Divinity Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: john carmack] #582525
01/06/16 09:01 AM
01/06/16 09:01 AM
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 438
right behind you
Madscientist Offline

addict
Madscientist  Offline

addict

Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 438
right behind you
Thank you Ayvah, this was very good.
I also think that "the witcher" was the best game in this regard. (I have only played part 1, I would need a new computer for part 3)

As you have said, the witcher has a pre defined char. Gerald is a monster hunter who fights with swords and magic. He has a fixed personality and his own personal goals.

In D:OS2 you have a party of up to 4 chars. You can create your char with whatever race, gender, background and skill set you want. This amount of freedom is great, but it is much harder to create choices that make sense for this situation and for whatever char you chose to play.

There is one more problem. In every RPG I know there are lots of creatures who will attack you in any case. It makes little sense to talk to a mindless undead for example. A char who has good talking skills will have to fight at some points. A char who focusses on fighting will fight better and can also finish the game. So there must be a reward in taking non combat skills, because you have to fight in almost any case and fighting is almost always an option. I have written a character creation guide for NWN2. There is written:" When talking about a good char, I mean a char who can fight well. A dumb char may not always get what he wants, but he will be able to finish the game. If you get stuck, it is usually because you cannot win a fight." This statement is also true for all larian games I have played (DD, D2 and D:OS). Most game machanics were focused on combat.

For Pillars of Eternity and Deus Ex I know that there have been players who tried to finish the game by killing as little creatures as possible. In both games you do not get most exp through combat. I have never read about this in the larian forums (Ok, I did not search for it very intensively).


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: Madscientist] #582526
01/06/16 12:50 PM
01/06/16 12:50 PM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 285
john carmack Offline OP
enthusiast
john carmack  Offline OP
enthusiast

Joined: May 2013
Posts: 285
Originally Posted By: Madscientist


Thank you Ayvah, this was very good.

There is one more problem. In every RPG I know there are lots of creatures who will attack you in any case. It makes little sense to talk to a mindless undead for example. A char who has good talking skills will have to fight at some points. A char who focusses on fighting will fight better and can also finish the game. So there must be a reward in taking non combat skills, because you have to fight in almost any case and fighting is almost always an option. I have written a character creation guide for NWN2. There is written:" When talking about a good char, I mean a char who can fight well. A dumb char may not always get what he wants, but he will be able to finish the game. If you get stuck, it is usually because you cannot win a fight." This statement is also true for all larian games I have played (DD, D2 and D:OS). Most game machanics were focused on combat.

For Pillars of Eternity and Deus Ex I know that there have been players who tried to finish the game by killing as little creatures as possible. In both games you do not get most exp through combat. I have never read about this in the larian forums (Ok, I did not search for it very intensively).




Yes, thats true!

Anyway, we are not talking about "no fighting/killing during the whole game until the end".

But it should be possible to avoid trouble with (some, but not all) bad guys.

And players should get penalties for killing good guys instead of gaining XP.
Killing good guys and to gain additional XP as reward is ridicules!

Of course - There should be always some exceptions to stay realistic.
One exception for killing good guys could be an accident, where a good guy is killed by a wolf in the wood or a collapsing house or something like that.

The decision in D:OS1 to save Steven or Boris is one good example.

I still hope that Larian will give "Charisma" and "Reputation" significantly more weight in D:OS2.

A RPG Game lives from realistic interacting environment wink


Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything!!!
Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: john carmack] #582530
01/06/16 07:40 PM
01/06/16 07:40 PM
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 438
right behind you
Madscientist Offline

addict
Madscientist  Offline

addict

Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 438
right behind you
something to watch for you:

- choice and consequence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJJaGSV75y0

- realism in computer games
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRsqAmuxjNk

- Uncomfort
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg_Lp5bO1U8

The other videos from him are also good.
I think he explains things better than I ever could.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: Madscientist] #582541
02/06/16 05:10 PM
02/06/16 05:10 PM
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 430
G
gGeo Offline
addict
gGeo  Offline
addict
G

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 430
Originally Posted By: Madscientist
Nice find. I Wish Sven order all the Larians watch this video every morning. laugh

Last edited by gGeo; 02/06/16 05:11 PM.
Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: gGeo] #582554
03/06/16 06:45 AM
03/06/16 06:45 AM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 285
john carmack Offline OP
enthusiast
john carmack  Offline OP
enthusiast

Joined: May 2013
Posts: 285
Originally Posted By: gGeo
Originally Posted By: Madscientist
Nice find. I Wish Sven order all the Larians watch this video every morning. laugh


I like smile


Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything!!!
Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: Madscientist] #582592
04/06/16 11:56 PM
04/06/16 11:56 PM
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 379
Ayvah Offline

enthusiast
Ayvah  Offline

enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 379
Originally Posted By: Madscientist
Thank you Ayvah, this was very good.
I also think that "the witcher" was the best game in this regard. (I have only played part 1, I would need a new computer for part 3)

Thanks. I'm glad my effort paid off. smile

Quote:
As you have said, the witcher has a pre defined char. Gerald is a monster hunter who fights with swords and magic. He has a fixed personality and his own personal goals.


When I think about this further, this really seems like this would only be a limitation from a story-telling perspective. Fully linear RPGs like Final Fantasy allow you to have a lot of great banter within your own party. Also, you get to watch your protagonist proceed through a clear character arc.

From the perspective of choice and consequences, I don't think it's a limitation at all.

Dragon Age: Origins handled this relatively well (for one character). You could play through an origin story, and then after that your origin would continue to influence the rest of the game in various ways. The following instalments diluted the range of choices, and I think the simplification of choice in newer games has a lot to do with the expense of voice acting. So I think that D:OS2 will have an advantage now that they've decided to abandon voice acting for the most part. (The protagonist in DA:O was unvoiced.)

D:OS2 is promising to take this to a whole new level. But at no point in Dragon Age: Origins did I feel that these different origins hindered their ability to provide interesting choices throughout the game.

Originally Posted By: Madscientist
something to watch for you:


I like his ideas, but I completely disagree with his formula:
Quote:
1. Manage the scale
2. Failure is a consequence
3. Make me paranoid
4. Don't get carried away


1. Manage the scale / Realism in video games
The problem I have with many games is that they rely too much on the "save the world or die" narrative, and have to keep trying to raise the stakes to keep you invested.

I can't say I agree that Geralt is not "heroic"/large scale in the way he means it. In the Witcher 2, he has decisions that affects whether or not Temeria remains an independent country. The stakes in The Witcher 3 are even bigger (save the world stuff). The strength of the Witcher 3 is that whatever the stakes, he has his own personal motivations which you invest in.

This is harder to achieve when your protagonist is a blank slate. However, you can still use your side characters to provide investment. The Witcher 3 does this a lot in side quests. Geralt is just there for the money, and so the game uses some great writing and relies on the characters in the side quest to get you invested.

If you don't mind having a minor Witcher 3 sidequest spoiled: https://youtu.be/cQ6-1ts2aCg?t=4m49s

2. Failure as a consequence / 3. Make me paranoid / Uncomfort
I don't agree that failure is necessary. I believe that negative consequences are necessary.

In the above video, you are given choices and you can make your own decision as to which outcome is a "failure".

As far as paranoia, I think it's fine for a game to broadcast "This is a choice" (as the Witcher 3 usually did). At the same time, I think it'd be kind of cool to turn a few RPG tropes on their head.

For example, in D:OS (and other RPGs like Skyrim) I can make all the good choices, but as soon as the NPCs turn their back, I'm stealing absolutely everything that isn't nailed down. As long as no one sees me, I'm still considered good.

However, imagine what would happen in reality. People in the town would start to get suspicious after seeing their possessions disappear when you're left alone in a room. Or maybe the opposite happens and everyone completely trusts you. Maybe you would get a new quest to retrieve someone's wedding ring -- except it's the same wedding ring you stole from him earlier! You go to the shop you pawned it off to, buy back the ring, then give it back to him and ask for a large reward. Maybe you even blame someone innocent for the crime. Does it get much more evil than that? (Of course, there should also be some form of "good" option for you to take responsibility.)

Traditionally, consequences for theft have just been "go to jail" or "the entire town tries to kill you". There are much more interesting and nuanced ways to play with this.

4. Don't get carried away
I'm not sure what his point is here. Yes, story & gameplay mechanics are the most important things and the focus should be on these above all. However, it certainly seems that in this thread, people are very passionate about having choices. When done well, it has the potential to enrich both the story and gameplay.

Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: Eldarth] #582635
08/06/16 03:29 PM
08/06/16 03:29 PM
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 430
G
gGeo Offline
addict
gGeo  Offline
addict
G

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 430
Originally Posted By: Eldarth
What if an NPC had a "Reward Pool" and that reward pool were given out upon EITHER successfully interacting with NPC, or killing them? That would totally eliminate anyone min-maxing the "system" by non-combat means and gaining the XP, and then returning and killing them.
That means that killing a popular quest quiver in a pub rise a ton of xp. Such a quest giver could be a simple fisher man level one.

Only deep consequence system could allow that. Otherwise killing such xp honey pot is too tempting. One sword swing and ... several levels ding.

Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: gGeo] #582636
08/06/16 03:41 PM
08/06/16 03:41 PM
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 74
Los Angeles, CA
E
Eldarth Offline
journeyman
Eldarth  Offline
journeyman
E

Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 74
Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted By: gGeo
Originally Posted By: Eldarth
What if an NPC had a "Reward Pool" and that reward pool were given out upon EITHER successfully interacting with NPC, or killing them? That would totally eliminate anyone min-maxing the "system" by non-combat means and gaining the XP, and then returning and killing them.
That means that killing a popular quest quiver in a pub rise a ton of xp. Such a quest giver could be a simple fisher man level one.

Only deep consequence system could allow that. Otherwise killing such xp honey pot is too tempting. One sword swing and ... several levels ding.


Easily handled by simply setting a flag -- "quest completed"
if "quest completed" for an NPC, then ZERO xp for killing them.
...but, yeah, point taken -- quest-hub type NPCs might need "special rules."

Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: john carmack] #582641
08/06/16 07:21 PM
08/06/16 07:21 PM
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 231
Haleseen Offline
enthusiast
Haleseen  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 231
Originally Posted By: john carmack

And players should get penalties for killing good guys instead of gaining XP.
Killing good guys and to gain additional XP as reward is ridicules!

What defines a 'good guy'? IIRC, all of the characters/races all have their own views and good and evil is subjective. A good guy for a dwarf might be a mighty slayer of elves, while the elves might view that slayer as an evil character.

Quest givers aren't always 'good guys', there's numerous games where you do things for what you think is a good person who ends up turning out to what you would consider to be a bad guy.

Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: Haleseen] #582644
08/06/16 08:43 PM
08/06/16 08:43 PM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 285
john carmack Offline OP
enthusiast
john carmack  Offline OP
enthusiast

Joined: May 2013
Posts: 285
Originally Posted By: Haleseen
Originally Posted By: john carmack

And players should get penalties for killing good guys instead of gaining XP.
Killing good guys and to gain additional XP as reward is ridicules!


What defines a 'good guy'?


- An old woman who is missing her little grandchild

- A fisher man who is fighting for survival

- A little girl who is playing with her Dog

- A father who is building up a new house for his family

Last edited by john carmack; 08/06/16 08:50 PM.

Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything!!!
Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: john carmack] #582648
08/06/16 09:23 PM
08/06/16 09:23 PM
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 231
Haleseen Offline
enthusiast
Haleseen  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 231
Originally Posted By: john carmack
Originally Posted By: Haleseen
Originally Posted By: john carmack

And players should get penalties for killing good guys instead of gaining XP.
Killing good guys and to gain additional XP as reward is ridicules!


What defines a 'good guy'?


- An old woman who is missing her little grandchild

- A fisher man who is fighting for survival

- A little girl who is playing with her Dog

- A father who is building up a new house for his family

But how do you know that any of these (except maybe a girl playing with her dog) are good guys?

Say, the father who is building a house for his family might be building it from sacred wood, or maybe on some elven burial site.

The old woman might be missing her grandchild because he ran away due to her abuse? Or maybe she's a witch?

The fisher man who was fighting for survival (from what)? Elves, dwarves, bandits, goblins, undead? What if he's done something to disturb those guys?

Don't be so one dimensional.

Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: john carmack] #582650
09/06/16 08:41 AM
09/06/16 08:41 AM
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 438
right behind you
Madscientist Offline

addict
Madscientist  Offline

addict

Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 438
right behind you
I think we should get rid of an alignment system. Usually it makes little sense to say somebody is good/evil/lawful/chaotic unless you look at some archetypical chars like the white knight or the killer who kills and tortures just for fun. Those chars are usually boring, but you can make good fun of them. ( Lets think of a Paladin who wants to help good people and kill bad people. There is a burning house and somebody screams for help. He runs into the burning house and saves this person. After saving her some people say that this person is a witch. All paladins know that witches are evil and must be burned alive. So he gathers some wood and burns her alive. She is also evil because she tricked him into saving her, so the paladin destroys her body as punishment after the fire killed her. What a good day, saved somebody, burned a witch and cut a betrayer to pieces.)

I think those alinments were only created to make some class/items/spell effects or restrictions. So paladins must be lawful good and assessins must be evil. You have the spell "smite evil" and the longsword+3,+5 vs evil. How do you know if somebody is evil? Thats simple because each char has an alignment tag attached to it. It is only a game mechanic, it has no meaning beyond this.

Regarding D:OS2 and choice&consequence: It may be interesting that you can kill everybody and then talk to their ghosts. There were some nice quest solutions in the demo. You can also kill the ghost to get rid of this person completely. Maybe ghosts cannot give you items or money as quest reward because they are not material. Or the quest exp are lowered by the exp you got for killing the quest giver. There should be a little bit of penalty for killing everybody just for fun.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: Madscientist] #582653
09/06/16 02:04 PM
09/06/16 02:04 PM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 285
john carmack Offline OP
enthusiast
john carmack  Offline OP
enthusiast

Joined: May 2013
Posts: 285
Originally Posted By: Madscientist

There should be a little bit of penalty for killing everybody just for fun.


This is it!

One simple sentence: "There should be a little bit of penalty for killing everybody just for fun." wink


Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything!!!
Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: john carmack] #582670
10/06/16 11:12 AM
10/06/16 11:12 AM
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 430
G
gGeo Offline
addict
gGeo  Offline
addict
G

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 430
Originally Posted By: john carmack
This is it!

One simple sentence: "There should be a little bit of penalty for killing everybody just for fun." wink
I have killed everybody in Lucula forest and Hunters edge. Just for fun. How big penalty you suggests for that?

Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: Madscientist] #582671
10/06/16 12:58 PM
10/06/16 12:58 PM
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 379
Ayvah Offline

enthusiast
Ayvah  Offline

enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 379
Originally Posted By: Haleseen
Say, the father who is building a house for his family might be building it from sacred wood, or maybe on some elven burial site.

You're changing the scenario. The point is that these situations are unambiguous. It doesn't matter if you're an elf, dwarf, or whatever. A father trying to build a house for his family is unambiguously a good act. Oh, but what if he's a vampire! And his family is brain-eating zombies! Well, yeah, with that knowledge you might be justified when you decide to paint their house red.

But that doesn't mean you're justified killing everyone on sight, little old ladies included, simply based on the logic that they must have done something to deserve it.

Originally Posted By: Madscientist
You can also kill the ghost to get rid of this person completely.

I really hope they're not planning to do this. It's bad enough that you can kill everyone in the game once.

Originally Posted By: Madscientist
There should be a big penalty for killing everybody just for fun.

Corrected this for you. XD

Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: gGeo] #582672
10/06/16 01:17 PM
10/06/16 01:17 PM
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 379
Ayvah Offline

enthusiast
Ayvah  Offline

enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 379
Originally Posted By: gGeo
Originally Posted By: john carmack
This is it!

One simple sentence: "There should be a little bit of penalty for killing everybody just for fun." wink
I have killed everybody in Lucula forest and Hunters edge. Just for fun. How big penalty you suggests for that?

Their ghosts will pop up from the dead bodies. The ghosts of the innocents will continue to roam, acting all innocent. The ghosts of shopkeepers will continue to shopkeep. They will sell you ghostswords and ghostbread and ghostscrolls. You can have ghostversations with them where they will talk about their ghostfeelings and send you on ghostquests.

Your true punishment is the knowledge that your actions, however violent, are ultimately meaningless.

You may kill them again if you wish. But what happens when you kill a ghost? Do they go to the after-after-life? Do ghosts have ghosts?

Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: Ayvah] #582674
10/06/16 06:36 PM
10/06/16 06:36 PM
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 231
Haleseen Offline
enthusiast
Haleseen  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 231
Originally Posted By: Ayvah
Originally Posted By: Haleseen
Say, the father who is building a house for his family might be building it from sacred wood, or maybe on some elven burial site.

You're changing the scenario. The point is that these situations are unambiguous. It doesn't matter if you're an elf, dwarf, or whatever. A father trying to build a house for his family is unambiguously a good act. Oh, but what if he's a vampire! And his family is brain-eating zombies! Well, yeah, with that knowledge you might be justified when you decide to paint their house red.

But that doesn't mean you're justified killing everyone on sight, little old ladies included, simply based on the logic that they must have done something to deserve it.


*wooosh*

No, a father building a house for his family on an elven burial site is not a good act. That's deliberately desecrating the burial site and the elves probably wouldn't view that as something good. Not everything by default is good, there are no 'good guys'. Everything is subjected to your beliefs, there is no common 'belief' anywhere. What the goblins think is good sure as hell isn't going to be what you think is good. Unambiguous situations don't exist; everything has consequences and will negatively impact something while at the same time positively impacting something else.

Thinking one dimensionally about everything creates some really flat content.

Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: Haleseen] #582683
11/06/16 03:33 AM
11/06/16 03:33 AM
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 379
Ayvah Offline

enthusiast
Ayvah  Offline

enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 379
Originally Posted By: Haleseen
Unambiguous situations don't exist; everything has consequences and will negatively impact something while at the same time positively impacting something else.

This is a pretty dark form of moral relativism here. Your logic really appears to be that anything can be interpreted as evil in some relativistic sense, so every act is completely and unambiguously evil. Maybe one day he ate an apple. Did anyone stop to ask how the apple felt about being eaten? What if the apple didn't like being eaten? Does that make him a murderer? Who can be sure? Practically everyone has eaten an apple before. I guess that means no one is innocent. We're all evil.

This is my interpretation of your logic.

Originally Posted By: Haleseen
No, a father building a house for his family on an elven burial site is not a good act. That's deliberately desecrating the burial site and the elves probably wouldn't view that as something good.

I'll point out that in the context of this thread "good" means "not evil enough to kill". If in reality a Native American tribe objected to a family building a house on their ancestral burial grounds, and reacted by attempting to murder the family, then I'm confident we would all react with disgust to the actions being taken by the tribe. It's not a difficult moral judgement.

The original situation described is just a man building a house for his family. Looking at this information alone, is he doing a good thing? Absolutely yes.

Now you learn he's building the house on sacred elven burial ground. This is a new fact and it completely changes the scenario. Now, is he doing a good thing? Maybe.

Taken to an extreme, imagine he and his family are actually vampires. They drink human blood and kill humans for fun. Is he doing a good thing? Absolutely not.

However, you still can't just go around killing everyone just because you assume they're all secretly vampires. They are not evil until you learn that they are evil.

Originally Posted By: Madscientist
I think we should get rid of an alignment system. Usually it makes little sense to say somebody is good/evil/lawful/chaotic unless you look at some archetypical chars like the white knight or the killer who kills and tortures just for fun. Those chars are usually boring, but you can make good fun of them. ( Lets think of a Paladin who wants to help good people and kill bad people. There is a burning house and somebody screams for help. He runs into the burning house and saves this person. After saving her some people say that this person is a witch. All paladins know that witches are evil and must be burned alive. So he gathers some wood and burns her alive. She is also evil because she tricked him into saving her, so the paladin destroys her body as punishment after the fire killed her. What a good day, saved somebody, burned a witch and cut a betrayer to pieces.)

This reminds me of an odd situation in Baldur's Gate 2.

Click to reveal.. (Viconia)
Fanatic - Look ye all upon this foul drow that we have bound before ye! A creature of evil and darkness, my brethren! A creature of foulness and deceit, bent only on our destruction! This creature has foolishly come amongst us, my brethren, thinking that we would be lax in our senses! Tell me what should be done with it!

Commoner - Burn it!

Noblewoman - Burn her!!

Commoner - Burn the drow!!

Fanatic - Aye, burn the elf! Her dark and fiendish kin rose up from their underground homes and killed my father and my brother! They are all evil, I tell you! All of them!

Fanatic - Then the drow shall burn! Gather 'round, my brethren, and witness the will of Beshaba triumph over foul evil!

Anomen - It seems a dark elf has been caught and is about to be put to the torch. Good. Such a fate is no less than the fiend deserves.

Viconia - You rivvin are mad! I have done nothing to any of you! I seek only to make my way without molestation! Why have you done this?! Why?!

Fanatic - Done nothing?! You are a drow elf, are you not?! That is as good a reason as any!

Fanatic - Ye shall be silent, evil one! The power of the Maid of Misrule will be demonstrated here today!

Nobleman - Aye! Burn her now!

Commoner - Burn her!

Viconia - No! Naul! Oloth plynn d'jail!

Fanatic - Spout your evil speech if ye must, drow, but prepare yourself for your journey into the next world! Beg for forgiveness, beg for salvation! And hope that the cleansing fire will save ye!!

Jaheira - I have no love for Drow, nor for this Drow in particular... but it seems that she has done nothing to deserve this fate other than simply be a Drow. This is not justice.

Viconia - Shar! My deliverance is in your hands! ...wait...I recognise you! Player! It is I! Viconia DeVir! You must remember! My life depends on it! Please, Player, I beg of you! Save me from these madmen!!

You see an elvish woman, a drow, tied to a stake. A mob of people stand near. The occasional shout of "Burn her!" comes from the crowd. Anger and fear cross the drow's countenance. You could cut her down if you wish but this shall surely anger the crowd.

Boldly, you walk up to the stake and cut the drow woman free. The armed men turn their ire upon you.

Viconia - Praise the goddss! My thanks for your timely intervention!

Fanatic - What are ye doing?! Why have ye interfered with the judgement of Beshaba?! Her will must be shown to the people!

Fanatic - Allies of the foul creature! Allies of the drow!!

Fanatic - This can never be allowed!! The drow dies!!

Noblewoman - Eeeek!

Commoner - Run for it!!

[Player slaughters the fanatics]

Viconia - I owe you my life, abbit...you have saved me once again. I did nothing to provoke their attack, I tell you! I was just passing through the city when the man guessed my identity under my hood.

[after she joins the party...]

Viconia's alignment: Neutral evil

The whole scenario made me feel really awkward. One of the key mechanics of D&D is good fights evil, so my understanding of D&D is that "evil" actually does mean evil enough to kill. And yet she had done no evil to them, and she'd done no evil at all really. Later you learn from her backstory that she had done some evil a long time ago, but it was pretty justified. Still she is characterised as evil by the mechanics of the game itself. It all felt pretty clumsy to me.

It's a contrast to a more nuanced presentation of morality, like Iorveth in the Witcher 2. This is genuine moral relativism.

Click to reveal.. (Iorveth)
They say all elves are beautiful, that they are born thus. In Iorveth's case someone set out to change this, marking his face with an ugly scar that the elf partially hid beneath a crimson headscarf. Iorveth was a living legend, the elusive leader of a Scoia'tael unit whose members gave no thought to laying down their arms and continued their war against humans. Stories of his deeds, of his deep hatred of dh'oine, painted him as more akin to a vengeful ghost than to an individual made of blood, bone and flesh. Certain sources claimed that Iorveth was the kingslayer's ally and thus involved in recent events, yet Geralt's first meeting with the elf brought few answers and ended with Scoia'tael archers laying down a deadly barrage. Indeed, it seemed at the time that the elf would only ever answer the witcher with arrows.

In the eyes of some people, like Loredo or Roche, Iorveth was a common criminal, his hands stained by the blood of innocents. Indeed, the list of those he had cut down in his "fight for freedom" could easily rival the number of ballads, romances and ditties in my repertoire.

The elf was certainly a dangerous individual. He was not, however, a bloodthirsty monster. Ever cautious and aware of the game he was playing, he jumped at the chance of testing Letho's loyalty, becoming Geralt's ally, at least temporarily.

Is he doing a good thing? Yes and no.

And in The Witcher 3, even monsters can be morally complex...
https://youtu.be/2hGylVl6290?t=7m00s

Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: Ayvah] #582689
11/06/16 07:37 AM
11/06/16 07:37 AM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 285
john carmack Offline OP
enthusiast
john carmack  Offline OP
enthusiast

Joined: May 2013
Posts: 285
Originally Posted By: Ayvah

Oh, but what if he's a vampire! And his family is brain-eating zombies! Well, yeah, with that knowledge you might be justified when you decide to paint their house red.

But that doesn't mean you're justified killing everyone on sight, little old ladies included, simply based on the logic that they must have done something to deserve it.


Just make the Charisma skill really matter! wink

Killing good guys shouldn't be a solution to gain XP!

Killing bad guys should be one of a number of possible strategic/tactical options to gain XP!


Killing everyone and everything should be nevertheless possible.
It gives Players the freedom to play how they want.
This feeling to be free is particularly important.


Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything!!!
Re: Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything! [Re: john carmack] #582692
11/06/16 08:14 AM
11/06/16 08:14 AM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 528
Prospecting bridges in E-SE Eu...
EinTroll Offline
addict
EinTroll  Offline
addict

Joined: May 2013
Posts: 528
Prospecting bridges in E-SE Eu...
I'm of the opinion that the same act should award different good/bad points (generalizing here a bit) based on the context in which it is done.


Let's take the hypothetical situation of killing an innocuous looking murderer.

Outright killing him without any questions asked and no information that he is a murderer is pretty clearly an outright evil act.

Killing him with only a hint that he might be a murderer would still be an evil act, but a lesser one.

Killing him with evidence in hand would be a mildly good act.


Now, I'm saying this from a reputation point of view. This means how the world sees your character/party. I would find it interesting to have both a reputation point of view, as well as a more absolute point of view, something that builds upon the system D:OS 1 had.

Building upon D:OS 1's reputation and character trait system, I'd really like to see both reputation and character traits to be split into categories. So, your traits would describe your character from an inside point of view, while reputation would describe your character on the same scales, but from an outside point of view.

Heck, I'd be even more interested in the reputation system if we were to throw in a third opinion, namely that of the gods: how each god views a character based on what that character is and what the god considers to be part of its sphere.

But I wager that's just me and my enjoyment of meaningful complexity.


To summarize: This is all just an opinion, but I think rewards/penalties should apply to one action based on the context in which said action was performed. I also think the reputation/traits system could be expanded to include other factors, have more points of view and describe a character using the same scales for all points of view.


Unless otherwise specified, just an opinion or simple curiosity.
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.2