Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
In the real world, sure you can have horrible thoughts and be a good person. I'm sure there are people who write scripts for horror movies and volunteer at animal shelters on the weekend.

In the realms it would depend on whom you offer your thoughts to -- do you offer these thoughts as prayers to Bhaal or do you ask Tyr to give you strength to never act upon them. Unlike our world prayers are answered and thoughts are read so there are additional elements in the realms to contend with.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Does one have to commit evil "acts" in order to be evil? Can one merely be, philosophically, emotionally, intellectually evil? Can one be evil due to their intentions and worldview, even in the absence of technically doing any evil "deeds"? Or is one automatically good, regardless of the state of their heart and mind, regardless of the thoughts they have, regardless of what they desire and how they consider or ignore the lives and needs of others, UNTIL the very moment in which they actually do something "bad"?

How many of these evil acts does it take for someone to BE evil? How evil does the act have to be? If I steal someone's wallet, am I now evil? If I kill one person in the heat of passion during a drunken rage, am I now evil?

Can I seethe with hatred of others and plot horrendous atrocities in the secret privacy of my own mind, but not ever technically do anything, and still be considered "good"?

I would never consider a person's private thoughts to be fair game for judging a person's nature. Thoughts cannot harm anyone other than possibly yourself.

As for actions, it's always a judgment call where one might draw the line, but I think it is possible to generate a consensus about what would be wrong versus bad versus evil.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
I think that thoughts can be plenty harmful. The only reason we don't punish people for their thoughts is that we have no way of reading people's thoughts. Realistically, if everyone's thoughts were on full display, a lot of people would be getting castigated, watched, and/or detained.

Does a consensus define evil? Is evil only something that is culturally relative? A city of drow would reach a very different consensus about what is evil than a village of halflings, would they not? I feel like D&D, at least, has a sort of idea of cosmological evil, which goes beyond what any particular people think of as evil, or even beyond a creature's actual observed behavior. A demon could be on his best behavior and not actually running amok murdering people, but still be fundamentally evil.

Joined: Jul 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Does one have to commit evil "acts" in order to be evil? Can one merely be, philosophically, emotionally, intellectually evil? Can one be evil due to their intentions and worldview, even in the absence of technically doing any evil "deeds"? Or is one automatically good, regardless of the state of their heart and mind, regardless of the thoughts they have, regardless of what they desire and how they consider or ignore the lives and needs of others, UNTIL the very moment in which they actually do something "bad"?


Thoughts can be evil and are, but they are just thoughts. Fighting our own thoughts is the good fight, since they will lead to evil actions if we allow them. Intentions alone won't make someone evil or good; actions do.

Words can and will do good or bad, and using words is an action already. Being affiliated with an organization alone isn't evil or good, depends how and why you joined: maybe just to destroy them from inside or you were forced. But then things are getting muddy, and most times isn't about choosing between good or evil, but a lesser over a worse evil. If this happens, evil actions were made already, but still matters what were the reasons and the circumstances. Somebody may struggle and wants to get away, but there's no way out. There can still be hoping that such a day will come. Not everyone does evil things because enjoys them; these can still change.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Does one have to commit evil "acts" in order to be evil? Can one merely be, philosophically, emotionally, intellectually evil? Can one be evil due to their intentions and worldview, even in the absence of technically doing any evil "deeds"? Or is one automatically good, regardless of the state of their heart and mind, regardless of the thoughts they have, regardless of what they desire and how they consider or ignore the lives and needs of others, UNTIL the very moment in which they actually do something "bad"?

How many of these evil acts does it take for someone to BE evil? How evil does the act have to be? If I steal someone's wallet, am I now evil? If I kill one person in the heat of passion during a drunken rage, am I now evil?

Can I seethe with hatred of others and plot horrendous atrocities in the secret privacy of my own mind, but not ever technically do anything, and still be considered "good"?

A good question but fear it's kinda irreverent here with the FR lore looming over everything

Last edited by Abits; 02/11/20 06:46 AM.

Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
In the D&D universe being good/evil/chaotic/lawful is a tangible fact that can be measured with the correct tools (spells). It's tied to the governing forces of the universe. So yes, in the D&D universe if one is so deeply consumed by hatred, anger and evil thoughts one might result as evil.

Joined: Oct 2020
F
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
F
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
In the D&D universe being good/evil/chaotic/lawful is a tangible fact that can be measured with the correct tools (spells). It's tied to the governing forces of the universe. So yes, in the D&D universe if one is so deeply consumed by hatred, anger and evil thoughts one might result as evil.


Not since 5e it isn't. Text of Detect Evil spell in 5e:

For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located. Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated.

Know Alignment spell has been removed from the game all together.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
The only time alignment was really cool was in the Planescape setting.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Take all the fun out of stuff. frown

Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I think that thoughts can be plenty harmful. The only reason we don't punish people for their thoughts is that we have no way of reading people's thoughts. Realistically, if everyone's thoughts were on full display, a lot of people would be getting castigated, watched, and/or detained.

Does a consensus define evil? Is evil only something that is culturally relative? A city of drow would reach a very different consensus about what is evil than a village of halflings, would they not? I feel like D&D, at least, has a sort of idea of cosmological evil, which goes beyond what any particular people think of as evil, or even beyond a creature's actual observed behavior. A demon could be on his best behavior and not actually running amok murdering people, but still be fundamentally evil.


The eternal battle between "Shadowheat is evil because she is a Sharran" or "she isn't evil because she doesn't disapprove of the outcomes of a goody-two-shoes PT"

By being a Sharran, she has committed crimes in the name of her goddess. There is no "we haven't seen it, so it didn't happen" here. You aren't a member of Shar clergy, like Shadowheart, without committing atrocities. Refusing to do them would get you killed or worst.

Did it happen a few times that her heart wasn't into it? Maybe, it's not like evil characters are all robots. In the case of Shadowheart, she feels bad about the Tielfings, yet she doesn't seems to care about the Druids. Wouldn't a good person feels bad about both?

Was she evil before joining the clergy? Probably not. The people who join Shar willingly usually suffered a great loss (major depression just want to see the world burn type). Otherwise they were forced into it via destruction of their previous self (using torture, gaslighting, abusive manipulation, etc). I did say that what she needed was therapy and not a redemption arc. It wasn't a joke.

Last edited by azarhal; 02/11/20 05:07 PM.
Joined: Jun 2019
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2019
I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. There is a reason why I believe this may be true based on something from the Enhanced Edition of Baldur's Gate.


Rasaad's brother Gamaz was secretly taken in and brainwashed by worshipers of Shar while Rasaad was led to believe that his brother got killed by them

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by azarhal
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I think that thoughts can be plenty harmful. The only reason we don't punish people for their thoughts is that we have no way of reading people's thoughts. Realistically, if everyone's thoughts were on full display, a lot of people would be getting castigated, watched, and/or detained.

Does a consensus define evil? Is evil only something that is culturally relative? A city of drow would reach a very different consensus about what is evil than a village of halflings, would they not? I feel like D&D, at least, has a sort of idea of cosmological evil, which goes beyond what any particular people think of as evil, or even beyond a creature's actual observed behavior. A demon could be on his best behavior and not actually running amok murdering people, but still be fundamentally evil.


The eternal battle between "Shadowheat is evil because she is a Sharran" or "she isn't evil because she doesn't disapprove of the outcomes of a goody-two-shoes PT"

By being a Sharran, she has committed crimes in the name of her goddess. There is no "we haven't seen it, so it didn't happen" here. You aren't a member of Shar clergy, like Shadowheart, without committing atrocities. Refusing to do them would get you killed or worst.

Did it happen a few times that her heart wasn't into it? Maybe, it's not like evil characters are all robots. In the case of Shadowheart, she feels bad about the Tielfings, yet she doesn't seems to care about the Druids. Wouldn't a good person feels bad about both?

Was she evil before joining the clergy? Probably not. The people who join Shar willingly usually suffered a great loss (major depression just want to see the world burn type) or were forced into it via destruction of their previous self (using torture, gaslighting, abusive manipulation, etc). I did say that what she needed was therapy and not a redemption arc. It wasn't a joke.



I agree with you. She's evil. But she might not always be.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by azarhal
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I think that thoughts can be plenty harmful. The only reason we don't punish people for their thoughts is that we have no way of reading people's thoughts. Realistically, if everyone's thoughts were on full display, a lot of people would be getting castigated, watched, and/or detained.

Does a consensus define evil? Is evil only something that is culturally relative? A city of drow would reach a very different consensus about what is evil than a village of halflings, would they not? I feel like D&D, at least, has a sort of idea of cosmological evil, which goes beyond what any particular people think of as evil, or even beyond a creature's actual observed behavior. A demon could be on his best behavior and not actually running amok murdering people, but still be fundamentally evil.


The eternal battle between "Shadowheat is evil because she is a Sharran" or "she isn't evil because she doesn't disapprove of the outcomes of a goody-two-shoes PT"

By being a Sharran, she has committed crimes in the name of her goddess. There is no "we haven't seen it, so it didn't happen" here. You aren't a member of Shar clergy, like Shadowheart, without committing atrocities. Refusing to do them would get you killed or worst.

Did it happen a few times that her heart wasn't into it? Maybe, it's not like evil characters are all robots. In the case of Shadowheart, she feels bad about the Tielfings, yet she doesn't seems to care about the Druids. Wouldn't a good person feels bad about both?

Was she evil before joining the clergy? Probably not. The people who join Shar willingly usually suffered a great loss (major depression just want to see the world burn type). Otherwise they were forced into it via destruction of their previous self (using torture, gaslighting, abusive manipulation, etc). I did say that what she needed was therapy and not a redemption arc. It wasn't a joke.

I said it before about Baldur's Gate 1-2 and I say it about Baldur's Gate 3 as well - if it's not in the game I don't care. Not because I want to spite anyone or because I don't think FR lore is important. I just don't think a game should force me to research outside sources to understand its story or characters. It was kind of a problem in Baldur's Gate 1-2, but not in any other good Rpg I ever played (Dos 2 maybe, but Larian is known to have its lore all over the place). If this bit about Shar initiation ceremonies is important enough that it affects what kind of character Shadowheart is, it should be in the game. It's not a criticism against you, but against Larian. Either they decided to ignore it, or they missed it, or, as you say, she is a really evil lady with a strange fondness for dogs and tiefflings. the only reason to know for sure is to wait for the final release, but if you are right, her character is not only bad but also kinda badly written.


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
I mean, it's not like she's gonna tell someone she just met, "Hey, wanna hear the stories of how I had to sacrifice some children when I joined my church?"

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I mean, it's not like she's gonna tell someone she just met, "Hey, wanna hear the stories of how I had to sacrifice some children when I joined my church?"

There are many many ways to put exposition in a fiction creation whether it's a book, a film, or a game, and they have a hierarchy of quality (for example, putting it in visual form is better than in dialogue, dialogue is better than a random book), it all depends on how good a writer you are


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Leaving the point of whether it's unfair to include lore from books aside for the moment, there is one book in the game that alludes to this but I can't remember where I found it. It's the story of young woman who hears Shars voice and follows her instructions to throw a vial down a well and in doing so earns Shar's love. The moral of the story is that people come to see her not because she is attractive but because she is high priest of Shar.

Now I am with you @abits in saying this could be better supported. I would like the books to be longer and for there to be more of them. You could learn everything you needed to know about FR lore in BG1 by raiding the shelves of Candlekeep and Durlag's tower.

But returning to the outside lore issue D&D has always been this way -- there is salty bit at the end of the 1st edition DM guide where it tells you can't understand D&D unless you read fantasy books and then gives you a reading list.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by kanisatha

LOL, yeah it amazes me to see how far some people (not everyone, mind) will spin things out of some desperate need to have SH be not evil and/or redeemable. And I can't imagine it doesn't have at least a little to do with her being portrayed as attractive and "lovey dovey." wink


Right? She is a zealot, a terrorist, a liar, a manipulator, logically if you are not a worshiper of Shar yourself at the very least you would be wise to stay the hell away from her, as she cannot be trusted in any way shape of form, at most you would slit her throat on the spot... But she is hot! So yay romance!


She's none of those things in EA. Projecting much?

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Leaving the point of whether it's unfair to include lore from books aside for the moment, there is one book in the game that alludes to this but I can't remember where I found it. It's the story of young woman who hears Shars voice and follows her instructions to throw a vial down a well and in doing so earns Shar's love. The moral of the story is that people come to see her not because she is attractive but because she is high priest of Shar.

Now I am with you @abits in saying this could be better supported. I would like the books to be longer and for there to be more of them. You could learn everything you needed to know about FR lore in BG1 by raiding the shelves of Candlekeep and Durlag's tower.

But returning to the outside lore issue D&D has always been this way -- there is salty bit at the end of the 1st edition DM guide where it tells you can't understand D&D unless you read fantasy books and then gives you a reading list.

Well after playing Skyrim, dragon age, and the Witcher games mostly without reading any lore bit and still have a very good idea of what's going on in the world, I would say it's a rather weak excuse. The same is true for the lord of the rings for example. You can read the lord of the rings without delving into the appendices or the silmarillion and not feel like you missed anything.

Now the Forgotten Realms lore is vast, really vast. But it's the game's writers job to figure out what is important to the story they tell and what isn't. And then they should figure out the best way to explain this bits to the player.


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I mean, it's not like she's gonna tell someone she just met, "Hey, wanna hear the stories of how I had to sacrifice some children when I joined my church?"

There are many many ways to put exposition in a fiction creation whether it's a book, a film, or a game, and they have a hierarchy of quality (for example, putting it in visual form is better than in dialogue, dialogue is better than a random book), it all depends on how good a writer you are


Considering you are ignoring the:
- the post-Raphael conversation where she brings up her knowledge of torture and manipulation
- the Priest of Pain scene where she gives him tips to torture people
- the goblin party narration bringing up how she enjoyed killing before
- the post tadpole dream #2 conversation about "wanting it all"

I'm not sure the problem is with the game not providing you with the information you want, and more that you are avoiding situations where the information is brought up and/or you fail to get the hints when it does.

She has more backstory explored in Act 1, it's just not in the part we have access to in the EA right now. I'm not sure if Larian is planning to include all of Act 1 into the EA either, but it should be there at release at least. Datamining is a wonderous evil gift.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Agreed with the last bit. I am liking that every book has a purpose, it's a bit of a puzzle but there should be more books and they could be longer.

Again, outside of this thread I tend to agree with you. Our differences boil down to you wanting this to be a really great RPG like the Witcher and I'm in that group of people who have been wanting a sequel to BG2 for an eternity. I don't think the standard is just "is this an really great game" but it is a successor to the Baldur's Gate series and is it the face of 5th edition?

It's like star wars or even the Matrix. Matrix 3 was a good action flick but it wasn't a successor to Matrix 1. You can be one and not the other.

Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

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