Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Why play evil?

I notice that so many players want to go the evil path, some planning to commit terrible acts of evil like killing all the druids for instance.

In traditional fairy tales the protagonist is always good (or start out being good), the helpers are good, and typically enemies are evil. The very definition of evil is wanting to do harm to others I think. They don't just have other opinions, they generally are not nice to their fellow beings (except sometimes on the surface perhaps). I don't think you will find any society on Earth (in real life) where being evil is an ideal. We may as outsiders judge other societies as evil yes, but that is not how they see themselves. The struggle to go through life wanting to be good while being opposed (or tempted) by evil is the challenge most of us face, and if in a fairy tale the protagonist should fall to evil that's the end of the story.

What then is the challenge for an evil protagonist, what will be his goal? World domination? Vengence? Optimizing body count numbers for his diary? Playing evil doesn't appeal to me, but I'll try not to be judgemental and instead ask the question: What appeals to you about playing an evil character? Hoping for some good answers

... for fun I guess? Personally if playing evil it's Lawful or Neutral, using society's systems to my advantage or just being selfish respectively. Or because a cool class is locked behind morality i.e. Assassin, Blackguard or Necromancer.

Though if thinking outside RPGs and morality as a physically manifesting concept, many games lets us do things we'd never want to or be able to in real life. Saints Row/Grand Theft Auto is extremely fun; being able to hop into any vehicle and shoot anyone who is an asshole in the face is extremely satisfying. But I'd never wish to steal someone's car RL and there's not many people I'd risk jailtime for for removing from the populace.

In traditional fairy tales lmao. In Larian's last game, Divinity Original Sin 2, the two best endings were: 1) you die, and 2) you become a soulless husk, the middle ending was, you become a divine but literally nothing was accomplished, the conflict against the big bad evil continues as if nothing happened...except like a lot of people worship you now even though you fixed basically nothing. And the bad ending was you release the big bad evil just because you're a psychopath...for no other reason. At least in BG3, at least with the Dark Urge Swen confirmed we can become ruler of the forgotten realms...which in D&D is like all of the Prime Material Plane....which, yeah, hell yeah, I'll take that. The absolute last thing I want to do is another generic selfless servant of the people ending where my reward is death or zombification. I do not care, all y'all druids and everything else, have fun getting stabbed I am NOT going through another "good" campaign for nothing. And even when there is a fairy tale ending it's just obnoxious generic stuff like yay, you united all the various groups and whatever and here's like a medal or something...no thanks. I'll take something new and different...VERY few games let you have a real satisfying dark/evil ending that isn't designed to make you feel like a loser. Of the few games with multiple endings some have their endings designed as measures of completionism too rather than actual real divergence...there is only one optimal ending, the rest are just there to make you feel bad you didn't do more.

Just being able to have a real fun evil ending that feels good...I will take that.

A definition of evil coming from 1st edition AD&D is someone who puts their own personal gain ahead of the wellbeing other people. They don't necessarily WANT to hurt other people, but they won't hesitate to do do if they get in their way.

And, by that definition, there are a great many evil people in the world.

Now, traditional fairy tales aren't a good guide for D&D - the game's original creators tried to put as much space between D&D and traditional fairy tales as they could. Traditional D&D is "Swords and Sorcery" or, later "Heroic Fantasy", not a fairy tale.

But If you want to discuss fairly tales, a common theme is a protagonist who behaves selfishly, and either learns their lesson or gets their comeuppance. Thoroughly "Good" protagonists are more a feature of the Heroic Fantasy sub-genre.

Good question. "Evil" persons in real life are frequently psychopaths who lack the necessary empathy to see other beings as beings, for them humans are just obstacles or means. Many evil deeds otherwise are results of special social circumstances and don't fit to an evil playstyle because they are not reproductable. Or evil deeds result out of ideology, like religion, fascism, communism or other -isms, where you commit terrible things (in the view of others) because of a greater good you allegedly work for. I think in the game you can be a psycho or a zealot of ideology to justify an evil playstyle.

There is also a certain admiration in some societies for a certain kind of villains, who are "so cool" and such big personalities because rules don't count for them. Remember the movie "Bonnie and Clyde"? Some disgusting real world murderers with deep psychic problems became heroes in the movie, which also used blatant lies about the policemen who killed the pair, to make the villains more sympathetic. No wonder that evil play might appeal to some in such societies.

Larian can do whatever they want, they will not get me to play an evil character. I lack the ability to roleplay something different than I would be in the gameworld. For example, as soon as I realized you cannot avoid killing guards in Red Dead Redemption 2, I deleted the game asap from my harddrive and was then annoyed about myself to have bought such a crap despite I should have known better before.

Honestly that is a very bad definition...that's called survival...it's literally what most of the creatures in nature do. Everything is hunted by a bigger predator. Even the herbivore creatures left unchecked without any predators will multiply and multiply until they raze the land of all their sources of food and then they die.

In so many CRPGs, I choose this ending! Dragon Age? I died. Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous? I died. I bet in the end of BG3, I will die. Pretty much every CRPG I play should be called "Frosty dies in the end"!

Hmm, ruler of the Forgotton Realms? Now I am tempted lol. But I still hope the 'good character' endings are not as boring as you suggest.

'someone who puts their own personal gain ahead of the wellbeing of other people' ? Sounds like selfishness to me, which in my views is not the same as evil. I'd call that chaotic neutral in terms of alignment. If you were willing to kill for personal gain yeah, that would be more like evil. So not the best definition imo.

The other side is that "good" is putting the well being of others ahead of your own survival. Something that many animals in nature cannot do.

Yep, they can keep that stuff. I am not doing a whole 200+ hour campaign of running chores and fighting multiple deities to be rewarded with death. Absolutely no happening. I'll play the game stabbing everyone Swen deems to need stabbing and I will have satisfying ending for once.

I can definitely understand that. My characters don't want to be assholes as a rule, but a satisfactory ending, with very few exceptions (RDR2 comes to mind), has the survival of my character, mentally and physically intact and generally in a good state, as a necessary ingredient. It's really not much to ask IMO. I require neither respect nor power. I'm fine with walking into the sunset, despised by everyone regardless of what I did. But if I only get even that minimal good by being the Realm's greatest asshole, then so be it.

And Larian has a history of unsatisfactory endings. I recall Ego Draconis, where you end up as a captive in an egg-shaped container on the plane of Hypnerotomachia, alive and conscious, but unable to act, with no prospect of change. And it wasn't even clear exactly why. DOS2 was also a disappointment, but it was golden compared to that incomprehensible downer ending. They changed it in a DLC which is nice since in any other respect, I really like that game.

Having said that, I do not believe we'll have to be evil to get a satisfactory ending in BG3. I certainly see no reason to *start* as an asshole and, say, lead the goblins to attack the druid grove. If this game is really good, it will be possible to let my character be shaped by the story somewhat.

To me ... its mostly curiosity.
Im really interested in seeing how far will Larian be willing to go.

I was being told in the past that i really shouldnt anounce such things publicly, bcs it sometimes give people bad ideas about my person.
But you allready know what i am, so what the hell.

To be completely honest, i find most of "Evil" characters and routes for players quite boring ...
Yes, i know murder is often seen as the worse crime you can do ... but in game context, it feels kinda dull, doesnt it?
I mean, even our goldstar hero kills at least hunderts if not thousands other people on their path ... so, i dont really find murder quite satisfying for my Evil characters ... since there is simply something lacking.
Im like: M-hm ... just killed another NPC ... loot and go on.

What i want and what i hope for, is to satisfy deepest darkest sadistic(est?) urges ...
And i feel like this is good place to stop and dont go any futher.

I very strongly doubt you become the ruler of the entire Forgotten Realms, the Sword Coast... maybe. The entire realms? Not bloody likely. There are way too many extremely high level and powerful NPCs in the realms for that to happen.
Also, Faerûn is but one world of many on the Prime Material Plane...

Mostly because I can. Playing games is like being an actor - it's still me but I have a role to play. Sometimes I want to play the hero, sometimes I get offered a cool antagonist gig.

I draw the line at borderline psychopatic murder-hobo types of evil, but being on the lawful side of evil? Sure, why not - I can play a callous, selfish, power-hungry role.

I think it boils down to this - if you feel like you cannot separate yourself from the character you play it's normal you won't play an evil character and have a harder time understanding why people would want to try.

And I'm sure there are those that don't connect to their game avatar at all and go in just to cause chaos and mayhem :P

Swen's words, not mine. He was describing his latest Dark Urge ending where he finished with a party of Shadowheart, Lae'zel, and Minthara, and at the end he added "oh and I'm now the ruler of the forgotten realms so you can call me Sir".

Actually, BG3 may be the first time where I play a character that turns to evil. Not the first one, but maybe the second one.

In most games, I feel that being evil is absolutely pointless. That includes our old classics BG1 and BG2. I mean, why do real people do evil? To gain power, money, advantages, mates etc...right? In most games, you won't have any advantage in that regard by being evil. Or because they're fanatics. I can't play that mindset. Or because they're psychopaths. I have no desire to play that even if I could - which I don't know.

But in BG3, I might start down the path of evil because it gets me mind powers. Illithid mind powers, yep, I can easily imagine a character who'd grab this opportunity by the horns no matter the cost to anyone else. They'd just be careful not to lose themselves in the process. After all, what are those powers worth if it's not you who wields them in the end?

I think in general its a novelty thing, in most games you play the hero so playing the villain is appealing. In practice it doesn't work out so well because when a lot of people get involved in a narrative it becomes difficult to treat the people in there poorly. I think people are hyping themselves that BG3 may be different but in EA we really haven't seen anything other than "save the puppy for a reward" or "Stomp on the puppy for no reason".

Fictional villains are usually cooler and more entertaining than the good guys. Characters like Darth Vader, Cruella De Vil, or the Kurgan completely steal the show imo. BG also has a history of memorable villains - Sarevok (basically the Kurgan, heh) and Jon Irenicus were both great.

Similarly, I find playing a villain myself far more entertaining than playing a stupid goody two-shoes. I'm already constrained by a moral code IRL, I don't need that baggage in a game. Some NPC annoys me? I chunk them! Some fool wants me to retrieve his sword or whatever? I get it, then show it to the npc but keep it myself and laugh at them!

I'm really happy Larian gives lots of opportunities to be a selfish dick and outright evil. It's going to be so much FUN. With that said, I don't usually play completely evil characters. It's more like, screwing people over because they deserve it (though the reasons for why they "deserve it" may be really flimsy). But I don't randomly kill npcs I haven't even talked to or torture animals or stuff like that, that's not fun to me.

Were the Druids not about to expel a bunch of refugees and children into the wild to face certain death? Were the Tieflings not plotting to assassinate the Druid leadership? Are those evil acts or good acts? Both are looking to survive and see the other as a threat.


Not really. All humans are capable of baseline sociopathy, you just have to start removing things from the hierarchy of needs and you have the capacity to get there. Free will isn't really a thing for the majority of our decisions. We respond through "reaction formation" most of the time.

Robert Malthus, in the 1800's was able to plot the conditions for which society will turn on itself and start dividing and even killing through perceived tribal lines - for which he was reviled at the time, but he was right.

Evil, or the capacity to act without regard to others needs is in many ways a useful social tool. Sometimes you need people like that, especially leaders who can save a society at the expense of some "less valuable members". Most people just don't have the capacity to act in this way, even if this sort of action is desperately needed.

Empathy isn't some great and noble expression of love, or I should say it would only be considered noble if it radiated out when times and conditions were the most dire. The reality is empathy is more like a control system, that keeps us "socially stable", and prevents our own infinite desires and needs from becoming "socially untenable". Empathy is imposed upon the majority of us, but not sociopaths who are free to take actions that others find impossible.

So being evil can have great social benefits - especially in a crisis - or more commonly when dangerous elements have to be removed from society. We didn't always have prisons or the resources to maintain them. If you have a member of your society that is too dangerous to allow loose you need someone who can remove the problem.

So, BG3 is set in a situation where the Sword Coast and the City of Baldur's Gate is in a crisis. Dangerous elements of society need to be hunted down and eliminated. You are running out of time which may necessitate absolutely brutal actions to resolve the crises. You will need plenty of resources to take on this threat, and so that may require brutal actions to get what you need.

In times of crisis, evil is good.


Nonsense. A sociopath is completely capable of being pleasant, friendly, diplomatic and charming.

Being Nice is a survival pathway for people who are "socially low value." - "I am totally useless but see how nice I am, don't kill me or kick me off the island"

Sadly it works.


Really, depends on your perception. The vast majority of people don't see their own actions as evil as you wisely mention below.

Did the Protestants in 15th century England see the Catholics as a society of evil (YEP).

There are tons of modern societies and cultures that see each other as evil.



You mean if the protagonist is defeated by evil? or corrupted by evil? As in overtaken by it? So they are not themselves anymore? Are we talking about Mindflayers, because once you turn into one you are dead anyway.


Necessity - because it is what is needed to save society, to do what others can't. I will use the power I gain to accomplish that, and to protect the people I value. My needs will be met, but so will the needs of many others, and together we will thrive and none shall threaten us.

We will "play Ender's game" and the enemy will receive no mercy, and those who abet the enemy shall find likewise the same "mercy" and they shall stand as a testament to others what such actions shall earn you. I will win renown for my actions and will be adored, and finally safe...

Frankly, ruling anything seems like far to much like hard work to me. When would I find the time to play computer games?