Search the Community

If it was a fact that hell existed and it is 100% for sure that evil people go to hell - wouldn't you try to be good? One thing which really bothers me is that in a lot of fantasy settings the people of those realms *know* for sure that gods and the associated powers exist. Also, it is a fact that there is a hell and heaven (or multiple hells, heavens etc.) as in Forgotten Realms or Planescape settings. For instance, in Planescape Torment, every person living in Sigil knows there exists multiple planes of hell/heaven, and you end up at hell if you are an evil person. Hell is not a nice place and a sane person would certainly not want to spend an eternity there among demons and such. Therefore, regarding the evil characters in these fantasy settings (apart from the crazy ones), isn't there a very strong motivation for them to actually try to be good? For example in real life, since it is not 100% for sure after-life exists, the only factors restraining people from committing *evil actions* (yes, very subjective in some cases) are things such as the laws, their conscience and beliefs. I am sure people would think a second time before committing crimes etc. if it was a common fact that after-life existed and you would be punished in hell for sure (even if you were able to get away with it in real life). I think you get the point. Sorry, if this philosophical aspect had already been covered on the forums, but this has been one of the questions which started bothering me especially while I was playing PS:T. It certainly decreases the realism of any setting IMHO and lawful evil (smart evil) characters don't seem to make much sense in such settings. (Only if they pursue immortality to avoid their fate or try to redeem themselves in order to go to the neutral or good heavens)

In BG the purpose of temples was to provide the player with a means to heal, resurrect and identify. This function seemed a little bit redundant to me, provided that there were easier ways to do this. Reload the game instead of resurrect a party member and rest instead of going to a temple to heal yourself. I was thinking on how to make this aspect of the game / world a little bit better and i came up with the following ideas. Let's make a religion system, which is not characterized by the act of *worship*, i.e. the undermining of your own self-respect in order to gain the favor of some "higher" force or entity. In this system priests represent domains more than they are agents of their gods. A little psychology could be used here. Say, for example, that a loved one of the pc is lost. Feeling unable to protect this person the pc (or a companion of the pc), would probably be subject to some nasty rage and guilt - pretty intense, destructive emotions. In this situation a priest (of a god whose domain is rage) could provide means for coping with these intense emotions. The priest could explain to the character that it is natural to feel this way and perhaps could provide him / her with means to get these feelings out of their system more easily. By helping to perform rituals, for example. In essence, what i'm proposing is a pantheon of gods, who represent different perspectives of the human nature. The priests could be avatars (some kind of primitive specialist psychologists) of the corresponding domains instead of agents of malevolent (or ignorant) higher forces. Or, perhaps both. So, only those could be priests who understand (or try to understand) the inner workings of the human nature, specializing to a corresponding domain. You see, the main difference between the usual approach and mine is the message. Usually, religion tells to people that they are subject to the whims of higher forces, but they can gain the favors of these forces by appropriate ways of worship. Either donating large amounts of coin to the temple or carrying out the will of the corresponding higher force does it. The message is that you are worthless therefore you better obey (or else). While my kind of religion (where actually man created the gods and not vice versa) helps people cope with an insanely cruel world around them. So, my kind of priests do not rob people of their self-value, of their illusion of control, but try to restore and protect it. I believe that a perfect mixture of these two approaches naturally yields some nasty power struggles, quest-hooks, and of course, they provide a degree of immersion into a fantasy world, where the feelings of the characters are (almost) real, and their beliefs are quite similar to the beliefs of the denizens of ancient primitive cultures. Where folks sacrificed cows to let the winter pass quickly, or to let the hunt be succesful, you know what i mean. So, i propose that when the party enters a temple and talks to a priest, then - in addition to the usual options of healing and resurrection - they would have the option to talk to the priest (who might join them later perhaps) about what they encountered on their journey and whatnot. The priest then could tell a tale with some moral content or lesson, perhaps could give them a quest or perform a ritual. This could easily lead to very comical or depressing situations. Opinions?

So after debating a similar issues on another topic, I thought I would bring this here. I am curious what people think, even though I know we wont have "fixed morality" in this game like previous IE titles.

Lying is important. In Planescape, it was common that two or three of the dialogue options one had was marked with [Lie]. You could lie about many things, not simply quest things like "Did Leandro steal my things?" but lying about personal beliefs, intentions, etc. I've seen other RPGs incorporate lying, but only P:T would have the same identical lines available, one marked with [Lie] and the other without. I also understand it would be hard work to incorporate it into the game world, but the ability to spread false rumours, create arbitrary conflicts, and in general get factions, organizations and people into hostilities with each other would simply be... terrific. I don't think I've seen this in any game before, but it was an immensely important tool in the noble's power struggles, historically. To depict a power struggle without giving room to lies is a mistake. When is it appropriate for lying to require a successful die roll? Discussion and answers to poll appreciated. Does anybody have examples of when lies have been overused, or badly used, in game before? I'm sure there must be some examples to heed.

It's not a new idea, and I'm pretty sure it has been discussed here somewhere (a search saw me return empty-handed). I've seen many discussions about how could be defined a "mature game", and people usually agree about the fact that it's not about boobies. That boobies may even actually be a sign of immaturity. There's also the question of the topics used in the game, and the morality when it comes to choose and to live by its consequences. "Being bad/evil" in many RPGs for instance, is often playing an (uninteresting and not "mature") "psychopath". I remember this question being brought by Peter Molyneux. Something about "being good is the hard path / you can be good and save the persecuted, it is an available option. But it will cost you an eyeball". I like the idea that being bad is not being a psychopath. It's being greedy, lazy, or a coward. It works the best when it appeals to the player behind the PC. If you must permanently lose 1 point of strength to save someone (who won't even give you a kiss), will you do it? I like that because it's challenging you as a (role)player, not just your character (I think it's used in Divinity 2 to some - scanty - extend). Would it be punishing? Rewarding? Hey, it would be optional, you could choose to be a ****. Being a hero is not that easy, it would cost you. Actually, there is no real value to "being good" if it does not cost you something. Is there?

I noticed something. There are lots of stories in which the player character is somehow special, chosen by destiny, aided by the gods. All this mostly because he/she was at the right place at the right time or simply just because it's the player character. How many times did we experience that the main driving force behind the story was that the player character was the "chosen one"? How many times did we stop the evil forces from doing something really bad, just because it's something really bad and we are "meant" to stop it from happening? This type of story carries the message that those people who are not "chosen" by fate cannot achieve anything. I really hate that, because it's a false message. What would you say to the idea to flip over the coin this time? Let's play a character who is shunned by the gods, struck by a cursed fate, branded with an inescapable death at the hands of greater forces. As the story progresses we could see how this character escapes certain death again and again, against all odds, just by the sheer power of his / her will alone. He / she would not do the quests in order to stop some ancient evil, but only for the reason that he / she wants to live. Stopping a calamity could be just something that follows from the actions of the pc and the character may be entirely indifferent about it! I would like to play a story where the main goal would be something humanely impossible, yet, at the end of it the character could achieve it! Like, in order to end a curse that brands you as the target of undead spirits every night, you have to kill a (demi)god! Or take Baldurs Gate 2 for an example. I *really* hated that despite all my efforts i could not save Viconia, no matter what choices i made. What i wanted was the crazy option to go after Lolth, even if slaying her would have turned out impossible at the end! My character would have tried it! This type of story carries the message that no matter what happens, even if the most powerful being in the universe strikes you down it is in the human nature to stand up and fight again! Even if it seems futile at first! You do not have to be favored by fate to do great things! Humans are not the playthings of greater powers! (at least, involuntarily, that is) There is no need for the aid of gods, you can achieve your goals from your own power (with the help of your companions)! Edit: i see that i posted this in the wrong section, i don't know how that happened, sorry about that It would be great to see a game, where the player character is not "forced" or "conditioned" to play the "good" guy by appropriate feedback from the game itself! If my pc doesn't really wants to help that old lady, then that's it, the old lady might be screwed for all i care! And why would my pc help that old lady anyway? Just to stay true to his "lawful good" alignment i have to fight some rather dangerous trolls to get some stupid old book back? Or spend some valuable coin on something utterly meaningless? Bleh! :D I can just kill the old hag, take the coin that was meant for the reward and be done with it! Perhaps i will even go after that old book afterwards! Of course, this would not mean that my actions would have no consequence at all, i just wouldn't see it immediately in a change of alignment for example! My character might even think that he is actually lawful good, when in reality, considering the *long term* consequences of his actions, he tends to be chaotic evil! And what does "good", "evil" mean anyway? All that should matter are the consequences of your actions and whether you are favored by some group or shunned by other! For example, the habit of killing old ladies makes the player character indifferent about killing (seemigly unimportant or weak) npc's and this could lead to very dangerous consequences in *later parts* of the game! (so the player is tempted not to load his / her *much earlier* save when facing the crisis that came from his / her earlier questionable actions)