I have found myself drawn to True Neutral in recent times. There's a fork in the road for TN and I turn off on the road towards those who lack conviction or bias, rather than the philosophical approach of a commitment to neutrality.
I find the following (spoiler tagged for tidy presentation purposes) to sync up well with my views. It is taken from easydamus.
True neutral characters are concerned with their own well-being and that of the group or organization which aids them. They may behave in a good manner to those that they consider friends and allies, but will only act maliciously against those who have tried to injure them in some way. For the rest, they do not care. They do not wish ill on those they do not know, but they also do not care when they hear of evil befalling them. Better for others to suffer the evil than the true neutral and his allies. If an ally is in need, the true neutral will aid him, out of genuine love or because he may be able to count on that ally a little more in the future. If someone else is in need, they will weigh the options of the potential rewards and dangers associated with the act. If an enemy is in need, they will ignore him or take advantage of his misfortune.
Neutral Good is another alignment I have often been drawn to. I have fluctuated between TN and NG in recent years. There's another very good summarization (again from easydamus) this time on both of these alignments, head to head.
True Neutral vs. Neutral Good
Neutral good and true neutral characters both believe that any means should be used to achieve desirable outcomes, but they disagree on exactly what types of outcomes are desirable. The neutral good character uses a variety of means to promote and further the cause of goodness, but true neutral characters are not interested in a selfless pursuit of beneficial results for others. Where neutral good characters are altruistic, true neutral characters are interested in their own affairs. True neutral characters will behave altruistically when it comes to friends, relatives, and allies, but for the most part will return the kind of treatment they receive from others. Neutral good characters, on the other hand, will behave altruistically even when dealing with others who are not friends or relatives, and may even forgive enemies that have done them grievous harm in the past (provided their enemy has truly mended his ways). True neutral characters will not extend the olive branch in such situations and may take advantage of their enemy's weakness to protect themselves from further machinations. True neutral characters follow a morality of reciprocity. Neutral good characters follow the Golden Rule.
I definitely work from a basis of reciprocity. I return the kind of treatment I receive. I hold a grudge against those who have wronged me. I look out for and aid those who do good by me. It's a much more interesting alignment - True Neutral - than I ever gave it credit for.
I find TN can work quite well for the saga of Baldur's Gate. If Charname becomes friends with Khalid and Jaheira they look into and ultimately solve the iron crisis because of that friendship. Honor thy friends. Imoen, who is NG, may take a more "golden rule" approach to many situations, again influencing Charname to appear to act heroically. In the case of Dorn, or Viconia, the whole debate over their evil backgrounds holds less sway than how both characters treat and act towards, and around Charname. Good is most definitely preferred over evil, though, and there are limits to what can be tolerated.
I play good or neutral mostly. My reasons are pretty simple I just don't get the same satisfaction or enjoyment out of being evil. I don't tend to find doing evil things to be fun, at least for a long enough time to play through the entire bg saga. Im probably a little too much of a softy to realy enjoy playing evil. Most of my evil runs last a relatively short time only my evil assassin character has managed to clear the entire saga.
Also evil just doesn't get that same sense of adventure that good/neutral does and really that's one of the things that first drew me into fantasy as a kid reading books like the hobbit or watching old films I loved the sense of adventure and camaraderie and that's some thing I just don't feel when im playing evil
in some alignment based games i'm happy to be evil and on occasion ive I found it more rewarding to be evil particularly in kotor but I think that's more to do with the fact that such games failed to draw me in. Not to mention I don't realy like the jedi and that game only gives you two choices. I nearly always try at least one evil run through in most games
also I just think that bg's story functions better with a good/neutral aligned character
I usually play good for a lot of the same reasons @nano said. To be honest, I think the whole "brooding dark anti-hero" trope has been played out these days. I guess I just don't feel as... jaded... as many of the youth these days. Plus all these characters tend to be so alike.
I find "anti-heroes" (as they are usually portrayed in the majority of modern media) to be a cheap way to make a protagonist seem "deep" and "badass" while still being able to root for them because they must overcome their "intense inner struggles". There are some believable and well-written, relatable anti-heroes (Breaking Bad and more relevant to a discussion of fantasy, Berserk both come to mind) but the majority just reek of 1990s comic books (Grimaces! Big Guns! Moral ambiguity! Feel my inner turmoil!)
I think these kind of characters have so dominated the landscape of the fantasy not-quite-for-kids-yet-not-exactly-steinbeck stories these days that a well-written, sincerely good character is actually more unique and is actually more of a risk-taking endeavor on the part of the writers. This is why I love characters like Mazzy and Keldorn, whereas I find Dorn to be a rather dull character after the initial "wow this guy is pretty hardcore" feeling.
Then when it comes to villains, I feel like they need more justification for their actions than good or neutral characters. I know a lot of people are pessimistic about humanity, but generally speaking being "good" pays off. Aside from having a better family life and more friends, being good also is beneficial financially. People are willing to pay to be helped. Also, anyone who studies medicine will tell you that good bedside manner is actually statistically the number one factor that prevents malpractice suits. So if you are going to be an abrasive asshole and a greedy Lawful Evil/Neutral Evil type, then your "jerk" dialogue responses will have to be backed up by making it a personal shortcoming or personality defect (that Edwin character does this really well)
If you are going to just be angry angry kill kill then you need an even better background to justify it. Korgan and Dorn are in this category, and can fit certain playthroughs and be fun, but its kind of hard for me to put my PC in that sort of mindset. The "essence of Bhaal made me do it" seems to be the only convenient excuse I can think of.
first: @jackjack how many times must i tell you? do NOT go kicking butts for goodness, Minsc is allowed, YOU are not!! (its entirely your fault for mentioning that you have been to prison for reasons)
I play Chaotic Good because while I'm certainly going to help people out and generally be pleasant and stuff, the gamer in me isn't opposed to looting houses... all those gold pieces add up and who'll pass up perfectly good magical equipment lying around? Evil douchebags that thoroughly piss me off also tend to suffer a case of death and neither of these two things constitute "lawful" behaviour as far as I'm aware.
I've yet to understand Neutral Good based on the in-game descriptions both in newer and older crpg D&Ds... "believes in balance of forces but doing good won't upset the balance", say what? So -Chaotic- it is.
I never feel right being a dick for the sake of it.
Yeah this is the problem with playing evil in most crpgs; basically you play dumb evil which seems to be about doing overtly mean stuff just for the sake of it and in spite of the usually obvious negative consequences.
460. I'd better have a real good excuse for being a necromancer if I'm lawful good.
Other gems: 458. "When I'm in the mood" is not a valid trigger for a contingency spell. 64. My paladin's battle cry is not "Good for the Good God". 988. David Bowie cannot cast glitterdust at will. This issue is also closed. 1818. Can't make a bluff check to convince the monster I actually hit him. 1177. I will stop asking NPCs how much XP they are worth. 1335. I can not filibuster in the middle of my dying speech to buy the cleric more time.
I'm certain I never mentioned anything about ignorance but sorry if you felt offended. This is why I don't post on forums. It was just a question. I apologise if anybody read anything into my curiosity, I will keep quiet from now on and contain myself to lurking in the mod forums to find out what the talented community keep doing with the games.
Depends on the game, I suppose. "Baldur's Gate" is one of the few that allows you to roleplay a more civilized form of evil (as opposed to, say, "Planescape: Torment", which can reach a visceral level of depravity that I just can't abide), and I tend to find those kinds of narratives more interesting simply because it's the rarer story that puts villains front and center. Plus, from a gaming perspective, I can't deny there's a certain appeal in the raw power typically afforded to Evil characters, whether it's NPCs like Dorn, Hexxat, Edwin and Viconia in BG2 or the Dark Side abilities in KOTOR2.
"Mass Effect" had a different balance, because you could take every Renegade interrupt that resulted in a badass moment for Shepard (punching thugs through plate-glass windows, headbutting a krogan), while allowing her to make Paragon decisions that really counted (saving the Council, curing the genophage, making peace between the geth and the quarians, etc.)
Oh. I was using it as it is used in my area, a nice way of calling someone a dick which is precisely what he said. He said that alignment has to do with people being dicks, and I responded that it doesn't. So please stop trolling me.
@Schneidend what I mentioned wasn't really a "background" in terms of upbringing. The essence of Bhaal is a part of you, as is any personality defect.
What did you mean by "justification" for Evil Charnames, then?
@Schneidend I meant in terms of the choices players make in the game and the dialogue options. As in why a "lawful evil" character would say/do this or that during a particular scene. I'm not talking about the justification of them *being* NE or LE, but as to why they would choose one of the options (which are admittedly limited) that the game provides.
Though I don't agree that alignments are cosmic and an ingrained part of yourself, and I think the Sarevok, Anomen and Viconia story-lines are proof that background *does* have an affect on someone's alignment. So while it isn't *necessary* for background to have an influence on alignment, it most often does. I'd say for evil alignments more so than good alignments.
I would agree that background is a factor, but so is the cosmic aspect without which alignment would not even be a thing, and there's definitely a deeply ingrained aspect to it otherwise some extraplanar creatures wouldn't be 99% a particular alignment. With mortals, it kinda all rolls into one.
Agreed. I wasn't referring to Celestials, Demons, etc, but to the playable races. I mean, even they have tendencies to aggregate to one alignment or the other in the worlds (Half-Orcs, Halflings)
Chaotic evil. No, I don't go around force attacking peasants, but my charname don't take shit from anyone. He's basically a juggernaut that is constantly pumped with streams of steroids.Threaten him? He won't need to think twice about killing you. Even if it means carving his way through dozens of guards.
Want his help? You better give him damn good reward afterward. If he deems that it's not good enough, he'll extract his worth by force. You threaten to keep him confined unless if he rescue your baby? He'll go get your baby alright, but then he'll sacrifice it to a demon prince for a reward... and if he wasn't satisfied by such rewards, he'll fight the demon prince himself.
My charname bends to no one (other than forced scripts, invulnerable NPCs and NPCs that spawn instant-killing body guards, DAMN YOU ELVES).
It is very hard for me to be anything else than lawful good in games. I don't understand the point of doing the bad thing (or even worse, evil thing) if you know it is bad. If you do something that you believed is good but then turns out bad, you're still good. Everyone has some kind of inner code, i don't see how you could not be lawful since you will always judge the situation and take action according to it.
In short doing bad things make me feel bad so I don't do it.
I don't believe in evil, nobody's evil. People just make the choices that seem best. The choice might later be seen as bad by society's standards. When you talk about evil, there is intentionality but any sane person would not make a choice that can be seen as bad. The only thing that varies is the moral code (I.e. principles) which results from our experiences. Therefore, there are no evil people just misguided ones (and as a consequence harmful to society). Which is why justice is not revenge or punishment, it is (or a least should be) an instrument that helps correct these harmful behaviors while keeping the "wrong-doers" away from society (prison).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law It is an extreme example.Still, I don't think he was evil (since no one can be). He was either incredibly misguided or plain mad. Either way, had he been put in the appropriate institution, his actions and ideas (if you can call that pile of crap ideas) would not have harmed people and society (we did invent the concept of crime against humanity for Nazism) the way they did. He did write Mein Kampf in prison but that was clearly a sign that we was not to be released.
I fairly sure he and some people believed in the crap he wrote. As I said, vision of right or wrong can be (very heavily as you point it) distorted but they still believed they were doing the right thing.
Besides, what does he know? He's a fictional cricket.
More seriously - yeah, evil is a social construction. Look at molecules all you want, and you'll never find the Morality Particle. But, as we are social creatures, our artificial social constructions are pretty important to us.
Comments
This video should cover it.
I find the following (spoiler tagged for tidy presentation purposes) to sync up well with my views. It is taken from easydamus.
Neutral Good is another alignment I have often been drawn to. I have fluctuated between TN and NG in recent years. There's another very good summarization (again from easydamus) this time on both of these alignments, head to head.
Neutral good and true neutral characters both believe that any means should be used to achieve desirable outcomes, but they disagree on exactly what types of outcomes are desirable. The neutral good character uses a variety of means to promote and further the cause of goodness, but true neutral characters are not interested in a selfless pursuit of beneficial results for others. Where neutral good characters are altruistic, true neutral characters are interested in their own affairs. True neutral characters will behave altruistically when it comes to friends, relatives, and allies, but for the most part will return the kind of treatment they receive from others. Neutral good characters, on the other hand, will behave altruistically even when dealing with others who are not friends or relatives, and may even forgive enemies that have done them grievous harm in the past (provided their enemy has truly mended his ways). True neutral characters will not extend the olive branch in such situations and may take advantage of their enemy's weakness to protect themselves from further machinations. True neutral characters follow a morality of reciprocity. Neutral good characters follow the Golden Rule.
I definitely work from a basis of reciprocity. I return the kind of treatment I receive. I hold a grudge against those who have wronged me. I look out for and aid those who do good by me. It's a much more interesting alignment - True Neutral - than I ever gave it credit for.
I find TN can work quite well for the saga of Baldur's Gate. If Charname becomes friends with Khalid and Jaheira they look into and ultimately solve the iron crisis because of that friendship. Honor thy friends. Imoen, who is NG, may take a more "golden rule" approach to many situations, again influencing Charname to appear to act heroically. In the case of Dorn, or Viconia, the whole debate over their evil backgrounds holds less sway than how both characters treat and act towards, and around Charname. Good is most definitely preferred over evil, though, and there are limits to what can be tolerated.
Also evil just doesn't get that same sense of adventure that good/neutral does and really that's one of the things that first drew me into fantasy as a kid reading books like the hobbit or watching old films I loved the sense of adventure and camaraderie and that's some thing I just don't feel when im playing evil
in some alignment based games i'm happy to be evil and on occasion ive I found it more rewarding to be evil particularly in kotor but I think that's more to do with the fact that such games failed to draw me in. Not to mention I don't realy like the jedi and that game only gives you two choices. I nearly always try at least one evil run through in most games
also I just think that bg's story functions better with a good/neutral aligned character
Some people never learn...
I find "anti-heroes" (as they are usually portrayed in the majority of modern media) to be a cheap way to make a protagonist seem "deep" and "badass" while still being able to root for them because they must overcome their "intense inner struggles". There are some believable and well-written, relatable anti-heroes (Breaking Bad and more relevant to a discussion of fantasy, Berserk both come to mind) but the majority just reek of 1990s comic books (Grimaces! Big Guns! Moral ambiguity! Feel my inner turmoil!)
I think these kind of characters have so dominated the landscape of the fantasy not-quite-for-kids-yet-not-exactly-steinbeck stories these days that a well-written, sincerely good character is actually more unique and is actually more of a risk-taking endeavor on the part of the writers. This is why I love characters like Mazzy and Keldorn, whereas I find Dorn to be a rather dull character after the initial "wow this guy is pretty hardcore" feeling.
Then when it comes to villains, I feel like they need more justification for their actions than good or neutral characters. I know a lot of people are pessimistic about humanity, but generally speaking being "good" pays off. Aside from having a better family life and more friends, being good also is beneficial financially. People are willing to pay to be helped. Also, anyone who studies medicine will tell you that good bedside manner is actually statistically the number one factor that prevents malpractice suits. So if you are going to be an abrasive asshole and a greedy Lawful Evil/Neutral Evil type, then your "jerk" dialogue responses will have to be backed up by making it a personal shortcoming or personality defect (that Edwin character does this really well)
If you are going to just be angry angry kill kill then you need an even better background to justify it. Korgan and Dorn are in this category, and can fit certain playthroughs and be fun, but its kind of hard for me to put my PC in that sort of mindset. The "essence of Bhaal made me do it" seems to be the only convenient excuse I can think of.
I've yet to understand Neutral Good based on the in-game descriptions both in newer and older crpg D&Ds... "believes in balance of forces but doing good won't upset the balance", say what? So -Chaotic- it is. Yeah this is the problem with playing evil in most crpgs; basically you play dumb evil which seems to be about doing overtly mean stuff just for the sake of it and in spite of the usually obvious negative consequences.
460. I'd better have a real good excuse for being a necromancer if I'm lawful good.
Other gems:
458. "When I'm in the mood" is not a valid trigger for a contingency spell.
64. My paladin's battle cry is not "Good for the Good God".
988. David Bowie cannot cast glitterdust at will. This issue is also closed.
1818. Can't make a bluff check to convince the monster I actually hit him.
1177. I will stop asking NPCs how much XP they are worth.
1335. I can not filibuster in the middle of my dying speech to buy the cleric more time.
LOL
Background doesn't necessarily have anything to do with alignment.
"Mass Effect" had a different balance, because you could take every Renegade interrupt that resulted in a badass moment for Shepard (punching thugs through plate-glass windows, headbutting a krogan), while allowing her to make Paragon decisions that really counted (saving the Council, curing the genophage, making peace between the geth and the quarians, etc.)
I'm not talking about the justification of them *being* NE or LE, but as to why they would choose one of the options (which are admittedly limited) that the game provides.
Though I don't agree that alignments are cosmic and an ingrained part of yourself, and I think the Sarevok, Anomen and Viconia story-lines are proof that background *does* have an affect on someone's alignment. So while it isn't *necessary* for background to have an influence on alignment, it most often does. I'd say for evil alignments more so than good alignments.
As Charname I don't hold any ideals or laws in very high regard, nor do I go on a crusade to spread "good"
I do what I feel best in any given situation with a fair and benevolent moral compass. As such, I am chaotic good.
Law does not govern the need for good, nor does good need laws to exist.
I go about minding my own business, and if I can lift a child out of the gutter in the process - all the better.
Want his help? You better give him damn good reward afterward. If he deems that it's not good enough, he'll extract his worth by force. You threaten to keep him confined unless if he rescue your baby? He'll go get your baby alright, but then he'll sacrifice it to a demon prince for a reward... and if he wasn't satisfied by such rewards, he'll fight the demon prince himself.
My charname bends to no one (other than forced scripts, invulnerable NPCs and NPCs that spawn instant-killing body guards, DAMN YOU ELVES).
In short doing bad things make me feel bad so I don't do it.
I don't believe in evil, nobody's evil. People just make the choices that seem best. The choice might later be seen as bad by society's standards. When you talk about evil, there is intentionality but any sane person would not make a choice that can be seen as bad. The only thing that varies is the moral code (I.e. principles) which results from our experiences. Therefore, there are no evil people just misguided ones (and as a consequence harmful to society). Which is why justice is not revenge or punishment, it is (or a least should be) an instrument that helps correct these harmful behaviors while keeping the "wrong-doers" away from society (prison).
It is an extreme example.Still, I don't think he was evil (since no one can be). He was either incredibly misguided or plain mad. Either way, had he been put in the appropriate institution, his actions and ideas (if you can call that pile of crap ideas) would not have harmed people and society (we did invent the concept of crime against humanity for Nazism) the way they did. He did write Mein Kampf in prison but that was clearly a sign that we was not to be released.
I fairly sure he and some people believed in the crap he wrote. As I said, vision of right or wrong can be (very heavily as you point it) distorted but they still believed they were doing the right thing.
More seriously - yeah, evil is a social construction. Look at molecules all you want, and you'll never find the Morality Particle. But, as we are social creatures, our artificial social constructions are pretty important to us.