Taking out Orrick

Remove all ads!

Hi folks,
Before the final showdown in the Hand I was doing a final sweep to make sure i had not missed anything out and i thought "lets take out Orrick and see if he has anything useful".
I buffed up to the max and attacked one of his Gollums. My entire party was nuked on the spot!
Is there anyway to defeat him?

 

Orrick is needed for the end sequence. So I strongly doubt it.

 

I´ve tried myself this very same thing in the past.
If anybody(I mean ANYBODY) in the mage tower dies, you´re screwed.
It´s like killing Neero Fuuma in the Dragon´s Eye.
I wonder if there´s any other "have to survive" NPCs in this game.(this could be a different topic,no?)

 

There are plenty of essential NPCs. Try killing Deidre when you first meet her and you'll see.

 

I wasted Orrick with a quivering punch from an evil high level monk. He is an essential NPC and his death forces a mandatory reload. Your only option is to pickpocket him and see if he has anything useful in his pockets...otherwise, leave the grey mage to his studies.

 

Scary Finger of Death and mighty Disintegrate spells also work, he is a mage, supposed to have low fortitude saves. Cast it, if you are lucky POOF he is gone...dust.

But if he succeeds his saving throw, you are toast, for Orrick's Soul something is just one nasty auto-party kill and there is no way around it AFAIK. (it does massive damage, and likely bypasses SR. Death Ward does not protect as it kills by massive dmg.)

Even if you do kill him the game will still be over like others mentioned. So don't bother!

I wish game desginers could devise a 'Plan-B' for situations such as this other than:'You have killed a plot critical PC, we are so strictly linear that we can not allow that, reload and don't ever do it again!'

 

Killing Orrick should lead to an alternate ending where you actually defeat Isair and Madae completely instead of having Orrick intervene just before the end.

You should have the latitude to smite all the NPC's without ending the campaign. In RPGs, the more freedom the more better.

 

Blackthorne, the campaign you describe is more linear than the one I propose...forcing a party to make nice and cooperate with NPC's is as one-dimensional as it gets. In a D&D game you should be allowed to follow alternate paths to the same ends when it is not completely impractical to do so.

To set up a permanent impasse in the adventure because you decide to whack that wench Deidre, for example, is unreasonable. The party could just as easily buy arrows from the barbarian in the Salty Dog and finish the quest to get arrows to the palisade.

The end goal is to defeat I & M, logically, you can do that with Orrick or without Orrick as your party will be powerful enough to destroy the two of them. The developers should have let the user decide if it is better to get Orrick's help or kill him and go it alone in the last battle - just as they did with Ormis and his gang.

I agree that choices made in the game should not be without consequence. When you choose not to save the villagers from Torak and/or take advantage of Emma Moonblade's weakened state you must pay for your decision in the next area. Every NPC interaction should follow this general pattern and never force a reload or cause an impasse.

 

I disagree. Crpgs are for entertaining, not for educating the players to act like the developers want them to.
If I reach a dead end which doesn't allow to reach the main goal any more I want to be informed, I'd prefer a "game over" screen over being screwed no matter what I do.
A little change in the epilogue is ok, but not a real punishment.

 

OK, it's rather about educating the players to play like you want them to (not going on a killing spree).
Your "action and consequences" looks like "behave or get punished" to me.

The end is a very important part of the game and getting a "you sucked" ending can be very frustrating, and it's dishonest if the game doesn't show any signs of bad consequences directly (so it can be corrected with a reload) but punishes you 30 hours later at the end and forces you to play the same stuff again (boring, you can only roleplay once unspoiled) or forego the happy ending forever (frustrating).

It's a severe punishment and probably no one likes to get such a sneaky punishment from a game he spent a lot of money and time for.

 

BTA: "they deserved the 'you sucked' ending, because they did."

Do you really believe that someone can suck at a role playing game? There is no wrong way to roleplay - the only possible way you could suck at a CRPG is to not have fun playing it...and some people have fun by playing chaotic evil characters who kill NPC's on a whim. Many characters which can be generated in IWD2 are completely liable, when roleplayed, to kill NPCs with little to no provocation. The developers should account for differences in gaming style and allow alternate paths to a satisfactory end when an appropriately roleplayed character acts as he should.

If a user wishes to play rash characters who kill NPCs indiscriminately then he should get a satisfactory ending just as you should when you play *correctly* as a completely rational party who doesn't kill a single NPC for fear of killing the wrong one and suffering dire consequences.

Actually, you should define what you consider an "unsatisfactory end". As long as the end scenario is well developed and fits your actions throughout the campaign and doesn't seem to be a punishment for not playing as the developers intended (by not killing essential NPCs, for example), then it would be a good ending IMO.

Multiple satisfactory endings for multiple ways to complete the task at hand is not too much to ask from a CRPG.