« You’ve Got a Friend In… My Avatar | Home | More Round Table… »
The Inadequacy of Evil
By Corvus | April 18, 2006
Craig posted an interesting piece on villainy in games and how dissatisfying he finds the portrayal of the “twelve-year-old’s idiot evil” which is currently implemented to allow you to follow a dark path (link).
My initial response to that is that of course evil is presented within a juvenile framework in games. Firstly, proper storytelling in games is in its infancy. With few notable exceptions, games are relying on stereotypes to get the job done and that’s simply not the path to an engaging narrative. Secondly, the concept of evil itself hearkens back to a time when our understanding of human motivations was in its infancy. I suggest that evil is an outmoded and unrealistic term which needs to be ignored when creating villains and villainous paths in games.
Instead, we should find some more realistic behaviors and core attributes to base our characters upon. Power hungry? Fine. Profit driven? Fine. Sociopathic? Fine. When drawing a broad stroke character, at least choose a more interesting brush. You can allow their actions to be interpreted as evil, but keep their true motivations in mind at all times. This approach provides for more engaging characters, of both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ stripes. Too often in games I see characters which are villains first and foremost and fully fleshed out characters second. They are simply evil, if you will, for evil’s sake. Ask any writer and they’ll tell you that it isn’t a good way to design a character.
And that’s just your in game opponents. Beside true villains, we also have games which now provide you with an opportunity to walk a ‘villainous’ path. But we don’t quite have the hang of that yet either. Even when provided with some more realistic NPC motivations, the core approach to presenting player villainy seems off to me. We can look at KotOR for a good example of this.
Craig suggests that the evil party members in KotOR ought to betray you if they’re going to be truly villainous. But you know, even nefariously wrong headed individuals can have strong loyalties. Look no further than the biker gangs of the US. As violent and dangerous as they are, there’s a twisted code of honor at play there. Only betrayal and weakness seem to be truly punished within that culture. But let someone need life saving surgery, or lose a family member, and they’ve got the full financial an emotional support of their clan.
No, the problem with KotOR’s dark side path isn’t the supporting characters, it’s the path itself. Even though KotOR tries to provide you with meaningful dark side plot points, it really doesn’t provide any meaningful options that impact the direction of the narrative. Sure, each isolated encounter can be resolved one way or the other, but there are no long term attempts to partner with other forces of evil. The nature and direction of the game itself isn’t dependent upon the choices you make, only the final cut scene is meaningfully altered.
The same can be said of Fable. The stapling of a “Good” and “Evil” factor upon actions taken in game effects the unfolding of narrative not at all. You still rush headlong into a set conflict over the loss of your sister and mother. Where are the villainous behaviors? Why can’t you team up with Jack of Blades for a time? Assess him for weaknesses? Try and gain his confidence? This would be more in keeping with villainous behavior. Even villains, after all, seek companionship and, on some level, want someone to care about them and their goals.
So the problem with these games is that the characters have simple labels like ‘evil’ and ‘villainous’ and ‘good’ and ‘heroic’ applied to them in totality, instead of merely applying those labels to their actions. So their motivations, whether player controlled or not, are shallow and their options are limited by reliance upon a linear narrative.
So what to do about it?
Well, first off, decide what you mean by evil. Decide what you mean by villainous. I suggested in Craig’s comments that evil doesn’t exist as a motivation, but actions which are against the good of society are considered evil and actions which are outside social norms are considered villainous. That’s a good start.
My StoryWorld has two forces at play: generative and degenerative. Admittedly, I use the terms Heroic and Villainous respectively to describe them at a narrative level, but at a system level, we’re essentially talking about growth and entropy. At all levels, there are actions which aid the growth of the world and actions which hasten its death. Some of these forces are natural. Some of them are not. Some of them are societal, some political, and some are motivated by ancient conflicts outside the scope of a majority of people’s awareness. Sit down and talk for any length of time with the villain of one of my stories (providing you’ve evinced behaviors which would help them feel comfortable enough to chat with you) and you’ll find a passionate, caring individual. Of course, there may be large portions of society, or even the world itself, which stand between them and what they’re passionate about. In those instanced their decisions about how to deal with the situation are not typically within societal norms… thus, their villainy.
I’ve never crafted a single evil villain in my campaigns… and I’ve had some villains that my players still flinch at when they hear their names. Evil, I always felt, was simply inadequate for the task of giving people someone to be truly afraid of.
|
April 18th, 2006 at 10:04 am
I agree, of course. In fact, my commentary about Oblivion’s “Mud Puddle” nature refers to the same lack of long-term consequences.
I think long-term consequences are probably the way to go, in the long term… er… future… with the sort of person a character is determining the sort of things he’s likely to do for you in the future. I would love to see a flaky good guy and a very loyal “bad” guy!
(As a side note, did you see the evil chars in KotOR? They’re greedy, backstabbing crime lords. They are the sort of person who should have stabbed you in your posterior.)
April 18th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Well, the Sith lords, yeah. But the dark characters on your grew suggested more complex ethical structures. Regardless, even the Sith keep you around as long as you’re more useful than threatening. I’d like to see a game which took a dynamic like that into account.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:50 am
That is always a sticking point for me when an “evil” path is presented. No matter how bad you are, how vile, how completely at odds with everything good, lawful, and light in the universe, you are still always working directly against whatever forces are the antagonists in the game.
So in order to rule the world, we have to save it first? How come the option to simply continue the original antagonists plan is never proposed? Why does a new hero never rise against me?
Furthermore, why is it that no matter how powerful I become, merchants still talk down their nose at me? Sort of ruins the effect, eh? Can you imagine a shopkeeper being rude to Darth Vader or Sauron?
April 24th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
[...] I never quite got around to putting in the anti-spam measures I mentioned when I opened up comments. Although I can’t say there has been any spike in participation, I have to say that most of the blogs I have read lately seem to be pretty sparse on comments for some reason. Which is a shame because there was a post a last week on Man Bytes Blog that I had really hoped was going to turn into a real discussion, but petered out way to fast. Springtime ennui for blogging? [...]
May 4th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
[...] Corvus ruminates on the inadequacy of Evil. “Evil, I always felt, was simply inadequate for the task of giving people someone to be truly afraid of.” [...]
January 31st, 2008 at 11:22 pm
[...] topic of villiany has already been covered by Project Perko and then expounded upon by Man Bytes Blog. These two posts just got me to thinking further on the [...]