When i was younger I only ever played good. KOTR changed that. Being a sith just seemed so appealing. Once you've played an evil character before, you kind of like it. But I still mostly play good characters
Why do some people prefer to play the bad guy if given the option?
- Thread starter Kolby Jack
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think it's more to do with the difference and popularity between Superman and Batman. Superman defines a PERFECT Hero and is (or was) the kind of hero that defined American culture.
Batman is a hero with flaws, and consequently, more human as a result.
The thing is, for all of our own flaws, we empathize with others who are also flawed. This is most likely why Stockholm Syndrome even exists, because we inherently desire to understand our fellow people and accept them for who and what they are.
A PERFECT Hero like Superman is simply "too good". So much so, that Superman is perceived as boring as a result. We always know Superman will win, we know everything about him and he's about as one dimensional as heroes come. Conversely, Batman is not perfect, but a mortal man scarred by his past, trying to make a difference in a world gone mad. He's pretty much a tragic hero, and people love that, because he's flawed but he strives to change the world in the face of such an insurmountable task. Just like people like the underdog, people like the man (or woman) who tries to swim against the tide, who tries to fight the storm, who tries to do the seemingly impossible; and in that way, it becomes a metaphor for the struggle of life, because no matter how shit it gets, you have to pick yourself up, and carry on.
That's the mark of a hero in many people's eyes, and just like how heroes can be flawed, even more so are villains. Sometimes they're geniuses, other times they're just insane, but even madmen have rhyme and reason amidst their own insanity.
Villains can be heroes and vice versa, the ever-popular morally grey ethics that are pervasive throughout culture are just a visually identifiable sign of the general change in people's opinion and psychology over time. The times of it being all about "good guys" and "bad guys" is nearly over, because as wars and injustice persist to this very day and the horrors are there for everyone to see, people are starting to see the world differently, as we're all just people trying to get by.
So, it's societal, cultural and, at times, just escapist sadism or curiosity, but choosing villains will always be popular, and no matter what, characters like Superman will die out, because most people do not like the PERFECT, square-jawed, American Ideal Hero anymore. He's boring, tasteless and entirely from the realms of fantasy, with no traits that any mortal can relate to. That's probably why over the years people have tried to write so many flaws into Superman's character, but it's a fruitless endeavour. He'll always be SUPERman, and thus, PERFECT! -___________________-
Batman is a hero with flaws, and consequently, more human as a result.
The thing is, for all of our own flaws, we empathize with others who are also flawed. This is most likely why Stockholm Syndrome even exists, because we inherently desire to understand our fellow people and accept them for who and what they are.
A PERFECT Hero like Superman is simply "too good". So much so, that Superman is perceived as boring as a result. We always know Superman will win, we know everything about him and he's about as one dimensional as heroes come. Conversely, Batman is not perfect, but a mortal man scarred by his past, trying to make a difference in a world gone mad. He's pretty much a tragic hero, and people love that, because he's flawed but he strives to change the world in the face of such an insurmountable task. Just like people like the underdog, people like the man (or woman) who tries to swim against the tide, who tries to fight the storm, who tries to do the seemingly impossible; and in that way, it becomes a metaphor for the struggle of life, because no matter how shit it gets, you have to pick yourself up, and carry on.
That's the mark of a hero in many people's eyes, and just like how heroes can be flawed, even more so are villains. Sometimes they're geniuses, other times they're just insane, but even madmen have rhyme and reason amidst their own insanity.
Villains can be heroes and vice versa, the ever-popular morally grey ethics that are pervasive throughout culture are just a visually identifiable sign of the general change in people's opinion and psychology over time. The times of it being all about "good guys" and "bad guys" is nearly over, because as wars and injustice persist to this very day and the horrors are there for everyone to see, people are starting to see the world differently, as we're all just people trying to get by.
So, it's societal, cultural and, at times, just escapist sadism or curiosity, but choosing villains will always be popular, and no matter what, characters like Superman will die out, because most people do not like the PERFECT, square-jawed, American Ideal Hero anymore. He's boring, tasteless and entirely from the realms of fantasy, with no traits that any mortal can relate to. That's probably why over the years people have tried to write so many flaws into Superman's character, but it's a fruitless endeavour. He'll always be SUPERman, and thus, PERFECT! -___________________-
You pretty much answered the question yourself: escapism. In real life, you can basically be the good guy all you want and there's no problem, but you can't be the bad guy because it's (usually) illegal, so in a harmless setting like video games or a table-top RPG, why wouldn't you want to do what you're not allowed to do in real life?Kolby Jack said:
Likewise, being the bad guy gives you freedom to do whatever the heck you want, while being the good guy oftentimes restricts you heavily in your actions.
People like to release their inner asshole (that sounds far more disgusting that intended). Everyone has the capacity to be a douche, but are nice enough not to release their douchiness in real life. Having a harmless outlet to be a dick is pretty cathartic, it's like slaughtering people in GTA.
I doubt that somewhat. He might think so, but unless he's full-blown psychopath he would probably feel some crushing remorse after killing a bunch of people, regardless of how godlike he was.Kolby Jack said:
Because some people can take some distance from the media they enjoy?Kolby Jack said:
You have to understand that you're making a probably unintended link that people who like the "bad guys" have something that's wrong or evil about them. That's not true and there's a variety of reasons why people would choose to play the "evil person".
Maybe they think it's much more fun. It's cathartic to go all out and do things that you wouldn't do in real life. Or maybe because it's funnier. For some reason being good seems to equal not having a sense of humor. Or maybe they can't stand the heroes. In a black and white universe, the heroes can be annoyingly self righteous or even cruel and no one will even comment on that. Or maybe the villains are just way cooler aesthetically. Or maybe the player just wants to see how far they can sink or how "evil" they can really be
There's no need for a philosophical justification that power "always corrupts".
The question could be turned on it's head. Why do you always want to be a hero? Do you invest yourself alot in games? What do you do in scenarios where everything is gray? Do you take their preference of evil power fantasies seriously?
EDIT: One problem though is that too many of the evil options are just stupid and counterproductive, if not downright brutish. I prefer the more cunning type of evil.
There's a game called Crusader Kings II which actively encourages you to be a scheming noble.
My friend described it as so. "I try to be a good person in real life. I help where I can, don't try and screw others over and so on. It's nice sometimes to be the bad guy. Just to shoot that annoying person in the face instead of dealing with their complaints." I can see where he comes from, being a nice person all the time can be tedious. I much rather I be evil in a video game, fucking over NPCs rather than real people.
Maybe it's the novelty of it. It's not that common. Still, I always prefer to do good. I feel genuinely bad when I'm needlessly evil in video games.[footnote]I won't comment on whether that's how I feel about it in real life.[/footnote]
Depends on the game. I could never make the bad choices in Fallout 3 or Fable because even though I didn't find the games particularly engaging, I just felt wrong for doing them.
I also felt really bad when I had to kill bears in Far Cry 3 because I love bears so god damn much; even though I know it's just a game I don't like hurting animals because they are a lot closer to their real life counterparts than any humans in games are.
That being said, Kratos has gone well beyond the realms of anti-hero and is easily now a villain in God of War, but I usually don't care when he murders every single thing he comes across in those games because that's just the kind of game it is. I don't like when he hurts the Titans, though; no idea why.
I also felt really bad when I had to kill bears in Far Cry 3 because I love bears so god damn much; even though I know it's just a game I don't like hurting animals because they are a lot closer to their real life counterparts than any humans in games are.
That being said, Kratos has gone well beyond the realms of anti-hero and is easily now a villain in God of War, but I usually don't care when he murders every single thing he comes across in those games because that's just the kind of game it is. I don't like when he hurts the Titans, though; no idea why.
In my case it's for a little chance in pace. When you're the bad guy you have your own reasons to be doing whatever you're doing, when you're the good guy you usually is trying to help or save something. Being the bad guy makes you feel more proactive most of the time. Except in post-apocalypse situations, because then, most people you meet are jaded and apathic, so it is genuinely fun to become the badass beacon of hope in the setting.
But aside from that? One thing that bothers me is that evil in games is really badly portrayed especially when there is some kind of morality point system. Bioware is actually pretty bad about it, i had a horrible experience trying to play Star Wars TOR because of it.
I started a game as a Sith Inquisitor, i was trying to role play a Lawful Evil character, who cares about efficiency and is ambitious in going up the ranks. I seriously struggled to mantain the Meter in the Neutral, and worse, i had to make some really stupid decisions along the way just to kick a few dogs and don't go Light Side. Aparently being evil means being self-destructive according to Bioware.
Anyway, i like when i can be evil, what i don't like is that most of the time it's impossible to be evil like...Palpatine for instance in a game where there is a morality point system, it just doesn't translate well that this act of kindness is just to make it easier to take over down the line.
So, a better question...Why is it so hard to make it possible for a character to be Evil in a game, without being the Joker ou Kefka type of Chatic Evil?
But aside from that? One thing that bothers me is that evil in games is really badly portrayed especially when there is some kind of morality point system. Bioware is actually pretty bad about it, i had a horrible experience trying to play Star Wars TOR because of it.
I started a game as a Sith Inquisitor, i was trying to role play a Lawful Evil character, who cares about efficiency and is ambitious in going up the ranks. I seriously struggled to mantain the Meter in the Neutral, and worse, i had to make some really stupid decisions along the way just to kick a few dogs and don't go Light Side. Aparently being evil means being self-destructive according to Bioware.
Anyway, i like when i can be evil, what i don't like is that most of the time it's impossible to be evil like...Palpatine for instance in a game where there is a morality point system, it just doesn't translate well that this act of kindness is just to make it easier to take over down the line.
So, a better question...Why is it so hard to make it possible for a character to be Evil in a game, without being the Joker ou Kefka type of Chatic Evil?
For the most part, good is the boring answer. It is the most straight forward 'do the right thing' answer and that doesn't always work. In game terms, being good tends to net the worst rewards. Sure, you get to have a good feeling about yourself but since you didn't steal from everyone and murder the guards or slit someone's throat for some extra money, you will be on an uphill battle when it comes time to go after the end boss of the game. But, like real life, if you take every opportunity given with no care for morality, you tend to have more money, better equipment, and can get away with anything... in addition to being higher level since you stole, killed, and accomplished more. Being evil is more rewarding and productive than being a good guy.
The straight and narrow is rarely if ever very rewarding on anything but a feel good level in a video game. Rarely if ever are you given anything more than a pat on the back if you act selflessly. Maybe a perk or a tiny item but that is usually the exception compared to otherwise. Yeah, play through a game with a binary morality system once as a good guy and then evil/greedy and see just how much you missed out on the first time.
On top of that, I would rather play a game where I am playing a character on par with Tywin Lannister or Frank Underwood or Arcturus Mensk than I would playing any shining paladin avatar of goodness or some fire spitting demon worshiping evil doer... but few games ever let that kind of manipulative and devilish of an evil character actually be played as a PC.
The straight and narrow is rarely if ever very rewarding on anything but a feel good level in a video game. Rarely if ever are you given anything more than a pat on the back if you act selflessly. Maybe a perk or a tiny item but that is usually the exception compared to otherwise. Yeah, play through a game with a binary morality system once as a good guy and then evil/greedy and see just how much you missed out on the first time.
On top of that, I would rather play a game where I am playing a character on par with Tywin Lannister or Frank Underwood or Arcturus Mensk than I would playing any shining paladin avatar of goodness or some fire spitting demon worshiping evil doer... but few games ever let that kind of manipulative and devilish of an evil character actually be played as a PC.
FREEDOM
Good Guy
Me: Hey who's that guy, can i kill him?
Game: No, you're the good guy.
Me: That's a very precarious ledge that man is standing on, it would be a shame if he fell.
Game: You're right, better go tell him to watch out, then build him a safety railing.
Bad guy
Me: Looks like i'm the mayor of this here town
Game: But this town already has a mayor
*BOOM*
Me: The position just became available.
tldr: Rules are for real life, fun is fun.
Good Guy
Me: Hey who's that guy, can i kill him?
Game: No, you're the good guy.
Me: That's a very precarious ledge that man is standing on, it would be a shame if he fell.
Game: You're right, better go tell him to watch out, then build him a safety railing.
Bad guy
Me: Looks like i'm the mayor of this here town
Game: But this town already has a mayor
*BOOM*
Me: The position just became available.
tldr: Rules are for real life, fun is fun.
Just one thing...Your reasoning is flawed when aplied to RPG games, most of the time the Good path net the best rewards and more experience points. In a lot of cRPGs it's like that, specially the classics like Baldur's Gate 2/NWN/Fallout, etc...Even nowadays, it's like that. And...You usually can't play someone manipulative in games without ending up with a lot of paragon/lightside/good karma points, since games expect you to play an impulsive sociopath, when you try to play the long game the game thinks you're a good guy.Blaine Houle said:
I don't like being labeled evil in games but I like doing evil things. Part of why I loved Dragon Age: Origins is because I could literally kill a child in front of his mother and still have party members who agree that I did the right thing. As for games like Fallout and Elder Scrolls, I like being able to just exit out of a discussion with a boring NPC and murder it for the stuff I'm not skilled enough to steal.
Mostly I'll play a good guy when given the option but there is some fun to be had by playing as an utter bastard.
Mostly I'll play a good guy when given the option but there is some fun to be had by playing as an utter bastard.
I often find myself being the bad guy in the service of good.
In New Vegas, for example, I align with the NCR and help the goodie organisations as much as I can, since I'd like to think that would be the best for everyone.
On the other hand, I've also ruthlessly eliminated everyone who is obstructing the path to what I think is the best end goal. In all honesty, wiping out the Great Khans tribe must be some sort of ethnic cleansing breach of human rights. But I did, nonetheless.
In Skyrim, I did save the lands, but did my best to consolidate that power as close to myself as possible. The peace treaty benefited me, and not many others. The Blades went out of my plans the moment they became a bother, and left to rot. Not to mention all the stealing and killing I did to gain control over Skyrim's crime syndicates and underworld.
Being a dick for its own sake just doesn't feel as constructive, for me. Better to be a bad guy when it matters, and a good guy when everyone is watching.
In New Vegas, for example, I align with the NCR and help the goodie organisations as much as I can, since I'd like to think that would be the best for everyone.
On the other hand, I've also ruthlessly eliminated everyone who is obstructing the path to what I think is the best end goal. In all honesty, wiping out the Great Khans tribe must be some sort of ethnic cleansing breach of human rights. But I did, nonetheless.
In Skyrim, I did save the lands, but did my best to consolidate that power as close to myself as possible. The peace treaty benefited me, and not many others. The Blades went out of my plans the moment they became a bother, and left to rot. Not to mention all the stealing and killing I did to gain control over Skyrim's crime syndicates and underworld.
Being a dick for its own sake just doesn't feel as constructive, for me. Better to be a bad guy when it matters, and a good guy when everyone is watching.
Well, games don't let you be 'evil' very often, so I always choose it for the variety. Or if I'm feeling dark and grim and want to ruin everyones lives. I'd love a video game where you can play as Ganondorf or even Bowser exclusively, like a background story or simple romp to confirm that they are the ultimate bad guys of their worlds.
You are right in some good regards ExDeath.
When I am playing, I tend not to think that I am being the good guy, usually at best pragmatic. If I can get a better result in terms of power by pushing a guy off a cliff or stabbing him in the back, so be it. That tends to not be altruistic though I guess games tend to not really give much in the way of a care why you are doing what you are doing. You could be easily manipulating the entire kingdom or empire or stellar union through honeyed words and veiled threats so everyone loves you yet also being willing to push every single subject off a cliff if needed to accomplish a greater goal. So I guess that is good?
Yeah, I will give you that I am probably a bit flawed in my perspective but then again, I tend not to look at manipulative answers as being 'good'.
Also, in NWN and other older school RPGs, they tend to not really facilitate being a dickish manipulator but instead just facilitate being a mass murderer if you are being evil. NWN, BG, and it's traditional RPG ilk very much on rails and don't really give much in the way of telling a branching story. Being evil in those games are harshly punished by a very linear story that just pretty much has options of 'Do good' 'Do selfish/evil' 'Come back later' and not really giving much else to really do except push forward through the story, for good or for ill.
It is really the more open sand box games that really give some minimal freedom and the ability to do something besides move from one set piece to the next like the older RPGs you mentioned. It is in those games that acting a bit outside the boundaries of law, where you can go and kill pretty much anyone anywhere, that it does reward being a master thief or assassin. Still not giving you the power to be a really manipulative power player like in the example characters I original listed as games tend to not focus on that scale of game... you know, being power fantasies of personal gratification.
So I guess for me, the evil paths in most games is on a petty evil level of being evil while being a manipulative bastard, something that should grate on people/want to kill you if they ever found out just how much of a double dealing twerp you were or how much you were really stealing or manipulating events to get what ever one desires gets the pass as being 'good' while being a white and fluffy shining beacon of hope and goodness feels... disgustingly bland.
When I am playing, I tend not to think that I am being the good guy, usually at best pragmatic. If I can get a better result in terms of power by pushing a guy off a cliff or stabbing him in the back, so be it. That tends to not be altruistic though I guess games tend to not really give much in the way of a care why you are doing what you are doing. You could be easily manipulating the entire kingdom or empire or stellar union through honeyed words and veiled threats so everyone loves you yet also being willing to push every single subject off a cliff if needed to accomplish a greater goal. So I guess that is good?
Yeah, I will give you that I am probably a bit flawed in my perspective but then again, I tend not to look at manipulative answers as being 'good'.
Also, in NWN and other older school RPGs, they tend to not really facilitate being a dickish manipulator but instead just facilitate being a mass murderer if you are being evil. NWN, BG, and it's traditional RPG ilk very much on rails and don't really give much in the way of telling a branching story. Being evil in those games are harshly punished by a very linear story that just pretty much has options of 'Do good' 'Do selfish/evil' 'Come back later' and not really giving much else to really do except push forward through the story, for good or for ill.
It is really the more open sand box games that really give some minimal freedom and the ability to do something besides move from one set piece to the next like the older RPGs you mentioned. It is in those games that acting a bit outside the boundaries of law, where you can go and kill pretty much anyone anywhere, that it does reward being a master thief or assassin. Still not giving you the power to be a really manipulative power player like in the example characters I original listed as games tend to not focus on that scale of game... you know, being power fantasies of personal gratification.
So I guess for me, the evil paths in most games is on a petty evil level of being evil while being a manipulative bastard, something that should grate on people/want to kill you if they ever found out just how much of a double dealing twerp you were or how much you were really stealing or manipulating events to get what ever one desires gets the pass as being 'good' while being a white and fluffy shining beacon of hope and goodness feels... disgustingly bland.
It depends on how one is going to define "evil" here of course. When it comes to things like video games, in a lot of cases the separation between good and evil is kind of ridiculous. No matter what your alignment for example your going to run around and grab everything not nailed down that they game allows you to, something parodied in a lot of comics about gaming and such where the protagonist runs into people's homes and starts grabbing crap. In games where they define this behavior as evil, and prevent the good guys from doing it if they want to remain good, they typically wind up punishing you for being a good guy. In heroic fantasy the usual genera trope is that the hero's moral behavior winds up reaping him numerous karmic rewards, in video games and even a lot of paper and pencil RPGs, this tends to be less true. Even if the game gives you some kind of highly powerful weapon towards the endgame as a reward for playing it straight typically it's so late in the game as to not be much balancing, and is oftentimes exceeded by the sum total rewards of playing bad to begin with. Furthermore in many cases the abilities given to the bad guys tend to simply be far more effective than what the good guys get, characters like necromancers, warlocks, etc... tend to be popular because simply put they wind up kicking butt. Very, very, rarely have I see a set up where "good" magic is as directly powerful as "evil" magic for example, and in many cases in worlds with both you wind up having heroes who for whatever reason manage to have their fingers in both pies by somehow getting "evil' powers and using them for good.Kolby Jack said:
To put it bluntly, especially when there is only one ending to a game or adventure, being good generally means you gimp yourself. Furthermore in a lot of cases where there are good and evil victory endings, the good endings kind of suck. You get to the end of the game, and proceed to immediately commit seppeku in order to save the world (Sacred 2, the first Legacy of Kain, etc...) as a bad guy you pretty much obtain a ton of power and take over, but you at least get
to keep living. There ARE exceptions to this of course, where your kind of punished with a "bad" ending if your evil, but truthfully it seems to me that the good guys wind up coming to bad ends quite a bit as the ultimate "reward" for being a good guy. One could argue that a genuine good guy doesn't WANT a reward, and that's sort of the point of self-sacrifice endings, but understand your dealing with a story in a video game, and as a player if I'm the good guy I want to live happily ever after.
What's more the thing about being a bad guy is that it typically either involves simply being ruthless in the pursuit of the same basic goals as the good guy (like in say Mass Effect), or like in a lot of games involves being so much of a malevolent, puppy-kicking, jerk that it gets so ridiculous that it's funny, and games are all about the entertainment value. I think part of the equasion is that as a bad guy your not running around raping people for your own sadistic amusement or whatever (well not outside of certain Japanese games) your running around like a combination of Ming The Merciless and a Captain Planet villain, kicking puppies, wilting flowers, and so on.
I've always thought this video sort of summarizes the ridiculous approach to evil video games take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C50A9nbhNrk
... and let's be honest, there is such a thing as annoyance, in say the Fable series the townspeople are absolutely annoying. In 2 and 3 you can virtually guarantee at some point your going to be unable to enter a town to hit the shops without a whole train of peasants following you around declaring their undying love (including tons of them from whatever sexual orientation your not). The big difference between good and evil thus generally turns into that if your going your going to say be blacksmithing while a dozen different voices from people you've never met keep saying things like "oh, if I only had a (wedding) ring" and so on. The bad guy on the other hand can clean these people out and get on with his business in peace. This can be replaced with numerous annoying bits in video games. It's also why there is a demand by some people to be able to kill children in games like "Skyrim" not because anyone really wants to murder children but because having them run around screaming "I don't care if your my elder, I can kick your butt!" (or something like that) even coming into your house while your doing alchemy or enchanting to share this with you. I'd imagine most bouts of insane villager-murdering rage in various games have actually NOT come from an inherent malevolence on the part of the player.
Then of course you have things like "The Old Republic Online" where things like love are considered to be "dark side" which leads to some warped examples of "evil" behavior. Even so the bad guy side tends to be so absurd that it's almost funny at times, with quests like "well, we're going to poison these people, the big question is how much we want them to suffer when we do it... why are we doing it? Well we're EEEEVIL you see... errr I mean we do it for the dark side". In many cases it comes down to the kind of logic that only Ming The Merciless would agree with... sadly I have yet to find a game where by bad guy can be married using his ceremony from the end of the "Flash Gordon" movie for the ultimate in lulzworthy over the top malevolence.
-
That said, in the real world anyone who did anything of note would be a bad guy to a huge amount of the planet. Something things like the reconstructionist movement in comics have gotten into. Everyone thinks they are the good guys and can be considered "right" from a certain perspective or by looking at a specific time in history. Even Hitler had good intentions, and didn't see himself as being evil (and the world was heavily divided over this, which is why it was a World War). Heroes like Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris are horrible war criminals to the other side, and so on. You pretty much go back and look at any historical figure or person of note, and you'll find that none of them were exactly white knights. When you learn ethics in school, the entire point is that "good and evil" in the real world tend to be entirely subjective and conflicts always come down to "us or them". Only a very few people ever knowingly do evil (serial killers, anti-societal cultists, etc...) and they tend to be exceedingly rare. Very few people get up in the morning and decide "gee, I think I'll be really evil today"... which is kind of why evil in a game tends to be ridiculous.
At any rate, if I say gained the powers of a hero like "Superman" tomorrow, and set out to make the world a better place, I'd be a hero to those who agreed with me on what a better place is, and a villain to those who disagreed. If I embraced "Truth, Justice, and The American Way" (the classic) we're probably looking at like 70% of the planet that would consider me to be the devil himself (and I mean this literally, given that there are millions of Muslims who refer to the US as "The Great Satan"). For all intents and purposes I'd be just "wrecking people's shit" by the standards of millions of people who disagreed with my motivations or vision.
Of course at the same time, if I personally ever gained the abilities of a very powerful super-hero I'd personally have to re-evaluate a lot of my beliefs.
In short while he was being simplistic, your friend is sort of right.
Killing hundreds of generic villains seems out of character for a good guy, but not so much for a psychopathic maniac. Would a defender of justice really hunt down bands of thieves, mercilessly butcher the lot of them, rummage through their belongings and leave them in their underpants? Probably not. I don't think they would break into people's homes and smash all their pottery either : \
For most people I guess they just want to do something different, although anti-heroes have become very common lately.
For most people I guess they just want to do something different, although anti-heroes have become very common lately.