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.
Actually, I ran through that quest recently on a Paladin play through and was surprised that the fishermen, servants of Talos were neutral while the Priestess is quite very evil (I suppose she has embraced her Goddess' calling more than I thought). The Paladin-esque answer *would* be to side with the fishermen. Other shades of good are of course debatable.
Seriously though "Robin Hood" and his legend steels from the rich or middle class in order to redistribute that wealth back to the beggers who need it. What's more Robin Hood's actions, while Chaotic Good are venerated in our society.
There was tremendous corruption at the time. The lower classes were taxed into oblivion while connected individuals reaped the benefits. Being wealthy wasn't the problem, the problem was the money was taken through unfair tax burdens and distributed to those in power.
Robin wasn't taking the money that was rightfully earned and redistributing it, he was targeting people who had the money that was taken from the poor in oppressive taxes and giving it back to those it was taken from.
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.
As I see it, there's a difference between demanding payment and manipulating someone into giving you payment. Again, I think it's more along the lines of Smart/Stupid rather than Good/Evil - why overtly threaten your would-be benefactors when you can ease their suspicions and then clean them out?
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.
Ah, but in that scenario, your choice is either to demand money and let Neville go or eradicate his group and then loot the corpses. Your decision has to do with whether or not you're going to fight, not whether you're going to commit an alignment-related act - and that's one situation where I'd say BG is clearly skewed, as almost all scenarios turn out better for you if you choose combat over negotiation.
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.
Is it? The fishermen have legitimate grievances with Umberlee, and the game doesn't assign moral values to either choice - good players could kill Tenya and not be penalized either. For evil characters, the question is which side can offer you more, and it's hardly surprising that a goddess' reward is worth more than a bunch of villagers.
There weren't a lot of smooth evil options in bg2, like have been included in games like Dragon Age. You could get the deed to that guy's farm and give it to Firkraag, but you would almost always kill Firkraag after anyway, so it was a bit pointless and stupid. Attacking the silver dragon to make some mediocre leather armor didn't feel as evil as it was dumb. It's actually a bit too realistic, with the ultimate evil being simple stupidity. I think people that play evil parties want more rewarding options like being able to put those slave children to work making you some phat ducats that you can spend on bloodsport betting at the Copper Coronet. Something that has them twirling their imaginary (or real) mustaches at the computer.
Oh I'm going full blown evil come November hide your woman children and coin purses Rajick hellfire ravenger of the sword coast and last slaver of amn returns to rape pillage drink sleep with drow and make fun of Edwin's mumbling once more.
My feeling on the "smart evil" vs. "dumb evil" is this: If, as far as the GAME is concerned, you are classed as a "good" character, then no matter what evil thoughts you (the player) has in mind, you are playing a good character.
Put another way: Palpatine (the most commonly cited example of a "smart evil" character) DID, in fact, perform evil deeds, even before giving Order 66. Certainly arranging the invasion of his home planet to gain power followed by starting a civil war to gain MORE power qualifies, and it seems reasonable to assume that there were additional deeds along the same lines that we never saw in the film. Show me a game that EXPLICITLY (via dialog, cutscenes, quests and the like that say "Why are you doing this?" / "Implement your evil plan") plotting on this level and I'll agree that "smart evil" is a valid concept in computer RPGs.
Otherwise, all you are doing is saying "Well, if it says 'evil' on your character sheet, then you are EVIL even if your ACTIONS are indistinguishable from the actions of a Paladin." This may be enough for you, but for people who actually WANT to have evil choices don't consider that to be sufficient -- we want a substantially different (but remaining ROUGHLY equivalent in terms of dialog / quests / rewards) experience for evil characters.
The problem is that the group of people who would actually want to explore such content is very, very small, and it just doesn't make financial sense to content that the vast majority of players will never seen. Worse still, some "good" players will see the content -- because they forced themselves to play an evil character, on the grounds "I paid for all this content, so I have to see it all", resulting in a terrible gameplay experience (I've seen posts on other cRPG message boards about people complaining as a result of doing this). Thus, the best evil players can generally hope for is some amount of "slightly morally ambiguous" content, plus one or two quests that are clearly "evil only" with sub-par rewards (after all, if the rewards were good, then "good" players would feel obliged to follow the questline as well).
More specific examples of this logic in place: the human skin armor in BG2 -- the armor is only useful if the PC is a pure thief, and even then, is only marginally better than the best armor found up until that point, hardly worth the XP / dialog sacrifices that you made to get it. And don't even get me started on the evil resolution to the BG2 Trademeet quests -- you sacrifice a companion, a quest line, and a significant amount of gameplay in return for what: a handful of gems, that's what. For crying out loud, you HELPED the village, by eliminating the druid threat as you were asked to by a recognized town leader, but SOMEHOW everyone knows that if only you had been more diplomatic a better resolution was possible.
this thread looks like from a while back, but I am going to jump in here. it looks like Cyrisist is merely making excuses in their assumption that there are benefits to playing an evil character in BG1. Sure, you can 'Complete' quests and 'profit' from them. But money isn't exactly hard to come by in the game. XP is much more valuable. And where the "Evil" solution only gives you money, the "Good" often gives you (a) money, (b) XP and (c) avenues to explore for yet more money/XP. Seems a bit one sided.
But here is my experience. Being a long time BG player, I decided to play an Evil character. So, to start off, playing CE, your reputation BEGINS low (9 I think). So points against. So, I set off. Picked up Xar and Montoron. If you don't get negative reputation for that, you should. But.... So, picked them up and then headed north to Friendly Arm Inn. Yada, yada, yada....picked up Kalid and Jahira. Then headed south to Bergost where I picked up Kagain and dumped off the 'Goodie Goodies'. Then headed back up to FAI to search for Viconia. Up to this point, I haven't done a single 'Evil' act. But then it goes south.
In order to pick up Viconia, you have to kill a Flaming Fist. So - 2 reputation. Having Viconia gives you another -2. So my 9 is now 5. headed back south to Bergost. Went into the Jovial Jugular. Went upstairs and talked to the loon in one of the rooms. Basically he was insane. I wanted his stuff and figured i was doing a service to humanity by killing the crazy sod. Minus to reputation.
Then I headed south again, towards Naskal. On the way, I encountered another Flaming Fist. he got in my face and so I killed him. Upon entering Naskal, the entire town guard attacks me. Each time one dies, my reputation plummets. After the third dies, Imoen leaves the party. I am not 100% sure when or how, but my rep is now 1. I did research and found that if it was 3 upon entering town, I get KOS by the guards. So I would have gotten there merely by being evil, picking up Viconia and killing one more Flaming fist (Or) a civilian.
Understand that the only "Evil" acts I performed were (a) Being Evil. (b) Defending a potentially innocent yet racially profiled Elf from an aggressive law enforcer. (c) putting a nutter out of his misery and (d) fighting off an overly aggressive guard who waylayed me on the road. Now I can't go into Naskal, Bergost or Baldur's gate without having to attack the entire town.
D&D is a heroic fantasy game, it assumes you are playing a heroic character. The rules allow you to play evil, but doing so is not in the spirit of the game, and includes many complications. How many Dungeon Master's Guides have specifically advised against allowing evil characters in your campaign? The motivations of evil characters would be totally different than good ones, and often will not correspond with the content of a pre generated adventure module. I see no reason to worry about making evil choices equally profitable, since evil isn't generally profitable in the long term in reality (unless you want to role play the life of a corporate CEO who exploits loopholes in antitrust laws to eliminate his business rivals, woo-hoo!)
@The_Cheeseman You either don't understand evil or you don't understand profit.
Evil is immensely profitable in real life, as long as you aren't a raving psycho or an idiot.
Stupid is what's expensive, regardless of morality. Thing is, Evil+Stupid is WAY more dangerous/costly than Good+Stupid... and most people are stupid.
Evil, however, is quite handy and almost universally applicable. The willingness to use people, putting yourself first, and planning for your own betterment without worrying about the effects on those around you... these all result in power and profit. Just look at how those in power in our world behave. If you get stupid, or too greedy, then everyone takes you down hard.
Back to the topic at hand, however. This sounds like we need a community mod project. Something to really expand out and build up the evil side of the game, and do it in a way that's not "Herp Derp, stabbin you in the face Mr. Talky Man" so much as "Of course I'll help you reclaim your valuables... *keep valuables* *steal deed to home* *get quest giver thrown in jail for attempting to rob you*", Quest Complete, +1200xp.
I only lost 2 repuation for the whole encounter, I killed the Flaming Fist *and* took Viconia into my party.
Well, to be honest I wasn't paying attention to what or where my reputation took a hit. I knew that Viconia by herself gives you a -2. I may have assumed the killing of the fist to be another one. And I can say with definition that my reputation was less than 4 upon entering Naskal. And that literally the only actions I took (other than starting out as CE) that were evil were as depicted above (a) Taking on Viconia (-2), (b) Killing one loon in the Jovial Jugular, and (c) killing one other flaming fist. So somewhere in an amongst that I went from 9 (7 after taking on Viconia) down to 3. That really isn't THAT much to make the game all but un-playable.
But to put to rest the question of is Evil viable, one needs to understand that Hasbro (the company behind the D&D CRPG license at the time of BG) was a HUGE proponent of making the game family friendly and approachable. They had a vested interest in not making Evil in any way palatable. Sure, there IS an evil path. But in terms of XP/Gold and other rewards, there are far more 'Good' choices and the reward is ultimately (including XP) greater to be Good. This isn't a theory, it is common knowledge.
I do agree that it would be great if there was custom content altering the shift. Because I also agree that most of the interesting NPCs are the evil ones (Viconia, Edwin, Kagain, Tiax, Xar).
@LaughingMan No, I understand both concepts quite well. I also understand that the essence of being evil is working outside the rules of your society to advance yourself at the cost of others. People are inherently social creatures, and we live in a large, extremely complex society. Being unconstrained by the rules of your culture may seem like freedom, but its much more like isolation. Playing evil in a video game is fun because when you're done, you can turn it off. In reality, you have to live with the consequences of your actions for the rest of your life, with nobody to rely on but yourself. Countless studies have shown that money and power do not actually make people happy, only love, acceptance, and security really provide lasting joy. Being evil is not the way to be loved, accepted, or secure, but instead envied, feared, and suspicious.
@the_spyder: It really depends on how you define an evil RP. LaughingMan is correct in pointing out that there's a difference between Stupid Evil and Smart Evil - for example, Smart Evil characters would avoid provoking the local authorities, the better to go about their own business without interference. If that means a few temple donations or false acts of kindness to get your reputation to 7 or 8, why not?
Also, concerning the argument that the evil path grants you less XP - this is broadly true (though Shandalar alone is worth 26000 XP and Drizzt is another 12000) but the game compensates for this by assigning the strongest single-class NPCs to evil players (Dorn, Edwin, Viconia and Kagain).
Palpatine (the most commonly cited example of a "smart evil" character)
I lobby for Iago from "Othello." Go to the source. But yes, I agree that if we had more interesting dialogue options and quests for being evil, then I'd be more interested in that playstyle. I'm doubtful that it's going to happen because of various reasons others have mentioned here (family market, game rating, alienating some portion of the customer base, etc.). Believe it or not, there are lots of people who find their way into RPGs that are extremely squeamish about the subject of being an evil character themselves. Fighting evil, dealing with evil all around them, dark heroes, ok, sure. Once it gets internalized though, where you are the monster, it weirds a lot of folks out. Personally I'm past that phase of my life and I can suppress my innate instinct to be good in order to tell an interesting story or make a memorable villain, but I can empathize with people that just don't like thinking about it. I was always too curious to keep the door completely shut though.
Eg: Try answering the dialogue options as closely to neutral evil as possible.
I think you're talking about stupid evil dialogue options, not neutral evil ones. I mean, even Xzar and Montaron know how to use tact/manipulation (the potion trick), and one of them is insane!
With regard to everything else, getting less XP because you do less things (since you only do jobs when people can pay you well, or aren't offended by your rude manner) seems pretty logical. You'll probably be killing more people anyway.
Oh, and one last thing, a lot of this "problem" is because committing evil acts in BG is routine for a lot of "good" characters (for example stealing from poor people and screwing people over generally) so long as rep isn't lost it apparently doesn't count. If you actually roleplay then evil people have a big advantage over good people in terms of options and overall resources.
@the_spyder: It really depends on how you define an evil RP. LaughingMan is correct in pointing out that there's a difference between Stupid Evil and Smart Evil - for example, Smart Evil characters would avoid provoking the local authorities, the better to go about their own business without interference. If that means a few temple donations or false acts of kindness to get your reputation to 7 or 8, why not?
I agree with you in concept. "Smart" evil is absolutely the way to go. The day when Vaudevillian Evil with the whole mustash twisting Baddie is more comical than actually EVIL. However, the execution in the BG series is something very different.
If you don't keep your reputation down, your "Evil" companions may leave you, or at least make nasty comments about your performance and path. If you choose the "False" goodie path enough times, the sickeningly sweet attitude of altruistic self sacrifice, you aren't playing "Evil". You are playing a good character but with an evil alignment.
And this is by design. As stated before, Hasbro wanted the game to be family and kid friendly. So, even though they put Evil choices in, they made sure that they were 'Stupid' evil, basically being a Dick rather than being evil. They cut down the number of Evil choices. The reduced or eliminated the XP reward associated for most of the quests for the 'Evil' path. They jacked up the costs of things the more you play EVIL. And they made most of the 'Good' path intentionally Disney 'good'.
But it means that you can't really apply the links that you listed. Because the more suave, sophisticated "Evil" path simply doesn't exist in the game. And "Evil" is gauged in the game by lowering Reputation. And the lower the reputation the harder it gets. So to do as suggested isn't to play "Evil" characters pretending to be good. You have to play Good or neutral but with an evil alignment or face the consequences.
Also, concerning the argument that the evil path grants you less XP - this is broadly true (though Shandalar alone is worth 26000 XP and Drizzt is another 12000) but the game compensates for this by assigning the strongest single-class NPCs to evil players (Dorn, Edwin, Viconia and Kagain).
And I would agree that amongst the strongest companions (and most interesting) are the evil brands. I suspect this was almost throwing a bone to the 'Evil' path. But in the original BG2, you could actually redeem Viconia. And Edwin is made to look a fool in his quest for the Scroll. And the most interesting interactions are between the goodly and neutral party members (Minsc and Jan are HILARIOUS together).
If you don't keep your reputation down, your "Evil" companions may leave you, or at least make nasty comments about your performance and path. If you choose the "False" goodie path enough times, the sickeningly sweet attitude of altruistic self sacrifice, you aren't playing "Evil". You are playing a good character but with an evil alignment.
I think it comes down to player motivation, not the act itself. Smart Evil characters kill Bassilus not because they want to save Beregost, but because there's a huge bounty on his head and that money can make the Bhaalspawn's party stronger. You return Joia's ring and protect Prism for Greywolf because they offer you rewards - the game registers these as good acts and gives you reputation boosts to match, but for RP purposes your character is doing these things for completely selfish reasons: either tangible rewards (resources) or intangible rewards (keeping your reputation just high enough to avoid unwanted attention). You can balance those reputation boosts out with various evil acts to keep your reputation in the ideal 7-9 range: low enough to satisfy evil party members and get the evil Bhaalspawn powers in the dreams, high enough to keep the Flaming Fist from harassing you.
And this is by design. As stated before, Hasbro wanted the game to be family and kid friendly. So, even though they put Evil choices in, they made sure that they were 'Stupid' evil, basically being a Dick rather than being evil. They cut down the number of Evil choices. The reduced or eliminated the XP reward associated for most of the quests for the 'Evil' path. They jacked up the costs of things the more you play EVIL. And they made most of the 'Good' path intentionally Disney 'good'.
Alternatively, they made the evil path more challenging - less XP (except for high-profile kills) but more powerful party members, more expensive items means you have to be very careful with your spending, etc.
But it means that you can't really apply the links that you listed. Because the more suave, sophisticated "Evil" path simply doesn't exist in the game. And "Evil" is gauged in the game by lowering Reputation. And the lower the reputation the harder it gets. So to do as suggested isn't to play "Evil" characters pretending to be good. You have to play Good or neutral but with an evil alignment or face the consequences.
Again, I disagree: lowering your Reputation past a certain point is Stupid Evil, because it means people know what you're doing. A Smart Evil character furthers his or her own goals without becoming Public Enemy Number 1. If that means pretending to be a hero by saving a few peasants, so what? Don't forget that your ultimate goal of killing Sarevok will have beneficial side effects for the city of Baldur's Gate - that doesn't change the reason you're after him.
And I would agree that amongst the strongest companions (and most interesting) are the evil brands. I suspect this was almost throwing a bone to the 'Evil' path. But in the original BG2, you could actually redeem Viconia.
You could, but you don't have to. You don't have to redeem Sarevok either. One of the reasons I love Ascension is that an evil Bhaalspawn doesn't even have to geas Sarevok to gain his service - just agree with his views on power and promise him a place at your side, and he'll stay loyal when Amelyssan tries to turn him against you.
I think it comes down to player motivation, not the act itself. Smart Evil characters kill Bassilus not because they want to save Beregost, but because there's a huge bounty on his head and that money can make the Bhaalspawn's party stronger. You return Joia's ring and protect Prism for Greywolf because they offer you rewards - the game registers these as good acts and gives you reputation boosts to match, but for RP purposes your character is doing these things for completely selfish reasons: either tangible rewards (resources) or intangible rewards (keeping your reputation just high enough to avoid unwanted attention). You can balance those reputation boosts out with various evil acts to keep your reputation in the ideal 7-9 range: low enough to satisfy evil party members and get the evil Bhaalspawn powers in the dreams, high enough to keep the Flaming Fist from harassing you.
I think you missed my point. Quite completely in fact. Doing good acts (rewards or no) for evil purpose is eventually self defeating. "I just saved that whole village of orphans and widows because I don't want people to realize that I am evil. Same reason I slew that dragon the other week. And the month before when I stopped the bank from foreclosing on the church." How many 'Fake' good acts does an "Evil" character have to do in order to have an alignment shift?
But my real point was that 'Evil' is evaluated by the game as acts which erode your reputation. This is clear and evidenced by how your evil companions react to you. It is also evidenced by the choices of dialogue that you are given in the game. Evil isn't smart and suave, it is obnoxious and crass. And if you read most of the dialogue choices, you can either act altruistically or you can be a jerk and demand reward. There is no in-between. Or what there is tends to be few and far between. Put it simply, the writers intend that, if you are going to be Evil, you are going to play Stupid evil. Otherwise, and in all other cases, you are playing towards the good side.
As for 'Boosting up to keep your reputation in the 7-9 range', take a look at the examples I gave. 3 acts reduced my Evil character to KOS in Naskal. THREE. And the options to bring back up to respectable level hadn't even presented themselves yet. It's the writing.
Alternatively, they made the evil path more challenging - less XP (except for high-profile kills) but more powerful party members, more expensive items means you have to be very careful with your spending, etc.
I am not sure what you mean. "More challenging"??? Absolutely. After THREE evil acts and very little to no way to recover and I couldn't enter Naskal without permanently destroying my reputation. The Town militia was aggro as soon as I walked into town. So now I can't VISIT a town. No supplies. No possibility of getting quests. ZERO ability to repair my reputation (or next to none). Believe me, the differential in abilities for the evil characters isn't that vast over the good ones.
Again, I disagree: lowering your Reputation past a certain point is Stupid Evil, because it means people know what you're doing. A Smart Evil character furthers his or her own goals without becoming Public Enemy Number 1. If that means pretending to be a hero by saving a few peasants, so what? Don't forget that your ultimate goal of killing Sarevok will have beneficial side effects for the city of Baldur's Gate - that doesn't change the reason you're after him.
I don't think you read my previous posts. Three acts reduced my reputation to 3. None of them were observed by anyone. There is ZERO reason why I should be reviled. And these were very simple things to do at very low levels. There was no SMART EVIL choice involved. I picked up a Cleric for my party. I killed an obviously insane patron and I took offense to a wandering patrol. Of these, MAYBE someone observed the guard.
You could, but you don't have to. You don't have to redeem Sarevok either. One of the reasons I love Ascension is that an evil Bhaalspawn doesn't even have to geas Sarevok to gain his service - just agree with his views on power and promise him a place at your side, and he'll stay loyal when Amelyssan tries to turn him against you.
You miss the point. The fact that you CAN means that it was written such that "Evil" is wrong. You can't turn Ajantis to evil. You can't corrupt Branwin or Kalid. It is ONLY the evil ones that can be "Fixed". this speaks to the overall bent of the writers. the fact that "Evil" is intended to be wrong and fixable. It makes no difference if you DO fix them or not, the mere fact is the writers were making them fixable.
As opposed to BG1, where he talks to himself about fireballing the team while they're sleeping?
Are you making my point for me? And yes, being force gender switched is a bit more hilarious and humiliating than simply talking tough or obnoxious. At least in my opinion. He was made to look the fool.
@EnterHaerDalis Hate to say it, but that's an old BG1 chart. BG:EE is running the BGII engine so you have to pay out your ass now. A shame.
But not unexpected. Take a look at what Hasbro did to ToEE at the last minute. How many quests were broken because they were "Too Evil". Children made immortal/removed because they didn't want the players to be able to PLAY Evil and be able to slaughter them. It was pretty funny having a discussion with the old Matron in charge of the village orphanage, having her talk about all of the children under foot, only there weren't any... Removed at the last minute by order of Hasbro.
I think you missed my point. Quite completely in fact. Doing good acts (rewards or no) for evil purpose is eventually self defeating. "I just saved that whole village of orphans and widows because I don't want people to realize that I am evil. Same reason I slew that dragon the other week. And the month before when I stopped the bank from foreclosing on the church." How many 'Fake' good acts does an "Evil" character have to do in order to have an alignment shift?
What you're struggling with is a problem that goes to the very core of D&D roleplaying: whether alignment dictates a character's actions or a character's motivations. The solution, as far as I can tell, has always been to let the player decide, and speaking as someone who successfully completed what I call a "Smart Evil" playthrough of the original BG saga, I can honestly say the story held together. If I saved a village of orphans and widows, it was to cover up the fact that I'd just murdered a local hero for his powerful weapons and armor. If I helped some poor schmuck out in Athkatla, it was to keep the guards off my back while I tricked Bodhi into wiping out the Shadow Thieves for me, and then obliterated her gang as well. My character was Neutral Evil, and that's how I RPed, and any "good" acts I did were simply a cover to keep my true goals hidden from groups like the Cowled Wizards and the Iron Dukes.
It is also evidenced by the choices of dialogue that you are given in the game. Evil isn't smart and suave, it is obnoxious and crass. And if you read most of the dialogue choices, you can either act altruistically or you can be a jerk and demand reward. There is no in-between. Or what there is tends to be few and far between. Put it simply, the writers intend that, if you are going to be Evil, you are going to play Stupid evil. Otherwise, and in all other cases, you are playing towards the good side.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that - my own experience with the games disproves your claims.
I don't think you read my previous posts. Three acts reduced my reputation to 3. None of them were observed by anyone. There is ZERO reason why I should be reviled. And these were very simple things to do at very low levels. There was no SMART EVIL choice involved. I picked up a Cleric for my party. I killed an obviously insane patron and I took offense to a wandering patrol. Of these, MAYBE someone observed the guard.
Let's review:
1. You murdered an inn patron because you thought he was insane (and left the body behind). 2. You murdered a wandering guard - a member of the Flaming Fist. You are, for all intents and purposes, a medieval cop-killer.
These acts are the very definition of Stupid Evil, because they don't benefit your character in any way - you did them on a whim, when the Smart Evil thing to do would have been to let the guard pass and leave the nutjob to his ramblings. Smart Evil is about picking your targets carefully, not slaughtering anything just because you feel like it. Faerun isn't an evil society, so if you're RPing an evil character you're already working against the normative values of the world.
You miss the point. The fact that you CAN means that it was written such that "Evil" is wrong. You can't turn Ajantis to evil. You can't corrupt Branwin or Kalid. It is ONLY the evil ones that can be "Fixed". this speaks to the overall bent of the writers. the fact that "Evil" is intended to be wrong and fixable. It makes no difference if you DO fix them or not, the mere fact is the writers were making them fixable.
Nope. Sarevok and Viconia are special cases - the former is your half-brother, so it makes sense that good-aligned characters can convert him to their side. The latter can only be converted via romance (and then, again, only if you choose to do so), otherwise she stays evil throughout.
No, I'm indicating that Edwin has an element of comic relief, and that doesn't diminish him as an evil character any more than Minsc's antics diminish him as a good character. You're really reaching here, and it shows.
What you're struggling with is a problem that goes to the very core of D&D roleplaying: whether alignment dictates a character's actions or a character's motivations. The solution, as far as I can tell, has always been to let the player decide, and speaking as someone who successfully completed what I call a "Smart Evil" playthrough of the original BG saga, I can honestly say the story held together. If I saved a village of orphans and widows, it was to cover up the fact that I'd just murdered a local hero for his powerful weapons and armor. If I helped some poor schmuck out in Athkatla, it was to keep the guards off my back while I tricked Bodhi into wiping out the Shadow Thieves for me, and then obliterated her gang as well. My character was Neutral Evil, and that's how I RPed, and any "good" acts I did were simply a cover to keep my true goals hidden from groups like the Cowled Wizards and the Iron Dukes.
So maybe we are talking at cross purposes. I have by and large been talking about Baldur's Gate 1. I did reference Baldur's gate 2 when talking about Edwin and what happened there, but most of my content was intended to discuss Baldur's gate 1. In Baldur's gate 1, most or all of the dialogue I have encountered fell firmly into either Altruistic behavior (self sacrifice for the good of the many) or being a jerk. I'd like to hear examples of something other than that if you have the chance. Because I saw almost none of that (and I have played the game SEVERAL times over the years).
Besides, I am not talking semantics, i am talking game mechanics. If you don't have a low reputation, your Evil party members will leave you. the only way to get a low reputation is to do the kinds of things I am describing. If you have a low reputation, everything costs more, and in extreme cases, you get aggro'd when you enter towns. it's all mechanics.
And the reverse is not true of good. You can continue to raise your reputation to 20 (and beyond if it allowed you) with no ill effects. Your good companions will never leave you because your reputation is to high. You will never see a mark-up because people think you are to wonderful. And you will never be forbidden to enter a town because you are just to wondrous to behold.
See the disparity FROM A MECHANICAL PERSPECTIVE alone?
And I am not 'Struggling' with the concept. I get it full well. But what YOU are struggling with is that what you are looking for and saying exists in the writing of BG1, isn't there.
The way I have gotten around it is simple, though. I play a Neutral Evil Wizard who "Hides" his evil from his group. I can occasionally let him exert his influence in certain actions, but mainly he lets Imoen or Jahira or Ajantis guide the party so he doesn't make it obvious what he is doing. this is a construct of my imagination and pretty much the only way I can convince myself that I am still playing an Evil character. When I tried to play a flat out evil party, what I got was KOS by Naskal.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that - my own experience with the games disproves your claims.
If you are talking opinion, which apparently you are, there is no proving or disproving. You may have a different experience than I, but that proves nothing.
1. You murdered an inn patron because you thought he was insane (and left the body behind). 2. You murdered a wandering guard - a member of the Flaming Fist. You are, for all intents and purposes, a medieval cop-killer.
These acts are the very definition of Stupid Evil, because they don't benefit your character in any way - you did them on a whim, when the Smart Evil thing to do would have been to let the guard pass and leave the nutjob to his ramblings. Smart Evil is about picking your targets carefully, not slaughtering anything just because you feel like it. Faerun isn't an evil society, so if you're RPing an evil character you're already working against the normative values of the world.
Gonna STRONGLY disagree with you on just about every point here. Let's review:
1. I killed a guy. It is true. I benefited from it by getting his stuff. So there was benefit. "If" I left a corpse, and this is "Medieval times", do you know what the forensics was like back then? Any idea why they never caught Jack the Ripper? There was no CSI - Baldur's Gate edition. Pretty much, unless someone saw the crime, it went un-punished. How does that make me publicly reviled?
Also understand that you can kill Silkie in the town square in broad daylight and with no ill effects. No one needs to hear proof that she is evil. Who is to say that the Loon wasn't just as evil?
2. Understand that the Flaming fist aren't Cops. They are a mercenary group. In the first place, Cops don't exist. In the second, The fist has a reputation that isn't much better than the Black Talon. Do some reading on the literature.
In the third place, even if these are "Evil" acts, there is clear and tangible benefit. I get the Loon's stuff. Even if he had little or nothing, I didn't know that before I killed him. I also get two sets of plate-mail. Once the insignia is removed, that is some nice armor to have. And I also get a handful of gold. People have been killed for a WHOLE LOT less. In the third place, no one saw me do any of it. So why am I reviled?
Plus, consider how I presented things. (a) I encountered a persecuted Elf in the wilds and I rescued her from a mercenary. Negative reputation. (b) I encountered an obviously insane man in a tavern. I put him out of his misery. (c) I encountered another mercenary. I had someone in my party that had been persecuted by that mercenary group in the past. He came across very brusk and demanding. We were in the middle of the wilds where no one was around. I had the superior firepower. So I saw significant advantage in killing him and none in acquiescing to his belligerent attitudes. How is that 'Stupid Evil'?
You would do a whole lot better to consider this the old west. People got gunned down for their horse or sometimes for water or the food in their packs, and by people a whole lot less EVIL than Chaotic Evil. And in the middle of the prairie, no one was there to see it. And then they would go back into town and be served drinks just like everyone else.
Nope. Sarevok and Viconia are special cases - the former is your half-brother, so it makes sense that good-aligned characters can convert him to their side. The latter can only be converted via romance (and then, again, only if you choose to do so), otherwise she stays evil throughout.
Yeah, you missed the point completely. My point is that the only "Special Cases" are the evil ones. Again, please provide a single instance where the reverse is true? You can't, because there isn't one. Special case or not, the writing is intended to make Goodly the preferred path and evil the wrong one.
Oh, and you can still romance Viconia even if she stays evil. I've done it.
No, I'm indicating that Edwin has an element of comic relief, and that doesn't diminish him as an evil character any more than Minsc's antics diminish him as a good character. You're really reaching here, and it shows.
I gotta really disagree. I think that ALL of the characters were written with a flair for the funny. did you by any chance encounter three kobolds by the name of Larry, Darrel and Darrel? Or How about Xar's entire conversation? Or how about how Kalid kept on freaking out? and in BG2 it was worse. You think that Edwin was comic relief over Jan and Minsc? or Anomen's advances? Or Aerie? Or some of the interplay between Viconia and Firecam? It is ALL Comic relief. As such, Edwin's transformation goes quite a bit beyond the pale. At least in my opinion. I mean he would have won RuPaul's Drag race, hands down.
The fact that you CAN means that it was written such that "Evil" is wrong. You can't turn Ajantis to evil. You can't corrupt Branwin or Kalid. It is ONLY the evil ones that can be "Fixed". this speaks to the overall bent of the writers. the fact that "Evil" is intended to be wrong and fixable. It makes no difference if you DO fix them or not, the mere fact is the writers were making them fixable.
Have to agree with this. There are no ways to corrupt the good npcs in the game, so in this the game is biased toward good. In KOTOR2 for example it was possible to influence your companions towards both direction.
Plus, consider how I presented things. (a) I encountered a persecuted Elf in the wilds and I rescued her from a mercenary. Negative reputation. (b) I encountered an obviously insane man in a tavern. I put him out of his misery. (c) I encountered another mercenary. I had someone in my party that had been persecuted by that mercenary group in the past. He came across very brusk and demanding. We were in the middle of the wilds where no one was around. I had the superior firepower. So I saw significant advantage in killing him and none in acquiescing to his belligerent attitudes. How is that 'Stupid Evil'?
You would do a whole lot better to consider this the old west. People got gunned down for their horse or sometimes for water or the food in their packs, and by people a whole lot less EVIL than Chaotic Evil. And in the middle of the prairie, no one was there to see it. And then they would go back into town and be served drinks just like everyone else.
But I have to agree with shawne here. 1. Killing the guy in the tavern. Yeah there is no CSI: Beregost, but a heavily armed group of adventurers go upstairs and come down, later one of the guest is found dead, hmm wonder who could have done it. No need for eye witnesses here, rumors will start to spread and your reputation will suffer.
2. Viconia. You don't actually lose reputation from killing the flaming fist mercenary when you save her, you lose it if she joins your party. And that makes perfect sense. The realms are a very racist place, travelling with a drow is highly suspicious. Everyone knows drows are evil, wonder what the people are like who she is travelling with?
So if your group has already a somewhat bad reputation for being possible murderers, having a drow on the team will only strenghten those rumors. I would say bringing your group into highlight instead of laying low when you know you are already disliked is 'stupid evil'.
3. The other mercenary on the road. I think the repuration loss there was a bug and no longer happens, but anyway, I do agree that there should be no loss in that case, because there is a very small chance that that action could be tied to you. Though there is a little boy further up the road who likes to 'sneak around' so you could roleplay he went after your party out of curiosity and saw you killing the guy, then run back home and told everyone.
But I have to agree with shawne here. 1. Killing the guy in the tavern. Yeah there is no CSI: Beregost, but a heavily armed group of adventurers go upstairs and come down, later one of the guest is found dead, hmm wonder who could have done it. No need for eye witnesses here, rumors will start to spread and your reputation will suffer.
2. Viconia. You don't actually lose reputation from killing the flaming fist mercenary when you save her, you lose it if she joins your party. And that makes perfect sense. The realms are a very racist place, travelling with a drow is highly suspicious. Everyone knows drows are evil, wonder what the people are like who she is travelling with?
So if your group has already a somewhat bad reputation for being possible murderers, having a drow on the team will only strenghten those rumors. I would say bringing your group into highlight instead of laying low when you know you are already disliked is 'stupid evil'.
3. The other mercenary on the road. I think the repuration loss there was a bug and no longer happens, but anyway, I do agree that there should be no loss in that case, because there is a very small chance that that action could be tied to you. Though there is a little boy further up the road who likes to 'sneak around' so you could roleplay he went after your party out of curiosity and saw you killing the guy, then run back home and told everyone.
Sure, a heavily armed group goes upstairs. So does that Warrior in the bar, whom the Loon in question was being paranoid about, quite loudly and to anyone who would listen. Wouldn't he be a more reasonable suspect? Also, it's a BAR. Most of the patrons are so sozzled that they can't speak to you. And the Jovial Juggler doesn't seem the most salubrious of places. Do you get the feeling that people pay close attention to what others get up too?
Add to that the fact that Silkie can get killed in broad daylight where everyone can see the "Murder" yet no one gets bent out of shape. I'd say not to many people are actually looking too hard in that town. And you get attacked in at least one of the other taverns (and again in Naskal and in the Friendly Arm Inn and Three separate times in Candlekeep) while the entire bar watches and does nothing. I'd say killers pretty much walk around freely.
And so EVEN if some industrious drunken sod puts two and two together, would he report it? And is it proof enough to crucify an entire party of potential innocents without trial or proof? Given that there are other opportune suspects? And to stretch that and to say that this increasingly nosy would-be sleuth then tells everyone in Bergost, Naskal, The Friendly Arm Inn and Baldur's gate in the time it takes the adventurers to travel there, seems a bit much in my book.
I take your point about the Drow. However, who says she shows her face? And are you proposing that the environment is so racist that seeing her alone makes me KOS in all of these places? Because the reputation hit for having her on board isn't enough to do that alone. And I can pick her up and not do the other stuff and no problem. And I can also dump her off anywhere and still have the bad reputation. So, kind of problem there.
But after all of this, there is the game mechanic to contend with, which is the main problem. Being good lays zero restriction on you at all. You aren't restricted on quests. In fact you get more of them. You aren't losing experience. If you play the evil road (Smart or stupid), you miss out on some experience. Being good never leads you to being persona-non-Grata. You never Have to do evil things to survive. Being Evil, smart or dumb, it is a constant struggle. More so than it should logically be. And I think therein lies the truth of the matter.
Don't get me wrong. I have found ways around the system. Plus, you don't need to even play alignment if you so choose. I personally take it very serious, but no one says you have too. And I am sure that you can play "Evil". just it seems the game mechanic is bent against it.
If it were me, if a heavily armed group of killers walked into my shop, they would hands down get the lowest discount I could afford (probably free). I wouldn't make them mad. I wouldn't say nice things about them behind their backs, but i wouldn't upset them needlessly.
Comments
@Cloutier
We're men, we're men in tightsssssssssssss
Seriously though "Robin Hood" and his legend steels from the rich or middle class in order to redistribute that wealth back to the beggers who need it. What's more Robin Hood's actions, while Chaotic Good are venerated in our society.
There was tremendous corruption at the time. The lower classes were taxed into oblivion while connected individuals reaped the benefits. Being wealthy wasn't the problem, the problem was the money was taken through unfair tax burdens and distributed to those in power.
Robin wasn't taking the money that was rightfully earned and redistributing it, he was targeting people who had the money that was taken from the poor in oppressive taxes and giving it back to those it was taken from.
(Then again, it is a RPG...)
Put another way: Palpatine (the most commonly cited example of a "smart evil" character) DID, in fact, perform evil deeds, even before giving Order 66. Certainly arranging the invasion of his home planet to gain power followed by starting a civil war to gain MORE power qualifies, and it seems reasonable to assume that there were additional deeds along the same lines that we never saw in the film. Show me a game that EXPLICITLY (via dialog, cutscenes, quests and the like that say "Why are you doing this?" / "Implement your evil plan") plotting on this level and I'll agree that "smart evil" is a valid concept in computer RPGs.
Otherwise, all you are doing is saying "Well, if it says 'evil' on your character sheet, then you are EVIL even if your ACTIONS are indistinguishable from the actions of a Paladin." This may be enough for you, but for people who actually WANT to have evil choices don't consider that to be sufficient -- we want a substantially different (but remaining ROUGHLY equivalent in terms of dialog / quests / rewards) experience for evil characters.
The problem is that the group of people who would actually want to explore such content is very, very small, and it just doesn't make financial sense to content that the vast majority of players will never seen. Worse still, some "good" players will see the content -- because they forced themselves to play an evil character, on the grounds "I paid for all this content, so I have to see it all", resulting in a terrible gameplay experience (I've seen posts on other cRPG message boards about people complaining as a result of doing this). Thus, the best evil players can generally hope for is some amount of "slightly morally ambiguous" content, plus one or two quests that are clearly "evil only" with sub-par rewards (after all, if the rewards were good, then "good" players would feel obliged to follow the questline as well).
More specific examples of this logic in place: the human skin armor in BG2 -- the armor is only useful if the PC is a pure thief, and even then, is only marginally better than the best armor found up until that point, hardly worth the XP / dialog sacrifices that you made to get it. And don't even get me started on the evil resolution to the BG2 Trademeet quests -- you sacrifice a companion, a quest line, and a significant amount of gameplay in return for what: a handful of gems, that's what. For crying out loud, you HELPED the village, by eliminating the druid threat as you were asked to by a recognized town leader, but SOMEHOW everyone knows that if only you had been more diplomatic a better resolution was possible.
But here is my experience. Being a long time BG player, I decided to play an Evil character. So, to start off, playing CE, your reputation BEGINS low (9 I think). So points against. So, I set off. Picked up Xar and Montoron. If you don't get negative reputation for that, you should. But.... So, picked them up and then headed north to Friendly Arm Inn. Yada, yada, yada....picked up Kalid and Jahira. Then headed south to Bergost where I picked up Kagain and dumped off the 'Goodie Goodies'. Then headed back up to FAI to search for Viconia. Up to this point, I haven't done a single 'Evil' act. But then it goes south.
In order to pick up Viconia, you have to kill a Flaming Fist. So - 2 reputation. Having Viconia gives you another -2. So my 9 is now 5. headed back south to Bergost. Went into the Jovial Jugular. Went upstairs and talked to the loon in one of the rooms. Basically he was insane. I wanted his stuff and figured i was doing a service to humanity by killing the crazy sod. Minus to reputation.
Then I headed south again, towards Naskal. On the way, I encountered another Flaming Fist. he got in my face and so I killed him. Upon entering Naskal, the entire town guard attacks me. Each time one dies, my reputation plummets. After the third dies, Imoen leaves the party. I am not 100% sure when or how, but my rep is now 1. I did research and found that if it was 3 upon entering town, I get KOS by the guards. So I would have gotten there merely by being evil, picking up Viconia and killing one more Flaming fist (Or) a civilian.
Understand that the only "Evil" acts I performed were (a) Being Evil. (b) Defending a potentially innocent yet racially profiled Elf from an aggressive law enforcer. (c) putting a nutter out of his misery and (d) fighting off an overly aggressive guard who waylayed me on the road. Now I can't go into Naskal, Bergost or Baldur's gate without having to attack the entire town.
All in good fun. LOL.....
Evil is immensely profitable in real life, as long as you aren't a raving psycho or an idiot.
Stupid is what's expensive, regardless of morality. Thing is, Evil+Stupid is WAY more dangerous/costly than Good+Stupid... and most people are stupid.
Evil, however, is quite handy and almost universally applicable. The willingness to use people, putting yourself first, and planning for your own betterment without worrying about the effects on those around you... these all result in power and profit. Just look at how those in power in our world behave. If you get stupid, or too greedy, then everyone takes you down hard.
Back to the topic at hand, however. This sounds like we need a community mod project. Something to really expand out and build up the evil side of the game, and do it in a way that's not "Herp Derp, stabbin you in the face Mr. Talky Man" so much as "Of course I'll help you reclaim your valuables... *keep valuables* *steal deed to home* *get quest giver thrown in jail for attempting to rob you*", Quest Complete, +1200xp.
But to put to rest the question of is Evil viable, one needs to understand that Hasbro (the company behind the D&D CRPG license at the time of BG) was a HUGE proponent of making the game family friendly and approachable. They had a vested interest in not making Evil in any way palatable. Sure, there IS an evil path. But in terms of XP/Gold and other rewards, there are far more 'Good' choices and the reward is ultimately (including XP) greater to be Good. This isn't a theory, it is common knowledge.
I do agree that it would be great if there was custom content altering the shift. Because I also agree that most of the interesting NPCs are the evil ones (Viconia, Edwin, Kagain, Tiax, Xar).
17 reputation points - 500 gold for one more
16 - 400
15 - 300
14 - 300
13 - 200
12 - 200
11 - 100
10 - 100
9 - 100
8 - 100
7 - 100
6 - 200
5 - 200
4 - 200
3 - 300
2 - 400
1 - 500
Also, concerning the argument that the evil path grants you less XP - this is broadly true (though Shandalar alone is worth 26000 XP and Drizzt is another 12000) but the game compensates for this by assigning the strongest single-class NPCs to evil players (Dorn, Edwin, Viconia and Kagain).
With regard to everything else, getting less XP because you do less things (since you only do jobs when people can pay you well, or aren't offended by your rude manner) seems pretty logical. You'll probably be killing more people anyway.
Oh, and one last thing, a lot of this "problem" is because committing evil acts in BG is routine for a lot of "good" characters (for example stealing from poor people and screwing people over generally) so long as rep isn't lost it apparently doesn't count. If you actually roleplay then evil people have a big advantage over good people in terms of options and overall resources.
If you don't keep your reputation down, your "Evil" companions may leave you, or at least make nasty comments about your performance and path. If you choose the "False" goodie path enough times, the sickeningly sweet attitude of altruistic self sacrifice, you aren't playing "Evil". You are playing a good character but with an evil alignment.
And this is by design. As stated before, Hasbro wanted the game to be family and kid friendly. So, even though they put Evil choices in, they made sure that they were 'Stupid' evil, basically being a Dick rather than being evil. They cut down the number of Evil choices. The reduced or eliminated the XP reward associated for most of the quests for the 'Evil' path. They jacked up the costs of things the more you play EVIL. And they made most of the 'Good' path intentionally Disney 'good'.
But it means that you can't really apply the links that you listed. Because the more suave, sophisticated "Evil" path simply doesn't exist in the game. And "Evil" is gauged in the game by lowering Reputation. And the lower the reputation the harder it gets. So to do as suggested isn't to play "Evil" characters pretending to be good. You have to play Good or neutral but with an evil alignment or face the consequences. And I would agree that amongst the strongest companions (and most interesting) are the evil brands. I suspect this was almost throwing a bone to the 'Evil' path. But in the original BG2, you could actually redeem Viconia. And Edwin is made to look a fool in his quest for the Scroll. And the most interesting interactions are between the goodly and neutral party members (Minsc and Jan are HILARIOUS together).
But my real point was that 'Evil' is evaluated by the game as acts which erode your reputation. This is clear and evidenced by how your evil companions react to you. It is also evidenced by the choices of dialogue that you are given in the game. Evil isn't smart and suave, it is obnoxious and crass. And if you read most of the dialogue choices, you can either act altruistically or you can be a jerk and demand reward. There is no in-between. Or what there is tends to be few and far between. Put it simply, the writers intend that, if you are going to be Evil, you are going to play Stupid evil. Otherwise, and in all other cases, you are playing towards the good side.
As for 'Boosting up to keep your reputation in the 7-9 range', take a look at the examples I gave. 3 acts reduced my Evil character to KOS in Naskal. THREE. And the options to bring back up to respectable level hadn't even presented themselves yet. It's the writing. I am not sure what you mean. "More challenging"??? Absolutely. After THREE evil acts and very little to no way to recover and I couldn't enter Naskal without permanently destroying my reputation. The Town militia was aggro as soon as I walked into town. So now I can't VISIT a town. No supplies. No possibility of getting quests. ZERO ability to repair my reputation (or next to none). Believe me, the differential in abilities for the evil characters isn't that vast over the good ones. I don't think you read my previous posts. Three acts reduced my reputation to 3. None of them were observed by anyone. There is ZERO reason why I should be reviled. And these were very simple things to do at very low levels. There was no SMART EVIL choice involved. I picked up a Cleric for my party. I killed an obviously insane patron and I took offense to a wandering patrol. Of these, MAYBE someone observed the guard. You miss the point. The fact that you CAN means that it was written such that "Evil" is wrong. You can't turn Ajantis to evil. You can't corrupt Branwin or Kalid. It is ONLY the evil ones that can be "Fixed". this speaks to the overall bent of the writers. the fact that "Evil" is intended to be wrong and fixable. It makes no difference if you DO fix them or not, the mere fact is the writers were making them fixable. Are you making my point for me? And yes, being force gender switched is a bit more hilarious and humiliating than simply talking tough or obnoxious. At least in my opinion. He was made to look the fool.
1. You murdered an inn patron because you thought he was insane (and left the body behind).
2. You murdered a wandering guard - a member of the Flaming Fist. You are, for all intents and purposes, a medieval cop-killer.
These acts are the very definition of Stupid Evil, because they don't benefit your character in any way - you did them on a whim, when the Smart Evil thing to do would have been to let the guard pass and leave the nutjob to his ramblings. Smart Evil is about picking your targets carefully, not slaughtering anything just because you feel like it. Faerun isn't an evil society, so if you're RPing an evil character you're already working against the normative values of the world. Nope. Sarevok and Viconia are special cases - the former is your half-brother, so it makes sense that good-aligned characters can convert him to their side. The latter can only be converted via romance (and then, again, only if you choose to do so), otherwise she stays evil throughout. No, I'm indicating that Edwin has an element of comic relief, and that doesn't diminish him as an evil character any more than Minsc's antics diminish him as a good character. You're really reaching here, and it shows.
Besides, I am not talking semantics, i am talking game mechanics. If you don't have a low reputation, your Evil party members will leave you. the only way to get a low reputation is to do the kinds of things I am describing. If you have a low reputation, everything costs more, and in extreme cases, you get aggro'd when you enter towns. it's all mechanics.
And the reverse is not true of good. You can continue to raise your reputation to 20 (and beyond if it allowed you) with no ill effects. Your good companions will never leave you because your reputation is to high. You will never see a mark-up because people think you are to wonderful. And you will never be forbidden to enter a town because you are just to wondrous to behold.
See the disparity FROM A MECHANICAL PERSPECTIVE alone?
And I am not 'Struggling' with the concept. I get it full well. But what YOU are struggling with is that what you are looking for and saying exists in the writing of BG1, isn't there.
The way I have gotten around it is simple, though. I play a Neutral Evil Wizard who "Hides" his evil from his group. I can occasionally let him exert his influence in certain actions, but mainly he lets Imoen or Jahira or Ajantis guide the party so he doesn't make it obvious what he is doing. this is a construct of my imagination and pretty much the only way I can convince myself that I am still playing an Evil character. When I tried to play a flat out evil party, what I got was KOS by Naskal. If you are talking opinion, which apparently you are, there is no proving or disproving. You may have a different experience than I, but that proves nothing. Gonna STRONGLY disagree with you on just about every point here. Let's review:
1. I killed a guy. It is true. I benefited from it by getting his stuff. So there was benefit. "If" I left a corpse, and this is "Medieval times", do you know what the forensics was like back then? Any idea why they never caught Jack the Ripper? There was no CSI - Baldur's Gate edition. Pretty much, unless someone saw the crime, it went un-punished. How does that make me publicly reviled?
Also understand that you can kill Silkie in the town square in broad daylight and with no ill effects. No one needs to hear proof that she is evil. Who is to say that the Loon wasn't just as evil?
2. Understand that the Flaming fist aren't Cops. They are a mercenary group. In the first place, Cops don't exist. In the second, The fist has a reputation that isn't much better than the Black Talon. Do some reading on the literature.
In the third place, even if these are "Evil" acts, there is clear and tangible benefit. I get the Loon's stuff. Even if he had little or nothing, I didn't know that before I killed him. I also get two sets of plate-mail. Once the insignia is removed, that is some nice armor to have. And I also get a handful of gold. People have been killed for a WHOLE LOT less. In the third place, no one saw me do any of it. So why am I reviled?
Plus, consider how I presented things. (a) I encountered a persecuted Elf in the wilds and I rescued her from a mercenary. Negative reputation. (b) I encountered an obviously insane man in a tavern. I put him out of his misery. (c) I encountered another mercenary. I had someone in my party that had been persecuted by that mercenary group in the past. He came across very brusk and demanding. We were in the middle of the wilds where no one was around. I had the superior firepower. So I saw significant advantage in killing him and none in acquiescing to his belligerent attitudes. How is that 'Stupid Evil'?
You would do a whole lot better to consider this the old west. People got gunned down for their horse or sometimes for water or the food in their packs, and by people a whole lot less EVIL than Chaotic Evil. And in the middle of the prairie, no one was there to see it. And then they would go back into town and be served drinks just like everyone else. Yeah, you missed the point completely. My point is that the only "Special Cases" are the evil ones. Again, please provide a single instance where the reverse is true? You can't, because there isn't one. Special case or not, the writing is intended to make Goodly the preferred path and evil the wrong one.
Oh, and you can still romance Viconia even if she stays evil. I've done it. I gotta really disagree. I think that ALL of the characters were written with a flair for the funny. did you by any chance encounter three kobolds by the name of Larry, Darrel and Darrel? Or How about Xar's entire conversation? Or how about how Kalid kept on freaking out? and in BG2 it was worse. You think that Edwin was comic relief over Jan and Minsc? or Anomen's advances? Or Aerie? Or some of the interplay between Viconia and Firecam? It is ALL Comic relief. As such, Edwin's transformation goes quite a bit beyond the pale. At least in my opinion. I mean he would have won RuPaul's Drag race, hands down.
1. Killing the guy in the tavern. Yeah there is no CSI: Beregost, but a heavily armed group of adventurers go upstairs and come down, later one of the guest is found dead, hmm wonder who could have done it. No need for eye witnesses here, rumors will start to spread and your reputation will suffer.
2. Viconia. You don't actually lose reputation from killing the flaming fist mercenary when you save her, you lose it if she joins your party. And that makes perfect sense. The realms are a very racist place, travelling with a drow is highly suspicious. Everyone knows drows are evil, wonder what the people are like who she is travelling with?
So if your group has already a somewhat bad reputation for being possible murderers, having a drow on the team will only strenghten those rumors. I would say bringing your group into highlight instead of laying low when you know you are already disliked is 'stupid evil'.
3. The other mercenary on the road. I think the repuration loss there was a bug and no longer happens, but anyway, I do agree that there should be no loss in that case, because there is a very small chance that that action could be tied to you. Though there is a little boy further up the road who likes to 'sneak around' so you could roleplay he went after your party out of curiosity and saw you killing the guy, then run back home and told everyone.
Add to that the fact that Silkie can get killed in broad daylight where everyone can see the "Murder" yet no one gets bent out of shape. I'd say not to many people are actually looking too hard in that town. And you get attacked in at least one of the other taverns (and again in Naskal and in the Friendly Arm Inn and Three separate times in Candlekeep) while the entire bar watches and does nothing. I'd say killers pretty much walk around freely.
And so EVEN if some industrious drunken sod puts two and two together, would he report it? And is it proof enough to crucify an entire party of potential innocents without trial or proof? Given that there are other opportune suspects? And to stretch that and to say that this increasingly nosy would-be sleuth then tells everyone in Bergost, Naskal, The Friendly Arm Inn and Baldur's gate in the time it takes the adventurers to travel there, seems a bit much in my book.
I take your point about the Drow. However, who says she shows her face? And are you proposing that the environment is so racist that seeing her alone makes me KOS in all of these places? Because the reputation hit for having her on board isn't enough to do that alone. And I can pick her up and not do the other stuff and no problem. And I can also dump her off anywhere and still have the bad reputation. So, kind of problem there.
But after all of this, there is the game mechanic to contend with, which is the main problem. Being good lays zero restriction on you at all. You aren't restricted on quests. In fact you get more of them. You aren't losing experience. If you play the evil road (Smart or stupid), you miss out on some experience. Being good never leads you to being persona-non-Grata. You never Have to do evil things to survive. Being Evil, smart or dumb, it is a constant struggle. More so than it should logically be. And I think therein lies the truth of the matter.
Don't get me wrong. I have found ways around the system. Plus, you don't need to even play alignment if you so choose. I personally take it very serious, but no one says you have too. And I am sure that you can play "Evil". just it seems the game mechanic is bent against it.
If it were me, if a heavily armed group of killers walked into my shop, they would hands down get the lowest discount I could afford (probably free). I wouldn't make them mad. I wouldn't say nice things about them behind their backs, but i wouldn't upset them needlessly.