Evil means evil, and good means good!

HexHammer

Playing ME2 it was possible to be a really stupid prick, untill I played the Bounty Hunter in Star Wars-The old Republic .............../JAW DROP!!!!! ..ME2 now just made me look like a naughty boy scout! O_O

In SW-ToR you could callously behead a civilian in a mission and other heinous things.

Later I played a goody 2 shoe Jedi, and it was a long haul qualming "I-am-sooo-helpful-and-soooo-unselfish-option", thouugh one also had to option to be callous but nothing like the BH.

SW-ToR really displayed the options between being good and evil, where BG merely has cosmetic choises.

I really wish that BG III (if it ever comes) would have more graphic display of ones moral choises.

Eudaemonium

In all fairness, BG allows you to walk into towns and *massacre everyone*.

Senash

Well, first of all:
http://www.geekstir.com/rpgs-then-vs-rpgs-now

I love the ME series (just finished my 7th playthrough with ME3. Hm... I really should stop...) and I also play TOR, but you have 3 options (or in most cases, where it really matters, you actually have only 2) for crying out loud. You can only attack those who are your enemies anyway. And as you said with the knight you could be as evil as with the BH even if you wanted to. Also, being evil doesn't have all the consequences that it should (like the whole town coming after you).

HexHammer

Eudaemonium said:

In all fairness, BG allows you to walk into towns and *massacre everyone*.

That is very true, but per se it isn't the same feel as playing a Bounty Hunter where it's kinda overwhelming evil.

1 of the things that soldiers will report through out the centuries with gunpowder, is it only really hurts inside killing the enemy when you are up close and look in his eyes, search his dead body and find his wallet with family pictures, that's when it devestates you.

I don't really have any feelings involved killing all the civilians in a city, but it was really qualming killing some civilians in SW-ToR when you lived the long sob story about him and his wife and 5 kids and bla bla, then take the terrible choise of killing him in cold blood and take his head..

jamoecw

well on the one hand media will keep allowing greater displays of certain evils, while others become more taboo. needless to say this isn't a niche game that will focus on showing evil, so you'll never be truly evil. granted taking a truly good path doesn't make a good game, so you probably won't ever see that, the best you can hope for in any dnd game is to allow the most moral flexibility (both good and evil, as well as law and chaos) that history has shown, and that society at the time of making will allow.

HexHammer

jamoecw said:

well on the one hand media will keep allowing greater displays of certain evils, while others become more taboo. needless to say this isn't a niche game that will focus on showing evil, so you'll never be truly evil. granted taking a truly good path doesn't make a good game, so you probably won't ever see that, the best you can hope for in any dnd game is to allow the most moral flexibility (both good and evil, as well as law and chaos) that history has shown, and that society at the time of making will allow.

I'm not sure that you know what you are talking about.

It has always been in the core rules that good people wear white, and evil wear black, those were very naive views from how they made movies back in the days.

PvP is strictly prohibited, even in the online version of DnD there NO PvP! ..which is why it was already doomed to fail even before release, it would have so much potential, but got wingclipped by all these outdated views.

Gary Gax (can't remember his correct name) sure was a very inventive person, yet extremely naive in his views.

Other games has done it, why can't we have it in BG III?

moody_mage

Gary Gax? That speaks volumes right there...

The systems Gary Gygax created were done decades ago, most likely laying the foundation of many of the modern games you enjoy today. Comparing old systems against modern games isn't a good comparison.

And not everyone likes PVP. The older I get the more the idea leaves me cold.

I'm sure if/when BG3 rolls around there will be a complex moral system of sorts. Until then you'll just have to wait and see.

bigdogchris

If you're evil, do you shoot first, or only shoot if shot at? We may have to edit that in the game...

HexHammer

decado said:

Gary Gax? That speaks volumes right there...

The systems Gary Gygax created were done decades ago, most likely laying the foundation of many of the modern games you enjoy today. Comparing old systems against modern games isn't a good comparison.

And not everyone likes PVP. The older I get the more the idea leaves me cold.

I'm sure if/when BG3 rolls around there will be a complex moral system of sorts. Until then you'll just have to wait and see.

I'm not sure you read my post carefully, or least took in mind how the online DnD game was made? Tell me why there isn't any PvP? Please.

Dee

Because D&D is a game about working together with friends to achieve a common goal; not working against each other.

moody_mage

AD&D isn't about PVP, it's about teamwork and underdogs overcoming greater odds by pooling and utilising a diverse skillset. If you want PVP then go play pretty much any other piece of crap MMORPG, WoW for example.

LMTR14

Eudaemonium said:

In all fairness, BG allows you to walk into towns and *massacre everyone*.

like any good game should. FUCK dragon age origins and the like

HexHammer

My point is that DnD is based on horrible outdated rules, we should allow for a bit more exciting rules to be implemented. Sure many purists demands that everything will be excatly as it was, but truth is that we easily could have more exciting gameplay.

moody_mage

If it isn't D&D then why bother calling it Baldur's Gate, a game series that most people hear know and love which is based on D&D?

Chances are your wish will be granted as if it is made it will be made on the latest ruleset (5th Ed probably).

Lifat

Dungeons and dragons is a great game of team work. That said there is nothing in the rules stopping you from killing your teammates. The thing stopping you is the spirit of the game and your DM (and maybe your teammates :P).
PvP is not in the spirit of DnD and tbh if you want PvP then go somewhere else. There are alot... ALOT of GREAT PvP games out there so why do you want the few games that haven't got that function in to be warped into something it isn't?

LadyRhian

@HexHammer AD&D is about working with other people to overcome goals you couldn't on your own. As for where D&D came from, it came out of old miniature wargames. Gary Gygax developed rules to let the characters usually used in these wargames play more epic adventures (in the 1970's mind you, before all this PvP even became a thing). First using just fighting men, rogues and priests/clerics, and then adding dwarves, elves, magic users and so on to the game. I played OD&D (before even Basic D&D), when Dwarves, Elves and Halflings were classes, not races, and Clerics got no spells at first level. (Dwarves were fighting men and elves were fighter/mages. Halflings were always thieves.)

As for the rest of your rants... The black and white clothing was a shortcut to tell audiences who was good and evil in movies because the movies lacked characterization deeper than a small puddle on your driveway. There were no antiheroes, no heroes who swore or did other bad things while still fighting for the right, and no bad guys who didn't kick kittens and puppies or steal the candy from children.

You can say you want PVP, but that's not what AD&D is, and it's not what Baldur's Gate is. If you want PVP, there are tons of other games out there that provide it. If I want to play AD&D, I have no choice but Baldur's Gate. If you feel that D&D is based on "Horrible Outdated Rules", then feel free to come up with your own game. Please don't destroy Baldur's Gate to make it into some substandard PVP clone.

Anduin

Evil means Evil.

Good means Good.

Marmite means Marmite.

mlnevese

The last post remind me of when I first started learning English...

RomulanPaladin

LadyRhian said:

@HexHammer AD&D is about working with other people to overcome goals you couldn't on your own. As for where D&D came from, it came out of old miniature wargames. Gary Gygax developed rules to let the characters usually used in these wargames play more epic adventures (in the 1970's mind you, before all this PvP even became a thing). First using just fighting men, rogues and priests/clerics, and then adding dwarves, elves, magic users and so on to the game. I played OD&D (before even Basic D&D), when Dwarves, Elves and Halflings were classes, not races, and Clerics got no spells at first level. (Dwarves were fighting men and elves were fighter/mages. Halflings were always thieves.)

As for the rest of your rants... The black and white clothing was a shortcut to tell audiences who was good and evil in movies because the movies lacked characterization deeper than a small puddle on your driveway. There were no antiheroes, no heroes who swore or did other bad things while still fighting for the right, and no bad guys who didn't kick kittens and puppies or steal the candy from children.

You can say you want PVP, but that's not what AD&D is, and it's not what Baldur's Gate is. If you want PVP, there are tons of other games out there that provide it. If I want to play AD&D, I have no choice but Baldur's Gate. If you feel that D&D is based on "Horrible Outdated Rules", then feel free to come up with your own game. Please don't destroy Baldur's Gate to make it into some substandard PVP clone.

Wait, I thought @HexHammer was thinking PvP for BG3. I don't think he was suggesting it for BG1 or BG2.

@LadyRhian, if you're hoping for good ol' AD&D in BG3, you might be setting yourself up for disappointment. I'd love to see it as well but a modern game for a modern demographic is what we'll likely get. Sidenote: where does the name "Lady Rhian" come from anyhow?

LadyRhian

@RomulanPaladin Actually DnDNext (the new edition) is supposed to be a lot more like 2e. I have my own reservations about that, though. I doubt how much it will actually be true, to be honest, but I can hope (accepting that my hope is likely to get me extremely disappointed.

And my name is a character I used to play when AOL was pay by the minute (about 20 or so years ago). She is a healer who also happens to be a vampire, and survives on the blood of animals and willing humans. She doesn't live on souls or life force, but blood.

RomulanPaladin

I did a playtest for D&D Next that Wizards released. I can't tell you much because rules concerning character creation was simply not included and that makes up a good half of the rules (they provided pregen characters). As far as what was included, it resembled 3.5 the most, 4e a bit, and had a few random details from 2nd Ed (electrum pieces, huzzah!). Of course, that says nothing about what will really be produce OR what BG3 will look like.

HexHammer

LadyRhian said:

@HexHammer AD&D is about working with other people to overcome goals you couldn't on your own. As for where D&D came from, it came out of old miniature wargames. Gary Gygax developed rules to let the characters usually used in these wargames play more epic adventures (in the 1970's mind you, before all this PvP even became a thing). First using just fighting men, rogues and priests/clerics, and then adding dwarves, elves, magic users and so on to the game. I played OD&D (before even Basic D&D), when Dwarves, Elves and Halflings were classes, not races, and Clerics got no spells at first level. (Dwarves were fighting men and elves were fighter/mages. Halflings were always thieves.)

As for the rest of your rants... The black and white clothing was a shortcut to tell audiences who was good and evil in movies because the movies lacked characterization deeper than a small puddle on your driveway. There were no antiheroes, no heroes who swore or did other bad things while still fighting for the right, and no bad guys who didn't kick kittens and puppies or steal the candy from children.

You can say you want PVP, but that's not what AD&D is, and it's not what Baldur's Gate is. If you want PVP, there are tons of other games out there that provide it. If I want to play AD&D, I have no choice but Baldur's Gate. If you feel that D&D is based on "Horrible Outdated Rules", then feel free to come up with your own game. Please don't destroy Baldur's Gate to make it into some substandard PVP clone.

..as I said, purists doesn't want change, but everything as it is, horrible outdated and rigid.

Mortianna

@HexHammer There's a vast difference between playing AD&D as it was originally intended (PnP) and its rendering into a PC game. There will always be limits in a hard-coded computer game, whereas the possibilities in PnP are virtually unlimited--but they take more work because they require imagination, creativity, and the capacity to build the campaigns and adventures that you want. BG does all the preparatory and DM work for you. All you have to do is play along within the confines of the game.

Essentially, would you rather read a book, write a book, or go watch a movie?

HexHammer

Mortianna said:

@HexHammer There's a vast difference between playing AD&D as it was originally intended (PnP) and its rendering into a PC game. There will always be limits in a hard-coded computer game, whereas the possibilities in PnP are virtually unlimited--but they take more work because they require imagination, creativity, and the capacity to build the campaigns and adventures that you want. BG does all the preparatory and DM work for you. All you have to do is play along within the confines of the game.

Essentially, would you rather read a book, write a book, or go watch a movie?

That is not the point, and you speak like you never played other RPG games. Other PC games have what BG series has not, it wouldn't require much to implement aforementioned things, it's only the old philosophy that is in the way.

moody_mage

Other PC games are not the BG series, BG stands head and shoulders above the majority of other PC games. Why ruin a winning formula by diluting the essence down to be more like other lesser games?

LadyRhian

@Hexhammer Purist? No... I played everything from Original D&D to Basic, Expert, Companion, Advanced 1e, 2e and even 3e... I am by no means a purist. In fact, I made quite a few suggestions on this board for things to improve. But PvP? How? The game is, at its core, a single player game. If you want to beat on some other player's head, you can look into Neverwinter Nights, which was a multiplayer game- and still has online servers. There was even a post about the servers for that game still being up and with its own copies of the same sites in Baldur's Gate. There is even a whole underdark section, where you can play a Drow and be as nasty, evil and killing other players as you like.

And I've played plenty of other RPGs as well, both computer games and pen and paper. And there is a difference between "being a purist" and "not wanting to destroy what the old school game made great by turning it into something it was never meant to be". I also have a problem that most Computer games that include PVP sections end up devoting more to that (because that's the easy option that players who only want to spend their time ganking and fragging go for) than to the single player campaign that the game is supposedly about to begin with. How many games are out there now where the PVP gets all the attention, and the actual single player campaign only lasts six to ten hours?

For the record, among the computer RPG games I've played: The Entire Exile series, the entire Avernum series, Avadon: The Black Fortress, Realmz, Divinity, Taskmaker, Tomb of Taskmaker, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights (the 80's version on AOL), Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonda, Secret of the Silver Blades, Pools of Darkness, MacAngband/Angband, Dark Queen of Krynn. I'm sure there are more that I have forgotten.

Pen and Paper: Original D&D, Basic D&D, Expert D&D, Companion D&D (I didn't waste my time with the Master or Immortal boxed sets, though.), AD&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, Munchkin RPG, Vampire, Rifts, Shadowrun, Top Secret, Top Secret S.I. Gangbusters, Star Frontiers, Gamma World, Vampire the Masquerade (and all its iterations), Werewolf, Mage, Changeling: The Dreaming, Boot Hill, Doctor Who, Marvel Superhero RPG, DC Heroes, Ghostbusters (I still have the Ghost die from that game. When that came up, things went BAD for the players...) Stuperpowers... and others I no longer rememher.

I still play 2e as my favorite, but I tend to mix in stuff from 1e and play 1e modules by 2e rules and vice versa. I even did a short run-through of Tomb of Horrors (a 1e module) done up in 3e style (basically, they nerfed all the "save or die instantly" traps from what I saw, and I have all the hardcover 3e/3.5e expansions of old modules, like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) and so on, and I even have the Expanded Box set of the Tomb of Horrors, where the players go to exterminate Acererak's spirit on the outer planes. So, as you can see, not really a purist at all,

HexHammer

decado said:

Other PC games are not the BG series, BG stands head and shoulders above the majority of other PC games. Why ruin a winning formula by diluting the essence down to be more like other lesser games?

Yearh, I ask myself the same question, why did they ruin a perfectly good game with BG 2 and it's weird art style?

Nothing is put in stone and can easily be changed if the devs are skilled enough. Purist always preach conservatism and know eeeverything about what the devs can and can't do, for some weird reason.

HexHammer

LadyRhian said:

@Hexhammer Purist? No...


I still play 2e as my favorite

Strange selfcontradiction?

Jalily

HexHammer said:

LadyRhian said:

@Hexhammer Purist? No...

I still play 2e as my favorite

Strange selfcontradiction?

I like how you cut out the rest of the sentence where she says she mixes in stuff from other editions, the exact opposite of a purist.

Avenger_teambg

Real evil is not someone who just kills everyone on sight. That is batshit crazy
You can do that, and you won't ever leave CandleKeep alive.

On the other hand, you can play this style in BG1 - after leaving CK. It will be a whole new experience.
Fighting bounty hunters instead of the story can be fun, for some.

Shin

The core concept of adding more outspoken dialogue reaction/confirmation of particularly heinous (or valourous, for that matter) acts doesn't seem like such a big step and could be modded in. The amount of cruelty and sadism you can put into a dialogue is really only limited by your imagination; though as isolated events it likely wouldn't mesh well with the feeling of the rest of the game.

Graphics sequences of civilians getting beheaded and PvP with griefing potential to show how evil you are on the other hand, will likely never happen.