Playing a neutral or evil characters?

Ausdoerrt said:
Wait, I thought the real hero did not sleep in other people's beds because he was physically prevented from doing so? :? Yet it's fine to share a bed with a radiated skeleton >__<
Click to expand...
I mean things like killing good old Tenn Penny. Which you get positive Karma for. But you can not really "take" his equipment afterwads as that gives you "bad" Karma. Thus you become a neutral person ... Bethe logic at its finest my friend.
 
^ Well, the "Karma" system in general does not allow for neutrality, unless one adds a special "neutral karma" gauge, or a "virtue" in addition to "reputation" system as a mod for BG2 did.
 
for D&D though the system makes somewhat sense. I just dont see why EVERY other kind of RPG needs some karma system. Particularly Fallout. I mean a bit of variation or a system that is not rating every of your action would be a nice change for some time ...
 
^ Well, I was just pointing out the inherent flaws of the Karma system. The vanilla BG2 botched 'reputation' pretty bad too. The only two games with reasonable alignment/karma system I can think of are PS:T and NWN.

Fallout 3, tbh, could make do with reputation system that depends on quest resolution, and the main quest being separately decided by dialogue/decisions.
 
good guys bad guys both are predictable but the neutral guys you never know what they will do next.
 
^ Well, depends on how you look at it. Adopting a D&D system (for a lack of a better example), your description would be a "chaotic neutral" character - a lunatic, an unpredictable person. On the other hand, a "true neutral" would choose to not involve himself in the argument if possible, and maintain a neutral stance if not. Think Switzerland personified. Then you will have a "lawful neutral" who will not take sides but act upon the perceived notions of law and justice.
 
Ausdoerrt said:
^ Well, depends on how you look at it. Adopting a D&D system (for a lack of a better example), your description would be a "chaotic neutral" character - a lunatic, an unpredictable person. On the other hand, a "true neutral" would choose to not involve himself in the argument if possible, and maintain a neutral stance if not. Think Switzerland personified. Then you will have a "lawful neutral" who will not take sides but act upon the perceived notions of law and justice.
Click to expand...
In D&D Switzerland would be Neutral Evil though (they still have all the Nazi-Gold) :mrgreen:
 
Ah yes, good old Chaotic/Good or Chaotic/Nuetral.

To be honest most RPGs, even ones using DnDs rulesets never accurately portrayed the alignments that in depth. Since most DnD games early on were glorified dungeon crawls alignment was just a stamp. But the few occasions it was done right (Planescape for one) were amazing.
 
^ Well, there are honestly not that many D&D crpgs that give room for evil playthroughs. TORR and PS:T are about the only two I can think of.
 
Didn't Deus Ex have no good and evil endings? I can remember none of the fractions were good, and none of them were a proper "evil".
 
In Deus Ex you pretty much had to choose between what you would the consider the lesser of 3 evils.

The destruction of global communication, the dominance of the illuminati, or putting the future in the hands of an AI.
 
coliphorbs said:
In Deus Ex you pretty much had to choose between what you would the consider the lesser of 3 evils.

The destruction of global communication, the dominance of the illuminati, or putting the future in the hands of an AI.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they still weren't like clear "evil" and "good" endings. They were like in different scales of grey. Which was good IMO.
 
Yea Deus Ex did the shades of grey and no clear right/wrong pretty well. You felt vaguely sleazy at some point in the game no matter how you played.
 
TheLastOutlaw said:
Yea Deus Ex did the shades of grey and no clear right/wrong pretty well. You felt vaguely sleazy at some point in the game no matter how you played.
Click to expand...
I think one of the good things of deus ex was that no organisation slaped such things in your face like "we are good they are evil".

It was I think more about the ideologie of the certain groups and with which you personaly agree more. A path I would have loved to see with Fallout. Instead of "good" vs "bad" karma thing a system more based on groups and individuals.

People should judge you as individuals (just like it happens in real somewhat) on your actions/fame. Some even if they are "good" people will eventualy disslike you for beeing TOO good. Others will like you even more. NPCs should get their own morale code in relation with certain factions (if they are members of some). It should all be more dynamicaly and not as stiff like how it is in Fallout3 or was in past Fallouts. With high enough skills in charisma, diplomacy and inteligence you should be able with the right dialogues to even change the certain morale view of some NPC (not from everyone of course some people just CAN NOT be convinced). The more inteligent a NPC is or the stronger he believs in his view it should be harder of course.

Convincing a guard to gain enter in a city should be a lot easier compard to allinating someone with your beliefs or morals.

Such a system (which without qustion needs exceletn writtings and scripts and NPC AI) would make playing a diplomath finally REALY rewarding.
 
While I generally agree with the above notion, remember that this is much harder to do in a game like Fallout than in a game like Deus Ex. Deus Ex plays like a movie - while your actions may change how things play out, the plot remains much the same. The factions there do not change their behaviour towards you no matter how you treat them. You can't join MJ12 or the NSF. You can't severe your ties with the Illuminati or Tracer Tong. You will always go to the same places, through the same missions. The background may be altered a bit.

Granted, it's been done beautifully, but whereas Fallout is like a movie you write the script for, Deus Ex is like a movie you are the main actor in - the difference is evident throughout it but does not impact the overall plot.
 
Well no one said Bethesda could not come up with a real innovation at some point ... like for example dynamic NPC behaviour and aligment dependant on player action/input. Just to name one thing. (of course this counts for every RPG developing AAA company. They almost only focus on updating the "visuals" today. But we reached a point were you just can expect so much updates in graphic. The 3D aplications and visuals look already extremly good and convincing. Its time to move forward in the other things as well now)

Such things are possible to make with todays technology. But making shiny graphics with bloom is easier.
 
The 3D aplications and visuals look already extremly good and convincing. Its time to move forward in the other things as well now)
Click to expand...

I agree with that.

And the other thing is. They are always trying to make the best graphics every release (every half of a year), and it makes you wonder "Where the hell I will get money for another computer?".

It's like...c'mon guys! The graphics are evolving faster than computer technology!
 
I'm playing an evil character. I murder people in their homes for no reason. I do that because in fo2 i've always played a good character. Now i'm trying an evil one. If you kill a resident of a house and another resident of the same house walks in, he has no reactions. It's like, hey, it doesn't matter that my wife's head is blown to pieces, i'll just listen to the radio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top