Region Relations- A Suggestion

[Dashwood]

One thing that bugs me slightly in games in the "Black White Grey" Morality systems, games like Mass Effect being the worst. Don't get me wrong, I loved those games, but the problem was in the "Blue Red" Morality, they even made it easy to choose via their wheel system. The result was inevitable, choose Blue and you get long term rewards, choose red you get short term rewards and a badass.

 

Best example, metaphor for the whole cracked system was in the "Scars" of Mass Effect 2, the more bad things you did the more scars you got, the more good the less.

 

Unfortunately, real life don't work like that, people who stick their heads out for others often lose them, or have hidden agenda, people who selfishly manipulate others will, if they're good enough, make dem millions.

 

I think PE should reflect on this, players who selflessly follow the "Good" path should be beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the Tyranny of Evil Men. However Evil dudes should, by and large, have it easy for large sections (at the cost of alienating companions and screwing over communities). The Ending should reflect this, people who selfishly acquire whatever they can should lead to absolute destruction of the societies they operated within (after all, PC's are supposed to be amazing characters, they should have an huge influence on these societies) and Characters who act meekly and modestly should cause prosperity ect etc etc.

 

 

However it shouldn't be that simple. Societies around the world are somewhat separated from another when it comes to the Morals they hold close, the Chivalric code, for example, is a literal world away from the Japanese Bushido code, there are some parallels but many differences (IE Suicide vs Ransom)

 

So I'll use a quick example to demonstrate what I would like (sorry about the jumble)

 

there are three nations, A, B and C

 

A has no natural resources and a rocky local terrain. because of it's somewhat disadvantaged situation, it's main source of income is raiding nations B and C. because of this people who are agile and strong are venerated, those who help the weak are either tolerated (if foreigners) or hated (if within the tribes/clans, wasting of good resources! shocking!).

 

B has some metal deposits, but these are of poorer quality, and large well watered floodplains. it has a feudal structure, but due to frequent peasant revolts has a somewhat liberal outlook. those who work for the greater good, and don't try to laud their own achievements, are considered good folk, those who take advantage of others are branded as criminals, and those who act selfishly are received coldly.

 

C has large deposits of Iron, and is a coastal power. it is a republic, and is more wealthy than A and B. it places no moral emphasis on giving or taking, individual citizens decide their opinions in regards to this. However, people who break oaths and the like are regarded with scorn (due to the damage a break of contract could do)

 

We'll use three example adventures and place them in each nation to see what reaction they get.

 

Alpha takes what he wants at the point of a sword, but will flee if he encounters anything stronger

 

Beta is meek, and gives freely, he fights for his own moral compass (as it were)

 

Gamma is a shrewd businessman, he will take what he can but always sticks to his word.

 

Alpha will be worshipped in A, possibly even becoming the leader of a tribe, in B he will be a criminal no matter where he turns, and in C he could only succeed as a Mercenary and even then chances are he would be kicked out soon enough

 

Beta will be a hero in nation B, his virtues match their own, in Nation A he will be treated with suspicion, and due to his nature probably only be able to trade, if he was a native he would have been hounded out of said nation by now. in Nation C he will live an average life, he won't succeed but he won't be killed outright either.

 

Gamma will have a good chance to succeed in nation C in Nation B he will be treated with suspicion, his selfishness will not appeal to the majority, and in nation A he would probably succeed best in short spurts, too long and he will be crushed by someone stronger.

 

 

Its very basic, but do you guys get the gist?

[Shardbearer]

I agree with you on most of your points, however I would want it to be even less predictable. You never know how individuals may react to your actions, or how circumstances may change for nations/organizations involved. I think it'd be great if you tried to make a choice now that you'd think the people would favor but the people end up turning against you for it later, or it doesn't quite work out. The unpredictability of the final outcomes and consequences basically allows you to make your decisions regarding the situation at hand instead of tallying up "good points or bad points"