Will the companions be "Good" or "Evil"?

[Abel]

 

So you have no authority to judge the morality of something unless it is something you don't like?  I mean blowing up your house may not be dishonorable at all to the other guy.  So you are saying there are no moral authorities unless you feel yourself personally aggrieved?  Seems a bit arbitrary.  Glad this game does not take place in the real world.

 

 

No, i just mean that culture or religion is not always a reason to accept everything. I won't discuss this topic here. If you want to speak seriously, just see this short video. It wasn't in Gaza, it was actually in Paris few weeks ago.

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2e6tz9_attaque-contre-charlie-hebdo-les-images-de-l-attaque_news

 

Hope you now grasp a better idea. I you were in my shoes, maybe you would understand that you just kinda put the foot down .

 

/end of topic.

[Gromnir]

ps  just so Gromnir is clear, for the vast majority o' companions, we don't want their morality to be obvious. sure, maybe one of the eight is exact what he/she seems, but we would be mighty disappointed if the companions, taken as a whole, were so simple and shallow that we could  divine the true north o' their moral compass following our first encounter with them.  we would much prefer that after +40 hours of gameplay, we were increasing ambivalent regarding the right v. wrongness o' character actions.  our desire for character complexity is a personal preference and not necessarily better than those who want simple.

 

however, regardless o' whether is easy or difficult to plot character morality on a d&d style 4 quadrant graph, the absence o' d&d style alignment means that we must decide for ourselves how to define the character o' the characters, and that is a good thing from our perspective.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[ManifestedISO]

I don't know but I love the Dungeon Master's Guide avatar.

[Gromnir]

I don't know but I love the Dungeon Master's Guide avatar.

musta' missed it...

 

 

though am admitting we don't hate the new version.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Heijoushin]

 

Good and evil is subjective in real life. In fantasy world where every thing has magic power and such a degree of self independence the subject doesn't apply.  Maybe for beast races and certain god touched individuals self mutilation and eating faces is honorable. Who really are we, the player, to judge what makes us the moral authority of other souls and their culture. 

 

This is rather pointless since this is not real life.  We have actual Gods interacting with the world, it seems to me we have viable moral authorities.  So let me turn the question back around: who are we to consider ourselves above the Gods? 

 

 

I don't think they are viable moral authorities though. In fantasy games, even Gods are morally subjective and "flawed". Your statement sounds like you're thinking in terms of modern religion. Think more like Greek myths and legends kind of gods. You know, Zeus having sex with everything in sight and all that...

 

And since one God has already "died" in this fantasy world (the Godhammar Bomb incident), humans are more than capable of challenging them!

 

As others have said, the vast majority of people consider themselves to be "good" and are only interpreted as evil by other people who don't agree with their actions. So if you want an "evil" companion, what you really want is someone with a moral compass/culture eccentric enough to justify what we would consider "bad actions".

 

 

 

 

[Karkarov]

 

I don't know but I love the Dungeon Master's Guide avatar.

musta' missed it...

That new DMG sucks.

 

They meant this DMG, 1st edition AD&D but second release of the DMG itself Gromnir.

 

[Gromnir]

 

 

I don't know but I love the Dungeon Master's Guide avatar.

musta' missed it...

That new DMG sucks.

 

They meant this DMG, 1st edition AD&D but second release of the DMG itself Gromnir.

 

(edit: removed image)

 

am fully aware what he meant.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 19, 2015 by Gromnir

[illathid]

 

 

Good and evil is subjective in real life. In fantasy world where every thing has magic power and such a degree of self independence the subject doesn't apply.  Maybe for beast races and certain god touched individuals self mutilation and eating faces is honorable. Who really are we, the player, to judge what makes us the moral authority of other souls and their culture. 

 

This is rather pointless since this is not real life.  We have actual Gods interacting with the world, it seems to me we have viable moral authorities.  So let me turn the question back around: who are we to consider ourselves above the Gods? 

 

 

I don't think they are viable moral authorities though. In fantasy games, even Gods are morally subjective and "flawed". Your statement sounds like you're thinking in terms of modern religion. Think more like Greek myths and legends kind of gods. You know, Zeus having sex with everything in sight and all that...

 

And since one God has already "died" in this fantasy world (the Godhammar Bomb incident), humans are more than capable of challenging them!

 

As others have said, the vast majority of people consider themselves to be "good" and are only interpreted as evil by other people who don't agree with their actions. So if you want an "evil" companion, what you really want is someone with a moral compass/culture eccentric enough to justify what we would consider "bad actions".

 

 

 

 

Read the Euthyphro.

[Lord Wafflebum]

How is having Gods interacting with the populace unrealistic? I post here all the time.

 

P.S. I am a Golden God!

[Valmy]

 

 

Good and evil is subjective in real life. In fantasy world where every thing has magic power and such a degree of self independence the subject doesn't apply.  Maybe for beast races and certain god touched individuals self mutilation and eating faces is honorable. Who really are we, the player, to judge what makes us the moral authority of other souls and their culture. 

 

This is rather pointless since this is not real life.  We have actual Gods interacting with the world, it seems to me we have viable moral authorities.  So let me turn the question back around: who are we to consider ourselves above the Gods? 

 

 

I don't think they are viable moral authorities though. In fantasy games, even Gods are morally subjective and "flawed". Your statement sounds like you're thinking in terms of modern religion. Think more like Greek myths and legends kind of gods. You know, Zeus having sex with everything in sight and all that...

 

And since one God has already "died" in this fantasy world (the Godhammar Bomb incident), humans are more than capable of challenging them!

 

As others have said, the vast majority of people consider themselves to be "good" and are only interpreted as evil by other people who don't agree with their actions. So if you want an "evil" companion, what you really want is someone with a moral compass/culture eccentric enough to justify what we would consider "bad actions".

 

I am actually thinking of Greek Myths and Hubris since the question was 'who are we to declare something moral or immoral?'  Well that kind of gets turned around when there are divine beings doesn't it?

 

And thinking that the divine Eothas was harmed by the Godhammer Bomb is nonsense.  This is simply testing the faith of his people.  HERETICS WILL BE DELT WITH HARSHLY.

 

I am not so sure the vast majority of people consider themselves to be righteous.  Many people consider themselves to be bad people.  Self-loathing is a pretty common trait, particularly as you accumulate regrets over the course of your life.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Valmy

[Valmy]

however, regardless o' whether is easy or difficult to plot character morality on a d&d style 4 quadrant graph, the absence o' d&d style alignment means that we must decide for ourselves how to define the character o' the characters, and that is a good thing from our perspective.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yeah in D&D it is a game mechanic, where what 'good' and 'evil' means is more or less clearly defined (altruism = good, personal gain at other's expense = evil).  Not so here so the dynamic is different.  I definitely prefer that.

[White Phoenix]

D&D had alignment similar to the fairy-tales moral and Tolkien Middle-Earth universe, which opposed light, beauty, courage, worthiness (good) to darkness, ugliness, cruelty, chaos (evil) and so on. I believe POE companions are constructed on the grounds of some themes they represent (not only simple good or evil) and what they can mean for my player character. I think the problem lies in role of companions in relation to player. Many companions in present RPGs (if they have any) let grow ego of my PC. They are always loyal and helpful like faithful dog, they can sometimes go away if they don't agree with my behavior, but they never tell me I am completely wrong and I shouldn't be doing things A,B,C. I had impression they aren't individual and 'merged' in some way with my character (if we play as good, because evil path is not always appropriate done). From the other side no one wants (I think) a jerk in party, annoying your PC non-stop.

Edited February 20, 2015 by White Phoenix

[Valmy]

The extreme reaction fans gave Jahiera in BG1 for simply saying her 'unhappy' phrase when you got to reputation 20 was telling.  Players do NOT like companions who question their leadership.

[White Phoenix]

The extreme reaction fans gave Jahiera in BG1 for simply saying her 'unhappy' phrase when you got to reputation 20 was telling.  Players do NOT like companions who question their leadership.

Yes, that's interesting. I always liked themes of leadership struggle and that element is missing in RPGs for me. I remember Edwin reaction for too high reputation in BG2, but he never left my party (he was the only one evil character).

[Lephys]

I dunno, though... it'd be kind of nice if instead of "I'm either walking out of here, or I'm just biting my tongue and participating in whatever plan you deem fit, without question," someone would actually tell you how crappy they think your plan to lie to the orphanage is. Then, when you're in the midst of it, they "accidentally" expose the lie.

 

It's not like you wouldn't be forewarned. And, you'd ideally have the opportunity to at least explain your motives, etc. to that companion, so they could at least understand you if not agree wholeheartedly with your decision.

[Luckmann]

The extreme reaction fans gave Jahiera in BG1 for simply saying her 'unhappy' phrase when you got to reputation 20 was telling.  Players do NOT like companions who question their leadership.

 

I don't think the issue with Jaheira was that players don't like companions that question their leadership. I absolutely loathe Jaheira because she's an annoying busybody that whines incessantly. Compare it to Edwin, who practically calls you an idiot at every turn, and remains one of the best-liked characters of the series.

[Valmy]

I don't think the issue with Jaheira was that players don't like companions that question their leadership. I absolutely loathe Jaheira because she's an annoying busybody that whines incessantly. Compare it to Edwin, who practically calls you an idiot at every turn, and remains one of the best-liked characters of the series.

 

 

Are we talking about BG1 Jaheira?  She only had a few lines.  One of them was how 'better leadership' would help the party and man...that did not sit well.  But hey this is just like, my opinion man so it may not be true in every case. 

[Karkarov]

Are we talking about BG1 Jaheira?  She only had a few lines.  One of them was how 'better leadership' would help the party and man...that did not sit well.  But hey this is just like, my opinion man so it may not be true in every case. 

We are definitely talking BG1 Jaheira.  In BG2 I actually liked her because she finally had some depth and a personality/character growth.  It says something when I would rather have a Drow Elf Priest of Shar in my party or an insane gnome than a Half Elf Druid with the same alignment as my character.  That was BG1 Jaheira, she wasn't evil, but she was a full on whiny #$@#%@ and I didn't like having her around.  Hell Khalid wasn't much better, he was the most wishy washy, cowardly, weakling fighter to ever grace an RPG.  When Xan beats you in a manly man contest you know you have problems.

[Luckmann]

 

I don't think the issue with Jaheira was that players don't like companions that question their leadership. I absolutely loathe Jaheira because she's an annoying busybody that whines incessantly. Compare it to Edwin, who practically calls you an idiot at every turn, and remains one of the best-liked characters of the series.

 

Are we talking about BG1 Jaheira?  She only had a few lines.  One of them was how 'better leadership' would help the party and man...that did not sit well.  But hey this is just like, my opinion man so it may not be true in every case.

 

I was thinking BG2 Jaheira, but really, either way it's the grating annoyance of the character, rather than 'questioning leadership'.

 

 

Are we talking about BG1 Jaheira?  She only had a few lines.  One of them was how 'better leadership' would help the party and man...that did not sit well.  But hey this is just like, my opinion man so it may not be true in every case.

We are definitely talking BG1 Jaheira.  In BG2 I actually liked her because she finally had some depth and a personality/character growth.  It says something when I would rather have a Drow Elf Priest of Shar in my party or an insane gnome than a Half Elf Druid with the same alignment as my character.  That was BG1 Jaheira, she wasn't evil, but she was a full on whiny #$@#%@ and I didn't like having her around.  Hell Khalid wasn't much better, he was the most wishy washy, cowardly, weakling fighter to ever grace an RPG.  When Xan beats you in a manly man contest you know you have problems.

 

Hey, don't you dump on Xan. Xan's awesome. D:

[Karkarov]

Hey, don't you dump on Xan. Xan's awesome. D:

Hah he is actually one of my favorite BG1 characters even though his caster spec is possibly the worst you could choose.

[Leferd]

Yup. He has essentially the best sword in the game that only he can use. Terrific except that he's a puny Elven Enchanter with 7 Constitution.

[Jobby]

I loved the occasional inter-party battles that could develop in BG1, it made my playthrough feel like more than just the main campaign but an epic journey where i couldn't predict everything. Clearly POE with its well written fully fleshed out NPCs doesn't have the luxury of certain characters deciding to kill each other mid-game which I understand.

 

I do hope recruitables aren't just going to be happy/whiney but stick with you till the end regardless though. I'm not suggesting an arbitrary reputation modifier affecting an arbitrary alignment (which doesn't make any sense anyway). But it would be interesting if certain decisions could turn certain members of your camp against you, especially if those decisions affected something they themsleves hold dear or care about.  

Edited February 22, 2015 by Jobby

[Silent Winter]

Yup. He has essentially the best sword in the game that only he can use. Terrific except that he's a puny Elven Enchanter with 7 Constitution.

That's just so he can (semi-)reliably kill the enemies after putting them to sleep

(with a normal sword he might even miss an inanimate object )

[CaptainMace]

I loved the occasional inter-party battles that could develop in BG1, it made my playthrough feel like more than just the main campaign but an epic journey where i couldn't predict everything. Clearly POE with its well written fully fleshed out NPCs doesn't have the luxury of certain characters deciding to kill each other mid-game which I understand.

What ? No inter-buddies fights ? Is this official ?

[Sonntam]

 

I loved the occasional inter-party battles that could develop in BG1, it made my playthrough feel like more than just the main campaign but an epic journey where i couldn't predict everything. Clearly POE with its well written fully fleshed out NPCs doesn't have the luxury of certain characters deciding to kill each other mid-game which I understand.

What ? No inter-buddies fights ? Is this official ?

 

Not official, but I can't really imagine companions here fighting it out like that.  We don't have that many companions after all and if they just kept killing each other then we would be in real trouble. 

 

The companions may still bicker and have their own disagreements, though. It just won't get violent, I guess.