Since you (OP) are tryng to design an evil module, I believe you must first decide whether you want to define the explicit limits of evil in your module or just spring it upon your audience as a subjective evaluation.
IMO, it is easier (though not necessarily more fun) to play an alignment-specific scenario if the guidelines are spelled out in detail beforehand., If not, and especially depending on the scripting, one can find themselves in a no-win situation because they have crossed a ideological threshold (module-wise, that is). In other words, variables can be set that prevent a character from making further progress.
Ideally, there should be some broad guidelines, like an alignment consequence if the PC causes any harm to NPCs of a certain alignment (a designer-specific assignment), like all neutrals, for instance. In a situation like that, there would need to be a method to predetermine a potential combatant's alignment (or orientation or beliefs... whatever terminology floats your boat). As we all know, NWN does
not provide any means to pre-determine this (not without opening up the toolset and examining all the NPCs alignments beforehand or memorizing an standard bestiary) so it would be an interesting creative venture to design encounters where this could be identified by the PC by a methodical means. Hostile NPCs glow red, but that indicates nothing about the ehtical or moral orientation of a character, which should be important RP-wise.
As far as Aribeth goes, her ulterior motive has always been debated. Evaluators base their opinions on conversations, actions and bits of gathered information that may or may not be based on absolutes. What if a statement or action by an NPC was intended to deflect our discovery of the true value? It would be much more difficult to evaluate... grey, rather than the black and white absolutes. We all play within the scope presented to us in these games and must suspend our sense of realism in order to proceed towards the designed plot. In that respect, we are playing with a stacked deck, stacked by the designer.. which is fine as long as the thematic tapestry is well-defined and we can immerse into it as players.
I particularly appreciate the point about the sampled environment, i.e. medievil vs. contemporary context. It seems like an attribute that
should be obvious, but often times is glossed over or just assumed rather than developed thematically. Within that basic framework is where the scope of evil should first be sketched.
This the point where it can become a juggling act. Not all denotations of evil are obvious. Some are vague and subjective. The key is to make the design decisions consistent across the module so even though the determination can seem obtuse in one instance, when it reoccurs elsewhere, it supports and reiterates the designer's metric.
Sry to express these concepts in generalities but I am not writing the module... you are OP.
'>
BTW, I have no clue how this topic ended up in the HotU forum. Must have been an act of congress and they must have been contemplating their next vacation rather than accessing the analytical thought processes.
'>
@ WhiZard: It was the way Desther was able to meld into the righteous faction yet remain a scumbucket in nature . His control-freak demeanor was a hint of what was likely to transpire but he remained well-concealed for a long time IMO. Morag, Belial, Klauth, Brother Toras, Heurodis, Valsharess, Meph... the obvious villians... are easy to decide what recourse to take. They all seem to exist on a plane separate from the PC while Desther is always within an arm's length and constantly influencing plot progress.
As an aside, I always suspected Grimgnaw's ulterior motivations based on his oddball religious bias but he was such a dedicated and worthy ally I decided would rather have him in my party than against it. I was eventually proved right.
'>
