Evil Companions

[dskinner]

I just finished white march expansions recently and first off, job well done.

 

Anyway, I was perusing reddit when a topic about designing an evil party caught my eye and I realized there just aren't any options with current companions to do this. Ok, there's one now, but you know what I mean. A quick google shows 25 total companions in the original baldurs gate with 8 of them straight up evil.

 

So, and maybe this is just me, I wouldn't mind an expansion pack that provided nothing but new companions. Their commentary and take on the game throughout would be interesting enough in itself to play the game again under a different pretense.

[why]

I don't think the game recognizes either 'good' or 'evil' companions, but I would suggest that Devil is entirely amoral and Durance is a high functioning psychopath. Aloth has... well Aloth isn't a goody two shoes, and that's about as much of a non-spoiler as possible about his messed up history. Hiravais often comes across as rather murderous. Yeah, Eder, Pellegina, and Sagani are more or less sympathetic characters and 'good' guys. That said, I do like grey and dark characters. I like characters of convenience whom you may loathe for whatever reason, whether too 'good' or too 'bad' depending on your tastes, who end up in your party because they really are just that good. The NPCs seem to be more or less the right balance to me, but I suppose they could lean it more the other way in any possible sequel. As long as the writing is good, I'll enjoy it. Hell, I like Durance and he's a ****.

[anameforobsidian]

Durance is very, very close to flat out evil.  His hands are super not clean.

[Katarack21]

Durance is very, very close to flat out evil.  His hands are super not clean.

Depends on how you characterize evil. That's the whole point of the companions; pretty much all of them are doing--or have done--only things that *they* felt were good, necessary, and required to be moral at that moment. And they all have good reasons for thinking and feeling that.

 

Durance, the Devil, and Eder are the easiest examples. All of them did super wrong things--building a weapon of mass destruction that needed human sacrifice to work, serial murder, and traitorous sedition and helping a foreign enemy to invade their homeland.

 

But for many and various reasons, all of them can make a good argument about being in the right. None of them are evil, or all of them are. Or--and this is the one I subscribe to--in the PoE world morals and ethics are entirely societal constructs made up by mortals, and nobody is actually "good" or "evil" except the gods themselves (and there are reasons for that, too).

[why]

No, Eder was a traitor to his faith. He was actually defending his country, but the argument is still workable in any case.

[Katarack21]

Accurate. My bad.

[rheingold]

I have a major issue with the whole good/evil issue. For the most part it's a very simplistic way of defining things.

The only character who the term evil can be applied to is Durance. For the rest including DOC it becomes subjective.

Is the devil evil for instance, for attempting to revenge her family? This in a world where there are no courts, no police, no other way for her to get justice. I'm not so sure. Pellagina is tough to answer. She has a moral center as evidenced by her intentions in her quest, but she also follows orders from her dukes. Presumably someone who is opposed to them would think she is evil for doing their bidding.

Eder seems as good as you can get, except I'd imagine the people from Readceras would disagree. Also he has some rather rascist tendencies, admittedly unintentional and ignorant, but rascist nonetheless. See his comments to Hiravious regarding wild Orlans.

Hiravious though is pretty open minded and tolerant if a bit rough around the edges.

 

Overall though I'd say the good vs evil thing is ridicoulous mainly because everyone has the potential to do good or evil. It's such a false way of labeling complex behaviour that it makes no sense. Unless you are referring to the stupid evil alignment system of D&D where you had to be evil for evils sake. Including tattooing a "I am evil tatto" on your forehead.

[Messier-31]

There is no good / evil in Pillars. There are just dispositions.

 

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Disposition

Edited March 1, 2016 by Messier-31

[Rosveen]

There is no good / evil in Pillars. There are just dispositions.

 

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Disposition

There is still good and evil in our perception of the world, which includes our companions. I don't need an ingame morality system to tell me how to feel about raping family members or burning people alive. Edited March 1, 2016 by Rosveen

[Baron Pampa]

It depends on what you consider to be evil, but Durance is a murderous psycopath, Pallegina cares for nothing except her country, Devil is quite mean, Grieving Mother an almost compulsive liar and manipulator with cipher abilities and Maneha, although nice, is making a living from killing people.

[Messier-31]

There is still good and evil in our perception of the world, which includes our companions. I don't need an ingame morality system to tell me how to feel about raping family members or burning people alive.

 

True, but I'm not typing about how you feel, I'm typing about game mechanics.

[anameforobsidian]

Evil doesn't have to mean unbelievable motivations.  Durance has killed the hollowborn, killed watchers for who they are, and voluntarily participated in religious pogroms.  Those actions are objectively evil.  Is he a well-written, believable character with understandable motivations?  Mostly, yes.

[RingMachine]

Evil doesn't have to mean unbelievable motivations. Durance has killed the hollowborn, killed watchers for who they are, and voluntarily participated in religious pogroms. Those actions are objectively evil.

Not really. Nothing is "objectively" evil. What would be evil to one person would be considered kindhearted to another (yes, even the things you listed).

[Merany]

It's funny, I posted yesterday a very similar question in another part of the forums:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/84830-spoiler-request-new-companions/

 

Durance is obviously a perfect fit for an Aggressive / Cruel type of party IMO but my issue is that it's really hard finding 4 others to go with him...

[Magnificate]

 

Evil doesn't have to mean unbelievable motivations. Durance has killed the hollowborn, killed watchers for who they are, and voluntarily participated in religious pogroms. Those actions are objectively evil.

Not really. Nothing is "objectively" evil. What would be evil to one person would be considered kindhearted to another (yes, even the things you listed).

 

Nah, objective Goodness and objective Truth both exist. Of the classic three only Beauty is relative.

[Rosveen]

 

 

There is still good and evil in our perception of the world, which includes our companions. I don't need an ingame morality system to tell me how to feel about raping family members or burning people alive.

True, but I'm not typing about how you feel, I'm typing about game mechanics.

This thread is clearly about more than just game mechanics.

[RingMachine]

 

 

Evil doesn't have to mean unbelievable motivations. Durance has killed the hollowborn, killed watchers for who they are, and voluntarily participated in religious pogroms. Those actions are objectively evil.

Not really. Nothing is "objectively" evil. What would be evil to one person would be considered kindhearted to another (yes, even the things you listed).

 

Nah, objective Goodness and objective Truth both exist. Of the classic three only Beauty is relative.

 

 

Don't agree with you there. Beauty, goodness, and even truth are all in the eye of the beholder, and are therefore relative. Hell, have you looked at the US elections, or just politics in general? All these people have such diverging opinions on what's the truth, what is best for their object of interest, and arguing that what they think is the "goodest" or most kind.

[Magnificate]

 

 

 

Evil doesn't have to mean unbelievable motivations. Durance has killed the hollowborn, killed watchers for who they are, and voluntarily participated in religious pogroms. Those actions are objectively evil.

Not really. Nothing is "objectively" evil. What would be evil to one person would be considered kindhearted to another (yes, even the things you listed).

 

Nah, objective Goodness and objective Truth both exist. Of the classic three only Beauty is relative.

 

 

Don't agree with you there. Beauty, goodness, and even truth are all in the eye of the beholder, and are therefore relative. Hell, have you looked at the US elections, or just politics in general? All these people have such diverging opinions on what's the truth, what is best for their object of interest, and arguing that what they think is the "goodest" or most kind.

 

True, it can be argued that Goodness and Truth are hard if not impossible for us to discern. But, it is my belief that both of them do objectively exist. But, here is hardly the best place to debate such things.

[Karkarov]

No, Eder was a traitor to his faith. He was actually defending his country, but the argument is still workable in any case.

Not really.  Eder was not a clergyman, he was not some officer of the faith, he was just some guy that happened to worship Eothas and felt Waidwen was a a false prophet.  If anything he remained true to his faith at the time because again, he thought Waidwen was a false prophet.  PS: There is still no REAL evidence to suggest he wasn't either.

 

Durance and Devil are very much evil characters.  It isn't even because of their actions it is because of their attitudes.  Durance for example hates people, he thinks violence is a reasonable way to get what he wants in basically any situation, he seems no problem with insulting and belittling anyone and everyone, he even hates his own allies and consistently tries to undermine members of his own faith.  If he could he would pretty much destroy society and be happy about it because he thinks that is what people deserve.  He is self centered, arrogant, has no empathy, and potentially no moral compass.  Those are all real life descriptors of sociopaths by the way.

 

He is evil as hell.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Karkarov

[FlintlockJazz]

 

No, Eder was a traitor to his faith. He was actually defending his country, but the argument is still workable in any case.

Not really.  Eder was not a clergyman, he was not some officer of the faith, he was just some guy that happened to worship Eothas and felt Waidwen was a a false prophet.  If anything he remained true to his faith at the time because again, he thought Waidwen was a false prophet.  PS: There is still no REAL evidence to suggest he wasn't either.

 

Durance and Devil are very much evil characters.  It isn't even because of their actions it is because of their attitudes.  Durance for example hates people, he thinks violence is a reasonable way to get what he wants in basically any situation, he seems no problem with insulting and belittling anyone and everyone, he even hates his own allies and consistently tries to undermine members of his own faith.  If he could he would pretty much destroy society and be happy about it because he thinks that is what people deserve.  He is self centered, arrogant, has no empathy, and potentially no moral compass.  Those are all real life descriptors of sociopaths by the way.

 

He is evil as hell.

 

This regarding Eder.  I would say more but it's a No Spoilers forum, but if anything when you meet him he's actually still loyal to Eothas.

 

Regarding Durance: I would say it's more complicated.  We don't know what he was like Before Godhammer (henceforth referred to as BG), he did what he had to in order to stop a rampaging god-thing, and when you meet him he is thoroughly broken due to certain things that I don't think he is capable of coherent thought.  He seems to genuinely believe he is helping by engaging in the purges and 'dealing' with Hollowborn.  He is crazy and in Eora that is due to Soul issues...

[why]

 

No, Eder was a traitor to his faith. He was actually defending his country, but the argument is still workable in any case.

Not really.  Eder was not a clergyman, he was not some officer of the faith, he was just some guy that happened to worship Eothas and felt Waidwen was a a false prophet.  If anything he remained true to his faith at the time because again, he thought Waidwen was a false prophet.  PS: There is still no REAL evidence to suggest he wasn't either.

 

Yeah, I'm with you, but I can see making the argument. Plus I was being lazy. I think the point about being able to argue the case for or against any of the NPCs was the heart of the matter, and I think you can. That said, I'm actually certain Eder was faithful. Throughout the game, he remains so.

 

On the other hand, I'm not a moral relativist. I just don't want to get into a multi-page argument about real world moral and ethical definitions. I prefer the develops don't have an alignment system since it tends to be overly simplified and insulting. Most of us know what's moral or not in broad strokes. In the fine lines, there will be discussion and debate, even if it's internal. So, while you won't find me fighting on the side of relativism, I do support the developers making a game in which the player attributes the morality and motivations to the PC.

[Hayzeus]

All things considered, the Devil has one of the kindest hearts I've ever seen in a video game. Even though it's artificial.

 

As for Durance... evil, what? He's not evil in the slightest. I haven't quite completed Act 2 yet (did WM1 first actually), but I've done a lot of side quests. I have talked with Durance a lot, and so far he seems like a lovable old grandpa who is just exaggerating his heroic deeds in a tongue-in-cheek way. Durance is going to make Dyrwood great again.

[Ymarsakar]

Durance is like the male version of a yandere.

 

I would have enjoyed some post ending, epilogue dialogue with the companions, given that the main plot arc would have impacted some of them more directly than others. A dialogue, an interaction, rather than just reading a description written for the character. Good epilogues tie up loose ends, they don't merely end a character's story by telling how they ended up. 

 

Chris Av likes to invert expectations, so inverting a priest that heals and helps into Durance, would fit his personality. The creator's personality. The Cipher was the same way, even after the cuts. 

 

As for good and evil, there are some examples and dilemmas.

 

"They would rather have 4 to your zero, than 8 to your 10"

 

Is that good, neutral, or evil? If a person had the chance to become great, at the cost of being overshadowed a bit by others, what kind of a person would choose to destroy that and instead pull everyone else around them to the ground, merely to have an advantage over them of 4?

 

The classic "I would rather rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven". If I get a bonus of 5,000, and then I realize my co-workers get a bonus of 8000, I don't feel right. I have to get even, make it even, or else it doesn't feel right. Is another case example. There goes that office in flames. Now you don't get anything! But it is better to get less, so long as nobody overtakes you. That way, wealth can be redistributed to be fairer. Even if that means most people become poor and destitute. 4 and zeros. Now if a person just got a bonus of 5000 in the mail from their job, they might feel happy. So why do they feel different when they realize their peers got more? And why do some people not care, and just take the 5k to improve themselves?

 

In another dilemma, let's say a child is starving so they have to steal food for their siblings and younger kids they look out for, at the cost of taking 2 points from people with 10 or 8 points of resources. 

 

It is hard to say what is necessary, at this point, without seeing far into the future at the consequences. If something was necessary right now, it might be gray. Not good, but gray. However, if it wasn't necessary, if everyone knew there was a better way, and people still chose the more destructive path, their motivations would be very interesting. Because it wouldn't be about survival. People killing and stealing to survive has a rationality behind it, even if it is self serving. What's the self serving rational behind destroying your own life in order to ensure nobody has it better than you?

[why]

Yeah, that's what everyone needs... Durance as a kindly ol' grandpa and Zahua living next door to their kids' school. Durance is a bad guy. Whether you call h evil or not is another matter.

[Karkarov]

Regarding Durance: I would say it's more complicated.  We don't know what he was like Before Godhammer (henceforth referred to as BG), he did what he had to in order to stop a rampaging god-thing, and when you meet him he is thoroughly broken due to certain things that I don't think he is capable of coherent thought.  He seems to genuinely believe he is helping by engaging in the purges and 'dealing' with Hollowborn.  He is crazy and in Eora that is due to Soul issues...

Doesn't matter what he was like before, he is in my party now not 5 years ago.  Also lots of evil people in this world thought they were doing the "right thing".  There isn't a saying "The road to hell is paved in good intentions" because doing what you think is right is always a good idea or morally sound.