Stupid in game morality.

[Nigh Invulnerable]

to me it is a certain charecter in kotor named jollie bindo who claims to be nutral but if you make the ultamate evil choice he turns on you wtf

Neutrality =/= stupid. If you were him and saw the actions a Dark Side Revan takes over the course of events you'd probably run/turn on him too. I imagine a neutral character would still prefer good neighbors over evil ones most of the time.

 

[Desert Tiger]

Shouldn't be any morality things. Instead, other character's should react on what you've done throughout your gaming experience from their own point of view, and act accordingly. If the character is a dick and you act like a dick, then you'll get along just fine. If your character is a godly figure of all things good, then someone else who goes around murdering bad guys might see you as a show-off pussy, while the general population adore you. If you turn off your grandmas' life support, half the room could respect that it was a hard but right decision to make, then the others could estrange you from the family.

At the end of the day, there is no good or evil, just what people perceive as good and evil.

 

[Yegargeburble]

I shot Silver in the face and then for some reason lost Karma when I started 'stealing' the items that her corpse apparently still owned. You'd think they'd have coded that her items were no longer owned once she has no face.

Yeah! This is so ridiculous. I shoot people fifteen times in the face, and taking their items is still called stealing. I do believe that those items should belong to me now. It's not like the deceased is going to use them.

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

InFamous.
You come across a bunch of citizens punishing a criminal by hanging him upside down from a street-light. If you leave them alone, you get "bad" points. But if you cut the cable holding guy up, potentially dropping him on his head, you get "good" points. Anyone else confused by that?

 

[SantoUno]

I guess Knights of the Old Republic kind of has an excuse in that the Force's morality is kind of objective, so if you disagree with it then you're "wrong" since it has nothing to do with your moral code. Even so, some of the things that give you Dark Side points are just odd. Wait, so it's okay for me to kill a prize fighter, but doing so in an honorable fight to the death instead of running up and blowing his head off in a bar is a dark side move? What?

I was surprised by this too, I guess the fact that you're agreeing to kill him is evil, tch.

And yes I love Force Crush too.

 

[Axeli]

About Mass Effect...

Like said, it's not a s much of a good and evil bar as a good cop or a bad cop bar. Plus it should be noted that it's two bars in there; Making hard decisions doesn't take away from your Paragon bar, and avoiding needless fights doesn't take away from you're Renegade bar.

So when you decide you'll help those brainwashed Salarians out of their misery even if it means shooting them in the face doesn't make you less of a Paragon, it makes you also a Renegade. I.e. if you have somewhat near same amount of Paragon and Renegade points at the end, it probably means your Shepard was a good guy who on the other hand could make tough or coldly calculated decisions when needed.
---

Anyway, what bugs me most about most moral choice games is there hardly ever is a backslash for being good. That one last enemy soldier that begs for his life never comes back with reinfocements if you decide to let him go instead of killing him seeing his life is not worth the risk of you getting more trouble later on.
I find it annoyingly unnrealistic that cold, calculated and even cruel decisions would never turn out to be the better ones in the end, even if just out of dumb luck.
As these games are now you can be laughably trusting with your kind decisions and it never backslashes.

You could ask if it's really the evil decision anymore if it's in fact the correct one, but that's exactly where moral choice systems go wrong. No one thinks of themselves as purely evil, for christ sake even most psychopaths have excuses for their behaviour. There's more to being "evil" than the kind where you slice up townfolks for the kicks of it. It doesn't work too well for role playing.
The problem is that just that kind of evil is lumbed together with being ruthless, greedy, indifferent or egosentric.
Maybe these games should rather focus on different philosophies and attidutes rather than such broad and hard to define terms as good and evil.
And maybe sometimes letting that enemey live, no matter how he begs, when you're extremely vulnerable to an ambush the next thirty minutes should backslash.
So what if you get "bad karma" for your ruthlessness despite it being the right call? That's the grey area these games desperately need.

 

[For Science]

Anyway, what bugs me most about most moral choice games is there hardly ever is a backslash for being good. That one last enemy soldier that begs for his life never comes back with reinfocements if you decide to let him go instead of killing him seeing his life is not worth the risk of you getting more trouble later on.
I find it annoyingly unnrealistic that cold, calculated and even cruel decisions would never turn out to be the better ones in the end, even if just out of dumb luck.
As these games are now you can be laughably trusting with your kind decisions and it never backslashes.

If Deus ex 2: Invisible war existed there was a bit where helping someone would make them shoot you. In games that do exist Jade Empire tried to be two paths but can't stay on topic all the time so I went the "don't mistake this for the good path path" to keep from going mad trying to justify it.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Spoiler

But I thought if you access the terminal you hit the kill switch and turn off the safety, that way the little girl/creepy guy dies. So all the other people die too.

Spoiler

Oh, I just watched a video on the ending of that and it turns out that I was wrong. He says that the subjects will die and he'll be stuck in this hell alone, so yes the subjects die, but he doesn't. So I have no idea why exactly you get good karma for causing the leader to go insane and killing the subjects instead of murdering them all.

 

[barryween]

Spoiler

But I thought if you access the terminal you hit the kill switch and turn off the safety, that way the little girl/creepy guy dies. So all the other people die too.

Spoiler

Oh, I just watched a video on the ending of that and it turns out that I was wrong. He says that the subjects will die and he'll be stuck in this hell alone, so yes the subjects die, but he doesn't. So I have no idea why exactly you get good karma for causing the leader to go insane and killing the subjects instead of murdering them all.

Maybe it's just because

Spoiler

When you kill them all you have to wear a mask and be the little slasher or whatever it's called, so you strike fear into their hearts THEN kill them. But then again being slaughtered by Chinese Soldiers is quite scary too

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

It is difficult and can go both ways. I think that karma could be built around a questionnaire at the beginning so that if you do not remain true to the model of behavior that you built at the beginning you will lose karma for failing to be "true to yourself."

A person could create a profile that is inherently machivallian and be a completely pragmatic, economical, 'logic bound' being, or they could embrace strictly humanitarian, and benevolent traits.

*shrug* Just an option.