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

[laclongquan]

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.

Also, a lot of gamers have played for a long time and Viconia still remain best beloved female NPC. If she's actually evil, her ppopularity points would fall down.

Jaheira got minus point thanks to falling to charname months after her husband die.

Aerie got zero, unless you count being too whiny and dependant as one. Probabbly why she fall down, despite her template is like a sub-angel build.

 

[Cael]

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.

Also, a lot of gamers have played for a long time and Viconia still remain best beloved female NPC. If she's actually evil, her ppopularity points would fall down.

Jaheira got minus point thanks to falling to charname months after her husband die.

Aerie got zero, unless you count being too whiny and dependant as one. Probabbly why she fall down, despite her template is like a sub-angel build.

I postulate that it is because Viconia has a naivety about her that is so incongruent with her abilities and her obvious experience. We see the same thing with Morrigan in Dragon Age. Both are naive about the bigger world that is so different to the narrow window they have been raised in. What we all take for granted is something different, new or even terrifying to them. That put the PC in a position that gamers like to imagine themselves to be in: in control and wooing a beautiful woman and teaching her new experiences.

It is a completely outside of the reality of most gamers

 

[Ismaul]

This idea of a "fixed, metaphysical alignment" doesn't fit with D&D. Think of the Paladin.

Even in AD&D 1E, the class description clearly says and I quote: "paladins must begin as lawful good alignment ... or absolutely lose all of the special powers given to them". The Paladin class by design assumes that alignment is something that can change during play. It was never meant to be fixed or racially determined, and subsequent editions have tried to make that clear.

 

[Fairfax]

This idea of a "fixed, metaphysical alignment" doesn't fit with D&D. Think of the Paladin.

Even in AD&D 1E, the class description clearly says and I quote: "paladins must begin as lawful good alignment ... or absolutely lose all of the special powers given to them". The Paladin class by design assumes that alignment is something that can change during play. It was never meant to be fixed or racially determined, and subsequent editions have tried to make that clear.

They must begin and remain lawful good:

all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment (q.v.) and always remain lawful good or absolutely lose all of the special powers which are given to them.

Also:

Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek a high level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are then lost, and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood; he or she is everafter a fighter.

Alignment could change during play, yes, but it was a serious change, and the penalties were quite severe, regardless of class or race:

Changing of alignment is a serious matter, although some players would have their characters change alignment as often as they change socks. Not so!

First, change of alignment for clerics can be very serious, as it might cause a change of deity. If a druid changes his or her alignment — that is, becomes other than neutral — then he or she is no longer a druid at all! Change of alignment will have an adverse effect on any class of character if he or she is above the 2nd level.

Immediately upon alignment change actually occurring, the character concerned will lose one level of experience, dropping experience points to take him or her to the very beginning of the next lower level, losing the hit die and/ or hit points, and all abilities which accrued to him or her with the lost level. If the alignment change is involuntary (such as that caused by a powerful magic, a curse, etc.), then the character can regain all of the losses (level, hit die, etc.) upon returning to his or her former alignment as soon as is possible and after making atonement through a cleric of the same alignment — and sacrificing treasure which has a value of not less than 10,000 g.p. per level of experience of the character.

Characters who knowingly or unknowingly change alignment through forethought or actions permanently lose the experience points and level due to disfavor.

It is assumed that the character’s initial alignment has been his or hers for a considerable period prior to the character’s emergence as an adventurer. This ethos will not be lightly changed by a stable, rational individual. It is recommended that you do not inform players of the penalty which will occur with alignment change, so that those who seek to use alignment as a means of furthering their own interests by conveniently swapping one for another when they deem the time is ripe will find that they have, instead, paid a stern price for fickleness.

 

[mondblut]

After they beat her up, raped her and buried her alive.

That's what she said.

 

[Grotesque]

neutral evil. evil.
/thread

 

[Ismaul]

This idea of a "fixed, metaphysical alignment" doesn't fit with D&D. Think of the Paladin.

Even in AD&D 1E, the class description clearly says and I quote: "paladins must begin as lawful good alignment ... or absolutely lose all of the special powers given to them". The Paladin class by design assumes that alignment is something that can change during play. It was never meant to be fixed or racially determined, and subsequent editions have tried to make that clear.

They must begin and remain lawful good

They must remain LG only if they want to stay paladins and keep their powers. That's what is being said here, not that characters who are paladins can't ever change alignment. You do know there's a whole archetype of fallen paladins / blackguards, right? It eventually even made it as a prestige class (in the 3E DMG, maybe appeared earlier first), and there's the Oathbreaker Paladin in 5E. In 4E, Paladins could be of any alignment, but one associated with their diety, and were beholden to act accordingly by other members of their order (in other words it led to more play, story and encounters rather than losing character progress).

Plus, like you pointed out, there was in AD&D 1E a fully detailed list of things that happened when a character's alignment changed. If alignment was a fixed thing, that wouldn't have been included in the rules.

I never argued that in the first editions there weren't penalities for changing alignment, only that it wasn't meant to be fixed but could instead change. But since players' interpretation of alignment was inconsistent, with many players/GMs thinking that for example a LG character could only do LG actions or have to change alignment and face all the penalties, as editions went they loosened it and dropped the penalties. If there are penalties for changing alignment, they should be story-based, and tailored to the setting in which the game is set. Hell, in some stories and settings it makes more sense that a good character turning evil isn't penalized, but rather gains even more power, at a cost (not XP or somesuch but rather sacrifices, limitations, or obligations).

 

[janjetina]

In order to tackle this important question, you have to read this book:
https://mediatrixpress.com/?p=1672

 

[Fairfax]

They must remain LG only if they want to stay paladins and keep their powers. That's what is being said here, not that characters who are paladins can't ever change alignment. You do know there's a whole archetype of fallen paladins / blackguards, right? It eventually even made it as a prestige class (in the 3E DMG, maybe appeared earlier first), and there's the Oathbreaker Paladin in 5E. In 4E, Paladins could be of any alignment, but one associated with their diety, and were beholden to act accordingly by other members of their order.

Plus, like you pointed out, there was in AD&D 1E a fully detailed list of things that happened when a character's alignment changed. If alignment was a fixed thing, that wouldn't have been included in the rules.

I never argued that in the first editions there weren't penalities for changing alignment, only that it wasn't meant to be fixed but could instead change. But since players' interpretation of alignment was inconsistent, with many players/GMs thinking that for example a LG character could only do LG actions or have to change alignment and face all the penalties, as editions went they loosened it and dropped the penalties. If there are penalties for changing alignment, they should be story-based, and tailored to the setting in which the game is set. Hell, in some stories and settings it makes more sense that a good character turning evil isn't penalized, but rather gains even more power, at a cost (not XP or somesuch but rather sacrifices, limitations, or obligations).

I'm not suggesting they couldn't be changed. My issue is with the implication that later games did what the originals tried to do, or that the originals should've been like them. AD&D was a game that relied on archetypes, which were enforced through various restrictions. Alignment restrictions were a big part of that, as were the penalties for changing alignment. Whether or not that's good is up to each player, but it was a foundation of the game's style and spirit. Later games didn't build upon that concept or improved its implementation. They mangled the archetypes and eliminated the game's reliance on them. The paladin across WotC editions is a good example, especially in 4E and 5E.

 

[Cael]

neutral evil. evil.
/thread

Premise: Viconia should never have been labelled Evil. Her actions doesn't show it.
Fucking retards: *points to character sheet*

 

[Ismaul]

Later games didn't build upon that concept or improved its implementation. They mangled the archetypes and eliminated the game's reliance on them. The paladin across WotC editions is a good example, especially in 4E and 5E.

I disagree.

No archetypes have been mangled. The rules are just more flexible to allow you to create a wider variety of characters, archetypes, and archetypal stories.

You can still make paladins tied to an oath and a code of conduct / morality. It's just that now there isn't only one specific code / oath for paladins, and the penalty for straying away from it vary from table to table, setting to setting, and campaign to campaign. You can still have a paladin that loses his powers when breaking his oath, but the rules don't force it on you if that isn't the way the campaign and story is leading in. Maybe the consequence is that his order turns on him and hunts him down, and that he is weakened until he makes a specific ritual, or regains his God's trust, or finds a new patron deity, etc... You now also have other archetypes that have similar features to the paladin, such as warlocks that make a pact to gain their powers. The concept of alignment and especially of consequences for changing alignment / breaking a bond has been made eminently more playable, rather than something you want to avoid in the game because it crushes your character progress. And in that sense, the concept has greatly improved in implementation.

 

[Reinhardt]

People do like to trust the words of sexy women, huh.

fixed

 

[Reinhardt]

Aerie got zero

You lie! I always recruit both Aerie and Viconia and install mod for lesbian harem ending!

 

[Lacrymas]

You can still make paladins tied to an oath and a code of conduct / morality. It's just that now there isn't only one specific code / oath for paladins, and the penalty for straying away from it vary from table to table, setting to setting, and campaign to campaign.

Aka objective rules for morality. If you are a paladin who falls, no amount of argumentation will return you to lawful good. And that's the whole point. Viconia might not have committed evil acts, even though she encourages and enables them and might be lying for all we know, but by the objective moral standards of this setting, she is evil because drow and Shar. Just like an orc baby physically could not do evil, it still is because it's an orc.

Yes, your actions matter, but what actions/things are considered evil or good is not up for debate.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

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.

It must be true because viconia told you this information and evil people in d&d don't lie for personal gain.

 

[Luckmann]

neutral evil. evil.
/thread

Premise: Viconia should never have been labelled Evil. Her actions doesn't show it.
Fucking retards: *points to character sheet*

The ability for party characters to express their actions is extremely limited in a game like Baldur's Gate (and, indeed, most CRPGs), so I don't think that's really a fair argument. But even if it was, we are not fully aware of the actions taken by Viconia beside her generally expressed demeanor and what she tells us, so it is entirely possible for her to have dug herself deep into the alignment "hole", so to speak.

You can be the nicest and most caring person in the setting, giving to orphans and feeding kittens on a daily basis, and it doesn't matter if you've got a preceding lifetime of murder, torture, and slavery. The shit kind of adds up. Alignment isn't always a good indicator as to how good or bad of a person someone is, it's only a cosmic measurement of what you've done in the past.

 

[Dodo1610]

A good example of neutral evil was Jaethal from PFM she killed people for a spell that made her enjoy herself and is even ready to sacrifice her own daughter to live longer. She is probably the worst kind of monster since she is clever enough to behave normally and only be evil when it's really important to her.
Viconia is also neutral evil at the beginning as in she lacks empathy she has no issues killing but the thing is she isn't in a situation where she can to whatever she is hunted in all of Faerun for what she is. Though she is capable of doing good things and she can stop being evil when she is in a situation where she is no longer hated and has o fear betrayal from anyone like when she is in relation with Charname. Alignment is in the end, more a cosmic variable than something that deeply affects the character, two people with the same alignment can be very different people, some choose their alignment like Jaethal and others just don't have the chance to be something else like Viconia.

 

[Cael]

neutral evil. evil.
/thread

Premise: Viconia should never have been labelled Evil. Her actions doesn't show it.
Fucking retards: *points to character sheet*

The ability for party characters to express their actions is extremely limited in a game like Baldur's Gate (and, indeed, most CRPGs), so I don't think that's really a fair argument. But even if it was, we are not fully aware of the actions taken by Viconia beside her generally expressed demeanor and what she tells us, so it is entirely possible for her to have dug herself deep into the alignment "hole", so to speak.

You can be the nicest and most caring person in the setting, giving to orphans and feeding kittens on a daily basis, and it doesn't matter if you've got a preceding lifetime of murder, torture, and slavery. The shit kind of adds up. Alignment isn't always a good indicator as to how good or bad of a person someone is, it's only a cosmic measurement of what you've done in the past.

Actually, it does matter. That is actually how an alignment change happens. The problem is that too many people are caught up in the NWN style alignment counter. Murder a hobo: -5 alignment points. Give to a beggar: +1 alignment point. Alignment isn't supposed to be like that. There is no alignment "hole". It isn't supposed to exist. Alignment is a measure of personality, and Viconia has quite consistently shown to fail the Evil test. That is why people have a hard time accepting that NE tag on her.

That is also why the never-Viconias have a never-Trumper hatred of her: they fail to understand what alignment is about. Worse, I suspect that they hate drow simply to be contrary or are just outright racists in real life. Just because someone belongs to a certain race, they must be guilty of the worst and most heinous crimes possible. That has consistently been their argument.

 

[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.

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.

It must be true because viconia told you this information and evil people in d&d don't lie for personal gain.

You are putting more thought behind her actions than bioware did.

 

[Cael]

A good example of neutral evil was Jaethal from PFM she killed people for a spell that made her enjoy herself and is even ready to sacrifice her own daughter to live longer. She is probably the worst kind of monster since she is clever enough to behave normally and only be evil when it's really important to her.
Viconia is also neutral evil at the beginning as in she lacks empathy she has no issues killing but the thing is she isn't in a situation where she can to whatever she is hunted in all of Faerun for what she is. Though she is capable of doing good things and she can stop being evil when she is in a situation where she is no longer hated and has o fear betrayal from anyone like when she is in relation with Charname. Alignment is in the end, more a cosmic variable than something that deeply affects the character, two people with the same alignment can be very different people, some choose their alignment like Jaethal and others just don't have the chance to be something else like Viconia.

There is where our definition of Evil are at odds. For me, for someone to be given the Evil tag, there must be a degree of malevolence to their actions. They are doing it because they enjoy it, they derive some sort of pleasure out of it, even if it is the satisfaction of gaining more personal power.

 

[Luckmann]

Alignment is a measure of personality

It's really not. It's the alignment of your soul in regards to the cosmic forces at play, and it is descriptive, not prescriptive. While there might arguably be some feedback, it absolutely does not determine your personality in any way, although it would obviously be jarring indeed if someone on one end suddenly started acting very much out of sorts.

Viconia has quite consistently shown to fail the Evil test.

Possibly, yes, which really just goes back to the point I made.

That is why people have a hard time accepting that NE tag on her.

People? I think it's mostly just you, man. But I dunno, I can't say that I care overly much, I just latched on to the faulty argument itself. Based on Vicionia's actions (or lack thereof) she could be practically anything, we only really have her attitude to go on, which doesn't necessarily say much either, but definitely isn't indicative of Good. She could just be /slitwrists edgy, I guess, but I find that hard to believe.

 

[Silva]

"Is Baldurs Gate an RPG or just a combat game (and a poor one at that)? And other discussions."

 

[Cael]

Alignment is a measure of personality

It's really not. It's the alignment of your soul in regards to the cosmic forces at play, and it is descriptive, not prescriptive. While there might arguably be some feedback, it absolutely does not determine your personality in any way, although it would obviously be jarring indeed if someone on one end suddenly started acting very much out of sorts.

That is why it is a measure of personality. It doesn't determine it. It simply measures it. Like metre is a measure of distance. The distance is there. Using feet or metre doesn't change the distance.

That is why alignment is hard to change. You basically have to change your personality for it to change. And that is why my argument is that it is wrong to label Viconia NE. Her personality as shown in the game does not warrant that tag. I'd put her at TN. You leave her alone, she leaves you alone. She is neither malevolent nor altruistic, neither upholds order nor does things on a whim and fancy.

 

[Luckmann]

That is why it is a measure of personality. It doesn't determine it. It simply measures it. Like metre is a measure of distance. The distance is there. Using feet or metre doesn't change the distance.

It's still not a measurement of personality, though, other than insofar your personality influences your actions and thus your cosmic alignment, determining where you go after death, which forces your soul is tied to, and so on and so forth.

Her personality as shown in the game does not warrant that tag.

You don't really get to see her personality at all, it's immaterial, and mostly expressed through VO's and dialogue, which are far from cheery, and she gets to take practically no actions of her own. I can only really think of two "actions" that she can really take on her "own" accord, and that's leaving the party if it does too much Good, and her prayers to Shar.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

To be fair, I'd be willing to buy the argument that Viconia is telling the truth if she was a male