No, dear, not remotely.
You think that a game without evil options is a no-go.
I think a game without evil option for the sake of them is the one that requires more skill in writing.
But to elaborate:
I do not think “evil” options are pointless. Like every other approach they ought to make sense in context.
Writing a game where they would make sense but don’t is as bad an approach as writing a game where you have them just to be there.
2 Likes
Ramidel
76
I wouldn’t say that Grand Academy of Future Villains or Diabolical is immature, uncreative or pointless. 
I think there’s merit to both methods. Setting aside the villain games, I don’t think Tin Star is a bad game simply because it adds in some choices to be pointlessly evil - I think that having those options lets the game ‘‘show’’ just how pointless the nastiness in question is, adding value to the narrative that way. On the other hand, I agree that more complex moral dilemmas and choices between evils (or better yet, choices between goods) are generally more interesting.
12 Likes
And here we run into the big problem:
I think we all define ‘evil’ differently.
Academy isn’t what I’d define as ‘evil’.
To use my own game as example, I had people ask me to add in options to be outright abusive towards the kid because “realism”. And no, that’s not realistic even though assholes like that exist far too numberous irl. It’s ridiculous and downright vile for no reason, other than to be cruel, violent and feel powerful over others.
Not going to cater to that bullcrap.
Especially not since I am trying to write the relationship between parent and child as mutually supportive, respecting and loving.
Meanwhile there are games where an “evil” option would have done well and made sense, but the game barred us from it without actual rhyme or reason. HR2 for example does not allow to rat Jenny out without second thoughts (even IF you play as “villain”) , because the game insists that you are best buddies etc. Some might agree, others see nothing supportive or respecting from Jenny’s side throughout the games, and thus no reason to feel bad about her fate.
It’s all a matter of context.
6 Likes
kgold
79
I generally like a “Crime and Punishment” arc of allowing a bad action only to show negative consequences later. But, this can feel heavy-handed if the player’s play style so far has suggested they want a not-very-serious arc. Taking over Alaska in Choice of Robots isn’t very serious, so I let it happen.
There seems to be a larger question about the depiction of evil in third parties, particularly if it targets vulnerable groups. My feeling is that intent is everything here; certainly there are movies and books that move the audience to sympathy toward the affected, ranging from Uncle Tom’s Cabin to Schindler’s List. Like many things, this can be done well or poorly, even if the intent is right.
There’s a hard line against such depictions that I disagree with; I don’t think whitewashing fiction is a social answer to anything. Like Raskolnikov after the murder, sometimes we need to stop running and confront our demons.
23 Likes
Another important point surrounding the option to be evil, is to be be evil without being a woobie i.e. someone who is unintentionally sympathetic to the audience that sometimes isn’t intended to be sympathetic.
The first example of a Woobie that comes to mind is Hal Stewart or Titan from the film MegaMind and how the film savagely deconstructs the “nice guy” trope. It’s covered in the film’s YMMV tropes page, but some people actually found him to be sympathetic and found the Roxxane to be in the wrong even though it’s everyone right to turn someone down if you’re not interested in them. You can read more about it underneath the Draco in Leather Pants trope.
Here’s another YouTube Essay about playing as a Light Side Sith in Star Wars: The Old Republic. It’s part of a larger critique about Steven Universe, but it’s (SW ToR section) a pretty interesting breakdown of a protagonist who just so happens to be on the dark side.
2 Likes
