Wasteland 2 blog update: moral dilemmas

[Kilus]

Can not disagree with this more. Trading should gives the Raiders more resources which make them stronger and more aggression in my opinion.

They must have a reason for kidnapping a woman. Do you honestly think that giving them shiny things would stop them from abducting women for their purposes?

As said, drawbacks. Your proposal relies on facing them as enemies, mine as allies.

Well I think giving them resources will make them more successful at their goals not less, thus they would have a easier time kidnapping people. Maybe make that their whole business, kidnapping for ransom, rape or slaves. I think it's irrelevant whether in the end they are allies or enemies after paying them off. If they end up as enemies you have a tough time righting a wrong, if they end up as allies you are working with monsters.

 

[aenemic]

a pretty lame example for a moral dilemma in my opinion. judging from the information given, the only morally right thing to do is to help free the kidnapped woman. the Servants could of course be very kind hearted folk with families waiting back home, who are only doing their job. but something tells me it doesn't really go that deep.

 

[dukem]

I wonder how some of the people reacting negative towards this would have reacted if they'd had an insight into the development of the predecessors like fallout1 or wl1. how they would have nitpicked at the shady sands quests as an example (also back then you could just ignore shady sands all together and go directly to vault15, heck you could skip the whole game with the right character choice).

so it's not a difficult moral choice, so what. it's very similar to rescuing tandy from the raiders, I like that quest and I did it with every character I played even though I had the option to just ignore it.

Ignoring quests is not what rpg players do just because they are ignorable.

 

[Brother None]

so it's not a difficult moral choice, so what. it's very similar to rescuing tandy from the raiders, I like that quest and I did it with every character I played even though I had the option to just ignore it.

That's the problem. It seems like a good, but rote quest, like Tandy, but it's brought up specifically as an excellent example of moral dilemmas in writing/quest design, when it's not. If any of us had just run into this mission we would've been fine, but brought up as an example it's kind of weak.

 

[TorontoReign]

so it's not a difficult moral choice, so what. it's very similar to rescuing tandy from the raiders, I like that quest and I did it with every character I played even though I had the option to just ignore it.

That's the problem. It seems like a good, but rote quest, like Tandy, but it's brought up specifically as an excellent example of moral dilemmas in writing/quest design, when it's not. If any of us had just run into this mission we would've been fine, but brought up as an example it's kind of weak.

Yep. Pretty much a typical RPG quest for the most part, but not a good example like I would have liked.

 

[dukem]

yeah sure the moral thing is not that big here (agreed) but what it does show is the impact your decision may have. It seems like the "guns blazing" way will have an impact that is similar to killing children in Fallout. So while morality may not be shown here to extent we would like, it does show choice and consequence.

Because there were no consequences on the Tandy-quest for the "guns blazing" route, I chose that very often because I got to loot all the raiders afterwards. That approach seems to have a big price tag attached now.

 

[Burrich]

So while morality may not be shown here to extent we would like, it does show choice and consequence.

Which doesn't matter, because the example given was as a specific example of a good moral dilemma.

I'm looking forward to the game too, I'm just not going to make excuses for anything about it that seems sub-par.