Baldur's Gate The Baldur's Gate Series Thread

[Nano]

do you need more than 2 pips into ranged weapons?

In which context ?

I think pips means drinks. Drink until you pass out, razvedchiki.

 

[The Limper]

So Rangers are unique because they could only be good-aligned and Druids are unique as they were labeled as TN only? Someone wanting to play an evil Ranger is a Snowflake

Yes.
Yes.
Yes, and a retard.
Because per AD&D, a ranger is not just some guy larping in the wood, but a champion of good with strong altruistic and spiritual value. It's precisely because he's exceptional that he's allowed to receive various boon, the most well-known being his ability to cast spell at level 8.

I dunno why guys keep pretending that the alignement restriction exist in a vacuum, every class concerned got an heavy description of the traits expected from this character. People who are bitching are people who can't read.

Nope…. More likely its people who read it and shake their in disgust at such unnecessary limitation. But that’s the beauty of it all…. We buy the books, review (not revere) the rules and adapt what we want into our game.

But to cry that a Ranger is a champion of good and we must conform to this, then see a ton of those so called sacred rules bent in every supplement is retarded. Gold Elf Knight Knight, Dwarven Runecaster….. whatever genius.

 

[BruceVC]

Because per AD&D, a ranger is not just some guy larping in the wood, but a champion of good with strong altruistic and spiritual value. It's precisely because he's exceptional that he's allowed to receive various boon, the most well-known being his ability to cast spell at level 8.

What, are you saying that a village wouldn't hire a ranger to camp out in the woods and murder people at night? How terribly close-minded of you.

I dunno why guys keep pretending that the alignement restriction exist in a vacuum, every class concerned got an heavy description of the traits expected from this character. People who are bitching are people who can't read.

Without Alignments, Planescape wouldn't exist. An entire setting based on "living philosophy" and metaphysical concepts like belief. Dozens of extraplanar beings who were born from the idea of Good and Evil would be reduced to stereotypes of their classical counterparts, probably with a much less unique lore, if any worth speaking of at all.

4E was built for people like this and it's boring garbage. There's your dream game, munchkins. Why aren't you playing it?

Edgy do you know what I think some of you guys may be ignoring, end of the day D&D is a fantasy setting and the ruleset, that includes alignment, define the basic foundation of the mechanics of the RP experience but it shouldnt be more important than the way a DM or game like BG is created to provide fun and entertainment for players

We dont need to always over-analyze things or be overly pedantic and think rules are greater than imagination,creativity and fun. Our debate around Romance and Lolth is a good example of this

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Edgy do you know what I think some of you guys may be ignoring, end of the day D&D is a fantasy setting

"Guys, it's FANTASTY and I just want to play pretend!"
No, we understand that perfectly.

Our debate around Romance and Lolth is a good example of this

It is, but not for the reason you think.

 

[Sarathiour]

So Rangers are unique because they could only be good-aligned and Druids are unique as they were labeled as TN only? Someone wanting to play an evil Ranger is a Snowflake

Yes.
Yes.
Yes, and a retard.
Because per AD&D, a ranger is not just some guy larping in the wood, but a champion of good with strong altruistic and spiritual value. It's precisely because he's exceptional that he's allowed to receive various boon, the most well-known being his ability to cast spell at level 8.

I dunno why guys keep pretending that the alignement restriction exist in a vacuum, every class concerned got an heavy description of the traits expected from this character. People who are bitching are people who can't read.

Nope…. More likely its people who read it and shake their in disgust at such unnecessary limitation. But that’s the beauty of it all…. We buy the books, review (not revere) the rules and adapt what we want into our game.

But to cry that a Ranger is a champion of good and we must conform to this, then see a ton of those so called sacred rules bent in every supplement is retarded. Gold Elf Knight Knight, Dwarven Runecaster….. whatever genius.

I would rate this popamole if I could.

 

[BruceVC]

So Rangers are unique because they could only be good-aligned and Druids are unique as they were labeled as TN only? Someone wanting to play an evil Ranger is a Snowflake

Yes.
Yes.
Yes, and a retard.
Because per AD&D, a ranger is not just some guy larping in the wood, but a champion of good with strong altruistic and spiritual value. It's precisely because he's exceptional that he's allowed to receive various boon, the most well-known being his ability to cast spell at level 8.

I dunno why guys keep pretending that the alignement restriction exist in a vacuum, every class concerned got an heavy description of the traits expected from this character. People who are bitching are people who can't read.

Nope…. More likely its people who read it and shake their in disgust at such unnecessary limitation. But that’s the beauty of it all…. We buy the books, review (not revere) the rules and adapt what we want into our game.

But to cry that a Ranger is a champion of good and we must conform to this, then see a ton of those so called sacred rules bent in every supplement is retarded. Gold Elf Knight Knight, Dwarven Runecaster….. whatever genius.

I would rate this popamole if I could.

Maybe you can explain why you disagree with a post instead of being sarcastic, just a suggestion?

 

[Sarathiour]

Would repeating myself lead to a different outcome ?

Rule serve as base upon which you're able to create a character and a story. You need to lay strong groundwork, and only then can you proceed to give nuance and personals traits that will make you character stand apart.
If you don't, you're building on sand. If every value is subject to relativism, then nothing matter and everything is the same, but that's a concept profoundly alien this post-modernist world. Diversity and uniqueness stem from hierarchy and order, and not everyone blending into some sort of soup.
Aragorn is not just some hobo leaving in the wood.

 

[Parabalus]

So Rangers are unique because they could only be good-aligned and Druids are unique as they were labeled as TN only? Someone wanting to play an evil Ranger is a Snowflake

Yes.
Yes.
Yes, and a retard.
Because per AD&D, a ranger is not just some guy larping in the wood, but a champion of good with strong altruistic and spiritual value. It's precisely because he's exceptional that he's allowed to receive various boon, the most well-known being his ability to cast spell at level 8.

I dunno why guys keep pretending that the alignement restriction exist in a vacuum, every class concerned got an heavy description of the traits expected from this character. People who are bitching are people who can't read.

Then you have Jaheira who is TN, but behaves like NG. Or the shadow druids, who act like NE.

 

[Sarathiour]

Then you have Jaheira who is TN, but behaves like NG.

About that:
Obviously Jaheira should be NG, she's harper and the textbook definition of NG. It's also somewhat possible for multi or dual classed druid to no be TN, the ranger rulebook actually give the possibility to play as a ranger/druid. It should be noted that this come with heavy restriction, and the rulebook explain that the character should expect regular clash with his hierarchy, and probably even faction inside his order taking open action against him. This is somewhat the case with shadow druid who absolutely can't stand Jaheira.

Or the shadow druids, who act like NE.

Not really, they're mostly rude and stupid asshole, but that's not enough to make them so. I don't remember them acting with their own interest in mind, it's mostly autistic rage bout people getting OUT OF MY SWAMP.
Still per AD&D, druid may from time to time take the side of evil. It's a rare occurrence, but still a possibility, as self proclaimed "keeper of balance".

 

[Shadenuat]

It's nice to wake in morning and see this is still going.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Obviously Jaheira should be NG, she's harper and the textbook definition of NG.

Eh. I think she just pushes True Neutral as far as it will go. It's been a while since I've played, but I do recall a few quests where she wasn't a complete goody two shoes.

Not really, they're mostly rude and stupid asshole, but that's not enough to make them so. I don't remember them acting with their own interest in mind, it's mostly autistic rage bout people getting OUT OF MY SWAMP.

Yeah, it's just things taken to an extreme. Jaheira keeps the balance by attacking evil. The Shadow Druids do it by attacking anyone who encroaches their woods.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

True Neutral is a complete meme alignment and the one alignment that should have never existed.

 

[NecroLord]

True Neutral is a complete meme alignment and the one alignment that should have never existed.

It's because it is a hard alignment for a player to roleplay as. Mordenkainen,for example,was True Neutral. It is a balance between Law and Chaos,Good and Evil. Nature is the embodiment of this alignment. Self preservation. The druid will probably say "Nature can give(good crops,abundance) but she can also take(droughts,natural disasters)".

 

[rusty_shackleford]

True Neutral is a complete meme alignment and the one alignment that should have never existed.

It's because it is a hard alignment for a player to roleplay as. Mordenkainen,for example,was True Neutral. It is a balance between Law and Chaos,Good and Evil. Nature is the embodiment of this alignment. Self preservation. The druid will probably say "Nature can give(good crops,abundance) but she can also take(droughts,natural disasters)".

no, it's just a dumb alignment that can be used as an excuse to do anything any time you want
or to just do nothing at all ever

 

[NecroLord]

no, it's just a dumb alignment that can be used as an excuse to do anything any time you want
or to just do nothing at all ever

You mean chaotic neutral?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

no, it's just a dumb alignment that can be used as an excuse to do anything any time you want
or to just do nothing at all ever

You mean chaotic neutral?

how often is a chaotic person lawful?

 

[perfectslumbers]

I think I accidentally romanced Anomen, he's asking me to "lie with him" while we're in Bodhi's stronghold. Seems like a poor time to shag but what do I know

 

[NecroLord]

no, it's just a dumb alignment that can be used as an excuse to do anything any time you want
or to just do nothing at all ever

You mean chaotic neutral?

how often is a chaotic person lawful?

???

 

[Gargaune]

It's because it is a hard alignment for a player to roleplay as. Mordenkainen,for example,was True Neutral. It is a balance between Law and Chaos,Good and Evil. Nature is the embodiment of this alignment. Self preservation. The druid will probably say "Nature can give(good crops,abundance) but she can also take(droughts,natural disasters)".

Always struck me as an odd concept, since a strict belief in the balance of good and evil is inherently adhering to an order in things, a Lawful inclination. An amoral mercenary who only values his contract, a disinterested bureaucrat who exclusively upholds the letter of the law, or a druid who worships the balance of "natural law" all come across as Lawful Neutral affairs.

True Neutral always seemed the alignment of the confused or the apathetic, the clinically depressed, and Chaotic Neutral is only a little better, characteristic of dumb beasts or emotionally unstable individuals, both would ideally be stages to transition out of in a character arc.

In practice, though, both True and Chaotic Neutral are typically shorthand for "I don't have a character concept in mind" and "I'm so r4nd0m L0L", respectively.

???

He means in relation to True Neutral being "a dumb alignment that can be used as an excuse to do anything any time you want", i.e. a True Neutral character's player might do Lawful things whenever it suited them, whereas a Chaotic Neutral would be averse to Lawful actions in general. Point being that Chaotic Neutral is a little better defined than True Neutral, albeit only marginally so.

 

[Sarathiour]

True Neutral always seemed the alignment of the confused or the apathetic

Even apthy would actually classify as evil. Mostly agree apart from that, though druid would still be a step afar from being lawful, as "natural law" is hardly in itself a lawful concept.
I would argue that true neutral is a meme because "natural law" is a meme, as it's theorically a mix between "letting the strongest thrive" while simultaneously making sure they're not unblancing too much the rest of the biome.

 

[octavius]

I like the idea of True Neutral being following the law of nature, as opposed to the norms and laws of society, which fits with druids. But one could argue that using animals as cannon fodder is Evil, I guess.

 

[NecroLord]

True. Not necessarily as cannon fodder,but like the druid,"agents" of Nature's will. They do their part to protect their habitat,for without it,where would they live and thrive?
I guess it also depends on the nature of the druid. A Shadow Druid will summon all manner of vicious predators to hunt and kill those who disrupt Nature,while a more typical Druid will only do so when the situation is dire.

 

[Nano]

Obviously Jaheira should be NG, she's harper and the textbook definition of NG.

NPC Project goes out of its way to portray Jaheira as hardcore neutral. I remember a banter with Khalid where he talks about fighting for good and she tells him off for it.

 

[Sarathiour]

Obviously Jaheira should be NG, she's harper and the textbook definition of NG.

NPC Project goes out of its way to portray Jaheira as hardcore neutral. I remember a banter with Khalid where he talks about fighting for good and she tells him off for it.

I mean, mod writing can't really be worse than bg2 jaheira writing.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

It's difficult to define TN as an ethos. It's better described as simply rejecting extremes. Otherwise you wind up with a detached cosmic mentality of total indifference or that the universe should be static. It doesn't lend well for adventuring player characters in a game of heroic fantasy where morality shapes the cosmos. I can conceptualize a few true neutral PCs, but it's not as easy as others.

1. A farmhand that wants to leave the village and see the world but still loves home. Neither rebellious nor a product of their culture.
2. An autist scholar/academic.
3. A hedonistic merchant trying to make some coin for their lifestyle.

All of these characters would need to be fairly indifferent. Self-interested without being malicious. Plays by the rules and norms or break them depending on the situation. Skie is TN, and it makes sense for her. A bored rich kid who enjoys her status but also likes breaking its rules. Out for fun, maybe even at another's expense, but not sinister or nefarious. As others have said, it makes sense that druids can be NG or NE with Jaheria and Faldorn as excellent examples.