d0riangray

For me personally, an RPG without romance simply isn't one, as there is one of the most basic human motivators (sex/lust/love) missing entirely. I would be fine with a level of romance as it was included in BG 2. Not all characters were romancable, but those that were provided a deep enduring experience and all had a different tone. Some adaption to more modern social mores should be done however (e.g. SGR). Everything else can (and will hopefully) be modded in anyway. Missing out on romance arcs that span multiple games and grow (ala ME although hopefully a little more in depth) would be a shame.

I totally approve this thread, the inclusion of valid long-term profit for evil characters is key to a good role-playing experience. All too often short-term gain is woefully small when you look at the long-term benefits good choices get in exp/gold/items. Mostly what I want to see is the inclusion of "smart" evil. Which lies, deceives and runs the long con instead of murdering all the kittens, as fun as that may be. It would be especially nice to be able to corrupt my companions, it was always a high point to bring the goody-two shoes down and destroy their moral highground.

Great thread an poll questions! Personally, I absolutely want romances (including same-gender ones) included in the game, it just does not make sense for me to play a RPG that relies heavily on character interaction and development without any romance happening. Not having the option to romance your companions would take an important dimension out of the game and would reduce my enjoyment of the game greatly.

I am all for romances, especially since many of the stretch goals include additional companions that can be used to provide different romance choices than purely straight ones. Not having them in my opinion would greatly reduce the role-play factor.

Viconia - nuff said

My point exactly, the problem is that we would need more than just one epically evil decision that actually makes sense. One example would be party members, in most games you have to be nice to them in order to get ahead in their stories, a simple (lie) at the end of those lines would go a long way let you play the manipulative bastard you wanna be.

True, but honeslty the good options are the default, so they will be what developers spend most time on. This is perfectly fine as most people like to be the knight in shining armor fantasy. However, in my opinion missing the evil options devalues the good ones, without the possibilty of being the bad guy you can't really be the good guy.

As the titel suggests, I would like to see the inclusion of a evil way to play through the game that is not reduced to the normal evil options of killing everything you see for a fist full of gold and instant gratification. Normally the modus operandi in most games is: good choice - may inconvenient in the short term, but yields lasting benefits; bad choice - instant gratification, but in the long term you miss out on rewards/quests/exp. In recent years many games that gave players the option of making moral decisions have even moved completely away from giving you the chance to be an evil bastard to just giving you the choice between reaching your (good) goal politely or brashly. And while PE wants to offer moral choices the description in my opinion goes in the same direction. Do I want to sacrifice a friend to save a town - no I want to be the guy burning it down! While I enjoy leaving dead puppies in my wake as much as the next bloke, I am more the guy that builds up a budding slaver empire and subjugates cities. This may cause some additional work so it may be a good idea to include a stretch goal offer that to players. Anyone else interest in this?