The Other Worlds Shrine

Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about... 

  • When evil is not evil

  • Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.
Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.
 #93901  by Don
 Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:40 pm
This is inspired by World of Warcraft, but applies to almost anything with a plot these days. There seems to be this trend of having no clear evil in games or anime or whatever. I mentioned World of Warcraft because just about every raving pack of undead or scoundrel or anything else you kill in that game has a sob story behind the scenes that explained why they're out there feasting on the bodies of the supposed good guys. I mean heck even Saregras used to be a good guy. Of course, Blizzard is hardly alone in this practice.

Now I understand you want to give you villians some depth as opposed to just pure evil incarnate. But I recall an article on Spiderman 2 where the director said how they don't want make their villians shallow but on the other hand you don't want to make it look like the villians aren't really villians. One of the earlier tricks used that predates at least Final Fantasy IV was the "I was brainwashed" trick, ala Kain and Golbez. Does anyone even doubt that if Kain betrayed your party yet again he'll be happily welcomed back even though he said you can kill him if he gets brainwashed again?

Later on we moved to more sophisticated technique known as "I was abused as a child" (or insert similarly traumatic experiences). Like I mentioned in the Naruto thread in M&M, being abused as a child allows one to do things like slaughter people without feeling remorse, destroy/take over the world, and becoming a God.

I'm not saving villians can't have motivations and complexity, but it seems like whenever you beat one they just go on crying about if only they had some love or whatever they would not have turned their back on the world and did all these horrible things. To all the villians of the fictional world: get some backbone and take responsibility for being evil. If you're going to try to destroy the world, don't expect anyone to have sympathy because you were abused as a kid.

Unfortunately, this seems to be what passes for 'character development' these days. If this is the best people can do, I'd rather take something that's pure evil incarnate over the sob stories. Would Kefka be any better if he was crying about how they did horrible experiments to him in the Magitek Facility which is why he blew up a world? When you killed Lavos, who will feed the baby Lavos Spawn? Maybe Lavos was just trying to raise his/her/its family and you know, some all consuming entity just needs a lot of stuff to keep its family well-fed? Indeed think about the entire world denied a chance to exist by the actions of heroes of Chrono Trigger! Don't Joe Smoe guy starving to death and/or exterminated by machines in 2400 A.D. have a chance to exist for a short while being wiped out of existence too? Oh wait that's the underlying premise of Chrono Cross there.

Offhand, Final Fantasy Tactics is the only game I can think of where they got the whole 'no clear evil' thing right (besides the Zodiac Beasts obviously, which are obviously pure evil). Some people were deceived, while some had different ideologies, and some were simply slaughtered but everyone took responsibility for fighting and dying for what they believed in. If you're going to have a grey area about good and evil, then people needs to die. Without death, it basically means everyone is good and you're just fighting over nothing in the first place. The lack of true evil works in FFT precisely because people drop like flies all the time and no one faction was any more special than any other.

 #93912  by SineSwiper
 Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:12 pm
Well, let's look at the scenarios:

Pure Good vs. Pure Evil = fucking boring
Impure Good vs. Pure Evil = somewhat dark, like FFT. Not tried too often, so it's usually entertaining
Pure Good vs. Impure Evil = pretty much what you're talking about
Impure Good vs. Impure Evil = the "grey area" story

It's just a matter of picking one of those styles. The first one got overplayed, so they are going for something else.

 #93921  by Nev
 Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:04 am
I think there are ways to do all of these scenarios well.

Sauron is about as one-sided a "pure evil" villan as any. But I don't know too many people who think he, or it if you prefer, is a poor characterization.

However, something like MGS1 (actually, any of them) is much more grey, but, again, manages to work extremely well.

To me, at least half of good characterization is in the details...

 #93922  by Zeus
 Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:18 am
SineSwiper wrote:Well, let's look at the scenarios:

Pure Good vs. Pure Evil = fucking boring
Impure Good vs. Pure Evil = somewhat dark, like FFT. Not tried too often, so it's usually entertaining
Pure Good vs. Impure Evil = pretty much what you're talking about
Impure Good vs. Impure Evil = the "grey area" story

It's just a matter of picking one of those styles. The first one got overplayed, so they are going for something else.
As for the first one, I didn't realize you disliked Star Wars and Lord of the Rings due to the fact they were "fucking boring"

 #93937  by Don
 Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:15 pm
I think Zeus brought up a good point. Pure good versus pure evil sure worked out pretty well as a plot in the world of fiction, so why is it in the realm of especially gaming people are trying to be so different?

 #93940  by SineSwiper
 Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:16 pm
Zeus wrote:As for the first one, I didn't realize you disliked Star Wars and Lord of the Rings due to the fact they were "fucking boring"
Both are bad examples. Stars Wars is about a man who goes from good to evil, so there's definately grey there. LotR has characters like Golem and both of the Baggins, where the influence of the ring had them crossing the lines of good and evil back and forth.

Also, I was talking about RPG story lines, which is a helluva lot poorer in quality than a real story.

 #93944  by Don
 Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:18 am
Well, at least in the original Trilogy Darth Vader never made any excuses on why he turned on the dark side so I think he falls under 'pure evil' pretty well. The fact that he was redeemed at the end just means pure good wins. I have nothing against pure evil characters having some dimension to them, i.e. Vader may be evil but when it was his son who got away he didn't Force Choke the admiral that failed as opposed to all the other guys who got Force Choked for failing, and when it was his son that was zapped to death he tossed the Emperor down the chute. Clearly if it was anyone else (say, Han Solo) that's being zapped Vader wouldn't have cared.

There is nothing wrong with having some human side to an evil character. Now if Vader at the end turned to good and started crying about how his childhood life sucked and his wife died and he was used by the Emperor then that'd be dumb.

The fact that RPG have sucky story isn't really important here. If you assume RPG stories are uniformally worse than their book/movie counterparts, why not at least copy the ones that did well in the world of fiction so at least you're off to a good start? Unless RPG stories that copy the pure good vs evil story suck more than any other type of story. But, given most RPGs that people enjoyed tend to have pretty straight cut good vs evil (certainly most anything that predates PSX era has very clear cut good and evil sides), I don't see a problem here.

 #93947  by Zeus
 Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:25 am
SineSwiper wrote:
Zeus wrote:As for the first one, I didn't realize you disliked Star Wars and Lord of the Rings due to the fact they were "fucking boring"
Both are bad examples. Stars Wars is about a man who goes from good to evil, so there's definately grey there. LotR has characters like Golem and both of the Baggins, where the influence of the ring had them crossing the lines of good and evil back and forth.

Also, I was talking about RPG story lines, which is a helluva lot poorer in quality than a real story.
Star Wars and LotR are perfect examples of pure good vs pure evil, particularly the original trilogy. Sauron and Vadar and Palpatine are pure evil, no explanation, they just are and they have real presence. Same with many of the henchmen. This is why the stories appeal to children and adults alike, the separation is very basic and very clear

If they made RPG storylines less complex I think it would actually work out better more regularly. Just because it's longer doesn't mean it has to be more complex, there just has to be more plot points. This is why Mario and Luigi Superstar Saga stands out. It's a more simplistic storyline, but it's done very well, more than you can say about a lot of RPGs nowadays. Not to mention it has unique and, IMO, more fun game mechanics

 #93948  by Kupek
 Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:00 am
I don't know where this fits in, but keep in mind that Star Wars and LotR are a part of Western culture. If you want to know why we don't have more games that use similar themes, you'd have to take a look at Japanese culture.

 #93952  by Julius Seeker
 Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:06 am
Don Wang wrote:I think Zeus brought up a good point. Pure good versus pure evil sure worked out pretty well as a plot in the world of fiction, so why is it in the realm of especially gaming people are trying to be so different?
Well, an RPG can't have the same sort of story, it has to into the gameplay as well.

Why aren't RPG stories usually as good as what we read in books? Perhaps they are as good, but it is a different format. An RPG story can't be looked at just its dialogue, the adventure elements must be examined as well as they do add to the dimension. Similar to how you would not say Lord of the Rings is all about the dialogue and that nothing else factors into the story. It also must be considered that we have only had RPGs for a short amount of time, Literature has been around for thousands of years.

In Chrono Trigger I really enjoyed the Lavos character. Lavos never spoke a single word in the entire game. Sometimes, in order for a villain to be great, words do not even have to be spoken.

Good and evil are just made up concepts; they aren't really real. I do think that generally though, by Evil, selfishness is the key trait. With good the main trait is courage. In RPG's of course. There are, of course, other traits as well, but I find that these are the primary ones. Crono is pure courage, Lavos is pure selfishness.

There are some games, such as Skies of Arcadia that have very simple storylines. Yet, even though the story can be judged "bad" as a result, it somehow ties sop perfectly into the rest of the game that it becomes quite enjoyable. Though, comparing the story with Chriono Trigger, I see it as using a very similar format; a lot of related mini stories stringed along to create a larger one; rather than the Final Fantasy's one big large story, sometimes it's two parts.Vyse is also like a talking Crono, he is pure courage. Anyways, I really enjoy the Chrono Trigger/Skies of Arcadia format (also found in another ones of my favourite RPG's, Final Fantasy Legend 2; Earthbound as well). Most RPG's are fairly strait forward though, Final Fantasy III is bringing down the Empire in its first part, and desteroying Kefka in the second part. Final Fantasy 7 is the same in that it is fighting Midgar in the first part, and bringing down Sephiroth in the second part (even though it's not an even split like FFIII, 15% is probably dedicated to the first part, and 85% to the second).

 #93956  by Don
 Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:22 pm
I don't think it's a cultural thing. Just look at anything Blizzard has written regarding Warcraft.