PK htiw klaw eriF

That is only true if the PC either 1)wants revenge, 2)wants to use the "Bhaal power", 3)wants to rescue Imoen. To bring this back somewhat on topic, BG2 assumes motivation that may not be true for some PCs, like DAO did. You can argue that one did so in a more palatable manner, but they both are guilty of doing assuming motivation. Possibly, but that assumes that Irenicus is after a particular Bhaalspawn(namely you). Bhaal did spawn a lot of Bhaalspawmn, logic would suggest that Irenicus would find another suitable Bhaalspawn if it required less effort. To bring this back to the first point, isn't that true of all RPGs? In (insert game here) you can't say "**** (doing what main plot requires), I'm going (somewhere else in game world) and (doing something)". This seems to be a universal problem in CRPGs, because they lack the narrative flexibility of PnP games. So developers have to design the game to provide a list of motivations applicable to the most characters possible. So in BG2, you have the options to seek revenge(I'd argue that this is insanity given Irenicus' power, but I have more problems with the narrative in BG2 that would clog up this thread), master more of your inherent power, or rescue a childhood friend, which would apply to a good number of Good, Neutral, and Evil PCs. In DAO, you have the motivation of staying alive, then saving the world from the ravishing assault by an almost unstoppable force of corruption(arguably can be considered staying alive), which applies to a greater number of PCs than something like "stay in a city run by religious fundamentalists, occupied by individuals who often become hosts for demons, and where you will be mugged every ten feet for seven years because..."

In BG1, you have no idea how powerful Sarevok is until you fight him in the last part of the game, his "powerful henchmen" are pretty weak if you have done most of the side quests available to you, and you have no idea that you're fighting the Iron Throne until the bandit camp.In BG2, you know Irenicus is an immensely powerful mage right after you escape his dungeon. Not going after someone who can rip apart reality with as much effort as an average person tears apart bread is not cowardice, it's sanity. Eh, Sarevok wastes Gorion in an off-hand manner and their respective power is emphasised in the chapter start. Almost 1:1 same between the two BGs. I'd say killing one Mage with a cleric, two archers, and a pair of ogres backing you up is less impressive than slaughtering several by yourself. Also, in BG you don't know that you are going after Sarevok right after he kills Gorion. Like pretty much everything related to the main plot on BG, you discover ptretty far down the line.

In BG1, you have no idea how powerful Sarevok is until you fight him in the last part of the game, his "powerful henchmen" are pretty weak if you have done most of the side quests available to you, and you have no idea that you're fighting the Iron Throne until the bandit camp. In BG2, you know Irenicus is an immensely powerful mage right after you escape his dungeon. Not going after someone who can rip apart reality with as much effort as an average person tears apart bread is not cowardice, it's sanity.

I don't want political intrigue in a RPG.

IMO, the problem with supermen in RPGs is that the game world is seldom constructed to accommodate such a thing, despite it being a common occurrence. I would find it pleasing if the event of becoming superhuman was acknowledged in a setting's lore and dealt with in a consistent manner.

In the old attractive women thread, some images he posted resulted in some members being bombarded with malware. Wals is the one who warned everyone, so perhaps he could go more into detail about it.

Eh, the guy that kidnapped you(Irenicus) took down several Cowled Wizards without any sign of effort. You would have to be plying a very stupid character to think that revenge was something you could realistically accomplish. The DAO stories while taking you away from vengeance in several of them, almost all of them gave the PC the motivation of staying alive, which IMO is much more universal motivation than "rescue annoying acquaintance" or "get revenge on incredibly powerful Mage". Granted, the motivation tends to evaporate right after Ostagar. That scumbag is also an incredibly powerful mage who can easily destroy you with magic. The most sensible motivation for someone who isn't either an arrogant or stupid character(revenge in Irenicus) or a righteous crusader(save Imoen) is to get as far away as possible, and that was not an option in BG2. The origins were a good idea executed badly. If the origins functioned as the prologue, then they would have been fantastic. As it stands, the origins function as another prologue along with the prologue of Ostagar, which results in about 2.5-4 hours of prologue you have to play through to get to the meat of the game. If Bio had somehow managed to avoid Ostagar and had the origins be the only prologue, then they would've been hands down the best prologue in a RPG.

4th pic in the OP. I'm positive it was clean when I posted it, and the url seems to be broken as well.

You know who did it sorophx?

I didn't like the origins' execution in DAO because it felt like there were two prologues, the origin and Ostagar. IMO, DAO would have been better with backgrounds like ME. You could have 2 exclusive for Human and Elf, 2 for Mages, and 3 for Dwarf. Instead of an hour-ish starting prologue, they would have the PC start right at Ostagar as either a newly initiated Grey Warden or Grey Warden recruit. Not only would that skip a prologue, that would allow a PC closer to a blank-slate and a more set motivation for the PC. As to PC motivations, arguably BG2 did the same thing as DAO. The PC is forced to have the motivation of wanting to rescue Imoen which will likely not fit a number of PCs, particularly the evil ones. On top of that the PC is forced to work with one of two evil organizations, something the more virtuous would likely not do. Granted, I believe a mod called "Alternatives" fixes one of these issues, but they still existed in the vanilla game.

Perhaps ShadyWife hijacked your account?

Elminister didn't show up in NWN because he was too busy smoking crack with Drizzit in his wizard tower. Also, I hated the cameos in BG.

You been hitting the vodka again Shady?

So, do you guys think that Bruce is an alt? Certainly feels like a caricature to me.

I hate Stratagems because it is has too many componets and too much cheese. I'm probably in the minority here, but I prefer BP.

I'd like to squee your faction.

As long as they aren't infringing on someone's rights, people can say and believe whaever they want to. I think that Cultist's homophobia is morally repugnant, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to express that view. As to your strawman about cults practicing pedophilia Bruce, that is infringing on someone's rights and therefore both wrong and illegal.

Governments should be required to maintain equality under the law, as in no double standards in legal systems. Wanting the government to force individuals to treat others equally on private matters is something else entirely, that something being authoritarian rule.

I dunno GD, I'm probably going to vote third party if possible. Don't want to vote Republican, as most running in Texas are basing a good portion of their campaigns on opposing abortions or stoping the "Illegal invasion", which is both infeasible and pretty pathetic pandering IMO.

DP.

But if we just refuse to acknowledge problems they go away right?

"In 2014 Obama refused to obey the Law. Help us elect Rep. Generic Republican who will force him to be held accountable!" Certainly seems like ad fodder. Nice to know congress is focusing on what is important.

I'm having that day of the year when I'm in full agreement with Volourn. Somebody's been sneaking to the nostalgia cupboard. I blame Bruce's bossy thread for that.

The amount of bans in this post is almost enough for my eyeballs to ban blood from them.

But if we ban banning, the ban on banning will be banned. Crap, I hadn't thought of that. This is like that time a Babel Fish was used as proof of the non-existence of God. Edit: What if the ban on banning starts after the ban takes effect and isn't retroactive? A ban on banning after a final irreversible ban is given on banning may be able to prevent a ban on banning from being banned. I'll consult a lawyer.