Baldurs gate - how should I start.

[Jamski]

Would be better as :

I never steal,
I loot the enemy dead -
And really roleplay.

Assuming it was intended to be a Haiku

-Jam

[Skanky Burns]

[Marid Audran]

Originally posted by Jamski
Would be better as :

I never steal,
I loot the enemy dead -
And really roleplay.

Assuming it was intended to be a Haiku

-Jam

Bashu, eat your heart out.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Marid Audran


God help us all.

I actually think for these type of games (The Infinity Engine ones, BG/IWD) most people "role-play" in a neutral evil fashion whether consciously or unconsciously. Loot, pillage, and pawn is the motto of the adventurer. It's a greedy, self-interested enterprise. It's not proper work by any means, though adventurers do some accidental good now and then; a footnote or two among accruing thousands of gold and dozens of rare magic items from various locales, often without sanction, permission, or blessing from a proper authority.

This is the real reason alignment is a superfluous stat in IE games; because moral consequence isn't really enforcable by a DM (in the case the computer) except in the crudest of scenerios (killing innocents or donating to a church, thus arbitrarily raising/lowering your "reputation" on a 1-20 scale). What's really annoying are NPCs leaving your party because of this, since they can't see the forest from the trees. Or are simply whimsy bastards.

havent played enough to say. I presume this an element of replayability - play through at different levels of evil. Most comments have indicated its HARDER to play as evil.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Marid Audran
This is the real reason alignment is a superfluous stat in IE games; because moral consequence isn't really enforcable by a DM (in the case the computer)

I see roleplay as something that is enforced by yourself, not the computer. You can accept the limitations to your 'freedom' for the sake of a more enjoyable game if you choose.

The greatest problem I have with alignment is peoples approach to being goodly. Too many people play paladins as uber fascist 'repent or die' machines that seem completly divorced from their goodly roots.

havent played enough to say. I presume this an element of replayability - play through at different levels of evil. Most comments have indicated its HARDER to play as evil.

It is more difficult to play a truly evil party, but it is too easy to forget that looting and pillaging are not especially goodly acts. However pretty much everyone does it in computer rpgs. When I play goodly characters in PnP or LRP I rarely loot or attack first but this kind of game will force you towards those acts if want to advance.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty


I see roleplay as something that is enforced by yourself, not the computer. You can accept the limitations to your 'freedom' for the sake of a more enjoyable game if you choose.

The greatest problem I have with alignment is peoples approach to being goodly. Too many people play paladins as uber fascist 'repent or die' machines that seem completly divorced from their goodly roots.

havent played enough to say. I presume this an element of replayability - play through at different levels of evil. Most comments have indicated its HARDER to play as evil.

It is more difficult to play a truly evil party, but it is too easy to forget that looting and pillaging are not especially goodly acts. However pretty much everyone does it in computer rpgs. When I play goodly characters in PnP or LRP I rarely loot or attack first but this kind of game will force you towards those acts if want to advance.

could we define loot and pillage?
Which of the following do you include
1. Picking up stuff left in an unoccupied house?
2. Breaking locks to steal stuff in an unoccupied house
3. Stealing stuff (with or without breaking locks) in a house where i have been attacked without provocation
4. Stealing stuff in an occupied house
Ditto for rooms at an Inn.
Whatever else ive either forgotten or not yet encountered.

[Jon Miller]

1, 2, 4 not sure about 3

Jon Miller

[Snotty]

I would consider 1,2 and 4 pretty bad form if done against innocents. I know a lot of other people would consider it ok as long as you dont get caught, but I see that as more of a neutral act than a goodly one. Your neutral theif could always do it while no-one is looking though

Looting everything not bolted down in the evil wizards tower (or whatever) is a different matter. Being attacked would come under that.

One thing I would consider ok, though against roleplay, would be reading the books in peoples houses. They serve no real function in game terms but can provide you with interesting (?) background story.

By roleplaying a goodly party you are actually making life more difficult for yourself as you dont get quite as much loot. You could also end up making situations tougher by following the more goodly dialogue paths. The end result is hopefully a more satisfying experience, and a more replayable one.

[Jamski]

Best to play Chaotic Good. You need to take all the loot from innocents in order to be powerful enough to save the world

-Jam

[Marid Audran]

Originally posted by Snotty

I see roleplay as something that is enforced by yourself, not the computer. You can accept the limitations to your 'freedom' for the sake of a more enjoyable game if you choose.

We're not talking about role-playing, we're talking about alignment conflict and responsibility whilst role-playing. More to the point, staying true to individual morality. If a character chooses a selfless alignment (like LG, to a lessor extent CG and NG) he's oblidged to act noble and self-sacrificing; if he chooses a malicious alignment (like LE or CE, and not merely cause it's trendy) then he's oblidged to act cutthroat, cruel, and with avarice. DMs are advised to admonish and punish players in PnP scenarios for not acting in-character with their alignment and their ethos. In this case the DM is the computer, and it does a pretty pathetic job of enforcing alignment. This type of thing can't be left up to the players; the spirit may be willing at the character creation screen, but the flesh is weak.

There are other matters like churchly duties (for clerics, or appeasing druidic protocal), tithing (for paladins), and penitence which are never addressed, though it'd be too much of a pain in the ass for most players.

Pretty much everyone does it in computer rpgs. When I play goodly characters in PnP or LRP I rarely loot or attack first but this kind of game will force you towards those acts if want to advance.

Which is why most of my argument is moot due to the limitations of the IE engine and BG being a CRPG. It just annoys me when alignment is only useful insofar as what type of magic items you're restricted from using and whether or not you can be bard.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Marid Audran

There are other matters like churchly duties (for clerics, or appeasing druidic protocal), tithing (for paladins), and penitence which are never addressed, though it'd be too much of a pain in the ass for most players.

Some players are looking for a more action based game and if you enforce alignment too rigidly you risk alienating them. Stricter restrictions would be a pain in the arse for average action gamer and I dont think he is going to be all that happy if he is forced to play only evil roles, and it would lose replayability for him.

If you are looking for a roleplaying experience you should be able to exercise the self control to stick to your alignment. When I play PnP it is not the threat of punishment that makes me roleplay my alignment, it is my desire to play within the alignment restrictions I have chosen.

If a character chooses a selfless alignment (like LG, to a lessor extent CG and NG) he's oblidged to act noble and self-sacrificing;

Why do you consider CG to be less selfless than LG? I would perhaps consider the CG to be more selfless as he helping people out of choice, and the LG would be helping people because it was the accepted thing to do in society.

Which is why most of my argument is moot due to the limitations of the IE engine and BG being a CRPG. It just annoys me when alignment is only useful insofar as what type of magic items you're restricted from using and whether or not you can be bard.

Alignment had more of an effect in ToEE. I think there is a general movement towards enhancing alignment implementation but I think it is ultimatly down to the player to enforce it.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Snotty

If a character chooses a selfless alignment (like LG, to a lessor extent CG and NG) he's oblidged to act noble and self-sacrificing;

Why do you consider CG to be less selfless than LG? I would perhaps consider the CG to be more selfless as he helping people out of choice, and the LG would be helping people because it was the accepted thing to do in society.

I tihnk you and I have a very different view of lawful good

I ahve found that to normaly be the case though

Jon miller

[Standup]

IN PnP i always considered LG as rather straight laced characters who were generally boring. CG were still well meaning, postive people with a rebellious streak. Religious LG characters were more interesting as one DM was quite accepting of LG Paladins/Clerics who went about slaughtering innoncent people in the name of religion. That was more a case of believing they were doing good rather than good acts as we'd see them.

The only CRPG that dealt well with good/evil that i've played was Fallout 1/2 but even then good play is more rewarding than evil in terms of quests etc and there's certain points in the game where you're forced out of character to progress the game.

[Snotty]

Religious LG characters were more interesting as one DM was quite accepting of LG Paladins/Clerics who went about slaughtering innoncent people in the name of religion. That was more a case of believing they were doing good rather than good acts as we'd see them.

I can see that point of view, but I struggle to see why the goodly gods would continue to provide power to their followers if they were performed multiple evil acts. Even if the characters didnt know the acts were evil, their god would.

I have a friend whose current bloodthirsty paladin greatly stretchs the definition of goodly, but he cant see anything wrong with what hes doing. Unfortunatly there are others who like to play their paladins the same way so this is how it stays.

The number one thing that stop me seeing the way they do is that Killing someone is an Evil act. Paladins should not be performing evil acts. The person you kill may be evil themselves but that is not reason enough to kill them. The shopkeeper who has been twisted by a bitter life of orc raids could be evil because of all the abuse he has been through in his life, but it is no reason to run him through.

A certain degree of flexibility is needed to make roleplaying games fun and I find killing someone who has attacked you to be the acceptable limit that roleplay infringes on the actual progress of the adventure.

[Marid Audran]

Originally posted by Snotty

Why do you consider CG to be less selfless than LG? I would perhaps consider the CG to be more selfless as he helping people out of choice, and the LG would be helping people because it was the accepted thing to do in society.

This rationale sounds highly illogical to me; I don't even think such a person could exist. A person primarily motivated to be mindful of the law wouldn't be LG, but LN, which is basically the ethos of a law-abiding citizen of a region who caters to his/her own interests (LN, by the by, I think is the baseline alignment for most people in society, whether in real life or in role-playing games).

A LG individual is motivated by a dual purpose to do good and uphold the law whilst championing it, making the two inclusive to each other. A LG character is more likely to cooperate with legitimate authorities, honor agreements, consider the rights and feelings of multiple parties involved, less prone to bribery, etc. Cleanse evil, and restore order so that it may stay that way.

A CG individual is motivated to do good, but by his own means and bias on how to do it. This can lead to some highly dubious rationalizations and methods "for the greater good," because he/she is following their own inner compass. They may perform some noble and just acts but may step on some toes doing so, helping some but hurting others from their lack of sensitivity. CG characters can act like braggarts at times because of their lack of boundries. Jamski's tongue-in-cheek example of it being beneficial to abide by CG alignment because you could rob the countryside "for the greater good" of eventually de-throning the evil foozle is a rather extreme example of a rationalization that could very well go on in the mind of a cynical and unscrupulous CG player.

For this reason, I'd be more afraid of traveling with a CE companion than a LE one. With the LE character at least he has some guidelines and structure guiding his actions and reigning in his sadistic impulses; with the CE character all bets are off and one could expect a knife in the back and the earliest opportunity.

Additionally I think none of the 9 alignments are boring; only the stereotypes of their behavior is. There is more to LG behavior than the fanatical sabre-rattling of a few paladins, and there is more to CE behavior than the bloodthirsty raids of a pack of ogres. It all depends on the ingenuity of the player.

Alignment had more of an effect in ToEE. I think there is a general movement towards enhancing alignment implementation but I think it is ultimatly down to the player to enforce it.

I never played ToEE; reviews denoting it a glorified dungeon-crawl that owed as much to Dungeon Siege and Diablo as to any role-playing game kept me at bay. Didn't play Neverwinter Nights either, which was panned as equally shallow back when it came out.