I have found that it is actually possible to have a surprisingly full roleplaying experience of this game if you pay less attention to the dialogue options, and roleplay each character in imagination. This gets intensified when you doll dice (using the WotC dice roller) * various reactions when you're not quite sure how a character might respond to something. You roleplay in imagination how each character responds, and then you pick the dialogue option that most closely matches whatever that is, as expressed by the party leader or whoever else may be speaking at the time.
I realize this is not for everyone. Probably only a handful of hardcore RPers will ever even try it. But I must say that after experimenting with this method, I have discovered that the possibilities for all the various individual reactions to story developments gives the game rather amazing depth. And with 29 NPCs to choose from in BG:EE there's an almost endless supply of roleplaying synergy available.
* I'll also turn over playing cards for yes vs. no questions where red suit = yes and black suit = no. Alternatively, one could roll any even sided die where even = yes and odd = no.)
I 4)I have to admit, sometimes I get much too immersed in the games I play, and I actually end up feeling *bad* when I play evil characters. I know its just a game, but for some reason that doesn't seem to be enough.
Same here. I always play good in the first playthrough of an rpg. After a couple playthoughs though, it gets redundant and I try out being either evil or neutral.
Evil.Purely for the reason that it's still possible to maintain a decent reputation if you wish or follow the Darkside of the Force to mix it up a bit.Suits my bipolarity to a tee.
I usually play as either Lawful or Neutral Evil. As others have mentioned the dialogue options for evil are pretty stupid so I'm forced to choose either good or neutral responses.
I would play as neutral more often but there's little motivation for neutral in BG 2. I can't see a chaotic or true neutral character hold such a grudge that s/he would abandon all else to track down Irenicus. I also didn't like Imoen so I don't see him/her going through so much to save her.
The same reason the true neutral or chaotic neutral character did in the first game for survival. He knows thats Irenicus wants something from him due to him being a bhaalspawn and if he wants to go on living the way he wants to he's going to have to confront Irenicus in the end. No matter what alignment you are there's the basic desire to live.
I prefer neutral. But to be honest the more important side to alignment in terms of RP is, for me, the lawful/chaotic divide. I always play chaotic - a rebel, a mind-changer, inconsistent, suspicious of authority and interference, unpredictable. Sits best with a neutral character, of course.
@stkaye. I agree with your identifying the lawful/chaotic divide as being so critical in terms of RP. Most people don't realize that for thousands of years a human following the lawful course meant he/she was to submit to some form of mental or physical slavery determined by the rulers. It's only in the last few hundred years that the ideas of political freedom have taken root, yet they are still constantly under attack by those that want to control you.
I almost always play chaotic. I can't enjoy playing lawful, because it feels like my character is in a straight jacket when he is obligated to obey whatever misguided or even immoral laws are imposed from above. In real life, my favorite alignment is chaotic (free to choose)/good. In the game, I will sometimes play neutral, more rarely evil for fun, but never the hands tying lawful.
@stkaye. I agree with your identifying the lawful/chaotic divide as being so critical in terms of RP. Most people don't realize that for thousands of years a human following the lawful course meant he/she was to submit to some form of mental or physical slavery determined by the rulers. It's only in the last few hundred years that the ideas of political freedom have taken root, yet they are still constantly under attack by those that want to control you.
I almost always play chaotic. I can't enjoy playing lawful, because it feels like my character is in a straight jacket when he is obligated to obey whatever misguided or even immoral laws are imposed from above. In real life, my favorite alignment is chaotic (free to choose)/good. In the game, I will sometimes play neutral, more rarely evil for fun, but never the hands tying lawful.
Despite what the alignment descriptions in-game say, lawful doesn't mean "follows the law." It just means they follow some sort of code, and don't deviate from it. For example, a criminal could routinely break the law and still be lawful, as long as he followed some sort of personal code.
I almost always play chaotic. I can't enjoy playing lawful, because it feels like my character is in a straight jacket when he is obligated to obey whatever misguided or even immoral laws are imposed from above. In real life, my favorite alignment is chaotic (free to choose)/good. In the game, I will sometimes play neutral, more rarely evil for fun, but never the hands tying lawful.
Despite what the alignment descriptions in-game say, lawful doesn't mean "follows the law." It just means they follow some sort of code, and don't deviate from it. For example, a criminal could routinely break the law and still be lawful, as long as he followed some sort of personal code.
Fine - but it's right to say that a chaotic character is doubtful of the concept of order, of the imposition of systems, and of the moral or truth value of laws in general. They dislike structures, or are at least sceptical about them, in just the way that franco is suggesting.
For example, a criminal could routinely break the law and still be lawful, as long as he followed some sort of personal code.
Based on the in-game alignment definitions, that is a bit of a stretch. But I do understand what you're getting at. You are playing a 'lawful' character as if he has the freedom to choose a consistent personal code. I am playing a 'chaotic' character as if he is free to choose his beliefs but he is also free to change his mind. Note that we are actually both on the 'free to choose' side of the axis....as opposed to following the laws of the state.
Part of the problem is that the alignment system as written is inadequate to cover all the possibilities. There is the Good-Evil axis that is pretty understandable. But there is the Lawful-Chaotic axis that is subject to various interpretations. To me it means Coercion versus Freedom. To you it may mean a Consistent Personal Code versus the freedom to be Inconsistent. There we are. I think that the best way to play may be that once we have chosen alignment we should play it true to the interpretation that we give it.
Actually, years ago the situation with the interpretation of the D&D alignment system was even worse. Originally, the system only permitted you to choose one: Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic. Simple for gaming. But this means that they had a tendency to equate Lawful with Good, and Chaotic with Evil. We all know that there are important concepts that are missing in that construction.
A fair point @franco. And you're correct, I am defining lawful as consistent, and chaotic as random, with no connection to laws or social norms. For one, it makes lawful a lot more fun.
A fair point @franco. And you're correct, I am defining lawful as consistent, and chaotic as random, with no connection to laws or social norms. For one, it makes lawful a lot more fun.
Great. Actually it makes what you are defining as lawful more fun for you. Whatever works. All the best.
Personally, I'm best at playing chaotic neutral, because that's just how I think in games. I just do whatever the hell I feel like doing at the time (which makes Skyrim funny as hell sometimes). That's what I'm doing with my wild mage in a multiplayer run-through right now, and my friends don't let me initiate dialogue anymore XD
I absolutely love playing as a sadist in these games though. I generally reserve chaotic neutral for my main character, and most of the rest are evil. I don't mind the extra challenges of being evil, because sometimes I just need to set fire to a poor village, and not take any of there stuff just to show how much I don't care.
@Officer_Hotpants. Man you are really bad. Evil not for personal gain but just for the sake of being evil. The alignment system needs an extension for you Chaotic Evil - Evil.
@Officer_Hotpants. Man you are really bad. Evil not for personal gain but just for the sake of being evil. The alignment system needs an extension for you Chaotic Evil - Evil.
Thank you. I would love that. Now excuse me while I burn down an orphanage, using a priest as fuel.
I don't know why but I find it hard to play evil. I guess I have to much sympathy for this pixels.
I like to play a neutral character my self (true or lawful) and I like to se him/her as a guardian of balance between good and evil - a trait I really like for a Bhaalspawn.
In my current play through a play a Lawful Nautral monk with two sides represented by Neera, who speaks a little bit of chaos, playfulness and carelessness and Rasaad that speaks of order, right and good.
I mix it up but overall I roll with evil the majority of the time, The most interesting NPC's in the game in my opinion are evil and I enjoy the freedom to kill whoever mocks or irritates me in the game.
I doubt many people anticipated Baeloth would even exist. I can only speak for myself, but I started playing evil in vanilla; no Baeloth, no Dorn, and it was mostly because I found the alignment(s) the best fits for the roleplay concepts. After some restarteritis and trying out all sorts of alignments, races and classes, I settled for a chaotic evil cleric because I liked Xzar and wanted him in my party. So I made a charname with a different class who would get along with him. That was the first run I completed, though it's a bit a mystery today how in the world I did that. I was pretty clueless, dualed Xzar to cleric for no good reason (unless "OMG a button! MUST CLICK!" counts as good reason), had mixed alignments (because I didn't realize Kivan was good; he sounded evil or neutral to me), and generally no idea how use spells and profs effectively. But it was fun and I liked the banter and personalities of the group. Sure I played a bit good and neutral, but never finished the game with such a party. Most of my favorite NPCs are evil, and though Baeloth is certainly entertaining, I rarely have him in my party for long (if at all).
@KidCarnival. I really enjoyed hearing how in your early run playing evil in vanilla BG you stumbled and found your way through alignments, classes, the use of spells and profs, and yet you damn well finished the game. It's a great example of the fact that even without detailed knowledge of the game and learning as you go, you can be successful.
I'll bet you really felt excitement in the game at that time not knowing what was going to come next.
@franco: Yeah, the memory is slowly coming back. I started thinking about my first run due to the other topic about exactly that - what class we finished the game first with. I don't think in my first run, I even discovered all NPCs - I'm sure I did the Captain Brage quest, but didn't explore the coast any further and never met Safana, didn't see Alora or Skie (and might have walked past Eldoth without talking to him). Edwin obviously didn't do anything but cast Magic Missile/Fireball because DAMAGE, Xzar did the same with Larloch's because NECROMANCER and none ever learned one of the useful level 1 or 2 spells like Sleep or Blindness, because how boring is that? I still wonder how I beat Sarevok with a genius strategy like that.
@KidCarnival. I think your first completed run was great. I'm going to copy down everything you've written about it, so I can remember it. I keep thinking that there is something here that is very useful to know.
That run you describe was the diametric opposite of meta gaming. Yet, you had the wonder of not knowing who all the NPCs were, where they were and much of everything you were going to face. That wonder is what true fantasy means to me. Thanks.
Comments
I have found that it is actually possible to have a surprisingly full roleplaying experience of this game if you pay less attention to the dialogue options, and roleplay each character in imagination. This gets intensified when you doll dice (using the WotC dice roller) * various reactions when you're not quite sure how a character might respond to something. You roleplay in imagination how each character responds, and then you pick the dialogue option that most closely matches whatever that is, as expressed by the party leader or whoever else may be speaking at the time.
I realize this is not for everyone. Probably only a handful of hardcore RPers will ever even try it. But I must say that after experimenting with this method, I have discovered that the possibilities for all the various individual reactions to story developments gives the game rather amazing depth. And with 29 NPCs to choose from in BG:EE there's an almost endless supply of roleplaying synergy available.
* I'll also turn over playing cards for yes vs. no questions where red suit = yes and black suit = no. Alternatively, one could roll any even sided die where even = yes and odd = no.)
depending who I want in my party
I almost always play chaotic. I can't enjoy playing lawful, because it feels like my character is in a straight jacket when he is obligated to obey whatever misguided or even immoral laws are imposed from above. In real life, my favorite alignment is chaotic (free to choose)/good. In the game, I will sometimes play neutral, more rarely evil for fun, but never the hands tying lawful.
I'm good at eating biscuits.
I'm good at using bandages.
I'm good at counting buttons.
I'm good at making Cauliflower Cheese Bakes. *gasps of ULTIMATE BETRAYER from small crowd that read other threads*
I am so good in fact, I can even do evil good.
Although, I will admit, I am probably goodest when being chaotic...
Treachery, thy name is @Anduin.
For example, a criminal could routinely break the law and still be lawful, as long as he followed some sort of personal code.
Based on the in-game alignment definitions, that is a bit of a stretch. But I do understand what you're getting at. You are playing a 'lawful' character as if he has the freedom to choose a consistent personal code. I am playing a 'chaotic' character as if he is free to choose his beliefs but he is also free to change his mind. Note that we are actually both on the 'free to choose' side of the axis....as opposed to following the laws of the state.
Part of the problem is that the alignment system as written is inadequate to cover all the possibilities.
There is the Good-Evil axis that is pretty understandable. But there is the Lawful-Chaotic axis that is subject to various interpretations. To me it means Coercion versus Freedom. To you it may mean a
Consistent Personal Code versus the freedom to be Inconsistent. There we are. I think that the best way to play may be that once we have chosen alignment we should play it true to the interpretation that we give it.
Actually, years ago the situation with the interpretation of the D&D alignment system was even worse. Originally, the system only permitted you to choose one: Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic. Simple for gaming. But this means that they had a tendency to equate Lawful with Good, and Chaotic with Evil. We all know that there are important concepts that are missing in that construction.
I absolutely love playing as a sadist in these games though. I generally reserve chaotic neutral for my main character, and most of the rest are evil. I don't mind the extra challenges of being evil, because sometimes I just need to set fire to a poor village, and not take any of there stuff just to show how much I don't care.
I like to play a neutral character my self (true or lawful) and I like to se him/her as a guardian of balance between good and evil - a trait I really like for a Bhaalspawn.
In my current play through a play a Lawful Nautral monk with two sides represented by Neera, who speaks a little bit of chaos, playfulness and carelessness and Rasaad that speaks of order, right and good.
I'll bet you really felt excitement in the game at that time not knowing what was going to come next.
No limits, no bounds
I like being a good guy. It's liberating to be able to have the power to do exactly what I would want to do.
That run you describe was the diametric opposite of meta gaming. Yet, you had the wonder of not knowing who all the NPCs were, where they were and much of everything you were going to face. That wonder is what true fantasy means to me. Thanks.