@KidCarnival@Schneidend Even though I absolutely adore Xzar and he's probably my favorite character in all the series, maybe second to Sarevok himself, I believe that he has nothing special going on for him, nothing that sets him apart, gameplay-wise.
It could be argued that he's a bad mage too since he has crappy CON, no special abilities or items and he's a Necromancer which bars Illusion I think? Not sure. Edwin outclasses him in everything.
But Baeloth... Baeloth is (was) perfect and a very good replacement to Xzar since he has some loose screws also, I think while being different and some say better than Edwin, plus Magic Resistance.
Some say that Magda ( I have no experience with her) would be great. Since she knows Baeloth, that would be a perfect chance for a love-hate relationship and seeing the dynamics between them like Monty and Xzar.
At the very least, Monty should return. Awesome, hilarious, versatile, tons of skill points, halfing bonuses, stab-happy.
Maybe we could get a Monty clone, instead? (There, I said it). A relative or something, coming to take revenge on his death.
Korgan basically replaces Kagain. Aerie replaces Quayle. Keldorn replaces Adjantis etc. I want someone to replace Monty at least, damn it!
I got a feeling people are overlooking this, so I'm going to repeat myself. Imoen will never abandon you in BG2, no matter how murderously psychotic you become.
I don't recall testing that in original BG2, and I'll take your word for it that it was as you say.
HOWEVER, it's not true in BGee - if you go on a killing spree, Imoen leaves. I tested it by slaughtering the Amnish patrol in Nashkel, and she walked out.
So which will be true when BG2ee comes out? I guess we'll have to wait and see.
This is one of the worst ways that the BG games are biased towards good over evil.
Well, of course the main story and most quest lines are clearly based on the assumption that you're playing Good - it's mainly intended as a story about how Charname overcomes an Evil heritage to triumph for Good. BG was one of the first games to introduce a workable option for completing the game as Evil instead, but Evil has never been the "natural choice" in BG. It was never intended to be "balanced" between Good and Evil, even though it does give Evil a chance.
There are ways for an Evil Charname to build a party and win the game, but the Evil option is mainly there for variety and replayability - something which some of us do occasionally for an interesting change, but not the mainstream choice. I think the designers realised that they'd built more Evil NPCs for BG1 than they really wanted, and deliberately cut back the Evil options for BG2 ... although I'll agree that they cut it back a little too much.
If Neutral were truly NEUTRAL, then they would either be unhappy and break at high rep, or not be unhappy and not break at low rep.
Yes, I can see a game-play case for saying that Neutral shouldn't break at low rep, they should just whine about it, same as they do at high rep. Not necessarily, though - in real life, even those people who uphold theoretical neutrality usually find it extremely difficult to get along with crazy axe-maniacs, while the same people can usually tolerate the company of saintly goody-goodies more easily even though they might not enjoy it. Perhaps the intention of the rules was to reflect this real-life reaction?
Either way, I'm not sure if they'd be allowed to change that rule now, since it might be counted as part of the original content.
Hey, I'm just saying. Some of you guys are going on like there's no way to get a thief in an extreme evil party. Good-aligned parties that take Viconia, Edwin, and/or Korgan have to put up with their whining, too. Their personalities clash with a good-aligned party, too.
We're saying there is no Evil Thief, not that Evil parties can't recruit a Good/Neutral Thief. It's a fact. BG2 has no Evil Thief.
I realize that, but you guys were also saying how you couldn't use any other NPC thief (Jan was the focal point) in the game, because they leave you at the extreme low reputations, which isn't entirely true - hence my post. The argument about not having an NPC option for basic thieving doesn't hold water. You do have the RP argument, but it's also possible to RP with the reasons why Imoen sticks around (even if she constantly whines about it).
I never argued about there not being an issue with the lack of Evil thieves. In fact, I even mentioned that I agreed with you guys in both posts...
I got a feeling people are overlooking this, so I'm going to repeat myself. Imoen will never abandon you in BG2, no matter how murderously psychotic you become.
I don't recall testing that in original BG2, and I'll take your word for it that it was as you say.
HOWEVER, it's not true in BGee - if you go on a killing spree, Imoen leaves. I tested it by slaughtering the Amnish patrol in Nashkel, and she walked out.
So which will be true when BG2ee comes out? I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Yeah she leaves in BG1, but stays in BG2. I can't see why they would change it with BG2:EE, considering how they left it intact with all of the patches and ToB. I don't have a source for you other than testing it in game, but you can probably find it on google somewhere (maybe Playithardcore or Dan Simpson's BG2 FAQ?).
As for as a RP reason... well there's a few possible reasons why she doesn't just bail. Maybe it's because you guys are out to regain your souls at that point of the game, perhaps her experience with Irenicus and the loss of her soul has dulled her capacity to feel (like they did to Irenicus/Bodhi), or maybe it's the emergence of her Bhaal taint that is taking over her innocence. I don't know... your guess is as good as mine. XD
To be honest, I never understood why she bails on you in BG1 when her biography states how she'll stick with you no matter what... or the fact that she joins you even if you turn her away at the beginning of the game.
Just a strong sense of loyalty, maybe. And in BG2 she possibly wants to stay close to her childhood friend and sibling after what's happened, and not be alone in a strange. To be honest, Imoen is the 'weakest' character in that her whole life seems to revolve around her sibling and she's got no independence or goals of her own. Still gotta love her though.
@Gallowglass: I turn out to be a spawn of the GOD OF MURDER and evil isn't a natural option?! Really? I think the story makes sense for ALL alignments equally.
Good Charname: As said above, the story about a person overcoming a great evil inside. It's a classic tale where the hero triumphs, saves the nation and gets the girl.
Neutral Charname: Someone who knows there is something evil in them and accepts that they can't be truly good, but still doesn't give in to the dark side. Probably the most philosophical approach and hence neutral is said to be the most difficult alignment to play.
Evil Charname: Someone who was always drawn to dark/evil things without knowing why. The more they uncover the truth about their heritage, the more they begin to embrace it. Acceptance of fate; not unnatural at all.
What kind of story the game tells depends a lot on the taste of the player. You like the kind of story where good triumphs over evil, so that's how you play it. I personally am tired of the "knight in shiny armor" who saves the day, because frankly, that's a thing high fantasy has done to death in any possible variation. The game gives me a chance to put the kind of character I like - be it an anti hero, tragic villain or something inbetween - in the spotlight and do what only few other stories do: let them succeed instead of redeeming them.
In the "conflict" Xzar vs. Edwin vs. Baeloth I must say that Baeloth is much closer to Edwin, personality-wise. They are both firmly in the megalomania spectrum and have the same arrogant attitude. That may qualify as a mental disorder in our world, but they are not "insane" in BG, just larger than life personalities (Baeloth naturally more than Edwin, which is easily explained by him being an entertainer and Edwin not). Xzar is nuts, likely certifiably so. He isn't arrogant at all. Where Edwin and Baeloth throw insults around, Xzar compliments charname. "Touch someone else, you filthy swine!"/"Is there really no-one else you can bother?"/"WHAT is it NOW?"/"You are so irritating!" vs. "Your voice is ambrosia!" - the "Don't touch me!" is said in Xzar's "childish" voice; the same he uses to scream for his mommy, so I put that in a different category. His other lines are more positive than those of the other evil NPCs, too. He shares stories and thoughts where others hint charname should be careful to not be killed by them. In cities, Xzar also yells "I will not let them take US alive". Unlike Montaron, Xzar is a team player and obviously likes the company he keeps enough to defend them. That may a bit over-analyzing it, but all in all, Xzar is crazy, not a sociopath like the others. This part of his personality also fits with his choice to become a cleric at some point. If he made his BG2 appearance dualed like Imoen does, he could be close to the final levels he typically gets in BG1 - necromancer 6/cleric 9. He could still fill the necromancer role as cleric - raise dead, turn undead, resurrection. Makes perfect sense, and it would allow him to do what a necromancer is supposed to do: resurrect the dead. With the rather underwhelming necromancy school, he'd even be more a necromancer than as mage, and - while technically dualed - be just that; a guy obsessed with death and willing to explore all options, be that arcane or divine magic.
tl;dr: Xzar's personality is a very nice contrast to the arrogant (Edwin, Viconia) and bloodthirsty (Korgan, Dorn). Besides being a fruitcake, he is also a cheerful, optimistic team player.
Madga... Why would she sell heavy weapons if she knew nothing about them, or simply way more about things a thief would use? Assuming the store keepers aren't randomly assigned to a table by Baeloth (and it doesn't sound that way from their introductions; they use phrases like "I'm specialized in..." or seem to take pride in the quality of their merchandise), she's an expert for heavy weapons and hence a perfect fit as a barbarian.
@Gallowglass: You act like evil NPCs would flat out refuse to join a good party. It's not the case. If you look around on this forum, you will see many, many good-neutral parties that have Dorn, Viconia or Edwin (or more than one of them).
Temporarily, yes, you can mix any combination. I often do so too, for quest reasons and so on. But keeping opposed alignments together for the long-term is tricky at best (because active management of rep is clumsy in the BG engine, and requires metagaming knowledge of which actions will or won't affect rep) and downright impossible in many cases (because numerous combinations of party members are scripted to kill one another after a while).
What absolutely neccessary benefits does 20 rep really grant you? Better prices in stores? You swim in gold in mid-game anyway and most items are quest rewards or loot, plus the difference between 18 and 20 rep is minimal.
Yes, you can manage it so that it never exceeds 18, and when I'm playing smart-Evil that's what I do too. But it's a fiddly PITA to do it and requires metagaming. If you play "naturally" in role, it won't work.
As for swimming in gold, I've heard others say that too, and I can only assume that they don't bother to fully-charge their wands (and other charge-dependent items). I often do like to re-charge items, and I've found that there actually isn't enough gold in the game to fully-charge everything, so actually I'm often short of gold. But sure, playing-styles differ.
A good party can still use the evil thief and the only drawback is that they can't go over 18 rep, which has zero consequences. No neutral or good NPC will leave or only complain about not having 19/20 rep; they'll be just as happy with 18. Or even 13. Evil NPCs are not "off limits" for other parties.
See above. Natural play for a Good party will take you to 20 rep quite quickly and keep you there permanently, unless you metagame to avoid it. But yes, it can be done ... unless we discover that the supposed Evil thief is involved in one of those scripted fights-to-the-death with some of the Good guys, in which case we're shafted.
Evil parties must deal with that, if they like it or not, it's not an option. That is the whole problem. Good parties have other options if they don't want to deal with it. Be it Imoen or Nalia or Jan.
I think we're all agreed that Evil parties are too short of options, but the argument is about how best to maximise options with very few (and now we know it'll be only one) wholly-new NPC.
Having "rude banters" with good NPCs doesn't say a thing about what party he fits in, by the way.
I think that's a matter of how you roleplay. Obviously different players will have different interpretations.
Actually I suspect that the original devs started writing Jan as an Evil NPC, and some of that seems to me to show in his dialogue, but then switched him to Neutral at the last minute when they realised there wasn't going to be any developable thief usable by Good parties.
... Outside, you are pointed in the direction to find Anomen, Nalia and Aerie - and the lone Korgan as your first evil option. That's no way to start an all evil run.
I reckon succeeding as Evil is meant to be difficult! It's all too freaking easy to succeed as Evil in the real world, just look around ... so I think it's rather uplifting in a game that Evil gets a hard time for a change. And "uplifting" sells more product, most of the customers like that in their fantasy ... most of us are not goths. But certainly BG allows the possibility for Evil to succeed, and that's part of what makes it so much more immersive and credible than any other game of its time. Or even subsequently.
So you are saying... rep management and mixed parties are not ok for good parties, but it's fair to burden evil players with that because evil has it easier in the real world...? I think I need a drink before I can process that logic.
Please tell me you can see where I'm going with this. An Evil Thief NPC fills three holes in the roster that desperately need to be patched up, Evil NPCs, an Evil Thief, and a pure class Thief. That is wider appeal.
Yes, of course I can see where you're going. You've correctly identified a gap in the available roster. Where we disagree is that your solution is to want an NPC which plugs that gap perfectly but does nothing about any other gaps (and so is decidedly not wider appeal), whereas I want a more flexible NPC which roughly-covers that gap but also covers some other gaps.
We now know that we're only getting the one wholly-new NPC for BG2ee, so it's got to make sense to do as much with that one character as possible.
We're saying there is no Evil Thief, not that Evil parties can't recruit a Good/Neutral Thief. It's a fact. BG2 has no Evil Thief.
Yes, of course that's true. But actually BG2 doesn't really have a Good Thief either! A few levels of non-developable thief skill for Imoen are not the same as being able to build a full-scale high-level thief. As it is now, Good and Evil both have no choice but to rely on Jan for that. Both sides see a gap over this! If we could have a Good pureclass thief as well as an Evil pureclass thief, everyone would be happy ... but we're not going to get both, so it'd be better to develop another character whom we could all use rather than satisfy one side while doing nothing for the other.
Jan, whose virtues you've already been extolling, is your wide appeal Thief. You already have him. And, no, Good has Thieves. Imoen is a Thief. Her skills are passable through ToB.
Two Thief NPCs would be kind of an overkill, I think.
It wouldn't be overkill if they were developing (say) half a dozen new NPCs: two as thieves (or thief-kits) would make sense in that case. But we know they're not going to do that.
I already said that Imoen can do everything, except Pick-Pocket and that can be fixed by changing Nalia's skills which are now a joke and pointless. I know that Imoen is more than enough, I have used her to the end, without any problems.
I expect everyone in this debate has used Imoen through to the end at least once, it's a very obvious thing to do.
Imoen can't remotely "do everything", that's ridiculous. She has the basic essential thief skills of Find Traps and Open Locks, but that's about it. She can't develop any of the more interesting and specialised thief skills - setting traps, backstabbing with a reasonable chance of hitting, dispelling illusions, etc. If you're interested only in the basic thief skills, then you don't need much of a thief at all, certainly you don't remotely need a pureclass thief - a dual with a few levels of thief would give you all you're talking about, as Imoen does for Good parties.
Yes, I can see a game-play case for saying that Neutral shouldn't break at low rep, they should just whine about it, same as they do at high rep. Not necessarily, though - in real life, even those people who uphold theoretical neutrality usually find it extremely difficult to get along with crazy axe-maniacs, while the same people can usually tolerate the company of saintly goody-goodies more easily even though they might not enjoy it. Perhaps the intention of the rules was to reflect this real-life reaction?
Either way, I'm not sure if they'd be allowed to change that rule now, since it might be counted as part of the original content.
I buy that a neutral person would be okay hanging out with Mother Theresa, but not okay hanging out with Charles Manson. But Neutral rep reactions are even more broken than just the break at 1 and non-break at 20.
Fill in this blank:
If good characters are happiest at high rep, and evil characters are happiest at low rep, then it makes sense that neutral characters will be happiest at _______ rep.
Did you say "middle" (or some synonym)? CONGRATULATIONS! You are wrong.
Let's try another one...
You start with a reputation that is somewhere in the middle, because people are neutral about you. Since the middle ranks represent neutrality, it makes sense that _________ characters will be happiest with neutral reputation.
Did you say "Neutral"? Then you're 0 for 2.
Neutral characters aren't "Happy" until you reach 16 reputation. If you're actually neutral, and your reputation is somewhere in the middle, you won't hear a peep out of them. But if you tip the scales toward the forces of good in a big way, they will rejoice at how great it is to be in your party. So going back to your point about comfort around the extremes, neutrals in BG would fall to the ground and kiss Mother Theresa's feet. It would be the most joyful experience of their lives. But if they met the Dalai Lama? Meh.
Good characters, on the other hand, are "Happy" at 13, which is squarely in neutral territory (it does not receive a reaction adjustment). So good characters are the happiest with a neutral reputation.
Does that make sense? At all? I certainly don't think so.
Which is yet another reason why I think everybody would be better off playing the game with some form of happy party mod.
So you are saying... rep management and mixed parties are not ok for good parties, but it's fair to burden evil players with that because evil has it easier in the real world...? I think I need a drink before I can process that logic.
Oh FFS, you're just being silly now. Yes, go have that drink and read again, maybe you'll understand better,
Rep management is a PITA for everyone, that's always been a weakness in the BG engine, and what most people think of as "Good" parties in BG2 are more often mixed Good and Neutral parties, just as "Evil" parties in BG2 are almost always mixed Evil and Neutral (unless you use mods or MP). The "evil thief" advocates seem to be saying that they want to burden Good parties with tedious rep management problems just so that Evil parties can have the precise character that they'd most like, when instead they could get most of the same practical use from a character who could also be of long-term use to other people. "I demand all that I want and exactly what I want, and I don't give a stuff about anyone else" seems to sum it up. You guys are only supposed to be playing at being evil, right?
Xzar and Monty making a return would indeed be awesome.
Just to prove that I can agree with you about some things ... yes, that might be a lot of fun. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen because that'd be overturning original content.
Just to prove that I can agree with you about some things ... yes, that might be a lot of fun. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen because that'd be overturning original content.
It wouldn't really be an "overturning" to allow the PC to revive them after the fact.
Rep management is a PITA for everyone, that's always been a weakness in the BG engine, and what most people think of as "Good" parties in BG2 are more often mixed Good and Neutral parties, just as "Evil" parties in BG2 are almost always mixed Evil and Neutral (unless you use mods or MP). The "evil thief" advocates seem to be saying that they want to burden Good parties with tedious rep management problems just so that Evil parties can have the precise character that they'd most like, when instead they could get most of the same practical use from a character who could also be of long-term use to other people. "I demand all that I want and exactly what I want, and I don't give a stuff about anyone else" seems to sum it up. You guys are only supposed to be playing at being evil, right?
I don't understand the objection. The game needs more Evil NPCs, the game needs more Thief NPCs. An evil thief NPC plugs both of those holes. class-wise, anythings besides an pure Thief, a Sorcerer, or a Barbarian would essentially extraneous. Anything that isn't Evil-aligned would just compound the disparity of available NPCs. As far as I'm concerned, the widest appeal is, in fact, the Evil Thief. It fixes the most issues in the roster, and therefore is the best option for a single new NPC.
@Gallowglass: I turn out to be a spawn of the GOD OF MURDER and evil isn't a natural option?! Really? I think the story makes sense for ALL alignments equally.
The origin of Charname as a Bhaalspawn obviously suggests evil alignment as a natural option. However, the plotline of the game doesn't support evil alignment so well, it's mainly about being good and overcoming that evil within.
Of course you can devise roleplaying justifications for whatever alignment you create (as you have readily demonstrated above), but the natural choice in terms of the game's own story is to play Good. Thankfully the game gives us the option to go other ways when we wish, but you're somewhat swimming against the tide of the story when you do. Not too badly against the tide, so immersive roleplaying remains feasible for any alignment (which is one of the great things about BG), but it's blatantly obvious that the canonical choice is Good.
What kind of story the game tells depends a lot on the taste of the player. You like the kind of story where good triumphs over evil, so that's how you play it. I personally am tired of the "knight in shiny armor" who saves the day, because frankly, that's a thing high fantasy has done to death in any possible variation.
Well, I don't always play Good, but yes, usually. I've read quite a lot of high fantasy (as I take you're implying you also have), and I agree that there's traditionally a surfeit of paladins saving the day, but I've found quite a lot out there which isn't so simplistic.
In the "conflict" Xzar vs. Edwin vs. Baeloth I must say that Baeloth is much closer to Edwin, personality-wise. They are both firmly in the megalomania spectrum and have the same arrogant attitude. That may qualify as a mental disorder in our world, but they are not "insane" in BG, just larger than life personalities (Baeloth naturally more than Edwin, which is easily explained by him being an entertainer and Edwin not). Xzar is nuts, likely certifiably so. He isn't arrogant at all. Where Edwin and Baeloth throw insults around, Xzar compliments charname.
Agreed.
Have you yet tried having Baeloth in the party when rep goes over 18? What he says is hilarious and sheds a slightly different light on him. (Unlike other Evil NPCs, he doesn't leave.)
Madga... Why would she sell heavy weapons if she knew nothing about them, or simply way more about things a thief would use? Assuming the store keepers aren't randomly assigned to a table by Baeloth (and it doesn't sound that way from their introductions; they use phrases like "I'm specialized in..." or seem to take pride in the quality of their merchandise), she's an expert for heavy weapons and hence a perfect fit as a barbarian.
So far as it goes, yes ... but she's a city-dweller (or was until Baeloth trashed the place), whereas barbarians are supposed to be from the wilds, nomadic tribes and so forth. Her background points more towards fighter than barbarian. Could be a F/T or F/C, though, which would make a more interesting character than yet another plain warrior.
But Neutral rep reactions are even more broken than just the break at 1 and non-break at 20.
Fair point, there were some odd design decisions in the rules. But aren't we still tuck with the issue that these rules are original content?
Also, there's a complication. Your argument seems to be assuming (although perhaps just for the sake of brevity) that the party's reputation equates to how Good or Evil you are, which isn't necessarily the case. Rep is about what other people think of you, not about what you're really like on the inside. Hence the "smart-Evil" approach, of keeping high rep whilst actually being Evil - like Sarevok in BG1, deceiving the voters into electing him but thoroughly Evil on the quiet. Perhaps it is meant to be the case that Neutral characters want to have a nice reputation, regardless of whether their companions are doing it for Good or Evil reasons? I guess it makes some sense for Druids (the regular sort, not so much the Shadow Druids) to be keen on a nice reputation, but I'm not sure what the logic would be in the case of other Neutral characters.
Druids want to be neutral. It's their entire philosophy. They don't care what people think or if they are popular, otherwise they hadn't chosen a path that sometimes (not to say: half the time) required to make the unpopular decision.
Your posting above states that it is a PITA to manage rep and that's why the evil NPCs are "off limits" for a good party, or only managable for a certain time. Yet you insist on the evil thief being a bad thing because of the alignment, after several people have pointed out that evil parties are forced to run mixed parties, because of "wider appeal". Making it possible to play with a non-mixed party that avoids rep management is the widest appeal you can get because most people don't play BG one single time, with one party. Most people play it several times with different parties and alignments and would not have to bother with the PITA of mixing in ALL of their runs.
I'm also not sure how to make this easier to understand... There ARE two good-aligned thieves and two more neutral ones. Good parties really, really DO have thieves. Plural. Options. A choice. Yes, I get it, the good thieves are dualed, they can't become specialists or get abilities as powerful as a kitted thief. But if you want those abilities, you can simply play a thief. Saying "but Imoen can't backstab like an assassin" is like complaining that Edwin can't cast Identify. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's not a perfect world, so to speak. You can't have every class and every kit as NPC - if you really want something, make it your charname. That's why people argue what kit, if any, the evil thief should have - you can't make everyone 100 % happy, so the "widest appeal" is a thief that can cover the basics neccessary to complete the game. And that IS disarming traps and opening locks. That's the two things everyone uses - a lot. Everything else is optional and depends heavily on the player's taste. You can complete the game without ever backstabbing or pickpocketing or detecting illusions.
Jan: I actaully see him as leaning more towards good. Sure, he likes to wind up other party members (of any alignment) but that is just chaotic. He doesn't initiate evil actions.
As for Magda, she could be a welcome addition to any party. She is evil by culture. She isn't a psychotic looney or a scheaming villain.
Fair point, there were some odd design decisions in the rules. But aren't we still tuck with the issue that these rules are original content?
Also, there's a complication. Your argument seems to be assuming (although perhaps just for the sake of brevity) that the party's reputation equates to how Good or Evil you are, which isn't necessarily the case. Rep is about what other people think of you, not about what you're really like on the inside. Hence the "smart-Evil" approach, of keeping high rep whilst actually being Evil - like Sarevok in BG1, deceiving the voters into electing him but thoroughly Evil on the quiet. Perhaps it is meant to be the case that Neutral characters want to have a nice reputation, regardless of whether their companions are doing it for Good or Evil reasons? I guess it makes some sense for Druids (the regular sort, not so much the Shadow Druids) to be keen on a nice reputation, but I'm not sure what the logic would be in the case of other Neutral characters.
Yeah, I buy into the "Smart-Evil" approach whole-heartedly. Unfortunately, my evil companions don't. They walk away if I max my rep (and really, shouldn't that be my crowning achievement? To have the populace so blind to my greed and bloodlust that they praise my actions as heroic?). Hence my personal decision to embrace the happy party mod. Now Edwin can be as smart as he thinks he is.
Druids want to be neutral. It's their entire philosophy. They don't care what people think or if they are popular, otherwise they hadn't chosen a path that sometimes (not to say: half the time) required to make the unpopular decision.
This isn't a very important point, I'm just trying to imagine some reason behind the rather peculiar reputation-preferences which the rules give to Neutral characters. It's also getting rather off-topic, but I'll explain my suggestion about druidic preferences.
Neutrality is a core tenet for druids, but not the entirety of their philosophy: they also seek to proselytise, i.e. to persuade others to join them in their worship of Nature and their fight for the Balance (and some of the dialogue illustrates their preachy tendency, although more in BG2 and IWD than in BG1). High CHA and high rep both increase a character's persuasiveness, so it makes sense that a druid would find a good rep useful. High rep doesn't mean they're departing from neutrality, it simply means that other people respect them and approve of their actions - which is presumably how they want it to be.
However, I still haven't figured out a plausible justification for other Neutral characters to be so keen on good rep. The game doesn't allow for the possibility of rep-preference being dependent upon class as well as alignment, so perhaps when the original rules were devised the designers were thinking primarily about druids when they considered Neutral alignment, and all other Neutrals have ever since been stuck with rep-preferences which might make sense (as above) for druids but are strange for Neutrals in general. I don't know, I'm just trying to guess how this rule came about.
I think it's a fallacy to conflate alignment, reputation and character/class - in-game, you have Jaheira, Cernd and Faldorn, all of whom are supposedly True Neutral Druids, yet they're nothing alike...
@Shawne By my understanding, D&D actually allows for druids of any Neutral alignment. I hope this gets incorporated into BGEE at some point, because unless the contractual obligations prohibit this, Jaheira really should be Neutral Good and Faldorn is definitely Neutral Evil.
@Madhax: That would certainly make sense from a RP perspective - Jaheira? True Neutral? She's been running around with Gorion and Elminster and who knows who else, not the sort of company True Neutral folk would keep...
@Shawne By my understanding, D&D actually allows for druids of any Neutral alignment. I hope this gets incorporated into BGEE at some point, because unless the contractual obligations prohibit this, Jaheira really should be Neutral Good and Faldorn is definitely Neutral Evil.
That was a change in 3rd edition. BG is 2nd edition, which requires all druids to be true neutral.
Comments
Even though I absolutely adore Xzar and he's probably my favorite character in all the series, maybe second to Sarevok himself, I believe that he has nothing special going on for him, nothing that sets him apart, gameplay-wise.
It could be argued that he's a bad mage too since he has crappy CON, no special abilities or items and he's a Necromancer which bars Illusion I think? Not sure. Edwin outclasses him in everything.
But Baeloth... Baeloth is (was) perfect and a very good replacement to Xzar since he has some loose screws also, I think while being different and some say better than Edwin, plus Magic Resistance.
Some say that Magda ( I have no experience with her) would be great. Since she knows Baeloth, that would be a perfect chance for a love-hate relationship and seeing the dynamics between them like Monty and Xzar.
At the very least, Monty should return.
Awesome, hilarious, versatile, tons of skill points, halfing bonuses, stab-happy.
Maybe we could get a Monty clone, instead? (There, I said it). A relative or something, coming to take revenge on his death.
Korgan basically replaces Kagain. Aerie replaces Quayle. Keldorn replaces Adjantis etc.
I want someone to replace Monty at least, damn it!
HOWEVER, it's not true in BGee - if you go on a killing spree, Imoen leaves. I tested it by slaughtering the Amnish patrol in Nashkel, and she walked out.
So which will be true when BG2ee comes out? I guess we'll have to wait and see.
There are ways for an Evil Charname to build a party and win the game, but the Evil option is mainly there for variety and replayability - something which some of us do occasionally for an interesting change, but not the mainstream choice. I think the designers realised that they'd built more Evil NPCs for BG1 than they really wanted, and deliberately cut back the Evil options for BG2 ... although I'll agree that they cut it back a little too much. Yes, I can see a game-play case for saying that Neutral shouldn't break at low rep, they should just whine about it, same as they do at high rep. Not necessarily, though - in real life, even those people who uphold theoretical neutrality usually find it extremely difficult to get along with crazy axe-maniacs, while the same people can usually tolerate the company of saintly goody-goodies more easily even though they might not enjoy it. Perhaps the intention of the rules was to reflect this real-life reaction?
Either way, I'm not sure if they'd be allowed to change that rule now, since it might be counted as part of the original content.
I realize that, but you guys were also saying how you couldn't use any other NPC thief (Jan was the focal point) in the game, because they leave you at the extreme low reputations, which isn't entirely true - hence my post. The argument about not having an NPC option for basic thieving doesn't hold water. You do have the RP argument, but it's also possible to RP with the reasons why Imoen sticks around (even if she constantly whines about it).
I never argued about there not being an issue with the lack of Evil thieves. In fact, I even mentioned that I agreed with you guys in both posts...
As for as a RP reason... well there's a few possible reasons why she doesn't just bail. Maybe it's because you guys are out to regain your souls at that point of the game, perhaps her experience with Irenicus and the loss of her soul has dulled her capacity to feel (like they did to Irenicus/Bodhi), or maybe it's the emergence of her Bhaal taint that is taking over her innocence. I don't know... your guess is as good as mine. XD
To be honest, I never understood why she bails on you in BG1 when her biography states how she'll stick with you no matter what... or the fact that she joins you even if you turn her away at the beginning of the game.
Good Charname: As said above, the story about a person overcoming a great evil inside. It's a classic tale where the hero triumphs, saves the nation and gets the girl.
Neutral Charname: Someone who knows there is something evil in them and accepts that they can't be truly good, but still doesn't give in to the dark side. Probably the most philosophical approach and hence neutral is said to be the most difficult alignment to play.
Evil Charname: Someone who was always drawn to dark/evil things without knowing why. The more they uncover the truth about their heritage, the more they begin to embrace it. Acceptance of fate; not unnatural at all.
What kind of story the game tells depends a lot on the taste of the player. You like the kind of story where good triumphs over evil, so that's how you play it. I personally am tired of the "knight in shiny armor" who saves the day, because frankly, that's a thing high fantasy has done to death in any possible variation. The game gives me a chance to put the kind of character I like - be it an anti hero, tragic villain or something inbetween - in the spotlight and do what only few other stories do: let them succeed instead of redeeming them.
In the "conflict" Xzar vs. Edwin vs. Baeloth I must say that Baeloth is much closer to Edwin, personality-wise. They are both firmly in the megalomania spectrum and have the same arrogant attitude. That may qualify as a mental disorder in our world, but they are not "insane" in BG, just larger than life personalities (Baeloth naturally more than Edwin, which is easily explained by him being an entertainer and Edwin not). Xzar is nuts, likely certifiably so. He isn't arrogant at all. Where Edwin and Baeloth throw insults around, Xzar compliments charname.
"Touch someone else, you filthy swine!"/"Is there really no-one else you can bother?"/"WHAT is it NOW?"/"You are so irritating!" vs. "Your voice is ambrosia!" - the "Don't touch me!" is said in Xzar's "childish" voice; the same he uses to scream for his mommy, so I put that in a different category. His other lines are more positive than those of the other evil NPCs, too. He shares stories and thoughts where others hint charname should be careful to not be killed by them. In cities, Xzar also yells "I will not let them take US alive". Unlike Montaron, Xzar is a team player and obviously likes the company he keeps enough to defend them.
That may a bit over-analyzing it, but all in all, Xzar is crazy, not a sociopath like the others. This part of his personality also fits with his choice to become a cleric at some point. If he made his BG2 appearance dualed like Imoen does, he could be close to the final levels he typically gets in BG1 - necromancer 6/cleric 9. He could still fill the necromancer role as cleric - raise dead, turn undead, resurrection. Makes perfect sense, and it would allow him to do what a necromancer is supposed to do: resurrect the dead. With the rather underwhelming necromancy school, he'd even be more a necromancer than as mage, and - while technically dualed - be just that; a guy obsessed with death and willing to explore all options, be that arcane or divine magic.
tl;dr: Xzar's personality is a very nice contrast to the arrogant (Edwin, Viconia) and bloodthirsty (Korgan, Dorn). Besides being a fruitcake, he is also a cheerful, optimistic team player.
Madga... Why would she sell heavy weapons if she knew nothing about them, or simply way more about things a thief would use? Assuming the store keepers aren't randomly assigned to a table by Baeloth (and it doesn't sound that way from their introductions; they use phrases like "I'm specialized in..." or seem to take pride in the quality of their merchandise), she's an expert for heavy weapons and hence a perfect fit as a barbarian.
As for swimming in gold, I've heard others say that too, and I can only assume that they don't bother to fully-charge their wands (and other charge-dependent items). I often do like to re-charge items, and I've found that there actually isn't enough gold in the game to fully-charge everything, so actually I'm often short of gold. But sure, playing-styles differ. See above. Natural play for a Good party will take you to 20 rep quite quickly and keep you there permanently, unless you metagame to avoid it. But yes, it can be done ... unless we discover that the supposed Evil thief is involved in one of those scripted fights-to-the-death with some of the Good guys, in which case we're shafted. I think we're all agreed that Evil parties are too short of options, but the argument is about how best to maximise options with very few (and now we know it'll be only one) wholly-new NPC. I think that's a matter of how you roleplay. Obviously different players will have different interpretations.
Actually I suspect that the original devs started writing Jan as an Evil NPC, and some of that seems to me to show in his dialogue, but then switched him to Neutral at the last minute when they realised there wasn't going to be any developable thief usable by Good parties. I reckon succeeding as Evil is meant to be difficult! It's all too freaking easy to succeed as Evil in the real world, just look around ... so I think it's rather uplifting in a game that Evil gets a hard time for a change. And "uplifting" sells more product, most of the customers like that in their fantasy ... most of us are not goths. But certainly BG allows the possibility for Evil to succeed, and that's part of what makes it so much more immersive and credible than any other game of its time. Or even subsequently.
We now know that we're only getting the one wholly-new NPC for BG2ee, so it's got to make sense to do as much with that one character as possible.
Jan, whose virtues you've already been extolling, is your wide appeal Thief. You already have him. And, no, Good has Thieves. Imoen is a Thief. Her skills are passable through ToB.
Imoen can't remotely "do everything", that's ridiculous. She has the basic essential thief skills of Find Traps and Open Locks, but that's about it. She can't develop any of the more interesting and specialised thief skills - setting traps, backstabbing with a reasonable chance of hitting, dispelling illusions, etc. If you're interested only in the basic thief skills, then you don't need much of a thief at all, certainly you don't remotely need a pureclass thief - a dual with a few levels of thief would give you all you're talking about, as Imoen does for Good parties.
Fill in this blank:
If good characters are happiest at high rep, and evil characters are happiest at low rep, then it makes sense that neutral characters will be happiest at _______ rep.
Did you say "middle" (or some synonym)? CONGRATULATIONS! You are wrong.
Let's try another one...
You start with a reputation that is somewhere in the middle, because people are neutral about you. Since the middle ranks represent neutrality, it makes sense that _________ characters will be happiest with neutral reputation.
Did you say "Neutral"? Then you're 0 for 2.
Neutral characters aren't "Happy" until you reach 16 reputation. If you're actually neutral, and your reputation is somewhere in the middle, you won't hear a peep out of them. But if you tip the scales toward the forces of good in a big way, they will rejoice at how great it is to be in your party. So going back to your point about comfort around the extremes, neutrals in BG would fall to the ground and kiss Mother Theresa's feet. It would be the most joyful experience of their lives. But if they met the Dalai Lama? Meh.
Good characters, on the other hand, are "Happy" at 13, which is squarely in neutral territory (it does not receive a reaction adjustment). So good characters are the happiest with a neutral reputation.
Does that make sense? At all? I certainly don't think so.
Which is yet another reason why I think everybody would be better off playing the game with some form of happy party mod.
Rep management is a PITA for everyone, that's always been a weakness in the BG engine, and what most people think of as "Good" parties in BG2 are more often mixed Good and Neutral parties, just as "Evil" parties in BG2 are almost always mixed Evil and Neutral (unless you use mods or MP). The "evil thief" advocates seem to be saying that they want to burden Good parties with tedious rep management problems just so that Evil parties can have the precise character that they'd most like, when instead they could get most of the same practical use from a character who could also be of long-term use to other people. "I demand all that I want and exactly what I want, and I don't give a stuff about anyone else" seems to sum it up. You guys are only supposed to be playing at being evil, right?
Of course you can devise roleplaying justifications for whatever alignment you create (as you have readily demonstrated above), but the natural choice in terms of the game's own story is to play Good. Thankfully the game gives us the option to go other ways when we wish, but you're somewhat swimming against the tide of the story when you do. Not too badly against the tide, so immersive roleplaying remains feasible for any alignment (which is one of the great things about BG), but it's blatantly obvious that the canonical choice is Good. Well, I don't always play Good, but yes, usually. I've read quite a lot of high fantasy (as I take you're implying you also have), and I agree that there's traditionally a surfeit of paladins saving the day, but I've found quite a lot out there which isn't so simplistic. Agreed.
Have you yet tried having Baeloth in the party when rep goes over 18? What he says is hilarious and sheds a slightly different light on him. (Unlike other Evil NPCs, he doesn't leave.)
So far as it goes, yes ... but she's a city-dweller (or was until Baeloth trashed the place), whereas barbarians are supposed to be from the wilds, nomadic tribes and so forth. Her background points more towards fighter than barbarian. Could be a F/T or F/C, though, which would make a more interesting character than yet another plain warrior.
Also, there's a complication. Your argument seems to be assuming (although perhaps just for the sake of brevity) that the party's reputation equates to how Good or Evil you are, which isn't necessarily the case. Rep is about what other people think of you, not about what you're really like on the inside. Hence the "smart-Evil" approach, of keeping high rep whilst actually being Evil - like Sarevok in BG1, deceiving the voters into electing him but thoroughly Evil on the quiet. Perhaps it is meant to be the case that Neutral characters want to have a nice reputation, regardless of whether their companions are doing it for Good or Evil reasons? I guess it makes some sense for Druids (the regular sort, not so much the Shadow Druids) to be keen on a nice reputation, but I'm not sure what the logic would be in the case of other Neutral characters.
Your posting above states that it is a PITA to manage rep and that's why the evil NPCs are "off limits" for a good party, or only managable for a certain time. Yet you insist on the evil thief being a bad thing because of the alignment, after several people have pointed out that evil parties are forced to run mixed parties, because of "wider appeal". Making it possible to play with a non-mixed party that avoids rep management is the widest appeal you can get because most people don't play BG one single time, with one party. Most people play it several times with different parties and alignments and would not have to bother with the PITA of mixing in ALL of their runs.
I'm also not sure how to make this easier to understand... There ARE two good-aligned thieves and two more neutral ones. Good parties really, really DO have thieves. Plural. Options. A choice. Yes, I get it, the good thieves are dualed, they can't become specialists or get abilities as powerful as a kitted thief. But if you want those abilities, you can simply play a thief. Saying "but Imoen can't backstab like an assassin" is like complaining that Edwin can't cast Identify. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's not a perfect world, so to speak. You can't have every class and every kit as NPC - if you really want something, make it your charname. That's why people argue what kit, if any, the evil thief should have - you can't make everyone 100 % happy, so the "widest appeal" is a thief that can cover the basics neccessary to complete the game. And that IS disarming traps and opening locks. That's the two things everyone uses - a lot. Everything else is optional and depends heavily on the player's taste. You can complete the game without ever backstabbing or pickpocketing or detecting illusions.
As for Magda, she could be a welcome addition to any party. She is evil by culture. She isn't a psychotic looney or a scheaming villain.
Neutrality is a core tenet for druids, but not the entirety of their philosophy: they also seek to proselytise, i.e. to persuade others to join them in their worship of Nature and their fight for the Balance (and some of the dialogue illustrates their preachy tendency, although more in BG2 and IWD than in BG1). High CHA and high rep both increase a character's persuasiveness, so it makes sense that a druid would find a good rep useful. High rep doesn't mean they're departing from neutrality, it simply means that other people respect them and approve of their actions - which is presumably how they want it to be.
However, I still haven't figured out a plausible justification for other Neutral characters to be so keen on good rep. The game doesn't allow for the possibility of rep-preference being dependent upon class as well as alignment, so perhaps when the original rules were devised the designers were thinking primarily about druids when they considered Neutral alignment, and all other Neutrals have ever since been stuck with rep-preferences which might make sense (as above) for druids but are strange for Neutrals in general. I don't know, I'm just trying to guess how this rule came about.
By my understanding, D&D actually allows for druids of any Neutral alignment. I hope this gets incorporated into BGEE at some point, because unless the contractual obligations prohibit this, Jaheira really should be Neutral Good and Faldorn is definitely Neutral Evil.