A huge role in the understanding of the problem of the ratio of good and evil, being and proper was introduced by the ancient Greek thinker Aristotle, who created science called by him ethics. In his famous work “Nicomakhov Ethics”, the ideas of relativism, subjectivity in understanding morality and morality are also traced. He claimed that a person from birth has a tendency to good and evil. The predominance of one or the other depends on the three causes of the environment or the environment; education; self -education. Politics and ethics, in the teachings of Aristotle, are closely connected. Man, for him, is the creature of the socio-political. Aristotle considers the task of the person’s retention, from unreasonable behavior, following the correct laws that ensure healthy education, which realizes the habit and desire to act virtuously. Man is strong -willed, he is in power over himself and is responsible for his actions. The existence of the absolute concept of good in ancient Greek philosophy spoke Socrates (V in. BC.e.). In contrast to relativistic teaching. Socrates claimed that good and evil are completely different. This understanding proceeds from the recognition of the existence not subjective, but objective truth, not subjective, but objective moral norms. Understanding good, in his philosophy, is associated with the understanding of the One God as a source of virtue and good. Socrates associated the virtue with knowledge. Good is rational, and evil is a lack of knowledge, irrational. The knowledge that there is good and that there is evil and is a guarantee of virtue, from the point of view of Socrates.

If morality is an objectively existing specific phenomenon of social life, then ethics as a science studies morality, its essence, nature and structure, patterns of emergence and development, a place in the system of other social relations, theoretically substantiates a certain moral system. We can observe morality in various works — books, films and even games. And the moral elections in games have undergone changes, but far from the old postulates about the struggle of evil evil with good good could not move away.

ATTENTION! The text contains a large number of spoilers to the entire series Mass Effect, Fallout 3, 4, New Vegas, Skyrim, as well as minor spoilers for games such as Divinity 2, Baldurs Gate 3, Red DED REDEMPTION 2 and DETROIT BECOMAN. You are warned

I’ll try to explain

Old games, despite their ambiguous moral connotation, usually rewarded players for good deeds. However, the games were often full of violence, which put the players in a morally ambiguous position, demanding to save entire worlds by destroying enemies. Given that violence was an integral part of the gameplay, to convince the players to go to the dark side could be a difficult task. And it is not tricky. A good person to bad deeds can be persuaded only through an internal conflict — to steal money in order to feed the family. Kill a person to get the victim out of the car. But in games you do not have time to think over and feel your actions, you act more "on the fly". Take the same Max Payne, who was already judged on Stopgaim. You at least once for the game really thought about how many people you kill and how many lives you break? So I never thought. Over time, when more serious games in the RPG genre began to come out in the field of industry to give players the freedom. And how is it even easier to show freedom of choice, if not through the old story about the war about the war of good with evil and let the player choose his own path?

Now that we have moved to the very essence of the blog, I want to admit to you — I love to play bad characters in games. Because the games seem to be given to me freedom. I am in life and so good 24/7, so in games I am waiting for the opportunity to shoot enemies on the feet of enemies when they run away or commit an genocide for a whole civilization. Because if the game is about playing, then it should provide the opportunity to be the most evil evil in the universe. And not just Hitler, who announced the Holocaust to all the units on the map, but a really thoughtful and interesting character. But I always stumble about the same rake — developers do not know how to show and clearly prescribe the "evil" character. Let’s look more specifically.

The problem 1 I cannot kill a bad person, because the cat stroked two hours ago.

In Mass Effect games, even the game tells us that we are just an ordinary soldier/biot/swordsman/adventurer, but in fact it deceives us. In the game, we are demigods. No matter what difficulty you put up and no matter how the brave captain grunted in the Katsen — all is achieved by us without much difficulty. Every player sitting and clicking is capable of LKM. Therefore, any adversary who dares to appear on our screen will be sent immediately to the forefathers in a matter of seconds after their appearance. And when you know that no one will save the Galaxy except you and no one will solve the conflict except you, I really want to be a little goat. Maybe I don’t want to kill Rex, but at the same time I consider it my duty to tell the guard on Novoria that they are an empty place, which even one hundredth from my strength cannot approach and I am not going to hand over my weapons. I really worry about the fate of Rakhni and I want to let them go into outer space to sing my songs, but the dreadnought “path of destiny” in my passage always takes off into the air, because this trio from the council refused to listen to me. And finally, I am friendly to every Sopartian on my ship and is ready to bring a handkerchief to each nose of each alien, but the adviser will be udine at the end of the game. And in fact, the first part in my choice does not limit me in any way. From the side, although it seems that the commander suffers from the bifurcation of the personality and he breaks away in one direction or the other, but globally the system of the rhinestone does not interfere with passing the game as the player considers necessary. Globally, all the pumping of our charisma gives us only one bonus — the skip of the first part of the battle with Saren at the end of the game. Yes, of course, there is an opportunity to convince the enemy in some places to remove weapons, but this does not affect history. There is an opportunity to convince Rex to admit that the crogans in the laboratory are Marionets, but we can break this check without difficulty just playing. Real problems begin from the second part smoothly flowing into a third part.

A good character looks quite natural

So evil villain that even the eyes glow

In the second part, as a player, they do not let the ghost side take the side of me, no matter how I want it. We remember that the third part has not yet come out and the personality of the ghost is not yet clear to us. For example, I believe that he works for humanity and in the interests of mankind. This guy literally saves the whole galaxy reviving the captain. And it seems to me that leaving the base of collectors at the end of the game to this wise and decisive person is excellent gratitude for their own resurrection, the salvation of the colonies of people in particular, and, as it turns out, the galaxies in the end. But after the end, having gone through the game and bypassing the whole ship after the suicidal mission, I didn’t even hear a single squeak in my direction, they say, a wise decision brother. The entire crew squad, from Garus to the cook in the kitchen considers me a complete idiot.

The problem is so global that even though I want to win back the villain, I can not play it out as I want. I do not want to be the most broken scurvy in the galaxy. I just want to be a bad and tough person. But the game does not allow me to do this because of the stupid system of obtaining glasses of the Hero-Operator. This directly affects all my passage of the game. There are moments in the game that require simply cosmic number of points to solve the problem. And not always the options for the apostate seem to me exactly what is the options of a bad guy. As an example — captain’s replicas before the last mission. You can focus on the shuttle of the detachment, say how good you are all good, kind and how you value them all and love them all. Get +30 points of the hero that logical. And you can say that now there will be no wet place from our enemy and wet place, we will solve everyone to one and you, my combat comrades, will help me with this. And get +30 villain points. Sorry, what? Let’s talk about Tuchanka. I fly to my native planet Kroganov. These guys know only one language — the language of power. Their whole life is war. All their culture is built in the war. Arriving with a crog from a test tube, the head of the clan tells me — you are nobody to call you in any way. And naturally gets a heading with a head — because this is exactly what the crogans behave. But the game happily paves me off the glasses of the apostate, because, probably, disrespect for the culture of another race is very evil behavior. Or all the crugans, according to the authors in the soul, are bad. And to swallow all the insults that fly to you, and even from the side of the Krogan, whose clan is at war with the clan of your close friend — this is a very heroic act. The funny thing is that everyone in the district tells you how cool you are and good. You understand what it means to be a crown, you feel a cultural code, well done! But the game at the same time considers your act a bad act.

Or the most classic example is a reporter on the citadel. A sick woman distorts every word of the hero of the galaxy, who carries peace and prosperity for every inconspicuous satellite of every inconspicuous planet. Naturally, the most correct and heroic decision will plug the unhappy mouth, but instead of the hero’s glasses, I get the glasses of the apostate. Despite the fact that a little later, even the Admiral of the Alliance will tell me that I am well done. And vice versa, allowing her to distort every word I said and let it all on the air throughout the citadel, I suddenly turn out to be a hero. It may seem attracted by the ears, but understand the essence. The game very superficially interprets heroic and apostasy actions. Yes, hit a stranger or alien is bad, and this can be considered bad in a vacuum. That’s exactly what is in a vacuum. But at the same time, to plug a person who spreads obviously lying information is already a good act. But the game looks at the solutions in vacuum. Hit — do not hit. Shoot — do not shoot. Save — do not save. When performing a mission for the loyalty of Garrus, we will catch up with Kharkin. Over the twenty years of service, Kharkin created a terrible reputation for humanity. He was convicted of bribery, abuse of official position, alcohol and drugs, as well as in theft during his service in customs control. Kharkin was fired from the SBC a month before the events of Mass Effect. In the first part, it generally harasses to the captain. But the game believes that his injury is an act of the villain. Why? Because shooting people is bad.

Almost the only example of a competent choice in the series, along with a choice between Ashley and Kayden. You cannot save both

And this is how I get up by the time when Jack and Miranda begin to quarrel on the ship. I want to shout to them “shut up, you are both wrong!". But I can’t. Because the game believes that, firstly, to say this is the act of a very bad person, and secondly, I am not a bad person to shout to them such. Because it turns out that to say “you both shut up” both the workers at the factory doom to death, and to say that it smells bad from them, and on the ship to say “shut up the mob, I’m the captain”. It is necessary to hide for every Sopartis, Father Tali to cross out of all magazines on each of the ships and give a bell to each seller on the citadel. And vice versa, I cannot say that they are both right in their own way, because they did not save every worker at the factory, did not kiss every passerby in the forehead and did not tell the ghost that he was a moron. For some reason, the game does not perceive my every action for some separate act. She looks at all events in general. Imagine that some very unpleasant person yells at you in life. Getes to the whole street and you and your whole family to the fifth knee, also twists in front of the chest, constantly threatening the reprisal against you. And you cannot hit him, because last night they gave ten rubles a beggar in the subway. This is how the whole roe of Mass Effect looks for me.

The problem is angry, and I punish you for this.

There are games by the type of Red Dead Reduction 2, where, depending on the passage style you selected, the color of the whole story changes. You are either a dying cowboy who, at the sunset of your life, strives to do at least something good, or a criminal who, dying, regrets that you actually did not manage to do anything in his life. This is beautifully and organically inscribed, but at the same time does not limit you to the choice of bad deeds. You can rob, kill, engage in indecency-only the tone of the narrative will change, accents in the work will be built differently. But take the most eminent titles — Fallout, Skyrim, Baldur’s Gate and Divinity . Games that position themselves as role -playing in the literal sense of the word. I have such a joke, in all Fantasy Role Games to play the role of the archers of the criminal. The discharge of society, which with an arrow and a swearing word breaks to the top of the world. And we stumble that we will make a “bad” character take pieces of history from you, while a good and kind character will learn the whole history of the world and will take every Sopartiye to the team. Here in Fallout and Skyrim you dare to play a bad person. And what do you get in the end? Not only will they not be won to you, but they will also be given, they will cut off a good quarter of the whole story from you. Making a bad time in these games almost always means not to finish any quest to the end. Roughly speaking, there is some unfortunate person and asks you for help. You proudly answer him — leave the road. And what did you get in the end? Just a missed quest, well done, now, take your cookie from the shelf.

Let’s talk more objectively about Fallout 3. The game itself works wonderful at first glance. There is a huge bunch of NPS with which you can communicate, you can trade, build some connections. But unlike games according to the type of GTA or RDR, the murder of NPS means their murder. Shot, Boom, everything, this NPS is no longer in the game, as there is no all that he could provide you. Now we will put these NPSs in a city, build the second one, and talk even more objectively.

There is a wonderful mission about an explosion of a bomb in a city called Megaton. A town with a large number of people was built around a huge nuclear bomb, which, a surprise-surprise, at any time can raise all people with the city in the air. In general, good and respectable people live in it. But here we look a little away and see a huge hotel, in which there is almost a real city in which they live, so to speak, the powers of this world. They offer our hero a deal — blow up the bomb with the city with us for the joy, and we are ozolovo, and we will even let you in our circles. It sounds cool, yes? We come to the city to charge a bomb, and the local little man tells us that, they say, buddy, help the city, neutralize the charge, we will love you and adore you. Here are two behaviors — good and bad. And how will the game react to our solution?

In short, the consequences that will pursue the player after the bomb explosion are much more serious than the reward for the fact that you will blow up this city. And the matter here is far from only in the moral choice. Having exploded the city, of course, you will receive local currency, but at the same time, until the end of the game, you will hunt your head hunters, even if the whole subsequent game you will try to take the path of atonement. Your father at the first meeting with you will tell you how bad you are you. You lose a valuable loop in the form of a navel, which is located in Megaton and you cannot take it under any circumstances. Companion, provided that you did not have time to take him with you on a trip will also be incinerated by a nuclear explosion and you will never see it, and, by the way, one of the best partners in the game. Naturally, you can pick up the puffs before the explosion, but passing the game for the first time you will never know that he was there at all. What if you don’t blow up? You will receive the status of a hero, everyone in the city will let the tears of joy at your approach, merchants will remain in the city, you will be able to fulfill the tasks of local residents, and, the funniest, you will still remain entering the hotel that gave you a mission to undermine megatons. That is, you see, yes? Exploring the city, you just cut off part of the Laura, while the preservation of the city does not cut off from you anything at all. By saving the city, you become a hero at the rest of the game, and by expluring it, not only do you doom yourself to universal hatred, but if you do not restore your karma, you will lose another companion in the course of the game. He will just refuse to go with you. Saving the city, you will get a whole house. Destroying the hotel room and several hundred covers, which in the local system of the economy will simply be lost. The status of a good guy will simply give you not just status, but content. The bad is completely cut off from him. Moreover, the game does not even have a faction of villains to which one could join. And the same problems are calmly wandering for themselves already in a fourth part of the series .

A banal example. Sits a gul boy in the refrigerator, intensely engaged in cosplay of Indiana Jones and asks for help. "I’m not going to help you" our character says. Well cool. No you get a quest. And it comes to stupidity. I hate you, your brotherhood steel, sits in the liver. I meet Paladin Dansa. He asks for help. Naturally, I can’t refuse him even despite the fact that I play for the “bad”, because I will cut off a whole third of the plot from myself, I go to help him. We go with him in some kind of God’s forgotten room, we reach some kind of missile engine right in the room, and then a crowd of synthesis is thrown into the paladin. To get out of the room you need to click on a huge red button that will launch an engine that in turn will incinerate everything that is indoors. "Yes, and give a shit," I think and hit the button with all my strength. The rumble of the engine. I enter the room and see the picture with oil — ashes of defeated enemies and an absolutely unharmed paladin. Not only did I try to kill you, you are unhappy cattle, but for some reason my character with cries “Oh my God!! You’re fine. »Starts to run headlong to you. I didn’t want to save you. And the main stupidity is that as a result I will still order you to kill you. You are an absolutely unnecessary character for the plot, who the maximum claims to raise the question a la “what if your combat comrade is your main enemy”, who generally passes by the “bad” hero, because our goal as a bad player was originally his murder. At the same time, for some reason, they give me the whole subway. And having finished my game for the institute, having blown up at the same time, the airship of the fraternity became, as a villain, I can only lower my head to the floor and tell Nick, the synthesis of the companion, only “sorry”.

There is a thieves guild in Skyrim in Skyrim. Cool, it’s bad to steal, bad people, bad deeds? I’m in business. The plot is famously twisting telling a member of the guild, which the sprear of an artifact is a skeletal key that approaches any castle in the world. Perfect thief tool. But by kidnapping him, he condemned the remaining death and the latter undertake to return the key at all costs, sending our hero after him. We really get a key. And now we are already looking forward to how we leave the whole guild for death, wearing throughout the map with one of the best artifacts in the game. Here it is a choice, to sacrifice the life of the Cossacks in return for a powerful thing, yes? Again not. Having received the key, you will be given the task of returning it. You are free and not to return, but the quest will not disappear from this. The plot will just pause. You cannot doom the guild to death, leaving the key to yourself, as if you did not want to play badly. The game makes you be kind.

The same thing, but to a lesser extent concerns Divinity and the gate of Baldur. Here I can freely play a bad person, but at the same time I will constantly stumble that I can’t pass some plots, because it does not correspond. Moreover, reverse situations do not seem to arise at all. I have not met in the game of such quests that would demand from me to be bad. A pretty fluffy bunny Good character can see all the quests. I can only as a villain to shoot a questist and on this my wager as a whole will end. Take a Gale. A character whose murder will lead to the death of the world and, accordingly, to the game of the. To prevent Big Kabuma, the player is given the opportunity to feed the miracle council artifacts. And non -alternatively to the end of the first act. At the same time, giving him your clothes you can’t tell him “choke a bastard”. Just "eat on health". It is also absurd because a certain character in the estate of the dark temptation has the opportunity to cut off a man-nuclear bomb at the very beginning of the game, thereby riding us from the Sopartiyan. My elf, who shoots between the eyes for each meeting for some reason, is deprived of such an opportunity.

Let’s go further, paying attention to the exclusive of the fourth curler of Infamous Second Son . The cover and art of this game literally shout to you — play as you want. You are really free to choose — to kill adversaries or leave them alive. And really, you will change from this and the Tree of the pumping, and you will draw different graffiti, and the reaction to you people in the city will be different. But the plot will suffer from this, because the game seems to think that the main character should embark on the path of correction for the sake of his brother, and not to repair chaos around him. The same joke in the game Watch Dogs, but there it is realized even weaker. The system of reputation in case of bad karma will simply send policemen on you more often. And what is the point of playing a bad?

The problem 3 is errone.

In fact, the answer to the question is why there is always so little evil, it turns out completely on the surface.

Megan Starks, senior storytelling to Obsidian Entertainment, a game studio standing behind such games as The Outer Worlds, Tyranny and Fallout: New Vegas, says about 97 percent of its players prefer to follow the path of good, and not along the path.

“We could say:“ Well, then why choose a less moral way at all?"This is a lot of time and resources to develop a choice with which most players will never encounter". But it is important to have a choice itself, ”writes Starks in an email letter.

“Fiction imitates life, and in order to create a believable world in which the audience could plunge, it must contain a certain image of the moral system,” says Starks. “Because if you have absolutely no mistakes or risk of mistakes, there is no conflict, and if you have no conflict, you have no story that the audience is interested in surviving”.

In such a paradigm, it is already easier to look at the above examples. But the whole point is killed. You don’t play a bad person, you play a good one who is mistaken. Let’s get back to Mass Effect. In fact, I lied. You do not choose good and bad actions. You choose the right and wrong. You are a military man, you are a hero. And you must correspond to this image. The border at the guard, you, in fact, scold him for doing his job. You make a mistake, renounce the status of an alliance soldier. That is why you are not a villain, namely that the apostate. You are likened to Krogan, you shot the first, you hit the reporter — not so much we represent a good person. In the second part, we will even literally “decompose” from bad deeds, because Shepard will reject the implants from himself, rejecting his essence of the soldier of the alliance of systems.

In Fallout 3, you are a good and well -mannered person who was mistaken by blowing up a bomb. That is why you will set you up a pack of head hunters, take loot and quests, and your father will complain that he has raised you badly. You were also mistaken thinking that you play in a fourth part for a bad person. You are good, just mistaken in thinking that they could kill Dans.

Detroit Become Human will literally scream about your erroneous actions when trying to play a bad robot. Klara and the girl will not cross the border, Marcus will force thousands of Androidov and bring his own friends to death with his actions, Conor will shoot his partner, and all people will die from a nuclear explosion. You screwed up.

Disonerd 2 at the end of the game will say that you have passed it wrong and, moreover, the whole game will pay your attention to the fact that by killing you play incorrectly, strengthening the security at the level.

So maybe all people are kind and do not want to do bad deeds?

Probably the way it is, but let’s turn to the system of two models of behavior.

The study of the University of Baylor studied how people approach the moral choice in video games, and focused on three scenarios:

- The notorious mission of “not a https://mindepositcasino.co.uk/fluffy-favourites-slot/ Russian word” from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, where you are part of the terrorist group and you can kill innocent civilians at the airport, kill only guards or not shoot at all at all.

- The mission of the “atom” of Fallout 3, where you can neutralize the bomb for a small award or blow it up and destroy the city for a large award.

- Mission "Free Labor" from Fallout 3, where you can kidnap or spare a child.

Results? According to Daniel Shaifer, associate professor of the Department of Cinema and Digital Media University of Baylor, as many people have chosen the path of evil as good. About 49 percent of people who chose the path of good were “morally active”, that is, they felt sympathy for non-game characters, felt guilty because of the prospect of committing evil or trusting their instincts regarding what was considered correct. That is, only half of the people surveyed tried to get used to the role of the character and put themselves in his place.

Those who chose the path of evil corresponded to the idea of ​​Albert Bandura about moral suspension, that is, when people suspend their usual ethics in order to act against their moral standards without a feeling of guilt or shame. But the Schafer said that some claimed that they did what they did, “because it was“ just a game ”, and therefore this act did not have a real moral weight”. Other common excuses include the idea only to follow orders, follow the rules of the game and do what is necessary for survival or completion of the mission.

Naturally, the majority in the experiment chose the kindest options, but at the same time there was not a single person who would not shoot at defenseless people in the mission “not a word in Russian”.

The problem is not that people do not want to behave badly, otherwise no one would buy games such as GTA or Payday . The main problem is that the bets on the issue of being good or bad are too high. That is why 97% of players adhere to the hero’s paths in the same Mass Effect. Playing as a villain you lose everything. But back to Skyrim-you behave like a good Samaritan in cities where you can kill the plot NPS or, during theft of the garlic head, to put up on the whole guard of the city in the event of an unsuccessful attempt to steal a good vegetable, but at the same time there is at least one of you who did not kill the usual oncoming passerby just walking around the world somewhere outside the gates?

Reduce bets and play gray moral.

In RDR 2, walking around the world, you can accidentally stumble upon an old man who diligently expresses water through a sieve in search of a piece of gold. He will swear at a player who will come too close, because he distracts him and constantly worship that he is constantly unlucky and he cannot find gold for several days. How, lo and about a miracle! Once again, draining the water at the bottom of the bowl, he discovers a piece of a golden nugget! Joyful he rushes to a nearby horse and immediately gets a bullet in the forehead from me.

Why do I take the life of this poor man? I initially play for Arthur — a character with a well -written stories. He is a bandit, forever on the run, robs banks, trains and people. He is kind in his soul, yes, but at the same time he is capable of killing an old man for a piece of gold. The game will launch an investigation of the crime, worsen my karma, announce a reward for my head, but at the same time a piece of gold will bring me a couple of hundred dollars. In fact, killing it, I am losing karma, but I get money. Evil act that is fundamentally does not change what is happening in the world.

In the BG3, being in the city, two children are immediately trying to rob me. Having caught one of them by the hand at the moment of theft, I do not scold the child, but on the contrary, I tell him that the attempt is generally not bad, only dexterity is not enough. And then I explain to him how to do it right. Why? This corresponds to the image of a bad character, which I myself laid in it, but more importantly — this is just a bad act in a vacuum. Having taught the child to steal, I will not doom myself to universal hatred in the city and will not close myself all the doors to all houses.

Everything turns out to be even more interesting if the right in the dispute is not at all. The same dispute between Jack and Miranda in Me 2 would be much better if there was no way to reconcile them at all. Jack was angry with Cerberus for depriving her of her childhood, forced to live in prison, in every possible way tortured her and set her on other children in the same laboratory, thereby trying to increase her power. And, of course, she is evil. At the same time, Miranda is driven by a cold calculation. She, as one of Cerberus officers, responsibly declares — if I had the opportunity to do this with you again, I would use her, you turned out to be monstrously strong thanks to this laboratory. The first lost her childhood and life, becoming a weapon in the hands of the organization. The second all her life devoted to this organization and this project in particular. And, of course, she will stand on her. They are both right, but in their own way. Let the player choose which side to stand on and now the non -obvious from a moral point of view is emerging, but at the same time the readable choice for players who play a good and bad character. And choosing one of them you quarrel with the second, while not losing your partner finally. But the opportunity to come to the best outcome, while preserving the loyalty of both absolutely deprives us of the desire to support one of them. "I want to support both", the player thinks. But, a surprise, to say this, you need to be the whole game to be either an angel or a devil, and since the path for the devil cuts a piece of the game and plot from us … Well, you understand the logic.

Fallout New Vegas has 4 endings for 4 different fractions, and none of these endings can be called perfect. There are more “good” options, such as, for example, with the military, but at the same time giving them control, we, in fact, give it to the fraction of the fraction, which is far from the war, which is far from being able to maintain control over the territories. The ending of the legion can be considered "bad". Legion builds his empire on violence and cruelty, but at the same time the Legion leader is an incredibly smart and strong person who can lead the people to prosperity. And the remaining two endings will also carry both the pros and the cons of. Naturally, the victory of the Legion is bad, because slavery, sexism, violence and rollback in technology are cruelly. But you also tried to play a cruel person throughout the game, and the legion will definitely be able to maintain control in his hands and lead the city to greatness. The game directly tells us that working for a legion is bad that you are a bad person if you stay next to them. But at the same time, the game will not punish you for deciding to play the role of a bad guy.

And there are examples where the "evil" works correctly?

Well, they figured out the plot, but how gameplay? In fact, there are many games where your passage style will directly affect the character’s abilities. And on this field everything is actually much more interesting.

Passing for a good character will seriously cut the possibility of a protagonist in the DISONERD series. You will be literally attached to stealth, which in the game is realized much more boring than open clashes. It turns out the situation that playing for the villain is more fun, but the ending is better just with a good character. And the player himself chooses what is more important to him — a cheerful gameplay or a good ending of history.

In Infamos you will receive a completely different Muvset, which is played as I am more interesting than the MUVSet of the “Hero”.

It turns out a little better at those moments when the game is trying to go into the zone of "gray morality". When there is no way to go perfectly and save everyone and something will have to be sacrificed. As an example — the story of a baron from the third witcher . Which of the endings of his quests is good? The one where he did not hang himself and survived? But his wife will go crazy and in the end our baron will bury her. The whole journey and arch of the character seemed to go nowhere. He did not redeem himself for his wife, for her he remained the same reptile as he was at the very beginning. On the other hand, the death of the baron is a kind of atonement, but at the same time it is still the death of a well -registered character.

Elections from a positive and bad option are too simple. Did a good thing — stroked on the head. Made bad — punished. Gray morality is not about ambiguous characters, how we wanted to show us Call of Duty 19. Gray morality is the equivalence of elections. Example — final Resident Evil 7 . Whoever you save at the end of the second character will die.

In the same unloved Skyrim me, everything is a bright spot in the form of drops of gray morality — the brothers of the storm and the imperial legion. It makes no difference to whom you will support — both the first and second in the depths of your rare bastards. Brothers storms are cool rebels, but terrible racists. Imperials-ensure order in their empire, but somehow too dragon methods. Neither the first nor the latter are unequivocal good.

But the problem with gray morality is the same. You cannot play a bad character, because such a pronounced evil in the game is absent.

The problem lies in the fact that it is pleasant for us as a viewer to watch the formed character than watching his development and to register in it. It is much more faster and more interesting to make the image of a cult villain and register his character — a psychiatric psycho for a Joker, life on a Waas Island, life in a difficult and criminalized world for Tony Montana. These are already prescribed archetypes, and we do not follow their "methodical" formation. They are originally, so these characters are prescribed by the author behind the scenes and we, as a viewer, are simply allowed to watch and enjoy. At the same time, in RPG, it’s difficult for us to come up with why we are so angry for the character of the villain, but at the same time it is very easy to endow him with the very positive properties. After all, the character is you yourself. This is your story, your life experience. You have not drove a killer who is just an angry. You are an average person who is generally configured to cooperate and be good, but at the same time ready to stand up for yourself and defend what is expensive for you even by force. And sometimes the character of the character can be put under the knife, because it does not contradict this to us as an average person. To kill badly, but nevertheless people kill.

And in general, the phrase “caricaturely evil” describes the problem that I encountered and about which throughout the blog I tried to tell you. In games that offer you to play a villain you are not a pathetic fraudster with a revolver in a case, which is hidden behind an expensive jacket. They don’t look at you with respect, they are not afraid to challenge, do not whip somewhere at the table in the darkest corner of the bar. Everyone just hate you. And isn’t that terribly ridiculous?

Thanks to those who read. In general, I would like to hear from the community in which games you can really meet with worthily spelled out evil characters for playing. I would love to get acquainted with similar projects. Comments are open for overall access, so welcome to the discussion. I really wonders what people think about playing bad guys in games.

Fallout 3

Mass Effect

Mass Effect 2

Fallout: New Vegas

Mass Effect 3

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

Fallout 4

Dishonored 2

Divinity: Original Sin 2

Red Dead Redemption II

Baldur’s Gate III

The best comments

Yes, the topic is fertile, and was sucked up many times, but now there is now. The so -called "moral elections", in fact, do not give you any. If I someday I will make my immersion long -suffering, then I would like to do it differently there.

For example, firstly, what you answer in dialogs do not care. What does the dialogs have to do with it? You are not bad and not good, you are just a boor or a crook — this is not a choice between good and evil. The main thing is you doing. And if you are white and fluffy, you help everyone, then it’s not a fact that people will love you and all that. No, they will just ride you. In the game, of course, this means that you will give quests, but if you, for example, are a complete scumbag, then here is just a reputation and plays, you only need to get a gun so that the character is pissed, and you have laid it out that he knows that he knows that he knows.

In this spirit: for example, he would give you a quest to find some golden crown, and so, you just play this information out of it, and the quest will be with you. The only question is who will get this crown.

And if you, for example, are neither bad nor good, for example, you can speak with you a character who does not trust neither saints nor scumbags, such as: “You, I see, a reasonable person, let’s hang out."

It would be great in this form, but the fact that right now in games is chickens to laugh, of course there is no wagering there.

For a long time I want to beat precisely evil characters, but there are a number of problems:

1. Evil often just less content — the car described this problem in very detail

2. To evil is often motivated by a small reward: more gold, additional skill, etc. I don’t need concessions, it is important to me equivalent

3. The villain will never be happy. Well, that is, it is probably correct from the point of view of morality, but the villain usually gets a fierce trash at the end and very often loses friends/love

4. The pettyness of evil. Dialogue options “Give me more gold or give you to the vat” and “I don’t like you, I will kill you” is difficult to determine how evil. Rather, you will be allowed to play either a greedy comrade or a maniac. There is usually no question of depth and more complex motivation.

5. No punishment for "good". Good always on horseback. His decisions will always ultimately lead to the best ending, salvation of all and the like.

At the same time, often cynical, rational (not even evil, simply rational) actions in the end do not give such a result.

It is always better to “save everyone, looking like tears” than “sacrifice the weak to save the rest”

As a result, the lack of equivalent in terms of content and endings, depths, paths of evil depreciates my good path. Choice without choice. There is the right and "evil"

Playing a good character, I want him to lead to victims, to the death of characters or even hatred from other NPCs. You often have to pay for good. I, as a player, want to solve the tasks “to be kind and try to help everyone in the moment or be a tough rational to achieve long -term goals?"To be kind for everyone or to clearly take care of your circle of friends" and so on

I, before blowing a bomb in Megaton, still killed all the inhabitants and cleaned all the houses. Do not disappear good.

As the slogan of one of the favorite games "It is good to be bad" reads. You mainly discuss modern games, and they are clearly afraid to enter this territory, most likely they are afraid of censorship. IMHO, it is necessary to turn to the older ones like the first phalauts, overlord, Evil Genius, I put it … Say the first two GTAs just encouraged ultranary, unlike their 3D sequels. Of the latter, perhaps in Hatred was an openly evil protagonist.

I still disagree with Baldurs. The game gives a pretty good opportunity to play both a bad and finished gram ** (I killed a priestess in the second act, and all the harpists, and then convinced Jaheir, what was not in business). Yes, the consequences are also appropriate, and there is a loss of content. But this is the whole choice of a player. But how nice it is to promote about the capture of peace with a minch.

In other games with this, much worse, I agree here. In which RPGs are given directly to play for evil, the maximum of a small bully. Tirani is a pleasant exception. I recall Overlord, but because of the cartoon style, it seems not so serious. Dizonord strangles with his morality that he will extremely frustrate me, and it is difficult for me to arrange a bloody bathhouse (this was only for Achovka, do not blame me).

Basically, there are no bonuses for the evil passage in the games, and punishment for him is often found. And it’s a pity, because the game is just a good tool to show what will happen if I do so, but most developers either simply do not want to think through evil passages, or do not know how to submit them correctly.

You can recall Vampire: The Masquarade — Bloodlines. There is no "karma", only "humanity". And a completely evil act, for example, convince a person who escaped from the monsters that it was just a draw and send it to slaughter. You can play a chopped head in basketball and even get a reward for this.

And in general, the old school RPG gave more freedom. In Planescape: Torment, of course, part of the content could be lost by acting “badly”, but also to get something (a conditional knife in the back from traitors is also additional content )

I will say more on the shore — not worth. This is a game, here everything will be reduced either to checking some stat, like karma, or for a certain trigger. Both will lead to a huge work (unless of course the game does not go in 10 minutes;)) and still half of the players will abuse mechanics. With this idea, it is better to immediately go to NRI and write your adventure. =)

In my opinion, the majority of games are not that they do not know how to evil, they do not even try.
The player gives options either an aggressive anti -hero, or bad elections simply exist that a good choice is a choice, not an ultimatical solution to the scriptwriter. The same "could be a razor in the throat".

Of the relatively recent, only vampires are remembered, where they allow the population how your soul wishes. At the same time, the preservation of life and the eating of others have advantages.
Well, the passfidders. Kingmaker allows you to rule in the style of “the Lord gave, and I put on a stake!". In the anger of the righteous of a purely good path of passage 1 pc out of 6. And there you can slide into a constant punishment to infidels and evil.

Good and evil are subjective concepts depending on context. As for me, to use them to evaluate something in principle is not worth.

It seems to me that the problem appears when we take such subjective concepts as “good” and “evil” for assessment and build a single scale of the hero’s personality measurement on their basis. While it would be correct to register the relations of the characters or groups of NPC to one or another actions of the game character, and based on this to determine their attitude towards the player.

As for me, the main problem T.n. "Evil" in video games, this is his useless. That is, why people do bad deeds? Because it’s easier! It’s easier to steal than earn money, it is easier to resort to violence than to agree, etc.D. Here there should be moral elections, or you sacrifice (or do not get) something valuable, that is, really valuable, and not by some 500 gold and you remain a “good boy”, or you are still scum, but it should be much more profitable for you, more explos and loot than in the “kind” version, passing some unheated dunce and all that is, and all that. And now everything is happening exactly the opposite, you, being evil, do not get something really valuable and cut off your content.

These are not war crimes if there were no military.

Call of Duty Black Ops 2 came to mind immediately.I just can’t achieve a good ending.Tactical missions do not "go" me.In short, the tactician I am a walking.But on another resource, I met in a bulk of gamers who climb out of the skin that the White House would burn out in the finale and all the United States covered chaos and riots.)))

It was nice to remember all these points, thanks. Wonderful article, I am delighted. We are admired!

Thanks for the article — it was interesting.

The fact that 3 and 4 parts were considered somewhat upset that the moral sides of the Fallout series were considered — not just considered the weakest in the plot plan. It would be great to pay more attention to the same New Vegas that was mentioned as if in passing. The path of the legion is really the path of evil, for cruelty, slavery and oppression of the sexes is bad, yes? The nuance is that Caesar built his new empire according to the model of times when all this was not only incredible, but simply in the order of things and he took it for the model of his empire. Order and calm on wastelands — doesn’t that want the majority in the world destroyed by the war? Isn’t that the very notorious "gray morality"?

In fact, no, because the Caesar empire in NV is an empire of one charismatic, but decrepit and sick old man, who is essentially behind the shoulders, except for a couple of old treatises and, in fact, charisma, and there is no charisma. The empire is growing to grow and, as a result, will face the same problems as “white and fluffy wrestlers with evil” from the NKR — a lack of forces to maintain order in the territories. Adjacent to the legion and following the orders of Caesar, you do not play the evil character who receives what wants with methods that will consider it necessary-you become a puppet-Bolvanchik, who must implicitly obey the elder and only try to depart from hard dogmas. The subordinate in such an environment, it seems, doesn’t, only if Caesar’s place is not taken, although this will not solve the problems of Mohava (and the personal problems in this post somehow go to the tenth plan). Somehow it does not pull on adequate evil.

It would be the opportunity to outplay the stagnant of the NKR and the cruel Caesar and Tiran of Mr. House to get power over the New Vegas and dispose of it as it will be like to me? Build a new oasis out of it in the middle of the desert for the suffering or another world of new tyranny, where everything will be yours and only yours … and developers to the question “can I?"Will answer:" Yes, man!". This path reveals the opportunity, as it seems to me, for wigging the very evil that many would like. Passing this path, the courier heals all aspects of the conflict for the sake of his personal benefit, and in the course of the game will be able to determine what his personal empire will turn into. Is this the best outcome for Mohava? What difference does it make to me? This is already my piece of rusty, covered with fragments of the past and sand, world. And already I will decide what to do next.

In fact, "gray morality" is one of the big spaces of the industry as a whole. In the sense that … there is a series of sharp visors. There is Thomas Shelby. Bandit, killer, deceiver and now, and this is only the top of the iceberg. He does many bad deeds from the point of view of generally accepted morality. But the audience is still usually on his side. Because each of us is a more selfish part, which always decides: and whom to save now? Family or strangers? Who to kill, one person or a whole city? (By the way, I mean a person who kills the city in Life is Strange: D). Each of us at least once felt injustice, envy, hatred, because there is no ideal among people (there may be several restrictions) because the spelled out “villain”, who is a protinel, extends a feeling of sympathy and support. May we not always approve his actions, or, in general, She Shelby, but, speaking, I do not know anyone who would want to death to him or the same Arthur, who made a lot of mistakes. But here’s what else the joke. They are not bad. They are tormented by conscience, they are torn by contradiction, PTSD tormented after the war. They try to do good things, but it does not always work out well as a result. For example, the situation with the train and Arthur in one of the seasons. Whoever understands he will understand

What am I saying that. Each person has a different reactions, different background. For example, in general, a kind person can joke evilly, by chance mistaken, to chop with someone, to yell at someone, simply because there were always such reactions in his picture of the world. For example, from parents or because of a school where you often have to defend yourself. And thanks to this, we never do it unequivocally. Just if we offend someone, sacrifice something, considering that the victim is justified-we will not care. We ourselves will have contradictions, and not just condemnation from the outside. But if we are not psychopaths without brakes (or if we do not play it), then, technically, we enter our own reasons that seemed more significant to us. And technically, we can always explain our actions

Games at times go into too demonstrative behavior, where you are either a good sun or just a mud*. Sometimes this can be well combined, but most often the same glasses, karma, etc. The game will not put a person before a choice: to drive a train 1 child or 4 scientists. Because it can frustrate the player. And so much that he will turn off the game. So, it is necessary to put him before the choice of complete evil or good. For example, give a choice: you will redirect a train with little difficulties and deaths of nouns not from your hands (for example, if you should have been in another place. Yes, and that is rare. ), or you are a complete psychopath that enjoys how the train moves people who could easily be saved

If you have fewer game content, then this is in any case unequal, just more text with a description of the world is not equivalent compensation. It is equivalent, when instead of the “kind” quest branch, “evil” appears.

I’ll hardly say for a just villain, but there are enough approximate options (spoilers!):

1) Curiously realized the appearance of the hero’s morale in The Suffering — they made options for the ending of the background: “bad” Tork himself killed his family, “neutral”, too, but in a state of affect, “good” substituted evil uncles; Which brought the hero to jail, where the game was held. As a result, the player’s actions determined the character of the hero actually, and the consequence of this very character.

2) long -suffering Alpha Protocol. For all the curvature of the fighting, one of the best implementations of the dialogs that I met. And all that was necessary to make a separate scale of sympathy for each of the characters and preferences in communication. Someone will regard an attempt to disperse without muzzle as weakness and try to bend the GG, someone prefers even professional communication and does not tolerate familiarity and so on. You can even bite to guard and avoid battle. And all this is consistent with both the global plot and at the current moment. And the consequences of the choice instead of a good-plane and evil come down through and through the pragmatic, but mutually exclusive to “take money”, expand the assortment of some good barrel or get help in the next mission. It’s a pity the game, alas, did not reach.

3) Soma. Great election without consequences. Go around the chain or close it through the robot? Abuse your old copy? Let him sit? Decide. No karma system, no consequences. The world is already everything. There is no reason to show some abstract humanity. Especially the digitized consciousness inside the corpse in a diving suit. But to torment further than the unfortunate semi-bad inhabitants of the pathos, too, for some reason, the hand does not rise. You are in the same boat. Almost literally.

People who abuse mechanics are not particularly interested in waging, and in this case, the possibility of choosing in principle is not needed.

Overlord allowed to choose between shades of evil: enslavement or destruction)