Lack of evil companions (potential spoilers)

[Qorach]

I havent finished he game yet, but what I understood from hanging around a bit with all the companions is that there are no evil ones. Ability to pick sinister voice for your Charname seems wasted, since it sets unfulfilled expectations. I understand that this is no DnD with its strict alignment system, yet I miss companions like Xzar, Edwin and Montaron. And in this game companions dont seem that grey moraled either, most of them are Good in DnD terms... In fact, only Aloth's melancholy hints that he might be self-centered, ALL others care too much about social issues of their background.

 

Please add egoist companions in future expansions. I want to roleplay my power-hungry Neutral Evil wizard in company of like-minded fellows.

[endruwiggin]

I smell a petition to bring Xzar into Eora

[Karkarov]

I am not totally sure I agree with this.  While none of the npc companions in game are laughing lunatcs going off on a baby killing spree a few of them are definitely not what I would call perfectly ethical totally moral people.  Also there is plenty of opportunity for the main character to act like an ass and be an all around douche.

[gkathellar]

I think the issue is that most of the companions are not driven by moral/alignment issues as much as personal loyalties to various factions/people. Frankly, the only Good character is Eder - the rest are all different shades of Neutral, by Great Wheel standards.

 

But Durance is definitely either Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil, and Aloth can turn all Lawful Evil under the right circumstances.

Edited April 16, 2015 by gkathellar

[Namutree]

I agree, make a rogue companion in the expansion and have him/her be a heartless villain. Some one truly despicable.

[Avantre]

I agree, make a rogue companion in the expansion and have him/her be a heartless villain. Some one truly despicable.

Nah, it's always the rogue. Make the Monk companion in the expansion heartlessly evil instead.

[archangel979]

Why do you need evil companions? The main quest is only meant for good guy parties anyways.

Somehow Obsidian managed to make the evil playthrough even less interesting or motivating than in BG1.

Edited April 16, 2015 by archangel979

[KingNee]

While I agree with the OP I think we need more insane options. There are kinda dickish moves you can do, kind of the jokester type moves but nothing really crazy like some demented chaotic wizard would choose. 

Would it kill them to add some third option to their dialogues? 

 

1. Execute him by slashing his throat

2. Take him to your prison dungeon

3. Stuff an apple in his ass. YEAH!

[Mebrilia]

There is Evil and Evil... Many people tend to associate evil with nonsense over the top cruel action but the game per se give you the opportunity to make morally bad and evil choice... I think one of the most evil like character in this game is Durance of course not lunatic evil but him was one,,, well no spoilers here....

 

Allignment was the worst thing invented in D&D

[Namutree]

 

I agree, make a rogue companion in the expansion and have him/her be a heartless villain. Some one truly despicable.

Nah, it's always the rogue. Make the Monk companion in the expansion heartlessly evil instead.

 

Good idea.

[VahnXIII]

I would just like to see more companions in general (I know, I know, you can create your own party but that's not as much fun). I liked having 20+ characters to choose from along my travels in previous games. Hopefully this will be the case in future expansions/titles!

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

I agree, make a rogue companion in the expansion and have him/her be a heartless villain. Some one truly despicable.

Nah, it's always the rogue. Make the Monk companion in the expansion heartlessly evil instead.

 

Good idea.

 

I was going to suggest maybe Paladin instead, since with the dispositions of some orders it could easy to turn one into an evil bastard, but then I realised that would just be a Blackguard really.  An evil Druid could be interesting, and a evil Cipher would be scary!

[Luckmann]

I agree, make a rogue companion in the expansion and have him/her be a heartless villain. Some one truly despicable.

 

There's some really despicable things you can do in the game but.. I also don't think that there's enough. I guess there's an argument that someone can easily be "bad enough" with some choices, but I'm not really seeing that many options to be a self-serving asshat. Maybe I'm doing something wrong.

 

 

I will never forget the kid in Defiance Bay. Whoever wrote that deserves a prize. Yeah, it was a little bit off in some ways (Why would the answer talking about his parents not wanting him to have a knife be "Rational"?) but damn.. picking him up, making him cry, force the answer out of him and then hurl him to the ground with an audible *crack* as something breaks inside of him.. damn. That's 800 points of Cruel right there.

 

 

Edit: Wait, ****, I misunderstood. I thought for some reason you were talking about making a despicable rogue PC. But you're talking about an added CNPC. Which I fully support.

 

Some truly assholeish man or woman, preferably written by Avellone. I wonder what Avellone would write if you give him the guidelines of "Rogue", "Despicable" and "Down to Earth". His characters are often almost outlandish, and if you tell him to make someone with simple motivations, I'm sure he'd come up with something that's actually grounded yet eight kinds of interesting.

 

A rogue that's been working for Lord Readric, introduced either at Raedric's Hold or in Defiance Bay. Brutish enforcer, bounty hunter-esque, rather than the usual cloak-and-dagger or assassin. Worked with tracking down dissidents. Contacts with The Dozen. Enjoys clubs (the weapon) and crippling people that owes him debts. Sent to find animancers for Lord Raedric, leading a small group of deadbeat ruffians..

 

...I think I'm going to need a CNPC thread...

Edited April 16, 2015 by Luckmann

[Namutree]

 

...I think I'm going to need a CNPC thread...

 

F*ck yeah. You had a cool character concept.

[MReed]

I tend to believe that this game is about as "evil friendly" as any game can hope to be unless it is built around the "evil protagonist" concept. 

 

Overall:

1) The protagonist has a good reason to follow the main quest, regardless of his/her ethics.

2) The antagonist character type is such that it makes sense for him to refuse to even consider allying with the protagonist.

3) Side-quests, in general, don't revolve around the "Oh please, help me"-troope of the IE games -- in the vast majority of the cases the quests are presented as "I don't really expect you to help me, but if you do, I'll give you stuff", and (when the nominal opponents of a side quest are sentient) the player can choose to support either side, with similar rewards in both cases.

4) When truly cruel options are offered to resolve side quests (admittedly rare), the cruel option "performs as expected" -- the player gets a similar reward to the "non-cruel" path, but without jumping through the hoops that the non-cruel path requires.  And there is no "karma fairy" that ensures that the player will get his just deserts later -- instead, the game acknowledges the player's cruelty without enforcing negative consequences -- unheard of, in my experience, in games that aren't focused around an evil protagonist.

 

I do agree that the companions are basically "good" for the most part -- if you dig into their background, Aloth and Grieving Mother have done evil in the past (& may do so in the future), but they consider the acts something to hide, rather than something to be proud of, as an "evil" character would.  Note that a character may still work to hide their evil acts (even if they are proud of them) to evade consequence -- but when revealed, an evil character would respond with (for example), "Yes, I killed everyone, including the woman and children in the village, but it was the right thing to do, and I'd do it again if the same situation arose".

 

I would like to see some companions along these lines in the expansion, if adding companions is in-scope for the expansion.

[Rosveen]

I don't know if I would ever call Durance good, although I admit I didn't travel with him very long. The Grieving Mother, while well-intentioned, used highly questionable methods in her work.

[Luckmann]

I tend to believe that this game is about as "evil friendly" as any game can hope to be unless it is built around the "evil protagonist" concept. 

 

Overall:

1) The protagonist has a good reason to follow the main quest, regardless of his/her ethics.

 

[...]

 

Eeeeh.. I never really felt that at all. But.. I'm not going to get into it, because it's pretty blatant spoiler territory. All I'll say is that by the time I got to Defiance Bay, I no longer had any idea why I was doing this or why I should care.

 

But when it comes to "evil friendly", oh god, Planescape: Torment. That treatment of Dak'kon.

[TheisEjsing]

Lack of evil characters? I love how the characters in this game are more complex than that in that regard. People aren't evil or good, that's a flawed conception. Evil characters always end up being tropes or just one dimensional.

[archangel979]

Lack of evil characters? I love how the characters in this game are more complex than that in that regard. People aren't evil or good, that's a flawed conception. Evil characters always end up being tropes or just one dimensional.

Durance is as evil as realistic people come with wanting to purge those he does not like with fire and has no problems with wanting to murder all Eothas followers on sight. They only don't seem that evil because the game does not put in situations where they do more than talk about that stuff. They needed to do more and put in situations where "evil" characters want to do something that is considered cruel or sadistic in the game and you must help them or reject them. But game designers decided that your companions will not be attacking or leaving you just like that, so... Edited April 16, 2015 by archangel979

[MReed]

 

I tend to believe that this game is about as "evil friendly" as any game can hope to be unless it is built around the "evil protagonist" concept. 

 

Overall:

1) The protagonist has a good reason to follow the main quest, regardless of his/her ethics.

 

[...]

 

Eeeeh.. I never really felt that at all. But.. I'm not going to get into it, because it's pretty blatant spoiler territory. All I'll say is that by the time I got to Defiance Bay, I no longer had any idea why I was doing this or why I should care.

 

But when it comes to "evil friendly", oh god, Planescape: Torment. That treatment of Dak'kon.

 

 

 

The game doesn't bring the point up as often as it should, but the protagonists awakening will eventually drive him insane unless he resolves whatever issue it is that caused him to be awakened in the first place.  The only reasonable candidate for this is the person who walked away after the ritual at the beginning of the game, so that's who he/she is perusing.

 

 

Again, the game does a very bad job at reminding you of this, but survival is a good motivation for just about any character type.

Edited April 16, 2015 by LadyCrimson
spoiler tag added

[TheisEjsing]

 

Lack of evil characters? I love how the characters in this game are more complex than that in that regard. People aren't evil or good, that's a flawed conception. Evil characters always end up being tropes or just one dimensional.

Durance is as evil as realistic people come with wanting to purge those he does not like with fire and has no problems with wanting to murder all Eothas followers on sight. They only don't seem that evil because the game does not put in situations where they do more than talk about that stuff. They needed to do more and put in situations where "evil" characters want to do something that is considered cruel or sadistic in the game and you must help them or reject them. But game designers decided that your companions will not be attacking or leaving you just like that, so...

 

I agree that more situations with harsh morality choices and maybe some unexpected displays of ego or lack of empathy would be welcome. I think Sagani is the most one dimensional character, but she's just such a doll, that I can't really be angry about it. Most of the characters certainly got the potential for evil in them as well as good. Which makes them more "human".

 

EDIT: Kana is pretty one dimensional as well.

Edited April 16, 2015 by TheisEjsing

[Luckmann]

[spoilerS]

Dude, I'm, like, saying it right there that I'm not getting into it because of spoilers. You're basically spelling out key parts of the plot in the General Forum. Not cool.

[kaiki]

I would have enjoyed a companion that was motivated by greed and profit.  Considering the amount of money that you come across in the game, that type of personality would fit right in. Or even a Sarevok type character. Just one character who's motives were self centered. That is the level of "evil" I would be comfortable having in my party.

[Qorach]

Lack of evil characters? I love how the characters in this game are more complex than that in that regard. People aren't evil or good, that's a flawed conception. Evil characters always end up being tropes or just one dimensional.

Except that their complexity and views rarely get outside of modern values, prevailing in the Western World of Real Life. Post-Christian, secular humanist, collectivist. Even one evident feminist (Pallegina). No egoists, racial or class supremacists, moral relativists, imperialistic militarists etc.

[Badmojo]

I would love to see an RPG game where you can actually play evil and have an evil party.  Maybe a darker version of Villains by Necessity (evil was defeated and good rules the world, now evil character ban together to bring evil back to the world).  Or even better would be to use something like the amazing Fire Mountain's Way of the Wicked pathfinder adventure path books for villain characters.