Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Medicine Man]

The worst morality system ever in my opinion was on Fable 2.

You lose more morality for having a divorce than killing someone if I remember right.

[zchris13]

So the only way to win is to lose?

I don't think I follow you, Armok.

[Neonivek]

The worst morality system ever in my opinion was on Fable 2.

You lose more morality for having a divorce than killing someone if I remember right.

There are people who honestly believe this is true.

It is weird bit of logic but apperantly it is better to kill someone then betray them an let them live.

[TheDarkJay]

I've always argued in RPGs you're playing a character, not yourself. In FPS games the point is you save the world with your reflexes, in RPGs it's your character. It's why I prefer Morrowind to Oblivion: Stats are more important in Morrowind. You are just playing a character, an actor in the game's stage.

An idea I had was your morality could actually eliminate decisions. You could try to do the good thing, it's roll against your morality and if you failed the roll you're character would "override" this and do the wrong thing. Likewise a high morality means your character may actually refuse to do horrific acts.

"Father: Please, help me against the bandits and save my children!"
"Bandit Leader: No, join me in slaughtering the children and I will pay you well!"
"Player: [Attempts to say] I will help you, poor sir!"
[Rolls against player's low morality score of 1. Player is an uncaring psychopath so odds are low. Roll fails.]
"Player: Actually I'll just kill all of you..."
"Father: Noooo!"
"Bandit leader: Oooh, this is getting interesting. Kill them both."

"Father: Please, help me against the bandits and save my children!"
"Bandit Leader: No, join me in slaughtering the children and I will pay you well!"
"Player: [Attempts to say] I value money more than lives, your children must die!"
[Rolls against player's high morality score of 8. Player is willing to kill but only in self-defence. Roll fails.]
"Player: I'm sorry, I can't let you hurt these children!"
"Father: Thank you!"
"Bandit leader: Fool. Kill him."

"Father: Please, help me against the bandits and save my children!"
"Bandit Leader: No, join me in slaughtering the children and I will pay you well!"
"Player: [Attempts to say] I value money more than lives, your children must die!"
[Player has a morality of 3, they are willing to kill and do horrific things for personal gain but not completely psychotic. No roll needed]
"Father: Noo!"
"Bandit leader: Smart man."

Perhaps the game would need some kind of "dark passanger"-esque element (yes, i've been reading Darkly Dreaming Dexter), like the beast in Vampire, to explain this but I think it'd be an interesting avenue to explore. Basically players can start off in darkness, or guide themselves into a slide into the abyss, but can't plunge with ease and redemption is likewise difficult.

[Il Palazzo]

That's still the same, old, clear-cut, black and white morality system, where it's immediatelly obvious what's wrong and what's right.
Not to mention, rather unfeasible for a game, which is supposed to satisfy the player, and denying him a choice is not a good way to do it.

[Cthulhu]

That sounds like a horrible idea.  Actions dictate alignment, not the other way around.

[TheDarkJay]

I was going for the clearest example I could =P Obviously one could devise all sorts of morally grey situations. In fact, the WoD system more measures your adherence to the norms of your "ethics system" than your senses of good and evil. Hell, there are some systems that clash entirely with our societies.

Another example may be are you willing to kill a criminal, or try and imprison him. If you imprison him, you save your "morality" but risk him escaping or not being convicted, and living on to cause more pain (think The Joker).

If you kill them, it ends then and there. The "Batman" dilemma, as it were. You may want to kill the bastard, but your character's ethics (perhaps a better term?) determines they don't kill except in self-defence. You decide to kill them, the roll succeeds, and your character loses the "thou shalt not kill" morality point. And, as Batman feared, suddenly killing becomes easier. You don't need to roll for cold-blooded murder any more. You did the right thing, but it cost you a part of what kept you human.

[Gunner-Chan]

The worst morality system in a game is one that calls it a morality system. Most games should limit themselves to more of a reputation system, as most "morality" systems in games are just that anyway. Just that they try to tell you you're good or evil.

When it comes to morality in games it should really come down to what the player thinks and not mechanics. For instance how in Morrowind I only kill people that attack me or that I recognize and bandits or smugglers or anyone that I know will just attack me. Plus anyone that I should attack. Like murderers or people that are corrupt. But that's just because it's how I feel about things. I don't do it for mechanic reasons at all and that's honestly how morality should be handled in games, otherwise you've killed the point since everyone is just going to game your system anyway.

[scriver]

Black and White was okay as games go, but the amount of bad karma from just one fireball offset an entire half-hour's worth of free food miracles. Not to mention the system can't discern between rightous anger, retaliatory attacks, defending your own people from enemies, or accidentally dropping a boulder.

You're a god. They're your faithful worshippers. Why would they even begin to contemplate that your misplaced boulder might not have been smitement for their wickedity? Any dissenters at that point would most likely be the the first ones dragged up to the sacrifiction stones, lest they anger Your Allpowerfullness and incur more Righteous Drop Stones.

editation:

The worst morality system in a game is one that calls it a morality system. Most games should limit themselves to more of a reputation system, as most "morality" systems in games are just that anyway. Just that they try to tell you you're good or evil.

When it comes to morality in games it should really come down to what the player thinks and not mechanics. For instance how in Morrowind I only kill people that attack me or that I recognize and bandits or smugglers or anyone that I know will just attack me. Plus anyone that I should attack. Like murderers or people that are corrupt. But that's just because it's how I feel about things. I don't do it for mechanic reasons at all and that's honestly how morality should be handled in games, otherwise you've killed the point since everyone is just going to game your system anyway.

Very true.

[Leafsnail]

I guess the problem is often a lack of consequences for doing bad things.  I mean, you can often simply mow down anyone who comes to chase you over it.  And if they're strong enough to take you down... well, why don't they go fight the final boss?

Most decisions should really have upsides and downsides in terms of morality.  Or, alternatively, it could be not entirely clear whether the action you could do is "morally mandatory" or not.

[maxicaxi]

I like what they are doing in Fallout: New Vegas.
your karma is what you think of your self,
while how much people like you is based on reputation and there are carrots for all the alinement's but sticks for none

[Retro]

You encounter a blind man, clothed in rags, with a bloodied stump of a leg. He hears you walk by and calls out for aid, saying he has been attacked by bandits and has been starving in the woods for days. All he requests of you is some water, which you have copious amounts of. You:

- Give him water.
- Tell him to fuck off, drink all your water in front of him, then give him the finger and walk off laughing. Later you come back and pee on him while he's sleeping.

And those are the only two options. GEE, GAME, WONDER WHICH I SHOULD CHOOSE?

[Zangi]

I was going for the clearest example I could =P Obviously one could devise all sorts of morally grey situations. In fact, the WoD system more measures your adherence to the norms of your "ethics system" than your senses of good and evil. Hell, there are some systems that clash entirely with our societies.

Another example may be are you willing to kill a criminal, or try and imprison him. If you imprison him, you save your "morality" but risk him escaping or not being convicted, and living on to cause more pain (think The Joker).

If you kill them, it ends then and there. The "Batman" dilemma, as it were. You may want to kill the bastard, but your character's ethics (perhaps a better term?) determines they don't kill except in self-defence. You decide to kill them, the roll succeeds, and your character loses the "thou shalt not kill" morality point. And, as Batman feared, suddenly killing becomes easier. You don't need to roll for cold-blooded murder any more. You did the right thing, but it cost you a part of what kept you human.

The way you present it.  Sucks.  Or maybe its just me. 

My interpretation:
You attach these things to morality and you emphasis morality in the wrong way.  The way that a few people here have expressed dislike for.

You are not automatically a "Bad Guy" for killing people. 
"Hey, I killed this guy in Self-Defense!  My first kill!  I'm on the road to being a Super Villain now!"  *"thou shalt not kill" Morality Point removed, -50 Morality!*  "Whooo!"

This is an example of adhering to someone else's morality system.  Not the player's perception of the character's morality, if any.


"Not a Killer" Perk: Never killed before, lost upon first blood.
I'd venture for no bonuses or negatives, but it can be kept minimalistic.  (It really depends on how the game system is...)

You encounter a blind man, clothed in rags, with a bloodied stump of a leg. He hears you walk by and calls out for aid, saying he has been attacked by bandits and has been starving in the woods for days. All he requests of you is some water, which you have copious amounts of. You:

- Give him water.
- Tell him to fuck off, drink all your water in front of him, then give him the finger and walk off laughing. Later you come back and pee on him while he's sleeping.

And those are the only two options. GEE, GAME, WONDER WHICH I SHOULD CHOOSE?

-Put him out of his misery.  -100 Morality!  Murderer!

[TheDarkJay]

"The morality stat represents the moral outlook of the character and the notion that as a character takes more and more morally questionable actions she or he will eventually stop feeling bad about it. A character with a high morality would be more moral and saintly while a person with a low morality would be able to take more questionable actions. As a person’s morality falls they run the increasing risk of becoming mentally unstable.

For example, a hunter kills a mortal cultist who has been trying to kill him. Since she attacked him, it's not murder, it's manslaughter, which is represented as "4" on morality. The hunters's current morality stat is "6". He fails his roll and thus drops to morality "5". In addition, he must now make a second roll to resist gaining a derangement (a trait that affects characters' rolls and actions)."

This is the system I've been trying to explain =P This system I'm on about is about your characters sense of morality, not where they fit within the delusion that their is any grand higher morality. In fact, the system practically assumes your character will be of a rather low score by the end of the game...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I really liked what Kult: Beyond The Veil did with a moraity system, as is explained in the Beyond Madness section of this review.