Virtue is its own Reward

[agewisdom]

One common bug-bear of mine in PC games (not just cRPGs) is how picking the Good/Correct options always leads to good rewards. Sometimes, the reward in terms of XP or loot is even better than that where one takes the selfish/evil route.

 

Is it possible for certain quests (where it makes sense and fits in with the lore), where choosing the Good/Correct action leads to significant loss to the PC. Good actions are supposed to be selfless ones where the PC makes great personal sacrifices for the common/greater good. However, most fantasy games/novels don't really reflect the gravity of such actions or sacrifices.

 

An example:

A number of villagers in a remote village has be afflicted by a strange illness. No one knows its' method of transmission. All they know is that it causes a painful death in a few days. These villagers have been quarantined and are awaiting death. There are a a few that have survived the disease but they are terribly weakened by the disease. One of them is the doctor at the outskirt of the quarrantine area. After talking to him, the PC discovers that there is a possible cure but he must risk his own life to enter the village as the cure requires a sample of boils on the villagers.

 

Doing this noble task should (realistically):

1. Increase one's fame (slightly) and strengthen one's soul; but...

 

2. Such a selfless act is not without its' consequences. Depending on the PC's resistance and constitution a random roll can be made. Effects could include:

(a) Permanent loss of constitution as the PC is sickly for a large duration of the game;

(b) Temporary loss of constituion but PC recovers slowely over the course of the game;

© Permanent loss of charisma as the PC is disfigured whilst fighting of the disease...

 

The main idea is for the Good/Correct choice to carry some adverse consequences. Just like in real life, being selfless and noble may be good for everyone else, it may not be the best choice for the PC. The PC's companions should also weigh in on his decision. Would they follow him into the village or sit this one out?

[Althernai]

Both Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate 2 had this kind of scenario (the Pillar of Skulls in PS:T and the test of the Selfish demon at the end of BG2). However, it must be used very sparingly because for a lot of people, much of the gratification from the game comes from the quest rewards. Also, if you do it often, you will have game balance problems.

[agewisdom]

Yes, I think your feedback captures the mood of gamers accurately. We all just want to wind down and enjoy a good cRPG without being reminded of "Real Life" . Definitely agree that it should be used sparingly and the possible consequences be CLEARLY spelled out. If possible, the PC's companions should voice out their reservations.

 

Still, it would be nice for us players to be surprised that... hey choosing the Good/Right actions doesn't ALWAYS turn out for the best, ALL the time... At least it makes the players pause a bit before making his/her decision.

[SanguineAngel]

I am with you there. And I like your specific example. However, as Althernai points out - having a lot of outcomes reducing stats could cause significant balance issues.

 

There are a few things that occur to me here:

 

1) The outcome of quests fundamentally changing your character is fantastic - it draws you, makes you feel affected by your choices or external influences on your character and even a negative change develops your character.

 

2) To counter those balance issues of doing it too often, I'd say you could more frequently have a positive and negative impact - receiving a significant bonus to one skill or stat whilst receiving a knockback elsewhere. Having said that, even solving balance issues, you'd want to limit the occurrence of such events purely so that they do not lose narrative impact.

 

3) Beyond these large stat changing effects, your point has a wider relevance to the morality question that has been raised on this board already numerous times previously. People by and large seem to be crying out for more moral ambiguity, which is great. Leading on from this, there shouldn't be a "correct choice", simply the choice you make. Therefore, rewards, loot & consequences shouldn't be weighted in any particular area. Certainly, some rewards might be better than others for specific instances but on the whole, you should be punished for playing a selfish character any more than playing a selfless character, although the nature of your rewards may lean in a direction more than another, encouraging & helping you to maintain your role. Likewise, this would mean that if you change your character (selfish changes heart and becomes selfless) then you are rewarded appropriately and your character develops in that direction.

 

 

Yes, I think your feedback captures the mood of gamers accurately. We all just want to wind down and enjoy a good cRPG without being reminded of "Real Life" ™. Definitely agree that it should be used sparingly and the possible consequences be CLEARLY spelled out. If possible, the PC's companions should voice out their reservations.

 

Still, it would be nice for us players to be surprised that... hey choosing the Good/Right actions doesn't ALWAYS turn out for the best, ALL the time... At least it makes the players pause a bit before making his/her decision.

 

Hrm, I would disagree with you that consequences need be clearly spelled out. Although it looks like you understand why already. I'd say that instead consequences must always make logical sense, so that we can be satisfied as an audience and as a player with our decision.

 

Just some thoughts. In case it didn't make much sense:

 

I think that moral choices should be subtle and the consequence unpredictable. They should reward you appropriately for your choices throughout the game, so that as you progress, your character reflects the choices you have made and encourages you to "stay in character".

Edited September 26, 2012 by SanguineAngel

[Lysen]

there shouldn't be a "correct choice", simply the choice you make

 

Good point. Knowing Obsidian, I am sure they will do this right.

[agewisdom]

Dear Sanguine Angel,

 

The perils of written communication... I agree with your thoughtful post. You explained this more eloquently than me. Even better is your thoughtful comment on keeping track of the PC's responses throughout the entire game. If the PC plays a selfless character, then both he and his world change accordingly. Certain factions and companions may treat him better due to their affinity whilst others may be more hostile. However, not sure whether this could be easily implemented or not.

 

***

 

When I said the consequences should be CLEARLY spelt out, I meant in terms of the repercussions of the PC's actions. We're both in agreement here. Using my above example of entering an infected village, the consequence should be clearly spelt out in terms:

 

1. You're entering a highly risky area with a very real threat of infection;

2. The consequences could be injury, loss of constitution, disfigurement or even death....

 

However, in terms of actual statistics or outcome - such as -2 to constitution etc... this would not be spelt out... So long as in your own words "consequences must always make logical sense, so that we can be satisfied as an audience and as a player with our decision", it should be good enough.

 

What is needed is a balance between a fair warning and subtlety. For some gamers, they may be very UPSET that there's negative consequences especially when we're always so used to having good outcomes for good actions.

Edited September 26, 2012 by agewisdom

[teknoman2]

there was a dungeon in divinity 2 where you were faced with magical challenges of morals. if you did the good choices, you would lose some stats and the reward would be a fairly crappy sword by my equip standards at the time. if you did the bad choices you would get no reward at the end but would lose no stats and maybe get some gold on the way.

so it balanced out in the end

but the most important thing in a mature rpg is to NOT have clear indications of what is right and what is wrong. you have to figure it out for yourself and probably what is right for you, may be wrong for someone else and in the end deal with the results of your actions

[anek]

I like this idea too. I think the effect it has on the game balance can be counterbalanced to some extent by making good reputation actually mean something.

 

E.g. lets say if you always take the selfish root, never take risk to help others, kill everyone instead of cooperating with them, etc, then you will get more loot and endure no sacrifices like permanent loss of stat points or things like that - however, many side quests will become unavailable to you, you will not have allies in difficult boss fights, many shopkeepers won't sell to you, etc.

 

So it will be:

evil route --> higher immediate reward guaranteed

good route --> you may be indirectly rewarded in the long-term, but it's not guaranteed

Edited September 26, 2012 by anek

[Jarmo]

Hear, hear!

 

One of my dislikes is the "rewarding scene" where you're offered gold or a magic item for your services.

 

If the offer is The Item and you go all noble and modest and refuse, the result is always the same.

"Oh, you're so gallant, but I insist" you get the item and +500 extra XP.

 

If the offer is money, you can usually:

 

- take the 500gp as offered

- be greedy and insist on 750gp, which you will get.

- ask for no reward, and get 500XP goody bonus (and probably the 500gp as well)

 

Basically I'd like to see a world where you can't help all the poor by spending 3% of your wealth.

Try to solve the worlds problems and go bankrupt. But be known as a saint.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Jarmo

[agewisdom]

I like this idea too. I think the effect it has on the game balance can be counterbalanced to some extent by making good reputation actually mean something.

 

E.g. lets say if you always take the selfish root, never take risk to help others, kill everyone instead of cooperating with them, etc, then you will get more loot and endure no sacrifices like permanent loss of stat points or things like that - however, many side quests will become unavailable to you, you will not have allies in difficult boss fights, many shopkeepers won't sell to you, etc.

 

So it will be:

evil route --> higher immediate reward guaranteed

good route --> you may be indirectly rewarded in the long-term, but it's not guaranteed

 

Yes, this is what I'm thinking. However, taking the good route should be ardous and if they are any good or indirect rewards later... it should be very much later in the game, so that the player can't quit and reload.