POLL: Why would you play evil?

Beren? Are you feeling OK? A party without the fair Jaheira? Can it be?

 

AFI - she can be the annoying moral compass.

 

OK, so long as you're taking her. At first (since you didn't mention her in your intial post) I thought she simply wasn't in your party. I was beginning to wonder if I should start looking for signs of the apocolypse.

 

In my opinion, being truly evil means rejecting the laws of society and placing yourself above them, because you believe they are not made for special people like you (a bit like the character Raskolnikov does in Dostojevski's masterpiece 'Crime and punishment'). Laws are made for the ordinary people, in order to discipline and control them. You're not ordinary, so you don't have to obey them.

Furthermore it means not accepting what is called 'the sanctity of life'. Truly evil people don't value other people's life, possibly not even their own life. They have no moral objections to harming others, or even taking their lifes if necessary or convenient. If the easiest way to reach their goal is by killing someone, they will not hesitate a moment to do so. 'Life' has no innate value for them.

 

Killing, then. But what if it's not killing? Does it negate the principle? The basic rule of good is 'do unto others as you wish to be done unto'. That's more or less it for morals. Then, how it's in practice, is influenced by the lawful-chaotic axis. L allows less exceptions for itself than C, basically. That's more or less it - a huge simplification and quite a brute one, but should give you some view.

 

In my opinion, being truly evil means rejecting the laws of society and placing yourself above them, because you believe they are not made for special people like you (a bit like the character Raskolnikov does in Dostojevski's masterpiece 'Crime and punishment'). Laws are made for the ordinary people, in order to discipline and control them. You're not ordinary, so you don't have to obey them.

Furthermore it means not accepting what is called 'the sanctity of life'. Truly evil people don't value other people's life, possibly not even their own life. They have no moral objections to harming others, or even taking their lifes if necessary or convenient. If the easiest way to reach their goal is by killing someone, they will not hesitate a moment to do so. 'Life' has no innate value for them.

This doesn't mean they will randomly slaughter innocent commoners or decline to help a child in need. Just like the good people they won't do such things, but they will refrain from doing it for different reasons. They will never randomly slaughter people, because that will bring them into conflict with forces more powerful than them, for example the governement. Even if there is no law to refrain them from killing innocent commoners, they still won't do it, because it serves absolutely no purpose. The same goes for helping a child in need. If it is easy and involves no considerable danger, they will always do it. If, however, it is dangerous or difficult and serves no other purpose than saving the life of the child, they will not do it or at least ask for a reward. If they can't get any or it is not sufficient (for example because the parents are poor farmers), they won't do it. And they won't feel sorry for the loss of one life. Such is life. Innocent people get killed and oppressed every day and truly evil people don't believe that that will or can ever be changed, nor that it has to be changed.

Their personal relationships will be based on respect. They will just as easy respect good, evil and neutral people. As long as they have respect for their power, their view of life or their achievements. It is perfectly possible for a truly evil character to travel in a group with Keldorn. As long as he respects him, for example for his power and wisdom, or the sternness of his views.

Truly evil people are ambitious, ruthless and honarable. They are good to their allies and friends and mercyless to their enemies. They count as their enemies people who oppose them or their goal or aren't worthy of their respect. Their goals are not necessarely selfish or perverted, but will never involve just helping others for the love of God without along the way also helping themselves.

And to chevalier: evil has to justify itself because it is hated and opposed by all society. Good people don't have to explain themself, evil people do.

Just my opinion...

 

I'd play evil just to have a different kind of experience to this game, though I've never actually made an evil character.

All my characters are CN. If I'm forced to choose otherwise, I use Shadowkeeper.

 

I have never created an Evil alligned character at the start of Shadows of Amn but i frequetly change their alignment to evil after i took the BlackRazor in Hell or kill the Dragon with Bhaal's tear which is definitely just for fun and for the bonuses.

 

@ Heerscher

I find it interesting how you (and many other of the evil lovers in this thread) attempt to dignify evil, by stating that evil is about honor, who would treat those they consider worthy of respect in a fair and just manner. Shura would contend that evil is a source of strength, as a truly evil person would not allow themselves to be bound by a code of honor other then their own. Many times in this thread the act of murder, especially senseless killing, is said to be at the core of evil. This is not the case.

The core of evil is selfishness. A truly good person has the ability to value something else over their own personal well being. An evil person cannot do such a thing. Life is not precious to them; they may kill somebody for no other reason then the fact that a person irritates them; life is not more valuable to them then their own simple peace of mind. Laws are not meant to be respected, as they may circumvent the evil person's personal freedoms, and that person will not sacrifice those freedoms for the greater benefit of a society as a whole. Other people, or things, may be important to them, but nothing is important enough to sacrifice oneself over.

This strict adherence to one's personal moral code can sometimes be misconstrued as stregth. It should not be. Strength is the ability to see past oneself, to endure hardships for the benefit of things that you find more important then yourself. Emmanuel Kant would state that before you perform an action, you should universalize it first; ask youself "what would happen if everybody did this?". What would happen if everybody acted solely for their own self interest? An evil person disregards all consequences, perfectly content to pursue their own ends. A good person is not quite so small minded. They have the ability to think outside themselves.

I would not play an evil character because an evil character, to me, has no real sense of dignity. They may exude one, and seem to have a sense of honor, but honor involves adhering to a code of morals whatever the cost. To keep one's promise, come hell or high water, requires honor. A truly evil person would not keep their word if it put their well being in serious jeopardy. Even a chaotic character, who has little respect for insitutionally established norms and laws, would have their own personal moral code that they would live by. I couldn't play a character with no sense of dignity and honor, and thus I could not truly play an evil character.

 

While in some ways I have to agree with your all of your opinions, most people, such as Chevalier and Shura, seem to be forgetting one important point. It is a game. No matter how often you analyze your character's alignment reflects and why you chose it, your own personality has nothing to do with it. If you enjoy being evil, go for it. Relax, unwind and take out a couple peasants. I you enjoy taking the so called 'high road', go for it and save a kitten.

For once, its not how you play the game. Its whether you finished and ejoyed your time playing the game.

Just my opinion, of course, but try to relax.

 

On a related topic if you played an evil character and at the end of SoA in the hell trials did all but one test using the evil choice, and the exception using the good option would that mean that your pc would change alingment from evil to good?, as opposed to the good to evil alingment change?

And if this was a possible outcome how could this be justified from a roleplaying view? say for example that you travel in a party with Viconia, Jaheira, Keldorn, Korgan and Imoen your party consists of 3 good/evil characters. (I don't belive personally that Jaheira act's like a TN, her alingment is only because of her Druid Class her personality though is more Like a mix of NG and CG)

But minus your own character and including Keldorn's strong good influence and Jaheira's Imoen's own influences, (especially if you are romancing Jaheira) you could justify taking good paths in the hell trial's and mixing them with evil decision's by putting your own self desire and gain into the mix.
But if you did this you could argue that your alingment change should be neutral something, as opposed to good which just isnt possible.
If you want a character that you can roleplay like this then maybe a CN or TN character might be more appropriate.

Well that's my 2 cents.

 

From a roleplaying perspective how can not fighting the dragon be considered a good or at least not-evil act? Any self-preserving evil-doer isn't going to jump at the chance to have a pointless battle with a dragon. If you can just ask the damn thing for the tear why not do so? Frankly a 'good' option to do would be to kill thing thing. It's a black or shadow dragon, therefore its an evil dragon. Being a goody-two-shoes you enjoy killing evil things.

 

Well it doesnt have to be the dragon challange I dont think, but I dont have much expirience with the evil reward's other then they are more sutied to a melee character than the good one's.

One test where an evil character might eventually develop a conscience and do the right bloody thing for once would be the selfish test, where you have to choose the path to pick to either save your companions life or let them die.

 

I have played Neutral Evil many times but the game just isnt made for it really. In my opinion NE is about getting ahead, always go for what gives the player the biggest benefit. In BG, what gives the player the most benefit is to play LG. It would have been nice if you now and then had to sacrifice something to pick the good path but nope. You go good and you get more XP, more loot and more everything while you get shafted by playing evil. The point with evil people is that they are selfish, they do what benefits them the most, what benefits Charname the most in BG is more or less all the time doing something good. So when I played evil I did most of the quests in a good way cause hey, my dude aint stupid and I kept the evil roleplaying in my mind so to speak.
It is also funny how pathetic much of the evil paths are, like the trademeet quests, the dude giving you the evil quests points out several times how evil it is and what a bastard he is and you have to say yes many many times.
The BG games just arent made to be played in an evil way, just no benefit. If there wouldnt be any benefit to be evil I dont think people wold be very evil, do you? A greedy bastard would go around doing good deeds if as in BG he gets a huge payoff. I would like to see a game where it truly costs to be good, where you might have give stuff up now and then to be true to your alignment and where evil characters might get a little bit ahead in the ecquipment/money department but perhaps wouldnt be very popular in temples for healing and annoying cityguards or bountyhunters may popup.

 

A greedy bastard doing LG for profit is only superficially LG. In reality, his alignment may be very different. Probably some sort of LN, maybe even LE. As I pointed out, evil will often take good quests to pass as some sort of good. Probably solved a bit differently, but hey - such little details aren't covered in the game. Even in paladin stronghold quests there's a superficially LG option - you can side with the baron in Imnesvale, Umar Hills, for example. There's a variety of potentially profitable quests that will also potentially increase your reputation, not only paying off well but also making sure you'll get nice discounts in shops. The number of evil quests isn't small, either. If you're faking good for profit, you do good quests. If you're really really nasty evil, you can always try slaughtering whole that town or looting all houses you can break in and pickpocketing whomever looks wealthy.

 

Yeah but after trying doing those things Chev you pretty soon figure out that there is no gain in it. Why pickpocket some fat nobleman for 30gp when you can help out lost little children for a wicked +6 hackmaster sword and be seen as an upstanding citizen?

 

The game definately seems desinged to play good and there's proof of this beyond the quest's in the back story of BG.

I'm not 100% sure on this but I think Gorion (foster father) raises you to do "good" and avoid "evil", there is also the fact that gorion is a harper.
In irenicus dungion in the beggining of the game if you sleep, Imoen start's a dialog with you and if you pick the right dialog's she mentions Gorion been visited by Kehlbem Blackstaff(?) in BG1 he get's a letter from Elminister that you find on his dead body, saying something like "we have been too sheltering... must meet Khalid and Jahiera at Frindly arm inn" (or was it Gorion writing to Elminster?)
Other evidence that pc is supposed to be a good character is that gorion is a member of the Harper's which to the best of my limited knowledge, more often than not a good organisation.

There was that glimpse of the past in your pocket plane telling us about Gorion Jaheira and Khalid's failed mission to save the Bhaal children from death by your so called evil "mother" Alianna to resurrect Bhaal by sacrificing pc.

anything else I'm missing?