In BGI you should kill that silly dryad with her stupid tree. What kind of a "good" character would kill two mentally handicapped rednecks for cutting down a tree.
I mean, its one tree. In the middle of a forest. Full of trees.
I sided with the druids over the noblemen in cloakwood, just because I thought better of pissing off druids when I was about to spend a lot of time in a forest.
I know they won't go out of their way to make your life miserable in bg, but in character my bard was like "nope I'll side with them. You haven't even pretended like I'm getting anything good outta this".
I mostly go with a more Neutral Evil route when I play as an evil character... I ended up being more a hero than a villain just because the good guys paid better.
It's somewhat interesting to play as a character who's only response to being asked to do something was pretty much "What's in it for me?"
Having evil NPCs is worth it, even if you don't quite play an evil way. I have a good PC with all five evil NPCs in SoA, and their reactions to when she tries to do right can be hysterical. Have Edwin, Viconia, and Korgan in your party, and do the Limited Wish quest- it's pretty entertaining.
Evil can be very rewarding from an RP perspective, when played right. I don't go to Spellhold to save Imoen or for anything so petty as revenge. Irenicus has shown my charname how weak he is, and knows that Irenicus may hold the key to unlocking his true potential.
If he aids others, it's done for a reward or because he will have influence over those he helps. D'arnise Hold could be a useful safehouse when on the run from the law.
Personally, I replace the good/evil alignment axis with emphatic/egocentric in my head, and things make a lot more sense.
Good/evil is a judgement, a result of a character's actions. It's not a character trait. Using it to guide a character's actions is saying to someone `behave in a way so that you'll be perceived so and so', instead of `play according to your character's personality'. Roleplaying shouldn't be goal oriented.
It's a shame that much of the lore of DnD is built around a system of categorization that kind of inhibits roleplaying by prescribing behavior instead of generating it. Good players and DMs work around this, of course, but that really shouldn't be necessary in the first place.
I always play good in a RPG the first time around, but I've played BG so many times it gets boring. Sometimes I just want to kill a NPC if he gets annoying.
It really makes more sense for the Child of Bhaal to be evil, although is set up in a way that playing evil is rather difficult. That and the "evil" dialogue options in the first game make you sound retarded.
I started a new run through BG2 recently with a Chaotic Evil Dragon Disciple. At lvl 11 w/ Robe of Venca I am a force to be reckoned with. It makes me feel good to know that most people are at my disposal so I can really react to each situation as the mood hits me. For instance I once charmed Mae'Var and turned him on his own people bringing his whole guild hall crumbling down.
In BGI you should kill that silly dryad with her stupid tree. What kind of a "good" character would kill two mentally handicapped rednecks for cutting down a tree.
I mean, its one tree. In the middle of a forest. Full of trees.
Yea, someone in Bioware was obviously a tree hugger.
Playing a truly GOOD character always makes me feel like an insane fool. At least being EVIL makes some sense...
I love BG and believe it to be THE quintessential Role Playing game (or is that Planescape???). But my personal opinion is that the writing for BOTH the good AND the evil paths are pretty naff. If you play "Lawful Good" and always be out to save fluffy bunnies from the big bad evils of the world, you end up scratching your head and saying "What am I. Barney???" And if you play the Evil path, quite a lot of the dialogue comes off as moody and childish obnoxiousness (IMHO). Still, it is sometimes fun and enjoyable to play either/both paths.
Just embrace your inner Dudley Do right: or Snidely Whiplash:
You don't need people to comment on how much of a hero you are for saving them, and how they look up to you.
Not being bound to rules, murdering anyone you come across and don't like. Expressing your inner savageness, greed and desire for power. That is what this is about.
So many people like the evil characters since they are all for yourself do whatever you want types of characters, instead of "My inner code tells me I have to do this."
This kinda creeps me out. I'm very much a Neutral Good soul myself, and when I let myself be free and do what I feel like doing in a game, my game behavior tends to be Chaotic Good ... not Evil like a lot of you are saying. O_o;
I think this must explain why I've never personally been into Grand Theft Auto, despite it being a good game series.
You have all given me food for thought. Thank you for the responses. I think I will try it and stick with it. After all, in Star Trek DS9, Gul Dukat is most definitely evil, but he can be quite charming when he has to be. Maybe I have been thinking too much in stereotype. Now, if you will all excuse me, I have to go design myself an evil Power :-)
I wound up messing around with my alignment and party a ton my current playthrough. Started off as chaotic good, with a full good party, minsc, mazzy, etc., and did good quests, but in my mind, my pc became progessively more jaded and obsessed with power to the point i eekeepered them to be chaotic evil and the only one left in my party is now Neera, whom my pc is still romancin for reasons I'm not sure either of them understand. It remains to be seen if my pc eventually tires of her and turns on her to be a real lone wolf, or if their relationship can endure the burgeoning sociopathy of my pc.
Point is, any alignment works as long as your intellectually flexible. But yeah, lots of the evil dialogue sucks. This thread has actually got me wanting to go play IWD2 again, which for a game as limited in dialogue I actually remember having some pretty good evil options from a flavor perspective.
I used to think most people who play evil in D&D must be of the bandit Beavis and Butthead mentality. "So I kicked him in the head 'til he was dead, snicker, huh-huh." I picked up that attitude from having played tabletop D&D with teenagers while I was in high school, and the bad players always played like that.
Getting to know people on this forum has taught me that a lot of well-educated, sophisticated, and well-spoken people enjoy playing evil in D&D.
I tried it once myself, and at first it was different, new, exciting, and kind of freeing to play a villain and explore my dark side. But it soon lost its appeal, and I abandoned that run less than halfway through. I just don't have the stomach for it, because I identify too much with my game toons. That's basically *me* running around in there through my avatar, and I can't disassociate the way a lot of you guys and gals seem to.
Also, exploring my own dark side didn't feel very psychologically healthy. I think I have a pretty intense repressed Shadow self lurking around in the dark corners of my psyche, and letting that come to conscious expression, even just in the game, felt sort of dangerous to me, because it felt like I was giving that part of me strength and conscious control.
You can loot any house, be provoked to any needless fight, steal and kill because you know that it will bring you experience/items. Most of it can be done with good character without any repercussion (lost of reputation), but from roleplaying perspective it makes not much sense.
You can loot any house, be provoked to any needless fight, steal and kill because you know that it will bring you experience/items. Most of it can be done with good character without any repercussion (lost of reputation), but from roleplaying perspective it makes not much sense.
Pretty much every adventurer does the break and entering and stealing. If the household complains: Of course this is for the greater good! Killing things who have a bigger brain and century more life expirience because it's belongings are so shiney? The temple said so, it's an evil creature if it doesn't want to share. Hm, so if that's the good adventurer, what does the bad one do?
You can loot any house, be provoked to any needless fight, steal and kill because you know that it will bring you experience/items. Most of it can be done with good character without any repercussion (lost of reputation), but from roleplaying perspective it makes not much sense.
Pretty much every adventurer does the break and entering and stealing. If the household complains: Of course this is for the greater good! Killing things who have a bigger brain and century more life expirience because it's belongings are so shiney? The temple said so, it's an evil creature if it doesn't want to share. Hm, so if that's the good adventurer, what does the bad one do?
That's not good, those adventurers should admit that they are evil too.
Comments
I mean, its one tree. In the middle of a forest. Full of trees.
I know they won't go out of their way to make your life miserable in bg, but in character my bard was like "nope I'll side with them. You haven't even pretended like I'm getting anything good outta this".
It's somewhat interesting to play as a character who's only response to being asked to do something was pretty much "What's in it for me?"
personally I just find evil gets boring pretty quickly plus it takes a lot of fun out of the game to me
If he aids others, it's done for a reward or because he will have influence over those he helps. D'arnise Hold could be a useful safehouse when on the run from the law.
Personally, I replace the good/evil alignment axis with emphatic/egocentric in my head, and things make a lot more sense.
Good/evil is a judgement, a result of a character's actions. It's not a character trait. Using it to guide a character's actions is saying to someone `behave in a way so that you'll be perceived so and so', instead of `play according to your character's personality'. Roleplaying shouldn't be goal oriented.
It's a shame that much of the lore of DnD is built around a system of categorization that kind of inhibits roleplaying by prescribing behavior instead of generating it. Good players and DMs work around this, of course, but that really shouldn't be necessary in the first place.
It really makes more sense for the Child of Bhaal to be evil, although is set up in a way that playing evil is rather difficult. That and the "evil" dialogue options in the first game make you sound retarded.
"I'm Foolio Displasus, Destroyer of the Seven Suns! RAGRH" *backstabs him*
Jhasso: Get away from me, you shapeshifting scum!
Charname: Ha ha ha, we have come to torture you.
...
Ok, perhaps a little
Hmm, one tree, or a couple human lives? Hmmm.
Just embrace your inner Dudley Do right:
or Snidely Whiplash:
And have Fun with it.
I think this must explain why I've never personally been into Grand Theft Auto, despite it being a good game series.
Maybe I have been thinking too much in stereotype.
Now, if you will all excuse me, I have to go design myself an evil Power :-)
Point is, any alignment works as long as your intellectually flexible. But yeah, lots of the evil dialogue sucks. This thread has actually got me wanting to go play IWD2 again, which for a game as limited in dialogue I actually remember having some pretty good evil options from a flavor perspective.
some other examples of Charming and intelligent Evil:
The Governor (The Walking Dead)
Servelan (Blake's 7)
Scorpius (Farscape)
Alfred Bester (Babylon 5 - not to be confused with the writer)
Getting to know people on this forum has taught me that a lot of well-educated, sophisticated, and well-spoken people enjoy playing evil in D&D.
I tried it once myself, and at first it was different, new, exciting, and kind of freeing to play a villain and explore my dark side. But it soon lost its appeal, and I abandoned that run less than halfway through. I just don't have the stomach for it, because I identify too much with my game toons. That's basically *me* running around in there through my avatar, and I can't disassociate the way a lot of you guys and gals seem to.
Also, exploring my own dark side didn't feel very psychologically healthy. I think I have a pretty intense repressed Shadow self lurking around in the dark corners of my psyche, and letting that come to conscious expression, even just in the game, felt sort of dangerous to me, because it felt like I was giving that part of me strength and conscious control.
You are bad guy, but this does not mean you are...bad...guy.
I could never really get into being evil in BG, but always have a good/evil mix in my parties for the dialog.
Killing things who have a bigger brain and century more life expirience because it's belongings are so shiney? The temple said so, it's an evil creature if it doesn't want to share. Hm, so if that's the good adventurer, what does the bad one do?