Playing evil for the first time

Remove all ads!

I 2nd that! But it is still much fun. BG fails RPG-wise compared to the real thing, but as for it being a CRPG, it is way better than all of the other games out there, except maybe Torment and Fallout of course. All of them are aces in my book.

 

To be fair CRPGs have the incredible advantage of letting you play when you want without having to make plans two weeks in advance -and that's without taking into account the fact that when a fellow player has a spouse and kids it becomes much more complicated to find 6 hours for a game session...

I like Dragon Age as well. Evil in Dragon Age is not perfect but it has its moments.

Back on topic, playing evil is a fantastic way to unwind provided you don't take it too seriously. If you play an over the top villain with a taste for histrionics and melodramatic posturing then you're bound to have fun.

 

An evil Bard is great fun in BG. The NPCs compliment that class well, as all areas are covered by the NPCs. Kaigan, Shar-Teel, Monty, Vicky and either Edwin or Xzar. The bard becomes a great support character and you can easily turn him into oany type of character you need, whehter it's more magic, Archery, a Speaker, Slick fingers or a decoy.

 

I actually started a new game with an evil bard with Kagain, Shar-Teel, Monty, Viccy and Edwin. I still has my original "evil" game saved, but I was inspired to try somethings a little bit different. I think I wasn't evil enough so I had to try it again. And BTW - Xzar wasn't really as much fun as I hoped.

 

Magewise, he's weaker than Edwin, but still sufficent to cover Arcane caster. But RPG wise he has tons of great comments. When having a evil party, I try to leave one slot open to add a "Good" character, just for the dialogues. Then I change that good character frequently, just to try and get all of the different commetns out of my evil group. Xzar has lots of these types of comments. Kagian and Yeslick are a fun combo as well, they despise each other.

 

I agree that some of his comments are fantastic but I think he is a little too weak for my taste. Still, it's not about powergaming so he was fun to includ at least once. I still haven't picked up a lot of the NPC's in BG. Never tried Tiax, Faldorn, Yeslick, Quayle, Alora, Eldoth and Skie. You get them too late in the game so by then I always have a party that I want to go on with. The only two options for me would be Yeslick and Tiax but I'm not sure...

 

Yeslick is a pretty good pick. Fighter + Cleric is perhaps the best option for a late game Cleric. Having no Dex AC bonuses is a problem but he can slightly fix that with DUHM and PfE, on some enemies anyway. And being able to actually deal decent damage with weapons is good.

Plus you can have him cast Chant before engaging in battles to lower enemy hit rolls.

Also don't forget, Arcane classes are really at their peak when they can cast Haste, since all of the other important stuff they do is replicated by Wands. So they're easy to switch between.

 

Yeslick is pretty lawful good in fact. Not that it matters, he is a fool that any self respecting evil character would easily manipulate. RPwise that is.

 

Well, in Yeslick's defense, he was alrady duped once, according to his story and his clan paid for it with their lives. I doubt he would be duped again!

 

That's exactly what he was thinking before drowning in the mines.

 

Cruel, very cruel Caradhras!

Though, I have on occasion let Kaigan carve him into shavings.

 

Is there a level 1 NPC mod for BG1 or am I thinking of BG2 only? One that has the characters upon joining be at level 1, but have enough XP to level up to whatever level the rest of the party is immediately, allowing you to select proficiency points and thief points?

 

I started an evil playthrough and got quite far using the following party:

Protagonist (Fighter/Thief who became unstoppable, I can't imagine how he'd be if i'd have gotten Drizzt's armour)
Edwin
Kagain
Viconia
Jaheira (What? She's Neutral )
Garrick

They did really well, but then I changed PC and forgot to bring the save over. Doh!

 

"Level 1 NPCs" is the name of the mod, and it works on both BG1 (Tutu at least) and BG2. Get it at http://www.gibberlings3.net/level1npcs/

 

Hi, you can try to assassinate firebead elvenhair to start with. He is in Candelkeep but you can also kill him again in Beregost. Killing him leaves no effect on the game plot and gives you 2 700xp and a magic robe. You do lose reputation however, but that's part of being evil. You may also try to kill the priest at the temple after you are done with the Bassilus quest or the priest in friendly arm inn. I would suggest that you keep 1 temple useable just in case you need some healing.

Hope this helps a little bit.

---------- Added 0 hours, 58 minutes and 53 seconds later... ----------

 

Thanks a lot, I've spent more than twenty years trying to figure this out.

 

Look, I know many people have figured this out already but my intention was just to help those who didn't. You might have figured it out a long time ago but not everybody did.

 

I don't think there's any reason to assume that a person must be strictly limited to just one alignment at all times. Rather, you choose the most dominant one.

For example, a Lawfull Good aligned party are pretty much forced to lie, cheat and bluff to be able to retrieve Adalon's eggs in BG2:SoA. Likewise, getting to Sarevok pretty much means giving a big middle finger to law enforcement in BG. Are they playing against their alignment or temporarily suppressing that to reach a much bigger, decidedly more LG goal?

 

Yes obviously, this is why in the first editions of dungeons and dragons "neutral" on both good/evil and law/chaos axis was supposed to be an ethos meaning that good/evil or law/chaos was irrelevant to make a decision rather than it's purpose. The alignment in third edition was changed so that "neutral" is no longer and ethos, but rather a middle state. The alignments in the first editions and in the third edition are consequiently pretty much the same except that one is more extreme than the other. Like they are two forms of Lawful neutral for example : one that consitently switches between good/evil to bring the most order to the universe or the one that wouldn't want to get involved in good/evil behaviors to reach order. Likewise, i could be lawful and still do something chaotic as long as the overall consequences of my actions are lawful. The problem with the alignment is however how well you understand to classify a character, it usually remains subjective (the alignment of Batman) and few answers are generally seen as objective (The alignment of the Joker in the "Dark Knight" movie).

It depends on what you want the alignment to be based on.

1) The actions themselves as perceived by universal laws (Deontological ethics)
2) The consequences of your actions (consequentialism)
3) The intentions that commands the actions (Virtue ethics)
4) The respect for life/ethics coming from the heart a character.

Now that probably doesn't mean anything because you can only chose one of them. Still, if you are really into it, you can define the alignment of an action based on every one of those different things.

Ex: Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. You did not have the intention to disrupt society or to remove suffering from others. The Lawful Evil government is upset and attempts to enforces rules. Let's pretend the pain of the commoners has been abridged and that society has changed. The "hero" followed his conscience during the act. The character does have great respect for ethics and respects the well being of others. The chaos was incidental.

1) Chaotic + Good or Evil (depending on interpretation)
2) Chaotic + Good
3) Neutral + Neutral
4) Lawful + Good

We can understand better why the alignment is so subjective. I just mixed law, neutral, chaos, good and evil together with 4 different points of view.

I cannot answer your question since I never tried to retrieve Adalon's eggs and do not know the circumstances.

 

TN, I've had many posts along this line here on the boards and found I really don't always agree with the manuals regarding alignment because quite frankly the game designers often lose big picture when getting to the details -- your quote from v3.5 on law is an excellent example; a LE person is under no obligation to keep their word or tell the truth, certainly trustworthiness is not a LE trait and the idea of honor to a LE is far different than to a LG character.

BTW, the Joker was insane -- it's not subjective (or objective) at all in that case (perhaps you just used a poor example), in fact alignment is not relevant to insane characters.

Good versus evil (and neutral in that span) is fairly easy:

Good: benevolent, kind, self-sacrificing (but too far here is also insanity), and in general tries to improve the quality of life of others before themselves. This does not mean they do not try to improve their own position; having greater wealth and great power can benefit those around the good character.

Evil: selfish, self-serving, greedy, and overall wants to improve their own quality of life with no regard for how that affects others. The evil character is not insane (although they can be) and placing psychopathic traits on an evil character is inappropriate. An evil character is not a baby killer or mass murderer (once again, those are mental issues) -- they simply don't care that such things happen. Evil character can care about others, it's just more narrow than you would see with a good character.

Neutral: A lot of people want to put neutral as ambivalent -- this is not correct, ambivalence is actually a trait of evil. To use Jaheira's tired phrase; balance (which refers to inner balance in this case). Neutral can run the range from barely-not-good to almost-evil. To assume the neutral person must do one evil act for every good is ridiculous; just as the misguided believe that for every powerful evil vanquished the neutral must vanquish a powerful good is ridiculous. Neutral believes it is important to take care of others while watching out for number one. They're not selfish, but they're not going to give until it hurts either.​

Law versus chaos is far more difficult. Mainly because of the way Gygax presented it originally (as you quoted). I knew a guy who played a chaotic player with a dice in his hand. Every decision was made with a roll of the dice -- not very realistic. Such a decision making process falls into the realm of insanity, not an alignment. To assume that all individuals who uphold the virtues of LG are highly organized and incredibly predictable is also folly; organization is not an alignment trait (it is a trait, but not necessarily related to alignment) and being predictable in battle gets a person killed; yet LG continues to survive. I've always looked at good vs. evil as how someone feels about other people, which law vs. chaos is more about how a person feels about society.

Chaos: Ultimate form of government is none (anarchy), doesn't trust those in authority, willing to try new things just for the experience, and believes the individual is more important than society. A chaotic individual is quite willing to "wing it" but not to the point of stupidity.

Law: Believes mankind is better off in a stable environment, prefers to have contingencies in place when going into battle, and prefers to keep with the "tried and true" rather than embrace the unknown. Law is about an ideal, not necessarily about blindly obeying the rules -- evil will happily bend rules for their own purposes, while good will always challenge rules which are oppressive.

Neutral: Again balance. There is a need for both society rules and individuality. Neither should be dominant.​

Alignments are really not all that subjective and it's very "big picture" oriented. Batman does go outside the law, but he does so to protect society and individuals -- he does not try to usurp authority or even challenge the leadership of Gotham City. He puts his life on the line to protect others. IMO he's clearly in the LG or NG with strong lawful tendancies category. He does break the law, but as you aptly put it lawful has nothing to do with the law.