So Evil Is Evil Or Arent We Evil Enough ?
lordkim
Member Posts: 1,063
Just wondering.. I never played evil before in BG. So are the storyline changing radicaly ?
Are you suddenly on Sarevoks side ?
Or is just a play through like "good", because evil aint evil enough.. Meaning, if your evil, then nobody is on your side ?
Are you suddenly on Sarevoks side ?
Or is just a play through like "good", because evil aint evil enough.. Meaning, if your evil, then nobody is on your side ?
Post edited by lordkim on
0
Comments
Not to mention the Flaming Fist who have a chance of respawning between areas at Rep 5 and below. Kill the bounty hunters who are trying to kill you and your rep drops further, making for a much greater chance of being attacked by bounty hunters. An endless and tiresome cycle.
When I play evil, I toss some money in the donation box every once in awhile to keep myself around Rep 6; low enough to be decidedly evil, high enough not be pestered endlessly by the Flaming Fist. Certainly after a certain point in the game there's no shortage of gold.
It's not just in BG - in rpg's in general, you usually only get the "evil equals being rude to everybody you talk to" stereotype.
In most RPGs, as said above, 'evil' means 'be really rude.' There are some options available to an evil Nameless One, by contrast, which are more manipulative and downright soul-crushing in how awful they are.
I'll occasionally do an evil BG playthrough, but I don't ever want to do a really evil P:T run-through again. It just makes me feel too awful.
That being said, I am against good/evil choices in games for the most part. It can't really be implemented well, because one of the following is pretty much guaranteed to happen.
1. Options that are counted as good or evil are highly debatable, and no one wants to be told that their worldview is "evil." For example, I remember I was pretty miffed that in Fable 2, you get evil points for killing the bandit leader after beating him who begs for his life (after he killed many, many people, and could very easily go back to that if not stopped). I'm fine with people having a different opinion, but when it's presented as a black and white, it becomes a problem
2. To avoid #1, evil is taken to an extreme so that it's pretty much not debatable. This basically ends up making evil reduced to puppy killing, orphan burning, old lady slapping lunatics. Infamous is a game like this.
So I pretty much dislike games that keep track of my alignment for one of those two reasons. I prefer games like Dragon Age, where you only have actions and consequences (and what your party thinks of them). The reputation system in BG is a bit better, just because it's what people think of you to a somewhat reasonable degree (although how they know if I kill a random isolated person, I'll never understand.)
The best evil characters should be undeniably EVIL, but, you know, SUBTLE about it, and usually not opposed to doing Good-aligned acts if it gets them something they want. Like, you know, not going oh hey this is the easiest way to get exactly what I want but I won't do it because ITS NOT EVIL ENOUGH.
No subtlety.
I just play good aligned characters.
The only evil you can accurately roleplay and still be considered really evil by game standards, you know, low rep and all, evil party members not complaining like little bitches, that sort of thing, is Chaotic Evil bordering on Chaotic Stupid
http://www.pocketplane.net/volothamp/images/alignment.jpg
:-)
Good and evil need separate story lines and rationales, which really grows games.
Bottomline is that as far as "true evil" is concerned, the game's main reaction is indifference, unless you go on a rampage (and what reaction were you expecting, exactly?) so there's really nothing that's stopping you from playing as a morally disturbed/depraved individual except the limits of your own imagination.