True Neutral or How most CRPGs pigeonhole you into Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil

[Kjaamor]

Imho:

 

True Neutral: I will act in my interests unless individuals are caused pain by my direct action.

 

Lawful Neutral: I will act in my interests unless individuals are caused pain by my direct action, but I shall adhere to the laws and customs of my home.

 

Chaotic Neutral: I will be wholly inconsistent and sometimes be devil, sometimes saviour.

 

Of my reading of the morality compass (which admittedly stems mostly from the character creation in BG), the odd one out was very much Chaotic Neutral, since all the others were on sliding scales but CN can do anything. For example, a chaotic good or chaotic evil character is unlikely to choose a lawful option, but CN is as likely to choose a lawful option as a non-lawful action.

[Sad Panda]

Imho:

 

True Neutral: I will act in my interests unless individuals are caused pain by my direct action.

 

Lawful Neutral: I will act in my interests unless individuals are caused pain by my direct action, but I shall adhere to the laws and customs of my home.

 

Chaotic Neutral: I will be wholly inconsistent and sometimes be devil, sometimes saviour.

Tend to disagree. To begin with, I think acting to one's own interest is something more tilted toward Evil, even with the caveat -- a true neutral character recognises no inherent merit in anything, their own wants and needs included. Nature is often portrayed as being neutral, but not because animals would act out of self-interest, but because they act out of instinct: There is no conscious choice to prioritise their own needs. Sentient agents must make this choice: Those who see inherent merit in sefishness are Evil, while those who see inherent merit in selflessness are Good. Someone who acts primarily out of self-interest but adhering to a specific rule set would in my mind be Lawful Evil, not True Neutral. As for the Neutral range:

 

Lawful Neutral: Uphold order for its own sake, heedless of whether it brings harm or good to self or others. The faithful guard dog that would charge to its senseless death on its master's orders. Or: The helmsman who drives the ship onto the rocks because he is forbidden from departing from his course.

 

Chaotic Neutral: Oppose order on principle, heedless of whether this brings harm or good to self or others. The wild animal that bites off its own leg rather than is captured. Or: The farmer who rather sees his crops burned than pays tax for them.

 

True Neutral: Pursue no goal in particular. Uphold order, or fight against it. Act selfishly, or selflessly.

 

The last one up there is what would be usually thought as Chaotic behaviour, but I tend to see that as something more principled: A Chaotic character believes all should be free to act as they please, not just they themselves; that order is inherently undesirable. A True Neutral character doesn't care how others live, as they see no inherent merit in order or lack thereof, nor do they care any great deal how their actions affect others. The distinction to Good and Evil characters is that an Evil character wants to help themselves and doesn't care if it brings harm to others, while a Good character wants to help others and doesn't care if it brings harm to themselves. A Neutral character, meanwhile, can act against their own interest or for it, and likewise against common good or for it.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Sad Panda

[Amentep]

To me, True Neutral doesn't ascribe to an ethical motivation of action (ie a Neutral person would see no good or evil in an action done to further their goals) and would only really be limited from causing large degrees of pain to others (like an evil alignment would) if they held a belief that others should be left to their ideals as much as they are and/or holding an interest in not tipping the balance between order and chaos. 

 

A true neutral Druid would try to achieve a preservation of nature, but would balance that preservation with an understanding that humanoids were a part of the natural order; the druid wouldn't just kill human developers encroaching on their preserved lands unless they were forced to choose to save the greater aspect of nature at the expense of the lesser. The same druid might encourage a town to have open, natural areas but wouldn't advocate the destruction of an existing town either as humanoids have to live somewhere, just as rabbits in a warren or birds in nest.

 

I'd also argue that while "crazy" could describe chaotic neutral, pretty much any anarchist could also be described as Chaotic Neutral.  To me the chaotic neutral person should be against law/order in any form they find it (or, if weakly chaotic, against specific forms of law and order). 

 

I had a Chaotic Neutral Priestess of Talona I played and the goal with the character was that (a) death was an expression against the forced order of living and (b) any chance to kill (preferably with poison or disease) people who represented order should be considered.  So she could do good or bad as long as there was an end result that destabilized an ordered structure (including her own adventuring party if they got too structured).  She might join an adventuring group and help kill the leader of the orc warband to destabilize the leadership of the raiders, then use the opportunity of the feast celebrating the freedom of the town from the orcs to sneak a snake in the bed of the town mayor. Good times.

 

Lawful Neutral to me is the knight sworn in service who will give out bread to peasants and then cut the peasants down as they sat to eat at the order of the king.  The law is the law, and it applies to all and s/he doesn't question his/her place in the order of things.  But I'd also argue that an assassin who would never break a contract and didn't care if the kill was "good" or "evil" would also be Lawful Neutral as they're dedicated to the order created by the contract, all other considerations being irrelevant.

[Lephys]

Lying is neither good nor evil, or even chaotic in and of itself.  It just isn't lawful.

I wouldn't even say it isn't lawful. If it looks like some rampant serial killer's on the loose, what do law enforcement personnel do? Lie about it so as not to cause a panic. Or, if they're undercover, they lie about not being law enforcement. Etc.

 

They are literally employed by "the law," and yet they utilize lies in their jobs. Just makes your point about it being sort of inherently devoid of alignment that much more powerfully.

[Karkarov]

 

Lying is neither good nor evil, or even chaotic in and of itself.  It just isn't lawful.

I wouldn't even say it isn't lawful. If it looks like some rampant serial killer's on the loose, what do law enforcement personnel do? Lie about it so as not to cause a panic. Or, if they're undercover, they lie about not being law enforcement. Etc.

 

They are literally employed by "the law," and yet they utilize lies in their jobs. Just makes your point about it being sort of inherently devoid of alignment that much more powerfully.

Lawful good people don't work undercover, that would be your lawful neutral or neutral good hmmmm or maybe even lawful evil.  Also the people in charge lying about it aren't lawful good either, they are preventing a panic but they are also making it even easier for the killer to take out his targets since they have no clue he is on the loose.  Lawful/Good people will always tell the truth because to do less is to lack honor and moral fiber.  Now a nuetral good person?  They can lie for a good cause.

 

I see a lot of people have the wrong ideas about how alignment works in D&D.

 

For example, Lawful Neutral is the most stone cold character you will ever meet.  Lawful Neutral mercenary is employed by and sent by the King to contain a plague.  The Guy in Charge tells them the town is lost burn it to the ground and kill any runners.  Lawful Neutral guy doesn't even blink, orders are orders, lights the village up and when he sees the 5 year old girl fleeing the flames puts a crossbow bolt in her back.  You say he is evil?  No not at all.  He was hired by the king, the king said this guy is in charge, this guy ordered him to do it.  He is just following orders he didn't personally want to do it but that's what he is paid to do.

[Kjaamor]

I see a lot of people have the wrong ideas about how alignment works in D&D.

 

 

 

Tend to disagree. To begin with, I think acting to one's own interest is something more tilted toward Evil, even with the caveat -- a true neutral character recognises no inherent merit in anything, their own wants and needs included. Nature is often portrayed as being neutral, but not because animals would act out of self-interest, but because they act out of instinct: There is no conscious choice to prioritise their own needs. Sentient agents must make this choice: Those who see inherent merit in sefishness are Evil, while those who see inherent merit in selflessness are Good. Someone who acts primarily out of self-interest but adhering to a specific rule set would in my mind be Lawful Evil, not True Neutral. As for the Neutral range:

 

Lawful Neutral: Uphold order for its own sake, heedless of whether it brings harm or good to self or others. The faithful guard dog that would charge to its senseless death on its master's orders. Or: The helmsman who drives the ship onto the rocks because he is forbidden from departing from his course.

 

Chaotic Neutral: Oppose order on principle, heedless of whether this brings harm or good to self or others. The wild animal that bites off its own leg rather than is captured. Or: The farmer who rather sees his crops burned than pays tax for them.

 

True Neutral: Pursue no goal in particular. Uphold order, or fight against it. Act selfishly, or selflessly.

 

The last one up there is what would be usually thought as Chaotic behaviour, but I tend to see that as something more principled: A Chaotic character believes all should be free to act as they please, not just they themselves; that order is inherently undesirable. A True Neutral character doesn't care how others live, as they see no inherent merit in order or lack thereof, nor do they care any great deal how their actions affect others. The distinction to Good and Evil characters is that an Evil character wants to help themselves and doesn't care if it brings harm to others, while a Good character wants to help others and doesn't care if it brings harm to themselves. A Neutral character, meanwhile, can act against their own interest or for it, and likewise against common good or for it.

 

 

Although the alignment system is obviously restrictive by its nine-point nature, people here seem to be finding two seperate and distinct moulds that fit in the true neutral space. The nihilistic or animalistic "Truly Neutral", and the more central point "No extreme of anything".

 

Obviously, I'm talking rather more of that central space. My true neutral is defined almost entirely by what it isn't, rather than what it is. On one spectrum it is purely not selfless enough to qualify as good, whilst not selfish enough to qualify as evil. On the other, it is not law upholding enough to qualify as lawful, whilst not lawless enough to qualify as chaotic.

 

In practical terms, most people in most situations are true neutral. A physically weak person sees someone attacking someone else, and does not get involved. The good person takes a stand. The evil person may join in or relish the action. The neutral, regardless of their given reasons, does not get involved because they are unwilling to risk themselves for another they have no significant bond to - even if they find the act repulsive and desperately wish that it wasn't occuring. Disappointing as it may be, this is the way most people act most of the time. Subsequently, people at the extremes who act in a different fashion fit into the extremes of good and evil.

 

The same is similar on the lawful and chaotic spectrum, although as Amentep's example illustrates, chaotic neutral also possesses a similarly dual nature representing both inconsistency and also anarchic political/social ideas.

 

Again, it is obvious that my definition of true neutral isn't of use in describing alien or animal systems of morality, but that is because it works on the relatively specific form of morality of the humanoid creatures of fantasy - what in Lord of the Rings terms would be "The Free Peoples". Creatures that are alien to these forms of morality get clobbed in vaguely around the periphery, based generally on whether they are felt to have the capacity to achieve better (Evil Goblins) or not (Neutral Bears).

Edited June 25, 2014 by Kjaamor

[deathcoy]

There won't be alignments in the game. This was confirmed in interviews early on. So don't fret.

 

(Is this thread still not about me? )

 

Thats good news. Alignments were cool when it was first implemented but in the end its literally a hidden resource and pigeonholed players into specific routes...

[Sad Panda]

Although the alignment system is obviously restrictive by its nine-point nature, people here seem to be finding two seperate and distinct moulds that fit in the true neutral space. The nihilistic or animalistic "Truly Neutral", and the more central point "No extreme of anything".

 

Obviously, I'm talking rather more of that central space. My true neutral is defined almost entirely by what it isn't, rather than what it is. On one spectrum it is purely not selfless enough to qualify as good, whilst not selfish enough to qualify as evil. On the other, it is not law upholding enough to qualify as lawful, whilst not lawless enough to qualify as chaotic.

Oh, I definitely agree that real people don't usually clearly fall into any D&D alignment, and are Neutral simply on the virtue of not being much anything else. Real people are so boring, though, which is why I rather concentrate on the philosophical underpinnings of the alignments. Characters I create for RPGs always have fairly strong convictions, precisely because such characters are much more interesting to play as, and I suppose I kind of assumed everyone else did that, too. >_>

[Lephys]

Lawful good people don't work undercover, that would be your lawful neutral or neutral good hmmmm or maybe even lawful evil.  Also the people in charge lying about it aren't lawful good either, they are preventing a panic but they are also making it even easier for the killer to take out his targets since they have no clue he is on the loose.  Lawful/Good people will always tell the truth because to do less is to lack honor and moral fiber.  Now a nuetral good person?  They can lie for a good cause.

I didn't say anything about "good." I just said that lying isn't unlawful. Meaning, you can be lawful and still lie. I agree that it's the second half of the alignment that would differ. As you point out below, you would most likely be lawful neutral. Lawful EVIL would intentionally seek out loopholes in the law in order to achieve self-satisfaction/benefit, whether it be causing people's demise, confiscating things just so you can have them, etc. You'd adhere to the law, and twist it as you see fit... IF you were a law enforcer. You could obviously adhere to plenty of various types of "law," such as religion, etc.

 

Anywho... I just wanted to clarify, because you seemed to be responding as if I had insisted that people who lie would still be lawful "good," specifically, when I only meant that they could still be lawful.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Lephys

[neo6874]

Lawful EVIL would intentionally seek out loopholes in the law in order to achieve self-satisfaction/benefit, whether it be causing people's demise, confiscating things just so you can have them, etc.

in other words, every corporation, ever.

 

Also, lawyers.

Edited June 25, 2014 by neo6874

[dr membrano]

Rather than have an alignment meter that tallies good and evil deeds they should work on giving NPCs better memories and to be more vigilant. If you walk into a city and kill 20 people shouldn't all of the existing guards plus additional ones be constantly searching for you? Or at least they should be suspicious of people they don't know in a way that reflects on their speech; "Hi, Stranger! Some outsider came into town and murdered everyone at the inn today but c'mon in!"

 

Progressing time forward a few days shouldn't absolve you of any and all murders and it shouldn't just reflect when you're conversing with people but they should be actively trying to capture you. As other people have said before, it's not good and evil but action and consequence. If you think you're strong enough to take on the entire city then great, go for it. I feel like there should be a pandemonium mode when the all-powerful all-evil wizard comes into town to kill everyone where nobody is open for business.

[Kjaamor]

Oh, I definitely agree that real people don't usually clearly fall into any D&D alignment, and are Neutral simply on the virtue of not being much anything else. Real people are so boring, though, which is why I rather concentrate on the philosophical underpinnings of the alignments. Characters I create for RPGs always have fairly strong convictions, precisely because such characters are much more interesting to play as, and I suppose I kind of assumed everyone else did that, too. >_>

 

That's fair to say. 4E talks at length about the notion of being "heroic"; not unreasonable in that if the central characters to your story are entirely passive then its not so much a quest as being constant victims of circumstance. It's by no means impossible to write a good fantasy story featuring such characters but I agree that in player-driven content a certain amount of conviction tends to make things a bit more involving - or at the very least you don't want to create warriors who deliberately avoid combat because it is most often beyond them.

[Karkarov]

 

Lawful EVIL would intentionally seek out loopholes in the law in order to achieve self-satisfaction/benefit, whether it be causing people's demise, confiscating things just so you can have them, etc.

in other words, every corporation, ever.

 

Also, lawyers.

That's why D&D alignment in pc games fail in a nutshell.  They only consider your "action" not your motivation for taking it.  You could seek a loophole in a law that would allow you to spare someone you think is innocent of a crime.  Hardly and evil act.  Then again if you know the guy is a serial killer but he is on your payroll and you use that loophole... whole different ball game.

 

So no, as much as we would like to believe it not all corporations and all lawyers are evil scum.  Just 90% or so.

[Lephys]

Not all of them, but the bad kind of lawyers (who know their client is guilty of murdering 17 people but get them off on technicalities anyway) are a pretty good representation of Lawful Evil.

 

Also, I wouldn't say D&D alignment downright fails. I think they're just used wrong. (Maybe that's what you meant. If so, then sorry. Not trying to debate for debate's sake, here... just trying to clarify). If it didn't make changes to your alignment based purely on your actions, there would no longer be a failure. So, yeah, I think part of the system fails. The part that simply represents your character's behavior/motivations is okay, I think, if a bit broad in its representation.

 

I mean, at a certain point, you're effectively not evil if you don't do anything evil. If you enjoy killing, but only ever kill people who, according to the general populous/golden rule/laws (usually) deserve it, then, even though your motivation for killing could be considered selfish/"evil," you're not really "being evil" insofar as it effects a comparison between you and another person in the eyes of humanity.

 

It's kind of like... if someone has a HORRIBLE temper, and quite often wants to beat the crap out of people over the slightest things, but actively restrains themselves so that they don't ever do that (for whatever reason), then you can't really call them "violent." They're never actually being violent.

[Karkarov]

Not all of them, but the bad kind of lawyers (who know their client is guilty of murdering 17 people but get them off on technicalities anyway) are a pretty good representation of Lawful Evil.

Depends on the motivation.  I would think that is normally a good representation of Lawful Neutral.  Everyone deserves a legal defense right?  It is the lawyers job to provide it to the best of their ability.  By getting the guy off they are merely applying the law as it exists and perhaps showing a weakness in it that could be strengthened or fixed.  As such they are "serving the law".

 

Lawful Evil would be like purposefully exposing a jury to something that would cause prejudice as a means to force a mistrial.  Or using a con man to give false leads to police to cause their investigation to go in the wrong direction or make a critical mistake.  Technicalities are part of the law, Lawful Evil is not just about technicalities, it is about manipulating them in a self serving way.

[Lephys]

Depends on the motivation.  I would think that is normally a good representation of Lawful Neutral.  Everyone deserves a legal defense right?  It is the lawyers job to provide it to the best of their ability.  By getting the guy off they are merely applying the law as it exists and perhaps showing a weakness in it that could be strengthened or fixed.  As such they are "serving the law".

I dunno... maybe? I suppose. Just, as Lawful Neutral, your motivation would be just that: neutral. You wouldn't be motivated to specifically ensure they were found not-guilty. You would simply represent them according to the law. Evil would knowingly seek out loopholes and/or push the bounds of the law in order to pursue a verdict of not-guilty.

 

That's another thing about lawyers, though: Everyone WANTS someone who can "get them off the hook," but it's not really a lawyer's job to "win." It's a lawyer's job to legally represent you, so that people who know all about laws and such don't screw over some guy who can't even read. If you're guilty of a robbery, but someone was also murdered there, your lawyer's job isn't to make sure you're found not-guilty of anything. It's to make sure they, for example, don't try to pin the murder on you, what with the "He already broke in and is a bad person, and we know he was there. Let's just charge him with the murder, and sentence him to like 20 years in prison, even though all he committed was petty theft! 8D!"

 

But, that's a different discussion, I suppose,

 

The D&D alignment system isn't perfect. That's definitely true. But then, how do you simply sum up all of human motivation/behavior/being with a simple table? You probably don't, I suppose.

[AGX-17]

There should be a global "I never read and never will read the game info/updates" thread.

[MacDestiny]

I think choice and consequence in games is very difficult to get right. I would prefer a system where a choices are a bit grey. I've never liked that I got bad points for not taking that injured werewolf guy with us in Fable. Hey, I was just trying to protect the group by taking no chances, sorry if that was cowardly .

 

Just decisions shouldn't always result in good consequences. If you carry out quests in a Ned Stark fashion I would hope sometimes you will have to feel the sting of that. For example if you hand in a criminal on the run, you should be attacked by his cronies and if you don't you should be paid off

[Emc2]

I don't think Eternity needs any alignment system at all. Most of the time the choices you make are either black or white or just pure grey, where it doesn't matter what you say. For example in Dragon Age: Origins when talking with your companions, there is no "sarcasm" option so you might end up insulting your companions, even if don't want to (The amount of Sarcasm Morrigan uses implies that she understands if i call her a "Heartless Bastard" in a friendly way, since she obviously wants to give that image). If you say/do something, Characters take it as developers want, whatever the motives are. DA:O has good example of choice that is only based on player's sense of morale and doesn't affect any alignment counter and you still have to face the possible consequences: MINOR SPOILERS!
 

In Redcliffe questline, you have to deal with the Demon possessing child named Connor. You have the choice of going and killing Connor himself, and getting rid of the Demon at the same time. Since you have to get rid of the Demon to progress in your World Saving Business, killing connor is for the greater good. Therefore your choice can be considered as Good. There is possibility that you can save the world without doing anything in the Redcliffe (theoretidcally, i'm not sure if it's possible in the game) the decision can be considered as Evil or Chaotic. 

Another option is to go straight to Fade and deal with the demon itself, without harming Connor. To do this you have to sacrifice one adult to get in the Fade. One could argue that child's life is more important than adult's life, since child has more life left than adult. Therefore this decision can be considered Good or at least better than the first one.

In the Fade you can deal with the demon by either killing it or solving the problem by talking. Killing the demon would be considered as lawful, since Demon are evil and their motives are evil. If you decide to make a deal with the Demon and the Demon will leave the child alone for a while so the player can do what he needs to Save the World, the decision can be considered as Good, since killing someone is hardly better than solving problem without killing anyone (and you have to respect the deal Connor and Demon made that led to Demon possessing Connor). Furthermore, if the player entering the Fade feels like he can't kill the Demon, it would be wiser to deal with it non-violently so the player can continue saving the world instead of getting killed.

With all these options and different perspectives everything you do can be considered good since the purpose is to save the world but the methods aren't always good and there would be better ways to solve situations than killing everyone. In the end everything you decide is up to player's own sense of morale and since players choices doesn't really matter in the wrong places (like shops not selling items or bounty hunters - why would they do that if you saved their lives) they can do whatever they think fits their character.

I'm not too sure about the consequences since i have not yet finished the game, but i think that is a good example of giving player choices while not really punishing for any of them.

[Karkarov]

I'm not too sure about the consequences since i have not yet finished the game, but i think that is a good example of giving player choices while not really punishing for any of them.

I hate to say it because while I like what you are saying that is a bad example.

 

1: The demon is an evil soul sucking scum.  Sure it made a deal with Conner but it did so by tricking and taking advantage of him.... and he is just a kid confused about his powers.  Hardly a fair deal or one made under no duress.  So no, you can't see letting the demon live as being "good" on any level.  It isn't a person or a lovely deer grazing in the woods, it is a damn demon out to eat peoples souls and spread misery.  Not only that but it is heavily implied in Dragon Age demonic creatures don't really die they just disperse into the fade until they can reform.  So you aren't really killing it anyway.

 

2: There was a third option that required no sacrifice of an adult or killing Conner.  So it was the obvious "uber good guy" choice.  It also has absolutely no negative effects.

 

3: Time freezes at that point and you could literally take in game months before you made a decision and nothing would happen.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Karkarov

[Kjaamor]

3: Time freezes at that point and you could literally take in game months before you made a decision and nothing would happen.

 

In my opinion, if there was anything that modern games have set a better standard for that should be implemented into retro-style games like PoE, it is The Walking Dead's implementation of time-pressured decision making in dialogue/decision options. The worst option being that you failed to decide on an option in the time you had is an excellent mechanic.

 

If anyone can offer a good example of this occuring in previous generations then do tell, because it's a truly great mechanic and practically makes TWD great of its own accord.

[Lephys]

In my opinion, if there was anything that modern games have set a better standard for that should be implemented into retro-style games like PoE, it is The Walking Dead's implementation of time-pressured decision making in dialogue/decision options. The worst option being that you failed to decide on an option in the time you had is an excellent mechanic.

My only qualm with that is that there are, perhaps, many points at which it seems rather arbitrary for your response to be time-sensitive. "So, how are things going today?"

 

*starts 7-second timer... player doesn't figure out what he wants to say in-time.*

 

"Oh, EFF me? FINE! EFF YOU, TOO!"

 

Of course, it makes a lot more sense in The Wolf Among Us, since, more often than not, you're short on time, in general, so the timing on each response is more indicative of "you only have so much time to actually talk to this person before they end this interview," etc.

[Kjaamor]

While it may not be as readily apparent that you need to answer within a relatively short time period, compared to it being easily apparent that you swiftly need to put a bullet in a zombie's brain, it was apparent to me that more often than not the option I hammered on in a panic was most likely the option that most suited my response. There were less than three points in the walking dead where my answer did not reflect my general feelings - which is to its credit, the relative ambiguity of the responses almost always reflecting easily the emotion at the core.

 

Practically speaking, of course, those "How's it going?" conversation timeouts were substantially longer than the "OH, ****!" timeouts. Which is exactly as it should be.

 

As an aside, I didn't really bother to pursue The Wolf Among Us, because whilst the above aspect is an excellent trick, neither TWD nor TWAU actually have much beyond a pretty standard point and click game otherwise. That TWD is so playable regardless, is a testament to the quality of the trick and the superb execution throughout. That, and the fact that the Wolf is all too easy to become comedy ****, whilst Lee is a genuinely human and likeable character.

[Lephys]

*shrug*. The Wolf Among Us is actually pretty awesome. It feels a lore more substantial than The Walking Dead, even (haven't played Season 2 yet, though). It's actually pretty well done. And it kinda fits more, because you're investigating, as the main character, rather than just playing through a plot that's occurring and pointing and clicking as you go -- it all adds up to the conclusion.

 

Annnywho.

 

Yeah, it usually was what you were going to pick anyway. But, sometimes it wasn't. Sometimes it didn't really matter what you picked, etc.

 

I like the game, but I do have minor qualms about the way that was handled, in relation to the significance of your dialogue options. Not to mention that some people read faster than others. You can't truly know what to pick until you know what it is you can pick from, so you have to read them all, then process the best response, then go with it. There come times when it's a bit silly to do all that in 5 seconds.

 

Not that I think there's some perfect equation for such a time limit or anything. *shrug*. That's just how I felt, playing it.

 

Not to mention, if you have to sneeze when an important decision pops up. Seriously... that happened to me.

[Kjaamor]

Obviously if someone suffers from Dyslexia it would appear unlikely they're going to get much out of TWD. I would assume, however, that a reading-heavy game like PoE is going to create a similar headache, although it would appear apparent that it isn't as crushing at core moments as TWD.

 

Sometimes it doesn't matter what you pick. Unfortunately, as I reached the end of season 1, it became apparent that the vast majority of the time your decisions don't carry to consequence you might have thought (main reason for lack of enthusiasm for TWAU). However the fact that choices sometimes matter and sometimes don't makes ALL choices much more involving than the toss good/bad/neutral dialogue in games like Shadowrun Returns or even BLASPHEMYBLASPHEMYBLASPHEMYBLASPHEMY Baldur's Gate 2, where you can threaten to stab a victim's child in one line then literally be Paladining one out in the next.

 

I don't expect this feature in PoE, which will lend itself to a different style. I'm merely lamenting the fact that of the gameplay mechanics that this last generation brought in, that is one of the few that I would've like to have seen as part of my generation.