Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Mar 2015
Arne Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2015
First of all, thank you @Larian for allowing me to play my beloved, charismatic nerd aka the sorcerer smile No one likes boring nerds aka wizards, but everyone likes charming nerds like the sorcerer. And kudos for the nicer robe, which immediately sells the point grin

I also want to commend you for the strongly varying reactions of the NPCs, that surely was a lot of work. I always like to roleplay a "neutral" playthrough - basically not interfering, seldomly taking sides, only helping people that help me as well etc. It is nice to see that you can actually get different reactions or even make new allies if you play 'realistically' and say that you don't care about the Tieflings, don't mind Khaga, and strictly go searching a cure. It reminds me a little of the neutral path in Tactics Ogre Let us Cling together, which is my all time favorite.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Honestly, Arne, I wouldn't call "don't care about the tieflings, don't mind what Khaga is doing, and focusing solely on getting a cure for yourself" to be neutral... It's pure self-focused, selfish behaviour to the complete disregard of the suffering of those around you or the cruelties of others. In other words, it's the classical definition of an evil character.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
I guess a better formulation would be that your character don't want to pick sides, changing the balance etc. Less evil, but can come off as being indecisive or simply a coward. smile

True neutrality is a hard and narrow path to walk.

Joined: Mar 2015
Arne Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2015
Originally Posted by Niara
Honestly, Arne, I wouldn't call "don't care about the tieflings, don't mind what Khaga is doing, and focusing solely on getting a cure for yourself" to be neutral... It's pure self-focused, selfish behaviour to the complete disregard of the suffering of those around you or the cruelties of others. In other words, it's the classical definition of an evil character.

If you had a tadpole in your head in the real world, you would surely not risk your life(!) to resolve problems of Tieflings in a Druid grove fighting against Goblins wink

But of course this is not the real world but a fantasy story, so I understand that you take an ethical viewpoint that is not really realistic. The problem is that Dungeons and Dragons always defined good as stupid good and evil as stupid evil.

Joined: Mar 2015
Arne Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2015
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
I guess a better formulation would be that your character don't want to pick sides, changing the balance etc. Less evil, but can come off as being indecisive or simply a coward. smile

True neutrality is a hard and narrow path to walk.

Siding with the Goblins/Minthara & wiping the Druids out would obviously be evil. Siding with the Druids/Tieflings would be good. And staying out of the conflict & caring for the TADPOLE in your head is quite obviously not picking sides.

Of course that's not 'actively preserving balance' neutral, but just 'staying out of the conflict' neutral.

Joined: Oct 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
I think the game does a surprisingly good job with this. It slowly reveals that you have more time than you initially thought, which allows your character to relax and get more comfortable with the time passing.

And the question of course becomes, how to take care of the tadpole? As the options are explored, it becomes evident that action has to be taken to get closer to answers. Taking sides, in other words, can still be neutral, can still be an act of self-preservation. If you want Halsin because he's a great healer, for instance, you have to save him from the goblin camp. This naturally puts you at odds with the goblins, not necessarily because you're being good as because you need the healer.

As for joining with the goblins, this makes sense if you decide you want to get closer to what may be the source of the tadpoles at Moonrise Towers by infiltrating them. Sure, all paths lead there, but I can see the characters deciding to ally with Minthara thinking they'll get more information or somehow get to their destination easier. I'd argue that killing the tieflings is still an act of evil, but the purpose behind it would be taking care of the tadpole, not just wholesale slaughter.

Joined: Mar 2015
Arne Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2015
Originally Posted by JandK
If you want Halsin because he's a great healer, for instance, you have to save him from the goblin camp. This naturally puts you at odds with the goblins, not necessarily because you're being good as because you need the healer.

But that's the point. I 'risk my life' rescuing Halsin because he might help me. And Halsin is actually fighting beside me against the Goblins, so I owe him.

If the Tieflings would take up arms and do their part, I might be more inclined to help them. But why should I risk my life for people who tell me I should get rid of the Goblins' leaders without any backup - while they sit at home drinking a nice cup of cocoa and awaiting the return of their savior? smile

Yes I know, I'm taking the game's premise too serious.

Joined: Oct 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by Arne
If the Tieflings would take up arms and do their part...

But this is no fortress, and they're no warriors.

*

For what it's worth, I agree that minding your own business is neutral. The absence of doing good is not the same thing as doing evil. Not saving the tieflings, for example, is philosophically not the same thing as actively killing the tieflings.

Not rushing in to be the hero doesn't make you evil. I don't understand suggestions otherwise.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Arne
If you had a tadpole in your head in the real world, you would surely not risk your life(!) to resolve problems of Tieflings in a Druid grove fighting against Goblins wink

But of course this is not the real world but a fantasy story, so I understand that you take an ethical viewpoint that is not really realistic. The problem is that Dungeons and Dragons always defined good as stupid good and evil as stupid evil.


Yeah, the good and evil can be a bit binary sometimes. If we remove the tadpole from the equation then I would agree that not helping them could be considered evil. But since we literally are (or at least or characters are led to belive we are) running out of time before we turn in to a mind flayer. I would say that prioritizing our own immidiate problem isn't considered evil.

Joined: Oct 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by Peranor
If we remove the tadpole from the equation then I would agree that not helping them could be considered evil.

Then is every tiefling there evil because they're not running out to help the other tieflings?

Seems like a double standard to me.

Joined: Mar 2015
Arne Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2015
Originally Posted by JandK
Originally Posted by Peranor
If we remove the tadpole from the equation then I would agree that not helping them could be considered evil.

Then is every tiefling there evil because they're not running out to help the other tieflings?

Seems like a double standard to me.

The point is that you can't just ask random strangers to literally risk their lives for you. You risk your life for your family and friends, maybe even for people who would do the same for you, but that's it.

The Tieflings could offer that they fight alongside you to somehow get safely to Baldur's Gate. That would be a reasonable bargain. No amount of money can compensate one's loss of life.

Joined: Oct 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by Arne
Originally Posted by JandK
Originally Posted by Peranor
If we remove the tadpole from the equation then I would agree that not helping them could be considered evil.

Then is every tiefling there evil because they're not running out to help the other tieflings?

Seems like a double standard to me.

The point is that you can't just ask random strangers to literally risk their lives for you. You risk your life for your family and friends, maybe even for people who would do the same for you, but that's it.

The Tieflings could offer that they fight alongside you to somehow get safely to Baldur's Gate. That would be a reasonable bargain. No amount of money can compensate one's loss of life.

My point is if it's decided that not helping the tieflings is enough to be considered evil... then why isn't every other person in the grove considered evil for not helping? It's a standard that makes no sense because it's only applied to the player characters.

*

That said, I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.

I understand you think the tieflings should try to help themselves, or at least join you in the quest to help themselves. I agree that it would be nice if a tiefling or two offered to come along to provide support.

But I also understand that it makes sense for the tieflings to try to hire mercenaries to clear the way for them.

Of course, refusing to be hired as mercenaries by the tieflings does not make the player characters evil. Again, not rushing in to be a hero doesn't make a person evil. Otherwise, there would only be heroes and evil people everywhere.

Joined: Mar 2015
Arne Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2015
Originally Posted by JandK
That said, I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.

No, I'm not. I think we only differ in small details.

Originally Posted by JandK
My point is if it's decided that not helping the tieflings is enough to be considered evil... then why isn't every other person in the grove considered evil for not helping? It's a standard that makes no sense because it's only applied to the player characters.

The game/Dungeons & Dragons nudges you into that direction. You are the hero who has to come to the rescue of the damsel in distress. Which is why some people roleplaying the hero just take the behavior portrayed as 'good' in the game although they of course would never act like that in real life.

I don't mind such ethical discussions although being called 'evil' just because I don't help the Tieflings is a bit harsh.

Btw. did someone try what happens if you find out Khaga's secret affiliation with the Shadow Druids but do not expose her? Just because you don't feel you should intervene in druids' business?

Last edited by Arne; 17/10/21 06:47 PM.
Joined: Oct 2021
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2021
“In case of a cabin pressure emergency, put on your own mask first before assisting others.” This is not evil. This is the practical (neutral) or long term beneficial (good) route since you can’t help anyone if you are dead or turned into a mindflayer. As my Tav learns going forward that he is not going to turn immediately, this gives more options to assist others because the “emergency” has dissipated.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by smberg
“In case of a cabin pressure emergency, put on your own mask first before assisting others.” This is not evil. This is the practical (neutral) or long term beneficial (good) route since you can’t help anyone if you are dead or turned into a mindflayer. As my Tav learns going forward that he is not going to turn immediately, this gives more options to assist others because the “emergency” has dissipated.


Exactly

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Arne
I don't mind such ethical discussions although being called 'evil' just because I don't help the Tieflings is a bit harsh.


Not that you don't help them - but specifically that you don't care about their plight, and that you don't care about what Khaga is doing to the grove or to other innocents. A person may have any number of reasons or motivations for acting as they do - and those are the features that inform the concept of alignment, not specifically the action itself.

Putting yourself and your own concerns first, to the disregard of the suffering of innocents or the well being of others around you is the type of personal selfishness that typifies classical neutral evil. Shadowheart is classical neutral evil (though with strong signs that she would be otherwise underneath if she were her original self without the brainwashing, and that's showing through more and more with the changes they've made to her), for example.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
This kind of stuff is why I am glad that alignment isn't so rigid in 5e

We do find out from people that our tadpoles are different and we may not change as soon as expected. However this requires believing these people who are only speculating. No one knows for sure why our tadpoles are different, also why do we automatically believe people who are not experts on this? It could be considered "evil" or "selfish" to bring our potential walking bomb selves around others since we have the potential to destroy them at any point. It may be considered "selfish" to put our situation first but also "good" since we are trying to fix the situation as soon as possible so as to not risk others. It would probably be considered "good" to help the Tieflings but a Druid could find this "evil" because they put the grove first and see the Tieflings as a threat to its existence. One player may take the "good" path and ignore the situation because losing a few Tieflings along the road is a better outcome than potentially destroying all of them and the Druids as well. Another may take the "evil" path and save the Tieflings because they can use this to their advantage later. All of this stuff is a matter of perspective.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Zarna
We do find out from people that our tadpoles are different and we may not change as soon as expected. However this requires believing these people who are only speculating. No one knows for sure why our tadpoles are different, also why do we automatically believe people who are not experts on this? It could be considered "evil" or "selfish" to bring our potential walking bomb selves around others since we have the potential to destroy them at any point. It may be considered "selfish" to put our situation first but also "good" since we are trying to fix the situation as soon as possible so as to not risk others. It would probably be considered "good" to help the Tieflings but a Druid could find this "evil" because they put the grove first and see the Tieflings as a threat to its existence. One player may take the "good" path and ignore the situation because losing a few Tieflings along the road is a better outcome than potentially destroying all of them and the Druids as well. Another may take the "evil" path and save the Tieflings because they can use this to their advantage later. All of this stuff is a matter of perspective.

Indeed: motive, rather than action, is the informing factor in most cases - alignment isn't so much about what you do, as why you're choosing to do it. I do have to admit, though - that's a much more nebulous thing to pin down in a video game context, and that's the main reason, I think, why we always end up falling back on ascribing alignment to specific actions and disregarding the motive or reasoning behind it, in video games - the game can't track our reasoning, in most cases, so it ascribes a motive to you and judges you based on that... often to the detriment of immersion, sadly.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
Indeed: motive, rather than action, is the informing factor in most cases - alignment isn't so much about what you do, as why you're choosing to do it. I do have to admit, though - that's a much more nebulous thing to pin down in a video game context, and that's the main reason, I think, why we always end up falling back on ascribing alignment to specific actions and disregarding the motive or reasoning behind it, in video games - the game can't track our reasoning, in most cases, so it ascribes a motive to you and judges you based on that... often to the detriment of immersion, sadly.
I think this is why I have a hard time with it in video games as well. The "good" path usually means being a doormat and the "evil" path means being an idiot. It gets really frustrating.

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by Arne
I don't mind such ethical discussions although being called 'evil' just because I don't help the Tieflings is a bit harsh.


Not that you don't help them - but specifically that you don't care about their plight, and that you don't care about what Khaga is doing to the grove or to other innocents. A person may have any number of reasons or motivations for acting as they do - and those are the features that inform the concept of alignment, not specifically the action itself.

Putting yourself and your own concerns first, to the disregard of the suffering of innocents or the well being of others around you is the type of personal selfishness that typifies classical neutral evil. Shadowheart is classical neutral evil (though with strong signs that she would be otherwise underneath if she were her original self without the brainwashing, and that's showing through more and more with the changes they've made to her), for example.

What you're describing feels more like neutral to me. Not going out of your way to help them isn't directly harmful to them, it just is. A better example of neutral evil as far as Shadowheart goes would be her willingnesst to actively harm innocents for the sake of herself (allying with the goblins).

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5