POLL: Why would you play evil?

Remove all ads!

I realize I'm opening the door here for a Shura rant, but hey, the guy is cool so that's alright. I noticed that there are several people who won't play evil at all, and I think the main reason is that they feel guilt for being bad, which IMHO is silly considering it is just a game. Anyway, maybe the reason that people don't play evil is they don't understand some of the benefits of it. Here's a quickie poll, just so they get the idea. I've included an "other" option just in case I miss a big reason.

For me, it's probably just for a completely different gaming experience in terms of quest outcomes. Here's your options:

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 63 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Why would you play evil? (63 votes.)

Why would you play evil? (Choose 1)
* Different/Complete BGII gaming experience - 30% (19)
* Properly role-playing evil characters - 14% (9)
* Different outcome of quests and endgame - 8% (5)
* I'm a sadistic bastard, and evil represents my personality - 14% (9)
* All of the above - 21% (13)
* I can never play evil - 13% (8)

 

Benefits of evil? I'd already have been CE for ages if it were about benefits in the material sense But what are the benefits of submitting to your lowest instincts, developing the darkest of your desires to abysmal levels and becoming a beast, an animal? Unless you mean pathetic evil like Edwin, but that's just it - pathetic.

Anyway, it's just a game. Right. Playing an evil character is not an evil act. But let's see... what about playing a more realistic evil guy, not just some pathetic comic character? But hey, even kids play Quake, so we might get over even that. Well then, maybe a cynical assassin? A psychopatic necromant? A mass murderer of a warrior? Still a game, you say? Maybe. But, in all honesty, would you really play a chaotic evil (and I mean chaotic evil) half-undead necromancer with a knack for brutal raping kids and inventing each day a new way of making human sacrifice? Would you still call it just a game? Would you find pleasure in it? How far would you go? How creative would you be in roleplaying that?

 

It's more than just a game

Playing evil? Simple, it's about being true to youreslf and your heritage. To grow to be be what you were born to do, become strong to serve your father, either by dying so he can live again or stealing his godhood from his helpless, mortal, hands.

It's about surviving by trusting nobody but yourself, removing all threats and taking what is owed to you. Not living by being useful or acting as if you are important, it's about knowing the right people and planning, so you are always in the right place at the right time.

 

Guess Shura didn't see this thread yet.

What benefits? Playing evil generally means less xp. Anyway, I've done it only to vary the experience.

Aldeth, you've really gone overboard with all these polls .

 

On playing evil:

I've gotten sick and tired of the notions that playing evil means:

1)cackling insanely every few minutes and saying "I am the lord of EEEVVVIIILLL" while wearing spotted panties

2)biting the heads off kittens, puppies and children.

3)being a sicko mass rapist/sex pervert

4)being a thrall of a demon

8people put it very eloquently indeed. Being evil is looking out for yourself by being true to yourself. You are the child of an evil god for crying out loud! There should be no way you can have a good alignment! (Imoen's just a misguided freak) At best, a Child of Bhaal would be like Balthazar, cold, cruel but ultimately noble and altruistic.

IMO, Paladins and good alignments should not be available to PCs in BG2 at all. It was a terrible conceptual mistake for the developers not to do so.

Evil is more than submitting to your 'baser' instincts. It is about intelligence, circumspection and strength. If anything, taking the path of 'good' is the weaker choice instead. A person of 'good' alignment is accepted and well-liked amongst the members of his society. He does 'good' things for further exaltation. He deludes himself by assuming the moral high ground, placating his psyche. He follows a 'good' god because he is too lazy or too stupid to think for himself.

True Evil seizes the future in his own hands. There is no 'god' for him. He has to mute the human folly known as 'conscience' with the virtue of intellectual pride: You don't rape that girl because it's 'wrong' (or you simply have a small member that you're afraid to show unless your partner 'loves' you). You don't rape her because it's demeaning for you to do so and with your charm, there is no lack of feminine company for yourself anyway.

True Evil can have true friends, as opposed to the 'good' individual who can only associate with people that conform to his deluded moral filter. The friends of True Evil are mighty individuals in their own right who agree to throw their lot in with him because of mutual, similarily inclined interests. The members of a True Evil party will never betray each other unless it serves a greater purpose, unlike a 'good' party which huddles together, snivelling in their communal weakness.

It is difficult to explain just how to play evil in a post like this. For those who have already read parts 1&2 of Son of Strife, my (currently incomplete) massive project, look at Arkados Blackmire. That is how evil should be played!

It's a game, yes. But if I'm playing it I want to be that powerful warlord, mighty, intelligent, and eloquent, able to overcome all divine and mortal opposition rather than a weakling paladin praying to his 'god' and fishing kittens out of drains because he's afraid of being stripped of his powers all the time.

To address the topic: Why would I play evil?

Well. "Evil always wins because good is dumb."
How true, how true.

 

Actually have to disagree with a few things there Shura.
Being 'true to yourself' isn't evil. That's called living. Being true to myself could be helping others because I belive I should. Money doesn't buy me happiness, I don't want to feel the blood of the innocents betwixt my toes. I prefer the feeling knowing that my actions have made someone else's life better.

Being evil and being good is simply being addicted to different feelings of accomplishment. Evil people feel accomplishment after achieving or displaying power by furthering themselves, good people feel accomplishment after achieving or displaying power by assisting others.

Paladins are justified. You feel the taint only after killing someone (Candlekeep memories anyone? That damn elf with a dagger taking on your level 1 fighter packing longsword, scale mail and medium shield). Till then it had no effect on your life. Your upbringing was simply one of an orphen. It could turn out any way depending on what circumstances you were subjected to.

'Instincts' are not intelligence, circumspection and strength. Instincts are reactions to situations and a goal of some type. Being evil does make your instincts more 'base' since you are only concerned with one thing, yourself. However look at the wolf, base instinct all around, however they live and die for the pack. The wolf is 'not' evil despite the fact it kills and maims things, it does so to survive. How is an ogre intelligent? He's got strength I'll tell you that. An ogre isn't all about biting heads of young mammals either. All he wants is respect and power within his chosen group, his instinct is survival with power however he'll kill his own mother and father to obtain it.

Evil do have gods, whether they like it or not. Simply by living the way they live they are possibly paying homage to Cyric, Mask, Talos or any other evil god you can think of, simply depends on 'how' they are evil. However I think a 'true' evil person as you describe it would welcome a god in their life. Extra power right? If I can call down divine wrath upon my enemies due to my faith in my god who upholds all the beliefs I do (thus little extra work from me) why the hell not?

Sadly evil can not have 'true friends'. They will betray him, possibly killing him when situation determines it to be furthering their goals. A 'true friend' is one that will stick with you and assist you when you are down and weak. I don't see how evil adventuring parties exist at the higher levels, eventually the cleric ain't gonna heal or raise the fighter. Not to mention good paries when the members are true friends do anything but 'snivel' in cummunal weakness. If one threatens another member of the party all will rise up to oppose that threat. These party members are angry, they don't care about their own safety, they want to keep their friends safe. "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog". Use Minsc as an example. Forget the magical equipment, just give him a vanilla sword and chainmail, his best friends is killed by someone or someone nicks Boo. Now, there's a big amount of angry man. Last thing you'll do is call that 'weak'.

Paladins are never afraid of losing their powers. If they ever became afraid of losing their powers they would lose them then. Powers are a reward given to Paladins for their service to their god (be it Mystra, Tyr, Helm, Torm or any other god dedicated to protecting the weak and punishing the wicked) and they accept them gracefully. It's not a pay-check, they don't think they 'deserve' these powers. Realise evil does NOT equal intelligent. More often or not evil lets his emotions (usually rage) get in the way of his decision making (just like any other person, good people usually let compassion get in the way of an 'intelligent' decision).

Realise Evil is not 'better' than good in any way. Niether is good 'better' than evil. They are opposites and suffer from the exact opposite problems. The Paladin will not run in the face of an illusion cast at him while he's trying to save a town from an evil wizard. The evil warrior will though, valuing his own skin over that of the town despite them paying him money for it. However the Paladin will fall for a trap placed for him when his compainion is captured, whereas the evil warrior will not, screw the elven thief, I swear he nicked that ring off me last week.

Why play evil? It's a game, time to get away from reality. No fear in this game of the law enforcement agency sending a heat seeking rocket through your bedroom window if you kill too many people. Do what you what to whoever you want without fear of life threatening reprisals. You can always reload.

 

I actually want to play evil but I just can't in BG2.

Evil has waaaay too many disadvantages when compared to good.

First is the problem with reputation. For some reason evil characters will leave your party for having a high reputation. I guess they don't like having huge discounts on items? They prefer to be so hated that they get attacked in every area they go. A way to solve that would be to have a 'reputation' meter which indicates what people think of you and a separate 'karma' meter to indicate how good/evil you really are.

The second way evil gets screwed is that you are pratically forced into being some type of thief because the only thief npcs are good/neutral and will ditch you if your rep drops too much. (The whole lack of thieves in BG2 really annoys me). True, Imoen won't leave you, but... damn, she just doesn't belong in an evil party in my opinion.

The third way you get screwed is in the equipment department. The only evil-only items worth a $&^% are the human flesh armor (which looks terrible) and the blackrazor sword (which is unfortunately only +3). And good gets carsomyr...

A fourth problem is a limited selection of npcs in the party. You are pretty much forced into taking Viconia, Edwin, and Korgan along. Don't get me wrong they are really useful npcs but evil misses out on a lot of cool classes like bards, paladins, and rangers. Because of this you can't use a bunch of cool class-specific items like the ranger cloak, harp of discord, etc...

And why isn't their any evil-only classes?! Come on!

 

Blah! I just wrote like 10 minutes about what is like being evil. Everybody has his own idea of what is evil. I don't usually play evil, nor I play good or neutral. I'm just plain chaotic. I don't obey the law, I just do what is good for me. Sometimes it means I go aout and get that kitten from tree, or kick that child and steal his candy. You could say I play some twisted Robin Hood. I take from rich (all) and give to poor (me).

"Being evil means never having to say you're sorry."

 

i reckon it's more difficult trying to play neutral without tipping too much to either side

by the way, anyone tried to complete the game by killing everyone? and i mean everything - peasants, wizards, chickens, cows - everything except key characters you need to complete the game with

 

I read Shura's post and now feel "enlightened". Yes, of course it is like that. A rare insight into evil, and one of which I shall make use when role-playing NPCs in my pen-and-paper D&D games. Thanks Shura.

Abomination also made some good points, especially the one about being addicted to a feeling of accomplishment.
These discussions remind me once of a lecture I attended on ethics. In it, the lecturer defined good and evil in terms of "selflessness" and "selfishness", and then proceeded to show that no matter what situation you chose, it could be viewed both ways. Even acts of charity by saints and crimes against humanity by tyrants.

The only way humanity can sustain such massive conflicts, from the dawn of mankind to this very day, is by having entire nations convinced that the others are evil, while they are good. Both sides do it, and yet neither side is completely good or evil. Just different.

*MINOR SPOILER FOLLOWS*

The game before my current one in BG2:ToB started as an evil party. I chose it to play out some of the subquests of the evil NPCs (Korgan, Viconia and Edwin). However, I couldn't do it, and by the end of the game, Viconia was netural, I'd picked up Jan Jansen, Haer Dalis and Xan (both neutral) and thrown out Korgan and Edwin. My main character was the only evil one left in the group, and he was not acting very evil (in a BG2 stereotypical evil sort of way) at all.

 

Xan? That bloody whiny elf envoker? He's in ToB?

 

EEEEVIIIIL !

I thought shura had interesting notions that I tend to agre with. Evil in BG2 game terms is not running around killing everything in your sight and being an ass.
Evil is (and now also in gameterms) looking out for yourself and maximizing your power and profits with teh goal of being the next god of murder or (if evil cleric ?) giving your soul and essence to catalyst the rebirth of Bhaal.

Sorry to say I have never been able to play evil. I feel like an ass when I try

Anyway, I think its important to distinguish between an evil dedicated character and a petty axewielding lunatic.

bongo !

Keep on bouncing

 

About weapons: you can wield Blackrazor even if you're good. There is the Soul Reaver +4 though, which is an evil weapon.

I haven't tried playing an evil party yet, but I may next. I think I'll have to be a thief though since I can't stand Jan and there's no way I could take Imoen in an evil party.

 

I've never played evil before, but then, I haven't played through the game that many times. Playing evil is against my nature. OK, maybe I can play being really selfish, but the dialogue options you get are mean, insulting, etc. I don't really like that.

I am going to try to play evil one time though. I want to try out Korgan, Viconia, Edwin and Haer'Dalis (he's not evil, but CN).

Evil gets screwed in the game though. They miss out on tons of experience points and money (due to low reputation). They usually have to perform 'good' quests to get their items. If you are being evil in conversation, the conversation usually ends prematurely.

 

It's amazing how the same aspects of behaviour are used in defence of evil, but against good. While evil is portrayed as superior to good, as looking out for yourself, good is also portrayed as such, but in turn the same quality that is considered strength in evil, in good is considered weakness. Where does the strength lie? In being able to reject any form, convenances, externals? Every fool can say "I reject this". "I take pride in my lack of morals".

Then, would it be strong of good to accept its limitations and weaknesses? To learn to live with them and deal with them, if working on them does not help get rid of them? If good is weak, isn't there strength in choosing weakness our of your own free will? Or when you do that in hope of praise, recognition, shop discounts (let's say), isn't that basically evil as looking out for yourself?

Powers? Being stripped of them? They don't belong to us if we get them. They can be taken back anyway, as they could only have been given for a specific purpose. Who are we to judge the purpose or even judge ourselves, as to whether we're worthy or not?

Then, if we still assume that good is not looking out for yourself (if evil is better because it is looking out for yourself, good logically would be less or not at all so), is it not a display of strength to choose what you deem right over what seems to profit you the most? Can satisfaction from reaching your own goals ever equal one from knowing you have done the right thing? That you have not failed the trust put in you, that you have not abused your powers, that you have honoured your commitments (getting slightly lawful here)? And satisfaction is only incidental. It's a good thing, but not a goal. Nor is it a pay back. A classic situation: no one sees you, you will get no praise. Or better, you'll be scorned for being a sucker. Satisfaction as a pay off? You'll suffer yet from dissing your opportunity. Fulfilling expectations? You already have dozens of excuses. It's evil that is about excuses, not good. Good needs none.

Evil, contrary, habitually tries to pass for some sort of good. Some different good. Some alternative good. Some 'better' good. They reject morals as such, but there are things they still claim wouldn't do. Because that would be wrong. So, is there still the right-wrong dichotomy in evil? What's beyond evil then? For what nothing is wrong. Isn't that supposed to be the bottom of evil and all above it being steps and further steps down? But yet, Satan's most tarnished slogan is that he's a bigger goody than God, who is just about every noun or adjective you would associate with traditional evil, from liar to tyrant and mass murderer. People who turn in his direction are looking for good. Even descending farther and farther into the abyss, worshipping the very core and embodiment of all evil, that is Satan. Whether you believe in his existence or not, he still personifies it all. He would truly do anything to further his aims.

Who are then those who confess to evil but in the same time they deny they would do this and that and this and that? Because that's wrong. And for what aim? To feel better? That would basically be the very same motive for which they, however mistakenly and misguidedly, scorn the good. They don't want to go farther down, they disown the lower parts of the abyss, they delude themselves that they can control it. Even if they claim so rightly, for what purpose would they control it? To keep some shattered shards of goodness? To delude themselves that they have not fallen victims and slaves to their desires? Than when they believe they serve them, they serve daemons (whether religiously and literally, or philosophically and metaphorically). To justify themselves? Yes, evil tends to justify itself, it needs it. Good does not. That's the main difference. Evil doesn't exist on its own, it's a parody of good. It's secondary, derivative. And in larger picture, incidental.

However, there is some reason for it. There is a reason we must bear evil twisting our good ideas to fit its own, evil ones. Misinterpreting our actions, scorning them and us, accusing. The accusing finger of evil. Ironic, isn't it? We must bear it, we are not perfect. If we think we are and stop striving to improve, we place ourselves on the top of our values and make ourselves the source of our morality and ultimately of our goodness. Why not more? Is that all we can get? Why not go for divinity? And that's how the story begins. It so began with Lucifer.

In case of BG2 charname, you either prevail over your evil essence, defeat the evil within yourself and let it not spread, or you go for it, go for yourself and become overwhelmed by the evil essence that devours you, changes you, deprives you of your identity and your very self that you so much wanted to preserve and make flourish. You became slave of your sombre father even if you have already killed his flesh. But not his essence. He still lives. In you.

 

One benefit to evil play, in my mind, would be all the pickpocketing you could do -- even a Chaotic good thief would not pick the pocket of a peasant, but an evil halfling would pick everyone!

On that note, a slightly off topic question -- is there any trick to stopping everyone from attacking you if your pickpocket goes badly?

 

@ Rastor

Oh, come on now, it's my first one in at least a couple of weeks...

 

Okay here's a question.

Seeing as how despite a few attempts, I've decided I can't play evil, how does a "goody-two shoes" like myself get into it? I've tried it a few times, but it just feels so wrong I end up unwittingly doing nice things and bringing my reputation up. The reason I ask is that I've mad a really cool evil Death Knight character I've been itching to try out.

How does a goody play bad?

Note to Shura: "Stop being such a p-u-s-s-y" is not an acceptable answer.

 

@ Bunny:
Just close your eyes and take a first shot at innocent bystander. Think of all that strenght what Bodhi and her followers can give you.
_________________

Am I being evil if I don't go and find that little boy's dog in fear that I might hurt myself doing this?
Am I good if I defeat the evil within myself (in the game) just because I have so much confidence and pride being what I am?
Am I being evil if I kill all the innocent children and animals, and piss on their grave if it isn't bad in my opinion? Does my own opinion have anything to do with what I really am? I might see all children as handiwork of Satan, and that's why I'm slaughtering them. Does that make me evil?

 

Being evil doesn't mean you can't help people. However helping them better be worth your time (gold, treasure etc.). If someone insults you, kick his arse. Doing the Temple of Talos quest is a very easy way to be evil and you can justify your actions in killing the beholder cult: Talos told me to, he's a big damn angry god and I don't want a lightning bolt up my jacksie.