You offend my good senses. What are villains and heroes without good and evil? What is a story without good vs evil? What is a good story without a truly evil evil in the world? What is a dwarf if it's just an ugly short human? What is an elf if it's just a tall skinny human with pointy ears?
Are you really saying the only difference between dwarves, elves, and humans is their alignment?
For a story without good and evil, try the Game of Thrones, or basically anything else written in the last fifty years or so. Even Harry Potter has very little of it.
I do think that there are certain things that define the race. Being good or evil is part of that IMO. Certainly there is more to it than just alignment.
I don't like game of thrones very much. I think it is a good example of a show/book that crushes your spirit and defeats the purpose of escapism.
@UnknownQuantity@Ignatius There's smart and reasonable evil (Sarevok, Irenicus) and there's stupid evil. Orcs that attack you are the stupid evil. But if a DM or a quest, involves baby versions of them, then it's there to introduce to a moral choice.
If we had established that in Forgotten Realms ALL drow are stupid and iredeemably evil without any exception, that attack everyone on sight, then you would be right. Since we have exceptions like Drizzt and Eilistraeen drow plus lore of how and why they are evil, then saying that "drow = evil" is wrong. They are mostly evil, true. Not ALL of them.
If people want to ignore lore, that's their right. But don't tell us that if you think something is one way, without proof, then we must agree with you.
Yeah, someone can play a Paladin as Lawful Stupid that kills evil on sight. Don't expect us to agree with it. It's your game, though.
You should not get put in people's mouth things they never said. The discussion is not about slaughtering "evil" but drows. And orcs. I would find plenty of BG gamers for whom it would make sense I am quite sure, and this discussion has happened before. So don't try to pretend that it is "my" way against "everyone else's way". As for orcs and goblins, the game in the trilogy forces you each and every time, to massacre all orcs and goblins you encounter so it seems I am not too far off am I? if there is subtetly as to how to deal with moral choices in BG, that subtelty is certainly not implemented when you meet orcs. Or goblins. And very little with drows.= since you can massacre an entire city without losing a single rep point, nor falling.
I do think that there are certain things that define the race. Being good or evil is part of that IMO. Certainly there is more to it than just alignment.
Indeed there is: in the end, alignment is just a footnote, not a stone that sets in your personality and beliefs the moment you are born. The characters and people are three-dimensional and with many layers: they are never "just" good and evil, no matter what their race.
As for orcs and goblins, the game in the trilogy forces you each and every time, to massacre all orcs and goblins you encounter so it seems I am not too far off am I? if there is subtetly as to how to deal with moral choices in BG, that subtelty is certainly not implemented when you meet orcs. Or goblins. And very little with drows.= since you can massacre an entire city without losing a single rep point, nor falling.
The games also make you slaughter all the bandits in your way. Would you say those guys are irredeemably evil? And if so, then wouldn't all humans be as well?
@UnknownQuantity@Ignatius There's smart and reasonable evil (Sarevok, Irenicus) and there's stupid evil. Orcs that attack you are the stupid evil. But if a DM or a quest, involves baby versions of them, then it's there to introduce to a moral choice.
If we had established that in Forgotten Realms ALL drow are stupid and iredeemably evil without any exception, that attack everyone on sight, then you would be right.
Being stupid or intelligent has nothing to do with the subject matter hereof. If the DM judges that PC knows for a fact or was led to know, that 99.9 of drows are as evil and treacherous and unredeemable as it gets, then I am guessing he might consider slaughetrint drows on sight as a reasonable choice.
Since we have exceptions like Drizzt and Eilistraeen drow plus lore of how and why they are evil, then saying that "drow = evil" is wrong. They are mostly evil, true. Not ALL of them.
Ok, but proportions would be needed here. Saying that drows are evil is a generality, and generalities are necessary for thought to be possible. If 0.01% of drows are redeemable, then it is true by my book to say that drows as a race are evil. Although a few individual drows, once every decade, can be redeemed. And again if this is factual, then the reasonable PC or the lawful PC or the godd PC, might be expected by a DM to side with the GG guy rather than Viconia.
If people want to ignore lore, that's their right. But don't tell us that if you think something is one way, without proof, then we must agree with you.
You do not consider proportions and generalities, you draw conclusions from exceptions.
@UnknownQuantity@Ignatius There's smart and reasonable evil (Sarevok, Irenicus) and there's stupid evil. Orcs that attack you are the stupid evil. But if a DM or a quest, involves baby versions of them, then it's there to introduce to a moral choice.
If we had established that in Forgotten Realms ALL drow are stupid and iredeemably evil without any exception, that attack everyone on sight, then you would be right. Since we have exceptions like Drizzt and Eilistraeen drow plus lore of how and why they are evil, then saying that "drow = evil" is wrong. They are mostly evil, true. Not ALL of them.
If people want to ignore lore, that's their right. But don't tell us that if you think something is one way, without proof, then we must agree with you.
Even with the lore it is bad logic. We have a drow of evil alignment asking for help. Since we are faced with only two options and know what evil drow are capable of it's reasonable for charname to hand her over to the flaming fist as a good aligned action. Killing the flaming fist and letting her go free to possible perform evil deeds elsewhere is no better. The funny thing is I used to feel like yourself, but I think I was more driven by hormones as a kid playing the game then any moral ideals. I still feel people who would choose to kill the flaming fist over an evil aligned drow are probably just looking for an excuse to have a Viconia romance.
"EVIL Parties: I'm betting, however, that many of you are going to fight Drizzt to try to steal his nifty items. First off, this makes you EVIL, as Drizzt is good. Secondly, several party members will leave your party (or attack you) if you do this:"
So killing Drizzt, a good drow, makes you lose Reputation points unless I'm mistaken. Can someone confirm this? And yes, the ones you meet in Ust Natha are evil. Except Solaufein? I think he's Chaotic Neutral.
@UknownQuantity By the way, elves, dwarves, halfling and gnomes are generally considered good-natured. Yet, you have Kagain, Korgan, Irenicus, Bodhi, Montaron and Tiax. Some races lean towards some alignments, sure. Those are the majority, not absolutes.
The games also make you slaughter all the bandits in your way. Would you say those guys are irredeemably evil? And if so, then wouldn't all humans be as well?
No that statement is incorrect, the game let's you decide if you will spare the life of quite a few bandits / iron throne goons. Quite a lot of them actually now that I think of it. And here as a RP good PC I always spare their lives. The game never let's you thibnk that the same subtelty is true of orcs, or goblins. it does with 3 rows, one of which is a well-known character so let's put him aside. That's very few, considering how many you encounter.
Even with the lore it is bad logic. We have a drow of evil alignment asking for help. Since we are faced with only two options and know what evil drow are capable of it's reasonable for charname to hand her over to the flaming fist as a good aligned action. Killing the flaming fist and letting her go free to possible perform evil deeds elsewhere is no better. The funny thing is I used to feel like yourself, but I think I was more driven by hormones as a kid playing the game then any moral ideals. I still feel people who would choose to kill the flaming fist over an evil aligned drow are probably just looking for an excuse to have a Viconia romance.
Well, of course it is then our responsibility to take her along and make sure she doesn't end up in more trouble, or killing more people, right?
Even with the lore it is bad logic. We have a drow of evil alignment asking for help. Since we are faced with only two options and know what evil drow are capable of it's reasonable for charname to hand her over to the flaming fist as a good aligned action. Killing the flaming fist and letting her go free to possible perform evil deeds elsewhere is no better. The funny thing is I used to feel like yourself, but I think I was more driven by hormones as a kid playing the game then any moral ideals. I still feel people who would choose to kill the flaming fist over an evil aligned drow are probably just looking for an excuse to have a Viconia romance.
Well, of course it is then our responsibility to take her along and make sure she doesn't end up in more trouble, or killing more people, right?
True, but I wouldn't want a crazy evil aligned drow in my group either. Better to just turn her over to the flaming fist since there is no other option.
So killing Drizzt, a good drow, makes you lose Reputation points unless I'm mistaken. Can someone confirm this?
That is an exception because the game clearly considers (seeing the reaction of the NPC's) that Drizzt is a very famous character whose reputation has surpassed his drow heritage in the eyes of many. You lose reputation because people will know you killed Drizzt, and they liked him.
"EVIL Parties: I'm betting, however, that many of you are going to fight Drizzt to try to steal his nifty items. First off, this makes you EVIL, as Drizzt is good. Secondly, several party members will leave your party (or attack you) if you do this:"
So killing Drizzt, a good drow, makes you lose Reputation points unless I'm mistaken. Can someone confirm this? And yes, the ones you meet in Ust Natha are evil. Except Solaufein? I think he's Chaotic Neutral.
@UknownQuantity By the way, elves, dwarves, halfling and gnomes are generally considered good-natured. Yet, you have Kagain, Korgan, Irenicus, Bodhi, Montaron and Tiax. Some races lean towards some alignments, sure. Those are the majority, not absolutes.
This is true though I would point out this game was made in a time when having characters who were normally one alignment behave in a completely different way was starting to become popular because of trilogies like the dark elf trilogy and the icewind dale trilogy.
You cannot make math or calculations with living beings. It always falls apart in the end.
If you don't, then you end up implying as I think you did, that Orcs can become civilized and easy-tempered equally to elves being prone to being evil. The equally here, bruns the yeyes. You are refusing the hierarchy that in general, elves > orcs in the axis of of good vs evil. Well Chow, that should show you that generalization and sense of proportions is needed otherwise you draw insane conclusions.
@UnknownQuantity And I'm pretty grateful for that. Having every companion being a walking cliche, would be absolutely boring and stupid.
@Ingatius If you kill a random Commoner or guard you lose reputation points also, I believe. And noone knows those.
If there's even one exception, then that means that it's not absolute. Since there are good drow, no matter how few or rare, it means that the race itself is not evil but the majority are raised to be like that. Which means they can be redeemed no matter how hard or rarely.
It's a cultural trait, not a racial. The dark skin is a racial trait.
Harry Potter. Do I look like the Harry Potter generation? who wants to play an RPG Harry Potter minded? well, not me. BG and FR is thank goodness, another fantasy world altogether.
If you don't, then you end up implying as I think you did, that Orcs can become civilized and easy-tempered equally to elves being prone to being evil. The equally here, bruns the yeyes. You are refusing the hierarchy that in general, elves > orcs in the axis of of good vs evil. Well Chow, that should show you that generalization and sense of proportions is needed otherwise you draw insane conclusions.
It's not math, it's just acknowledging that both have the same possibility for good and evil, as they do. Elves generally live in more good and lawful societies than orcs, which is the only reason they are good guys more often.
If there's even one exception, then that means that it's not absolute. Since there are good drow, no matter how few or rare, it means that the race itself is not evil but the majority are raised to be like that.
The overwhelming majority. Due to a cruse upon the entire race, out of which it is close to impossible to escape, if we consider proportions. So the statement that the drow race is evil, is an undsiputable statement. It does not mean that it is absolute, I'll grant you that. It is a generalization which given the proportions contemplated, is not over-strecthed at all.
It's a cultural trait, not a racial. The dark skin is a racial trait.
I'll give you that for drows, although the gods have made them physically identifiable to all. Hence my statement about a baby drow. I will not give you that for an orc or a goblin.
The overwhelming majority. Due to a cruse upon the entire race, out of which it is close to impossible to escape, if we consider proportions. So the statement that the drow race is evil, is an undsiputable statement. It does not mean that it is absolute, I'll grant you that. It is a generalization which given the proportions contemplated, is not over-strecthed at all.
I'm not sure you have your facts straight: it's not a curse, and never was, but rather a conscious choice of forsaking the good gods of elves, and the less-conscious of being driven underground by them. This was something their ancestors did eons ago, and now the only thing keeping them evil is their upbringing and their own evil deities. Should a drow leave those behind, which is not entirely uncommon, he has a perfectly good chance of ending up a decent person.
@Ignatius Yes, the overwhelming majority, though I am not sure of the numbers. I heard that the good ones are around 10-20%, though I might be totally off. Don't forget that there are Eilistraeen colonies in the Underdark.
Yes, the drow *generally* are evil. They are made that way, not born that way. So a drow baby can be raised to be good and they are in Eilistraeen towns in the Underdark or the surface. I would think that good drow know what a moon is. http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Eilistraee
The gods made drow dark because they chose to follow Lolth. That's true for the very first drow. Not the other generations. That is passed down by genes.
It's not math, it's just acknowledging that both have the same possibility for good and evil, as they do. Elves generally live in more good and lawful societies than orcs, which is the only reason they are good guys more often.
For Baldur's Gate, it is obvious that the game goes out of its way to buck the idea that certain classes of creatures are utterly irredeemable:
* Viconia (won't kill innocent and ultimately shifts alignment away from evil); * Sarevok (can shift alignment to good); * Drizzt (good drow); * Solaufein (abandons evil drow for Ellistrae); * Ogres, gnolls, etc. (those you investigate in the Umar hills; the one in BG1 that tells you about the gnoll fortress); * Werewolves (the one who helps you escape in TOSC and the one fighting the evil in the temple ruins); * Beholder (the spectator beholder who helps you); * Kobolds (a comical trio signs autographs for you);
and of course....
* the Bhaalspawn Charname.
This theme of people assuming the evil nature of certain creatures and characters and being mistaken about it is played out in pretty clear terms and it appears numerous times. I am not ready to agree that all creatures have the same probability for good or evil given the same environmental factors but the game clearly delivers a message about the possibility of turning away from evil even beyond just the racial aspect (a necromancer who you think is evil who you can help die with dignity, etc.).
@UnknownQuantity And I'm pretty grateful for that. Having every companion being a walking cliche, would be absolutely boring and stupid.
@Ingatius If you kill a random Commoner or guard you lose reputation points also, I believe. And noone knows those.
If there's even one exception, then that means that it's not absolute. Since there are good drow, no matter how few or rare, it means that the race itself is not evil but the majority are raised to be like that. Which means they can be redeemed no matter how hard or rarely.
It's a cultural trait, not a racial. The dark skin is a racial trait.
I digress I suppose. I feel that these ideas are wrong and are hurting fantasy world games. I know they were introduced a ways after the original ideas for fantasy and even D&D were created. You are correct that a good aligned character could save Viconia, but a good aligned character could just as easily turn Viconia over to the flaming fist. If charname for some reason has compulsions to keep her alive and take her into their group then so be it. Neither choice makes you lose reputation. I personally would not put such a choice in a fantasy game if I were to make one though.
If you don't, then you end up implying as I think you did, that Orcs can become civilized and easy-tempered equally to elves being prone to being evil. The equally here, bruns the yeyes. You are refusing the hierarchy that in general, elves > orcs in the axis of of good vs evil. Well Chow, that should show you that generalization and sense of proportions is needed otherwise you draw insane conclusions.
It's not math, it's just acknowledging that both have the same possibility for good and evil, as they do. Elves generally live in more good and lawful societies than orcs, which is the only reason they are good guys more often.
Again I'll point out that this is a matter of personal preference. According to the dark elf trilogy some drow can be good. You are correct. This was introduced later when R A Salvatore made the character though. It was not part of original D&D.
@Ignatius Yes, the overwhelming majority, though I am not sure of the numbers. I heard that the good ones are around 10-20%, though I might totally off. Don't forget that there are Eilistraeen colonies in the Underdark.
Yes, the drow *generally* are evil. They are made that way, not born that way. So a drow baby can be raised to be good and they are in Eilistraeen towns in the Underdark or the surface. I would think that good drow know what a moon is. http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Eilistraee
The gods made drow dark because they chose to follow Lolth. That's true for the very first drow. Not the other generations. That is passed down by genes.
Ok maybe you're right, I cannot dispute those facts for lack of information. But if the genetics are not involved then it would mean that any abducted baby elf raised by drows, would end up being exactly like drows with no chance of higher redemption out of their evil culture? Has that ever happened? do we have proportions of this?
In any case you guys lack imagination. If the gods have decided on the fate of the drows as a race, why can they not "hereditarily" curse their entire generations to come? how tough is that to imagine, if this is how people in Ancient Greece for instance, used to think in RL? this alone destroys your argument about being incoherent. You are the ones trying to make FR evolve to be an exact copy not only of RL, but of modern days RL.
@UknownQuantity Actually you lose -2 Reputation if you have Viconia join you BUT you don't lose reputation for killing the guard.
Personally, I feel that having no variety and only cliches and absolutes is boring and hurts fantasy worlds that are supposed to be complex and interesting.
I'm saying that there are plenty of reasons to save Viconia for a Good guy. Even if you don't let her join you. That's what I did with my Paladin.
For my Blackguard, I save her because she's an awesome character and cleric in general.
Ok maybe you're right, I cannot dispute those facts for lack of information. But if the genetics are not involved then it would mean that any abducted baby elf raised by drows, would end up being exactly like drows with no chance of higher redemption out of their evil culture? Has that ever happened? do we have proportions of this?
...Yes, that is precisely what would happen. The elf would end up akin to a drow, with roughly the same odds of being redeemed later.
In any case you guys lack imagination. If the gods have decided on the fate of the drows as a race, why can they not "hereditarily" curse their entire generations to come? how tough is that to imagine, if this is how people in Ancient Greece for instance, used to think in RL? this alone destroys your argument about being incoherent. You are the ones trying to make FR evolve to be an exact copy not only of RL, but of modern days RL.
What even makes you think the drow are decided by gods as a race? This has never been alluded to. And the worst that does happen is Lolth occasionally changing a drow into a drider if they displease her and she catches them before they flee.
This is really how FR is, and you're the one seeing it wrong, not the rest of us.
@Ignatius I am not aware of such an incident where Drow raise an elven child.
But, I know that Drow hate surface elves (darthiir) with a passion and kill them on sight if they're evil. They have no reason to raise them. They might take them as slaves, perhaps or cattle (rothe).
They did curse the drows hereditarily. All drow, good or bad, are dark-skinned, have generally white hair and generally red eyes. But Eilistraee is the daughter of Corellon and she's a drowess too. She's the one that wants to redeem them and help them.
This theme of people assuming the evil nature of certain creatures and characters and being mistaken about it is played out in pretty clear terms and it appears numerous times. I am not ready to agree that all creatures have the same probability for good or evil given the same environmental factors but the game clearly delivers a message about the possibility of turning away from evil even beyond just the racial aspect (a necromancer who you think is evil who you can help die with dignity, etc.).
Nothing indicates that those extremely rare exceptions are a sign of a nature within those races tjhat can be redeemed, or rather a joke from the gods, a "providential act of gods" that decide to bend the rules of nature which they can since they have created it, in order to spice it up a little. Redeeming one or two selected individuals while continue to curse the entire said race by nature.
Because as you can see with Chow, the danger of considering that all are redeemable is that people will not be able to suffer inequalities, and will end up saying that elves being generally than orcs is down to social factors rather than nature and genetics. And you'll have a hard time defending against that, other than in saying that in nature, orcs/drows are much more predisposed genetically to evil than elves, and that therefore, bias against those races is reasonable vs bias against elves/humans/etc...
Comments
I don't like game of thrones very much. I think it is a good example of a show/book that crushes your spirit and defeats the purpose of escapism.
There's smart and reasonable evil (Sarevok, Irenicus) and there's stupid evil. Orcs that attack you are the stupid evil. But if a DM or a quest, involves baby versions of them, then it's there to introduce to a moral choice.
If we had established that in Forgotten Realms ALL drow are stupid and iredeemably evil without any exception, that attack everyone on sight, then you would be right.
Since we have exceptions like Drizzt and Eilistraeen drow plus lore of how and why they are evil, then saying that "drow = evil" is wrong. They are mostly evil, true. Not ALL of them.
If people want to ignore lore, that's their right. But don't tell us that if you think something is one way, without proof, then we must agree with you.
(I don't like it much either, mind.)
Here's a quote from a BG2 guide.
"EVIL Parties: I'm betting, however, that many of you are going to fight
Drizzt to try to steal his nifty items. First off, this
makes you EVIL, as Drizzt is good. Secondly, several
party members will leave your party (or attack you) if
you do this:"
So killing Drizzt, a good drow, makes you lose Reputation points unless I'm mistaken. Can someone confirm this?
And yes, the ones you meet in Ust Natha are evil. Except Solaufein? I think he's Chaotic Neutral.
@UknownQuantity
By the way, elves, dwarves, halfling and gnomes are generally considered good-natured.
Yet, you have Kagain, Korgan, Irenicus, Bodhi, Montaron and Tiax.
Some races lean towards some alignments, sure.
Those are the majority, not absolutes.
And I'm pretty grateful for that. Having every companion being a walking cliche, would be absolutely boring and stupid.
@Ingatius
If you kill a random Commoner or guard you lose reputation points also, I believe. And noone knows those.
If there's even one exception, then that means that it's not absolute. Since there are good drow, no matter how few or rare, it means that the race itself is not evil but the majority are raised to be like that. Which means they can be redeemed no matter how hard or rarely.
It's a cultural trait, not a racial. The dark skin is a racial trait.
Yes, the overwhelming majority, though I am not sure of the numbers. I heard that the good ones are around 10-20%, though I might be totally off. Don't forget that there are Eilistraeen colonies in the Underdark.
Yes, the drow *generally* are evil. They are made that way, not born that way. So a drow baby can be raised to be good and they are in Eilistraeen towns in the Underdark or the surface. I would think that good drow know what a moon is. http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Eilistraee
The gods made drow dark because they chose to follow Lolth. That's true for the very first drow. Not the other generations. That is passed down by genes.
* Viconia (won't kill innocent and ultimately shifts alignment away from evil);
* Sarevok (can shift alignment to good);
* Drizzt (good drow);
* Solaufein (abandons evil drow for Ellistrae);
* Ogres, gnolls, etc. (those you investigate in the Umar hills; the one in BG1 that tells you about the gnoll fortress);
* Werewolves (the one who helps you escape in TOSC and the one fighting the evil in the temple ruins);
* Beholder (the spectator beholder who helps you);
* Kobolds (a comical trio signs autographs for you);
and of course....
* the Bhaalspawn Charname.
This theme of people assuming the evil nature of certain creatures and characters and being mistaken about it is played out in pretty clear terms and it appears numerous times. I am not ready to agree that all creatures have the same probability for good or evil given the same environmental factors but the game clearly delivers a message about the possibility of turning away from evil even beyond just the racial aspect (a necromancer who you think is evil who you can help die with dignity, etc.).
In any case you guys lack imagination. If the gods have decided on the fate of the drows as a race, why can they not "hereditarily" curse their entire generations to come? how tough is that to imagine, if this is how people in Ancient Greece for instance, used to think in RL? this alone destroys your argument about being incoherent. You are the ones trying to make FR evolve to be an exact copy not only of RL, but of modern days RL.
Actually you lose -2 Reputation if you have Viconia join you BUT you don't lose reputation for killing the guard.
Personally, I feel that having no variety and only cliches and absolutes is boring and hurts fantasy worlds that are supposed to be complex and interesting.
I'm saying that there are plenty of reasons to save Viconia for a Good guy. Even if you don't let her join you. That's what I did with my Paladin.
For my Blackguard, I save her because she's an awesome character and cleric in general.
This is really how FR is, and you're the one seeing it wrong, not the rest of us.
I am not aware of such an incident where Drow raise an elven child.
But, I know that Drow hate surface elves (darthiir) with a passion and kill them on sight if they're evil.
They have no reason to raise them. They might take them as slaves, perhaps or cattle (rothe).
They did curse the drows hereditarily. All drow, good or bad, are dark-skinned, have generally white hair and generally red eyes.
But Eilistraee is the daughter of Corellon and she's a drowess too. She's the one that wants to redeem them and help them.
Because as you can see with Chow, the danger of considering that all are redeemable is that people will not be able to suffer inequalities, and will end up saying that elves being generally than orcs is down to social factors rather than nature and genetics. And you'll have a hard time defending against that, other than in saying that in nature, orcs/drows are much more predisposed genetically to evil than elves, and that therefore, bias against those races is reasonable vs bias against elves/humans/etc...