How many companions will there be in total?

[JerekKruger]

There is a lot of good unique loot you can get from the stores.  You're missing out if you ignore them.  You not going to find items like shatterstar or forgemaster gloves on any enemies.

 

Sure, but even buying them all (as I usually do since I'm a bit of a hoarder) I still have mountains of cash left over.

[Yenkaz]

 

 

 

Chaotic Evil? I think the darkest on the scale we'll see is chaotic neutral. Maybe I'll be surprised though.

Nah, much more Neutral Evil, opportunistic and cruel when necessary. I never really could relate to Tanar'ri.

 

Opportunistic sounds like a very Tanar'ri thing. I can relate to some extent with the Tanar'ri myself, more than Baatezu, or at least did in previous D&D editions (before they made all Tanar'ri be feral incarnations of violence and so on). My personal take on them was that they often appealed to the passionate, emotional and instinctive desires in mortals, and tried to have these commit atrocities by essentially breaking down and giving in to the worse side of their base nature, whereas the Baatezu were a lot more about the systemic evil, oppression through the structures of power and law and so on, where mortals would be forced into evil through authority, the classic "I was only following orders" sort, and where the trick was especially to bind mortals into a system (by means of a contract for example) that would force them into doing something unforgivable. Both are very interesting though, and I hate how future D&D editions really ruined this dichotomy. But anyhow, I digress, carry on.

 

 

I would consider myself as lawful neutral. As scientist I like rules and order. So I never play chaotic evil chars. Killing and plundering just for the sake of it does not make any sense to me ( OK, the sense is that it does not make sense. That is another reason why I dislike Wael in PoE ). I think that if you want to achieve something you have do some planning and act systematically.

I can imagine playing a lawful evil char. Somebody who thinks mostly about his own benefit, but who is very good in the use of contracts and laws and uses such things to gain an advantage over others.

Extreme example: The king has given a reward for finding somebody, but the text does not tell clearly if he wants him dead or alive. My group has found and sourrounded the wanted person. I say: " If you surrender, I promise that I will not kill you." The person puts down his weapons. I say to my companion: "You kill him because I have promised not to do it. Let us keep his belongings and bring his head to the king. A head is easier to transport than a full body and a dead prisoner does not try to escape. This saves us the trouble of guarding and feeding him."

 

Edit: For a good ending, the prisoner should have insisted that I promise: " If you surrender, I promise that my group will bring you to the king alive and well and you may also keep your belongings."

The person is an idiot if he stands before several armed man and think he can stay alive when only one of them promises that this one will not kill him.

 

 

If we're going to use the good/evil law/chaos axis, that is *not* a lawful action. Intentionally deceiving someone is not fundamentally removed from lying, and you did harm him by directing others who would trust your judgement to do so. It's more of a typical at of someone neutral or chaotic on the law axis.

[Madscientist]

I have never played PnP, so I can only refer to what I know from computer games.

 

In my personal view, a chaotic person is driven by his instincts or emotions. Such a person does whatever he thinks is " the right thing to do" at this moment, which may be good or evil depending on the other axis and who does not care much about rules or what other people think of it.

 

On the other hand a lawful person plans everything carefully, keeps his promises and follows laws if possible. However, if you know the laws you can also interpret them in several ways and you may even bend them to some degree ( in good or evil direction ) as long as you do not break them. Also, while he usually does not lie to others, it a big difference between not telling everything and telling something wrong.

 

So for me the difference is if somebody acts according to his instincts and emotions at this moment versus somebody who act rationally, makes plans and at least consideres laws in his actions. Once again, I am not an expert and I may be wrong.

 

example 1:

Somebody asks me: " I need this document. Can you tell me the way to the parliament?"

I tell him correctly the direction to the parliament. But I know that you need to go to the city hall to get the document and the city hall is in the opposite direction, but I do not tell this.

I did not lie because I gave him the correct direction to the parliament.

 

example 2:

A demon comes to an office. Demon in a broader sense, not the DnD chaotic evil version.

demon: I want to become a citizen and get my pension.

clerk: But you are a demon.

demon: The law does not specify human. I have all the document here.

clerk: But you are 1000 years old.

demon: correct. The law says you get pension when you are older than 70 and you have worked for more than 40 years. I can prove that I did. So I want my pension for the last 930 years and from now on the pension each month for the rest of my life.

clerk: But you are immortal.

demon: Well, then you will have to pay me for a very long time.

clerk: Thats insane.

Demon: No, thats the law. Make better laws if you want to avoid such consequences.

[algroth]

I have never played PnP, so I can only refer to what I know from computer games.

 

In my personal view, a chaotic person is driven by his instincts or emotions. Such a person does whatever he thinks is " the right thing to do" at this moment, which may be good or evil depending on the other axis and who does not care much about rules or what other people think of it.

 

On the other hand a lawful person plans everything carefully, keeps his promises and follows laws if possible. However, if you know the laws you can also interpret them in several ways and you may even bend them to some degree ( in good or evil direction ) as long as you do not break them. Also, while he usually does not lie to others, it a big difference between not telling everything and telling something wrong.

 

So for me the difference is if somebody acts according to his instincts and emotions at this moment versus somebody who act rationally, makes plans and at least consideres laws in his actions. Once again, I am not an expert and I may be wrong.

 

It all depends on our subjective interpretations of each, doesn't it? Far as I'm concerned someone who abuses a crack or loophole in the law is usually *opposed* to law as they reveal the means in which law is incoherent or senseless and hence disorderly. Meanwhile I think passion and emotion is a part of chaos but not its entirety either, so there is definitely room for an agent of anarchy (as opposed to anarchism) who schemes and plots ways in which to plunge a certain situation or group or system or region into chaos. I mean, the Joker is as good an example here as any, really - he's a creature of passion and chaos for certain, yet also schemes and plans (the same which he sometimes purposefully subverts or undermines), and it seems like one of his classic themes or motivations across many of his incarnations is that he seeks to prove the world is as insane as he is. He's a classic chaotic evil character in my mind, and certainly a far more compelling and multifaceted character than "beast go rawr" (which is what the post-Blood War D&D demons were like).

 

I certainly believe that it's well within the Baatezu's portfolio to omit information, though, and that is certainly a way they trick mortals into signing contracts for far worse prices than they initially assume. In the end though, I feel the "chaos" and "law" dichotomy regarding fiends in D&D relates less to their specific choice of action and more to the end goal the action they follow abscribes to.

[Madscientist]

So what you say is:

 

Chaotic evil chars want anarchy. Under some circumstances they are willing to cooperate and make plans as long as it leads to their final goal of anarchy. They do not feel bad for betraying others or breaking promises, but they do not do it just for the sake of it but only if they think they have a big profit from it and they can get away with it.

 

Lawful evil chars want a dictatorship, and usually they want to have one of the top positions in it. They like laws, contracts and promises because they think it protects them from others. While they dislike doing it, they may be willing to bend laws or being not totally truthful if it brings them closer to their goal of a dictatorship and they can get away with it.

 

PS:

I think it is best to drop the concept of alignment completely. Chars in a game can chose to act in one way or another and their actions have consequences for themselves and for others. Its up to the player to decide if this action is good/evil/lawful/chaotic/whatever. The game does not judge you, it shows you only the consequences of your actions.

[algroth]

So what you say is:

 

Chaotic evil chars want anarchy. Under some circumstances they are willing to cooperate and make plans as long as it leads to their final goal of anarchy. They do not feel bad for betraying others or breaking promises, but they do not do it just for the sake of it but only if they think they have a big profit from it and they can get away with it.

 

Lawful evil chars want a dictatorship, and usually they want to have one of the top positions in it. They like laws, contracts and promises because they think it protects them from others. While they dislike doing it, they may be willing to bend laws or being not totally truthful if it brings them closer to their goal of a dictatorship and they can get away with it.

 

PS:

I think it is best to drop the concept of alignment completely. Chars in a game can chose to act in one way or another and their actions have consequences for themselves and for others. Its up to the player to decide if this action is good/evil/lawful/chaotic/whatever. The game does not judge you, it shows you only the consequences of your actions.

I'm saying those are positions one can approach each alignment from, and at the very least some of the positions I chose when I set a campaign or two in the Blood War and so on. Definitely a character dominated only by raw emotion would make a viable chaotic character too, just not the only version of a chaotic character. I do agree that the concept of alignment normally should be done with altogether - or at the very least, if it exists, be one that shifts according to your actions. But where it exists, some campaigns have made better or more creative use of it than others - I think the way alignment is integrated into the Planescape setting for example makes it very interesting, given how belief is able to directly change or give form to the planes and how it therefore makes sense that certain groups of ideologies would create separate and distinct planes that correspond to the same. I feel the alignment as such represents merely what plane you align yourself with the most in way of thinking than a more literal representation of *how* evil, good, lawful or chaotic you are. In the context of Forgotten Realms it's all a bit sillier or pointless, especially when these subjects regarding planes and so on aren't really explored.

 

On the subject of fiends and devas, though, it is my personal canon whether it adheres or not to D&D rules that all fiends and devas are a physical manifestation of their own alignment, moreso than creatures who just happen to be good, evil, chaotic or neutral. As in, fiends literally *are* evil itself, or a certain face of evil. So when I think of their intentions or motivations as one of self-interest, I never think of them as, say, acquiring a position of power or some material worth from their actions but rather strengthening the position of their alignment or philosophy as a dominant ideology in the planes. The more people act in accordance to those beliefs, the "truer" or more axiomatic the belief is and thus the stronger they are as incarnations of the same. But again, this is my interpretation and the way I like to approach these characters, which might be different to that of others.

Edited March 29, 2018 by algroth

[Drowsy Emperor]

The DnD alignment system is one of the dumbest things ever seen in the PnP world.

 

Trying to categorize human morality, for crying out loud.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Drowsy Emperor

[algroth]

The DnD alignment system is one of the dumbest things ever seen in the PnP world.

 

Trying to categorize human morality, for crying out loud.

 

I don't find it dumb in a context where belief dictates reality, as is Planescape's Multiverse. Evil, good, law and chaos are strong enough concepts that it's entirely viable for each to solidify into their own respective tangible planes according to the universal beliefs of the Multiverse, and in turn also feed into the widespread perception and understanding of the same. It is "dumb" when it's not really paired to this or any other idea justifying its existence, but hey, people will try and pigeonhole all the same.

Edited March 29, 2018 by algroth

[Elkor_Alish]

The DnD alignment system is one of the dumbest things ever seen in the PnP world.

 

Trying to categorize human morality, for crying out loud.

The point of alignment was to assist people unfamiliar with roleplaying in envisioning how to play their character. And it is still a pretty useful tool for novices, I mean, new people stumble into it all the time I imagine. I haven't touched table top gaming in years. I tried it a couple times in High School, then in the Navy I did a lot more being stuck at my training command without having many other options. . . and I always found roleplaying much more attractive in the abstract.

 

I could not bring myself to conjure up complicated, angsty backstories or unique voices and mannerisms. Hell, I couldn't even speak in character, I would usually just deliver lines and actions like a third person narrative. I did however like the alignment system quite a bit because it quite accurately captured my play style. I don't recognize any higher authority than my own, I could care less about anyone's customs, traditions, laws, or practices. I was going to do what I though was right, in the way I saw fit, and to hell with anyone who disagreed. That is chaotic good. And its such a great description because that mentality is destabilizing, it is the sort of primitive and unrestrained iconoclastic impulse which undermines civility and culture and encourages anarchy.

 

It's a simplistic system, but not without nuance. I think it is rather elegant really, though perhaps not for everyone.

[Madscientist]

I also dislike alignment systems, especially the DnD type.

For me the alignment was just an arbitrary class or item restriction.

I am happy that PoE got rid of it. Now we can have a bleak walker paladin or an assassin who is benelovent and honest.

I could never play evil or chaotic chars in some games, because the good options usually gave the better reward and evil was just dumb killing of everyone.

 

The following things are my personal definition:

 

I have played many JRPGS and I do not have a strong connection to DnD. For me the term "demon" is a is a material creature who has natural magic abilities, meaning they are born with magic powers. They can be humanoid, like animals or something different, but usually they are "alive", so they are not a construct, made of stone or such. The term "demon" does not tell if the creature is good or evil. They are intelligent and have a free will, though some demon types have behaviours that are typical for their type. According to my definition, a human or animal with strong magic abilities, the classical DnD demon but also the DnD deva and lots of other creatures can be considered "demon".

 

My definition of "god" is any creature that becomes more powerful when other creatures believe in it, worships it or otherwise acts according to its will. In return it can give powers to creatures who believe in it and can produce miracles to prove its power and strenghen the belief of others in it.

I consider the gods of PoE not "gods" according to my definition, but they are powerful soul constructs. While they can create powerful effects, people in PoE do not gain magic from the gods, but from their own faith in anything, which may be a god or something completely different. So a nihilist priest would make sense in PoE.

[Sedrefilos]

Allignment system must be killed with fire

It's no wonder no rpg other than DnD follows it. And Wizards won't change it because it's iconic of the ruleset, like its dice use and attributes. Thankfully in pnp you can scrap it entirely if the group wish so. I haven't played pnp DnD but if I ever do, unless it's a one-off adventure, I'll insist we don't use it.

[algroth]

I think context is pretty important with regards to defining something and why. When I spoke of demons before I did so in the D&D context so those are the rules from which I parted. In a more generalized sense I cannot give a specific personal definition of demons because as far as I see it, there's as many definitions to them as there are beliefs and settings that involve them in their lore. In the context of a JRPG I can see how a demon may resemble more a youkai than it would a demon in other settings and mythologies. Likewise I think the question of alignment falls down to the role it fulfills in your setting and how it responds to its rules and logic and so on. I don't think alignment would work in a context like Eora where no "multiverse" or idealist plane is established, yet in a context like Planescape it makes for a very interesting and arguably *crucial* inclusion. Far as I'm concerned morality in the latter's context is pretty different to the "real world" context and has to be looked at through those eyes, where such ideas are established axiomatically due to the very conception of the planes and so on - and in this setting there's plenty that can be done with any character, either who respects the D&D manual or who maybe challenges it instead (case in point, Planescape: Torment).

 

But yeah, ultimately it falls down to how a certain game or campaign or setting or whatever approaches the "good"/"evil" dichotomy for me. For example, much as the Dragon Age setting can boast about its moral greyness and lack of defined alignment system, most of its roleplaying options are pretty binary and so the practice is in fact worse off than a game like Torment where options are far more diverse despite the presence of an alignment system. Same for whether the "evil" options are dumb or not. I don't think getting rid or including this aspect is what creates or removes nuance but rather, unsurprisingly, the approach to the same.

 

As for my personal preference, I can't rightly say. Over time I've tried a few different videogames and settings, some by others, some personal... And whilst I think I prefer no alignment systems I all the same still find myself going back time and time again to D&D as a base, simply because I like that setting and its many offshoots so much. And whilst we haven't always played with a set "alignment" we had a pretty rough and universal understanding of what was good and what was evil and so on so forth (in my experience I also think this much is true of most RPG settings anyhow, pretense to moral greyness or no).

Edited March 29, 2018 by algroth

[Valmy]

The DnD alignment system is one of the dumbest things ever seen in the PnP world.

 

Trying to categorize human morality, for crying out loud.

 

I thought it was awesome. It combined the ancient Persian moral system of good vs. evil (which I sort of understood as selflessness vs. ego at least as D&D presented it) and the ancient Sumerian concept of order vs. chaos. But it had problems because, while it provided a nice moral framework for roleplaying purposes (presuming anybody could agree what the Alignments actually meant), it had few mechanical effects outside of some classes like Paladins. So did it really shape anybody's behavior in how they played? Meh. Though wow did I love how it was implemented in the Planescape mythology as far as the planes were concerned.

 

But I digress.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Valmy

[Valmy]

 

You guys need to abandon the D&D alignment concepts,

 

 

 

If doing that led to your vile sacrifice of the heroic Anitlei it seems to me it should be embraced like never before!

Edited March 29, 2018 by Valmy

[algroth]

You guys need to abandon the D&D alignment concepts, it really does not apply well to Eternity.  By D&D terms Grieving Mother would be nuetral evil, because she thought mind raping a bunch of people into force loving their hollowborn children was okay.  Even to the point that her compulsion caused one parent to literally work themselves to death taking care of the hollowborn kid.

 

But does neutral evil really "encompass" that, or explain it adequately?  No.

 

 

Question is, was "neutral evil" ever *meant* to encompass or be the absolute descriptor to a character's beliefs and actions? Or does it merely represent the plane of alignment they most closely resembled? But yeah, you can't really apply these terms directly to Pillars, no matter how you may draw parallels between a character's beliefs or actions to the beliefs of a different setting. By the way I'd most certainly qualify the Grieving Mother's actions as evil - this is regardless of the nobility of her intentions, since as far as I'm concerned few evil-doers assume their intentions to be "bad" or "ignoble".

[VincentNZ]

I think the alignment system worked well enough in the BG games. As has been said, it was mostly a framework in which some characters operated and that made social interaction a bit more comprehensible.

 

In Pillars I often wondered why someone reacted in a certain way, or why Pallagina objected to this, while Eder was rather cool with it. Also the game did lack evil characters, everybody seemed rather neutral and by that I mean that they flipped from lawful to criminal, from subjectively good, to totally indifferent to having little problem with objectively hurtful decisions.

 

Also there were little consequences. In BG2 with a certain reputation you could not recruit some companions and some companions would start fighting because they did not get along. Whole questchains were locked because of how you react to the world.

In PoE people might not like your actions, but companions especially mostly did not care. With rather few options in PoE 2 I would guess this has not changed either. So I doubt this will get revisited.

[Katarack21]

They've upgraded the relationship system in PoE 2 so that party members can leave, fight each other, etc. based on their reactions to your actions over time. So according to them, yes, it has changed.

[Madscientist]

OK, now we come to a point where we talk about consequentalism vs deontologism. (I hope those are the correct terms, my philosophical english is not perfect.)

This means does it mean the intentions of your actions are more importent or are the results of your action more importent.

I am a consequentalist, meaning I think that the results are most importent. " The road to hell is paved with good intentions." You can never be sure if your actions turn out the way you want them to be. And most people do not consider themselves evil. Even most terrorists or dictators think that they are doing their stuff for a greater good.

 

I really love the games from MCA because he turns everything upside down.

In PST we meet nice demons and evil angels, discuss a lot with zombies and have epic battles against rats.

In MotB we save the world from ourselves.

KotoR2 shows that both jedi and sith are extreme ideologies that are doomed to fail in the end.

 

Another great game that turns everything upside down is untertale.

 

I have also backed two games that are in developement now:

GLITCHED is a game where the char becomes aware that he is a character in a computer game and he can talk with you, the player. It has an alignment system that asks what is your mayor goal ( seek knowledge, gain power, live in harmony with others, . . . )

Virgo VS the Zodiac is an RPG set in the realm of astrology. The davs said that they got bored by the fact that in most games the main char just reacts to something that somebody else does, usually the bad guy. In PoE1 Thaos does something and you are forced to stop him. In PoE2 Eothas does something and you go after him. So the devs decided that the main char is the vailian, soomebody who starts something on her own. So you start with an over zealous, self rightous bitch who thinks that the world is a total mess and things would be much better when everybody sees things her way. So she starts her crusade to give some people a good beating, or "purge some heretics" as she would say.

 

I really love those unusual games. But I admit that there must also be some normal games so that the unusual games are unusual compared to something.

 

regarding good and evil:

At the moment I play Legend of Heroes: Trails of Cold Steel 2. At some point the main char is kidnapped by the bad guys and in order to proceed you have to talk to them. There it is shown that those are people too. They have friends and family they care about and they have goals that are very importent for them. They have a backstory and from their point of view their actions make perfect sense. It is shown that your enemies are not insane monsters, but people who have a clear goal. The problem is that your group and theirs have different goals which leads to a conflict that will often lead to violence during the story. In some sense, both groups respect each other even though they are enemies.

In too many games it is just the the is the bad guy who does evil things because he is evil and you have to stop him because you are the chosen hero.

[Elkor_Alish]

By the way I'd most certainly qualify the Grieving Mother's actions as evil

Same. However, I have to admit that even though the quest is rigged, that choice left to the player in the Skaen temple is a rough one once you know the outcome. I chose freewill the first time reflexively, but every time after that it was always with a lot of hesitation. How was it for you?

[Archaven]

7 full fledged companions (3 which are returning characters).. are pretty "meh" to me. i'm not sure if they ran out of budget, or they are saving for the expansions. here goes the hoping for the latter. on a separate highlight on pathfinder kingmaker.. they have 11. anyway these are both games that i'll surely play. here's hoping owlcat can give obsidian some "competition". right now they have none.

[JerekKruger]

7 full fledged companions (3 which are returning characters).. are pretty "meh" to me. i'm not sure if they ran out of budget, or they are saving for the expansions. here goes the hoping for the latter.

 

It's only one fewer than Pillars had at release and, by the sounds of it, they'll be significantly more fleshed out than they were in Pillars. Add in the sidekicks, which are likely as deep as, say, Pallegina was, and it's not that bad to my mind.

[jf8350143]

7 full fledged companions (3 which are returning characters).. are pretty "meh" to me. i'm not sure if they ran out of budget, or they are saving for the expansions. here goes the hoping for the latter. on a separate highlight on pathfinder kingmaker.. they have 11. anyway these are both games that i'll surely play. here's hoping owlcat can give obsidian some "competition". right now they have none.

We didn't know much about Kingmaker's companion system. From their latest trailer, there will be 11 companions total and two certain companions might develop a romantic relationship. But that' not really saying much. How will the companions interact with each other, and how they interact with PC is the more important part, but we don't know how that work in Kingmaker.

Edited March 31, 2018 by jf8350143

[Madscientist]

7 companions + sidekicks are enough for me.

 

There will be expansions for the game ( like white march for PoE1 ) and it is likely that new companions come together with them, like WM did.

[MortyTheGobbo]

The fact that we can pick the companions' classes to a degree is going to change much. In my current playthrough, I don't bring Hiravias along much because my Watcher is also a druid, and druids don't get much variety. In Deadfire, a companion/sidekick with a "duplicate" class can be turned into a multiclass or another class.

[Karkarov]

example 1:

Somebody asks me: " I need this document. Can you tell me the way to the parliament?"

I tell him correctly the direction to the parliament. But I know that you need to go to the city hall to get the document and the city hall is in the opposite direction, but I do not tell this.

I did not lie because I gave him the correct direction to the parliament.

This is actually great for explaining the D&D methodology of alignment.  You split it into two answers though.

 

Lawful: You give them accurate directions to the parliament.

Neutral: You probably give them directions if you know them, but you aren't particularly concerned if they are perfect.  If you dislike the person you probably refuse.

Chaotic: Maybe you give directions, maybe you don't, maybe they are accurate, maybe they aren't.  It depends on whether you like the guy or feel incentivized pretty much.

 

Good: You also tell them, uh this has to go to city hall, not parliament.

Neutral: Maybe you tell them to go to city hall instead, assuming you know that, but you gave them the info they wanted so *shrug*

Evil: You omit that they have to go to city hall, and depending on law/chaos/etc maybe even lie and say they have to go to some fake non existent office that doesn't exist.