Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General Role-Playing Potential

What kinds of stuff we'll be available to do for, you know, creating a personality of our characters? In different games players could: keep a house that can be decorated as they want + live a life (almost) in game world (Bethesda kinds of RPGs); forge the character through dialogues and choices (Planescape: Torment for example); or even do whatever they want, creating they own rules, restrictions and freedoms (Mount&Blade, especially with mods).

Any interesting things of this kind in D:OS should be very, very nice addition, don't you think?

Have you played any of the Divinity games? It'll be like them which all have a tree of dialogue (like Planescape, Baldur's Gate, DA:O, NWN etc). All Divinity games thus far have allowed for role playing in terms of actions and dialogue. In Divine Divinity (the first game), you had many dialogue choices and you could be rude, hostile, threatening, heroic, intelligent, witty, impatient, good or bad via dialogue.

You could murder people which would decrease your reputation which meant that people would be less willingly to speak to you, meanwhile, some people (mostly guards) would attack you on sight. The only way to reverse these consequences would to make your reputation good again by doing good deeds (as far as I recall, ways to increase your reputation came from side quests where you took the good options).

I can't really remark about Beyond Divinity as I didn't play much of it but from what I did play, it has a reputation system as well and you have a dialogue tree in that too.

Divinity 2 took away the reputation system but it still had the dialogue tree. Divinity 2 was more like Dragon Age: Origins in that you made all choices via dialogue (like how to solve a quest and who to kill, spare or side with). Divinity 2 allowed you to role play many different characters, for example you could role play a heroic knight or a selfish egoist rogue (just two of the many examples). The majority of quests had multiple solutions ranging from evil to good and places in-between. Some were grey choices as well. I think one of the most evil choices you can make in Divinity 2: The Dragon Knight Saga is where you give a necromancer the possessions of the recently deceased which in-turn allows him to enslave their souls. The opposite version of this quest would be to give the possessions of the recently deceased back to their rightful owners. There's also a cave in the game in which you are tested by some mage, the cave allows you to commit some rather evil deeds along with good ones. One evil choice has you join forces with a bandit and torture some man together in order to get gold. One good choice has you sacrifice one point of your constitution statistic in order for a dying man to live longer to see his son.

Original Sin is like Divine Divinity in that you forge your character through your dialogue and choices. There will also be consequences for your actions and what with the reputation system being back, I'd imagine that your choices will also impact how people view and react to you akin to Baldur's Gate and Divine Divinity.

One of my favorite parts of Divine Divinity was when I marched into a town and had some kid say to me "I want to be a murderer like you when I grow up." That was right before I killed him BTW.

Honestly, it has nothing to do with roleplaying. Actual essence of Rp could be seen only in Planescape:Torment you mentioned and Fallout. Ans that is, I don't remember any other game that has actual RP, not just some bits here in there just to earn "RPG" label.

Never played MB, though.



- So, I enter the town and this kid on my way tells me: "I used to be murderer like you..."
- And then he used to be.

I disagree. But that goes far into the territory of Role Playing Theory right now ...

I'm currently playing SIMs Medieval. Looks and plays like an role-playing game - made from a completely different perspective than most role-players (especially "hardcore role players") used to see.

And yes, you can decorate rooms there. You even own a house. You have to sleep and eat there. And you get experience points.



I wouldn't want to play with people who are able to do this.

I just can't stand this kind of insensitiveness.

Well, I guess we can argue about the subj for a long time but this is not what this thread about. I, personally, have no issues with house decoration in the game, but I don't consider it as a part of the RPG mechanism.

It is fun, though, how much people want to see this feature in the game, but when I suggested some minigame, which is in the same concept as house decorating, people went full mad about the idea.

Hmm, 2012 is weird.

Ooohh! Minigames!!

Minigames are probably the main reason why I liked Fable 1 so much. The atmosphere in the inns + minigames were awesome.

Hmmm?

Role playing a merciless tyrant who spares children just doesn't feel correct.

On another note, they're just pixels.

Is killing adults in the game different?

On yet another note, I found it funny that my character couldn't kill Damien at the end because he was a baby but was fine with killing children.

If there's any way to improve role-playing value for Divinity games, I would certainly appreaciate dialogue-charisma skills. Something that let us resolve quests by just speaking; more or less like Fallout or Dragon Age, but refined. Maybe something between those examples? I believe that there is a lot of room to improve "dimplomacy" or persuasion skills in rpg gameplay (the new Deus Ex does a great job about this).

I never liked Bethesda RPGs, and I certainly do not enjoy that kind of details in their games. I remember how hollow I felt after buying houses in Oblivion, for example. I find all this "real life" things way too artificial to have some gameplay value.

But, of course, it's just my opinion ^_^

Iit is fun how much love and dedication/appreciation those pixels are getting. The whole Larian/Divinity community formed around such pixels. Hell, just take a look at Bioware forums (ass Effect/Dragon Age sections) and you will get a perfect clear picture how seriously people treat those pixels.

Often in games I try to roleplay an evil bastard, I fail miserably in that. First quest or so I can finish the evil way. But then they react:

"oh god what have you done :("

And then I think, indeed, what have I done . And I end up being a knight in shining armor anyway guided by my own moral compass.

I firmly don't believe that the unconscious in us knows that.

Really? Because I know for sure what is real and what's not. Divine Divinity is a role playing game. In role playing games I never play myself and I always make different characters with different morals and views. It would get pretty boring playing a goody two shoes who is too scared to kill some fake pixels.

I mean what do you think happens when you take the evil ending in an RPG? I suppose you could role-play and say that your evil character isn't really that evil and that he cowers and trembles at the thought of killing children but others don't give you much of choice. Baldur's Gate 2 for example has an evil ending where you become the unholy god of death (Bhaal) and therefore chaotic evil. Children won't be spared here. Even if you want that to be so it can't because the evil influence in your character would be too strong.

Well here's something for you lot:

Killing Children in Divine Divinity.

Enjoy!

Playing an evil character doesn't mean you're using every evil option the game offers, and games don't need to offer every imaginable evil option.



Would you also agree to the following:
It would get pretty boring playing a goody two shoes who is too scared to rape some fake pixels.
It would get pretty boring playing a goody two shoes who is too scared to skin some fake pixels alive.

Has this happened in the Middle Ages? Yes. Would the "unholy god of death" do this? Yes. Does that mean it has to be part of a role-playing game in which you can play evil characters? No.

Sure, your character's personality can be very different from your own, but most of us are playing in order to have fun, and there's a very individual limit to what we can enjoy or bear. Especially if a realistic graphical depiction of atrocities is accompanied by realistic audio.

I already explained how evil endings for games have you destroying the entire world. In that instance children will be killed. Whether it's your character unleashing some sort of evil upon the world or becoming a vessel for a demon it all leads to the same result and the forces of pure evil do not discriminate.



No I won't agree to the following because a goody two shoes character wouldn't be raping or murdering in the first place.



Says who? Do you happen to have the legendary book of "What a real RPG is and how RPG's should be played"? I didn't think so. The fact is, if the option is there then it's there for a reason.



So it's fine killing adults who could have families themselves but anything beyond that is bad? Okay. So next time you encounter a bandit in Divinity 2, don't kill him because who are you to say that he's not simply a bandit to provide for his starving diseased children who will die GRUESOMELY if he quit his job? Oh and say the bandits are FORCING him to be a bandit and he has no choice but for the love of his children, he is doing what he must to ensure their survival.

I don't understand your point. If you play a goody two shoes in every game then that's fine by me. I have no problem with that but I don't get why you expect me to do the same when I have fun playing characters of all alignments.

In D&D you have three alignments: Evil, Neutral and Good. Then you have three different forms of them. You have Chaotic, Neutral and Lawful. I often play a chaotic evil character if I decide to play an evil character at all. It makes the difference as you gain EXP quicker at earlier stages, you gain better equipment at earlier stages and it's fun not being shackled to all the people who would have you running errands.

But if I'm evil in real-life for "murdering" some pixels then Black Isle, Bioware, Larian, Ion Storm and Capcom must be the children on the devil for planting such things in their games and presumably testing them.

You've referenced the ending of Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal where you can become Bhaal's successor. This is not the same as destroying the entire world since there are other deities as well.



Says me. There's no logical reason why every single atrocity that has ever occurred in the Middle Ages would have to be part of a computer role-playing game. Who needs a book to verify that logic? And sometimes options are only there because nobody thought of combinations that make them possible.



That's a rather bad attempt at mind-reading because I neither wrote there should be no evil options in games nor do I want that. I also play characters of different alignments. My point is that being able to play an evil character doesn't mean there is an option for every imaginable atrocity.

I've got nothing against being able to kill children in a role-playing game, but you act as if one couldn't play an evil character without that option and that's simply not true. Computer role-playing games will always omit some parts of the character's life. I don't mind if killing children isn't actually possible, but left to the player's imagination because some players say this is more than they can bear.

You're conscious again. That doersn't count when I'm referring to the unconscuious part in us.

And, by the way, the priests following the Conquistadores in South America really believed they were good.

Slaughtering masses of ntives they defined as "animals" was good in their eyes.

Stealing theirtrwasures and melting them into blocks of pure gold and sending that to Spain was also a good deed in their eyes.

Yes, even racists often believe that they are right - and everyone else is just plainly wrong.


And then enters the concept of Humanity. Which was easily bypassed by South American Conquistadores and by Nazis by simply defining people as "animals". No humans = no need to apply the concept of humanity and humility.


Edit : ALL of my (A)D&D characters are either "chaotic good" (90 %) or "neutral good".

Edit 2 : THere is currentl at RPGWatch a similar discussion going on : http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17581

My comment wasn't only restricted to destroying the world. In the case of Bhaal while you wouldn't destroy the entire world, you probably would go on to bring great destruction to it. Bhaal was the lord of Murder with his domains being death and destruction.



Then I say otherwise and by your logic I'm also right. There's no logical reason to allow the player to murder innocent people too or even participate in Genocide (Mass Effect series) but the choices are there and allowing for all the more role playing.



I never said that. If that's what you're arguing against then you're kinda of arguing against your own misconception.



No you've made an assumption that I said that one can't play an evil character without murdering a child. For reference to your last sentence, Skyrim modders instantly modded in the ability to kill children in Skyrim so it can't be as unpopular as you seem to think. Further more if one can't handle killing children in videos games then they don't need to, they aren't forced.

I think you've created an argument where you're arguing against something you thought I implied but I implied no such thing. So I ask again: your point?



Seems that you're creating an argument on an assumption you have about my statement. I never said that evil was good or that killing children was a good thing.

But while we're here, you seem to forget that there's two sides to every story. The Natives of America were the rightful owners of the land and didn't deserve to have their lands conquered for no reasons but at the same time I can understand why the Spanish thought they were like animals especially when you had the Aztecs and Mayans sacrificing innocent people (children included) to their blood thirsty gods.

Yes, but they didn't need to take away their gold from them or destroy their books or whatever they had.

And Crusades have been bloody, too.

I've stated my point in my last post. If you don't disagree and aren't asking for an option to kill children in D:OS either, fine - then there's no argument.