"It comes off as comical"
That is the intention! Written things like emails and posts can project a tone that was not intended, and so I will be more careful with that in the future.
All good.
Well, like I said I don't think that the evil path would be the "default" one. I do hope (and expect) that it's a possible path and that it's still an interesting way to play the game, but my original comment was more pointing out that I didn't think that the good side of the game would suffer or not be as important.
Don't you find it strange though that all the starting companions in EA will be either evil or neutral. Doesn't it imply somehow that the evil paths are the ones they want to fine tune the most so they put them on early?
It might be possible that this was done to help playtest those characters more, but I don’t think we can conclude that Larian feels that these characters need extra fine tuning. That inference is a bit of a reach.
It could simply be just as Larian said, they want to encourage us towards evil and choices we wouldn’t normally make so we can discover how robust the role playing is.
It could also just be that those 5 characters corresponded with a good spread of classes - fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard, and warlock - so it made sense to focus on those characters so those classes would also be in a finished enough state for EA release.
Speaking of reaching- I’m personally convinced that the reason ranger is an EA class without an applicable NPC is because they are teasing Minsc.
@Larian announce Minsc, you cowards.
