My thoughts on IWDII

Remove all ads!

I've just finished Icewind Dale II, and thought that as a long time Baldur's Gate II fan, I'd give a quick review of the game.

First off, I found that the atmosphere in IWD2 was superior to BG2. There was a sense of urgency throughout IWD2 that was lacking in BG2, even in Spellhold, where you are supposedly running for your life from Bohdi and her minions. IWD2 is far more linear than BG2, which is fine as long as the path you're forced to travel is enjoyable.

IWD2 is similar to BG2 is that it has a landscape 'dense' with activity, and thank god for that. If you don't know what I mean, played BG1, where there are a few encounters/items separated by nothingness, which makes for a very boring game

Secondly, IWD2 is much harder than BG2. I approached the game thinking that since I had experience with a game with an almost identical engine, I'd breeze through it. Much to my astonishment, I was getting destroyed. I need to reduce the difficulty to 'easy' when fighting the guardian, and I could not beat the final bosses without using Dalekeeper (more on that later). Ironically, the most pathetic enemies in the game are actually the spellcasters, while the fighters chunk you. This is opposite to BG2, where the spellcasters are demonic, and the fighters are just an inconvenience. I'd attribute this to the better spell protections available to mages in BG2. But overall, I enjoyed the spell system in IWDII, but man how I wished I could cast time stop.

I think the increased difficulty in IWD2 is mainly due to the more numerous melee foes, which hit harder and act in unison. In BG2, you can lure one enemy away from a group and pound on him, or cast a cloudkill and wait as he stands in it until dying. In IWD2, you are pursued relentlessly by a group, and they don't stop until you are dead. I approve of this improvement to the AI, it makes for a more challenging game without giving your opponents godlike stats (Tactics mod for BG2, I’m looking at you!).

The portraits and sound sets are neat. The addition of new races was awesome, but I missed some kits from BG2 (Archer, Inquisitor).

IWD2 fell down in several places, though. The game is horribly bugged despite application of the patch, and if I had not had Dalekeeper and extensive knowledge of the engine, I wouldn't have been able to finish the game. Such as:

Charm spells which last forever.

Not being able to control my character after a charm spell wears off.

Feeblemind spells not wearing off or being removable.

The 'spell casting' icon in the toolbar converting to a 'use ability' icon.

Items dropped by my characters disappearing after I changed levels to resurrect my characters, so that I needed Dalekeeper at the end to replace these items.
Summoned Elementals turning hostile when I reload my game.

And worst of all, no area notes on my map, despite me having selected the option. BG2 seems more stable than IWD2.
-----
Fell Wood Maze. I hate it, I really do. IWD2 would have been oh so much better without the Maze. It's frustrating and inconvenient, a total mood breaker which has you grinding your teeth. I confess, I used a walkthrough for that bit. The puzzles in the ice citadel are also a pain. Sometimes your objectives are a little obscure too: Why did I need to vanquish the ghost lights to go through the Maze? Where am I meant to go in the ice temple, and why?

The plot is a little contrived. Why send a low level party to retake a heavily defended bridge, or assault a horde fortress? Can't Targos spare a few soldiers to at least launch a diversionary assault while you sneak in? That would be far more believable. What the hell do Ulbrec and his wife do all day?

And if I'm capable of retaking a bridge and assaulting a fortress, why couldn't I just sneak/fight past the horde along the Eastern Pass, instead of having to go through the goddamn Fell Wood Maze and then through the Underdark? Why the hell would I choose the notorious Underdark over the risk of encountering the horde along the Eastern Pass?
But to its credit, the side quests in IWD2 were all excellent and well incorporated into the game, none of this 'Fetch my wine' nonsense that was in BG1. Who cares about some dwarven moron’s wine?

The way the Legion of Chimera played out also disappointed me immensely. As the game progressed, the Legion of Chimera was developed as morally complex. Good men and women like Sherincal who had been outcast simply for being born different. Cambions who may have some good within them but who turned to violence due to bigotry. Races driven off their land by expansive humans. But then this complexity was just dashed near the end, where the organisation went from morally grey to just black: Following a religion which is Darwinian and promotes the tormenting of the weak, engaging in slavery, consorting with demons, the wholesale butchering of civilians and anything remotely good, denying food to the slaves. And then suddenly the citizens of Kuldahar are innocent babies with a 'why us' attitude. The foundation was laid for a morally complex game, but then the producers seemed to have then just thrown their hands in their air and uttered ‘To hell with that! Too hard to script!’

I was looking forward to even a semi-decent dialogue with Isair and Madae, where they could at least justify themselves while appearing human (much as Irenicus does in BG2), but no, they just spout crap. How disappointing, a lot of potential was missed here. By the end, I can't sympathise with Isair and Madae, whereas I could sympathise with Irenicus, despite the fact that he had, well, stolen my soul. And at the end, Queen Ellisime suggests that perhaps she and her elves could have acted in a more humane fashion towards Irenicus. There was no such revelation made at the end of IWD2, the observation that "Hey, I guess we reaped what we sowed."

No mention is made of a move of conciliation towards half-breeds, the very issue which caused all this trouble to begin with. What’s to stop another uprising of half-breeds in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years? But to hell with that, the message the game sends is this: Half breeds and demonic blood = Bad and irredeemable. If you’re born a villain, you’ll always be a villain. You can’t reason with them, you can’t negotiate, you can’t compromise, they’ll kill you any chance they get, they follow sinister gods, consort with demons and torment slaves. What happened to the geniuses who wrote the morally ambiguous dialogue from ‘Planescape: Torment’?

So overall, the gameplay, atmosphere, tactical challenge and game art of IWD2 make it a good game. But its contrived plot, game-killing bugs and several frustrating areas make it inferior to BGII.

 

First of all - GREAT name. That was one of my favorite cartoons.

Second - I think your review is pretty spot on. That's kinda how I felt. I still have never finished the game, despite getting close. I tend to lose my investment in the story a little while after Kuldahar, and end up never finishing.

 

sorry you feel that way

You can go through multiple games without even noticing those bugs (I hadn't heard of them until recently). And the bugs don't always happen in said situations, in fact they're rare.
I also think that the game installs differently on each PC due to the PC's specs, and that may explain why my game's much more stable than yours or other people's.
There are definitely holes in the reasoning of the plot, I mean, Ulbrec orders you to scout in the balloon, and you end up marching on without orders. Weird. But taking on the horde head on would have been an even more stupid plotline. You can survive encounters with medium sized groups, but the horde... how would you inagine that? A map completely full of dangerous enemies?
But I personally liked the development of the villains; you find out their background much earlier in the game, as opposed to near the end with BG2. They're also more real, showing balanced reasoning, but eventually you come to the conclusion that they're too far gone now. Irenicus is a legendary quality villain with superb voicing (you will suffah, you will ALL suffah), but he's exactly that: A villain. There's no more reasoning behind his motivation than a psychotic megalomania and an insatiable desire for power. Of course, Isair and Madae were in it for revenge, but the story makes you understand why many half-breeds wanted to join them. You feel almost sad that you have to destroy their hopes and dreams...
Irenicus went bad with no motivation other than his desires, while Isair and Madae were practically forced into their roles by their heritage and past history with the ten towns. It shows a more logical buildup of the villains, something uncommon in the 'good vs evil' atmosphere of D&D. I'm afraid D&D gets a lot of that from religious morality (even despite being called 'satan's' game by christian nutters): this sanctimonious judgementalism. The vast majority (all, probably) of real people are morally grey in their actions and motivations, some a bit lighter or darker.

So what would be your rating out of 10?

 

coin:

So was I just unlucky? I doubt it. Encountering about half a dozen game-stopping bugs during my first playthrough is indicative that the beta-testers weren't critical enough.

BG2 and BG1 are far more stable than IWD2.

But that's what you're expected to do throughout chapter 1. First you must retake a bridge held by the horde (and who can call reinforcements at any time), and then you must assault the horde fortress. If I am expected to do this, why can't I make an attempt to sneak along the main road? I mean, I just cleaned out the horde fortress, surely a little army will be no trouble?

'A map completely full of dangerous enemies' describes about half the maps in IWD2.

You start to learn about Isair and Madae in Kulduhar, which is about 4/5's through the game. You learn about Irenicus in Spellhold, about 3/5's through the game.

LOL, what? Nobody from the Legion of Chimera offers balanced reasoning.

Not true. Irenicus motive is primarily revenge for being cast out by his eleven brethen, as well as having his eleven divinity stripped from him.

Hardly, and that's my whole problem with the plot. Apart from Sherincal, I couldn't sympathise with anyone else in the legion of Chimera. Violent half-orcs who take villagers hostage, ice priests who worship a cruel goddess, half-breed snakes who use slaves and worship a god of war, clerics who worship a god who espouses cruelty and the exploitation of the weak, etc. The authors really drill it home that the Chimera are pretty much bad eggs, an organisation you wouldn't want to join.

Again, not true.

Isair and Madae didn't have a choice in how they conducted themselves? They have a demonic heritage, hence they were doomed to be villains? See, that's the sort of nonsense I felt ruined the game.

As I said earlier, I think the authors of IWD2 laid the foundations for a morally grey game, and then just gave up.

7.5.

 

nonono!

Wow, you really are a reviewer. I've never had a statement be so critically picked apart before. Lete me return the favour. P.S. you can't hear the tone in which I write, but it's all in good fun, otherwise I wouldn't reply.

Ulbrec wanted you to scout the fortress, find out what happened to the scouts, see if you can find a way to kill the leader. Your overzealous party saw them in a limited-alert state, and pushed on, wiping out the whole base in an epic battle. This way the legion hadn't secured the area, and the army couldn't arrive in a defended location later.

The enemies are mostly in small bands, not as organized as a legion. Imagine the entire map swarming towards you upon sight...

Depending on how you play BG2, Spellhold could be in the end. And you don't know all about him until Suldanessellar.

Absolutely wrong. The elves didn't strip him of his immortality (not divinity as you say) because of some misunderstanding. He tried to hijack godhood by tapping into the powers of the tree of life the first time. In Suldanessellar you end up stopping him trying the same thing. Revenge is nothing more than a coincidence of his plans. There is no explanation of his thirst for power, and that's why he's a villain, not a real character.

You sympatized with Sherincal? I found her rant a bit emo & angsty. Ooh, she hates her human side, so she wants to take part in a 'genetic experiment'. Sounds like those people who want to amputate their own limbs. I have no sympathy for them either. There was this guy in Belgium, who convinced his girlfriend to get amputations too, so that he'd like her more. Then he dumped her. Stupid woman of course, but that's just sick! Why doesn't he get his head amputated?
Half-orcs, goblins, all the races detested by humans for their simple, violent ways, they get a chance to better themselves by the discipline of the legion's ranks, and get hope for a better future.
The Aurilites mourn the loss of their spiritual leader, killed in the IWD1 Heart of Winter expansion. Their desire for revenge/suffering is somewhat understandable.
Yuan-ti Half-Breeds were born of villagers, and shunned. Killed or exiled as children, they make Dragon's Eye their home, which they must share with fire creatures from the volcano. Besides the danger of the volcano erupting every 50 or so years, adventurers (IWD1) also attack them from time to time. In order to gain a foothold in the north, and secure their existance, they allied with the legion, and sought the help of Yuan-ti as far away as Chult! A daring and difficult plan. The fact that they worship Sseth is a part of their culture, and they eat humans as we eat cows. All just a matter of perception, and labelling it good or evil.
The worship of Bane is not dissimilar to darwinism, as you pointed out. The strong cruelly dominating the weak is a fact of life, so maybe Banites are like evil (dark gray) druids. Their emphasis on lawfulness might also suggest they don't all revel in the cruelty, which would be chaotic, but are compelled to it as if it were to uphold a law (of nature). The god Bane at the time is dead, and his son Iyachtu Xvim would be a far worse replacement for Bane.

SO true, read above.

They were raised in Kuldahar by an Ilmaterian priestess, and had positive aspirations. Until angry villagers killed her (did you miss the side-quest in Kuldahar?) and the cambion twins were forced to flee. Their guardian gone, they were thrust into a life of hardship as misfits in both human and demon communities. Their skill and determination was the cause of their survival, and it's understandable that they desire to create a society where misfits are welcome. Their desire for revenge/retribution was mild if any when the legion was first formed, all they did was send emissaries to the ten towns (perhaps with a demand like tribute, can't be sure, but I think it was only to announce their presence). The hostility began when the mayor of Bryn Shander sent them food laced with holy water, not good for half-demons. I've had a psychotic 'friend' deliberately feed me rotten egg with my food before, also for no reason, and let me tell you: I didn't wish him well.

I'm afraid to say you had a number of your facts wrong.

 

coin:

He wanted you to infiltrate a heavily defended horde fortress, which is the base of operations for the Horde's assaults against Targos, and fight your way through to the leader and kill him. That's no small task, and it's unbelievable that Ulbrec would send greenhorn adventurers on such an impossible task, especially without giving them proper equipment. And I don't buy that 'Targos can't spare any help, it's besieged' nonsense. Contrived plot.

Why were the enemies at the Horde Fortress and Shaneguard (sp?) in small bands? These are areas supposedly held by the Horde, so the area should have been littered with troops. Added to which, they were supposedly choking the road up until Shaneguard, so why couldn't they simply call for reinforcements while you are attacking the bridge, or even after you had taken it? How on Earth were they expected to hold off the Neverwinter reinforcements if they couldn't handle six greenhorn adventurers?

You see, this is the problem I have with the game. One moment the invading army is so big and well entrenched that you can't take a shortcut via area X, but when convenient the big and well entrenched army is suddenly small enough for six adventurers to assault. Contrived plot.

Spellhold isn't in the end. After Spellhold you go to Shark City (optional), the Underdark, back to Amn to fight Bodhi, and then to Suldanawhatever.

The elves didn't just strip Irenicus of his immortality, but of his very elvenhood, which is part of the reason why he became emotionally barren and couldn't remember Ellisime's love. From what is implied in the game, the elves took his soul. That's why he needed a replacement soul from the protagonist to rejuvenate himself.

But that doesn't necessarily make him evil. It does make him rash, arrogant and negligent, traits all to common to mages, and amplified by Bodhi egging him on. But he certainly wasn't malicious or vindictive. He only became vengeful after his elven brethen stripped him of his elven heritage and cast him out.

Complete and utter hogwash. Revenge is his primary motive. I quote him as having said:

""I... I do not remember your love, Ellesime. I have tried to. I have tried to recreate it, to spark it anew in my memory. But it is gone... a hollow, dead thing. For years, I clung to the memory of it. Then the memory of the memory. And then nothing. The Seldarine took that from me, too. I look upon you and I feel nothing. I remember nothing but you turning your back on me, along with all the others. Once my thirst for power was everything. And now I hunger only for revenge. And... I... Will... HAVE IT!! "

Emo and angsty is better than just straight out attacking you, as the rest of the members of Legion of Chimera does. The Legion of Chimera can't be rationalised with. So much for a 'morally grey' organisation.

Where on Earth did you get that from? The half-orcs and goblins in the game don't seem even slightly interested in improving themselves. For heavens sake, the Legion of Chimera consists solely of bloodythirsty monsters without a shred of reason.

At least they didn't have their soul stolen. I might be able to sympathise more if they talked more of tolerance and equality between all race, instead of worshipping a vindictive goddess that demands human sacrifices, and attacking towns which have nothing whatsoever to do with the crimes of Kuldahar. Why couldn't they be followers of Selune? Isn't she the Goddess of Tolerance?

Yes, an excellent foundation was laid here, but it wasn't played out. Because one again, the Yuan-ti Half-Breeds act in a monstrous fashion (forced slavery, forced breeding, forced transformation, killing civilians), and aren't amenable to reason. They could reunite with their brethen in Chult, but nahhh. Much better to raze Kuldahar.

So essentially, the Legion of Chimera is composed solely of individuals who practice slavery, consort with demons (who want to eat humans, naturally), worship Gods and Goddesses which espouse cruelty, exploitation of the weak, and human sacrifice. And you want me to believe that the Legion of Chimera organisation is 'morally grey'? Are you for real?

As the game develops, it becomes clear that the Legion of Chimera doesn't consist of individuals who desire a new enlightened age of tolerance, but simply those who want to rape, plunder, burn and pillage.

An aside: Bane is dead? Then from where do the priests of Bane draw their power? Also note that the Legion of Chimera does have many priests who are followers of Xvim. Madae herself is a priestess of Xvim.

From what I gleaned from the game, their adoptive mother died of natural causes due to be a follower of Ilmater. But yeah, I sympathise so far.

Still sympathising. As I said, the authors laid a foundation for a morally grey game.

Still sympathising.

Sounds good! But that's not what we see as we play further through the game. What people say, and what they do, are two completely different things! The Legion of Chimera does not bring a new age of enlightment, of tolerance, peace and love, but of fear, slavery, rape, malice and the strong preying on the weak. What's even worse is that this doesn't seem to be just a means to an ends, but the ends itself. The Legion of Chimera want nothing more than revenge, nothing more than chaos and slaughter.

THIS is exactly why I feel that the foundation of a morally grey game was made, but then writers just threw their hands in the air. The Legion of Chimera begins to develop as a morally complex organisation that consist of disatisfied freaks, but then they just turn into your stereotypical bad guy who you had better kill.

I can't be sure of this, but I think they sent emissaries to declare their dominion over the north, which is an act of aggression. Even demanding tribute is an act of aggression.

Did you want to kill your friend? OK, understandable. Did you want to kill his family, his friends, his children, and his pet dog? Oh, let's not stop there. Did you want to raze his entire town, as well as the nine surrounding towns? Did you consort with Satan and his demons with the promise that they would dine on the humans that inhabit Earth? Did you capture slaves and force them to renovate your house so that you could spend more time plotting how to kill your friend? Did you employ priests who worship vindictive Gods and Goddesses (Auril, Xvim, and Bane) to wreak havoc on innocents?

The fact that Madae and Isair are willing to do the above over 'hurt' feelings means that this is not a morally grey game. Just because they claim to be fighting for good doesn't mean **** if they aren't actually, well, fighting for good.

 

I have to say I was very disappointed with the way the Legion was set up as well. I also felt as if the writers were trying to give the twins a reasonable motivation but by mid-game all attempts at doing so were forgotten and they degenerated into Generic Bad Guy/Gal #6945. A bit of a shame, as there was much more potential for the story. Then again around the same time the game started to feel like the areas had been tied together with no real connection. I did enjoy the individual areas and the game as a whole, but the various segments don't mesh together very well.

I'll have to disagree on stability and bugginess though. Using the official patch I did not encounter a single bug or glitch in the game, which was a HUGE improvement over the BG games (especially SoA, which has too many to count).

 

I never encountered any bugs, in either of the games actually. I guess I was lucky. IWDII was a pure hack and slash game though, so no wonder the story and such is lacking. Andin no way was IWDII more difficult than BG2. Sure, fighters dish out more damage, but your party has ALOT more hps too. And your saves are alot "kinder" than in bg2, if I remember correctly.

 

realistic enemies in IWD2

countduckula, a lot of what you're saying makes sense. even more so if you're unwilling to see it from their perspective.

what i'm trying to say is that these stereotypical bad guys were taking part in something that had the potential to cultivate tolerance in the north. you can't force change on devoted clerics and hordes of goblins overnight, they have centuries of doctrines and uncivilized ways to overcome. The aspirations behind the legion give the adventurer pause, but alliances, culture/customs, food-chain issues, racial hatred and prejudices would make it impossible for the adventuring party to even consider switching sides.
It's entirely possible that the preach of tolerance was just a ruse to get the ten towns to surrender easily, but there are loads of legion followers that seem to believe it deeply, and they aren't normally known for their talent in deception.

Knucklehead trout might see the tempus clerics of targos as demon worshipers. the horses and cattle they herd are similar to mind flayer thralls and food, similarly brainwashed, unable to see the maliciousness of the captors who keep them well fed. children chasing neighbours' cats on the streets revel in the terror they cause, they may be dumb, but they know the cats don't like it. not unlike some overzealous Banites. you may laugh at these non-sentient examples, but it points out your human-centered perspective.

Thanks for proving my point. His thirst for power was the beginning of the problems, and the prime cause of his villainhood. Nothing made him power hungry, he was just 'evil' to start with.
Why do the bad guys always have to have some kind of psychosis? Whether they're angsty emo-villains, paranoid defensive types, or megalomaniacal, power-hungry demagogues, they always have to have some mental 'wrongness' that is the essence of their 'evil' label, and the cause of all their conflicts. It's all part of the bipolar 'good vs evil' myth. The vast majority of real people, and of people in a position to become your enemies (should require mental stability), are balanced, and find themselves polarized against you due to the situation, not by their own will. IWD2 achieves real characters to a certain degree. You have to take into account that the authors were limited by the available enemies in the area, for the story. They didn't imagine Banites, Aurilites, demons or goblins, and if they made them too tolerant all of a sudden, it would break the spirit of the D&D world. They did imagine the Legion of the Chimera, and I think it's a brilliant piece of moral ambiguity. Even the most despicable of creatures are able to change for the better, however slowly. Too bad the adventurers saw no room for nurturing this sentiment, because it was threatening their existance.

Well, I did consider suing him for damages. I showed the authorities an illegal sub-rent contract he made for me, that got him kicked out of his apartment. This could be considered plotting against him, and some people may find a direct financial attack more cruel than killing him outright. If his finances were poor he'd suffer the consequences for many years, maybe never completely recover. Some might consider that a fate worse than death. He's an unhappy psychotic, but instead of killing, fighting or giving him some kind of negative attention, I just ignored him and made his financial life more difficult. You see, it's all a matter of perspective.
Right and wrong are labels, and if you're willing to be open for it, you can see a game filled with morally gray characters.

 

You mean he was evil in the beginning. Honestly, do you really think that nothing would have prevented him from becoming Irenicus?
Remember Phaere, the Drow Matriarch's daughter back in the Underdark? She wasn't always evil, but you really can't have expected her to stay all good and mighty after several weeks worth of torture do you?

Because that's what being evil means? You can't really be evil when you're being altruistic.
Besides megalomaniacal and mental wrongness, etc. are only 'labels' as well, made by psychologists. You do know that things like sibling rivalry, non-heterosexuality, and even talking to yourself were all classified as 'mental wrongnesses' at some point do you?

 

No, but Irenicus wasn't tortured before he first tried to usurp godhood. He may have been less epic, but more realistic, if events beyond his control were to contribute to his situation. A more detailed descent into villainhood like Isair and Madae's past. Irenicus just starts 'power-hungry', no explanation to the cause of that, he's just a mad supervillain. Don't get me wrong, I like Irenicus as an epic bad guy, but IWD2 has taken a different approach.

But why does the enemy have to be evil? Of course your interests clash with those of the enemy, but if you're unable or unwilling to see the perspective of the enemy, there might be something wrong with your own reasoning. Be reasonable at all times, unless you don't care if you're actually the psychotic bad guy yourself.
Half the words we use in the english language are descriptive labels if you look at it that way. In psychology there's a science underlying the reasoning behind labels, and the science itself has improved, as we shake off our old biases and misconceptions.
The flaw of the good-vs-evil duality is that it requires a good person to judge who is evil. There are no scientific criteria determining what is good or evil, it's all cultural morality, opinions and judgement. So who really is good? Christians would leave that judgement up to god, but are eager to give you a pre-judgement based on how christian you are. In fact, good deeds as described in the bible don't define a good person, only his christianity and his standing with god does. I'd say that by the rules of the bible god can't be good, and as an evil god, all his followers are tainted.
I dislike paladins for this same reason: being unreasonable is also a source of villainy, so a sanctomonious, judgemental paladin can be a cause of conflict by himself. =evil? Can you imagine this religious nutter pointing his sword at whatever he chooses to hate. Paladin: "Die, foul monster!" Goblin: "W-w-wait, wha<chop!>
I enjoyed the fact that I got to fight a realistic 'gray' opponent this time, instead of a blacker-than-black supervillain. Mentally balanced, and standing against me because of events not entirely in our control, like life often is.

 

coin:

Who's perspective? What perspective do the orcish horde, the priestesses of Auril, the snake people of Kulduhar, the demons of chimera, and the followers of Bane and Xvim have, exactly?

From what I've seen:

1. No perspective of is offered by the orc/goblin horde. They just like to kill, full stop.

2. The priestesses of Auril want revenge on Kulduhar because a band of adventurers slew their leader. That's already a weak justification. And that still doesn't explain why they feel the need to ally with an evil god (and yes, according to her alignment, Auril IS evil) that desires human sacrifice, and why they feel the need to kill innocents unrelated to the death of their spiritual leader.

3. A perspective is never really offered from the snake people. They could reunite with their people on Chulst, but that opportunity is never explored, which is a tremendous shame. But their moral highground went out the window when it's discovered that they enslave, rape, and eat innocents. No wonder the villagers of Kuldahar didn't want them in their town.

4. The demons of chimera (literally) want to feast on human flesh and cause chaos.

5. The followers of Bane and Xvim want to perpetuate suffering and misery.

No, those stereotypical bad guys WERE what was taking place in the North, and they definitely weren't trying to cultivate tolerance, no matter what Isair and Madae claimed.

Back up your claim that 'loads' of legion followers seemed to believe that Isair and Madae's claim that they were attempting to establish a tolerant and decent rule was nothing more than a ruse. Sherincal is the only one who seems to believe that the Legion of Chimera's goal is a more tolerant world. Everyone else, from the snake-people to the orcs, seem to think of the Legion of the Chimera as an opportunity for either:

1. Revenge.

and/or

2. Conquest.

Demons were part of the legion of Chimera, full stop. For example, the fiends in the Severed Hand.

Are you obtuse? Irenicus' stripping of your soul, and the attack on Suldenassar, were motivated by his desire for revenge.

Sure. But desire for power alone didn't make him a villian. Prior to being cast out, there is no suggestion that Irenicus was malicious, or desired to harm anyone.

No. The prime cause of his villianhood was his desire for revenge, which was a result of being callously stripping of his elvenhood and cast out.

Being arrogant by itself isn't necessarily an evil trait. Putting other's lives at risks due to your negligence that occurs as a result of your arrogance isn't necessarily an evil trait, although doing so requires some sort of punishment.
One could also argue that Jon's arrogance was inflamed by the coaxing of Bohdi.

Killing innocents over hurt feelings is indeed an evil act, full stop.

Cambions waging war over hurt feelings is hardly plausible. Claiming that they are attempting to institute a new age of tolerance and peace, when their legion consists of the worst sort of scum who want nothing more than to enhance their power and sow chaos and destruction, is a blatant contradiction.

Why should the authors have confined the members of the Legion of the Chimera to inherently evil characters? What about chaotic good characters? True neutral characters? Chaotic neutral characters?

Why not have a number of allies with a spectrum of alignments, beliefs and dispositions, instead of just 'bad evil I want to kill enslave and oppress. Oh look, adventurers, attack!'.

You're really reaching here, it's becoming ridiculous.

 

If your point is that good guys need to be the antagonists for a change then I guess there's the case of Balthazar, though he isn't exactly the "epic" type of supervillain.
All 'evil' people are unreasonable.

True.

The psychology we have today isn't exactly a science just yet, although I believe that at some point its gonna become one. Kinda like how genetics once was when all that people cared about was whether they wanted grapes that grew faster or just tasted better (no chromosomes and DNA yet).

My view on what is 'evil' is simple - something that causes harm. The more the harm, the more evil. 'Evil' for the sake of good (for oneself or otherwise) is a touchy topic though, and yeah I'd hate to be the one who'd have to judge that.

The bible does define a good person, if you're reading it more as a storybook than a book-with-hidden-meanings thing.

Amen. Can't blame anyone though, what with people disagreeing with how alignments should work and everything.

Irenicus is definitely not a blacker-than-black supervillain.
I guess this is more of a "preference" sort of thing tho.

Agreed.

Yep, you can thirst and search for power all you want and as long as you don't end up harming people then there's really nothing 'evil' about that. You'll be one arrogant ***-**-*-***** though.

I disagree. Putting others' lives at risk due to your........ That's quite evil.
The Elves and their Seldarine were not much better off considering the punishment they ended up giving to Irenicus though.
Note how the game goes into detail about how Ellesime had regretted how things turned out.

About the Legion I think Isair and Madae did say that they were trying to wage a war of blood before a war for peace - they were intent on getting revenge first and eliminating their enemies before trying to build what they thought was the 'perfect' kingdom. That in mind, they really didn't care who they recruited into the Legion since they believed they could easily deal with anyone they didn't like after they were done with phase one.
It was regrettable that the dialogue wasn't as epic as say Baldur's Gate though.

 

I liked the back history behind how Sarevok became evil in BG1 though, and his chances for redemption in ToB were okay, though he didn't deserve them.

True, but you're compulsively disagreeing with every point I make, so you're driving me to extremes. That's not meant as an insult, I'm sure your critical opinions are a job requirement for a game critic.

Auril demands human sacrifice, an aspect made up by early D&Ders with imaginations based on christian morals. But Auril doesn't demand genocide-scale sacrifices. IIRC, Aleiny-Kzzrt/Caged Fury was posing as Auril, demanding a constant stream of sacrificial blood. Few Aurilites were aware of this, only the sisters I believe, and they were driven mad by desire for revenge. A nice touch.

An example of the goblins' perspective is that clan leader in the horde, who has doubts about the movement. He's inclined to revert to his ways of pillaging and burning, as he wants to get back to his old lifestyle. The discipline of the legion is too much for him. If you encourage him, you get experience, and don't have to fight his band. This is an example of how not everybody is able to change, even if they try.

CountD, I'll have to revert to my last statement, that the evilness of the monsters used in the story was defined by early D&Ders, and IWD2 storywriters couldn't do much to change that. Their attempts to flesh out the stereotypical 2-dimensional characters is admirable though. I hope more D&D monsters will be given more realistic 3D backgrounds, even demons, the epitomies of evil. I liked planescape's fall-from-Grace, the lawful neutral succubus. Their NPCs were often a parody/criticism of traditional roleplaying values.

IMHO, the closest thing to 'evil' I can come up with, is that which causes conflict. Desire for power, arrogance, promotion of opposing cultural/religious differences, ignorant stupidity, unwavering blind determination, stubbornness (i'm looking at you countD), these can all be considered 'evil' traits. If you are willing to accept that the harm you cause others outweighs the benefits you achieve, then you are no longer reasonable, and perhaps deserve the label 'evil'.
BUT, since there is no scientific basis for a universal designation of evil, or good, I just don't take those labels seriously.

 

Scythe:

So if I'm a cocky young guy who goes drag racing along the streets, thinking that no-one will get hurt because I'm the best driver in the world, and I accidently kill someone, am I evil?

I don't think so. Criminally negligent, sure. But the absence of any malicious intent (ergo. I'm not out to harm anyone physically/emotionally/financially) means that I'm not an evil person.

Likewise, in my mind Irenicus only became evil when his intentions became malicious.

 

good example. that's exactly where I'd disagree.
Thinking you're the best driver in the world, but obviously being wrong, means you're taking liberties with other people's safety based on your own flawed assumption. I don't believe in evilness, but this guy is wrong in facts, so that makes him 'wrong' in spirit.
When he learns to never make that assumption again, he will become right, and 'good'.
My definition was 'that which causes conflict', and this example also has that potential. Cockiness is an 'evil' trait too. He's not evil because someone died because of him, he's evil because that person died poitlessly, unnecessarily, and caused by the driver's stupidity.

I wonder if my cycling without hands will turn out to be a similar 'evil' trait. I do it carefully, it's less tiring than with hands, and I've never been in an accident because of it, but still... time will tell if my assumption of safety is correct.

But this cockiness example borders on the 'psychotic evil villain' again, because he's not thinking in a balanced, reasonable way. I prefer a story where two sides are at odds completely due to circumstances beyond their control, not a flaw in their personality.

 

coin:

Wouldn't that be better described by the word 'chaotic'? According to your definition, it would be evil to rebel against an oppressive but orderly authoritarian regime.

 

rebellion isn't necessarily chaotic, sometimes it's the right thing to do

absolutely not, if a regime causes more harm and conflict than it benefits people, it should be rebelled against. An orderly society doesn't necessarily mean a well functioning, social society.
Look at the USA; there's some form of order, but everyone can't wait till the Bush goes away, and leaves the world alone. I've watched Zeitgeist, 911 Coincidences, and 7/7 Ripple Effect, I have a good idea what's going on. Rebelling against those govt.s isn't chaotic, but neutral good. But rebelling against a government nowadays is really difficult. They use terrorism as a tool to remove dissent within their own people. You'd be arrested, demonized and punished/killed before you could even do something. And no, I don't think killing 3000 US citizens and hundreds of thousands of muslims is justifiable for the sake of a bit of order and economic growth in the States. Even the mongol hordes were more decent if you ask me. I suspect Obama will be the next president not just because he's appeasing superdelegates, but because he has agreed to not cause riots by exposing and prosecuting Bush.
If I'd describe myself, in most things I'm chaotic neutral, but when it comes down to politics, I'm no fool. I just don't have the guts to stick my head out.

 

There is no way you can justifiy rebellion as being anything other than chaotic. I think you're mixing up both alignment spectra, good/evil and lawful/chaotic. An oppressive government, no matter how nasty, is always lawful as it relies on a set of laws (again no matter how unjust) to support itself. It may be Lawful Evil with a big emphasis on EVIL, but it will always be Lawful. In this case a rebellion trying to replace the oppressive dictatorship with an enlightened democracy will be Chaotic Good, but still chaotic. No matter how much you dislike the Bush government (I'll admit I'm no great fan myself) they are still a government that relies on laws to govern, and therefore are Lawful. Whether they're good, neutral or evil is another matter entirely.

To bring things back to the original topic, the Twins are Chaotic, irrespective of whether they are right or not. They are trying to take out the existing order (in other words law, in other words Lawful). There is no way you can argue them being Lawful or even Neutral. In D&D doing the "right thing" is something that goes on the good/evil scale, not the law/chaos scale. Devils are Lawful Evil, even though they explicity never do the "right thing", and they know it - they're hell-bent (pardon the pun) on doing the exact opposite of the right thing. If you take a look at the description of alignments in any of the rule books they're very clear on this.