Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It should be noted that some attacks that most consider "non-lethal" can be quite lethal.

All unarmed combat for example should be "lethal", as you are really hurting someone.

"Non-lethal" should include magic-stun-things, sleep-gas, paralyzing/sleep-poison, and perhaps "soft"-choking (without crushing the throat).

 

I don't think anyone here demands that non-lethal methods are 100% effective.

 

A lot of people would love to TRY and take someone out..even if they fail.

 

In fact, when doing non-lethal damage, I would prefer that you don't get any penalites to hit - you just have a chance that you will inflict full normal damage.

Actually, any non-lethal attack should deal a small amount of real damage in additon to energy/stamina (or non-lethal) damage.


* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical situation: Village is being terrorized by marauding bandit types, local lord is at war (and most of the village men are serving in his army,) and can't be bothered to do anything about it. Your "non-lethal CQC tranq-dart takedowns only" character has volunteered to solve the problem. You go sneaking into the bandit camp, you choke them into unconsciousness. Now what? When they wake up they're not going to say "well we'd better leave those villagers alone, that guy who won't kill us is bound to stay there for the rest of his life and make robbing/raping those villagers impossible for that timespan!" You can't expect them to give up their lives of pillage and slaughter because they got knocked out that one night without getting drunk. What do you do, go back to the village and tell the women and children "all is well, sleep with your doors unlocked, your salvation has been guaranteed!" and move on?

 

This is why none lethal playthroughs in most games make no sense.

 

(not when armies are involved because they follow legal orders and have no choice)


Juneau & Alphecca Daley currently tearing up Tyria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-lethal takedowns can make sense for certain tactical / strategic reasons... But to have a character who is a complete pacifist, yet still gets involved in protecting other people from violence is.. unusual in certain settings.

 

I mean, I know historically you have buddhist belief stretching back for years, and elements of various martial artist practitioners who tried to practice non-violence whilst mastering certain physical talens... but extreme pacifism and philosophies revolving around how "bad" war, violence and such are tend to be a bit more "modern" ethical and morality concerns. During the middle ages to renaissance setting, high level pacifism would be..exceptionally unusual to develop considering the normal lifestyles and prominent attitudes. You tend to need more people not so concerned about getting the basics of food and shelter before they start worrying about morality of killing people who are doing bad things...

 

So setting up a complete way to play through a game non-lethally tends to make more sense in more modern day settings then in sword waving, spear chucking eras....


"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in the AGX-17 example you could still take away all their weapons and armor while unconscious.

While not dead, they are severly weakened so.

 

Wheter it will be enough to deter them to attack? That depends on the group itself. It may, it may not. Do you want to kill them all just to "make sure"? Go ahead.

 

That would work just fine for PE...


^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in the AGX-17 example you could still take away all their weapons and armor while unconscious.

While not dead, they are severly weakened so.

 

Wheter it will be enough to deter them to attack? That depends on the group itself. It may, it may not. Do you want to kill them all just to "make sure"? Go ahead.

 

That would work just fine for PE...

 

How is your stealth CQC I didn't ask for this chokehold takedown character going to carry it all? How are you going to sneak up on them if you have enough companions to carry it all? What's to stop them from getting more? They've probably got enough sneak-thieves among them to steal more and get back to business. A gang of unarmed thugs might be less of a threat than a gang of armed thugs, but they still outnumber and outgun a typical civilian.

 

I just want to make this clear:

 

I'm not necessarily advocating the ability to play a full-pacifist playthrough, nor am I debating the ethics and wisdom of a character just knocking out everyone they have to fight. I am also absolutely not pushing for the stealth and nonlethal takedown mechanics from modern console stealth games and shooter/RPG hybrids to be ripped off wholesale and imported into an IE-styled cRPG, that would be absurd. All I'm asking for here is the ability to define what level of force is actually necessary when I have to use it, even if the difference between killing a dude and knocking him out is purely cosmetic.

 

Then why label the thread "on pacifism and the nonlethal takedown"?

Edited by AGX-17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best reasons for pacifism options are looked for in pen and paper and are generally more narratively driven than gameplay wise. There are various scenarios where knocking someone out rather than exploding them into giblets is more useful - you want to interrogate someone for info, you want to do the old "rob but don't kill to keep the money flowing" thing or there is a bandit leader who you are fed up of him hassling you, but he is too useful to kill. Maybe you just want a tavern brawl without having to go to prison for murder.

 

From a gameplay perspective though, it is tricky - as you either have to have non-lethal be an option in all fights regardless of whether its beneficial to do so (and so you end up with a big pile of unconcious bodies who don't react) or whether it'd just be better to do it in narrative and have the fight turn to dialogue when enemy HP hits a certain level in fights where this is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why label the thread "on pacifism and the nonlethal takedown"?

 

Because it was the name I came up with at 6 AM after finishing Dishonored and I thought it was a nice name at the time before I'd actually written my post. If you take offense to this name I apologize.

Edited by Ralewyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is your stealth CQC I didn't ask for this chokehold takedown character going to carry it all?

Rogue takes them all down, fighters lift away the hoard.

It's not like this is a single-character game.

And if you really cannot carry one can always demolish, though that might lessen the reward.

How are you going to sneak up on them if you have enough companions to carry it all?

Splitting up the team?

What's to stop them from getting more?

Their weakened status and time. But yes, eventually they would probably be strong again. As stated, if you fear that you can just kill them. However it's not really required if all they do is threatnen the city. Heck, they might even be useful to people since they clear dangerous monsters plaguing near where their hideout is...

They've probably got enough sneak-thieves among them to steal more and get back to business.

According to your description, that didn't seem the case. However it might be. Does that need the player to evaluate his opinion? Up to the player. And suffer the consequences. One way or the other. Which is better than a forced "kill them all".

A gang of unarmed thugs might be less of a threat than a gang of armed thugs, but they still outnumber and outgun a typical civilian.

That's why armed guards and adventurers live in cities to protect the typical civilian. Think Flaming Fist.


^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am definitely for the pacifist non-lethal approach, although it will probably only work outside of combat mechanics in a game like PE. Usually through dialogue choices or using certain ablities to convince or pacify hostile NPCs.

 

Also I'd like to have combat and especially killing remain meaningful and kind of rare, because slaughtering dozens of people isn't exactly what I'd call immersive or authentic, and very far from realistic. Just because this game has roots in DnD doesn't mean it has to be a boring grindfest or hack'n slay. Bring back the roleplaying element and I don't mean by roleplaying managing stats and leveling up your character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I’m not a big fan of non-lethal options. Most of them don’t make any sense (what do they put in those tranquilizers? Because it knocks everyone down with perfect reliability and no risk of overdose.) Or they’re just really impractical (you can take a guy down with a choke hold. You cannot take fifty guys down in a row, in an hour, without any coming to, fighting you off or managing to sound an alarm.) This isn’t just about that most fickle beast called realism, but more about consistency. It all too often feels like human biology is being selectively altered just to allow a pacifist run.

 

I’m also not big on it as far as morality goes but I admit that my philosophy of ‘sometimes you just got to kill people’ isn’t for everyone. I just find that knocking people out is harder than killing them. If I can resolve the threat without ever having to take a life, then the threat wasn’t all that threatening. Imagine the Fellowship painstakingly knocking out every single ork because they might not all be evil. Or James Bond having to evacuate every building before causing it to spontaneously explode like they’d plastered it with nitro-glycerine.

Edited by Deathman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hypothetical situation: Village is being terrorized by marauding bandit types, local lord is at war (and most of the village men are serving in his army,) and can't be bothered to do anything about it. Your "non-lethal CQC tranq-dart takedowns only" character has volunteered to solve the problem. You go sneaking into the bandit camp, you choke them into unconsciousness. Now what? When they wake up they're not going to say "well we'd better leave those villagers alone, that guy who won't kill us is bound to stay there for the rest of his life and make robbing/raping those villagers impossible for that timespan!" You can't expect them to give up their lives of pillage and slaughter because they got knocked out that one night without getting drunk. What do you do, go back to the village and tell the women and children "all is well, sleep with your doors unlocked, your salvation has been guaranteed!" and move on?

 

Maybe hand them over to the local authorities?


Elan_song.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pacifism should be, like vegetarianism, spat and looked down upon. Not necessarily by us, but certainly by factions in the game.

 

Use diplomacy? Lose reputation. Or at least suffer in standing with a certain faction. Oh, but I hear the masses howling. Well, at least some snide remarks should be directed at you if you peacefully solve a quest that had originally intended you to kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pacifism should be, like vegetarianism, spat and looked down upon. Not necessarily by us, but certainly by factions in the game.

 

Use diplomacy? Lose reputation. Or at least suffer in standing with a certain faction. Oh, but I hear the masses howling. Well, at least some snide remarks should be directed at you if you peacefully solve a quest that had originally intended you to kill.

 

Well, definitely tied to the different factions. You should never punish a player for a certain approach. While it might add some challenge to the pacifist-cause it's also really frustrating if you can't do a proper playthrough because everyone hates you just because you've been nice. o.O


Elan_song.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pacifism should be, like vegetarianism, spat and looked down upon. Not necessarily by us, but certainly by factions in the game.

 

Use diplomacy? Lose reputation. Or at least suffer in standing with a certain faction. Oh, but I hear the masses howling. Well, at least some snide remarks should be directed at you if you peacefully solve a quest that had originally intended you to kill.

 

Well, definitely tied to the different factions. You should never punish a player for a certain approach. While it might add some challenge to the pacifist-cause it's also really frustrating if you can't do a proper playthrough because everyone hates you just because you've been nice. o.O

 

It's just about balance. Like it has been said, diplomacy is too often akin to an insta-win button. You shouldn't always get patted on the head for it on top of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fallout 2 has a perfect pacifist run where you never kill anyone. It can be done. The thing is, you can't obviously expect pacifism to work in all situations. It works in FO2 because you don't need to complete every quest, complete every objective, do /everything/ in order to beat the game or major parts of the story. Or if you do, there is a non-aggressive means to doing it.

 

As for knocking out enemies... I think it's fine, though it poses a balance problem. Sleeping darts and knockout magic are probably potent (are we expecting players to shoot people with 20 darts before they finally keel over?), so to balance their potency, they probably need to be risky or expensive to use.

 

I also think that knocked out opponents should be able to regain consciousness under some circumstances, otherwise there's little difference between killing someone and knocking them out. Which feels lame (as Dishonored recently demonstrates).


I made a 2 hour rant video about dragon age 2. It's not the greatest... but if you want to watch it, here ya go:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that sometimes pacifism isn't a viable solution and would probably border ont he absurd, but what I'd like to see is at least having more of those nonlethal options when dealing with potentially hostile NPCs. I think the main problem is how willing people are to just kill someone because we are used to slaughter hundreds of creatures in those games as a daily routine. It completely sucks all the meaning out of combat and there is also usually no consequences attached to going that route.

 

I mean, who would mourn a group of gnolls you stumbled across your journeys? Or a whole outpost of them? Or maybe their entire tribe? It's a bit sad that we have come to expect killing as the only logical choice and approach in most siutations and I really would like to see a bit of change here.

 

At least add consequences to all the killing your PC and his companions do. If you wipe out enough members of a specific race/tribe/faction you will be known and hunted by every surviving member of that tribe and also their allies.

 

I know it is probably wishful thinking, but imagine for a moment that you spared the group of gnolls that you crossed paths with. You defeated them but at the end decided to let them live, stating that you generally have no quarrel with them unless attacked first. It might make an impression that later on could lead to sidequests with that particual tribe of gnolls and maybe even earn you somewhere along the way the title of PC the Friend of Gnolls.

 

Of course, as someone already said, there are also sometimes those moments, where you just gotta kill 'em all. But, please...it does not always have to be the only choice.

Edited by DreamDancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to kill everything using a dazzling array of martial techniques and arcane instruments of slaughter. I want to cleanse the remains with fire. I want to stalk the earth like a fell apocalypse made flesh. I want to, literally, feast on souls.

 

So frankly this topic isn't working for me but I will happily slay you pacifist types and teach you a lesson.


sonsofgygax.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know it is probably wishful thinking, but imagine for a moment that you spared the group of gnolls that you crossed paths with. You defeated them but at the end decided to let them live, stating that you generally have no quarrel with them unless attacked first. It might make an impression that later on could lead to sidequests with that particual tribe of gnolls and maybe even earn you somewhere along the way the title of PC the Friend of Gnolls.

That would be awesome... but probably unfeasible for this title for now... :(


^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because the team doesn't add specific pacifist options for encounters doesn't mean a pacifist playthrough would be impossible. Running away is just as pacifist as talking your enemy down or sneaking past. I've managed to get pretty far in some combat focused games (not only RPGs) by exploiting the AI's targetting and kiting enemies with a hasted rogue so the rest of the party can just walk on ahead.

 

Anyway, if Nethack can be completed as a pacifist, why wouldn't it be possible in Project Eternity? And don't go quoting that avelone guy. After the game gets released we'll see just how badly it can be broken, and what can and can't be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To make things really interesting, sometimes the "pacifist" option should be the "best" option, in the sens that you get the best reward with the least effort. but sometimes it should have a cost - maybe in gold, but maybe in reputation or other ways.

 

However, I don't want only "bloodless" options - I would like to see scenarios like these.

  • You sneak into an enemy camp, and manipulate things so that the enemy group ends up in an internal fight - and when only a few weakened survivors are left standing, you walk in and wipe them out easily.
  • You bribe a guard to let you in through a backdoor, so you can get in and loot the place, instead of having to do a full-scale assault on the place.
  • You convince a raiding group to go back to their homeland, and help them taking some of your current enemies back with them as slaves.

To me it is all about accomplishing the goal, using the "best" method in each case...but sometimes the only viable method is simple you hack your opponents into small pieces. I just want alternatives, whenever feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most RPGs are fine as they as they are.

 

In KOTOR 2, nameless Siths in masks, who are trained expert assassins and have killed many before, volunteerly attacks you, a Jedi. Their training says you're a capable opponent, and they know what they're about to get into. They have every chance to back away, but still choose to ambush and attack you. It's not a morally wrong choice to pick up the Jedi weapon that they predicted you would use, and slash them down in an expected fashion. They got EXACTLY what they wanted to see from you, and someone has to bring justice to them. Enemy guards who attack you on sight usually have enough 'evil points' to warrant a swift execution from you since you don't have time to perform a mass arrest. :p "I am the law!"

 

However, I'm happy that with more three-diemensional characters, you can give those a chance to back off. I like in games, where enemy soldiers sees you easily wailing down their companions, and instead of fighting you, they start a dialouge with you, sharing a desire to flee from you.

 

EDIT: Still. Having the options Frisk just mentioned are very welcomed. I generally do avoid bloodshed whenever possible, just for the sake of life preserving.

Edited by -Zin-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't unarmed attacks deal subdual damage in NWN (unless you were a monk or had the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, that is)?


"We have nothing to fear but fear itself! Apart from pain... and maybe humiliation. And obviously death and failure. But apart from fear, pain, humiliation, failure, the unknown and death, we have nothing to fear but fear itself!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't unarmed attacks deal subdual damage in NWN (unless you were a monk or had the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, that is)?

 

In general D&D, yes. NWN the computer game, no.

 

Mrm.. there were certain scripted special fights that stopped when the enemy reached low HP. You could now offer the enemy mercy, or to kill him in a very evil manner. Though you could offer mercy to some, you did kill a lot of enemies. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't unarmed attacks deal subdual damage in NWN (unless you were a monk or had the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, that is)?

 

In general D&D, yes. NWN the computer game, no.

 

Mrm.. there were certain scripted special fights that stopped when the enemy reached low HP. You could now offer the enemy mercy, or to kill him in a very evil manner. Though you could offer mercy to some, you did kill a lot of enemies. :p

 

Ah. My memory must be going.


"We have nothing to fear but fear itself! Apart from pain... and maybe humiliation. And obviously death and failure. But apart from fear, pain, humiliation, failure, the unknown and death, we have nothing to fear but fear itself!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one might be a little goofy, but here goes:

 

I love the nonlethal approach.

 

Don't suppose there's anyone out there who shares my sentiment?

EDIT: Still. Having the options Frisk just mentioned are very welcomed. I generally do avoid bloodshed whenever possible, just for the sake of life preserving.

 

I share opinion that non-lethal option (like persuade or stun weapon) is very good. Using of stealth skill (like in Lionheart) often not enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...