It may seem strange, but in my last game, I didn't want to kill Firkraag. I had no Paladin so I wasn't interested in the sword anyway. And after he had spoken, it seemed it wasn't necessary to kill him.
It's more important to save the girl, you don't risk your life fighting a dragon while the girl could die, do you?
And after that... why come back and kill him? Wasn't he polite towards you? Wasn't he fair? When you talk to him, he tells you why he tricked you because of your father, then that it was fun but that it's over, that he doesn't want to kill you, he has had enough entertainment. He's eager to see how you will fare with Irenicus. And he lets you save the girl (you just have to kill a last clown).
Indeed, in the thread, you may thank him for his charity.
So it seems you can leave, not friends, but as gentlemen. It's not like the dragon of Shade, who's very impolite.
Did you already spare him for this reason? Is it necessary to kill him if you're good?

He is evil, so if you're a good character you should kill him. And he tricked you once; can you say he won't do it again (from perspective of your main character)?
Indeed, in the thread, you may thank him for his charity.
:lol:

[ June 04, 2005, 00:14: Message edited by: Jathszu Khatharua ]

Being good does not mean youhave to walk the realm killing everything that blips "red" on an detect allignment check ;) .

Capt Massacre. My thoughts exactly. I could see no role playing justification for killing that dragon. It wasn't until much later on these Boards that I gathered that killing him is seen as essential. But I've never killed him because it never made any sense to me.

but even if you help him he won't give you 10000 gold that he promised

There IS a good reason for going back and killing him if you are a 'good' character. It makes no difference if he is polite to you while you are talking to him. For a nutural or evil character this may carry a lot of weight. They only think of themselves and how they are treated. And they care about no one else. But a good character is supposed to care about "good" not just how someone treats them. Now, think back. He did play games with you before the polite chat. He did trick you into killing good aligned knights with his illusion. Did you forget? According to Gerran he has done it before, tricking people into killing each other. You or one of your party could have been killed during that battle. The orcs, etc he keeps in his hold as his army also go out and kill. You think he will not collect another army after you leave?

No, he his evil and does evil things. Any good aligned character has a duty to kill him and save innocent people. No matter how nice he treated you face-to-face.

But they're only killing 'em as a hobby now... :D

Seriously, my argument for killing him would be more about getting justice for Gerran. And, in any event, who says good characters have to be perfect? Maybe my CG guy just really wants revenge on him for giving him a bad day.

I never killed him. He always kicked my butt. :(

The way I see it, an evil character would be even more compelled to kill Firkraag. He has f**ked you over and might even try that again (as has already been said), despite his "charity".

Thus, being evil, you should be ten times more itching for vengeance as a neutral or good character.

Unless maybe the evil character's particular obsession is self-preservation, and he doesn't want to get toasted unless he really, really has to.

Well - a goodie two-shoes character would slay him for the good of all and for the glory of a dragon-slayer, better dkph rate too (dragons killed per hour).
A bad arse would kill him for the treasure or for the very pleasure of spillin' some dragon guts.

So I think the only chance for poor old Firkraag lies in "true neutral"

P.S. forgot to mention that monks just kill him for fun while doing some other more boring task :D

and also, he kidnapped innocent person

As for Gerran, Firkraag tells you he's better off without responsabilities after all, so in a way, Firkraag did the good. Maybe he's lying, but it seems possible. Of course, it doesn't wipe out all the evil done.

As for the ogres trick, this is indeed evil. But maybe that's what you should expect from a dragon? And remember, Firkraag didn't pick you by chance, he had a score to settle with Bhaal's blood. You don't know what Bhaal did to him, but maybe it wasn't 100% good either? Firkraag can't revenge directly, so he makes you suffer and causes you to kill innocent people. In his dragon ethics, it's perfectly acceptable. You're no ordinary man. You have an heritage. You may be held responsible for things your father did, that could be very ugly. More than an ordinary man, you can understand Firkraag's views.

In the game, you don't eradicate all that is evil anyway. The Shadow Thieves are evil. Your friend Aran Linvail is an horrible man. Did you explore his fortress? Did you talk to the man who was going to die very slowly? You can't even mercy kill him.

My hesitation comes from the way the talking is done. Firkraag doesn't say "look, I'm evil, and after you go, I'll kill a lot of people as usual!". Rather, the way it goes,if you decide to kill him, YOU seem to choose an unecessary violent path.
After the conversation, I couldn't say "this dragon is 100% evil", there was something else in his behaviour.

In Star Wars, imagine Yoda saying "Luke, Vader is evil, so you will kill him (plus, I don't say he's your father...)"
'But, he still has good in him...'
'No matter! He has done evil! Go and kill him!'

Well here is the way personally think that each alignment group should do to Firkraag.

Lawful Good- Kill him. Firkraag has broken a contract with the character, has harassed the lord Windspear and stolen his lands and if left alive he would cause mischief and deaths for many, perhaps for centuries to come. If the party would not be powerful enough to destroy the beast they would at least have to report of his presence to someone who could do something about him. The paladins of Athkalta would be a nice choice.

Neutral Good- Kill him. Pretty much for the same reasons as the Lawful Good.

Chaotic Good- Kill him. Once again pretty much the same reasons as in the lawful good, good people just can't let a creature such as Firkraag exist in peace if it's found.

Lawful Neutral- Kill him or force him to pay the 10 000 he owes you. He made an agreement with you which you followed and should pay the price. If Firkraag would be too powerful for the party they should leave him alone.

True Neutral- Diffcult to say. If they were satisfied with the loot they've found and not too irritated on Firkraag they could leave him alone. No point in risking your life when you've allready
gotten tons of items and gold from the dungeon, and he let go of the girl too.

Chaotic Neutral- Too difficult to say anything. Chaotic Neutral characters tend to be unpredictable and therefore thir motives and reasons vary a lot.

Lawful Evil- Kill him. He broke the contract and if he refuses to follow it he should be taught a lesson.

Neutral Evil- Difficult to say. A neutral evil character would most likely be pissed of at the dragon for messing around with him but it might not be enough to put him to attack a powerful dragon.

Chaotic Evil- Kill him, get drunk, rape the girl and kill lord Windspear. Ok so the last three are not necessary in order to follow the alignment but the first one pretty much is. Any bastard who messes with the greatest of bhaalspawns should die a horrible death, besides dragons are known to carry a lot of treasure.

Of course I now disregard all sorts of other roleplaying facts which might affect the party's decicion (Such as the fact that they might not know exactly what kind of malice a red dragon can cause or are overly intimitated by its precence even if they were powerful enough to slay the beast) and concentrated only on alignments. I assume others may feel differently about the issue though. Alignment is a thing to be taken into consideration but not to be followed blindly when roleplaying (following the alignment blindly simplifies and limits the characer), so if your character goes against the choices I've put forth it would not necesseraly be bad roleplaying in my opinion.

I think I have allways killed Firkraag when I've gone through the game. I don't use much roleplay when I play single player games since there's no use and it greatly limits the game for me (except in Planescape Torment where I just MUST roleplay but that's a different topic). I often pick the evil choice in one quest and the good choice in some other quest, depending on what I gain/loose from it.

[ June 06, 2005, 11:08: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

@Morgoroth: Here's your chaotic neutral

Chaotic Neutral (my favorite)- His *tail is bigger than mine. KILL IM!!!

Truly my justification was that my caharcter was being haunted by demons that used to work for Bhaal, and the demons are constantly whispering things to him, and they basically gaoded him into it with threats, hubris, enticing deals, and one said "I've never seen a dragon die before."

[ June 06, 2005, 08:33: Message edited by: The Irreligious Paladin ]

Capt Massacre: I believe Firrkraag is actually referring to Gorion in the dialogue (I could be wrong but can't check for sure atm.) as I am sure the harpers are also mentioned.

I think it is likely that many people wouldn't think Gorion is evil and that himself and the harpers wouldn't chase after Firkraag without good reason. This could probably be seen as bitterness as being caught for his crimes, much like Ployer.

Firkraag says that the games bore him and that he is interested in how you deal with Irenicus. So the death of the paladins means nothing? How many has he killed for amusement and regarded it as something to simply pass the time? He is interested in your dealings because there is so much death and destruction, amusement, he doesn't have to do the whole evil laugh and "I am an evil dragon who will eat you and then destroy a few small villages and perhaps half of Amn" because doing that is barely worth the effort. He would most likely do it to alleviate boredom.

Dragons are intelligent creatures and will not likely kill off a passing adventurer if it is possible to torment and watch their activities, perhaps as a hobby. Firkraag sends one of his disciples to kill you, surely after he watched his whole group of Orcs, Rakshasa and golems slaughtered he would realise a single mage will pose a very small threat. He lets you play hero, yet is it really heroic to leave the situation so open that he could easily do it again if he thought it would be fun?

I'm not arguing that you should kill him. Just saying how I think he is evil. :rolling:

@ 8people

Firrkraag indeed metions Gorion by name, saying he still bears the scars of that encounter. He says it was long ago, though not so long to a Dragon.

what is firkraag do with Gorion? I've never played BG1.

Chickavalier, he does nothing to him, the incident happened before the PC and Gorion met :)

i usually play Chaotic alignment and it's not hard to find excuses to kill an arrogant dragon who thinks he can toy with your life just for amusement. by the way i love the song "addicted to chaos"

I had mixed feelings toward Gorion in the game (he killed Charname's mother, he kept Charname imprisoned in Candlekeep for years, he never told Charname of his/her true heritage), so, my character could understand Mr Red Dragon.

If I had Keldorn or another paladin in the party, I killed him, because of the sword. *apologetic shrug*

If I did not need a sword, I did nothing - the Dragon sits in his dungeon, does nothing - why kill him? Why risk my beloved NPCs?

I don't understand, does anybody can tell me more?(I know bhaal stuff, but I don't know that is Firkragg have to do with Gorion)

It was a little vague, about what Gorion did to Firkragg, but I didn't care, I just wanted the sword and scales :D

@Kulyok

Actually, he wrote you a letter in candlekeep saying that your mother was his lover and died giving birth. Elmonster from the journal of Elmonster chose not be belive the Solar...
And he didn't keep you "imprisoned" in candlekeep... he never said "don't go out", you just didn't want to go :|

Elmonster? Hehe!

Seriously though, I don't see any really fundamental objection to killing Firky if you're good. He may be polite with you, but he's still essentially a bastard at heart.

Not wanting to kill Firkraag doesnt seem so strange to me. In fact I hate killing dragons per se. I resent it. :/ No matter whether they are evil or silver or...

The fight with them is great fun, yeah, but I feel somewhat bad and unsatisfied with my PC when they eventually fall. Seeing these splendid creatures lie dead - bah. What a waste. What a crime.

Wish they would just drop their treasures and teleport out of there when they are close to dying.

Bah, the way I reason it is this: if I kill a few of the really bad ones, the others will get the message and start being decent. :D

The fight with them is great fun, yeah, but I feel somewhat bad and unsatisfied with my PC when they eventually fall. Seeing these splendid creatures lie dead - bah. What a waste. What a crime.Spooky, I sometimes think about that too. I love dragons too - my high school ring has a dragon on it. When I play Magic, I always use dragon cards if I can.

If i Have understood correctly, what Gorion did is that he and his Harper friends met Firkaag (possible committing an act of evil) and fight ensued.Firkaag Slayed most of them, but sustained great wounds, and wanted revenge.
Hmm...To think of it, maybe Firkaag realised during his little "game" with CHARNAME, that he had bitten more than he can chew, and let him go quietly?
I almost always kill him, since he is creature of great evil, and i play almost always good.

Yes, it's not only that Firkraag may have excuses, it's that dragons are superb and old creatures. And you would kill them for trinkets, some weapons, gold? A shame... No wonder they all disappeared.
They are an endangered specie, if you are good, you'll keep that in mind when you meet one. If you are evil, you don't care.

I'm pretty sure Firkraag refers to Bhaal, not only Gorion. The way I got it, Gorion was annoying to Firkraag but Bhaal was worse.

Save the dragons!!! Yay! Next thing will be Firkraag summoning endless waves of heavily armoured PETA activists against your unsuspecting character :D :p

The problem with killing/not killing dragons IMO comes from the fact that the whole idea about dragins in Forgotten realms is a bit mixed up. It combines in a strange, sometimes (like the Firkraag example) quite contradictive way two totaly different mythological ideas about these creatures. On first place - here you have the ancient eastern concept about the omniscient and omnipotent dragon, as old as the world itself. From this point of view the very thought of killing a dragon in the game would be ridiculous.On second place here is the medieval western idea of the dragon as an evil to the core firebreathing menace, which plagues the lands with its strenght or with its ensnaring magic(Tolkien?). This one eventually ends up on the sword of a valiant christian knight in shining armour, as another symbol of Christianity's victory over paganity or whatever.

So there you have it, Firkraag - an ancient all-wise, yet evil power... what to do with it? I think the creator's decision here is more than suitable - decide whatever you want or like and feel free to find yourself arguments for your decision, after all there are infinite aguments for both killing him and letting him live. You can both finish SoA by killing each and every dragon in it and finish it without touching any, slay them or respect them - this is roleplaying.

Edit: It would have been nice, however, if your character did benefit from the non-violence decision as well because now it feels like you are being punished for not killing them, since the game presumes that you do this because you are a coward. The non-violent option should be encouraged and rewarded as well.

[ June 13, 2005, 00:33: Message edited by: Myth ]

That's an interesting point, Myth. As I understand it, they sometimes try to explain the dichotomy with the dragon's color or element (I haven't read the Faiths and Pantheons manual recently, but isn't Bahamut a neutral good or chaotic good deity?), but not often. I guess part of the problem is that they don't have a lot of ways to express complicated concepts in this kind of computer game.

It would have been nice, however, if your character did benefit from the non-violence decision as well because now it feels like you are being punished for not killing them, since the game presumes that you do this because you are a coward. The non-violent option should be encouraged and rewarded as well.
I would tend to agree.

but there are almost no Eastern stuff in BG......(except Yoshi and Katanas, which is Japanese)

@Western Paladin
I guess part of the problem is that they don't have a lot of ways to express complicated concepts in this kind of computer game. Yes it is true, but it depends on the game really. It is a great problem for more adventuring-oriented games like BG to express those concepts, but it is not even the slightest problem for a game with a deeper and much stronger concept and storyline such as Planescape: Torment. After all Ps:T is all about different concepts and points of view and your choice between them, which eventually causes the character to bear your own personality. I doubt that there is somebody who plays Ps:T like he would play ToEE - just for the quests and the killings, what is more, I think this is impossible.

@Chickavalier
but there are almost no Eastern stuff in BG......(except Yoshi and Katanas, which is Japanese) On the very contrary - eastern elements in the game are as many as the western ones. They do not begin and end with particular weapons and particular personalities, just as christian elements do not begin or end with the Radiant Heart for example. The whole game is a mixture of elements from different cultures, which is not always successful (read Firkraag). Different people, however, tend to see above all else the elements of their own cultures in it and this is more than natural.

The first few times I didn't kill Firkaag because his behaviour confused the heck out of me. I figured he must be some sort of chaotic neutral variant (rust dragon, orange dragon, or whatever). After I found out that he really was a red dragon, I had no compunction about killing him. No matter what he says, Firkaag is evil :evil: .

Did it occur to you that he's probably still lying, and is just waiting for you to kill Irenicus? And after you've exhausted yourselves with the battle with Irenicus, he'll be able to wipe out your entire weakened party without any effort at all! :hmm:

The real shame is that there aren't any neutral dragons in the game that you can converse with! :flaming: You might even be able to impress one enough for them to share a nugget of their infinite wisdom with you. Or, if all else fails, you could simply stand and admire the splendor of such a magnificent creature. :love:

he is easy to beat once you know how to. and you have INFINITE time chasing Irenicus. so what's the point of exhausted? single rest would take care of that.

@Chickavalier:

I was talking about the inevitable injuries, spells and items expended during the fight, etc. :bang: Firkaag could follow you, and ambush your party the moment Irenicus falls!

It would have been nice, however, if your character did benefit from the non-violence decision as well because now it feels like you are being punished for not killing them, since the game presumes that you do this because you are a coward. The non-violent option should be encouraged and rewarded as well. It is rewarded: you get to LIVE.

And I think that's the point. The reason that most characters should not kill Firky is because they "should" be scared of him; he is, after all, an ancient red dragon.

The trouble is the implementation makes it realtively easy for a party that knows what it's doing to kill him. This is a game difficulty issue, not a role-playing issue. If dragons had been implemented to anywhere near their true power, and they had a script that matched their genius-intelligence, most parties would not stand a chance.

Even so, there is a reward of carrying on the adventure. What I would say is this: imagine there were no "reload" option; imagine that the fight against Firkraag truly was "do or die", and if anything went wrong or your protagonist got killed, that was it, game over. I suspect that not so many characters would then be queing up to fight him "because he is evil".

As a comparatory example, I'm sure a few people here have read the first Dragonlance novel. There, the party face a dilemma about recovering the disks of Mishakal from Onyx, the black dragon. The party is full of good characters and the dragon is undoubtedly evil, but their plan is merely to steal the disks and escape...it doesn;t turn out that way, but I think that is a good example of where "realism" would lie as opposed to the metagaming that would argue otherwise.

Good points, JWN. That was a primary reason why I have never killed Firkraag - namely that my characters were not foolhardy enough to try unless forced into a situation where they had to.

@Felinoid
but how? you beat him in hell, and he can't chase you there

@Chickavalier:

Yes, but Firkaag doesn't know that when he's planning to kill you. :bang: Just because he is prevented from committing an evil act, it doesn't negate the intent to commit it, and it certainly doesn't mean he's not evil.

Neither do you know that the finale battle will take place in hell :p

" The real shame is that there aren't any neutral dragons in the game that you can converse with! "

What about the Silver Dragon outside the Drow City in the Underdark?


Another item no one has mentioned is the Red Dragon Scale armour you can make from the scales. Pre TOB, this is about the best armour there is. Of course, from a role-playing point of view, you have no idea that you will be able to make that armour.

@Chas:
Silver dragons are good (Lawful Good to be exact). I'm talking about one of the neutral (gem) dragons, who won't care whether you're good, neutral, or evil, and simply want someone to chat with.

I really fail to see why he shouldn't be killed.


He ruined Winspear's life. He killed, or if you like it better that way, tricked you into killing paladins. Harpers were after him, and I don't think it was because of his good deeds.
He's sorry? Where? More like bored with Charname. It was just like Mae'Var and his "Go away, tool." Damn, that pissed me off, I must admit. Whole game you are deceived, tricked, and generally 'the dumb guy', but nothing annoyed me as much as Mae'Var. So I slit his throat.
As for fearing ancient Red Dragon, must I remind that the whole point of BG2 is chasing after very powerful mage, more powerful than Firkraag, and his vampiric sidekick? Charname sure doesn't have self-preserving instinct :)

And the top thing, no one messes with me and lives :p

Whole thing wrong is that you can kill dragons easily. you shouldn't be able to kill them easily, or not at all.

It is sad that the Dragons in the game are a bit lacking in terms of battle prowess. While I'd believe that a party that's gone through the Underdark and most of the sidequests would probably be able to kill him (though not without some difficulty), a party with an average level of around 10-15 would probably be slaughtered. It would have been better if the dragons in BG2 where like the Lionheart variety, with the ability to fly. Probably with the innate abilities "eat adventurer", "use my tail to slap them all away + 100 points of crushing damage", or "sit down on the mage before he finishes casting finger of death".

I play chaotic neutral so I have half a world of reasons why I should kill that dragon. In the instances I played Good, I killed him because the reason why he spared my character is:

a) He's lying. He knows that he could be fighting a godling whose destiny seems clearer than the others. Crossing said godling and thus, attempting to deter him from his fate could be disastrous to his health.
b) He's telling the truth. He is overconfident. He is bored. He's thinks you're an actor and that the movie is about to commence.
c) A combination of the previous two reasons.

Anyway, it's becomes apparent that the reason why he's evil is because he does evil things for the sake of entertainment. If it's in your conscience to allow such an evil creature to plague the lands... It'd be like leaving Reijek Hidesman to continue his dirty work.
He spared Gerran because that part of the entertainment is over. That Gerran turned out better off without responsibilities is a side-effect. It's irrelevant. In fact, "spare" is not even the word for it. Ignore is more apt. There's no point in torturing him further because that part's already been done to hell. The next person - probably some figure who made a name for himself helping people who Firkraag decides to destroy in all aspects - financially, socially, spiritually, emotionally and finally, physically for the sake of "amusement" has his blood on your hands. Gerran was only too lucky to have survived.
Of course, there's no point in killing a dragon then and there if you're not ready and he's apt to kill you 100%. There are, after all, two sides to Tymora's coin.
But there's no reason why a Mage who can cast LvL 8 spells, a Warrior who has had time to master his skills (killing sahaugin, beholders, drow, kuo-toa, mindflayers, etc) or a priest who has gained the ability to resurrect party mates couldn't kill him, with some effortand planning. These characters already rank as close to legendary by D&D measures, I think.

[ July 03, 2005, 14:14: Message edited by: Scythesong Immortal ]

Not killing him (unless you really, really kick ass) would be the more roleplaying-ish decision ... but what's the point of RPing in this game? It certainly doesn't support it, so hack and slash and burn and trash and blow those dudes away :)

Bingo! If you want roleplaying, pick up the pen & paper version, find some friends, and go nuts!
:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
It's way more fun than the CRPG's, and has a lot more options. :thumb: :thumb:

Also, gorion hates him. so you hate him.

My God! Why haven´t any of you seen the light yet? This is D&D, right? Which means Dungeons & Dragons. You explore Dungeons & kill Dragons. End of discussion. :D :D :D

Neutral dragon:
in watcher's keep, 4th floor, githyanki area, Saladrex

He's red, therefore he's evil.
Dragons - color coded for your convinience.

@Elwyn: appropriate quote from the OoTS!

I remember an old slogan for dragonsbane swords which said something like this: Just kill it!

Opening of the Dragon hunting season! ;)

@Chickavalier:
Unless my sources are mistaken (I only got ToB recently and haven't tried it out yet), Saladrex is another red, which makes him evil. I'm talking about neutral dragons here. The five classic examples from the Monstrous Manual are: Amethyst, Crystal, Emerald, Sapphire, and Topaz. These are the gem dragons. The only ones that are even close to red are amethyst (purple) and topaz, which looks like a big yellow bat with orange wings. :nuts:

Urgh! I think I found out why there are no neutral dragons in BG2. They all have some psionics. I doubt the programmers would want to code those abilities in just to enable neutrals. :sosad: :cry: It's not fair!

Well Saladrex isn't THAT evil if you take the time to actually talk to him. Full of himself and pompous, yes, but evil? He doesn't go around killing paladins, kidnapping children, and framing bands of adventurers (all of which Firkraag's done). In fact he's the only dragon in BG2 (aside from the even more arrogant silver dragon, and the Hell dragon) that doesn't brag on about the people he's slaughtered.

I always feel a little guilty every time I kill him :)

As Elwyn said, red = evil (specifically, Chaotic Evil). Just because Saladrex doesn't brag about it doesn't mean he hasn't done it (or worse). Maybe he's heard of how you killed Firkraag, and is scared s***less that you're going to do the same to him, so he pretends to be a numbskull.

And the ever popular alignment breakdown (this time, backwards! :roll: ):

CE: Maybe kill him just because he thinks he's SO beautiful. :p
NE: Treasure and XP vs. chance of injury.
LE: Leave the nutbag alone.
CN: Like you can predict this one. :nuts:
TN: He's not upsetting the balance, leave him alone.
LN: He's not breaking any laws, leave him alone.
CG: It's red, kill it!
NG: He's probably evil, might as well kill him before he escapes and causes harm.
LG: Leave him alive due to lack of evidence. After all, he probably is evil, but he's not doing anything evil (that you know of).

I'm thinking same with Ziad

lol Felinoid.

IMO, it's the lawful character who might decide to kill Saladrex because he thinks he so beautiful (and pompous and mighty, as if he were above the law). If I were pompous myself, I'd kill him out of sheer outrage. :p

EDIT

CN: tastes like chicken