40 replies to this topic

[Scipio]

During the last few BG2-free weeks of my life (because everyone has to take a break some time) I have been reflecting on the question of good vs. evil in the Baldur's Gate games. My personal conclusion: the question is of secondary importance, if it even matters at all.

In the last year there have been many threads about good vs. evil. Some of them have addressed the matter directly ? do you take a good or evil party through the quests? Others address the same issue less directly ? what's your favourite PC, which of these two characters do you prefer, etc, etc. A recurring theme in the posts is that most players prefer good parties and feel uncomfortable with the evil.

The truth to me is that everyone who has played BG1 or BG2 has committed acts of game-evil at some time and felt quite happy about it. Is there anyone who hasn't taken a few gold coins from a peasant's home without batting an eyelid? Maybe those coins were all that stood between the peasants and starvation, but so what? How about those idiot beggars who plead for a coin while they've been standing next to a barrel containing money or something worth selling? Were they too stupid to look there, or could that be the stash where they've hoarded everything they've been able to beg in the last three years?

We take from these innocents without thought. Petty misdemeanours, maybe, but criminal all the same, as are those illegal breakings-and-enterings we commit so often when we pick locks and barge into buildings.

In BG2 the issue comes much more to the fore than in BG1. If you play the unmodded version you can't finish the game unless you choose the path of evil. That's because the only way to reach Spellhold is with the assistance of the vampires or the Shadow Thieves. Either option may be a means to an end, but both require you to commit or at least condone evil.

Going with the vampires is the less evil route.

Vampires are evil itself because they're made that way. They are godless creatures that have to drink human blood to stay alive. But they don?t have a choice about what they are and what they have to do. Nor do crocodiles, mosquitoes or feral dogs. No vampire ever has the opportunity to be good. It would be self-destructive to the creature.

The Shadow Thieves, on the other hand, are human or humanoid. At some time any of them could have chosen to be good, but no ? now they are united in their evil just as the Mafia and other organised gangsters are.

You can't do Maevar's quests unless you choose evil. For starters you have to steal either a holy amulet or a holy statuette from a temple, depending on the make-up of your party. Not good. Then you have to murder a Cowled Wizard, Rayic Gethras, in cold blood (over the protests of Aerie if she's with you, and you make her come along and help anyway). The unmodded game doesn't give you the opportunity to "talk it out" with Rayic.

Ah, but he's a Cowled Wizard and they are all evil, aren?t they? Or are they? They control the use of magic in Athkatla. Their modern, earthly counterparts, the police, control the discharging of firearms in public. The Cowled Wizards are actually performing a community service if you remind yourself that some of the spells in BG2 are almost as dangerous as modern handguns (although nothing like as deadly as an Uzi, an AK-47 or a belt of plastic explosive).

If it makes you feel seedy you can bypass the Maevar's Guildhall quest. But that still leaves you with no choice but to side with Aran Linvail and his slimeballs if you haven't taken Bhodi's help.

Before you meet Aran you have seen his people committing various atrocities. They are merrily torturing someone and holding others in a squalid prison cell for no crime greater than disagreeing with Aran in many cases. You see apprentice thieves deliberately being maimed or killed in training. You learn that the Shadow Thieves are engaged in the smuggling of weapons and who knows what other unpleasant contraband. At Aran's urging you set off to kill a member of a rival thieving guild just because he is a rival. Of course Aran knows about all the terrible things his people are doing in the process of ruining the lives of innocent citizens and each other. He gives the orders.

If your PC is a thief (who should be evil with no other optional alignment!) you can take over the running of Maevar's Guildhall. You don't have to take part in slave-trading or assassinations but you can if you want to. You won?t keep the guildhall unless you say yes to bribery, corruption, theft, beating people up and generally being a common crook.

So there is no "moral" way to get to Spellhold and rescue Imoen. To my mind the less immoral way is to side with the vampires. You're going to kill them later anyway, so you'll be rid of their evil before the game ends. Meanwhile, though, you can enjoy the pleasure of eliminating Shadow Thieves, who are the BG2 equivalents of modern car hijackers, armed robbers, syndicate enforcers, slavers, drug lords, blackmailers ? all the scum we love to see removed from real society.

Your rewards are less if you go questing with an evil party. The quests open to you may not carry as many XP as some of the good quests. Your reputation has stay at 18 or lower or your evil companions will leave you, so you pay more for goods and get less for what you sell. Morally, though, is it worse to take the evil NPCs than the good ones?

The evil characters won?t commit grave crimes unless you let them. However noisy and disgusting they may be, you control them (as long as you keep your Rep within limits).

I asked myself: If this was real life and I had to creep down a dangerous, dark alley or run up a hill to destroy an enemy machine-gun nest, who would I really want by my side? Pretty but weak (initially) Aerie, whom I love dearly, and self-righteous but weak (initially) Nalia? Or coldly efficient Viconia, psychopathic Korgan and megalomaniacal Edwin?

The baddies in the party will fight against the greater evils of Irenicus or Amelissan just as enthusiastically as any of the goodies would. I'm going to think of them as a military leader might. A platoon sergeant doesn't care if his troops are holier-than-thou or back-street louts as long as they get the job done. Given a choice, he'd choose the tough ones first regardless of their moral alignment.

Winning in BG1 and BG2 isn?t about good conquering evil. If you choose, your evil can conquer other evil. No, it's about power and control. Morality in these games counts for no more than it does here on earth in politics or corporate big business. Control! That's what your PC seeks.

The next time I play BG2 I will be a neutral beserker-mage. I will rescue Imoen but then I'll set her free so that she doesn't have to share our evil. With Korgan, Viconia, Edwin and probably the Valen mod by my side I'm going to do Amn a huge social service by wiping out as many of Aran Linvail's bad people as I can. That should leave me with feel-good glow.

[Amaurea]

Since the terrifying energy of my son has pretty much rendered me capable of little more than babbling incoherently at the moment, I'm going to save jumping into the philosophical end of this for another time.

I just wanted to mention that if I'm playing a paladin (there are other roleplaying situations that would fit here, but a paladin is the most obvious example), I do NOT go into empty houses and take money. I also will not loot the De'Arnise Keep. The only loot I'll take is from defeated enemies. I also won't take anything from any tombs in the graveyard. I like playing this way because not only does it enhance the roleplaying, it adds the challenge of making money a bit harder to come by.

Edited by Amaurea, 28 July 2008 - 04:14 PM.

[darlarosa]

I agree with most of what your saying. Though when you get down to it, it's my belief there is no such thing as good or evil. There are only actions judged by the majority society and possibly some force greater then us mere mortals. I must admit I do the good guests and the bad equally which is why I play neutral. In life and in video games I'm out for myself and those I care for. I always have high reputation though because I tend to do good.
I think there is a balance in the universe so no matter what you do you lose.

What some call"good" others would just say you can do better or what have you done for me(wich they do in the game)
What some call evil others would say isn't particularly evil enough or they are worse. In the game no matter your alignment or class your never truly either unless you become a god or goddess.

The NPC's aren't particularly good or evil. Aerie's a bit selfish and wants attention which is why she whines. Nalia...she's a rich noble who try's to do good but doesn't do everything she can.She may "help" the poor but really she's a noble she separates herself from them. Anomen's arrogant.
Viconia mocks people for her own insecurity's meaning she not truly evil. Edwin can be called insane and egomaniac so he's not truly evil either.
Their character flaws prevent them from being truly evil or good as in real life.

I've written so many entry's on this in my journal...I took lines from that so I hope it's clear

[Scipio]

I agree with most of what your saying. Though when you get down to it, it's my belief there is no such thing as good or evil.

Hey, I'm rattling some chains already! Let's start...

Darlarosa, read "Unspeakable" by Os Guiness and you may change your mind. He maintains and I agree that good and evil exist independently of any philosophy. People who deliberately hurt other people without provocation are evil. Hijacker shoots breadwinner, takes Mercedes = evil. Irenicus kidnaps Imoen, takes soul = evil. Guiness is pretty persuasive about the need for modern society to stop denying that evil exists.

I read "unspeakable" after I'd thought up this thread. Now I'm glad I posted it (the thread, not the book). I'm a little less likely to turn a blind eye to the bad things my NPCs do in the game. I'll take my lead from...

I do NOT go into empty houses and take money. I also will not loot the De'Arnise Keep. The only loot I'll take is from defeated enemies. I also won't take anything from any tombs in the graveyard. I like playing this way because not only does it enhance the roleplaying, it adds the challenge of making money a bit harder to come by.

[vilkacis]

Hey, I thought you were "leaving 4evar".

The truth to me is that everyone who has played BG1 or BG2 has committed acts of game-evil at some time and felt quite happy about it. Is there anyone who hasn't taken a few gold coins from a peasant's home without batting an eyelid?

The simple answer is that BG is too dumb when it comes to handling money... and everything else. Picking up every gold coin that isn't nailed down, the enchanted shortsword in the wardrobe and that urn with grandma's ashes to pawn for "magic missile" scrolls changes nothing in the game world, and that makes it painfully obvious that it IS a game world. I might be slightly more reluctant to swipe stuff if it would lead to NPCs complaining that some heartless bastard stole their life savings (all 14 GP of it) and now they and their entire family will starve to death. Or if good party members complained. Or if like PS:T there was an alignment shift for things like that. Or anything. But since the game rewards looting more than RPing (it really doesn't reward RPing at all, ever), I loot. It's just more convenient that way, and marginally more entertaining than killing another 36 kobolds/gibberlings/xvarts/whatthehellever.

Vampires are evil itself because they're made that way. They are godless creatures that have to drink human blood to stay alive. But they don?t have a choice about what they are and what they have to do. Nor do crocodiles, mosquitoes or feral dogs. No vampire ever has the opportunity to be good. It would be self-destructive to the creature.

Vampires are still intelligent enough to make a choice, though. It's technically possible for a vampire to lead a "heroic" life, only drinking the blood of beings they'd kill anyway (although D&D probably still considers that more evil than simply slitting their throats and letting all that blood go to waste, because drinking blood is "icky" and we can't have that). Even if I imagine they'd be quite vulnerable to Drizzt syndrome.

As for being "godless", that has nothing whatsoever to do with alignment. Valygar, for instance, worships no god, but is a considerably nicer person than Viconia, a cleric.

You can't do Maevar's quests unless you choose evil. For starters you have to steal either a holy amulet or a holy statuette from a temple, depending on the make-up of your party. Not good. Then you have to murder a Cowled Wizard, Rayic Gethras, in cold blood (over the protests of Aerie if she's with you, and you make her come along and help anyway). The unmodded game doesn't give you the opportunity to "talk it out" with Rayic.

If you're trying to roleplay good, you shouldn't take a quest like that to begin with, so I don't really see what the problem is. It should be obvious that doing it will benefit the Shadow Thieves. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you can simply off Edwin for his key to get the evidence without having to kill Gethras. (But of course, Edwin is awesome, so a great many "good" characters will still do the quest to get him.)

Ah, but he's a Cowled Wizard and they are all evil, aren?t they? Or are they? They control the use of magic in Athkatla. Their modern, earthly counterparts, the police, control the discharging of firearms in public.

Any organisation that locks people away forever (apparently without any kind of meaningful trial, or indeed any trial at all) for conjuring a floating disc to carry their luggage (as told by Ribald) is definitely not good. Any organisation which runs Spellhold is not good. Individual members may be good, but it's probably quite safe to say that most of them are not.

The cowled as portrayed in the game are tyrants, and the general opinion (democracy ftw?) seems to be that they're too powerful, but nobody can do anything about it since the cowled have magic and won't let anyone else use it.

At Aran's urging you set off to kill a member of a rival thieving guild just because he is a rival.

Aran asks you to guard some goods, hunt down a couple of traitors and kill a bunch of vampires (who are already killing his people). If that's Renal's quest you're thinking of, the goal is to find evidence that Mae'Var is up to something, killing him only after finding it - and Renal won't be happy if you kill him without it, either.

If your PC is a thief (who should be evil with no other optional alignment!) you can take over the running of Maevar's Guildhall. You don't have to take part in slave-trading or assassinations but you can if you want to. You won?t keep the guildhall unless you say yes to bribery, corruption, theft, beating people up and generally being a common crook.

"Thief" in D&D is a name for a skillset, and it was later changed to "rogue" just because people keep making that mistake. Belonging to the class "thief" does not have anything to do with stealing. Although a good thief probably wouldn't want to run the guild, the shadow thieves will most likely cause more damage under someone else's leadership - taking over the guild and keeping the damage down is probably the most "good" course of action. (Taking on the Shadow Thieves is not a realistic option.)

So there is no "moral" way to get to Spellhold and rescue Imoen.

Because the city is run by non-good organisations, and you need a very specific type of captain to ship you to another place run by a non-good organisation. It makes sense, and having situations where the player has to pick a lesser evil is more interesting than always having a clear-cut "good" solution for everything. (Although I'd certainly not be opposed to other ways that would allow for all the other ways a 10th+ level character has to gather info and transport themselves.)

To my mind the less immoral way is to side with the vampires. You're going to kill them later anyway, so you'll be rid of their evil before the game ends.

Your character doesn't know if they'll be back to Athkatla, and they certainly don't know if they're going to fight vampires. And if you decide that you were going to come back and "clean up" the place no matter what, they can certainly say the same thing about the thieves. Presently, the vampires are most likely causing more damage to society, so I'd say it's better to eliminate them first.

Your rewards are less if you go questing with an evil party. The quests open to you may not carry as many XP as some of the good quests. Your reputation has stay at 18 or lower or your evil companions will leave you, so you pay more for goods and get less for what you sell

Yeah, nobody likes that. It's not realistic, either - your regular shopkeeper isn't going to tell the dread warlord Mr. 0 Rep to GTFO his store because he's not popular enough, he's going to be very helpful and hope he gets away with his life. Getting paid at all is a bonus.

I asked myself: If this was real life and I had to creep down a dangerous, dark alley or run up a hill to destroy an enemy machine-gun nest, who would I really want by my side? Pretty but weak (initially) Aerie, whom I love dearly, and self-righteous but weak (initially) Nalia? Or coldly efficient Viconia, psychopathic Korgan and megalomaniacal Edwin?

Well, I'd take the ones least likely to shank me in the back because killing me and taking my stuff seems easier than killing the enemy for theirs *cough*Korgan*cough*.

[darlarosa]

I agree with most of what your saying. Though when you get down to it, it's my belief there is no such thing as good or evil.

Hey, I'm rattling some chains already! Let's start...

Darlarosa, read "Unspeakable" by Os Guiness and you may change your mind. He maintains and I agree that good and evil exist independently of any philosophy. People who deliberately hurt other people without provocation are evil. Hijacker shoots breadwinner, takes Mercedes = evil. Irenicus kidnaps Imoen, takes soul = evil. Guiness is pretty persuasive about the need for modern society to stop denying that evil exists.

I read "unspeakable" after I'd thought up this thread. Now I'm glad I posted it (the thread, not the book). I'm a little less likely to turn a blind eye to the bad things my NPCs do in the game. I'll take my lead from...

I do NOT go into empty houses and take money. I also will not loot the De'Arnise Keep. The only loot I'll take is from defeated enemies. I also won't take anything from any tombs in the graveyard. I like playing this way because not only does it enhance the roleplaying, it adds the challenge of making money a bit harder to come by.

I just might do that, I'm always ready to read

I should just say, I mostly use evil, as in the scale to rate killers(1-22)

Well what do we know about said hijacker or the breadwinner. Well maybe I should change my stance; to at the bear basics we can say there is good and evil, but the more we look into things the lines between what we perceive blur together and we are left with only what lies in between.

and I derive such pleasure from looting bodies and such

[Scipio]

Hey, I thought you were "leaving 4evar".

He did. I'm his evil twin brother that not even our mother knows about.

As for being "godless", that has nothing whatsoever to do with alignment. Valygar, for instance, worships no god, but is a considerably nicer person than Viconia, a cleric.

In the figurative sense in which I used it, "godless" is a synonym for "wicked'; in the Realms, not worshipping a god would probably be "godsless".

"Thief" in D&D is a name for a skillset, and it was later changed to "rogue" just because people keep making that mistake.

"Rogue" isn't a good choice either. It doesn't exactly conjure up images of the Olsen Twins.

Your character doesn't know if they'll be back to Athkatla, and they certainly don't know if they're going to fight vampires.

All the more reason to destroy Linvail's rogues before you leave.

I asked myself: If this was real life and I had to creep down a dangerous, dark alley or run up a hill to destroy an enemy machine-gun nest, who would I really want by my side?

Well, I'd take the ones least likely to shank me in the back because killing me and taking my stuff seems easier than killing the enemy for theirs *cough*Korgan*cough*.

You mean you've never picked a fight with a bad guy in dark alley, started getting beaten up, and pressed "Reload"?

[Vicen]

I do agree alot on what you are saying but all in all...I would say Vampires are a greater threat to mankind then a bunch of low life thief's! Granted though they are quite powerful and can put a blade in your backside before you know it...they are easier to kill then vamps! I always almost side with Aran Linvail plus Keldorn will get mad if you side with Bodhi and even leave the party as she is very very evil herself...Right now Im playing a NG Elf Sorc then ill be playing a TN Cleric Human and at the end a LE Thief Half-Elf...Going to be interesting to see the party combos all through bg1 to bg2 and what will happen!

[Scipio]

I would say Vampires are a greater threat to mankind then a bunch of low life thief's!

Now listen... this is how it happens....

It's easy to get rid of vampires because they're easy to see. Shadow Thieves are much more difficult because they are masters of disguise. They can make themselves look like nice people. Vampires, on the other hand, all look like Avril Lavigne, according to Avril Lavigne.

Aerie and I destroyed all the vampires without raising much of a sweat when just the two of us did SoA and each other (which was quite sweaty). Previously, one of the Shadow Thieves was so endearing that I sweated with her instead of killing her. Her name is Fade, she's a lovely mod, and we fell in love.

If my little Avariel and I are on honeymoon at Watcher's Keep and you want to rid the city of vampires, all you have to do is phone the Radiant Heart. "Hello, Mister Prelate? I'd like to place a Holy Order for a dozen paladins, please. Yes, the usual trimmings -- shininess, Caersomir, holy water, ultra-violet lamps...."

But they won't come if the Shadow Thieves have stolen all the paladin's swords. So who's the real menace, huh? Huh?

[Sir_Carnifex]

Well, well. I generally don't kill innocents with my party, but I do pilfer the odd item here and there (okay, okay, so I break into every house and grab every penny, so what?). Now, do I do this but not kill because it's perfectly alright to steal but wrong to murder a passerby? No. It's just that I can't STAND THE SIGHT OF BLOOD FLOWING ALL OVER STAINING THE CITY STREETS AND OOZING INTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. And working with the vampires would mean standing around that pool (really, why doesn't it clot?) instead of, well, you know, picking every poor man's pocket.

Oh, and my paladin did that. He just looked the other way while the thief sneaked into homes to relieve the rich (and poor) of their ill-gotten wealth. Being a paladin is all about looking good, not being good.

[princesspurpleblob]

SQUEEEEEE uncle scippy is back! *hugs*

I generally do good things in BG2... but sometimes... just sometimes... I can't help but killing ppl so called "innocent" *cough*nalia's*cough*aunt*cough*

[vilkacis]

He did. I'm his evil twin brother that not even our mother knows about.

UNEXPECTED PLOT TWIST!

In the figurative sense in which I used it, "godless" is a synonym for "wicked'; in the Realms, not worshipping a god would probably be "godsless".

But the figurative sense in which you used it really only works under the assumption that there is one god, who is good, and anything else is worse. Which doesn't mesh with a D&D-style fantasy world.

"Rogue" isn't a good choice either. It doesn't exactly conjure up images of the Olsen Twins.

Well, it needs to be a somewhat short and effective description. A politically correct term might be "locksmith and professional trap detection and -removal expert", but nobody is writing that on their character sheet. It's just not catchy enough.

All the more reason to destroy Linvail's rogues before you leave.

But given a choice of destroying one side in that conflict, isn't it better to wipe out the one that kills people most of the time? Most of the shadow thieves' victims just have their stuff taken and maybe get roughed up a little, which most of them would probably rate somewhat lower on the scale of suck than becoming a late-night snack for an undead horror from beyond the grave, etc etc.

You mean you've never picked a fight with a bad guy in dark alley, started getting beaten up, and pressed "Reload"?

Of course, but that's still metagaming. Taking a risk only because you know you can reload if it goes wrong isn't good RPing.

[Scipio]

"Rogue" isn't a good choice either. It doesn't exactly conjure up images of the Olsen Twins.

Well, it needs to be a somewhat short and effective description. A politically correct term might be "locksmith and professional trap detection and -removal expert", but nobody is writing that on their character sheet. It's just not catchy enough.

Got it! Your description, plus "sometimes a shady character." So, not thief; not rogue; but "in-law."

Hey! While we're at it, we should get the vampires to kill all the pirates too. And the bards.

[Klorox]

I should just say, I mostly use evil, as in the scale to rate killers(1-22)

LOL. My Wife loves that show.

I don't want to delve into philisophical debates over good vs. evil in real world terms. In D&D, things are a lot more black and white than in the real world.

If I'm actually roleplaying, it's easy to distinguish what's good and what's evil. If I'm just playing a video game, it's about getting as well prepared (or as powerful as possible) to tackle the challenges ahead.

[vilkacis]

Got it! Your description, plus "sometimes a shady character." So, not thief; not rogue; but "in-law."

I think most of them prefer out-law, but...

Hey! While we're at it, we should get the vampires to kill all the pirates too. And the bards.

Pirates, check. Bards... I'll get to it when I'm done with the elves. They pretty much amount to the same thing anyway.

[Jarno Mikkola]

People who deliberately hurt other people without provocation are evil. Hijacker shoots breadwinner, takes Mercedes = evil.

That's totally in contrary to your real believes; Hijacker shoots breadwinner, takes Mercedes = good. As the Hijacker just killed one of the breeders, and one of the 6 000 000 000+ polluters on the planet. Now, as he owned a gun, he just needs to kill 12 other people + himself, so we get rid of the polluter problem by following his example.

Welcome back.

[Scipio]

People who deliberately hurt other people without provocation are evil. Hijacker shoots breadwinner, takes Mercedes = evil.

That's totally in contrary to your real believes; Hijacker shoots breadwinner, takes Mercedes = good. As the Hijacker just killed one of the breeders, and one of the 6 000 000 000+ polluters on the planet. Now, as he owned a gun, he just needs to kill 12 other people + himself, so we get rid of the polluter problem by following his example.

Welcome back.

Thanks. And you're just as full of it as ever, hey, Imp? I've decided I won't take Valen in my next game, I'll take a psychotic creature called a Jarno-raptor.

Hmm... I think it's time to sift through the list of mods I haven't played yet. There must be some excellently evil NPCs waiting to wreak havoc. I wonder how many of them have +5 claws.

[Sir_Carnifex]

Hmm... I think it's time to sift through the list of mods I haven't played yet. There must be some excellently evil NPCs waiting to wreak havoc. I wonder how many of them have +5 claws.

Somebody could make a Sahuaguin shark-man mod with +5 jaws instead.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Thanks. And you're just as full of it as ever, hey, Imp? I've decided I won't take Valen in my next game, I'll take a psychotic creature called a Jarno-raptor.

Hmm... I think it's time to sift through the list of mods I haven't played yet. There must be some excellently evil NPCs waiting to wreak havoc. I wonder how many of them have +5 claws.

Well, the Oyro the Incompetent's Imp familiar does have, does that count?

[SaintZenn]

Do you guys remember that Xvart village in BG1? As I recall they ran from you but because they had the red circles under them you could attack them. I felt so bad about killing them, I've avoided them ever since. I mean what's the point of killing them? How do we know that there weren't little xvarts there? Just because someone is of an evil race does that make everyone evil?