Good vs Evil

[Malekith]

In most games( IE games and original Fallouts included) the "good" options awarded better than the evil ones.That doesn't make sense.Unless they are mentaly unstable psychopaths, in real life most people don't do ''evil'' deeds just for the kicks of it but for selfish reasons. They do it because being evil rewards better then do the good thing. This isn't an absolute case of course. But when it makes sense the evil option to gain you more than the good one(most of the time,after all what exactly is the "evil option" if not to put your personal gain above the good of others) it must reflected in the game.

I think it will lead to more interesting choices in the gameplay if the player has to sacrifise something (gold,information,...)to uphold his principles, as well as cases that there is no clear good or bad solution.

[DreamDancer]

I think the good option is usually rewarded "better" because games make you put in a lot more effort in order to achieve that good result. Like trying to rescue a hostage when you have a time critical mission and does not need to rescue that hostage to fnish the mission. Also, some games do make you pay or sacrifice something in order to gain a benefit or solve a situation in a "good" way.

 

But I agree, it would be much better if there were less good/bad and more shades of gray. Lesser of two evils kind of stuff

[AwesomeOcelot]

Not really in the original Fallout. Maybe more xp?

[Malekith]

Not really in the original Fallout. Maybe more xp?

 

More XP and you can't be realy evil. You can be a selfish as****** and still your karma is high (defender of the wastes) The only way for the game to recognize you as evil was the childkiller or slaver perks in F2, but then you just miss half the content of the game. Or to go on a rampage and wipe out entire cities. Thats not evil its lunatic

Edited November 26, 2012 by Malekith

[Calmar]

I feel evil is somewhat hard to implement in games. Most evil people I can think of conduct themselves well to people who aren't their enemies - or who shan't know they are their enemies. They are neither rude nor violent most of the time.

 

If you do that in an RPG then you simply appear like a good character who at some (apparently arbitrary) points commits selfish or cruel acts.

[Archmage Silver]

I don't think it's a good idea to use (A)D&D-based PC games as an example - the alignment system didn't translate over well from the tabletop game IMO.

[Atreides]

After we find out the "evil" scheme of the enemy, it'd be interesting if I have the choice of stopping them to save others, or stopping them so we can take over their plan.

[Frisk]

"Good" vs. "Evil" is a bit too simplistic in my opinion.

 

People, or characters in a game can have specific ethics, systems that lead them to make certain choices - now, in some cases their ethics can be summarized in simple ways:

• I do whatever makes me feel good at any given time.
  
• I do whatever benefits myself the most, maximizes my wealth, power or prestige.
  
• I do whatever benefits my family/tribe/nation/race/species most in the short term.
  
• I do whatever benefits by family/tribe/nation/race/species most in the long term.
  
• I do whatever maximizes the well-being of the maximum number of sentient beings most for the maximum period of time.
  

Are any of those choices obviously "good" or evil" - is there even any agreement on what "good" and "evil" mean?

 

I tend to favour the meta-ethical moral relativism view - which basically answers those questions with a "no" - I don't like black and white choice - It's all about shades of grey for me.

[wanderon]

As I recall the devs have said there will not be the typical good/evil axis in PE and that some things you might expect to find on that or a similar axis may differ in the game from one faction or area to another.

[anubite]

Umm, do you just always play as the good guy or something? I've played a lot of games as evil characters. Even bad RPGs reward bad guys more often.

 

Dragon Age 2: Being evil gives you free attribute/passive points and a lot more money (like, twice as much gold), there are instances where being nice does nothing. You can donate 10 gold to some orphans and NOTHING comes out as a result. You just give money for story satisfaction.

Dragon Age Origins: Being evil gets certain story-central characters (Morrigan) to like you, resulting in stat increases. Also, lots more gold here too.

Baldur's Gate 2: Being evil preserves your main character's stats in hell. You can also basically steal everything from everyone you meet and have everything you'll ever need ever.

Fallout 1/2: Being evil lets you side with various factions and obtain a lot more resources than being good. Being good only gets you access to a few unique pieces of gear that I don't think are very notable.

VTMB: Siding with the Anarchs gets you next to nothing all game long. Keeping Heather as your ghoul gets you the best armor in the game.

KOTOR/KOTOR2: Generally more credits, though I'd say these games are pretty even about rewarding light vs dark choices.

Fallout 3: Being evil gets you pretty rich, pretty quick, although morality is broken in the game, in a bad way.

FONV: I dunno, I don't feel like being good or evil here empowers you either way, though my memory is fuzzy here.

 

RPGs do selfish actions really well, they reward you pretty consistently compared to picking selfless choices, which only ocassionally give you rare items in return. I'd say good-sided players tend to get the short stick, though they obviously get rewarded with more "pleasant" conversation.

 

Anyway, given FO:NV's direction, I doubt PE will be a good vs evil system, it will likely be a self vs others and a faction vs faction set-up. You can side with X, who might probably do bad things (and some good things usually), and get reward Y, or you can side with Z (who are going to do bad things, but maybe under good pretenses or intentions) and get reward W. Hopefully, there will be few choices that involve around you pointlessly murdering everyone in sight, stealing something for the sake of it, or helping some evil guy for the sake of it.

Edited November 26, 2012 by anubite

[Valsuelm]

The nature of good and evil is always shades of grey. Black and white is only a perception, and one that is shared by more people than actually practice it. Meaning many evil people actually think they are doing good, and many people percieved as good are in fact some shade of evil, while a great many people prefer to see the world in that simple prism. Lots of people equate 'nice' with 'good'.... they are not the same, not even remotely.

 

As Calmar alludes to above, most evil people are not cartoonish evil frothing at the mouth demons, but are nice (on the surface) polite seemingly on the surface good samaritans. Only those who get in their way or really pay attention will know otherwise, and even the former may not realize whom exactly did the evil unto them.

 

At the heart of evil is corruption.

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

While there is room for improvement, the past infinity games, as well as NWN2 did a good job overall of allowing players to pursue an evil path and find 'equal or greater' rewards in doing so. There most certainly were some amazing pieces of loot that only could be obtained by doing something 'evil' in those games. In some cases better than anything one would find playing a 'good' character. An infamous example of this would be slaying Drizzt and taking his swords in Baldur's Gate. There were also story arcs that would only happen if you pursued an 'evil' path.

 

My advice to you if you think that the past infinity games rewarded good over evil too much is that you should roleplay your character more. Your reasons for doing things are not necessarily the reasons the game gives you. If this doesn't make sense to you I recommend watching

. You needn't watch the entire thing, but the first few sessions should give you an idea of how to roleplay evil a bit.

 

Something I've noticed on these boards is that the concept of roleplaying actually escapes many of the posters (The PE Paladin thread is full of people who see in black and white). Just like a Game Master in the PnP games that inspired the games we play, the game designer will only be able to give you the environment, opportunity, and narative. How you play your character, and what his or her motives are, is going to be up to you. I highly recommend roleplaying your game and character when you play, it's generally a much more rewarding experience.

[DreamDancer]

Indeed, the reward already comes from being consistent in your character and roleplay it in a believable manner. Just going by the loot a quest or NPC might reward you with is more likely a power gamer or min/maxer approach. Which is totally fine, have done that myself in the past, but it's not as fun as staying true to a character concept and sometimes suffer the consequences for it. Like being very altrustic and usually leave empty handed.

 

I really like situations where it's not clearly a good or evil choice but generally just a mess and you understand both sides. Like in ME2 when deciding whether you let Garus shoot that guy who betrayed his squad or convince your friend to just let it go. I really had to take a moment there and ponder it. Then I let him kill the guy :D

Edited November 26, 2012 by DreamDancer

[Frisk]

Like being very altrustic and usually leave empty handed.

 

....or being a selfish, backstabbing, arrogant bastard, and enjoy the rewards....and have to deal with any consequences.

[jezz555]

This is why I think its stupid to have an alignment system in games at all. People should just react to the things you do, your actions should have consequences based on who your dealing with, but who's to say what is overall good or evil? Why is it up to the dev's to judge right and wrong? Evil for the sake of evil is about the stupidest and laziest thing that exists in storytelling imo, people don't just do things because "hey that'll be mean." unless their mentally ill, in which case that should be reflected in your ability scores. Consistent roleplay is fine, but people in real life aren't always consistent and you should be forced to be in game.

 

 

XP rewards should be based on the difficulty of the action in question, not some incentivised morality system.

Edited November 26, 2012 by jezz555

[AwesomeOcelot]

Not really in the original Fallout. Maybe more xp?

 

More XP and you can't be realy evil. You can be a selfish as****** and still your karma is high (defender of the wastes) The only way for the game to recognize you as evil was the childkiller or slaver perks in F2, but then you just miss half the content of the game. Or to go on a rampage and wipe out entire cities. Thats not evil its lunatic

 

I didn't really need my evilness recognized by the game in terms of karma or some meter like in the Star Wars games or Fable. In the original Fallout, I could be evil in a number of ways, and get a lot of stuff, it's a trade off between that and XP. I don't necessarily want communities to know I'm evil if I leave no witnesses or no one witnessed my crimes.

Edited November 26, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[DreamDancer]

Now come to think of it...it is also pretty weird that we have come to always expect some sort of reward in these kind of games. I mean, even the poorest beggar will eagerly hand you his last shirt if you did him a favor. That is of course an exxageration but you know what I mean. It feels too contrived sometimes if you get a material reward every time you do someone a favor. At the very least you usually get a small amount of coins. I don't think it has to be that way and rewards should usually be consistent with the situation at hand.

 

And I agree, rewards shouldn't be tied to some artificial morality system, although purely based om difficulty isn't always right either. If it makes sense that those you helped reward you with something very valuable, ok fine, but dont give out artifacts like candy, just because the quest required a bit more effort to complete.

[jezz555]

Now come to think of it...it is also pretty weird that we have come to always expect some sort of reward in these kind of games. I mean, even the poorest beggar will eagerly hand you his last shirt if you did him a favor. That is of course an exxageration but you know what I mean. It feels too contrived sometimes if you get a material reward every time you do someone a favor. At the very least you usually get a small amount of coins. I don't think it has to be that way and rewards should usually be consistent with the situation at hand.

 

 

Granted, but some of us may see no point in missions where we are not rewarded. I suppose that's were good and evil comes in. The good guy helps the beggar just because, the evil guy demands the last shirt off his back so his time isn't wasted.

[DreamDancer]

Now come to think of it...it is also pretty weird that we have come to always expect some sort of reward in these kind of games. I mean, even the poorest beggar will eagerly hand you his last shirt if you did him a favor. That is of course an exxageration but you know what I mean. It feels too contrived sometimes if you get a material reward every time you do someone a favor. At the very least you usually get a small amount of coins. I don't think it has to be that way and rewards should usually be consistent with the situation at hand.

 

 

Granted, but some of us may see no point in missions where we are not rewarded. I suppose that's were good and evil comes in. The good guy helps the beggar just because, the evil guy demands the last shirt off his back so his time isn't wasted.

 

True, but in reality games rarely make sense in that regard. The good guy helping the beggar would indeed do so without expecting any kind of reward and the game should not reward that action beyond a heartfelt thank you from the beggar.

 

Now what happens in most games in the case of an evil guy, is this: He also agrees to help the beggar, does the quest and then demands his shirt or coin. And that is, for me at least, complete and utter nonsense.

 

An evil guy would never even accept that quest or even talk to the beggar. It would make much more sense for that evil guy to walk right up to the beggar, beat him up and then take his belongings. Or just refuse the quest and instead force him right away to give up his stuff.

 

That is my major gripe with how evil is portrayed in most games. You put in all the effort for that NPC guy, even if you knew it would put you through hell, then come back with his precious stamp collection that he somehow lost, and THEN suddenly decide to go all Mwahaha, I am evil, so I will not only take the promised reward, but also your stamp collection. Because I am mean!

 

What I am getting at is: to really have a distinguishable good and evil approach you need to alter the events more than just have different quest flavour text. In my example, a selfish/evil person wouldn't even bother to come back in order to hand in the quest. That person would probably not be interested in the stamp collection to start with. Or that person wouldn't even bother with the quest and just threaten the guy to hand him some loot.

 

It just makes no sense that no matter what kind of person you are, you will do the same quests in usually the same way, just with a slightly different final dialogue/reward.

[anubite]

Well, I agree that good/evil aren't absolutes, but don't make absolutive statements like "morality is gray". That in itself is self-defeating. A gray understanding of morality is not to say that it's gray, but that, "there... (maybe) is no absolute choice". To say that it is gray implies that there cannot be a purely good or purely bad action for a situation - which is... a reasonably wrong thing to say. All actions have the potential to fall under grey areas, but to say absolute areas cannot exist implies a kind of dogma a grey morality system is trying to avoid.

 

This is of course the problem with a "grey" system - you can't make absolutes, so you can't even absolutely say it's true. Which is fine, from my perspective, though I hesitate to agree with people who so readily say that absolutism morality systems can be "wrong" or are even necessarily bad. Because that in and of itself is anti-grey.

Edited November 26, 2012 by anubite

[Dream]

Wouldn't an evil guy generally not want to be an adventurer since that's a rather ****ty profession. Hitman, mercenary, enforcer, bounty hunter; those are all more likely ways of life for someone with the kind of skill set an adventurer would possess.

 

Since we're talking about what a "real" bad guy would do and all.

[Agelastos]

Keeping Heather as your ghoul gets you the best armor in the game.

 

Wait, what? I always kept Heather around until... well, you know -

she was murdered

- and I didn't get any special kind of armor from her.

The best armor I ever found was the 4th tier heavy leather armor that you could buy in Chinatown. Did you have to do something special to get the 5th tier armor from her?

Give her some kind of command? Or is it possible that it was part of a mod, like Camarilla Edition, or something? Or only available to certain clans?

 

Off-topic, I know. Sorry! As you were...

Edited November 26, 2012 by Agelastos

[DreamDancer]

Wouldn't an evil guy generally not want to be an adventurer since that's a rather ****ty profession. Hitman, mercenary, enforcer, bounty hunter; those are all more likely ways of life for someone with the kind of skill set an adventurer would possess.

 

Since we're talking about what a "real" bad guy would do and all.

 

I agree, an "evil" person usually doesn't travel with a band of merry companions saving the world. He is in it for himself.

 

A game that really played well with a concept of "evil" was imo ME and ME2. Going renegade didn't mean you went overboard with stupid-evil actions. It meant you were less likely to grant mercy. It meant caring less for the well being of others. It meant having an overall darker perception of the universe reflected in your actions and what you said.

 

There was that great scene with that evil scientist in ME1 where you and Garus finally caught him and then the game presented you with a nice moral dilemma. Adhere to laws and higher moral principles or just execute that bastard. The game made me think, and I love it when a game does that and also challenges my perception of morality.

 

We can only hope we will get something similar in PE

[Malekith]

Wouldn't an evil guy generally not want to be an adventurer since that's a rather ****ty profession. Hitman, mercenary, enforcer, bounty hunter; those are all more likely ways of life for someone with the kind of skill set an adventurer would possess.

 

Since we're talking about what a "real" bad guy would do and all.

 

What exactly is an "adventurer"? Its not a profession. A selfish person (evil its not a good description as the above posters said) will do it to loot ruins and tombs and can work as bounty hunter,mercenary, or hitman during his adventures.Nobody forces you to go to the wilderness to "explore". In BG2 you stay in the city for the bigger duration of the game

Edited November 26, 2012 by Malekith

[Dream]

Wouldn't an evil guy generally not want to be an adventurer since that's a rather ****ty profession. Hitman, mercenary, enforcer, bounty hunter; those are all more likely ways of life for someone with the kind of skill set an adventurer would possess.

 

Since we're talking about what a "real" bad guy would do and all.

 

I agree, an "evil" person usually doesn't travel with a band of merry companions saving the world. He is in it for himself.

 

A game that really played well with a concept of "evil" was imo ME and ME2. Going renegade didn't mean you went overboard with stupid-evil actions. It meant you were less likely to grant mercy. It meant caring less for the well being of others. It meant having an overall darker perception of the universe reflected in your actions and what you said.

 

There was that great scene with that evil scientist in ME1 where you and Garus finally caught him and then the game presented you with a nice moral dilemma. Adhere to laws and higher moral principles or just execute that bastard. The game made me think, and I love it when a game does that and also challenges my perception of morality.

 

We can only hope we will get something similar in PE

 

I'll go with that, ME(2) did the whole moral thing well, but I don't think anyone would call Shep evil; if anything it was different shades of good guy. Too bad the third game decided to turn renegade Shep from a hardcore "do whatever it takes" type character into a straight up ****ing psycho (who gets PTSD for some retarded reason).

 

 

Come to think of it Jade Empire did the evil path well since there the moral system was similar in style to ME, but you really had to be a complete sociopath to go all the way with closed fist path. At the same time, however, the evil decisions made sense as opposed to just being "evil."

 

Wouldn't an evil guy generally not want to be an adventurer since that's a rather ****ty profession. Hitman, mercenary, enforcer, bounty hunter; those are all more likely ways of life for someone with the kind of skill set an adventurer would possess.

 

Since we're talking about what a "real" bad guy would do and all.

 

What exactly is an "adventurer"? Its not a profession. A selfish person (evil its not a good description as the above posters said) will do it to loot ruins and tombs and can work as bounty hunter,mercenary, or hitman during his adventures.Nobody forces you to go to the wilderness to "explore". In BG2 you stay in the city for the bigger duration of the game

 

An adventurer implies you have a certain set of skills that make you good at survival and, more than likely, killing. A selfish person with those skills probably wouldn't want go out searching for ruins and tombs to loot and instead want to seek out an easier, and quicker, source of revenue.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Dream

[jezz555]

Well, I agree that good/evil aren't absolutes, but don't make absolutive statements like "morality is gray". That in itself is self-defeating. A gray understanding of morality is not to say that it's gray, but that, "there... (maybe) is no absolute choice". To say that it is gray implies that there cannot be a purely good or purely bad action for a situation - which is... a reasonably wrong thing to say. All actions have the potential to fall under grey areas, but to say absolute areas cannot exist implies a kind of dogma a grey morality system is trying to avoid.

 

This is of course the problem with a "grey" system - you can't make absolutes, so you can't even absolutely say it's true. Which is fine, from my perspective, though I hesitate to agree with people who so readily say that absolutism morality systems can be "wrong" or are even necessarily bad. Because that in and of itself is anti-grey.

 

Not necessarily, we can say that good is objective in that it is what is best for the largest amount of people, but as human beings without infinite knowledge we can't really know what that is, and even if we think we do we may be deceived. Things maybe good or bad, but leave that up to the player, not the devs. If the player wants to roleplay an "evil" character he/she should do what he/she thinks would make the character evil, not what the dev's say is evil.

 

 

 

Wouldn't an evil guy generally not want to be an adventurer since that's a rather ****ty profession. Hitman, mercenary, enforcer, bounty hunter; those are all more likely ways of life for someone with the kind of skill set an adventurer would possess.

 

Since we're talking about what a "real" bad guy would do and all.

 

I agree, an "evil" person usually doesn't travel with a band of merry companions saving the world. He is in it for himself.

 

A game that really played well with a concept of "evil" was imo ME and ME2. Going renegade didn't mean you went overboard with stupid-evil actions. It meant you were less likely to grant mercy. It meant caring less for the well being of others. It meant having an overall darker perception of the universe reflected in your actions and what you said.

 

A loner, wouldn't want to travel with people, but there could be good or evil loners. A narcissistic cult-leader style character may desire a gang of sycophants telling him how great he is. A criminal might want partners in crime, it really all depends on how you want to play your character. Evil is not a personality trait. Just because somebodies evil doesn't mean they don't have friends or people they love. They might desire to use these people, or secretly hate them, but regardless a nuanced and well thought out character who isn't confined by stupid bipolar morality might have his reasons.

 

In ME2 you were never really evil just uncompromising and pragmatic vs. empathetic and reasonable. It was more nuanced but still unnecessary and confining IMO.

 

An adventurer implies you have a certain set of skills that make you good at survival and, more than likely, killing. A selfish person with those skills probably wouldn't want go out searching for ruins and tombs to loot and instead want to seek out an easier, and quicker, source of revenue.

 

Adventurer is a blanket term for character. Its intentionally vague and doesn't necessarily mean a survivalist type. An adventurer could be a bounty hunter, or mercenary or grave robber or thief(hence the thief class), or just a murderer. Its really all up to the player and DM, D&D is a lot more free-form than people realize (or at least it was). Once again evil is not a personality trait. A greedy person may see great value in raiding ancient tombs, a fierce and hot-tempered one may simply enjoy the act of killing, a megalomaniac may want to prove how great he is. Not wanting to adventure would just make you lazy, not evil.

Edited November 26, 2012 by jezz555