Eternity Pillars of Eternity II Beta Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[FreeKaner]

The way I see it, the best thing they could do is make some subtle (and contradictory) hints about him, that would make him out to be some sort of legendary, underground figure who fights against the Gods. Some would believe he doesn't exist, that he doesn't stand a chance, while others would root for him and maybe seek him out to join him. Something along those lines.

Yes, I loved this about Shadowrun, where in Hong Kong you can read about exploits of the character and the general story that you played in Dragonfall. Games should utilise this more instead of Japanese-style 13 games with same 3 companions coming in and going out repeatedly.

 

[Sentinel]

Yes. Because: a) He's so utterly fanatical and committed to a cause that it completely devours all of his waking thoughts, speech and actions. b) His exposition (and, make no mistake, he was an exposition-heavy character. The only difference is that he had a good writer who knew how to make exposition interesting, involved and pertinent to the character and setting) was the basis of his entire character. Without that mystery about him, all we would have left is the vengeful ravings of an obsessed zealot.

You can still make a fanatical zealot an interesting character, especially the moment where he has the opportunity to seize his vengeance and how that moment affects him afterwards. One thing is to feel and think, another is to act and what that does to your conscience. Would he be the same? Maaaaybe Durance wouldn't give a shit about killing the Goddess that he dedicated his life to? Although I kinda REALLY doubt that he'd be indifferent when the act is committed.

 

[Sizzle]

Yes. Because: a) He's so utterly fanatical and committed to a cause that it completely devours all of his waking thoughts, speech and actions. b) His exposition (and, make no mistake, he was an exposition-heavy character. The only difference is that he had a good writer who knew how to make exposition interesting, involved and pertinent to the character and setting) was the basis of his entire character. Without that mystery about him, all we would have left is the vengeful ravings of an obsessed zealot.

You can still make a fanatical zealot an interesting character, especially the moment where he has the opportunity to seize his vengeance and how that moment affects him afterwards. One thing is to feel and think, another is to act and what that does to your conscience.

Sure, if it's a new character. But Durance already had his arc, had his story. He's a man who masks his fears and insecurities behind religious dogma, to which he's entirely committed (if not completely sure of). Strip away his teachings, the way he organically introduces you to the history and conflicts in the Dyrwood, and what have you left? His personal vendetta works better when implied, something that happens off-screen, in the form of gossip, wives tales, and legends.

That's why I think it would be better not to show him (or add him as a companion) at all. For example, the cameos of BG1 NPCs in BG2 - most of those didn't do anything (and in many cases, derailed the characters) except shout: "Hey, remember these guys?" to the audience.

 

[2house2fly]

Thaos's motivations make perfect sense.

 

[Sentinel]

He's a man who masks his fears and insecurities behind religious dogma

Exactly. He's still that man at the end of PoE. He'd still be that man in PoE2, except he'd get to test his dogmas.
I completely disagree with your assertion on BG1 & BG2 companions. The best ones are returning companions that are given new purpose - Minsc, Edwin and Viconia.

By the way, you seem to be under the impression that I want Durance as a companion. I don't. I've recognized I'd rather not have him as a companion unless Chris Avellone is writing him. I've just been musing on the possiblity of him returning because it's entertaining to me to think about what could be. As I said above I'd much rather have him become a stealth villain.

Realistically speaking, I think your idea of having him become this legendary/myth figures kinda cool but I don't think it works because the player would know if the myths are true or not - we're almost certainly going to cross paths with the Gods in PoE2 again, if Durance is actually a figure working underground against them, then we'd eventually cross paths with him - and then the question would again arise - what became of him?

 

[Lacrymas]

Thaos's motivations make perfect sense.

No, they don't, but I'll bite. Why?

 

[Sizzle]

He's a man who masks his fears and insecurities behind religious dogma

Exactly. He's still that man at the end of PoE. He'd still be that man in PoE2, except he'd get to test his dogmas.

Well - no. He gave up religious dogma at the end of PoE1 (assuming he survived, which I'm guessing he did in about 90% playthroughs), he's just using the divine power against the gods. Similar to how Kreia uses the Force. But he isn't religious anymore, not how a Priest should be.

I completely disagree with your assertion on BG1 & BG2 companions. The best ones are returning companions that are given new purpose - Minsc, Edwin and Viconia.

I didn't say returning companions, I said cameos. Coran, Safana, Tiax, Xzar, Montaron, Quayle, etc.

Realistically speaking, I think your idea of having him become this legendary/myth figures kinda cool but I don't think it works because the player would know if the myths are true or not - we're almost certainly going to cross paths with the Gods in PoE2 again, if Durance is actually a figure working underground against them, then we'd eventually cross paths with him - and then the question would again arise - what became of him?

That's why I would prefer a lot of second-hand accounts and guesswork surrounding him. That way, a concrete story wouldn't exist (and could potentially be made up for another sequel), and the player could choose to believe what he wanted to believe happened to Durance after PoE1.

 

[Sentinel]

That's why I would prefer a lot of second-hand accounts and guesswork surrounding him. That way, a concrete story wouldn't exist (and could potentially be made up for another sequel), and the player could choose to believe what he wanted to believe happened to Durance after PoE1.

I think this is fine and good for secondary characters, but to a major character like Durance that unlike 90% of companions ties in to the central theme, is immensely popular, and whose last words are sworn vengeance on Magran? I don't think that flies. If they consider that path, I'd much rather they just show his mutilated body on some Magran cult's room.

 

[Sentinel]

Thaos's motivations make perfect sense.

No, they don't, but I'll bite. Why?

I'm curious, why not?

 

[Iznaliu]

Yes, I loved this about Shadowrun, where in Hong Kong you can read about exploits of the character and the general story that you played in Dragonfall. Games should utilise this more instead of Japanese-style 13 games with same 3 companions coming in and going out repeatedly.

The issue with doing that is that it's not popular; I've seen many people complaining about the fact that you couldn't import your DF characters into HK, even after acknowledging that it made no sense narrative-wise, and few people going out of their way to praise that decision other than you. Additionally, from what I've heard, many people were pleased about the decision to allow save imports from PoE1 into the sequel; any disappointment or preference for a different route was lambasted and unfavoured.

 

[fantadomat]

I just decided to replay PoE and must say that the fog of war is some ugly shit. Does anyone know any mods that disable it? It is really annoying to rewrite the cheat every time you enter a new area or load.

 

[Lacrymas]

I'm curious, why not?

All his reasoning is based on maybes, speculations and uncertainties. He is a hypocrite who encyclopedically commits every atrocity in the book while the gods exist which he thinks other people will commit if they find out they "don't". There's some heavy-duty cognitive dissonance happening here. Ask Durance if Magran isn't "real" or Eder if Eothas isn't. Engwithans say that there's no reason to exist without the gods, but this is absolutely ludicrous and contrary to real life existence in general. Why do they think this? How did they come to that conclusion as a whole civilization? Why would they react this way? They invented a ridiculous solution to an imaginary problem and left only Thaos to clean up, but literally nobody would believe him even if he flat out tells people they are man-made. Even if they believe him, it wouldn't matter.

Have you changed your own perspective in any meaningful way on Eora's gods now that you know they are man-made? How would you react if someone told you that the Christian God really is a bearded man in the sky and he exists 100%, but he was made in Egypt 4000 years ago? The whole concept is mind-blowingly missing the point that I don't have the words to describe how unfathomable such a thing is. There is nothing here that suggests Thaos isn't a raving lunatic who is obsessed with his perceived duty and only does it because he likes the power and influence, but we don't even know this because we don't know who he is as a person, so everything he does seems nonsensical.

 

[Sentinel]

I'm curious, why not?

All his reasoning is based on maybes, speculations and uncertainties. He is a hypocrite who encyclopedically commits every atrocity in the book while the gods exist which he thinks other people will commit if they find out they "don't". There's some heavy-duty cognitive dissonance happening here. Ask Durance if Magran isn't "real" or Eder if Eothas isn't. Engwithans say that there's no reason to exist without the gods, but this is absolutely ludicrous and contrary to real life existence in general. Why do they think this? How did they come to that conclusion as a whole civilization? Why would they react this way? They invented a ridiculous solution to an imaginary problem and left only Thaos to clean up, but literally nobody would believe him even if he flat out tells people they are man-made. Even if they believe him, it wouldn't matter.

Have you changed your own perspective in any meaningful way on Eora's gods now that you know they are man-made? How would you react if someone told you that the Christian God really is a bearded man in the sky and he exists 100%, but he was made in Egypt 4000 years ago? The whole concept is mind-blowingly missing the point that I don't have the words to describe how unfathomable such a thing is. There is nothing here that suggests Thaos isn't a raving lunatic who is obsessed with his perceived duty and only does it because he likes the power and influence, but we don't even know this because we don't know who he is as a person, so everything he does seems nonsensical.

What I got from Thaos was that he was convinced that the truth would mean nihilism, and nihilism would end up destroying civilization. He did the shit he did (although he's a bit of an edgelord) to prevent a greater evil upon the general population. This is from a flashback scene where he explains it IIRC.

Engwithans say that there's no reason to exist without the gods, but this is absolutely ludicrous and contrary to real life existence in general.

Is it really? Thaos defends the hierarchy upon which human civilization is based on. The figure "God", whether it be supernatural beings, is kind of irrelevant in this picture. It serves as justification for his actions. If civilization finds out there is no magical being in the sky, the "God" figure will get replaced by something else, another concept, at the top of the hierarchy that will serve the purpose of a God. I haven't played the game in a long time but I always got the sense that Thaos was defending the position that his people hold at the top of the hierarchy as "God(s)" and to prevent the harmful consequences that the discovery of their artificiality would entail. So in that sense I think he's more of a "ends justify the means" kind of guy. Now why he serves Woedica particularly I don't remember.

Have you changed your own perspective in any meaningful way on Eora's gods now that you know they are man-made?

Me, a person who played the game? No, because the game did a shit job at making me care about the world. Me, if I was a person in Eora? I'd probably be pretty mad and upset. Which goes back to Thaos's theory of decay as soon as word got out.

How would you react if someone told you that the Christian God really is a bearded man in the sky and he exists 100%, but he was made in Egypt 4000 years ago?

It would certainly have an impact, I'd probably feel some anger. However, it ultimately would not be a big difference. But I don't think this question can be compared to the Eora question for one reason - in Eora, you can do something if it is a lie. You can go against the Gods. In real life, assuming everything else about the Christian God is real, you can't, you're done for. Magic doesn't exist.

 

[Maculo]

I'm curious, why not?

All his reasoning is based on maybes, speculations and uncertainties. He is a hypocrite who encyclopedically commits every atrocity in the book while the gods exist which he thinks other people will commit if they find out they "don't". There's some heavy-duty cognitive dissonance happening here. Ask Durance if Magran isn't "real" or Eder if Eothas isn't. Engwithans say that there's no reason to exist without the gods, but this is absolutely ludicrous and contrary to real life existence in general. Why do they think this? How did they come to that conclusion as a whole civilization? Why would they react this way? They invented a ridiculous solution to an imaginary problem and left only Thaos to clean up, but literally nobody would believe him even if he flat out tells people they are man-made. Even if they believe him, it wouldn't matter.

Have you changed your own perspective in any meaningful way on Eora's gods now that you know they are man-made? How would you react if someone told you that the Christian God really is a bearded man in the sky and he exists 100%, but he was made in Egypt 4000 years ago? The whole concept is mind-blowingly missing the point that I don't have the words to describe how unfathomable such a thing is. There is nothing here that suggests Thaos isn't a raving lunatic who is obsessed with his perceived duty and only does it because he likes the power and influence, but we don't even know this because we don't know who he is as a person, so everything he does seems nonsensical.

From what I recall, it is not just 'no gods equates to evil' but also replacing cruel or chaotic religion with his "civilized" pantheon. Pre-pantheon, Thaos described how there were thousands of gods and how people would burn their children alive, make war, or take slaves as proof of devotion to those gods. His pantheon replaced all of it, and the point I took is that, gods or no gods, people will commit atrocities if left to their own devices. Hence, Thaos' pantheon ensures that no one is left to their own devices, and without the pantheon people would fall to either nihilism or simply make their own Gods in time.

The hypocrisy being that he became a source of atrocities, and even his own pantheon was going off script (i.e., Eothas, the gods agreement not to interfere, which defeats the whole point).

 

[frajaq]

see, RPGCodex is the fuel to his fire guys

 

[Infinitron]

 

[dragonul09]

see, RPGCodex is the fuel to his fire guys

Why does he write like a tumblr queen, always has that faggot slang that makes my skin crawl, now I understand why no one likes Pallegina.

 

[FreeKaner]

It looks like rapiers actually do look like rapiers this time around, instead of fencing foils. Pleasant surprise.

 

[Urthor]

The article about the game dev is actually hilarious though.

 

[Sizzle]

Now why he serves Woedica particularly I don't remember.

Out of necessity, as their goals, at least when it comes to animancy, align.

Woedica is the goddess of law, rule, the old order of things, and, consequentially - an enemy of progress.

Other gods such as Magran, Galawain and Abydon are in favor of the kith freely exploring animancy and evolving, even to the point where they become deities themselves.

So Thaos and Woedica made a deal - he helps her maintain the status quo (and ultimately gain even more power over the other gods), and she helps him by making him her Chosen - gifting him with immortality (enabling him to remember his past lives in every incarnation).

 

[Infinitron]

That's not all there is to him. Your final vision of Thaos strongly suggests that he literally created Woedica - by sacrificing the lives of thousands of his people. She's the last legacy of his original life, and the thing that gives purpose to his sacrifice.

 

[Lacrymas]

Don't you essentially become her Chosen if you take Skaen up on his deal? That seems interesting.

 

[Sizzle]

That's not all there is to him. Your final vision of Thaos strongly suggests that he literally created Woedica - by sacrificing the lives of thousands of his people. She's the last legacy of his original life, and the thing that gives purpose to his sacrifice.

Yes, as I understood it - he's part of the generation of Engwithans that originally created the entire pantheon.

Don't you essentially become her Chosen if you take Skaen up on his deal? That seems interesting.

A case could be made that you become the Chosen of whatever God(s)' plans you choose to follow through with at the end.

They said there would be consequences for this no matter what you chose, but I doubt they'll be that severe.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I am playing IWD2 and I think I've found the first manifestation of an unhealthy obsession with barrels, exploding or no.

 

[CptMace]

Do we know of any other form of interaction with the playground besides barrels ? As I haven't played through the beta that much and know that D:OS2 success has been duely taken into consideration for POE2's design, I suspect there should be more than explosions. Do we know anything about this ?