Good people need some perm ability score bonuses

[Sonntam]

 

You can also argue whether it's cruel or not to sacrifice Durance in the blood pool...

 

I might even argue that it's kind to sacrifice Devil to the blood pool, after all she's always talking about how horrible her existence is.

 

Why do people like you constantly bring this up? Devil is a big girl, she can kill herself if she wants to. Either you help her properly by solving her problems or you can simply stay away. 

[JerekKruger]

Why do people like you constantly bring this up? Devil is a big girl, she can kill herself if she wants to. Either you help her properly by solving her problems or you can simply stay away.

 

I'm sorry if you're growing tired of the suggestion, but it's the first time I've made it and I've not seen it made by others (to the best of my memory), so I can assure you I am not "constantly" bringing it up.

 

As for her ability to kill herself, given how much of her personal dialogue is about how horrible her current existence is and the fact that she doesn't, I can't help wondering whether Galvino has implemented some way to stop her. As for solving her problems, none of her ending slides (that I've seen) suggest you solve anything.

Edited February 19, 2017 by JerekKruger

[Mikeymoonshine]

Nah there should be benefits for doing bad things sometimes that is more realistic. Like there should be consequences too and I am not sure if there were quite enough of those in POE1 but then I wouldn't want it to go overboard either.  

 

But sure good deeds do not always need to go unrewarded either. 

[Sonntam]

 

Why do people like you constantly bring this up? Devil is a big girl, she can kill herself if she wants to. Either you help her properly by solving her problems or you can simply stay away.

 

I'm sorry if you're growing tired of the suggestion, but it's the first time I've made it and I've not seen it made by others (to the best of my memory), so I can assure you I am not "constantly" bringing it up.

 

As for her ability to kill herself, given how much of her personal dialogue is about how horrible her current existence is and the fact that she doesn't, I can't help wondering whether Galvino has implemented some way to stop her. As for solving her problems, none of her ending slides (that I've seen) suggest you solve anything.

 

Hence "people like you" and not you personally.

 

Devil of Caroc walks off into the sea and is never seen again in one ending. That sure sounds like suicide to me. No surprise she did not do it earlier, though, ever since she still had some hope if not for happiness, then for revenge.

[JerekKruger]

Hence "people like you" and not you personally.

 

I can assure you, there's no one like me.

 

Devil of Caroc walks off into the sea and is never seen again in one ending. That sure sounds like suicide to me.

 

 

But the description in that slide has her rusting, and remaining conscious whilst doing so. It didn't sound like she died as a result to me.She certainly didn't die from drowning.

[stiven]

neutral evil 

 

 

Meh, all this alignment crap from DnD should be pack up and drop into dump, where it belongs. The core reason why DnD have an alignment system is to restrict player actions, if story required it. And not sure what are you talking about, in PoE if people catch you stealing - they treat it like a crime. In f1/2 it is the same, and in any other crpg, actually. 

 

In fact, to hell this naive my little pony tier crap in crpg, i pretty sure that overage age of RPG core audience something around 18+. Let be realistic and adult, - no "good deed" should be left unpunished, no "bad deed" should be contrive and arbitrarily labeled as such and not rewarded because "f&k you, we decided so, because our crpg operates in term of kinder garden morale". Or rather both "good" and "evil" should be punished/rewarded equally in term of "action-consequences" in context of story. Player has steal a last coin from a Npc house - npc died from starvation in act 2. BUT in the same time, if player will give 10 gold to the npc, - in Act 2 this npc will try to kill player and steal more, because he has decided to do so/or local gang has ask him where he got 10 gold and forced him/or something else . Action - consequences please, no this contrive bollocks when "good" side is always wearing the thickest plot armor. If story logic dictated that a "good" need to be punished for being "lawful dumb" - then let it be so. Same for "bad" too. In ideal pack up this "good/evil" and throw in the window altogether. I mean in ideal story, only NPC reaction to player "deeds" actually exist, and each player should decided for him/her-self what to make out it.

 

And even more, the usual kinder garden approach to morality is devalued the "good" as concept. Because usually "good" in crpg is nothing more that a carrot on the string for player to follow. For example - Alpha protocol - i beat it once - and there is zero replayability in it because there is no nuance in it - Why you ever not act as "good" (which mean let dangerous individuals to live, with "good" as this, who need "evil") if it has better rewards, better ending, and better all around? What is a value in this "your decisions, your weapon" if there is no way to make wrong choice as long as you "dropping a bone" to writers which obviously played paladins too much? Just act as "good"/follow the carrot - and you will get everything easy without ANY negative consequences, because you wearing some sort "good guy" golden parachute.

 

In short, i guess, an ideal cRPG has no "good/evil" bs in it, but choices/consequence. Those "consequence" may manifest in a wary of ways, but primary in reactions of NPC to player actions. An ideal cRPG is immerse player into game world, and makes it clear about what consequences will player get for his actions. Ideal cRPG (or story) don't enabled consequence free, easy mode, for one of many sides involved in the story, just because the side is a "good guys'. Primary because it is devalued concept of "good'. An ideal cRPG/story/book is just telling a story with charterers, each of which has his own view on concept of moral, and of good and evil, but the story itself doesn't not playing favors.

 

Probably the only reason why usual "good/evil" bs is plagued cRPG for so long. It is because everyone is understand, that if left DnD/usual cRPG "good" and "evil" on even and fair ground - "good" will lost in second, Because what called "good" in this case is usually dumb and unrealistic, and has zero chances to survive in even situation, without it usual plot armor. But this is it! The fun of playing an actual "good", not DnD-ish "good", character is in understanding that your actions can actually make things worst for you/your friends/ or for someone else, and in decision  - would you do what is right, regardless of consequences? Im finding this ironic that the real heroes in those stories is usually the "bad" guys, because they actually committing to their course, they have sound and sane (usually) plan, and they are acting on their plan instead, of making bad decisions and acting like a complete "retard-good" and yet thanks for plot armor of "good guys" still get it all in the last moment on wings of the eagles. That what 20+ years of dnd alignment bollocks has done to the genre.

 

 

...hmm it seems like my little respond in bad english, has grown to the size of 1 a4 page in words...hmm and it badly derailing from the original KDubya post...hmm should i delete it or make people hate me again...hmmm.........xD

Edited February 20, 2017 by stiven

[tinysalamander]

Let be realistic and adult, - no "good deed" should be left unpunished, no "bad deed" should be contrive and arbitrarily labeled as such and not rewarded because "f&k you, we decided so, because our crpg operates in term of kinder garden morale". Or rather both "good" and "evil" should be punished/rewarded equally in term of "action-consequences" in context of story. Player has steal a last coin from a Npc house - npc died from starvation in act 2. BUT in the same time, if player will give 10 gold to the npc, - in Act 2 this npc will try to kill player and steal more, because he has decided to do so/or local gang has ask him where he got 10 gold and forced him/or something else .

 

For how long will you be able to play a game that punishes you for everything you do just because? All that’d do is you either drop the game or stay away from optional content to minimize your frustration.

And, IMO, it’s more of a caricature than anything. Basically, the same level of “adultness” as “let’s add sex here and kick a few puppies that’ll show ’em our game is for adults” is.

 

Speaking of 10 golds, Dragon Age already did that once (at least I remember that one instance): NPC keeps asking for more. I remembered that alright, but I’m not sure it’d entertain me to encounter that again.

[rjshae]

Evil acts should grant you more power for destruction because that's the easier path, but you will pay the price of an ever diminishing support base. Eventually evil should consume itself.

[KDubya]

 

neutral evil 

 

 

Meh, all this alignment crap from DnD should be pack up and drop into dump, where it belongs. The core reason why DnD have an alignment system is to restrict player actions, if story required it. And not sure what are you talking about, in PoE if people catch you stealing - they treat it like a crime. In f1/2 it is the same, and in any other crpg, actually. 

 

In fact, to hell this naive my little pony tier crap in crpg, i pretty sure that overage age of RPG core audience something around 18+. Let be realistic and adult, - no "good deed" should be left unpunished, no "bad deed" should be contrive and arbitrarily labeled as such and not rewarded because "f&k you, we decided so, because our crpg operates in term of kinder garden morale". Or rather both "good" and "evil" should be punished/rewarded equally in term of "action-consequences" in context of story. Player has steal a last coin from a Npc house - npc died from starvation in act 2. BUT in the same time, if player will give 10 gold to the npc, - in Act 2 this npc will try to kill player and steal more, because he has decided to do so/or local gang has ask him where he got 10 gold and forced him/or something else . Action - consequences please, no this contrive bollocks when "good" side is always wearing the thickest plot armor. If story logic dictated that a "good" need to be punished for being "lawful dumb" - then let it be so. Same for "bad" too. In ideal pack up this "good/evil" and throw in the window altogether. I mean in ideal story, only NPC reaction to player "deeds" actually exist, and each player should decided for him/her-self what to make out it.

 

And even more, the usual kinder garden approach to morality is devalued the "good" as concept. Because usually "good" in crpg is nothing more that a carrot on the string for player to follow. For example - Alpha protocol - i beat it once - and there is zero replayability in it because there is no nuance in it - Why you ever not act as "good" (which mean let dangerous individuals to live, with "good" as this, who need "evil") if it has better rewards, better ending, and better all around? What is a value in this "your decisions, your weapon" if there is no way to make wrong choice as long as you "dropping a bone" to writers which obviously played paladins too much? Just act as "good"/follow the carrot - and you will get everything easy without ANY negative consequences, because you wearing some sort "good guy" golden parachute.

 

In short, i guess, an ideal cRPG has no "good/evil" bs in it, but choices/consequence. Those "consequence" may manifest in a wary of ways, but primary in reactions of NPC to player actions. An ideal cRPG is immerse player into game world, and makes it clear about what consequences will player get for his actions. Ideal cRPG (or story) don't enabled consequence free, easy mode, for one of many sides involved in the story, just because the side is a "good guys'. Primary because it is devalued concept of "good'. An ideal cRPG/story/book is just telling a story with charterers, each of which has his own view on concept of moral, and of good and evil, but the story itself doesn't not playing favors.

 

Probably the only reason why usual "good/evil" bs is plagued cRPG for so long. It is because everyone is understand, that if left DnD/usual cRPG "good" and "evil" on even and fair ground - "good" will lost in second, Because what called "good" in this case is usually dumb and unrealistic, and has zero chances to survive in even situation, without it usual plot armor. But this is it! The fun of playing an actual "good", not DnD-ish "good", character is in understanding that your actions can actually make things worst for you/your friends/ or for someone else, and in decision  - would you do what is right, regardless of consequences? Im finding this ironic that the real heroes in those stories is usually the "bad" guys, because they actually committing to their course, they have sound and sane (usually) plan, and they are acting on their plan instead, of making bad decisions and acting like a complete "retard-good" and yet thanks for plot armor of "good guys" still get it all in the last moment on wings of the eagles. That what 20+ years of dnd alignment bollocks has done to the genre.

 

 

...hmm it seems like my little respond in bad english, has grown to the size of 1 a4 page in words...hmm and it badly derailing from the original KDubya post...hmm should i delete it or make people hate me again...hmmm.........xD

 

 

 

I do not want to have DnD style alignments, I merely used 'neutral evil' to convey the concept of doing whatever that gives you the most benefit without thought of others and the fact that everyone would understand what I meant as 'neutral evil'.

 

The OP wanted to get rewards similar to the cruel path from sacrificing companions and feeding the zombie for being 'good'. I and many others posted our disagreement that doing 'good' should also get you more power.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Player has steal a last coin from a Npc house - npc died from starvation in act 2. BUT in the same time, if player will give 10 gold to the npc, - in Act 2 this npc will try to kill player and steal more, because he has decided to do so/or local gang has ask him where he got 10 gold and forced him/or something else . 

 

The design philosophy where the optimal outcome in any given situation can be obtained by not engaging with the situation at all seems counter-productive to me if one's goal is to produce interesting gameplay.

[Ninjamestari]

 

Let be realistic and adult, - no "good deed" should be left unpunished, no "bad deed" should be contrive and arbitrarily labeled as such and not rewarded because "f&k you, we decided so, because our crpg operates in term of kinder garden morale". Or rather both "good" and "evil" should be punished/rewarded equally in term of "action-consequences" in context of story. Player has steal a last coin from a Npc house - npc died from starvation in act 2. BUT in the same time, if player will give 10 gold to the npc, - in Act 2 this npc will try to kill player and steal more, because he has decided to do so/or local gang has ask him where he got 10 gold and forced him/or something else .

 

For how long will you be able to play a game that punishes you for everything you do just because? All that’d do is you either drop the game or stay away from optional content to minimize your frustration.

And, IMO, it’s more of a caricature than anything. Basically, the same level of “adultness” as “let’s add sex here and kick a few puppies that’ll show ’em our game is for adults” is.

 

Speaking of 10 golds, Dragon Age already did that once (at least I remember that one instance): NPC keeps asking for more. I remembered that alright, but I’m not sure it’d entertain me to encounter that again.

 

 

You do realize that if you'd rather have mindless entertainment than a thought provoking learning experience, you're kinda wandered into the wrong niche group of gamers? A game that constantly rewards you for being naive is a naive game, and since most people here are adults and prefer a more mature approach, a certain amount of duplicitous **** that try to take advantage of you is to be expected. There are already a ton of games that shield the player from making bad decisions, and I'd rather have a game that does not.

 

More to the topic, power should come from choices where it makes sense, not because of the morality of the choice. Devouring someones soul, it makes sense, would grant you power. The fact that it is an evil act is just a coincidence. If a player gains power it should never be because he did something "good" or something "bad". It should be something that makes sense in the context of the world. Sacrificing a part of your own soul to save another should come with permanent penalties, since you *are* sacrificing a part of your power to do so. Your reward is whatever you saved, and the price you pay is your personal power. The whole point of "good" is to make trades that benefit someone else on your expense, while the whole concept of "evil" revolves around trades that benefit you on someone else's expense. If the trade benefits both parties, then it is neither good nor evil.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

The whole point of "good" is to make trades that benefit someone else on your expense, while the whole concept of "evil" revolves around trades that benefit you on someone else's expense. If the trade benefits both parties, then it is neither good nor evil.

 

I dunno, trying to maximize the amount of happiness that results from your actions sure sounds like a workable practical definition of "good" to me, but I guess it doesn't really count unless you also make your own life miserable in the process?

 

"Good" doesn't have to be stupid.

[Ninjamestari]

 

The whole point of "good" is to make trades that benefit someone else on your expense, while the whole concept of "evil" revolves around trades that benefit you on someone else's expense. If the trade benefits both parties, then it is neither good nor evil.

 

I dunno, trying to maximize the amount of happiness that results from your actions sure sounds like a workable practical definition of "good" to me, but I guess it doesn't really count unless you also make your own life miserable in the process?

 

"Good" doesn't have to be stupid.

 

Someone who isn't willing to make the sacrifice and still wants to be considered virtuous would say that, yes.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

The whole point of "good" is to make trades that benefit someone else on your expense, while the whole concept of "evil" revolves around trades that benefit you on someone else's expense. If the trade benefits both parties, then it is neither good nor evil.

 

I dunno, trying to maximize the amount of happiness that results from your actions sure sounds like a workable practical definition of "good" to me, but I guess it doesn't really count unless you also make your own life miserable in the process?

 

"Good" doesn't have to be stupid.

 

Someone who isn't willing to make the sacrifice and still wants to be considered virtuous would say that, yes.

 

 

By your definition, someone who sees the suffering of people infected with a deadly illness, rushes in to help them to the best of his ability, then gets infected and promptly dies in a few months is a "better" person than someone who actually puts in the time and effort to devise an effective way to help those people, invents a cure, and saves countless lives without getting himself killed in the process.

 

If your goal is to explicitly portray good as stupid and ultimately self-destructive, I guess that can work as an artistic statement, but otherwise it's no less cartoonish than the currently prevalent portrayal of evil as "someone who is rude to people and occasionally kicks a puppy for no good reason".

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

 

The whole point of "good" is to make trades that benefit someone else on your expense, while the whole concept of "evil" revolves around trades that benefit you on someone else's expense. If the trade benefits both parties, then it is neither good nor evil.

 

I dunno, trying to maximize the amount of happiness that results from your actions sure sounds like a workable practical definition of "good" to me, but I guess it doesn't really count unless you also make your own life miserable in the process?

 

"Good" doesn't have to be stupid.

 

Someone who isn't willing to make the sacrifice and still wants to be considered virtuous would say that, yes.

 

 

By your definition, someone who sees the suffering of people infected with a deadly illness, rushes in to help them to the best of his ability, then gets infected and promptly dies in a few months is a "better" person than someone who actually puts in the time and effort to devise an effective way to help those people, invents a cure, and saves countless lives without getting himself killed in the process.

 

If your goal is to explicitly portray good as stupid and ultimately self-destructive, I guess that can work as an artistic statement, but otherwise it's no less cartoonish than the currently prevalent portrayal of evil as "someone who is rude to people and occasionally kicks a puppy for no good reason".

 

Yep, its the "Chaotic-Stupid/Lawful-Stupid" trap people often fall into.  Both are incorrect even by the alignment system's limited view and leads to puppykicking and paladins stabbing people for being rude.

[Ninjamestari]

 

 

 

The whole point of "good" is to make trades that benefit someone else on your expense, while the whole concept of "evil" revolves around trades that benefit you on someone else's expense. If the trade benefits both parties, then it is neither good nor evil.

 

I dunno, trying to maximize the amount of happiness that results from your actions sure sounds like a workable practical definition of "good" to me, but I guess it doesn't really count unless you also make your own life miserable in the process?

 

"Good" doesn't have to be stupid.

 

Someone who isn't willing to make the sacrifice and still wants to be considered virtuous would say that, yes.

 

 

By your definition, someone who sees the suffering of people infected with a deadly illness, rushes in to help them to the best of his ability, then gets infected and promptly dies in a few months is a "better" person than someone who actually puts in the time and effort to devise an effective way to help those people, invents a cure, and saves countless lives without getting himself killed in the process.

 

If your goal is to explicitly portray good as stupid and ultimately self-destructive, I guess that can work as an artistic statement, but otherwise it's no less cartoonish than the currently prevalent portrayal of evil as "someone who is rude to people and occasionally kicks a puppy for no good reason".

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth. If you're genuinely interested in the topic then at least discuss it honestly and with respect.

[Leeuwenhart]

Wait...what?! You mean i can't stab a guy that cuts in line at the post office?

 

 

Omg what have i been doing?!

[Ninjamestari]

You've been building up your cruelty score in order to take advantage of those evil stat-bonuses, remember? ^^

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Don't put words in my mouth. If you're genuinely interested in the topic then at least discuss it honestly and with respect.

 

 

Your "I'm a delicate little flower and anybody who challenges my ideas is dishonest and disrespectful" routine is starting to wear a bit thin, but I'll indulge you.

 

 

 

 

I dunno, trying to maximize the amount of happiness that results from your actions sure sounds like a workable practical definition of "good" to me, but I guess it doesn't really count unless you also make your own life miserable in the process?

 

 

Someone who isn't willing to make the sacrifice and still wants to be considered virtuous would say that, yes.

 

 

Here we have you implying that actions taken with the intent to maximize utility can't be considered good unless some sort of personal sacrifice is involved (and also such attempts are inherently hypocritical).

 

The whole point of "good" is to make trades that benefit someone else on your expense, while the whole concept of "evil" revolves around trades that benefit you on someone else's expense. If the trade benefits both parties, then it is neither good nor evil.

 

Here you outright say that mutually beneficial actions can't be viewed as "good" (in the moral sense), someone has to benefit at your expense for a trade to be considered "good".

 

From this, it logically follows that someone who sacrifices their life to ease the suffering of others is "good", while someone who eases the suffering of others without making such a sacrifice is not (let's assume they're both paid industry standard wages for their work in the hospital).

 

 

Now, it is entirely possible that your actual ideas are more nuanced than the posts in which you've written them down imply, but if your goal is to have a productive discussion, it would be more helpful to elaborate on those ideas instead of accusing those who challenge them with arguing in bad faith.

[Ninjamestari]

Not being an **** isn't enough to be considered good, there's more to it than that.If you help someone, and you benefit from it, your morality was never tested and thus the deed cannot be viewed as good, as your intentions and motivations are unknowable to an outside observer, such as a game that isn't even a sentient entity but instead a logical construct. Hence, unless the selflessness of your actions are truly tested, they cannot be considered good.

 

This whole concept is quite simple, so your assumption of the logic leading to good people having to be suicidal idiots is intellectually lazy at best and downright dishonest at worst, so don't start this whine about arguing in good faith when your behavior warrants none and actually indicates the exact opposite.

[FlintlockJazz]

Not being an **** isn't enough to be considered good, there's more to it than that.If you help someone, and you benefit from it, your morality was never tested and thus the deed cannot be viewed as good, as your intentions and motivations are unknowable to an outside observer, such as a game that isn't even a sentient entity but instead a logical construct. Hence, unless the selflessness of your actions are truly tested, they cannot be considered good.

 

This whole concept is quite simple, so your assumption of the logic leading to good people having to be suicidal idiots is intellectually lazy at best and downright dishonest at worst, so don't start this whine about arguing in good faith when your behavior warrants none and actually indicates the exact opposite.

I'm sorry, but I have to say it is YOUR behaviour that is warranting none, 'trioxid has been downright polite considering you started off with insinuating that he was being dishonest with your "people like you would say that" comment.  If you want people to treat you with respect then you need to do the same in return.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Not being an **** isn't enough to be considered good, there's more to it than that.If you help someone, and you benefit from it, your morality was never tested and thus the deed cannot be viewed as good, as your intentions and motivations are unknowable to an outside observer, such as a game that isn't even a sentient entity but instead a logical construct. Hence, unless the selflessness of your actions are truly tested, they cannot be considered good.

 

Except

 

- Multiple degrees of potential benefits can exist (am I "good" if I forego to ask for an increased reward if the game offers me the means to do so? what if it only gives me the option to ask for more, but no indication about the expected success of doing so? is it in any way "good" to decline a reward that is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to your character?)

- I'm not entirely sure why you would even want the game to check whether a character is "good" or not, and

- I seriously question the relevance of whether it's possible for an outside observer to verify one's motivations in a discussion about good and evil.

 

The whole thing strikes me as if you had the seed of a good idea there ("let's not meaninglessly slap the 'good' label on characters just for acting in accordance with the incentives the game gives them"), but you got a seriously bad case of tunnel vision halfway through, and let that idea grow out of scope and devour considerations for anything else (like asking yourself the question whether the game should even track "goodness", and if not, why should you even be concerned about verifying purity of intent?).

 

 

you started off with insinuating that he was being dishonest with your "people like you would say that" comment

 

Technically he didn't outright say "people like you". He merely strongly implied it 

Edited February 21, 2017 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Ninjamestari]

 

Except

 

- Multiple degrees of potential benefits can exist (am I "good" if I forego to ask for an increased reward if the game offers me the means to do so? what if it only gives me the option to ask for more, but no indication about the expected success of doing so? is it in any way "good" to decline a reward that is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to your character?)

- I'm not entirely sure why you would even want the game to check whether a character is "good" or not, and

- I seriously question the relevance of whether it's possible for an outside observer to verify one's motivations in a discussion about good and evil.

 

The whole thing strikes me as if you had the seed of a good idea there ("let's not meaninglessly slap the 'good' label on characters just for acting in accordance with the incentives the game gives them"), but you got a seriously bad case of tunnel vision halfway through, and let that idea grow out of scope and devour considerations for anything else (like asking yourself the question whether the game should even track "goodness", and if not, why should you even be concerned about verifying purity of intent?).

 

 

 

The whole thread, titled "Good people need some perm ability score bonuses" implies that we're acting under the assumption that the game *is* tracking goodness. Whether the game actually will, or if it should (I don't think it should, morality is difficult to determine properly and PoE1 didn't attempt to do so) is an entirely different discussion.

 

The multiple degrees of potential benefits belong to the gray area that can't really be tracked, hence "Good Points" should only be awarded when certain logical criteria is being met. Helping a beggar out by tossing him a coin isn't "good", sacrificing your left leg to save another on the other hand is quite safe to categorize as "good". Not completely safe, if you're just roleplaying and adrenaline junkie who did it for the heck of it, but I'd consider it safe enough bet. The whole idea that "good" deeds are to be rewarded eats away the whole morality of it, but if they are punished, then only truly good characters would reasonably consider doing them. The whole "I refused the reward but got a ring that's worth more as a reward" completely takes away the moral dilemma from the whole scenario.

 

Yes, there are gray areas to morality, but I challenge you to design a logical system that takes that accurately into account for the purposes of a crpg where the honest communication between the DM and the player do not exist.

 

 

you started off with insinuating that he was being dishonest with your "people like you would say that" comment

 

Technically he didn't outright say "people like you". He merely strongly implied it 

 

 

Fair enough, I had completely forgotten that I had made that comment, although I'm glad that this distinction wasn't lost on everyone. Apologies.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[tinysalamander]

You do realize that if you'd rather have mindless entertainment than a thought provoking learning experience, you're kinda wandered into the wrong niche group of gamers? A game that constantly rewards you for being naive is a naive game, and since most people here are adults and prefer a more mature approach, a certain amount of duplicitous **** that try to take advantage of you is to be expected. There are already a ton of games that shield the player from making bad decisions, and I'd rather have a game that does not.

 

More to the topic, power should come from choices where it makes sense, not because of the morality of the choice. Devouring someones soul, it makes sense, would grant you power. The fact that it is an evil act is just a coincidence. If a player gains power it should never be because he did something "good" or something "bad". It should be something that makes sense in the context of the world. Sacrificing a part of your own soul to save another should come with permanent penalties, since you *are* sacrificing a part of your power to do so. Your reward is whatever you saved, and the price you pay is your personal power. The whole point of "good" is to make trades that benefit someone else on your expense, while the whole concept of "evil" revolves around trades that benefit you on someone else's expense. If the trade benefits both parties, then it is neither good nor evil.

 

Gypsy children asking for money on my way home is thought provoking experience. A gameplay that punishes you regardless of what you do is simply boring. I’m not sure what game you talking about but PoE already is a game where you sacrifice personal power when you do good (you don’t get stat bonuses most of the time).

 

The point of good is to do good. The idea that it is not good unless you make yourself suffer is simply ridiculous.

Edited February 21, 2017 by tinysalamander

[Ninjamestari]

 

You do realize that if you'd rather have mindless entertainment than a thought provoking learning experience, you're kinda wandered into the wrong niche group of gamers? A game that constantly rewards you for being naive is a naive game, and since most people here are adults and prefer a more mature approach, a certain amount of duplicitous **** that try to take advantage of you is to be expected. There are already a ton of games that shield the player from making bad decisions, and I'd rather have a game that does not.

 

More to the topic, power should come from choices where it makes sense, not because of the morality of the choice. Devouring someones soul, it makes sense, would grant you power. The fact that it is an evil act is just a coincidence. If a player gains power it should never be because he did something "good" or something "bad". It should be something that makes sense in the context of the world. Sacrificing a part of your own soul to save another should come with permanent penalties, since you *are* sacrificing a part of your power to do so. Your reward is whatever you saved, and the price you pay is your personal power. The whole point of "good" is to make trades that benefit someone else on your expense, while the whole concept of "evil" revolves around trades that benefit you on someone else's expense. If the trade benefits both parties, then it is neither good nor evil.

 

Gypsy children asking for money on my way home is thought provoking experience. A gameplay that punishes you regardless of what you do is simply boring. I’m not sure what game you talking about but PoE already is a game where you sacrifice personal power when you do good (you don’t get stat bonuses most of the time).

 

The point of good is to do good. The idea that it is not good unless you make yourself suffer is simply ridiculous.

 

 

Well, you did learn the lesson of those 10 coins quite well if you still remember it. Your failure to understand and appreciate that lesson is hardly the game's fault now is it? ^^

 

Good is not an emotion, good is not a feeling. You're not truly good until you understand the circumstances of your help and their consequences. I wonder if those Gypsy children really provoked thoughts in you, or was it merely emotions around which you built thoughts afterwards? Did you take into account the possibility that their parents might have put them up to it so that they don't have to work, and those little children bring in a lot more empathy money than a couple of junkies, or did you just wonder how the world must be so evil when little children have to beg? Did you actually draw insights from that experience with the gypsies?

 

My point is that the well of good and evil is a lot deeper than you think, and the details *do* matter; they're the only thing that matter in the end. Helping someone because you're emotionally compelled to do so is actually quite selfish, it is the easy way to go, not the hard way. Helping someone against your emotions, now that is difficult, and that could be considered selfless, unless you're getting something out of it.