<Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?

[Tide]

On the topic of God Kings:

We still need to do something regarding this plot branch, so Andy, CK and I just had a little chat regarding the character and what we managed to conclude on (some holes still need filling in). I had originally wanted to introduce some sort of character who was mostly physical oriented and we editted to the following

Basically, this leader, (let's call him 'Yiu' since he still doesn't have a name yet):
- Is born to a noble family.
- When he was born, he had the ability to sense the movement of the Flow and when he was growing up, saw that the use Dissonance magic was disrupting its natural state and killing it off, so he strayed away from learning the use of magic.
- As a young child, he was frequently tutored and learned about various philosophies of the world as well as philosophers.
- He eventually encounters the God Kings group and joins, initially at the lowest rank and works his way up to becoming the leader (details not known)
- How he meets up with Eratus is also not known at this point, but being an established (and possibly influencial group), it wouldn't be farfetched for Eratus to have met up and given him the chance to manipulate them a little.

So yeah, food for thought as to what else needs to be completed here.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Andy/Tal/Tide/I have been whirling some stuff around in chat, here's some of the ideas that have been floated around for the God-Kings. Note that this is filtered partially through my bias of what I want to see in particular, so others should feel free to chime in.

Yiu

Believes fervently in the prophecies of the God-Kings, a minor nobleman who has worked his way up the ranks. He commands his own elite squad, now. He is a fervent and zealous believer in honour and justice, loudly proclaiming his fight for the glory of the First Practitioner, or whatever. This is intended to reach comic levels at some points, as his overly honourable self often leaves him open to missing obvious subtext in situations. Nevertheless, with his sheer charisma and battle skills he often bulls through situations anyway. I definitely see him as being a bit of a comic relief character. Not to say he isn't serious, too - I think the tone of our game requires it - but I want him to be a character who puts a smile on the player's face.

His goals are pretty obvious: he believes that the prophecy is about to come true and fervently desires to do whatever he can to ensure it does. He fights for his country and for all that is good and honest in the world.

He is, unlike the other mains, married and in a stable relationship. He is very loving and devoted to his wife, and believes marriage is the honourable way to live.

Main female God-King

Still too lazy for names. Yiu's wife, and straight man. Always willing to put her husband in his place when his overzealousness gets the better him (which is pretty often!) but lacks the strength of will to talk sense into him (which says less about her and more about him). Very committed to him and shares his ideals.

The mini-boss squad is meant to be quirky, and the quirk I envisioned for her is that she is very flirty with her enemies (we've all seen that before in the femme fatale type)... with the twist being that she's very open and honest that she's just doing it to be manipulative. "Oh, don't be silly, I'd never think of betraying Yiu... you were just so fun to toy with, thank you for letting my obviously manipulative words cloud your judgement. <3" So yes, I see her with a healthy dose of snark (which, well, she has to deal with Yiu. This should be expected!).

The bard

Another member of the God-King crew. He's a bard. He's educated. He loves music. He's intensely spiritual. He's a downright nice guy. He heals and buffs the party.

He's also nearly seven feet tall, with bulging muscles, and shirtless to show it all off. Perhaps he believes in honing his body as part of his meditations. Regardless, he's yet another eccentric in the employ of Yiu. Hopefully Djinn will have fun drawing this one.

(I'm aware this entry is the shortest, but it's Andy's character concept and I didn't want to jump the gun and start taking the character in a direction he disapproves of.)

[Anthony Edward Stark]

On Betrayal: It... actually isn't that naive a view. If EVERYONE in the world (as represented per the assembled PCs) can be counted on to turn on you under the right circumstances? That's a pretty nasty portrait of the world (since trust can't honestly exist), and frankly, a fairly unrealistic one. There are people in the world you can really rely on, and I feel this deserves to be reflected as well.

Furthermore, well. It really, severely, undermines every other theme in the game (as well as a lot of the characters and their respective motivations). Immensely so.

Besides, generally speaking, how effective are these tensions going to remain if EVERY PC can become a traitor in a real manner? Honestly, I really think we're pushing it with the three considered as is, and that it only works decently well because they are doing it for different reasons, in different way, with different results and are all fairly meaningful. Speaking from a writing perspective, I really doubt that this could be done in a meaningful or effective way. But we might also be talking past each other.

On Aurel: Its come up a few times, and I believe was referenced in the "Samantha" plot idea. There's been a heavy leaning in that direction its seemed.

On chat dumps: I'm making an effort to reference anything of note from chats. Repeated text dumps would be really ugly. >_>

Ninja'd, but it is late, so I'll deal with it if I feel like it.

Why does it have to be their betrayal? Why can't it be the other characters who feel you've betrayed them? The choices the player is asked to make shouldn't be "save that baby!" or "eat that baby!" They should be genuine decisions, not "white/black" binary switches, and if they're written so that it's convincing that the main could decide to do either, then the supporting cast should have their own opinions on that. If you continue to face down these decisions in a way a character disagrees with, they wouldn't necessarily have to stab you in the back, just part ways with you because "we clearly solve problems differently."

[DjinnAndTonic]

Rob makes a good point. One that had come to mind, but I failed to voice properly. One of the concepts that had come to mind for a finale was something along the lines of the ToV Flynn/Yuri duel. Noemi effectively manages to talk Erastus out of his plan at the very end, and they manage to save the world without fighting. Now, one of the PCs you've simply been at odds with in methodolgy (though not necessarily at moral or objective odds) simply challenges Noemi (or Mirek, or Isolde, or Erastus!) to a duel of honor. There's nothing really at stake, but this is a personal conflict and a big battle will really clear the air between the teammates. Storywise, very low-key and doesn't require much extra scripting, but the battle itself can be cool from a mechanics standpoint.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

I feel that methodology should probably be the key factor in the game. It's not goals that distinguish the team, it's how they want to accomplish them (see: Paragon/Renegade in Mass Effect). Who the fuck thinks "save the world" is a bad plan? You're not going to disagree with that, you're going to want to see it done differently.

[Yoshiken]

On Betrayal: It... actually isn't that naive a view. If EVERYONE in the world (as represented per the assembled PCs) can be counted on to turn on you under the right circumstances? That's a pretty nasty portrait of the world (since trust can't honestly exist), and frankly, a fairly unrealistic one. There are people in the world you can really rely on, and I feel this deserves to be reflected as well.

Sure. I wouldn't say there are loads, though, and I wouldn't say that every person in the party would fall under this. Maybe have a few characters who can't betray you, but still have most of them able to?
Agreeing with Rob - methodology is going to be a huge factor here, although.. I'm also struggling to see that as a reason to betray someone completely, and I don't think Djinn's idea of a final duel works well, since it's solely personal pride - not that personal fights are bad (see: SH2) but that the motive behind this (at this stage) seems bad.

I'd say, for the betrayals, the best thing to do is make them really freaking difficult, like Djinn's said. Make it so they have to dissuade Erastus, which takes a hell of a lot to begin with, and then really screw over x-character. I don't see a problem with having the option of losing several party members, since it'd be hard to do, to the extent of needing to go out of your way to lose most of them. It'd be good for challenge runs (Noemi-only!) but wouldn't screw over first-runs.

Oh, and the Noemi betrayal, a la Baten Kaitos, seems like something that'd be really damn hard to pull off. I can't think of an alternative if everybody has been redeemed/forgiven/kept in the party, though... Seems to me like this sort of ending should be one of the biggest, since it requires making all the right moves and decisions...
-----
...Also, I love the current plans for the Bard. That's the kinda thing that's really memorable, in the most bizarre sense of the word.

[DjinnAndTonic]

Agreeing with Rob - methodology is going to be a huge factor here, although.. I'm also struggling to see that as a reason to betray someone completely, and I don't think Djinn's idea of a final duel works well, since it's solely personal pride - not that personal fights are bad (see: SH2) but that the motive behind this (at this stage) seems bad.

...Well, it was just a thought for -one- possible outcome. I think it's doable just to get a slightly different tone from normal stuff. That's the beauty of having multiple options like this.

I'd say, for the betrayals, the best thing to do is make them really freaking difficult, like Djinn's said. Make it so they have to dissuade Erastus, which takes a hell of a lot to begin with, and then really screw over x-character. I don't see a problem with having the option of losing several party members, since it'd be hard to do, to the extent of needing to go out of your way to lose most of them. It'd be good for challenge runs (Noemi-only!) but wouldn't screw over first-runs.

Yes, the idea is that the betrayals are -possible-, not that most of them would happen in a normal playthrough. I think it's a great option to have and to focus on. It's really not something I've seen much of. It's just something I'd like to keep in mind when fleshing out the characters: "What would have to happen to this character before a scenario would have to occur that would cause a betrayal or major disagreement or complete ideology shift?" Knowing the limits of your characters like this is intriguing to me. For the few that wouldn't -ever- be driven to leave Noemi's group, I proposed a friendly-rival-type low-key duel, simply so that there's still a final boss fight (because making 15 final boss fights is awesome from a design perspective.)

Oh, and the Noemi betrayal, a la Baten Kaitos, seems like something that'd be really damn hard to pull off. I can't think of an alternative if everybody has been redeemed/forgiven/kept in the party, though... Seems to me like this sort of ending should be one of the biggest, since it requires making all the right moves and decisions...

I'd call Noemi's betrayal a required NG+ option. You -have- to see the Erastus plot before you can play through the game with the intention to out-manipulate the manipulator. (But imagine how satisfying it would be!)


God Kings characters:

What happened to the group that thinks that going to the Great King's Throne Island was a horrible idea and would actively try to keep people from going there? Is that a different group from the Barbarian nobleman (and his wife and minstrel)?

Really liking the ideas NEB proposed for the God King troop. Not sure what to think of the leader yet, his backstory seems a bit conflicted with the rest of the plot? But I'm liking the chemistry between the three of them so far, even with so very little expansion on the Minstrel guy.

Random name ideas to get it out of the way:

"Samantha" : Kasia (My favorite Czech name)
GK Nobleman: Ren Yiu (family name is Ren)
GK Tasty Wife: Ren Feilin (married into the family)
GK Bodybuilder Bard: Lee Xirou (depending on his status as nobility, he may not get a 'family' name, so drop the Lee in this case.)
GK "Doesn't speak common Imperial" PC: Fa Soulan ^_^

Note that I really like Magic's idea for another student character who knows Noemi from her college days and is fluent in Chinese the God King's Tongue. I propose he ends up with the GK group, but we get him for a short stint as a party member during one of the chapters (probably Isolde's) where we get our first look at the GK 'nation'. Magic called him "Fahim" or something? I mention this here because 4 GKs + Fahim = Party size.

[Yoshiken]

Oh, and the Noemi betrayal, a la Baten Kaitos, seems like something that'd be really damn hard to pull off. I can't think of an alternative if everybody has been redeemed/forgiven/kept in the party, though... Seems to me like this sort of ending should be one of the biggest, since it requires making all the right moves and decisions...

I'd call Noemi's betrayal a required NG+ option. You -have- to see the Erastus plot before you can play through the game with the intention to out-manipulate the manipulator. (But imagine how satisfying it would be!)

Wait, are we talking, like, final boss = EVERYONE YOU BETRAYED and the ending is Noemi basically going JUST AS PLANNED and winning? 'Cause that's actually an awesome idea for an ending. We need more games where you can be evil and take over the world just because you fucking feel like it.

[DjinnAndTonic]

I was thinking more like... you do this and Noemi becomes the final boss... though I suppose either method works in NG+.

[Yoshiken]

I... guess that'd depend on whether Noemi is the actual main character or just the focal character in the story, Chrono Trigger style. I can't see fighting Noemi as the final if she's the main character, but I could see it if she's just 'a major character' in the story.
From what I've read, this could really go either way, to be honest. So, uhh, guess we need thoughts on this as an ending before judging whether or not she's actually a main character to such an extent as to not be able to fight her.

[AndrewRogue]

Rob: Maybe I'm just running into communication issues with Djinn, but what you suggest seems pretty significantly different from what he suggests. There's a pretty notable line between "PCs can leave you as a result of moral/practical/planning differences" and "every single member of the cast can potentially end up as the final conflict." Anyhow, overall agreed here, to the ends that it can be reasonably achieved.

Djinn: While the idea isn't bad, using at as a finale is... anticlimactic in a lot of cases, I want to say? I suppose I could see ways for it to be done in an okay manner but, again, it becomes kinda difficult with secondary and tertiary PCs to make the conflict particularly serious/big/meaningful. Mid-game and stuff I can see far more ways for it to work reasonably well.

Break over. Hurrah ;_;

[DjinnAndTonic]

Djinn: While the idea isn't bad, using at as a finale is... anticlimactic in a lot of cases, I want to say? I suppose I could see ways for it to be done in an okay manner but, again, it becomes kinda difficult with secondary and tertiary PCs to make the conflict particularly serious/big/meaningful. Mid-game and stuff I can see far more ways for it to work reasonably well.

Break over. Hurrah ;_;

Not all endings must be climactic. Stop being a story-whore. Sometimes just having some options makes for a fun game. Secondary and Tertiary PCs can be less exciting than our main PC offerings.

That 'mid-game stuff' you can see working far better? Those can still be issues that come up during the course of the game (or as optional side stuff during the mid-game).

[AndrewRogue]

Yes, because everyone enjoys a huge anticlimax at the game’s end, the biggest most generally memorable chunk of any competent piece of writing, to fight random party member X, Q or R at the very end of the game, when there are about a million other ways to include similar ideas without dropping the narrative flow directly off the nearest cliff into the coldest body of water you can find.

Hurrah!

I just don’t see what exactly you are expecting to gain out of this. Options to have the PCs as boss fights? Why not include an aftergame special mode more suited to that? Options to change the plot around? Fine, but it can be done in better ways then replacing the climax that the entire game has built to with a number of options that will, undoubtedly, have a number of significantly weaker results.

I know I hype one of the strengths of games is their role as interactive storytelling tools, but there is a limit to how much control can actually be given over before you really start to fry the strength of the writing, messages and characters.

There are some characters I can see the idea working for! Not sure if I like it, but there are PCs it makes sense for and would remain a strong narrative (although getting a bit silly in the sheer amount of reversals and turns). Just… having it as some sort of main game option to have minor mascot character PC to replace the finale of the game? Blech.

Stick this stuff as silly NG+ or a parody Serpahic Gate type game mode that takes place “after” the game.

Also, are people leaning towards WRPG style conversation options and WRPG style plot scenes and WRPG style banter/etc? Because this sort of mass character flux potential, especially if done organically, really, really needs it. Doing it JRPG style would be… I think difficult for a number of reasons.

That, and I also find the idea of it being “really difficult” to get any of these results to be highly unintuitive, but that may just be me.

Anyone, I'll respond to other stuff later. Wasted most of my lunch here >_>

[Anthony Edward Stark]

Also, are people leaning towards WRPG style conversation options and WRPG style plot scenes and WRPG style banter/etc? Because this sort of mass character flux potential, especially if done organically, really, really needs it. Doing it JRPG style would be… I think difficult for a number of reasons.

Well, yeah, but that's because I consider the JRPG a dying genre, like text adventures.

[Yoshiken]

I've been seeing this as jRPG style from the start due to the setting. I'm picturing this as a vaguely medieval setting, and that screams jRPG at me. (This might be because I don't think I've ever played a wRPG, but besides the point.)
Also, on the mixed endings, I've been seeing those as NG+ from the start, just in a slightly different approach (difficult to find on a first play, for whatever reason) so would be happy to just write those off as "NG+ only."

As for the gameplay/character development, I have most definitely seen it as jRPG and will probably want to slap anyone who says that can't be good. >_>

[Sir Donald 3.2]

I'd like to comment on the issue of methodology that Rob brought up and its relation to the Trust theme:

It's easier to trust someone you agree with than someone you don't.  The agreement can be on various levels from outright goals to merely how much hot water you use in the shower.  The degree of how it impacts trust is how important things are to either person.  One of the things I was afraid of when I went back to College and needed to use a 2 Bedroom Apartment.  The development had a roommate matching form, but it only had 3 questions.  As it turns out, being a 31-year-old Grad Student was such a rarity that they paired me with a 36-year-old former Sea Dog who's basically about half as aloof as I am.  I chose a 2-2 split, but I could've had a 2-2 adjacent with him.

Going back to that Gospel theme, I've heard say that one of the possible motives for Judas' betrayal of Jesus was that Jesus wasn't the type of Messiah he was looking for.  Many Zealots wanted the Glory restored to Israel in their time.  I also bring forth the Pharisees, who didn't trust Jesus because he showed how frivolous many of their "rules" were. 

I have to wonder how Churchill and Stalin got along during the war.  Same with Hitler and Hirohito.  How much trust did each pair have.  How far would each go.  And we all know that WWII was just the Semi-Finals of World Domination:  U.S.A. vs Japan, U.S.S.R. vs Germany.  Winners advance to the Finals.

Sometimes even the degree of difference we can tolerate can change over time.  The Reagan/Bush regime tolerated Saddam Hussein so long as they saw him useful against Iran.  When they saw him as much of a potential threat as Iran (that 1990 invasion of a small fiefdom didn't help) they quickly dropped them.

Near the end of FF7, both Shinra and Avalanche saw Sephiroth, Meteor, and the WEAPONs as threats to humanity.  Their methodologies as to dealing with at least the second, however, would have them refighting the same battles they fought as direct adversaries.

It just strikes me that many Face-Heel and Heel-Face turns stem from revelations that a person's motives or methodologies and those of his/her superior are no longer in sync.  (Noemi will think that Erastus has the same goals as she and would be as civil as she is in his methods...)

Yoshi:  It's not so much they "can't be good" (except perhaps Erastus) but that they can turn against Noemi's faction (though not necessarily "evil").

By the way, I don't see the setting as medieval as much as clean early-mid industrial era.  Not all power needs to be coal.  The Pokemon world has shown us that.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

I've been seeing this as jRPG style from the start due to the setting. I'm picturing this as a vaguely medieval setting, and that screams jRPG at me. (This might be because I don't think I've ever played a wRPG, but besides the point.)

That's probably the only reason, yeah. Oblivion is as "vague medieval setting" as you can imaginably get.

[DjinnAndTonic]

Well, since we're westerners, it's already going to be a Western RPG whether we like it or not... >.>;;

Side comment: Are there even enough Western RPG developers to really peg this 'genre's' key features as that different from JRPGs? It always strikes me more as 'Bioware's style' RPGs and 'Everything else' RPGs. I mean, Tri-Ace produces a whole lot of really similar titles, but no one's calling them their own genre.

Yes, because everyone enjoys a huge anticlimax at the game’s end, the biggest most generally memorable chunk of any competent piece of writing, to fight random party member X, Q or R at the very end of the game, when there are about a million other ways to include similar ideas without dropping the narrative flow directly off the nearest cliff into the coldest body of water you can find.

It's one idea. And more importantly, an -option- for someone who just might find that style of ending refreshing.

I just don’t see what exactly you are expecting to gain out of this. Options to have the PCs as boss fights? Why not include an aftergame special mode more suited to that?

This is essentially what I'm suggesting, only I'm thinking it would be interesting to incorporate it into the main thrust of the story for the major characters (and as a difficult-to-get-more-likely-only-on-a-second-playthrough option for the lesser characters for gameplay reasons, but also because I -like- the theme that everyone has their breaking point. I'm still suggesting the Erastus ending as the 'True' path, and simply performing the actions to avert -that- should be difficult.

Options to change the plot around? Fine, but it can be done in better ways then replacing the climax that the entire game has built to with a number of options that will, undoubtedly, have a number of significantly weaker results.

I think this option is the easiest way to incorporate it in the main story because it only involves writing one or two side quests for each PC + a final dungeon, and doesn't require us to force people out of the party until the last dungeon, which makes the game easier to balance and gives the player more control over how they want to build their party. You say there are 'better ways', but the kind of plot branching you're talking about is much more difficult from a gameplay perspective to create/balance.

My view of it is that the 'branches' are entirely optional and mostly self-contained until the final dungeon arc.

I know I hype one of the strengths of games is their role as interactive storytelling tools, but there is a limit to how much control can actually be given over before you really start to fry the strength of the writing, messages and characters.

I'm suggesting far less control than what you see in Bioware RPGs. It's a little more ambitious than a straight linear narrative, sure, but I'm hoping that we're willing to try out something a little flexible in a theoretical RPG at least.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

Well, since we're westerners, it's already going to be a Western RPG whether we like it or not... >.>;;

Side comment: Are there even enough Western RPG developers to really peg this 'genre's' key features as that different from JRPGs? It always strikes me more as 'Bioware's style' RPGs and 'Everything else' RPGs. I mean, Tri-Ace produces a whole lot of really similar titles, but no one's calling them their own genre.

Not anymore, but once upon a time, there was. What really laid the groundwork for the genre was the Ultima series, which went to shit when EA acquired the property. That said, WRPGs are very distinctly different, particularly if you look at what is the defining game of the genre, Planescape: Torment. I'd use examples from that instead of KotOR/ME, but too many of you are fuckheads who didn't play it because you were too busy with your Pokemon or your Fire Emblem or whatever other inferior game you shouldn't have been playing instead.

[Sir Donald 3.2]

Looks to me that the Western Style is the backbone of the MMORPG genre, hence the descent of the Eastern genre?

Thanks again, TVTropes!

[DjinnAndTonic]

Not anymore, but once upon a time, there was. What really laid the groundwork for the genre was the Ultima series, which went to shit when EA acquired the property. That said, WRPGs are very distinctly different, particularly if you look at what is the defining game of the genre, Planescape: Torment. I'd use examples from that instead of KotOR/ME, but too many of you are fuckheads who didn't play it because you were too busy with your Pokemon or your Fire Emblem or whatever other inferior game you shouldn't have been playing instead.

So I'm thinking that's just not the direction this group will be taking an IAQ, but please continue to contribute ideas from your perspective. I think a hybrid of some sort would work really well. We can eschew the Personalityless Blank Space Marines from WRPGs, but perhaps incorporate some of their freedom of direction and greyness of morality. And we can eschew some of the tired anime tropes that are so common in JRPGs, while retaining their greater emphasis on character interaction and quirky gameplay.

And there's nothing wrong with FE and Pokemon. I'd play PS:T if its art direction didn't make me want to hurl.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Pretty much agree with Djinn. Don't be afraid to take strengths from either genre, although I'm more impressed with jRPGs as a base in regards to gameplay.

I'm not opposed to dialog options, buuut I absolutely, 100% insist that the characters talk. Dialog options may prompt them to take the conversation in certain directions but at the end of the day their conversation needs to be theirs. Noemi must have a personality, not to be a worthless blank slate to be decided by the player. Silent mains are instant -10 to storytelling potential, you pretty much can't make the story about the main. It's quite possible to make good stories without a main, but it's needlessly limiting.

Also, Rob, I'd really appreciate it if you could ease off the trolling in the topic. "lol jRPGs suck" is an opinion you have a right to, but it's mostly just going to make people angry in a site that is centred around jRPGs.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

So I'm thinking that's just not the direction this group will be taking an IAQ, but please continue to contribute ideas from your perspective. I think a hybrid of some sort would work really well. We can eschew the Personalityless Blank Space Marines from WRPGs, but perhaps incorporate some of their freedom of direction and greyness of morality.

And there's nothing wrong with FE and Pokemon. I'd play PS:T if its art direction didn't make me want to hurl.

It also has a terrible combat system that makes no sense if you didn't play D&D, but I slogged through it because of the brilliant writing. Still, it's a fine example of having a main whose actions and alignment is determined by the player's actions (gradually, not immediately) who can still have a personality, along with party members that can be important to the plot without being required. And most importantly, when I hate a party member, I can kill them.

[Magic Fanatic]

Just since I was told to re-state the idea of a character I had...  And clean it up, too...

Name: Fahim (Haven't decided which yet)

Job: Academy Graduate/Researcher

A graduate of the academy in the same class as Noemi, he chose to take up study of the Resonance, Dissonance, and Disquiet.  He graduated within the top 5 of the student body, preferring to not even try to fight for the valedictorian position.  Looking at him, he has a serious personality, but constantly retains an air of boredom whenever he's not doing something.

He's a somewhat lazy boy with a fondness for reading and daydreaming, but when something catches his interest, he takes an almost inhuman obsessive rush over obtaining as much information as possible about it.

While his mother was still pregnant with him, she was near-fatally injured.  Thanks to the healing power of the Dissonance, however, she survived to give birth to a healthy baby boy.  However, that healing was not without its cost, as she became extremely weak afterwards.  For example, if a small cold would inconvenience anyone else for a day, maybe two, she'll be bedridden for no less than a week.  She still retains a positive light on life, even if she spends most of it bedridden anymore.  His father works in-town, and he works HARD to keep that small family going, but he's also a human male.  As such, since his wife is too weak for it, he has taken a Barbarian mistress.

As said before, Fahim is a somewhat lazy boy...  But one of his life's goals is to try to heal the Disquiet within his mother's body, as even though he wasn't born yet, he feels responsible for her pain somewhat.  So, he's studying to heal the Disquiet, like Noemi.  However, unlike Noemi's desire to heal the land's Disquiet, (this character) is working towards a cure for the Disquiet poisoning people.

He's not much in battle, inactivity has left him physically below average.  He even has trouble with most weapons, preferring things like daggers, or whatever can boost his innate magical ability.  His power of observation is second-to-none, however, letting him discern how just about anything works with a simple glance.  Fahim's ability to manipulate the Flow on both sides is also incredible, even if he doesn't put a lot of effort into letting anyone else see it.  Thanks to his father taking in that mistress, he's also become quite proficient/fluent in the Barbarian's language, and has a decent understand of their culture, as well.

Thoughts?  Criticisms?  Clarifications needed?

[AndrewRogue]

Magic.

I like Fahim better.

Race should remain constant as humans are the only ones around here. ^_~ Concept is interesting, the mistress addition might be a little too much pending how much screentime we can dedicate, since that's an odd thing all told. The idea is sound.

Character motivation is solid and works well. It jives well with Noemi's and the main plot, which I feel is key for tertiary PCs.

Honestly, looks good as a rough sketch.