Playing "bad" characters...
- Thread starter Garix
- Start date
-
- Tags
- general gameplay
You think Han Solo is a bad guy? I think pop psych might have more questions about that! 
He shot first!You think Han Solo is a bad guy? I think pop psych might have more questions about that!
And look at how his offspring turned out.
Steve
I do struggle playing evil characters.
In BG3 i had trouble getting into my Durge playthrough... that is, until i saw Gale's hand sticking out of the portal. Then i knew my destiny.
In BG3 i had trouble getting into my Durge playthrough... that is, until i saw Gale's hand sticking out of the portal. Then i knew my destiny.
You think Han Solo is a bad guy? I think pop psych might have more questions about that!
I would have said more a pragmatist with leanings towards good in the first movie. If things are going bad not afraid of taking the first shot, but wiling to back friends when needed rather than running. He was a complex character in the first movie but was definitely toned down as the series progressed, I suspect mainly because the audience really liked him and he wouldn't have fit the story as originally cast.
The problem with playing bad characters in a lot of games is that... well, a lot of writers are really terrible at actually writing villainous avenues for characters.
Take the institute in fallout 4 - in order to side with them you have to, at the very least, personally betray the people who helped you find them for like, no reason or benefit. Hell, most of the evil stuff the institute gets up to is just... evil for the sake of it, like killing and replacing random citizens, not even particularly notable citizens. And then Nuka world makes you... uh.. trash a bunch of settlements that you most likely already have on your side. Why? For the eeeeeevulz.
At least playing a murderer for hire in elite gets me paid.
Take the institute in fallout 4 - in order to side with them you have to, at the very least, personally betray the people who helped you find them for like, no reason or benefit. Hell, most of the evil stuff the institute gets up to is just... evil for the sake of it, like killing and replacing random citizens, not even particularly notable citizens. And then Nuka world makes you... uh.. trash a bunch of settlements that you most likely already have on your side. Why? For the eeeeeevulz.
At least playing a murderer for hire in elite gets me paid.
As SteveWW57 said - not a bad guy but no objections to shooting firstYou think Han Solo is a bad guy? I think pop psych might have more questions about that!
(and as per Varonica’s post, I was thinking about cantina Han).The “good” bad characters in films/books that I enjoy are the ones who think they’re the good guy - as in they’re doing what they think needs to be done. Character motivation being just evil is very boring to me most of the time. If I could play the first Mass Effect as Renegade but not actually being a bellend to everyone I meet would’ve been alright, I think.
He was from initial impression not a good guy, mercenary maybe, but he never ever came close to being bad. Yes, he shot first. A criminal that was there to take him in to a crime lord. I'd just call that smart. It's not like the Wild West where you're supposed to wait for someone to draw.
On topic though, video game writers are bad at writing evil. Probably because thankfully most of them don't understand it well enough to write about it. It mostly comes off as corny evil.
On topic though, video game writers are bad at writing evil. Probably because thankfully most of them don't understand it well enough to write about it. It mostly comes off as corny evil.
In the context of this thread about video game choices I was trying to use Hippy/Han Solo as an example of interactions in a game like Mass Effect (and it was the first alliteration that sprung to mind) - the Paragon choice would probably involve a lot more trying to talk your way out of Greedo taking you to have a nice little chat with Jabba, while the Renegade choice is the much quicker one Han took
unfortunately I can't find it right now but I saw a post a while back elsewhere that pointed out another issue that good and evil choices tend to have in games - in most games, the reward for picking the "good" option in a quest is better than doing the "evil" version. So being bad isn't even "muahahaha I will make the world worse for personal gain" because crime explicitly doesn't pay - or at least, being a goodie two-shoes pays better.
Which is... a very poor way of writing evil, bad-karma routes.
When the "bad" ending to a quest ends up giving you better loot, involves taking less risks, is easier, or is simply faster than the "good" ending, that's where you'll see gamers making the hard decisions.
Which is... a very poor way of writing evil, bad-karma routes.
When the "bad" ending to a quest ends up giving you better loot, involves taking less risks, is easier, or is simply faster than the "good" ending, that's where you'll see gamers making the hard decisions.
Yes, that was something I was going to mention. Usually the rewards for being "good" are better. Not just in terms of loot but also story or outcome.
A truly evil writer would offer innocuous choices to the player, things that seem harmless but give them better outcomes or rewards, but end up building to truly horrific consequences or choices, then see if they still take them.
A truly evil writer would offer innocuous choices to the player, things that seem harmless but give them better outcomes or rewards, but end up building to truly horrific consequences or choices, then see if they still take them.
Mass Effect's Renegade choices are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The name makes it clear, "Renegade", not "Villain". It's trying too hard to sound cool, like "Maverick". But most of those choices are more "butthole" than "evil", which is generally the "evil" that game writers offer.In the context of this thread about video game choices I was trying to use Hippy/Han Solo as an example of interactions in a game like Mass Effect (and it was the first alliteration that sprung to mind) - the Paragon choice would probably involve a lot more trying to talk your way out of Greedo taking you to have a nice little chat with Jabba, while the Renegade choice is the much quicker one Han took
I'm the same, I start off with the intention of being a bad guy in a RPG and end up doing all the good guy quests
Think this is probably it. I don't have a problem being bad in Hitman or Mafia or even GTA because the game is structured for it. But most RPGs being a baddie just equals being a plonker for no reason
Mass Effect is one I find interesting. Have no issues doing a Renegade run as FemShep. Jen Hale's voice work is outstanding. I find she comes across as more menacing than anything. Mark Meer's Shep though. Yeah just come across as a Richard Cranium. No issues doing a paragon run with either.
There was an interesting one in the original fallout, in Junktown you could side with the obviously-corrupt grotesque mafioso type who ran the casino, or the square-jawed clean-cut sheriff of the town who also happened to run the general store - who at one point early in your visit to the town, is visited by a would-be assassin (who fails spectacularly and is gunned down)
It's clearly framed that siding with the sheriff is the "good" path and siding with the mob boss is the "evil" path, but in the original script and ending slides siding with the sheriff akd killing off the boss (and by extension, shutting down his casino) leads to the town's economic decline as the sheriff turns to just getting rid of any undesirables that might threaten the peace, effectively becoming a small-town tyrant complete with the ending slide showing him standing in front of some gallows. Meanwhile, siding with the mob boss reveals that the sheriff had been making moves to shut the casino down long before the failed hit, and getting rid of the meddling lawman leads to the town prospering - sure, the guy in charge is an amoral gangster, but he personally benefits if the town is prospering so he makes sure that's what it does.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuut the executives at the publisher didn't like that so they made them change the ending to be more straightworward "oooh life in the town is sunshine and rainbows if you side with the handsome man".
To me 'evil', well at least evil for the purposes of this argument, has simply implied a strong degree of self-centeredness at achieving one's goals with a disregard for the negative consequences of one's actions, or the adoption of goals featuring implicit or explicit harm to others.
Honestly, I think most writers and game designers have trouble separating ethical or moral 'evil' from personality types. The 'evil' gameplay choices I see in games, including titles like BG3 (which I will reference repeatedly here, with potential spoilers) range from over the top comic book villain type pseudo-satire, to those with hosts of personality disorders that would make them marginally functional people outside of combat scenarios.
Mostly, the choices presented in video games aren't reflective of any character I had in mind when I started and I'm often less trying to pick the least stupid of a bunch of stupid options, or missing out on tons of content because I refused to let the actual villan wax poetic about their manefesto when I could be putting them down instead. To reference example again, I barely got to hear Orin or Gortash talk in BG3 and missed a few entire cutscenes because they were obviously wackjob turdstains and I had my 'evil' party annhilate them with extreme predjudice and no regard for collateral damage (Orin died in one round and wasn't even able to transform, while no one survived Gortash's corronation). Likewise, I was playing as the Dark Urge, but even as a blatantly evil protagonist, there was no way I could envision my character siding with Bhaal. Remember this is the guy who got stripped of his divinity for botching a smash and grab, who, while fancying himself the lord of murder, was himself murder by some peasant weilding another petty immortal cosplaying as a sword. My character was never in a million years going to side with Bhaal, not because he was good, but because Bhaal was a pathetic poser and my character, indeed most any random slob, could do better. I had my Durge kill every single character that even smelled like they might venerate Bhaal just to give that bum and his church a taste of their own medicine from someone with fewer rediculous pretentions.
What my characters mostly didn't do was go out of their way to kill random civilians, pick on refugees, or be overly stingy with their unlimited resources. Someone asked for money nicely, they got the biggest option available (party was killing so many rich people that they could scarcely carry all the loot) and sent on their way. Someone was rude, or had the misfortune of being between my group and the target of their collective ire they got turned into a smear of gore or a vaguely human shaped mass of charcoal. The flaming fist were generally rude, so they were forcefully disbanded by my group.
Most of the 'evil' options were simply insane; my group was as evil as it was going to get, but were neither weak nor stupid...which all but ruled out siding with the elder brain, the emperor, any of the Three, handing over the crown to anyone, allowing Raphael to live, or most of the 'evil' options other than annhilation. The developers seem to think that evil is some sort of gentiles club where villians get together to smoke, compare notes, and laugh manically at the plight of their lessers. That's not evil, that's just a board meeting at any given publicly traded corporation. The main option that I really had was siding with Orpheus on the off chance the Githyanki civil war would kill enough of them to keep them from consolidating enough power to be a threat to my character on the prime.
As many sane evil characters would, at least when those goals are not diametrically opposed to their own and didn't involve risks that outweighed the rewards.
Being well liked and widely respected are powerful advantages worth fighting for, especially if one is a selfish monster with long term plans. Likewise, doing 'good' is not going to offend most 'evil' individuals in the slightest. Everyone wants to advance their ideal of good and most people with even vaguely similar fundamental needs and desires will view most of the same things as good. The difference is that the evil types don't respect differences of opinion and have no compunctions about doing whatever they think they can get away with to advance their goals and ideals.
From the outside, or in the short term, evil characters can often be more effective at achieving good goals. It's their methods, when they are known, that should raise eyebrows. The devil is in the details.
Honestly, I think most writers and game designers have trouble separating ethical or moral 'evil' from personality types. The 'evil' gameplay choices I see in games, including titles like BG3 (which I will reference repeatedly here, with potential spoilers) range from over the top comic book villain type pseudo-satire, to those with hosts of personality disorders that would make them marginally functional people outside of combat scenarios.
Mostly, the choices presented in video games aren't reflective of any character I had in mind when I started and I'm often less trying to pick the least stupid of a bunch of stupid options, or missing out on tons of content because I refused to let the actual villan wax poetic about their manefesto when I could be putting them down instead. To reference example again, I barely got to hear Orin or Gortash talk in BG3 and missed a few entire cutscenes because they were obviously wackjob turdstains and I had my 'evil' party annhilate them with extreme predjudice and no regard for collateral damage (Orin died in one round and wasn't even able to transform, while no one survived Gortash's corronation). Likewise, I was playing as the Dark Urge, but even as a blatantly evil protagonist, there was no way I could envision my character siding with Bhaal. Remember this is the guy who got stripped of his divinity for botching a smash and grab, who, while fancying himself the lord of murder, was himself murder by some peasant weilding another petty immortal cosplaying as a sword. My character was never in a million years going to side with Bhaal, not because he was good, but because Bhaal was a pathetic poser and my character, indeed most any random slob, could do better. I had my Durge kill every single character that even smelled like they might venerate Bhaal just to give that bum and his church a taste of their own medicine from someone with fewer rediculous pretentions.
What my characters mostly didn't do was go out of their way to kill random civilians, pick on refugees, or be overly stingy with their unlimited resources. Someone asked for money nicely, they got the biggest option available (party was killing so many rich people that they could scarcely carry all the loot) and sent on their way. Someone was rude, or had the misfortune of being between my group and the target of their collective ire they got turned into a smear of gore or a vaguely human shaped mass of charcoal. The flaming fist were generally rude, so they were forcefully disbanded by my group.
Most of the 'evil' options were simply insane; my group was as evil as it was going to get, but were neither weak nor stupid...which all but ruled out siding with the elder brain, the emperor, any of the Three, handing over the crown to anyone, allowing Raphael to live, or most of the 'evil' options other than annhilation. The developers seem to think that evil is some sort of gentiles club where villians get together to smoke, compare notes, and laugh manically at the plight of their lessers. That's not evil, that's just a board meeting at any given publicly traded corporation. The main option that I really had was siding with Orpheus on the off chance the Githyanki civil war would kill enough of them to keep them from consolidating enough power to be a threat to my character on the prime.
As many sane evil characters would, at least when those goals are not diametrically opposed to their own and didn't involve risks that outweighed the rewards.
Being well liked and widely respected are powerful advantages worth fighting for, especially if one is a selfish monster with long term plans. Likewise, doing 'good' is not going to offend most 'evil' individuals in the slightest. Everyone wants to advance their ideal of good and most people with even vaguely similar fundamental needs and desires will view most of the same things as good. The difference is that the evil types don't respect differences of opinion and have no compunctions about doing whatever they think they can get away with to advance their goals and ideals.
From the outside, or in the short term, evil characters can often be more effective at achieving good goals. It's their methods, when they are known, that should raise eyebrows. The devil is in the details.
god
flashbacks to fallout 3's handling of the karma system where, yes, if you go around being incredibly evil and commit atrocities like nuking megaton and so on, yes a bunch of peacekeeper types will come after your head because, well, you're an obviously evil and dangerous psychopath. Which is... fine?
But then there's the good karma counterpart, where... if you go around doing good and making people's lives better, helping everyone you meet...
... some dude just straight up hires mercenaries to kill you. Because "uuuuuuurgh, good people" or something. Skeletor had better character motivations.
Skeletor was a lich in a muscle suit. That right there hints at depths to his character that I dare not even contemplate.
I miss playing evil characters back in the days when you had actual choices and reactions in dialogue, not this bland "grey choices" dialogue they give us now. Also miss the alignment system in the old Bioware games and characters reacting to my characters alignment, the world reacting etc.
Often the old Bioware games were written so good that my evil characters ended up taking a path of redemption of sorts, eventually becoming good at the end. The evil choices in late game were just too gut wrenching to take for me(looking at you especially Jade Empire).
Oh and did I mention that most AAA game devs are meh these days? Who hires these so called writers and world builders?! "Let's make everything bland and grey.!"
Anyways.. 
To the old Bioware
Often the old Bioware games were written so good that my evil characters ended up taking a path of redemption of sorts, eventually becoming good at the end. The evil choices in late game were just too gut wrenching to take for me(looking at you especially Jade Empire).
Oh and did I mention that most AAA game devs are meh these days? Who hires these so called writers and world builders?! "Let's make everything bland and grey.!"
Anyways..
To the old Bioware