I don't know if "good players have more options" should be seen as some sort of imbalance that needs to be corrected. When given a choice, the overwhelming majority of rpg players play good characters and the vast majority of gamers in general only play a game from start to finish once - so it makes sense for developers to focus the majority of their attention on the "good" path.
Granted, I would guess that the majority of the members of this forum play/have played the BG series multiple times and naturally want to have other options (like playing an evil party). A neutral thief would still contribute to that purpose while also offering options for the majority "good" playthroughs. Just having her be evil for the sake of an NPC alignment balance that was never intended to exist would be limiting to other players (I would make the same argument if they had decided to make her good).
While an evil thief would probably be seen as better fan service, I wouldn't blame the developers one bit if they decide to go with neutral.
I don't know if "good players have more options" should be seen as some sort of imbalance that needs to be corrected. When given a choice, the overwhelming majority of rpg players play good characters and the vast majority of gamers in general only play a game from start to finish once - so it makes sense for developers to focus the majority of their attention on the "good" path.
Granted, I would guess that the majority of the members of this forum play/have played the BG series multiple times and naturally want to have other options (like playing an evil party). A neutral thief would still contribute to that purpose while also offering options for the majority "good" playthroughs. Just having her be evil for the sake of an NPC alignment balance that was never intended to exist would be limiting to other players (I would make the same argument if they had decided to make her good).
While an evil thief would probably be seen as better fan service, I wouldn't blame the developers one bit if they decide to go with neutral.
In fact, good primary is an outdated concept, we live in the age of anti-heroes, not villians that harm others and enjoy the act, but people that do what they want by non-orthodox ways. Dexter serie is an actual example, but we can go very far from it with characters like Ridick, Hancock, Spawn, The Punisher, Ghost Rider, Windchester brothers, Jack Sparrow... and the list goes on.
But in Baldur's Gate, specially in Baldur's Gate (I and II), the lack of evil options really bother the players. Some games don't have an opening in their schemes to allow evil roles, but baldur's gate surely isn't one of those, so it's really disappointing the lack of quests, NPCs and incentive to be evil.
I don't know if "good players have more options" should be seen as some sort of imbalance that needs to be corrected. When given a choice, the overwhelming majority of rpg players play good characters and the vast majority of gamers in general only play a game from start to finish once - so it makes sense for developers to focus the majority of their attention on the "good" path.
Not really - the fact that the evil path exists at all means that, from a development point of view, you kind of have to balance it out. I mean, what's the point of asking the player to choose between two courses of action if you sabotage one to make it less appealing?
Granted, I would guess that the majority of the members of this forum play/have played the BG series multiple times and naturally want to have other options (like playing an evil party). A neutral thief would still contribute to that purpose while also offering options for the majority "good" playthroughs. Just having her be evil for the sake of an NPC alignment balance that was never intended to exist would be limiting to other players (I would make the same argument if they had decided to make her good).
See, the whole "limiting" argument is nonsense, really. There's no in-game restriction on NPC selection - as long as you manage your reputation properly, you can have anyone you want in your party. The only factor that would limit your choice of characters would be RP reasons, and Good/Neutral players have never had a problem with that because there's an abundance of Good/Neutral characters to choose from. It's only Evil players who have never been able to play with a full party until now.
While an evil thief would probably be seen as better fan service, I wouldn't blame the developers one bit if they decide to go with neutral.
I would. Neutral would be a cop out. The thing about evil is it is much more difficult to write. That's why so many evil characters are deranged (and not just in BG) - because the writers simply aren't up to the job.
Having just read through this thread I've got the bad feeling that the devs are in a 'no win' situation and whatever character they have come up with for the new BG2 NPC they are inevitably going to disappoint an awful lot of people.
I kinda like the suggestion of having a quest similar to anomen's quest to change the alignment of the thief. Still, a neutral thief would be good enough, since neutral characters can be used by both good and evil teams.
@Aranthys: There already is a neutral thief in the game. And considering you can already change the alignment of two Evil characters, I really don't think there's call for a third.
well, i hope there will be no redemption for the new thief. but i really do hope there will be some shifting on the lawful/chaotic axis.
i would love to dialog choices making dorn lawful/chaotic evil for example, and the change reflected in his selection dialogue and interjections at least. make that kind of shift matter at least once, please?
also, chaotic neutral anomen desperately needs some bonuses also. it is just as significant change to his character as the knighthood and it needs to be reflected.
But failing to get into the order is viewed by Anomen as a major personal failing. He goes off the rails, as suggested in his alignment and has something of a breakdown.
He becomes significantly less functional as a result of A) murdering someone as revenge, with a consequent burden of guilt and failing to achieve a life goal.
I don't agree he should get bonuses in this situation. In the reverse situation it does make sense - getting into the order makes him calmer and more serious, more able to concentrate on his divine study & duties.
are you suggesting that major failings in life and negative emotions do not have same profound effect as positive emotions and success?
anger that erupts after failing can be easily translated as bonus strength and/or constitution for example. and he does not sit down and wither in sadness. that would be defeated attitude that should not even result in alignment change.
if you follow his storyline (mostly through romance), while angry, he becomes more determined to enjoy life, changes his outlook, expresses his emotions much more freely and while still mentioning order of most radiant farts way too much, shifts focus and seeks/appreciates thrill and excitement. basically, despite everything he loosens up, which can be interpreted as minor bonus to wisdom and/or charisma.
so, breakdowns and personal fails should have the similar (if not the same) effect as success and focus if they change person on some fundamental level.
Instead of another redemption/corruption quest, I'd much prefer it if Hexxat stays evil and instead had the possibility of an axiomatic/anarchic alignment shift. This kind of alignment change is far too neglected in both Baldur's Gate games.
I would. Neutral would be a cop out. The thing about evil is it is much more difficult to write. That's why so many evil characters are deranged (and not just in BG) - because the writers simply aren't up to the job.
How is evil harder to write? To describe a character in a credible way you need real life experience, and I think people are just as well versed in evil as in good. I'd rather say the kookiness of evil NPCs is to justify them to players. A right-out asshole is less likely to be picked up by a group than an asshole who has a redeeming quality (ie humor).
He also becomes pretty combatitive, and generally ends up starting a fight with someone in the party that gets him chunked.
I've never seen half of his post-chaotic dialogue because of this.
I have seen a lot of people go from fairly disorganised & flustered to focused and confident within weeks of starting a new job. Structure is actually useful to a lot of human functioning. I'd argue this is reflected by his wisdom bonus.
The opposite is true to an extent. Satre argued that complete freedom paralyses us as we cannot decide between the infinite choices offered to us. Satre was also a bit of a wanker, but I spent a lot of years as a student and can testify to lack of direction being less productive than the focus offered by a definite role.
i would agree that some structure, focus and direction are beneficial just as well some freedom and uncertainty are.
but this is my experience, no one has the power to judge what is good or not for somebody else. in that same vein i would argue anomen requires some bonuses for the chaotic neutral change as well as lawful good change, because he experiences personal growth on both paths. his volatility is not a failure it's an asset
I kinda like the suggestion of having a quest similar to anomen's quest to change the alignment of the thief. Still, a neutral thief would be good enough, since neutral characters can be used by both good and evil teams.
This has probably been mentioned, but what if instead of an evil character that can be turned neutral (there are already two of those), how about a neutral thief that the player can corrupt towards evil? That would resolve the accessibility issue for good/neutral players *and* provide a unique role-playing option for players going the evil route.
Might be an opportunity for more sophisticated writing/character depth than many evil characters usually get.
Being about half way through TOB with Imoen, I'd have to agree that she is no slouch in the thieving department. And with the ability to actually wear certain kinds of armor and still cast spells makes her quite nice to have.
I guess I don't see the point of telling the devs what they should or should not add insofar as NPC's are concerned. They can't please everybody and I do not want tens of pointless NPC's to fit everybody's tastes. The fact is that, if you need a thief badly in your party, you'll need to be pragmatic and (if necessary) do what is required to keep the evil thief (if this applies) from ditching the party by being careful with reputation. A lesser evil than having no thief, if you will.
It's how I would RP keeping Viconia around in a good party; sort of 'she's very useful to us, so we'll work around her predispositions', or the alternate 'CHARNAME is so infatuated that he bends morals on her account' sort of thing.
It's how I would RP keeping Viconia around in a good party; sort of 'she's very useful to us, so we'll work around her predispositions', or the alternate 'CHARNAME is so infatuated that he bends morals on her account' sort of thing.
I tend towards the latter. Although I do tend to play more of a moral practicalist mage as Charname, so it isn't that much of a stretch.
I kinda like the suggestion of having a quest similar to anomen's quest to change the alignment of the thief. Still, a neutral thief would be good enough, since neutral characters can be used by both good and evil teams.
This has probably been mentioned, but what if instead of an evil character that can be turned neutral (there are already two of those), how about a neutral thief that the player can corrupt towards evil?
That sounds awesome.
On Viconia, we've kind of talked about this to death, but she doesn't ever strike me as particularly evil. Self-preserving, perhaps, but not really outwardly evil. She's one of my favorite characters, very conflicted. I think her transition during romance makes sense.
@rdarken While I agree, it's sort of something you take at face value. Assume she's inwardly very evil (even if it's a matter of not knowing better or whatnot). They weren't really to the point of adjusting alignment based on what you do (something I appreciated about NwN, especially points to CHAOTIC for robbing houses and stuff).
Viconia alignment is more abhorrent to drows than even Drizzt. No matter if good, neutral or evil, normally all drows share something, chaos. Lolth is evil? Yes, but she's a lot more chaotic than evil (one of the reasons for Kaer'lic Suun Wett presume what she confirmed later, that Drizzt Do'Urden is a favorite of Lolth).
She is Neural Evil and become later True Neutral, no wonder Lolth dislike her so much at the point of send a Handmaiden to the surface after her, even she's continuing to be evil (in the exterior) and performing evil deeds, cos normally lolth doesn't stop to personally punish renegates, as their acts normally bring an enjoinable level of chaos to the surface races (and help main char, a children of Bhaal, in his quest can surely bring the level of chaos to epic levels).
Still she try to behave or convince the main char that she behave like any chaotic evil drow.
In reason of this, i believe that Viconia most conflictuous question is her axis with Neutral or Chaotic, not her Neutral or Evil alignment.
An evil thief would be a welcome addition, especially if she is an assassan. Having an evil, high level assassan would be a ton of fun, especially with that x7BS. WHAMMY!!! BLAMMY!!! SHABABLOO!!!
If she is a sexy love interest...WHAMMY!! BLAMMY!! SHALLAKAZOOM!!!
My dream character would be a level 7 fighter dualed to assassan. Since it's against the rules to kit the second profession, I can only gaze off into the distance.
An evil thief would be a welcome addition, especially if she is an assassan. Having an evil, high level assassan would be a ton of fun, especially with that x7BS. WHAMMY!!! BLAMMY!!! SHABABLOO!!!
If she is a sexy love interest...WHAMMY!! BLAMMY!! SHALLAKAZOOM!!!
My dream character would be a level 7 fighter dualed to assassan. Since it's against the rules to kit the second profession, I can only gaze off into the distance.
whammy.
Technically, it isn't against the rules (as in 2nd edition rules: dualling to a kit is permitted under certain circumstances and with sufficient RP reasons), it just can't be done in BG at present without some sort of save editing. Regardless, we have a half-orc Paladin, which is also illegal, so this isn't totally beyond the bounds of possibility. I think it's unlikely, though. She's more likely to be a single-class thief of some kit or another, rather than a dual.
Comments
Granted, I would guess that the majority of the members of this forum play/have played the BG series multiple times and naturally want to have other options (like playing an evil party). A neutral thief would still contribute to that purpose while also offering options for the majority "good" playthroughs. Just having her be evil for the sake of an NPC alignment balance that was never intended to exist would be limiting to other players (I would make the same argument if they had decided to make her good).
While an evil thief would probably be seen as better fan service, I wouldn't blame the developers one bit if they decide to go with neutral.
But in Baldur's Gate, specially in Baldur's Gate (I and II), the lack of evil options really bother the players. Some games don't have an opening in their schemes to allow evil roles, but baldur's gate surely isn't one of those, so it's really disappointing the lack of quests, NPCs and incentive to be evil.
Still, a neutral thief would be good enough, since neutral characters can be used by both good and evil teams.
i would love to dialog choices making dorn lawful/chaotic evil for example, and the change reflected in his selection dialogue and interjections at least. make that kind of shift matter at least once, please?
also, chaotic neutral anomen desperately needs some bonuses also. it is just as significant change to his character as the knighthood and it needs to be reflected.
He becomes significantly less functional as a result of A) murdering someone as revenge, with a consequent burden of guilt and
I don't agree he should get bonuses in this situation. In the reverse situation it does make sense - getting into the order makes him calmer and more serious, more able to concentrate on his divine study & duties.
anger that erupts after failing can be easily translated as bonus strength and/or constitution for example. and he does not sit down and wither in sadness. that would be defeated attitude that should not even result in alignment change.
if you follow his storyline (mostly through romance), while angry, he becomes more determined to enjoy life, changes his outlook, expresses his emotions much more freely and while still mentioning order of most radiant farts way too much, shifts focus and seeks/appreciates thrill and excitement. basically, despite everything he loosens up, which can be interpreted as minor bonus to wisdom and/or charisma.
so, breakdowns and personal fails should have the similar (if not the same) effect as success and focus if they change person on some fundamental level.
I've never seen half of his post-chaotic dialogue because of this.
I have seen a lot of people go from fairly disorganised & flustered to focused and confident within weeks of starting a new job. Structure is actually useful to a lot of human functioning. I'd argue this is reflected by his wisdom bonus.
The opposite is true to an extent. Satre argued that complete freedom paralyses us as we cannot decide between the infinite choices offered to us. Satre was also a bit of a wanker, but I spent a lot of years as a student and can testify to lack of direction being less productive than the focus offered by a definite role.
but this is my experience, no one has the power to judge what is good or not for somebody else. in that same vein i would argue anomen requires some bonuses for the chaotic neutral change as well as lawful good change, because he experiences personal growth on both paths. his volatility is not a failure it's an asset
Might be an opportunity for more sophisticated writing/character depth than many evil characters usually get.
It's how I would RP keeping Viconia around in a good party; sort of 'she's very useful to us, so we'll work around her predispositions', or the alternate 'CHARNAME is so infatuated that he bends morals on her account' sort of thing.
On Viconia, we've kind of talked about this to death, but she doesn't ever strike me as particularly evil. Self-preserving, perhaps, but not really outwardly evil. She's one of my favorite characters, very conflicted. I think her transition during romance makes sense.
She is Neural Evil and become later True Neutral, no wonder Lolth dislike her so much at the point of send a Handmaiden to the surface after her, even she's continuing to be evil (in the exterior) and performing evil deeds, cos normally lolth doesn't stop to personally punish renegates, as their acts normally bring an enjoinable level of chaos to the surface races (and help main char, a children of Bhaal, in his quest can surely bring the level of chaos to epic levels).
Still she try to behave or convince the main char that she behave like any chaotic evil drow.
In reason of this, i believe that Viconia most conflictuous question is her axis with Neutral or Chaotic, not her Neutral or Evil alignment.
If she is a sexy love interest...WHAMMY!! BLAMMY!! SHALLAKAZOOM!!!
My dream character would be a level 7 fighter dualed to assassan. Since it's against the rules to kit the second profession, I can only gaze off into the distance.
whammy.