playing "evil"

[Michael_Galt]

Okay, so I apologize if there are already threads on this, but I was unsuccessful at finding them. I don't want to get into some sort of semantic battle of the "definition of evil", but I used that word to loosely define aggressive/ruthless/violent behavior. I'm really hoping their are legitimate options to pursue those paths. For instance, perhaps instead of clearing out the band of local bandits/necromancers or what have you, instead, you could chose to assist them by assassinating the mayor/"sheriff" or whatever. Maybe you could actually ASSIST THEM, because they promise you a better cut/reward than taking the "good"/"lawful" path would have. Maybe you find the thieve's guild, and they have you trick an unsuspecting individual into falling into one of their ambushes, since you can approach them. Maybe you find a group of ciphers that have been capturing unsuspecting travelers and making them into slaves, and you force them to provide you with some slaves of your own, rather than killing them. I'm sure there are other ways that this type of thing could be played, but I would really like some options to pick some truly "immoral"/"unethical"/"evil" paths. If there was a truly "evil" option for the main quest, that would be ultra terrific. As in, rather than "defeat nefarious group/person", you instead become their leader and begin expanding operations.

 

Thoughts? Suggestions?

[Tusck]

I so like the occasional evil play through, but not the murder everyone I see evil, more like the neutral evil, politician, CEO of a major corporation type of evil.

[foxz0rd]

I so like the occasional evil play through, but not the murder everyone I see evil, more like the neutral evil, politician, CEO of a major corporation type of evil.

 

Like EA?

[Nerei]

I so like the occasional evil play through, but not the murder everyone I see evil, more like the neutral evil, politician, CEO of a major corporation type of evil.

 

Like EA?

 

That was also what I was going to suggest

 

More seriously though I also hope there will be some sort of option for being less than the paragon of virtue and good, if done right it can make for an interesting alternative and will give the game more replay value.

[Frenetic Pony]

I pretty much never play through "evil" in any game. Just not appealing.

 

But it might be more interesting if the "evil" option were more than just, well, an option. The choices presented, if any, are always somewhere along the lines of "You get five options of varying good to neutral, and one where you kick a puppy." Which just isn't that neat even if I were interested. It would be a lot more interesting to see more varying ways to be something that's not necessarily a paragon of virtue, and might even be considered evil. Selfishness, vengeance, cruelty, etc. are all things that could, at some point, be options for the player.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Frenetic Pony

[rjshae]

It doesn't sound like there will be good or evil in this game. But maybe you can really annoy everybody?

[Bos_hybrid]

I pretty much never play through "evil" in any game. Just not appealing.

 

Exact opposite. Playing 'good' is just not appealing to me.

 

I don't want to be the hero or anti hero.

 

It doesn't sound like there will be good or evil in this game. But maybe you can really annoy everybody?

 

 

Honestly, nothing would suck more then being forced into the recent bio offerings of hero/anti hero. The only reason it done, is because it's less work than good/evil and that it's easier to write everything grey.

[anubite]

It doesn't sound like there will be good or evil in this game. But maybe you can really annoy everybody?

 

What makes you think we can't be good or evil? Look at NV - there's no morality system in that, yet you can definitvely consider your character good or evil by who they help and what they do.

 

Most cRPG games do the whole "play as an evil guy" thing better than most recent RPGs of recent day, but I would like to see "being evil" given a reasonable context and motive. Most RPGs reduce you to a mustache twirler.

Edited October 17, 2012 by anubite

[Michael_Galt]

Yeah, I think that when they say, "there isn't good and evil", they are just copping out. The reality is, typically you only get "good" and "neutral" options. The "anti-hero" option is really, "I'll do good things, but be 'unconventional' and have an attitude while I do it." I want to not just be defaulted into having no choice but to fight/subvert all the "evil"/"enemy" groups.

 

Specifically, I remember playing DAO and though I had become a "blood mage", I wasn't able to attack Templars. Every time I ran into blood mags, I was forced to fight them. This made me angry. I wanted to say, "Stop! I'm one of you! Let's figure out how we can undermine the local chapter of the Chantry here, so we can have more autonomy. Maybe we can bribe/threaten the local magistrate to look the other way..."

 

If there is a cabal of "demon worshipers" that are hunting me because I saw something that they fear if I reveal, will sabotage their plans, I want the option to convince them I want to worship demons and lead them to success. I don't want my only option to be to "save" the town- I want to be able to "betray" it. Arcanum and F:NV had a fair number of opportunities like this, so I feel they will be in this game, but I'll be sorely disappointed if they aren't. Insha Allah.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Michael_Galt

[HangedMan]

I want to be the anti-villain.

[rjshae]

Honestly, nothing would suck more then being forced into the recent bio offerings of hero/anti hero. The only reason it done, is because it's less work than good/evil and that it's easier to write everything grey.

Well, no offense, but I have to disagree. Writing a realistic grey persona can be more complicated because you need to get inside their head and see how they tick. By comparison, good and evil seems over-simplified; the characters just need to follow (or violate) a code.

[Bos_hybrid]

Writing a realistic grey persona can be more complicated because you need to get inside their head and see how they tick.

 

It's easier to write a grey villain, than an interesting evil one.

 

good and evil seems over-simplified

 

Here we go again. Grey = hero. It is the simplest form of choice. No need to have different paths, just an hero path. The exclusion of an evil PC, is the exclusion of choice.

[nikolokolus]

I pretty much never play through "evil" in any game. Just not appealing.

 

But it might be more interesting if the "evil" option were more than just, well, an option. The choices presented, if any, are always somewhere along the lines of "You get five options of varying good to neutral, and one where you kick a puppy." Which just isn't that neat even if I were interested. It would be a lot more interesting to see more varying ways to be something that's not necessarily a paragon of virtue, and might even be considered evil. Selfishness, vengeance, cruelty, etc. are all things that could, at some point, be options for the player.

 

Hardly any games get it right, mostly they punish you for failing to stick to their predetermined, "being good is optimal," critical path.

[Balor]

Oh, Obsidian CAN provide us with Evil paths that are intelligent, challenging, badass and are soul-chilling indeed.

See Mask of the Betrayer for instance. The evil ending (and evil stuff you can do while embracing your curse gift) is absolutely chilling and badass indeed.

While it is not my cup of tea at all (usually I play neutral good characters) - this one MUST be seen:

 

http://lparchive.org...f-the-Betrayer/

WARNING: Of course, it does not merely 'contain spoilers' - it leaves NOTHING uncovered. But if you already completed the game, or do not have enough time to actually play it - you MUST read the it 'to the end' - or at least least the Evil path spotlights (if you already completed the game as a good character, like I did):

http://lparchive.org...ayer/Update 43/

 

A recap (massive spoilers inbound):

 

 

a. You can trick mentally handicapped children and entire families into a camp of men-eating monkeys... for rewards of powerful abilities and items.

 

b. You can taunt (or more like - destroy all they hold dear), kill and devour ALL your companions - and use husk of their souls to craft the most powerful items in the game.

 

c. You can fully embrace the curse as a gift, master it and become an entity even Gods fear... and use it to exact horrific vengeance upon all those who slighted you in the past.

 

[Balor]

I pretty much never play through "evil" in any game. Just not appealing.

 

But it might be more interesting if the "evil" option were more than just, well, an option. The choices presented, if any, are always somewhere along the lines of "You get five options of varying good to neutral, and one where you kick a puppy." Which just isn't that neat even if I were interested. It would be a lot more interesting to see more varying ways to be something that's not necessarily a paragon of virtue, and might even be considered evil. Selfishness, vengeance, cruelty, etc. are all things that could, at some point, be options for the player.

 

Hardly any games get it right, mostly they punish you for failing to stick to their predetermined, "being good is optimal," critical path.

 

See above about Mask of the Betrayer - it is an example of an Evil path done RIGHT. The good path is there, and the good ending is quite satisfying, but the evil path is not just an occasional puppy-kicking. oh no.

[nikolokolus]

I didn't say all games get it wrong, just that most do. And yes, I played MoTB both "good" and "bad" and it mostly did a good job, given the constraints that D&D's alignment system imposes on behavior paradigms.

[Balor]

Well, I'd say that, unlike some other 'alignment' systems (like Star Wars, heh), the D&D one is quite flexible, and is capable of representing whole gamut of world views - with reasonable approximations.

Now, in KOTORII they really had to bend some rules... and completely deconstruct the setting in come cases.

[jivex5k]

Good and Evil is all about perception.

 

In some cultures fluffy kittens are considered evil spirits, and it's righteous to utterly destroy them.

 

I think as long as different choices are available that pertain to customs for the different cultures, and going against said cultures, everything would be just peachy.

Edited October 17, 2012 by jivex5k

[Giantevilhead]

I think what they really need to do is involve more factions in these choices.

 

For example, in a scenario where a country is occupied by an oppressive invader, the "good" choice would be to help the occupied people fight back while the "evil" choice is to help the invaders crush the rebellion.

 

However, if you include additional interests in the scenario, you can add a lot of variety to both "good" and "evil" choices. There could be factions that want to support the oppressed people for very selfish and nefarious reasons.

 

For example, a group of weapon traders might want the rebellion to last longer so they can sell weapons to both sides and they'll pay you to help the oppressed people fight the invaders. Another nation might want to weaken both the occupied and the invading nation so that they can expand their influence. The occupied nation might have a caste system and the aristocrats are willing to sacrifice a lot of commoners and other lower class people in order to expel the invaders.

[FlintlockJazz]

The problem with playing evil is that it requires there to be good and then you are just going back to the good/evil axis as you are defining certain options as evil. Its better to have otions, ones that have relevant reasons even if its simply for the money. Going arpund murdering people is not dark just puppykicking jerk.

[ToveriJuri]

I so like the occasional evil play through, but not the murder everyone I see evil, more like the neutral evil, politician, CEO of a major corporation type of evil.

 

Like EA?

 

I was just about to comment how i wanted an example what they consider evil. Because saying something that EA is evil is absolutely ridiculous and childish...

 

 

 

 

Anyway on topic. I don't really want there to be an evil option if it's equally bad to what it is in 90% of games with that types of choices.

 

You need information from a girl you just saved from muggers

1. She's in shock and you don't want to push her (good)

2. You need the information and question her (neutral)

3. You need the information so you beat it out of her and then kill her anyway because you like killing, (evil)

 

Those kind of situations are usually the only options you get when you play evil and it's not interesting.

Edited October 17, 2012 by ToveriJuri

[Bos_hybrid]

Anyway on topic. I don't really want there to be an evil option if it's equally bad to what it is in 90% of games with that types of choices.

 

Broken logic, if the evil option is written badly, 99% chance the good and neutral options are too. So by using your logic, we should drop all options. Because Obs can't write them well(despite writing them well in multiple games.)

[JFSOCC]

Let's say an ancient Egyptian man made it to India, where he comes across the Indian burial ritual of building a pyre and burning a recently deceased.

He is horrified. they just denied someone access to the afterlife! how dare they!

Let's say an ancient Indian made it to Egypt, wherehe comes across the Egyptian burial ritual of mummification for the recently deceased.

He is horrified. They are denying someone access to the cycle of rebirth! how dare they!

 

This has been my argument against alignments. Good and evil are highly subjective. even things that we consider basic, like holding life sacred, has opposite viewpoints within our own world. Death worship like in feudal Japan. Where a good death was the best you could wish for. the Dharmic religions which believe that ending the cycle of rebirth and achieving oblivion is the ultimate goal. If we cannot agree about the most fundamental things, then you can't say one is good and the other evil.

 

However,

I'm sure that gleeful misanthropy is very cathartic, and I'm all for it being possible in the game. I just hope (and feel confident) that it is done more nuanced dialogue, and not good or evil dialogue.

[ToveriJuri]

Anyway on topic. I don't really want there to be an evil option if it's equally bad to what it is in 90% of games with that types of choices.

 

Broken logic, if the evil option is written badly, 99% chance the good and neutral options are too. So by using your logic, we should drop all options. Because Obs can't write them well(despite writing them well in multiple games.)

 

How is it broken? Maybe you should recheck your own logic before drawing ridiculous assumptions from so little info.

 

I don't want any system keeping record of my morality/karma if the morality choices themselves are badly written. Forced evil options force you to play a certain type of character which are usually one dimensional and boring. Try playing Lawful Evil in one of those games that keep the score of these stats. They just don't give options for those type of characters.

 

Give me 3 examples where being evil doesn't involve being a murdering psychopath or being evil just because you can. Playing a manipulative evil character Like Kreia in Kotor2 would be interesting, but rarely done. Usually that type of options are limited to one or 2 quests and are rarely what you can do throughout the game.

[Humanoid]

The default character I use in my first run through CRPGs is usually a thief. Not a bloody rogue, a thief. A thief who steals neither for necessity nor for the thrills, but for the purely rational reason of that it's the easiest way to make a living. Evil? Maybe. Don't know. Don't care. What I do know is that it's almost second nature playing the character now, and there's essentially no pondering of my options, it's usually an instant decision as to which one is in character.

 

 

If playing an evil character meant ranking options a, b, c, and d in order of least evil to most evil, and carefully evaluating and then choosing the last option, then obviously I'm doing it wrong.