Search the Community

just finished deadfire and kind of disappointed that there is no become a god ending it would fit really well for my character because she would think she could do a better job running eora than the gods especially after finding out that they're artificial constructs anyway also would've been cool to agent smith eothas ya know and then take his power for ourselves as well as the souls from the first game and the ones in xoti's lantern then take the power of the rest of the gods and turn our self into the one true god Mu hu ha ah ha

TLDR: It's fundamentally dishonest and evil. Note: Milo is easily the most qualified person on the planet to be Trump's Press Secretary. If only....

A Lakeland teacher who admitted to having sex with some of her students will spend the next 22 years behind bars. http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2015/07/02/polk-teacher-sentenced-for-sex-with-students/29624059/ If you kill a man - you get 10-15-20 years in prison; when you bring joy and happiness to 17 yo boy - you get 22. Boy wants to have sex, teacher wants to have sex - so what's the problem? Let's free this innocent woman just because love is not crime! https://www.change.org/p/us-justice-system-jennifer-fichter-doesnt-deserve-a-life-sentence

If it was a fact that hell existed and it is 100% for sure that evil people go to hell - wouldn't you try to be good? One thing which really bothers me is that in a lot of fantasy settings the people of those realms *know* for sure that gods and the associated powers exist. Also, it is a fact that there is a hell and heaven (or multiple hells, heavens etc.) as in Forgotten Realms or Planescape settings. For instance, in Planescape Torment, every person living in Sigil knows there exists multiple planes of hell/heaven, and you end up at hell if you are an evil person. Hell is not a nice place and a sane person would certainly not want to spend an eternity there among demons and such. Therefore, regarding the evil characters in these fantasy settings (apart from the crazy ones), isn't there a very strong motivation for them to actually try to be good? For example in real life, since it is not 100% for sure after-life exists, the only factors restraining people from committing *evil actions* (yes, very subjective in some cases) are things such as the laws, their conscience and beliefs. I am sure people would think a second time before committing crimes etc. if it was a common fact that after-life existed and you would be punished in hell for sure (even if you were able to get away with it in real life). I think you get the point. Sorry, if this philosophical aspect had already been covered on the forums, but this has been one of the questions which started bothering me especially while I was playing PS:T. It certainly decreases the realism of any setting IMHO and lawful evil (smart evil) characters don't seem to make much sense in such settings. (Only if they pursue immortality to avoid their fate or try to redeem themselves in order to go to the neutral or good heavens)

Okay, so I apologize if there are already threads on this, but I was unsuccessful at finding them. I don't want to get into some sort of semantic battle of the "definition of evil", but I used that word to loosely define aggressive/ruthless/violent behavior. I'm really hoping their are legitimate options to pursue those paths. For instance, perhaps instead of clearing out the band of local bandits/necromancers or what have you, instead, you could chose to assist them by assassinating the mayor/"sheriff" or whatever. Maybe you could actually ASSIST THEM, because they promise you a better cut/reward than taking the "good"/"lawful" path would have. Maybe you find the thieve's guild, and they have you trick an unsuspecting individual into falling into one of their ambushes, since you can approach them. Maybe you find a group of ciphers that have been capturing unsuspecting travelers and making them into slaves, and you force them to provide you with some slaves of your own, rather than killing them. I'm sure there are other ways that this type of thing could be played, but I would really like some options to pick some truly "immoral"/"unethical"/"evil" paths. If there was a truly "evil" option for the main quest, that would be ultra terrific. As in, rather than "defeat nefarious group/person", you instead become their leader and begin expanding operations. Thoughts? Suggestions?

BBC link. Be warned, it's not easy to stomach. Just piling up ammunition the next time someone tells me morality is relative and subjective. "A Briton faces up to 27 years in a US jail for plotting to kidnap, rape, kill and eat a child, authorities say. Agents found the basement of Geoffrey Portway's Massachusetts home equipped with a steel cage and a child-sized home-made coffin, in a raid last year. ... The dungeon was further kitted out with a chair, a television, and what appeared to be cable access to the internet, officers said. Outside the room detectives found a chest freezer and an upright freezer, along with some disposable scalpels, butchering kits, and castration tools."

Hello people, let's take several minutes to talk about morality. Everyone agree any morality system like it's been done in KOTOR can't handle well the shades of grey everyone is expecting from an Obsidian game. That's cool. I don't like black and white morality either. But why must other worlds follow our morality? Why must they think good and evil must have the same definition? Let's take a simple example. Witches for example. Burning witches just because is hella bad. Sure, if they slaughtered a village for some kind of potion, it's justified. But going randomly after witches when they're just regular magicians? Bad. As hell. That's what you would think in such a situation. But say, you now have to save an innocent witch now. There is no doubt, she did nothing wrong. Therefore, you defend her, maybe kill a villager or two. Or talk them down. It doesn't really matter. At the end, she's saved. Then, why must the world think you actually do a good thing? What if helping them is seen as bad? WE don't think it's bad, for various reasons and values that are deepy anchored in our minds. But these villagers are living on another world. They don't have to believe what we believe. And maybe logic can help. Afterwards, if you go in other villages, you'll be known as the evil adventurer who helps witches instead of giving them the treatment they deserve, no matter how horrendous such a point of view is. It would do a great deal to set a different tone to P:E universe. The worldbuilding would improve drastically. I'll just add a shorter example concerning ciphers. It's like necromancy. Manipulating souls against their will is bad. But what if souls weren't considered as private property, like we think a body is? Religion, history or whatsoever could have taught the people of P:E souls belong to everyone. Concerning metagaming, I realize how hard it would be implement such a system. No matter what we say about morality, people do good because they want to feel good. Being banned from a village because you acted like a good person, at least according to what your parents/the world taught you, would be frustrating. But art, no matter if we're talking about literature, movies or video games, always offered us in such situations a carbon copy of our morality, only with more elves to shake a fist at. It would be cool to go beyond, to offer a new way of thinking.

Forgive me if it's already been posted, but I did a search and didn't find anything quite what I was looking for. Here's something that I've always wanted to see in a game, but rarely saw executed to any real extent in an RPG, and I think Project Eternity certainly has both the team and the means to get it done, though the desire, the economy or the value of the idea is certainly arguable for either side. Anywho, here it is. Let the player be evil. Now now, I don't mean "But I selected Neutral Evil at character creation for my prestige class later" or "He just sucker punched an orphan, of course he's evil". I mean as a component of the main storyline. All too often if there's a good path and an evil path, with the good guy having clear reasoning for doing what he's doing but the evil player character merely seems to be doing the good guy's job because it happens to pay the bills and he had nothing else to do at the moment. The story typically is only ever designed with a good character in mind, and the evil character tossed in merely as an optional afterthought. The good guy may be trying to fight the evil to save the people, the neutral guy may be doing it for revenge, or to restore balance or something, any of them with a myriad of possible reasons, by why is the evil character fighting them instead of lending them a hand? Because he doesn't like them? No! To supplant them as the rising malevolent force in the lands. All that killing is just the murder-training he needs to both remove the competition and secure power and prestige for himself, reaping the lucrative rewards (Strength, money, influence) of being devious, murderous and cruel. Let everyone see the beginnings of a power-hungry tyrant already gathering his forces, a small but highly skilled band of killers and underhanded manipulators rather than a crusading group of heroic friends. I would like the option of doing horrendous things not because those things are bad and you're a bad man and this is how you go about proving it, but because from a perspective of a villainous power-monger, it simply makes sense when you're thrown morals out the window after covering it in lantern oil and setting it on fire. I would like to see uncertainty in characters you deal with when they enlist your aid to attempt to save themselves, wondering if the cure might not be worse than the disease (Well, I'm assuming you're about to take out some great menace to the realms, but seeing as the project is in such an early stage that we don't even have an actual name for the game yet much less a credible idea of the storyline...), and from those that are evil that they might recognize one of their own ilk and tempt you with offers of power. I would like to see an evil character with dialogue and event options that elicit reactions from other characters, not along the lines of "Oh, what a complete bastard. He extorted me for extra reward and he's a terrible person." but into the realm of "No... No! He's gone too far this time! I don't care if how much he's done to our enemy, this cannot stand and he has to be stopped!" (Okay, that one may be a little hard to swing story-wise when you have important story characters trying to end you as in that case it'd give the writers so much more work to do as its basically requiring a secondary storyline for the rest of the game after you impale the mouthy fool on a barbed spear and parade his corpse about as a lesson to any others who don't much care for your methods). That's what I'd like to see, anyhow. It'd be a game in which by the end of it, by the unforgivable things you did to gain power, your vicious culling of the opposition by blade and by manipulation as well as having shown a clear desire to gain control by any means necessary, you are as bad or worse than that which you were sent to destroy, to the horror of those who helped put your feet upon the path. To end the game with the feeling of, if not the actual act, rather than "Ah, I've finally done it, my cherished people are finally safe", it's more a feeling of "And now it's my turn..." as you turn the fall of the enemy to your own advantage. One major reason I'd like to see this is because I think it'd do wonders for replayability, which with most games with an evil option that I play, when I do my first good run, I'm thinking "Woo, I'm saving the world!" but as I play my second, evil run, all I'm left with is "Woo, I'm saving the world, but I'm being slightly less nice about it this time!" Yeah, I'd like to have something a little more involved with the other side of the coin this go 'round. Also, I just feel a game would feel so much more complete if rather than killing some fellow or being involved with some plot and having the guards come after me like "Ahaha, look at me, I'm playing against the system now!" and then reloading your save prior to said dastardly act, it seems as if the game was purposely designed with route in mind and as a result doesn't just say "You are bad. Guards will chase you now" but instead gives the player options, has them confronted with someone other than the guards, and reveals an entirely new path that you could take, which I think would throw a curve ball to a lot of gamers, though it might just be one which they would be quite happy to receive. Of course, I think the major difficulties would be first of all that it would require a 'very' flexible storyline, which in turn would require a 'lot' more options, which then would lead to a great deal more writing, which would possibly lead to an overall less cohesive experience due to how many different parts had to be included but too much to properly polish, by the time it's all said and done with might've been time better spent refining some other aspect of the game. There might not be a lot of draw for a player looking for that sort of option in the story and thus might not be seen as an effective use of time and money, which is entirely reasonable from my standpoint. I'm sure there's more, but I'm honestly too tired to think them all up right now, and I figured I'd let you fine, wonderful individuals come up with all the reasons that this is a terrible idea and I'm a terrible person for having thought it up and spent time writing it as well as purposely trying to come up with evil stuff and should be taken out back and shot for the number of run-on sentences in this wall of text if nothing else!

Not sure if this has been really addressed before in here, if it has please link to the thread and close this. In many Bioware games, and, indeed, RPGs in general, when rpesented with choices/options in conversation or for resolving quests, the "good" choice is almost always the choice that nets the biggest/best rewards. I dislike seeing this dynamic, and I hope that this game addresses that. Just because the "evil" way can be the quick and dirty, doesn't mean it should quantifiably net less reward for the duration of a campaign. Example: Do a quest to retrieve a clan's legendary sword for them, they offer you some gold and their loyalty. Maybe I want that sword, and the clan's allegiance is nothing to me. So maybe I take that sword, worth 3x as much as the gold, but then the clan tries to ambush me later in the game, as opposed to helping me defeat some Big Bad, or reclaim some player housing option (retake a fortress) Just my two cents from my gaming experiences, but I usually play games through at least twice, once as a good aligned, and once as evil (if allowed).

Can we please not reduce the plot of this amazing project into "Super Devil wants to dominate the world and creates an eternal dictatorship and we have to stop them"? I have great rejection to plots based on shallow "good vs. evil" line. Maybe it is my history major, summed up with the reading of my old dusty books from AD&D, stuff like Complete Book of Villains, Dungeon Master Guide, specially the part of story creation and motivation, or my many years of DM-ing... well, i just don't like to be caught into moral presumptions of a eternal battle of good vs. evil. It is very annoying to reduce the rich world of possibilities and motivations to "stop the Super Devil" storyline. These are for kids... I want my character dragged into political assassinations, dethrone of legitimate kings, favors in exchange of land, nobles unwilling to accept the new regent while the true king is too young, or priests fighting over the control of the richest church around; a rich businessman that lost his horses to a local arrogant noble and has no one to appeal since the local courts are all nobles in favor of that arrogant prick... The universe of possibilities is tremendous, so, please, do not reduce the plot into a "good vs. evil" shallow.

Taking an evil character has always intrigued me but I've never gone through with it because of the way hostility was handled by the engine. Once I agro someone it was permanent, and there was no way to interact with that NPC beyond that point. This limited your options severely, because I knew if I kill this guy right now, the whole town would go agro on my ass and I would miss out on a ton of quests / events. If I did attack someone the AI would kick in and I would say to myself "Welp, I guess I have to kill everyone in Beregost again". Which is fun in it's own right.. heheh I'd like to propose a new state NPCs can be in, which is the dislike/fearful state. (could be represented by an orange circle under their feet) The AI would not auto attack NPCs in this state, and still allow you to talk to them. Having this gray area would allow a lot of options for an evil character. You could attack the NPC, but not kill them as a form of interrogation. If they are capable of combat, such as guards or other adventurers, then yeah they will agro and there's nothing you can do. But realistically a civilian wouldn't dare try to fight a party of badasses. If you're caught stealing, you could still talk to the store keep and attempt to bribe him to keep his mouth shut. If your reputation drops far enough maybe people around you would automatically change to a fearful state, which would be kinda badass as an evil char. So to sum up, add more gray area to agro states to give evil characters more options - allowing them to experience more game content. Thoughts? Edit: Of course this would mean more dialog options, and I don't want to kill Chris by doubling his workload Perhaps there is a more graceful option?