Poll: Do you play the Hero, or the Villain?

[Dedtoo]

It depends. I like playing the villain and taking the evil choices whenever that means something other than just being a jerk. Conquering peaceful nations, gaining lots of money through dishonest means, that sort of thing. Not killing and stealing just because.

I.E. I want to be a well written villain, not just a mass murderer.

 

[the December King]

Usually on my first playthrough, I try to be shiny-good. But, I also get really pissed when I mess moral decisions up, and get penalized for it, like in Skyrim. In those cases, my second playthrough is as dark as night, and I murder the hell out of everyone/behave badly.

 

[Zen Bard]

If a game has a "Morality" system, I'll typically play both sides of it...just to see if there's any notable difference in gameplay.

I'll start off neutral and progress down the most intuitive path in the context of the game world (which is usually the "Good" path).

The only game where I really had a burning desire to follow the "evil" path almost right off the bat was the first Fable. The townspeople were just annoyingly clueless and the majority of the heroes at the Guild were dicks.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I guess you'd say hero. In the end, I'll do the right thing. I just might not get there in the nicest way. Being chaotic stupid is kinda beyond me, or chaotic evil.

Ideally, I feel like Saints Row, or maybe GTA is a more ideal condition for me in terms of character.

Or a role similar to Stone Cold Steve Austin in wrestling, I guess. I'll gladly be more of a heel in a wrestling game and direct it towards people that screw with me, or other heels.

I'll gladly try and rob someone of something in Fallouts if they have something I want, but try to avoid killing them and them noticing, yet strive for mass peace and self governing.

 

[meiam]

Evil > good guy >>>>>>>>>>> douchebag

Playing evil when its well made is cool, you get to play as something different from the usual game. But most of the time your just an irrational douchebag and you just usually get on everybody bad side. So for example if you'd have a character who was mortally sick and you had this amazing cure who could save them in most game the evil option would be to just not give them the cure, which is just super boring. A good evil option would be to give him a fake cure that would just temporarily help him, then use him while he think he's fine until he serves his purpose then kill him in a way that won't make it so it's discovered you gave him the fake cure.

I think my favorite evil ending (which wasn't even that great) is alpha protocol where you try to stop this evil company from starting a cold war to sell weapon to everyone. At the end you can accept to work for the bad guys, just to betray him and take over the company.

 

[Flathole]

Douglas. Sometimes you need to sacrifice an orphanage in order to banish Chat'urgga from the mortal realm. Rebirth can't exist without death, new life can't begin without a death.

Also, Douglas Falcon is my personal hero/man crush/god, so I would never not play as him.


Even I can feel his power
When I think of him I see no fear...
Feeeeel no paiiin!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0lVhUF_xxE

 

[FirstNameLastName]

I tend towards more of an anti-hero who is generally "good" but not tied down by any strict moral code. The kind that lacks honor or nobility but will still help people regardless. In general, I tend to dislike the "evil" path because it usually isn't the kind of evil I would find fun. If you gave me the ability to become some kind of charismatic, tyrannical dictator then that would be fun, but "evil" in most games usually means "socially retarded douche;" the kind of person who enacts petty bouts of arseholeness where ever they go. Telling random people to go fuck themselves when they've done nothing but aid you just makes your character seem more like they're mentally ill, rather than evil.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I like playing a virtuous hero, but I'm not above a bit of sneaky or dishonest behaviour if the end result will greatly benefit others and only I can be blamed for it if someone finds out. Like the Renegade dialogues in ME, outside of a few that are really good, most make you sound like a total fuckwit. The interrupts however, are goddamn awesome.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

Depends which offers more content. As others have said, being a jerk often simply results in getting less stuff to do, since devs rarely seem to put as much effort into the "bad guy" path, as they do the "good guy path".

 

[FalloutJack]

I voted Douglas because I'm a writer. I've been down both paths.

 

[votemarvel]

I tend to default to the good guy persona when playing. Yet I confess that there are just some bad guy moves I can't resist. When in Knights of the Old Republic and you visit Cloud City you can save a woman from an attack. Every time I just can't resist making the attackers jump over the railings to their death, even though I know it will cost me a side-quest.

Sometimes it is good to be bad.

 

[Zhukov]

Hero.

I've yet to encounter a game that gave me any reason to be a bastard other than to get my sadistic rocks off by mistreating NPCs, and that's not really my thing.

Occasionally in games where I'm not taking the story stuff in the slightest bit seriously I'll choose bad guy options just for the heck of it. But for that the story has to be complete rubbish. Like, we're talking Bethesda level bad.

 

[sonicneedslovetoo]

I really like playing the antagonist, but I don't like playing the asshole. Very few games with a choice allow you to play the antagonist as they generally go for asshole.(in case it isn't obvious I'm using the Zero Punctuation definition of evil here)

I mean a truly evil person makes sense, a good villain has a plan and a goal, they don't just chuck somebody out a window for saying something wrong to them. Here lemme wind up the "if I was gonna" machine for a sec.

If I was gonna make a game with a moral choice system I would put in a lot of effort so that both solutions make sense.

Take for example Age of Wonders 3, there if you're evil you conquer towns and purge them of their native inhabitants to replace them with your own. BUT you aren't just a crazy lunatic for doing that as there are benefits to only managing one race ingame(faster racial mastery, more consistent army builds, and a synergy between your chosen class and race). And it makes equally as much sense to be the good guy because vassal cities defend themselves to an extent and generate resources and taxes for very little management.

Heck even the neutral option has some benefits to it because you can balance out your alignment and do a mix of good and evil things. So if you don't like a city or it was placed in a bad spot you can purge it and change the race provided you make up for the imbalance somewhere in the future.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

I prefer to be the Hero, and will almost all the time be heroic. The only time I've been the "villain" is in games where you're supposed to be the villain (specifically Grand Theft Auto).

However, as someone who dabbles in writing and cartooning, I know it's important to have a good villain in any medium that involves one, so I guess I could fall under the category of Heroic Douglas.