so you would really give that "Godly Armour of the Heavens +5" won luckily from an evil bandit to the City guard that cant hold a longsword for good? and keep your "nothingly letherwest of nothingness -1"?
even as a "good" character you would use it, as you could do "more" good with that superb piece of equipment.
would it make a difference if you found that "Godly ..." in a chest near the bandit-cave or give as reward by the mayor of the threatened city? both are ways to improve your abilities, make sure, you can defeat the next giant monster-that-lurks-in-the-dark. if you would turn that armour down or sell it to the next shop to give the money to the charity for homeless children, you would have a hard time defeating that monster-that-... .
i would not turn down every reward, even if i could because since i know the game usually will require me to have better stuff later on. in KotoR i had to struggle hard to find enough money to buy me that frigging "Light-Side-Robe" from the Space-Merchand, being on the "Light"Side and giving away all my cash and refusing rewards as they came. like i noted before, the "Dark"Side was easier)
as for examples: maybe it is possible to defeat Half-Life only with your handgun (and the RL for that damn Gunships) and leave all thos nifty maschineguns, plasmarifles and grenades behind for the resistance, but you really would have a hard time trying that. (Super Metroid with no Energy-cans and only 20 Rockets? how'd you do that? )
i am repeating to much. so i stop here. ;)
Evil gives a certain reward, but good does not
Hummm, how about this: being good is like bein an Internet Troll: your fun comes from ruining other people's experiences. So, someone is out there gaining lot's of money from slave orcs, and suddently someguy from a distant city, with no bussiness to do in the area, come just for the fun o freeing the orcs, and ruining your mining camp that took you so much to build. That's funny! Seing the bad guy all cripled and crying for the money lost and all. Also, good people might be maintaining peace in their hometown or something - by doing this, they are rewarded with a nice place to live in - even if sometimes it would be more profitable just looting the entire city.
Instead of focusing on black "rewarding evil" or white "rewarding good", what if a game were to reward certain mindsets, and treat said mindsets as various shades of grey?
D&D introduced the idea of various alignments to describe different facets of virtue. In the evil case, there was the nefarious powermonger (Lawful Evil), the selfish survivalist (Neutral Evil), and the bloodlusting maniac (Chaotic Evil).
As an example, consider an epic event where a player must choose between his own character's survival, and the survival of another. If the player-character turns his back, the other character dies, and a reward or penalty is applied. (Otherwise, the player-character dies, game is reloaded from save, etc). Now, consider the reward applied if the other person was:
- a child?
- a merchant?
- a beggar?
- the PC's spouse/family?
- a monarch/member of government?
Consider too what the reward would be if the act of 'selfishly' choosing survival over sacrifice resulted in:
- preventing a major disaster/catastrophy
- saving multiple lives
- the death of Lord British
- being personally rewarded with money or power
So, allowing the PC's wife to die in order to prevent the earth-engulfing meteor strike the planet's surface increases the PC's karma (due to the fact that despite everyone having survived the catastrophe, he will have to live with the grief of his loss until the end of his days, etc). But allowing the child to die who is to become the future King/Queen and snuffing out the potential involved therein, for the sole purpose of an assassination contract, means a massive karma drop to the PC.
Your thoughts?
D&D introduced the idea of various alignments to describe different facets of virtue. In the evil case, there was the nefarious powermonger (Lawful Evil), the selfish survivalist (Neutral Evil), and the bloodlusting maniac (Chaotic Evil).
As an example, consider an epic event where a player must choose between his own character's survival, and the survival of another. If the player-character turns his back, the other character dies, and a reward or penalty is applied. (Otherwise, the player-character dies, game is reloaded from save, etc). Now, consider the reward applied if the other person was:
- a child?
- a merchant?
- a beggar?
- the PC's spouse/family?
- a monarch/member of government?
Consider too what the reward would be if the act of 'selfishly' choosing survival over sacrifice resulted in:
- preventing a major disaster/catastrophy
- saving multiple lives
- the death of Lord British
- being personally rewarded with money or power
So, allowing the PC's wife to die in order to prevent the earth-engulfing meteor strike the planet's surface increases the PC's karma (due to the fact that despite everyone having survived the catastrophe, he will have to live with the grief of his loss until the end of his days, etc). But allowing the child to die who is to become the future King/Queen and snuffing out the potential involved therein, for the sole purpose of an assassination contract, means a massive karma drop to the PC.
Your thoughts?
Not sure if this has been said or not, but couldn't one not say the "rewards" for evil are always material (ie. better weapons,etc,etc), for good the reward is often the journey itself (exp, skills, etc, etc).
Though this might be the same as the short/long term system.
Though this might be the same as the short/long term system.
I like the idea of karma really. How about applying it this way: the more good you do, the more lucky you are. Good charactors will end up getting more critical strikes, finding better treasure, doing better vs traps, dodging damage etc, while bad charactors will get hit more, have their weapons break, find lower quality treasure. I think a solution like this would balance things out quite well. It might lead to a bit of a downward spiral for evil players where they have to loot and steal to get better weapons. The good thing about it though is that it would affect the game heavily while still being fairly transparent to the player. It would leave a good players experience being a lot more wholesome and virtuose than an evil ones.
I think most rpgs need a great sense of continuity in their world. If someone does something evil, a lot more npcs should know about it and act accordingly. Oh, and breaking into peoples houses and picking up anything thats not nailed down should earn the player negative karma :)
I think most rpgs need a great sense of continuity in their world. If someone does something evil, a lot more npcs should know about it and act accordingly. Oh, and breaking into peoples houses and picking up anything thats not nailed down should earn the player negative karma :)
im surprised no one has touched on the idea that good and evil are a matter of perception. traditionally, good is on the side of god, and evil is on the side of the devil (good god, evil devil...hmmm.) however, i think most intelligent people realise that good is simply the people that share the same ideals as you, and evil is the opposing force.
i think the problem with most 'good versus evil' games is that you play only one side. the problems inherent in this is that the side that you play appears to be dynamic, while the other side is static, and the good and evil characters are very cliched.
a better way to present the idea would be to have the player play both sides, cutting back and forth between the two. leave both sides undefined as good or evil, in fact the player shouldnt know the two sides are opposing one another. for a one player game, i think that it could really get the player to think about how we percieve good and evil.
it could even work as an MMO. the player chooses between one of two sides, each vying for world, continent, country, city, block association, religous, etc...domination. Neither side, again, would be presented as good or evil. but the npc's from you side would always refer to the other as evil, and your side as good.
i dont think that the reward system really has anything to do with the ideas of good or evil. im sure there are just as many evil doers who wouldnt accept gratuity as there are do gooders. i think this is what MatrixCubed was getting at. the dnd system of alignment where choatic good will kill everything in the name of good, and lawful evil will obey the laws of man to achieve his twisted ends. on either side of good and evil you have those whose ends justify their means.
i think the problem with most 'good versus evil' games is that you play only one side. the problems inherent in this is that the side that you play appears to be dynamic, while the other side is static, and the good and evil characters are very cliched.
a better way to present the idea would be to have the player play both sides, cutting back and forth between the two. leave both sides undefined as good or evil, in fact the player shouldnt know the two sides are opposing one another. for a one player game, i think that it could really get the player to think about how we percieve good and evil.
it could even work as an MMO. the player chooses between one of two sides, each vying for world, continent, country, city, block association, religous, etc...domination. Neither side, again, would be presented as good or evil. but the npc's from you side would always refer to the other as evil, and your side as good.
i dont think that the reward system really has anything to do with the ideas of good or evil. im sure there are just as many evil doers who wouldnt accept gratuity as there are do gooders. i think this is what MatrixCubed was getting at. the dnd system of alignment where choatic good will kill everything in the name of good, and lawful evil will obey the laws of man to achieve his twisted ends. on either side of good and evil you have those whose ends justify their means.
I'd have said its more a case that either side doesn't care. Good sides against evil for moral/ethic reasons and recognises that evil is wrong. Evil just doesn't care and wants power.
If you have the player cut between sides you might have balance issues. Take something like Star Wars : a new hope. Would thwarting the rebellian as the empire be that satisfying a game given you outnumber them thousands to one? Struggling against the odds makes for a more satisfying game I think. If you've played KOTOR and KOTOR2 most people think KOTOR is the better game, I think at least partially thats because the story has you fighting a losing war, being hunted down by the sith armies. In KOTOR2 you face the occasional assassin, for the most part the enemy is hidden and you don't really feel their presense in the story, far less satisfying. So we need a way of altering the balance between sides dynamically based on what the player is doing, without making the player feel like they are losing, but rather struggling against the odds.
If you have the player cut between sides you might have balance issues. Take something like Star Wars : a new hope. Would thwarting the rebellian as the empire be that satisfying a game given you outnumber them thousands to one? Struggling against the odds makes for a more satisfying game I think. If you've played KOTOR and KOTOR2 most people think KOTOR is the better game, I think at least partially thats because the story has you fighting a losing war, being hunted down by the sith armies. In KOTOR2 you face the occasional assassin, for the most part the enemy is hidden and you don't really feel their presense in the story, far less satisfying. So we need a way of altering the balance between sides dynamically based on what the player is doing, without making the player feel like they are losing, but rather struggling against the odds.
well that certainly would be the case in a game where you have this huge monolith of evil versus a small rebelion faction. unless the game was centered around the story of a small number of forces on each side where the total size of each side is irrelevant.
anyway, this getting more theoretical than practical. like i said, i dont think that the reward system really should reflect absolutely whether or not you are actually are good or evil, but rather the perception of your character to the npc's.
i think the problem that Wavinator is trying to get around here is motivation rather than reward. you can still motivate the player without the promise of some trivial material reward. to a virtuous character (or player for that matter) doing good is the reward. in this sense i dont think you can really have a reward system that promotes virtue.
the only think i can say for sure here is that end-game rewards (cutscenes and whathaveyou) are a weak motivator for the player.
anyway, this getting more theoretical than practical. like i said, i dont think that the reward system really should reflect absolutely whether or not you are actually are good or evil, but rather the perception of your character to the npc's.
i think the problem that Wavinator is trying to get around here is motivation rather than reward. you can still motivate the player without the promise of some trivial material reward. to a virtuous character (or player for that matter) doing good is the reward. in this sense i dont think you can really have a reward system that promotes virtue.
the only think i can say for sure here is that end-game rewards (cutscenes and whathaveyou) are a weak motivator for the player.
Quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
im surprised no one has touched on the idea that good and evil are a matter of perception. traditionally, good is on the side of god, and evil is on the side of the devil (good god, evil devil...hmmm.) however, i think most intelligent people realise that good is simply the people that share the same ideals as you, and evil is the opposing force.
This has been done over and over again in such games as Dark Age of Camelot and most war games. It's not really new... the main focus here is why would someone want to be a righteous paladin over a power-hungry villain, and the mechanics we can put in place to make it interesting.
Quote:i think this is what MatrixCubed was getting at. the dnd system of alignment where choatic good will kill everything in the name of good, and lawful evil will obey the laws of man to achieve his twisted ends. on either side of good and evil you have those whose ends justify their means.
Hey, this gives me a hell of an idea!! What about if you simply have a measure of how each of a set of ideals relate to each other -- how each one is more important than the other ones?
A paladin of righteousness has his "other peoples' life" above "other peoples' possessions" (as he'd rather burn down someone's farm to save him, of course).
The list then goes like this: (descending order) the law, his own life, his own possessions. He will break the law to save someone's life, but if he's condemned to death, he will accept it. He'd give his sword any day to save his life of course.
A paladin of justice, on the other hand, puts the law in first place, so if someone is hanged, he won't try to save him. A bandit's possessions and life are surely above any law. A lawful but power-hungry monarch is easy to represent, as well as one who doesn't care who he assassinates to get more power.
These are all generic ideals, but you can include more specific items: a farmer for instance might risk his own life for the farm where he lived all his life (but his other possessions are much more down the list, unless he cares about them too much).
This will give the NPCs good guidelines to play according to their roles with an interesting depth, and should work really well for players too if you simply let the player choose his ideals and then reward him for playing accordingly.
I don't know how you'd code it, but a "priorities-based" system would be pretty handy. But how could teh system divine your soul from your actions? Battlefield 2 can't even tell when I defended a flag by blowing up an APC that was going to take it.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement