Baldurs gate - how should I start. - Page 3

Jamski · November 21, 2003, 05:08

Would be better as :

I never steal,
I loot the enemy dead -
And really roleplay.

Assuming it was intended to be a Haiku

-Jam

Skanky Burns · November 21, 2003, 06:02

Marid Audran · November 21, 2003, 06:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamski
Would be better as :

I never steal,
I loot the enemy dead -
And really roleplay.

Assuming it was intended to be a Haiku

-Jam

Bashu, eat your heart out.

lord of the mark · November 21, 2003, 12:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Marid Audran

God help us all.

I actually think for these type of games (The Infinity Engine ones, BG/IWD) most people "role-play" in a neutral evil fashion whether consciously or unconsciously. Loot, pillage, and pawn is the motto of the adventurer. It's a greedy, self-interested enterprise. It's not proper work by any means, though adventurers do some accidental good now and then; a footnote or two among accruing thousands of gold and dozens of rare magic items from various locales, often without sanction, permission, or blessing from a proper authority.

This is the real reason alignment is a superfluous stat in IE games; because moral consequence isn't really enforcable by a DM (in the case the computer) except in the crudest of scenerios (killing innocents or donating to a church, thus arbitrarily raising/lowering your "reputation" on a 1-20 scale). What's really annoying are NPCs leaving your party because of this, since they can't see the forest from the trees. Or are simply whimsy bastards.

havent played enough to say. I presume this an element of replayability - play through at different levels of evil. Most comments have indicated its HARDER to play as evil.

Snotty · November 21, 2003, 12:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Marid Audran
This is the real reason alignment is a superfluous stat in IE games; because moral consequence isn't really enforcable by a DM (in the case the computer)

I see roleplay as something that is enforced by yourself, not the computer. You can accept the limitations to your 'freedom' for the sake of a more enjoyable game if you choose.

The greatest problem I have with alignment is peoples approach to being goodly. Too many people play paladins as uber fascist 'repent or die' machines that seem completly divorced from their goodly roots.

Quote:

havent played enough to say. I presume this an element of replayability - play through at different levels of evil. Most comments have indicated its HARDER to play as evil.

It is more difficult to play a truly evil party, but it is too easy to forget that looting and pillaging are not especially goodly acts. However pretty much everyone does it in computer rpgs. When I play goodly characters in PnP or LRP I rarely loot or attack first but this kind of game will force you towards those acts if want to advance.

lord of the mark · November 21, 2003, 12:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Snotty

I see roleplay as something that is enforced by yourself, not the computer. You can accept the limitations to your 'freedom' for the sake of a more enjoyable game if you choose.

The greatest problem I have with alignment is peoples approach to being goodly. Too many people play paladins as uber fascist 'repent or die' machines that seem completly divorced from their goodly roots.

Quote:

havent played enough to say. I presume this an element of replayability - play through at different levels of evil. Most comments have indicated its HARDER to play as evil.

It is more difficult to play a truly evil party, but it is too easy to forget that looting and pillaging are not especially goodly acts. However pretty much everyone does it in computer rpgs. When I play goodly characters in PnP or LRP I rarely loot or attack first but this kind of game will force you towards those acts if want to advance.

could we define loot and pillage?
Which of the following do you include
1. Picking up stuff left in an unoccupied house?
2. Breaking locks to steal stuff in an unoccupied house
3. Stealing stuff (with or without breaking locks) in a house where i have been attacked without provocation
4. Stealing stuff in an occupied house
Ditto for rooms at an Inn.
Whatever else ive either forgotten or not yet encountered.

Jon Miller · November 21, 2003, 13:21

1, 2, 4 not sure about 3

Jon Miller

Snotty · November 21, 2003, 14:24

I would consider 1,2 and 4 pretty bad form if done against innocents. I know a lot of other people would consider it ok as long as you dont get caught, but I see that as more of a neutral act than a goodly one. Your neutral theif could always do it while no-one is looking though

Looting everything not bolted down in the evil wizards tower (or whatever) is a different matter. Being attacked would come under that.

One thing I would consider ok, though against roleplay, would be reading the books in peoples houses. They serve no real function in game terms but can provide you with interesting (?) background story.

By roleplaying a goodly party you are actually making life more difficult for yourself as you dont get quite as much loot. You could also end up making situations tougher by following the more goodly dialogue paths. The end result is hopefully a more satisfying experience, and a more replayable one.

Jamski · November 21, 2003, 15:19

Best to play Chaotic Good. You need to take all the loot from innocents in order to be powerful enough to save the world

-Jam

Marid Audran · November 21, 2003, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Snotty

I see roleplay as something that is enforced by yourself, not the computer. You can accept the limitations to your 'freedom' for the sake of a more enjoyable game if you choose.

We're not talking about role-playing, we're talking about alignment conflict and responsibility whilst role-playing. More to the point, staying true to individual morality. If a character chooses a selfless alignment (like LG, to a lessor extent CG and NG) he's oblidged to act noble and self-sacrificing; if he chooses a malicious alignment (like LE or CE, and not merely cause it's trendy) then he's oblidged to act cutthroat, cruel, and with avarice. DMs are advised to admonish and punish players in PnP scenarios for not acting in-character with their alignment and their ethos. In this case the DM is the computer, and it does a pretty pathetic job of enforcing alignment. This type of thing can't be left up to the players; the spirit may be willing at the character creation screen, but the flesh is weak.

There are other matters like churchly duties (for clerics, or appeasing druidic protocal), tithing (for paladins), and penitence which are never addressed, though it'd be too much of a pain in the ass for most players.

Quote:

Pretty much everyone does it in computer rpgs. When I play goodly characters in PnP or LRP I rarely loot or attack first but this kind of game will force you towards those acts if want to advance.

Which is why most of my argument is moot due to the limitations of the IE engine and BG being a CRPG. It just annoys me when alignment is only useful insofar as what type of magic items you're restricted from using and whether or not you can be bard.

Snotty · November 21, 2003, 19:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Marid Audran

There are other matters like churchly duties (for clerics, or appeasing druidic protocal), tithing (for paladins), and penitence which are never addressed, though it'd be too much of a pain in the ass for most players.

Some players are looking for a more action based game and if you enforce alignment too rigidly you risk alienating them. Stricter restrictions would be a pain in the arse for average action gamer and I dont think he is going to be all that happy if he is forced to play only evil roles, and it would lose replayability for him.

If you are looking for a roleplaying experience you should be able to exercise the self control to stick to your alignment. When I play PnP it is not the threat of punishment that makes me roleplay my alignment, it is my desire to play within the alignment restrictions I have chosen.

Quote:

If a character chooses a selfless alignment (like LG, to a lessor extent CG and NG) he's oblidged to act noble and self-sacrificing;

Why do you consider CG to be less selfless than LG? I would perhaps consider the CG to be more selfless as he helping people out of choice, and the LG would be helping people because it was the accepted thing to do in society.

Quote:

Which is why most of my argument is moot due to the limitations of the IE engine and BG being a CRPG. It just annoys me when alignment is only useful insofar as what type of magic items you're restricted from using and whether or not you can be bard.

Alignment had more of an effect in ToEE. I think there is a general movement towards enhancing alignment implementation but I think it is ultimatly down to the player to enforce it.

Jon Miller · November 21, 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Snotty

Quote:

If a character chooses a selfless alignment (like LG, to a lessor extent CG and NG) he's oblidged to act noble and self-sacrificing;

Why do you consider CG to be less selfless than LG? I would perhaps consider the CG to be more selfless as he helping people out of choice, and the LG would be helping people because it was the accepted thing to do in society.

I tihnk you and I have a very different view of lawful good

I ahve found that to normaly be the case though

Jon miller

Standup · November 21, 2003, 20:51

IN PnP i always considered LG as rather straight laced characters who were generally boring. CG were still well meaning, postive people with a rebellious streak. Religious LG characters were more interesting as one DM was quite accepting of LG Paladins/Clerics who went about slaughtering innoncent people in the name of religion. That was more a case of believing they were doing good rather than good acts as we'd see them.

The only CRPG that dealt well with good/evil that i've played was Fallout 1/2 but even then good play is more rewarding than evil in terms of quests etc and there's certain points in the game where you're forced out of character to progress the game.

Snotty · November 21, 2003, 21:08

Quote:

Religious LG characters were more interesting as one DM was quite accepting of LG Paladins/Clerics who went about slaughtering innoncent people in the name of religion. That was more a case of believing they were doing good rather than good acts as we'd see them.

I can see that point of view, but I struggle to see why the goodly gods would continue to provide power to their followers if they were performed multiple evil acts. Even if the characters didnt know the acts were evil, their god would.

I have a friend whose current bloodthirsty paladin greatly stretchs the definition of goodly, but he cant see anything wrong with what hes doing. Unfortunatly there are others who like to play their paladins the same way so this is how it stays.

The number one thing that stop me seeing the way they do is that Killing someone is an Evil act. Paladins should not be performing evil acts. The person you kill may be evil themselves but that is not reason enough to kill them. The shopkeeper who has been twisted by a bitter life of orc raids could be evil because of all the abuse he has been through in his life, but it is no reason to run him through.

A certain degree of flexibility is needed to make roleplaying games fun and I find killing someone who has attacked you to be the acceptable limit that roleplay infringes on the actual progress of the adventure.

Marid Audran · November 22, 2003, 03:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Snotty

Why do you consider CG to be less selfless than LG? I would perhaps consider the CG to be more selfless as he helping people out of choice, and the LG would be helping people because it was the accepted thing to do in society.

This rationale sounds highly illogical to me; I don't even think such a person could exist. A person primarily motivated to be mindful of the law wouldn't be LG, but LN, which is basically the ethos of a law-abiding citizen of a region who caters to his/her own interests (LN, by the by, I think is the baseline alignment for most people in society, whether in real life or in role-playing games).

A LG individual is motivated by a dual purpose to do good and uphold the law whilst championing it, making the two inclusive to each other. A LG character is more likely to cooperate with legitimate authorities, honor agreements, consider the rights and feelings of multiple parties involved, less prone to bribery, etc. Cleanse evil, and restore order so that it may stay that way.

A CG individual is motivated to do good, but by his own means and bias on how to do it. This can lead to some highly dubious rationalizations and methods "for the greater good," because he/she is following their own inner compass. They may perform some noble and just acts but may step on some toes doing so, helping some but hurting others from their lack of sensitivity. CG characters can act like braggarts at times because of their lack of boundries. Jamski's tongue-in-cheek example of it being beneficial to abide by CG alignment because you could rob the countryside "for the greater good" of eventually de-throning the evil foozle is a rather extreme example of a rationalization that could very well go on in the mind of a cynical and unscrupulous CG player.

For this reason, I'd be more afraid of traveling with a CE companion than a LE one. With the LE character at least he has some guidelines and structure guiding his actions and reigning in his sadistic impulses; with the CE character all bets are off and one could expect a knife in the back and the earliest opportunity.

Additionally I think none of the 9 alignments are boring; only the stereotypes of their behavior is. There is more to LG behavior than the fanatical sabre-rattling of a few paladins, and there is more to CE behavior than the bloodthirsty raids of a pack of ogres. It all depends on the ingenuity of the player.

Quote:

Alignment had more of an effect in ToEE. I think there is a general movement towards enhancing alignment implementation but I think it is ultimatly down to the player to enforce it.

I never played ToEE; reviews denoting it a glorified dungeon-crawl that owed as much to Dungeon Siege and Diablo as to any role-playing game kept me at bay. Didn't play Neverwinter Nights either, which was panned as equally shallow back when it came out.

Jamski · November 22, 2003, 11:48

Quote:

Alignment had more of an effect in ToEE

LMAO

You mean if you're not CG you can't use the *nice sword A* and if you're not LG you can't use *nice sword B* and if you're evil you can't really win

-Jam

Snotty · November 22, 2003, 13:33

Quote:

This rationale sounds highly illogical to me; I don't even think such a person could exist. A person primarily motivated to be mindful of the law wouldn't be LG, but LN, which is basically the ethos of a law-abiding citizen of a region who caters to his/her own interests (LN, by the by, I think is the baseline alignment for most people in society, whether in real life or in role-playing games).

I meant that performing goodly acts is encouraged in society. Giving money to charities, volunteering etc are all goodly acts. As a L character you follow the rules of that society, so you are more likely to do goodly acts. I think this makes these acts less selfless than a CG character who has been just as good but of his complete free will. The CG chooses to do good rather than being directed towards it.

Quote:

They may perform some noble and just acts but may step on some toes doing so, helping some but hurting others from their lack of sensitivity. CG characters can act like braggarts at times because of their lack of boundries. Jamski's tongue-in-cheek example of it being beneficial to abide by CG alignment because you could rob the countryside "for the greater good" of eventually de-throning the evil foozle is a rather extreme example of a rationalization that could very well go on in the mind of a cynical and unscrupulous CG player.

The system is open to abuse, and while you may get away with this under the letter of the 'law', it is certainly not in its spirit. A lot of the time dubious CG play could easily be classified as CN.

I think we can agree that a good act is still a good act whether is has been acheived through lawful or chaotic means. Murdering innocents 'for the greater good' would not be a good act, and a CG character should be able to see that. They are not blinded by their chaos. It is unfortunate that sometimes CG get it wrong and step on peoples toes, but so can LG.

Jamski,

It depends what you consider winning. You get many chances to get out of it, and I can think of plenty of justifications for doing so.

I was refering more to the towns going hostile, that blacksmith guy going KOS. You cant expect every player to stick to their starting alignment, and you need to be able to punish them if they are too evil. I think that starting alignment cant be enforced without being a pain in the arse for the average gamer. This is the only direction to be moving in. Unless you have any ideas on how to enforce strict alignment without being a pain?

Jamski · November 22, 2003, 13:51

I'd offer different dialogue choices. People playing LE SHOULDN'T be able to tell the prisoners to go free, for example. People playing LG should not be allowed to initiate combat vs villagers. Chaotic alignments should get some freedom, but CG wouldn't be able to be nasty to people known to be good without a reason. Limit / expand the dialogue choices, I say.

-Jam

Snotty · November 22, 2003, 14:33

Quote:

People playing LG should not be allowed to initiate combat vs villagers.

But what if the LG was convinced that the innocent peasant was say, the mafia, and felt killing him was the only way to stop the murders. He should have the freedom to do it, and screw it up because he is wrong. Its not roleplaying if you are forced into the correct action for your alignment.

In ToEE I was pleased at the different opening sequences and thought the different dialogues would be interesting. Its a shame buts got taken out, but the thought was there.

Dis · November 23, 2003, 03:28

LG should be allowed to do whatever they want.

I don't like restrictions.

The logical thing to do is do what Planescape: Torment does. Have your actions change your alignment.

Neverwinter Nights also does this, but the campaigns really didn't utilize the ability to change alignment that much.

Jamski · November 23, 2003, 09:27

Quote:

But what if the LG was convinced that the innocent peasant was say, the mafia, and felt killing him was the only way to stop the murders.

If he was LG he would go to the police/church/court whatever. A chaotic good might go for the viglilante option though...

Real LG should avoid killing the evil people anyway, they should try and forgive them, rescue them or bring them to justice in the proper authorities. Killing should be a last resort for LG. LN are the ones that like to kill the evil people, and CG might just feel like killing the evil people.

LG is and should be a very restricting alignment. It should be a real PAIN to have to RP this alignment. Practically noone is LG in real life.

-Jam

lord of the mark · November 24, 2003, 11:00

Ok. Im playing as a human ranger. Neutral good, her name is Eowyn

.

Took Imoen, passed on the baddies. Picked up the halfelves, did some sidequests around Beregost.

Spoiler:

Finally headed south to Nashkel.

Spoiler:

Earlier I made a donation at a temple, and that plus

Spoiler:

has raised my rep to 13. I suspect that hasnt been worth it, particularly. I would certainly like to have some magic weapons (in addition to the arrows) before heading for the mines. I also need to check that i have identified everything i could, before dropping Garrick.

lord of the mark · November 24, 2003, 14:28

BTW,is it ok to head for the mine with 5 party members level 1, and one level 2? Should I do more sidequests? How hard are the mines?

Dis · November 24, 2003, 16:32

oh. that might be a little tough. It really isn't tough until the final part of the mine. personally I would do a few more sidequests.

lord of the mark · November 25, 2003, 10:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
oh. that might be a little tough. It really isn't tough until the final part of the mine. personally I would do a few more sidequests.

Well i tried that. went to the fair, ran into

Spoiler:

I reloaded, did went to the fair again, this time

Spoiler:

then went into the woods south of town where i beat up

Spoiler:

So im getting closer to leveling up several characters.

I note the following
1. limited number of slots for saved games is a tad annoying.
2. Garrick never seems able to identify anything.
3. Its not clear to me - do i have to have a quest recorded in my journal to accomplish it and get XP's and rewards for it? Since ive been dying and reloading alot, there are a number of quests I know about that arent in my journal - going back to Nashkell and seeking out the individual who stated the quest would be annoying.

centrifuge · November 25, 2003, 13:47

Before going to the mines I would do Minsc's quest. IMHO it would be well worth it and possibly a necessity if you want to keep Minsc around.

lord of the mark · November 25, 2003, 14:38

Quote:

Originally posted by centrifuge
Before going to the mines I would do Minsc's quest. IMHO it would be well worth it and possibly a necessity if you want to keep Minsc around.

Should i do it before looking for a white wolf pelt?

centrifuge · November 25, 2003, 14:41

I'd say yes, mainly because Minsc might start getting a little antsy.

Jamski · November 25, 2003, 16:38

I'd lose Garrick too. Its better to pay 100 gold to identify stuff than lug him around till he gets to a high enough level where he can do it himself. Or get a mage who can cast identify (clue : do Minsc's quest to rescue the mage)

-Jam

Traianvs · November 25, 2003, 21:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamski
I'd offer different dialogue choices. People playing LE SHOULDN'T be able to tell the prisoners to go free, for example. People playing LG should not be allowed to initiate combat vs villagers. Chaotic alignments should get some freedom, but CG wouldn't be able to be nasty to people known to be good without a reason. Limit / expand the dialogue choices, I say.

-Jam

Yes would be interesting, but that wouldn't be true roleplaying. The reason why the evil character is evil, is because he has the choice between doing good or not. The CE character will do as he pleases/what's best for him. He deliberately chooses for doing something nasty, that's what makes him evil after all!

-I think it would be better to reward a player that follows his alignment. It would be hard to make it so good characters are penalized for looting houses, so we'll just have to forget about that. What I mean is that often enough you have a few choices in dialogues to help or not. If you could tag the answers so that the computer can record the number of "bad", "neutral" and "good" choices, it could reward or penalize the player after a while (if he acts accordingly or not to his alignment). You could disable a few abilities, give him more spells, special features etc. Or your rep with fellow minded beings could go down (An evil character doing a few good deeds will most likely be laughed upon by other evil characters, even if the general reputation of that player is quite low)

There's always room for improvement; this is simply one of the things RPG developers have to work on some more. Just like BG2 had many improvements compared to BG1