I think the morality system in KOTOR was done brilliantly.
Any thoughts on 'morality systems'?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
It depends. For the most part, I agree with you. However, there are times when it's more complicated than that. 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.BranKetraAll very true. Though, the unfortunate thing is, for every Rachni Queen, there are 10-15 other completely binary choices with definitive outcomes. I think had the games focused on the "big" decisions, rather than trying to integrate the "system" into every conversation, and eliminating that damn bar, it would have made it a lot more interesting. I know I tried playing both games with a "Renegade" character, but it ended up just being exactly the same thing, only Shepard was really rude, obnoxious and extremely reckless. -- I also want to say something else as a side point. The term "paragon" isn't really appropriate for the "good" side of the system, as by definition, a "paragon" is someone who excels at what they do in every possible way; a "prefect example" if you will. Not only can an evil person excel at being evil... but a "renegade" can excel at bring a renegade. So it kind of undermines the whole system.
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.
I think you misread. What I'm saying is that, in short, black and white morality can still exist very easily in a game that does not have a morality 'score'. Removing the morality 'score', does not solve the fundamental problem: 'black & white' choices.
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.
The Inquisition/mages. You're welcome.
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.
Really? I was surprised how grey some of the evil choices were made out to be. Granted, I haven't done an 'evil playthrough'.
(Spoilers) You were given the option to feed a dying creature that had to devour force users to live, but feeding it would make it dangerous. The 'light side' option was to poison it and slowly kill it off through starvation. That's not morally ambiguous?
Another example in The Man with the Iron Voice: you were given a 'cure' to treat Hutta's poisonous waters by an old man who was so ill he couldn't speak without a metal device. Turns out that using the poison would cause nearby wildlife to frenzy and attack villages near the river. The people who lived in villages near the river, however, were factory workers for the Hutts (according to the old man) and contributed to the spread of toxins throughout Hutta's swamps and waters. Not applying the cure is the light side option, while using the cure is the dark side choice.
That's also a pretty morally ambiguous choice. Wildlife frenzies are temporary; the animals could be eliminated and the villages evacuated. Applying the cure could make life better for everyone.
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.
Maroxad
And Neverwinter Nights 2's OC, don't forget that. It was even lampshaded (humorously mocked) by the writers.
And Bioshock's story really wasn't that good. The ending scenes weren't even a minute long, but the game was OK. It can't touch Half-Life 2 (and its DLC) in either narrative or gameplay though.
I think the morality system in KOTOR was done brilliantly.Ilovegames1992Care to explain how? Either you 1) give the money back to the poor person and gain light side points for being uber-selfless, 2) take the money as your reward and gain nothing else, or 3) demand more money from them or you will destroy them and their children unto the seventh generation if they don't give you more, gaining dark side points and boosts to Sith Lightning. I would have applauded you had you mentioned The Sith Lords, which does have significant amounts of ambiguous choices that while "light" on the surface, lead to even greater suffering in the long run (or vice versa), which is what Kreia tries to teach you throughout the game. I loved both games, but there was nothing "brilliant" about how the first one handled morality. Just more typical Bioware binarity.
[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]I think the morality system in KOTOR was done brilliantly.foxhound_foxI would have applauded you had you mentioned The Sith Lords, which does have significant amounts of ambiguous choices that while "light" on the surface, lead to even greater suffering in the long run (or vice versa).
One scene during the whole game illustrating exactly that a good morality system does not make.
One scene during the whole game illustrating exactly that a good morality system does not make.Jabby250Um... what? I never gave a specific example. Or are you hiding behind an alt account and bringing up a point I made in a previous thread many moons ago?
[QUOTE="Jabby250"]One scene during the whole game illustrating exactly that a good morality system does not make.foxhound_foxUm... what? I never gave a specific example.
You don't have to. The same thing you said is only talked about and shown, like, once during the entire game. A beggar you give money to being beaten and robbed, or the beggar you scared the crap out of (as an evil character) falcon-punching that dude who tried to rob him (in the previously-mentioned outcome).
And Kreia is the 'Morrigan disapproves' of KotOR II.
I would like to see a morality system that simply is not just good or evil (or whatever other dichotomy), rather just a set of causes (actions, choices) and effects without necessarily grouping each choice in to some category. So if you do one action, the relevant characters react accordingly. Different characters might act differently to each choice, and the story would progress/change accordingly. Just because you decided to kill a character rather than show him/her mercy, that doesn't mean your character should start sprouting horns and have all the village people scared of you. Something like that should be a very deep and complicated moral choice, and the effect of that choice should be equally as complex. Every hero is also someone's enemy, right?
[QUOTE="BranKetra"]It depends. For the most part, I agree with you. However, there are times when it's more complicated than that. 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.foxhound_foxAll very true. Though, the unfortunate thing is, for every Rachni Queen, there are 10-15 other completely binary choices with definitive outcomes. I think had the games focused on the "big" decisions, rather than trying to integrate the "system" into every conversation, and eliminating that damn bar, it would have made it a lot more interesting. I know I tried playing both games with a "Renegade" character, but it ended up just being exactly the same thing, only Shepard was really rude, obnoxious and extremely reckless. -- I also want to say something else as a side point. The term "paragon" isn't really appropriate for the "good" side of the system, as by definition, a "paragon" is someone who excels at what they do in every possible way; a "prefect example" if you will. Not only can an evil person excel at being evil... but a "renegade" can excel at bring a renegade. So it kind of undermines the whole system.
I agree about the one-sided conversation options. I had in mind that the morality system should be completely optional. For the most part, it is. At this point, I don't have a formed plan for it.
About the system itself, I recall certain outcomes were only available by having experience one way or the other. For example, after recruiting Jack and coming on board, she and Miranda were arguing. There was a paragon and a renegade option to solve the the argument However, I didn't have enough points for either. So I picked a regular option, siding with Miranda. I get the feeling that if I had one or the other, Jack wouldn't had died during the final mission. My point is that the developers seem to have turned the morality system as a "key" to unlocking more options, when the fundamentals of the moral choices are more complicated than how they're presented.
In other words, I agree with you. For the most part. Good point about paragon, btw.
So if crafting a character's personality isn't role playing then why isn't a game like Super Mario Brothers considered Role Playing? You have as much control over what the fat little plumber does as you do a character in a linear RPG. oh yeah because just playing a character isn't playing a role.[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="wiouds"]
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.
wiouds
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.
You're one of the vew people left that ignore all history of the genre and still think JRPG's are the real RPG's despite facts proving the totally opposite.You can not make Mario ruthless because the game's creators already made him this aloof, happy-go-lucky italian. Play paper mario and honestly tell me that Mario is evil. You can't.
[QUOTE="BranKetra"]It depends. For the most part, I agree with you. However, there are times when it's more complicated than that. 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.foxhound_foxAll very true. Though, the unfortunate thing is, for every Rachni Queen, there are 10-15 other completely binary choices with definitive outcomes. I think had the games focused on the "big" decisions, rather than trying to integrate the "system" into every conversation, and eliminating that damn bar, it would have made it a lot more interesting. I know I tried playing both games with a "Renegade" character, but it ended up just being exactly the same thing, only Shepard was really rude, obnoxious and extremely reckless. -- I also want to say something else as a side point. The term "paragon" isn't really appropriate for the "good" side of the system, as by definition, a "paragon" is someone who excels at what they do in every possible way; a "prefect example" if you will. Not only can an evil person excel at being evil... but a "renegade" can excel at bring a renegade. So it kind of undermines the whole system. Well Renegade means sort of bucking the trend on what a certain type of character is supposed to be. You're are right that someone can be a shining example of a renegade however the meter, i believe is placed on being a human ambassador. You're essentially the face of humanity. Anyways i've said this before and I find that there are two sides to the cliche coin. You have games that are all evil vs good choices so the opposite of that would be a game with all gray choices. Technically speaking Kotor is just as cliche as The Witcher only we don't see games like The Witcher as often so it stands out for being outstanding when it comes to C&C (well that and it is a bit harder to craft a moral dilema rather than punching an old cripple because you can. Because of situations like the Rachnia Queen, I think Mass Effect is just a tad bit better than The Witcher because of the way it mixes black, white and gray however there are far more situations where it's either polite sheppard or d*** sheppard. They haven't found a good balance. Alpha Protocol seems to have done C&C the best in recent memory. Special mentions go to games that forego good/evil meters and instead rely on a faction influence system.
I think you misread. What I'm saying is that, in short, black and white morality can still exist very easily in a game that does not have a morality 'score'. Removing the morality 'score', does not solve the fundamental problem: 'black & white' choices.
Well,in that case I misread, removing the damn bar wont fix the problem, of Black/white choices, however it will fix the problem that is the existance of the bar.
The Inquisition/mages. You're welcome.
Fun fact, some disagree with that, some see them as pretty evil. The beauty of moraly grey factions and choices. Same goes for Skyrim. Who do you think is evil of the 2 Imperials or Storm Cloaks?
Really? I was surprised how grey some of the evil choices were made out to be. Granted, I haven't done an 'evil playthrough'.
Dephends on the game/story, in TOR for instance, I found the some quests in the trooper line to be very morally ambigious. However, I couldnt really force myself to play as an evil character at least on the imperial side.
(Spoilers) You were given the option to feed a dying creature that had to devour force users to live, but feeding it would make it dangerous. The 'light side' option was to poison it and slowly kill it off through starvation. That's not morally ambiguous?
Another example in The Man with the Iron Voice: you were given a 'cure' to treat Hutta's poisonous waters by an old man who was so ill he couldn't speak without a metal device. Turns out that using the poison would cause nearby wildlife to frenzy and attack villages near the river. The people who lived in villages near the river, however, were factory workers for the Hutts (according to the old man) and contributed to the spread of toxins throughout Hutta's swamps and waters. Not applying the cure is the light side option, while using the cure is the dark side choice.
That's also a pretty morally ambiguous choice. Wildlife frenzies are temporary; the animals could be eliminated and the villages evacuated. Applying the cure could make life better for everyone.
Hmm, cant remember that questline. But yes, since Mass Effect, Bioware has occationally attempted to make morally grey quests, but overall, I feel the ammount of stupid evil choices way outweight the morally ambigous. But here comes another problem, who are Bioware to tell us what is right and wrong. This is why I hate the light/dark side or good/evil which 95% of all games do. I like it more when it is Chaotic vs Lawful
And Neverwinter Nights 2's OC, don't forget that. It was even lampshaded (humorously mocked) by the writers.
NWN2 OC is easily their weakest link. And was ultimately redeemed by MOTB.
And Bioshock's story really wasn't that good. The ending scenes weren't even a minute long, but the game was OK. It can't touch Half-Life 2 (and its DLC) in either narrative or gameplay though.
Agreed. Bioshock wasnt a particulary good game. HL2 and System Shock 2 were way better when it came to story.
Jabby250
Now, I dont think morality systems are always a bad thing, but the issue comes from the fact that an overwhelming ammount of morality systems are terrible. And with the exception of Bioware (yes, I said Bioware and maybe Obsidian), no one really seems to want to improve it.
What Bioware needs to do is get rid of all the remaining black/white choices they have and strengthen their morally ambigious choices. Get rid of the alignment system as well, and last but not least.
Make sure your choices ACTUALLY matter. This is a big issue with Bioware choices, they lack the consequences.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment