When you game, do you prefer to be the good guy, all heroic and protecting the people; or the evil bastard, killing the helpless and getting rich off their loot?
The Good Guys...or at least a schlub with some gun & survival skills who tends toward being 'reluctant good guy'. (Otherwise he'd be a moody survivalist hermit looking for love)
Obviously I prefer contemporary or Science Fiction roleplaying games.
- Ed C.
Quote from: danbuter;414504When you game, do you prefer to be the good guy, all heroic and protecting the people; or the evil bastard, killing the helpless and getting rich off their loot?
I prefer neither. I don't really mean that in the sense of an antihero inhabiting a moral gray area; more so I usually prefer a free agent who is pursuing his own goals and meeting his own conflicts, even if his goals are basically just greed and survival.
If I need to pick between the above two, usually "heroic," though. I have played evil characters before but I don't think it's as much fun, especially for extended play.
Quote from: Koltar;414507The Good Guys...or at least a schlub with some gun & survival skills who tends toward being 'reluctant good guy'. (Otherwise he'd be a moody survivalist hermit looking for love)
Obviously I prefer contemporary or Science Fiction roleplaying games.
- Ed C.
When a hermit finds love, is it a...solitary...lov...never mind, don't tell me. :)
They don't have to be squeaky-clean, paladin-level good, but playing the evil bastard has zero appeal for me.
Good guys. If my character is going to engage in violence, bloody violence (which kind of covers most games) I like to think it's for a good cause, not just greed or spite.
For a one off game I can play a bastard and it can be fun, but in the long run its just leaves a nasty after taste.
That's said I do like amoral mad scientists. But I guess the pursuit of science is a good casue even despite the human cost :-)
Usually? Good guy. I love when I'm actually back against the wall, surrounded by enemies, and fight a losing battle. I'm the kind of player who can commit sepuku to save the party. I love this sort of stuff.
I don't think I can play 'good' guys... people who think they're 'good' usually turn out to be quite awful (I can play zealots and crackpots just fine however).
I much prefer the guy who marches to his own drummer... has his own ethics. Not concerned with doing the right thing as much as doing the thing he thinks oughtta be done... usually something of a loner who has a bit of friction with the other PCs.
I generally go for heroic, myself. I just enjoy it more. Maybe it's because I'm old and cynical, nowadays. Ten years ago, I preferred playing bad guys. Now I just don't like them.
Quote from: Soylent Green;414519If my character is going to engage in violence, bloody violence (which kind of covers most games) I like to think it's for a good cause, not just greed or spite.
"Greed or spite" might not be good causes but they are often awesome ones ;)
I don't object to having a character who is "a good person;" I just don't necessarily want to be the hero who has to save the realm. I'd rather be the guy with a treasure map and a gleam in his eye.
Quote from: Cole;414509When a hermit finds love, is it a...solitary...lov...never mind, don't tell me. :)
Thats cute , Cole.
Should've said - a Hermit that doesn't want to be one.
The literary cliche of a 'loner' that finds the right person to love - while they're in middle of a running firefight trying to board a just powered-up escape vehicle. (Cue The John Williams music...)
- Ed C.
...and of course she manages to trick him into doing the right thing. She also has three "colleagues"/friends with her along for the ride as backup as they head off to darkest Dangerlandia in the southern Hemisphere of Terra Fantastica. (now cue the Lucasfilm-esque music!!)
Quote from: Koltar;414524The literary cliche of a 'loner' that finds the right person to love - while they're in middle of a running firefight trying to board a just powered-up escape vehicle. (Cue The John Williams music...)
Haha! So, playing "Han Solo", not "playing Hand Solo."
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I figured that's what you meant originally, but whenever I see "Hermit" I inevitably think of the creepy guy from Quest for Glory who wants you to spend the night in his cave and play cribbage. :)
Quote from: danbuter;414504When you game, do you prefer to be the good guy, all heroic and protecting the people; or the evil bastard, killing the helpless and getting rich off their loot?
And there's nothing in between?
-clash
Usually I am the GM, so I'm armies of bad guys. When I do play I usually like to play a good guy.
...
A good guy with a horrible and obvious flaw. Come to think of it, when I play a bad guy, I tend to give him one glowing and obvious redeeming quality. That's how I roll.
I mostly play morally ambiguous characters that shift between doing good and bad, though so do most people in my group.
Bad guys all the way.
I wrote a game about Chavs for Christ's sake you don't get much more evil than that.
Quote from: Ian Warner;414536Bad guys all the way.
I wrote a game about Chavs for Christ's sake you don't get much more evil than that.
Wait a minute....
How can "chavs" be evil if the character of Rose Tyler on "Doctor Who" was supposedly a "chav" ? (Or similiar to one?)
I thought it was a general way of behaving and fashion choices amongst youth in in the U.K. - particularly young women.
- Ed C.
EDIT: Okay I just looked up (again) the term on wikipedia and this is what I got:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav
Its a derogatory term for lower class youth in the U.K.
By context they siound similiar to the "Guidos" of the Jersey Shore TV show and maybe the whiggers of the late '80s/early '90s in the American midwest.
(Apologies about that slang term but both the media/press called them that and they referred to themselves that way) These kids might also might be similiar to American Skate-punk culture kids.
- Ed C.
My understanding of 'chavs' are that they are less about style and more about aimless thuggery... often with racist/homophobic overtones. Somewhat like the nastier forms of 'skinheads', but with no particular political awareness. I might be basing that a bit too much on their portrayal in media... such as 'Eden Lake'.
Quote from: danbuter;414504When you game, do you prefer to be the good guy, all heroic and protecting the people; or the evil bastard, killing the helpless and getting rich off their loot?
I like to believe my character is a good guy, but I like the morality of a gmae to be a little greyer, a little more ambiguous than that.
Mostly heroic types dripping goodsauce...though with a dark side that can get nasty if roused.You know, like, "mess with my family and you ALL die for multiple generations and so might you for asking questions!!"...can't carve rotten wood etc.
the (occasional) overtly evil persona is fun too or a moody sort who vacilates. Thats why GMing can be soo rewarding as you get to explore all facets. :)
I play and run games about good guys. The bad guys are too easy to play in general, there is little challenge in running around like a loose cannon. It takes more fun and gives a bit more challenge to do good things.
I don't like either extreme. I like pretty much everything between them.
Not-as-bad-as-the-guys-we're-fighting-guys, if that makes sense.
I prefer the bad guys.
My players usually play evil characters that love to do good things for power, coin, and glory.
I like paladins myself, but normally I have skill whore duty.
Quote from: Silverlion;414583I play and run games about good guys. The bad guys are too easy to play in general, there is little challenge in running around like a loose cannon. It takes more fun and gives a bit more challenge to do good things.
Being bad doesn't mean crazy though. When I run an "evil party" campaign, I still see interesting and intelligent characters.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;414597Being bad doesn't mean crazy though. When I run an "evil party" campaign, I still see interesting and intelligent characters.
Depends. A character can be intelligent and interesting, but to be evil implies a basic lack of basic human empathy which is a clinical personality disorder. I really don't know how far down that road you have to go before it can be considered "crazy", but there is a link.
Of course wearing spandex to fight crime isn't particularly sane either but in that instance you are most going by genre conventions.
Yeah, choosing to be "evil" means that something islacking in the character's soul. Or to put it more awkwardly - the character is lacking in character.
- Ed C.
I tend to prefer playing the basically evil (or at least motivated by self-interest) bastard who somehow ends up doing good things.
Lord Hobie
Good guys. You can be a bit gray, but still good overall. In my experience, evil characters are just an excuse to wreck stuff...
Seanchai
Its pretty blatantly clear that my favorite Legion NPC is Braniac 5. So what I like really is the definitely-good guy that's such a total son of a bitch that he drives people nuts.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;414898Its pretty blatantly clear that my favorite Legion NPC is Braniac 5. So what I like really is the definitely-good guy that's such a total son of a bitch that he drives people nuts.
RPGPundit
Reed Richards is often that way, too, I think.
I prefer to play the Good Guy. The farthest I will go in the other direction is an Every Man sort of character. But I don't play Bad Guys. There are enough Bad Guys in the real world.
From my experience players like to play 'naughty' characters instead of evil ones.
Something like a pirate who is able to be nasty but their intentions are good.
One example is the Serenity crew out of Firefly or the crew of the Betty out of Alien: Resurrection. They do bad things, especially when considered by the authorities but they are doing the 'right' thing as well.
Let me put this is D&D* terms:
Good or Neutral characters OK, so long as you have a motivation that will involve you in the adventure.
Evil characters, no.
Unless you are talking about the GM. Then its your job to play right bastards. :cool:
*-To include 1e-3e.
Tuco yes, Blondie yes, Angel Eyes once a blue moon, Indio definitely not.
Quote from: Soylent Green;414672Depends. A character can be intelligent and interesting, but to be evil implies a basic lack of basic human empathy which is a clinical personality disorder. I really don't know how far down that road you have to go before it can be considered "crazy", but there is a link.
Of course wearing spandex to fight crime isn't particularly sane either but in that instance you are most going by genre conventions.
But that doesn't mean you are unpredictable and a loose canon. My point is, it doesn't have to produce sheer chaos and predictable characters. Some of the most interesting characters are evil. I agree, an evil character with no redeeming qualities, who kills for fun...that is going to be boring. But more complicated characterizations of evil are possible.
Quote from: Melan;415172Tuco yes, Blondie yes, Angel Eyes once a blue moon, Indio definitely not.
How about Shorty? ;)
Lord Hobie
Quote from: RPGPundit;414898Its pretty blatantly clear that my favorite Legion NPC is Braniac 5. So what I like really is the definitely-good guy that's such a total son of a bitch that he drives people nuts.
RPGPundit
These kinds of characters can be fun. Where would you put a character like Edmund Blackadder on the list? He is sort of watered down evil and an SOB. But some might still consider him basically good (at least by the last season).
I like playing scoundrels. People who aren't so bad, you could say they're evil, but definitely have a mean streak, or a significant moral failing, or are in a situation that requires ruthless behaviour. Then I like it when they are pushed into situations with lots of moral complexity and seeing which way they jump. I love the moment where something in the scoundrel clicks into place, and he reaches a point where he makes that choice that redeems him, or conversely, irrevocably damns him.
Quote from: danbuter;414504When you game, do you prefer to be the good guy, all heroic and protecting the people; or the evil bastard, killing the helpless and getting rich off their loot?
I prefer to play characters with some depth, be they good or evil.
Batman has depth as a character, Superman doesn't to me, yet both are Good Guys. I'd rather use batman as a PC.
I find either extreme to be boring.
I really don't think of my characters in terms of good or evil, but what I typically find most compelling are basically good people who have been pushed to far, put in situations where 'good' and 'right' are all but impossible.
For instance one of things I like about the Eberron setting is how most characters have a connection to the Last War and its horrors. In my group's long-running campaign I play a warmage who's something of a lost soul, an alcoholic and wanted criminal who met up with the party after infiltrating an evil organization but not being able to go through with killing an innocent man. And then proceeds to blast the unliving shite out of a bunch of vampires, if mostly for personal revenge.
So yeah, 'good but troubled' is how I roll.
Quote from: two_fishes;415231I like playing scoundrels. People who aren't so bad, you could say they're evil, but definitely have a mean streak, or a significant moral failing, or are in a situation that requires ruthless behaviour. Then I like it when they are pushed into situations with lots of moral complexity and seeing which way they jump. I love the moment where something in the scoundrel clicks into place, and he reaches a point where he makes that choice that redeems him, or conversely, irrevocably damns him.
I used to like to conceive my PCs around what I called a "central hypocrisy."
Quote from: Cole;415531I used to like to conceive my PCs around what I called a "central hypocrisy."
What does that mean. I have an idea in my head about what it might mean, but it's kind of vague and may not mean what you want it to mean.
Definitely the good guy. More Han Solo or Rick O'Connell than Luke Skywalker though.
Quote from: two_fishes;415533What does that mean. I have an idea in my head about what it might mean, but it's kind of vague and may not mean what you want it to mean.
I mean something along the lines of the character has a main, broadly drawn or caricatured world view, and then I try to make sure one of his personality elements can allow another character to call him on it or point out flaws in his logic. It's less of a "moral dilemma" thing as having a trigger that can provoke the character to action or to justify himself.
Off the top of my head I had a Ranger character who was this sort of gruff veteran, who made a lot of show of living rough and his impatience with high society and so on but he was frankly very self-impressed with his reputation and his fame as a great hunter, explorer, etc, so challenges or flattery from the kind of people he claimed to ignore could work on him quite a lot if they played to his temptations?
Totally depends on the setting / genre / GM's focus.
I'm not impressed with "gray" or "depth" or "morally ambivalent" - if it works for the setting, cool but otherwise, I want to know where the GM's idea for the campaign and build characters accordingly.
I do love me some Necessary Evil. Playing a super "hero" who is all about the end goal justifies...everything is pretty crazy fun.
Quote from: Cole;414903Reed Richards is often that way, too, I think.
Richards is a little different. He's often so obsessed with "Science!" or his personal projects that he's neglectful.
Whereas B5 is arrogant and dismissive of others, condescending, generally an ass, but so frustrating because he's usually RIGHT (except about things to do with human nature, which are not his forte).
RPGPundit
And I would say Blackadder doesn't fit into the definition of "good" at all; he's completely self-serving, in a way that Richards, Braniac 5, or Batman are not.
Of those, btw, Batman and B5 are much more similar to each other than to Reed. The former two tend to do things on their own and trust no one, because they think that they're fundamentally more competent than anyone else. Richards is much more prone to relying on others, rather than just using others.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;415747Of those, btw, Batman and B5 are much more similar to each other than to Reed. The former two tend to do things on their own and trust no one, because they think that they're fundamentally more competent than anyone else. Richards is much more prone to relying on others, rather than just using others.
RPGPundit
Good point! Of course it depends a lot on who's writing Batman (Richards' characterization has been more consistent over the years IMO) but most modern interpretations of Bruce, very much so.
Richards CAN be very manipulative as well; in a strange way it's founded in trust in a way that's not characteristic of Batman.
I'm only a casual legion reader so I'm not going to speculate on Brainiac - you're definitely the expert here.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;415191These kinds of characters can be fun. Where would you put a character like Edmund Blackadder on the list? He is sort of watered down evil and an SOB. But some might still consider him basically good (at least by the last season).
The various Blackadders aren't wholly the same character in different time periods though. Only in the last season would I regard him as other than primarily self-motivated. The first Edmund is cartoonishly evil, if pathetic.
Quote from: Cole;415750Good point! Of course it depends a lot on who's writing Batman (Richards' characterization has been more consistent over the years IMO) but most modern interpretations of Bruce, very much so.
Richards CAN be very manipulative as well; in a strange way it's founded in trust in a way that's not characteristic of Batman.
I'm only a casual legion reader so I'm not going to speculate on Brainiac - you're definitely the expert here.
Like with Batman, over time B5 has been portrayed as successively more manipulative, as well as more arrogant (though the high water mark there might have been in the "threeboot" legion that was the Legion comic until Final Crisis; the current Brainy is essentially the Levitz-era Brainy, who's still arrogant and manipulative but much less of an asshole about it than the "threeboot" Brainiac).
RPGPundit
When I am good I am very very good, but when I am bad I am wicked.
It's much harder to play a good or evil character. Playing morally grey self-serving types is the easiest thing.
It's difficult to stand up for a belief where that goes counter to the rub of the game and its hard to play an extreme view point without it becoming a cliche.
I will play anything but there will be consequences
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;415174But that doesn't mean you are unpredictable and a loose canon. My point is, it doesn't have to produce sheer chaos and predictable characters. Some of the most interesting characters are evil. I agree, an evil character with no redeeming qualities, who kills for fun...that is going to be boring. But more complicated characterizations of evil are possible.
That may not be true playing a character that kills for fun in a world where there are unpleasant consequences for that behaviour I don't think would ever get dull. Think Mr Blonde or Dexter. And a character that kills for fun, like both of these do can still be nuanced and interesting and have redeeming features.
The problem of course is that in most game worlds, murder and mayhem are not deemed evil but acceptable. In that situation there is little point playing a nuanced character you may as well play Tactiturn Fighter #11.
Quote from: jibbajibba;415876The problem of course is that in most game worlds, murder and mayhem are not deemed evil but acceptable. In that situation there is little point playing a nuanced character you may as well play Tactiturn Fighter #11.
That's true. Which takes us back to my point about empathy. Evil implies lack of empathy for the victim. But it can be hard to feel empathy for NPCs in a roleplaying game because NPCs aren't real people. Unless both GM and players put real effort into humanise the NPCs they are nothing more than stage furniture or resources to be tapped. This in turn makes evil very cheap.
That's the thing. I'm autistic. I have a hard enough time with empathy in real life.
Sociopathic bastards really suit me because I am one.
Quote from: Cole;415754The various Blackadders aren't wholly the same character in different time periods though. Only in the last season would I regard him as other than primarily self-motivated. The first Edmund is cartoonishly evil, if pathetic.
I agree with this assessment. But I would say his self interest, particularly in season 2 and 3, keep him from behaving in stupidly evil ways that would be disruptive in a gaming session.
Quote from: jibbajibba;415876That may not be true playing a character that kills for fun in a world where there are unpleasant consequences for that behaviour I don't think would ever get dull. Think Mr Blonde or Dexter. And a character that kills for fun, like both of these do can still be nuanced and interesting and have redeeming features.
I don't disagree. That is why a said a character with no redeeming qualities who kills for fun would be boring. However, in my experience, characters that kill for fun in an rpg rarely rise to the level of a Mr. Blonde, tend toward disruption.
QuoteThe problem of course is that in most game worlds, murder and mayhem are not deemed evil but acceptable. In that situation there is little point playing a nuanced character you may as well play Tactiturn Fighter #11.
I do think setting has a lot to do with it. I play a lot of modern games, and there are just more rules that keep evil guys in check. Even in my mafia campaign, where we have one or two loose canons, they have to worry about going to jail or ending up on the evening news if they take things too far (guys like Ralph Cifaretto normally meet grisly ends in my games, because it is a logical consequence of their actions).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;416111I don't disagree. That is why a said a character with no redeeming qualities who kills for fun would be boring. However, in my experience, characters that kill for fun in an rpg rarely rise to the level of a Mr. Blonde, tend toward disruption.
I do think setting has a lot to do with it. I play a lot of modern games, and there are just more rules that keep evil guys in check. Even in my mafia campaign, where we have one or two loose canons, they have to worry about going to jail or ending up on the evening news if they take things too far (guys like Ralph Cifaretto normally meet grisly ends in my games, because it is a logical consequence of their actions).
I agree that "modern" games tend to a more realistic legal framework but you run a D&D game with the same level of control. A city with an actual city watch, that arrest people just for killin' and stealin'? Unheard of.
Even modern games shy away from actual action (of course in my games Swat teams get called out to handle vampire disturbances and Cyberpunk criminals appear on mass news channels).
Then you get the whole discussion of "monsters", which we have covered before. It is usually fine to burn out a whole warren of goblins. Not only do the goblins have no legal recourse but the action is seen as 'good' because goblins are iredeemeble creatures of the night. A Lawful culture where all intelligent creatures are seen as having some sort of natural rights and interference of those rights is a crime would never be popuar. Kill things and take their stuff is a core paradigm after all.
Quote from: danbuter;414504When you game, do you prefer to be the good guy, all heroic and protecting the people; or the evil bastard, killing the helpless and getting rich off their loot?
Almost always a good guy.
And my games tend to skew towards the heroic as well (with little prompting...I tend to follow my players' leads on the types of games they want to play).
Quote from: Ian Warner;416057That's the thing. I'm autistic. I have a hard enough time with empathy in real life.
Sociopathic bastards really suit me because I am one.
Thats not really the excuse that you think it is.
Most autistic folks I've met have a MORE pronounced sense of morality than the mainstream.
- Ed C.
Quote from: danbuter;414504When you game, do you prefer to be the good guy, all heroic and protecting the people; or the evil bastard, killing the helpless and getting rich off their loot?
For me, the hero's tale holds more appeal. Too many times I've been part of a "bad guys" game where and when it just meant watching the group act like juvenile psychopaths.
Quote from: deMonica;417366Too many times I've been part of a "bad guys" game where and when it just meant watching the group act like juvenile psychopaths.
Yeah, being Evil is more fun when you aren't just being a one dimensional thug. When I play evil, I try to play it like Charlton Heston doing Cardinal Richilieu from
The Three Musketeers and
The Four Musketeers.