It's hard to do an evil playthrough when all the truly hate-able characters are marked as essential and thus can not be killed.

Good character: Ok, I'll help this Town to get rid of some bandits for absolutely nothing. -You get valuable loot from the bandits -Earn reputation with the Town -Unlock more quests Bad character: I won't help this Town because i'm evil -You get nothing -You lose -Good day, sir

13:20 I used to be a summer camp counselor. We had this thing where we separated the boys and the girls to do tasks for the first day. A young boy asked the girls if they needed help with something. They accepted and he helped with stuff. Other boys asked him why. He simply responded "it's nice to be nice". i remember the face, but i forget the name. i forget the year. i forget what the nature of the help was. it must have been over a decade ago, but it's always stuck with me.

Fun little anecdote: In Bioshock you were originally going to be getting massive buffs after harvesting Little Sisters. And not just that, the game was going to be really hard, borderline unwinnable if you didn't get any ADAM. *HOWEVER...* fearing backlash, the devs decided to tone down the difficulty and then straight up just give you the ADAM you missed out on by not harvesting Little Sisters right before entering the final bossfight. It's kinda ironic how more and more games (and entertainment media in general) have abandoned the "evil for the sake of it" villain while making it so the only way for the player to be evil is to be evil for the sake of it. IRL 99% of evil people become evil not because they want to be evil but because being good is too much hassle. Yet it's the opposite in video games.

I think the issue people have is how they define evil in games. I play a lot of Lawful Evil characters in games which, to me, usually means that I'm not a good person, but I have lines I will never cross normally. It seems like many people's idea of evil is just psycopathic murderer and nothing else

For me the short version is that "evil" choices in RPGs usually boil down to "vicious self-destructive idiot", plus there's rarely ever any worthwhile rewards on evil paths anyway. Also, the good choice is usually too easy and too obvious. Often it involves going on guilt-free killing sprees pro-bono, yet the loot you get is worth more than the reward you turned down anyway. So the player gets their dopamine hit for being the good guy, while sacrificing nothing.

The infamous series would like to have a word with you. In my opinion it is one of the best games that offers good and bad choices and makes it worth playing the game over just for the story and also the different abilities.

Two words: _Soul Nomad_ by Nippon Ichi Studios. You can only do the evil playthrough after completing the game normally, and oh boy, that context makes a huge difference. You only need to make a few decisions at the start that aren't really evil, they're just not overly self-sacrificial and altruistic. Then it catapults you into a story that _very explicitly_ changes because you're not showing up at places at the time you normally would have. While joke characters and affable goofball villains all become serious characters throwing aside their differences and conflicts to stop you, just making it to a certain town a few months later than you would have in your normal playthrough throws you a little context you weren't ready for. It makes you stop think about half the "good guys" you were helping before, and maybe decide that while you might be doing it for the wrong reasons, you might be doing the right thing when you slaughter them. You're evil, but not for no reason, or a stupid reason, and until the predictable out-of-control plot spiral into eating god that you really should expect from the Japanese by now, you can kinda jam with the evil route.

Being evil in video games is usually being a cartoonishly evil mustache twirling villain

Being Evil in the inFamous games were somewhat rewarding. You could play the games twice and get something totally unique out of it as your powers change and the story and world changes.

The only game I can remember that not only does evil right, but does it fun, is Dishonored. Dishonored is an immersive sim where you are given a skill tree with various powers and gadgets you can employ in many different ways to dispatch your enemies and traverse the environment. It makes you feel like a demigod, summoning swarms of rats to eat your enemies alive, fling them to their deaths with powerful gusts of wind, and even bend time and possessing their bodies to place them in their own lines of fire, for example. You have a pistol, a blade, a crossbow with different ammunition types, grenades, mines, etc. But there is a catch. Dishonored's morality system is tied to your body count. The more you kill the worse the ending, so in order to do “good” you must avoid bloodshed. But the most powerful abilities at your disposal are quite lethal, and your non-lethal options are usually ill-suited for combat, so a low chaos run inevitably involves stealth, completing optional objectives to avoid murder and a quite a bit more patience. Fortunately the DLCs and the sequel added a few more non-lethal options to help you achieve that. But Low Chaos runs are still the most challenging ways to play the game, as opposed to wreaking havoc and killing enemies in gnarly and creative ways. And that’s what makes the “evil” in this game both fun and believable. Evil is more often about opportunism rather than pure sadism. People do bad things because it’s easier and more profitable rather than causing suffering for suffering's sake. And the abilities you get in Dishonored makes completing the objectives easier indeed. But abusing those abilities carry a price, not to you, but to the world around you.

I think the main problem with being evil in video games is that so many games being evil is a rewardless options which doesn't effect the story and is just a side activity of killing everyone and nothing else

I think a lot of writers just make the bad route into the stupid route. Real evil is not just randomly murdering people to your own detriment. Real evil is enriching yourself to the detriment of others.

I love the shades of grey that Mass Effect used. There’s no good or bad. It’s heroic or ruthless, but both work towards the same goal.

The question is that usually the evil path is poorly done and it really punishes the player by making it a more boring and usually unrewarding path. But there are games and decisions where the evil path is well done or at least presents a difficult decision and not just the illusion of a choice, some examples are: For example in Outer Words, there are two main story paths, the first you become a revolutionary rebel trying to overthrow the corrupt corporations (Good) or you can choose to be a mercenary working for those corporations doing their dirty work (Evil). And the best of all is that you have this decision practically at the beginning of the game marking two totally different routes with different missions and events so that you feel rewarded by choosing any of the two paths. Another example would be Skyrim: Dawnguard. If you decide to go with the vampires, you have OP powers, vampires are cool and you can eclipse the sun. On the other hand, if you join the Dawnguard you can have an improved crossbow, a troll as a pet and marry Serana (if you cure her of vampirism). Who has chosen the Dawnguard a second time if not to marry Serana?

There's something extremely satisfying about exploring a world and seeing positive changes around you, or the absolute heartbreak of when something you thought was the right choice has horrific consequences.

I think the real reason evil doesn't often feel that fun in RPGs is because the choices are immoral as opposed to amoral. The evil choice is always explicitly cruel and malicious, as opposed to simply selfish and apathetic. And like... No one wants to really feel like they are actively a bad person.

I think metro is an interesting take on a topic like this, because while being good gives you a better standing with the npc's and the best ending, its ultimately harder to do during gameplay without being able to kill the seemingly endless enemies trying to kill you. Making you have to think and plan what to do and being a lot more careful on how you play out scenarios

Stumbled across this and I really love the editing! Thank you for sharing 🙌

I think the "good vs evil" duality suffers from "good" being the point of reference no matter what. Good is meant to make things better and often unambiguously helps the people/place you're in; it's clearly the "right" option. Meanwhile, the "evil" option isn't an alternative viewpoint, it's just "I don't want to do the good choice" option, often with some money or other reward offered as a weak attempt to prop it up. It feels shallow and one-dimensional, because it's not a viable worldview but rather a petty "I don't want to be a good guy." You're not choosing to be evil as much as rejecting being good, and you can see how lopsided the results are.

I think evil options not allowing for some pragmatism also has an effect. Like, you can be evil and still save a village from some bandits, especially if you're a Lawful Evil character who still believes in some semblance of order. You get loot, and a village in your debt that can be useful for your purposes. Another thing I think is that it's harder to justify an evil playthrough if you're a naturally empathetic person who has difficulty stomaching the thought of hurting innocent people just to "reject" the obvious good option. People don't often run on the good or evil binary; there's tons of nuance that video games just don't usually replicate effectively, if at all.

I can no longer find the exact quote, but a lead dev on Mass Effect was once (in response to the topic of not as many people following the renegade alignment as paragon) quoted saying that all what ultimately matters is that the player had the choice to do what they did. The fact you voluntarily chose to do something and feel that impact holds power and is what ultimately matters. (Edit: grammar)

I believe the evil path would be more tempting if the rewards would be greater. But games usually try encouraging good by making good rewards better, so it's practical to be good. I'm making a heroes of might and magic campaign with moral options (the game wasn't designed for that, so it doesn't have a fully committed possibility). Making "the end justifies the means" choices is usually more rewarding, making the campaign easier but the story keeps track on that. Being good basically handicaps you but the reward is feeling more good about your actions (or just making the campaign more challenging).

I think it just comes down to the fact that most "evil" options in gamed are bad options. The problem is putting the player character in a position in which an evil choice is also actually beneficial. You have to make good decisions harder and evil decisions easier.

When I played Knights of the Old Republic as a kid, I LOVED the Evil/Dark Side playthrough. Mostly because the more evil I was, the more cool powers I got, and the "evil" choice was usually fairly obvious, so I always knew what to pick to get stronger. That was one of the only games that I would do evil playthroughs of.

Awesome video dude! Keep up the good work!

In Fallout 3 you can actually max out your karma by selling slaves, and donating half the caps to the church. You'll get rich and get positive karma at the same time

A malicious route (killing and destroying everything in sight) isn't the same as an amoral route (taking the decision of manipulating, lying and killing to your benefit).

I always really liked the narstive behind the binary choices in bioshock 2, maybe because I am a parent. The way your daughter would rationalize your choices and see them as the correct and even morally right path to take regardless of what you choose really hit home just how impressionable a child who idolizes their parent can be. In the end, you aren’t making arbitrary good or bad choices, you’re setting examples for the potential hero or monster your child will end up becoming when she escapes out into the wider world.

I think for a lot of games that have choices to be made between good and evil playthroughs is that there is normally already a "canon" such as with Mass Effect, there's certain events that have to happen, and normally the pre-determined canon that the developers have made is usually the good playthrough, so it kinda invalidates the whole of the "bad" playthrough. The best evil playthroughs are in games where it shows evil winning, such as in BfME 2 where in the evil campaigns, Sauron wins and conquers middle earth, where as most evil playthroughs in general still have a positive end

The problem with a lot of evil options is they're really not meant to be picked and are just there to give the illusion of choice. sometimes arbitrarily making the game harder with something like a 'Karma' system, or in baldur's gate, the npc that showes up when you break your oath (or pick oath of vengeance and do, or neglect to do literally anything) will attack you if you kill someone, even via The Dark Urge. which means the game will be soft locked if you aren't nearly max level.

I think the reason is that often times the evil playthrough just doesn’t have any story behind it, you’re just going around being sinister for what boils down to no reason, the evil playthroughs just aren’t realistic

Part of the problem is that most of us play roleplaying games to connect with and integrate into the world. But most evil decisions effectively drive a wedge between you and the rest of the world. You miss out on quest lines, you miss out on companions, you miss out on chances to ROLEPLAY in a ROLEPLAYING game, and it becomes "you versus the world" instead of "you being a part of that world." It's fantastic to have the option, and I'm never going to complain about a game giving us more narrative freedom, but evil playthroughs typically undermine most of the core strengths of a roleplaying game.

Excellent job on this one! Subbed

The Bioshock games are a great example of the Evil Choice being "Bettern't". Harvesting little sisters grants you more Adam in the short term, but once you account for every gift you get for Rescuing them, the morally good choice is actually more mechanically beneficial to the player as well.

I think the real reason is for most games you aren't meant to be evil so it's more of an after thought. Like in baldur's gate 3, no matter how evil you want to be at the end of the you still need to go against the actual evil guys or in Skyrim. You can do all the evil quests and stuff but some npcs will still treat you like you are the hero and you still need to actually be the hero to finish the main story

I think a huge reason most games evil routes fall so flat regardless of the narrative built around them is that it takes individual agency to commit meaningful acts of evil, and that current game design and structure, especially the "quest giver" centric formula arent really able to allow players that kind of agency over their actions.

I remember Fable's mortality system, and did two playthroughs back to back, one being good and the other bad. Other than gaining your EXP at a faster rate, as well as other rewards (can't remember exactly) in the Evil playthrough, I felt bad during the run. Ended up deleting the Evil save after doing the minium.

The problem with evil playthroughs is that they involve way too much murder for you to be truly evil. The dastardly villain who twirls his greasy moustache shouldn't be above murder, but also shouldn't have to RELY on murder as the default. The point of being evil should be that you're benefitting from others suffering. And as such the best evil choices should ALWAYS have the best rewards, and make you feel like a dick. True evil is being lazy but cunning enough to know how to live the easy life, and get away with it. You the player should feel evil while everyone in the game likes you.

1:10 why did this make me laugh so hard😭

Even if very few people take the evil path, the fact that you could have been cruel and selfish but choose not too means so much more to the fantasy of most RPGs than if you'd never been presented with that option at all. It definitely adds enough value to the experience to be worth putting into the game.

My biggest thing is that being "evil" in a lot of games equates to just being mean. You don't need to explicitly be an asshole to have bad morals, and its moreso (to me) an issue of me just not wanting to be explicitly rude to people. If there is going to be an "evil" option it shouldn't default just be your typical schoolyard bully, there should be more nuanced options that allow for more sinister and devious play that allow you to put on the facade of being good while furthering your own evil goals.

I've always found when I go back to all my old favourite RPGs with moral choices, fallout, fable, dragon age etc, I do two playthroughs at the same time and switch between till I'm satisfied with both ends. That way I can jump into the villain role when I'm bored of being the hero, and jump back into the hero role if I start feeling guilty. It also allows you to do different quests and storylines without making the PC feel like an empty vessel. In oblivion for example, one character to play the main story, fighters/mages guild and knights of the nine, another villanous character for dark brotherhood, theives guild etc.

It was really hard for me to make any evil decision in a video game until I committed to an evil playthrough of the first dragon age. That game straight up desensitized me to the anxiety you feel before picking an evil option cause the characters reactions were worth it Everytime. Brilliantly written game.

Most plots do evil the wrong way. It's far more compelling when the choice isn't "Help people or screw them over for your own benefit," but "Help people, but at additional risks that may undermine your efforts in the long run and require sacrifices that make you question whether the ends justifies the means." One game I remember that I felt did this well- Tyranny.

There are games that have an interesting twist on this.Take This War of Mine for example: in that game, food and essential supplies are very hard to come by. So one day you might encounter an old friendly couple only protected by their single son. Will you beat the son to death and take all the food they have, leaving the old couple to die, or do you spare them, and come home empty handed? But what about your brother who is deathly ill at home? The old couple have the medicine you need, but they are not willing to part with it as they need it just as much themselves. What now? Who is the good and bad one? The choice just got a whole lot more interesting now.

personally i learned from having played many many games that saving folks is just flat out more interesting, especially on a first playthrough quests, interactions, loot, character development, romance, atmosphere ... all of these r priceless, whereas the bad guy reward is some amount of unimaginative numerical currency, that almost always becomes a trivial amount as u progress, or even worse, nothing at all so it is not only hard to be evil from a moral perspective, but also knowing how much u r going to lose out on such good/evil choices become much more compelling when all the options can be right or wrong depending on ur perspective/values etc one of these i find in BG3 where u can choose to ascend astarion or convince him not to ... do u help ur companion become morally "better" AND potentially let 7000 blood-starved vampire spawn loose, or do u help him complete the ritual (which is an absolutely badass cutscene btw), rid the world of 7000 bloodsuckers while giving his ego and ur party a massive boost

I think what’s better than the choice between good and evil it should be multiple ways to get to good, each with their own set of consequences, making the player pick their poison and go on to regret and second guess things

Most games just allow you to be cartoonishly evil. I would love it if AAA games had story content like Tyranny, where evil is nuanced and varied and not the standard chaotic evil or a robinhoodesque "evil" that turns out as good in the end.

A closer comparison would be Red Dead 2 and GTA. Like GTA, Red Dead has the generally nameless infinitely respawning NPCs that don't mean anything to the story. But with Red Dead, you can see the impact of your mindless killing with Arthur. How he talks about feeling violent with the people at camp and how he hates the man he's becoming. And you see what being evil is doing to Dutch and the gang and everything falling apart. I want to not be evil in Red Dead so Arthur can redeem himself and live the rest of his days as a good person.

this is so well edited

Alpha Protocol, despite its flaws, had some interesting dialogue. Instead of good or evil it's more about getting the mission done, and choosing what consequences you think you can handle, even if some of them only are known long after. Less of a black and white choice, more of an ambiguous gray zone up to your own ratioanlization. Makes sense it was made by Obsidian also :)

the problem, for me, is that usually its not even worth it to be evil, because the things you do makes npcs react to you by fighting and you have no choice but to kill em, which will make you lose a lot of side content. so im always worried that ill lose content by being evil. if we got a whole branch of sidequests due to the things ive done, it would be worth it

I think one big problem is that so many morality models in games portray evil as cartoonishly evil, when you could easily tie a progression system to stepping on others to get ahead or manipulating your way to the top of the food chain. There should be a distinctively different payoff for both paths as well, making the evil path worth it, or enticing enough to also make the good path an actual moral decision

Just would like to point out that with the bomb in Megaton there is a way to get a lot of money and disarm the bomb. Save right before taking to Lucas Simms about it and use the speech option to get 500 caps for it. You can just keep load your save every time it fails until it works. It can take a while but it’s worth it

So glad the algorithm showed me this, I'm definitely gonna subscribe and check out everything else cause that's the good decision here

To me it's really just the fact that being "evil" really just means going around and killing everyone you see and eventually it gets boring there is no depth to your evil deeds its just do you kill and steal from everyone or not and most RPGs are like that. Also the fact that you actually get rewarded for being a good person most of the time

That’s why I like Dishonored. Choosing to be evil makes the game much easier, but it also visibly makes the world around you a far worse place. But the easy ending, although difficult to achieve, is highly rewarding for your efforts too with a satisfying outcome for every character.

This is why BG3 is such a good RPG. Every “bad” decision is always one that is taken from a specific moral POV and even the characters that are clearly morally reprehensible can be taken as allies or even used to gain more resources etc. At the very least I hope the standard for “bad” gameplay comes from baldur’s gate cuz it’s really good

inFamous is great because you get different powers and storylines based on whether you choose good or evil. Its pretty fun to play evil because you get to act like a complete psycho and you are rewarded for it. When playing as a good guy, you have to be careful to not harm civilians or do evil actions, but it makes you feel good when people start to like you.

In Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous the evil options are supported by the fact they give you access to a lot of exclusive content. In the game, you are supposed to lead a crusade against the demons. However, midway into the game you can choose to instead turn yourself into a demon (or a lich, if you did the right quests). Being a demon unlocks more content in a later chapter of the game where you have to infiltrate a demonic metropolis in the Abyss. Since as a demon the demon queen of that realm personally invites you there instead of you having to sneak in, you get somewhat of a VIP treatment right off the bat, and can even do quests that you can't do otherwise, such as one that lets you overthrow various demon big shots to steal their followers. Your quest turns from ridding the world of demons to usurping the demon lords that are currently leading the invasion. The Lich path likewise has some great characterization, with the main character being criticized by their followers for trying to defeat an evil with another evil. You have the option to just pull rank and shut them up, or rationalize it as sacrificing your own morality to save the world, whether it's a lie or not is up to you. All that while opening up extra options when interacting with undead characters that let you use your necromantic powers to unlock more options and even gain more playable characters by reanimating certain enemies. Being evil feels good because you're not just burning bridges with the "good guys", but the ones on the side of evil are rational and welcoming to a degree. You still have to rise through the ranks and earn their respect with force or trickery, but you can end up with as many, or even more options than playing the good routes. Also you can choose to instead turn into a hive mind of billions of sentient bugs if you completed all of the hidden requirements for it, which makes literally every single NPC in the game, including the other playable characters, turn against you in disgust. But since you now have basically infinite power, the endgame turns into an all-you-can-eat buffet of curb stomping enemies and former allies, where even the main villain of the campaign is utterly disgusted by your choices. In a game that's so heavy on the role playing aspect, having such a big change is truly a huge twist. If you can stomach, pun intended, eating everyone that has been helping you through the entire game (and your little dragon, too!).

For me, the difference between being evil in GTA versus Fallout is that one is you playing as a character and making them do evil things and the other is playing as an evil character. Going on a rampage in GTA doesn’t really effect the story. In Fallout, these actions have consequences and can change how you go through the main story.

everygame i try to play evil first because im not attached to any characters yet. so its easier. but then when you play good its like a completely new game thats so wholesome you could die

I usually roleplay evil decisions on a 2nd playthrough and for me that is one of magic moments of gaming: its not always easy to make those choices, it makes you question your moral and feel uneasy. Games like fallout NV, witcher 3, baldurs gate are prime examples that make you feel this way.

I’m sad Baldurs gate three dark urge was not brought up more because there was a lot of rewards for the nasty things you had to do and I thought that was a really big change from fallout and other RPG’s. It really gave you a reason to be terrible, so that there is a dilemma of doing it or not.

I have noticed the same thing with baldurs gate 3 lately. Even when I played a character I characterized as evil, I would still mostly use good choices, because most evil choices were either irrational, where the benefit was far outweighed by the drawbacks, not only from knowing how the game would unfold, but also from a characters point of view, or just the cowardly "don't involve me in this" kind of response

The issue with evil playthroughs is that most directors/writers can not write a story that is multidimensional for an evil player. It’s almost always just being a terrorist with no conflict. You can’t grow your character because the story was written to be for hero’s, and the player given the option to be a killer.

I think detroit become human was a good morally difficult game. At least for me. I struggled with a lot of the decisions because i didn't know what the outcome would be and i knew from playing heavy rain that the choices would have consequences. As conner, i started out very analytical because it gave me percentages. Then another character called conner out on it and i had a moment of shock that it was directed at me, the player behind the screen. So my choices slowly changed to what i felt was right even when it isolated me from some other characters. As the robot that was helping the girl, my focus was on keeping her safe at all costs, damn the consequences to others after getting her out of the initial bad situation. As marcus, i felt his anger and often played his character more aggressively (evil). The thing about detroit become human was that each character's personality going into it was how i approached playing the game. As a blank slate rpg character, i tend to default to morally gray as long as the overall trend is to make the world better instead of worse. Like in skyrim, i joined the dark brotherhood early on since i enjoyed the quests in oblivion for their faction, and i felt nothing fulfilling the contracts up until the end, where i actually cried before doing the killing blow because my actions from the previous quests suddenly had some very real consequences and it felt like i'd betrayed the family i made.

I legit feel bad when I’m mean to video game characters. I know it’s just a game but the level of depth given to characters in games makes me see them as real. I know that video games will only continue to get more realistic and I hope that the percentage of people that are good in video games continues to outweigh the percentage of people that pick the bad route. I know that it probably won’t always be that way but I’m happy to hear that the percentage of people that are good in video games is the majority.

I think it might be hard for developers to make an engaging evil playthrough possible because they would essentially have to program and script two games in many cases.

Great video! I'd say the biggest problem with this is how simplistic morality is designed. You meet a strictly good faction that you're clearly incentivized to align with, while the evil faction just does bad things for the sake of it and doesn't really offer a rewarding experience. The writers and the designers need to do a better job by creating more realistic situations. In real life being good to everyone can be a severe disadvantage and being selfish or cruel can be beneficial.

Only in recent history. Back with Kotor 1 and 2 Light and Dark side choices had huge effects and different rewards. Quite often the dark side reward made you a lot stronger. Then bg3 comes out and the "evil" path is MASSIVELY less rewarding and just ends in the deaths of all npc's who actually talk to you and walk with you throughout the game. You end up in an empty world. Evil paths used to be good, but nowadays they are badly designed. It should always be the path that makes you stronger with negative consequences for npc's. But you need the same amount of NPC's on both sides.

I want to add on to this because I think it's really interesting: Keeping "evil" options isn't just for the players who wish to play an evil route. Rather, it also allows for each player's run to be a bit more "tailored" to their own morals, which vary by age, culture, faith, political standing, etc. For example, let's look at assassinating President Kimball in Fallout: New Vegas. Yes, you can assassinate him as part of a Legion play-through. BUT, there are plenty of arguments from pro-NCR players as to why Kimball needs to be removed from power. Therefore, some could argue that the morally-gray/"evil" choice of turning a blind eye or just straight up killing him yourself is actually a morally righteous choice.

It's hard be evil in games because the options are often too binary and safe. There's usually no convincing factions to join, no ways to truly affect the world, and a lack of a satisfying ending.

This is why I love baulders gate 3. It quite literally lets you do whatever you want, my first playthrough WAS an evil one

We all need a good evil playthrough from time to time

Undertale has one of my favorite evil routes, because it actually unpacks the trauma you're inflicting on the characters. You hear their desperation to live, their desire to protect the people they love, their grief when they fail. When you grind all of that into pulp under your heel, you make a barren world without love or joy, and you _feel like_ the kind of monster that should've been stopped. “Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring.” ~Simone Weil In most games, evil actions _cut off_ content. You get less game for your game. The best evil routes are the ones with _the presence of a story,_ rather than the absence, in the aftermath of your actions. Something to say about cruelty, instead of a nihilistic sandbox full of paper dolls. And as others have said, this is even more compelling when you have more nuanced options than, "Attacking people on-sight."

For me it all comes down to the fact, that evil playthroughs often feel underdeveloped in comparison to good ones. While there are many reasons, why it happens, it boils down to two main factors: 1)The main problem, I notice especially frequently, is the loss of pragmatic aspect in roleplaying villains. Most RPGs treat good deeds as the ones most rational in current situation. You may think, that beeing good will make your life harder in dark settings, your story is played in, but eventuallly following the path of good brings you the best companions, best resourses, best equipment and doesn't require you to sacrifice anything when fighting for greater good. Evil path on the contrary leaves you in a much more poor state, striping you from material benefits of good walkthroughs. The best example is Mass Effect, where you can easily achieve best endings and unite the Galaxy simply by being pure Paragon throughout the trilogy. Meanwhile, playing pure Renegade, you are basically doing the Reaper's work for them, sucessfully ravaging your Galaxy at the worst time possible. There is no reason for a rational hero to behave like a villain, because it hurts him more than helps. 2) Beeing good guy, you keep your reputation high, get the best loot from killed bandits, get additional quests, which provide you additional experience to upgrade yourself. Needless to say, you also get lots of new entertaining content to experience, thus enjoying the game longer. Evil runs however tend to kill those questgivers, cutting their content off and leaving nothing for you in return. It happens, because most evil runs are written more like a loosely connected chain of alternative mission outcomes, rather than a full-fledged history, normally presented in good runs. The recent example is Baldurs gate 3, which is a real blast in a good run, giving you an epic heartfelt adventure to experience. However, when trying to play game as a villain you quickly find out, that you lose tons of content by abandoning the path of good without adequate replacement in evil runs. As a result you lose money to buy new weapons and xp to achieve new levels, thus making the late game unnecessarily difficult, compared to the good path. In the end of the day, it comes to the fact, that you don't have any rational pragamatic reason to dive into evil paths, both as a player and a character, you've created. So, the only option left to play the game as a villain for you is literally "evil for the sake of evil". Should I mention that most bad people irl will find this motivation boring at best or irritating at worst? Narrowing the description of evil in RPGs to "evil for the sake of evil", writers tend to take away most of villainy flavour from their games to the point, when even bad characters will blend in good walkthrough more naturally. Sadly, there are not many games today, which have enough guts to give pragmatically evil options to roleplay, without being afraid to show the good side less profitable, undermining the moral message behind the plot.

The best evil choice I've seen was in Baldurs Gate 3. In act 3, a pirate captain will reward you 4000 for killing a woman who tore up hell in the pirates bar while looking for her son. However, if you're a rogue (like i was) you can ask for double that. So there I was, with 8000 gold in my face, which for some context, was 4x the money I had at the time, with the price being killing a mostly innocent woman and dooming her son. I was playing a good character, but holy hell did I sit on it for a while. Money really is the root of all evil lol

I've played as evil in a few games. personally I think the games "infamous" and its sequels found a good solution/Method to it since doing an evil run might require ether making wholly new missions or lock you out of content you might otherwise want, for example in most video games playing evil might cost you missions with weapons armor or gear you might wan, so infamous lets you more or less play as good or evil with the defining difference being powers but with the main useful ones being available to ether. (namely in the second you could be evil and still get the ice powers that were just better) with the occasional side mission or main story mission being different depending on if your good or bad. they also would incorporate the occasional choice where being good or evil had different pros or cons (force an npc to set off a trap that would weaken you but will kill them) (shoot and wound a man over trying to convince him your on his side and for him to let you through) ( shoot a gas tank or over charge a battery to cause an explosion to make your time easier but killing innocent bystanders) letting a lot of it be more nuanced then just "i will kill and screw over everyone even if its not to my direct benefit" letting alot of the playthrough be entertaining for both good or evil without needing to make 2 or 3 games in one just because you decided to be evil. new vegas also does good vs evil ok for the most part since you could be good or evil and still work for most factions aside from the clearly black and white ncr vs legion but that whole debate comes around more as legion is obviously evil and the ncr is less openly evil and more just corrupt and incompetent with some trying to be good but bureaucracies and corruption and red tape and short sightedness lead to its own issues, my perspective is more legion might be a necessary evil but they do manage some level of unity and keeping order vs the ncr being over extended and wanting to do what's best but over extending to grab land limited resources and bleeding bodies in the battle with the legion means the ncr tries to be good but as stated before they have alot of issues . independent ending and house also stray into over vs chaos rather then good vs evil house might be an autocrat but he also seems to be mostly pragmatic only stepping in when things get out of what he fews as reasonable order where as player/wildcard ending could be anywhere from idealist but falling short in keeping order and control to "screw the laws and rules I make them and I can do what I want" that being said I tend to prefer to play good/neutral by helping and improving things in the story/world my main reason for an evil run is ether to see how evil I can be in game/paying evil on to evil, or I might just be angry and looking to blow off some steam in a "I could help this guy escape being captured by raiders so he tells me where the guy who shot in the head is but you know what F@#K that " shoot the guy in the head take his journal and move on. or just the comedic "what I wasn't paying attention you were monologuing.... what was I, oh right fallen, heretic, you die now." then kill them and wander off.

In my opinion, THE HARDEST game to be evil in is Star Wars: The Old Republic. I remember a mission where i killed a father in front of his son just so that that child would be sent to the Sith Academy on Korriban. It felt terrible and was a VERY hard choice to make, but had to be done. (Long Live the Sith Empire)

I can tell you right now why being evil isnt fun its because games don't let you actually be evil. Either the characters are protected or doing one bad thing makes the whole town attack you. I personally think its limitations of how quests/storylines are implemented.

my first case of good vs evil in game was in Fable. In the game the npc react to your choice, if you are good they clap and are praised and if you are evil they run away screaming in fear. Although in Fable there was a reward for being evil as some of the best weapons you can find were only available by evil choices (even if in the dlc they give you an alternate weapon if you dont do the evil choice) and more often than not evil missions were easier to complete and gave similar rewards . At the end of my first playthrough (evil and bloodthirsty), most npcs were running away in fear so it was harder talk to them and sell stuff. I was so annoyed by the running and creamingthat I decided to stick to good playthrough for future games. Currently playing BG3 and doing a good playthrough on my first go, but mostly because I want to limit the cases where something would be inacessible, so no going for mindless killings

honestly, the evil playthrough in your example IS the "experience more" option. You will not see a nuke explode except there in all Fallout games. That includes Fallout 3, that particular quest is the only instance where you get to experience it. And it is a bit special, visual effects aside - the explosion doesn't take out only the town, you can see places you have been in the distance been blown up on the map. I was thinking to myself looking in the devastation from the balcony "hey, I've been under that bridge five minutes ago. I was collection tin cans there"

Baldur's Gate 3 actually does an alright job at providing options for playing as anything from a greed-motivated mercenary, an apathetic jerk, someone struggling with an internal demon, or just being a completely murderous bloodthirsty monster, and it provides unique dialogue and interactions for each path you take. Yet another reason it's GOTY.

One thing I didn’t see you mention is the narrative cohesiveness of a specific story by playing a good or bad character. When I play Red Dead Redemption 1&2, I want to be good because both main characters are trying to redeem themselves, so I feel compelled to do what I think those characters would have chosen to do. Even in a game where it’s “easy” to be evil, like GTA V, I tend to not act like a psycho unless I’m playing as Trevor, as I don’t think Franklin and Michael would do many of the things Trevor would.

I like the way morality is handled in the Dragon Age series. There isn’t a set Karma meter, but instead your companions have an approval system. If you say and do things they approve of, you gain points with them. If you say and do things they don’t like, you lose points. The thing is that their moral compasses differ, so while one might be glad you’re going out of your way to defend a helpless village, another will wonder why you’re wasting time on them when there’s a bigger threat to worry about. And while the first and second game could’ve done more with this idea (the third game admittedly backs away from it) there are times when the darker or more pragmatic option actually turns out for the better. It’s not as often as doing unambiguously good things rewards you, but it’s definitely there.

I think that CRPGs do a better job at providing interesting and fun evil paths. I had a lot of fun doing an evil playthrough of Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous. I actually did 2 different evil playthroughs, and each one showed me parts of the game that were unique to those specific paths.

There is one game I played that made their evil arc surprisingly engaging. Surprisingly, it was Star Wars The Old Republic (The MMO), specifically, the Sith Inquisitor storyline. I'll try not to spoil the story too much because it was honestly pretty fun. You start off as a former slave thrusted into Sith training. Right from the get-go, you are forced into a social system of harassment and conflict. To impress your superiors, you are compelled to commit acts of deception and betrayal for your own survival. In this way, you aren't acting like a jerk because you want to. You're acting like a jerk because you HAVE to. The harsh Sith hierarchy forces morally ambiguous choices, shaping your character to understand that advancement demands stepping on those beneath you. Later in the story, you become more independent. You don't necessarily owe your allegiance to the Sith, but you've already made it so far. So you continue to learn more about the force and gain more power. The game does a good job of making you numb to immorality because you've been fighting for your own survival the whole time. Of course, internal conflict within the Sith order never goes away, demanding constant morally challenging decisions on the relentless path to power as a Sith Inquisitor. (Minor spoiler) There's an act in the story where you meet a Jedi apprentice, and you can turn her away from the Jedi. But it's not necessarily because you're a total douche. It's because you cause her to question her beliefs and she starts seeing things from a new perspective. She also starts seeing that the Jedi aren't necessarily the perfect "good guys" she thinks they are, and perhaps not all Sith are absolutely evil either. TLDR, It was a very compelling way to present a truly evil playthrough without making it feel like a complete guilt-trip. There are definitely some amoral decisions you can make, but you do it because you have to for your own survival. Your character was dealt a very bad hand and thrust into a very punishing environment, so you're constantly having to make terrible choices to keep up. That's how you make an evil villain arc. Bioware were really something else in their peak.

What most games fail at is giving you strong motivation to be evil. If the game encourages and rewards you being evil, suddenly being evil is a whole lot more fun. Hence why crime sandbox GTA style games are so beloved. You're the bad guy but the game rewards you immensely for being the bad guy, quite often.

I think what makes Morality trivial in most games is that being a good person is just as rewarding as being evil, there’s literally no reason not to be good, they should make it that good choices will have a significant cost while bad decisions will make things much easier for you, games with morality systems should be asking the player, would you do the right thing if there’s nothing in it for you.

I think a great example of this is Infamous 2's ending. Sucker Punch intended on the evil ending to be the canon ending, but after seeing how many players chose the good ending(by looking at player's trophy lists), they decided to change that as the canon one.

i think Red Dead 2 is probably the best example of morality in videogames. When you kill certain people and loot them, you can find wedding rings, letters to loved ones; and even (once or twice) be confronted by their widow who will say how you murdered her husband. Plus with how alive the world feels, being evil feels evil, and being honourable feels honourable.

To make the choices between good and evil interesting, its important to have the outcomes variable and the situations nuanced...like real life. When you do something good, sometimes nobody cares. Sometimes you become an instant hero. Sometimes your positive action actually makes things worse. When you do something bad, sometimes you get rich. Sometimes you get imprisoned. And ironically, sometimes you become an instant hero.

I think playing as the hero in most games that allow the choice is always inherently better because most humans and writers want the best outcome for the better of the story and people you interact with as you grow connections with them, humans know when writing a story that a good person will choose a good choice so all effort will go into expending that side of the story, where as an evil or immoral choice can’t be expanded on as well because most people can’t comprehend that decision in their own created world, differentiates the good writers from the great

Amazing editing

A good game with evil choices is one where you can unlock another way of playing. Instead of you getting punished, you get to experience stuff you couldn't with a good playthrough. I think the infamous games do a really good job of this, especially Infamous 2

When I played Fallout 3 for the first time, I explored around a bit when I left the vault, then found myself in Megaton. Met some people, got some quests, then found that guy who asks you to detonate the bomb for some bunch of rich shmucks over in Tenpenny Tower. I listened to him, heard him out, and then when he finished.. I stood up, looked around, got out a revolver I'd found, and shot him in the head. There was a sudden firefight and I'm not sure who all died there, but by the end of it I was on friendly terms with Megaton, and a lot of bounty hunters wanted me dead.

14:13 I'm sorry, but the way he just ragdolls off the edge caught me way off guard and almost made be spit my drink.

One game I couldn't take the evil path was Bioshock. I didn't have it in me to rip out the ocean slug from inside the little girl. This is also a game where you can go either route and pretty much get the same rewards. But two games I found it surprisingly easy to take the Renegade path was Mass Effect and the Renegade Trooper from SW:TOR. Most games like the poll said I play the good path. I play good because in a strange way it makes me feel good about myself and in the end I want to be heralded as a hero not a villain.