Change certain in-game descriptions

EntropyXII

Just a couple of things that have stuck around since the vanilla BG game that really get on my nerves. They are not big changes, in fact they are quite small. After conversing with a number of other forum members on this topic I have come to understand I am most certainly not alone in this. Some may also think I am being very petty though, which to a certain extent I fully agree with =D

1) Certain class/kit descriptions.

For example: The Skald. Now I am a very big fan of this class. However, one thing annoys me in regards to its class description.

"This nordic bard....."

What? Nordic? As in the Norsemen? Vikings? A real world culture nothing to do with the Forgotten Realms?

Now whereas I understand that this could be twisted into simply acknowledging 'Northern' Barbarians as you would imagine. From Icewind Dale perhaps. How does this account for the PC? He/she is not from Icewind Dale.

I think it would be more suitable to have the in-game description reading: "This 'warrior' bard...."

What do you guys think?

2) Can we please PLEASE change the in-game descriptions of alignments. Chaotic Neutral people are not all lunatics and madmen. Chaotic Evil people are not all monsters and psychopaths.

These descriptions are simply confusing and misleading. It is evident from ongoing threads on these forums that people are still getting it wrong. Chaotic Evil is not Chaotic Stupid. Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid. Lawful does not mean "Always follows the law" and chaotic does not mean "Always breaks the law".

These descriptions were very very wrong when the original game came out many years ago, and they are still very very wrong today. A travesty I say. A travesty.

There are a number of others as well which I have spotted but my head hurts at the moment and I am failing to remember. Can anyone else think of any I missed?

O_Bruce

What would you suggest these descriptions to look like? I'm asking because If they are wrong, then it means I don't understand chaotic and lawfuld terms in DnD aligment chart.

EntropyXII

@ZelgadisGW - Well they would need to be rewritten to a much better standard than I could do. However I do believe TVTropes as excellent examples.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment

The problem with the BG alignment descriptions is that they are too stereotypical. Yes a monster is usually Chaotic Evil and attacks everything whilst salivating all over his own trousers. But a Chaotic Evil person is not necessarily a blithering monster. If the Chaotic Evil person/creature has an average -> high intelligence than that person/creature actually becomes more dangerous and more calculating. IE: Sarevok.

If a person is Lawful Evil, does that mean he doesn't break the law? Not necessarily. Prime examples of this are 'Artemis Entreri' and 'Bhaal'.

Whereas murder is usually illegal in the majority of cultures in the Forgotten Realms, how would that work towards assassins? Well assassins usually take orders, but not necessarily from the Law. Entreri took his orders from his thieves guild which actually opposed the law of his city.

Would a Lawful Good Paladin always obey the law of wherever he was? What if the Paladin was in the middle of Zhentil keep? Would a lawful good creature murder if it broke the laws of that country? Who's law do you follow: Your gods (example: Torm) or your countries?

Are chaotic neutral characters free-spirits, or lunatics? they can be both, but are most certainly not all lunatics - like the in-game BG description would have you believe. A Chaotic Neutral character does what he/she wants when they want. Whether good or evil it doesn't matter to them. A lunatic is perhaps the easiest way to play CN but it is so stereotypical it makes my head hurt.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

EntropyXII

@Shandyr - Haha, I knew something could spark from this, but it would only go on to prove my point. The in-game Baldur's Gate description on alignment are too stereotypical and linear. I actually think that the NWN and NWN2 description of alignment are much more accurate and encompass much more than the BG stereotypes would have you believe.

My only gripe with the NWN descriptions is once again the example of Chaotic Evil: "The demented sorcerer..." No. Just no. Good examples of intelligent Chaotic Evil people to me are Sarevok, Bishop (NWN2) and Riddick (Chronicles of Riddick fame - was actually described as Chaotic Evil in one of the DnD source books.. can't remember which one.) Sure vicious monsters play a part in it, but to simply describe all Chaotic Evil people as monsters is just wrong.

People debate this topic as if their lives depend on it, but what they do not realise is that they are usually all correct. It is the examples given by BG and other sources which serve to confuse people. I am sure, no, positive that an excellent example of Alignments can likely be taken from FR source books - however I don't have my source books on me so somebody will have to correct me.

To me, this topic should not be debated - and it is only debated because of misleading descriptions.