Are you good or evil? (rpg question)

[GimmeBACON]

I generally play a "good guy"... one who will do what he feels is right, and fight for "justice" regardless if it's legal. 

 

Now you will receive us. We do not ask for your poor or your hungry. We do not want your tired and sick. It is your corrupt we claim. It is your evil that will be saught by us. With every breath we shall hunt them down. Each day we will spill their blood ‘til it rains down from the skies. Do not kill, do not rape, to not steal. These are principles, which every man of every faith can embrace. These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost. There are varying degrees of evil. We urge you lesser forms of filth not to push the bounds and cross over into true corruption, into our domain. But if you do you, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three, and on that day, you will reap it. And we will send you to whatever god you wish.

[NickNozownik]

Usually neutral evil, lawful evil or chaotic evil. I do whatever it takes to achieve my goals and occasionally I'll cause some minor mischief for the lolz, but sometimes (especially in Skyrim) I want to kill everything because people make funny noises when they die. They're NPCs, they don't count as real people.

 

I wiped out and enslaved hundreds of fully sentient species in Stellaris. Killing some Hulda the Unwashed is just entertainment.

[V The Heretic]

Let's see, most games generally take on a unusual good standing with most factions in RPGs.

Fallout 3, I did entire evil play through which involved utilizing the Enclave. Their "Purification" project to utilizing the FEV Virus to kill the population is about as evil as it gets besides taking the "Highway To Hell" route of nuking Megaton. Other than that, there should've been a clearer evil route in my opinion.

New Vegas could be chalked up as to siding with any faction really other than taking it for yourself. Think about it, yeah taking the Mojave for yourself is selfish, but, not really evil. All the main factions has corrupted officials that all angle a game that is much like Russian Roulette and will pull the trigger on you if turned wrong. Even Mr. House.

Fallout 4 has the Brotherhood of Steel or Institute.

When it comes down to it, while the linear sight line is rather, disparaging, but also so much can be programmed in. I typically take the role of doing what I want, when I want and there isn't anyone can do anything to stop me. I make the rules and the factions much fit within those rules or they will be eradicated on the spot. Execution with extreme prejudice. I remember that for the longest time, there was something in Skyrim that pissed me off, so it literally took me 5 months to beat the game because I would end up murdering everyone in Riverwood and Whiterun. "Which is not good because it makes it extremely difficult to complete quests." Honestly, if you truly want to go there, you make the game evil, it is an RPG after all, designed to suck you in and create your own fantasy. Especially with Fallout and Elder Scrolls.

[nonusnomeni]

even in real world one cannot be totally evil

because game became very short and you cannot complete much of the quests

[Swanky]

I'm chaotic good, meaning I'm usually doing the right thing, although it doesn't have to necessarily be the right thing for the people around me.

[steelpanther24]

I like how people are using AD+D terms for good and evil, though to say Lawful Good is the pure good and Chaotic Evil is the pure evil is a result of our left to right reading bias.  Neutral Good is the ultimate good (any action as long as it is good) while Neutral Evil is the ultimate evil.     However, with respect to RPG, can anyone play good in Crusader Kings II?   I found that it is for the greater good of my kingdom that male heirs to the kingdoms surrounding me do not inherit, while female heirs inherit only as long as they are married into my family.   My character has gone to (preemptive) war with his uncles due to their desire to break away from the Kingdom.   Finally, I think of nothing to "create" evidence that I am the legitimate title holder for almost every County on the map, then using military means to expand my kingdom. 

 

I prefer to think of it as starting a war for peace in CKII.   Oh and to top it all off, I immediately build hospitals in every county that I take over.   That makes up for building a brothel in every castle and red light district in every town.

[ToJKa]

"Lawful Evil" occasionally. Or in another words, a Pragmatic Psychopath. Takes the most practical solution regardless of damage or who or how many gets hurt in the process.

 

"Chaotic Evil" or evil because evil though is incomprehensible to me. Hurting people just for the desire of hurting people? That i can not understand, and thus not play.

 

On 12/28/2018 at 3:32 PM, NickNozownik said:

...but sometimes (especially in Skyrim) I want to kill everything because people make funny noises when they die.

I retract my previous statement ?

 

[Resdayn]

Lawful Good and kill all heretics

[protocolk]

Depends, I mostly play twisted neutral, l wont go out of my way to be evil or do it without a reason, mostly I follow ideals EX Im playing a character that is nice to most pelople but like enslaving stormcloak soldiers because my character was raised as a telvanni servant even tough his a breton, in his eyes enslavement of fools and experimenting of the unworthy and dumb that made those that dont deserve suffer isnt evil. Or a character that uses mind control and sacrifices a bandit to bohetia, since the bandit will be killed anyway why not get something else from it?

 

the only true evil characters I play are "pathetic evil", they do really messed up shit but in a comic way.

[ReapersCurse]

I normally go for the "evil" character as it tends to be more fun to mess with, have played "good" one's but they are not as memorable.

[Guest]

I usually play good characters in video games but in a D&D campaign I'm playing right now with my friends my character is neutral evil and does things for her own benefit, even if it comes at the cost of others. She rejects notions of good and evil and believes only in action and consequence.

[gregathit]

Both.  When I feel the situation calls for it I'm evil as hell, but if someone is nice and doesn't screw me over (or try to) then I'm not just good.....I'm GREAT.  LOL!

Kinda also depends on what the consequences are, or if there even are any.  Some games, as you pointed, out have the same red, green, blue ending, so on those I tend not to give a shit and just pick crap at random as a goof.  Also depends on if the story grabs me.  Lots of factors weigh in for me to give a consistent answer.

[Ernest Lemmingway]

On 1/15/2019 at 1:19 AM, Freyadiin said:

I usually play good characters in video games but in a D&D campaign I'm playing right now with my friends my character is neutral evil and does things for her own benefit, even if it comes at the cost of others. She rejects notions of good and evil and believes only in action and consequence.

That doesn't sound too "evil" for D&D. A selfish true neutral or chaotic neutral, maybe. If she were using larvae as spell components, slitting someone's throat simply because they bored her, or beating peasants who got her clothes dirty, that would be evil. ...I may have been corrupted the Book of Vile Darkness (the real world D&D source book) because lesser acts of evil don't really register to me when I could be damning the souls of thousands, cursing entire races to live out their lives in utter misery, or raising the dead to destroy the living.

 

Now that I think about it, there are times I like being evil. Back during Wrath, Blood was a DPS spec and Frost was tank, and I role-played a belf Blood DK who reanimated his foes using the power of blood to humiliate them after he'd killed them. And in the Patreon RPG Roundscape Adorevia I just love corrupting Meredith and Ruksana; the former because she turns into a total slut, the latter because she becomes a submissive masochist. And being a selfish prick endears me to the Succubus who has some of the funkiest scenes in the game.

 

If life was a (new) WOD game, my defining Vice would be Lust. Because it's sex that motivates me more than anything else. Forget wealth, drugs, or making someone I hate pay, I'd rather have my way with the beautiful women and turn them into my devoted slaves. Er, there is one instance where Wrath would be more appealing: torturing whatever tool approved of the rules changes suggested in The God-Machine Chronicles.

[SameOldScum]

As a general rule, provided I don't feel too strongly about a particular faction in a game, I tend to play my characters as reluctant occasional heroes. It happens so often that in a game there are either deities that watch over the world or otherwise mundane situations in which you're stuck in, and therefore for the first part of any game, provided I don't feel too strongly about a particular faction or whatsoever, my characters are often somewhat cynical, slightly opportunistic and, to be frank, completely fed up with the situation. Being stuck in the middle of something so outside your scope makes for pretty mean fuckers. As the game progresses I tend to make them behave more heroically, as they decide to fulfill whatever prophecy or role the events have in store for them, provided they feel it's a noble goal, and even then, on their own terms.

Not that they're incapable of acts that go up to and including murder, arson, theft, perjury, genocide, lollygagging, subversion, double subversion, espionage, voyeurism and lactose intolerance.

[KoolHndLuke]

9 hours ago, Ernest Lemmingway said:

Forget wealth, drugs, or making someone I hate pay, I'd rather have my way with the beautiful women and turn them into my devoted slaves

Well this is LL, so at least part of our motivation in our games is to strip whores naked and fuck them through whatever means necessary.... be it good, evil, or somewhere in between. 

[Guest]

Neutral.

[Pork Type]

Huh...

 

Well, my FO4 toon is pretty squeaky clean "good", since that game's good/evil mechanic is pretty clean cut. She's not a Minuteman, though. Just an independent do-gooder.

 

My Skyrim character is depraved. She's not "Good" or "Evil" she just does whatever gives her a rush, besides hacking up townspeople.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Pork Type said:

My Skyrim character is depraved. She's not "Good" or "Evil" she just does whatever gives her a rush, besides hacking up townspeople.

Reminds me of someone...

[Pork Type]

20 minutes ago, -NG- said:

Reminds me of someone...

Me too...

[spoonsinger]

Generally apathetic to the plight of the world I'm in, so. evil? (on the very specific black and white scale you are imposing)

[Ernest Lemmingway]

7 hours ago, spoonsinger said:

Generally apathetic to the plight of the world I'm in, so. evil? (on the very specific black and white scale you are imposing)

More likely "neutral." Evil entails active maliciousness.

[LordArek]

I don't know if anyone here is familiar with the "Chaotic Neutral" alignment of D&D, but that's somewhat my roleplaying character. 

I'm not a saint, but I help people who are desperate and probably won't be able to get over the problem with their own force, especially when it's not caused by themselves - and I won't charge money for it afterwards. I'll go and steal something from a market as long as it doesn't hurt the business too much, but I will interfere if someone tries to rob the complete store or threatens the owner. 

That said, I will of course rob people, I will murder people if they get on my nerves too much and I will destroy entire landscapes if necessary. But then again, I won't go out and rape or enslave people out of nowhere. I am cruel, but only to those who deserve it in my eyes. Bandits or lawbreakers who make others lives hard without any reason will be punished, but not because I necessarily WANT to do something good. It's just because I like being liked rather than hated. One sentence one could hear from me would be:
 "I did not kill the man who almost killed you because I wanted to save your life. I just killed him because I dislike his style."

 

Spoiler

 

That, somehow, would be me.

 

[Celedhring]

In AD&D terms....True Neutral with good tendencies.  However my PC would commit what would be considered evil acts for a greater good.   I.E murder of an unpopular ruler or wiping out a slavery ring with extreme prejudice.  But my PC would understand the reason why evil even exists and she'd tolerate the balance because if evil was ever eliminated,  good would eventually succumb to the ways of oppression and intolerance.  So evil is needed to keep good on it's toes.  Besides she wouldn't *totally* eliminate the Falmer just because they're human flesh eating and chaurus worshipping bastards - they do, after all, have their niche in the world. 

[Guest]

When I played Skyrim, I always played as good person, but when I was pissed of about something than I played as evil and killed only characters I didn't like.

[Resdayn]

5 minutes ago, Elf Prince said:

When I played Skyrim, I always played as good person, but when I was pissed of about something than I played as evil and killed only characters I didn't like.

Killing Nazeem is not evil action