playing "evil"

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

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.

 

VS

[teknoman2]

 

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.

 

or to put it simply, the follower of something, is more fanatical about it than it's creator ever could be

[Lephys]

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

True that. I think the level of evil is directly proportionate to the amount of bare face (while amount of facial hair > 0).

 

I mean, look At Gandalf. Huge beard, super good. Then look at people who kidnap damsels and tie them to train tracks. Thin, wiry mustaches ripe for twirling.

[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.

Like EA?

 

By the way, death threats as jokes are never funny.

[Jobby]

Where was the death threat? I found it amusing

[HardRains]

I agree with many of you here. No more black and white, good vs. evil, paragon vs. renegade paths.

In light of xLegionx's post on this thread. If a game designer comes up with an RPG that changes based on the D&D alignment model, creating 9 possible paths, I'd be happy. It's a lot of writing but I'd gladly accept a shorter game with that much expansion and replayability.

 

Just no more yer-a-jedi or yer-a-sith.

Except change 'evil' and 'good' to 'selfish' and 'selfless'. So being Lawful Selfless means you care about the needs of others above your own and obey the law. Chaotic Selfish means you don't care about law and order and are only doing what benefits you at the expense of other's needs.
 

Edited January 14, 2014 by HardRains

[Dark Elf]

Just abolish alignments altogether and go for reputations instead. Let the reactions of the game world define your character, not some blurb on the character sheet. The concept of alignment itself is just a corollary to the way conflicting interests regard you anyway, and noble paladins and fatherly wizards fighting twirling mustachios is fairly poor writing. If you've played The Witcher, you will have seen a conflict done right. The elves and the dwarves are terrorists or fighting for their own freedom and survival depending on your viewpoint, those knights are working to uphold order and stability or just out there to impose fascism and xenophobic tyranny, again depending on your point of view. Or, you know, none of these things are exactly mutually exclusive. The elves could be BOTH bloodthirsty murderers AND fighting for their survival. Shades of grey.   

 

I mean, who hasn't seen the threads where people try to pidgeon hole a historical or fictional character into one of the D&D alignments? It just won't let itself be done easily. Just take any of the Chaos Gods from the Warhammer universe. It's very common that people want to slate them as Chaotic Evil across the board, which fails to take into account just how complex these entities are supposed to be. For example, while it might make perfect sense to regard Slaanesh as evil, is he Chaotic Evil (a Chaos god), Neutral Evil (selfish!) or heck, capitalising on his penchant for perfection and pride, even Lawful Evil? A case could easily be made for any of these.   

 

And if we must still have alignments, please, for goodness sake, let me see Lawful Evil done right.  

[MReed]

Just abolish alignments altogether and go for reputations instead.

 

This is already promised. 

 

It is also totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  Most people consider Stalin to be "evil", and unless I'm missing something, the "Real World" [pretty good game actually, but it really needs a better saving system ] doesn't include character sheets at all.  How, I wonder, are people able to make this judgement without an explicit alignment indicator?

[PrimeJunta]

Meh, evil is just shorthand for a bad reputation with your faction. Stalin pissed off a LOT of factions. And fractions. (Also, Trotsky FTW.)

[ShadowTiger]

Since there seems to be a discussion of what is "evil" here is my pallete of characters that I use for cRPGs as well as PnP games. Maybe for those who never play evil characters it could be an interesting perspective?

There are 3 neutral evil characters and 1 chaotic neutral character.

One person is a swordmaster who enjoys picking fights with tough people and then letting them go (unless they really deserve death). People who get in her way are slaughtered mercilessly unless it would get her kicked out of town or put in jail. In that case, just teach them a lesson. She doesn't hold a grudge and assumes that a landslide victory is enough to deter future conflict. She loves collecting magic swords and will try to buy or steal anything that catches her eye. 

Another character has had a rough life where friends and family were killed at every turn. She had to turn to evil to survive, and being more of a bully type character simply took what she wanted from those who were weaker. She doesn't like anyone much at all, and is filled with rage and vengeance against the world. When she does meet a group of companions that get along well, she values them greatly because they could be taken away at any time. 

The third character is a necromancer who pursues knowledge and power. She doesn't have much respect for other creatures and views them as insects... potentially worth study but not really significant in the daily life. If they are annoying, they get squashed or shooed away. She tries to suppress her emotions as she sees them as flaws and vulnerabilities. She does go out of her way to avoid trouble though... she is too focused on academics to really engage much with the world around her. She doesn't see anything wrong with desecrating corpses to create undead servants... it is awfully convenient if you can get past the smell.

The chaotic neutral character is an animalistic assassin that enjoys the hunt. She doesn't really care who she kills or why, its all about the journey to get there. She seeks out challenging foes but doesn't mind toying with a few hapless victims when she is bored. She has a distinct lack of personal ambition or greed, which is both a strength and a setback in many circumstances. The idea is that she is somewhat easy to manipulate and that whatever group she travels with can steer her to fulfill their goals while keeping her happy if they are careful.

Hopefully Eternity will give me a chance to flesh out these characters by throwing them into new circumstances that offer decisions that they would actually agree with!

Edited January 15, 2014 by ShadowTiger

[charms]

And if we must still have alignments, please, for goodness sake, let me see Lawful Evil done right.  

 

Woedica's probably the best stand-in for LE in this game. Just look at her modus operandi:

 

'Aww, you forgot to pay the rent on time? Looks like Granny's gonna have to choke a bitch.'

[FlintlockJazz]

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

Then that must mean I've been getting more evil over the past few months.  Is it that the facial hair grows evil roots into your brain or something?

[Ibisshagrat]

If any of you played Arcanum as an evil character, you could know that it can be funny and make the game quite replayable, it wasn't just changing XP for gold, it gave a new perpective to the history.

[Jarmo]

If any of you played Arcanum as an evil character, you could know that it can be funny and make the game quite replayable

 

Definitely.

My Evil charmer mage did what she had to do to get a recommendation letter to the gentleman's club from that horny old gnome.

But still left with her reputation intact, because corpses splattered on the wall tell no tales. Even got some pocket money as well.

[illuminar82]

I prefer factions over good and evil. Reputation should grow, diminish, or be neutral against choices. Nation A and church A may not care. Nation B and thieves guild may like the results. Wizards and nation b may hate it. And the closer you are to these factions base the more it matters. But with being low enough causing them to hunt you all over the world.

[Giantevilhead]

I think it's more of a matter of looking at behaviors as continuum between extremes and the way they interact/conflict with each other.

 

For example, having passion and ambition can be good since you're striving to achieve more and accomplish your goals. However, if you're too ambitious, you may ignore other concerns like reason or mercy and end up hurting others to achieve your goals. Similarly, not being too ambitious can be good since it can be easier to look at things more objectively and not let your passion cloud your judgment. However, if you have no ambition at all, then you're just sitting around not doing anything with your life or you're letting other people make decisions for you.

[Walsingham]

Local 'court' orders woman raped.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-25855325

 

Evil in my book. Socially constructed, certainly. But still evil. Much as sati was.

 

Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.

 

 

Napier, William. (1851) History Of General Sir Charles Napier's Administration Of Scinde. (P. 35). London: Chapman and Hall

[Bryy]

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.

Yeah, in my experience, when people say they want to play evil, they really are just looking for ways to complain about not having enough "choice".

[Nyhilla]

 

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.

Yeah, in my experience, when people say they want to play evil, they really are just looking for ways to complain about not having enough "choice".

 

 

Personnaly when I'm talking about playing evil, it's about plotting, do wathever is good for me. I talk about politics, reputations with this or this faction. Do I care about kicking a puppy ass, no, not really ; this puppy can die or live I don't give a *****.

If there's a kingdom who is abble to hide my experiments on kidnapped children without them noticing about, because I'm the loyal councelor of their king, then this is what I mean when talking about "evil". If it's considered bad or good by some people, this is their way to see it, not mine.

 

I just found a refugie convoy, they ask me to help them, what will I do ? There are more than one option.

1 - Help them by defeating some bandits.

2 - Be sure that the convoy reach the nearest town-fortress they're aiming to.

3 - Make sure you help them, and ask a valuable reward.

4 - Slaughter them all, rape the women, and enslave their children.

 

Well ok .. and ... not enough for me.

 

5 - I help them because they're rewarding me for doing so, and the reward please me. I'm gathering some informations on those refugies. I learn by bribing one of them that he is just a bodyguard and that his Lord is in hidding as one of the refugies, trying to reach the safety of his family town-fortress. I want him to work for me. I have plenty options about how I can manage to get him on my side, willingly or not. Let's say this lord is a butcher (I don't care what he has done), and that if the refugies learn of it they will kill him. That's something, so I can use this information at my advantage and make sure that he will get me entries to his court for exemple, and reach some degree of power in nobility as a pass to more complex motivations, or just as a an undercover, like I stated about being the councellor of some high ranked peoples. What I want to do with those new possibilities is up to me.

 

 

I stated in a post some time ago, that if a town was attacked by a bunch of renegades, undead, or whatever can be, and that "paladins" wanted me to help them defend the town, I want to choose if I will or not do something.

 

Do I must defend them, help the attackers, don't care at all, find what I was searching for and the make my way through both sides, etc ... ? 

Choices that are about killing the commanders of the "bad guys", then help the citizens or just leave them, is not what I call playing a game, and this is not about being "evil or good". this is just a fake choice.

 

Generally in games, you have a good and a bad choice, which mean, kill the bad guys, or the good guys (and they are good or evil from the point of view of the devs, not mine. I can see the "bad guys", as in fact the good guys and conversely the good guys as the bad guys). Wtf is that ? Is that a choice ? If you kill the good guys, you get nothing, and you dont hear a ***** further in the story about the bad guys, and if you kill the bad guys, the good guys give you 10 gold then they leave and you never hear of them neither.

That is not about playing evil or good or neutral, this is just fake choices.

 

Let's take an exemple of Paragon and Pragmatism from Mass Effect 2, that some people consider to be a choice between good and evil.

The guy you can throw out of a window, why the hell would I do that ? I can push him, or just let it go. Why is that a "pragmatism (evil)" choice ?. I mean even the "good guy" can answer to that : "If I don't kill him, he will reveal ou position, and if he manage to leave alive, he will kill more innocents". And here I don't talk about choices. So do you throw him or not. You're a soldier, you need to do what you consider to be the best option from your point of view. Kill this man because, or do not kill him because.

 

"Evil" is just a point of view. There, am I evil, normal, good ? Depends of how people see it.(Refer to the first little story about the Lord)

 

What I don't want is like Frenetic pony, to have just an option about kicking the dog of some little girl .. I just don't give a ***** about her dog or to steal a lolipop.

 

This can be difficult to introduce I admit, but as no devs tried yet (It's my opinion that none really tried to) then it's sure that we will not see anything of this sort happen in a game for a while.

Maybe if this was a more common type of gameplay ...

 

 

PS : Sorry for my english, I tried my best to keep it coherent ^^.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Nyhilla

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Wals, how do you find such horrific news stories? Is there a special search engine?

[Nyhilla]

Also I forgot to state that, how citizens react when they see you must be taken in the affair. If you burned to the ground the previous town (and thus probably killed some people of their own family or friends), then if they're not saying anything, what's the point in doing something ? be it "good or evil".

 

Skyrim is a good example of the neglect of this aspect.

You're the *****ing High King and no one give a **** about it. Seriously when you do/are something, there must be a reactions from your status by the citizens. Why would a guard put in jail is own High Kink ? Or in fact put in jail for 5 years the man who's need to kill the threat roaring an impending doom on all of the world.

 

"Evil and Good" so is also about how the world react to you, and not only about the choices you can, or cannot make through your journey.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Nyhilla

[Bryy]

Also I forgot to state that, how citizens react when they see you must be taken in the affair. If you burned to the ground the previous town (and thus probably killed some people of their own family or friends), then if they're not saying anything, what's the point in doing something ? be it "good or evil".

 

Skyrim is a good example of the neglect of this aspect.

You're the *****ing High King and no one give a **** about it. Seriously when you do/are something, there must be a reactions from your status by the citizens. Why would a guard put in jail is own High Kink ? Or in fact put in jail for 5 years the man who's need to kill the threat roaring an impending doom on all of the world.

 

"Evil and Good" so is also about how the world react to you, and not only about the choices you can, or cannot make through your journey.

I loved Skyrim's reaction after you killed Alduin.

 

"Yeah, that's cool, I guess..."

[Nyhilla]

 

Also I forgot to state that, how citizens react when they see you must be taken in the affair. If you burned to the ground the previous town (and thus probably killed some people of their own family or friends), then if they're not saying anything, what's the point in doing something ? be it "good or evil".

 

Skyrim is a good example of the neglect of this aspect.

You're the *****ing High King and no one give a **** about it. Seriously when you do/are something, there must be a reactions from your status by the citizens. Why would a guard put in jail is own High Kink ? Or in fact put in jail for 5 years the man who's need to kill the threat roaring an impending doom on all of the world.

 

"Evil and Good" so is also about how the world react to you, and not only about the choices you can, or cannot make through your journey.

I loved Skyrim's reaction after you killed Alduin.

 

"Yeah, that's cool, I guess..."

 

 

This is one exemple, none give a ****, or they nearly do (and then they put you in jail for stolling that lollypop ! )

 

 

Oh and the last one, I don't remember if I already talk about it, but I think not, so here it is.

 

In NWN 2 Mask of the Betrayer there is a apprentice priest of Kelemvor who's interested in becoming a lich, and ask you about a book.

In this case, I want to find the book, keep it for myself, and use it, becoming myself a lich. Why would I want to give it to this little priest incapable of anything beside asking some adventurers to find it for him before leaving, and most surely getting killed like 2 days later by a more powerful being, pleased that the book has finally leaved Myrkul's beloved library ...

 

And I'll tell another one about the Demi-lich at the final battle. She ask us to find 3 books of great power. We have only " 2 choices", get her the books, or destroy the books ... Do I need to explain it all again ? I want to keeeeeep those books for myself (and eventually my companions, if I decide that I can trust them (not the case actually, I trust no one)). You'll need to kill the demi-lich, okay, no problem. Either way you will have to kill it if you destroy the books, or she'll just leave if you give her the books.

 

So we can choose an option, which can be "good or evil", depending of your point of view and your morality, but in fact there is a need to do something with that choice. Not just "You took the book and killed the demi-lich, you're now a hero, but nobody give a **** about the books anymore, nore you, and they just disappeared mysteriously from the surface of the world. You're A HERE understand that player ? A HERO now shut up and continue your HERO story"

 

There is way more paths to take than just being a paragon of virtue or just a neutral random guy passing by (and by neutral I mean the "evilest options you can do through the entire game that are not so vilain after all beside you eat black mushrooms and stole a lollypop" sort of neutral).

 

Think I'm done, maybe.

 

 

PS : Yes, I love to stole lollypops it seem.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Nyhilla

[Bos_hybrid]

 

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.

Yeah, in my experience, when people say they want to play evil, they really are just looking for ways to complain about not having enough "choice".

 

Inexperienced then I guess. Or more likely selective reading. As I will always play the villain/evil the first time, much more interesting.

 

I'm not alone either, most people enjoy having a villain/evil path for several reasons.

 

1) They enjoy rolling an evil character

2) Replayability

3) Branches the the plot.(C&C)

4) Adds depth to the plot

5) It makes being the hero more rewarding(adds depth to the PC)

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I like complicated characters myself.

 

If I may rant for a bit, I think Baldur's Gate 2 made both consistently role-playing a selfish villain and a semi-virtuous hero impossible. Why? Because of 1) rescuing Imoen and 2) Having to side with either the Shadow Thieves or Bodhi's vampires.

 

An evil character might not give a **** about Imoen, but is required to save her? What reason would someone concerned only with themselves spend a considerable amount of time and effort to rescue a childish reprobate who would likely interfere with any grand schemes they might have? How the hell does that make any sense at all?

 

Why the hell would a Paladin or any other virtuous character aid either the Shadow Thieves or Vampires? They're very EVIL. One group is a criminal organization that assassinates regularly and the other are composed of blood-sucking fiends. A Paladin would smite them, not assist them.

 

PE should take a lesson and not shoe-horn characters into a certain path/motivation because of plot. Don't include any mandatory quests that would conflict with a PC's values.