28 replies to this topic

[arguskos]

This is true, though the evil characters such as Edwin, Korgan and (later) Sarevok choose to stick with the PC because they can see that s/he is on the way to great things, and thus it's not in their best interests to screw them over.

I think the main problem with the good-evil balance is that Baldur's Gate is essentially a story about triumphing over evil (not just evil enemies, but the innate evil within) rather than giving into it. Were it more flexible then it would have to allow for things like, say, screwing over the elves and helping Irenicus merge with the tree of life in exchange for your soul back, or somesuch.
It's pretty clear, though, that you are being steered towards the good path because of the allies you are offered are mostly the good guys (only the Shadow Thieves are morally grey, and even then they are the lesser of the two evils you are forced to choose between).

Though this is true, with the evil NPC's and all, the odds are that if they stick around long enough, they'll slit Charname's throat in the night, and claim the Throne themselves! After all, it's a mage-eat-fighter world out there, and only the strong survive- but I digress.

I would agree that the lack of "true" evil options in BG2 is appalling, but I can totally understand why they did it. Doesn't mean I'm not looking forward to the Mod for the Wicked (gogogo killing civilians and getting away with it!)....

-Argus

[Scipio]

I always prefer goody-two shoes...

I'm totally with Klorox on this one.

I get much more satisfaction by "doing the right thing" in BG1/2 for the same reason I find it more emotionally rewarding to be a "good citizen." I loathe drug lords, warmongers, dictators, hijackers, terrorists, child molesters, rapists, burglars, people who are cruel to animals, bullies, blah, blah, blah.

I am also totally with the Korgan and Edwin fans.

I am sure that 99.999% of game-players feel exactly the same way as I do about real-life evil. Being evil in BG is no more "immoral" then being evil in that old game, Dungeon Keepr, where you could ONLY be evil.

I tried to take an evil party through BG2. I did not choose to visit the digital dark side because Satan had suddenly possessed me. All I wanted was to see what the game had to offer with Korgan, Edwin, Viconia and "evil me" making friends with Bhodi and hurting Mrs Jones in Athkala, etc. I stopped halfway through SoA because that type of role-playing was not emotionally rewarding to soft old me. More than that, I find Korgan and Edwin to be the two most annoying NPCs in the game.

But if Bioware was going to offer the evil option at all, it should have been the complete package. In addition to creating equally challenging evil quests for equally high XP, they should have done something to allow evil parties who can't go above 18 Rep to buy useful stuff for the same price as good guys with 20 Rep -- maybe through a black-market wholesaler, a network of fences or my bank, for example.

Perhaps the game-designing limitations were technical and commercial. It might have required too much additional programming and too much additional shelf price to take the evil option all the way in BG2. There would have needed to be too many alternative outcomes to take major quests to their logical evil conclusions. Or maybe Bioware was tacitly acknowledging parents' groups, teacher groups, religious groups and other "moralists" (?) who continually put pressure on game designers, movie producers and record companies to release "good" material.

Whatever the case may be, I would feel dissatisfied and a little cheated if I wanted to be evil in a game that allows that choice yet penalises one for making it.

** For those who believe they deserve the same potential XP and other benefits at various stages of the evil game, there's always the ultimate evil which I exploit, and so do many of you -- the sinister dark god named Shadow Keeper.

[Cal Jones]

I think you hit the nail on the head, there. The evil option is there but it's half-assed. Either do, or do not, as Yoda might say.
Still, I'm one of those whose social conditioning is such that I actually feel bad if I do nasty things in game. I know they're only pixels and don't really have feelings but...it just feels wrong to me.
(And yes, why wouldn't a low rep party be able to get the same prices from the Shadow Thieves or the drow merchants in Ust Natha?)

[berelinde]

When I was taking an all evil party through BG1 NPC testing, I completed Tutu with an evil PC. It was the first time I have ever completed a game with an evil PC. Started them great bunches of times, but I never actually finished one.

At first, I found it strangely liberating and kind of fun, but it got old quick. It actually got boring RPing evil.

I find it more enjoyable to play heroic parties. I do not know if this is because I like the opportunity to kick evil buttocks in a fantasy game like I could never kick them in real life, or if it was just intuitively easier and allowed me to focus on other things that I enjoy, like NPC interaction. Or perhaps it's just that I find the good characters more interesting (apart from Xzar and Montaron, who are just too funny).

In any event, I've finished the game many, many times with good parites, but only once with an evil one. And even after playing the game more times than I care to count, I would still rather play it with a good PC.

[Sir_Carnifex]

I can't remember all the evil parties that I've started, but never finished. I'll get so far, and then automatically select the good choice. Wait! That's not in keeping with my character's alignment! Reload. Again. Aaarrggh!

For me I almost instinctively choose the good paths. I think it would be much easier play the evil party if they'd give more experience...

Evil PC: "Will doing the good thing give me more experience here? Then I'll do the good thing just this one time. Can't miss out on that extra bonus. I promise I'll be evil next time."

...and if they'd give more evil-aligned NPCs in BG2.

Without mods, playing through the game with an evil party is like a one time thing for me because of the lack of variety in party arrangements. Does it mean that I'd play evil parties a lot if given more options? Probably not, but at least it would *be* there. I do find it easier to play evil in BG1 because Montaron and Xzar are two of my favorite characters.

Edited by Sir_Carnifex, 04 May 2008 - 08:57 PM.

[Kaeloree]

I actually tried to play evil through Mass Effect once.

I did it to an extent, but then it came to killing innocent people.

I killed one, and felt so bad about it I had to turn the game off and have a cup of tea. I'm so pathetic.

[Sir_Carnifex]

Well, I haven't felt too bad yet. My most recent "evil" actions were both in BG1. I killed Minsc (in self-defense after he went into a rage, honest!) and slaughtered the cows in Beregost. I must say that those cows are about all my level 1 party can handle right now...

I'm going after Dynaheir next. I always did leave her behind anyway, even when I took Minsc.

[Scipio]

I actually tried to play evil through Mass Effect once.

I did it to an extent, but then it came to killing innocent people.

I killed one, and felt so bad about it I had to turn the game off and have a cup of tea. I'm so pathetic.

No, you are so... all of us.

[Miloch]

I actually tried to play evil through Mass Effect once.

I did it to an extent, but then it came to killing innocent people.

I killed one, and felt so bad about it I had to turn the game off and have a cup of tea. I'm so pathetic.

No, you are so... all of us.

Geez... you folks aren't gonna see half the easter eggs I added to Aurora...