237 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't see a technical reason why a game couldn't do this. But I don't suppose it would pass an ROI test.

That wasn't me, Alan.

[AlanC9]

Hmm. Not sure how that happened.

[batlin]

Again, I think you're missing my point. You are still talking about people acting "evil" in life to get what they want faster. As I said, I wouldn't really call that evil - it's petty criminality. It does happen, but that's not really the issue. 

 

What we consider Evil with a capital "E" are things like Hitler, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. For the most part, these people are not doing the horrible things they do for personal profit - being a suicide bomber's not a great career choice. They're doing it because they believe it's right, and it will make the world a better place. THAT'S what games can't really deal with - differing philosophical systems, some of which produce outcomes that to us are monstrous. 

As far as ISIS and Al Qaeda go, I don't think they would be doing what they're doing with quite as much gusto if they didn't think they would be rewarded with 72 prostitutes in heaven.

 

You are right though. There does exist evil done in the name of the "greater good". I think this was actually one thing ME3 did right, like the renegade option in the genophage plot. I think there's a place for that kind of evil in an RPG, but my problem with it conceptually is that it's not tempting to the player as much as material reward is. And that's the important part: the player has to think that the ends justify the means, otherwise there's no point to the evil option. If ISIS could convert the world to their way of thinking without killing anyone, don't you think they would?

[Lunatic Pandora]

No. Not all of them. They're told its the *right* thing to do to kill people that disagree with their view. And some of them enjoy it. Another more on topic example, just look at bsn and how many people want to murder knife this companion/adviser just because they don't like them

[batlin]

No. Not all of them. They're told its the *right* thing to do to kill people that disagree with their view. And some of them enjoy it. Another more on topic example, just look at bsn and how many people want to murder knife this companion/adviser just because they don't like them

What can I say, killing people who you find painfully annoying in games is fun. Which as it happens is one of the three things I said evil options should be.

[Fast Jimmy]

What can I say, killing people who you find painfully annoying in games is fun. Which as it happens is one of the three things I said evil options should be.

Theoretically, this could be accomplished without evil options.

Such as a companion you hate either isn't recruited or is kicked out. Being an exceptionally talented individual during a massive war (as we can assume all party NPCs are), they could be recruited by the opposing side and wind up as your enemy. Then you can kill who you hate without it being inherently an EVIL option.

Just spitballing ideas.

[Fast Jimmy]

As far as ISIS and Al Qaeda go, I don't think they would be doing what they're doing with quite as much gusto if they didn't think they would be rewarded with 72 prostitutes in heaven.

You are right though. There does exist evil done in the name of the "greater good". I think this was actually one thing ME3 did right, like the renegade option in the genophage plot. I think there's a place for that kind of evil in an RPG, but my problem with it conceptually is that it's not tempting to the player as much as material reward is. And that's the important part: the player has to think that the ends justify the means, otherwise there's no point to the evil option. If ISIS could convert the world to their way of thinking without killing anyone, don't you think they would?

Let's not bring real world politics into this, honestly. Down that road lies Lockdown.

In terms of the ME3 Renegade option for the genophage, what did you like about it? I feel I am retroactively blind to the value of ME3's choices because I feel the ending invalidates most of them (to a fault, I'll agree), so I'm curious what you found merit with.

[whanzephruseke]

What we consider Evil with a capital "E" are things like Hitler, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. For the most part, these people are not doing the horrible things they do for personal profit - being a suicide bomber's not a great career choice. They're doing it because they believe it's right, and it will make the world a better place. THAT'S what games can't really deal with - differing philosophical systems, some of which produce outcomes that to us are monstrous. 

 

I disagree that games can't deal with differing philosophical systems.  In fact, I believe that games are the best medium to explore these sorts of moral questions, because you as the player are an active participant instead of merely an observer.

 

You are right though. There does exist evil done in the name of the "greater good". I think this was actually one thing ME3 did right, like the renegade option in the genophage plot. I think there's a place for that kind of evil in an RPG, but my problem with it conceptually is that it's not tempting to the player as much as material reward is. And that's the important part: the player has to think that the ends justify the means, otherwise there's no point to the evil option. If ISIS could convert the world to their way of thinking without killing anyone, don't you think they would?

 

I can safely say that material reward never factors into my decision to take the "good" or "evil" choice.  It is not convincing to me for a person who the world would be willing to entrust with their salvation to be tempted to commit genocide, for example, for the sake of a personal reward; however, if said material gain were to further the cause, then it would be a more plausible option.

[Todd23]

I haven't seen it handled a lot outside of bioware at all, and they definitely don't handle it well in Mass Effect. ME2 and 3 made Paragon the right decision and renegade the wrong decision, instead of it being a question of means versus ends. The Paragon had the better means AND ends, and Dragon Age has had only a handful of evil decisions. Dragon Age Origins is the only example I can think of with really cool evil decisions, and there's only like 8. The rest were either evil but boring, or merely not nice.

[BioScare]

Planescape: Torment gave you the option to lie. I always hoped that more games would take that route.

 

'Good' and 'Evil' are probably not very helpful in this context, it's more about selfless versus selfish or heroic versus ruthless. In this regard, the idea of Mass Effect's Paragon/Renegade system was actually pretty good. The main problem with it was that being heroic/Paragon always led to ideal results, which made the entire idea of necessary sacrifice or ruthlessness pointless.

Agreed- I like how Mass Effect redefined the "good" and "bad" morality system in KoTOR into something a little more believable shades of gray

 

In DA:I will characters challenge you and even leave/fight you depending on the choices you make like they did in DA:O?   Granted I haven't read a lot on the subject but I like followers who challenge you based on the decisions you made. 

[Lady Mutare]

Chaotic evil in D and D tabletop was always the hardest character to play.  It was always the most fun as NO ONE had a clue what choice you would make on anything.

(Thaco rules)

[Merejoy]

i`ve always thought just like the OP, great post imo.
interesting will wee see such deepness of the character in DA;I

[PhroXenGold]

Chaotic evil in D and D tabletop was always the hardest character to play.  It was always the most fun as NO ONE had a clue what choice you would make on anything.

(Thaco rules)

 

Eh? Chaotic evil was easy to predict. You always did the most pointlessly retarded action possible and justified it by say "I R TEH EVULZ!!!".