playing "evil"

[anubite]

Good alignments (usually) make sacrificial and usually "just" choices.

Neutral alignments (usually) make balanced or self-centered choices. Neutral alignments are either about the natural order of the universe being preserved (and not a mere human's) or about preserving one's own life and nothing more (like an animal would do).

Evil alignments (usually) make greedy, psychopathic and/or "emotional" choices. They're about seizing power, controlling others, protecting the self above all else. They are uncompromising.

 

Writing a good alignment is comparatively easy. There are lots of nuances for good characters (you can have good intentions but create bad results for others) that create interesting situations and moral choices.

Writing a neutral alignment is a little tricky, but if you can write "good characters with good intentions" you can probably write selfish characters with self-centered intentions fairly well. You can also probably understand the view point of a druid or an animal and take those approaches into account, allowing that yes - it is sensible to say that not all people should have a good alignment. Neutral alignments are probably more common in real life. People will make moral choices that preserve themselves and not others, but that is not inherently wrong.

Writing an evil alignnment is difficult because many people are evil for reasons that don't make sense (they're insane). I think roleplaying an insane character isn't that interesting, at least in a cRPG. Maybe it can be done in a real life setting, but even then... if you're insane, that's it. Hardly any depth there. You do things because you do, not for any reason that can be contradicted or compared against. The only other way to write an evil character is to give them a vengeance story, or to allow the player the ability to utilize some great power, that comes at a great moral cost. Weaving such choices into a story is very hard.

 

Fallout 3 did the whole evil alignment terribly, partially because you can donate all your money to the local beggar then kill him, getting your money back and having close to max positive karma and partially because you were blowing up towns just because some guy asked you to earlier that morning; there wasn't any deeper motive. Nor was there any deep result - it's not like by blowing up a town, you betrayed someone you knew very well.

 

Evil choices should be about making your character stronger or richer. You can give the man his wallet back or you can just keep it. In a karmic system, this would allow characters to balance good/evil choices and come out neutral - but since this game will follow a faction-related system, I suspect being evil will just mean you get on the good side of cults, corrupt politicians, and thieves. Allying with these people should allow you to rise in power, giving you the option to subvert people, to change the world in a way you'd like to.

[Paul D]

Chaotic Neutral - there has to be a way to find balance, better if it confuses people.

 

Seriously though (back to the thread) Evil/Good in the game (from a role playing perspective) will probably be very subjective. One Factions evil may very well be another Faction's good (assuming Factions are the link).

 

Some people have a natural tendency to apply their real-world definition of good/bad to the gaming universe. The joy of RPG can be exploring alternative frames through which to view things; role play the experience of viewing a world through the 'eyes' of another, and the experiencing the consequences of those actions. All with the safety of restoring from save or starting again

 

It is this richness of narrative, and options to explore through alternative frames, that I am looking forward to in this game.

[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.)

 

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

 

Because something was badly written in other games, it can't be written good in others. But keep the good/neutral option that were written equally as bad.

 

If it's not broken, it's biased. You don't like something, so you don't want to see it included. Basically it's I don't like it, so it's crap.

 

When games have badly written 'evil' choices, it has little to do with being evil, and more to do with that particular writers or devs inability to portray it well.

 

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.

 

Your point again is, it wasn't done well in other games so don't include it in this one. Despite the fact it has been.

 

Give me 3 examples where being evil doesn't involve being a murdering psychopath

 

Self serving (Values themselves above all else)

Greedy (doing anything to get money/valuables/land etc)

Power hungry (desire for magical/political/immortality again does anything to get it)

 

Besides there is nothing wrong with playing a murdering psychopath if one wants to. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean others don't. Restricting freedom is a bad thing.

 

Truthfully I would rather play a subtle evil, but I'm fine with psychopathic power hungry too. I would much rather play a murdering psychopathic power hungry villain, than a run of the mill good guy hero. Heroes just aren't as interesting to me as villains.

 

or being evil just because you can.

 

 

 

But being good or neutral just because you can is better or good writing? Afraid not.

[Tusck]

Being evil in game without well written evil dialogue choices makes no sense. I don't think it's hard to write evil characters, what's hard is trying to pander to the "I want to kill everyone I see" group. It makes no sense to kill everyone in a story driven game. However, with this 2 big city land we are going to have, I think it's absolutely possible to write a stroy where you do kill one of the kings. This would cut you off from continuing that story line, but would give you access to a new story line based on more evil behaviors that a good character would never see. It's not hard, it's just time consuming.

[Bonecrusher]

Most RPGs gives us "good" choices. But these choices are always "the default" ones. Do the quests, kill some monsters, romance with your companion, and your "good" meter goes up.

But what if I am doing those quests, in order to get the mission rewards, but not to help some people? What if I am killing some monsters, in order to teach them who's the boss, but not to save a town? What if I romance with that companion, in order to sleep with her, but not to love her?

Wouldn't such thoughts made me an "evil" person instead of a "good" one?

Yes, doing quests, killing monsters, romancing with companion, would benefit my reputation, and make me a more popular person.

But they would not make me a "good hearted" man.

That's why I find the "good-evil" choices in most games very dull.

Even worse, those games prepare the "evil" choices to act like a "frenzied psychopatic mass murderer".

 

There are some games that I love their concept of good-evil balance.

 

One game will be KOTOR 2. That is a great game to play as "evil".

The game points you whatever your thoughts for your choices, the results can be different than you imagine.

For example, you see a dirty orc stealing a rich man's wallet. You are a "heroic paragon of virtue", so you catch him and kill him. But in reality, that orc was a private spy trying to find a clue about a kidnapped girl. Your "bravery" costs the life of that child.

It can be vice versa for evil alignments.

 

But Project Eternity is being made by developers of KOTOR 2, Planescape Torment, Alpha Protocol, Fallout...

Of course they would definitely already realize these things I said.

[MReed]

But what if I am doing those quests, in order to get the mission rewards, but not to help some people? What if I am killing some monsters, in order to teach them who's the boss, but not to save a town? What if I romance with that companion, in order to sleep with her, but not to love her?

Wouldn't such thoughts made me an "evil" person instead of a "good" one?

 

As far as I'm concerned, and I suspect most of the people in this thread would agree, no, this doesn't make you an evil / bad / not good person (regardless of whether or not there is a karma meter in the game). If your actions are indistinguishable from the actions of, say, a righteous paladin, then as far as I'm concerned (and, more to the point, as far as the game is concerned) you are a righteous paladin -- regardless of your motivations / role playing. This applies whether there is a karma meter in the game or not.

 

Now, if the game offers two dialog choices: "Of course I'll rescue the kitten" and "Hmmmm... This little girl is quite well dressed -- her parents are likely wealthy and influential. I'll rescue the kitten to make a good impression", and both choices produce the exact same result, then... That's definitely a step in the right direction. It would be better if there were followup options that were only available if you selected the second option, however.

 

One game will be KOTOR 2. That is a great game to play as "evil".

The game points you whatever your thoughts for your choices, the results can be different than you imagine.

For example, you see a dirty orc stealing a rich man's wallet. You are a "heroic paragon of virtue", so you catch him and kill him. But in reality, that orc was a private spy trying to find a clue about a kidnapped girl. Your "bravery" costs the life of that child.

It can be vice versa for evil alignments.

 

The concept of "Things aren't as they seem" provides an interesting twist on morality, but... Only if the player has an opportunity to divine the correct course of action up-front. The example given is terrible -- all you are doing is punishing the player (whether they want to play "good", "evil", or something else), because there is no reasonable way for the character to make an informed decision (the player can, after reloading the game, but that's not the goal here).

 

On the other hand, there is an excellent example of this in BG2, in the Paladin quest: You are tasked with guarding someone, and some NPCs come along and say "We are paladin's as well, sent to relieve you." If you accept this, you'll fail the quest -- however, if you say "Just a moment", then use the "Detect Evil" ability, you can determine that they aren't Paladins and can succeed in the quest. Something along these lines would be great, although it shouldn't be over-used.

[Doxy]

Many RPGs let you play an evil character, but I very often find the implementation of evil wanting. The fact of the matter is that in nearly all cases, playing an evil character amounts to little more than being a psychotic murderer gutting innocents for a few coppers more. Hell, playing evil for material gains is hardly worth it anyway, seeing as the NPCs you help tend to promptly give you Swords of Ultimate Holiness +23 or whatnot for refusing reward, whereas opting the "evil" route and actually demanding compensation for spending nearly all your available resources on slaying that dragon typically nets you a mere fraction of the gold aforementioned sword would sell for.

 

Now, I can understand why developers would want to steer players onto the righteous path, as the average plot is designed around you destroying some ancient evil or another, but damn, I would love a game that, while having a great story and without falling into the narrative void where most sandbox games tend to dwell, didn't lump those expectations of goodness onto you.

 

I'd be very interested in seeing a game where moral corruption would be a tempting, slippery slope. Where you would have an actual motivation for parleying with demons beyond the Darkbolt skill or whatever you would normally gain for doing such a thing. Considering that the loading screen will typically tell you that anyone who summons devils will have their souls dragged down to hell when they die, one would think that you'd need something a wee bit more enticing.

 

What if releasing that dark power burning inside was the only means by which the character could save a loved one? Couldn't a plot be designed where a character could very realistically feel that, hey, Tzeentchian mutations and eternal torment be damned, this is so important to me that I'm willing to take any step to do it?

"Dark Elf @rpgcodex"

Now thats what i want to see in PE but one can only dream...

[Shadenuat]

I don't know if I'm repeating myself, but when I think about playing evil, I always think planning. Being good is something usually handled and encouraged on daily basis. People are told to be polite and helpful, and only some of them become ambitious enough to follow up to building something grand.

 

However, being evil on daily basis is either premature (bully) or psychotic. Being impolite is not instantly being evil. Being immoral, like taking a bribe which is too good to pass up, probably can be concidered evil by roleplaying standarts, but it is often a weakness of character or even an action taken of need.

 

So, for me, being "evil" means taking a selfish route at achieving a selfish goal - by literally climbing to it on the bodies of everyone around you. Intimidating a lone trader to give you more money after you saved him from brigands is not evil for me. Becoming a brigand against who he'd need to be saved from, on the other hand, is much closer to what is usually associated with evil.

 

An example of my evil roleplay which I enjoyed at one game: I played as a wizard who had to caretake for his wizardry needs (new spells, artifacts, alchemy and such). So I enlisted as a counselor on arcane to... City Watch. At first I was very loyal and just taked regular pay. But whenever any artifacts came up from raiding bandits, I always was there to have the voice on to whom they go to. Then I started to take little bribes (often creating fictional laws which citizes accidently "broken") and sell items from deceased or arrested criminals on black market. Then I managed to create a small group of guardsmen only loyal to me, and sent them on quests (often very lethal) which helped to keep order in city, but also put even more stuff in my pockets. At the end, gaining lot of trust and power, I was able to create fictional criminal evidence on other spellcasters on city and prosecute them, execute them or send to mines, and grab all their stuff. And if some guards did't like what I did, I sent them to very far, obscure and dangerous service posts away from city.

I think this is example of a more realistic, true to life corrupt and obviously manipulative evil which we can see around us. A corporation-like evil if you may.

 

In Fallout: New Vegas, fighting for independent Vegas with YOU at it's seat was something you could followthrough in more evil way than just siding with Caesar.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Shadenuat

[ArchBeast]

NwN (D&D) system of moralytis in my opinnion is bad written. I show you 2 paradoxes.

 

1. Evli and good is often dependent on witch side are YOU on. The funny thing is that in SKYRIM in civil-war storyline ( and not D&D) You have 1 side Imerials and 2 side stormcloats. Evry side is right, every side has it's own argumentation and morality but non of them is "Evil". So basacly imperial think that stormcloats are evil and stormcloats think that imperial are evil.

 

2. "Neutral charachters" is so unrealistic when there evil or good. Becouse evil and good are allways fighting or at least arguing. So if you are with us or aginst us. In this terms "Neurals" are only lesser good or lesser evil nothing more (And we judgeing them with what side (good,evil) thay have more similarities). Playing Switzerland is almost imposible Especially when the "good" and "evil" conduct so serious that the fight that everybody id affected by it such as "destroy the world"

 

So basicly wheres god there must be evil and wheres evil theres allways good, they are basicly other sides of the same coin.

 

In Gothic 1 or 2 there where no judges, there where evil but in some way they done this game that you character never is bad or good (he has his sins and he has done some good things) and i respect them.

 

Morality system like "lawful good or chaotic evil" is wery shallow becose you are evil or good only if theres a judges (You can be judge, writer that wrote storyline can be judges, even npc can be judges. And for Frank "invaders" are "Evil" but for Sally they are "Good" ... Why ? Bocose Frank lose much money bocouse of their invasion and they gave his money to Sally ..... simple but that's how the world works...

 

Only PURE Evil or PURE good is posible for demons or angels (even they servants can be FORCED to obey them) This is the one of the reasons i loved ORCs form Warcraft, before they broke free they where consider as "Chaotic Evil" (becouse they where forced to obey demons) but when they broke free (at least some of them) they shown that even a race consider as chaotic evil can have their own motivations and it's not "pure evil" ....

 

The same is for any other race or character in game. IF :

 

1. IF there are no JUDGES ther are no good or evil.

2. Pure neutrality is only possible when there are no judge

3. If there are no close reprezentivs of pure good and evil (Angel, Demon) the good or evil only depends to the point of standing (example Sally and Frank)

Edited October 17, 2012 by ArchBeast

[Pshaw]

I'd like the option to be evil but sadly I feel that in most games being evil or a jerk means you miss out on a lot of quests as not everything can have an alternate evil completion path. That said I think fallout 2 allowed you to do things in a fairly 'evil' way a good amount of the time. Killing off the citizens of Gecko in a nuclear explosion comes to mind. As does finding a childs doll then having the option of ripping it to pieces in front of her. I think generally a healthy sprinkling of things like that lets you feel 'evil' while still battling against the antagonist. Combined with plenty of choices to shoot first ask questions later I think that's the most evil you can get and it's a good amount IMHO.

 

I would like to see an evil/selfish ending though. Perhaps you defeat the antagonist only to choose to replace him and conquer/destory the world or what have you.

[ToveriJuri]

Because something was badly written in other games, it can't be written good in others. But keep the good/neutral option that were written equally as bad.

 

If it's not broken, it's biased. You don't like something, so you don't want to see it included. Basically it's I don't like it, so it's crap.

 

When games have badly written 'evil' choices, it has little to do with being evil, and more to do with that particular writers or devs inability to portray it well.

 

Who said anything about keeping the equally badly written good and neutral options? Again with your overly agressive assumptions...

In any case it's more like. It was never really that well done and it's better to try something new that go for the same mistakes again.

 

Your point again is, it wasn't done well in other games so don't include it in this one. Despite the fact it has been.

 

Prove your fact.

 

Self serving (Values themselves above all else)

Greedy (doing anything to get money/valuables/land etc)

Power hungry (desire for magical/political/immortality again does anything to get it)

 

Besides there is nothing wrong with playing a murdering psychopath if one wants to. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean others don't. Restricting freedom is a bad thing.

 

Sigh this was completely my mistake. I meant give me 3 example games where evil doesn't mostly involve you being a murderous psycopath. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being able to play a murderous psycopath. It's great and it should be an option. The problem is that it's often the only way to play evil.

 

I'd rather not have the game dictating what i can or can't do if the options it gives me are really one dimensional. Before you argue that i'm not forced to do anything, you should remember that we are talking about role playing games. Staying in roles for your character is a big part of the game for many of us. The thing is that many rpgs make it really hard because of the limited options you are given to do so.

 

Still i like how you assume that i hate playing as a murderous psycopath, which i don't. Maybe you should think before coming into your own conclusions...

 

But being good or neutral just because you can is better or good writing? Afraid not.

How about you quote the part of my post where i said that. I'm having a hard time finding it myself.

 

Just because i'm not talking about good/neutral options doesn't mean i think they are any better. That logic of yours that assumes otherwise is completely ridiculous. Nothing in my posts back your assumptions yet you still make them. You might have noticed that this topic was "playing evil". It was not "playing good" or "playing neutral". Which is why i was mostly talking about evil options.

 

If you are making your conlusions based on my exaggerated example, you should stop. It was exaggerated on purpose and all the options were bad on purpose.

[Farbautisonn]

The problem with evil is that it is usually portrayed as hamfisted, moronic idiots who endulge in pointless cruelty and put way too much trust in halfwit henchmen. And if you look at the word and its history, the most evil men have been anything but the above. The "smart" and "cunning" options are usually the "good" ones. The "Evil" ones are usually shortshighted and blunt. That reeks to high heaven of lazy writing. And yep, ME3 was teeming with it.

 

Even the mere concept of evil is skewered. We are so used to the "white" (good) that when we see the "gray" (morally questionable) we percieve it as the deepest most horrid black (evil). There are few shades of gray and certainly never a "rainbow of colours" between black and white.

 

Its the primary reason why I enjoyed Torment so much. It started in the gray, and never really left.

[Michael_Galt]

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.

 

 

I never got that far in NWN2. I just didn't like how it played, especially since it forced me to keep certain party members, whether I wanted them or not. But that was AWESOME! More importantly, the writer for that will be working on PE... excellent. I am pretty confident I shall not be disappointed.

 

I will say, I prefer "good" and "neutral" characters. I like playing the "classical good guy" paladin, who supports the weak, fights corruption and injustice, blah blah blah. Then I like to play my "neutral" character, that has a very nuanced take on things, and essentially follows his self interest and doesn't fall too heavily on either side of things. If he can do something "good" that isn't too dangerous for him, or is highly rewarding, he'll do it. If doing something "evil" applies to some group he doesn't care for, he'll have no problem doing that either. But I do want to play evil. I want a character that people in game fear, where I'm not just fighting for my survival, or "justice", but for power. 3 totally unique experiences, that would be awesome.

 

I said I didn't want to do semantics about the definition of "evil", but that has certainly happened anyway. Most of the people that argue against "evil" options don't like puppy-punching. I agree- that takes no creativity. It doesn't mean it's invalid- there are plenty of people that get through life by intimidating and exploiting others. But I don't want just that.

 

For instance, let's say you get the opportunity to free a bunch of prostitutes from an abusive pimp/owner. Instead, you kill them, because you think what they are doing is immoral. That is a psychopath, but arguably "good", at least from his perspective (if his religion or ethics support killing prostitutes). Alternately, you do kill him. But then you take over his position and don't change a thing. That is "greedy evil", but perhaps "neutral evil". Maybe it is even "lawful good", because prostitution is legal, and you gave them a better owner. OR, maybe you kill him, take over, and then allow for your clientele to be used in S&M against their will, because it makes you 3 times as much money. That is still "greedy evil", and not likely to be interpreted in some other manner, and almost certainly not going to be called "good".

 

I could provide plenty more examples of how you could implement/write good, valid, "evil" options, as I'm sure they are capable of as well. I'm just hoping they do it. Not, "knight in shining armor", "reluctant hero", "I want moneyz", and "I'm going to act mean, and don't like doing this, but I will anyway, you just might not be happy with the results". I want all those options besides the last, with "Instead, I will assist them in defeating you" and "actually, since you revealed this vulnerability to me, I believe that I will exploit it for my own gain and destroy them as well".

Edited October 17, 2012 by Michael_Galt

[light487]

Definitely want to see this as a possibility.. I hate the fact that once you become regarded as evil, everyone suddenly attacks you with no way to counter it other than becoming good again. I personally like to play Lawful Neutral characters.. but do like to dabble in the evil playthroughs to see what happens (going to try and do this with "The Walking Dead" after I've finished all 5 episodes). Bribery and other social skills (like maybe knowing some official or being part of a guild) should be able to be used to ensure the evil character is not penalised with essentially an unfinishable game if they continue to play as an evil character.

 

As FlintlockJazz says.. murder is murder.. evil does not mean murder.. it may just mean not going around saving all the children.. but instead doing things for your own purposes and if there's no personal gain to be made, then that path is not taken.

[Farbautisonn]

Is it evil to kill a good father? If he tried to take your food? If you needed to take his childrens food for your children? If you killed him because he killed yours? There are alot of options for making the good seem significantly less good, and the evil significantly less evil.

 

A guy mugging you in a slum because you flaunt your touristy crap and stick out like a turd in a punchbowle, might need that camera and that watch to feed his kids. That you might get a one lid appartment with a room isnt really something that concerns him. He needs to feed his kids. I wouldnt blame the guy. Id do whatever it took myself.

 

There is lots of potential for gray.

[Orogun01]

The problem with evil is that it is usually portrayed as hamfisted, moronic idiots who endulge in pointless cruelty and put way too much trust in halfwit henchmen. And if you look at the word and its history, the most evil men have been anything but the above. The "smart" and "cunning" options are usually the "good" ones. The "Evil" ones are usually shortshighted and blunt. That reeks to high heaven of lazy writing. And yep, ME3 was teeming with it.

 

Even the mere concept of evil is skewered. We are so used to the "white" (good) that when we see the "gray" (morally questionable) we percieve it as the deepest most horrid black (evil). There are few shades of gray and certainly never a "rainbow of colours" between black and white.

 

Its the primary reason why I enjoyed Torment so much. It started in the gray, and never really left.

I respectfully disagree with regards to PS:T, you could go on to commit virtuous and heinous actions. In my view is the world that remained consistently grey with a few exceptions, there was no moral sense as we know it. The world had an atmosphere of desperation and grime about it that portrayed every NPC act as something out of necessity not evil, which is why I think it can be misinterpreted as a grey morality.

[Michael_Galt]

Is it evil to kill a good father? If he tried to take your food? If you needed to take his childrens food for your children? If you killed him because he killed yours? There are alot of options for making the good seem significantly less good, and the evil significantly less evil.

 

A guy mugging you in a slum because you flaunt your touristy crap and stick out like a turd in a punchbowle, might need that camera and that watch to feed his kids. That you might get a one lid appartment with a room isnt really something that concerns him. He needs to feed his kids. I wouldnt blame the guy. Id do whatever it took myself.

 

There is lots of potential for gray.

 

Or he could mug you because he wants to buy some drugs and hookers, and fix the clutch on his car. Perhaps he wants to strengthen his position in the "mafia", and they accept money as part of that process. Maybe he just doesn't like that you have fancy stuff, and decides to leave you in the hospital "just because" and really doesn't even need to sell or keep the stuff he took from you. There can also just be evil.

[Bos_hybrid]

Who said anything about keeping the equally badly written good and neutral options? Again with your overly agressive assumptions...

In any case it's more like. It was never really that well done and it's better to try something new that go for the same mistakes again.

 

From you earlier:

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.

 

Generally I see this followed by lets make the PC grey.

 

I loathe this.

 

I don't want to see this, just let Obsidian do, what they did in their previous games.

 

Prove your fact.

 

Mask of the Betrayer

Fallout New Vegas

Alpha Protocol

 

Sigh this was completely my mistake. I meant give me 3 example games where evil doesn't mostly involve you being a murderous psycopath. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being able to play a murderous psycopath. It's great and it should be an option. The problem is that it's often the only way to play evil.

 

When a character is evil, they do often murder for any number of reasons. They are also psychopathic. Quite often when people ask for evil and then complain about that path having the PC murder people, it's because they didn't really want to play evil, they just wanted to play an anti-hero.

 

Being evil generally means a lack of compassion, selfish, lusting, greedy, narcissistic and a willingnous to do anything to get what they want. Some will go about it differently, but the end result is the same. Some are secretative, some are manipulative, some are brutal, but they will always be psychopathic murderers.

 

I'd rather not have the game dictating what i can or can't do if the options it gives me are really one dimensional. The thing is that many rpgs make it really hard because of the limited options you are given to do so.

 

There is a reason for this, it's finite resources. Writing takes time and even though PE doesn't have full VO, we can't go expecting every choice to represent the character we've dreamed up.

 

All I ask is that they give us a choice, instead of making the PC grey, and tying us to the hero path.

 

Still i like how you assume that i hate playing as a murderous psycopath, which i don't. Maybe you should think before coming into your own conclusions...

 

I'll go back to a previous post:

 

Give me 3 examples where being evil doesn't involve being a murdering psychopath

 

That sounds like you have a problem with being a murderous psychopath. Even though clinically that is what 'evil' is. If your not psychopathic, your not going to be evil. It's an required trait of someone evil.

 

I you liked it, you wouldn't be complaining about it's presence.

 

But being good or neutral just because you can is better or good writing? Afraid not.

How about you quote the part of my post where i said that. I'm having a hard time finding it myself.

 

People complain that evil is there just for the sake of it, but not that the exact same is true for the good and neutral choices.

 

I had assumed you were one of them from this:

 

'being evil just because you can'

 

Just because i'm not talking about good/neutral options doesn't mean i think they are any better. That logic of yours that assumes otherwise is completely ridiculous. Nothing in my posts back your assumptions yet you still make them. You might have noticed that this topic was "playing evil". It was not "playing good" or "playing neutral". Which is why i was mostly talking about evil options.

 

Then why post:

 

'I don't really want there to be an evil option if it's equally bad to what it is in 90% of games'.

 

You would of posted instead

 

'I like evil options, but I would prefer to have a better selection of them'.

 

Not the removal of the option.

[Leferd]

I like the idea of morally bankrupt npc characters without being cartoonishly villainous. As much as I enjoyed Edwin and Tiax, I really think that Bishop from NWN2 is an under rated character. He's definitely not a nice guy, but you understand his motivations and it is logical. He's cold blooded, but not psychopathic.

 

He's the type of henchman I would hire if I was a criminal mastermind.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Leferd

[HansKrSG]

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.

<snip>

 

I don't think thats what they are saying at all, they are just saying that there is no alignment system, there will be (probably) options you and I will consider evil, but you have no alignment to justify this with. That said, they do have a reputation system, which is probably more realistic. People react to who they think you are, not if you are evil inside.

[JFSOCC]

There is no good or evil because they are man-made concepts. There are motivations, no-one will do what they consider to be evil, for evils sake alone. (not in real life anyway)

When people do things we consider to be bad, or evil, it's often for motivations that while we disagree with those, we can understand.

[xLegionx]

There better be an option to play evil in this game. I always play the evil playthrough and if that is not so then they are not making this game to matchup to icewind dale or baldur's gate but rather to use these games as a false example just to make their game look promising to people desperate for a really good rpg.

 

I have high expectations for this game and if they're goal is to matchup to baldur's gate, icewind dale or planescape then I expect that these expectations will ALL be fulfilled.

[Farbautisonn]

I respectfully disagree with regards to PS:T, you could go on to commit virtuous and heinous actions. In my view is the world that remained consistently grey with a few exceptions, there was no moral sense as we know it. The world had an atmosphere of desperation and grime about it that portrayed every NPC act as something out of necessity not evil, which is why I think it can be misinterpreted as a grey morality.

So... there can be an absolute void of morality if desperation and grime dictates it? I know people who would argue against that, but I do actually like the notion, because as I see it, a void where the terms "morals and ethics" cannot be applied, is indeed gray.

 

If you act out of nessesity you can still do morally and ethically questionalble things.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Farbautisonn

[Bryy]

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.

 

Same.

 

I don't understand the "if you don't let us be the bad guy, you are forcing us to be good" argument about RPGs. Playing a homicidal maniac to me just means that you are trying to find cracks in the game that you can complain about.

[Farbautisonn]

Or he could mug you because he wants to buy some drugs and hookers, and fix the clutch on his car. Perhaps he wants to strengthen his position in the "mafia", and they accept money as part of that process. Maybe he just doesn't like that you have fancy stuff, and decides to leave you in the hospital "just because" and really doesn't even need to sell or keep the stuff he took from you. There can also just be evil.

 

Ofcourse. However the above is an example of hamfisted, ignorant and selfish evil. Its easy to place in a "black and white" context. It requires no real reflection or thought to condemn it. The above is how most percieve "evil" and it is terribly simple. Its also rarely the evil that is the most successfull. The more successfull evil we see in our world is the one where evil camouflages as good. For instance if I were to play an "intelligent evil" Lawfull Evil character, my outward appearence would be close to, if not identical to, Lawfull good. Its "Palpatine" before he becomes "the Emperor".

 

 

And even if the above were true (IE strengthening his position) some organisations you dont leave unless you are dead. Some organisations you either live up to your reputation or die horribly. Does it make it better? No... perhaps not. But if you have the choise between seeing your wife and children killed and killing someone else, most opt for what is behind door number one.