Example: a greedy halfling joins up with a goody goody who proceeds to save a princess. He grumbles to himself that they should have black mailed and held her for ransom. He contemplates leaving until they get back to town and the merchant says "wow! You are with Goody Two-Shoes!? I'll buy that pearl necklace and long sword +1 for quadruple the normal price!!!" The halfling realizes not only did he get very rich from following goody two shoes, but the local marshal isn't hunting him for kidnapping. It's much safer and profitable to follow this guy around. He is still, however, a greedy son of a troll.
Now; in above example how does the evil halfling leaving make any sense? Leaving wouldn't be acting evil, it would be acting chaotic stupid.
This is not how Evil Example Halfling views the world. Evil Example Halfling would grudgingly accept your choice, but in his mind, it would have been a lot more profitable to blackmail (and since you didn't try it, you can't prove it isn't) and he wouldn't have been caught and hunted because he's an evil genius in his mind. Which you also can't disprove. He's also been free when you met him (unless there is an Example Quest I don't know about), so this only proves he IS smart enough to get away with crime, as he has done in the past. Evil Example Halfling does not view it as "more profitable" unless you can prove him that the long sword and pearl necklace DID generate more gold than the blackmailing would have given him. That is his MO, and has worked for him until he met Goody Two Shoes, and nothing indicates he was wrong. So him leaving makes perfect sense, because in his eyes, charname messed up a great chance to make easy money.
Adding to that, maybe Evil Example Halfling doesn't see it as risky to go the blackmail route. He may see it as a safe investment, while it's a gamble to sell some loot. Why? Because he's not the most honest person himself and mistrusts merchants. They are greedy, too, after all, and Evil Example Halfling knows from experience that it pays out to be dishonest. The expected outcome is: sell pearl necklace and sword and get screwed over by greedy merchant. On the other hand, fear makes people be terribly honest, so someone who is afraid Evil Example Halfling will kill the princess is much more likely to pay him whatever he demands.
true neutral, of the "apathetic asshole" variety, not the "ohh balance! shiny!" one. sadly, the Baldur's Gate series handles this alignment somewhat poorly, particularly in ToB
sadly, the Baldur's Gate series handles this alignment somewhat poorly, particularly in ToB
Handles all the alignments pretty badly I think. You're neither rewarded or penalized for sticking to your character's alignment and it has virtually no effect on gameplay. It more or less just serves as a guideline I think.
In real life I'm probably true neutral. In games I enjoy playing the good alignments most.
Neutral in real life... is that guy on the subway taking pictures of someone pushing another one onto the tracks.... lol
I'd say I make both good and evil decisions at times. It depends on how impulsive I am. I might have to lean more twords lawful though as I don't break the law. I look at neutral characters as someone who does things that are good for them, but might not always be good or bad for others. Probably most people are like that in the world. I doubt there are many that always do good deeds or always do evil deeds. I guess it also depends on your definition of good and evil. There are really evil things like killing for personal gain or fun, rape, etc. Then there are minor things like I know I should talk to or help someone with "warning signs", but I choose to ignore them instead. I might have an impulse to spends money or eat something bad for me. That could be considered evil.
In real life I'm probably true neutral. In games I enjoy playing the good alignments most.
Neutral in real life... is that guy on the subway taking pictures of someone pushing another one onto the tracks.... lol
I'd say I make both good and evil decisions at times. It depends on how impulsive I am. I might have to lean more twords lawful though as I don't break the law. I look at neutral characters as someone who does things that are good for them, but might not always be good or bad for others. Probably most people are like that in the world. I doubt there are many that always do good deeds or always do evil deeds. I guess it also depends on your definition of good and evil. There are really evil things like killing for personal gain or fun, rape, etc. Then there are minor things like I know I should talk to or help someone with "warning signs", but I choose to ignore them instead. I might have an impulse to spends money or eat something bad for me. That could be considered evil.
I guess we all have personal definitions. Eating things that are bad for you may still be inside the spectrum of lawful good, as I see it. In my opinion. People who honestly believe themselves to be within the evil spectrum, as defined in the game, should go to see a psychatrist.
What separates good from evil is, knowing its evil, doing it, and having no shame. Doing the act does not make one evil, no sign of repentance is what makes one black inside.
I picked Neutral in the sense that I play mixed alignment parties most of the time. My main is perfectly willing to make use of the evil characters for their abilities. But that said, I do play as the hero who saves the region, and tend to be helpful a great deal of the time. Not all the time, but much of it.
Good is obviously better, because it is GOOD. Even my hamster can understand this logic! What kind of rodent thinking are you using, to get different results?
Goldylox effect all the way, good is for wusses, evil for dooshes, Neutral lets you do both, win win. Sure ill rescue your kitten its the least i can do! Got any gold on you though?
sadly, the Baldur's Gate series handles this alignment somewhat poorly, particularly in ToB
Handles all the alignments pretty badly I think. You're neither rewarded or penalized for sticking to your character's alignment and it has virtually no effect on gameplay. It more or less just serves as a guideline I think.
actually, yes and no. no reward, but... it's easy enough to stick to good alignment and roleplay it as much as one can, considering you're on a never-ending quest to save your girlfriend yourself, and half the sword coast. with neutral and evil, things can get somewhat iffy, but it's still okay... the problem comes with how much crap the game throws at you if you try to stick to the whole "jerkass neutral" concept - BG2 and ToB ending spoilers ahead, you have been warned.
first, BG2 ending, trials of hell... choices make sense for good and evil characters somewhat - do everything the goody-two-shoes way, you stay good, make an evil choice, you'll become... instantly evil. okay, not that much sense, but whatever. for evil chars, do whatever the hell you please, like you always do. however, for neutral protagonists... you acted like an angel on four of the trials, losing pieces of yourself in the process, then decided to beat the living shit out of that guy you spent the whole previous game chasing? enjoy turning into neutral evil, bitch.
but that's nothing compared the way ToB treats neutral chars, to be exact, that goddamn Solar. act like a jerkass toward ms. solar? tell her to go screw yourself, and that you don't care about her bullshit, you past, and the tales of "what could have been"? or, god forbid, make fun of Melissan when she has been "revealed"? well, enjoy getting the evil ending, because *every* nonchalant, snarky response gets you a few extra evil points - the only thing that doesn't are the most hammy, overzealous, and somewhat mentally challenged goody-two-shoes choices.
it's quite ridiculous... I've roleplayed my true neutral char to a tee, and by the end of ToB, she was neutral evil, about to become an evil god, with the solar telling her how much she disgust her, and without any chance of making said solar eat her words, along with most of her teeth. and then let's not even mention that there are good and evil endings for becoming a deity, but the neutral one is suspiciously nonexistent.
tl;dr, because once again I've written a goddamn novel: pick neutral alignment, enjoy being screwed over on every gamechanging decision.
Example: a greedy halfling joins up with a goody goody who proceeds to save a princess. He grumbles to himself that they should have black mailed and held her for ransom. He contemplates leaving until they get back to town and the merchant says "wow! You are with Goody Two-Shoes!? I'll buy that pearl necklace and long sword +1 for quadruple the normal price!!!" The halfling realizes not only did he get very rich from following goody two shoes, but the local marshal isn't hunting him for kidnapping. It's much safer and profitable to follow this guy around. He is still, however, a greedy son of a troll.
Now; in above example how does the evil halfling leaving make any sense? Leaving wouldn't be acting evil, it would be acting chaotic stupid.
This is not how Evil Example Halfling views the world. Evil Example Halfling would grudgingly accept your choice, but in his mind, it would have been a lot more profitable to blackmail (and since you didn't try it, you can't prove it isn't) and he wouldn't have been caught and hunted because he's an evil genius in his mind. Which you also can't disprove. He's also been free when you met him (unless there is an Example Quest I don't know about), so this only proves he IS smart enough to get away with crime, as he has done in the past. Evil Example Halfling does not view it as "more profitable" unless you can prove him that the long sword and pearl necklace DID generate more gold than the blackmailing would have given him. That is his MO, and has worked for him until he met Goody Two Shoes, and nothing indicates he was wrong. So him leaving makes perfect sense, because in his eyes, charname messed up a great chance to make easy money.
Adding to that, maybe Evil Example Halfling doesn't see it as risky to go the blackmail route. He may see it as a safe investment, while it's a gamble to sell some loot. Why? Because he's not the most honest person himself and mistrusts merchants. They are greedy, too, after all, and Evil Example Halfling knows from experience that it pays out to be dishonest. The expected outcome is: sell pearl necklace and sword and get screwed over by greedy merchant. On the other hand, fear makes people be terribly honest, so someone who is afraid Evil Example Halfling will kill the princess is much more likely to pay him whatever he demands.
This isn't an either/or situation. The example from ReadingRambo is a perfectly valid play by an evil character who is inherently selfish and risk adverse. The example from KidCarnival is a perfectly valid play by an evil charaacter who is highly risk tolerant.
To know whether one example was more realistic than the other, you would need to look at the intelligence and wisdom scores of the evil halfling and the actual risk/reward profile for venture to see whether the character would have accurately evaluated the situation (and thus whether he would see one route as more profitable than another). A high intelligence/high wisdom character who thinks that blackmailing the king isn't risky when it will be the king and all his resources that is investigating and exacting vengeance is probably not being played in a very realistic way; such a character might decide that a high payout is worth it but he won't think it isn't highly risky. A low intelligence/low wisdom character might see zero risk involved in that scenario, as KidChameleon suggests, but that is because he can't accurately guage the risk profile. Now blackmailing a high ranking member of a LG church who is having an affair with the wife of a noble is probably a much better risk/reward profile since the person being blackmailed will have a heavy incentive not to take the crime to the authorities, unlike in the situation where you are talking about kidnapping and ransoming the king's daughter.
All to say that this isn't a one size fits all discussion on alignment and action.
First playthrough back in 98: Lawful Good. I used to like Paladins, their narrow mind and black or white way of seeing everything.
Strangely enough I have never tried a 2nd playthrough on BG1, while I did play BG2 with several characters.
On Enhanced Edition I went for an evil character but not the blood thirsty type of person. Quite the contrary. I chose an evil monk and to be honest I was surprised to see there was such an option. Second edition rules can be quite stiff sometimes, like the "Rangers must be good" for some weird reason. It makes me wanna find a mod to fix this, make an evil ranger and then take a dumb and wipe my elven arse with a squirrel.
Back to topic though, I try to rp my evil monk as someone who just doesn't care about others or his Bhaalspawn legacy. He just wants to travel the world at his own pace and preferably alone. Pretty much like the Riddick character.
First playthrough back in 98: Lawful Good. I used to like Paladins, their narrow mind and black or white way of seeing everything.
Strangely enough I have never tried a 2nd playthrough on BG1, while I did play BG2 with several characters.
On Enhanced Edition I went for an evil character but not the blood thirsty type of person. Quite the contrary. I chose an evil monk and to be honest I was surprised to see there was such an option. Second edition rules can be quite stiff sometimes, like the "Rangers must be good" for some weird reason. It makes me wanna find a mod to fix this, make an evil ranger and then take a dumb and wipe my elven arse with a squirrel.
Back to topic though, I try to rp my evil monk as someone who just doesn't care about others or his Bhaalspawn legacy. He just wants to travel the world at his own pace and preferably alone. Pretty much like the Riddick character.
I like the character concept but I would think Riddick would be the complete opposite alignment than LE . But that's subjective and besides the point
I've never played an evil character in a video game or in PnP games, and I struggle with playing even neutral characters because it means doing more or less the opposite of what my instincts are telling me. It's so awkward that it just makes me uncomfortable, and eventually my neutral characters characters so of... drift into the good spectrum.
That said, my current run with a mostly evil party is pretty fun. I'm still get a terrible feeling that I'm doing it all wrong when I pick the "evil" or "neutral" option instead of the good one, but it's interesting to see what's going on over on the "other side."
Good is easier and more sensible to play in Baldur's Gate, even if some of the evil choices have decent story behind them (the human armor in Baldur's Gate II). Evil has always seemed to be more about bullying than genuine evil in Baldur's Gate, whereas good generally makes logical and intuitive sense in the context of the world (despite your being a Bhaalspawn).
That said, I think in real life I veer between neutral good and lawful evil. Depends on how grumpy I am with the world.
My charname feels embattled and is in fact half mad(CN), people keep waltzing out of the shadows and trying to kill her. She gladly took on anyone that seemed strong and or ... bitchy enough to handle these "issues". The party is loaded with evil npc's ... ! The real joke is Rasaad will probably eclispe them all in terms of power? Well anyways good is a sleeper ...
I've never played an evil character in a video game or in PnP games, and I struggle with playing even neutral characters because it means doing more or less the opposite of what my instincts are telling me. It's so awkward that it just makes me uncomfortable, and eventually my neutral characters characters so of... drift into the good spectrum.
That said, my current run with a mostly evil party is pretty fun. I'm still get a terrible feeling that I'm doing it all wrong when I pick the "evil" or "neutral" option instead of the good one, but it's interesting to see what's going on over on the "other side."
Haha, I am just like that I usually play chaotic good tho, even if it might seem pretentous; "ooh, Im good, but I wanna be good in a anti-establishment way". Guess it fits me in real life too:p
Comments
Adding to that, maybe Evil Example Halfling doesn't see it as risky to go the blackmail route. He may see it as a safe investment, while it's a gamble to sell some loot. Why? Because he's not the most honest person himself and mistrusts merchants. They are greedy, too, after all, and Evil Example Halfling knows from experience that it pays out to be dishonest. The expected outcome is: sell pearl necklace and sword and get screwed over by greedy merchant. On the other hand, fear makes people be terribly honest, so someone who is afraid Evil Example Halfling will kill the princess is much more likely to pay him whatever he demands.
sadly, the Baldur's Gate series handles this alignment somewhat poorly, particularly in ToB
I believe fairness in everything.... So I'll join the losing side, like Trolls if they face extinction by local Baron's force.
Good is obviously better, because it is GOOD. Even my hamster can understand this logic! What kind of rodent thinking are you using, to get different results?
it's easy enough to stick to good alignment and roleplay it as much as one can, considering you're on a never-ending quest to save
your girlfriendyourself, and half the sword coast. with neutral and evil, things can get somewhat iffy, but it's still okay...the problem comes with how much crap the game throws at you if you try to stick to the whole "jerkass neutral" concept - BG2 and ToB ending spoilers ahead, you have been warned.
however, for neutral protagonists... you acted like an angel on four of the trials, losing pieces of yourself in the process, then decided to beat the living shit out of that guy you spent the whole previous game chasing? enjoy turning into neutral evil, bitch.
but that's nothing compared the way ToB treats neutral chars, to be exact, that goddamn Solar.
act like a jerkass toward ms. solar? tell her to go screw yourself, and that you don't care about her bullshit, you past, and the tales of "what could have been"? or, god forbid, make fun of Melissan when she has been "revealed"? well, enjoy getting the evil ending, because *every* nonchalant, snarky response gets you a few extra evil points - the only thing that doesn't are the most hammy, overzealous, and somewhat mentally challenged goody-two-shoes choices.
it's quite ridiculous... I've roleplayed my true neutral char to a tee, and by the end of ToB, she was neutral evil, about to become an evil god, with the solar telling her how much she disgust her, and without any chance of making said solar eat her words, along with most of her teeth. and then let's not even mention that there are good and evil endings for becoming a deity, but the neutral one is suspiciously nonexistent.
tl;dr, because once again I've written a goddamn novel: pick neutral alignment, enjoy being screwed over on every gamechanging decision.
To know whether one example was more realistic than the other, you would need to look at the intelligence and wisdom scores of the evil halfling and the actual risk/reward profile for venture to see whether the character would have accurately evaluated the situation (and thus whether he would see one route as more profitable than another). A high intelligence/high wisdom character who thinks that blackmailing the king isn't risky when it will be the king and all his resources that is investigating and exacting vengeance is probably not being played in a very realistic way; such a character might decide that a high payout is worth it but he won't think it isn't highly risky. A low intelligence/low wisdom character might see zero risk involved in that scenario, as KidChameleon suggests, but that is because he can't accurately guage the risk profile. Now blackmailing a high ranking member of a LG church who is having an affair with the wife of a noble is probably a much better risk/reward profile since the person being blackmailed will have a heavy incentive not to take the crime to the authorities, unlike in the situation where you are talking about kidnapping and ransoming the king's daughter.
All to say that this isn't a one size fits all discussion on alignment and action.
Strangely enough I have never tried a 2nd playthrough on BG1, while I did play BG2 with several characters.
On Enhanced Edition I went for an evil character but not the blood thirsty type of person. Quite the contrary. I chose an evil monk and to be honest I was surprised to see there was such an option. Second edition rules can be quite stiff sometimes, like the "Rangers must be good" for some weird reason. It makes me wanna find a mod to fix this, make an evil ranger and then take a dumb and wipe my elven arse with a squirrel.
Back to topic though, I try to rp my evil monk as someone who just doesn't care about others or his Bhaalspawn legacy. He just wants to travel the world at his own pace and preferably alone. Pretty much like the Riddick character.
I've never played an evil character in a video game or in PnP games, and I struggle with playing even neutral characters because it means doing more or less the opposite of what my instincts are telling me. It's so awkward that it just makes me uncomfortable, and eventually my neutral characters characters so of... drift into the good spectrum.
That said, my current run with a mostly evil party is pretty fun. I'm still get a terrible feeling that I'm doing it all wrong when I pick the "evil" or "neutral" option instead of the good one, but it's interesting to see what's going on over on the "other side."
That said, I think in real life I veer between neutral good and lawful evil. Depends on how grumpy I am with the world.