Evil PC Options

[Audiocide]

The pointlessly destructive PC is not an option I think is valuable. And I think even classic games tended to shy away from including a murder option to every piece of dialogue or let total sociopaths have a fair chance at completion.

 

Why is it not valuable?

 

In a roleplaying perspective, the more options you have, the better. I think forcing morals on someone playing an RPG is precisely the wrong thing to do.

 

If I'm playing lawful evil, I'll manipulate. If I'm playing chaotic evil, I'll murder at the slightest provocation. That choice should be mine to make.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Audiocide

[Xantomas]

I think it's pretty widely agreed that a very polar "Ultra goodie goodie that never accepts a reward" vs "Death incarnate that insults and murders everybody he meets" story isn't very good. Obsidian knows very well how to do good and evil choices that are fun and make sense. The writing and story in their games are always stellar.

 

I don't think we have much to worry about in that department, I just hope that there ARE options and this isn't as the OP suggested, simply a good guy saves the world story because of limited resources or something.

[Longknife]

I didn

[Tale]

The pointlessly destructive PC is not an option I think is valuable. And I think even classic games tended to shy away from including a murder option to every piece of dialogue or let total sociopaths have a fair chance at completion.

 

Why is it not valuable?

 

In a roleplaying perspective, the more options you have, the better. I think forcing morals on someone playing an RPG is precisely the wrong thing to do.

Homicidal maniacs have a notoriously disruptive playstyle. They derail campaigns completely and sometimes require totally unique paths to quest completion to make up for it. It's not about forcing morals, it's about the fact that it's a lot of work for a niche playstyle.

 

The purpose of such playstyles is typically less about morality and more about breaking the game. I say let it be broken and leave it at that.

[Audiocide]

The pointlessly destructive PC is not an option I think is valuable. And I think even classic games tended to shy away from including a murder option to every piece of dialogue or let total sociopaths have a fair chance at completion.

 

Why is it not valuable?

 

In a roleplaying perspective, the more options you have, the better. I think forcing morals on someone playing an RPG is precisely the wrong thing to do.

Homicidal maniacs have a notoriously disruptive playstyle. They derail campaigns completely and sometimes require totally unique paths to quest completion. It's not about forcing morals, it's about the fact that it's a lot of work for a niche playstyle.

 

It could be implemented to a reasonable degree. So you have to get the key to open a door from someone? You could just go in and kill everyone. You get the same amount of XP, but you miss a lot of dialogue. Perhaps the game would be shorter, but simple workarounds could be done.

[Tale]

It could be implemented to a reasonable degree. So you have to get the key to open a door from someone? You could just go in and kill everyone. You get the same amount of XP, but you miss a lot of dialogue. Perhaps the game would be shorter, but simple workarounds could be done.

But what if they have a quest where you have to talk to a guy, exchange information with him, then go to another guy. Well, if he rushes in and kills them, then the guy can't tell him what he needs to know, he can't tell him who to talk to. So what, he's going to have a note on him? And that's going to be the situation for all quests that import non-item updates? Everyone has completely on-topic notes in their pockets.

 

They would have to implement a unique quest solution for this one playstyle whose real objective is to just break the game. Or never let quests have information be the objective. It's either limiting on the quest design, or its lots of extra quest design.

[PsychoYoshi]

Perhaps RPGs should just stop calling it the "evil" option and call it the "selfish" one instead, as for some reason people have developed this shortsighted belief that evil = stupid and senseless violence for the sake of violence.

 

Additionally, "selfish" should simply be labelled selfish without the usual good=altruism, bad=selfishness mold that always gets introduced in. D&D is a great system in that it clearly defines what it believes are characteristic qualities of good and evil, but even with such demarkations, it's still possible to spit in the face of the alignment chart. How do we define a character that always helps people out but does so because they realize that good PR usually means good rewards? Or a Sofia Lamb-esque character whose stated goal is the greatest good for the greatest number but is completely willing to toss anyone under the bus to achieve her goal?

 

Simultaneously, one could be an entrepreneur that loves amassing wealth but pays it forward in the form of charity and keeping prices as low as they can so that everyone can enjoy their product? "Selfish" by some interpretations, but simultaneously altruistic. One can try shoehorning these people into the alignment system, but there's always a lot of debate about where they go.

Edited September 16, 2012 by PsychoYoshi

[Sammael]

See my signature for relevant information. There is no way in hell that Josh is going to take away the sort of flexibility, given that it has already been done in a game (albeit unreleased one) once.

 

Those who don't want to play evil characters should simply pick different options.

 

EDIT: More relevant information from my TBH repository:

 

It's pretty rare that the CNPCs respond to "alignment"-oriented actions. They are more concerned with the types of behavior you display (e.g.: wild, vengeful, generous, etc.). Most actions defined as "friggin' psycho" will cause many CNPCs to attack the Protagonist, and most of the rest to leave the Protagonist's company.

 

In a way, Jefferson emphasizes a lot of the gameplay elements that Fallout did. Though it was very cool to get Power Armor and miniguns in Fallout, it was much more cool to watch the end cinematic and see how your choices affected each of the areas you touched. And hey, if you wanted to take a dip in the vats, you could. Not necessarily a very satisfying ending, but you could do it. You could legitimately take the evil road to victory.

 

* Greater freedom in dealing with the main plot. The player should be able to take a variety of "good/neutral/evil" stances with regards to the story and still "win". This should be more involved than simply saying, "I do this for charity or money." If the player wishes to say, "No, good folk, I will not help you, but instead help these evil bastards." this should be allowed, even if the end result is something dreadful.

* The world should punish the Protagonist; the game should not punish the player. There should not be a grand karmic designer wheel that makes evil PCs suffer for being evil. However, the world should respond appropriately to these acts. An evil PC should find him or herself disliked, feared, and hunted for known evil acts. If this means that certain aspects are harder or easier for those types of PCs, so be it.

 

To be clear, as far as I know, Eternity is not TBH, However, there is good reason (from the way Eternity has been presented) that Eternity will have a number of similarities to TBH.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Sammael

[Mystwalker]

Aw, but moral development part of what makes Obsidian's games so great! Chris Avellone said it himself -- The story doesn't matter if the player isn't allowed his own perspectives, and can't choose how he wants his characters story to play out.

 

One of the things I absolutely loved about Temple of Elemental Evil was the different narratives you got starting off according to the different alignments. Chaotic Evil characters started off ransacking a farm town, Lawful Evil started off attacking a church, etc. If anything, I'd hope they tried to kick it up a notch and offer even more diversity in the narrative according to the ethics you follow.

 

Pidgeonholing every character into a heroic archetype is one of the major things wrong with RPG's these days. You're playing someone elses role at that point, instead of creating your own role.

[Delterius]

How do we define a character that always helps people out but does so because they realize that good PR usually means good rewards?

 

Alignment discussions are a neverending story unto themselves but, depending on what exactly that person does when PR isn't a concern, I'd say either Lawful Neutral or Lawful Neutral (adherence to a self-imposed code of conduct, motivation behind it lacking).

[Audiocide]

But what if they have a quest where you have to talk to a guy, exchange information with him, then go to another guy. Well, if he rushes in and kills them, then the guy can't tell him what he needs to know, he can't tell him who to talk to. So what, he's going to have a note on him? And that's going to be the situation for all quests that import non-item updates? Everyone has completely on-topic notes in their pockets.

 

They would have to implement a unique quest solution for this one playstyle whose real objective is to just break the game. Or never let quests have information be the objective. It's either limiting on the quest design, or its lots of extra quest design.

 

Good point.

 

They could put some limitations so it wouldn't be a viable option every time. For instance, he's defended so well that the crossbowmen kill you immediately if you attack. Fear is a very good reason NOT to do something for a chaotic evil character. Or the answer is in a safe in his house, but now you have no way to know which house is his, so you have to search for it.

 

Chris Avellone said it himself -- The story doesn't matter if the player isn't allowed his own perspectives, and can't choose how he wants his characters story to play out.

 

Good man!

Edited September 16, 2012 by Audiocide

[Badmojo]

It could be implemented to a reasonable degree. So you have to get the key to open a door from someone? You could just go in and kill everyone. You get the same amount of XP, but you miss a lot of dialogue. Perhaps the game would be shorter, but simple workarounds could be done.

But what if they have a quest where you have to talk to a guy, exchange information with him, then go to another guy. Well, if he rushes in and kills them, then the guy can't tell him what he needs to know, he can't tell him who to talk to. So what, he's going to have a note on him? And that's going to be the situation for all quests that import non-item updates? Everyone has completely on-topic notes in their pockets.

 

They would have to implement a unique quest solution for this one playstyle whose real objective is to just break the game. Or never let quests have information be the objective. It's either limiting on the quest design, or its lots of extra quest design.

 

Maybe not notes but there should be multiple ways of getting information. That is how most RPG's are, a servant might have overheard the conversation, a journal in the room,etc. Choices are good, and having options are good, that inludes different types of evil, from the cold calculating evil genious to the guy who goes around kicking puppies and killing all that gets in his way. The idea is to have the options to play as you like and not be forced into a specific mindset. We have more than enough of that type of games now. What is the point of creating your own character if the chracters personality is already limited to a few styles of play.

[ComradeGoby]

It could be implemented to a reasonable degree. So you have to get the key to open a door from someone? You could just go in and kill everyone. You get the same amount of XP, but you miss a lot of dialogue. Perhaps the game would be shorter, but simple workarounds could be done.

But what if they have a quest where you have to talk to a guy, exchange information with him, then go to another guy. Well, if he rushes in and kills them, then the guy can't tell him what he needs to know, he can't tell him who to talk to. So what, he's going to have a note on him? And that's going to be the situation for all quests that import non-item updates? Everyone has completely on-topic notes in their pockets.

 

They would have to implement a unique quest solution for this one playstyle whose real objective is to just break the game. Or never let quests have information be the objective. It's either limiting on the quest design, or its lots of extra quest design.

 

Arcanum you can kill anybody and advance.

 

It doesn't brea kthe game at all.

 

It's fun playing an aristocrat who just shoots someone instead of going through a fetch quest to get information.

[Humanoid]

I'm less worried about the extent to which "extreme" options are implemented as much as the balance issue of character power which tends to inflate the value of being a kind soul - it's somewhat backwards after all that the samaritan almost inevitably ends up with more riches and power than the selfish bastard, because of the meta-game concept of sidequest rewards.

 

The question posed as an example would be something like the usual "please save my kitten" quest - my mean-spirited jerk would naturally tend to respond along the lines of "solve your own problems, kid" instead of something ridiculous like setting fire to the tree. But how do you assign both material and XP rewards to this kind of decision point without the entirety of the game ending up lopsided in the value of the virtuous?

 

In general, I'm of the belief that the impact of sidequests in the average RPG could do with some big cuts - make them into opportunities that help define a character without necessarily having to provide a tangible reward for them.

[Shadowless]

I would indeed love well thought out evil actions that you can do in quests, but I would also love a few quests where people believe they are truly doing good but it takes a VERY suprising turn and it happens that their actions caused a village to be slaughtered or something similar. I would love those types of quests where you have no forewarning that your intentions may be good but the outcome is anything but.

[Tale]

It could be implemented to a reasonable degree. So you have to get the key to open a door from someone? You could just go in and kill everyone. You get the same amount of XP, but you miss a lot of dialogue. Perhaps the game would be shorter, but simple workarounds could be done.

But what if they have a quest where you have to talk to a guy, exchange information with him, then go to another guy. Well, if he rushes in and kills them, then the guy can't tell him what he needs to know, he can't tell him who to talk to. So what, he's going to have a note on him? And that's going to be the situation for all quests that import non-item updates? Everyone has completely on-topic notes in their pockets.

 

They would have to implement a unique quest solution for this one playstyle whose real objective is to just break the game. Or never let quests have information be the objective. It's either limiting on the quest design, or its lots of extra quest design.

 

Arcanum you can kill anybody and advance.

 

It doesn't brea kthe game at all.

 

It's fun playing an aristocrat who just shoots someone instead of going through a fetch quest to get information.

That's fair, Tim and Josh have done it for previous games, they probably know how to do it without much compromise. I'll withdraw my objection in light of evidence.

[duskwind]

Because, unfortunately, splitting it in half only account for one major choice at the beginning. So while that might cover the two extremes of good and evil, what about plot-changing choices in the middle?

 

There's no need for a major choice to be right at the beginning. I'd generally expect the early stages of the game to set up what comes later, and you can't make meaningful plot-related decisions till you've gotten far enough for your PC to have an idea what the plot is. I'd suggest a couple of choke points in the mid game with alternate paths between them, and real branching out at the end. And the usual level of choices and reactions to past choices within each section (so the choke points would play somewhat differently depending on how you get there).

 

Eg 5 hours [ two 5 hour options ] 5 hours [ three 5 hour options ] 5 hours [ four 5 hour options ] as a simple example of 60 hours content in a 30 hour game. It could be broken up in a more complex manner, eg an endgame with three 3 hour options followed by two additional 2 hour options in each branch (for a total of six endings)

[duskwind]

I'd love more grey, more choices, more consequences. "Mature" psychological content requires more grey, IMO; but to have a good amount of quality grey, you still need the range between good-evil. So we can't cut evil if we're after this kind of depth.

 

But we've got a finite palette (the size of the trees the developers have resources to produce), so the wider the gamut, the cruder the distinctions. I'd rather have a few shades of light grey to choose from (with darker shades added by being presented with tough choices rather than just because the PC doesn't care about hurting innocents) than just black, white, and mid grey. Posterization gives much better results on a greyscale image than on a colourful one.

[Darji]

There should not really be good and evil: but it should be like the world is. Grey. Of course there are evil people but they also have their reason and many think that is for their own or other good. I really do not want a meter like in newer Bioware titles but I also want to chose my actions and consequences.

 

For example going a more evil route could unlock some special advance class Like from Thief class to a Assassins class and so on.

[RogueBurger]

Because, unfortunately, splitting it in half only account for one major choice at the beginning. So while that might cover the two extremes of good and evil, what about plot-changing choices in the middle?

 

There's no need for a major choice to be right at the beginning. I'd generally expect the early stages of the game to set up what comes later, and you can't make meaningful plot-related decisions till you've gotten far enough for your PC to have an idea what the plot is. I'd suggest a couple of choke points in the mid game with alternate paths between them, and real branching out at the end. And the usual level of choices and reactions to past choices within each section (so the choke points would play somewhat differently depending on how you get there).

 

Eg 5 hours [ two 5 hour options ] 5 hours [ three 5 hour options ] 5 hours [ four 5 hour options ] as a simple example of 60 hours content in a 30 hour game. It could be broken up in a more complex manner, eg an endgame with three 3 hour options followed by two additional 2 hour options in each branch (for a total of six endings)

 

Your example illustrates the exact problem I have with the system. It keeps merging back with itself. So those three big 5 hour events are ultimately meaningless because at the end of 5 hours you'll end up at the same place no matter what. If the choices are going to be real game-altering choices they need to permanently branch off. Like so:

                      |--[5 hours]--|
              |--[5 hours]--|
              |           |--[5 hours]--|
      |--[5 hours]--|
      |          |           |--[5 hours]--|
      |          |--[5 hours]--|
      |                   |--[5 hours]--|
[5 hours]--|
      |                   |--[5 hours]--|
      |          |--[5 hours]--|
      |          |           |--[5 hours]--|
      |--[5 hours]--|
              |           |--[5 hours]--|
              |--[5 hours]--|
                      |--[5 hours]--|

 

Here we have a 20 hour game with 3 major game-changing events that only have two choices each for a total of 75 hours of game that needs to be developed. Every 5 hours you add to this game increases the development needed exponentially. Every extra choice you add to any game-changing event increases development exponentially. Every game-changing event that you add increases development exponentially.

 

The moral of the story: you can't have very many real choices in a video game. The game will ultimately have to follow a limited number of predefined paths which may or may not offer you the illusion of choice. I would prefer that they got rid of the branching storyline all together and wrote one storyline that is amazing and long.

Edited September 17, 2012 by RogueBurger

[Ieo]

I'd love more grey, more choices, more consequences. "Mature" psychological content requires more grey, IMO; but to have a good amount of quality grey, you still need the range between good-evil. So we can't cut evil if we're after this kind of depth.

 

But we've got a finite palette (the size of the trees the developers have resources to produce), so the wider the gamut, the cruder the distinctions. I'd rather have a few shades of light grey to choose from (with darker shades added by being presented with tough choices rather than just because the PC doesn't care about hurting innocents) than just black, white, and mid grey. Posterization gives much better results on a greyscale image than on a colourful one.

 

I see what you mean. I admit, I was thinking of it in painting terms--"Well, in order to get grey you have to mix white and black, so of course you can't avoid black, duh!"

 

Still, PS:T managed to cover both ends and a bunch of the middle admirably, with enough overall content, so here's to hoping. (Anyone have an idea of how much PS:T cost? BG?)

[Badmojo]

Because, unfortunately, splitting it in half only account for one major choice at the beginning. So while that might cover the two extremes of good and evil, what about plot-changing choices in the middle?

 

There's no need for a major choice to be right at the beginning. I'd generally expect the early stages of the game to set up what comes later, and you can't make meaningful plot-related decisions till you've gotten far enough for your PC to have an idea what the plot is. I'd suggest a couple of choke points in the mid game with alternate paths between them, and real branching out at the end. And the usual level of choices and reactions to past choices within each section (so the choke points would play somewhat differently depending on how you get there).

 

Eg 5 hours [ two 5 hour options ] 5 hours [ three 5 hour options ] 5 hours [ four 5 hour options ] as a simple example of 60 hours content in a 30 hour game. It could be broken up in a more complex manner, eg an endgame with three 3 hour options followed by two additional 2 hour options in each branch (for a total of six endings)

 

Your example illustrates the exact problem I have with the system. It keeps merging back with itself. So those three big 5 hour events are ultimately meaningless because at the end of 5 hours you'll end up at the same place no matter what. If the choices are going to be real game-altering choices they need to permanently branch off. Like so:

|--[5 hours]--|
|--[5 hours]--|
| |--[5 hours]--|
|--[5 hours]--|
| | |--[5 hours]--|
| |--[5 hours]--|
| |--[5 hours]--|
[5 hours]--|
| |--[5 hours]--|
| |--[5 hours]--|
| | |--[5 hours]--|
|--[5 hours]--|
| |--[5 hours]--|
|--[5 hours]--|
|--[5 hours]--|

 

Here we have a 20 hour game with 3 major game-changing events that only have two choices each for a total of 75 hours of game that needs to be developed. Every 5 hours you add to this game increases the development needed exponentially. Every extra choice you add to any game-changing event increases development exponentially. Every game-changing event that you add increases development exponentially.

 

The moral of the story: you can't have very many real choices in a video game. The game will ultimately have to follow a limited number of predefined paths which may or may not offer you the illusion of choice. I would prefer that they got rid of the branching storyline all together and wrote one storyline that is amazing and long.

 

If they got rid of branching decisions, then I think I and others would withdraw our money and leave. Branching decisions is the staple of good old RPG's and the biggest reason many of us are putting money into this game, removing that and its not even an RPG' its just some on rails game where your actions are meaningless. So its basically would just be dragon age 2.

[Enclave]

I think the issue the TC has is that he's expecting the same sort of black and white choices that you get in games like KotOR and other newer games. I suggest he goes to play Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment. Much better choices there.

[DAWUSS]

Just remember you'll always be placed upon the constraints set by the censorship boards who determine ratings for entertainment material.

[Nakia]

Player's choice but let there be consequences. My most fun game in BG/ToB was playing smart evil. Being smart evil simply means being self centered. You aren't out to kill just for the sake of killing. Neither are you out to save the world at any cost. Oh and companions should get part of the loot. "Follow me" "Why? What do I get out of it?"