Evil

Remove all ads!

Good point Sim. My double-check was merely looking at the cd next to my desk and noting the Bioware logo on the cover.

On topic: I agree w/ Kendak in that it's a shame you can't say what you wish in computer RPG's. That's one of the few things PnP D&D has over games like BG; computer role-playing games are just not flexible enough in terms of alignment and dialogue (still love 'em, though)

 

KOTR was a great game, but even it had the problem of a literally black-and-white morality. And some of the choices (for example, telling a Sith student to release some people he was tortureing unharmed - which he then actually does) struck me as a touch absurd.

 

I think you and much other players see alignment as too much restraining. To qoute from PHB 3.5:

It's the bolded part of the qute that is important. Sure, it's hard to transfer this to cRPGs, but alignments is what define world of RPGs and real life, even your and mine. It's not like a person is only of one alignment all of his life. No, alignments change, possibly daily. A friend of mine who finished a very stressful period of life some time ago(he finished a PhD), said that in last six months he was probably thrue all nine alignments

People are usually of one alignment which suits them most. For me, it's NG, for you it's maybe CG. That doesn't mean that I can't perform CE act, or you a LG one. It's your motives that define you more than your alignemnt. Paladin who kills entire village of creatures, even if they are evil(like orcs) still performed an evil act(if he was killing them just because they were evil, self defence is another thing). A CE character which sacrifices himself to save a child, even if for some greedy or evil reason, still performed a noble and good act. So don't say that alignments are pointless, because that is not true. You just have to keep in mind that real life isn't a computer game, and that everything changes daily, acording to your actions. But alignemnts are there to stay. Sure, it can change, like everything in life, but that is rare.

 

Exactly. So why do we need Alignment at all? What benefits does it bring that can counterbalance the deleterious effects (namely, shoehorned character personalities, especially among Paladins and any Evil PCs) that it seems to invariably carry with it. I have seen numerous alternatives to the alignment system used (Oriental Adventures' Honor System, d20 Modern's Priority System, A Game of Thrones' Motivation System, Vampire's Nature/Demeanor system, the widespread "nothing even resembling Alignment" lack-of-system, a homebrew system based on the Five Colors of Magic - as in, The Gathering, and the list goes on), and I would go so far as to say that every single one of them is better at representing real moral and personal concepts than the classical Alignment system. Without exception.

Also: your friend is True Neutral. The DMG itself tells us that "Alignments can change, but they should do so rarely... any character who frequently or routinely changes his alignment has made [the] choice to be Neutral."

Annotated,
The Medusan Exile

 

I personally like alignment because it gives a player at least a general guide to behavior. Though Deus Ex Biotica makes some good points, I have seen alignment work very well (PS:T, KOTOR).

I dislike the lack of options in BGII as well, but at least a large number of the best NPCs are evil. Edwin is possibly the best mage, Viconia is arguably the most powerful cleric, and Korgan is the only pure fighter available. The BG series may restrict actions, but at least it's still feasible to play an evil party.

 

I've never played Torment, so I cannot speak to its take alignment.

KOTOR, however, doesn't use alignment as D&D knows it. Rather, it has a sliding scale which constantly adjusts based on the player's actions. Admittedly, the scale is unilaterally "good" and "bad" actions (always a sore point with me), but it leaves the standard alignment system in the dust all the same.

 

My most fun game in BGII was a neutral evil character. I was able to relax and just enjoy myself. It was in the Umer hills that they gave me my promised reward and told me to get out of town. Great. BIO did write in reaction to 'evil' characters.

I do not remember who first used the phrase "smart evil" but it fitted. Being evil doesn't mean being stupid. A successful evil person needs to be smart. A little con job doesn't hurt. So I paid a little more in the stores than the guy with a 20 rep. I also stole a little more. Being evil doesn't mean you can't care about someone.

Someone on SP once told me that the character doesn't know what level he is and I suppose he doesn't know his alignment. A master thief would know he is a master thief and he would know that other folks didn't approve of his stealing. That would be all.

I don't remember missing out on any quest I wanted to do.

I'm not enamored of the dnd alignment but I can live with it.

 

It depends on how old school you are going for D&D - in the old D&D rules the three alignments each had their own language so your character would automatically speak common plus either lawful, neutral or chaotic.

 

I am well aware. And that was almost as patently absurd as a three-tiered alignment system.

I do like the implication that if (for instance) a a goblin happened to be less cruel than its kin, it would grow up speaking a completely different language (Neutral) than its fellows (who speak Chaotic).

 

Spoiler alert

I think it was on Sorcerers place that someone mentioned, what if you want to restore Bhaal?

So the Solar asks you, what are you going to do with the essence?


"I'm going to reunited with my long lost daddy at last! Yay! And then we can go on a killing spree!"

Or what if you didnt give a fig about Imoen? Much of the characters lines would have to be changed to wanting revenge instead of saving a sister.

What if you were able to side with the Shade Lord, or better yet, be his new host body in exchange for the power to destroy Irenicus?

Or, "Hi, I'm Charname, and I'm in the service of Lord Firkraag. He really isnt such a bad guy when you get to know him."

Or side with the Drow over the Elves?

 

Here, here for the evil minded! They way I see it, evil is not necessarily an action. It's not necessarily a thought either. Evil is a motive. Do you want something that isn't yours to have? What if you find a way to get it? What if you use the law of the land to get that which you want that you are not supposted to have?

An evil character is much better off played like a hero, but without the "I have done good, here. I'm off to find another situation to stick my nose in because people need me." An evil person, to me, is so driven by a need to succeed that they will do anything. Even be a hero. Would an evil character save the children from the slavers in the Slum District? Yes. He'd even give them 100 gold pieces each. Why? Because they will say what a hero you are for saving them, twice! My evil character would go after the slavers because they are a perverse form of evil. They bully and kidnap. They haven't earned their wealth or glory by pushing themselves to the limit. They found an easy way to make money. Money that I am about to relieve them of. By defeating them, I get richer and I look better in the eyes of Amn. I get what I want: fame and riches. The city gets what they want: rid of the slavers. Everyone wins, and I did it while still being evil.

I think good characters are too blinded by the whole, "let's just fight evil for goodness sake." Evils can do a good deed, demand a better reward, and if rejected, get those people back by stealing from or harming them.

Thus, evil (to me) is a motive, not action or thought.

 

^Interesting idea, Von'Meyer, I like it, I agree that 'Hidden Evil' is often more sinister and dangerous...and fun for you get a chance to backstab people when they least expect it! Maybe, just maybe, I can bear on playing BG from all over with a malicious but cunning PC in the future. (not that I am sick of NG alignment, though) Thanks!

 

My favorite evil act is to deceive nalia. I tell her I'll take good care of her keep. As soon as the deed is mine, I take her down in the dungeon and backstab her. If I hit her hard enough there isn't even a body to worry aout.

I do the same thing with Valygar and the planar sphere. Let's just say my mage/thief lets Valygar go to the front of the group to open the door. I don't think the poor guy even knows what hits him. Hey, he shouldnt turn his back on a a guy he just met.

 

I'd rather deliver him to the Cowled Wizards (after opening the Planar Sphere of course). The look on his face when he eventually comes to realize what I have in mind is unforgettable!

Watching Viconia burn is also a real treat.

 

It's quite fun playing evil, but the game designers really didn't have any idea of equal oppurtunity among alignments.

I think alignment systems in any game is unnecessary. It's as if the game doesn't trust you to remember that you're good/evil and has to remind you every time you open your character sheet.

 

Clixby, I agree and disagree with you. I agree that Bioware, Interplay, and Black Isle have bad track records of creating equal villian/hero adventures. But I disagree with why that is more than just poor game design.

Permit me to go off on a rant. Let's look at some, but not all, of the games from these companies and compare good and evil.

Fallout (1997): Evil was over powered. Evil characters got way too rich way too quickly. Without proper checks against random murder and mayhem, there was no reason not to play evil. The story itself almost promoted vile gameplay because evil characters could do all but 90% of the side quests. All that was needed to get them most of the time as a speech skill over 50 and/or a CHA score of 6+.

Fallout 2 (1999): Evil was nearly impossible to play. By adding the broken and easily cheesed reputation score to game. Evil deeds followed you everywhere. Even before entering towns you're never set foot in before, it was possible to be so hated that everyone would attack you and company on sight. Not to mention that all but a handful of NPC's (the crappy ones that you could recruit mid to late game) would leave you if you became too evil. Fighting alone against the entire world, while being locked out of about 70% of the quests equalled a nearly impossible game.

Baldur's Gate: Evil was an after thought. The story and main quests simply treated the PC as if they were a hero. Noble or not, you are the hero and everyone owes you their lives and freedom. Evil quests are few and far between. Evil NPCs would leave you (or attack you) if you were too good, but that was easy to keep in check by entering a random house and killing a random peasant. Do too much evil and overpowering Flaming Fists would make your every step your possible last. To prevent this, you had to pay money to be seen as good again.

Baldur's Gate 2: See BG notes, but replace Flaming Fists with Amn Guards and Coweled Wizards.

Icewind Dale 1 & 2: Be evil and maybe miss out on the small number of side quests. Evill parties were punished by psying more for the same goods and gear. Again, not really worth playing evil.

Planescape Tourment: Neutrality rules the day here. Too good and people don't trust you. Too evil and people don't trust you. Odd how the game encouraged players to not play typical heros or villians, but rather a survivor out to stop himself! You are, by default, the hero and the villian reguardless of how you play.

Why does evil get unfair treatment? Maybe because the game designers don't wish to promote evil actions or motives. I say no to that. Maybe the game designers want to create stories that involve epic tales with epic people. I say this is probably true. They want to tell classic tales of heros defeating villians, so they pay much more lip service to good over evil.

I also think that the game designers want people to earn their evil characters. "Evil" people in reality rarely get away with being "evil" their entire lives. Criminals are eventually arrested. Dictators are eventually overthrown. Corrupt business people and politicians are eventually pushed out by those who are tired of being taken advantage of by them.

In short. They want "playing evil" to be an up hill battle for the few who are willing to take the challenge.

 

Sounds about right. Abandoning moral integrity and empathy, you stand to gain more materially. Just like in real life. At least, in the short term. Also, I doubt news travels very fast in the post-nuclear holocaust world, and therefore your reputation would most likely be limited to what settlements you've been to.

 

Man I disagree!

CHA is almost useless in that game. "Overpowered"??? The easiest way to complete the game is through dialogue and that would be impossible for an evil character. Actually the evil ending to the game would be turning into a supermutant and invading the vault... Not heroic at all. Mate, you may have missed a lot about Fallout if that's your take on that game.

Sorry, but that's complete bs... There was a reputation (karma) score in Fallout 1.
Only a few NPCs would actually leave if you became a rotten bastard. Most of them would only refuse to join you.
If you take the slaver road it meant you had a special sign tatooed on your forehead... Not easy to conceal and a very good reason for NPCs to mistrust you.
People would attack you on sight if you did something really wrong (like if you did kill everybody in Redding including the master of the caravan from Vault City then you would get in trouble when you eventually got there).
Many quests are not impossible to complete with a bad PC, they would have different endings actually (most of the times really fun endings, like when you get to say to Lynette that Westin had a lot of hitpoints).
I can't see how being evil is overpowered in Fallout 1 and makes the game unplayable in 2... That doesn't make any sense. In Fallout 2 you can get so evil that you meet many groups (endless in fact) of bounty hunters whom you can slaughter and get loads of XP and very good weapons and ammunition.
Playing Fallout with only one character is sometimes easier than having a bunch of NPCs ruining your style and tactics... Especially if you like playing a sniper type.

True that you can't be too evil in that game without being plagued with attacks from enforcers. Even Sarevok assumes a respectable front and poses as a sort of saviour for Baldur's Gate in times of crisis, he doesn't revel in needless slaughter just to show what a bad ass he can be...
I would disagree with your statement that evil has nothing to do with the story (i.e. "afterthought"). The most interesting element in the story is IMHO that the most dangerous foe for the Bhaalspawn is the evil within rather than the evil without. That's what is shown by the dreams and the special abilities you can get. The evil path is often more rewarding and easier (as it should be). You get a choice between good and evil. The problem is that some choices you make won't make you fall (how many "good" characters go out of line to get the Silver Pantaloons?). Why should a goody be allowed to do an evil deed now and then because this isn't punished by any loss in reputation and a baddy should be out of character because he did a quest that yielded one reputation point... Both can be argued. Characters can lapse from time to time. Good motives can have dire consequences and villains can cause good things to happen be it unwittingly.
Charname is the protagonist and therefore a hero, be it a villainous one. The fate of the Sword Coast depends on his/her actions. That's epic and heroic. You can't get any good story without trials and temptation. Getting Blackrazor at the end of SoA is evil and I won't see that as an afterthought.

Actually these games do not discriminate as much between good and evil. You still have to save the day eventhough you may not care a whit for bystanders. Mostly you would get different dialogue options and that would be it.
IMHO IWD2 can be easier if you play evil... You get extra stuff and an easier ride. And if you're RPing a really evil party made of deceivers and tricksters you can get the rewards for the quests that are forced on you and get on a killing spree when you don't need the annoying NPCs you just saved. Not that it makes that much sense sometimes but it can be fun to pretend you're doing the right thing and trick your foes (you don't have any friends).

While I agree with some of your points, I disagree with many things that have been posted especially about the Fallout series and evil being termed an "afterthought" in the BG series. The game might expect you to do the right things but you can still get a way out.

I remember laughing my head off when I first found the book about adventuring in IWD2 which gives you loads of XP... "Let's face it you're Neutral Evil." Most players opt for the choice that earns the most XP which is therefore considered as being the best choice that can be made. There's still something to be said for other ways to play a game. Playing evil can be refreshing and fun and it doesn't mean hacking and slashing your way through everything and everyone.

 

My, my. I'm very impressed and very pleased to see that other have thoroughly played and loved what I think are two of the greatest PC RPG's of all time!

Caradhras, I had no intention of getting you so riled up. You are completely right about still being able to play through FO2 as evil, but nice guys (at least nice to your face) have an easier time speaking to people. Not to mention that most of the truly good dialog trees are broken. You can get the best result without saying the best thing.

I just think that FO2 was meant to have a nicer spin on it than FO. And I agree with you. Being bad in those games just means more stuff to kill and loot to claim.

For BG, Caradhras brought up an excellent point. That the true evil for the PC is the evil within. I wouldn't have said that about BG. KOTOR, yes. I hadn't thought about that before. Great idea!

 

The internal conflict of good and evil may be one thing that make BG & BII stand out from the crowd. Since it is something we have to deal with in real life it fleshes out the game.

In BG II there is the choice between the Thieves' Guild and Bhodi. Not a choice of good vs evil but of the lesser of two evils or which one will get you to your goal the fastest or strongest way.