Good, Gray and Evil - who are you?

[CrazyCrab]

Hi everyone,

I've been wondering about this for a while now, as I'm debating whether having truly ''evil'' choices is worth the effort if nobody's going with them. I mean sure, I'll have some, but for main quests that's a lot of branching paths...

How do you usually play RPGs when given the choice? Naturally some games don't let you choose, but most modern games give you many options, many worse than the previous ones. I'll probably never forget that cannibalism quest in Skyrim, never considered that game truly ''18+'' before running into it ^^'

Personally I have a tendency towards good and in most if not all games my 1st playthough will be crystally good, ''lawful good'' if you want to stick to the DnD standards. Naturally if I play the game for the 2nd/3rd time I may play evil for a change, just to see the content that I missed, but no matter how much I try I find it hard to accept the fact that I'm playing an evil guy. I usually just subconsciously come up with a ''madman'' or ''scarred forever'' story and then wonder why I find it so hard to admit that I'm evil.

Heck, in some games like Dishonored I didn't even check out the evil side, I just felt bad killing those guards... they were pretty much unarmed and harmless when you knew what you were doing, felt like such a waste.

 

[Cadh20000]

I'll use Fable as an example; my guy was 100% good, halo and everything, but so terrifying that the only way to interact with NPCs was to corner them and ignore the screams of terror.


Also, when people read my "Laws and Punishments on the Plains of the Sun" that goes with my stories they say they never want to get anywhere near my worlds and, using the DnD standards, promptly label me "Lawful Evil".


See under the spoiler if you want to know why:

Spoiler

Laws and Punishments: Plains of the Sun – All Tribes


In the event someone is accused of committing a crime, they are brought to the base of the Phoenix Mount. There they are tried by a council comprised of the Phoenix Knights (the officers of the Phoenix Guard) who, due to their tribe’s ability to always tell when someone is telling the truth, can easily determine guilt or innocence.


This council remains neutral, and can be called upon by any of the tribes, even in times of war. The only exception is when the Phoenix Mount itself is under assault.


Theft, Fraud, Or Vandalism


(Damaging or destroying another’s property is viewed the same as stealing it and is therefore punished in exactly the same way)


1st conviction: Indentured servitude to the victim until twice the stolen/vandalized item’s value has been paid back at a rate of 1 penny per day. Symbol of servitude is magically tattooed on the face to prevent running away and causes burning pain if the bearer attempts to do so; the symbol disappears after the entire sentence has been served.


2nd conviction: Indentured servitude to the victim until four times the stolen/vandalized item’s value has been paid back at a rate of 1 penny per day. Symbol of servitude is magically tattooed on the face to prevent running away and causes burning pain if the bearer attempts to do so; the symbol disappears after the entire sentence has been served.


3rd conviction: Permanent indentured servitude to the victim, symbol of servitude is physically tattooed in magical ink on the face to prevent running away, and causes burning pain if the bearer attempts to do so. The sentence applies only to the thief/vandal, not to his/her family.


Assault


1st conviction: Mandatory 5 years service as a Phoenix Guardsmen regardless of which tribe they are from. Ineligible for promotion until after their full sentence is served.


2nd conviction: If still within their initial 5 year sentence, they are relegated to manual labor hauling stone for the fortress around the base of the Phoenix Mount for a minimum of 1 year’s additional service. If the initial 5 year sentence has already ended, then they are sentenced to an additional 5 years in the Phoenix Guard without opportunity for promotion, beginning with 1 year of manual labor hauling stone for the fortress.


3rd conviction: If still within the Phoenix Guard, they are relegated to manual labor hauling stone for the fortress around the base of the Phoenix Mount for a minimum of 3 year’s additional service. If their previous sentence has already ended they are sentenced to life in the Phoenix Guard without opportunity for promotion for the first 5 years.


Rape


(whether attempted or successful) The rapist is first stripped naked and tied in a spread-eagle position, then a spell(the “Fivefold Curse”) is cast on them(carved into the skin on their chest with a knife) which prevents 1)shock, 2)loss of consciousness, 3)infection, and 4)keeps the nerves from dying until they are actually reduced to ashes, it also 5)prevents the pain of the punishment from ever fading. Once the spell is in place an iron poker is heated until it is white hot, as soon as it reaches the correct temperature his/her genitalia are very slowly burned off of their body with the hot metal. After this has been done, they are untied and driven from the Plains. It is expected that the rapist not survive for very long after this and that they spend the remainder of the time until their death in excruciating pain.


In addition, any property the rapist possesses is forfeit to the victim or the victim’s family.


In the event of a rape AND murder the criminal is not driven away but is rather kept prisoner for 2 days after this and then executed as dictated by the punishment for the murder.


Murder


The murderer is executed in precisely the same manner as was used to slay their victim. If there were multiple victims, the method chosen to execute them is the most painful of the ones he/she used on their victims.


On the Plains of the Sun brutal crimes not only deserve, but also receive, brutal punishments. As a consequence, such crimes are exceedingly rare.

 

[Warpmind]

If you add some... not-nice options, make callbacks by showing the consequences of the actions in question. And for the love of Gaming, avoid cartoonish evil in any serious-ish game; few things are as immersion-breaking as a completely irrational act of malice without any justification other than "it's the evil choice".

Personally, I tend toward pragmatism more than "good" or "evil" - but if I come up to a situation where I can see that "Oh, if I do this, and that, and sit there and wait for the poor schmuck to waltz into my trap, this will be HILARIOUS!", I will probably do it with no second thought for pragmatism.

Mind, that's generally for categories less along the lines of cartoonish evil and more cartoonish mayhem - like, say, assassinating a high-profile target by planting fifty proximity mines behind his toilet or something.

 

[Ms Littlefish]

I'm not really a fan of black or white morality systems since most people tend to hang out in gray area. After all, there are two sides (heh, sometimes more) to every story. Any choice can be the right or wrong reaction depending on the variables. The squeaky clean option can be wrong inside a certain context. That would be freaking awesome to execute correctly. Not saying I'd know how to do it but wouldn't it be awesome?

 

[Warpmind]

I'm not really a fan of black or white morality systems since most people tend to hang out in gray area. After all, there are two sides (heh, sometimes more) to every story. Any choice can be the right or wrong reaction depending on the variables. The squeaky clean option can be wrong inside a certain context. That would be freaking awesome to execute correctly. Not saying I'd know how to do it but wouldn't it be awesome?

Clean option can be wrong... You mean like a "Kill the child, save the world; save the child, doom the world" kind of scenario?

 

[Miss Nile]

I am usually what you call evil. XD I love seeing NPCs suffer if I could make them do so. :3 Don't know why really but perhaps I like doing what I can't do in real life? xD Or perhaps I view games as a way of escapism and getting out anger somehow? XD

Though it really depends on the characters. If the character is someone I empathize with or like, I will do my best to make them happy. :3 Otherwise, if it's just a random character, yeah, I tend to go down the evil path. XD

 

[mlogan]

Clean option can be wrong... You mean like a "Kill the child, save the world; save the child, doom the world" kind of scenario?

I dunno that it would even have to be that extreme really. Let's say you catch a man for stealing food and lock him away. And later you learn that his starving child died because he was not there. Subtle things like that could make a game really interesting if you didn't do it for every right choice - but often enough that the player would second guess which choice to make. 

 

[Rhaeami]

As a rule, I always pick the "good" option.  With systems like this is that, even in morally grey situations, the game will almost always tell you (after the fact) whether you did the "right" thing or not.  For people like me, that means resetting if you picked the option that gives you bonus evil points.  In a way, this is okay - it lets me customize my experience.  Even if I never pick an evil option, I can enjoy the game more because I know that I *chose* to be good.  On the other hand, it means that replays to see the other side of things will almost always be less enjoyable than the first time through.

Personally, I'd say it's more interesting to just make two branching story paths that have nothing - good, evil, OR grey - to do with morality, and are just interesting alternate routes that the story could take.  After all, it's the exact same amount of work, and much less cliche.  Just my opinion, though. 

Ironically, since you mentioned it, I actually ended up going through with that cannibalism quest in Skyrim.  By that point, my character was part cat, part dragon, and part (were)wolf... so, the way I figured, you couldn't really call it cannibalism anymore.  Too bad the game didn't agree!  Now, if that had actually changed the way it turned out, then I'd have been legitimately impressed.

 

[Cadh20000]

Since people keep talking about Skyrim...

I play as an Argonian thief named Sassler. If it is in a pocket, in a locked container, or behind a locked door, I WILL take it.

 

[captainproton]

Probably the best would be to have your options be a little more vague. If none of the options seem especially good or evil, but may only prove to be destructive or benign in consequence, the player can do what they feel is appropriate in the circumstance.

 

[Matseb2611]

Most times I play RPGs with my own personal morality, so I always play as a good person, with occasional decisions being neutral, but I never do the evil playthrough, because I can't immerse in that and I can't bring myself to do horrible things even to in-game NPCs. I like characters with dark past, anti-heroes, etc, but not being a full on jerk or a homicidal maniac. At times I even lose immersion when the playable character acts jerkish due to being that way in the game's story. For example I found this to be the case when playing The Witcher. I could not connect to Geralt in any way at all.

Edit: I like Raemyi's suggestion to simply make different story paths, all of which are grey. Pure good and evil choices aren't really that interesting (not to me anyway).

 

[Sieginder Niederlage]

Hmmm...I tend to be Chaotic Neutral, True Neutral or Chaotic Good. 

 

[Prizmik]

Like often in real life, in games that offer choice, you rarely know the actual consequences of your actions, and can never know the ultimate (net) consequence of your choice. Hence the poor father-thief example. You stop the thieving father, based on what your rational mind presents to you as the greatest possible good at that given time, this is what is often called obeying one's conscience.
Rational deliberation between different options, that are good to differing degrees, to choose the greatest good amongst the lesser goods is the mechanism of moral reasoning. Yes, the starving son died, it is tragic, however, it does not render the choice that lead up to it wicked.

Considering what I said above, loading a save file after learning the consequence, sort of misses the whole point. Yes our moral reasoning is fully informed by experience of consequences, but this is always in hindsight, as we do not possess insight into future outcomes. So again, loading a game to let the criminal go, because you know something you shouldn't be able to know, might make the character less moral ultimately.

This is why I do not see these kinds of examples as dangerous to classical morality (what most would call black and white).

Anyway in games, I always play good, to do otherwise is to have an error in ones reasoning (thinking that the lesser good is the greatest good), which would be unfortunate.

 

[SaintInix]

Totally grey on this one.


I'm the dude that runs around a game stealing everything, then begrudgingly does some good things to even out my horrible karma levels. (Fallout NV, anyone?)


Though sometimes I will play pure evil, it's mostly a survival thing.


Just like in the real world, I'll do what it takes to survive.


'If it's you or me, you better make peace with your god.'

 

[OM3GA-Z3RO]

In most games and in DnD I am always neutral evil so it fits well with my avatar as well.

 

[Wavelength]

I don't like watching anyone or anything (except perhaps monsters or beings that are worse than monsters) suffer so I'll usually be making choices that fall toward the good end of the spectrum.  Although in the D&D sense of alignment the things I've done in video games (or pen-and-paper roleplays) would fill the entire range between lawful and chaotic - I like when games let me lie to, deceive, manipulate, or outright steamroll people and organizations who stand in my way.  Doing something like that successfully in the name of a good cause (as judged by the game's logic or most of the people in it) feels far more satisfying to me than making an evil or outright greedy decision.  So I always appreciate having options like this in a game.

By the way, using the father-thief example that's already been brought up... something in the game should tell you up front that the thief was stealing to feed his family, or at least you should have some way to find that out before you make the decision.  Have the thief mention it as he begs you to not turn him in!  If the game just decides to blindside you with that later on, it feels like you've been victimized, punched in the stomach.  It feels horrible.  That's not fun and it's not good design.  But if you have to choose between endangering a friend's business by letting the thief go, or endangering the thief's son because you know he's going to be vulnerable once his dad is locked up, and you know this up front... okay, now you're talking about a very powerful decision for which the consequences will feel fair once you discover them.

 

[TherainED]

While I am not quite familiar with DnD, I more or less know how this works. Or at least I like to think so...

So, I usually go for a lot of playstyles, but there's one I like to go with on most RPGs. How would I define that one? Well, "money first, questions later" would be the most accurate method.

Very basically, I like to be the kind of character that doesn't do for free. I do anything as long as there's a proper sum of coin behind that. Well, coin or goods of any kind. If I can gain a fine amount of money from it in some way, I'll take the job. Also, loot. All the loot.

I'm very much a fantasy jew, now that I think about it.

I think that's...uh...true neutral maybe.

PD: I must clarify. My character is not particularly anything because I haven't played DnD enough to actually know what kind of playstyle fits me the best/What kind of playstyle I belong into. Still, if I had to define, with my limited knowledge, it would be something like a very convincing rogue/scavenger.

 

[Bastrophian]

....people always associate things that cause pain or discomfort, or look gross, with evil or badness...venom, vultures, authority....exercise lol. I think there's another facet of morality. An evil person may give no consideration to how his or her selfishness effects others. But a good person could fall into self righteousness, imposing unrealistic moral expectations on those around him or her.....but the "gray area"...I feel like could be more dangerous than the other too. From my observationon, the character who operates in the gray area is very often a manipulator. In his/her mind, there is no right or wrong. Only circumstance, and opertunity....but I wonder if there could be one more.

 

[Alexander Amnell]

   I dislike the black and white morality, good v. evil. To me if you want to tantalize a man with choices than give him choices that go beyond that and test the very grounds of morality he espouses. Good and evil are never black and white outside of fantasy, if you want to tread that ground start your 'evil choices' with the question "how could this be rationalized/seen as a good choice?" and your 'good' with "what ill effects could come of this?" Because in reality the best intentions almost always breed unintended consequences and likewise the worst of actions are rarely viewed by their proponents or even revealed to others as evil until long after it's to late for that to matter.

   Better yet, stay close to reality and focus more on the balance between rash action/inaction more so than good and evil. The only game I can think of that does this outright is the Witcher, as such I'll use a direct example from it. (also hidden due to graphic nature of the example involved, you've been warned.

Spoiler

Like say, have a job where your character is trying to chase down a sadistic murderer who burns and tortures his victims to death, when you track down your 'killer' torturing a girl in a brothel give the options of righteously chastising his evil, leading to a fight, fighting him outright because you don't want to hear his sick explanation for why he's poking a bound girl with a red hot iron or asking him why he's doing what he's doing, which leads to the realization that he's just a sick f--- frame job who likes watching flesh burn and that, had you acted on emotion and 'administered justice' outright you'd be letting the true killer walk and not learn about it for months/several save states later when you return to the town of origin after a long journey to learn that several new victims cropped up in your absence and your in game best friend confronts you with the fact that you said you'd taken care of it when in reality you let his lover's assailant get away because of a misguided and rash sense of 'justice'. Never in my life have I been so ashamed of myself(in a game) then when I let my emotions overcloud my judgement (there was a subtle clue that revealed that the man in question couldn't be the murderer, upon reflection though letting emotions override reason I fell for the true killer's ploy) and being  several hours past the dire mistake I had no choice but to keep going, living with my mistake.
   After five or six such intertwining tangents you begin to look at Geralt's demeanor in a whole new light, while I (and matseb and many others on the internet) at the start of the game and in the books I couldn't immerse myself in Geralt's personality and fatalistic viewpoint, but it becomes a non-issue as personal immersion gives way to an understanding of the man's motivations and the realization that his distant demeanor and somewhat cold persona are what give him the ability to discern the outcome of his actions rather than let emotion sway his blade. It's that kind of synergy between story and character that truly make a story-driven experience memorable and is why I always prize the use of a good character grounded in the world he lives over a one-size-fits-all Morrowwind/Fallout/whatever character that only serves the purpose of filling the player's hubris to the exclusion of true depth in storytelling.

   That's just one example, though the games are full of them and generally stray away from the ideas of good/evil entirely in the process.

   That's how morality should be  demonstrated in my opinion, not as a black and white this is right but that is wrong, but as conflicting and valid ideals where what you want and what you end up with aren't always the same thing, there's nothing more immersive than that and in my opinion it's better to force a player to think things through or have to live with the consequences than presenting clear-cut cookie cutter 'choices' that'll just be ret-conned if said game ever gets a sequel anyway.

Clean option can be wrong... You mean like a "Kill the child, save the world; save the child, doom the world" kind of scenario?

   Maybe the world doomed itself, maybe it doesn't deserve the salvation of a 'quick fix solution' for it's problems in the form of lobotomizing a poor and tortured young one. And maybe, just maybe that world's damnation wasn't caused by the threat perceived, but by mankind's (again) rash and self-serving reactions to said threat that broke away any hope of sanctuary from it in the first place.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

I've been wondering about this for a while now, as I'm debating whether having truly ''evil'' choices is worth the effort if nobody's going with them.

I thought about this when I first laid eyes on a neutrality script cuz I had plenty of bright ideas, like I'm sure everyone else does. Then I realized all the extra events that u need to keep up with and all the coverage u have to fill up for all sides of the zone and on top of that, it has to have some point or at least be relevant to ur story or at least to some degree. LoL, man that just sounds too much to do for one guy not to mention all the other stuff u gotta do.... so I said, "heck with it!" LoL ;D