You can change the values around as much as you like. Morality doesn't use karma as a currency. Commiting a very good action cannot buy you indulgence to commit a slightly evil action
Evil actions are evil regardless of the character of the person committing them.
Doesn't it? That's how you get Neutral.
Just because you can use money to buy a giant death-sword to slay an orphanage does NOT mean everything works like that. If everything did, I'm pretty sure I have some trees I need to tax for using my CO2 somewhere...
You can change the values around as much as you like. Morality doesn't use karma as a currency. Commiting a very good action cannot buy you indulgence to commit a slightly evil action
Evil actions are evil regardless of the character of the person committing them.
Doesn't it? That's how you get Neutral.
Just because you can use money to buy a giant death-sword to slay an orphanage does NOT mean everything works like that. If everything did, I'm pretty sure I have some trees I need to tax for using my CO2 somewhere...
The trees should be the ones taxing you. They take in your crappy CO2 and give you delicious oxygen
Just because you can use money to buy a giant death-sword to slay an orphanage does NOT mean everything works like that. If everything did, I'm pretty sure I have some trees I need to tax for using my CO2 somewhere...
...What? Maybe I'm just reading wrong, but I can't decipher this.
But there's a perception that a videogame where you calmly tell every goblin horde you encounter that they shouldn't attack you because you have the capacity to slaughter them so hard their grandchildren will feel it AND the goblins take a good hard look at their odds and say "You know what, you're right. You have yourself a great day, now." wouldn't be a lot of fun to play.
Just for the record? I would play the HELL out of that game.
But there's a perception that a videogame where you calmly tell every goblin horde you encounter that they shouldn't attack you because you have the capacity to slaughter them so hard their grandchildren will feel it AND the goblins take a good hard look at their odds and say "You know what, you're right. You have yourself a great day, now." wouldn't be a lot of fun to play.
Just for the record? I would play the HELL out of that game.
Agreed, I like games that turn the traditional model on its head. As @AndrewFoley said though, "there's a perception that... wouldn't be a lot of fun to play" even if that perception turns out to be a false assumption it is still influencing game structure and design.
I've been running a GURPS game for dozens of sessions now that has had a grand total of 2 real combats (one or two incidents of sparring or single-blow fights that don't really count). It's easier to make it fun in pen-and-paper but it's pretty clear that a lot of people found the increased dialogue of BG2 to be a major improvement. If dialogue and plot can influence a game that much... why not create a "combat optional" game?
Well, in all honesty, there are such games - visual novels. They're mostly Japanese and a game that's "just reading" is a mental hurdle for some people, though (the Phoenix Wright games did pretty well, and there's a few other success stories).
On the Western-made game fronts, Planescape: Torment and Vampire: Bloodlines were very dialogue-heavy and morally murky games where you could usually avoid combat, and they both retain extremely loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. Of course, they both only did "okay" in sales at the time, so @AndrewFoley isn't necessarily wrong.
On the Western-made game fronts, Planescape: Torment and Vampire: Bloodlines were very dialogue-heavy and morally murky games where you could usually avoid combat, and they both retain extremely loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. Of course, they both only did "okay" in sales at the time, so @AndrewFoley isn't necessarily wrong.
It works very well for a group of people. The Masses, of course, prefer shotguns and heads blown apart. Also, combat usually works for both teams. Lots of people who prefer bullets don't care much about lengthy talking parts but most people who like lengthy talking parts have no problem with violent explosions either. Focussing on combat appeals to both groups, focussing on conversations to one.
I loved Bloodlines, especially the first part. Halfway down the game it became apparent that they'd run out of time. Three quarters down the game and it was just a shooter with optional stealth elements. Damn shame.
It works very well for a group of people. The Masses, of course, prefer shotguns and heads blown apart. Also, combat usually works for both teams. Lots of people who prefer bullets don't care much about lengthy talking parts but most people who like lengthy talking parts have no problem with violent explosions either. Focussing on combat appeals to both groups, focussing on conversations to one.
The most popular franchise of PC games of all time is The Sims, which doesn't particularly use dialogue or explosions. It's not a binary choice.
I loved Bloodlines, especially the first part. Halfway down the game it became apparent that they'd run out of time. Three quarters down the game and it was just a shooter with optional stealth elements. Damn shame.
It's not really as bad as all that; it's really only the last sixth of the game or so when all the dialoguey bits start falling by the wayside. Still more than worth it for the majority of the game. In any case, there are STILL new fan patches coming out with restored/fixed content for it (the last one came out last month, IIRC), so I imagine by now it's a lot better.
But a reason to play evil characters? Well, I suppose I like seeing people get what they deserve... And the good characters more or less just let the asshole walk away with a warning where as an evil character, they usually get acquainted with the pointy end of a sword or the loud end of a gun depending on the game.
But a reason to play evil characters? Well, I suppose I like seeing people get what they deserve... And the good characters more or less just let the asshole walk away with a warning where as an evil character, they usually get acquainted with the pointy end of a sword or the loud end of a gun depending on the game.
Actually I played my Chaotic Neutral jester that way. She did a lot of nice things for people, but when it came to sparing someone's life? Off with their head, no second chances here.
But there's a perception that a videogame where you calmly tell every goblin horde you encounter that they shouldn't attack you because you have the capacity to slaughter them so hard their grandchildren will feel it AND the goblins take a good hard look at their odds and say "You know what, you're right. You have yourself a great day, now." wouldn't be a lot of fun to play.
Just for the record? I would play the HELL out of that game.
Seconded. I've come across so many games where the enemy underestimates you, where they see that you've killed powerful foe after powerful foe and yet still think you'll be a cakewalk. It'd be nice if for once they looked at the trail of bodies and thought "Y'know what, I'm going to treat this enemy with respect and come up with an intelligent well thought out plan to defeat them."
Seconded. I've come across so many games where the enemy underestimates you, where they see that you've killed powerful foe after powerful foe and yet still think you'll be a cakewalk. It'd be nice if for once they looked at the trail of bodies and thought "Y'know what, I'm going to treat this enemy with respect and come up with an intelligent well thought out plan to defeat them."
To be fair, in PnP the roles are often reversed and players are the ones who think they never need to back down.
Seconded. I've come across so many games where the enemy underestimates you, where they see that you've killed powerful foe after powerful foe and yet still think you'll be a cakewalk. It'd be nice if for once they looked at the trail of bodies and thought "Y'know what, I'm going to treat this enemy with respect and come up with an intelligent well thought out plan to defeat them."
To be fair, in PnP the roles are often reversed and players are the ones who think they never need to back down.
That's mainly because the whole PnP world had been created for the players to decimate and plunder
@Fredjo depends on your DMs mindset. Sometimes they've come up with an elaborate plan where you're *meant* to be imprisoned so you can meet someone/so the mayor can drop the charges in exchange for help and initiate the grand quest.
Hell hath no fury like a DM who spent a weekend writing a detailed module only for the players to kill the arresting officers.
That's mainly because the whole PnP world had been created for the players to decimate and plunder
Hahahahahaha-ahaha, ha, oh man! Hilarious, but no. The PCs in my campaigns are definitely among the best, but a world with proper history has characters that have been kicking ass since before most PCs were a glimmer in their pappy's eye. To give you an idea, my campaign has the PCs up against ancient elementals that tried to wipe out all non-elemental life on the planet, the militant arm of the human lands' dominant religion (led by a fanatical crusader with borderline Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon abilities, no less), and the legendary swordsman who taught one of the PCs how to fight.
And that's just the combat concerns. There's also the political power these factions wield. +2 weapons don't always mean much when your enemies can declare you heretics or enemies of the state, and turn an ancient cult conspiracy against you to make your life a living hell.
If the PCs want to start pillaging the world... I say let them... But let them also feel the consequences of doing so by having everyone be out for their heads... Including the army.
Hell hath no fury like a DM who spent a weekend writing a detailed module only for the players to kill the arresting officers.
No joke: one of the reasons I started pursuing writing as a career was that, after several years running a number of campaigns, I was tired of the players %*#&ing up my stories. I suspect I'm not the only one.
@AndrewFoley I haven't had players mess up any of my stories yet, but it's bound to happen sooner or later. It might happen sooner in my Star Wars game, where my players keep refusing to give up the McGuffin and winning when they were completely outnumbered. Damn lucky die rolls, force points, and destiny points.
If the PCs want to start pillaging the world... I say let them... But let them also feel the consequences of doing so by having everyone be out for their heads... Including the army.
Precisely. The PCs can do whatever they like in my campaigns, but they must live with the consequences.
Having seen what pick-up groups are like at my local gaming store, I think I'm lucky to have the players I've got, and they're lucky to have me as a DM (yaay, we're all fortunate!). I see players derail games out of nothing more than short attention span or capriciousness, and I've seen DMs who want to railroad you down a plot in a world that (apparently) can't handle the group doing something unexpected.
If my regular group had one or more players who were constantly disruptive (and talking to them outside the game didn't help), then I probably would get irritated with the game and may take extreme measures. "As you leave the looted temple and the head priest's corpse behind, you notice that four of the angel statues you thought were in front of the cathedral have apparently been moved out into the street. They have their faces covered by their hands, as though they are weeping."
OK, that one might be a little too extreme. More likely I'd send a team of inquisitors after you, not to mention the army and probably some high-class bounty hunters. Once you've become disruptive, I cease to balance the encounters. If the government/temple thinks you are a threat, they will send their best after you, even if you're only level 3.
However, most players are not this obvious in their disruption, or so purposeful. It's more likely that the players somehow avoid taking your carefully laid plot hooks and do something unrelated that you have to think up on the spot. Usually that can be fixed in-game with some hints.
Aaaanyway, I'm rambling now. Since this is a thread about evil... I'll stop being reasonable and use the weeping angel encounter. Why? Because I'm eeeeeeevil.
Comments
I've been running a GURPS game for dozens of sessions now that has had a grand total of 2 real combats (one or two incidents of sparring or single-blow fights that don't really count). It's easier to make it fun in pen-and-paper but it's pretty clear that a lot of people found the increased dialogue of BG2 to be a major improvement. If dialogue and plot can influence a game that much... why not create a "combat optional" game?
On the Western-made game fronts, Planescape: Torment and Vampire: Bloodlines were very dialogue-heavy and morally murky games where you could usually avoid combat, and they both retain extremely loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. Of course, they both only did "okay" in sales at the time, so @AndrewFoley isn't necessarily wrong.
I loved Bloodlines, especially the first part. Halfway down the game it became apparent that they'd run out of time. Three quarters down the game and it was just a shooter with optional stealth elements.
Damn shame.
It's not MY fault random people are in the way...
But a reason to play evil characters? Well, I suppose I like seeing people get what they deserve... And the good characters more or less just let the asshole walk away with a warning where as an evil character, they usually get acquainted with the pointy end of a sword or the loud end of a gun depending on the game.
That's mainly because the whole PnP world had been created for the players to decimate and plunder
Hell hath no fury like a DM who spent a weekend writing a detailed module only for the players to kill the arresting officers.
And that's just the combat concerns. There's also the political power these factions wield. +2 weapons don't always mean much when your enemies can declare you heretics or enemies of the state, and turn an ancient cult conspiracy against you to make your life a living hell.
I haven't had players mess up any of my stories yet, but it's bound to happen sooner or later. It might happen sooner in my Star Wars game, where my players keep refusing to give up the McGuffin and winning when they were completely outnumbered. Damn lucky die rolls, force points, and destiny points. Precisely. The PCs can do whatever they like in my campaigns, but they must live with the consequences.
If my regular group had one or more players who were constantly disruptive (and talking to them outside the game didn't help), then I probably would get irritated with the game and may take extreme measures. "As you leave the looted temple and the head priest's corpse behind, you notice that four of the angel statues you thought were in front of the cathedral have apparently been moved out into the street. They have their faces covered by their hands, as though they are weeping."
OK, that one might be a little too extreme. More likely I'd send a team of inquisitors after you, not to mention the army and probably some high-class bounty hunters. Once you've become disruptive, I cease to balance the encounters. If the government/temple thinks you are a threat, they will send their best after you, even if you're only level 3.
However, most players are not this obvious in their disruption, or so purposeful. It's more likely that the players somehow avoid taking your carefully laid plot hooks and do something unrelated that you have to think up on the spot. Usually that can be fixed in-game with some hints.
Aaaanyway, I'm rambling now. Since this is a thread about evil... I'll stop being reasonable and use the weeping angel encounter. Why? Because I'm eeeeeeevil.