All of this really doesn matter really and once again 2nd edition drow gets gets +2 to Dexterity and a +1 to Intelligence but do also get -2 in cha and -1 in con... technically Baeloth stats are not illegal if you use or base them on 2nd edition pnp ruleset.
with other word a maxed out drow stats would look like this: str: 18 dex: 20 con: 17 int: 19 wis: 18 cha: 16
they do get spell resistance...
it just really sad that the other elf subrace is not in Bg (as a npc follower) like wood elfs or sunelfs
If i do remember this correctly Avariel can become fighters, mages, and clerics, as well as the multiclass combinations available to these three classes in pnp... with other word Aerie multiclass is not illegal
@NocturneN - yeah blade barrier can be tricky to handle. but it can also be deadly in combat when used properly (if I am remembering it correctly).
@kamuizin - by late game, money really isn't a factor. I am usually so flooded with cash by the time I reach Baldur's Gate that I am just throwing it away. And how many things do you really need to buy?
Why can clerics cast blade barrier WHEN THEY CAN'T USE BLADED WEAPONS! Hmmm... It should be blunt barrier or something, amirite?
@kamuizin - seriously you want to be the scourge of the sword coast and expect the few shopkeepers who don't refuse to deal with you at all to give you the same price as a "normal" customer? Did you ever stop to think that THEY are evil and only willing to suffer the possible consequences to them of the Flaming Fist finding out they are equipping you because they can make mass amounts of gold that will allow them to bribe the law into leaving them alone?
As for a rep drop when "no one sees" - I personally would not assume that just because there was no animated blue circled NPC visible to the player that no one was near enough to spot the evil deed and pass that information along - it's just as easy to figure out why such a thing might happen as it is to figure out why it couldn't - especially when it happens in the wilderness where someone could easily be hidden from sight and then quietly snuck away after witnessing the deed.
In any event removing consequences for evil deeds and evil reps just seems like having you cake and eating it too to me.
I seriously expect that if the scourge of the sword coast enters a shop and thrusts a sword under a shopkeeper's throat that the shopkeeper will be happy to sell at normal prices and will likely be eager to offer free bonuses in order to stay alive. Sarevok walks in and they are really going to charge him 5x as much as the guy next to him? I don't think so.
If they were going to do that why would they buy them at all? Why not kill the shop owner hire a wagon and cart the whole shop away?
It's a game mechanic - not reality and IMO it works reasonably well for it's intended purpose - to add consequences for evil play choices.
And once one of the Girdles of Giant strength are available, that slot is taken. And someone like Yoshimo or Jan or any of the casters can't wear them due to class restrictions. I'd say the equipment is very well apportioned going to her. No one else can use it to any effect that isn't superseded by something better.
Anyone can use the Girdles of Giant Strength, for what it is worth. Yoshimo, Jan, etc. certainly benefit from them - especially to aid their backstabbing.
Sorry, that was a poor choice of wording on my part. I meant that "Yoshimo or Jan or any of the casters can't wear 'The Gauntlets of Ogre Power' due to class restrictions". Apologies.
For what it is worth, I agree that Girdle of Giant Strength does help back-stab. However, the fighters get first dibs on them because they (in my game) do most of the front line attacking. Most usage = greatest benefit in my book. Once there are enough for every tank to wear one, then thieves and the like get theirs.
For me it depends on how I am using the character and what incremental benefit they get. For the Girdle of Hill Giant strength, for example, if I am using Yoshimo or Jan as a backstabber (as opposed to someone who sits in the back of the party firing arrows and/or spells) then the Girdle gives:
Minsc +1 to hit/+2 to damage Korgan +1 to hit/+3 to damage Yoshimo +2 to hit/+6 to damage Jan +3 to hit/+7 to damage
I may have Jan in the girdle with stoneskin, invisibility, mislead, etc. rather than giving it to Minsc or Korgan.
Generally, I do the same as you and give the girdles to my fighters first but the same applies to the gauntlets of ogre power (first to Kheldorn, Mazzy, Valygar, Jaheira, Anomen, Haer Dalis, etc. before Viconia).
It is interesting that you put it quite that way. My current play through looks like this:
Charname - Human Wizard Korgan Jaheira Viconia Jan Yoshimo
I have been playing with Korgan and Jaheira as my front rankers and have been getting Viconia involved quite a bit on that front as well, but I am (for the first time) realizing how much use Yoshimo can be in combat. I have been struggling with this, knowing what happens to Yoshimo. But.... If I give a girdle to Jan, he can actually step up and possibly fill the hole left, leaving Imoen to be more Mage than thief.
Now I just have to figure out if I want to dump Jaheira for Edwin or if I have enough casters as it stands.
Am I completely off the track here, but does +STR bonus really apply to backstabs? I've heard that it doesn't.
Thieves can do some really obscene damage, Fighter/Thieves even moreso! I also feel it's a waste to give the girdle to a fighter given they get such small benefit. I really prefer letting thieves use them, but mostly to up their rather terrible thac0. (Can't wait until my Bounty Hunter gets access to lots of Invis Pots! )
I actually prefer fighters with high natural strength, thus they can use their belt/glove slot for better items (Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise and similar comes to mind...though it's fun to give that to ranged chars!).
I thought it did apply but doesn't get multiplied, or something like that. I'm not really sure. I'm still trying to work out how I got a 150 damage backstab on Aec'Letec.
Pretty sure STR doesn't get multiplied, but added at the end. Thus a 50 backstab could be a 54 backstab and just enough to kill something maybe? More damage is always good, it reduces something's chance of fighting back
Being evil shoudn't have "consequences" it's not a wrong path to follow, just a different one. If you want consequences for being evil where are the "consequences" for being good?
Ps: What we're trying to say here @Wanderon, is that the game mechanic is wrong. When BG was released, was a time where evil campaigns where highly unnmotivated, someone correct me if i'm wrong in this.
Today we value more and more evil campaigns and playthroughs. So on the past the devs intented to punish evil players today the community view of D&D doesn't request for punishiments for ppl playing with evil characters, we doesn't see anymore them as wrong characters but as a different way to roleplay an RPG.
Strength bonuses apply to backstabs but are not multiplied. With the girdle, Jan does an additional 7 damage on a backstab and not 7 x backstab multiplier.
The biggest bonus is the thac0 bonus making it more likely the hit lands at all. Give Jan a powerful staff and the girdle to help him hit or give him katana (good backstab weapon)/belm and use the thac0 bonus to help offset the 2 weapon penalty to push him to 3 attacks per round.
The damage bonus is nice but not as nice as landing the backstabs more often.
Being evil shoudn't have "consequences" it's not a wrong path to follow, just a different one. If you want consequences for being evil where are the "consequences" for being good?
Ps: What we're trying to say here @Wanderon, is that the game mechanic is wrong. When BG was released, was a time where evil campaigns where highly unnmotivated, someone correct me if i'm wrong in this.
Today we value more and more evil campaigns and playthroughs. So on the past the devs intented to punish evil players today the community view of D&D doesn't request for punishiments for ppl playing with evil characters, we doesn't see anymore them as wrong characters but as a different way to roleplay an RPG.
Yeah - I am not sure why the game "owes" it to its audience to make life easier for good people or harder for evil people where it doesn't mesh up with common sense. It makes perfect sense that an evil murderer would have the flaming fist, cowled wizards, and others tracking after him trying to take him down. It also makes perfect sense that when a shopkeeper sees the insane evil murderer enter his shop that he isn't going to drive a hard bargain on pricing and risk getting axed.
I would use law enforcement deterrents to 'penalize' people for breaking the law but wouldn't use a non-nonsensical mechanic that would lead to Sarevok not being able to buy things at a reasonable price just because he is an ultra-powerful killer who wants to drown the sword coast in blood.
If you are going to RP that kind of mechanic, it would be more interesting if it was not an across the board system. In that case, I could see "good" merchants (like a priest in a good temple) penalizing evil characters; neutral merchants charging the same prices; and "evil merchants" (like thieves, etc.) penalizing good characters (like jacking the prices through the roof for a paladin or refusing him entirely).
Being evil shoudn't have "consequences" it's not a wrong path to follow, just a different one. If you want consequences for being evil where are the "consequences" for being good?
There are consequences of being good. 1) lower prices from merchants due to your good rep. 2) Your fame preceeds you. 3) You don't get attacked by the city guards etc etc. The consequences of being good are usually good.
Being evil shoudn't have "consequences" it's not a wrong path to follow, just a different one. If you want consequences for being evil where are the "consequences" for being good?
There are consequences of being good. 1) lower prices from merchants due to your good rep. 2) Your fame preceeds you. 3) You don't get attacked by the city guards etc etc. The consequences of being good are usually good.
The rewards for being evil/good need to make sense.
Fame proceeding should happen - that can be both infamy and fame. Makes sense.
Getting attacked by guards makes perfect sense for the evil and not attacked if you have a great rep makes sense.
Why would all merchants give you cheaper prices across the board? Does the thieves guild really care about subsidizing your career so they will give you discounts for your good work? Does a merchant whose primary focus is on making money really lower prices for a super rich adventurer just because he is nice? Certainly not most merchants. They are happy to sell premium items at a premium price to the ultrarich regardless of whether that ultrarich customer is a televangelist lining his pockets, Al Capone, Willy Wonka or some paladin returning with a dragon hoard after fighting to protect the innocent.
Yeah - I am not sure why the game "owes" it to its audience to make life easier for good people or harder for evil people where it doesn't mesh up with common sense. It makes perfect sense that an evil murderer would have the flaming fist, cowled wizards, and others tracking after him trying to take him down. It also makes perfect sense that when a shopkeeper sees the insane evil murderer enter his shop that he isn't going to drive a hard bargain on pricing and risk getting axed.
I would use law enforcement deterrents to 'penalize' people for breaking the law but wouldn't use a non-nonsensical mechanic that would lead to Sarevok not being able to buy things at a reasonable price just because he is an ultra-powerful killer who wants to drown the sword coast in blood.
If you are going to RP that kind of mechanic, it would be more interesting if it was not an across the board system. In that case, I could see "good" merchants (like a priest in a good temple) penalizing evil characters; neutral merchants charging the same prices; and "evil merchants" (like thieves, etc.) penalizing good characters (like jacking the prices through the roof for a paladin or refusing him entirely).
The real underlying cause of 'Evil' being harder than good was the original direction that Atari/Hasbro gave in the creation of BG. They wanted to be seen to 'allow' good and evil, but it was also seen as a game that should promote family values (Hasbro) and be approachable by kids. Thus although there is an evil track, it is not very well thought or planned out and it is cumbersome and clunky as all heck. Basically they 'Technically' included it for those who wanted to play it, but it wasn't pretty.
Shame really, but that is what they wanted. ToEE suffered considerably at that altar. Stuff was blanketly yanked out in the final weeks of development because they weren't family friendly. Sure there were other issues, but whole plot and quest lines were orphaned so that errant players couldn't harm children (as for example). I am personally glad that it didn't go the way of GTA, but I think that some intelligent management of these issues would have been much better than simply hacking them out at the last minute. All in my personal opinion.
It's not about punishing the PLAYER it's about punishing the CHARACTER and/or his "gang" for the actions he/they chose to take - the sword coast is not a free haven for degenerates, pirates, murderers, and thieves where anyone can act as he pleases without consequence it's a community with laws and forces to uphold those laws.
The consequences are there becuase the SETTING calls for them and it is a ROLEPLAYING game where yes you can choose to be evil but no you don't get a free pass to do as you wish when it comes to harming innocents. Even Sarevok eventually must run and hide for his misdeeds as he should!
@Wanderon - I gotta disagree with you. The result may have been motivated to appear to be punishing the character and to promote community laws, but the intent was (in my mind) clearly Hasbro trying to push civic minded family oriented games.
I don't for one minute believe that the setting calls for god-like knowledge of every single dark deed performed in every back corner and alley by every citizen of the realm. Nor do I believe for one second that the average store owner would (per the setting) stand up to some obviously powerful and dangerous party over price when their lives were obviously at stake.
As for Saravok, if the Charname and party didn't expose his schemes, Saravok was well placed to succeed and rule over the realms to the cheering of hoards of public supporters. His murdering of merchants and his involvement in the bandits are not common knowledge the way every single act that Charname's party is.
It is a function of game mechanic and intended bent of the game designers, not 'Setting' that makes playing sly and calculated evil acts so hard to perform by Charname's party.
Pass out the tin foil hats - Hasbro's scheme to promote good and show how evil acts often come with consequences in a roleplaying game has now been revealed - why is it that a company that provides games to millions of young people would take this view instead of promoting and glorifying the evil path in the same manner as the good path - after all good and evil are equally good choices in real life so why not in a roleplaying game???? (/sarcasm)
Of course it's a function of game mechanic and of course the designers are responsible for it but there is nothing in those facts that indicate it is anything more than exactly what it appears - a way to implement consequences for characters that choose to ignore the law and decency in general while making their way through a lawful society.
The fact that Sarevok almost gets away with it is simply part of the plot and no doubt a big part of his sucess was because he rarely took an active part in the deeds where anyone could see his hands involved - an option player characters do not have - nor should they.
Dude, i really like freedom in my roleplays, when they must be limitaded i expect coherence on the limits, hasbro is stupidy, is a way to impose a lie to everyone, "good is good and evil is evil".
Well, i see that as stupidy.
What define which is good and which is not good? The old roma empire saw as just and fair to have slaves. The mulism society believe that marry more than one woman is ok. On some states of United State death penality are plausible, in other places of the world death penality is an aberration.
So, what's right and what's wrong? What's fair and what's not? What's good and what's evil?
What a drow would say to you in this matter on menzoberranzan? Are drows evil only because they have an inclination for that or maybe the underdark hardened them?
Unless you're a vegan, for the cows, chickens and fishs all over the world, you're evil. Just an example.
The fact that you would prefer a game where good and evil are treated as equal opportunities or all shades of grey with no consequences or rewards for whatever actions you may choose to take is certainly your perogative.
That does not change the fact that in THIS game the setting is medievel fantasy in a world where the people generally prefer good over evil and the designers have structured the roleplaying opportunities to reflect those values and I for one think the game is much more immersive and entertaining as a result.
Since the game has been around for about 15 years now and there are not a plethora of mods out there that seek to change the focus from good vs evil where good characters get rewarded while mass murderers, serial killers, and general "bad guys" are harrassed by the authorities and suffer other hardships to some sort of "anything goes" and there are no rewards or consequences either way I'd say they made the right call but then at 64 I'm sort of "old school" about that sort of thing.
Alright, I think there is a misunderstanding here. People will *always* favor good deeds, and it takes a lot for somebody to become evil.
First, consider that you learn to do stuff by example. A chaotic evil person either had a very very traumatic childhood, or is some kind of psychopat. Neutral evil people are totally selfish, so they must have grown up without any support from others, or at least felt that way. Lawful evil characters are corrupted ones who have learned to take advantage of the law , or any other method, and don't care if it hurts people in the process.
What's your excuse for being an evil protagonist?
"He's a child of Bhaal!"
What a great roleplayer. Instead of discussing why the game should allow evil actions ALL THE TIME , we should first discuss why a life in Candlekeep would turn you into an evil guy.
What a great roleplayer. Instead of discussing why the game should allow evil actions ALL THE TIME , we should first discuss why a life in Candlekeep would turn you into an evil guy.
It's in the genes. You could argue the nature vs. nurture angle
Some people (or half orcs or gnomes) seem normal then snap and shoot up movie theaters or kill firebead elvenhair even if they were raised in the suburbs of candlekeep. If you look back in hindsight at some of these people you can usually recognize signs such as antisocial behavior, journal posts about violence or whatever.
Evil and good should always have consequences but consequences are a logical sequence of action and reaction. Go murder someone in the middle of Baldur's Gate? The flaming fist are going to come after you in large numbers. Action - reaction.
When doing a fantasy or role playing setting, you want to establish certain premises and then, having accepted these premises, design a realistic world incorporating those assumptions (like magic, a pantheon of gods taking active roles in daily lives, etc.). You want to avoid things that don't make sense in the setting after you have established your premises.
The problem is not with consequences it is the logical disconnect between action and reaction. Merchants are there to make money. BG makes it abundantly clear that people in this realm possess the normal real life characteristics of selfishness and greed. While we can expect shopkeepers to represent a range of different values, we can expect that all of them have started their shops for one purpose: making money. This means selling their stock at good profit margins, having minimum loss of that stock, having minimal disruption to the business, etc. Staying alive is, of course, priority #1.
When you go from this premise to the game mechanic, there is a big disconnect between the behavior expected in the setting (merchants want primarily to make money, preserve their life/stock, etc.) and the game mechanic.
So, again, give me a world where the flaming fist come after Sarevok for killing people but don't give me BS about shopkeepers charging him 10x as much as the guy next to him while he drips blood on the floor of the shop. It doesn't make any logical sense and is an immersion-challenging logical break from a compelling fantasy setting.
As an aside, BG also gives us multiple examples of shopkeepers being robbed or killed for their goods so we know they have good reason to fear the consequences of giving someone like Sarevok the middle finger by charging him 20,000 GP for a 2,000 GP item. It just makes no sense.
@AHF I would think there is pretty much universal support to the notion that the reputation discount mechanics needs an overhaul. I'd say scrap it entirely and have reputation have no effect on prices.
That poor svirfneblin needs to feed his family no regardless of if he's selling his turnips to Elminster or Sarevok, no?
I wouldn't be so certain there is universal support for anything in this game - if one gamer claims the sky must be blue another will quickly claim that green better fits the setting and then both will spend pages and pages on a forum topic touting thier arguments for & against.
When it comes to the reputation mechanic one may wish to consider that it's quite likely only a small minority of the overall gamer base for the IE games even play evil campaigns and among those that play them at all it is most likely that the percentage of evil plays vs good/nuetral plays are also relatively small thus interest and/or support in changing it to suit those who do may be unlikely at best.
As for the notion that ALL shopkeepers are only interested in selling their goods regardless of who walks through the door due to the prevelence of selfishness and greed and the concept that this is somehow "normal" behavior throughout the realms just becuase there are some people who fall into this category - I'd say it's time to pass out those tin foil hats again.
@AHF - totally agree. there is a significant logical disconnect. Not only would the merchants be less aggressive in their price hikes when facing blood thirsty mercenaries who might kill them, but things like killing someone in the deep woods with no witnesses should have significantly less or no consequences. It's a disconnect. And a rather significant and obvious one. Not saying it isn't an EXCELLENT game (one of the best in my book), just saying we shouldn't ignore the evidence of our own eyes.
Also, as has been said, Saravok is a right Blackguard and kills Loads of people, yet has a stellar reputation until he is found out. Um??? Disconnect?
Let's face it. Aside from the evidence of ToEE and the various testimonies from Troika employees on how Hasbro acted in that instances, there is plenty of evidence that the Evil path as designed for BG was made intentionally harder than merely "Actions should have consequences".
As for the notion that ALL shopkeepers are only interested in selling their goods regardless of who walks through the door due to the prevelence of selfishness and greed and the concept that this is somehow "normal" behavior throughout the realms just becuase there are some people who fall into this category - I'd say it's time to pass out those tin foil hats again.
You have this backwards. The current system is an "ALL" shopkeepers approach where paladins get discounted pricing from thieves and the most timid shopkeepers charge raving killers outrageous prices.
The real world is comprised primarily (but not exclusively) of stores where people get goods at a single price or bartering where the parties use leverage to negotiate the best deal. Neither of those most common scenarios is supported by the current mechanic (the typical store with pricing separate from customers would support consistent pricing and bartering would suggest that a sword to the throat of the shopkeeper would lead to discounted prices).
My earlier statement was that most shopkeepers care primarily about selling products for money - which is why they were motivated to open a shop in the first place but I am certainly open to the extreme cases where certain merchants would discriminate based on clientele. In fact, I already listed an example of how this could work logically - with a minority of "principled" shopkeepers penalizing or refusing to sell to evil characters (example: priest of Lathander) and a minority of "outlaw" shopkeepers similarly penalizing do-gooders, like paladins (example: shadowthieves). The point is that most shopkeepers would not jack up prices when a notorious murderer showed up looking to buy and so the mechanic fails the basic tests of logic and realism.
I don't see it failing logic and I don't expect "realism" in a fantasy roleplaying game- the game HAS a reputation system thats not going to go away other than by 3rd party mods (if they can even do that) - it works in different places in the game to offer rewards for heroic behavior and consequences to evil behavior and it offers an option for people playing evil to circumvent its negative effects for a price by buying back rep at the temple - there is no reason it should not work in shops other than a wish from people whom it effects negatively to be able to have their cake and eat it too instead of using the option of temples that they have been given to maintain a more nuetral or "smart evil" party.
The logic that fails is to allow characters to run amok in the world without consequence.
Frankly I wouldn't look for Beamdog to make any changes here as they seem to have already weighed in on the so called "issue" by significantly RAISING the cost of buying back your rep over the vanilla games prices thus increasing the load on the mass murdering serial killer general bad ass characters party - and I have no issue with that either.
The real world is comprised primarily (but not exclusively) of stores where people get goods at a single price or bartering where the parties use leverage to negotiate the best deal. Neither of those most common scenarios is supported by the current mechanic (the typical store with pricing separate from customers would support consistent pricing and bartering would suggest that a sword to the throat of the shopkeeper would lead to discounted prices).
There should be consistent pricing. Charisma should affect the discounts you mention that would occur due to bartering.
Comments
with other word a maxed out drow stats would look like this:
str: 18
dex: 20
con: 17
int: 19
wis: 18
cha: 16
they do get spell resistance...
it just really sad that the other elf subrace is not in Bg (as a npc follower)
like wood elfs or sunelfs
Wood elves stats
Maximum stats
str: 19
dex: 19
con: 17
int: 18
wis: 18
cha: 17
Sun elves:
Str: 17
dex: 19
con: 16
int: 20
wis:18
cha:18
If i do remember this correctly Avariel can become fighters, mages, and clerics, as well as the
multiclass combinations available to these three classes in pnp... with other word Aerie multiclass is not illegal
It's a game mechanic - not reality and IMO it works reasonably well for it's intended purpose - to add consequences for evil play choices.
For what it is worth, I agree that Girdle of Giant Strength does help back-stab. However, the fighters get first dibs on them because they (in my game) do most of the front line attacking. Most usage = greatest benefit in my book. Once there are enough for every tank to wear one, then thieves and the like get theirs.
Minsc +1 to hit/+2 to damage
Korgan +1 to hit/+3 to damage
Yoshimo +2 to hit/+6 to damage
Jan +3 to hit/+7 to damage
I may have Jan in the girdle with stoneskin, invisibility, mislead, etc. rather than giving it to Minsc or Korgan.
Generally, I do the same as you and give the girdles to my fighters first but the same applies to the gauntlets of ogre power (first to Kheldorn, Mazzy, Valygar, Jaheira, Anomen, Haer Dalis, etc. before Viconia).
Charname - Human Wizard
Korgan
Jaheira
Viconia
Jan
Yoshimo
I have been playing with Korgan and Jaheira as my front rankers and have been getting Viconia involved quite a bit on that front as well, but I am (for the first time) realizing how much use Yoshimo can be in combat. I have been struggling with this, knowing what happens to Yoshimo. But.... If I give a girdle to Jan, he can actually step up and possibly fill the hole left, leaving Imoen to be more Mage than thief.
Now I just have to figure out if I want to dump Jaheira for Edwin or if I have enough casters as it stands.
So thanks very much for the insights.
Thieves can do some really obscene damage, Fighter/Thieves even moreso! I also feel it's a waste to give the girdle to a fighter given they get such small benefit. I really prefer letting thieves use them, but mostly to up their rather terrible thac0. (Can't wait until my Bounty Hunter gets access to lots of Invis Pots!
I actually prefer fighters with high natural strength, thus they can use their belt/glove slot for better items (Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise and similar comes to mind...though it's fun to give that to ranged chars!).
Being evil shoudn't have "consequences" it's not a wrong path to follow, just a different one. If you want consequences for being evil where are the "consequences" for being good?
Ps: What we're trying to say here @Wanderon, is that the game mechanic is wrong. When BG was released, was a time where evil campaigns where highly unnmotivated, someone correct me if i'm wrong in this.
Today we value more and more evil campaigns and playthroughs. So on the past the devs intented to punish evil players today the community view of D&D doesn't request for punishiments for ppl playing with evil characters, we doesn't see anymore them as wrong characters but as a different way to roleplay an RPG.
The biggest bonus is the thac0 bonus making it more likely the hit lands at all. Give Jan a powerful staff and the girdle to help him hit or give him katana (good backstab weapon)/belm and use the thac0 bonus to help offset the 2 weapon penalty to push him to 3 attacks per round.
The damage bonus is nice but not as nice as landing the backstabs more often.
Yeah - I am not sure why the game "owes" it to its audience to make life easier for good people or harder for evil people where it doesn't mesh up with common sense. It makes perfect sense that an evil murderer would have the flaming fist, cowled wizards, and others tracking after him trying to take him down. It also makes perfect sense that when a shopkeeper sees the insane evil murderer enter his shop that he isn't going to drive a hard bargain on pricing and risk getting axed.
I would use law enforcement deterrents to 'penalize' people for breaking the law but wouldn't use a non-nonsensical mechanic that would lead to Sarevok not being able to buy things at a reasonable price just because he is an ultra-powerful killer who wants to drown the sword coast in blood.
If you are going to RP that kind of mechanic, it would be more interesting if it was not an across the board system. In that case, I could see "good" merchants (like a priest in a good temple) penalizing evil characters; neutral merchants charging the same prices; and "evil merchants" (like thieves, etc.) penalizing good characters (like jacking the prices through the roof for a paladin or refusing him entirely).
Fame proceeding should happen - that can be both infamy and fame. Makes sense.
Getting attacked by guards makes perfect sense for the evil and not attacked if you have a great rep makes sense.
Why would all merchants give you cheaper prices across the board? Does the thieves guild really care about subsidizing your career so they will give you discounts for your good work? Does a merchant whose primary focus is on making money really lower prices for a super rich adventurer just because he is nice? Certainly not most merchants. They are happy to sell premium items at a premium price to the ultrarich regardless of whether that ultrarich customer is a televangelist lining his pockets, Al Capone, Willy Wonka or some paladin returning with a dragon hoard after fighting to protect the innocent.
Shame really, but that is what they wanted. ToEE suffered considerably at that altar. Stuff was blanketly yanked out in the final weeks of development because they weren't family friendly. Sure there were other issues, but whole plot and quest lines were orphaned so that errant players couldn't harm children (as for example). I am personally glad that it didn't go the way of GTA, but I think that some intelligent management of these issues would have been much better than simply hacking them out at the last minute. All in my personal opinion.
It's not about punishing the PLAYER it's about punishing the CHARACTER and/or his "gang" for the actions he/they chose to take - the sword coast is not a free haven for degenerates, pirates, murderers, and thieves where anyone can act as he pleases without consequence it's a community with laws and forces to uphold those laws.
The consequences are there becuase the SETTING calls for them and it is a ROLEPLAYING game where yes you can choose to be evil but no you don't get a free pass to do as you wish when it comes to harming innocents. Even Sarevok eventually must run and hide for his misdeeds as he should!
I don't for one minute believe that the setting calls for god-like knowledge of every single dark deed performed in every back corner and alley by every citizen of the realm. Nor do I believe for one second that the average store owner would (per the setting) stand up to some obviously powerful and dangerous party over price when their lives were obviously at stake.
As for Saravok, if the Charname and party didn't expose his schemes, Saravok was well placed to succeed and rule over the realms to the cheering of hoards of public supporters. His murdering of merchants and his involvement in the bandits are not common knowledge the way every single act that Charname's party is.
It is a function of game mechanic and intended bent of the game designers, not 'Setting' that makes playing sly and calculated evil acts so hard to perform by Charname's party.
Of course it's a function of game mechanic and of course the designers are responsible for it but there is nothing in those facts that indicate it is anything more than exactly what it appears - a way to implement consequences for characters that choose to ignore the law and decency in general while making their way through a lawful society.
The fact that Sarevok almost gets away with it is simply part of the plot and no doubt a big part of his sucess was because he rarely took an active part in the deeds where anyone could see his hands involved - an option player characters do not have - nor should they.
Well, i see that as stupidy.
What define which is good and which is not good? The old roma empire saw as just and fair to have slaves. The mulism society believe that marry more than one woman is ok. On some states of United State death penality are plausible, in other places of the world death penality is an aberration.
So, what's right and what's wrong? What's fair and what's not? What's good and what's evil?
What a drow would say to you in this matter on menzoberranzan? Are drows evil only because they have an inclination for that or maybe the underdark hardened them?
Unless you're a vegan, for the cows, chickens and fishs all over the world, you're evil. Just an example.
The fact that you would prefer a game where good and evil are treated as equal opportunities or all shades of grey with no consequences or rewards for whatever actions you may choose to take is certainly your perogative.
That does not change the fact that in THIS game the setting is medievel fantasy in a world where the people generally prefer good over evil and the designers have structured the roleplaying opportunities to reflect those values and I for one think the game is much more immersive and entertaining as a result.
Since the game has been around for about 15 years now and there are not a plethora of mods out there that seek to change the focus from good vs evil where good characters get rewarded while mass murderers, serial killers, and general "bad guys" are harrassed by the authorities and suffer other hardships to some sort of "anything goes" and there are no rewards or consequences either way I'd say they made the right call but then at 64 I'm sort of "old school" about that sort of thing.
First, consider that you learn to do stuff by example. A chaotic evil person either had a very very traumatic childhood, or is some kind of psychopat. Neutral evil people are totally selfish, so they must have grown up without any support from others, or at least felt that way. Lawful evil characters are corrupted ones who have learned to take advantage of the law , or any other method, and don't care if it hurts people in the process.
What's your excuse for being an evil protagonist?
"He's a child of Bhaal!"
What a great roleplayer. Instead of discussing why the game should allow evil actions ALL THE TIME , we should first discuss why a life in Candlekeep would turn you into an evil guy.
Some people (or half orcs or gnomes) seem normal then snap and shoot up movie theaters or kill firebead elvenhair even if they were raised in the suburbs of candlekeep. If you look back in hindsight at some of these people you can usually recognize signs such as antisocial behavior, journal posts about violence or whatever.
When doing a fantasy or role playing setting, you want to establish certain premises and then, having accepted these premises, design a realistic world incorporating those assumptions (like magic, a pantheon of gods taking active roles in daily lives, etc.). You want to avoid things that don't make sense in the setting after you have established your premises.
The problem is not with consequences it is the logical disconnect between action and reaction. Merchants are there to make money. BG makes it abundantly clear that people in this realm possess the normal real life characteristics of selfishness and greed. While we can expect shopkeepers to represent a range of different values, we can expect that all of them have started their shops for one purpose: making money. This means selling their stock at good profit margins, having minimum loss of that stock, having minimal disruption to the business, etc. Staying alive is, of course, priority #1.
When you go from this premise to the game mechanic, there is a big disconnect between the behavior expected in the setting (merchants want primarily to make money, preserve their life/stock, etc.) and the game mechanic.
So, again, give me a world where the flaming fist come after Sarevok for killing people but don't give me BS about shopkeepers charging him 10x as much as the guy next to him while he drips blood on the floor of the shop. It doesn't make any logical sense and is an immersion-challenging logical break from a compelling fantasy setting.
That poor svirfneblin needs to feed his family no regardless of if he's selling his turnips to Elminster or Sarevok, no?
When it comes to the reputation mechanic one may wish to consider that it's quite likely only a small minority of the overall gamer base for the IE games even play evil campaigns and among those that play them at all it is most likely that the percentage of evil plays vs good/nuetral plays are also relatively small thus interest and/or support in changing it to suit those who do may be unlikely at best.
As for the notion that ALL shopkeepers are only interested in selling their goods regardless of who walks through the door due to the prevelence of selfishness and greed and the concept that this is somehow "normal" behavior throughout the realms just becuase there are some people who fall into this category - I'd say it's time to pass out those tin foil hats again.
@AHF - totally agree. there is a significant logical disconnect. Not only would the merchants be less aggressive in their price hikes when facing blood thirsty mercenaries who might kill them, but things like killing someone in the deep woods with no witnesses should have significantly less or no consequences. It's a disconnect. And a rather significant and obvious one. Not saying it isn't an EXCELLENT game (one of the best in my book), just saying we shouldn't ignore the evidence of our own eyes.
Also, as has been said, Saravok is a right Blackguard and kills Loads of people, yet has a stellar reputation until he is found out. Um??? Disconnect?
Let's face it. Aside from the evidence of ToEE and the various testimonies from Troika employees on how Hasbro acted in that instances, there is plenty of evidence that the Evil path as designed for BG was made intentionally harder than merely "Actions should have consequences".
The real world is comprised primarily (but not exclusively) of stores where people get goods at a single price or bartering where the parties use leverage to negotiate the best deal. Neither of those most common scenarios is supported by the current mechanic (the typical store with pricing separate from customers would support consistent pricing and bartering would suggest that a sword to the throat of the shopkeeper would lead to discounted prices).
My earlier statement was that most shopkeepers care primarily about selling products for money - which is why they were motivated to open a shop in the first place but I am certainly open to the extreme cases where certain merchants would discriminate based on clientele. In fact, I already listed an example of how this could work logically - with a minority of "principled" shopkeepers penalizing or refusing to sell to evil characters (example: priest of Lathander) and a minority of "outlaw" shopkeepers similarly penalizing do-gooders, like paladins (example: shadowthieves). The point is that most shopkeepers would not jack up prices when a notorious murderer showed up looking to buy and so the mechanic fails the basic tests of logic and realism.
The logic that fails is to allow characters to run amok in the world without consequence.
Frankly I wouldn't look for Beamdog to make any changes here as they seem to have already weighed in on the so called "issue" by significantly RAISING the cost of buying back your rep over the vanilla games prices thus increasing the load on the mass murdering serial killer general bad ass characters party - and I have no issue with that either.