Codex Review RPG Codex Review: Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous

[Lambach]

Wait, are you talking about the tutorial? No, I mean after that. But yeah, that could have been written better too.

The end of Chapter 1. You gain a burst of power just as you're about to get curb-stomped by a Demon way above your league. But without the lesbo Orc and her men, you wouldn't even be able to reach that point.

Again, you're really defensive. A normal person would just shrug and accept that other people have different opinions, but here you are, assuming I'm an idiot just because I don't like a game you admit has crap writing.

I'm calling out your factual mistakes that are not a matter of opinion.

Strawman again. Never said I wanted infinite freedom.

No, you just want the freedom to make a choice that would screw with the pre-established main plot and expect the game to accommodate that. Not many games offer that kind of freedom. Even Morrowind tells you to kiss the plot good-bye if you kill a plot-critical character.

Yes, being the only one to recieve godlike power is just something that you have to have.

In a power fantasy? Yeah, kinda. It also makes sense, plot-wise, due to how you actually gained those powers.

Remind me: isn't this based on a PnP campaign? Does only one player get to pick a mythic path in that?

I don't know about PnP, to be honest, but it could work the same way as it does in the game. Your PC is the only one that gets the full package, while your companions only get access to general Mythic abilities and Feats, but don't get a Path. I suppose the players pick one of them to get the whole thing and the rest get what in-game companions get. Having a full 6-man Party of characters with all of them being on a Mythic Path would be quite ridiculous, specially for a PnP session.

And the capitulation. Thanks for playing.

Congratulations, you figured out that Current Year devs love shoving pozz into their games. Any other brilliant insights?

 

[ga♥]

BG1 and BG2 have many characters that are immortal or if you manage to kill them, is instant game over because they are tied to the plot (e.g. Duke Elthan) so seriously...

You aren't forced to pal around with Eltan for the majority of the game, are you? I don't endorse the concept of unkillable characters btw. Just saying Wrath's are worse.

This is pure cope you're doing here, dude. I can understand fanboying, but at least pick a game that's worth it.

Let's come up with some roleplay reason as a way the devs should have implemented a way to dismiss the tranny duo.
Obviously being the commander of the crusade it could technically be possible, even if you are a bit "fresh" on the role, but it would piss off the Queen, and would remove the forces the tranny command, also weakening you.
(Killing them does not seem realistic also could cause you to be put under trial or something)

So hmm, you write a letter to the Queen...?

"Dear Queen, I NEG, commander and your faithful servant, want trannies to be removed, because they are a crime against nature! NEG, commander of the fifth crusade" ?

 

[Heroic Liberator]

The PC is narratively defined by the predefined choices

Except there isn't a choice, predefined or otherwise. That's the issue I take with this aspect of the writing.

The game doesn't seem to have the choices that you'd personally like neither in the C&C for particular encounters (e.g. the tavern one) nor in defining your character through dialogue choices, but otherwise it has a decent amount.

I gave specific examples of how to improve the writing, which Lambach said were impossible because muh 5th Crusade can only occur with the tranny and this specific plotline.

It is what I'm doing though. You literally quoted a sentence where I'm complaining about this. The lack of motive makes the pc's actions seem contrived. You can say it's not all that I'm doing, but you're lying if you say I'm not doing it.

And there's nothing wrong with complaining about the entirety of the plot when you're criticizing the writing and design of a game. I think the entire plot sucks, yes. That's why I'm not playing it. That and all the other reasons I've mentioned. Is this hard to understand?

Issue is that - with your recent posts taken as a whole (rather than autistically dissected into decontextualized snippets) - you aren't complaining just about some particular points that could've been feasibly changed. Especially silly in the context of this game which is a direct adaptation of a Pathfinder Adventure Path published by Paizo (hence the devs having not only the typical time & budgetary constraints to limit their creative freedom, but also the need to stick quite close to the source material).

You take issue with so many things from particular NPCs, to particular encounters, to particular plot points (to the plot itself ultimately which you yourself admit in this very post) that you're no longer engaging with the game itself in your supposed critique of it. You're just imagining a different game altogether that just happens to share a common license and title with the game that actually exists which the rest of us are talking about.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

The end of Chapter 1. You gain a burst of power just as you're about to get curb-stomped by a Demon way above your league. But without the lesbo Orc and her men, you wouldn't even be able to reach that point.

Oh yeah, clearly very vital and couldn't have been written out.

Just like all those cowled wizards and shadow theives who Irenicus slaughters after the BG2 tutorial dungeon. They keep him from just one-shotting you, and are thus indispensable to the plot. What were their names again?

I'm calling out your factual mistakes that are not a matter of opinion.

Your opinions aren't facts, but you pretend they are. Not unexpected in an internet argument, but whatever.

No, you just want the freedom to make a choice that would screw with the pre-established main plot

Already explained it could be written around, but you won't accept that, so we're going in circles.

I don't know about PnP, to be honest

I do. I looked it up. Difficult, I know.

our PC is the only one that gets the full package, while your companions only get access to general Mythic abilities and Feats, but don't get a Path. I suppose the players pick one of them to get the whole thing and the rest get what in-game companions get. Having a full 6-man Party of characters with all of them being on a Mythic Path would be quite ridiculous, specially for a PnP session.

Wrong.

These traits explain your character’s link to the
Worldwound, but each trait is also associated with one
of the six mythic paths—your character doesn’t begin
Wrath of the Righteous as a mythic character, but the
results of the first adventure will catapult your character
into this new realm of legendary power, setting her up
for even greater challenges that await in the next f ive
adventures of the campaign. Choosing a campaign trait
that matches the mythic path you want to take will
result in your campaign trait being enhanced when
you do become mythic. In a way, you can consider the
selection of your campaign trait as also selecting your
character’s mythic destiny!

As a special note, each of the following campaign traits
ties into a specific encounter or plot development in
the Wrath of the Righteous Adventure Path—what that
encounter or development might be, you’ll find out as the
story unfolds. As a result, it’s best if every player in your
group picks a different Wrath of the Righteous campaign
trait. If you and another player both want the same trait,
be sure to work out a way that both of your characters
took part in the same event—examples of how to do so are
given for each option below.

Everyone gets their own powers. Oh no! There goes muh special snowflake plot!

I know, I know. It's "IMPOSSIBLE" and that's a fact because you say it is, yet reality seems to disagree with you.

Congratulations, you figured out that Current Year devs love shoving pozz into their games. Any other brilliant insights?

Uh, you knew you lost the argument several pages ago and have been treading water ever since?

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Let's come up with some roleplay reason as a way the devs should have implemented a way to dismiss the tranny duo.

No need. I did that. You could write an option to kill them, betray them or depose them. Several points this could be done. In their place, regular guardsmen could aid your battle at the fort or some other stand-in. You could even have an 'evil' option to replace them and keep the fort battle easier like that one asshole inquisitor.

So hmm, you write a letter to the Queen...?

Lambach said she's a retard, and she's dumb enough to keep tranny dumb and tranny dumber on staff after they accidentally got a whole city destroyed with their incompetence, so it'd probably work.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

The game doesn't seem to have the choices that you'd personally like

Obviously? If I personally liked them, why would I be complaining? Isn't dislike basically a prerequisite to a complaint? Make sence, sir.

And it's not just that I don't like them or the absence of choice in certain instances, but that they're pretty obvious and basic choices players should be expected to either want to make or wonder why they're making in the case a choice is forced on them.

Believable writing is largely about character motives and the devs failed to consider the player as a potential character with motives in the situations I've mentioned.

"Because it's the current year" and "because it's the plot!", as Lambach said, are not valid motives. They're just lazy excuses for bad writing.

Issue is that - with your recent posts taken as a whole (rather than autistically dissected into decontextualized snippets) - you aren't complaining just about some particular points that could've been feasibly changed.

Except I've repeatedly suggested feasible changes to much of what I've criticized. E.g.:

You could write an option to kill them, betray them or depose them. Several points this could be done. In their place, regular guardsmen could aid your battle at the fort or some other stand-in. You could even have an 'evil' option to replace them and keep the fort battle easier like that one asshole inquisitor.

Explain what is so impossible here?

Literally: set them as killable once they've given their intros to the story, offer several chances to kill them (or have them replaced for incompetence) in the first chapter, if they are eliminated trigger a replacement for the end of the first chapter. Done.

 

[ga♥]

Let's come up with some roleplay reason as a way the devs should have implemented a way to dismiss the tranny duo.

No need. I did that. You could write an option to kill them, betray them or depose them. Several points this could be done. In their place, regular guardsmen could aid your battle at the fort or some other stand-in. You could even have an 'evil' option to replace them and keep the fort battle easier like that one asshole inquisitor.

So hmm, you write a letter to the Queen...?

Lambach said she's a retard, and she's dumb enough to keep tranny dumb and tranny dumber on staff after they accidentally got a whole city destroyed with their incompetence, so it'd probably work.

I don't know if you paid attention to the plot, but the reason for you to become commander is the tranny who you meet under the cave in Kenabres, whose wife is the officier for the queen.

If you get rid of them BEFORE actually becomming commander how are you supposed to climb the social ladder.

 

[Lambach]

They keep him from just one-shotting you, and are thus indispensable to the plot.

Uhh, yes? Without them, Irenicus just captures you again and the game ends there and then. They are vital to the plot.

Without the rainbow couple, you get slaughtered trying to reach the Wardstone. This isn't rocket science.

Already explained it could be written around, but you won't accept that, so we're going in circles.

Your ideas boil down to basically re-writing the entire game. Which makes sense if you think the entire thing is just a completely irredeemable mess from top to bottom, but what you're doing is criticizing this game for not being another, different game, as Heroic Liberator said.

These traits explain your character’s link to the
Worldwound, but each trait is also associated with one
of the six mythic paths—your character doesn’t begin
Wrath of the Righteous as a mythic character, but the
results of the first adventure will catapult your character
into this new realm of legendary power, setting her up
for even greater challenges that await in the next f ive
adventures of the campaign. Choosing a campaign trait
that matches the mythic path you want to take will
result in your campaign trait being enhanced when
you do become mythic. In a way, you can consider the
selection of your campaign trait as also selecting your
character’s mythic destiny!

As a special note, each of the following campaign traits
ties into a specific encounter or plot development in
the Wrath of the Righteous Adventure Path—what that
encounter or development might be, you’ll find out as the
story unfolds. As a result, it’s best if every player in your
group picks a different Wrath of the Righteous campaign
trait. If you and another player both want the same trait,
be sure to work out a way that both of your characters
took part in the same event—examples of how to do so are
given for each option below.

Everyone gets their own powers. Oh no! There goes muh special snowflake plot!

I know, I know. It's "IMPOSSIBLE" and that's a fact because you say it is, yet reality seems to disagree with you.

I would study this some more, I'm not 100% convinced "Campaign Traits" = Mythic Path Ranks.

Pretty hard to picture a Party consisting of a fully transformed Lich and a "kill Evil on sight" type of Angel, a slave-driving Demon and an Azata that hates slavery above all else etc.

Also, in-game, your powers were basically implanted into you by a certain half-Demon who does it for a personal reason, and that reason makes me doubt she'd do the same thing to 5 other people at the same time. Maybe the origin of Mythic power is different in Tabletop.

Uh, you knew you lost the argument several pages ago and have been treading water ever since?

What argument? All I see is one buttmad dude crying about one video-game not being a completely different game. I wouldn't be surprised to see you complaining about the lack of combat in the Disco Disco thread and calling the game shit because of that.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

they're pretty obvious and basic choices players should be expected to either want to make or wonder why they're making in the case a choice is forced on them.

Believable writing is largely about character motives and the devs failed to consider the player as a potential character with motives in the situations I've mentioned.

"Because it's the current year" and "because it's the plot!", as Lambach said, are not valid motives. They're just lazy excuses for bad writing.

Oh, you sweet summer child. If enough people cared about such choices, they'd be implemented.* So yeah, partly it's a matter of current year and partly one of apathy (i.e. as long as the players enjoy the buildcrafting aspect of the game and the gameplay more broadly, they won't care too much about the quality of the writing).

*Unless Paizo says no I guess.

Except I've repeatedly suggested feasible changes to much of what I've criticized

Which as feasible as they may be in themselves, they become less so when taken as a whole. It's a matter of development priorities (esp. when it comes to possible changes that would increase the non-linearity of the game and thus be more resource intensive). And even with the higher priority stuff, you can see that they had to cut corners here and there to get it ready for release (e.g. with the content for some of the mythic paths, particularly the Devil one).

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

I don't know if you paid attention to the plot, but the reason for you to become commander is the tranny who you meet under the cave in Kenabres, whose wife is the officier for the queen.

Fascinating. So vital to the plot. Couldn't possibly be written around by, say, making you the Hero of Kvatch or whatever, right?

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Uhh, yes? Without them, Irenicus just captures you again and the game ends there and then. They are vital to the plot.

No shit? I could have sworn I said that somewhere. Maybe even in the sentence you quoted and then ignored.

My question was: what were their names?

The answer is: they didn't need any. Anyone could have done their job. Just like anyone could hold off the demons while you charge your bankai or whatever.

Your ideas boil down to basically re-writing the entire game.

Writing a trap door for two characters is rewriting the whole game?

Or do you mean the first thing I said about alternate plot structures? I think that's an exaggeration, since you can still keep most of the plot elements and characters from the campaign books and just reorder them, but sure, rewrite the whole game. It's shit as is, so you might as well.

I would study this some more, I'm not 100% convinced "Campaign Traits" = Mythic Path Ranks.

Pretty hard to picture a Party consisting of a fully transformed Lich and a "kill Evil on sight" type of Angel, a slave-driving Demon and an Azata that hates slavery above all else etc.

Also, in-game, your powers were basically implanted into you by a certain half-Demon who does it for a personal reason, and that reason makes me doubt she'd do the same thing to 5 other people at the same time. Maybe the origin of Mythic power is different in Tabletop.

Read it for yourself. I have the guide and the first campaign book. Both confirm it.

What argument? All I see is one buttmad dude crying about one video-game

Are you looking in a mirror while you type this?

 

[Lambach]

Fascinating. So vital to the plot. Couldn't possibly be written around by, say, making you the Hero of Kvatch or whatever, right?

This is what I'm talking about. This is not valid criticism against the writing. Meeting this NPC does not break any rules established in that universe, it does not shatter suspension of disbelief, does not introduce any plotholes, does not create inconsistencies with previous events or characters etc.

"This is shit writing because muh troon and lesbo Orc". That's retarded. That's not an argument. If you don't personally like it, that's all well and good, but it's not bad writing by default just because the events in the story did not transpire exactly how you wanted them to.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

So yeah, partly it's a matter of current year and partly one of apathy (i.e. as long as the players enjoy the buildcrafting aspect of the game and the gameplay more broadly, they won't care too much about the quality of the writing).

Except I don't because it's all just made up numbers without the plot and the setting. Microsoft Excel does not an interesting game make in itself. (Well, maybe for LannTheStupid it does, but not for me.)

Which as feasible as they may be in themselves, they become less so when taken as a whole. It's a matter of development priorities (esp. when it comes to possible changes that would increase the non-linearity of the game and thus be more resource intensive). And even with the higher priority stuff, you can see that they had to cut corners here and there to get it ready for release (e.g. with the content for some of the mythic paths, particularly the Devil one).

Higher priority: 100 extra classes that don't work on release and trannies
Lower priority: player freedom

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

This is what I'm talking about. This is not valid criticism against the writing.

"This game is too linear/doesn't have enough choice" is not a valid criticism?

Well, I guess I just don't give a shit about your opinion on that, since it's a pretty big deal to me and most of the other posters on this website last I checked.

"This is shit writing because muh troon and lesbo Orc". That's retarded. That's not an argument.

Great, since I didn't make that argument. The one who made it is you. Just now. When you couldn't argue with my actual points about player freedom and motives.

I don't like the troon, I don't like the lesbo orc and I think that not being able to get rid of them shows how little the devs considered player choice. But the game doesn't suck because of them alone.

 

[Desiderius]

as long as the players enjoy the buildcrafting aspect of the game and the gameplay more broadly, they won't care too much about the quality of the writing).

The writing sux because they cancelled their talented editor to simp for whores.

So that's on them.

got a whole city destroyed with their incompetence

They're not (completely) incompetent, they're just the usual dudes in drag that current_year devs like to insert into these games because its the closest they (and a likely disturbing proportion of the player base) will ever get to a sniff. The kink is losing its hit so for Wrath they added futunari on Anevia. I just think of them as Lennie and George and I'm fine.

 

[Desiderius]

Your enemies are all retards, your tranny ally and his wife are both incompetent fools, the queen is a retard and the protagonist is sticking around and fighting someone else's war for no reason. What a game.

Sounds like the only bigger moron is probably the guy who spends $60 on this after reading the thread.

What applies to the later Ultimas also applies here

As we've discussed, Lord British's stature takes a series of major blows in the last few games. It started in Ultima VI but really ramped up in Ultima VII and this game. In his attitude towards the Fellowship and a lot of other things happening in Britannia, he is ignorant, negligent, and useless. I had a chance to mention this to Richard Garriott recently. I was curious if there was a deliberate effort to deconstruct the character or whether it was a matter of Garriott being less involved in the games and his employees simply not treating their boss's alter-ego with much respect. "None of the above," Garriott answered. "It was purely to give space for the player to shine!"

Everyone sucks so you can look that much awesome by comparison.

Anyway all games have supported ranges of expression. In a tabletop game of Wrath of the Righteous you're expected to play the kind of person who will want to kill demons. The group will just kick you out if you object.

He's lying. Lord British started to suck because Garriot's personal life was going to shit at the time. Black Gate can be read as his (losing) battle with his own conscience.

 

[Lambach]

"This game is too linear" is not a valid criticism?

It would be, if it were true. The game opens up a lot when you get past Chapter 1. It's not the most free-roam game ever, but you are given a good deal of freedom to decide how you interact with most characters and events. Sometimes the consequences of your choices are basically just flavor, but sometimes they can be pretty meaningful as well.

But yeah, being stuck with two characters that you can have almost zero interaction with if you so choose in a 80+ hour long game means the game is completely linear. Fucking thing mostly plays itself, really, it's more of a movie than a video-game.

Great, since I didn't make that argument. The one who made it is you. Just now. When you couldn't argue with my actual points about player freedom and motives.

"Your character is wounded and is brought into this city where he gets healed. Almost immediately afterwards, the city is attacked by a horde of Demons which makes your character fall into that city's underground. What could his motives to act possibly be?"



Jeez, I dunno nigga, but if I were to speculate, I'd say his motive is..... to survive? Just a crazy theory. The city itself is also overrun with Demons, meaning your odds of making it out alive are slim (you're still not a demigod at this point), forcing you to stick with those degens that bug you so much.

And as for why your character would accept to lead the Crusade and "fight someone else's war", as you said, there's plenty of possible reasons. Self-interested characters would likely pursue the Crusade business because it seems to be a path to great power, selfless and heroic characters probably want to save people from Demons etc. It's really not difficult to imagine why an adventurer would jump at this opportunity, even if the game doesn't spell it out for you.

EDIT: I've seen a lot of people criticizing the game for a plethora of various reasons, but I think this is the first time I've seen someone say there's too little player freedom. Though if you never made it past Chapter 1, I can see how you'd get that impression.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

But yeah, being stuck with two characters that you can have almost zero interaction with if you so choose in a 80+ hour long game means the game is completely linear.

Ah, and suddenly they're just two characters you have almost zero interaction with instead of the indispensable characters that can't POSSIBLY be written around.

You can't argue without a strawman, can you?

Read it again:

I don't like the troon, I don't like the lesbo orc and I think that not being able to get rid of them shows how little the devs considered player choice. But the game doesn't suck because of them alone.

"Your character is wounded and is brought into this city where he gets healed. Almost immediately afterwards, the city is attacked by a horde of Demons which makes your character fall into that city's underground. What could his motives to act possibly be?"

Again, not my argument. Clearly you need to get out of that situation. Now why, once you're out, do you need to aid in the defense of the city instead of just leaving? Why is there only one faction you're allowed to side with for this? And why are your motives as a player never touched on?

Bad writing and bad game design, that's why.

It's really not difficult to imagine

Playing make believe may help you with denying this is a bad game, but it doesn't help me ignore the bad writing.

edit:

EDIT: I've seen a lot of people criticizing the game for a plethora of various reasons, but I think this is the first time I've seen someone say there's too little player freedom.

Aside from those that have basically acknowledged it itt, you mean.

It all depends on how you define freedom. For me, freedom is not being railroaded, or at least being given a good excuse for it. Forced choices of any kind are a bad thing in an RPG.

I'm not sure how you've been playing RPGs this long and not realized that writers need to convince the player to undertake the main quest, and if your writing doesn't do that, you're probably a bad writer.

 

[Jaedar]

Kinda difficult to gauge whether the game is balanced well if you don't play on Core Rules difficulty, anything lower is suspicious and anything higher is only for Pope Amole to record dumb videos about

Core rules inflates enemy stats beyond Pathfinder rules, same as the previous game. It's balanced for people really knowledgeable about the systems. They even include bold red text telling you not to choose it if you're unfamiliar with it and a warning box asking you if you're absolutely sure if you actually click on it. Normal and Daring are the normie-gamer settings, casual and story are for the "I am really bad at games/just here for the story" people.

There is some truth to this, but the PnP is also balanced for 4player parties, and you get 6 in the vidya. 2 extra party members is a lot of extra buffs/attacks/hp/etc.
So normal + strict pnp stats is probably going to be easier than the pnp version.

 

[Lambach]

You can't argue without a strawman, can you?

It's more of a joke/hyperbole, which should be obvious to anyone who isn't on the spectrum.

Ah, and suddenly they're just two characters you have almost zero interaction with instead of the indispensable characters that can't POSSIBLY be written around.

Are you literally retarded?

Continuing without them at that point in the story would get your character and his Party massacred when attacking the fort. Sure, they could be replaced later on in the story, but at that moment they're indispensable because of the urgency of the plot.

Now why, once you're out, do you need to aid in the defense of the city instead of just leaving?

Because I assume the Commander is a little smarter than you and realizes that crossing am entire city filled with rampaging Demons all on his own is not the best idea.

Why is there only one faction you're allowed to side with for this?

"Why is this game what it is, and not some other game entirely?", again. Does every game need to have multiple joinable factions and it's complete shit if it doesn't?

Playing make believe may help you with denying this is a bad game, but it doesn't help me ignore the bad writing.

It's all make believe, genius. Pixels don't have actual motives. Assuming that your character's motive is to close the Worldwound and save the world from Demons is literally no different than assuming the Bhaalspawn's motive is to rescue Imoen.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

It's more of a joke/hyperbole

Cope.

Are you literally retarded?

Are you? How do you not see that if a character isn't touched for most of the game they can be replaced?

As I said, you can have literally any--wait, I'm speaking to an autist who will probably strawman and say "durr you can't replace them with a baby, can you?!"--almost anyone with the sufficient strength replace them in the story and it would work.

Because I assume the Commander is a little smarter than you and realizes that crossing am entire city filled with rampaging Demons all on his own is not the best idea.

So you can wander around said city all day fighting demons, but not cross it or leave it? Ok.

"Why is this game what it is, and not some other game entirely?"

Oh, here's the strawman of this post. Was waiting for it.

Does every game need to have multiple joinable factions and it's complete shit if it doesn't?

Strawman #2. You don't need to join them to work with them.

It's all make believe, genius. Pixels don't have actual motives.

Really? Woah! Next you'll tell me that D&D isn't real life.

Assuming that your character's motive is to close the Worldwound and save the world from Demons is literally no different than assuming the Bhaalspawn's motive is to rescue Imoen.

Except the Bhaalspawn's motive doesn't have to be to recue Imoen, as I discussed earlier. BG2 acknowledges this in-game.

Again, you're destroying your own argument with that. Stop it.

 

[Lambach]

Are you? How do you not see that if a character isn't touched for most of the game they can be replaced?

At that point in the game, the plot called for a character that would be a high-ranking military officer or something similar, holding what's left of the resistance together. I'm not sure how the plot that was set up as-is would work without such a character.

As I said, you can have literally any--wait, I'm speaking to an autist who will probably strawman and say "durr you can't replace them with a baby, can you?!"--almost anyone with the sufficient strength replace them in the story and it would work.

Hoo wait, so when you say "replace", you mean just keep more-or-less the same character that serves the same function in the story, but is just race and/or gender-swapped?

Sure, by that definition, you could "replace" the Orc and it would work. But that would neither improve nor worsen the quality of the writing. The fact that she's married to a troon does not have any impact on anything in the story. If she were a heterosexual white male, that would not impact the story in any way. This is not a matter of good or bad writing, it's just a matter of you not liking lesbos or Orcs (or both).

So you can wander around said city all day fighting demons, but not cross it or leave it? Ok.

Demons are generally not considered the smartest creatures in Pathfinder, but I'm sure even they realize that it's very important to control who enters or leaves an occupied city and would therefore have pretty tight security around the city borders.

Strawman #2. You don't need to join them to work with them.

Or you don't need them at all in some cases. What purpose would that additional faction serve? It would let you get away from the troon? Too much effort for too little payoff.

Except the Bhaalspawn's motive doesn't have to be to recue Imoen, as I discussed earlier.

Again, you're destroying your own argument with that. Stop it.

It could be to save Imoen or it could be to gain power from Irenicus.
Just like the Commander's motives could be to save people from Demons or gain more Mythic power. What the fuck is the difference?

 

[Infinitron]

Whew, feels like it's been quite a while since we had an argument like this on the forum.

Previous generations of Codexers hated Baldur's Gate and praised Fallout for pretty much the same reasons Non-Edgy Gamer details here (minus the tranny panic factor).

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

At that point in the game, the plot called for a character that would be a high-ranking military officer or something similar, holding what's left of the resistance together. I'm not sure how the plot that was set up as-is would work without such a character.

You're the one saying it's all make believe one minute, but then the next you're like saying that you can't possibly change this one thing.

Have a 2nd/3rd in command do it. Have, as I said, Hulrun or his adjutant do it. Add a new character. I really don't give a shit.

Hoo wait, so when you say "replace", you mean just keep more-or-less the same character that serves the same function in the story, but is just race and/or gender-swapped?

In that single moment of the story, sure. That's how you deal with killing a character off without any extra budget, since this was a limitation some of you spoke of earlier.

Make it more complex. Make it less complex. It's possible, but it isn't an option.

Sure, by that definition, you could "replace" the Orc and it would work. But that would neither improve nor worsen the quality of the writing.

Oh, so it's finally possible? Wow. That only took 5 pages.

Player freedom is part of the writing. Being able to kill off a named character qualifies as more freedom. This is an objective fact. Why don't you see it?

This is not a matter of good or bad writing, it's just a matter of you not liking lesbos or Orcs (or both).

Strawman again.

Demons are generally not considered the smartest creatures in Pathfinder, but I'm sure even they realize that it's very important to control who enters or leaves an occupied city and would therefore have pretty tight security around the city borders.

Good job making that up. Would it have been hard for the writers to put that in the game? (In before the 'it's obvious, so they didn't need to!' excuse for laziness.)

Seeing that there's no way out, being given an option to try. This is all part of a good dilemma that motivates a player to continue the story. Wrath doesn't bother. Just one example of the poor writing.

Or you don't need them at all in some cases. What purpose would that additional faction serve? It would let you get away from the troon? Too much effort for too little payoff.

Additional faction? As in adding a new one? What? I never suggested that.

You're so used to strawmanning that you're making things up and having a separate conversation at this point.

Work with a faction head and they take the place of that character. Why are you this dense? Other games have done this.

It could be to save Imoen or it could be to gain power from Irenicus.

Or to get revenge. Or to stop Irenicus' plans, whatever they may be. The in-game reasoning covers most of the alignment chart, if not all of it.

Just like the Commander's motives could be to save people from Demons or gain more Mythic power. What the fuck is the difference?

Once more: the difference is that Wrath doesn't consider the motive, especially not at the start after the tutorial when it's the most important.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Previous generations of Codexers hated Baldur's Gate and praised Fallout for pretty much the same reasons @Non-Edgy Gamer details here (minus the tranny panic factor).

Thanks for making me feel old.

Also, is tranny panic like homophobia without the (masculine) penis aversion?