I wish when people make games that for the evil play through they make it with a Lawful Evil mindset in mind. Would solve so many of the chaotic stupid arguments as the quests/dialogue choices/etc would all be from a Lawful Evil mindset, meaning smart, doing things that benefit you but may not benefit others, etc.
After all for a Lawful Evil character it's all about personal gain, what that gain is may vary, but that's the core of your character, you might save someone from bandits, not because it's the right thing to do, but because it may happen to be the person getting attacked is a person of power, and by helping them, they now owe you a favor or something of that nature.
Being evil is less about your actions and more about why you make them, something a lot of people seem to confuse, they assume evil is about killing, stealing, and maiming, but that isn't true, it's about why you do such things.
After all for a Lawful Evil character it's all about personal gain, what that gain is may vary, but that's the core of your character, you might save someone from bandits, not because it's the right thing to do, but because it may happen to be the person getting attacked is a person of power, and by helping them, they now owe you a favor or something of that nature.
That's true for Neutral Evil as well - you're entirely dedicated to self-interest, so it makes sense you'd do things that help you in the long term even if it makes you appear "Good".
After all for a Lawful Evil character it's all about personal gain, what that gain is may vary, but that's the core of your character, you might save someone from bandits, not because it's the right thing to do, but because it may happen to be the person getting attacked is a person of power, and by helping them, they now owe you a favor or something of that nature.
That's true for Neutral Evil as well - you're entirely dedicated to self-interest, so it makes sense you'd do things that help you in the long term even if it makes you appear "Good".
A smart evil character would do it just because it makes them "Appear" good, which is very beneficial for the evil character to have people think you are a good guy, makes your life easier, and much more satisfying when someone realizes the truth just a little to late.
A smart evil character would do it just because it makes them "Appear" good, which is very beneficial for the evil character to have people think you are a good guy, makes your life easier, and much more satisfying when someone realizes the truth just a little to late.
Exactly. I mean, you learn about the Flaming Fist pretty early in the game, so for me, RPing as an evil character means you can indulge yourself only until the point that the Fist starts targeting you. Because that crosses the line into Chaotic Stupid where you're ultimately causing trouble for yourself.
Actually, take a look at the alignment descriptions in the game's manual. None of the evil alignments say that characters with that alignment murder, thieve, and steal without any regard for the consequences. It's a question of societal values: do you work within the system, outside the system, or in some nebulous state between the two?
I agree that there should be just as much content for evil characters as for good characters. To that point, however, there's hardly any Neutral-centric content, in either game.
I would say that, rather than making every quest offer the same reward whether you're good or evil, there should be both evil quests and good quests; if you complete an evil quest in a good manner, your reward is less beneficial than if you complete it in an evil manner. If you complete a good quest in an evil manner, your reward is similarly diminished versus completing it in a good manner.
So, someone asks you to rescue his son from an abandoned mine. You find the son dead, and bring the body back. Quest completed: the reward you get depends on how you conduct yourself. Offer to bury the child? Get 2000xp and a magic ring. Extort the father for money? 1000xp and 20gp. You've extorted him for money, so he gives you what little money he has, but you would have been better served by being nice.
A bit later, someone asks you to help him take revenge by murdering a rival. If you refuse him outright, you don't get any XP. No reward for not doing an evil thing. If you agree, and go kill the rival, first you get the reputation hit (murder is murder, after all, and an evil character won't mind it a bit). But when you return, your reward depends on how you convey the news. Tell him that the deed is done and you're expecting payment? 1000xp and 500gp. Tell him that you've killed his rival, and that you plan to tell everyone who was behind it all if he doesn't double the promised amount? 2000xp, 500gp, and because he only has 500gp on his person, he also gives you his magic cloak.
(A third, Neutral option for that quest might be that you go to the rival, find out that this is the result of some misunderstanding, and offer to help negotiate peace between the two. The reward is 2000xp and a magic cloak; you get part of the itemized reward, but not all of it - but because you thought outside the box, you get the full experience reward.)
So the game rewards you, not for being good or evil, but for playing well the alignment you've chosen.
@aosaw while i agree with parts of what you said, when you mention finding out what was going on and mediating a peace as 'thinking outside the box', i came to disagree with you. That part is played out quite a bit. More of a thinking outside of the box would be to have the option to demand payment up front from the first guy, go to the target, tell him your mission, and tell him that you'll turn against your employer for the same amount/double the amount. Then, if he agrees, thinking outside the box for me would be to go to the guard and tell them that these two men approached you and asked you to kill the other. Attempted murder charge, they swear revenge, etc.
that i see as a neutral ending. neither man is dead, they will both have a time to think it over, and if it just a misunderstanding, come to peace with each other. or they can get out and team up to take you down.
part of the problem with trying to implement any kind of evil system is that your char is overpowered. You want to be a bad guy? Well, then they should come out with a mod where you play as sarevok. Not as him directly, but sarevok grew up in candlekeep and you are trying to take over the iron throne. Thus, you play an evil char in an evil story line. kindness would be small and personal kindness, but over all, your story is one of power and action, things that lend itself to evil. let's face it, how to do get to be an evil bad guy that is trying to overthrow an evil bad guy when you're not trying to take his position? You can't. At the end, your char doesn't do it for power and glory like sarevok did. this is a deep game but the story isn't as open as the games we've played in the past 8 years or so. I personally think that's why the story is so deep.
imagine if you will. The game is suited that you can play as either a good or evil char. This decision is played in with the sarevok kills gorian scene. your char has 3 options. 1. He vows vengence and will smite the evil that killed the one he holds dear (his father). Good path. 2. He sees it as something that he couldn't have changed, all things live and die and perhaps it was his time to die. Neutral path. 3. He sees suddenly, his eyes open to the world around him and for the first time, he see's evil. He realizes that the one that was always there for him is no longer there. The only person that he can depend upon is himself, and the only way he can protect himself (and possibly imoen, being evil doesn't mean you don't care about ANYONE) is to be stronger then the evil, to make others fear the mention of his name. Evil path.
This would be based off how you created your char. If you picked good, option 1. Evil, option 3. etc.
As far as being good, neutral, evil, lawful, chaotic, it would effect diolog, choices. Good is limited to this, but the paths merge at times of great trial. If you take the dark path too often, your alienment changes.
My first time playing a dnd, i didn't understand the rules fully. I picked a chaotic evil mage char. My first act was to go into a bar and find the hottest girl there, cast charm person. Wound up falling in love with that same char, who was mute and desired to be a cleric but wasn't allowed because of being mute. Something about being born impure. The char he fell in love with was lawful good. He had a treasured scroll of wish that he killed many for, and had a special purpose in mind for. He used the spell on the char to give her the wish she had, and then used what money he had to enroll her into the priesthood to become the cleric she desired. DM took my char sheet, scratched out chaotic evil, wrote in chaotic good, and gave me a follower of a cleric that would level as i would. This was all in my very first session.
Point i'm making, for this to be possible, the game would have to have 3 distinct storylines. Endings would be multiple and more detailed, based on if you started good and went the path of neutral/evil and vice versa. This would make the game much larger, and honestly, due to cost of development/getting burned out, the game wouldn't be such and awesome story. I understand what you guys want and it would be awesome, but i think the best bet would be a mod that switches you and sarevok. After all, part of the story states that you and sarevok were in the same place when gorion came in and was only able to save 1 child, that child being your pc. Imoen came after you, as stated in the story. Thus, sarevok was the one gorion saved, you lead the life of sarevok and get to play things from his side, where evil is rewarded with power, kindness leads to betrayal, and there is an annoying do gooder out there trying to mess up your plans that you don't have time to deal with.
A bit later, someone asks you to help him take revenge by murdering a rival. If you refuse him outright, you don't get any XP. No reward for not doing an evil thing. If you agree, and go kill the rival, first you get the reputation hit (murder is murder, after all, and an evil character won't mind it a bit). But when you return, your reward depends on how you convey the news. Tell him that the deed is done and you're expecting payment? 1000xp and 500gp. Tell him that you've killed his rival, and that you plan to tell everyone who was behind it all if he doesn't double the promised amount? 2000xp, 500gp, and because he only has 500gp on his person, he also gives you his magic cloak.
And he targets you for assassination as well... You blackmail a mudereous vengeful person, there'll be consequences. Interestinf idea for an evil adventures mods.
@aosaw while i agree with parts of what you said, when you mention finding out what was going on and mediating a peace as 'thinking outside the box', i came to disagree with you. That part is played out quite a bit. More of a thinking outside of the box would be to have the option to demand payment up front from the first guy, go to the target, tell him your mission, and tell him that you'll turn against your employer for the same amount/double the amount. Then, if he agrees, thinking outside the box for me would be to go to the guard and tell them that these two men approached you and asked you to kill the other. Attempted murder charge, they swear revenge, etc.
that i see as a neutral ending. neither man is dead, they will both have a time to think it over, and if it just a misunderstanding, come to peace with each other. or they can get out and team up to take you down.
I meant it less as "think outside the box" and more "each alignment should have a way through this situation, based on moral or ethical values." Maybe you agreed to the quest because you believe in revenge, because you yourself are on a kind of revenge quest - but when you meet the fellow, you discover that he was wronged too, and you realize that there's no "right side" in this conflict. Rather than stay out of it completely, you tell the two of them to work the problem out between themselves. An unbiased, Neutral position. Maybe they find peace, or maybe they slit each other's throats - or maybe they decide to team up and kill you. All you've done is find the balance, which is what's important.
Thinking outside the box isn't possible in a game with specific choices, because no matter what you're doing something that someone else has expected you to do. The issue is that evil characters have no evil-centric quests, not that evil characters don't get good stuff for being evil while doing good things.
@OP Actually in PC RPG's the option to BE evil defeats the purpose it is being evil for the sake of being evil, the need for a party of adventurers is almost universally called for to prevent evil from happening, not to replace one evil for another....for that you could just as well live in the real world
There are game venues that cater to being evil just to be evil if that is what one craves...much of the GTA series for example.
A smart evil character would do it just because it makes them "Appear" good, which is very beneficial for the evil character to have people think you are a good guy, makes your life easier, and much more satisfying when someone realizes the truth just a little to late.
Exactly. I mean, you learn about the Flaming Fist pretty early in the game, so for me, RPing as an evil character means you can indulge yourself only until the point that the Fist starts targeting you. Because that crosses the line into Chaotic Stupid where you're ultimately causing trouble for yourself.
And, really, even Chaotic Evil Sarevok couldn't resist building good PR. He's a well-liked member of Baldur's Gate's high society before you even arrive there.
What makes Sarevok Chaotic isn't his lack of forethought or smarts so much that he is not subtle and has no problem killing you and dropping you in a ditch somewhere, whereas a Lawful or Neutral villain might hesitate based on how likely they are to be connected to the murder by the authorities.
I always wanted dialogue directed at your characters alignement for example - chaotic characters get chaotic good/evil/neutral choices and lawful get the lawful version etc. would make playing as different alignment more interesting. Don't know how much this actually applies anyway but I always felt jipped that my character would most always give the same response no matter alignment and that I am supposed to choose the (usually)correct one for his alignment rather than a true choice.
Could also be interesting if you are a fallen Ranger or a...Redeemed Blackguard?
Evil people do evil things because they are rewarded for them. Barring a psychological reason to be evil, that means rewarding loot, etc.
Evil also often gets shafted in games, with all the best loot and gear going to good characters. As it stands, the only way to get some NPCs to let you keep quest items is to choose to give those items back to them enthusiastically first. "Refusing a reward should not grant a reward, and it should definitely not grant a greater reward." (Rare exceptions, like Paladin / Holy Sword quests)
If you want balance, and evil / good is just a role-playing choice (*cough* BioWare *cough*), then evil and good should yield similar rewards.
If you want *realism*, then evil should yield greater rewards, at least in the short term (evil people have little idea what later quests they're losing by being callous to the npcs). There could still be a shadowy balance going on there too...
But XP? Same please. Same tasks performed by the heroes / the player, same xp. In the example above, burying the body just is 'fluff', and shouldn't change the xp.
Will I fight tooth and nail for this to go through? Nah, not a must-have change, just a pipe dream.
Good and Evil often do exactly the same choices, but their motivation is different. Good person saves a kid because its a decent thing to do. Evil person does it because of the fame and possible reward. "Reputation" score should only tell you how the world views your actions, not whether they are good or evil. Like someone mentioned, Sarevok has reputation of 20 while being chaotic evil. The problems arise when the game links Reputation with being good/evil. I think there is a mod that tries to fix it, with virtue or something (never played, just heard).
Or perhaps you could charm the farmer to get the ring if you are evil/decide to be evil. Or use the "friends" spell or Algernon's cloak to make him forget that you tried to extort him.
@OP Actually in PC RPG's the option to BE evil defeats the purpose it is being evil for the sake of being evil, the need for a party of adventurers is almost universally called for to prevent evil from happening, not to replace one evil for another....for that you could just as well live in the real world
There are game venues that cater to being evil just to be evil if that is what one craves...much of the GTA series for example.
I think this is definitely the appeal of RPGs. Society as a whole is prosocial by definition, versus antisocial, and the protagonist is recruited to 'save the world' against an evil threat.
The only instance I can think of where evil is rewarded is when acting within a subculture that is evil. Eg, the mafia or a modern crime syndicate 'gang'. There the subculture rewards the member for evil acts, and society at large essentially fears him or her. A high 'Rep' score in a RPG for such a character would be based on fear, respect, awe, etc., not approval. Machiavelli opined that it is better to be feared than loved (if one cannot be both), and these types would definitely agree.
Comments
After all for a Lawful Evil character it's all about personal gain, what that gain is may vary, but that's the core of your character, you might save someone from bandits, not because it's the right thing to do, but because it may happen to be the person getting attacked is a person of power, and by helping them, they now owe you a favor or something of that nature.
Being evil is less about your actions and more about why you make them, something a lot of people seem to confuse, they assume evil is about killing, stealing, and maiming, but that isn't true, it's about why you do such things.
I agree that there should be just as much content for evil characters as for good characters. To that point, however, there's hardly any Neutral-centric content, in either game.
I would say that, rather than making every quest offer the same reward whether you're good or evil, there should be both evil quests and good quests; if you complete an evil quest in a good manner, your reward is less beneficial than if you complete it in an evil manner. If you complete a good quest in an evil manner, your reward is similarly diminished versus completing it in a good manner.
So, someone asks you to rescue his son from an abandoned mine. You find the son dead, and bring the body back. Quest completed: the reward you get depends on how you conduct yourself. Offer to bury the child? Get 2000xp and a magic ring. Extort the father for money? 1000xp and 20gp. You've extorted him for money, so he gives you what little money he has, but you would have been better served by being nice.
A bit later, someone asks you to help him take revenge by murdering a rival. If you refuse him outright, you don't get any XP. No reward for not doing an evil thing. If you agree, and go kill the rival, first you get the reputation hit (murder is murder, after all, and an evil character won't mind it a bit). But when you return, your reward depends on how you convey the news. Tell him that the deed is done and you're expecting payment? 1000xp and 500gp. Tell him that you've killed his rival, and that you plan to tell everyone who was behind it all if he doesn't double the promised amount? 2000xp, 500gp, and because he only has 500gp on his person, he also gives you his magic cloak.
(A third, Neutral option for that quest might be that you go to the rival, find out that this is the result of some misunderstanding, and offer to help negotiate peace between the two. The reward is 2000xp and a magic cloak; you get part of the itemized reward, but not all of it - but because you thought outside the box, you get the full experience reward.)
So the game rewards you, not for being good or evil, but for playing well the alignment you've chosen.
that i see as a neutral ending. neither man is dead, they will both have a time to think it over, and if it just a misunderstanding, come to peace with each other. or they can get out and team up to take you down.
part of the problem with trying to implement any kind of evil system is that your char is overpowered. You want to be a bad guy? Well, then they should come out with a mod where you play as sarevok. Not as him directly, but sarevok grew up in candlekeep and you are trying to take over the iron throne. Thus, you play an evil char in an evil story line. kindness would be small and personal kindness, but over all, your story is one of power and action, things that lend itself to evil. let's face it, how to do get to be an evil bad guy that is trying to overthrow an evil bad guy when you're not trying to take his position? You can't. At the end, your char doesn't do it for power and glory like sarevok did. this is a deep game but the story isn't as open as the games we've played in the past 8 years or so. I personally think that's why the story is so deep.
imagine if you will. The game is suited that you can play as either a good or evil char. This decision is played in with the sarevok kills gorian scene. your char has 3 options. 1. He vows vengence and will smite the evil that killed the one he holds dear (his father). Good path. 2. He sees it as something that he couldn't have changed, all things live and die and perhaps it was his time to die. Neutral path. 3. He sees suddenly, his eyes open to the world around him and for the first time, he see's evil. He realizes that the one that was always there for him is no longer there. The only person that he can depend upon is himself, and the only way he can protect himself (and possibly imoen, being evil doesn't mean you don't care about ANYONE) is to be stronger then the evil, to make others fear the mention of his name. Evil path.
This would be based off how you created your char. If you picked good, option 1. Evil, option 3. etc.
As far as being good, neutral, evil, lawful, chaotic, it would effect diolog, choices. Good is limited to this, but the paths merge at times of great trial. If you take the dark path too often, your alienment changes.
My first time playing a dnd, i didn't understand the rules fully. I picked a chaotic evil mage char. My first act was to go into a bar and find the hottest girl there, cast charm person. Wound up falling in love with that same char, who was mute and desired to be a cleric but wasn't allowed because of being mute. Something about being born impure. The char he fell in love with was lawful good. He had a treasured scroll of wish that he killed many for, and had a special purpose in mind for. He used the spell on the char to give her the wish she had, and then used what money he had to enroll her into the priesthood to become the cleric she desired. DM took my char sheet, scratched out chaotic evil, wrote in chaotic good, and gave me a follower of a cleric that would level as i would. This was all in my very first session.
Point i'm making, for this to be possible, the game would have to have 3 distinct storylines. Endings would be multiple and more detailed, based on if you started good and went the path of neutral/evil and vice versa. This would make the game much larger, and honestly, due to cost of development/getting burned out, the game wouldn't be such and awesome story. I understand what you guys want and it would be awesome, but i think the best bet would be a mod that switches you and sarevok. After all, part of the story states that you and sarevok were in the same place when gorion came in and was only able to save 1 child, that child being your pc. Imoen came after you, as stated in the story. Thus, sarevok was the one gorion saved, you lead the life of sarevok and get to play things from his side, where evil is rewarded with power, kindness leads to betrayal, and there is an annoying do gooder out there trying to mess up your plans that you don't have time to deal with.
I would love to see this.
Thinking outside the box isn't possible in a game with specific choices, because no matter what you're doing something that someone else has expected you to do. The issue is that evil characters have no evil-centric quests, not that evil characters don't get good stuff for being evil while doing good things.
Actually in PC RPG's the option to BE evil defeats the purpose it is being evil for the sake of being evil, the need for a party of adventurers is almost universally called for to prevent evil from happening, not to replace one evil for another....for that you could just as well live in the real world
There are game venues that cater to being evil just to be evil if that is what one craves...much of the GTA series for example.
@Shawne I never really considered the more expensive equipment to be much of a barrier, especially in BG2.
What makes Sarevok Chaotic isn't his lack of forethought or smarts so much that he is not subtle and has no problem killing you and dropping you in a ditch somewhere, whereas a Lawful or Neutral villain might hesitate based on how likely they are to be connected to the murder by the authorities.
Could also be interesting if you are a fallen Ranger or a...Redeemed Blackguard?
Evil people do evil things because they are rewarded for them. Barring a psychological reason to be evil, that means rewarding loot, etc.
Evil also often gets shafted in games, with all the best loot and gear going to good characters. As it stands, the only way to get some NPCs to let you keep quest items is to choose to give those items back to them enthusiastically first. "Refusing a reward should not grant a reward, and it should definitely not grant a greater reward." (Rare exceptions, like Paladin / Holy Sword quests)
If you want balance, and evil / good is just a role-playing choice (*cough* BioWare *cough*), then evil and good should yield similar rewards.
If you want *realism*, then evil should yield greater rewards, at least in the short term (evil people have little idea what later quests they're losing by being callous to the npcs). There could still be a shadowy balance going on there too...
But XP? Same please. Same tasks performed by the heroes / the player, same xp. In the example above, burying the body just is 'fluff', and shouldn't change the xp.
Will I fight tooth and nail for this to go through? Nah, not a must-have change, just a pipe dream.
The only instance I can think of where evil is rewarded is when acting within a subculture that is evil. Eg, the mafia or a modern crime syndicate 'gang'. There the subculture rewards the member for evil acts, and society at large essentially fears him or her. A high 'Rep' score in a RPG for such a character would be based on fear, respect, awe, etc., not approval. Machiavelli opined that it is better to be feared than loved (if one cannot be both), and these types would definitely agree.