Shar-Teel... Shar-Teel.. Shar-Teel and Shar-Teel again....I'm thinking to much....

The_Shairs_Handbook

I always wondered why Shar-Teel is CE???

I mean nothing makes sense that she is CE... I mean do they mean that If someone is passionate feminist and dislike males overall are CE?? sounds so wierd.. and why CE?
I mean she is extremly loyal and keeps her word to be Charnames bodyguard in the game... she talks somewhat like a bad tempered women now and then but does that make her evil???


and if she is CE.. what made her evil .. we know that Viconia hadn't had any chance to see good and does think everyone are evil in the world and can change aligment if chose the romance option with her.. but what about Shar-Teel... did she get abused by her father somehow and thats why she hates males.... arrggg... it's soo irratating to not know anything about Shar-Teel

Found some Good picture here:
http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?app=gallery&user=1014

How about you guys?? are you like me... whants to know more??

the_spyder

Shar-Teel isn't 'Evil' because she hates men. She is Evil because she will kill anything and anyone without cause or reason for the sole thrill of battle. When you encounter her in the wilds, she challenges you to a fight, fully prepared to kill anyone not skilled enough to survive combat with her. She has no reason to kill you, but will do so simply for the joy of knowing that she is superior to you.

Also, why do people need a reason to be evil? It isn't like being evil is a disease that can be cured. Kagain is evil because he is greedy and will take money for any job. He doesn't mind killing for profit and doesn't care who dies so long as it isn't him. There is no reason behind this, it is simply a function of who he is. Edwin is evil because he is power-mad and intent on domination of everyone he sees as inferior to himself (which is pretty much anyone). He also is attempting to forward his own power and that of the Red Wizards. Plus there is the little matter of wanting to murder a rival wizard in the form of Dynahier.

Jalily

Shar-Teel is not a feminist (which is a person who promotes social, political, and economic equality of the sexes—the complete opposite of her). She's CE because she's a violent misandrist who loves bloodshed and killing.

The_Shairs_Handbook

Chaotic Evil
Chaotic Evil is referred to as the "Destroyer" or "Demonic" alignment. Characters of this alignment tend to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have any regard for the lives or freedom of other people. They do not work well in groups, as they resent being given orders, and usually behave themselves only out of fear of punishment.
It is not compulsory for a Chaotic Evil character to be constantly performing sadistic acts just for the sake of being evil, or constantly disobeying orders just for the sake of causing chaos. They do however enjoy the suffering of others, and view honor and self-discipline as weaknesses. Serial killers and monsters of limited intelligence are typically Chaotic Evil.

Hmm... still she doesn't sound CE... she might be evil .. but CE is extreme aligment and she does'nt have high Cha to hide her CE if she trully was...

Luigirules

Sounds about right to me.

I mean, one of her responses when you click on her is "I love bloodshed."

Sounds serial killer-y to me.

Jalily

No respect for other people's lives—check. ("I love bloodshed.")
Resents being given orders—check. (Complains about male leadership numerous times.)
Usually behaves only out of fear of punishment—check. ("Make no mistake: I follow you only because of your prowess in battle. When that falters, so does my loyalty.")
Enjoys the suffering of others—check. (Replace "others" with "men.")

She sounds CE to me.

the_spyder

Understand that a "Tendency" doesn't mean that someone is a slave to that given way of thinking and can't act in a different manner. Tendencies are just that, tendencies.

I perfectly see Shar-Teel as 'The Destroyer'. She will fight with anyone or anything. She doesn't care one whit for anyone else except those that she sees as worthy. Charname defeated her in single combat and is therefore worthy. It is the one chink in her otherwise "Kill em all and let someone else sort it out" philosophy.

Alignments are not supposed to be so black and white that a single paragraph is supposed to sum up every single person of that alignment for all times. They are guidelines and nothing more. There are so many flavors of Chaos and Evil and Good and Lawful that you couldn't catch it all in one paragraph. Also, there are degrees to which you are devoted to a given aspect of your alignment. Someone might be chaotic EVIL. They might also be L...A...W...F...U...L!!!! good. or any combination thereof. or some combination inbetween.

Also, alignment is supposed to be more about the underlying ideal of a personality, their drives and motivations, rather than their actions. Just because you are Chaotic evil, doesn't mean that you have to kill every single person who looks at you funny. It doesn't mean that, if you don't burn every town to the ground, you aren't playing your alignment.

The_Shairs_Handbook

hhmm maybe you guys have right after all According to the Complete Scoundrel sourcebook Riddick from Pitch Black are Chaotic Evil character (but still is the hero of the movies) maybe same thing can be said about Shar-Teel

reedmilfam

I see her more as NE than CE because she is loyal to the party. It's like, she'll abide with rules, provided she still gets to do Evil. That sounds more NE...

Schneidend

reedmilfam said:

I see her more as NE than CE because she is loyal to the party. It's like, she'll abide with rules, provided she still gets to do Evil. That sounds more NE...

Chaotic Evil characters generally don't abide by rules, true, but an adventuring party typically doesn't have a lot of rules. Chaotic Evil characters also take orders from people who prove stronger than they are. CHARNAME defeats her in single combat, and thus she obeys.

the_spyder

Also, CE might 'Generally' not follow rules, but could very well have specific rules that they do follow.

Schneidend

the_spyder said:

Also, CE might 'Generally' not follow rules, but could very well have specific rules that they do follow.

Intentionally setting restrictions on your own behavior is typically Lawful behavior, but of course every character has their exceptions to their alignment. I think the 4th Edition PHB said it best when it described alignment as what metaphysical "team" you play for, though no mortal can perfectly adhere to such absolute, cosmic concepts, and thus they have their exceptions.

Dexter

I guess that without banters you can't really tell a lot about a NPC's personality or alignment. For example, when you enter the Slaver's compound (Slums in BG2) with Korgan, he says something like he would never use children for profit and then he kills (and enjoy killing) the slavers. Korgan is CE as well but with banters like that, I think he fits NE better.
What about Shar-Teel? Can't really tell. I do wonder however why is she CE and Dorn gets to be NE, because Dorn tells some stories of his pass with Simmeon's group that are very very evil to me, more evil than Shar would ever do in my opinion.

Darrylson

Dexter said:

I guess that without banters you can't really tell a lot about a NPC's personality or alignment. For example, when you enter the Slaver's compound (Slums in BG2) with Korgan, he says something like he would never use children for profit and then he kills (and enjoy killing) the slavers. Korgan is CE as well but with banters like that, I think he fits NE better.
What about Shar-Teel? Can't really tell. I do wonder however why is she CE and Dorn gets to be NE, because Dorn tells some stories of his pass with Simmeon's group that are very very evil to me, more evil than Shar would ever do in my opinion.

Korgan also states that he would never harm a child during Jan's personal quest, meaning that his bloodlust does have it's limits, so NE or even CN would make more sense for him. He's basically like Kagain except he enjoys fighting equally as much as he enjoys wealth.

Dorn on the other hand, yeah. He freely admits to murdering children, and would probably do so again if it got him closer to his revenge, or whatever other goal he happens to have.

Schneidend

Dexter said:

I guess that without banters you can't really tell a lot about a NPC's personality or alignment. For example, when you enter the Slaver's compound (Slums in BG2) with Korgan, he says something like he would never use children for profit and then he kills (and enjoy killing) the slavers. Korgan is CE as well but with banters like that, I think he fits NE better.
What about Shar-Teel? Can't really tell. I do wonder however why is she CE and Dorn gets to be NE, because Dorn tells some stories of his pass with Simmeon's group that are very very evil to me, more evil than Shar would ever do in my opinion.

Having one scruple doesn't make or break an evil alignment. In fact, the simplest way to example Lawful Evil is an Evil character who simply won't do certain things because he feels his "code of honor" puts him above the common villain. Korgan won't kill children or profit from their misery. That doesn't mean he wouldn't slaughter dozens of adults and piss on their corpses.

WebShaman

Any CE will not work well in a party without leading it, at least not for long, unless it is there under threat (and is brutally aware that the threat is real and will be administered). That is the nature of CE.

We can examine the Drow for a good peek into CE type behavior, that works in a group. The Drow have enormous pressures from without (the Underdark) and from within (Lolth, the Priesthood of Lolth, and of course the Matriarchal system that keeps males subservient).

I really do not see how Shar-Teel is CE. I supposed if the had threatened her after besting her in combat (and thus "retaining" her services), that might work. However, I really can't see a CE person then freely joining a group led by, of all things, a man that had beat her in combat!

If she truly hates men (as we are led to believe) then this would be intolerable at best. To willfully accept such...she comes across as LE to me. She keeps her end of the agreement (Lawful). A Chaotic would break it the first chance she gets.

That she is evil, yeah. She loves bloodshed, and doesn't care whose blood it is (as long as it is not hers, of course).

But it seems to me that she is more Lawful than Chaotic.

I suppose if the text went something like "Now I have beaten you! You will now follow under me, as long as I like, or I will slay you here and now! And should you betray me, or flee...I will hunt you down and sell you to slavers as a pleasure wench!"

If you ask me, there is much that in Baldur's Gate that just does not really work - like having such evil characters alongside of such good ones and they remaining together. Kind of strange to me that they hand together until rep!! of the party reaches a certain level, then leave. I mean, having a good rep just lets one do more evil under the guise of good, right? Kill people, then donate to the churches and do quests that help someone out (then kill them secretly afterwards...).

One would think that it would be more centered around the alignment of the instead, especially when Cha is high.

Perhaps it is an as-yet-unexplained side-effect of being a Bhaalspawn.

As for Shar-Teel, she is definitely LE. Because she keeps her word.

[Deleted User]

@Schneidend @Darrylson @Dexter And just because he wouldn't harm a child doesn't mean he would help one that desperately needed his aid as opposed to abandoning them to their fate.

I like to view good vs. evil through the lens of two questions: Who would this character be willing to put themselves at risk or take effort to help, and who would they be willing to harm for their own benefit? For Korgan, the answer to the first one is "practically no one besides myself," and the answer to the second one is "practically anyone who isn't a child and can't harm me first." While Shar-Teel isn't as fleshed out as Korgan, I think she has similar answers.

the_spyder

@WebShamen, I disagree.

As has been said before, alignments aren't black and white absolutes. Just because a person has a code or a set of values does not preclude them from being Chaotic. And there is nothing that transparent about it.

In my opinion, the feedback we get from the characters are supposed to be supplemental to their actual behavior which Charname would see as they travel together. The player is supposed to imagine that as part of the game and how they play that particular NPC. I might play Shar-Teel as a chaotic evil berzerker who charges into the fray whenever there is a chance for battle, thus making her Chaotic Evil. But it is like playing a character that you didn't create but are merely given the character sheet (with some flavor on the side).

In that, I think the post and the thread is highly theoretical and the "Correct" answer (if such a thing exists) is that you are supposed to play her as Chaotic Evil, not that she plays herself that way.

Schneidend

@WebShaman
Once power-based dominance is established, CE characters tend to fall in line grudgingly. Sarevok rules his cadre of CE Total Badasses because he is the most badass.

Iecerint

CE doesn't just mean "moar evil," at least not in 2nd and 3rd edition rules. Some people seem to be reading it that way in the posts above.

If Robin Hood thinks that children should be protected by society, that doesn't mean he's automatically Neutral Good. Similarly, not wanting to murder all the children does not automatically make you Neutral Evil.

Lemernis

I think of the NPCs' alignments as conceptions. And those conceptions are guidelines. But there isn't actually a lot to flesh all that out in terms of their behavior if all you do is control them in combat and have CHARNAME decide everything.

I do find this a fascinating subject, though. Because in a current experimental game I'm playing I'm actually roleplaying the characters independently according to what I think each would do as the party faces decisions. It's a very different experience than I'm used to.

If Shar-Teel ends up in my party in my current game, I will play her as Chaotic and Evil because that's how the character was conceived by her creators.

KidCarnival

The_Shairs_Handbook said:

I always wondered why Shar-Teel is CE???

I mean nothing makes sense that she is CE... I mean do they mean that If someone is passionate feminist and dislike males overall are CE?? sounds so wierd.. and why CE?
I mean she is extremly loyal and keeps her word to be Charnames bodyguard in the game... she talks somewhat like a bad tempered women now and then but does that make her evil???

This is the part that irritates me, too. Not the being evil, but the being chaotic. She seems very clear in who she likes to kill (and consequentally freaks if Dorn attacks a female NPC, or if you kill the Umberlee priestess). That's not "chaotic", that's "neutral" - she has her own agenda, but she's not random.
She is indeed loyal to charname and keeps up her end of the deal when she loses the fight. That smells a bit lawful, but due to her non-random aggressions, I'd probably put her more in the neutral category. In the end, all NPCs are loyal, so it doesn't say that much that she won't betray you.

Schneidend

@KidCarnival
"Chaotic" alignments don't necessarily denote randomness. In truth, being Chaotic more often means the character does not follow a particular code, such as the law of the land or something like chivalry. Being true to your word to somebody who can kill you with relative ease isn't Lawful behavior, that's INTELLIGENT behavior.

DrHappyAngry

I wonder how she felt in one playthrough I had where Monty beat her in the duel. Halfling Powah!

KidCarnival

Yeah, but she follows her very own code. That's neither lawful nor chaotic.

The_Shairs_Handbook

Okey here is the list that might be her real Aligment...

Chaotic Neutral is called the "Anarchist" or "Free Spirit" alignment. A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions. Although they promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first. Good and Evil come second to their need to be free, and the only reliable thing about them is how totally unreliable they are. Chaotic Neutral characters are free-spirited and do not enjoy the unnecessary suffering of others, but if they join a team, it is because that team's goals happen to coincide with their own at the moment. They invariably resent taking orders and can be very selfish in their pursuit of personal goals. A Chaotic Neutral character does not have to be an aimless wanderer; they may have a specific goal in mind, but their methods of achieving that goal are often disorganized, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable.
A subset of Chaotic Neutral is: "strongly Chaotic Neutral"; describing a character who behaves chaotically to the point of appearing insane. Characters of this type may regularly change their appearance and attitudes for the sake of change and intentionally disrupt organizations for the sole reason of disrupting a lawful institution. Characters of this type include the Xaositects from the Planescape setting, and Hennet from the third edition Player's Handbook. In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Chaotic Neutral was mistakenly assumed to refer to this subset.

Captain Jack Sparrow, and Snake Plissken from Escape from New York are Chaotic Neutral characters according to Complete Scoundrel

Lawful Evil is referred to as the "Dominator" or "Diabolic" alignment. Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals and are not averse to twisting the rules to work in their favor. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct, and loyal soldiers who enjoy the act of killing.
Like Lawful Good Paladins, Lawful Evil characters may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or evil when the two conflict. However, their issues with Law versus Evil are more concerned with "Will I get caught?" versus "How does this benefit me?"

Boba Fett of Star Wars, and X-Men's Magneto are cited examples of Lawful Evil characters according to Complete Scoundrel

Neutral Evil is called the "Malefactor" alignment. Characters of this alignment are typically selfish and have no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment, and usually make allies primarily to further their own goals. They have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient for them. A villain of this alignment can be more dangerous than either Lawful or Chaotic Evil characters, since she or he is neither bound by any sort of honor or tradition nor disorganized and pointlessly violent.
Examples are an assassin who has little regard for formal laws but does not needlessly kill, a henchman who plots behind her or his superior's back, or a mercenary who switches sides if made a better offer.
Complete Scoundrel cites X-Men's Mystique, and Sawyer of the early seasons of Lost as Neutral Evil characters.

"source DnD aligments"

sooo wich one is Shar-Teel then... to me she seems to be more between LE to CN
and remember Shar-Teel is more like a samurai in behaviour (and she reminds me of Lil-Jon from robin Hood when he wanted to rob Robin And dueled him into a fight) .. in that she likes to duel.. finding stronger opponent...
testing her skill... well if ppl die they die...

Stickan

CN and LE are very very far apart and CN characters don't enjoy killing others, which simply doesn't fit her profile.

I actually think most people read too much into the whole evil stamp. To me it just means these characters are self-centered to the extreme in most cases. CE characters still seem to enjoy the company of others at times. (Sarevok and Tamoko etc) And of course there are times when any character goes against his own alignment. Just taking myself into account (I consider myself a decent human being) I can think of a few times I did things I'm not overly proud of, just the same evil characters could do good things because they felt like it at the time, but their general mindset is still that it's all about them. The aligment system is an extreme simplification of very complex behavior: It sets the general direction of someones moral compass, but it doesn't much factor into their outward behavior and personality.

Lemernis

Evil characters do tend to be self-centered but I think what differentiates the Evil itself is that these folks seem quite willing to do harm to others in their selfishness; and in fact often even derive a perverse satisfaction from it. It is possible for characters to be selfish in the sense of independent from others' needs, and of the attitude that each and every person is responsible for themselves (i.e., they are not their brother's keeper). Such people so not wish harm upon anyone else, but if harm befalls others because of their own actions they do not feel compelled to step in.

Summary point: Good vs. Evil is basically helping vs. harming (a desire or inclination to do same).

KidCarnival

You can't seriously question the "evil" part of Shar-Teel - she enjoys a good bloodbath, after all. She just doesn't seem chaotic at all. Many versions of the alignment descriptions list insanity as an example for chaotic evil, and she's not insane or behaves otherwise disorganized or intentionally chaotic. Unless you assume that the D&D world is a "man's world" and she kills men to change the balance of power. But that's not the case.
Xzar is insane - and Baeloth, while "only" suffering from megalomania, seems to kidnap random groups for his Black Pits and is more surprised than anyone if they actually turn out to be a good pick for his purpose. Sure he has a plan - get fighters for arena - but he doesn't go into much detail and takes whoever he can get; from 3 drunk tavern guests to a capable party of 6.

Stickan

Lemernis said:

Evil characters do tend to be self-centered but I think what differentiates the Evil itself is that these folks seem quite willing to do harm to others in their selfishness; and in fact often even derive a perverse satisfaction from it. It is possible for characters to be selfish in the sense of independent from others' needs, and of the attitude that each and every person is responsible for themselves (i.e., they are not their brother's keeper). Such people so not wish harm upon anyone else, but if harm befalls others because of their own actions they do not feel compelled to step in.

Summary point: Good vs. Evil is basically helping vs. harming (a desire or inclination to do same).

I agree! But I think most people tend to see evil alignments as people who go out of their way to cause harm. (Most) evil characters will only commit evil that stands in proportion to the gain and the possible repercussions. They have no qualms about hurting others, but hurting others is in itself (mostly) not their main interest, but furthering their own agendas.

There are of course extremes. Like in the other end with lawful good: Many ordinary, good and upstanding citizens would probably fall into this category. While they wish the world to be an orderly and nice place for people to live without suffering, they aren't as fanatic about it as say paladins that they would risk life and limb for it.

Alignment doesn't factor in the "commitment" to the moral ideals. You can be CE because you just don't give a damn about the lives of others, if they get in your way so be it, or you can be CE because you want to eradicate them all. That's a pretty large span.

The_Shairs_Handbook

Stickan said:

Lemernis said:

I agree! But I think most people tend to see evil alignments as people who go out of their way to cause harm. (Most) evil characters will only commit evil that stands in proportion to the gain and the possible repercussions. They have no qualms about hurting others, but hurting others is in itself (mostly) not their main interest, but furthering their own agendas.

There are of course extremes. Like in the other end with lawful good: Many ordinary, good and upstanding citizens would probably fall into this category. While they wish the world to be an orderly and nice place for people to live without suffering, they aren't as fanatic about it as say paladins that they would risk life and limb for it.

Alignment doesn't factor in the "commitment" to the moral ideals. You can be CE because you just don't give a damn about the lives of others, if they get in your way so be it, or you can be CE because you want to eradicate them all. That's a pretty large span.

Then i would say that most evil Npc are N.E ..2nd place would be L.E

"Neutral Evil is called the "Malefactor" alignment. Characters of this alignment are typically selfish and have no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment, and usually make allies primarily to further their own goals.."