GameBanshee Forums

i'd most like to see a sorcerer, because they are amazing and you don't get them anywhere in bg2 or tob. a monk aswell

Originally posted by jaxaxe
i'd most like to see a sorcerer, because they are amazing and you don't get them anywhere in bg2 or tob. a monk aswell

a monk, that would be cool.

My opinion of backstabing is that it indeed is EVIL. In ID2 there is a sneak attack and I don´t consider it evil. Drizzt Do´Urden often makes sneak attacks doesn´t he? My point in sneak attack is to find targets that are alone or to weaken a powerful enemy which might be a great danger if alerted from far distance. Also sneaking is useful against ranged attackers. It would be stupid to burst away from a shadow screaming and cursing only to get a shower of arrows...also I consider using poison is evil.
I´m about to take few lefels of rogue in ID2 to get lockpicking and remove traps abilities. Wonder why they never gave the ranger set traps and remove traps abilities?

Originally posted by Mianna
My opinion of backstabing is that it indeed is EVIL.

OK, but why?

I honestly don´t really know...it just feels like it. I could never stick a dagger to someones back or something...but I think it´s personal. Some of us has got the guts to do it and some of us don´t...it´s just a game but I like to make it real-life like.
I may have been too quick in saying my opinion...

What's the difference between striking a monster with the intention of killing it when it can see you, and striking a monster with the intention of killing it when it can't see you? What about setting a trap for it? (By definition, the monster is not supposed to see the trap; that's why it's a "trap".) What about casting an attack spell at a monster that can't reach your Mage because your Fighters are in the way? What about pelting a monster with a slew of arrows before it can reach your party? What about casting Cloudkill and slamming a door to trap the monsters inside the poisoned room? Or just about any other combat technique you can think of?

Let's face it, all of your characters are doing a lot of killing. What difference does it make how they do the killing? Now, if they were to put a Ring of Regeneration on an NPC, cast Feeblemind on him, and make him stand in a lava pit, of course THAT would be different.

Some NPC's I'd like to see are Priests from each of the gods in the Temple area (Talos, Helm, Lathander), that would help for the Unseeing Eye quest along with Keldorn. A barbarian hanging with Kivan about the Windspear Hills hunting orcs would be fun as well. How about a Drow Kensai NPC that still has some high elf blood in him?

You don't catch the sense of my words.
Just training in backstabs means evil, somewhat...
IMHO.

I remain of my opinion... a character who uses backstab has some evil in his veins.

UNLESS he backstabs a world cup referee, of course

In my opinion Backstabbing is evil only when BSing a human, dwarf,elf, halfelf,gnome,dwarf or other race that has a choice between good or evil. In other words you can bs ogres, trolls,gibberlings,vampires etc. , as these are inherently evil.
But humans,elves etc. you shouldn't( if you're good) because there is always a chance that these could repent and change their ways. In saying this there are some gray areas, Dragons and drow are the only ones I can think of now because they can be good or evil. Of course this is all opinion.

I tend to agree that BSing people is evil, too.

have to agree that, all in all, as a point of morality, attacking someone with no cnahce of attacking back, ie a defenseless person or someone with their back to you, is inherently an evil thing to do. it just isn't right on the old moral scale to sneak up on someone to stab them in the back. which is not to say that i do not love thieves. i really have no problem with the alignment restriction. the same argument has been used for assassins. would assassinating an evil person still be assassinating? well, yes. it is a fine line we sometimes walk in BG and other RPG between a mighty hero and scurvy blackguard--which is the fun sometimes. in my current game, i am trying to maintain a nice chaotic neutral--which means running back and forth all the time. not an easy thing to do as the game is designed for good parties.

Backstabing isn't good or evil. It just is. The person using it determines that. An evil person hides in alleyways and kills people before they know what happened. A good person sneaks up on the evil mage that would kill him in an open fight and stabs him in the head. Same technique but some results are good. It is like saying anyone that uses a whip must be evil. It is a tool plan and simple.
Yes a person needs to train to use it but that doesn't qualify them as evil. They just trained to kill a person as quickly as possible. Fighters do that throught the use of big two-handed weapons and dual-weilding but are they evil.
In conclusion I don't think backstabing is evil. The person using it determines it on a case by case basis.

P.S. Also not everyone of the same alignment is that same. For example both Aerie and Keldorn are Lawful Good. They aren't too similar in the way they act though.

Originally posted by DaringCommander11
In conclusion I don't think backstabing is evil. The person using it determines it on a case by case basis.

P.S. Also not everyone of the same alignment is that same. For example both Aerie and Keldorn are Lawful Good. They aren't too similar in the way they act though.

Exactly. As I said earlier, alignment is subjective. You can argue that many tactics are good/evil or lawful/chaotic. Animate dead? Good aligned clerics can cast this, surely its an evil act, disturbing the bodies of the fallen...but if it serves the greater good surely its ok. Summoning monsters by a good wizard? Cannon fodder, how can that be justified as good, using the lives of others to protect your own. Clerics casting spells such as cause serious wounds or harm, doesn't that go against everything a good aligned cleric is supposed to stand for? Etc.

Backstabbing isn't particularly honourable, but that doesn't mean its an inherently evil thing to do.

Originally posted by Lost One
perhaps we should take this to the alignments thread.

That's become the football thread now, wizard slayer thread has become the alignment thread...these things tend to evolve don't they ?

EDIT: oops, this is the npcs thread!! Last time I looked, wizard slayer thread was still on topic.

Originally posted by Littiz
Just training in backstabs means evil, somewhat...
I remain of my opinion... a character who uses backstab has some evil in his veins.
UNLESS he backstabs a world cup referee, of course

I guess opinions are really divided here. I think everyone generally agrees that backstabbing monsters does constitute an evil act. This is because monsters are inherently evil, so they deserve it (don't they?). Now, the thing about BG is that they simplify things for us, so we know if a creature is hostile/evil by the red circle beneath it or through a spell - so we know if a human/demi-human is thoroughly evil. Thus, backstabbing those with evil intent should not be an evil act because you know they can't change (at least in the game). In PnP AD&D this matter can be quite complex, but it shouldn't be so in this game. Also...training can be something like studying the human anatomy, looking at vital points in the back and practicing on dummies or illusions - not evil at all. It all comes down to society's beliefs and laws, which is why backstabbing is chaotic (along with the rest of thieving generally) but not evil per se.
Going back to topic, IMO the more exotic an NPC, the better. SO, different kit/race combinations that a PC can't have would be a major attraction any time. For example: Roshi, a goblin burglar (uses image of halfling, but has green/brown skin), weak but dextrous, much like a thief but gains bonuses to open locks, f/r traps, hide in shadows. (Not an NPC I'd have, but an idea nonetheless)
@Littiz - I saw the Italy-Korea game...heh, I think that WC referee would've been backstabbed a million times by angry Italians were it not for the lack of shadows (gotta hide first)

Originally posted by Onyx
Your are so right. Valygar and Edwin could have been possible romances, and Hear-Dalis too. Imagine trying too impress Hear-Dalis while he's got his mind set on Aerie.

There are several male NPC romance mods in progress, I believe, and there are also (non-romance) mods available to add the BG NPCs to BG2 - check out the BG2 crossroads thread for details/links.

Originally posted by Astafas
2. Great! I'll try to save him next time then.

I managed it once - pretty difficult, considering all the werewolves go straight for him...

Originally posted by Aqua-chan
Oh my gosh. THAT was Ajantis? Oopsie...Alright, I *have* encountered him before... I guess Anomen just didn't know his Paladins well enough.

Anomen does usually mention it... sometimes he doesn't jump in quickly enough before the Garren dialogue kicks in though.

Originally posted by seraphim
have to agree that, all in all, as a point of morality, attacking someone with no cnahce of attacking back, ie a defenseless person or someone with their back to you, is inherently an evil thing to do.

Backstabbing is not evil just because they have no chance of attacking back. That would mean that chopping a little girls heads off would be good if you give her a chance to attack you first. Backstabbing is just a smart way of attacking - not an evil one

By the way Littiz - Italy deserved to lose - South Korea were better than them . Go England!

@Snoop, for a condition to be true, the negation of its opposite doesn't have to prove true, as well. However...

You are right. Backstabbing isn't evil. In fact, good and evil doesn't enter into it. I think Seraphim is confusing the concept of honor with good. Traditionally in fantasy stories, it isn't honorable to backstab: you launch attacks while facing an enemy, that is, if you have any intentions of proclaiming yourself a really righteous type. A paladin would never backstab--IMO.

True Paladins wouldn't backstab as they have that "i'm an unstoppable force of righteousness" attitude that doesn't go with backstabbing. Backstabbing isn't necissarily honorable but what thieves are?

This is why I prefere the 3E version of backstab called sneak attack. It isn't stabbing a person in the back, it is the ability to strick vulnerable/unprotected areas even if they see the attack coming they just can't be able to stop it. That is definately neither good nor evil as who wouldn't stab the kidney over the chest area?

i wouldnt say that i am confusing honor and good, i just see the two as belonging with one another---at least in some way. i do agree that 3rd edition makes it a much less ambiguous thing--you are striking vital areas rather than just sneaking up behind someone and killing them before they have the chance to defend themselves. as for old 2nd edition, a typical paladin would never backstab an opponent b/c they would typically want to face their enemy face to face to show them they will win. however, a thief can easily backstab because their set of morals and fighting style, would not at all mind stabbing someone in the back. it is easier and quicker and more akin to their less than i am the almighty attitude. one who lives in the shadows uses the shadows. one who lives in the sun, fights with the sun.