237 réponses à ce sujet

[batlin]

I'm asking for specifics to illustrate how unworkable your idea actually is in practice. The writers at Bioware are most certainly not clever enough to figure out how to do something impossible. And that's the point. Your idea collapses when you try to apply it. 

Lol, keeping secrets from your party hardly sounds like an impossible task. Again, using Palpatine as an example of a super evil character done right, he managed to conceal his evil machinations from basically the entire galaxy save for a couple confidants. It's not impossible, he just had to be clever. Keeping secrets from half a dozen people isn't impossible. Stop being silly.

[In Exile]

Lol, keeping secrets from your party hardly sounds like an impossible task. Again, using Palpatine as an example of a super evil character done right, he managed to conceal his evil machinations from basically the entire galaxy save for a couple confidants. It's not impossible, he just had to be clever. Keeping secrets from half a dozen people isn't impossible. Stop being silly.

Palpatine is a terrible example, because basically everyone should have figured out he was evil. It's another situation where the idea doesn't work out in practice.

Again, you say it's easy to keep evil a secret, but what exactly is the evil you're plotting?

[batlin]

Palpatine is a terrible example, because basically everyone should have figured out he was evil. It's another situation where the idea doesn't work out in practice.

Again, you say it's easy to keep evil a secret, but what exactly is the evil you're plotting?

Bad writing on Lucas' part in the prequel movies doesn't override the excellent novels written about Palpatine's rise to power.

 

And I'm not referring to any specific deed. I said that, rather than making it obvious to everyone that your intentions are bad, it would be best if evil characters were able to pretend to be good in order to get what they want before they drop the act. I don't know why this idea is so hard to grasp.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Palpatine is a terrible example, because basically everyone should have figured out he was evil. It's another situation where the idea doesn't work out in practice.

Again, you say it's easy to keep evil a secret, but what exactly is the evil you're plotting?

Like batlin says below your post, its good in showing the premise - not so well in execution.

As for what "evil" I intend I dont really consider it evil myself but others might. Its roughly a 10 step plan

1) Use the breach as an oppurtunity to build the inquisition and gain power
2) When the breach is sealed / solved - unite Thedas by the blade, tongue and assassination
3) Those who do not support you - destroy and invade
4) Make Tevinter/Minrathous my capital of Thedas after the unification
5) Give the elves their own land but at the cost of them giving 20% of their new young adults as slaves to my empire
6) Invade and annihilate Par Vollen and all Qunari, the goal is not enslavement but genocide
7) Send new colonists to inhabit Par Vollen
8) Focus on growing the infrastructure, economy and armed forces of my new empire
9) Expand
10) Hunt for more power and seek the golden / black city and its secret in an attempt to become a living god

Once a character as wise and omnipotent as myself has established ultimate power over the world, create a utopia.

 

"The means justifies the end if that end means never having to use those means again"

[Han Shot First]

Ghengis Khan? Atilla the Hun? Vlad the Impaler? Queen Mary I? Nowadays with advanced military technology, ousting dictators is quick. Back in pre-enlightmenment times though, the era that Dragon Age and most other fantasy settings emulate, the bullies ruled the world.

 

Caligula's reign lasted a little more than three years, and ended with him and his wife being stabbed to death by members of the praetorian guard, and his infant daughter's head smashed against a wall.

 

Nero had a slightly longer run (13 years), but was eventually brought down by rebellion. Despondent, he took his own life.

 

Commodus reigned for 12 years before being brought down in a plot by the praetorian prefect and Commodus' favorite concubine, who supposedly had both been placed by Commodus on a 'to be murdered' list that the concubine had found. Instead they managed to coax Commodus' wrestling trainer into strangling him.

 

And that's just a couple examples from the history of ancient Rome. Tyrants being overthrown or murdered isn't something that is unique to the 21st Century. It happened in our ancient history as well.

 

 

I didn't say " being evil should always be the correct choice". I said "being evil should yield greater material reward than being good"

Those two things aren't always the same.

 

I don't think it should yield greater material rewards either. Besides not necessarily being an accurate reflection of history, I think it would be somewhat broken and imbalanced from a gameplay perspective.  It would essentially be the reverse of Mass Effect where the paragon choice was nearly always the right one. I think a better way to go is to have both morality paths yield successes and failures, and force players to think about choices rather than simply spamming the morality path they think yields the most rewards.

[PhroXenGold]

One thing I always find in RPGs - particularly eariler Bioware ones - is that when i play an "evil" character, I rarely end up chosing the "evil" options. In my most recent playthrough of KOTOR, I played a character who care for little beyond personal power. And yet, by the time I reached the finale, she was actually slightly light side according to the morality meter. Why? Because she didn't run around being a arsehole. She didn't threaten to kill homeless people if they refused to give her the one credit they own. She didn't slaughter people for the laughs. She instead took the options which she felt benefitted her most in the long run - which would often include getting people to trust her. After all, it's easier to rule if everyone loves you, right? Hell, I very nearly had her take the "LS" ending - after saving the galaxy, she could use her fame and the adoration of the people to put herself in a position of power. It was only really that she wasn't utterly confident she could save the galaxy alone that led her to the easy option of going DS. And this rather typifies "evil" in most games. It involves being a giant ******, nothing more.

 

I do much prefer how more recent BW games - ME, DA:O - have done it, with the focus being more on ruthlessness in achieving your goals (which are still saving the world) rather than being traditionally "evil". In general I feel that trying to put in a genuinely "evil" path simply doesn't fit with the stories they are telling, and trying to shoehorn one in just results in things like the above, with a bunch of "stupid evil" dialogue options and a slight variation of the ending.

 

I do however, agree that there needs to be more vatiation in outcomes between being a "ruthless bastard" and a "goody-goody-two-shoes". I wouldn't neccesarily make it so that the "nasty" way gives you better rewards, instead, I would vary which is "optimal" for different situations. Hell, maybe even make it random, so even if you've played before, you won't know which will turn out better in a particular situation. Sometimes trying to save everyone will work. Sometimes it will end up with not just the people you were trying to save dead, but also the troops you sent to save them killed. DA:O never really had this. The "good" way always turned out fine and everyone lived happily ever after.

[WizzoMaFizzo]

The only thing that comes to mind is one of the possible endings of Alpha Protocol; if you played through the entire game playing nice with everyone and getting max approval with every character (which requires acting with a very different personality to each person) and then choose Betray, Mike has a whole speech about how he manipulated everyone involved and knew just what masks to wear to build up a network of powerful allies that would allow him to take over. Instead of coming off as the player randomly choosing to be a dick at the end, it makes Mike come off as a social chameleon mastermind.

 

No way to menacingly smirk behind people's backs or laugh manically to yourself in your head though, so the game doesn't let you seem like you're planning it all along

[PhroXenGold]

The only thing that comes to mind is one of the possible endings of Alpha Protocol; if you played through the entire game playing nice with everyone and getting max approval with every character (which requires acting with a very different personality to each person) and then choose Betray, Mike has a whole speech about how he manipulated everyone involved and knew just what masks to wear to build up a network of powerful allies that would allow him to take over. Instead of coming off as the player randomly choosing to be a dick at the end, it makes Mike come off as a social chameleon mastermind.

 

No way to menacingly smirk behind people's backs or laugh manically to yourself in your head though, so the game doesn't let you seem like you're planning it all along

 

Oh god yes, AP did that gloriously. Such an underrated and overlooked game in general - it wasn't flawless by any means, but from a roleplaying perspective I can't think of many better.

[Wulfsten]

@Batlin: I think the thing you’re kind of missing (that a couple of people have mentioned) is that most people who we would consider evil don’t actually consider themselves evil. There’s actually very few people who actually conceive of themselves as bad.

 

Your basic narrative that being bad is easy and profitable, and being good is hard, just isn’t that relevant because the “bad” you’re talking about is basically petty criminality. It’s not “evil”, it’s selfishness.

 

Given that, the question then changes from one of “good” or “bad” choices being represented realistically, but one of differing moral systems being represented realistically. For example, you can imagine a game allowing your character to behave in a kind of left-wing way (emphasis on collective responsibility, progressive social values, diplomatic foreign policy), or a kind of right-wing way (emphasis on personal responsibility, traditional cultural values, aggressive foreign policy).

 

In that case, the game would have to give relatively realistic and balanced outcomes for both outlooks, or risk coming across as partisan.

I agree with you that games too often present “evil” choices as cartoonishly villainous, and then also smack them with gameplay penalties, as if the player needs to be reminded that CRIME DOESN’T PAY.

 

I actually think that Baldur’s Gate 2 did a pretty good job with the evil stuff (my comments above about “evil” being a problematic term held aside). In it, being evil gave you access to some of the more powerful gear (if you kill the silver dragon in the underdark and steal the human skin from the flayer you can make one of the best suits of leather armour from it), and by far the most powerful party members (Korgan, Viconia and Edwin were easily best of their class).

 

Some aspects of it were very clumsy, like the blanket reputation decrease that meant everyone in the world knew to hate you just a little more if you did something bad in some deserted dungeon. But overall it had some nice ideas.

[Lennard Testarossa]

I actually think that Baldur’s Gate 2 did a pretty good job with the evil stuff (my comments above about “evil” being a problematic term held aside). In it, being evil gave you access to some of the more powerful gear (if you kill the silver dragon in the underdark and steal the human skin from the flayer you can make one of the best suits of leather armour from it), and by far the most powerful party members (Korgan, Viconia and Edwin were easily best of their class).

 

Some aspects of it were very clumsy, like the blanket reputation decrease that meant everyone in the world knew to hate you just a little more if you did something bad in some deserted dungeon. But overall it had some nice ideas.

 

I disagree in regard to Baldur's Gate 2. The best reward in BG 2, namely per companion xp rewards, were often reserved for the good choice for absolutely no reason. In Trademeet, if you take the evil route, you get fewer material rewards, no follow-up quest and no per companion xp (you get ~25k per party member for the good route), despite having done precisely the same things as a character taking the good route, except for the last two minutes. In the Underdark, if you let the demon have the eggs, you don't get the 78.5k xp per companion, despite having completed precisely the same quest line. Over the course of the game, you constantly get fewer xp for evil choices, despite them being no easier or obvious than the good choices.

 

Let's not even mention the fact that when you actually role-play as an evil character, you only get about 50% of all quests anyway, since they are all set up for hero types. There are barely any quests (anyone got examples other than Korgan's quest?), that a character role-played as good would miss out on.

[PhroXenGold]

^ I wouldn't even agree that evil parties got the best characters. Sure, Korgan and Edwina were good, but Viconia wasn't a patch on Anomen. He did at the bare minimum twice as much damage as her (thanks to 2e mechanics only giving people with warrior classes extra attacks) - and out of the box, before the stronger buffs and equipment level some of the stat differences it was far more than that - and only loses out on a few low level spells of which you have far more than you need anyway.

[9TailsFox]

My opinion on morality good or bad. First of off there is no such think as good or evil.  And being evil for the sake off being evil is stupid, Look how I kill this man because I am evil. Best example swtor I watched videos you don't play evil you play psychopath, poor Vette   I watched how she was tormented even me being nice not helped.

 

I like choices like Ozamar king because there is no good or bad choices both are bad. Or in Witcher you have to choose which side is innocent both are not. DA2 really need option for ending "screw you guys i'm going home"

 

Or OP writing good = selfless and evil = power. Why? I want become god emperor, and not be power hungry despot with army of shadow demons, ok I will take shadow demons. I want to be nice to my friends and horrible monster to my enemies, Ok I forgive to my enemy but 2 times is limit.

[DaySeeker]

Lol, keeping secrets from your party hardly sounds like an impossible task. Again, using Palpatine as an example of a super evil character done right, he managed to conceal his evil machinations from basically the entire galaxy save for a couple confidants. It's not impossible, he just had to be clever. Keeping secrets from half a dozen people isn't impossible. Stop being silly.

 

She'd also probably have to be keeping those secrets from the player as well.  You're not really asking for a morality system where a player would get to choose morals, you're asking for a game where the player plays as evil.  Truly evil characters are pretty boring, but there are more than enough "gray games" where the protagonist is not altruistic and without sin.  There are also games where the protagonist commits numerous acts of murder and mayhem while ostensibly saving the world- it would be easy to play those and think "I can't believe these fools think I'm trying to help."

[Sylvius the Mad]

Not really. Even if try to do it you just run into basic problems with unconscionable bargains. Any principled approach to contracts has to account for circumstances which vitiate the precondition to a true bargain. It's precisely why what the merchant does wouldn't be (in principle) legally enforceable.

They had a deal. I'm enforcing it.

What you describe is why I dislike real world tort law.

Wouldn't the LE angle be that a rule whereby the powerful can exploit the weak in bargains is a very good rule rather than fair commerce (because it's not actually fair commerce, per above)?

Those two things are equivalent from the LE point of view. A fair rule is one under which the strong succeed and the weak fail. A fair rule judges people on their merits, and by their merits the strong will rise to the top.

[Sylvius the Mad]

How do you do that? "No, the blood of these children had seemed into my clothes before I bought them."

Alistair and Leliana are right there when you, for example, side with the merchant over the impoverished masses in the Chantry.

In that case, sure (though there's an argument to be made that you're doing the right thing by defending the merchant ), but if the PC goes off and does something by himself, I don't see why the companions have to find out about it.

[viperidae]

An evil aligned Bioware protagonist wouldn't honestly make a whole lot sense. Ruthless and sort of "chaotic good", "end justify the means", sure, but actually having evil intentions would be something the entire story revolves around. you would essentially play the bad guy. It's sort of like kreia in Kotor 2 what you are describing, and i just don't think that would work as a lead character with a malleable motivation, background, race, etc.

[Bigdoser]

snip

The problem is how the force works in star wars. You know all those mindless evil things sith do sometimes? They actually have a reason for doing that and its not for the lols. Its because it increases their personal power the light side does not do that. The more evil you are in star wars the more of the dark side you can draw upon the more death and destruction you cause the more your connection to the dark side strengthens. You pretty much become a beast power wise if you do this. Since the dark side is about sheer power according to lucas.

 

Revan states as such in the books when he was a sith lord and various other sources say the same thing that's the reason why your dark side abilities can now clear entire rooms if you are maxed dark side. If you do help people even for a bad reason or prevent suffering in some form no matter what it is. The dark side can't nuture within you and your connection cannot grow stronger with it because the dark side likes pain, suffering, hate, selfishness and destruction. It feeds upon those things so it closes its doors on you because you are not giving it what it wants and its harder to drawn upon because you lack the connection to it. 

 

Yeah dark side in a small nutshell I could explain more but that would take ages that's just the bare bones of why you ended up light. Oh and wizzo that's why I like obsedian writing sometimes and funny enough with kotor 2 and the restoration mod you actually get more story details if you go dark side! Who would have thought!? Kotor 2 did give more options on how to go dark side though which I liked kotor 1 just did it in the basic form. 

 

Personally I wish dark side exile was canon they were pretty badass. 

[Bigdoser]

Yeah, Star Wars is pretty strict on what is dark side. Even normal emotions like anger. You're either a monk or a bastard. No inbetween.

 

Jack in Mass Effect would be a darkside Sith, for sure. But in Mass Effect, I think she's just a crazy take-no-crap free spirit. Chaotic neutral (I might say Morinth is Chaotic Evil. She's completely predatory).

Pretty much its quite strict I think its just that way for force users because they are not exactly normal they have connection with something that can influence and change you hence being a monk to control yourself. Heck the light side is pretty much the same thing as the dark side you do something it does not like it goes lol nope you HAVE to act a certain way it likes to build a connection with it. You try to strike it in the middle? The dark side is like sup bro! How you doing? I see you are not within my lighter half yet how about coming down to the the awesome zone? Its kinda the whole point of kotor 2 depending on how you look at it and Bastila kinda describes somewhat on how the dark side tries to corrupt you.

 

It will keep bothering you until you either submit or build a connection with the light. 

 

That's why normal people tend to find jedi to be uncomfortable to be around cause the good ones are pretty zen lol. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meritocracies are Lawful Evil?

Odd.

Meritocracies are compatible with Lawful Evil.