Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Morality and Alignment. What do you choose and why?

So I've been playing BGII:EE for a few hours now and noticed this game tends to be more morally ambiguous than the first one. Wouldn't say it's as ambiguous as let's say, Witcher 2 but still.
Anyway, I'm usually a Lawful/Neutral Good character due to liking to help people and seeing/feeling their satisfaction, but the biggest reason is because I just don't have the stomach to be evil in a videogame (think the last time I did it was when Infamous 1 came out and it was solely for the Trophies). Weirdest thing is I'm a bit of a resentful person IRL (holds on to grudges easily and for long, a bit prejudicial and quick to judge) and in videogames I like being the embodiment of the Shining White Knight and can't for a moment think of hurting the next man unless it's for self-defense or he's an actual bad guy.
Basically, my question is: What do you choose in terms of morality in games and why?

NokkenbuerDemonoid_LimewireQuartz
«1

Comments

  • CaloNordCaloNord Member Posts: 1,807
    I'm usually neutral good, chaotic good, of lawful neutral. I find being evil for evils sake very difficult. I'm not a cruel person by nature and if I wander round being needlessly evil I tend to feel a little wrong. :P

    That being said, my lawful evil Jester was one of my favorites. He was greedy but not senselessly evil. He was the 'I will manipulate the situation to get the biggest reward' type character. I can do manipulative just not senselessly evil. :D

    NokkenbuerDemonoid_Limewire
  • NokkenbuerNokkenbuer Member Posts: 146
    For my first playthroughs, which are typically the ones during which i do my best to exemplify my ideal self, I usually choose an alignment which is closest to the one I wish to be in real life: Neutral Good with Chaotic Good individualism and a generally Lawful Good moral code. For my first playthrough in the first game, I chose Chaotic Good because it seemed to best represent my need for individualism, which complimented the roleplaying perspective of the protagonist (fresh out of Candlekeep with a personal grudge and a burning desire to discover oneself). In the second game, I chose Neutral Good because I was dissatisfied with how morally dubious and selfish Chaotic Good characters typically behaved. Additionally, this complimented my new roleplaying perspective for the protagonist, who I assumed found solace in being a benefactor for the people and harbinger of good, which led him to be less self-centered in his behavior.

    Interestingly enough, these alignment choices, alongside the race (Human) and class (pure Fighter) I chose, all matched up exactly to the canon protagonist, Abdel Adrian. This was unintended, but I'm glad I didn't go with Adrian, seeing how that would limit customization.


    From a real-world perspective, the alignment system is interesting and fun to consider, but altogether not very accurate in describing people, especially considering how transient and dynamic some people's "alignment" seem to be. In this respect, I deviated from my alignment during certain moments in the game, such as choosing the gruffer dialogue choice or deciding to kill an NPC which was Neutral or at least not a threat to my personal well-being or the welfare of my party. I justified this behavior as momentary lapses in judgment, being overcome with feelings of anger or jealousy, or taken by temptations such as greed and avarice. Although not necessarily recommended given the rather rigid alignment system in the Dungeons & Dragons multiverse, especially that of The Forgotten Realms universe, I believe this better represents the human condition and real life flexibility of how "alignment" would realistically be expressed.

    Thankfully, I didn't choose an alignment and class which prevented me from these sorts of deviations, such as a Lawful Good Paladin, since violations of my alignment would lead to more serious repercussions, such as the loss of the powers and abilities granted to me by my patron deity.

    In later playthroughs, I sometimes choose more diabolical alignments in order to experience the other side of the moral spectrum and how the game handles this different approach. Rarely do I play Neutral-aligned (Chaotic, Lawful, or True Neutral) characters, for I believe they unrealistically represent the human condition, though I may do so for the sole purpose of experiencing the full scope of the game. In that respect, I typically don't limit myself to any single alignment or class of alignments when playing games because I'm more interested in experiencing everything the game has to offer, whether in a single adventure or over multiple playthroughs, if only to really appreciate the immensity of such games, especially ones as expansive as the Baldur's Gate series.

    From a real-world perspective, I suppose I would classify myself as Chaotic Good with Chaotic Neutral tendencies aspiring to be Neutral Good, which I believe to be the pinnacle of human morality. I still tend to lead more toward Chaos on a personal and moral level, while supporting Law and Order on a more ethical level. I don't like the idea of being Chaotic Neutral-Good, but that is what best represents my current personality and behavior: self-serving and idiosyncratic, but with an inclination for generosity and a benevolent streak. Ideally, I would like to be Neutral Good: not so rigid and limited as Lawful alignments, but more disciplined and reliable than Chaotic alignments, all the while maintaining a preference for serving the greater good of humanity.

    DreadKhanDemonoid_Limewiredstoltzfusmeagloth
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859
    I enjoy playing a range of different alignments, but depending on the game, evil can be pretty silly. BG does a decent job of allowing you to be legitimately evil without the silliness of 'evil for the lulz' that many games end up having. Most 'evil' acts in KOTOR were just being a big D-bag... which is needless to say utterly ridiculous most of the time.

    Imho, if you want to play an actually evil playthrough, you probably shouldnt be looking at rp choices... would it make character sense to commit a given evil act? For a hot-headed character, evil will involve killing some who offend your sensibilities, as with good. You can buy some rep, but I dont see it as realistic to wipe out Beregost and 'atone' by paying off the local priest of Lathander. Thus, if playing crazy evil, I wont buy back very much rep, just enough to get by (3 to 5 usually, maybe up to 8). It makes sense for Sarevok to obsess over maintaining a good reputation, because it was key to gaining control of a city; I doubt charname would have time for such involved plotting.

    Playing self-serving evil tends to be closer to neutral than evil in my book, but its not my place to dictate yours!

    So why do I play a given alignment for a given character? Its his alignment of course, and I usually have an outline in my mind of what kind of person a given charname is.

    Nokkenbuerdemented
  • AlexisisinneedAlexisisinneed Member Posts: 470

    One thing I should probably add to my post is that the link I included actually kind of contradicts what I said with regards to the inclination to commit evil for the sake of evil among Evil-aligned characters. Let me clarify:

    From the perspective of the games, especially the Baldur's Gate series, Evil-aligned characters don't necessarily revel in evil for the sake of it. This is what Kagain and Shar-Teel are Evil-aligned despite showing no overt behavior of enjoying evil for evil's sake. This means that either the developers are implying that there's something about their past or behavior which isn't displayed in the games, or that this indicates that not all evil characters enjoy causing suffering and pain to others. The former is admittedly the more reasonable choice, but it doesn't adequately explain the temperaments of some of the evil characters in the games, especially considering their Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom scores—indicating that they're not masterminds of deceiving us into believing they're not much more than just greedy dwarves or misandristic women. (Plus, that argument doesn't give me sufficient enough prompt to construct a mound of endless text!)

    As far as I'm concerned, Kagain and Shar-Teel should have been classified as Chaotic Neutral (Evil)—Evil in parantheses to indicate his self-centered tendencies, given the descriptions of the alignments in EasyDamus.com. Since they are not, however, at least one of the following must be true:

    (a) the Baldur's Gate games use slightly different alignments than normal Dungeons & Dragons;
    (b) the developers did not adequately explain the evilness of characters like Kagain and Shar-Teel;
    (c) characters like Kagain and Shar-Teel had been classified the wrong alignments;
    (d) EasyDamus.com is defining the alignment classifications somewhat differently than they are defined in traditional Dungeons & Dragons; or
    (e) I overanalyzed a simple post and made a fool of myself by not even bothering to check the website I posted, along with the traditional descriptions of each alignment, and I am now in the process of damage control.

    I'm not sure, but I suspect many of you will pick (e).

    I don't know much about Kagain, but Shar-Teel like really hates men and see's them as an inferior gender so she's a very sexist person and I don't know how to justify that any other way but being bad. I don't understand how you can justify that as being neutral.

  • NokkenbuerNokkenbuer Member Posts: 146

    One thing I should probably add to my post is that the link I included actually kind of contradicts what I said with regards to the inclination to commit evil for the sake of evil among Evil-aligned characters. Let me clarify:

    From the perspective of the games, especially the Baldur's Gate series, Evil-aligned characters don't necessarily revel in evil for the sake of it. This is what Kagain and Shar-Teel are Evil-aligned despite showing no overt behavior of enjoying evil for evil's sake. This means that either the developers are implying that there's something about their past or behavior which isn't displayed in the games, or that this indicates that not all evil characters enjoy causing suffering and pain to others. The former is admittedly the more reasonable choice, but it doesn't adequately explain the temperaments of some of the evil characters in the games, especially considering their Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom scores—indicating that they're not masterminds of deceiving us into believing they're not much more than just greedy dwarves or misandristic women. (Plus, that argument doesn't give me sufficient enough prompt to construct a mound of endless text!)

    As far as I'm concerned, Kagain and Shar-Teel should have been classified as Chaotic Neutral (Evil)—Evil in parantheses to indicate his self-centered tendencies, given the descriptions of the alignments in EasyDamus.com. Since they are not, however, at least one of the following must be true:

    (a) the Baldur's Gate games use slightly different alignments than normal Dungeons & Dragons;
    (b) the developers did not adequately explain the evilness of characters like Kagain and Shar-Teel;
    (c) characters like Kagain and Shar-Teel had been classified the wrong alignments;
    (d) EasyDamus.com is defining the alignment classifications somewhat differently than they are defined in traditional Dungeons & Dragons; or
    (e) I overanalyzed a simple post and made a fool of myself by not even bothering to check the website I posted, along with the traditional descriptions of each alignment, and I am now in the process of damage control.

    I'm not sure, but I suspect many of you will pick (e).

    I don't know much about Kagain, but Shar-Teel like really hates men and see's them as an inferior gender so she's a very sexist person and I don't know how to justify that any other way but being bad. I don't understand how you can justify that as being neutral.
    Well, Shar-Teel is very sexist, but the majority of surface-dwelling society is racist toward Drows, and many consider Ogres and other humanoids to be unworthy of respect, despite how not all of them are evil. How is that justified. Shar-Teel is very sexist, but she doesn't display the key characteristics of being cruel and malicious for personal enjoyment, or evil for evil's sake. She does hold some deep-rooted prejudices, but that doesn't make her altogether evil, per se. Unless she was actively seeking out and torturing men for her own pleasure, which I don't recall her doing (aside from humiliating them and challenging them to duels, but that is less "evil" and more "misguided"), I would classify her as Chaotic Neutral with Evil tendencies, or Chaotic Neutral (Evil).

    It's just her misandry which is somewhat evil in nature. Overall, however, I don't see her as an evil person anymore than I do Kagain as anything other than a greedy dwarf who doesn't really care about the welfare of others.

    Demonoid_Limewiretadancer
  • Demonoid_LimewireDemonoid_Limewire Member Posts: 424
    Chaotic Neutral. Definitely. I detest law, especially the *letters* of the law and all of its ambiguous windows/interpretations, which allow scum to persevere and victims to drown, or transmute injustice into justice almost miraculously, and so on... Also, after a long transition from good first to evil second, i finally hopped in the middle ground, tried to avoid conflict and confrontation, and more or less find the balance. Yet, i don't like true neutral, because i still have a whimsical side reserved, although in check and mostly dormant. Besides, i simply LOOOVE cats! And i have problems with no one in my party, from my side at least! Let them all have problems with me, instead, from their part-not mine, and fight like cats and dogs inbetween them...

  • TheGraveDiggerTheGraveDigger Member Posts: 336
    edited July 2014
    Chaotic Neutral. I do what I feel like doing.

    @Alexisisinneed‌
    How does being sexist make you evil? 50 years ago almost all men were "sexist"... Shar-Teel's sexism was mostly meant as a joke... But these days you can't even hold a door open for a woman without being called a sexist.

    I think Shar-Teel is evil because she's probably murdered random men in her silly duel and laughed about it.

    Post edited by TheGraveDigger on
    CrevsDaakNokkenbuermeagloth
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,280
    I disagree that Shar Teel and Kagain should have different alignment. Both would sacrifice innocents to achieve a selfish goal.

  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,611
    @Nokkenbuer‌ , your first post above is the best analysis of the D&D alignment poles I've ever seen. Kudos.

    Nokkenbuer
  • ifupaulineifupauline Member Posts: 405
    It is not so interesting to play the game as an evil character for there is no real benefit in being bad weather it's in the game or in real life. I usually play Neutral Good which fits the most my personality or True Neutral when I am on a fuck everything mood.

  • BladeDancerBladeDancer Member Posts: 477
    I play the game Chaotic Good because I'm a rebel at heart, a Robin Hood type of guy, I see no benefit in trusting a lawful good aligned organization or government that can be easily exploited and manipulated by those of evil intent.

    NokkenbuerBalrog99
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    I will often times play a Chaotic Neutral. No, not for the reason that a lot of people do, "Because you can do what you like". That "To me" is not Chaotic neutral AT ALL.

    I play it because I don't personally like to take moral sides for the bigger issues (hence Neutral). So I let the Goodn's and the Evilies fight among themselves while I sit back and watch. And tend to be a bit more of a loner (hence the Chaotic designation). My group doesn't trust anyone that hasn't earned it and don't subscribe to any strict code of morality other than stay alive.

    However, in role playing my characters, they will often times take a tumble to the dark side owing to the fact that they tend to get a bit power hungry and don't care who they squash on the way down. It's a common failing among CN's.

    Nokkenbuer
  • PlasticGolemPlasticGolem Member Posts: 98
    The "evil" path in Baldur's Gate is only hard because the game equates being evil with being a bully of low intelligence (chaotic stupid). If you play your character as a smart, self-interested psychopath, your reputation will quickly hit 20, because almost none of the "good" options require any real sacrifice or increased personal risk. On the contrary, they provide the greatest rewards. This results in weird situations where a manipulative, charismatic evil character draws praise from their good-aligned companions while their evil ones threaten to leave because they haven't kicked enough puppies.

    If you play a lawful character, there are many quests you cannot logically do. I think the most flexible alignment is chaotic neutral (I really should rescue Imoen before something bad happens to her... oh hey, another side quest: that sounds fun!) and the least is lawful neutral, with lawful good coming in second (arguably, you shouldn't side with either faction in BG2 if your alignment is one of these, though a sufficiently wise chaotic or neutral good character would see how siding with the more evil of the two ultimately leads to the greatest good).

    NokkenbuerCatoblepasdemented
  • dstoltzfusdstoltzfus Member Posts: 280
    I enjoy getting out of my personal perspective and attempt to role-play different "alignments". It can be challenging if I have trouble with immersion with a character though. As it has been suggested in the thread, I too dislike the alignment system as far as it's lack of validity to the "real world" and I've found that it's difficult to pigeon-hole my own personality on the axes. I'm most comfortable playing a good character, but I'm about to complete my first complete trilogy run with a neutral/chaotic evil character, which has been...interesting.

    Anyone think that Dorn is chaotic evil?

    I would re-iterate @Nokkenbuer with the easydamus website that I was just about to link...ha.

  • dstoltzfusdstoltzfus Member Posts: 280
    Kagain is easily Lawful Evil: as a mercenary he uses contracts and "laws" to benefit himself, dedicated self-interest, and is more than simply apathetic towards violence (threatening you in his bio, even I believe). He's an evil mercenary...quite simple (though, you have plenty of room to add to his story).

    Shar-Teel is more complicated, but she joins as "punishment" for losing you to a duel: under your "rule" because you are the stronger and for no other reason (other than that it *might* help her in some way). Her love for violence and her freely expressed hatred for particular things (e.g. men) is pretty obvious. But, chaotic evil is a tricky alignment and I don't know much more about Shar-Teel, as I've only used her a few times since vanilla. Personally, I see her as chaotic evil.

    AlexisisinneedNokkenbuer
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,851
    I enjoy playing Neutral Good because that's me, so it's straightforward to role-play and understand and such.

    I even more enjoy playing Chaotic Good because that's me on a bad/reckless day. Good times.

    I too have a hard time playing Evil characters. I've done some Lawful Evils that are all about status, so they'll do good things as well as bad. I've done Neutral Evils who are quite selfish, but care about their close friends anyway; their party, that is. In the end though, I always get bored of said experiments. I reckon Chaotic Good is how I tend to play!

    Nokkenbuer
  • CatoblepasCatoblepas Member Posts: 96
    When I play evil characters, I usually play Lawful Evil. Neutral Evil may make more sense if you are RPing your characters alignment as a result of your father's 'taint', but I never found Neutral Evil as fun to RP as Lawful or Chaotic Evil, so I justify the Lawful half of my alignment as coming from being raised in Candlekeep. Lawful Evil also seems to me to be the alignment most likely to get along with others, esp your good-aligned party members, and more likely to take the 'practical' route to resolving a quest-which Is good because Baldur's Gate I+II already handicap you for playing Evil, so It's good to have an RP justification to not lose out on all that non-evil content and quest resolutions.

    When I play non-evil characters...I usually choose Lawful Neutral....because Helm! One of my favorite Forgotten Realm Deities, and the One I gravitate to when playing divine spellcasters.

    So Lawful Evil when I play Arcane Spellcasters, and Lawful Neutral when I play Divine Spellcasters.

    Nokkenbuer
  • TheGraveDiggerTheGraveDigger Member Posts: 336

    I will often times play a Chaotic Neutral. No, not for the reason that a lot of people do, "Because you can do what you like". That "To me" is not Chaotic neutral AT ALL.

    But Choatic Neutral is doing whatever you want at any given moment... Today I might help someone, tomorrow I might be in a bad mood and decide to rob him. That's an example, I don't usually rob people. That's what chaotic is all about, your actions are always up and down.

    I play it because I don't personally like to take moral sides for the bigger issues (hence Neutral). So I let the Goodn's and the Evilies fight among themselves while I sit back and watch. And tend to be a bit more of a loner (hence the Chaotic designation). My group doesn't trust anyone that hasn't earned it and don't subscribe to any strict code of morality other than stay alive.

    However, in role playing my characters, they will often times take a tumble to the dark side owing to the fact that they tend to get a bit power hungry and don't care who they squash on the way down. It's a common failing among CN's.

    Being a loner doesn't really have much to do with alignments. You sound Neutral Evil... to me.

    Nokkenbuer
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    edited July 2014
    @TheGraveDigger - I kind of hope you are simply being silly. In either case, being Chaotic is IN MY SUBJECTIVE VIEW not simply a matter of "doing whatever you want at any given moment". That is playing Psychotic or schizophrenic, not any kind of alignment.

    AristilliusNokkenbuer
  • TheGraveDiggerTheGraveDigger Member Posts: 336
    @‌the_spyder
    I'm always a bit silly, but today I come with proof...

    http://easydamus.com/chaoticneutral.html
    "Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment."

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticNeutral
    "Typically though, Chaotic Neutral characters do whatever the hell they like and damn the consequences..."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Chaotic_Neutral
    "A Chaotic Neutral character does not have to be an aimless wanderer; they may have a specific goal in mind, but their methods of achieving that goal are often disorganized, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable."

    http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Chaotic_Neutral
    "...the only thing predictable about them is their unpredictable natures."

    Nokkenbuer
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    edited July 2014


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Chaotic_Neutral
    "A Chaotic Neutral character does not have to be an aimless wanderer; they may have a specific goal in mind, but their methods of achieving that goal are often disorganized, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable."

    Thanks.

    I am not going to get into ANOTHER debate on this topic in this forum. This above is the only relevant one (owing to it being the only one using Dungeons and Dragons in the title, but even that, it's a Wiki so....), and even that doesn't say 'Do whatever you want because you are chaotic'.

    I can be quite un-predictable when i want too. That does NOT mean that I am just randomly doing whatever crosses my mind at the time. One is being inscrutable. the other is simply not wanting to actually Play an Alignment.

    Finally, anything I have expressed here is simply my way of looking at it. I don't claim to be the keeper of the flame for D&D or Hasbro or Wotc. Nor do I want/expect anyone else to buy into MY philosophy. Believe as YOU choose. For ME, a chaotic person is not "Let's flip a coin and see how the wind is blowing today 'Cuz i am chaotic'".

    Nuff said on my part.

    Post edited by the_spyder on
    TheGraveDigger
  • TheGraveDiggerTheGraveDigger Member Posts: 336
    Fair enough, I don't want to get into a long boring argument either. We all play differently... I personally never use Lawful Good because I thinks it's an impossible alignment. To some people that probably seems dumb.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    edited July 2014
    @TheGraveDigger - my personal opinion is that any (and in fact EVERY) alignment "Played properly" should be hard to play. A lot of people play "Neutral" because they think it means "do a little good, do a little evil. It all balances out to 'Neutral'". When in fact it means being Neutral in matters of good and evil. Not taking sides and not getting involved. That can be VERY hard indeed.

    But also, logical extremes should not be the definition of alignments either. Just because you are lawful doesn't mean that you are so incredibly rigidly stilted as to be zero dimensional. If that were the case, schizophrenics, who repeat the same sequence over and over and OVER again, or have rituals that MUST be repeated, would be the Ultimate Lawful. That simply isn't the case. Nor are all Chaotics ADHD sufferers.

    Alignments are more bents towards a given ethos. A Lawful may appear more organized and predictable, but can still do random stuff. An evil might still save a baby from the ogre, though admittedly usually with some ulterior motive. A good might sacrifice an innocent if they felt that the need was great enough. And a Chaotic might actually have plans and schemes, but just may be more free spirited about how they go about them. etc...

    In the end, Alignment is the journey that you take, not the destination. It should be guidelines, not absolute black and white.

    All in my humble opinion.

    NokkenbuerTheGraveDigger
  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    I'll play any alignment from time to time, in order to experience the fullness of the game.

    Most commonly I play Good-aligned, but fairly often Neutral and sometimes Evil.

    My characters are pretty evenly-split between Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic.

    My alignment choices are driven by my concept of the character I'm rolling up, and by what choice of NPC companions I imagine such a character would recruit. I always build a character with the intention of playing through the whole series, which makes a difference because (although there's a wide choice of companions of all alignments in BG1) the choices in BG2 are more limited, and in particular there aren't so many different ways to assemble an Evil (or indeed Neutral) party in BG2. I don't like to play the same party over and over, I prefer exploring a different mix of characters each time, but always a mix which I can see as credible for the protagonist to have chosen. There's more variety of team-selection for Good characters, so there are more Good playthroughs which I have either tried or plan to try.

    Unlike some other players, I don't see my in-game characters as a projection of "the real me". They're exercises in imaginative fiction and explorations of playing-style.

    If Overhaul wish in future to expand replayability even further by introducing more new characters in BG2ee, then they should certainly focus on developing one or two more Neutral-aligned NPCs, to maximise utility for parties of various alignments. (I argued the same even before they introduced Hexxat, who IMO was a mistake, but it's no use re-hashing the past.)

    terzaerianNokkenbuer
  • elementelement Member Posts: 833
    I like neutral good best its probably the easiest for me to rp as its probably the closest my personal attitudes towards what I actually envision a good person to be. I also like the 3 neutral alignments I rarely play any alignment besides those 4 I just don't enjoy them as much.

    I do really like the idea behind lawful evil if I play evil it tends to be that alignment

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018


    Unlike some other players, I don't see my in-game characters as a projection of "the real me". They're exercises in imaginative fiction and explorations of playing-style.

    I am the same. Although the characters that I play are of very specific backgrounds and personalities. I flatter myself that I am like Stephen King, who has a bunch of characters running around in his head. They aren't "Me", but they aren't blank slates either.

  • NokkenbuerNokkenbuer Member Posts: 146


    Anyone think that Dorn is chaotic evil?

    I think Dorn is more Neutral Evil with Chaotic tendencies. He does appear to be Lawful Evil to his mistress, though.
    At least, until the end of BGII:EE.

Sign In or Register to comment.