Pathfinder Pathfinder: Kingmaker - Enhanced Plus Edition - now with turn-based combat

[Average Manatee]

It's the Law vs. Chaos axis that is pretty consistently nonsensically implemented. Any time something is either Good or Evil it also gets assigned on the Law vs. Chaos axis which is fairly arbitrary and often could be justified under law or chaos.

Good vs. Evil is fairly obvious and implemented correctly aside from the handful of times where "just kill all the *insert usual enemy that is currently nonthreatening and in dialog with you*", which is a bit debatable. A few times its considered good, a few times neutral, often evil. I'd say this is one of the few times you could justify something as purely a law vs. chaos action. Law being that we always kill e.g. goblins, chaos being that we're willing to make unconventional deals.

But this sort of quandary is fairly common in the genre since there's a big divide between dungeons of goblins that need to be cleared and treating goblins as written in the tabletop rulebook as a normal tribal society of INT 10 creatures. Every time in my PnP campaigns where the party would talk to some conventionally evil species with decent INT I'd always suggest that we offer them the chance to join our party in exchange for dumping whoever was the low INT retard who couldn't tie their shoes and needed to wear diapers. Because if you have the equivalent of 60 IQ you're actually that fucking dumb and should be dropped in favor of a smart goblin.

 

[Zeriel]

Sometimes their idea of what is a particular alignment is dumb.

It's not dumb. It's just not Western.

I have a hunch that the understanding of what is good and what is evil is completely different in the US-influenced zone and the rest of the world.

Also, truly Lawful is inherently genocidal. Much more than a truly Chaotic.

Thing is, even here with people from the same culture, you will have people who have totally different ideas of what any given alignment means, sometimes going directly against the original descriptions in D&D and AD&D and they'll argue autistically about it for a dozen pages in threads, as they have done for years going back to 2002. It's not culture-based. Or at least, far from exclusively.

And going beyond that, I played Kingmaker recently, so I know some of the alignment choices were lazy or just plain ridiculous relative to that alignment. Sometimes designers just mess up. It happens. Pretending like it's always some great disagreement between east and west is silly. And that's to say nothing of when they cleave to the sourcebooks--WOTR is a great example of this where the writers of the campaign took a certain bent with "evil and good" that a lot of people here would disagree with. Owlcat is not necessarily representing their own views when they portray this campaign's original intent in a videogame.

 

[LannTheStupid]

Thing is, even here with people from the same culture, you will have people who have totally different ideas of what any given alignment means, sometimes going directly against the original descriptions in D&D and AD&D and they'll argue autistically about it for a dozen pages in threads, as they have done for years going back to 2002. It's not culture-based. Or at least, far from exclusively.

It is culture-based on a meta level. The attitude to the idea that divercity and individual differences are good is cultural by itself, and there are cultures that promote the opposite view. Some of those latter cultures went astray, but are slowly returning.

 

[Zeriel]

Thing is, even here with people from the same culture, you will have people who have totally different ideas of what any given alignment means, sometimes going directly against the original descriptions in D&D and AD&D and they'll argue autistically about it for a dozen pages in threads, as they have done for years going back to 2002. It's not culture-based. Or at least, far from exclusively.

It is culture-based on a meta level. The attitude to the idea that divercity and individual differences are good is cultural by itself, and there are cultures that promote the opposite view. Some of those latter cultures went astray, but are slowly returning.

I have no idea what you are talking about (or rather, I do know what you're trying to say, it's just completely wrong as relates to these games), and you're proving my point, because what you said has zero relation to the alignment system as it originally existed. If anything, it's the opposite--original D&D was pro-genocide.

Amusingly, Owlcat's game are probably more "pozzed" in their understanding of alignment than D&D and its games were 10-15~ years ago.

 

[Desiderius]

Orcs don't have their own distinct genes to be cided. They're twisted Elves. The concept of genocide is a category error. But yeah, Owlcat is exactly pozzed on circa 1990 Western nonjudgmentalism, of the kind which Lann evidently feels is still regnant somewhere in the West. Whatever is left of that in BLM and the Rainbow flag soured long ago.

 

[Zeriel]

In D&D orcs are not Tolkien style orcs, they are their own race. But the point I was trying to make is that in traditional D&D (i.e before the Current Year rendition where they just copy paste social justice norms into the settings and don't understand that it's fiction) many races have an inherent alignment. Treating a Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil being like shit or even killing them is not evil, which is in total contradiction of western modernist morals, or even (usually) the morals and alignment understanding Owlcat espouses.

It gets complicated because the "mortal" races in D&D run along the gamut of alignment and can shift their alignment, but creatures that are pure expression of alignment (like baatezu being Lawful Evil, tanar'ri being Chaotic Evil, yugoloths being Neutral Evil, etc) cannot be subject to moral variance or relativism.

This is what the social justice retards trying to change D&D don't understand when they say stuff like succubi are parables for female sexuality being unfairly chastised or demonized--in the setting, succubi are not misunderstood but good people. They are literal demons who suck out your soul, and the only purpose of being "seductive" is to get close enough to suck out said soul. They are not robbed of agency, in fact they have more agency and "power" than most mortals in said setting.

 

[Yosharian]

Just respec her to a CHA caster using Respec mod, or use Bag of Tricks to change her ability scores to something less retarded and use someone else as regent

Everyone is free to play as they wish, but I think that companion classes are integral and crucial to their character. Try picturing Amiri as a wizard. I know you can give her Wizard levels, but it's stupid and doesn't fit.

Try picturing me using Amiri...

Anyway as I said just fix her stats and keep her as a fighter then. Nothing about her character actually implies she has to have sky high Charisma. She isn't particularly good looking in her portrait (12-13 at best), and she has the personality of a brick. Nok-Nok would make a better regent than her, at least he has some enthusiasm.

 

[Yosharian]

I'm not a fan of respeccing characters in a game like this. It feels too cheesy even if its technically officially sanctioned. No in D&D is allowed to respec characters

I'm sorry, your argument against respec is that people can't do it in PnP?

You realise that in D&D people are allowed to make their own characters right? This is such dumb logic.

Also there is nothing cheesy about rerolling an NPCs stats to something you think fits them better. Or giving them different feats. It's sooo integral to Val's character that she has Bastard Sword proficiency... Lmao.

 

[Yosharian]

In d&d its allowed if the DM allows it, what kind of DM would forbid it when its reasonable or when someone is really not having fun anymore, guess i am doing it wrong, not only i dont get paid for it, but i dont get any blowjobs for respecs. By the way i only noticed the respec character after reading forums, as the options only appears at normal difficulty or below. Still its not complete respec they still keep their stats and first levels.

"Not enjoying the class, can I make a new character" did happen in the group I used to play with, which would be more equivalent to how mercs work in PFKM. "let me respec because I want to min-max better" would be pretty well frowned upon and I don't think anyone ever asked for that. A lot of the stuff in D&D is pretty much based on characters not being able to respec at any time, otherwise stuff like the whole wizard vs. sorcerer balance gets thrown out the window.

"I want to make a new character because I hate the one I'm using right now"

That's literally the reason I respec Val yet a page ago you were arguing that it shouldn't be allowed

 

[mediocrepoet]

I'm not a fan of respeccing characters in a game like this. It feels too cheesy even if its technically officially sanctioned. No in D&D is allowed to respec characters

I'm sorry, your argument against respec is that people can't do it in PnP?

You realise that in D&D people are allowed to make their own characters right? This is such dumb logic.

Also there is nothing cheesy about rerolling an NPCs stats to something you think fits them better. Or giving them different feats. It's sooo integral to Val's character that she has Bastard Sword proficiency... Lmao.

I generally think of NPCs as the characters your friends would've made, so no you don't get to make them, you already get to make your own character.

That being said, the dumbest thing is getting your panties in a twist over what someone else does in a single player game.

 

[Yosharian]

That's fair enough but I don't have control over my friend's characters usually so that analogy falls down IMO

 

[Yosharian]

"Here are some cool characters to use in our campaign"

"Awesome, I have full control over them?"

"Yup. Well, except for their starting feats. And their ability scores"

"Can I just change this feat out? I don't like it"

"No"

"I don't think this fighter should start with 14 STR..."

"Tough shit. Enjoy!"

^ how PnP d&d is played, apparently

 

[Yosharian]

Of course a self-flagellating masochist like Desiderius would enjoy this

His ideal Friday night is being whipped for not pleasing God enough that week

 

[Average Manatee]

Also there is nothing cheesy about rerolling an NPCs stats to something you think fits them better. Or giving them different feats. It's sooo integral to Val's character that she has Bastard Sword proficiency... Lmao.

Yes, because it's part of the game. If you want to arbitrarily alter the game to do whatever you want then just give yourself a million XP in the tutorial and 50 in all stats.

 

[Glop_dweller]

The issue with respec-ing characters is that an RPG evaluates characters by their specs, and for the most part uses these to determine when to say "No"; no they did not hit the enemy, no they did not pick the lock, no they cannot lift that much gold—no they did not evade the attack, no they did not survive...

When the player respecs a character, they outright alter the history of the party... except the game ignores this; they get to keep their past accomplishments —even if they never had the stats, feats, or skills to achieve them. A character who might have saved the party's lives in one encounter, later might never have had the ability to do so—because they never learned how; they trained as something else.

Characters have presumably spent their lives training for their preferred vocation from long before the game starts; respecing them mid-adventure such that they trained as something else entirely, or were twice (or half) as strong, smart, or agile as before is at best just absurdist nonsense—at worst it's exploitation of the game system to achieve what the characters should not be able to achieve—or should not be able to fail at. Respeced characters totally screw up an RPGs narrative, and the devs' should know better.

 

[Israfael]

I've played the game as someting between LN and LE, didn't feel anything really jarring or wrong (apart from the broken hellknights quest, it basically had only one resolution ('nothing personnel kid')), I guess it's just non-Russian people have very different notion what is 'lawful' and what is 'good'.

 

[Nano]

respecing them mid-adventure such that they trained as something else entirely, or were twice (or half) as strong, smart, or agile as before is at best just absurdist nonsense—

That's why you show restraint and only respec them once, as soon as they're recruited. I don't think anyone here is advocating for respeccing whenever you feel like it.

 

[Glop_dweller]

This eliminates the time-paradox—which is the most important, but it creates other problems. Imagine respecing Xan or Minsc this way, in Baldur's Gate; playing with Minsc the magician, and Xan the optimistic ranger. The game has only the original voice files for the original character concepts. In some cases the devs might have intentionally flawed an NPC, or NPC pair (like Xar & Montaron for instance; Yoshimo in BG2). Respecing their narrative characters to suit player preference alters not just the plot, but gameplay advantage. The player doesn't know these character's background, or what's intended of them in the future. Some NPCs would be given intentionally chosen stats & abilities that the developers think necessary or useful at that specific point (or eventually) in the game. That's problem 1; you are not necessarily supposed to have a better NPC at that time.

Problem 2 is simply the "can't choose your parents" issue. Oh how wonderful it would have been to have encountered a brilliant, and trustworthy wizard inside that jail cell, instead of this shifty halfling thief, who might just rob us all in our sleep.

The player is supposed to adapt to the situations of their PC's predicament, and use what they have available—not win the lottery because they wish it; not respec an intentionally flawed companion for sake of their own convenience.

 

[Nano]

My respec changes include making Valerie a Vindictive Bastard and changing Octavia into a Thassilonian specialist (still specialized in Transmutation, and still has a level in Rogue). Again, this is about restraint. Of course respeccing breaks immersion if you go to the extreme with it.

 

[bayoubilly]

about to finally give this one a go. the last time I had enough time off to knock out one of my pending isometrics I made the mistake of playing divinity 2. I had just finished pillars of eternity and I heard this was even better. first 10 hours sucked, kept telling myself it would get better, blah blah. by the time I realized it was shit I had wasted most of my week off. at best, dos2 would have been a good way to teach your daughter or girlfriend about vidya and the online activity was a product of such.
I know kingmaker is better and I will be able to get a full playthrough out of it - the plot is decent, the characters are compelling enough, and 3.5/pathfinder rulesets aren't retarded. But, I am torn at character creation. if the plot and characters are only gripping enough for one playthrough, I should do a lawful neutral sorcerer. if worthy of two, then I'd do a LG paly and a LE sorc afterwards for the full range of companions and plot etc.
Difficulty wise, from what you guys are saying I'm just gonna stick with veteran
if you were forced to hold deadfire as an example of excellent combat and poe as an example of excellent plot, world building, and character development - would you say this is worth two playthroughs? Or is there a high chance of finishing and not wanting a replay?

 

[bayoubilly]

Characters have presumably spent their lives training for their preferred vocation from long before the game starts; respecing them mid-adventure such that they trained as something else entirely, or were twice (or half) as strong, smart, or agile as before is at best just absurdist nonsense—at worst it's exploitation of the game system to achieve what the characters should not be able to achieve—or should not be able to fail at. Respeced characters totally screw up an RPGs narrative, and the devs' should know better.

by this logic, shouldn't we also be forbidden from coming up with a build ahead of time? if char dev is a lifelong progression informed by experience, how could a level 1 fighter *really* know what he would look like as a level 20 fighter? it would take that leveling up to know what excellence actually looks like for him.

I feel you on narrative integrity - the game has to make sense or you lose immersion. but if we have to tolerate some degree of meta (like character level up decisions), there is much to gain and little to lose if we use that meta to respec our companion's to something both lore appropriate and gameplay viable? minsc would have to stay a barbarian of course. but does immersion require our fighter to have an odd intelligence score? changing a 15 int 13 dex fighter into a 14 int 14 dex fighter clears up meta nonsense but surely that does not harm story integrity?

 

[gurugeorge]

about to finally give this one a go. the last time I had enough time off to knock out one of my pending isometrics I made the mistake of playing divinity 2. I had just finished pillars of eternity and I heard this was even better. first 10 hours sucked, kept telling myself it would get better, blah blah. by the time I realized it was shit I had wasted most of my week off. at best, dos2 would have been a good way to teach your daughter or girlfriend about vidya and the online activity was a product of such.
I know kingmaker is better and I will be able to get a full playthrough out of it - the plot is decent, the characters are compelling enough, and 3.5/pathfinder rulesets aren't retarded. But, I am torn at character creation. if the plot and characters are only gripping enough for one playthrough, I should do a lawful neutral sorcerer. if worthy of two, then I'd do a LG paly and a LE sorc afterwards for the full range of companions and plot etc.
Difficulty wise, from what you guys are saying I'm just gonna stick with veteran
if you were forced to hold deadfire as an example of excellent combat and poe as an example of excellent plot, world building, and character development - would you say this is worth two playthroughs? Or is there a high chance of finishing and not wanting a replay?

Oh it's definitely replayable and you can get different-enough experiences on different playthroughs for it to be worth it. The game has a decent amount of impactful C&C. (Plus, for example some dialogue options here and there - some with medium-term, a few even with far-reaching consequences, not even obvious as such - are locked to your alignment.)

The thing is though, it's such a humungous game that you might not want to play through it again immediately afterwards, you'll be so exhausted. But it's there for the future, and you'll probably get a hankering for it again at some point (I know I did).

It's also got a lot of mods (basically a whole set of 'em based around Call of the Wild and numerous dependent mods) that provide added value for builds and gameplay.

 

[Glop_dweller]

by this logic, shouldn't we also be forbidden from coming up with a build ahead of time? if char dev is a lifelong progression informed by experience, how could a level 1 fighter *really* know what he would look like as a level 20 fighter? it would take that leveling up to know what excellence actually looks like for him.

This IS what character classes represent and facilitate. Having a character class means they have trained just enough to become competent in that vocation—the assumed amount of time it took would be different between classes, but the wizard can cast a spell, and the fighter is not wholly defenseless with a weapon. This is (or can be) interpreted to explain why classes are barred from certain skills or abilities; game mechanics aside (the real reason), would a wizard who spent a decade or more to learn offensive spells, take [ie. waste] the time training to become proficient swinging a sharpened stick?—and be okay with being seen to win not by use of magic, but by hitting their enemy with a rock? Vise versa with a veteran warrior being reduced to using cantrips to win duels by —cheating—.

It extrapolates not why they can't learn to use it, but why they would never choose to learn to use it.

I feel you on narrative integrity - the game has to make sense or you lose immersion. but if we have to tolerate some degree of meta (like character level up decisions), there is much to gain and little to lose if we use that meta to respec our companion's to something both lore appropriate and gameplay viable? minsc would have to stay a barbarian of course. but does immersion require our fighter to have an odd intelligence score? changing a 15 int 13 dex fighter into a 14 int 14 dex fighter clears up meta nonsense but surely that does not harm story integrity?

Limited respec? The simplest way is to not give the option, and have the player accept people as they are. Using Minsc as example, suppose that odd level intelligence was to —ensure— they could not gain the bonus immediately.

The worse problem is the developers who design respeccing into the game from the outset, even building the gameplay around it! It limits and cheapens the PC, and NPC alike, for no commitments have any weight —or teeth when they are decided. Nothing is written in stone, and anything can be backpedaled out of. That is when the characters truly become just a list of optional numbers; interchangeable ones at that. For with that, one can no longer write a personality based on the statistics; the game doesn't hold you to their consequences.

 

[LannTheStupid]

by this logic, shouldn't we also be forbidden from coming up with a build ahead of time?

No, we should not. At least in CRPG's - a dungeon master can do lots of things.

When an NPC joins the party her/his life becomes dependent on the main hero. In Kingmaker the main hero is a ruler of the land with the right of pit and gallows - so without plot armor a 1 level fighter can be executed right away, exiled or made 1 fighter / 19 thug. And, depending on the tasks assigned, this NPC will change his attributes - though it is abstracted to pressing buttons on the level up screen.

 

[Zeriel]

I've played the game as someting between LN and LE, didn't feel anything really jarring or wrong (apart from the broken hellknights quest, it basically had only one resolution ('nothing personnel kid')), I guess it's just non-Russian people have very different notion what is 'lawful' and what is 'good'.

Hellknights quest was universally seen as terrible afair. It's an example of what I said about designers dropping the ball. It's especially egregious because in the rest of the game they usually aren't so bad with quest design, it's like that whole quest was written by a backer or something. The railroading was ridiculous--when designers want to do something like that I'd rather they just remove all other dialogue options if they are false choices. At least then you know what's going on.