"evil" choices, immersion, what (not?) to learn from IWD2

[h^2]

I have previously played BG2 and Planescape Torment as good or at worst neutral main character, and the immersion was superb. I had also started playing IWD2 a while ago with a good/neutral party and immersion was ok (story too linear, but thats a different issue). A few months backed I decided to replay IWD2, because I had never finished, this time I chose to play as an evil party.

And I was thoroughly disappointed, I must say. 95% of all quests were "save person x" or "save the world" (game plot). "evil" dailogue options where available, but almost never went beyond "give me more gold for it" and even then a very selfish character would never have undertaken them (children got lost in the forest... come on!?).
The last chapter is absolutely stupid for an evil party, you have to actually imply to a slave that you could kill his masters to be able to complete, then you get ridiculous quests like organize more food for slaves... The first time I thought "cool" was when I got the quest to kill the stupid mage in the mage tower to earn membership in the mage school... however it is impossible to do, as the quest giving NPC betrays you immediately and trying to still attack the mage on top of the mage tower (what an annoying fellow!) immediately kills your entire party.
Then you start the ritual and lo! I am actually offered allegiance with Xvim, which is what my characters had in mind all along (after all they are EVIL and a Cleric of Bane is among them, you know Bane, the Daddy of Xvim who all these folks pray to?).... BUT epic disappointment, striking a deal with Xvim has actually no effect on anything, it just forces you to start the final battle earlier (which is also a lot lot easier then many other encounters in the game)... poof the bosses are dead and instead of being able to take over the hand (which Xvim promised to me), I flee and am celebrated as the hero of Icewind Dale... what a pathetic destiny for a Cleric of Bane.

ok, enough of whining, what I am getting at is: I hope this will be different in PoE. I'd rather have entire areas and side quests as well as main story *exclusive* to certain alignments, factions, races whatever, then being able to generate 5K different types of character with little to no influence on gameplay. And I hope it will be possible to be cruel and selfish and all of that, and it being worthwhile, i.e. have extra quests for this that go beyond "OK, I am going to save poor Emily from drowning, BUT ONLY IF I GET TWO COPPERS EXTRA" -- which is *not* a good answer from an evil character.

[Gorbag]

I think you picked the wrong game to go looking for this kind of thing. IWDs don't really care about your alignment, they are above all action-based games, so you get exactly this - IE combat fun. I know it's a poor analogy, but you cannot really play evil in Diablo 2 or Titan Quest either. Not because you cannot possibly do it, but because the game does not really care.
That said, I'd also like to see some repercussions for being evil (both lucrative and penalizing) other than characters turning red and attacking you if your reputation reaches 2. I would not expect too much though - evil actions will likely be supported, but whatever storyline PoE has, it's not likely that it would be drastically altered by your character being evil.

[archangel979]

Yea, IWD1 and 2 were not really known for their roleplay qualities. They were not designed for it as well. For Evil characters you have to provide internal motivation like becoming more powerful or some revenge scheme. Or my Evil God wants me to do good things for The Greater Evil

[Enoch]

Yea, IWD1 and 2 were not really known for their roleplay qualities. They were not designed for it as well. For Evil characters you have to provide internal motivation like becoming more powerful or some revenge scheme. Or my Evil God wants me to do good things for The Greater Evil

 

Indeed.  Also, IWD2 was famously rushed.  Interplay told Black Isle to crank out another IE game as quickly as they could to get some money coming in and forestall the slow implosion of IPLY's finances.  It's not surprising that alternate alignment-based paths in the endgame didn't make it.  Would've been nice, sure, but it's not something that is going to have much effect on sales in the early going. 

[Stun]

A few months backed I decided to replay IWD2, because I had never finished, this time I chose to play as an evil party.

 

And I was thoroughly disappointed, I must say. 95% of all quests were "save person x" or "save the world" (game plot). "evil" dailogue options where available, but almost never went beyond "give me more gold for it" and even then a very selfish character would never have undertaken them (children got lost in the forest... come on!?).

A couple of things... Nitpicks really.

 

First, Evil does not mean that you can't help people. An intelligent evil person will gleefully help an entire village with its trivial little problems, if it serves his/her greater goals, or if there's profit in it.

 

Second, IWD2 gives you at least one, major, and fantastic, opportunity to do evil and be rewarded greatly for it. Try siding with the Deurgar and when they tell you to lay waste to the Black Raven monastery, do it. By contrast, The first Baldurs Gate does not even give you *that* much of an opportunity to role play evil.

 

 

Third, IWD2's plot is not "save the world". It's not even "save the north". Isair and Madae's greater goals are not evil, unless you see "a homeland for half-breeds" as an evil goal. It's only their methods of achieving that goal that are evil.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Stun

[IndiraLightfoot]

Expect a mix of how F:NV (several factions interwoven) and MotB (plenty of difficult choices and cool consequences) handled different actions and choices, and that's quite a tall order already, expectations bordering on dreams!

[Valmy]

Yea, IWD1 and 2 were not really known for their roleplay qualities. They were not designed for it as well. For Evil characters you have to provide internal motivation like becoming more powerful or some revenge scheme. Or my Evil God wants me to do good things for The Greater Evil

 

Granted but his criticisms easily extend to the other IE games as well.

[Valmy]

 

Yea, IWD1 and 2 were not really known for their roleplay qualities. They were not designed for it as well. For Evil characters you have to provide internal motivation like becoming more powerful or some revenge scheme. Or my Evil God wants me to do good things for The Greater Evil

 

Indeed.  Also, IWD2 was famously rushed.  Interplay told Black Isle to crank out another IE game as quickly as they could to get some money coming in and forestall the slow implosion of IPLY's finances.  It's not surprising that alternate alignment-based paths in the endgame didn't make it.  Would've been nice, sure, but it's not something that is going to have much effect on sales in the early going. 

 

 

Well the same guys are making PoE so I think there is still value in bringing these issues up to the developers.

[archangel979]

 

Yea, IWD1 and 2 were not really known for their roleplay qualities. They were not designed for it as well. For Evil characters you have to provide internal motivation like becoming more powerful or some revenge scheme. Or my Evil God wants me to do good things for The Greater Evil

 

Granted but his criticisms easily extend to the other IE games as well.

 

Do they? In BG1 you could be saving the sword coast from great evil or just trying to find out who killed Gorion and is trying to kill you so you can kill them. At no point does BG1 force you to do good things with good motivation. All good quests you can turn down. 

In Bg2 you even get a few opportunities to state you hunt for Irenicus and not trying to save Imoen. That is clearly a good or evil path. 

And two options in Athkatla (Shadow Thieves or Vampires) are both Evil and it more than one person said that Paladins are the ones wronged here as they would not use services of any of those two options.

IWD is just like IWD2, Torment is very personal game and good/evil means almost nothing in that game.

[NWN_babaYaga]

I must say that i only played IWD1 and i only was some kind of a combatant. I understood something of the story but i didnt realy cared. I loved the adventuring in it (exploring new areas and fighting) stealth some tactical thinking and loot. Thats what is was for me. And i dont know if it´s so clever to include super good, boring neutral or murderously evil in a game that has one main tale to go trough. Yes the ending can be different but if it´s just about the defeat/ killing of a villain you KILL him anyway... so all the good, neutral and evil part doesnt matter in terms of taking away a life even you save many many others maybe.

 

I dont like that concept for a main story. for a sidequest it makes sense because it does not change the script of the original thought the tale is based on.

[Valmy]

Do they? In BG1 you could be saving the sword coast from great evil or just trying to find out who killed Gorion and is trying to kill you so you can kill them. At no point does BG1 force you to do good things with good motivation. All good quests you can turn down.

 

 

 

The only thing you can really do evil in BG1 is murder and steal.  You can turn down the good quests but you lose the advantages of doing so and do not gain anything substantial in return.  There is really no evil path, there is a psychopathic path and non-psychopathic path and it is to your benefit to do the non-psychopathic stuff.  That was a big criticism of BG1 at the time.

 

In Bg2 you even get a few opportunities to state you hunt for Irenicus and not trying to save Imoen. That is clearly a good or evil path. 

And two options in Athkatla (Shadow Thieves or Vampires) are both Evil and it more than one person said that Paladins are the ones wronged here as they would not use services of any of those two options.

 

 

 

Sure and there are a few big evil options in IWD2 as well.  As shown by the option to side with the Duergar.

 

But ultimately IWD is just like IWD2

 

 

 

I thought the issues he had with the essential non-existence of meaningful evil paths are not solely for IWD2.  Actually I thought there were nice RP moments in IWD2 just mostly confined to the first town.

Torment is very personal game and good/evil means almost nothing in that game.

 

 

I am not sure what you are talking about here.  They mean a great deal in that game.  More than the others.  You could be one cold bloodedly cruel bastard.  I have to admit I didn't have the stomach for it.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Valmy

[Zansatsu]

I find in a lot of games they don't really craft a logical or well thought out path for an evil character. I think the game that absolutely got it right was mass affect. You weren't just some offish load mouth saying stupid things all the time. The evil option were just as satisfying as the good. Most of the time being evil amounts to you just saying stupid things and getting tongue lashed by NPC's.

[Stun]

Mask of the Betrayer also did its evil path really, really well.

[Nonek]

In my opinion the IWD's and the BG's were both linear arpg's, whether one becomes immersed in them is a totally personall matter, it does not arise from any one mechancic. I'd be fine with optional cotent based on ones playstyle, though from what I understand what we got from IWD2 was fairly staggering considering the ten month development time, but I wouldn't want any contrived binary morality system to restrict my actions.

 

From what Obsidian did in New Vegas in eighteen months (the same amount of time as some sub par arpg's people apologise for) I am left confident that they will deliver a stellar experience, that reacts to ones playstyle and provides a much wider degree of actions and motivations than is the industry norm.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Nonek

[archangel979]

 

Do they? In BG1 you could be saving the sword coast from great evil or just trying to find out who killed Gorion and is trying to kill you so you can kill them. At no point does BG1 force you to do good things with good motivation. All good quests you can turn down.

 

 

 

The only thing you can really do evil in BG1 is murder and steal.  You can turn down the good quests but you lose the advantages of doing so and do not gain anything substantial in return.  There is really no evil path, there is a psychopathic path and non-psychopathic path and it is to your benefit to do the non-psychopathic stuff.  That was a big criticism of BG1 at the time.

 

In Bg2 you even get a few opportunities to state you hunt for Irenicus and not trying to save Imoen. That is clearly a good or evil path. 

And two options in Athkatla (Shadow Thieves or Vampires) are both Evil and it more than one person said that Paladins are the ones wronged here as they would not use services of any of those two options.

 

 

 

Sure and there are a few big evil options in IWD2 as well.  As shown by the option to side with the Duergar.

 

But ultimately IWD is just like IWD2

 

 

 

I thought the issues he had with the essential non-existence of meaningful evil paths are not solely for IWD2.  Actually I thought there were nice RP moments in IWD2 just mostly confined to the first town.

Torment is very personal game and good/evil means almost nothing in that game.

 

 

I am not sure what you are talking about here.  They mean a great deal in that game.  More than the others.  You could be one cold bloodedly cruel bastard.  I have to admit I didn't have the stomach for it.

 

I think we might be talking about different things here. I am talking about the game supporting Evil characters, you are talking about game being full of clearly evil quests. Game does not need those to support evil play through as long as the quests are not obvious Good ones like only options being saving people or turning down rewards. 

 

Both BG1 and BG2 offered evil play because you were not forced into good actions and all the quests you had to do were easily explained for evil characters as well. The games are RPG = Roleplaying games, you are supposed to make decisions based on your characters even if that is a subpar option at times. People are obsessed about complex game mechanics supporting everything, that is not needed, you already had reputation and open ended quests. 

I know in BG2 I tried to have around 10 reputation character because I wanted to have a mix of neutral/evil companions in party and early in the game my reputation fell down to 7 and I had to do some good action I didn't really want or pay money to temples. The game offered enough evil options if you ask me.

 

What you guys want is powergaming no matter what you do and choose. You want the story to follow your whim instead of you following the story and the world. This makes the world less realistic and it not proper roleplaying. Just like people that complain in D:OS that choosing conversation options does not give them mechanical bonuses they want. That is also not roleplaying. I always choose what my character would say, not what kind of bonus I will get for it.

 

Mass Effect that was mentioned was a bad example in my book, it always presented two options and you were expected to go either full good or full evil (like Kotor and I hated that in Kotor where going full good or full evil would unlock great benefits not open to gray characters). 

Edited August 1, 2014 by archangel979

[Zansatsu]

My comment had nothing to do with the quality or enjoyment I found in BG, BG2, or IWD. I also understand they are crafting a story that I have to play through so I can't go killing everybody and expect things to work out. I really don't care I almost always play a good character. My point was more that evil options to things always amount to killing or shake downs in a lot of games. And the dialogue is usually just moronic yelling of dumb cliche phrase. What would be more interesting to me is a calculated evil option so I can proceed through but underhandedly. That was my point. Less maniacal road warrior cartoon bad guy and more Hannibal Lecter.

[Foksuh]

I think it  comes down to the definition of good and evil, and naturally the limitations of storytelling/writing/resources. You often can't afford writing in a ton of different pathways.

IWD2 was actually one of the games that back in the day made me think about the whole thing myself, having been playing the game with an evil group.. and back then I realized that the evil guy could still be viewed as a hero.
Evil guy might have a horrible personality and motivations, but in certain situations they can still turn out to be heroes. IWD's might not have had that sort of deeply written roleplaying aspects to it but I think the story in itself still worked, whether you played the good or the bad guys. Banite priest was acting agent for Bane, getting rid of those who had fallen out of Banes favour etc.

It's all about the motivations/or other powers that drive the characters and how others perceive things too. A good deed for one might be bad to another. A career criminal is "evil" in eyes of the society but that same career criminal might be a loving parent and a loyal friend.

I think one of the problems, at least in my opinion, is that in games the evil is often portrayed more as some sort of "universal" evil type of thing. You're not just a bad guy, you're made into the sort of blood drinking maniac who wants to set the world on fire. What if I want to play a diplomatic guy, a real smooth talking bastard, rather than the sort that lops off every head that doesn't agree with me?

The second common issue is probably the fact that a lot of RPG's tend to go for the "save the world" type of stuff which kinda supports the universal good or evil approach.. though I think something like Mass Effect did pretty good job at it, despite the grand scale of thing. You could just play a really efficient, no bs type of soldier, blunt and to the point but not a total psycho. Same goes for Witchers, I think. It's nicer to see those shades of grey being added to the games nowdays.

This is why I'm interested to see about these personality things that are being worked into PoE.

[Zansatsu]

I think it  comes down to the definition of good and evil, and naturally the limitations of storytelling/writing/resources. You often can't afford writing in a ton of different pathways.

IWD2 was actually one of the games that back in the day made me think about the whole thing myself, having been playing the game with an evil group.. and back then I realized that the evil guy could still be viewed as a hero.

Evil guy might have a horrible personality and motivations, but in certain situations they can still turn out to be heroes. IWD's might not have had that sort of deeply written roleplaying aspects to it but I think the story in itself still worked, whether you played the good or the bad guys. Banite priest was acting agent for Bane, getting rid of those who had fallen out of Banes favour etc.

It's all about the motivations/or other powers that drive the characters and how others perceive things too. A good deed for one might be bad to another. A career criminal is "evil" in eyes of the society but that same career criminal might be a loving parent and a loyal friend.

I think one of the problems, at least in my opinion, is that in games the evil is often portrayed more as some sort of "universal" evil type of thing. You're not just a bad guy, you're made into the sort of blood drinking maniac who wants to set the world on fire. What if I want to play a diplomatic guy, a real smooth talking bastard, rather than the sort that lops off every head that doesn't agree with me?

The second common issue is probably the fact that a lot of RPG's tend to go for the "save the world" type of stuff which kinda supports the universal good or evil approach.. though I think something like Mass Effect did pretty good job at it, despite the grand scale of thing. You could just play a really efficient, no bs type of soldier, blunt and to the point but not a total psycho. Same goes for Witchers, I think. It's nicer to see those shades of grey being added to the games nowdays.

This is why I'm interested to see about these personality things that are being worked into PoE.

 

Bingo!

[h^2]

I agree, this is not really a good VS evil thing, but evil in IWD2 proves the point.

 

I am just argueing in favor of different pathways, e.g. you could decide not to help someone, because you are evil and don't care, because that someone's race or background conflict with yours, or because the rewards don't convince you; the point is, that you can chose not to, and that the game offers plenty of other choices, things that can't be undone, and that change the direction of the game.

-> I don't advocate binary alignment choices, of course it is even more fun if other background stuff makes a different; the whole point for me is that I can act in a way that seems logical for my character. If I its possible to play arrogant an selfish child from a noble family, I don't want to have to help some poor kid get food, just because thats a possible quest in the first village.

OTOH if I am from surpressed ethnicity and poor background I am not likely to sacrifice myself for the defence of some lords farm against raids from the countryside. EXCEPT if I have proven to be rather greedy myself and see benefit from the reward, that totally depends.

 

If a logical path is not possible for a combination of alignment, race, background, it shouldn't be available, because it will just decrease the RPG factor. But maybe the beta-testers will find some of these things, so that they can be adapted. There are possible workarounds, by adding dialogue options for these specific situations that add detail that might dip the balance. Maybe the lord who wants you to defend his farm will say "I know you are a poor Orlan and have little reason to help a Snobby white human, but please know that my family always supported happy coexistance between humans and orlans" (or whatever, you get my point).

 

BTW, just because that was raised concerning IWD2: I did help the duerger and killed the stupid monks, just to end up getting a quest to help their emissaries in the severed hand regain their original body (some chapters later). There was even an option for "Dude, I killed all your brothers and sisters, because they were so pathetic and your next." The only dialogue option to engage theme was sth like "You evil monster must die!" which is also totally unsuited for Dreadmaster of Bane. It just doesn't add up to a consistent picture, thats my problem.

In general I just started stealing from everyone everywhere and then killing them (so the monks *and* the duerger had to go). That at least fealt evil...

[archangel979]

My comment had nothing to do with the quality or enjoyment I found in BG, BG2, or IWD. I also understand they are crafting a story that I have to play through so I can't go killing everybody and expect things to work out. I really don't care I almost always play a good character. My point was more that evil options to things always amount to killing or shake downs in a lot of games. And the dialogue is usually just moronic yelling of dumb cliche phrase. What would be more interesting to me is a calculated evil option so I can proceed through but underhandedly. That was my point. Less maniacal road warrior cartoon bad guy and more Hannibal Lecter.

Except as it was stated, evil does not need to do that or act that way. He can act all good and civil if he wants as long as he achieves his ultimate goal. Just because this option to kill or shake exists in conversation it does not mean you need to take it. Hanibal would not, he would choose the seemingly good option to pretend he was a good guy.

Edited August 1, 2014 by archangel979

[Valmy]

Well surely you have to do something evil to be considered evil.  I mean at some point.  You don't just walk around thinking of evil rationalizations for doing good things.

[Zansatsu]

 

My comment had nothing to do with the quality or enjoyment I found in BG, BG2, or IWD. I also understand they are crafting a story that I have to play through so I can't go killing everybody and expect things to work out. I really don't care I almost always play a good character. My point was more that evil options to things always amount to killing or shake downs in a lot of games. And the dialogue is usually just moronic yelling of dumb cliche phrase. What would be more interesting to me is a calculated evil option so I can proceed through but underhandedly. That was my point. Less maniacal road warrior cartoon bad guy and more Hannibal Lecter.

 

Except as it was stated, evil does not need to do that or act that way. He can act all good and civil if he wants as long as he achieves his ultimate goal.

Hah OK you got me. So I will do all the right things and say all the right words but in my characters heart of hearts he's really just evil and doing it to get ahead. The OP has a point though, unless you want to secretly be evil but achieve nothing evil, they don't give a lot of choices most of the time.

[Nonek]

Or perhaps do something truly monstrous for the "greater good?"

 

Edit: Personally for me what it boils down to is the main plot not seeming reasonable, for whatever reason, whether it is no well implemented evil path in IWD2 or the common use of "BUT THOU MUST" to advance the plot rather than a coherent, human and logical motivation. Sometimes the game designers seem more concerned with their cinematic experience than the players experience, however this is not something that Obsidian does in my opinion. Even DS3 one of their most linear games does respond to ones actions, and has a brutally logical motivation for the protagonist, defeat Jayne Kassynder or be hunted down and exterminated. Crude but eminently reasonable.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Nonek

[MReed]

Hah OK you got me. So I will do all the right things and say all the right words but in my characters heart of hearts he's really just evil and doing it to get ahead. The OP has a point though, unless you want to secretly be evil but achieve nothing evil, they don't give a lot of choices most of the time.

 

 

I'm assuming that there is a typo here -- the last sentence should read "...unless you want to be secretly be evil but achieve nothing but good, they don't give a lot of choices most of the time."  This is certainly my problem with the support for evil options in the vast majority of RPGs, at least.

 

"Sneaky evil" comes up quite commonly in these discussions, with Emperor Palpatine quite often being cited as an example of this arch-type.  There is an enormous difference between these two characters (start very long winded example):

 

1) Wanders into the village one day and the mayor tells him that bandits have been raiding the village for the past 6 months, but the local guard has been unable to resolve the problem.  The PC follows the clues, identifies the bandits lair, and kills all the hostiles (recovering, much to the villager's delight, some of the goods that had been previously stolen from the village).  The local lord takes note of the PC's actions and retains him to assist with identifying and apprehending a local thieves guild, which the player does.  Next, the local (good) church asks for the player's assistance with eliminating a nest of ghouls, followed by assisting the a prominent merchant by finding several new markets for her goods.  All of this activity brings the player to attention of the King, who recruits the PC to rescue his daughter from a dragon -- which, of course, the PC does.  After this, the PC is named "Defender of the Realm", and successfully leads the defense of the kingdom against a barbarian horde.  Along the way the princess falls in love with the PC, they get married, and the current King and Queen step aside so that the PC can assume the throne.

 

2) Convinces a local group of bandits to attack the village, providing training, intelligence, and markets for the stolen goods.  After about 6 months of this, the PC wanders into the village and is asked to take care of the bandit problem -- which he does, by killing his erstwhile allies.  The local lord takes note of the PC's actions and retains him with identifying and apprehending a local thieves guild.  The player convinces the thieves guild to "lay low" for a couple of months, and kills off a couple of innocent bystanders and reports that the problems is resolved.  Next, the player arranges for some ghouls to successfully sneak into the city, waits a couple of months, and receives a request from the local (good) church to take care of a nest of ghouls, which he does.  Finally, the player kills a prominent merchant's most highly profitable customer's, creating a surplus of inventory at the merchant which he takes advantage of by encourging the merchant to sell his goods to a number of new customer's, whose honesty the player vouches for.  All of this activity brings the player to the attention of the King, and he makes sure he is highly visible in the royal court -- however, it is clear that the PC needs to do something truly spectacular to advance further.  The PC follows some rumors and finds a dragon, and manages to negotiate a deal:  if the dragon captures the princess and holds her alive until the player "rescues" her, the PC will ensure that the dragon is well compensated for her time.  This plan goes off without a hitch, and player even manages to slip the princess a slow acting love potion during the rescue attempt.  For his actions in defense of the realm, the player is named "Defender of the Kingdom".  The player then convinces the king to retain the services of an number of bards to "talk up" the wealth and prosperity of the kingdom (as part of a campaign to attract new commerce, of course) and makes sure these storeis reach the ears of a nearby barbarian kingdom.  When the barbarian kingdom attacks, the player ensures that his greatest rivals take the blunt of the attack, before coming in and "saving the day" at the last minute.  With the PC's marriage to the princess, and the king and queen suffering from ill health, the PC ascends to the throne.

 

#1 is good -- arguing that the player is secretly evil is (in my opinion) very, very disingenuous. 

 

#2 is a good example of a "sneaky evil" character.  Note that the difference is that this player is mitigating the consequences of evil that he has already done.  Note that in scenario #2, if it wasn't for the player's actions, the village never would have been raided, the ghouls never would have made it into the city, the princess would never have been kidnapped, and the kingdom would never have been attacked by the barbarians.

 

Note that I'm not arguing that characters of type #2 should be supported in PoE  -- in fact, they only way such a character could be supported is if a game was designed from the ground up to support such a game, and it is pretty clear that PoE isn't that game.   I think a game along these lines would be quite interesting, and would certainly support a Kickstarter to that end, though.

[Zansatsu]

It was more tongue and cheek. If everything I do is good, I can pretend I'm doing it for evil purposes but really I'm just playing the game through as a good character.