Some thoughts on good and evil

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: BioWare; Dragon Age

Slow day, huh? I was browsing through the <a href=http://cgi.nwvault.ign.com/dragonage/>Dragon Age forum highlights</a> at <b>NWN Vault</b>, and noticed <b>Stan Woo</b>, <a href=http://www.bioware.com/>Bioware QA ninja</a> (hope he stays there), talking about things like good and evil in games. So, I figured I can twist his words out of context, and we can have a nice discussion and/or a flame war:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>...without defined "good" and "evil," the casual gamer is lost in a sea of ambiguity. In epic storytelling, which in my opinion is something BioWare does rather well, there is no sorta-good or kinda-evil. Good is usually "the epitome of good" and evil is "the archetypal evil," since epic tales revolve around archetypal characters and themes. It's to give the player something familiar to react to.
<br>
<br>
It's the same reason why sitcom characters tend to overreact to situations--to garner the desired reaction. The avatars that players choose to adventure with are usually idealized versions of themselves, with all of their desired strengths and none of their perceived weaknesses.
<br>
<br>
Having a subtle or un-obvious "good" or "evil" does not necessarily make a good game, since the percentage of gamers willing to "think" or consider philosophy or metaphysics in-game is quite small. It's one of the reasons that Planescape: Torment, despite its gripping story and wonderfully flawed characters and unusual setting, wasn't a commercial success. By all accounts, most hardcore gamers loved it and to this day tout it as an example of great storytelling and great gaming. The vast majority of gamers, however, will be drawn to games with far less complexity to their stories, such as Diablo and Halo, and both of those had a definite "good" and "evil."
<br>
<br>
I, like many posters in this thread, am a hardcore gamer who has been playing role-playing games since before they were 2D and grid-based. I've played games where one needed to take copious notes and hand-draw their own maps. On the other hand, I've also played games where the player was led by the nose and everything was automated. While I know which kind of game and gameplay I'd prefer, I can't say that one kind is inherently or objectively "better" than any other.
<br>
...
<br>
KotOR had a great mix of epic storytelling, adventure, difficult decisions, plot twists and plain ol' hack-and-slash. Neverwinter had a much grander scope, maybe not in terms of story but in the size of the world. Good was gooder, evil was eviler, hack-and-slash was hack-and-slasher and epic storytelling was far more highly epicker. Jade Empire promises to have many of those elements as well, but more actioner and Empirer.
<br>
<br>
In terms of epic storytelling, there has to be a recognizable good vs. evil, otherwise we get ambiguous characters and spend more time on neutrality than good old-fashioned Black Bart versus the sheriff.
<br>
<br>
Personally, I enjoy having recognizable good vs. evil. Anything less and players will rely on their own definitions, and developers will never be able to satisfy everyone's idea of sorta-good or maybe-evil (as we have seen elsewhere in this and the previous thread).</blockquote>
<br>
Yeah, God forbid players would have to rely on their own definitions or interpret events. They must be told and explained beyond the reasonable doubts who's good and who's bad. I guess we'd see more of lines like: "Arrghh! I'm very, very evil! I must destroy everything! Mwahahaha! Are you bad enough dude (but in a very good way) to stop me?!"
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

 

[Spazmo]

"Having a subtle or un-obvious "good" or "evil" does not necessarily make a good game, since the percentage of gamers willing to "think" or consider philosophy or metaphysics in-game is quite small. It's one of the reasons that Planescape: Torment, despite its gripping story and wonderfully flawed characters and unusual setting, wasn't a commercial success."

This seriously cracks me up. Can you imagine some a pair of random customers at an Electronics Boutique someplace coming across a PST box?

Guy 1: Hey, this box has a big blue guy on the cover! Sounds cool.
Guy 2: Naw, man, I hear this game forces you to "think" or consider philosophy or metaphysics in-game! It totally sucks.

I'm not saying that some people weren't turned off by some of the ideas in PST (though I also think this BioWare guy is vastly overestimating the profundity and complexity of PST), but it's not like it listed "Ability to consider non-linear thought constructs" as a system requirement or something.

And in any case, people respond to anti-heroes and even outright villains quite well. The Max Payne games don't exactly present Payne as a paragon of virtue and they're quite popular. Han Solo is a scruffy looking rogue and people love him, moreso than the persistently goody two shoes Luke. And hey, everyone loves Megatron. Basically, it's not the ambiguosity of morality in your game that people will be scared off by, it's the gameplay. If PST didn't sell too hot, it's because it developed a reputation as a really wordy game.

 

[dojoteef]

If PST didn't sell too hot, it's because it developed a reputation as a really wordy game.

That's my belief. Most people want a faster paced game than PS:T was. In fact when I first played it I stopped about 3 hours in because I couldn't get over how much dialog there was. When I came back to the game and played it all the way through, I found that it was one of the best games I had ever played, go figure.

As for the good vs. evil question, I think he does have a valid point. Entertainment media that has well defined good and evil tends to do better financially (at least that's the way it seems to me, I haven't conducted a study or anything). All he's saying is Bioware is looking out for their pocket book, understandable though maybe not commendable. You can still make a great game despite the fact that it has more definite boundaries between good and evil, it's not something that's mutually exclusive.

I prefer more the ambiguous type characters, because it feels more real. No one is all good or all bad. It just doesn't make sense. Many stories tend to idealize these characteristics, I don't relate with them very well. It can be fun on occassion to imagine the black and white with good overcoming evil, it can be inspiring at times, it's just I'd rather not have most stories be of that type.

 

[suibhne]

He may be good at QA, but his examples of Diablo and Halo are barely correlative at best; Halo 2 is on track to be even more popular than the first one, for example, but it up-ends the good-evil equation from the first one. Anyway, to claim that people liked Halo because of its clear demarcation between good and evil is just plain silly.

I do have to admit, though, that I tend to get frustrated by some games which try to cultivate moral ambiguity, because they often don't pull it off very well. Case in point is Deus Ex: Invisible War, which basically ended by making all of the factions equally unpalatable; moral ambiguity, in the end, meant that everyone sucked. The Omar ending was most satisfying only because it gave you an opportunity to off all the others.

And even in good vs. evil mechanics, evil needs a complex and interesting motivation - a compelling backstory.

 

[Gromnir]

ever see those, "there are only 24 stories," lists? they is bull... but if you reduce far 'nuff you will always end up with the same basic plot structure of good stories. you got a character with a goal who must overcome obstacles real, or imagined, and in so doing arrives at some artistically satisfying conclusion be it victory or failure... or something in between.

*shrug*

good v. evil just makes easy. is no different in game than in literature. your plot needs a conflict... you need an obstacle for the protagonist to overcome. good v. evil is the most obvious of such conflicts and it offers a grand scale. you need a HERO to overcome evil, no? once we know that the Monster is evil then we got got sufficient motivation, right? if obstacle is teen angst then you not gonna need a particularly impressive hero, is you?

personally, we is bored with such things... and they is hardly necessary... but they is easy. if you want an impressive hero then evil as the obstacle is easiest way to get him. human heroes and human conflicts is quite sufficient… but they ain’t as easy if you want your scope large. lord knows we wouldn’t want the writers to strain themselves.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Surlent]

Good points there Gromnir, the mechanics of story telling remain mostly the same and you could do fine without epic good/evil. I'm also tired myself taking granted something so subjective as good/evil. But BIO has its brands and in BG series, epic worked well.

PST's plot was great, but I hardly think it's the creative plot that prevented it become success. More like the excessive amount of dialog which they used to represent the plot. That can become tedious after a while. Or the easy battles, bad marketing and competition with other games at the time.

That is (one of the many reasons) why I like BL. The ethical stance there is different, there are only the laws of vamp society (any society must have laws to work effectively) and your selfcontrol (so that you don't turn into that bloodsucking maniac that you really are anyway).

Arcanum had a twist with the good/evil in a nice way. At first they try to make you believe you are good chosen one fighting against evil baddy, only to find you aren't technically the real chosen, but in practise you could serve the same purpose (if you chose to play so with your character). And the main villain, Arronax wasn't really that homicidal and powerhungry as thought before. Kerghan the real threat was mostly little waco on the head rather than epitome of evil yet still fit the role of the classic bad guy who wants to slay everyone for their own reasons.
But here the same story telling repeats itself, the main guy has to face Kerghan who's the villain, the conflict comes from Kerghan wanting to end all life which includes your character as well (even if Kerghan makes sound explanation for it). Joining Kerghan is the twist that can break that chain, but basically the conflict between the protagonist and the villain is solved just another way.

 

[Gromnir]

one thing to keep in mind... unless things has changed drastically in last year or so, stanley's point o view is hardly universal 'mongst the bio folks.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Seven]

ever see those, "there are only 24 stories," lists? they is bull... but if you reduce far 'nuff you will always end up with the same basic plot structure of good stories. you got a character with a goal who must overcome obstacles real, or imagined, and in so doing arrives at some artistically satisfying conclusion be it victory or failure... or something in between.

That's not a reduction, it's a simplification; simplfications suck ass. It's like saying all humans are human.

 

[LlamaGod]

Why doesnt BioWare just go full on into action games and First Person Shooters? According to them, that's all that sells, so RPGs need to be like them.

What the fuck is 'epic storytelling' anyways? And when has it been in BioWare games?

 

[the_dagon]

Dreamweb

Hi all,

nice discussion topic...

have one of you ever played an adventure game named "DREAMWEB" ?

this is the best good/evil game I saw ever. You never knew if what you were doing was good or evil... that gave a great unease feeling !



shortly (spoiler):
you are an alcoholic employed in a bar, who begin to have dreams telling that demons are coming on earth. A group of entities are acting on the dreamweb (in your dreams) and asking you to kill those demons who have the appearance of people...

nowhere in the game you could know if this is reality or dream. If those people are simply people who you're are assassinating, or if those are demons. Some people are acting good, some evil, but you kill them without knowing.

and the end (super-spoiler)... you just kill the last of the "demons" and get out of the building... Cops are waiting and shoot you with a dozens of bullets... that's the end of the game. No explanation, no positive hint, no negative, except a faint spark getting out of demons corpses...

AMBIGUITY IS GOOD

(and my english is bad )

 

[Surlent]

What the fuck is 'epic storytelling' anyways?

You hear the music DUM DUM DUM DI DUM DUM DUM DI DUM
A Knit with a shrubbery in one hand and a herring in the other hand comes and is about to slay the biggest tree of the forest with that herring.

Suddenly from nowhere, a white little rabbit jumps and slits that knihts throat with its big pointy teeth. After that we hear the music DUM DUM DUM DI DUM DUM DUM DI DUM .

And the bards sing: " Brave Sir Robin ever he was, Knit of the brave DUM DUM DI DUM. Always he took on his feet whether he danger meet DUM DUM DI DUM. In his fights with enemies of hell, he run away as well DUM DUM DI DUM. When only a tree he had to cut, fear he had not DUM DUM DI DUM. But then a rabbit came, a rabbit so brave DUM DUM DI DUM. Now brave Sir Robin is gone, his hide ripped and done DUM DUM DI DUM.

 

[DemonKing]

I hate the way good and evil is implemented in most CRPG dialog trees...good = nauseatingly good and evil = acting like a jerk. For my mind the truly evil person would be one who behaves in a seemingly selfless manner only to do something truely monstrous at the appropriate moment to maximise the benefit to himself with no thought of others including friends/allies.

For example, Palpatine/Sideous in the SW prequels.

Unfortunately if you do anything halfway decent in most Bio CRPGs you get slapped with bonus reputation points/alignment shifts towards good/light side points which means if you want to follow the "evil path" by default you are forced to act like a jerk the whole time.

 

[aboyd]

You know, suibhne, I think you're skimming along on an almost-good point. I mean, I too dislike moral ambiguity if it is played out as "evenhanded treatment of all types." If the morality is truly, fully ambiguous, then even deciding what to pick in a dialogue tree can become an exercise in frustration. But taking that thought a step further, what I do want, badly, is more sensible evil. Even Hitler, who killed millions of Jews, never really TOLD the Jews "I want you all dead, muhahaha!" Evil isn't obvious. Evil says, "just step into these showers to get clean." The poison gas is never mentioned and always denied.

I want to see a game option where one landowner is in a dispute with another, and he asks me to go along with a small lie that helps him to get the land. In exchange, I'll get a 5% kickback of the land's worth. Now we have a problem: a low-level character could REALLY use money, and if there is no chance of being caught, it might be easy to justify a small lie. Thus, instead of "I demand a reward, I'm evil" we get "I could use the cash, and it doesn't seem to hurt anyone." PS:T had something like this, with the 2 brothers and the will.

Or maybe someone simply asks me to back him at a community gathering. In exhange, I get power, and he gets to push through a change to the law that will benefit him. Sorta like the Arcanum quest where the mayor asks you to speak on behalf of a monument he has proposed, but with private benefits being exchanged.

This kind of evil is better. It makes sense. It's simply people being selfish, taking advantage of others, or manipulating situations to their benefit. Done well, a person might even be able to justify some pretty bad behavior as self-preservation. It's the question: will you stick by your principles, even if there are consequences?

Actually, that's the only thing that Lionheart did well, I think. With the crusades going on, they portrayed some real moral dilemmas: will you support such an oppressive regime, or oppose it and deal with the disadvantages and hostility your character will face? That really bothered me. I wanted to buy into the regime just to make things easy, but I also felt that such a decision would just enable the system to become more powerful and harmful. I have no idea how the developers coded up the morality of that, or if they even bothered to track alignment in that game. But I do know that it's just about the only positive memory I have of that game.

Such difficult situations are really gaming at its best: it isn't ambiguous, it's just tempting -- and that is something I think all gamers can understand and appreciate. It would be a shame if Bioware people concluded that the only kind of evil that people will buy is the dumbed-down obvious kind. You don't have to be a philosopher to know that evil people can dress well, speak convincingly, and have powerful friends.

 

[Elwro]

"Sea of ambiguity"... it's almost as good as the "tyranny of choices" phrase.

 

[MrBrown]

I think Stanley is half-right, in the sense that players will want easily recognizable and definable characters. I don't think this has to relate simply to good/evil, however. An easily definable/recognizable trait could as well be something like 'mutant', 'mysterious', 'religious nut' and so forth.

I do agree with him that over-realistic characters would end up too gray and dull. All big NPCs need an 'edge', or some trait that easily characterizes them above 'normal' people. I just don't think this has to necessarily be good or evil.

 

[Spazmo]

Well, I figure that as long as the player is presented with plausible and discernable choices (no good for free/good for more money/good for even more money/cackle a bit and then good for lots of money) that will have consequences that are clear right away, the player won't be scared. Of course, if unseen consequences pop up farther down the road, that's just gravy.

Also, it seems like Stanley here is only looking at the good/evil axis, which isn't all there is. There's any number of ways to cause conflict. Arcanum, for instance, had a fair amount of quests with technology vs. magic. Neither party was really evil, but they were largely opposed on what was best for them and for Arcanum and sometimes used extreme methods to push their agenda. You can have compelling plots and conflicts that people can relate to without having shining heroes of light and puppy torturing fiends.

 

[almondblight]

One of the reasons why I often grow tired of games is because my character often becomes a tyrant dictating to others what's good and what's not. "Some bad goblins are out n the woods - kill them all." "Alright." I often never get a reason as to why I'm fighting a group besides that the group is "evil."

Moral absolutism can, and continues to cause horrific acts of violence, simply because once one group believes it is pure good, and it's enemies are pure evil, then any action is justified. The original Deus Ex did a pretty good job, the enemies you fight are humans, not just "nameless guard A".

 

[Vasa]

But taking that thought a step further, what I do want, badly, is more sensible evil. Even Hitler, who killed millions of Jews, never really TOLD the Jews "I want you all dead, muhahaha!" Evil isn't obvious. Evil says, "just step into these showers to get clean." The poison gas is never mentioned and always denied.

Hitler thought the jews was evil. So in his mind it was a good thing to gas them. I of course think Hitler was evil, but in his mind he was a good person.

Most evil think of themself as good. Another example is Stalin how thought a hundred years of ironbath whould lead to a ever peaceful world. So all millons of victims was killed in the name of good.

Also in roleplaying games this should be the case. The evil god thinks his plan for the world is the best, therefor it is alright to try to enslave the world. He has goodness on his side. The necromage dreams of a world there the undead does all the demeaning work, he just have to educate the world a little first. The orcs wants to take back the land the humans stole a long time ago. No mercy to the thieves.

 

[Mantra_n]

Lee Shaldon's "Character development and storytelling for games" is what that guy desperately needs to read. I hope he stays in QA until he reads it.

Well... the whole good vs evil thing doesn't make a game good or bad. Depends who your audience is, its hard to make a game that appeals to alot of people, catering to the lowest common denominator of gamers with ADD doesn't guarantee that your game will be popular. Why were games like Diablo, Halo and Doom popular? They were the first games on their respective platforms that offered their kind of gameplay with the highest level of quality.

It wasn't the good and evil. Halo is about competition, you need 2 distinctly different sides, you could label them as good and evil, but they're simply opposites of each other, simple as that, all you need in a simple competitive shooter, doesn't make a bad game, thats what the game is about, its about action and competition, you don't have time to think and contemplate the morals of the two sides.

Same with Doom.

In Diablo, the only way to go is down, it doesn't give you a choice to do your own thing.

PST is a different kind of game that appeals to different kind of players, or same people just at a different point in time. I personally like playing everything. Sometimes I want to be engaged in a story and read lots of text and be able to chose sides and think. Sometimes I just want to get together with some friends and frag them in halo or cs...

Do not underestimate the intelligence of your players, but if you are going to complicate things make sure you do it well so that it doesn't feel like a waste of time to the player after he figures it all out.

 

[Roqua]

I would say it wasn't the wordyness of PST that made for poor sales, but the shit IE engine craptastic RT combatwhich is stupid and gay. But then i remembered how well BG 1 and 2, IWD 1 and 2, NWN, Diablo, DS, and all the other gay ass RT combat games sell and I figured I was wrong. Oh and all those games either have a sequal or have a sequal coming out.

RT=gay, Twitch action combat=stupid and gay, RT/TB Hybrid (like Aranum and FOTactics)=stupid. Pure TB=like pizza, if its bad its still good, and if its good its great.

I like how he skimmed over the fact that FO 1 and 2 had pretty ambigous morality and sold well, and that it was a TB game that sold well. Bioqueer and all their RT games are big gay fatty sissy girls. I'd like to urinate on that guys face, and then sit on his face and light my farts on fire and burn his eyebrows off.

Bloodlines has more options than pure good/evil and sold well but its a gay ass twitch action combat game and the combat is stupid and gay.

 

[suibhne]

Bioqueer and all their RT games are big gay fatty sissy girls. I'd like to urinate on that guys face, and then sit on his face and light my farts on fire and burn his eyebrows off.

Well, I would say you'll fit right in around here, but....

::whistles nervously while backing slowly away::

 

[Spazmo]

How... eloquent.

 

[S4ur0n27]

You might want to move to NMA.

 

[dojoteef]

Come on, where's Volourn with the comeback!

 

[Visceris]

ever see those, "there are only 24 stories," lists? they is bull... but if you reduce far 'nuff you will always end up with the same basic plot structure of good stories. you got a character with a goal who must overcome obstacles real, or imagined, and in so doing arrives at some artistically satisfying conclusion be it victory or failure... or something in between.

That's not a reduction, it's a simplification; simplfications suck ass. It's like saying all humans are human.

Well, all humans are human. For the most part physiologically speaking there is no significant difference between one human to another beyond gender. If ou are talking culturally then there are significant differences, but culture does not equal race for it is simply an expression of how a particular society evolved.

And yes, simplifications suck ass.