Poll of the Day > Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous is out

(+) Yeah! (+)

This game is amaaaaazing

---

I was hyped for it, but this article kinda bums me out

https://www.pcgamer.com/being-evil-sucks-in-pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/

Zikten posted...

I was hyped for it, but this article kinda bums me out

https://www.pcgamer.com/being-evil-sucks-in-pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/

Uh... I've never been able to play an evil character so I don't really feel anything regarding that.

Looks like major bugs are still an issue from reviews, so probably best to wait on the game even if you absolutely love CRPG's.

Zikten posted...

I was hyped for it, but this article kinda bums me out

https://www.pcgamer.com/being-evil-sucks-in-pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/

I play primarily Chaotic characters, if not outright evil, and I was able to enjoy the game just fine.

That said, I only read the title in the link so I don't know if they made any meritable points or not.

---

Chaotic and evil aren't always the same thing. And yea the article talks about that

Zikten posted...

Chaotic and evil aren't always the same thing. And yea the article talks about that

True, in D&D and most other role playing games you can be...

Chaotic Good
Chaotic Neutral
Chaotic Evil

D&D originated the 10 alignments and they are all two things together except for True Neutral which is one of the rarest alignments and hard to play.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Uh... I've never been able to play an evil character so I don't really feel anything regarding that.

Same. I tried exactly once ever, which was a team of 6 chaotic evil guys in Icewind Dale like 30 years ago hah. It wasn't nearly as.. chaotic as I was expecting, but that game's not BG2-levels of deep character-wise anyhow.

---

Zikten posted...

I was hyped for it, but this article kinda bums me out

https://www.pcgamer.com/being-evil-sucks-in-pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/

I can definitely agree with this article, I'm also trying to play Lich but I find myself rarely picking Evil options because they're all variations of "kick puppy/Kill for no reason" responses. I've even been considering going for a Trickster seeing as I picked Kitsune race but idk what to do with my class.

I think the alignment system in general is incredibly stupid and an outdated product of early Tabletop RPGs.

That said I'm enjoying the game, only have 1 major bug which is being unable to select the same character portrait at Respec.

Black_Crusher posted...

Same. I tried exactly once ever, which was a team of 6 chaotic evil guys in Icewind Dale like 30 years ago hah. It wasn't nearly as.. chaotic as I was expecting, but that game's not BG2-levels of deep character-wise anyhow.

To be fair, the IWD series is probably the series where alignment matters the absolute least because there's not much of a world to interact with. The two games really are just IE combat simulators.

---

Yikes, I am not looking forward to doing these Crusader Army battles, the few I've done feel like I'm playing a mobile game.

You can automate those battles

but yeah, reminds me of the ship to ship combat in Pillars 2 - just not well done at all

---

It took me a bit to warm up to the crusader battles.

They're really not that in-depth at all. On one hand, I like that it's there to give you the feel of having your army and actually fighting a war, and I like that it's simple enough to not get in the way of your actual adventuring(I had this issue with kingdom management in KM).

On the other, it is pretty much tacked on

---

Monopoman posted...

except for True Neutral which is one of the rarest alignments and hard to play.

True Neutral is arguably the alignment of 95% of the real world population, and it basically boils down to "Everything is situational". It's probably the easiest alignment to play.

It's really only complicated if you're playing the really old-school interpretation where True Neutral is sort of a neurotic upholding of ABSOLUTE BALANCE, but they dropped that interpretation out of the rules years ago for a reason. And it mostly only applied to Druids (which is why Jaheira in Baldur's Gate is True Neutral in spite of the fact that she acts much more Neutral Good).

True Neutral now mostly just means you're willing to bend the rules but aren't rebelliously impulsive, and that you have a tendency towards selfishness but not excessively or sadistically so (ie, you're not advancing yourself at the expense of others at all costs, but also aren't overly self-sacrificing either). You tend to react to every situation differently, based on the given circumstances in a very risk/reward sort of outlook (ie, you're willing to help others if there's little cost for yourself, but won't significantly commit to save others at great cost unless there's a more significant and direct benefit to yourself or those you personally care about as well).

It's the middle point between sinner and saint, between logic and instinct.

It's such a common "default" setting that 4e tried to do away with it entirely and just change the middle alignment to "Unaligned" (which is arguably closer to how the original edition of D&D and Basic D&D handled alignment), but most people kind of hated that so they went back to the old model.
---

Cruddy_horse posted...

I find myself rarely picking Evil options because they're all variations of "kick puppy/Kill for no reason" responses.

This is the problem with most video game alignment systems, because you can only code in so many responses and options into a game. Worse when you're dealing with voiced characters (which is why the shift from Fallout 3/New Vegas to Fallout 4 gimped the dialogue system so, so hard).

Baldur's Gate I and II seemed to be slightly better at this (at least for their time), with the [Lie] dialogue option (meaning you could do evil things while seeming good, to be more of a sneaky, manipulative villain), but Bioware mostly got worse with alignment systems over time (especially once they switched to voiced protagonists), and other companies rarely seem to care about evil options, only throwing them in as an afterthought to pretend like their game has moral choices and consequences.

So we mostly get "Sacrifice Yourself" and "Murder Everyone" as the two extremes for every option, with "Do good things but ask for rewards" as the "Neutral" option.

And worse, because most games tend to reward players for being either "full good" or "full evil", so you're kind of punished if you want to play a more nuanced character who occasionally does good and occasionally does evil. Doubly so in a lot of games where they keep the "best" ending for the Good storyline and give Evil a halfhearted bittersweet ending (or a karmic "Ha ha, fuck you" ending).

It works better when you're playing at an RPG table with an actual GM who can react and reward you for cunning evil plays or elaborate deception, molding the story to fit what you want out of it. In a video game, you're mostly stuck with a team of writers trying to tell their overly specific Hero's Journey story and trying to force you into it as hard as they can, which means they don't really want you being a villain (and don't really want to put in all the extra effort to reward you for doing it).
---

I will say that is one thing I like about Baldur's Gate as opposed to say Dragon Age or Skyrim.

In both Baldur's Gate games, the main questlines are personal and don't have to be sought out with the intentions of saving the world, whereas that's the complete opposite case with the latter two; and in those games, you are flat out the "chosen one". That's not to say I didn't appreciate DA:O as a game(and even Skyrim to a lesser extent), but I agree with alignment not really working in those games outside the context of a few select quests.

Pathfinder: WotR has that to a lesser extent but it's not as bad because the world is practically crumbling around you and you almost have no choice but to take up arms for your own survival, let alone the world's. It seems when you get your crusade you also have the options of bending it your will as opposed to that of the kingdom above you.

I would honestly say the game that I've seen handle alignment the best is without a doubt, The Outer Worlds. My space pirate had a heck of a time in that game, and it felt like everything I did fit.

---

Krow_Incarnate posted...

In both Baldur's Gate games, the main questlines are personal and don't have to be sought out with the intentions of saving the world, whereas that's the complete opposite case with the latter two; and in those games, you are flat out the "chosen one".

Yeah, in BG you can basically be motivated by "I want to murder the shit out of the guy who screwed me over" (with BG:ToB adding "I want to become a god" as motivation), drag around an entirely Evil team who approve of most of your cruel and heartless actions (though that's easier to do in BGI than in BGII, because BGII has fewer companions in general, and you'll wind up having to take a Neutral or two), and explicitly pick dialogue options that allow you to sound selfish rather than "I have to save [x]!".

DA:O kind of starts out that way (especially if you're a Human Noble), because your entire motivation can be revenge rather than heroism (up to and including being forced into the Grey Wardens). And you can generally be a bit mercenary while building your army ("I'm siding with you because you're stronger, and I'm willing to sacrifice innocent lives to earn your support"). It isn't really until the end that you're kind of forced into being a hero, because after the Landsmeet your revenge motivation is completed and fighting the Archdemon is almost entirely hero-driven (whereas an amoral villain-type might just up and ride off to Orlais and let everyone else fight the Darkspawn). Though you could justify that as "This is the literal end of the world, so if I don't help stop it there won't be anywhere else to really go hide". Though overall (especially once you factor in the Awakening DLC), it kind of has the effect that you can be a jerk Warden, but not really an evil one.

That's partly why I kind of liked how DA2 handled things - it could have been handled a bit better, but I liked being able to give diplomatic answers to family and in situations where I respected the person I was talking to, snarky/sarcastic/charming answers to friends and people I didn't necessarily respect, and then the hostile/abrupt responses to people I was pissed off at. Especially since it kind of allowed me to evolve as a character over time (I spent most of the early game amused and making jokes but then went real dark for a bit after mom got killed).



Krow_Incarnate posted...

I would honestly say the game that I've seen handle alignment the best is without a doubt, The Outer Worlds. My space pirate had a heck of a time in that game, and it felt like everything I did fit.

Ehh, I'd say Outer Worlds had the opposite problem to some degree. It has a very clear idea of who it wants you to be, and if you don't play that sort of personality, a lot of the dialogue and even quests become very hard to reconcile. Sure, it doesn't necessarily want you to be a hero, but it's really hard to play anything other than "asshole Han Solo" (not helped by the fact that there's a LOT of "You're doing this because the game tells you to, not because the writers bothered providing any sort of in-game motivation or narrative to do so" moments). Ironically, Outer Worlds is a game where you kind of can't play as "The Hero", because the writing makes it feel really awkward if you do (and you'll definitely be skipping multiple sidequests).

I went into Outer Worlds wanting to love it, and I mostly wound up kind of hating it. I expected to do like a dozen different runs RPing as different characters with different personalities and outlooks (the way I played New Vegas), but after my first run it was very obvious that would be completely pointless and I never bothered to go back and play it again. The game feels like they spent 90% of their time writing dialogue to hammer home their core premise ("CAPITALISM IS BAD!") with all the subtlety of a brick fired out of a cannon directly into the side of your head, then realized a week before the deadline that they actually needed to add characterization. It almost feels like they only added dialogue options because that's what players expected, not because they actually wanted to.

The game kind of feels like it's trying to be Borderlands 2, but without the elements that made Borderlands 2 work so well. And without the budget.

A game that does moral flexibility really well (imo) is Tyranny. You basically start out as the bad guy, and the obvious path through the game is that of a villain - but you can also buck that trend and go more good if you want. You can be a brute force thug or more manipulative, you can be merciful, callous, or cruel, and you can be loyal or self-motivated towards betrayal or revenge. It gives you more flexibility to see your character the way you want to, not how the developer wanted you to be (which makes it even more ironic that the game was made by the same company as The Outer Worlds).
---