Give evil paths Force Lightning and suddenly it's much more compelling
Videogames
Basically either HIP or CK+.new features, improved features, quality of life and so on.
Mods of the type of "get rid of bullshit" type, or mods of the "make this actually playable" type?
Ah yes, the Bob's Mods routine. Make a complex game even more complex!Mods of the "add even more bullshit" type!Mods of the type of "get rid of bullshit" type, or mods of the "make this actually playable" type?
Here is how evil is portrayed and rewarded in your typical IE or whatever game:Not to mention that evil is usually portrayed without nuance (i.e. stupid evil). KotOR being one of the bigger culprits in this regard.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".
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!"
Ironically, the highest rewards in most RPGs are for dialog options that say "No, I don't require a reward."
Here is how evil is portrayed and rewarded in your typical IE or whatever game:Not to mention that evil is usually portrayed without nuance (i.e. stupid evil). KotOR being one of the bigger culprits in this regard.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".
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!"
Thank you for saving the fair princess! I must reward ye:
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:
- No, I don't require any reward. (+good, +lawful, +3 ring, +1000 party xps.)
- Yes, I traveled far to save yon princess (+3 ring, +500 party xps.)
- Surely you understand I went through considerable risk (+chaotic, +3 ring, +250 party xps, 300 gold.)
- Yes, a reward had better be forthcoming, or next time I'll leave her to rot! (+evil, +250 party xps, 300 gold.)
Thank you for saving the fair princess! I must reward ye:
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."
- Truth: Nay, I don't require any reward. (++good, +lawful, +1500 party xps.)
- Yes, I traveled far to save yon princess (+3 ring, +500 party xps.)
- Surely you understand I went through considerable risk (+chaotic, +2 ring, +250 party xps, 300 gold.)
- 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.)
Well because of your lying now they have to walk through Sigil while fully sober man.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)
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.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.
Its a pretty standard trope when offered a reward.
Ok, balls in your court. Can you cite quests where you can turn down the reward and it's worse than taking the reward?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.