Pure Alignment Party *spoilers*
dockaboomski
Member Posts: 440
I started a playthrough of BG1 vanilla with the intent of playing the game with strictly characters of neutral alignment, which allowed me the options of: Garrick, Safana, Branwen, Xan, Faldorn, and Quayle. I made a N dwarf fighter (Axehand Hammerhand, will move into using two-weapon style after importing to BG2). The party comp is going to be pretty simple due to the limited amount of characters.
Axehand Hammerhand
Branwen - drop for Quayle once reaching Baldur's Gate
Faldorn
Garrick
Safana
Xan
I didn't use Jaheira due to the package deal with Khalid (NG) and I didn't want to break them apart.
This got me thinking about BG2 as well. My party will be:
Axehand Hammerhand (probably will pick up beserker kit upon import)
Jaheira
Yoshimo
Jan
Cernd
Haer'Dalis
I am not going to bring Anomen because, RP-wise, Axehand Hammerhand would lead him into becoming LG after his personal quest. The biggest issue here will be the loss of Yoshimo, I plan on dual-classing him into fighter before he gets axed. I'm thinking about making a fighter/thief to supplement, probably a half-orc for maximum tankiness.
But the idea intrigued me. For instance, running a neutral party in BG1 is absolutely lacking in melee strength. Which alignment do you guys think works out best as a party across both games?
As a note I'm playing vanilla versions of the games, so no mod NPCs, no SCS to worry about (I can only imagine how miserable it would be during BG1), no EE NPCs.
EDIT: This should be in general discussion; whoops.
Axehand Hammerhand
Branwen - drop for Quayle once reaching Baldur's Gate
Faldorn
Garrick
Safana
Xan
I didn't use Jaheira due to the package deal with Khalid (NG) and I didn't want to break them apart.
This got me thinking about BG2 as well. My party will be:
Axehand Hammerhand (probably will pick up beserker kit upon import)
Jaheira
Yoshimo
Jan
Cernd
Haer'Dalis
I am not going to bring Anomen because, RP-wise, Axehand Hammerhand would lead him into becoming LG after his personal quest. The biggest issue here will be the loss of Yoshimo, I plan on dual-classing him into fighter before he gets axed. I'm thinking about making a fighter/thief to supplement, probably a half-orc for maximum tankiness.
But the idea intrigued me. For instance, running a neutral party in BG1 is absolutely lacking in melee strength. Which alignment do you guys think works out best as a party across both games?
As a note I'm playing vanilla versions of the games, so no mod NPCs, no SCS to worry about (I can only imagine how miserable it would be during BG1), no EE NPCs.
EDIT: This should be in general discussion; whoops.
Post edited by dockaboomski on
2
Comments
granted, being good generally means you cant slaughter dudes and dudettes for no reason, but even then, if you are evil generating genocide, you are eventually going to get stopped, and harassed from it ( summoned guards and the such)
although I find it kind of interesting that in vanilla SoA you can never have a full team of evil NPCS (unless you play a multiplayer game) with 3 being the max, and with 4 being the max in ToB, I wonder if this was deliberate because they knew that eventually you would become so powerful that even groups of coweled wizards and such wouldn't be able to take you down
even neutral team mates will eventually leave your team if your REP is low enough ( I think it needs to hit 2 or something) so even for bg2's sake, no genociding there
although bg1 on the other hand, lots of evil NPCs so genocide is welcome, and speaking of this, I find another thing interesting:
in general, I find that the evil NPCs are better than the good ones in terms of stats and abilities, I wonder if that is to make up for the fact that being evil can be a little harder than being good (since both games promote being good rather than evil) so then it makes it so playing with an evil bunch of chums a liable option
so with all this being said, I think it is mostly the fact that the REP stat is the thing that makes it so being good is better than being evil, and the only reason why being good might be better than being neutral is because there are more team mates to choose from than say the neutral side
CN Anomen is the way to go (ditch Jaheira), he's a really interesting character when he's a bit unhinged, certainly better than the goody two shoes version.
The lack of a healer is a bit of a problem, we're using a lot of potions. Also, this is the first time I'm not looting unattended containers or going through people's houses. No Stupifier for my party. Also, I had to let Sendai and her party go, though I killed them in a reload just to see how SCS had changed the fight.
But the idea of an adventuring group with mostly Neutral party members is great. Some will just be selfish and in it for themselves like Safana. Some will be clueless and well-meaning if a bit self centered and cowardly like Garrick. Some will have their own set of morals which don't have the same values as the mainstream culture around them, like Branwen or Faldorn. Some will place a specific idea or group as their primary focus rather than the concept of morality, like Xan.
Basically, being Neutral can free up a character's motivation and interests. In a hypothetical roleplaying situation where your PC is hanging from a cliff and reaching up for help, the Good NPCs are always going to pull them up, the Evil NPCs are going to abandon them, and the Neutral NPCs could go either way depending on the circumstance. If they pull the PC up, will it cost them time from escaping danger or is there a risk that they'll be pulled down as well? Would they normally pull up the PC without question but have learned that the PC caused the death of their family?
Again, this isn't to say that a Good NPC couldn't also have some doubts or an Evil NPC wouldn't have their own reasons for saving the PC. But their decisions are heavily influenced by a strict moral code.
99% of the choices and quests can be RP in an evil way, as money is always given as a reason to accept them, maybe slaughtering everyone after getting the rewards, without having neutral characters leaving the party, so also there no limitations for evil runs.
But Valygar is himself a specialized one, a stalker is specialized, in what a stalker is supposed to do, as explorer, backstabber and flank attacker. Try to use him in any other way and he will be not effective, he can not tank or hold the first line well, ranged will not deal a relevant damage, has not the utility of a true thief. Just as a blade is specialized, in being a blade, use him an a mage, or a fighter or a thief and will be a sub par. The true power of stalkers and blades is revealed only in the moment that the player refrains to consider them jacks of all the trades and begin to consider them as specialized ones.
Aerie is versatile, if you give her time to level enough, she can be a good mage, not like Edvin, but good, a good cleric, and also a really good tank and mlee damage dealer, with RM and 25 STR. Is versatile because a player can give her very different functions in the party, and still is very effective, there are as many strong Aeries as many strong players, and each one is very different, and good. That is being versatile.
But there is only a way to play Valygar if you want to have him shine, that is why he is specialized.
Even Edvin can tank, or make some good damage ranged, not with the sling, but he can. He can also go mlee, with the right buffs and in spider, flind or ogre form, and do some damage, better if in spider form and after casting web. Does it make him versatile?
Valygar can do some damage ranged, not much compared to Mazzi or to an archer, and a lot less than himself do DW mlee weapons, and also try to emulate a proper fighter, in heavy armor and shield, and tank, not as good as Korgan in it. He can do those things, but never shine doing that, while he can shine in a proper armor, dealing a lot of damage as backstabber and flank attacker. He can cover the roles of ranged and tank, just as any ranger or fighter can, and if the tactical situation need it is wise to do it. He has the generic versatility of every fighter-like class, that to some extent can use a ranged weapon, a mlee one and do damage. Only when he combine his generic versatility with his unique capabilities a stalker give the best. He is the best in scouting (that if you don't rely on metagame is important), surprise backstabbing and then continuing to deal a lot of damage, he is specialized in it. Add a couple of invisibility potions and he is the best damage dealer for the initial 3 rounds, the ones that often decide the outcome of a battle. Add a couple of cheap invisibility spells from a mage and he will backstab 2 times/round, while his other apr add to the total damage. That is using Valygar in a proper way, not having him doing risible damage with a bow or try to survive tanking.
Same for the blade, he can be a secondary mage, not so useful as his main strength in it is his high level, when level matter in spell duration or dmg. But your primary mage is only a little back in level, he can be used for that. Still some remove magic or skull trap can be memorized. But if you use him mainly as secondary mages than he lack the spells for self buffs, he will never be that machine of destruction, almost completely protected against magic and physical damage and protected against dispelling, that cuts trough the enemies in that couple of battles/day that really matter. Using him as secondary something you loose him in what he can do like no other. Unless that something other is some kind of F/T or F->T. With the right buffs he can laugh at ADHW, be not targetable, have a very low AC + stoneskin, and eventually a PFMW, while he has 8 APR or 5 with kai like maxed damage. And can not be dispelled. That is his strenght, not being a secondary mage with few spells. But he has to use most of his spells to do it, he can not be primary something and secondary something at the same time, choosing the way of versatility he loose what he can do best.
I choose the example of Edvin just for that reason, he can really do the things that I tell, and at high level a mage can also mlee better, using time stop and golem form or werewolf one. But is not the best use of him, you can do it for fun, and it works, but you probably can find a better use for him. To a lesser extent is true also for blades and stalkers, versatility is not their best use in most of the battles.
Imo a stalker is the best at combining backstab and regular mlee damage, other fighter types can not backstab, thievies, with their only APR and lower thac0, can not do anything significant after backstabbing.
Valigar, used as I told in the previous post, has up to 5 APR, with the best gear, fighter thac0, without haste, and can do 5 backstabs in the first 3 rounds, while using all his APR. No other NPC can be a flank attacker that deal the same damage, the equivalent of 45 attacks in 3 rounds if improved hasted, 25 normal and 5 (x4) backstabs. In that thing he is the best, the only NPC that can do it. Only fighter-thieves can also do it. it need careful positioning of the party and correct timing, but is possible, I have done it, loosing only few attacks of the theoretic total.
Haer Dalis can go mlee and be very effective while enemy fighters and mages can not even touch him, with his buffs protected against dispelling, no other than fighter-mages or high level Jan or Aerie can.
They both are the best at something, but only in the moment that are not used as secondary something and the things they can do are merged together. I respect your opinion and your freedom to use them as you like, according to your own playstyle, but please prove me that they are not the best at those things.
Other way your statement " are never the best at any one thing" is simply not true.
After reading your last post, I feel we are just arguing semantics. We both say these classes do the same thing, we are really only arguing how we describe it. I'm calling them generalists because they fill multiple roles at the same time. You are calling them specialized because they fill a unique role all their own. The same concept explained in different terminology.
(No I did not type up a multi-paragraph rebuttal before realizing I said the same argument you did. Don't look at me like that)