|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2023
|
I'm fine with choices like that so long as they're things that are reasonably stupid choices. There are times when trap choices are presented in a way that doesn't give the player a way to see the negative outcome coming unless they have a few really esoteric bits of knowledge, or even times when they couldn't have seen the result coming at all, and those tend to feel like just cheap ways to make the player feel dumb. What you describe though is definitely the right way to handle it, though I can see why developers wouldn't want to design too many of those, since most players wouldn't take them and they probably would end up being more work than it's really worth.
Back to our case though, my only issue still is that if players don't know the distinction between a regular animal and a monstrosity, then the choice and outcome verge upon being the cheap sort of trap choice I described. Well, I did not know the difference. As such, I believed a normal wild animal might try to eat me after healing it. At least, when it's part bear. The owlbear has the appetite of a polar bear squared... which would also eat me  Intimidation check should be able to ward it off if I understood the lore correctly. The owlbear does not attack if the result is likely to be severe injury. Animal handling maybe should fail with the narrator telling us it doesn't think like normal creatures. (Edit: or require a nat 20)
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
There are times when trap choices are presented in a way that doesn't give the player a way to see the negative outcome coming unless they have a few really esoteric bits of knowledge, or even times when they couldn't have seen the result coming at all, and those tend to feel like just cheap ways to make the player feel dumb. Indeed ... On the other hand, when there is no thinking about dialogue choices and picking any skill + passing a diceroll = allways good outcome ... that also feels cheap way to make the player feel dumb, just completely different kind dumb.  I gues some moderation is logical ... Still i would like to encourage them to do more traps than we have now, especialy at places where it would totally make sense ... looking at you Kithrak and his HUGE SCARY DRAGON! 
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2013
|
I wonder what different dialogue each subspecies would bring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Apr 2022
|
On Ragnarok's 'whole other game' approach...two points.
First, I think it's fair to say that there are certain interactions and options that SHOULD NOT be available to a Drow, Duergar, Goblin, Gith, etc. And some unique options available to them that Human PCs wouldn't get. But while it's fair to shift their interactions significantly due to distrust, I don't think you have to assume that a goblin PC walking around with (for example) two humans and a half-elf would immediately get attacked on sight in 'civilized' settings. More use of disguises - not just the spell - might also help abate some of those effects. (Maybe you even have to roll sometimes to not have people attempt to capture you and burn you at the stake like they did to Viconia.) I don't see this as being, mechanically speaking, that much more development work than the existing different treatments for various races and classes.
Second, while I haven't explored this too deeply, it looks like there IS a pretty thoroughly-developed 'evil' avenue for playing the game. I'm not sure it's that big of a tweak to the game, as it is, to create an option for a goblin PC to simply sign up with the Absolute's faction and launch an attack on the druid grove.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I don't think you have to assume that a goblin PC walking around with (for example) two humans and a half-elf would immediately get attacked on sight in 'civilized' settings. Yes, this was mentioned several times allready, and nobody said even a single word against it ... But you are missing the point. :-/ Problem isnt that "a Goblin that is obviously part of regular adventurers group" shouldnt be taken as "for sure hostile". Problem is that "a Goblin that is obviously part of SUSPICIOUS aventurers group" shouldnt be taken as "for sure friendly"! Why a Goblin? Bcs its PC ... Why suspicious group? Sharan (Shadowheart), a Vampire (Astarion), and Githyanki (Lae'zel) ... Even if you really, really, REALLY want to make your party look as friendly as possible, all you can get is single Human (there is nothing obviously at first sight wrong with Gale) ... and if you take even single other companion (so far) with you to Druid Grove ... you are just lowering your chances to not being seen as a potential treat. And THAT is exactly what this game dont recognize at all ... THAT is what we are talking about ... and THAT is the point you missed.  while I haven't explored this too deeply, it looks like there IS a pretty thoroughly-developed 'evil' avenue for playing the game. I did, several times ... Still, it wouldnt work. For one ... Minthara (one of Goblin leaders) is willing to launch attack against the Grove based on that "they believe you, so you can infiltrate them" ... > What we are talking about here is that they most certainly shouldnt believe you. Or at very least not as easily as other PC versions. For two ... ( and feel free to replace word Goblin with words Drow, Duergar, Githyanki in this part) Even tho there would be a way to play stereotypical goblin, and it would work ... not exactly well, but it would ... kinda, somehow ... like using d20 shaped object instead of round ball ... The problem is you cant really play non-stereotypical goblin ... exactly for that reason that people dont recognize you as stereotypical goblin. Its exactly as Kou The Mad said ... We play such characters bcs we want the world to hate us, and we either want to give them even more reason to hate us ... or we want to proove them wrong! That is the whole point here. And that initial hatred is missing. Thats why playing such character is not satisfying experience. As stated abowe, you cant really break a stereotype ... when there is no stereotype to break.
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 28/01/23 09:11 AM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Apr 2022
|
I don't largely disagree with you that there could stand to be better distrustful interactions. (Though I don't agree that the rest of the group is obviously suspicious: if someone's meeting your party for the first time, the only person they'll obviously be suspicious of is Lae'zel. Yes, ALL the party members have dark sides, but the rest of them [vampirism, consorting with demons, Shar worship, and Gale's...um...condition] are 'reveals' that even the PC doesn't know about for a while. If we're talking about reactions based on initial appearances, people would actually see Elf, Half-Elf, Human, Human [Hey, it's the Blade of Frontiers!], and a Gith.)
Where I do disagree is the suggestion that this requires a reinvention of the game. What Larian appears to be doing extraordinarily well (though the jury's still out on later-game impacts) is creating an 'evil' path for proceeding through the game, which is really rare to see done well. Evil characters are tough to RP in traditional RPGs because the plot lines are fundamentally heroic. The reasons for a self-interested evil character to go after the Iron Throne, or to chase Irenicus to Spellhold, are pretty thin, to use a couple BG examples. This is, in part, because the more impactful 'choice' a game permits, the harder it is for later chapters to account for the impact of all the possible array of choices it permitted earlier on while still progressing the plot in a satisfying way. (So, in BG2, you can get help from the Thieves Guild, OR the 'other' guild...and you get a couple of different quests and a few different dialogue impacts, but ultimately those divergent options bring you back to the same place pretty quickly.)
But in BG3, these substantive game options ARE there - of fighting the druids instead of the goblins, etc. - and it seems to me that your complaint is more in the nature of the NPC interactions, and not the substantive game options that flow from those interactions. (As to Minthara using the PC as an infiltrator because the druids trust the PC...well, firstly, the 'trust' only really needs to be giving access, which isn't a high burden; and secondly, even if you were banned from the grove for some reason, add a couple lines of dialogue and a modest amount of code, and suddenly you're joining the goblin army outside the grove to attack it from the outside, for essentially the same battle but from a different position. Or, heck, it's not like the front gate is the only way into the grove...)
Should it be harder for a Drow to earn trust in the grove? Sure. But meaningfully making that shift would mostly require a few things: Different dialogue; changing existing (if currently underutilized) game mechanics like reputation; and maybe some different minor side quests. My key point is that what you're asking for actually isn't all that big of an ask, in the overall scheme of the way Larian has approached this project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
First of all, what im saying is that you are "a Tiefling" ... you have no forces to divert, you have one action in your turn and one arrow you can shoot, thats all you have.
My question was how would you use it. I'd use my action to loose my arrow at a goblin that is a part of the raiding group actively trying to kill my comrades below. I would not waste it trying to hit the group that just showed up and are flanking the goblins attacking me. Second ...
There was no time to confrim their intentions ...
As i said: They JUST, and i repeat once again to be sure, JUST appeared ...
No action were made just yet ...
And nobody who have at least a hint of self-preservation ... will (in my honest opinon) wait for another non-friendly looking character on freaking battlefield to state their intentions. xD Based on how the game presents it the player party is immediately hostile to the goblin raiders when they approach. They aren't even in range of most of the defenders until they've moved closer to engage the raiders. And it'd be a fool who turned around to start attacking someone who just showed up and were attacking the people trying to kill them. I'm sorry, but I can't imagine a scenario where I'd want to kill someone killing my enemies purely based on how they look. If they turn out to be hostile I'll at least have one enemy to fight at a time if they wipe out the raiders first, and if they aren't hostile I have a potential ally to work with in a desperate situation. If I turn around and attack them immediately I risk being overrun by two forces simultaneously for no reason. As for when to confirm their intentions? The very second they make a hostile action they reveal their intentions. You don't have to stop and ask politely if someone is friend or foe, but you don't need to assume everyone is a foe on sight either. There's nuance to situations like this. The risk of being attacked can be minimized with proper positioning and keeping an eye on them when they start to get close. And finaly third ... Party i described ... maybe i repeat it ... is: A Githyanki ... ugly alien being, you may (or may not, w/e) heared Zoru talking about as it kills his friend(s? ... not really sure if there was multiple of them) ... A Elf ... if we would presume you have really high perception ... its an oddly pale elf, with bloody-red eyes, fangs, and bite-marks on his neck ... A Half-Elf ... that is wielding armor full of Shar symbols ... AND another Goblin ... since, as mentioned previously, all your character see in roleplay (and this is roleplay perspective question) is how do you look ... so you dont really know if its same tribe, different tribe that dont really likes them, if they are in open war, if they are looking for alies, or whatever else ... its JUST A GOBLIN ... another freaking Goblin in situation where lots of freaking Goblins is attacking your freaking camp. If the goblin's group are attacking the raiders you can be pretty sure they aren't a part of the same tribe or, at the very least, aren't allies. Frankly if I am in the position of Zevlor I don't care too much if these people ARE an evil adventuring group. They just killed my enemies and seem willing to keep killing them. I don't have any good options left because the druids have gone crazy and the last group of adventurers I hired ended up unable to get the job done. What should I do? Attack my last chance to maybe save my people because they look suspicious? So ... Lets say you are not "a Tiefling" but "Zevlor" ... and you are actually comanding your troops (also something he dont really do during that defense) ... You notice group of not really friendly-looking individuals appearing on the hill at battlefield ... Their position gives them advantage (not mechanical one) ... if they decide to interfere, it would be a lot easier for them to kill your ground team, you are trying to save ... They are in range for your archers tho ... What would seem more tactical to you? A) Wait what will they do ... aka bother with lowly goblins and hope those clearly more dangerous figures will be friendly. B) Pre-emptively attack most dangerous target. A is the obviously smart move. You do not make an enemy of a bystander when you're already being overrun. Option B will almost definitely get your people killed, while option A only might based on an assumption of the second group's intentions. Not to mention that the second group is on the other side of the raiders. Your melee guys will be getting shredded without cover fire while you try to snipe across the map at people who may have no cause to attack you. That's overextension. Plus the way the fight is set up to take the hill they need to have already started attacking a few of the raider goblins, so you immediately know they aren't on Team Absolute. See this is exactly the problem this game have ...
You are taking Aeligances under consideration ... No I'm not. I'm using logic. When the group first appears and have made no move to say who they are or what they intend there's no advantage in attacking them. Once they DO move they are attacking the goblin raiders so I know they are enemies of my enemies and will act accordingly. Cute ...
So you just transformed into Aradin now? O_o
Okey ... i guess ... there is little reason to talk about his perspective tho, bcs he have only 2h mace and can attack only those who are on Meele range ... but fine, have it your way:
How do you know wich goblin on that hill wants to kill you? :P
Feel free to replay the scene if you wish, or watch soem youtube video ... there is plenty of them. The one who did not arrive with the other goblins and is standing with a bunch of non-goblins is the one I wouldn't immediately try to kill. If you're asking how I don't get it confused with the attacking goblins once battle is joined and things get messy that isn't relevant to the discussion of choice. Killing the goblin under that condition is an accident. I feel like the rest of your post is just asking me the same question over and over again, which I feel I've addressed plenty already. tl;dr: I wouldn't attack a second group that just stood there watching the battle, as that turns them into an enemy regardless of what they intended to do. I also wouldn't attack the second group if I saw them attacking my enemy, as they are killing my enemy for me and that directly benefits me. If they make a hostile move toward my guys THAT is when I'll respond in kind, because at that point they have demonstrated their intent to do me harm.
Last edited by SaurianDruid; 29/01/23 07:07 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2013
|
Yeah, logically speaking, your not gonna attack the third group regardless of racial makeup when they are currently attacking your assailants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
I agree. In the worst case scenario, you'd be looking at dissent within the enmey ranks, which can only be good for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2022
|
Considering death is at every corner of Faerûn, I'd say judging someone by its appearance first would be more mandatory self-preservation than anything else. Not applying that would make you end like that dwarf roasting on a campfire in the goblin village.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
@NorthernHick ... Not so long as the second one, but also quite long. I don't largely disagree with you that there could stand to be better distrustful interactions. Exactly my point. (Though I don't agree that the rest of the group is obviously suspicious: if someone's meeting your party for the first time, the only person they'll obviously be suspicious of is Lae'zel. Yes, ALL the party members have dark sides, but the rest of them [vampirism, consorting with demons, Shar worship, and Gale's...um...condition] are 'reveals' that even the PC doesn't know about for a while. If we're talking about reactions based on initial appearances, people would actually see Elf, Half-Elf, Human, Human [Hey, it's the Blade of Frontiers!], and a Gith.) Nah, i can agree with this ... Im sory, but it was stated before aswell ... our Tav is made Blind, Deaf, Stupid and Ignorant all together, just for sake of story ... I do agree with Wyll and Gale ... kinda. - Gale indeed cant be seen, therefore he was mentioned in my example as THE ONLY potential member of your party who wouldnt raise any eyebrow, bcs at first sight, he is just regular human. - Wyll ... well, this one is harder, i mean he clearly uses Warlock spells, and in world where Warlocks *exists*, i would dare to say that this should be quite obvious ... one ofc can argue that people should have some Arcana education to reveal him, tho ... so even if not, its still not really relevant, bcs all examples used here was at Druids Grove, and you cant have Wyll in your party yet when your get there. - Shadowheart armor (aswell as her headband, and that weird thing she is wearing in her hair) is litteraly full of Shar symbols ... im sory, but this is one of examples where your character is made blind in order to keep "the secret". This problem was mentioned earlier ... there was even time where i was on the other side of baricade ... Fun part is that it would be easy to solve this: Shadowheart is a trickery cleric, trickery clerics have Disguise Self as allways prepared spell ... if Larian would simply made her using this magic to altern looks of her armor, it would solve the problem ... also it would be cool as fuck, if she would release the ilusion during that cinematic where she confess to her faith. - Astarion is problematic ... i can understand that people wouldnt believe that is even possible to see Vampire during daylight ... i mean, even that Gur didnt notice and he WAS hunting Vampire. Still, if you take under concideration his visage (blood red eyes, pale skin, fangs, and some markings on neck) ... he should be concidered at least ill ... and therefore potentialy dangerous, there was reason why lepers were not let inside the city in medieval times. Sure, one could argue wich of those marks would be vissible on that range, that much is true. - And Lae'zel is nobrainer, we agreed on her. And lets not forget, there is also option to have Custom party, to make this REALLY WILD. Where I do disagree is the suggestion that this requires a reinvention of the game. I dont really remember anyone requesting that. O_o On the contrary, i stated in this very topic that changes would be minimal and often would require almost no effort ... See? https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=842140#Post842140What Larian appears to be doing extraordinarily well (though the jury's still out on later-game impacts) is creating an 'evil' path for proceeding through the game, which is really rare to see done well. Agreed ... But as stated before, this is not the topic here. :-/ There is no problem in playing an Evil character, that belongs to EvilRACE ... well, yes there is, but not so huge since you still have options. Problem that we are talking about here is playing EvilRACE character, that is actually NOT Evil himself. You know like ... gee i dunno ... Drizzt Do'Urden? Would his book be interesting if litteraly nobody would recognize that he is a Drow? OR If they would simply state "usualy i dont trust your people, but you seem ok". xD Hint: Nope.it seems to me that your complaint is more in the nature of the NPC interactions Well ... yes, that seems corectly to you. That is the intention here. What im complaing about (at least here) is that NPCs dont recognize me as EvilRACE ... How carelessly and friendly are they welcoming a Drow/Duergar/Githyanki/Goblin/etc. in their shop ... How they are asking a Drow/Duergar/Githyanki/Goblin/etc. to save their skin ... How they are beging a Drow/Duergar/Githyanki/Goblin/etc. to speak for their child at the court ... How they are offering a Drow/Duergar/Githyanki/Goblin/etc. to "join their rightfull cause and help them punish this fiend" ... Its all just ridiculous! " Please mr. slaver, mass murderer, worshipper of Evil twisted Gods that brings only missery, pain and death ... help me cure my ill child." What? (As to Minthara using the PC as an infiltrator because the druids trust the PC...well, firstly, the 'trust' only really needs to be giving access, which isn't a high burden; and secondly, even if you were banned from the grove for some reason, add a couple lines of dialogue and a modest amount of code, and suddenly you're joining the goblin army outside the grove to attack it from the outside, for essentially the same battle but from a different position. Or, heck, it's not like the front gate is the only way into the grove...) EXACTLY MY POINT! I dont really mind that EvilRACES would be allowed to enter the Grove ... I just feel it should be conditioned somehow ... we should pass some Persuation check, or we should be requested to surrender our weapons (we still have others in our backpack probably, or we can just stash them there ... then guards would want to arest us, if we equip them) ... Small things like this make every playtrough unique and fun! Should it be harder for a Drow to earn trust in the grove? Sure. But meaningfully making that shift would mostly require a few things: Different dialogue; changing existing (if currently underutilized) game mechanics like reputation; and maybe some different minor side quests. My key point is that what you're asking for actually isn't all that big of an ask, in the overall scheme of the way Larian has approached this project. Again, exactly my point. Im glad we agree. --- @SaurianDruid ... its a long one: that is a part of the raiding group I take the liberty to read this as "the one that is closer" ... Since as it was stated multiple times before, you dont know who is or isnt "part of the raiding group". People just dont have signs "red health = enemy" and "green health = aly" abowe their heads. :-/ I would not waste it trying to hit the group that just showed up and are flanking the goblins attacking me. Well ... they showed simultaneously, at best few seconds difference ... Wich was also stated before ... And as stated before, on the same hill are another goblins who ( as we as players do, but our curent example character, that NPC Tiefling we are talking about now, dont know) actualy ARE part of "the raiding group attacking your comrades". I wonder why you keep ignoring crucial parts of default setting. :-/ Based on how the game presents it the player party is immediately hostile to the goblin raiders when they approach. As stated before, we are not talking about player party ... point of this topic is actions of NPCs towards our player party ... so who is or isnt hostile for player party is irellevant. -_- They aren't even in range of most of the defenders until they've moved closer to engage the raiders. Indeed? O_o I would swear that i was able to attack Zevlor (for sure i even killed him few times) from my original position ... but maybe i remember this wrong, or there was some changes then. And it'd be a fool who turned around to start attacking someone who just showed up and were attacking the people trying to kill them. I repeat again: 1) They appear at same time. 2) They didnt attak anyone yet. What is so hard about this concept? O_o Turns exists ... PC party is not first ... you (the NPC Tiefling) are first ... you see Goblins: 3 of them are on the ground, with some Bugbear, and one (or two?) Worgs ... 3 of them are on the hill, next to one of those on the hill also are Githyanki, clearly a Shar worshipper and some really weird looking Elf. This is your situation ... and i repeat (for like 6th time), you are first in turn order, no shots were fired, no hostility was stated, nobody expresed any aeligance to anyone else. Comprende? You decided to attack Goblin that is close to Aradin ... that is fine, its your decision ... you say you would be a fool to attack someone else ... Well ... next turn one of those Goblins on the hill casts Witch Bolt on Aradin and kills him (lets say it was crit) ... still feeling smart? O_o I mean ... you can, after all you cant kill everyone and one of enemies would attack him anyway, this is just tough luck ... but ... i wouldnt. And yes, i purposefully didnt say wich one attacked him. Wanna know why? Bcs it dont freaking matter! Even if it would be our GoblinTav, game still dont recognize it ... that is btw, another problem im complaining about ... but lets stay focused on first thing first. I'm sorry, but I can't imagine a scenario where I'd want to kill someone killing my enemies purely based on how they look. Thats bcs you dont listen ... for 7th time (yes, i will be counting it from now on) ... nobody killed, nor attacked anyone yet. As long as you keep adding your own valuables, you change scenario ... as long as you keep changing scenario, you dont work with default one ... and therefore, logicaly, you can understand it. Right now i only wonder if you even realize it, or do it on purpose. And yes, you have to decide "purely on how they look" ... bcs that is all info you have. If I turn around and attack them immediately I risk being overrun by two forces simultaneously for no reason. Sigh ... How do you know they are two forces? ( Hint: You dont!) You can indeed presume they are not together based on his followers ... i can accept that. Presuming our PC followers seems trustworthy (meaning only Gale ... maaaaaaaaaaaybe Astarion, if we really want to be nice) ... And presuming our PC even have any followers in the first place. But lets put theese conditions aside, stated example was Lae'zel, Astarion, Shadowheart and GoblinTav ... lets stick to that. As for when to confirm their intentions? The very second they make a hostile action they reveal their intentions. See this is what im talking about, you again are changing parameters. (Gods im glad we are not working together, we would drive each other to madness. :D) For 8th time ... no intentions were revealed, you are F-I-R-S-T in order ... And you have to decide NOW ... that is how things work in this game. Anything that happens after you END your turn, is irellevant for THIS example, bcs then situation will change. Frankly if I am in the position of Zevlor I don't care too much if these people ARE an evil adventuring group. They just killed my enemies and seem willing to keep killing them. Wich is once aggain completely different situation, but if you want to talk about this aswell ... Yes, some gratiture makes sense ... On the other hand tho, universal friendly welcome from whole grove seems a bit extreme ... We are clearly different people, but if i would be in the position of Zevlor, i would still require some ensurances from them ... as also stated abowe, things like surendering your weapons, warning that guards will keep extra eye on them, and only if they promise to behave and will seem thrustworthy (persuation check) ... i would be willing to allow them to enter. Its called being carefull. I don't have any good options left because the druids have gone crazy and the last group of adventurers I hired ended up unable to get the job done. I dont know what group of adventurers you are talking about. What should I do? Attack my last chance to maybe save my people because they look suspicious? Depends on wich scenario are we talking about. The one i presented? They just appeared on the hill? Then yes, you should attack them ... bcs at that point they are not last chance for your people. Or the one you keep replacing it with? They attacked another Goblin? Then no, you should not attack them ... enemy of my enemy is, well at least usefull tool ... you should still be carefull tho, politely and carefully explain to them your situation, ask them to submit your conditions, and only(!!!) if they show they are willing to help, try to push it even futher. You do not make an enemy of a bystander Its getting old allready, doenst it? -_- Sigh ... Okey, how do you know they are "a bystander"? ( Hint: You dont!) Option B will almost definitely get your people killed, while option A only might based on an assumption of the second group's intentions. That seems like overstatement ... Are you taking under concideration relative damage potential difference between Fighter with 1h ... and Wizard? Not to mention that the second group is on the other side of the raiders. Your melee guys will be getting shredded without cover fire while you try to snipe across the map at people who may have no cause to attack you. I dont see what are you trying to say here. O_o Plus the way the fight is set up to take the hill they need to have already started attacking a few of the raider goblins, so you immediately know they aren't on Team Absolute. What? O_o Why would they need to attack anyone to start on the hill? o_O You can start there quite easily. When the group first appears and have made no move to say who they are or what they intend Exactly. there's no advantage in attacking them. True ... Except disabling potentialy hostile caster that can cause much more problems than some lowly, rusty-scimitar wawing Goblins. Once they DO move they are attacking the goblin raiders so I know they are enemies of my enemies and will act accordingly. You mean IF they attack Goblin raiders ... See? You still are taking aeliganges under concideration. :-/ The one who did not arrive with the other goblins and is standing with a bunch of non-goblins is the one I wouldn't immediately try to kill. Okey. I gues everyone should have right to make his own misstakes. If you're asking how I don't get it confused with the attacking goblins once battle is joined and things get messy Eh ... nope, that was not my question. tl;dr: I wouldn't attack a second group that just stood there watching the battle, as that turns them into an enemy regardless of what they intended to do. I also wouldn't attack the second group if I saw them attacking my enemy, as they are killing my enemy for me and that directly benefits me. If they make a hostile move toward my guys THAT is when I'll respond in kind, because at that point they have demonstrated their intent to do me harm. Aaaand that was not my question either. But i gues thats the best i get. :-/
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 29/01/23 12:40 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Yeah, logically speaking, your not gonna attack the third group regardless of racial makeup when they are currently attacking your assailants. You make same misstake as SaurianDruid ... You dont know who is member of third group, nor if there even is another group to begin with. :-/ That is metagaming. Wich is prefectly fine if that is the way you want to play, no complains about that from me. But it shouldnt be the way the game is written! And that is my point! Gezz ... people you are forcing me to instal Goblin mod and start antoher game just to present the situation properly. :-/ I agree. In the worst case scenario, you'd be looking at dissent within the enmey ranks, which can only be good for you. I would say in "worst case scenario" you, and all your friends are dead. O_o And PC party is looting your corpses. Can you elaborate futher? Considering death is at every corner of Faerûn, I'd say judging someone by its appearance first would be more mandatory self-preservation than anything else. Not applying that would make you end like that dwarf roasting on a campfire in the goblin village. Thank you! At least someone gets it.
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 29/01/23 12:50 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
I agree. In the worst case scenario, you'd be looking at dissent within the enmey ranks, which can only be good for you. I would say in "worst case scenario" you, and all your friends are dead. O_o And PC party is looting your corpses. Can you elaborate futher? Worst case scenario probably was the wrong term to use, sorry. What I meant was that, assuming a tiefling guard at the wall noticed that there was another group fighting the raiders, then even if you're pessimistic and assume they're part of the same group as the raiders, I think the smart thing would be to leave that group to last because A, they're farther away and probably harder to hit anyway and more importantly B. if the enemy is busy killing each other, there's less of them to kill your people. It's just better tactically to let any in-fighting go on for as long as possible to thin out the herd. Of course there's a possibility that they just don't notice in the scuffle, but this is a story, not real life. I think "the teiflings attack you along with the raiders and you either die or flee with no opportunity to interact with the grove at all" is just the less interesting possibility that could happen. It might arguably be more realistic, but I'm of the opinion that realism should only be implemented when it makes a story more interesting. In game of thrones, realistically most characters should probably die of infection and disease, especially if they get cut. Most children in fantasy stories shouldn't make it past childhood, even in noble families. In real life, stuff just happens randomly and it's not in any way satisfying or interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
A, they're farther away and probably harder to hit anyway That would be a good argument. But i cant help but wonder, if you apply it to every spellcaster in game ... do you often kill the most distant target last? O_o I admit freely, that i tend to kill them ASAP ... and more importantly B. if the enemy is busy killing each other, there's less of them to kill your people. And here i presume you joined others, who are talking about situation, where action of PC clearly states that their main target are other Goblins, rather than Aradin and your friends? No argues there ... except its not really relevant for the point. :-/ It's just better tactically to let any in-fighting go on for as long as possible to thin out the herd. Indeed ... As long as our troops are not in the middle of that fight, and if every participant maked it clear on wich side he stands ... neither is our case (at the beginning of the fight). I mean, dont be too focused on my example with Tiefling archer, its just something i (foolishly) hoped helps you understand my point better ... clearly i didnt ilustrate it as well as i hoped. :-/ It didnt work ... i give up with it. But think futher ... everything that AI does, it does based on if you are Friend or Foe ... and that is set in stone and nothing can change it (that is core of my complain). You attack Aradin > Aradin heals you. (Throw a potion at you.) You are a Goblin (forget who is with you, its perfectly possible to get here solo, or just separated from your group that gets there from different side) > Aradin heals you. You are a Goblin > Other Goblins attack you. That is the problem i was talking about! "the teiflings attack you along with the raiders and you either die or flee with no opportunity to interact with the grove at all" is just the less interesting possibility that could happen. Well, just that we are able to create worse bullshit, doesnt mean that whatever we have is pure gold ... does it? What i imagine as perfect scenario would be: There is some kind of reputation you have from NPCs ... If i remember corectly it have 4 stages ... its shows by every merchant. 1 Green - NPCs are actively helping you, trying to avoid you while using AoE effects, healing you, etc. 2 Yellow - NPCs dont attack you directly, still trying to avoid you while using AoE, but no longer heal you. 3 Orange - NPCs dont attack you directly, but dont care if you get hit with their AoE, no longer heal you. 4 Red - NPCs are hostile towards you. You start exactly between 2 and 3 at the battle of the groove. You attack goblin > get small amount of possitive rep. You kill goblin > get big amount of possitive rep. You attack friendly creature with an AoE > you get small amount of negative rep. You attack friendly creature directly > you get HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE amount of negative rep. (I wouldnt even mind if it would send you 1 layer lover ... 1 > 2 > 3 > 4) You kill friendly creature > Straight on 4. (Yes, it would suck to accientaly ruin all your reputation with single poorly aimed Fireball ... i get it ... but i would say aim thoroughly) After the battle is gone, depending on your final reputation Zevlor would either: - greet you as a Friend (as he does now, that is 1 and 2) ... - or he would ask you to surrender your weapons and warn you that you will be arested if you will be seen with any (3 ... after all, you just helped them at least) ... - or simply keep attacking you until you either kill them all, or die (4 ... i mean, its hostile, isnt it? ) Evil races would start with lower rep. (for example mid 3 rather than between 2 and 3) so it represents that NPCs dont trust them ... Meaning our Goblin (even tho its still kinda weird, but at least acceptable for me) wouldnt be imediately attacked by whole grove ... but if there will be option to hit him aswell as other Goblins, nobody would think twice about it! And that would be awesome. I'm of the opinion that realism should only be implemented when it makes a story more interesting. My whole goal in this topic is to present how this game could be more interesting. To me, play a Drow/Duergar/Half-Orc/Githyanki/Goblin/etc. and not being recognized as such ... is not interesting. :-/ Its boring actualy.
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 29/01/23 03:16 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Sep 2022
|
In a setting like FR you'd have to be careful making judgments based only on appearances.
Weak goblins could be warlocks, a stupid ogre could have exceptional intelligence, a massive spider could've been a spellcaster (hoping she gets cleric spells in release).
Otoh, being naive around feral goblins could end up you being in a pot. You'd have to pay attention to appearances too!
To survive, you'd really need to be part of a community that knows each other well, sticks together, and are suspicious of outsiders. And have fortified walls - or be hidden away. Thus the various factions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2013
|
Isolationism is all well and good until a Dragon or something attacks you and you have no one to call on for aid. As a Whole, Isolationism is a temporary measure at best and doesn't work long term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
A, they're farther away and probably harder to hit anyway That would be a good argument. But i cant help but wonder, if you apply it to every spellcaster in game ... do you often kill the most distant target last? O_o I admit freely, that i tend to kill them ASAP ... and more importantly B. if the enemy is busy killing each other, there's less of them to kill your people. And here i presume you joined others, who are talking about situation, where action of PC clearly states that their main target are other Goblins, rather than Aradin and your friends? No argues there ... except its not really relevant for the point. :-/ It's just better tactically to let any in-fighting go on for as long as possible to thin out the herd. Indeed ... As long as our troops are not in the middle of that fight, and if every participant maked it clear on wich side he stands ... neither is our case (at the beginning of the fight). I mean, dont be too focused on my example with Tiefling archer, its just something i (foolishly) hoped helps you understand my point better ... clearly i didnt ilustrate it as well as i hoped. :-/ It didnt work ... i give up with it. But think futher ... everything that AI does, it does based on if you are Friend or Foe ... and that is set in stone and nothing can change it (that is core of my complain). You attack Aradin > Aradin heals you. (Throw a potion at you.) You are a Goblin (forget who is with you, its perfectly possible to get here solo, or just separated from your group that gets there from different side) > Aradin heals you. You are a Goblin > Other Goblins attack you. That is the problem i was talking about! "the teiflings attack you along with the raiders and you either die or flee with no opportunity to interact with the grove at all" is just the less interesting possibility that could happen. Well, just that we are able to create worse bullshit, doesnt mean that whatever we have is pure gold ... does it? What i imagine as perfect scenario would be: There is some kind of reputation you have from NPCs ... If i remember corectly it have 4 stages ... its shows by every merchant. 1 Green - NPCs are actively helping you, trying to avoid you while using AoE effects, healing you, etc. 2 Yellow - NPCs dont attack you directly, still trying to avoid you while using AoE, but no longer heal you. 3 Orange - NPCs dont attack you directly, but dont care if you get hit with their AoE, no longer heal you. 4 Red - NPCs are hostile towards you. You start exactly between 2 and 3 at the battle of the groove. You attack goblin > get small amount of possitive rep. You kill goblin > get big amount of possitive rep. You attack friendly creature with an AoE > you get small amount of negative rep. You attack friendly creature directly > you get HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE amount of negative rep. (I wouldnt even mind if it would send you 1 layer lover ... 1 > 2 > 3 > 4) You kill friendly creature > Straight on 4. (Yes, it would suck to accientaly ruin all your reputation with single poorly aimed Fireball ... i get it ... but i would say aim thoroughly) After the battle is gone, depending on your final reputation Zevlor would either: - greet you as a Friend (as he does now, that is 1 and 2) ... - or he would ask you to surrender your weapons and warn you that you will be arested if you will be seen with any (3 ... after all, you just helped them at least) ... - or simply keep attacking you until you either kill them all, or die (4 ... i mean, its hostile, isnt it? ) Evil races would start with lower rep. (for example mid 3 rather than between 2 and 3) so it represents that NPCs dont trust them ... Meaning our Goblin (even tho its still kinda weird, but at least acceptable for me) wouldnt be imediately attacked by whole grove ... but if there will be option to hit him aswell as other Goblins, nobody would think twice about it! And that would be awesome. I'm of the opinion that realism should only be implemented when it makes a story more interesting. My whole goal in this topic is to present how this game could be more interesting. To me, play a Drow/Duergar/Half-Orc/Githyanki/Goblin/etc. and not being recognized as such ... is not interesting. :-/ Its boring actualy. Yes, please. That would be awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2013
|
I am so confused by the that post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I am so confused by the that post. Confused how? If i understand correctly, Rag suggested to make more actions actually affect relations, especially when it comes to combat. Right now friendly units stay friendly, no matter what you do. If you openly attack and kill Aradins companions, it changes nothing in his behavior. When entering the grove fight, Aradin and the Tieflings should be "yellow" not green. If you attack the Goblins you get Rep with the grove -> they become friendly If you attack Aradin they get red and fight you. You are just a group of people that arrived at the same time as the goblins. Why would they think you are friendly right away? Especially if you have a Drow(for example) and a Gith with you. In a lot of cases our actions do not matter. Thats sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
And now i see i didnt mention that rep. should go both ways ... If we keep killing defenders, Goblins should recognize us as alies ... I have no problem with them turning on us afterwards, there is nothing as good as well written betrayal. :3 But IF (and that alone is huge if, i admit that) Larian would actualy use this reputation system ... there would be no reason to not apply it to everyone! Sure, it would open possibility for really weird scenario, where our character would kill friend > foe > friend > foe > ... In order to keep ballancing who is friendly and not being attacked by anyone. Sounds ridiculous, but i bet some crazy youtuber would do that. --- Also ... Thinking about it even futher ... in REALLY perfect world, things like this should be evaluated for each party member respectively ... As i said, there is no way for Grove defenders to know if Tav and Lae'zel are alies or not ... also, since by the time we reach Grove, they often spend hardly more than few seconds and single conversation with each other, i would even say that even they dont know the answer for this yet. But lets keep things smaller, rather than biger ... for now.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
