Intelligent Evil Playthrough

[Orogun01]

I remember that one time when I set a snotty bard on fire, I want more of that Obsidian.

[Blackbeard]

I think playing as evil in Fallout 3 was my favourite. My character was called Electra and had severe Daddy issues. 'You are going to abandon me huh? Then I'll nuke this town to get your attention'

 

When I think of evil done poorly, Fallout 3 springs to mind very quickly.

This is to the point where you either do the "acceptable" thing most people would do, or you choose the random schizophrenic option and you're suddenly committing genocide in completely nonsensical circumstances (and the opportunity to do so appears at least twice). This is exactly the kind of "good vs. bad" dichotomy that PE should be avoiding, the choice to be sane or to act as if half of your brain exploded five minutes ago.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Blackbeard

[ohmygodsquad]

I've played through Torment so many times, but I still haven't been able to finish an evil play-through. I go through Mass Effect and KOTOR as an evil character for ****s and giggles, but Torment has some truly horrifying and evil options.

[Umberlin]

Intelligent Evil that's not just plain blood thirsty? Yeah that'd be nice, though I'd also like more negative side options that aren't really evil in general. Unlawful, rude, manipulative and other sort of options should exist that don't reduce the character to being a simple bully. Remember it's just the same principal as a Villain, a good villain has objectives and motivations that are as good, if not arguably better than, the protagonist's motivations and goals. If you apply that sort of thinking to a more negative player character I think that would make the more nasty options far less . . . eye rolling or stupid.

[molarBear]

I've played through Torment so many times, but I still haven't been able to finish an evil play-through. I go through Mass Effect and KOTOR as an evil character for ****s and giggles, but Torment has some truly horrifying and evil options.

 

i was able to finish torment with evil alignment but chaotic evil (cost dear xp and quests. not fun!). as i was bitching about it on this forums, it's nearly impossible to finish the game lawful evil (or even lawful good, i guess).

[Parmenides]

Yeah, I like the evil characters that don't mind being liked by people (you never know when you might have an opportune moment to use someone who likes you to serve your purposes). As long as you gain power, that's all that matters. If all the do-gooders like you, good! they won't be in my way for my power grab!

Edited September 22, 2012 by Parmenides

[metiman]

Why even have a good or evil path? Why be so judgemental? Why is it important whether one action is labeled 'good' and the other 'evil'. Whether a character's choices are considered right or wrong should be judged by each individual in the world and the more popular ideas of right and wrong should be related to cultural beliefs. If you go around impaling babies on your sword, probably most people in the society would see that as wrong and dislike you for it, but there would also probably be people who regarded it as a good thing. Presumably someone who dislikes babies. Instead of right or wrong I think there should just be choices which are either popular or unpopular. If you make very unpopular choices the consequence will be that the majority of people in that society will dislike you. They may even hunt you.

[Bos_hybrid]

I'll put it this way, I don't want to see a hero/anti-hero pathway. Which is essentially the exact same playthrough, except the anti-hero makes smartass comments and extorts people for more money.

 

I want to see a villain playthrough, MOTB did this well. The difference in character between one that held back on soul eating and one that gorged, was something I enjoyed immensely.

[Vandoon]

While I don’t generally play evil I would like to have the evil options however they should be a bit cleverer than the thuggish brutes and psychopaths that are normally portrayed. Why not and an evil ending (if it is appropriate) Stir up trouble, run the smuggling ring. Sell stolen goods.

[ogrezilla]

Why even have a good or evil path? Why be so judgemental? Why is it important whether one action is labeled 'good' and the other 'evil'. Whether a character's choices are considered right or wrong should be judged by each individual in the world and the more popular ideas of right and wrong should be related to cultural beliefs. If you go around impaling babies on your sword, probably most people in the society would see that as wrong and dislike you for it, but there would also probably be people who regarded it as a good thing. Presumably someone who dislikes babies. Instead of right or wrong I think there should just be choices which are either popular or unpopular. If you make very unpopular choices the consequence will be that the majority of people in that society will dislike you. They may even hunt you.

 

I agree with this. If there is no Light Side or Dark Side points, the characters should just react based on what happens. Say I need to find a way to infiltrate a group of thieves. Say a woman wants me to get her necklace back from the same thieves. She gives me a key or password or note or whatever to get into their hideout so long as I promise to get it back. If this was Kotor, I would have options like "Yes I'll help" and "(lie) Yes I'll help." One gets LS points and one get DS points. Take out the points, and you don't need both options. Say one way to complete the quest is to steal back the necklace and give it to her. I didn't lie. Another option is to steal the necklace and then just go sell it. But maybe the shopkeeper knows whose necklace it is and tells her I sold it to him; thus revealing my lie. Now he refuses to do business with me. But if I wait to sell it to a vendor in another town she would likely just think I wasn't able to get it back for her. I get away with the lie.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[NerdBoner]

i used to love playing both good and evil characters for different reasons...

 

but i believe us truly evolved players now opt for a path that stradles both darkness and light like a razors edge. Why? because thats what life is all about.

 

playing a saint is boring, tedious and involves too much "deus ex machina" considering that things often always work out in the end for aforementioned saint.

 

playing a straight demon can feel dehumanizing and hackneyed because even the most bloodthirsty orc marauder has a tender side to him somewhere...

 

 

the grey side its where its at baby...its what the Sith and Jedi are too stupid to understand hehehe

[teknoman2]

FNV style is the best. you can make friends, you can make enemies and everyone is right from his point of view while wrong from the other side's point of view.

oh, nerdboner are you a fellow shadow jedi?

[The Dark One Avoozl]

Intelligent Evil story progression would be all kinds of awesome. Gets my total support.

 

Also add the possibility later in the game to gain tremendous power storywise. Like an ancient temple full with captured "evil" souls and you either get the choice to destroy the temple or absorb all those souls inside yourself. For a "Ascend to Godhood/Demonhood" kind of ending.

[TimB99]

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 ****e? 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 **** 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 to your actions, 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

[Blackbeard]

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

 

I just want actions and consequences.

 

I agree that there should be no karma system in the game, but the choice to be an obviously "bad person" should exist. When it comes to grey morality I think it's much more important to apply it to the various factions in the game as opposed to just limiting the player's options to "this shade of grey vs. this one". No relationship to 50 shades of fail intended. I'm not saying those options would be a bad thing either, I just don't think that should be all we have. It definitely shouldn't be spelled out for the player either with "GOOD", "EVIL", "NEUTRAL" and "SOMEWHAT MURKY" tacked onto the dialogue options, but then this isn't likely to be an issue if there is no karma system.

[Nonek]

Though i admit that I seriously enjoyed playing a smooth and manipulative Michael Thornton in Alpha Protocol, who come the denouement finally revealed his labyrinthine network of contacts and plotting to the doomed erstwhile villain, I would also like the plain terrifying butcher to still be available. Perhaps your more psychotic actions could birth a trait such as terrifying presence in New Vegas, where even the most savage of foes learns to step lightly around your character.

[Shadow501]

I'd like to be a more intelligent and calm villain for once :D Still evil, but not killing everything.

[Giantevilhead]

I don't think approaching it as "evil" is necessarily the right way to do it. I think it should be more about having an ambition that is unbound by empathy, compassion, ethics, or morality.

 

That ambition could be based on anything, it can come from a desire for personal gain, to destroy an enemy, to make one's nation strong, to create an empire of unrivaled power, or even to advance a philosophy for the entire world.

 

For example, someone who believes that their nation has become weak and corrupt could orchestrate a war against their own people. And through this war, they could reveal the weakness and hypocrisy of the nation's leaders and seize control. They could then shape the culture to become more ruthless and unrelenting.

[Labadal]

In my no kills playthrough of Fallout: New Vegas, I was still a very evil character. I like that sort of choice. I didn't want to dirty my hands, but I also didn't want to be a goody-two-shoes.

[TrashMan]

While I enjoy leaving dead puppies in my wake as much as the next bloke, I am more the guy that builds up a budding slaver empire and subjugates cities.

 

There is a problem with this kind of evil.

It is a compelx and multi-staged process. Actions taken with a specific purpose that the developers can't possibly know.

Actually creating and implementing long-term plans in the game is...difficult to say the least.

 

It's not impossible to make a intelligent evil playtrough, but it would probably follow the developers plan to build a slaver empire, not your characters.

[TrashMan]

I don't think approaching it as "evil" is necessarily the right way to do it. I think it should be more about having an ambition that is unbound by empathy, compassion, ethics, or morality.

 

 

... thatis pretty much what evil is.

[Giantevilhead]

I don't think approaching it as "evil" is necessarily the right way to do it. I think it should be more about having an ambition that is unbound by empathy, compassion, ethics, or morality.

 

 

... thatis pretty much what evil is.

 

Not necessarily. For example, we have rules governing scientific and medical research that can potentially hinder progress. We can't perform experiments on humans. If we want to test drugs on humans, we have to go through a lot of testing on animals to ensure that it's safe. All that can slow down how quickly we develop cures and treatments for diseases. If we were not constrained by ethics or morality, and we performed experimentation on humans, we can potentially save many more lives than are lost.

[TrashMan]

I don't think approaching it as "evil" is necessarily the right way to do it. I think it should be more about having an ambition that is unbound by empathy, compassion, ethics, or morality.

 

 

... thatis pretty much what evil is.

 

Not necessarily. For example, we have rules governing scientific and medical research that can potentially hinder progress. We can't perform experiments on humans. If we want to test drugs on humans, we have to go through a lot of testing on animals to ensure that it's safe. All that can slow down how quickly we develop cures and treatments for diseases. If we were not constrained by ethics or morality, and we performed experimentation on humans, we can potentially save many more lives than are lost.

 

Or you could porentially cause even greater suffering.

[Orogun01]

 

Not necessarily. For example, we have rules governing scientific and medical research that can potentially hinder progress. We can't perform experiments on humans. If we want to test drugs on humans, we have to go through a lot of testing on animals to ensure that it's safe. All that can slow down how quickly we develop cures and treatments for diseases. If we were not constrained by ethics or morality, and we performed experimentation on humans, we can potentially save many more lives than are lost.

Great, then you'll volunteer as a subject then!

[hideo kuze]

I'd say that I'd like the be able to play the full spectrum.

 

From the paladin that doesn't move an inch from his blinding faith and oaths...

to the reasonable, just and chooser of the lesser of evils...

to the hypocrite politician defender of morality (just like IRL I guess)...

to the manipulative, mischievous and selfish trader moved by ambition...

to the bloodthirsty conqueror pretentious of becoming a god...

to the psychotic delusional murderous maniac...

and anything in between.

 

It's an RPG. Give me those choices and replayability.

 

 

About karma, reputation and alignments:

 

From an interaction point of view what makes sense is having reputations among factions and NPCs. The devs already said they'll go with this.

However I'd like to have karma tags (as in FO) for cosmetic purposes: grave robber, butcher, etc. They always give me a chuckle and are much better than those steam achievements

And no alignment system.

Edited September 23, 2012 by hideo kuze