According to this (http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Viconia_DeVir#Relationships) they are supposed to fight each other. That's never happened with me. I remember in one of my playthroughs he says something to her, can't remember what though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZlQCRwkeB8

Ajantis will (eventually) attack any party member who's 'evil', though you can prevent it through intervention.

He's the guy on the vacation tour that, at every landmark or thing of interest complains, "that's rubbish..." If that's not whining I don't know what is.

Fair enough; I see what you mean now. I'm just envisioning a really alert doberman or something, constantly on the lookout for trouble.

Fun fact: a search for "Ajantis" in Duckduckgo also turned up some doberman pictures. XD

Well, you're in good company; philosophers have struggled with defining "good" and "evil" for millennia. A tabletop game probably isn't going to help anyone stumble onto the answer. I'm not 100% certain myself, but I can take a stab at it.

I think "good" and "evil" don't describe people so much as behavior and choices. So, plugging that into D&D's alignment system, a person who makes mostly evil choices has an evil alignment. What makes a choice or an action "evil"? Well, like the Supreme Court justice who was asked to define pornography I don't have a formula, but I know it when I see it. And of course, people can always turn over a new leaf, make new choices. Nothing is fixed.

I've never agreed with D&D's blanket assignation of alignment to nonhuman races. Sentient life is far too complex and varied for such a simplification.

Applying all that to Viconia: I tend to go with yeah, she's evil. Not in the same way as most of Drow society (where choices I'd consider evil are encouraged, and therefore to some degree Drow are socialized towards evil behavior), but in the way of someone who has suffered abuse and adopted, as a survival mechanism, a solipsistic perspective that focuses on the individual's safety and needs and actively dismisses or is hostile to the safety and needs of others. She's quick to cause harm if it gets her what she wants, she lashes out physically and emotionally at others, and she respects and encourages the same behavior in others. That's within the "evil" alignment range, to me.

Congratulations. You just insulted every discerning dobermann on the planet. Besides, Aerie makes a much better paladin.

It is hard to be this encompassing. :D

You're probably right. Good aligned, but not susceptible to "falling". I did admit to not playing the game for quite some time. In fact, I guess I'll just take back what I said. Maybe she really is evil (although redeemable). Maybe I wouldn't have given her the benefit of the doubt if they had only used someone other than Grey DeLisle as the VA.

Not everyone who is evil is Hannibal Lecter. A politician who passes legislation that impoverishes those he governs while lining his own pockets would probably be Lawful Evil. Say what you will about Aerie and Nalia, if someone needed help and had nothing to offer, they'd help. Vicky wouldn't. You find a poisoned man dying in the streets? Vicky wants you to leave him there. She complains if you help him. And if helping him boosts your rep to Heroic... so much for loyalty.

I'd say that has everything to do with intelligence, wisdom, and self-reflection, and nothing to do with good/evil. Constantly reviewing your positions, your beliefs, and your actions is something an intelligent person does. That doesn't mean only good people do that, or that people who do will lean towards good. People's reflecting can lead them in any direction. I think this may be the root of the issue here. Though purely a guess, I think BG was written with the idea that D&Ders would be the ones playing it, gamers who were already well-steeped in D&D lore. Every gamer KNEW that Drow were evil, evil to their core. There were many stories of Drow doing horrible, horrible things, and the surface races were rightly terrified of their wanton and sadistic cruelty.

So in a way, the character of Viconia was playing against the biased expectations of the GAMERS, not the characters. I'm sure many gamers playing for the first time killed V as soon as they learned she was Drow. Well of COURSE she killed someone like the guard said, she's Drow! Who knows what other horrible things the guard didn't find out, or he prevented from happening. You, coming to the game without any biases agaisnt Drow, kind of had the whole thing go over your head. V was playing against type, but you didn't even know what that type was.

Are you predisposed against Nazis? Or Muslims? Or some other group? Imagine if V came from a race of people like that, would it be easier to understand people's animosity? Bearing in mind that creatures in this world are GENETICALLY of a certain moral behavior? Han Solo and DV are both supposed to be bad, but in the end we see what good fuzzy people they are. Same with V.

It may also help you to understand that many monsters were labelled "evil" so that gamers could know they were enemies who needed to be killed, and you didn't have to sit there wondering if it was the moral thing to do. "Goblins were seen in the valley? Well goblins are evil, so they must be up to no good, so let's kill them." The DM didn't need to offer a reason to fight or kill them, and the players didn't need one. That's basically what the "evil" tag was used for... marking who it was okay for PCs to whack. Drow were initially enemies, so they were evil. They only became a playable race later after gamers thought the race was terribly cool. Yes, absolutely, undeniably.... staggeringly so. Some of us gamers stopped using it a long time ago. I had quite an argument with the devs when that idea was being discussed. I thought it was utterly moronic for a paladin to fall for getting drunk. Nobody else seemed to agree with me. Ultimately, I think they were looking for ways to implement paladins falling in the game, and the drinking contest was about all they could find. Without going too far off tangent, I think there is a real problem with people's perceptions of themselves and their morality here in the US. There seems to be an evergrowing INability to recognize one's own failings and the failings of their "side".

My roommate loves watching cop shows, and I can't stand them. Every episode cops bring in a suspect for questioning, and they treat the person horribly. They threaten, they beat, they blackmail, they lie... but the show says it's all good because it's "good" guys who are doing it to "bad" guys, and that makes it okay. There's no reflection on the morality of the actions themselves, actions are good or bad based on which "team" is doing them.

This is one of the many reasons I don't like the alignment system, because it labels creatures X and then brands everything they do under that label, so you get things like a paladin threatening people as fine simply because he's a paladin.


My definition:

1)
I think good and evil are subjective terms, not objective, because like beauty, they are in the eye of the beholder.

2)
If you try to help me or things I care about, I will call your actions good. Do enough of them, and I will call you good.
If you try to hurt me or things I care about, I will call your actions evil. Do enough of them, and I will call you evil.

I am not sure if that's relevant but I found it highly ironic for my rangers and druids gaining experience for killing bears and wolves in the forest. They are supposed to be the protector of the forest with all living creatures in it. And yet, I never heard Jaheira complaining about it. Nor Kivan or Minsc. "Nature's servant awaits" seems like just a random sentence Jaheira keeps saying. I lose 10 reputation points for killing an innocent human yet it seems nobody (even gods) seem to care about animals.

That's because you are defending yourself from wild animals. It would be a different story if druids and rangers hunted them for sport. When I encounter them myself I try using sleep, blindness, and fear to avoid fighting them. They don't turn hostile until after a few second have passed, so my first reaction is to get out of the area ASAP. There are situations where this isn't always possible though.

So, suppose you were to cast smite evil on me. Does the spell work?

Or, suppose you triggered a trap that casts smite evil. Does the trap hurt you?

(One problem with removing alignment from the D&D system or making it subjective is that there are a few game mechanics that depend on it. I note that 3.x has a similar problem with attacks of opportunity; I dislike the mechanic (partly because it forces the players and DM to keep precise track of position), but too many mechanics depend on them (example: the Spring Attack feat, which would be useful without the AoO mechanic, has Mobility, which only makes sense if the AoO mechanic exists, as a prerequisite)).

Funny enough, in classic BG2 (no mods or fixpacks), Viconia is actually able to cast the Smite Evil spell despite being of evil alignment; however, if she is caught in the area of effect, she will be hit by her own spell (assuming her magic resistance doesn't protect her).

That's true for most wolves but most of the bears are natural when you first meet them. They only attack after a period of time and if you get too close. In my first plays 15-17 years ago, I would simply hide in shadows with either my thief or ranger and completely avoid them. Now, I kill them for sport/experience.

In fact, somehow related to the topic, the first times I played BG games, I would not even loot drawers in people's homes. That's another evil act that has no consequence in the game. Of course, unless someone sees you.