Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ironically, the world doesn't seem to revolve around CHARNAME that much - most people don't know/care that you're a Bhaalspawn and you don't necessarily save the world - it's not even your goal. When you save Baldur's Gate/Suldanessalar it's more beacuse you were in the neighbourhood and the villain you were chasing was there. Even the final showdown in the Throne of Blood with (A)Mellisan is beacuse of personal reasons rather than trying to save the world - which seems to be doing fine with or without you.

I wouldn't call Irenicus a Bond villain necessarily. He's the one who said the famous "No, you'll warrant no villain's exposition from me" and only lost due to incompetence of his henchmen and circumstances beyond his control. He DID order Bodhi to immediately kill the PC. And he doesn't care about CHARNAME one bit - he cares about his powers and when he gets them, CHARNAME's existence stops being noteworthy. And he's understandable in a sense that you understand where his lust for vengeance is coming from. He traded love for power and lost both - vengeance is the only thing he has left now - irony being that his love would have forgiven him if he only said a word, but now he's unable to - classic Darth Vader tragic villain 101. It's not Tolstoy, but it works with the melodramatic, heavy on character drama story Bioware was telling. 

Forgive my ad hominem - but you seem to be expecting a much different story than Baldur's Gate really is.

 

Also - if Thaos doesn't care about the Watcher and Watcher doesn't care about Thaos - then why is he in the game?

Thaos is for all intents and purposes a villain - or an antagonist if you want to get technical. Giving the player a reason to oppose him - which usually suggests some personal connection to the player character - would be a good start. Usual story has antagonist acting and hero reacting. Otherwise he's just a random NPC no. 34 in a stupid hat. On paper, you can make a story without a clear antagonist/conflict - you just need to be really careful not to bore and confuse the player so they won't ask "Why am I here?" You'll have to double down on player motivation for them to keep going through the story you crafted.

Do you think that the quest to solve the issue of your Awakening would sustain the game's main plot all by itself without any external opposing force like Thaos? It might work on technical level, but you'll still need some opposition, so the plot won't solve itself in 5 minutes. And "enemy within" stories are very tricky to write. From my experience, only Mask of the Betrayer and in some ways Torment pulled that type of story off correctly. 

I am all for that types of ambitious stories - but there is this saying about falling from a high horse and breaking your neck.

 

And, yes the Watcher is not *required* to hate Thaos per se - but be consequent about it. Allow me to spare him or join his cause in the final showdown. Otherwise this doesn't work.

 

 

I'm not *expecting* a different story from BG2, it is what it is. I'm just setting out why I'm not particularly captivated by it, as perhaps a contrasting perspective to your own. Which of course to each their own, I'm definitely not intending this as a personal criticism or anything. I may not share your view, but I always find it interesting to hear how others experience things. But for me, when things get into "melodramatic" and "heavy on character drama", that's not really my preferred range. 

 

In that regard, the story in BG1 is more compelling to me. Maybe not the whole 'dark destiny' thing that's obviously there as well. But there, the getting enmeshed in the political machinations, the iron situation, et cetera. It feels like you are much more part of a larger setting with things going on independent of your own actions; whereas in BG2, much of it feels more like a backdrop to you running after Irenicus (and Imoen). 

 

Which is also why I like the PoE1 type of setup, where you see the same thing. The main character accidentally gets enmeshed in the whole thing, really. Thaos is in the game because he is a driving force behind what the Watcher has stumbled onto (including him being Watcherified), and therefore you as the Watcher get sucked into his wake. It doesn't fit the "hero vs villain" mould certainly, but that's not the only mould there is. A different mould it fits much better, is the "something's afoot, protagonist is trying to figure out what" mould. I mean, take Sherlock Holmes as an example: usually there wasn't really an antagonist around, that wasn't the draw of the stories. Or Heart of Darkness, entirely different mould of story yet again. These are undeniably compelling stories to many people as well, despite the absence of some personal hero-villain relationship or such. 

 

Certainly I think Thaos is an important part of the story in PoE1 and it is better for his presence, but as I see it not because of that kind of classic hero-villain vibe. He embodies more the larger forces behind it, their agent. He is an active and variable component, in a way a dot on the horizon to focus the chase through the mystery. But there doesn't need to be a direct personal connection for that, and often in these kinds of stories that's only to the detriment; it's just so the author/director/whomever can set up some big, climactic, hideously contrived and unrealistic fight at the end or something (yes, by all means, let's lock blades and have a good discussion in the middle of a grand melee; that would totally happen in reality). If it's a cop movie, it's not enough that the bad guy has done Bad Things and the good guy is a grumpy detective dedicated to doing his job; there needs to be a backstory where the bad guy villainously set our hero cop's bunny rabbit on fire or whatever, and now. It. Is. Personal! *sigh*

 

Or somewhat more subtle variations thereof of course (though substitute 'assassin' for 'cop' and 'dog' for 'bunny rabbit' and you've essentially got the plot to John Wick there), and if done well that kind of plot device can certainly work. But I don't think it is by far a necessary component for good storytelling, and it is quite easy to go overboard with it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not need to interact with the villain in order for them to be a good villain. Bruce Willis and Gary Oldman never had a scene together in the Fifth Element and many considered that one of the best things about the movie. TTO does not interact with us much and despite that he is still an amazing villain. What Irenicus has going for him that Thaos does not is that every time he appears someone is going to get their butt whooped and there's going to be a badass quote thrown around. We see Irenicus' power firsthand and we know he is a bad dude, and I'm guessing that's why people love him, while Thaos' power is only described through dialogue. 

 

One of the reasons the Watcher is hunting Thaos is the same reason the Bhaalspawn is hunting Irenicus, Irenicus stole your soul and Thaos stole your sanity. The game shows you what will happen to you through Maerwald and Aloth. "Are the gods real?" part isn't there because the Watcher is curious about metaphysics. The real question the Watcher's soul is asking is: "Did I betray and kill the most important person to me for a false cause or not?" which is the reason for the awakening in the first place.

 

Honestly, Thaos is such a breath of fresh air from the typical "ancient evil awakens and wants to destroy the world" fantasy villains.

Edited by aqeelus
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the games with the best story are the ones where the main character has an intrinsic motivation to do something, not because someone else forces him to act.

 

The standart is, that the bad guy does something ( kidnap or kill a friend or family member, burn down your village, try to take over or destroy the world, . . . ) and you have to do something. This can be good, but it gets boring if you have seen it 100 times.

In games this standart method creates the problem of false urgency. You must stop the bad guy from his evil plan but he will wait for you forever until you have finished a million side quests, cought 1000 fish or practiced your gambling skills.

 

So I would say the best stories are:

- PST: The main motivation is the question "Who am I and how did I get into this situation?" Exploring the world is motivating because every new place you visit might give you some new info about yourself or the world. There is a vallian but it takes a long time until you know that he exists, what he is and what he wants. In this game exploration itself is the reward, not a tool to achieve something. I think it is good that the main quest is not labeled as main quest there. I played the game a few times and even now I am not sure which things are absolutely neccessary to finish the game. Exploring the world is so great that speedrunning or soloing make no sense at all.

- In MotB you want to get rid of the curse. Its a game mechanic that reminds you permanently of your main goal. It is annoying ( a curse is supposed to be ) and I can only play the game as good char who suppresses his hunger because I play so slow, but it definitely does motivate you for your main goal. The characters and locations are very interesting too.

 

I am really looking forward to "Virgo vs the Zodiac". The dev said she was tired of the normal "me vs the bad guy" story so she chose that the main character is the vallian. You are a self rightious over zealous b1tch who starts a crusade against others on her own because they do everything wrong and you know everything better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thaos was a decent villian but you lost sight of him for a longgggg time. BG2 did a good job of showing Irenicus.

Not really. Half the time Irenicus appeared it was really just Bhaal in your dreams. I think Thaos and Irenicus encounter the party the same amount of times actually.

Replaying Pillars recently, the lost art of videogame villains really stood out to me. You only actually fight Thaos once (except sorta in Brackenbury, which also the only place you talk to him at all), the Leaden Key aren't remotely threatening for you ever in the game, you only get one real interaction with him until the endgame, he doesn't really do anything much to antagonise you and he doesn't have a single named subordinate you can actually have a proxy confrontation with before the endgame. Pillars constantly makes your character assert that you need to find Thaos but there's only a vague metaphysical reason for you to do so and no real sense of progress in doing it.

 

With Irenicus you confront him face to face in Waukeen's Promenade, you both talk to him and then actually fight him in Spellhold, the Bhaal dreams lend you some sort of constant connection to him, he has a few underlings you can crush or deal with as a proxy to give you a sense of progress in fighting him.

 

This really is the biggest area where Pillars just falls flat in terms of pacing and narrative and I think with very little effort could have been greatly improved. I mean, Thaos should be a much more interesting villain than Sarevok, Poquelin etc but chasing Sarevok is much more compelling than chasing Thaos in my view.

Boom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Thaos was the most interesting villain to come out of a game in a VERY long time. His motivations and methods are interesting and I kept playing because I HAD to know what was going on. If anything, I'm worried about Eothas being less interesting by the time I finish Deadfire.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Thaos was the most interesting villain to come out of a game in a VERY long time. His motivations and methods are interesting and I kept playing because I HAD to know what was going on. If anything, I'm worried about Eothas being less interesting by the time I finish Deadfire.

 

Eothas is a pretty terrible... antagonist?  He's not really a bad guy, but he does kinda **** over CHARNAME when the plot starts?  Even more than with Thaos, Eothas feels like a nearly literal "I'm just forcing the player to do game stuff" creature.

 

I think Thaos is an excellent character on paper - better than Irenicus, even - but I don't think he was utilized well.  Sarevok being a pretty generic BBEG and being absent nearly the entire game worked fine for BG1, because Sarevok wasn't really the focus to begin with.  Remove Sarevok entirely and replace him with just, I dunno, a band of brigands with a scroll of Protection from Magic or something, and the vast majority of BG1 is largely unchanged.

Thaos, on the other hand, is said to be a major motivating factor for the player character in Pillars, yet you hardly see him or hear from him at any point in the game.  You're told you need to go hunt this guy down, but I never felt like my character had any actual REASON to go chase him down other than "hey maybe he can help me with this Watcher thing."

 

Irenicus has a more generic backstory than Thaos does, but the implementation of the character together with David Warner's absurdly good acting makes him memorable.  He is, probably, the most memorable villain in any media I've ever consumed - book, movie, game, or otherwise.  Thaos, on the other hand, is actually very interesting to read about... but in-game, he manages to be even less interesting than a Valygar coffee mug.

 

Eothas is even worse than Thaos.  Deadfire is a pretty wonderful setting but the plot is just... man, it's just bad.  You'll see what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I thought Thaos was the most interesting villain to come out of a game in a VERY long time. His motivations and methods are interesting and I kept playing because I HAD to know what was going on. If anything, I'm worried about Eothas being less interesting by the time I finish Deadfire.

 

Eothas is a pretty terrible... antagonist?  He's not really a bad guy, but he does kinda **** over CHARNAME when the plot starts?  Even more than with Thaos, Eothas feels like a nearly literal "I'm just forcing the player to do game stuff" creature.

 

I think Thaos is an excellent character on paper - better than Irenicus, even - but I don't think he was utilized well.  Sarevok being a pretty generic BBEG and being absent nearly the entire game worked fine for BG1, because Sarevok wasn't really the focus to begin with.  Remove Sarevok entirely and replace him with just, I dunno, a band of brigands with a scroll of Protection from Magic or something, and the vast majority of BG1 is largely unchanged.

Thaos, on the other hand, is said to be a major motivating factor for the player character in Pillars, yet you hardly see him or hear from him at any point in the game.  You're told you need to go hunt this guy down, but I never felt like my character had any actual REASON to go chase him down other than "hey maybe he can help me with this Watcher thing."

 

Irenicus has a more generic backstory than Thaos does, but the implementation of the character together with David Warner's absurdly good acting makes him memorable.  He is, probably, the most memorable villain in any media I've ever consumed - book, movie, game, or otherwise.  Thaos, on the other hand, is actually very interesting to read about... but in-game, he manages to be even less interesting than a Valygar coffee mug.

 

Eothas is even worse than Thaos.  Deadfire is a pretty wonderful setting but the plot is just... man, it's just bad.  You'll see what I mean.

 

 

I agree that Thaos was much better on paper than he was executed in-game.

 

The main villain interacting/fighting with the protagonist is a hard balance to strike. Don't show them enough, and players forget about them (Thaos). Defeat them too much, and they lose all credibility as a threat (Cory-face in DAI).

 

Strangely, one of the best villains since Irenicus is Loghain from DAO, and you only ever encounter him face-to-face in the boss battle against him. But, he is built up enough as you encounter his schemes and read his lore, that he comes across and dangerous and competent. Plus, unlike Irenicus or Thaos, he actually had good and memorable lieutenants, like Rendon "Roose Bolton ripoff" Howe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're at it Loghain had other clear thing going for him - he was voiced by Simon Goddamn Templeman. As Legacy of Kain enthusiasts can probably attest he knows a thing or two about voicing amazing and intimidating villainous characters.

Edited by aksrasjel
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strangely, one of the best villains since Irenicus is Loghain from DAO, and you only ever encounter him face-to-face in the boss battle against him. But, he is built up enough as you encounter his schemes and read his lore, that he comes across and dangerous and competent. Plus, unlike Irenicus or Thaos, he actually had good and memorable lieutenants, like Rendon "Roose Bolton ripoff" Howe.

Good point. SPOILERS FOR DA:O AHEAD: (eh better be safe than sorry)

 

I loved how the fight with Loghain was a high-stakes duel with an entire court room as your audience. Played a sword-and-board fighter in my first playthrough and the duel with Loghain felt so good. It's really best fought with a sword-and-board build, IMO - more timing and countering involved.  Never liked Loghain myself, but he's really well written, highly charismatic, with an intimidating presence and solid voice-acting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're at it Loghain had other clear thing going for him - he was voiced by Simon Goddamn Templeman. As Legacy of Kain enthusiasts can probably attest he knows a thing or two about voicing amazing and intimidating villainous characters.

 

Howe was voiced by Tim Curry, so they had a very strong voice cast for the bad guys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people may be overlooking how Irenicus and BG2's plot subverted expectation in a big way. The villainy of Irenicus may seem obvious in retrospect but at the time, the obvious expectation for the sequel was that you would fight more Bhaalspawn. The ending cutscene of the original foreshadows this. Irenicus and Bodhi were a wonderful, unexpected way to keep the series focused on the Bhaal legacy while delivering a completely unexpected kind of villain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're looking for another similar game you can try Divinity: Original Sin 1 and 2. The battle system is far more complex and it uses AP like the old Fallout series, but overall it's pretty similar. And enjoyable. :)

 

You may like BG II more, but that is not objective. I like PoE's mature and complex writing much more now, than I like the immature, D&D trope style writing from BG II. So don't discard nostalgia like that, because it does play a significant role in your perception of games you play now.

You and I must have played a completely different game.

 

 

D: OS 2 complexity is a myth. Even as half wit u gonna run into one of 20 builds/synergies that entirely break the game and make everything trivial af. Even poe2 is hardcore compared to that. I agree tho that BG 2 writing was far from "immature", especially compared to poe 2, bg 2 was dark af, even into cinematic saying that you were kidnapped "there was no malice or hatred, no mention of an old score, only quick capture and promise of grim deeds to come" and then a sequence of horror like screens and tortured screams... now pair that with poe 2 "yo ho and a bottle of rum, I'ooo chasing god, yo ho". 

Edited by Phyriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D: OS 2 complexity is a myth. Even as half wit u gonna run into one of 20 builds/synergies that entirely break the game and make everything trivial af. Even poe2 is hardcore compared to that. I agree tho that BG 2 writing was far from "immature", especially compared to poe 2, bg 2 was dark af, even into cinematic saying that you were kidnapped "there was no malice or hatred, no mention of an old score, only quick capture and promise of grim deeds to come" and then a sequence of horror like screens and tortured screams... now pair that with poe 2 "yo ho and a bottle of rum, I'ooo chasing god, yo ho".

This has been touched on in this topic, more or less. How complex the game can be has nothing to do with whether there exists something broken in the game or not. The question is are you willing to play the game on a more advanced level, to spend time coming up with elaborate plans and setting things up. The Original Sin games are games that actually allow you to do such a thing. If you WISH to, you CAN set up complicated (even unnecessarily so) plans or "traps", and they will help you beat combat just fine, without using anything that "entirely break the game". Thing is, it's far easier to just resort to overpowered tools as soon as you discover them, and forget about being sophisticated altogether.

 

The "combat complexity" of the Original Sin games lies in the fact that environment and terrain play a big role in combat, as well as the dynamic and multi-leveled interaction between spells and abilities. Very few other games offer this kind of experience. In contrast, the most elaborate things you can do in PoE2 are probably something along the lines of having your assassin dash to a mage, smoke bomb, backstab, then dash back out. I'm willing to take this back if you can give me some solid examples of "complex" combat moves you can pull off in PoE.

Edited by try2handing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

D: OS 2 complexity is a myth. Even as half wit u gonna run into one of 20 builds/synergies that entirely break the game and make everything trivial af. Even poe2 is hardcore compared to that. I agree tho that BG 2 writing was far from "immature", especially compared to poe 2, bg 2 was dark af, even into cinematic saying that you were kidnapped "there was no malice or hatred, no mention of an old score, only quick capture and promise of grim deeds to come" and then a sequence of horror like screens and tortured screams... now pair that with poe 2 "yo ho and a bottle of rum, I'ooo chasing god, yo ho".

This has been touched on in this topic, more or less. How complex the game can be has nothing to do with whether there exists something broken in the game or not. The question is are you willing to play the game on a more advanced level, to spend time coming up with elaborate plans and setting things up. The Original Sin games are games that actually allow you to do such a thing. If you WISH to, you CAN set up complicated (even unnecessarily so) plans or "traps", and they will help you beat combat just fine, without using anything that "entirely break the game". Thing is, it's far easier to just resort to overpowered tools as soon as you discover them, and forget about being sophisticated altogether.

 

The "combat complexity" of the Original Sin games lies in the fact that environment and terrain play a big role in combat, as well as the dynamic and multi-leveled interaction between spells and abilities. Very few other games offer this kind of experience. In contrast, the most elaborate things you can do in PoE2 are probably something along the lines of having your assassin dash to a mage, smoke bomb, backstab, then dash back out. I'm willing to take this back if you can give me some solid examples of "complex" combat moves you can pull off in PoE.

 

 

Yep.  Like I've said before, the complete lack of terrain interactivity in Deadfire is a huge missed opportunity.  Even 5E, with its much nerfed magic compared to earlier editions, allows players to use magic to create, destroy, and manipulate terrain.  Raise a wall to break line of effect, create a pit to block off an area or trap enemies, solidify sand so you can cross it easily, turn a smooth stone floor into jagged shards that have to be crossed carefully, etc.  Simplifying other combat mechanics would've made perfect sense if they were to introduce terrain reactivity as a new series of gameplay mechanics (which is basically what OS1 and OS2 did - their combat mechanics are incredibly simple so that the player isn't overwhelmed while trying to grasp all the ways they can interact with the terrain through spells and abilities), but they didn't do that... so we have an RPG that's so simplistic that it makes even 5E look complex.

 

I don't think you should compare PoE with a tactical RPG game. Obviously tRPGs generally tend to have more complex combat.

 

You're just splitting hairs.  Pillars and Deadfire are explicitly advertised as featuring tactical combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not. "Tactical combat" is a very broad term, but I'm not comparing Pillars to Total War. Just saying that real-time games with active pause tend to not go overboard with complexity in combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, there's one small detail that actually makes a huge, huge difference between the games when it comes to combat, and tactical combat in particular. One word: pathfinding.

 

Pathfinding in combat is utter rubbish in PoE (although I'm not sure about Deadfire!), and that alone made combat a lot worse than it was in BG2. Also, the maps contained far too many narrow spaces through which only one character could pass (even if it realistically didn't look like that), and in addition to these ridiculous bottlenecks, far too many combats went completely apes**t because of the fact that one of your characters decided to run to his intended spot via some completely senseless route.

 

This was astonishing. One would have thought that pathfinding in combat could not possibly get worse over time (in the time that elapsed between BG2 and PoE), but it did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, there's one small detail that actually makes a huge, huge difference between the games when it comes to combat, and tactical combat in particular. One word: pathfinding.

 

Pathfinding in combat is utter rubbish in PoE (although I'm not sure about Deadfire!), and that alone made combat a lot worse than it was in BG2. Also, the maps contained far too many narrow spaces through which only one character could pass (even if it realistically didn't look like that), and in addition to these ridiculous bottlenecks, far too many combats went completely apes**t because of the fact that one of your characters decided to run to his intended spot via some completely senseless route.

 

This was astonishing. One would have thought that pathfinding in combat could not possibly get worse over time (in the time that elapsed between BG2 and PoE), but it did.

 

That's the one reason why going through the first Pillars felt like a chore to me at some point. 

 

Pathfinding in the first Pillars is a disgrace. Deadfire does improve on that quite a bit (I guess the smaller party size helps). 

 

Pillars 1 made things even worse with all its focus on engagement. It's as if they stressed the weakest part of the game and piled up on it. In the end I liked the first Pillars but it had more to do with the setting and story than with the fighting (I've enjoyed Deadfire a lot more on that front). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is, outside of combat, there's nothing wrong with Pathfinding in PoE. But in combat, it's unbelievably poor.

 

Deadfire improves on this, though probably not directly the pathfinding. When a character wants to reach an enemy, the other characters now step aside to give way. For me, this practically solves the combat pathfinding problem. In PoE this caused the character to run in circles around the combatants which was very annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame Eothos is so underutilized. His demeanor is calm and chilling haha.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, I dropped POE2 and been playing BG1 and BG2 for 3 weeks. I tried BG: Siege of Dragonspear (made by Beamdog - guys who made BG Enhanced Edition) for the first time and i thought: that`s how you make good quests Obsidian. 
 

I was disappointed when I played Poe1. My points:
 

1) Boring story and quests

2) Super boring companions (except Eder, for some reason)

3) Boring repetitive combat

4) Very stupid and hard to understand character development system (like barbarian is better with high INT rather than STR or MIG, what????)

5) Lack of content x3

6) Annoying music most of the time

7) Plain items (I really enjoyed searching for stuff in BG series, read backstories, etc.)

8) Super long loading screens

Good points:

1) Beautiful locations

2) Those hand-drawn interactive scenes are really cool

Overall, the game felt unfinished. The world didn`t feel real.

Add-ons WM1 and WM2 somewhat fixed p5) lack of content and p1) - arsenal and lich quests were really good, and p7) added soul bound items.

POE2 is much better than POE1, but:

1) Boring main story - seriously, it`s terrible. Quests are meh... I think games like BG, PoE, Arcanum,Torment etc... should make really deep and fascinating story as one of their main strengths

2) Lack of content again - big empty map of water. that`s why I decided to wait for 3 upcoming DLC`s and play again.

3) Boring companions, again... - they don`t feel real, dolls with some dialogs

4) Difficulty issues - at some point characters just destroy everything even at POTD difficulty.

Now about good points:

1) Character development become easier (although still strange) and surprisingly fun with multiclasses. I spent 2 days just testing different combinations (thank you for that)

2) Combat improved drastically and became fun too.

3) Music is better, but annoying themes from part 1 remained

4) World is even more beautiful (I thought I will hate Deadfire setting, but I loved it)

5) Lots of minor fixes and improvements
 

So, for me Deadfire is: Beautiful world with comfortable interface, + interesting builds and fun combat, but boring quests and nothing to explore. Obsidian, I believe you could do better. Take some lessons from CDPR for quests and story writing.

 

Compare with BG2:

Very cool villain, mysterious epic story, and TONS of content. After I finished prologue I can:

Free Copper coronet, destroy slavers guild, free d`arnise keep, explore cult of eyeless god, check planar sphere, save theatre troupe from astral prison, investigate ancient tombs and dungeons, fight thieves or vampires guild, save city from animals, confront scheming dragon, save village from shadows, go to underdark, mage asylum…. + companions quests + numerous small quests

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...