Act 2 - Way too much railroading
- Thread starter Zordrath
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
go with a high lore character for the 2nd time to the scarlet chorus camp
you'll find a named character who it turns out is not yet of age (be sure to catch that he hasn't done his watch yet, which means that he isn't 15)
he'll call his gang leader, two tooth, once you point out that he isn't fit yet for combat you can quote another part of kyros's law which promises protection towards children (in this instance it means that two tooth can't hit him anymore)
Yes, and it's Voices of Nerat own law. "Voices protects children", so they can't be recruted to Chorus as fighters, and yes, they can't be beaten and should be cared for.
It will take a some time for me to get there now, but I'm absolutely sure it was put there as a local Chorus law, not basic Kyros law. Are you sure about Kyros part?
UPD: Came here now. Replic is: "You are aware that under Nerat's own law - Honor and Guard the Young - this boy is exempt from battlefield."
Last edited:
I agree with the OP, Act 2 is so on rails it's mind boggling, completely undermines the player agency in act 1. They'd have done better to have the choice of who to side with be at the end of act 2 instead. Act 1 was so much more interesting, arbitrating between the chorus and disfavoured, trying to temper the ruthlessness and injustice of their methods towards the tiers and so forth, the issue of the disloyal archon would have held more relevance too, instead of becoming an inconsequencial sidenote. I have't played the rebel line yet nor the chorus, but I get the impression that neither of those lines really give much more flexibility in terms of meaningful or deep interaction with the various factions. Faction favour and wrath pretty much becomes meaningless after act 1. Who you side with, defines who you can get pally with and who you can't, not unreasonable I suppose, but restictive none the less.
In the solo playthrough, the stone sea was a complete joke, I went there for the artifact, but in order to get to the tower behind the earthshakers encampment, I pretty much had to slaughter either the beastmen or the earthshakers.... it was like they didn't really provide a means of dealing with either group in a meaningful or logical manner if you chose to go solo. The same for the blade grave. The only area that made a lick of sense was the burning library.
It does seem like obsidian just didn't have a vision for how players might want to to remain loyal to Kyros, while opting not to support rebellion nor the destructive Archons, which is ironic, considering, as it is heavily suggested, Kyros sent them there to kill eachother/die, as they would be useless following victory.
Its a mess.
In the solo playthrough, the stone sea was a complete joke, I went there for the artifact, but in order to get to the tower behind the earthshakers encampment, I pretty much had to slaughter either the beastmen or the earthshakers.... it was like they didn't really provide a means of dealing with either group in a meaningful or logical manner if you chose to go solo. The same for the blade grave. The only area that made a lick of sense was the burning library.
It does seem like obsidian just didn't have a vision for how players might want to to remain loyal to Kyros, while opting not to support rebellion nor the destructive Archons, which is ironic, considering, as it is heavily suggested, Kyros sent them there to kill eachother/die, as they would be useless following victory.
Its a mess.
indeed, you're right, I replayed it again and it's indeed chorus law rather then kyros's law