Implementation of good and evil paths in RPGs

[Erzherzog]

Now, I'm taking it as a given that good/evil paths are in every story based RPG. Obviously every Bioware game ever, Fallout has karma, DnD games have alignment (including PST), and even the Witcher had one except that it was more a choice between Order and Chaos.

A problems I see with how good/evil paths function in games is that they can often feel gamey (See: Bioware) or feel pointless due to it either not really having an effect on gameplay or story, or because both sides offer rather obviously equal rewards.

The problem is, the way most games are designed I really can't feel like there's any point to picking either path from a gameplay point of view and often the impact on the story is rather banal. Switching out the rival and the ally depending on who I sided with is not a good implementation of morality in games. Obviously some games implement it well from a storyline point of view (MotB or Planescape), but I want to see a game make my choices influence the way I have to play the game.

Right now the benefits of choosing between the two is frequently at best a choice between experience points and gold. Fuck that bullshit. Picking between good and evil in a game is as much a strategic choice as it is a moral one. To make the choice actually have consequence, the moral choices should be designed from a strategy game point of view. Have the choices be balanced, but different. Go past the completely obvious.

For example, if you had a game that included companions and an influence system, perhaps have the evil character appeal to NPCs that see his ruthlessness as effective leadership, willing to make tough choices to reach they goal, however, since their attraction to following you is based off of how powerful you seem, have them leave the party after only a bit of influence is lost when you do something that portrays weakness. Meanwhile a good character might not influence as many, or as powerful, followers, the will be more devoted (if they joined you because you saved their children from kidnappers, I'm pretty sure they'd forgive some poor choices).

However, do you think I've gone a bit nuts? I'm not seeing how much of an impact morality choices have currently?

tl;dr - How do you think designers should design good and evil paths?

 

[JarlFrank]

Generally, the "mwahaha evil" and the "I want to be paid for my help I'm evil" kinds of evil should be banished from games forever and never touched again because they are stupid (although mwahaha evil can be fun if the character is insane or something).

Now, the evil path should give the player more gold and more power, of course, since "evil" options should always be opportunistic egoistic asshole options. Torture an innocent man to find out the location of a treasure? Sure. Kill someone who wants to do good things for his people because he's in the way of you gaining power? Of course!

Basically, it should end up as "well, this thing is very obviously morally wrong but I'd gain something from it so I do it". It would bring you lots of enemies, of course, especially within the families and factions whose members you murdered or violated, so you might end up rich and powerful but almost everyone will hate your guts and you only have a few allies left (who are also of the same personality as you, which means they're not very trustworthy and might betray you if it fits their motives).

 

[Erzherzog]

Gold rewards, however are never very easy to balance. Too little, why fucking do the quest? Too much and why not?

 

[shihonage]

OP: I agree with what you're saying, and am implementing similar dynamics in my project.

Also, there shouldn't be an explicit good or evil path, just a series of choices, some of which may be virtuous, others may be evil, and a whole lot may be gray.

I like the idea of characters joining you based on your previous actions; I mostly have the framework for this.

The interesting addition would be to have such things expire dynamically. For instance, just keep track of the last 10 people you had combat with. If you spared the lives of 8, an NPC will leave you because you're not "man enough".

 

[CrunchyHemorrhoids]

I'd say MOTB and FNV offered different gameplay experiences for the evil path.

 

[Sceptic]

Obviously some games implement it well from a storyline point of view (MotB or Planescape), but I want to see a game make my choices influence the way I have to play the game.

I would say that, by mentioning MotB, you've given the best example (so far at least) of how your choices can influence the way you play the game. Evil path has basically two effects on the game: it enables the evil ending (which falls under your storyline PoV), and it pushes you into playing with high craving. The push is slow at first, but by the time you finish with the forest there is simply no way you won't be at full craving, and once you're there there's no going back. Now I don't want to get into an in-depth discussion of how the spirit meter could've been done better (I'm sure we all agree it could have, and I'm sure we all disagree and what could've made it better), but the point is that no-craving vs full-craving does affect how you play the game. High craving makes it harder because you're constantly fighting against the clock, you cannot rest at the drop of a hat (lest you wake up with your spirit meter almost empty), and you have to frequently Devour stuff. Of course the advantage comes from this very last point: the essences you get from devouring can allow you to craft some very powerful items. It's a good tradeoff.

Unfortunately I can't really see any other example of this kind of tradeoff. KOTOR had the mana cost of force powers change depending on your alignment, but the change was negligible and the game played the same regardless. A better variant of such a system would have been to affect the potency of the force powers, so an opposite alignment would get say half potency - half damage, half duration, half radius, etc. This way the power could still be occasionally useful if you boost it to the max, but the penalty is still severe enough that you would feel the difference.

 

[denizsi]

The thread feels so 2005.

 

[Shemar]

I don't see the point of an 'evil' path/option/whatever in a heroic story based game. In reality, embarking in the heroic deeds described in the game is something a self serving character would never do, because the character does not have the option to reload every time they die, so from their perspective no reward would be worth the risk. I find the notion completely unrealistic and immersion breaking. Additionally, many 'evil' options are just outright moronic and in any realistic scenario would end with the character not only abandoned but attacked by their companions and shunned by officials/patrons/quest givers, making their continued progress through the story even more unlikely and unrealistic.

In more 'open world'/sandbox style games and depending on how it is handled it could have more validity. Or even in a story based game where the story is actually about an evil/self-serving character and not the hero who saves the day. But in your typical Bioware-y story based RPG it is as pointless as it would have been having a 'selfless hero who helps everybody' path in Grand Theft Auto.

 

[JarlFrank]

Stop assuming that everyone here thinks about heroic save-the-world stories when thinking about RPGs.

How about a good old early 90's dungeon crawler story where your party is tasked by a wizard to retrieve a magical artifact from an ancient ruin? This could be done by both good characters (in order to do good for the nation by providing the good wizard with a powerful item) or by self-serving egoists (well, you do get paid a handsome sum for it) or even by evil characters (the wizard provides you with some starting equipment, and when you got the item, you can just keep it for yourself...).

How about a story that isn't about ancient evils and saving the world, but about political intrigue or an invasion by an enemy country? There would be no good or evil there, just conflicting interests, and you'd have to decide which of the many factions to aid, with each of them promising you different benefits. Would you betray your own country to the enemy if they'd make you a Baron or Duke for it? Or would you do anything in your power to help the well-meaning king who lacks a strong army to get the throne?

Of course such different paths would be impossible in a forced "you are hero, save world" scenario like Bioware always does it, but stop assuming that just because this is the "usual" kind of scenario, other scenarios don't exist. You're just embarrassing yourself.

 

[Sceptic]

How about a story that isn't about ancient evils and saving the world, but about political intrigue or an invasion by an enemy country? There would be no good or evil there, just conflicting interests, and you'd have to decide which of the many factions to aid, with each of them promising you different benefits.

Come to think of it this kind of faction system would work great on a plot like that of Daggerfall. DF didn't give you any real choices in how you completed the MQ, at least not until the very end, but imagine if it did... rather than just helping each side one after the other, say you get the choice of helping either Daggerfall or Wayrest, the rewards you get would then affect how you tackle the rest of the MQ... or you could play both of them against each other, for the benefit of say Gortwog, or even Mannimarco. If you help Mannimarco you get access to necromantic spells which you otherwise wouldn't get, if you help the orcs you get access to some powerful weapons and armor but at the expense of Daggerfall and Wayrest considering you a traitor or something like that... lots of possibilities there.

 

[Phelot]

Obviously, there's nothing wrong with having the focus of a game be about being evil, but as has been pointed out, most of that evil consists of "MWAAHAHAHAHA!" sociopaths and serial killers that are for some reason also grand schemers, generals, etc etc.

I've thought about how well a game would work in which you play as a delusional serial killer that has to do what he does for various reasons, most of which are unreal (think David Berkowitz's demon possessed dog) certainly it would test a player's stomach for not being very good, but might also be a fascinating way to see what it might be like for a killer. The fear and paranoia...

Of course, that's just a shtick and in the end I agree with what Shemar is saying. Often times, a game is designed with one particular mindset in mind and that mindset is typically good. When an "evil" path is implemented it typically results in a quick, near end of game decision that results in different movies.



Chances are, the game is designed with a specific story in mind and it's incredibly difficult to completely change the story in an overreaching way just because the player is trying to play as the ultimate douche bag. I would rather a game allow the player to choose among various options to solve a problem based on logical responses as opposed to moral responses. So often, a problem can only be solved by being evil or good, but rarely are there options based on what the character would logically do (or illogically do)

So, I say the focus on finding out who is the thief that keeps stealing shit should have various options and ways to solve it with varying degrees of success and different outcomes as opposed to the focus being on whether you take a bribe from the thief and let him go or turn him in to serve justice.

Instead, the PC should be able to use his skills to catch the thief, perhaps using social skills to persuade folks to give up names, using ambushes, and yes even having an "evil" character set up a cruel trap that maims the petty thief.

In other words, no more focus on those classic black or white choices

 

[Shemar]

Stop assuming that everyone here thinks about heroic save-the-world stories when thinking about RPGs.

How about a good old early 90's dungeon crawler story where your party is tasked by a wizard to retrieve a magical artifact from an ancient ruin? This could be done by both good characters (in order to do good for the nation by providing the good wizard with a powerful item) or by self-serving egoists (well, you do get paid a handsome sum for it) or even by evil characters (the wizard provides you with some starting equipment, and when you got the item, you can just keep it for yourself...).

How about a story that isn't about ancient evils and saving the world, but about political intrigue or an invasion by an enemy country? There would be no good or evil there, just conflicting interests, and you'd have to decide which of the many factions to aid, with each of them promising you different benefits. Would you betray your own country to the enemy if they'd make you a Baron or Duke for it? Or would you do anything in your power to help the well-meaning king who lacks a strong army to get the throne?

Of course such different paths would be impossible in a forced "you are hero, save world" scenario like Bioware always does it, but stop assuming that just because this is the "usual" kind of scenario, other scenarios don't exist. You're just embarrassing yourself.

I would say stop embarassing yourself by responding to posts you only skimmed through or do not have the capability to read properly.

But since you apparently need some lessons in how to read here it is:

I don't see the point of an 'evil' path/option/whatever in a heroic story based game.

For anyone above 3rd grade that seems to indicate the following paragraph talks about "heroic story based game". Any assumption that the term "heroic story based game" is anywhere near meant to be equivalent to the term "RPG" belongs to the ass making the assumption alone and not the person who wrote it.

But to be fair, someone may not have the IQ required to infer that, so we also have

In more 'open world'/sandbox style games and depending on how it is handled it could have more validity. Or even in a story based game where the story is actually about an evil/self-serving character and not the hero who saves the day.

Oh, look at that, the author actually knows there are other types of games too!

So yeah, stop embarassing yourself by replying to imaginary posts and try to reply to what is actually being said.

 

[Shemar]

So, I say the focus on finding out who is the thief that keeps stealing shit should have various options and ways to solve it with varying degrees of success and different outcomes as opposed to the focus being on whether you take a bribe from the thief and let him go or turn him in to serve justice.

Instead, the PC should be able to use his skills to catch the thief, perhaps using social skills to persuade folks to give up names, using ambushes, and yes even having an "evil" character set up a cruel trap that maims the petty thief.

I totally agree with that. So many times there are solutions to problems I want my character to follow only to find that the actual range of solutions the game supports for a given problem is not only very limited but they all vary in degrees of stupidity and mind numbing ovbiouslness. I especially hate the inability of games where factions are implemented to handle 'playing both sides against each other' scenarios.

 

[Erzherzog]

Obviously some games implement it well from a storyline point of view (MotB or Planescape), but I want to see a game make my choices influence the way I have to play the game.

I would say that, by mentioning MotB, you've given the best example (so far at least) of how your choices can influence the way you play the game. Evil path has basically two effects on the game: it enables the evil ending (which falls under your storyline PoV), and it pushes you into playing with high craving. The push is slow at first, but by the time you finish with the forest there is simply no way you won't be at full craving, and once you're there there's no going back. Now I don't want to get into an in-depth discussion of how the spirit meter could've been done better (I'm sure we all agree it could have, and I'm sure we all disagree and what could've made it better), but the point is that no-craving vs full-craving does affect how you play the game. High craving makes it harder because you're constantly fighting against the clock, you cannot rest at the drop of a hat (lest you wake up with your spirit meter almost empty), and you have to frequently Devour stuff. Of course the advantage comes from this very last point: the essences you get from devouring can allow you to craft some very powerful items. It's a good tradeoff.

I can't do anything besides concede that point. I kind of just talked out of my ass at that moment. It's true that most games featuring dichotomy should first learn from MotB, but it'll probably be the closest thing to well structed divergent paths we'll get.

The thread feels so 2005.

This post is about as useful as most of yours. In case you didn't notice, at this point most 2005 users are gone. At this point most users may have not gone over all these old points of discussion. I see no reason why not to.

Shemar, all I can say is if you're going to call JarlFrank out for arguing RPGs when you specifically mentioned heroic save-the-world stories, then you probably shouldn't argue heroic save-the-world stories when I specifically mentioned RPGs.

 

[JarlFrank]

@ Shemar:

Well, I do find it a little strange that you mention the typical Bioware RPG in most of the design threads, and how the features people think of here wouldn't work in that kind of game.

But maybe I'm just raging because I'm incredibly sick of the "hero saves world" kind of plot that is repeated and repeated in every second RPG released nowadays, when there are so many other possibilities for good stories. Especially the political intrigue kind of story is the one that I'd like to see more often.

That's not to say that a story shouldn't have a focus - it should just allow for as many different choices as possible, and there should be paths for characters of any morality. I might've mentioned it in an earlier post here, but Arcanum did this really well - yes, you're supposed to be the chosen one, but that doesn't mean you have to help the good guys. You can actually join the bad guys and help them fulfill their goals.

 

[Erzherzog]

That's not to say that a story shouldn't have a focus - it should just allow for as many different choices as possible, and there should be paths for characters of any morality. I might've mentioned it in an earlier post here, but Arcanum did this really well - yes, you're supposed to be the chosen one, but that doesn't mean you have to help the good guys. You can actually join the bad guys and help them fulfill their goals.

Well that's because Arcanum manage to leave things at least somewhat ambiguous, which seems to be a common trend among most games with good plots. You can reject what's presented, and sometimes you're right to. Gives the player more options and makes them feel less restricted to boot.

 

[Shemar]

Shemar, all I can say is if you're going to call JarlFrank out for arguing RPGs when you specifically mentioned heroic save-the-world stories, then you probably shouldn't argue heroic save-the-world stories when I specifically mentioned RPGs.

It is strange how often I am forced to give lessons in the english language, considering it is not my native language. So here we go, try to keep up:

First of all I said "heroic story based game" which is not a "heroic save-the-world story". If you want to have a convesation based on intellect and not a teenage spat, the first rule is to not substitute what the other person is saying with your preconceived notions.

Having said that then, many of the most popular RPGs (as well as some of my favorite RPGs) are "heroic story based games". Therefore the comment that in that type of game, the inclusion of an evil path is pointless is perfectly on topic.

 

[Shemar]

@ Shemar:

Well, I do find it a little strange that you mention the typical Bioware RPG in most of the design threads, and how the features people think of here wouldn't work in that kind of game.

Or maybe you take it that way because you have already decided that is the only kind of game I play...

But maybe I'm just raging because I'm incredibly sick of the "hero saves world" kind of plot that is repeated and repeated in every second RPG released nowadays, when there are so many other possibilities for good stories. Especially the political intrigue kind of story is the one that I'd like to see more often.

I used to rage because I was sick of all new major RPGs not having turn based combat. Then I decided it was wasted energy and turned to indie games for my turn based fix. Ultimately the only way to see a game exactly as you would like ('you' being used here as 'anyone'), is to make it yourself.

That's not to say that a story shouldn't have a focus - it should just allow for as many different choices as possible, and there should be paths for characters of any morality. I might've mentioned it in an earlier post here, but Arcanum did this really well - yes, you're supposed to be the chosen one, but that doesn't mean you have to help the good guys. You can actually join the bad guys and help them fulfill their goals.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. I believe trying to fundamentally change a story to accomodate different moralities usually ends up weakening the story. Also, I would rather play a game designed for a much narrower character type where a single play through will make use of a much greater percentage of the game's content. But that is because I don't have a problem playing whatever character style the game is made for (or if I do I just don't play the game) and I don't replay games.

 

[JarlFrank]

That's not to say that a story shouldn't have a focus - it should just allow for as many different choices as possible, and there should be paths for characters of any morality. I might've mentioned it in an earlier post here, but Arcanum did this really well - yes, you're supposed to be the chosen one, but that doesn't mean you have to help the good guys. You can actually join the bad guys and help them fulfill their goals.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. I believe trying to fundamentally change a story to accomodate different moralities usually ends up weakening the story. Also, I would rather play a game designed for a much narrower character type where a single play through will make use of a much greater percentage of the game's content. But that is because I don't have a problem playing whatever character style the game is made for (or if I do I just don't play the game) and I don't replay games.

Well, that really depends on the kind of story. Some stories don't require a certain personality of their protagonist, while some do. Stories heavy on intrigue and politics are very free in what kind of protagonist the player wants to be, for example. (You might notice by now that I have a personal fetish for intrigue-heavy stories)

Think about a story similar to, say, the Song of Ice and Fire novels, or the Kushiel's Legacy trilogy. Lots of political intrigue and deep plots, and you, the player, are thrown into that world, with the choice to help whatever faction you want. That's the kind of story I like best for RPGs.

About replaying - well, even if I'm not likely to replay a game, I do appreciate it having choices, preferably morally ambiguous ones. I'm probably not going to replay New Vegas after I've finished it, but I do love having to choose between multiple factions. It just adds a whole new element of gameplay, I think.

 

[Shemar]

Well, that really depends on the kind of story. Some stories don't require a certain personality of their protagonist, while some do. Stories heavy on intrigue and politics are very free in what kind of protagonist the player wants to be, for example. (You might notice by now that I have a personal fetish for intrigue-heavy stories)

Think about a story similar to, say, the Song of Ice and Fire novels, or the Kushiel's Legacy trilogy. Lots of political intrigue and deep plots, and you, the player, are thrown into that world, with the choice to help whatever faction you want. That's the kind of story I like best for RPGs.

About replaying - well, even if I'm not likely to replay a game, I do appreciate it having choices, preferably morally ambiguous ones. I'm probably not going to replay New Vegas after I've finished it, but I do love having to choose between multiple factions. It just adds a whole new element of gameplay, I think.

Yes, it does depend on the story, but while writing a story to accomodate multiple moral directions is relatively easy and cheap (no it isn't but I mean in comparison to), producing a game to accomodate those is usually not. So in many cases the wider the game's story stretches the shorter it gets.

Having said that, some types of stories, like the political intrigue ones you mention, almost require that 'width' for the game's premise to work, so in that we agree.

 

[Erzherzog]

Shemar, all I can say is if you're going to call JarlFrank out for arguing RPGs when you specifically mentioned heroic save-the-world stories, then you probably shouldn't argue heroic save-the-world stories when I specifically mentioned RPGs.

It is strange how often I am forced to give lessons in the english language, considering it is not my native language. So here we go, try to keep up:

First of all I said "heroic story based game" which is not a "heroic save-the-world story". If you want to have a convesation based on intellect and not a teenage spat, the first rule is to not substitute what the other person is saying with your preconceived notions.

Having said that then, many of the most popular RPGs (as well as some of my favorite RPGs) are "heroic story based games". Therefore the comment that in that type of game, the inclusion of an evil path is pointless is perfectly on topic.

FFS, My point is that I specifically said RPG. You're retarded if you're going to keep arguing your position. You are the substituting what I've said with "preconceived notions"

The topic is about effective implementation of having good and evil paths. Saying that an evil path in, say, Ultima VII is pointless may be on topic but adds nothing.

 

[Shemar]

you probably shouldn't argue heroic save-the-world stories when I specifically mentioned RPGs

may be on topic but adds nothing

One has to wonder why you are derailing your own thread, while at the same time flexibly changing your positions just to keep arguing, but what do I care. If you really think that the discussion of whether a feature should be implemented at all and where does it have a place and what purpose it serves does not add anything to the topic of how to effectively implement it, you really need to take a look at how you approach game design.

And to take it one step further, I believe that thinking in terms of "how to I implement an evil path" is totally the wrong way to approach it. The correct way to approach it is to see what possible actions a player/character would like to be able to take in each decision point, what would their consequences be and which of these would make sense in terms of continuing survival/success. The range of moral stances the game supports should come from that, not from an arbitrary good/evil separation of 'paths'.

 

[JarlFrank]

Well, of course, the first step always has to be "what does my game's story look like? what should the player be allowed to do?". Then you can think on whether some of th player's options should be evil, in what way they'd be evil, how this evil path would fit in the game, and, most importantly, what would it add? Personally, I'm much more into moral ambigousness than pure good/evil. Is someone who kills thousands in order to gain the throne, but then brings peace and prosperity during his rule, evil or good? Or is he just an over-ambitious, power-hungry but capable ruler?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Fucking storyfags.

 

[Erzherzog]

you probably shouldn't argue heroic save-the-world stories when I specifically mentioned RPGs

may be on topic but adds nothing

One has to wonder why you are derailing your own thread, while at the same time flexibly changing your positions just to keep arguing, but what do I care. If you really think that the discussion of whether a feature should be implemented at all and where does it have a place and what purpose it serves does not add anything to the topic of how to effectively implement it, you really need to take a look at how you approach game design.

And to take it one step further, I believe that thinking in terms of "how to I implement an evil path" is totally the wrong way to approach it. The correct way to approach it is to see what possible actions a player/character would like to be able to take in each decision point, what would their consequences be and which of these would make sense in terms of continuing survival/success. The range of moral stances the game supports should come from that, not from an arbitrary good/evil separation of 'paths'.

Or maybe the dichotomy of good and evil, or of order and chaos and such is used for storyline effectiveness, as it was done somewhat in PS:T and especially MotB (which is considered one of the best RPGs we've had in the last few years and yet it could often boil player choices down to a couple good or evil choices)

Or rather, Shemar cannot into thematic qualities.

Fucking storyfags

Eh, this is more of a fucking C&Cfags discussion.