Baldur's Gate Is Viconia evil? and other Drow discussions

[Mr. Magniloquent]

It's worth noting that Viconia fled The Underdark because she refused to sacrifice an infant to Lolth and defied both her house and matron, even through a war over the situation. She fled after her brother died preventing her from being sacrificed by her own mother, and he was transformed into a drider for it. Lolth withdrew all of her clerical powers and abandoned her. The merchant who picked her up on the surface died from a heart attack, and while she was trying to eek out a living as a farmer in the backwoods, neighbors slowly gained her trust so that they could gang torture, rape, and bury her alive. The burning shed aspect that I remember is what she did to them when they were unawares, after crawling from the grave they put her in.

She's still entirely self-serving and will take whatever she wants whenever she wants, so definitely evil. Hard to say most PCs are really any different. I'm reminded of the tome you could buy at the monetary in IWD II "Why You're Actually Neutral Evil".

 

[DraQ]

I can agree with that. I think there should be some mystery to characters who join you. No one joins a party and then hands you a sheet with all their vital statistics on it. Add some mystery, some unknowing. That would be cool imo.

Also, no one joins the party and allows themselves to be stripped of all their means of survival (then kicked back out).

She's still entirely self-serving and will take whatever she wants whenever she wants, so definitely evil. Hard to say most PCs are really any different. I'm reminded of the tome you could buy at the monetary in IWD II "Why You're Actually Neutral Evil".

Practical Incarnation was a fun deconstruction of that.

 

[ga♥]

Practical Incarnation was lawful neutral though.

 

[DraQ]

Practical Incarnation was awful neutral though.

AKA neutral evil.

Not technically, but he effectively ended up this way as the result of deconstruction.

 

[ga♥]

Not technically, but he effectively ended up this way as the result of deconstruction.

I don't get what you mean, please explain.

 

[DraQ]

Not technically, but he effectively ended up this way as the result of deconstruction.

I don't get what you mean, please explain.

Ok, maybe not "as a result" - PST Pragmatic Incarnation deconstructs how RPG protagonists, often technically neutral good, actually behave most of the time.

 

[Lacrymas]

That's not true. They're in the infamous Complete Book of Elves.

Huh, I was certain they were first mentioned as playable in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book, i.e. 3E. Are they like a throwaway line in the Complete Books of Elves or something?

 

[Fairfax]

That's not true. They're in the infamous Complete Book of Elves.

Huh, I was certain they were first mentioned as playable in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. Are they like a throwaway line in the Complete Books of Elves or something?

Not at all. They have their own section and are mentioned many times. They also got their own 2E FR splatbook by Greenwood:

 

[Neanderthal]

That's not true. They're in the infamous Complete Book of Elves.

Huh, I was certain they were first mentioned as playable in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book, i.e. 3E. Are they like a throwaway line in the Complete Books of Elves or something?

Fairly sure we got rules for em in ad&d first ed fiend folio, enough to make a pc anyway.

Way overpowered as I recall.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

It's worth noting that Viconia fled The Underdark because she refused to sacrifice an infant to Lolth and defied both her house and matron, even through a war over the situation. She fled after her brother died preventing her from being sacrificed by her own mother, and he was transformed into a drider for it. Lolth withdrew all of her clerical powers and abandoned her. The merchant who picked her up on the surface died from a heart attack, and while she was trying to eek out a living as a farmer in the backwoods, neighbors slowly gained her trust so that they could gang torture, rape, and bury her alive. The burning shed aspect that I remember is what she did to them when they were unawares, after crawling from the grave they put her in.

She's still entirely self-serving and will take whatever she wants whenever she wants, so definitely evil. Hard to say most PCs are really any different. I'm reminded of the tome you could buy at the monetary in IWD II "Why You're Actually Neutral Evil".

The problem with this is: that information is from Viconia.
Viconia is not a reliable source of information about Viconia.

 

[Lacrymas]

Not at all. They have their own section and are mentioned many times. They also got their own 2E FR splatbook by Greenwood:

Fairly sure we got rules for em in ad&d first ed fiend folio, enough to make a pc anyway.

Way overpowered as I recall.

After researching it a bit, it seems like they were indeed "playable" even in 1E, but it was discouraged to play them and drow like Viconia and Drizzt were supposed to be very rare exceptions with extensive backgrounds as to why they are on the surface. It was fan service to provide stats for making a drow PC basically.

The problem with this is: that information is from Viconia.
Viconia is not a reliable source of information about Viconia.

People do like to trust the words of blatantly evil NPCs, huh.

 

[Fairfax]

After researching it a bit, it seems like they were indeed "playable" even in 1E, but it was discouraged to play them and drow like Viconia and Drizzt were supposed to be very rare exceptions with extensive backgrounds as to why they are on the surface.

That's not accurate. They were discouraged in the sense that they had severe drawback on the surface, but they were an official PC race (assuming the DM allowed them). They became one in the 1E UA, which already took the exceptional backgrounds into account:

Drow are generally evil and chaotic in nature, though player characters are not required to be so.

A dark elf player character is considered an outcast from his or her homeland deep within the earth, whether by matter of choice, alignment, or merely being on the losing side of some family-wide power struggle.

And as Gygax said:

[...] I didn't think all drow had to be evil--only maybe 99%. It then follows that some player might have a drow character, Evil or not, as the DM allowed ;-)

 

[Cael]

That is why people are sympathetic towards Viconia. She isn't Evil by any objective measure.

Character sheet says otherwise.

...And that's one of the reasons why alignment system is shit and followers sharing their full character sheets with you fucking derpy.

I have always advocated that alignment should be shown, not told. It is ridiculous that they have:
Edwin, who is malevolent, self-centred, murderous and slightly insane as Evil.
Xzar, who is completely insane and murderous as Evil.
Montaron, who is incredibly malevolent and murderous as Evil.
Tiax, who is delusional and murderous as Evil.
That Shadow Druid who is also malevolent and murderous as all hell as Neutral.
That crazy murderous Ajantis as Lawful Good.
And then we have Viconia, who wants nothing more than to be left alone, as Evil.

If you are going to write that kinds of characters, at least get their alignments right or not reveal it at all.

BG2 redeemed the series in terms of writing.

 

[Cael]

Not at all. They have their own section and are mentioned many times. They also got their own 2E FR splatbook by Greenwood:

Fairly sure we got rules for em in ad&d first ed fiend folio, enough to make a pc anyway.

Way overpowered as I recall.

After researching it a bit, it seems like they were indeed "playable" even in 1E, but it was discouraged to play them and drow like Viconia and Drizzt were supposed to be very rare exceptions with extensive backgrounds as to why they are on the surface. It was fan service to provide stats for making a drow PC basically.

The problem with this is: that information is from Viconia.
Viconia is not a reliable source of information about Viconia.

People do like to trust the words of blatantly evil NPCs, huh.

Circular logic. Congrats. You fail at debate.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

When evil person wants to be left alone, they stop being evil.

Yoshikage Kira sends his regards.

 

[Lord Commissar Alexer]

Drows are and will be always for lewd.

 

[Yosharian]

Of course Viconia is evil. But it speaks to the depth of her character that she isn't evil in a one-dimensional way. I mean, she definitely wants to do evil things, but her personality is more nuanced than just "All surfacers must die!"

 

[Xunwael]

...
That Shadow Druid who is also malevolent and murderous as all hell as Neutral.
That crazy murderous Ajantis as Lawful Good.
And then we have Viconia, who wants nothing more than to be left alone, as Evil.

When there just ain't enough evil in the world, 'ya gotta correct that balance somehow. Perfectly adheres to my concept of neutral.
Lawful Good is crazymurderhobo tuned up to 11/10 but the universe say it's okay so it's okay.
And Viconia thinks it's super cool and alright for you to break into people's house and murder children for fun. Which is wrong, because they are not orc children. That would've been okay, but this isn't. I guess it also would've been okay to murder drow children. Actually, what does that say about the other ostensibly evil acts committed against her, an evil creature?

Anyway. She might not be roaming around murdering everyone she comes across for fun, but she doesn't seem to have much of a problem helping others do it. That's pretty evil in my book.

 

[Drowed]

I mean, D&D's alignments is a system that doesn't correspond to what we see in the "real world", at least not in the sense of seeing a correlation between some the character's apparent attitudes and his alignment. I thought that much was obvious at that point.

In the universe of D&D, good and evil are absolute concepts. If you use 'Smite Evil' on a certain character, either it will or won't work. There won't be a cosmic debate among the gods to take a vote to decide whether the character's recent attitudes would define them as evil or good. It isn't a democracy and it's not open for debate. If the character's alignment is evil, then he/she is evil, and that's it. It may be that as a matter of circumstance/convenience, an evil character doesn't go around killing baby cats across the street and torturing little children. But he's fully capable of it, and he wouldn't have a problem doing that - and that's what defines them as evil, even if they don't do anything like that.

Making an analogy with something closer to reality, not every serious case of psychopathy manifests itself in an individual who is a murderer or torturer. But this doesn't mean that these people aren't capable of heinous acts, and that they don't have an absence of empathy and/or remorse. It only means that, given the current context of their life situation and different external factors, there are no advantages for them to act in this way. If they act in an apparently "correct" or even "altruistic" way, they dont do so because of a moral or ethical position, or because they feel it is right, but only because it is more convenient. If no one was looking and they were sure they would get away with it, they would push the dog off the 20th floor balcony and they wouldn't see a problem with it. It was the dog's fault, he was ugly and very noisy.

But... Yeah, D&D's alignments often make no sense and seem to have no relation to the characters' attitudes. This is an obvious consequence of trying to summarise all possible variations in behaviour into nine categories.

 

[Cael]

I mean, D&D's alignments is a system that doesn't correspond to what we see in the "real world", at least not in the sense of seeing a correlation between some the character's apparent attitudes and his alignment. I thought that much was obvious at that point.

In the universe of D&D, good and evil are absolute concepts. If you use 'Smite Evil' on a certain character, either it will or won't work. There won't be a cosmic debate among the gods to take a vote to decide whether the character's recent attitudes would define them as evil or good. It isn't a democracy and it's not open for debate. If the character's alignment is evil, then he/she is evil, and that's it. It may be that as a matter of circumstance/convenience, an evil character doesn't go around killing baby cats across the street and torturing little children. But he's fully capable of it, and he wouldn't have a problem doing that - and that's what defines them as evil, even if they don't do anything like that.

Making an analogy with something closer to reality, not every serious case of psychopathy manifests itself in an individual who is a murderer or torturer. But this doesn't mean that these people aren't capable of heinous acts, and that they don't have an absence of empathy and/or remorse. It only means that, given the current context of their life situation and different external factors, there are no advantages for them to act in this way. If they act in an apparently "correct" or even "altruistic" way, they dont do so because of a moral or ethical position, or because they feel it is right, but only because it is more convenient. If no one was looking and they were sure they would get away with it, they would push the dog off the 20th floor balcony and they wouldn't see a problem with it. It was the dog's fault, he was ugly and very noisy.

But... Yeah, D&D's alignments often make no sense and seem to have no relation to the characters' attitudes. This is an obvious consequence of trying to summarise all possible variations in behaviour into nine categories.

And yet, you can change your alignment, and in fact, the DMG tells DMs to consider changing a PC's alignment if the player is not playing it according to that alignment. I.e., your actions matter.

...
That Shadow Druid who is also malevolent and murderous as all hell as Neutral.
That crazy murderous Ajantis as Lawful Good.
And then we have Viconia, who wants nothing more than to be left alone, as Evil.

When there just ain't enough evil in the world, 'ya gotta correct that balance somehow. Perfectly adheres to my concept of neutral.
Lawful Good is crazymurderhobo tuned up to 11/10 but the universe say it's okay so it's okay.
And Viconia thinks it's super cool and alright for you to break into people's house and murder children for fun. Which is wrong, because they are not orc children. That would've been okay, but this isn't. I guess it also would've been okay to murder drow children. Actually, what does that say about the other ostensibly evil acts committed against her, an evil creature?

Anyway. She might not be roaming around murdering everyone she comes across for fun, but she doesn't seem to have much of a problem helping others do it. That's pretty evil in my book.

Wrong. The Book of Exalted Deeds very specifically said that going crazy murderhobo is grounds for a Paladin falling as it is not a Good act.

Shadow Druids are also not fighting to increase Evil because there is too much Good. They terrorise others because they are sjw greenies taken up to 11.

 

[Yosharian]

I mean, D&D's alignments is a system that doesn't correspond to what we see in the "real world", at least not in the sense of seeing a correlation between some the character's apparent attitudes and his alignment. I thought that much was obvious at that point.

In the universe of D&D, good and evil are absolute concepts. If you use 'Smite Evil' on a certain character, either it will or won't work. There won't be a cosmic debate among the gods to take a vote to decide whether the character's recent attitudes would define them as evil or good. It isn't a democracy and it's not open for debate. If the character's alignment is evil, then he/she is evil, and that's it. It may be that as a matter of circumstance/convenience, an evil character doesn't go around killing baby cats across the street and torturing little children. But he's fully capable of it, and he wouldn't have a problem doing that - and that's what defines them as evil, even if they don't do anything like that.

Making an analogy with something closer to reality, not every serious case of psychopathy manifests itself in an individual who is a murderer or torturer. But this doesn't mean that these people aren't capable of heinous acts, and that they don't have an absence of empathy and/or remorse. It only means that, given the current context of their life situation and different external factors, there are no advantages for them to act in this way. If they act in an apparently "correct" or even "altruistic" way, they dont do so because of a moral or ethical position, or because they feel it is right, but only because it is more convenient. If no one was looking and they were sure they would get away with it, they would push the dog off the 20th floor balcony and they wouldn't see a problem with it. It was the dog's fault, he was ugly and very noisy.

But... Yeah, D&D's alignments often make no sense and seem to have no relation to the characters' attitudes. This is an obvious consequence of trying to summarise all possible variations in behaviour into nine categories.

Do me a favour, look at this and tell me if you can think of an evil act that doesn't fit into my categories:

Axis of Morality
Good: you act according to what is beneficial for individuals, communities or societies
Neutral: you act principally for your own benefit
Evil: you take actions that specifically harm innocents, or are excessively cruel

Axis of Law
Lawful: you obey the law or a personal code, or are consistent in your actions
Neutral: you sometimes obey laws or personal codes, or are occasionally inconsistent
Chaotic: you rarely obey laws, have barely any personal code, or are very inconsistent

Let us examine a hypothetical situation:

Walking through a foreign city, you are approached in the street by a man carrying a document. He asks you for directions to the city parliament building. You investigate further, and discover that the man is a slaver, and the document is a bill of sale for several slaves that he owns. In this city, slavery is legal.

Morally Good Characters: "Slavery is a horrific practice."
A Lawful Good character might declare that the slaver's actions are immoral, and demand that he either hand over the bill of sale, or tear it up. Furthermore, the slaves are to be granted freedom immediately.
A Neutral Good character might ask to see the slaves, and then attempt to heroically save them under cover of darkness.
A Chaotic Good character might slay the slaver on the spot, with little regard for consequences or honor, because what honor does a slaver deserve?

Morally Neutral Characters: "Slavery is not my problem."
A Lawful Neutral character might agree to give the slaver directions, but ask for some monetary reward for the information.
A True Neutral character might simply refuse to talk to the slaver, or ignore them. Alternatively, they might engage in a discussion on the morality of slavery.
A Chaotic Neutral character might give the slaver a lengthy set of directions, while slipping their hand inside the slaver's coinpurse and relieving him of his gold.

Morally Evil Characters: "Slavery is my business."
A Lawful Evil character might examine the bill of sale for any mistakes, in the hopes that it might be rendered invalid and thus the slaves be available for purchase for a steeply discounted price.
A Neutral Evil character might threaten the slaver until he hands over the slaves, and then sell them himself in the local slave market.
A Chaotic Evil character might kill the slaver, alter the bill of sale, retrieve the slaves, then have them delivered to his torture chamber for his personal amusement.

Personally I think it IS possible to define D&D's alignment system such that it encompasses all acts, interactions, etc, and that's what I've tried to do here.

So taking Viconia as an example, does she follow laws, or a personal code? Well, somewhat, but she's also her own person, and she isn't always consistent in her actions. So she's neutral.

She's clearly excessively cruel in many situations, and has taken many actions that have harmed innocents, though she probably considers those actions justified. So she's evil.

 

[Ramnozack]

never really felt Vicki was evil, all her actions suggest neutrality and a desire to be allowed to live freely without fear of persecution and death. She spouts evil lines now and then, but it feels more like that comes from her being raised as a drow rather than what she believes herself if that makes sense.

 

[Cael]

never really felt Vicki was evil, all her actions suggest neutrality and a desire to be allowed to live freely without fear of persecution and death. She spouts evil lines now and then, but it feels more like that comes from her being raised as a drow rather than what she believes herself if that makes sense.

She explicitly refused to kill a baby. She was faithful to and even held affection for, in her own way, the merchant until he died of a heart attack. She tried to live in peace and stayed away from others until the rednecks came along, when her loneliness got the better of her. These are a few concrete instances where we actually see her morality in action. She fails the Evil test every single time.

The only evidence that people who says she is Evil have brought to the table is literally "she is drow, therefore she is Evil and a liar". Colour me unconvinced.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Long live Viconia, man. She was great.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

Oh, we are so evil we worship spiders and perform raids and have slavery.

Well fuck you too Satan.