Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
no. You missed nothing at all. Or no, you missed the following things: you might have kobolds in your city - as citizens, when you go through the marketplace and so on. (i have not followed this ways, but i think, i have read something about it) And at the end your decision does have effects in the final words. and you get some help from him in the final chapter
Hotfix 1.1.1d – November 22nd, 2018:
Allowing Hargulka or Tartuk to keep their kingdom through the Chaotic dialogue option immediately removed the player from the dungeon, missing on possible treasure or resolving the Harrim's companion quest. Resolution: after striking an alliance with Hargulka or Tartuk, they now allow players to finish exploring the dungeon until they leave it on their own.
Depends on how important they are for you. I loved to check out the different endings in Fallout 1 and 2. For me they were an important part of finishing the story. Without it, i always had the feeling, that something was missing. But are they really important or worth it? Thats your decision.
Well, in my game there was no such dialogue. I just could let him alive and make him a vassal. There was no option to form an alliance or the like.
My game is - of course - updated.
In my current game the wizard was bugged, too. Nevertheless, I received the quest about his whip witthout dialogue and could finish it. I guess the game is still far from being free of major bugs.
2 is not, unless you were silly enough not to bring Harrim with you the first time (that really is your fault, considering he practically begs you to take him with you).
3 can technically be aquired in other ways.
4 see 2.
There is one other, rather large reason to take him in as a vassal, but it's something of a long-term pay off and a wee bit of a spoiler (and requires a at least partiall neutral alignment, so a alignment shift, which wouldn't be too hard, is most likely in order).
That's the way I did it... as the poster above pointed out, I was "silly" enough.
When you kill Tartuccio it's not a problem to reenter the fortress at all. Only if you don't kill him it is, because the fortress is then "his" and he denies entrance.
@ Mauman
I have problems with the expression "silly"...
Everyone plays the game in a certain way. I don't like Harrim and prefer to take others with me. To do his quest, I return after the fight, with him and Jubilost, just to get rid of them after completion. Well, if that is "silly"....
For me there is simply no logic when I am denied entrance into a building which I still own and just granted a "vassal" the right to live there.
In a good relationship, the vassal would of course gladly invite the lord to his home - this would be a major event, likely including an official banquet and all bells and whistles; I cannot blame them for not including this in the game - at the same time the lord would mercifully respect the vassal's sovereignty within the boundaries of the vassalage and not stomp around in the vassal's home.
He asked you to bring him along, and you didn't. Sure, you had reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that you did something opposite to which the game was trying to suggest to you. And maybe....juuuuuuuuust maybe there might be some consequences to doing something contrary like that.
Now I used the word silly....ok, you don't like that. Would you rather I use the word "stupid"?
Or perhaps you can just agree with me that getting offended over a simple word is also "silly" and we should drop this line of discourse.
And using silly or stupid in this context is considered rude in my opinion. Please avoid insults like this.
And regarding vassal and not getting entrance: the role of an vassal changed over time. At the beginning an vassal was somebody, which voluntary joined the court of an lord. He had to provide military support, but got a lot of benefits from it. Later on this definition was enlarged and in newer games we use this definition even for areas, where we force somebody or even realms under somebodies control. And if i would be a lord, and one of my "vassals" would deny me access, i would treat this as treason and would take back the areas i gave him as control.
In this game the lose of access does not have some logical reasons, it is only because the devs did not have the time or mood or resources to implement a new map, where the players can visit the fortress after having taken the kobolds or trolls as an vassal. It seemed to be too much work for thinking about, how such an situation would look like. This refers to other parts of the game as well, like the Varnburg castle.
Yep, I am totally on the same page with you on this. As indicated in my post above, entering the fortress after accepting kobolds or trolls as vassals would have needed a new map in response to the new situation - be it with a banquet or any other adequate response. Implementation was probably simply not worth the effort, at least unless there had been some quest-related reason to return to the vassal's realms.
As for entering premises of a vassal, I very much like your note that the role changed over time. One might even go a step further and consider modern-days renting as a highly evolved form of vassalage, where a "landlord" (note the term!) grants property rights to a tenant in return for monetary compensation. Now, at least in Germany landlords are strictly forbidden by law to enter a rented flat or house without the tenant's approval. They have the right to inspect their property from time to time but the exact terms and conditions of such inspection have been and are fiercley contested at court. I wonder how the situation is in other countries...
I must admit, i just checked wikipedia and combined it with what i have experienced during my readings. (history is a hobby of mine). When you play games like Stellaris or Europa Universalis IV, you can force other empires into Vasselage, what is contrary to the "voluntary"-point.
And regarding the property-topic is a lot combined with the definition of "owning", which is a topic, which is really big and is including a lot of sources. But to make it short: the property laws of germany are one of the most advanced laws in the world. every country has its own laws regarding this, but i had study collegues from south america (chile?), which told me, that even if you have a property, when going abroad, you are always in danger, that your property will be occupied by an completly stranger. Its the same as in other countries: i were reading some books about the daily life of north africa/middle east countries, and it was the same there: you were maybe given a flat by some "protector", but the moment you do go out, you encounter the danger, that somebody else will take the flat, throwing your stuff out. And locks are forbidden. Of course, having experiences with this, you rather buy a lock and bribe the officials, if questions appear. In germany, its strongly against the law, that somebody else is entering your area against your will. If a landlord, which does want to check, if everything is in order, and wants to enter the flat he owns, but rented to you, he has to have either urgent reasons, like a broken water pipe, or he has to send you a letter one week in advance. As everything else, there are disadvantages and advantages there, but the momentarly situation is a mostly advantage situation for most of the poeple: renters, as they have security regarding their property. Landlords, because it gives them a lof of financial security, too. And you are right, this is contested at court, but the courts does ruling mostly in favour of the people living in some property, not owning it. But of course, laws change over time, and as there are parties occupying the government, which are more in favour of the land owners, not the guys renting the areas, there is a high chance, that this whole topic may change in some closer future.
But the game is not germany, it is some fantasy construct, which does takes the rules out of middle age laws. And there it was rather the way as it is in a lot of countries today: whoever is able to control the area, controls it. And as a vassal (forced or not forced) is controlling the area in my name, it would be.... kind of sending a message, that he takes to control out of your hand. Which would of course be treason.