Codex Interview RPG Codex Interview: Eric Fenstermaker on Pillars of Eternity​

[duanth123]

You somehow must have played the game without escaping from his prison, to make such statements.

I distinctly recall having to murder multiple, insane clones of Irenicus's past lover in the opening.

That he would:

a) actually express the feeling of love as a villain; and

b) go to the totally depraved and misguided lengths of trying to reproduce that person, all the while satisfying his baser needs with a mistress that you rifle through the room of,

is much greater characterization than I've seen in many other CRPG villains.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasLovedOnes

And something you actually experience as a player, rather than read or suffer through in an exposition dump.

http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/First_Journal_of_Jon_Irenicus
http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Second_Journal_of_Jon_Irenicus

There is a difference between characterization done exclusively through text and exposition and characterization complemented by scene. I would have thought you didn't need that pointed out.

And wew lawd, look at you, knowing what a trope is. You should also know that at some level everything is a trope. Your claim was that he had no characterization, which, however familiar it was to you, is still provably false within the first hour of the game.

Can I use a smiley face now to prove my dominance?

Edit: you also find those journals well after the scene itself. If they were lying around the in the starter dungeon, you might have a point that his characterization was throwaway flavoring.

 

[Tigranes]

Comparing how much face time they get doesn't really matter. TTO and Irenicus also benefit from some excellent writing that could stand alone, and Irenicus from his VA. They're just lucky BG2 wasn't in 3D so you forget what a ridiculous outfit he had, the man could compete with FF6 Kafka.

And I'd actually say even Irenicus benefits from better context than Thaos, because the Bhaalspawn feels the consequences of his condition better than the Watcher. People are more afraid of the Bhaalspawn, or seek to use him, and you get the whole Slayer sequence in the Asylum.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Linking to tvtropes should be a bannable offense.

As for the villain discussion, TTO is simply much more thematically appropriate antagonist - he doesn't matter as a character, per se, but rather as a living denial of the meaning of the game's narrative. You are literally prevented from naming your character, because in PS:T names are an important facet of one's identity, but TTO calls them "a cloak of letters thrown upon a man, it means nothing". The recurring question of "What can change the nature of a man?", TTO answers with "Nothing can change the nature of a man, and you are the proof.". He consistently addresses you as "Broken One". In essence, he denies everything and anything you've accomplished throughout the game, renders all of your decisions as meaningless - according to him, you are nothing, and deserve to be nothing. He even attempts to force your companions to abandon you as a way of reinforcing his point.

As such, the conflict with him is not about abstract philosophical principles or values, as it is with Thaos, but is intensely personal, in spite of only having real presence at the very end of the game. This is because, in hindsight, everything you accomplish throughout the game feels like resistance against TTO. Again, a similar effect could have been achieved with Thaos if, as was previously mentioned, the gods were meaningfully present in the plot before Act 3 and gave you reason to actually care about their existence and influence over the world. As is, you feel a bit like some kind of weird stalker, foiling Thaos' plots all over the place for no reason other than to make him notice you, with no clue as to the greater significance of any of it..

 

[Infinitron]

As such, the conflict with him is not about abstract philosophical principles or values, as it is with Thaos

Your Awakened soul's beef with Thaos is pretty personal. Seen from its perspective (in hindsight as you say), you're chasing after a mentor who betrayed you to ask "Why?". That has emotional weight irrespective of the "abstract philosophical" reasons behind said beef.

I think people need to read more about PoE's plot before they say things. It's not as deeply layered as PS:T's but I constantly see people missing the obvious.

 

[Athelas]

There is a difference between characterization done exclusively through text and exposition and characterization complemented by scene. I would have thought you didn't need that pointed out.

And wew lawd, look at you, knowing what a trope is. You should also know that at some level everything is a trope. Your claim was that he had no characterization, which, however familiar it was to you, is still provably false within the first hour of the game.

I really don't want to derail this topic further with this kind of dumb nitpickery, but I should clarify things. Here's what you quoted:

It's perfectly fine to write a villain with this motivation, it's another thing entirely to leave out any sort of characterization.

Here's my actual post when not being quoted out of context:

It's perfectly fine to write a villain with this motivation, it's another thing entirely to leave out any sort of characterization. Even Sarevok, who has basically the exact same motivation, receives way more characterization: the entitlement from how he feels becoming the new Bhaal is his birthright, the (presumably) corrupting influence of the Bhaalspawn essence, the grudge he has against Gorion for not saving him (although rather contrived/nonsensical).

Note that I was talking about characterization specifically relating to Irenicus' goals/motivations, which I thought was lacking. Of course Irenicus does have characterizationin in a general sense - as does any antagonist in any work of fiction. That was never remotely n question unless you're the biggest autist on the world.

As awful as TvTropes is, it does provide an immediate rebuttal to claims such as 'much greater characterization than I've seen in many other CRPG villains'. No, not at all, in fact giving the villain some kind of sentimental attachment is a very standard and common thing to do.

 

[SausageInYourFace]

the grudge he has against Gorion for not saving him (although rather contrived/nonsensical).

Could someone refresh my memory? Sarevok and Gorion knew each other?

Edit: nvm, I already helped myself.

 

[Xzylvador]

I think people need to read more about PoE's plot before they say things.

Maybe if the plot* was readable without falling into a catatonic coma due to actute boredom overdose...


(*: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Plot. Man, that was a good one.)

 

[Infinitron]

the grudge he has against Gorion for not saving him (although rather contrived/nonsensical).

Could someone refresh my memory? Sarevok and Gorion knew each other?

ToB retcon. Remember that scene in the Pocket Plane where you see a vision of Sarevok as a boy?

 

[SausageInYourFace]

Ah, ToB retcon, that is why I don't remember!

 

[Crichton]

You could replace "he found out the Gods were created by ancient wizards and wants to keep it secret" "he helped to create the gods as an ancient wizard and wants to keep anyone from finding out" with "he found out the Gods were created by ancient wizards and wants to create one of his own" or "he found out the gods were created by ancient wizards and wants to destroy them all" or "he was an ardent Woedica-worshiper back in the day and now he's trying to destroy all the other gods so people have to worship her again" or "the founder of the adeyr empire stole his girlfriend 6000 years ago and he became a priest of Woedica to take revenge on the empire over successive generations" and every interaction we have with him until the final battle would make just as much sense.

How is this true? Thaos spends the game specifically trying to defame animancy in various ways (eg, his actions in the Sanitarium). That doesn't fit with those alternate plots.

Perhaps we simply imagine these things differently, but why does his opposition to animancy have to be because animancers might find out that the gods were created by the ancient whoeverthefucks? Why not simply because animancers might find out about Woedica's evil plot, which doesn't really have anything to do with how the gods were created? Or what if he wants animancy outlawed simply because he thinks his enemies might be stronger in animancy-type magic than his allies? Or what if he wants to use animancy to upload his consciousness into a deific vessel (TO BECOME LIKE UNTO THE GODS HIMSELF!!!!11!!) and he's afraid animancers will find that out? For that matter, what if he simply hates the people of dyrwood + defiance bay for abandoning Woedica and thinks the anti-animancy witch-hunt will weaken them?

This is what I meant by the ideal villain having either a discernable motivation or a personal connection. Not every villain has to have as much screen time as Jon Irencius but if you take Saevrok (sp) for example, he murders your character's foster father right in front of him. After that, you don't have to care what his evil plot is; if he's on red, you're on black. I would put TO and the man we know as Arronax in the same category. Whereas with Thaos, everyone keeps telling me that only this guy can answer my questions but it's not that I hate him or think he hates me, I just can't get on his fucking calendar.

 

[Infinitron]

Oh, come on. That's pretty low brow, you know. It has to be completely obvious or personal, that's your rule?

Detective novels, for instance, are often deliberately structured so as to give characters a variety of plausible motives.

 

[Irenaeus III]

I think people need to read more about PoE's plot before they say things.

These retards barely play Act 1, much less finish the game. They are a bunch of ignorant flailing their noodle arms at nonexistent story issues.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

As such, the conflict with him is not about abstract philosophical principles or values, as it is with Thaos

Your Awakened soul's beef with Thaos is pretty personal. Seen from its perspective (in hindsight as you say), you're chasing after a mentor who betrayed you to ask "Why?". That has emotional weight irrespective of the "abstract philosophical" reasons behind said beef.

I think people need to read more about PoE's plot before they say things. It's not as deeply layered as PS:T's but I constantly see people missing the obvious.

That's fucking retarded. Your past self barely figures into the plot as anything other than an artificial motivator and flashback dispenser practically until you meet Iovara in Act 4, and is almost completely disconnected from the game's themes at large. "You" are not chasing after a mentor who betrayed you, you're chasing after a madman to stop him from empowering a vengeful god, and to extract from him a cure to your condition. This could have been different if the revelations of Act 4 had somehow been connected to the rest of the game, but they aren't, and so it isn't.

Then again, it might be that PoE's plot is simply too deep for me. Fortunate that you're here to properly explain this cerebral masterpiece to us proles.

 

[Prime Junta]

Gotta say, one of the things that continues to puzzle me about these discussions is how people, in all seriousness, hold up BG2 as an example of good fantasy cRPG writing.

 

[Irenaeus III]

Then again, it might be that PoE's plot is simply too deep for me.

That would be my diagnosis. Along with every other retard who complains about the end of Act 2.

 

[Infinitron]

That's fucking retarded. Your past self barely figures into the plot as anything other than an artificial motivator and flashback dispenser practically until you meet Iovara in Act 4, and is almost completely disconnected from the game's themes at large.

It is connected to the game's theme of using "soul" as a kind of narrative short-hand for issues of mental health and heredity. In a different sort of setting, instead of a past self it would have been buried traumatic memories from your own life, or the burden of a parent or a sibling.

I'm not saying the personal aspect of your conflict with Thaos is incredibly well-done. I could give you a list of ways in which it could have been emphasized better. But to say that it's devoid of a personal aspect entirely is silly. The game is pretty blatant about it.

 

[duanth123]

Note that I was talking about characterization specifically relating to Irenicus' goals/motivations, which I thought was lacking. Of course Irenicus does have characterizationin in a general sense - as does any antagonist in any work of fiction. That was never remotely n question unless you're the biggest autist on the world.

Irenicus's ambition is directly tied to his rejection at this hands of Ellesime and, eventually, the community of Suldanessellar. He seeks to become a god to control other people, as, being a flawed villain, he is either unable or unwilling to come to terms with the rejection he was dealt by (other than his sister) everyone he had ever known at that point in time. This ambition can be 'seen' by the player in Irenicus's efforts to literally reproduce Ellesime in a soulless insane body, down in the prison.

So I was responding to your point.

As awful as TvTropes is, it does provide an immediate rebuttal to claims such as 'much greater characterization than I've seen in many other CRPG villains'. No, not at all, in fact giving the villain some kind of sentimental attachment is a very standard and common thing to do.

Let me say.this.slowly.

"Better".characterization.does.not.mean.that.the.underlying."character".is.original.or.unfamiliar.


Irenicus's story is better told than other villains; I personally don't give a fuck that it is in a sense classic (read: capable of being categorized on TVtropes), though apparently you do.

 

[Crichton]

Oh, come on. That's pretty low brow, you know. It has to be completely obvious or personal, that's your rule?

Detective novels, for instance, are often deliberately structured so as to give characters a variety of plausible motives.

Leaving aside the idea that Raymond Chandler is 'high-brow' (!), I'm a huge fan of Dashiell Hammett but don't think you're ever going to get the plot from "Nightmare Town" to work for a CRPG (and it's actually pretty on point). I did try to make an NWN2 module based around "Red Harvest" once but you'll notice that the Continental Op has a comprehensible motivation from the beginning of that one. Similarly, "Persuasion" has a great plot but I don't think it, or any other comedy of manners, is going to work out for PoE2.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

It is connected to the game's theme of using "soul" as a kind of narrative short-hand for issues of mental health and heredity. In a different sort of setting, instead of a past self it would have been buried traumatic memories from your own life, or the burden of a parent or a sibling.

I'm not saying the personal aspect of your conflict with Thaos is incredibly well-done. I could give you a list of ways in which it could have been emphasized better. But to say that it's devoid of a personal aspect entirely is silly. The game is pretty blatant about it.

That's not really a theme. The game uses the narrative device of souls and reincarnation to explore themes like mental health and invasive treatment thereof, heredity, nature vs nurture, and so forth. What is explored via your past self's history with Thaos? The nature of belief, the value of truth vs its practical consequences, ends justifying the means mentality, and so forth. Which is all fine, but it doesn't fit the rest of the game, and doesn't relate to what the player actually does or their motivation. This is in contrast to TTO, who despises the current incarnation of TNO (and the player by extension), not some specific incarnation from the past, and wants to specifically undo and make meaningless all of your accomplishments up to that point (and make escape from the cycle impossible, too).

Anyway, I don't really understand your point anymore. I think it's poorly done and barely noticable, and you seem to agree, but for some reason feel the need to specifically point out that it's there, as if it's some kind of positive.

That would be my diagnosis. Along with every other retard who complains about the end of Act 2.

On a scale from 1-10, how triggered are you by meanies bullying your precious PoE?

What are the complaints about the ending of Act 2 anyway? Aside from the whole situation feeling very contrived and choices having no consequences beyond ending slides, I mean.

 

[Infinitron]

Anyway, I don't really understand your point anymore.

I could say the same. You're geeking out about how TTO despises TNO which you find to be particularly profound. Okay.

What is explored via your past self's history with Thaos? The nature of belief, the value of truth vs its practical consequences, ends justifying the means mentality, and so forth. Which is all fine, but it doesn't fit the rest of the game

Don't agree. I would argue this, but TBH I'm getting tired of this thread. But take a look at theme of the other companions' subplots, which we've already discussed ITT.

I think it's poorly done and barely noticable, and you seem to agree, but for some reason feel the need to specifically point out that it's there, as if it's some kind of positive.

No, I wouldn't go as far as "poorly", and certainly not barely noticable - as I said it's blatant. Positive? Yes, it's another layer of meaning - more complexity - which I regard as positive.

 

[Ninjerk]

It is connected to the game's theme of using "soul" as a kind of narrative short-hand for issues of mental health and heredity. In a different sort of setting, instead of a past self it would have been buried traumatic memories from your own life, or the burden of a parent or a sibling.

I'm not saying the personal aspect of your conflict with Thaos is incredibly well-done. I could give you a list of ways in which it could have been emphasized better. But to say that it's devoid of a personal aspect entirely is silly. The game is pretty blatant about it.

That's not really a theme. The game uses the narrative device of souls and reincarnation to explore themes like mental health and invasive treatment thereof, heredity, nature vs nurture, and so forth. What is explored via your past self's history with Thaos? The nature of belief, the value of truth vs its practical consequences, ends justifying the means mentality, and so forth. Which is all fine, but it doesn't fit the rest of the game, and doesn't relate to what the player actually does or their motivation. This is in contrast to TTO, who despises the current incarnation of TNO (and the player by extension), not some specific incarnation from the past, and wants to specifically undo and make meaningless all of your accomplishments up to that point (and make escape from the cycle impossible, too).

Anyway, I don't really understand your point anymore. I think it's poorly done and barely noticable, and you seem to agree, but for some reason feel the need to specifically point out that it's there, as if it's some kind of positive.

That would be my diagnosis. Along with every other retard who complains about the end of Act 2.

On a scale from 1-10, how triggered are you by meanies bullying your precious PoE?

What are the complaints about the ending of Act 2 anyway? Aside from the whole situation feeling very contrived and choices having no consequences beyond ending slides, I mean.

It is resolved like a bad children's cartoon.

 

[orcinator]

Imagine playing PS:T, and as soon as you meet Pharod he perfectly explains your condition and goes "now kill this TO guy"

Imagine if Morte does that and you have TToN

 

[Azarkon]

BTW, I think you could make an argument that The Transcendent One isn't any better than Thaos in the way his respective game handles his appearances. "Intense personal conflict" with a weird metaphysical ghost thingy that you only get to talk to in the last ten minutes of the game?

Lots of rose-colored glasses here. Ditto with Irenicus, who is the RPG villain equivalent of "Half-Life 2 has one of the best videogame stories because ENVIRONMENTAL STORYTELLING".

That's because the conflict in Planescape: Torment isn't built around the main villain. In fact, fighting the Transcendent One isn't the climax of the game. It's the meeting with your past incarnations, which immediately precedes the "final battle," that is the actual climax. This paragraph here, specifically, is the culmination of Planescape: Torment:

"The sphere wrinkles in your hands, the skin of the sphere peeling away into tears and turning into a rain of bronze that encircles you. Each droplet, each fragment that enters you, you feel a new memory stirring, a lost love, a forgotten pain, an ache of loss - and with it, comes the great pressure of regret, regret of careless actions, the regret of suffering, regret of war, regret of death, and you feel your mind begin buckling from the pressure - so MUCH, all at once, so much damage done to others... so much so an entire FORTRESS may be built from such pain. And suddenly, through the torrent of regrets, you feel the first incarnation again. His hand, invisible and weightless, is upon your shoulder, steadying you. He doesn't speak, but with his touch, you suddenly remember your name ... and it is such a simple thing, not at all what you thought it might be, and you feel yourself suddenly comforted. In knowing your name, your true name, you know that you have gained back perhaps the most important part of yourself. In knowing your name, you know yourself, and you know, now, there is very little you cannot do."

Planescape: Torment wasn't about stopping the Transcendent One. It was about remembering who you were and retrieving your mortality. Pillars of Eternity, however, *is* about stopping Thaos. Outside of that purpose, there is little else to motivate the game.

 

[Irenaeus III]

It's actually about questioning Thaos about your past life, you don't necessarily have to WANT to fight him.

 

[Azarkon]

It's actually about questioning Thaos about your past life, you don't necessarily have to WANT to fight him.

So this is the main conflict in Pillars of Eternity?

"Nyeh nyeh nyeh, I know about your past life, but I'm not going to tell you because, because come make me bitch!" - Thaos