A message in four parts. Apologies for the length. And apologies for the anon posts; don''t ask...

quote:Krez : a lot of RPGs where the player is the "good guy" already have an evil overlord or some such thing on the rise, while the player is just starting his adventuring career... perhaps an RPG with an evil main character could do the same (only backwards) [...]

True... although I''ve never been impressed with that plot line, no matter how common it is in CRPGs. I''m currently playing Wizardry 8 (yeah, I''m a bit behind ;-)). When you start out, the Evil One is ultra-strong and you aren''t even allowed to approach him. But for some reason, this ultimate evil has allowed enough of the "good" people (shopkeepers, quest-giving NPCs) to just live on... allowing you the chance to train and to buy increasingly powerful artifacts, eventually allowing you to win.

Now, I understand that this is the "motivation" of the game. But it doesn''t make any sense to me. Were I the Dark Savant, I would have crushed the good village (which is mere feet from my tower!), preventing any heroes from getting close to me. I would then have sent out medium-level drones to enslave all the other towns. Instead, I just occasionally send out weak servants (level-balanced to the players) to do battle?

It just feels artificial. I''ve had that problem with a lot of CRPGs.

ADOM is a decent example of a better implementation, as the underlying story doesn''t have too many gaping holes. But I don''t like the way it lets you easily shift alignments, though. Seems like once the local sherriff has seen you in your ''C+'' alignment (as chaotic as possible), you should be forever barred from town. My current character is L19 (many win around L40?), and has shifted from L+ (most lawful) to C+ and back three times already! Yeah, riiight.


Then again: what is "good", and what is "evil"? Various philosophers (Marx comes to mind) suggest that good and evil are arbitrary concepts that society imposes in order to justify the stong ruling the weak. Therefore, "good" would correlate more with "doing what is expected of you by society", which, in my mind, is closer to "lawful". Vice versa for evil.

"Evil" can also mean "a group that did us harm in the past which the victors [us] later slandered mercilessly". In that case, it would take enormously cool (or lame) actions in order to shift your alignment to good (or evil): people tend to see what they expect to see.

If that''s the case, then some of the currently popular models of a "faction alignment" would make a lot more sense: to the elves, you are a "good" person, while the dwarves find you "extremely evil". Different society, different alignment.

Of course, the way it''s usually implemented ("kill an X and your X alignment drops" is ludicrous. It disallows for all of the intrigue that shows up in a game like Machiavelli. Better models would allow for hidden agendas, betrayals, etc -- probably you would have separate alignments and levels of trust for every individual in the game!


One game with an interesting model was Darklands (also MicroProse, 1992). It didn''t let you play evil -- you were explicitly on the side of good. However: what you did affected your local and global reputations. Caught outside after curfew? You can run, hoping to get away (bigger rep drop if you''re caught, none if you make it). You can bribe the guards (small drop). You can fight (huge drop). So why go out after curfew? Turns out there are thugs in the alleys, and if you fight them, your local rep goes up slightly. Once local rep is high enough, shopkeepers offer you better wares, you can talk to people who would have thrown you out before, etc.

Now, what does that have to do with playing evil? Well... if your rep drops too low, you can''t even walk the streets in the daytime! Guards roam the streets, and will attack if they see you (lowering rep yet again!). Many shops won''t sell to you, unless you''d done favors for them in the past. Word of your infamy spreads (slightly) to nearby towns and villages.

So, no, in terms of the storyline, you can''t play evil. But you can pick an area and become quite evil locally... even if you''re just a local menace. (no, unfortunately you can''t set up shop as Evil Overlord and rule a town or castle.. sigh)


Okay. So, let''s assume that "evil" means "against the fabric of the society doing the judging". This would seem to make it a lot easier to play an evil character in a world with multiple factions. That way, you can rampage, loot, etc one group, but you still have a "support base" that isn''t entirely underground (except for the intrigue folks, of course). Without the support base, your characters would have to be tough enough already to duke it out all alone. With it, you can still have the skill levels and everything we''re used to.

Thoughts?

I was thinking more along krez''s post, but you start out as THE powerful bad guy the good guys are out to stop. It''s all in the title of the post. If there''s a way to destroy the world you gotta find it and the artifacts to do it. You come up with the plan. Has anybody ever watched Zoids: Chaotic Century?

Oh, and about shopkeepers and other people not helping and attacking you because you''re evil(because that is so ***********************************************************************************************), how would shopkeepers and other people even know?

I know being the bad guy''s been done, but since when do you actually come up with a plan? That''s the point of my post. (Besides that one game where you''re Wile E. Coyote and trying to trap the Road Runner, and that game mentioned, Lamers.)

quote:Original post by RolandofGilead
I was thinking more along krez''s post, but you start out as THE powerful bad guy the good guys are out to stop. It''s all in the title of the post.

Okay, makes sense. I was thinking more along the lines of a classic CRPG, but from the evil viewpoint. Sorry...

quote:... how would shopkeepers and other people even know?

Because they talk to eachother? ;-)

quote:I know being the bad guy''s been done, but since when do you actually come up with a plan?

Plan making has never been well implemented. The best examples I can think of are the pure strategy games, where you''re giving orders that are going to be followed out (but later). Most games, though, live in the "now". As such, any plans exist solely in the mind of the player, which makes it difficult to enforce in the engine.


Okay, then. You start out as an ultra-powerful bad guy... your motivation is ultimate evil (destroy the world, or sabotage peace, or...).

Sounds like you need one of those "the world used to be inhabited by giants, but over time, knowledge was lost" sort of worlds. Great Good discovered (or created) powerful artifacts. These could be used for good, or evil, as most tools can be. Great cataclysm of some sort happened. The artifacts still exist, being powerful -- but the forces of Good were wise, and protected them with traps, golems, whatever -- things not of the current world.

You start out as mojo bad dude. Alas, you know nothing of these past technologies/magicks/whatever. You''re just evil, have minions, and folks in the normal world can''t do (much) harm to you. You have to get the artifacts, figure out how they''re used, cajole/threaten the knowledge out of the good sages of the time, and use them to destroy/enslave the world.

That could work, if carefully balanced. You don''t want it to turn into a mere "hunt for items" game, or a "gather clues for puzzles" game. A balance of gathering items and finding knowledge, all the while doing evil things to people. Possibly infiltration, pretending to be a good person.

But of course, would such a game sell? Sure, well done, I would buy it. The average marketing, though... I''m not sure how I would present it to keep it from being banned from Walmart (and etc)...?