It'd also be logical for a Blackguard to have the opposite feature, becoming "risen" (or whatever) if the party does good things and gets a good rep, thus losing his special abilities.
I can understand why Paladins become "fallen Paladins" and lose their abilities because of, say, being cast out of their order, or abandoned by their deity, but I don't get Rangers "falling"... and I'm an AD&D purist. They are trained woodsman. Doesn't make sense to me. It's a 1st edition hold over. Personally, I think Stalkers should be able to be evil aligned.
@HaHaCharade: well, Rangers are divine casters at higher levels, so presumably there's supposed to be some divine source for their powers, i.e. some deity, who might withdraw support in the same way as a Paladin's deity, even though (unlike Paladins) their connection to their deity isn't made explicit.
I admit that I'm merely retro-fitting an explanation to an extant rule, but my point is that it's not a completely inexplicable rule.
However, what then stands out as difficult to explain is why Clerics (and indeed Druids) cannot also "fall" for acting against the alignment required by their deities. Especially since there are such things as "fallen priests" even in some real-life religions, who have been cast out for inappropriate conduct.
But in any case, even though some aspects aren't very logical when you look too closely, this game is what we're playing and these are its established rules. Sometimes it may be best not to analyse the "logic" too closely!
Gallowglass it's just incomplete implementation like a lot of things in BG. Ideally, we should have a more complete alignment tracker of some sort, so the various divine casters would have some constraint on their behaviors. In PNP it's clear that not only do clerics have to follow an acceptable alignment to their deity, but they need to pursue the special interests of their deity too. And yeah that would apply to Rangers and Druids too.
All that may be true in PnP AD&D, @atcDave, but BG isn't AD&D. It's a somewhat similar game, based on many of the same concepts, but it's a misconception to think that BG is truly an implementation of AD&D or was ever meant to be. If that were so, then every difference from AD&D (and there are very many, as you know) would automatically qualify as a "bug", which would be absurd. Therefore arguing about BG by analogy with AD&D isn't really valid; we should consider BG on its own merits, as its own game-system.
Bioware needed a WotC licence because some of the concepts borrowed from AD&D are copyrighted, and they also wanted the licence because the WotC endorsement was good for marketing, but that doesn't mean it was ever really intended to be the same as AD&D. It wouldn't have been technically possible even if it had been intended.
No I completely disagree with that. Every "implementation" of AD&D I ever played was incomplete or eccentric to one degree or another. House rules and modifications do not disqualify a game, in fact, the books themselves say countless times that rules are there to be modified and adapted. I think BG succeeds nicely as an automated implementation of those rules. Its actually more faithful than some of the PNP games I played in! I never really mean to "argue" about BG shortcomings compared to PNP, I'm quite satisfied with the result. If time and money were no object I'm sure it could be made even better, but I don't see it a terribly big deal. I'm content to evaluate BG as its own entity, just like every other 2E game I ever played in. And BG measures up quite well. I think its biggest shortcoming have more to do with it being a computer game as opposed to PNP (rather than any implementation issues); but that is also the source of its biggest strengths, like I can play for 15 minutes on my lunch break...
BG is clearly based on the AD&D rule set and is intended as such.
It uses the same races, classes, combat system, spell system, monsters, and lore. I have seen no evidence whatsoever suggesting that Bioware intended to make it only "a somewhat similar" game. Show me where the Bioware designers expressed that intention, ***anywhere***.
4th panel of the tutorial says "Baldur's Gate uses 2nd edition AD&D rules."
They lied. They lied about a lot of things.
Rangers becoming fallen never made sense. They tend to worship neutral dieties, but have to be of good alignment, with a 6 reputation threshold which is where an average evil party sits at a minimum to avoid Flaming Fist ambushes.
4th panel of the tutorial says "Baldur's Gate uses 2nd edition AD&D rules."
That's true as a broad generalisation, telling you roughly what sort of a game this is. But clearly the similarity to "real" AD&D was exaggerated for marketing reasons.
I have seen no evidence whatsoever suggesting that Bioware intended to make it only "a somewhat similar" game. Show me where the Bioware designers expressed that intention, ***anywhere***.
Of course their published intentions emphasised the similarities, not the differences, because Bioware were selling it on the basis of being like AD&D. If any of the design team had admitted "oh no, it's not really AD&D", then their own marketing department would have gone postal on them.
Anyone who has played BG can also see innumerable differences from AD&D, even in some features which could have been closer to AD&D if that had really been their intention (apart from many PnP features which couldn't be translated to a computer). So the game is its own evidence that all they intended was "similar". And they succeeded in that objective, it is indeed similar to AD&D. Furthermore, I think some of the deliberate differences were very good decisions, because a computer is obviously a different playing environment from PnP and some changes made more sense for a computer game. For example, if they were attempting a strict implementation of PnP AD&D, then the game would have been strictly turn-based-only, and they could have done it that way if they wanted to ... but they didn't do that, and the way they did it is much better for a computer game.
Oh brother. BG is as close to 2E as most of the PNP games I've played or run. Everyone customizes and adds house rules. And the books themselves encourage modifying. Not to mention the staggering number of optional rules right in the core books themselves. These complaints all strike me a rather silly case of elitism.
BG's biggest limitation by far is just the nature of a CRPG as opposed to an actual PNP RPG.
A fallen paladin/ranger suffers from all the disadvantages of being a paladin/ranger, but gains none of the advantages of being a paladin/ranger.
When a Paladin or a Ranger becomes fallen, he loses ALL of his Paladin/Ranger abilities (spells, healing) and becomes as if he were a Fighter instead. Except for the fact that he'll still level up slower (Paladins and Rangers need more XP to level up) and is restricted to Paladin/Ranger fighting proficiencies.
In PnP sure, but @Katermeister you can't do this inside the game engine.
I would like to know if blackguards became fallen if they pass over 14 reputation, THAT would be nice. Specially with the lot of cheese players that like to play evil parties with 18 reputation (in PnP their lords would probally strike them down instead of abandon them, but to match the game engine, a fallen status for blackguards could be very nice).
By the way, a paladin/ranger with helm of opposite alignment become fallen, also?
Wow! what on earth did you do? I'm not aware of a solution for that in BG1, hopefully someone can confirm?
That preistess in Nashkel gets me every time! She casts some kind of mind control spell, and this time the results were very bad! I killed the inn keeper, half my party, and 2 customers before I came to my senses! Then I step outside and I was forced to defend myself from some low level bounty hunter and all of the gaurds in nashkel! By the time the carnage ended the surviving members of my party bailed on me, Torm unfriended me, and I stood there looking at 2 blood soaked long swords with one lonely rep point.
This time, I toughed it out. I actually made it all the way back to a 7 rep the hard way and level 4. Honestly, Cavaliers abilities haven't been missed yet, but I am sure they will be if I continue.
I'd like to say that those powers should be restored once you hit a 20 rep, that seems like a proper atonement. Also, there are some bugs. It looks like the paladins +2 to saves remains in effect even when fallen, and you still cant use bows, which is weird.
I think its ok, that paladins can get fallen. But there are some problems with that system i have. 1. You also mentioned it, Fallen Ranger like for example Archers are strange. And it should be possible for Cleriks too. 2. Multiclasses cant fall, thats strange. 3. Its always only an restriction for good characters. It should be possible for evil deities too. And I mean evil cleriks or necromancers for example. Not only the dark Paladins. Paladin is not stronger than other classes and its simply strange that only good chars get nerved. Sereously even the evil ingameguy you can hire are simply stronger. Virconia, Edwin, Sarevok... All stronger than the good once. strange isnt it? 4. There should be at least one Option in original BG to redeem himself too. Like an Quest needing rep15 or higher to start for example.
By the way, yes Topic is old, but as long people play Palas its interesting.
Comments
I admit that I'm merely retro-fitting an explanation to an extant rule, but my point is that it's not a completely inexplicable rule.
However, what then stands out as difficult to explain is why Clerics (and indeed Druids) cannot also "fall" for acting against the alignment required by their deities. Especially since there are such things as "fallen priests" even in some real-life religions, who have been cast out for inappropriate conduct.
But in any case, even though some aspects aren't very logical when you look too closely, this game is what we're playing and these are its established rules. Sometimes it may be best not to analyse the "logic" too closely!
Bioware needed a WotC licence because some of the concepts borrowed from AD&D are copyrighted, and they also wanted the licence because the WotC endorsement was good for marketing, but that doesn't mean it was ever really intended to be the same as AD&D. It wouldn't have been technically possible even if it had been intended.
I never really mean to "argue" about BG shortcomings compared to PNP, I'm quite satisfied with the result. If time and money were no object I'm sure it could be made even better, but I don't see it a terribly big deal. I'm content to evaluate BG as its own entity, just like every other 2E game I ever played in. And BG measures up quite well. I think its biggest shortcoming have more to do with it being a computer game as opposed to PNP (rather than any implementation issues); but that is also the source of its biggest strengths, like I can play for 15 minutes on my lunch break...
It uses the same races, classes, combat system, spell system, monsters, and lore. I have seen no evidence whatsoever suggesting that Bioware intended to make it only "a somewhat similar" game. Show me where the Bioware designers expressed that intention, ***anywhere***.
Rangers becoming fallen never made sense. They tend to worship neutral dieties, but have to be of good alignment, with a 6 reputation threshold which is where an average evil party sits at a minimum to avoid Flaming Fist ambushes.
Anyone who has played BG can also see innumerable differences from AD&D, even in some features which could have been closer to AD&D if that had really been their intention (apart from many PnP features which couldn't be translated to a computer). So the game is its own evidence that all they intended was "similar". And they succeeded in that objective, it is indeed similar to AD&D. Furthermore, I think some of the deliberate differences were very good decisions, because a computer is obviously a different playing environment from PnP and some changes made more sense for a computer game. For example, if they were attempting a strict implementation of PnP AD&D, then the game would have been strictly turn-based-only, and they could have done it that way if they wanted to ... but they didn't do that, and the way they did it is much better for a computer game.
BG's biggest limitation by far is just the nature of a CRPG as opposed to an actual PNP RPG.
Let's simplify things, shall we?
If it looks like a dog, walks like a dog, and barks like a dog, ...
When a Paladin or a Ranger becomes fallen, he loses ALL of his Paladin/Ranger abilities (spells, healing) and becomes as if he were a Fighter instead. Except for the fact that he'll still level up slower (Paladins and Rangers need more XP to level up) and is restricted to Paladin/Ranger fighting proficiencies.
Never played one past Tutu.
In BG1 / EE, it is NOT possible.
I would like to know if blackguards became fallen if they pass over 14 reputation, THAT would be nice. Specially with the lot of cheese players that like to play evil parties with 18 reputation (in PnP their lords would probally strike them down instead of abandon them, but to match the game engine, a fallen status for blackguards could be very nice).
By the way, a paladin/ranger with helm of opposite alignment become fallen, also?
This time, I toughed it out. I actually made it all the way back to a 7 rep the hard way and level 4. Honestly, Cavaliers abilities haven't been missed yet, but I am sure they will be if I continue.
I'd like to say that those powers should be restored once you hit a 20 rep, that seems like a proper atonement. Also, there are some bugs. It looks like the paladins +2 to saves remains in effect even when fallen, and you still cant use bows, which is weird.
1. You also mentioned it, Fallen Ranger like for example Archers are strange. And it should be possible for Cleriks too.
2. Multiclasses cant fall, thats strange.
3. Its always only an restriction for good characters. It should be possible for evil deities too. And I mean evil cleriks or necromancers for example. Not only the dark Paladins. Paladin is not stronger than other classes and its simply strange that only good chars get nerved. Sereously even the evil ingameguy you can hire are simply stronger. Virconia, Edwin, Sarevok... All stronger than the good once. strange isnt it?
4. There should be at least one Option in original BG to redeem himself too. Like an Quest needing rep15 or higher to start for example.
By the way, yes Topic is old, but as long people play Palas its interesting.