Chairchucker

Well I embraced that for the vast majority of RPGs I've previously played. It didn't add anything meaningful to the experience.

I kind of lost where the discussion was up to but I have some OPINIONS ABOUT VIDEO GAMES and here they come. Get ready for the opinions. Unlimited inventory is good. I like it. I like not having an inventory limit. This is not just because I am a horrendous pack rat, (Although this is true. In FO:NV my character collected about 30 weapons or so, one that used each kind of ammunition. I used about three of them. Don't judge me.) but also because regardless of whether I'm picking up every single item in the entire world (I will be) or just the shinier stuff, hitting your inventory limit and having to trek back to the store doesn't add anything of value to the game. Lack of kill experience will take some getting used to, but I think it is a positive decision in that it makes alternate play styles other than 'comb every corner of the area and kill every single living creature' equally viable. (I will still probably be destroying all the critters, though.) In many of the IE games, the 'best way' (in that after doing it this way your character was objectively more powerful than after doing it any other way) to do an area was to do all the talking or sneaking or whatever that might get you quest experience, and then come back afterwards and butcher them all. No kill experience means players are rewarded equally for whatever approach they take to a puzzle. Otherwise it'd be like the latest Deus Ex which, for all its talk about being able to facilitate any type of play and any playing style being equally valid, and much as I did enjoy the game, there was absolutely a 'correct' way to play that game, in that you got the most of whatever the experience equivalent was and could afford to upgrade yourself the most. That way was to hack every single object even if you had a code, pick every lock even if you had a key, and knock every single person out even if you had no particular intention of walking in the area they were patrolling. I didn't mind doing this because there is a small part of me that likes gaming systems to hoover the maximum reward out of it, but if they had done away with these mechanics, I might've found it easier to actually play the role of my character. Already covered by pretty much everyone else, but side note about plate mail bikinis: it seems like you'd run more of a risk of the edges of your 'armour' digging into you uncomfortably. Also, I think people usually wore clothes under their armour, didn't they? Are we to believe that plate mail bikini wearers are putting that thing straight onto the skin, or is there a cloth bikini directly beneath it? Because that would be as uncomfortable as hell.

Would this ability be called "Frontstab"? And would it deal .5X normal damage, instead of 1.5X like a BACKstab? Come now, let's not tie ourselves to DnD ideas of game mechanics. Clearly if the enemy is not expecting to be stabbed in the face, a facestab would be very effective. Of course, when facing a facestabber, I guess one would probably be quite wary of being stabbed in the face. Perhaps the facestabber should have some cunning tricks at his disposal to draw attention away from the things that he is planning to stab into someone's face.

I propose the rogue be renamed 'Facestabber'. All Facestabbers will have as a base class talent the ability to stab people hard in the face over and over again.

Personally, one of the most satisfying parts of an RPG for me is when my party is comprised of Princes of the Universe due to me absorbing every spare bit of XP and picking up enough magical items to open my own store, and then leaving a trail of the broken corpses of the puny grasshoppers who dared to stand against my might. I'm happy for Obsidian to eventually make me fight against dragons, demons and demigods, and for my party to crush them beneath our mighty bootheels.

I absolutely agree that there are; I call them humans.

No, that's almost the thematic opposite of what I was saying.

I believe both exist; I don't believe a person is, themselves, evil. I don't believe a person is, themselves, good. I think all people are capable of actions that are either good or evil. I am trying to untrivialise all acts of evil, even the ones that some people may think are justified, and I am trying to dissociate them from 'other people' and associate them with everyone, because I believe that is how it is.

Crime is often a manifestation of the visitation of pain and suffering on others, is it not? If someone who has chosen to visit pain and suffering on others can be successfully rehabilitated, as in many circumstances it seems they can, perhaps that is some kind of indication that they are not irreparably evil. Of course I may be biased since, as previously mentioned, I don't believe people generally visit pain and suffering on others because they are moustache twirlingly evil, but I believe there are a number of environmental factors that cause people to want to hurt others. For example, if I feel someone has in some way wronged me, I might wish to see them suffer for their perceived wrongdoing, and if I don't feel that the state has adequately served that purpose, perhaps I would take it upon myself to carry such vengeance out myself. Although since, as I've mentioned, I generally oppose vengeance, perhaps that would make me less inclined towards that particular evil. One can only hope.

As other posters have already covered, many countries aim for rehabilitation over vengeance and, bluntly put, it works. Their crime rate is way lower than in countries that favour the 'make 'em suffer for what they did' method of law enforcement. This isn't just being civilised for the sake of it, this is also a more effective method of handling crime.

Honestly I don't think 'satisfaction of vengeance' has any place whatsoever in any 'civilised' justice system, and I'm not all that convinced that vigilantism would result. Even if it did, I think enforcing harsher penalties to stop vigilantes would be the wrong way to counteract them - with the right way being locking up and rehabilitating the vigilante.

Yeah I have kind of sporadic appearances.

Don't mistake my willingness to discuss how different people might see morality as an indication that I don't have my own very firm opinions on it. I just think it's worthwhile to try to understand what motivates people. I also think that if we hold something to be true, there should be some basis behind where that comes from. And finally, I think it is possible to delineate between things which we believe to be morally 'right', and things that should be legally permitted to allow a society to function.

...so I think we're basically agreeing that reputation systems are better for video games than morality systems, then?

If you're referring to my comment I'm not referring to instances of self defense, I'm not referring to instances where they're in the act of raping someone, I'm not referring to instances where they're doing anything bad at all, I'm referring to characters who are flagged as karmically naughty rather than nice, and therefore even if you sneak up to them in their sleep and off them, your karma rises.

So if the law is no sodomy, we must assume that is correct? You know very well that certain laws in certain countries are based on religious doctrine like making homosexuality illegal. This is clearly a form of discrimination Its not the same thing as saying its illegal to have sex with an 8 year old child. This is done as the child is not emotionally, mentally and physically ready for this type of sexual relationship I was just responding directly to the proposition that the law was the best approximation of right that we have. ...seriously, how do we kill these quote pyramids? I've tried just backspacing them before but they always keep the bubbles!

So if the law is no sodomy, we must assume that is correct?

It's a common enough argument to be worth tackling, I'd say. 1) Consent is a defining factor sex, as distinct from rape. If you assume that rape is OK then frankly whatever culture that is can **** off. I am reminded inevitably of Charles Napier's comment when administrator of India [am obliged to wikiquote]: 2) The debate over the age of consent is exactly that, but then so is there a debate on what constitutes murder. The fact that the dividing line can be and often is debated does not mean there is no line. I would say that if anything it makes the prohibition meaningful. 3) The law is a blunt instrument. The age of consent in the UK is 16. It may be that some 15 year olds are capable of making informed consent. Frankly it's scientifically implausible that the transition occurs arbitrarily on their birthday. But the line is drawn so that those who have not yet matured are protected. As an aside, I knew some 19 year olds who went doolali over sex because they still weren't ready. But you can't protect everyone with the law. Some, however, would argue that sometimes the law is wrong. For example, in much the same way that it is currently against the law for an adult to have sexual intercourse with someone under the age of whatever it is in a given country, in many countries it is (or has been until relatively recently) illegal to practice sodomy. I suspect a large number of homosexuals would argue that that is a case where 'the law draws a clear line' is an inadequate explanation. EDIT: On a side note, these quote pyramids are kind of annoying, is there an easy way to kill the previous one?

Or they could get their own show on CBS wherein they kill serial killers.

Any chance you could have a crack at explaining this without the analogy? Completely over my head.

Yeah I'm feeling pretty great I guess.

I dunno but I use it as a pronoun for a bunch of people so I'm sticking with what I called it. Don't mean to overly derail this topic, but it wasn't a very good topic so...

Do you have an external source from which you glean this absolute morality, though, or do you just go with your gut and figure out where the truthiness lies? I think it's a good thing that Obsidian has decided to ditch a morality meter in favour of reputation. While Fallout New Vegas is great, it feels a little bit odd that murdering certain people in cold blood can be an objectively morally good thing to do, for example. Meanwhile, if you go through the possessions of the people you've murdered, your karma drops again. (Unless you loot it from their corpse.) And that's only murder and theft we've covered. What happens if you visit a brothel, what might a game maker decide is the absolute right or wrong regarding sex? How about charity, might you lose karma every time you tell a beggar "Sorry mate, I'm saving up for a shinier sword." Or might you gain karma on the basis that you having a shinier sword would make you more able to protect the town from rampaging whatever they are?

Y'all is definitely the best plural pronoun.

Name sounds familiar.