True. We have to decide if it's a fancy way of saying, "dude who knows, literally, all the spells" or if it's some kind of esoteric class that players don't have access to. I tend to lean more towards the former, and maybe that he made a practice of researching magic and suchwise which would give him access to this plot spell that doesn't exist in any game.
A good point. His evil qualifications appear to be 1) worshiping an evil god (which... has a freaking temple in the town square) and 2) locking the city in Eternal Winter.Given the immense area of "gray" there between white and black, just how evil was Mangar really after all?
Maybe he's less evil and more just a giant dick.
I think I agree here. Bard's Tale was never especially about good or evil. You don't pick an alignment when making characters, you cast spells that could be considered evil (summoning demons, driving people insane, spells that are all about just causing pain)... Hell, look at Scaedu. He's a backstabbing thief and by all accounts evil, but none of his actions are unforgivable, except allying with Tarjan. Meanwhile, Ferofist's great sin is... building intelligent robots.Ultimately, perhaps there are no technically evil spells after all.
That said, I don't think it was some grand commentary on shades of gray, so much as the writers not especially thinking about it and leaving morality to Ultima.
I kind of viewed it as they three others having their lifeforce consumed one by one to power the spell (perhaps aging rapidly like in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade), and then the spell burns out Isli as well. Perhaps the spell consumes the target and the three are sacrificing themselves to delay her death as opposed to powering the spell.I understood Garrick to mean that Isli would be "consumed" by the spell because she was the target of the invisibility spell that would cause the death of at least three other characters; implicitly, the very spell power that allowed her to escape was expected to ultimately kill her as well.
"You can carry one item..." Presumably, that was part of the point of the spell.That one I seriously disagree with. I think that you run into way more logical troubles when you try to explain how the journal or the information therein survived when the people and their (other) actions supposedly were retroactively erased.
Hm. It's been years since I've read it. Perhaps. Perhaps. I mostly just latched onto him saying all their work would be undone and assumed the spell would be undoing it as opposed to Mangar and his agents just setting everything back to exactly the way it was before. I mean, that would be like hiring an infiltration firm to test your security and then saying, "Wow. If it wasn't for that one flake, you totally would have ruined me. Thanks for the info. I'll be sure to not change anything at all." Even if Mangar didn't know about the Journal, you'd think he'd beef up security around the place. Maybe scrub off some of that graffiti on the walls giving out passwords. Maybe tell the priests to stop letting people in the catacombs. Maybe invest in a portcullis for the castle.If that were the case then Pellis shouldn't even remember his friend Garrick or that he had undertaken the quest.
Maybe keep those silver pieces. Or melt them down.
Heh. Good point.Oh c'mon, where's the fun in not overthinking it?