Any thoughts on 'morality systems'?

Well, it adds... choice. I love morality systems, even if its slightly arbitrary.

Multiple choices beats a linear game for me.

Morality Systems is one of the 10 plagues of the industry. Morality systems have many issues.

1. It usually kills any form of character development
2. Most of the time your choices are between good and evil, seldomly neutral choices and those who pick the neutral choices are punished for it.
3. Speaking of Good Choices, they are usually unrealisticly naive
4. Whereas evil choices are usually not lawful evil, neutral evil or chaotic evil. They are stupid evil, or evil for the sake of being evil. Which does a damn good job killing immersion.
5. Since you almost never actually feel the consequenes for joining either side, it is just flavor anyway.
6. Writers will have to write both sides and as a result, the story usually takes a hit.
7. Many of the times the story makes no sense if you play as an evil character.
8. With the exception of a few games, moral choices never make you hesitate. It isnt about what you or your character thinks is right and wrong, it is what gives you the most good/evil points.

There are a few games with decent morality such as Witcher and Tactics Ogre because the choices are morally gray and actually have an impact. Then there are others like Mount and Blade where picking the dishonarble choices yield instant rewards at the expense of long time benefits as well as angering people, whereas honorable actions is more rewarding in the long run, but offers little to nothing beforehand.

Rarely is it done properly. In the case of ME2, chosing between renegade and paragon makes no difference in result. If you want freedom, and how you interact with NPCs to make a difference, play Fallout 2.

Rarely is it done properly. In the case of ME2, chosing between renegade and paragon makes no difference in result. If you want freedom, and how you interact with NPCs to make a difference, play Fallout 2.

Socijalisticka

And Fallout 1 :)

But the video/computer game with the strongest choices and consequences of them all is Alter Ego (not particulary kid friendly).

Fallout 3 and New Vegas aswell.

I find that is just get in the way.

They commonly take away role player from RPG because the make maker think that moral picks is RP.

1. It usually kills any form of character development
2. Writers will have to write both sides and as a result, the story usually takes a hit.

Maroxad

These two points are why I don't like games with morality systems and won't buy them.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas aswell.

tjricardo089

Not so much Fallout 3. It's pretty much the weakest game in the series for roleplaying.

Anyway, moral choices are generally done pretty terribly nowadays, especially by the major players like Bioware and Bethesda (well, Bethesda's one attempt at a morality system). Roleplaying should be more than just picking the blue Ghandi option every time, or picking the red Hitler option every time - that's simplistic and boring, especially when it has no real effect on the plot.

The Witcher series is a better example of moral choices done right (as is Alpha Protocol) - possibly because they don't feature any kind of morality sliders whatsoever. Choices are just choices, without being pidgeonholed into a ridiculous good/evil dichotomy.

Then again, morality sliders aren't terrible things when done right. Planescape Torment used them extremely well, in that many of the things you said would affect your good/evil and lawful/chaotic alignments in some way. Fallout 2 had karma meters for every location in the game, and quest givers would treat you differently depending on your alignment. And the later Ultima games, instead of giving a simple good/evil dichtomy, gave us eight different sliders (virtues) to consider.

They suck when they're black and white, and they're too difficult to impliment otherwise. Catherine is the only game I've played where I wasn't able to predict what my answer/choice was going to do (sometimes).

Something like World Tendency in Demon's Souls was an interesting approach though, if that counts.

the way any of those morality plays work, in the game that have been released recently.. have marred the games in many respects.

[QUOTE="tjricardo089"]

Fallout 3 and New Vegas aswell.

Planeforger

Not so much Fallout 3. It's pretty much the weakest game in the series for roleplaying.

Anyway, moral choices are generally done pretty terribly nowadays, especially by the major players like Bioware and Bethesda (well, Bethesda's one attempt at a morality system). Roleplaying should be more than just picking the blue Ghandi option every time, or picking the red Hitler option every time - that's simplistic and boring, especially when it has no real effect on the plot.

The Witcher series is a better example of moral choices done right (as is Alpha Protocol) - possibly because they don't feature any kind of morality sliders whatsoever. Choices are just choices, without being pidgeonholed into a ridiculous good/evil dichotomy.

The thing I loved about AP's dialogue system was that it never felt like your character was ever anything other than a professional, and even options that might seem aggressive or uncaring were believable. I still remember deliberately pissing off one character so he would stick around and fight me instead of running away. In some sense, it was out of character for me to have the main character speak like that, given how I was playing the character on that particular run through. But in another sense, it was more like acting within role-playing, and that kind of dialogue depth I really haven't experienced in a game since Torment.

I think what players want is consequence, not morality. We don't want to "do the right/wrong thing" so much as we want to see the game react to whatever it is that we choose to do. Decisions in Mass Effect really have very little effect on anything, whereas decisions in AP can continually affect the game throughout the entirety of the playthrough, most interestingly through the friendships and rivalries you develop with the NPCs, but in many other ways as well. Devs should focus more on impact rather than giving players a personality test, which is essentially all that ME's morality system really does.

in some games like Fable it's just a cheap system to make people re-play the game to see and play specific quests which get locked if you are good/evil.Since Fable games are very short for RPG standarts and they use the system to make the game feel longer.

While in game slike Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 1 and 2 the morality system is much better, but still that dosn't mean i love it. I'm actully a bit annoyed by it since it forces the player to replay the game if they want to exp. all of the quests.

I'm actully a bit annoyed by it since it forces the player to replay the game if they want to exp. all of the quests.

NightmareP3

Well they're roleplaying games. You shouldn't be able to do everything in one playthrough.

I mean Oblivion and Skyrim are kind of ridiculous like that. You can become the head of all the different guilds at once, even though you lack the skills that should be necessary for some of them. I mean, in Skyrim I became the head of the Mage college despite only knowing two spells.

[QUOTE="tjricardo089"]

Fallout 3 and New Vegas aswell.

Planeforger

Not so much Fallout 3. It's pretty much the weakest game in the series for roleplaying.

Anyway, moral choices are generally done pretty terribly nowadays, especially by the major players like Bioware and Bethesda (well, Bethesda's one attempt at a morality system). Roleplaying should be more than just picking the blue Ghandi option every time, or picking the red Hitler option every time - that's simplistic and boring, especially when it has no real effect on the plot.

The Witcher series is a better example of moral choices done right (as is Alpha Protocol) - possibly because they don't feature any kind of morality sliders whatsoever. Choices are just choices, without being pidgeonholed into a ridiculous good/evil dichotomy.

Then again, morality sliders aren't terrible things when done right. Planescape Torment used them extremely well, in that many of the things you said would affect your good/evil and lawful/chaotic alignments in some way. Fallout 2 had karma meters for every location in the game, and quest givers would treat you differently depending on your alignment. And the later Ultima games, instead of giving a simple good/evil dichtomy, gave us eight different sliders (virtues) to consider.

Hmm yeah, forgot about Alpha Protocol, PS:T and Ultima.

I agree with everything you say. A morality system done right is a great thing, the only problem is that most morality systems we see are so shallow, feel tacked on and really adds nothing. And speaking of Ultima's morality sytem, I love how you have 8 different virtues, sure it wasnt as good as it could have been but the concept is still great, I can be honorable and honest, but have little compassion.

In a way I want to see a Zelda WRPG or a Zelda with moral choices because a Zelda game could pull off something similar to what Ultima did, with a Courage/Wisdom/Power morality system. The choices would be ideally morally grey (in terms of good/evil) sometimes favoring one of the 3 aspects over the others.

I find that is just get in the way.

They commonly take away role player from RPG because the make maker think that moral picks is RP.

I love the idea of morality systems, but they could be implemented a whole lot better. As much as I adore Mass Effect, the dialogue trees basically give you the choice between saying something in a polite manner or a rude manner - the result however was almost always the same. I think the only choices I actually made in ME2 were to let Kasyumi keep the grey box or destroy it - which had no effect on future events in the game. And whether or not to kill some utterly inconsequential bartender that I would never see again. Other than that, not much really.

Fallout 3 did a good job with dialogue. The usually gave me the opportunity to say what I actually wanted to say based on my general impression of the person I was talking to and the situation in general. There was some thought put into that. Maybe it didn't change the ultimate outcome of the mission, but it did make me feel as if I was proceeding in the way I wanted to. Of course if you want to actually complete a quest - and who doesn't - the "evil" option was off the table because it would end the mission immediately.

I think the main problem is that to have REAL options in a game, they'd have to program several versions of every single quest, which would increase the development time tremendously. But I hope they'll at least do a better job of it in the next gen.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

I find that is just get in the way.

They commonly take away role player from RPG because the make maker think that moral picks is RP.

smerlus

Adding moral picks to a RPG is like adding cheerleader at a hockey game. They are not needed for the game but some enjoy them. Moral picks are about pretending to be a character and not about playing the role of the character within the game play.

What is bad is when some game developers use the excuse thattheir game has moral pick so they can remove the role playing elements from a RPG. It is like adding cheerleader to a hockey game hoping that they would not care about the fact the players are not skating.

Morality Systems is one of the 10 plagues of the industry. Morality systems have many issues.It usually kills any form of character development

That is demonstrably incorrect.

Most of the time your choices are between good and evil, seldomly neutral choices and those who pick the neutral choices are punished for it.

That's mostly a 'means to an end' kind of thing. Removing the morality system doesn't automatically create a video game with morally complex decisions.

Speaking of Good Choices, they are usually unrealisticly naive

Unrealistically. Yes, I'll give you that. The way moral dilemmas are presented in some games where you can be good/evil aren't exactly conducive to a realistic representation of how moral dilemmas work in real life. Conversely, having each situation and character be presented in a complex 'plot within plot' kind of way, or having unlikely long-winding implications for your character, although arguably more desirable, isn't very realistic either.

Whereas evil choices are usually not lawful evil, neutral evil or chaotic evil. They are stupid evil, or evil for the sake of being evil. Which does a damn good job killing immersion.

All those alignments, especially 'chaotic', can be turned into textbook examples of a character being 'evil just for the sake [of it]' (or 'stupid evil'). For a character to not be 'evil just for the sake of being evil', I would think that you actually need situations wherein examples of the 'villain' are provided, in which he doe not behave entirely, or always evil.

Since you almost never actually feel the consequenes for joining either side, it is just flavor anyway.

Depends on what consequences you're referring to. Different (sub)plot endings/rewards can suffice sometimes.

Writers will have to write both sides and as a result, the story usually takes a hit.

Writers always have to 'write for multiple sides' in RPGs, that's how they're designed. You'd imagine that wanting more complex moral choices and long-lasting consequences would make the obligation to write outcomes for them even more taxing.

With the exception of a few games, moral choices never make you hesitate. It isnt about what you or your character thinks is right and wrong, it is what gives you the most good/evil points.

Maroxad

That's awfully presumptuous.

I think too often it falls into a Black & White mentality.

Middle of the ground usually doesn't fit with the picture the developers tried to paint.

I think for the most part, they are added to games these days to sell the illusion of "choice." Real morality goes well beyond "be the do-gooder" and "be the devil-fiend." Most role-playing games (where these "systems" have become extremely popular in the past decade) have the same story and progression of events no matter what "choices" are made by the player throughout the game. Mass Effect illustrates this hilariously well. The entire game goes from point A to point B in the same manner no matter what "choices" the player makes. Even the ending is the same. The only difference is that the protagonist is either rude or polite about their behavior. Maybe my involvement with Dungeons & Dragons material has left me wanting a significantly more complicated world, with actual meaningful and consequential choices and actions... or perhaps "role-playing" in video games never really existed (VTMB came really close).

How so? It wasn't really a roleplaying game that would let me get an idea of what my character is like, personality-wise. Yes, I could 'roleplay' as a sneaky, shotgun-wielding, back-stabbing, axe-crazy girl in a skimpy outfit that manipulates people through seduction or dementia... but none of it ever got me closer to understanding my character, ironically, even if it did have a morality system in place. The choices concerning moral conduct seemed to range from "Do you want to be a jerk and murder people for personal gain/amusement?" to "Do you want to profit from killing jerks and doing the dirty work of a bunch of a****les?

Two of the most satisfying story-driven games I have played this entire generation, both by definition RPG's (ARPG's specifically), were completely devoid of "morality systems." You played alongside the characters, and were sold a riveting tale of adventure that made you want to see it through to the end. These two games were Odin Sphere and Nier. Games with clearly defined characters with clearly defined intentions and personal morality all their own. I didn't need to have control over that to fall in love with every one of them and never forget what we went through together (*cough*RDR*cough*).foxhound_fox

If those games have set (player-controlled) characters with defined personalities then it could be argued that they're technically not roleplaying games.

How so? It wasn't really a roleplaying game that would let me get an idea of what my character is like, personality-wise. Yes, I could 'roleplay' as a sneaky, shotgun-wielding, back-stabbing, axe-crazy girl in a skimpy outfit that manipulates people through seduction or dementia... but none of it ever got me closer to understanding my character, ironically, even if it did have a morality system in place. The choices concerning moral conduct seemed to range from "Do you want to be a jerk and murder people for personal gain/amusement?" to "Do you want to profit from killing jerks and doing the dirty work of a bunch of a****les? If those games have set (player-controlled) characters with defined personalities then it could be argued that they're technically not roleplaying games.Jabby250

[QUOTE="NightmareP3"]

I'm actully a bit annoyed by it since it forces the player to replay the game if they want to exp. all of the quests.

TJORLY

Well they're roleplaying games. You shouldn't be able to do everything in one playthrough.

I mean Oblivion and Skyrim are kind of ridiculous like that. You can become the head of all the different guilds at once, even though you lack the skills that should be necessary for some of them. I mean, in Skyrim I became the head of the Mage college despite only knowing two spells.

Shouldn't or don't have to? Nothing is compelling you to have to advance to the top of every guild/faction. I agree it is ridiculous they don't respond to the character to shun them entirely if they don't look/act the part. However, you can make the choice of not progressing in a guild/faction if it does not suit your character. I had a mage in Skyrim. Naturally, she progressed through the College of Winterhold because she is a mage, obviously. I didn't have her progress through the Companions because there was no reason for it even if the game allowed me to. Actually, the College was the only faction my mage went through because all others made no sense. So I did not do them because of that not because I am allowed or not allowed by game mechanics.

My thoughts?

They're stupid.

Linear well crafted story > RL Stein Goosebumps Choose your Adventure Books.

All in my opinion of course.

[QUOTE="Maroxad"]

Morality Systems is one of the 10 plagues of the industry. Morality systems have many issues.It usually kills any form of character development

That is demonstrably incorrect.

It usually does, a good example would be infamous.

Most of the time your choices are between good and evil, seldomly neutral choices and those who pick the neutral choices are punished for it.

That's mostly a 'means to an end' kind of thing. Removing the morality system doesn't automatically create a video game with morally complex decisions.

Making them morally grey makes them a lot harder. Instead of picking between do-gooder and villain you pick between what you feel is right, which is far more complex than the former.

Whereas evil choices are usually not lawful evil, neutral evil or chaotic evil. They are stupid evil, or evil for the sake of being evil. Which does a damn good job killing immersion.

All those alignments, especially 'chaotic', can be turned into textbook examples of a character being 'evil just for the sake [of it]' (or 'stupid evil'). For a character to not be 'evil just for the sake of being evil', I would think that you actually need situations wherein examples of the 'villain' are provided, in which he doe not behave entirely, or always evil.

The Difference between Lawful-Chaotic Evil and Stupid Evil is that a Lawful-Chatoic Evil wouldnt commit acts of violence unless there is anything to gain from it, though they typically dont mind hurting a few extra individuals. A stupid evil character commits evil even if they gain nothing, why? Because it is evil.

Since you almost never actually feel the consequenes for joining either side, it is just flavor anyway.

Depends on what consequences you're referring to. Different (sub)plot endings/rewards can suffice sometimes.

Pretty much every Bioware game comes to mind. Choices in those games are nothing but flavor, and have no impact on actual gameplay.

Writers will have to write both sides and as a result, the story usually takes a hit.

Writers always have to 'write for multiple sides' in RPGs, that's how they're designed. You'd imagine that wanting more complex moral choices and long-lasting consequences would make the obligation to write outcomes for them even more taxing.

That is true. But at least in many good RPGs it is more than just fluff.

With the exception of a few games, moral choices never make you hesitate. It isnt about what you or your character thinks is right and wrong, it is what gives you the most good/evil points.

Jabby250

That's awfully presumptuous.

You do realize I was speaknig for more genres than just RPGs?

But even in most RPGs, moral choices is nothing more than a tacked on gimmick, there to give an illusion of choice.

Shouldn't or don't have to? Nothing is compelling you to have to advance to the top of every guild/faction. I agree it is ridiculous they don't respond to the character to shun them entirely if they don't look/act the part. However, you can make the choice of not progressing in a guild/faction if it does not suit your character. I had a mage in Skyrim. Naturally, she progressed through the College of Winterhold because she is a mage, obviously. I didn't have her progress through the Companions because there was no reason for it even if the game allowed me to. Actually, the College was the only faction my mage went through because all others made no sense. So I did not do them because of that not because I am allowed or not allowed by game mechanics.XIntoTheBlue

They can be terrible. It often feels like 1 outcome is clearly better than the other. So it just ends up as selecting the wrong thing then having to revert back saves or something or other.

Other times, the system feels completely half-hearted. To pull a morality system off you need to put in a lot of effort, some games, Infamous for example, just don't put in the effort, they just have weak and almost pathetic morality systems. Which are so black and white that it's almost embarrassing. And even in games like that, the overall storyline doesn't change, so it feels completely wrong. I also hate it in things like mass effect when they have some really vague decision like "do you want to go to A and do X or go to B and do Y" And you choose one hoping it's the right choice for your max + karma character. Then it ends up being some mission where you have to harvest the souls of orphans or something else inexplicably evil and you just have to start over.

Or when the person paraphrasing for the argument choices is grammatically incompetent, and a choice like "I'd rather not" translates to your character angrily shouting "f*** you, I'm not doing that...you can go die!" *- 9000 karma*

:roll: *load last save*

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="wiouds"]

I find that is just get in the way.

They commonly take away role player from RPG because the make maker think that moral picks is RP.

Adding moral picks to a RPG is like adding cheerleader at a hockey game. They are not needed for the game but some enjoy them. Moral picks are about pretending to be a character and not about playing the role of the character within the game play.

What is bad is when some game developers use the excuse thattheir game has moral pick so they can remove the role playing elements from a RPG. It is like adding cheerleader to a hockey game hoping that they would not care about the fact the players are not skating.

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="wiouds"]

I find that is just get in the way.

They commonly take away role player from RPG because the make maker think that moral picks is RP.

Adding moral picks to a RPG is like adding cheerleader at a hockey game. They are not needed for the game but some enjoy them. Moral picks are about pretending to be a character and not about playing the role of the character within the game play.

What is bad is when some game developers use the excuse thattheir game has moral pick so they can remove the role playing elements from a RPG. It is like adding cheerleader to a hockey game hoping that they would not care about the fact the players are not skating.

[QUOTE="Jabby250"]How so? It wasn't really a roleplaying game that would let me get an idea of what my character is like, personality-wise. Yes, I could 'roleplay' as a sneaky, shotgun-wielding, back-stabbing, axe-crazy girl in a skimpy outfit that manipulates people through seduction or dementia... but none of it ever got me closer to understanding my character, ironically, even if it did have a morality system in place. The choices concerning moral conduct seemed to range from "Do you want to be a jerk and murder people for personal gain/amusement?" to "Do you want to profit from killing jerks and doing the dirty work of a bunch of a****les? If those games have set (player-controlled) characters with defined personalities then it could be argued that they're technically not roleplaying games.foxhound_fox

How is that any different from what I think? The point is, I don't feel Bloodlines ever lets me express the personality I try to build very often.

Making them morally grey makes them a lot harder. Instead of picking between do-gooder and villain you pick between what you feel is right, which is far more complex than the former.

Yet removing the morality system usually doesn't fix the problem if you don't entirely redesign the topic of morality in your game. I still have to choose between psychotic, passive, and merciful, and it's usually not hard at all to figure out where they fit in, morality bars or not.

The Difference between Lawful-Chaotic Evil and Stupid Evil is that a Lawful-Chatoic Evil wouldnt commit acts of violence unless there is anything to gain from it, though they typically dont mind hurting a few extra individuals. A stupid evil character commits evil even if they gain nothing, why? Because it is evil.

That's hardly a complex villain. Most villains have something to gain by being evil. The thing is, these same villains will ignore personal gain when not so evil outcomes to their potential actions are presented, which can just as easily turn them into 'chaotic stupid' archetypes. If I want to roleplay an evil character just for the sake of being evil in a DnD setting, how is my character most likely to turn out? Yep, chaotic evil.

Always being evil is arguably not a desirable/practical trait for amassing greater personal wealth/power. Things like altruism, rewarding accomplishments, 'group mentality' (seeing each member of a team as valuable as yourself), and a reasonable degree of lenience for failure can be more likely to inspire confidence/reliability in your mooks and lead to success.

Then there's also the argument that having a villain that is evil every day of the week would make for an inferiorly-portrayed character compared to one that exhibits traits of humanity at some momens, to act as a counterpoint to his cruelty. A ridiculously emotionless villain without any humanity would make it hard for the audience to associate with.

Take Darth Vader for instance: arguably his characterization comes full circle after his last moments with Luke Skywalker.

Pretty much every Bioware game comes to mind. Choices in those games are nothing but flavor, and have no impact on actual gameplay.

By that token, the same would apply to Obsidian. KotOR II and Neverwinter Nights 2 were just as lacking.

You do realize I was speaknig for more genres than just RPGs?

Maroxad

That doesn't exactly change the nature of the discussion.

[QUOTE="Maroxad"]

Yet removing the morality system usually doesn't fix the problem if you don't entirely redesign the topic of morality in your game. I still have to choose between psychotic, passive, and merciful, and it's usually not hard at all to figure out where they fit in, morality bars or not.

You know, Psychotic, passive and merciful is pretty balck and white and barely differnent from what is listed and is OBVIOUSLY not what I asked for. A good morality system is about choosing what you deem to be the lesser evils. In Risen for instance, some people were spamming forums with questions "which faction are for the good guys?", ect. Black and white choices are all too common, especially in Bioware games.

That's hardly a complex villain. Most villains have something to gain by being evil. The thing is, these same villains will ignore personal gain when not so evil outcomes to their potential actions are presented, which can just as easily turn them into 'chaotic stupid' archetypes. If I want to roleplay an evil character just for the sake of being evil in a DnD setting, how is my character most likely to turn out? Yep, chaotic evil.

Always being evil is arguably not a desirable/practical trait for amassing greater personal wealth/power. Things like altruism, rewarding accomplishments, 'group mentality' (seeing each member of a team as valuable as yourself), and a reasonable degree of lenience for failure can be more likely to inspire confidence/reliability in your mooks and lead to success.

Then there's also the argument that having a villain that is evil every day of the week would make for an inferiorly-portrayed character compared to one that exhibits traits of humanity at some momens, to act as a counterpoint to his cruelty. A ridiculously emotionless villain without any humanity would make it hard for the audience to associate with.

Take Darth Vader for instance: arguably his characterization comes full circle after his last moments with Luke Skywalker.

Umm, what. Never said Stupid Evil was a good thing. Heck, that is my problem with evil choices. They are stupid evil. SWTOR was a big offender in this regard. And I was far from the only one with that opinion, heck, in my server, we had a long discussion on how stupid the evil choices in SWTOR were.

By that token, the same would apply to Obsidian. KotOR II and Neverwinter Nights 2 were just as lacking.

No. Mask of The Betrayer implemented it well, so did Alpha Protocol. KOTOR 2? I can give you that. ALthough (just like in KOTOR), it did affect force abilities.

You do realize I was speaknig for more genres than just RPGs?

Jabby250

That doesn't exactly change the nature of the discussion.

Doesnt matter. Anyhow, the game that ultimately got me to hate morality systems was InFamous, although, I did think it as stupid in games like Bioshock as well.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"] How would role playing a character by defining their personality through moral decisions take away from role playing? That's like saying skating on ice takes away from Hockeysmerlus

Adding moral picks to a RPG is like adding cheerleader at a hockey game. They are not needed for the game but some enjoy them. Moral picks are about pretending to be a character and not about playing the role of the character within the game play.

What is bad is when some game developers use the excuse thattheir game has moral pick so they can remove the role playing elements from a RPG. It is like adding cheerleader to a hockey game hoping that they would not care about the fact the players are not skating.

Crafting a character's personality is not part of what make a RPG a RPG since you craft a character personality more by how you play the character. I can make Mario's personality be ruthless or not caring about the small enemies. For that reason if crafting a character's personality is key to a RPG then most games are RPG.

For that reason if crafting a character's personality is key to a RPG then most games are RPG.wiouds

Choosing one option doesn't mean turning the other cheek versus being a royal jerk. BranKetra

The problem with morality systems is they are never done in a non-stupid way.

I thought ME2 had an interesting idea, instead of good/evil they had Paragon/Renegade, that worked for me.

How can you say you are "good" from killing 1000 creatures?

Also most of the time "evil" is stupid and the value judgements are offensive.

For example in Fable you are "pure" if you eat veggies and "corrupted" if you eat meat.

So I guess all the people who order a meat lovers pizza are going to hell.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Choosing one option doesn't mean turning the other cheek versus being a royal jerk. foxhound_fox

Either Shepard is polite about his actions and chooses to use "diplomacy" to find a means to an end, or he is rude about his actions and chooses to use "the force of aggression" to assert his will. There is no "neutral" position in anything in the Mass Effect games. Ultimately, the player has to choose between one of the two binary, opposed positions. "Choosing not to make a choice" makes it impossible to fulfill the requirements of the mission or task at hand, yet is a legitmate moral decision in the real world.

Take that one part in ME2 where Mordin asks you to save his assistant, for example. Those Batarians holding him hostage were all armed and aiming at my group and the hostage. They could have all decided to open fire, regardless of what you choose to say. The developers just programmed the situation to be open to diplomacy. For all I knew, they were about to fire. The paragon (upper-right non-blue) wasn't necessarily any more paragonic than firing at the Batarians to defend yourself and save the hostage. Even though two people may share similar values, the practice of them may be different.

In ME1, you have to choose whether the last Rachni lives or dies to complete a mission. Even if the generations after that one decide to become a scourge again, it might not be her will. Killing her may save the world in the future, but at that point, she did not do anything wrong. As I recall.

They are extremely terrible in the current age. It's all so shallow and has no effect what's so ever. It's nothing like it how it was during the late 90-early 00's. Fallout 2 did this perfectly.

In Fable if you kill a citizen you have to pay a fine or you cab leave that town wait 15-20 minutes and eveything would be forgiven. In Fallout 2, if you kill a citizen everyone in the town would come after you, all your quests that are active in that town would be incomplete and will stay this way forever.

In Infamous you have a choice to steal a blast shard from someone or disable a bomb to get a blast shard. You can do both but it's so easy to get positive or negative karma which makes and good decision vs bad decision pointless. In Fallout 2 by doing a single quest you eliminate a bunch of other ones. This is especially true in while in Reno while trying to be a made man for one of the mobster families (only one of those families is actually good and you gain a lot of reputation by eliminating the other ones)

I think only Dragon Age Origins, The Witcher 1 and 2 are the only games where there was an actual morality system working.

They are extremely terrible in the current age. It's all so shallow and has no effect what's so ever. It's nothing like it how it was during the late 90-early 00's. Fallout 2 did this perfectly.

In Fable if you kill a citizen you have to pay a fine or you cab leave that town wait 15-20 minutes and eveything would be forgiven. In Fallout 2, if you kill a citizen everyone in the town would come after you, all your quests that are active in that town would be incomplete and will stay this way forever.

In Infamous you have a choice to steal a blast shard from someone or disable a bomb to get a blast shard. You can do both but it's so easy to get positive or negative karma which makes and good decision vs bad decision pointless. In Fallout 2 by doing a single quest you eliminate a bunch of other ones. This is especially true in while in Reno while trying to be a made man for one of the mobster families (only one of those families is actually good and you gain a lot of reputation by eliminating the other ones)

kage_53

[QUOTE="wiouds"]For that reason if crafting a character's personality is key to a RPG then most games are RPG.foxhound_fox

Being able to change the story does is not something that makes a game a RPG and many of the RPG does not let the payer change the story.