I.... can't bring myself to play evil?

[Ml33tninja]

For me it would have to be Pure Good/Evil characters. By Sword Coast standards I would see myself as a Chaotic Good or Lawful Neutral and that is how I mostly play. I mostly like hybrid classes but mostly rouges and fighter/mage in RPGs. I like to be in the action, fighting along side my people.

I do not pull evil acts unless it is 1) something I can get away with 2) gets me something worth the acts(money or unique item. 3) or person I am talking to pisses me off. I treat people I like with respect but no one is walking on me without paying the price.

One of the reasons I love Arcanum(my favorite CRPG) so much is there is less good/evil and more just what is more acceptable for you. Very gray world.

 

[Headsprouter]

I don't do evil much, either. However, I'll dip my toes in every so often if the reward is good, unlike in New Vegas where being evil grants you no extra reward and thus you are being a dick purely for the sake of being a dick. Which I find completely pointless. I don't even enjoy saving and then rampaging...that's just called getting bored to me.

In a game where evil is done well, it will grant you a different/better reward at the cost of maybe an npc or two. Evil should always have a motive.

 

[Auron225]

I suck at evil too. The difference for me is the difference between games with morality & consequences like Bethesda games or Mass Effect, and stuff like Grand Theft Auto where running over people and gunning them down for no reason has no consequence.

If I screw over someone, I don't want to hear about how their life is ruined or their family hate me - which is why I always aim for Paragon in stuff where decisions matter. I aim to please.

However in Grand Theft Auto, I may as well be running over mannikins. It changes nothing about these infinitely-numbered nameless figures and so I will happily blow them up just to see how far I can make them fly.

 

[SecondPrize]

I can never play evil either. I just can't do it, doesn't even matter if it's a rpg or not, I never even killed a little sister in bioshock to see what would happen. There is one exception, however. I am a ruthless bastard in FTL, I show no mercy if killing would benefit me more, I accept all quests and then take the downpayment and only fulfill the agreement if it's convenient. I'm pretty much the opposite while playing FTL than I am in any other game.

 

[Alcamonic]

I have trouble playing as an evil character. Mainly because I feel like I miss out on quests and rewards if I don't play Mcnoble. Sadly, my beliefs are well grounded as well because "evil" setting is usually "Kill this quest giving character and then fuck off forever", thanks Bethesda.

That's not to say I don't mind playing a bit cruel at times (thanks Fallout 2, you're wonderful), but just kill characters left and right "because it's evil!" is something I mostly skip.

 

[Alfred Chicken]

I have never been able to play evil in a game either and it used to puzzle me. I've come to the conclusion that I have an excess of empathy that extends even to lines of computer code. I'm one of those people who feels personally responsible for every homeless person and I just can't do bad things to computer characters because I start to think about how I would feel in their place. It's very annoying because it means that I get no replay value out of games!!!

 

[SirDoom]

I quite enjoy playing evil characters from time to time. Granted, it's usually more of the sarcastic "generally-evil" than the crazy baby-eating type. It's all about roleplaying, and I can certainly roleplay the "self-centered, ignore everyone else, kill those who get in my way" kind of evil. Generally though, my first playthrough is the "nice, but with a breaking point" kind of character.


I really can't stand playing bland support characters though. Doesn't matter what the game is (although it's less of an issue in single player games). I used to get stuck as the tank who could take a ton of damage but couldn't put out enough to kill any enemy without assistance, or the cleric whose offensive capabilities stop at "heal myself repeatedly until the rest of the party kills what's attacking me". The character I'm playing has to be able to take care it himself, with no help from the party whatsoever. Walking around swinging my axe/casting spells at things is fun. Walking around being a damage sponge or heal-bot isn't.

There's a difference between being a boring damage-sponge and a defensive fighter that can put out a good bit of damage, of course. I kind of like the latter. But I'd rather not play the game at all than be forced into the first category.

 

[thehermit2]

Good and evil in video games is kind of a joke. They are story telling options that show what the creators think you would think is good and evil. I usually get the same impression for moral choice systems in games that I do from time travel fiction; that the writers are being lazy and are not earning the story they are telling.

That being said, I, too, usually go for the good ending. I might take a peak at what happens when you take a step down the bad route just to see what the creators' impression of "evil" is, but I usually reload from before that happened and play the rest of the game on the light side.

If you are looking to take a walk on the dark side, there are a few games that are all bad. The Thief series comes immediately to mind, especially Thief 2 if you can put up with the outdated graphics, because the games have you playing as an amoral thief in a world of amoral people, all of whom (if you bother to read the notes scattered around) are doing something bad. But as far as selling the evil side, do it or don't, see what it is like or don't, and I'll recommend the bad end when I see a game that has a much better bad end than a good one.

 

[aozgolo]

If you are looking to take a walk on the dark side, there are a few games that are all bad. The Thief series comes immediately to mind, especially Thief 2 if you can put up with the outdated graphics, because the games have you playing as an amoral thief in a world of amoral people, all of whom (if you bother to read the notes scattered around) are doing something bad. But as far as selling the evil side, do it or don't, see what it is like or don't, and I'll recommend the bad end when I see a game that has a much better bad end than a good one.

This also is an issue that tended to bother me in some games with a moral choice, how the "bad guy" ending was also a "bad" ending, just because you chose an evil path, you ended up with a much worse ending (for you) in the long run. Ogre Battle being perhaps the worst as if you get the lowest alignment ending, you get backstabbed and killed.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I guess it just bothers me in some games that I can't play evil, like in Skyrim, I really really want to be a good guy, but I can't morally justify for that character why he would do some of these daedric quests or join the Dark Brotherhood (which I've never done yet in Skyrim or Oblivion) and the completionist in me is really wanting to experience those, but I feel if I play evil in that game that I have to pass up like 75% of the other quests because they involve helping other people, and the only "evil" option for doing most of those quests is "I'll do it... for a reward", and in my mind a truly evil person wouldn't bother with helping anyone, even for a reward, they'd just take their "dues". Though I guess I could play a two-faced type of person who just "nicely manipulates" others to move them like pawns right where I want them but in some cases that could be a bit of a stretch.

I guess if I'm evil I want to be the chaotic kind, the one that just disrupts and causes mayhem and chaos everywhere, but most games only allow the more diplomatic or "lawful" kind of evil that involves being snide and conniving while twirling your mustache thinking up new ways to game the system.

I do see what you mean re: Elder Scrolls & open world type games like them. I usually separate my "dark side" character from my "standard" character in those games - and I keep one game that pretty much does everything regardless - kinda a test character for future DLC / see all the game run type. You do lose some content if you're trying to internally role-play. For instance, my dark side Skyrim character has no dragons in the game - she just never bothered to head on over the the Jarl of Whiterun because she came to Skyrim to find out what was wrong with and bail out the Thieves Guild, then she became an assassin because? why not? It's not that she doesn't help people - heck, killing people for other people is a form of helping according to a totally amoral type of viewpoint - and she's a really sweet person in general, but she's a criminal - that's her bag. She's blessed, she's good at it, she's got all the skills for it, and who doesn't enjoy getting rich and throwing your wealth around Skyrim to flaunt your guild's new success? No dragons though. Not a one since that freak accident at her almost-beheading. /shrug. I just don't see her caring very much about it with all else she's busy with, so yeah that's content I don't play her through and it's the main quest. But I've played the main quest on all my standard characters, so it isn't like I've missed out on content as a player.

Dragon Age type stuff is a little trickier, because we all have our canon character and the parameters of the game both show more reactivity of your "mood trend" shall we call it and have - simultaneously, though it seems it shouldn't be so - fewer avenues to pursue that mood that are pre-constructed and thus feel somewhat more restrictive. It's pretty easy to take a sudden left, in other words, towards a persona you weren't intending or trends too far away from what you were intending over time. Then again, after you've played the game through a sufficient number of times (or done some internet research to supply the information of outcomes) you can fully manipulate the entirety of the game through actions/inaction and dialog choices towards your desired results, chosen from a list of all possible results which are clearly defined. Ditto Mass Effect.

Again though, you're not missing out on content if you play all of it over all your characters. You might have an intentional limited experience (one way or the other) by going good or bad fully with one character, but that's by your own choosing of course, and you have other character plays to experience anything you are missing.

Unless you can't play evil. I can't either. I usually only get as dark as "chaotic neutral" personally. I'm okay with that.

 

[EyeReaper]

Yup, I can't anymore either. Recently when I played Infamous, I decided I would do an all evil run, then an all good one, I chose the evil route first because the unique powers seemed cool... I never finished it. Same reason why I can't play reneShepard, at least not in ME3. In the other two it was more like a good guy who didn't have boundaries, but in three he was a dick, dicking around and insulting people for no real reason.

also, I don't like playing either snipers or trap-layers, not my style, not to say I can't though

On a slightly different note, I can't stand playing with a keyboard and mouse. I just can't flow with it. Even on my computer, I only have 2 games that use this style, Vampire: tM:B and Osu! I needs me some joysticks and d-pads.

 

[Zen Bard]

In most of the Bethesda type RPGs ("Fallout", "Elder Scrolls", etc), I like to play as an Anti-Hero type character akin to Clint Eastwood's "The Man With No Name" character.

So I'll do what's necessary for the greater good, but am pretty opportunistic when it comes to individual quests; some people I'll help...some I won't. Depends on what's in it for me.

In games with fairly binary Good/Evil mechanics ("Fable", Bioware Games, etc), I'll usually do one play-through as each, just to see if there's any difference.

But I rarely find the philosophical concepts well represented in video games.

Evil, to me, is being completely self-serving with no regard for others. Thus, it requires less effort in the short term but has greater long term consequences. Good, however, might require a little more work up front, but offers greater benefits down the road.

The only game that seemed to capture this well was "Jade Empire", where playing "The Way of the Closed Fist" is easier earlier on in the game, but has very noticeable consequences later.

As far as character type I can't play...

Thieves. Can't do thief or stealth-class characters. I simply don't have the patience for all that sneaking and waiting. Would much rather "run up and hit things" (as Yahtzee would say)!

 

[Cecilo]

I can't stand playing evil in games like Dragon Age: Origins as well. Especially since at one point you doom an Arl, and if you have your healer and Leliana in your party at the time. You.. kill two of the party members, for no good reason. Besides.. what. Avoiding a somewhat difficult boss fight, and getting a specialization class?

Especially in games like Mass Effect, where I am not.. you know efficient evil, no. More often than not, it is moustache twirling evil. Shoot someone in the back just because, though some of the QTE Renegade options were actually useful. Like the Krogan speech in ME2.

 

[babinro]

I have no problem playing something outside of my comfort level.
It's part of the escapist fantasy for me.
I play games to get away from reality.

If I play a game as myself it's often not until a second or third playthrough with very few exceptions. About the only one that comes to mind right now is The Walking Dead: Season One because the protagonist didn't feel extraordinary in any way. It was very easy and natural to put myself in his shoes and imagine I was in that situation.

 

[Grach]

I mostly play Paragon in Mass Effect, because I just like the characters way too much to actually bring myself to do evil. It makes my Shepard way too boring in my opinion, but I sometimes take the renegade interrupts when I'm dealing with assholes.

In Fable though, I play a weird, chaotic neutral style hero. Because I like kind of roleplaying a sociopath hero who saves people but murders random people when out questing. I was amused when I found that I was leaning towards the good side.

 

[Racecarlock]

It's such a strange notion, there's tons of RPGs out there that let you choose to go down an evil path at least to some degree, and I've been playing them for awhile.

Baldur's Gate
Dragon Age
Mass Effect
The Elder Scrolls

The only exception I can think of would be in Fable where I randomly decide during the arena to kill Whisper and suddenly change to an evil megalomaniacal... landlord who owns all of Oakvale.

I don't really understand why I have this problem, I've certainly never had issue roleplaying before. I have no moral compunctions preventing me, I've been an honest thief, or even a noble assassin; though in 3 different Elder Scrolls games I've put hundreds of hours into I've never joined any of the assassin guilds.

I've taken to playing Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition lately, and I wonder to myself if this is where it all began. I recall playing openly evil characters who while openly patronizing on other's misfortunes would instantly find himself in a world full of super powered flaming fist mercenaries should I decide one silly little innkeeper needed to die.

Maybe I just have this idea in my head that I won't fully get to enjoy as much of the game if I go evil? I can be a snarky little petty thieving kind of evil, but like they said in Tropic Thunder: "Never go full evil".

So here I am, this poor sorry paragon for good, crying desperately for help. I call out to you evil overlords and dark cultists, please teach me your ways, help me become evil and enjoy it long enough to finish one playthrough!

Share your thoughts with me, is there any kind of character you simply can't bring yourself to play?

You don't have to be an evil ************ in a game just to have a good time. Is batman evil? No, but it's still fun being him in arkham city. What about dragonborn? Is he inherently evil? No, but you can still have fun killing any bandit or animal that dares cross you.

So you don't want to be evil. I don't know who you have talked to in the past, but they're an ass for making you think like this. And I say that even if it does turn out to be me.

 

[Saulkar]

When given the choice I cannot bring myself to play anything resembling a militant and/or fascist character. It is just one of those many things I just cannot force myself to do. Furthermore if I play as and evil character I must always have certain benevolent characteristics or refrain from certain transgressions.