@Obsidian: Please make playing evil worthwhile, fulfilling & not juvenile!

[Frenetic Pony]

The biggest problem I can see is in the very title of this post, and the very attitude displayed by people wanting these options.

 

"My goal is to be evil!" is inherently stupid. No one's "goal", not even Hitler's, has ever been to just "be evil". People, usually, have reasonably understandable high level aims, and it is usually the means by which they achieve them might be considered evil. That's what should be taken into account consider. I.E. your goal might be to get rich, and you can do that by honest hard labor, or quicker by murdering someone and taking their stuff; see, evil! Compare this to a dialogue option with the "goal" of being evil which boils down to just "murder someone random because!" or "kick random puppy and cackle!"

Edited June 24, 2013 by Frenetic Pony

[Lephys]

Well, then you still have people like Heath Ledger's version of The Joker, who pretty much make it a point to go out of their way to prove to people, on a philosophical level, that everyone's pretty much evil, and that there's never really any divide between groups for you to even be saving the "good, innocent people" in the first place.

 

Not that that's quite the same thing, but it's also not "I'm just trying to gain something in a selfish way." What he's trying to gain LITERALLY involves going out of his way to set things up to "force" people to "be evil."

 

But, yeah... that really kind of reinforces the point here, since EVEN HE isn't just doing things to "be evil." He still doesn't even think he's evil. I think it was said that he "just wants to watch the world burn." But, I think it's more that he wants to show that fires happen without evil starting them, and that true "evil" is the selfishness of the masses in simply letting them burn, as long as they aren't in danger of getting caught in them. etc...

 

Anywho... there definitely needs to be some actually-thought-out motivation for people to do what they're doing. I mean, if you want to put insane people in, then awesome, but they shouldn't be insane just to support all the whacked out crap they're doing, then conveniently quite sane when it comes to the greater coherence of their plan, all at the same time.

[Karkarov]

Yeah, nice idea, bad way of selling it.

 

Yes the player should have the option to be "evil".  "Evil" has never been about getting rich or doing what benefits you the most.  Good and evil are ideas, not tangible things you acquire.  You CAN be a hero and be a brutally evil baby killer at the same time.

 

The grand knight who saved the village from a bandit incursion is evil.  Because he saved the village by poisoning the local lake water supply which resulted in all the bandits dying, but it also killed tons of local wildlife, made part of the forest uninhabitable for years, and tainted a local travellers well which incidentally killed 5 pilgrims.  But he saved the village and killed the bandits.

 

King Godfrey is a noble ruler and a great leader who has made his country prosperous!  But he is evil... because he fixed his countries overpopulation problem by attacking and killing most of the population of his peaceful neighboring kingdom to make room for his people and compensate for their lack of farmable land.

 

The master merchant is a great man who cares for the people, but is evil.  Because while he may donate tons of his money and contribute to the local bards college, and help fund irrigation research to help the people.... he got rich by paying assassins to kill rivals, bribing bandits to raid other peoples stores, blackmailing local officials, bankrupting smaller businesses, etc etc.

 

All three examples are people that many will consider heroes, morally sound, even champions of good.  They aren't "trying to be evil" or "doing it for themselves" their motivations are good.  The knight wants to protect the village, the King wants to save his people, the Merchant wants to give back to the place he grew up and the school that taught him.... it is just the way they do it that makes them evil, not their motivations.

 

Also Frenetic Pony... great post, dead on accurate.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Karkarov

[Failion]

Evil in general is juvenile. Sometimes the whole reward of being evil is the mindless death you inflict. I suppose they could expand this by having more reaction from the npcs when you are killing them, especially if your friends with them so you feel like more of an ****. For example in fallout 2 you helped everyone out in that mutant mining town and now decide to murder everyone cause you are evil. Give the npcs you helped  text WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS . PLEASE NO MISTER I THOUGHT WE WERE FRIENDS! lol.

 

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think I agree with the OP. I think it is possible to be a villain who is a self-serving sociopath without resorting to being a killing machine who slaughters everything for grin and giggles(although I also think that this option should be provided). Frankly, having a villain be forced into being intimidating and violent is dumb, especially when in a lot of cases the diplomatic option would suit them. I don't like having the choice between being an ass-kissing saint, an apathetic loser, or a child killing psychopath.

 

I am confident that PE will be able to deliver on this front though. By removing the alignment system, they are allowing the player to determine if the PC's actions are heroic or villainous, instead of awarding alignment points based on action rather than motive. IMO, letting the player determine what is good and evil for their character is the best option.

 

The older I get the less interested I am in playing at evil.

 

Evil, if made real or even slightly real, is the antithesis of roleplaying.

 

Evil is about being fixated in self, and not understanding or caring about anyone else.

 

Why the hell would you WANT a 'realistic' villain? It would be bloody awful.

Wals, I honestly don't understand what you mean. I don't see how providing more options for a player to roleplay their character as they see fir is the antithesis of roleplaying.

 

I would like to see a realistic villain because I want a character more complex than a rehashed mustache twirler. ****, if mainstream American superhero comics can create/inject villains with motivations that are somewhat realistic and make them more complex than "the bad guy who does bad ****", a cRPG from a developer known for complex characters and good overall writing should be able to.

[Tale]

In my opinion if you can label it evil, then it's already a bit juvenile. Selfish choices are juvenile choices. Maybe killing a guy for coin isn't as juvenile as killing a guy because you don't like his hat, it is a spectrum after all. But it's still not as mature as killing him because his death would prevent a greater tragedy.

 

Choices that force players to think beyond good and evil are the mature ones. The choices that might encourage a player looking to do good to instead do something traditionally considered evil, these are the more interesting. They become a challenge in a sense, as they can make the player pause and give it deeper thought.

 

Though, and I have to cut people off here that may misread what I'm saying, I don't support trick choices either. A player intending to do good that chooses the seemingly good choice, should still have a good result. It should just be a different good than that of the guy who thought about it and chose the more ambiguous good. The outcome should reflect what is put into it. Simplistic choices should have simplistic outcomes. Complex choices should have complex outcomes.

[Iron_JG]

To add my two cents, I think we're trying to differentiate here, more or less, between sociopathy and sadism. That is to say, indifference towards others' suffering and actively trying to create it. The issue is that game developers, in creating an 'evil' path for characters, struggle to really differentiate the two. Machiavellian behavior, or doing whatever is necessary/effective to achieve a goal or personal power, is generally held as the more 'sensible' form of evil, and one that is still relatively easy to build a story around. But sometimes people do want to see other people suffer, either through verbal or physical abuse, and expecting this to be in a role-playing game totally isn't unrealistic or 'juvenile' by definition. Sometimes people do go out of their way to be cruel, even if it offsets gains they would make from amoral or immoral actions. A merciless warlord wouldn't balk at killing women and children of an enemy village, for instance. But a truly cruel, sadistic one would drag the process out and terrorize them in various ways, even though there is no material gain from doing so.

 

Sadistic behavior then, is hard to write around because yes, it is somewhat illogical. But I think it has a place in the moral spectrum of characters we should be able to play -- I say this as someone who can't bear to play evil characters, btw. I think what most people are really complaining about is designers simply don't spend as much time and energy making it work as they do good options. Most RPGs clearly show this -- there are more good or neutral characters, heroic story lines are more common with better rewards, etc. This is detrimental to RPGs story lines, however, because good choices are more meaningful when they are clearly selected out of amoral or immoral choices. 'Evil' choices should be well developed and invested in.

 

Some bullet point recommendations, then:

 

-- Don't be lazy with dialogue -- aggressive does not equal evil! Many good guys can be ****, while many villains can be shrewdly diplomatic and conniving. Dialogue has to permit that degree of nuance.

 

-- Differentiate between ruthless and sadistic behaviors. Most villains tend to just be ruthless, particularly thieves, assassins and despots. There should also be enough choice within each category of behaviors to let the player feel like they can draw the line at how evil a character is -- at least for major quests.

 

-- Try to make 'evil' choices creative, poetic and memorable. This allows us to play truly memorable, truly loathsome villains rather than schoolyard bullies. Don't try to let us kick every puppy and backstab every poor old lady. Ask the player to play a somewhat restrained character and to accept some narrative constraints in exchange for really poignant choices where it counts. Suppose you're tasked with stealing sensitive documents (say, investigations into smuggling) from a magistrate. A 'standard' villain would take the most direct route to the documents, killing guards along the way as needed, and turn them in for an easy reward. A more interesting response would be to use his effects of office, referencing the documents, to alter the schedule of his guards' raid into the smugglers' compound so they raided it at peak hours of operation, causing a bloody riot that would make it easier to rob nearby warehouses. (The trade-off being the smugglers, being drawn into a bloody confrontation, don't reward you as if the job had gone as planned.) The cruel response here could be to insure the magistrate's son is personally leading the ill-timed raid. Maybe still a contrived example, but you get the idea.

 

-- Make the rewards for good and evil play throughs balance out over the long, rather than short, term. It constrains quest options when the good/evil solutions must guarantee comparable rewards upon completion. I would rather one option be more lucrative than the other for most quests, provided they ultimately balanced out. Good and evil actions rarely balance out in value IRL, but this is a game and diverse play styles and character types should be encouraged.

[Lephys]

Hell... even the lying Rogue type who guilts impoverished townships out of all their supplies and gold for performing some "valiant" task that wasn't really even that hard could be considered evil, if only to a lesser degree.

 

Just like you can go around cutting people for no good reason, or you can go around cutting people's limbs off for no good reason. The nature of the action is the same. You've decided that your exorcism of your power to hurt people making you feel good is more important than other people remaining uninjured. Only, giving people little cuts differs from hacking entire limbs off in extent. Taking advantage of people isn't physically, directly harming them, but it's still voluntarily worsening their well-being.

[Dream]

King Godfrey is a noble ruler and a great leader who has made his country prosperous!  But he is evil... because he fixed his countries overpopulation problem by attacking and killing most of the population of his peaceful neighboring kingdom to make room for his people and compensate for their lack of farmable land.

 

The master merchant is a great man who cares for the people, but is evil.  Because while he may donate tons of his money and contribute to the local bards college, and help fund irrigation research to help the people.... he got rich by paying assassins to kill rivals, bribing bandits to raid other peoples stores, blackmailing local officials, bankrupting smaller businesses, etc etc.

Those two read more like selfish people seeking to further their own power through good publicity.

[Tuckey]

@Dream

 

I think that the accumulation of power for it's own sake can be considered 'evil'. Absolute power corrupts absolutely; The fun role-playing aspect could be in what form the corruption takes; who you hurt and how your character is hurt along the way by their own narcissism and desire for power.

[Barothmuk]

You meet an old lady with her cats in a hut (and she is known to love cats) and the "evil" option is usually something like this: slaughter (or torture) the cats in front of the woman and then laugh in her face.

In this situation what "evil" option would you prefer?

Not have one? Why should a selfish and ambitious character even bother with an old lady and her cats?

We don't know if the OP is defining "evil" as selfish and/or ambitious.

 

I asked what "evil" option the OP would prefer the player to have in this scenario because after two pages he has yet to say what exactly he is referring to when he says "evil".

[pl1982]

I see quite a few posts here wishing to pretend that evil is non-existent. Some go so far as stating that "to state a category of evil exists is itself juvenile". I believe this to be an absurd position to take. Yes, evil is NOT a tangible thing, yes it is an idea...but that most certainly does not mean it does not exist...as an idea/concept. I do not wish to turn this into a debate regarding philosophical realism versus idealism (or even rationalism vs. empiricism), but suffice to say that for me when anyone says "do away with evil, there is no evil", that statement is...juvenile and the person uttering it is fooling themselves if they think they can escape the duality of evil and good. Even if evil is just completely subjective, that does not in any logical manner imply it does not exist (this again can form part of a much larger philosophical debate which is not my intention right now however). The fact (or if you then will: the assumption for the sake of this thread) is that moral judgements (i.e. what is simplistically labelled “good” and “evil”) do exist and even if you consider all moral judgments/categories as being on a "spectrum of grey" instead of black and white, well I got news for you: grey is a function of the interaction between black (or “evil” if you prefer) and white (or “good” if you prefer). Also, the question of “what evil is to me” is irrelevant to my request in this thread (in response to one poster asking me to actually define what evil subjectively is to me) as I will extrapolate below.

 

It is quite obvious what is occurring here: some people are conflating the category in which “motivation/goals” falls with the category in which “evil” falls, mistaking these categories to be the same. If my post added to this confusion, I apologize; it was not my intention of conflating these two SEPARATE/DIFFERENT categories. Evil/Good we can say is of the category “morals” whereas “motivation” is of a different category, let’s say “human drives/emotions/impulses”. I was in fact asking that instead of the category “morals” being solely dependent (i.e. a function of) the category “drives/emotions/impulses” (in the context of the video game), I would like the developers to rather bring in a third category, let’s call it “the video game” and make BOTH morals and motivations dependent on this third category. This request and my analysis of the situation depends of course on a specific assumption: that morals and motivations (and thus their categories) depend upon the other, that even though they are NOT THE SAME, they are still co-dependent, i.e. you cannot consider the one without considering the other. Simply put: morals inform motivations and motivations in turn also inform morals. I simply asked that the developers, ensure in the context of the video game, that BOTH morals and motivations are informed by the video game itself. That is all.

 

That is a bit more formal way to express what I requested from the developers. If you do not consider that morals and motivations are of different categories (which to me would be an absurd consideration) and if you do not consider morals and motivations to be co-dependent categories (which is a philosophically more defensible position), then this thread will not be about the above paragraph (i.e. the point/intent) for you and will transform into a philosophical debate regarding “what morals really are” and “what motivations really are”, which was not truly my intent, but hey…I guess it’s an interesting outcome of it.

[Randomthom]

I think Iron_JG has hit this on the head by differentiating between sociopathy and sadism.

 

Evil for evil's sake does exist but only usually among the clinically insane. Evil as a means to an end is far more commonplace and understandable.

 

It's often easier to talk about characters and what better examples do we have than George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire (aka Game of Thrones)?

Sadistic: Requires no motivation for committing an atrocity.

Joffrey, Ramsay Snow/Bolton, Aerys Targaryen, Gregor Clegane, Viserys Targaryen

 

Sociopathic: Atrocities are committed against others but only when there is a purpose behind the act.

Petyr Baelish, Bronn, Craster, Sandor Clegane, Tywin Lannister, Cersei Lannister, Melisandre, Walder Frey

 

Ambiguous/Conflicted: Are viewed/lampshaded as 'bad people' by others but have honourable intentions/live by a code.

Jaime Lannister, Varys, Arya Stark, Theon Greyjoy, Stannis Baratheon

 

Vainglorious: Generally try to act for the betterment of others but usually with an eye on how it reflects upon themselves.

Robert Baratheon, Renly Baratheon, Sansa, Tyrion Lannister

 

Honourable: Do the right thing, regardless of the personal consequences.

Eddard Stark, Rob Stark, Brienne of Tarth, Beric Dondarrion, Jon Snow, Danaerys Targaryen

 

Good/Evil is a simplistic scale that can't fully explain people's actions AND their motivations, it can only really handle one or the other.

 

In the context of the game, I'd rather the options focused largely on the objective. The means by which you achieve the objective are the moral question that you can pose to yourself and perhaps the NPCs can offer their thoughts on things.

[Sabotin]

You could equally argue that gray is just a varying degree of presence of light, not a mixture of black and white...

 

I still stand by my opinion, although I see that I could have misinterpreted the original post. What I have read is that you wanted the game to instead of having only one token evil douche option have three of them and be rewarded more for picking them.

[Barothmuk]

The fact (or if you then will: the assumption for the sake of this thread) is that moral judgements (i.e. what is simplistically labelled “good” and “evil”) do exist and even if you consider all moral judgments/categories as being on a "spectrum of grey" instead of black and white, well I got news for you: grey is a function of the interaction between black (or “evil” if you prefer) and white (or “good” if you prefer).

In my opinion it'd be inaccurate to describe it as a "spectrum of grey" and I imagine anyone who perceives morality as completely subjective would think the same.

 

When it's "grey morality" it simply means it's all grey. There is no objective right or wrong and all have their own subjective positives and negatives.

 

 

Also, the question of “what evil is to me” is irrelevant to my request in this thread

I disagree.

 

You have clarified that you believe morals and motivations to be distinct but interrelated thus there should be actual, coherent motivation to be "an evil character" rather than simply being evil for the sake of being evil aka "ferr teh evulz" (or something to that effect). However you still have not said what you consider the evil option. For Obsidian to effectively implement what you consider to be the "evil" option you're going to have to clarify what you believe that to be.

[Karkarov]

 

King Godfrey is a noble ruler and a great leader who has made his country prosperous!  But he is evil... because he fixed his countries overpopulation problem by attacking and killing most of the population of his peaceful neighboring kingdom to make room for his people and compensate for their lack of farmable land.

 

The master merchant is a great man who cares for the people, but is evil.  Because while he may donate tons of his money and contribute to the local bards college, and help fund irrigation research to help the people.... he got rich by paying assassins to kill rivals, bribing bandits to raid other peoples stores, blackmailing local officials, bankrupting smaller businesses, etc etc.

Those two read more like selfish people seeking to further their own power through good publicity.

 

Really? He is already the King.  How much more power can he get?  If he doesn't fix the overpopulation problem he will have to put in food rations, his people will starve, sickness may become as issue as people weaken and are forced into overcrowding situations.  The countries very viability is at risk and it is his responsibility to protect the people as King isn't it?  That is what a good King does.  He has to make a hard choice, but he has to protect his people above all else, this is key.  The land he seizes is not "politically" valuable, there is no arms being manufactured, no gold mine, no strategic cross roads, but he needs that land for his people and he won't fail his people.

 

Also no, the Merchant donates a large portion of his money, far more than he "needs" to donate to get respect, he legitimately wants to help his city and such.  It is just those merchants aren't as giving as he is, they are in it for themselves, and if they get powerful it will cut his profits and thus hurt his ability to help the people.  We can't have that now, can we?  No it is best for society if he maintains control of the market, thus the proper donations can be given and the city can flourish as it should.

 

The saying isn't "The Path to Hell is paved in good intentions." because everyone following it is all about number one and doing only whats best for them.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Karkarov

[Malekith]

I agree with Karkarov completely...

What is happening today?

[Micamo]

Anywho... there definitely needs to be some actually-thought-out motivation for people to do what they're doing. I mean, if you want to put insane people in, then awesome, but they shouldn't be insane just to support all the whacked out crap they're doing, then conveniently quite sane when it comes to the greater coherence of their plan, all at the same time.

A good example of a villain that almost gets this is Caesar from FO:NV. Caesar's legion looks like a bunch of sadistic, psychotic morons, but you can actually sit down and chat with Caesar about his motivations for doing all of this and he'll actually give you a detailed, reasonable-sounding answer. Of course it's Hegelian nonsense but hey, serious academics swallowed Hegel's crap for decades. I totally believe an uneducated person after the apocalypse could stumble upon Hegel's theory of history and fall in love with it.

 

The key irony is that his goal is to build a unified society where everyone serves the Pax Romana, but the only person in the legion who believed in the Pax Romana was Caesar himself: Everyone under his command really is just a murderous psycho who knows that bowing to the legion is their best chance to get to fulfill their urges. Lanius is the best example of this, though not the only one. If/When Caesar leaves the picture the legion devolves into a bunch of Stupid Evil ****heads.

 

That said the legion doesn't work because this conversation is something most players never see: You can only have it if you join the legion, and it's miss-able even then. Without seeing this conversation all you ever see of the Legion are Caesar's insane subordinates. It's the Loghain problem all over again.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Micamo

[Sacred_Path]

What I expect is a good array of choices. The devs don't need to go the trouble of coming up with reasons why a character would make a certain choice, it's enough if they simply provide that choice as it would realistically exist. This obviously includes choices that are at the extreme ends of what in DnD terms would be a good-evil axis.

[Eiphel]

I just want to point out - Several people have said 'But nobody considers themselves evil, they all have reason for their actions', or similar. That's (somewhat) true, but it's not directly relevant to the original post. We're talking about playing a character that we, as players, consider evil - not a character that considers themselves evil.

[Micamo]

What I expect is a good array of choices. The devs don't need to go the trouble of coming up with reasons why a character would make a certain choice, it's enough if they simply provide that choice as it would realistically exist. This obviously includes choices that are at the extreme ends of what in DnD terms would be a good-evil axis.

The problem with this, I think, is in player training. A player decides "Okay, I'll be an evil character this time" and then start picking the bottom option of every dialogue, because we've been trained that top = good and bottom = bad. Then they notice that their character is a whacko stereotype with no coherent motivations or character traits, and get upset.

 

A part of me wants to say "Well of course your character is incoherent, you moron, because you're not thinking about what you're saying and basing your choices purely on their location in the UI. How do you expect to have a good roleplaying experience when you aren't properly roleplaying?"

 

But another part of me blames game developers for this: Most RPGs (or games touted to provide "Choice And Consequence" like Infamous or Dishonored) are designed, either implicitly (through sometimes subtle writing choices) or explicitly (through morality meters and mechanical benefits), to assume and reward this behavior in the player. Try to "roleplay" your way through these games and you will be rewarded with nothing but pain and suffering: The correct way to go through them is to turn your brain off and be a passive participant in the story. This trend was started by Bioware (and Alignment in D&D before it) but has been perpetrated by almost the entire gaming industry. Even the recent trend of games trying to give more "meaningful choices" are failing miserably at it because they still cling to these design assumptions.

[Nonek]

I recall another rather well handled manipulation for the more practical of characters was the deception of Kaelyn the Dove, one could convince the powerful cleric that our aid was unstinting and our support unyielding, and yet it was all a tissue of lies. That felt very much like rolepleying the Deionarra confrontation with the Practical incarnation of Nameless, an extremely merciless and quite frankly repulsive thing to do, but totally in line for a character who is pursuing his own agenda without regard for the consequences affecting anyone else.

[Malekith]

I recall another rather well handled manipulation for the more practical of characters was the deception of Kaelyn the Dove, one could convince the powerful cleric that our aid was unstinting and our support unyielding, and yet it was all a tissue of lies. That felt very much like rolepleying the Deionarra confrontation with the Practical incarnation of Nameless, an extremely merciless and quite frankly repulsive thing to do, but totally in line for a character who is pursuing his own agenda without regard for the consequences affecting anyone else.

[Rostere]

I think Iron_JG has hit this on the head by differentiating between sociopathy and sadism.

 

Evil for evil's sake does exist but only usually among the clinically insane. Evil as a means to an end is far more commonplace and understandable.

 

It's often easier to talk about characters and what better examples do we have than George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire (aka Game of Thrones)?

Sadistic: Requires no motivation for committing an atrocity.

Joffrey, Ramsay Snow/Bolton, Aerys Targaryen, Gregor Clegane, Viserys Targaryen

 

Sociopathic: Atrocities are committed against others but only when there is a purpose behind the act.

Petyr Baelish, Bronn, Craster, Sandor Clegane, Tywin Lannister, Cersei Lannister, Melisandre, Walder Frey

 

Ambiguous/Conflicted: Are viewed/lampshaded as 'bad people' by others but have honourable intentions/live by a code.

Jaime Lannister, Varys, Arya Stark, Theon Greyjoy, Stannis Baratheon

 

Vainglorious: Generally try to act for the betterment of others but usually with an eye on how it reflects upon themselves.

Robert Baratheon, Renly Baratheon, Sansa, Tyrion Lannister

 

Honourable: Do the right thing, regardless of the personal consequences.

Eddard Stark, Rob Stark, Brienne of Tarth, Beric Dondarrion, Jon Snow, Danaerys Targaryen

 

Good/Evil is a simplistic scale that can't fully explain people's actions AND their motivations, it can only really handle one or the other.

 

In the context of the game, I'd rather the options focused largely on the objective. The means by which you achieve the objective are the moral question that you can pose to yourself and perhaps the NPCs can offer their thoughts on things.

 

I would add "merciless" to that list of evil characteristics, in the sense that it means you inflict a disproportionate punishment/response. All too often in games you are not allowed (or at least not encouraged by dialogue lines) to be judgmental about characters who have been a pain in the ass for you earlier in the game.

 

But I agree, they should think more about character traits in general to draw up a wider range of motivations and make them available when applicable.

[Bos_hybrid]

In my opinion if you can label it evil, then it's already a bit juvenile. Selfish choices are juvenile choices. Maybe killing a guy for coin isn't as juvenile as killing a guy because you don't like his hat, it is a spectrum after all. But it's still not as mature as killing him because his death would prevent a greater tragedy.

 

So essentially you want to play a hero that makes hard decisions. That's not 'mature' it's manure.

 

I enjoy games where the player has the option to be the villain, rather than just the hero. Good/evil metres don't interest me. Having options to be self serving, egomaniac, psychopathic, greedy, ruthless, destructive etc beside the usual selfless, kind, peaceful, humble that you always get.

 

I want it so your choices shape what the resident of the world think of you. Rather than the static 'your the hero that saved are cats from a trees, we all love you'. 

 

Essentially I find villains far more interesting than heroes and would rather RP as one. I don't see why Obs wouldn't provide this choice, considering they have done to varying degrees in previous games. (MOTB, AP, NV).