Oh Gods ... three sites ... this will be long one. :-/
Sure you should. at least in theory. When Zavlor asks you for help, he promises to reward you.
True dat ... on the other hand, Zevlor repeatly warns you that they cant give you much ... and they are refugees, those usualy arent richest people ...
Compared to whole cult of new goddes that is tightly bound to your brain problem, and as i mentioned earlier allready is saving your neck ...
I dunno ... even greedy character should see biger profit here. :-/
After all, even your character have chat option to tell him something like: "Sorry Zevlor, but i need help, and her godess is my best chance."
Whether he will keep his promise or not is a different matter, of course it's a risk, but less risky than doing what Minthara wants you to do. She just say "go kill everyone in the grove" "why?" "Because eeeeeevil." that's stupid.
I allready answered this question ... to be more precise in that post that you were quoting ...
"Every decision you made you made for you own reasons, Larian dont need to show your character why you should that, or this ... that is for you to decide ... i dunno, maybe your character is homicidal maniac, maybe its xenophobic Tieflinghater, maybe hes fighter for goblin's rights, maybe hes just loyal to another Drow, or maybe he is really interested in that whole Absolute cult, so he really want them to suceed ... or maybe litteraly anything else.
But its all up to you, and that is exactly why i just love it."
So that is why.
Also you say its less risky ... based on what exactly?
Bcs she is Drow? Bcs she worship Absolute? Bcs she comands goblins the only way they understand ... with ruthless iron fist?
Is that really so diffent when she tells you to help with her assault compared to Zevlor's "go convince druids" and then "go kill goblins"?
At last she is direct, and you cant say she was not honest with anyone, she maybe didnt tell some things at first ... but that is all she did, everything else is just matter of wich side you choose in battle (i dont wanna call this war, yet).
The way I see it, the essence of evil is self interest above all. I see an evil character as one driven by greed, who lusts for power, one who'll take what they want even at the expense of others. When faced with a decision or a quest, an evil character doesn't ask "How can I be as big of a dick as possible?", they ask "How will this benefit me?".
So in other words I agree - there should be more incentive to be evil. In fact, I'd go further: there should be more incentive to be evil than good. Playing evil should be easy mode, they should get more loot, better gear, and positions of power. You don't choose to be evil for evil's sake; You are tempted by it, because evil means you get to live deliciously. You can have anything you want... all it costs is your soul.
That is certainly one of possible evils ...
And that is exactly and litteraly the reason why i posted that link to Wikipedia.
That as it seems everyone ignored.
Being evil is more than simply killing everyone and throwing rocks at bears. That is being an asshole.
Well yes, but actualy no ... meme is in place here.
Being evil certainly CAN BE more than simply killing everyone, and throwing rocks at bears ...
- For one there is litteraly no way you can say that exactly this behaviour is not evil.
- And for two, there is also litteraly no way you can say that any "evil" character cant do this and being right.
Have anyone of you seen those goblin kids?
They were not concerned about any (quote:)"eviiiiiiiil" alignment ... they were just having some fun, with no respect to others.
You all keep thinking about "why should my character do this", or "what will my character get when he do that" ...
Have anyone of you honestly even for a slightest second thinked about the idea, that character can ... i dunno ... just dont care? Just having some fun? Nothing more, nothing less? Just spot the opourtunity and take it without any futher concidering?
I gues not.
Its stupid way to play character in tabletop? Yes, obviously ... pretty anoying. Does it matter in singleplayer game? No.
Does it means that character probably will not be any deep thinker? Yes, sure, probably ... but have you honestly in your whole life did nothing impulsive? Do you really concider all pro and cons, all consequences, profits, and reasons? If so ... i feel kinda pitty for you. :-/
You could be evil and still save the tieflings and Halsin, provided they would work for you in return. Remind them in the future who saved them and why they should do such and such.
I once played a warlock that set a whole village against its mayor and put my minion in his place, the only person who died was the mayor and a few orcs I used in the process of agitating the village.
Imo, being evil is taking what you want with no care for others.
That's far from let's kill everyone, which is what seemed line the evil path available. Didn't finish the evil play because it didn't feel like true evil and more like chaotic evil.
That is all correct.
Its just not the only way ... that is one of reasons why in DnD are for so long 9 different alignments, not just two (good/evil) or three (and neutral).
Its quickly becoming obvious this player is the sort that would burn down the orphanage just because its so garsh darn eviiiiiiiil.
Well ... even that is possible path. :-/
In mine opinion you should be able to do that if you really wish to represent your game as one of "choices matter".
Perhaps at the very end there is an event where all the people you helped can help you.
If you were a selfish evil character who only acted on their own behalf would stand alone. Your evil companions would probably abandon you... why should they risk themselves for your benefit?
Yeah sure ... good must allways win, and evil must be allways punished ...
A bit too fairytale to me. :-/
They should bcs they have no choice.
They should bcs they are affraid of you.
They should bcs their godess orders them to, trhough you ofc.
They should bcs you are for them the only way to get rid of those pitiful lives in caves and burrows. (Have you even pay atention to those goblins, when they talk?)
And finaly ... they should, bcs many of them simply enjoy good carnage. :P
But if you were good then you made friends. Friends that will stand by you. And face the final boss united.
And if you make zealots, cultists, slaves, and subjects ... they will fight that boss instead of you for some scraps you left for them to take. :P
That is ultimately that "greedy" and "selfish" evil you still talking about.
in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.
It seem nuanced enough to me. O_o
You dont need to follow whole path, there is several points where you can reconcider ...
Wich kinda change situation.
For example on that gate ... you can betray the Drow, and help Tieflings ... situacion changed, they have now better defences, they have battleplan, advantage of terain ... it dont seem like so much suicide to join them against the Goblins now. Therefore more beneficial way for "non-Chaotic-Evil" characters.
You are the one who is supposed too ask him/herself why your lawful evil or neutral evil character is going on a murder spree. That is what role-playing is: making decisions in-character.
You don't want to do it, then don't do it and pick another path. You can even ignore the quest if you don't want to deal with it.
I dont know if words can even express how happy i am to see at last one person here who gets it. :3 <3
Doesn't that mean that for non-chaotic evil characters there is no path other than the good path right now? Larian seems to have specified the two paths as "good" and "evil" so surely there should be some room for nuance here.
Not at all ...
There are at last 3 factions ... Tieflings, Goblins, and Druids ... and you can help, ignore, or betray litteraly any of them (teoreticly even all of them) ... there even seem to be a way to just let them to fight each other, dont care and go with your own way: (didnt try yet tho)
Or! There is Githyanki creche, wich dont interact with neither of those groups in any way ... another quite neutral path.
You just need to see biger picture here.
The current path can be an option, should be.
What bothers people is that there aren't nuances to the evil path. It's simply chaotic evil.
I think Larian should take these suggestions into account, not all evil is a murder hobo evil.
Well ... you included yourself to war ...
When you dod that, you sooner or later need to kill someone ...
Its funny how many people care about bunch of hellspawn being killed and calling here for "better nuanced evil path" when they didnt even try to find it ...
And on the other hand nobody seem to care about those dozens of dead goblins with the "only one righterous path" ... where is those nuances in good playtrough? :P
I dont want to kill all npcs i want to enslave, torture, corrupt and be evil in a way that they live and work for me.
Companions should be afraid and grow to hate me, joining forces to try to put me down when they wont endure it any longer. I would then have the option of jailing and torturing them. Or maybe just let them live because let them be miserable in their failures.
Yeah that's pretty bad, that's evil, terrible, but way more interesting than just killing everyone.
Actualy good idea!
I love it whole. :3
There isn't two paths, these are you options:
Explain to me why you think only the first option fit an evil character?
Maybe i allready said it but: <3
This is pure gold people. :3
This is exactly how it should be, seeing biger picture ...
Meanwhile I cannot name a single thing the Tieflings do wrong in the narrative besides endangering what is apparently a group of racist bigoted druids led by a demagogue bent on ethnic cleansing.
Oh dear, how many lessons of history this reminds me ...
Some natives just take in some refugees that was not threated well in their homeland, probably bcs someone feel it as right thing to do, or maybe s/he pitty them.
Who knows, does not matter. Natives shared their land, their food, their homes ...
Sooner or later those refugees start to make their own comunity, distant from natives. Having their our leaders, working on own things.
And natives didnt even notice that much, since they have own things to care, and seen no problem in that this refugees started to care about own things too.
With some time, there was incidents ... there some kid broke something, there some other kid steal something, there some people have argue, there may even be risk of some fights.
And one day, natives just had enough ... coincidentally it was the day when one of kids stole their most sacred relic ... they stopped to feel pitty about poor refugees, they started to see them as leeches that uses their ground, eats their food, sleeps under their roofs, and dont even have enough decency to be at least so greatfull to try make no throubles.
So natives asked refugees to leave imediatly. And what happened? Refugees ... refused.
Still they seem so innocent to you? :-/
Even Minthara does unless you pass a few dialogue checks.
That is actualy funny to mention ...
Minthara try to kill you when you fail two if i recall correctly (second one i had dif. 1 so ... not sure how big drama are we even talking about :D).
Kagha try to kill you when you fail one if i recall correcly (when Zevlor sends you to persuade her to stop the ritual)
Zevlor try to kill you without any dicerolls, in the second you tell him that Kagha told you that they need to leave now.
So ... yeah, sure ... Tieflings are totally good guys, civilized.
There is a very likely permutation to the evil path that has you end up with significantly less than what you started with. Not just with 0 leads or allies, but also with a traumatised Shadowheart that is now locked out of approval gain for good. Even a murder hobo chaotic evil character must be thinking they fucked up at this point.
Well ... first of all, character you are describing will probably dont care about Shadowheart either. Just as about everyone else.
So no ... i dont think they need to think that they screewed up ... i dont even think they need to think about outcome at all.
And yes, you certainly can end up litteraly empty handed.
As one old proverb says: "You played, and you lost."
I for one am really happy about this option in game ... finaly our characters are not allmighty gods that will do everything right, everything good, and everything for the first time ... finaly we can generaly fucked everything.
When I am talking about nuance I am referring to the storytelling, not the outcome or even really its permutations. All of those are very rigid. Imagine if the druids decided to have a little nature party with you after you force the Tieflings to leave early. Or if the Gith creche / shadow curse alternate paths are added. Those would be actual new options.
Well ... druid party seem like nonsence, since they want to seal the groove for good. :-/
When you join your forces with goblins, you certainly get very alternative paths to chadow curse, if you roll your dices right.
And Githyanki creche seem to be added later, so i bet there will be even possibility to just leave them as they are and dont care about them at all.
(Then i presume that duids will complete the ritual, and massacre tieflings themseves. And goblins will just have whole area except the groove.)
You think NPCs should react certain ways to your character. The writers have the right to write NPC whore are lying to you, manipulating you and using you. Evil doesn't make you immune to those.
I generaly hope for more lying and manipulative characters in game ... it makes things interesting.
*Done for now. :P
I wonder if there even will be someone who read it.