Is it heresy to take Edwin in a good-aligned party?
OrlonKronsteen
Member Posts: 905
A while ago I asked everyone what they thought about taking Viconia in a good party. Now, I'm wondering what you think about Edwin. How evil is he? Aside from his heinous mission in BG1 - which has always struck me as extremely evil - he has always seemed more like comic relief to me. Evil, yes, but not on the level of, say Dorn. So what do you think? Can you justify bringing him along?
1
Comments
Ironically I feel almost the opposite for Dorn. You can do his BG1 quest no problem, maybe even keep him around if you're not a good paladin. But his evil is extreme in the sequel.
Which is evil in our modern setting, but not necessarily evil in that setting. I don't think solely owning slaves would qualify one as evil in AD&D settings. Edwin is likely evil because he has no consideration for anybody but himself.
True, slavery is evil in our morality. There were culrures (ancient romans etc) where slavery were unfortunately common.
The Red Wizards are one of the biggest evil organizaions in the setting, and slavery is often one the first things mentioned as proof of how they're evil whenever it comes up. Slavery is also blatantly evil in D&D in general. You see it in BG2 as well. If anything, Faerun's morality is us with less bigotry.
Also, good and evil is demonstrably not relative in D&D. You know, the whole "alignment" thing? Things are explicitly listed as evil, good, or neutral. Entire planes of existence are MADE of good and/or evil energy.
And just like whenever someone brings up "good and evil as relative" I don't buy it unless you can explain why the evil you're dismissing is actually "good" in our world. Because if you can't, you're admitting that you don't actually see it as relative.
Can I justify bringing him along? Sure I can.
Working with someone evil and embracing what that someone stands for are two very different things.
In a perfect world one might avoid any form of collaboration with whoever/whatever deserves to be labelled as evil but that's just an idealistic and simplistic view that deserves to be exposed for what it is. Life is full of examples that simply deny this conflation.
Just because you work in/work with a company that uses child labor across the world doesn't mean that you're responsible or even that you support it. Yes, I'm hinting the Red Wizards. In the same way, just because you pay taxes and thus finance a country that violates some fundamental rights or wages war against innocents doesn't mean that you're a belligerent jerk.
This rule that you're evil if you get close to evil can be applied in so many areas (destroying the environment, tax avoidance, harassment, etc.) and with so many actors (your employer, the State, your family, your lover, etc.) that it eventually makes us all evil by association. Therefore, it's preposterous.
Good and evil live together, sometimes colluding other times challenging each other. Do you really believe every country that fought the Axis during WW2 was pure and righteous? Of course not. Do you sincerely believe that the police never cooperates with thugs and shady people? Of course they do.
Back to Edwin, hiring Edwin doesn't make you Edwin. This is specially true if you use him for a good cause. Does anyone here question how powerful and useful he can be as an ally? I'll risk it and say no. Therefore, it's what you use him for that matters.
One could even argue that the most righteous path is to hire him and try bringing him to the good side. Heck, isn't that exactly what the game shows with Viconia? Even if you fail to redeem Edwin, it was right to try. So hire him, question him when he's malicious and get rid of him the moment it spins out of control. At this point, you might even punish/kill him and call it a deed of justice.
I understand your points but I disagree.
First, I never said the plan was from the get-go to murder him after using him. That'd be cynical and probably evil, yes. The idea, actually, was to give him a chance to redeem and thus live. If he refuses to change despite your best efforts that's definitely not your fault or responsibility.
Second, Edwin is more or less powerful depending on when you decide to recruit him. He'll be stronger in BG2 than in BG1 and he'll be stronger in either BG1 or BG2 if you don't recruit him asap as his experience will adapt to yours to a certain point. At the very least, he's a powerhouse in the making in BG1 if you rush to him. The rest of the time, he's already a mighty one who can fend for himself. He doesn't need you to level up and become the nearly unstoppable killing-machine we all know.
You certainly can argue that it's wrong to contribute to his rising power if there's a chance he'll put it to bad use, but if that's your defense then you should kill him right away in BG1 because his evilness is kinda obvious without even casting Detect Evil. Letting a dangerous criminal run off to do whatever he wants is no less bad/evil than keeping him under control, especially if you can use him to do some good in the process. Doing nothing is also a way to contribute to his rise since you refused to stand in the way. So either way you end up killing him but in my case you have a chance to turn him and use him for good deeds.
Consequently, it does strike me as an act of good.
True, although the more attention you draw the more resistance you're likely to meet. Viconia might be a powerful individual with her innate magic resistance and spellcasting but as a drow she's considered a witch and hunted down to the point her racial power becomes a liability. In the same manner, with flashy and stylish magic comes jealousy and a willingness to watch it go down. Long story short, whatever power you can boast doesn't always translate into actual might.
That's why Viconia ends up tied to a tree, helpless, waiting to be burned while lesser criminals can roam the land freely without anyone caring. In the end they'll live and she would die without your help.. so who's the strongest, really? That's also why you'll take down the mage first whenever you start a fight against a group, reducing his chance to make it out alive to a lower percentage than his companions. Power tends to balance out this way, it's true for people just as it is true for empires or organizations.
Also, when everyone's focused on the same threat it opens a window of opportunity for another threat to rise. I would be equally - if not more - concerned with assassins and shady organizations that like to operate underground, smartly.
Which raises the dilemma, you can't keep him with you forever. So congrats, you've just unleashed a brand new, evil, archmage into the world with enough power to rival demigods. Not smart. So what do you do? You can't just murder him, that's evil...
Even if what you say is true - I would dispute it - about the exceptional growth, that doesn't remove the fact that you can dispose of Edwin IF he remains malicious or if he wants to commit crimes. I've never said Edwin should run off with his super power to do as he pleases, I said the exact opposite. You want to see a shared godlike power, so be it, it's still 3-4 demigods plus you vs Edwin in most parties WITH the element of surprise on your side. I'm pretty sure it's safe. I could agree with you for a very small party though, as the risk of being somehow defeated by Edwin would be too high.
I also never said that he should be kept forever, my points were, one, that evil can sometimes be used for the greater good and, two, that giving someone a chance to redeem was good. If neither of these conditions are met, then to the inferno he goes.
That is unless you believe any kill to be evil in essence, in which case every single player of Baldur's Gate is evil. I would not follow you there. Meanwhile, as you progress in the game, if Edwin's still alive that means he's actually contributed in a good way. To put it differently, that means he's working his way to redemption. It's a win-win situation, really.
It's easier to just think in terms of black & white. Evil = always bad; Good = always good; Neutral = Evil in disguise...
Brage in BG1 is a shining example of what I said before: you're taking a slight risk by not killing him on sight (he could escape and keep up the carnage or turn hostile while you bring him back and kill one of your low-level companions) but it's definitely worth it because he was crazy and IS redeemable. Now, obviously, Edwin is not Brage but it's not insane to judge he also deserves a chance as long as it's a process under control. Which it can be imo.
Evils also have loves, friends, family, maybe do good things and live good life. Also good is not equal nice.
In D&D? Eventually. Those experience penalties hurt too...
@Vicissitude "I've never said Edwin should run off with his super power to do as he pleases, I said the exact opposite." " I also never said that he should be kept forever, my points were, one, that evil can sometimes be used for the greater good and, two, that giving someone a chance to redeem was good. If neither of these conditions are met, then to the inferno he goes."
THIS is where I take issue. How are you not letting him run off with all that power? Your post seems pretty explicitly to say you'll kill him. After accepting his assistance. You can talk about him being malicious or evil, but he served you just fine, right? Killing him after he stops being useful is like, THE evil thing that all the bad guys do in movies.
I fail to see how this has anything to do with villains' plans in movies. Bad guys don't care if you become nice and will never tap on your shoulder saying you earned your freedom. They'll just exploit you regardless.
You may refuse to collaborate with evil altogether, that's your right. I already explained why I didn't think highly of it.
This, this right here. What if he doesn't change? You keep denying that you will force him to stay, or murder him, but then you keep adding conditions he has to fufill. What if he doesn't? If he never changes alignment, will you never release him from service? What if he refuses to stay and try to leave? What if his alignment never changes, but he never attacks another party member, never disobeys an order, but insists on leaving?
Edit: I totally forgot about his Maevar's guild quests. I guess he does kind of telegraph his evilness there. You're kind of forced to play along with him though if you want to properly finish the quest. After that he doesn't do anything outright evil that I can recall...
It's very strange indeed to help evil characters repeatedly level up while somehow seeing that as benevolence because, despite abundant evidence of the harm they have inflicted and want to inflict on others, you believe without evidence that at some indefinite point in the future they could be redeemed. By that standard, I'm hard-pressed to understand why you would ever try to defeat a villain as doing so would forever end the possibility of the good they could accomplish if only they were redeemed.
It's SO strange and unusual that players have recruited Viconia for her to stray away from evil for ages. What a crazy thought indeed.
That is not what I said. I was merely pointing out that killing him on sight lacks humanity and can't be boasted as paragon of virtue. Do you instakill everyone that turns red on your Detect Evil spell? I think not.
I never said I was 100% sure Edwin could be redeemed. The only certainty is that he won't turn good if you don't give him a chance. Believing in humanity and second chances is kinda what being good is all about, mind you.
I shall play on your terms. It's wrong to cooperate with evil people, it's devilish to use them before disposing of them and it's also evil to let them go to do more shenanigans. Fine!
Now, tell me, do you eliminate on sight the Vampires AND the Shadow Thieves because they're evil in BG2? Both clearly are evil, without question. Now, according to your own logic:
- Giving them a ludicrous amount of gold is no more no less funding their criminal activities. Helping them fight the other guild is fast-tracking them to be the dominant evil organization in the city. You're unquestionably contributing to their rise in power just like you would help Edwin leveling up. That's even worse if you accomplish their side quests and let them off the hook afterwards. Obviously, you won't do that.
- Working with them so you get Imoen before turning on them is also not an option, since you said it was "THE evil thing that all the bad guys do in movies". Clearly, you won't do that either.
That leaves you with one option: killing them on sight, refusing their help and therefore condemning Imoen (an innocent) to suffering while she's captive because you denied yourself all options for her. Congratulations, nice move!
I think this pretty much sums up why such rigidity of the mind doesn't hold water.
I get that not everyone is going to see it this way. And I think some good protagonists might still kill Edwin or whatever, but I definitely think the game's writing indicates that he's now much more of a viable option than he had previously been.
Some players may never fully explore the Shadow Thief compound, but if you do, you see all sorts of evil stuff like torture going on. And they're your "good" ally for the main plot!
But in practice... Aside from his initial quest to kill Dynaheir in BG1, we never actually SEE him do anything overtly evil while in our presence. He blusters and threatens a lot, yet he never follows through on any of those threats. He seems to have fallen out of favour with the Magocracy of Thay sometime between the events of BG1 and BG2 (there are some hints about this in SoD, but the exact reason why is still not specified). I honestly think that, just like Viconia, Edwin is a potential candidate for redemption as his evil seems not to be something hard-baked into him, but more a product of growing up in a thoroughly evil, exploitative society like Thay. Outside of a mod though, this is something you'd have to entirely head-canon.
Basically, Edwin wants to be a supervillain. He wants to take over his old home and gloat over his defeated enemies. Evil, yes - but the targets he most wants to take it out on are evil as well. And if he ever does achieve his goals, he'll make so many enemies that it won't last.
Can Edwin be redeemed? He doesn't want to be redeemed, and that's why attempts would likely fail. You'd need a lot of work to change his motivations to even have a chance.
As for how Edwin fell out of favor ... here's a quote from another Red Wizard (Denak) in BG1:
Edwin's already on a "last chance" mission when you meet him in Nashkel. He's out on his own without any real support, and he's only getting any if he succeeds at killing Dynaheir. Which he doesn't, in the canon story.