To those who suggest that order should be associated with good and chaos should be suggested with evil, I suggest that you look at some of history''s most ''evil'' (as defined by popular opinion) regimes such as the nazis or the commies. They both wanted order over anything else and were willing to commit great atrocities to achieve it.

If you want to create a truly original game about morals then you would have a system with two fighting factions where the winning side is always labeled ''good'' while the losing side is always labeled ''evil''. Personally I enjoyed reading the inital scroll-text in the Star Wars game Tie Fighter where the rebels were called ''terrorists'' and the imperial perspective was expressed.

Henry

I have to say that if you want a good example of unclear boundarys between good and evil look at StarCraft. No one race was truly good and none was truly evil(except maybe the zerg). I think that this made the game so much more interesting. There is a certain obsession with good vs. evil that we, as game programmers have to admit. People like to see the good guy beat the evil guy. It''s what makes us human. What you have to do if your sick of it is make it new somehow. Do something somehasn''t thought of.

Anotyher thing, if you look at all of the good games and stories, they seem to be about good vs. evil, but what makes them good is the amount that they stray from this.

-Mark (chaos1111@hotmail.com)

quote: Original post by DarkMage139
In GDT Underground (I''ll develop it someday), it''s a battle between 3 different factions... one led by Pouya, another one led by nes8bit, and one led by dwarfsoft. None of them is really good or evil, order or chaos (well, I take that back... they''re all 100% CHAOS ).

Whoah dude... I lead my own faction! Is it a kind of Nazrixarian faction or not?

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

yeah, I can be part of dwarf''s faction and we can devote ourselves to keeping the disgusting pouya away from scanner drivers.


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

I think we are degenerating this off topic... Just a little.

Well... Other than Good vs. Evil you could just have 2 Evil lords battling it out for supremacy. But that is still me vs. you kind of a deal ... Any other thoughts?

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

yeah, more like a lot

I think the solution is simple even if it''s harder to implement. Just deeper characterization. The characters don''t do "good" things or "bad" things. They have reasons and motivations because of their personalities.


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

It would be good for a game to make absolutely no distinction as to the alignment of any character. The player sees whatever faces of whatever character they are interacting with. Based on what they opinionate IRL they should come to conclusions about the characters within the game. This could also be used to create a profile about the player, finding out their likes and dislikes and generally probing them for personal information about thier character. It would be cool if someone would try and make such a game

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

Of all the RPG''s I have seen, (admittedly not that many but hey) I like the alignment system in AD&D the best. For those that dont know, your alignment is made up of two components, an alignment w.r.t order/chaos and an alignment w.r.t good and evil, so you end up with nine possible alignments:

Chaotic Evil | Neutral Evil | Lawful Evil
---------------------------------------------------
Chaotic Neutral | True Neutral | Lawful Neutral
---------------------------------------------------
Chaotic Good | Neutral Good | Lawful Good

The reason I bring this up is that it doesnt have to be good vs evil - it could be chaos vs law. On the one side you have a lawful society which is struggling to maintain order due to terrorist activities, on the other you have the chaotic rebels who are fighting against what they feel is an oppressive, overly bureaucratic regime. In the middle you have the neutral characters who really dont know what all the fuss is about and just want peace and quiet. All three sides could have good, neutral and evil members.

Hey all!

Here''s my take on the subject:

Whether your game contains a good vs. evil theme or something else really depends on who you want your game to appeal to and what you want your game to do for the player.

The good vs. ultimate evil theme works very well in arcade shooter since there''s nothing more basic than "blow up the bad guys". The player need not rationalize about the game they''re playing, they''re just out to have some quick fun, they only need to concentrate on playing.

If story and/or character development is a large focus of a game, then there is plenty of room to make things a little more interesting, but the developer must always consider the players.

Frankly, I don''t think that having a stock good vs. evil plot necessarily means that its uninteresting. I thoroughly enjoyed the Wing Commander 2 and Star Control storylines - in fact, I consider Star Control 2 to be an excellent example of how to do a game right.

Understand that good vs. evil is a theme that is easy to grasp and universally appealing. Making things complicated changes the appeal of your game. A convoluted plot with a dash of moral ambiguity may please intellectual gamers but may make others yawn. If a game appeals to beliefs and goals that the player does not have, then he or she may not even touch it, perhaps even as a protest to the developer for crossing a line that he or she is not comfortable with.

oh yeah...that absolutely needs to be done...I hope to at least go in that direction...

Then you could use the player''s opinion against them, right dwarf? I thought I''d say it for you this time


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.