Intelligent Evil Playthrough

[Merin]

I don't need a morality meter... but I want there to be consequences.

 

If someone runs around murdering others and stealing things, bad things should happen to them.

 

Just like if someone runs around stepping between bullies and victims, bad things should happen to them.

[Badmojo]

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.

 

Yea, I want the full specrtum (or as many as possible) choices for being the type of evil I want to play. I do not like having choices for good, but only one path for evil.

[Grimlorn]

I've often thought about this myself. Evil usually is pretty bad in games. The problem I see with this is when you're good you're helping everyone with their problems and doing all their quests out of the goodness of your heart. I can't think of a way to make evil smart in these kinds of situations. It would just come off as being a brute, or evil for the sake of it because you'd be threatening them or doing it for gold and then betraying them.

 

I just can't see it. The evil character would have to be doing things completely different, maybe in a different part of the world, which would mean a different story and options in the game which isn't feasible yet.

[Raithe]

Although, if there is no direct alignment push for your actions (ie, there's no +2 good/light score) etc, you can be picking what might be considered the "good" actions for purely rational, ruthless reasons. It's the "huh, if I do this, they'll potentially owe me a favour and will consider me a nice guy", compared to a true blue hero who is all "i'm doing this because I like puppies and saving people and this is the righteously good thing to do!"

 

It's the same action, it's the same result of improving your reputation with the faction, but the reasons for it are in your head. The complexity starts kicking in if you're trying to develop means of recording within the game if you're doing it for "good/evil" reasons...

 

If there is no morality system per se, you don't have to worry about labelling one choice good or bad. You just have to have options available that make sense and are intelligent / ruthless / practical rather then the usual "help them / ignore it / kill them all regardless" that you find in a lot of games.

 

But yes, if there are going to be ways for the player character to be a complete and utter magnificent bastard, you need it to be smarter then just moronic evil.

[Grimlorn]

Although, if there is no direct alignment push for your actions (ie, there's no +2 good/light score) etc, you can be picking what might be considered the "good" actions for purely rational, ruthless reasons. It's the "huh, if I do this, they'll potentially owe me a favour and will consider me a nice guy", compared to a true blue hero who is all "i'm doing this because I like puppies and saving people and this is the righteously good thing to do!"

 

It's the same action, it's the same result of improving your reputation with the faction, but the reasons for it are in your head. The complexity starts kicking in if you're trying to develop means of recording within the game if you're doing it for "good/evil" reasons...

 

If there is no morality system per se, you don't have to worry about labelling one choice good or bad. You just have to have options available that make sense and are intelligent / ruthless / practical rather then the usual "help them / ignore it / kill them all regardless" that you find in a lot of games.

 

But yes, if there are going to be ways for the player character to be a complete and utter magnificent bastard, you need it to be smarter then just moronic evil.

Yeah that does sound good, but a lot of people like black and white decisions types. That's why we have alignment bars and alignment points we gain by performing certain actions. It's not too difficult to choose and requires little thinking.

 

I'd enjoy a more gray system though.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Grimlorn

[Giantevilhead]

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!

 

You're missing the point.

 

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.

 

Anything has the potential to cause greater harm. Research in nuclear physics gave us nuclear power but it also led to the atomic bomb. Research in genetics and biotechnology leads to cures for diseases but it also allows for the creation of super viruses and other forms of biological weapons. It's a matter of weighing the potential costs vs. the potential benefits. Doing certain unethical things has the potential of doing a lot good. If let's say that performing medical experiments on humans has the potential to cure a disease much sooner than if you do it the "right way," and can save millions of lives, would you do it?

[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!

 

You're missing the point.

 

That some people have a big enough ego to think that they can play with human life. I've heard the same argument before under it's previous guise of "let's use the homeless for something useful". It is the same elitist bullcrap belief that life should be measured differently by birth rather than actions, because that justifies the fact that the elite are born into wealth without really deserving it. It's self satisfaction at its worst.

[Giantevilhead]

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!

 

You're missing the point.

 

That some people have a big enough ego to think that they can play with human life. I've heard the same argument before under it's previous guise of "let's use the homeless for something useful". It is the same elitist bullcrap belief that life should be measured differently by birth rather than actions, because that justifies the fact that the elite are born into wealth without really deserving it. It's self satisfaction at its worst.

 

But the fact is that we're already active participants in this kind of thing and it's not even done for some greater purpose like finding cures for diseases or research into new sources of energy. It's being done for the sake of convenience and comfort. Ever heard of sweatshops, blood diamonds, e-dumps, etc.? A lot of the things we buy are made sweatshops around the world. A lot of the computers and gadgets we use every day have precious metals in them that were mined by people working in brutal conditions without adequate safety precautions or medical insurance in case of accidents. The electronics we throw away end up in giant dumps in Asia and Africa where they pollute the water. We buy oil from sadistic dictators who use the money to ensure the supremacy of their state without regards to the rights of their people.

[ohmygodsquad]

One thing I'd love to see return is the [Lie] options used to see in Torment and other games. Generally it involved you saying exactly what a good person would say. It was such a simple thing that rarely effected gameplay much but let you roleplay a more manipulative evil.

Edited September 24, 2012 by ohmygodsquad