434 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Part of the problem is on the player's part as well, however. Many players don't actually want to stick to any alignment: they call themselves lawful good, but then proceed to be neither lawful nor particularly good. They just like the title.

There's definitely responsibility on the part of the player to stick to their alignment, but I've often seen it lead to confusion as well. For example, what might a player do if a scenario presents them with no clear good path? Games like KotOR solved this by rarely (if ever) placing the player in a scenario where a moral conflict might occur. A good action always led to the best result for npcs and evil action always led to the best results for the player. But when no perfect world scenario exists, as in some cases with DA:O, it becomes substantially more difficult to account for what a good solution might involve. 

Alignment-restrictions do have a place for anything that's supposed to be unique to exceptional people. It's always a tradeoff no matter what you do, but there's a very real case for it. Compare it to, say, speach checks: those can be so broken and overpowered mechanics that someone with enough charisma can simply break a game by buffing their speach checks. Tying persuasive ability to a consistent tone of character does factor in reputation and remove the abuse of a neutral, open-ended stat.

Agreed on persuasion checks. They're another pet peeve of mine. I like the idea of having non-combat options to solve quest-lines, the problem is that the combat approach is almost invariably more in-depth.

Planescape: Torment, great as it is, is a perfect example. Design a combat-centric character and you have a game filled with stats, party-based gameplay, and strategy/tactics. Design a character with a high intelligence/charisma...and you basically get "I win" dialogue options, which is anti-climactic.

I'm comfortable with tying the persuasion into the intimidate/charm abilities, which does factor in the tone. I'm just not certain how important the actual paragon/renegade meters are, since most persuasion ability came from stats anyway (at least in ME1).

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 janvier 2012 - 05:41 .

[Firesteel]

DiebytheSword wrote...

Firesteel7 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Firesteel7 wrote...

I agree that anything labling morality is loaded. I try to think of them as poles, and the grey area in between is where us imperfect humans reside, some being more paragon, others being more renegade.

And that's where (I think) the best role-playing resides. For all its flaws, I think Dragon Age: Origins really hit this perfectly. It's the only Bioware RPG which doesn't feature any kind of moral alignment or scale, and the game didn't suffer one bit (imo). Instead of framing the issue as "what would a good character do?" it was simply "What would my character do?", without the added baggage.

I would agree. I also like Bethesda's system. Yes it lables you, but doesn't really judge you any other way, it says you are on a spectrum of it. No labling is the best system, no system telling you how good or bad you are, just your mind telling you. In more open games, like Bethesda's, I do think you need to lable actions to give consequences for them, but Bethesda's games also let you play virtually however you want, morally anyways.

And yet it does, it decides what allies you can have, off the top of my head.

Forgot about that, oh well, at least it doesn't tie speech to morality. I don't have enough experience with Elder Scrolls, but I know that the new Fallouts don't.

[Labrev]

 Given the morality system, you're practically forced to stick to one morality or the other about 90% of the time if you want to have any shot at negiotating - which all us players do.

It seems many Renegade players made the mistake of swearing allegiences to Cerberus when it was never feasible to begin with, granted the frequency with which the Renegade dialogue/action tends to support Cerberus (not always, sometimes it is critical where the the Paragon one is defending of them, inconsistent as usual).

Having said that, it is an overblown kind of excuse. I've done ME2 careers from scratch and have unlocked plenty of Intimidates where the requirement was high while doing paragon things. People with the level of meta-knowledge that posters on this site have should know how to achieve it.

Not to mention that I'm pretty sure no morality points result from the Cerberus Sensitive Data assignment. And given that the CB thing is basically end-game, persuation is not really an issue any longer, so make that decision based on what you think - not morality path.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 10 janvier 2012 - 05:51 .

[GodWood]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
It seems many Renegade players made the mistake of swearing allegiences to Cerberus when it was never feasible to begin with,

Why not? You simply pick the 'pro-Cerberus' dialogue options (sometimes it's the renegade choice, sometimes it's the paragon one. You've got to mix it up)

It's not that hard.

And given that the CB thing is basically end-game, persuation is not really an issue any longer, so make that decision based on what you think - not morality path.

We do. You're just too thick-headed to understand why.

[Labrev]

GodWood wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
It seems many Renegade players made the mistake of swearing allegiences to Cerberus when it was never feasible to begin with,

Why not? You simply pick the 'pro-Cerberus' dialogue options (sometimes it's the renegade choice, sometimes it's the paragon one. You've got to mix it up)

It's not that hard.

The point is, playing pre-dominantly renegade does not entail allegiance to Cerberus as stated in the OP. Whoever had any hope of it, renegade or otherwise, are/were out-of-touch.

And given that the CB thing is basically end-game, persuation is not really an issue any longer, so make that decision based on what you think - not morality path.

We do. You're just too thick-headed to understand why.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, guy, so put your broken-record "HYR just doesn't listen!!!" statements aside. I get why people on here make that decision and basically have no problem with it. But believing that a pro-Cerberus path entitles you to long-term cooperation = epic fail thinking. If anything, I'd argue handing him the base makes him less likely to deal with you in the future.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 10 janvier 2012 - 07:33 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...
I actually can.  Lotion Sorronar plays mostly Paragon, and he support Cerberus' efforts and methods in as far as stopping the reapers.

That's just one example, I'm sure there are others.

Lotion is what I would consider selfrighteous paladin. Bit like Meredith without the crazy. He is not a real paragon though. Paragade or Renegon, as you may see it. A true paragon can under no circumstances support Cerberus. Paragades may, Renegons may, Renegades may support Cerberus, but anyone who is a true paragon just doesn't. That's why Cerberus is closer to renegades than to paragons.

Excuse me, who are you that you get to define what a paragon is and isn't for everyone else?

I care jack s*** what oy uonsider a "real" Paragon or not.
The game rates me as 80-90% paragon. Deal with it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Part of the problem is on the player's part as well, however. Many players don't actually want to stick to any alignment: they call themselves lawful good, but then proceed to be neither lawful nor particularly good. They just like the title.

I always looked at the old D&D aligment system as a pointer. As what the character ASPIRES to be. I never considered that a character - even a paladin - has to ALWAYS do the LG action like an automation.

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Part of the problem is on the player's part as well, however. Many players don't actually want to stick to any alignment: they call themselves lawful good, but then proceed to be neither lawful nor particularly good. They just like the title.

I always looked at the old D&D aligment system as a pointer. As what the character ASPIRES to be. I never considered that a character - even a paladin - has to ALWAYS do the LG action like an automation.

To quote Captain Barbossa: "They're more guidelines than actual rules".

[Dean_the_Young]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Part of the problem is on the player's part as well, however. Many players don't actually want to stick to any alignment: they call themselves lawful good, but then proceed to be neither lawful nor particularly good. They just like the title.

I always looked at the old D&D aligment system as a pointer. As what the character ASPIRES to be. I never considered that a character - even a paladin - has to ALWAYS do the LG action like an automation.

Absolute adherence isn't necessary, except in certain cases, but a general adherence isn't. Most players can't bring themselves to do extreme alignments, because they just drift towards Nuetral but don't want to admit it.

[BlueMagitek]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Absolute adherence isn't necessary, except in certain cases, but a general adherence isn't. Most players can't bring themselves to do extreme alignments, because they just drift towards Nuetral but don't want to admit it.

Lawful Neutral is how my Marshal rolls. ~_^

Out of necessity; you can't expect a member of a 3.5 military to be Good; it'd just be asking for the DM to bring up an event that would make you choose your Lawful alignment or your Good alignment.  Neutral Evil would be fun, but I'm saving that for a Mad Oracle character.

Aww, Luc0s doesn't count me. D=

[Dean_the_Young]

Luc0s wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Part of the problem is on the player's part as well, however. Many players don't actually want to stick to any alignment: they call themselves lawful good, but then proceed to be neither lawful nor particularly good. They just like the title.

I always looked at the old D&D aligment system as a pointer. As what the character ASPIRES to be. I never considered that a character - even a paladin - has to ALWAYS do the LG action like an automation.

Absolute adherence isn't necessary, except in certain cases, but a general adherence is. Most players can't bring themselves to do extreme alignments, because they just drift towards Nuetral but don't want to admit it.

Yet AlexXiV seems to believe that you must ALWAYS do LG in order to be "truly Lawful Good". If you only make ONE Chaotic Neutral decision, you're not "truly Lawful Good" anymore.

It doesn't make sense. I know. But even with the 3 of us it still doesn't get through his thick skull it seems.

Sometimes, it does. It depends on the action, and the context. 'The fall of the Paladin' scenario is trite, but it's also true: what a Paladin's code demands of them as a Paladin isn't always easy, or pleasant. When faced with stress, many people fall from lawful, or good.

Now, scenario writers can be just as bad about it, confusing the spirit and the letter of the law. You can be a lawful good if you obey the spirit of the law, and there's the matter of whose law you obey. Some people think that Lawful means anyone's laws are absolute, which is of course absurd.

A good representation of the various Lawful-Good, and even Lawful characters, is from Order of the Stick. The Paladins from the Azure City show a variety of lawful good depictions.

Read the next ten comics from here, and you'll get a pretty sane interpretation of why perfection is not a requirement.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:39 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Particularly this one.

[Extort]

 yeah they just stupid, seen?

[Arkitekt]

The only memorable part of this thread is seeing Saphra breaking down in tears.

Not that it is a beautiful thing. Just memorable.

Now, I feel the need to tell you that life isn't as worthless as it may seem, but that's so cliché, a cynic mind such as Saphra's would never accept it.

[AndrewRogue]

DnD alignment has always been specified to be a measure of how, generally, a character reacts in situations. Your alignment is defined by what you would, under most circumstances, do or think. There are exceptions to this (Paladins, most notably) but yeah. Alignment was never intended as a straightjacket unless you were, specifically, the paragon of all that is good and just.

[Medhia Nox]

LuC0s - because what you're fighting in Warhammer 40K cannot be reasoned with.

Orks, Tyrannids, Chaos, Necron, Dark Eldar - even the Eldar and the Tau to a lesser degree. ALL of them (certainly the first 5) want humanity destroyed... totally. Not "beaten" - not "forced into a peace treaty".

The 40K universe has had ... forty thousand years... of violence to get the way it is. Forty thousands years of constantly being on a roller coaster of galactic conquest/annihilation.

I bet Horus believed he was a Renegade "Hero" of the Imperium.

----

Shepard "presumably" comes from a galaxy that does NOT have any examples... until the Reapers show up.

----

Take the Inquisitors... and Eisenhorn specifically... he starts out hardline Monodominant (40K's version of Paragon) - and then, his morals slowly begin to dwindle until he's a full on Radical  (Renegades of the Imperial Inquisition of 40K)  with his own daemonhost pet...

----

I would agree that Renegade does not equal "Evil" - but several of the acts of a "Renegade" in this game would land you some SERIOUS corruption in any game of 40K I played. ((And probably not the acts you think.))

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 10 janvier 2012 - 03:52 .

[Medhia Nox]

@darkness reborn: Ever read the Horus Heresy?

He "believed" he was a good guy - because he thought he father was doing all sorts of crazy shinanegans that needed to be stopped.

And he was not a "victim" - let's be serious.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 10 janvier 2012 - 03:57 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Luc0s wrote..

Morality is subjective.

Depends whom you ask.