Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

AoD forces you to play certain roles?

Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
ushdugery said:
What you say does not make you who you are, anyone arguing this point is being a pedant or an imbecile. You don't like what this game is doing, fine don't pay for it a play it no one has ever said you have to. What you are saying and or arguing is not an intelligent nor particularly interestingly contentious point. Don't fool yourself in to think you are pushing any intellectual ideology or objection you are nothing more than a pathetic troll. Please, do the world a favour and invest some time in brushing up about darwinism and practicing some of it's values.

I take it we're going to rename this place the www.cocksuckingfanboycodex.net? Seriously, after all the criticism we've been giving to Oblivion and FO3 you then question the right of someone else to make criticisms - quite productive criticisms may I add - of AoD? You're no better than the Bethesda fanboys - on your logic everyone should stop criticism FO3 or Oblivion. After all, if 'You don't lie what [Oblivion] is doing, fine don't pay for it a play it no has ever said you had to.'

So can I quote you as being the guy that thinks everyone should stop criticising Oblivion, or any other game? Can I? It seems to be what you are saying.

All Mareus has done is ask a legitimate question, make a very legitimate criticism and a few fairly easy to implement suggestions about how the game could be improved. Isn't that what we do at the codex? Or is it only acceptable if you make the criticism unproductive?

He criticised the game for not offering a choice in a situation where a choice would be good for roleplaying. How is that any different to criticising Oblivion for not offering choices in a situation where a choice would be good for roleplaying? He did it far more productively than any of the retarded OMGOBLIVIONSUCKS (and I hate oblivion for the record) that makes up 50% of the threads here.

If you think there is something wrong with productive criticism why don't you fuck off and buy a Nintendo so you can school up on your fanboy skills. Just remember to bag every game that you don't like, but insult someone to shit whenever they make even the smallest of suggestions about whichever game that you're current masturbating to. Or maybe just fuck off altogether - after all, "What you say does not make you who you are, anyone arguing this point is being a pedant or an imbecile. You don't like what this [forum poster] is doing, fine don't [read] it no one has ever said you have to."

And while you're at it, better write in to the newspaper and criticise those movie reviewers, and throw shit at anyone who says anything bad about a film. After all, "What you say does not make you who you are, anyone arguing this point is being a pedant or an imbecile. You don't like what this [movie] is doing, fine don't pay for it a [watch] it no one has ever said you have to."

But most of all, make sure you join the Bethesda forums and tell them all about how right they are, and how shit all those bitches at the Codex are for criticisng Oblivion and FO3. After all, "What you say does not make you who you are, anyone arguing this point is being a pedant or an imbecile. You don't like what [those games] is doing, fine don't pay for it a play it no one has ever said you have to."

Moron
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
Gragt said:
Mareus said:
The moral is above society or religion, so something is wrong even if whole society or religion says it is ok. It would just mean that the whole society is twisted.

That is because you see this through your own moral prism. Morality is not universal or absolute, it is created by society.

Meh...old theory, not saying it's wrong, but it's far from an obviously correct statement that you can just print and feel smug about being right and all. If you want to see good arguments for Moral realism, look at MacIntyre 'After Virtue' (Aristotlian virtue theorist, very good criticism of both postmodernism and liberal humanism), or Schaffer-Landau 'In Defence of Moral Realism' (his criticisms of competing views are crappy, and he makes some odd categorisations - rejects constructivism as a competitor to moral realism, when most philosophers would classify constructivism - you know, Kant, Rawls etc - as a form of moral realism - but his own arguments are quite decent).

There's also a big difference between saying that (a) traditional or religious moralities are objectively true, and saying that (b) some form of objective truth exists. Even most subjectivists aren't willing to throw out things like (for example)the belief that internal theoretical inconsistency is somehow wrong.

Not saying that moral realism is necessarily true either - there's a hell of a lot to be said for non-cognitivism, or even the updated versions of Mackie's error theory. But I doubt whether they are what most people mean when they say that morality is not universal or absolute - that seems more to be a reference to moral subjectivism or relativism. Which often relies on problematic reasoning - the old sociological fallacy of reasoning from (1) there exist many different moral systems to (2) there SHOULD exist many different moral systems. Firstly the difference between moral systems is massively over-exaggerated. It is very difficult to identify clear cross-cultural differences in moral systems that aren't simply the product of different FACTUAL beliefs (such as religious views). Often different moral beliefs aren't really the product of different moral values at all, but simply different empirical beliefs about religion, science, humanity and so on - e.g. people have different views on crime often because they have different empirical beliefs about what causes crime, how psychologically responsible criminals are, and how sentencing affects criminality. Similarly, if you remove all religious differences (religion being an empirical belief about the world) then it isn't at all certain whether we would have different moral systems at all.

Also, saying that morality is a human construction is NOT the same as saying that morality isn't real, universal or absolute. Many philosophical writers (including myself) have argued that morality is ENTIRELY a human construction, but is still real and universal - e.g Kant, Pete Singer, Rawls, Dworkin, Anscombe etc. Most such authors point to (a) the above observation that most moral differences are really just empirical differences, (b) the idea that it IS the constructed aspect of morality that gives it its authority. If morality was NOT constructed by humans then why would we be obliged to follow it? It would just be a set of arbitrary rules handed down with no relevance to us - even if you were religious you'd have no good reason to obey the rules, that would be no different to nazis saying that they were 'just obeying orders'. But if morality is constructed through human nature, human institutions, common beliefs and perspectives and agreements, then it actually has motivational and normative force, i.e. it becomes real. (c) that anti-realist theories of morality often can't escape making realist assumptions (e.g. notions of unfairness etc), (d) common features of humanity - we can't choose NOT to be social beings, even a decision to become a hermit is a decision by a creature whose mind and bodily systems are designed for social existence and who views the world through language and concepts formed around social existence. They then go on to argue that other social institutions are hardcoded into our mental existence (eg as social beings we seek out various limits on violence and means of securing cooperation - e.g. couldn't have a society without some concept of promise-keeping, some concept of mutual agreement etc).

Again not saying that you are wrong - there's plenty of writers that I respect that share your viewpoint. But it isn't something that you can just state as a throw-away piece of pseudo-wisdom and assume that you are correct about.
 

ushdugery

Scholar
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
371
You have jumped very quickly to judging me azrael the cat I could try to reply in a possibly eloquent form but I don't think that making a long thread displaying my control of the english language and showboating my 1EE7ness is all that important, have you actually read what I said or are you taking issue about nothing? I appreciate some of the points you have made in other threads and if you really vilify me that much I am very sorry to have antagonised someone as intelligent and worldly as you because I respect your opinion but there is nothing I could have done to change that.


PPS. I have been posting in an uneloquent and silly manner tonight as I'm very drunk. I'm trying not to use that as a cop out and I don't think that being drunk is cool I'm just saying that it's inhibiting my writing ability.
 

HanoverF

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
6,083
MCA Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Codex USB, 2014 Divinity: Original Sin 2
Why do I have to murder someone, I should be able to have my character play minesweeper instead! AoD should be minesweeper!!1



Are you seriously going to complain about AoD "Railroading" you into choices and then in the same post site Final Fucking Fucktard Fantasy as uber rpg?
 

Gragt

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
1,864,860
Location
Dans Ton Cul
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin
Azrael: No worries I never claimed I was absolutely right about this, I enjoy talking of that subject and to be honest it is still a big question for me and I hope I got all that you wrote right and actually maybe you can help me understand some other things better. I agree with you on many points (and those of other authors) but I still can't jump ship.

My point of view is that morality is subjective because it is a human construction. Different societies have different moral systems and I agree with you that some of those difference are not as important as some claim they are. I can see they share common ground. But for exemple in our current societies we have different systems between religion and the secular that clash on some issues. I always disagreed with the claim that religions hold the key morality yet some people believe in it and make it their truth. Even on a personal level I try to do the right thing yet how can I absolutely know if I am right or wrong? If moral beliefs are different not because of moral value but empirical beliefs, are they not still different in the end?

We can look at the past now with a certain gaze but did the past observers have the same gaze and will the future ones have the same? There should be some common elements but I doubt it will be similar.

Mareus: compassion is not familiar to everyone because if everyone suffered in their lives, they did not suffer in the same way. So you can't expect everyone to react the same way face to a same event. Once more I agree there are common grounds to all system but what you see now as an injustice might not have been one at the time and does not mean there will be a residual guilt.
 

Mareus

Magister
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
1,404
Location
Atlantis
Gragt said:
Mareus: compassion is not familiar to everyone because if everyone suffered in their lives, they did not suffer in the same way. So you can't expect everyone to react the same way face to a same event. Once more I agree there are common grounds to all system but what you see now as an injustice might not have been one at the time and does not mean there will be a residual guilt.

I never said that people suffer in the same way, or that they react the same on same things. I was only making a point that all people suffer in some point in their lives, and that is why most people know compassion. It may manifest itself differently in different people, or it may not manifest itself at all in some other people, but it is there and as long as there is one person who feels compassion for someone who is suffering under the unjust laws of society, that society has the potential to change. That is why I say that moral is above society and religion. It is a drive that initiates the change. Look how long it took for catholic church to start changing, but even they cannot argue the logic of moral forever.

Through the ages society has changed many times and it is true that what you see now as an injustice might not have been injustice at some other time, but what you are talking here is not so much moral as it is law. You have to understand that people in our history were not as educated as they are now, and they saw the laws of society and religion as the only moral thing. Law is subject to change while moral values remain, and the proof you can see even today. Yes, you can argue that the society changed due to new technology and new people who took over the world from their parents, but the evolution of society itself proves that moral always prevails at least in the principle of the matter. Furthermore if some people take the teachings of church as the only moral then how can they be sure everything the church teaches is moral when church has many times in the modern history changed it's views and it may change again? How can you know if your moral compass is the correct one? Well, you cannot because the influance of society is too big for the ordinary man, but there were moral authorites in history like Jesus and there are even today. It is hard to believe in someone today. I know it is hard to believe in someone in today's day and age, but through learning about such people, studying yourself and always doing what you think is right thing you will start achieving the state in which some holy men were. With time the moral compass becomes clearer and you will know if you are doing the right thing. Also I do not agree there will not be residual guilt, because as long as there is someone suffering there will be compassion in someones heart. Most people will maybe not feel it, but there will always be that someone who will. When romans killed Jesus, most people maybe didn't feel guilt, but a lot of them did wheather you want to admit it or no.

Also I can agree that there are differencies between different religions and cultures, and what we may find disguasting other culters may find it as something normal, but again here we are talking about human creations, so you can not equal it to moral. For example I find most contradictory that India who has offered to the world great Yoga teachers of which some are as great as Jesus himself, have one of the most primitive and unjust religous systems. I am talking here about the caste system. Again you have the clash of moral against human practice.

PS. I am not a religous man, but I mentioned Jesus because everyone knows his life and due to extremness in which his life ended it is easier to make points. If I mentioned Paramahansa Yogananda for example, very few people would even know who the hell I am talking about.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Mareus said:
How can you know if your moral compass is the correct one? Well, you cannot because the influance of society is too big for the ordinary man, but there were moral authorites in history like Jesus and there are even today.

When romans killed Jesus, most people maybe didn't feel guilt, but a lot of them did wheather you want to admit it or no.
Uh... what?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Azrael the cat said:
All Mareus has done is ask a legitimate question, make a very legitimate criticism and a few fairly easy to implement suggestions about how the game could be improved.
Not really.

He criticised the game for not offering a choice in a situation where a choice would be good for roleplaying.
Would you file "I should be able to stay in the vault and figure out how to fix the water chip instead of being forced to go and look for one" under constructive criticism?
 

Disconnected

Scholar
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
609
biblewarninglabelbh7.jpg
 

Mareus

Magister
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
1,404
Location
Atlantis
Vault Dweller said:
Mareus said:
How can you know if your moral compass is the correct one? Well, you cannot because the influance of society is too big for the ordinary man, but there were moral authorites in history like Jesus and there are even today.

When romans killed Jesus, most people maybe didn't feel guilt, but a lot of them did wheather you want to admit it or no.
Uh... what?

What was not understandable? Please when you try to sound smart by pretending to be dumb, just explain what is it that you didn't understand. It would make dialog a lot easier.

Furthermore, your comparrison to Fallout is not accurate, because Fallout does not raise any moral questions wheather doing what you are told to do is right or wrong. In AoD doing what you are told to do directly reflects in someone's death, therefore imposes moral questions. Yes, you can play a different career, but all I am saying is that there should be options whenever there are such big decisions to make. You are saying that participating in murder is the same as going on a quest. I fail to see the logic in your argument.

I repeat, you do what you think is best, but you cannot argue that less options is better for the game. I am not saying you should have a say in every little matter, but participating in murder is a heavy weight on the consience, especialy in the start of the game when you are not yet sure what kind of a character you want to play. At least make it a bit more personal so you have a very good reason to wanting the map merchant dead.
 

Disconnected

Scholar
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
609
Mareus said:
In AoD doing what you are told to do directly reflects in someone's death, therefore imposes moral questions.
Put yourself in the shoes of an ALF player. One very famous Fallout task involves doing away with some radscorpions. Basically, you can either kill them or trap them in a hole. If your ethics were those of an ALF activist, the difference between killing/trapping them, and killing/trapping a tribe of humans would be purely cosmetic.

The point is, what you percieve or don't percieve as moral choices, depends on your ethics.
participating in murder is a heavy weight on the consience, especialy in the start of the game when you are not yet sure what kind of a character you want to play.
Great opportunity for building character & roleplay, no?
At least make it a bit more personal so you have a very good reason to wanting the map merchant dead.
Your boss doesn't just hire professionals to kill people, he's casual about doing it to people he doesn't even appear to know. To me that sounds like a pretty good reason to either comply or pretend to comply & get as far away from hiim as possible. If he wasn't a representative of an organisation, a good third choice might be to kill the fucker or at least run him out of town, but that's hardly a realistic option under the circumstances.
 

Gnidrologist

CONDUCTOR
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
20,856
Location
is cold
Look, buddy. Herein is going to be a game that will offer you choices and cosnequences very few crpgs, let alone those released recently, have offered in the past (unless VD is a dirty liar). You can go on and on and on ad infinitum about how there could be even more choices. What's the fucking point? It's a bloodly computer game. There ought to be some limits to you choices at some stage or another.

And analogy with the waterchip quest is perfectly valid. It's all about the game design and it's limitations. Morals have nothing to do with it. If you don't like to play a member of some kind of merchant mafia, don't. Is it really that horrible?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Mareus said:
Vault Dweller said:
Mareus said:
How can you know if your moral compass is the correct one? Well, you cannot because the influance of society is too big for the ordinary man, but there were moral authorites in history like Jesus and there are even today.

When romans killed Jesus, most people maybe didn't feel guilt, but a lot of them did wheather you want to admit it or no.
Uh... what?

What was not understandable? Please when you try to sound smart by pretending to be dumb, just explain what is it that you didn't understand. It would make dialog a lot easier.
You can start by explaining "...MOST people maybe didn't feel guilt, but A LOT of them did...", preferably supported by facts. Then, as a dessert, tell me why Jesus is/was a moral authority.

In AoD doing what you are told to do directly reflects in someone's death, therefore imposes moral questions. Yes, you can play a different career, but all I am saying is that there should be options whenever there are such big decisions to make. You are saying that participating in murder is the same as going on a quest. I fail to see the logic in your argument.
I'm saying that the initial lack of choices to set up the main quest is perfectly acceptable. The AoD world is darker than the Fallout world and playing a "good guy" will be very hard, if not impossible. If your moral beliefs aren't ok with that, the game isn't for you.

I am not saying you should have a say in every little matter, but participating in murder is a heavy weight on the consience, especialy in the start of the game when you are not yet sure what kind of a character you want to play.
Well, that's what the vignettes are actually for. You start the game, choose the merchant background, talk to the guildmaster and understand instantly what this guild is all about. Read the dialogues - everything is crystal clear. Then, if you don't like that at all, you start a new game and try a different guild. Simple as that.

At least make it a bit more personal so you have a very good reason to wanting the map merchant dead.
So, if you really want something then it's ok to kill?
 

Mareus

Magister
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
1,404
Location
Atlantis
Vault Dweller said:
Mareus said:
Vault Dweller said:
Mareus said:
How can you know if your moral compass is the correct one? Well, you cannot because the influance of society is too big for the ordinary man, but there were moral authorites in history like Jesus and there are even today.

When romans killed Jesus, most people maybe didn't feel guilt, but a lot of them did wheather you want to admit it or no.
Uh... what?

What was not understandable? Please when you try to sound smart by pretending to be dumb, just explain what is it that you didn't understand. It would make dialog a lot easier.
You can start by explaining "...MOST people maybe didn't feel guilt, but A LOT of them did...", preferably supported by facts. Then, as a dessert, tell me why Jesus is/was a moral authority.

In AoD doing what you are told to do directly reflects in someone's death, therefore imposes moral questions. Yes, you can play a different career, but all I am saying is that there should be options whenever there are such big decisions to make. You are saying that participating in murder is the same as going on a quest. I fail to see the logic in your argument.
I'm saying that the initial lack of choices to set up the main quest is perfectly acceptable. The AoD world is darker than the Fallout world and playing a "good guy" will be very hard, if not impossible. If your moral beliefs aren't ok with that, the game isn't for you.

I am not saying you should have a say in every little matter, but participating in murder is a heavy weight on the consience, especialy in the start of the game when you are not yet sure what kind of a character you want to play.
Well, that's what the vignettes are actually for. You start the game, choose the merchant background, talk to the guildmaster and understand instantly what this guild is all about. Read the dialogues - everything is crystal clear. Then, if you don't like that at all, you start a new game and try a different guild. Simple as that.

At least make it a bit more personal so you have a very good reason to wanting the map merchant dead.
So, if you really want something then it's ok to kill?

Jesus is a moral authority and if you fail to comprehend that, then I really have nothing more to say on the matter. Also the "MOST people maybe didn't feel guilt, but A LOT of them did..." part was referring to the guy that said there is no gradual guilt if someone wrongs someone else. I won't go into details again, just read the post and if you fail to understand it then go to the brain doc or something.

Also do whatever you want with your bloody game, because if you keep acting like those Bethseda assholes I really don't see how will you make a good game. This is another dissapointment when you said it will be hard to play a good guy if not impossible. I don't see any reason why that should be so, but hey.. it's your game.
 

Lumpy

Arcane
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
8,525
VD, wouldn't it be possible to simply allow the player to say "fuck you" to his boss, be thrown into the streets, and get the map the way he would get in the "Stranger" vignette?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Mareus said:
Jesus is a moral authority and if you fail to comprehend that, then I really have nothing more to say on the matter.
A standard argument of religious folks. "If you can't understand that Jesus loves you, then I can't argue with your anymore!!!"

Also the "MOST people maybe didn't feel guilt, but A LOT of them did..." part was referring to the guy that said there is no gradual guilt if someone wrongs someone else. I won't go into details again, just read the post and if you fail to understand it then go to the brain doc or something.
You are not stupid by any chance, are you, Mareus?

Also do whatever you want with your bloody game, because if you keep acting like those Bethseda assholes I really don't see how will you make a good game. This is another dissapointment when you said it will be hard to play a good guy if not impossible. I don't see any reason why that should be so, but hey.. it's your game.
*rolls eyes
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Lumpy said:
VD, wouldn't it be possible to simply allow the player to say "fuck you" to his boss, be thrown into the streets, and get the map the way he would get in the "Stranger" vignette?
No. You'll have plenty of opportunities to say "fuck you" and double cross people left and right, but I what's the point to start the game as a "merchant" and refuse the first quest and be thrown out immediately? Really? Like I said, if you don't like the setup of the merchants guild, start a new game. In my opinion, the vignettes do a good job explaining you what each guild is about.
 

Mareus

Magister
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
1,404
Location
Atlantis
Vault Dweller said:
A standard argument of religious folks. "If you can't understand that Jesus loves you, then I can't argue with your anymore!!!"
I am not a religious person. As to why Jesus was a moral authority, I will just say that his life proves it. If you don't believe in it, it's your choice. if you are so smart then tell me why he is not?

Vault Dweller said:
You are not stupid by any chance, are you, Mareus?
Hey it's not me who can't comprehend basic facts.

Vault Dweller said:
*rolls eyes
I am also rolling my eyes, because I cannot believe that a guy who spit shit on Oblivion because of the lack of options, is acting the same as Bethseda assholes and arguing that less choices is better for the game and not necessary. I am really curious how your game will turn out.
 

cardtrick

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,456
Location
Maine
Ugh. I'm glad I've missed out on most of Mareus.

You seriously want to claim that Jesus was a moral authority becaus "his life proves it"? I mean . . . seriously? You don't want to go back and retry?

The Internet doesn't have save points or quickloads, but we do have proxies and alts -- you can have a do-over if you want. And you should want. (Because you sound like a fucking dumbass.)
 

Mareus

Magister
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
1,404
Location
Atlantis
cardtrick said:
Ugh. I'm glad I've missed out on most of Mareus.

You seriously want to claim that Jesus was a moral authority becaus "his life proves it"? I mean . . . seriously? You don't want to go back and retry?

The Internet doesn't have save points or quickloads, but we do have proxies and alts -- you can have a do-over if you want. And you should want. (Because you sound like a fucking dumbass.)

Ok, fucktard. If you are so smart explain why he was not a moral authority?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom