Playing evil on RPGs
- Thread starter mlnevese
- Start date
Chronicler
Habitué
- Messages
- 432
Some games make it more fun than others to be evil, I think.
Like in Black and White you play a god, and they do a good job of making you feel so far above it all that you don't think too much about terrorizing the mortals. Very little thought is spared towards any of these people's individual lives. Even the ones you briefly converse with personally kind of tend to immediately blend back into the crowd as soon as you're done their quest or whatever.
Baldur's Gate I think it always feels like you're kind of fighting the game to play evil. So many quests raise your reputation, so few actions lower it short of just wantonly killing some innocent for like no reason, and that'll turn the whole town against you unless you catch them on their own. Plus raising your reputation is incentived with better prices and quest rewards but lowering is penalized so even in an evil party you'll probably want to play this weird balancing act of keeping your reputation just a scootch below the point where all your evil friends kick you to the curb. Baldur's Gate really seems like it was fundamentally designed as a story about rejecting your heritage and then they added the evil path as an afterthought because that sort of thing sounds good when you're marketing the game, though I've met some people who pretty strongly disagree with me when I say that.
Mass Effect doesn't really have an "Evil" path so much as a "Rude and got attitude" path, which weirdly feels way worse. Especially with the dialogue wheel system, so you're not always exactly clear on what your character's gonna say when you select the option. Like some desperate and needy person will come for help, and you will still help them, because this isn't an evil path, but you'll just kind of vindictively tell them to go fuck themselves for no reason as you accept the quest. Often you'll select a dialogue option that sounds like it's a 6 out of 10 on the rudeness scale, only for your character to go full 10 out of 10 once he starts speaking, all just because you might need these Renegade Points somewhere down the line.
Like in Black and White you play a god, and they do a good job of making you feel so far above it all that you don't think too much about terrorizing the mortals. Very little thought is spared towards any of these people's individual lives. Even the ones you briefly converse with personally kind of tend to immediately blend back into the crowd as soon as you're done their quest or whatever.
Baldur's Gate I think it always feels like you're kind of fighting the game to play evil. So many quests raise your reputation, so few actions lower it short of just wantonly killing some innocent for like no reason, and that'll turn the whole town against you unless you catch them on their own. Plus raising your reputation is incentived with better prices and quest rewards but lowering is penalized so even in an evil party you'll probably want to play this weird balancing act of keeping your reputation just a scootch below the point where all your evil friends kick you to the curb. Baldur's Gate really seems like it was fundamentally designed as a story about rejecting your heritage and then they added the evil path as an afterthought because that sort of thing sounds good when you're marketing the game, though I've met some people who pretty strongly disagree with me when I say that.
Mass Effect doesn't really have an "Evil" path so much as a "Rude and got attitude" path, which weirdly feels way worse. Especially with the dialogue wheel system, so you're not always exactly clear on what your character's gonna say when you select the option. Like some desperate and needy person will come for help, and you will still help them, because this isn't an evil path, but you'll just kind of vindictively tell them to go fuck themselves for no reason as you accept the quest. Often you'll select a dialogue option that sounds like it's a 6 out of 10 on the rudeness scale, only for your character to go full 10 out of 10 once he starts speaking, all just because you might need these Renegade Points somewhere down the line.
m7600
Habitué
- Messages
- 1,201
The only game in which I've done an evil run is Baldur's Gate 2 Enhanced Edition. The addition of Hexxat and Dorn makes it possible to have a full party of evil characters. But, even though my Charname was evil, the choices I made throughout that run were actually True Neutral / Neutral Good, lol.
m7600
Habitué
- Messages
- 1,201
This topic also raises the question of fixed alignment (like Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale) versus variable alignment (like Planescape: Torment and Pathfinder: Kingmaker).
Fixed alignment has too many problems, IMO. For example, you can make a Lawful Good paladin and commit evil acts, and you'll still be Lawful Good. That's why I prefer variable alignment. Your paladin can certainly commit evil and chaotic acts, but their alignment will start to change and gravitate towards Chaotic Evil if they do that.
Fixed alignment has too many problems, IMO. For example, you can make a Lawful Good paladin and commit evil acts, and you'll still be Lawful Good. That's why I prefer variable alignment. Your paladin can certainly commit evil and chaotic acts, but their alignment will start to change and gravitate towards Chaotic Evil if they do that.
Chronicler
Habitué
- Messages
- 432
I think if you were to posit some kind of Baldur's Gate "canon" independent from gameplay mechanics, then alignment probably isn't literally fixed. Some static quality set from birth.
The ability to choose good or evil is in some ways a pretty central theme of the story.
It's just that creating a comprehensive system for your alignment changing in response to your actions is easier said than done, and game development is often ruled by grim practicalities like budgets and deadlines.
The ability to choose good or evil is in some ways a pretty central theme of the story.
It's just that creating a comprehensive system for your alignment changing in response to your actions is easier said than done, and game development is often ruled by grim practicalities like budgets and deadlines.
m7600
Habitué
- Messages
- 1,201
Yeah, but I mean, Planescape: Torment was developed and published before Baldur's Gate 2, and both games use the Infinity Engine. Fixed alignment might be forgivable for the first Baldur's Gate, but it was available for the second installment of the series.
Chronicler
Habitué
- Messages
- 432
It was available, but I think it still would've cost man hours, money and such.
You need somebody to go through the entire game and decide which quests should have the potential to alter your alignment, in which ways. Look at all the different kinds of agency you've given the player in the game and decide which ones should move you by how many points towards lawful or chaotic and such. I don't know how Planescape Torment accounted for things like killing an innocent while unwillingly under the influence of a magical confusion or berserker rage, through a wild surge, or how much accountability you have towards the actions of your companions and such, but that all would likely need new attention because of the new settings and situations the player is put in in this game.
Ultimately, Planescape Torment was a game that devoted its man hours differently. It worked for what it was doing but I woudn't necessarily assume we'd want to do it all the same for any other infinity engine game, or that it would be as simple as copy/pasting it all to adapt it to a new campaign.
You need somebody to go through the entire game and decide which quests should have the potential to alter your alignment, in which ways. Look at all the different kinds of agency you've given the player in the game and decide which ones should move you by how many points towards lawful or chaotic and such. I don't know how Planescape Torment accounted for things like killing an innocent while unwillingly under the influence of a magical confusion or berserker rage, through a wild surge, or how much accountability you have towards the actions of your companions and such, but that all would likely need new attention because of the new settings and situations the player is put in in this game.
Ultimately, Planescape Torment was a game that devoted its man hours differently. It worked for what it was doing but I woudn't necessarily assume we'd want to do it all the same for any other infinity engine game, or that it would be as simple as copy/pasting it all to adapt it to a new campaign.
Chronicler
Habitué
- Messages
- 432
They did, for what it's worth, implement it in small ways, like Anomen's questline, and the hell trials.
m7600
Habitué
- Messages
- 1,201
I think there could have been a middle ground here. Instead of branching questlines and outcomes, one option would be to place an alignment tag next to some dialogue choices. For example, an NPC asks for your help, and you're given these choices
1. (Neutral Good) "I will help you."
2. (Chaotic Neutral) "I might help you, for a price."
3. (Chaotic Evil) "Give me all your gold or die!"
Something like that. Depending on what dialogue option you choose, your alignment shifts accordingly. That's all.
1. (Neutral Good) "I will help you."
2. (Chaotic Neutral) "I might help you, for a price."
3. (Chaotic Evil) "Give me all your gold or die!"
Something like that. Depending on what dialogue option you choose, your alignment shifts accordingly. That's all.
Chronicler
Habitué
- Messages
- 432
That's true. There probably are decisions they could've made differently in that respect.
I generally tend to err on the side of "easier said than done" when talking about game development, since from what I've heard from game developers, players tend to pretty unilaterally across the board over-estimate the simplicity of anything they do.
But that's different from saying there's never any room for improvement.
I generally tend to err on the side of "easier said than done" when talking about game development, since from what I've heard from game developers, players tend to pretty unilaterally across the board over-estimate the simplicity of anything they do.
But that's different from saying there's never any room for improvement.
- Messages
- 1,806
It's indeed a challenge: both to create meaningful evil choices in an RPG that feel not like "lawful stupid" evil actions, and to pick them (for me personally).
I tried to RP BG1 once as an evil character. The game ends when you visit the Candlekeep if you decline to surrender, it just gives a forced "Game Over" screen. And an evil character won't surrender there. The game felt very limited in other aspects to fully RP the evil alignment.
P: WotR gives 2 (or more) evil Mythic paths, and I didn't have enough willingness to try any of them. The reason is that you lose companions, and relationships with your companions are the biggest factor for me in a party RPG. What I found is that picking mostly evil options can work for me, and it's fun to have evil companions in the group. But of course, sometimes I picked Chaotic or even Good options because they seemed more natural.
The Mass Effect series has a pretty dumbed-down version of evil choices, I agree with @Chronicler on this.
I know Crusader Kings III is not an RPG, but it's a strategy with a lot of RPG elements. I would say that is one of the few games I've played that allows you to fully RP evil and reach all the success you can. An evil tyrant who is invested in such aspects as intrigue and intimidation can be a fun way to play that game. Tagging @Skatan for his opinion on other similar Paradox games.
I can also name Might & Magic VII. @Cahir played it not long ago, @BelgarathMTH played it many times. The game allows you to pursue two very distinct ways to RP choices in the game, and the concept is realized well enough. Can totally recommend it.
I tried to RP BG1 once as an evil character. The game ends when you visit the Candlekeep if you decline to surrender, it just gives a forced "Game Over" screen. And an evil character won't surrender there. The game felt very limited in other aspects to fully RP the evil alignment.
P: WotR gives 2 (or more) evil Mythic paths, and I didn't have enough willingness to try any of them. The reason is that you lose companions, and relationships with your companions are the biggest factor for me in a party RPG. What I found is that picking mostly evil options can work for me, and it's fun to have evil companions in the group. But of course, sometimes I picked Chaotic or even Good options because they seemed more natural.
The Mass Effect series has a pretty dumbed-down version of evil choices, I agree with @Chronicler on this.
I know Crusader Kings III is not an RPG, but it's a strategy with a lot of RPG elements. I would say that is one of the few games I've played that allows you to fully RP evil and reach all the success you can. An evil tyrant who is invested in such aspects as intrigue and intimidation can be a fun way to play that game. Tagging @Skatan for his opinion on other similar Paradox games.
I can also name Might & Magic VII. @Cahir played it not long ago, @BelgarathMTH played it many times. The game allows you to pursue two very distinct ways to RP choices in the game, and the concept is realized well enough. Can totally recommend it.
m7600
Habitué
- Messages
- 1,201
@alice_ashpool could you please give us your take on this topic? Your Lawful Evil party in your latest Icewind Dale 2 run is a cool concept. Any tips for making interesting and playable evil characters?
- Messages
- 252
I used to enjoy playing evil a lot many years ago, but not so much anymore. I have a recurring character concept I use from the past that is CE so if I roll up that particular character, he have to be CE and act the part. But it's rare nowadays as I tend to play almost always favoring Lawful Neutral or Good characters. It's really quite funny in a way since I always played Chaotic Evil or Good chars some 10 years ago.
Kotor I play Sith though. I just can't handle the meak jedi, heh. Playing Sith is just to much fun. Well, at least it was back when I did it last time. If I played today I wonder if I would be drawn to the light side. Same with ME, but as mentioned above, being Renegade isn't really Evil.
As with all RPGs I find myself creating myself more often than creating "a character", thus I gravitate towards my RL 'alignment'. I have no answer to why this is happening, perhaps it's age, perhaps maturity or perhaps something completely different. It's interesting that these questions you guys pose here make me put words on these things, something I otherwise perhaps wouldn't think about so much.
Kotor I play Sith though. I just can't handle the meak jedi, heh. Playing Sith is just to much fun. Well, at least it was back when I did it last time. If I played today I wonder if I would be drawn to the light side. Same with ME, but as mentioned above, being Renegade isn't really Evil.
As with all RPGs I find myself creating myself more often than creating "a character", thus I gravitate towards my RL 'alignment'. I have no answer to why this is happening, perhaps it's age, perhaps maturity or perhaps something completely different. It's interesting that these questions you guys pose here make me put words on these things, something I otherwise perhaps wouldn't think about so much.
Chronicler
Habitué
- Messages
- 432
I really don't feel like the jedi are ever really the heroes in Star Wars anyway. Seems like Luke was fed a lot of flattering myths about a Noble Jedi Order that never really existed, and the franchise is pretty uninterested in examining that. I haven't played Kotor but I figure it'd be easier to play evil simply by nature of this being a kind of villain vs villain conflict.
- Messages
- 677
I would love to play a Star Wars game where you can play as a Grey Jedi. They didn't believe The Force had a Light or Dark side, that it just worked to maximize what was already inside you. Or a Force User of another tradition. The Jedis and Sith were not the only Force users in the galaxy...
WarChiefZeke
Habitué
- Messages
- 216
I think it would be a bit more interesting if RPGs let you get led down a path of evil, rather than being born some sort of psychopath if you play the evil side like in many, many RPGs. Let the player be tempted with a few minor moral compromises, better if they can even justify it to themselves, that lead to the choice to make potentially larger ones etc. etc. with more noble options slowly being more closed off until you start to correct course.
I would be much more willing to play and be interested in an evil character that could develop an in-game reason for *why* he/she became such a bad person, rather than randomly slitting the throats of villagers or constantly asking for money like an "evil" character in NWN or KOTOR.
I would be much more willing to play and be interested in an evil character that could develop an in-game reason for *why* he/she became such a bad person, rather than randomly slitting the throats of villagers or constantly asking for money like an "evil" character in NWN or KOTOR.
BelgarathMTH
Habitué
- Messages
- 181
@Antimatter , since you brought up Might and Magic 7, I think it has the most nuanced version of evil alignment I've ever seen in a game in the form of Archibald. If you're on the Light path, there's a point he appears to you underground and offers you a blaster and a chance to switch sides. His explanation of what he was up to and why were so compelling, I was legitimately tempted to switch to his side (although I didn't). He also helped point us in the right direction to save Roland, despite Roland's having turned him to stone in the Succession Wars.
Archibald doesn't see himself as the villain of the piece. He's classic Machiavellian lawful evil, and thinks he is serving the greater good of Enroth. He wants the Kreegan stopped just as much as Roland does, and he sees the Ancients, and their servants and "angels", as manipulators and slavemasters rather than divine, benevolent caretakers. I was honestly convinced that he had a point, and that the choices being offered in the game were shades of gray rather than as black and white as I had thought.
Archibald doesn't see himself as the villain of the piece. He's classic Machiavellian lawful evil, and thinks he is serving the greater good of Enroth. He wants the Kreegan stopped just as much as Roland does, and he sees the Ancients, and their servants and "angels", as manipulators and slavemasters rather than divine, benevolent caretakers. I was honestly convinced that he had a point, and that the choices being offered in the game were shades of gray rather than as black and white as I had thought.
O_Bruce
Habitué
- Messages
- 527
When it comes to RPGs games, I typically tend to play someone who's not me or based on me, but rather someone who is better than me, someone who is inspiring. A hero, so to speak. Due to that, I rarely play evil characters and most of the times it was either in Baldur's Gate (once as bloodthirsty swashblucker by nature, once as calculating sociopath of a mage/priest) or Icewind Dale, where all of my party members are little more than just utility without characteristics on their own.
While I agree that RPGs can and should do better in terms of giving players more options to play evil characters, I must say that playing an evil character isn't limited to dialogue options - you don't need necessary to have your character's evil nature directly, and unsubtly reflected via dialogue options. Think about it, many real-life serial killers were actually quite charming in conversations. Even in Baldur's Gate, the local chaotic evil psychopath Sarevok was extremely popular among Baldur's Gate's nobility.
The other thing is, action speaks louder than words. Let's take, once again, Baldur's Gate as an example. You provoke/are being provoked by a random adventurer's party you meet in the wilderness, or even in populated areas like an inn, the battle ensues and said party is dead. If you had the option to prevent that battle, that is murder. Unlike self-defense, being provoked doesn't justify committing murder. And the game doesn't punish you in reputation loss in those instances - instead, you earn a nice amount of experience points and nice loot, sometimes unique loot. Think of Golden Girdle, which cannot be found any other way in BG1. In the example above you see an option evil party can take. Of course, nothing mechanics-wise can stop the good-aligned party to take that route as well, but in a role-playing game, taking that route shouldn't be something for a good-aligned party to even consider.
Similarly, theft and looting of random houses. Unless caught, you are not being penalized, but the action is still inherently evil.
Based on that I'd say the options are there, just not necessary in form of dialogues etc.
EDIT: Forgot to mention. Asking for compensation for work isn't evil.
While I agree that RPGs can and should do better in terms of giving players more options to play evil characters, I must say that playing an evil character isn't limited to dialogue options - you don't need necessary to have your character's evil nature directly, and unsubtly reflected via dialogue options. Think about it, many real-life serial killers were actually quite charming in conversations. Even in Baldur's Gate, the local chaotic evil psychopath Sarevok was extremely popular among Baldur's Gate's nobility.
The other thing is, action speaks louder than words. Let's take, once again, Baldur's Gate as an example. You provoke/are being provoked by a random adventurer's party you meet in the wilderness, or even in populated areas like an inn, the battle ensues and said party is dead. If you had the option to prevent that battle, that is murder. Unlike self-defense, being provoked doesn't justify committing murder. And the game doesn't punish you in reputation loss in those instances - instead, you earn a nice amount of experience points and nice loot, sometimes unique loot. Think of Golden Girdle, which cannot be found any other way in BG1. In the example above you see an option evil party can take. Of course, nothing mechanics-wise can stop the good-aligned party to take that route as well, but in a role-playing game, taking that route shouldn't be something for a good-aligned party to even consider.
Similarly, theft and looting of random houses. Unless caught, you are not being penalized, but the action is still inherently evil.
Based on that I'd say the options are there, just not necessary in form of dialogues etc.
EDIT: Forgot to mention. Asking for compensation for work isn't evil.
Chronicler
Habitué
- Messages
- 432
That shit drives me crazy. In Baldur's Gate somebody will be like "Help me, brave hero/freelancer!" and you'll take a moment to sort out the payment details before you put your neck on the line, they'll act like you're the biggest asshole in the universe.
They pay you the same after you help them regardless, but I guess it's just super gauche to ask for payment, instead of helping them out of the goodness of your heart, and trusting that they will be so overcome with magnanimous gratitude that they'll shower you with riches.
It also kind of meshes weirdly with how finances work for your character. It's pretty strongly implied that everybody else has to spend their money on food and bills and such, but your character has no real needs, and basically only spends their money on tools of the trade, to better tackle these jobs. It does kind of create a sense that for a noble hero like you, money shouldn't be important. Lesser men concern themselves with that stuff, but the truly virtuous exist only to help the needy and have no needs of their own.
I hear Icewind Dale is the reverse, with it being treated as pretty standard procedure to work out the payment details before you take on a job.