The biggest problem I perceive is that RPGs aren't cut for an eviloverlord scenario. In order to really do that, you'd either have to have some superpower of control a large number of minions. RPGs (or at least CRPGS) are pretty much designed for a small number of units versus armies.

However, if it had to be RPG style, I'd probably do it like this:

1) List cults; gangs; weaker, more established villians; anything that can be assimilated.
2) Take control of groups (combat in turn-based style)
3) Use groups to attack potential threats, both competitors and opposition (tactical grid style)
4) Same as 2), but destruction over control (and with minions, simultanious with 3))
5) Allocate biggest threat (say, annoying rebels building up plot-voucher cannon). Destroy defenders, as in 3).
6) Infiltrate threat's weapon, blow it up (2 and 4 style)
7) Win.

All this time, you'll have to fend off assassins and infiltrators (and superheros, if we are using that theme).

Evil is about greed, selfishness, and personal desires above all else. Murder is an evil act, but mass murdering is just psychotic. Stealing is an evil act, but mass stealing is just kleptomania.

At the very root, an evil person does whatever they feel is best for themselves without much regard for others. Intelligent evil people realize that there is value to having allies, and a balance must be struck between short term greed, and the long term rewards possible when the right allies are by your side, only to discard those allies but whateve means convenient when they no longer have any value.

Allies are obtained by whatever means necessary. Deceit, treachery, murder. Creating allies by creating a common enemy (or mearly creating the perception of a common enemy). The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Making enemies is not productive, so playing all sides as best you can is desirable.

A good Evil empire game would have to include in depth and flexible systems for deception, treachery, spies, double agents, assassins, alliances, double alliances, false alliances, secret alliances and tie-ins between all these systems. At this point I think you're looking more at a global strategy type game than an RPG though.

Quote:

I remember a short story, I think it was in the DragonLance universe, where a dragon discuised himself as a dragonslayer every few months, went into town to hire the half-dozen most powerful warriors, and then led them into a trap and killed them

An excellent idea, as the following site shows:

http://paul.merton.ox.ac.uk/filmtv/overlord.html

"Evil is about greed, selfishness, and personal desires above all else"

You can generalize this further, really. Evil is the result of a distorted moral ordering or hierarchy. Hitler, for example, was evil but he was not selfishly motivated - he sought some strange, demented glory for the German Volk and he didn't care how many eggs were broken along the way.

This aluded-to aphorism "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" is generally attributed Lenin or Stalin and is precisely what I'm talking about: these guys had a sort of vision of a utopia. They thought they had a handle on absolute truth and therefore any price was worth paying in pursuit of their ideal. It didn't matter who suffered along the road because the destination was perfection.

That is evil.

No plausible character sets out to be evil. They shoulder the burden of evil - look at Darth Vader, for example. He didn't wake up one day and say "I'm gonna be evil!". No - his motives were ultimately noble, or at least comprehensible. And he made a choice that resulted in his fall to the dark side.

If you want a Dr. Evil sort of slapstick/farce evil, that's cool and a perfectly reasonable design decision.

Come on, there's no such thing as evil. People who do 'evil' deeds are just too dumb or unskilled (or just psycho) to get the same result without the bad consequences. Why rape when you can take the challenge of earning it? Why kill when beating the crap out of them hurts them even more? Wanting and obtaining fortune and power is not evil. It's human.

So instead of making an evil character, why not make a realistic one? Someone who doesn't give a damn about some princess they've never heard of. Someone who wouldn't risk their life to weed a random NPC's garden. And of course someone who has an end-goal to suit themselves rather than everyone else.

If you would rather actually impliment a realistically 'evil' character. I suppose a coward who hates challenges and has no honor might work. But I would hate to play as such a loser :D

Quote:

Original post by Kest Come on, there's no such thing as evil.

In games there is. Just like in movies and books.

Quote:

Why kill when beating the crap out of them hurts them even more?

Are you saying that's what a good person would do? Choose the option that leaves them alive, and hurts them even more? Sounds evil to me.

Quote:

So instead of making an evil character, why not make a realistic one?

I might be grasping at straws here, but it could be because he's not out to make a Reality(tm) Simulator.
Sometimes, evil people make good stories. Or are fun to play. That means they can be used in games, even if they are not "realistic".

Quote:

If you would rather actually impliment a realistically 'evil' character. I suppose a coward who hates challenges and has no honor might work. But I would hate to play as such a loser :D

You just asked the OP to put such a loser into the game, because an evil person was unrealistic. Make up your mind [lol]

Quote:

Original post by Spoonbender Quote: Original post by Kest Come on, there's no such thing as evil. In games there is. Just like in movies and books.

I think they only seem evil because of the faked out good guys. Name an evil character that actually had motive behind their evil actions, and I'll explain how their choices were not evil. Vampires feed on human blood to stay alive, and they die without doing so. Humans wear the dead flesh of animals and live in the carcuses of trees, just to be comfortable. Which is worse? IE, vampires are not evil.

Quote:

Quote: Why kill when beating the crap out of them hurts them even more? Are you saying that's what a good person would do? Choose the option that leaves them alive, and hurts them even more? Sounds evil to me.

That's a strange perspective. If I were on the receiving end, I would rather be hurt than killed, even though I might suffer more. I learn a lesson instead of being extinguished.

Quote:

Quote: So instead of making an evil character, why not make a realistic one? I might be grasping at straws here, but it could be because he's not out to make a Reality(tm) Simulator. Sometimes, evil people make good stories. Or are fun to play. That means they can be used in games, even if they are not "realistic".

You're not following me. I'm saying a realistic character would seem evil in the game. What is your goal in life? To save the princess? To help your neighbor? Likely, you're like everyone else, aiming to better yourself. Just like the evil villain.

Quote:

Quote: If you would rather actually impliment a realistically 'evil' character. I suppose a coward who hates challenges and has no honor might work. But I would hate to play as such a loser :D You just asked the OP to put such a loser into the game, because an evil person was unrealistic. Make up your mind [lol]

I asked him to put a realistically un-evil person into the game, and this person would seem pretty evil in game standards. A realistically evil character would be someone too weak minded to take up the normal challenges needed to reach his goals. IE, a loser. Not very fun to role play. It's just my opinion, though.

Anyway, my point is that faked out bad guys seem lame to me. Realistic bad guys (the kind you can relate to - not out to be bad, just not caring about being good) are very cool. And they seem to help make the best stories.

I think what Kest is saying is "Evil" is a property of actions and their results, not of motives or of a person. If a person's actions consistantly produce evil results, one might figuratively call that person evil.

The people we call evil want the same things everybody does - wealth, power, fame, prestige, etc. But they are unimpeded by ethics in their pursuit of these things. Kest's vampire, for example, can only survive by destroying the lives of others and has decided that he's willing to do it. I suggest that this is unethical - the inverse of noble sacrifice. And that it is only possible for an individual lacking any ethical restraints. And the results are evil and therefor the vampire is, firguratively at least, evil himself.

Quote:

Original post by dalep I think what Kest is saying is "Evil" is a property of actions and their results, not of motives or of a person. If a person's actions consistantly produce evil results, one might figuratively call that person evil.

Somewhat what I was saying. I seriously doubt real people who everyone considers evil would consider themselves evil. In fact, they most likely totally justify their own actions.

Hitler, no matter how disturbed, truely thought he would help evolve the human species by killing out other 'races'. But I don't see Hitler as evil. He was just a disturbed idiot, and his theory was completely backwards. Anyone should be able to realize that our species' strength comes from our diversity. We should be wanting more different types of humans, not less. Anyway, a lot of people see Hitler as evil. This is the type of lame character that I wouldn't want to role play. The wrong sense of direction, misguided, cowardly, or dumb.

Quote:

Kest's vampire, for example, can only survive by destroying the lives of others and has decided that he's willing to do it. I suggest that this is unethical - the inverse of noble sacrifice.

It might just be my overwhelming empathy, but I don't see it as unethical, especially from the perspective of a human. Life feeds on life to live. It's the same for every species on earth. If vampires were real, and their only sin was staying alive, I would consider humans to be much more evil in general.

Quote:

And that it is only possible for an individual lacking any ethical restraints. And the results are evil and therefor the vampire is, firguratively at least, evil himself.

A vampire is as evil to humans as humans are evil to every other stinking species on earth. Well, except dogs, in some countries.

Anyway, sorry about all of the BS. Really, truely, my only point was that most bad guys are lame. A really good example of the difference between excessive, non-sense badness and normal badness is Darth Vader in the latest released StarWars trilogy. Vader was normal-bad until he felt the need to chop up the kids with the light saber. It didn't even come close to fitting his character up to that point. First he was just driven. He had high goals and he did what it took to reach them. That's cool. That demands respect. But chopping up innocent kids is evil. It's also incredibly pathetic. What, he was too cowardly to let them grow up and face them honorably? I thought Vader was a badass? That's just weak. See? Evil = weak and cowardly.

[Edited by - Kest on October 12, 2005 2:50:11 PM]

I have to make note here, on the Darth Vader issue. You see his actions as being weak and cowardly, and in that regard "evil". But let's look at it through your own eyes as you've described them to us thus far.

Vader knows that these certain children are going to cause him problems down the road. Being that he is "evil" in the cartoonish sort of way, or maybe as others have said "morally unrestrained" he chooses to eliminate the threat before it truly becomes a threat. The same level of "cowardly-ness" could be applied to you changing your oil. A seemingly innocent action, as you're avoiding your engine blowing up, but nonetheless, you're foreseeing a problem in your future and taking steps to avoid it.

Yes, on an ethical level, there is no comparison where I just made one, however, ethics seem to be at the very heart of this discussion. What is ethical to one, is evil to another, it's all in your perspective. So perhaps yes, you should not be doing things "for the sake of doing evil things", but however, you should be doing things that are "the correct choice for your character" but ultimately, would be considered evil by others.

Take the game "Hitman" for example, you play a hired assassin. Evil enough right? But we can rationalize it. Hitman needs to eat, hitman must work to have money to eat, hitman only knows how to kill people, therefore, Hitman's killing of others is merely a survival instinct, therefore, not evil as we already discussed Vampires earlier.

You may call it empathy, that you can relate to the bad guy and make his choices seem innocent. But to the larger, general public, the actions are still evil, thus, one must build a game wherein the player makes actions that are considered evil by the general public.

My two cents, something to chew on.

Vopisk