How many of us genuinely enjoy playing 'evil' characters?

Personally, I don't tend to find characters just being evil without some kind of at least semi-reasonable justification to be enjoyable; even if I'm not identifying with them (and I'm not sure exactly where I'd put myself on that scale, it depends on the playthrough) that tends to get to the point of 'I don't care about this person or at least don't want them to succeed'.

I had this problem with one of my Inquisitors. I wasn't playing them evil but just different to how I normally would. In this case I was a loyalist mage, so absolutely loved by Vivienne, but with a viewpoint that was decidedly not my own. In the end, I just couldn't finish that play through because I didn't like him and didn't enjoy playing him as he was too far removed from the way I normally played my characters.

By contrast, I deliberately set out to create a Warden in DAO who would be more of a pragmatist and politically ambitious. Once again, I didn't set out to be evil for evil's sake but occasionally might make a decision that other people, both inside and outside the game word might consider evil. For example, Alistair considered it an absolute betrayal when I spared Loghain but my character had sound reasons, both selfish and practical, for doing so. He ended up as Prince Consort to Queen Anora and whilst I didn't necessarily like him, I did respect him and he had been fun to play.

As for Mass Effect, it still rankles with me that the Destroy option was labelled red, so regarded as the ruthless, renegade path, which had me very confused as I thought ending the Reapers had been what I had been working towards for the entire trilogy, regardless of whether I was a paragon, a renegade or somewhere in between. They fact that they "rigged" it so I couldn't take this option without selling out at least some of my allies was annoying.

I also found this true of other decisions in Dragon Age. The "virtuous" path was frequently so obvious as a player that there seemed no reason not to take it unless you are the sort of player that wants to play evil for the sake of it. However, in terms of my in world character, why wouldn't they take the sensible, ruthless option when the potential downside of not doing so could be to get people killed? The example I always quote for this is the one over Connor. Leaving him running around free whilst you head off to the Circle made zero sense, yet it was obvious that was meant to be the option you should take as a "good" character. When I got to the Circle and was delayed in returning by the fact it was overrun by demons, I should have expected to find negative results on getting back to Redcliff but, as it turned out, there were none. So, killing Connor because he is possessed by the demon and likely to harm people in my absence automatically becomes the "evil" option. Whereas, to be honest, in terms of an in-world character, it was the sensible thing to do.

So I don't enjoy playing "evil" characters but in terms of Dragon Age, what might be considered evil in our world is probably just pragmatic, practical or sensible in theirs.

Big fan of understandable/sympathetic "evil" characters

This is one example I also fall back on when making this point. It does feel like leaving Connor be for a while should have a negative price.

However, I don't know how to back myself out of the grim corner when attaching 'everything has a price' label to the game. You're risking to set the mood where the player feels like they can't do anything right because everything you do, in one way or another, will smack you in the face.

On one hand, you can have three outcomes of an x situation: each of those lets you achieve your goal, but also has something bad happen - the risk of OMG I busted my butt doing this and I'm still left feeling kinda bad and will no matter what I'd do.


For example, I'm currently playing the Witcher series where every situation is a booby trap with the heads rolling. The setting leaves you a lot more jaded and cynical, potentially to the point of being desensitized.

In Witcher 2, first, they ran into a situation where they made a choice ending of 'the wolves are fed and the sheep have been spared.'

Through the game you're hunting a guy who framed you for the King's murder. This guy along the way kidnaps your love interest Triss. To be able to track this guy down, you enlist an ally who becomes your friend and you two interact through a big portion of the game. At the end game - you're given a choice where your friend is making a request (kingdom scale importance) to aid him in his personal quest. You must choose: save your love interest or aid your friend. However, for those with the meta knowledge, if you don't save Triss, then another guy will. So, obviously everyone chose the option to help their ally because she'll be fine anyway.

The game creators deemed it too easy, so, they've added a twist. If you don't save your love interest, then she won't be able to expose the ring leaders of a mage circle at a huge King summit. As a result, all mages will get the blame. This will result in an absolutely brutal massacre of mages and other non humans (rapes, burned at the stake, you name it) in the city where the summit occurs.

You can argue either way: This change made two endings more balanced and more interesting. But at the same time - the consequences for the side you've declined aid are brutal and both endings leave a nagging feeling in your gut.

I suppose it comes down to what type of atmosphere and setting the game is gunning for - more grim and realistic or more fairy tale with heroic endings.

gervaise21

It's certainly a dubious favour to the world to let him live.

I like your thinking - these bandits will torture him. I'll stab him myself. Then the bandits get mad because they got robbed of pleasure and you kill them when they draw blades. But bandits are bad too. One cultist and three bandits less for the world. A total paragon decision there. Plus you get the most exp and loot out of it.



I'm glad the game is leaning away from this path and only on minor occasions dips into these difficult choices. I'm ok with them being there occasionally, but I don't favour the entire game being riddled with them every step of the way.

I think the closest example is in the Awakening where you choose Amaranthine or Vigils Keep, but DAO allows you to kinda cheat and save both anyway by doing all those side quests that prepare the Keep for the siege (dwarven tnt for the win) and then choosing to save the city. In this case, which is also cool, your secondary quests and actions determine the greater outcome, rather than one line decision.

In Witcher, had you chosen the city, they for sure would have killed Varel and dragged the Keep down into rubble (secondary quests or no) or showed massive civilian slaughter in Amaranthine had you chosen the Keep.

Not that DAO never does this overall. Remember tossing Hawke or Stroud to the Nightmare. I find this once per game event to pack a more powerful punch by standing out alone. Wouldn't be as strong if you were choosing every day which person to throw under the bus.

Speaking of Good or Evil: It's a tough question choosing between personal (Hawke) and greater good (Stroud) Which one is good, which one is evil?

I have the same problem & can never really go through with an evil playthrough where good is an option. The moral version of the protagonist is just more likeable.

The only exception to that is with SWTOR & the Sith player characters. You know going into it that your character belongs to an evil order of warrior-monks and is very much the villain in the story, not it's hero. The evil route just better fits that particular story, unlike the main story of most single player games, which are usually written with a traditional hero in mind. Since the game has multiple player characters with different origins there is no need to feel guilty about playing your villain like a villain. The Jedi or the Republic trooper are always there when you're in the mood for a heroic player character, and the Smuggler or Bounty Hunter pair well with a neutral approach that also can be easier to stomach than a lot of what dark-sided Sith get up to.

The AI catalyst child on the citadel had every reason to make you think destroy was the "Evil" option as it was interested in surviving and so it tried to sway you away from ending its existence.

As opposed to what Galactic scale physical slavery(control) or Robbing every sentient being in the galaxy of the free will to choose their destiny(synthesis), Losing the Geth and all the other sentient toasters is a bitter pill to swallow but hard choices for hard times so that TRILLIONS left can live free of the Reapers.
The Reapers have killed Quintillions of sentients and you balk at a few million geth.

I like Blackwall idea. He's likely to volunteer.

That's a fair point to give the Warden a going down in glory death near their Calling.

That's true, neither is an evil choice, just difficult.

I think when I said it's good vs evil in a sense that, would your character choose a socially beneficial factor over a choice that impacts them directly.

For example, in Witcher you are given a choice between Djisktra and Roche/Ves/Thaler. Djikstra can unite all northern realms and become a good ruler. Whereas, the trio are your close friends, but their plan is to surrender the north to another big empire and offer their territories as vassal states. You have to murder knife one of these two parties.

It is still genocide, yes.
First, because we know of other races that are synthetic now.
Second, even if there were no other casualties than the Reapers it is still committing genocide on the Reapers.

Still genocide by every definition of the term.