Really need an answer with raedric or kolsc

[Lycan]

So Im utterly stuck on who to pick, raedric or kolsc.. I know folks will say "go with your gut" or whatever but Iv googled trying to find the 'better' answer but both seem awful but opinion is all over the place, some are saying if you kill Kolsc, Raedric goes mad and murders everyone but people are saying the same thing with letting Kolsc live.. I really just need an answer -please- how does each choice turn out? I don't wanna play for 30+ hours only to find out at the end that the guy I picked butchers everyone in the whole vale.

[Lycan]

Please can people not spam answers like "just pick one" or "go with who you feel is best" I want to finish this game thinking "I got mostly right answers and did the best I could" not finish a 40+ hour campaign, get to the end and think "well, I ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up the choice at the start clearly, that 40 hours has now been utterly ruined"

[Batbro]

If you never complete this sidequest, Raedric loses it even more than he already has and hangs everyone.

If you side with Raedric and kill Kolsc, his reign of terror continues for a little longer but eventually fades.

If you side with Kolsc and kill Raedric, death does not stop him and he comes back deadlier than ever and goes on the biggest killing spree yet.

HOWEVER...

You can kill Raedric AND prevent his massacre. When you arrive in Twin Elms (MUCH later in the game), in the inn, look for a nervous-looking customer. He'll tell you all about the situation, and you can go back and deal with it personally.

[Lycan]

Originally posted by Batbro:

If you never complete this sidequest, Raedric loses it even more than he already has and hangs everyone.

If you side with Raedric and kill Kolsc, his reign of terror continues for a little longer but eventually fades.

If you side with Kolsc and kill Raedric, death does not stop him and he comes back deadlier than ever and goes on the biggest killing spree yet.

HOWEVER...

You can kill Raedric AND prevent his massacre. When you arrive in Twin Elms (MUCH later in the game), in the inn, look for a nervous-looking customer. He'll tell you all about the situation, and you can go back and deal with it personally.

Alright so I need to kill Raedric, install Kolsc, let him be a bit of a jerk and then when Raedric comes back from the dead, rush back to the vale and kill him again? cus as much as I get Raedric -wants- to cure hollowborn, it seems like even if he somehow manages it, he'll of killed 100s of people and it wont matter much even if it is cured.

[☸𝕵𝖔☸]

I killed both...problem solved...and the animancer for that matter!

[Lycan]

Originally posted by joproulx99:

I killed both...problem solved...and the animancer for that matter!

yeah but.. without leadership what happens to the vale after the game ends?

[Batbro]

Gilded Vale faces a little anarchy without someone on the throne, but survives nonetheless. Then again, Kolsc is a pretty inoffensive person and doesn't go on random killing sprees like his cousin, so there's not much harm in letting him have the job.

EDIT: Looking into it now, there actually ISN'T an ending where Kolsc gets to stay on the throne. Might be a design oversight, but it's also likely Raedric automatically kills Kolsc first when he comes back. I mean, he WOULD.

So killing or sparing Kolsc is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not you kill Raedric, and whether or not you do it TWICE.

[ColeTrain1034]

Please don't take this as "spam" because I mean it as genuine advice. If you're worried about a "right" answer in this game, you'll be causing yourself a lot of unnecessary stress. All of the options you choose have benefits and consequences. Who you side with in the Raedric-Kolsc debate is not the hardest decision you'll have to make in this game. As far as this question goes, you've been given your answer. Just know that "best" in this game is EXTREMELY subjective, and if you're worried about what will happen at every crossroads, you'll be hitting up these forums A LOT. Not a criticism, just trying to give some friendly advice.

[Rin]

As always .... go with what your character would do. Seeing what comes out of it is part of the fun.

[D'amarr from Darshiva]

Originally posted by Lycan Jack:

I want to finish this game thinking "I got mostly right answers and did the best I could"

You are confined within the limited options the game offers to you. You cannot predict the outcome or take actions that will work out in a well-defined way, since some of the NPCs live their own lifes and cannot be controlled by you. You may look up walthroughs or other details in the Wiki, but uhm, that spoils the fun, doesn't it?

The thing with Kolsc is, he's a complete stranger to you, and only Eder tells a little bit about him, so you need to base you decision on that, then talking to Kolsc and talking to Raedric afterwards. If neither one is convincing enough, don't stick your head into such side-quests, but focus on your own story within the game.

[Batbro]

The major problem with going blind and trusting in your decisions, ESPECIALLY for this particular sidequest, is that the consequences of your decision are not always properly forecasted. Foreshadowing or warning the player of the impact of their decisions is critical to good quest design, I've even heard as much from game director Josh Sawyer himself.

There is VERY LITTLE information during this quest that implies that Raedric can or will return from the dead and go on a rampage, and the lead they give you later in Twin Elms is VERY easy to miss, as it's a single random unnamed NPC in an inn you enter a full 2 acts later, long after you've moved on from the concerns of Gilded Vale.

[ColeTrain1034]

Originally posted by Batbro:

The major problem with going blind and trusting in your decisions, ESPECIALLY for this particular sidequest, is that the consequences of your decision are not always properly forecasted. Foreshadowing or warning the player of the impact of their decisions is critical to good quest design, I've even heard as much from game director Josh Sawyer himself.

There is VERY LITTLE information during this quest that implies that Raedric can or will return from the dead and go on a rampage, and the lead they give you later in Twin Elms is VERY easy to miss, as it's a single random unnamed NPC in an inn you enter a full 2 acts later, long after you've moved on from the concerns of Gilded Vale.

Just personally, I find it entertaining that there's no indicators of outcome. It just seems more true-to-life to me. When I make a decision in real life, I don't always know how it's going to turn out, I just work with what I've got. I kind of like that in a game as well.

As far as the Twin Elms NPC, I guess I'm just used to speaking with anyone and everyone. It may be the completionist in me but I just want to know what everyone has to say. Haha.

[Batbro]

Originally posted by ColeTrain1034:

Just personally, I find it entertaining that there's no indicators of outcome. It just seems more true-to-life to me. When I make a decision in real life, I don't always know how it's going to turn out, I just work with what I've got. I kind of like that in a game as well.

Surprising the player is good! Plot twists that were foreshadowed are good!

Surprising the player by undermining their actions, or plot twists that are not foreshadowed, are bad.

I've seen many a forum complaint from players who tried to do everyting right by Gilded Vale only to find out the entire town got massacred by the undead tyrant they put so much effort into deposing, all because they didn't bother talking to a single random unnamed NPC waaaaaaaaaay later in the game. This didn't happen to me, but it easily could have, and I think these players feeling cheated is pretty justified.

EDIT: I remembered where I heard Josh Sawyer talking about this. It's from one of his GDC talks. It's good stuff, I recommend watching the whole thing, but he makes the point I'm referencing shortly after the 23 minute mark.

[D'amarr from Darshiva]

Originally posted by Batbro:

Foreshadowing or warning the player of the impact of their decisions is critical to good quest design, I've even heard as much from game director Josh Sawyer himself.

Then lots of quests don't follow that guideline.

If you choose to let live the Sky Dragon, you cannot predict whether it will turn against the village of Twin Elms eventually. That doesn't happen, because it's not implemented. The dragon is considered a threat, but there is no hint that peaceful resolution will be safe actually and not have any consequences. Or the rogue Forge Knights. You can buy an Animat summoning horn early, and there is no reason to assume that the Forge Knights might turn against the Crucible Knights.

Originally posted by Batbro:

There is VERY LITTLE information during this quest that implies that Raedric can or will return from the dead and go on a rampage, and the lead they give you later in Twin Elms is VERY easy to miss, as it's a single random unnamed NPC in an inn you enter a full 2 acts later, long after you've moved on from the concerns of Gilded Vale.

Well, it's not a "random unnamed NPC", but obvious enough due to the "Frightened Villager" name plate, and anyone exploring the inn carefully enough, will run into him and the other side-quests in that inn.

It's less obvious, if you kill Raedric late when you've visited that inn before, because then there is not much reason to return to the inn. The frightened villager will appear nevertheless, however.

[Rin]

Originally posted by Batbro:

The major problem with going blind and trusting in your decisions, ESPECIALLY for this particular sidequest, is that the consequences of your decision are not always properly forecasted. Foreshadowing or warning the player of the impact of their decisions is critical to good quest design, I've even heard as much from game director Josh Sawyer himself.

There is VERY LITTLE information during this quest that implies that Raedric can or will return from the dead and go on a rampage, and the lead they give you later in Twin Elms is VERY easy to miss, as it's a single random unnamed NPC in an inn you enter a full 2 acts later, long after you've moved on from the concerns of Gilded Vale.

I would very much disagree with Josh Sawyer on this point. If I could see an indication of the outcome of every decission I am making in a RPG then the whole concept of it would be ... in my opinion ... undermined. The uncertinity and surprise is part of the very core of what such games are for me and ... just as in real life ... the character in the game (and with this the player) has to do with the limited information provided. Be it ifnormation given within the quest of later stumbled (or not stumbled) upon in some other part of the game.

I could not have forseen what would happen when I left the machine in Heritage Hill and did not destroy it or what the outcome would be in any other of the game-ending influencing decissions. Decissions have consequences and bad things come out of good itnetions, then that is the flavour that adds to it and the character living through the events.

Always winning is boring, brings no conflict or true character growth.


But of course I am a RPer first and the game comes second so the uncertinity, having to think what good or bad might come out of things ... and then accepting those things and rolling with them is what gives me most pleasure in such games. Foreshadowing everything and spoiling the outcome to the player is what I would consider bad and lazy game design.

[ColeTrain1034]

Originally posted by Batbro:

Surprising the player is good! Plot twists that were foreshadowed are good!

Surprising the player by undermining their actions, or plot twists that are not foreshadowed, are bad.

I've seen many a forum complaint from players who tried to do everyting right by Gilded Vale only to find out the entire town got massacred by the undead tyrant they put so much effort into deposing, all because they didn't bother talking to a single random unnamed NPC waaaaaaaaaay later in the game. This didn't happen to me, but it easily could have, and I think these players feeling cheated is pretty justified.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think what you're saying is absolutely justified, I just don't mind the big twists like that. It's partly because I don't focus on "right" or anything like that. I always just go with whatever I feel my character would see as "right" in that moment. And if that leads to the death of Gilded Vale's citizens, that's just how the story plays out. I mean, theoretically Raedric's resurrection kind of makes sense. After all, there is a necro(ani)mancer in the sewers under his keep. Still, I see what you're saying, and I don't fault people who do care, I just don't.

Originally posted by Batbro:

EDIT: I remembered where I heard Josh Sawyer talking about this. It's from one of his GDC talks. It's good stuff, I recommend watching the whole thing, but he makes the point I'm referencing shortly after the 23 minute mark.

I'll have to check that out.