gglorious

I am not saying "Anders should join your party and be godlike". I'm simply saying that in as much as a character has a background, it would be better for it to make sense. I'm not saying "realism should trump gameplay". I'm not even really that mad about Anders being a party member, he would just be better if he made more sense. Secondly, these consistencies "inconsistencies", aren't. Aren't actually inconsistent AT ALL. They may not fit reality, but they are insanely consistent within the game. I'm fine with a world with it's own internal logic. I'm not talking about mechanics, I'm talking about story. A character's supposed background means nothing in terms of the mechanics. It is very relevant to the story. I'm not presuming very much. Even if you can justify Nalia(which I am not granting because the anti-magic Amnish nobility aren't going to train heavily in magic), it still won't really solve the problem in all cases. Oh, she definitely is in the top 5%, it's just that Shepard is in the top .01% of all soldiers(or even higher), even admired by Miranda as being a super-soldier, and if you know your statistics that means that the difference in ability between just the top 5% and the top .01% is enormous, it's a matter of a few standard deviations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation That being said, you picked the easier to justify cases while ignoring the harder ones. So, let's take Aerie. We know Aerie's background, she's a former circus slave who was taught magic and clerical powers by Quayle. Quayle is not as powerful as Aerie though, and the amount of training time he could have used would have been very limited as Quayle had to be VERY available to travel with you for BG(He'll pretend he's going the same direction as you regardless of what direction you say you're going, which he wouldn't if he had a circus apprentice already). She'd also have circus duties which wouldn't allow for the same intense training that your PC is getting, even if she was learning at an accelerated rate. Your PC is risking his/her life on a daily basis and training until outright exhaustion, and your PC is usually also probably the fastest possible learner. I'm not going to say that's impossible, but I do think it's a highly questionable answer. My answer would really be not to include them and instead write a character that makes more sense. The writers could presumably write any character. The glaring weakness issue would cause more problems than it solves. Also, I am not trying to be super-duper-nitpicky, it's just a question of suspension of belief. By picking out certain party members, I'm acknowledging the rest isn't a problem. So, ME2 did this well, ME3 did this well, BG did reasonably well, I can accept DAO, etc, etc. This is not a game-breaking thing, just something it would be nice to take into account. If your party is one of novices, try to make sure the party members that join are novices. If they're elite veterans, make sure that the characters that join are elite veterans.

I'm not opposing the leveling up. I'm opposing the character background inconsistency. I'm fine with rapid leveling to glory. I'm not as fine with a novice joining an elite team and carrying their own weight or an expert joining a novice team and being just as incompetent. The problem is internal consistency, and rising to power quickly isn't internally inconsistent, but Anders/Justice being so weak, and Liara being so strong are inconsistent.

I have to also admit that I *HATE* the kid in ME3. I mean, my first playthrough was with a strongly renegade shepard. I ended up being pissed off at the issue as it contradicted the personality/temperament I had been developing as that character for the first 2 games. I am fine with emotional moments as well, but I'd also rather that they are subtle and perhaps work more by chilling than by beating over the head with melodrama. I'm also suspicious of the introduction because of the temptation to control the PC's emotions and deny the player the ability to define that character. I have to admit that I liked how DA2 tended to handle emotions, including the deaths of several main characters. I mean, I am actually impressed with how they managed to make reactive responses(So Hawke is casually a jerk when you make him pick jerk dialogue options) and the handling of emotions. I am not so compelled by the Connor example, because Connor is really not different than anything else you've had to kill except for being a kid. At that point, a number of innocent people have died because of him, so I feel no reason to really care.

I'll be direct: 1) I like romances because I see romantic relations as tending to be deeper. This shouldn't be surprising, as romances are kind of about deep connections. That's why in BG2, all of the people chasing after you keep on whining about their personal problems, many of which actually require real psychological help. They're trying to build a connection and in response your character is becoming more connected to them. 2) I like romances because they offer a chance at a "happily ever after" kind of ending. So, as an example, in BG2, the only way you actually get an ending that talks about your character's future is when you romance somebody and stay mortal. Otherwise, you got nothing. Even in stories where you got something as an after story, you get much more of a concrete one if you romance, because romance is a big deal for a character's future. 3) I'm just sentimental. I think I probably just like romance, so even if it was two party members having a successful romance, I would probably kind of think it was cool so long as I got to see some of the relation. I don't really care about sex in the game. They can just have characters never mention it. They could even have it where sex is a bad idea, like with Aerie in BG2. I like the social and emotional aspects, not the sexual ones. To be honest, there are some problems: 1) I didn't like Elanee, your stalker in NWN2. Why? She's stalking you. I mean, I don't want the idea that a character is just strongly driven to seek you out romantically. If it happens, then it happens, but it shouldn't be an obsession. 2) There is some degree where a romance isn't realistic. I mean, people do seek comfort in times of stress and worry, but at the same time, they're probably not thinking as much about deep emotional connection so much as survival the next day. I mean, this doesn't make romantic efforts wrong, but they will seem a bit out of place. It's probably more likely to be driven by carnal things, or much closer to friendship with sexual/romantic undertones than an explicit romance in all likelihood, because love/romance isn't the first thing coming to mind when death is hovering over you and where surviving until tomorrow is a much bigger question than "does that boy/girl like me?". 3) Deep emotional problems are probably not the best thing. I mean, I never romanced Anomen, but none of the women romanced in BG2 were in any business ever getting into a romance. I can understand that party members are more likely to be dysfunctional than the average, but still....

I am actually going to come out against multiclassing. It's good if it's the only way to make spell-knight kind of characters or things like that, but I really would prefer flexible main classes where I can have a wizard with specialized warrior talents with a wizardly-flavor than a wizard/fighter. Get the difference? Like, I am totally fine with the basic concept of breaking classes out of their mold, but I'd rather have this semi-tailored to the class, and not just crudely mashed together. I tend to think that DnD 3.x tends to be more of a mashing than a combination though. I think multiclassing is the next best thing though. We should be able to create battle-mages, and thuggish rogues without too many problems. I guess.... part of what makes me wary of the idea is that I don't think that DnD 3.x had a great combination system especially with magical classes, and I think 2.0 wasn't the best either. I guess I really just don't like how cookie-cutter the way DnD handled the classes in the first place though, with a lot of junk and flavoring you may not really want but are saddled with as you level.

This isn't a major problem, but it is one that sometimes kind of bothers me when I look at the NPCs working with my character in a game. Often I don't think their level of power makes very much sense. So, in Baldur's Gate 2, you have party members from BG, who should be as powerful as you. You have a few local heroes/mercenaries who have proven their worth through their great struggles. Then you have characters like Aerie and Nalia, who should not even be anywhere close to your power. Aerie is just a former circus slave with a bit of teaching in clerical arts and magic, but who has never adventured. Nalia is just another slumming noble. Neither character should be even close to the strength of the hero of Baldur's Gate, even if you fudge it. Another example is Anders in DA2. Anders was a party member of the hero of DAO in a quest that happened after that hero killed the archdemon, presumably one of the most powerful creatures in the world; defeated Loghain, one of the most powerful warriors in Fereldan; and possibly defeated Flemith, a legendary witch, so Anders should be about as powerful as needed to do these things. Even more so, he's merged with a spirit who is about as powerful as all of these things. Now remember, that Connor, a barely trained apostate who became an abomination due to a much weaker spirit than Justice was able to siege and possibly destroy Redcliffe. Combining Anders with Justice should result in an abomination able to perhaps level cities or something like that, one of the most powerful beings in the DA universe, not a being that has much to really fear involving templars, certainly not one with a lot to gain from your barely tested hero. And again, ME1 has the same issue with Liara. Your character is one of the best commandos in the galaxy at the start of the game, that's why he/she's joining the most elite commando squad in the galaxy, the Spectres. Ashley, a random grunt found on a backwater planet, is stretching things to have as a companion, however Liara, a scientist without any significant martial background is really stretching it to the point of question. Shepard, along with all other members of his team, have had to push themselves to the limits to get the experience they have, and despite being at the top, have gained more practice in recent events as well. Then they're joined by Liara who has no reason to really be at the top, and especially not the top of the top, and yet she can jump in and carry her weight. Once again, this isn't a game-breaker to me. I'll live on, even if my party is comprised of novices who can somehow jump into the action against god-slaying abominations. Sometimes some fudging is even for the best. It does bother me though to have this inconsistency.

I favor this move. As a person who prioritizes roleplay and dialogue, I like that this frees my hand in terms of creating characters. In the games where there is a trade-off, I find that every single freaking character I ever EVER build is a form of rogue or rogue hybrid to maximize my skillpoints and have more access to content. The problem being that pure content loss is too much of a sacrifice for playing a fighter, but I would often enjoy playing different character concepts. (And in games without this trade-off, I *do* play different builds and enjoy that.) I mean, there is nothing wrong with a fighter who is clear-spoken, a good chemist, really frightening or really clever. All of which are understandable builds. I also see little to no problem with homogenization. BG2 has little to no non-combat abilities, the only class that actually really has many non-combat abilities is the rogue, but mages, fighters, and clerics(and their off-shoots) all have very important roles in the fight. The biggest problem there is balance, but it shouldn't be taken as a given that the trade-off is a necessary trait of an RPG.

I don't mind the idea of playing a good character. I would actually like to have a Paladin party member in the game. I really actually support the Paladin class as not being tied to a particular alignment or chivalry so much as devotion to a cause. Paladins are different than warriors because their devotion and allegiance to their cause gives them power. And I favor the idea of evil paladins and neutral paladins, and if a Paladin party member is used, I would like for them to deviate from the original trope in some significant way.(they're a sneaky divine agent, unnecessary harshness, outright evil characteristics, an unusual holy cause, etc) I also want the class to be part of their personality, more than just their build. I don't mind having good options, even very good options and very religious options. I also wouldn't mind the story and dialogue taking religion(and/or even irreligion) seriously. They're serious parts of the world, and so it'd be great to see these beliefs come out.(even though I really don't want a single church to have utter dominance, but rather I would like any dominant church to have sects and heretics, and I would like opposing religious positions and ones that have gameplay relevance)

It'd be amusing to actually have this be a literal suicide by adventurer. Show a mugger who is obviously depressed or deranged, and have them mug you in some attempt at suicide. I mean, it would also be nice if you didn't have to kill the dude either, but if it was also an option to aid this person in his mugging-suicide.

I put down undecided because I am not concerned with whether there is a scale from -100 to 100, or even whether a multivariable thing is upheld(I answered that I love puppies and that shapes my relationship in X way, and because I butchered the merchant I get Y responses now but X and Y don't add together in any way). However, I do agree with the thrust of a system to have a relationship with party members, so perhaps I should just be a yes, and stop qualifying how i feel. I mean, I would think that ideally multiple systems would be ideal to use. I mean, hatred and hateful respect are different reactions, and a character could have either one to certain behaviors. So, respectful dislike, enmity, and fear all are different, even if all are negative reactions. An ideal system could accommodate them all, even in the same character. Also, helping somebody with their mother and so on does deserve mention, even if it is a one-off thing rather than an influence scale.

Well, the problem with assigning rogues non-combat duty is that from my understanding, the goal is to have non-combat roles open for any class, so that way if you want to be charming and open locks or other content, you don't have to have a member of a particular class whether you like it or not. So, this would require a significant rethinking of traditional roles. Secondly, because rogues suck in combat, and are being stripped of a lot of their non-combat powers, reinventing the rogue in combat is going to be important. Trying to say that rogues are slippery is probably not sufficient, as a lot would have to be changed about combat to allow this. Not only that, but rogues really have little more justification than monks to have this strength. Here's what I see as possible developments: a) Rogues as assassins. The rogue class build tends to have weak HP, but high damage or lingering damage if used properly in combat, probably poisons or sneak-attacks. This is very common and probably pretty easy to implement in allowing the rogue to be a useful class. They're simply specialists in killing people quickly, just not in managing a battlefield or being attacked. b) Rogues as users of tactics and technology. The rogue sets traps, uses smoke bombs, uses drugs/poisons, possibly taunts(either to damage morale or distract upon success against a will save of some sort), etc. The big problem is in designing this so that it doesn't become too contextual. Not every fight will allow preparation, and many boss fights are less likely to, so if a rogue can't set traps, then the rogue has already diminished a load in usefulness at a critical moment. It is still workable though. c) Rogues as a branching class. So, instead of forcing the rogue class into a particular framework, we just allow players to pick and choose from the ideas they like more. So, the rogue class will center around high-dexterity, tactical, low endurance, and crude/dishonorable fighting builds(with possible builds neglecting one or more sides of that) and players can specially build their rogue. Some good ideas may be allowing for players to synthesize the rogue and magical abilities to have an illusionist/mind-control class, the rogue to be synthesized with the monk to become a ninja kind of class, or even the rogue to be built more like a traditional fighter to have more of a thug class or even a duelist class. This is probably more in line with the ideal, but the problem is always implementation, as rogue-illusionists, rogue-ninjas, and rogue-thugs are probably too periphery to the class to allow it to stand independently. The simple issue is that the rogue will be a class that people will be able to do without, and we really WANT people to be able to build a party without a rogue. The question is how can we make the rogue a desirable member of the party just the same. EDIT: Also, if possible, a branching idea or a sub-class idea would be good for a lot of other classes as well. So, some players may want a traditional barbarian, others may want some form of soul-barbarian who uses soul magic powers, and a third set may want a freak barbarian that modifies his body as he levels up becoming monstrously strong. Some people may want a traditional wizard, others may want more of a battle-mage with spell-talents highly suitable for the front-lines. Some people may want a traditional bard with a focus on buffing, others may want a "master of fear" who specializes in intimidating foes, a third set may want a battle-bard perhaps even like BG2's blade class.

I can't see spending a slot for a dog either. 1) Dogs really aren't good at talking. Even if the dog is said to be "super-smart", the entire conversation is going to be inferences from vague behavior made by the dog, and not anywhere similar or competitive with any conversation with a real character. 2) Dogs are also just not going to be as fun to customize. I mean, a dog will by nature have less slots, and less possibilities to develop than a fighter. You can't reasonably give a dog a sword or a shield or any of the other stuff. One of the cool things about BG2 was trying to divy up the loot. 3) Even if a lot of people really think "OMG! A DOGGY!! HOW COOL!!" why not ask for some form of werewolf instead, or maybe a shapeshifter who really really likes being a dog. Then we have a full character, but we still have a dog. Just to be clear: I have less of a problems with a character like Okku, as even though there is less customization fun, it's not the end of the world. Also, why a dog with a sword? Dog-mages all the way!

On looking at everything here are my answers: * Pragmatism vs Idealism as it ties into good vs evil. * The nature of morality. After all, it exists in many fantasy games, but this existence isn't critically examined. I wouldn't mind cases of blue and orange morality, entities that are "beyond good and evil", and even questions of the transformation of values as traditions are altered, perhaps even radically and prophetically. Even some questions of the Euthyphro problem. * The failure to solve all problems and questions of meaning in life as failures accumulate. * Transcendence and earthliness and whether anything earthly really can transcend to a higher level and vice versa. * The meaning of spirituality. Perhaps even questions over whether spirituality is meaningless, projection, or even profound. Probably other stuff, but I'm distracted.

I think most people are right. Obsidian has shown a wonderful track record for some very good female characters. I don't mind if sex politics themes are included, but they need to be included in a way that is humanizing, not purely ideological constructs. If misogyny is included, then the misogynists shouldn't be straw misogynists, they should still be real people and the game player should feel like they've encountered a very real situation, not simply a dragon to be slain. I have no problem with glossing over the entire issue with some equality, but it'd need to be real equality.(which would that if there are prostitutes, there are male prostitutes) Otherwise, I do think that something to dig a little under the skin about it should exist. This could even simply be the prostitute that doesn't want to sell her body and is doing this out of desperation.(like BG2) The guys at Obsidian are amazing writers. Their games are art. I would like this to be a masterpiece, and that means it should be probing, just like their other great games.

Sure, but make it human and somewhat sensible. I mean, I didn't like how Jaheira had just become widowed and started coming getting interested in you a few weeks later. I kind of liked the fact that Avelline in DA2 would have a romance with another character and was only a fake option for you. However, it seems like this is easy characterization and an easy way to explore a character's perspective. Just don't force it, don't make it too fake, if possible allow your character some meaningful opportunities to be the initiator of some of the romantic actions without forcing him to be too overtly romantic in the exchanges. (So, I wouldn't like just blatantly hitting on a fantasy character, but tasteful flirting is entirely reasonable, and a relationship that blossoms in multiple dimensions at once would be great) I actually think BG2 generally did a reasonably good job at this, except on having the other party always be the initiator of the romantic dialogue. If possible, I'd rather there be more than one romance choice if this were offered, as Neeshka was SO MUCH cooler than Elanee. (However, with a limited # of characters, multiple romances may not be the most viable thing)

I think a lot is going to set by magical flavorings. I think there have been multiple class threads started at various times as well on this topic. So, here's the deal: you're probably going to have a class using brute strength. They might be a very traditional warrior type. They might be more like a barbarian and fueled by rage. They might be more like a paladin and channel some degree of power through them. They might even be more twisted, so they might actually focus on body alteration, and get tougher by becoming more than normal(either through runes/tattoos or physical mutations). But, their strength will be their strength. I'd like to have something more monk-ish be a major class. So, I don't necessarily mean that they're unarmed fighters, but rather their strength is their obsessive discipline and focus. So, a monk/weaponmaster kind of class. They may also have paladin-ish tendencies as well, depending on how we'd want to flavor them. However, they may have some transcendence based powers, but also some ridiculous skill based specializations. I also like magic knights. I think we should have something that counts as one, preferably without being too associated with "divine/healing" powers. So, a fighting/magic class that may be really good in blades and armor, but that also can pull off buffs, debuffs, close-range magical attacks, and perhaps even transform into some uber-fighting monster. Something that really feels like a natural fit, rather than a nerfed fighter and a nerfed mage put together. I think rogue-based classes can be lumped also with swashbuckler/duelist type classes. There is no need for a skill-monkey class, so whatever remains is going to be another form of fighter. There are lots of different flavorings that could be given as well. I mean, this class could just be finesse fighters, it could be assassin-y, it could be shadow magic, etc. I think in terms of the magic, we can go all sorts of crazy directions though: So, one class focuses on physics-y magic(fireballs, conjurations, transmuations), another class focuses on life-y magic(necromancy, healing, nature powers), and maybe a third class on mental powers(misdirection, manipulation, mental/spiritual harm). Or maybe we have a dark magic based class(hell magic, necromancy, etc), and another class on holy magic, and a third on nature magic. Or maybe a magic class that focuses on very abstract magical powers. So, maybe they do direct magical damage, conjuration, and maybe even some really bizarre alterations to reality itself. Maybe even a class focusing on ghostly and spiritual powers. I mean, one thing I think needs to be done is that a proper balance is given for magical powers. So, "darkness" shouldn't be more common than "light" in magic. I think a "constructor" could be interesting, probably not literal construction as that creates a "collect these in order for your character to work' making it not very player friendly to those who just want to grab and go, but a class that focuses on having other creatures do the fighting could be very interesting to play. You'd have more distraction tactics, and meatshields involved. I think if we could avoid putting an overly traditional spin on magic, then that would be great. In fact, we'll probably find it hard to avoid some traditional directions, but taking those traditional ideas and putting them into a less traditional direction would be the better way to go. So, reality alteration, or even metamagic magic(as mentioned earlier) would be wonderful. Psychologically oriented magic would be a very interesting direction to go, whether it is psychic or even passion manipulation(as mentioned earlier). I'd oppose a straight-necromancer on flavor reasons, but maybe a spiritually oriented class very similar could be just as good. So, instead of just being "necromancer" he also deals with spirits from the afterlife, and plays a positive role as a speaker for the dead instead of a manipulator of unlife. Even making the cleric class more flavorful(cultic elements? Fundamentalist tendencies? Non-religious religion?) would be wonderful. One idea that I find interesting(just to digress) is having druids that don't really support natural balance. So, instead of fighting for nature, or fighting to represent nature in man's interest, they fight for domestication and their druidic powers stem from their efforts to tame nature to support human desires and they want to put animals and plants into either a symbiotic or a subservient position to mankind. We may still want the traditional druid, but I think the notion of "nature-tamers" could be an interesting touch and a bit of a deconstruction of the traditional role of the nature magic person.(Maybe even quests where a "druid" is destroying the forest by mutating the animals into freakish creatures)

Well, we get 5 races. All of them should tie in somewhat to magic, given that the world is very magical. I think most of the races from traditional DnD could work with some reflavorings. I wouldn't prefer that though. I rather like lizardfolk(they could be dragonfolk too, some offshoot of the major dragons). I really like the idea of the "Soulless". Additionally, if this is a really high magic world, we really can get away with some very explicitly magical beings. So, why not something like tieflings and aasimar(maybe even one race with potentially either set of characteristics)? We could even have races of constructs, or the undead, or fairies. So long as an undead race didn't rip off WoW too much, it could even be very conceptually interesting to explore some of those themes. (Undead love interest? You may want to avoid some of the taboo elements of it, but it could be interesting to pull off a romance that really could last an eternity.) I mean, if this is really high magic/defined by magic, then the biggest thing is to make them all spectacular and wonderful and mind-twisting at the same time.

I don't think a magic-centric world could/should meaningfully be low magic. So, everybody has special soul powers but enchanting is impossible?? The two are hard for me to reconcile. We should instead focus on making a high-magic world that makes a lot of high-magic sense. Let's even get beyond the traditional RPG campaign setting like the forgotten realms, and instead focus on PS:T for our model. In PS:T the ENTIRE WORLD was magical. Everything was literally brimming with some spectacular aspects to it, and it was a very special experience. So, how can we recreate that?

Well, I think a really good way to do this is going to be placing things like backstory defeats. You may route the goblins here, but your opponents end up taking the advantage elsewhere. Or even using a lot of clever Xanatos gambits or even roulettes in the plot. If a lot of cleverness is being used by everyone, then a lot more people seem competent. Let the bad guys lose because they were outwitted occasionally. Let the PC show up and find themselves occasionally a bit useless. So, you receive a call for help, but when you arrive somebody else already took care of it. It may not be a total loss though as there may still be mop-up work, or an interesting digression. Or, when you make the major mission, you end up screwing up. It's not your fault. It's not done in an overly hokey way either. You just couldn't succeed, but somebody else did. I mean, other dynamic characters make a game world interesting. Just so long as you always feel competent and generally don't feel like a failure, then that's fine.

I wouldn't mind personalization happening with an item. I think KOTOR2 kind of had this with the force crystal found on Dantooine. I think borrowing that idea and perhaps either mixing it with an idea like Cromwell in BG2, or a crafting system, or even a set of quests would really make things better. I mean, there is no reason why your character shouldn't be able to shape the world like this if they get more power. From the notions put forward by the campaign setting, I'd think this would even be perfectly fitting.

I think magic should be semi-common, but not too boring. So, I'd tend to question the +1 items. I think everybody in your party should have magic items, even unique magic items with a lot of power, but also that these magic items are differentiated and specialized in a way that you don't have standard items. So, not every party member should have the "Ring of protection + 2". Instead, you may have a fighter with the "ring of bear nature", a wizard with a "ring of fire enhancement", and a druid with a "ring of horrid shielding". I think I'd really like BG2's level of magical items MINUS most/all of the generics, which mostly had to be pawned off. So, you occasionally get some cool items after some encounters and small quests. Major quests give you a whole bunch of random magical items. BG2:TOB is just ridiculous in it's level of magic. PS:T is also fine with me, except I'd want more of the standard equippables. I don't really know BG as well. Icewind Dale 2 also did a reasonably good job in my eyes. I think DA and DA2's magic system is terrible, the same with ME1's loot system. In any case, from the way this was sold, I see this as having to be a very high-magic campaign. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if their idea of the world would be the highest magic out of all of the pre-existing games, except maybe PS:T where thoughts defined existence, as I interpreted their theme as actually being "Everything is magic. Even mundane things are actually magic". So... I don't think these "magical items should be special" notions make any sense where the very nature of the campaign is defined by magical essences. So, if we're trying to handle a "very high" magic world(which I really think could be fascinating if we engage it on its own terms), I think avoiding notions of limiting magic would be better, and instead, the focus should be making instances of magic continually unique and special. Ways to do that are avoiding standard enchantments, always giving names and backstories when possible, etc. The value of magic will have to be defined by it's richness and the degree to which it fits into the larger perspective, and not by rarity. If EVERYTHING is magic in this world, then how do you now regard magic, and I think the way to do it isn't by economizing it, but rather by personalizing it. So, maybe stop treating magical items as objects, and instead treat them more like persons. There are no complaints about a "high NPC world" only about worlds where NPCs are too generic.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind a villain with anti-villain characteristics, but who dances around the moral event horizon where he does things almost unforgivable. Think about a well-intentioned extremist who does terrible things in pursuit of a goal that is pretty sensible, or even someone driven a bit mad by a wound but who still seems human in this. I would have liked Loghain, except I didn't feel very connected to him as a character. If I had a better perception of his motivations, then I can really see liking him a lot. I think Irenicus was a good villain. He was very human, but at the same time very powerfully evil. I also wouldn't mind a story without a central villain, but rather with minor villains and where the plot was motivated by abstract social forces. So, think about this: what if we had a clear social injustice, like racial discrimination, slavery, social oppression, etc. This motivates a few characters to take leadership roles against this. So, maybe there are lizardfolks and they're oppressed. Some of their leaders are diplomatic, and seek reconciliation and passive resistance against social injustice. Others toe the line, and engage in brutal actions, but they still have good goals, and they still have a conscience even as they engage in violent resistance, or perhaps even atrocities. A few of these emerging leaders are nihilistic though, and they seek revenge, dominance, and power at the cost of the good of all. The lines are blurred and grey, and instead of the party just getting rid of the "evil guy", they're trying to solve a complicated social problem either through diplomatic means, or even through acting as agents of the dominant forces of society. So, the set of villains will vary somewhat based upon which approach you take, as you may either side with a racist noble against the occasionally violent freedom fighter, or vice-versa. But, there are clear personalities shaping a clear moral dilemma of grey and grey morality. That being said though, I think the central issue is to make the conflict show human elements. Even if we have an inhumanly evil major villain, I'd still want human characteristics to play into the entire scheme. So, if we have the "evil demon", I'd still want conflicted servants, and I'd still want the evil demon to have some personal appeal instead of just being "the evil dude". (And if there is an utterly impersonal evil, let's make it more of a Cthulhu kind of evil where it goes FAR BEYOND traditional notions of evil and may fail to even make sense to human beings on some level despite perhaps having internal coherence) So, all short: What makes a good villain is something worth engaging. A villain who plays too close to conventional tropes is boring. In some sense, a good villain has to twist our expectations, leave us curious about it, and cause us to ask important questions.

The topic of the class system has been on my mind given how update 7 actually significantly changes the traditional structure of the DnD system, and given that this system has more classes than many other RPGs(I think we're now at 7), I think that the topic of classes would be a really interesting one to explore, especially given how it touches issues of the magical system. The way that update 7 changes things is that it abolishes the skill-monkey class while keeping the skills, which is a really cool thing. I just want to bounce ideas around though, and I hope I'm not repeating too much that's been said. Here's some ideas for conceiving of a possible set of classes: * 2 or 3 core magic classes(I've thrown around ideas in another thread on magic) http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60372-vancian-magic-system/page__st__160?do=findComment&comment=1203875 DarkWaterSong did similarly above me. * Brute (in DnD terms: fighter, barbarian.) Heavy armor, heavy weapons, high strength and constitution build. * Monk (in DnD/NWN2 terms: monk, weaponmaster, swashbuckler/duelist, maybe some paladin features.) None to medium armor. None to medium weapons. Build uses dexterity and some vaguely magical stat. Special talents focus on high skill or magical attunement, and perhaps a lot of surprises. Conceptually a martial artist. * Magic Knight (In DnD terms: Eldritch Knight, sort of like a Paladin or Ranger, but less nerfed on magic.) Light armor, but maybe heavy given the backstory. Any weapon. spellcaster/warrior with some of both sets of abilities. May not be needed if multiclassing and magic system set up a certain way * Assassin (In DnD terms: Thug variant fighter, rogue/fighter, etc.) Light-Medium armor. Light to medium weapon. Focus on misdirection, high damage precision, possibly ranged attacks, poison, invisibility, finesse. Build uses very high dexterity. * Bard (in DnD terms: Bard.) Light-medium armor. Light-medium weapons. Support class. Focus on misdirection, buffing, information, ranged support, perhaps some magic. Just some thoughts, but feel free to throw things around or criticize. The point is getting what kind of conceptions people would think would be interesting for a class system. Like the degree of magic for classes. How bizarre or conventional the classes should be. Etc.

1) I am also quite opposed to a Vancian system. I mean, I think it *could* work, but I don't think it's optimal, and in all situations where I've played CRPGs with it, it meant that mages often sat out waiting to be used. I really think that another system would be much better, and that Vancian would be TERRIBLE if the theme is "magic is from the soul". I also don't see how mana potions are substantially different than health potions for fighters/meatshields. Both keep a team member in the game when otherwise they'd be out. Even if this is horrible, I'd think there are some potential fixes to that problem without going full Vancian. (Diminishing returns on mana potions? Limits on when a potion can be used again? Limits on certain spells?) And I'd rather look into some non-Vancian system, than go Vancian. If we did go Vancian, I'd have to insist on the spontaneous casting. 2) I support the divine-arcane divide, or something similar to that. I just mean that I don't want the guy casting fireball to be the same person casting healing spells for the most part. It could be "white magic-black magic" or whatever else have you. I really just mean that I divide up the concepts differently, and having at least two systems makes me feel better, as even if magic is all the same source, I wouldn't want ultra-cross specialization in it, as just an aesthetic choice. I'm going to use the terms "mages" and "clerics" just to make things easier shorthand by tying ideas to the conventional roles, not on the source of the magic. Also, "abstract magic" refers to pure magic(like magic missile) or magic that works on the fundamental nature of reality(like time magic). So, here's some different conceptions: a) "Mages" focus on elements, abstract magic, conjuration, and transmutation.(physics) "Clerics" instead use magic focused on healing, life-based nature powers, necromancy, buffing.(life) b) "Mages" focus on elements, abstract magic, conjuration, and transmutation.(physics) "Clerics" instead use magic focused on healing, life-based nature powers, necromancy, buffing.(life) Psychics focus on manipulation, misdirection, mental harm, and information. (mind/knowledge) c) Warmages focus on buffs, close range magic attacks, healing, personal transmutation.(combat) Druids handle blasting, summoning, healing, nature powers.(nature) Wizards handle misdirection/manipulation, information, necromancy, abstract magic, conjuration.(arcane magic) d) Warlocks focus on powers with themes of demons, darkness, void, death, etc.(dark/demonic themes) "Clerics" focus on powers with themes of holiness, restoration, providence, personal improvement, life, divinity, etc.(holy/spiritual themes) Druids focus on powers with the theme of nature, elemental forces, living organisms, transformation, etc.(nature themes) e) Dimensional mages focus on abstract magic, information, and conjuration.(metaphysics/reality) "Mages" focus on elements, transmutation, necromancy, misdirection/manipulation.(traditional arcane) "Clerics" focus on healing, buffing, spiritual/holy powers.(spirituality) f) Spectralists focus on necromancy, knowledge, misdirection(mental), spirit-themed powers. (ghosts) Druids handle blasting, summoning, healing, nature powers.(nature) Arcanists handle conjuration, abstract magic, misdirection(illusions), transmutation. (traditional arcane - elements) And so on and so forth. Basically, it's hard to exhaust the limits of the possible magical systems. However, I'd think 3 different schemes may be the most to push for.(but I think more than 1 would be very desirable) I think NWN2 kind of sort of had 4, depending on whether you lumped druids and clerics together or split them into two magical groups.

I'd rather have worthless money than be punished for a play style where I am inefficient with potions or something else like that. I also will not tend to make many purchases if I don't have cushion. So, I'd rather have the worthless money. Or, let's even say that I end up accidentally purchasing the "Almighty bastard sword of stabbing" but I really wanted the "shocking short sword of murdering", if my money is tight, then by a misclick, I may have really screwed myself, and that just adds to frustration. Even further, I don't see a huge problem with worthless money. If I am an adventurer, engaging in a high-risk high-return economic activity, I should expect a very high income relative to my expenditures, and this will suggest that at some point worthless money should realistically exist, particularly given the difficulty in finding good investments that are relevant to my character.(and the fact that many comparable adventurers will themselves be buying lots of things that wouldn't be sensible to include in an RPG) I mean, at the end of an an epic adventurer, I should be expected to be able to retire as rich as one of the most powerful nobles in the world, and I take joy in that element. I don't think that difficult purchasing decisions will aid to RP that much. I mean, I can see character build working like that. I think the best way to handle this is maybe to have RP money sinks. So, if you start getting rich, you might start getting harassed by the local church group to donate, or you might start hearing about lucrative long-term financial ventures, maybe even have massive party ideas suggested to you, and all of that. The point of the money-sink is just role play in this case. And maybe if you end up giving enough to one or more organizations, you get certain outcomes in your game. Other than that, I really don't know. I find that most attempts to solve this problem reduce my enjoyment more than the problem itself.(Like I said, I think my character being rich is realism)