POLL: Why would you play evil?

Remove all ads!

I have found the transition between BG and BG2 to be dissapointing as an evil character. In BG you said all the selfish/cheesy lines, killed people, stole, etc, etc. It was low on XP, but great role playing and very satisfying.

However, when you import into BG2 you have Minsc and Imoen in your party who you dispatched in BG1. Still, once you get around this you can start getting into the game again.

Hey, you go after Irenicus for revenge (for Imoen) which is a selfish act. There are a couple of sub-quests which have an evil angle: human flesh armor, siding with bodhi, thief quests done the evil way, plus don't forget the pantaloon quests.

The best NPCs are evil (Korgan, Viccy and Edwin) which is some benefit for you. Plus, you can easily use any neutral NPC, after all CN has an evil bent to it. Plus, why not use a good charcater is you have a common aim, after all isn't the evil way to use people to get the job done.

I have actually found the playing the game as a Paladin much harder from a role playing perspective as there are so many quests (such as thief quests and harper quests) that a Paladin wouldn't perform as they go against his ethos.

 

The point of the entire dragon challenge is that it plays on the sense of pride that a phenominally powerful godling like yourself must feel. Dragons? You've handled them before. No big deal. And there may be treasure to be found and all that, not to mention the exp. From a roleplaying perspective, if you're a truly arrogant evil character who'd rather TAKE the tear then BEG for it, then it makes perfect sense that you'd fight the pathetic wyrmling to get it.

 

If you are really roleplaying you wouldn't know what kind of reward there is. Very often they don't tell you what you're gonna get.
Besides, there are some REALLY (Because of a bug I pickpocketed worth 3 million gold of stuff in one try) good targets for pickpocketing, but to find them you'll have to pickpocket more or less everyone and everything.
To add that list of evil quests, I think Finding Valygar would be one, or is more of a lawful/chaotic quest, not good/evil.

 

Because of a bug you pickpocketed 3 million? I dont really think bugs count. Nor would I think a level 19 evil thief would run around pickpocketing common folks for change. Quite oftne you can ask for a reward before the quest and see what you will get, always mroe than what you can earn in the ecquivalent time spent on pickpocketing. What I would have wanted to see was a possibility to steal from all merchants, sure might be hard from Ribald but it should be possible. Why on earth would the evil 18th level necromancer pay a petty merchant for his goods when he could just take it?

 

Because word would get around to the cowled wizards that a certain 18th level Necromancer has been using his magic to rape, pillage and steal from all the stores in a city based on trade.

Although it is wierd how merchants don't drop their store items when they die. Where do they get them from? A pocket plane only they can open?

 

The cowled wizards are sissies, any 18 level necromancer with a likewise powerful party around him could take down quite a large amount of cowled wizards, and if things would get too hectic he shouldnt have any problem leaving.

 

A reputation like that though would earn you a quick trip to your own undead army. Sure nobody likes the cowled wizards but they keep things in check.

 

Bah. Any Bhaalspawn worth his salt should be able to slap the Cowled Wizards around with ease by the end of SOA.

Besides, being evil is not going around biting the heads of kittens. How many times must I say it before I am understood?

No wonder we always win. Stupid Paladins and assorted 'heroes' are going around smiting the inconsequential orcs and dumb necromancers while we Blackguards/true evildoers take over the world without them knowing it.

 

If only you existed

Besides, only idiots would place themselves above others. They need to understand that power only draws attention and an ambitious evil lord must surround himself with other ambitious evil captains who will take their first chance to become the 'ambitious evil lord'. Weave a web of treachery and you'll get yourself tangled in it.

Inspire faith in your followers? Make them think the venture will not succeed without your guidence? You expect yourself to think the same if you were in their situation? You surround yourself with competant evildoers like yourself only to be betrayed by someone like yourself. Only way for an evil lord to become powerful is with an army of golems that obey his commands to the letter and have no motive other than to serve him.

 

Actually, you can convince them that your cause is worthy enough, that they should server you unquestionly, if you are charismatic enough.

 

Silly Abom.



So great is my vision and so mighty is my cause that ALL will flock to serve me, good or evil. No one will betray their beloved living deity.

Like GI said, as long as your charisma is high enough, and as an Evil Lord or potential Evil Lord like a Bhaalspawn PC it should be damned high, your fanatical followers will not betray you.

And even if some malcontents do, it is only a simple matter to slap them down again. Why fear treachery? It is the natural order of things. He who lets himself be displaced simply deserves his downfall. Unlike 'good'/wimpiness, who coddle and tolerate weakness, there is no such thing in Evil.

A negative Example: Stupid Paladin gets killed while trying to save child hostages from evil necromancer. Necromancer then proceeds to destroy the world.

A positive Example: Blackguard incinerates the children along with the rival necromancer and hence spares the world of the necromancer's further carnage for the cost of a few inconsequential children. Blackguard then goes on to create a new world order in which the world, by heeding his flawless edicts, becomes a much better place to live in.

Either way, Evil wins. But the second scenario is so much more productive.

I said it before, I'll say it again: Evil always wins because good is dumb.

Hence, good=weak. Evil=intelligent and strong.
Hence, you should play Evil in BG.

 

Sadly Shura you're wrong. No matter how charismatic you are (take note this is a hypothetical situation, you'd require 25 CHA from D&D 2 rules - which is impossible for a mortal) good and evil alike will 'not' flock to you. The more intelligent, evil self-serving bastards will bend knee to nobody. The good paladins would never work for an organisation such as your own.

If you were able to convince these people to join you it would be impossible to keep them in line. You wouldn't be able to accomplish anything. The 'good' members of your little order would be in constant conflict with the 'evil' members of your order. The 'good' members of your order would not follow through with your examples of how to deal with problems, you'll never convince a good person to burn a house down while there are still occupants inside it, and they would disobey your order even at the threat of death. There would be those in the 'evil' members of your order that will attempt to overthrow you for their own self serving purposes. In order to hold your power (and your life) you would require immense amounts of power yourself, possibly only those of a god. These people you will have serving under you (possibly as your closest, trusted advisors, sages and generals) will be powerful in their own right and they aquired that power by being ambitious and not being afraid to kill someone to get to their position. If your highest ranking officers are not powerful your 'New World Order' wouldn't be able to follow through with its goals, all ideals with no power to back them don't ever achieve anything, a paper tiger as it were.

You're not even evil! You're trying to make a world better for yourself by ignoring the 'good' path, that sounds more neutral to me than evil. That last thing an evil person will strive for is a better world for everyone, they don't 'care' about everyone else, they only care about themselves and would want a better world for 'themselves'.

Sure you've got a 'dream' there Shura but it'll never work simply because good and evil will not work with each other or follow you. Good will not follow your evil orders and evil will constantly try to replace you.

I'm not trying to say evil is more powerful than good, or that good is more powerful than evil, frankly they are both equal yet suffer from their own weaknessess in certain areas. Good will never reign for in order for good to take control of the world it will have to committ many evil acts. Evil will never reign because it'll destroy itself from the inside out.

 

I think this is where balance comes in.
Too much evil will cause a disruption in the balance of things (i.e. if all the people were self-serving and evil) and something is bound to happen as a result (i.e. a revolution, etc.) that will result in a time of good until the whole things repeats itself again - or Toril is destroyed.
Good cannot exist without evil - likewise evil cannot exist without good. Good will spawn evil, and evil will spawn good, which is the nature of things.
To encourage one side will cause a shift in the balance, and there's no escaping what will happen once the way of things intervene.

That's why IMO though it would be nice to play evil to experience everything in SoA, I'd rather be a CN Blade singing my songs of the way of things are rather than fighting and being winning against one side, and being lost in the end.

 

Again Scythesong stole words from my mouth. It could not be said better than that.

@ Abomination:
Let's say I have my elven swashbuckler with 18 charisma, with Ring of human influence, Nymph cloak and Blade of roses, which means I now have 22 charisma. I remember Minsc having one charisma boosting item, helmet or something. When I get 'Use any item' skill, I'll be having that one too, making my charisma 23. I still have to get that 2 points charisma and then it would be possible for mortal to have 25 charisma. Hope I don't have to start a crusade to achieve that.

 

I don't think Baldurs Gate II items should be taken seriously when considering someones 'charisma'. Mostly because these items are just that, items. You would have to hold your damn blade of roses, wear the stinking helm of glory and that bloody poofter nymph cloak. Roses, Paladin Helmet, Nymph - not very 'evil lord' things are they?

 

I don't usually play evil, 'cause I like getting things slightly cheaper. I do get the Silver Pantaloons, no matter what, though.

 

Evil have a very weak point. If one evil person gets to highest position, other evil people will get jealous and chaos will occur among them sonner or later. Even the evil gods of Forgotten Realms are self-serving(Read about this in a forgotten Realms book). So what benefits will the evil-doers have in the end? Get to serve their self-serving gods only and not much peace for themselves. While the good people have gods who will care for them and not sacrifice them for the god's own purposes, unless it will save more people.
Btw, if I play evil, it's because I want to complete the game fully and also because, there are some benefits or weapons that only evil-doers can use, and I want to try this items/weapons(A few very attractive example are the Blackrazor and the hell judgment(evil choices), which can make a warrior very powerful.

 

@ Abomination:
I know this going a bit off-track, but you did say CHA 25 is impossible for mortal to have. You didn't say anything about good or evil mortal. Wielding a sword doesn't make you any less evil or any less mortal.. But not wearing any pants might make you abomination. No offense.

 

Well despite everything you still won't be able to get 25 charisma. According to D&D the Charisma bonuses 'shouldn't' stack. Indeed the PC in Baldur's Gate can achieve 25 CHA but this is only through his divine bloodline, making him more than mortal.

I'm just saying that an evil-lord wouldn't be able to rally those types of people together and convince them to stay together unless he had 25 Charisma - which is impossible to achieve unless you're of godly status.

Stop nit-picking! It'll never work! Shura is wrong! ARaggh!!!

 

Me wrong?

Nay, foolish Abom. It is you who are wrong, and are weak in denying it.

True Evil adheres to Natural Law. If a lieutenant is powerful enough to overthrow me, well all the best to him. If he's that powerful, then the New World Order he will bring about after my reign must be much better. But if he gets slapped down, that only proves my superiority.

True Evil only welcomes treachery. Through treachery within itself, True Evil only becomes stronger. 'good' on the other hand, coddles and condones weakness.

If the entire evil reign is overthrown because of internal treachery, allowing 'good' to triumph for the moment, then it simply means that the Lord and lieutenant are not powerful enough. In that case, then it's time for yet another even more powerful Evil Lord to rise.