The other day, in Playing To Win, we looked at having an ending other than “optimal” in a game. Not surprising, the idea was not received with open arms.

That was considered from the “good” point of view, though I didn’t mention it explicitly. What about the other side? What about when a game allows players to be “evil”?

Typically, a CRPG that has an “evil” path, or otherwise permits you to be somewhat less than “good”, comes to much the same conclusion: Foozle is defeated and the world saved yet again.

There have been a few games with actual “evil” endings. Neverwinter 2, for instance. However, something like that is rare. Good or bad, the finale is the same.

Why should that be so? Does it make sense that an “evil” character is always working against Foozle? Of course, if he just wants to destroy the world outright, we can see an “evil” character stopping him, just out of pure survival.

Aside from that particular situation, though, it’s never made much sense to me that a “bad guy” should be heroic. Or that someone considered “evil” by the game’s standards should be allowed to win. What do you think?