Evil PC Options

[Chunkyman]

I loved how in DA:O I could play a sociopath. I was crying with laughter after I had sex with Cammen's girlfriend and told him I was just "Sampling the goods".

 

I really hope Obsidian allows characters to be sociopaths.

[Giantevilhead]

[MReed]

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.

 

The scenario you described would definitely qualify as evil in my book -- but only if you knew about the sword in advance. I'd probably prefer that you tell the game your motivations up front, when accepting the quest as well (a dialog option that reads something along these lines: "Yes, I'll save the town [THINKING: ...in return for your prized heirloom sword]", as this may be relevant in the resolution of the "Save the town" quest. For example, rather than saving the town outright, you might want to suspend the thread (rather than stopping it completely) to provide leverage in later discussions with the mayor.

 

In any case, though, the point that I was making is that people who say "I'm doing good, but with evil "long-term" plans" generally don't actually have any concrete evil long-term plans, or whatever their plan is isn't something that can be done within the framework of the game. In my judgement, that's not really "evil".

[Golgothar]

Here is my view on how evil and evil choices could be present in the game.

 

I believe that having a degree of evil decisions is of course needed, however i would hate to see a system like AD&D on games like NeverWinter where you have an alignment and either gain or loose points. That leads to either a tendency to go on the average (i kill this guy because he pisses me off and ill need to help the next farmers i find), or to go to the extremes (I always need to help everyone), which doesn't really add to the quality of the game, since your are "forced" on every "choice" you make.

I would rather see decisions and choices like fallout, where you don't necessarily have a good or evil character but he shifts constantly with every decision. I can be a really nice guy but decide that the best couse of action is to drop a nuclear bomb on a city. That action in turn of course affects the game.

 

Considering also the development and time/resources limits is a preferable scenario since all the decsions are seen by all players and you don't actually brach out decisions to good or evil characters that the other cranch will never see.

 

Having said that, i do believe that major decisions could have small followup stories, those are the kind of decisions that make you want to play again. When you finish the game you will think, what would have happened if i hadnt dropped that bomb, i wonder...

 

Golg

[Rostere]

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".

 

As should an high- Int high Cha character be able to trick and use more stupid NPCs for his own ends. If you're very intelligent, you will find many ways to amass wealth in the modern society. You're talking about the equivalent of a high- Str high- Dex sportsman having success in sports...

 

I'm not really seeing the problem here...

[Redwulf]

"Evil shall never triumph!"

However, there should be an evil path/ending to the game, for those demented souls who eat Paladins and drink priests' blood. However, I remember reading in I think it was PC Gamer years ago that most gamers never play the "evil" path in games, so I think the primary focus should be on the "high" road, since that is what most people will be playing anyways. Now if they get enough time and resources then they should expand on the evil route and make it quite different then the path of the white-clad smiters. That would be a major plus and add good role-playing for all.

[Enclave]

"Evil shall never triumph!"

However, there should be an evil path/ending to the game, for those demented souls who eat Paladins and drink priests' blood. However, I remember reading in I think it was PC Gamer years ago that most gamers never play the "evil" path in games, so I think the primary focus should be on the "high" road, since that is what most people will be playing anyways. Now if they get enough time and resources then they should expand on the evil route and make it quite different then the path of the white-clad smiters. That would be a major plus and add good role-playing for all.

 

Part of the reason people don't play the evil path is because evil is always so poorly written. It's almost always portrayed as being a pathetic thug or cartoonishly evil.

[Badmojo]

mentioned earlier about doing the same thing as good for evil reasons, I say, NO! Not that I am against it being one evil options of many, but I do not want it to be the only "evil" choice. I cannot stand games where it does not matter what path you choose, it will have the exact same outcome with maybe some minor cosmetic changes. I think I will call this the DA2 choice system. Taking the town example, fine, you could do that, or you could burn down the town, or you could trick them in disarming themselves and sell them to slavers, or you could make them pay you in advance, and then leave them to their fate, or you could demand something besides money, like they have to open up a church to your dark god and give a human sacrifice once a month for your help, etc. Choices are good.

 

I do think there needs to be just as many "evil" paths as well as good, I also want different evil endings depending one what you do, and not one evil ending and the rest are good BS. Speaking of endings, I hope we have many multiple endings like the old games and not just 3.

[Enclave]

mentioned earlier about doing the same thing as good for evil reasons, I say, NO! Not that I am against it being one evil options of many, but I do not want it to be the only "evil" choice. I cannot stand games where it does not matter what path you choose, it will have the exact same outcome with maybe some minor cosmetic changes. I think I will call this the DA2 choice system. Taking the town example, fine, you could do that, or you could burn down the town, or you could trick them in disarming themselves and sell them to slavers, or you could make them pay you in advance, and then leave them to their fate, or you could demand something besides money, like they have to open up a church to your dark god and give a human sacrifice once a month for your help, etc. Choices are good.

 

I do think there needs to be just as many "evil" paths as well as good, I also want different evil endings depending one what you do, and not one evil ending and the rest are good BS. Speaking of endings, I hope we have many multiple endings like the old games and not just 3.

 

I never suggested it be the only evil options, don't know how you got that impression.

[Badmojo]

mentioned earlier about doing the same thing as good for evil reasons, I say, NO! Not that I am against it being one evil options of many, but I do not want it to be the only "evil" choice. I cannot stand games where it does not matter what path you choose, it will have the exact same outcome with maybe some minor cosmetic changes. I think I will call this the DA2 choice system. Taking the town example, fine, you could do that, or you could burn down the town, or you could trick them in disarming themselves and sell them to slavers, or you could make them pay you in advance, and then leave them to their fate, or you could demand something besides money, like they have to open up a church to your dark god and give a human sacrifice once a month for your help, etc. Choices are good.

 

I do think there needs to be just as many "evil" paths as well as good, I also want different evil endings depending one what you do, and not one evil ending and the rest are good BS. Speaking of endings, I hope we have many multiple endings like the old games and not just 3.

 

I never suggested it be the only evil options, don't know how you got that impression.

 

Ah sorry, if its just one of multiple evil options that is fine then.

[Bos_hybrid]

Something I would like to see. (Now this is an example, not what the story should be.)The final chapter/quest:

 

The 'good pathway' has the player storming the antagonists lair/fortress, in order to stop his plans/arrest him/ etc.

 

The 'evil pathway' still has the lair/fortress but this time it's the PC lair and a group opposed to the PC are storming it.

 

Still the same setting, just the roles have been reversed and the players in them changed. Basically the antagonists and quest goals change depending on choices. Realistically something to much to do on such a small budget as PE, but still something I would like to see.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Bos_hybrid

[kenup]

One thing I would like to add: Playing as evil PCs, can catch the moral dillemas and give examples as to why something is bad much better in a lot of cases. I still remember playing my first fully fledged jerk sith lord in KotoR 2. I didn't want to play an evil character again for a long time. And they didn't feel like stupid evil either; well as much as Star wars can avoid it anyway.

[Andre]

Major plot changes due to choices are most of the time unfeasible, but side quests and such are perfectly fine.

BG2 had plenty of such, one of the first is when you choose to work for Shadow Thieves or for Bodhi. Both ways get you to the same destination, but you get to do things in a different manner and there's specific information to be found for the organization that you work with.

 

Most evil PCs in cRPGs are just chaotic evil, it's easier to design. Making an elaborate schemer would just be another kind of evil, "chaotic evil" is the standard baddy and that's probably why we see it the most.

[TimB99]

A repost from an earlier response of mine, just to throw in my ideas for discussion:

 

 

I honestly don't want a morality system. I don't want a good/evil dichotomy...

 

I just want actions and consequences.

 

You choose to lie to a person? I want to see them start to distrust you when they find out.

You choose to kill some important NPC? I want a companion of yours to try and talk to you about it later during rest.

Do you treat someone like $#iT? I want them to confront you about it.

Do you act like the complete opposite than companion Y? Have them come up to you and talk you out of some action you're about to take, or convert you to their way of thinking, or even leaving you when they just can't take it anymore, or even attack you when $#iT really hits the fan.

You treat everyone well? "light side points for you!!!" Sure... Until you stab them in the back and your true, manipulative nature comes to light.

 

If there's to be a score-counter, there should be an affection-counter. BUT I'd rather have that one behind-the-scenes like in the Walking Dead series, where you can disable the story-hints, and where you therefore don't know whom is pleased or displeased with how you conduct yourself until you got to see their reactions and the consequences of that gain/loss of affection, rather than the Dragon Age/SWTOR system of "HURRAH!! +10 for companion X".

 

As for the rest, why not just allow several basic, intuitive choices (think let live/kill) that have no good or bad points attached, but turn out to be that way through possibly cumulative action-consequence relationships, depending on how you decide to *play* the game further?

 

JM2C,

 

-Tim

Edited September 22, 2012 by TimB99