Evil

Remove all ads!

When I look at Good, Neutral and Evil alignments, I often like to substitute Selfish for Evil and Unselfish for Good.

As has been mentioned here, its not out of character for an evil player to perform a good act - only his motivation for doing so will be for personal gain rather than for the greater good.

I'm playing a Lawful evil character right now, but one of the neutral alignments might be more accurate.

 

I have read the whole topic and I think there is a problem with our perception of good/evil in a game. We naturally compare with our real life experience, and we tend to see the most common actions and motivations as "normal", and therefore good.

Just analyze what you do and what are your motivations. What can you definitely describe as good and what is evil for sure?

A little exercise: try to look at the world around you through the eyes of Keldorn, and then try Edwin's point of view.

These first thoughts came to me:

Keldorn: By Torm, does anyone seek anything else than wealth and power?
Edwin: Those lawyers...at last, someone can even barely match my intelligence.

I don't want to make an impressionthat our world is generally evil, I'm just trying to prove my point that our grasp of good and evil can be arguable.

What means to be good? Probably you shouldn't kill if not neccessary. Well, that means less experience and loot. Of course, you shouldn't be greedy. That means less gold. After all, in BG2 storyline you should immediately pursue Irenicus in order to free Imoen and then stop his evil schemes - impossible! Now someone tell me that playing evil characters in BG (and CRPG generally) is harder.

 

This has been an interesting topic so far, with some great ideas. I've toyed with playing an evil character a few times, but I find it difficult. I feel bad the second I do something nasty, or say something offensive in a game. One day I'll muscle my way past this meta-gaming conscience and get a right bastard through the BG series.

 

I'm pretty much the same as Sir Farivald in the sense that my conscious carries through to the game. I'm playing an 'evil' character right now, but he really isn't too evil.

 

If people still think that BIO actually had a good implementation of evil in either BG, then these people need to play Planescape Torment as an evil character. It's not perfect, but it's light-years ahead.

Warning: given the level of "role-playing" fans in this thread, Planescape Torment will cause most peoples' heads to explode because of all its "I didn't realize you could do that in a game" moments.

 

I don't actually think they made such a good work out of it. Playing evil requires more effort than just following the quests and doing the right thing, it is nevertheless possible to play a rotten character in BG2 (after all there is for instance a possibility to betray NPCs like Hendak or Valygar and that is awfully nice).

There are two minor NPCs in BG2 who IMO are truly evil. I'm thinking about the dwarf in the Copper Coronet (the one with the stuffed bear) and the dwarf in the derelict house in the Bridge District (the one with the bounty on his head). Both are children killers. Both are really evil. They are really unsavoury.

An evil Charname should be a villain of heroic proportions, he/she shouldn't be unsavoury or distasteful. He/she should be a real villain but the kind you'd like to look up to and admire if you could and if society condoned his actions. You could respect him or her for such heroic qualities like bravery, resourcefulness, determination and a will to overcome his or her own shortcomings. IMHO Scarface or Richard III are good role models for an evil PC, Jack the Ripper is not such a good choice.

 

Caradhras, I believe there is a difference between evil and insane. Your two examples of evil are psychopaths -- they are insane. You can play an insane character (i.e., a murdering psychopath), but the game should treat you accordingly -- like everyone going hostile and trying to kill you.

Betrayal of Hendak and Valygar (more evil still, kill him and use his body to open the planar sphere) are evil, yet not insane acts. These are done solely for the PC's personal gain -- extremely selfish yet not criminal. There are many examples of this in the game (the pantaloons is another, although it is criminal with little risk).

I think Bioware did make a good game to play evil within reasonable limits -- along with appropriate punishments for playing that way (loss of quests due to lack of trust). PS:T goes beyond that by allowing psychopathic behavior. In the original BG1 and evil character had to fight Flaming Fists everywhere they went -- quite appropriate that local law enforcement would be after such characters.

 

My point exactly. Playing evil doesn't mean going on a killing spree each time the party runs into an NPC. That's not my take on playing evil in BG.

Korgan would be right on the limit I guess. His murderous streak is mitigated by his mercenary taste for gold.

 

I still think they have Korgan's alignment wrong. He's more Chaotic Neutral from what I know. He certainly doesn't live up to the description of Chaotic Evil. I thought the Temple of Elemental Evil got off to a good start for evil parties, with it having you begin with the slaughter of an innocent caravan. Shame about the game that followed (in the context of roleplaying evil...)

 

Yes, there's no way in hell Korgan is chaotic evil. He's more neutral evil, selfish and money-grubbing, but not a lawless monster. Certainly not someone who would get chummy with lawful good paladin Keldorn (again, nice job on that one there, BIO). BIO just wanted to seem cool and edgy by including a CE character, but they botched his personality and alignment, the same way they botched "true neutral" Jaheira, who talks and acts like a chaotic good character.

To the others: aside from the tired point I always make about BIO's myopic view of an evil character being little other than someone who says "GIMME YOUR MONEY," betraying the slave at the beginning of BG2 is absolutely nothing compared to the evil you can commit in Planescape Torment. Though again, judging from the posts in this thread, Planescape Torment would probably make the heads of most people who have posted here, simply explode. Really, some of you guys, it sounds like you just couldn't take it.

So maybe it's for the best you haven't played it.

 

so how is the "mod for the wicked" coming? also the number of "evil" NPCs seems kinda low compared to how many good and Neutral NPCs there are, Korgan, Edwin, Viconia, and you would make 4 (5 in TOB with Sarevok), theres room for 1 to 2 more characters, they could have made a few more.



still havnet got a hold of PS:T, but i want to, sounds great.

 

Korgan acts as a bloody mercenary but he doesn't hesitate to finish off and betray his companions and if he is "short of a necklace of ears." He is an each man for himself dwarf with a very violent streak that sounds CE enough in my books. You really think that you have to be Jack the Ripper to be CE? The archetype of the CE character is a violent and bloody pirate, not a psychopathic serial killer (although the extreme CE would correspond to that picture).

You are REALLY full of yourself. I guess that makes you such an authority and such a better person that you can look down on all those who haven't played Planescape Torment. Wrong. I'm familiar with the setting of Planescape in Pnp before it even existed as a CRPG.
So stop showing off on so that you can feel good about yourself and your assumed sense of superiority (you seem to badly need to compensate for this to pretend you're such a big shot like you do).

So if you have an actual point or an argument, try to be articulate. You made your point about Planescape afew posts earlier and T2Bruno posted that Planescape allowed psychopathic behaviour. If you plan on explaining what you like about playing a sadist or a psychopath in a CRPG (we all get that you dig that kind of stuff) and it's fine by me but I find that disparaging comments (like in your last post) can only prevent people who are trying to exchange ideas and opinions from doing so.

I guess it's easier to just tell people that you know all about life, games, good, evil, truth and who killed Kennedy and that they are too dumb and that they can't "take it".

 

If you actually think BIO truly succeeded in making Korgan a dastardly CE character, try putting him in a party with Keldorn, the LG paladin.

For the record, I and many, many other role-playing fans were familiar with Planescape before the computer game existed as well. No idea where any of that, or the "full of yourself" stuff is coming from, or what that has to do with anything.

In addition, the word "articulate" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Regardless, I stand by my point that Torment still has one of the best implementations of evil in a RPG to date, leaps and bounds ahead of any BIO game, and those who have played Torment on these forums seem to have agreed with that point in the past. They also seem to have agreed that BIO's implementations of evil to date have been clubfooted and clumsy at best.

If someone is getting that upset about a discussion of role-playing in a computer game that's nearly a decade old, I would suggest taking a break from the Internet.

 

For the record, Torment isn't just about psychopathic behavior, nor was it the first RPG to ever do that. (Nor did I ever praise the game solely for that.) Think back to the "evil" ending in the first Fallout, for instance, which was pretty much more psycho than evil or good or anything else.

Torment not only lets you be crazy, and/or a BIO-style money-grubber, it also lets you be sanctimonious, conniving, and very, very manipulative. You can play mind-games with Dakkon, especially when you learn more about your past with him. You can lead Annah on, romantically. You can triple-cross people you've sworn to (or lied to). And there are actually not only consequences, but new options, gameplay, and sometimes, rewards given for doing so (but sometimes at a price).

There's much, much more depth than BG2's puddle-like evil game, which includes such dead-ends as: "Hey, I'll do the 'evil' thing and let Viconia get burned at the stake...OK, there she goes! No NPC follower, no quests, no XP, no reward, no nothing for me here! I guess that's that!"

 

Articulate: 1. able to express oneself fluently and coherently. 2. having the power of speech. 3. distinct, clear, or definite; well-constructed. 4. (of anthropods and higher vertebrates) possessing joints or jointed segments. 5. to speak or enunciate (words, syllables, etc.) clearly and distinctly. 6. to express coherently in words. 7. to be jointed or form a joint. 8. to separate into jointed segments.

Definition taken from the Collins English Dictionary (millenium edition).

 

I'm currently replaying PS:T right now. I find it very odd that almost any time your character asks for monetary compensation for a quest, your alignment shifts toward evil. These are not "pay me or I'll kill you" sort of dialogue options. Often, it's more to the tune of: "I just helped you or will agree to help you. I would like some sort of payment." Nothing I see as evil there. However, according to PS:T, if you are not a complete altruist, you are evil or chaotic. Does this strike anyone else as odd/wrong?

I come to work everyday and I expect payment for my services. Am I evil?

 

Of course you are, and just think about the XP (and reputation points) you keep losing since you act so wickedly

I also thought this payment-thing the last time I played BG2 with evil group. Even when you do the right thing, almost every money- or compensation-related reply is somehow evil and/or greedy. If you think how societies work (even in Amn, I would assume), expecting payment from work as a default would IMO make a person more lawful neutral than for example neutral evil. Evil character would probably try to get the reward(s) without doing anything.