Quote:
Originally posted by SixOfSpades:
Question 1: One of my 3 current games stars a Wild Mage, and he's prince of a Wild Mage at that: Chaotic Neutral alignment, goes through quests without thought to morals or consequences, he might betray you if he feels like it, and quite a lot of his conversation responses are determined by my randomly hitting keys on my numeric keypad. His cohorts are just as spastic: Jan, Haer'Dalis, Korgan, Valygar, and CN Anomen. (Okay, okay, so Valygar isn't of Chaotic alignment--but this was the game in which I fought the Shadow Thief Improvements MOD, and if I'd Minsc instead of Valygar, I would simply be dead.) My question is this: Playing a Chaotic character with all-Chaotic companions seems all well and good, but isn't that a rather rational, logical, and lawful way to choose one's party? Which is weirder: Choose 5 Chaotic NPCs, or toss everybody's names in a hat and pull 5 at random?
Question 2: ...While we're at it, why can't Evil gods have Paladins? Sure, you can approximate them by having Evil Fighter/Clerics, but are the Good and Neutral gods violently opposed to bladed weaponry? Mask says, "No." (I agree that Paladins should be Lawful, though.)
|
Question 1: Do you suppose a person (spastic, crazy, organized, whatever) would surround himself with people of like thinking? I would think so. Even the most chaotic person, would likely attract others of a slightly off-kilter nature, maybe not by a normal deciding process, but due to the fact that those type of people would generally coexist reasonably well, barring the occasional fistfight etc.
Take Keldorn for instance. While logic would say that there would be some chance of him joining your party and following your leadership, at some point, your spastic actions and unpredictably changing veiwpoints would likely lead him to question your sanity [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] . I'm of the opinion that he wouldn't really fit in with a character like yours. Jan on the other hand, would probably love the drastic changes in pace and scenery provided by the chance happenings in the party. To me, it seems to be an issue of roleplaying, to a degree.
Question 2:I never understood that. I always saw it as a way to limit the power of mages, clerics and such by not allowing them to use spells and swords/bladedweaponry etc. in BG1. But in BG2, some of the best weapons in the game aren't of the bladed/non-clerical ethos. It doesn't make sense that a priest of Helm, couldn't pick up a dagger and poke somebody with it. It's not like it's complicated, and for many of the dieties that I've seen in the game, they're rather affluent in fighting for this cause or that. Would they really care if you hit somebody with somthing blunt, and killed them, or cut them with something sharp, and killed them? I doubt it.
[ 11-11-2003, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: ryaldin ]