I feel an urgent need to break out my pedantry and state that there is no Form or Idea (eidos) of Evil in Platonic thought (or at least not in Plato; it is possible one was added in later neo-Platonic thoughts, but I am uncertain). Evil is conceived primarily as a privation of the Good, rather than a separate metaphysical entity in its own right. This cements the concept of evil as a dependent category throughout much of Western philosophical and religious history, so it is fairly important.
@the_spyder heheh, indeed! but since this thread has already veered several time into the philosophical, I felt the need to say something!
Part of the issue is that one takes other philosophical or religious systems, like for example Zoroastrianiam, the personification of Evil is conceived of as a separate entity with its own independent existence.In many ways this might be more like DnD where evil gods actually exist.
In Platonism, however, and the large swathes of Christianity that drew on Platonic and Aristolelian thought evil essentially lacks a certain sense of self-existence. It might even be possible to say in these traditions that Evil as such does not really *exist* in a strict fashion, since it is defined primarily by its distance from or rejection of the ultimate ground of Being (whether God or the Good). You could also frame it that Evil is at heart an aberration or distortion of the true conditions of reality (as defined by the Good).
I'm no philosopher, though I am oddly intrigued by both Zoroastrianism and some of what Neitche wrote (among others).
I just don't believe that anywhere is there the intent that a player "Can't" do this or that. Way back in my PnP days, we had a rules lawyer in our group for a time. He was a good guy and always knew where to look for interesting rules and how they applied. Till one day he told the DM "You can't do that. It's in the rules!" Turns out the DM could, and did. Because he was the DM.
I also don't believe in any kind of real or make believe absolute as far as morality or concepts of good or evil. so when someone trots out and says XYZ is an absolute, I tend to balk a little bit. Telling me how I MUST believe just seems a bit, well... Narcissistic. Tell me instead how YOU believe and leave it at that. We can then agree (or agree to disagree). But if you trot out some rule book or another claiming some kind of superiority of position and requiring everyone in the world to see it only that way and I just don't believe the rules of the game are made that way.
If we were playing Checkers, great. there are hard and fast rules. But D&D isn't like that. Nor should it be in my humble opinion.
LOL. It's been YEARS for me as well. Like 25 or more.
My DM was a good guy as well. He told the best stories and we had the greatest adventures. He gave us latitude, but he also could be tough. I know for a fact that on a few occasions he fixed rolls if he needed something to happen. It wasn't a bad thing though. He was fair all in all. I think that if he hadn't been as open to possibilities, we wouldn't have stayed with him as DM. Just don't tell anyone or someone will come along and say "You CAN'T fix rolls! It's against the Rules! And then THAT isn't D&D!"
LOL. But it's all good. at least we can all joke about it.
I find that in these games, being evil has no real advantage.
It can destroy your reputation, and if you go low, you won't be able to talk to hardly anyone (basically every person will be hostile), so I'm not sure if you can even advance the plot (even from the very beginning, if you kill anyone in Candlekeep, Gorion will one shot you), and you'll have mercenary spawns coming after you constantly, which is fun for the challenge, but not as a permanent thing. I also like my prices low in stores lol.
Then there's the fact that thievery is morally neutral it seems, so you can remain good and still go on a crime wave of house looting, pick-pocketing and stealing from stores, not to mention that the majority of thievery in both games would be small-time, i.e. stealing 50 gp here and there, or a moderately expensive gem, ring, or necklace.
There's also the fact that the "evil" dialogue options almost never lead to any good loot, but rather often they lead to diminished loot or none at all.
Even the BG2 end-game options that will turn you evil are uninteresting, and they involve taking the easy way out usually, which doesn't have a fun factor to it, and the items & bonuses from said options are not as interesting as the good ones, or they're easily replaceable.
BG1&2 just don't have that sandbox feel.
In fact, I think Korgan's ending in ToB has a dramatic irony to it, and it was probably intentional, seeing as how that sort of feels like what being clever/lucky & evil in BG1&2 looks like, especially considering a lot of evil characters, such as Sarevok, will outwardly act as if they're good for the very sake of their reputation, temporary advantage, and other related self-interests.
@fighter_mage_thief, going on a larcenous crime spree of breaking and entering in BG will only affect your reputation if you get caught. Otherwise, well, then, you're the "master thief" who can steal with impunity with no consequences whatsoever, but, you must never get caught! That might in fact be the best way to play evil in this game. Rob, steal, and kill at your leisure, but *do not get caught!*
The problem with the BG game, and many other computer roleplaying games, which is often complained about by those who love to play evil, is that the games are stacked against it, from story design, to quest-giving, to everything else. If you construct an evil party in BG, you will have your evil mates leave you eventually, just from playing the game, even if you "stupid evil surfer-boy snark" your way through every dialogue.
As one who prefers to play good, I can still see why this nonsense of evil options is a problem for campaigns that presume to allow evil. Every CRPG I've ever played, punishes evil at every turn. They are simply not designed for evil play. What is most bothersome about this, is that these games are *lying* by claiming that you can play evil. You can't, not really. Well, you can play Stupid Evil. But why would anybody want to play Stupid Evil, unless they want to lose the game, or are masochists, or something? Committing outrageous Stupid Evil acts are so funny that they are their own reward, and better than actually winning the campaign?
And, what makes BG a particularly egregious offender, is that they have written an evil cast that is arguably the most fun, interesting, and well-developed character group in the game. Really? If you're going to bother to write good evil characters, then why in the world did you create a game with a reputation system and a quest system to punish evil players? It really doesn't make sense to me.
As a player who prefers to play good, then, in a sense, I don't have a dog in this race, but, I can intellectually understand why evil players complain so much, and, I wonder why the game devs even bother to include the option, since they seem quite "Heaven-bent" on subtly coercing roleplaying gamers to play good, and to "learn" to be good, through the games.
Yeah, even when evil is actually just as fun and varied as good, the vast majority of people will play good regardless (City of Heroes, prior to its demise, provided a good test case for this - most people played good guys even during a year or two where it was generally agreed that playing evil was a considerably superior experience as it had more and more interesting storylines, and more polished game mechanics). So including interesting evil options is really catering to a fairly small minority, so most developers don't really do it. It's understandable, but unfortunate in a case like, say, BGII, where there's some real fan favourite evil characters (Edwin and Viconia) but the game actively works against you and you can't even have a fully evil party (until the EE).
@belgarathmth I think that, deep down, most of us prefer playing either a heroic/good or neutral role, over something truly sadistic, cruel, hateful, etc.etc.etc.
Neutral evil is self-interested without feeling obligated to keep your word and without being reckless. When I'm evil, I almost always consider NE the smart option, although I could see the fun of being Lawful Evil as well, especially as a blackguard with a code of honor.
I started reading a new web comic on the suggestion of @lunar, and I found one that I think makes a good point for this discussion;
Yeah, the comic has some interesting ideas regarding evil and alignment. Like the beholder says after being a total jerk to his girlfriend:'What do you expect? I am a beholder, beholders are EVIL!' and the gf says 'LAWFUL evil!' Which apparently embarasses the beholder and makes him feel guilty. Heh.
Lawful evil is it. You can be lawful evil and not even EVIL. really. Just following the rules....
I'm pretty sure my LE Fighter/Thief's dream throughout much of her life was to be some equivalent of a mafia don. I can imagine her in Candlekeep's library pouring over such educational texts as 'History of the Zhentarim' for inspiration. Then her stuffy old foster father goes and gets popped by a guy in a sweet suit and she runs into two real-life ones! It was like a dream comes true.
Of course then she finds out that she's the daughter of the Lord of Murder and sets her sights a *little* bit higher.
I play LE kind of like Dr. Horrible. "The world is a mess and I just... need to rule it."
Actually, Dr. Horrible might be an interesting example of a Chaotic Evil character. He certainly seems to be focused on destroying the status quo ("because the status is not quo"), although one could certainly argue that his heart's really not in it, at least at first.
Interesting point. My impression is that he's not so much dissatisfied with the way the world works so much as his position within it. His main motivation is a fairly lawful approach to professional success (lawful by the League's standards, not so much the rest of society's) and mostly does evil out of the principle of the thing. But I certainly see the disrupting side to him as well. I'd prefer CE actually, we need more CE characters who aren't just homicidal maniacs. Makes the rest of us look bad.
I Personally like to play neutral Evil because its kind of the evil mastermind in the background alignment. (for example :Jafar from the disney movie aladin.). But i take it with a little bit chaotic Evil Because sometime its just nice to use your Evil Powers for your own amusement or raid a Village for loot.
Also i always have an argument with a friend of mine and like to share it to see what you guys think. Its like this ,he is always for good alignment in games and i am for evil.so in Some NWN games there are some options where you not only rescue some helpless and refuse to take the reward,no you can even give them some of your own gold to help them. So i say "its better to play the evil route cause all in all you got more stuff." My friend says then: "But they got to give you somekind of Reward for playing good? Me : "No...cause being good should be its own reward for the good guys,cause they especially -don't do it for the money-" My friend: " But that seems kind of unfair.then there is no point in choosing Good play over Evil." Me then "..............That what i am fricking Talking about.Finally you get it." No..he doesn't get,he still thinks playing good should be reason alone to be rewarded with awesome artefacts and tons of money.so we have this argument every time something like this comes up.
Oh yeah,also i know that the games have some awesome items for good guys,don't get me wrong (also some awesome stuff for evil) it is more about actually getting stuff for being ultra Lawful good (not just completing quests.)
@Mermidion You make a good point to your friend about what is meant by "good" behavior. I think the expectation of a reward for good behavior is borne out of living in a civilization indoctrinated by centuries of the "religion of the book." Instead of being good for goodness' sake (isn't that how the Santa Claus song goes?), they have been taught they will reap ultimate rewards in an otherworldly paradise for obeying the will of their god--whose will, of course, is "good."
Doing "good" acts for personal gain or to avoid punishment isn't what I understand to be "good" behavior.
Yeah, acting out of expecting a reward, or fearing punishment, doesn't make you good.
Then again, one can argue, that no one does something out of the good of their heart. They see something, like becoming better through a better society they help create, feeling better about themselves because they helped someone, or even maybe expecting something in return from those they helped when "the time comes". There is always something to gain, even if it is just a good name, and sometimes it's all subconscious.
Am i demented for believing that people always do something because of personal interest, even if it seems otherwise? (i think i'm becoming a misanthrope steadily, although i love people, really i do, i accept them as they are and even like them, maybe compassion?)
I just think it's human nature, our innate insecurity leads us to selfish thoughts and desires. Nothing bad or anything.
But if i do something that feels good, and makes another feel good as well, then the heck with it, it's worth it.
Now, saying that, i am opposed to "rewards" and "punishments" driving people as well, but then again we established a Justice system ourselves anyway. Maybe a line needs to be drawn somewhere.
@Mermidion@Mortianna I remember that there were some cases in BG2 where, if you played a paladin, your only dialogue option when offered a huge reward was "Due to the tenets of my faith I cannot accept a gift of such size" (or something like that).
It was a nice touch, though often somewhat annoying.
If they just introduced the mechanical tithing of money that paladins are supposed to do in 2nd edition I think that would be enough, but it's probably difficult to code (if I have a party of six, should the tithe only be 10% of 1/6th of the loot, the part representing my paladin?).
@Basillicum IWD2 has the same thing with Paladins and Monks. Although you can avoid the altruistic "doing good/my duty is reward enough, my lady/lord" by making sure to talk to quest-giving NPCs with non-Paladins and non-Monks.
Thanks for all the answers.glad i am not alone with the way i think.
@Mortianna Yeah.i think if someone plays a Paladin he should be ready to accept that the best he can get is a good feeling for helping some NPCs and there thanks.
@Mornmagor: I can see your point but i can add something. Some people would say that even the act of helping People to feel good about helping or being helpful so the people around are feeling better is an act of Selfishness. And that they are no selfless People who act good. But i can actually say that in my past i did at one point Help someone,cause it was the right thing to do at the time even thought i knew it would cause me much pain (and it did) but since it was rather personal i won't tell more. I still enjoy being Evil in Games alot though so i guess i am also not really "good"
@Basillicum. Huh never knew that. Then again, i never play a Paladin. But i have to agree that is a nice touch.
Also do you ,who like to play Evil, have a favorit Race for doing so? Like always playing a drow for evil characters? I Personally play an Half-orc Anti-Paladin(Blackguard). So of course i love the addition of Dorn and was at the same time pissed that i could not make a half-orc blackguard myself.
Working for your money doesn't make you non-Good. A Good adventurer who doesn't get paid doesn't eat, buy supplies, or buy that new +2 Holy sword he's been eyeing.
Working for your money doesn't make you non-Good. A Good adventurer who doesn't get paid doesn't eat, buy supplies, or buy that new +2 Holy sword he's been eyeing.
This is a valid point, most adventurers have expenses that they need to cover, gear to upkeep, etc. This may be part of the reason why Paladins are generally associated with churches, holy orders, and knightly orders: When you have an organization like that taking care of your basic needs, it becomes a lot easier to turn down rewards for your good deeds, and to take on good deeds for people who don't have the resources to offer a reward. In contrast, that dirt farmer turned Fighter needs to keep a roof overhead, food in his belly, and maintain his kit.
@Schneidend Ah but you see.in games like Baldurs Gate NWN and so on money for eating and supplies isn't an issue. Also i like to point out that i never said that it would make you non-good to take reward.just that you should not be rewarded "extra" for being good. So for example: You Rescue are family from a Burned down house and they offer you a reward even though they are left with nearly nothing to start a new live.What would a Paladin or any other good guy do? Refuse the money so the Family can start over or take the money so that he can buy that +2 Holy sword he's been eyeing? Keep in mind thought that he don't get rewarded in any other way but the good feeling that he gets when the family happily takes his charity and keeps the money (And that is like i say,as it should be.)
A Paladin should probably refuse the reward, but more because of his code than because of his alignment. My Chaotic Good mercenary vanilla Fighter, on the other hand? "Thanks, folks. Tymora smile on ye." And then he gets to eat, and sleep in a warm bed for the night.
Comments
Part of the issue is that one takes other philosophical or religious systems, like for example Zoroastrianiam, the personification of Evil is conceived of as a separate entity with its own independent existence.In many ways this might be more like DnD where evil gods actually exist.
In Platonism, however, and the large swathes of Christianity that drew on Platonic and Aristolelian thought evil essentially lacks a certain sense of self-existence. It might even be possible to say in these traditions that Evil as such does not really *exist* in a strict fashion, since it is defined primarily by its distance from or rejection of the ultimate ground of Being (whether God or the Good). You could also frame it that Evil is at heart an aberration or distortion of the true conditions of reality (as defined by the Good).
I just don't believe that anywhere is there the intent that a player "Can't" do this or that. Way back in my PnP days, we had a rules lawyer in our group for a time. He was a good guy and always knew where to look for interesting rules and how they applied. Till one day he told the DM "You can't do that. It's in the rules!" Turns out the DM could, and did. Because he was the DM.
I also don't believe in any kind of real or make believe absolute as far as morality or concepts of good or evil. so when someone trots out and says XYZ is an absolute, I tend to balk a little bit. Telling me how I MUST believe just seems a bit, well... Narcissistic. Tell me instead how YOU believe and leave it at that. We can then agree (or agree to disagree). But if you trot out some rule book or another claiming some kind of superiority of position and requiring everyone in the world to see it only that way and I just don't believe the rules of the game are made that way.
If we were playing Checkers, great. there are hard and fast rules. But D&D isn't like that. Nor should it be in my humble opinion.
My DM was a good guy as well. He told the best stories and we had the greatest adventures. He gave us latitude, but he also could be tough. I know for a fact that on a few occasions he fixed rolls if he needed something to happen. It wasn't a bad thing though. He was fair all in all. I think that if he hadn't been as open to possibilities, we wouldn't have stayed with him as DM. Just don't tell anyone or someone will come along and say "You CAN'T fix rolls! It's against the Rules! And then THAT isn't D&D!"
LOL. But it's all good. at least we can all joke about it.
It can destroy your reputation, and if you go low, you won't be able to talk to hardly anyone (basically every person will be hostile), so I'm not sure if you can even advance the plot (even from the very beginning, if you kill anyone in Candlekeep, Gorion will one shot you), and you'll have mercenary spawns coming after you constantly, which is fun for the challenge, but not as a permanent thing. I also like my prices low in stores lol.
Then there's the fact that thievery is morally neutral it seems, so you can remain good and still go on a crime wave of house looting, pick-pocketing and stealing from stores, not to mention that the majority of thievery in both games would be small-time, i.e. stealing 50 gp here and there, or a moderately expensive gem, ring, or necklace.
There's also the fact that the "evil" dialogue options almost never lead to any good loot, but rather often they lead to diminished loot or none at all.
Even the BG2 end-game options that will turn you evil are uninteresting, and they involve taking the easy way out usually, which doesn't have a fun factor to it, and the items & bonuses from said options are not as interesting as the good ones, or they're easily replaceable.
BG1&2 just don't have that sandbox feel.
In fact, I think Korgan's ending in ToB has a dramatic irony to it, and it was probably intentional, seeing as how that sort of feels like what being clever/lucky & evil in BG1&2 looks like, especially considering a lot of evil characters, such as Sarevok, will outwardly act as if they're good for the very sake of their reputation, temporary advantage, and other related self-interests.
The problem with the BG game, and many other computer roleplaying games, which is often complained about by those who love to play evil, is that the games are stacked against it, from story design, to quest-giving, to everything else. If you construct an evil party in BG, you will have your evil mates leave you eventually, just from playing the game, even if you "stupid evil surfer-boy snark" your way through every dialogue.
As one who prefers to play good, I can still see why this nonsense of evil options is a problem for campaigns that presume to allow evil. Every CRPG I've ever played, punishes evil at every turn. They are simply not designed for evil play. What is most bothersome about this, is that these games are *lying* by claiming that you can play evil. You can't, not really. Well, you can play Stupid Evil. But why would anybody want to play Stupid Evil, unless they want to lose the game, or are masochists, or something? Committing outrageous Stupid Evil acts are so funny that they are their own reward, and better than actually winning the campaign?
And, what makes BG a particularly egregious offender, is that they have written an evil cast that is arguably the most fun, interesting, and well-developed character group in the game. Really? If you're going to bother to write good evil characters, then why in the world did you create a game with a reputation system and a quest system to punish evil players? It really doesn't make sense to me.
As a player who prefers to play good, then, in a sense, I don't have a dog in this race, but, I can intellectually understand why evil players complain so much, and, I wonder why the game devs even bother to include the option, since they seem quite "Heaven-bent" on subtly coercing roleplaying gamers to play good, and to "learn" to be good, through the games.
I know what you mean, and I agree for the most part.
That being said, I also feel like playing an evil character is more of a novelty.
I think that, deep down, most of us prefer playing either a heroic/good or neutral role, over something truly sadistic, cruel, hateful, etc.etc.etc.
http://yafgc.net/?id=45
Of course then she finds out that she's the daughter of the Lord of Murder and sets her sights a *little* bit higher.
I play LE kind of like Dr. Horrible. "The world is a mess and I just... need to rule it."
Also i always have an argument with a friend of mine and like to share it to see what you guys think.
Its like this ,he is always for good alignment in games and i am for evil.so in Some NWN games there are some options where you not only rescue some helpless and refuse to take the reward,no you can even give them some of your own gold to help them.
So i say "its better to play the evil route cause all in all you got more stuff."
My friend says then: "But they got to give you somekind of Reward for playing good?
Me : "No...cause being good should be its own reward for the good guys,cause they especially -don't do it for the money-"
My friend: " But that seems kind of unfair.then there is no point in choosing Good play over Evil."
Me then "..............That what i am fricking Talking about.Finally you get it."
No..he doesn't get,he still thinks playing good should be reason alone to be rewarded with awesome artefacts and tons of money.so we have this argument every time something like this comes up.
Oh yeah,also i know that the games have some awesome items for good guys,don't get me wrong (also some awesome stuff for evil) it is more about actually getting stuff for being ultra Lawful good (not just completing quests.)
Doing "good" acts for personal gain or to avoid punishment isn't what I understand to be "good" behavior.
Then again, one can argue, that no one does something out of the good of their heart. They see something, like becoming better through a better society they help create, feeling better about themselves because they helped someone, or even maybe expecting something in return from those they helped when "the time comes". There is always something to gain, even if it is just a good name, and sometimes it's all subconscious.
Am i demented for believing that people always do something because of personal interest, even if it seems otherwise? (i think i'm becoming a misanthrope steadily, although i love people, really i do, i accept them as they are and even like them, maybe compassion?)
I just think it's human nature, our innate insecurity leads us to selfish thoughts and desires. Nothing bad or anything.
But if i do something that feels good, and makes another feel good as well, then the heck with it, it's worth it.
Now, saying that, i am opposed to "rewards" and "punishments" driving people as well, but then again we established a Justice system ourselves anyway. Maybe a line needs to be drawn somewhere.
Oh well ;p
It was a nice touch, though often somewhat annoying.
@Mortianna Yeah.i think if someone plays a Paladin he should be ready to accept that the best he can get is a good feeling for helping some NPCs and there thanks.
@Mornmagor: I can see your point but i can add something. Some people would say that even the act of helping People to feel good about helping or being helpful so the people around are feeling better is an act of Selfishness.
And that they are no selfless People who act good.
But i can actually say that in my past i did at one point Help someone,cause it was the right thing to do at the time even thought i knew it would cause me much pain (and it did) but since it was rather personal i won't tell more.
I still enjoy being Evil in Games alot though so i guess i am also not really "good"
@Basillicum.
Huh never knew that. Then again, i never play a Paladin. But i have to agree that is a nice touch.
Also do you ,who like to play Evil, have a favorit Race for doing so? Like always playing a drow for evil characters? I Personally play an Half-orc Anti-Paladin(Blackguard). So of course i love the addition of Dorn and was at the same time pissed that i could not make a half-orc blackguard myself.
Ah but you see.in games like Baldurs Gate NWN and so on money for eating and supplies isn't an issue.
Also i like to point out that i never said that it would make you non-good to take reward.just that you should not be rewarded "extra" for being good.
So for example: You Rescue are family from a Burned down house and they offer you a reward even though they are left with nearly nothing to start a new live.What would a Paladin or any other good guy do? Refuse the money so the Family can start over or take the money so that he can buy that +2 Holy sword he's been eyeing?
Keep in mind thought that he don't get rewarded in any other way but the good feeling that he gets when the family happily takes his charity and keeps the money (And that is like i say,as it should be.)