# Who enjoys playing evil characters?



## DreadPirateMurphy (Dec 11, 2009)

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 (Dec 11, 2009)

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

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Merkuri (Dec 12, 2009)

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 (Dec 12, 2009)

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 (Dec 12, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> 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 (Dec 13, 2009)

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 (Dec 13, 2009)

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 (Dec 13, 2009)

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.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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 (Dec 13, 2009)

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 (Dec 13, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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.


----------



## stonegod (Dec 13, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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!



That was a pretty sweet ending and worth all the trouble from "one of my dearest friend."


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Dec 13, 2009)

stonegod said:


> 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.




_After_ she unlocks shapeshifting for the first time, I would guess?  That's a case where a selfish, rather heartless character provides a tangible playing option for a mage character (not that unlocking it is hard).  The slavers in Fallout 3 also offered you unlimited ammo for the Mesmetron, but that was hardly a necessary item in a game that gave the PC a mini-nuke launcher.

These are the types of little game pluses that I'm interested in seeing.  I guess saving and taking a branching path for a while, like an alternate reality, is a possibilty.  It's weird, psychologically, though, in that somehow I can segment one play as the "real" playthrough while the other is not, when both are just made-up situations in a computer game.  Maybe that's part of the suspension of disbelief that makes such games more enjoyable for me than, say, a straight-forward first person shooter.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 13, 2009)

I do have a real problem playing evil characters in most RPGs. On my second play through Fallout 3, I did manage to waver along on the evil side of neutral for most of the game, but it was a highly unsatisfying experience.

In Baldur's Gate 2, I have sided with Bodhi on a couple of run-throughs, but only because of the out-of-game knowledge that it works out for the best in the long run, breaking two evil factions' hold on the city instead of just one.

I've never managed to play evil in Planescape: Torment - the game just makes it too personal. Simply reading through some of the occasions your character experiences the memories of his "Practical" incarnation is chilling enough - especially the memory orb experieince where you see his interaction with Deionarra from both perspectives simultaneously. That scene is so well written, it still disturbs me just thinking about it.

I am getting seriously annoyed with Morrigan in Dragon Age. She's far and away the most useful character in the party - wizardly crowd-control makes a huge difference, at least for my playing style - but I've given up talking to her.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 15, 2009)

When I started Dragon Age, I was playing "evil" too (slaughtering innocents, etc.)  And as the game goes on, I keep falling back into the "do the right thing" mode.


----------



## sckeener (Dec 21, 2009)

I like playing gray characters.  I don't want to play someone that is holier than me, but likewise I don't want to play someone that breaks my moral codes for fictional situations. 

Since it is a game my moral code has lower standards.    Most of the stories in GTA do not bother me at all.    I think my limit would be on gross out factor and torture for non-pleasurable reasons.

I also like playing evil characters in very evil worlds because then the little acts of goodness that they do seem all the more important. 

Humorous story....a friend of mine plays a warlock on WoW and she actually turns down quests that she deems as too good....rescue some puppies...nah....


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 26, 2009)

I enjoy having the _option_ to be evil in games. Sadly many games use a karma meter to ham fistedly close doors to evil characters and often give non player characters psychic insight on the characters alignment.


----------



## Felon (Dec 28, 2009)

I don't enjoy playing malevolent characters--those that inflcit harm without provocation or necessity. OTOH, I do harbor the viepoint that it's not my character's obligation to risk his personal safety without personal incentive unless no alternatives exist. I think that's a pretty pragmatic point of view that real people can relate to.

Anyone remember Mike Baron's run on the Flash in the 80's? In the first issue, Wally West is asked to transport a heart for transplantation through a big blizzard. When he asks what's in it for him, the doctors all act like he spat on the floor. He points out that while he'd do it for free to save a life, all the doctors are being compensated, so why should he be taken for granted? That was one of those seminal moments for a young comic book reader like myself. He made a good case.


----------



## Fridayknight (Jan 13, 2010)

I played an evil character for my current campaign. He got killed in the first session after trying to sacrifice a slave child. I mean, come on who care if the slave child gets a climbing piton through the chest to satisfy the 8th lord of hell?


----------

