Hold on -- Am I supposed to have the ring?

I gave the ring to the gnome back in Shrouded Hills. After meeting him at the bridge and killing him, it wasn't on him.

I figured that's normal.

However, I've stumbled upon a post on some forum that says the following:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic ... 6678898d6f

... So, what the hell?

When I visited Schuyler and Sons, I was told off because I don't have the ring on me. I figured that's normal because of the choices I made and just brushed it off. Now it seems like I was supposed to have the ring on me after all?

 

If you would have the ring, you wouldn't be taken seriously anyway because of not purchasing it directly from the Schuylers.

You aren't required to possess the ring to push the plot forward. Whenever talking about it with NPCs, you simply describe it rather than show it and it works just as good. You won't miss anything important because of giving it away early on.

 

That's alright -- I wouldn't mind missing out on anything as long as the game has that in mind. You know -- a honest mistake my character made and now he has to deal with it. I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing out on something because of a bug is all.

 

Technically, there are actually two gnomes. The one on the bridge is a separate object with its own inventory. So that's why he doesn't have the ring anymore.

 

I think it would have added to the realism to have him either have the ring, or at least a good amount of money on him for retrieving it. Just my two cents.