This would be a cool idea for a game... a "Real Life" version of good and evil.
Picture this:
You are a lowly employee in some big coroprate company with magic powers. the "Evil" boss gives everyone lots of money, but he gives everyone crap. no one cares, because they are to busy brown nosing to realize that they are being messed up really bad.

you are the only guy that cares in the entire company, and you go on a crusade of righteousness to conquer the Evil known as...
THE MANAGEMENT!!! :D

anyway, (even though this is a really bad example) this would be more true to life. The "Bad Guys" are mostly not evil, but are simply misled. the big, major "Evil Leader Guy" has to work really hard to keep his men/women in line. The "good guy" has the odds stacked against him, but wins out in the end (or maybe not...) yadda yadda yadda...

Anyway, it''s an interesting idea.

in real life the good/evil choice is usually a compromise. in a game it's usually a tradeoff.

the difference is in a compromise there is overlap, common ground, a grey area, a sweet spot. in games good/evil (at least in individual events) is an either-or situation

there is a sensible reason for this. in most fiction, (and especially games) all events are superlative. examples: murder, conspiracy, saving the world etc... real life problems involve more actors and have further reaching consequences.

manipulative, enterprising "evil" approaches in real life are carried out as if the actions don't have a domino effect. these agressive climbers ignore any and all consequences that don't affect them directly. they don't have to because if they don't like the side effect, they change the situation to suit them!

this is one of civilisation's most elegent emergent behaviours. ironically any examination seems to tend to a simplified model (it's the economy, stupid!) which is why good and evil portrails never seem "right".

********


A Problem Worthy of Attack
Proves It's Worth by Fighting Back

[edited by - walkingcarcass on January 6, 2003 11:41:04 AM]

My take: they are both about equal.

Being good (stereotypical view) will gain you GOOD people as allies and possibly curative spells in a fantasy game (only an example). Bad people will still hate you, and monsters (just an example) will probably target you first.

Being bad (again, stereotypical view) will gain you BAD allies and destructive spells. Good people still hate you, and other people may target you first.

In a game good and evil may vary. Maybe one town is full of thieves, and hate priests, etc. while admiring a serial killer. Another town is the center of crap and all that good stands for (or so they think) and will hate the enemy and welcome priests.
The concept of good and evil varies.

My take: they are both about equal.

Being good (stereotypical view) will gain you GOOD people as allies and possibly curative spells in a fantasy game (only an example). Bad people will still hate you, and monsters (just an example) will probably target you first.

Being bad (again, stereotypical view) will gain you BAD allies and destructive spells. Good people still hate you, and other people may target you first.

In a game good and evil may vary. Maybe one town is full of thieves, and hate priests, etc. while admiring a serial killer. Another town is the center of crap and all that good stands for (or so they think) and will hate the enemy and welcome priests.
The concept of good and evil varies.

So...how does this "reproductive system" of yours work? -Anonymous

Maybe that''s what games need, a little of the balance. Give them the ''phat lewt'' for being evil, but give them alliances and friends for being good.

Example:

You kill everyone, you get plenty of money, lots of items/gear/whatever, but nobody is willing to help you without being ''bought off'', so to speak with large sums of $$.

You be a good guy, helping the weak, blah, blah, blah... and people help you for free, or cheaply, they sell you gear inexpensively, etc...

So, you can potentially get the same stuff by being nice, but it will take more time. Maybe it could be a balancing act, you''re good enough to make friends, but bad enough to get what you need... you go too far either way and you''ll miss out on something.

I don''t know, that''s just been bothering me... so often you get rewarded in games for doing the bad and not being mindful, would sometimes like games to require a little more thought about the actions. Not that I want the whole ''moral games'' thing, but it would be nice to have more of them require thought.

Yea, what solinear said was nice. Have the bad guy benefit in the short run, but have the good guy benefit in the long run. Maybe good and evil could be balanced; not like what someone said in an earlier post. They would not play exactly the same, but there would be a certain strategy for each. Maybe in evil you have power via terror, and in good you have power via mercy. Show people terror, they worship you (I don''t know if worship is the right word); show people mercy, they worship you (once again, I don''t know if worship is the right word.)

Good and evil are not negotiable; how good or evil you are is. The depth of consequences varies with the complexity of the game.

How do I know this and why do you not? The truth is that, through intense concentration, I have cultivated the ability to visualize my thoughts. Good thoughts are always white, bad thoughts are always black. If I think to myself "I must climb that hill to get home" and commit myself to walk steadily, I see white; if I think to myself "I can''t be bothered walking up that hill" and slack off, I see black. If you could visualize your thoughts you would see the same.

So, as long as all you are doing is talking about what you think good and evil might be and I see what good and evil is, you will never move me from what I believe.

*** OT ***

deClavier: what color do you see if you imagine shooting adolph hitler in the face when he was a baby?

Well, the thought has never occured to me (and now that he''s dead it never will).

You can take or leave what I say, because you have a free will, but it doesn''t change the fact that good works one way and evil works another (or all others, I should say). How does this affect game design? I guess you would have to say that you can''t show people the truth, any more than you can talk them into it, but you can base a game on the truth, or not, depending on how good or evil your motivation is.

The thought about people worshiping you, good or bad-that was in Black and White. I mostly feel that if bad benefits you in the short run, and being good helps in the long run, many people will only play the game briefly. Honestly, do you people get more satisfaction out of being good or bad? Most people enjoy being evil.

So...how does this "reproductive system" of yours work? -Anonymous