Baldurs gate - how should I start.

[Jamski]

Alignment had more of an effect in ToEE

LMAO

You mean if you're not CG you can't use the *nice sword A* and if you're not LG you can't use *nice sword B* and if you're evil you can't really win

-Jam

[Snotty]

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).

I meant that performing goodly acts is encouraged in society. Giving money to charities, volunteering etc are all goodly acts. As a L character you follow the rules of that society, so you are more likely to do goodly acts. I think this makes these acts less selfless than a CG character who has been just as good but of his complete free will. The CG chooses to do good rather than being directed towards it.

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.

The system is open to abuse, and while you may get away with this under the letter of the 'law', it is certainly not in its spirit. A lot of the time dubious CG play could easily be classified as CN.

I think we can agree that a good act is still a good act whether is has been acheived through lawful or chaotic means. Murdering innocents 'for the greater good' would not be a good act, and a CG character should be able to see that. They are not blinded by their chaos. It is unfortunate that sometimes CG get it wrong and step on peoples toes, but so can LG.

Jamski,

It depends what you consider winning. You get many chances to get out of it, and I can think of plenty of justifications for doing so.

I was refering more to the towns going hostile, that blacksmith guy going KOS. You cant expect every player to stick to their starting alignment, and you need to be able to punish them if they are too evil. I think that starting alignment cant be enforced without being a pain in the arse for the average gamer. This is the only direction to be moving in. Unless you have any ideas on how to enforce strict alignment without being a pain?

[Jamski]

I'd offer different dialogue choices. People playing LE SHOULDN'T be able to tell the prisoners to go free, for example. People playing LG should not be allowed to initiate combat vs villagers. Chaotic alignments should get some freedom, but CG wouldn't be able to be nasty to people known to be good without a reason. Limit / expand the dialogue choices, I say.

-Jam

[Snotty]

People playing LG should not be allowed to initiate combat vs villagers.

But what if the LG was convinced that the innocent peasant was say, the mafia, and felt killing him was the only way to stop the murders. He should have the freedom to do it, and screw it up because he is wrong. Its not roleplaying if you are forced into the correct action for your alignment.

In ToEE I was pleased at the different opening sequences and thought the different dialogues would be interesting. Its a shame buts got taken out, but the thought was there.

[Dis]

LG should be allowed to do whatever they want.

I don't like restrictions.

The logical thing to do is do what Planescape: Torment does. Have your actions change your alignment.

Neverwinter Nights also does this, but the campaigns really didn't utilize the ability to change alignment that much.

[Jamski]

But what if the LG was convinced that the innocent peasant was say, the mafia, and felt killing him was the only way to stop the murders.

If he was LG he would go to the police/church/court whatever. A chaotic good might go for the viglilante option though...

Real LG should avoid killing the evil people anyway, they should try and forgive them, rescue them or bring them to justice in the proper authorities. Killing should be a last resort for LG. LN are the ones that like to kill the evil people, and CG might just feel like killing the evil people.

LG is and should be a very restricting alignment. It should be a real PAIN to have to RP this alignment. Practically noone is LG in real life.

-Jam

[lord of the mark]

Ok. Im playing as a human ranger. Neutral good, her name is Eowyn .

Took Imoen, passed on the baddies. Picked up the halfelves, did some sidequests around Beregost.

Spoiler:

Did the Garrick quest the good way, and picked up Garrick. Went east, killed some goblins, went back to Beregost to sell gear, buy weapons, rest. Then south into the woods, more killing of baddies, back to Beregost again. Gave the woman the letter from her husband, killed some guy who tried to kill me at an inn, IIRC

Finally headed south to Nashkel.

Spoiler:

Neira tried to kill me, I lost Khaled. Went to the temple and resurrected Khaled (perhaps not worth it?) Then picked up Minsc - so now i have 6 - Me, Imoen, the two half elven, Garrick, and Minsc) Jaheira is up to level 2. We have lots of stuff, some majic arrows, not much money. Now on the the carnival/fair. If I drop anyone I guess it should be Garrick first, Then maybe Khaled - though ive gotten attached to him.

Earlier I made a donation at a temple, and that plus

Spoiler:

being honest in Nashkel

has raised my rep to 13. I suspect that hasnt been worth it, particularly. I would certainly like to have some magic weapons (in addition to the arrows) before heading for the mines. I also need to check that i have identified everything i could, before dropping Garrick.

[lord of the mark]

BTW,is it ok to head for the mine with 5 party members level 1, and one level 2? Should I do more sidequests? How hard are the mines?

[Dis]

oh. that might be a little tough. It really isn't tough until the final part of the mine. personally I would do a few more sidequests.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dissident
oh. that might be a little tough. It really isn't tough until the final part of the mine. personally I would do a few more sidequests.

Well i tried that. went to the fair, ran into

Spoiler:

the guy holding a mage prisoner. Got a couple of people killed including Jaheira, before I got the guy for lots of XP. went back to Nashkell to resurrect her and made a sloppy keyboard mistake so I didnt have enough money.

I reloaded, did went to the fair again, this time

Spoiler:

just lost Khaled (who's cheaper to resurrect. Went back and resurrected him,

then went into the woods south of town where i beat up

Spoiler:

a bunch of xvarts. started to wander back to town, ran into some dart wielding guys. With 2 fighters weakened from xvarts, i lost my whole party and died. Will have to reload and next time be more careful about my path back to Nashkell.

So im getting closer to leveling up several characters.

I note the following
1. limited number of slots for saved games is a tad annoying.
2. Garrick never seems able to identify anything.
3. Its not clear to me - do i have to have a quest recorded in my journal to accomplish it and get XP's and rewards for it? Since ive been dying and reloading alot, there are a number of quests I know about that arent in my journal - going back to Nashkell and seeking out the individual who stated the quest would be annoying.

[centrifuge]

Before going to the mines I would do Minsc's quest. IMHO it would be well worth it and possibly a necessity if you want to keep Minsc around.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by centrifuge
Before going to the mines I would do Minsc's quest. IMHO it would be well worth it and possibly a necessity if you want to keep Minsc around.

Should i do it before looking for a white wolf pelt?

[centrifuge]

I'd say yes, mainly because Minsc might start getting a little antsy.

[Jamski]

I'd lose Garrick too. Its better to pay 100 gold to identify stuff than lug him around till he gets to a high enough level where he can do it himself. Or get a mage who can cast identify (clue : do Minsc's quest to rescue the mage)

-Jam

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Jamski
I'd offer different dialogue choices. People playing LE SHOULDN'T be able to tell the prisoners to go free, for example. People playing LG should not be allowed to initiate combat vs villagers. Chaotic alignments should get some freedom, but CG wouldn't be able to be nasty to people known to be good without a reason. Limit / expand the dialogue choices, I say.

-Jam

Yes would be interesting, but that wouldn't be true roleplaying. The reason why the evil character is evil, is because he has the choice between doing good or not. The CE character will do as he pleases/what's best for him. He deliberately chooses for doing something nasty, that's what makes him evil after all!


-I think it would be better to reward a player that follows his alignment. It would be hard to make it so good characters are penalized for looting houses, so we'll just have to forget about that. What I mean is that often enough you have a few choices in dialogues to help or not. If you could tag the answers so that the computer can record the number of "bad", "neutral" and "good" choices, it could reward or penalize the player after a while (if he acts accordingly or not to his alignment). You could disable a few abilities, give him more spells, special features etc. Or your rep with fellow minded beings could go down (An evil character doing a few good deeds will most likely be laughed upon by other evil characters, even if the general reputation of that player is quite low)


There's always room for improvement; this is simply one of the things RPG developers have to work on some more. Just like BG2 had many improvements compared to BG1