First of all, it is utter and complete nonsense to judge the game based on a total conversion for NWN2.
That said, this game certainly has its deficiencies. The "couples" are annoying, because you have to pick both if you want one. The story begins with something as boring as an iron shortage and the Baal-plot feels a bit attached in the beginning. And yes, it is a lot of wandering in the woods.

But somehow, it makes fun to explore the world without pressure. To just see what's around the corner. I played the Infinity Engine games years ago and have recently bought the GOG versions to finally experience them how they were supposed to be, which means in English.

I started them all, played around a bit - and I'm constantly playing BG1. It just feels great. There is certainly some nostalgia involved, but that's also true for the other games. All in all I think BG 2 and Torment are a lot better but somehow BG1 is more fun. It feels like I have a choice like I'm really exploring a world and adventuring.

Of course, you can get around that by picking up both, strip one down to their skivvies and get them killed in battle. Then don't raise them. I believe that will work.

That's true, but I'm immersed enough that I don't want to do that ;-)

I like the concept of couples, the problem is implementation.
You have too few slots for allies, the default party is full of couples, and NPC party members are silent and under developed with no plot of their own. That last point is really what ruins couples.

Simply avoid fighting if you finds combat to be too difficult. There are other ways to gain experience and make a living. You will be more confident when your party reaches level 3. Mages are extremely weak until they reach level 5 when they can serve as arty.
BG2 has a much richer story development and probably is darker than BG1. BTW you probably need 2x time to finish BG2. So basically BG2 is BG enhanced with better story and "emotional" elements the OP talked about.

fair enough, and I can certainly understand that, I'll endeavour to read your posts with that in mind.

Not got an awful lot of time right now myself so sorry if this ends up a bit rushed: you *could* but why *would* you? Given that it seems to spoil your enjoyment of the game.
And again, the same system was present in Planescape Torment (giving that another go right now - it's better than last time so maybe it's just that I wasn't used to the system before - more on that later).
Morte is Chaotic Good, Dakkon is Lawful Neutral and Annah is Chaotic Neutral. That doesn't define them as characters, at least not for me. I can well imagine some skeletons in Morte's closet (sorry, couldn't resist) and that doesn't mean he is only capable of good for goodness's sake.
You could argue that that information is not readily available 'in-game' but either you say the alignment rules them or it doesn't.

If you choose to view the D'n'D universe as Black&White with some neutral Grey then that's up to you. I can't help but think you'd enjoy it more if you allowed the characters some character. Which removes the possibilty of redemption:
As an example - my last game was started with a chaotic-evil sorceror (I even imagined the evil-laugh) - through the course of BG1 he was quite evil but [*spoilers not included*] ... by the end of SOA, through the influence of friends and the events he'd been through, he had become 'good' - the universe (ie the game) still labelled him 'chaotic-evil' but the in-game events recognised him as a 'good' guy. (again, I have no problem with him being 'good' even though you may prefer that he was g'bad or b'good or 'orange').

Side Q: If we're not judging good/evil based on motivation and not based on the act - how may we judge it - I'd certainly go with motivation+act and consider the reasoning capability of the individual.
Where the 'god' of X has made a judgement (eg to assign/remove powers from 'character/weapon A' then you are free to question their decision from a moral standpoint, you just don't have the power to change it) The dreams you've been having might be a clue (just not a crystal clear one) That conclusion is based on your assumption about alignment - you say that the alignment removes any question and then say that therefore Gorion did nothing evil of significance. If it turns out later than some acts of his were morally questionable would that change your mind on the alignment thing? (not saying there were such acts ;) )

It's difficult to discuss this properly without spoilers so really the best thing to do would be to come back after you've finished the game so we can make a spoilers-thread and discuss our conclusions on plot and characters more freely. Oh, he's evil alright - are you suggesting that a better world would be one where nobody could be 'evil'?
The question that makes him interesting as a character is "Why does he enjoy killing?"
Other questions to ask might be "Who did he kill and why?" and "What's this all got to do with me" Not all of them ;) At least there actions don't all add up to it, even if the label is there, which supports what I say. Just because most of them act lawfully (seeing as they're the cops, that makes sense for such people to be drawn to the job) doesn't mean none of them will bend the rules. By using the labels as a psych test, not an assessment of any given acts. Which precludes Drizzt being good as he's a drow? Who get their powers from Deity X, who will remove them if they kill / steal / etc - being a Paladin, however, is a choice, not something they're born with - a 'Lawful Good' fighter/mage would have no loss of powers for it (more retarded is that only humans can be paladins (at least in 2.0 rules)) didn't know about that rule, agree it's dumb - it's not applied in BG though. (and is a result of the p'n'p game system doing something odd with alignment, not alignment as a whole )

[edit: it's not letting me post the rest - will come back later and try it]

You can also put the person you want to dump into an otherwise useless building (say, one of the houses in Beregost) that you don't need to return to - then, with the rest of the team outside, remove them from your party - they can't approach you to do the kick-out dialogue and the other of the pair doesn't leave.
You could say that Khaild / Jaheira / Monty / Xzar was called away on business for a certain organisation or that Eldoth came down with the flu so he's resting up - Skie doesn't want to miss the adventure so she tells him to drink plenty of water and off she goes.... or something like that

----
Edit: And here's the rest of my other post:
----

That would certainly be an interesting implementation of said weapon and would allow an 'evil' character to do good with the weapon.
Doesn't mean that the current implementation is rubbish - the weapon can't stop itself being swung, just held - it could perhaps be made to 'slip' out of a grip in an evil act. On the other hand - if a person is 'evil' then the weapon doesn't want to help further his/her cause even if this particular act of clearing the orcs out of his evil lair isn't 'evil'.
The system isn't perfect, some of it must be viewed as an abstraction (like the lack of population in the major cities - the people we see are an abstraction of those who are there).
You're right that the holy-sword would do extra damage against those orc-babies - but since those orc-babies don't show up in any crpg I've played, the point is moot. (NB: I've never played p'n'p D'n'D so I can't comment on how the alignment system is used there). Well, ultimately it comes down to the earlier 'ice-cream flavour' point that a couple of posters made but I'll try to quantify it a little for you (inevitably this will still involve opinion):
It's a familiar setting with fantasy added. It's something that we can easily imagine ourselves in and therefore immerse ourselves in quickly and yet still enjoy the fantasy of adventuring into the unknown and wielding powers.
It has a rich history (read some of the lore books scattered around BG) which makes the world feel alive.
Interesting characters, whose motivations can be obvious or mysterious.
The socio-political climate means that the games are often set amidst larger troubles that you may or may not be a part of.

The class system (barring a couple of odd race-limitations) allows me to create a wide variety of characters and enjoy the same game in different ways. (I guess that's D'n'D in general though).

Let's compare it to another setting - that of Sigil (my experience of which is only what I've played so far in PST so correct me where I'm wrong - but no spoilers please)

Walking around Sigil, I find it's pretty much the same but with different architecture and lingo. I still go to the tavern (which is still the main social centre) to meet people, hear rumours and get quests.
The commoners still include regular gossip, thug, drunk-guy etc.
There's a city leader, religious faction, a 'dangerous slums-type district'.
The language seems to be from the Dick-Van-Dyke-School of Mary Poppins English "Ere guvnor, that Pharod berk owes me 10 commons, see if he doesn't" or something like that. Luckily you've got Morte, the floating encyclopaedia, to explain where it isn't really obvious (and a handy memory loss to make his explanations in-game worthwhile).

The reason for all these similarities is that people need to relate to the world and characters in order to make it interesting.
A truly fantastical world would have no humanoids, perhaps sentient rocks that communicate slowly through chemical reaction over extended periods ('hello' takes a few weeks), where there's no social centre but quests are discovered through sampling the salt on the wind....it wouldn't be something to make a game of as it would elicit no empathy from the player. I never said that - we were talking about how alignment doesn't ruin the game, whether you like it or not. I'm still seeing obviously good/evil choices in PST so far - extort money from the woman who tried to pick-pocket you - 'evil', let her go - 'good' (something backed up by a quick look-see under the hood in Near Infinte - those choices push your alignment one way or the other. Without spoilers - does it get more complex later? Can you be 'neutral' without just being 'good' sometimes and 'evil' others to balance your alignment?
I'll have to wait til I've finished the game to discuss that in more detail. It's not a contradiction to say that a great game can be made better. Nobody said BG was perfect. BG2 improves on it in many ways (but also removes some of the good things like the freeform exploration through wilderness areas).
Character growth (for your character and your companions) *does* exist in vanilla BG - it's just not so obvious and you need to roleplay it a bit more - something done easily within the world, unless you decide "well, it tells me he's evil so I won't bother."
I for one like to wonder why the apparently mad Xzar quotes the Bhagavad Gita and the relatively sane Montaron quotes Alice in Wonderland. You can ignore/dismiss it as foolish humour from the game creators or incorporate it into their character. Their subsequent actions developing and changing based on who they are, not on what their alignment says.

sorry, nearly out of time - will continue with your other points when I get the chance.
(and thank you for the discussion - you raise interesting points that make me think, even if I disagree with them)

and who are you going to beat with sticks here? Jaheira and Khalid know little more than you do, perhaps less.
If you don't enjoy the exploration, then fair enough, but your motivation for going down that mine is to either help-out or gain experience/reward, while at the same time sticking with the only friends you've got and growing in power so you can face what's after you.
That it relates to you is not coincidence but something you don't know yet.

I wonder where you are in the story now that you find the progression lacking? Personally, I thought it was well paced but it might depend on how much side-exploration and quests you do/enjoy.
Don't ignore those dreams you've been having as part of the story - if you're waiting to find out 'why and how' it all relates to you then that's going to take a while. Personally, I enjoyed the mystery.

It's hard to discuss it without spoilers - again, the best thing you can do is to go and play the game, finish it, then come back and blame me for telling you it would get better ;)
(or, if it's stressing you as much as you say, then quit - it's not worth getting stressed over) In this case, you're playing it wrong - don't forget to make use of the auto-pause and active-pause features and line up your party so that the fighters/tanks stop the enemy from chasing your mage down. Your mage could lead with a fireball ahead of the party before your fighters run in and then target individuals.
It's far from a clusterfcuk if you play it tactically.

So far in PST, I've only got fighter TNO and Morte (just picked up Dakkon but no fights yet) so it's been boring 'click on enemy, wait' combat - not the same. play with the ranged attacks - you can learn their ranges. You don't need a 30' circle to judge the edge of your fireball, unless you expect your mage to be a perfect marksman with fireballs too. you can fix that with the Tweak-pack but the way I look at it is "can you go rummaging in your pack, mid-fight, at lightning speed?" - no, so prep for fights beforehand, be ready for things to jump out at you. you can use quick-slots for some things. Or learn to be quick in the inventory screen. Or forget the potions, I usually do. Then again, if you die against a tough enemy - learn from it and get ready next time. It's a game after all. I've apparently been through there 'countless' times - presumably escaped each time - and talking to every dustman on any floor results in suspicious Q's but their happy with "I'm just visiting Dhall" then me running round the level bashing open drawers.
Having said that, my memory exaggerated the lengths of some conversations (Ei Vine (sp?) the tiefling with the bad eyesight took me for a zombie).
It's going much better this playthrough so it must've been my unfamiliarity with the system that put me off at first.
It's still a bit buggy (slow-downs and a crash) even with the fix-pack but mostly I'm enjoying it.

Time up again - back for more later

Just picking up on the last point:
For some there'll be a nostalgia factor but that can't be the main reason or others like myself, who have only come to the game in the last couple of years, wouldn't like it.

You need to remember that your not liking something and the conclusions you draw therefrom does not apply to everybody.

You say the story is paced like a sloth - I found it well-paced with just enough intrigue and adventure to keep me wanting to go to the next part. Perhaps it's a question of patience (or lack of) or maybe it's different things we look for in a story - I don't need to know 'why' the mines are connected to what happened to me - it's enough that they are there and need exploring - my adventuring spirit combined with the unfortunate situation thrust upon my character makes it intriguing.
The dreams that the character has, combined with his emerging powers, ask many questions but don't answer them until later - this kept me guessing on my first playthrough and, even after I knew the story, I could roleplay it on subsequent playthroughs. (Not to mention that the dreams you get vary according to your current reputation (a not-perfect but adequate abstraction of your good/evil traits - if you don't like it then the virtue mod can modify things) - thus there is slightly different character progression). NB: that's reputation, not alignment, that governs those things).
The exploration isn't just about looking for encounters - by 'exploration' I mean just that, wandering the wilderness, seeing what's there. (Subsequent playthroughs have less excitement in that regard but I still like the feeling that I'm journeying between towns and cities through the wilds - something BG2 lacks with it's 'auto-transport with occasional random-encounter' travel). (Who was it who said "Lord of the Rings - 3 movies about walking somewhere"?)
The combat - it's fun, tactical and challenging (if you approach it right - otherwise you just get slaughtered by gibberlings). You need to make the most of your party members' strengths and cover their weaknesses (see what I said in the last post)
Character Progression - it's there, but for your party-members it's not there in dialogue form. They grow in strength as they journey with you and their roles and usefulness to the party may change. (Jaheira begins as a second-string fighter and healer - later she gets some spells that make her formidable)
I've not time to go into it all but I'll add that the reason many like me love it is a different question to "why is vanilla BG so highly rated" - so its modability is another thing to love about it, along with the many excellent fan-made mods that make it even better than it originally was (which was still great as above).

Time's against me again.

The fact remains that alignment, and consequently each NPC's morality, is empirically measurable, whether or not I look. If I know that a door exists in my house behind which I know that a cellar exists, the cellar does not cease to exist by virtue of me not visiting it, nor does the knowledge of said cellar depart from my mind upon deciding to visit the cellar. The only alternative is to pretend that the cellar does not exist, which is measurably incorrect and would therefore manifest itself in a form of self delusion. I may not look at each character's alignment, but the knowledge that it exists can be determined persists, and I refuse to engage in any attempt to force my mind to cease to believe either fact via self-induced delusion.

That's the point. The characters register as having an alignment, but are usually either manifesting an alignment that either is diametrically opposed to their race or one that fits only by stretching the definition. In doing so with the party members and various other characters, the game presents alignments manifesting in unconventional ways to try to create three dimensional characters; in doing so, the game also shows that the very concept of using alignment to define characters to any extent is foolhardy, as it either results in the system breaking down due to the definition of each alignment being stretched or all but contradicted. A major Lawful Good-aligned characters does things that are horrifying in their ramifications and does so with treachery, but does it all out of a sincere belief that they are doing the right thing and that it is their duty to do so, despite the fact that the alignment is meant to represent the paragon of virtue; characterizations of this kind are meant to take the concept of alignment and show just how warped the entire idea actually is in practice, even if they *technically* are within the bounds of the alignment definition.


I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this first point, so I can only hope you clarify further.

As to the latter, I would *love* to take a different stance on alignment; my problem is that once I do, the entire system falls apart completely, as PST demonstrates. Once uncertain morality applies and alignment ceases to be a manifestation of the morality of the majority of the world imposed on itself (which the Planescape setting itself is living proof of), any character can be justified under any alignment, which completely defeats the point of having the system in the first place. The fact that the system is in place indicates that the system was introduced to do something that otherwise would not exist without it, ergo it cannot be that alignment was intended to result in such chaos, forcing us in turn to the conclusion that alignment was intended to function in the kind of black and white world that allows alignment to exist and be capable of having any degree of success in serving its function as an infallible yardstick of morality as dictated by the forces of the universe.

QED: alignment was meant to function in a morally black and white universe, as it is only in that kind of universe that alignment as a system maintains any shred of meaning.

I cite to my above argument that any attempt to make accomodations for more complex characters by wrestling with alignment definitions shows that alignment was meant to rigidly define morality in terms of black and white, turning D&D into the worst sort of mindless escapism. It's great that you found a way to do a character arc like this, but it appears that this, in the mind of the designers who implemented alignment in the first place, is a bug rather than a feature.



I'd understand the deity stuff on its own, but as manifested by alignment, it shuts off that discussion. Well, you could try to alter the game to have that discussion, but as I have posited above, this is against the intent of the designers. What cannot be changed is that Baldur's Gate is not interested in allowing that conversation even being considered, if my experience at the point of reaching the third level of the catacombs and my readings of the detailed LP on the LP archive is any indication.

It is indeed my conclusion; however, given my argument above, I think it is evident that the conclusion is not unfounded.

Spoil away. As I have let on, I have given up on the game at the start of the third levels of the catacombs and have been reading the LP archive to fill in the gaps (especially on the ungodly time wasting sidequests I skipped in the city). I might have reconsidered and kept on trooping, but the moment I saw those twisty passages I predicted that the AI would fuck me over, a conclusion that was bolstered by my main character getting killed due to my mage taking the scenic route to get in position to take out a spellcaster despite having clear instructions to the contrary. Five. Times.




I posit that in a relatable world noone's evil could be so easily determined.

As to why he enjoys killing, it is for the same reason he wants to become the Lord of Murder: power gets him off because he is Evil. Hardly a complex character motivation, as you seem to be implying.

After reading up o the stuff I missed out on after giving up, I found out about the character's motivations, and while they were simple, I was astounded that the story took this long to actually give the character personal stakes. This story breaks the most fundamental rule of narrative by forgetting about its main plot until near the very end.. I get that this might not be an issue for you, but rest assured that if any self respecting novel tried to pull this off, it would bomb harder than a new Paulie Shore opening and would serve as an epitome of godawful storytelling.

If alignment existed solely outside the game as a cute personality test, sure. This is not the case, as alignment exists in game and is meant to be a clear measurement of morality, something that no personality test on this planet is capable of (the Myers-Briggs in particular is about as unsound as paranoid schizophrenic, with up to 50% of some participants in one group study getting different results on each test).

test posting as it won't let me post what I was trying to
edit: still not letting me post my actual post, even in small doses - will keep trying
[momentary rage - the (*&%*& forum ate my post - it was quite long too]
Will attempt to rewrite it but I don't have time to make it as coherent
It did it again! At least this time I saved it to notepad:

false analogy - you know there's a room behind the door - you don't know if it's a cellar or a kitchen ;) This leaves you
free to assess what it might be, depending on the smell. You're contradicting yourself - either the alignment removes those questions or it doesn't. If it's a question of well-written characters v. 1-dimensional ones then that's it. The alignment clearly doesn't make them what they are.
(I've snipped the rest of it but you make my point).
You're saying that the alignment system in PST allows for complex characters whose morals can be questioned but the same system in BG doesn't.

pretty much what I just said above. agreed - alignment isn't necessary - but it doesn't define the character as PST proves.
I'm not saying that alignment is awesome - it's not. The game could've been made without it. It's presence in the game,though, does not spoil it by making the characters 1-d (as PST proves by your own argument) maybe that's what the game designers intended, I don't know. I only know that it doesn't do that in the games I play. maybe so - but it's possible. And if the designers wanted alignment to be absolute then why give the 'good' ending for a character based on anything other than his/her alignment?

We're going round in circles on alignment though - how was my other post on 'reasons to like BG' ? If there's anything there that you'd like clarifying/expanding on then I'd give it a try. You didn't answer my question about Gorion and his past actions.

I'd rather not in a thread with no spoiler warnings - others may read this thread while wondering if BG is worth a go or not. Yep, pathfinding is awful - firewine dungeon is the worst. It's better in the BG2 engine so Tutu or BGT helps there.

*POTENTIAL SPOILER* (I know you're unlikely to play through BG2 now but warning's there for anyone else) I disagree - I think he likes killing because of the taint of his sire in his blood, the 'voices' urging him to do it and his upbringing. If your character had had his upbringing, would you have turned out like him? Questions not answered until late in TOB, I'm afraid.

*/POTENTIAL SPOILER* Because you're missing the story - it's not just about your character's back-story. It's a mystery adventure - each part of the plot uncovers more about what's happening on the Sword Coast and all the while your dreams and the attentions of bounty hunters are prompting the question "why me?" - that the question isn't answered until near the end of the game, means that it remains a mystery. The personal stakes are there - you're being hunted, you just don't know why.
Again, this is just a different taste in stories. I liked it, you didn't.

well, I was happier with the first time I wrote this but stupid forum bugs will do what stupid forum bugs will do.

---------------------

As a side-note - you've probably heard of Project Eternity already but I'll mention it just in case.
It's an Infinite-Engine-games-esque RPG in the works, due out next year.
Made by Obsidian and worked on by some of the PST writers.

They're apparently not including an alignment system and they're going for 'fewer but deeper' party members.
Overall it looks very promising (just hoping it lives up to its potential).

Perhaps it will be a game you enjoy more than BG.

http://eternity.obsidian.net/

I had been waiting until the morning to reply to the rest, but I had a moment of clarity; this thread has ceased to be productive enough to give me insight in to why people like this game. It's not that I haven't gathered some data on the issue, but it is nowhere near enough to offset the insane amounts of hatred and rage the game has come to incite in me as I have played it and spent hours of my day trying to dissect why it is well received. I appreciate the answers that I have received, and apologize to anyone who I have not responded to, but I can no longer justify posting on this thread again when doing so requires me to call up memories of the game that has made me angrier than any other that I have played, thereby inducing those same emotions in me all over again.

I was going to use this as an excuse to leave without saying anything about Planescape, but even if I don't respond after this, I don't feel right leaving the allegations of inconsistency unanswered. I posit that in that game, fully fleshed out characters were created, and that alignment was forced to contort itself to fit them. As a result, their alignments do fit, but they are often so diametrically opposed to the way they usually manifest, thus forcing the player to consider that the system is flawed. It might have stopped there if it weren't for the game making it clear that alignment is not created unilaterally by the universe (as seems to be the case in vanilla D&D), but by the beliefs of sentient life; ergo, alignment is not an infallible force of the universe, but the manifestation of the will of the majority, something that is hardly infallible in nature. Knowing that alignment is only the representation of belief, and upon seeing alignment clash with the characters that hold them, the player is put in a position where they see that any attempt to clearly label and measure the morality of characters that have any semblance of depth just doesn't work all that well, as it is nothing more than an attempt to take complex beings with a multitude of sometimes conflicting wants and needs and reduce them to a simple two word assessment. Upon seeing alignment function in this way, where the characters are not defined by it and alignment is seemingly warped by forcing itself to find some way to apply to them, the player is presented with the conclusion that alignment has no meaning of any kind in a story with characters that are flawed or relatable, as such characters must necessarily be incompatible with it.

In short, alignment is cast as an fallible force, and the extent of that fallibility is explored by showing how alignment cannot hold any meaningful sway over characters that have actual depth or complexity, as the system itself is a gross oversimplification of sentient behavior born of the collective will of the prime material plane, which is occupied by at least one species (humans) who we know are prone to oversimplification on a biological level. Our brains love to simplify complex data to make it easier to process (hence the abundance of horrible stereotypes that we have developed over the years), and our subconscious beliefs in the nature of good and evil, law and chaos, have resulted in a reductionist manifestation of morality that bears no similarity to the way that both individuals (i.e. the characters of Torment) and the world as a whole actually work.

Y tengo tengo tengo un hamburgasa

Yo soy hamburgasa anos!!