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

[Heijoushin]

The hall is there for the grognards and number crunchers who are worried about min maxing first.

 

 

Do I sense a little negativity at the idea of creating one's own party? I suppose it's the IWD lovers vs. the BG lovers divide.

 

I find it very satisfying to create a whole party. Something about the creativity of it I think. Sure, I'll use the standard companions on the first playthrough to check their storylines, but after that... I think making your own party will add loads of replay value.

 

 

[h3st]

if we're going t have D&D alignment

we're not.

[Endrosz]

...

 

perhaps you backed poe 'cause o' obsidian's work on dungeon siege 3? 

 

ok, maybe we is being a bit snarky, but is weird to hear from a backer o' poe that they is not particular concerned with companions, 'cause that is one o' the things that actual sets obsidian apart from many crpg developers.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

When you were talking about the older games, you conveniently skipped over Icewind Dale 1 and 2. Those are also iconic IE games, had full party creation and zero companions (some joinable NPCs, but no companions), and both of them were created by Black Isle, the progenitor of Obsidian. It's not a necessity to have companions in an RPG, or even in an Obsidian RPG. Sure, it's an extra, I have enjoyed the company of Dak'kon from PS:T very much, he's my favorite, but it's still an extra. I, for one, would have pledged the same amount even if the pitch didn't include companions, and I'm amused when people complain about 8 companions being '"too few". If you ask me, 8 companions is 8 too much, and I would have preferred for the game to have more narrative content instead (locations, NPCs, quests).

 

The second IWD's lead designer is the same person who's the project director of Eternity, a certain J. E. Sawyer. It's not like a companionless RPG is unknown to Black Isle/Obsidian.

[Rhaeg]

 

Luckily we have the lead writer from Kotor 2 on board, which IMO had some of the best written cRPG companions ever. I wouldn't worry about 1-dimensional companions like in BG1

I'm trying and failing to remember the Kotor2 companions.  Annoying old woman, stupid gambler.... and... uh.  Huh.  Someone actually named Disciple?

 

If they ape KotoR 2 might as well throw the whole thing in the bin now. 

 

 

Regardless, Kotor2 writing is a perfect example of the writers being able to go beyond the typical good-evil distinction: it must have been the first time I've seen Star Wars not sticking to the cliché of good Jedi vs. evil Sith all the time and they did this perfectly, I think.

[Valmy]

 

 The hall is there for the grognards and number crunchers who are worried about min maxing first.

 

Huh.  What about those of us who love our own characters?  Seems a bit presumptuous to make this declaration.

 

But judging by other recent Obsidian games I don't think 'alignment' will be a problem for our party composition.  In AD&D games it was a gaming element to consider but I cannot really think of a game outside of that context where this applied.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Valmy

[Valmy]

 

Luckily we have the lead writer from Kotor 2 on board, which IMO had some of the best written cRPG companions ever. I wouldn't worry about 1-dimensional companions like in BG1

I'm trying and failing to remember the Kotor2 companions.  Annoying old woman, stupid gambler.... and... uh.  Huh.  Someone actually named Disciple?

 

If they ape KotoR 2 might as well throw the whole thing in the bin now. 

 

 

I am sorry for your poor and distorting memory.  You might not want to entirely trust it since admitting it is bad, however.  Kriea an 'annoying old woman'?  LOL?  What is your great example of an awesome character you want to share with me?  Because that is a hilariously unfair characterization.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Valmy

[Gromnir]

 

...

 

perhaps you backed poe 'cause o' obsidian's work on dungeon siege 3? 

 

ok, maybe we is being a bit snarky, but is weird to hear from a backer o' poe that they is not particular concerned with companions, 'cause that is one o' the things that actual sets obsidian apart from many crpg developers.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

When you were talking about the older games, you conveniently skipped over Icewind Dale 1 and 2. Those are also iconic IE games, had full party creation and zero companions (some joinable NPCs, but no companions), and both of them were created by Black Isle, the progenitor of Obsidian. It's not a necessity to have companions in an RPG, or even in an Obsidian RPG. Sure, it's an extra, I have enjoyed the company of Dak'kon from PS:T very much, he's my favorite, but it's still an extra. I, for one, would have pledged the same amount even if the pitch didn't include companions, and I'm amused when people complain about 8 companions being '"too few". If you ask me, 8 companions is 8 too much, and I would have preferred for the game to have more narrative content instead (locations, NPCs, quests).

 

The second IWD's lead designer is the same person who's the project director of Eternity, a certain J. E. Sawyer. It's not like a companionless RPG is unknown to Black Isle/Obsidian.

 

in not a convenient non-mention, but the reason not to mention is obvious: poe does have companions.

 

"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment."

 

iwd games... didn't have companions. is not that iwd games had poor implementation o' companions or bad implementation, but rather no implementation.  also, as complete on-the-rails crawls, with few incidental side-quests, there were also few iwd non-essential characters.

 

*shrug*

 

the iwd games were aberrations for black/isle obsidian, and the description o' poe don't exactly match iwd, does they?

 

iwd were a great game in retrospect, but both iwd and iwd2 were developed as quick money grabs... that is not a criticism but simple reality.  iwd had a relative inexperienced team and an Extreme aggressive development time-frame.  game were meant to be released before  bg2 (and ideally before diablo 2.)  you makes a game such as iwd from start to finish in 10-12 months?  that were ambitious, and it were requiring simplification compared to bg, or ps:t.  iwd2 were kinda a more overt desperation move for interplay/black isle.  perhaps iwd2 were necessary to stay afloat, but one reason we never got an interplay fo3 is 'cause they had to make quick development stuff such as the iwds. the iwd projects were serious streamlined, and companions were unnecessary.

 

regardless, if poe had been described as a bare-bones, on-the-rails dungeon crawl with no companions, we would say that iwd and iwd2 would be great examples... and wonderful examples o' just how much obsidian could do when given such limited design scope. not really analogous though, yes? iwd is exceptions rather than the rule, yes?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 17, 2015 by Gromnir

[Leferd]

Well, since the precedence is already set, Feargus and Co. could always bunker down into Slam Dunk mode and bang out Dales of Eternity whenever the studio situation becomes dire.

[Endrosz]

regardless, if poe had been described as a bare-bones, on-the-rails dungeon crawl with no companions, we would say that iwd and iwd2 would be great examples... and wonderful examples o' just how much obsidian could do when given such limited design scope. not really analogous though, yes? iwd is exceptions rather than the rule, yes?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I'm ready to drop this discussion (it's offtopic here anyway), because it's not like I would campaign to remove companions from a game like this, I'm not that stupid. One last thing: Icewind Dale is one of the games namedropped in the Kickstarter pitch video. I've watched that video several times back then, soaking up every sweet word in it, and my ears are still ringing from Adam Brennecke saying "... to bring back the magic of Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."

 

As others have noted, that is an impossible promise, because those games have some key differences, and therefore you can't make a spiritual successor to all of them in one game. One such aspect is party setup. If you mimic BG and P:ST, you create one character with a strong and unrevealed story background and recruit companions along the way. If you mimic IWD, you create a full party with no limitations and no story assumptions and start dungeon crawling for XP and loot.  For me, that evokes more nostalgia of my old DnD days than the BG/PS:T approach.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Endrosz

[Lephys]

sorry if it's already been stated, I wanted to read this thread but I'm unable to for times sake, but one of the thing's I noticed right away in character creation was there was no alignment selection, and since you can create a whole gang of new squad members anytime ya like, I get the impression there won't be a good or evil mechanic. however, that's not to say the npc's in your group won't have a personality or motivations of their own. One of the very first thing's they shared in the video at the first game play showing I think it was E3 last year was a girl in the party would leave your party if you decided to rest for the injured person in the group to heal because she wanted to get to her goal first. So there will be consequences to your choices.

Regarding that part of the intro -- in which what's-her-face will go all "screw you" because you decide to wait on Injured-McWoundsman -- it would be nice if that sort of thing would occur, but not in a "this person simply leaves your party forever" capacity. It seems like more of a "I really don't have time to wait on that guy. So... if you're gonna stay here, fine. I'm going on ahead."

 

Then, there could be consequences for that, even if you still meet back up with them (very likely) in the near future. Maybe they've pressed on and get captured by some group in another room by the time you get there.

 

I'd like to see stuff like that, rather than purely "You made me upset, and now I'm just gonna run off and join the circus!"

 

Really, even if they flat-out leave your party forever, it'd be nice if they still had motivations in the world and showed up in various places/quests.

[Havelok]

Funnily enough, I consider myself a min-maxer, but for story content.

 

I am purposefully maxxing out all of the RP oriented stats (per,res,int) and skills (Lore) even though I know I can't catch all of the interactions (I'll leave the physical stuff to the second playthrough). 

 

I want to avoid the NPCs that my character wouldn't get along with so that I can play with them in the second playthrough. 

 

My biggest fear is that I will see half of the story a companion has to offer and then they just decide to frack off. I hope (as another person in the thread put it) they give us plenty of warning.

[Karkarov]

Regarding that part of the intro -- in which what's-her-face will go all "screw you" because you decide to wait on Injured-McWoundsman -- it would be nice if that sort of thing would occur, but not in a "this person simply leaves your party forever" capacity. It seems like more of a "I really don't have time to wait on that guy. So... if you're gonna stay here, fine. I'm going on ahead."

In all fairness that is the very beginning of the game and I suspect none of those characters survive past the intro regardless.  I expect the "real" companions will give you plenty of heads up.

[Leferd]

A few notes from the lead writer regarding dialogue and usage of attributes/skills for roleplaying:

 

I wanted to give a couple notes on some of the choices we've made for the dialogue system here, so it's easier for everybody to distinguish between what's intended and what's not.

 

One choice we made is that a skill check is not necessarily a "win button" for a given encounter. This is a departure from many recent RPGs, and more in keeping with traditional pen and paper, where, sure, you can do a diplomacy check on an ogre, but he might just read that as you being soft and take it as a reason to rip your legs off. Skill checks in PoE open new paths to take in dialogue, some of them beneficial, some of them inconsequential, and some of them ineffectual. On balance they tend to help more than harm, I'd say. But we didn't want players to turn their brains off and just click the option that had a skill check associated with it, knowing it would lead to the best outcome. We want that element of the unexpected that makes the experience more engaging. To that end, we've also tried to include a number of dialogues where the "optimal" outcome is primarily related to the player paying attention to the character he or she is talking to, and choosing to treat that NPC in a way that the NPC is able to relate to on some level.

 

Another thing you'll see, and you'll see it all over the place in the beta, are personality reputation options. These are things like "aggressive," "benevolent," "cruel," etc. These generally do not lead to a drastically different course in a given dialogue, but over time the game keeps track of what kind of character you're roleplaying as, and there will be reactivity to it - a shady character might prefer to employ someone he knows has a reputation for deceit, for instance. Or a particularly honest player might be able to later use that reputation for honesty as a means of convincing people of his argument. (Personally I think it's cooler when we don't display that a given choice is cruel/benevolent/etc., and there is an option to hide them for a more organic experience.)

 

So for purposes of the beta, it's true, these personality reputation options will seem to do little to nothing. Over the course of the game, we are hoping it helps contribute to a feeling that the specific way you've chosen to roleplay your character in dialogue - not just the big decisions you've made - makes a difference to the way the world relates to you. 

 

** minor beta spoilers**

 

The posters in this thread are correct that in the beta, skill checks can get you new information about the missing noble girl - the bartender, for example, can be persuaded to cough up a useful lead. (And actually two of the ways to convince him require a certain level of personality reputation, either benevolent or honest, which means they're probably not attainable in the beta.) The potion seller gives you the same lead without need of a skill check, but a skill check does enhance your understanding of what's really going on. In either case there should hopefully be a journal addendum once the currier Trygil's name comes up.

 

** end spoilers **

 

Really appreciate the feedback, btw. And if you find that you're experiencing bugs that are causing journal entries not to show up or whatever, please make sure to report them and I'll make sure they get taken care of. Thanks!

 

 

 

 I'm worried this sort of takes away from the idea of character skill being important, more important than player skill even.

 

Totally valid concern. A few things to know about this:

 

- Paying close attention is important sometimes, but for a lot of our "optimal"-feeling options, a skill check will also be involved. So good for you figuring out that some character is susceptible to flattery, but if your Resolve is too low, you won't be able to flatter in a way that doesn't seem hollow.

 

- It's often not the kind of logic that would require a high perception - just common sense in many cases. If you take the Perception option to tell the currier that no woman would ever lay with someone who smells as bad as he does, yeah he probably won't be as forthcoming with you. So maybe you want to think twice about choosing it in the first place even though it says [Perception] in front of it. Looking for some level of thought, not necessarily brilliant levels of deduction. Anything that requires a brilliant deduction will generally be gated behind an appropriate skill check.

 

- I would urge any player to really roleplay his or her character. It's not something I can enforce on my end so much as encourage, but I would want players to choose options based on how they think and what they would say. There are a number of other systems choices we've made here (personality rep and background come to mind, as well as our companion interactions) to try to help the player to develop a character over the course of the story rather than to just play some empty, static avatar. Hopefully it gives a little more meaning to the overall experience.

 

- I have to be careful with my use of "optimal" in reference to quest outcomes. What I generally mean is an outcome that avoids conflict, not necessarily the outcome with the most favorable end result. The idea being, if you're going to skip a fight, we want it to feel like it's a reward for both player and character ingenuity. Otherwise you've just missed out on gameplay. (Which I'll grant you some people prefer.)

 

All that said, if you find that some interaction really forces you to metagame to get the option you want, and requires you to act out-of-character, that's a serious narrative issue, so go ahead and report that as a bug. 

 

[Havelok]

 

A few notes from the lead writer regarding dialogue and usage of attributes/skills for roleplaying:

 

:STUFF:

 

I'm aware of what they have mentioned about dialogue options -- and I am still greedy and want as many as possible for my first go-round, ha. I know enough not to auto click them, but if if get a chance to -- as they say -- strike at an NPC's mental weak point, I want as many options as possible. Hence the super int/res/per character. 

[Leferd]

 

 

A few notes from the lead writer regarding dialogue and usage of attributes/skills for roleplaying:

 

:STUFF:

 

I'm aware of what they have mentioned about dialogue options -- and I am still greedy and want as many as possible for my first go-round, ha. I know enough not to auto click them, but if if get a chance to -- as they say -- strike at an NPC's mental weak point, I want as many options as possible. Hence the super int/res/per character. 

 

 

As you say, if you want to min-max interactive options, that's your prerogative. But by doing so, it comes at the expense of the rich roleplaying element of the game --which the designers are focusing strongly on.

[Bobby Null]

As far as the OP's question, we don't use an alignment system like D&D. Whether the companion's personality is good or evil will largely depend on how you define those terms. We don't generally have clear cut evil for the sake of being evil or good for the sake of being good archetypes in PoE. That said, some of our companions have a bit of a darker or more controversial outlook on life.

 

As far as the companion  vs. created character discussion, we support both. There is no wrong answer. Some people, probably the majority, prefer companions with personality to fill the ranks of the party. Others like to make their own. While still others, like me, prefer to mix and match. Whenever I play the game for any extended period of time, I always make at least one additional adventurer to join my party pretty early on in the game. Josh and I are both big fans of the old gold box games and we decided early on, we didn't want to deprive those that like making their own party members.

[Sothpaw]

Pretty certain that the companions will try to reflect the complexity of real humans. Which means that they won't be good or evil, but somewhere in between.

Most real humans are complex.  That said, most humans are probably "good" or "neutral."  And there are some that are pure evil like jihadists and whatnot.  But as for the NPC's, I agree that they will probably all be neutralish.

[Yellow Rabbit]

Most real humans are complex.  That said, most humans are probably "good" or "neutral."  And there are some that are pure evil like jihadists and whatnot.  But as for the NPC's, I agree that they will probably all be neutralish.

"Jihadists" are not evil, they're idiots. At least those ones who cannot tell lesser jihad from greater and still claim to be muslims. Ugh.

 

Come to think of it, I don't know a single person in a real life considering oneself "evil" or even "neutral" in general. I mean, does those labels even make sense for a real person? As far as roleplaying games go I always thought distinctive alignment system more of a compromise to fit overly complex personalities and motivations of a real people into at least some rules to play by. Would be good to see NPC made without such boundaries for once. That said, I believe Obsidian guys could do it nicely if they'd like to.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Yellow Rabbit

[Valmy]

 

Most real humans are complex.  That said, most humans are probably "good" or "neutral."  And there are some that are pure evil like jihadists and whatnot.  But as for the NPC's, I agree that they will probably all be neutralish.

"Jihadists" are not evil, they're idiots. At least those ones who cannot tell lesser jihad from greater and still claim to be muslims. Ugh.

 

Come to think of it, I don't know a single person in a real life considering oneself "evil" or even "neutral" in general. I mean, does those labels even make sense for a real person? As far as roleplaying games go I always thought distinctive alignment system more of a compromise to fit overly complex personalities and motivations of a real people into at least some rules to play by. Would be good to see NPC made without such boundaries for once. That said, I believe Obsidian guys could do it nicely if they'd like to.

 

 

For once?  Seems to me they usually are outside of games with an alignment mechanic.

[Abel]

Being able to influence companions is a great thing.

 

I totally agree with Luckmann when he says "just 8 companions". Well 8 is great in some regards, because there are not so many RPG's with 8 joinable NPCs who has story and all. In BG2 i always felt that i didn't have enough joinable companions (i play good, and regarding wizards, i was fed up with Nalia after 3 playthrough). Bazy said somewhere there is never enough portraits. To me, it's the same for companions. Alternative choices is realy good for replayability, but if you (like me) don't like the pupett style companions of IWD, then... there is not much freedom (3 backups). And now, i finally realize the luck we have to have so many companions in BG2. Still, i think PoE NPCs may be more complex than BG2 ones, like Gromnir said.

 

If there are only 8 joinable NPCs, then it means that Calisca is not one of them. To me, it's the worst news. Don't know why, but watching some vids (the playthrough with JE Sawyer and Jesse Cox), i really deeply wanted to have her in my party. But if Calisca can be sort of an indication, she seems quite "normal". I mean, she's not obviously good or bad, like many BG2 NPCs. She has some sort of problems and personnal affairs that she has to take care of. She wants to help somebody, but it's because she's blood related with this person. She seems just human, and i guess unless you act in an inhuman way, there wouldn't have any problem related to "good" or "evil" matters. It's my personal feeling, and i think the goals and credo of PoE's NPCs are the important things, rather than the "good" and "evil" matter.

 

To me companions may be the most important thing in a game like that. Maybe as, or even more important that the main plot. It's not a joke. I still hope that the expansion will bring a few more joinable NPCs afterwards, and that you could keep them in PoE II, if possible, without assuming you picked this one NPC and this one, too (like at the start of BG2). Not sure if it is easy to do or not.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Abel

[Yellow Rabbit]

 

...Would be good to see NPC made without such boundaries for once. That said, I believe Obsidian guys could do it nicely if they'd like to.

 

For once?  Seems to me they usually are outside of games with an alignment mechanic.

 

Sorry, bad phrasing on my end. Correction: It's nice that Obsidian didn't pick up this particular part of D&D-based games to make PoE feel more like spiritual successor to the IE stuff. I know they're fond of such labels no more than I am, just saying.

[Failion]

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. 

[Abel]

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. 

 

unless someone blow up my house because of his "cultural" affairs, i agree (cf recent news in france)

Edited February 18, 2015 by Abel

[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? 

[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. 

 

unless someone blow up my house because of his "cultural" affairs, i agree (cf recent news in france)

 

 

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.