The Problems with Good-Playthrough in Many RPGs... Your Thoughts?

[cyborgboy95]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

 

[cretin]

the entire concept of doing what's right, whats moral, in spite of yourself, in spite of your best interests or what would materially benefit you and yours, comes directly from Christianity and videogames are largely developed by secular liberals who are embarrassed about the origins of their moral framework, or in complete ignorance of it (liberal universalism). So what we get is this sort of retarded reddit morality, where a good character is measured by how nice he is to people, and that there should be a tangible immediate reward for doing so, you know, like Good Boy points.

So instead of "Go, and sin no more" we get "wow your parents and village are jerks, you should definitely be allowed to sin at their expense, ill go admonish them and convince them you should be able to let evil men ritualistically abuse your anus all you want" as the Good Option, apparently.

I dont know of any games with sophisticated morality. I'm playing Disco Elysium and that seems like it might have, but too early for me to comment.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

These days, if you want to do a Good-boy play-through, and be punished for it... try playing through a modern RPG without uninstalling.

 

[JarlFrank]

the entire concept of doing what's right, whats moral, in spite of yourself, in spite of your best interests or what would materially benefit you and yours, comes directly from Christianity

No it doesn't, it's an Aryan concept far older than that desert cult.

 

[Reinhardt]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

rogue trader is one of the easiest games to play as good character and always do the right thing. being "nice" to enemies of mankind is genuinely evil choice.

 

[Faarbaute]

All I know is that I'm beginning to really dislike Warhammer fans.

 

[Tyranicon]

In a lot of modern RPGs, the unambiguously good path is to go straight murder-slaughter on first contact with a lot of factions.

That usually makes games harder.

 

[Reinhardt]

this nigger from steam proves he's anything but good. good people don't expect reward for their deeds. serving da emprah is enough reward for them. he's just want to feel good from others admiring him, even in the game, not actually being good.

 

[Harthwain]

I agree that too many games outright reward you for being good/nice. Sometimes being (too) nice is bound to have a cost, and that should be expected. That said, not there are some instances in the game when making "good" choices comes with certain advantages. For example, if in the Prologue you decide to get your men to safety (if only because it is a SENSIBLE thing to do in the context of the situation you're in), then you gain allies who assist you in the boss battle at the end (and they are pretty decent at that point in time).

The example in the OP (the debuff) is fine. In fact, being exposed to Chaos should be a longer and more straining process for anyone with low Willpower, not just one debuff you get after a single decision. This is a missed opportunity. However, I don't like that saving archeotech has so miniscule impact on... anything. Why can't I install it on one of my worlds? Why can't I use it to power up my ship (to fly faster in combat, to fire further, etc.)? It's a goddamn lost tech and that stuff is supposed to be INCREDIBLY valuable and powerful. Gaining 2 Profit Factor is a laugable result. How about getting a SHITTON of Reputation with the Adeptus Mechanicus for saving their priceless relic? You should also be getting people as a resource if you decide to save the civillians. Why? Because it makes sense: you picked them up. Getting something like 5x People would've been natural. For saving the nobles you could get that 2 Profit Factor, to reflect gaining the extra influence/favours, etc.

The bottom line is - it's still a game, and it'd be good for a game to have impact on what player does. Relegating "good" choices to "bad things happen" will only lead to people mini-maxing their choices. Presenting them with different outcomes that may be suboptimal but not a complete loss is much better in my opinion, because it still reflects their choices. Similarly to how having an interesting result on losing a skill check can keep people playing with that result, instead of save-scumming a binary skill check that flat out makes you miss on content.

 

[Butter]

Very few games get this right. They make doing the right thing just as easy as doing the wrong thing, and more mechanically rewarding to boot. Everyone would be a saint if the world worked that way. People lie and cheat and steal because there's an immediate and obvious material incentive for them to do so. People who are relentlessly honest and diligent tend to struggle, but they do so because it's the right thing to do (or they're just cowards who are afraid of the law).

I want an RPG that tempts the player to be evil. Not in a cartoonish way, but in a believable way. "You don't have to return that man's wallet. Surely you could use the money? He wouldn't have been so careless if he needed it. You don't want to drive across town to return it to him." Good should always be more difficult than evil.

 

[La vie sexuelle]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

I think the real problem is that there is a generation of people who treat fiction as something real and therefore literal. The concept of "playing with ideas" sounds dangerous to them because they lack the distance of a person who realizes his personality in other fields. The Marxist religion that permeates the modern world simply responded to the needs of a generation.

I think this is a general rule - someone who has a real life and real responsibilities will never become a communist. It has always been the domain of lazy people and dreamers. So no one with real life will talk such nonsense about games.

the entire concept of doing what's right, whats moral, in spite of yourself, in spite of your best interests or what would materially benefit you and yours, comes directly from Christianity

No it doesn't, it's an Aryan concept far older than that desert cult.

Historical Aryans did not operate with such abstract concepts because they were barbarians from the desert. They created universalistic religions only when they drew from the source of the conquered Indus Valley Civilization.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

It's not necessarily as simple as developers having Reddit morality. The original Baldur's Gate saga had many evil options and choices, but the rewards were almost always inferior to the good path. This was deliberate by the developers, as they knew their market was largely children and didn't want to inadvertently impart a message that evil prospers.

 

[The Wall]

Problem with good/bad playthrough not feeling satisfactory is that Game Devs who make games today are 0s. Zeros as programmers, zeroes as game designers and zeros as Males and Humans with lived experiences and library of read books

I mean it ain't rocket science. Show me picture of Dev, and I'll know whether his game is good or shit. Literally

 

[Darth Roxor]

I think any game that focuses on the importance of 'moral' choices adopts an inherently flawed approach, because the choices should be pragmatic instead, or at least primarily pragmatic, moral second. That is to say, the choice shouldn't be: "zomg, do I let the pixel people DIE?!?!?" because that's laughable. It should be: "do I let the pixel people die and get +strength, or do I save them to get a new party member?"

The funny thing is that what made me ultimately come to that conclusion was ELEX, even though I probably had it in my head for a lot longer. For example, Neocore's King Arthur games might just be the top tier in terms of 'moral choices', since the local morality compass has two axes that are generally neutral rather than moralising (rightful ruler vs tyrant, christianity vs paganism), and you always have to weigh gameplay matters first and foremost when comparing choices against each other.

 

[Camel]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

A redditor is angry and confused that the grimdark setting punishes him for dumb and idealistic choices.
I thought hard about saving at least someone when a player in Rogue Trader is faced with the first difficult choice and was stopped when there was nothing to filter possible Chaos cultists and heretics among innocents.

 

[Zlaja]

Paragon: That guy should should not take a fictional setting so seriously

Renegade: What a pussy

 

[Iucounu]

Isn't the main plot of many games about doing good but demanding deeds, such as saving the world? The evil choice would then be to not finish the game.

In contrast, the generic gameplay in games usually rewards killing and stealing during your quest to save the world, with little narrative punishment (though perhaps your Skyrim character gets called a thief by random NPCs if caught stealing). Indeed the selling point of most games is to let you roleplay as a sociopath: lots of games have killing NPCs as their main selling point, and the story's moral excuse for this barely hides the fact that killing NPCs is a fun activity --after all that's why we play those games. Yes, some gamers attempt more peaceful stealth playthrough as well; but that's only for a varied gameplay, not for any moral reasons (then you'd choose a different type of game). Though it seems a cultural moral line is usually drawn at abuse of women and children, perhaps this is because culture allows moral exceptions for certain professionals killing (military, police) or stealing (tax collectors), while no such agreed exceptions exist for abusing women (BDSM porn actor?) and children (school teacher, doctor?).

There are of course also many SJW game developers that view gamers as children, that must be nudged and rewarded for doing whatever the SJW considers good deeds in games (in between the sanctioned killing and stealing, of course).

 

[Serious_Business]

Isn't the main plot of many games about doing good but demanding deeds, such as saving the world?

Did you ever ask yourself, you stupid generic fuck, if the world was worth saving?

 

[Harthwain]

It's not necessarily as simple as developers having Reddit morality. The original Baldur's Gate saga had many evil options and choices, but the rewards were almost always inferior to the good path. This was deliberate by the developers, as they knew their market was largely children and didn't want to inadvertently impart a message that evil prospers.

Wasn't it the other way around? The owners of DnD wanted the good to always win so they put pressure on developers to do that? I recall something like that.

I think this is a general rule - someone who has a real life and real responsibilities will never become a communist.

You might want to read the history. A plenty of people who "had a real life" and "real responsibilities" became communists. Thing is, there is a giant gap between the idea of communism and how it was implemented in practice. A lot of people bought the idea and they didn't really have decent alternatives to it, hence the rise of communism world-wide. It was only after the reality kicked in people who lived in communist states started wishing for communism to be gone.

I think any game that focuses on the importance of 'moral' choices adopts an inherently flawed approach, because the choices should be pragmatic instead, or at least primarily pragmatic, moral second. That is to say, the choice shouldn't be: "zomg, do I let the pixel people DIE?!?!?" because that's laughable. It should be: "do I let the pixel people die and get +strength, or do I save them to get a new party member?"

Eh, depends if you are role-playing as someone with a certain mindset or play the numbers' game.

For example, Neocore's King Arthur games might just be the top tier in terms of 'moral choices', since the local morality compass has two axes that are generally neutral rather than moralising (rightful ruler vs tyrant, christianity vs paganism), and you always have to weigh gameplay matters first and foremost when comparing choices against each other.

I kind of disagree with "weighting gameplay matters first" - you are strongly encouraged to go all the way to one side, because there are no benefits for going only halfway on any given axis. So once you make your choice whether you want to be Rightful/Tyrant or Christian/Pagan the only real consideration is how will you pair any of the four axes. After that the choices are very self-evident.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Eh, depends if you are role-playing as someone with a certain mindset or play the numbers' game.

'Roleplaying as someone with a certain mindset' still boils down to deciding the fates of pixel people, and I honestly can't be bothered to care about that anymore nowadays.

I kind of disagree with "weighting gameplay matters first" - you are strongly encouraged to go all the way to one side, because there are no benefits for going only halfway on any given axis. So once you make your choice whether you want to be Rightful/Tyrant or Christian/Pagan the only real consideration is how will you pair any of the four axes. After that the choices are very self-evident.

Well, the choices were much more weighty in the Wargame than in Knight's Tale, and you often had to skip on your preferred morality points or take the opposite ones, because doing otherwise would spawn 3 angry rebel armies at a time when all your forces were stretched thin. But even in Knight's Tale you have stuff like Balin vs Balan (or both for no morality change), though these are unfortunately in the minority.

 

[GrainWetski]

All I know is that I'm beginning to really dislike Warhammer fans.

Calling woke tourists that invade every hobby to destroy them "fans" is retarded.

 

[Harthwain]

'Roleplaying as someone with a certain mindset' still boils down to deciding the fates of pixel people, and I honestly can't be bothered to care about that anymore nowadays.

Sure. And that's fine. I am just pointing out that in an RPG there is more than one way of playing it. Although that depends on how exactly is the game done. Some are pretty much tactics games. King Arthur: Knight's Tale falls under that category. Which is why I don't put it on par with games such as Fallout or Arcanum, because these are more than just combat games to me and even go as far as to roleplay certain builds (for example, in Arcanum I wanted to be a guy who tinkers with guns, so I started crafting and using pistols from get-go. Another idea was playing as Dwarf with a flamethrower).

But even in Knight's Tale you have stuff like Balin vs Balan (or both for no morality change), though these are unfortunately in the minority.

To be honest, some choices are pretty pointless. For example, if you're not Pagan, why would you want Balan? There is a bunch of other Vanguards you can take and they will play pretty much in an identical manner (like, literally). So it still boils down the the alignment.

 

[Darth Roxor]

For example, if you're not Pagan, why would you want Balan?

The better question is 'why wouldn't you want both' given that this is very early in the game and you have only 3 heroes at the time, and without metagame knowledge you won't know that the game is going to shower you with champs later on. Which means it doesn't boil down to alignment, because taking the non-aligned option is very clearly the superior choice.

 

[La vie sexuelle]

I think this is a general rule - someone who has a real life and real responsibilities will never become a communist.

You might want to read the history. A plenty of people who "had a real life" and "real responsibilities" became communists. Thing is, there is a giant gap between the idea of communism and how it was implemented in practice. A lot of people bought the idea and they didn't really have decent alternatives to it, hence the rise of communism world-wide. It was only after the reality kicked in people who lived in communist states started wishing for communism to be gone.

I strongly disagree. There is no communist who is fully committed to real life. There were people forced to work by circumstances, but for them it was just a stopover (or a sad necessity if they failed to make a revolution). The only "work" of a communist is revolutionary struggle.

Marx? A lazy philosopher.
Lenin? Haunted aristocrat.
Stalin? Bandit and a bad poet.
Che? He never wanted to be a doctor.
Mao? The son of a rich peasant who didn't want to work.
Kim Il-sung? Professional revolutionary.
Fidel? Same.

 

[Just Locus]

People who are relentlessly honest and diligent tend to struggle, but they do so because it's the right thing to do (or they're just cowards who are afraid of the law).

People tend to lie or spout half-truths simply because in general you get punished for being honest, and I don't mean that in a retarded "We live in a society" way. I mean that one might be hesitant to tell the truth out of fear of either negative consequences or social rejection, that they'll be judged harshly for honestly expressing themselves so they choose to put on a facade of being someone they're not.