Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Pathfinder Why Owlcat's Kingmaker Sucks, in Plain Language

Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
2,554
Location
The Present
Absinthe I'm not saying casters are helpless. I'm just saying that KM plays to their weakness while playing to martial classes' strengths. My first run with a squishy, fiddly, caster party did just fine--but the comparisons between degrees and ease of success to my martial party are significant.

Poor AI was in regard to the enemies faced. With the incredible spells mages could cast in BG2, they could still be eliminated easily. With the SCS AI mod, even low or mid tier mages could wreak havoc. In PF:KM, optional uber liches get wiped round 2 by a Level 10 or 12 party. The AI isn't capable enough to make that lich a challenge, nor are the spells available on their list. Items help casters too, but not as much and not until very late game. Many of the creatures you fight have Saving throws in the teens before you hit level 10. Monsters are going to succeed their saves often. Many of them have high hit points to, so even if you CC them--casters are going to struggle to come up with the damage to take them out in time. DCs are difficult to get high until endgame to to work reliably. It's one reason why Conjuration CCs are best in KM, because they force the target to make repeated checks to avoid the effect. Many go-to enchantment and illusion spells give the target repeated opportunities to negate the effect. After that, it comes back to volume. There is so much combat and a lot of objectives and ground to cover in certain amounts of time. Wizards & Sorcerers just can't keep the pace.

Casters are my favorite, believe me. I made them work for this game, but you have to recognize things for what they are and are not. This ain't no Baldur's Gate. We don't have the spell lists, spells per day, nor HP balance to where casters are supreme. KM is quite the contrary, for the reasons I listed in my initial response. That's not to say that they are useless, or impotent--but they suffer major disadvantages in KM.
 
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
2,554
Location
The Present
Nice essay. PF:KM doesn't stand for Pathfinder: Kobold & Mite accords. The feuding monster tribes is a footnote in the immediate objective of the broader goal. The area already receives a lot of attention as it is. I think you're expecting a lot. Within the frame work of D&D alignment scheme, their solutions provided are appropriate. At face value, evil alignments are not going to be notable for broker peace treaties between monsters on the spur of the moment in the same way the LG option for this impasse is "I'll kill all of you horrid beasts!". Good character aren't going to brook monsters. Evil character aren't going to foster peace--especially in the heat of the moment. If these maxims are too much for you, there are a few threads around here where you can go rant about the alignment axis convention.

"PF:K makes LG AND LE into Lawful Stupid. Here's why that's a GOOD thing."

:butthurt:

Hardly. Owlcat certainly got LN correct, so it's hard to make the accusation that they don't understand alignments. LN is the alignment of kings, and this game is probably the first ever that demonstrates its worth.
 

Shadenuat

Arcane
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
11,969
Location
Russia
My first char was Lawful Neutral, and it blown be away that that alignment is actually playable and has dialogue options.
 
Self-Ejected

Shitty Kitty

Self-Ejected
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
556
:butthurt:

Hardly. Owlcat certainly got LN correct, so it's hard to make the accusation that they don't understand alignments. LN is the alignment of kings, and this game is probably the first ever that demonstrates its worth.
"My autistic alignment was handled in a way I approve of, therefore nothing else matters"
 

Shadenuat

Arcane
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
11,969
Location
Russia
What games did it better?

Even Avellone games fall into straightforward good/bad choices, he just writes them in a more interesting way. Planescape did some good job on a fundament of Factions but, arguably most people still ended with LG TNO. MoTB is similar deal even though when presented with small amount of options, these options are written well - but that's the whole difference. PKM actually have variety and alignment can drift heavily. It doesn't have writing as good as those games - it's mostly mediocrity with occasional spikes of ingenuity by that woman who wrote jokes in Jubilost quest; but variety of alignments it handles well.
 

RK47

collides like two planets pulled by gravity
Patron
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
28,396
Location
Not Here
Dead State Divinity: Original Sin
'THEY'RE GOOD'
'no this is why'
'THEY'RE REALLY REALLY GOOD BECAUSE OF THAT REASON PRECISELY'

-this thread
:lol:
 

Desiderius

Found your egg, Robinett, you sneaky bastard
Patron
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
14,189
Insert Title Here Pathfinder: Wrath
I linked to the Ranger damage pic because it’s funny in light of how many people rag on Rangers over and above the ignorant hate martials get. The crit damage is incidental to the point since she’s doing 356 damage without it. They both have Improved Crit at that point in any case.

The main details I provided are illustrations of the various abilities martials have, and particularly Fighters, that set them apart from a hybrid or caster, who I’ve shown can also fight reasonably well but nowhere near martials.

I may do a breakdown of the Fighter class as I did with Swordlord a few months back.
 
Self-Ejected

Shitty Kitty

Self-Ejected
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
556
What games did it better?

Even Avellone games fall into straightforward good/bad choices, he just writes them in a more interesting way. Planescape did some good job on a fundament of Factions but, arguably most people still ended with LG TNO. MoTB is similar deal even though when presented with small amount of options, these options are written well - but that's the whole difference.

In terms of just general behavior-tracking and its impact on your interactions within the game world? Fallout New Vegas. Alignment grids are autistic as fuck to begin with, commanding RIGID ADHERENCE to some moron's interpretation of what that alignment embodies is straight into fucking "rocking back and forth in a high chair and screeching incoherently" land. FNV had a ton of issues, but the way it tracked player behavior and factional relations at least made a modicum of sense (aside from the whole "taking a random pencil out of some idiot's crate is morally equivalent to stealing a massive pile of in-game currency from him" thing). If you want to be rigidly locked into a predetermined set of behaviors by a rather arbitrary alignment scale, you have fun with that.
 
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
2,554
Location
The Present
Shitty Kitty Passive rhetoric is the language of cowards and intellectual weaklings. I made the argument that D&D's alignment system is simplistic, and that they are as arbitrary as any other mechanic within the RPG. Owlcat's utilization of them matches that depth appropriately for the game they made. Are you going to make an actual argument? Keep the shitposting for your litter box.
 
Self-Ejected

Shitty Kitty

Self-Ejected
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
556
Shitty Kitty Passive rhetoric is the language of cowards and intellectual weaklings. I made the argument that D&D's alignment system is simplistic, and that they are as arbitrary as any other mechanic within the RPG. This makes Owlcat's utilization of them matches that depth appropriately for the game they made. Are you going to make an actual argument? Keep the shitposting for your litter box.
Enjoy your alignment AIDS, faggot.
 

Desiderius

Found your egg, Robinett, you sneaky bastard
Patron
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
14,189
Insert Title Here Pathfinder: Wrath
Casters are just fine in P:K, but so are martials.

It’s kind of funny bitching about a twenty year old imbalance in a thread about the game that fixed it but you didn’t notice because you were too busy whining.
 

Shadenuat

Arcane
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
11,969
Location
Russia
In terms of just general behavior-tracking and its impact on your interactions within the game world?
You're moving goal posts. Fact that you hate alignments has nothing to do with how game handles them.

Alignments are more about options you have when interacting with others in a way that matches your choice of character, it mainly serves different function to factions - for that, PK has values (like what you did to Nyrissa) separately.

FNV has some interesting mechanics, sure. What does that equal for most playthroughs? Probably being beloved by everyone, except some raider gang and Caesar Legion. Because if you don't help people, you lose on quests. End up with 10000 karma. It has its own issues. (like, for example, being a shit shooter with shit character building - if we're moving posts so can I)
 
Last edited:

LannTheStupid

Товарищ
Patron
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
3,195
Location
Soviet Union
Pathfinder: Wrath
I think alignment is implemented in Pathfinder: Kingmaker brilliantly. However, to understand that one needs to go farther than the first several locations.

Alignment is a resource. It is gathered (or scattered) in dialogues (mostly), and then used in some other, more important dialogues. And what this resource gives to the protagonist is conviction.

The problem with the protagonist in Kingmaker is that s/he is a ruler (Baron and then King) who does not make false threats or promises. He is either convinced in his ability to follow through his statement or he does not make the statement at all. If there is no [Bluff] descriptor then the Baron does not bluff. I have understood this while playing the Season of Bloom as CE.

First, during the riots an Evil Baron has the option to threaten to kill all the peasants who are rioting. This option is closed for all alignments but Evil, so this resource of evil conviction needs to be gathered (or preserved) before and then dispatched in this scene. There is no bluff; if the Baron is not sure his guard will actually go and kill all the rioters he will not threaten it.

And then exactly the same Baron cannot persuade one puny captain Kesten to do what the Baron orders him to do. It seems illogical: why not threaten a subordinate by death for disobedience when several days ago the Baron was ready to hunt down poor peasants? But the point is - the Baron is Chaotic. He does not even have the phrase with clear military order given on the field of battle - because, as Chaotic, he believes that people ultimately can do what they want. To make direct order the Baron should have gathered enough of "Lawfulness" resource before. Effectively the protagonist believes in his internal moral compass more than a sleazy and lying player behind the fourth wall.

Having this in mind makes all alignment checks pretty logical. Only a truly Evil person can hire an immortal wizard who likes to collect people souls in jars. Only a Neutral adventurer will feel the need to be distracted from his chase of the known rival to broker peace between 2 minor evil races.

Also, one needs to remember that in case of the conflict in Old Sycamore "Neutral" means any Neutral: NG, NE and all neutrals in the middle. So only 4 corner cases are unable to negotiate the peace; obviously, LG newbs fall for that and whine.

For this system to work even better Owlcats should have changed 2 things: first, they should have made alignment changes faster, so a True Neutral could have shifted to one of the corners, like, in half an act instead of almost two; and second, they should have resisted the howls of idiots and not add the Scroll of Atonement into the game. As it is now, starting alignment is too sticky, so there is no need to hold on to it tight to make sure that at the right moment the Baron can make the desired choice.

P.S.: I am deliberately spoiling the game because people who are adamant that "Kingmaker sucks" do not deserve to experience it properly.
P.P.S.: I can write essays in bad English, too!
 
Last edited:
Self-Ejected

Shitty Kitty

Self-Ejected
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
556
I think alignment is implemented in Pathfinder: Kingmaker brilliantly. However, to understand that one needs to go farther than the first several locations.

Alignment is a resource. It is gathered (or scattered) in dialogues (mostly), and then used in some other, more important dialogues. And what this resource gives to the protagonist is conviction.

The problem with the protagonist in Kingmaker is that s/he is a ruler (Baron and then King) who does not make false threats or promises. He is either convinced in his ability to follow through his statement or he does not make the statement at all. If there is no [Bluff] descriptor then the Baron does not bluff. I have understood this while playing the Season of Bloom as CE.

First, during the riots an Evil Baron has the option to threaten to kill all the peasants who are rioting. This option is closed for all alignments but Evil, so this resource of evil conviction needs to be gathered (or preserved) before and then dispatched in this scene. There is no bluff; if the Baron is not sure his guard will actually go and kill all the rioters he will not threaten it.

And then exactly the same Baron cannot persuade one puny captain Kesten to do what the Baron orders him to do. It seems illogical: why not threaten a subordinate by death for disobedience when several days ago the Baron was ready to hunt down poor peasants? But the point is - the Baron is Chaotic. He does not even have the phrase with clear military order given on the field of battle - because, as Chaotic, he believes that people ultimately can do what they want. To make direct order the Baron should have gathered enough of "Lawfulness" resource before. Effectively the protagonist believes in his internal moral compass more than a sleazy and lying player behind the fourth wall.

Having this in mind makes all alignment checks pretty logical. Only a truly Evil person can hire an immortal wizard who likes to collect people souls in jars. Only a Neutral adventurer will feel the need to be distracted from his chase of the known rival to broker peace between 2 minor evil races.

Also, one needs to remember that in case of the conflict in Old Sycamore "Neutral" means any Neutral: NG, NE and all neutrals in the middle. So only 4 corner cases are unable to negotiate the peace; obviously, LG newbs fall for that and whine.

For this system to work even better Owlcats should have changed 2 things: first, they should have made alignment changes faster, so a True Neutral could have shifted to one of the corners, like, in half an act instead of almost two; and second, they should have resisted the howls of idiots and not add the Scroll of Atonement into the game. As it is now, starting alignment is too sticky, so there is no need to hold on to it tight to make sure that at the right moment the Baron can make the desired choice.

P.S.: I am deliberately spoiling the game because people who are adamant that "Kingmaker sucks" do not deserve to experience it properly.
P.P.S.: I can write essays in bad English, too!
I have never seen such a massive quantity of autistic, mendacious ex-post-facto justification/mental gymnastics for a retarded implementation of a clumsy, archaic system. I'm pretty sure this is like a special-ed version of plutonium, but instead of throwing off alpha particles like crazy it emits little jigsaw-puzzle-piece shaped particles of dumbfuckery and smells like a week-old used diaper.

I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
 

RK47

collides like two planets pulled by gravity
Patron
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
28,396
Location
Not Here
Dead State Divinity: Original Sin
I'm just annoyed I can't kill people outside of declaring I want to [Attack] you in conversation.
How barbaric.
 

Shadenuat

Arcane
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
11,969
Location
Russia
Well neither you can kill Irenicus even IN combat. It's a nature of multi-chapter narratives, it's no Fallout of course.

You should be able to kill any companion or make them fuck off though. Now that you can replace them with mercs in kingdom as well.

Well except 1 right.
 

RK47

collides like two planets pulled by gravity
Patron
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
28,396
Location
Not Here
Dead State Divinity: Original Sin
That's ironic. I mean in Baldur's Gate 2 you CAN attack shopkeepers on sight and such.
That was my complaint anyway. Some people I wanted to kill in PKM are actually valid targets but combat refused to start until an <Attack> is declared in dialogue.
I'm pretty sure in table top you can just have the ranger fire from 50 ft away.
 

Shadenuat

Arcane
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
11,969
Location
Russia
Yeah but it's pointless since unlike Arcanum, they hold no keys to their chests with loot and all you get is shit prices everywhere and infinite spawns of guards.
Being evil in any BG is a non-option really.

(I much more appreciate stealing/pickpocket drizzt sword/Narlen thief quests in BG1 than killing - one thing for example that was done ok)
 
Last edited:
Self-Ejected

Shitty Kitty

Self-Ejected
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
556
How does world hold so many people with so little imagination; for abstractions in particular :M
What exactly is imaginative about locking yourself into certain dialogue options based on a choice made at character generation?

"Well a Lawful Good Paladin would never see the value in getting these idiots to calm the hell down and fuck back off to their holes!"

Really? I can think of a few reasons why RIGHT OFF THE DAMN BAT. Their war is going to be a chaotic, messy thing that might spill over into other beings' lives and cause suffering for people who aren't even party to their conflict. They might attract a foreign power-broker who could capitalize on their war and get himself an army of savage little mooks (you know, like Tartuccio is currently trying to fucking do with the Kobolds) by tipping the scales in one direction or another. A LG character could easily see great value in contractual obligations that prevent greater suffering and offer a better way forward for everyone involved. Like, you're arguing that reading someone else's personal idea of what it means to be LG involves IMAGINATION on your behalf? You're not just putting cart before horse, you're trying to push the cart with the horse strapped to your back.
 

Shadenuat

Arcane
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
11,969
Location
Russia
So basically, allow character of any alignment to solve any situation perfectly as you want.

Sorry, but Sadistic Russian DM*tm doesn't let you. Get over it.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom