Korgan: If healing isn't available, then it's a "needs of the many" thing, got the dialogues in question to read? If someone draws a weapon at you during an argument and you win, that's not so much "you murdered them" as it is "they lost a fight they initiated". And come on, the rest of the party betrayed him, cut him out of the loop, murdered his contact, and absconded with the book and the money. If we're talking bad deeds then I'm really not seeing this as being anything out of
Edwin: Actually I comparatively recently discovered that if you don't accept him into the team, he specifically mentions going to get paid by a third party who are the reason he's there. He's quite clear on it, Guy's getting paid for his time, getting his underlings to fetch his subscription to Rashemi Babes Weekly, and putting out a hit on a Cowled Wizard, who are generally insufferable.
Keldorn: Look at what Talosians do. They murder a bunch of Lathander worshippers and steal their stuff! Keldorn: Hmm.... Well I do like that they live in a temple next to my house and have light skin. I give them a pass. Look at what Viconia does. Sort of... Exists and is rude to everyone? Honestly Keldorn doesn't pick any particular occasion of her being evil so much as "I'm going to kill you, person who has been silently and faithfully accompanying me on this quest to save orphans from slavery, and who just saved a beggar from persecution". Keldorn: Eat sword, drow! Let's also consider that CHARNAME can *actually be a Dark Moon Monk*. Keldorn: Well, they weren't slightly rude to me in the sewers, so they not only get a pass, I will travel with them. Soulaufein is not really an example, since Keldorn gets equally little say in whether you murder deep gnomes or drow captains, you're all undercover, you want to survive, the paladin keeps his racist mouth shut and doesn't murder an entire city full of drow until you give the word.
Paladins are terrible, terrible people, and the clear difference between Keldorn and Edwin? Edwin is way, way more tolerant of backchat from you.
Valygar/Minsc: It's alright to kill anyone who society deems is evil based on their race and religion, but not okay to kill people who draw steel and actively try to kill you? I get the feeling if Aerie's alignment was listed as "Lawful Evil" we'd be discussing the fact that Anomen tries to kill *her* in a favourable light, eh?
We're talking meta? Pfffft. Without alignment being front and centre on the character record I wonder if we'd be talking about such a thing?
Liiiittle bit uncomfortable with all the people saying that we should be killing people for their choice of deity though. You do realise that there are nonevil clerics of Shar, right? Like the Darkcloaks? Or is the idea that "people should not be murdered for having bizarre beliefs" an unpopular opinion?
You are talking about meta here guys. From what you know of the evil NPCs when you meet them you should never have them join you if you're even half sane. All the arguments about what actually happens later aren't really important.
But if staying true to lore everyone should kill Viconia for being a priestess of Shar, yes even evil charnames unless you yourself also worship Shar.
Edvin is a red wizard, noone would ever trust a red wizard, not even red wizards!
Korgan is odd and doesn't really fit as CE, but from your initial conversations with him you would be crazy to have him at your back, or front, or anywhere around you really.
Dorn and Hexxat are CE as in crazy evil, that's not a good alignment.
I think it's pretty "meta" to know who the hell Shar is in the first place.
For me, as a bhaalspawn, all the deities mentioned are taken with a large pinch of salt. If you don't take the view that there can be ambiguities between good/evil then it would be best for everyone that Charname commited suicide after reading Gorion's letter. Evil God's blood, exterminate, exterminate............
In fact as Charname, it's imperative for them to allow people the benefit of the doubt as the whole saga rests on that being done for you by Gorion and others.
Not know who Shar is?
Charname grew up in Candlekeep. He should know more than the average guy I'm BG1EE if you help Rasaad you see what kind of murdering bastards Sharans are (killed everyone in the Tempus temple, try to murder your chill friend. You also see how they abuse and murder their initiates) In BG2EE you see how Sharans create a new religion (and how it abuses and tortures initiates) just to kill heretics that they created In BG2EE ToB you see Sharans enslave a dwarven clan, working them to death in the mines
Charname should start off knowing who Shar is and should eventually see how bad she is
-----
As for evil blood and ambiguities...I highly recommend TH White's the Once and Future King. There, Lancelot is good because he has evil urges that shame him. Whenever I play a paladin I use him as a guideline. Someone who acts perfect and is thought of as perfect, but who is deeply ashamed of the evil urges inside of him. He uses that to make himself better. So yeah....
I am Grum! And I like to argue! My apologies forumites if I'm getting annoying
Liiiittle bit uncomfortable with all the people saying that we should be killing people for their choice of deity though. You do realise that there are nonevil clerics of Shar, right? Like the Darkcloaks? Or is the idea that "people should not be murdered for having bizarre beliefs" an unpopular opinion?
Just going to throw my two cents in (I'm loving this debate), but I think you're mixing real world and fantasy a bit here. Yeah, in the real world many beliefs share a core of "be kind to others" so killing someone for their religion is horrible.
In the FR though, you literally have a sentience which urges its followers to commit evil acts so it can become stronger. Most people are aware of Shar as an evil entity. Yes, there are some non-harmful Sharrans, but the majority are manipulative and generally quite evil. People are generally aware of which gods are good and which ones are bad because a deity basically follows their portfolio. If you're a goddess of nihilism and bitterness, you're going to lean that way in your actions.
To use a different example, there's a goddess called Talona who's the goddess of diseases and poisons if I'm not mistaken. Her followers expressly seek to start plagues. Most people wouldn't say, "Well, let's wait to see what they do before we judge" with them either.
I don't think it's out of character for Keldorn to attack a drow worshipper of Shar, despite letting a human worshipper of Talos live. I think it's out of character for Keldorn to let a human worshipper of Talos live, despite attacking a drow worshipper of Shar.
We're way off-topic imho but here goes. From what I understand most evil deities just seek power and to shape the world after their own mind. Lolth for example is basically a demon-goddess of chaos, deceit, backstabbing and most other evil stuff. If she got what she wanted the world would be like drow cities. Not very pleasant, but still alive.
Shar is not like that. Shar wants everything to end. Her church works towards the end of everything, total annihilation. Her coin only has one side, and that is evil. If you willingly follow her, you ARE evil. Even if you don't buy the whole alignment axis, she is the very definition of evil. You can't find one single tenet in her church that says otherwise.
In my first play through I didn't know who Shar was. When Viconia said she worshipped a surface diety I fell for it. Later when I found out that Shar was evil I felt manipulated. Well played Viconia. I'm sure Shar approved
I would also point out that many people worship the Furies, like Talos and Umberlee, to avoid the wrath of the god hitting the city. People keep the temple to Talos around and let those worshippers happen because they're afraid that if they kill them all then the god will strike back in retaliation. The city allows them to stay, so perhaps Keldorn doesn't attack them because then he'd be violating those laws and threatening the safety of the city.
n the FR though, you literally have a sentience which urges its followers to commit evil acts so it can become stronger. Most people are aware of Shar as an evil entity. Yes, there are some non-harmful Sharrans, but the majority are manipulative and generally quite evil. People are generally aware of which gods are good and which ones are bad because a deity basically follows their portfolio. If you're a goddess of nihilism and bitterness, you're going to lean that way in your actions.
To use a different example, there's a goddess called Talona who's the goddess of diseases and poisons if I'm not mistaken. Her followers expressly seek to start plagues. Most people wouldn't say, "Well, let's wait to see what they do before we judge" with them either.
Alright, let's say there exists a religion that literally says the faithful should never help those from outside of the religion, that they are expressly permitted to lie to outsiders, and that it's their religious duty to turn the world a theocracy. That all outsiders should pay them a tax for not sharing their religion, and anyone who leaves their religion must be killed. Meanwhile, they decree that outsider men should be X'd to break their spirit, while faithful men are property lower than a dog and exist completely at the service of the females, and that taking up little girls and boys for lovin' is expressly A-Okay.
We'll call it the Cult of Shar.
Now let's say that a significant group of people who share this religion are moderates. They were raised in this religion, but despite their religion having absolutely nothing whatsoever about being kind to others, they're actually not particularly bad people. They're just regular farmers/hunters/merchants. They might theoretically provide shelter to another Sharran cultist, and might not go too far out of their way to help the neighbours (Helmite scum that they are) but they themselves might permit their menfolk to have opinions and occasionally leave the demonweb pleasure pits, so long as no other Sharrans are watching,
So basically like most people they're kind of obnoxious, but generally just going about their lives. They're Sharrans, they might decide to turn full evil later, or they might aid Algoroth in his evil schemes next time he's in the area, who knows? So kill them too? Yea or nay?
What if they're actually goblins? It's always okay to kill goblins, right? I mean, sooner or later they're going to do something bad so you may as well get in there early.
Shar is the deity of caverns, darkness, dungeons, forgetfulness, loss, night, secrets, and the Underdark, that Viconia worships a deity devoted to all of those things is actually very fitting, and she's kind of a bitch.
Meanwhile Anomen is a cleric of Helm, the deity of duty, protection and guardians. Yet rather than standing guard over things, he goes out and lays down the law and takes the fight to evil. And yes, Anomen is kind of a bitch too.
In the same way Anomen's more into being offensive than defensive, Viconia's not really into the deception and trickery part of Sharran philosophy The Dark Moon is, because they're all about the illusory, deceitful aspects of the faith, but to ascribe everything about one particular sect to every other branch of the faith? Even in the black and white world of D&D permutations exist.
So yeah, unpopular opinion, particularly for D&D: A lot of people are evil, a lot of people have evil religions, but the majority of people are lazy, too busy providing for their five kids (and raising them as devout Sharrans, obviously), or generally just aren't that dedicated to evil. Killing people purely because a spell says their alignment is evil is an evil act in itself.
A true paladin should not be afraid to fight against evil to accomplish their goal when necessary, but should also be willing to consider other options, and even reach out and attempt to befriend and redeem others, otherwise they're simply a bloodthirsty murderer with good PR.
n the FR though, you literally have a sentience which urges its followers to commit evil acts so it can become stronger. Most people are aware of Shar as an evil entity. Yes, there are some non-harmful Sharrans, but the majority are manipulative and generally quite evil. People are generally aware of which gods are good and which ones are bad because a deity basically follows their portfolio. If you're a goddess of nihilism and bitterness, you're going to lean that way in your actions.
To use a different example, there's a goddess called Talona who's the goddess of diseases and poisons if I'm not mistaken. Her followers expressly seek to start plagues. Most people wouldn't say, "Well, let's wait to see what they do before we judge" with them either.
Alright, let's say there exists a religion that literally says the faithful should never help those from outside of the religion, that they are expressly permitted to lie to outsiders, and that it's their religious duty to turn the world a theocracy. That all outsiders should pay them a tax for not sharing their religion, and anyone who leaves their religion must be killed. Meanwhile, they decree that outsider men should be X'd to break their spirit, while faithful men are property lower than a dog and exist completely at the service of the females, and that taking up little girls and boys for lovin' is expressly A-Okay.
We'll call it the Cult of Shar.
Now let's say that a significant group of people who share this religion are moderates. They were raised in this religion, but despite their religion having absolutely nothing whatsoever about being kind to others, they're actually not particularly bad people. They're just regular farmers/hunters/merchants. They might theoretically provide shelter to another Sharran cultist, and might not go too far out of their way to help the neighbours (Helmite scum that they are) but they themselves might permit their menfolk to have opinions and occasionally leave the demonweb pleasure pits, so long as no other Sharrans are watching,
So basically like most people they're kind of obnoxious, but generally just going about their lives. They're Sharrans, they might decide to turn full evil later, or they might aid Algoroth in his evil schemes next time he's in the area, who knows? So kill them too? Yea or nay?
What if they're actually goblins? It's always okay to kill goblins, right? I mean, sooner or later they're going to do something bad so you may as well get in there early.
Shar is the deity of caverns, darkness, dungeons, forgetfulness, loss, night, secrets, and the Underdark, that Viconia worships a deity devoted to all of those things is actually very fitting, and she's kind of a bitch.
Meanwhile Anomen is a cleric of Helm, the deity of duty, protection and guardians. Yet rather than standing guard over things, he goes out and lays down the law and takes the fight to evil. And yes, Anomen is kind of a bitch too.
In the same way Anomen's more into being offensive than defensive, Viconia's not really into the deception and trickery part of Sharran philosophy The Dark Moon is, because they're all about the illusory, deceitful aspects of the faith, but to ascribe everything about one particular sect to every other branch of the faith? Even in the black and white world of D&D permutations exist.
So yeah, unpopular opinion, particularly for D&D: A lot of people are evil, a lot of people have evil religions, but the majority of people are lazy, too busy providing for their five kids (and raising them as devout Sharrans, obviously), or generally just aren't that dedicated to evil. Killing people purely because a spell says their alignment is evil is an evil act in itself.
A true paladin should not be afraid to fight against evil to accomplish their goal when necessary, but should also be willing to consider other options, and even reach out and attempt to befriend and redeem others, otherwise they're simply a bloodthirsty murderer with good PR.
Well argued. And that is why Talos can have a temple in Ath.
That said...As charname I'd still let Viconia burn though and wouldn't save her from the flaming fist. Because really now. Why murder a police officer, or kill a whole group of people, to save a drow? Especially one who pings evil? Smartest thing to do is to just let her die.
I don't know why people demand that every NPC (mod or official) has to be romanceable.
Yeah, I get that romances flesh out characters, make the game more entertaining, etc., but... I can't see how being able to romance Dorn improves his character in any way. You didn't need that to make Korgan or Edwin interesting and compelling characters. Making every supporting character in your story a potential romantic interest sounds pretty counterproductive to me.
The sad thing is, when SoD comes out I am positive that either A) M'Khiin the goblin shaman will have some sort of romance or B ) she won't and players will complain about it. STOP IT.
Alright, let's say there exists a religion that literally says the faithful should never help those from outside of the religion, that they are expressly permitted to lie to outsiders, and that it's their religious duty to turn the world a theocracy. That all outsiders should pay them a tax for not sharing their religion, and anyone who leaves their religion must be killed. Meanwhile, they decree that outsider men should be X'd to break their spirit, while faithful men are property lower than a dog and exist completely at the service of the females, and that taking up little girls and boys for lovin' is expressly A-Okay.
We'll call it the Cult of Shar.
Now let's say that a significant group of people who share this religion are moderates. They were raised in this religion, but despite their religion having absolutely nothing whatsoever about being kind to others, they're actually not particularly bad people. They're just regular farmers/hunters/merchants. They might theoretically provide shelter to another Sharran cultist, and might not go too far out of their way to help the neighbours (Helmite scum that they are) but they themselves might permit their menfolk to have opinions and occasionally leave the demonweb pleasure pits, so long as no other Sharrans are watching,
So basically like most people they're kind of obnoxious, but generally just going about their lives. They're Sharrans, they might decide to turn full evil later, or they might aid Algoroth in his evil schemes next time he's in the area, who knows? So kill them too? Yea or nay?
This sounds like the Nazis (edit: just reverse the sexes role). Anyone else here a WWII buff?
A true paladin should not be afraid to fight against evil to accomplish their goal when necessary, but should also be willing to consider other options, and even reach out and attempt to befriend and redeem others, otherwise they're simply a bloodthirsty murderer with good PR.
I agree. Keldorn is not a true Paladin, at least not how I envision them. He's a racist jerk that abandons his family duties for glory, and thinks more of his status in his church than how his children see him.
I totally understand the position of Minsc, Valygar, or Keldorn in regards to their party conflicts. Viconia and Edwin are villains by their actions, not their alignments. Keldorn may be a father who abandons his children to go be a racist, but he did not regularly sacrifice humans, practice slavery, and then boast and laugh about it. Neither was he a crime-lord who frequently kills and blackmails others for his own monetary and power gains. In a world set in complete anarchy with the semblance of order, where I regularly hunt down and murder criminals as a vigilante/self-proclaimed hero, I could see myself trying to kill both Edwin and Viconia for their past and current deeds. There's only so long you can put up with baddies.
I love this game because the good guys are not perfect: they have some very glaring flaws; but the bad guys (even Irenicus) are not mindlessly evil for no reason; they even have redeeming qualities. I think that it is awesome writing.
The sad thing is, when SoD comes out I am positive that either A) M'Khiin the goblin shaman will have some sort of romance or B ) she won't and players will complain about it. STOP IT.
M'Khiin won't be romanceable in SoD. What a pity! Wait...
I agree. Keldorn is not a true Paladin, at least not how I envision them. He's a racist jerk that abandons his family duties for glory, and thinks more of his status in his church than how his children see him.
I have to fully disagree with your assessment. As D&D has advanced in editions, it has become more common for PCs to play edgier races, such as drow and tieflings, and, thus our perception has changed. I think we forget that back in 2nd edition, 99.99% of drow were seal-cub-clubbing evil. They were essentially irredeemable demons. Driz'zt was an anomaly. Given that, Keldorn correctly identifies Viconia as evil and acts accordingly. Further, if I'm not mistaken, Keldorn will leave your party if you attack Driz'zt. So, I think the racism charge is ill-founded. Further, as someone who consistently uses Keldorn, I never felt that he was in it for the "glory". His dialogue and persona are defined by his struggle to fulfill both familial and religious commitments. He is an absolutely awesome character and is a great representative of what a paladin should be.
Anyways, on to my (potentially) unpopular opinions:
1. Mazzy is better than Minsc. Mazzy is one of the top 3 NPCs available in the game.
2. Anomen is much better than Viconia. Anomen is also a top 5 NPC.
3. Cernd is better than Jaheria (in the long term at least).
4. The writing for the EE characters makes me nauseous. I wish there was a checkbox option to remove them from the game. I make all efforts to avoid them.
5. APR weapons in the offhand are "meh". Damage output matters only to a point. I can't remember the last time I lost a fight because I wasn't doing enough damage.
6. I hate micromanaging casters. Four single-class warriors, Anomen, and Imoen (haste/breach bot) make up a perfect party for me.
@proghead3 I never understood why Driz'zt magically got this pass by people like keldorn and Jaheria yet here goes viconia who has ran away from lolth, OK I get it... Shar is bad, but she did what she had to to survive.
She went from being a sex slave, to being raped by the one guy she slowly started to trust, to being attacked by the flaming fist which I still having trouble believing lorewise that she couldn't kill him on her own, to being attacked and attempted to be burned at the stake just for being alive, and then geas'd by someone who bad no right what so ever to geas her.
Yet here she is with charname, basically doing stuff that would make lolth spit venom in her face; but oh no, she ah drow so we should kill her INSTANTLY! Even though she is in my group, chances are have been in this group longer than mist of them (not counting jaheria). Let's not see if she will actually legitimately change like driz'zt magically did.
Let's ignore what bonds, ties, or trust our leader may have in her and attack her head on!
I agree. Keldorn is not a true Paladin, at least not how I envision them. He's a racist jerk that abandons his family duties for glory, and thinks more of his status in his church than how his children see him.
I have to fully disagree with your assessment. As D&D has advanced in editions, it has become more common for PCs to play edgier races, such as drow and tieflings, and, thus our perception has changed. I think we forget that back in 2nd edition, 99.99% of drow were seal-cub-clubbing evil. They were essentially irredeemable demons. Driz'zt was an anomaly. Given that, Keldorn correctly identifies Viconia as evil and acts accordingly. Further, if I'm not mistaken, Keldorn will leave your party if you attack Driz'zt. So, I think the racism charge is ill-founded. Further, as someone who consistently uses Keldorn, I never felt that he was in it for the "glory". His dialogue and persona are defined by his struggle to fulfill both familial and religious commitments. He is an absolutely awesome character and is a great representative of what a paladin should be. .
The only reason he's ok with Drizzt is because Drizzt is famous at this point, which is what Keldorn wants for himself.
I love the "seal-cub-clubbing evil." I can see Viconia doing that, and especially Edwin if he could sell the pelts. Don't get me wrong, Keldorn should definitely kill her. But he does not behave how I envision a Paladin to act. He is definitely racist (which as you pointed out is not necessarily a bad thing in AD&D), and a jerk. And he definitely abandons his family for the glory of his church (and ultimately himself), as he says in his quest. He believes that he is sacrificing the needs of his family for the greater good, and doesn't care as much about how his children and wife view him as he cares about the church.
Is any of this bad? Yes, but not as bad as Viconia or Edwin. I just love intentionally written character flaws in good fictional people. It makes them feel real, because nobody is perfect. It is impossible to relate to a "perfect" character. And here we are discussing it as though their dilemmas are real. Pretty impressive of the original writers of BG for that to happen 16 years later.
Alignment isn't a straitjacket, good characters can do evil things and vice-versa and blah blah blah... you still there?
Keldorn and Anomen are true heroes. And that doesn't prevent them from being respectively a zealot and a pompous jerk. Which is sort of expected from the nobility in these games.
Alignment has always been a poorly conceived concept to explain away why something is bad by nature. If you ever find yourself actually referring to it to explain why a character should/shouldn't/would/wouldn't do anything, you're really missing the point of the ethical dilemma in the first place.
n the FR though, you literally have a sentience which urges its followers to commit evil acts so it can become stronger. Most people are aware of Shar as an evil entity. Yes, there are some non-harmful Sharrans, but the majority are manipulative and generally quite evil. People are generally aware of which gods are good and which ones are bad because a deity basically follows their portfolio. If you're a goddess of nihilism and bitterness, you're going to lean that way in your actions.
To use a different example, there's a goddess called Talona who's the goddess of diseases and poisons if I'm not mistaken. Her followers expressly seek to start plagues. Most people wouldn't say, "Well, let's wait to see what they do before we judge" with them either.
Alright, let's say there exists a religion that literally says the faithful should never help those from outside of the religion, that they are expressly permitted to lie to outsiders, and that it's their religious duty to turn the world a theocracy. That all outsiders should pay them a tax for not sharing their religion, and anyone who leaves their religion must be killed. Meanwhile, they decree that outsider men should be X'd to break their spirit, while faithful men are property lower than a dog and exist completely at the service of the females, and that taking up little girls and boys for lovin' is expressly A-Okay.
We'll call it the Cult of Shar.
Now let's say that a significant group of people who share this religion are moderates. They were raised in this religion, but despite their religion having absolutely nothing whatsoever about being kind to others, they're actually not particularly bad people. They're just regular farmers/hunters/merchants. They might theoretically provide shelter to another Sharran cultist, and might not go too far out of their way to help the neighbours (Helmite scum that they are) but they themselves might permit their menfolk to have opinions and occasionally leave the demonweb pleasure pits, so long as no other Sharrans are watching,
So basically like most people they're kind of obnoxious, but generally just going about their lives. They're Sharrans, they might decide to turn full evil later, or they might aid Algoroth in his evil schemes next time he's in the area, who knows? So kill them too? Yea or nay?
What if they're actually goblins? It's always okay to kill goblins, right? I mean, sooner or later they're going to do something bad so you may as well get in there early.
Shar is the deity of caverns, darkness, dungeons, forgetfulness, loss, night, secrets, and the Underdark, that Viconia worships a deity devoted to all of those things is actually very fitting, and she's kind of a bitch.
Meanwhile Anomen is a cleric of Helm, the deity of duty, protection and guardians. Yet rather than standing guard over things, he goes out and lays down the law and takes the fight to evil. And yes, Anomen is kind of a bitch too.
In the same way Anomen's more into being offensive than defensive, Viconia's not really into the deception and trickery part of Sharran philosophy The Dark Moon is, because they're all about the illusory, deceitful aspects of the faith, but to ascribe everything about one particular sect to every other branch of the faith? Even in the black and white world of D&D permutations exist.
So yeah, unpopular opinion, particularly for D&D: A lot of people are evil, a lot of people have evil religions, but the majority of people are lazy, too busy providing for their five kids (and raising them as devout Sharrans, obviously), or generally just aren't that dedicated to evil. Killing people purely because a spell says their alignment is evil is an evil act in itself.
A true paladin should not be afraid to fight against evil to accomplish their goal when necessary, but should also be willing to consider other options, and even reach out and attempt to befriend and redeem others, otherwise they're simply a bloodthirsty murderer with good PR.
There generally aren't a lot of moderate Sharrans. That's why there are no real major temples to her in other cities throughout the realms (at least that I'm aware of). The only mass, open worship of her is in the floating Netherese city that's powered by her shadow weave and basically pledged allegiance to her to survive the Shadow Plane. I'm pretty sure the only way to move up into the higher ranks in the church of Shar is to literally kill a priest(ess) of Selune. Post-spellplague, Shar's been turned into more of a villain and has made at least three separate attempts to either destroy the world or drown it in darkness. Personally, I don't think that this really fits her well and that making her this calibre of evil is stupid, but that's the canon writing. On her wiki page, part of her dogma is "Love is a lie. Only hate endures." This isn't really a religion that allows for too much leeway in how it acts.
Also, I think Anomen is justified in going out and fighting. He's trying to protect peace, order, and lives by proactively dealing with threats. He is still "guarding" as it were.
I fully get that permutations exist within the faiths because there are different branches, but I don't think the Sharran church has that much diversity in, particularly as Viconia is a priestess in that church. She doesn't get the luxury of just paying lip service to the ideals like a villager would.
This sounds like the Nazis (edit: just reverse the sexes role). Anyone else here a WWII buff?
I make absolutely no claims either way as to whether or not I based this cult on a real world group with an unfortunate history of violence towards people like myself, nor how few changes I made. Suffice to say that there are things that make Pan sad in this world, and it's generally much nicer if we all stay in Faerun.
There generally aren't a lot of moderate Sharrans.
On the same wiki page you mentioned, you may note that it says that only the Dark Justiciar's (a secret society within the priesthood of Shar) involved killing Selunite priests, as well as mentioning the Darkcloaks of Shar I mentioned previously: A group of good aligned "oracles and care-givers of Shar who tended the emotionally damaged, using forgetfulness to sooth their pain".
And the same thing still applies, even if you take priestesses being bad as a given, what about your average Sharran worshipper? They might be a pretty bad person, but take your average layperson follower - do you think they all share the same religious fervour as a high priestess? How many willingly turned to the Twofold trust because their views didn't quite match up even within a monastic order?
This sounds like the Nazis (edit: just reverse the sexes role). Anyone else here a WWII buff?
I make absolutely no claims either way as to whether or not I based this cult on a real world group with an unfortunate history of violence towards people like myself, nor how few changes I made. Suffice to say that there are things that make Pan sad in this world, and it's generally much nicer if we all stay in Faerun.
There generally aren't a lot of moderate Sharrans.
On the same wiki page you mentioned, you may note that it says that only the Dark Justiciar's (a secret society within the priesthood of Shar) involved killing Selunite priests, as well as mentioning the Darkcloaks of Shar I mentioned previously: A group of good aligned "oracles and care-givers of Shar who tended the emotionally damaged, using forgetfulness to sooth their pain".
And the same thing still applies, even if you take priestesses being bad as a given, what about your average Sharran worshipper? They might be a pretty bad person, but take your average layperson follower - do you think they all share the same religious fervour as a high priestess? How many willingly turned to the Twofold trust because their views didn't quite match up even within a monastic order?
I'm rather sceptical of people who are doing nice things for a goddess who is known for being subtle and manipulative and who considers it a central tenet to corrupt the good. Perhaps that's just a way for her to further her goals.
And yes, your civilian Sharran worshipper (which, again, I don't think there are many of) probably isn't as bad but the original issue I had in mind was Keldorn attacking a *priestess* of Shar. He's not attacking a random farmer who worships Shar, and Viconia doesn't really come across as a Darkcloak at all so she's likely in one of the other branches.
Unpopular Opinion: High level fighters simply do not belong in BG2.
In D&D mundane classes who survive to high (read "over level 9") levels pretty much entirely settle down and retire, while mages and clerics who survive to high levels... generally become even more powerful until you have world-shaping NPCs who get spells named after them. At least thieves have some features that continue to get better, but Fighters simply don't get the tools they need to survive in a high level environment without becoming an increasing load on the party spellcasters (especially the long suffering cleric), since they have effectively the same skillset as they did at level thirteen forever more.
And if CHARNAME is a fighter?
Well, before going off to resolve this whole "Bhaalspawn" problem, Imoen should have a nice, long talk with them, spending a lot of time making them feel comfortable as they're introduced to a new dungeon that only they can sucessfully conquer.
And yes, your civilian Sharran worshipper (which, again, I don't think there are many of) probably isn't as bad but the original issue I had in mind was Keldorn attacking a *priestess* of Shar. He's not attacking a random farmer who worships Shar, and Viconia doesn't really come across as a Darkcloak at all so she's likely in one of the other branches.
Another thing worth mentioning is the MO of the Sharrans is to gain the confidence of powerful people and then slowly corrupt them and turn them to evil. Keldorn sees a Sharran priestess kissing up to a wandering demigod who is progressively becoming a great power in the region. He doesn't have access to Bioware's script, so he can't know what an abject failure Viconia is, he can only go by what he sees in front of him: A priestess of Shar acting like a priestess of Shar and still gaining high level spells every morning.
Unpopular Opinion: High level fighters simply do not belong in BG2.
In D&D mundane classes who survive to high (read "over level 9") levels pretty much entirely settle down and retire, while mages and clerics who survive to high levels... generally become even more powerful until you have world-shaping NPCs who get spells named after them. At least thieves have some features that continue to get better, but Fighters simply don't get the tools they need to survive in a high level environment without becoming an increasing load on the party spellcasters (especially the long suffering cleric), since they have effectively the same skillset as they did at level thirteen forever more.
And if CHARNAME is a fighter?
Well, before going off to resolve this whole "Bhaalspawn" problem, Imoen should have a nice, long talk with them, spending a lot of time making them feel comfortable as they're introduced to a new dungeon that only they can sucessfully conquer.
The Sunnyside Home for Retired Adventurers.
My epic level dwarven defender disagrees.
There is nothing a Mage can do that a determined dwarf with a hammer can't!
Unpopular opinion: Hobbits have no right to be adventuring unless they are talked into it...I'm a Tolkien fan and prefer his version of Hobbits to the Halflings of the Forgotten Realms, which seem to be only loosely related to Hobbits in terms of temperament and even (with the case of 3.5) physical description and society.
Unpopular opinion: There are way to many good "bad-guy" drizzt wannabes in recent FR settings. Drow, goblins, and orcs should be evil. I even think half-orcs should be evil, because their orcish parents are disposed towards evil and their human parents are disposed towards neutral. "Drizzts" should be the exception, not the upcoming cool trend.
Unpopular opinion: Mashed potatoes should be served at every meal.
Comments
If someone draws a weapon at you during an argument and you win, that's not so much "you murdered them" as it is "they lost a fight they initiated".
And come on, the rest of the party betrayed him, cut him out of the loop, murdered his contact, and absconded with the book and the money. If we're talking bad deeds then I'm really not seeing this as being anything out of
Edwin: Actually I comparatively recently discovered that if you don't accept him into the team, he specifically mentions going to get paid by a third party who are the reason he's there. He's quite clear on it, Guy's getting paid for his time, getting his underlings to fetch his subscription to Rashemi Babes Weekly, and putting out a hit on a Cowled Wizard, who are generally insufferable.
Keldorn: Look at what Talosians do. They murder a bunch of Lathander worshippers and steal their stuff!
Keldorn: Hmm.... Well I do like that they live in a temple next to my house and have light skin. I give them a pass.
Look at what Viconia does. Sort of... Exists and is rude to everyone? Honestly Keldorn doesn't pick any particular occasion of her being evil so much as "I'm going to kill you, person who has been silently and faithfully accompanying me on this quest to save orphans from slavery, and who just saved a beggar from persecution".
Keldorn: Eat sword, drow!
Let's also consider that CHARNAME can *actually be a Dark Moon Monk*.
Keldorn: Well, they weren't slightly rude to me in the sewers, so they not only get a pass, I will travel with them.
Soulaufein is not really an example, since Keldorn gets equally little say in whether you murder deep gnomes or drow captains, you're all undercover, you want to survive, the paladin keeps his racist mouth shut and doesn't murder an entire city full of drow until you give the word.
Paladins are terrible, terrible people, and the clear difference between Keldorn and Edwin? Edwin is way, way more tolerant of backchat from you.
Valygar/Minsc: It's alright to kill anyone who society deems is evil based on their race and religion, but not okay to kill people who draw steel and actively try to kill you? I get the feeling if Aerie's alignment was listed as "Lawful Evil" we'd be discussing the fact that Anomen tries to kill *her* in a favourable light, eh?
@Otherguy
We're talking meta? Pfffft. Without alignment being front and centre on the character record I wonder if we'd be talking about such a thing?
Liiiittle bit uncomfortable with all the people saying that we should be killing people for their choice of deity though. You do realise that there are nonevil clerics of Shar, right? Like the Darkcloaks? Or is the idea that "people should not be murdered for having bizarre beliefs" an unpopular opinion?
Charname grew up in Candlekeep. He should know more than the average guy
I'm BG1EE if you help Rasaad you see what kind of murdering bastards Sharans are (killed everyone in the Tempus temple, try to murder your chill friend. You also see how they abuse and murder their initiates)
In BG2EE you see how Sharans create a new religion (and how it abuses and tortures initiates) just to kill heretics that they created
In BG2EE ToB you see Sharans enslave a dwarven clan, working them to death in the mines
Charname should start off knowing who Shar is and should eventually see how bad she is
-----
As for evil blood and ambiguities...I highly recommend TH White's the Once and Future King. There, Lancelot is good because he has evil urges that shame him. Whenever I play a paladin I use him as a guideline. Someone who acts perfect and is thought of as perfect, but who is deeply ashamed of the evil urges inside of him. He uses that to make himself better. So yeah....
I am Grum! And I like to argue! My apologies forumites if I'm getting annoying
In the FR though, you literally have a sentience which urges its followers to commit evil acts so it can become stronger. Most people are aware of Shar as an evil entity. Yes, there are some non-harmful Sharrans, but the majority are manipulative and generally quite evil. People are generally aware of which gods are good and which ones are bad because a deity basically follows their portfolio. If you're a goddess of nihilism and bitterness, you're going to lean that way in your actions.
To use a different example, there's a goddess called Talona who's the goddess of diseases and poisons if I'm not mistaken. Her followers expressly seek to start plagues. Most people wouldn't say, "Well, let's wait to see what they do before we judge" with them either.
I think it's out of character for Keldorn to let a human worshipper of Talos live, despite attacking a drow worshipper of Shar.
Shar is not like that. Shar wants everything to end. Her church works towards the end of everything, total annihilation. Her coin only has one side, and that is evil. If you willingly follow her, you ARE evil. Even if you don't buy the whole alignment axis, she is the very definition of evil. You can't find one single tenet in her church that says otherwise.
We'll call it the Cult of Shar.
Now let's say that a significant group of people who share this religion are moderates. They were raised in this religion, but despite their religion having absolutely nothing whatsoever about being kind to others, they're actually not particularly bad people. They're just regular farmers/hunters/merchants. They might theoretically provide shelter to another Sharran cultist, and might not go too far out of their way to help the neighbours (Helmite scum that they are) but they themselves might permit their menfolk to have opinions and occasionally leave the demonweb pleasure pits, so long as no other Sharrans are watching,
So basically like most people they're kind of obnoxious, but generally just going about their lives. They're Sharrans, they might decide to turn full evil later, or they might aid Algoroth in his evil schemes next time he's in the area, who knows? So kill them too? Yea or nay?
What if they're actually goblins? It's always okay to kill goblins, right? I mean, sooner or later they're going to do something bad so you may as well get in there early.
Shar is the deity of caverns, darkness, dungeons, forgetfulness, loss, night, secrets, and the Underdark, that Viconia worships a deity devoted to all of those things is actually very fitting, and she's kind of a bitch.
Meanwhile Anomen is a cleric of Helm, the deity of duty, protection and guardians. Yet rather than standing guard over things, he goes out and lays down the law and takes the fight to evil. And yes, Anomen is kind of a bitch too.
In the same way Anomen's more into being offensive than defensive, Viconia's not really into the deception and trickery part of Sharran philosophy The Dark Moon is, because they're all about the illusory, deceitful aspects of the faith, but to ascribe everything about one particular sect to every other branch of the faith? Even in the black and white world of D&D permutations exist.
So yeah, unpopular opinion, particularly for D&D: A lot of people are evil, a lot of people have evil religions, but the majority of people are lazy, too busy providing for their five kids (and raising them as devout Sharrans, obviously), or generally just aren't that dedicated to evil. Killing people purely because a spell says their alignment is evil is an evil act in itself.
A true paladin should not be afraid to fight against evil to accomplish their goal when necessary, but should also be willing to consider other options, and even reach out and attempt to befriend and redeem others, otherwise they're simply a bloodthirsty murderer with good PR.
That said...As charname I'd still let Viconia burn though and wouldn't save her from the flaming fist. Because really now. Why murder a police officer, or kill a whole group of people, to save a drow? Especially one who pings evil? Smartest thing to do is to just let her die.
Yeah, I get that romances flesh out characters, make the game more entertaining, etc., but... I can't see how being able to romance Dorn improves his character in any way. You didn't need that to make Korgan or Edwin interesting and compelling characters. Making every supporting character in your story a potential romantic interest sounds pretty counterproductive to me.
The sad thing is, when SoD comes out I am positive that either A) M'Khiin the goblin shaman will have some sort of romance or B ) she won't and players will complain about it. STOP IT.
I totally understand the position of Minsc, Valygar, or Keldorn in regards to their party conflicts. Viconia and Edwin are villains by their actions, not their alignments. Keldorn may be a father who abandons his children to go be a racist, but he did not regularly sacrifice humans, practice slavery, and then boast and laugh about it. Neither was he a crime-lord who frequently kills and blackmails others for his own monetary and power gains. In a world set in complete anarchy with the semblance of order, where I regularly hunt down and murder criminals as a vigilante/self-proclaimed hero, I could see myself trying to kill both Edwin and Viconia for their past and current deeds. There's only so long you can put up with baddies.
I love this game because the good guys are not perfect: they have some very glaring flaws; but the bad guys (even Irenicus) are not mindlessly evil for no reason; they even have redeeming qualities. I think that it is awesome writing.
Anyways, on to my (potentially) unpopular opinions:
1. Mazzy is better than Minsc. Mazzy is one of the top 3 NPCs available in the game.
2. Anomen is much better than Viconia. Anomen is also a top 5 NPC.
3. Cernd is better than Jaheria (in the long term at least).
4. The writing for the EE characters makes me nauseous. I wish there was a checkbox option to remove them from the game. I make all efforts to avoid them.
5. APR weapons in the offhand are "meh". Damage output matters only to a point. I can't remember the last time I lost a fight because I wasn't doing enough damage.
6. I hate micromanaging casters. Four single-class warriors, Anomen, and Imoen (haste/breach bot) make up a perfect party for me.
I never understood why Driz'zt magically got this pass by people like keldorn and Jaheria yet here goes viconia who has ran away from lolth, OK I get it... Shar is bad, but she did what she had to to survive.
She went from being a sex slave, to being raped by the one guy she slowly started to trust, to being attacked by the flaming fist which I still having trouble believing lorewise that she couldn't kill him on her own, to being attacked and attempted to be burned at the stake just for being alive, and then geas'd by someone who bad no right what so ever to geas her.
Yet here she is with charname, basically doing stuff that would make lolth spit venom in her face; but oh no, she ah drow so we should kill her INSTANTLY! Even though she is in my group, chances are have been in this group longer than mist of them (not counting jaheria). Let's not see if she will actually legitimately change like driz'zt magically did.
Let's ignore what bonds, ties, or trust our leader may have in her and attack her head on!
Edit
I hate you phone.
I love the "seal-cub-clubbing evil." I can see Viconia doing that, and especially Edwin if he could sell the pelts. Don't get me wrong, Keldorn should definitely kill her. But he does not behave how I envision a Paladin to act. He is definitely racist (which as you pointed out is not necessarily a bad thing in AD&D), and a jerk. And he definitely abandons his family for the glory of his church (and ultimately himself), as he says in his quest. He believes that he is sacrificing the needs of his family for the greater good, and doesn't care as much about how his children and wife view him as he cares about the church.
Is any of this bad? Yes, but not as bad as Viconia or Edwin. I just love intentionally written character flaws in good fictional people. It makes them feel real, because nobody is perfect. It is impossible to relate to a "perfect" character. And here we are discussing it as though their dilemmas are real. Pretty impressive of the original writers of BG for that to happen 16 years later.
Keldorn and Anomen are true heroes. And that doesn't prevent them from being respectively a zealot and a pompous jerk. Which is sort of expected from the nobility in these games.
Also, I think Anomen is justified in going out and fighting. He's trying to protect peace, order, and lives by proactively dealing with threats. He is still "guarding" as it were.
I fully get that permutations exist within the faiths because there are different branches, but I don't think the Sharran church has that much diversity in, particularly as Viconia is a priestess in that church. She doesn't get the luxury of just paying lip service to the ideals like a villager would.
And the same thing still applies, even if you take priestesses being bad as a given, what about your average Sharran worshipper? They might be a pretty bad person, but take your average layperson follower - do you think they all share the same religious fervour as a high priestess? How many willingly turned to the Twofold trust because their views didn't quite match up even within a monastic order?
And yes, your civilian Sharran worshipper (which, again, I don't think there are many of) probably isn't as bad but the original issue I had in mind was Keldorn attacking a *priestess* of Shar. He's not attacking a random farmer who worships Shar, and Viconia doesn't really come across as a Darkcloak at all so she's likely in one of the other branches.
In D&D mundane classes who survive to high (read "over level 9") levels pretty much entirely settle down and retire, while mages and clerics who survive to high levels... generally become even more powerful until you have world-shaping NPCs who get spells named after them. At least thieves have some features that continue to get better, but Fighters simply don't get the tools they need to survive in a high level environment without becoming an increasing load on the party spellcasters (especially the long suffering cleric), since they have effectively the same skillset as they did at level thirteen forever more.
And if CHARNAME is a fighter?
Well, before going off to resolve this whole "Bhaalspawn" problem, Imoen should have a nice, long talk with them, spending a lot of time making them feel comfortable as they're introduced to a new dungeon that only they can sucessfully conquer.
The Sunnyside Home for Retired Adventurers.
There is nothing a Mage can do that a determined dwarf with a hammer can't!
Unpopular opinion: There are way to many good "bad-guy" drizzt wannabes in recent FR settings. Drow, goblins, and orcs should be evil. I even think half-orcs should be evil, because their orcish parents are disposed towards evil and their human parents are disposed towards neutral. "Drizzts" should be the exception, not the upcoming cool trend.
Unpopular opinion: Mashed potatoes should be served at every meal.