed of Sagani 1st chance I got, because I found her to be hella-annoying

 

Story-wise your character must be fun at parties.

 

In my run Zahua gets to swim in a blood pool, though

 

 

 

Hah, I think Durance gave her an "amused" look, so basically.... yes.

 

Zahua... definitely deserved for acting too tough.  ;p

 

-tid242

[pi2repsion]

 

I don't think its a big issue because nobody in their right mind would kill off Eder.

 

 

Well, just because someone decides to kill off one NPC over another doesn't mean that that player is any less entitled to rewarding NPC's in the sequel, IMHO.  I think the OP has a totally valid point.

What on earth does entitlement have to do with it? :D

 

If you continue from a saved game, you are continuing the story of the world as it developed in that save game. If Eder died, then he is gone. That has nothing whatsoever to do with entitlement or lack thereof and everything to do with consequence and consistency.

 

If you want to play with Eder in the sequel, play with a start where he isn't dead. Do that using a new default start, importing a PoE1 save where he is alive, or by editing/creating a starting template where he is alive.

 

I really don't get the problem, unless it is a truly bizarre case of wanting to have your cake and eat it where you want to import a PoE1 save where he is dead, stubbornly refuse to change the starting condition for PoE2 so he survived instead because you for some reason want to maintain the consequences of him being dead in PoE1, and somehow desire, at the same time, that he be alive in PoE2, believing you if you can't play a live Eder with a dead backstory, you are being denied something you are entitled to.

 

Truly a weird thought.

Edited February 13, 2017 by pi2repsion

[pi2repsion]

It's also interesting to see how they handle characters who never met Eder or any other companions. That is solo characters.

Same way as everybody else in the business handles it, presumably; I.e. defining each companion's presence or behaviour in the sequel by a set of possible states such as met/never met, survived/died, did this or that with so and so outcome, did that, and so on and so forth where most of them have minimal impact on gameplay beyond differentiating text at some points to remind you of your shared continuity and some have material impact, so the first time you meet a returning companion you never encountered in PoE1 you'll be introduced as strangers and then, in no time at all, they'll be best friends. Just like every other new companion in just about any CRPG, ever, joins up.

[Blarghagh]

 

I personally killed of Sagani 1st chance I got, because I found her to be hella-annoying

 

Story-wise your character must be fun at parties.

 

In my run Zahua gets to swim in a blood pool, though

 

 

Some crazy homeless guy started ranting to me about seeing me on fire, so I put him out of his misery. Weirdly, the lady who is the keep at Caed Nua said he was still there, driving travelers away from my property. I'm scared!

[Andraste]

 

 

I personally killed of Sagani 1st chance I got, because I found her to be hella-annoying

 

Story-wise your character must be fun at parties.

 

In my run Zahua gets to swim in a blood pool, though

 

 

Some crazy homeless guy started ranting to me about seeing me on fire, so I put him out of his misery. Weirdly, the lady who is the keep at Caed Nua said he was still there, driving travelers away from my property. I'm scared!

 

 

To be fair, becoming an angry ghost that scares travelers is something that Durance might plausibly do with his afterlife ...

[tid242]

 

Well, just because someone decides to kill off one NPC over another doesn't mean that that player is any less entitled to rewarding NPC's in the sequel, IMHO.  I think the OP has a totally valid point.

What one earth does entitlement have to do with it? :D

 

If you continue from a saved game, you are continuing the story of the world as it developed in that save game. If Eder died, then he is gone. That has nothing whatsoever to do with entitlement or lack thereof and everything to do with consequence and consistency.

 

Without getting too far off topic. 

 

1) Someone who buys/funds the game is I think about as entitled as one really is to anything in life to have access to a rich and intrinsically rewarding experience as anyone else who buys/funds with or without Eder.  I would posit that this is only fair..

 

2) I was mostly responding to the comment suggesting that since only a minority of players off'ed the dude, it didn't matter - which I think is contrary to the above point.

 

So yea... if Eder died, I wasn't suggesting that he be resurrected or zombified or whathaveyou.  Just that a player have equally "good" NPC choices without him, or have the ability to start a new game (ie not from the save state) without him being pre-dead at game start.  I'm pretty sure that the team has this issue covered, but this may not have been immediately clear to the OP, hence the response rebuking the comment saying that (s)he's SOL, in so many words.

 

cheers,

 

-tid242

[PrimeJunta]

I wonder how fampyr Edér would feel about munching on human flesh...

[FlintlockJazz]

I wonder how fampyr Edér would feel about munching on human flesh...

Actually, a Fampyr Eder coming back for revenge on the player could be rather cool!  Would provide an 'experience' for those who killed him.  Or if they fed him to the blood pool they could get Eder's body possessed by all the souls fed to the blood pool coming after them.

[Mirokunite]

 

I wonder how fampyr Edér would feel about munching on human flesh...

Actually, a Fampyr Eder coming back for revenge on the player could be rather cool!  Would provide an 'experience' for those who killed him.  Or if they fed him to the blood pool they could get Eder's body possessed by all the souls fed to the blood pool coming after them.

 

 

Edér's god brings him back as a way of getting back at you. If you killed him in malice he would be vengeful. If you killed him due to a bad battle he would be mournful. If you solved his quest but he died he would be reactive on that.

[illathid]

 

 

Well, just because someone decides to kill off one NPC over another doesn't mean that that player is any less entitled to rewarding NPC's in the sequel, IMHO.  I think the OP has a totally valid point.

What one earth does entitlement have to do with it? :D

 

If you continue from a saved game, you are continuing the story of the world as it developed in that save game. If Eder died, then he is gone. That has nothing whatsoever to do with entitlement or lack thereof and everything to do with consequence and consistency.

 

Without getting too far off topic. 

 

1) Someone who buys/funds the game is I think about as entitled as one really is to anything in life to have access to a rich and intrinsically rewarding experience as anyone else who buys/funds with or without Eder.  I would posit that this is only fair..

 

2) I was mostly responding to the comment suggesting that since only a minority of players off'ed the dude, it didn't matter - which I think is contrary to the above point.

 

So yea... if Eder died, I wasn't suggesting that he be resurrected or zombified or whathaveyou.  Just that a player have equally "good" NPC choices without him, or have the ability to start a new game (ie not from the save state) without him being pre-dead at game start.  I'm pretty sure that the team has this issue covered, but this may not have been immediately clear to the OP, hence the response rebuking the comment saying that (s)he's SOL, in so many words.

 

cheers,

 

-tid242

 

 

By giving people who killed Eder an equally good replacement, you've effectively removed the consequences of having killed Eder. This would make the game worse for everyone, whether you killed Eder or not as it would effectively make an important choice you made meaningless.

[blotter]

 

 

Edér's god brings him back as a way of getting back at you.

 

As much as I welcome the opportunity to murder Eder again, the lore's been very adamant about no one having the power to truly bring the dead back to life and spawning undead doesn't really seem like something that'd be in Eothas' bag of tricks. That being said, having dead/murdered companions (briefly) revisit the Watcher at some point as Shades or spirits of other varieties would be one way in which to allow some interaction with them going forward while also introducing unique content tied to such circumstances.

[pi2repsion]

 

 

Well, just because someone decides to kill off one NPC over another doesn't mean that that player is any less entitled to rewarding NPC's in the sequel, IMHO.  I think the OP has a totally valid point.

What one earth does entitlement have to do with it? :D

 

If you continue from a saved game, you are continuing the story of the world as it developed in that save game. If Eder died, then he is gone. That has nothing whatsoever to do with entitlement or lack thereof and everything to do with consequence and consistency.

 

Without getting too far off topic. 

 

1) Someone who buys/funds the game is I think about as entitled as one really is to anything in life to have access to a rich and intrinsically rewarding experience as anyone else who buys/funds with or without Eder.  I would posit that this is only fair..

 

2) I was mostly responding to the comment suggesting that since only a minority of players off'ed the dude, it didn't matter - which I think is contrary to the above point.

 

So yea... if Eder died, I wasn't suggesting that he be resurrected or zombified or whathaveyou.  Just that a player have equally "good" NPC choices without him, or have the ability to start a new game (ie not from the save state) without him being pre-dead at game start.  I'm pretty sure that the team has this issue covered, but this may not have been immediately clear to the OP, hence the response rebuking the comment saying that (s)he's SOL, in so many words.

If as your "pretty sure" comment suggests you are somehow under the impression that Obsidian might, just might, unlikely, but might, be such utter morons that they would design PoE2 such that you could only start up a new game by importing a PoE1 save game, thus cutting them off from selling the game to anybody who had not bought PoE1, or alternatively that they'd design PoE2 such that you would be unable to get one of the fully fleshed out companions unless you imported from a PoE1 game where they were alive, resulting in everybody not importing having access to a smaller number of companions and thus deriving no benefit from what is the major investment of resources that goes into each companion, let me reassure you that Obsidian are not such morons. :D

 

 

The plan is to let you start based on a PoE1 save game, based on a default PoE2 state for those who don't want to import a save game or fiddle with anything(and yes, the returning companions are alive in the default state), and based on a setup you tweak.

 

So nobody is being cut off from a "rich and rewarding Eder experience" in PoE2 save those who for whatever reason (importing, setting it up) use a backstory that has him dead as a doornail.

Edited February 13, 2017 by pi2repsion

[Tigranes]

People are 'entitled' to play a good game, not to ruin any prospect of the game being good or coherent by demanding that they get whatever specific item or dialogue they want at whatever specific configuration. This is like saying you should let everyone have Cool Sword of Doom +3 even if they are too bad at the game to beat the boss holding it, you should be able to ride the roller-coaster upside down because you paid for it, whatever.

 

The 'nobody would kill Eder' is an obvious joke.

[Ineth]

I don't think its a big issue because nobody in their right mind would kill off Eder.

 

It was a temporary lapse in judgement...

[tid242]

 

 

The 'nobody would kill Eder' is an obvious joke.

 

All good, sorry if I just missed the sarcasm!!