algroth

Baldur's Gate II was about pure adventure. It went like this 'We will deliver a huge world to you, full of content and interesting stories, a good plot to follow, a memorable villain and a horde of companions from which to choose from (almost everyone can make at least one party of characters they like) - and you do whatever you want with it'. Chances were, wherever you went in the game, something interesting would happen - from a talking sword in a sewer to a bizzarre metal ball superimposed on a city or to negotiating with your own spell summons (the Wish Djinni). By deliberately subverting what was possible, or likely to happen, based on one's experience with previous games (which, even the original Baldur's Gate included, seem rather pathetic by comparison - to say nothing of things like the first person dungeon crawls rampant before BG1), the world seems even larger and wondrous than it was, and it is pretty damn impressive even today. Not everything was perfect, but everything was either the best at the time or very nearly so. Most importantly, its elements were in balance. There was a lot of everything, but never too much of any one thing: text, combat, music, story etc. Subsequent games like KOTOR, NWN, Dragon Age, ME felt limited in size, possibilities or imagination. Or they took themselves too seriously (PoE, ME, Dragon Age) without having the intellectual or dramatic depth to back that up. Or they got lost in their own lore (Dragon Age, PoE). Criticisms to Pillars aside (which I never felt it got lost in its own lore nor do I think it lacks intellectual depth), I agree with what you say here. It's amazing to see just how much content seems to be packed into the game, even playing it today - and as you well point out, all of it seems interesting, surprising and always taking things a step or two beyond what may be initially suggested by the quest. I don't think any game since has been truly that consistent in its side content and so on.

I'm having a blast reading/"voice-acting" every bit of dialogue in Baldur's Gate II in my stream, due to the amount of cheese and caricature there is in it. I even partially started through the Aerie romance, that was embarrassing in all the right ways. But I think context and intention are important too - I think Baldur's Gate II is a very different beast to Planescape: Torment or to Pillars of Eternity for that matter, I think it deliberately goes for a more whimsical fantasy feel alla Princess Bride and doesn't really take itself too earnestly even at its darkest moments. Personally I enjoy how full of character much of the text is and how witty certain characters and trope subversions are, for the sake of fitting a certain tone and atmosphere and setting it is doing its job in pretty stellar fashion, warts and all. But with regards to "writing" I think it's also important to distiguish the term from sheer text or dialogue. I can see how something like Annah's romance or Deionarra may appear overwrought in Planescape: Torment yet there's a lot insinuated between the lines that makes the characters and their relationship to the protagonist far richer than what may seem in the surface. Likewise, for all the criticisms you can levy at the text, I have yet to find any game that gets remotely close to Baldur's Gate II when it comes to the sheer depth of narrative for each sidequest and so on - whether you look at the Cult of the Eyeless, the Planar Sphere, the disappearances in Imnesvale, the Astral Prison, the conflict with Firkraag and so on, none of these are treated as mere missions but as full-fledged adventures of their very own, they feel like *quests* in every sense of the word, and far as I see it, this is most certainly a part of writing. But as for Viconia, add another vote in favour of her romance on my behalf. I find it very compelling and well done, even if, again, it does eventually dip into the usual BioWare nacho cheese bathtub. But, I would add, the Baldur's Gate approach to writing a romance would probably not fit a game as sober and muted in its register as Pillars was.

The issue is what the doxxing leads to. I have a friend who used to be the target of some pretty spiteful trolls at another forum, whose doxxing led to one of these trolls ordering hookers repeatedly to his workplace, causing him to effectively lose his job. So the potential consequences can be pretty serious.

Far as I'm concerned, A.I. is one of his best.

Question is, was "neutral evil" ever *meant* to encompass or be the absolute descriptor to a character's beliefs and actions? Or does it merely represent the plane of alignment they most closely resembled? But yeah, you can't really apply these terms directly to Pillars, no matter how you may draw parallels between a character's beliefs or actions to the beliefs of a different setting. By the way I'd most certainly qualify the Grieving Mother's actions as evil - this is regardless of the nobility of her intentions, since as far as I'm concerned few evil-doers assume their intentions to be "bad" or "ignoble".

I think context is pretty important with regards to defining something and why. When I spoke of demons before I did so in the D&D context so those are the rules from which I parted. In a more generalized sense I cannot give a specific personal definition of demons because as far as I see it, there's as many definitions to them as there are beliefs and settings that involve them in their lore. In the context of a JRPG I can see how a demon may resemble more a youkai than it would a demon in other settings and mythologies. Likewise I think the question of alignment falls down to the role it fulfills in your setting and how it responds to its rules and logic and so on. I don't think alignment would work in a context like Eora where no "multiverse" or idealist plane is established, yet in a context like Planescape it makes for a very interesting and arguably *crucial* inclusion. Far as I'm concerned morality in the latter's context is pretty different to the "real world" context and has to be looked at through those eyes, where such ideas are established axiomatically due to the very conception of the planes and so on - and in this setting there's plenty that can be done with any character, either who respects the D&D manual or who maybe challenges it instead (case in point, Planescape: Torment). But yeah, ultimately it falls down to how a certain game or campaign or setting or whatever approaches the "good"/"evil" dichotomy for me. For example, much as the Dragon Age setting can boast about its moral greyness and lack of defined alignment system, most of its roleplaying options are pretty binary and so the practice is in fact worse off than a game like Torment where options are far more diverse despite the presence of an alignment system. Same for whether the "evil" options are dumb or not. I don't think getting rid or including this aspect is what creates or removes nuance but rather, unsurprisingly, the approach to the same. As for my personal preference, I can't rightly say. Over time I've tried a few different videogames and settings, some by others, some personal... And whilst I think I prefer no alignment systems I all the same still find myself going back time and time again to D&D as a base, simply because I like that setting and its many offshoots so much. And whilst we haven't always played with a set "alignment" we had a pretty rough and universal understanding of what was good and what was evil and so on so forth (in my experience I also think this much is true of most RPG settings anyhow, pretense to moral greyness or no).

I don't find it dumb in a context where belief dictates reality, as is Planescape's Multiverse. Evil, good, law and chaos are strong enough concepts that it's entirely viable for each to solidify into their own respective tangible planes according to the universal beliefs of the Multiverse, and in turn also feed into the widespread perception and understanding of the same. It is "dumb" when it's not really paired to this or any other idea justifying its existence, but hey, people will try and pigeonhole all the same.

I'm saying those are positions one can approach each alignment from, and at the very least some of the positions I chose when I set a campaign or two in the Blood War and so on. Definitely a character dominated only by raw emotion would make a viable chaotic character too, just not the only version of a chaotic character. I do agree that the concept of alignment normally should be done with altogether - or at the very least, if it exists, be one that shifts according to your actions. But where it exists, some campaigns have made better or more creative use of it than others - I think the way alignment is integrated into the Planescape setting for example makes it very interesting, given how belief is able to directly change or give form to the planes and how it therefore makes sense that certain groups of ideologies would create separate and distinct planes that correspond to the same. I feel the alignment as such represents merely what plane you align yourself with the most in way of thinking than a more literal representation of *how* evil, good, lawful or chaotic you are. In the context of Forgotten Realms it's all a bit sillier or pointless, especially when these subjects regarding planes and so on aren't really explored. On the subject of fiends and devas, though, it is my personal canon whether it adheres or not to D&D rules that all fiends and devas are a physical manifestation of their own alignment, moreso than creatures who just happen to be good, evil, chaotic or neutral. As in, fiends literally *are* evil itself, or a certain face of evil. So when I think of their intentions or motivations as one of self-interest, I never think of them as, say, acquiring a position of power or some material worth from their actions but rather strengthening the position of their alignment or philosophy as a dominant ideology in the planes. The more people act in accordance to those beliefs, the "truer" or more axiomatic the belief is and thus the stronger they are as incarnations of the same. But again, this is my interpretation and the way I like to approach these characters, which might be different to that of others.

I am pretty sure the deal is: promise to do with souls what I want you to do, and I will help you survive the fall. But it’s something I will be verifying in a semi distant future. It might be that completing favour quests is enough to guarantee survival. Yes, the boons don’t stack but if I remember well you do get the “Gods revenge ending” for every one you pledged alliance to and betrayed. To my understanding based on the most recent playthrough, the deal to survive the fall is done in exchange for the quests the gods have you do, like closing the Frost-Hewn Breach or clearing Hylea's Temple of the dragon and so on. They all say something along the lines of "the souls pledged to me are yours to command" before offering their power as an extra in exchange for you releasing the souls in the manner they wished.

It all depends on our subjective interpretations of each, doesn't it? Far as I'm concerned someone who abuses a crack or loophole in the law is usually *opposed* to law as they reveal the means in which law is incoherent or senseless and hence disorderly. Meanwhile I think passion and emotion is a part of chaos but not its entirety either, so there is definitely room for an agent of anarchy (as opposed to anarchism) who schemes and plots ways in which to plunge a certain situation or group or system or region into chaos. I mean, the Joker is as good an example here as any, really - he's a creature of passion and chaos for certain, yet also schemes and plans (the same which he sometimes purposefully subverts or undermines), and it seems like one of his classic themes or motivations across many of his incarnations is that he seeks to prove the world is as insane as he is. He's a classic chaotic evil character in my mind, and certainly a far more compelling and multifaceted character than "beast go rawr" (which is what the post-Blood War D&D demons were like). I certainly believe that it's well within the Baatezu's portfolio to omit information, though, and that is certainly a way they trick mortals into signing contracts for far worse prices than they initially assume. In the end though, I feel the "chaos" and "law" dichotomy regarding fiends in D&D relates less to their specific choice of action and more to the end goal the action they follow abscribes to.

"Nature, take the life she gave." Away with you, beggar! Don't touch me! I'm super important. So I kicked him in the head until he was dead! Bwahaha

I remember it being reported that if you complete all Gods’ quest you survive the fall, even if you didn’t make a promise to any of them. Josh said a while ago, that it is impossible to survive the fall without making a deal with one of the Gods - I assume it is a bug. Never attempted it myself. I may be mistaken, but I think Josh may be referring to the *first* deal we make, since technically we make two deals with the gods, not one. I think we *need* to make a deal with the gods to survive, but we don't necessarily have to accept their boon in exchange for doing what they want to do with the souls we free. But that presents a bit of an issue in the wording of that question then as we're not sure what of either of these are we referring to by "pledging" to the gods. Can you even pledge to all gods equally? It used to be that you could stack up the several different boons, if I recall correctly, but in my last playthrough when I tried it I found that the newest boon supplanted the others, so I was unsure if that meant you'd pledged with everyone or you simply changed your mind about who you'd rather pledge with - again, all this if having the gods' boon granted to us is what is meant by "pledging" and not simply aiding the gods in exchange for their help in surviving the fall. In either case too, I've known people who opposed to doing one or the other, or even failed a particular mission but completed others correctly - it would have been better to make this question as a "choose as many answers as apply" type instead of forcing you to pick just one. On the subject of stuff I didn't know, or had forgotten about, I didn't recall Falanroed gave you an ability if you got to speak with her before confronting the adra dragon - I also forgot to meet her at all myself in my last playthrough, so that kinda sucks but it's okay. I'm even more surprised by the option to spare the sky dragon after mortally wounding it because for the life of me I tried this *time* and *time* again and couldn't find any such option in any of my playthroughs. Has anyone run across this one?

Just did it. No other purpose than comparing, right?Well...maybe give us a hint at which decisions are going to carry over into Deadfire. If that is the case, then we'll be seeing Uariki (the apprentice in Cragholdt) again. I’d put money on it I would too, especially since she said something along the lines of being in Craghöldt in the first place for wanting to help the people on her island. Sounds like the island in question will be part of the Deadfire.

That's a bit of a weird poll, given that some of the answers seem incomplete whereas others seem to either interpret some options pretty liberally or straight-up misinterpret the ending in question. To the best of my awareness the Devil never forgives Harmke for example, you simply convince her that he's not the one she's looking for - this is extremely crucial to her character as her capability of forgiveness would have allowed her to rise above her thirst for vengeance, and instead if she does not kill Harmke she merely goes on an even bloodier killing spree in hopes of fulfilling that need. Maneha's interpretation as her forgetting meaning she "lives life to the fullest" is also weird as to me the following makes it sound more like her adventuring ways are a means for her to live in denial of her past: "She moved too quickly for regret to catch up with her, and she hoped only that she might outpace it in the next life, as well." Is this an official poll or one made by a user? It's official. The result will be posted on the Obsidian blog. That is... Most curious. And weird too. I can only guess it was not made with the writers' input, but no matter. I replied to it.

That's a bit of a weird poll, given that some of the answers seem incomplete whereas others seem to either interpret some options pretty liberally or straight-up misinterpret the ending in question. To the best of my awareness the Devil never forgives Harmke for example, you simply convince her that he's not the one she's looking for - this is extremely crucial to her character as her capability of forgiveness would have allowed her to rise above her thirst for vengeance, and instead if she does not kill Harmke she merely goes on an even bloodier killing spree in hopes of fulfilling that need. Maneha's interpretation as her forgetting meaning she "lives life to the fullest" is also weird as to me the following makes it sound more like her adventuring ways are a means for her to live in denial of her past: "She moved too quickly for regret to catch up with her, and she hoped only that she might outpace it in the next life, as well." Is this an official poll or one made by a user?

How can anyone hate Jeff Goldblum? He's an international treasure! This ought to be the centrepiece of the National Gallery of Art's permanent exhibition.

The full release of Deadfire will contain a slider for bum customization that will go from "baby cheeks" to full "buns of bronze".

There's an unwritten premise here: attractive young female nudity sells. Having a bunch of fat old naked men (a pretty common sight in bath houses) in your game doesn't boost sales. But honestly, even if Obsidian did fill the Deadfire archipelago with nubile and naked young women I doubt it'd have much of an impact on sales. Third person isometric nudity isn't much of a selling point in a world with games like the Witcher 3. Hey now, Witcher 3 taxed you heavily for its attractive young female nudes with stuff like nearly naked Dijkstra and that one chick's naked granny. So it taxed you with even better nudity?

The puerility of the forum's behaviour in this thread has laid its collective maturity bare for all to see!

I preordered twenty!

All your talk of 2D isometric butts is making me sweaty.

On a slight side-note, a thing I'd like to see in Deadfire that wasn't present in Pillars or, to the best of my awareness, Tyranny and most other videogames, is a movie-like approach to listing the voice cast in the credits, where you write the voice actors alongside their respective roles, or the most important ones amidst these same. It would be great so as to keep track of who voiced what in the game, and shouldn't be hard to add into the credits at all.

Just think of it as your inner Papyrus.