- Viconia's decision to spare the baby doesn't suddenly make her Good, but you characterized her as "happily disemboweling anyone in the name of fun and games". Clearly, there are lines she's unwilling to cross, no matter the cost (and that last part is important - it's not just that she refused to kill the baby, it's that she did it knowing her status in drow society would be completely ruined as a result).
Let me correct something that you said. “it's not just that she refused to kill the baby”, it’s that she refused to kill ANY MORE babies, despite “knowing her status in drow society would be completely ruined as a result)”. She said she had been doing that sort of thing for a hundred and fifty years.
-By the same token, yes, Edwin will kill anyone if it benefits him specifically; but he won't cast Gate in a tavern just to see a pit fiend rip through the population.
We absolutely agree on this point. My point however was that Killing an entire village for no reason is evil. Killing an entire village simply to get to your own personal gain, IS STILL EVIL!!! I can only guess that your stance (from your statements) is that if there is a reason for doing the slaughter and mayhem, it is no longer evil.
-The character types you described are "motiveless malignants" - they just run around slaughtering people for kicks, there's no real reasoning behind their actions. But Korgan, Viconia and Edwin don't qualify for that, because their evil is conditional: they won't butcher a village just because they feel like it.
I am not describing anyone at all as motiveless malignants. You are the one who brought up Dorn.
Understand that I said Korgan may have had reason for killing his former companions, but he drew pleasure from the slaughter and mayhem. NOT that he killed them for no reason. And the pleasure and glee with which he performed the action (and threatens to do to Charname and party or anyone else who crosses him) suggests strongly that he is little more than a killer.
Viconia was a priestess of LOLTH from a relatively important house in the Underdark. They had regular blood rituals and sacrifices. As priestess, she would have killed HUNDREDS of people in that hundred and fifty years. Not to mention the number of slaves she quite probably sent for torture and death. She talks at length about Drow society and how cruel it is such that Charname would never understand or accept it, yet she did for a century or more. Yes, she refused to kill one baby. But that is the first step towards turning against evil. Not proof that she was never evil in the first place.
I think you and I agree on what Edwin would and wouldn’t do. I think that you are merely not seeing motive driven mass murder as an evil act. Though I could be wrong.
In the end, we are debating could bes and possibilities about fictitious characters. It is OK to see things differently. For my money, I like to think that Korgan, Shar-Teel, Viconia, Kagain, Saravok, Edwin and Montaron are all cut from the same cloth (Xzar and Tiax dance to their own tunes). In the same way that Keldorn, Ajantis Khalid, Aerie, Jaheira, Imoen, Minsc, Anomen, Valygar and Mazzie are cut from a very different cloth.
With regard to Viconia - our concept of evil is rooted in society. In drow society, sacrifice of sentient beings is considered normal. Being raised in this society and inducted into this way of thinking most drow accept this idea completely. To go against it is seen as a sign of weakness and disloyalty. Even to behave in a morally neutral way as part of drow society would cause others to view you as hostile and alien.
Arguably Edwin similarly comes from a background where he would coerced into a selfish and amoral position from an early age.
"Evil" such as it, is requires perspective. Viconia takes active steps to change, and as such her potential alignment change makes complete sense. It could be argued that she is a lot more neutral than evil throughout the BG saga for while she values power and is quite ruthless, she rarely advocates cruel or needless avenues.
Still, though, I don't see that making him all that evil. Are there other reasons?
Part of the point is that it's noticeable that Jan's mockery is particularly directed against Good-aligned characters, he seems to get along fine with Evil characters. His attitude comes across to me as rather like Montaron, except that he doesn't threaten you with personal violence because he's not a fighter-type.
I very much agree with the point, made by others above, that happy co-operation with evil contributes to evil. And Jan certainly seems to fit that description.
Again, not trying to badger you, just curious! On the illithid front, is it implied that Jan knows who it is?
Erm ... I can't remember. I didn't take Jan in my last BG2 run, and the one before was a long time ago. I've been concentrating on BGee for the last year!
Regarding the subsequent discussion by others about Korgan/Viconia/Edwin ... remember that evil always has its reasons, even though good guys might consider the reasons nonsensical. Therefore, having a "reason" for an action doesn't mean that it's not evil.
I do think of Korgan as a crazed axe-maniac type who might well slaughter a whole village for no reason apparent to anyone else ... because even crazed axe-maniacs have "reasons" inside their own heads (e.g. "one of them looked at me funny" or "the voices in my head told me to do it"), and I can readily imagine someone as touchy as Korgan going postal like that.
I agree that Edwin is quite different. He's Lawful, and quite careful about thinking through the wider consequences. He might commit a massacre if he had something important to gain (not just in retribution for some imagined insult) and if he was confident that he wouldn't be fingered as the culprit, but it's clearly not his normal mode of operation - quite unlike Dorn (whom we know has done this sort of thing) and Korgan (who quite likely would do the same). Individual targeted assassinations, however, such as soliciting the murder of Dynaheir when we first meet him, are clearly within his normal mode of evil.
Viconia is a curious case. Obviously she has a thoroughly evil past as a priestess of Lolth, but she's already changed away from that before we first meet her. We meet her as a priestess of Shar, an evil goddess, and obviously Viconia retains her evil alignment at that point (and ever after, unless you eventually convert her through the option in the romance storyline) ... but she doesn't actually seem to want to do much evil nowadays, it all seems rather theoretical in her case. She doesn't seem to go in very much for threatening behaviour, and so on. She seems to me to have a pro-evil philosophical opinion, rather than exhibiting much of an actual propensity for evil action. Maybe that's deliberately intended as justification for the story-option that she can eventually convert to Neutral?
@Corvino - too true. Quite a lot of what we as individuals hold to be 'Evil' are subject entirely to our individual society and up-bringing.
Though as far as Edwin is concerned, he takes the cake as far as Uber-egos are concerned. I think any society where he was middle of the road "Ego" wise wouldn't last very long.
Viconia was intended (or so I imagine) to be an Evil character. But as with so many things these days, she is painted as a kinder/gentler evil. she is 'Redeemable" (whatever that means) and will change alignment if you follow the correct path. She (I suspect) falls victim to all of that rot and negativity back in the 80s about D&D and Demon Worshiping. They didn't want to make her Too evil because of the message that might give.
Although i am a strong proponent of grouping the NPCs as I did above (and of D&D in general), i don't entirely buy into Alignment. There are so many grey areas and qualifications. Do motives make evil? Or just actions? Can someone be really thoroughly Good and still covet his brother's wife? Is neutrality really that? or apathy? It's all subjective.
If I were in charge of any sort of BG3, I'd switch out the entire system for a reputation system wherein people interacted with you based on if they (a) liked/disliked you, (b) respected you and (c) feared you.
If you were nice to people and always was polite in your responses, people would like you a lot. If you kept your word on most things, people would respect you. If you killed a lot of people, they would fear you. These three sliders (and a differential put in there for second/third and beyond hand reports) would impact the vast majority of your reactions. And it would be implementable in a computer game without having to deal with intentions or motives.
So you could get a very likable and respected thief. You could get a strongly respected but highly feared Paladin. And you could get a reviled and ignored monk/priest. All depending on how you interacted. Oh, there would also have to be adjustments for individual NPC personalities but that would be easily enough coded. Or so I imagine.
Let me correct something that you said. “it's not just that she refused to kill the baby”, it’s that she refused to kill ANY MORE babies, despite “knowing her status in drow society would be completely ruined as a result)”. She said she had been doing that sort of thing for a hundred and fifty years.
The point is, there's more to her character than a "happy disembowler", because she made a choice that went directly against her self-interest. She is, after all, Neutral Evil rather than Chaotic Evil.
We absolutely agree on this point. My point however was that Killing an entire village for no reason is evil. Killing an entire village simply to get to your own personal gain, IS STILL EVIL!!! I can only guess that your stance (from your statements) is that if there is a reason for doing the slaughter and mayhem, it is no longer evil.
I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion from my statements. To recap:
You see Viconia, Korgan and Edwin as "Bloody Mummers" types, and associate them with mindless slaughter and capricious actions. And I have pointed out that in each instance, their established characterization contradicts yours - that doesn't mean they're not evil, it means they're particular about their evil. Korgan kills people who betray him, Edwin kills for personal gain, Viconia kills for more complicated reasons. To use the very analogy you made: they don't chop off people's hands just because they feel like it.
I've always loved the fact that you can talk to your npcs in bg2 bg1 just gets boring after a wile cuz there are not cool dialogs that interupt everything and throw new information at you.
While i like the potential some BG NPCs have, my actual gameplay in BG1 is being a pain to be finished, it's each time hard to find a reason for this and only the fact of my perfectionism in have previous BG saves instead of start characters in BG2 that keeps moving me foward.
@shawne - I think it is clear we are going to have to agree to disagree. I have pointed out several instances wherein Korgan's and Viconia's personality fit in quite well with their "Evil" alignment, and further would be the types of companions that would travel well together. Still further how NPC's like Jan, Yoshimo and Jaheira would not fit into that mind set.
you on the other hand seem to want to contradict yourself by saying that (a) Evil has standards and (b) that Korgan and Viconia aren't that evil because they had reasons for the atrocities that they performed. I can't reconcile these points of view so I am saying lets agree to disagree and have it at that.
@the_spyder: If you're going to intentionally misread everything I say to support your own argument, when the game itself disproves your position... then you're right, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Korgan tells the party how he took his party down bloody, and how he will do it again to Charname and company or anyone else who gets in his way. Reason or no, the way he describes it, sounds pretty blood thirsty too me. Also how he is always talking about splitting yer gut open, sounds pretty blood thirsty too me. He's a killer, pretty simply. Sounds pretty evil to me. Just because he has a reason for killing other than liking it doesn't make him any less blood thirsty. I have yet to see any arguments disproving this.
Viconia was a priestess of Lolth for a hundred and fifty years. During that time, she would have killed plenty of drow, deep gnomes and a whole host of other sentient beings. She also talks about the bloodsport that her people take as ritual in supplication to Lolth. And she talks about the pleasure serving her goddess gave her. Several times. And she is part of a society that has and abuses slaves, incorporates torture as a general course, and combines blood sacrifices and orgies routinely. I have yet to see any arguments leading anyone to believe that she's really a nice person once you get to know her.
Where in game is there anything that disproves either point?
Korgan is a killer, no doubt about that, he's also only respect power, that fit him in chaotic evil alignment. But he HAS principles, this is showed in game when you save the slave childrens in the slum from the slave hideout, in the cell with the children and 2 trolls, when you speak with the children Korgan surprisingly says that that's a line he would not cross.
Viconia is a teenager of hundred years, grow into a society were evil was common behavior, so i think she behave as evil more for habit from her hundred years of living in underdark than for personal character guidance and mind option. What she did for Lolth in that society can be labeled as survival.
Korgan isn't that bad He's just a simple dwarf. Can't say that Vicky is a teenager in a 100 y.o. skin. She had a very sad experience on the surface. Well, compared to the movie "I spit on your graves". No teeny-winy stuff.
Still they both suck compared to Sarevok. Personaly I think the only dangerous murderer in the BG saga is Montaron He's so malicious!
Admittedly neither Korgan nor Viccy are as bad as Xzar. But I wouldn't leave either one alone with my teenage daughter. That's all I am saying on the subject.
Comments
Understand that I said Korgan may have had reason for killing his former companions, but he drew pleasure from the slaughter and mayhem. NOT that he killed them for no reason. And the pleasure and glee with which he performed the action (and threatens to do to Charname and party or anyone else who crosses him) suggests strongly that he is little more than a killer.
Viconia was a priestess of LOLTH from a relatively important house in the Underdark. They had regular blood rituals and sacrifices. As priestess, she would have killed HUNDREDS of people in that hundred and fifty years. Not to mention the number of slaves she quite probably sent for torture and death. She talks at length about Drow society and how cruel it is such that Charname would never understand or accept it, yet she did for a century or more. Yes, she refused to kill one baby. But that is the first step towards turning against evil. Not proof that she was never evil in the first place.
I think you and I agree on what Edwin would and wouldn’t do. I think that you are merely not seeing motive driven mass murder as an evil act. Though I could be wrong.
In the end, we are debating could bes and possibilities about fictitious characters. It is OK to see things differently. For my money, I like to think that Korgan, Shar-Teel, Viconia, Kagain, Saravok, Edwin and Montaron are all cut from the same cloth (Xzar and Tiax dance to their own tunes). In the same way that Keldorn, Ajantis Khalid, Aerie, Jaheira, Imoen, Minsc, Anomen, Valygar and Mazzie are cut from a very different cloth.
Arguably Edwin similarly comes from a background where he would coerced into a selfish and amoral position from an early age.
"Evil" such as it, is requires perspective. Viconia takes active steps to change, and as such her potential alignment change makes complete sense. It could be argued that she is a lot more neutral than evil throughout the BG saga for while she values power and is quite ruthless, she rarely advocates cruel or needless avenues.
I very much agree with the point, made by others above, that happy co-operation with evil contributes to evil. And Jan certainly seems to fit that description. Erm ... I can't remember. I didn't take Jan in my last BG2 run, and the one before was a long time ago. I've been concentrating on BGee for the last year!
Regarding the subsequent discussion by others about Korgan/Viconia/Edwin ... remember that evil always has its reasons, even though good guys might consider the reasons nonsensical. Therefore, having a "reason" for an action doesn't mean that it's not evil.
I do think of Korgan as a crazed axe-maniac type who might well slaughter a whole village for no reason apparent to anyone else ... because even crazed axe-maniacs have "reasons" inside their own heads (e.g. "one of them looked at me funny" or "the voices in my head told me to do it"), and I can readily imagine someone as touchy as Korgan going postal like that.
I agree that Edwin is quite different. He's Lawful, and quite careful about thinking through the wider consequences. He might commit a massacre if he had something important to gain (not just in retribution for some imagined insult) and if he was confident that he wouldn't be fingered as the culprit, but it's clearly not his normal mode of operation - quite unlike Dorn (whom we know has done this sort of thing) and Korgan (who quite likely would do the same). Individual targeted assassinations, however, such as soliciting the murder of Dynaheir when we first meet him, are clearly within his normal mode of evil.
Viconia is a curious case. Obviously she has a thoroughly evil past as a priestess of Lolth, but she's already changed away from that before we first meet her. We meet her as a priestess of Shar, an evil goddess, and obviously Viconia retains her evil alignment at that point (and ever after, unless you eventually convert her through the option in the romance storyline) ... but she doesn't actually seem to want to do much evil nowadays, it all seems rather theoretical in her case. She doesn't seem to go in very much for threatening behaviour, and so on. She seems to me to have a pro-evil philosophical opinion, rather than exhibiting much of an actual propensity for evil action. Maybe that's deliberately intended as justification for the story-option that she can eventually convert to Neutral?
Though as far as Edwin is concerned, he takes the cake as far as Uber-egos are concerned. I think any society where he was middle of the road "Ego" wise wouldn't last very long.
Viconia was intended (or so I imagine) to be an Evil character. But as with so many things these days, she is painted as a kinder/gentler evil. she is 'Redeemable" (whatever that means) and will change alignment if you follow the correct path. She (I suspect) falls victim to all of that rot and negativity back in the 80s about D&D and Demon Worshiping. They didn't want to make her Too evil because of the message that might give.
Although i am a strong proponent of grouping the NPCs as I did above (and of D&D in general), i don't entirely buy into Alignment. There are so many grey areas and qualifications. Do motives make evil? Or just actions? Can someone be really thoroughly Good and still covet his brother's wife? Is neutrality really that? or apathy? It's all subjective.
If I were in charge of any sort of BG3, I'd switch out the entire system for a reputation system wherein people interacted with you based on if they (a) liked/disliked you, (b) respected you and (c) feared you.
If you were nice to people and always was polite in your responses, people would like you a lot. If you kept your word on most things, people would respect you. If you killed a lot of people, they would fear you. These three sliders (and a differential put in there for second/third and beyond hand reports) would impact the vast majority of your reactions. And it would be implementable in a computer game without having to deal with intentions or motives.
So you could get a very likable and respected thief. You could get a strongly respected but highly feared Paladin. And you could get a reviled and ignored monk/priest. All depending on how you interacted. Oh, there would also have to be adjustments for individual NPC personalities but that would be easily enough coded. Or so I imagine.
You see Viconia, Korgan and Edwin as "Bloody Mummers" types, and associate them with mindless slaughter and capricious actions. And I have pointed out that in each instance, their established characterization contradicts yours - that doesn't mean they're not evil, it means they're particular about their evil. Korgan kills people who betray him, Edwin kills for personal gain, Viconia kills for more complicated reasons. To use the very analogy you made: they don't chop off people's hands just because they feel like it.
in BG2 there are alot going on with the NPCs,it's a matter of quality vs quantity
you on the other hand seem to want to contradict yourself by saying that (a) Evil has standards and (b) that Korgan and Viconia aren't that evil because they had reasons for the atrocities that they performed. I can't reconcile these points of view so I am saying lets agree to disagree and have it at that.
Korgan tells the party how he took his party down bloody, and how he will do it again to Charname and company or anyone else who gets in his way. Reason or no, the way he describes it, sounds pretty blood thirsty too me. Also how he is always talking about splitting yer gut open, sounds pretty blood thirsty too me. He's a killer, pretty simply. Sounds pretty evil to me. Just because he has a reason for killing other than liking it doesn't make him any less blood thirsty. I have yet to see any arguments disproving this.
Viconia was a priestess of Lolth for a hundred and fifty years. During that time, she would have killed plenty of drow, deep gnomes and a whole host of other sentient beings. She also talks about the bloodsport that her people take as ritual in supplication to Lolth. And she talks about the pleasure serving her goddess gave her. Several times. And she is part of a society that has and abuses slaves, incorporates torture as a general course, and combines blood sacrifices and orgies routinely. I have yet to see any arguments leading anyone to believe that she's really a nice person once you get to know her.
Where in game is there anything that disproves either point?
Viconia is a teenager of hundred years, grow into a society were evil was common behavior, so i think she behave as evil more for habit from her hundred years of living in underdark than for personal character guidance and mind option. What she did for Lolth in that society can be labeled as survival.
Can't say that Vicky is a teenager in a 100 y.o. skin. She had a very sad experience on the surface. Well, compared to the movie "I spit on your graves". No teeny-winy stuff.
Still they both suck compared to Sarevok.
Personaly I think the only dangerous murderer in the BG saga is Montaron