Good vs Evil

[jezz555]

The reason why most RPGs are black/white and have that "physiognomy of evil" is the D&D alignment system, which doesn't really have shades of grey when it comes to evil. Yes, you have those shades with neutral and chaotic/lawful, but it's not the same as in The Witcher for example. The good and evil conflict is stupid anyways, I think what's better is to give the player guilt-free choices on which the player can reflect without feeling that "Oh, an ethics twist!" like in most Star Trek: TNG episodes. I feel that many RPGs put guilt into any decision subtextually so people can never mess up what they do.

 

So I should have choices that produce no emotional responses in me? How...um...compelling?

 

'I want a completely emotionless dry game where no themes of morality play a part'

 

That cannot be what you are getting at but I cannot piece this one together.

 

That is abundantly clear.

 

The idea is that rather than the game telling you which actions are good and which are bad, you do whatever you feel your character would, and decide for yourself whether your actions were good or bad. The whole "shades of gray" thing, is not having the morality of others spoon-fed to you. What is good, what is evil? If you think an action is good, who are the dev's to disagree with you and give you evil-guy-points? Maybe by murdering the innkeepers son you were saving the world from the tyrannical dictator your character knew he would become. Maybe by robbing the merchant's wagon you were actually exacting justice on the corrupt greedy fat-cats of the medieval world, who are they to judge? There would still be "themes of morality". It would just be up to you to figure out what you considered moral.

 

 

 

Just throwing this question to the air, why does everyone seem to prefer "gray" morality choices and keeps bringing up The Witcher as the shining example of it? Is it because they think that it's more mature and realistic?

 

I can't comment on The Witcher as I never beat it, but I can give you a few reasons why "gray" morality is superior.

 

1. More role-play options. Instead of being forced to stick to one alignment you can break the mould occasionally, and react based on your emotional response rather than a decision you made at the beginning of the game that you wanted to play an **** or a nice-guy.

 

2. Yes, more realism. Occasionally things are not as they appear, a quick detect-alignment spell can't determine whether or not the king your making a deal with is going to stab you in the back. Only the rumours you've heard and your own intuition can tell you that and sometimes even those can be decieving. Sometimes the orc won't try to kill and eat you, it's up to the orc, not the coding that says he's got to be mean.

 

3. Yes, a more mature narrative. You learn not to classify people by the big ugly scar on their face or the fact that they have black hair and spikes on their armour, and instead you judge them as living breathing individuals.

 

It's a fairly easy step that makes the game a lot more immersive, and imo a lot more fun. If you think alignment's somehow provide a superior gaming experience I'd love to hear your argument.

[Orogun01]

I can't comment on The Witcher as I never beat it, but I can give you a few reasons why "gray" morality is superior.

 

1. More role-play options. Instead of being forced to stick to one alignment you can break the mould occasionally, and react based on your emotional response rather than a decision you made at the beginning of the game that you wanted to play an **** or a nice-guy.

 

2. Yes, more realism. Occasionally things are not as they appear, a quick detect-alignment spell can't determine whether or not the king your making a deal with is going to stab you in the back. Only the rumours you've heard and your own intuition can tell you that and sometimes even those can be decieving. Sometimes the orc won't try to kill and eat you, it's up to the orc, not the coding that says he's got to be mean.

 

3. Yes, a more mature narrative. You learn not to classify people by the big ugly scar on their face or the fact that they have black hair and spikes on their armour, and instead you judge them as living breathing individuals.

 

It's a fairly easy step that makes the game a lot more immersive, and imo a lot more fun. If you think alignment's somehow provide a superior gaming experience I'd love to hear your argument.

See, here's what I don't get: Grey morality doesn't eliminate good and evil possibilities it just renders them inert by making it a lose lose situation. So why would anyone prefer a system that takes away choice from them by making them meaningless?

Grey morality is made up of choices of no consequence because any choice of sufficient impact will have an effect on the world either for the better or the worse and as soon as people tear themselves away from an idyllic perception of virtue they will probably see that just because you don't get rainbows at the end doesn't mean that it isn't the good way to go.

[SophosTheWise]

The reason why most RPGs are black/white and have that "physiognomy of evil" is the D&D alignment system, which doesn't really have shades of grey when it comes to evil. Yes, you have those shades with neutral and chaotic/lawful, but it's not the same as in The Witcher for example. The good and evil conflict is stupid anyways, I think what's better is to give the player guilt-free choices on which the player can reflect without feeling that "Oh, an ethics twist!" like in most Star Trek: TNG episodes. I feel that many RPGs put guilt into any decision subtextually so people can never mess up what they do.

 

So I should have choices that produce no emotional responses in me? How...um...compelling?

 

'I want a completely emotionless dry game where no themes of morality play a part'

 

That cannot be what you are getting at but I cannot piece this one together.

The reason why most RPGs are black/white and have that "physiognomy of evil" is the D&D alignment system, which doesn't really have shades of grey when it comes to evil. Yes, you have those shades with neutral and chaotic/lawful, but it's not the same as in The Witcher for example. The good and evil conflict is stupid anyways, I think what's better is to give the player guilt-free choices on which the player can reflect without feeling that "Oh, an ethics twist!" like in most Star Trek: TNG episodes. I feel that many RPGs put guilt into any decision subtextually so people can never mess up what they do.

I think it would be better if they did it so that you can have guilty decisions, decisions which actually would make you feel something, rather than just option a,b,c which do nothing to the player.

 

I think you guys misunderstood me. I don't want dry, unemotional decisionmaking, but I also don't want decisions that shove the guilt in my face for making a reasonable decision. I don't want a game to teach me ethics, I want a game to challenge me ethically. I just don't like these in-your-face-decisions, I'd rather have things on which I have to reflect on myself than the game solving those problems for me.

[forgottenlor]

See, here's what I don't get: Grey morality doesn't eliminate good and evil possibilities it just renders them inert by making it a lose lose situation. So why would anyone prefer a system that takes away choice from them by making them meaningless?

Grey morality is made up of choices of no consequence because any choice of sufficient impact will have an effect on the world either for the better or the worse and as soon as people tear themselves away from an idyllic perception of virtue they will probably see that just because you don't get rainbows at the end doesn't mean that it isn't the good way to go.

 

Obviously there are individuals who are selfish or selfless (though unfortunately more of the former), but when you come to an organization, this isn't so. Some of the knights in the Witcher were racists, others were people trying to protect their community. Some members of the Sco'etal were embittered murderers, others were freedom fighters. I think D&D has orders of Paladins and churches which are almost all good, or all evil, simply because of the alignment system. Look at real life churches though. There are people who dedicate their lives to helping others and those who embezzle money, making a profit from the fears of others. There are probably also a lot of people who do good things when presented wth one choice, and are selfish when another choice is presented.

 

For that reason I find a lack of absolute good and evil is more realistic than a system where you have to choose between good or evil.

Edited November 27, 2012 by forgottenlor

[Malekith]

Or to go on a rampage and wipe out entire cities. Thats not evil its lunatic

 

There are all sorts of very rational reasons to wipe out entire cities. History suggests once you wipe out a couple the amount of fighting you have to do going forward is pretty dramatically reduced.

Except you are not an army on invasion but a lone wanderer or a party of six people.

[Bos_hybrid]

For that reason I find a lack of absolute good and evil is more realistic than a system where you have to choose between good or evil.

 

Really I find it less realistic because of this, it removes bad and good people/choices and replaces them with one choice/personality, grey.

 

Realistically some factions/characters should be grey, but not every single one. We should have characters like Kreia, but we should also have characters like One of Many, Bishop, etc. Not just paint every character in one colour.

 

And lets not forget the worse thing grey mortality does, the removal of being the villain. It forces the player to be the hero.

[Malekith]

For that reason I find a lack of absolute good and evil is more realistic than a system where you have to choose between good or evil.

 

Really I find it less realistic because of this, it removes bad and good people/choices and replaces them with one choice/personality, grey.

 

Realistically some factions/characters should be grey, but not every single one. We should have characters like Kreia, but we should also have characters like One of Many, Bishop, etc. Not just paint every character in one colour.

 

And lets not forget the worse thing grey mortality does, the removal of being the villain. It forces the player to be the hero.

its seems to me that people have different ideas on what grey morality means.Grey morality doesn't mean that there are no good or bad people, but that there are realistic motives behind them and not evil for the sake of evil or good just because they have a messiah complex.For me a good excamble of grey morality are the Song of ice and Fire books.I would like PE to follow a similar approach

Edited November 27, 2012 by Malekith

[Orogun01]

Obviously there are individuals who are selfish or selfless (though unfortunately more of the former), but when you come to an organization, this isn't so. Some of the knights in the Witcher were racists, others were people trying to protect their community. Some members of the Sco'etal were embittered murderers, others were freedom fighters. I think D&D has orders of Paladins and churches which are almost all good, or all evil, simply because of the alignment system. Look at real life churches though. There are people who dedicate their lives to helping others and those who embezzle money, making a profit from the fears of others. There are probably also a lot of people who do good things when presented wth one choice, and are selfish when another choice is presented.

 

For that reason I find a lack of absolute good and evil is more realistic than a system where you have to choose between good or evil.

Moral relativism doesn't necessarily exclude good and evil and that its where gray morality seems to fail at times. The first Witcher game is a failure in that term in that both choices just different shades of the same evil, luckily you could always go at it on your own which was the more sensible choice (plus, nun threesome).

My point is simple, even in a ****ed up situation, there is still good and evil choice though not in absolutes. A perfectly gray situation where there is no real good or wrong is of little consequence, there is always degrees of choices.

[BetrayTheWorld]

In most games( IE games and original Fallouts included) the "good" options awarded better than the evil ones.That doesn't make sense.Unless they are mentaly unstable psychopaths, in real life most people don't do ''evil'' deeds just for the kicks of it but for selfish reasons. They do it because being evil rewards better then do the good thing. This isn't an absolute case of course. But when it makes sense the evil option to gain you more than the good one(most of the time,after all what exactly is the "evil option" if not to put your personal gain above the good of others) it must reflected in the game.

I think it will lead to more interesting choices in the gameplay if the player has to sacrifise something (gold,information,...)to uphold his principles, as well as cases that there is no clear good or bad solution.

 

Well said, sir or madam.

[Bos_hybrid]

its seems to me that people have different ideas on what grey morality means.Grey morality doesn't mean that there are no good or bad people, but that there are realistic motives behind them

 

That not how it works in games though.

 

In games, when grey mortality is decided upon, everyone/thing becomes grey. The players is beat over the head with this fact and most choices are rendered irrelevant or just not given.

 

Few games haven't gone down this path, when going 'grey'. Go play any game that is 'grey' and find a companion like One of Many or Bishop. Then see if you can be the villain or evil. You'll find it's a no on all accounts.

 

not evil for the sake of evil

 

Some people just want to see the world burn. There is nothing flawed or shallow about this archetype, just how it's written.

[PsychoBlonde]

In real life I selfishly pursue the good because the rewards are, in real life, much better.

 

What sort of "evil" could I perpetrate that would have great rewards? Rob a bank? Most bank robbers get caught. And money isn't everything. I wouldn't look forward to a life spent lying about the source of my wealth. Murder someone? Blech. I'd rather have peace of mind than spend the rest of my life waiting for the consequences of a few cheap thrills (which would not thrill me anyway) to catch up to me.

 

If you care about "realism" at all, then the "evil" actions in games should *seem* as if they have benefits in the short term but actually turn out to be poor in the long term. Sure, you can rob the storekeepers blind early in the game to get some quick cash. Then, later, you have nowhere to sell your stuff. Join the bad guys to rule with an iron fist? Sure. Later on, they attempt to sacrifice you to their evil deity.

 

Although people miraculously rewarding you for altruism shouldn't happen, either. Just once I'd like to see that farmer you altruistically go help with his cows or whatever not reward you and then turn into a lazy twerp constantly demanding assistance with mind-numbing chores every time you pass by.

[Brannart]

That is abundantly clear.

 

The idea is that rather than the game telling you which actions are good and which are bad, you do whatever you feel your character would, and decide for yourself whether your actions were good or bad. The whole "shades of gray" thing, is not having the morality of others spoon-fed to you. What is good, what is evil? If you think an action is good, who are the dev's to disagree with you and give you evil-guy-points? Maybe by murdering the innkeepers son you were saving the world from the tyrannical dictator your character knew he would become. Maybe by robbing the merchant's wagon you were actually exacting justice on the corrupt greedy fat-cats of the medieval world, who are they to judge? There would still be "themes of morality". It would just be up to you to figure out what you considered moral

 

I can already figure out what I consider moral. What is the role of the game then? When I play a game there are consequences for my actions, I expect the devs to provide those. Who they are are the people who constructed this world. If my actions have no consequences beyond what I imagine in my head then why am I delving into their world? Why not write a novel about my own world?

 

Granted I find 'rationalizing murder and robbing so it is actually good to me' not particularly interesting. But even if you did I expect the people of the game world to disagree. If I went back in time in a game and killed Hitler as a baby I would expect to be prosecuted for murder.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Brannart

[Brannart]

Although people miraculously rewarding you for altruism shouldn't happen, either. Just once I'd like to see that farmer you altruistically go help with his cows or whatever not reward you and then turn into a lazy twerp constantly demanding assistance with mind-numbing chores every time you pass by.

 

Yeah to a large degree all you should get for good actions is warm fuzzies. Just like in real life.

[SophosTheWise]

Just throwing this question to the air, why does everyone seem to prefer "gray" morality choices and keeps bringing up The Witcher as the shining example of it? Is it because they think that it's more mature and realistic?

 

I wouldn't say people prefer it because it seems more mature or realistic, but because it simply makes the game better for them.

Some people are just bored with the way RPGs worked in the past. We all have slain evil overlords countless of times as a saviour of light - having grey morals is, in my opinion, more of a challenge. A simple good/evil-scheme makes it very easy to roleplay your character, while gray areas also creates some meta-gaming, where you reflect on your own values not just your characters values. The Witcher is a stellar example of that, where not every knight in shining armour truly is a knight in shining armor. Sure, it's more realistic, but people don't prefer it because of "it's more realistic" but simply because they can relate to it better, because similar stuff happens in all of our lives, and I think we can safely agree that life is everything but black and white. Also a good example is Inquisitor. I remember a discussion on the GOG forums, where some people declined to play Inquisitor, because they didn't want to make choices that may lead to torturing people, others absolutely threw themselves into the role of an inquisitor on some people just tried to avoid it. That's a pretty cool reaction if you ask me, because Inquisitor never leaned towards "You're a bad person if you do this!" - it was more of a "Well, yeah, decide yourself" and that's where the gray area and the questioning of your own morals starts. In what situation would you give in and use torturing? Why? Why not? In what cases is torturing really necessary or a viable option? In every other game, torturing is just an evil-by-default-action that kind of patronizes the player behind it. He can be good and evil - he simply has to live with the consequences of that definition. Someone else basically decides for you. I hope that is more or less coherent. Still difficult to write and think in a foreign language

 

 

 

Just once I'd like to see that farmer you altruistically go help with his cows or whatever not reward you and then turn into a lazy twerp constantly demanding assistance with mind-numbing chores every time you pass by.

Even though that would still be some sort of reward, because "content" seems to be a basic reward. That's why we always risk our death for really silly tasks and that's why we do every little quest in a game. It's because we have content that we want to play and that's also why being evil doesn't work as good as being good in my opinion. Being evil just provides more money and power when being good gives you more content, more story, more fun to play. I realized that when I was playing Fable 1 some years ago. I realized through stealing everything around me I get more powerful but that makes most tasks easier and therefore the game less challenging and less fun to play.

Edited November 27, 2012 by SophosTheWise

[Cryticus]

Personally what I would want is white, grey and black morality, in place, there are purly evil people who do evil things just for giggles, and there are trully good people who want to help, with no ulterior motive. and between thouse two is large mass of greyish people,

for example Evil warlord that want's to conquered world and rule like a tyrrant, and good king -protector who leads his people , clearly bad , and good, but people that serve him should be more greyish, soldier who serves warlord can come up from nation that doesn't have his own country and serves warlord because he was promised that by serving him his nation will get their own country, and soldier in army of good guy who is a brutal guy with bad history,

Icewind dale 2 actually did really well I think, I would say maybe even better than Bladurs gate

[Hormalakh]

Suicide bombers actions are doubtlessly selfless, but they are still (I'm sure most would agree) pretty evil.

 

Being promised 92 virgins as a reward would hardly qualify an action as selfless.

 

It's 72 virgins. And not all suicide bombers kill for that reason. Many have material considerations (money being given to families) and some even do it because they see no other way to bring about a resolution to their conflicts. Like the topic, we're discussing here, suicide bombers have gray areas when it comes to morality.

 

One of the best "evil" characters I've fought against was the final boss in Arcanum. He was evil and I'll always argue that he was evil, but his speech was written so well that people actually had to make a RL decision as to what he was saying was evil or not. It was very well done. The fact that I know some forum members will disagree with me on whether he was or was not evil makes him a great evil character. If only most of our evil characters were that way.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Brannart]

I wouldn't say people prefer it because it seems more mature or realistic, but because it simply makes the game better for them.

Some people are just bored with the way RPGs worked in the past. We all have slain evil overlords countless of times as a saviour of light - having grey morals is, in my opinion, more of a challenge. A simple good/evil-scheme makes it very easy to roleplay your character, while gray areas also creates some meta-gaming, where you reflect on your own values not just your characters values. The Witcher is a stellar example of that, where not every knight in shining armour truly is a knight in shining armor.

 

Ok I guess my problem is I always come into these threads thinking we are talking about BIS and Obsidian games. So I get confused. You are bored with the way other people's RPGs have worked in the past? Great but why would Obsidian make somebody else's games? Is that even remotely in the cards? Do you have issues with how Obsidian games have worked in the past? Because it sure seems like their games do what you are saying.

[SophosTheWise]

I wouldn't say people prefer it because it seems more mature or realistic, but because it simply makes the game better for them.

Some people are just bored with the way RPGs worked in the past. We all have slain evil overlords countless of times as a saviour of light - having grey morals is, in my opinion, more of a challenge. A simple good/evil-scheme makes it very easy to roleplay your character, while gray areas also creates some meta-gaming, where you reflect on your own values not just your characters values. The Witcher is a stellar example of that, where not every knight in shining armour truly is a knight in shining armor.

 

Ok I guess my problem is I always come into these threads thinking we are talking about BIS and Obsidian games. So I get confused. You are bored with the way other people's RPGs have worked in the past? Great but why would Obsidian make somebody else's games? Is that even remotely in the cards? Do you have issues with how Obsidian games have worked in the past? Because it sure seems like their games do what you are saying.

 

I know, I simply wanted to try to answer the question you posed about why people would prefer gray morality

[Malekith]

its seems to me that people have different ideas on what grey morality means.Grey morality doesn't mean that there are no good or bad people, but that there are realistic motives behind them

 

That not how it works in games though.

 

In games, when grey mortality is decided upon, everyone/thing becomes grey. The players is beat over the head with this fact and most choices are rendered irrelevant or just not given.

 

Few games haven't gone down this path, when going 'grey'. Go play any game that is 'grey' and find a companion like One of Many or Bishop. Then see if you can be the villain or evil. You'll find it's a no on all accounts.

 

not evil for the sake of evil

 

Some people just want to see the world burn. There is nothing flawed or shallow about this archetype, just how it's written.

Extreemly rare. I would be hard pressed to think any real world examples.Most people of this archetype are mentaly unstable or even outright crazy. They tent to end in asylums and not in leadership positions to threaten the world

[Malekith]

For that reason I find a lack of absolute good and evil is more realistic than a system where you have to choose between good or evil.

 

Really I find it less realistic because of this, it removes bad and good people/choices and replaces them with one choice/personality, grey.

 

Realistically some factions/characters should be grey, but not every single one. We should have characters like Kreia, but we should also have characters like One of Many, Bishop, etc. Not just paint every character in one colour.

 

And lets not forget the worse thing grey mortality does, the removal of being the villain. It forces the player to be the hero.

New Vegas forces you to be a hero???

[Malekith]

In real life I selfishly pursue the good because the rewards are, in real life, much better.

 

What sort of "evil" could I perpetrate that would have great rewards? Rob a bank? Most bank robbers get caught. And money isn't everything. I wouldn't look forward to a life spent lying about the source of my wealth. Murder someone? Blech. I'd rather have peace of mind than spend the rest of my life waiting for the consequences of a few cheap thrills (which would not thrill me anyway) to catch up to me.

 

If you care about "realism" at all, then the "evil" actions in games should *seem* as if they have benefits in the short term but actually turn out to be poor in the long term. Sure, you can rob the storekeepers blind early in the game to get some quick cash. Then, later, you have nowhere to sell your stuff. Join the bad guys to rule with an iron fist? Sure. Later on, they attempt to sacrifice you to their evil deity.

 

Although people miraculously rewarding you for altruism shouldn't happen, either. Just once I'd like to see that farmer you altruistically go help with his cows or whatever not reward you and then turn into a lazy twerp constantly demanding assistance with mind-numbing chores every time you pass by.

You think small. How about Drug barons,corupt politicians, mega corporations, weapon industries? How about to manipulate and start a war for your gain? To have the choice to steal from a shopkeaper in game is not what i'm talking about.The examples you give are more of the stupid, in your face evil options.have you ever been in a position of power when you had to make a decision to maximize your profits but that would lead 100 families in poverty or cause enviromental damage? The "evil" option doesn't have direct consequences for you. It's simply a matter of conscience. And in a fantasy setting i can think of much more interesting examples

Edited November 27, 2012 by Malekith

[Frisk]

In games, when grey mortality is decided upon, everyone/thing becomes grey. The players is beat over the head with this fact and most choices are rendered irrelevant or just not given.

 

Eh, no....absolutely not.

 

The whole point of "gray" is to make actions have consequences which are not necessarily "good" or "evil" - at least not for everyone involved. You make a choice which will affect the storyline in some fashion - perhaps the way you intended, but perhaps there will be unexpected (and unwelcome) secondary results. The game can present the player with a moral dilemma - do you burn down a village to stop the spread of a plague that would otherwise kill a huge number of people? Do you release the prisoner you found in the dungeon, even if you know he intends to go on an elf-killing massacre?

 

Choices are absolutely not irrelevant - in fact, they become much more interesting when you know they will have both "good" and "evil" results - instead of just gibing you a +1 or -1 on an imaginary "alignment" scale.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Frisk

[DreamDancer]

I thnk we can all agree that the perception of concepts like good and evil are subjective and relative. That being said I would side with the people here who don't want the game to judge your decisions at all. No artificial moral meter, no alignment scale, no renegade or paragon points. Because good and evil wll always be in the eye of the beholder.

 

Personally I always found it silly, that certain professions automatically assume that you are evil. Think black mages, necromancers, warlocks, demonologist, etc. If you weren't of an Something Evil Alignment you couldn't even pick those professions. What was great though, was the fact that the game world sometimes reacted to your class/profession choice. Usually with scepticism and fear, but then you had the great opportunity to prove that just because you commune with dead spirits and dine with demons you don't necessarily need to be an evil bastard.

 

So I'd like to see getting rid of those artificial moral mechanics and have the game world only react to your deeds. I dont want the game to judge my actions based on a rigid mechanic but rather relative to the context it happened in. What I mean by that is that I want it to be like in ME, but without the Paragon/Renegade mechanic. Having NPCs react and comment on your deeds is great, but don't tell me what I did was "good" or "evil". 'll decide that for myself.

 

Oh and while we are at it... alignment specific gear. That concept is so bad that it is hilariously funny at the same time. So you just found that cloak of awesomeness +1 but you cant use it because it somehow detects that you have been a bad boy and refuses to be worn? I mean, seriously. Are there some mysterious evil particles floating around my character? Will the cloak try to strangle me if I try to wear it?

 

This is just another example of why good/evil mechanics are usually not such a good idea :D

[jezz555]

That is abundantly clear.

 

The idea is that rather than the game telling you which actions are good and which are bad, you do whatever you feel your character would, and decide for yourself whether your actions were good or bad. The whole "shades of gray" thing, is not having the morality of others spoon-fed to you. What is good, what is evil? If you think an action is good, who are the dev's to disagree with you and give you evil-guy-points? Maybe by murdering the innkeepers son you were saving the world from the tyrannical dictator your character knew he would become. Maybe by robbing the merchant's wagon you were actually exacting justice on the corrupt greedy fat-cats of the medieval world, who are they to judge? There would still be "themes of morality". It would just be up to you to figure out what you considered moral

 

I can already figure out what I consider moral. What is the role of the game then? When I play a game there are consequences for my actions, I expect the devs to provide those. Who they are are the people who constructed this world. If my actions have no consequences beyond what I imagine in my head then why am I delving into their world? Why not write a novel about my own world?

 

Granted I find 'rationalizing murder and robbing so it is actually good to me' not particularly interesting. But even if you did I expect the people of the game world to disagree. If I went back in time in a game and killed Hitler as a baby I would expect to be prosecuted for murder.

 

My god you are not getting it. Where did I say that your actions wouldn't have consequences. They would, that is the point, they would just be within the game world as opposed to in a system outside of it a la mass effect. You could do something that people don't like, and they could still get mad at you for it, the only difference would be that you wouldn't see a bar on the side of your screen fill up with evil/good points.

 

Good and Evil are independent of any justice system save a perfect one, you would be prosecuted for killing hitler...but would it be wrong? You still did something good in saving the lives of millions, but the moral ideas of the people of that time would be different they would consider your actions evil and prosecute you thusly. But that's the point, that morality varies in the world, rather than being entirely based on the ideas of the developers.

 

 

 

Some people just want to see the world burn. There is nothing flawed or shallow about this archetype, just how it's written.

 

...in batman...a movie. Real life is a different story.

Edited November 28, 2012 by jezz555

[Dream]

Some people just want to see the world burn. There is nothing flawed or shallow about this archetype, just how it's written.

 

...in batman...a movie. Real life is a different story.

 

Oh, well in that case you're absolutely right since project eternity is real li... oh wait.