Three Part Age of Decadence Interview

[Morbus]

StarWarKnights.com published a three part interview (links at the end of the newspost) with Vince D. Weller, who you all probably know as Age of Decadence's Lead Designer and developer. There are a few insightful questions about the process of making the game, but there's also lots of stuff a hardcore role-player will probably find exciting. Here's a snip:<blockquote>What are your thoughts on "Jack Bauer in space" syndrome (i.e. the growing trend to remove the choice between good and evil from RPGs)?

I haven't played Mass Effect, so I can't comment on the qualities of the game or the "Bauer in space" syndrome, but here is what I think about good and evil choices:

Good and evil are subjective concepts and I think that developers should never present the player with clearly marked "good" and "evil" options. Since [this is] a Star Wars site, let's use the Anakin's fall in Ep. 3. From his perspective the mistrustful and arrogant Jedi Council plotted against and tried to assassinate the chancellor chosen by everyone, the chancellor who supported and trusted him. Was siding with the chancellor and turning against the Jedi an evil act? Not at all. Anakin was given reasons to act the way he did, and that's how RPGs should be designed.

Sides in conflicts and choices should never be black and white, good and evil. There should be reasons for acting this way or that way, for supporting the Jedi or sticking with the Sith, for saving a village or letting them die. Then and only then someone will judge your actions and slap labels like "good" or "evil" on them. People who are with us are "good", people who are against us are "evil". Isn't how it usually works?

In AoD there are no default enemies and no good and evil choices. You make decisions that make sense to your character, you side with people and factions that you agree with the most, and then some factions will see you as a great guy and some factions will see you as an evil bastard who should be killed with extreme prejudice.</blockquote>Sounds like the Vince we know. There's a lot more of it too.

Link: Vince D. Weller interview (part 1)
Link: Having tea and playing tennis with Vince D. Weller (part 2)
Link: Asking manly and entirely non-Freudian questions of Vince D. Weller (part 3)
Spotted at Iron Tower Studio Forums

 

[Black]

It's like waiting for Duke Nuke'em Forever but expecting more.

 

[iridium_ionizer]

This is a really good interview discussing game design, and also what VDWeller thinks of a lot of other games. One note is that in the interview MotB refers to NeverWinterNights 2's expansion: Mask of the Betrayer. It does not refer to Mutiny on the Bounty.

Furthermore, it's really great to see this kind of interview where the interviewer makes sure that he answers the question, and he is not afraid to slight the Star Wars RPG Knights of the Old Republic (and this is on a Star Wars fansite).

 

[shihonage]

I read all 3 parts, really nice interview as usual.

This was an interesting question:

Placing limitations on people often seems to drive creativity. If I gave you an area which consists of a single room, a small one at that, and told you to make an RPG out of it, what would you create?

A drug dealer simulator with very complex A.I., "clients" coming in and out, and love/hate/drama unfolding on regular basis.

A lot of the events that happened would be described by people who come in, and the consequences of advice you give them will be reflected in the way they change when they visit later (if they do), on TV broadcasts, etc.

The game would be very rich in dialogue choices and would feature turn-based melee combat with various stimulators/destimulators like alcohol and coffee and various drugs.

 

[Matt Helm]

What utter and complete bullshit. I'm still going to buy this game but my respect for the developers went down a notch or two.

There is evil in the world. When someone acts out of a lust for power or the desire to take the resources of others by force that is evil. In addition, his SW analogy is total bullshit also. The would be Emperor was acting out of a lust for power and the desire to impose his will on others, Anakin as a Jedi had the insight to see the true motives of the Emperor and he went along anyway.

I'm really getting tired of this whole "there is no evil, it is just perspective" whining crap that is popular these days.

 

[shihonage]

I understand what you mean, Matt, but I didn't see the interview as some sort of philosophical statement regarding OUR WORLD.

I saw it as a discussion of concepts in the GAME WORLD, and in game worlds, traditionally, having clear-cut evil and clear-cut good has lead to limited freedom and unsatisfying "evil paths" to boot.

 

[Drusus]

There is evil in the world. When someone acts out of a lust for power or the desire to take the resources of others by force that is evil. In addition, his SW analogy is total bullshit also. The would be Emperor was acting out of a lust for power and the desire to impose his will on others, Anakin as a Jedi had the insight to see the true motives of the Emperor and he went along anyway.

I'm really getting tired of this whole "there is no evil, it is just perspective" whining crap that is popular these days.

While you have a right to your own opinion, you have to remember so do they.

I personally believe a good villain has to have more of a reason than just "I want to rule" to be a good villain. The motivation of a villain is way more important than the evil acts they commit.

A good example is FO1's Master. He wasn't an evil jerk just because. He wanted to turn as many people into mutants because mutants were better suited to the perils of the wastes, even if they were a little shy in the brains department. He wasn't doing it for fun he was doing it because he thought he was helping the human population. He even kills himself if you explain to him that the mutants end up being sterile due to exposure to the FEV and simply cannot thrive. In his own warped way, if the mutants hadn't been sterile, he would have made the world a better place by his actions.

His actions can be considered evil, but based on who you are they can also be considered good. Perspective is very important and evil is subjective.

 

[VDweller]

What utter and complete bullshit.

If you say so.

I'm still going to buy this game but my respect for the developers went down a notch or two.

Because we disagree on something?

There is evil in the world.

Did I say there isn't?

When someone acts out of a lust for power or the desire to take the resources of others by force that is evil.

Look up "motivation".

In addition, his SW analogy is total bullshit also. The would be Emperor was acting out of a lust for power and the desire to impose his will on others, Anakin as a Jedi had the insight to see the true motives of the Emperor and he went along anyway.

So the entire Jedi Council failed to sense the true motives but young and naive Anakin was supposed to see right through him?

From an old Codex post:

"Anakin did not turn to the Dark Side to save Padme

He turned to the dark side because, essentially, the Jedi did not live up to the expectations they had placed upon him.

At every turn the Jedi masters would tell Anakin how he'd done something wrong, how he wasn't living up to the code... then they would break the code themselves. In the very beginning Anakin wanted to help the clone pilots that were gettig killed, but the Jedi master coldly replied they were doing their jobs by dying. They hold that deception is evil, but force Anakin to become a spy. They taught Anakin that you don't kill a helpless opponent, then they kill those who are helpless.

And to make matters worse they keep Anakin as a padawan because they fear him doing those things, because he doesn't live up to the standards that they also fail to achieve.

Anakin turned because the Jedi where not what they claimed to be, and even more so because they were not what he envisioned.

That is why it was so easy for Anakin to believe that the Jedi were trying to overthrow the republic themselves, that's why he was able to so quickly convince himself he was still the good guy. Remember he didn't turn evil in his own mind, he just decided that the Jedi were evil.

Darth Sidious played Anakin like a fiddle. He used Padme as a lure, knowing full well that Anakin would tell the Jedi and then not allow them to kill off her only hope of salvation. He knew Anakin was disappointed with the Jedi, and didn't have the mental stability to resist the dark side. Padme was just a lure, and an excuse given to Vader so he could justify his actions to himself. He slaughtered an entire temple of Jedi, but he consoled himself by it being for Padme.

As good and noble as Obi Wan claimed to be, and pushed Anakin to be, he was consumed just as much by hatred as Vader by that point. He allowed Vader to burn to death because of his anger at the betrayal, because of the overwhelming disappointment he felt about his student.

I think one of the things accomplished in this movie was to remove the simple black and white divisions that were present before. Up until now it was just Sith == Evil, Jedi == Good. This movie showed them as people, trying to follow what they thought was right. (Again, while the Jedi tried to live up to their ideals they could not, and Anakin couldn't handle the disillusionment of that.) Sith aren't just one dimensional evil bad guys anymore, they were trying to bring their own version of peace to the galaxy. Anakin was still "good" when he became Vader... he just wasn't good by standards of the Jedi, or most people really. Maybe... Chaotic Good rather than Lawful Good. As in he'd do whatever he felt would bring peace to the galaxy, rather than following strict codes. "

I'm really getting tired of this whole "there is no evil, it is just perspective" whining crap that is popular these days.

Most people would file Nazi under evil. Had you been born in the Nazi Germany in a nice Nazi family, do you think you would have seen them as evil? Thought of your family as evil? Or would you have shared their beliefs, reasons, and justifications not even knowing any other way?

 

[Moving Target]

Most people would file Nazi under evil. Had you been born in the Nazi Germany in a nice Nazi family, do you think you would have seen them as evil? Thought of your family as evil? Or would you have shared their beliefs, reasons, and justifications not even knowing any other way?

Point one: GODWIN'S LAW IN EFFECT! *ahem*

Point two (really Point one): My family's German. I've got distant cousins whose grandparents or parents lived in Nazi Germany. We...er...don't talk about it, but I'd wager to say that at the time, the Nazis at least seemed like the least of all possible evils. Between the Communists who wanted to make Germany into a vassal USSR state, the failed aristocracy, and all points in between, the Nazis seemed downright plausible.

I'm not even REMOTELY condoning them, just saying that's what it probably seemed like to the Germans at the time. With a healthy spattering of anti-semitism, homophobia, Gypsy hate and plain ol' Prussian militaristic nationalism thrown into the mix, of course.

 

[HoKa]

Vault Dweller: I have lots of faith in Age of Decadence; it's good to know there's intelligence behind the making of it.

Keep up the good work.

PS: I'm very curious about what's going to be the leading economy model in the world. Is it Mercantilism? Liberalism, perhaps? Communism? Socialism? Is there going to be a ruling aristocracy imposing subsidies, tariffs, and the like?

Also, what are your overall thoughts and feelings about RPG economy?

What do you think about the idea of extremely expensive powerful/useful items that can only be gotten via trade (thus rewarding characters better at barting)?

 

[pexxx]

Every interview about this game is music to my ears

 

[Oeolycus]

I agree with Pexxx--I am very excited about the possibilities within the game.

@Matt, per the interview you should know you can voice your concern over the design of the game in their forums. Perhaps they will consider your point.

In defense of the game, I don't think it'll be a moral relativist's wet dream. What he means is the game won't have two cut and dry situations. You're either a jerk and you let a colony of innocent people perish, or you're a superstar, neutered lame-boy who requests no reward.

I beat up the bullies in Fable, but I really wanted to throttle the pipsqueak for being such a crybaby afterwards. I wasn't given the opportunity. That's cut and dry. And boring

Along with what Drusus was saying, part of what makes FO1 so interesting is that gray area with the Master's "evil" plans. Paradoxical evil, or evil-that-might-be-good, is a lot of fun to try to wrap one's head around. It makes decisions difficult. It requires one to really consider the modus operandi of their character. Hell, if you do the "American" thing and kill the Master in the name of individualism (ain' tunun gwahn tell meh howta lif my life)--you're still left with a bleak, desolate world that's of no comfort.

I'm reminded of Alan Moore's Watchmen. I won't ruin the story for anyone, but part of what is so satisfying about his graphic novel is questioning the intent and consequence of the characters' actions. If you think real hard, it makes you question the presumptions underlying them.

I think this game has a real good chance of making that happen in VG format.

 

[Bofast]

Nice, interview! I'm also very much looking forward to this game

 

[Matt Helm]

Most people would file Nazi under evil. Had you been born in the Nazi Germany in a nice Nazi family, do you think you would have seen them as evil? Thought of your family as evil? Or would you have shared their beliefs, reasons, and justifications not even knowing any other way?

Please, peddle that perspective drivel somewhere else. Whether someone living under the regime saw them as evil is irrelevant in light of what the regime did. Who gives a fuck if someone didn't happen to perceive the regime as evil? The old "we were only following orders" defense failed at Nuremberg and the "we didn't know any better" defense falls into the same hole. I suppose you could say that someone can serve evil without realizing it was evil, but it doesn't make it any less evil in the end.

I'm all for having more options than the simplistic pablum we were given in Bioshock. Shades of grey and conflicting motivations are great but trying to say that an evil regime is OK because they are just trying to bring peace as they know it is bullshit dishonesty and calls into question the ethics and morality of anyone trying support that point.

Another thing, presenting a character with clearly defined good or evil options allows the character to define themselves clearly as good or evil. Some people want that, you just need to include a variety of shades of grey options as well. A system that only presents shades of grey options is just as unrealistic and unsatisfying as one that only presents pure good or evil options.

 

[shihonage]

True... the player should not be locked just to these choices:

"knight in shining armor"
"devourer of souls"

... but they shouldn't be removed, either.

 

[Sander]

Please, peddle that perspective drivel somewhere else. Whether someone living under the regime saw them as evil is irrelevant in light of what the regime did. Who gives a fuck if someone didn't happen to perceive the regime as evil? The old "we were only following orders" defense failed at Nuremberg and the "we didn't know any better" defense falls into the same hole. I suppose you could say that someone can serve evil without realizing it was evil, but it doesn't make it any less evil in the end.

Wow are you ever missing the point.

VD isn't claiming people can't be evil, nor does he claim anywhere that perception of evil has any influence on something being evil or not. All that he is claiming that showing evil from the perspective of evil people will often render a view that is not evil.

 

[iridium_ionizer]

Most people's concept of good follows a combination of the following 3 principles: 1) rule based - don't kill, don't steal, don't neglect your kids, let people express themselves, God says this, ... don't evict tenants without 30 days notice, 2) utilitarian - do what provides the most good to the most people, and 3) the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Sure most people make up there own moral compass using some combination of those. The subjectivity comes which rules or ethical philosophies take precedence over one another. And then there are the "facts", opinions, and beliefs that inform people about where they are in the moral continuum. Examples: "It's okay for us to bomb civilians because we have been oppressed for hundreds of years." "We should exterminate them because we are the Master race, and the world would be a better place if it was just us." These examples show that ethics do play a part in bad things - it's just that they may use faulty beliefs or downplay alternative perspectives.

My point is that there is ethical philosophy (which is subjective), there is applied ethical philosophy (which is really subjective), and then there is humanity as a whole trying to decide what is good and what is bad (which is subjective but trying hard to be as objective as possible). Some of the latter moral consensus is decided by history and school books, some of it is decided around water coolers and inside churches, and some of it is decided by juries and war crimes tribunals.

Just because it isn't 100% objective doesn't mean it shouldn't be sought after, since by defining and punishing "evil" we make it so more people are happy and people are less likely to do things that the moral consensus has defined as "evil." This is not to say that sometimes the moral consensus isn't screwed up, but it is better than anarchy - not knowing who is in charge and what the rules are.

 

[Section8]

Please, peddle that perspective drivel somewhere else.

Good and evil is all about perspective, since it's basically a measure of a person's morality - but it's being measured subjectively against a particular set of morals.

Whether someone living under the regime saw them as evil is irrelevant in light of what the regime did. Who gives a fuck if someone didn't happen to perceive the regime as evil?

It's completely relevant, because good and evil are all about perspective and information. There's an awful lot of stories that riff off exactly that idea. Main character spends the first two acts doing good guy stuff until a revelation shows that they're really doing someones dirty work against an oppressed minority. Third act is them turning on their former masters and fighting the good fight.

The old "we were only following orders" defense failed at Nuremberg and the "we didn't know any better" defense falls into the same hole. I suppose you could say that someone can serve evil without realizing it was evil, but it doesn't make it any less evil in the end.

I don't think I've ever played a game where the story is told in past tense. A few mix it up a little, but given that you're predominantly experiencing something as it unfolds, and seeing more of the big picture as you go along, then there's a whole lot of potential as a powerful narrative device in games to only reveal "in the end" that the player has been acting in a evil manner or contributing to an evil regime.

I'm all for having more options than the simplistic pablum we were given in Bioshock. Shades of grey and conflicting motivations are great but trying to say that an evil regime is OK because they are just trying to bring peace as they know it is bullshit dishonesty and calls into question the ethics and morality of anyone trying support that point.

Er, exactly? Isn't that half the point here - that it's more interesting to be part of a web of ethics, morality and lies instead of adopting a blunt and obvious stance? Shades of grey don't have to stay grey forever, and evil doesn't always reveal itself from the outset.

Another thing, presenting a character with clearly defined good or evil options allows the character to define themselves clearly as good or evil. Some people want that, you just need to include a variety of shades of grey options as well. A system that only presents shades of grey options is just as unrealistic and unsatisfying as one that only presents pure good or evil options.

The whole point of shades of grey is that the player/character can actually take a moral stance depending on what they consider to be good or evil. Taking another man's life for a pittance is surely an evil act, regardless of what the assassin's guild might tell their recruits. Helping a faction stage an attack on themselves as a justification to go to war against an "innocent" third party sounds evil to me. And so forth.

I'd much rather a game give me reason to consider my own moral stances and make tough choices than simply serve up a pantomime good faction and a polar opposite for the player to pick. I can see that it might appeal to someone, but they can get exactly the same thing from a "shade of grey". If they actually think for a minute and consider the morals and ethics at hand, they'll surely find good and evil without having it force-fed to them.

 

[VDweller]

PS: I'm very curious about what's going to be the leading economy model in the world. Is it Mercantilism? Liberalism, perhaps? Communism? Socialism? Is there going to be a ruling aristocracy imposing subsidies, tariffs, and the like?

Also, what are your overall thoughts and feelings about RPG economy?

That subject deserves it own thread, love and attention. Drop by and we'll discuss it at length.

What do you think about the idea of extremely expensive powerful/useful items that can only be gotten via trade (thus rewarding characters better at barting)?

I like it. It's a natural and logical reward for investing into a skill and I think it worked well in Arcanum.

True... the player should not be locked just to these choices:

"knight in shining armor"
"devourer of souls"

... but they shouldn't be removed, either.

Who's talking about removing them? Unlike our friend Matt I believe in "perspective drivel", which means that it's hard to be a knight in shining armor to all, unless we are taking a trip to vanilla fantasy featuring epic struggles of good vs evil.

Most people would file Nazi under evil. Had you been born in the Nazi Germany in a nice Nazi family, do you think you would have seen them as evil? Thought of your family as evil? Or would you have shared their beliefs, reasons, and justifications not even knowing any other way?

Please, peddle that perspective drivel somewhere else.

Why? Because you are too dumb to understand it?

You see how much fun it is to attack someone instead of discussing points? Anyway...

Whether someone living under the regime saw them as evil is irrelevant in light of what the regime did. Who gives a fuck if someone didn't happen to perceive the regime as evil? The old "we were only following orders" defense failed at Nuremberg...

Failed according to whom? Those who've won? Well, that's how it always go, aint it?

Was there a Nuremberg for the Yankees who nuked Japan for the lulz? Was there a Nuremberg for the Commies who killed probably as many people as the Nazi did? Did we forget that Gestapo, the Nazi secret police, had close ties to NKVD (later known as KGB)? Or the Wall Street dealings with the Nazi? I smell "perspective drivel" again.

I suppose you could say that someone can serve evil without realizing it was evil, but it doesn't make it any less evil in the end.

You can put it this way, although I'd clarify that evil, unless we are taking about some really sick shit like serial killing, is one of the most subjective concepts that usually means "the other guys". Al-Qaeda is certain that the West, lead by US, is evil. The West is pretty confident that Al-Qaeda is evil. A lot of westerners support the latter, a lot of middle-east muslims support the former.

...trying to say that an evil regime is OK because they are just trying to bring peace as they know it is bullshit dishonesty and calls into question the ethics and morality of anyone trying support that point.

I didn't say that an evil regime is ok. I said that neither such a regime nor those who serve it thinks of themselves as evil. Not because they are blind but because they are pretty damn sure that it's the other guys who are evil.

Another thing, presenting a character with clearly defined good or evil options allows the character to define themselves clearly as good or evil.

Do what you think is good or what you think is evil.

A system that only presents shades of grey options is just as unrealistic...

Unrealistic? Show me clear cut good and evil in real life.