Are we the games we play?

[mondblut]

I choose whatever gives the most plusses. IRL as well. I guess I am the games I play.

 

[Mystary!]

IRL, however, going for the maximum outcome would probably be considered evil.

 

[tunguska]

What is strange about alignments is how present tense they are. Overall I would consider my basic nature to be chaotic evil. However currently I would regard myself as choatic good with some chaotic evil tendencies. But I try not to allow any of this to influence my in game choices since it kind of ruins the point of role playing if we are just playing ourselves. I do have difficulty playing a lawful character however due to my own anarchistic tendencies. While I think the aging D&D alignment system has merit, what we are basically talking about are philosophies. I kind of like the idea of being able to choose from one of many philosophies at the start of a game and maybe even switching to a new one at some point. But I guess this would be too modern for most of the game settings. Maybe the God that you follow could be used to determine what philosophy you follow. Religion is just primitive philosophy anyway.

 

[Korgan]

I'm CG in games and CN in the so-called real life, I guess. Going for the phat lewt and/or catering to your every whim without caring for other people is just as dumb in both cases - most stuff you achieve in an evil way IRL just boils down to sensory input or some advantage over others you know you don't deserve, while most games actually reward being nice with story&content if not XP&loot (all too often it's both) and offer MUCH less temptation to do the obviously immoral. Real evil can at least seem worthwhile and even noble ('Let's bomb some random arabs! We're bound to kill a terrorist sooner or later this way!). Gaming evil just sucks.

 

[Texas Red]

I immensely enjoy becoming a slaver in Den in FO 2, then selling people I travel with, killing merchants for guns and so on.

AM I A MONSTAR!?

 

[corvax]

I used to play Neutral Good characters, usually a fighter. Now I find myself leaning towards True Neutral or sometimes Neutral Evil. If someone wants to play a righteous, holier than thou, LG paladin that's cool, but IMO that's such a cop-out. Maybe that's just because I don't see things in Black and White. With regards to other games, I used to pick all the good options (mostly because the evil path was done very poorly) but not anymore. I like to do evil stuff as long as it's not stupid evil or "being a dick" evil. Loved working for the mob in Fallout, once I became powerful I double crossed the bastard...only if I could have set up my own emporium. Don't worry LG fags, I would have gone legit sooner or later...like in The Godfather .


Another thing, every time I make a character from scratch I am playing myself. I'm usually picking the traits and skills that I have in real life...granted in a game they are a bit exaggerated. It helps with the immersion. Guess this is as far as I would go, no LARPing though.

 

[Hory]

Yeah, I pretty much make the moral choices I'd make in real-life. As my beliefs changed, I went more from a LG to a true neutral. In most RPGs, I enjoy thinking and choosing how to personally act virtual situations, not pretending to be someone else and "acting" it, so I guess I'm not really role-playing.

I'm usually not comfortable with out-right evil actions (including in games). To make it worse, evil paths are usually less well developed. And if evil-doers feel good about their own actions, wouldn't you have to share a measure of their beliefs to be able to enjoy acting as such?

But this also depends on how serious you take the story/game. I have no problem running over people in GTA. It's just for gamist reasons. You could abstract it to "your car is a square" and you must hit as many moving circles (which would have been the people), and it would be the same.

 

[Morbus]

Paladins are boring and predictable. CN Rogues and Bards are way more fun to play.

I love a good well-balanced monk, that's always something Anyway... )

I usually go for very shady characters with hidden (LARP-like, most of the times, because most games suck donkey balls) motives and stuff. I very rarely go for one dimensional good or bad characters and I NEVER go for lawful anything. Being lawful in a D&D setting is like being non-macho in real life... for fucks sake, you've got the rebel dude! How'd you expect to have any luck with the ladies if you don't control?!

Also, the article sucks. Written by guys who play RPGs (and bad RPGs at that) only one or two times and always with the same kind of character? How fucking boring is that?! Mental chronic masturbation that's what they do...

Seriously, how dull can one be NOT to be able to play a game with different characters?! It's unimaginative and boring at the same time. Furthermore, it shows an inability to detach ourselves from the character we play, when we want to. Actors (and role-players) HAVE to be able to role-play... That's why I like shady characters with multiple dimensions. They work like a charm in P&P.

And if evil-doers feel good about their own actions, wouldn't you have to share a measure of their beliefs to be able to enjoy acting as such?

Thing is, most RPGs are outright bad and black-and-white-like. Stupid pieces of software made by people who don't know jack about morality and how it works. Of course you have understand (thus share) a measure of their beliefs to successfully role-play a character, either if it is good or bad or gooad and bood or whatever. The thing is, when you see evil NPCs (and evil paths for the PC) in most RPGs and games, you see stupid chaotic evil characters with no beliefs whatsoever. Very rarely do you see good evil characters that really think they are doing the right thing. Fallout has them, Arcanum has them, Vampire has them, other games have them too, that's very good, and in those games it's awesome to role-play.

Sounds a little silly: it's awesome to role-play in good role-playing games. But it's true.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Think about it - in real life you NEVER get to go back and do the 'opposite path', yet we consider that to be the pinacle of choice.

Exactly. And that is why I do not agree with you. I can not tell about you but I am often curious and often have this little annoying "what if" concerning choices I made and about to make. We are mortal, we have only one life and have to deal with choices we made. We have certain roles in society based on our "personality, upbringing, mind-control or whatever" and we usually don't stray from them too much (unless drunk, ha-ha). But imagine for a minute that you have chosen to change your personality, profession or place of abode, imagine all consequences for this decision. *What if* you have chosen another solution for your REAL-LIFE dilemma? Isn't it worth exploring?

Let's get back to our simulated C&C (tm) aka role-playing games and let's not take bad examples like good/evil. I agree with your "ironman" approach and think it's childish to reload to see "what if I choose another line?" consequences. But after you played your personality (or favourite role) in this small fantasy world, aren't you curious to try something *different* and see how it comes off?

Oh yes - but that is why I made the distinction between good/bad choices and choices about what is good. In games where there is a genuine question or dilemma, (again as an example the Deus Ex endgame choices where each is flawed but has some justification) I'll play through each. Same in the Witcher with the freedom-fighters-turned-terrorists vs part-corrupted-but-part-idealistic-paladins choices. My only problem is with deliberately choosing the opposite choice in cases where what I would want is quite clear. That's a problem specific to games where the choices revolve around a good/evil dichotomy - arguably those games are the weaker for it. Ultimately it breaks immersion for me to deliberately choose the 'wrong' answer. In games where there are multiple possibly right, possibly troubling answers, then yes I'll go through each.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Overall I would consider my basic nature to be chaotic evil based on some very evil things I did many years ago.

ORLY? What evil things were these, exactly? Let's hear it.

 

[Hory]

Overall I would consider my basic nature to be chaotic evil based on some very evil things I did many years ago.

Eh, basic nature isn't very relevant... unless you actually live in a basic, natural environment, which you don't. It seems that those things you did were the exception, not something which can describe your actual morality accurately. But, yeah, feel free to share what happened, so that there may be lulz.

 

[Fez]

Did it involve your school principle's cat?

 

[MetalCraze]

IRL, however, going for the maximum outcome would probably be considered evil.

IRL is not Bioware

 

[ushdugery]

I mention this because I'm starting to wonder if this is the case with the "average" gamer or if designers have this in mind when they're designing (reminds me of old (I'm paraphrasing here...) "implementing choices increases game assets exponentially" Gaider or where designers mention that dialogue options are pointless since most gamers are only going to play the game through once).

I think most gamers like to do everything even if it takes multiple play throughs like in dead rising and persona 3 where the "gotta catch em all" psychology comes into play, just take a look at Xbox 360 achievements and peoples obsession with them.

Also in any roleplaying situation I try to guage the situation for a character that will bring out the most fun and creativity in others and try to play that normally when in D&D this can be very caricatured as trying to play depth in those sort of environments just makes you look like someone with a fringe too far and red lines about the wrists.

 

[Zlaja]

AM I A MONSTAR!?

You're the reason why Waldo is hiding.

 

[Murk]

uhh no

that dude always plays a paladin? really?

>;(

 

[tunguska]

You can't hide from the things you've done. You can't escape from yourself. Something like that.

--- Edited because I'm such a weenie. ---

 

[Texas Red]

If any of you are really curious about what it would be like to feel that kind of guilt I would recommend the book Crime and Punshment, but also Chicago Loop by Paul Theroux. It is what Crime and Punishment should have been. A lot of people are sickened by that book, but I love it, and it describes pretty well what it feels like to actually be evil. Better than anything else I've read at least. In fact it rings so true that I have to wonder about Paul Theroux. If he ever committed some kind of crime and got away with it. I was a bit disappointed with Crime and Punishment. I did like it but Dostoevsky just didn't get it. What true guilt is really all about. It's funny because I had actually read that book before I committed my crimes and nothing really seemed amiss. It was only after I knew what it was really like that I could see it didn't ring true. And no I didn't kill any old ladies just to see if I was enough of a Nietzschean Übermensch to get away with it.

I doubt I would feel guilty about killing some old woman. Worried of getting caught? Yes. Guilty? Not likely.

 

[AlanC9]

tunguska, I wonder if Dostoevsky didn't work for you because he was a believer and you're not. Can't recall offhand what Theroux believes.

You might want to give Christianity a shot, actually. It's pretty much tailor-made for people in your situation.

 

[MaskedMan]

I feel your pain tunguska, I pirated Bloodlines too .

 

[hiver]

Well, did you hurt somebody or you just stole or destroyed something?

 

[Murk]

my guess: rape, probably involving children or a family member (worse yet, a young cousin or sibling)

...though I guess murder is more likely in the "I didn't get caught" context

 

[Azael]

Yeah, well I once shot a man in New Reno just to watch him die.

 

[Jabbapop]

snip

No need to spray piss when we asked for a cumshot!

 

[tunguska]

Humans are such curious creatures. Even when we don't know we can't resist speculating or guessing. I wish more developers would use that in their games. Like in PS:T. I guess I should at least deny the speculation about it being rape. It didn't have anything to do with sex. Can we just drop the whole thing now? Maybe get back on topic? Although I'm not exactlly sure what it is, I actually think Jabbapop has an excellent point.