Playing an evil party
BrandtCP
Member Posts: 6
I never did this when I played BG upon original release and some of the evil NPCs are cooler but hard to keep around if you are too good. If you get a poor reputation from being evil I understand some NPCs will leave the party. Do the NPCs like guards in towns always attack on sight too?
0
Comments
"You can't play an Evil character in Baldur's Gate! The choices all lend themselves towards being a Good person, and the rewards for being Evil just don't compare with Good! REPUTATION!"
It's all wrong, though. Baldur's Gate works incredibly well from an Evil character standpoint. Non-Evil NPCs will leave the party if you're a straight-up Evil dude, that's true... but really, is anyone seriously upset about that? How friggin' retarded would it be if Ajantis, the Paladin of Torm (the God of Justice), was cool with your party lying, stealing, and breaking the law constantly?
Baldur's Gate 1 didn't lend itself to much of anything, in terms of choices. The best part about being Evil in BG1 is that your character's dreams change dramatically if you're a thoroughly Evil dude. In one of them you use a dagger to whittle another dagger out of bone, then throw them both to the ground and choke a ghost. I kid you not. That is some badass stuff.
In BG2, there's just no questioning it: Evil is better. From working for a dragon to putting a Paladin order into the ground, to poisoning a Druid Grove (for absolutely no reason other than your own amusement) to wearing the flesh of another human being after first curing it in the blood of a silver dragon, to laughing merrily as you lead a man who wants nothing more than to be a Paladin of the Radiant Heart, down a dark, twisted road that will eventually result in him being killed tragically by a Paladin of that very order, whom he once idolized.
I mean, c'mon. Evil is fantastic. "Not a lot of smooth Evil options". Pffft. Spoken like everyone else; people who never really played Evil.
EDIT: Regarding reputation, all that'll do is cause Flaming Fist Enforcers (in BG1) or Amnish Soldiers / Cowled Wizards (in BG2) to spawn and try to put you down, periodically. It doesn't turn city guards hostile, doesn't cause NPCs to try to kill you, or anything like that. It just gives you brief moments of panic when you're coming home after a long day of adventuring and you hear "AH SERVE THA FLAMIN' FIST!!" and begin counting how many casts of Magic Missile you've got left.
Also, being Evil with a high reputation isn't being Evil. It's being "I know this game well enough to not play it right." If you play Evil, be Evil. Being Evil doesn't mean being mindless; it doesn't mean going around butchering people. I've never force attacked anyone (clicking the Attack button and then clicking on an otherwise friendly NPC), never picked any pockets and failed, turning people hostile. Anyone I fought happened naturally, in theme of choosing Evil dialogue options.
It just kind of boggles my mind that so many people write off an entire side of the story of one of the greatest RPG series for PC gaming, as being "not good" or "not smooth", or not as fleshed out as the good side. It's just... wrong. I mean, opinions, right? But sometimes opinions can be wrong, when there is factual evidence of there being many, many situations where Evil choices yield better, or comparable results to Good choices. And there is an Evil choice more often than not, at least in BG2. My last playthrough was with an Evil party. It's still fresh in my mind. I had no complaints whatsoever. /shrug.
But more importantly, aren't you that crazy guy from the docks district? Sure, I pray to Cyric too, stop pestering me.
I do get tired of using the same three people in BG2, though.
I remember the first time I played evil, I was pleasantly surprised when I got a different Bhaalspawn dream and power. When I took Edwin's quest to kill Dynaheir and he actually joined my party, I almost fell out of my chair; I thought he was just a quest-giver. I was also surprised the first time I met Xzar and Monty's "contacts" as such, rather than enemies, and the same for Edwin. And I lusted after Viconia long before she became a BG2 romance option.
It is disappointing though, how BG2 doesn't have as many NPC options for an evil party. Hopefully the BG2EE will change that.
I've assembled evil parties before to see how they behave and work together, but usually with a Neutral PC.
- The FedEx style, 'help the helpless' routine throughout the game doesn't fit with an evil aligned party at all. There are almost no specifically design quests for evildoers.
- There are many, many quests that offer lower XP or *no* XP if you choose the 'evil' option.
- Dialogue trees are designed so that you won't get quests at all if you play too closely to an evil alignment.
- Shop prices: Discounts if you're good, markups if you're evil. This starts to make a huge difference if you're looking to buy items that cost over 10k gold baseline.
- Powers: Nothing on the evil side matches DUHM.
You can play evil, sure, but it's harder and it gimps your party. People had a point with their complaints. The game is overwhelmingly lopsided in favor of good aligned parties.
In BG1, a lot of the "evil" things to do really kinda sucked and gave you less experience and/or items. But there was a plethora of Evil NPCs.
In BG2, there are actually decently "evil" things to do, but there are like 3 Evil NPCs, until Sarevok when you get 4.
Korgan is just a douchebag Dwarven stereotype, Kagain is actually interesting! Stop mixing them up! T_T cryingface
On a more serious note, yes, despite the lack of NPCs they are all quite exceptional in their ability.
- Stealing and pickpocketing.
- If you want the best mage in the game, you have to murder an innocent woman. If you want the best cleric, you have to murder a law enforcement officer.
- Fights for treasure. Very often in the game there are characters you don't need to fight. Escalating the situation just to get a pretext to kill them and take their treasure is *not* Good. You can get the best sword and one of the best armor in the game by committing a *very* despicable action.
- Examples of evil quests: The Archeologist, the Thieves' Guild, the Telescope, the noblewoman looking for a hired killer. If we dig a bit more we'll find more of them.
"No evil options in BG/BG2" = bullshit.
I wouldn't call killing a dumb, random djinni *very* despicable. Not good, clearly, selfish, clearly, but super bad? Nah. As for Adalon's blood, yes, that's f**ked up. It's just confusing and contains a lot of unclear motivation, particularly in BG1. Yeah, I can take evil options, but I keep finding myself asking "why the hell am I even doing this? What's in it for me?" there really is no clear motivation.
How nice of you.
@shawne - I mostly agree -- it can be a fun challenge. But take a look at this page, which outlines the encounters you have in one BG1 zone:
http://www.forgottenwars.com/bg1/ar4600.htm
A good aligned party will walk out of this zone with an extra 1,000 XP from 3 encounters, plus some decent mid level loot.
An evil aligned party will net 260 XP from those same encounters, get none of the loot, and actually *lose* gold.
That goes beyond role playing. To me, it's just non sensical design.
Reputation limits are on BG manual, 19+ reputation will make evil party members leave the party no matter your charisma, as well 2- reputation will make good party members leave your party no matter the charisma.
Curious, 1 reputation will make neutral party members leave the party no matter the reputation (so they're not so neutral).
We don't choose to attack the silver dragon in evil parties normally as the most common outcome for evil parties is trade the real silver eggs with the demon lord for powerful magical items (if you don't do that you're not so evil), by going back to the silver dragon lair, she automatic attacks you, so isn't a choice really.
Now back to the thread.
Evil is poorly worked in BG and BG2, while the evil NPCs are well made in both games the adventure don't receive well evil options and choices, sometimes is worst than punishment it's a total forgetfulness of the evil content, worst than be punished is do something evil and don't even have complains from the party or consequences from non joinable NPCs.
I love evil plays and i play evil a lot of times, it's possible to make evil games, but be ready to face some inconsistency if you do it.
If for example you decide to help someone find their lost son and then refuse a reward, the evil guys will eye roll and let you know it's beneath them and that you're a fool.
Whereas, if you decide to, for example, betray someone for a greater reward, the good guys will intervene, plead with you to reconsider then probably leave the group and attack you.
Good guys are so highly strung.
2. Honestly, I've never found Kagain very interesting - he has no subplots or significant relationships with other party members, whereas Korgan's worth keeping around just to hear him perving on Mazzy or trading insults with Imoen and Aerie.
2. Yeah ... I just plain despise Korgan. We're just gonna have to disagree there.
@shawne - You've lost me. I wasn't talking about changes in your rep score, but how the game penalizes you in a fundamental way for playing an 'evil' party.
All that XP adds up, and eventually it means a good party standing at the gates of Baldur's Gate is going to be a touch more powerful (and have better items, and more money) than one who went bad.
That's a design decision I'll never understand. In one encounter, the party is required to do the exact same thing -- fight off a mountain bear -- yet the good guys get more XP from the quest giver (and loot!) than the bad guys. Why? It makes no sense.
Alignment restrictions for thieves don't have anything to do with this. Some may take the rogue profession to disarm traps. Thief is not a lifestyle, it's a set of skills.
Although I do still think a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good character could justify theft on occasion. The whole "I need it more than they do" thing ... sure it's a bogus excuse but it's an excuse I can see such a character using, especially when they're trying to save the Sword Coast.
The broader issue, though, is how you define an evil playthrough. Is it your RP? Your alignment? Your reputation? Your choice of NPCs? Players who slaughter every living thing in their path will be penalized, that's absolutely true, but many quests - though framed as "helping" people - have no effect on your reputation and therefore isn't considered a good or evil act.
For example, let's have a look at the Tenya/Umberlee quest in the fishing village. You get 1000 EXP for killing Tenya and 2500 EXP for killing the fishermen and returning the bowl. The smart play, in-game, is to side with the angry goddess rather than the dumb fishermen who ticked her off; that doesn't mean helping Umberlee is an inherently good act.
FedEx Style - I'll pick one as an example. Joia's Flamedance Ring is missing. Evil party hears that, goes to find the ring. Sells it. Profits. Quest specifically designed with an Evil party in mind. They hear about someone's misfortune, and profit from it.
Lower/No XP - There are very, very few quests that offer no reward at all for solving them the "Evil" way. Like, none. You got something for it every time. Maybe not the big shiny pat on the back you were hoping for, but you definitely didn't get shafted.
Dialogue Trees - Nah. You won't get quests if you're a Chaotic Evil Barbarian. You'll get plenty of quests if you're playing a rational, intelligent, self-motivated person. In fact, almost all of them.
Shop Prices - Like there haven't been mods since Day 1 that give you comparable Reputation 1 prices, similar to Reputation 20 prices.
Powers - Sorry... what? Vampiric Grasp is pretty damn good. Not to mention a Good person can't use The Ravager without tanking his reputation. DUHM is nice, but better than the Ravager? Nah.
So yeah. I just disagree. And the fact that nobody can provide specific examples of the game being 'overwhelmingly' in favor of Good parties is... interesting. I'm trying not to just pump out a list of spoilers, since you guys clearly have never really played an Evil party, but it's getting tempting, just to prove that I do actually have a clue as to what I'm talking about, and am not just arguing for kicks.
Want proof? Search in the forum search engine for the word "Evil" and see by yourself the reasons. There's a bunch of topics from june/july that touch this subject and have awersome posts.
Second, if you take the ring and sell it the quest isn't completed (it stays in your journal) and -- more importantly -- you get no XP. Which is the primary purpose of doing the quests in the first place.
Third, if you're evil, taking this quest and fufilling it make zero sense from a role play standpoint. This woman is penniless and offers you nothing, and you're going to help her out because ... Why, exactly? It makes no sense.
Mods aren't a great argument. I could mod the game to reverse the rep rewards, for example, to give me +2 rep when 'rescuing' Viconia. So it's pretty meaningless to mention them in a discussion about the original game's design.
DUHM gives you, at low levels, +1 to your stats. This is immensely meaningful for melee based PCs, because it means they're operating with a 19 strength for the duration. That's +3 hit and +7 damage on every swing. Vampiric Touch is useful, but I don't see how it matches up.
Everyone can provide specific examples of good parties being easier and more beneficial in the long run. Just about every gaming review and guide talks specifically about this, so I'm mystified you don't see it.