Question of the day is,if you have option to be evil or good in videogame,which path is your choice ?
For myself,i like to mix it up,right now i'm playing New Vegas and i'm going to murdered majority of people,and join some bandit faction or something even worse,if it exists of course.
Your turn.
... I take the lives of a few to protect the lives of many. I commit acts of war to preserve the greater peace. I take no joy in killing, but make no mistake; I'll do what needs to be done. Because it's my job. It's my duty. My name is Sam Fisher, and I am a Splinter Cell.
Evil, "Because evil always finds a way".
Even though I try to play evil now and again, I always end up playing goodie two-shoes and helping everyone for the sake of it.
I generally don't play evil because evil paths in most RPGs are just dumb. Murdering everyone is not fun, neither is facing no consequence whatsoever for it. Game morality is generally Paladin or Psychopath which is very limited and not much fun. The games, by their nature, won't allow you to be evil with a cause.
I do play evil in tabletop though, mostly the smart-self serving evil that won't go out of his way to hurt people or for little gain, but won't care about cities burning down if the stakes are high enough. Or will kill people so they don't talk. You know, that sort of thing.
I'm always good, and always wil be. Because I make the choices that seem right to me. In most games, out of some misunderstanding what roleplaying is, you get different rewards depending on your choice - but most of the times they're of equal value. It is rare to encounter games that do not confront you with obvious good/evil choices but have decisions reflect on you in an unforeseeable way later on or just plainly let the good deed be the only reward.
If you want to let me be evil in a game, you'll have to force me. Please do. I want you to.
But as of yet, no game has really done this. Choices in games like The elder scrolls, DX:HR, Mass Effect are always so equally weighed, that whatever you're playing in your "role" ist just good or evil for the sake of good or evil, not for yourself or some actually altuistic motivation.
I'll do crap like eat people and then give all my food to orphans. Pick off the weak and support organised crime so a settlement can thrive... And in the game.
Evil is a relative term.
I'm failing to writing a blog, specifically about playing games the wrong way
http://playingitwrong.wordpress.com/
I pretty much always play good because few if any games offer an evil option which appeals to me. The typical "I'm going to slaughter this whole town for fun just because I'm so EVUUUL!" just makes me feel kind of icky, even though no real people are getting hurt. I don't find it fun.
Now, if a game came along that let you play a morally corrupt, scheming, grey-eminence type manipulator, I'd be all over that but those type of choices are very rare in games I've played.
This. I just can't avoid it. XDOriginally Posted by L_No
I oftentimes try the evil option, shiver a little and hit quickload! :)
What I like (but it happens rarely) if there are no good/evil choices but two grey ones. These really get you thinking and there's no happy way out. Those I find much more interesting.
I try the bad choice, shiver a little at the atrocities I'm commiting and then I hit quickload.
I like games where the good choices are actually harder to pull of (like opting not to kill the guards in Dishonored is possible but more difficult) and games where you have to make a decision between 'grey' options. Those are a lot more difficult and interesting choices.
Typically for my first playthough, I'll play through a game as if I was the character, helping those I can, generally doing the 'right' thing and being a good guy.
Then come the more...interesting playthough's, evil, xenophobic, good but selfish. I really enjoy my current playthough of Mass Effect where I quite simply, don't tollerate anyone that isn't human and use everyone else to further humanities cause - but of course, the game allows for that quite easily.
I've tried going a more evil route on my first playthrough before...and I actually really struggle with it, not sure why I'm okay with second playthrough's, but the first...if I'm not 'being myself', I don't tend to enjoy it as much. I'll have to think about that some more.
If the game has no option and just dumps you into evil for the hell of it, I'm perfectly okay with that, too :) I certainly prefer games with those tough grey area's though.
Virtual Organ Doner - "It's better to gib, than to recieve."
What's odd is how games generally portray "good" characters. Trespassing, stealing, and then killing the expected aggressive residents of entire settlements is ok, as long as some jerk asked you to go do it. Because: video games.
I usually play good because it's the least awfully written, but if a game makes it interesting to be evil or self-serving, I'll happily pick that. (Hello, KotOR.)
I can't help play like Jesus.
I want to be evil a lot of the times but if the game prompts me I usually end up being the nicest guy ever.
I have to set my mind on doing an evil playthrough to pick that path.
I was thinking about creating a high elf mage as my next Skyrim character and roleplaying a power-hungry elf supremacist. At least that would make slaughtering thousands of 'bandits' minding their own business in their own homes partially justified. Never got around to it, though.
As much as I like killing things to see how they ragdoll the only game that I truly enjoyed being evil in was Fallout 2. It's fun being a real bastard in that.
Evil in the sense of "amoral opportunist" can be a lot of fun, and my favorite playthrough of the Baldur's Gate series was along those lines. Evil in the sense of "psychopathic to no purpose" is never interesting, however. I also really, really enjoyed the renegade options in the ME series by and large. Playing an "ends justify the means" vigilante is a really nice change of pace from the usual drippy saint protagonist of most RPG's.
Last edited by vinraith; 17-02-2013 at 10:44 PM.
Buying games you aren't going to play is a waste of money (no matter how cheap they are). Forcing yourself to play games you wish you hadn't bought is a waste of time. Both are best avoided.
In choice'n'consequence games I'll typically be mostly good, since the evil options tend to be too dickish, and neutral options tend to be a bit pointless in choice'n'consequence games, where they exist at all. Although neutrality in the Witcher series is usually playable and makes sense.
In non choice'n'consequence RPGs I'll typically be maximizing my characters, which usually means being horribly evil.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
You sir, like I do, play Lawful Evil. This is a mostly unavailable alignment for most videogames, where the Chaotic Evil is the only existing one.
Of course for a developer side allowing the brutish evil guy is easier. I wouldn't blame them, but I love subverting my Paladin character as an overzealous chap punching people in the face just because they're standing in the way to his god's will.
Same here. Alignment isn't the point though, power is. Helping the weak or murdering everyone in sight is a kind of power, I guess, but it's not me and kinda leaves the impression that your character is a stupid pawn. Give me the role of the master manipulator any day of the week.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
