"That action did not warrant those evil points!"

[Zacharine]

Me, I'm still bothered with chapter 1 in The Witcher, because a strong case can be made that Abigail is in fact the one who summoned the Beast and all things considered, not as innocent as she claims to be - certainly no better than the villagers. And yet, the game arbitrarily declares saving her and massacring the village a "good" act.

It's more along the lines of: You are no better than this witch. She supplied the poison, but only because you insited. She crafted a curse, but only because you people wanted it. I am taking her away. Anyone coming after us will eat steel.

The Witcher and the witch leave.

Shortly after, the mob arrives and attacks them. You defend yourself and the witch. They die. As a consequence of not allowing the summary execution of that witch for crimes the executioners were just as guilty of. The Witcher is filled with these kinds of ambiquous moral choices, with consequences immediately or down the line. Need I mention the Scoi'atel people coming for the goods at the river in said chapter, and the consequences that happen in later chapters if you let them leave with them?

 

[Protocol95]

Oh and i'm not sure if this counts but end of fallout 3 with Broken steel.

Spoiler

You can send a teamate into the irradiated area to activate the purifier to save yourself and the station. However when the ending cinematic comes it says something like "...and so the lone wonderer let a true hero do such and such...". Don't get me wrong sacrifice for the greater good is a good thing but sacrificing yourself when you can save yourself and do whatever you were meant to do is pointless.

Killing Moriarty in Fallout 3. That guy is a bastard, pure and simple. Karma loss for killing him is ridiculous.

Too right. I thought, "This guy is making everyone's lives miserable. He deserves to die." BANG! "You have lost karma."

 

[RyQ_TMC]

Me, I'm still bothered with chapter 1 in The Witcher, because a strong case can be made that Abigail is in fact the one who summoned the Beast and all things considered, not as innocent as she claims to be - certainly no better than the villagers. And yet, the game arbitrarily declares saving her and massacring the village a "good" act.

It's more along the lines of: You are no better than this witch. She supplied the poison, but only because you insited. She crafted a curse, but only because you people wanted it. I am taking her away. Anyone coming after us will eat steel.

The Witcher and the witch leave.

Shortly after, the mob arrives and attacks them. You defend yourself and the witch. They die. As a consequence of not allowing the summary execution of that witch for crimes the executioners were just as guilty of. The Witcher is filled with these kinds of ambiquous moral choices, with consequences immediately or down the line. Need I mention the Scoi'atel people coming for the goods at the river in said chapter, and the consequences that happen in later chapters if you let them leave with them?

The poison thing is heavily debatable, as the only person to insist the girl was raped is also the one who derived monetary gain from the whole affair. Roman law, anyone? I'm not going to discuss details here, because it's been a long while since I've played, but the chapter 1 debate was quite active on the game's forums some time ago.

But here's the thing: it's precisely BECAUSE of ambiguous moral choices with consequences further down the line that I feel chapter 1 was executed so badly. The conflict between villagers and Abigail could have been interpreted in various ways, but the game itself later says outright "you helped her because you're good" or "you sided with the villagers because you're evil". In a world which is heavily dependent on gray morality, in a game based around difficult moral choices, you get this arbitrary distinction.

That's what bothers me.

 

[veloper]

Oh man, I know exactly what you mean.

Playing Kotor, killing people netted me Dark Side points, but it didn't give me Light Side points for NOT killing people. What's up with that?

Because if it did, all you would need to do is just stand still among a crowd and rake up the light side points.

 

[JEBWrench]

Killing Moriarty in Fallout 3. That guy is a bastard, pure and simple. Karma loss for killing him is ridiculous.

Dude is the lifeblood of Megaton. And the karma system is public perception more than actual karma.

Killing Tenpenny in his tower in Fallout 3.
He might have been evil, but I killed him before I knew that, thus gauss rifle blasting him of the top of a tower to a long and stressful fall, that eventually leads to a quick plop on the concrete below was considered to be a good act, and a example to children everywhere.

Which I wasn't to shy to show off again, might I say.

Tenpenny does spend his spare time shooting everything in the wasteland for sport. And he's a self-righteous bigot. And GNR says he's an asshat.

 

[spartandude]

Oh man, I know exactly what you mean.

Playing Kotor, killing people netted me Dark Side points, but it didn't give me Light Side points for NOT killing people. What's up with that?

i know what you mean, in real life every time kill someone i go to prison and people think im evil. when i dont kill people i dont get rewarded at all and nobody thinks im a nice guy

 

[Woodsey]

I suppose it gets harder for developers as they're now trying to make everything morally grey (and so they should), meaning they've got to really look think about their own interpretation of an action.

Mass Effect 2 does it well by having the separate metres, so you can literally be morally grey with a renegade bar on the same level as the paragon bar. I liked Dragon Age's system too where you don't have a moral-o-metre, but you have influence within your party - that way you're not stuck with the designer's interpretation, but that of the characters'.

The only thing I can thing of right now is in Mass Effect with Conrad Verner. The guy was going to go off and become a soldier when he was a complete moron, so I shoved a gun in his face and scared him a little. No, I didn't treat him overly kindly, but by doing that I would have hoped I would have actually saved his life. Of course, I got renegade points. I could see why, but I still thought it was (overall) a good thing to do.

 

[Zacharine]

Me, I'm still bothered with chapter 1 in The Witcher, because a strong case can be made that Abigail is in fact the one who summoned the Beast and all things considered, not as innocent as she claims to be - certainly no better than the villagers. And yet, the game arbitrarily declares saving her and massacring the village a "good" act.

It's more along the lines of: You are no better than this witch. She supplied the poison, but only because you insited. She crafted a curse, but only because you people wanted it. I am taking her away. Anyone coming after us will eat steel.

The Witcher and the witch leave.

Shortly after, the mob arrives and attacks them. You defend yourself and the witch. They die. As a consequence of not allowing the summary execution of that witch for crimes the executioners were just as guilty of. The Witcher is filled with these kinds of ambiquous moral choices, with consequences immediately or down the line. Need I mention the Scoi'atel people coming for the goods at the river in said chapter, and the consequences that happen in later chapters if you let them leave with them?

The poison thing is heavily debatable, as the only person to insist the girl was raped is also the one who derived monetary gain from the whole affair. Roman law, anyone? I'm not going to discuss details here, because it's been a long while since I've played, but the chapter 1 debate was quite active on the game's forums some time ago.

But here's the thing: it's precisely BECAUSE of ambiguous moral choices with consequences further down the line that I feel chapter 1 was executed so badly. The conflict between villagers and Abigail could have been interpreted in various ways, but the game itself later says outright "you helped her because you're good" or "you sided with the villagers because you're evil". In a world which is heavily dependent on gray morality, in a game based around difficult moral choices, you get this arbitrary distinction.

That's what bothers me.

That I agree on, the makers bungled up the later descriptions of the events. The ambiquous morality is what keeps drawing me in, despite some heavy flaws in other areas.

I've never actually seen what is said of the situation if you side with the villagers and leave abigail to their 'tender' mercies. If it were to declare you good then as well, then I'd laught and say the makers did a good job; lauding the player as good no matter what they chose would be hilarious.

After all, both actions are good and evil from certain points of view. We even see The White Wolf himself lament the lack of clear morality ingame. "For a long time, Witchers have slain monsters to protect humans. But now humans are the monsters. Am I therefore to slay humans to protect humans? Or to protect the monsters?"

 

[spartandude]

I liked Dragon Age's system too where you don't have a moral-o-metre, but you have influence within your party - that way you're not stuck with the designer's interpretation, but that of the characters'.

that is the best ive seen so far

 

[RoutineEnvelope]

I shot a guy when it looked like he was going to rape some chick in RDR, and got -50 honor, explain that one.

Was it the man trying to rape the prostitue in armadillo? I shot him.

I also rode in to a lawman and recieved -400 honour!

Also, there was the duel. One guy just walks up and says something along the lines of 'I don't like you, so come and shoot me in the face.' Give or take a word or two. I'm pretty sure I went positive from that.

 

[Protocol95]

Killing Moriarty in Fallout 3. That guy is a bastard, pure and simple. Karma loss for killing him is ridiculous.

Quoting JEBWrench: Dude is the lifeblood of Megaton. And the karma system is public perception more than actual karma.

Moira brown, doc church, lucas simms and the restaurant says hi. Someone could've easily taken over the saloon anyway.

Another example is... well at least to Allistair from dragon age,

Spoiler

letting loghain live.Simply get him to kill the archdemeon once he joins the grey wardens. There's no downside! We get our revenge, archdemeon dies, darkspawn defeated and none of us gets sacrificed!

 

[Sebenko]

Probably just about every action ever.
Seriously, since good deeds usually net you more loot, it's a better choice if you want stuff.

But the game declares these actions good even though it's just for cold, hard profit.

And killing that ghoul guy after he gets into tenpenny tower. He was a ****.

 

[Dexiro]

I hate the moral choice thing from Fallout 3. It's ok sometimes, but then you're bombarded with a conversation in which the only choices make you sound like a complete dick. So you choose the least evil sounding response and still get batted around the head for it.

Infamous is annoying too. It basically tells you "if you have fun you're in for a lot of bad karma", so if you want to keep good karma prepare for a dull ride. The least they could do is add a punishment for killing civilians and stuff so the evil guy gets more enemies and balances the difficulty out.

 

[LWS666]

RDR has this one right, because you can buy a bandana, that when used freezes your fame/notoriety which is good.

although once i wasn't wearing it, and heard a woman scream as she was being kidnapped.

i go into dead eye to shoot the guy in the face, and accidentaly mark her head aswell. i kill her and my good meter goes down (i'm playing as a good guy this time).

for one, it was an accident.
for two, she was gonna be raped and then murdered, why is stoppping the rape bad?

 

[ZephrC]

Killing Moriarty in Fallout 3. That guy is a bastard, pure and simple. Karma loss for killing him is ridiculous.

But he has an Irish accent! People with Irish accents are always good!

Seriously though, I pretty much think every morality system in every game ever is pretty much completely lacking. What sort of loser evil dude actually goes around kicking puppies and picking on little kids? What if I want to play as a sly evil dude that hopes to use popular support to take over since he seems to be taking on some rather unpopular powerful dudes anyway? Basically games think that anything other than a brain-dead petty thug is a pure angel. It completely frustrates me.

Actually, the only games I think have ever gotten it right are Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. Sure, it's not always perfect, but the games actually manage to present interesting choices, and it's not like gaining a few renegade points here and there hurts your paragon in any way. So yeah, overall those are the games with the least sucky morality system.

 

[jultub]

Also saving the Drow from being burned at the stake in BG2:SOA is evil WTF yer it?s a Drow but I think letting her die was more evil that saving her.

I'm pretty sure that game only has "reputation", which pretty much is how people in general sees you. They only know that you saved a drow and that you're possibly travelling with her now. It's the prejudice of that world that netted you bad rep for it, not that the action was evil.

 

[JEBWrench]

Moira brown, doc church, lucas simms and the restaurant says hi. Someone could've easily taken over the saloon anyway.

But he's the only one with more than a modicum of sense about him regarding the outside world, and how to deal with it.

Well, him and Jericho. Lucas Simms? Maybe a little, but the Regulators are about as useful as a transparent umbrella in the desert.

And Nova takes over the saloon when Moriarty dies.

 

[Madshaw]

Fable 2. Bribing the Temple of Light for Good points.

Seriously. Murder in the morning, loot their corpses then use the money to buy back goodness? Something is wrong with that picture.

thats how the church worked in medieaval europe, do what you like just so long as you give us money and slaughter pagans and muslims in the name of god and you get a first class ticket through the pearly gates. stand up for the peasantry and point out the inherant flaws in the system and your going straight to hell for herasy.

speaking of which i love the chivalry/dread system in medieaval total war 2, when you capture a town the neutral option is to let your troops rampage through the place rapingpillaging and stealing so you get the most money from the whole debacle.

 

[J474]

I tend to find that it's considerably harder to be 'good' on a lot of games. Fable II, for example. You have to track down so many quests to be good, and then it can all slide away if you happen to kill a civilian or two, who was pissing you off

 

[Protocol95]

Killing Moriarty in Fallout 3. That guy is a bastard, pure and simple. Karma loss for killing him is ridiculous.

But he has an Irish accent! People with Irish accents are always good!

Seriously though, I pretty much think every morality system in every game ever is pretty much completely lacking. What sort of loser evil dude actually goes around kicking puppies and picking on little kids? What if I want to play as a sly evil dude that hopes to use popular support to take over since he seems to be taking on some rather unpopular powerful dudes anyway? Basically games think that anything other than a brain-dead petty thug is a pure angel. It completely frustrates me.

Actually, the only games I think have ever gotten it right are Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. Sure, it's not always perfect, but the games actually manage to present interesting choices, and it's not like gaining a few renegade points here and there hurts your paragon in any way. So yeah, overall those are the games with the least sucky morality system.

Yeah my idea of the best moral choice system is to use a karma and reputation system. Lets say that you kill hundreds of people but destroy any evidence that you did. You'd have low karma but everyone would still treat you normally.

Another experience i've had with bad moral choice systems is in a couple of games when i've been escorting some one but they die so the game blames me.