Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 19 20
Joined: Oct 2020
Eddiar Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Califax
The way I see it, the essence of evil is self interest above all. I see an evil character as one driven by greed, who lusts for power, one who'll take what they want even at the expense of others. When faced with a decision or a quest, an evil character doesn't ask "How can I be as big of a dick as possible?", they ask "How will this benefit me?".

So in other words I agree - there should be more incentive to be evil. In fact, I'd go further: there should be more incentive to be evil than good. Playing evil should be easy mode, they should get more loot, better gear, and positions of power. You don't choose to be evil for evil's sake; You are tempted by it, because evil means you get to live deliciously. You can have anything you want... all it costs is your soul.

Being good, on the other hand, is more often than not a thankless job. Good characters are selfless and self-sacrificing. Sometimes this means putting themselves in harm's way to protect the weak. Sometimes this means giving up what they want for the benefit of others. I think this is needed in order for the heroism to feel real. After all, if there is no downside to altruism, then why would I ever act any other way? Certainly not just for evil's sake, I don't like being unlikeable.

Evil or Good shouldn't be a choice you make at the beginning of a playthrough. It should be the angel and devil on your shoulder, always there, nagging you in every moral choice to do what's right, or take what you want.



Very well said.
Just to build on this further.

Perhaps at the very end there is an event where all the people you helped can help you.
If you were a selfish evil character who only acted on their own behalf would stand alone. Your evil companions would probably abandon you... why should they risk themselves for your benefit?

But if you were good then you made friends. Friends that will stand by you. And face the final boss united.

I am not saying this should happen but just brainstorming an idea that all the player's decisions culminating in one final event where you know the real consequences of your action.

Joined: Oct 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
Originally Posted by Nyanko
The main issue I have about the evil path is the fact the goblins turn against you once you helped Minthara destroy the grove. You should be viewed as their champion rather. And yes, at least, give us Minthara as companion.

Another issue is with the hag. If you are so evil, there should be a way to conclude a pact with her of some sort so she can provide help later on in the campaign. I would love to get some redcaps reinforcements like the 3 ogres provide.

Of course, there should be some betrayal between evil characters. But it's too much in our face at the moment.



I liked it, sort of.

I didn't like that there's no good "path to evil" path. No one ever tempts you into the evil path.
But I like that the Goblins turn on you. It shows how there's an inner core and "useful idiots", and in order to keep the Goblins in line they claimed to them that you are the "useful idiot"

I agree Minthara should be a possible party character, and I think she might become one. (Reason: Only NPC that becomes naked when you loot her)
I hope she becomes a Paladin though, would suit her more than cleric.

But yeah, I like the dark path. I like leaning into the tadpole, and just doing whatever.

One thing to remember: Evil doesn't mean "side with all the evil people", in fact it's very opposite. Evil is generally defined by how self serving, "easy way out". I don't need to side with the Hag. The hag is evil yes, but I'm the only evil in town! To me the evil part is to take the wand at the end.


I would agree if it wasn't D&D. In D&D, alignment is so straightforward and limited that only evil characters may associate with each other. One of the reasons is the fact there are some spells like "Detect evil' or "Protection against evil", which means evil is more a faction than a moral compass.

I'm so glad we lost alignments in this game


See, I'm in the Pathfinder wrath of the righteous alpha, after playing the evil route in it. I disagree. Alignments provide a framework, it also helps the writers remember there are various forms of evil rather than being a teenage murder hobo. For some reason, the game with alignments and where it's a common complaint that it's restrictive, has for more nuanced decisions and ways to roleplay an evil/good character than the game that got rid it by WOTC's order.

Larian wanted alignments, WOTC said no. The whole point of getting rid of them was the complaint that it's too restrictive, yet in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.

Last edited by Mozhad; 26/10/20 02:41 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
You have any official info on WOTC saying no to alignments?

Edit: except the reduction in its importance in 5e

Last edited by malks; 26/10/20 04:12 PM. Reason: Exception
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Mozhad


See, I'm in the Pathfinder wrath of the righteous alpha, after playing the evil route in it. I disagree. Alignments provide a framework, it also helps the writers remember there are various forms of evil rather than being a teenage murder hobo. For some reason, the game with alignments and where it's a common complaint that it's restrictive, has for more nuanced decisions and ways to roleplay an evil/good character than the game that got rid it by WOTC's order.

Larian wanted alignments, WOTC said no. The whole point of getting rid of them was the complaint that it's too restrictive, yet in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.

I don't see how alignment has anything to do with it. It's just a matter of how good of a writer are you.


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Mozhad


See, I'm in the Pathfinder wrath of the righteous alpha, after playing the evil route in it. I disagree. Alignments provide a framework, it also helps the writers remember there are various forms of evil rather than being a teenage murder hobo. For some reason, the game with alignments and where it's a common complaint that it's restrictive, has for more nuanced decisions and ways to roleplay an evil/good character than the game that got rid it by WOTC's order.

Larian wanted alignments, WOTC said no. The whole point of getting rid of them was the complaint that it's too restrictive, yet in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.

I don't see how alignment has anything to do with it. It's just a matter of how good of a writer are you.


If anything the Pathfinder alignment system forces writers to come up with stereotypical things an aligned character must say, PF:K is full of these for instance. Forcing players into predetermined tropes and in PF:K's case even going so far as to change your alignment if you are too good or evil is very restrictive.

That being said, yes; the current evil path is like this because it is so pointless. People do it out of obligation to the goal of this EA or for drow boobies now. An alignment system would not solve that and racial / class / religious dialogue is far preferable to it but some kind of morality compass needs to be there, especially for pragmatists. When the Gith creche is released this could be an interesting "evil" choice, to just forego the central conflict of Act 1 and go your own way. So long as there is no "you left the refugees to their fate and both sides died because of your apathy" ending slide later.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Mozhad


See, I'm in the Pathfinder wrath of the righteous alpha, after playing the evil route in it. I disagree. Alignments provide a framework, it also helps the writers remember there are various forms of evil rather than being a teenage murder hobo. For some reason, the game with alignments and where it's a common complaint that it's restrictive, has for more nuanced decisions and ways to roleplay an evil/good character than the game that got rid it by WOTC's order.

Larian wanted alignments, WOTC said no. The whole point of getting rid of them was the complaint that it's too restrictive, yet in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.

I don't see how alignment has anything to do with it. It's just a matter of how good of a writer are you.


If anything the Pathfinder alignment system forces writers to come up with stereotypical things an aligned character must say, PF:K is full of these for instance. Forcing players into predetermined tropes and in PF:K's case even going so far as to change your alignment if you are too good or evil is very restrictive.

That being said, yes; the current evil path is like this because it is so pointless. People do it out of obligation to the goal of this EA or for drow boobies now. An alignment system would not solve that and racial / class / religious dialogue is far preferable to it but some kind of morality compass needs to be there, especially for pragmatists. When the Gith creche is released this could be an interesting "evil" choice, to just forego the central conflict of Act 1 and go your own way. So long as there is no "you left the refugees to their fate and both sides died because of your apathy" ending slide later.

I moded it out. Much more fun experience.


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
T
stranger
Offline
stranger
T
Joined: Oct 2020
+1

Joined: Oct 2020
M
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
M
Joined: Oct 2020
In short, evil path needs A LOT of work. I made a very long post about it but nobody reads it because it's a very long post. smile Here's the link if someone else wants to read https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=716608#Post716608
TLDR version is that you can roleplay only a "stupid evil" alignment or a murder hobo at this point of EA.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
Originally Posted by Maerd
In short, evil path needs A LOT of work. I made a very long post about it but nobody reads it because it's a very long post. smile Here's the link if someone else wants to read https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=716608#Post716608
TLDR version is that you can roleplay only a "stupid evil" alignment or a murder hobo at this point of EA.


Good thread, you should send your feedback to Larian through the official form so they can process it. One thing I would like to point out is that Tyranny has a fear and loyalty system for companions that works like what you suggest. Instead of approval and disapproval you build up two independent meters that interact with each other. You can even get companions to stay with you out of fear in Tyranny.

Joined: Oct 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Mozhad


See, I'm in the Pathfinder wrath of the righteous alpha, after playing the evil route in it. I disagree. Alignments provide a framework, it also helps the writers remember there are various forms of evil rather than being a teenage murder hobo. For some reason, the game with alignments and where it's a common complaint that it's restrictive, has for more nuanced decisions and ways to roleplay an evil/good character than the game that got rid it by WOTC's order.

Larian wanted alignments, WOTC said no. The whole point of getting rid of them was the complaint that it's too restrictive, yet in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.

I don't see how alignment has anything to do with it. It's just a matter of how good of a writer are you.


Then Larian are pretty bad writers if this is what they come up with since they are free from the "restrictive" framework. Alignments in my opinion would of made the writers stop and think, "Would a lawful evil or neutral evil character go on a murder spree just because and for the sake of drow boobs?"

Anyway, I can see we would agree to disagree. I don't want to derail the topic.

Last edited by Mozhad; 26/10/20 05:30 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Mozhad
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Mozhad


See, I'm in the Pathfinder wrath of the righteous alpha, after playing the evil route in it. I disagree. Alignments provide a framework, it also helps the writers remember there are various forms of evil rather than being a teenage murder hobo. For some reason, the game with alignments and where it's a common complaint that it's restrictive, has for more nuanced decisions and ways to roleplay an evil/good character than the game that got rid it by WOTC's order.

Larian wanted alignments, WOTC said no. The whole point of getting rid of them was the complaint that it's too restrictive, yet in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.

I don't see how alignment has anything to do with it. It's just a matter of how good of a writer are you.


Then Larian are pretty bad writers if this is what they come up with since they are free from the "restrictive" framework. Alignments in my opinion would of made the writers stop and think, "Would a lawful evil or neutral evil character go on a murder spree just because and for the sake of drow boobs?"

Anyway, I can see we would agree to disagree. I don't want to derail the topic.


You are the one who is supposed too ask him/herself why your lawful evil or neutral evil character is going on a murder spree. That is what role-playing is: making decisions in-character.

You don't want to do it, then don't do it and pick another path. You can even ignore the quest if you don't want to deal with it.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
Originally Posted by azarhal

You are the one who is supposed too ask him/herself why your lawful evil or neutral evil character is going on a murder spree. That is what role-playing is: making decisions in-character.

You don't want to do it, then don't do it and pick another path. You can even ignore the quest if you don't want to deal with it.


Doesn't that mean that for non-chaotic evil characters there is no path other than the good path right now? Larian seems to have specified the two paths as "good" and "evil" so surely there should be some room for nuance here.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Yep alignments have absolutely nothing to do with story quality. I don't see how removing the alignment system from BG would change the story (perhaps you would need to find some alternative system for companions but that's it). To think otherwise is not giving the writers enough credit imo


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by azarhal

You are the one who is supposed too ask him/herself why your lawful evil or neutral evil character is going on a murder spree. That is what role-playing is: making decisions in-character.

You don't want to do it, then don't do it and pick another path. You can even ignore the quest if you don't want to deal with it.


Doesn't that mean that for non-chaotic evil characters there is no path other than the good path right now? Larian seems to have specified the two paths as "good" and "evil" so surely there should be some room for nuance here.

For some reason some people are against naunce. Anyway, the writers are aware that the evil route needs far more development. Kevin outright said it on stream. So Azarhal is clearly the minority in this case considering all the threads across the forum and reddit about how poor the route is.

I stand by my opinion that the evil route only appeals to people who enjoy a basic murder spree and drow sex. I have seen little that would make me change my opinion.

Last edited by Mozhad; 26/10/20 06:59 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
Originally Posted by Mozhad

For some reason some people are against naunce. Anyway, the writers are aware that the evil route needs far more development. Kevin outright said it on stream. So Azarhal is clearly the minority in this case considering all the threads across the forum and reddit about how poor the route is.

I stand by my opinion that the evil route only appeals to people who enjoy basic murder spree and drow sex. I have seen little that would make me change my opinion.


No disagreement from me there, then. My main worry is that there is no bandaid fix for this path and that is reveals a weakness in the overall plot of BG3 Larian cannot fix without letting players experience the whole thing start to finish. DOS2 has this problem too. They could make the same mistake here and we would be left with a highly polished Act 1 that then falls apart when you go to Act 2.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
It's practically a fact now. I'm sure there are people who genuinely like this route, but I'd your are a little critical you can sea the cracks everywhere


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
The current path can be an option, should be.

What bothers people is that there aren't nuances to the evil path. It's simply chaotic evil.

I think Larian should take these suggestions into account, not all evil is a murder hobo evil.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by malks
The current path can be an option, should be.

What bothers people is that there aren't nuances to the evil path. It's simply chaotic evil.

I think Larian should take these suggestions into account, not all evil is a murder hobo evil.

I agree with that. It feels like the very first draft of a script.


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
M
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Maerd
In short, evil path needs A LOT of work. I made a very long post about it but nobody reads it because it's a very long post. smile Here's the link if someone else wants to read https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=716608#Post716608
TLDR version is that you can roleplay only a "stupid evil" alignment or a murder hobo at this point of EA.


Good thread, you should send your feedback to Larian through the official form so they can process it. One thing I would like to point out is that Tyranny has a fear and loyalty system for companions that works like what you suggest. Instead of approval and disapproval you build up two independent meters that interact with each other. You can even get companions to stay with you out of fear in Tyranny.

I've sent my feedback to Larian directly too, of course. I hope they actually bother to read it.

Regarding Tyranny, I'm not very fond of how it was implemented because you cannot fail in keeping your companions together. If you treat them badly then their "fear" grow, if kindly then their "loyalty" grow. They stay with you in any case. I actually liked PoE 2 dynamics with characters, where besides your own reputation they had reputation towards each other and a whole bunch of different moral values. And no matter of your reputation, certain actions cause your companions to leave or even become hostile.

Last edited by Maerd; 26/10/20 07:43 PM. Reason: spelling fix
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
Originally Posted by Maerd

Regarding Tyranny, I'm not very fond of how it was implemented because you cannot fail in keeping your companions together. If you treat them badly then their "fear" grow, if kindly then their "loyalty" grow. They stay with you in any case. I actually liked PoE 2 dynamics with characters, where besides your own reputation they had reputation towards each other and a whole bunch of different moral values. And no matter of your reputation, certain actions cause your companions leave of even become hostile.


That is understandable, while I would argue that losing companions is not fun and that Tyranny did tie consequences to you tying people to you through fear (often leading to a bad ending for the companion) it had the setting tailored around it to make it work. BGIII does not have this luxury at the moment, especially if Larian goes through with party commitment after Act 1. As a matter of fact, I think you will no longer be able to lose companions after Act 1 in BGIII also, considering you lose a bunch of them no matter what.

Page 3 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 19 20

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5