I bet you're kicking yourself for not getting SoU now!!!

[Astromarine]

BTW, Volourn, the Raist example kinda makes your point in a way, but not totally. Yeah, it is a very famous situation where a party survives for quite some time with members from a wide spectrum of alignments. But on the other hand, I can argue that Dragonlance's party has a "party alignment" of at least chaotic good. Raist is in there, yes, but he follows the "lead" of Tanis and company for quite a while. Hell, you even have a paladin of sorts in there ganging up with the evil mage. So we can, using that book, reach a kind of middle ground. Yes, Troika uses party alignments which are not canon, but they are a homemade tool that makes a good deal of sense, and one which is used in the Dragonlance books for example. The group in there NEVER EVER takes up an evil goal, no matter the members.

As for the *alignment limitation* within aligned parties, that's different. That is a de facto limitation imposed by Troika in order to not have to worry too much about weird branches in the quests. Still, it's a "gimme" that I am perfectly willing to give them

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Most D&D games shouldn't even ALLOW you to be of evil alignment because there's very little in the game that actually ALLOWS evil. NWN is a damned good example of a game that shouldn't have allowed the player to pick evil as an option because the options for evil either aren't there or fall under the Chaotic Greedy silliness. Asking for 200 more gold every so often really isn't evil at all. It's debatable on if that's even greedy, considering the amount of gold in the game. Asking for the first born child of Neverwinter as payment for helping them out, however, would be evil.

 

[Volourn]

Well, Astro, obviously I'm "giving" it to them as well since I am purchasing the game no matter how I dislike their alignment scheme.

And, please people telling me it's new or original like it's supposed to impress me doesn't work. New, and original doesn't mean good, or fun. At least to me it doesn't. Not automaically, anyways.

Saint, it is true in most cases there isn't a true evil chocie however there are more than few examples where an 'evil" choice is to be had. Not as many as I'd like there to be; but they do exist.

As far as gold goes. Of course, NWN had too much gold. Just like role-playing games has too much material wealth available. 'Tis a weakness of any of these games. This fact, of course, doesn't exuse NWN; but one shouldn't point it out as a reaosn to hate the game when their favorite game is guilty of the same sin.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Asking for the first born child of Neverwinter as payment for helping them out, however, would be evil.

It is kind of funny, in SoU, there's a quest early on where you rescue a baby. You can tell the mother you're keeping it, and she'll attack you. You'll go 5 points towards evil if you kill her, which seems a tad light. I went 7 points towards lawful just for keeping my word to some kobolds to let them go. I was thinking of keeping it to see what happens. Then I looked at the Bioware forums, and someone said there was line where you could sell it into slavery to a red wizard, but it that was taken out. Also appears the first part was mostly written by a different company, and it's when Bioware took over (after Chapter 1) that things went downhill.

Someone needs to get Bioware to stop writing their games and just rubber stamp what other people do. I'm finding the first chapter has a surprising amount of choices, and I now understand why.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

As far as gold goes. Of course, NWN had too much gold. Just like role-playing games has too much material wealth available. 'Tis a weakness of any of these games. This fact, of course, doesn't exuse NWN; but one shouldn't point it out as a reaosn to hate the game when their favorite game is guilty of the same sin.

It's not the weakness of any CRPG because many, many of them handle loot a shitload better than NWN. It's definitely the weakness of any BioWare made one, though, since they love to dump piles of high powered, expensive items on the player throughout the game.

 

[Volourn]

Walks: You re wrong. Dave Gaider did ch1. In fact, BIO pretty much did the actual campaign themselves - for good or bad. Once the BIO boards are accessible again, I'll post a link.

 

[Psilon]

Um, what the hell did Floodgate do on the expansion pack then? They didn't do any of the engine hacking, and you're telling me they didn't do the campaign, so what DID they do?

 

[Volourn]

I dunno. I literally asked this on the boards. Dave Gaider said he'll ask to see if he can post what both BIO and FG did.

Seriously, I used to think myself that it was going to be FG's camapign. I was surprised to find out that it wasn't, myself. Then again, for the last few months before SOU was released, the FG guys were pretty quiet. Weird indeed.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Walks: You re wrong. Dave Gaider did ch1. In fact, BIO pretty much did the actual campaign themselves - for good or bad. Once the BIO boards are accessible again, I'll post a link.

I got that from the Bio boards. They said Dave Gaider did the interlude and Chapter 2, and Floodgate did Chapter 1. Of course, that's just what I gathered in my brief search, the last time I spent any amount of time there was 2001.

Maybe I should be happy, though. It at least seems to care about your character this time. My druid gets to talk to animals and read tracks, and that actually has some kind of real game effect.

 

[Volourn]

Hmm... Last week, Gaider said he did ch1, Bartel did ch2, and some other BIO due did the interlude. I wish the bio boards were working as the links would be easy to find.

I agree though. Ch1, no matter who made it, was done very well. The Interlude, and espicially ch2, while fun, drop off big time when it comes to variant ways to complete quests.

 

[Volourn]

I hate double posting; but here are some links to show what I mean:


http://nwn.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic ... um=69&sp=0

http://nwn.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic ... highlight=


Now, unless Gaide risk lying which I'm sure he isn't as I would think the FG people would have a problem with that, I think it's safe that SOU is BIO's responsibility.

 

[Voss]

Volourn,
OK, yes, I know, not every evil person kills people out of hand...I was stretching too far for a witty retort.

I'm not sure that the Caramon/Raistlin thing is the best argument, though. Considering Raistlin does essentially toss them aside when he's done with them. I'd also argue that he isn't evil to begin with... greedy and ambitious, yes, but not quite evil.
On the other hand, that opens the idea of sliding alignment again. Though I'd argue that theres a profound difference in that sort of deliberate choice and the keep your word to the kobolds, steal the baby and loot chests sliding alignment scale.

 

[Ultron]

I take exception to your comment on castle meal grinders. Mine has just learned Cone of Gruel.

 

[Rosh]

Gaider...ah, yes. The ignorant "developer' who said that "multiple paths require exponentially more work".

 

[Psilon]

Also the perpetrator of Cespenar. I'd rather listen to Fargoth for hours on end than sit through another Cespenar dialogue.

 

[Spazmo]

Cespenar made me happy there's a volume knob right on my speakers that' within reach at all times.

 

[Volourn]

Cespenar is a retarded little piece of crap.

 

[GreenNight]

About the Caramon/Raistlin team. First the compulsory disclaimer:
I have hardly read any Dragonlance book, my assumptions are based on the summary of the story by a friend and a AD&D "choose-your-adventure" book in were you were Raistlin in the trials that led him to become a mage.

If I am not wrong Raistlin was true neutral and he had to fight to preserve the balance. He fought against his former comrades when they were about not only to win but erradicate evil from that world. This obviously would be a situation not likely to be found by a typical party. And this means the party could be neutral good and acomodate Raistlin and any paladin the group might have.

 

[Volourn]

Huh? Your friend has it wrong. Raistlin started neutral; but eventually wanted to conquer the entire world. He succeeded; but in doing so left it a pile of nothing except for him. His brother went through time, and with help and some second guessing on Raistlin's aprt all turned out well. Raistlin was most certainly evil inclduing abusing and using the woman who loved him, and certainly using his brother even though in his own twisted way he loved them both.

 

[Binary]

Doesn't that make him Chaotic Neutral? He was always Chaotic (since he was always searching for personal gains -- travelling with the party for Fistandantilus books, then the Orb, etc). I'm not sure if at any point he actually turns evil. After all, all he does want is to kill an evil Goddess to become a God himself

 

[Astromarine]

the thing is, Dragonlance is a much more maniqueistic setting than FR. In Dragonlance good and evil is as much a declaration of intent than conduct. Raist was evil because at a certain point he shifted his allegiance to the evil goddess, offering her his prayers and sacrifices so he could become more powerful than Astinus could make him.

 

[Binary]

Nevertheless he can't be considered "evil". He kills/mistreats as many evil characters as good characters. Remember Lord Ariakas? Fistandantilus?

Even his actions to please the Evil Goddess are only done because he wishes to become more powerful himself.

Raistlin had a destiny marked for him. As he was doing the Test, the wassisname (white robed mage responsible for the Tests) says that he was to be their Sword. Sword of what, to strike whom, and who had this idea? What if originally the killing of Takhisis had been an idea of Paladine, gone wrong? Wouldn't that make Raislin a good character instead?

 

[Astromarine]

of course not. it would make him an evil patsy for a manipulative god. But Paladine wouldn't do that, not after the Cataclysm

The main issue with Dragonlance is that the three gods have MUCH more influence over the world than in FR. DL is the gods' playground. So the main reason for extreme alignments in Dragonlance is servitude with a god. You *cannot*, in the setting, be evil without being involved with Takhesis, just as you can't be good without involving Paladine in it. Even if you think you can, it all comes back to the gods. Therefore, the people who are considered "evil" are those that, ultimately, further the cause of Takhesis. By your reasoning, everyone would be neutral, because working for takhesis can be considered a maintaining of balance, since there's people also working for Paladine. That's bollocks *within the rules of the setting*

Of course, all this makes Dragonlance the single most stupid setting for a fantasy novel I have ever read, even though I enjoyed the stories themselves when I read them

 

[Binary]

By your reasoning, everyone would be neutral, because working for takhesis can be considered a maintaining of balance, since there's people also working for Paladine. That's bollocks *within the rules of the setting*

By my reasoning:

Guys that kill good guys are bad guys
Guys that kill bad guys are good guys
Guys that kill both bad and good guys are neutral. This is basically what Raistlin did throughout the books.

 

[Volourn]

Since when can't evil kill evil?