Is it possible to get a rewarding experience out of being a bad guy?

[Cyrus_Blackfeather]

Hey guys, 

 

So... I did a few good guy playthroughs, and while I had fun with them, I couldn't help but feel like I was missing out on quite a bit by not being a little meaner to some of the various characters I encountered throughout the game. Heck, there's a dialogue option to lift someone up by their neck and demand information from them, for Pete's sake. And of course, you can keep the tablet from Arkemyr's Manor for yourself, rather than share it with either the Huana or Rauatai, the same thing with Oderisi's notes. 

So I was wondering... How rewarding is it to play the game this way? Would you say there's an equal amount of content available for taking the 'bad guy' route, compared to being a goody two-shoes? 

[Tick]

I always feel too guilty to go out and out cruel for the sake of it.

 

That said, I listened to negative rep interactions on YouTube and thought Aloth and Serafen in particular had some cool moments and /or conversations when you're negative rep and /or cruel. And I remember accidentally picking a cruel option to the poor lady asking for food in the Gullet and then realizing the interaction was more interesting than I'd expect. So it's possible! I just don't know for sure.

[uuuhhii]

game react to player's evil action somewhat

it maybe rewarding for player who likes it?

Edited August 22, 2018 by uuuhhii

[Taevyr]

In my experience, if you create a character who's "evil" without it being for the sake of being evil, it can be very rewarding. You just have to make it fit with the background of the character you're playing.

 

From the few "bad" interactions I've seen, the game handles them relatively well. It's not like Tyranny where you can actually be evil, but you can be quite an uncaring, opportunistic bastard if you want to.

[Cyrus_Blackfeather]

In my experience, if you create a character who's "evil" without it being for the sake of being evil, it can be very rewarding. You just have to make it fit with the background of the character you're playing.

 

From the few "bad" interactions I've seen, the game handles them relatively well. It's not like Tyranny where you can actually be evil, but you can be quite an uncaring, opportunistic bastard if you want to.

That's definitely the idea. My character is all about self-advancement, but not to the point of following evil as a concept.

[Verde]

I think so yes, as a mercenary, privateer of sorts.

 

However there is some super wonkiness when it comes to doing random stuff like slaughtering faction leaders. Do that and get minor reputation losses which is bizarre to say the least. And certain decisions may give you disproportionate reputation loss than others.

 

Biggest gripe will be companions. Most are do-gooders.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Verde

[InsaneCommander]

My character is a shady pirate and I do as much evil as I can so long as it is justified. It is very satisfying. I rob a lot but I don't kill people without reason.

[ManifestedISO]

Went full evil once with a Bleak Walker paladin but was not nearly as enjoyable. Had to maintain Cruel and I think Aggressive dispositions to keep class bonuses ... kicking a hungry Roparu woman just to get the cruelty points is not engaging, rewarding gameplay, for me at least.

 

Even so, felt like plenty of reactivity in the game for evildoers.

[uuuhhii]

Went full evil once with a Bleak Walker paladin but was not nearly as enjoyable. Had to maintain Cruel and I think Aggressive dispositions to keep class bonuses ... kicking a hungry Roparu woman just to get the cruelty points is not engaging, rewarding gameplay, for me at least.

 

Even so, felt like plenty of reactivity in the game for evildoers.

wanted to try a bleak walker run only do nice things have 0 aggressive and cruel

[InsaneCommander]

In Poe1, even as a Bleak Walker there were limits to how cruel I could be. Like when the chief asked me to kill a baby. My character lost all respect to the fool and decided to murder everyone involved (including the Ethik Nôl).

[Cyrus_Blackfeather]

In Poe1, even as a Bleak Walker there were limits to how cruel I could be. Like when the chief asked me to kill a baby. My character lost all respect to the fool and decided to murder everyone involved (including the Ethik Nôl).

 

That's one of the few redeeming qualities about this character I'm intending to play. He's a big brother who lost his little sister when she was young, so he has a soft spot for children and families. So, in PoE1, he wiped out everyone involved in that little charade, and encouraged Sagani to tell Persoq about his family - getting the "Sagani has lots of grandbabies" ending for her. Debating whether or not to say he killed the Sky Dragon though - on the one hand, it's consistent with the theme, on the other... she's a dragon, and he's already killed Llengrath and (Working on) the Adra Dragon (I hadn't done it in my first playthrough, working on getting a save up to that point to do it properly to get the 'chievo for it). 

[Vitalis]

Went full evil once with a Bleak Walker paladin but was not nearly as enjoyable. Had to maintain Cruel and I think Aggressive dispositions to keep class bonuses ... kicking a hungry Roparu woman just to get the cruelty points is not engaging, rewarding gameplay, for me at least.

 

Even so, felt like plenty of reactivity in the game for evildoers.

Or you can not do that because there are other ways to gain the disposition.

 

Bleak Walkers are generally not sadists, they are cruel and merciless in order to bring a quick end to a conflict. If the Valaera/Bardatto's were to hire a Bleak Walker it would be to either massacare the other side or to bring the other side to the table with the threat of being massacarred; which is a valid way of finishing it diplomatically without any unfavorable dispositions.

 

Was the Bleak Walker hired to kick the beggar, if not then don't kick the beggar.

 

Bleak Walkers also have the ability to decline jobs, as mentioned by IndaneCommander, it is entirely valid for a Bleak Walker to disagree with a job and not take it; and then murder the guy if you disagree with his reasoning.

 

However, with the Sky Dragon in PoE1, a Bleak Walker is hired to kill it, so they will kill it. The dragon has no understanding of what a Bleak Walker is, and would likely feel superior to one regardless.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Vitalis

[Tick]

If we're talking about the dragon in PoE 1 with a baby, I think that would cause a conflict of interest for Cyrus's character.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Tick

[Cyrus_Blackfeather]

If we're talking about the dragon in PoE 1 with a baby, I think that would cause a conflict of interest for Cyrus's character.

 

Yeah, and thankfully my character would have been a Barbarian or a Rogue in the first game. So, no reason to go for the massacre option right off the bat. 

[Vitalis]

If we're talking about the dragon in PoE 1 with a baby, I think that would cause a conflict of interest for Cyrus's character.

Yes, I know, I just get annoyed when people insinuate that Bleak Walkers are supposed to be "lol so evil" on principle.

 

Don't get me started on the Durance hate either.

[InsaneCommander]

Bleak Walkers also have the ability to decline jobs, as mentioned by IndaneCommander, it is entirely valid for a Bleak Walker to disagree with a job and not take it; and then murder the guy if you disagree with his reasoning.

 

There was also that quest in the White March involving Bleak Walkers. They kind of forced a contract to kill some people, but my Bleak Walker had the option to say that that was beneath their order and the other Bleak Walker should just drop the whole thing.

 

If we're talking about the dragon in PoE 1 with a baby, I think that would cause a conflict of interest for Cyrus's character.

 

Yeah, and thankfully my character would have been a Barbarian or a Rogue in the first game. So, no reason to go for the massacre option right off the bat.

 

And you can always make an exception. Maybe there is one or two things that your Bleak Walker sees differently and would influence how they act. Realistically, not everyone will stick 100% of the time to their expected behavior.

[Xsanf]

Well, as for me, reactivity for evildoers in Deadfire is pretty strange. In some places we have appropriate dialogue options (a Huana guy outside of VTC quarters, for example, or Degnos' quest), in other situations we have not, or they are implemented in a rather stupid way. For example, we have dialogue with Biha in The Gullet while obtaining her quest; here we have an aggressive option, but the aggression is addressed to Seduzo, not to Biha. It's stupid, since as stoic and harsh character, I have no empathy to Biha (made children she cannot feed, doesn't want to work, etc.), but I don't know why to do any harm to Seduzo, who owns her ship, and has a free will to take or not to take passengers. Of course, I can always kill Biha as any other NPC, but that's not a way to roleplay. Even Pitli's quest in the same location was more reactive from this point of view.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Xsanf

[Mocker22]

I remember in POE1 really struggling with a character that I could roleplay how I wanted without the power-gamer in me having a freakin cow. I almost ALWAYS took GOTM and Effigy. I want my +2 stats gdi!

 

One character I've been having fun with is a female priest of Magran. I roleplay her a bit like a Viking warrior. Think Lagitha(spelling?) from the show Vikings. Most people watching that show liked the character, yet she didn't balk at human sacrifice to the gods, leaving her son out of pride, pillaging other peoples for profit, etc. I feel like this character would be ok with sacrificing someone they knew, or using the souls for additional self power, because she must make herself as powerful as possible to be able to stop Thaos. That being said, she tends to have a soft spot for children, or women that have been mistreated. I'd say its a "do what must be done" attitude more so then "I want to save/help everyone".

 

Remember that most people that do "bad things" would not consider themselves evil. You'd be looking at a particularly bad brand of psychopath/ mental illness for someone to know how evil they were and continue murdering, etc. Consider every great civilization in human history. Roman's thought of themselves as highly advanced and sophisticated and basically the supreme civilization of their time, and to an extent they were. They also had tons of slaves, liked to watch people fight to the death for entertainment, and wanted to conquer the world.

 

Also, it may be worth considering where the world of Eora is in the evolution of social justice and equality. If their way to thinking is even close to what it was in our way say, 100 years ago, a lot of what we would describe as cruel, evil, bad, etc.....would be fairly common.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Mocker22

[Metaturtle]

It can be rewarding for whoever feels they think it reacted accordingly to what they expected of it.  When it comes to being bad, I either think of RPing a character that is a straight up murderhobo and an asshat, which is probably the most common image  or someone who everyone can trust, but ultimately betrays them as you lead thousands to their deaths.  I think the latter is a bit more twisted since you develop a relationship with the factions/characters then reveal your true colors for some hatred reactions compared to the former option that kinda ends up turning into, "Fight me bruh!"

Edited August 29, 2018 by Metaturtle

[Somnium_Meum]

I made "evil" character who's not evil for the sake of being evil

 

He's honest/diplomatic and even benevolent as long as are people abiding laws/moral code, but if someone breaks these laws/moral code (which is very often) he's outright cruel and aggressive, not hesitating to kill. This is because of his explanation of the Wheel - if you kill someone their soul returns to the Wheel and gets reincarnated as someone/something else.

 

He's okay with rude asshats or incompetent people as long as they are not doing mess (breaking law, killing people, stealing stuff), but if someone tries to steal/trick/kill others he will be either punished or outright killed.

For example he's very likely to help Pitli in her quest to heal sick Roparu, but he probably kills every scum in Delver's Row in process, leaving only innocents alive.

Another example would be Family Feud. One Valeras trying to break into Bardatto's vault? Wipe everyone involved.

[Mocker22]

I liked that Somnium. I used to roleplay a paladin in old school IE games like that, due to the restrictions. He was cold and dispassionate, and the gods help anyone who broke the law because Carsomyr was going to be lodged firmly up their butt.

[InsaneCommander]

One character I've been having fun with is a female priest of Magran. I roleplay her a bit like a Viking warrior. Think Lagitha(spelling?) from the show Vikings.

 

I made "evil" character who's not evil for the sake of being evil

 

He's honest/diplomatic and even benevolent as long as are people abiding laws/moral code, but if someone breaks these laws/moral code (which is very often) he's outright cruel and aggressive, not hesitating to kill. This is because of his explanation of the Wheel - if you kill someone their soul returns to the Wheel and gets reincarnated as someone/something else.

 

Those are interesting ideas for an "evil" character.

 

After meeting the "good" companions in Deadfire I wouldn't mind if PoE3 started with the protagonist escaping from a prison with a bunch of murderous psychopaths that would backstab or violently betray you depending on your choices.