I guess my main point above was that if we don't subconsciously humanize Viconia because she looks like an attractive female human being, and is placed in a classic damsel in distress scenario, then would a Good/Lawful character really kill an (albeit questionable) Flaming Fist soldier to defend her?
Speaking personally, I would still say "yes." Quite simply, the soldier's behavior just rubs me the wrong way, and I just can't bring myself to say, "Go ahead and just kill that person/thing (or whatever) in cold blood," no matter how many times I look over the dialogue options.
Remember that if you are seriously roleplaying the scenario, you cannot use metagame knowledge about how you can redeem Viconia in the long run via romance, to make a decision about her in the present.
For the record, I don't do that. First of all, I've never even engaged in Viconia's romance in BG2, as I typically play as a female character. Second, I typically don't use Viconia in my BG2 party (although I do rescue her there as well) - and it's typically because I quickly get rubbed the wrong way by the way that she starts antagonizing Aerie (who is a staple of my BG2 parties) as soon as I rescue her. As I noted in my OP, Viconia is portrayed as much more ostensibly "evil" in BG2 than in BG1 - but that's just one of numerous discrepancies that exist between the two games (and one of several reasons that I'm not the world's biggest fan of BG2).
I guess a lot depends on your interpretation of evil in the FR setting. If you take a fairly simplistic view that evil deities are objectively evil, and races/individuals can be objectively evil, then "racism" is easier to justify than if "Drow and Beholders are evil because of their harsh environment and they need to be evil to survive." I know the subject is further complicated by lore inconsistency and development.
But even if you accept that it's OK to view an entire race as inherently evil, couldn't it still be argued that cold-bloodedly murdering someone else (which is what Kivan and the Fist mercenary attempted to do to Viconia) is still an inherently evil act?
But if Viconia were truly adhering to this principle, wouldn't she have sided with whoever was the controlling force in the Underdark, and still be worshiping Lolth?
As her bio states, she's actually put her life in danger by leaving the Underdark and turning her back on Lolth.
Oh wow... Fun and games, huh? Still, I don't think I want to know the worst things you've been called.
Yeah, not everyone will follow the same form of "good" actions. Nothing is ever easy, dealing with someone like Viconia, even moral codes aren't always simple. I recall recently during Mazzy's banter with Neera she tried to ask Neera what her moral code is, and she got Mazzy all confused by telling her that she has no "code" and that "codes" sound fun, but in the end they don't make a clear message. Her point in the conversation is that having the morals of a paladin may sound like the best ethical thing to have, but in the end it doesn't mean you'll always do the right thing just because you're good aligned.
Yep, you're right, it's mostly because she knows he's a Bhaalspawn, it's also the main reason she is attracted to him. I suppose I should be thankful that my Charname is not weak.
Please, don't get upset at people who believe that siding with Viccy over Kivan is a "good" act, it's all in their point of view and mine. It's like someone saying that siding with the Stormcloaks over the Imperials in Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim is a good act. Whether it is a good act or not depends on the perspective of the player. It's tough to remember that games like Baldur's Gate don't force you to make the most "ethical" choice, and if there is an ethical choice, sometimes it isn't so clear to define.
I don't know, Drizzt might preach a lot, but he has done some nasty stuff before. He doesn't seem to have any problems with killing defenseless enemies, including paralyzed or fleeing enemies-and he's tortured enemies for information on at least one occasion.
Among the reasons why I don't care overly much for him-he can be rather sanctimonious IMO-personally It doesn't surprise me overly much that he might attack you, esp in BG II if he finds out you attacked him in BG I.
[quote]But even if you accept that it's OK to view an entire race as inherently evil, couldn't it still be argued that cold-bloodedly murdering someone else (which is what Kivan and the Fist mercenary attempted to do to Viconia) is still an inherently evil act?[/quote]
I don't disagree with this, but now that I think about it, pretty much all of the NPC conflicts climax with the good-aligned NPC attacking the evil-aligned one (well, there's also Aerie who just runs away from Korgan/whines at you about him, but she's also scared of the dark, so no surprise there). Minsc attacking Edwin for taunting him about Dynaheir is about as understandable as it gets, Valygar attacks Viconia for a much less serious taunt, numerous NPCs attack Hexxat for being a vampire and Keldorn attacks Viconia for, well, existing. Keldorn also makes his comment about how all Sahuagin ought to be eliminated (and I always double cross whoever I sided with anyways, not just for the XP/loot but because I have no problem with justifying it from a roleplaying perspective with a good party because they are both evil and they both did try to manipulate me and use me for their own ends). So I think that we are meant to think that it's not evil to go around casually killing creatures if it's known that they are evil.
On the other hand, there is Madulf and his ogres (although I've forgotten whether they detect as evil or not) who are not the ones responsible for the Innesvale troubles and end up in a mutually beneficial relationship with the village. So the games seem like they can go either way on these issues.
Sorry, I don't recall him killing a defenseless enemy in the novels, coming close to doing so or almost harming someone innocent... Unless he was in the "Hunter" mode because when that happens, he nearly loses control to this animalistic personality, regressing into a bestial, instinctive and powerful fighter.
Sanctimonious, shmanctimonious. That is in the game, and the games are usually not canon material to Wizards of the Coast for reasons beyond multiple choices and endings. Apparently BioWare wanted players who attacked Drizzt to face the consequences of their actions in BG2.
He kills a *lot* of defenseless folk in "Hunter" mode though, and never seems to have any qualms about his actions afterwards.
And he certainly wasn't in hunter mode when he tortured and executed the Orc Shaman he captured in one of those books.
At any rate, he's definitely not someone who you'd want to get on the bad side of, he doesn't seem to be inclined to give quarter, and has no problem killing anyone he might think are evil.
So I think that we are meant to think that it's not evil to go around casually killing creatures if it's known that they are evil.
If I'm genuinely RPing a good-aligned character, I find it very hard to bring myself to kill, or allow someone else to kill, someone in cold blood, even if they are considered "evil." For example, if I'm genuinely RPing, I will usually allow someone like Tranzig to live once he has given us his information and begs for his life. I suppose that my reasoning is, there has to be something that distinguishes good and evil-aligned characters from one another, and this is it. Maybe that's an overly idealistic way of looking at things, but then again, the game is considered a fantasy for a reason. ;-)
But I will now contradict myself somewhat and admit that the one scenario where I sometimes depart from this principle is the altercation between Aldeth and the druids. I suppose that it's because Aldeth starts off by insulting my intelligence with a sugar-coated story that is clearly BS, and then it's revealed that he inexplicably "forgot" to mention the simple detail of him having killed one of the druids. If I'm RPing a lawful good character, I will still usually try to quell the disagreement (which causes the druids to turn hostile), but if I'm playing as a neutral or chaotic good character, I may consider the "Screw you Aldeth, Imma going home!" option, and leave him to fend for himself.
I mostly agree with what you say, and I'm all for "gray" characters, but I don't see Viconia as gray at all... I think she just plays everyone for fools, either that or she has a split personality disorder. One minute she's playing the damsel, being well mannered and grateful, and the next she's calling you things like "pathetic"... "weakling"... "surface scum".
But back to the topic of Viconia, yes she is highly manipulative, using every trick she has to keep herself alive. That's her brand of Neutral evil, looking out for herself with no regard for other people.
Maybe it's just me, but I never got the feeling that Viconia was "manipulative," at least not in BG1 (can't/won't speak as much for BG2) - in fact, she seems to be quite brutally honest. She acknowledges that she may not appear trustworthy because she is a drow, but also bluntly admits that she "needs friends now more than ever," and says that she will make a useful ally if you allow her to join (and is true to her word). Her bio indicates that she has separated herself somewhat from drow culture, but not entirely, and this is consistent with her personality (i.e: she serves your cause faithfully, but still expresses some of her old disdain for things like "surface dwellers" and the sun). Still, as someone else already pointed out, there is at least one dialogue option where she tries to extend an olive branch to Kivan (which he rejects), and if Kivan is killed, she will lament, "Kivan and I never really understood each other" (whereas if Viconia is killed, Kivan will scream out, "May Viconia's soul rot in hell!").
I don't view Viconia in the same way as NPCs like Safana or Eldoth, who clearly try to manipulate you in order to achieve a certain goal. In fact, Safana fits the mold for "neutral evil" moreso than Viconia IMO - even in their respective BG2 incarnations, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has played the game.
'Spin facts'? He tortured and murdered a captive (one of the few times he actually bothered taking captives)
'losing it' and doing brutal, brutal things in 'Hunter mode' is something he does on a regular basis, and even when he's not doing so, he's rarely one to show quarter to his enemies, or any sort of sympathy really.
My impression from the ~6 Drizzt books I have read is that there's some sort of hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance going on with Drizzt. When chapters are filled with Drizzt carving up orcs and/or drow wholesale, the moralizing monologues in-between just fall a bit flat for me.
Personally, I find his hostility perfectly in-line. If anything it would be more likely for him to not even bother talking with you if you had Viconia tagging along with you when you met him.
On the other hand, there is Madulf and his ogres (although I've forgotten whether they detect as evil or not) who are not the ones responsible for the Innesvale troubles and end up in a mutually beneficial relationship with the village. So the games seem like they can go either way on these issues.
Madulf would show up as ally on the pallies radar.
So I think that we are meant to think that it's not evil to go around casually killing creatures if it's known that they are evil.
If I'm genuinely RPing a good-aligned character, I find it very hard to bring myself to kill, or allow someone else to kill, someone in cold blood, even if they are considered "evil." For example, if I'm genuinely RPing, I will usually allow someone like Tranzig to live once he has given us his information and begs for his life. I suppose that my reasoning is, there has to be something that distinguishes good and evil-aligned characters from one another, and this is it. Maybe that's an overly idealistic way of looking at things, but then again, the game is considered a fantasy for a reason. ;-)
Sorry for the not-quite necro, but -
I think that it's what distinguishes lawful and chaotic from each other. It's not just about "following rules" but also "accepting truisms and conventional wisdom," the truism in this case being "All drow are evil and deserve to die." Take BG2, for example. Keldorn, Anomen, and Aerie? All interject and are entirely in favor of letting Viccy burn (incidentally, I consider Aerie the one who antagonizes Viccy, not the other way around. I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to be nice to someone who's never met me and yet is advocating for my death. And when Viccy asks to join, Aerie's the one who interjects and goes after Viccy and repeats the "all drow are terrible" line. During the banters after they've both joined, of course, is another story). That's two of the three lawful good characters, plus lawful neutral Anomen. Nalia and Minsc and Jaheira, on the other hand, are in favor of saving her. That's the chaotic/neutral good characters, plus neutral-good-in-all-but-name.
Mazzy and Valygar don't say anything but that's, I think, a function of how chances are really, really slim that you're going to end up in the Umar Hills before you find the crowd burning Viconia in a normal playthrough more than anything else, and poor Imoen, of course, is away in Spellhold.
So I think that we are meant to think that it's not evil to go around casually killing creatures if it's known that they are evil.
If I'm genuinely RPing a good-aligned character, I find it very hard to bring myself to kill, or allow someone else to kill, someone in cold blood, even if they are considered "evil." For example, if I'm genuinely RPing, I will usually allow someone like Tranzig to live once he has given us his information and begs for his life. I suppose that my reasoning is, there has to be something that distinguishes good and evil-aligned characters from one another, and this is it. Maybe that's an overly idealistic way of looking at things, but then again, the game is considered a fantasy for a reason. ;-)
Sorry for the not-quite necro, but -
I think that it's what distinguishes lawful and chaotic from each other. It's not just about "following rules" but also "accepting truisms and conventional wisdom," the truism in this case being "All drow are evil and deserve to die." Take BG2, for example. Keldorn, Anomen, and Aerie? All interject and are entirely in favor of letting Viccy burn (incidentally, I consider Aerie the one who antagonizes Viccy, not the other way around. I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to be nice to someone who's never met me and yet is advocating for my death. And when Viccy asks to join, Aerie's the one who interjects and goes after Viccy and repeats the "all drow are terrible" line. During the banters after they've both joined, of course, is another story). That's two of the three lawful good characters, plus lawful neutral Anomen. Nalia and Minsc and Jaheira, on the other hand, are in favor of saving her. That's the chaotic/neutral good characters, plus neutral-good-in-all-but-name.
Mazzy and Valygar don't say anything but that's, I think, a function of how chances are really, really slim that you're going to end up in the Umar Hills before you find the crowd burning Viconia in a normal playthrough more than anything else, and poor Imoen, of course, is away in Spellhold.
Very insightful post.
It actually coincides a bit with my current playthrough, where I'm RPing a neutral good barbarian. I saved Viconia from the Flaming Fist (and also from Kivan, as you can see from this thread), yet I turned against Aldeth during the encounter with the druids. Some people here might argue (quite understandably, admittedly) that these actions contradict each other, while others might say that I'm too easily impressionable when RPing.
The way I imagine it, as a non-lawful barbarian who grew up in a rather incongruous setting of a secluded library fortress, my character feels a sort of empathy with people who are considered social outcasts or deviate from social norms in some way, while also taking a dislike to "elitist" characters who look down on others and try to use their social standing to justify or enforce their actions. Consequently, when my character sees Viconia being pursued by a Flaming Fist soldier who is intent on killing her, without allowing her the benefit of a fair trial due to the color of her skin, she is compelled to intervene on Viconia's behalf, if only just to stop the soldier from killing her outright. By contrast, my character had initially agreed to help Aldeth, but when the druids revealed that he had killed one of their own and Aldeth snobbishly "refuted" their claims by dismissing all druids as "lying savages," my character decided that she had heard enough of his sugar-coated bulls**t and told him to fend for himself.
That's two of the three lawful good characters, plus lawful neutral Anomen.
I should add that Anomen shows what a chauvinist pig he is in that exchange. First he advocates burning Viconia, then he relents and becomes agreeable to allowing her in the party once he realizes how "striking" she is.
@SharGuideMyHand said: I should add that Anomen shows what a chauvinist pig he is in that exchange. First he advocates burning Viconia, then he relents and becomes agreeable to allowing her in the party once he realizes how "striking" she is.
Yeah, that line always bugged me too. I have long suspected that Viconia’s portrait has contributed to her popularity among some of the gentlemen gamers, especially in good aligned parties. She strikes me as pretty abusive in BGII. Even though I have always had a soft spot for her, knowing what she had to endure to survive. I always can find a role play reason to save her, even if I don’t keep her in my party long.
From a role-playing perspective, I normally save Viconia then leave her be. I don't trust her that much, but I won't kill her. However, in the conversation*, Kivan is the aggressor yet Viconia escalates the situation. I say let them fight it out. They both handled the situation poorly.
1. Kivan says he doesn't trust her. He says she's evil. 2. Viconia replies with a threat to kill him [if he continues saying he distrusts her and that she's evil?]. 3. Kivan calls her bluff. 4. They fight.
Two things that are worth pointing out here IMO: 1. Viconia didn't initially escalate the situation - at first she tried to diffuse it by reassuring Kivan that she no longer worshiped Lolth. It was only after he continued to harass her that she tried to warn him off. 2. Despite Viconia's threat, it was still Kivan who decided to turn the argument into a physical altercation, and he attacked Viconia first (I don't think the screenshots captured it, but he did indeed attack first).
I guess my main point above was that if we don't subconsciously humanize Viconia because she looks like an attractive female human being, and is placed in a classic damsel in distress scenario, then would a Good/Lawful character really kill an (albeit questionable) Flaming Fist soldier to defend her? It's not like she's completely helpless, she does fight back against the soldier.
Remember that if you are seriously roleplaying the scenario, you cannot use metagame knowledge about how you can redeem Viconia in the long run via romance, to make a decision about her in the present.
I just think it is rather unfair to judge Good characters' intolerance and hostility towards evil characters and races based on modern sensibilities, when the setting is clearly much darker and much more dangerous than even our own Medieval Age.
I guess a lot depends on your interpretation of evil in the FR setting. If you take a fairly simplistic view that evil deities are objectively evil, and races/individuals can be objectively evil, then "racism" is easier to justify than if "Drow and Beholders are evil because of their harsh environment and they need to be evil to survive." I know the subject is further complicated by lore inconsistency and development.
Even without any metagame knowledge, a Good character should probably give redemption a shot, anyway. That is, unless one of those alignment exceptions is manifesting itself. Perfectly natural, every character has them.
Furthermore, MONSTER X in your hypothetical scenario is being attacked first, by a mercenary who intends to simply skewer it/him/her for some crime about which the details are incredibly vague. MONSTER X begs for your help, which it would not need if it were a beholder or mind flayer, so let's assume it's a gnoll or hobgoblin. Now, perhaps it wouldn't be a citizen of the Realms' first instinct to help out this creature, but then most citizens of the realm are not actually Good-aligned. Especially for a Paladin, whose desire to do good is informed by a code of conduct that includes things like not slaughtering beings that beg for mercy or help, being of Good alignment is a completely different mindset than Neutral.
So, my verdict is that a Good character might refuse to help Viconia when she's being prejudiced against, but a Good character unwilling to hear out the pleas of others probably isn't going to remain Good for long.
You just murdered the only likeable elf in the Forgotten Realms.
Kivan was only speaking the truth and proved his point perfectly.
Proved his point...by throwing the first proverbial punch?
Read it again.
KIVAN: "How are we to trust one who venerates the Spider Queen?" Seems like a reasonable question to ask. Considering Lolth is a choatic evil goddess of chaos, assassins, poison, trickery, and sacrificing babies according to Viconia... You'd have to be kind of foolish not to ask such a question.
VICONIA: "I worship Lolth no longer." Oh right. She swapped one EVIL diety for another... Good to know.
KIVAN: "Your evil ways will bring your ruin, dark elf." He's not blinded, he knows she still worships evil. His question is no different than saying gambling will ruin you or too much drinking will ruin you. But some people don't like the truth.
VICONIA: "If you wish to die, I am pleased to assist." This is the first "proverbial punch", an open and happy threat to kill him, and for what exactly? Would she kill you for saying the same things?
KIVAN: "You dark-hearted bitch! You'll die for that!" Notice Kivan only stops being reasonable after SHE openly threatened to kill him.
*Party kills Kivan because he tried to help. He wouldn't have asked the questions if he didn't give a damn about the group's safety.*
The final part is what seems to confuse people most. She say... VICONIA: "You have been very kind to me in this strange and lighted world. Perhaps you are right, though. The drow were meant to be a race apart... Take care of yourselves, all right?"
Wow, she actually seems pretty grateful and nice. Until you realize she always says this when leaving a BAD REP group. It has nothing to do with Kivan.
In the exact same situation with a GOOD REP group she says... VICONIA: "A welcome release. Your weakling surface ways have left a bitter taste in my mouth. Perhaps I should seek shelter back under the cover of the earth. I understood my fellows there."
Sooo, he was asleep...you Imoen murdered him in his sleep? A NG murdered a CG to save a NE? And she did it in COLD BLOODED fashion (<----PUN, right there another pun, re-read it! Brilliant, right? I want a ppun badge!).
I think just kicking him out of the party while he was asleep would have sufficed. How do you sleep at night?
@Lateralus Good eye. But they were technically already kicked, and their fight never stops until one them is taking a dirt nap. It's always a lose one or both situation.
You just murdered the only likeable elf in the Forgotten Realms.
Kivan was only speaking the truth and proved his point perfectly.
Proved his point...by throwing the first proverbial punch?
Read it again.
KIVAN: "How are we to trust one who venerates the Spider Queen?" Seems like a reasonable question to ask. Considering Lolth is a choatic evil goddess of chaos, assassins, poison, trickery, and sacrificing babies according to Viconia... You'd have to be kind of foolish not to ask such a question.
VICONIA: "I worship Lolth no longer." Oh right. She swapped one EVIL diety for another... Good to know.
KIVAN: "Your evil ways will bring your ruin, dark elf." He's not blinded, he knows she still worships evil. His question is no different than saying gambling will ruin you or too much drinking will ruin you. But some people don't like the truth.
VICONIA: "If you wish to die, I am pleased to assist." This is the first "proverbial punch", an open and happy threat to kill him, and for what exactly? Would she kill you for saying the same things?
KIVAN: "You dark-hearted bitch! You'll die for that!" Notice Kivan only stops being reasonable after SHE openly threatened to kill him.
*Party kills Kivan because he tried to help. He wouldn't have asked the questions if he didn't give a damn about the group's safety.*
The final part is what seems to confuse people most. She say... VICONIA: "You have been very kind to me in this strange and lighted world. Perhaps you are right, though. The drow were meant to be a race apart... Take care of yourselves, all right?"
Wow, she actually seems pretty grateful and nice. Until you realize she always says this when leaving a BAD REP group. It has nothing to do with Kivan.
In the exact same situation with a GOOD REP group she says... VICONIA: "A welcome release. Your weakling surface ways have left a bitter taste in my mouth. Perhaps I should seek shelter back under the cover of the earth. I understood my fellows there."
Kivan is the one who physically attacks first. Viconia tells him to back off with that threat, not that she's going to kill him as a matter of course.
Sooo, he was asleep...you Imoen murdered him in his sleep?
Imoen triggered her wand at the exact same instance in which Tiax "commanded" Kivan to sleep. The sleep spell acts instantaneously, whereas the wand takes a second or two to fire off. Also, Imoen had fired her wand with the expectation that the command spell wouldn't work, since elves are supposed to have high resistances to sleep magic.
Comments
For the record, I don't do that. First of all, I've never even engaged in Viconia's romance in BG2, as I typically play as a female character. Second, I typically don't use Viconia in my BG2 party (although I do rescue her there as well) - and it's typically because I quickly get rubbed the wrong way by the way that she starts antagonizing Aerie (who is a staple of my BG2 parties) as soon as I rescue her. As I noted in my OP, Viconia is portrayed as much more ostensibly "evil" in BG2 than in BG1 - but that's just one of numerous discrepancies that exist between the two games (and one of several reasons that I'm not the world's biggest fan of BG2).
But even if you accept that it's OK to view an entire race as inherently evil, couldn't it still be argued that cold-bloodedly murdering someone else (which is what Kivan and the Fist mercenary attempted to do to Viconia) is still an inherently evil act?
As her bio states, she's actually put her life in danger by leaving the Underdark and turning her back on Lolth.
Oh wow... Fun and games, huh? Still, I don't think I want to know the worst things you've been called.
Yeah, not everyone will follow the same form of "good" actions. Nothing is ever easy, dealing with someone like Viconia, even moral codes aren't always simple. I recall recently during Mazzy's banter with Neera she tried to ask Neera what her moral code is, and she got Mazzy all confused by telling her that she has no "code" and that "codes" sound fun, but in the end they don't make a clear message. Her point in the conversation is that having the morals of a paladin may sound like the best ethical thing to have, but in the end it doesn't mean you'll always do the right thing just because you're good aligned.
Yep, you're right, it's mostly because she knows he's a Bhaalspawn, it's also the main reason she is attracted to him. I suppose I should be thankful that my Charname is not weak.
Please, don't get upset at people who believe that siding with Viccy over Kivan is a "good" act, it's all in their point of view and mine. It's like someone saying that siding with the Stormcloaks over the Imperials in Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim is a good act. Whether it is a good act or not depends on the perspective of the player. It's tough to remember that games like Baldur's Gate don't force you to make the most "ethical" choice, and if there is an ethical choice, sometimes it isn't so clear to define.
I don't know, Drizzt might preach a lot, but he has done some nasty stuff before. He doesn't seem to have any problems with killing defenseless enemies, including paralyzed or fleeing enemies-and he's tortured enemies for information on at least one occasion.
Among the reasons why I don't care overly much for him-he can be rather sanctimonious IMO-personally It doesn't surprise me overly much that he might attack you, esp in BG II if he finds out you attacked him in BG I.
I don't disagree with this, but now that I think about it, pretty much all of the NPC conflicts climax with the good-aligned NPC attacking the evil-aligned one (well, there's also Aerie who just runs away from Korgan/whines at you about him, but she's also scared of the dark, so no surprise there). Minsc attacking Edwin for taunting him about Dynaheir is about as understandable as it gets, Valygar attacks Viconia for a much less serious taunt, numerous NPCs attack Hexxat for being a vampire and Keldorn attacks Viconia for, well, existing. Keldorn also makes his comment about how all Sahuagin ought to be eliminated (and I always double cross whoever I sided with anyways, not just for the XP/loot but because I have no problem with justifying it from a roleplaying perspective with a good party because they are both evil and they both did try to manipulate me and use me for their own ends). So I think that we are meant to think that it's not evil to go around casually killing creatures if it's known that they are evil.
On the other hand, there is Madulf and his ogres (although I've forgotten whether they detect as evil or not) who are not the ones responsible for the Innesvale troubles and end up in a mutually beneficial relationship with the village. So the games seem like they can go either way on these issues.
Sorry, I don't recall him killing a defenseless enemy in the novels, coming close to doing so or almost harming someone innocent... Unless he was in the "Hunter" mode because when that happens, he nearly loses control to this animalistic personality, regressing into a bestial, instinctive and powerful fighter.
Sanctimonious, shmanctimonious. That is in the game, and the games are usually not canon material to Wizards of the Coast for reasons beyond multiple choices and endings. Apparently BioWare wanted players who attacked Drizzt to face the consequences of their actions in BG2.
He kills a *lot* of defenseless folk in "Hunter" mode though, and never seems to have any qualms about his actions afterwards.
And he certainly wasn't in hunter mode when he tortured and executed the Orc Shaman he captured in one of those books.
At any rate, he's definitely not someone who you'd want to get on the bad side of, he doesn't seem to be inclined to give quarter, and has no problem killing anyone he might think are evil.
But I will now contradict myself somewhat and admit that the one scenario where I sometimes depart from this principle is the altercation between Aldeth and the druids. I suppose that it's because Aldeth starts off by insulting my intelligence with a sugar-coated story that is clearly BS, and then it's revealed that he inexplicably "forgot" to mention the simple detail of him having killed one of the druids. If I'm RPing a lawful good character, I will still usually try to quell the disagreement (which causes the druids to turn hostile), but if I'm playing as a neutral or chaotic good character, I may consider the "Screw you Aldeth, Imma going home!" option, and leave him to fend for himself.
I don't view Viconia in the same way as NPCs like Safana or Eldoth, who clearly try to manipulate you in order to achieve a certain goal. In fact, Safana fits the mold for "neutral evil" moreso than Viconia IMO - even in their respective BG2 incarnations, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has played the game.
Well hey, no matter how you look at it, no matter how you spin facts, the truth is nobody is perfect.
'Spin facts'? He tortured and murdered a captive (one of the few times he actually bothered taking captives)
'losing it' and doing brutal, brutal things in 'Hunter mode' is something he does on a regular basis, and even when he's not doing so, he's rarely one to show quarter to his enemies, or any sort of sympathy really.
My impression from the ~6 Drizzt books I have read is that there's some sort of hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance going on with Drizzt. When chapters are filled with Drizzt carving up orcs and/or drow wholesale, the moralizing monologues in-between just fall a bit flat for me.
Personally, I find his hostility perfectly in-line. If anything it would be more likely for him to not even bother talking with you if you had Viconia tagging along with you when you met him.
Madulf would show up as ally on the pallies radar.
I think that it's what distinguishes lawful and chaotic from each other. It's not just about "following rules" but also "accepting truisms and conventional wisdom," the truism in this case being "All drow are evil and deserve to die." Take BG2, for example. Keldorn, Anomen, and Aerie? All interject and are entirely in favor of letting Viccy burn (incidentally, I consider Aerie the one who antagonizes Viccy, not the other way around. I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to be nice to someone who's never met me and yet is advocating for my death. And when Viccy asks to join, Aerie's the one who interjects and goes after Viccy and repeats the "all drow are terrible" line. During the banters after they've both joined, of course, is another story). That's two of the three lawful good characters, plus lawful neutral Anomen. Nalia and Minsc and Jaheira, on the other hand, are in favor of saving her. That's the chaotic/neutral good characters, plus neutral-good-in-all-but-name.
Mazzy and Valygar don't say anything but that's, I think, a function of how chances are really, really slim that you're going to end up in the Umar Hills before you find the crowd burning Viconia in a normal playthrough more than anything else, and poor Imoen, of course, is away in Spellhold.
It actually coincides a bit with my current playthrough, where I'm RPing a neutral good barbarian. I saved Viconia from the Flaming Fist (and also from Kivan, as you can see from this thread), yet I turned against Aldeth during the encounter with the druids. Some people here might argue (quite understandably, admittedly) that these actions contradict each other, while others might say that I'm too easily impressionable when RPing.
The way I imagine it, as a non-lawful barbarian who grew up in a rather incongruous setting of a secluded library fortress, my character feels a sort of empathy with people who are considered social outcasts or deviate from social norms in some way, while also taking a dislike to "elitist" characters who look down on others and try to use their social standing to justify or enforce their actions. Consequently, when my character sees Viconia being pursued by a Flaming Fist soldier who is intent on killing her, without allowing her the benefit of a fair trial due to the color of her skin, she is compelled to intervene on Viconia's behalf, if only just to stop the soldier from killing her outright. By contrast, my character had initially agreed to help Aldeth, but when the druids revealed that he had killed one of their own and Aldeth snobbishly "refuted" their claims by dismissing all druids as "lying savages," my character decided that she had heard enough of his sugar-coated bulls**t and told him to fend for himself.
Yeah, that line always bugged me too.
1. Viconia didn't initially escalate the situation - at first she tried to diffuse it by reassuring Kivan that she no longer worshiped Lolth. It was only after he continued to harass her that she tried to warn him off.
2. Despite Viconia's threat, it was still Kivan who decided to turn the argument into a physical altercation, and he attacked Viconia first (I don't think the screenshots captured it, but he did indeed attack first).
Furthermore, MONSTER X in your hypothetical scenario is being attacked first, by a mercenary who intends to simply skewer it/him/her for some crime about which the details are incredibly vague. MONSTER X begs for your help, which it would not need if it were a beholder or mind flayer, so let's assume it's a gnoll or hobgoblin. Now, perhaps it wouldn't be a citizen of the Realms' first instinct to help out this creature, but then most citizens of the realm are not actually Good-aligned. Especially for a Paladin, whose desire to do good is informed by a code of conduct that includes things like not slaughtering beings that beg for mercy or help, being of Good alignment is a completely different mindset than Neutral.
So, my verdict is that a Good character might refuse to help Viconia when she's being prejudiced against, but a Good character unwilling to hear out the pleas of others probably isn't going to remain Good for long.
KIVAN: "How are we to trust one who venerates the Spider Queen?"
Seems like a reasonable question to ask. Considering Lolth is a choatic evil goddess of chaos, assassins, poison, trickery, and sacrificing babies according to Viconia... You'd have to be kind of foolish not to ask such a question.
VICONIA: "I worship Lolth no longer."
Oh right. She swapped one EVIL diety for another... Good to know.
KIVAN: "Your evil ways will bring your ruin, dark elf."
He's not blinded, he knows she still worships evil. His question is no different than saying gambling will ruin you or too much drinking will ruin you. But some people don't like the truth.
VICONIA: "If you wish to die, I am pleased to assist."
This is the first "proverbial punch", an open and happy threat to kill him, and for what exactly? Would she kill you for saying the same things?
KIVAN: "You dark-hearted bitch! You'll die for that!"
Notice Kivan only stops being reasonable after SHE openly threatened to kill him.
*Party kills Kivan because he tried to help. He wouldn't have asked the questions if he didn't give a damn about the group's safety.*
The final part is what seems to confuse people most. She say...
VICONIA: "You have been very kind to me in this strange and lighted world. Perhaps you are right, though. The drow were meant to be a race apart... Take care of yourselves, all right?"
Wow, she actually seems pretty grateful and nice. Until you realize she always says this when leaving a BAD REP group. It has nothing to do with Kivan.
In the exact same situation with a GOOD REP group she says...
VICONIA: "A welcome release. Your weakling surface ways have left a bitter taste in my mouth. Perhaps I should seek shelter back under the cover of the earth. I understood my fellows there."
I think just kicking him out of the party while he was asleep would have sufficed. How do you sleep at night?
Good eye. But they were technically already kicked, and their fight never stops until one them is taking a dirt nap. It's always a lose one or both situation.