The Dark Path

[Giantevilhead]

 

People feeling bad about playing an evil character is the developer's problem since it discourages player from playing the game that way. Developers don't just create different ways to play a game for its own sake, they do it in the hopes that players will actually try to play the game differently and to increase the game's replay value.

 

There's also the fact that the developer wants to create consistency between the player and the player character. There are plenty of people who aren't good at fully role playing a certain character. It's hard for them to imagine themselves as another person and make choices that the other person would make but they wouldn't personally make.

 

 

>I suppose it's best accomplished by having the evil path be more "evil-lite" than truly horrific.

 

"Evil-lite" or focusing on the glamour of evil as often portrayed by Hollywood might prove a superior tack for allowing the players to tickle themselves with the glamour of evil without feeling like abject scum.

 

I emphatically disagree. I think it's vastly more important that the game provides a range of narrative and emotional possibilities than it is that each option in the game appeals to all players. If a player cannot enjoy playing a truly evil character (even when they already get such things as the best loot in most games), then that player should simply stick to "good" characters. If you're really so desperate to replay the game a million times, then you can just suck it up that you might have to play a character outside of what you're comfortable with. The point of evil characters has never been for the player to feel warm and fuzzy, and it defeats the purpose to try to shove that square peg into the round hole. "Evil lite"... so you guys are really asking for diluted narrative? Moreover, the game shouldn't be tailored to players who are poor at fulfilling their character's role. Not to mention the fact that you're never stuck picking every evil option just because you choose one. While relating to characters is important, if you can't relate to an evil character then it's not for you. It's just a game anyway.

 

This is really just a completely silly issue. The simple fact of the matter is that the only thing that could make playing "evil" characters more fun that hasn't already been done is making them less evil, in which case you're not playing an evil character.

 

The idea of tailoring elements of gameplay to the players who don't like those very elements seems highly irrational to me. I don't like classic wizards/sorcerers personally, and if the developers spent their time trying to make those classes appeal to me, they'd probably no longer appeal to the people who like them in their current form, and in all likelihood they still wouldn't appeal to me.

 

 

Who says that the point of an evil character is to make the player feel warm and fuzzy? The goal should be to create consistency between the player and the player character.

 

Most people would obviously not feel good about doing bad things but if they're playing a character who is supposed to be a sociopath or enjoys doing bad things, then there should be feedback on that. The player should get a better sense of how the character feels. Losing yourself in the character you are playing is part of what makes a game immersive.

[Tsuga C]

I emphatically disagree.

As do I. I was merely responding after an academic fashion to Giantevilhead's post regarding players being made uncomfortable by genuinely despicable options. That should've been clear from my last paragraph.

[Failion]

I think that is the problem with these rpgs that they make the player feel bad for being BAD. I didn't have a problem wiping out towns and killing children in fallout 2. I think these players that do not like being bad simply need a greater reward. Make being evil 2x as rewarding then being good.

[JFSOCC]

Make being evil 2x as rewarding then being good.

No.

 

Just make morally ambiguous choices equally viable solutions, and leave it up to the player whether they feel comfortable with it.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Most people probably don't feel good when they complete an "evil" quest where they sell a bunch of people into slavery or destroy an ancient library that contains the collective knowledge of an entire civilization. So there has to be extra feedback to make you feel good about doing those bad things and encourage you to do more evil quests.

That's a tall order. I suppose it's best accomplished by having the evil path be more "evil-lite" than truly horrific. In my experience, evil typically involves a lot of what historian Paul Fussell described in his WWII book Wartime as chickens*** behavior. The American WWII GIs defined chickens*** as "...behavior that makes military life worse that it need be: petty harassment of the weak by the strong; open scrimmage for power and authority and prestige; sadism thinly disguised as necessary discipline; a constant 'paying off of old scores'; and insistence on the letter rather than the spirit of ordinances. Chickens*** is so called--instead of horse- or bull- or elephant s***--because it is small-minded and ignoble and takes the trivial seriously."

 

An honest portrayal of evil would involve a significant amount of chickens*** being dished out by evil organizations and individuals. That might appeal to a limited element in the cRPG community, but I can't imagine it being a major draw for most of the players. "Evil-lite" or focusing on the glamour of evil as often portrayed by Hollywood might prove a superior tack for allowing the players to tickle themselves with the glamour of evil without feeling like abject scum. To use a WWII analogy, many more players would enjoy the look and fearful reaction from others if their character was all decked out as a Waffen SS tank commander, but they might not be so happy to spend time as a SS-Totenkopfverbände guard (Death's Head unit, genocide duty).

 

I favor depicting evil in all its horror and wickedness as an antidote to the allure of its largely illusory glamour, but this wouldn't help players enjoy playing (in D&D terms) a blackguard or an assassin very much. More likely it would give a number of them a bit of a "spiritual cramp" (C.S. Lewis). Then again, I tend to favor realism to the detriment of fantasy more often than many who play cRPGs and RPGs. Ain't I a fuddy-duddy?

 

I disagree. What you described is not 'evil' in the sense of true depravity and a sociopathic lack of empathy, but a nasty combination of narrow-minded pettiness and the results of a lifetime of frustration. It's symptomatic to individuals, rather than organizations (although, one can argue that certain lines of work do cultivate this attitude). Also, it's not exclusive to the bad boys. I'm pretty much convinced you won't find an army anywhere which doesn't employ a large percent of people with this attitude

 

Problem is, I don't find playing such a character entertaining. Evil options can have a wide range between (and beside!) "petty cruelty" and "badass villainy". I, personally, am more interested in subtle corruption (the gradual breakdown of morals as depicted in Breaking Bad or some of Balzac's works) and calculating, manipulative selfishness (the Practical Incarnation was a good example, albeit somewhat cartoonish; some characters in Game of Thrones would also apply). I believe these have none of the "illusory glamour" you disapprove of, but also lack the small-mindedness I find so hideously boring.

[Tsuga C]

I, personally, am more interested in subtle corruption...and calculating, manipulative selfishness.

It'd be a fine thing if they could pull this off, but working intelligent, determined evil into the storyline might prove a problem. How does one adequately accommodate both saintly and malefic player characters within the context of a story-driven game? The "good" path is the standard one, "neutral" generally being covered by greed or indifference. What then of "evil"?

 

It's usually reduced to chickens*** of some sort, usually thuggish brutality. In a Pen 'n' Paper RPG session evil can be accommodated by a willing DM/GM easily enough, but I think it's a tall order for a cRPG. Not impossible, mind you, but it has to be included in the storyboarding sessions from the get-go to be a worthwhile roleplaying experience.

 

If anyone from Obsidian cares to comment, I'd be glad to read your input on this subject. (hint, hint)

 

 

Edit: And as for The Game of Thrones, I'd nominate Roose Bolton and possibly Tywin Lannister for suitably evil individuals worth consideration as role models. How to make such options available to the player character, though?

Edited March 1, 2013 by Tsuga C

[Nonek]

I've only ever fielded one what I would consider truly evil antagonist, a little old man, a clerk and administrator for a strategically important border province. His perfect penmanship on imperial decrees led to truly evil consequences, and he knew it, he was racist, narrow minded and prejudiced and also a coward who disdained any of the dirty work that his edicts necessitated. That said he was also very clever and an extremely efficient governor for the imperial province he ruled.

 

In statistical terms he was nothing, a low level pen pusher, but his words could and did bring devastation upon his enemies and those who happened to be in his way. When he was finally bearded in his lair by the pc's he simply continued writing in one of his innumerable ledgers, while reciting a list of the players family, friends, estates and holdings. They retreated and had to begin an entire new quest line to get away from his retribution, becoming Robin Hood like freedom fighters, bleeding the province of its wealth, garrisons and power, until they could strike back.

 

I had given them the choice to work for the governor, as stooges of his reign and perhaps undo the evil of his reign from within, but they were pridefully dismissive of his offer and chose a glamorous life of freedom. They were not even particularly clever in their opposition to his reign and incurred numerous civilian casualties during their rebellion, which they shrugged off as necessary. I even gave numerous hints as to the barbarians scouting out the province which they failed to heed, and so I had no choice other than to continue with the most logical course of action.

 

They struck back and found that he had commited suicide after being informed of his imminent replacement as imperial governor, they were implicated in his death when spotted fleeing the scene.

 

Shortly thereafter the barbaric horde beyond the border invaded the weakened and leaderless province, and despite all of the previous governors harshness and draconian rule, the people accepted that his governorship was mana from heaven in comparison. Rape, slaughter, banditry and enslavement was the rule of thumb under the barbarians reign, with the "heroes" being judged as despised villains for killing the good old governor, and hunted by imperial decree for the massive price placed on their heads.

 

The players absolutely hated me, but I had almost a dozen different endings written up for that campaign, and it was their actions that had formed their present predicament, so I don't know whether the governors evil or the players stupidity did the greater harm in that situation. In the next campaign however they began to think about what their actions entailed, and what options they actually had in regards to dealing with the antagonists presented to them, and they became very smart.

 

Edit: I suppose that it was the failures to heed their own methods that led to the sub optimal ending, they became so obsessed with achieving their aim that they abandoned any notion of morality. One could argue that it is always the means and the journey that are important, and that the ending is decided by that rather than even the best of intentions.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Nonek

[AGX-17]

You shouldn't be given the option to be some moustache-twirling Ming the Merciless type of character, it's silly if not outright stupid. This is supposed to be a game without the stereotypical black and white good and evil morality sliding scale/alignment grid. You should be allowed to play a character that some NPCs and factions see as evil, or even most NPCs and factions see as evil, but with a believable basis. Barring that, if you want to openly play a sadistic serial killer, most of your potential companions should not tolerate it (as in will leave or turn hostile when they see you flaying the skin off of a little girl you just raped, because that's what you want, right? Black as black evil alignment, right?) as the majority of them do not appear to be sociopathic sadists.

Ya know I heard the same thing about New Vegas... and yet when I kill Legionaries I gain Kama and when I kill NRC I lose Karma.

 

Honestly if I had a clue how to mod NV I'd remove them... just that ONE thing and you have a MUCH more morally ambigious game taht matches a LOT more with the stuff you're told about the factions IN the bloody game itself... You're pretty much told outright that NRC are NOT 'good guys' and that Ceaser has plans for the Legion beyond bloodthirsty conquest.

The Buddha does not condone slavery or rape.

 

Also NCR, not NRC.

Edited March 2, 2013 by AGX-17

[Failion]

 

Make being evil 2x as rewarding then being good.

No.

 

Just make morally ambiguous choices equally viable solutions, and leave it up to the player whether they feel comfortable with it.

I dont see why being evil can't be more profitable the being good. Rob a bank and make a fortune. But you ruin the towns life and make enemies. You know kind of like in Arcanums first town but without the broken stupid economy. Real life evil rules. people who exploit others no matter the cost win.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Failion

[Chippy]

Real life evil rules. people who exploit others no matter the cost win.

 

Also, sometimes they roll a 1 and fail in epic fashion.  Unless it negativley effects others, can be hilarious.

[ToveriJuri]

 

Meh. The point of "evil" is that it's a narrative construct, and not something that actually motivates real people in any direct way. In other words, how many people realistically set out to be evil? But of course, you can be "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons" and equally "doing the wrong thing for the right reasons", so where does that leave us?

 

Well, there aren't many interesting characters that are "doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons", so in most games it's a question of whether you are "doing the right thing for the right reasons", such as love or courage, or "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons", like money and power. And that as you mention is how most games go. The untapped potential for me however is not in the one-dimensional "evil" characters, but rather the characters that are "doing the wrong thing for the right reasons". In my opinion the latter of those two groups is much more interesting and relate-able. As far as someone who just seeks to increase their own power and influence, a game with a linear storyline isn't really the most conducive to that, since that kind of interferes with the idea that the trajectory of the main plot is greater and more important than the progression of one's character.

 

 

I like your post. Im thinking the same but i also think that "Doing wrong thing for wrong reasons" i also intresting BUT only if character has proper history that in some cases justifies him neing "Evil".

 

For example you see you have character that in first look is one dimentional EVIL, he kills farmers, cows etc. But when you find something about his preius life you discover that he was witness of his daughter and wife being raped and killed by some bandids then when he tries to get some help from other people he is beaten and sold for slavery.

 

After 10 years of killing people with his bare hand on arena he menage to escape and is make his revange on every human becouse he thinks that everybody is gulity.

 

It all comes down to history and motivaton. If someone is acting like pure evil it somethimes is only and echo of his personal tragedy. In reality we have serial killers, in most cases their first become victim then this expierence twisted their minds.

 

I don't believe that people can act purevil without some life truma. Someone can be selfish, someone can be cruel but i never met a person that i can call "Pure Evil" and i hope i never met someone like this.

 

It's cute that people conjure up these scenarios that help them sleep at night. People just don't want to believe that there can be someone who does it just because. There always has to be some reason, right? The idea of someone just being evil "just because" is too scary to face. That's why you have to come up with some reasonable explanation. Well i hate to break it to you, but there isn't always some background or a story that explains the killers behavior. There are just people that are born "wrong".

 

Do you think people enjoyed watching others get eviscerated in the gladiator pits just because everyone had some trauma. Why did(do even now) people love to see "bad" guys being hanged and witches burned. Yes sure some want to see "justice" done, but to get a kick out of it?

 

There's an inherit "evil" violence in human nature that the modern society has made easy to repress.

[JFSOCC]

It's cute that people conjure up these scenarios that help them sleep at night. People just don't want to believe that there can be someone who does it just because. There always has to be some reason, right? The idea of someone just being evil "just because" is too scary to face. That's why you have to come up with some reasonable explanation. Well i hate to break it to you, but there isn't always some background or a story that explains the killers behavior. There are just people that are born "wrong".

 

Do you think people enjoyed watching others get eviscerated in the gladiator pits just because everyone had some trauma. Why did(do even now) people love to see "bad" guys being hanged and witches burned. Yes sure some want to see "justice" done, but to get a kick out of it?

 

There's an inherit "evil" violence in human nature that the modern society has made easy to repress.

No. You are wrong.

 

While there is an ever so small percentage of sociopaths (people with no conscience) in the world, most of these are not problematic.

The greatest "evils" in the world are either by circumstance, bad decisions, incompetence or a mistaken intent.

You'll find no-one (save those very few sociopaths) who will murder 'just because'. Witch hunts were the result of religious zealotry and families settling old feuds.

 

Evil for Evil its sake simply doesn't exist. There is ALWAYS an underlying cause. But for those absolutist pricks, who see the world in black and white (and whom I believe are part of the problem) and don't look further than the first convenient excuse (video games, porn, rap videos)

to avoid finding out what truly motivated someone to their actions.

 

It's just so much more convenient to say "must have been born wrong" or "evil" and be done with it. God forbid we'd actually have to think and maybe face uncomfortable truths, like that it is our own society which created these monsters.

 

No, you are as wrong as wrong can be. To my mind ignorance is Evil, stupidity is Evil, but these can be prevented or solved.

Apathy is the greatest evil, "Apathy is death". So to be dismissive and go "meh, some people are evil" grates on me to no end.

 

Whatever Evils are done in this world, you can rest assured there is motive behind it. You may not agree with the motives, but these are what lead to bad action, not some inherent character flaw that is unmovable and unfixable.

 

Recently a study has shown that psychological treatment of psychopathy helps. I can think of no stronger evidence that you are wrong.

[ToveriJuri]

 

It's cute that people conjure up these scenarios that help them sleep at night. People just don't want to believe that there can be someone who does it just because. There always has to be some reason, right? The idea of someone just being evil "just because" is too scary to face. That's why you have to come up with some reasonable explanation. Well i hate to break it to you, but there isn't always some background or a story that explains the killers behavior. There are just people that are born "wrong".

 

Do you think people enjoyed watching others get eviscerated in the gladiator pits just because everyone had some trauma. Why did(do even now) people love to see "bad" guys being hanged and witches burned. Yes sure some want to see "justice" done, but to get a kick out of it?

 

There's an inherit "evil" violence in human nature that the modern society has made easy to repress.

No. You are wrong.

 

While there is an ever so small percentage of sociopaths (people with no conscience) in the world, most of these are not problematic.

The greatest "evils" in the world are either by circumstance, bad decisions, incompetence or a mistaken intent.

You'll find no-one (save those very few sociopaths) who will murder 'just because'. Witch hunts were the result of religious zealotry and families settling old feuds.

 

Evil for Evil its sake simply doesn't exist. There is ALWAYS an underlying cause. But for those absolutist pricks, who see the world in black and white (and whom I believe are part of the problem) and don't look further than the first convenient excuse (video games, porn, rap videos)

to avoid finding out what truly motivated someone to their actions.

 

It's just so much more convenient to say "must have been born wrong" or "evil" and be done with it. God forbid we'd actually have to think and maybe face uncomfortable truths, like that it is our own society which created these monsters.

 

No, you are as wrong as wrong can be. To my mind ignorance is Evil, stupidity is Evil, but these can be prevented or solved.

Apathy is the greatest evil, "Apathy is death". So to be dismissive and go "meh, some people are evil" grates on me to no end.

 

Whatever Evils are done in this world, you can rest assured there is motive behind it. You may not agree with the motives, but these are what lead to bad action, not some inherent character flaw that is unmovable and unfixable.

 

Recently a study has shown that psychological treatment of psychopathy helps. I can think of no stronger evidence that you are wrong.

 

There has also been study that states otherwise. It's all research, studies and theories. i don't think there's scientific evidence proving either side wrong.

Provide me with a source that proves that people can not be born with psychopathy (example of what i meant with being born "wrong"). Did i ever say it can not be treated? I never said it's not treatable that not even my point. My point is that man has the capacity for so called evil and some childhood trauma doesn't have to be the trigger for it.

 

Do you think people like the "iceman" kill just because their father's abused them as kids. There are plenty of people with similar childhoods and still have a normal life afterwards. 

 

You seems to believe, I'm saying that there are plenty of these born murderers. No i'm saying that at least one in a billion is.

 

More on the capacity for murder. Why do some good men turn bad in mob. Why did people enjoy watching and cheer at people getting murdered in a gladiator pit(This one especially). Why did people get a kick out of public executions. Are you really trying to say that we don't have any sort of feral violence in us?

 

We have social norms and rules the we made to keep us in check. Our society created these "monsters", because we defined what a monster is.

 

In the end there is no one reason, why someone becomes one way or the other. You can't blame the society for everything, You can't blame human nature for everything, You can't blame video games for every murder out there. It's a sum of multiple variables.

 

To say, meh some people are just evil, is ridiculous. Yet to believe that everyone is born to this clean state and will do wrong only because of some outside influence that corrupts us is naïve.

[Chippy]

I went to a professional development session recently held by a psychologist and criminologist with 25 years experience who agreed with points made in both above posts - she mentioned that about 1 in 20 people in any given area are statistically psychotic.  Just posted that for what it's worth.

[JFSOCC]

There has also been study that states otherwise. It's all research, studies and theories. i don't think there's scientific evidence proving either side wrong.

Provide me with a source that proves that people can not be born with psychopathy (example of what i meant with being born "wrong"). Did i ever say it can not be treated? I never said it's not treatable that not even my point. My point is that man has the capacity for so called evil and some childhood trauma doesn't have to be the trigger for it.

 

Do you think people like the "iceman" kill just because their father's abused them as kids. There are plenty of people with similar childhoods and still have a normal life afterwards.

That's a logical fallacy. Some people respond differently to different environments and behaviours than others. Maybe not every abuse victim will become an abuser, but some do, and it's the abuse that set them on the path there.

 

You seems to believe, I'm saying that there are plenty of these born murderers. No i'm saying that at least one in a billion is.

It's a lot more, as chippy noted, who are predisposed towards these kinds of behaviours. But that does not make them murderers or evil. There are as many sociopath CEO's as there are violent murderers about, possibly more.

 

>

More on the capacity for murder. Why do some good men turn bad in mob. Why did people enjoy watching and cheer at people getting murdered in a gladiator pit(This one especially). Why did people get a kick out of public executions. Are you really trying to say that we don't have any sort of feral violence in us?

I'm saying having violence in your doesn't make you evil. I don't believe in good and evil, they are entirely abstract human concepts. Nietzsche knew what he was talking about. You and I may find something good or evil, but that's entirely subjective. In some cases, murder is warranted, to save your own life, it is right to take the life of those who threaten it. (I believe)

So you can't use absolutist reasoning to say, this is always good and that is always evil. that's the pinnacle of naivete imo.

 

We have social norms and rules the we made to keep us in check. Our society created these "monsters", because we defined what a monster is.

and these social norms vary per place and time. In ancient Rome, killing someone in gladiatorial combat was not seen as evil (by most)

In the end there is no one reason, why someone becomes one way or the other. You can't blame the society for everything, You can't blame human nature for everything, You can't blame video games for every murder out there. It's a sum of multiple variables.

 but that's my point exactly. thank you for making it for me. You can't say someone is born evil. Someone maybe born with a gene which encourages risk-seeking behaviour, dis-inhibits, or decreases empathy, but that does not determine whether or not a person will end up criminal or crook. You can't say someone is just born evil. I'm not saying people are born good either. I don't believe in good and evil. that's too simplistic a view.

To say, meh some people are just evil, is ridiculous. Yet to believe that everyone is born to this clean state and will do wrong only because of some outside influence that corrupts us is naïve.

I don't believe someone is born with a clean slate, you're always brought into this world with factors influencing your chances in life. your dna, your parentage, the socio-economic position of your family. I don't believe people will only do wrong when they're corrupted. I think people might do foolish things for many many different reasons

 

But there are always reasons. and none of them are "this person is evil" it's an oversimplification of reality which I will not stand for.

Edited March 3, 2013 by JFSOCC

[Failion]

Well I simply want to see a CRPG for once where evil is rewarding. And It is not the goofball poor route to take through the game that is not rewarding. 

[Ulquiorra]

dubbled

Edited March 3, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[Ulquiorra]

Even serial-killers are killing becoce thay have reason. They reason
is to "feel good" for example in most cases they kill or torture people
with simmilar traits. So for example killing a young blnonde for them
gives them most emitions. Kiling other type person will bring them less.

 

And
secondly they don't kill (in most cases) people that they have any
emotional conection with (their kids, wife, mother) even if they have
some srage mother/ father fetish that is pushing them to killing person
with simmilar traits of their parents.. they don't kill their parents.
(becouse only i this cases they will will gulity or BAD emotions )

 

Saying
that people is borng "Evil" is just stupid. Becose if you where born in
south american societys (Aztec, Mayans) and be reised for preist of
their religions. You whoud your self make murder-rituals for goods. And
they will say that you are saint not evil.

 

Crusaiders
that wen't on holly war (expecionally 1 crusade) where in most cases
villans, killers and badits that wanted to start with pure card and
clean their self of their sinns but do exaclly the same as before. And
they also where consider as "Good".

 

Evil and good is
determinate only from poin of view. If to countries are fighting ... and
let's say people from country A whoud say that soliderst from coutry b
are evil and vice versa peoble from country B think that soliders from A
are evil.

 

"PURE EVIL" characters must be twisted in
some point. A character that are killing kinds and smilling is not
normal person, but character that is DOING EVIL things is more common.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[axlorius]

this post is so interesting, and i want to say my opinion. Untill now i never found a game in which the evil-thing is well placed. for example look at fable the lost chapter, it's just a go with bandits or with the guards, be an **** or be the super good-guy. and it's this one of the best example i found in videogames and i really would like a game in which there is no good and no evil.

I like the thing in bioshock, where you could kill or not the little sister, and i like very much the quest-choice in the witcher, the first.

If possible in project eternity i would like to see a new approach. No do the right thing and be a hero or do the bad thing and for example earn more money but kill someone you could save. i Would like to decide in every situation what to do, but not a good and evil.

This is a couple of example to show my idea.

You are a good guy the usually help people and deafeat monster etc for money and glory, but one day you see the most beautiful woman in the world. you try to seduce her, but she just snob you and go away, so the hero decide for one time to be not so good. He go to a black withc and ask her for a potion to help him seduce the lady, the witch ask him something bad, like kidnap a child, a first-born, and take her so she can use him like a sacrifice to evoke a great demon.

Then he get the potion and bewithc the girl. And that's all. There could be consequences, like parents of the girl who smell the deception or the demon starts to kill people etc.

Second example.

You are a bad guy, you usually do dirty works to earn money to become a lord and have a piece of lend under your reign one day. But you find yourself in a small village and stay there for few days. the village is attacked by bandits and you could easily run away but you stay and help the villagers to defend themselfs. At the end they give you little money and say thanks. Then the leader of the bandits seeing that you are popular in the village ask you to kidnap some young girls to be sold as slave to very rich lord. Nobody would suspect you and you could earn much money. But you refuse. Just because you don't like theese bandits and their chief, maybe they will trouble you in the future but this time you did something good, and that's all.

 

i hope this explane my idea of the argument, to sum up i would say: please make a rpg in which you can decide in every situation independently what to do and not a play good>glory and respect, play bad>money and power, just try to evolve theese mechanics

thanks for reading and excuse errors

[mcmanusaur]

For the record, the currently prevailing scientific consensus is that, while one can be born with certain genetic predispositions toward sociopathic behavior, there still must be an event during the course of one's development (usually trauma) to trigger the expression of such otherwise idle traits. So it's not nature or nuture, it's always both to some extent.

 

At any rate, "evil" for its own sake is a construct that makes both real life happenings and fictional narrative much easier for our minds to digest, and thus I am not entirely opposed to having truly evil characters (like Sauron, for instance) in Project Eternity. However more explanation of a character's past, whether the player character or the main villain, can never hurt.

Edited March 3, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[sesokeriton]

I'd like to see an evil path that is done in a way that it isn't just cartoony evil. What I mean is, that you can say you did the right thing after you're finished with the evil path and you couldn't have achieved the same things by doing the good path. I guess the best way to understand this might be to view it as a goal oriented pragmatic path. Instead of making choices by a moral compass, you make choices to achieve a goal and success can't be achieved by staying true to that moral compass.

 

Let's look at an example of how this might work. The starting situation is this. You're a member of an organization, that has fallen from glory. You're weak and are vulnerable to the whims of greater powers. You are used as pawns in their games with little regard to your safety or wellbeing, but it's the only way for you to survive in that world in your weakened state. You've endured this type of living for years now and the abuses you've suffered have set you on a patch to change your own and your organizations future.

 

THE GOOD PATH: You work your hardest, you keep your oaths and you finish your missions succesfully. Through many trials you ally with a noble faction, build a good reputation for yourself and your organization. Your position and status in life is greatly improved, but you will remain as a minor faction in the world. A respected and capable one allied with noble allies and a bright future(likely with a spouse/children to look forward to), but your fate is still tied to the fate of those larger entities and your past glory days are behind you. A good ending for your character and for your faction.

 

THE EVIL PATH: You you know the only way to truly regain control of your fate is to regain your position as a greater power in the world. Oaths, friends and alliances aren't trivial matters, but in the end you know they're tools you use in order to achieve your goals. Supporting a weak ally to the end will only hinder and weaken you, so you're prepared to cut your ties/betray them to gain favor with a rising power. You know religiously following rules and tradition makes it impossible to achieve your dream. You have to be prepared to gather allies and make dirty deals in order to ensure you chance at the top. Lastly and most importantly you know someone else has to fall in order for you to take their place and they're not going to give that power up voluntarily. In the end your hands are covered in blood and you've used others as sacrificial pawns, but you've regained your position and you alone determine your own future, so you can live with your choices. Another good ending for your character and for your faction, where you did evil things but can still genuinely feel good about your character and choices.

 

That is what I want. I want the character to be a hero of the story no matter if I play a good or an evil path. I don't want to see some cartoony villain who wakes up and goes "What evil should I do today? Muahahahaaa" or "I'll taunt and kill this pointless pesant because I'm evil and that is what evil people do. Muahaahahahaa". No one does that. That's not evil, that's just horribly bad writing.

[Failion]

Nah no one born into a role. Someone a psychopath? They probably got raped very young, saw violence daily and everyone they grew up around was abusive towards them=misanthrope serial killer. Drug addict? Parents abuse drugs. Selfish? Jealousy issues young age never dealt with. Cannibal serial killer? curiosity with animal dissection at a young age, growing up around abuse etc. There always actions and factors that shape someone to who they end up being. Unlike in fantasy dnd where a devil is always going to be evil just cause. 

[Chippy]

Just sharing a bit of life experience here, but I worked for 4 years teaching over 5000 high risk offenders from every prison within the major city in which I live, 70% had psychological disorders.  In light of my previous quoted statistic, had exactly 2 (verbal/miffed only) incidents during that time.

I resigned due to my contempt for the (CRB checked - never arrested) colleagues I was working with who would happily place at risk of harming children offenders with 14-16 year olds, sexual harrasment against female staff (who did nothing because managers could only see misconduct, not a lack of it),  steal more than half their yearly salaries from the college, and commit so much fraud and gross misconduct that the daily examples couldn't be summarized in one go.

 

Similiar to another post quoting the military, a significant aspect of 'evil' for me has become what people (in this case highly educated, qualified professional's) could get away with within an institution - behind physical and bureaucratic walls -  with no more than a bit of window dressing in place if anyone peeked a bit higher, and beneath this verneer still maintain their social, professional, and personal standing.

 

My point is that there's enough of that crap in real life for me, and I chose to disengage from it - so whatever 'evil' a game contains I hope is done tastefully enough to engage the player.

[Failion]

Just sharing a bit of life experience here, but I worked for 4 years teaching over 5000 high risk offenders from every prison within the major city in which I live, 70% had psychological disorders.  In light of my previous quoted statistic, had exactly 2 (verbal/miffed only) incidents during that time.

I resigned due to my contempt for the (CRB checked - never arrested) colleagues I was working with who would happily place at risk of harming children offenders with 14-16 year olds, sexual harrasment against female staff (who did nothing because managers could only see misconduct, not a lack of it),  steal more than half their yearly salaries from the college, and commit so much fraud and gross misconduct that the daily examples couldn't be summarized in one go.

 

Similiar to another post quoting the military, a significant aspect of 'evil' for me has become what people (in this case highly educated, qualified professional's) could get away with within an institution - behind physical and bureaucratic walls -  with no more than a bit of window dressing in place if anyone peeked a bit higher, and beneath this verneer still maintain their social, professional, and personal standing.

 

My point is that there's enough of that crap in real life for me, and I chose to disengage from it - so whatever 'evil' a game contains I hope is done tastefully enough to engage the player.

true that real life evil is disgusting I take derpy fantasy evil just cause any day.