Evil PC Options

Who remembers the 'adventurer's guide' magic item from IWD2. It was full of adventuring truisms, my favourite of which was something like:

 

Face it: You're Neutral Evil

 

Alignment is a deeply anachronistic gaming mechanic linked to D&D. I doubt it will ever make it into an original IP project like this. Which is, all said and done, a good thing. Conversely, if I want to play a ruthless, amoral bastard then so be it. The game should react to that, though.

Take away the evil options and automatically play a hero? How boring! Besides, one person isn't everyone. I'm sure there are plenty of people who do play evil characters that would appreciate some well thought out evil choices in the game. I'm not going to suggest depriving someone of certain choices simply because I don't pick them in my games.

 

I really don't like it when games make the assumption that I'm going to be playing a good character. Because I very rarely play a good character. Most of my player characters have been varying shades of neutral (mad or otherwise), and I do like trying to explore the different choices offered on subsequent playthroughs with a new character (good, evil, or somewhere in between).

 

Planescape: Torment is a perfect example of evil done well, I'd love to see something similar to that in terms of choices about what we can do. Besides, I've seen no mention of being so short of cash that they'll have to cut out a whole chunk of our player choices because of it. If they were I'm sure there would have been a stretch goal saying 'Reach this goal for more player choices!'.

I'd prefer there weren't any. No objection to the idea in principle, but given finite resources, I'd much rather go with the assumption that the PC is a heroic type as the starting point, and offer more choices from that perspective.

 

I pretty much agree with this--I'd like to have complex choices, but I'd prefer dialog not breakdown like this:

 

1. Ghandi and Mother Teresa Lovechild

2. Bland Man from Blandistan

3. BITCH WHERE'S MY MONEY

4. Puppy kicking and baby eating

 

It's not the good/evil options that I object to so much as the idea that good vs. evil breaks down to "save the baby" vs. "eat the baby".

 

That being said, I'm also not a huge fan of choices that break down to things like "which one of these people do I feed into the chipper shredder so that the other two can live?" That's not a difficult choice. That's a *stupid* choice. Granted . . . I could see having a couple of situations like that come up (infrequently), if you make a series of bad or confused decisions because running up against the Chipper Shredder Roulette is a great way to startle people into THINKING about this stuff, particularly if they come back through that situation on a later playthrough and discover, ZOMG, I could have AVOIDED all that?!?!?!

 

And, lastly, I'd like to have tons of decisions that don't just come down to picking one dialog option over another. It's an IMPORTANT decision if you, say, decide to go clear out the side rooms or charge straight to the end boss. It's an important decision if you take the time to disarm the traps. It's important if you decide to investigate around and get more info rather than just taking the first person you talk to at their word. These things should have story effects even though they aren't the kinds of decisions you make by clicking a particular line of dialog over another.

 

Bioware in particular has pretty much abandoned those kinds of decisions, so it feels like the gameplay and story are locked in different rooms.

Edited September 17, 2012 by PsychoBlonde

^ All good points, but I have to say that there is definitely a time and place for puppy-kicking and baby-eating in a CRPG.

I'd prefer there weren't any. No objection to the idea in principle, but given finite resources, I'd much rather go with the assumption that the PC is a heroic type as the starting point, and offer more choices from that perspective.

 

I pretty much agree with this--I'd like to have complex choices, but I'd prefer dialog not breakdown like this:

 

1. Ghandi and Mother Teresa Lovechild

2. Bland Man from Blandistan

3. BITCH WHERE'S MY MONEY

4. Puppy kicking and baby eating

 

It's not the good/evil options that I object to so much as the idea that good vs. evil breaks down to "save the baby" vs. "eat the baby".

 

That being said, I'm also not a huge fan of choices that break down to things like "which one of these people do I feed into the chipper shredder so that the other two can live?" That's not a difficult choice. That's a *stupid* choice. Granted . . . I could see having a couple of situations like that come up (infrequently), if you make a series of bad or confused decisions because running up against the Chipper Shredder Roulette is a great way to startle people into THINKING about this stuff, particularly if they come back through that situation on a later playthrough and discover, ZOMG, I could have AVOIDED all that?!?!?!

 

And, lastly, I'd like to have tons of decisions that don't just come down to picking one dialog option over another. It's an IMPORTANT decision if you, say, decide to go clear out the side rooms or charge straight to the end boss. It's an important decision if you take the time to disarm the traps. It's important if you decide to investigate around and get more info rather than just taking the first person you talk to at their word. These things should have story effects even though they aren't the kinds of decisions you make by clicking a particular line of dialog over another.

 

Bioware in particular has pretty much abandoned those kinds of decisions, so it feels like the gameplay and story are locked in different rooms.

 

I have to agree with you and why choices seem so strange in modern games. The choices are simply so extreme from one choice to another. In one instance I can choose to be a saint and then another I can be a baby eater in my next choice. The game really forces me to either roleplay one or the other and if I do not choose a side I'll lose out on buffs (in Bioware games at least). I much rather not make choices that are good, neutral or evil but rather meaningful choices for that particular situation. I'm a fan of unintentional consequences, something I did that I thought was good might have made a situation worse or doing something evil was actually the way to go in the long run.

 

 

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.

 

This, a thousand times this

Mass Effect 3 seems like exactly the sort of tragedy this project is structured to avoid. Without the burden of a demanding publisher, AAA production values, and full voice acting, it's far easier to account for branching plots.

I would like the option to be the villain. Be it because of personal ideology, desire for personal wealth or power, being the bad guy is fun.

 

That doesn't mean the PC twirls his mustache, it just mean the characters of this world view the PC in that light. I always find it funny when people yell evil just means playing caricature despite the fact, that playing good is the exact same thing.

I like the idea of having a spectrum of lawful versus lawless/rebellious and then another spectrum that is more altruistic/empathetic versus selfish/ ends oriented. Sometimes the end-game part is less of an interest to me than how one gets there... for example within quests, are you able to uncover the information through subterfuge/charisma or through spying/ thief work or through bullying the weaker or through using the law to search a place, etc, etc. I like the idea that although perhaps solving most quests ends in the same way, the method of solving them (and thus the time taken/the difficulty/the effort involved) is variable.

 

If you need to investigate a particular house for example, intimidation could be the easiest route, but if they are innocent is this the most moral way? No. Breaking in and spying is perhaps less amoral because you are looking for evidence first but obviously you are breaking rules and invading someone's privacy. However, choosing the most 'moral route' of gaining a search warrant or similar may not be possible (and this could open possibilities of developing a relationship with the law-enforcing faction, where if you have helped with other law enforcement you are more likely to be assisted in other quests with legal back-up).

 

Instead of having necessarily much of a different end-result as variable, you can have a reward in relation to less-effort completing the quest; gaining more skills in your thievery (and perhaps actually getting to the bottom of the investigation); gaining more trust within a law-enforcement faction, etc... Doe this make sense? I am babbling a bit!

 

I also love the possibility that @duskwind suggested that a betrayal of a companion (or even just failing to win them over) ends up with them turning up at various points and 'messing' with your plans. Again it doesn't require a divergence in plot, but just a complication perhaps...

 

Or you could have a quest where for example there are a string of murders and if you have developed a relationship to a particular NPC you become aware of the murders earlier or have access to more clues earlier which means that you manage to stop them resulting in fewer deaths. (Maybe this could be one of the contingencies to calculate whether or not you solve the quest before a major player (like a Lord or something) that will actually affect the plot is killed).

 

Oooh sorry just the idea of having intertwined and meaningful consequences really gets me thinking!

 

Also some more political manoeuvrability in the fashion that Dragon Age 2 was *attempting* would be fantastic and may be where some of the development is headed if they have factions, etc! I think Game of Thrones/ A song of ice and fire can be a source of a lot of inspiration, particularly for examples of greyscale decisions where none of the choices are obvious or where choices have veiled consequences.

 

Okay ramble over for now!

I want as much player choice as possible. That means being the bad guy.

 

I want as much player choice as possible too; but since I don't want to play the bad guy, any development effort spent on bad guy options is taking away real choices for me.

 

I never manage to play "evil" consistently, but I can't get behind that. Since our choices and our perception of freedom (of choice) are directly influenced by what choices the writers thought out and made available for us - they design the whole moral compass. Those options should be there, if only to amplify the selfless choices you make. Knowing that you could rob someone of all their riches instead of accepting a measly 1000gp for overthrowing a kingdom makes the peaceful path much more noble, but if accepting that reward is your only choice, it's not a good deed at all. You didn't sacrifice anything, because you never had another chance.

I think what people are generally saying is "I really don't think blowing up Megaton for 500 caps is a realistic option..." Stupid Evil is a definite no, and simply offering a cash profit doesn't justify outrageously evil options; a sociopath is selfish, not shortsighted. Slaughtering an entire town for some spare cash? Definitely seems like the entire town would have more to offer if you work with them, no?

"Let's blow up the town! I'll give you some moneys! Come on, it'll be fun!"

THIS IS MORAL CONFLICT

 

Edit:

Without a choice to be evil, there can be no choice to be good. You're simply doing what you're forced to do. There's no point in being the hero if you're never given the opportunity to be something different.

I trust Obsidian to put some thought into their moral dilemmas. Utilitarian view vs Idealism. Equality vs individuality. Will you follow the law or act at your own discretion? And so on.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Astanas

A lot of folks seem to be focused on the good vs evil thing, I personally prefer to go with the idea of altruism vs ruthlessness and I'm not particularly worried if a goal is the same for multiple paths in a game, as long as the play experience along the way is different and you can change the outcome by your choices. To give an example of what I mean, take the following scenario (it's going to be terribly simple and involve kittens, don't mind that or read too much into it).

 

Basic scenario is you have a bunch of warring/bickering states and a big bad over yonder who is going to come along and drown all your kittens unless you stop them (not familiar at all right?). You need to somehow put an end to the local bushfires and defeat the big bad thus preserving your kittens for posterity. How you go about doing that and the outcome of the game are where the story is. Three basic paths:

1. Altruistic noble hero - you're going to use diplomacy and personal charimsa to unite like-minded fellows in a grand alliance to defeat the big bad and have a golden age of enlightenment and kittens for all.
   
2. Ruthless bastard - you're going to use whatever means necessary to force everyone to follow you, whether its torture, assassination, intimidation or brute force to forge an empire that can take on the big bad, resulting in you plonking your butt firmly on a throne of blood and keeping all the kittens for yourself in a thousand year empire ruled by an iron fist.
   
3. Opportunistic player - you'll take the middle path, using what seems appropriate at the time and probably end up with a loose association facing the big bad, and if you win you'll probably end up splintering into warring factions again as soon as its time to decide who gets the kittens.
   

End goal is exactly the same in each path (defeat big bad), but how you go about it and the resulting outcome will be very different. You might even have the option to throw in the towel and be the big bads viceroy and snaggle a kitten or two for yourself while betraying everyone else to a horrible kittenless existence.

 

tl:dr - As long as the choices you make affect the experience along the way and the overall outcome, I guess I'm fine with it even if you do end up with points where the paths converge occasionally.

One good approach would be if the entire spectrum of choices was chosen from a set of ideologies - for example the Factions in Sigil in the Planescape setting or the different groups in Fallout: New Vegas. Some of these ideologies are of course bound to be more "evil".

 

Also, I would like for the devs to speculate about the true meaning of "good" and "evil" as "constructive" versus "destructive". A destructive choice will always benefit the PC in the short term, but will result in much harder problems later - a "backlash". A constructive choice will require more effort from the PC, but won't leave any long-term problems.

 

For example, people hate doing fetch quests. An alternative could be to just kill the quest giver and take whatever you need from him/her. This will probably result in the PC being alienated with the quest giver's faction, which might result in them teaming up with the PCs enemies, not offering the PC support later in the game, or something similar. The point is that by taking the "easy" or "destructive" way out, you will have created a harder game later on. Too often, "good" or "evil" are only different flavours of the same solution to a problem. Also, evil ways of solving problem are often shoehorned in when they don't make any sense for many kinds of evil PCs.

 

Chaotic Evil: Inflicting harm upon others with no apparent gain for yourself

Evil: Inflicting harm upon others when this confers short- term gains upon yourself

Lawful Evil: Doing good to others when common sense dictates this, no objections against inflicting harm upon others if reason seems to allow this

 

This is the essence of the difference between stupid/psychopath/chaotic evil and realistic evil, which shouldn't be clumped together because they're entirely different things. When the choice is between a constructive solution and a reward of a "blue, knightly sword" or a destructive solution and an equally balanced "black, villainous sword" there is no essential choice between good and evil. The evil reward should always be larger and more tempting, but with the danger of having later consequences, because that's how evil works in real life.

 

I want good and evil to be two distinct kinds of gameplay, two entirely different approaches, two unique ways of solving problems - not just different flavours. Sorry for my rambling, I wrote this while my GF was distracting me

Creslyn seems to be on a right track.

 

When I am thinking about good and evil options, I always notice developers avoid long-term decisions. Basically, you can act nice or not, but it usually boils down to acting in that one particular situation without any consequences. I think good and evil paths should let player promote his agenda in the world somehow. As an example, take a village attacked by goblins. Instead of persuading peasants by paragon/renegade blue/red lines, let good character ask for the help of a monarch, get money and build a fort to protect them; and evil one - gather bands of mercenaries and ransack and pillage it with great rewards.

 

Well, actually, Obsidian *is* good with that stuff, F:NV had a lot of it. So I'm not really worried we'd lack some interesting options and morale dilemmas.

I think what people are generally saying is "I really don't think blowing up Megaton for 500 caps is a realistic option..." Stupid Evil is a definite no, and simply offering a cash profit doesn't justify outrageously evil options; a sociopath is selfish, not shortsighted. Slaughtering an entire town for some spare cash? Definitely seems like the entire town would have more to offer if you work with them, no?

"Let's blow up the town! I'll give you some moneys! Come on, it'll be fun!"

THIS IS MORAL CONFLICT

 

Edit:

Without a choice to be evil, there can be no choice to be good. You're simply doing what you're forced to do. There's no point in being the hero if you're never given the opportunity to be something different.

I trust Obsidian to put some thought into their moral dilemmas. Utilitarian view vs Idealism. Equality vs individuality. Will you follow the law or act at your own discretion? And so on.

 

Problem with your example is that it's too blatantly evil. I prefer far more morally grey choices. For instance, evil doesn't mean cartoonishly evil such as blowing up a city.

 

An evil character can do good. They'll just do it out of pure self interest. It's the characters motivations that determine if a choice is evil or not, not if it's just some crazy thing like blowing up a town or mugging some random person. This is the problem with modern RPGs, they've been writing them in a way that it makes evil characters just jerks not actually evil.

 

Here's an example. A good character could save a town from monsters because it's the right thing to do. An evil character could save a town from monsters because it will because it will improve his rep, a rep he can then abuse for his own goals.

I have no interest in playing evil characters but in D&D terms, the only kind of evil characters I'd play would be Lawful Evil (tyrant type). Which is cool because that kind of evil can work in group and society.

 

But it's good to have options so the players can define their character beyond some stats and class. Consequences, good and bad, should exist. But I don't think that a mass murderer sociopath pointessly destructive PC makes much sense in this kind of game. Unless you are playing Bethesda "RPG".

Problem with your example is that it's too blatantly evil. I prefer far more morally grey choices. For instance, evil doesn't mean cartoonishly evil such as blowing up a city.

That 'example' actually had nothing to do with the rest of the post. Well, not directly, anyway.

Think of it as an example of how not do moral conflict in your game. As I said, I have confidence in Obsidian. They'll manage to do it properly.

I always play the evil dude when I can.

 

Dungeon Keeper 2 <3.

 

Anyway, I think Baldur's Gate does this brilliantly. You can play evil if you want. The story is not about saving some ****ty kingdom I don't care **** about (as it is in Dragon Age). I want to be able to make my own moral decisions who to save or not. Maybe I hate humans. So maybe I don't care about saving the human race in some crappy RPG.

 

My point is, I really hope that Obsidian makes a main quest that is really about something you'd care about no matter what moral or religious beliefs you have. Of course you can have a kingdom in peril, but instead of saving it, maybe I want to conquer it?

 

And to take it even further, I really enjoy having the choice of going for this cartoonish evil if I am punished for it.

Maybe I decide to blow up a city courthouse. Maybe the guards find out it was me. Maybe I get killed for it. Even though my character dies it was a choice and it was darn funny having the choice. Just having the choice tickles my RPG heart.

Edited September 17, 2012 by AdaMusic

An evil character can do good. They'll just do it out of pure self interest.

 

Why can't you play a maniac, like in RPGs such as Vampire: The Masquerade? It is hell of fun and I bet same amount of people love playing mad evil as the amount of people who love playing good as a saint.

 

Why do you think Dungeon Keeper 2 was so popular?

 

Also, I would like for the devs to speculate about the true meaning of "good" and "evil" as "constructive" versus "destructive". A destructive choice will always benefit the PC in the short term, but will result in much harder problems later - a "backlash". A constructive choice will require more effort from the PC, but won't leave any long-term problems.

 

Why always? Doesn't seem very logical. Sometimes being evil pays off, even in real life. Why do you think there are millionaires and billionaires? Not saying they are evil, but most of them definatley did something out of own interest and ended up having **** loads of money without any definite "backlash".

Edited September 17, 2012 by AdaMusic

There's no problem with choices where you play a totally insane person, just don't make those the only evil options. Look at Knights of the Old Republic, in the first one the evil choices generally amounted to little more than petty thugery or just flat out dickishness and this is how most games today deal with good and evil choices. There was nothing subtle or grey about the choices.

for once in my life i would like to finish the game as a lawful evil!

in ps:t this was near impossible for me. many evil choices led to botching of quests, slaughtering of NPCs and getting jack **** at the end (had to compensate by killing critters). regardless, i still couldn't be lawful, just chaotic evil. so this aspect is quite important for me. obsidian, you hear?

Here's an example. A good character could save a town from monsters because it's the right thing to do. An evil character could save a town from monsters because it will because it will improve his rep, a rep he can then abuse for his own goals.

 

I can support this model... If and only if you can both clearly identify to the game why you are doing this and you are obliged to follow through and abuse the reputation that you've gained for the PCs evil goals.

 

Most commonly, though, when I see statements like that what is truly mean is something along the lines of: "An evil character can save the town in order to get the best rewards (XP / items / future quest possibilities) possible, then (well after the game and all possible squeals ends) he / she might do something that is slightly naughty, but only if there is no risk that he/she would get caught. Something like stealing a pen, perhaps. But regardless, he / she is evil because he / she is thinking really evil thoughts!!!"

 

If the game can't distinguish between your actions and the actions of a paladin, either the game doesn't support playing evil or your definition of evil is very different from mine.

If they let us play the Practical Incarnation-esque game, I'd say my requirements for an ambiguously evil playthrough would be quite satisfied. He's not evil, per se. Just relentlessly, psychopathically practical. That selfishness, IMO, is what leads to most of the real 'evil' in this world, though of course truly bat**** insane individuals exist, too.

Here's an example. A good character could save a town from monsters because it's the right thing to do. An evil character could save a town from monsters because it will because it will improve his rep, a rep he can then abuse for his own goals.

 

I can support this model... If and only if you can both clearly identify to the game why you are doing this and you are obliged to follow through and abuse the reputation that you've gained for the PCs evil goals.

 

Most commonly, though, when I see statements like that what is truly mean is something along the lines of: "An evil character can save the town in order to get the best rewards (XP / items / future quest possibilities) possible, then (well after the game and all possible squeals ends) he / she might do something that is slightly naughty, but only if there is no risk that he/she would get caught. Something like stealing a pen, perhaps. But regardless, he / she is evil because he / she is thinking really evil thoughts!!!"

 

If the game can't distinguish between your actions and the actions of a paladin, either the game doesn't support playing evil or your definition of evil is very different from mine.

 

One easy way to deal with this is to do away with alignment. Just give options. For instance, say you save a town you will not get +1 light side points or something of the sort. Instead it simply increases your reputation (reputation which shouldn't be used to determine if your character is good or evil, Hitler had a fantastic reputation at one time) this reputation opens more dialogue options, some of which could very well be you abusing your power for your own gain.

 

Really, this is one of the reasons people want alignment to be removed from D&D. It's restrictive to actual RPing.

 

I want dialogue options where I can go to the mayor and suggest I get a bonus for saving the town, or possibly that I should be "gifted" the towns magical weapon that was carried by a town founder and if he disagrees I can supply some kind of threat. If he decides to warn the town folk about what I'm saying to him I would love to ask him who would the townfolk believe? The person who saved the town from certain destruction at risk of his own life or the town mayor who hid in his office the entire time?

 

See, doing that is pretty blatantly on the evil side but it's not unreasonably difficult to write and implement. It also gives me incentive to do good deeds but for reasons that are themselves evil.

 

Bare in mind, that's only one example. It can be dealt with in any number of different ways and scenarios.

Here's an example. A good character could save a town from monsters because it's the right thing to do. An evil character could save a town from monsters because it will because it will improve his rep, a rep he can then abuse for his own goals.

 

I can support this model... If and only if you can both clearly identify to the game why you are doing this and you are obliged to follow through and abuse the reputation that you've gained for the PCs evil goals.

 

Most commonly, though, when I see statements like that what is truly mean is something along the lines of: "An evil character can save the town in order to get the best rewards (XP / items / future quest possibilities) possible, then (well after the game and all possible squeals ends) he / she might do something that is slightly naughty, but only if there is no risk that he/she would get caught. Something like stealing a pen, perhaps. But regardless, he / she is evil because he / she is thinking really evil thoughts!!!"

 

If the game can't distinguish between your actions and the actions of a paladin, either the game doesn't support playing evil or your definition of evil is very different from mine.

 

One easy way to deal with this is to do away with alignment. Just give options. For instance, say you save a town you will not get +1 light side points or something of the sort. Instead it simply increases your reputation (reputation which shouldn't be used to determine if your character is good or evil, Hitler had a fantastic reputation at one time) this reputation opens more dialogue options, some of which could very well be you abusing your power for your own gain.

 

Really, this is one of the reasons people want alignment to be removed from D&D. It's restrictive to actual RPing.

 

I want dialogue options where I can go to the mayor and suggest I get a bonus for saving the town, or possibly that I should be "gifted" the towns magical weapon that was carried by a town founder and if he disagrees I can supply some kind of threat. If he decides to warn the town folk about what I'm saying to him I would love to ask him who would the townfolk believe? The person who saved the town from certain destruction at risk of his own life or the town mayor who hid in his office the entire time?

 

See, doing that is pretty blatantly on the evil side but it's not unreasonably difficult to write and implement. It also gives me incentive to do good deeds but for reasons that are themselves evil.

 

Bare in mind, that's only one example. It can be dealt with in any number of different ways and scenarios.

 

ok, i think i see the advantages of a reputation system. i just hope that my evil deeds of valor will not be for naught say, a high advocate wants me to save his daughter from a monster. i save her but on the way back, i rape her, then kill her and then kill his father. would i somehow be rewarded by an evil faction?

Edited September 19, 2012 by molarBear