Skip to content

Playing an evil party

BrandtCPBrandtCP Member Posts: 6
edited September 2012 in Archive (General Discussion)
I never did this when I played BG upon original release and some of the evil NPCs are cooler but hard to keep around if you are too good. If you get a poor reputation from being evil I understand some NPCs will leave the party. Do the NPCs like guards in towns always attack on sight too?
«134

Comments

  • CaptRoryCaptRory Member Posts: 1,660
    Having a super high charisma can keep evil characters around despite a high reputation. You can still do evil stuff and maintain a high reputation which is probably the smartest way of going about it. Villain With Good Publicity and all.
  • ramagonsramagons Member Posts: 96
    Well, the evil special abilities are definitely better. In BG2, Viconia and Korgen were great NPCs. But you just don't have as many options as a good party.

    But more importantly, aren't you that crazy guy from the docks district? Sure, I pray to Cyric too, stop pestering me.
  • CyricistCyricist Member Posts: 61
    BG2, yeah, there's a very noticeable deficit of Evil characters. In BG1 though, there are 8 Evil characters, 9 Good characters, and 8 Neutral characters. Some of the Neutrals tend more towards working with a Good party (Jaheira, Garrick, Xan), and some tend more towards being total dicks (Safana, Quayle, Faldorn). Much better spread in the first game.

    I do get tired of using the same three people in BG2, though. :/
  • ArcalianArcalian Member Posts: 359
    edited September 2012
    When playing an evil party the lowest "safe" reputation is 6. The "classic" evil party for me was Kaigan Xzar Montaron Edwin Viconia.

    I remember the first time I played evil, I was pleasantly surprised when I got a different Bhaalspawn dream and power. When I took Edwin's quest to kill Dynaheir and he actually joined my party, I almost fell out of my chair; I thought he was just a quest-giver. I was also surprised the first time I met Xzar and Monty's "contacts" as such, rather than enemies, and the same for Edwin. And I lusted after Viconia long before she became a BG2 romance option.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    @Cyricist: I disagree that playing Evil with a 7-and-higher reputation is "not playing the game right" - there is such a thing as Villains With Good Publicity, after all. :)
  • BrandtCPBrandtCP Member Posts: 6
    My greatest concern was that city guards everywhere you went would attack on sight, thus giving me nowhere for refuge. I think I'll try being evil come November. In my original post I think I emphasized the party-joining NPCs too much and I agree it would make no sense if good aligned ones stayed as we committed countless acts of evil. NBD, Ajantis isn't that great to have along anyway :)

    It is disappointing though, how BG2 doesn't have as many NPC options for an evil party. Hopefully the BG2EE will change that.
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    edited September 2012
    I only did it once, that I can recall anyway... and that was soloing a NE cleric-mage. I played "smart" evil in that game, i.e., not going around causing mayhem but rather using more cunning and subtle tactics. It was an interesting departure/change of pace. But nowhere nearly as satisfying to me as playing the game as the hero who rescues the Sword Coast.

    I've assembled evil parties before to see how they behave and work together, but usually with a Neutral PC.
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    @Cyricist has some good pointers. But overall I have to agree with @Brude it's difficult to play an evil party.

    In BG1, a lot of the "evil" things to do really kinda sucked and gave you less experience and/or items. But there was a plethora of Evil NPCs.

    In BG2, there are actually decently "evil" things to do, but there are like 3 Evil NPCs, until Sarevok when you get 4.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    @Brude: Except that Kagain, Viconia and Edwin - the best of their respective classes - are better suited for an evil-aligned party. And even if the game is slanted towards rewarding good over evil, that just makes an evil playthrough more challenging. Like a halfway difficulty level between Normal and Core! :)
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    shawne said:

    @Brude: Except that Kagain, Viconia and Edwin - the best of their respective classes - are better suited for an evil-aligned party. And even if the game is slanted towards rewarding good over evil, that just makes an evil playthrough more challenging. Like a halfway difficulty level between Normal and Core! :)

    Korgan. Korgan, Korgan, KORGAN. /nerdrage

    Korgan is just a douchebag Dwarven stereotype, Kagain is actually interesting! Stop mixing them up! T_T cryingface

    On a more serious note, yes, despite the lack of NPCs they are all quite exceptional in their ability.
  • CloutierCloutier Member Posts: 228
    This discussion seems to resurface too often.

    - Stealing and pickpocketing.
    - If you want the best mage in the game, you have to murder an innocent woman. If you want the best cleric, you have to murder a law enforcement officer.
    - Fights for treasure. Very often in the game there are characters you don't need to fight. Escalating the situation just to get a pretext to kill them and take their treasure is *not* Good. You can get the best sword and one of the best armor in the game by committing a *very* despicable action.
    - Examples of evil quests: The Archeologist, the Thieves' Guild, the Telescope, the noblewoman looking for a hired killer. If we dig a bit more we'll find more of them.

    "No evil options in BG/BG2" = bullshit.
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    Cloutier said:

    - Stealing and pickpocketing.

    My good and neutral characters can't do this ... why exactly? Oh yes, they can, that's right.
    Cloutier said:

    - If you want the best mage in the game, you have to murder an innocent woman. If you want the best cleric, you have to murder a law enforcement officer.

    You have to murder an idiot law enforcement officer who is way out of his authority ... I'm a lawful citizen in real life and I find what that guy is doing despicable. A perfectly good character can intervene with Viconia's unfair sentencing in both games. Now, as for Edwin, yes, that is evil very true and good point.
    Cloutier said:

    - Fights for treasure. Very often in the game there are characters you don't need to fight. Escalating the situation just to get a pretext to kill them and take their treasure is *not* Good. You can get the best sword and one of the best armor in the game by committing a *very* despicable action.

    Chaotic Good. I play it all the time and it's a pretty good justification for a lot of things. Not all things, agreed, but a lot of them. For instance the two ogrillons with the bridge at the Gnoll Stronghold. A quite good character might just pay them because, well, I guess it's their bridge. My Chaotic Good is like, hey, I can go where I want (ogrillons), get out of my face (Marl), stop trying to fool me (Silke).
    I wouldn't call killing a dumb, random djinni *very* despicable. Not good, clearly, selfish, clearly, but super bad? Nah. As for Adalon's blood, yes, that's f**ked up.
    Cloutier said:

    "No evil options in BG/BG2" = bullshit.

    It's just confusing and contains a lot of unclear motivation, particularly in BG1. Yeah, I can take evil options, but I keep finding myself asking "why the hell am I even doing this? What's in it for me?" there really is no clear motivation.
  • CloutierCloutier Member Posts: 228
    Yes, your "Good" character can steal gems from middle class families sleeping at the Friendly Arm Inn.

    How nice of you.
  • BrudeBrude Member Posts: 560
    edited September 2012

    @shawne - I mostly agree -- it can be a fun challenge. But take a look at this page, which outlines the encounters you have in one BG1 zone:

    http://www.forgottenwars.com/bg1/ar4600.htm

    A good aligned party will walk out of this zone with an extra 1,000 XP from 3 encounters, plus some decent mid level loot.

    An evil aligned party will net 260 XP from those same encounters, get none of the loot, and actually *lose* gold.

    That goes beyond role playing. To me, it's just non sensical design.
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    Well, lemme cut some myths before:

    Reputation limits are on BG manual, 19+ reputation will make evil party members leave the party no matter your charisma, as well 2- reputation will make good party members leave your party no matter the charisma.

    Curious, 1 reputation will make neutral party members leave the party no matter the reputation (so they're not so neutral).

    We don't choose to attack the silver dragon in evil parties normally as the most common outcome for evil parties is trade the real silver eggs with the demon lord for powerful magical items (if you don't do that you're not so evil), by going back to the silver dragon lair, she automatic attacks you, so isn't a choice really.


    Now back to the thread.

    Evil is poorly worked in BG and BG2, while the evil NPCs are well made in both games the adventure don't receive well evil options and choices, sometimes is worst than punishment it's a total forgetfulness of the evil content, worst than be punished is do something evil and don't even have complains from the party or consequences from non joinable NPCs.

    I love evil plays and i play evil a lot of times, it's possible to make evil games, but be ready to face some inconsistency if you do it.
  • JaxsbudgieJaxsbudgie Member Posts: 600
    I always found that, although NPCs of polarising alignment will complain about your high or low reputation, it's the good guys who really complain.
    If for example you decide to help someone find their lost son and then refuse a reward, the evil guys will eye roll and let you know it's beneath them and that you're a fool.
    Whereas, if you decide to, for example, betray someone for a greater reward, the good guys will intervene, plead with you to reconsider then probably leave the group and attack you.

    Good guys are so highly strung.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    Quartz said:

    Korgan. Korgan, Korgan, KORGAN. /nerdrage

    Korgan is just a douchebag Dwarven stereotype, Kagain is actually interesting! Stop mixing them up! T_T cryingface

    1. I was referencing BG1 specifically, so no Korgan.

    2. Honestly, I've never found Kagain very interesting - he has no subplots or significant relationships with other party members, whereas Korgan's worth keeping around just to hear him perving on Mazzy or trading insults with Imoen and Aerie. :)
    Brude said:


    @shawne - I mostly agree -- it can be a fun challenge. But take a look at this page, which outlines the encounters you have in one BG1 zone:

    http://www.forgottenwars.com/bg1/ar4600.htm

    A good aligned party will walk out of this zone with an extra 1,000 XP from 3 encounters, plus some decent mid level loot.

    An evil aligned party will net 260 XP from those same encounters, get none of the loot, and actually *lose* gold.

    That goes beyond role playing. To me, it's just non sensical design.

    Ah, but look at those encounters again: not one of them has any impact on your reputation, which is why evil parties should do them too - wiping out Neville's bandits, for example, makes sense for an evil party because it makes you look good. In effect, Smart Evil rather than Stupid Evil. :)
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    edited September 2012
    Cloutier said:

    Yes, your "Good" character can steal gems from middle class families sleeping at the Friendly Arm Inn.

    How nice of you.

    The only alignment a thief can't be is Lawful Good, by 2e D&D and subsequently Baldur's Gate. I don't see the issue.
    shawne said:

    1. I was referencing BG1 specifically, so no Korgan.

    2. Honestly, I've never found Kagain very interesting - he has no subplots or significant relationships with other party members, whereas Korgan's worth keeping around just to hear him perving on Mazzy or trading insults with Imoen and Aerie. :)

    1. Oh neat cool, nevermind then.

    2. Yeah ... I just plain despise Korgan. We're just gonna have to disagree there.
  • BrudeBrude Member Posts: 560
    edited September 2012

    @shawne - You've lost me. I wasn't talking about changes in your rep score, but how the game penalizes you in a fundamental way for playing an 'evil' party.

    All that XP adds up, and eventually it means a good party standing at the gates of Baldur's Gate is going to be a touch more powerful (and have better items, and more money) than one who went bad.

    That's a design decision I'll never understand. In one encounter, the party is required to do the exact same thing -- fight off a mountain bear -- yet the good guys get more XP from the quest giver (and loot!) than the bad guys. Why? It makes no sense.
  • CloutierCloutier Member Posts: 228
    @Quartz

    Alignment restrictions for thieves don't have anything to do with this. Some may take the rogue profession to disarm traps. Thief is not a lifestyle, it's a set of skills.
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    Cloutier said:

    @Quartz

    Alignment restrictions for thieves don't have anything to do with this. Some may take the rogue profession to disarm traps. Thief is not a lifestyle, it's a set of skills.

    Well said.

    Although I do still think a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good character could justify theft on occasion. The whole "I need it more than they do" thing ... sure it's a bogus excuse but it's an excuse I can see such a character using, especially when they're trying to save the Sword Coast.
  • CaptRoryCaptRory Member Posts: 1,660
    I've always rationalized my goodie goodie team committing petty theft this way: The party is made of individuals. If the thief slips off by his or herself to get something shiny it's not my paladin's fault. You know, like a lot of groups try to slip by the party paladin in real life haha.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    edited September 2012
    Brude said:

    @shawne - You've lost me. I wasn't talking about changes in your rep score, but how the game penalizes you in a fundamental way for playing an 'evil' party.

    All that XP adds up, and eventually it means a good party standing at the gates of Baldur's Gate is going to be a touch more powerful (and have better items, and more money) than one who went bad.

    A touch, perhaps, but not significantly so - taking Werewolf Island and Durlag's Tower into account, you can still hit the XP cap as an evil party. (Besides, once your reputation's low enough to provoke the Flaming Fist, those kills will start to add up; Tel-anon alone is worth 2000 EXP.)

    The broader issue, though, is how you define an evil playthrough. Is it your RP? Your alignment? Your reputation? Your choice of NPCs? Players who slaughter every living thing in their path will be penalized, that's absolutely true, but many quests - though framed as "helping" people - have no effect on your reputation and therefore isn't considered a good or evil act.

    For example, let's have a look at the Tenya/Umberlee quest in the fishing village. You get 1000 EXP for killing Tenya and 2500 EXP for killing the fishermen and returning the bowl. The smart play, in-game, is to side with the angry goddess rather than the dumb fishermen who ticked her off; that doesn't mean helping Umberlee is an inherently good act.
  • CyricistCyricist Member Posts: 61
    Brude said:

    Cyricist said:

    It just kind of boggles my mind that so many people write off an entire side of the story of one of the greatest RPG series for PC gaming, as being "not good" or "not smooth", or not as fleshed out as the good side. It's just... wrong. I mean, opinions, right? But sometimes opinions can be wrong, when there is factual evidence of there being many, many situations where Evil choices yield better, or comparable results to Good choices.

    Uh, no. Research the original game. Research the quest rewards and the XP.

    - The FedEx style, 'help the helpless' routine throughout the game doesn't fit with an evil aligned party at all. There are almost no specifically design quests for evildoers.
    - There are many, many quests that offer lower XP or *no* XP if you choose the 'evil' option.
    - Dialogue trees are designed so that you won't get quests at all if you play too closely to an evil alignment.
    - Shop prices: Discounts if you're good, markups if you're evil. This starts to make a huge difference if you're looking to buy items that cost over 10k gold baseline.
    - Powers: Nothing on the evil side matches DUHM.

    You can play evil, sure, but it's harder and it gimps your party. People had a point with their complaints. The game is overwhelmingly lopsided in favor of good aligned parties.
    In order:

    FedEx Style - I'll pick one as an example. Joia's Flamedance Ring is missing. Evil party hears that, goes to find the ring. Sells it. Profits. Quest specifically designed with an Evil party in mind. They hear about someone's misfortune, and profit from it.
    Lower/No XP - There are very, very few quests that offer no reward at all for solving them the "Evil" way. Like, none. You got something for it every time. Maybe not the big shiny pat on the back you were hoping for, but you definitely didn't get shafted.
    Dialogue Trees - Nah. You won't get quests if you're a Chaotic Evil Barbarian. You'll get plenty of quests if you're playing a rational, intelligent, self-motivated person. In fact, almost all of them.
    Shop Prices - Like there haven't been mods since Day 1 that give you comparable Reputation 1 prices, similar to Reputation 20 prices.
    Powers - Sorry... what? Vampiric Grasp is pretty damn good. Not to mention a Good person can't use The Ravager without tanking his reputation. DUHM is nice, but better than the Ravager? Nah.

    So yeah. I just disagree. And the fact that nobody can provide specific examples of the game being 'overwhelmingly' in favor of Good parties is... interesting. I'm trying not to just pump out a list of spoilers, since you guys clearly have never really played an Evil party, but it's getting tempting, just to prove that I do actually have a clue as to what I'm talking about, and am not just arguing for kicks.
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    Lol @Cyricist, you want proof that you exist too? serious your statement is hilarious and i didn't even posted much in this thread.

    Want proof? Search in the forum search engine for the word "Evil" and see by yourself the reasons. There's a bunch of topics from june/july that touch this subject and have awersome posts.
  • BrudeBrude Member Posts: 560
    edited September 2012
    shawne said:

    Brude said:

    The broader issue, though, is how you define an evil playthrough. Is it your RP? Your alignment? Your reputation? Your choice of NPCs? Players who slaughter every living thing in their path will be penalized, that's absolutely true, but many quests - though framed as "helping" people - have no effect on your reputation and therefore isn't considered a good or evil act.

    For example, let's have a look at the Tenya/Umberlee quest in the fishing village. You get 1000 EXP for killing Tenya and 2500 EXP for killing the fishermen and returning the bowl. The smart play, in-game, is to side with the angry goddess rather than the dumb fishermen who ticked her off; that doesn't mean helping Umberlee is an inherently good act.

    @shawne I'm talking about playing just about any of the "evil" alignments, but not do far as that you're a mass murdering psycho.

    Eg: Try answering the dialogue options as closely to neutral evil as possible. Asking people for money or hiring yourself out as a mercenary may or may not have negative effects in the storyline,but regardless the game often punishes that choice by awarding you less XP, loot, and gold.

    In the example I cited previously, when Neville tries to mug you at Bear River, demanding money in turn yields less XP and a loss of loot and gold.

    In the same area, Laurel won't even give you her your quest if you fall below a certain rep threshold; she'll just attack you. (And that threshold is easy to meet, especially if you're starting out with an evil alignment in the first place).

    The fishing village example you cited is interesting, but it follows the same path -- killing a sea goddess for money, no questions asked, could never be construed as "good" in the DnD alignment system. Arguably, righting a wrong and helping to avenge that wrong on behest of a god *is* good, however.
  • BrudeBrude Member Posts: 560
    Cyricist said:

    FedEx Style - I'll pick one as an example. Joia's Flamedance Ring is missing. Evil party hears that, goes to find the ring. Sells it. Profits. Quest specifically designed with an Evil party in mind. They hear about someone's misfortune, and profit from it.
    Lower/No XP - There are very, very few quests that offer no reward at all for solving them the "Evil" way. Like, none. You got something for it every time. Maybe not the big shiny pat on the back you were hoping for, but you definitely didn't get shafted.
    Dialogue Trees - Nah. You won't get quests if you're a Chaotic Evil Barbarian. You'll get plenty of quests if you're playing a rational, intelligent, self-motivated person. In fact, almost all of them.
    Shop Prices - Like there haven't been mods since Day 1 that give you comparable Reputation 1 prices, similar to Reputation 20 prices.
    Powers - Sorry... what? Vampiric Grasp is pretty damn good. Not to mention a Good person can't use The Ravager without tanking his reputation. DUHM is nice, but better than the Ravager? Nah.

    So yeah. I just disagree. And the fact that nobody can provide specific examples of the game being 'overwhelmingly' in favor of Good parties is... interesting. I'm trying not to just pump out a list of spoilers, since you guys clearly have never really played an Evil party, but it's getting tempting, just to prove that I do actually have a clue as to what I'm talking about, and am not just arguing for kicks.

    Funny you should mention that Flamedance Ring. It's one of the early quests that's broken for evil characters. First, if you demand payment for your services (as and self respecting neutral evil character would), Joia refuses and permanently leaves. You don't get the quest at all.

    Second, if you take the ring and sell it the quest isn't completed (it stays in your journal) and -- more importantly -- you get no XP. Which is the primary purpose of doing the quests in the first place.

    Third, if you're evil, taking this quest and fufilling it make zero sense from a role play standpoint. This woman is penniless and offers you nothing, and you're going to help her out because ... Why, exactly? It makes no sense.

    Mods aren't a great argument. I could mod the game to reverse the rep rewards, for example, to give me +2 rep when 'rescuing' Viconia. So it's pretty meaningless to mention them in a discussion about the original game's design.

    DUHM gives you, at low levels, +1 to your stats. This is immensely meaningful for melee based PCs, because it means they're operating with a 19 strength for the duration. That's +3 hit and +7 damage on every swing. Vampiric Touch is useful, but I don't see how it matches up.

    Everyone can provide specific examples of good parties being easier and more beneficial in the long run. Just about every gaming review and guide talks specifically about this, so I'm mystified you don't see it.
Sign In or Register to comment.

2025 Overhaul Games, a division of Beamdog. © 2025 Hasbro, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Baldur's Gate, Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Forgotten Realms, Baldur's Gate, Wizards of the Coast and their logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC in the U.S.A. and other countries, and are used with permission. Hasbro and its logo are trademarks of Hasbro, Inc. and are used with permission. © 1998 BioWare Corp. All Rights Reserved. BioWare, the BioWare Infinity Engine and the BioWare logo are trademarks of Bioware Corp. Black Isle Studios and the Black Isle Studios logo are trademarks of Interplay Entertainment Corp. Atari and the Atari logo are trademarks owned by Atari Interactive, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.