Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
#342580 09/01/07 05:58 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Lar_q Offline OP
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2006
We're planning on including quite a few moral dilemma's in our next game, forcing the player to make choices that have consequences on the inhabitants of the world as well as him/herself. In a lot of cases the consequences aren't immediately clear as it takes some time before the ramifications of a particular choice propagate. This can be an issue, and one way of solving that would be to give you a hint of what will happen if you make a particular choice. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Lar

#342581 09/01/07 06:46 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
I like the idea that your actions actually have consequenses.
This adds alot to the replayability (or it should anyway).

But I wouldn't want simple conversations to have a big impact.
In Gothic 3 I was talking to an escaped slave, I wasn't planning on bringing him back to the town.
But since I didn't know that slave, I didn't trust him, so I didn't tell him right away that I would take him somewhere safe.
(For all I know he could be an undercover orc mercenary, right? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />)
So I said something like: "hey, you're escaped slave from that town right, I've been told too bring you back" and suddenly getting him to safety wasn't an option anymore.
So I think actions->consequenses like that are kinda lame.
Not all the good guys are always friendly.

Accepting quests/missions also shouldn't have too big of an impact, maybe I would just check it out or accept it while I rethink if I really want to do it.


There is no spoon !
#342582 09/01/07 07:20 PM
Joined: Apr 2005
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2005
I like having to cope with moral dilemmas in RPGs, so <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Of course, the player should have some general idea of what his character's actions will lead to, else you might get the impression that you can't really influence what happens, and that might cause frustration. On the other hand, that's how it is in life: you can't always tell what you'll get when you act in a certain way.

Providing some sources of information that are easily available, e.g. by talking to people or by reading books, should be enough to let the player guess what will happen most of the time, but there should also be some liars or erroneous texts that prevent you from knowing exactly which long-term consequences your actions will have. And please don't make it too obvious when people are lying.

For those who always want to make the right decision, there could be a divination skill that grants visions of the possible consequences, maybe a short cut-scene that will illustrate what could happen if you choose this or that option.

#342583 09/01/07 07:22 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2003
I like this idea. I hope you will play around with the concepts of absolute vs relative morality. We all know the superhero dilemma of 1 loved one vs 100 strangers. But what about tactical things that you know are wrong but in the long run have a better result. And just the reality that sometime evil just wins a battle (not the war).

As a tv junkie I must say I am intrigued by the moral dilemma's of 24. Where for the most part the end justifies the means.

As for lar_q's question: Some actions should not need explications

example: Torture , till he answers or hand him to the guards

others should be warned against with "Be warned"

example: When manipulating a race to fight with you against the forces of evil. But the race is reluctant. It would be a shame if the leader would accidentally get killed, so the minister, that is more "open" to you, would take his place. But BE WARNED: if you are caught they might join the other side.

I am really glad you are putting dilemma's in the game. But I also hope you don't have to be goody 2 shoes. Some times a bad action can have good results in the long term.



Not in the mood for cheese?
That excuse has more holes than a slice this fine Gorgombert!
#342584 09/01/07 07:28 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
I think this is a great idea, and I am completely in favour <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Not only does it aid replayability, as Lepel says, but it also adds to the actual role playing side, as the character has a choice of approaches in situations which allow for characterisation.

I like the idea that what the character does might make some things easier and others harder, and that his/her actions have an impact upon the world as a whole.

To me, this is a great approach <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
#342585 09/01/07 09:58 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
I also find this a great idea ! It reminds me of the "virtue system" (as I call it) I heard about from the Ultima games. :9 The way you behave, the consequences are. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

However, I fear that at least a fraction of gamers will not be able to realize the consequences of their deeds for actions that have consequences only in long terms. I believe that a kind of "hint" is there fore a "must" - but not always.

Because I believe as well, that this could be taken as a "learning curve" : In the beginning of the game, consequences are visible rather in short terms, but the longer the game is played, the longer the timer between action & result is. If this is properly made, then it is possible that gamers might learn from it - to be more cautious in their actions later in the game.


However, there is one another (additional) point. In <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" /> I liked the "moral dilemma" of the ill people in Rivertown (Dr. Elrath and his treatment).

You might call me a fool, but the more immersion a game has on me, the more I feel with the inhabitants of this world. In the case of the ill people it nearly broke my heart to see one of them finally die (because of the limited number of healing potions especially for that particular illness). I guess I'm too much immersed, then. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> However, what I mean is, that I'd like to have some not-obvious-at-all ways of possible solutions for some "moral dilemmas" as well, if possible. In <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" /> someone actually came up with the idea of actually stealing a health potion after its use from one ill pertson, in order to give it to the third one.That was unexpected, but very much welcome for my own taste of playing. Plus, it was hidden (this kind of solution), and no-one could see it with actually using his or her brains. Another form of challence ?


In general, I'm very much for these "moral dilemma's", but I fear that gamers might not learn from it, if the time span between action and result iis too long. A possible solution for this would be to make these time spans longer and longer in the course of the game, if possible.

(This alwys reminds me of ecology ... There, the effects appears often only decades after the deed(s) ...)


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342586 10/01/07 12:55 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2005
Actually, you don't get to see any of the quarantined people die - unless you kill them yourself. You can still imagine that the one without the healing potion is cured later on, since the cure is known.

And while I agree that not all possible solutions should be obvious, stealing one of the healing potions back is a bad example, in my eyes. It's an oversight, if not a bug, that those potions remain in the inventory - as the ill people need to drink (or apply) the potion in order to be cured, the vials should at least be empty. For my taste, it feels too much like cheating to steal a potion back. In designing alternate ways to solve a dilemma, please take care to still make them logical, even if they are odd in one way or another.

I also agree that decisions early in the game should tend to have minor and/or short-term consequences - you probably aren't mighty and famous enough to have a major and/or long-term impact on the world - but that doesn't need to be a rule without exceptions. If, for example, you have the option to save or condemn a character who can possibly play a key role later on, the consequences might even be more drastic the sooner you make that choice.

#342587 10/01/07 12:56 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Of course that's a good thing to add... but what what bothers me more than the time until the effect hits in is the actual choice of the player. If the choice is very obvious, it isn't fun anymore for me. An example:

You walk around and suddenly someons attacks you... you fight and just before winning and killing the enemy, he asks for pardon and tells you that some aliens abducted his mother and told him to kill you - otherwise, they would kill his mother. That's why he had to attack you.

Your choices:
1. "OMG, that's a terrible story. Come on, let us rescue your mother!"
2. "Who cares about your mother? Die, fool!"
3. "Oh in that case you can kill me."

As long as the dilemma choice isn't as obvious as in this example, it's fine.

I'd prefer a constant evaluation of the player's actions anyway...


Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch!"
#342588 10/01/07 07:44 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Lar: [color:"orange"]forcing the player to make choices that have consequences on the inhabitants of the world as well as him/herself.[/color]

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/party.gif" alt="" />

If a choice involves a definite action and the consequences are either good for positive motivations or bad for negative ones, then there shouldn't be a need for any warnings. If there is no clear right or wrong choice, then any hints should be not be obvious (except maybe at the start of the game).

For choices made through dialog options, the final remarks that indicate a choice should be phrased clearly. If you say something that sounds non-committal to get out of a conversation (ie to save the game before proceeding) that shouldn't make the choice for you.



Elgi: [color:"orange"]If the choice is very obvious, it isn't fun anymore for me.[/color]

Same goes for the consequences. If there are warnings for everything you might as well play the game after reading ahead in a walkthrough.

#342589 10/01/07 09:43 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: brokeTM
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: brokeTM
Excellent feature, I reckon this will greatly impact the reputation system. Altho I do have concern in how far this can ruin the gameplay. This enforces think before you act, nothing wrong there. But what about those who seek a gaming experience with great story and cinematic value like DD was but better. Who has no intentions to care to much about consequences. Only find himself unable to trade in most parts of the world. These are mistakes that are hard to correct if I'm correct.

I love the suggestion, I only fear the casual action-rpg won't like it. Let's face it the more ppl like the game, hardcore and casual RPG players. The better for larian, expansions, patches.


It's one of these days...
#342590 10/01/07 11:23 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jun 2003
Quote

As long as the dilemma choice isn't as obvious as in this example, it's fine.
I'd prefer a constant evaluation of the player's actions anyway...


Yes, it shouldn't always be obvious.
And when it isn't obvious, and afterwards you noticed you actually made the wrong choice, I would like to see that you can still make it better, maybe not always how it should have could ended in the best way, but still, you have payed your dues.
Like someone ask you to kill someone,
lets's say, Ray says: "ooh, that Charles guy, killed my daughter, my lovely Kimberly.", and then you say, "i'll make him pay, and get you your revenge."
So, of you go and killing charles. job done, but then you get to know that actually Ray didn't have a daughter etc, and that he actually set you up, for example. He wanted to get rid of Charles because he still owned him some money but Ray didn't want his hands get covered in blood, and thus didn't want to kill Charles himself.
So, then you decide to kill Ray to let him pay for his evil doings.
So in the ending you killed both Ray and Charles, but somehow your back in neutral, maybe even bit positive, since in the time of the killing you always tought both were evil.

#342591 10/01/07 12:52 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Brasil
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Brasil
I posted this in the post about monsters but ill put here too relationed with the dilemma thing.

I think it should have another heroes around the world to fight u(as i explained there) with their own dilemmas, about you, about the world, or some people relationed with both(u and the other hero), instead of just dillemas of your own thoughts or ur own actions, and duels against only monsters and bosses. With a stronger sense of moral or justice or doubts or being evil, the dilemmas can be alot more interesting making u think about all around you, it's like in real life, u have too many situations to think off that u dont know what to do exactly and u have to set ur own prioritys what can lead u to a mistake, and u cant go back, wouldn't have that thing that always doing the right thing u're always good.


Who's gonna show you how to fly!
#342592 10/01/07 02:04 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
We're planning on including quite a few moral dilemma's in our next game, forcing the player to make choices that have consequences on the inhabitants of the world as well as him/herself. In a lot of cases the consequences aren't immediately clear as it takes some time before the ramifications of a particular choice propagate. This can be an issue, and one way of solving that would be to give you a hint of what will happen if you make a particular choice. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Lar


Something like that was realised in the Ultima series (Alrik talked already about it, and you Lar, know it aswell I bet <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> ), but the point is if you try for example to steal something from a NPC, a message pops up and will notice you, that your action is against the rules and will result in a loose in Karma points. Like that it was in Ultima. You get this message one time and from there on you should know it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
Imho this is very important for the player. The player should always know what his action will cause. This can be realised in a quick tutorial, which describes the player's main possibilities and makes quick examples with NPC actions (like stealing an item from it, open chests without his knowledge with lockpicking and so on). It should simply tell the player what is possible in the game, and which player's actions can result in actions from NPCs.

Another idea which I like in Morrowind for example, is, if you try to kill a NPC, which is important for completing the main story, a warning message will appear. So the player isn't told by the game that it's not possible to kill him. It only tells him that you can kill him, but its from there on not anymore possible to complete the main quests.

#342593 10/01/07 02:39 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote
Another idea which I like in Morrowind for example, is, if you try to kill a NPC, which is important for completing the main story, a warning message will appear. So the player isn't told by the game that it's not possible to kill him. It only tells him that you can kill him, but its from there on not anymore possible to complete the main quests.


Question: "Hey! I can't finish the game! It sucks!"
Answer: "Wait a minute... why can't you finish it?"
Q: "Well... when I try to enter the final location, it says that I am not allowed to enter unless I am accompanied by Mr. X!"
A: "So, then go and find Mr. X!"
Q: "OK... but where????"
A: "In Town Y he is waiting under the bridge... he will approach you automatically."
Q: "Oh... Town Y... I found this great warhammer there and tested it on the people there."
A: "Uhm... all people?"
Q: "Yeah... man, it was awesome! One hit is enough with this great weapon! Great game!"
A: "OK, but have you also met Mr. X there?"
Q: "Where?"
A: "In Town Y... on your killing spree..."
Q: "How do I know the name of the guys? I just got there, found the warhammer and started hammering. Awesome!"
A: "Well, the names of the persons are displayed above their heads... plus, they are also shown in the dialogue boxes."
Q: "What boxes?"
A: "Dialogue... talking... to the people."
Q: "Aahh... I see..."
A: "So?"
Q: "So what?"
A: "Have you met Mr. X in Town Y?"
Q: "Nope."
A: "You haven't been under the huge bridge in the centre of the town?"
Q: "Yes, I have been there."
A: "And you haven't seen a guy there, standing at the wall and looking at you?"
Q: "Oh, yeah, there was this guy... he came to me."
A: "Great. That was Mr. X... he talks to you and says..."
Q: "He talks to me??? Man, I haven't heard anything when I was there!"
A: "Well, there should be a dialo..... I mean, a box with talking stuff when he comes to you."
Q: "Hey, I have no clue about this talking stuff. He came to me... I immediately used the awesome warhammer and tried to hit him hard in the face!"
A: "Aha... and then?"
Q: "Well... apparently there was an error... some box appeared but when I clicked on 'Continue', the error was over and I hit him! God, you should have seen his body!!!"
A: "You haven't read that error message before clickin on 'Continue'?"
Q: "Oh come on... do you read when you are in the middle of a fight?"
A: "Uhm... I am sorry but that was Mr. X you killed there. The box warned you that you can't complete the game if you kill this guy."
Q: "WHAT?? You must be kidding!"
A: "No, I am serious... you should read those boxes... they contain useful information in most cases."
Q: "HEY! If I wanted to read, I'd play Mahjongg or something! Your game sucks! I want my money back!"

P.S: Yes, I am bored cause I am doing a backup... sorry... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif" alt="" />


Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch!"
#342594 10/01/07 02:50 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2003
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />
Sorry Elgi, didn't read your whole post <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

#342595 10/01/07 03:20 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
Lar: [color:"orange"]forcing the player to make choices that have consequences on the inhabitants of the world as well as him/herself.[/color]

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/party.gif" alt="" />

If a choice involves a definite action and the consequences are either good for positive motivations or bad for negative ones, then there shouldn't be a need for any warnings. If there is no clear right or wrong choice, then any hints should be not be obvious (except maybe at the start of the game).

For choices made through dialog options, the final remarks that indicate a choice should be phrased clearly. If you say something that sounds non-committal to get out of a conversation (ie to save the game before proceeding) that shouldn't make the choice for you.



Elgi: [color:"orange"]If the choice is very obvious, it isn't fun anymore for me.[/color]

Same goes for the consequences. If there are warnings for everything you might as well play the game after reading ahead in a walkthrough.


Totally agree.

***

Elgi - funny stuff <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
#342596 10/01/07 03:58 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
@elgi : Great text ! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

I might quote is in some places ... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342597 10/01/07 04:13 PM
Joined: May 2004
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2004
Great ything many games lack <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

Something i would like to see too, is if someone gives you a quest and someone else gives you quite the opposite you can somehow complete both sides, get the full rewards out. Also lieing you did something could be sometimes possible. But there should be a bad thing about that too...


#342598 10/01/07 05:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Quote
Something i would like to see too, is if someone gives you a quest and someone else gives you quite the opposite you can somehow complete both sides, get the full rewards out. Also lieing you did something could be sometimes possible. But there should be a bad thing about that too...


I agree with this. (sorry I always get my examples out of gothic 3, but thats the RPG I played the last)
Again about that slave I talked about, (I believe the second post of this thread)
It should be possible to have the option to say to him: "hey, I'm actually one of the rebels, but I could use the reward, so what if I bring you back to town, claim the reward and then I will free the city (and maybe give you a piece of the pie)"
So basicly you take that slave back to the city for the reward but you free him just moments later. Thats what I wanted to do.

There are however some thoughts that crossed my mind just now.
If the quests are too much the opposite it shouldn't be possible to finish them both. In gothic 3 (again, I know <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) you could accept the quest to destroy the rebels hide-out and the one to free the town, you could however do both and that is kinda silly. Unless offcourse you hate all living things and want to be the only person in your gameworld in the end.

So I think you should be very carefull on wich quests you allow to be taken on at the same time.

However, taking on opposite quests isn't very good if you want the replay the game but do the opposite of what you did before.

And about the lieing... I don't know if that is a good idea, it would be like I used a cheatcode to finish it. (unless if it fits the story)






There is no spoon !
#342599 10/01/07 07:28 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
M
Chronicler
Offline
Chronicler
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Quote
We're planning on including quite a few moral dilemma's in our next game, forcing the player to make choices that have consequences on the inhabitants of the world as well as him/herself. In a lot of cases the consequences aren't immediately clear as it takes some time before the ramifications of a particular choice propagate. This can be an issue, and one way of solving that would be to give you a hint of what will happen if you make a particular choice. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Lar

Short and sweet: go for it. Consequence is an important feature in RPG's that is nontheless more often than not completely lacking.


I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far, that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er.
#342600 10/01/07 08:57 PM
Joined: May 2004
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2004
Quote
Quote
Something i would like to see too, is if someone gives you a quest and someone else gives you quite the opposite you can somehow complete both sides, get the full rewards out. Also lieing you did something could be sometimes possible. But there should be a bad thing about that too...


I agree with this. (sorry I always get my examples out of gothic 3, but thats the RPG I played the last)
Again about that slave I talked about, (I believe the second post of this thread)
It should be possible to have the option to say to him: "hey, I'm actually one of the rebels, but I could use the reward, so what if I bring you back to town, claim the reward and then I will free the city (and maybe give you a piece of the pie)"
So basicly you take that slave back to the city for the reward but you free him just moments later. Thats what I wanted to do.

There are however some thoughts that crossed my mind just now.
If the quests are too much the opposite it shouldn't be possible to finish them both. In gothic 3 (again, I know <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) you could accept the quest to destroy the rebels hide-out and the one to free the town, you could however do both and that is kinda silly. Unless offcourse you hate all living things and want to be the only person in your gameworld in the end.

So I think you should be very carefull on wich quests you allow to be taken on at the same time.

However, taking on opposite quests isn't very good if you want the replay the game but do the opposite of what you did before.

And about the lieing... I don't know if that is a good idea, it would be like I used a cheatcode to finish it. (unless if it fits the story)






ya thats what i meant, i couldnt think of an example too fast.

About the lieing. More that you can atleast try to lie. Perhaps it works in some quests but not in most and if e knows your lieing he wont be glad <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I dont know if this is a good idea either but it could be cool to have the option in a few quests somehow


#342601 10/01/07 11:22 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Quote
About the lieing. More that you can atleast try to lie. Perhaps it works in some quests but not in most and if e knows your lieing he wont be glad <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
I dont know if this is a good idea either but it could be cool to have the option in a few quests somehow


Well the only way I could see it work is if it's something like my example:

Someone wants you to kill someone, you say: "Ok, ill take care of him".
And because you like the person you should kill,
you would take him to your hide-out (or another safe place) instead.
So...the person that ordered you to kill someone, doesn't see that person in his town anymore and he's happy.
So you say: "Yeah, I took care of him, I buried his body in the woods".



There is no spoon !
#342602 11/01/07 02:52 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: malaysia
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: malaysia
hey i love the idea of moral dilemmas in the game & as what was done in <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" /> it was good as it forces a player to choose & somehow choice doesn't become as easy as black & white, good & bad, as things suddenly become relative & one has to re-evaluate their values & principles.

well except for those who would simplify things & just bash the problems away. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

some ideas for moral quandaries;

1. monster versus village (thanks to Shyon's idea in earlier post in this thread). the head of the village may hire the player on behalf of the village to kill this particular monster who lives not far from the village, in a spot where the villagers need to access for their daily living & such.

if let's say in the new game we have skills to communicate with monsters or something like that, or even sneaking skills where we use to sneak to the monster's den, & inadvertently find out that the monster isn't a bad one after all. so what to do next?

a. reject the village head's offer to kill the monster (lawfully wrong, ethically right)
b. go ahead & kill the monster to collect reward & whatever loot the monster may have (lawfully right, morally wrong)

for option a, the village head's reaction is obvious - mad that u won't take action, therefore rallies the villagers to do something about it. of course after seeing how harmless the monster is (it can either be powerful but benign, or pregnant, or with very young offspring that cannot be moved yet), what can do u?

c. re-consider the village head's offer, which is now higher (lawfully right, ethically wrong)
d. try to stop the villagers somehow (this i'm not sure how yet, talk to them? find an alternative to their current daily living?)
e. go & attempt communication with the monster, persuade it to either leave (no right or wrong), or kill the village mob (lawfully & ethically wrong), or frighten the villagers to not disturb it anymore which maybe later on hire another 'hero' more powerful than your character (neutral), or try to have dialogue with the villagers to show how benign it is (all right, but this may have unexpected result, such as villagers refuse to listen, dice roll?)

for option b, it's obvious that the quest is over & done. .... except that u find the offspring of the monster too young therefore defenseless, so what do u do with it?

x. what the heck? kill it! (lawfully right, ethically wrong)
y. take it with u & raise it (neutral, can be evil depending on how it is raised)
z. leave it alone & let fate deal with it (neutral, will have repercussion such as monster later on takes revenge)

2. order versus people power. this one is very political so it will twist the moral ambiguity even further. the concerned mayor of a city or major town will ask u to help him or her in quelling the population unrest. however u also find out that the population also do have a point in their unrest. so which will it be?

a. order for the city so it can grow economically
b. people's revolution so they can freely choose

this feels a bit like Deus Ex but it can also be fun without being too deep. whatever it is, i feel that there should be a branched consequences so the actions of the players reverberate in the game world even more, whether their player affects the world directly or indirectly.

3. this one is a rip-off from the movie 16 Blocks. imagine after doing a number of quests for a town that has been very friendly to the player & the player's character has made friends with the local militia (police), then after that, one more quest to be done before moving on to the new town. it is to accompany a convict to another town for judgement. the order comes from an authority that is higher than the militia in both towns.

during the transport of the convict, the player may meet some of the NPCs of the old town he/she worked in earlier, all of them he or she is familiar & friends with. these friendly NPCs will offer to take over the duty to send the convict to the next town so the player can go on ahead to another quest ASAP. however the duty explicitly said that the player be the one to accompany the convict to the next town & nobody else.

conflict of interest between friends & compatriots of the law?



......a gift from LaFille......
#342603 11/01/07 10:11 AM
Joined: Aug 2004
U
veteran
Offline
veteran
U
Joined: Aug 2004
One of the reasons I stopped playing BG2 was that I came to this quest:

I was hired by the leader of the Shadow Thieves to see if this local leader was cheating on him. The thought was to get this guy's trust so I could get some evidence. I was to do this by doing some quests for him. The first quest was to assassinate this wizard (sure, I'm Neutral Good, I'll do it). So, my party sneaked into his house, and eventually we came up on him. He sais "who are you?!?". Here you have four alternatives:

1: Tell him that you're here to kill him and then attack him.
2: Wait for the game to crash (major waste of time, but you COULD do it).
3: Alt+tab and right click on the program and choose exit.
4: Ctrl+alt+delete and quit it from there.

What I WANTED to do was to tell him I was to clean out the shadow thieves, that they wanted him dead, and that I was to kill him in order to get their trust so I can backstab them later. And then ask him to leave town for a few weeks or so. That I couldn't even begin to clean out the Shadowthieves without committing an evil act was kind of... anoying.

BTW Thumbs up for moral dilemmas in games <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />.

Übereil


Brain: an apparatus with which we think we think.

Ambrose Bierce
#342604 11/01/07 05:27 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
We're planning on including quite a few moral dilemma's in our next game, forcing the player to make choices that have consequences on the inhabitants of the world as well as him/herself. In a lot of cases the consequences aren't immediately clear as it takes some time before the ramifications of a particular choice propagate. This can be an issue, and one way of solving that would be to give you a hint of what will happen if you make a particular choice. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Lar


There are players who want hints and some who don't want hints and like to think very carefully over every dialog option... and even accept the consequences.

If there are no hints in the game, players who always want to make the 'right' decision will get their hints out of a walk through... or whatever (worst option is to reload). But they have to 'leave' the game. Why not supply them with the hints in the game if they want them.

How about an option to disable dilemma hints? If you don't like them, switch them off.

In any case I would go for hints. At least if it is not very obvious what will happen. If an action is clearly directed against someone (insult or attack him) then you don't necessarily need a hint that he will be angry with you. But if he is a friend of the king then a hint that the king will not like what you are doing would be helpful. (Can't think of something better <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />)

It would be nice to sometimes have a few chances to change your mind. You could tell a thief you will help him (to get out of this bad situation fast; you don't want to help him, but you also don't want to fight him now). Later you could decide to tell the police or stab him in the back or even help him.

If I tell him that I will help him and then am stuck to help him, then I would be pretty unhappy.

Oh! If I want to kill someone depending on my character it would be plain stupid to only have an option like "I hate you, eat steel! [attack him]". There should be other options like "We'll keep your back clear [tell a lie and stab him in the back when he turns around]".

The options don't always have to be hidden in the dialog. You may tell him "We'll keep your back clear." without a hint and then your actions will decide how things develop. Help him, stand still and watch how he manages or stab him in the back. (If it is important that he survives or dies there could be a general hint not related to the dialog option you pick.)

#342605 11/01/07 05:55 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Just as a sidenote : I can lie to an NPC for good reasons and for evil reasons.

I think this thread has already given enough examples for that, just wanted to make it a bit clearer.


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342606 11/01/07 06:49 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Quote
We're planning on including quite a few moral dilemma's in our next game, forcing the player to make choices that have consequences on the inhabitants of the world as well as him/herself. In a lot of cases the consequences aren't immediately clear as it takes some time before the ramifications of a particular choice propagate. This can be an issue, and one way of solving that would be to give you a hint of what will happen if you make a particular choice. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Lar


Does this also mean that the other inhabitants will only know of your choices when the witnesses of your deeds travel to other cities and villages and tell them the story?
And that if you kill all the witnesses, nobody will ever know?

That would sound great to me.

#342607 11/01/07 07:12 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
And that if you kill all the witnesses, nobody will ever know?


What of whispers and rumors instead ? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342608 11/01/07 07:25 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
Does this also mean that the other inhabitants will only know of your choices when the witnesses of your deeds travel to other cities and villages and tell them the story?
And that if you kill all the witnesses, nobody will ever know?

That would sound great to me.


It is probably difficult to let you as a player understand what goes on around you. You may not see the boy sitting in the bushes watching you. You may not see him run to the next village... but when you come there they accuse you of murder and you have no idea how they found out. That is frustrating for the player if he wonders if the game is cheating or if it was a bug or... You get the picture? The boy was there but you don't know.

It would have to be done like in a movie where the director switches cameras showing the boy to 'you as a spectator watching a movie' but on the other hand 'you as the character' doing something bad should not know that you were being watched. You did not see it. So you should not be able to interfere. (Unless it is a quest to stop the boy before he reaches the village.)

#342609 11/01/07 09:23 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]You may not see the boy sitting in the bushes watching you.[/color]

Don't forget magic (scrying, summoning ghosts, truth reading, people or animals that can see auras and judge your character without needing access to witnesses).


CSI: Rivellon

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

#342610 11/01/07 10:56 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2003
Damm cats

you kill one of em and they are all over you <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />


Not in the mood for cheese?
That excuse has more holes than a slice this fine Gorgombert!
#342611 11/01/07 11:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Lar_q Offline OP
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2006
It's too early for me to talk about the exact nature of what we're doing, so all that comes next is hypothetical & I make no promise it'll be in the final game, but this is what's keeping me busy for the moment:

Imagine that it's the ambition of our next RPG (don't you just hate that name ?) that it'll feature a lot more serious content (still brought with a touch of humor), touching upon topics not touched in RPG's before, forcing you to make choices which you might not necessary like.

The inspiration for this is that you are a hero who gets supernatural powers, and that that role gives you the opportunity to "solve" problems which otherwise can't be solved. The solution for these problems often calls for some kind of judgement where you'll need to figure out what's right and what's wrong, and sometimes choose between two wrongs. Typically, RPGs present this in a way where the path is clear, but imagine that that's not the case.

As an example - take Sophie's choice - copying this from www.friesian.com

"In the novel Sophie's Choice, by William Styron (Vintage Books, 1976 -- the 1982 movie starred Meryl Streep & Kevin Kline), a Polish woman, Sophie Zawistowska, is arrested by the Nazis and sent to the Auschwitz death camp. On arrival, she is "honored" for not being a Jew by being allowed a choice: One of her children will be spared the gas chamber if she chooses which one. In an agony of indecision, as both children are being taken away, she suddenly does choose. They can take her daughter, who is younger and smaller. Sophie hopes that her older and stronger son will be better able to survive, but she loses track of him and never does learn of his fate. Did she do the right thing? Years later, haunted by the guilt of having chosen between her children, Sophie commits suicide. Should she have felt guilty?"

Now imagine that you get to play a RPG where you need to make these kind of choices. The impact of the choice can't be made clear right away, and for sure, in the example Sophie has no way of knowing if she chose right. Nonetheless, I find that just reading the question can occupy me for an entire evening, thinking about it.

In the definition of gameplay Sid Meier once gave, where gameplay is defined as "a series of interesting choices, this would count as "gameplay", but telling you the consequences up front or at the moment you're making the decision would probably ruin half the "fun" (My example is probably a bit too horror like to be a good one)

Still, to me, having a RPG in which I need to deal with these kind of situations would immerse me far more than "We need to find the sacred shoes of queen Hellonia. But keep it a secret from king Arthur" after which the player has the option to go talk to King Arthur or not. Non linearity they call that <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />


Your thoughts, as always, much appreciated.

Lar

P.S.

Would you want Karma Points or something along those lines as Nemisis hinted ?



















<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/question.gif" alt="" />

#342612 11/01/07 11:38 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Lar...

I'd have to say your example is a little dark for my tastes, but I do love the ideas you present in principle. Finding a 'least worst' option can be far more intriguing - and thus interesting - than 'do I kill the evil orcs to save the good elves'.

'Do you replace the evil king with the evil duke or help the evil king destroy the evil duke?' is something where you are really stuck with your choice, as the kingdom needs a king (Unless you can persuade someone else to be king, of course <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />). 'Do you help one bunch of evil marauders destroy another bunch of evil marauders' should allow us to wipe both.

A set of complex moral choices with many shades of grey and no hints sounds like a great game to me, I must admit <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I would certainly get something like that.

As for Karma... No. I think the best thing would be to go by a sort of trust system. Whether others trust you or not should depend on whether you keep your word or not. A known liar & backstabber should have a much harder time convincing people of his good intentions than someone who is known to keep his word. This also allows for a darker world as people will not look at you as 'good' or 'evil' but 'trustworthy' or 'untrustworthy'. And word is bound to spread... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Obviously this would have an effect on how much people would tell you without bribing or intimidation, and whether or not they will hire you...


Please click the banner...
#342613 11/01/07 11:48 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote
Now imagine that you get to play a RPG where you need to make these kind of choices. The impact of the choice can't be made clear right away, and for sure, in the example Sophie has no way of knowing if she chose right. Nonetheless, I find that just reading the question can occupy me for an entire evening, thinking about it.

I think this is rather an exception... it's a very personal case and extreme, too. Sure, in a game this would be very disturbing but how many such personal decisions can you bring up?
What I think is this: Most players - including myself in many cases - don't really get immersed as much as you would need to cause reactions like that to simpler decisions. That's because it's really hard to get immersed very well.
If you could manage to make this better in your next RPG (gosh, we hate that title <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />) so that players don't need necessarily "holocaustic" decisions to stop for a minute and REALLY think of what they do not only in game matters but rather generally, I would applaud you. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

What is interesting for me: Let's assume there is indeed such a decision in the game... and you decide for the son. What effects will there be? Will you have constant nightmares? Will you have the desperate and pathologic desire for another daughter? Will you hate your son? Will you hate yourself? How does that change the gameplay? What if you decide to let your son die? What if you can't decide and both die? What if you decide to let your daughter die and in some way both survive?

I think the decision is quite obvious... but how to implement all the consequences into the game... that's the most interesting and also most difficult part I guess.


Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch!"
#342614 12/01/07 01:05 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]forcing you to make choices which you might not necessary like.[/color]

That sounds good, as long as the choices are not artificially limited. I know in practice you can not program in every possibility, but a few options would be nice.
In DD after having a copy of the elvish necklace made and returning to what my character professed to be his one true love, I would have preferred the option to say that I scoured the world to find the necklace, but the best I could do was to commission an exact replica. Actually, lieing under those circumstances bothered me more than killing the mind controlled soldiers, but experience points are experience points.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />


[color:"orange"]Still, to me, having a RPG in which I need to deal with these kind of situations would immerse me far more than "We need to find the sacred shoes of queen Hellonia.[/color]

Me too. That should make for a much more compelling story line, and add to the replayability. Even if the majority of dilemmas only have a moderate effect (I assume most will not be quite on the same scale as choosing which child to save), that could still help create a vary dynamic world.


[color:"orange"]Would you want Karma Points or something along those lines as Nemisis hinted ?[/color]

Yes, that would be nice. It may not be necessary with a good reputation system, though.

If evil characters are going to be a viable option, there would need to be charms to mask their aura from most NPCs. There can be lawless towns and merchants who don't care who they sell to, but most NPCs would avoid a truly evil character. Conversely, good characters may be able to use charms to disguise themselves to infiltrate a thieves' guild to gather information, etc.

In Ultima the system of virtues was pretty much universal. If there are going to be various factions in the game, reputation could be independent of karma. If you slaughter an entire elvish village for kicks, that would certainly hurt your karma (and your reputation with elves), but may improve your reputation with dwarves, if the two were at war. A neutral faction (and perhaps some dwarves) would react with a drop in reputation.

#342615 12/01/07 01:09 AM
Joined: Jul 2006
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jul 2006
How is that example too extreme? You choose between the life and death of NPC's all the time in video games.

Anyway, if Larian Studios made their next game in a similar fashion to what was described in that post, I will love them forever.

#342616 12/01/07 01:42 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote
How is that example too extreme? You choose between the life and death of NPC's all the time in video games.

And in which video game you have had to decide between your own daughter and son... in a Holocaust setting?


Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch!"
#342617 12/01/07 02:05 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
Quote
How is that example too extreme? You choose between the life and death of NPC's all the time in video games.

And in which video game you have had to decide between your own daughter and son... in a Holocaust setting?


My reasoning too. Plus - isn't that example taken from real life? Just makes it worse...


Please click the banner...
#342618 12/01/07 08:24 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Lar_q Offline OP
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2006
I knew I chose a bad example there <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> Let's try another one to not confuse the subject because of the holocaust setting. This one is from somebody called Judith Jarvis Thomson & is a variation of what's called the trolley problem:

"A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed? "

Nevermind that the example is contrived & you don't get the option to ask the very fat man just to move out of the way.

Lar

#342619 12/01/07 10:26 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Well those choices would be good to make as long as you don't overdo them.
I like your second example better as the first btw, eventhough games usually don't have a big enough impact on me to really care if an npc is dead or not.
But if you could make me care, that would be incredible.

I think the second example is still too much about strangers, and 5>1 (not to forget the fact that fat people usually die sooner)

Maybe a good moral dilemma would be to choose between something that is usefull to you. For example a master blacksmith that will make the best weapon ever for you
or 5 children from your hometown. (These kids might grow up to be usefull in your town or might even become blacksmiths)

But the way I see it, it would be really hard to have dilemmas that really make you think about moral and ethics. I think I would be thinking about the advantages that I would get out of it.

So good luck making us care <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

And I'd like karma points


There is no spoon !
#342620 12/01/07 11:48 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
This will seriously be a more mature game.


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342621 12/01/07 12:29 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
forcing you to make choices which you might not necessary like

This can be simply cruel. Some players may just go for 'which path gives me max exp' and be happy with their decision... For me I would stop playing if I would have to decide which one of my children will get killed (basically on my command).

With less drastic situations I wouldn't have so much problems. You could have to decide who inherits everything. This could even lead to your son killing your daughter for the money... but it was not you who gave the command. I would still think about how I could have handled it better... but I would continue to play in this case. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

For the trolley thing... I would be fine with having to choose on this one. What would bother me is... does the game judge you? And how? Who says what is right or wrong in this situation? (For me it would be wrong to push the fat guy... but if I know and love one of the five people I would be tempted to do wrong to save him or her. It is not a matter of numbers. Five is not better than one.) So in this situation there could be people who like or dislike you for your action. You could even have to live with consequences like not being able to buy/sell at the greatest blacksmith in the country since it was his son you pushed onto the tracks. But the game should not tell you that it was right or wrong what you did. You just miss the opportunity to do one thing. But you should then be rewarded for saving the five with something you would not get otherwise.

If done right moral dilemmas can greatly help to get players immersed.

For the 'hint thing'. If you don't know the five people nor the fat guy then it does not make sense to give you hints on what will happen. If you know them then hints could just be reminders of who they are so you can think about the possible consequences.

If going with Karma points hints could be finger points from a god. "Push this guy to please me."

Quote
Would you want Karma Points or something along those lines as Nemisis hinted ?

As I understand Karma points it is just a way to measure how good or bad you are with shades of grey in between.

If you want to measure the players 'position' to one god or two opposing gods (or even kingdoms) then something like Karma points would be suited. Adjust it every time you do something that pleases this god... or something he dislikes.

Instead of a message popping up you could use visual clues when gaining/loosing Karma points. A light beam, sparkles in the air, everything gets gloomy for a brief moment, 'blackness' drips around you to give you the shivers or delight your heart... Visual clues could get stronger if you gain more points or get closer to being very very good/bad.

If your game has different races and different groups in these races then a good reputation system that keeps track of how you are doing against each race and group would be better.

Just make sure the player understands why people like/dislike him.

Quests/Actions that influence your reputation towards races could have optional hints (in dialog or floating text when you kill someone) so you don't miss it.

#342622 12/01/07 02:01 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
I knew I chose a bad example there <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> Let's try another one to not confuse the subject because of the holocaust setting. This one is from somebody called Judith Jarvis Thomson & is a variation of what's called the trolley problem:

"A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed? "

Nevermind that the example is contrived & you don't get the option to ask the very fat man just to move out of the way.

Lar


Definitely a better example! Sounds good to me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
#342623 12/01/07 04:20 PM
Joined: Apr 2005
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2005
If you leave the path of just good/evil and confront the player with more complex moral dilemmas, you should take great care to explain the moral conceptions of your game world. Many RPGs simply use the modern ideas of what is good and what is evil, but moral conceptions have changed a lot throughout history and have often differed in different places of the world. In a game world that looks medieval, ideas from the time of the Enlightenment don't need to have spread yet.

Voluntarily killing someone else who has not personally acted against you, for example, is not necessarily seen as evil - there have been times where it would have been seen as good as long as that person was "an enemy to your country" (or tribe) or "an unbeliever".

Especially when using something like Karma Points, you need to make the moral standards clear according to which they are awarded. In the examples you have given, which choice would cause you to gain Karma Points, which one to lose them? If the game features more complex options than a "clearly good" and a "clearly evil" path, it shouldn't act as some kind of "moral overseer" by evaluating the character's actions, unless it's pointed out that someone (the gods, society in general) would have wanted the character to act in a certain way.

In Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, it's quite clear what is good and what is evil, so it's fine to evaluate actions with points. Your game could have different moral standards and feature choices that aren't as easily categorized as good or evil, right or wrong, so I'm not sure whether having Karma Points makes sense at all.

Situations where you have to choose between options you don't necessarily like can be intriguing, but I wouldn't overdo it. It can be very frustrating if a solution comes to mind you'd like to go for, but the game doesn't offer it. In the example with the bridge, a true hero might opt for jumping from the bridge himself, hoping to survive though maybe getting severely hurt. If you can only choose to push the fat man down or to watch the other five people die, many players will probably complain. In a role-playing game, it's fun to act like you imagine your character would act - not being able to act that way is somewhat less satisfactory and might lead players to avoid such quests. It's fine if decisions you don't fully like come up now and then, but I'm skeptical if they contribute large parts of the game.

When you wrote "moral dilemmas", I rather thought of something like the vampire cave (the vampire has kidnapped a boy and you can choose to sacrifice some of your own blood or to watch the boy die), where it's a matter of personal gain vs. common good, possibly with some options in between.

Another dilemma I'd find interesting: Enraged citizens want to hang a trader because they accuse him of a serious crime, but he hasn't confessed. You don't have time to investigate, and you can't pacify them with words alone. Will you allow them to kill him, ruining a valuable trade post for the rest of the game and taking the risk that someone else did it who remains free? Will you suggest that they just destroy his trade post, but let him live? Will you simply point at someone, telling them that your supernatural powers have allowed you to see he's guilty, and they have another scapegoat? Will you defend the trader against the crowd at all costs, since his guilt isn't proven, possibly even killing some attackers and taking the risk that later on, you're hunted for murder? Will you try to make him invisible, so he can run, possibly fleeing yourself as well if you're accused of helping a criminal and taking the risk that the trade post is destroyed nonetheless?

If the possible consequences are outlined like this and there are several options to choose from, such situations could help to create a very intriguing game, even if there is no "perfect choice" available, meaning an option that allows you to solve everything the way you'd like best.

In my eyes, complex moral choices will also require a gaming environment that doesn't focus too much on the action-RPG style. Examples like the ones you have mentioned wouldn't go well with killing hundreds of orcs, lizard folk and imps (after all, intelligent beings that even have a seat in the Council), as well as bandits and the like ... it's a bit cheap to say that anyone who is hostile towards you is evil and deserves to die, and the next minute you ponder the moral details of a situation where either one person or five people have to die.

#342624 12/01/07 04:34 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Some good points you brought up there.

But I think the karma points shouldn't necessarily be connected to those more complex moral dilemma's. After all the dilemma's would be more like choosing from some options you wouldn't like. I think thats the idea, so giving you options you would like wouldn't make it that complex, and if there is an option you like, it isn't really a dilemma anymore.

So it's going to be tricky to implement those dilemma's and keep people happy with it. Because if you need to make a choice you really don't want to make it could ruin the game abit.


There is no spoon !
#342625 12/01/07 04:50 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2003
I love the example lar_q gave. I love the fact that one hase to chose between two wrong. Also I love the fact that you might be considering absolute vs relative morality (if i read your examples rigt). But I hope you don't limit it to that and also have some "good actions with bad results" and "bad actions with good results".

I do have some doughts on how you would pull it of. Also I hope you go a lot further then that. With larger consequences.

Small example: A horde of orc's is attacking the capital where your mother father ... lives. But you also see them entering the castle

Do you:

Save your parents --> royal family and commanders die --> The war without the commanders goes very bad and 5 more villages fall. But on the good side your love is saved and wants to marry you since she saw how brave you were.

Save your royal family and commanders --> parents die --> Your love despises you ad marries your former bully. But on the good side the war might have turned the corner.

Do nothing

This might seem quite easy but let's up the ante. The king is a dictator but he and his commanders are tactical geniuses .


Not in the mood for cheese?
That excuse has more holes than a slice this fine Gorgombert!
#342626 12/01/07 05:37 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
U
veteran
Offline
veteran
U
Joined: Aug 2004
Don't forget about intentions. Even the best of actions is wasted if it's done with bad intentions (IE if you save the village in order to exploit the fact that they see you as a hero it shouldn't be seen as good).

Übereil


Brain: an apparatus with which we think we think.

Ambrose Bierce
#342627 12/01/07 06:27 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
And just how would you like to see that implemented ?

I don't think the game could really know your intentions, because you could be saving a city just because you try to be good and use your power for the good.
Or you could just make them believe you are good.(either way the problem of the town is solved)

Well it could be done if it fits the story and is based on quests, but otherwise your intentions can't be known I think.
So maybe someone wants you to earn the trust of a town, and says if you do this or that for them they will trust you. And if they trust you we can move on with our plan.
Or another way might be that you do something bad to a town without them knowing it, and then you make it good again and let them know about your "good deed".
And as long as they don't find out, I believe that it would be bad for your karma, but (very) good for your reputation in the town.

I also think that your karma should have an influence on the world around you. If your karma is good, generally good things will happen, towns and citys will prosper.
And vice versa. Offcourse this shouldn't be too much like black and white, because the npc's have karma too (also with some influence on the world).
So the bigger your influence in a part of the world, the bigger the influence your karma will have.
I wouldn't like to see that you do some good things and suddenly see the entire world has changed into some paradise with birds, bees and flowers.
Where little elves dance with cute monkeys and drink lemonade while watching rainbows.

So the karma of the important people of a town, will partially have effect on everything that goes on there.


There is no spoon !
#342628 12/01/07 08:07 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
If you leave the path of just good/evil and confront the player with more complex moral dilemmas, you should take great care to explain the moral conceptions of your game world. Many RPGs simply use the modern ideas of what is good and what is evil, but moral conceptions have changed a lot throughout history and have often differed in different places of the world. In a game world that looks medieval, ideas from the time of the Enlightenment don't need to have spread yet.

Voluntarily killing someone else who has not personally acted against you, for example, is not necessarily seen as evil - there have been times where it would have been seen as good as long as that person was "an enemy to your country" (or tribe) or "an unbeliever".

Especially when using something like Karma Points, you need to make the moral standards clear according to which they are awarded. In the examples you have given, which choice would cause you to gain Karma Points, which one to lose them? If the game features more complex options than a "clearly good" and a "clearly evil" path, it shouldn't act as some kind of "moral overseer" by evaluating the character's actions, unless it's pointed out that someone (the gods, society in general) would have wanted the character to act in a certain way.

In Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, it's quite clear what is good and what is evil, so it's fine to evaluate actions with points. Your game could have different moral standards and feature choices that aren't as easily categorized as good or evil, right or wrong, so I'm not sure whether having Karma Points makes sense at all.

Situations where you have to choose between options you don't necessarily like can be intriguing, but I wouldn't overdo it. It can be very frustrating if a solution comes to mind you'd like to go for, but the game doesn't offer it. In the example with the bridge, a true hero might opt for jumping from the bridge himself, hoping to survive though maybe getting severely hurt. If you can only choose to push the fat man down or to watch the other five people die, many players will probably complain. In a role-playing game, it's fun to act like you imagine your character would act - not being able to act that way is somewhat less satisfactory and might lead players to avoid such quests. It's fine if decisions you don't fully like come up now and then, but I'm skeptical if they contribute large parts of the game.

When you wrote "moral dilemmas", I rather thought of something like the vampire cave (the vampire has kidnapped a boy and you can choose to sacrifice some of your own blood or to watch the boy die), where it's a matter of personal gain vs. common good, possibly with some options in between.

Another dilemma I'd find interesting: Enraged citizens want to hang a trader because they accuse him of a serious crime, but he hasn't confessed. You don't have time to investigate, and you can't pacify them with words alone. Will you allow them to kill him, ruining a valuable trade post for the rest of the game and taking the risk that someone else did it who remains free? Will you suggest that they just destroy his trade post, but let him live? Will you simply point at someone, telling them that your supernatural powers have allowed you to see he's guilty, and they have another scapegoat? Will you defend the trader against the crowd at all costs, since his guilt isn't proven, possibly even killing some attackers and taking the risk that later on, you're hunted for murder? Will you try to make him invisible, so he can run, possibly fleeing yourself as well if you're accused of helping a criminal and taking the risk that the trade post is destroyed nonetheless?

If the possible consequences are outlined like this and there are several options to choose from, such situations could help to create a very intriguing game, even if there is no "perfect choice" available, meaning an option that allows you to solve everything the way you'd like best.

In my eyes, complex moral choices will also require a gaming environment that doesn't focus too much on the action-RPG style. Examples like the ones you have mentioned wouldn't go well with killing hundreds of orcs, lizard folk and imps (after all, intelligent beings that even have a seat in the Council), as well as bandits and the like ... it's a bit cheap to say that anyone who is hostile towards you is evil and deserves to die, and the next minute you ponder the moral details of a situation where either one person or five people have to die.


Completely agree on all counts <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I still prefer a 'trustworthiness' system to a Karma system for this reason.


Please click the banner...
#342629 12/01/07 10:38 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
Do you:

Save your parents --> royal family and commanders die --> The war without the commanders goes very bad and 5 more villages fall. But on the good side your love is saved and wants to marry you since she saw how brave you were.

Save your royal family and commanders --> parents die --> Your love despises you ad marries your former bully. But on the good side the war might have turned the corner.


I like that ! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

But I'd also like to have an addition :

- the loved person is a warrior and helps you in the war so that the outxcome of the "bad choice" can be soothed a little bit.

The towns might fall, but the loved person might actually know a place where the refugees can hide or safely travel into the mainland.


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342630 13/01/07 02:31 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Shanghai
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Shanghai
Besides being macabre, I think the holocaust example is a bad one because there is no positive outcome. When throwing someone off a bridge, there is a clear positive outcome, lives are saved, at the expense of one innocent dead. Thus the moral dilemma is if this is acceptable to you or not, do you act or not. That's what makes the first example merely sadism, not a dilemma -- your choice is irrelevant, everybody except one person will die and the possible benefits of this choice or the other are purely speculative. Sadism = bad, the player loses because the game is preprogrammed to make him lose. Instant uninstall <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> Dilemma = good, if the sh*t hits the fan it's because the player made a choice and now has to stick with it, and perhaps next time not go for the obvious win. Every possible choice must bring Good at the cost of some Bad, then we can fret over which one has the best net gain. It's sadism when all the options have Bad, but no Good.

On the other hand, if done right it can also be interesting to add a sense of Fate to the game. When you make a choice that doesn't look like a choice, but it turns out to have consequences much later in the game, that's good for replayability. Not the greatest example, but suppose you can only carry one of two objects, eg the sum is too heavy. Both of them seem rather "eh" at the moment, so you just go with whatever looks nicest to you, or whatever. Then 20 hours of gameplay later, it turns out that object A allows you to heal some terminally ill important dude, but object B, and only object B, allows you to rid a village of a child eating monster. But the line between this and "you're screwed regardless, just because the developers are a bunch of *ss hats" is thin <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />


~rat / public Wifi account
#342631 13/01/07 03:27 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote
Besides being macabre, I think the holocaust example is a bad one because there is no positive outcome. When throwing someone off a bridge, there is a clear positive outcome, lives are saved, at the expense of one innocent dead. Thus the moral dilemma is if this is acceptable to you or not, do you act or not. That's what makes the first example merely sadism, not a dilemma -- your choice is irrelevant, everybody except one person will die and the possible benefits of this choice or the other are purely speculative. Sadism = bad, the player loses because the game is preprogrammed to make him lose. Instant uninstall <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> Dilemma = good, if the sh*t hits the fan it's because the player made a choice and now has to stick with it, and perhaps next time not go for the obvious win. Every possible choice must bring Good at the cost of some Bad, then we can fret over which one has the best net gain. It's sadism when all the options have Bad, but no Good.

But isn't life exactly like that? Do you always have good consequences? Have you never had been in a situation without any really "good" outcomes?
I agree, people might think it's not really fun to play games in which you have to deal with bad situations and really hard decisions, but that's how life is and it would make the game much more "adult".
On the other hand, I don't think that the Larians will risk reactions like you explained... that people regard something as sadism even though such a situation can be far more important for character development than any other normal and known way of gameplay.

Cause the problem is: We still play a game... usually, we never get immersed that much that we don't think in game terms, that we don't think "Hmmm, if I kill this guy, it will help these people and then I will be able to get this item". And this kind of thinking is pretty much supported by normal decisions in which you can more or less clearly see the good and bad sides. We are used to it, there is no surprise. I think if a game had some disturbing situations, decisions without any really good outcome, problems which actively relates to the character.... then the scheme I tried to briefly explain could be changed... and finally it would be a better game experience.
Max Payne 2 for example was such a game for me personally... sure, I knew it was a game but it was such a personal case for Max Payne and the story telling quite dark that it was more disturbing than most of the other games I know. And disturbing doesn't mean "more blood and gore" here...

Therefore, I'd really like the Larians to step beyond current borders in game design... but we will see. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch!"
#342632 13/01/07 05:03 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Shanghai
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Shanghai
Hm, I see your point. It basically comes down to a bit of a gamble: doing something out of the ordinary (in a non-feel-good way) can pull you deeper in by actually making you start to care.. or it can make you think "Bah, this is rigged to make me lose, goodbye". It probably depends on the execution (no pun intended <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />).

I think there may be a parallel with movies here. It is extremely boring to watch big budget movies because you can just tell who's invulnerable based on their real-life paycheck. All the drama is almost-drama, because the director can't play it out to a deadly end as the actor is too expensive. Asian movies on the other hand make it a point to make sure that at least one big name gets clipped five minutes into the movie <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> (<span class='standouttext'>Spoiler : </span><span class='spoiler'>case in point, Hero</span> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />). Yes it makes you pay more attention, yes you care more and feel deeper emotions than just "whew, that was close" -- but here too, if the execution is bad, you will feel cheated. And who's definitely going to feel cheated is the crowd that just came because it's a that-big-name-flick, similarly to how hamsters would feel cheated if it's this item, or that one, but not both (nevermind the moral backdrop).


~rat / public Wifi account
#342633 13/01/07 08:08 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jun 2003
Elgi: Exactly my toughts.
And the Holocaust is off the record, the setting doesn't really matter. If you like it better you can make it in a magical forest where your in the witches house, and the witch makes you choose between Hans or Gretel, she kills the one you choose, and if you don't choose they both die. And exiting the game and refusing to play further is actually the same as not choosing, with the known consequences... And I know it isn't a pleasant choice, but it's there, and you have to get trough it.

yes, Max Payne, Movies like Sin City, had me regulary thinking about Max Payne <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.
That's why I like film noir style.

#342634 14/01/07 11:31 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Jan 2006
What about fame? In DD your karma basically acts like fame (such as when Blake will only give you the key to Nericons garden after you have a +14(?) reputation). Should karma really act like fame? I think karma should only effect which quests you can do, perhaps what guilds you can join, and perhaps what types of magical equipment you can wear (e.g. Divine Blade - +20 karma, Devils Blade - -20 karma). Fame would effect how many people want to give you quests/how many are avaliable.

#342635 15/01/07 03:19 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: malaysia
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: malaysia
i have no idea how Karma system works. however i feel that an improved version of the reputation system used in DD would be better. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

again, it can be a simple expansion of the old reputation system, with polarity such as law versus lawless, guild versus guild, fame versus stealth, etc.

for me, this makes better sense as society is often made of different kinds of people, organisations & such.

as for the Holocaust example, yes it's very horrific & does entail some kind of heavy thoughts & afterthoughts. however i feel that it can be included as an optional quest (i have to admit, it makes me think of moral ambiguity & choices in life, which is good). however in the overall interest of Larian's future RPG, probably this is too heavy to be stomached by most (an assumption).

for the second example, it is good, as it has a lot of ways to 'solve' & different outcomes to boot. yes, i agree to the choice of having the player throwing their character in the train car's path in the attempt to stop it. the penalty for such folly although brave gesture can be XP or attribute penalty (as the injury can be very grevious).

in any case, Lar, u & your gang decide which system to work with, & i think i will like it nevertheless, so long as it's an improvement to the old rep system, which is already a good (however rudimentary) system.

talk about choices, how about the kind of choices in dialogues done in the tragic game of Lionheart? it has a very very good dialogue system, showing intention via icon on the choices of dialogues.



......a gift from LaFille......
#342636 16/01/07 10:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Lar_q Offline OP
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2006
Karma points and the like are nice but they have one big problem - someone needs to judge what is good and what is bad. In the situations we've been creating, we found that it's hard to say what's the correct route from an ethical/moral point of view. So our current trend is to set them up in such a way that the consequences have advantages and disadvantages, without judging. It'll be up to you how you feel about those consequences.

There'd definitely be gameplay value in valuating these consequences somehow, but other than an utilitarianistic (what a word) moral system (where you measure the moral value by its overall utility), I can't think of any impartial method of assigning value to moral choices. Brilliant ideas more than welcome <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Regarding Sophie's choice - of course the choice is sadistic (from the point of view of the guard), but is the writer who uses it in his script therefore sadistic ? I don't think so - he just exposes the sadism of the guard & forces the audience to ponder the situation. The interesting thing about RPGs is that we can let the audience participate, making the confrontation with the guard's sadism even more intense. And to make it even more interesting, we can afterwards give the player the choice to delve into the live of the guard to see how he came to be such a sadistic person (I'm just giving hypothetical examples here).


Lar

#342637 16/01/07 11:08 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Well one way could be to use the karma points for general gameplay
(for example killing a little creature that is no threat and not doing anything wrong is bad for you karma).
And not for the bigger (and more complex) moral dillema's. (=> so noone judges noone)
Those dilemma's will just influence the story and your reputation towards the npc's involved.
And as long as you don't overdo those dilemmas this should be easily possible.

But what exactly do you guys mean with "karma" ? Because I'm getting the feeling that what I think karma is, isn't the karma you think it is.
(or something like that)


There is no spoon !
#342638 17/01/07 01:25 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Any moral or ethical system tends to be derived ultimately from religion. What the gods like you doing is defined as 'good' and what they hate you doing is 'evil'.

Without gods to make things easier, one is forced to judge from the rules of one's society, wherein 'good' is doing what society as a whole would approve of, and 'evil' is doing something of which society would greatly disapprove.

In either case, it is usually far simpler in any game system to define 'good' and 'evil' by the normal Judeo-Christian standards that the West has long used as the underpinning of its society.

Modern people may or may agree with those standards, but they at least know what they are...

There never have been any objective standards for 'good' or 'evil'.


Please click the banner...
#342639 17/01/07 03:40 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]Karma points and the like are nice but they have one big problem - someone needs to judge what is good and what is bad.[/color]

There are lots of situations where that would be easy to do. If you want to concentrate a lot of effort on dilemmas, though (where there'd be little or no net effect on karma), it might not make sense to also try to implement a proper framework for karma. To make karma actually mean anything there would have to be quests with various degrees of good and evil choices, at least a fraction of NPCs who can detect karma, and various benefits and penalties for karma level depending on the NPC (individual or group).

#342640 17/01/07 04:20 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
So what we need is a separate karma score for each faction we're ever involved with. For example, pushing the fat-man in front of the run-away cart is seen as:
Murder by the fat-man's rich family.
Thankful but scarey by those in the path of the run-away cart.
Funny by the imps watching on the hill-top.

Let every land judge you by their own laws.

#342641 17/01/07 07:50 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]Let every land judge you by their own laws.[/color]

That would be a reputation system, though, not 'karma'.

Unlike karma or the system of virtues from Ultima that started this discussion (ie fairly absolute value scales), reputation is more relative, so would be much easier to reconcile with moral dilemmas (assuming separate base reputation values for different groups).

#342642 17/01/07 10:07 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote
But what exactly do you guys mean with "karma" ? Because I'm getting the feeling that what I think karma is, isn't the karma you think it is.
(or something like that)


There has been a Karma system in Shadowrun - you get so called Karma points for completed tasks and character like acting. So, you would actually get Karma for killing a little creature IF you were a sadistic guy. (And you would also get Karma points of course for completing your current assignment and parts of it).

These Karma points were your experience... you used them to increase your stats. And it was also used for determining the so called Karma Pool - which was the amount of dice with which you could boost your normal dice pool if needed, among some other things.


But the Karma system we are talking about here is the rather general approach I guess. That means it can't be a relative kind of thing... you can't say a good guy gets Karma for good actions and a bad guy gets Karma for bad actions. It has to relate - as Lar said - to a specific morale system and based on that, the Karma has to be assigned to certain actions. You would then get Karma - and thus, a bonus - for actions which are good in that system. And no Karma or even lose Karma - thus, a malus - for bad actions in that system.

While most players won't have a problem with that, I again think this is the used approach and shouldn't be used. I mean, yeah, we have seen it in so many games... the game gives you the good-bad-relation and you act along that line... you get some feedback regarding your actions, may they be good or bad, but I doubt that most players think a lot about the game world's morale system (Ultima might be - a very extreme - exception there).

Now, how to do it in "Our next RPG"? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

I think there should be some sort of judging... at least by the game world's inhabitants. If there was only advantage/disadvantages, that would be the utilitarian world you were talking about. I'd say use a impartial bonus/malus system based on the character and the former actions.
For example: If you play a red cross worker who has been married for 50 years, it would be very surprising to kill your wife in a rainy night. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> So, that should be "punished" (in game terms). But if you play a moody mafia boss, it would be something else. Other than that, the people in the game world could still judge you based on their belief systems... that would have consequences on the player's actions because the relationship to the other people whould change based on the player's actions. But the game wouldn't judge the player...


Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch!"
#342643 17/01/07 10:59 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Well the karma I read about in books. (I don't know if its a good reference, but its something like: what goes around comes around)

But I'm not sure if it could be used that way.
Because this way you can not play an evil character without getting punished, and instead of getting a game we would just get lessons in moral/ethics.

And actually the more I think about it, a karma system would be too biased towards a certain playstyle and thus rob us of our freedom.

So maybe, as I read before, a good reputation system would be better.

Every NPC's thought about you should be different, so its not that you have a reputation of 80 in a town and therefor all the inhabitants like you.

For example when you help a certain person, his neighbours might be jealous and like you less, unless you do them a favor too.

And when you first meet people, their thought about you should depend on their race, your race, their general thought or experiences with strangers, and how good or bad of a day they are having.

When you get more famous, for example for being the arena champion, some people might like you for it,
others might fear you for it, and others might think that famous people aren't very nice and thus "hate" you for being famous.



There is no spoon !
#342644 18/01/07 01:20 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: malaysia
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: malaysia
Quote
So what we need is a separate karma score for each faction we're ever involved with. For example, pushing the fat-man in front of the run-away cart is seen as:
Murder by the fat-man's rich family.
Thankful but scarey by those in the path of the run-away cart.
Funny by the imps watching on the hill-top.

Let every land judge you by their own laws.


i like! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />



......a gift from LaFille......
#342645 18/01/07 10:05 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Thats reputation, not karma.


There is no spoon !
#342646 20/01/07 05:35 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: Holland
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: Holland
Karma is just one single score u can get, and reputation is a score that is different with certain NPC etc (multiple scores for different NPC's or something like that)? Something like that?

btw, mafia treated their wives fairly right. At least, I know (from a book) of a case where a member was punished for repeatingly hitting his wife <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />. A mentally very disturbed man would more likely kill his wife <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

#342647 20/01/07 08:02 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Well yeah, what I read about karma is that its something that decides your faith and luck. It's based on your actions in this life and in your previous life.
It has nothing to do with how people think about you or how much they like you.
Even killing a man wouldn't necessarily be bad for your karma as long as you do it with honor or out of self defence.

So maybe in contradiction to what I said myself, it could be possible.
But the karma system should know why we are killing a certain person,
so killing someone just because you don't like him or because you want the loot, should be bad for your karma.
(Unless you killed a very rich and greedy guy and will not use the loot for your personal benefit)

Karma in "Larians next RPG" (very, very, very bored of that title btw <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />) should be possible.
But I think it should be karma as it originally was, and not some games interpretation of it. It would bother me if our reputation (or experience) would be called karma.
And I'm pro hidden karma systems, we know its there, but don't know what effect it has.
As a result no 2 games should ever be the same, and we will not get mad over disagreeing with larians opinion on what is right or wrong on some things.
So even for Larian this should be easier to make,
since they will not have to break their heads over how to deal with some situations and keeping all the players happy.
I like replaying RPG's with a different type of character, and I would like it if it the game wasn't exactly the same as before.
(So maybe this time someone reveals a secret that you didn't know the first time you played the game)


There is no spoon !
#342648 20/01/07 08:20 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
I still think in any morally ambiguous system a 'trustworthiness' system works best. If you're really evil but always keep your word, that should count for more in a 'morally neutral' world than doing the 'right' thing.

We're really talking about an entirely different way of measuring ethics, after all.

If we're talking about a Thieves World type game (Very famous series of short story collections. I'm sure most of you have heard of them) then we're not talking 'good' and 'evil' anyway - just 'evil' and 'more evil'.

But even the bad guys keep track of who they can trust.

In a morally neutral world, it's also a far easier thing to quantify. You either keep your word or you don't, after all.


Please click the banner...
#342649 20/01/07 08:47 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Foetsy;
[color:"orange"]Something like that?[/color]

Yes. In this discussion 'karma' is being used to refer to a fairly absolute moral system. Since right and wrong are being judged against a particular religious or societal set of values (though all major religions and most cultures would have a lot of similarities in this regard) or some idealized variation, there is not a lot of room for personal opinion or interpretation.

With reputation, it is possible (or even likely) than people would form opinions based mainly on how they (or their group) is treated, and ignore actions contrary to that (depending on the action).


[color:"orange"]btw, mafia treated their wives fairly right.[/color]

However well someone in the mob treats his family and supports his community, the negative karma from various illegal activities would more than likely outweigh the good. However, outsiders who only see the good side can still form a fairly positive opinion of him (ie 'nice guy, but I wouldn't want to cross him').

Reputation is more dependent on results. If you give money to local charities and maintain several businesses (providing employment) that would be seen as a good thing. Karma would also depend on intent (something that couldn't easily be done in a game). If a donation was meant to buy popularity or increase social standing, rather than simply to give back to a supportive community, that wouldn't help much with karma.



Lepel;
[color:"orange"]Unless you killed a very rich and greedy guy and will not use the loot for your personal benefit[/color]

I think that would still be considered murder in any religion, society or legal system.



Elliot_Kane;
[color:"orange"]You either keep your word or you don't, after all.[/color]

Let's say you are staying at an inn for free in exchange for running errands for the owner. You always keep your word and you always complete every task in an efficient manner. One morning the owner's toddler son gets up far too early and starts playing far too loud, so you cut out his tongue. You have not broken your word. Does the owner's opinion of you change?


Wouldn't a morally neutral world be a poor setting for a game? You couldn't really be a hero or a villain if there were no right and wrong. 'Ya, ya, ya, thanks for saving the world. Now did you deliver that letter like you said you would, or not?'

#342650 20/01/07 11:40 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Quote

Lepel;
[color:"orange"]Unless you killed a very rich and greedy guy and will not use the loot for your personal benefit[/color]

I think that would still be considered murder in any religion, society or legal system.

Aha, but thats where you are wrong! (Maybe it will be considered as murder, but not necessarily as a crime) At least imo.

I'm not really talking about religions or legal systems, more about some sort of honor system.
I'm just thinking about samurai and ronin. In their beliefs all traders were scum because they made fortunes out of other peoples work and thus they had no honor.
So for ronin (masterless samurai or outlaws) it wouldn't damage their karma to kill such a rich trader and use his money for their beliefs.
For them it would be far worse to finish off a defeaten opponent instead of allowing him to do seppuku (hara-kiri) even when they just tried to murder you.
While in our standards finishing off someone that tries to kill us would be more acceptable.
I know we are using western standards, but when talking about karma I feel that samurai and their beliefs should be thought about.
After all wouldn't the game be great if we could really choose by wich standards our game character will live ?
Offcourse this doesn't mean that everywhere we go we could do as we please, as towns we come across will have laws or rules.
And offcourse people that will hate or like us according to our actions.


There is no spoon !
#342651 21/01/07 02:11 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]I know we are using western standards[/color]

Actually, I was thinking modern standards. If you want to go back through relatively recent history, there are lots of examples of western societies condoning (or ignoring) violence against particular groups, and lots of situations where murder might be condoned (such as a suspected horse thief in the old west) or mostly ignored (killing a known drug dealer a decade or two ago in a major city).


[color:"orange"]when talking about karma I feel that samurai and their beliefs should be thought about.[/color]

Didn't some samurai believe that the violence and killing associated with their way of life was bad karma, and their punishment was to be reincarnated as a samurai in their next life?


[color:"orange"]After all wouldn't the game be great if we could really choose by wich standards our game character will live ?[/color]

If you can choose what you consider right and wrong, and what actions are acceptable, then that would fit in with a reputation system much better than 'karma'. That would be nice to have in the game though.

#342652 21/01/07 03:58 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
Let's say you are staying at an inn for free in exchange for running errands for the owner. You always keep your word and you always complete every task in an efficient manner. One morning the owner's toddler son gets up far too early and starts playing far too loud, so you cut out his tongue. You have not broken your word. Does the owner's opinion of you change?


The owner becomes hostile & tries to kill you.

Quote
Wouldn't a morally neutral world be a poor setting for a game? You couldn't really be a hero or a villain if there were no right and wrong. 'Ya, ya, ya, thanks for saving the world. Now did you deliver that letter like you said you would, or not?'


Isn't that really what the Larians are talking about though? A world with most or all major decisions being 'least worst' or 'shades of grey' is going to have to be morally neutral, because you otherwise get punished whatever you do.

Look at the runaway cart example:

Your character is not heavy enough to divert it (Preventing noble sacrifice as an option). You can watch it rocket past and kill five people or push the fat guy in the way to stop it. Yelling a warning won't help, because it's a narrow alley on an incline with no hiding places.

Inaction is evil, because five people die.
The only possible action is evil, because you murder someone.

Not much room for 'good/evil' judgements there... The 'greater good' could be convincingly argued either way.

Allowing the 'self sacrifice' option (Reduce to 1 health) would allow good/evil, but also render the choice meaningless in the first place. The 'correct' option to gain reputation/karma would be obvious, thus rendering the entire test no more than an annoyance to most players.

Pretty much every RPG out there is 'right vrs wrong'; 'good vrs evil' and rewards characters who choose whichever behavioural set the game wishes to encourage within its milieu. If Larian want to try something different - good for them, I say <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I've no idea if I'd like it, but I'll certainly give it a shot <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
#342653 21/01/07 07:52 AM
Joined: Aug 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2003
Personally I don't like karma a lot. Since it pushes you to be "good". If I want to be a low level kill at first sight jerk, I want to have this chose and don't have to be punished for it. But remember since "low level kill at first sight jerk," It's hard to get into a city without being arrested (sewers) and your "normal" shops might be closed , but new shops (black market ans smugglers market ...) are open for you. And you are most welcome at the assassins/thief guild that has some very rare stuff or the locations where you can "get" it.

See how the decision you make creates a whole new perspective in the game that a "divine paladin" would never see. This is basically a reputation system 2.0

Also a suggestion. Please put moral dilemma's in the main quest and not only the side quests. And since they are in the main quest, make sure the consequences are huge (like a burned village or a castle/ villages where the population has been decimated by an attack or decease (cemetery is full)).


Not in the mood for cheese?
That excuse has more holes than a slice this fine Gorgombert!
#342654 21/01/07 10:01 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: Holland
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: Holland
Quote
"A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed? "

Doing nothing would mean nothing happens I think. It was not you who pushed (or lost control over) that trolley, and those 5 people are not your responsibility.
Pushing the fat guy onto the track and killing him would probably get you arrested for murder (although the punishment will probably quite light, mitigating circumstances) in the western society. Killing people is in the books of law and means jailtime. Saving people isn't and thus won't save you from that jail time, right?
That side of the story I wouldn't find very interesting. The public opinion would be more exciting. Some would think psoitive about it, some negative. But who and in what way and what effect do those different attitudes have on you and your adventure. Let go your imagination.

Last edited by Foetsy; 21/01/07 10:02 AM.
#342655 21/01/07 10:45 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]The owner becomes hostile & tries to kill you.[/color]

Obviously, then, a reputation system can not be based entirely on honesty. Different groups may value one virtue over others (even to a large extent), but I don't think you could reasonably exclude everything else.


[color:"orange"]Isn't that really what the Larians are talking about though? A world with most or all major decisions being 'least worst' or 'shades of grey' is going to have to be morally neutral, because you otherwise get punished whatever you do.[/color]

If there is no right or wrong, then there are also no moral dilemma. It is also not a dilemma if there is a choice with no down side, so there has to be punishment whatever you do. The trick is to try to determine which option gives the best results with the least damage, from a selection of fairly evenly matched choices.

The whole point of the dilemma of pushing a fat man over a bridge is whether or not you can justify the murder of an innocent person in order to save lives. If murder isn't wrong, then the dilemma is reduced to a simple math problem.

There can be morally difficult or debatable situations, but that does not require the entire moral system to be neutral.

#342656 21/01/07 12:14 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote
If there is no right or wrong, then there are also no moral dilemma. It is also not a dilemma if there is a choice with no down side, so there has to be punishment whatever you do. The trick is to try to determine which option gives the best results with the least damage, from a selection of fairly evenly matched choices.

The whole point of the dilemma of pushing a fat man over a bridge is whether or not you can justify the murder of an innocent person in order to save lives. If murder isn't wrong, then the dilemma is reduced to a simple math problem.

There can be morally difficult or debatable situations, but that does not require the entire moral system to be neutral.

I disagree, at least partly.

If the moral dilemma is only based on the game's moral system, it's still a simple math problem. You have to think about which consequences your actions have in the game world and can then pick the best decision for a "perfect" game.

If the Larians could manage to creat a REAL moral dilemma - it would be based on your own moral ideas. You wouldn't think about the game's ethics but rather contemplate on your own ideas what is wrong and what is right. And that wouldn't be a math problem then.

Only problem with that approach is that you mustn't forget you are playing a role. So, if you are playing the mafia boss and see that your wife is cheating on you, you should rather beat the guy to death and stab your wife even though you personally wouldn't do that in real life. And if you actually "feel" to do that in the game, it's not just a math problem but a character problem you successfully adapted while playing the game.


About "absolute" Karma:
If there is a belief in the game world and it is presented in a reasonable manner... I don't think that this Karma system might be too bad - as long as it doesn't punish the player by making the game impossible.

And btw, as I tried to give an example with Shadowrun, there can be other Karma interpretations as well. I'd prefer a Karma system which is based on the character you choose... the better you stick to your character, the better Karma you get. The Mafia Boss killing his wife and her lover would get good Karma then because it's the character's way of handling that situation. No mafia boss would sit down and discuss the matter with his wife and her lover - that should be "punished" in game terms. But again: These rewards and punishments shouldn't go so far to make it impossible to play the game.


Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch!"
#342657 21/01/07 04:24 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Quote
And btw, as I tried to give an example with Shadowrun, there can be other Karma interpretations as well. I'd prefer a Karma system which is based on the character you choose... the better you stick to your character, the better Karma you get. The Mafia Boss killing his wife and her lover would get good Karma then because it's the character's way of handling that situation. No mafia boss would sit down and discuss the matter with his wife and her lover - that should be "punished" in game terms. But again: These rewards and punishments shouldn't go so far to make it impossible to play the game.


And what if I'm a neutral guy ? Would I get bad karma if I kill someone or bad karma if I help someone ? Or what if I want to be kinda bad, but not kill everything and everyone that comes in my way.
I believe if you choose for this type of karma system, it would be something like experience. Since everything I do will define what kind of role I'm playing.

And what if early in the game people come to me, maybe some sort of rebels.
They ask me if I want to join them and tell me all sorts of lies (offcourse I wouldn't know, I have no reason not to trust them).
So I join them and they make me take out leaders of certain towns or some traders.
Later in the game however I discover that I have been taking the wrong path and maybe I will want to repent for my sins.
I would like it if there is no "good" or "bad". Wouldn't it be great if it wasn't obvious what to do ? And some things may be unforgivable to you and thus you kill the person that has done a certain thing to you. But to me this might be just unpleasant and be something I don't really care about, so I spare the person that did it to me.

In most (or all I think) of the games I played I think it was too obvious what to do, it was easy to see what was considered to be right or wrong.
And the moral dilemmas wouldn't allow your kind of karma system, unless they weren't real dilemmas and if it was obvious what to do.

So maybe it would be better to get some choices and just see the story evolve from there, I would hate being punished for a dilemma, and I would hate getting bad karma for something I wouldn't consider being all that bad.


There is no spoon !
#342658 21/01/07 04:38 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Quote
[color:"orange"]when talking about karma I feel that samurai and their beliefs should be thought about.[/color]

Didn't some samurai believe that the violence and killing associated with their way of life was bad karma, and their punishment was to be reincarnated as a samurai in their next life?

Maybe at a certain period or by the christian samurai that was believed, however I never read anything regarding this.
Traders even bought themself (or their children) a certain samurai rank because they believed their family would become more honorable.

Quote
After all wouldn't the game be great if we could really choose by wich standards our game character will live ?

If you can choose what you consider right and wrong, and what actions are acceptable, then that would fit in with a reputation system much better than 'karma'. That would be nice to have in the game though.


I think that an advanced reputation system would prove to be better as a karma system, this way we still get punished or rewarded, but in a logical way.
And there is noone to judge us except for the NPC's involved.
We still won't know what the outcome of certain actions will be as some NPC's could prove to be far more valuable as first believed.
Maybe early in the game we could kill someone that is valuable to a secret clan/guild and we will not be able to join that clan/guild.


There is no spoon !
#342659 21/01/07 06:27 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
Quote
"A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed? "

Doing nothing would mean nothing happens I think. It was not you who pushed (or lost control over) that trolley, and those 5 people are not your responsibility.
Pushing the fat guy onto the track and killing him would probably get you arrested for murder (although the punishment will probably quite light, mitigating circumstances) in the western society. Killing people is in the books of law and means jailtime. Saving people isn't and thus won't save you from that jail time, right?
That side of the story I wouldn't find very interesting. The public opinion would be more exciting. Some would think psoitive about it, some negative. But who and in what way and what effect do those different attitudes have on you and your adventure. Let go your imagination.


Moral and legal are not the same thing. In fact they can sometimes be diametrically opposed <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

A system that measures how 'good' or 'evil' your character is would be totally different from one that measures how law abiding s/he is.


Please click the banner...
#342660 21/01/07 06:43 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
[color:"orange"]The owner becomes hostile & tries to kill you.[/color]

Obviously, then, a reputation system can not be based entirely on honesty. Different groups may value one virtue over others (even to a large extent), but I don't think you could reasonably exclude everything else.


I said 'trustworthiness' not 'honesty'. A spy, for example, would be considered trustworthy by his employers if he always comes through for them, but his job requires a massive amount of lying so obviously he cannot be described as honest.

Quote
[color:"orange"]Isn't that really what the Larians are talking about though? A world with most or all major decisions being 'least worst' or 'shades of grey' is going to have to be morally neutral, because you otherwise get punished whatever you do.[/color]

If there is no right or wrong, then there are also no moral dilemma. It is also not a dilemma if there is a choice with no down side, so there has to be punishment whatever you do. The trick is to try to determine which option gives the best results with the least damage, from a selection of fairly evenly matched choices.

The whole point of the dilemma of pushing a fat man over a bridge is whether or not you can justify the murder of an innocent person in order to save lives. If murder isn't wrong, then the dilemma is reduced to a simple math problem.

There can be morally difficult or debatable situations, but that does not require the entire moral system to be neutral.


The dilemma is there for the player, not the character. If you consider most RPGs, the 'hero'is usually a mass-murderer who goes around massacring entire tribes of people based almost entirely on racial prejudice (Orc = evil) with no attempt made to sort things out peacefully or even to determine if there is a right or wrong to the situation beyond 'my species is always right'.

In the real world, I doubt many of us would consider this 'good' behaviour <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

But we judge our character's actions partly by the standards of his/her world (Orc = evil) and partly by the standards of our own (Just about everything more complex than Orc = evil). So even in a game world where 'good' and 'evil' are not considered to exist as such and everything is about survival, we will still apply our own values to each situation regardless.

Even when we play an evil character, we play him/her to our own idea of what constitutes 'evil' <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
#342661 24/01/07 02:48 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: malaysia
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: malaysia
i wonder how moral quandary works in a moronic situation? just like in Monty Python's Search For The Holy Grail film where there's this scene has a village wanting to burn a woman, thinking she's a witch. the reasoning they have is just plain silly yet they truly believe it. not taking them seriously means letting them burn an innocent woman. taking them seriously means u're indulging stupidity when u could have more important quest to attend to.



......a gift from LaFille......
#342662 24/01/07 07:59 PM
Joined: Apr 2005
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2005
In most RPGs, it doesn't matter what's more important - you can take all the time you want to care about minor quests and errands, as the main story only continues when you actively trigger certain key events.

While I value the freedom connected to this design, I think it could be an interesting dilemma to let the player choose between quests, only some of which can be completed before something else happens. Imagine there are five quests in a village, but you can only complete three before the entire village is flooded or raided or evacuated or whatever. You'd really have to decide what you consider most important, possibly touching moral issues when you choose who can be saved or helped. Of course, the game should let the player know that it's not possible to solve/complete everything because of the circumstances.

This would add a lot of replay value, however, some players will probably hate the concept because it would practically force them to play the game more than once in order to see everything there is to see.

#342663 24/01/07 08:36 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
In most RPGs, it doesn't matter what's more important - you can take all the time you want to care about minor quests and errands, as the main story only continues when you actively trigger certain key events.

While I value the freedom connected to this design, I think it could be an interesting dilemma to let the player choose between quests, only some of which can be completed before something else happens. Imagine there are five quests in a village, but you can only complete three before the entire village is flooded or raided or evacuated or whatever. You'd really have to decide what you consider most important, possibly touching moral issues when you choose who can be saved or helped. Of course, the game should let the player know that it's not possible to solve/complete everything because of the circumstances.

This would add a lot of replay value, however, some players will probably hate the concept because it would practically force them to play the game more than once in order to see everything there is to see.


I can't say I like that idea, Lurker, sorry.

If the player knows something bad will happen to the town, number one quest usually becomes to STOP it. If that's not possible, I for one would get very frustrated.

If the player doesn't know and starts working through quests in random order then finds he's suddenly out of time with no warning... That's frustrating, too.

I don't mind time limit quests, though, like in the original DD where you have X days to deliver a message or something like that. That way it's up to the player if they succeed or fail.


Please click the banner...
#342664 24/01/07 10:31 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]let the player choose between quests, only some of which can be completed before something else happens.[/color]

If there are going to be limits on which quests can be done (which seems likely), it should be setup in-game that they conflict, rather than some arbitrary or artificial limit.

The easiest way to do this would be to have conflicting goals (steal or guard someone's treasure), but that is so simplistic too much of it would detract from the plot. I liked in DD for the two guys in Verdistis that wanted you to take out the other, that you could tell them they deserved each other and refuse both quests. Only slightly more subtle, there could be opposing factions; helping one faction would drop your reputation enough with the other that they would refuse to deal with you (unless they really needed you, as in Yojimbo / A Fistful of Dollars <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> ).

The choices you make could also change situations so some quests are no longer available. Say there is a town where the only known feasible trade route is cut off by a group of monsters too large for the local military to deal with directly. Only one merchant has a consistent supply of goods, which consequently are very over-priced. The military wants the trade route cleared and the merchant wants a body guard, as some take exception to his pricing practices. If you help the merchant, a military mage could track you to the hidden teleporter pad he uses. Rather than accept your help, the military could then just use the teleporter pad to get behind the enemy lines and make a surprise attack. If you help the military and clear the trade route, the merchant looses his monopoly and his source of power, and could be arrested or lynched; either way he would no longer need a body guard.

You could also have a Sophie's Choice style dilemma (minus the personal attachment), with a town being evacuated before an invasion. The military is better able to defend themselves, but without your help they don't expect to be able to hold out for long. The civilians are being evacuated through relatively safe territory; a few wounded soldiers and farmers with pitchforks can deal with the odd monster, but any concerted attack would do a lot of damage. You can either stay and help a small strong group that will definitely be attacked, but who might be able to defend themselves if they are lucky, or help a large weak group that probably will not be attacked, but if they were the results could be devastating.

#342665 24/01/07 11:24 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
In most RPGs, it doesn't matter what's more important - you can take all the time you want to care about minor quests and errands, as the main story only continues when you actively trigger certain key events.


This brings me to one point that I sort of hate. If you get a quest telling you that it is very important to do something very quickly... every second person telling you that it is very urgent... that you mus hurry... that the world will end if you don't manage to do it in time.... and then you can wander around, solve ten other quests and after that still continue with the 'very urgent' quest.

Neverwinter Nights 2 starts like that. I skipped a lot of quests to complete the urgent main quest. This was very exciting... until I found out that you have all the time of the world to solve every quest on your way. No matter how long it takes you. There should be some point where you fail... just to keep the tension up, to keep it exciting, meaningful if you do or skip the other quests (you can still do them later on).

I also hate time limits. Especially when you have to play the optimal path to be able to do it in time. It should not matter if you stand around for an hour (afk and forgot to pause the game) or if you walk the long way around the forest instead of the direct path (unless it is quest related). You should be able to stop for shopping for example without having to look at your watch.

Not exactly sure how to do it right...
But I think if you have these 'urgent' quests that there should be the possibility to fail them if you start and complete too many side quests on your way. Maybe fail if you travel to (very) far away places (not if it is only the next village in the opposite direction for example, that should be ok). But it should definitely not be a timer counting down in real time that decides if you fail (exception would be if the timer is very generous... like you have 10 days... and you can do it easily in a few hours).

Last edited by Tutamun; 24/01/07 11:25 PM.
#342666 25/01/07 12:56 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
This brings me to one point that I sort of hate. If you get a quest telling you that it is very important to do something very quickly... every second person telling you that it is very urgent... that you mus hurry... that the world will end if you don't manage to do it in time.... and then you can wander around, solve ten other quests and after that still continue with the 'very urgent' quest.

Neverwinter Nights 2 starts like that. I skipped a lot of quests to complete the urgent main quest. This was very exciting... until I found out that you have all the time of the world to solve every quest on your way. No matter how long it takes you. There should be some point where you fail... just to keep the tension up, to keep it exciting, meaningful if you do or skip the other quests (you can still do them later on).


In short : Leave the term "urgent" alone !


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342667 25/01/07 02:21 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
I agree, I don't like to rush things.
And the most silly thing about quests like "you only have a certain amount of time" is that when games have a calendar,
it isn't prewritten that a quest has to be done before a certain date. But when you activate it, then you have a certain amount of time.
I'm thinking like "the world will come to an end in 10 days", but when you ignore the npc for 10 days before talking to him, the world is still there.


There is no spoon !
#342668 25/01/07 08:07 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Alrik - agreed.

Lepel - definitely. It can be easy to get sidetracked on side quests or random exploring, or to just plain overlook an NPC sometimes.


Please click the banner...
#342669 26/01/07 05:41 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]There should be some point where you fail... just to keep the tension up, to keep it exciting, meaningful if you do or skip the other quests (you can still do them later on).[/color]

Rather than fail, perhaps some quests could simply become tougher if you leave them too long. An enemy would have time to recruit more henchmen, build fortifications, etc. Instead of NPCs simply telling you some task is urgent, they could warn of the consequences of waiting too long (a monster wounded and driven away from a village would eventually heal, becoming tougher to kill, and might return to the village). Of course if a vampire abducts someone, you shouldn't really expect to rescue them a couple week later.


If some event is going to trigger a major change and break some open quests, then it should be obvious something will happen. I don't want to leave to do something that seems urgent, only to return and find half the villagers have left. In general you can just put off things that seem like main quests until you have completed side quests, but it is not always easy to tell the difference.


I don't really like timed quests in general, but it could make for some interesting dilemmas.
Let's say you are hired by a merchant to bring a wagon train of food through monster infested territory into the city, since it was no longer safe for the farmers to make the trip. On the way back you are approached by a wounded farmer, reporting that a group of farms is under attack. You can not get there soon enough unless you leave the wagons, but with no escort the food could easily be stolen or destroyed.

If you get the wagons to the city you will be richly rewarded and welcomed as a hero, but by the time you get back to the farms there would be nobody left there to save. Perhaps you could track the monsters and rescue a few people taken as slaves, but once they found out you chose not to help as soon as you could, they wouldn't necessarily hold you in the highest regard.

If you leave the wagons and head to the farms you can take out the monsters before the defenses fail, but the wagons are lost. Perhaps there was a healer at the farm doing research on a new spell (or an old mage no longer great with practical magic, but still fine with the theory), who could reward your actions appropriately. With the food lost, however, you would be scorned by the city people. The food shortage you could have helped would get worse, which means sickness would spread easier, the military may need to withdraw from the surrounding territory to keep riots from breaking out, which in turn would allow more monsters to start showing up, further isolating the city. You would have a lot of work to do to try to get back into the city folks' good graces, possibly doing quests for the merchant who originally hired you as well as the military to avoid being tossed in jail.

#342670 26/01/07 08:00 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
I like the way Raze thinks, there <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
#342671 05/03/07 02:21 AM
Joined: Nov 2003
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Nov 2003
I like this idea a lot. I especially like the idea of choices having unintended results that aren't immediately apparent. They don't all have to be drastic "do you kill this person to save these 5 others". We, in our every day lives are confronted by choices that seem to lack an obvious answer all the time - our jobs, friends, love lives. The archaic choice between do you pick the right option or do you act like a sociopath should be replaced by here are some options...we have no idea which one is right, but you can choose one (or in some situations, not, and see what happens). I also think that karma points don't make sense. If I see a city is falling apart and I support a dictator to put it together, do I get positive or negative points? If I decide to fight against the dictator, and keep the city free from her, but leave it open to disorder and famine?

Didn't Wasteland have a part where a rabid dog was attacking you, but it was also some kid's pet?

Anyway, love the idea, can't wait to see how it's implemented.

#342672 05/03/07 08:33 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2005
Hmmm... I recall someone mentioning about other heroes in the game. I think that this is a great idea. Doing this would put more competition in the game, and maybe it can solve the problem of limited time for quests. For example, instead of worrying about completing a quest on time, the player instead has to simply decide which ones to do and which ones he/she can afford to leave to the other heroes. So, other heroes can do quests and increase their reputation and such, be friendly with you, or upset and try to ruin you, which would partially be based on the dicisions the player makes. And maybe it would be more fun if they also can win the game. For example, you want to complete a quest before an enemy heroe does, but your friend is going off to save his wive and cant do it alone. So the player can either choose to go with his friend and then have a hard time countering the effect of the enemy's success, or choose to take care of this quest and ruin his relation with his friend who is another heroe of the game, consequently increasing his competition.

#342673 05/03/07 10:38 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
In TOEE and in Startrail you actually encounter other hero-groups.


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342674 05/03/07 11:38 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
From one of the older previews I saw of STALKER, other heros could actually finish the game before you as the quests are being handed out to any mercenary who will take them.

#342675 06/03/07 04:13 AM
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
I dislike overall "Karma"-points (or whatever you call the unit of "Good" and "Evil") even more than reputation systems. The latter usually still lack an authentical and therefore believable as well as predictable system to reflect the influence of the players actions on the different reputations. Usually, relevant NSCs know of your doings as soon as they are done. Furthermore, that one reputation value usually tries to cover too many, usually less closely connected aspects - priece of goods, emotional relationship, reliability, whatever.

What many games are trying is to provide a world with own rules, in witch the player decides to follow these rules or his own. Some even try to provide different rules in the same world, that sometimes lead to moral dilemma. It is common here to have different parties reflecting different moral standards, giving the player a set of options to choose from. Supporting one or another party can be messured with the help of a reputation system or (much more work for bigger games) completly scripted individually for each quest.
You seem to try going even one step further by not giving any moral at all, leaving the player alone with himself. I don't regard this as gameplay.

The only way you could help the player to make his decision is indeed utilitarianistic - as this is the way life goes - or at least, as humans work.
We ourselves decide between what our will tells us (i want to be "evil" like a mafia-boss), what feelings we get, thinking of different consequences (raping feels so wrong, not even a mafia-boss should do that) and - last but not least - what we expect our environment to react like (a mafia-boss should be cruel to proof he is not weak/ you should not be a mafia-boss at all).

The only thing a game can decide is the moral standard of the environement. What can be influenced a bit is the will of the player, for example by giving a limited choice of character types, skills, possible actions.
Not leading a player, encouraging him to find his own "good" or "wrong" will result in him making the same theoretical process as in real life: Evaluating the consequences. There are several steps during maturing, each concentrating on different aspect of own action's consequences.
One starts thinking of "right" as what does yourself "good", only slowly accepting authority. First not seeing any bad in doing whatever authority does not forbid or at least not notice (egocentric), you start accepting limits and punishment (moral of absolute obedience).
The next 3 steps are the following guidelines:
- An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
- Do unto others as you would have others do unto you
- law-and-order/ what would happen, if anyone did this?

You can expect an adult to follow one of the latter 3 guidelines, as this is common progress, but not everyone reaches stages 4 and 5. In RPGs you might even have players choosing their options from an egocentric view (D&D alignments: _ evil) or following absolute obedience (D&D alignments: : lawful _), as RPGs are a perfect environment to test uncommon behaviour.
You, Lar_q, obviously reached stage 5:

Quote
...but other than an utilitarianistic (what a word) moral system (where you measure the moral value by its overall utility), I can't think of any impartial method of assigning value to moral choices. Brilliant ideas more than welcome

Not even "overall utility" is impartial, for it depends on what you consider useful/more useful, which is given by a moral standard.

When creating a situation that provides a moral dilemma, there has to be a set of moral standards, all beeing equal but conflicting.
This is quite specific, so there is no room for moral-free spaces in which the player might form his own standards. Doing so (i wouldn't know how to make a game of it) would result in the player choosing (from real life) or inventing a moral standard for his behaviour, following it with his personal guideline any time - and therefore not resulting in any dilemma. Several problems would occur:
- Not giving a moral standard means not giving knowledge about people's reactions - for these reactions would be determined by moral standards which then become more or less obvious. Not having any clue what his options are, the player might guess from real-life-knowledge or quit. Thinking is not of much use here, because you just don't know what to do. In fact, it doesn't even matter, for it has random (=unknown) results. I don't regard Sophie's choice as interesting, she just thought too much (What will happen to her daughter when she lets her live? She does not know. How would her son take it? She does not know. Will the guard keep word, or kill both anyway or none of them, but tell them of her mother's choice? SHE DOES NOT... you get it. Maybe the senselessness and therefore unlimited space for speculation fascinated you? I just don't get what you thought to learn from it)
- If the player should nevertheless try to follow some self-made rules, he will never be in a dilemma, because no one tells him to do different. As much as any action could be considered as bad, it might as well be good. Or both. Or sometimes this, sometimes the other.
The dilemma starts, when the same guideline meets different morals, different evaluations of the same action. Therefore, you need to give at least one moral for the player's orientation. More common are several, usually not conflicting morals, that lead to dilemma in very special situations.
I would recommend you not to try the impossible, but to make the possible better than it has ever been done before <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

You can have variations of morals seeming to work well when followed strictly, but later reveiling as less positive or just not ready for practice. Or present a change in moral standards and let the player experience the consequences for peoples' lifes. Let him influence which of sereral conflicting morals gets greatest influence and how people refusing the moral standard of the ruling class are treated when presenting their alternative system. For the presentation of different morals, you can always take different religious backgrounds. They can be disguised as regional or racial morals, if one region or race is or was dominated by a certain religion and sticks to it's moral standards. Sometimes, the same moral can be used with differnt results, using different guidelines. E.g. Worshipping life can result in refusing death penalty when using "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", while it makes you accepting it with "Eye for an eye,...". This conflict can also be shown by letting the player decide what is better in a certain situation. Might be a nice frustration to later see the same guideline used by a NPC on the same moral in a different context, where suddenly the opposite result is logical.
It is more difficult to decide for or against death penalty when using "law&order": on the one hand, you would kill several people for sure, on the other hand that might prevent others from doing a murder and therefore save lifes.
Just playing with differences and similarities between morals and guidelines of how to use them should already give enough plot for the whole game - at least, if you add some narrative passages and some less complex decisions. Else it could change from being a game to being work <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

#342676 18/03/07 01:15 PM
Joined: Jun 2004
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jun 2004
Moral dillemas are nice to have in a game and when it reflects an aspect of life, this can make things both personal and interesting to the player. The choices in a moral dillema are often unclear because there are both pluses and minuses whenever any choice within a given situation is made. Of interest though could be decisions regarding attributes. I'd like a situation where perhaps I'd have to decide between distribution of attributes....Let's just assume the game I'm playing has the attributes of Beyond Divinity....strength, intelligence, survival, agility, constitution, speed.....It could be interesting to have quests where I'll need to sacrifice points in constitution to gain more intelligence, strength for greater speed...I don't want to be in a situation where a choice is absolutely wrong....Even in life, when people make "bad" decisions there can be unforeseen positive consequences...The converse is true also, where "good" decisions can later have unforeseen negative consequences down the line....It's a choice and there's no decision sometimes that can be absolutely right or wrong...Yet, each decision could have its own faults and merits so that things get interesting as the game progresses....Decisions don't have to involve attributes but can also be based on popularity. Perhaps a choice will give me the favor of one person rather than another. Decisions don't have to lead to an absolute disaster but each choice again, should have its own pluses and minuses....

The ability to reverse decisions could also be an interesting point of focus....I know as a player that I can always load an earlier save but how about also having an option at certain points in the game to travel back in time? Time travel itself has its own complications of course and this is what makes things thought provoking on another level. Reversing time sets up other complications of course. Imagine preventing a character's parents from even meeting each other....or the phenomenon of time dilation where someone comes back younger.. knowing how to time travel can be a mark of intelligence...yet, intelligence can create corruption...it's that extra bit of wisdom that allows a person to use special abilities like time travel properly....other complications....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_paradox



Last edited by Rocky; 18/03/07 01:50 PM.
#342677 16/05/07 02:33 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2004
Quote
We're planning on including quite a few moral dilemma's in our next game, forcing the player to make choices that have consequences on the inhabitants of the world as well as him/herself. In a lot of cases the consequences aren't immediately clear as it takes some time before the ramifications of a particular choice propagate. This can be an issue, and one way of solving that would be to give you a hint of what will happen if you make a particular choice. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Lar


Having multiple outcomes to one particular quest sounds good to me.

It's always nice in an RPG for the player to be given many decisions in a game.

It's even better when some of my character's stats/skills have an impact on there being more options and decisions on finishing a quest a possibly different way. For example, talking your way out of a fight b/c you have a high say Persuasion skill is always welcome -- games like Fallout 2 and Planescape: Torment have done such things.


#342678 04/09/07 04:51 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Hello,

just wanted to point out to this weird thread. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342679 05/09/07 12:01 AM
Joined: Sep 2007
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Sep 2007
The only reason I'd like for not being able to do a quest is reputation or economy or in the sense that in real life, or.. lets say in that generation, and in that history and story line, you wouldn't able to solve the quest for the city watch after you were first, a wanted killer (or something evil) or if you were against the idea to begin with.

What I mean is that, the only reason you shouldn't be able to help the evil side would be if you were well know on the good side, representing your side.

But in the case were you only have 5/10 options to choose from and allowing the rest or the other 5, to not be in the characters game, would only be good to your character if in doing those several quests, they would have a certain chain of outcomes depending on what you picked.

So if you helped the poor, instead of those of which are rich, you would embark on a journey to the Beggars corners, in which people would thank you, and more quests would show up, but being on the Rich side would lead you to a big house etc. Therefore allowing your character to be placed in the world with limits.



A drop in the hourglass, A Memory of the Zeitigist
#342680 17/09/07 01:54 AM
Joined: Sep 2007
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2007
Another "post I wrote on another board". Tell me if these are annoying, or if I should just link to that post instead of pasting here.
[Edit: By advice, the thread this came from was: http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=755976 ]
Quote
I love consequences, and like that they not always be made obvious at the outset.

Killing a bandit and finding a baby's bottle on her body. Did the bandit kill the baby and take the bottle? Or did you just kill a mother?

Symbiotic relationships are always good: if you cut off the "evil" bit you harm the "good". In the Eragon book and movie, killing an evil dragonrider killed its dragon too. No idea if that was carried on to a moral dilemma in the game, though. Another good example: Jeckyll and Hyde.

Then there's the conflicting interests one. Someone has a wasting illness. They want to die. Someone else cares extremely deeply about them, and is desperately working on a cure, with a very low chance of success, but at least it's a chance. Do you let the person die?

One of the conflicting interests can be you: you and someone who can't swim are on a boat. Boat sinks. You can't carry both your pack of equipment, and the non-swimmer to shore.

Who's more important? Do you betray one friend or a thousand strangers?

Do the ends justify the means? Do you torture people for information, or do without?

Do the ends justify the risks? Do you allow a faction to remain neutral, or assassinate their leader so that the second in command, who is more amenable, will ally the faction with your cause? Is it worth the risk of getting found out, and having the faction go over to the enemy?

I was just following orders! You are told "take Snow White into the woods and kill her." Do you kill her? Refuse? Let her go but lie about it? Flee with her? You are told "torture this man" - do you? (in real life experiments, people would obey the authority figure) Your colleague, told to help you, objects strongly and refuses to take part - do you side with him, or your employer? (in the tests where the subject sees a peer standing up for what's "right", people are able to break from the "obey authority" mindset far easier).

Who do you save? A town with a population of M has a well infected with a fatal disease. You have N doses of a cure. N<<M. Who do you allow to die? If you see and speak with them as their health fails and they die, how will you feel? Will you give up your own dose, and hope that your high health and stack of stimpaks will see you through? Will you give all your stimpaks the dying, even if it will only stretch out their time a little? Will those you give the dose to give their dose to others? If you give it to them in a way that they cannot, will they hate you? Either way, will the survivors feel deep guilt in themselves that they survived?

Who do you spare? Someone with an infectious disease is trying to break out from enforced quarantine for emotional reasons: to be with her dying daughter perhaps. How far are you willing to go to prevent her getting out of quarantine? She might not even be infected!

Bandits, to me, should be a moral dilemma. They are not simple, evil killable mobs. They are people driven to rob from others. Not "attack and fight to the death" - that's just retarded. Why are they so desperate? What are they trying to preserve? If they take the time to explain their situation, would the player help instead of fighting?

Moral conflicts don't need to be purely inside you. You can morally conflict with other people. The paladin in the awesome Goblins comic is a good example: he is sworn to obliterate all goblins, and sees them as irredeemably evil. If he met any goblins from Underworld2, he'd massacre them down to the last baby. But, he's acting out of a strong moral code, to protect what he believes in. Is he evil? Should you fight him?

The Ultima character generation moral dilemmas are interesting. Stuff like:
"You and your friend battle a dragon. He thinks he slew the beast, but you know that you are the one who struck the telling blow. Do you Honestly correct him when he claims the glory for himself? Or Humbly allow him to take credit?"


Its very important, when considering consequences, to remember that the player can lie too! If I say "sure, I'll go kill Bob" I mean "I want the character I have spoken to, to think that I intend to kill Bob", not "when I meet Bob, and talk to him, automatically launch me into a fight to the death with him".

It is also very important to remember that if you make the player take an either-or choice, then even if you have done everything in your power to ensure they don't find a way to make them choose "both!"... you have to be very aware that they might just do so, and you need to code that in as a possible result anyway. "You found enough vaccine for the whole village? That's incredible, I didn't think there was that much in the whole of the wasteland! What did you do, find a cloning bug? ZOMG HAX!"

Last edited by DewiMorgan; 17/09/07 02:20 PM.

Game Designer - ThudGame.com
Technical Director - MorganAlley.com
Associate Producer - PayneAndRedemption.com
QA Lead - Furcadia.com
#342681 17/09/07 03:59 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]Tell me if these are annoying[/color]

If anyone finds them annoying, they can easily stop reading.


[color:"orange"]or if I should just link to that post instead of pasting here.[/color]

Having the suggestions here makes it easier to discussion them in terms of what we know or want for DD2. However, if there is discussion or feedback in the other forum that may be of interest, you could also post a link to that.


[color:"orange"]One of the conflicting interests can be you: you and someone who can't swim are on a boat. Boat sinks. You can't carry both your pack of equipment, and the non-swimmer to shore.[/color]

I hope the other person is a quick learner. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" />
Actually, that isn't much of a dilemma in a game; you would have to be left quest items, etc, or be able to recover some stuff at a later point. It might be more interesting to have a couple other survivors, one badly injured and unconscious, and the other who can swim, but is panicking. Do you save the one who might die anyway, hoping to talk the other into calming down, or do you concentrate on the one you can definitely save?


[color:"orange"]A town with a population of M has a well infected with a fatal disease. You have N doses of a cure. N<<M. Who do you allow to die?[/color]

Um.. can you give out the cure potions, and then Pickpocket them back to re-use? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


[color:"orange"]Bandits, to me, should be a moral dilemma.[/color] ...
[color:"orange"]If they take the time to explain their situation, would the player help instead of fighting?[/color]

There was a quest like this in DD, where you are asked to track down a cow thief, who turns out to be someone in the poor quarter just trying to feed everyone. Turning him in gives more experience (even though you can see him in jail later, you can not talk to him again or break him out), while agreeing to look the other way gives more reputation.
This situation was a rather simple dilemma, though, and you could easily try it both ways and quickly determine which result was 'better'.


[color:"orange"]The Ultima character generation moral dilemmas are interesting.[/color]

I answered those questions accurately the first time I started the game, and then reloaded to answer based on the character class I wanted to be.

#342682 17/09/07 05:19 AM
Joined: Sep 2007
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2007
Quote
If anyone finds them annoying, they can easily stop reading.

So true. But then, if nobody finds them constructive or useful, no point my wasting anyone's time <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[/quote]Having the suggestions here makes it easier to discussion them in terms of what we know or want for DD2. However, if there is discussion or feedback in the other forum that may be of interest, you could also post a link to that.[/quote]

Yeah - I felt that it'd get more discussion here if posted here. Wasn't sure on linkage policy so played safe, but will edit the posts to include links <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Quote
Actually, that isn't much of a dilemma in a game; you would have to be left quest items, etc,

Good call - yours is the much better scenario <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Quote
Um.. can you give out the cure potions, and then Pickpocket them back to re-use? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


Eww, yeah, I can just imagine that in a game which failed to check check it right - you'd see the man wasting away over the days, even though every time you spoke to you, he'd thank you profusely for saving him <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

Quote
There was a quest like this in DD, where you are asked to track down a cow thief,

Great dilemma <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Game Designer - ThudGame.com
Technical Director - MorganAlley.com
Associate Producer - PayneAndRedemption.com
QA Lead - Furcadia.com
#342683 17/09/07 06:46 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]Eww, yeah, I can just imagine that in a game which failed to check check it right - you'd see the man wasting away over the days, even though every time you spoke to you, he'd thank you profusely for saving him[/color]

In DD there was a quest to cure 3 poisoned people in a quarantined area, with only 2 cure potions. This was designed to force you to choose who lived and who would die (though left alone they never actually got sick enough to die). Before a couple cheats were found that could duplicate a cure potion, a German player found that you could either pickpocket a potion back to re-use, or kill a cured person to get them to drop the potion (there was no reputation drop for this, unlike using a direct attack against most friendly NPCs). Whatever method was used, all three quests could be completed, and they would all stay healthy (though the main gate to the quarantine area would remain sealed).

#342684 22/09/07 10:38 PM
Joined: Sep 2007
F
stranger
Offline
stranger
F
Joined: Sep 2007
Moral dilemma's are great. Also there should be choices that aren't really good or bad but just different. I hate when the only options a game has is to be either Jesus or Satan, with nothing in between.

#342685 23/09/07 09:17 AM
Joined: Aug 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2003
I hope that being evil is not punished when you do it right. I am talking of deceit, and cunning planning.

example:

A mayor went looking for missing children with his sword of power. When find him and the children you could kill him but you would be hunted by the villagers. Or you let him live, return to the village, wait till night, stealth enter his house and steal the sword or if needed kill the mayor but shift the blame to some one else when you drop an item of his political contender.

When being evil is done under cloak and dagger it should have sometimes have very good results. It raises some good questions about absolute morality vs relative morality.


Not in the mood for cheese?
That excuse has more holes than a slice this fine Gorgombert!
#342686 17/10/07 06:03 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Illinois, USA
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Illinois, USA
In The Witcher they are doing something like this and instead of giving a clue when you first choose the moral path it does a flashback sequence to your decision when you see the outcome. I really don't know how well that is going to work out until I play it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> but I don't even think that is really neccessary, just put in the outcome so we can see it and if neccessary dialog that references the previous encounter/choice if it isn't so obvious what caused it. (I.E. if we let a crimnal go and he goes to a village and kills everyone have a survivor or a cut scene as we enter reference the criminal is the one who done it.)


Insanity Is Just A Matter Of Opinion
#342687 13/11/07 08:41 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
We're planning on including quite a few moral dilemma's in our next game, forcing the player to make choices that have consequences on the inhabitants of the world as well as him/herself. In a lot of cases the consequences aren't immediately clear as it takes some time before the ramifications of a particular choice propagate. This can be an issue, and one way of solving that would be to give you a hint of what will happen if you make a particular choice. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Lar


I think moral dilemmas where the choices you make affect the way the game plays out is what separates a good RPG from a good RPG. You are role playing to larger degree.

#342688 27/11/07 03:07 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
I've only gone through some of the posts in this topic but this is quite interesting. Something I'd like to throw in: the definition of "moral values" differs for each person, religion, ethnicity, society, etc. I hope that's taken into account so that no single person ends up sounding the same.

#342689 04/12/07 12:49 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
B
stranger
Offline
stranger
B
Joined: Dec 2003
I always liked choices that actually MATTER in the long run.

Although in recent years, I find them somewhat less satisfying, because I do not have the time to play through all possible paths (at least if this involves starting from scratch), and always end up wondering what I have missed.

That doesn´t mean you shouldn´t go for it, just something you should be aware of.


To bad now that right now it will probably be considered hopping on the bandwagon (because of The Witcher, Tabula Rasa and Bioshock), despite the fact that the idea isn´t exactly new. But not many have played Planescape: Torment, and if you admit that you have even heard about Ultima IV, the current generation of gamers will consider you the equivalent of the 2 old geezers from the muppet show.
So, looking at that timeline, Beyond Divinity would have been the "right time to strike" :P

Anyway what all this means is that how succesfull this feature will be will depend on the implementation. Ideally, it should differentiate itself from the one in th titles mentioned above, while also feeling meaningfull.

To give more specific feedback, I´d have to know what you have in mind, which I suspect you have deliberatly NOT told us (yet?), so I will give a few bullet points on what criteria ("boundary conditions", if you will) the implementation should meet, with a lot of (unedited, confusing and random) ranting giving more thoughts on the subject. If you dont like headaches, stick to the bullet points :P

- You need to make up your mind on whether you want to transport a message or statement via the game, or wether you want to enable the player to roleplay different kinds of personalities ("Lawfull Neutral" vs. "Neutral Evil").
(Note that I consider the former a perfectly valid choice; does it´s anti-war agenda invalidate "Platoon"?)

However, the upshot of this is that in the latter "roleplay" case, there needs to be a certain balance from a gameplay perspective, i.e. playing "evil" should not be significantly easier or harder then playing "good".
OTOH, if you want to give the player a TRUE choice of being egoistic or altruistic, the latter should make the game noticably harder, especially in the short term. Bioshock caught some of flak over the fact that whether you rescued or harvested the Little Sisters had no significant effect on your ADAM supply, even short term, making the choice.
Note that giving the player a choice to be altruistic by accepting some sort of TRUE disadvantage in order to do the "right thing" automatically constitutes transporting a message: What you, the designer consider to be the right thing)

- I would prefer more shades of gray over simple "good or evil" choices. If I want to be tempted by the Dark Side, I play Knights of the Old Republic

I know that I talked a lot about "good", "evil", "egoistic" and "altruistic" above, but all this black and white merely served to illustrate my point better.
Star Wars can get away with it because, in a sense, in it´s context, Black vs. White is the whole point.

- The relation between action and consequence within the context of the game world should always be clear. ("Why did x happen after I did y?")

Example of how not to do it: In Black&White I tried to play a neutral God. I did this by beeing nice to my own people, trying to impress neutral people, but annihilating hostile ones.
After razing the first town, my alignment was set, quite firmly, on "evil". It would have taken forever to "grind" it back with nice miracles. I have no idea why the game reacted this way, except that it appears that the designer was of the opinion that only evil Gods are allowed to use offensive miracles at all.

Upshot: Don´t give the player a "score" on his alignment, UNLESS your game falls into the "sending a message" category. Rather, only show consequences of his actions. For example, how peoples reactions towards him change. Actually, in a non-message-sending game, different people should have different reactions: One mans Villain is anothers Hero!

- The player should always be informed enough to gauge the consequences of his actions ("What will happen if I do x?")

Pretty obvious, if you do something from your perspective seems "right", but would consider "wrong" if you had all pertinent facts, leads to a feeling of randomness that negates any feeling that your choices matter.
There are exceptions though: For one, if you weren´t diligent in gathering all the facts, then it´s your own fault. Also, sometimes you get manipulated into thinking something is "right", e.g. someone intentionally misinforms you. How you deal with someone like that is an interesting dilemma of its own... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />

Well, that´s all I can think of for now. I may have more once you tell us in what direction you want to go.

#342690 05/12/07 10:14 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
Hmmm... in the case of the plague, I'd always wondered about this:

should the player attain a high level of alchemical + intelligence skill, couldn't he work together with the other healers to duplicate the solution?

Also, IF for example he had a high level of intelligence and was good at making people talk, couldn't he interrogate Elrath and make him spill the beans on how to create another cure potion?

Finally, if you'd a high level of lockpicking + trap skill, couldn't the formulae for the cure potion be locked up somewhere?

#342691 06/12/07 07:29 AM
Joined: Aug 2004
U
veteran
Offline
veteran
U
Joined: Aug 2004
Quote
Hmmm... in the case of the plague, I'd always wondered about this:

should the player attain a high level of alchemical + intelligence skill, couldn't he work together with the other healers to duplicate the solution?

Also, IF for example he had a high level of intelligence and was good at making people talk, couldn't he interrogate Elrath and make him spill the beans on how to create another cure potion?

Finally, if you'd a high level of lockpicking + trap skill, couldn't the formulae for the cure potion be locked up somewhere?


Of course not! What would be the fun in that? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif" alt="" />

Übereil


Brain: an apparatus with which we think we think.

Ambrose Bierce
#342692 06/12/07 10:04 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
Quote
Quote
Hmmm... in the case of the plague, I'd always wondered about this:

should the player attain a high level of alchemical + intelligence skill, couldn't he work together with the other healers to duplicate the solution?

Also, IF for example he had a high level of intelligence and was good at making people talk, couldn't he interrogate Elrath and make him spill the beans on how to create another cure potion?

Finally, if you'd a high level of lockpicking + trap skill, couldn't the formulae for the cure potion be locked up somewhere?


Of course not! What would be the fun in that? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif" alt="" />

Übereil


It looks like we've got different ideas about fun. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

#342693 06/12/07 11:28 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
B
stranger
Offline
stranger
B
Joined: Dec 2003
Quote
Quote
Quote
Hmmm... in the case of the plague, I'd always wondered about this:

should the player attain a high level of alchemical + intelligence skill, couldn't he work together with the other healers to duplicate the solution?

Also, IF for example he had a high level of intelligence and was good at making people talk, couldn't he interrogate Elrath and make him spill the beans on how to create another cure potion?

Finally, if you'd a high level of lockpicking + trap skill, couldn't the formulae for the cure potion be locked up somewhere?


Of course not! What would be the fun in that? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif" alt="" />

Übereil


It looks like we've got different ideas about fun. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Finding a way to supply everyone who needs it with a potion would render the whole "moral dilemma" meaningless. In fact, it would no longer be a dilemma at all! The whole point of a dilemma is that it´s a no-win situtation.
In modern terms: You have 2 people who need a heart-transplant, and only 1 suitable donor. Who gets to live, and who must die?

You do have one point however: If there would be conceivable ways to escape the dilemma (e.g. by appropriating the formula somehow in the example above) it would feel like the game says: "Nope, someone has to die, stealing the formula would be chickening out of the dilemma, so I´m not allowing you to do that."
This would make the whole situation feel contrived, and should be avoided at all costs. In other words: If you include moral dilemmas, you better make sure that they are TRUE dilemmas, and that no "correct" solution exists within the context of the game-world (whether the game allows you to use them or not).

Hey, nobody said that designing these things would be easy... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

#342694 06/12/07 12:52 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
Finding a way to supply everyone who needs it with a potion would render the whole "moral dilemma" meaningless.


I'd expand it my way:

"Finding a way to supply through the easy way everyone who needs it with a potion would render the whole "moral dilemma" meaningless."


I regard it as quite an interesting idea to "steal" the one potion from one of the ill people after he or she has used it - which should be rewarded, imho. I, for example, wouldn't have hat thid thought, at least not soon.


I personally believe that finding a solution that makes everyone happy (a so-called "win-win" solution) should

a) be made much more challenging (read: difficult)
b) but should be rewarded much, much more, than a relatively simple solution (give 2 potions to 2 out of 3 persons and let one die).
c) And of course this "difficult way" should be or become much more complex - a *real* challenge, like in real life ! (You know, it's quite difficult to get an agreement / an solution between two groups like in politics, for example ! - The more difficult, the more they are opposing one another !)

Stealing the potion in <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" /> as I described above could be considered by some as some kind of "easter egg", because it was not in plain sight. It required *real* thinking, not just hack & slash, but *real* thinking, like in an adventure game. And therefore it might've looked almost like an easter egg to some people.

I strongly belive that this "third way", as I call it, should be made difficult, I mean *really* difficult, and a great challange - and therefore rewarded exeptionally.


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342695 06/12/07 01:45 PM
Joined: Apr 2005
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2005
I consider it a bug that it's possible to steal those potions after you've given them away and received the XP for curing that person. He/she should drink the potion, so there shouldn't be a usable potion in his/her inventory. While it may be a clever idea to steal a potion back, it's just abusing a bug (or at least an oversight) imho, and that shouldn't be rewarded at all.

Being able to find a difficult way out of a dilemma now and then is fine, but this example just feels like cheating your way out of the dilemma.

#342696 06/12/07 01:47 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
I know that this wasn't inteded; but still I think it was quite an idea to find this "exploit" out.


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342697 06/12/07 04:43 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
The problem with the plague dilemma is that there were people in existence who did know the formula for the cure. As such, the fact that you can't get at it or otherwise force another potion out of someone is something that was clearly contrived to create a dilemma rather than a problem arising naturally.

A proper moral dilemma is something that arises more naturally out of the plot and without obvious contrivance. To use a semi-DD example: you find a new born baby that you know is destined to be the Demon Lord reborn, who will destroy the land if he is allowed to grow up. Do you kill a defenceless baby because of what he will probably become, or do you instead try to find someone who might be able to raise him in a way that will thwart his destiny?

Either choice looks bad. Kill the baby and you're gonna take a reputation hit like no tomorrow. Don't kill the baby and death & destruction is assured...

Sure, the game would need to play out over many years before that kind of dilemma was effective in the game, but it's the sort of thing that should make players really stop to think about what they're doing...

The witcher has a lot of great examples of proper moral dilemmas, but I don't want to put out spoilers for those who have not played it yet <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
#342698 10/12/07 07:16 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
Quote
The problem with the plague dilemma is that there were people in existence who did know the formula for the cure. As such, the fact that you can't get at it or otherwise force another potion out of someone is something that was clearly contrived to create a dilemma rather than a problem arising naturally.


You hit the jackpot, Elliot. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> That was the reason why I got a little frustrated with the quest.

After all, in order to save a few lives, what's wrong with roughing up the mad doctor a little? It ain't the right thing to do but why couldn't you just sweeten the soldiers guarding his cell and sneak into his cell at night? If you worked him up a bit with a few threats, then he might get so worried he'd spill the beans and point you to the right person or hand over the formula.

#342699 10/12/07 08:53 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
Quote
The problem with the plague dilemma is that there were people in existence who did know the formula for the cure. As such, the fact that you can't get at it or otherwise force another potion out of someone is something that was clearly contrived to create a dilemma rather than a problem arising naturally.


You hit the jackpot, Elliot. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> That was the reason why I got a little frustrated with the quest.

After all, in order to save a few lives, what's wrong with roughing up the mad doctor a little? It ain't the right thing to do but why couldn't you just sweeten the soldiers guarding his cell and sneak into his cell at night? If you worked him up a bit with a few threats, then he might get so worried he'd spill the beans and point you to the right person or hand over the formula.


Or threaten to infect him with it... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> I bet you'd get the formula VERY fast at that point! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
#342700 14/12/07 11:37 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
Btw, will there be any children in DD2? It'd be very interesting if ,say, there were children who were like Black Ring protege members and the protagonist is confronted with the dilemma on what to do without killing them. Protege members as in: perhaps they're the children of various Black Ring members, or they're even from orphanages set up by the Black Ring.

After all, think about this? What would be better than children who're fully entrenched in your beliefs and who worship the Damned One? By the time they're in their teens, they've fully accepted the teachings and are glad to fall in love with one another and continue a wonderful legacy. (Incidentally, I remember a very short scene in a very old movie where there was this child, clad fully in costumed glory, and praising the cult!)

For example: he could have them placed in a house, that's guarded by paladins or very smart warriors. But at the same time, he'd need to take precautions so they don't go on a killing spree. After all, they might be children but they're also wielding some form of powerful magic that could kill many.

Edit:

Also another thing: it'd be interesting to be able to infiltrate the Black Ring. Pose as an interested Black Ring fan and approach one of the guards and find out as much information as you can.

And another one: to be able to win over various Black Ring members over to your side. I mean, they might have been forced to join or even owed some form of allegiance to various members.

And also: it'd be interesting to have various backgrounds for the members of the Black Ring. Why did they join?

Perhaps for some of them, they might've suffered constant abuse at the hands of various family members or even other individuals and developed an addiction towards it(psychological issues, basically). And this addiction overcame their feelings of empathy, etc. Therefore, you could release them from their addiction and if they're thankful, you might've gained a few formidable allies.

Edit: Yet another one. How about certain Black Ring members having certain amount of fame like a superstar? That means there'd be people who'd do anything for him/her.

Last edited by Raito; 14/12/07 11:59 PM.
#342701 18/12/07 11:44 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
B
stranger
Offline
stranger
B
Joined: Dec 2003
Quote
Quote
Finding a way to supply everyone who needs it with a potion would render the whole "moral dilemma" meaningless.


I'd expand it my way:

"Finding a way to supply through the easy way everyone who needs it with a potion would render the whole "moral dilemma" meaningless."


(snip)


I personally believe that finding a solution that makes everyone happy (a so-called "win-win" solution) should

a) be made much more challenging (read: difficult)
b) but should be rewarded much, much more, than a relatively simple solution (give 2 potions to 2 out of 3 persons and let one die).
c) And of course this "difficult way" should be or become much more complex - a *real* challenge, like in real life ! (You know, it's quite difficult to get an agreement / an solution between two groups like in politics, for example ! - The more difficult, the more they are opposing one another !)

(snip)


You are talking about a moral choice, not about a moral dilemma.

A moral choice is about how much effort you are willing to put into doing the right thing, and what conseque to yourself you are willing to accept. In other words, it´s all about good, evil and the gray-area in between.

The essential ingredient of a moral dilemma is that something very negative WILL happen, no matter what you do, it´s all about choosing the lesser evil/greater good. Consequently, offering ANY path, no matter how difficult, that avoids all negative consequences is chickening out of the dilemma, unless you consider stealing the formula a negative event. But the choice between stealing and letting someone die is a rather weak dilemma, don´t you think?
Ultimatly, moral dilemmas are all about finding out more about yourself: What do you consider good and evil, and, more importantly, lesser/greater good and evil.




But maybe it is the "glass is half-empty" nature of our examples that makes people want to have a "way out": All of them have so far been about choosing the lesser evil. So lets talk about choosing the greater good!

Example: You have inherited a large house you have no use for, and you wish to donate itto a worthy cause. You are approached by people presenting different projects: One person wishes to turn it into a school, another into an orphanage, and yet another into a small hospital for the poor.
And just in case someone tries to chicken out again (:p): All agree that they do NOT want you to sell the house and divide the money evenly because the small sum that would remain for each applicant would be next to no help at all to any of them.

#342702 18/12/07 11:04 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
But "greater good" and "lesser evil" will depend on the situation the person or the people being affected are in and also, how much you know about them.

For example: As a paladin, you come across a jail where the Black Ring has thrown in a prisoner. As usual, you let him go but when you release him, he goes back and beats up and nearly kills his wife and children.

If you've heard the rumors and comments about this guy from places like the tavern or even from various Black Ring members, then you'd know something about him.

Still, if a definition of a moral dilemma means that you'd be forced to do the "greater good" as defined by the developers and the game, then count me out. Besides, I'd prefer to be able to choose my moral principles and stuff.

Some points I'd like to bring up: (Character traits and personalities, friends, families, etc.)

No “perfect” characters please.

a) Just 'cos the character may become the next Divine One, doesn't mean he or she will become a goody 2 shoes. After all, we've heard of tyrants who were known for their contributions towards religion and social/public goodwill but despised 'cos of the nature of their rule or various decisions they made.

Sometimes, you're called a despot 'cos you'd to make some rather difficult decisions and you go down in history as a cruel and psychotic ruler.

And we've also heard about benevolent parties who're in nature, very kind and friendly, but they also have decisions or connections that others may not like. Like: Mother Teresa was a good friend of a "freedom fighter" who'd committed what you'd call "genocide".

b) Every person has their good and bad points so there's no such thing as "perfect". Furthermore, every person's actions are influenced by factors like social climate, public awareness, the type of the laws and rules in place, personal feelings, etc. Therefore, would like to see more interesting factors, not those typical "just 'cos you accidentally knocked down something important, you ARE EVIL!!!!!" Or even “what was acceptable 100 to 300 years before DD: would it be acceptable in the time of DD/BD/DD2?”

Characters’ reactions and motives:

c) For heaven's sake, just 'cos someone is from the Black Ring, when he/she meets you, this doesn't mean he wants to kill you right away. I'd rather that they try to make some moves to draw out information than just rashly yell "Death to the Marked One!" and try to engage combat, even though there ARE soldiers and a huge bunch of civilians nearby, or even though they know nothing about your abilities and skills.

Furthermore, some of the Black Ring members could be far more interested in self-preservation than in killing the Divine One.

Basically, this would mean their morals should adjust according to the situation and not always be some "strict believer even if it kills them". As they say: if you run away, you get to live for another day.

This also means that if the Black Ring member is disguised as a civilian, then they could just make some idle conversation with you or various passerbys before walking off. And if his disguise is perfect, please: not even the Divine One should be able to go "Aha! You're a Black Ring member!" unless he/she was warned beforehand.

Flawed characters:
d) Any character should have flaws, what kinda consequences these flaws have should depend on the situation.

Also, I'd also like it if you're too strict or too much of a zealot, then your actions and choices could have some consequences, even for you. Like for an npc, she's a very honorable but extremely harsh person and very strict(not good at dealing with situations, emotions or people): In normal situations, she’s seen as an upright and very firm and strict person and not very tolerant of various issues.

However when a tragedy occurs, she may not know how to deal with it. If she is a person who tends to be rather extreme in her actions, she might start blaming herself as well as everyone around her. If after a while, all that hatred and anger grow inside her and she’s unable to contain it, she might become a very bitter and vindictive person.

I've got other suggestions but that's it for now. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Last edited by Raito; 19/12/07 10:14 AM.
#342703 17/01/08 04:52 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
Btw, there's one thing though: if there are any dilemmas, please let some of them be meaningful in a sense(educational or something). Throwing them in randomly doesn't make any sense nor putting them in for the sake of saying: "See? We want to show you what the real world is like... and we want the game to illustrate that no one is 100% good or 100% evil."

Having people murder or provoke one another into acts of murder for the sake of introducing a moral dilemma also sounds pretty drastic and seems pretty cheap as not everyone is that hungry for death, not even in times of war/troubles, unless the situation truly justifies their actions.

Though this seems a pretty good example(from one of my fav. comics, Jack http://www.pholph.com/ ) which btw is kinda depressing but has tons of moral choices+dilemmas:

A researcher, Art Sullivan, has been accepted into a research centre for cancer. His motive is to attempt to speed up the process so he can find a cure for his wife and he's been assigned to work along with Doctor Riger Thalmus who's the main researcher for the centre.

While making the rounds one day, Art catches Riger in the act of sexual abuse against one of the child patients. Art is determined to bring the other doctor to the authorities but Riger baits the assistant with his wife and the lives of others: since he keeps all notes in his head, if he goes to jail, the lives of other cancer patients will be moot and his wife will die.

Now, that is a perfect dilemma. Would you bring the guy to jail at the cost of the innocence of children or would you guarantee the cure for many lives?

And if you can find a better way to resolve this dilemma, how would you get about it?

The strip can be read here: http://www.pholph.com/arcview.php?ID=201

#342704 17/01/08 05:11 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Break the fingers of his non-writing hand one at a time until he wrote down the notes, THEN hand him over to the police? Works for me! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
#342705 17/01/08 06:17 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Cut off his manly parts <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
he doesn't need those to cure cancer.



There is no spoon !
#342706 17/01/08 06:56 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
Quote
Cut off his manly parts <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
he doesn't need those to cure cancer.



Btw, I know a lot of people recommend castration as an option for sex offenders. Well, here's an example where this could be detrimental(from another forum):

Quote

The problem is that castrating an adult male does not remove sexual drive at all. Instead, this drive can degenerate into something much worse. In 19th century there was a Russian sect called Skoptsy. They castrated themselves in order to be "pure". However, being unable to ger rid of their sexual urge, they turned into a band of extremely brutal sexual assaulters and sadists. Once again, desire for revenge above everything. Istead solving problem that would only create another. Castration would turn people who already have problems with controlling themselves into barrels of gunpowder, just waiting to explode.


Oh and the followers were both male and female too.

Last edited by Raito; 17/01/08 06:59 PM.
#342707 17/01/08 06:58 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
Quote
Break the fingers of his non-writing hand one at a time until he wrote down the notes, THEN hand him over to the police? Works for me! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


What if he refuses to? In the comic, he's an extremely unrepentant and smug [nocando]. Instead of repenting when told the police were coming, he flew into a rage and tried to capitalise on the assistant's guilt.

#342708 17/01/08 07:57 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
Quote
Break the fingers of his non-writing hand one at a time until he wrote down the notes, THEN hand him over to the police? Works for me! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


What if he refuses to? In the comic, he's an extremely unrepentant and smug [nocando]. Instead of repenting when told the police were coming, he flew into a rage and tried to capitalise on the assistant's guilt.


They're usually the ones that break fastest when you start hurting them. A serious egotist only enjoys pain when it's inflicted on other people...


Please click the banner...
#342709 17/01/08 08:01 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
Quote
Quote
Quote
Break the fingers of his non-writing hand one at a time until he wrote down the notes, THEN hand him over to the police? Works for me! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


What if he refuses to? In the comic, he's an extremely unrepentant and smug [nocando]. Instead of repenting when told the police were coming, he flew into a rage and tried to capitalise on the assistant's guilt.


They're usually the ones that break fastest when you start hurting them. A serious egotist only enjoys pain when it's inflicted on other people...


Heh... well, he was beaten but he still refused to give in. :P

#342710 17/01/08 08:37 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Break the fingers of his non-writing hand one at a time until he wrote down the notes, THEN hand him over to the police? Works for me! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


What if he refuses to? In the comic, he's an extremely unrepentant and smug [nocando]. Instead of repenting when told the police were coming, he flew into a rage and tried to capitalise on the assistant's guilt.


They're usually the ones that break fastest when you start hurting them. A serious egotist only enjoys pain when it's inflicted on other people...


Heh... well, he was beaten but he still refused to give in. :P


Some people never learn, I guess! They should beat him again! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
#342711 17/01/08 08:51 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
[quote]Break the fingers of his non-writing hand one at a time until he wrote down the notes, THEN hand him over to the police? Works for me! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


What if he refuses to? In the comic, he's an extremely unrepentant and smug [nocando]. Instead of repenting when told the police were coming, he flew into a rage and tried to capitalise on the assistant's guilt.


They're usually the ones that break fastest when you start hurting them. A serious egotist only enjoys pain when it's inflicted on other people...


Heh... well, he was beaten but he still refused to give in. :P


Some people never learn, I guess! They should beat him again! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> [/quote]

Oh, don't worry... the sonofagun was put into prison. The assistant reported him to the authorities but it took a great loss for him to do so: when his wife heard that the cure would be given to her at the price of someone's lives, she flatlined and soon died, probably from the shock and despair and horror. The most memorable line was "You sold yourself cheap, Aurthor."

What a terrible and realistic scenario, huh?

#342712 17/01/08 10:10 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
What's a snofagun ?

What kind of projectiles does it shoot ?



("Bitter words.")


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342713 18/01/08 03:24 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
Quote
What's a snofagun ?

What kind of projectiles does it shoot ?



("Bitter words.")


Huh?????

*totally and absolutely confused*

#342714 18/01/08 04:31 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
What's a snofagun ?

What kind of projectiles does it shoot ?



("Bitter words.")


It's a gun that shoots the special 'Sunova' rounds, of course! They're like little mini suns! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
#342715 19/01/08 01:24 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Quote
Quote
Cut off his manly parts <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
he doesn't need those to cure cancer.



Btw, I know a lot of people recommend castration as an option for sex offenders. Well, here's an example where this could be detrimental(from another forum):

Quote

The problem is that castrating an adult male does not remove sexual drive at all. Instead, this drive can degenerate into something much worse. In 19th century there was a Russian sect called Skoptsy. They castrated themselves in order to be "pure". However, being unable to ger rid of their sexual urge, they turned into a band of extremely brutal sexual assaulters and sadists. Once again, desire for revenge above everything. Istead solving problem that would only create another. Castration would turn people who already have problems with controlling themselves into barrels of gunpowder, just waiting to explode.


Oh and the followers were both male and female too.


Well then cut off his manly parts and his arms too.
Since he isn't using his arms to write down notes, you have no use for his arms anyway.

And I always believed that castration took away the sexual urge, and sterilisation let you keep the urge but made you shoot blanks <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
I also thought that the problem with that kind of sexual offenders was not the sexual urge but more the feeling of power and being in control.

Our opinions differ and thats ok, but I know what I would cut off.


There is no spoon !
#342716 19/01/08 04:43 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
Quote
Quote
Quote
Cut off his manly parts <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
he doesn't need those to cure cancer.



Btw, I know a lot of people recommend castration as an option for sex offenders. Well, here's an example where this could be detrimental(from another forum):

Quote

The problem is that castrating an adult male does not remove sexual drive at all. Instead, this drive can degenerate into something much worse. In 19th century there was a Russian sect called Skoptsy. They castrated themselves in order to be "pure". However, being unable to ger rid of their sexual urge, they turned into a band of extremely brutal sexual assaulters and sadists. Once again, desire for revenge above everything. Istead solving problem that would only create another. Castration would turn people who already have problems with controlling themselves into barrels of gunpowder, just waiting to explode.


Oh and the followers were both male and female too.


Well then cut off his manly parts and his arms too.
Since he isn't using his arms to write down notes, you have no use for his arms anyway.

And I always believed that castration took away the sexual urge, and sterilisation let you keep the urge but made you shoot blanks <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
I also thought that the problem with that kind of sexual offenders was not the sexual urge but more the feeling of power and being in control.

Our opinions differ and thats ok, but I know what I would cut off.


Well, sexual urge likely originates from your brain which controls your hormones and stuff. A sexual organ is merely there just for reproduction and to "introduce" sexual urge in another person(dating, mating, etc.).

Err.r.. just 'cos you cut off someone's arms and his manly parts won't stop him from influencing others. The only way is to gouge out his eyes, puncture his ears, remove his tongue, his arms/legs but... one warning: what if said person is able to know(sense) who's there? He could STILL devise methods to get around you... kinda annoying, huh? (heard of the old morse code?)

Well, it's been proven that such a process(cutting off the arms, eyes, etc.) will likely dehumanise the person who's committing the acts(Re: Stanford Prison Experiment) and also possibly introduce varying degrees of schizophrenia and psychosis. Furthermore, the longer you're around him, the more likely you'll start to mirror his behaviour. This is why in certain high-level prisons and psychiatry wards, the personnel are rotated so they don't start behaving like the prisoners/patients. And this is also why in the past, some prison wardens and even doctors, etc., would suddenly break and turn into another nutcase.

I suspect the best solution is to just throw him into an underground bunker which is electronically sealed and opened from the outside with the presence of at least 3 people, the bunker will be padded and there'll be many electronic scans, body checks, etc. to ensure he's disarmed and also constant electronic surveillance. That to me sounds less bloody than trying to use torture or any methods to ensure he won't do it again.

Besides, I'd want to put him under the microscope to find out why: if it helps save lives, why not? I want to study his brains and find out what makes him tick, why does he get pushed to do this? And besides, as long as he is NOT around children, things will be likely be quite fine.

#342717 20/01/08 02:48 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
Quote
What's a snofagun ?

What kind of projectiles does it shoot ?



("Bitter words.")


Huh?????

*totally and absolutely confused*



This is an example of my weird humour. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

I assumed that the projectiles of this gun consisted of bitter words. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


Quote
It's a gun that shoots the special 'Sunova' rounds, of course! They're like little mini suns! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


*puts a mental note for this being an interesting idea* <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Last edited by AlrikFassbauer; 20/01/08 02:49 PM.

When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342718 20/01/08 04:10 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
Quote
Quote
Quote
What's a snofagun ?

What kind of projectiles does it shoot ?



("Bitter words.")


Huh?????

*totally and absolutely confused*



This is an example of my weird humour. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

I assumed that the projectiles of this gun consisted of bitter words. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


Quote
It's a gun that shoots the special 'Sunova' rounds, of course! They're like little mini suns! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


*puts a mental note for this being an interesting idea* <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />


You know... you've just fried my brains a second time? Come back here.. you!!!

#342719 23/01/08 08:42 PM
Joined: Apr 2003
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2003
Damn right that there should be consequences: the first time I played Divine Divinity, I flatly refused to join a Guild. Consequence: got stuck. I think that choosing what Guild you join, should have consequences on your interaction with other Guilds.


How will I laugh tomorrow, when I can't even smile today...
#342720 27/01/08 10:48 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jan 2008
Quote
Damn right that there should be consequences: the first time I played Divine Divinity, I flatly refused to join a Guild. Consequence: got stuck. I think that choosing what Guild you join, should have consequences on your interaction with other Guilds.
Exactly. You shouldn't have to join everything, that also affects roleplaying. Some good characters might not want to be in the Thieves Guild for example...

#342721 27/01/08 01:15 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Yes, but sometimes you are forced to do things you do not want ... That's sad, but sometimes inevitable.


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342722 27/01/08 02:31 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
Quote
Damn right that there should be consequences: the first time I played Divine Divinity, I flatly refused to join a Guild. Consequence: got stuck. I think that choosing what Guild you join, should have consequences on your interaction with other Guilds.
Exactly. You shouldn't have to join everything, that also affects roleplaying. Some good characters might not want to be in the Thieves Guild for example...


Agreed.

One thing that annoyed me at the time was the impossibility of playing a truly 'good' character. You need lock picking - it's an essential skill - and if you don't join the Thieves Guild you are not going to be able to complete a fair number of the normal quests. I wouldn't mind that so much if there were equivalent guilds for 'good' characters but there are not.

Still love DD, don't get me wrong, but I would have liked a bit more freedom in terms of the actual role playing options.


Please click the banner...
#342723 27/01/08 09:38 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2003
I have found that the subject of choosing in RPG is kind of a false feeling of freedom.

Example:
You have to make your choice and a lot of RPG's have this system:

The good option
The filler neutral option
the bad option.

Now a player never takes the filler option. If you are like me you want to take the bad option but you know you will get punished so you take the good one.

That isn't free will. So I hope that the new game will have options that matter. Maybe the way you answer can help you develop your character. Like you become more diplomatic when avoiding answers that lead to fights -> character develops to the priest/wizard/paladin/... side or when you answer "bad" your evolve to the Warrior/ battle mage/ ...

So no false questions where you know you must answer that because you avoid a penalty since those aren't choices at all.


Not in the mood for cheese?
That excuse has more holes than a slice this fine Gorgombert!
#342724 27/01/08 10:34 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Heh. All true, Morbo! I agree <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
#342725 27/01/08 11:03 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Belgium
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Belgium
Maybe kinda like the TES3: Morrowind system, but then spread over the entire game.
At the start of Morrowind, you are asked a series of questions, each with 3 possible answers, depending on your answers, the game suggests a class for you.
Well, maybe if you spread those questions(and no longer in the form of real questions, but maybe depending on the actual actions you take) you evolve your character into a specific role.


#342726 29/01/08 06:20 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2008
Love this idea. Will make the game a lot more interesting and varied.

#342727 29/01/08 06:43 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Nov 2007
Quote
Maybe kinda like the TES3: Morrowind system, but then spread over the entire game.
At the start of Morrowind, you are asked a series of questions, each with 3 possible answers, depending on your answers, the game suggests a class for you.
Well, maybe if you spread those questions(and no longer in the form of real questions, but maybe depending on the actual actions you take) you evolve your character into a specific role.


Heh... you mean something like what some games do? Where your choice opens up various "sub-plots" or even "character actions" you can take or even various chapters?

#342728 29/01/08 08:19 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Belgium
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Belgium
Well, what I actually mean is that instead of choosing your class/role at the beginning of the game, you actually create your character by playing the gaming and taking specific actions and dialog options, so instead of actually choosing a class/role, the game defines by a series of actions and events you faced which role would suit you best and how longer you play the more defined the game will make your class.
Let's say you start the game in a cellar, you see a table in front of you. On it there's a hammer, a dagger and a staff(these are quite obviously symbols for the warrior, the thief/rogue/survivor and the mage), say you pick up the hammer. The game will define you prefer meleecombat. This doesn't disable your ability for using magic. Based on later actions this character could still evolve into a complete mage if he chooses non-combat solutions for problems, prefers reading books instead of training and that sort of stuff, or he could just as well evolve into a Battle-mage, Barbarian or a Paladin. It's all based upon the actions the player takes during the game.
So after about 3-4 choices, maybe they were even unnoticed by the player, the 'class-system' starts to take effect and certain dialogue options are added and/or removed for specific classes.
A Barbarian might miss out on some more intelligent/diplomatic solutions, while a mage might not be able to challenge someone altough this would be the easiest way to solve a quest, but because of the decisions he made during the game, it became clear that the player prefers that this character uses diplomatic tactics and thus the game disables this option for the mage so he wouldn't just choose that option because it's the easiest way to complete the quest. This would kinda be forced roleplaying, so I think I'm taking this system way to deep.

In short: the system would define a class for you by a series of actions you take during the start of the game. As the game progresses, so does the character develepmont, maybe certain classes would gain acces to specific skills, altough I, myself, prefer the open skillsystem of Divine Divinity. (altough a class-based skill system that's worked out well is just as appealing. I remember something about a game where you could choose a certain class at the start of the game. Each class had acces to a set of skills, this skills where divided into skilltrees. As an example both the Paladin and the Priest had acces too the 'Healing'-tree, the paladin had also acces to the 'Melee'-tree while the priest did not.
In short every class had preset skill-trees which he shared with other classes yet no class had the exact same skill-trees(IIRC every class had 3 trees, of which he could share up to two with another class))

wowtch, long post and I think I made it even more complex then it already was.


#342729 29/01/08 08:47 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2003
I was more thinking along:

(this for solving a quest but could be done for conversation options or moral dilemma's)

You need a scroll:do you

Challenge the holder to a fair fight (knight)
Kill him (Assasin)
Steal it (Thief)
Do a job for him (survivor)
Make him drink a potion that makes him more friendly (wizard)
Use your "merchant skills" on his wife (merchant)


Now the option you take also defines how your character evolves, so there are no "bad" options.

At the end you can come up with something like

Your hero is 15% light mage 30% warrior 15% handy man 20% elemental mage and 20 ranger this makes you a paladin or a warrior. And certain skills are gained if you evolve more to a certain path.

Now to make sure that you don't say "I want to be a wizard so I'll only chose options that evolves to a wizard". You can set certain penalties when one path becomes to dominant (you start losing warrior skills or something like that). At the end of the game you will have a well rounded hero that is specialized in wizardry and not a full blown "wizard" since one arrow would kill him (if his magic shield is not up).


Not in the mood for cheese?
That excuse has more holes than a slice this fine Gorgombert!
#342730 29/01/08 09:30 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Quote

Now to make sure that you don't say "I want to be a wizard so I'll only chose options that evolves to a wizard". You can set certain penalties when one path becomes to dominant (you start losing warrior skills or something like that). At the end of the game you will have a well rounded hero that is specialized in wizardry and not a full blown "wizard" since one arrow would kill him (if his magic shield is not up).


I wouldn't like that at all. I like to replay RPGs using a totally different character as I did the first time. If they are all more or less the same, that would mean alot less fun for me. Especially since most games are designed for warriors, or are alot easier for warriors. I would like to be a wizard without a penalty for a change...

And if I want to be a warrior, that doesn't mean I think challenging the holder of the scroll is the best option. So I wouldn't like those options since I'm forced to pick a specific one (in order to create the character that I want). That would be like an illusion of choices, since I already know what to pick without thinking about it.

I do agree that we should have different ways to solve quests and that some options would be better for certain classes. But that shouldn't mean that I can only become a powerfull mage by always choosing the mage sollution.

Maybe as a mage I would challenge him too and just fry him with a big fireball.

So imo choices should have consequences storywise, and in terms of good and evil (or the lesser of two evils). But please do not limit character development by solving quests the way we prefer.


There is no spoon !
#342731 29/01/08 09:56 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
I'm with Lepel on this one...


Please click the banner...
#342732 30/01/08 10:10 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Jan 2006
Yes as lepel said...warriors don't have to seek fights or train all the time. They might like taking the peaceful choice. I would prefer it if stats were applied to this system rather than class and skills. You could be a speedy swift warrior character focusing on movement rather than brute strength. I'm thinking of how stat requirements might be needed for some skills. This may be a sufficient penalty for those classes who aren't stereotypical.

Last edited by SirChronos; 30/01/08 10:11 PM.
#342733 30/01/08 11:56 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Oh yes, something I would like to add...
If I choose to not kill someone, that doesn't mean that it should go like *poof* +15% on the goodness meter, and everyone starts treating me like the pope.

I'm just saying, not doing bad is not the same as doing good, please make sure you don't mix those up. I can't really think of an example right now, but I'm sure I saw it in a couple of games.


There is no spoon !
#342734 10/03/08 11:30 AM
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Ghent
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Ghent
Part of realistic consequence in a fantasy setting, is to move away from tradition DnD good vs. evil when it comes to the central character. The twilight hero against the backdrop of light and dark gives an extra dimension to the story and lets the player identify with the protagonist.

In other words, moral dilemmas should be about the character of... the character. And not about the grand fight of light and dark. Choosing to kill someone, for example, should depend on more factors than whether of not you want to be a good guy. To achieve that, a decent motivation is needed. Are you killing him to save other, to get some hard needed coin, because he has done something wrong, because you don't like his face or because he reminds you of a demon you once saw while playing snooker?


Death is a black, silent chamber.
#342735 11/03/08 06:46 AM
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Indonesia
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Indonesia
I agree, it would be nice if there could be a game like that. In "Fable:the lost Chapters", the way it was when you would kill an innocent person or guard, etc. You would get more "evil alignment' points, and if you killed say, a bandit or assassin, etc. You would get "good alignment" points. The good thing was, it wouldn't affect your gameplay too badly (i.e traders would still give you the same price, you could still talk to people without being shunned), but when people would see you, their reactions would range from (if you have a good alignment) applause and cheering to (if you have a bad alignment) running away screaming in terror. But the best part was the change of appearance. If you got maxed on good alignment, you would get a halo with little white butterflies flying around you. If you got maxed on bad alignment, you would get these glowing red eyes, horns, a red aura around you, red footprints in the ground where you step, and little black flies flying around you. Naturally, in reality people would hail the presence of an Angel and run away from a Demon (that's the average person, I would banish the Demon in Jesus' name!). I too, hope that they put some effort into the way people react when they see you, what paths you can choose, etc.

Welcome to the Forum <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />


"Oh Lord, how long will the search go on?"
#342736 11/03/08 02:22 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Welcome to the forum, Crawling Chaos <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Please click the banner...
Joined: Mar 2008
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2008
I'm a little torn on this subject, I think I know more of what I don't want than what I do want. I don't like when a game gives you moral "choices" but then ends up getting all preachy. DD was ok because you could figure from the get-go that you were going to be the game's hero, not it's villan, and it made no bones about that. Also it had some moral choices, but none that were hugely game altering (you may have missed out on a few reputation points, etc.

I don't like convoluted and/or contrived moral dilemmas (for example being given the option to push a fat man in front of a runaway cart) and I especially don't like decietful moral choices, where you do what you think is "good" but that turns out to be bad, ie you get the option to save a kid from a fire or let him burn to death, so you save him, but as it turns out this kid is the antichrist.

And I don't like this idea that everyone in the world automatically knows what kind of person you are. Having fame (for whatever reasons) makes sense to me, because then people have heard of you, and have heard a lot about you, but there's still room for people/NPCs to form individual opinions about you, rather than all of them kind of uniformly knowing how "good" and how "evil" you are.

So I'd like to see a situation where fame was a seperate calculation from whether individual NPCs like or dislike you, thought you were friendly or unfriendly, or felt you were good/evil/neutral. I'd like it if there were several factors being checked on an individual basis, and the player wouldn't necessarily have a view to these factors, ie what levels they're currently at, what influences them, and to what degree, etc.

Also one NPCs opinion of you could be influenced by anothers, and especially by NPCs with a high fame themselves. Do wrong by the village cheif, and the villagers might tend to think less of you (except the chief's enemies of course). Do good by many of the villagers, and they just may sway the opinion of the chief!

But I'd like to see people (NPCs) who have made up their mind about you, and then some who know they've heard of you, but you have an opportunity to make a first impression. In fact I'd like to see more opportunities to make a first impression than I would like to see ones who made up their mind.

Heh there could be quests that simply involve changing an NPCs mind about you or about something. You don't complete the quest by completing a list of specific tasks, but by the accumulated effects of many different tasks and actions.

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Hmmm... I like the way you think there, Smashy smile

Those are good ideas.


Please click the banner...
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Indonesia
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Indonesia
That would be nice, but I don't know if technology is advanced enough for that, or at the very best due to all the data needed for each NPC's personality, it would be in the tens of gigabytes. sad But still, that's an interesting idea... wink


"Oh Lord, how long will the search go on?"
Joined: Mar 2008
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2008
Probably true, but maybe it's not really as bad as that. Maybe there's only like four factors, a race factor, a "helpful" factor, an "unhelpful" factor, and a faction factor.

I say helpful and unhelpful instead of good and evil because different individuals would have different opinions of what's good and what's evil depending on what "side" they're on.

The race factor would cover what you've done to benefit or harm that NPC's race overall. This also factors in some inherent alliances and rivalries between the races (such as between the Elves and the Dwarves).

Helpful and unhelpful covers how you've impacted the individual, their friends and family, and their general community.

These factors would also be weighed differently for different NPCs; for one, the biggest thing they care about is whether you're also a member of their guild. For another, the most important thing is that you did something to help the Elves. And yet another can overlook that you're a really unsavory fellow, because you helped his friend out of a jam.

Yeah, it certainly wouldn't be easy to pull off, but it sure would be cool to see in action. I'd like to see an RPG where the NPCs had some "real" feeling relationship with one another, where there's like six degrees of seperation from any one character to another (and to Kevin Bacon ... j/k). Where the poor farmer guy you help out, unbeknownst to you, is the King's cousin's daughter's husband's aunt's stepfather or something. lol. Instead it usually seems like 20 strangers suddenly appeared from the twilight zone and started living in a village together. (I know, I'm dreaming)

Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Indonesia
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Indonesia
To dream the impossible dream,
To fight the unbeatable foe,
To bear with unbearable sorrow,
To run where the brave dare not go,

To right the unrightable wrong,
To love pure and chaste from afar,
To try when your arms are too weary,
To reach the unreachable star,

This is my quest, to follow that star,
No matter how hopeless, no matter how far;
To fight for the right without question or pause,
To be willing to march into Hell
For a Heavenly cause!

And I know if I'll only be true
To this glorious quest,
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
When I'm laid to my rest.

And the world will be better for this,
That one man, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove with his last ounce of courage
To reach the unreachable star! --


Never be afraid to dream! Many of the greatest things that were ever accomplished were one man's dream! There are so many examples, from inventions (such as the telephone) to empires (such as the Mongolian Empire) so dream on! smile


"Oh Lord, how long will the search go on?"
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
There is always the big dilema of what was left from DD - what to do with the baby?

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
What happened to the baby from the end of DD is described in the Beyond Divinity prequel novella and the game itself. There was a fairly detailed description of the novella story line in the forum a long time ago; I'll see if I can find it tomorrow.

The original UK release of BD included the novella, and it was available as part of a 'fan pack' along with an audio CD around the time of the game's release.

Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Indonesia
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Indonesia
Originally Posted by Raze
What happened to the baby from the end of DD is described in the Beyond Divinity prequel novella and the game itself. There was a fairly detailed description of the novella story line in the forum a long time ago; I'll see if I can find it tomorrow.

The original UK release of BD included the novella, and it was available as part of a 'fan pack' along with an audio CD around the time of the game's release.


THEY MENTION THE BABY?!?!? QUICK, QUICK, SPILL THE BEANS BEFORE I LOSE MY MIND! hahaha


"Oh Lord, how long will the search go on?"
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
I am lost as to where in the game it says anything...hope i did not miss something. smile Last few scenes...you are holding a blade over the baby...then when you come out of the dungeon you have the baby in your arms. smile If you could find it that would be awesome.

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
SPOILER

The Marked One raises the kid and tries to teach it not to be evil. You can imagine how well THAT turns out... laugh

END SPOILER


Please click the banner...
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Indonesia
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Indonesia
Originally Posted by Elliot_Kane
SPOILER

The Marked One raises the kid and tries to teach it not to be evil. You can imagine how well THAT turns out... laugh

END SPOILER


The marked one is a DUMMY! hahaha hahaha hahaha


"Oh Lord, how long will the search go on?"
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
That's what I thought, too! laugh


Please click the banner...
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Nothing is said in DD about the baby. In fact, when explaining the final cutscenes in an old topic Marian pointed out that you do not actually see what the Divine One carries out of the dungeon; it could be the baby (which is what most people assumed) or loot.

I couldn't find the story summary (it may have been posted in the old forum), so...


The Divine One took the baby (Damian) to raise as his son, with the help of Zandalor. He also started an organization of Paladins to hunt down the remaining Black Ring members. Everything went fine for about the first 12 years.

One day after Damian failed to return from a ride in the forest, the Divine One went looking for him, and found him in a clearing passed out, after apparently defending himself from an orc attack (burned their hearts out). The paladins saw no trace of orcs entering or leaving the area, and the orc trail ended shortly outside the clearing, suggesting they were teleported in. Afterwards Damian claimed not to remember anything of the attack, and the Divine One told people he fell and hit his head after his horse was spooked by a snake. Returning to the clearing to get rid of the evidence, the Divine One found someone had already removed the orc bodies, blood, footprints and any other evidence that anything had happened there.

Eventually Damian joined the paladins, trained and learned scrying and anything else he could, until he was 15.

Scouting an unfamiliar area for Black Ring activity, the Divine One found a half ruined temple mostly hidden by trees, etc. Exploring, he found that it contained rifts to other places. He cast a protective ward around the temple, and called on some paladins to set up camp nearby, to see if and how anyone was using the temple (particularly the Black Ring). After a couple uneventful weeks, the Divine One returned home, leaving the paladins there.

In his absence, Damian had found himself a slightly older girlfriend, a witch that was teaching him minor tricks and protective spells. He was also skipping training and chores, since he felt the paladins had nothing left to teach him. The Divine One got Damian to invite his girlfriend over for supper, which seemed to go well. Afterwards, the Divine One heard them arguing, but could not make out the words.

After Damian failed to return to the barracks that night or the next day, the Divine One went looking for him at his girlfriend's place. Nobody was there, so he took the liberty of lockpicking the door and searching inside. Amongst some burn papers in the fireplace, he found evidence of a link to an evil Black Ring necromancer he had killed. He sent paladins to search for Damian and the girl.

They brought in the girl, with some casualties in the process, but did not find Damian. She was the daughter of the necromancer that had been ordered by the Black Ring to perform certain experiments, on pain of death. She felt she had to help her father with those experiments, and was also ordered by the Black Ring to tell Damian about his heritage, and to bring him under their control. However, she hated the Black Ring for reducing her father from a powerful necromancer to a mere servant, and felt they were too petty to even be allowed to worship the Damned One. She said she did not tell Damian about his past, and that their fight was due to him still being young, that he was scared of the power she was working to awaken in him and develop.

Anyway, being a confirmed murderer and Black Ring member, she was executed by the Divine One. Of course att the end of the procedure Damian walked into the barracks just in time to see the deathblow, after which he fled.

After no trace of Damian was found for awhile, the Divine One assumed he would probably want revenge, especially if he learned of his past. He took most of the paladins and moved to the camp near the temple, in order to draw Damian out. It worked, and he showed up at the head of a Black Ring army. While the two armies fought, the Divine One went after Damian, and then lead him back to the temple. Once inside, he zapped Damian with some divine magic and tackled him through a rift, binding him and knocking him out. He carried Damian an hour away from the rift, and then cast a spell on him, so that even if he were to somehow find his way back to the rift, that he would not be able to leave unless the Divine One, or one of his followers, wanted him to be able to do so.

When Damian woke, he was on Nemisis with no memory of his past (for awhile) except his name and where he came from. The species there were Raanaar; the elders could create rifts, and attempted to bring Damian home, but he could not leave. They took him into their academy, intending it to be just until they figured out what the problem was, and he started studying there, eventually learning how to create rifts. However, his attempts to leave Nemisis through his own rifts fail just like they had before. This caused a tantrum, and Damian became increasingly angry, depressed, cruel, and eventually a genocidal megalomaniac.

There is a little more in the novella, which is also described a bit more briefly throughout Beyond Divinity (mostly in the second half).

Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Indonesia
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Indonesia
A very interesting read Raze, thank you! smile


"Oh Lord, how long will the search go on?"
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
There are a lot of great ideas already said, and I'm not gonna touch all that castration stuff with a ten-foot pole-cat (As the old folks used to say).
Back to the dilemmas and knuckle-draggers: Maybe this could be solved by difficulty levels. Make "Mr. X" so he can't be killed on Easy, make a warning on Medium, and no warning on Hardcore. The smart and experienced players will probably post all the tricky parts anyway, and they can just tell the new players (I just hate the "Newbie" word). Then everybody will be happy except the programmers-sorry, guys.
I don't know about plagues, it seems too easy when you conveniently run into three plants just after a witch tells you about them. But it may be confusing if there were all kinds of plants and you had to find one and only one.
But I love the idea of being able to pick sides among factions, prove yourself, and even be able to accept surrender (if I get XP). Then I could play again and pick a different side. That would make the game much more rich and fun.
This could have concequences later: for instance if you help out a village of Elves and are named "Elf-Friend" later on Elves will be inclined to be friendly, and Dwarves will be inclined to be unfriendly (not hostile, just mouthy).
(One pet peeve that has nothing to do with this topic: the game's typeface! All the twos and threes look too similar in the trading screens and some other characters look similar.)


"In the last analysis, it is our conception of death which decides our answers to all the questions that life puts to us." --Dag Hammarskjold
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Krakow, Poland
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Krakow, Poland
Were we ever told where they got the baby from in the first place? I just finished Div Div and I don't recall anything about how it was sourced. That could be interesting!

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

Not that I recall.

Joined: Dec 2020
C
stranger
Offline
stranger
C
Joined: Dec 2020
Very nice now i know what happened after DD ended thanks

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Moderated by  Bvs, ForkTong, Larian_QA, Lar_q, Lynn, Macbeth, Raze 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5