Larian Studios Forums General Chat An old rant : Why do Goodie-goodies always win?

This is an old rant of mine. I made it over a year ago on a different forum. I was wondering what the take on this is over here. This is what I wrote then to start the subject :



So, why do they always win? Why can't we have a CRPG that allows us to be as evil as we want, and if that means killing everyone so be it? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />

i think i would really enjoy that. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />

-becouse most ppl still want the good guys/girls to win
-becouse games/books/movies/... up to a point are supposed to show that good is better than bad... kinda.

Oooh.

Good vs. Evil?

I can understand why games are made out so that you must be the 'goodie-goodie' type all the time. They have to end sometime, just like life. Evil is persistent throughout all stages of man, good is only a sporadic afterthought meant to cause disorder. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

If you had a choice in the development of the story in a game, how would you end it? Those who make the bad choices always get shafted and those who spend their days cleaning mischievious gnomes from a farmer's yard always get the +10 Platemail of the Gods, as well as the +15 Sword of Unholy Hurting and Bringer of Really Bad Things, so naturally people always choose good because it gets them more experience, phat loot, or some quality time with a prince/princess. *shrug* (I really don't know what I'm talking about right now, so I'll just continue. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />) Games like Baldur's Gate don't even really give you a chance to be evil, sure you can kill innocent bystanders for no apparent reason, but is that evil or just plain stupidity? You lose out on things like that, and most people want to experience alot of things in a game before it ends, being evil in a game just gives them an even more narrow path to walk and less things to experience. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

Good and Evil are in the eye of the beholder. They just don't compute as being seperate entities, like Light & Darkness, Chaos & Order, they each need the other to exist in the first place. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />

I think I got off topic somewhere back along that lonely, dark trail of thought that was spewed violently from my mind and into text.

*cough* Ahem.... Alright...

Why do goodie-goodies always win? Because that's how the story was written..*ta da* The big mystery is solved! - Maybe if it was written a different way it wouldn't end quite so happily for all involved? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

*Note* Yes, yes. I know this entire post was quite shallow, but for some reason I seem to write down odd things just before I pass out into restless slumber and I can't until I write whatever it is down. Please, I beg your forgiveness, I know not what I do! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />

@Luna. If your interested in a game that has you being doom unto the world I would suggest Blood Omen. It's a pretty old pc (there's also a psx version) game, but it has the theme your speaking about. Or at the very least checking a script of it out here -> Blood Omen Script.
And I wouldn't suggest getting your beliefs in good & bad from Star Wars books <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> , I remember reading a few of those and Thrawn was by far my most favourite villan (only books I ever read with him in it was Heir to the Empire, Dark Forse Rising, and Last Command). Heh, I'm always glad I left the Star Wars fandom before I went in too deep. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />

i don't know if dungeon keeper and dungeon keeper II are considered CRPGs but i don't see why not.

and i want to theorise that throughout history the reason stories are told where the hero always wins is because parents wanted their children to think of good as the better side and want to be good when they grew up.

plus, good trumping evil is a very biblical concept and christianity is pretty widespread.

the whole "shooting out view screens with a rubberband" thing is merely for suspense so that people will think "i know the good guy will win but i wonder how they're gonna do it." this way people will want to finish watching the show, or reading the book.

hm, i wish i had replied this intelligently the last time you posted this instead of taking it personal...

whoops...

try planescape: torment. You play an undead "hero"; and no-one could really say the "good guy" wins in the end. One of the best RPG's ever, IMO.

Plus, since it is a few years old, you can usually find it for sale cheap.

in fallout you can be a slave trader <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

I think I'm gonna find me a copy of planescape torment, nothing but good comments about it

If you want to be evil and vindictive play soul reaver...you just kill everything great game.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I have it already and beat it a year ago, although it is still calling me. Tis a most nifty game, indeed. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


To Crimson Knight

I didn't read many of the Star Wars books, but I liked the Thrawn trilogy. And it always got me how the same small group of people could keep beating him. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />

I heard Morrowind ( which I have but my system absolutly can not stand to run) will let you play evil, too. One girl said she played as a vampire. Sure, she couldn't do most of the quests but she it was great fun running across rooftops and killing people to live. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" />

1. I wouldn't be interested in a Universe where the Sith Empire (erected by Darth Sidious) would rule, with Luke and Leia dead or dark.

Also, I wouldn't be interested in a Galaxy where Thrawn has won: I couldn't imagine anything interesting from that outcome. Anything that would appeal to me.

2. About Roleplaying:In Roleplaying there are ALWAYS small bands of people experiencing "Adventures" - and thus often saving the world ! It's almost a Tradition.

When - in RPG - a evil character finally wins, the whole band of adventurers would be dead - at least that's what I expect - and the "Adventure" would be over.

A wholly different approach would be to erect a RPG System where *everyone* should be evil, and battling against good ones - exactly the other way round than normally known.


Finally I say that it is simply part of my nature to let the good ones win : I woulödn't want to live in a world controlled by evil ones (remember ! : the Jedi died out ! Luke was the last remaining fragment of this whole group !).

The sense of "good always wins over evil" is rather... knocked into most people's head with a sledgehammer. It's a pleasant daydream, nothing more, since in reality good and evil are way harder to define. RPGs, novels, and other forms of entertainment are there fundamentally for escapism. Therefore, most people take it for granted that in fiction, good always wins over evil.

At least, that's my theory. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

It's funny how people want more and more realism out of fiction, though. Of course, I'm one of them.

Generally speaking, the truly evil people of the world prolly don't plunk their arses down in front of te computer to unwind with a little rpg action or so. If that generalization is correct that puts the majority of the rpg buying populace on the side of the "good guys". Sure we can all take a moment to fleece a store of the goods [how many threads on here pertain to "theft" as a means of improving the character through then selling the purloined goods back to the shop owners themselves, lol try that in Morrowind] but in the process of playing the games we find ourselves on the good side of the law and again in most if not all instances the underdog from beginning to end. If evil were to win then it would be a bit demoralizing to say the least.

Basically I presume the truly evil to be out doing evil rather then racking up orc kills. Thus it's marketing to the target audience in a simplified way of thinking.

nice views and theories by all, good......and evil reading, i rate these pages, 2 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />

that's very bad roleplaying =)

i used to do that back in BG1 when i didn't care about roleplaying but for the most part, i have tried to actually roleplay my character.

of course right now i am a thief so it's perfectly acceptable to steal from people =)

I hope you aren't one of those people who cried foul when they read, in a certain Underdark novel, that dark elves dance, sing, and fish. And grow cattle. The cries were something along this line -- "Drow plot, murder, torture, in-fight and have wild sinful sex 24/7!"

Folk, evil people have to find entertainment somewhere, too.

Just because you are evil doesn't mean you have to be plotting world domination all day/night long. Realistic villains could be anything from art connoisseur, rare book dealer, to, well, a CRPG nerd.



It's interesting to note that many evil overlords intend to "rule wisely and make the land unassailable" rather than "rule with iron-clad fists and tyranny". Heh.

It isn't a question of "Good" winning over "Evil". The best stories (i.e., the ones that make you want to buy the next book from the same author) are ones that have three essential elements:

1. the reader must feel empathy for the protagonist, the hero,
2. the protagonist must face unreasonable challenges, and
3. the protagonist must either: (a)win and survive, or (b)win and die, and a new hero arises

People of western civilizations and cultures call protagonists "good" and antagonists "evil". Eastern traditions, on the other hand, describe the struggle as "restoring balance". Both are merely labels, and have very little to do with any absolute universal Truth. People like the stories that fulfill an emotional need -- often described as "feeling good" -- again, twisting the meaining of "good" to describe something more basic: "sated."

I read stories to enjoy the adventure and to second-guess the author's decisions about how to unfold the plot, play-out particular scenarios, or create images and experiences in their readers' minds. I buy the author's next book if the story resonates with my personal sense of reality.

well, considering the evil overlords we've had in the real world like hitler and stalin and various others, it's hard to believe they wouldn't rule with an iron fist and would actually be a fair and just ruler.

i mean, generally speaking evil people don't look out for the welfare of others. that's pretty much a character trait of a good guy.

I agree, if the evil character is a powerless peon like the rest of us mortals. However, no despot can rule (or stay alive) for long without creating allies and endearing himself to a group of sycophants. That requires "people skills", and the ability to see other peoples' needs and desires as worthy of your attention.

Even if a person is purely evil, that person cannot perform heroic deeds, lead others, or achieve greatness without being a "fair and just ruler" over the cadre of ministers, warriors, and disciples. The subjugated masses don't qualify for these amenities, but that (in the mind of the evil leader) is the price that must be paid for the inner circle to live happily.

So the question in the mind of the evil ruler is "Whose welfare is most important? Mine? My inner circle's? My subjugated masses'?" And the question is NOT that the evil ruler doesn't look out for the welfare of others.

Compare the character trait to a "good guy" leader, and I suggest that the "good guy" recognizes that the welfare of a larger or particularly oppressed group is important. Or, more often, that disenfranchisement of any group must be tempered with wisdom and charity.

Or, put another way, how many religions market themselves based on the premise that another group/religion is evil? "Reject them and their ways, and you will be a righteous member of the only True Faith."

Intolerance and exclusiveness, be it religious, political, or otherwise, is a tool for gathering an inner circle to a leader. Tolerance and inclusiveness create communities that tend to be suspicious of leaders' motives, but accept them as long as popular opinion and traditions are not greatly offended. That's why it is so difficult to find a truly benevolent despot, or a popular hero who wants to be a leader. Would Hitler have survived for very long without an enemy to oppress? Would you want to be the Pope? Would a Saint want to be the Secretary General of the United Nations?

yes, an evil overlord would have to do things to keep the mass public happy, but genereally they do the bare minimum and even then, they aren't doing it to be nice. their motives are still purely selfish.

A few more things...

If a person commits an evil deed, but doesn't think it's evil, does that make him evil? As opposed to a persom committing the same deed, knowing full well that it's evil? What about a mix of both? What if the person doesn't view himself as evil?

An example. In the novels Elfshadow and Evermeet: Island of Elves, a gold-elven traditionalist is cast in the villain's role. He is a noble who clings to the old ways of the a fallen elven kingdom, which was ruled by a council of elders. He also thinks that his race, the gold elves, is superior to all other elves. Therefore, the fact that a moon-elven royalty rules over the elven island is an insult. He has been working toward removing the royalty and restoring the council of elders.

To this end, he employs many means -- assassinating offspring of the royal family, murdering "good" men and women, and stirring treachery from within. But for all that, he still sees his course as noble and righteous, because his race is superior, the only remnants of ancient elven traditions and values. It wasn't until he was visited by evil gods that he has realized how far he'd fallen.

Is he evil?

If certain roles were changed, and certain viewpoints changed, this gold elf would have been the oppressed hero under what he views as evil rulers -- the moon elven royalty. The "good" people he eliminated would have been minions of the evil overlord. If only the book was written from his point of view.

In the same book, the "good" organization, called the Harpers, is also willing to sacrifice a select few for the greater good. The protagonist of Elfshadow, Arilyn Moonblade, was all but sent to die. Her own father, when asked, says that, yes, even at the cost of her life, he would protect a certain elven secret that is tied to the Harpers.

Does the end justify the means? Where do you draw a line between good and evil? Shouldn't the "good guys" care about everyone, willing to sacrifice no one, because life is sacred?

IMO, black evil and white good exist only in the simplest of tales, fables for children -- or bad writing period. It's always rather grey if you contemplate the whole deal.

That doesn't matter. It's still evil. He should be thought it's evil. Besides really everyone has a sence of good and evil. Some draw the line a bit further than others, some choose the path of evil. But it's still evil.
Good and evil are like whilte and black. There's no grey zone.
A person who commits evil knows he's committing evil or (and?) is sick.
If you look long enough you can justify everything with words. That doesn't make the actions less evil.

Is that "he should be thought of as evil", or "he should have thought about it, and known that it's evil"? They're very different phrases, and your sentence structure makes no sense.



Where do you live, Setharmon? I want to live in your Utopia of Black and White, too!

Is a murder justified when the murdered man is evil? Is it justified when the murderer did it within a noble cause? What about the murdered man's relatives? Is lying considered evil? Sloth? Gluttony? Pride? Doesn't that make every single person on Earth evil? (Because you aren't going to find a person who's never lied in his/her life.) At which point do you start calling a person evil?

Oh, and look at children. Bullies who beat smaller kids up. Kids who torture domestic pets. Are they evil, too? Is this black and white?



Really? What about newborn babies? I didn't know that babies were born with an ingrained sense of good and evil pre-programmed into their brains. IMO, it's all about upbringing and society.

Never said I lived in a black and white world! I live in a world where a minister of justice set lots of criminals free becouse the prisons are overcrowded. That's his solution to the problem. How dumb can you get??? What a great signal that is. "Go ahead, shoplift and kill all you want. You don't have to go to jail couse the prisons are full." I guess he hopes they're all gone vote for him in the upcomming elections.

The sentence makes sence enough. Constantly we are shown what's good and what's evil. Our society shows us what's evil and what not. What's acceptable and what not.
-I'm sorry, I'm not an English prof. Maybe you want to go on in another language?

Bullies that beat smaller children up should be shown it is wrong. I thought that was obvious. It's unacceptable.
Society has influence on good and bad. You can show others what's good and what not.

Who said lying is evil? Sometimes ppl tell lies for the best. You should know when it's smart to lie. To make another person feel better fi.

I also never said that murder is justified. Even murdering a murderer. They all know they did something wrong. And the few who go on killing are sick.

Even newborn children have an idea of good and evil. They inherit the genes of their parents. From birth on you can guide them and show them what's good and what not.

yes, both are still evil



how you view yourself doesn't change who you are. i could view myself as some gorgeous ladies man, but it won't change the fact i'm still an average looking hack.



um, he killed people because of a racist attitude. in the real world we consider that evil, and in stories it's evil



like i said, facts do not change to conform to people's viewpoints, it should be the other way around. no matter how you look at it, he was racist dirt-bag.



okay, so arilyn's father wouldn't exactly get my vote for father of the year.



seldom



when you start inflicting some type of harm on someone would be a good place to start.



should be like that.



i disagree, i think evil can be black and white. take stalin, for example, he was evil and there's no debating that. it's pretty black and white.

I've recently experienced the exact Opposite:

I made something in a Forum, believed it was right, received heavy criiticism, and believed afterwards I was evil because I did something wrong.

Am I now evil or not ?

No Alrik.
Your timing was bad.
Your post and intentions ware right. But you posted it just when others ware bothering someone about the same topic.
They ware out of line. So it's understandable the other party reacted as it was attacked already.

Setharmon: By your word, evil and good are as black and white. So tell me, is the act of killing, in itself, evil? The act in general, no matter what situation it is applied to?



It is your part to prove this. Did you pull this out of nowhere, or do you have scientific proof for it?



Certainly, my dear. Thai, or Cantonese? FYI, no, English is not my first language. I simply happen to be literate.



Really?

Then every kid who bullies another kid, and every kid who kills ants, must be evil, no buts and no howevers.




If it's seldom, then it's by no means black or white. You just dug a hole in your own logic.



Then everyone on Earth is evil. Everyone. There are countless ways to inflict harm on others, be it by words, actions, or otherwise. I'll wager that you have inflicted harm on someone, intentionally or no, too.



"Should be like that" -- then you have all but stated that good and evil can come in grey. Those "good guys" were about to sacrifice their own for a greater good; the same thing can happen, and has happened, in real history too.



Did you know him personally? Only when you can prove to me that you knew every facet of his personality will I accept your example.



Point taken.

um, where else would they get their sense of right and wrong from but the people they first grow up around?



the third grader who bullies his peers in school is a bad kid, and well on his way to being a bad person when he gets older. being evil doesn't mean you are some sort of maniacal homicidal pyschopath. it just means you enjoy doing a lot of bad things.



i never said everything was black and white. where are you getting this from? explain to me how i dug a hole in my own logic when you are trying to make two separate things look the same.

in the particular instance, we were talking about that elf book where the guy killed a bunch of people out of a racist attitude to restore some high council.

his means was murder and that doesn't justify what he was doing.



everyone does things that are evil, or sinful. however, it's habitually doing more evil things than good things that makes a person evil.

everyone does evil things and everyone does good things, it's what you do the most and what is in your heart that defines who you are.



let me repeat once again, i never said EVERYTHING is black and white. i said not everything is grey. there is a difference. try to read what i say and not what you think i said.



okay, no offense but your type of logic in this statement makes no sense whatsoever. the man tortured and killed MILLIONS OF PEOPLE! does that mean NOTHING to you? what more do you want? a page from his diary that says "hey, i've killed millions of people in my life, and you know what? i enjoyed it!"? would that validate his evilness to you?

you don't have to know someone personally to know what type of person they are.



pheh, if i weren't in the safety of luna's thread i'd forget the whole debate. =OP

Clearly you missed my point. My point is this: newborn babies don't have a sense of right and wrong; this sense comes from upbringing. Throw a newborn baby into the wilderness, and I bet he won't grow up with the same sense of good and evil you and I have.



Interesting. I read that your tone is in disagreement with me. In my opinion, there's always grey somewhere. Always.



I intended to mean in general.



What I mean is -- no, maybe Stalin was not completely black. Somewhere in all that slaughter, I bet he must've spared an insect or two. *laughs*