maia

Personally, I'd just prefer to play Revan who is crippled after surviving some cinematic catastrophe by sheer Force Power. Regrettably, s/he is terribly weakened by it and needs to regain strength and recruit new allies before tackling those pesky True Sith again . IMHO, this would make vastly more sense than a new protagonist. If it absolutely _has_ to be a new PC, there needs to be an explanation why fate of the galaxy comes to reside in the hands of a weak newb. Say what you will, but conventions of RPGs require the PC to be the one doing stuff and making decisions. "Assisting" Revan and Exile just won't work IMHO. Even when it looked like Bastila was in charge in KOTOR, all the calls were being made by the PC - which felt somewhat clunky. And there is a nightmare with letting the player to define Revan's and Exile's genders and alignments and even so it would look dumb if they are both permanently masked and never speak, etc. It is just too complicated. So, being hit by a Force bundle, as Astrocreep suggested is as good a reason for the PC to become a mover and shaker as any. Or maybe have the PC posessed by a Force Ghost, perhaps even Revan's? Actually, it might be a good solution. Revan is killed by the True Sith, but is too stubborn/desperate to die and concede defeat. The PC is a normal person (non-human races possible) with latent Force abilities, or perhaps a Force Sensitive in training and is in a right place at a right time to get posessed by Revan's ghost. Revan's gender and alignment could be established in 2 sentences in a conversation with first NPC of the game. Then the PC does a few introductory quests, arrives at the fated location and gets posessed - shown by a grand but confusing visual sequence. Henceforth some people sense the ghost or its power and defer to it, some (True Sith) hunt the PC, etc. The ghost may communicate with the PC in "ghostly whisper" or perhaps only through visions. It would argue with the PC if they happen to have opposite alignments, but in the end the decision would be up to the PC. True Sith would leave the PC no choice but to destroy them or be destroyed... and the ghost would know just _how_ to destroy them. In the end the ghost would either leave the PC (if we set Revan at LS) or try to take over completely and have to be evicted (Revan DS). In any case, the saga would have a satisfying conclusion which would also explain why the PC didn't make a try at founding a new Empire. Oh, and if the PC starts in training, I really would like it to be a non-true Sith one . Some less illustrous Sith academy or something. It would make a nice change of pace IMHO.

Yea, I figured that it wasn't the end of it (but I sure wouldn't want to have anything to do with Apryl if I lived in that world, LOL). I just wondered if it was supposed to be the end of the demo. I mean, it felt a bit short to me for a demo and I have never played any adventure games before. It is just that I was booted back to the menu after the shipwreck scene and then shortly the whole crashed to the desktop... OTOH, I did get to use all of the items, so it could be it.

OK, since the whole story hinges on Revan's doings and we still didn't see the whole picture about Revan's motives and goals, s/he ought to be the main character again. Having a _third_ all-powerful Jedi and a complete newb at that pop up would just feel weird and unsatisfying. In fact, the Exile getting the ship and the droids already felt rather forced. Face it - KOTOR games always had a fixed protagonist with a solid background. Console gamers shouldn't be put out by this - that's what they are used to. So, new platforms (if any) wouldn't have to equate to a new protagonist. Whatever adjustements are needed (in view of prior games) can be achieved through the dialogue, like in KOTOR2. And I don't care a whit about the levels from KOTOR1. Just start KOTOR3 with a big destructive cataclysm and have Revan barely survive it and be drastically weakened. No amnesia. But besides Revan and the droids, I don't want to see any returning party NPCs. Fresh planets, fresh faces. It is like Malak said - Revan can never belong. S/he does her bit and rides into the sunset, meets new people, etc. No lightsaber hunt either, the protagonist is a Jedi, so why pretend otherwise? Just finally make non-Jedi party NPCs more useful. Only one apprentice, please, (maybe different for m/f) but the whole master-apprentice relationship should be beefy and central to the game. All party NPCs should have as much interaction as Kreia and have sidequests again. Better have 8 of them with deep personality, than what we had in KOTOR2. Aim for quality before quantity here. Definitive ending to the sequence - DS, Revan is struck down at the moment of triumph. LS - gives up the Force. I'd really like to see some space combat. Not the stupid mini-game, but a fully fleshed out part of the game that is based on the same rules as the ground combat.

I have just tried the demo of "The Longest Journey". Does it really end with the ship sinking or was it some bug? In any case, quite interesting. I might pick it up. Hopefully, the German translation isn't too terrible.

Funny, I am pretty much a klutz, but I much preferred racing in K2. It was much easier for me, because the tracks are longer, so you can be a little sloppy and still win. The pads aren't so tightly spaced too, so it is not so difficult to hit those that matter. I also prefer the whole 3D aspect and the trappings are much more atmospheric.

Aargh! Yes, it's the one I got. But is it the cutscene that signals the irreparable breakup, or the dialogue? If I saw the cutscene, does it mean that even if I don't talk with her on the Hawk - i.e. don't allow her to tell me off and apply myself to getting her Inf as high as Visas' by doing good deeds, she still will break up and remain unjedifiable? This just sucks!! I am all for an irrevocable choice, but IMHO, it should have been a confrontation which should have given the player a chance to decide between the 2 of them once and for all, rather than something happening behind the scenes and me being presented with an accomplished fact.

And what if I were to get some influence with her _after_ turning her into a Jedi? I thought that the Sith Lord's "corruption" ability allows one to get the companions to mirror PC's alignment easier - i.e. with less influence? Also, if I pick her as a leader for the Dxun tomb, I can make her take several DS hits to her alignment directly, no? I can't reload. I got influence with Visas by doing various cruel things on Nar Shadaa, I am not replaying this whole planet. I meant, losing further influence with the Handmaiden - will it unlock training sequences and jedification again if I go down to > 10 influence? I don't care all that much if she has an opposite alignment.

Well, I am playing the DS way currently and I wanted to get Hanharr and HK-47 as early as possible. So, I was afraid to gain influence with the Handmaiden, because I have heard that you can only get Hanharr if you are really deep into the DS and getting her influence almost brought my PC up to neutrality. Consequently, I reloaded and wanted to deal with her after Nar Shadaa... but then Visas joined, I got a little influence with her and suddenly the Handmaiden says how all is finished "between us". Now, I was somewhat crushed by this developement (particulary since I was counting on getting that Wis to Def upgrade for my Sith Lord), but browsing this forum I saw that some characters can _also_ be jedified if Influence with them gets really low. Would loosing tons of Inf with the Handmaiden help her get over her jealous rage? I'd really like to have a Guardian along this time around - so if the situation with the Handmaiden is hopeless, I'd rather go anger Bao-Dur (who for some reason not only never became jedifiable in my LS female game, but actually started devolving into DS after I have got tons of Inf raises with him). Any info would be welcome.

Well, I usually play LS first, but it is just because most games have a much better storyline for a good character and s/he can also do almost all sidequests, even those without in-game rewards. An evil character's storyline usually feels unsatisfactory and tacked-on and evil actions are those of a dumb brute. KOTOR1 was a prime example of this. I could barely finish the evil playthrough because of it. Having said that, I am now playing an evil Consular in KOTOR2 and it is absolutely great! In fact, the whole "bounty hunter" segment is much better with Hanharr than with Mira and makes more sense. Betrayal upon betrayal, quite powerful. I like how you can support different factions, how other characters react to your deeds and how dialogues subtly change. It is also possible to play a manipulative clever villain, although achieving dark mastery this way, if at all possible, probably takes a while. It is one of the few games, however, where playing evil you get to experience the game as fully as playing good. Oh, it is not perfect, there are some things that could have been done better. For instance, I'd have liked to roleplay as if the PC is bitter, desillusioned, disbelieves the explanations of the Jedi Masters and blames them for his for intial condition. I'd have also liked to be able to fake sympathy towards my companions, to lie to them, to talk them into accepting actions they dislike, if my Cha/persuade are high enough. Etc. But even so, evil path of KOTOR2 is very fun and miles ahead of the original game and in fact most CRPGs. IIRC , only PST has a comparably well-fleshed out evil option.

Hm, actually the seeds of Revan as "greater good Sith" or at least "road to hell is paved with good intentions" Sith are there in KOTOR1, planted by Bioware. I mean, it is right-out said that the Mandalorians were manipulated into their war by somebody outside of the known space, so to speak, that there was some great threat that used them as their catspaws. It is also never made clear how the Mandalorian situation could have been resolved if Revan didn't take matters into his/hers hands. Also, Revan was different from Malak, no brutish thug with simple thirst for power, but somebody whom people followed, selflessly, and whom even enemies admired. It has been mentioned that Revan never needed or wanted to commit wanton acts of destruction, unlike Malak. And he used the Star Forge sparingly, despite being more clever and tech-savvy than Malak. The Kashyyk Rakata hologramm strongly hints that Revan even foresaw the events of KOTOR1, too! I don't see how all of this can be explained by a "simple" power-hungry Sith. In fact, one of my main criticisms of part 1 was that Revan's motivations and the story of his/hers fall were never adressed. Conversely it wouldn't mean that if Revan's initial motivation was counter-acting some huge threat, s/he didn't become an evil "goal sanctifies the means" dictator by the time of their capture and s/he certainly would have intended to rule the former Republic space absolutely after the threat was dealt with. My other main criticism was that Revan was never made to confront results of the actions of their previous incarnation, that everything was instantly forgiven, that all those lost lives were erased as if they have never been and somebody else was picking up the shambles. KOTOR2 adressed that to a rather satisfying degree, IMHO, though I agree that it would have been better if Revan had been the main character. Finally, it was nice to have many choices that mattered within the game _and_ have the character be defined by those choices, rather than a single ad-hoc decision near the end. Re: companions from part 1, I dont see how they could return as party members, apart from Canderous and the droids. And it is not Obsidian's fault, as it was Bioware who set the rest of them to be killable. While I do agree that K3 should be about Revan again, IMHO the companions should be all new, apart from those 3. Or maybe just the droids. Revan is by definition a solitary figure, without equals and without peace, who touches many lives, but can't retain anybody for long. And another thing - that "simplicity" people here extoll, was it ever in the movies, even? Didn't the Emperor give his Empire peace and prosperity for 20 years? Wasn't Vader, while certainly much more thuggish, deeply conflicted about Luke? I agree that much of the nuance that Lucas tried to introduce in the prequels fell on its face, but it is due to external reasons. But "road to Sithdom is paved with good intentions" is certainly well and truly part of the canon now . Speaking for myself, the "simplicity" made re-playing KOTOR1 as a dark character a dull affair and I greatly enjoyed the role-playing and nuance KOTOR2 offered. I also really liked to have an intelligent and sneaky antagonist for a change, even if in the end her story was a bit incomprehensible due to cuts. But I#d take her over a maniacally laughing thug any time, thank you!

Well, I have just finished KOTOR2 and on the whole I have to say that I enjoyed it slightly more than the original, which I also liked a lot. Yes, the storyline was incomplete, but way more interesting and personally I felt that KOTOR1's storyline was also teeming with plotholes: 1. the much maligned Bastila thing on Taris, 2. the fact that nobody recognised Revan's face. Yes, there was the mask, but s/he wouldn't have been able to wear it as a padawan and the Republic newscasts certainly would have broadcasted the old personal images. 3. why did s/he leave the starmaps intact for the opponents to find, 4. what was the deal with the Rakatan animation on Kashyyk that hinted that Revan might have forseen the events of the game, 5. what where the reasons for their fall in the first place and did it occur before, during or after the Manadalorian war 6. how did the Jedi Masters intend to deal with the Mandalorians if Revan's solution was such a mistake. Not that part 2 answered it either... 7. why did Revan use the Starforge so sparingly and what were their ultimate plans with it 8. Bastila's fall. Not that it happened, but how and why. How did she go from hating Malak so much that it threatened her Jedi detachment to serving him? From her pride and feeling of superiority to becoming a cringing apprentice? Shouldn't she have decided instead that she was the only one powerful enough to take down Malak and using the Dark Side offered the only hope of doing so? 9. The stupid "flip-flop" schtick at the temple, which pretty much invalidated every choice offered previously. 10. Revan never truly got confronted with the results of their actions, never got to learn the reasons for anything they have done before the mindwipe. Without that there could be no true redemption, IMHO. For me it was the single greatest weakness of part 1 and I hoped that part 2 would deal with it. And in a way it did, though using a different character. I still would have preferred Revan in that role, though. Also, I feel that the villain (and there really was only one despite the misleading title) of KOTOR2 was much more interesting and compelling than the Jawless Wonder with his stupid laugh :D. Even his great voice and his nice penultimate speech: "conqueror, saviour, you will never find peace", etc. couldn't make up for his shallowness and cheesiness. The planets are also better on the whole, particulary the many choices that matter, better quests, etc. OTOH I certainly liked the first "around Telos" sequence much less than Taris and found Dantooine in part 2 somewhat dull. OTOH, Dxun-Onderon sequences, Nar-Shadaa and the cave on Korriban were all superb. It didn't even disappoint me much that Korriban was otherwise so empty and abbreviated (and it was my favourite planet from part 1). It added to the spooky atmosphere IMHO. I also liked the Citadel station battle sequence more than Unknown world, though the sub-boss fight was a disappointment. Malachor was much worse than the Star Forge, granted, but final confrontation with the main villain much better. Generally, I adored that KOTOR2 allowed you to really roleplay the character, to express the reasons for past actions and a choice to stand by those reasons or reject them. _And_ then to follow it up with new actions that ultimately matter. That was great and allowed me to bond with the PC much more than in part 1, even though I much prefer the _idea_ of Revan. It was also great how NPCs really became involved and didn't sit on their behinds waiting for you to save them single-handedly. Party interaction. Hm... I liked the new and interesting things they did - influence, snippets of NPC interaction on the Hawk, etc. But I think that this stuff needs to be developped further - depending on the Charisma score you should have had options to lie to the NPCs, fake the sympathy to gain Influence and when your Influence with them becomes high enough also to successfully defend the actions the given NPC otherwise tends to dislike and gain further influence from _that_. I also feel that radical change of alignment of an NPC should be worthy of a side-event or at least an extra dialogue. Regarding the snippets of interaction between NPCs when the PC wasn't present, I feel that they should have unlocked new dialogue options. It was frustrating not be able to discuss some of the things that occured. Generally, I'd prefer to also see more of the location-tied and perhaps even level-tied dialogue from part1 as well as optional NPC side-events or better yet, sidequests, some of which could be location-based and some influence-based. Radio/Force contact by absent party NPCs was very immersion-building, I loved that.. I also feel that they should have had fewer party NPCs and used the resources to extend the party-NPC interaction. They have stretched themselves too thin, IMHO. I know it is controversial, but I also greatly enjoyed the "splitting up" segments. It allowed almost the whole team to contribute, so I didn't have to wonder why the game forced me to ferry some of those slackers around and it also let me learn to know them. I do feel that more discussion of those segments with the PC afterwards was in order though. Where part 1 shines is combat, general polish and stability. KOTOR2 would restart my computer or show me a blue screen of death every 2 hours of play or so and once corrupted a save. Can't say anything about graphics, played part1 on a much worse computer. Sad, isn't it? Part 2's combat was even easier, despite all innovations. Only the Mira segments and the final fight were any challenge for me with my light sentinel/watchman on difficult. Apart from that, I never had to reload a fight. In fact, not a single party member went down. No wonder with nobody using force powers and hardly anybody using grenades... But KOTOR1 was a pioneer, of the engine and of that "cinematic" style of storytelling on computer. But I feel that part 2 _did_ improve on it, even if not as much as was hoped. IMHO, of course. Now to see how it stands to replaying...

Well, being a klutz I had to replay most of them multiple times, but the one where I lost my will to continue was the stealth mission in prosecutor's house. The most frustrating of all was the Race of course. I guess I probably had to try it for 10 or so hours all told (spread over a couple of weeks) before I could beat it. I guess that it used up most of my patience with the game. The thing is, I really enjoy the gameplay and atmosphere of such games (tried Vice City, too)... So, no manual saving in San Andreas for PC?

So, still no quicksave in the PC version? This game sounds great, but being a klutz I absolutely hate the "savepoint" system. I have been playing "Mafia" - a great, stylish and underappreciated game, with kick-ass storyline, but it is a love-hate relationship and I am stuck about 2/3ds through. Having to replay the same mission ad nauseam really saps my enjoyment.

True, but beside the point. The world of the novel is clearly a medieval world, with swords, crossbows, nobles, bad hygiene etc. That's why the Nazi coup is so out of place there. If it had been at a stage of developement similar to inter-war Germany, I wouldn't have had any complaints. As it was, it felt fake to me. It is a very idealized communist future future, though, where everybody has exciting (mostly intellectual) work, total freedom and all material posessions they want. So, it is more a beautiful dream than educational . PS - I am a bit concerned about the potpurri of weapons from different epoques in the game. The essential points of the novel were that progressors acted covertly and that they didn't kill.

Actually it is "you will practice subtle social engineering without ever revealing yourself". Small, discreet nudges here and there, save this one from certain death, impede that one's plans etc. Without ever killing anybody. Of course, that means that the progressors have to let certain distasteful things happen... and some of them don't posess sufficient emotional detachment for this and break emotionally. It is a really great idea, but unfortunately the Strugatzky brothers didn't implement it very well. Instead of truly medieval society they have one similar to the 1930-ies Germany, complete with a Nazi coup. It doesn't help that the alternate Terran future is a communist one, either .

I have recently returned to MW as I know have a better computer and the 2 expansions and IMHO the following mods greatly enhance the experience: the lgNPC series of mods - give unique dialogue to the NPCs in various towns and some additional quests, too. Makes conversation with NPCs actually enjoyable, gasp! Not all towns and cities got this yet, but I'd grab all there is ASAP. The "Sounds" mod & updates - greatly improves the atmosphere True Lights and Darkness - those dungeons would look truly dangerous now and you'd have a use for lanterns and torches Wakim's Game Improvements mod - adds some much needed balance to the game and fixes some bugs Aerlorn's Morrowind Enhanced utility and respective mods: Combat enhanced - makes melee combat much better with combos, slowing time, etc,; Journal Enhanced which allows you to actually write in your journal and Blocking Enhanced which allows manual blocking. To anybody just starting MW I'd advise to grab these mods, create some kind of a fighter/mage character (given the size of MW teleportation spells such as Divine Intervention, Almasivi Intervention and Mark and Recall are a must, and I'd also strongly recommend Bound "weapon of choice", Water Walking, Water Breathing, Levitate and Open) and have fun. Oh, and keep in mind that the first 4 levels are fairly tough and you'd be killed a lot if you aren't careful, but after that levelling happens quite naturally. What you are supposed to do? What you want. You can follow the main quest - just go to Caius Cosades, give him the papers and he'd tell you what to do. I only advise to wait until level 4-5 before you venture on MQ, because it can be fairly frustrating otherwise. You can and indeed should join guilds and do their quests. Each settlement also offers a couple of quests usually and you'd bump into individuals asking for assistance in the wild, too. You can do some freeform explorations. You can free the slaves. Etc.

Um, no Ivan the Terrible was contemporary of Elisabeth I of England and even was among the multitude who offered for her hand. You are thinking of Ivan III. Yes, there is quite a bit of material re: Russia but you can't have as many distinctive factions and peoples. It is always Slavs/ Russians, various nomads culminating in Mongol/Tatars, Scandinavians and the Polish. Mongol/Tatars and Scandinavians already figured in M:TW, however, so it would be quite a bit of rehashing. Russia was quite active in the late 17th and throughout the 18th century however with several major wars under its belt, so it could make for a great faction in my proposed "18th century: TW" scenario.

30-years war in 17th century Germany would be provide a really good setting, IMHO. You get a boatload of factions, a decent time-window, lots of diplomacy and backstabbing and technology which still encouraged use of different mass formations, etc. 18 century Europe in general offered lots and lots of conflicts, battles, intrigue, etc. (War for Spanish Inheritance, Russian-Swedish war, Prussian Wars, English-French colonial war, American Revolution, French Revolution, etc). Yes, 18th century:TW could be just mindblowing. Now that I think of it it would be my choice. Napoleonic wars would also be a great fodder.

Well, it is true that most mana-based magic systems in CRPGs are on the simple side and don't allow for complex tactics of BGs and IWDs. Maybe not coincidentially most mana-based CRPGs in my experience were also single-character ones and thus generally not too big on complex tactics. But it is a matter of implemenatation more than anything else - Wizardry 8 (and its predessors I presume) has a very satisfying mana-based magic that allows for intricate spell-counterspell magic duels. I have to say that although I adore the BGs I really don't like the whole spell memorization stuff, because it constrains one to constantly use the more generally useful spells, while specialised ones have to be ignored, and forces reconaissance by fight and reload in order to learn the tactics and foibles of a particular tough enemy, followed by a rest a few steps away from that enemy in order to memorize appropriate spells. I.e. a lot of unnecessary tedium and suspension of disbelief. I am currently playing a Wild Mage in BG2 and I have to say that Nahal's Reckless Dweomer is great because it allows you to cast any spell from the book. It is just so liberating. If only those damned chaos surges didn't interfere... Why couldn't they have scraped the whole memorization system and just said - at your character level you can cast x spells of level y, n spells of level z, etc. per waking period and let you pick _which_ spells on the fly from the spellbook. IMHO such a simple change would have greatly improved the D&D magic system.

Unfortunately the "fall to DS" part happens quite often in RL whenever religious or ideological conflicts flare up. A lot of people who want only to act for the best, sacrifice more and more of their morality in order to achieve their ideal (which needn't be evil in itself) and end up as either desillusioned cynical monsters or delusional monsters. Frankly, that's the path I expected Bastila's fall to DS to take in K1 - but unfortunately Bioware took a different and IMHO flat and disappointing approach. Anyway, I'll repost my thoughts from the "General Discussion" thread: But shouldn't the fall to DS affect NPC's reactions and perspective? I mean, it is such a huge thing in SW universe... They may still dislike certain type of behaviour, but their reasons should change - for instance they might think that it is too petty for a Sith Lord and thus demeaning or a sign that the PC thinks small or that it is a useless loss of time, etc. Also, doesn't being solicitious to your party NPCs in order to get influence result in LS points? I hear that there is no option to lie to them. Now, I also think that change of alignment is a very serious matter and should have been played through a quest or a side-event like in KOTOR1 (only there the NPC's either didn't follow your evil advice or if they did - like Mission betraying the Beks, it had no effect on alignment) . Actually the ideal would be a combination of both systems - i.e you'd have to gain enough influence with an NPC for their quest to activate. Their likes/dislikes or at least reasons for them should change along with alignment change. If after the change the PC persists in doing things they hate, however, their alignment shouldn't change again - such flip-flopping just trivialises the whole fall/redemption issue. Instead, they should just become less and less helpful and more derisive and eventually they should leave the party and/or fight the PC, etc. It would also be awesome if an NPC that left the party in scorn subsequently appeared at the side of your enemy in a boss fight, etc. And: Or maybe the most important of NPC's likes/dislikes shouldn't be aligned along the LS/DS axis to begin with. For instance, let's say there is an NPC who worships courage and reacts negatively when you duck any challenge. He starts dark, but you can redeem him. You'd still lose influence with him if you peacefully deflect folks spoiling for a fight, but your other LS choices shouldn't upset him anymore. Etc. Or an LS char that hated bullying to begin with might still hate it after becoming DS - as a sign of PC's weakness and small-mindedness, but would heartily endorse other DS actions. Further, you should be able to lessen a negative impact of your actions on an NPC to certain degree via high persuasion - explaining to the first how battling insignificant opponents is beneath you, for instance, and to the second that it is helping you towards the main goal, etc. I'd really love a game where I could slowly corrupt a young idealist via the "end sanctifies the means", "it's us or them" and "sacrifices must be made for the good of the future generations" route that works so well in RL ...

OTOH, isn't the goal of influencing NPC's alignment to get companions that agree with you? I mean, what's the point of "redeeming" somebody if they still react negatively if you chose LS options? IMHO, as their alignment changes, either NPC's priorities should also change, or/and their reasons for them should change. Or maybe the most important of NPC's likes/dislikes shouldn't be aligned along the LS/DS axis to begin with. For instance, let's say there is an NPC who worships courage and reacts negatively when you duck any challenge. He starts dark, but you can redeem him. You'd still lose influence with him if you don't accept challenges, but your other LS choices shouldn't upset him anymore. Etc. Or an LS char that hated bullying to begin with might still hate it after becoming DS - as a sign of PC's weakness and small-mindedness, but would heartily endorse other DS actions. Further, you should be able to lessen a negative impact of your actions on an NPC to certain degree via high persuasion - explaining to the first how battling insignificant opponents is beneath you, for instance, and to the second that it is helping you towards the main goal, etc. I'd really love a game where I could slowly corrupt a young idealist via the "end sanctifies the means", "it's us or them" and "sacrifices must be made for the good of the future generations" route that works so well in RL ...

But shouldn't the fall to DS affect NPC's reactions and perspective? I mean, it is such a huge thing in SW universe... They may still dislike certain type of behaviour, but their reasons should change - for instance they might think that it is too petty for a Sith Lord and thus demeaning or a sign that the PC thinks small or that it is a useless loss of time, etc. Also, doesn't being solicitious to your party NPCs in order to get influence result in LS points? I hear that there is no option to lie to them. Now, I also think that change of alignment is a very serious matter and should have been played through a quest or a side-event like in KOTOR1 (only there the NPC's either didn't follow your evil advice or if they did - like Mission betraying the Beks, it had no effect on alignment) . Actually the ideal would be a combination of both systems - i.e you'd have to gain enough influence with an NPC for their quest to activate. Their likes/dislikes or at least reasons for them should change along with alignment change. If after the change the PC persists in doing things they hate, however, their alignment shouldn't change again - such flip-flopping just trivialises the whole fall/redemption issue. Instead, they should just become less and less helpful and more derisive and eventually they should leave the party and/or fight the PC, etc. It would also be awesome if an NPC that left the party in scorn subsequently appeared at the side of your enemy in a boss fight, etc.

This approach really screws spellcasters, though. I played through BG1 a couple of years back and now I am playing BG2 + TOB for the first time and there is no comparison. In BG1 if I actually used any spells except for healing, I had to rest all the time to regain them or just use my mage as a feeble slinger and cleric as sub-optimal fighter and healer. In BG2 my spellcasters finally have enough spells to participate in all fights _as spellcasters_ and can afford to keep a couple of less commonly useful ones prepared for special situations. And now that I think about it, with new rules and all active feats they provide it would make playing melee characters more boring, too. After all, a lvl 3 character would have very few feats and thus very little tactical choice... which would lead to boring repetitive gameplay - a la BG1's "give everybody missile weapons and point them all at one target at a time" which was the best strategy for 95% of all encounters. Basically, there needs to be special accomodation made for low-level characters, to make playing them flexible and interesting, but I have no idea what it should be. I'd certainly love a lot of options high-level characters have without their godly power....