Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Good vs. Evil rolepplaying rewards

good evil roleplaying campaign rewards balance decisions

  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#41
rjshae

rjshae

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 5075 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

That's a dramatic way to put it.

 

At the time Baldur's Gate was created, there were not many games that gave you the option of being evil. Playing "evil" was probably considered to be something of a "joke" play through   added because of the alignment system and to give negative consequence to 'bad' actions. 


Then why add it at all in a game based on a tabletop where creative roleplaying, regardless of alignment, can yield rewards.  This seems like a copout idea of their intentions, or, if accurate, a copout on their part.

 

Yes, awarding XP for "good" or "evil" behavior is an odd thing in itself. Unless the decision resulted from a skill check by the character, experience comes from dealing with the consequences of the decision, rather than from the decision itself. But then I suppose it could be viewed as an abstraction of sorts -- payment in advance for the consequences of your choice.



#42
moridin84

moridin84

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 266 posts
  • Location:Ireland
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

That's a dramatic way to put it.

 

At the time Baldur's Gate was created, there were not many games that gave you the option of being evil. Playing "evil" was probably considered to be something of a "joke" play through   added because of the alignment system and to give negative consequence to 'bad' actions. 



Then why add it at all in a game based on a tabletop where creative roleplaying, regardless of alignment, can yield rewards.  This seems like a copout idea of their intentions, or, if accurate, a copout on their part.

 

Well it was 15 years ago. 



#43
Stiler

Stiler

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 123 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I am really really tired of black and white "good and evil" style choices in many newer rpgs (I'm looking mainly at bioware games).

 

What if I want to play a GOOD guy, but I want to go about it with that witty anti-hero type of character? A la Snake Plissken style? Someone who is "good" but has a kind of sarcastic wit about him, not your usual goody two shoes?

 

Those types of characters are ignored, you either play a "holier then thou" style good guy, and get rewarded, or an "evilllllll" douchbag who does evil things, if you play neutral, or back and fourth you get neither usually.

 

 

Your ACTIONS and how your character "talks" should be seperate things, not impacting a reward per se imo.

 

Let those of us who want to be a sarcastic wise cracking guy, but with ai heart of gold DO THIS , let us choose a snappy wise response in dialogue, but still go "Save the princess" , don't force good guys to sound like ned flanders while the evil guys get all the wise cracking dialogue.

 

Basically imo rpgs need to stop typing "morality" based on what your character SAYS, but rather what your character DOES.

 

Let us play our character how we want , dialogue wise, and stop connecting dialogue to "action." So if an npc asks us to save someone for example, and you throw out like 4 "responses" to choose from, from sarcastic ones, joking ones, generic good/evil reponses, but then AFTEr that if we want to go save him, and we do, it's THAT ACTION that should be rewarded , not the dialogue you say.

 



#44
Nonek

Nonek

    Not of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 3040 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I thought that was the accepted standard in character creation now rather than the unusual, bad ass, sarcastic, good heart deep down, really cares for what he sees as family, problem with authority, hides a tragic past etcetera. Probably black haired, blue eyed and with a modicum of facial hair. Seems like the template that most players seem to aspire to.

 

Not criticising it or anything, but hardly seems unusual.


  • chaostrophy likes this

#45
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Basically imo rpgs need to stop typing "morality" based on what your character SAYS, but rather what your character DOES.

 

Unless, of course, saying something IS the action. i.e. "No need to go look for your father... he was torn apart by wolves, last time I saw him." When, really, you know he's still alive somewhere. 8P



#46
Dwarfare

Dwarfare

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 35 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I very much enjoy the Good vs Evil bit, but not as starkly alone as some people put it.  I enjoy having starkly good choices, and starkly evil ones (so long as they make sense and it's not like "Welp, here's a village.  Best start slitting all the children's throats, as due to the size of this place, it's going to take a while to get to all of them, and I want my beauty sleep!").  That said, those choices aren't as enjoyable without a myriad of shades of grey to ensure that there are more involved choices.  Choices are everything, but having nothing but completely polarized options tends to ruin it.  You have good, bad, and the guy with the gun.

 

I certainly support the idea.  While Project Eternity will not have a good/evil alignment system, that does not in any way mean that good and evil and all that is in between will not play an important role in who your character is, immersion, and the storyline.  Though I really think that it's not so much a good/evil reward so much as rewarding choices (taking a hand as opposed to bypassing it entirely) and in logical ways as well as surprising ways, and simply letting the choices be what they are, providing reasoning as much as morality, no mindlessly good or mindlessly evil.


Edited by Dwarfare, 31 January 2013 - 06:00 PM.

  • chaostrophy likes this

#47
Stiler

Stiler

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 123 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I thought that was the accepted standard in character creation now rather than the unusual, bad ass, sarcastic, good heart deep down, really cares for what he sees as family, problem with authority, hides a tragic past etcetera. Probably black haired, blue eyed and with a modicum of facial hair. Seems like the template that most players seem to aspire to.

 

Not criticising it or anything, but hardly seems unusual.

The thing is, while many people might aspire to that, it's never been that well represented in rpgs, at least newer ones.

 

The Bioware games as an example, if you want to be a sarcastic "smartass" (IE like Snake Plissken, Bruce Willis in Die hard, etc) you end up having to pick "EVILLLLL" choices and do the actions that go with them, there's no way to be a "Good guy" but have witty dialogue , you either be good and have "mr goody two shoes with a halo over his head" dialogue most of the time, or be "evil" but with all the "Witty/sarcastic tough guy" dialogue.

 

 

 

Basically imo rpgs need to stop typing "morality" based on what your character SAYS, but rather what your character DOES.

 

Unless,
of course, saying something IS the action. i.e. "No need to go look for
your father... he was torn apart by wolves, last time I saw him." When,
really, you know he's still alive somewhere. 8P

 

Yes that makes sense, but they need to provide more choices for dialogue
options rather then just "good/evil/neutral." Don't tie Every single
thing to morality like Bioware games. Only direct actions and dialogue that makes sense (IE Refusing to help someone).


  • Lephys likes this

#48
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer



Basically imo rpgs need to stop typing "morality" based on what your character SAYS, but rather what your character DOES.

 
Unless,
of course, saying something IS the action. i.e. "No need to go look for
your father... he was torn apart by wolves, last time I saw him." When,
really, you know he's still alive somewhere. 8P


 
Yes that makes sense, but they need to provide more choices for dialogue
options rather then just "good/evil/neutral." Don't tie Every single
thing to morality like Bioware games. Only direct actions and dialogue that makes sense (IE Refusing to help someone).


I very much agree. If you've got a metaphorical bar for the difference in the nature of dialogue choices, then don't cut it in half and measure the distance from the center... cut it into 6 or 7 segments and simply measure which segments your choice is in, and whether or not they overlap.

I've always hated the whole "witty = evil jackass" trend, as I LOVE humor and wit. Ideally, if they're going to allow for wittiness, it should be an option for pretty much any different "choice" you can make. In other words, if you can say "Yes" or "No" to something, you should be able to have an additional witty "Yes" and an additional witty "No" choice. But, you shouldn't necessarily have a witty choice for literally any different thing you can say (I don't want 17 witty choices and 17 regular ones in dialogue).

Examples of things that probably don't need witty choices would be general questions, like "So where can I find this guy?". I think 7 different ways of asking where you can find someone would be a bit overboard, haha. Of course, you could always be witty in response to the answer you got.

Annnnywho, that might be something for a different thread. I agree that the "good/neutral/evil" choice structure is terribly lacking.
  • Stiler likes this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: good, evil, roleplaying, campaign, rewards, balance, decisions

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users