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

Personally I don't tend to enjoy evil playthroughs simply because I don't like being mean to people who don't deserve it. I don't like kicking folks who are down, betraying people's trust, it just feels bad to me. The closest I've come is playing somewhat lawful evil tyrant types who think that in exchange for providing a baseline quality of life they as those of higher standard should be free to do as they wish beyond that. So I rarely play evil, at most I play harsher degrees of good.

Another thing is, I find that evil has less room for personal growth. Its all about what you can get externally. Its selfish and power hungry and any introspection you have can't lead to growth. Playing a good person corrupted to evil sounds like a downer, and playing someone who starts evil and stays evil leads to a flat character that seems boring for me to play.

Oh man you will not believe how much personal growth there is down the evil path...just look at how devoted Orin is to Bhaal...it takes A LOT of personal growth to inspire that kind of loyalty, truly inspirational. Really need to work on making sure your words are sharper than your daggers to get there...but also stabbing, you will be shocked at how much better you can become at stabbing, which is a more attainable short term goal while working on the longer term recruiting methods and inspirational speeches.

Good vs Evil tends to not work in RPGs for me. The issue is, that good paths aren't selfless - I think it comes from a mechanical need to give player incentives and rewards. You might help tieflings because you are selfless - but if that fails, Halsin is your best bet at saving yourself. And you get promised loot for helping them. And in the process you make bunch of people like you. No matter who you play as, you are given motivation (both for your character and you as a player) to follow the good path. Except for some edge case psychopaths, most characters I can come up with - selfless, or selfish - would lean toward helping druids. In general, I would rate BG3 choice range between pragmatic=>sadistic.

I think there a very few instances when choices offered feel genuinely balanced - probably the encounter with gnoll and caravan survivors is the best encounter in my book. Each approach comes with benefits - even the cruelest of approaches doesn't seem arbitrary. If you are goody-two-shoes you might miss out on an interesting thread - and consequences of each choice feel appropriate and satisfying. With different charcters I opted to make different decisions, while I only explored the evil path out of curiosity.

I find it a little bit funny you think the good paths are too rewarding because last I remember the "rewards" I got for playing good in DOS2 were a) death or b) become a soulless husk. I mean...if that is too much reward I don't want to know what you consider an appropriate reward. It was actually DOS2 that made me realize how fed up I had become of the good paths and how boring and formulaic they had all become in gaming. That was probably the point were I reached the I feel nothing for NPCs moment, I don't care anymore.

I'm embarrassed to admit I hadn't even considered that. Sharpen your blades, sharpen your mind . . .

I'm like @flymar - I just couldn't imagine enjoying slaughtering the refugees and I don't do things I don't like. Which is what brings me to these threads "why do some people enjoy that"?

Now I agree with @Sozz - I do want evil paths to be in the game even if I never play them because then my choice to avoid them seems meaningful. Why did I reject the path of *unlimited power*? Looks like we might get that with the tadpole powers . . .

Ah, the old 'do true selfless acts really exist?' question. I lean towards a 'no', because there is a rationality behind being good that has to do with building up a society or a life that works. Ideals of being good are not just random ideas, like 'I want to help people just because..', even in religion there are reasons behind the laws you must follow. So when you help someone you may not get a reward right away, but the people you helped will remember, and maybe they'll pass on the story and pave the road for you making others more willing to help you when you are in need. Does that make your act less good? I don't think so. True selflessness is an insane ideal, you cannot help anyone if you don't take care of your own needs too. So about the game rewarding good acts (as well as selfish ones) I think is quite alright. It does not have to be in the form of material goods though, can be more subtle. And yes, there should also be room for just being good or helpful without getting anything in return, except perhaps inner satisfaction.

But that was a sidestep explaining something about 'good'. Original question was about 'evil'. Many of you have given nice explanations of what motivates you to be evil. Enlightening, but also a bit disturbing

To be honest I found D:OS2 so dull and incoherent I really couldn't bring myself to care about anything that happened at the end. Too little too late. I do like the concept on paper though.

That wasn't really a point I was trying to make. More that if I get all my character could possibly care about (highest survival chance, money, power, social standing), than I find it really hard to come up with a character who would be interested in dark path.

Good as shown in games is generally a fully self absorbed desire to impose your own will to fix what is persumed as a problem in another individual without their consent. Eg: Paladin sees an orc arguing and yelling at a women, assumes the orc is attacking smites him under oath, later learns the orc was the husband and the argument was about where to eat. The above is why good does not exist in games, as the good option would be to close your eyes to the conflict and watch from afar as the orc yells at his wife, and allow events to unfold without imposing your will - this would be seen as a chaotic Evil act in dnd.

The above example although being simple can be seen in virtually all dnd and pathfinder in general, angels and celestial just run around and do stuff on a whim with no rhyme or reason because *we are good*. Demons are actually more good then the good guys as they are free with full meritocracy. Eg: Scothbenoth and Baphomet: allow people to serve them of free will, elevate worthy with power, weapons, fame, homes and treat people fairly. Now compare this to angel Zarial and others: pressure followers to pray consistently, take powers from followers for slightest reason, provide nothing in return, take claim for their victories, highly strict codified leadership, no way to gain power without dying and binding your soul to good loosing your soul, and your memories.

Aka tldr good is probably more evil then evil. Or at minimum could be argued to be the case. So it provides a lot more room to RP and generally makes more sense from a Human perspective

Yeah, because we all know orcs yelling at a women where they turn out to be married is so common place in fantasy. Plus, he was abusing her over where to ear. He's evil. He deserves to be killed. You don't verbally abuse your SO over food. That's evil. PERIOD.

Plus, 99.9999999% of orcs are evil. I'll take my chances that ending the life of an evil monster is good.

And, no 'good is more evil than evil" isn't even a logical argument. That is some twisted logic. If good was actually more devil than evil than it be evil.nkt good. That makes no sense.

I disagree with every single part of this post, including the line: "at minimum could be [reasonably] argued to be the case."

Good is about being selfless. If a Paladin sees an orc arguing and yelling at a woman, the Good option is to step in any try to mediate, not necessarily immediately murder the Orc. Alternately, an equally Good option is to wait and see if said woman actually needs help: i.e., if the situation advances to violence. Lawful Good isn't the same as Stupid Good or Lawful Stupid. (Or a CN murerhobo who masquerades as LG)

A character that closes their eyes to the conflict and walks past would be closer to neutral than evil. A "doesn't concern me" type of attitude.

A character that watches from afar and still doesn't intervene after the situation comes to violence would be Evil (most likely NE or CE, depending on how much joy they take in watching).

Demons are certainly not more Good than "Good Guys." You're equation Freedom/Chaos with Good. Freedom and Good often overlap, yes, but they're not one and the same. A society where everyone is "Free" to kill whoever they want isn't a Good society. What you're leaving out is that Demons punish/torture/enslave those *not* worthy of power, and often kill rivals who have similar levels of power or might become a threat.

As for your whole section on celestials, even if some celestials might do some of these things (the more Lawful types), that doesn't mean all or even most celestials act this way. Source needed that this is how Good celestial beings typically act. Especially the "take powers...for slightest reason, provide nothing in return." And again, your statement on "highly strict codified leadership" is equating Lawful with Evil, when in reality these are on two separate axes.

So firstly closing your eyes and walking away from the situation would be neutral. You don't know the circumstances, leaving the situation is an act without moral weight one way or the other. As for saying demons are free with a full meritocracy, they're the most brutal, savage kind of meritocracy that uplifts destruction, corruption and has no place for compassion destroying the weak without a second thought. They don't care about who ranks where under them because they're always the ones on top. They encourage slavery and abuse of power, creating a framework where you seek power to have it over others. They don't treat people fairly, they're cruel, petty, they don't care about the lives of their followers beyond what value they can extract, and upon death you're consigned to eternal slavery that may likely involve your soul being consumed to power the machinery of destruction and corruption. And the forces of fiends think nothing of subverting and threatening potential recruits, creating circumstances that would lead people to follow them or just preying on people's worst instincts or weaknesses or traumas, rather than trying to actually uplift them.

Meanwhile angels actually allow people to come to them of free will, being honest in their expectation of selflessness and honor. They seek to heal and protect people, to uplift the weak and improve them, rather than casting them aside. Their highly codified structure is a true meritocracy where people can actually prove themselves without killing or ruining those above them. They're expected to use theit growing power and status for the betterment of all, not just themselves and if they're notwilling to do that, they won't be killed for trying to peacefully leave.

Well. There is the aspect of 'what type of player are you'. The way people interact with their video character is typically divided among three groups;

A The Character becomes the player
This is actually the most common and is what most games are tailored for. When a player embody their character, they ensision themselves unto the character. Or, rather, an exrremely flattering version of oneself. For this group, the feelgood comes out of the power fantasy, the validation and celebrates succes.

B The Player becomes the Character
This is typically where the 'true roleplayers' come in. This is least common group, but at the same time what this particular game is made for. It's not the group it's most sold to, however. This group embodies their character that is presented, emphatize with the character, and steer the character towards its goals and purposes, rather than following the player's own choices.

C The Player owns the Character
This is the group that knows they're in a game and has no stakes within the narrative at all. Their character is more a personification of achievement and accumulated power. These players tend to skip dialogue, and build the strongest characters with the best gear. They do quests for the rewards solely. This group is most common among MMO's, but certainly exist within single player games.

Now,
A is most likely to 'only play good'; as this feeds directly into the fantasy of being that hero that everyone likes.
B Is more likely to step unto the dark paths, but generally people enjoy a happy ending still.
C Doesn't care. It's just a game. You get more loot and xp if you kill everyone.

C is the best attitude to have and is generally how I approach the game but I don't skip dialogue or cutscenes. The story is still a lot of fun to see. And especially having a properly fleshed out and solid evil path is a delight. And I don't do quests solely for the rewards. It is fun to play a character for whom subterfuge and cloak and dagger approach aren't just things on the character sheet barely used. I like to infiltrate and see what I can do from within. I strike a good balance with role play where I do it but I don't treat it as the be all end all or obsess over what color of socks my character would wear.

What you mention in 1 is true. But you must remember that those concepts of slavery, torture cruelty are human society morality really only past 80 years. For thousands of years we humans tortured one and other and it was seen as a notion of good. The catholic church in particular sacrificed childreen and women on the pyre to Molek / Moloch and it was celebrated by thousands under a roar of applause. Rome made childreen as pleasure dolls for rich in return for them providing troops, food and jobs to the common public. The notion is exclusively modern human. Those societies thought they where acting in good. Who are we to judge them with modern knowledge / ideas... the point being good is subjective. Demons are no more good then us, good is just a perspective.

An interesting take but I think most players are a mix.

For instance, I have a range of types I can play but none of my characters will serve any gods. I just can't get into that mindset. I tried in tabletop and it was a disaster. The type of actions these characters typically take (outside of combat, that is) just don't occur to me. I can play pragmatic evil but not asshole evil because I think the latter is stupid, and I do not like to play stupid characters. So that's a mix of B and A. And if a fight turns out to be too difficult, I do occasionally get out of roleplaying mode and play the encounter as efficiently as possible regardless of roleplaying. That's throwing a bit of C into the mix.

We are modern people with the benefit of hindsight and the perspective of history in all its horror and glory. Who are we to judge them? We're the only people left who can judge them. Our modern knowledge and ideas were developed in large part from those past. It's irresponsible to look at the past and not try to take the lessons it can teach, and that does mean casting judgement. There were people back then who thought those things were wrong. If you look closely, you'll see there have pretty much always been people who spoke out against slavery and abuses throughout history. Saying that they didn't know better and that we can't judge them is irresponsible of us. And on the topic of demons specifically, then leaving aside real world morality they exist in a setting where evil is a demonstrable, provable metaphysical force, and they are almost literally made of it. I don't like sticking to alignment for mortal creatures, but demons, like angels, are an embodiment of a fundamental force of morality in the universe. And even then, just on its face saying that the things which kill and cause pain for entertainment and on a simple whim, and that know nothing of compassion or care are no more evil than the people who are the opposite is just a silly notion.

I like playing machiavellian rogues because to me it's just more fun. BG3 has a lot of scope for playing factions off each other for charname's entertainment and personal gain, and I intend to use that to full effect. It's not at all about causing death, suffering and destruction for their own sakes, and while it is about charname gaining power, that's not a deciding factor in every decision. There are also elements of just being disruptive and manipulative, shaking things up, stealing everything that isn't nailed down, and getting away with it all, that in a crpg is a lot of fun. I tend to identify this behavior with neutral evil, and I distinguish it from chaotic evil because it's far from a murderhobo playstyle, but would be interested if anyone versed in the alignment system says otherwise.

Oh my, what a mess. Concepts are turned upside down and it is unclear what is really the point. A qualified guess, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you are trying to tell us that much evil has been done in the name of good. If that is the case I can agree on that, but your argumentation is confusing and contradictive. If you say that good is evil and evil is good then the words lose their meaning and noone understands what is being said. You are maybe right when in your second post say that'good is just a perspective', the way I would phrase it would be: 'What it means to be good is a matter of perspective'. It is not quite the same, so I don't know whether we are on the same page or not. I'm just trying to clear the fog here. Yes the church has done much evil in the name of good you may say. When you kill in the name of the christian god you are completely ignoring one of the ten commandments. So it is very contradictory, and on top of that is goes against the way we in the modern western world generally define 'good'.

I think when you give critique it is important how you do it if you want to be understood. I once saw a t-shirt with the writing: 'Satan loves you'. I was amused, because that is just making Satan God and God the devil, and would that really solve anything? Then your children can do another rebellion turning things around once more. Nothing has really changed except of the confusion of concepts and who is in power.

Please forgive me for my school teacher approach, but I just get a little provoked when people mess up the language like that. Had to respond.

I intentionally wrote it to be vague and frustrating to read because it makes people think critically about what I say. I found in my life that telling people things directly means they do not listen. If I tell them 90% of the information and make them confused, they are more likely to look into it. Everyone can interpret what I write differently... almost exclusively the point. On the point of the 10 commandments they do not exist, the Bible was written by people, and has been altered beyond the point of truth. There exists no truth in it beyond what various people have chosen to write into it. No human could ever interpret the creator. It is why the discussion on good versus evil exists for thousands of years. BG3 is no different. I am curious to see how Larian will tell of it

If I do an evil run it's chaotic evil, so a lust for violence or tearing down order out of spite. I really don't like lawful evil people like intelligent tyrants who oppress thousands and I wouldn't be comfortable rp'ing as one.