playing "evil"

[Bos_hybrid]

I wonder why people become so obsessed with morality in Video Games? I suppose that it's part of the immersion and all but it seems that every time an RPG is released there will be a thread talking about an evil playthrough and the merits of roleplaying evil characters. So its curious as to why this aspect rises above the rest.

 

Simple if there is no choice for self serving/scheming/warmongering/greed/betrayal, your railroaded into being the hero and down a singular path. Doesn't that make it less satisfying for people that like to play the hero? Don't you prefer having choices? Another reason is that villains simply have more fun.

 

I'm often left to wonder why the people that call evil boring or simple writing, never say the same about the good/hero path. Apparently being a selfless doormat is interesting and quality writing.

 

The truth is, that in an RPG the hero/good path is the default, no one is going to post the question; 'can you be the hero in this RPG?'. It's a given. Having an evil/villain path is not such a sure bet, and those that are interested in that path will pose the question about it's possibility.

[Lephys]

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

 

You don't really need to be able to specifically strive towards evil just to have the opportunity to antagonize good. I mean, we could debate that the very act of intentionally foregoing good is, itself, evil, but... the point is, you don't need to be able to choose between "destroy/enslave the world" and "build/help/save the world," when you can choose between "help the world" and "help yourself," etc.

 

In fact, both choices could actually be good, even. If you've got limited amounts of poison antidote at your disposal, and you COULD give them to some townsfolk to cure those who are ailing/dying at the moment, OR you could keep them to venture into the nearby den of poisonous creatures that's tormenting the town (so as to treat your own poison incursions from bites and such in clearing out the den). If you keep them, then the townsfolk aren't going to be happy, because they don't want those people to die. But then, if you give them away, you can't guarantee you'll make it through the den alive, and more people will just keep falling victim to the poison.

[Plutone00]

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

 

You don't really need to be able to specifically strive towards evil just to have the opportunity to antagonize good. I mean, we could debate that the very act of intentionally foregoing good is, itself, evil, but... the point is, you don't need to be able to choose between "destroy/enslave the world" and "build/help/save the world," when you can choose between "help the world" and "help yourself," etc.

 

In fact, both choices could actually be good, even. If you've got limited amounts of poison antidote at your disposal, and you COULD give them to some townsfolk to cure those who are ailing/dying at the moment, OR you could keep them to venture into the nearby den of poisonous creatures that's tormenting the town (so as to treat your own poison incursions from bites and such in clearing out the den). If you keep them, then the townsfolk aren't going to be happy, because they don't want those people to die. But then, if you give them away, you can't guarantee you'll make it through the den alive, and more people will just keep falling victim to the poison.

 

You've got the right general idea, but in the end it's still obvious good vs evil choice. The problem with this  kind of games is they present a simple problem and a simple solution: if you want to good do so-and-so, but if you want to be evil do something else. And you know (you may not be sure the fist playthrough, but you still kinda know) that no matter what path you choose, you are gonna succeed in the end. So most people just follow the good path, because it's kinda obvious and it's clear that everybody will like protagonist for following it. I don't think the paths should be so obvious. The devs can still leave the choice on the table, but they shouldn't make the "right" path so clear. There have to be more risks involved, there shouldn't be a gurantee in success of either path.

 

If you stubbornly stick to chivalrous ways, your path should not be easy. You're gonna make sacrifices along the way and no matter what there is not going to be 100% approval. You may end losing some people close to you and the rest branding you a hypocrite. All you are left with in the end is your chivalry and happy ending is not guranteed. The same with the evil path. You can't just betray your companions and there comes a crown waiting on a plate; all that's left is to put it on and you are new Prince of Darkness. The pursuit of power (does not even have to be dark power) will make you lots of enemies. Not just the "good guys" but also your ruthless competitors for the same power. And they are not all sitting in the same room or in same castle waiting to be defeated by you. They are all out of your reach scheming against you and there is nothing you can do about it. You can't go to the "good guys" for help either, because they are also on the hunt for you. So you have to play smart, slowly building your own power and faction while avoiding your numerous enemies, but you have to keep in mind that if you take too long, the prize will go to someone else. There is no 100% gurantee here either.

[Hamenaglar]

Sorry guys for parachuting.

 

Personally, I'm tired of Star wars-like evil. In fact I'm tired of good and evil. I'm interested in choices. An example, you and your sister (or girlfriend) are running away from wolves, she trips and falls. Do you stay and help her and risk your life or do you run away to safety and leave her to the wolves.

 

Your son/little brother/childhood friend has been brainwashed and wants to kill innocent people. Do you help him or kill him?

 

I want options to do terrible stuff, but I want there to be some motivation for doing it. Something more than "because I can".

 

All the rpgs lead you to a conflict with a villain. In a way you are always a hero, you always defeat that villain. I never thought acting like a psychopath murderer make sense. However acting like a self-centered, egotistic anti-hero. That's what I'd like to see. I'm very intrigued how new planescape is handling alignments. That seems much more interesting than a good and evil, black-grey-white scale. The world is not shades of grey, the world is full of colors. Colors, man

[Bos_hybrid]

However acting like a self-centered, egotistic anti-hero. That's what I'd like to see.

 

No thanks, leave that for bioware games. More of MoTB in PE please.

 

A)An example, you and your sister (or girlfriend) are running away from wolves, she trips and falls. Do you stay and help her and risk your life or do you run away to safety and leave her to the wolves.

 

B)Your son/little brother/childhood friend has been brainwashed and wants to kill innocent people. Do you help him or kill him?

 

 

Why are they interesting?A) It's be a hero or coward B) be a hero or be a hero.

 

Far better choices would be the option to trip up said GF/sister to escape/get to a certain situation sooner, or be the person that brainwashes child/brother/friend. But only if the motivation to do so is interesting/purposeful.

 

It's shouldn't be about removing evil choices, it should be about giving those choices meaning besides 'ha ha I'm evil' *strokes white cat while picking human flesh from his teeth with puppy leg bone.

 

All the rpgs lead you to a conflict with a villain.

 

Again I have to point to MoTB where the final encounter wasn't a villain, just an antagonist and an unfortunate one at that, just like the rest of the games antagonists. Really the only real villain in that game was the PC(if player chooses this path) and the NPC an evil PC could choose to create.  

 

Preferably PE won't have a main 'evil' villain but a antagonist.

[Jobby]

Agree with the OP and most of what has been said here, without getting too philosophical though, generally good and evil is defined by personal opinions, ideologies and history (Ted Bundys aside). I for example consider Maggie Thatcher evil yet many (not evil) people consider her a hero (Opinion), I consider the treatment of women in many parts of the world to be evil, again many people do not (Cultural ideologies), finally history tells us that the Aztecs/Incas were an evil race who engaged in the ritual slaughter of innocents and yet the European conquistadors who murdered an entire race are not considered so. 

 

So from that I agree with the idea of no game rules defining what is good and evil but rather a world of grey where perhaps some evil acts could be considered "for the greater good" and some good acts could be considered irresponsible or cowardly.

 

However I do think it could be fun to have the option of the non-grey Ted Bundy approach where there a real consequences for being a psychopathic murderer (and perhaps real benefits for a psychopathic bank robbing murderer :D)  

 

If I believed it was possible to actually branch the game depending on alignment I would love it however realistically the game has to have a common end point if we are ever going to have the possibility of a direct sequel, the manner in which you get there is sufficient enough for me (Bhodi / Thieves guild BG2 option for example).

 

I do feel though that BG2 is not the be all and end all and if it is possible to expand upon these choices then I'm all for that. 

 

Finally the stronghold will hopefully provide interesting options for evil gameplay, perhaps even full scripted storyline arcs diverging all over the place, megalomaniac dictators to altruistic leaders, in fact i would rather have this than separate quests and strongholds for different classes.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Jobby

[Orogun01]

Oi! That's the Prime Minister you're talking about.

[Jobby]

*Was

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I want to play a character like Batman from All-Star Batman. I would like to go around assaulting guards, kidnapping and indoctrinating children, blackmailing heroes, and cackling with maniacal glee at the prospect of beating someone into a pulp.

[Jobby]

Is that the same guy that carry's a can of shark repellent with him at all times just incase? Or am i in a different universe lol?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Is that the same guy that carry's a can of shark repellent with him at all times just incase? Or am i in a different universe lol?

Frank Miller wrote it, so there was bound to be a large number of hookers and weird ****.

 

Also different universe.

[Jarmo]

  finally history tells us that the Aztecs/Incas were an evil race who engaged in the ritual slaughter of innocents and yet the European conquistadors who murdered an entire race are not considered so. 

 

 

That's where evil and good start to get interesting, chaotic vs lawful as well.

 

My take is, if the conquistadors perceived the aztec culture as evil, their lawful good course was clear.

Slay as many as necessary, just crush the evil and force them into the arms of christendom. Death of a million is peanuts compared to the whole races spiritual salvation.

 

If the conquistadors resorted to treachery to reach their goals, blackmail and murder, stuff they know is basically wrong.

The end still justifies the means, they're still good, just not lawful good.

 

If the conquistadors did it all mainly to get filthy rich by looting gold and everything else was just an excuse, then they were evil.

 

Or it could be some middle ground in the neutrals.

Maybe the causes were pure, but not quite enough if there wasn't a golden incentive.

 

The Aztecs then?

So they captured a whole bunch of people, ripped hearts out in sacrifice to some gods?

If they did it just for the giggles, or out of boredom, they were some kinds of psychotic evil monsters.

 

But if they truly believed it's the good and proper thing to do, gods need to be satisfied or the whole world ends!!

Sucks for the prisoners, but hey, a bunch of neighbors vs the end of the world?

 

Could be anywhere from lawful good to chaotic good to chaotic evil. Depends.

[Orogun01]

 

  finally history tells us that the Aztecs/Incas were an evil race who engaged in the ritual slaughter of innocents and yet the European conquistadors who murdered an entire race are not considered so. 

 

 

That's where evil and good start to get interesting, chaotic vs lawful as well.

 

My take is, if the conquistadors perceived the aztec culture as evil, their lawful good course was clear.

Slay as many as necessary, just crush the evil and force them into the arms of christendom. Death of a million is peanuts compared to the whole races spiritual salvation.

 

If the conquistadors resorted to treachery to reach their goals, blackmail and murder, stuff they know is basically wrong.

The end still justifies the means, they're still good, just not lawful good.

 

If the conquistadors did it all mainly to get filthy rich by looting gold and everything else was just an excuse, then they were evil.

 

Or it could be some middle ground in the neutrals.

Maybe the causes were pure, but not quite enough if there wasn't a golden incentive.

 

The Aztecs then?

So they captured a whole bunch of people, ripped hearts out in sacrifice to some gods?

If they did it just for the giggles, or out of boredom, they were some kinds of psychotic evil monsters.

 

But if they truly believed it's the good and proper thing to do, gods need to be satisfied or the whole world ends!!

Sucks for the prisoners, but hey, a bunch of neighbors vs the end of the world?

 

Could be anywhere from lawful good to chaotic good to chaotic evil. Depends.

 

So the moral is that every time someone starts comparing ethics a bunch of people die and there is no clear good. Why do we need ethics and good again?

[Jarmo]

 So the moral is that every time someone starts comparing ethics a bunch of people die and there is no clear good. Why do we need ethics and good again?

 

 

That rather happens when you force your ethics on others.

Guess the moral is you should think twice about what's ethical and what's not before starting to burn people.

Then again, this stance can lead to passiveness in front of real evil, which is also a bad thing.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jarmo

[JFSOCC]

So the moral is that every time someone starts comparing ethics a bunch of people die and there is no clear good. Why do we need ethics and good again?

There is a Harvard Ethics course on youtube called "Justice - What's the right thing to do" And the excellent teacher, professor Michael Sandel has a speech during the first episode. He mentions that taking this course will change the way you look at the world, he says it might make you a worse person, or rather, it might make you a worse person, before it makes you a better one.

 

I thought that was pretty apt.

 

Also I can highly recommend the series.

(10 episodes with 2 lectures each)

Edited January 10, 2014 by JFSOCC

[Walsingham]

I want options to do terrible stuff, but I want there to be some motivation for doing it. Something more than "because I can".

 

All the rpgs lead you to a conflict with a villain. In a way you are always a hero, you always defeat that villain. I never thought acting like a psychopath murderer make sense. However acting like a self-centered, egotistic anti-hero. That's what I'd like to see. I'm very intrigued how new planescape is handling alignments. That seems much more interesting than a good and evil, black-grey-white scale. The world is not shades of grey, the world is full of colors. Colors, man

 

Well, firstly, welcome, and make certain you read the Flashman novels asap, for your anti-hero.

 

Thinking about what's been written here, I'm going to crank up the waffling a bit and suggest evil comes from two sources, of which only the first is 'true' evil:

 

1) People who are fundamentally broken. They feel nothing towards others, and do evil quite simply because they feel icy contempt for ordinary people. Although they will often dress it up in all kinds of ideology.

 

2) People who are lead into evil by the three classic lines of authority (charismatic, pragmatic, traditional) by one of the first type.

 

Many people _unaccustomed to making meaningful decisions_ get confused and add in a third type where someone in pursuit of a wholesome aim, but lacking facts or analytical tools, chooses the wrong course of action to get there. For example, a medieval 'doctor' would prescribe you nonsense, and charge you for the privilege. Yet I doubt they were evil.

[Orogun01]

 

I want options to do terrible stuff, but I want there to be some motivation for doing it. Something more than "because I can".

 

All the rpgs lead you to a conflict with a villain. In a way you are always a hero, you always defeat that villain. I never thought acting like a psychopath murderer make sense. However acting like a self-centered, egotistic anti-hero. That's what I'd like to see. I'm very intrigued how new planescape is handling alignments. That seems much more interesting than a good and evil, black-grey-white scale. The world is not shades of grey, the world is full of colors. Colors, man

 

Well, firstly, welcome, and make certain you read the Flashman novels asap, for your anti-hero.

 

Thinking about what's been written here, I'm going to crank up the waffling a bit and suggest evil comes from two sources, of which only the first is 'true' evil:

 

1) People who are fundamentally broken. They feel nothing towards others, and do evil quite simply because they feel icy contempt for ordinary people. Although they will often dress it up in all kinds of ideology.

 

2) People who are lead into evil by the three classic lines of authority (charismatic, pragmatic, traditional) by one of the first type.

 

Many people _unaccustomed to making meaningful decisions_ get confused and add in a third type where someone in pursuit of a wholesome aim, but lacking facts or analytical tools, chooses the wrong course of action to get there. For example, a medieval 'doctor' would prescribe you nonsense, and charge you for the privilege. Yet I doubt they were evil.

 

I'm going to do you one better and say that evil comes from only one source: selfishness.

Sociopaths can still lead just lives without having a wealth of feelings, Ideologues might still have a strong moral fiber that stops them from losing sight of what's good.

It just comes down to the point where your actions might hurt someone else and balancing self-interest against the well being of another.

[Jarmo]

 There is a Harvard Ethics course on youtube called "Justice - What's the right thing to do" And the excellent teacher, professor Michael Sandel has a speech during the first episode. He mentions that taking this course will change the way you look at the world, he says it might make you a worse person, or rather, it might make you a worse person, before it makes you a better one.

 

Also I can highly recommend the series.

(10 episodes with 2 lectures each)

 

 

I've now watched a bit over 5 minutes of the first one and can testify it's real good stuff!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think Orogun1 makes a good point. To be truly evil you have to be able to diminish the value of someone else's existince where their right to property, life, sanity, etc. mean nothing next to your own pleasure.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

 

 

Thinking about what's been written here, I'm going to crank up the waffling a bit and suggest evil comes from two sources, of which only the first is 'true' evil:

 

1) People who are fundamentally broken. They feel nothing towards others, and do evil quite simply because they feel icy contempt for ordinary people. Although they will often dress it up in all kinds of ideology.

 

2) People who are lead into evil by the three classic lines of authority (charismatic, pragmatic, traditional) by one of the first type.

 

Many people _unaccustomed to making meaningful decisions_ get confused and add in a third type where someone in pursuit of a wholesome aim, but lacking facts or analytical tools, chooses the wrong course of action to get there. For example, a medieval 'doctor' would prescribe you nonsense, and charge you for the privilege. Yet I doubt they were evil.

 

I'm going to do you one better and say that evil comes from only one source: selfishness.

Sociopaths can still lead just lives without having a wealth of feelings, Ideologues might still have a strong moral fiber that stops them from losing sight of what's good.

It just comes down to the point where your actions might hurt someone else and balancing self-interest against the well being of another.

 

 

 

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you both here. Certainly, selfishness can drive people to do evil, and corruption is one of the biggest things preventing people doing good.

But the thing is, selfishness means selling out whatever ideology one supports, or not possessing one at all. And when said ideology is a relatively good one, then yes, that's bad. But not all ideologies are good. The mass graves of the twentieth century stand as testament to the evil that the worst of ideologies can cause. And where such ideologies hold sway, the selfish and corrupt, who sell out and weaken that ideology, are far better than those who follow it, though those loyal ideologues may well be far from selfish.  Who is worse, the greedy German border guard who lines his pocket by smuggling Jews across the border to Switzerland, or the loyal man of the SS who bravely lays down his life for the cause? And yes, I realise Godwin's Law has just been officially invoked, but we're discussing the nature of evil here. Bringing up the greatest historical exemplars of evil is to be expected. Which is good, because I'm going to bring them up some more.

Walsingham, I refuse to accept that no-one, ever, has been evil in the name of an ideology and honestly believed that ideology (rather than using it as an excuse for selfishness or to hurt people for pleasure) while not acting under another's authority or lacking the ability to know better. While I must admit that the world's greatest ideological murderers were probably insane (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.), there remain plenty who weren't. Take Lenin, for example. By all accounts, he was an honest man who truly believed in his Bolshevik ideology, and did not act selfishly, or take any particular pleasure in the pain of others. Furthermore, he was certainly exceedingly intelligent and well educated. There's no evidence to suggest he was in any way insane. None of these factors stopped him from killing thousands upon thousands, actively and openly supporting a doctrine of revolutionary terror, taking bread from the mouths of the Russian people to feed his war effort against the White Army (War Communism) and authorizing countless war crimes. He was not `broken`. He was not following orders. And he hardly lacked facts or analytical tools. Yet he remains one of history's greatest mass murderers,  his crimes only overshadowed by the far worse murderer who succeeded him.

 

Incidentally, the spellchecker says analytical isn't a word. Silly spellchecker.

[Orogun01]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you both here. Certainly, selfishness can drive people to do evil, and corruption is one of the biggest things preventing people doing good.

But the thing is, selfishness means selling out whatever ideology one supports, or not possessing one at all. And when said ideology is a relatively good one, then yes, that's bad. But not all ideologies are good. The mass graves of the twentieth century stand as testament to the evil that the worst of ideologies can cause. And where such ideologies hold sway, the selfish and corrupt, who sell out and weaken that ideology, are far better than those who follow it, though those loyal ideologues may well be far from selfish.  Who is worse, the greedy German border guard who lines his pocket by smuggling Jews across the border to Switzerland, or the loyal man of the SS who bravely lays down his life for the cause? And yes, I realise Godwin's Law has just been officially invoked, but we're discussing the nature of evil here. Bringing up the greatest historical exemplars of evil is to be expected. Which is good, because I'm going to bring them up some more.

Walsingham, I refuse to accept that no-one, ever, has been evil in the name of an ideology and honestly believed that ideology (rather than using it as an excuse for selfishness or to hurt people for pleasure) while not acting under another's authority or lacking the ability to know better. While I must admit that the world's greatest ideological murderers were probably insane (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.), there remain plenty who weren't. Take Lenin, for example. By all accounts, he was an honest man who truly believed in his Bolshevik ideology, and did not act selfishly, or take any particular pleasure in the pain of others. Furthermore, he was certainly exceedingly intelligent and well educated. There's no evidence to suggest he was in any way insane. None of these factors stopped him from killing thousands upon thousands, actively and openly supporting a doctrine of revolutionary terror, taking bread from the mouths of the Russian people to feed his war effort against the White Army (War Communism) and authorizing countless war crimes. He was not `broken`. He was not following orders. And he hardly lacked facts or analytical tools. Yet he remains one of history's greatest mass murderers,  his crimes only overshadowed by the far worse murderer who succeeded him.

 

Incidentally, the spellchecker says analytical isn't a word. Silly spellchecker.

Your logic is sound only as long as the ideology remains "pure",  the matter is that there is a gap between ideological meaning and belief. People are driven by belief, they wove their ego around a belief system so that it supersedes their needs but it doesn't suppress them. Said needs are only displaced and projected onto the belief system. Since there isn't a separation of the ego and the superego perpetuating the latter is an act borne out of the same selfish desires that drive us.

For true believer an affront to their belief system is worse than an attack on their own lives.

 

Also, within their own logic Hitler, Mao, and the other examples you provided are sane. They are only regarded as such due to demonizing and media control.

[JFSOCC]

A good example of interesting evil characters are people who are good at getting others to do their work for them.

[Nonek]

You're all wrong, everybody knows that the level of evil is decided by facial hair, no need to thank me.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

You're all wrong, everybody knows that the level of evil is decided by facial hair, no need to thank me.

Then Alan Moore is evil incarnate.

[Orogun01]

 

You're all wrong, everybody knows that the level of evil is decided by facial hair, no need to thank me.

Then Alan Moore is evil incarnate.

 

Was there ever any doubt, a long haired, scruffy beard loony. It's no wonder that he's Shiny Morrison archnemesis.