I always figured the game rewarded neutral characters more than good or evil ones, which unfortunately isn't a poll choice. From what I've seen so far, BG:EE compared to the original actually tilts towards the evil end of the spectrum.
Looking at the new characters: Dorn vs. Rasaad. Yeah...enough said.
Adding the new ways to lose rep: killing a Flaming Fist guard and not losing rep in the original game really seems more like an oversight than something intentional. It's way too easy to talk him out of attacking you, and even evil characters should realize that antagonizing the local militia will have consequences. Killing Marl only makes you lose 1 rep, not exactly the end of the world. That's what, maybe 200-400 gold depending on how low you want to keep your rep, or if you even bother to bribe it back up? Seems fair considering you killed a guy who was outnumbered and hopelessly outmatched. There's enough ways to gain rep that I actually appreciate more quests/events that only make you lose 1 or 2, rather than a big hit all at once. It makes it much easier to keep a mixed party happy when you don't swing wildly between 12-6 rep all the time. (I don't steal to lower rep, part of my RP rules. My char doesn't want to waste the time on getting petty change from random houses when she could be extorting more money from bounties and mercenary jobs)
Anyway, feel free to disagree, that's my 2 cents on the matter. Neutral party FTW! Killing Drizzt for loot and 2 seconds later helping out a peasant for no reward at all is how I roll.
Is Marl the guy in the Inn in Beregost? I do not lose rep when killing him with a evil character, maybe because my rep was already <10?
I have basically role played as evil, and only just dropped to 5 rep after flooding the cloakwood mines. That would be 9 if I did not kill Firebead. No rep problems in my opinion.
Killing Marl only makes you lose 1 rep, not exactly the end of the world.
Again, I never lose Rep for killing Marl. I have killed him when I am at 14 rep, and when I am at 7 rep. Do you have to have more to lose rep, or does my game just really not like Marl and the game wants me to kill him?
I think the one thing that BG does punish is being rude. You can be the biggest do-gooder in the universe, but if you pick the anti-social, rude response you'll miss out on huge numbers of quests, rewards and even fights.
But yeah, having to disagree that evil isn't favoured in original BG, evil is its own reward.
Well, like in original Baldur's Gate, it seems that it favors "good" characters, but then again, that might not be necessary the case. Why?
Remember the two ogrillons that was guarding the bridge, which led to Gnoll Fortress? They had Gauntless of Dexterity in their possesion. Since I was roleplaying a good character, instead of killing them and snatching their precious magic item, I simply paid the price for crossing the bridge (after negotiation, of course). Evil character would just kill them. And what about the ogre, who liked to collect belts? After killing it, I returned the belt to it's rightful owner, instead keeping it for myself.
Roleplaying a good characters is not always that rewarding, as it would seem.
Then again, we have a reputation issue. Unfortunately, reputation in BG series has dual function: it shows how much people like you and ALSO shows general "morality" of your party. That's broken system, IMO. Why can't I be misunderstood and disliked good guy or 100% bastard, who's loved by everyone? Shame to say, reputation system alone favours good characters... I wish something like Virtue mod was implemented in BG:EE.
Conclusion: reputation system favours good characters, but that's not necessary true with quest "rewards" and such. I would say that BG series favours neutral characters the most.
The fact that, counterintuitively, neutral characters now favour extreme high reputation when in the original they did not certainly makes a good-aligned party more appealing to me than it ever was before.
@ZelgadisGW: There you've got a good point. If you really stick to your role as character, some quests would give you less rewards. But there are also parts in the game where you get less rewards if you are more evil. But most players strive for the best reward and not for their role. Most don't even see keeping the belt or getting the gauntlets as evil. But every time they don't get a reward for not helping someone looks like preferring good. But if you count the situation good is better than evil, you'll see that being good is better in BG. I also dislike how moral and reputation is mixed. You can play the game as a holy god very easy, you can't survive as a zero reputation bastard, because you miss the option to be evil and hide it. Do they have internet there? On the other hand this will is a good way to prevent everyone to run around and kill everything they see for XP.
Iasson Marfig is actually right about the game. Im sorry you couldnt tell that BG:EE is just the 1999 old school BG mad einto high definition and better hardware performancing programs to keep it up to date on newer systems. What you did was disrespectfully insulted him for speaking the truth and polls like this spark arguements and conflict and you shouldnt have made such a poll in the first place because you are expecting criticism you cant seem to respect and even tell for yourself the Devbelopers have even said this game is just BG in BG2 engine and in high definition and widescreen programs. You sir have just debated your own topic and this should be closed and removed.
Foprgot to mention the 3 new NPCs and the Black Pits as well. But that still doesnt change the game being like the original as it still follows.
@Xezmeraude2 the game has been through several *improvements*. Those improvements were made as extra content. So to be honest no, its not the same game. In wich way the game gets improved (i.e. Ulbrek or Marl) is in the judgement of the team that is reworking the game. And seeing 33people agreeing with me, i think that my judgement was at the very least partially right. So people like @Marfig that come and tell me "wtf dude? 2 days to finish it? You cant have an opinion" are fully retards that fail to see that there are smarter people out there and you cant judge them with your limited standards.
the extra content is the BG2 engine in the game and the 400 fixes that were oversighted in the game. You should go look at the post that states that the game is still the same BG1 as the old one with just 3 new NPCs and a new sub game The black Pits. and widescreen and fixes that are from the modders that Overhaul allowed that felt fixes to them. There is not exactly new content. Just new story from the NPCs and name changes and restorations etc. By all means you are really just looking ahead of yourself on the game. It really is just the same game with better programming and newer cinematics. That doesnt neccessairly mean its a whole new game friend. Were trying to help you understand that oversight you are having
Just because 33 people may agree with you doesnt still mean the game is different from the original. Its still the same general game with oversights getting fixed and things getting patched up more to relefect what people found were oversighted in the game originally. Thats the concept of the Enhanced Edition. Its practiclaly BG on an updated system just basiclaly made into a soon to be bugless and completed game and more improvements on it. Ills ay it again. That still doesnt make it an entire new game and Marfig is actually right too. I can agree with him and you but I believe the game is still BG1 with just some changes and thats it. Theres no way in any form this is a newer BG1 game. It is still the old game and always will be just... ENHANCED!!!
@Xezmeraude2 ok and just because you believe the same doesnt mean it is. And chinese say that the machinery they make have accuracy 5μm but they dont, so your arguement is invalid, take a hike and go cry somewhere else. I didnt ask for your oh lordly clarifying help to begin with, but if you feel like being a good samaritan today, take your candle and go to the church
@Xezmeraude2 i didnt ask for your help and with your persistant referal to the term Help, i feel offended and state that you are a bad member for the community because you dont respect the word "no", "i dont want your help". Dont try to patronise people you hardly know, just learn to speak your piece
Some NPC's won't speak to you and prices are outrageous high, nothing is actually good for the evil playing character, other than XP gaing from killing innocent people, even then guards attack you just because of low rep.
Well, Enhanced Edition didn't add too much, so this poll is irrelevant imo. Original BG, yes indeed, was going closer towards good. What I don't like about BG in general, is that it goes to very extremes: - You are either very nice, paladin-like dude - Or complete douche
You are better off just not replying to Xezmeraude2. It seems a few people including me have had to suffer through long winded and poorly formed posts that serve to do nothing other than antagonize using harsh words and push an extreme view on others. The last topic he was in had alot of his posts deleted and was warned by a moderator, yet he still wouldn't shut up.
As for an on-topic statement from me, I agree that some game mechanics are too harsh for a person wanting to play an evil party. I believe the rewards should be the same as for a good party, but acquired through a different means. Things like shop prices being higher, and lower available quests for being evil should not be there IMO.
I appologise to the community for I allowed myself to be dragged to this pitiful *conversation*. Sorry for the spam, i learned my lesson today and i will never try to reason with a person who doesnt show any restrain in the future. Sorry again. Please close this thread and if possible burn it.
I don't know what you guys are arguing about, but airing personal grievances won't add to the forum in any way. If either of you feel insulted, I'd suggest not continuing to respond.
I didn't notice anything different in BG:EE compared to BG classic in regards to which alignment is favored. Good alignments were always favored in the original story. Canonically you're intended to be a hero.
With that said, I find the exact opposite has happened with BG:EE. Evil actually has MORE support and options this time around from what I have seen. Dorn is a boon to evil parties, and while Neera is chaotic neutral, she can fit in with any type of party making her another asset to evil aligned parties. BG has always, and will always, favor the "good" guy. It is written that way. But if BG:EE has shifted the balance of support AT ALL? I believe it has shifted it at least a smidgen towards the less than noble characters.
The OP made a constant mess of this topic. Which is a shame. We ended up getting all sorts of off-topic answers and even a moderator answering the poll had trouble understand its contents.
I'll remind everyone what's the pool introduction and premise:
After finishing the game, i got the feeling that baldurs gate EE was strongly made to favor those of "pure heart". Can't really say that i like this but it could be only my idea. I'm gonna ask you to participate to this poll in order to find out if the creators were behaving like "boy scouts when they designed the game anew.
From my point of view they want to punish greed, rudeness and deceit more than it would be logical.
First and foremost. The game wasn't designed anew. And I believe this is at the core of the OP's confusion. The game is essentially the same. No rules were altered.
Second, the finishing paragraph of that quote clearly indicates changes to the reputation system. When early on I confronted him with this, I asked the OP what changes he noticed being made to the Reputation system. He denied the reputation system had anything to do with it. This to me demonstrates the OP has a weak understanding of the game system for moral reward/punishment or an inability to put a thought into words... both essential to produce a poll that could have avoided the confusion this one ended up being.
Third, we have the final possibility of good aligned characters having been changed to have better equipment, or otherwise be more powerful. This isn't immediately concluded from the poll premise, but let's be lenient. But as repeated several times by a lot of people, it was in fact evil parties that got a considerate look; Both Dorn and Neera have a lot to add to this group and Dorn especially has become one of the strongest NPCs in the game.
...
What this pool ended up becoming was a mess of answers, some answering whether they felt BG favored good or evil characters, others answering whether they felt BGEE was any different from BG.
This was my pet peeve with this thread and the reason I tried to put some order on it before giving up. The OP refused to change one line of his initial text and his inconsistent replies after that only added more to the confusion.
Yeah, I'm gonna go with "Evil is still better favoured than Good" after a few playthroughs. More exp, more rewards, more items, and the "Evil Tax"? That's only a few thousand gold every innocent you murder for unique magic items and superior rewards, it's easily compensated for by getting all the hilariously awesome loot selective murder and the "evil" talk option can net for you.
Unless of course somebody thinks tomb robbing is Good, keeping obviously stolen goods from their owners is "just", and picking a fight with a wandering swordsman just to steal their magical gloves is Pious.
Mod attention has been called to this thread. Posts have been deleted, some for being offensive, others for responding or quoting the offensive posts. If you need any mod help, please feel free to use: @LadyRhian, @Jalily, @Bhryaen, @Shandyr or @SandmanCCL to call for help. Thanks, and have a nice (and civil) day!
As a super-intelligent, ultra-charismatic, lawful evil mage, my CHARNAME understands the importance of reputation and appearances. She will do "altruistic" deeds if it serves to make her better known. Even if her evil companions are entirely short-sighted and can't see the benefit of having above average reputation. (Jerks)
This being said the dialogue options without respect towards a lot of rewards do in fact favor good. Most of the evil options are well, just being a chaotic evil jerk of average intelligence and low charisma.
Comments
Looking at the new characters: Dorn vs. Rasaad. Yeah...enough said.
Adding the new ways to lose rep: killing a Flaming Fist guard and not losing rep in the original game really seems more like an oversight than something intentional. It's way too easy to talk him out of attacking you, and even evil characters should realize that antagonizing the local militia will have consequences. Killing Marl only makes you lose 1 rep, not exactly the end of the world. That's what, maybe 200-400 gold depending on how low you want to keep your rep, or if you even bother to bribe it back up? Seems fair considering you killed a guy who was outnumbered and hopelessly outmatched. There's enough ways to gain rep that I actually appreciate more quests/events that only make you lose 1 or 2, rather than a big hit all at once. It makes it much easier to keep a mixed party happy when you don't swing wildly between 12-6 rep all the time. (I don't steal to lower rep, part of my RP rules. My char doesn't want to waste the time on getting petty change from random houses when she could be extorting more money from bounties and mercenary jobs)
Anyway, feel free to disagree, that's my 2 cents on the matter. Neutral party FTW! Killing Drizzt for loot and 2 seconds later helping out a peasant for no reward at all is how I roll.
I have basically role played as evil, and only just dropped to 5 rep after flooding the cloakwood mines. That would be 9 if I did not kill Firebead. No rep problems in my opinion.
But yeah, having to disagree that evil isn't favoured in original BG, evil is its own reward.
Remember the two ogrillons that was guarding the bridge, which led to Gnoll Fortress? They had Gauntless of Dexterity in their possesion. Since I was roleplaying a good character, instead of killing them and snatching their precious magic item, I simply paid the price for crossing the bridge (after negotiation, of course). Evil character would just kill them. And what about the ogre, who liked to collect belts? After killing it, I returned the belt to it's rightful owner, instead keeping it for myself.
Then again, we have a reputation issue. Unfortunately, reputation in BG series has dual function: it shows how much people like you and ALSO shows general "morality" of your party. That's broken system, IMO. Why can't I be misunderstood and disliked good guy or 100% bastard, who's loved by everyone? Shame to say, reputation system alone favours good characters... I wish something like Virtue mod was implemented in BG:EE.
Conclusion: reputation system favours good characters, but that's not necessary true with quest "rewards" and such. I would say that BG series favours neutral characters the most.
I also dislike how moral and reputation is mixed. You can play the game as a holy god very easy, you can't survive as a zero reputation bastard, because you miss the option to be evil and hide it. Do they have internet there? On the other hand this will is a good way to prevent everyone to run around and kill everything they see for XP.
Foprgot to mention the 3 new NPCs and the Black Pits as well. But that still doesnt change the game being like the original as it still follows.
Original BG, yes indeed, was going closer towards good. What I don't like about BG in general, is that it goes to very extremes:
- You are either very nice, paladin-like dude
- Or complete douche
There are rarely some options inbetween
As for an on-topic statement from me, I agree that some game mechanics are too harsh for a person wanting to play an evil party. I believe the rewards should be the same as for a good party, but acquired through a different means. Things like shop prices being higher, and lower available quests for being evil should not be there IMO.
Sorry for the spam, i learned my lesson today and i will never try to reason with a person who doesnt show any restrain in the future.
Sorry again.
Please close this thread and if possible burn it.
If either of you feel insulted, I'd suggest not continuing to respond.
With that said, I find the exact opposite has happened with BG:EE. Evil actually has MORE support and options this time around from what I have seen. Dorn is a boon to evil parties, and while Neera is chaotic neutral, she can fit in with any type of party making her another asset to evil aligned parties. BG has always, and will always, favor the "good" guy. It is written that way. But if BG:EE has shifted the balance of support AT ALL? I believe it has shifted it at least a smidgen towards the less than noble characters.
She left my party earlier.. but unlike most npcs that storm off once i get my rep back up i could go back and get her again..
I didn't plan on keeping her long anyway so just an fyi
I'll remind everyone what's the pool introduction and premise: First and foremost. The game wasn't designed anew. And I believe this is at the core of the OP's confusion. The game is essentially the same. No rules were altered.
Second, the finishing paragraph of that quote clearly indicates changes to the reputation system. When early on I confronted him with this, I asked the OP what changes he noticed being made to the Reputation system. He denied the reputation system had anything to do with it. This to me demonstrates the OP has a weak understanding of the game system for moral reward/punishment or an inability to put a thought into words... both essential to produce a poll that could have avoided the confusion this one ended up being.
Third, we have the final possibility of good aligned characters having been changed to have better equipment, or otherwise be more powerful. This isn't immediately concluded from the poll premise, but let's be lenient. But as repeated several times by a lot of people, it was in fact evil parties that got a considerate look; Both Dorn and Neera have a lot to add to this group and Dorn especially has become one of the strongest NPCs in the game.
...
What this pool ended up becoming was a mess of answers, some answering whether they felt BG favored good or evil characters, others answering whether they felt BGEE was any different from BG.
This was my pet peeve with this thread and the reason I tried to put some order on it before giving up. The OP refused to change one line of his initial text and his inconsistent replies after that only added more to the confusion.
And that's all.
Yeah, I'm gonna go with "Evil is still better favoured than Good" after a few playthroughs. More exp, more rewards, more items, and the "Evil Tax"? That's only a few thousand gold every innocent you murder for unique magic items and superior rewards, it's easily compensated for by getting all the hilariously awesome loot selective murder and the "evil" talk option can net for you.
Unless of course somebody thinks tomb robbing is Good, keeping obviously stolen goods from their owners is "just", and picking a fight with a wandering swordsman just to steal their magical gloves is Pious.
She will do "altruistic" deeds if it serves to make her better known.
Even if her evil companions are entirely short-sighted and can't see the benefit of having above average reputation.
(Jerks)
This being said the dialogue options without respect towards a lot of rewards do in fact favor good.
Most of the evil options are well, just being a chaotic evil jerk of average intelligence and low charisma.