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.

NSFW Best Thread Ever [No SJW-related posts allowed]

Jonathan "Zee Nekomimi

Hoarder of loli kats./ Funny ^._.^= ∫
Patron
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
6,352
Location
Brasilien
Codex+ Now Streaming!
Videogames


and to think people waste real money and expend their entire day in that place.
439-4395795_66216370-slobodan-praljak-dank-meme.png
 

Caim

Arcane
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
15,468
Location
Dutchland
Is Crusader Kings II even meant to be played with all the mods on at the same time, or you mix and match what you're feeling like that week? Sounds like the game becomes an untenable clusterfuck if you go all in.
 

lightbane

Arcane
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
10,158
I found a game which seems to have been made by a foreign AI that doesn't understand English, or that Flash is no longer a thing. So bad it's funny.

 

Daemongar

Arcane
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
4,706
Location
Wisconsin
Codex Year of the Donut
The problem is that there's no incentive to be evil in most games aside from the novelty of being evil, which is a pretty meaningless and childish way to view morality. Give people a hard game where a time-limited quest in the first chapter has you delivering a +5 sword to a paladin defending a village and people will start considering the evil side worth taking. But no, games have to be easy where all decisions are equally valid and "balanced".
Not to mention that evil is usually portrayed without nuance (i.e. stupid evil). KotOR being one of the bigger culprits in this regard.

Evil should be portrayed as ruthless people doing self-serving egoistical things, or as ruthless people who genuinely believe their cause is right and will do anything to achieve it, no matter how extreme and cruel.

Usually it's portrayed as just being a spiteful dick for no reason. "Ha, ha, ha! I kicked this puppy because it looked at me with cute eyes, and I despise cute things! Ah, to spread misery is such fun!"
Here is how evil is portrayed and rewarded in your typical IE or whatever game:

Thank you for saving the fair princess! I must reward ye:
  1. No, I don't require any reward. (+good, +lawful, +3 ring, +1000 party xps.)
  2. Yes, I traveled far to save yon princess (+3 ring, +500 party xps.)
  3. Surely you understand I went through considerable risk (+chaotic, +3 ring, +250 party xps, 300 gold.)
  4. Yes, a reward had better be forthcoming, or next time I'll leave her to rot! (+evil, +250 party xps, 300 gold.)
Maybe a better way would be a more manipulative approach using dialog. That is, someone who is evil doesn't go around saying "I'm evil, look out." Evil people I know say or do whatever it takes to get what they want, and don't spend a lot of time thinking about the moral ramifications of their actions, nor spend a lot of time thinking about future implications of actions. I have a friend who sells used cards. He would be neutral evil in the D&D sense, but I doubt he's ever stopped to think about it. He just is. Being evil in games just doesn't pay off, but maybe it should to balance out the long term negative ramifications. Ironically, the highest rewards in most RPGs are for dialog options that say "No, I don't require a reward." Maybe a better way would be:

Thank you for saving the fair princess! I must reward ye:
  1. Truth: Nay, I don't require any reward. (++good, +lawful, +1500 party xps.)
  2. Yes, I traveled far to save yon princess (+3 ring, +500 party xps.)
  3. Surely you understand I went through considerable risk (+chaotic, +2 ring, +250 party xps, 300 gold.)
  4. Lie: Though I have taken a vow of poverty, anything you can contribute would help me protect those less fortunate (++evil, +3 ring, 1000 gold, +1000 party xps.)
I'm saying that most folks savescum for the best reward - well, what if the best option was manipulative and evil, instead of the best option being good? What if being good and not wanting a reward led to folks saying "Ok, chump."
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
The problem is that there's no incentive to be evil in most games aside from the novelty of being evil, which is a pretty meaningless and childish way to view morality. Give people a hard game where a time-limited quest in the first chapter has you delivering a +5 sword to a paladin defending a village and people will start considering the evil side worth taking. But no, games have to be easy where all decisions are equally valid and "balanced".
Not to mention that evil is usually portrayed without nuance (i.e. stupid evil). KotOR being one of the bigger culprits in this regard.

Evil should be portrayed as ruthless people doing self-serving egoistical things, or as ruthless people who genuinely believe their cause is right and will do anything to achieve it, no matter how extreme and cruel.

Usually it's portrayed as just being a spiteful dick for no reason. "Ha, ha, ha! I kicked this puppy because it looked at me with cute eyes, and I despise cute things! Ah, to spread misery is such fun!"
Here is how evil is portrayed and rewarded in your typical IE or whatever game:

Thank you for saving the fair princess! I must reward ye:
  1. No, I don't require any reward. (+good, +lawful, +3 ring, +1000 party xps.)
  2. Yes, I traveled far to save yon princess (+3 ring, +500 party xps.)
  3. Surely you understand I went through considerable risk (+chaotic, +3 ring, +250 party xps, 300 gold.)
  4. Yes, a reward had better be forthcoming, or next time I'll leave her to rot! (+evil, +250 party xps, 300 gold.)
Maybe a better way would be a more manipulative approach using dialog. That is, someone who is evil doesn't go around saying "I'm evil, look out." Evil people I know say or do whatever it takes to get what they want, and don't spend a lot of time thinking about the moral ramifications of their actions, nor spend a lot of time thinking about future implications of actions. I have a friend who sells used cards. He would be neutral evil in the D&D sense, but I doubt he's ever stopped to think about it. He just is. Being evil in games just doesn't pay off, but maybe it should to balance out the long term negative ramifications. Ironically, the highest rewards in most RPGs are for dialog options that say "No, I don't require a reward." Maybe a better way would be:

Thank you for saving the fair princess! I must reward ye:
  1. Truth: Nay, I don't require any reward. (++good, +lawful, +1500 party xps.)
  2. Yes, I traveled far to save yon princess (+3 ring, +500 party xps.)
  3. Surely you understand I went through considerable risk (+chaotic, +2 ring, +250 party xps, 300 gold.)
  4. Lie: Though I have taken a vow of poverty, anything you can contribute would help me protect those less fortunate (++evil, +3 ring, 1000 gold, +1000 party xps.)
I'm saying that most folks savescum for the best reward - well, what if the best option was manipulative and evil, instead of the best option being good? What if being good and not wanting a reward led to folks saying "Ok, chump."

The truth and lie thing is something I really liked in Planescape Torment. Practically it made no real difference, the NPC would believe you either way, and in the end even if you picked [Lie] you could make true on your promise. But doing that would raise your alignment towards Chaotic.

PST generally works with the D&D alignments pretty well. I just checked a wiki to see what actions and dialogue choices turn you towards evil in PST, here's a selection:
- vowing not to reveal someone's identity to the authorities, but then going ahead and doing it anyway
- lying to Deionarra because it's manipulative
- there's a guy who wants to die and asks you to kill him; demanding money for it adds evil points, going ahead and actually killing him (no matter if you asked for payment beforehand or not) further awards evil points
- threatening people with death unless they do what you want them to do
- general lying to people (even if it's something as basic as saying "I don't know where the bar is" when you've already been there before... I think that should raise chaotic, but not evil)
- asking people for money in exchange for performing life-saving quests for them (again, not a fan of that... even policemen and professional firefighters get paid for their job, asking people to pay you when you help them isn't evil)
- tossing Morte back into the pillar of skulls
- selling your own companions into slavery

While there's still some dumb stuff (why do white lies contribute to evil? why does demanding payment contribute to evil?), many of the evil options in PST are actually evil. And some of them make sense for a power-hungry character to do, like doing the bidding of that one grimoire that grants you magic power if you do its bidding and sell one of your companions into slavery, and murder another.

EDIT:
For your specific example, I think the best way is to give the same amount of XP for each dialogue choice. The experience is granted for saving the princess, not for your attitude about it. Even if you're an ass, you saved the princess. That's the important part. That's what grants you experience. RPG conventions like experience are supposed to be abstractions of real life stuff, like getting better at doing things by successfully completing adventures. If you complete a lot of adventures, you get better at adventuring - logical, isn't it? That's how it works in real life too.

If you fashion a hundred tables you are gonna raise your carpentry skill that way. It doesn't matter how much you sell them for. Even if you rip off your customers you're gonna get carpentry XP. Only the tablemaking itself matters.

You could rape the princess after saving her and then kill her, and it would still be reasonable to get full XP for it.
 
Last edited:

ERYFKRAD

Barbarian
Patron
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
28,238
Strap Yourselves In Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
general lying to people (even if it's something as basic as saying "I don't know where the bar is" when you've already been there before... I think that should raise chaotic, but not evil)
Well because of your lying now they have to walk through Sigil while fully sober man.
 

Daemongar

Arcane
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
4,706
Location
Wisconsin
Codex Year of the Donut
Ironically, the highest rewards in most RPGs are for dialog options that say "No, I don't require a reward."

I'm not sure this is accurate. Can you cite some stuff here?
The first thing that popped into my head was one of the first quests in PS:T - the Dustman Contract quest. Guy sells his corpse, feels bad, yells at NO, you get it back, burn it, refuse reward - most rewarding line in game terms. There are other examples in the same game -think at the end of Mebbeth's quest you can do the same. Other games have similar outcomes. Think almost every quest with a Paladin leader in IWD or such has a similar option. Its a pretty standard trope when offered a reward.

Also, the first quest in Arcanum - return that religious artifact. Say I don't want a reward, get bonus to reaction. Best option.
 

PulsatingBrain

Huge and Ever-Growing
Patron
Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Messages
6,163
Location
The Centre of the Ultraworld
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Codex+ Now Streaming! Enjoy the Revolution! Another revolution around the sun that is. My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit. Pathfinder: Wrath
The first thing that popped into my head was one of the first quests in PS:T - the Dustman Contract quest. Guy sells his corpse, feels bad, yells at NO, you get it back, burn it, refuse reward - most rewarding line in game terms. There are other examples in the same game -think at the end of Mebbeth's quest you can do the same. Other games have similar outcomes. Think almost every quest with a Paladin leader in IWD or such has a similar option. Its a pretty standard trope when offered a reward.

Also, the first quest in Arcanum - return that religious artifact. Say I don't want a reward, get bonus to reaction. Best option.

It's a thing that exists. But you're making a huge exaggeration to say that most RPGs reward you more for not wanting to be rewarded. Usually you just get xp instead of xp and cash and/or items.
 

Daemongar

Arcane
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
4,706
Location
Wisconsin
Codex Year of the Donut
It's a thing that exists. But you're making a huge exaggeration to say that most RPGs reward you more for not wanting to be rewarded. Usually you just get xp instead of xp and cash and/or items.
Ok, balls in your court. Can you cite quests where you can turn down the reward and it's worse than taking the reward?
 

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