How do Gamers Seriously Roleplay Evil Characters

[Valdain the King]

I really don't understand it one bit. I dont have a problem with if a character steals or cheats but alot of the things that they expect you to do in some games is just plain terrible! I can get away with some of the Geneforge stuff but there were times when I just kind of felt bad for some creatures. In Geneforge 1 a character was upset because I joined takers and he said something like why do I keep believing in you when you are supposed to be the good one. I always play neutral or good in playthroughs and thus joining the takers was only a facade to get close to you know who. I was still good or neutral.

But really watching some of the things that are on games nowadays (GTAuto). Who would want to play as some piece of garbage like that. You dont have to be good and you can always play neutral.

 

I am not trying to say that doing that is negative to health but just why do people do it and what do they get out of it? That would be like a game where you can be Emperor Hawthorn and put ambushes on the good guys with Nephars, Dragons and Ian Holm. You kill the good guys and the world gets even worse. Its sick!

 

[Questionably Legal]

It's the freedom do do anything you want, with no real consequences. Games designed to support evil characters will actively reward evil, and in other games there is an illicit thrill in breaking the rules. Really, how many people would be paragons of virtue in real life if given absolute power? Not me.

[Randomizer]

I was watching a table top AD&D game where a party of good aligned characters were fighting through a cavern of lawful good dwarves. One party member asked another about the dwarves' alignment and was told that they were evil. When asked if he was sure, the second member said,

 

"Of course they are evil. They're keeping us from their treasure."

 

You can play according to how you feel you should act for your alignment or you can rationalize that your actions are justified. Good and evil can be considered as absolutes on a morality scale or relative to you. After all in Geneforge there are no true good groups. No matter how moral the serviles pretend to be, just turn in a spy from a rival faction and next time you look there is a little red patch where the spy used to be standing. They all rationalize their actions as being for the good of their faction.

[Lilith]

funnily enough jeff vogel has actually written an article on this topic

[keira]

When I am playing an RPG, i usually tend to play as relatively good characters, since in those cases I'm nearly always emulating how I'd (or at least how i'd like to) respond in that situation.

 

However, if it's some sort of table-top RPG, I do tend to lean on the side of morally questionable. Simply put, it's telling a story, and what sort of story has every character play as a saint? It makes no sense

[Edgwyn]

While I tend to pick the side of good or law (not necessarily the same thing) in RPGs, at least when it is clear, in games like Civilization I routinely conquer other nations. A:EftP is fairly easy to play as a "good" character. The Avadon series you can easily play as a "lawful" character, "good" might be a little hard to manage. But in both of these, there is likely to be some morally ambiguous acts, which do make it more realistic.

 

Computer games have a degree of escapism to them for many players. For example in Call of Duty or Halo you can be that super warrior that few actually are in real life. There are games where you can be a race car driver, a fighter pilot, a railroad tycoon, a superhero, a martial arts master, etc. GTA is escapism just like these except you are getting to play as a criminal and live that fantasy. In general there is not a lot wrong with escapism as long as you remember what the difference is between fantasy and reality and as long as things are not too extreme.

 

With all of that said, I choose not to play GTA because of its moral issues. I do play civilization where in every game I probably kill a few hundred thousand enemy soldiers and civilians.

[Xaiya]

When I can, I like to play both sides at least once. Generally I do the "good" first since that's what I gravitate to. Then, I like to be as "evil" as I can, somewhat out of curiosity and somewhat out of morbid humor I wouldn't dare apply to real life.

 

It should also be mentioned that good and evil are quite arbitrary. Between that, curiosity, completionism, and the lust for power, and you've covered a great deal of the reasons for why "evil" characters are played.

[Valdain the King]

I am talking of the vile ones to the touch. A character named Dorn in The Sword Coast rpg Baldurs Gate 2 has some of the most ridiculously pointless and ruthless stuff out there. The first quest you get is to slaughter a group of people at a wedding. When the lot is finished, he tells me to slay the bride and new born child. Thats some pretty heavy stuff. I can understand evil and power. I did that before but since when is it that random and pointless. Understand that the people that do that kind of stuff are the 1% of population. There's a lot more people out of jail than in.

[Alorael at Large]

But there are a lot of people who enjoy gleeful evil. And gleeful is often part of it; there's genuine enjoyment of cackling villainy, more so than of straight-faced, cold-blooded evil. But some people still want to play that.

 

Why have it in a game? One simple reason is because it's more meaningful to be good when there's a real option to be evil. Another is for variety; you get more replay value if you can be a very morally different character. A third is for story. Villains are interesting and compelling in literature; why should they be less so in games?

 

 

This is all about the constrained medium of the CRPG. In tabletop or freeform or any other kind of roleplaying where you really do have complete freedom, the reasoning is different. There it usually is either about experimenting with character or telling/experiencing a different kind of story.

 

—Alorael, who mostly plays out games on a good-aligned path. And he acknowledges that it is, to a fair degree, conditioned by games that have traditionally rewarded saccharine selfless goodness far better than pragmatic self-interest even when, reasonably, they shouldn't. But in tabletop he likes his characters in shades of gray. Few are monsters, but most will, when push comes to shove, do some dirty thing for personal or greater good.

[Lilith]

But there are a lot of people who enjoy gleeful evil. And gleeful is often part of it; there's genuine enjoyment of cackling villainy, more so than of straight-faced, cold-blooded evil. But some people still want to play that.

 

on this note i've never met anyone who was able to stick with an evil player character the whole way through Planescape: Torment and having seen some of what it involves i have to admit i'm a little bit glad about that

[Swimmin' Salmon]

Whenever I see this topic come up I have to watch a little NBK.

 

Valdain, you insult those that roleplay evil characters, but illustrate your complaint by citing examples of chaotic behavior. That's confusing. And, ultimately, there are no "good" characters in any of Jeff's games. Unless you're okay with racial profiling, wholesale slaughter of innocents and home invasion. Life is brutal and short, and everyone is out to protect their own.

 

[Level 1 Hermit]

There are sadists. There are the curious. Some can't stomach it. Some can. Some know it's just a game. Some feel it's all too real.

It's different for everyone but I'm pretty much pro-Shaper in all my Geneforge playthroughs but even then I sometimes feel sorry for the creations.

ie. An earlier post I made on the topic of creation rights: http://spiderwebforu...n-rights-event/

Did I mention stealing and slaughter of both humans and creations? Yeah, that happened.

[Lilith]

whoaaaaa hey there salmon it's been a while. how's things

[nikki.]

[snip]

 

Don't you have tomatoes to can, or something?

[Valdain the King]

The Avernum original trilogy 1-3 were pretty much the good guys with questionable choices in between. Geneforge and Avadon were just pick a bad guy or pick the least worst of bad guys

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

i always appreciate the few characters who actually react to a home invasion by being angry and not talking to you.

The rest of the game feels weird when you're searching through this guys underwear drawer for gold and he's just pacing back and forth around his house completely unconcerned

[Alorael at Large]

Geneforge lets you be a pretty decent person. You can't fix the fact that the world around you is awful, but you can often limit your role in it. Avadon is similar; you're part of a broken system, but you don't have to shake down shopkeepers and behave like a thug. There's no reward for decency but the fuzzy feelings, but isn't that what true goodness is about?

 

—Alorael, who considers Planescape a shining example of having truly horrifying evil available so that being good feels meaningful. And, to be fair, because it's very important to the cosmology presented and to the protagonist you play. No spoilers, but the game makes it abundantly clear that somewhere within The Nameless One is the capacity for acts of unfathomable horror.

[Kelandon]

Alo, I object to your Latin. "Ex unus plures"? Ick.

[Slawbug]

salmon *and* an argument about the grammar of a dead language! is it 2006 again? *swoon*

[Rya.Reisender]

In Geneforge there isn't really good or bad. From each factions viewpoint they are the good ones.

 

Also I'm usually as good as possible in games, unless being evil is actually fun. I really had fun being evil in Soul Nomad And The World Eaters. Because you can be so evil that even the demons are scared of you.

[Alorael at Large]

I can't evaluate the quality of Latin, but it's a direct quote. Specifically quoting a man who majored in classics and is infamous for insisting on using standard English word order when writing in Latin.

 

—Alorael, whose knowledge of Latin is decidedly canine, definitely feral, and probably rabid.

[Valdain the King]

In Geneforge there isn't really good or bad. From each factions viewpoint they are the good ones.

 

Also I'm usually as good as possible in games, unless being evil is actually fun. I really had fun being evil in Soul Nomad And The World Eaters. Because you can be so evil that even the demons are scared of you.

 

The interesting note is that big dog lover here so it would seem natural that I ally or support creations. It's harder to see that though as I find it hard to hug a Vlish or Clawbug. In fact thats kind of scary. However, a band of roamers and might come close. Its just hard to see them as nothing more than monsters rather than dogs or pets. I mean if someone brought a pet tarantilla into my house, I would step on it right away whether they liked it or not. An animal or creature like that is not a pet and will bite anyone. You cant tame a bug. Thats just my theory on it.

[Dikiyoba]

I mean if someone brought a pet tarantilla into my house, I would step on it right away whether they liked it or not. An animal or creature like that is not a pet and will bite anyone. You cant tame a bug. Thats just my theory on it.

I bet that the number of dog bites and the severity of injury from their bites is much higher than the number and severity of tarantula bites.

 

In fact, according to this site, all spiders found in the US still bite people far, far less than dogs do. (It's old, so tarantulas were probably less common as pets, but tarantulas are famous within the spider world for being exceptionally docile, so that shouldn't impact the rate much, if at all.)

 

Dikiyoba isn't sure that capturing another civilization in a Civilization-type strategy game counts as evil. It may be the most efficient way to stop an aggressive civilization that attacked you or other civilizations first, for instance. Razing a city, on the other hand...

[Valdain the King]

You are probably right. However, Spiders and Sharks are among the scariest things. I wont face a giant spider but put Samurai with highest sword skill against me and I'll find a way to defeat him. Seriously, I'm spiderweb trained as are everyone in this forum. Once you get past these games you gain clout. Once you get past on Torment you gain spiderhood. I'm not close to that level. Not even touching it, heh.

[Xaiya]

I mean if someone brought a pet tarantilla into my house, I would step on it right away whether they liked it or not.

...aren't you a nice person. That is easily really awful.

[Kelandon]

I can't evaluate the quality of Latin, but it's a direct quote. Specifically quoting a man who majored in classics and is infamous for insisting on using standard English word order when writing in Latin.

 

—Alorael, whose knowledge of Latin is decidedly canine, definitely feral, and probably rabid.

This man apparently also is not a fan of declensions. In correct Latin, it would be ex uno plures. (For those not following the Latin, this is the reverse of the American Latin motto, e pluribus unum — "from many, one" — so it translates as "from one, many").

[Cairo Jim]

I know how much we love to try and be grammatically correct as possible around here, but grammar nazi on dead languages? I'm not sure whether or not to be amused.

[Balladeer]

The second we stop caring about the grammar of a dead language is the second it starts slipping into being a forgotten language.

[Alorael at Large]

At least you can't argue descriptivism and dialects for dead languages.

 

—Alorael, who also notes that Nazi gets capitalized. How's that for grammar Nazism?

[Kelandon]

It's less being a grammar Nazi and more that, in Latin, if you don't have your case endings right, it's sort of like saying in English, "One many from." It's not just a nicety; you actually can't be understood. The only reason I knew what Alo (presumably) meant was that I recognized the phrase.

 

There's grammar, and then there's grammar. It's not all split infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions.

[Alorael at Large]

Declensions aren't obvious if you're not used to languages that use them, but you can think of it as conjugation for nouns. Nouns in Latin are actually many different words, with each one denoting exactly how it's being used in the sentence. In English and many other languages, those cues are all in the order of words in the sentence: "The man bit the dog!" and "The dog bit the man!" obviously have the subject and object reversed. In Latin the word order can be either way, and it's the declension of the noun that says which is which. Roughly, anyway; I'm not expert enough to really hold forth.

 

That's part of what makes the guy writing Latin with English word order funny. As I understand it, it's technically grammatically correct but stylistically awful.

 

—Alorael, who has changed his mind. Down with grammar enforcement! He won't surrender to the tyranny of not talk like man from simple time when fewer word and more hunt mammoth. Or maybe be thahd. Thahd also not have time for grammar. Too busy squishing.

[Swimmin' Salmon]

With the inclusion of Nazi it has become 2006. Well played.

[Student of Trinity]

Every time you screw up a Latin ending, a tarantula gets squished.

 

In tabletop games I think Machiavellian characters can be fun, but sadists are just gross, and munchkins who just want to ignore the world aren't worth gamemastering for.

 

I think there's a basic practical problem with evil in games, which isn't quite directly about morality itself, though in the end it maybe is about morality, in a deep way.

 

Evil is a lot about ignoring things. You decide that other people aren't really people; you pay no attention to their point of view. Maybe some forms of evil take active delight in fully appreciating others' suffering, but I'd say that's just a sickness, with no more interesting drama in it than there is in a tumor. The thing that can make evil interesting is the freedom that comes from ignoring things that people normally can't ignore. So to really represent evil in a game, you have to put vivid detail into the victims, but then have a rich story that ignores them. So you sort of have to make two good stories instead of just one, and throw one of them away. You are likely to end up with a story that's poorer than it could have been, because one rich character interacts with other rich characters as if they were mere token ciphers. Evil is expensive.

[Cairo Jim]

. Or maybe be thahd. Thahd also not have time for grammar. Too busy squishing.

 

This suits my philosophy and personality quite well. Less talk more do.

[Valdain the King]

This suits my philosophy and personality quite well. Less talk more do.

 

Minsc-"Less talk, more fight!"

Thahd-"What, it dare!"

 

One conversation where I wonder where it leads. (Butt-kicking for goodness?)

[Kelandon]

This suits my philosophy and personality quite well.

That's what you say, but if you actually believed that, you would say something like, "quite philosophy suit good personality and."

 

Again, there's grammar, and then there's grammar. Grammar separates not only formal English from informal English (which is the sort of grammar that is often disparaged) but also informal English from jibberish (which is the sort of grammar that most people don't even realize that they follow).

 

Okay, I admit that I'm beating a dead horse, but it is a pet peeve of mine. There's grammar to make you sound nice, and grammar to clarify your meaning, and you can't toss out both just because you don't like the former.

[Slawbug]

What Kel said.

 

And don't think that all nitpicky, detail-oriented grammar belongs to the formal/informal category. Jibberish/nonjibberish grammar has just as many tiny, detail-oriented distinctions. It just doesn't seem nitpicky because we see it as the difference between jibberish and actual speech.

[Alorael at Large]

Pan Lever: Seventeen apple roving mirror moiety. Of turned quorum jaggedly the. Blue?

 

—Alorael, who believes that basic grammar is actually a basic function of the human brain. Producing word salad is a sign of serious brain damage even if you were raised on a diet of word salad. That's how non-native, non-fluent speakers of a language can raise a native-speaking child with set grammar. It's all part of human pattern recognition and creation.

[Slawbug]

The ability to use grammar is a brain function. The surface content of that grammar is, for the most part, not a brain function. Just look at different grammars. There's stuff that's consistent on an underlying structural level, but not really on a nitpicky level.