The Dark Path...

[The Vault Dweller]

Well Ladies and Gentleman it's high time I finally discussed something that's bugged me and that I've always felt may have bothered others.

Evil characters, being evil, and the general outline of events for them.

As many times as I've played F1 and the times I've played F2 I've never been evil. Part of it is that my first character has always been myself and I'm not evil. As a matter of fact I did try to play an evil character in F1 in the form of a thief since stealing is always an evil act. However during the beginning of the game I was perplexed as to how to go about being bad and before I knew it I was halfway through the game with a good character who was at a severe disadvantage due to tagging sneak and steal, but never using it! Feeling lame I decided to never try to be evil again.

Fast forward to the not to old past. I finished playing KotOR for the first time and having loved the game and realising that half of it was for the "Dark Side" I felt I had only experienced half the game by playing a "Light Side" character. I pushed aside my bias against evil and tried again. This time I succeeded mainly, because holy/evil in KotOR and all Star Wars stories are very simplistic.

It was an odd, but rewarding experience. I had the same fun I did as a good character, but it was slightly harder as a player. I would often move the mouse to automatically choose the "righteous" option then remember what I was roleplaying and choose the "heinous" option. I also felt slightly guilty during the ending.

Nevertheless this opened my mind to trying out evil characters in other games. Since I re-played Arcanum not much later I tried out an evil character then and enjoyed it.

Now I will someday go back and play F1 with a thief that will actually steal and witness some of the dark options morally speaking.

I just need to bring up two things. First is a question. Have you played an evil character or do you only play holy? If you did try evil did you have any issues with it as a player?

Second is much more controversial. It's about the "ease of success" between a holy and evil character. When I played KotOR both times I did all the quests I could and saved up lots of money. My Light Side character accumulated enough money to buy enough specialty equipment to completely outfit two of my party members with the best equipment money can buy. My Dark Side character however was able to garner enough money at the end to fully equip three different characters with the best equipment money can buy. Now listen that may not sound like much of a difference, but when you consider the huge amount of credits it takes to buy from that one merchant on the space station it's a significant amount of money my Dark Side character had that my Light Side character didn't. What's more shocking is that my Light PC succesfully won all the races and made a huge amount of free money which my Dark PC never bothered to get. If my Dark PC earned so much less by not racing yet ended up with not even the same amount, but more...

Thing is my Light PC had to give away money so often or turn it down after a quest. My Dark PC wouldn't turn it down or even persuade to get more money. It seems unfair for one PC to do so much better yet it makes so much more sense.

Is that proper? I can't decide.

I heard in F2 if you're evil you have to fight powerful bounty hunters. I realise that could be a great disadvantage to an evil character and perhaps balance the fact that an evil PC would make more money from stealing and killing indiscriminately.

So is it right or wrong for things to be balanced between a good and evil character? Personally I'd think a way to balance it and have it make sense would be for a good character to often have less money (from donation and doing things free), but often have the support of locals or other adventurers. An evil character wouldn't have to waste any effort helping others, but wouldn't get helped in return or even backstabbed at points for allying with other traitorous characters.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Zaron]

Many claims that the evil path is the easiest one. I completely disagree when it comes to gaming; it's with no doubt easier to play the good way - you get the more powerful allies, the better equipment and reputation.
Playing through a game as a evil character is much harder -this doesn't make sense, and is even less realistic; we all know it's easier to steal the apple from the blind man, rather than pay him.

I try to play evil as often as I can though. It's cooler.

 

[Sorrow]

I just need to bring up two things. First is a question. Have you played an evil character or do you only play holy? If you did try evil did you have any issues with it as a player?

I play many different character types, including many types of "evil". I don't have any issues with playing even those types of people who I find repulsive in RL.

I heard in F2 if you're evil you have to fight powerful bounty hunters. I realise that could be a great disadvantage to an evil character and perhaps balance the fact that an evil PC would make more money from stealing and killing indiscriminately.

No. Bounty hunters in F1 and F2 hunt you only if you are evil and not careful - i.e. if you kill a child or get the "berzerker" reputation which requires killing a town or two. You get "evil" money in by participating in amoral activities such as slavery, working for crime lords, etc.

So is it right or wrong for things to be balanced between a good and evil character? Personally I'd think a way to balance it and have it make sense would be for a good character to often have less money (from donation and doing things free), but often have the support of locals or other adventurers. An evil character wouldn't have to waste any effort helping others, but wouldn't get helped in return or even backstabbed at points for allying with other traitorous characters.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

I think that such things should be realistic. Evil isn't a "good for hire" and "good" doesn't have to be risking live for free. Evil should be about dealing with wrong kind of people (crime lords, politicians, etc.) and doing wrong things (like assasination, thievery, robbery, rape, blackmail etc.), not about taking payment.

Also, evil should offer different gameplay than good - for example there are very few games that show destructive evil beyond simple indiscriminate slaughter - people who murder whole settlements and take everyone's belongings are very rare. Occasional rape, robbery, assault, etc. would be a lot more probable. Such crimes would make the PC closer to a raider or similiar criminal than to a mass murderer.

 

[Tannhauser]

If your karma drops really low (-501, although the wanted posters will appear at -500) or if you acquire the Childkiller reputation, you'll sometimes run into bounty hunters. Their toughness and equipment will depend on your level (with variations within each group):

* 1-6: Leather jacket, Hunting Rifle, Desert Eagle.
* 7-12: Leather armour, Assault Rifle, Super Sledge, Sniper Rifle.
* 13-18: Combat armour, Laser Rifle, Frag Grenades, Power Fist.
* 19-99: Power armour, Gauss Rifle, Plasma Grenades, Avenger Minigun.

Needless to say this can be a pain, as especially the later encounters are much more dangerous than the xp reward warrants. You get -10 karma for each bounty hunter you kill, so that would seem like something of a downward spiral. If you're only wanted because of your karma you can make the wanted posters disappear by climbing above -501 again.

 

[SuAside]

personally, i usually find myself playing the good guy (that is neutral good, not lawful good per sé). i guess it's just in my character to play that, since i have to force myself to be evil.

usually it takes me 5 'good' runs before i can play an 'evil' character in any game (FO1, FO2, Arcanum, V:tM-B, KOTOR, etc).

anyhow, as for 'ease of play', i find that eventhough evil often has more money, it never really matters that much... when i play evil, i need to pay attention to make evil choices. when i play good, then i just glide through it without much thought. it comes natural. so i'd say even you get more money from evil, i find myself playing good with more ease...

what bothers me however that often things like intimidation etc are viewed as 'evil', while that shouldn't be the case by default (although it makes design easier).


PS: if you refuse a reward for a neutral or good deed, your 'good' reputation should indeed be more known to the populace. however, if you accept a reward for a good deed, i don't see why that'd make you evil. of course, by accepting the reward, your reputation will be spread less quickly.

 

[slamelov]

Many claims that the evil path is the easiest one. I completely disagree when it comes to gaming; it's with no doubt easier to play the good way - you get the more powerful allies, the better equipment and reputation.
Playing through a game as a evil character is much harder -this doesn't make sense, and is even less realistic; we all know it's easier to steal the apple from the blind man, rather than pay him.

I try to play evil as often as I can though. It's cooler.

In real life, "play" evil is much more harder. You can steal an apple from a blind man, but you will have to live with the social disaprovement if you are catch. You can robber a bank, but it's fucking hard to do it, scape and spend the money without being jailed... or killed.


No, of course evil path in games, in a realistic way, has to be difficult, extremely difficult.

 

[Sorrow]

I disagree. Being evil can make live easier, but it shouldn't be the "steal an apple from a blind man or become a serial killer" type of evil. More common forms of evil like cheating, being manipulative, etc. make live easier, because people are very slow to condemn them. Especially if a perpetuator has a high charisma.

 

[Zaron]

I used the apple-stealing as a example, rather than a fact.
Feel free to exchange the apple with a bank, your wife etc etc.

The point is that living the *scary noise* dark path (in real life) is easier than doing the right things, and therefore go with the light(?) path. And in most games, the situation is completely different - sometimes games can't be completed if you're not going with the good guys.

And we got ourselves a minus in the realistic-points.

 

[Sorrow]

I'd like to see more morally ambigous situations in cRPGs that would make player wonder whenever he/she does a good or a bad deed.
Something like Killian/Gizmo conflict as it was planned before some dumbfuck from marketing told them to change it to present version.

When I considered the viewpoints of both characters I'm more inclined to think that Killian is the "evil" side of the conflict.

 

[slamelov]

I don't believe that being evil be easier in real life. A politic is manipulative, and evil, and assholes also, but is not easy to become a politician. Is not easy to be manipulative, and of course is not easy to be a thief and not be caught. Do you think that is easy to robber a bank?. Tell me how

Probably, you would be killed, or jailed, or both things.

It's easy to be an egoist and such of things, but evil, using the word evil, is not easy.

 

[steelsoldier]

So the main conclusion part is that the law is agaisnt most evil things.
Some people can escape from their one punishments if they have it well planned, in another hand this person mostly has the factor of intelligence and charisma at the same time, wish will help him escape a punishment or take a shorter punishment

I still think its hard to live with our evil things in life thought, a killer or a person that commited a crime could feel bad about it and feel a lot of psychological pain.

But now that i think on it, i think games give some sort of moral to the person who is playing it, like sorta dont become evil be good because its more rewarding or something

 

[10mmCurator]

Its difficult for me to play an evil character in a game but I did it in Fallout 2 just try it. Wiped out two towns, Broken Hills, and New Reno, wound up with bounty hunters after me until they finally managed to kill me. Had -900 karma by that time. Never went evil again.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Trouble with the dark path in games is there tends to be sod all to do and it's harder to stay in character.

Usually even though you've taken the evil side of the road you still have to save the girl/planet/galaxy. If there is an option to join the bad guys it usually ends the game early or comes right at the end. Though more often your character will need to still destroy them to prevent any competition to their reign as the big bad bastard on the block.

As for staying in character, it might be easier in terms of gaining loot, or power but the dark path can be harder to role play. Mostly due to the lack of anything suitably insidious to do. Too often you'll still have to complete the same main quests as a goody two shoes character with only the choice of charging for your help or keeping the quest item to mark your depravity.

 

[Sorrow]

Its difficult for me to play an evil character in a game but I did it in Fallout 2 just try it. Wiped out two towns, Broken Hills, and New Reno, wound up with bounty hunters after me until they finally managed to kill me. Had -900 karma by that time. Never went evil again.

Ech...
That's not the only way of playing evil. Actually, it's more playing a madman than playing an evil person. Evil people can calculate and do evil deeds like thievery, becoming a slaver, joining a gane, etc.
Things like that don't cost very much reputation and allow to make profit on being evil.

 

[Stag]

But then you get no Sulik!

 

[steelsoldier]

Love Sulik fighting abilitys ya good point to not be evil, althought i still think most games make evil being the hardest as possible

 

[alec]

Arcanum offered a good evil path to follow.
After my first run through, I played evil for something like 5 times in a row.

Playing evil in FO/FO2 was tougher. There really wasn't that much to do as a evil person, TBH. And sneaking + stealing sucked donkey arse in Fallout. Not so in Arcanum. Which is one of the many reasons why Arcanum is a 'slightly' better game.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Yay climbing in through windows. Best addition ever.

 

[Sorrow]

Playing evil in FO/FO2 was tougher. There really wasn't that much to do as a evil person, TBH. And sneaking + stealing sucked donkey arse in Fallout. Not so in Arcanum. Which is one of the many reasons why Arcanum is a 'slightly' better game.

Err...
No. There were good evil quest to do in Fallout - joining Skullz, taking care of Killian, working for Decker, taking care of Razor...
In Fallout 2 there were a lot of opportunities for evil characters too.
Also, an evil character can do some profitable good quests too.

But then you get no Sulik!

[evil]So? He's just a dumb primitive. What's the point of having Sulik in team when you can have money to buy equipment, have fun with whores and watch those pathetic slaves beg for mercy. That's a tough world. On the other hand it would be good to take Sulik before becoming a slaver. It can bring more profit .[/evil]

 

[Misteryo]

1) I think the dearth of truly playable evil characters/paths is due mainly to the size and complexity of the gameworld. Meaning, a truly evil character's path would naturally diverge so widely from a good character's path that there would need to be nearly twice as many recruitable NPCs, twice as many quests, many locations and NPCs which were only accessible to one or the other character, etc.

For instance: FO1, Shady Sands/Raiders. Good or Evil, the PC still has to talk to and accept the same quests from the same NPCs in order to gain xp and move forward in the game. The only real difference is how polite or insulting you can be.

A truly divergent set of paths would have to include more NPCs: a plant from the Raiders living in Shady Sands, perhaps. Perhaps a way to introduce the Raiders to a Slaver in the region and broker a deal between the two - something like: Raiders kidnap a few Shady Sands residents per month while maintaining a fiction that it is indeed radscorpions who are responsible for the missing people. The PC would get xp and a finder's fee for creating the fiction and brokering the deal between two difficult parties.

2) Truly evil people often appear to be good. This is missing from most games.

An evil character doesn't have to slaughter whole towns. In fact, good or evil that kind of choice is difficult to pull off and hardly rewarding. I would call that psychopathic, not evil.

An evil character serves a set of interests which are different from the good character's interests. The good guy is trying to save people/towns/societies or destroy the menace/plague/villain. The bad guy needs to be able to seek after personal gain/power/money/status or even seek after world domination.

Imagine a Fallout where an evil path would be to join the Children of the Cathedral and then rise in their ranks by subterfuge and treachery and poison and spreading lies until you had enough power within the organization to be making policies and ordering around underlings. You could remake the image of the organization, make nice with a city and it's leaders, and then... take over!

***

The above would make it fun to play as a bad guy. I personally get no kick from stealing for stealing's sake or from slaughtering towns and children and then being known the wasteland over as murderous bastard.

Misteryo