In my recent playthrough with a sexy and bitchy CE female vampire charmingly named Julia, I took the time to explore all the most vile, most monstrous, most abominable options (some of them modded) available to Charname. And I'm talking about doing things that would make Korgan pee his armor, not mercenary stuff that is for some reason considered evil. True story. And, yes, it's been enjoyable all the way. I'll likely do that again sometime.
I always though there should be a way to convince certain evil characters that you were trying to make yourself look better, not do the right thing, when your rep. increases so that they don't leave.
I roleplay an insane but methodical killer. If my character thinks he can get away with killing someone he will do so. Thats not to say he won't be occasionally smart about how he approaches certain quests, but his thirst for blood must be quenched
Which evil alignment has you pretending to be a pro freedom, anti big government (always corrupt!), chaotic good "hero of the people" who goes around stomping BBEGs and rescuing orphans and so forth... Who occasionally crushes innocents for personal gain in utter secrecy when it actually benefits him/her to do so (instead of doing it for the evuls)?
Lawful evil description says its the evil baron the abuses the law... you CANNOT do that in secret. Chaotic evil description says its the guy who lolrandumb murders everything. Neutral evil is just a little bit of both of the above.
PS. I have never seen a CRPG that lets you play this kind of evil... in CRPGs evil is a selfless altruistic sacrifice your character performs in order to promote the goals of the happy family called Team Evil.
Today, I have learned: @God indeed is Chaotic Evil. (and @elminster too. I KNEW there is something fishy about.a dude with a pointy hat, poking his noise into your business)
Today, I have learned: @God indeed is Chaotic Evil. (and @elminster too. I KNEW there is something fishy about.a dude with a pointy hat, poking his noise into your business)
The only thing that makes me related to Chaos is that I'm in no way related to it, myself being the very force that keeps things in a neat disorder, and Evil as such does not exist. People commonly think (or hope) that I'm Lawful Good, which of course is not the case, and I'm really much more Lawful Neutral (i.e. Lawful Scumbag). Also, Elminster is supposed to be Chaotic Good and there is only one difference between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil. That is, Evil. And, since Evil does not exist, there is no difference at all! Yes.
Nonetheless, roleplaying Chaotic Evil is obscenely hilarious.
I see what you mean. From what I've seen from previous polls, people tend to play their PC's alignment the same as their "own." I suppose that says something about Evil-PC players. ~.^
In fact not as their own, but as they think it's their alignment. Believe me when i say, mostly of the goody two shoes here have a pretty bad dark side on their uncounscious. Not the most popular statement to make but a truth nonetheless.
In PnP, you have to be either Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil to get a Quasit. And in Advanced, Quasits were quite overpowered. +1 level automatically for the caster, +3D6 HP (in advanced, you got full hit points of your familiar on top of your own). + regeneration, +25% Magic Resistance. And they could go invisible at will and they had some kind of poison attack as well. Basically, if you got one at 1st level, you could end up with more Hit points than a Barbarian.
In PnP, you have to be either Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil to get a Quasit. And in Advanced, Quasits were quite overpowered. +1 level automatically for the caster, +3D6 HP (in advanced, you got full hit points of your familiar on top of your own). + regeneration, +25% Magic Resistance. And they could go invisible at will and they had some kind of poison attack as well. Basically, if you got one at 1st level, you could end up with more Hit points than a Barbarian.
Seeing that in PnP Experience points aren't only used to level up but to cast spells, i doubt a level 1 starting caracter would have the possibility to bind himself with an familiar.
I see what you mean. From what I've seen from previous polls, people tend to play their PC's alignment the same as their "own." I suppose that says something about Evil-PC players. ~.^
In fact not as their own, but as they think it's their alignment. Believe me when i say, mostly of the goody two shoes here have a pretty bad dark side on their uncounscious. Not the most popular statement to make but a truth nonetheless.
Even supposing you were able to see into people's minds in this way, why would you judge them for their unconscious desires? Surely a person should be judged on the impulses they do act on not the ones they don't?
@kamuizin I think @the_spyder was talking about 1e AD&D. Considering all the trouble the Quasit is going to get you into (not to mention being a CE or CN adventurer), having all those bonuses/special abilities at 1st level more likely just evens things out.
Since the 1e AD&D Find Familiar spell gives you a 5% chance (rolling a 15 on d20) to summon an alignment-based familiar, along with burning 1000gp worth of incense and herbs, I agree with you that the chances are very slim of finding a 1st level character such a familiar (or any familiar at all).
Add to that the fact that the Familiar tables looked like this:
1-14 - normal familiar 15 - Special (alignment based) Familiar such as Imp, Quasit, Faerie Dragon etc... 16-20 No familiar. Burned 1000gp for nothing. Try again in 1 year.
It was a pretty steep bill to pay.
I personally I had one character who made a "Deal" to get me that special familiar. What that meant was that my character made a pact with a particular NPC that we had encountered to tip the scales. it was still a random chance, but it was a significantly greater chance of getting the quasit and all I had to do was 'Owe him a favor'. Well.... The Quasit turned out to be more trouble than the bonuses that he got. And the FAVOR? let me tell you. I now have a greater appreciation of 'Faustian pact' than I did prior to that arrangement. Just goes to show I had a good DM.
I see what you mean. From what I've seen from previous polls, people tend to play their PC's alignment the same as their "own." I suppose that says something about Evil-PC players. ~.^
In fact not as their own, but as they think it's their alignment. Believe me when i say, mostly of the goody two shoes here have a pretty bad dark side on their uncounscious. Not the most popular statement to make but a truth nonetheless.
Even supposing you were able to see into people's minds in this way, why would you judge them for their unconscious desires? Surely a person should be judged on the impulses they do act on not the ones they don't?
I don't need to see people mind for this, i just need to not be hypocrite. Bu the way i don't judge, i just state a truth, i really don't care if people have or not bad sides, the true merit is how we deal with them, i can say that i have a bit of little patience to people that fool themselfs trying to see them as good and nice, rarely that's true, but then, what they make of their life, is their problem, i just stated my mind here as others did.
But lemme stop here, make your reply and let's be done with it, as this will surely become a flametower battle if we keep the issue too long.
Ps: i didn't judge people for their choices in that last post, that's on your view of things as you didn't liked my post, i just stated something that i believe without making an ethic or moral evaluation of the issue.
I don't need to see people mind for this, i just need to not be hypocrite. Bu the way i don't judge, i just state a truth, i really don't care if people have or not bad sides, the true merit is how we deal with them, i can say that i have a bit of little patience to people that fool themselfs trying to see them as good and nice, rarely that's true, but then, what they make of their life, is their problem, i just stated my mind here as others did.
With respect, "State the Truth"??? Without seeing into people's minds, you can't "Know the truth". Most modern psychology is merely a theory. Claiming that "Everyone" has a dark side isn't truth, it's a theory.
For my two cents, Someone who is "Good" (always assuming there is such a beast), Might have darker thoughts. However, their darker thoughts are probably not as dark as someone who is evil. As a "Good" person, I might consider how my life might be easier if I fudged my taxes a tiny bit. An evil person might wonder if someone would miss the body if they dumped it in the river.
We all have selfish thoughts, or so I would suppose. That in itself doesn't make someone "Evil". Nor does donating to charity make someone 'Good'. It is (in my opinion) a constant journey. The more good you do, the more good thoughts you have, the less selfish ideas you act on, the more 'Good' a person you are. Likewise, the more selfish acts you perform and instigate, the more hurt you inflict, the more you ignore the needs of those around you, the more 'Evil' you are. But people aren't born suddenly "Snidely Whiplash"
I see what you mean. From what I've seen from previous polls, people tend to play their PC's alignment the same as their "own." I suppose that says something about Evil-PC players. ~.^
In fact not as their own, but as they think it's their alignment. Believe me when i say, mostly of the goody two shoes here have a pretty bad dark side on their uncounscious. Not the most popular statement to make but a truth nonetheless.
Even supposing you were able to see into people's minds in this way, why would you judge them for their unconscious desires? Surely a person should be judged on the impulses they do act on not the ones they don't?
I don't need to see people mind for this, i just need to not be hypocrite. Bu the way i don't judge, i just state a truth, i really don't care if people have or not bad sides, the true merit is how we deal with them, i can say that i have a bit of little patience to people that fool themselfs trying to see them as good and nice, rarely that's true, but then, what they make of their life, is their problem, i just stated my mind here as others did.
But lemme stop here, make your reply and let's be done with it, as this will surely become a flametower battle if we keep the issue too long.
Ps: i didn't judge people for their choices in that last post, that's on your view of things as you didn't liked my post, i just stated something that i believe without making an ethic or moral evaluation of the issue.
@the_spyder, the truth make the idea of a singular existence of it, truth is relative by time, matter and and individual. I say that i state a truth, not the truth cos in terms of personality and existence there's no thing as 100% good, otherwise that person isn't human anymore.
Be not evil doesn't make something good by deafult. The inverse is also truth. We're a bit off-topic here and it's not the alignments of D&D being discussed anymore but the human behavior in real world.
In my recent playthrough with a sexy and bitchy CE female vampire charmingly named Julia, I took the time to explore all the most vile, most monstrous, most abominable options (some of them modded) available to Charname. And I'm talking about doing things that would make Korgan pee his armor, not mercenary stuff that is for some reason considered evil. True story. And, yes, it's been enjoyable all the way. I'll likely do that again sometime.
I take it that included the PPG Quest Pack, where you could:
sell Risa to Lethinan, side with Xzar against the Harpers, and betray the nymphs from Irenicus' dungeon (amongst other things)?
I have to admit that I did have a bit of hesitation when doing the first one. Lethinan is a slimy bastard.
@the_spyder, the truth make the idea of a singular existence of it, truth is relative by time, matter and and individual. I say that i state a truth, not the truth cos in terms of personality and existence there's no thing as 100% good, otherwise that person isn't human anymore.
Be not evil doesn't make something good by deafult. The inverse is also truth. We're a bit off-topic here and it's not the alignments of D&D being discussed anymore but the human behavior in real world.
You are confusing the definition of 'Truth' with something else, but I am not sure what. Truth is exactly that. One single correct answer. It is not subjective based on time or the individual. It is Truth that everyone dies. It is opinion that every individual has a darker side. And we can go on from there and discuss Metaphysics and Zoroastrianism if you care to do so, but that too would be subjective and highly opinion oriented rather than Truth.
Also, not sure where that second paragraph came in. If it was in reference to something I said, i didn't say the absence of evil makes good. I said that the more good you do and the less evil you do, the more good you are.
I caveated this because I don't necessarily believe in a subjective 'Good' or 'Evil'. I think that the most horrible, selfish and miserable person in the universe can still do 'Good' things.
@Mortianna Yes, that. I can't imagine dealing with Harpers any other way. I also have various tweaks that I made myself and are mostly of cosmetic nature, providing more/different/unusual dialogue options in cases where the choice was too limited for my needs (including 'you're not fooling me, bitch; have at you!' kind of answers to anything Melissan). And then there are countless other mods I have accumulated over the years and things I've done but don't even remember. Vanilla BG has rather limited space for being evil.
Add to that the fact that the Familiar tables looked like this:
1-14 - normal familiar 15 - Special (alignment based) Familiar such as Imp, Quasit, Faerie Dragon etc... 16-20 No familiar. Burned 1000gp for nothing. Try again in 1 year.
It was a pretty steep bill to pay.
I personally I had one character who made a "Deal" to get me that special familiar. What that meant was that my character made a pact with a particular NPC that we had encountered to tip the scales. it was still a random chance, but it was a significantly greater chance of getting the quasit and all I had to do was 'Owe him a favor'. Well.... The Quasit turned out to be more trouble than the bonuses that he got. And the FAVOR? let me tell you. I now have a greater appreciation of 'Faustian pact' than I did prior to that arrangement. Just goes to show I had a good DM.
In PnP if you meet a imp/quasit or faerie dragon, can't you roleplay and try to convince that being to become your familiar?
It was done in the novels, specifically in the The Silent Blade, where Ray-Guy, a drow priest/mage (and as far as i know the only male drow priest in activity) convinced (with threats of course) an summoned imp to become his familiar.
In PnP if you meet a imp/quasit or faerie dragon, can't you roleplay and try to convince that being to become your familiar?
It was done in the novels, specifically in the The Silent Blade, where Ray-Guy, a drow priest/mage (and as far as i know the only male drow priest in activity) convinced (with threats of course) an summoned imp to become his familiar.
Understand that its a game. The DM can do whatever they want. And if it furthers the story and is fun for all concerned, all the better.
My DM played it well. And believe me when I say my wizard didn't get a cakewalk out of the deal. I ended up having to betray the party and took a pretty hefty alignment shift into the bargain.
I think it's interesting that, among the three alignment tendency polls I posted, this one has received the most views (currently, an appropriate 666!) as well as the most comments:
From past polls, the majority of people who responded said they prefer good PCs. So it would seem that, while most people find "virtue" admirable, "vice" is more interesting to discuss. Forbidden fruits are sweetest, after all. For example, Viconia is usually said to be the most attractive and alluring (and with the best romance) among the female NPCs in BG2, yet she is evil (to the chagrin of many).
Since most adventures in BG (and D&D in general) are based on the Tolkeinesque good vs. evil narrative, the existence of powerful and seductive evil beings is just as necessary as the virtuous heroes who strive to resist and eradicate them. Yet, how could the forces of Good continue to find purpose and a sense of identity without the threat and temptation of Evil (e.g., the Upper Planes destroying the Lower Planes)? I ask this question particularly to those who both play and identify (in terms of alignment) as Good.
For those who both play and identify as Evil, I ask the obverse: could the forces of Evil continue to maintain a sense of what Evilness entails without the "constant, puritanical meddling" of Good (e.g., the Lower Planes destroying the Upper Planes)?
I tend to think Good needs the existence of Evil, but Evil doesn't need the existence of Good.
Comments
And, yes, it's been enjoyable all the way. I'll likely do that again sometime.
When I finish, I will be the only villain remaining.
LE gives me the moral high ground
Who occasionally crushes innocents for personal gain in utter secrecy when it actually benefits him/her to do so (instead of doing it for the evuls)?
Lawful evil description says its the evil baron the abuses the law... you CANNOT do that in secret.
Chaotic evil description says its the guy who lolrandumb murders everything.
Neutral evil is just a little bit of both of the above.
PS. I have never seen a CRPG that lets you play this kind of evil... in CRPGs evil is a selfless altruistic sacrifice your character performs in order to promote the goals of the happy family called Team Evil.
Also, Elminster is supposed to be Chaotic Good and there is only one difference between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil. That is, Evil. And, since Evil does not exist, there is no difference at all!
Yes.
Nonetheless, roleplaying Chaotic Evil is obscenely hilarious.
But if i play evil i choose chaotic evil cuz it makes metal songs more fitting.
Since the 1e AD&D Find Familiar spell gives you a 5% chance (rolling a 15 on d20) to summon an alignment-based familiar, along with burning 1000gp worth of incense and herbs, I agree with you that the chances are very slim of finding a 1st level character such a familiar (or any familiar at all).
Add to that the fact that the Familiar tables looked like this:
1-14 - normal familiar
15 - Special (alignment based) Familiar such as Imp, Quasit, Faerie Dragon etc...
16-20 No familiar. Burned 1000gp for nothing. Try again in 1 year.
It was a pretty steep bill to pay.
I personally I had one character who made a "Deal" to get me that special familiar. What that meant was that my character made a pact with a particular NPC that we had encountered to tip the scales. it was still a random chance, but it was a significantly greater chance of getting the quasit and all I had to do was 'Owe him a favor'. Well.... The Quasit turned out to be more trouble than the bonuses that he got. And the FAVOR? let me tell you. I now have a greater appreciation of 'Faustian pact' than I did prior to that arrangement. Just goes to show I had a good DM.
But lemme stop here, make your reply and let's be done with it, as this will surely become a flametower battle if we keep the issue too long.
Ps: i didn't judge people for their choices in that last post, that's on your view of things as you didn't liked my post, i just stated something that i believe without making an ethic or moral evaluation of the issue.
For my two cents, Someone who is "Good" (always assuming there is such a beast), Might have darker thoughts. However, their darker thoughts are probably not as dark as someone who is evil. As a "Good" person, I might consider how my life might be easier if I fudged my taxes a tiny bit. An evil person might wonder if someone would miss the body if they dumped it in the river.
We all have selfish thoughts, or so I would suppose. That in itself doesn't make someone "Evil". Nor does donating to charity make someone 'Good'. It is (in my opinion) a constant journey. The more good you do, the more good thoughts you have, the less selfish ideas you act on, the more 'Good' a person you are. Likewise, the more selfish acts you perform and instigate, the more hurt you inflict, the more you ignore the needs of those around you, the more 'Evil' you are. But people aren't born suddenly "Snidely Whiplash"
They grow to BE that over time.
Be not evil doesn't make something good by deafult. The inverse is also truth. We're a bit off-topic here and it's not the alignments of D&D being discussed anymore but the human behavior in real world.
I have to admit that I did have a bit of hesitation when doing the first one. Lethinan is a slimy bastard.
Also, not sure where that second paragraph came in. If it was in reference to something I said, i didn't say the absence of evil makes good. I said that the more good you do and the less evil you do, the more good you are.
I caveated this because I don't necessarily believe in a subjective 'Good' or 'Evil'. I think that the most horrible, selfish and miserable person in the universe can still do 'Good' things.
Yes, that. I can't imagine dealing with Harpers any other way. I also have various tweaks that I made myself and are mostly of cosmetic nature, providing more/different/unusual dialogue options in cases where the choice was too limited for my needs (including 'you're not fooling me, bitch; have at you!' kind of answers to anything Melissan). And then there are countless other mods I have accumulated over the years and things I've done but don't even remember. Vanilla BG has rather limited space for being evil.
It was done in the novels, specifically in the The Silent Blade, where Ray-Guy, a drow priest/mage (and as far as i know the only male drow priest in activity) convinced (with threats of course) an summoned imp to become his familiar.
My DM played it well. And believe me when I say my wizard didn't get a cakewalk out of the deal. I ended up having to betray the party and took a pretty hefty alignment shift into the bargain.
But is a game and all about the narrative.
From past polls, the majority of people who responded said they prefer good PCs. So it would seem that, while most people find "virtue" admirable, "vice" is more interesting to discuss. Forbidden fruits are sweetest, after all. For example, Viconia is usually said to be the most attractive and alluring (and with the best romance) among the female NPCs in BG2, yet she is evil (to the chagrin of many).
Since most adventures in BG (and D&D in general) are based on the Tolkeinesque good vs. evil narrative, the existence of powerful and seductive evil beings is just as necessary as the virtuous heroes who strive to resist and eradicate them. Yet, how could the forces of Good continue to find purpose and a sense of identity without the threat and temptation of Evil (e.g., the Upper Planes destroying the Lower Planes)? I ask this question particularly to those who both play and identify (in terms of alignment) as Good.
For those who both play and identify as Evil, I ask the obverse: could the forces of Evil continue to maintain a sense of what Evilness entails without the "constant, puritanical meddling" of Good (e.g., the Lower Planes destroying the Upper Planes)?
I tend to think Good needs the existence of Evil, but Evil doesn't need the existence of Good.