Whilst the game normally only uses pickpocketing to steal rare gear, it could be used for good, like stealing a key from a guard to free slaves or making a living by street theatre
Whilst the game normally only uses pickpocketing to steal rare gear, it could be used for good, like stealing a key from a guard to free slaves or making a living by street theatre
I think it was the fallout games that let you pull the pin on a grenade and then use the pickpocket skill to stick it in someone’s pocket
Could quite probably be done in Fallout, brilliant old gems that they are.. but it can also be done in Atom RPG.. which is kind of a loveletter to the old Fallouts. And a good game, if someone wants a bit of turn based post-apocalyptic game time.
In any case.. of course CN is a poorly hidden NE in many cases.. because NE is the best alignment and everyone wants to be NE, just some don't wanna admit it and call it CN
Come to think of it we need more paladin kits.. like.. a paladin of mystra.. or paladin of seldarine, for elves.. that'd be great.
.. and a third option to advance past chapter 2/3 hehe.
A proper paladin would use the courts, the order, or simply buying -legal- passage.. and not meddle in the affairs of a (kind of-) legitimate authority without proper clearance from the order to start an investigation.
I find completing bg2 with a paladin (or equal-minded character) a much greater issue than for example Imoen stealing some trinkets and for a wholesomely good char/party it just seems an impossible choice to make, because no matter how you twist and turn it.. you'll be aiding an evil, lawless organization gain near total control of Athkatla after dark.. even after 20 years, i still don't see why they chose to go that way during development.
in NWN2 you're faced with a very similar problem, but that's a choice between Law/Good and Chaos/Evil.. not Evil 1 and Evil 2.
So if you're wondering wether or not breaking into a few homes is gonna break character...
@Khyron "A proper paladin would use the courts, the order, or simply buying -legal- passage.. and not meddle in the affairs of a (kind of-) legitimate authority without proper clearance from the order to start an investigation.
I find completing bg2 with a paladin (or equal-minded character) a much greater issue than for example Imoen stealing some trinkets and for a wholesomely good char/party it just seems an impossible choice to make, because no matter how you twist and turn it.. you'll be aiding an evil, lawless organization gain near total control of Athkatla after dark.. even after 20 years, i still don't see why they chose to go that way during development."
Because BG2 is a deconstruction of Paladins in a general sense. The only actual Paladin, Keldorn, is so jaded and world weary that he can't see the "good" path anymore a lot of the time, defaulting to "law".
Anomen is joining a Paladin order despite not being a paladin and also being a self righteous jerk.
The only npc to actually fulfill the Paladin ideal, is a halfling, so is not allowed to be a Paladin. Which is a critique of the order in general.
Now the Cowled Wizards are technically a branch of the government, so there's zero lawful way to oppose them. They say Imoen is incarcerated, so incarcerated she is. There isn't even a protocol for release, with inmates either dying in spellhold's trials, or staying in cells for the rest of their lives. The CW are also corrupt and act with zero overhead. So opposing them is a good act.
The least bad option for reaching Spellhold is through the thieves, who are mostly pickpockets and deal in minor crimes. Most of your jobs for them are to weaken the other guild, not directly help their activities. So you don't really commit evil, but you cetainly take part in unlawful acts.
Which brings us to a subtheme of the game. "Is it better to be lawful, or good?" The game certainly seems to lean towards the latter. Keldorn's crisis is the two in direct opposition, and his good end is ignoring the law to do good. Anomen legally qualifies to be a part of the order, but he needs help overcoming the smug self-righteousness to be able to actually do good.
So many Paladin players mistake the class as an arbiter of law, and its not. Paladins are supposed to uphold good and law where possible, but good takes priority. If the two come into conflict, you carry out good at the expense of law. And Baldur's Gate 2 forces this choice on players multiple times.
So yes, breaking into homes DOES BREAK CHARACTER.
Really, its the lawful neutral characters that should have a problem. You can rescue Imoen while being good or evil. But its impossible to do so while being lawful.
@Khyron "A proper paladin would use the courts, the order, or simply buying -legal- passage.. and not meddle in the affairs of a (kind of-) legitimate authority without proper clearance from the order to start an investigation.
I find completing bg2 with a paladin (or equal-minded character) a much greater issue than for example Imoen stealing some trinkets and for a wholesomely good char/party it just seems an impossible choice to make, because no matter how you twist and turn it.. you'll be aiding an evil, lawless organization gain near total control of Athkatla after dark.. even after 20 years, i still don't see why they chose to go that way during development."
Because BG2 is a deconstruction of Paladins in a general sense. The only actual Paladin, Keldorn, is so jaded and world weary that he can't see the "good" path anymore a lot of the time, defaulting to "law".
Anomen is joining a Paladin order despite not being a paladin and also being a self righteous jerk.
The only npc to actually fulfill the Paladin ideal, is a halfling, so is not allowed to be a Paladin. Which is a critique of the order in general.
Now the Cowled Wizards are technically a branch of the government, so there's zero lawful way to oppose them. They say Imoen is incarcerated, so incarcerated she is. There isn't even a protocol for release, with inmates either dying in spellhold's trials, or staying in cells for the rest of their lives. The CW are also corrupt and act with zero overhead. So opposing them is a good act.
The least bad option for reaching Spellhold is through the thieves, who are mostly pickpockets and deal in minor crimes. Most of your jobs for them are to weaken the other guild, not directly help their activities. So you don't really commit evil, but you cetainly take part in unlawful acts.
Which brings us to a subtheme of the game. "Is it better to be lawful, or good?" The game certainly seems to lean towards the latter. Keldorn's crisis is the two in direct opposition, and his good end is ignoring the law to do good. Anomen legally qualifies to be a part of the order, but he needs help overcoming the smug self-righteousness to be able to actually do good.
So many Paladin players mistake the class as an arbiter of law, and its not. Paladins are supposed to uphold good and law where possible, but good takes priority. If the two come into conflict, you carry out good at the expense of law. And Baldur's Gate 2 forces this choice on players multiple times.
So yes, breaking into homes DOES BREAK CHARACTER.
Really, its the lawful neutral characters that should have a problem. You can rescue Imoen while being good or evil. But its impossible to do so while being lawful.
Yeah but you gotta love that LN familiar. He does the pickpocketing for you so you can rest easy! You just can't control those darned ferrets. Oooh, shiny ones! ?
@Khyron "A proper paladin would use the courts, the order, or simply buying -legal- passage.. and not meddle in the affairs of a (kind of-) legitimate authority without proper clearance from the order to start an investigation.
I find completing bg2 with a paladin (or equal-minded character) a much greater issue than for example Imoen stealing some trinkets and for a wholesomely good char/party it just seems an impossible choice to make, because no matter how you twist and turn it.. you'll be aiding an evil, lawless organization gain near total control of Athkatla after dark.. even after 20 years, i still don't see why they chose to go that way during development."
Because BG2 is a deconstruction of Paladins in a general sense. The only actual Paladin, Keldorn, is so jaded and world weary that he can't see the "good" path anymore a lot of the time, defaulting to "law".
Anomen is joining a Paladin order despite not being a paladin and also being a self righteous jerk.
The only npc to actually fulfill the Paladin ideal, is a halfling, so is not allowed to be a Paladin. Which is a critique of the order in general.
Now the Cowled Wizards are technically a branch of the government, so there's zero lawful way to oppose them. They say Imoen is incarcerated, so incarcerated she is. There isn't even a protocol for release, with inmates either dying in spellhold's trials, or staying in cells for the rest of their lives. The CW are also corrupt and act with zero overhead. So opposing them is a good act.
The least bad option for reaching Spellhold is through the thieves, who are mostly pickpockets and deal in minor crimes. Most of your jobs for them are to weaken the other guild, not directly help their activities. So you don't really commit evil, but you cetainly take part in unlawful acts.
Which brings us to a subtheme of the game. "Is it better to be lawful, or good?" The game certainly seems to lean towards the latter. Keldorn's crisis is the two in direct opposition, and his good end is ignoring the law to do good. Anomen legally qualifies to be a part of the order, but he needs help overcoming the smug self-righteousness to be able to actually do good.
So many Paladin players mistake the class as an arbiter of law, and its not. Paladins are supposed to uphold good and law where possible, but good takes priority. If the two come into conflict, you carry out good at the expense of law. And Baldur's Gate 2 forces this choice on players multiple times.
So yes, breaking into homes DOES BREAK CHARACTER.
Really, its the lawful neutral characters that should have a problem. You can rescue Imoen while being good or evil. But its impossible to do so while being lawful.
I recently completed a playthrough of BG2 as a TN character (Priest of Lathander), and I came away feeling as though that's the most ideal alignment to play the game and get the most content out of it. You can still have empathy for people in the most dire situations (i.e.: homeless people in need of a coin, someone whose relative has been kidnapped, etc.) but also have the leeway to act indifferently in other situations (i.e.: stealing items, asking for payment for certain quests, etc.). After all, you are, quite literally, halfway between good and evil.
@SharGuidesMyHand If you really insist on seeing all the content while roleplaying, CN or TN are the only classes I can see actually able to do so without defying alignment.
If you really insist on seeing all the content while roleplaying, CN or TN are the only classes I can see actually able to do so without defying alignment.
In my mind NE has all the flexibility you'd ever need.. being good and charitable could just be another way for an NE char to gain a good reputation, which would facilitate his progress in the world.
He could even risk his life to rescue orphans from a burning building.. because the rep and goodwill he'd recieve, and possibly reward, would be worth it.. so he ain't doing things to be kind, but because he calculates to gain from it.
Here's the thing though. Neutral alignment IS the selfish alignment. They are for a person that isn't really benevolent OR sadistic, they just want to pursue their ends and not be overly bothered by others.
Evil is neutral, but with a sadistic streak. Evil CANNOT act selflessly by definition.
Here's the thing though. Neutral alignment IS the selfish alignment. They are for a person that isn't really benevolent OR sadistic, they just want to pursue their ends and not be overly bothered by others.
Evil is neutral, but with a sadistic streak. Evil CANNOT act selflessly by definition.
And this is what i am arguing against.. a total conviction one way or the other. It's too narrow.
If evil can not be selfless in any way, shape or form, then they shouldn't be kind to their loved ones, shouldn't be able to care for their children.. which really just isn't the case.
Like Dorn and Viccy.. they're not assholes -all- the time.. and Anomen sure isn't nice all the time.
Evil will in most cases be.. evil. But limiting them to evil only is too narrow.. just as limiting Good to only good. Stress, trauma, necessity, love and many many other rationales can lead people to do things they otherwise wouldn't.. but that does not ultimately change who they are and wether or not they are inherently evil or good.
Even in d&d people are more balanced than being slaves to a predefined alignment.
And this is what i am arguing against.. a total conviction one way or the other. It's too narrow.
If evil can not be selfless in any way, shape or form, then they shouldn't be kind to their loved ones, shouldn't be able to care for their children.. which really just isn't the case.
Like Dorn and Viccy.. they're not assholes -all- the time.. and Anomen sure isn't nice all the time.
Evil will in most cases be.. evil. But limiting them to evil only is too narrow.. just as limiting Good to only good. Stress, trauma, necessity, love and many many other rationales can lead people to do things they otherwise wouldn't.. but that does not ultimately change who they are and wether or not they are inherently evil or good.
Even in d&d people are more balanced than being slaves to a predefined alignment.
Well, given your examples, there ARE plenty of evil characters who are just as mean, nasty and cruel to their own family and children as they are to strangers. It just depends on how evil they are. It could be argued that most of the characters you think of as Evil are not ACTUALLY Evil, just Neutral with perhaps Evil leanings or tendencies. It's not like, say, you take a typical human population of a town and you'll have roughly equal proportions from each of the nine alignments. It's more like the vast majority (like 70-80%) of them will be True Neutral, and then you have outliers among the other 8 alignments.
The way I see it, Evil characters basically ENJOY hurting people and causing suffering, and they will actively go out of their way to do it. In contrast, a Good character enjoys helping others and easing suffering, and they, likewise, will go out of their way to do it. A Neutral character may do good or evil acts, but usually only when the opportunity presents itself and if there is some tangible personal benefit to doing so.
I think it was the fallout games that let you pull the pin on a grenade and then use the pickpocket skill to stick it in someone’s pocket
Not grenades, but Fallout did let you arm timed explosives (dynamite/plastic explosives) and plant them on people. A popular way of quickly killing people for speedrunners.
If you really go toward to real life human allignements ( the only race we really known) everything is more complex, and there is no clearly dualist methaphysical things like evil and good. Most of us rate acts trough the glasses of morality and principles and say its evil or good. But nobody is clearly evil or good with her all acts and in all situation, and nobody is evil or good, there is no universal evilness and goodness, only what we call with these words.
@Khyron Evil alignments can care for and be kind to people close to them, but its ALWAYS tinged with "I love them because I get/need something from them." That's why its evil. There is no altruism or selflessness.
@Danacm " there is no universal evilness and goodness, only what we call with these words."
Pretty sure Pedophillia is evil. If you want to try and argue otherwise, go ahead.
I don't think you can categorically say that evil is absolutely, no doubt, 100% evil all the time.
You'd have to do the same for good.. and even the goodliest good person can be cruel or mean if pushed to it.. could be a vindictive thing, like caving someones head in for.. well, let's use your example, a pedophile kidnapping your child.
Now everyone and their dog would say "Oh well he deserved it.." Except the law, the law wouldn't say that at all (not our modern western ones anyway).. but it would still be evil to murder him, and it'd be even more evil if you tortured and made him suffer. Still.. most people would understand.
It's still an evil thing to do.. doesn't make you evil though. Minsc for example, would likely rage and pull the mans arm off and beat him to death with it.. Minsc is not evil.
You are using far too much black and white, forgetting the many layers of gray.
Any alignment gives you a lot of guiding strings to follow, creeds and so on.. but it is not a 100% defined limit of what a person can and can not do.
@Khyron Evil alignments can care for and be kind to people close to them, but its ALWAYS tinged with "I love them because I get/need something from them." That's why its evil. There is no altruism or selflessness.
@Danacm " there is no universal evilness and goodness, only what we call with these words."
Pretty sure Pedophillia is evil. If you want to try and argue otherwise, go ahead.
Ok, I'll take on your premise. Pedophilia is a modern phenomenon. In ages past, marrying young was the norm and it was usually a younger female with an older male. Were the males perverts, or was it just a way of making sure they had progeny to pass on their bloodline? Were the females stupid, or were they smart for choosing a male more equipped to protect their children?
@Khyron Evil alignments can care for and be kind to people close to them, but its ALWAYS tinged with "I love them because I get/need something from them." That's why its evil. There is no altruism or selflessness.
@Danacm " there is no universal evilness and goodness, only what we call with these words."
Pretty sure Pedophillia is evil. If you want to try and argue otherwise, go ahead.
Ok, I'll take on your premise. Pedophilia is a modern phenomenon. In ages past, marrying young was the norm and it was usually a younger female with an older male. Were the males perverts, or was it just a way of making sure they had progeny to pass on their bloodline? Were the females stupid, or were they smart for choosing a male more equipped to protect their children?
I think you're confusing, "marrying young" with "I can only find joy with pre-pubescent children." That being said, I don't think "Were the females stupid" is a proper option, since they weren't the ones making the descision in the first place. Slavery is old too, doesn't mean it was once right. People objected to it back then as well. Same goes for marrying young.
Saying it "used to be done, so it must have been good once" is a moot point anyway. If ethics are truely subjective, you should be able to make a good modern argument for it.
Oh, coming back to this. Pedophilia is NOT modern. Fetishes have been around for as long as people have.
Oh, right, and @Khyron "You are using far too much black and white, forgetting the many layers of gray."
Alignments were always only meant as a guide, not a hard and fast rule. A quick-hand way of describing your character's overarching personality traits. Even in the games, alignment is not followed to the letter - and particularly so in BG/BG2. An excellent example is the very last of the five in ToB - I am still disappointed that there was no way to salvage that, as I (the player) actually agreed with him, I just didn't agree on his conclusions.
It's really important to differentiate between paladins, who are expected to be living exemplars of LG, and everyone else, who will have an alignment but can be complex enough to have some behaviors from other alignments. You are 100% allowed to be a chaotic good character who shies away from poison use, or a neutral evil character who makes moderate sacrifices for his family, etc.
I don't think you can categorically say that evil is absolutely, no doubt, 100% evil all the time.
You'd have to do the same for good.. and even the goodliest good person can be cruel or mean if pushed to it.. could be a vindictive thing, like caving someones head in for.. well, let's use your example, a pedophile kidnapping your child.
Now everyone and their dog would say "Oh well he deserved it.." Except the law, the law wouldn't say that at all (not our modern western ones anyway).. but it would still be evil to murder him, and it'd be even more evil if you tortured and made him suffer. Still.. most people would understand.
It's still an evil thing to do.. doesn't make you evil though. Minsc for example, would likely rage and pull the mans arm off and beat him to death with it.. Minsc is not evil.
You are using far too much black and white, forgetting the many layers of gray.
Any alignment gives you a lot of guiding strings to follow, creeds and so on.. but it is not a 100% defined limit of what a person can and can not do.
Mortals will definitely not be 100% good or 100% evil all the time. It's part of what makes them mortal, that they can change and alter their beliefs over time. It's a difference case for outsiders like celestials and fiends, who are basically living embodiments of their precepts and beliefs.
Minsc losing control of himself and ripping someone's arm off and beating him to death with it would have been a justified act, yes, although murder would still undeniably be an evil act. It wouldn't make him evil, no, but it WOULD remain as a stain on his soul and exclude him from certain prestige classes or templates where you must have never performed a single evil deed in your life (such as Ravenloft's "Innocence" special trait).
Sometimes it amuses me, the mental gymnastics people will go through to convince themselves their actions in games are not evil at worst or highly immoral at best.
I found a book in an rpg once. (Sorry, I don't remember which rpg.) The book was labeled "Treatise on Chaotic Neutral Alignment." When you clicked on it to read it, the text said "Face it, you're Neutral Evil." I almost died laughing, I agreed with the joke so much.
That's from the book in IWD2, "How to Be An Adventurer", which is just one more reason why it's the best IE game!
More generally on the topic of reputation being weird, the old Virtue mod changed it from measuring your "reputation" to what good or bad deeds you'd actually done.
More generally on the topic of reputation being weird, the old Virtue mod changed it from measuring your "reputation" to what good or bad deeds you'd actually done.
That mod made the reputation system a lot more logical. It never made sense that you could commit evil acts where the party were the only witnesses, and were the only people who would know that you'd done what you'd done, and your reputation would still suffer.
I'd be very interested in finding out why such a system wasn't incorporated into the EE editions of these games, as it would have addressed one of the major flaws in the series.
For those who aren't familiar with that particular mod, it allows you to safely commit evil actions out-of-sight without risking a change to your reputation but also creates a second variable called "virtue" that measures how innately righteous the mod-writer considers your actions to be. Actions like punching innocents and tricking Odren would reduce your virtue, for example, while redeeming Sarevok would raise it.
The virtue variable also affects your alignment and "fallen" status. The good/evil portion of your alignment changes depending on how much virtue you gain/lose and you can commit only 2 evil acts before "falling" (used to be 1 in line with tabletop rules but people complained).
The reputation changes aren't no-brainers, since rep is supposed to reflect both what people can see and what they can eventually deduce you did. Whereas this mod says no, if you aren't seen then your reputation won't change even if the forensic evidence would soon make your actions obvious to everyone in the vicinity.
But I do like the idea of alignment changing dynamically. Sadly though the mod only addresses good/evil, it doesn't touch law/chaos at all (for example by giving you chaos points when you pickpocket).
Comments
Shame the game never takes advantage of that.
Could quite probably be done in Fallout, brilliant old gems that they are.. but it can also be done in Atom RPG.. which is kind of a loveletter to the old Fallouts. And a good game, if someone wants a bit of turn based post-apocalyptic game time.
In any case.. of course CN is a poorly hidden NE in many cases.. because NE is the best alignment and everyone wants to be NE, just some don't wanna admit it and call it CN
Come to think of it we need more paladin kits.. like.. a paladin of mystra.. or paladin of seldarine, for elves.. that'd be great.
.. and a third option to advance past chapter 2/3 hehe.
A proper paladin would use the courts, the order, or simply buying -legal- passage.. and not meddle in the affairs of a (kind of-) legitimate authority without proper clearance from the order to start an investigation.
I find completing bg2 with a paladin (or equal-minded character) a much greater issue than for example Imoen stealing some trinkets and for a wholesomely good char/party it just seems an impossible choice to make, because no matter how you twist and turn it.. you'll be aiding an evil, lawless organization gain near total control of Athkatla after dark.. even after 20 years, i still don't see why they chose to go that way during development.
in NWN2 you're faced with a very similar problem, but that's a choice between Law/Good and Chaos/Evil.. not Evil 1 and Evil 2.
So if you're wondering wether or not breaking into a few homes is gonna break character...
I find completing bg2 with a paladin (or equal-minded character) a much greater issue than for example Imoen stealing some trinkets and for a wholesomely good char/party it just seems an impossible choice to make, because no matter how you twist and turn it.. you'll be aiding an evil, lawless organization gain near total control of Athkatla after dark.. even after 20 years, i still don't see why they chose to go that way during development."
Because BG2 is a deconstruction of Paladins in a general sense. The only actual Paladin, Keldorn, is so jaded and world weary that he can't see the "good" path anymore a lot of the time, defaulting to "law".
Anomen is joining a Paladin order despite not being a paladin and also being a self righteous jerk.
The only npc to actually fulfill the Paladin ideal, is a halfling, so is not allowed to be a Paladin. Which is a critique of the order in general.
Now the Cowled Wizards are technically a branch of the government, so there's zero lawful way to oppose them. They say Imoen is incarcerated, so incarcerated she is. There isn't even a protocol for release, with inmates either dying in spellhold's trials, or staying in cells for the rest of their lives. The CW are also corrupt and act with zero overhead. So opposing them is a good act.
The least bad option for reaching Spellhold is through the thieves, who are mostly pickpockets and deal in minor crimes. Most of your jobs for them are to weaken the other guild, not directly help their activities. So you don't really commit evil, but you cetainly take part in unlawful acts.
Which brings us to a subtheme of the game. "Is it better to be lawful, or good?" The game certainly seems to lean towards the latter. Keldorn's crisis is the two in direct opposition, and his good end is ignoring the law to do good. Anomen legally qualifies to be a part of the order, but he needs help overcoming the smug self-righteousness to be able to actually do good.
So many Paladin players mistake the class as an arbiter of law, and its not. Paladins are supposed to uphold good and law where possible, but good takes priority. If the two come into conflict, you carry out good at the expense of law. And Baldur's Gate 2 forces this choice on players multiple times.
So yes, breaking into homes DOES BREAK CHARACTER.
Really, its the lawful neutral characters that should have a problem. You can rescue Imoen while being good or evil. But its impossible to do so while being lawful.
Yeah but you gotta love that LN familiar. He does the pickpocketing for you so you can rest easy! You just can't control those darned ferrets. Oooh, shiny ones! ?
I recently completed a playthrough of BG2 as a TN character (Priest of Lathander), and I came away feeling as though that's the most ideal alignment to play the game and get the most content out of it. You can still have empathy for people in the most dire situations (i.e.: homeless people in need of a coin, someone whose relative has been kidnapped, etc.) but also have the leeway to act indifferently in other situations (i.e.: stealing items, asking for payment for certain quests, etc.). After all, you are, quite literally, halfway between good and evil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_by_finding
Moral flexibility is why I love Chaotic Neutral.
He could even risk his life to rescue orphans from a burning building.. because the rep and goodwill he'd recieve, and possibly reward, would be worth it.. so he ain't doing things to be kind, but because he calculates to gain from it.
It also allows him to be full blown evil lol
It's not like evil people can't do good deeds if they believe it will benefit them in the long run.
An evil person could even first set fire to the orphanage to have a chance to act as a hero and rescue them.. and risk failing to rescue them.
Evil is neutral, but with a sadistic streak. Evil CANNOT act selflessly by definition.
And this is what i am arguing against.. a total conviction one way or the other. It's too narrow.
If evil can not be selfless in any way, shape or form, then they shouldn't be kind to their loved ones, shouldn't be able to care for their children.. which really just isn't the case.
Like Dorn and Viccy.. they're not assholes -all- the time.. and Anomen sure isn't nice all the time.
Evil will in most cases be.. evil. But limiting them to evil only is too narrow.. just as limiting Good to only good. Stress, trauma, necessity, love and many many other rationales can lead people to do things they otherwise wouldn't.. but that does not ultimately change who they are and wether or not they are inherently evil or good.
Even in d&d people are more balanced than being slaves to a predefined alignment.
Well, given your examples, there ARE plenty of evil characters who are just as mean, nasty and cruel to their own family and children as they are to strangers. It just depends on how evil they are. It could be argued that most of the characters you think of as Evil are not ACTUALLY Evil, just Neutral with perhaps Evil leanings or tendencies. It's not like, say, you take a typical human population of a town and you'll have roughly equal proportions from each of the nine alignments. It's more like the vast majority (like 70-80%) of them will be True Neutral, and then you have outliers among the other 8 alignments.
The way I see it, Evil characters basically ENJOY hurting people and causing suffering, and they will actively go out of their way to do it. In contrast, a Good character enjoys helping others and easing suffering, and they, likewise, will go out of their way to do it. A Neutral character may do good or evil acts, but usually only when the opportunity presents itself and if there is some tangible personal benefit to doing so.
Not grenades, but Fallout did let you arm timed explosives (dynamite/plastic explosives) and plant them on people. A popular way of quickly killing people for speedrunners.
@Danacm " there is no universal evilness and goodness, only what we call with these words."
Pretty sure Pedophillia is evil. If you want to try and argue otherwise, go ahead.
I don't think you can categorically say that evil is absolutely, no doubt, 100% evil all the time.
You'd have to do the same for good.. and even the goodliest good person can be cruel or mean if pushed to it.. could be a vindictive thing, like caving someones head in for.. well, let's use your example, a pedophile kidnapping your child.
Now everyone and their dog would say "Oh well he deserved it.." Except the law, the law wouldn't say that at all (not our modern western ones anyway).. but it would still be evil to murder him, and it'd be even more evil if you tortured and made him suffer. Still.. most people would understand.
It's still an evil thing to do.. doesn't make you evil though. Minsc for example, would likely rage and pull the mans arm off and beat him to death with it.. Minsc is not evil.
You are using far too much black and white, forgetting the many layers of gray.
Any alignment gives you a lot of guiding strings to follow, creeds and so on.. but it is not a 100% defined limit of what a person can and can not do.
Ok, I'll take on your premise. Pedophilia is a modern phenomenon. In ages past, marrying young was the norm and it was usually a younger female with an older male. Were the males perverts, or was it just a way of making sure they had progeny to pass on their bloodline? Were the females stupid, or were they smart for choosing a male more equipped to protect their children?
I think you're confusing, "marrying young" with "I can only find joy with pre-pubescent children." That being said, I don't think "Were the females stupid" is a proper option, since they weren't the ones making the descision in the first place. Slavery is old too, doesn't mean it was once right. People objected to it back then as well. Same goes for marrying young.
Saying it "used to be done, so it must have been good once" is a moot point anyway. If ethics are truely subjective, you should be able to make a good modern argument for it.
Oh, coming back to this. Pedophilia is NOT modern. Fetishes have been around for as long as people have.
Oh, right, and @Khyron "You are using far too much black and white, forgetting the many layers of gray."
This is D&D alignments. It IS black and white.
Mortals will definitely not be 100% good or 100% evil all the time. It's part of what makes them mortal, that they can change and alter their beliefs over time. It's a difference case for outsiders like celestials and fiends, who are basically living embodiments of their precepts and beliefs.
Minsc losing control of himself and ripping someone's arm off and beating him to death with it would have been a justified act, yes, although murder would still undeniably be an evil act. It wouldn't make him evil, no, but it WOULD remain as a stain on his soul and exclude him from certain prestige classes or templates where you must have never performed a single evil deed in your life (such as Ravenloft's "Innocence" special trait).
That's from the book in IWD2, "How to Be An Adventurer", which is just one more reason why it's the best IE game!
More generally on the topic of reputation being weird, the old Virtue mod changed it from measuring your "reputation" to what good or bad deeds you'd actually done.
That mod made the reputation system a lot more logical. It never made sense that you could commit evil acts where the party were the only witnesses, and were the only people who would know that you'd done what you'd done, and your reputation would still suffer.
I'd be very interested in finding out why such a system wasn't incorporated into the EE editions of these games, as it would have addressed one of the major flaws in the series.
The virtue variable also affects your alignment and "fallen" status. The good/evil portion of your alignment changes depending on how much virtue you gain/lose and you can commit only 2 evil acts before "falling" (used to be 1 in line with tabletop rules but people complained).
The reputation changes aren't no-brainers, since rep is supposed to reflect both what people can see and what they can eventually deduce you did. Whereas this mod says no, if you aren't seen then your reputation won't change even if the forensic evidence would soon make your actions obvious to everyone in the vicinity.
But I do like the idea of alignment changing dynamically. Sadly though the mod only addresses good/evil, it doesn't touch law/chaos at all (for example by giving you chaos points when you pickpocket).