Am I the only one that just stopped playing?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Admittedly when I arrived at Defiance Bay and was tiring of the game, I quickly looked at a walkthrough and found there were three factions and went with the Crucible Knights.

[Sven_]

Some more recent comments -- I think those are great and viable at all, but I feel and could be wrong about it (sorry if I do), but we're entering the realm of a target audiences the game simply isn't made for. The great thing about projects such as this in the first place is that they aren't (or shouldn't be) the result of super extensive focus group testing ("developers should care that each and every player who will happen to pick up their game will finish it") -- and about the level of combat difficulty that crops up, I thought that if anything the feedback from the IE veterans who form the majority who backed this was that if anything it would be a far more straight-forward affair. That's my take, but early game Baldur's Gate certainly is a heck of a lot more deadly than this, as you arrive with but a couple of hit points into the world and killing your first bear becomes an achievement you feel proud of, going early into Nashkel mines ill-equipped results into you being target training for goblin archers. In all of those cases but a couple hits or a critical means your dead immediately, unlike in PoE. And that's just the type of game that's being targeted for and has been communicated during development as well as the initial pitch to the backers.

 

To get back on the issue with the factions, taking feedback aboard by those who paid attention and did misunderstand it, that is viable to look at. However this is not the kind of game that caters to "more casual" players as was suggested, in particular in terms of involvement and reading and story-telling. This is a kind of game that's become extinct, in particular by major studios and developers, and it was one of the driving forces in the first place to bring that back into the blockbuster, more streamlined, pick-up-and-play stream of RPGs that has basically dominated the market for like fifteen years now. There is nothing wrong with those, however, there is a heck of a lot wrong with another type of game becoming practically extinct because design by extensive market research/commitee/focus group testing/hand-holding has rules supreme. And for the sake of SOME polemic in regards to a more casual commitment to what's actually going on, dialogue "written for people who don't like dialogue" (thanks Mr. Sawyer) has cropped up in many a game of some calibre. PoE wasn't communicated to be one of those by any stretch. Combat, in particular early on in Baldur's gate was rough, and as it had even more open design, you could quickly venture somewhere and find that you're not up to snuff for the challenge present in multiple areas simultaneously. Icewind Dale, in particular the second part, had some fiendishly hard encounters (and was beloved by its fans for exactly offering that). Likewise, without reading much and thinking about events, Torment was no joy to play at all.

 

I must add another thought and that since the game makes accepting the aforementioned quests appear like a major choice (and it does do that), the first thing I'd do if I wasn't sure was just saving the game before accepting.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Sven_

[Miquel93]

This thread reminds me of how people were surprised and pissed of how they couldn't play after finishing the main quest in New Vegas, despite having a big pop up screen adverting them of such.

 

Good times...

[Anthile]

I am genuinely surprised to see so many people defend the faction choice. It's one of the most baffling quests I have ever seen in a game. It's so strangely designed that instead of simply being bad, it almost seems to be like this on purpose.

 

Here's what's the issue. You enter Defiance Bay and get a very vague idea of what's going on. The first problem is that the game does a poor job at establishing the factions - and why they are mutually exclusive. I know when I joined the Dozens I had never met a Doemenel and had no idea there was even the possibility of joining them.

The whole faction quest is essentially backwards. Unless you're a very strange person, you will join any of the factions long before you know that it ties into the main plot. This doesn't strike me as very elegant. Ideally the faction choice would have been the very first main quest in act two. This way it would have been a good way to establish the sociopolitical landscape of Defiance Bay while still giving the player the opportunity to do free questing. Instead, choosing a faction is just about the last thing you are told to do. Did Obsidian really think people would wait this long?

This leads us to the second backwards issue. Once you've done some work for the Dozens, you can easily end up being a member just by accepting a quest. The very act of accepting makes you a member, which makes no sense. This is highly questionable for a very obvious reason. What happens here is that the quest breaks causality. Because of what you will be forced to do in the future, you are no longer a viable candidate for the other factions. The funny thing is that the Dozens recruiter knows that because he set it up that way. However, the other recruiters could not possibly be aware of this setup - but the game treats it like they are. The quest railroads you into doing something terribly stupid with no way of talking your way out of it and is just about the only quest to do so.

Thus, there is no logical reason merely accepting this quest should change your relations to the other factions. It removes agency from the player and is therefore poorly designed. Imagine if the child sacrifice quest in Twin Elms worked like this: once you accepted it there would be no way of any other solution but sacrifice the child. 

[Starwars]

I'm on my third playthrough.

[Exyll]

Seems like 95% of today's gamers dont want to read. Anything. 

So this thread is no surprise.

/comes to quest giver

/clicks 'continue' until quest is given

/time to create a thread blaming devs for your lack of reading comprehension

Its always someone else's fault.

[GrinningReaper659]

Seems like 95% of today's gamers dont want to read. Anything. 

So this thread is no surprise.

/comes to quest giver

/clicks 'continue' until quest is given

/time to create a thread blaming devs for your lack of reading comprehension

Its always someone else's fault.

 

What is the point of you people dropping in here to accuse others of being idiots or lacking reading comprehension? Do you feel better about yourself now buddy? Good, then go away and stop trying to turn a conversation into a ****-measuring contest. I love reading, and I'm in the 97th national percentile in the U.S. for reading comprehension according to my SAT scores, what do you think about that Exyll? I guess we'll have to duke it out with some mortal reading comprehension kombat to determine which of us is the true reading champion

 

There's more to this issue than a lack of signposting on the knights vs. dozens issue. Are you not capable of comprehending that simple point?

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

 

 

not realize the full repercussions o' a choice?  am not seeing why that is bad.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Me neither, that's a great thing. Just not salient to this discussion, because no choice was made.

 

a choice were made.  you were oblivious to the choice... possibly willful.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

It certainly is making a choice when someone says "REMEMBER OTHER FACTIONS WONT WORK WITH YOU" and you say "OK!"

 

 

You keep saying that, but that never actually happens in game.  They say that other factions will be "angry" at you, but they never flat out state that you will be locked out of a future game mechanic just by accepting the quest.  Those aren't quite the same thing, especially for more casual gamers that don't have finely tuned meta-game senses.

 

 

actually, meta-game is precisely what you want.   you are given a choice.  you are told quite clear that you are making a choice, so it is not ambiguous or accidental and you are also given an, "i need to think about this option," that the player doesn't see in most other dialogues.  that alone should warn folks that this choice IS different.  the fact that you are not enlightened o' all the mechanical implications is indeed avoiding the meta-game force-feeding, but you do know you are making a choice and you should realize that the choice is different.  also, as were noted elsewhere, and given that this is now a spoiler thread we don't mind mentioning, the ultimate choice you make at the hearing is unaffected by the faction you aligned with.  

 

is this actual 'bout the faction talent and the faction store?  folks gleeful kill the dozens or mafia family members but then is bothered that they cannot get access to the talent or faction specific goodies? 

 

kill maerwald (sp?) in caed nua and you got 3 choices regarding what you can do with his soul.  we are not informed specific o' the mechanical implications o' the choice.  we needs make a CHOICE based on the knowledge we would have within the context o' the game, and that is a good thing.  choice were not fully informed, so why not complain about it too?  and how much knowledge do you need or would be sufficient?  you need to know that by taking knowledge rather than setting maerwald's soul free the specific tangible advantage you are gonna, maybe, possibly receive if you near complete endless paths?  would you have chosen different if the reward item had been a universal beneficial ring rather than a weapon that your pc might not actual get use outta?  so, how much information do you need  for your choice to be informed enough within the game?

 

if you get the faction head warning, then you cannot justifiably complain that you did not know that you were making a choice.  so how much meta-information were necessary for folks to feel that the choice were informed... and informed enough?  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sven_]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not realize the full repercussions o' a choice?  am not seeing why that is bad.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Me neither, that's a great thing. Just not salient to this discussion, because no choice was made.

 

a choice were made.  you were oblivious to the choice... possibly willful.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

It certainly is making a choice when someone says "REMEMBER OTHER FACTIONS WONT WORK WITH YOU" and you say "OK!"

 

 

You keep saying that, but that never actually happens in game.  They say that other factions will be "angry" at you, but they never flat out state that you will be locked out of a future game mechanic just by accepting the quest.  Those aren't quite the same thing, especially for more casual gamers that don't have finely tuned meta-game senses.

 

 

actually, meta-game is precisely what you want.   you are given a choice.  you are told quite clear that you are making a choice, so it is not ambiguous or accidental and you are also given an, "i need to think about this option," that the player doesn't see in most other dialogues.  that alone should warn folks that this choice IS different.  the fact that you are not enlightened o' all the mechanical implications is indeed avoiding the meta-game force-feeding, but you do know you are making a choice and you should realize that the choice is different.  also, as were noted elsewhere, and given that this is now a spoiler thread we don't mind mentioning, the ultimate choice you make at the hearing is unaffected by the faction you aligned with. 

 

 

If the more heavy stuff (and there's more to it than in PoE 2 hands down, here's an interview with MCA about it:

) would be telegraphed to the player in that meta kind of way (if you push X, then definitely Y), the game would completely fall apart. For the purists, it's also very unlike a pen&paper adventure many of these games harken back to at their roots -- naturally you can debate to which extent a video game adaptation of those should mimic everything found in the pen&paper, different formats, tech and all (as an anecdote, by the time Thief came about the folks at Looking Glass kind of "mocked" traditional CRPGs in a manifesto, tongue-in-cheek ranting that all the carefully recreated stats, to hit rolls and similar wouldn't cut it on a computer; and that the mazes of multiple choice dialogue they also had done would be no replacement for the social activity that would form the core of the forebears). F'r instance, early on in W2 you're forced into a situation which lets you decide which of two distress signals to answer to. By the standard of most video games, it wouldn't matter. In this one, it does. How harshly it does it kind of sort of the appeal, actually.

 

Personal opinion and preference and all, but for similar reasons I played PoE without dialogue options being flagged, the hints how each of them might affect your personality in the game (see MCA's comment about Kotor 2, and how a lot of people would just meta the thing and chose options in a pursuit to gain light side/dark side points without caring about the actual context down to ignoring what's actually being said).  Even if the factions were introduced better, I think in a case like this there should be some minor ambiguity (it's pretty clear to me, as argued, what's on stake here). Imagine you at least were aware of the conflict and power struggle, the intel in between factions, how they're keeping a close eye on each other as well as the people doing work for them (which is established in quests, at very least) -- accepting such work by any of them SHOULD feel dangerous and make you wonder about the exact consequences and whether it would be a good idea to do so rather than mechanically accepting everything. In some cases it may be good to remind you that this is a video game and that there are limitations and abstractions you have to deal with, however from my point of view such can prove a huge distraction and should be rather avoided whenever possible (i.e. the argument that there should be a clear message warning you of points of definitely no returns). In this case, the concept of LYING and betraying people had been established long before you get to this decision, which is clearly a yes, please, or no one rather than a yes, please, LIE: yes please and no one. Established was also right in the prologue that clicks of the mouse aren't arbitrary, but can steer the course of actions into multiple ways, both most immediately and also an hour further into the game.

 

What I've personally didn't like about the whole thing is actually how the narrative demands you to chose one side (without necessarily doing a particularly good job of introducing them immediately). Without spoiling anything, it won't matter for the main story arc in any kind of way anyway, but for some it could feel like it would be some kind of major thing when it rather isn't as far as the main arc is concerned. My rogue who didn't give a rat's ass about any of them ended up being promoted into their ranks eventually and being treated as such, which felt kind of weird. Then again, this is actually very much like Gothic, thinking about it, if anybody remembers. You have to align to one of the three factions to progress, which actually makes up a huge part of the game unlike here. New Vegas, now that was a different story. Speaking of which...

 

 

 

This thread reminds me of how people were surprised and pissed of how they couldn't play after finishing the main quest in New Vegas, despite having a big pop up screen adverting them of such.

 

Good times...

 

 

I think you can complain about that as a design decision, i.e. you not being able to go back and quest further but the story being wrapped up Fallout-style and end of (which I am convinced some did). However if anybody was seriously surprised to find out then that is their fault entirelly, true. That was blatantly this-is-a-video-game-about-to-end-so-take-care-instrusive-popup-alert spoon feedingly obvious.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Sven_

[Mdalton31]

I stopped , I found the story line lame.. and I didn't like how every other character you try to talk to goes into a giant

vision of their life and you have no options to actually talk to them

[TrashMan]

to ss

 

you are told, without equivocation, that if you take a quest, you will anger factions A & B.

 

you take the quest.

 

the player expresses shock that he cannot align with faction A & B.

 

am having difficulty expressing our lack o' sympathy.

 

 

for folks who missed the warning 'cause they got tired o' reading...

 

*shrug*

 

as soon as you get warning, it is on you to do due diligence and explore what each faction offers and stands for... and that info is readily available. 

 

again, there is some quirks that Could result in getting too much rep before speaking with a faction head, but such stuff is rare and doing so excludes you from one faction.  the results is reasonable. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps added clip that captures our reaction.

 

 

Gromnir, thou can go stick thine holier-than-thou stick back in yon ass, if the only thing thou aims to add to this thread is insults of others people intelligence.

 

I played a lot of PnP and RPG,s and I read well, thank you very much.

The entrie thing felt forced as a point of no return.

 

FFS, the Dozens quests give you options to LIE to them, or never give them those weapons!

 

So no, the game DOES NOT communicate the choice is final well. Plenty of people obviously missed it.

Faction X will not like it?

Faction X does not have to like everything I do. Is what I did that big a deal? Am I useful to them? Is a little bit of clarity on that matter too much to ask?

I talked to a guy from faction Y - just like I did before that for the previous quest - is that a crime? Is taking a paid job to fetch something from a ruin a crime?

 

I don't like it. It doesn't feel organic at all.

Edited April 30, 2015 by TrashMan

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I've now finished the game which took a month to do and can't see myself playing this again. From the middle of Act 2, it was a chore to get to the end. If I ever do play this again, It'll likely be the triple crown solo but can't see myself playing this for a long time - at least a year or two.

[archangel979]

I stopped , I found the story line lame.. and I didn't like how every other character you try to talk to goes into a giant

vision of their life and you have no options to actually talk to them

Those are backer NPCs and their text is written by those same backers. You can ignore them completely and even kill them with no penalty if only backer NPCs are around. Edited April 30, 2015 by archangel979

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Those are backer NPCs and their text is written by those same backers. You can ignore them completely and even kill them with no penalty if only backer NPCs are around.

 

No, Obsidian wrote the stories for the backer NPCs.

[archangel979]

 

Those are backer NPCs and their text is written by those same backers. You can ignore them completely and even kill them with no penalty if only backer NPCs are around.

 

No, Obsidian wrote the stories for the backer NPCs.

 

Everywhere I read, it was said that is fan text (backers). Obsidian probably just checked it out so it is not standing out too much.

[GrinningReaper659]

 

 

Those are backer NPCs and their text is written by those same backers. You can ignore them completely and even kill them with no penalty if only backer NPCs are around.

 

No, Obsidian wrote the stories for the backer NPCs.

 

Everywhere I read, it was said that is fan text (backers). Obsidian probably just checked it out so it is not standing out too much.

 

 

Where did you read that? Obsidian clearly wrote the text for the backer NPCs. if you want to see what the writing of the backers looks like, read the memorials. The difference is pretty obvious.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Everywhere I read, it was said that is fan text (backers). Obsidian probably just checked it out so it is not standing out too much.

 

No, it was Obsidian. I have a NPC in the game and what I wrote didn't make the game. Obsidian wrote all of it. And other people have come forward on this forum and confirmed the same.

[Sven_]

Faction X does not have to like everything I do. Is what I did that big a deal? Am I useful to them? Is a little bit of clarity on that matter too much to ask?

I talked to a guy from faction Y - just like I did before that for the previous quest - is that a crime? Is taking a paid job to fetch something from a ruin a crime?

 

I don't like it. It doesn't feel organic at all.

 

 

 

It's not a crime, but it's been established by the game (and could be done better) that simply working for a faction might be pretty dangerous and that each faction is keeping a very close eye on those who agree to do -- you don't get membership by agreeing to do their most important work by the way, as some suggested, you merely agree an important job for each of them at that point. There are people lured into traps and beaten up for doing such. I stand by my opinion -- the dialogue is intensively suggestive (is there really an option to LIE to the dozens? There isn't one for the Knights 100%), and if you meta the thing to the point that definitely suggests and hints at the mechanics underneath, everything becomes stale and clicking through a bunch of options to get a desired effect.

 

I know there are different opinions on this and can be, but in a game that establishes that dialogues aren't to be arbitrarily clicked and merely mood flavour early on (that choice and consequence thing), that would feel very empty and hollow an experience. However, there will be different opinions on this, naturally. Some actually like to game and beat a system rather than "immersing" themselves without being reminded of all the numbers and switches underneath, for others some ambiguity is part of the game. In a pen&paper for instance your dungeon master might not tell you outright, in such a case, however, he might talk to you equally as suggestive if not more -- in a game like this, we only have text to go by, with a real person acting it out, the mimics and body language applied would certainly seal the deal. Plus you aren't limited to the options being presented to you but could try to further enquire rather than say yes or no (again, at this binary point, is there really an option to outright LIE to the Dozens?). Any game made of this mold that makes players think about the context rather than accepting quests left and right is a success in this regard in my book.

 

Maybe the mistake is having this card blanche first quest that you can do regardless of anything, and "arbitrarily" the second quests featuring the warnings. Though the second quests seem to be much more risky and important in their objective, and on the case involve beating up actual members of other factions outright. Agreed with everyone about possible issues with the introduction of the factions, their struggle and how closely they are keeping an eye on each other actually and how you're forced to pick a side to a degree -- obviously some did pay attention and still missed the message. However I don't agree about making this so blatantly obvious that it would remove all kind of involvement with the actual context and remove the risk and uncertainty with picking such an option regardless of all the warning signs all over the place (depending on how you get to the choice anyway). Maybe the writers would have ensured to make these even more in your face if this faction choice had an actual bearing on the main story arc, which it doesn't. In the end, you're being asked to align to a faction to get into the Duc's hearing, and whilst helpint out one of the factions affects politics in Defiance Bay, in the grand scheme of things as far as the main conflict of Pillars is concerned it won't mean a thing. I suspected that this wasn't the sole reason for anyone to stop playing outright (and it likely isn't), but doing such would be a tad daft, which most will likely agree in retrospective.

 

edit: To expand, as the whole faction stuff isn't anything that a) puts you into a dead and b) hugely alters the course of the rest of the game or anything, I'm actually of the opinion that you SHOULD be able to screw this up. Like, why have factions refusing to do business with the player when it's super clearly telegraphed to him which and what triggers this and how? Of course nobody's going to do that then. In a sense, people reporting they screwed this up is a good sign to me. It won't end the game for anybody, it won't hugely affect anything on tops, and as such it's a "fail state" that makes having that risky choice and consequence worth having in the game in the first place. The problem really is when someone feels the entire conflict and context isn't communicated to him any, but each faction gives you that warning, no matter if the first thing you do in Defiance Bay is running up towards the Dozen straight out of the bat without actually meeting anyone of the other factions you're being warned about in person. If you want to know more, it's up to you to cfind out then first and chose "I must think about this" rather than clicking yes, m'am just cause. My take.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Sven_

[archangel979]

 

 

Everywhere I read, it was said that is fan text (backers). Obsidian probably just checked it out so it is not standing out too much.

No, it was Obsidian. I have a NPC in the game and what I wrote didn't make the game. Obsidian wrote all of it. And other people have come forward on this forum and confirmed the same.

That makes it worse as those time could have been spent making NPCs like in BG1 that have short funny conversations with you.

[Ineth]

I agree, it's unfortunate that Obsidian decided to let their writers spend time writing all those uselss "NPC soul stories", and at the same time cut content from the scripted companions.

[Hassat Hunter]

Yup, I stopped playing...

...

...

...After completing the game in 90 hours.

[Aqueous]

Well, they do warn you that it will piss the other fractions off. Even so I was also abit surprised about it. But the real problem here seems to be, if you don't want to go with any faction. Then it's like not wanting to partner with the shadow thieves or Bodhi in BG 2. To play the game, you kinda have to make a choice. 

They don't, that's the problem.

 

The KNIGHTS do ie. if you go to take their 2nd quest. The DOZENS do not, however.

[Sven_]

 

Well, they do warn you that it will piss the other fractions off. Even so I was also abit surprised about it. But the real problem here seems to be, if you don't want to go with any faction. Then it's like not wanting to partner with the shadow thieves or Bodhi in BG 2. To play the game, you kinda have to make a choice. 

They don't, that's the problem.

 

The KNIGHTS do ie. if you go to take their 2nd quest. The DOZENS do not, however.

 

 

 

Possible bug?

 

[Kharisian]

 

 

Well, they do warn you that it will piss the other fractions off. Even so I was also abit surprised about it. But the real problem here seems to be, if you don't want to go with any faction. Then it's like not wanting to partner with the shadow thieves or Bodhi in BG 2. To play the game, you kinda have to make a choice. 

They don't, that's the problem.

 

The KNIGHTS do ie. if you go to take their 2nd quest. The DOZENS do not, however.

 

 

 

Possible bug?

 

 

 

I find this screen somehow implying that other factions will stop working for me faintly amusing (as some here have stated), and it's largely because of this screen I set the game down and wandered off. That's not reading comprehension or a lack of intelligence, that's not translating a game defining moment into anything resembling a game defining moment. 

 

I did accept this quest, assuming that, like the mass majority of quests in this game that can give positive or negative results, that the following would be true:

 

A) The damage will be to my reputation, given that I'd be "stepping on toes." Other quests with divergent results to kill me reputation exist, and did so at the end.

B) Such damage would happen when I completed this quest, as is the result with every other quest. That is, you know, logical. 

C) Should I need to I could advise other people involved of the quest of what was happening, in this case the Crucible Knights. 

D) I could turn around and backstab them by not giving them the goods, or choosing an option which makes them hate me when completing said quest.  

 

Instead, I was confronted by a situation in which, before I had even gotten a chance to speak with the knights in detail about what they wanted to the same degree as the Dozens, who I had finished a quest for (their first one being easily completable, as their headquarters being the first found by most players), I had accepted a quest nine hours in that I learned would massively limit my control of the situation 31 hours in, because this quest was constructed differently from the norm in this game. I hadn't even accepted the first Knights quest yet, but they still let me take it (even though I was now secretly to me but openly to the game world allied with the Dozens), where I learned more about the Knights in particular and their leaders. It endeared me even more to the Knights, since most of the interaction you have prior to that is either via hearsay or the first Dozens quest (and boy do the Crucible Knights not come out looking good). Suddenly I had none of the freedom prior quests gave me. On top of that, there was no mention of a dire circumstance, the knights still let me do quests for them, and I'd already alienated the Doemenels. And I had no problems with the way that turned out, even if I couldn't foresee the consequences of my actions, because it followed a logical moral and storytelling framework. It made logical sense. My boyfriend who is also playing told me he was on their good side and what I missed out on, and I didn't even care; I made a decision based on facts and moral exactitude and it made sense.

 

But the available information does not logically follow in your decisions regarding the Dozens. I killed their men to help the Knights, and they don't care. That's not assuming a side. But accepting the second quest from the Dozens is? My actions to protect animancy and my commentary in public should be endearing me to the Knights, and not those who hate it, the Dozens.

 

The problem is that with the way the Dozens are set up, players who are only too happy to help the Knights, who have followed the story, read the lore, and have been doing the quests asked of them, are suddenly told that a decision often made many hours previous with a serious lack of signposting can't be changed. Not if we slaughter every single Dozen we find. Not if I slaughter their little buddies torturing someone in the city (they still want me as an ally when I killed their guys to help the Knights, and that's considered reasonable, but the above screenshot is entirely fine?). Not if I tell them they are horrible people and I hope they die to their face. I don't even get an option to lie in the quest turn in, don't get an option to tell the Knights, nothing. 

 

It's jarring to have the level of freedom I had in the game stripped from me, and it's jarring that there are no solutions available to fix it. It jarred me right out of the storyline so much I actually stopped playing. 

 

What about the defence. 

 

A) Unintended consequences are good! Even when true, illogical ones that disrupt RP and are counter-intuitive typically aren't good when you are constructing a narrative. 

B) But it tells you! Maybe for the Knights of Doemenels it might be acceptable, but at the very least the Dozens doesn't make it sound like a game changer. Hardly the "clear warning" advertised above. 

C) It doesn't even matter to the story. Other than changing the story, a lack of consequence doesn't make it any less jarring, nor does a further problem in a lack of consequence make the first problem of a lack of knowing of consequences any less relevant. 

D) But you can backstab them later. A given, although also weakens the argument people make that you should be able to backstab them before too. I still shouldn't be railroaded into going with a group I don't want to, especially when I'm supposed to be immersed in a storyline. When a criticism of people who made the same error is "learn reading comprehension" (regardless of relevancy) it shouldn't also come with "but also entirely disassociate yourself from the storyline."

 

At the end of the day, when the argument that things are fine runs along the lines that "you shouldn't care about the story too much" while also demanding "you read better," not only are they contradictory, they kind of run contrast to the flavour of a role playing game. My thoughts anyways.