28 replies to this topic

[OldVeteran]

Hello all.

I would like to start a discussion on what you think about the experience system in BG1 and BG2 including add ons.
With the experience system, I mean the difference between experience given for good versus evil dialogue and/or combat options chosen and how the game generally treats those two lines of play.
As such, there will be some spoilers.

From my own experience, it seems that evil parties with very minor exceptions (such as Talos quest vs Lathander or Helm quest in BG2) get a lot less experience than good characters for foing the same or similar job.

Example: If you are a good aligned party, in ToB challenge 1, kobold commandos, drow, vampires and irenicus/bodhi/sarevok spawn. Those are worth about 27, 4000, 8500 and 20k each respectively. If you are evil aligned, commoners (24xp), elven warriors (3000xp), paladins (4000xp) and ellesime/eltan/drizzt (12kxp) will spawn. As you can see that is a rather large difference.

Example2: Betraying Windspear and taking the deed off him to give to Firkraag gives 40500 experience to an evil party. If you free Windpsear's child instead, you get experience for fighting Carston and 42500 experience per party member on completion of the quest. Minor but important difference again for almost no change in the quest (actually the evil option takes even longer!)

Example3: Not taking Lavok out of the Sphere gives 0 experience. Taking him out (actually no real difference except in dialogue. Walking amount is even longer with evil option too!) gives 40500 experience per party member.

Those examples also hold true for a variety of other quests and alignment related fights, such as siding with Bodhi vs siding with Aran (Vampires give a lot more xp a kill).

So, my question is, why did the makers of BG make playing a good aligned party/doing good deeds so much more attractive via experience rewards than playing an evil party? Is it to entice players to become good humans subconsciously or to make life inevitably harder for an evil party which is tougher to play to begin with anyway?

This is something that has been bugging me ever since I started playing BG, as maxing out the experience you can get makes the end fights quite a bit easier for example and allows access to higher level abilities earlier.

[Pain Elemental]

True, being evil nets you a lot less experience points in the end.
Luckely we have the Mod for the Wicked to change that, hopefully very soon

[Delight]

So, my question is, why did the makers of BG make playing a good aligned party/doing good deeds so much more attractive via experience rewards than playing an evil party? Is it to entice players to become good humans subconsciously or to make life inevitably harder for an evil party which is tougher to play to begin with anyway?

I don't know, but it's a very bad idea. Frankly, I think that players should be rewarded more for acting according to their alignment and rewarded less for acting against their alignment.

[Kellen]

You know that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you've done something good? That's really just a lot of experience.

[OldVeteran]

You know that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you've done something good? That's really just a lot of experience.

What do evil people feel then?

So, my question is, why did the makers of BG make playing a good aligned party/doing good deeds so much more attractive via experience rewards than playing an evil party? Is it to entice players to become good humans subconsciously or to make life inevitably harder for an evil party which is tougher to play to begin with anyway?

I don't know, but it's a very bad idea. Frankly, I think that players should be rewarded more for acting according to their alignment and rewarded less for acting against their alignment.

I think that would be the most logical solution. I do wonder though why the devs didn't think of that or at least made both options equally viable...

[Kellen]

You know that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you've done something good? That's really just a lot of experience.

What do evil people feel then?

Nothing, except occasionally some extra goodies. Afterall isn't that basically what the topic is about the difference in the experience. The difference is the happy feeling.

[Delight]

I think that would be the most logical solution. I do wonder though why the devs didn't think of that or at least made both options equally viable...

Because they were developing BG2, not Fallout or PT .

[OldVeteran]

Its not only BG2 though, BG1 had the same issues

[Delight]

BG1 wasn't Fallout or P:T too .

[OldVeteran]

Think of something more original

[Deathsangel]

In my opinion it was easier in BG1, for there I could do it. Get up to maximum xp with an evil party... but as said I'm working on it.

[Riviera]

Example: If you are a good aligned party, in ToB challenge 1, kobold commandos, drow, vampires and irenicus/bodhi/sarevok spawn. Those are worth about 27, 4000, 8500 and 20k each respectively. If you are evil aligned, commoners (24xp), elven warriors (3000xp), paladins (4000xp) and ellesime/eltan/drizzt (12kxp) will spawn. As you can see that is a rather large difference.

Some of this can be argued, since I don't see elven warriors or paladins on the same... level as drow and vampires. But I have no idea why the final group (ellesime, elhan, drizzt) gives less than Irenicus/Bodhi/Sarevok. Drizzt is an epic figure in that area, Ellesime is the queen of suldanesselar, and Elhan seems to be a high ranking commander there. They should give at least equal, if not slightly more xp than the 'good path.'

If it is still not equalized after that, there can always be an xp bonus afterwards. The PC is performing acts that go right along with what their heritage, the bonus could be counted as them getting slighly more in touch with their taint.


Example2: Betraying Windspear and taking the deed off him to give to Firkraag gives 40500 experience to an evil party. If you free Windpsear's child instead, you get experience for fighting Carston and 42500 experience per party member on completion of the quest. Minor but important difference again for almost no change in the quest (actually the evil option takes even longer!)

There could be an option to fight someone extra in the 'evil path' as well. That should even it out a bit.


Example3: Not taking Lavok out of the Sphere gives 0 experience. Taking him out (actually no real difference except in dialogue. Walking amount is even longer with evil option too!) gives 40500 experience per party member.

I've never tried this, so I don't know how it goes. If you refuse to take him out to his face, and he dies, then you should gain xp. If he does not die, then it is reasonable that he does not give any, as that could be exploited. Although he should either die, or refuse to speak to you after you refuse to take him out. That would remove any possibilty of exploiting that.


Those examples also hold true for a variety of other quests and alignment related fights, such as siding with Bodhi vs siding with Aran (Vampires give a lot more xp a kill).

Because vampires are supernatural and tend to be more powerful. There could be a larger amount of thieves, or perhaps you get more xp when you plant the items. I definitely agree that something should balance it out. Maybe the 'going along with your heritage' bonus as mentioned above?


So, my question is, why did the makers of BG make playing a good aligned party/doing good deeds so much more attractive via experience rewards than playing an evil party? Is it to entice players to become good humans subconsciously or to make life inevitably harder for an evil party which is tougher to play to begin with anyway?

This is something that has been bugging me ever since I started playing BG, as maxing out the experience you can get makes the end fights quite a bit easier for example and allows access to higher level abilities earlier.


You also have to consider, though, that the reason 'good' gets higher xp rewards is that they tend to fight stronger adversaries.

There does need to be more incentive to play evil, though, and there should be ways to balance it out somewhere.

Edited by Riviera, 01 March 2007 - 01:06 PM.

[OldVeteran]

Nice post Riviera, quite a few good points made
Hopefully Deathsangel will consider some of these things to balance experience out somewhat.

To answer the Lavok issue, he dies either way but you only get the experience if you take him out, which is kind of silly. Maybe Bioware doesn't like the player being cruel?

While Good does battle some tougher adversaries admittedly, they also have a host of additional means to aid them in doing so, such as protection from evil, mindshield, negative plane protection on items etc.
Part of the problem is also that the plot revolves around combatting evil individuals, not good ones.

On the other hand, fighting say paladins for example who do far more damage than vampires who mainly rely on drain and also use laying on hands on each other in addition to having almost double the hitpoints (and not being turnable) is at roughly the same difficulty level if not higher.

[Riviera]

Nice post Riviera, quite a few good points made
Hopefully Deathsangel will consider some of these things to balance experience out somewhat.

To answer the Lavok issue, he dies either way but you only get the experience if you take him out, which is kind of silly. Maybe Bioware doesn't like the player being cruel?

While Good does battle some tougher adversaries admittedly, they also have a host of additional means to aid them in doing so, such as protection from evil, mindshield, negative plane protection on items etc.
Part of the problem is also that the plot revolves around combatting evil individuals, not good ones.

On the other hand, fighting say paladins for example who do far more damage than vampires who mainly rely on drain and also use laying on hands on each other in addition to having almost double the hitpoints (and not being turnable) is at roughly the same difficulty level if not higher.

Thanks.

I was talking to bookwyrme about this, actually, and she brought up a very good suggestion.

Evil and murder is just what the taint, and your heritage as a bhaalspawn, is about. Continuously taking options that reflect this should, theoretically, get you more in touch with your taint. It could be shown in, for instance, you gaining more control over the slayer (can stay the slayer longer, get more charges to become the slayer, etc), gaining a few more bhaalspawn abilities (that are clearly evil in nature, say, 'protection from good'?), or simply gaining a bit more power *as* the slayer.

Oh yeah, it is true that the unmodded game has no spells like 'protection from good' or 'detect good', which it really should. I'm just so used to playing with Divine Remix that I forget this sometime (they add those in).

I also didn't realize that about the paladins..

[Radiant_Servant_of_Pelor]

***WARNING: SOME SPOILERS HERE***
There is an inherent reason, though unseen, for this leaning towards good versus evil. We as humans, especially in the free world, are taught to be law abiding citizens. To care for the down trodden and to help those in need. Based on its description, Evil persons do not care about such things. Laws are there to be exploited. The weak meant to serve or to be prey. In it's original inception, and subsequent growth, the PnP version of D&D has always been about good vs evil. When TSR released Ravenloft, it was a valiant attempt at seeing the world from Evil's perspective. If the MFTW wants a base to draw from, look at some of the old Ravenloft material. I ran a group of people through some of Ravenloft's material. It was a real eye-opener. Our playing group decided that evil party members were just not acceptable.
I have tried to play evil, and have failed. I can go along for a while, but the constant betrayal, poor choice options, and wholesale slaughter just get boring. If you ask yourself why it is hard to be evil, in its basest form consider:
Christmas or other religious holiday
The elderly (full of life's experiences)
The young (innocent of the harshness of the real world)
The sick (mental, physical, emotional)
It is true that the game is fantasy, and should allow for the full spectrum of alignment choices. I for one, would like to see better handling of the XP and outcome based on the character's alignment. True role-playing should emulate this process. Perhaps the mod creators of the Mod For the Wicked will give some good thought on what it means to be evil. Examples of such would be Hitler, Khan, Stalin, Bin Laden, Sex slave rings, drug cartels, etc. It is not an easy task. We can get so caught up in the wholesale slaughter aspect, that the underlying reasons for being evil are forgotten. The 3.0 version of Ravenloft tried to convey what the evil roots were. Ask yourself "Why am I evil?" Several reasons are;
Poor childhood (not the case with the protagonist in BG)
Poverty
Bullying and having to toughen up
Wealthy, and seemingly no rules (can buy or extort your way out of things)
Desire for unbridled power
Really think about the alignment descriptions. The most difficult for any of us to run properly is Chaotic Evil. A complete disregard for anything, often even ourselves. Close on the heels of that are Chaotic Neutral.

The game was made for the protagonist to be the hero. Anti heroism is woven within it, just with more subtlety. The PC is set against the taint within. Look at how the NPC reactions are devised and you can see that. An evil person most likely is not concerned for Imoen, rather the revenge against Irenicus. If you find yourself feeling guilty about a decision, it is because you are inherently a good person. For a moment, realize you are actually becoming emotionally involved in a game. I have often felt guilt at leaving someone at the gauntlet just to get Imoen. Perhaps to assuage the guilt, having an NPC meet death by refusing to heal, removing protective equipment, etc. during a battle scene.

Well, a lot of psyco-babble there, and I hope someone can gain from the information. For the modders of MftW I say, check the Ravenloft material. There is a wealth of information there on playing evil.

[vilkacis]

Because D&D hates people who play evil character and takes every opportunity to screw them over.

No, seriously.

Drizzt is an epic figure in that area

Drizzt, no matter the hype, is officially statted out as a 17th-level ranger with some nice but not spectacularly powerful gear. He's a total pushover at this point - he might be a challenge for Sarevok, but most likely he'd get killed one on one with anyone from the "evil trio"

Edited by vilkacis, 30 April 2008 - 06:24 AM.

[Cal Jones]

I've never tried betraying Windspear, but is it possible to give Firkraag his deeds, and then kill Firkraag anyway? (Classical evil people aren't nice to other evil people - they're pretty much bastards to everyone).
And of course you get to kill the good silver dragon in the Underdark, which gives some nice XP (it's a shame the human skin armour is so lame by the time you get it...a nice set of silver dragon scale would have been better... )

I have to admit that although I've played through with an evil party before now, and have done the Bodhi quests etc, I don't really feel that happy with it beyond killing Nalia's snobby aunt (now that I find very satisfying) and messing with the warring families in Trademeet.

Ultimately it's true that it's harder to strive to be good, so perhaps this is indeed why good actions should be better rewarded. Evil may prefer to take the easy route (such as killing thieves rather than vampires), which should therefore be less rewarding in an experience sense. Though perhaps evil should have more financial rewards...

[Klorox]

"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb."



Actually, I always prefer goody-two shoes, and this game is more rewarding XP wise because of it. I just like saying Spaceballs lines.

[arguskos]

Because D&D hates people who play evil character and takes every opportunity to screw them over.

No, seriously.

This, from my experience as a DM in real life, is VERY true, and since BG2 is based on D&D, then it doesn't take a massive logical leap to assume that BG2 will encourage good over evil.

To be honest, I even understand why they do it. In D&D, an evil party is very hard to adjudicate, since if everyone is rp'ing well... they'll try to kill each other and take their stuff, to enhance their personal chance of survival. This obviously isn't the problem in BG2, but with such a mindset (that of, evil is bad for party balance), the devs could easily decide to focus on good, and not evil.

I'm not saying I totally agree, but perhaps that's a reason why they did things the way they did.

-Argus

[Cal Jones]

To be honest, I even understand why they do it. In D&D, an evil party is very hard to adjudicate, since if everyone is rp'ing well... they'll try to kill each other and take their stuff, to enhance their personal chance of survival. This obviously isn't the problem in BG2, but with such a mindset (that of, evil is bad for party balance), the devs could easily decide to focus on good, and not evil.

I'm not saying I totally agree, but perhaps that's a reason why they did things the way they did.

-Argus

This is true, though the evil characters such as Edwin, Korgan and (later) Sarevok choose to stick with the PC because they can see that s/he is on the way to great things, and thus it's not in their best interests to screw them over.

I think the main problem with the good-evil balance is that Baldur's Gate is essentially a story about triumphing over evil (not just evil enemies, but the innate evil within) rather than giving into it. Were it more flexible then it would have to allow for things like, say, screwing over the elves and helping Irenicus merge with the tree of life in exchange for your soul back, or somesuch.
It's pretty clear, though, that you are being steered towards the good path because of the allies you are offered are mostly the good guys (only the Shadow Thieves are morally grey, and even then they are the lesser of the two evils you are forced to choose between).