Yeah I know, it's like real life - you go to jail if you kill people, but if you don't kill them, you don't get a medal. It's like they want you to actively do something positive rather than simply repress your darkest urges...Marq said:
"That action did not warrant those evil points!"
- Thread starter Vrex360
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In Shadow the Hedgehog (Shut up, it's the only moral choice game I've played.), there are ultimately three basic endings, in the Good ending, you help Sonic Defeat Black Doom generally save the world, in the Evil ending, you defeat Sonic and Diablon and Shadow decides to destroy the world for some reason.
In the neutral ending, Shadow discovers he's an Android, kill Dr Robotnik/Eggman, and decides to rule over all the Androids. I never quite grasped how murdering someone and then conquering the world was a halfway point between Good and Evil myself.
Also, in missions where the alliances are either Eggman/Robotnik, or Doom's Eye, destroying Eggman/Robotnik's robots is apparently evil. Despite the fact that he's technically a terrorist.
In the neutral ending, Shadow discovers he's an Android, kill Dr Robotnik/Eggman, and decides to rule over all the Androids. I never quite grasped how murdering someone and then conquering the world was a halfway point between Good and Evil myself.
Also, in missions where the alliances are either Eggman/Robotnik, or Doom's Eye, destroying Eggman/Robotnik's robots is apparently evil. Despite the fact that he's technically a terrorist.
You must've been stealing everything that wasn't bolted down. And if was bolted down, you unboltd it and stole it. I nver had that problem.fenrizz said:
I'd have to say that helping either side take total control of Tenpenner Tower was stupid for giving you evil Karma both ways. And if you get them both in, then the humans die anyway AND you can't loot them. Stupid.
I was playing Red Dead Redemption, I had hogtied a hooker (no evil points awarded) and carried her back to my house. Once there I killed her by tossing a knife into her head (the game considers this a silent kill). I lost 50 honour points. Why dammit?! There were no witnesses and I did it silently, WTF!
In Mass Effect, at the end...
I just find it pretty stupid.
you are given the choice to either save the Council yet it would cost the lives of other people in the Citadel, or leave the Council to die, letting others live. So I decided to let the Council get killed, so that more people in the citadel can be saved...which led to a shit-ton of Renegade points. I know that in the end it makes the humans replace the council, but then you can still use the good "This Isn't Right" option. Besides, the council were dicks anyway, why let them live instead of tens of thousands of other people???
I just find it pretty stupid.
Tenpenny Tower anyone? Let Roy Philips and his houls into the tower, fair enough. But then they slaughter all of the innocent residents, even the nice ones, and I still lose karma for killing Roy?
I think Bioware does the whole morality thing better than Bethesda. I love Fallout, obviously, but the Karma system is a little lacking. You can be the scourge of the wasteland, kill everyone in sight, blow up cities, etc, but if you saved up all your purified water and give it to a homeless beggar, everybody loves you. It's a problem. I purposefully try not to exploit the system, but they have made it very exploitable.
But Bioware has thrown out the whole good bad thing they started with the KOTOR series and gone with something more subtle. In Mass Effect you aren't good or bad, you are "Do whatever it takes no matter what," or "Try not to ruffle any feathers when you save the universe."
And with Dragon Age it's an influence system. Your actions please or displease the various people around you based on their good/evil alignment. These two ways aren't perfect either, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
But Bioware has thrown out the whole good bad thing they started with the KOTOR series and gone with something more subtle. In Mass Effect you aren't good or bad, you are "Do whatever it takes no matter what," or "Try not to ruffle any feathers when you save the universe."
And with Dragon Age it's an influence system. Your actions please or displease the various people around you based on their good/evil alignment. These two ways aren't perfect either, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
Not really moral choice, but I was playing Saints Row 2, just crusing around, not even SPEEDING for Christ's sake. Stopped at some traffic lights, and some dick cop comes and ploughs into my shiny new car for no good reason. No lights, no sirens, nothing. Then the dickhole has the sheer cheek to get out of his car, and start pumping bullets into me.
And they wonder why we kill all the cops on games?
And they wonder why we kill all the cops on games?
You probably shot a man without announcing your intention. Remember, honor is not only about protecting those who cannot defend themselves, it also involves being stupid enough to announce your intentions for combat to a foe who is unaware.Swarley said:
The reason is pretty simple in my book. In order to get Tali to directly show an interest (she is a bit introverted around non-quarians it would seem), you had to pursue dialogue options that would make a reasonable person think you were interested. When she took the bait you shot her down. It matters little if you were polite - you were toying with her emotions. This certainly is not an overtly evile act, but there is some cruelty involved.Vrex360 said:
The reason is simple enough I'd say. Yes, they are all dead men, that much is certain. Yes giving them food simply prolongs the process of dying. But the question you are posing is not about the inherent evil of feeding or not; instead, you are asserting that there is a punishment without cause. There are plenty of people in this position every day. When food aid just starts arriving in a starving nation, it is assured that countless people will still die even if they are given food that very instant. Likewise, it is almost certain that there are people who would be better served by being given the rations going to those who cling to life. Would you really be able to argue in good faith that denying food to those least likely to survive is really the humane treatment? In this same vein, while these prisoners are almost certainly going to die, the question becomes one of priorty. Does your mad drive for revenge, which has aligned you with forces you do not understand but are almost certainly a bit evil take precident over your humanity. If the answer is no, then there is an inherent cost - you were ordered not to feed the prisoners and are punished if you do. If there were no penalty for helping, then there would not be much of a choice.Vrex360 said:
Besides, the penalty is so incredibly minor as to be inconsequential. You lose a few thousand points total if you routinely disobey, and by end game this does not even equate to single high end skill.
I don't tend to play moral choice games because of that exact reason, and the fact there's never (possibly rarely and i'm just not aware of them) a middle ground if you spend the whole game just into good and then at the end steal some ammo you will be classed the same as the people who spent the whole game playing tennis with freshly decapitated babies.
Not really. No matter how it turns out, as soon as you complete Tali's loyalty mission she sort of makes a move on you. Like up until now it's just been chatting among friends but now suddenly she drops a line about a possible interest in Shepard. I hadn't 'manipulated her emotions' so much as gotten stuck in a conversation that began to lead towards her making suggestions. I then asked her what she was suggesting and she stated she was interested in a relationship with Shepard and I politely turned her down, stating more or less that I cared about her but not in that way, I don't see how this is cruel. I can't help it if I don't feel it and the conversation heads there naturally, it's not renegade so much as it is just awkward and again, if anything I should have gotten like half a paragon point for choosing to stay with Ashley rather than make the move on someone else.Eclectic Dreck said:
That said, I can still sort of see where you are coming from with this. That's just not how I saw it.
I wonder how much this would be solved by just changing the semantics of "morality stats" as not attributing scores to your own playable character, but rather pin them to each of the NPCs. So your "alignment" is not a personal character stat, but a stat held by each individual NPCs against you.Vrex360 said:
I think that's the problem with Mass Effect's centralised morality system, you should not be a renegade because someone else is extra-sensitive, as it tries to treat the sum of so many subjective opinions as some objective measure. But that's not how it works in the real world.
This would make your verbal sparring with friendly NPCs much like your actual combat with enemy NPCs. Hit demon with a sword = +4 fire damage; Shout at your subordinate = -7 friendship, +3 fear/respect.
So YOUR actions affect THEIR "relationship stats" as this could extend to intellectual enemies, your interactions, if you play your cards right you may be able to bring a resolution to your antagonism and could even find an ally. And it would depend on careful monitoring and manipulation of their stats. In return, treat a friendly NPC bad enough and they may end up your mortal enemy.
The problem is what is the mechanism of measuring other people's stats held against you. I think it should be the same as combat with monsters in games, you can see the stat changes as you directly affect them but you need to "cast a spell" or "use some sci-fi mind reader" to tell all their stats on how their relationship is with you is at any one point.
You know, if you think about it any kind of "personal morality" system should be impossible to implement in a true RPG as the alignment is not something held my the playable character (the in game avatar) but by the actual human player who is at the controls. Physical attributes like "+1 strength" and "-4 speed" yes, those are acceptable but how can the game tell you "you're more of a renegade" when you aren't feeling that way. They are your own emotions and the game can never hope to emulate them. And why should the game try to? You make all the decisions through choices made in the game, the game should just accept you have your own internal emotions, beliefs and opinions and just give you choices.
Your alignment should exist in your own actual mind. You make the decisions you want in the game, it's only you past actions that will change what the other NPCs will EXPECT you to do.