Posted by: Reverendratbastard
« on: December 08, 2004, 08:40:23 AM » if they are indeed the master of the realm 
Inconveniencing the Infinity Engine since 2001.
News:
Icewind Dale NPCs released with 60 new lovetalks! Download here.
Posted by: Andyr
« on: December 08, 2004, 08:11:12 AM »Perhaps a Neutral character (or even a non-Neutral too) could simply refuse to take the tests, not get the Tears, and force open the doors to the final battle through strength of will?
Posted by: Kish
« on: December 08, 2004, 06:07:58 AM »I have never tried this, but can you get that sacrificed group member back from the Fate spirit or do you get the Yoshimo answer?You can't summon anyone who died in SoA from the Fate Spirit.
Posted by: Reverendratbastard
« on: December 08, 2004, 06:06:45 AM »ooh! the prospects thicken. as soon as my audio infrastructure stops impregnating all recordings with fuzzy static, i'm all over it.Hear! hear! These new options would need a whole rehaul of how dialogues work from the speaker's perspective in BG as intentions are only implied in answers, if indicated at all.
Posted by: jester
« on: December 08, 2004, 06:02:32 AM »I have never tried this, but can you get that sacrificed group member back from the Fate spirit or do you get the Yoshimo answer? I should have roleplayed my CN people more thoroughly. 
Hear! hear! These new options would need a whole rehaul of how dialogues work from the speaker's perspective in BG as intentions are only implied in answers, if indicated at all.
Quote
another point where bg could learn a lot from torment. 1-Truth: "Yes." / 2-Truth: "No." / 3-Lie: "Yes." / 4-Lie: "No." / 5-[blind rage] Die foul creature! (Attack it.)
Hear! hear! These new options would need a whole rehaul of how dialogues work from the speaker's perspective in BG as intentions are only implied in answers, if indicated at all. Posted by: Reverendratbastard
« on: December 08, 2004, 05:53:40 AM »(Something which removes the character from the party followed by damage or disintegration can mean permanent destruction, but I think that's about it.)ah yes. i am probably confusing a Hard game with a few Normal instances of petrification + excess damage.
Quote
I'd say choosing to be evil should absolutely have no downside but that of becoming officially evil.*forhedsmakk* yeah, i'd kind of lost sight of the actual alignment-affecting effect. but "losing your shit" isn't the same as "choosing to be evil". (another point where bg could learn a lot from torment. 1-Truth: "Yes." / 2-Truth: "No." / 3-Lie: "Yes." / 4-Lie: "No." / 5-[blind rage] Die foul creature! (Attack it.)
Quote
your companions have the support of the master of the domain, after all, and you are the master of the domain.hm. i thought this was fully understood in the expansion / pocket plane, but not so much before you've 'got your soul back'...
Posted by: Kish
« on: December 08, 2004, 05:33:58 AM »I'm not quite sure what you mean by "cold-tempered/explosive-critical" here. Freezing won't kill party members permanently on normal; chunky deaths for party members don't occur on normal. If you mean something else, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure nothing can permanently kill a party member on Normal. (Something which removes the character from the party followed by damage or disintegration can mean permanent destruction, but I think that's about it.)
i seem to recall cold-tempered/explosive-critical deaths to be permanent even on Normal. (or was that Core? i'm pretty sure it was Normal.)
Quote
i agree from a realistic roleplaying standpoint. but these exceptional [again, i call lazy design] circumstances, where even non-bhaalspawn still get to call on their gods for seventh level spells such as, oh let's say Resurrection, at least once every eight hours (of hypothetically uninterrupted sleep - did i mention you can all sleep in the Abyss?) in that context, i see selfishness, but not much of a 'Price of Selfishness', in saying "yes, i will sacrifice you, and bring you right back a little later" - especially since you'll subsequently get the benefit of the tear anyway. (although it'd at least mean something to have them pissed off/[having been]in agony when you bring them back, a la a certain post-bandit jaheira...Why should there be a price? That's the point; you can avoid any consequences to you, if you choose to be selfish. Korgan gets to be torn limb from limb, but you can put him back together in time to be of use to you, and he doesn't get to vote on whether this is a good idea. Considering you're in a region shaped by the evil within CHARNAME, I'd say choosing to be evil should absolutely have no downside but that of becoming officially evil.
And as far as spellcasting and resting goes--your companions have the support of the master of the domain, after all, and you are the master of the domain.
Quote
(although i think a tear that helps open the gate but gives no bonuses is worth considering for any/all trials. is that how the neutral ones work?)No, you get benefits from them, too--different benefits, but about as powerful as the good and evil ones.
Posted by: Reverendratbastard
« on: December 08, 2004, 05:23:57 AM »i seem to recall cold-tempered/explosive-critical deaths to be permanent even on Normal. (or was that Core? i'm pretty sure it was Normal.)
i agree from a realistic roleplaying standpoint. but these exceptional [again, i call lazy design] circumstances, where even non-bhaalspawn still get to call on their gods for seventh level spells such as, oh let's say Resurrection, at least once every eight hours (of hypothetically uninterrupted sleep - did i mention you can all sleep in the Abyss?) in that context, i see selfishness, but not much of a 'Price of Selfishness', in saying "yes, i will sacrifice you, and bring you right back a little later" - especially since you'll subsequently get the benefit of the tear anyway. (although it'd at least mean something to have them pissed off/[having been]in agony when you bring them back, a la a certain post-bandit jaheira...
but anyway indeed.
Quote from: neriana
I don't think causing your friend to die because you have a tantrum is any less evil than causing him/her to die from premeditation.i for one wasn't thinking of it as a 'neutral alternative', or alignment-based at all. just a bit more versatility in reacting to a test that is more keyed to personal relationships than any of the other tests [vague exception of Wrath]. and some form of protest against the whole set-up, even if it is ultimately self-centered, evil, or what-have-you. more for want of the choice than a desire for a whole new outcome. (although i think a tear that helps open the gate but gives no bonuses is worth considering for any/all trials. is that how the neutral ones work?)
Posted by: neriana
« on: December 08, 2004, 05:11:58 AM »I don't think causing your friend to die because you have a tantrum is any less evil than causing him/her to die from premeditation. It's self-absorption that costs another his or her life either way.
Posted by: Kish
« on: December 08, 2004, 05:02:43 AM »being able to bring them back to life afterwards makes the test poorly coded. inanely, even.I'm not sure. Being able to bring your companion back to life means that you don't lose anything in the long run, but you're still choosing to let them be torn to pieces to save yourself--quite a hideously selfish decision (the NPC's gradual death as you go through each door must be exquisitely painful). With the ability to bring the NPC back, it's a true test of selfishness, whereas without the ability to bring the NPC back, it's rather a test of the PC's ability to consider his/her long-term gain--would you rather lose a point of Dexterity, or lose Korgan's services?
All of which is really beside the point, as the death is as permanent as any death is, depending on the setting you're playing on. But anyway.
Posted by: Reverendratbastard
« on: December 08, 2004, 03:44:07 AM »
that a paladin or [even moreso] a CG individual would place their party in the hands of demon judges without any "assurances" . . . or protests, is a tad weak.
what i was envisioning: first, party goes down the stairs/tunnel. second, demon says "choose: the life of your companion, or your continued optimum physical health/prowess". third, charname is incensed, challenges the demon for its presumption and [or merely] attacks. or has a "no fair!" tantrum and attacks. or something. even a rage borne of pure indecision.
i'm not saying that attacking the demon should prevent it from separating/imprisoning/devouring/etc. the NPC. but i certainly don't think a 'hotheaded' option is unwarranted (it seems particular to this test, as the others (i'm only remembering four others off the bat, are there six total?) already have one essentially hostile choice each. one can surely be under a great deal of stress having been [presumably unwittingly] dragged to the abyss and expected to play ball with incarnations of evil, no matter what one's alignment is.
plus which, one shouldn't be forced to accept [however absolutely true it might be] that higher powers are in control and one can't buck the system. without at least this (or some other) 'opportunity' to defy the trial process. not being able to open the gate is one thing. going along with trials adjudicated by demons is rather another, methinx.
Quote from: Kish
Nice trick if you can do it.perhaps a very very quick, clever and potent assault could save the companion (and charname's stats), but yield a tear that gave no bonuses.
Posted by: Kish
« on: December 08, 2004, 12:48:45 AM »Clarify. You mean somehow preventing the demon from grabbing someone? Nice trick if you can do it.
Posted by: Reverendratbastard
« on: December 08, 2004, 12:41:21 AM »oh, i thought we were talking about charging the demon instead of agreeing to either original choice.
Posted by: Kish
« on: December 07, 2004, 11:22:38 PM »Charging the demon after the demon has already taken someone (a party member or an innocent bystander) hostage is, at least, pretty profoundly stupid if not uncaring (a lot like a certain action you can take at one point in the Jaheira romance which brings the romance to an unceremonious end).I'm not sure the PC should lose virtue at all for charging at the demon. That is what we're talking about, right?
well, we're talking about it now, and you're absolutely right.
Posted by: Reverendratbastard
« on: December 07, 2004, 10:43:50 PM »I'm not sure the PC should lose virtue at all for charging at the demon. That is what we're talking about, right?
well, we're talking about it now, and you're absolutely right. unless it is determined that charname is involved in an unconscious pact with their testors.
in fact, i always thought it questionable that many Good PCs would/should 'play by the rules' in the first place. of course, going down each path can be taken as tacit acceptance of the terms, but that a paladin or [even moreso] a CG individual would place their party in the hands of demon judges without any "assurances" (can't think of any realistic ones anyway, when we're already in the abyss) or protests, is a tad weak.
then again, from here we could get into the rather pointless-at-this-stage argument that the Abyss is not where regulated trials are at all likely to occur (as opposed to the nine hells). but... yeah. meh.
Quote
Can't really add neutral virtue, can we?i don't think Virtue is made for Good PCs Only. that wouldn't be the issue. after all, with virtue, a non-good character can become good (and vice versa?) even without taking the hell trial possibilities into account.