@Raudell D&D is completely free-form, that's the beauty of it. Your dungeon master can run a campaign where the players are Bane worshipers being tasked to protect an important stronghold or holy site dedicated to Bane, and later be rewarded as heroes (of sorts) by that particular faction... D&D really is what you make it
While I don't disagree, I also stand by my previous assertion: D&D does slant towards good/neutral players.
"If you choose an alignment for your character, you should pick either good or lawful good."
That's straight out of the Player's Handbook (4th edition). Now it goes on to mention exceptions (I believe it specifically mentions "unless your DM is running an all evil campaign" or something of the sort), but even so, looking at the feats, classes and class descriptions, and even paragon paths and epic destinies...they all lean towards good and neutral characters. Even the "dark" character classes and races are described with a positive twist or a redemption mentality. D&D is indeed free-form and opened ended, but it does seem like Wizards goes out of its way to write towards the good and neutral demographic.
KIlling of Imoen... That would have been an instant game killer for me, Because The story was not only about the player Characer.. Imoen had also a BIG part in the whole Story.
I've always hated Imoen. I would love for her to be killed off. The only NPCs I liked in BG2 were Viconia an Yoshimo. I wanted to hire Xzar and Coran, but they were unjoinable.
KIlling of Imoen... That would have been an instant game killer for me, Because The story was not only about the player Characer.. Imoen had also a BIG part in the whole Story.
Horrible Idea in my opinion
Not so ... For the last few games I ditched imoen the first chance I got , and for BG2 I completed most mission that I can before going to spellhold . Once I rescue imoen , I drop her . So she is not really that essential . Not that I hate her tho
@Space_hamster One game that handled an "evil path" very well was the expansion to NWN2, Mask of the Betrayer. I don't usually play evil because, as you say, games often seem to reduce it to either being petty or randomly killing people, with no greater arc or goal in mind... and then in the end you still have to do the "right thing" (kill the boss and save everyone), intentionally or not - which sucks. But in MotB, you can actually consistently play evil throughout the game all the way up to the end where you can betray your party members, kill them off, and ascend to godhood (becoming a force of terror). That's what I mean by an "evil path".
"If you choose an alignment for your character, you should pick either good or lawful good."
That's straight out of the Player's Handbook (4th edition). Now it goes on to mention exceptions (I believe it specifically mentions "unless your DM is running an all evil campaign" or something of the sort), but even so, looking at the feats, classes and class descriptions, and even paragon paths and epic destinies...they all lean towards good and neutral characters. Even the "dark" character classes and races are described with a positive twist or a redemption mentality. D&D is indeed free-form and opened ended, but it does seem like Wizards goes out of its way to write towards the good and neutral demographic. Something to keep in mind, at least. Which is purely a 4th Edition thing, second and third edition catered pretty fairly to all alignments, released books for evil and good characters alike. Neutral characters got the shaft though. There's a Book of Vile Darkness and a Book of Exalted Deeds but no Book of Supreme Apathy. A shame.
Edit: To add; Mask of the Betrayer is indeed incredibly awesome and has the best evil storyline of a game to date. Also, One-of-Many is the creepiest partymember ever.
I didn't play MotB, just played in fact NWN 1 and in vanilla mod, didn't like much (i did a monk, and the NPC follower was a thief so stupid that take my patience above my limits).
But, @Drugar, is this One-of-Many creepier than Planescapes NPCs? As morte, Vhalinor, Ignus or Fall-from-Grace?
@kamuizin Spoiler alert; One-of-many is a singular creature, made from the burnt corpses of a thousand souls, all of which are hungry for more souls to add to the pile. He can switch classes as you get more conversations with him and during the game he'll ask you to devour soul after soul in order to become the scourge of the multiverse (which includes devouring at least one god during the game).
No, she is your little, half sister, same dad, different mum. Hope I cleared that up... I now strip you of your BG nerd badge... You, sir, need another play through!!! Then submit me an essay entitled, "BG, how it changed my life and made me the person I am today" keep it short, 20,000 words should do! Lol
@Winthal Well, D&D itself discourages PCs from playing evil characters, so it makes sense that BG would assume the same.
Only on the frist D&D edition, where the concepts of good and evil don't even exist, ppl there where only Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic (if i remember well, i was probally 7 years old when i brought the D&D P&P box).
I disagree. What you are talking about is not 1e. You are talking about Basic Dungeons and Dragons. Basic simplified a lot (ie dwarf and elf were not races but were classes). Chaos was synonymous with evil (the bad guys were always chaotic) and Lawful was good (except in the very earliest versions). 1e Advanced Dungeons and Dragons which had the nine classic alignments did not discourage evil game play. As a matter of fact, 1e had a character class that had to be evil, the assassin.
Then thanks to the book The Dungeon Master: The Disappearance of James Dallas Egbert III, the movie Monsters and Mazes, and Patricia Pulling's anti-D&D group, I believe that TSR grew frightened of backlash and law suits which became a contributing factor to 2e which did seem to oppose evil campaigns (as well as change the names of demons and devils to Tanari and Baatezu).
There is even a paragraph in 2e players handbook that states: "Although there is no specific prohibition against this [playing an evil alignment character], there are several reasons why it is not a good idea." The assassin class was done away with during this time, which is good for us because the official realms story why there was no more assassins was that during the time of troubles, Bhaal sucked all their souls into himself which of course helps to facilitate the events of Baldur's Gate.
Those late 1e/ early 2e years were a weird time to play. Us role-players ceased to be thought of as nerds and were beginning to be thought of as cultists/satanists. Sucked big time.
@Bobby_Singer i dare to say you are wrong (except for reaffirm what i said of the elf and drwaven concept of being a class type there, where elvens where the same as rangers/archers and drwavens always some kind of ubber life points fighter).
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons come after D&D 1° edition, the fact there more than one edition of advanced dungeons and dragons don't mean that the frist AD&D was the true 1° edition, in fact it come after D&D 1° edition.
Just to not let doubts lemme post here the image of the rule book that use the same image as the box i mentioned):
you gonna find under "Game History", on the sub-title "Sources and influences" more exactly in the 4° paragraph the following quote:
"...The original alignment system (which grouped all characters and creatures into 'Law', 'Neutrality' and 'Chaos') was derived from the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson.[72] A troll described in this work also influenced the D&D definition of that monster.[70]
Edit:
I always through who was that dragon in this cover (that's more to a half demon/dragon than anything, freaking huge that thing!
@Bobby_Singer i dare to say you are wrong (except for reaffirm what i said of the elf and drwaven concept of being a class type there, where elvens where the same as rangers/archers and drwavens always some kind of ubber life points fighter).
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons come after D&D 1° edition, the fact there more than one edition of advanced dungeons and dragons don't mean that the frist AD&D was the true 1° edition, in fact it come after D&D 1° edition.
I'm afraid I disagree, but to be fair, we are talking semantics. What you are talking about is the "chronologically" first Dungeons and Dragons printed, but 1e is actually referring to the first edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. This year, WotC released a collectors reprint of 1e which are indeed, the first volumes of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons:
The Dungeons and Dragons you are referring to is still referred to as the basic set, not 1e. I will concede that it was the first Dungeons and Dragons released, but it is different than 1e, though I understand the confusion.
But the other thing is that your argument was that only 1e (or basic as the case may be) was the only edition that discouraged evil players whereas 2e made the biggest push to discourage players from being evil because of bad press in the mid-eighties.
The loss of your soul should have been more dramatic. From what I remember, it was Irenicus just went "LOLZ, I haz ur soulz" and peaced out of Soulhold. More drama and more consequences for the loss of your soul (desensitized responses in conversations, loss of abilities) would have made the story much more endearing
I don't think they often get the good/evil balance in most video games. First of all good shouldn't always be rewarded, often to do the right thing is the "hard" thing. It's what drives the narrative, Batman saving the civilians in the Dark Knight without harming the cops with their bad intel, it only underlines how badass he is that he can do that. In most video games they offer you a straight choice where you do a good thing and get a light themed reward, or do a bad thing and get a bad themed reward.
In my mind the "good" path should oftentimes be difficult, and also not as immediately rewarding. There should be the option of sacrificing the "good" for the convenient (not necessarily evil!). You may eshchew the "good" to get more money or stuff. There are plenty of fundementally good characters that will make the tough decision to better prepare themselves for fighting the big bad.
Evil itself also doesn't really get a decent portrayal either, it often devolves into just kicking puppies for the hell of it. Whereas again interesting, but evil characters in fiction are compelling thanks to complex character and motivation. Being evil "just cos" doesn't cut it for me, or at least not enough to make an interesting story out of it.
The loss of char's soul never bothered me. I always assumed that it was a big deal, like Faust or similar stories : doomed for eternity, being burned from the inside, a slowly decaying mind and body, serving as a puppet for outer beings... many good reasons to chase Irenicus.
The death of Imoen is not needed. You can't complain about her kidnapping being a weak and good-oriented reason to go to Spellbound and then say that she needs to be killed in order to motivate charname's chase. If anything, the loss of his soul is a very personal motive that suits evil characters very well.
The player character will eventually either die or turn into the Slayer permanently without their soul. Neither is particularly attractive for the average Evil-aligned character. The Slayer transformation, while powerful, often takes away your ability to control your own actions. What's the point of rampaging across Faerun if you can't even enjoy it or use it to your advantage in some clandestine scheme?
The loss of your soul should have been more dramatic. From what I remember, it was Irenicus just went "LOLZ, I haz ur soulz" and peaced out of Soulhold. More drama and more consequences for the loss of your soul (desensitized responses in conversations, loss of abilities) would have made the story much more endearing
I dont remember him saying that , but I agree. Needed to really drive home the loss of soul more. I remember just sort of shrugging after he took my soul and thinking "Whatever".
I agree with what Schneidend has said thus far. Also, think about what'll happen to you when you die...Without a soul, where do you go to? Maybe you're like a ghost then, cursed to wander around on Earth forever... Doesn't sound very appealing to me. All in all, I think there are enough reasons for wanting to kick Irenicus's behind. He's tortured you and has experimented on your body, he has killed at least one of your party members and he even kidnaps another one of your 'old' friends! Also, who knows what might happen if he were to get what he wants...What would his next goal be after that, eh?
Every time i play though BG2 i wish Imoen would have been killed off or disappeared. It's just so very limiting. It feels as though, you have to take her back. I don't like that feeling.
The loss of char's soul never bothered me. I always assumed that it was a big deal, like Faust or similar stories : doomed for eternity, being burned from the inside, a slowly decaying mind and body, serving as a puppet for outer beings... many good reasons to chase Irenicus.
The death of Imoen is not needed. You can't complain about her kidnapping being a weak and good-oriented reason to go to Spellbound and then say that she needs to be killed in order to motivate charname's chase. If anything, the loss of his soul is a very personal motive that suits evil characters very well.
That's fair enough, and your playthrough experience was all the richer for it if that's the meaning you got out of having lost your soul.
For what soullessness means to me, though, I still can't help but find it weird that soulless people have motivation at all. They'd be like golems or something, to my imagination. So it almost seems like a plot-hole to desire to get ones soul back.
In any event the narrative doesn't tell you anything of what it means to not have a soul, be it your definition or mine. If it had described all that you had said, I could see myself not having written the OP.
The loss of char's soul never bothered me. I always assumed that it was a big deal, like Faust or similar stories : doomed for eternity, being burned from the inside, a slowly decaying mind and body, serving as a puppet for outer beings... many good reasons to chase Irenicus.
The death of Imoen is not needed. You can't complain about her kidnapping being a weak and good-oriented reason to go to Spellbound and then say that she needs to be killed in order to motivate charname's chase. If anything, the loss of his soul is a very personal motive that suits evil characters very well.
That's fair enough, and your playthrough experience was all the richer for it if that's the meaning you got out of having lost your soul.
For what soullessness means to me, though, I still can't help but find it weird that soulless people have motivation at all. They'd be like golems or something, to my imagination. So it almost seems like a plot-hole to desire to get ones soul back.
In any event the narrative doesn't tell you anything of what it means to not have a soul, be it your definition or mine. If it had described all that you had said, I could see myself not having written the OP.
Well, look at the effect of soullessness on Irenicus, if anything he became more driven to revenge even as he began to lose his memory and emotions. I do wish the same had happened to charname though.
Comments
Something to keep in mind, at least.
Horrible Idea in my opinion
Just kidding (in Edwin style) here
For the last few games I ditched imoen the first chance I got , and for BG2 I completed most mission that I can before going to spellhold . Once I rescue imoen , I drop her . So she is not really that essential . Not that I hate her tho
Something to keep in mind, at least.
Which is purely a 4th Edition thing, second and third edition catered pretty fairly to all alignments, released books for evil and good characters alike.
Neutral characters got the shaft though. There's a Book of Vile Darkness and a Book of Exalted Deeds but no Book of Supreme Apathy. A shame.
Edit:
To add; Mask of the Betrayer is indeed incredibly awesome and has the best evil storyline of a game to date. Also, One-of-Many is the creepiest partymember ever.
But, @Drugar, is this One-of-Many creepier than Planescapes NPCs? As morte, Vhalinor, Ignus or Fall-from-Grace?
Spoiler alert;
One-of-many is a singular creature, made from the burnt corpses of a thousand souls, all of which are hungry for more souls to add to the pile. He can switch classes as you get more conversations with him and during the game he'll ask you to devour soul after soul in order to become the scourge of the multiverse (which includes devouring at least one god during the game).
Sorry guys, the above was in answer to this post, I hereby strip myself of my forum badge and shall go away and think about my poor posting!
I disagree. What you are talking about is not 1e. You are talking about Basic Dungeons and Dragons. Basic simplified a lot (ie dwarf and elf were not races but were classes). Chaos was synonymous with evil (the bad guys were always chaotic) and Lawful was good (except in the very earliest versions). 1e Advanced Dungeons and Dragons which had the nine classic alignments did not discourage evil game play. As a matter of fact, 1e had a character class that had to be evil, the assassin.
Then thanks to the book The Dungeon Master: The Disappearance of James Dallas Egbert III, the movie Monsters and Mazes, and Patricia Pulling's anti-D&D group, I believe that TSR grew frightened of backlash and law suits which became a contributing factor to 2e which did seem to oppose evil campaigns (as well as change the names of demons and devils to Tanari and Baatezu).
There is even a paragraph in 2e players handbook that states: "Although there is no specific prohibition against this [playing an evil alignment character], there are several reasons why it is not a good idea." The assassin class was done away with during this time, which is good for us because the official realms story why there was no more assassins was that during the time of troubles, Bhaal sucked all their souls into himself which of course helps to facilitate the events of Baldur's Gate.
Those late 1e/ early 2e years were a weird time to play. Us role-players ceased to be thought of as nerds and were beginning to be thought of as cultists/satanists. Sucked big time.
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons come after D&D 1° edition, the fact there more than one edition of advanced dungeons and dragons don't mean that the frist AD&D was the true 1° edition, in fact it come after D&D 1° edition.
Just to not let doubts lemme post here the image of the rule book that use the same image as the box i mentioned):
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
In the D&D wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons
you gonna find under "Game History", on the sub-title "Sources and influences" more exactly in the 4° paragraph the following quote:
"...The original alignment system (which grouped all characters and creatures into 'Law', 'Neutrality' and 'Chaos') was derived from the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson.[72] A troll described in this work also influenced the D&D definition of that monster.[70]
Edit:
I always through who was that dragon in this cover (that's more to a half demon/dragon than anything, freaking huge that thing!
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/02410000
The Dungeons and Dragons you are referring to is still referred to as the basic set, not 1e. I will concede that it was the first Dungeons and Dragons released, but it is different than 1e, though I understand the confusion.
But the other thing is that your argument was that only 1e (or basic as the case may be) was the only edition that discouraged evil players whereas 2e made the biggest push to discourage players from being evil because of bad press in the mid-eighties.
In my mind the "good" path should oftentimes be difficult, and also not as immediately rewarding. There should be the option of sacrificing the "good" for the convenient (not necessarily evil!). You may eshchew the "good" to get more money or stuff. There are plenty of fundementally good characters that will make the tough decision to better prepare themselves for fighting the big bad.
Evil itself also doesn't really get a decent portrayal either, it often devolves into just kicking puppies for the hell of it. Whereas again interesting, but evil characters in fiction are compelling thanks to complex character and motivation. Being evil "just cos" doesn't cut it for me, or at least not enough to make an interesting story out of it.
The death of Imoen is not needed. You can't complain about her kidnapping being a weak and good-oriented reason to go to Spellbound and then say that she needs to be killed in order to motivate charname's chase. If anything, the loss of his soul is a very personal motive that suits evil characters very well.
For what soullessness means to me, though, I still can't help but find it weird that soulless people have motivation at all. They'd be like golems or something, to my imagination. So it almost seems like a plot-hole to desire to get ones soul back.
In any event the narrative doesn't tell you anything of what it means to not have a soul, be it your definition or mine. If it had described all that you had said, I could see myself not having written the OP.
But BG1 Imoen?! With a reasonable, non-pink hair portrait? NEVER