Social manipulation is a lot more valuable than violence. Even cutthroat rules tended to operate more through soft power than just violence. While being aggressive was important, it was a measured and subtle for of aggression rather than open thuggish brutality.
Yeah, that was one of my major points in the first post. I didn't mean a literal tendency to cut throats...
I mean, of course an evil person would think there's a time and place for that. But not as often as games like Fable have.
So then you admit that you don't enjoy being good if you don't a just reward? >: )
I would play good anyway, if that's what you mean.
Funny, I was indeed thinking about "good and evil2 myself this day, in regards to Dragon Age. Thing is: the last evil party I saw was back in Baldurs Gate 2. And even there evil was handicapped...with far fewer (though more powerful) NPCs...and if you chose the evil selfish dialogue-options ouy sorely missed on a couple of quests...
Yeah, evil hardly pays of in RPGs ... in Kotor 1 + 2 it was fun though, burning people with lightning. And as someone mentioned even in Old republic MMO it was a lot more fun than the bright side of light...
I think one reason might be: All has to be grey nowadays. Just look at Game of thrones, everyone has to be both a bit good, both a bit bad. Yeah, might be more realsitic, but really, sometimes I miss characters that "just want to see the world burn"...
And if there is anything I am concerned about DAI's story, its the antagonists...Bioware really has a hard time to give us villains that make you wanna tear them apart because you hate them so much. I already fear that the main "villain" in DAI is some misunderstood entitiy, which has actually good reasons for everything, but only his means are a bit too extreme, yet we really are made to like him to some degree and...
*sigh* And I still don't get it why the damn reapers were not just selfish, organic-life-harvesting creatures hellbent on destroy us to procreate, instead of...the tools of some pseuo-philosophical "thought-provoking" masterplan of a creature talking science-mumbo-jumbo 8instead of being the m-****** evil villain everyone would have loved to kick into oblivion!!!!!!
Give us EVIL to vanquish, bioware! Crush them like pigeons, and make us feel good about it!!!! Or, more in line with the OP, let us BE evil...in Arcanum, I once destroyed the entire world in the end!!!!!
I would play good anyway, if that's what you mean.
Because being good is its own reward, right? A morality system that doesn't reward you for being bad isn't a morality system at all, because there's no moral dilemma. The only real reason people do bad things, save for psychopaths, is because they think they will get something. The sense of unfairness you feel is you struggling with the idea that yes, having integrity comes at a cost. That's the beauty of a moral dilemma.
Because being good is its own reward, right? A morality system that doesn't reward you for being bad isn't a morality system at all, because there's no moral dilemma. The only real reason people do bad things, save for psychopaths, is because they think they will get something. The sense of unfairness you feel is you struggling with the idea that yes, having integrity comes at a cost. That's the beauty of a moral dilemma.
I'm ok with more now, less later. Because in a game like DA you may gain more in the immediate, but playing evil should lock you out in the long run from certain content (be it from certain quests, certain rewards, certain game paths), because people wouldn't trust you. So yeah, there should be a balance in the long run.
I'm ok with more now, less later. Because in a game like DA you may gain more in the immediate, but playing evil should lock you out in the long run from certain content (be it from certain quests, certain rewards, certain game paths), because people wouldn't trust you. So yeah, there should be a balance in the long run.
If the rewards for being good or bad equals out in the end, you take away the dilemma. Cutting content for evil players is a way bigger punishment to the player than giving them less money, so again the good option is far and away the best choice. There would be no point to having the evil choice except to be an *******.
Because being good is its own reward, right? A morality system that doesn't reward you for being bad isn't a morality system at all, because there's no moral dilemma. The only real reason people do bad things, save for psychopaths, is because they think they will get something. The sense of unfairness you feel is you struggling with the idea that yes, having integrity comes at a cost. That's the beauty of a moral dilemma.
Being good can have many rewards. The trust and regard of others. respect and affection as opposed to fear. Love.
I wonder how much wailing and moaning there'd be if be evil locked you out of romances....
The neutral path is often handled even less well. Try playing a Lawful Neutral Hawke.
LE is my default character. I think it worked pretty well in NWN and DAO.Is it even possible to play a lawful character at all? I don't even think DA2 supported lawfull good (much less LE, which I find no game does well with - even BG2 suffers because of the reputation mechanic).
I bet good means supporting the chantry and circle system while saving the world and bad is reserved for freedom loving mages.
If the rewards for being good or bad equals out in the end, you take away the dilemma. Cutting content for evil players is a way bigger punishment to the player than giving them less money, so again the good option is far and away the best choice. There would be no point to having the evil choice except to be an *******.
So basically you want a situation like this: "Both paths lead you to the same things, but if you play the evil guy you'll get even more for free"? Sorry but no, it shouldn't work like this, neither in a game nor in real life. I'm not a writer nor a game designer so i don't know how it can be balanced out but choosing an evil path should lead you to pay the consequences sooner or later, not "everything is ok and ehi, get this as a bonus because evil is cool".
As you asked me, do you want to play evil just for more reward or it's a personal choice/preference?
Being good can have many rewards. The trust and regard of others. respect and affection as opposed to fear. Love.
Whiiiiich is why an evil person should put on a facade of being good. Did you even read my post?
So basically you want a situation like this: "Both paths lead you to the same things, but if you play the evil guy you'll get even more for free"? Sorry but no, it shouldn't work like this, neither in a game nor in real life.
It shouldn't, but it is. If being good and having integrity was easy and profitable, there would be no crime.
As you asked me, do you want to play evil just for more reward or it's a personal choice/preference?
I almost never play evil characters in video games. Most people are that way. I'm just pointing out that there's no point in having a moral choice if there's no benefit in the bad choice. If a guy offers you 10 gold to save his kitten from a tree, and another guy says he'll pay you 10 gold to set that tree on fire, there's no moral dilemma. The answer to the average joe is obvious: save the kitten. The developers may as well have not even introduced a choice at all. But what if the guy who told you to set the tree on fire instead offered you 10,000 gold? Suddenly, you have to think about it. Even if you know you'll pick the good path, you actually have to make a sacrifice to do the right thing. And that's what being good is about. Selflessness in the face of temptation.
Because being good is its own reward, right? A morality system that doesn't reward you for being bad isn't a morality system at all, because there's no moral dilemma. The only real reason people do bad things, save for psychopaths, is because they think they will get something. The sense of unfairness you feel is you struggling with the idea that yes, having integrity comes at a cost. That's the beauty of a moral dilemma.
I agree. That's probably the other reason I have never been evil as such because games never give me enough incentive to play that way.
It shouldn't, but it is. If being good and having integrity was easy and profitable, there would be no crime.
Sure, but in real life turning into crime have it's consequences. If you rob a bank, chances are you'll get catched by the police. So as you can see playing the evil guy bring consequences, which are (and should be) negative. So it's true that in the immediate you have ton of money (the one you stoled), but you are probably going to pay it later on.
Ingame example? Take redcliff from DAO. You play evil and let the town get destroyed. You just skipped an annoying battle and avoided wasting 20+ minutes just to get in the castle. But on the other hand you miss out a good amount of xp and a couple of vendors disappear. That is an example of how it should be done. If you play evil: gain in the immediate, pay in the long run. It haven't to be a big thing, but there have to be a balance. And don't say that only crime pay off. We are normal persons, but as far as people like an inquisitor or a grey warden are concerned playing the good guy will pay off in the long run, especially if you are in search of help. Would people help you in the final battle against the archdemon if you only cared about yourself the whole game? I wouldn't.
Sure, but in real life turning into crime have it's consequences. If you rob a bank, chances are you'll get catched by the police. So as you can see playing the evil guy bring consequences, which are (and should be) negative. So it's true that in the immediate you have ton of money (the one you stoled), but you are probably going to pay it later on.
How many bank robbers are badass warriors with backup who have magic and other powerful combat skills
Ingame example? Take redcliff from DAO. You play evil and let the town get destroyed. You just skipped an annoying battle and avoided wasting 20+ minutes just to get in the castle. But on the other hand you miss out a good amount of xp and a couple of vendors disappear. That is an example of how it should be done. If you play evil: gain in the immediate, pay in the long run. It haven't to be a big thing, but there have to be a balance. And don't say that only crime pay off. We are normal persons, but as far as people like an inquisitor or a grey warden are concerned playing the good guy will pay off in the long run, especially if you are in search of help. Would people help you in the final battle against the archdemon if you only cared about yourself the whole game? I wouldn't.
You keep saying "it should be balanced" as if it makes intrinsic sense. Why? Explain to me the virtue of the concept. Because saving 20 minutes of time in exchange for missing out on vendors and a big chunk of game content is not exactly an equal trade. In that case, being good is clearly the most profitable option. Why even have an evil option?
LE is my default character. I think it worked pretty well in NWN and DAO.
Ingame example? Take redcliff from DAO. You play evil and let the town get destroyed. You just skipped an annoying battle and avoided wasting 20+ minutes just to get in the castle. But on the other hand you miss out a good amount of xp and a couple of vendors disappear. That is an example of how it should be done. If you play evil: gain in the immediate, pay in the long run. It haven't to be a big thing, but there have to be a balance. And don't say that only crime pay off. We are normal persons, but as far as people like an inquisitor or a grey warden are concerned playing the good guy will pay off in the long run, especially if you are in search of help. Would people help you in the final battle against the archdemon if you only cared about yourself the whole game? I wouldn't.
Redcliffe is a fine example of 'evil' choices being handled in the worst way possible. You skip a battle - gaining you absolutely nothing. You lose exp and loot. In the long term, you haven't saved the village, which is also negative in every term, costing you vendors and quests. You pay in the short term and in the long term. With outcomes like these - which is what 'evil' choices often come down to in games - there is no point in even implementing 'evil' choices. They are simply objectively worse in every way. Choosing between saving or abandoning the village isn't the difference between being a selfless or a selfish Warden, it's the difference between being a smart selfish or a stupid selfish Warden.
You keep saying "it should be balanced" as if it makes intrinsic sense. Why? Explain to me the virtue of the concept.
Because it's a game? The concept of balance come from the fact that the player should be able to play in any way he want, and not be punished for it. If the devs decide to give benefits to the evil side, that HAVE to come with penalities on other aspects. Otherwise there would be no point in playing as the good guy. Because it's a game after all, so your morality don't oblige you to do the right thing (if you are inclined that way ofc). So it's either as it is, or a system that make the evil choices matter (like plot-wise) but they should have their consequences in the game.
Redcliffe is a fine example of 'evil' choices being handled in the worst way possible. You skip a battle - gaining you absolutely nothing. You lose exp and loot. In the long term, you haven't saved the village, which is also negative in every term, costing you vendors and quests. You pay in the short term and in the long term. With outcomes like these - which is what 'evil' choices often come down to in games - there is no point in even implementing 'evil' choices. They are simply objectively worse in every way. Choosing between saving or abandoning the village isn't the difference between being a selfless or a selfish Warden, it's the difference between being a smart selfish or a stupid selfish Warden.
I know, i never said it was the best example. Still it was a starting point. As for why one would, well it depend on your needs. For example, if i were a person that enjoy the game and want to finish it but could only play it for a few hours per week due to many circumstances, i would definitely consider to skip directly to the castle to continue with the main quest and waste as little time as possible.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
There isn't a morality system in DA, as far as I know. So naturally, it should fail, as it doesn't try in the first place. It's doesn't quite make the same judgement as D&D and Kotor did.
Because it's a game? The concept of balance come from the fact that the player should be able to play in any way he want, and not be punished for it. If the devs decide to give benefits to the evil side, that HAVE to come with penalities on other aspects. Otherwise there would be no point in playing as the good guy. Because it's a game after all, so your morality don't oblige you to do the right thing (if you are inclined that way ofc). So it's either as it is, or a system that make the evil choices matter (like plot-wise) but they should have their consequences in the game.
Balance in terms of scaling enemy difficulty to match what a player can realistically handle is true of all games. That's because if a combat in a game isn't fair it's frustrations, but if it's too easy it's just wasting the player's time. Balancing classes in PvP to as not to give any player too big a mechanical advantage over another player is (ideally) true of all games, becasue that way you pit players' skill against each other. But balancing the rewards for alignments in a single player story-driven game? Not everything is a game is supposed to follow the mantra of balance. "It's a game and thats how its supposed to be" is not a reason for why such a balance should exist. Especially not when it defeats the purpose of a game feature even existing.
I know, i never said it was the best example. Still it was a starting point. As for why one would, well it depend on your needs. For example, if i were a person that enjoy the game and want to finish it but could only play it for a few hours per week due to many circumstances, i would definitely consider to skip directly to the castle to continue with the main quest and waste as little time as possible.
That's an entirely metagame reason to be evil, and not a very good one either. In a game that lasts about 20 hours if you don't do any of the skippable quests, the Redcliffe fight is chump change.
It's also really bad writing if your only motivation to be inactive is because this extraplanar dude who controls your every move doesn't want to deal with dis s***.
Balance in terms of scaling enemy difficulty to match what a player can realistically handle is true of all games. That's because if a combat in a game isn't fair it's frustrations, but if it's too easy it's just wasting the player's time. Balancing classes in PvP to as not to give any player too big a mechanical advantage over another player is (ideally) true of all games, becasue that way you pit players' skill against each other. But balancing the rewards for alignments in a single player story-driven game? Not everything is a game is supposed to follow the mantra of balance. "It's a game and thats how its supposed to be" is not a reason for why such a balance should exist. Especially not when it defeats the purpose of a game feature even existing.
You do know that following your idea would basically force a player to play as evil right? Because at that point there would be no reasons to not to. Since it's a game you don't have to follow your morality as you would in real life, because this is a game. And last time i checked players don't like to be "forced" or at least "strongly encouraged" to play something over something else. In an game as DA, it's an important part of the game. Sorry, but your idea applied in this game would be an utter failure, at least if implemented as you would. Because you are saying "i want to play evil and be rewarded more for it".
LE is my default character. I think it worked pretty well in NWN and DAO.
Retour en haut
