Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 60 of 76 1 2 58 59 60 61 62 75 76
Joined: Oct 2020
D
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by dwig
Originally Posted by Sozz
There's nothing wrong with an alignment system, it just doesn't mesh well when you gamify it.

I dislike it because it doesn't map on to the way real humans think, act, and feel.
It doesn't need to, because it's in a fictional fantasy world. It's part of the game system, and just like any other part of the game's system you learn how it works and then play within that system.

Exactly.

Hit points don't make any sense either but people don't expect them to map onto real world experiences.

"No, no, I see why you're worried -- I've got this dagger stuck in my neck and I just lost two ribs to that last mace strike -- but I'm good for another few hours. Don't worry! A good night's sleep and I'll be a right as rain, you'll see, happens all the time."

Which makes some plot points kinda absurd but you just suspend disbelief. "Hey Aenevia? I know you broke your leg in the fall and that's why you can't join our party but we've found about 120 healing potions and this wand, maybe you could try one of those?"

For al the problems with the implementation of the alignment system -- and I agree it's flawed -- I'm happy to be playing a game where alignment matters. In BG3 I wonder if Lathander is ever going to get upset with my good priest for spending her nights with a chaotic evil undead thief.


Sure, you need "game systems" in a game. Hit points aren't particularly realistic, but they do allow you to play a game without a full (and probably overly complicated) simulation of the human body and its various reactions to trauma. I am fine with this because hit points generally get the messy details out of the way and let me play the game.

The problem with alignment is that it DOESN"T get the messy details out of the way. Rather, it forces the writers to pigeonhole every NPC into a daft framework that doesn't really have any payoff anywhere. Instead of debating character X's motivations at various plot points we are stuck with insipid arguments about whether or not they followed their alignment properly.

Better to scrap the whole thing and just write actual reactions that fit the situation and the characters that are being written. I am glad that 5e has done this.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Online Content
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
I've never been a fan of closing certain classes for some alignment, especially since it didn't always make sense and was terribly restrictive.
Why can a paladin only be lawful good? Why couldn't any evil or chaotic god have his own paladins?
It always seemed extremely stupid to me.

Especially in the older DnD games, this often led to some rather strange combinations. Probably the most extreme example will be Nathyrra from HotU who was assigned lawful evil due to gameplay, despite the fact that the whole character was more chaotic / neutral good.

The same problem could be found in the new pathfinder.
Seelah is probably the most visible example, all her behavior is neutral good, yet she somehow manages to maintain her powers which is impossible for the player character.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
@dwig

So many alls and everys in that post wink I don't think alignment pigeonholes every or all interaction. And it makes an entire style of play possible. Otherwise are just playing a "fantasy" game with contemporary morality. Why is it okay to kill your enemies? The alignment system gives us and answer, contemporary morality doesn't. Or at least one I don't want to contemplate.

@rhobar

I think you make a good point about the implementation of the rules but bad implementation doesn't mean the rules are bad anymore than bad a bad RPG game means RPG games are bad. Now, yes, confusingly the game doesn't have many Lawful Good options. More often than not the "good" option is neutral good which I'm guess is just a dumb coding issue. They should be (null) good.

But I think some of the lawful choices should be a bit a struggle to choose to roleplay a medieval fantasy game. After all there are probably very few true monarchists here and if you are playing good knight, faithful to the good gods and the queen, you are roleplaying a set of beliefs that you don't yourself accept.

I think Seela is abusing those atonement scrolls wink Which she admits towards the end. There are few times where she comes down as typical paladin on Ember when Ember is talking about how the gods don't care about us. I liked those interactions and those interactions were only made possible by an alignment grid smile

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
I sometimes wonder, if the Paladin class had never been invented to so specifically test the limits of Law and Good, by "Falling" and losing their abilities, whether people might have a more favorable impression of alignment as a concept in general?

Curious aside from etymonline

"paladin (n.)
1590s, in reference to the medieval romance cycle, "one of the twelve knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne and accompanying him to war," from French paladin "a warrior" (16c.), from Italian paladino, from Latin palatinus "palace official;" noun use of palatinus "of the palace" (see palace).

The Old French form of the word was palaisin (which gave Middle English palasin, c. 1400); the Italian form prevailed because, though the matter was French, most of the poets who wrote the romances were Italians. Extended sense of "a heroic champion" is by 1788."

How we get from those latter day pretorians, to these D&D cops with a religious zealotry bent via Greyhawk is a bit awkward. Not least because they were such a crazy OP high roll character type, with such obnoxious world views and built-in charlatanisms and hypocrisies, that you had to maintain.

My college roomate once gave me grief for playing as a Druid in D&D, saying something along the lines of "wouldn't you rather play something cool, like a Paladin?" and my response was basically nope, and also fuck that, cause I find everything about Paladins inherently pretty lame lol. Seelah might be the first Paladin ever in a crpg that I haven't immediately ditched or dispatched just for comic relief. So I guess that might say something, though I'm not sure what exactly, mostly in jest. But yeah, I blame the Paladin for kinda tanking an otherwise interesting attempt to bring philosophy and ethics into the game system.

Also before the Paladins start piling on me here, I mainly poke fun at them because there were only 2 classes in AD&D that had a specific Alignment requirement on both Axes, Paladin's and Druids, and of the two I think Lawful Good Paladins taxed the overall alignment conception way harder. Whereas True Neutral was more amorphous and abstract (butting up as it does against every other alignment, right in the middle), Lawful Good represented an extreme in the far corner. All the other Alignment restricted Classes had a bit of flexibility along one dimension or the other. The Paladin strikes me as the archetypally judgmental and self righteously conformist individual, whereas the Druid was basically the antithesis of that (even moreso than say a Lawful Evil Blackguard, or Chaotic Evil thief might be). The one is judge and jury, totally blessed while still hacking everything apart like a contradiction waiting to happen, the other reserves judgement and likes nature and animals, so that tells me everything I need to know heheh. It always annoyed me that in earlier editions they both had Wisdom as a principle attribute. I think Paladins should have had a Wisdom malus instead, since they just don't seem to be very wise to me at all lol.

I've played a couple Paladins in my day, and whenever I did I'd usually take the heavy hit on INT, just to justify it in my head. I tended to favor Law as the dominant concept there - unwavering loyalty to whichever deity or princeps they served. I think Paladins should have been designed like 2e Rangers. Rangers could be any Alignment that included Good. Paladins should have been the inverse Axis version of that, so Paladins being any Alignment that included Law. I think that would have been a much more consistent and adaptive concept, and could have serviced more deities or basic types, while giving more distinction between them and the other martial classes. Contrast also with the Barbarian class, which was like that too, any alignment that included Chaotic. I suppose people who prefer Paladins like to indulge the idea of playing a Charlemagne or Arthur, Solomon or Muad'dib, like a Warrior-Priest King exuding Charisma and dripping with Divine Grace from every pore, but the way they were usually written and played in D&D always struck me as something a bit more banal and rather less sophisticated than those exemplars. So I harp on them generally, just out of habit hehe. All in good fun of course. But Seelah I kind of genuinely enjoy, so go figure! What I do know right

Last edited by Black_Elk; 14/10/21 05:01 AM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by dwig
Originally Posted by Sozz
There's nothing wrong with an alignment system, it just doesn't mesh well when you gamify it.

I dislike it because it doesn't map on to the way real humans think, act, and feel.
It doesn't need to, because it's in a fictional fantasy world. It's part of the game system, and just like any other part of the game's system you learn how it works and then play within that system.

Exactly.

Hit points don't make any sense either but people don't expect them to map onto real world experiences.

"No, no, I see why you're worried -- I've got this dagger stuck in my neck and I just lost two ribs to that last mace strike -- but I'm good for another few hours. Don't worry! A good night's sleep and I'll be a right as rain, you'll see, happens all the time."

Which makes some plot points kinda absurd but you just suspend disbelief. "Hey Aenevia? I know you broke your leg in the fall and that's why you can't join our party but we've found about 120 healing potions and this wand, maybe you could try one of those?"

For al the problems with the implementation of the alignment system -- and I agree it's flawed -- I'm happy to be playing a game where alignment matters. In BG3 I wonder if Lathander is ever going to get upset with my good priest for spending her nights with a chaotic evil undead thief.
Well said!

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
i don't understand what you're saying, sorry. $60 and $100?
That is how much WotR early access cost, over 100$. So if you want to compare, it was more expensive than the full game price at release.

Though considering how many bugs are in the game, it does feel a bit like EA. laugh


It is EA but isn't marketed as such; we're beta testing. Owlcat needs to follow Larian's lead and release a definitive edition for free.
Owlcat did exactly that with Kingmaker, so I would expect the same with WotR.

Joined: Feb 2021
Location: Menzoberranzen
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2021
Location: Menzoberranzen
Originally Posted by SerraSerra
Originally Posted by teclis23
Hey Nyloth

The woke part i am talking about is the extreme political correctness that is currently making all mainstream media, streamed content and cinema content (that comes out of Hollywood) especially unwatchable.

eg they are more concerned about gender diversity and inclusion and political correctness then they are about producing great content. Owlcat have completely ignored this crap and Larian seemed to have embraced it.

For this reason i think WOTR will be better.

@ OP, I too think that WOTR looks like a great game, and as someone who came to BG3 as a longtime fan of BG1&2 I am sad to admit that WOTR is maybe more the game I was looking for than BG3 in terms of a modern equivalent/successor of the previous BG games.

That being said, I am really getting annoyed by how your post and several others in the past weeks/months construct a straw man to try and degenerate the discussions on this forum into a kind of idiotic gamergate reactionary bullshit. Gay people exist, feminine males and masculine females and everything in between exists, people having sexual intercourse with whomever they want exist, so please do yourself a favour and take your bullshit attempts to politicize games back to /pol or parler. It really blows my mind that such narrow-minded frustrated infantile idiots like you feel the constant need to bring up other people's sexuality and gender experience on a forum about a videogame set in an imaginary world. Like what the fuck is wrong with you guys, if you're so obsessed by the gay and queer perhaps you should start questioning yourself why the fuck you even care this much about it as apparently most other people seem to simply not care how people think about and what they do about their genitalia and agree it is total bullshit to oppress people because of what they say, think, and do with said genitalia. I can't stop thinking about that Hungarian anti-gay EU parliamentarian who made his career out of targeting LGTBQ and the "gender" agenda and got caught with plenty of mdma pills and other drugs on a clandestine gay chem-sex party during lockdown. Kinda validates my hypothesis that the most vocal opponents of 'the gay' are those who truly feel 'the call of the gay' inside of them but chose to fight it - and thus themselves - instead of simply embracing their own homo-erotic fantasies and without realizing the fact that they feel so threatened by 'the gay' living rent free in their heads is more telling about their own fragile sexuality in denial than about 'the gay' and society ...
Now please bugger off and take your cringe anti-woke crusade somewhere else. Btw, I hope you're aware the father of modern computing - Alan Turing - was gay too, so while you think you're probably super funny edgy and hetero you're actually wasting your live on a machine invented by a gay man - how ironic.

*took-the-troll-bait.jpg*

Yas queen. <3

Also, OP, did you ignore or simply not see the lesbian human-half-orc interracial couple introduced at the literal beginning of WOTR?

Last edited by Roethen; 14/10/21 09:19 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
D
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't think that paladins should ever have been tied to any alignment in the first place. Make them warriors devoted to a particular god, and let the god sort out what they are supposed to do and how they are supposed to act.

5e does this to some extent with their sacred oaths, and it is (IMO of course) a big improvement.

Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
the rigidness of some classes tied to some alignment is being progressively removed in the several iterations of D&d, PF, etc, for good reasons IMHO.

In PF 2edition the Champions (It´s the new class that replaces paladins) could be neutral. chaotic or even serve evil gods. The paladin champions are still lawful good, but you have champions of all flavours. You still have to pick a god and follow some tenets of the faith and clauses but the alignment spectre is broader. ( liberators for chaotic, the neutral redeemers or the Tyrants, antipaladins or desecrators for evil gods)

The only "vestigial rule" still in place is the tradicional "Druids cannot use metal armor" thing, a staple of druids since almost the beginning. For monks, druids and other classes more than following an aligment restriction, they have some taboos or anathemas that could make you lose the favor of your patron and you could lose your class powers, like comminting crimes against nature for druids, etc.

Last edited by _Vic_; 14/10/21 11:03 PM.
Joined: Dec 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
In other game news, Solasta is launching its first major content update in two weeks.

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1096530/view/3039359731138862025

Paid DLC portion:
- Druid class
- Barbarian class
- Half-Orc ancestry
- Wanderer background

Free DLC portion:
- Tutorial skip
- Level cap raised to 12 with level 6 spells added
- Scars added to character creation models
- Final encounter changed?
- Dungeon Maker now supports towns.
- "The Campaign Creator is here. What is the Campaign Creator? A new feature that allows you to bundle custom dungeons together, create custom monsters, items, NPCs and merchants. It's still in development though, so not every parameter can be tweaked yet."

The last thing has some pretty extreme potential, especially if they eventually manage to get official multiplayer support into the game. I've already heard of modders doing insane things with the dungeon maker like allowing a player to take control of monsters (essentially a DM) and using parsec to simulate multiplayer.

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 20/10/21 05:03 PM.
Joined: Oct 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by SerraSerra
Originally Posted by teclis23
Hey Nyloth

The woke part i am talking about is the extreme political correctness that is currently making all mainstream media, streamed content and cinema content (that comes out of Hollywood) especially unwatchable.

eg they are more concerned about gender diversity and inclusion and political correctness then they are about producing great content. Owlcat have completely ignored this crap and Larian seemed to have embraced it.

For this reason i think WOTR will be better.

@ OP, I too think that WOTR looks like a great game, and as someone who came to BG3 as a longtime fan of BG1&2 I am sad to admit that WOTR is maybe more the game I was looking for than BG3 in terms of a modern equivalent/successor of the previous BG games.

That being said, I am really getting annoyed by how your post and several others in the past weeks/months construct a straw man to try and degenerate the discussions on this forum into a kind of idiotic gamergate reactionary bullshit. Gay people exist, feminine males and masculine females and everything in between exists, people having sexual intercourse with whomever they want exist, so please do yourself a favour and take your bullshit attempts to politicize games back to /pol or parler. It really blows my mind that such narrow-minded frustrated infantile idiots like you feel the constant need to bring up other people's sexuality and gender experience on a forum about a videogame set in an imaginary world. Like what the fuck is wrong with you guys, if you're so obsessed by the gay and queer perhaps you should start questioning yourself why the fuck you even care this much about it as apparently most other people seem to simply not care how people think about and what they do about their genitalia and agree it is total bullshit to oppress people because of what they say, think, and do with said genitalia. I can't stop thinking about that Hungarian anti-gay EU parliamentarian who made his career out of targeting LGTBQ and the "gender" agenda and got caught with plenty of mdma pills and other drugs on a clandestine gay chem-sex party during lockdown. Kinda validates my hypothesis that the most vocal opponents of 'the gay' are those who truly feel 'the call of the gay' inside of them but chose to fight it - and thus themselves - instead of simply embracing their own homo-erotic fantasies and without realizing the fact that they feel so threatened by 'the gay' living rent free in their heads is more telling about their own fragile sexuality in denial than about 'the gay' and society ...
Now please bugger off and take your cringe anti-woke crusade somewhere else. Btw, I hope you're aware the father of modern computing - Alan Turing - was gay too, so while you think you're probably super funny edgy and hetero you're actually wasting your live on a machine invented by a gay man - how ironic.

*took-the-troll-bait.jpg*


Righteous

I totally agree.

Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Roethen
Also, OP, did you ignore or simply not see the lesbian human-half-orc interracial couple introduced at the literal beginning of WOTR?

Amusingly (and I am loving WotR, it's so far exactly what I would expect from a continued evolution from BG2) this isn't the first, or only subverted expectation.

The ranking leader is a female dragon.
Your first 3 characters encountered.

Female Paladin - Black/PoC
Female - Pictured as tough, capable.
Female - Mutilated that guy, we all know it.

Then you get to the Hipster, couldn't get rid of him quick enough, followed by another Female character...

OK.

The we get out of the Dungeon and first thing we see?

Big.
Golden.
Green.
Anime Style Avatar.
Female.
Paladin.

I knew it the second I saw that picture. 'Yep, lesbians.' When they threw that out there so unnecessary, I laughed and laughed.

Then we get.

Female, child like innocence...oh wait, no. She's been burned alive, living on the streets. OK.

Tiefling Rogue? Yep our first stereotyped character.

Oracle? He's gay, or at least bisexual. He won't stop coming onto me...

Even our Hellknight is a subversion. Gnome?! Full Plate? Come on.

Cleric? PoC, fragile artist. OK.

Oh, and I wouldn't be shocked to learn something is unique about that Scroll Savant.

Yeah, I don't think we can make claims that Wrath isn't doing a whole lot of subversion as well.

Joined: Oct 2021
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2021
I like to play in real-time and not turn base so for me Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous was a better game. As well they want this game to play well online with only 4 companions but B2 had 6 companions which was the real way BG was played and still should be. The hell with online playing, I rather have 6 companions and play in real-time like the old way of BG. I played BG2 and BG1 back in the day and hope they will bring back 6 companions and real-time play.

Last edited by Swede; 25/10/21 05:18 PM. Reason: spelling
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by dwig
Sure, you need "game systems" in a game. Hit points aren't particularly realistic, but they do allow you to play a game without a full (and probably overly complicated) simulation of the human body and its various reactions to trauma. I am fine with this because hit points generally get the messy details out of the way and let me play the game.

The problem with alignment is that it DOESN"T get the messy details out of the way. Rather, it forces the writers to pigeonhole every NPC into a daft framework that doesn't really have any payoff anywhere. Instead of debating character X's motivations at various plot points we are stuck with insipid arguments about whether or not they followed their alignment properly.

Better to scrap the whole thing and just write actual reactions that fit the situation and the characters that are being written. I am glad that 5e has done this.

To the bolded part: Alignment is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. It's the opposite of what you think it is.


Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I've never been a fan of closing certain classes for some alignment, especially since it didn't always make sense and was terribly restrictive.
Why can a paladin only be lawful good? Why couldn't any evil or chaotic god have his own paladins?

That would make sense, if all you see when you look at a Paladin is "divine knight". But that ignores all the literary and mythical roots of the concept behind the class, and the tropes if plays upon.

It's like people who see the Monk class and go "why can't I play a european Monk who sits in a cloister and copies old tomes all day and maybe knows a little about herbs". Sure, there's nothing wrong with that character concept, but it's just not what the Monk class is supposed to classify. It draws from different roots and tropes.

In the same way, there's nothing wrong with the idea of evil gods having divine champions of their own, but why would they be Paladins? They'd draw from different sources.


Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
@rhobar

I think you make a good point about the implementation of the rules but bad implementation doesn't mean the rules are bad anymore than bad a bad RPG game means RPG games are bad. Now, yes, confusingly the game doesn't have many Lawful Good options. More often than not the "good" option is neutral good which I'm guess is just a dumb coding issue. They should be (null) good.

My biggest gripe with the game, probably (maybe after the design choice that makes most Cavaliers unable to cavalry their mounts until level 7). It's so annoying, especially since there are so few sensible Lawful choices and the vast majority are Lawful Stupid. Thankfully it seems less slippery in the full release than it was in the EA, when I played back then I was starting to switch alignments to Neutral Good by the time we first leave Kenabres.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
If you ignore the bugs I find Wrath to be the much better game than BG3 for now. (looking only at act 1 of wrath)
1. The narrative makes more sense. While both start epic and then slow down Wrath retains its urgency in its first act especially with the tavern defense and changing areas after the deadline. BG3 goes from "we can die any second" to "Its nothing, lets just loiter around" in an instant.
2. Options. While it often comes down to personal preference Wrath offers a lot more options, from classes, mechanic and even combat mode (turn and real time) while BG3 is stifled by D&D 5E which was made very simplistic for ease of play on paper but leads to limited gameplay options in video games where calculations are automated anyway.
3. Companions are in my opinion better, although it is a bit unfair to BG3 as only the first act is known.
Still the characters in Wrath feel much more real and believable, especially when you limit your knowledge to act 1. Only Nenios introduction is handled badly and I would rate her below BG3 companions. Then again you have "Look at me I am a cleric of the goddess of secrets!" Shadowheart.
4. All the little things that add up like weather, seasons, travelling so that you do not have two enemy camps right next to each other.

BG3 looks more pretty and has full voice over, but thats the only advantage I see so far. Maybe some people will like the option to barrelmancy, but I am not a fan.
There are some gripes with Wrath when it comes to the rushed final act where the narrative drops noticeably. Thats where BG3 can shine if Larian devotes enough time for development.

Last edited by Ixal; 26/10/21 11:00 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Oct 2020
I've brought this up before when it comes to companions in WOTR but I don't know why some of them probably most of them stay if they disagree with your choices. That part is unbelievable to me unless they're brainwashed.

Seelah leaves on one of the evil paths but not another. Daeran says he doesn't like the extreme good or evil forgot his actual words. But he doesn't mind staying.

Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by Veilburner
I've brought this up before when it comes to companions in WOTR but I don't know why some of them probably most of them stay if they disagree with your choices. That part is unbelievable to me unless they're brainwashed.

Seelah leaves on one of the evil paths but not another. Daeran says he doesn't like the extreme good or evil forgot his actual words. But he doesn't mind staying.
It is a "now or never" situation in a fight against world threatening demons, so most companions reason its a end justify the means situation unless you go completely against their believes.

Joined: Oct 2020
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Oct 2020
Sure but I don't see much of a difference between the path where Seelah leaves and the one where she doesn't.

Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Ixal
It is a "now or never" situation in a fight against world threatening demons, so most companions reason its a end justify the means situation unless you go completely against their believes.
That is not shown in a believable manner, imo. In the first chapter tension is very high and everyone is under suspicion. You witness inquisitors in-fighting with clergy of Desna, even though she is a good deity. Tieflings are persecuted simply because of their heritage. There is a nice scene with Woljif scaring some people with his shadow trick. And then it goes downhill in the next chapters.

Seelah says something about not working with hellknigths, then five minutes later she is ok with Regill in the party. Sosiel's introductory quest is about an evil necromancer, yet after one comment about the knight commander choosing the lich path, he'll chill together with the raised undead. Third chapter a succubus joins in, because Desna sais she is not evil, and no one seems to be suspicious. She just stands there in the middle of the keep and no one minds it. My lich character tells Irabeth she will sacrifice scruples and souls if she has to, and Irabeth is ok with that... I could understand Regill, because that would align with his beliefs, but she is supposed to be a paladin.

There is a dissonance between how the situation is portrayed in the beginning, and how little reaction is to an evil knight commander later on.

Last edited by ash elemental; 26/10/21 03:06 PM.
Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by Ixal
It is a "now or never" situation in a fight against world threatening demons, so most companions reason its a end justify the means situation unless you go completely against their believes.
That is not shown in a believable manner, imo. In the first chapter tension is very high and everyone is under suspicion. You witness inquisitors in-fighting with clergy of Desna, even though she is a good deity. Tieflings are persecuted simply because of their heritage. There is a nice scene with Woljif scaring some people with his shadow trick. And then it goes downhill in the next chapters.

Seelah says something about not working with hellknigths, then five minutes later she is ok with Regill in the party. Sosiel's introductory quest is about an evil necromancer, yet after one comment about the knight commander choosing the lich path, he'll chill together with the raised undead. Third chapter a succubus joins in, because Desna sais she is not evil, and no one seems to be suspicious. She just stands there in the middle of the keep and no one minds it. My lich character tells Irabeth she will sacrifice scruples and souls if she has to, and Irabeth is ok with that... I could understand Regill, because that would align with his beliefs, but she is supposed to be a paladin.

There is a dissonance between how the situation is portrayed in the beginning, and how little reaction is to an evil knight commander later on.
Some consequences come later in act 5 or rather who stayed loyal to you in the meantime. And even companions will leave you later like Sosiel will for being too much of a lich.

Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Ixal
Some consequences come later in act 5 or rather who stayed loyal to you in the meantime. And even companions will leave you later like Sosiel will for being too much of a lich.
Yes, and that these consequences come so late is also why I feel it's not very believable.

Page 60 of 76 1 2 58 59 60 61 62 75 76

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