Comments on: Good, Evil, and other Genre Conventions

By: The Sarlacc

The Sarlacc — Thu, 13 May 2010 01:43:50 +0000

Arthas was just too hasty. After my experience with WoW, he could just have sent a handful of hunters and they’d have easily kited the whole of Stratholme to victory…

Then again, the undead are not particularly tasty.

By: Simon Jones who is blogless

Simon Jones who is blogless — Thu, 06 May 2010 04:19:07 +0000

I think the key part of the Stratholme things is Arthas’s motivations, rather than the end result.

It’s around the point where he decides that he’s always right and his ends are justify whatever means he decides to pursue. Hence all the unpleasentness that comes later.

By: Bri

Bri — Wed, 05 May 2010 19:08:22 +0000

Which, of course, is the point. If it were a black-and-white good vs. evil choice he’d be far more of a 2-dimensional character in my opinion. It’s that moral ambiguity that makes it a memorable moment in the lore. Thus, an interesting choice in Dragon Age with the child.

By: spinks

spinks — Wed, 05 May 2010 18:53:09 +0000

Have you noticed that players always automatically hate and detest NPCs who are rude to them. I mean, way more than actual evil ones or guys who are trying to kill them.

By: spinks

spinks — Wed, 05 May 2010 18:52:20 +0000

The scene with Arthas in Stratholme is open to interpretation At that point, it might have been the right thing to do.

By: Bri

Bri — Wed, 05 May 2010 18:46:18 +0000

My favourite villains are the ones who are impeccably polite, with that undercurrent of unforgiving evil.

By: Bri

Bri — Wed, 05 May 2010 18:45:16 +0000

“When I murdered the child in Redcliffe (in Dragon Age) it was because I was saving the world from a worse evil. If that’s not heroic then I don’t know what is!”

That’s what Arthas said after he razed Stratholme.

By: Hassel

Hassel — Wed, 05 May 2010 16:37:12 +0000

So by the argument in the first paragraph, Arthas made the right decision in the Culling of Stratholme? It eventually led to his downfall. I can see both sides of that argument but morally, in my opinion, he was wrong. It was an evil choice. Something in him, sure he can justify it till the tauren come home, but something in him was evil, and he paid for it. What bothers me is that in books, movies, games it’s all the same. The bad guys win throughout most of the story, until with a last ditch effort, good is able to gain victory. How come good never kicks evils ass before they cause so much destruction? Good is always playing catch up. Just once I would like evil to rise up and say WATCH ME TAKE OVER THE WOR.. *WE INTERRUPT THIS BROADCAST TO INFORM YOU EVIL HAS BEEN BITCHSLAPPED BACK TO REALITY*

By: Klepsacovic

Klepsacovic — Wed, 05 May 2010 12:59:30 +0000

Even worse is how evil is most commonly expressed as rudeness. An evil person can be polite and friendly!

By: Hirvox

Hirvox — Wed, 05 May 2010 09:58:45 +0000

By pet peeve is that quite a few games with morality systems have only three settings at most: Altruistic gullible friend of all living things, disinterested seen-it-all mercenary and a puppy-kicking jerk.

Also, quite a few systems rely on everyone in the world magically knowning every sordid detail of your exploits. If you kick a puppy in the middle of the desert, the townfolk won’t let you in. That’s not morality, it’s loss aversion.