Morality and Alignment. What do you choose and why?
InvictusCobra
Member Posts: 108
So I've been playing BGII:EE for a few hours now and noticed this game tends to be more morally ambiguous than the first one. Wouldn't say it's as ambiguous as let's say, Witcher 2 but still.
Anyway, I'm usually a Lawful/Neutral Good character due to liking to help people and seeing/feeling their satisfaction, but the biggest reason is because I just don't have the stomach to be evil in a videogame (think the last time I did it was when Infamous 1 came out and it was solely for the Trophies). Weirdest thing is I'm a bit of a resentful person IRL (holds on to grudges easily and for long, a bit prejudicial and quick to judge) and in videogames I like being the embodiment of the Shining White Knight and can't for a moment think of hurting the next man unless it's for self-defense or he's an actual bad guy.
Basically, my question is: What do you choose in terms of morality in games and why?
Anyway, I'm usually a Lawful/Neutral Good character due to liking to help people and seeing/feeling their satisfaction, but the biggest reason is because I just don't have the stomach to be evil in a videogame (think the last time I did it was when Infamous 1 came out and it was solely for the Trophies). Weirdest thing is I'm a bit of a resentful person IRL (holds on to grudges easily and for long, a bit prejudicial and quick to judge) and in videogames I like being the embodiment of the Shining White Knight and can't for a moment think of hurting the next man unless it's for self-defense or he's an actual bad guy.
Basically, my question is: What do you choose in terms of morality in games and why?
3
Comments
That being said, my lawful evil Jester was one of my favorites. He was greedy but not senselessly evil. He was the 'I will manipulate the situation to get the biggest reward' type character. I can do manipulative just not senselessly evil.
From a real-world perspective, the alignment system is interesting and fun to consider, but altogether not very accurate in describing people, especially considering how transient and dynamic some people's "alignment" seem to be. In this respect, I deviated from my alignment during certain moments in the game, such as choosing the gruffer dialogue choice or deciding to kill an NPC which was Neutral or at least not a threat to my personal well-being or the welfare of my party. I justified this behavior as momentary lapses in judgment, being overcome with feelings of anger or jealousy, or taken by temptations such as greed and avarice. Although not necessarily recommended given the rather rigid alignment system in the Dungeons & Dragons multiverse, especially that of The Forgotten Realms universe, I believe this better represents the human condition and real life flexibility of how "alignment" would realistically be expressed.
Thankfully, I didn't choose an alignment and class which prevented me from these sorts of deviations, such as a Lawful Good Paladin, since violations of my alignment would lead to more serious repercussions, such as the loss of the powers and abilities granted to me by my patron deity.
In later playthroughs, I sometimes choose more diabolical alignments in order to experience the other side of the moral spectrum and how the game handles this different approach. Rarely do I play Neutral-aligned (Chaotic, Lawful, or True Neutral) characters, for I believe they unrealistically represent the human condition, though I may do so for the sole purpose of experiencing the full scope of the game. In that respect, I typically don't limit myself to any single alignment or class of alignments when playing games because I'm more interested in experiencing everything the game has to offer, whether in a single adventure or over multiple playthroughs, if only to really appreciate the immensity of such games, especially ones as expansive as the Baldur's Gate series.
From a real-world perspective, I suppose I would classify myself as Chaotic Good with Chaotic Neutral tendencies aspiring to be Neutral Good, which I believe to be the pinnacle of human morality. I still tend to lead more toward Chaos on a personal and moral level, while supporting Law and Order on a more ethical level. I don't like the idea of being Chaotic Neutral-Good, but that is what best represents my current personality and behavior: self-serving and idiosyncratic, but with an inclination for generosity and a benevolent streak. Ideally, I would like to be Neutral Good: not so rigid and limited as Lawful alignments, but more disciplined and reliable than Chaotic alignments, all the while maintaining a preference for serving the greater good of humanity.
A good way to remember it is like this:
Good people seek what is good for society, sometimes extending to what is good for the gods.
Neutral people seek what is good for nature, sometimes extending to what is good for themselves.
Evil people seek what is good for themselves, sometimes extending to what is bad for others.
Essentially, Good people are benevolent and righteous, sometimes arrogantly so; Neutral people are indifferent and seek balance among the forces, sometimes with their own interests as a priority, or strictly with no one receiving preferential treatment; and Evil people are selfish and egotistic, sometimes finding pleasure in the suffering of others. There are, of course, exceptions to these rules, and for some the more extreme parts of their alignment (usually what comes after the "sometimes" above) don't apply.
Additionally, along the Law-Chaos axis:
Lawful people prefer order, organization, hierarchy, and strict moral and ethical codes.
Neutral people have no strong preference toward Law or Chaos, sometimes preferring balance above all.
Chaotic people prefer liberty, individualism, and freedom of expression over all.
There are drawbacks to each one of these alignments. For example, Lawful people may restrict and limit personal freedom in favor of an orderly system. In this respect, they are similar to Neutral-aligned people insomuch as they are willing to sacrifice individuality and self-interest for the Greater Balance (or in the case of Good-aligned people, the Greater Good. Neutral people have no real bias or inclination for either side of the spectrum, which itself can be a downside since it effectively removes their influence from the conflict altogether. Some Neutral people can also take their indifference to Law and Chaos to an extreme, stressing Balance above all, leading to them effectively supporting (or hindering) both sides in an attempt to achieve an equilibrium of power between the two forces.
Chaotic people also suffer from drawbacks because their preference for anarchy can lead to their own ruin. From a philosophical perspective, without any Law or Order to combat the chaotic nature of reality, the very fabric of reality could unravel as there would be no adhesive to bind the universe together. From a more practical standpoint, Chaotic people can be very unpredictable and unreliable, thus leading to social ostracism similar to that experienced by certain Evil-aligned people. Additionally, their preference for Chaos can be hypocritical, especially if they prefer to enjoy the amenities offered by organized society, or the usefulness of a community supporting itself through hard times. Overall, Chaotic people can be very individualistic, but this very individualism can seriously damper their social prowess.
(There are other, extremely rare, alignments such as True Good and True Evil or True Order or True Chaos. These are typically reserved for supernatural beings and incorporeal entities, such as deities and extraplanar creatures—typically anything not bound by the normal conventions of alignment, or those which are incapable of changing their alignment by any means.)
...
I've digressed quite far from my original point, so perhaps it's best to end this post with it: "Evil" is closer to "self-serving" than it is "cruel and malicious." While the latter traits are frequently found in Evil-aligned people, this is usually because their cruelty and malice are self-serving insomuch as they derive personal pleasure from it. In some instances, Evil people work together for the best interest of their group or organization (i.e., the Shadow Thieves, which is largely composed of Lawful Evil criminals and thieves who work together for mutual protection and gain). In the end, however, even those Evil-aligned people who work together do so out of a fundamental self-serving tendency: by working together, an Evil individual can receive protection and security in return for reduced returns in whatever criminal or otherwise evil enterprise they embark.
Unlike Good-aligned people, who might work together to further a cause they deem righteous; or Neutral-aligned people, who might join up to further an enterprise which holds no moral bearings, or an ideology which enforces balance among the forces; Evil-aligned people seek partnerships for mutual personal gain. And unlike people of the former two alignments, Evil people will readily abandon an enterprise or organization once it no longer benefits them and their own interests.
In the end, someone is "evil" because they care about themselves. Very rarely do people actively serve any sort of "Greater Evil" or support what they deem to be an unrighteous cause—this sort of behavior is typically reserved for the truly Evil, such as Demons and malevolent deities. While yes, some people can emulate these behaviors, just like some emulate the True Neutral of nature or the True Good of some deities, I suspect such emulators are either deluded or arrogantly self-absorbed. Or gods themselves.
Way TL;DR – Evil people are pretty much "self-serving," not really "needlessly evil." Some Evil-aligned people are cruel and malicious, but this is usually ultimately for self-serving reasons, such as the pleasure derived from causing suffering.
Oh and if you seriously read through this entire wall of text, then congratulations! You just survived the overanalytical gauntlet of Nøkkenbuer! I'd give you a badge, but unfortunately I have no such authority.
EDIT: Oh and if you'd rather not read all the crap I just typed, here's a cheat sheet on understanding the alignment system in detail: http://easydamus.com/alignment.html
Imho, if you want to play an actually evil playthrough, you probably shouldnt be looking at rp choices... would it make character sense to commit a given evil act? For a hot-headed character, evil will involve killing some who offend your sensibilities, as with good. You can buy some rep, but I dont see it as realistic to wipe out Beregost and 'atone' by paying off the local priest of Lathander. Thus, if playing crazy evil, I wont buy back very much rep, just enough to get by (3 to 5 usually, maybe up to 8). It makes sense for Sarevok to obsess over maintaining a good reputation, because it was key to gaining control of a city; I doubt charname would have time for such involved plotting.
Playing self-serving evil tends to be closer to neutral than evil in my book, but its not my place to dictate yours!
So why do I play a given alignment for a given character? Its his alignment of course, and I usually have an outline in my mind of what kind of person a given charname is.
From the perspective of the games, especially the Baldur's Gate series, Evil-aligned characters don't necessarily revel in evil for the sake of it. This is what Kagain and Shar-Teel are Evil-aligned despite showing no overt behavior of enjoying evil for evil's sake. This means that either the developers are implying that there's something about their past or behavior which isn't displayed in the games, or that this indicates that not all evil characters enjoy causing suffering and pain to others. The former is admittedly the more reasonable choice, but it doesn't adequately explain the temperaments of some of the evil characters in the games, especially considering their Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom scores—indicating that they're not masterminds of deceiving us into believing they're not much more than just greedy dwarves or misandristic women. (Plus, that argument doesn't give me sufficient enough prompt to construct a mound of endless text!)
As far as I'm concerned, Kagain and Shar-Teel should have been classified as Chaotic Neutral (Evil)—Evil in parantheses to indicate his self-centered tendencies, given the descriptions of the alignments in EasyDamus.com. Since they are not, however, at least one of the following must be true:
(a) the Baldur's Gate games use slightly different alignments than normal Dungeons & Dragons;
(b) the developers did not adequately explain the evilness of characters like Kagain and Shar-Teel;
(c) characters like Kagain and Shar-Teel had been classified the wrong alignments;
(d) EasyDamus.com is defining the alignment classifications somewhat differently than they are defined in traditional Dungeons & Dragons; or
(e) I overanalyzed a simple post and made a fool of myself by not even bothering to check the website I posted, along with the traditional descriptions of each alignment, and I am now in the process of damage control.
I'm not sure, but I suspect many of you will pick (e).
It's just her misandry which is somewhat evil in nature. Overall, however, I don't see her as an evil person anymore than I do Kagain as anything other than a greedy dwarf who doesn't really care about the welfare of others.
@Alexisisinneed
How does being sexist make you evil? 50 years ago almost all men were "sexist"... Shar-Teel's sexism was mostly meant as a joke... But these days you can't even hold a door open for a woman without being called a sexist.
I think Shar-Teel is evil because she's probably murdered random men in her silly duel and laughed about it.
I play it because I don't personally like to take moral sides for the bigger issues (hence Neutral). So I let the Goodn's and the Evilies fight among themselves while I sit back and watch. And tend to be a bit more of a loner (hence the Chaotic designation). My group doesn't trust anyone that hasn't earned it and don't subscribe to any strict code of morality other than stay alive.
However, in role playing my characters, they will often times take a tumble to the dark side owing to the fact that they tend to get a bit power hungry and don't care who they squash on the way down. It's a common failing among CN's.
If you play a lawful character, there are many quests you cannot logically do. I think the most flexible alignment is chaotic neutral (I really should rescue Imoen before something bad happens to her... oh hey, another side quest: that sounds fun!) and the least is lawful neutral, with lawful good coming in second (arguably, you shouldn't side with either faction in BG2 if your alignment is one of these, though a sufficiently wise chaotic or neutral good character would see how siding with the more evil of the two ultimately leads to the greatest good).
Anyone think that Dorn is chaotic evil?
I would re-iterate @Nokkenbuer with the easydamus website that I was just about to link...ha.
Shar-Teel is more complicated, but she joins as "punishment" for losing you to a duel: under your "rule" because you are the stronger and for no other reason (other than that it *might* help her in some way). Her love for violence and her freely expressed hatred for particular things (e.g. men) is pretty obvious. But, chaotic evil is a tricky alignment and I don't know much more about Shar-Teel, as I've only used her a few times since vanilla. Personally, I see her as chaotic evil.
I even more enjoy playing Chaotic Good because that's me on a bad/reckless day. Good times.
I too have a hard time playing Evil characters. I've done some Lawful Evils that are all about status, so they'll do good things as well as bad. I've done Neutral Evils who are quite selfish, but care about their close friends anyway; their party, that is. In the end though, I always get bored of said experiments. I reckon Chaotic Good is how I tend to play!
When I play non-evil characters...I usually choose Lawful Neutral....because Helm! One of my favorite Forgotten Realm Deities, and the One I gravitate to when playing divine spellcasters.
So Lawful Evil when I play Arcane Spellcasters, and Lawful Neutral when I play Divine Spellcasters.
I'm always a bit silly, but today I come with proof...
http://easydamus.com/chaoticneutral.html
"Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment."
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticNeutral
"Typically though, Chaotic Neutral characters do whatever the hell they like and damn the consequences..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Chaotic_Neutral
"A Chaotic Neutral character does not have to be an aimless wanderer; they may have a specific goal in mind, but their methods of achieving that goal are often disorganized, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable."
http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Chaotic_Neutral
"...the only thing predictable about them is their unpredictable natures."
I am not going to get into ANOTHER debate on this topic in this forum. This above is the only relevant one (owing to it being the only one using Dungeons and Dragons in the title, but even that, it's a Wiki so....), and even that doesn't say 'Do whatever you want because you are chaotic'.
I can be quite un-predictable when i want too. That does NOT mean that I am just randomly doing whatever crosses my mind at the time. One is being inscrutable. the other is simply not wanting to actually Play an Alignment.
Finally, anything I have expressed here is simply my way of looking at it. I don't claim to be the keeper of the flame for D&D or Hasbro or Wotc. Nor do I want/expect anyone else to buy into MY philosophy. Believe as YOU choose. For ME, a chaotic person is not "Let's flip a coin and see how the wind is blowing today 'Cuz i am chaotic'".
Nuff said on my part.
But also, logical extremes should not be the definition of alignments either. Just because you are lawful doesn't mean that you are so incredibly rigidly stilted as to be zero dimensional. If that were the case, schizophrenics, who repeat the same sequence over and over and OVER again, or have rituals that MUST be repeated, would be the Ultimate Lawful. That simply isn't the case. Nor are all Chaotics ADHD sufferers.
Alignments are more bents towards a given ethos. A Lawful may appear more organized and predictable, but can still do random stuff. An evil might still save a baby from the ogre, though admittedly usually with some ulterior motive. A good might sacrifice an innocent if they felt that the need was great enough. And a Chaotic might actually have plans and schemes, but just may be more free spirited about how they go about them. etc...
In the end, Alignment is the journey that you take, not the destination. It should be guidelines, not absolute black and white.
All in my humble opinion.
Most commonly I play Good-aligned, but fairly often Neutral and sometimes Evil.
My characters are pretty evenly-split between Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic.
My alignment choices are driven by my concept of the character I'm rolling up, and by what choice of NPC companions I imagine such a character would recruit. I always build a character with the intention of playing through the whole series, which makes a difference because (although there's a wide choice of companions of all alignments in BG1) the choices in BG2 are more limited, and in particular there aren't so many different ways to assemble an Evil (or indeed Neutral) party in BG2. I don't like to play the same party over and over, I prefer exploring a different mix of characters each time, but always a mix which I can see as credible for the protagonist to have chosen. There's more variety of team-selection for Good characters, so there are more Good playthroughs which I have either tried or plan to try.
Unlike some other players, I don't see my in-game characters as a projection of "the real me". They're exercises in imaginative fiction and explorations of playing-style.
If Overhaul wish in future to expand replayability even further by introducing more new characters in BG2ee, then they should certainly focus on developing one or two more Neutral-aligned NPCs, to maximise utility for parties of various alignments. (I argued the same even before they introduced Hexxat, who IMO was a mistake, but it's no use re-hashing the past.)
I do really like the idea behind lawful evil if I play evil it tends to be that alignment