114 réponses à ce sujet

[Goneaviking]

esper wrote...

But the is not the only motivation for those choices.

If you off Jowan because the warden thinks that this is the only way to get justice for his poisoning the Earl (Or an warden who is not genre savy enough and flat out believe that then blood mage is not behind the skeletons) then it is not evil. And neiter is telling your companion to shut up evil. It is being a jerk, but that is something different.

It is not evil either to kill Conner if you believe that it is the only to protect Recliffe, similar arguements can be made for the ashes and your lover attacked your first.

We cannot have evil choices because we cannot agree on an definition of evil. Evil is dependant on point of view and it is useless to demand that bioware give us evil choices because we are not going to agree on them being evil.

I have had two Hawkes doing the same thing, one because she was a manipulatiuve **** and wanted a certain result, the other did the exact same thing out of the goodness of her heart.

....

I would like more selfish, jerkish, manipulative (Espically this) and just plain out more ambitous choices, and... what is the english word malicious choices.

Yes, yes, maybe he was being merciful when he knifed Jowan. After all he was locked in a cage and would have died of dehydration if noone came to him.

Killing a defenceless captive sans trial is one of those actions that always falls into the badguy column, no matter how good it feels. It's actually one of the cornerstones on which Western civilisation is built on, tear it away and the whole structure starts to wobble.

As for the ashes, I specifically stated why I destroyed the ashes. Just because I could argue that desecrating a priceless piece sacred artiface because I disliked the religion served some virtuous aim about liberating the people from supersitition, doesn't mean that I wasn't denying them vital evidence to allow them to make a free and informed decision on the matter.

Which is of course ignoring the (in game) reality that destroying the ashes is destroying an artifact believed capable of healing ailments at the most advanced healers in the realm are incapable of treating.

Moral relativism may be satisfying, and certainly has it's uses, but being convinced of the rightness of your cause doesn't invert destructive, intolerant or reckless behaviour no matter how good you think your intentions are.

[Todd23]

If they let us be evil, I hope they don't do it like Mass Effect. Every "choice" us either evil or good. Two options. Period.

[Todd23]

If they let us be evil, I hope they don't do it like Mass Effect. Every "choice" us either evil or good. Two options. Period.

[BouncyFrag]

As long as Dragon Age continues to let me do extremely horribad things to the elves, I'll be a happy despot camper.

[esper]

Goneaviking wrote...

esper wrote...

But the is not the only motivation for those choices.

If you off Jowan because the warden thinks that this is the only way to get justice for his poisoning the Earl (Or an warden who is not genre savy enough and flat out believe that then blood mage is not behind the skeletons) then it is not evil. And neiter is telling your companion to shut up evil. It is being a jerk, but that is something different.

It is not evil either to kill Conner if you believe that it is the only to protect Recliffe, similar arguements can be made for the ashes and your lover attacked your first.

We cannot have evil choices because we cannot agree on an definition of evil. Evil is dependant on point of view and it is useless to demand that bioware give us evil choices because we are not going to agree on them being evil.

I have had two Hawkes doing the same thing, one because she was a manipulatiuve **** and wanted a certain result, the other did the exact same thing out of the goodness of her heart.

....

I would like more selfish, jerkish, manipulative (Espically this) and just plain out more ambitous choices, and... what is the english word malicious choices.

Yes, yes, maybe he was being merciful when he knifed Jowan. After all he was locked in a cage and would have died of dehydration if noone came to him.

Killing a defenceless captive sans trial is one of those actions that always falls into the badguy column, no matter how good it feels. It's actually one of the cornerstones on which Western civilisation is built on, tear it away and the whole structure starts to wobble.

As for the ashes, I specifically stated why I destroyed the ashes. Just because I could argue that desecrating a priceless piece sacred artiface because I disliked the religion served some virtuous aim about liberating the people from supersitition, doesn't mean that I wasn't denying them vital evidence to allow them to make a free and informed decision on the matter.

Which is of course ignoring the (in game) reality that destroying the ashes is destroying an artifact believed capable of healing ailments at the most advanced healers in the realm are incapable of treating.

Moral relativism may be satisfying, and certainly has it's uses, but being convinced of the rightness of your cause doesn't invert destructive, intolerant or reckless behaviour no matter how good you think your intentions are.

You are playing a bioware rpg, you don't get to be non-destructive, and non-reckless. If you are lucky you might get to be tolerant.

And it has nbothing to do with wherever the acts are destructive or not, but simply if the label evil can be put on them.

Edit. It occurred to me that I wasn't making my point entirely clear. I wasn't saying that the these behaviors wasn't being destructive, intoleerant or reckless, but none of these things are evil, escpially not destructive and reckless which is characteristics that the classical 'good' rpg hero (espciallt bioware which doesn't let you do a only-talking playthrough) share.

Modifié par esper, 19 février 2013 - 03:07 .

[esper]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

esper wrote...

Actually if you can convince enough people that it was indeed evil babies and that you was justified in the act, then the act stop being evil for that particular group.

That's a hardcore moral relativist position.  Any moral realist would disagree pretty strongly.

Well, I do subscribe to hard-core moral relativism in that degree that I do not belive that any human is good nor evil and I generally think that the words 'good' and 'evil' are meaningless unless you want to illustrate your own moral.

[TheKomandorShepard]

esper wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

esper wrote...

Actually if you can convince enough people that it was indeed evil babies and that you was justified in the act, then the act stop being evil for that particular group.

That's a hardcore moral relativist position.  Any moral realist would disagree pretty strongly.

Well, I do subscribe to hard-core moral relativism in that degree that I do not belive that any human is good nor evil and I generally think that the words 'good' and 'evil' are meaningless unless you want to illustrate your own moral.

Damn we have here sociopathic hero(joke). Good mean altruism ,caring about others and helping others and acting selflessly , Evil means selfishness ,ruthlessness and hurting others for own gain(or own organization) or amusement at least what this words mean to me.Of course mean word morality can be change in society as we see in DA when guys who turns others into braindead tools and killing everyone who stay in their way to spreeding influence in world calling this justice are considered as good guys because they are military force major religion and blood mage who can be pure pureness is considered automatically as evil monsters because chantry says that  so point for you here:devil:.   

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 19 février 2013 - 11:49 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

esper wrote...

Well, I do subscribe to hard-core moral relativism in that degree that I do not belive that any human is good nor evil and I generally think that the words 'good' and 'evil' are meaningless unless you want to illustrate your own moral.

That would make you a moral skeptic rather than a moral relativist.  Moral relativists will argue that morality is defined by the people it affects.  Moral realists will argue that morality is defined independently of those people.

Moral skeptics question whether the very concept of morality is even meaningful.

[argan1985]

There is really only two games I have played that lets you truly be an evil psychotic character, without the game punishing you (unreasonably) for it: Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.

Get addicted to drugs? Check
Kill people for said drugs with no penalty? Check
Become a slaver? Check
Sell your wife to slavers? Check
Go on a killing spree, exterminating everyone in the entire gameworld? Check
Kill children? Check
Become a pornstar? Check
Become a boxer and cheat by putting iron in your gloves? Check
Force someone to dig a hole and then drop a mine on him? Check
Steal a water chip and let an entire city die of thirst? Check
Randomly kill a person in a slum city just because you feel like with noone reacting because a life there is cheap? Check
Become an assasin? Check
Murder an old man by stealing his oxygen tank? Check
Help a band of manipulative mercenaries enforce their dictatorship on poor citizens? Check
Kick an old woman out of her house because she can't pay her rent? Check

I could go on...really the only games I've ever played that offered this kind of freedom.

[esper]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

esper wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

esper wrote...

Actually if you can convince enough people that it was indeed evil babies and that you was justified in the act, then the act stop being evil for that particular group.

That's a hardcore moral relativist position.  Any moral realist would disagree pretty strongly.

Well, I do subscribe to hard-core moral relativism in that degree that I do not belive that any human is good nor evil and I generally think that the words 'good' and 'evil' are meaningless unless you want to illustrate your own moral.

Damn we have here sociopathic hero(joke). Good mean altruism ,caring about others and helping others and acting selflessly , Evil means selfishness ,ruthlessness and hurting others for own gain(or own organization) or amusement at least what this words mean to me.Of course mean word morality can be change in society as we see in DA when guys who turns others into braindead tools and killing everyone who stay in their way to spreeding influence in world calling this justice are considered as good guys because they are military force major religion and blood mage who can be pure pureness is considered automatically as evil monsters because chantry says that  so point for you here:devil:.   

Altruism, caring about others and helping other selflesslly, can be just as damaging and destrucrtive if done wrong. There is a reason that there is a saying that called 'The way to hell is paved with good intentions'. (i do believe that is what the english saying is) If you destroy someones life by helping them, chances are they are going to view you as evil.

Selfishness is by no means bad, without we would die, ruthlessness might be what save a thousand life down the route (which someone would argue would be worth more than a single life now) and hurting others for the gain of one one self is acceptable in some situations. Points being if you hurt the 'Big Bad' to save the damsel in distress (ie every form of selfdefense or saving others by violent means), you are still hurting someone to protect yourself (which is selfish), hurting someone to help an organisation, well you came with that example yourself of why a society might decide that that is not evil.

[esper]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

esper wrote...

Well, I do subscribe to hard-core moral relativism in that degree that I do not belive that any human is good nor evil and I generally think that the words 'good' and 'evil' are meaningless unless you want to illustrate your own moral.

That would make you a moral skeptic rather than a moral relativist.  Moral relativists will argue that morality is defined by the people it affects.  Moral realists will argue that morality is defined independently of those people.

Moral skeptics question whether the very concept of morality is even meaningful.

No, I think that the concept of morality is definitly important.

As said 'good' and 'evil' are relatively terms that describes the users morality, which is helpfull to illustrate the kind of person you are. I too have the thing I consider 'good' and 'bad', I might even be able to find a thing or two I consider so henious that they are 'evil' -. to me, but I acknowlegde that those are my own person morality and that using these terms say nothing about the act itself, other than wherever I find the act a good or a wrong thing to do. Furthermore I also acknowlegde that the these terms (which describes my morality) is subjective and only is 'good' and 'evil' for me. Other people have their own morality and thus their own concept of 'good' and 'evil'.

I do think that we cannot use them here though and espically not when asking for more evil acts or asking for more evil companions, because we as a forum cannot agree on a concept of evil, we are too diverse in our morality. Every time someone say that and that person is evil, someone will jump in an geniually defend their actions or everytime somebody say that and that actions is evil, someone will likely deny it and defend the action.

So in this case the subjective meaning of the word 'evil', makes the word meanigless because it hinders us in claryifying what exactly it is we are asking for, so when the developer brings us 'evil' options, these options end up so selfdestructive and stupid for the character that it makes you wonder, who would actually do that.

It is much better asking for more chances to be 'rutless', 'manipulative' ect. Because those are a lot less relative words.

[KiwiQuiche]

argan1985 wrote...

There is really only two games I have played that lets you truly be an evil psychotic character, without the game punishing you (unreasonably) for it: Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.

Get addicted to drugs? Check
Kill people for said drugs with no penalty? Check
Become a slaver? Check
Sell your wife to slavers? Check
Go on a killing spree, exterminating everyone in the entire gameworld? Check
Kill children? Check
Become a pornstar? Check
Become a boxer and cheat by putting iron in your gloves? Check
Force someone to dig a hole and then drop a mine on him? Check
Steal a water chip and let an entire city die of thirst? Check
Randomly kill a person in a slum city just because you feel like with noone reacting because a life there is cheap? Check
Become an assasin? Check
Murder an old man by stealing his oxygen tank? Check
Help a band of manipulative mercenaries enforce their dictatorship on poor citizens? Check
Kick an old woman out of her house because she can't pay her rent? Check

I could go on...really the only games I've ever played that offered this kind of freedom.

The fact you view some of those things as evil is disturbing.

[argan1985]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

argan1985 wrote...

There is really only two games I have played that lets you truly be an evil psychotic character, without the game punishing you (unreasonably) for it: Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.

Get addicted to drugs? Check
Kill people for said drugs with no penalty? Check
Become a slaver? Check
Sell your wife to slavers? Check
Go on a killing spree, exterminating everyone in the entire gameworld? Check
Kill children? Check
Become a pornstar? Check
Become a boxer and cheat by putting iron in your gloves? Check
Force someone to dig a hole and then drop a mine on him? Check
Steal a water chip and let an entire city die of thirst? Check
Randomly kill a person in a slum city just because you feel like with noone reacting because a life there is cheap? Check
Become an assasin? Check
Murder an old man by stealing his oxygen tank? Check
Help a band of manipulative mercenaries enforce their dictatorship on poor citizens? Check
Kick an old woman out of her house because she can't pay her rent? Check

I could go on...really the only games I've ever played that offered this kind of freedom.

The fact you view some of those things as evil is disturbing.

Yeah, I didn't mean they were all evil, I meant that you have a lot of freedom in those games, and a lot of them lets you be a complete ****.

[SpunkyMonkey]

esper wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

I believe the misconception is that a person gets to decide whether what they do is evil or not.

You cannot decide if your actions are "evil" - other people choose whether your actions are ultimately evil.

OH - I kill babies, but they could have been evil babies - so I did it out of the kindness of my heart. Nobody will care what your intent was.

Actually if you can convince enough people that it was indeed evil babies and that you was justified in the act, then the act stop being evil for that particular group.

You do in every way get to decide if the act is evil or not.

I as a player thinks siding with the templars are 'evil' because I as a player thinks that the templars are so morally corrupt that there really is no legitimate excuse for their actions. Thus if I made a pro-templar character I would made a character who I, as a player, made escpially to be evil and I would percieve it as such.

The character, however, will have their own internal logical and likely not find their actions evil. And neither would a rather large base of BSN and good portion of Thedas.

My point is that evil is subjective. So in fact the only why to decide if an act is evil or not is to is to decide if you as a person find the current act evil. If you don't well then you are not acting evil. Of course it will be better for your own inclusion into society to find the actions of 'evil' and 'good' somewhere along the lines of the society you live in so that you don't find yourself arrested for various sort of society disturbing actions (or outright destructive actions).

Of course just because that you don't find a certain action evil, doesn't mean anybody agrees with you. And if enough disagree with you, you might have a problem functioning. Whereever the action is evil or not can always be discussed, though.

What an absolutely excellent post. I think many gamers have missed how advanced BW have become with their perception of such acts, and people calling to be "evil" need to realize that they only have to act in such ways themselves to be that.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 20 février 2013 - 11:42 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

esper wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

esper wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

esper wrote...

Actually if you can convince enough people that it was indeed evil babies and that you was justified in the act, then the act stop being evil for that particular group.

That's a hardcore moral relativist position.  Any moral realist would disagree pretty strongly.

Well, I do subscribe to hard-core moral relativism in that degree that I do not belive that any human is good nor evil and I generally think that the words 'good' and 'evil' are meaningless unless you want to illustrate your own moral.

Damn we have here sociopathic hero(joke). Good mean altruism ,caring about others and helping others and acting selflessly , Evil means selfishness ,ruthlessness and hurting others for own gain(or own organization) or amusement at least what this words mean to me.Of course mean word morality can be change in society as we see in DA when guys who turns others into braindead tools and killing everyone who stay in their way to spreeding influence in world calling this justice are considered as good guys because they are military force major religion and blood mage who can be pure pureness is considered automatically as evil monsters because chantry says that  so point for you here:devil:.   

Altruism, caring about others and helping other selflesslly, can be just as damaging and destrucrtive if done wrong. There is a reason that there is a saying that called 'The way to hell is paved with good intentions'. (i do believe that is what the english saying is) If you destroy someones life by helping them, chances are they are going to view you as evil.

Selfishness is by no means bad, without we would die, ruthlessness might be what save a thousand life down the route (which someone would argue would be worth more than a single life now) and hurting others for the gain of one one self is acceptable in some situations. Points being if you hurt the 'Big Bad' to save the damsel in distress (ie every form of selfdefense or saving others by violent means), you are still hurting someone to protect yourself (which is selfish), hurting someone to help an organisation, well you came with that example yourself of why a society might decide that that is not evil.

Now we talking about consequences morals not about what they mean you can kill darkspawn in game and be still good guy because you kill bad guys who hurts others killing village even in good intence will be still evil act unless in this villiage live creepy psycho-killers (look on anders well he have right but he do bad thing in moral light even he say that).I don't say help organisation i say for gain and by hurting someone i mean like innocent person like villager who want just live his own live or good mage who want be traveler and help others.Killing bad guys is not bad of course killing good or even people who just simple don't care about evil or good just as i say want live they life and don't hurt anyone.As i say that evil and good mean to me ,Meredith belive she is good one and this means whiping out tower with innocent mages so you can manipulate this word like you want just like with other words.So technically you are good guy if by helping others like throwing money beggars and consequences will be that nobles kill beggars but you don't know that thats mean you are good guy just idiot like Jowan.  

[Plaintiff]

Bioware encourages us to use our own judgement by not putting moral values on any action we perform. In fact it provides us with an array of differing viewpoints to highlight the ambiguity of these situations.

I wish other games were like that. "Karma" and "alignment" mechanics are stupid.

[esper]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

esper wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

esper wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

esper wrote...

Actually if you can convince enough people that it was indeed evil babies and that you was justified in the act, then the act stop being evil for that particular group.

That's a hardcore moral relativist position.  Any moral realist would disagree pretty strongly.

Well, I do subscribe to hard-core moral relativism in that degree that I do not belive that any human is good nor evil and I generally think that the words 'good' and 'evil' are meaningless unless you want to illustrate your own moral.

Damn we have here sociopathic hero(joke). Good mean altruism ,caring about others and helping others and acting selflessly , Evil means selfishness ,ruthlessness and hurting others for own gain(or own organization) or amusement at least what this words mean to me.Of course mean word morality can be change in society as we see in DA when guys who turns others into braindead tools and killing everyone who stay in their way to spreeding influence in world calling this justice are considered as good guys because they are military force major religion and blood mage who can be pure pureness is considered automatically as evil monsters because chantry says that  so point for you here:devil:.   

Altruism, caring about others and helping other selflesslly, can be just as damaging and destrucrtive if done wrong. There is a reason that there is a saying that called 'The way to hell is paved with good intentions'. (i do believe that is what the english saying is) If you destroy someones life by helping them, chances are they are going to view you as evil.

Selfishness is by no means bad, without we would die, ruthlessness might be what save a thousand life down the route (which someone would argue would be worth more than a single life now) and hurting others for the gain of one one self is acceptable in some situations. Points being if you hurt the 'Big Bad' to save the damsel in distress (ie every form of selfdefense or saving others by violent means), you are still hurting someone to protect yourself (which is selfish), hurting someone to help an organisation, well you came with that example yourself of why a society might decide that that is not evil.

Now we talking about consequences morals not about what they mean you can kill darkspawn in game and be still good guy because you kill bad guys who hurts others killing village even in good intence will be still evil act unless in this villiage live creepy psycho-killers (look on anders well he have right but he do bad thing in moral light even he say that).I don't say help organisation i say for gain and by hurting someone i mean like innocent person like villager who want just live his own live or good mage who want be traveler and help others.Killing bad guys is not bad of course killing good or even people who just simple don't care about evil or good just as i say want live they life and don't hurt anyone.As i say that evil and good mean to me ,Meredith belive she is good one and this means whiping out tower with innocent mages so you can manipulate this word like you want just like with other words.So technically you are good guy if by helping others like throwing money beggars and consequences will be that nobles kill beggars but you don't know that thats mean you are good guy just idiot like Jowan.  

No we are still talking about perception, if your help towards somebody is end up being destrucitve for that persons chances are the person you are helping will not see the good intent of your 'help', they will only feel the consequence and thus you are in danger of being viewed as evil by that person no matter how altrustic your act was from your point of view.
but to be fair I didn't read the marked out bit from your first post. Of course you are welcome to your own perception of good and evil and which acts you think are good and you think are evil. I don't agree with your definition of good and evil, the very fact that you divide people in 'good guys', 'innocents (here seeming to mean civilians)' and 'bad guys' and distinctively says that the life of the 'bad guys' hold less value and thus it is not bad to kill them, shows me that our moral system are lightyears from each other. I place equal value in each human life and and generally think it is bad to kill anyone. I might have to (ie. self defense and ect.) but I will never stop to think it a 'bad and morally wrong' action.

Which is again why we are never going to agree on what is 'evil' in this forum.

And of my own moral compass is irrellevant for my character, as they will have a moral compass which differs from mine.

Modifié par esper, 20 février 2013 - 02:32 .

[esper]

Plaintiff wrote...

Bioware encourages us to use our own judgement by not putting moral values on any action we perform. In fact it provides us with an array of differing viewpoints to highlight the ambiguity of these situations.

I wish other games were like that. "Karma" and "alignment" mechanics are stupid.

Yeah, one think that turned me off from ME was the renegade/paragon system (which despite claims was a karma meter). Espically because you might not always agree with the developers.

I still think it was more henious to brainwash than kill the geths in ME, but I had to because of 30 points to the wrong bar was just something I couldn't afford it. Which is why I hate karma system in games. The only thing that makes them worse is if they are coupled with and law/chaotic system as well.

[SpunkyMonkey]

esper wrote...

No we are still talking about perception, if your help towards somebody is end up being destrucitve for that persons chances are the person you are helping will not see the good intent of your 'help', they will only feel the consequence and thus you are in danger of being viewed as evil by that person no matter how altrustic your act was from your point of view.
but to be fair I didn't read the marked out bit from your first post. Of course you are welcome to your own perception of good and evil and which acts you think are good and you think are evil. I don't agree with your definition of good and evil, the very fact that you divide people in 'good guys', 'innocents (here seeming to mean civilians)' and 'bad guys' and distinctively says that the life of the 'bad guys' hold less value and thus it is not bad to kill them, shows me that our moral system are lightyears from each other. I place equal value in each human life and and generally think it is bad to kill anyone. I might have to (ie. self defense and ect.) but I will never stop to think it a 'bad and morally wrong' action.

Which is again why we are never going to agree on what is 'evil' in this forum.

And of my own moral compass is irrellevant for my character, as they will have a moral compass which differs from mine.

You're actually raising a much bigger issue here. In fact your raising THE key issue and point of contention with the direction which RPGs are taking IMO - the fact t hat some people can't roleplay and often need the game to do that for them. It's one of the things killing RPG's and watering down great experiences for us. I've just finished The Witcher 2 and, whilst a bit disapointed with the overall game, it's moral and RPG elements were second to none, and it really helped having no morality system in it.

There really should just be actions and reactions in RPG games - there shouldn't be a system which defines your choice of actions as good or bad. That's not to say that the NPC's or other characters shouldn't make a judgement or take a stance on those actions, but it's down to the player themselves to decide whether those actions are good or bad in the first place.

For one person telling someone they are fat may be deemed "evil", hurtful, and nasty - yet for someone else they may see it as "good", honest and letting someone know where they have to improve themselves. The fact that some people need some form of moral compass to guide them is worrying, and the fact that game companies then pander to those requests is insulting to people who actually like to roleplay IMO.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 20 février 2013 - 02:49 .

[Plaintiff]

esper wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Bioware encourages us to use our own judgement by not putting moral values on any action we perform. In fact it provides us with an array of differing viewpoints to highlight the ambiguity of these situations.

I wish other games were like that. "Karma" and "alignment" mechanics are stupid.

Yeah, one think that turned me off from ME was the renegade/paragon system (which despite claims was a karma meter). Espically because you might not always agree with the developers.

I still think it was more henious to brainwash than kill the geths in ME, but I had to because of 30 points to the wrong bar was just something I couldn't afford it. Which is why I hate karma system in games. The only thing that makes them worse is if they are coupled with and law/chaotic system as well.

I don't have as much of a problem with the Paragon/Renegade system as I do with other ones because the two are measured separately: ie, when my rengade score goes up, my paragon score doesn't go down, so nothing is stopping me from being a paragon of virtue and also a renegade.

There were plenty of times when I also thought the renegade decision was the more morally correct one, but I don't interpret renegade as straight "evil" so much as "plays by his own rules". "Renegade" covers an entire span of actions of varying morality, many of which are quite harmless, such as being rude to the Council members when they deserve it.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 20 février 2013 - 02:50 .

[Medhia Nox]

@SpunkyMonkey: The fact that you think calling someone "fat" is ever going to be the productive, non-hurtful way to express someone should consider their health and well being - suggests you do need a moral compass.

People that don't have a moral compass at all - worry me.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@SpunkyMonkey: The fact that you think calling someone "fat" is ever going to be the productive, non-hurtful way to express someone should consider their health and well being - suggests you do need a moral compass.

People that don't have a moral compass at all - worry me.

Totally not, and that's a perfect example right here of what both Esper & I are talking about - perception.

If I'm putting on weight I want to hear I am - I don't want to hide behind some illusion that I'm not. I've told friends that they have put weight on to be thanked, and then seen them make a positive change in their life by dieting or excercising more.

You don't seem to acknowledge that there are people in life who'd rather face their fears and problems than hide behind false lies. To me false lies are "evil", but to you they may not be - again, it's about perception.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 20 février 2013 - 02:57 .

[Medhia Nox]

Sure thing.

[esper]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

esper wrote...

No we are still talking about perception, if your help towards somebody is end up being destrucitve for that persons chances are the person you are helping will not see the good intent of your 'help', they will only feel the consequence and thus you are in danger of being viewed as evil by that person no matter how altrustic your act was from your point of view.
but to be fair I didn't read the marked out bit from your first post. Of course you are welcome to your own perception of good and evil and which acts you think are good and you think are evil. I don't agree with your definition of good and evil, the very fact that you divide people in 'good guys', 'innocents (here seeming to mean civilians)' and 'bad guys' and distinctively says that the life of the 'bad guys' hold less value and thus it is not bad to kill them, shows me that our moral system are lightyears from each other. I place equal value in each human life and and generally think it is bad to kill anyone. I might have to (ie. self defense and ect.) but I will never stop to think it a 'bad and morally wrong' action.

Which is again why we are never going to agree on what is 'evil' in this forum.

And of my own moral compass is irrellevant for my character, as they will have a moral compass which differs from mine.

You're actually raising a much bigger issue here. In fact your raising THE key issue and point of contention with the direction which RPGs are taking IMO - the fact t hat some people can't roleplay and often need the game to do that for them. It's one of the things killing RPG's and watering down great experiences for us. I've just finished The Witcher 2 and, whilst a bit disapointed with the overall game, it's moral and RPG elements were second to none, and it really helped having no morality system in it.

There really should just be actions and reactions in RPG games - there shouldn't be a system which defines your choice of actions as good or bad. That's not to say that the NPC's or other characters shouldn't make a judgement or take a stance on those actions, but it's down to the player themselves to decide whether those actions are good or bad in the first place.

For one person telling someone they are fat may be deemed "evil", hurtful, and nasty - yet for someone else they may see it as "good", honest and letting someone know where they have to improve themselves. The fact that some people need some form of moral compass to guide them is worrying, and the fact that game companies then pander to those requests is insulting to people who actually like to roleplay IMO.

I am sorry, but I disagree with you that this is a thing that has been watered down. In fact this is a thing improved on. You will be hard pressed (or at least I have been hard pressed) to find and old game that does not have a good/evil meter, and a lot of them was stuck with d&d's law/chaotic meter as well.

Other than that I agree with where you want to end: "The game does not need to tell me if an action is right or wrong, I as a player is capable of making up my mind, my self".

[SpunkyMonkey]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Sure thing.

Eh? Are you saying there are no people who would sooner face their issues/problems/whatever than be molly-coddled?

What do you think they do when you join the army? Wrap you in cotton wool? No, they give you plenty of stick to toughen you up.

Is that "evil"? Not from my POV - from my POV it's good because they're giving you the best chance of surviving. It's much like Alistairs "Hardening" in DA:O.

esper wrote...

I am sorry, but I disagree with you that this is a thing that has been watered down. In fact this is a thing improved on. You will be hard pressed (or at least I have been hard pressed) to find and old game that does not have a good/evil meter, and a lot of them was stuck with d&d's law/chaotic meter as well.

Other than that I agree with where you want to end: "The game does not need to tell me if an action is right or wrong, I as a player is capable of making up my mind, my self".

Actually, when I think about it some more you are probably right historically gaming wise so stand corrected there.

But yes, essentially we're looking towards the same end point.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 20 février 2013 - 03:03 .