Unfortunately there are signs that this game may be in that mold as well.

I think it's hard to define evil as a protagonist role without making almost a cartoon of it. Because real evil is often either lacking self-awareness (such as with sociopathic personality types) or convinced that it is doing good (such as with paranoid dictatorial types and religious fanatic types). There are already plenty of games that let you play the first type, which is basically the amoral shithead who sees the whole world only as something for them to use however they can (see the various sandbox thug-life type games). As for the other, you would be playing a character who operates from his own conviction of righteousness, but doing so through what most of us would recognise as evil (such as a cult leader or brutal dictator). I think a game designer would have to be very clever to make such a character one we could stomach for an entire game without us wanting to redeem in the end, at least in an RPG setting. In games with more distance between the player and the evil being, such as Dungeon Keeper or Tropico, it becomes easier to enjoy the cruelty and mayhem because it's not as personal and you don't see the effects in the same way as you would in an RPG.

Don´t know if I´d say evil won in the Black Company books, as White Rose aside, there´s no actual good side to begin with. I quite liked Lady´s pragmatic evil ways, she´s definitely an evil Overlady but doesn´t look she´ll burn your village just because it´s there.

Another setting where you are part of an evil empire is the Geneforge games. Takes a few games to get to the see the actual place, but from the beginning Shapers are a very dark society, creating living beings (animals and sapient) and demanding absolute obedience under penalty of death. Any Shaper who disagrees gets sidetracked, outcast, or Promoted to Antarctica, they lord over common people, etc. Then when enough have had enough of their bs and rebel, they are also a bunch of bastards as Shaper opression resulted in the moderated groups getting wiped out or losing influence among the rebels. Happy world.

There´s also Joe Abercrombie´s work, The First Law is basically about how the greater evil wins.

A game which actually tries to be a intentional parody of "I'm Evil!!1!" player types might be something I'm interested in playing :D

From what I read the overlord himself, the boss of the player if I understood correctly, is the dictator type who thinks hes actually doing good by enforcing his will and by doing that preventing wars under his subjects nations. My impression was that the player either plays along and does evil for what he perceives as greater good or overdoes it for his own ego and benefit (which sometimes might mean doing the exacly same thing but with two different mindsets and motivations ["I did it to save the village from the god of winters wrath; I cried that night!" "I did it to save that village... also beheading her gave me a boner"]. I cannot stress the point enough that I do not quote any game examples but just what I assume a game which tries to accomplish what Tyranny wants should consider.

There's certainly scope for an exploration of different facets and definitions of evil in that context. So hopefully they are working along those lines. Given how much text is supposed to be in the game they could have thoughtful ruminations on evil, instead of the oversimplifications one finds in many games. If they can show evil at a personal level that is more than just egocentric "people are things" douchebaggery, and evil at a grand scale that escape the trap of banality, then they'll have done something few other games do.

I'm cautiously optimistic about Tyranny. I liked New Vegas and Pillars of Eternity, so I trust Obsidian to do a good job. Having recently finished the Black Company books I have a good idea about how it can work as a game setting. So let's wait and see.

Interesting idea. To continue the Alderaan example though, what I'd really like to see most is a situation where the "choices" available are all bad to the point that I make a conscious, thoughtful decision to destroy Alderaan. Like the consequences my character would face, or some yet-greater wrong that would occur if I didn't, or something even more personal like if I don't destroy Alderaan I'll have to destroy another planet where some of my family are, etc.... hell in that last case then I already know it'd be "bye bye Alderaan", so indeed there could be a way the devs could force me to make that kind of evil choice if the situation is set up right. Yeah I think that is the part here that sounds most intriguing to me - an RPG that could force me, playing more or less AS me, to make some evil choice and do something horrible, almost unforgivable like that, which of course I would not want to do. Talk about moral dilemnas, wow....

Yeah I'll have to check that one out. Funny, I saw the title and thought I had it in my massive library/backlog, hah, but turns out that was Heretic Kingdoms: The Inquisition. Man, funny, can't even keep track anymore of what's in that huge, dusty attic I call a library. Interesting though, the 2 games do sound somewhat similar, even beyond just the title.

Splendiferous post, Sinistar. Amazing how it takes a big, floating evil head to attain some objectivity in the human experience and clearly glimpse the nature of good and evil. The one thing that I think you may have overlooked, from a pragmatic perspective, is the lack of conscience that exists in the majority of players, especially when it comes to gaming and events that occur within games. Also, the game tends to be the place in their lives where they will vent (sub-consciously speaking) and hence there really is no good opportunity for empathy to happen. Some people are deeply empathic, and couldn't keep playing if they killed one single villager due to accidental acid splash, but most just plainly aren't and couldn't give a fig any less (...unless there was a game penalty of some sort).

How do you know that?

Besides, we're talking about a serious CRPG that will most probably reflect your deeds, and maybe describe them in detail, so they will have consequences. It's not about feeling empathy for pixels but how players feel about themselves if they become the villain in a depressing story. I don't think it's much fun to 'vent' in this way, if the game actually confronts you with your deeds, going into details, and maybe shaping the story according to them, instead of just ignoring what you did and continuing to call you the hero. I believe myself to be an empathic person and I still steal everything that isn't nailed down in RPGs, just because it doesn't make any difference, so it doesn't feel evil. But a serious CRPG about being evil would make your deeds the center of attention. And it would probably be about more memorable deeds than killing random nameless NPCs that have no impact on the story. I don't believe that a majority of the target audience would play them as you describe.

I´m quite early into Avadon to get the full idea, but on paper the concept seems grey evil vs darker grey evil. The Pact is very ruthless dealing with percieved threats, but it's an alliance against very real menacing neighbours waiting for a chance to take their lands and riches rather than an expanding empire. By the time the game begins they are feedbacking hostilty into each other, but if they hadn't made the Pact its members would have been conquered long ago.

Redbeard doesn't seem the do evil because it's fun type, he seems to consider himself more like the necessary evil needed to keep the Pact safe. Which makes him more interesting than were he just powerhungry, but many of his actions are quite evil overlordy.

That would be interesting, but probably more depressing than fun. See This War of Mine and The Walking Dead ...

Much ta. And actually I do include that disassociative process in my calculus. I think it part it's why so many objectionable (to me) games thrive, because people don't experience it immersively but instead at most cathartically. I personally find it difficult in RPGs to be entirely cruel. Even my attempt at a lawless character in games like Fallout ends up doing redemptive things. But I agree with you that many people do not put themselves into the game so much. Either that or they are objectively terrible people to begin with. :)

As I indicated earlier, one of the real problems with portraying true vast evil is that it is banal. Death camps run almost indistinguishably from factories, and suffering is on such a grant scale that it appalls beyond measurable capacity for the witness-participant. Evil is portrayed more effectively in these settings with individual consequences, and to do it properly one needs to be engaged with the characters involved in the drama. Without that, evil becomes just callousness.

For example, it's easy to shotgun down a prostitute in a game where she is a nameless bot that is little more than a walking health potion and who will respawn again into another interchangeable "character". But what if she has a name, and backstory where she has been screwed over by the system and has resorted to hooking because it's the only way to keep her and her child housed and fed? Then it becomes actual evil if you decide to kill her, instead of just another consequenceless action in a world of people where you are the only one who feels real.

Moral choices require a context in which morality has weight, either with in-game consequences, or actual emotional consequences for the player.

PS - I've likely mentioned it before, but I like your Vancean tagline. I am an artist and designer for Spatterlight Press.

Well I for one am looking forward to seeing the game and will consider buying it once it is in the wild and reviews are available. It looks like a visual feast, but will the gameplay match the high quality of the graphics? I am maybe naively optimistic and believe that it likely will.

What does frustrate me is the amount of time and effort that goes into the trailers only for them to really tell you nothing about the game and that they contain little, or worse no, in-game footage. Don't get me wrong, I think the trailers look fantastic, but they tell me virtually nothing about the gameplay other than a loose context. Movie trailers include mostly in-movie scenes and allow the viewer to at least make a judgement based on a small section of the movies content. However, game trailers seem to be going in the direction of showing little to no in-game scenes but instead loads of superfluous fluff that really gives the viewer absolutely no way of judging if the game is of appeal or not. Very frustrating.

It certainly could be. I think for me, that would depend on the context and other game features surrounding it. I mean what if, using the "cred" you gained wtih your superiors from that despicable act, you're able to prevent some future atrocity, or atrocities, or even turn the table on your superiors and take your revenge and prevent their further misdeeds and/or control of the nation/world/galaxy...

I have yet to play an RPG that forces me into TOO dificult of moral decisions, to the point that I don't enjoy/value the experience (This War of Mine is on my list, but not yet played, so I cant say there). So pushing that boundary sounds interesting as hell to me, I have to admit. But who knows, perhaps if that "line" is crossed at some point it will become more depressing than fun? Hah, I suppose that's a question I'm hoping to answer, masochist that I may be for it ;).

Nice, I've never expected for a game discussion to relate to Abercrombie´s fantasy world. If you're fans (and onto "physical" RPG), check out "The Red Knight" book by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Cameron#As_Miles_Cameron
Is it a coincidence that "... His best-known work is the ongoing historical fiction series Tyrant?
Edit: fix url reference (why there's no preview option?)