Who enjoys playing evil characters?

[DreadPirateMurphy]

I have a real problem playing evil characters in CRPGs. If I make evil or selfish decisions in a game I find immersive, then I just feel bad.

For example, I could never blow up Megaton in Fallout 3. I could never keep evil party members happy in the Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights games. I find myself losing approval with Morrigan and Sten in Dragon Age.

There seems to be a demand for evil alternatives, given how pervasive they are in complex CRPGs. What's the appeal? Presumably, players don't act this way in real life (I hope). Some of the content is targeted at evil characters, so I feel as though I'm missing out on some of it. Why do people who play evil like to do so, and is there some way I might learn to like the dark side when I'm playing a game?

 

[Thanee]

Ditto. I'm just too nice to be evil.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Merkuri]

Yeah, I appreciate the option, but I rarely take advantage of it. Sometimes I get a kick out of wanton destruction (like going on a rampage in GTA) but generally things like that are only fun for me for a short while, then I get bored with it and go back to being nice.

This reminds me years ago of the game Black and White, where you played a god and the game "ranked" you on how good or evil you were by subtly changing the look of certain aspects of the game. If you were good, things were all white or rainbow and sparkly. If you were evil, things were black or red and spiky. Neutral was gray and "normal" looking.

It was surprisingly hard to stay good in that game. I managed it for a while, but then the game started cheating. You had a huge "creature" that you trained to act like your godly avatar, and one of the advantages of the creature was that it could act outside your "influence". When I started going up against evil gods that had their own creatures they would send their creatures into my influence and have them start beating on and killing my people to gain influence in my territory, and there was no way to get rid of it without resorting to methods the game considered evil. And even if you decided to send your creature up against it for a fight (meaning the creature took the "evil" points and not you) when the enemy creature was defeated in battle it would fall down... and get back up right where it was and start beating on your villages or your creature again. Yet if my creature were defeated it would be sent all the way back to its "pen". This was the cheating part and was around the point where I stopped playing.

Anyway, yeah, I can't play evil characters, at least not for long. We did a D&D game a while ago where we decided to play an evil party. I ended up playing a morally ambiguous neutral character because I didn't think I could do evil. My character basically stood around and let the evil happen, but didn't really get involved. And even that I felt bad about.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I enjoy it sometimes. In particular, it was fun in Baldur's Gate playing for Bodhi and doing things like framing other people for murder. For good AND evil parties in that game, for some reason I really enjoyed the occasional "save the game and then go on a killing spree for no apparent reason," trying to slaughter every living thing in the given town/district, and fighting off the guards/wizards that are sicced on you. If it's a good party, sometimes party members even turn on you, and you get to fight them! Of course, then i just exit the game and reload it the next time like none of that happened. Did anyone else do that, or do I just have psychological issues?

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

I enjoy it sometimes. In particular, it was fun in Baldur's Gate playing for Bodhi and doing things like framing other people for murder. For good AND evil parties in that game, for some reason I really enjoyed the occasional "save the game and then go on a killing spree for no apparent reason," trying to slaughter every living thing in the given town/district, and fighting off the guards/wizards that are sicced on you. If it's a good party, sometimes party members even turn on you, and you get to fight them! Of course, then i just exit the game and reload it the next time like none of that happened. Did anyone else do that, or do I just have psychological issues?

Now that you mention that, I did save the game and use the MIRV nuke launcher in Megaton in Fallout 3. That was partially just curiosity about a weapon that was impractical to use in the game. I think I may have let loose in Tenpenny Tower once, too, after one too many snide comments from my "betters." I think that kind of minor stress relief isn't really what I'm talking about...but working for Bodhi in BG2 as a part of the game you keep -- that counts. What aspect of it was the most fun?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No. In most games, the evil makes me feel bad. Sometimes it feels more like a cliché, in others it just didn't fit my image of a person I'd like to play.

There are some scenes where it can work. For example, in Dragon Age

Spoiler

when you meet the blood mage from the Mage intro in Red Cliff again. I found the option of killing him for his crime acceptable, though I think that is not a good act.

I like gray characters in theory, but when I know that a games allows me to win no matter whether I play evil or good, I just find no reason to play evil.

It might be interesting to have a game where "alignment" was a difficulty setting. Easy = Evil; Moderate = Neutral; Good = Hard. Good always leads to harder choices, create more challenging situations. As a twist of course it would end up with a few better end results. More people are saved, ending up as a beloved demigod or something like that.

 

[Alan Shutko]

I LOVE playing evil. First play I generally do good, but then I go back and see the evil side of the house. In the SW games, evil got all the good toys. Dragon Age is interesting in that good or evil is really just "Who is watching at the moment?"

 

[Orius]

It depends on how much the game's karma meter screws me if I turn to the dark side. If it makes things harder or more inconvenient why bother? It also feels weird to play good because you're getting more money/phat loot/experience/whatever. That's not what good is supposed to be.

It might be interesting to have a game where "alignment" was a difficulty setting. Easy = Evil; Moderate = Neutral; Good = Hard. Good always leads to harder choices, create more challenging situations. As a twist of course it would end up with a few better end results. More people are saved, ending up as a beloved demigod or something like that.

That sounds like an interesting approach to alignment with consequences. Evil's the easiest to play, but in the end it becomes the least rewarding, while good is hard, but definitely more rewarding in the long run.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My own idea reminds me a little of one of the Max Payne games - if you play it through hard (I think that requires 2 previous playthroughts), the ending changes to a happy end! Of course, alignment doesn't play into that. But, with my model, it could.

Play evil, and things get easier.
- Better Loot. The rewards you get when you extort rewards out of people you helped is actually worth something. You might even get something plot-relevant easier this way.
- Ignoring tasks that are "good" but might give some XP and GP along the way gets compensates by alternative evil deeds, like stealing from the Church or something like that.
But:
- You survive at the end of the finale. (Probably.) But you lose some friends. You are betrayed yourself*. Lots of people die. Maybe you end up as a slave for the BBEG, or are exiled by him.
If yo had been good, you and your friends survive. Enemies defect to your side in the end*. You take down the BBEG for good and get offered a powerful position.

*) This might actually be one of the few parts where evil becomes harder and good easier, or at least where you need all the extra evil goodies and powers and your lack of them doesn't hurt you because you have more allies. I think that's one of the things some games did get done right already - if you treated your allies well, they won't betray you in the end and stand at your side in the final battle.

 

[stonegod]

It might be interesting to have a game where "alignment" was a difficulty setting. Easy = Evil; Moderate = Neutral; Good = Hard. Good always leads to harder choices, create more challenging situations. As a twist of course it would end up with a few better end results. More people are saved, ending up as a beloved demigod or something like that.

Dragon Age played this up a bit, as many of the evil choices were the easier way out of many conflicts

Spoiler

side with the slavers in the alienage, side with the demon in Redcliff, slaughter the elves, side with Branka, Morigan's ritual (in the sense you get to live)

. Not on the level you describe here, but those sort of choices were part of the game.

Sten I didn't see as evil so much as single minded. Morrigan OTOH... my wife hates her so much she does everything she can to get her out of the party early.