Good or evil?

[Klaleara]

(I didn't see a topic like this, searched, surprisingly did not find one)

 

I have always enjoyed the choices between good and evil. What I do personally to not like, is seeing how good or evil I am, I feel I have to pick certain choices just so I can be either truly good or evil. What I REALLY don't like, is when you get stats/abilities for being pure Good or Evil.

 

I would love a game, where my choices are simply what I choose to do, and pros/cons straight come from choices, not what I choose on average.

 

This would also make it interesting with how people react. Maybe one town hears of something you did good from a traveling person, but another town heard of a terrible deed you did. Maybe even get mixed reactions from another town. Its not like everyone will hear of what you did in some backwater village (Or believe).

[evdk]

I voted no because binary choices are stupid. I would like to have some nuance in my games, thank you very much.

[Tale]

The concept of good and evil should be struck from the lexicon. They can do what they think is right or do what they think helps themselves. The character should be judged by their actions and how those actions affect those around them, not by their moral compass.

[Knott]

I think Obsidian's commitment to making a mature game that doesn't limit itself with a set binary perspective and instead explores dilemmas and paradoxes of morality in an interesting way is the right way to go.

[Piccolo]

While I think it would be nice to be able to roleplay a character who's good, evil, or somewhere inbetween, I really hate it when dialogue choices so blatantly go one way or the other, like in Mass Effect.

 

Having a unique reputation with every NPC in the game (or at least regionalised) would be preferable to some overall good/evil guage.

[Klaleara]

I'm not sure if people are not quite understanding. I'm against the blatant Good vs. evil, I would rather just have choices, that are simply that. I couldn't think of any other way to name the polls though lol. I'm more saying, I don't want to be simply "Good".

[NerdBoner]

I am beyond good and evil...

 

i typically play neutral characters now who can be swayed to either side depending on circumstance, convenience and personal code.

[LordCrash]

There's a lot of grey between black and white. I hope Obsidian knows that, too.

[Kaldurenik]

I dont want "good" or "evil" i want them to make the choices more... grey. There is no "right" choice.There are only choices... And then dealing with the consequences (or rewards) that come with it.

 

Now im fine with there being a "good/evil" choice once in a while. But overall i dont want "faction of whatever" to be good and "faction of evil" I want their viewpoints to be different in politics,viewpoints on magic,religion or whatever... Not just "we save kittens" and "we kick kittens for laughs".

[Merin]

I want there ranges of choices to make. "Good and evil" is just one, very limited, range. So I said "Yes" but I mean I want more choices and range.

 

I don't care if there's a morality meter or not. I don't love them, I don't hate them. So I'm indifferent, and chose I don't care.

 

I am agnostic on stats and such being affected by such choices / meters as well. It doesn't bother me if it's there, it doesn't bother me if it isn't. So, again, I chose I don't care.

[Ieo]

I'm not sure if people are not quite understanding. I'm against the blatant Good vs. evil, I would rather just have choices, that are simply that. I couldn't think of any other way to name the polls though lol. I'm more saying, I don't want to be simply "Good".

 

To be honest, I don't think there's anything to worry about with the devs at Obsidian in their track record for meaningful dialogue options in re good/evil/everything beyond. Out of the Obsidian games and the prior Black Isle games listed in their pedigree, have there been any blatantly binary good/evil games or games that didn't even offer the choice? So the first section of the poll is rather meaningless to me.

 

A better wording for the second poll would simply be "Should your ALIGNMENT be visible to you?" (I'd say no, but I'm less ornery about this than companion loyalty because my own character should not be black box to me.)

 

There was the general reputation number in the BG games, but I'd definitely like to see something much more relativistic and nuanced in PE, varying by culture, etc. This is an 'external' variable, though--in terms of alignment, if you want an externally fluid alignment based purely on your actions or statements, then PS:T did it right. You always started out with no alignment. The hard-coded alignments in BG never even came into play until...

 

As for stats/abilities... except for Hell in BG2, I can't think of any other game that does that by alignment. (?) It made more sense in PS:T when you couldn't use certain items requiring an alignment, and I wouldn't mind either way if something similar to that was implemented under the "soul" ideology somehow.

[TrashMan]

Grey choices and moral dillemas do not automaticly exclude good and evil.

 

For example, good and evil can exist as clear constants set by the main diety. You can disagree with them naturally, but that doesn't mean the rest of the populace will agree with you.

 

In the end people in the world will have some notions of good and evil.

Now wethter good and evil dieties exist and give power is another matter.

Weather your "morality" can be detected is also another.

 

 

I enjoyed both BG and DA:O and Witcher...so either way is fine with me.

[mayfaire]

I like having good/evil/neutral/whatever options, but I hate having them tracked by the game. Gaining good/evil points tempts me to watch how many points I get rather than roleplaying my character. I also don't like feeling I've picked the "evil" option, when to my mind (or my character's) it wasn't "evil" at all.

 

It'd be nice to not feel like I'm being punished for playing a neutral or borderline neutral character, too, unlike in games like Mass Effect and KotOR, where some skills or abilities are better depending on how nice or horrible you are. I'm not being indecisive, I'm roleplaying. Sometimes you just want to punch someone; doesn't mean you're always going to punch everyone. Or that you'd sell babies into slavery.

[SirthOsiris]

Maybe it should be like New Vegas without the karma? Different sets of beliefs trying to fight for power, and you're the wild card that will decide it?

[Skradacz]

i hate it when in games it is set upfront what is good and what is bad. every man sees it differently

[PsychoBlonde]

I voted no because binary choices are stupid. I would like to have some nuance in my games, thank you very much.

 

Indeed. I also hate it when good is "save the baby" and evil is "kick the baby". I can decide for myself which choice suits me, thank you very much, I don't need the Invisible GM Nanny handing out points for it.

 

Now, if you're asking a question like "do you want people to be able to run around kicking babies or do you want babies to be un-kickable", then, of course, let them kick the babies and eat old granny for breakfast if that's how they want to play. I don't, but that doesn't mean I need small children and old grandmothers to be immortal and indestructible. In this respect I do want there to be "good" and "evil" options. And I think it should affect you in the sense that if you murder old granny and eat her, the townspeople are going to look upon this unfavorably. Or possibly favorably it it's Cannibal Town. But it shouldn't give you bonus stats.

 

Games with karma meters are always so SHALLOW.

[eimatshya]

I don't really like it when games try to categorize your actions as either good or evil because such a system frequently fails to take into account the myriad factors that would actually have to be considered to judge your actions. This is exacerbated when your alignment affects gameplay since it penalizes roleplaying in favor of gaming the system. For example, in Star Wars:TOR I played as a Sith Inquisitor. The inquisitor back story is that she was a slave, but when it was discovered that she was force sensitive, she was sent to Korriban to train at the Sith Academy there. Since I was a Twi'lek who had until recently been enslaved by a bunch of xenophobic imperials who treated me like garbage, I reasoned that I probably wouldn't be overly fond of the Empire or the Sith. As such, when I had the option to hurt or humiliate an imperial, I usually took it. The game usually seemed to consider this "Light Side behavior", even though they were vengeful actions motivated by hatred and resentment (which seemed like straight up Dark Side to me). Apparently killing Sith automatically equals Light Side behavior, regardless of the motivations behind it.

 

*EDIT*

 

For example, early in the game I met this peasant who was complaining that someone was murdering other peasants. I doubted my Sith would give a **** about a bunch of peasants, but then I found out that it was a bunch of rich Sith students who were hunting peasants for sport. I was then given the option to kill the peasant to shut him up about the whole thing, or to tag some other Sith as hunting targets so that the rich Sith kids would accidentally attack other Sith, which is officially taboo. I figured my character would find it infinitely more amusing to trick a bunch of pompous, rich Sith into accidentally getting themselves executed, or at least humiliated, than to kill some random peasant who hadn't done anything to her. So, I chose to target the Sith. Even though the reasons behind my decision were definitely malicious, not altruistic, I got Light Side points. This probably made sense to the writers, given that I was stopping the sport hunting of humans, but it obviously failed to capture the nuances involved in people's decision making.

 

*END OF EDIT*

 

Anyway, since I often made Dark Side decisions in a number of other situations, my alignment meter had me pegged as mildly light side, even though I was roleplaying her as bitter and angry. Since the thought process behind my decisions did not line up with what the writers had envisioned, the game failed to accurately calculate her alignment. As such, I think it is better to allow players to decide whether their actions are good or evil, rather than the game.

 

That said, I do like having the option to take more than one moral stance on an issue (for convenience, let's say good, evil, and neutral options). I tried playing the public beta of Age of Decadence, and it seemed like the game was forcing you to be a self-serving opportunist. You didn't have the option of trying to rise above the decadence of the setting. I could see why the devs might want to write the game that way, but I found it boring to be forced to follow a set viewpoint.

 

So, I want the choices the game gives me to be varied enough for me to be good, evil, or neutral, but I don't want the game to interpret my actions for me, and give me good or evil points accordingly. I doubt we have to worry, though. The devs have already said they aren't going to use alignments, only reputations, and Obsidian has a great track record when it comes to capturing the complex nature of morality.

Edited September 24, 2012 by eimatshya

[kenup]

Thre should be a range of choices, not limited to clear cut good and evil(though being a jerk just for the lulz has its benefits , namely the lulz). Karma meters are really bad most of the time though. As for abilities based on moral choices(and not only in dialogue), they would be cool if done like Fallout(i.e. Childkiller), or Alpha Protocol.

[TimMc]

Binary morality is stupid. Most of all because its usually comical.

 

There should be a range of gray choices, each affecting a different group differently. The player must choose whose livelihood they value most. The Witcher 2, and somewhat the original, nailed this.

 

You should not get devil horns, a halo, access to better powers, or whatever based on your alignment. Your choices should affect relationships with others based on the choice itself and their opinions of it, not the alignment of said choice.

[Tychoxi]

they already said there won't be any "good/evil" measurement, the game will keep track of your stance with different factions (and companions).

[Scryer]

Good & evil, yes. Know however that the angels are mercyless in their kindness.

 

Also this*:

 

http://i50.tinypic.com/33xgahs.jpg

 

*giving credit where credit is due - taken from oglaf.com - (warning:NSFW)

Edited September 25, 2012 by Gorth
Sorry mate, nice pic, but no overt nudity, pixellated or otherwise (I put in the url instead)

[Nakia]

The concept of good and evil should be struck from the lexicon. They can do what they think is right or do what they think helps themselves. The character should be judged by their actions and how those actions affect those around them, not by their moral compass.

 

I like that.

[Darji]

This is not a "new" Bioware RPG people. So no of course not there should be no slider of some sort. But there should be choices for example joining a assassin or necromatic fraction for example which could open new advanced job classes like a necromant or a assassin.

 

However that means no slider for good and evil or colors for the answers.

[Umberlin]

You should have a variety of choices, open to you basedon what you've chosen/done and statistical factors. There shouldn't be a strict good evil divide with a good evil point counter. Your choices should have more variety and complexity than that. I want to get lost in the fog.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Umberlin

[Chaz]

I voted no because binary choices are stupid.

 

010001100111010101100011011010110010000001011001011011110111010100100001

Edited September 25, 2012 by Chaz