Angels and Demons

[Lady Dragonfly]

In many RPGs you can choose your alignment and gather a party accordingly. And then you role-play.

I never choose an evil path if I can help it. Even in BG2 I had Edwin and Korgan in my party only temporarily (to experience their quests) though I heard people say having them in the party is hilarious.
There is no way I would abuse innocent NPCs, rob poor farmers or kill children for any reason or reward. I find it difficult to enjoy evil choices.
Most of my characters usually end up sugar-coated saintly heroes.

I wonder [color="Red"]what more fun is for you: role-playing good, evil or neutral?[/color] What is your preference?

[Monolith]

In many RPGs you can choose your alignment and gather a party accordingly. And then you role-play.

I never choose an evil path if I can help it. Even in BG2 I had Edwin and Korgan in my party only temporarily (to experience their quests) though I heard people say having them in the party is hilarious.
There is no way I would abuse innocent NPCs, rob poor farmers or kill children for any reason or reward. I find it difficult to enjoy evil choices.
Most of my characters usually end up sugar-coated saintly heroes.

I wonder [color="Red"]what more fun is for you: role-playing good, evil or neutral?[/color] What is your preference?

Personally, I don't like such dichotomies. There is no such a thing as good or evil. They are abstractions and I could live without them. But I understand that they are a powerful tool that game designers like to use (or abuse). They allow many different playthroughs for the player while they provide a comfortable way to structure the flow of the game. Not having an alignment system also gives the player many options - but it leaves out the certainty that what you do is either good or evil. And the designer has to take that into account which means: more work.

I prefer when my character is described through reputation rather than alignment. Compare Fallout 2 to Neverwinter Nights. In Fallout 2 you won't get certain quests if you are known for your good or evil deeds (which depends on the questgiver). In NWN it's your alignment. In Fallout such a thing as true evil doesn't exist. There are options, some seem to be good, others don't. And they all have consequences (and some of them are unknown to you until you finish the game). And in the end a seemingly good choice turns out to have bad consequences and the people whom you tried to help were enslaved or worse - thanks to you. You don't have that in NWN. There, your choices are more of an aestethic nature. You meet a woman in despair. You have three options:
1) Help her without demanding a reward. (good +1)
2) Help her, but demand a reward afterwards. (evil +1)
3) Demand a reward, get the cash and viciosly rip her head off. (evil +3)

The options are there, but it simply doesn't matter. Your alignment changes, the story doesn't and the gameworld doesn't react believably.

But to answer your question:
Usually I play a neutral character. Seems most real to me. People are not evil just to be evil. Sometimes I play a totally good or totally evil character just for kicks.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Yes, I like the idea of ambiguity of choices, with remote consequences of your actions. That gives a game a bit of depth and richness. An example of game featuring remote consequences is Heretic Kingdoms (The Inquisition). The game itself is average at best, but an attempt was made to avoid a conventional good/evil choice.

[DesR85]

I wonder [color="Red"]what more fun is for you: role-playing good, evil or neutral?[/color] What is your preference?

I prefer to play good. Mostly due to the reasons already mentioned by LD. But to be brutally honest, I already grow quite sick of this good/bad mechanic used in most (if not all) RPGs. I'd much prefer if RPGs take this route of asking you to accomplish a mission but how you do it is up to you (Ex: Mass Effect or Deus Ex to name a few).

[Warggoath]

In many RPGs you can choose your alignment and gather a party accordingly. And then you role-play.

I never choose an evil path if I can help it. Even in BG2 I had Edwin and Korgan in my party only temporarily (to experience their quests) though I heard people say having them in the party is hilarious.
There is no way I would abuse innocent NPCs, rob poor farmers or kill children for any reason or reward. I find it difficult to enjoy evil choices.
Most of my characters usually end up sugar-coated saintly heroes.

I wonder [color="Red"]what more fun is for you: role-playing good, evil or neutral?[/color] What is your preference?

evil all the way...

[Faendalimas]

How can you fully enjoy one without trying the other me thinks... I will speak mostly from my experience with the Persistent World I was Lead Builder for as I have spent the best part of 5 years designing that game so I guess its at the forefront of my mind now. Our scripting team included original scripters of NWN and also people who worked for other companies so we all had a very good idea on the game mechanics of reputation and alignment. Note also that the setting, Menzoberranzan, is a drow city and hence very evil in nature.

I will play either, my personal preference even in my Menzoberranzan characters is for Chaotic Neutral because of the high degree of difficulty and the intricacies of obtaining balance through chaos.

However, I enjoy evil characters because I like to explore all the possibilities of forming underworlds, using and abusing others, even when evil I rarely murder, the only exception to this was my Assassin who was what he was called, but he only murdered for profit and gain, never for personal satisfaction.

I guess though I am used to the D&D ruleset and have grown accustomed to it and enjoy it. I don't mind a reputation system but in the end is it really that different.

I agree that in NWN the good/evil was very watered down hence when we built Menzo we nerfed that and put in our own rulesets. Menzo being high on roleplay meant that making your characters act as they should according to their class and alignment, as well as race, meant a lot if you wanted to advance so it could get very heavy on the rp side of things, which meant some characters were very evil. It was not a place for the faint hearted and particularly not a good place for a paladin.

I think as long as all remember it is a game a bit of rp fantasy, no harm can come of it. Hence we would go all out and be very cruel whilst in character. Before anyone questions we had very strict rules on how people treated each other ie no one was to mistreat another person, people playing them and their characters were kept separate at all times.

I find most people misrepresent "evil" in these games. This is even stated in the D&D DM Guide if any wish to read it I am certainly not being original here, evil characters are not insane, backstabbing murderers who kill for kicks. That is an insane person not an evil person. A truly evil person accomplishes their goals no matter what and they don't care how they achieve it, but they do so from a position of personal safety. That is they are the planners of schemes and the ones running underground operations. They pay others to do the dirty work.

Unfortunately many of these games such as BG or NWN do not have main plot lines that can truly be played out in an evil way, about the best you can really get to is chaotic neutral. You can try to be evil but you end up having to repeatedly perform rather stupid acts to repair the damage to your alignment from completing quests, eg find an innocent child to kill in cold blood. I am hoping eventually to have an answer for that one as I am currently rebuilding BG1 and 2 in the NWN2 toolset and plan on making an evil path in it. I combined the two games into one in the past in the infinity engine and later into the NWN1 toolset, am about 1/3 through converting it again now. But its a work in progress and will take a while.

So to answer directly to the original poster I play evil characters yet I will not kill an innocent child either, I will not rob innocent farmers, but I will happily rob government buildings and if someone is in my way well they need to be removed, but then if they are in my way they are not innocent are they. Your ideal of evil is actually the idea of a psychopath and thats not evil. These games may be fantasy but the concepts of evil and good are the same in fantasy as they are in the real world. I am not going to list real world equivalents but look to the news you will soon find examples of good, evil and insanity. Insanity and Evil are not the same thing.

Cheers, Faen

[Lady Dragonfly]

I find most people misrepresent "evil" in these games. This is even stated in the D&D DM Guide if any wish to read it I am certainly not being original here, evil characters are not insane, backstabbing murderers who kill for kicks. That is an insane person not an evil person. A truly evil person accomplishes their goals no matter what and they don't care how they achieve it, but they do so from a position of personal safety. That is they are the planners of schemes and the ones running underground operations. They pay others to do the dirty work.

So, how do you rate the "others" who do the dirty job?
I am curious, since you mention BG, how would you rate Irenicus and Bodhi?

[dragon wench]

In many RPGs you can choose your alignment and gather a party accordingly. And then you role-play.

I never choose an evil path if I can help it. Even in BG2 I had Edwin and Korgan in my party only temporarily (to experience their quests) though I heard people say having them in the party is hilarious.
There is no way I would abuse innocent NPCs, rob poor farmers or kill children for any reason or reward. I find it difficult to enjoy evil choices.
Most of my characters usually end up sugar-coated saintly heroes.

I wonder [color="Red"]what more fun is for you: role-playing good, evil or neutral?[/color] What is your preference?

I find I'm totally incapable of playing "evil" characters. I mean, I just can't do it. I won't kill unless I'm provoked into doing so. As an example, even when I play Morrowind I won't join the Assassin's Guild, even though they are actually quite honorable in their way.

However, in BG/BG2 I will play a chaotic good thief who steals only from the rich..

Yet... I refuse to play Lawful Good characters, I'm just as incapable of doing that.

Going by the standard D&D definitions I'll generally play somewhere in the "chaotic good" or "neutral good" range. Sometimes I'll also play "neutral."
Basically, I don't like the extremes, and I feel that throwing chaos or neutrality into the mix makes things more realistic.
I suppose that if these very artificial definitions could even be applied to real life, I'd most likely be "chaotic good." I try to avoid causing harm whenever possible, but I have my own moral compass, and it's not exactly the most conventional in nature.

[DesR85]

How can you fully enjoy one without trying the other me thinks...

Not everybody is a fan of replays, including me. Once I've finished a game, it's a done deal. I can't be bothered to replay a game, including those that are very long. These are my reasons:

1) As what Ken Levine of Bioshock mentioned, "Why should I replay a game when I know the story, the plot and the outcome?" It isn't accurate but that's what I recall him saying in one of the interviews.

2) It gets boring after playing the same game over and over again, hence the reason why I never liked the idea of replaying the game.

3) If a game takes a very long time to complete, why should I replay it again? To me, it is a drag to start all the way at ground zero and work my way to the end again.

[Faendalimas]

So, how do you rate the "others" who do the dirty job?
I am curious, since you mention BG, how would you rate Irenicus and Bodhi?

As NPC's they are not effected by their actions etc hence are in a different boat really to the player character. However, thats not really a fair answer to your question. I would consider Irenicus evil but with a bit of a pychotic twist, in that he believes himself so above everyone else he thinks he can get away with anything. Bohdi is fanatical about the power her vampiric curse has put on her, so again a bit psychotic in nature rather than just evil. Of course for the PC Bohdi offers one of the few opportunities for the player to make some truly evil decisions depending how you deal with her.

To DesR85:
To each their own your reasons are fair enough and I can see your point, some people like to play through them more times to get a different outcome along the way. Some of these games are not just about beating the final boss but the journey to it, and this path can be achieved in numerous ways. I did say at the outset that I was referring mostly to my background in Persistent Worlds (PW's) and hence was referring to games that dont really have an end but are more a series of adventures.

Cheers, Faen

[Lady Dragonfly]

DW

Basically, I don't like the extremes, and I feel that throwing chaos or neutrality into the mix makes things more realistic.

I also don't like extremes. I usually start as a neutral good character (because that is my own alignment ) and go from there, making choices I find more suitable. Playing evil is not fun for me. Any evil choice gives me anxiety. I like playing a rogue (usually a male, a neutral good pragmatic charmer), because this is the most versatile character IMO, but I never allot any points into Pickpocket skill. Looks like we have a similar taste...

Faendalimas

I find most people misrepresent "evil" in these games.

Please note that I am not saying that somebody else should not enjoy the evil path in a game. It is just a game, after all.
(Maybe people who prefer to play evil characters release their suppressed emotions this way, I don't know. )
I am not sure people really "misrepresent" evil in D&D. Chaotic evil is rather bad and will kill for pleasure.

I’ve found this colorful description of Chaotic Evil on-line:

[color="Red"][SIZE="3"]Chaotic Evil[/size][/color]

These characters are the bane of all that is good and organized. Chaotic evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. They see absolutley nothing wrong with taking whatever they want by whatever means possible. Laws and governments are the tools of weaklings unable to fend for themselves. The strong have the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited. When chaotic evil characters band together, they are not motivated by a desire to cooperate, but rather to oppose powerful enemies. Such a group can be held together only by a strong leader capable of bullying his underlings into obedience. Since leadership is based on raw power, a leader is likely to be replaced at the first sign of weakness by anyone who can take his position away from him by any method. Bloodthirsty buccaneers and monsters of low intelligence are fine examples of chaotic evil personalities.

1. Rarely keeps his word. Has no honor.
2. Lies and cheats anyone.
3. Most certainly attacks and kills an unarmed foe (those are the best kind!).
4. Will hurt and/or kill an innocent without a second thought. (Or for pleasure).
5. Uses torture to extract information and pleasure.
6. Will kill for sheer pleasure.
7. Is likely to help someone only on a whim.
8. Despises honor and authority and self-discipline. Views them as weaknesses.
9. Does not work well in a group. Constantly vying for power and/or command.
10. Will always take dirty money, etc.
11. Will betray a friend. After all, you can always get another friend.
12. Associates mostly with other evil alignments.

[Kree]

I find most game mechanics on the matter to be quite tedious and virtually useless... In most RPG's il just pick who I want in my team (First run through BG2 I had Korgan, Edwin, Minsc, Keldorn and Valgyar)

Just like chopping and changing

Personally, I only have liked Arcanum's game mechanics on the matter, as the deeper you got, the more it changed EVERYTHING.... Sometimes you couldn't walk down the street without being attacked, different people wont even talk to you let alone join you, and other such cases... It also had a viable evil, good and neutral ending which were ALL different and ALL could be done in different ways...

SPOILER
[SPOILER]For example, To get to the Void, if good you would join Nasrudin, if evil, you would join Kan'Hua which is only possible after wiping out a WHOLE TOWN. Then you could play chaotic evil and just kill either Nasrudin or Kan' Hua who would then send you straight to the Void lol... So many options

Join Cedric Appleby and steal Bates book, or work for Bates to find the Wheel Clan.... Totally up to you

Then you could persuade Kerghan, to be good or to piss off, you could join him you could kill him[/SPOILER]

I absolutely loved it

And then to compound it they also had the tech/magic comparison ratio which was also done well

In comparison BG 2 didnt really even let you be evil SPOILER([color="Black"]Sure you could join Bodhi but you had to kill her eventually[/color])

Most of the time anyway, I would run through how I want initially then I would pick a pathway (most often good then evil). On the initial run through its normally to get the most out of the game (ie best items, weapons, most money)

If I truly loved the game, I wtry every possible way. TOEE was also interesting in this case as you could only create a part with similar alignment.

[9threaver]

sometimes i do both good and evil depending on if you actually get bonuses. mostly evil though dont know why but i enjoy it :mischief: