Just read Gavriel Kay''s book "Tigana" . There is one guy there who seems cruel and evil and to the heroes of the book he is. but the sister of one of them became one of his lovers to have an opportunity to kill him. But she fell in love with him and he with her. He shows his real self to her and the plot really turns the "good-evil" terms upside down. This guy wasn''t really bad, neither good. Nor the heroes were exactly good, they just wanted to free their homeland. And another guy is evil, just because he wants to become an emperor and he is ruthless to this path... Just read the book. You won''t be able to decide who is good ot evil...

All,

One way to consider good and evil is that pure good and pure evil are philosophical absolutes. Let us say that one who is purely good never considers his own desires when taking an action, only that which is best and most fair for everyone (except him). This may not be your definition of good, but it makes for a working model. We can all agree that to act in this way requires tremendous self-denial and effort, and very few people can even approach this level of good.

Then let us consider the philosophy of pure evil. A purely evil person, let us propose, is one who always acts in the way which brings the most suffering upon the most people. Note that this restricts one''s actions and is in fact quite difficult: one must save people''s lives, for instance, so that their suffering can be prolonged. One may even die in the service of philosophical evil. Now this is quite different from the evil we are accustomed to. Normal evil acts benefit the doer at the expense of another. The point of normal evil is to make your life easier, by the most convenient means. So philosophical evil is an entirely different worldview than normal evil...

I''m not sure quite how this ties in to game design, but I''ve been ruminating on it for a while and I thought this was a good opportunity to throw it out. Perhaps a conflict between philosophical and practical evil would make for a more interesting story/game than one between evil and good.

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

I think good and evil depends on the current situation.
You may be good at one stage and the other guy evil but then the situation changes and its the opposite way around.

So in my opinion good and evil are situation dependant.


BTW: In the grand theft auto games you are "the bad guy", but thats only because you are breaking laws and the police force are against you.
In gta3 theres a cool storyline and the bad guys in it are more or less the same as you and the other "good guys"

Edited by - TeraByte on January 18, 2002 6:38:52 PM

Why not replace good vs evil with hero vs world or outcast vs people or something that doesn''t necessarily revolve around good and evil?
I think that was what the original post was about.
How about a game where you can act as the one on the outside of society. Everyone hates you or is otherwise scared of you. You don''t necessarily have to be good or evil. Just different from the norm.
I suppose in a sense someone could say that in the world''s eyes, you are evil. But why not just be mysterious and so people fear you for that? And the purpose of the game could be anything from saving everyone, even if it means no one thanks you, to being the mysterious murderer in the streets that is always in the news. Hitman 2-like, but a little different.
Where do you live? Where is your main hangout? Does anyone befriend you? How secretive are your actions?

What about a situational story, like the submarine game thread I am sure many of you have seen already? One of the last posts I saw was this:
What happens if the children, while stuck in the submarine, come out after a few years, all trained for war and such, only to find that the world is a more peaceful place to be? All their hate, all their anxiety, all their distrust, are now all useless.
Well, now what would the game be like? Sounds innovative to me, and I wish luck to the guy making that game, but there are so many paths to take with this. An RPG without fighting but with discovery? Gaining experience by actually gaining experience living instead of killing?

One idea I had: the player is still your average hero, a warrior at heart, loving his blade and always seeking danger and fight.

Yet one day after returning from a troublesome quest in a strange land, he returns home to find all the world disgustingly peacefull. He tries to fight evil, only to find evil smiling back at him and saying ''I don''t want to fight you, we should better be friends''. He creates a fighting school to keep the young ready for the times when the nearby kingdom will attack them, only to find out that every other month there''s a huge fair where people from both kingdoms go each year to strengthen their friendship and party together.

Disgusted and disgruntled, ignored or frowned upon by everyone for his rude manners he does the only thing left to do: set off to take over the world.

I like the idea about philosophical evil and practical evil. I think you can define most people as being a mixture of varying amounts of Philosphical Good and Practical Evil, yet no-one comes to mind who would be classed as Philosophical Evil.

Even the likes of Hitler you would consider as Practical Evil, as opposed to Philosophical Evil. I can''t think of any examples at all. A game forcing the player (if he was a stereotypical good player or such) to choose between having the assistance of one evil to damage the other would be interesting.

Of course there''s also the consideration of groups. The village of a hero that is under threat for example, might have many good individual members, but when it comes to a choice beteen violence and intimidation of others, and the survival of the village, perhaps the vilage would be more likely to choose the the Practical Evil route (everything for it''s own benefit) as opposed to sacrificing itself for the benfit of others (e.g the invading hordes - they would definately benefit from having all the gold/possesions/slaves from the village, even if it''s not going to be used for ''good'' purposes).

I suppose it kind of comes round to the old socialist v conservative question - do you want the best for society as a whole, or the best for you and your family. When I finally get round to making an RPG, it''s main focus is going to be this kind of thing.

Evil seems to fit well with humor. I remember the little ''interludes'' between kingdoms in DK - some voice telling about the miserably ''cheerful'' lives the peasants in your next destination are leading. And that whole ''Disgruntled RPG-hero takes over world'' thing kinda fits this too.

One thing I am a little sick of, though, is things like the backstory for Diabolo II. What is it... something like the hero from the previous game ''plunged the crystal into his head'' and suddenly became evil. Bleuch. Still, I guess it''s better than the ''you thought you had killed him, but NO, he is now returned.''

Superpig
- saving pigs from untimely fates
- sleeps in a ham-mock at www.thebinaryrefinery.cjb.net

Has anyone here played Fallout II?
It has exactly the elements I''d like to see more of. The adventure starts as a typical linear RPG story; You set out to save your village from draught 100''s of years after a nuclear fallout by finding a water purifier chip for your fallout shelter (I can''t remember the plot clearly) but as the game progresses, you are faced with alot of different choices.
The main theme of "saving your homeworld" becomes irrelevant (they''re screwed anyways :-) and things come to be a matter of survival and self advantage.
As you wander across the deserted land you gain a reputation for being either a good or a bad guy. Everything you do makes an impact on how "other" NPC''s look at you. For example, you can take part in slave runs, get into gang wars, steal and do all sorts of bad things for a quick profit. A lot of people would hate you for this, and you can make a whole town hostile towards you this way, and your reputation may even spread further. But you also gain respect from other bad guys who might even offer you a place in their gang. You could have taken out those slavers and set the slaves free and make friends who offer instead other choices. It''s even possible to join some strange cults to twist things further.

The game it self, is also full of evil. You can get hooked on drugs or get tangled with the mafia. You can act in pornographic films (must be female to do this), which has yet more strange effects as you get a "star like" reputation, but also known as being a total slut! The way all this works together (your alignment and other properties vs. game missions/possibilities) makes the game more non-linear than anything else I''ve played.

This doesn''t just create a good vs. bad guy situation but a mix of all sorts of properties.

As a matter of fact, I''m thinking of starting playing it again right now!

Palli

Dungeon keeper
Dungeon Keeper 2
Legacy of Kain Blood Omen
Black and white CAN be...
there is a lot of evil vs. evil, good vs. good, evil vs. good games out there...some are hidden (not popular)

i recommend getting Dungeon keeper 1 and 2 if you want to satisfy your craving, very fun games...pretty funny too.

I think someone needs to make a game where there actually is no purely "good" or "evil" characters. Instead therein would lie a philosophical conflict. The character would have the choice to join either side of a conflict, both sides would have valid reasons for the player to join.