What alignment would this be?

Ryuuka

Hello everyone! With bg2ee being so close to release i've been thinking about who my charname is going to be.

One thing I would like to do is wipe out ust natha. Would that be considered good? Killing evil? Or would it be considered evil? I guess it depends on the reason? If the ends justify the means or not.

Cheers. Can't wait for friday!

Sceptenar

Wiping out a city is hardly a good act, there will always be innocents regardless of who rules it. I suppose you could say that it isn't an evil act based on who lives there, but destroying a city leans towards chaotic evil regardless of who it is (Korgan ends up doing something just like this in his ToB end text in fact).

I say at best it's neutral, certainly is not good. Good is about mercy and redemption, and we all know there are loads of drow worth saving (Like Drizzt, Solaufein etc.).

atcDave

We know that Drow are not utterly, irredeemably evil. As such, killing all your path cannot possibly be a "good" act. I agree with Sceptenar on this; at best its neutral. Depending on motives, its more likely evil.

Ryuuka

Thanks for the quick replies! This was the way I was reasoning too. I want to roleplay through the whole game and be consistent. Maybe it's time for an evil playthrough. the question is, do I also kill the dragon? I guess I'll have to see what I feel like doing cheers!

element

it depends on your motivation for doing so more then anything

KidCarnival

Seeing that lawful good paladins have a tendency to blindly attack drow, this could be seen as a (somewhat misguided) act of goodness. In the realms, drow are evil by nature, no matter how we human players with metaknowlege about Drizzt want to look at it.

E͞d͏it̀ ̕for ̶c̴l͏a҉r͝ific̴a̵tìon: ͟I ̶sp͢ȩa̵k҉ ̷from ̡my̢ v̀er̵y h̡uman͠ ̶éx́pȩrience͠ ̴a͟s a͡ h̨u͜m̛an p̸a̕lad̡iņ ͏of̨ Hél̛m.

atcDave

KidCarnival said:

Seeing that lawful good paladins have a tendency to blindly attack drow, this could be seen as a (somewhat misguided) act of goodness. In the realms, drow are evil by nature, no matter how we human players with metaknowlege about Drizzt want to look at it.

E͞d͏it̀ ̕for ̶c̴l͏a҉r͝ific̴a̵tìon: ͟I ̶sp͢ȩa̵k҉ ̷from ̡my̢ v̀er̵y h̡uman͠ ̶éx́pȩrience͠ ̴a͟s a͡ h̨u͜m̛an p̸a̕lad̡iņ ͏of̨ Hél̛m.

Completely disagree. Drow have never been completely evil in AD&D. Drizzt proves the point. As does Solaufein. No self respecting Paladin would ever attack on sight. More info is needed.

Sceptenar

KidCarnival said:

Seeing that lawful good paladins have a tendency to blindly attack drow, this could be seen as a (somewhat misguided) act of goodness. In the realms, drow are evil by nature, no matter how we human players with metaknowlege about Drizzt want to look at it.

E͞d͏it̀ ̕for ̶c̴l͏a҉r͝ific̴a̵tìon: ͟I ̶sp͢ȩa̵k҉ ̷from ̡my̢ v̀er̵y h̡uman͠ ̶éx́pȩrience͠ ̴a͟s a͡ h̨u͜m̛an p̸a̕lad̡iņ ͏of̨ Hél̛m.

Those paladins aren't lawful good, they're lawful stupid. A very common alignment for paladins.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid

zerckan

I'm not sure about your character but i think, you are Chaotic Neutral

KidCarnival

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drow The non-evil drow are exceptions, just like Montaron is the exception from halflings being friendly, social types.

meagloth

Leveling even an evil city is sadistic chaotic neutral at best. Much closer to chaotic evil.

atcDave

KidCarnival said:

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drow The non-evil drow are exceptions, just like Montaron is the exception from halflings being friendly, social types.

Yes but those exceptions prove their free will. By definition, there would be no exceptions for Demons or Devils or other things that are innately evil. With free willed beings a simple massacre is not acceptable, its called genocide.

zerckan

Keldorn is a lawful-good paladin, he kills viconia just because she is drow and he doesn't lose his paladin class.
So killing Drow = Good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdE5fvX9FdA

atcDave

zerckan said:

Keldorn is a lawful-good paladin, he kills viconia just because she is drow and he doesn't lose his paladin class.
So killing Drow = Good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdE5fvX9FdA

Viconia IS evil. Flawed illustration.

nano

atcDave said:

KidCarnival said:

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drow The non-evil drow are exceptions, just like Montaron is the exception from halflings being friendly, social types.

Yes but those exceptions prove their free will. By definition, there would be no exceptions for Demons or Devils or other things that are innately evil. With free willed beings a simple massacre is not acceptable, its called genocide.

Well, considering how many goblins and other free-willed beings you slaughter, at some point you have to accept a break from real-world morality or become a pacifist who only kills zombies.

artificial_sunlight

Play that your deity is Shevarash He is CG and is devoted to the destruction of all Drow
You could play a Stalker dual wielding scimitars because you have a legit reason to kill Drizzt

Sceptenar

artificial_sunlight said:

Play that your deity is Shevarash He is CG and is devoted to the destruction of all Drow
You could play a Stalker dual wielding scimitars because you have a legit reason to kill Drizzt

Shevarash is Chaotic Neutral...

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Shevarash

atcDave

nano said:

atcDave said:

KidCarnival said:

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drow The non-evil drow are exceptions, just like Montaron is the exception from halflings being friendly, social types.

Yes but those exceptions prove their free will. By definition, there would be no exceptions for Demons or Devils or other things that are innately evil. With free willed beings a simple massacre is not acceptable, its called genocide.

Well, considering how many goblins and other free-willed beings you slaughter, at some point you have to accept a break from real-world morality or become a pacifist who only kills zombies.

I never have a problem killing anyone who tries to kill me first. Depending on the setting, the nature of specific races and the nature of evil may vary a lot.

It all goes back to what I always think of as the "baby Goblin" debate. And I've literally seen it ruled both ways. I've played in games where the DM ruled Goblins were innately evil and all needed to be destroyed; and games where the DM ruled Goblins were violent and corrupt, but occasionally capable of good... THAT makes for a much more complex setting!
But in the Forgotten Realms Drow are clearly capable of free will. They are violent and dangerous, and should always be treated with caution; but that doesn't mean they should automatically be slaughtered.

Ryuuka

Wow, thanks for all the answers. I also started thinking about all the goblins etc I just instakill. I guess you just have to draw the line somewhere since it is a game and not reality. I mean, how could I otherwise justify killing the whole xvart village as a good character?

My first thought was to play a dwarf hell bent on destroying the drow, that includes viconia. (who is usually my romance). Might be an interesting run here in BG2EE

zerckan

atcDave said:

zerckan said:

Keldorn is a lawful-good paladin, he kills viconia just because she is drow and he doesn't lose his paladin class.
So killing Drow = Good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdE5fvX9FdA

Viconia IS evil. Flawed illustration.

Ofc she is evil, she is a drow.

Sceptenar

zerckan said:

atcDave said:

zerckan said:

Keldorn is a lawful-good paladin, he kills viconia just because she is drow and he doesn't lose his paladin class.
So killing Drow = Good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdE5fvX9FdA

Viconia IS evil. Flawed illustration.

Ofc she is evil, she is a drow.

Swap in the words "terrorist" and "muslim" and this conversation is going to get a lot more interesting.

nano

atcDave said:

nano said:

atcDave said:

KidCarnival said:

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drow The non-evil drow are exceptions, just like Montaron is the exception from halflings being friendly, social types.

Yes but those exceptions prove their free will. By definition, there would be no exceptions for Demons or Devils or other things that are innately evil. With free willed beings a simple massacre is not acceptable, its called genocide.

Well, considering how many goblins and other free-willed beings you slaughter, at some point you have to accept a break from real-world morality or become a pacifist who only kills zombies.

I never have a problem killing anyone who tries to kill me first. Depending on the setting, the nature of specific races and the nature of evil may vary a lot.

It all goes back to what I always think of as the "baby Goblin" debate. And I've literally seen it ruled both ways. I've played in games where the DM ruled Goblins were innately evil and all needed to be destroyed; and games where the DM ruled Goblins were violent and corrupt, but occasionally capable of good... THAT makes for a much more complex setting!
But in the Forgotten Realms Drow are clearly capable of free will. They are violent and dangerous, and should always be treated with caution; but that doesn't mean they should automatically be slaughtered.

You're a heavily armed adventurer. To goblins, the very act of you approaching them means you're about to slaughter them. Self-defense goes both ways here. And murder is an overreaction when you could easily put them to sleep and move on or evade them in the first place. After all, if a little kid comes up and starts kicking you in the shins, you're not going to blow his brains out with a gun, are you?

My point is not that you shouldn't kill goblins... but you have to decide what kind of game you want, and if you want your BG to have lots of combat then you have to dehumanize them or else you end up with a game where you have nothing to kill.

I see drow as the same as goblins, only more dangerous. There are definitely good members on both sides and they're certainly capable of redemption. But if your paladin is willing to take out a goblin tribe, a drow city is not so different.

zerckan

I wouldn't argue irl politics. I'm not racist if you mean it.

Sceptenar

zerckan said:

I wouldn't argue irl politics. I'm not racist if you mean it.

I wasn't calling you racist. Just pointing out that doing something similar in real life would be a lot more inflammatory.

Time4Tiddy

Fortunately, the xvarts attack you first. As do all the kobolds in the game. Some gnolls and hobgoblins DON'T attack you first, and usually you're given the option to seek a peaceful solution. Even a few ogres are "friendly" - or at least, they want to be fat-happy before you fight.

I think the game does a pretty good job of giving you the option for at least one or two members of any of the "evil" species who are a little less violent and a little more intelligent.

The fact that Ust Natha offers a (relatively) peaceful solution means that wholesale slaughter is evil, IMO.

atcDave

nano said:

atcDave said:

nano said:

atcDave said:

KidCarnival said:

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drow The non-evil drow are exceptions, just like Montaron is the exception from halflings being friendly, social types.

Yes but those exceptions prove their free will. By definition, there would be no exceptions for Demons or Devils or other things that are innately evil. With free willed beings a simple massacre is not acceptable, its called genocide.

Well, considering how many goblins and other free-willed beings you slaughter, at some point you have to accept a break from real-world morality or become a pacifist who only kills zombies.

I never have a problem killing anyone who tries to kill me first. Depending on the setting, the nature of specific races and the nature of evil may vary a lot.

It all goes back to what I always think of as the "baby Goblin" debate. And I've literally seen it ruled both ways. I've played in games where the DM ruled Goblins were innately evil and all needed to be destroyed; and games where the DM ruled Goblins were violent and corrupt, but occasionally capable of good... THAT makes for a much more complex setting!
But in the Forgotten Realms Drow are clearly capable of free will. They are violent and dangerous, and should always be treated with caution; but that doesn't mean they should automatically be slaughtered.

You're a heavily armed adventurer. To goblins, the very act of you approaching them means you're about to slaughter them. Self-defense goes both ways here. And murder is an overreaction when you could easily put them to sleep and move on or evade them in the first place. After all, if a little kid comes up and starts kicking you in the shins, you're not going to blow his brains out with a gun, are you?

My point is not that you shouldn't kill goblins... but you have to decide what kind of game you want, and if you want your BG to have lots of combat then you have to dehumanize them or else you end up with a game where you have nothing to kill.

I see drow as the same as goblins, only more dangerous. There are definitely good members on both sides and they're certainly capable of redemption. But if your paladin is willing to take out a goblin tribe, a drow city is not so different.

Combat, surrender, peace negotiations are potentially dangerous situations.

IRL few things are trickier for an invading army than making peace with the conquered. But that's not license to slaughter or pillage, it just means its a difficult situation. A good aligned party should absolutely consider it worth the "trouble" of finding and protecting those innocent of wrong doing.
Obviously much of my attitude comes from years of PNP play. A CRPG will simply present you with a limited number of options. But I very much like that the BG series does so often give us a chance to make peace, not war. This should be appealing to good characters and parties. Because, by definition, unrelenting violence and hostility is EVIL! Obviously anyone can play that way if they want to, but don't kid yourself and call it good, it isn't!

Luigirules

It's your story. Play it how you want it.

Just about anything you do is justifiable from any angle. The ability of the brain to rationalize any action is pretty incredible.

DrHappyAngry

I could see the rationale that the region could not ever be safe with the Drow city standing. I don't particularly think doing so would be good, but good is a pretty vague word that means different things to different people. I could certainly see Elves that have fought against them for generations believing the only way their people could be safe would be with the destruction of Ust Natha. Pull a Scipio Africanus and level Carthage and all.

"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

nano

atcDave said:

nano said:

atcDave said:

nano said:

atcDave said:

KidCarnival said:

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drow The non-evil drow are exceptions, just like Montaron is the exception from halflings being friendly, social types.

Yes but those exceptions prove their free will. By definition, there would be no exceptions for Demons or Devils or other things that are innately evil. With free willed beings a simple massacre is not acceptable, its called genocide.

Well, considering how many goblins and other free-willed beings you slaughter, at some point you have to accept a break from real-world morality or become a pacifist who only kills zombies.

I never have a problem killing anyone who tries to kill me first. Depending on the setting, the nature of specific races and the nature of evil may vary a lot.

It all goes back to what I always think of as the "baby Goblin" debate. And I've literally seen it ruled both ways. I've played in games where the DM ruled Goblins were innately evil and all needed to be destroyed; and games where the DM ruled Goblins were violent and corrupt, but occasionally capable of good... THAT makes for a much more complex setting!
But in the Forgotten Realms Drow are clearly capable of free will. They are violent and dangerous, and should always be treated with caution; but that doesn't mean they should automatically be slaughtered.

You're a heavily armed adventurer. To goblins, the very act of you approaching them means you're about to slaughter them. Self-defense goes both ways here. And murder is an overreaction when you could easily put them to sleep and move on or evade them in the first place. After all, if a little kid comes up and starts kicking you in the shins, you're not going to blow his brains out with a gun, are you?

My point is not that you shouldn't kill goblins... but you have to decide what kind of game you want, and if you want your BG to have lots of combat then you have to dehumanize them or else you end up with a game where you have nothing to kill.

I see drow as the same as goblins, only more dangerous. There are definitely good members on both sides and they're certainly capable of redemption. But if your paladin is willing to take out a goblin tribe, a drow city is not so different.

Combat, surrender, peace negotiations are potentially dangerous situations.

IRL few things are trickier for an invading army than making peace with the conquered. But that's not license to slaughter or pillage, it just means its a difficult situation. A good aligned party should absolutely consider it worth the "trouble" of finding and protecting those innocent of wrong doing.
Obviously much of my attitude comes from years of PNP play. A CRPG will simply present you with a limited number of options. But I very much like that the BG series does so often give us a chance to make peace, not war. This should be appealing to good characters and parties. Because, by definition, unrelenting violence and hostility is EVIL! Obviously anyone can play that way if they want to, but don't kid yourself and call it good, it isn't!

I'm not sure whether you're adding on to my post or trying to refute it, but if it's the latter we aren't arguing the same issue.

Let's not get caught up in real-world morality, because a lot of things work differently in BG and your character probably has his or her own moral code that differs from ours. But if the character does believe in peaceful resolutions to conflicts, then they have no more business killing goblins than they do wiping out drow. Drow are arguably more evil than goblins, because goblins are kind of simple-mindedly violent while drow are capable of astonishingly inventive acts of cruelty. And, if up until now your character has been gleefully punting little green guys left and right in the name of Good, why would he suddenly become squeamish when they're tall dark and handsome?

That's not to say you must attack Ust Natha; certainly a smart paladin would realize that conquering an entire city is nigh impossible (and for this reason I like the SCS component that actually makes it so) and seek more practical alternatives. But if he refuses to seek peaceful solutions for goblins, that shows his true colors as much as drow genocide.

atcDave

DrHappyAngry said:

I could see the rationale that the region could not ever be safe with the Drow city standing. I don't particularly think doing so would be good, but good is a pretty vague word that means different things to different people. I could certainly see Elves that have fought against them for generations believing the only way their people could be safe would be with the destruction of Ust Natha. Pull a Scipio Africanus and level Carthage and all.

"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

Yeah certainly circumstances could force the issue one way or another. I like the idea of a peaceful solution; but a city of mostly evil beings under evil leadership and an evil religion might not make that easy!

taltamir

When destroying ust natha you don't kill a single child, you don't kill a single person who runs away, you don't kill a single person who surrenders.

The city is populated entirely by adults and all of them are trying to murder you for not being born a drow. With the exception of one drow male who helped you in some quests and who does not fight you and isn't killed. (who just so happens to have renounced lolth)

This is very very far from the "baby goblin" dilemma.

The developers of the original baldur gate really dropped the ball on ust natha. They really should have had some drow surrender and give you the option to decide their fate, as well as the ability to come across the children.

PS. and also after destroying the city you can walk up to viconia's relatives who are held in cage and awaiting execution for failing to capture and kill her when she renounced lolth... and even they go hostile towards you.